Mordor's Cube (The Ship of Theseus)

[landofMordor]

Hello all; I've been cubing for a few years now and recently started posting here. Thought I'd publish some stream-of-thought about updates to my cube below. But first, context!

• Restrictions: No budget (willing to proxy), willing to break singleton
• Context: Primarily draft with 4 or less, so micro-archetypes are less desirable
• Power: I like playing powerful Magic because it means that there are fewer non-games. But I'm unwilling to push power so high that power itself leads to non-games. See below.
• Ideal Gameplay: Balance is what I'm chasing. Magic is a wonderful combination of chess and poker that I adore, but losing to the RNG is one of my least favorite experiences. For this reason, I dislike combo, mana issues, or even just drafting a deck like Aristocrats that might not "get there".

https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/131313

This cube is a bit of a reinvention of the list I've been honing for a year or so. That older list (c/1313) is one which solely supported aggro, control, and midrange, and cultivated maximum balance within that framework. That led to some unconventional design decisions like eschewing build-arounds, trimming multicolor sections to the bone, and including the 10th- and 11th-best versions of staple effects like cantrips, burn spells, or cheap creatures.

I dearly love that playstyle and it carried me through several quarantine drafts with my partner, but over time I noticed some issues with that design approach:

• It required more in-depth knowledge of Magic than my playgroup's average skill. Back when in-person Magic still happened, I was always surprised by a drafter trying to jam something like Ashiok, Nightmare Muse alongside Jackal Pups. This primarily-EDH group is really most comfortable building midrange, and I can't design assuming they know how A Normal Control Deck operates.
• Again, since my group loves EDH, they also like to play multiplayer, and Aggro and Control are both terrible in such an environment. We tried drafting 2HG once and it sucked for the R and W decks.
• Even though I'd drastically reduced matchup polarity (e.g. by excluding hoser cards like Wall of Omens or Winter Orb) there was still a lot of rock-paper-scissors in this format. Aggro beats Control beats Midrange beats Aggro. I didn't like successfully navigating a draft and ending up in the perfect UB Control lane, only to go 0-3 to aggro decks. It felt like punishing correct drafting decisions with the luck of the matchup.
• Another large source of variance was mana issues. One could build the perfect deck and still lose to mana screw or flood. I was on 5 cycles of dual lands, and I couldn't find room for any more without cutting into the critical mass of other necessary effects.
• And, I ran out of room to support sweet sweet modal cards when ZNR came out and injected 30 testable MDFCs into my environment!

So after reflecting, and after many conversations and questions in various MTG Cube Discords, I decided to eliminate Aggro and Control from my environment. I could use those slots once devoted to Jackal Pups and Wraths to jam the cube full of fixing lands and MDFCs and other inherently powerful cards. This creates a "mono-midrange" list which plays a lot like Retail Limited, except one's curve stops at 5, one plays Tarmogoyf instead of Grizzly Bear, and one often doesn't need to include a single basic among the 40.

Here's an example draft:

Temur 'Delver'

. https://cubecobra.com/cube/deck/5f84fe0a64401010626ff307

Look at that manabase! 17 lands but also 25 spells! Mmm. Tasty. And best of all, since midrange is the only supported archetype, the mirror match is the only one I'll see -- one with a 50% (theoretical) winrate. That's what I was chasing.

The advantages of shifting my design in this way are pretty huge. I can now play multiplayer successfully with this cube (and even play Desert-style after adding 10 of each basic); I don't lose as often to mana screw or flood; there are no blowout matches; and I can add as many MDFCs as Wizards cares to print.

The disadvantages exist, too -- if my curve goes too high, then it will be possible to build an ultra-greedy "tap-out control" deck, so I'm really limited to just a handful of 4- and 5-drops. And it's much more expensive to acquire a bunch of allied painlands and Llorwyn filterlands. But so far I love it.

Updates will be posted infrequently here; let's start a discussion!

Cheers -- Mordor / Parker

 

[Zoss]

I like the idea of the cube, and the list looks really interesting! However, I'm wondering if midrange is truly the right moniker to put on the strategies that come out of this cube.

Also, I'm noticing that your removal to creature ratio is just about 1:1, or at worst 4:5. (ex. there are 15 creatures in White, maybe 18 if you count all half-creature MDFCs as creatures and 15 removal spells, counting the sole removal MDFC as a removal spell.) How does this play out? Maybe I'm just stuck in my stock Limited-based experience, but that implies to me that the optimal strategy is to draft pseudo-control by just gobbling up removal and going second.) Granted, most of the six planeswalkers you run in White make creatures, but it looks to me like you're a little light on winning games outside of simply getting a better ratio of removal to threat--which is just another form of RNG!

But maybe it all comes out in the wash when you're playing with 4 players After all, if you're working to maximize the political aspect, making interaction cheap and plentiful seems like the way to go! Super cool cube you've got here.

 

[landofMordor]

I'm wondering if midrange is truly the right moniker to put on the strategies that come out of this cube. ...

Also, I'm noticing that your removal to creature ratio is just about 1:1, or at worst 4:5. ... How does this play out?

Thanks for the reply! So, when I say "midrange" I mean a pretty classical, Constructed-derived definition of a deck that plays a diverse, flexible range of threats and answers. Look up Patrick Chapin's 16 Archetypes from Next Level Deckbuilding for more info. Midrange is obviously a broad macro-archetype, and I like to think that there's several versions supported in my current cube iteration -- non-blue control might be one version, or aggro-control in the vein of "Mono U Aggro" from DOM Standard. But, since I include 0 board wipes and very few 1-drop proactive threats, my inner Constructed player would laugh me out of the room if I said Aggro or Control were truly supported like they are in Standard or Pioneer.

Yeah, there's a lot of removal, and tbh I'm not sure it's the "correct" balance yet. I'm not very far into drafting this format (boooo, quarantine) but here are my thoughts so far:

• Multiplayer is a huge mitigator of this RNG since 4 players are in play. I think the biggest balancing factor here was capping the CMC to 5, so that nobody can cast the equivalent of an Expropriate or Craterhoof. However, my preferred draft methods are 1v1, so I'll leave multiplayer aside for now. It was a necessary play mode, but insufficient
• Yes, topdecking can be common (which is a huge RNG source), and I've seen a few games where a lone Faerie Conclave deals the last 8 damage after the dust settles.
• It takes longer than one might think for the dust to settle, though, since I include roughly 50 utility lands, many of which are proactive mana sinks. So, in those topdecking scenarios, the variance of one's topdecks is much narrowed -- a Faerie Conclave isn't that much worse than a spell during a topdeck war, and one is almost guaranteed to draft their fill of such lands.
• If anything, I'd say the "optimal" strategy (so far) is to load up on proactive threats to overload the opponent's removal. When they spends all their cards and mana answering my Mulldrifters and cheap Baneslayers, leaving me with leftover Soldier tokens and life points, I'm happy with that trade. The bulk of the removal is conditional, so it's also possible my opponent is holding a grip full of Doom Blades against my black deck, e.g.. Threats are lower risk and higher reward.
• I also think topdecking is less of an emotional swing than being flattened by traditional mono-red aggro (e.g., or losing to a Jace ultimate vs Control). When I start topdecking, I know I had a hundred small decisions to make prior -- "do I save Bolt for the Rankle I know they have, or do I use it now on their Young Pyromancer?" or "do I double-block to clear their board, or preserve my own threats?", whereas if I lose to matchup RNG, it's more common to go land-land-land-"GG". This is definitely a matter of personal preference.

Thanks for your insightful comments!

 

[TrainmasterGT]

Ok, so I've finally had a chance to look this over, and I think you've built a neat version of the "everything is midrange" cube. I really like seeing Alesha, Who Smiles at Death here, she is a favorite of mine .

Is this cube supposed to be played primarily with multiplayer games or two player games? Are you designing for somewhere in the middle? While I'm not sure I have many constructive suggestions for a two player version of this cube (other than adding wild slash), I have a couple of ideas that could maybe help in optimizing the format for play in a dual and multiplayer hybrid setting.

 

[Zoss]

You're absolutely right--I completely missed that there aren't any board wipes, and very little of the removal is inherently a 2-for-1! That would go a long way towards making this the idealized midrange experience.(That is, make creatures [or, more precisely, permanents] the only way to get more than 1 card's worth of value outside of a half-dozen or so cards. Incidentally, in that context, I suspect that Mouth // Feed may be one of the most powerful yet most subtle Green cards due to providing not only a 3/3 body but 1-4 cards from the grave, regardless of whether or not it's been countered.)


I like the flash and the body on Spirit of the Hunt, but I think it's a bit of an odd choice as I think it screams tribal in an otherwise tribal-less cube. Might Boon Satyr be a good replacement? It's more aggressive and probably more powerful, but I think it would depend a lot on whether you want your flash decks to play as the beatdown or the defender. (Blade Splicer gets a pass [for me!] because people are so used to seeing it in an otherwise Golem-free environment that I don't think most people would think to take it as a cue to look for other Golems)


I also think that The First Iroan Games is another notable outlier; outside of it, no other enchantments do anything but act as removal or make creatures (and the latter is pretty light, with only History of Benalia, Shark Typhoon, and Bitterblossom aside the First Games). May I also ask why you built this cube without any noncreature, non-equipment artifacts? I adore my durdly build-around enchantments, and I need to learn from people like you who makes Cubes exciting without them What makes this choice an interesting, valuable one, and why should I do it too?


I feel like this cube is going to put a lot more emphasis on the combat step than most 'traditional' cubes, and I really, really like that! The combat step (IMHO) should be the time in multiplayer games for each player to eye up their opponents and try to calculate what they can get away with, who's in the lead, and what the heck everyone else wants.

 

[landofMordor]

I really like seeing Alesha, Who Smiles at Death here, she is a favorite of mine .

I love Alesha too and the best thing is that her stats are in a sweet spot for this cube, where she often isn't the #1-must-kill threat, but her body is also very relevant in a lot of game states.

Is this cube supposed to be played primarily with multiplayer games or two player games? Are you designing for somewhere in the middle?

Due to COVID, I'm primarily playing 1v1 at a 9-to-1 ratio with multiplayer, so singleplayer balance is definitely the priority. But as much for the challenge as anything, I'm trying to keep multiplayer balance in mind as well. I'm open to suggestions

I like the flash and the body on Spirit of the Hunt, but I think it's a bit of an odd choice as I think it screams tribal in an otherwise tribal-less cube.

Luckily, my drafters are trained to ignore apparent tribal synergies -- Spirit of the Hunt is my example during my introductory spiel . And, ironically, Wolf tribal is actually the closest tribal deck in the whole cube, between Garruk Relentless, Spirit, Wolfir Avenger, and Nightpack Ambusher.

May I also ask why you built this cube without any noncreature, non-equipment artifacts? I adore my durdly build-around enchantments, and I need to learn from people like you who makes Cubes exciting without them What makes this choice an interesting, valuable one, and why should I do it too?

Ooh what a great question! Let's start with the semi-objective measure of "valuable". A build-around naturally has a higher ceiling and a lower floor than another card at the same power level -- Burning Vengeance can be eight Shocks for 3 mana, but at its worst, you subsidize a Time Walk for your opponent. So by eliminating most of my build-arounds, I can tighten up the expected performance of my cube's average card. That makes my cube's average card stronger, which IMO increases tension in the draft phase (fewer on-color cards that aren't viable late in the pack) and frankly, it also compensates for the fact that 1/3rd of my cube is lands! Drafts are more "interesting" to me because I have to make more and harder choices.

But, most importantly for my goals, fewer build-arounds (along with my critical mass of mana sinks, Mulldrifter-type threats, and a cap on CMC) means that a random 7-card hand in my cube is typically playable, leading to fewer non-games of Magic and more games that hinge on meaningful player decisions. Personally, all I need for "interesting" games is for my choices to matter every time but that's more a function of my psychograph, I guess.

I feel like this cube is going to put a lot more emphasis on the combat step than most 'traditional' cubes, and I really, really like that! The combat step (IMHO) should be the time in multiplayer games for each player to eye up their opponents and try to calculate what they can get away with, who's in the lead, and what the heck everyone else wants.

I certainly hope so! Combat has been super interesting in the 1v1 testing I've done, certainly. I've already been blown out by Archangel Avacyn three times in one match (just like Richard Garfield intended). Like I said to TrainmasterGT, multiplayer isn't my focus, but I do explicitly wish to avoid the classic EDH play pattern of combo standoff. I honestly don't yet know if the constraints of multiplayer Magic are compatible with midrange strategies (i.e., it might just be that 5-color Greed is an inherently broken multiplayer archetype no matter how much I try to avoid it), but I'm content for the time being.

 

[landofMordor]

Post-Mortem of ZNR Updates​

Since ZNR I've been testing a "mono midrange" approach with tons of fixing lands, a lean global mana curve, and no "microarchetypes" like Aristocrats or Blink. After a few playtesting sessions, my results:

NEUTRAL effects of this design:

• In a format where every player is striking a balance between proactive and reactive gameplay, cheaper spells get WAY better, especially 1CMC interaction. This provides a unique backdrop to (re)evaluate Retail Limited heuristics like "one is much less than half of two" or "double-spelling is good", and has the benefit of being pretty cheap $$ (since EDH has no use for 1CMC spells and competitive formats only play the best 1-2 versions of a given effect).

PROS of this design approach:

• Good manabases lead to fewer nongames, which was the reason for this approach in the first place. This was a necessary confirmation, but not sufficient to validate the changes.
• Good manabases enable gold card consistency, especially 2CMC ones. This is great because Dreadbore suddenly is a meaningful upgrade to Doom Blade, and Chevill, Bane of Monsters over Sylvan Advocate. Gold cards typically contain more modality per CMC which leads to more meaningful gameplay decisions (e.g., if my opponent controls 1 creature and 1 planeswalker, Dreadbore contains an additional decision over Doom Blade), which is beneficial to my goals.
• MDFCs and utility lands are good when they increase land counts to 17+ and also act as mana sinks. I've really loved the effects of Triomes, creature-lands, and utility lands in this format.
• Midrange mirror matches successfully reduce matchup polarity. Sure, slow midrange decks are still unfavored vs faster ones, but it's nowhere near as unbalanced as Mono-Red vs. UB Draw-Go Control. This has been a really great way to spread story/emotional equity through all 3 games in a match.

CONS " " ":

• > Decision fatigue / analysis paralysis. This is the other side of the coin of decision-rich gameplay. At the micro-level, I've noticed that MDFC land/spells lead to an information bottleneck in the early turns of the game (I don't think this ultimately matters, since the cards are good). But I think the effect on matches is the most significant -- often, just 1 of the games in this cube contains as many meaningful decisions as a polarized aggro vs. control matchup of my prior cube iteration. That can be exhausting for newer players, particularly when games turn into prolonged resource battles with many triggers/activations per turn cycle.
• Good manabases require a heavy counterbalance emphasizing tempo (the resource, not the deck name) for the color pie to matter. To avoid dreaded "5c goodstuff", there needs to be an opportunity cost to stumbling on mana (i.e., game losses). As such, it's tough to run non-proactive spells like 3CMC Jaces, or threats above 3CMC that don't provide absurd clocks, and that's definitely a hit to my cube's cuteness equity.
• Due to the emphasis on tempo, the cube's manabase needs to be 90%+ ETB untapped and 99%+ color-fixing. I've found that 3 ETB-tapped lands is about the max that any deck in this format can handle, which excludes spicier taplands as well as the lower-performing utility lands (RIP Mobilized District). I've proxied many of my lands so that this doesn't get too pricey (another downside).
• > Reduced matchup polarity can exaggerate skill disparities and exacerbate decision fatigue. Now, let's not get too crazy, this is still Magic with an RNG resource system. Unskilled players still get the nut draws, and skilled ones still lose to variance (or their own Bitterblossoms, in my case). But it's a lot easier for an unskilled player to go 5 matches in a row without winning, especially if they scrub out of draft... Also, the tighter games mean longer games, which can wear out even experienced players.
• Speaking of draft, this format drafts radically differently than Retail Limited (duh) but also "traditional" cubes. Fixing lands could easily comprise a player's first 10 picks, and it's hard to weigh the relative win equity of a broken gold card vs. an above-rate 1CMC threat vs. one's 5th fetchland.

Conclusions:
I think most of these cons are pretty negligible. The two cons I've marked with ">" are ones I want to directly address, hopefully through my KHM updates. Look for my next post for more!

 

[landofMordor]

Winter '21 Updates: Polarity, Zoo, KHM​

The issues I wanted to address with this update primarily relate to decision fatigue in my format. https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/131313

In particular, I'm concerned that the "mirror match" nature of my format, coupled with the low mana curve and modal gold cards, lead to decision fatigue in the format. Decision-rich gameplay is arguably this format's greatest strength, but I want to ensure it doesn't become a weakness.

Change 1: Increase Matchup Polarity
Control is naturally favored against midrange, and aggro is likewise favored against control. This rock-paper-scissors lets games fit into familiar heuristics like "bolt the bird", "make them have the wrath", and "don't tap out if you're blue", reducing the effective number of decisions made per game. Polarity is also more forgiving to players making mistakes while piloting the advantaged decks.

So, I'm increasing the bandwidth of the Midrange theater by including more aggressive-leaning decks (Zoo, Ux Delver) and reactive-leaning decks (tap-out control). I hope this will reintroduce beneficial elements of polarity without fully backsliding to the extreme polarity of Mono-Red vs. Draw-Go Control, e.g..

Supporting Aggressive Midrange

Zoo: We all know Zoo from its success in the early days of Modern. It turns out that with sufficient densities of fetchlands and dual-typed fetchables, Wild Nacatl is a 1-mana 3/3, which is good enough for just about any Cube format. To emulate this in Limited, two things are necessary: tons of fixing, and a critical mass of 1-drops. Nothing else gives the proper consistency.

Lands: Right now I'm at 2 dual cycles, 1 shock cycle, and 2 fetch cycles, out of a total 9 fixing cycles. I'm thinking about swapping out nonfetchables for a 3rd fetch cycle if the deck needs further help.

1-drops: To make room for these without undermining midrange, I had to cut a lot of the sketchier utility lands from ZNR testing. I also went down a little bit on total removal asfan (but I might reverse this, since removal is one of the main ways that board states stay manageable w.r.t. decision fatigue).

Delver: This deck also needs 1-drops, something Blue sorely lacks. So I pulled a leaf from Riptide design ethos and just slotted in 3 Delvers. Prowess dudes like Swiftspear and Soul-Scar are also appropriate rates.

Supporting Reactive Midrange
Board wipes and card-advantage-generating permanents. Reactive midrange players will especially like conditional board-wipes which have upside of being one-sided, such as Radiant Flames or Toxic Deluge. Card-advantage-generating permanents include premium 5CMC planeswalkers (Ashiok, Nightmare Muse), as well as some of the gold power outliers which are already seeing heavy play (Hydroid Krasis, Baleful Strix, & friends). Control will probably be primary Wx or Bx with a heavy U splash, rather than the U-based "draw-go" control I'm used to.

Change 2: Increase gameplay polarity
Another way to decrease decisions for the active player is to give them a tool that can single-handedly win them the game, like Sword of Light and Shadow vs an Orzhov deck, or to give them cards so good they'd be silly not to cast them (Daze or Stoneforge Mystic). I'm experimenting with these and others like them to give decks a number of "no-brainer" decisions that are still RNG dependent, so that they will sometimes, but not always, have a lightened cognitive load. This also lends games an element of luck, which will favor unskilled players.

KHM testlist
Results @ https://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/mordors-cube.3180/post-104379

Most of the aforementioned cards have nothing to do with KHM. The only cards I'm testing are:

• The Pathway cycle. I love the extended arts, and I've already loved how well the ZNR ones play. I *might* cut them if I go for the 3rd cycle of fetches, but otherwise they're in for the long haul.
• Halvar, God of Battle. The Sword side I expect to be the main mode, as a functional duplicate of Maul of the Skyclaves.
• Egon, God of Death. A Gurmag Angler whose Delve is paid in installments and who never costs more (or less) than 3 is still pretty good. Not to mention it's got a whole 'nother card on the back.
• Bind the Monster. Exactly the kind of removal my cube wants.
• Esika's Chariot is 50% of a Grave Titan for 66% of the cost, which still makes it good.
• Clarion Spirit and Bloodsky Berserker both seem excellent in my low-curving environment.
• Starnheim Unleashed. Look, I'm mostly here for the art. But then again, that's why I'm testing most of these

Aight, that's it until Strixhaven! Cheers, and thanks for reading.

 

[landofMordor]

Spring '21 Update: Manabase, "Art Singleton", STX​

Two minor structural changes:

Change 1: Manabase Uniformity
I've realized that there's very, very little gameplay or fun equity in having singleton lands. Especially as the number of cycles climbs, it balloons the on-board complexity, tracking issues, and memory issues of the battlefield.

As such, I'm retiring my Dual/Shock/2 Fetch/Pathway/Check/Filter&Pain/Fast/Horizon (plus change, to compensate for my incomplete collection).

The new hotness:
3 Dual/Shock/3 Fetch/Fast/Horizon (plus change). 9 cycles out of 384 total cube size. I like my SOM cards too much to give up Fastlands, and the Shocklands I'm keeping because they're not proxied, but the rest I want to be as smooth and tracking-less as possible.

Change 2: Towards "Art Singleton"
I really, really like the Mystical Archives. I probably have 20-30 cards on my shopping list from that subset of STX. But, at the same time, I also really like my Alexis Ziritt Lightning Bolt, my 2XM Brainstorm, and my Ice Age Counterspell. I like the element of my cube that is a self-contained art museum, and I don't want pesky singleton to get in my way. So I've decided not to worry about Singleton if my exceptions are for the sake of good art.

I'd like to think this is a distinct restriction from just arbitrary singleton-breaking. Instead of just running 10 Lightning Bolt arts, I'm saying that since my first copies of Shock, Lightning Strike, and Incinerate are prettier than the 8-10th worst Bolt arts, I will be running no more than 7 Bolts (which is just a toy example -- in reality I'll probably only run 3 Bolts max because I only like that many arts).

My general concerns with nonsingleton will temper my includes, too:

• I'm running out of room overall in the cube. I have more excellent cantrip art than slots in my cube for cantrips. I'm also running out of storage for the cube itself, physically: I can't let my cube size get too big or I'll have to reorganize my bookshelves.
• I don't want to homogenize the play experience too much, especially with regard to threats/answers. I don't mind every cantrip being literal Brainstorm, which resolves and goes to the grave, but I do mind every proactive spell being literal Tarmogoyf. There's a lot of drama in maximizing the little edges of sub-par threats like Bloodsky Berserker or Putrid Leech.
• Those diverse threats necessitate diverse answers -- Doom Blade will kill Tarmogoyf, but not Leech. (A heavily non-singleton Eldraine set cube I made taught me that having too many Reave Souls is highly exploitable at the metagame level, and the same applies here.) For that reason, I have to be careful to restrict my singleton-breaking to cards like cantrips and fetchlands which don't drastically affect players' metagame choices. (Every blue mage wants Brainstorm, but they'd need to hit their critical mass of cantrips even if I was running Peek.)
• Another key opportunity for non-singleton Magic is to bolster specific strategies and classes of cards. For example, 1MV black discard falls off a quality cliff after Duress, which coincides with there being several sick Duress arts, so I've just decided to run 3-4 copies of Duress. Another example is that having multiple Lingering Souls may draw more drafters into Mardu. (I've already done the same thing with Delver of Secrets.)

Non-STX Testing Priorities:
A lot of these are cards that I've realized will fit the goals outlined in my KHM update (which haven't changed at a broad level), but haven't yet tested.

• Mathas, Fiend Seeker, The Royal Scions, and several other gold power outliers are in my maybeboard on CC, but I haven't yet found slots for them.
• I've acquired a modest Stoneforge Mystic package that I need to find cuts for.

STX Testing List:
In Magic, you get what you pay for. Pay more mana = more stuff happens; pay more colors = more stuff happens; pay more cards for the same mana = more stuff happens. And this return on investment is in tension with Magic's RNG-based mana system, where cards resistant to mana screw (i.e., low MV) are naturally favored. One quirk of this dichotomy is that it's possible to have a low-MV card that is also highly impactful, if it is multicolored.

Magic's gold sets aren't always designed to exploit this quirk -- looking at you, Rakdos Ringleader -- but STX certainly falls into this category, with many cheap cards being ratcheted up in power by virtue of their low MV. (Notably, I don't expect Limited or Standard to suffer for this power boost, since the mana fixing in those formats cannot cast XY gold cards as consistently as my Cube.) I'm very excited for the low-MV power outliers of STX, along with some other Magecraft spice.

• Modal spells: Witherbloom, Quandrix, and Prismari Commands; Rip Apart; Decisive Denial; Callous Bloodmage. These multicolor cards offer more bang per buck than monocolored options due to their restrictive casting costs, but my cube is primed to exploit that.
• Magecraft Stuff: Clever Lumimancer, Dragonsguard Elite, Sedgemoor Witch, Quandrix Apprentice, Symmetry Sage, Extus, Oriq Overlord. These cards naturally synergize with my cantrip- and removal-heavy environment, and I'm considering adding more free spells to further increase their power.
• Assorted: Culling Ritual, Expressive Iteration, Elite Spellbinder, Vanishing Verse, and Tempted by the Oriq don't neatly fit in to the former categories, but I believe their power level is about right for my environment.
• Did I mention I'm planning to acquire 40 STA cards? Well, now you know.

Thanks for reading; see you in like 2 months when MH2 comes out.

 

[SirFunchalot]

You talking about Art Singleton reminds me that I really need to update MoMA... Fuck. Hahaha

Good shit though, interested to hear how you enjoy playing more copies of gooder cards that aren't just lands.

 

[Jason Waddell]

Another recruit to the multi-Brainstorm dark side...

I've been running 5 Brainstorms in my 360 for years and have been super happy with it. I have removed some of the Miracles which then became kinda dumb at my power level (Bonfire of the Damned, Temporal Mastery, Entreat the Angels). I also agree that over-homogenizing proactive spells can be a fun-reducer.

 

[landofMordor]

Another recruit to the multi-Brainstorm dark side...

I've been running 5 Brainstorms in my 360 for years and have been super happy with it. I have removed some of the Miracles which then became kinda dumb at my power level (Bonfire of the Damned, Temporal Mastery, Entreat the Angels). I also agree that over-homogenizing proactive spells can be a fun-reducer.

I actually believe your cube was what introduced the idea to me originally; I'd just never owned more than one Brainstorm I liked until now! Thanks for the inspiration

 

[landofMordor]

Pack Size Update​

Update: I've found some room in my cube storage, so I guess I don't need to trim my cube size quite as badly. I'm going to try out 450 or 500, as long as all the cards are still being drafted. If anybody has resources on the effect of pack size on the draft experience, I'd love it if you dropped a link

EDIT: likely cube sizes and draft formats would be, in rough descending order:
448 (14*4)
480 (15*4)
512 (16*4)
416 (13*4)

I'm willing to be convinced that having roughly 2*(number of players) isn't in fact optimal. There are two competing factors at play, the first that humans can't really make meaningful decisions between more than 7 choices, and also that finding a draft lane loses its meaning unless packs go around the table more than once. What's the right pack size to preserve the meaningfulness of draft, without inducing Analysis Paralysis?

 

[sigh]

Magic cards are laid out in such a way that even on a first pick a drafter is rarely actually making a decision across 15 evenly competing items. WotC has provided several heuristic tools in the innate designs of their cards, such that it's rarely more than 7 items actually being considered for any one decision. Probably more like 3-5 items max for each decision point. Things like rarity symbols and learned relative power level help narrow down first picks, and then the thematic "rafts" as well as color symbols narrow it down from there. The first pick is only really problematic for someone new to Magic and/or your Cube environment who doesn't have that learned heirarchy in place yet, but I don't think that's the case here?

All to say, I don't think I would worry all that much about the "packs too big" part of the two competing arguments.

 

[landofMordor]

Magic cards are laid out in such a way that even on a first pick a drafter is rarely actually making a decision across 15 evenly competing items. WotC has provided several heuristic tools in the innate designs of their cards, such that it's rarely more than 7 items actually being considered for any one decision. Probably more like 3-5 items max for each decision point. Things like rarity symbols and learned relative power level help narrow down first picks, and then the thematic "rafts" as well as color symbols narrow it down from there. The first pick is only really problematic for someone new to Magic and/or your Cube environment who doesn't have that learned heirarchy in place yet, but I don't think that's the case here?

All to say, I don't think I would worry all that much about the "packs too big" part of the two competing arguments.

Yeah, Magic does this narrowing-of-decision really well in gameplay, too, especially by gating off cards in your hand based on their mana symbol and MV. If you only have one 1-drop in your hand, you don't need to make a decision on T1.

And I agree that it applies to draft, too, as long as you've found your lane. But for P1P1, it's gonna be tough to choose even after weeding out strictly-worse options. Complicating matters is that a broken common like Preordain is sometimes a better first pick than a mythic like Kess. I'm also not sure what you mean by thematic rafts, so I guess I don't include those. I think there's an additional factor, too, which is that drafters have internal preferences/biases that might make their decisions easier -- so many players at my LGS just straight-up don't pick Blue (all the better for me), or they'll just slam a famous card without caring about its power level.

So you're right that I'm overthinking it; but I also don't want to leave this part up to chance

 

[sigh]

Yeah, Magic does this narrowing-of-decision really well in gameplay, too, especially by gating off cards in your hand based on their mana symbol and MV. If you only have one 1-drop in your hand, you don't need to make a decision on T1.

And I agree that it applies to draft, too, as long as you've found your lane. But for P1P1, it's gonna be tough to choose even after weeding out strictly-worse options. Complicating matters is that a broken common like Preordain is sometimes a better first pick than a mythic like Kess. I'm also not sure what you mean by thematic rafts, so I guess I don't include those. I think there's an additional factor, too, which is that drafters have internal preferences/biases that might make their decisions easier -- so many players at my LGS just straight-up don't pick Blue (all the better for me), or they'll just slam a famous card without caring about its power level.

So you're right that I'm overthinking it; but I also don't want to leave this part up to chance

I definitely agree that preordain is a perfectly reasonable first pick option in many packs. Obviously there are some loaded packs that make the drafter sweat bullets, but usually I see the standout choices limiting themselves to 7 items or less, even counting for cards like preordain.

In any case I wouldn't necessarily change pack sizes just on the P1P1 difficulty. If anything it's a standout in decision difficulty and things get easier quickly after that as you build your lane. Drafters can make 1 extra-tough decision right?

By thematic rafts I mean like "this sub-set of red cards is better for the aggro deck I'm building, compared to the artifacts-matter red cards I'm seeing". So basically besides colors, the cards sort themselves by different archetypes and play theaters and so on.

 

[landofMordor]

Recently I've gotten the opportunity to talk about my cube design philosophy with a few folks:

1. Stream/podcast with @Jason Waddell:

2. Podcast with Lucky Paper Radio: https://luckypaper.co/podcast/50

I'm copying them here, partly for my own reference, but also because the forums are probably the best place to actually discuss the nuances of one's cube design. So feel free to ask any questions.

 

[landofMordor]

Summer '21 Update: MH2, Grave Hate, & Topdecking​

No structural changes at this time.

Watchlist:
There are a couple issues with my cube's gameplay right now that I have yet to find a solution for:

Incidental Graveyard Hate: Cards like Cling to Dust or Scavenging Ooze give an occasional answer to powerhouses like Uro, Titan of Nature's Wrath, Delve decks, Snapcasters, etc. Many of these hate pieces are also artifacts, which is the only thing keeping my pet card Glissa, the Traitor in the list. I like both of these effects. On the other hand, this hate also functions to disable Delirium at instant-speed, shrink the Tarmogoyf, and hose bottom-tier decks like Mardu Pyromancer, which I think are more feel-bad than anything. So when MH2 releases cards like Verdant Command and Endurance, I'm highly ambivalent towards them. At this time, I'd rather default to too little grave hate than too much, since the former can still be dealt with via exiling removal.

Topdeck Wars: I've noticed that decks can run out of gas in the late game, especially non-blue decks. There are several conflated factors, foremost among which is my low mana curve (which I love too much to change). An additional factor is a glut of 4-5mv threats, which tend to stabilize against proactive decks and mandate additional turns' worth of combat and cards to remove. I am experimenting by trimming down this number by about half. This should allow faster decks to leverage their early tempo gains to create "The Abyss" lategame scenarios and close out games more quickly.

Egregious splashes: Yeah, this is a multicolor-dense cube where I expect most decks to be three colors. But at the same time, I don't want undisciplined greed piles that aren't following a specific deck plan. If you add a fourth color to your deck, I'd want it to be a disciplined splash of a major power outlier (Uro, for instance), or adding a key set of effects to a deck's capabilities (e.g., adding BG's universal removal to a Grixis control deck). So I'm adding some Ghost Quarters to at least scare my drafters into not being too greedy, and to give the Delver decks a boost in power with the occasional mana-screw win.

Cuts:
Porphyry Nodes, Nissa, Steward of Elements, Siege Rhino, Thief of Sanity and friends are cut for being too cute and/or situational. Though I'm not explicitly capping my cube's size, 450ish is my soft upper limit, and these cuts will help me stay in that range.

Adds:
See attachment with my Lucky Paper Prospective ratings (3=slam dunk, 1=dubious).

 

[TrainmasterGT]

I love these changes! Keep up the good work!

 

[landofMordor]

Going forward, I'd like to create some canonical notes to myself about the testing of cards from past sets. Hot takes are one thing, but I want to record how the cards actually performed in my context.

I'll give a cursory summary of most cards, knowing that my readers also have card evaluation skills but I'll go more in depth on controversial cards or ones that offer interesting cube design choices.

ZNR Playtest Results:​

Pathway Lands: They're great. I don't run them anymore because I went to three fetch/three dual cycles in my STX update, but I am strongly considering running them in my ELD set cube, where I want to encourage splashing without punishing mono-color strategies.

ETB-untapped MDFC lands: They're also great. Free upside, and since I have increased my cube size I didn't need to worry about finding slots for them. As I've moved towards a more multicolor cube structure, though, the opportunity cost in draft and deckbuilding becomes more and more real. For now, I'm still on Shatterskull Smashing, with my ranking of the cycle going something like: R>B>W>G>U. All of them are more than playable, assuming the format isn't too fast for, say, 6mv Titans and the like.

ETB-tapped MDFC lands (rare): These were a lot better when I tested them in a cube structure which supported stronger mono-color aggro and draw-go control. Kazandu Mammoth in particular was quite good, but I was also fond of Glasspool Mimic and Hagra Mauling. They're all still great for midrange cubes that lean cuter, or lighter on tempo. I wasn't a big fan of the Valakut or Ondu ones, though, and did not bother to test.

ETB-tapped MDFC lands (uncommon): I tested all of these. Seriously. And overall I was highly impressed. Some general trends:
- The cheaper the spell, the better the card. I really liked Skyclave Cleric, Tangled Florahedron, and Spikefield Hazard, and would have continued to play them in my current iteration if I didn't start feeling the squeeze on slots around 450 cards (100 of which are fixing lands).
- Expensive spells (>3mv) are better when they affect the board meaningfully. Silundi Vision and Zof Consumption were the worst of my tests due to their expense and lack of board presence. Even Umara Wizard was playable in UW control decks for its immediate board presence, so it wasn't necessarily the overpriced spell that was the issue -- it was the need to affect the board.
- I've since cut these cards because of my cube's punishing tempo and speed axes. I'd be highly interested in playing these curve-smoothers in any cube which does not maximize the tempo, speed, or power axes, such as my peasant cube, where I've continued to be impressed in this context.

Skyclave Apparition: It's been great, unsurprisingly -- although I'll admit that I missed this card initially. I put a lot of stock in the evaluations of Constructed Magic players, since the Modern hivemind gets orders of magnitude more reps than me. When I saw the Apparition putting up Modern results I snagged a copy as quick as I could, and have not regretted it.
Luminarch Aspirant: Tarmogoyf, but white. Love this card.
Maul of the Skyclaves: Embercleave, but white and sorcery-speed (leading to fewer feelbads). Also love this one.

Jace, Mirror Mage: Firmly in the "cute alternative to OG Jace without being a strict upgrade" category. Love the borderless art, though.
Sea Gate Stormcaller: The second coming of Snapcaster Mage. Downside: timing and cost restriction. Upside: gains mana advantage because you don't need to pay for the copy. I've had a bunch of ridiculous openings enabled by this gal, and just because she's much worse than Snappy doesn't mean she isn't one of my best Blue two-drops in this context.

Skyclave Shade: I like Bloodghast better, but this chonker was nevertheless a great boon to Blaggro, a beautiful showcase card, and serviceable in a midrange context. ("Can't block" is a big downside in the midrange context.)
Soul Shatter: It's good, but doesn't knock your socks off. I mostly play it over Hero's Downfall or another option for its beautiful Wylie Beckert art.
Feed the Swarm: Surprising flexibility, especially considering it doesn't carry the usual "nonblack, nonartifact" Terror riders. Even so, two mana and a sorcery restriction are the biggest hindrances here (the life loss is nearly meaningless). My format isn't yet fast enough to price out 2mv sorcery removal, and if it ever is, I'll be sad to see this one go.
Bloodchief's Thirst: Now this is what I call a removal spell. It's been amazing, full stop.

Akoum Hellhound: It's a solid color-shifted chonker in my Zoo aggro decks. Hyper parasitic, but then again, yesterday I got punched for 6 damage from this bad boy, so I guess it walks the walk.
Magmatic Channeler: Not quite red Tarmogoyf. I've been unimpressed with this looter in decks that aren't exactly URx Delver, because the tap effect alone isn't worth the whole card if it doesn't beat down reliably. I'm giving it one or two more releases before cutting it.
Roil Eruption: Hey! Volcanic Hammer with upside! Nice.
Thundering Rebuke: Feed the Swarm, but red. Good roleplayer.
Kargan Intimidator: Thoroughly impressed by this beefcake. Every mode on its activated ability has wrecked me in combat. I recently cut it to free up some testing space, but I could totally see myself playing it again in a few months or if I ever go back to Mono-Red.

Swarm Shambler: Mediocre at my power level.

Brushfire Elemental: The evasion is real, and like the Hellhound, is a parasitic Zoo inclusion that nevertheless performs.
Omnath, Locus of Creation: Another card I was too low on, only to be surprised by Constructed results. The card is a house, and I like how it provides the 4-color drafter with power commensurate to its casting cost.

KHM Playtest Results:​

Clarion Spirit: A White Young Pyromancer who is equally easy to trigger in early game, incentivizes one of the best strategies in Magic (double-spelling), and creates better tokens. I've really enjoyed it.
Starnheim Unleashed: I'm still playing it for the borderless art, but it hasn't impressed me outside of that.
Halvar, God of Battle//Sword of the Realms: Cut it for more tests and complexity, but I might have still played it if the Sword were the front face (or the only face).

Bind the Monster: Turns out, in this environment, Blue would rather splash BG for Abrupt Decay or Assassin's Trophy. Bind has not impressed, despite the 1mv.

Egon, God of Death: It's rough that I can't get a steeper discount on my "delve threat", like I can with Gurmag Angler, but Egon is the fourth-best GAngler after it, Tasigur, and Tombstalker. I've found that my black decks are often grave-focused enough that having 4 such threats isn't too much.
Bloodsky Berserker: Clarion Spirit meets Watchwolf. I didn't hate this spell, and in fact rode its coattails to victory a few times, but cut it for space.

Esika's Chariot: This card is a house. It's 50% of Grave Titan for 66% of the cost. In the grim darkness of the far future, I may have curved down such that green only plays one 4-drop, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was this Chariot. (Also, the art!)

Sarulf, the Realm Eater: Love the reference to Fenrir, of Norse myth. And also the art. Luckily, Sarulf is just good enough for me to justify it on power level grounds.

Ok, that's it for now. See y'all when D&D comes out.

 

[TrainmasterGT]

Halvar, God of Battle//Sword of the Realms: Cut it for more tests and complexity, but I might have still played it if the Sword were the front face (or the only face).

This is exactly how I feel about Halvar, God of Battle. The sword by itself would be a completely playable card, but a lot of that value comes from being a good tutor target for Stoneforge Mystic. Without being tutorable, a good chunk of this card's flexibility is actually lost.

I've considered playing this with the Sword of the Realms as the front face, but I decided against it because I didn't want to spend the money at the time.

 

[blacksmithy]

sounds like some folks are in need of a custom…….

 

[landofMordor]

sounds like some folks are in need of a custom…….

It's not stated elsewhere here, so I appreciate the comment, but actually one of my design restrictions is to allow proxies with custom art and frames (to distinguish them from real cards), but not full-on custom cards. Partially to manage mental bandwidth, partially to save myself a bunch of clicks, but I won't deny some amount of aesthetic preference for "real cards". With the exception of lands, which are ridiculously expensive, I guess it just sparks a little more joy to have the official piece of cardboard.

This is exactly how I feel about Halvar, God of Battle. The sword by itself would be a completely playable card, but a lot of that value comes from being a good tutor target for Stoneforge Mystic. Without being tutorable, a good chunk of this card's flexibility is actually lost.

I've considered playing this with the Sword of the Realms as the front face, but I decided against it because I didn't want to spend the money at the time.

Yep. So many cards I think about testing end up being "is this thing so much better/cooler than Garruk Wildspeaker that I'd rather buy it than just re-add the Garruk I own? nope". Halvar definitely fit into this category for me.

 

[landofMordor]

August '21 Update: AFR, mana sinks, & capitalism​

AFR: I'm testing like 3 cards -- Portable Hole, Power Word Kill, and whichever alternate-frame creaturelands are the cheapest (I prefer WRBUG in that order). See the next section for more explanation.

Mana Sinks: Partly, the reason I had such a probelm with topdeck wars, above, is what I now diagnose as playgroup inexperience. Not only were my last few draft groups unaware of my cube's peculiarities, but they also tended to draft "bad midrange deck", and then some matchup RNG exacerbated the perception of long, grindy games. Likely, with a stable playgroup, this would be much less of an issue.

That said, I can still add mana sinks to my environment. I already have several I like on-deck, but had cut them for space reasons -- Castles Vantress, Ardenvale, and Locthwain; 3mv planeswalkers; X spells like Stonecoil Serpent. I'm re-adding these to investigate the effects.

Capitalism: As I struggled to make cuts for MH2, and struggled to find the budget to acquire MH2, here's what I realized:

To find room for cards I don't yet own, I'm cutting cards I already like and cards I am still testing!

Early in my cube curation days, this was never an issue -- it was easy to cut Doom Blade for the marginally better Cast Down, since I owned neither in paper and it was as simple as a click in CubeCobra (or in those days, Tutor). Or I'd cut my whole Ninjas package (an easy decision, since I'd invested nothing in acquiring those cards) and add a whole new Lands package, only to cut that days later. Even when cuts were hard, the pandemic of 2020-2021 gave me plenty of buffer to do all the things my frequent updates required: sleeve and resleeve, drive hard bargains, and generally devote a lot of energy to the project.

For a long while, this paradigm was optimal for me as a new Cube designer -- it allowed me to cheaply acquire literally hundreds of powerful, basic effects from some of Magic's best sets ever, and build a firm foundation for future cubes.

Now, though, I find the parts of my Magic self which are collector and curator to be more at odds with my inner game designer. The Designer says, "yes! you should play Power Word Kill" even as the Collector says "but my beautiful STX Doom Blade! my Adam Rex Terror art!" and the Curator says "how will I have the brain space for all these swaps?". It deteriorates even further when I consider that I have two other paper cubes in various stages of assemblage (one ELD set cube and a two-lists-in-one-box synergy cube), not to mention several Pauper decks.

In short: Magic's prolific, profit-driven output has, for the first time, outpaced my energy to update my Cube. Updating my list with new cards is a circular, self-defeating proposition since I don't understand my current list well enough to make intelligent cuts!

Luckily, I think there's a fairly simple way to cope. I'm adjusting my testing requirements to incorporate several different metrics. Rather than asking the usual questions of whether a card is powerful, fun, gluey, story-generating, thematic, or novel, I will instead ask a question which is less pithy but more powerful:

Does this card fill a hole?

Practical Ramifications:
> I no longer need to endlessly chase marginal upgrades in my cube's staple effects
> I won't buy cards just to "see if it's good enough" -- a purposeless endeavor, since I already own too many "good cards that don't have a slot"
> I will consider art and nostalgia more in my cube curation, which will necessarily slow the pace of updates and make the experience more enjoyable
> Rather than buying Adds and finding Cuts, I'll make Cuts and find Adds (in other words -- I won't cut a card I haven't tested thoroughly, and I won't buy cards that don't have a slot waiting for them)

Conclusion:
I'm confident that re-evaluating cards based on my cube's need for them will help me manage my finite resources of time, energy, and money, while also increasing my opportunity to actually enjoy my cube through playing it. I hope my ramblings come in handy to anybody else who's in a similar position!

 

[TrainmasterGT]

Capitalism:

That's literally the best name for a Cube post header ever!

Does this card fill a hole?

Practical Ramifications:
> I no longer need to endlessly chase marginal upgrades in my cube's staple effects
> I won't buy cards just to "see if it's good enough" -- a purposeless endeavor, since I already own too many "good cards that don't have a slot"
> I will consider art and nostalgia more in my cube curation, which will necessarily slow the pace of updates and make the experience more enjoyable
> Rather than buying Adds and finding Cuts, I'll make Cuts and find Adds (in other words -- I won't cut a card I haven't tested thoroughly, and I won't buy cards that don't have a slot waiting for them)

This is a really good metric! There are so many cards that are probably Cubeable but just don't have a clear swap, and it can be difficult to discern whether or not something is worthwhile. That's how I currently feel about a lot of the cards from Modern Horizons 2, as well as a couple of the new Forgotten Realms cards. For example, I think Blazing Rootwalla looks like a sweet 1-drop, especially if I pull the trigger on non-singleton Faithless Lootings. However, I don't really have a good cut for it other than one of my other red 1-drops. Do I really need this card? Probably not, and that's ok!

At this point, there are so many good cards in the high power/fairmax space that most "upgrades" are not going to be particularly meaningful outside of a negligable win percentage change. There might be a few Ragavan, Nimble Pilferer type cards that completely outclass almost every other card in their slot, but those are the exception and not the norm.