General Nega-Cube on Magic Online

[Velrun]

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articl...ne/spotlight-cube-series-nega-cube-2021-03-30

Wizards of the Coast have started their Riptide journey. They are on stage 2012-ish and just discovered that low-powered cubes breeds headaches and that cubes can greatly benefit from having archetypes and synergies rather than 2-card infinite comboes and parasitic themes such as storm.

 

[Seeker]

"I lowered the power level of the cube a lot by not running anything that's ever been in a MODO cube before, including Meren of Clan Nel Toth"

...mostly kidding, but wow does that one ever stand out to me on power level in the same cube as Hell's Caretaker and Overgrowth. Cube looks sweet in theory though, can't wait for execution.

 

[Chris Taylor]

Just in case anyone needed to hear it: running a cube based one what someone else does and not based on your judgement isn't a great idea. Having to cut cards that work well as they get added to a modo cube on a whim doesn't lead to a great cube.

I joined a Toronto cube group at one point to help schedule drafts, and saw a post from one of the people who ran the "Modern Cube"
Cube cancelled this week, need to patch after splinter twin ban

And while I agree twin combo is bad as a limited archetype for other reasons, taking it out because of external factors like this rubs me the wrong way. Trust yourself.

 

[japahn]

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articl...ne/spotlight-cube-series-nega-cube-2021-03-30

Wizards of the Coast have started their Riptide journey. They are on stage 2012-ish and just discovered that low-powered cubes breeds headaches and that cubes can greatly benefit from having archetypes and synergies rather than 2-card infinite comboes and parasitic themes such as storm.

Was Riptide Lab a thing in 2012? I'd say low power is a 2016-17 trend.

It's probably convergent thinking, but I got strong Archetype Shapes vibes:

"Most archetypes are present in three (or more) colors, even though most decks in those archetypes will tend to play two colors or a splash. Which two colors a deck chooses and how it overlaps with other archetypes strongly influences that deck's feel."

"The core cards of this archetype, like Blood for Bones, Diabolic Servitude, and Stitcher's Supplier, are all black, but it can combine well with any other color for unique benefits:"

"This archetype isn't part of a cluster. It can work well on its own as a monocolored deck, or it can be spliced onto another archetype as an extra angle of attack."

 

[japahn]

Wizards of the Coast have started their Riptide journey. They are on stage 2012-ish and just discovered that low-powered cubes breeds headaches and that cubes can greatly benefit from having archetypes and synergies rather than 2-card infinite comboes and parasitic themes such as storm.

By the way, I wanted to say the condescending attitude of "we are ahead of everyone else" is toxic.

Yes, I like that the people in this forum think outside the box, and I appreciated that we celebrate exploring new space here instead of shooting ideas down. But we should be humble and acknowledge that:

• Other people come up with similar or identical ideas as we do
• Our ideas come from ideas from other people
• Our ideas don't apply to all playgroups
• Our ideas often miss important consequences

When we discuss a cube list by Wizards or whoever else, let's not have this patronizing attitude. Yes, we should discuss the list, point out problems, but also look at what's good and interesting in it, instead of presuming it's inferior because it isn't ours.

 

[TrainmasterGT]

Was Riptide Lab a thing in 2012? I'd say low power is a 2016-17 trend.

Yeah, it started around that time period. The evolution into low-power with things such as the Penny-Pincher cube didn't truly take over the site until 2016-17, when WOTC had finally gained a grasp on modern limited set design during a streak of several powered-down standard sets. For example, Amonkhet block was amazing for deck-not-cards cubes, but most of the cards couldn't break more traditional high-powered environments at the time because the set was generally weaker than "average" sets of old. I think the base ideas in this cube are still closer to old riptide when no one really knew how to build low power quite right yet (although it is possible this user has been reading some amount of riptide posts if they did end up building something using elements of your article on archetype shapes). This cube definitely contains some GRBS and bad cards for synergy environments. I think this is a neat environment, but it's not quite a Riptide cube. That said, simple modifications could turn it into one, so it's definitely close.

By the way, I wanted to say the condescending attitude of "we are ahead of everyone else" is toxic.

Yes, I like that the people in this forum think outside the box, and I appreciated that we celebrate exploring new space here instead of shooting ideas down. But we should be humble and acknowledge that:

• Other people come up with similar or identical ideas as we do
• Our ideas come from ideas from other people
• Our ideas don't apply to all playgroups
• Our ideas often miss important consequences

When we discuss a cube list by Wizards or whoever else, let's have this patronizing attitude. Yes, we should discuss the list, point out problems, but also look at what's good and interesting in it, instead of presuming it's inferior because it isn't ours.

Part of the "ahead of everyone else" mentality evolved from the fact that other communities have been discovering the same lessons we learned a decade ago and are still trying to figure out how to use the design principles. In the last year, I've seen a ton of cubers running tons of cantrips in the "breaking singleton on brainstorm" fashion of Jason's cube. Now, I'm starting to see people actually just breaking singleton on Brainstorm. I've had people ask me if the idea was good and I've told them "yeah, Jason Waddell has been doing it for years."

And a pretty common response is "Who is Jason Waddell?"

All of the MTGO cubes and (until recently) the majority of MTGS museum cubes are still built with a very outdated view of cube design back from the mid 2000's when the cube format was still in its infancy. GRBS wasn't as much of a problem in 2006 because almost all of the creatures were bad- we didn't start seeing the game breaking finishers until the early 2010s. However, more recent designers have started to realize this, and have begun building in new directions to try and balance their formats as opposed to letting game-ruiners run rampant.

Ironically, I think Riptide has been starting to fall behind in some regards of design theory. I think the lack of contact with other communities due to the Riptide-MTGS schism of the early 2010s has caused us to kind of go off and evolve in our own direction, like a group of finches on the Galapagos islands. Unfortunately, people here don't spend enough time intermingling with others, and others don't tend to come here very often. As such, we're still looking at things with a somewhat outdated perspective (albeit one that has only recently expired). Specifically, I think our community's insistence to cling to fairly low-power level design philosophy is missing a lot of the cool new inventions coming out of other unpowered cube design communities. I think a concerted effort to update riptide ideology would benefit the community immensely.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying people who want to build low power cubes shouldn't. I'm just saying that very high power formats with decks-not-cards philosophy are now extremely viable in dozens of configurations. High Power five years ago was not as flexible as it is today.

 

[shamizy]

Honestly, it's more in the last 2-3 years that I've seen designers dive into cube design with a more open mind in higher powered cube design. It's more being open to exploring different avenues to design than falling in line with what used to be the typical X is strong than Y, therefore replace Y mentality. There is more thought being put towards individual card choices and trying to craft an environment where certain things are possible versus a pure power level "evaluation". I see more nuanced card inclusions and exclusions in a typical cube list compared to what was the norm when I started.

When I first started posting here around 6-7 years ago, MTGS was the still the go-to hub for cube discussion but had a horrible case of groupthink. You just couldn't present an alternative or exploratory view without getting bombarded by the same mob of like-minded designers. I think the most hilarious example of this that I can recall is when Torrential Gearhulk was spoiled. Many were interested and saw the potential, but there was an overabundance of people just shitting on it across the board. Then one of their main guys tried it out and was like well, it's actually better than I thought, and then opinions of the mob flipped in a week.

I wouldn't necessarily say that Riptide is falling behind, just that many of us here have settled into our designs and are aware of what we're looking for. There's not as much new exploration being done because many of us are more looking for new pieces that fit into our designs than trying to build something new. As such it makes more sense to explore those with like-minded designers who can see where we're coming from and what we're looking for in a particular environment. Like in the Strixhaven spoilers this season. There's barely anything for me at my power level thus far, but I see a ton of people very excited about what's being done with certain color pairs and raring to go with changes and updates to their environment. Still, like every new set, I'm enjoying reading the discussions and thoughts of people here because I'm likely going to be able to glean something that, while not applicable currently, may be worth revisiting in the future for my own design. I'd go as far as saying that even while many ideas here are centered for lower-powered environments, I've gotten more out of these discussions and the willingness of people to experiment than from any other platform for cube design.

I'm also not against discussions with other designers on other platforms, but I just haven't found them to be all that useful over the years if they're approaching design from a completely different perspective. I can pick up a few ideas here and there, but discussions usually end up being circular and lead nowhere. Or you end up arguing with dudes are holier than thou about cube in general at which point it isn't even worth dealing with. Thankfully there's far less of that nowadays, but every now and then you'll run into a relic. It's just not worth my time.

I disagree with the take on a lack of high power flexibility. I think it's always been viable and flexible, it's just that many designers weren't willing to look past individual power level of cards until recent years. Once designers begin to understand that quality of gameplay is the most important thing when it comes to a cube design, that's when I see more thought being put towards card inclusions and exclusions. I do think that recent card designs have allowed for more choices, but it's not like the only way to develop a higher powered environment with a focus on cards not decks wasn't viable until recent years. It's just that people were much less unwilling to break away from established norms and experiment and explore their own designs.

 

[shamizy]

"I lowered the power level of the cube a lot by not running anything that's ever been in a MODO cube before, including Meren of Clan Nel Toth"

...mostly kidding, but wow does that one ever stand out to me on power level in the same cube as Hell's Caretaker and Overgrowth. Cube looks sweet in theory though, can't wait for execution.

If only Meren was literally just a Gravedigger trigger on each end step. She would be an all-time Golgari card for me because I think it's brilliant at its core. Unfortunately, Experience counters are one of the worst mechanics that they've ever churned out and the lack of elegance keeps me from ever wanting to try her out again. Just too damn strong, the counters are completely un-interactable, and she can snowball out of control very quickly. Just bad gameplay in a 1v1 setting. Such a damn shame.

 

[Chris Taylor]

If only Meren was literally just a Gravedigger trigger on each end step. She would be an all-time Golgari card for me because I think it's brilliant at its core. Unfortunately, Experience counters are one of the worst mechanics that they've ever churned out and the lack of elegance keeps me from ever wanting to try her out again. Just too damn strong, the counters are completely un-interactable, and she can snowball out of control very quickly. Just bad gameplay in a 1v1 setting. Such a damn shame.

You think that's all it takes? Hmmm, I thought this card was further away from the bar then that, and I'd been avoiding testing it until recently.

 

[shamizy]

You think that's all it takes? Hmmm, I thought this card was further away from the bar then that, and I'd been avoiding testing it until recently.

Yeah. I've had experience playing against it in EDH for a long time now and briefly ran her myself. As a Gravedigger effect at EOT she's completely fine at my power level. It's when you can start to free cast creatures that are 4 CMC+ (maybe even just 3 CMC+ in cube) that she gets out of control. Like the worst part about her is that if she dies and then returns, those experience counters don't reset or anything. You just pick up from where you left off and can essentially get two creatures, if not more, worth of value the turn she comes back.

Get rid of the Experience counters? I think she's just a strong card but not overwhelming because you still need to cast the card you're buying back.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

I had Meren in my cube a looooong time ago, and it did have a tendency to become very oppressive, especially when paired with other recursion tools, because the experience counters stay, and one removal spell is not enough to keep her in check.

Also, loving the back and forth here. Great discussion!

 

[Chris Taylor]

Yeah. I've had experience playing against it in EDH for a long time now and briefly ran her myself. As a Gravedigger effect at EOT she's completely fine at my power level. It's when you can start to free cast creatures that are 4 CMC+ (maybe even just 3 CMC+ in cube) that she gets out of control. Like the worst part about her is that if she dies and then returns, those experience counters don't reset or anything. You just pick up from where you left off and can essentially get two creatures, if not more, worth of value the turn she comes back.

Get rid of the Experience counters? I think she's just a strong card but not overwhelming because you still need to cast the card you're buying back.

Interesting. I'm gonna give her a shot unchanged for now, but now I've got this as a nice edit in my back pocket

 

[LadyMapi]

Bad idea time: Sharpie out "experience" and replace it with "poison".

 

[TrainmasterGT]

I disagree with the take on a lack of high power flexibility. I think it's always been viable and flexible, it's just that many designers weren't willing to look past individual power level of cards until recent years. Once designers begin to understand that quality of gameplay is the most important thing when it comes to a cube design, that's when I see more thought being put towards card inclusions and exclusions. I do think that recent card designs have allowed for more choices, but it's not like the only way to develop a higher powered environment with a focus on cards not decks wasn't viable until recent years. It's just that people were much less unwilling to break away from established norms and experiment and explore their own designs.

I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to communicate here. I was not trying to insinuate that high power formats lacked flexibility completely several years ago. Rather, I was just trying to make the point that new cards being printed has allowed for more strategies to become viable compared to in the past. There were always lots of options for high powered environments, but they always used to skew towards broad archetypal continents as opposed to more niche strategies. It has been possible to build a cube around supporting broad archetypes since the beginning of the format (although people didn't necessarily understand how to do that correctly yet). However, decks like the Aristocrats, Ninjas, +1/+1 Counters, and (unpowered) Artifacts Matter couldn't function as fully fledged decks in old environments. It was still possible to have a small sacrifice package or run enough cards to make Ninja of the Deep Hours a worthwhile tempo play, but there just wasn't the level of depth we have today. Any concerted effort to make these strategies viable usually required lowering the power band of the entire cube.

Today, a lot of specific synergies can exist in high-power formats without having to necessarily lower the power band of the environment. In recent years, the shift in WOTC limited design theory and the general increase in power level has caused a ton of great new options to be released. Several new archetypal permutations have arisen that were not previously possible without compromising power level. I don't want to get too bogged down in specifics here because not every new card lends itself equally to high power (especially Power 9 cubes). Needless to say, I think decks like Blink, Aristocrats, Certain Tribal Strategies, Spells Matter, +1/+1 Counters, and Dredge (to some extent) are a lot more viable than they used to be.

TL;DR: High Power has gained more archetypal richness as groups of cards which were previously only small packages have expanded to be able to carry entire decks.

 

[japahn]

https://www.twitch.tv/gabyspartz

Gaby Spartz is streaming this cube right now.

 

[Brad]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying people who want to build low power cubes shouldn't. I'm just saying that very high power formats with decks-not-cards philosophy are now extremely viable in dozens of configurations. High Power five years ago was not as flexible as it is today.

Today, a lot of specific synergies can exist in high-power formats without having to necessarily lower the power band of the environment.

Personally, I've increased the power level of The Black Cube considerably over the past few years, but still think it would be considered "low powered" by a lot of people's standards.

I've felt it obvious that there has been more options to build a decks-not-cards cube at a tier below powermax, but maybe that was just me? It can be hard to tell what everyone is thinking vs what I've interpreted with the help of everyone. Maybe the issue is that no one is really labeling themselves as "highest powered synergy thing that you can get."

The bell curve has gained considerable depth recently across the entire thing, giving access to more strategies at more power levels than ever. Even my very weak Onslaught cube has gained a ton of tools because there's more pathetic common birds/wizards/etc being released. It didn't really work a couple years ago because it was too desperate for cards.

I think the most hilarious example of this that I can recall is when Torrential Gearhulk was spoiled. Many were interested and saw the potential, but there was an overabundance of people just shitting on it across the board. Then one of their main guys tried it out and was like well, it's actually better than I thought, and then opinions of the mob flipped in a week.

This is kind of hilarious. Gearhulk was so obviously powerful and, in the right (wrong?) environment, GRBS when I read it.

I had Meren in my cube a looooong time ago, and it did have a tendency to become very oppressive, especially when paired with other recursion tools

At least BG doesn't have much access to that.

I ran her for a bit, but she was kind of cumbersome and had too high of a ceiling.

Bad idea time: Sharpie out "experience" and replace it with "poison".

I don't know if I hate you or I love you for your, mostly horrible, ideas, but I definitely have strong feelings one way or another.

Just in case anyone needed to hear it: running a cube based one what someone else does and not based on your judgement isn't a great idea.

*looks at my Onslaught theme cube*

 

[TrainmasterGT]

Personally, I've increased the power level of The Black Cube considerably over the past few years, but still think it would be considered "low powered" by a lot of people's standards.

I've felt it obvious that there has been more options to build a decks-not-cards cube at a tier below powermax, but maybe that was just me? It can be hard to tell what everyone is thinking vs what I've interpreted with the help of everyone.

I think you still have to be a couple of tiers below powermax to build a traditional Riptide style cube, but it is entirely possible to build decks-not-cards formats higher these days. I actually think a true powermax cube (a powered cube that's not running Bad Cards or 90's Nostalgia in favor of Good Cards) would be a decks not cards format of some variety, as odd as that may sound.

Maybe the issue is that no one is really labeling themselves as "highest powered synergy thing that you can get."

"Highest powered synergy thing that you can get" does exist, there's an entire discord community based around that sort of design philosophy, although they don't call themselves that and it is extremely niche. I call this design philosophy "balancemax" since it's basically all about playing the best fair cards in the game. These cubes tend to be decks-not-cards formats as cards are selected not only for their power level but how they mesh with the broader environment. It doesn't always feel that way because high power finisher have a tendency to shine on their own merits as opposed to what deck they're supposed to go into. However, the actual decks are unmistakably archetype focused and not merely piles of good cards.

That said, I'm really sure how they label themselves. I don't think there's a formal name for this design philosophy. That's why I call it "balancemax."

The bell curve has gained considerable depth recently across the entire thing, giving access to more strategies at more power levels than ever. Even my very weak Onslaught cube has gained a ton of tools because there's more pathetic common birds/wizards/etc being released. It didn't really work a couple years ago because it was too desperate for cards.

This is so true! I think WOTC finally realized that people don't want to play with boring and unusable cards like Silent Artisan. By making the filler cards more interesting, they've managed to both improve the quality of limited gameplay and the quality of Magic's card pool.

 

[Brad]

I think you still have to be a couple of tiers below powermax to build a traditional Riptide style cube, but it is entirely possible to build decks-not-cards formats higher these days. I actually think a true powermax cube (a powered cube that's not running Bad Cards or 90's Nostalgia in favor of Good Cards) would be a decks not cards format of some variety, as odd as that may sound.
Again, it seems like it comes down to a lack of distinction. You call it a couple tiers, I call it a tier. It's all kind of made up and that makes it hard to discuss. We know powermax when we see it and we know low power when we see it, but it's hard to know exactly where something lies unless we take the time to really dig into each cube's design.

"Highest powered synergy thing that you can get" does exist, there's an entire discord community based around that sort of design philosophy, although they don't call themselves that and it is extremely niche. I call this design philosophy "balancemax" since it's basically all about playing the best fair cards in the game. These cubes tend to be decks-not-cards formats as cards are selected not only for their power level but how they mesh with the broader environment. It doesn't always feel that way because high power finisher have a tendency to shine on their own merits as opposed to what deck they're supposed to go into. However, the actual decks are unmistakably archetype focused and not merely piles of good cards.
Get them over here. I'd love to see their stuff. Like I said, The Black Cube is moving close to "balancemax." Maybe .538 tiers below that. Although, the graveyard hate is low powered so that my yards aren't getting ruined for 2 fucking mana with card replacement.

That said, I'm really sure how they label themselves. I don't think there's a formal name for this design philosophy. That's why I call it "balancemax."
Balancemax is a decent term. Non-GRBS powermax is what I think of when you say that. Maybe we have Primeval Titan for our lands deck, but Grave Titan seemed a bit too much and Frost Titan got bumped for the UR-spells and UB-yard deck's Torrential Gearhulk. Something like that, which seems totally reasonable.

This is so true! I think WOTC finally realized that people don't want to play with boring and unusable cards like Silent Artisan. By making the filler cards more interesting, they've managed to both improve the quality of limited gameplay and the quality of Magic's card pool.
For sure. The uncommons now, especially the multicolored uncommons, feel right at home in plenty of decent-powered cubes. The Strix A(a/b)B costed cycle, for example, are all terrific signposts. This makes them more playable without having to push their power level.

 

[Jason Waddell]

Is there an origin to this "decks not cards" terminology?

 

[TrainmasterGT]

Is there an origin to this "decks not cards" terminology?

Grillo's article on the matter. It's the precursor to all modern design.

 

[Rowan_CB]

I remember reading that Grillo thread. For whatever reason, I've always associated "decks not cards" with Sam Black, who has been espousing it as his retail limited draft philosophy (as in, "draft decks, not cards"*) for quite some time, but I'm sure he's not the first to use the phrase.

*As an aside, it's kind of astonishing how quickly we've seen WOTC's retail draft philosophy change (for the better, imo). Draft decks not cards seems painfully obvious in the world of defined archetypes and signpost uncommons. But just a few years ago people like Sam Black were discovering synergies that were much more deeply buried. I often wonder what the meta of my cube would be if, instead of being drafted a couple times a year by a bunch of half-drunk casuals, it was drafted day-in and day-out by people looking to break it.

 

[Modin]

I often wonder what the meta of my cube would be if, instead of being drafted a couple times a year by a bunch of half-drunk casuals, it was drafted day-in and day-out by people looking to break it.

This thought has occurred to many of us I believe. Also I just wanted to reply because I love the description of your (all our?) playgroups

What do you guys think of the CubeCobra "let the bots draft" feature?

 

[shamizy]

This thought has occurred to many of us I believe. Also I just wanted to reply because I love the description of your (all our?) playgroups

What do you guys think of the CubeCobra "let the bots draft" feature?

Bots do the best they can, but they've got really strange drafting inclinations. Like valuing all fixing extremely high even if it's not within their colors. Or just snapping up lands and leaving them in the SBs. I just don't think it currently does a great job of emulating an actual draft pod. Makes me curious what the difference is between the Cobra and the CubeTutor AIs because those definitely felt more "human" when drafting in a pod.

 

[Erik Twice]

Makes me curious what the difference is between the Cobra and the CubeTutor AIs because those definitely felt more "human" when drafting in a pod.

One factor I've noticed is that Cobra has very little "memory". If you pass a card for a couple of drafts it will sink to the bottom. For example, Garruk Wildspeaker should be picked by any gree drafter at the table but if I don't take it for a couple drafts because I'm not on those colours, the bots stop picking it up at all.

Regarding lands, I know that my cube promotes three colors deck or at least 2 and a splash but all my bot drafting experience produces 2-colour ones.

 

[japahn]

Isn't all the "memory" between drafts just the Elo rating? I noticed it wobbles within 150 points, but that's not that large a difference.