Spikeshot has become identified by my drafters as a counterburn card. Gelectrode that's a mana dump instead of value. Cheaper flamekin spitfire, I suppose. Durdliest story I've got concerning it was someone playing reckless charge and something like blood lust, can't remember the actual card, to kill his opponents really fast out of mostly nowhere (I believe he also had loot dragon). He pumped the crap out of the elder and shot his opponent twice, made the elder unblockable with some long-cut card and killed him from 28 or something.
General Rethinking Color Mana Curve
- Thread starter ahadabans
- Start date
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Spikeshot Goblin off the top, equip grafted wargear, flashback reckless charge.
Tap city of brass (going down to 1) for the full 14 points.
Also, by golly if it werent for him and stromkirk noble my red 1 drops would basically be 100% rakdos cacklers, and I feel that is slightly unacceptable
Tap city of brass (going down to 1) for the full 14 points.
Also, by golly if it werent for him and stromkirk noble my red 1 drops would basically be 100% rakdos cacklers, and I feel that is slightly unacceptable
So I have some random ideas floating around in my head about this...
1) The first is I agree with the sentiments ahadabans expressed in one of his posts: basically that, sure, the old "hey don't use hard and fast rules" is nice and all, but I think starting with a fixed guideline for a mana curve makes the design process a lot easier. I.e. if I says "I am going to have exactly 7 one drops in white" it is a lot easier to go look for the exact 7 I want then to instead go "hey just kind of feel out your mana curve" then I start having to compare 1 drops to 2 drop and 3 drops and the whole thing just becomes a lot harder. I think starting from a more rigid design process and then being creative after you have at least a baseline framework is easier. For instance I think we all agree that we should have the same number of cards in each color in our cube, but then we also know that once it is all said and done, if we have 82 white cards and 78 black cards its not the absolute end of the world (or maybe some do thinks its the end of the world!). And I think we all agree that it is good to have some fixed guidelines on the the creature to non-creature ratio. At least at the outset. Then as things shake out if you wind up with a few extra or a few fewer creatures than you original intended no big deal. I feel like curve should be approached the same way. As such I see nothing wrong with giving a more precise answer to the question of "what is an "ideal" curve to aim for when starting out" than simply "hey whatever works for you" or "depends depends depends!".
2) I think it does not make sense to have the exact same curve for each color IF you go with the approach that aggro works better in some colors than others. Perhaps some designers believe that you can equally support aggro in every color and also equally support control in every color. I think this is wrong and that it will lead to a poor drafting environment. That discussion is so in depth, though, that it is perhaps beyond the scope of this post. However, assuming you take my assertion axiomatically (that some color support aggro better than others), then I think it stands to reason that curves cannot be identical across colors. I know someone mentioned that "hey a 1-drop is not necessarily an aggro card--plenty of 1/2/3 drops are control cards". This much I agree with. However, what I do not think is true is that plenty of 5/6/7 drops are aggro cards. As such, if you try to make curves across colors identical while at the same time supporting aggro more in some colors and control more in others (taking the original axiom to be true) then you will logically cripple aggro because of the asymmetrical nature of 1 drop slots that can be used to help both aggro AND control and 6 drops slots that can only help control. Bottom line, the construction of an aggro deck is not symmetrical with a control deck.
3) I am not sure the best way to approach mana curve is. One way is to take, say, all 80 black cards and look at the curve. But I think this may be wrong. For it is quite clear that there are certain cards you play on curve (as in you play the card as soon as you have the available mana to play it) and others that you play independent of curve and more reactive to the game situation. Classically, this has usually been viewed through the rather simple creature vs non-creature paradigm. This is because, in general, creatures are something you almost always play on-curve while spells are something that tend to be more off-curve. But I think this only holds true "somewhat". It is certainly a close enough approximation in a booster-draft type limited environment when the power level is low, interactions are more straightforward, and you have a small amount of time to throw together a deck and you are doing a lot of eye-balling. But when you are taking your time spending many hours designing a cube with a spreadsheet program, and designing an environment with a high power level and lots of complex interactions, I think it makes more sense to look at cards on a case-by-case basis and assign each card to one of two piles: "on-curve" (meaning you almost always play it as soon as you can afford) and "off-curve". A card like mystic snake is a creature but is probably only going to be played when the situation calls for it rather than when you get your 4th land out. The reverse is true for a card like bitterblossom which I imagine most decks are happy to play as soon as possible even though it is not a "creature spell". And, imo, there are many such examples of cube staples. Restoration Angel, Fleshbag Marauder, Venser, Shaper Savant, etc are all cards that are more likely to be played at the opportune moment as opposed to the earliest possible moment. Thus, I am postulating that it is perhaps more important to ensure a healthy curve specifically for cards that are "on-curve".
4) All this being said, I am still not sure what the right curve is in general, for each color, or for "on-curve" cards. And I am not sure what the appropriate way to evaluate "off-curve" cards is either. Should they have the same curve as "on-curve" cards? Perhaps a flatter curve? Perhaps you shouldn't worry about the curve of cards like that at all? I would be curious to hear people's thoughts on all this.
1) The first is I agree with the sentiments ahadabans expressed in one of his posts: basically that, sure, the old "hey don't use hard and fast rules" is nice and all, but I think starting with a fixed guideline for a mana curve makes the design process a lot easier. I.e. if I says "I am going to have exactly 7 one drops in white" it is a lot easier to go look for the exact 7 I want then to instead go "hey just kind of feel out your mana curve" then I start having to compare 1 drops to 2 drop and 3 drops and the whole thing just becomes a lot harder. I think starting from a more rigid design process and then being creative after you have at least a baseline framework is easier. For instance I think we all agree that we should have the same number of cards in each color in our cube, but then we also know that once it is all said and done, if we have 82 white cards and 78 black cards its not the absolute end of the world (or maybe some do thinks its the end of the world!). And I think we all agree that it is good to have some fixed guidelines on the the creature to non-creature ratio. At least at the outset. Then as things shake out if you wind up with a few extra or a few fewer creatures than you original intended no big deal. I feel like curve should be approached the same way. As such I see nothing wrong with giving a more precise answer to the question of "what is an "ideal" curve to aim for when starting out" than simply "hey whatever works for you" or "depends depends depends!".
2) I think it does not make sense to have the exact same curve for each color IF you go with the approach that aggro works better in some colors than others. Perhaps some designers believe that you can equally support aggro in every color and also equally support control in every color. I think this is wrong and that it will lead to a poor drafting environment. That discussion is so in depth, though, that it is perhaps beyond the scope of this post. However, assuming you take my assertion axiomatically (that some color support aggro better than others), then I think it stands to reason that curves cannot be identical across colors. I know someone mentioned that "hey a 1-drop is not necessarily an aggro card--plenty of 1/2/3 drops are control cards". This much I agree with. However, what I do not think is true is that plenty of 5/6/7 drops are aggro cards. As such, if you try to make curves across colors identical while at the same time supporting aggro more in some colors and control more in others (taking the original axiom to be true) then you will logically cripple aggro because of the asymmetrical nature of 1 drop slots that can be used to help both aggro AND control and 6 drops slots that can only help control. Bottom line, the construction of an aggro deck is not symmetrical with a control deck.
3) I am not sure the best way to approach mana curve is. One way is to take, say, all 80 black cards and look at the curve. But I think this may be wrong. For it is quite clear that there are certain cards you play on curve (as in you play the card as soon as you have the available mana to play it) and others that you play independent of curve and more reactive to the game situation. Classically, this has usually been viewed through the rather simple creature vs non-creature paradigm. This is because, in general, creatures are something you almost always play on-curve while spells are something that tend to be more off-curve. But I think this only holds true "somewhat". It is certainly a close enough approximation in a booster-draft type limited environment when the power level is low, interactions are more straightforward, and you have a small amount of time to throw together a deck and you are doing a lot of eye-balling. But when you are taking your time spending many hours designing a cube with a spreadsheet program, and designing an environment with a high power level and lots of complex interactions, I think it makes more sense to look at cards on a case-by-case basis and assign each card to one of two piles: "on-curve" (meaning you almost always play it as soon as you can afford) and "off-curve". A card like mystic snake is a creature but is probably only going to be played when the situation calls for it rather than when you get your 4th land out. The reverse is true for a card like bitterblossom which I imagine most decks are happy to play as soon as possible even though it is not a "creature spell". And, imo, there are many such examples of cube staples. Restoration Angel, Fleshbag Marauder, Venser, Shaper Savant, etc are all cards that are more likely to be played at the opportune moment as opposed to the earliest possible moment. Thus, I am postulating that it is perhaps more important to ensure a healthy curve specifically for cards that are "on-curve".
4) All this being said, I am still not sure what the right curve is in general, for each color, or for "on-curve" cards. And I am not sure what the appropriate way to evaluate "off-curve" cards is either. Should they have the same curve as "on-curve" cards? Perhaps a flatter curve? Perhaps you shouldn't worry about the curve of cards like that at all? I would be curious to hear people's thoughts on all this.
For what it's worth, WotC do have some recommended creature v non-creature ratios and recommended curves for the decks new players assemble in their pre-release events. Probably that could be used as a start off point for a curve? Although I think we would probably arrive to a similar curve out selves, it's nice to have something "official".
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Woah! Rasmus! You cleaned up your avatar! 
I did some looking around and this was one of the better articles I found looking at curve from an analytical standpoint:
https://www.channelfireball.com/art...e-optimal-mana-curve-via-computer-simulation/
However, I do think there are some flaws to his reasoning. Effectively, he is saying the more total mana you can spend by a given turn X, the better the curve of your deck. He then sets X at different numbers based on the environment, with X being lower in faster environments and higher in slower ones. This raises two points of discussion in my mind:
1) What is "X" for your cube? I am sure this has been discussed in detail by every cube designer many times, and I am sure throughout many threads on this forum. But is obviously a very important question. But in this case it is perhaps a weird chicken and the egg thing. A better way to say it is, decide what you want your X to be, and then build your curve to match it. In this way it is actually a much more powerful question. It begins to give you actual analytical tools to create the type of environment you want. If you want it to be 7, then this article would (or the computer program he wrote) tell you what your curve should be to produce that. Of course the actual card choices would ultimately play a large effect on it, too, but fundamentally it starts with curve.
2) I believe his method of determining the ideal curve is wrong. While I do like a of his approach, there is at least one thing I would adjust. He even points it out at one point. He treats every point of mana you spend as identical, which I think is wrong. 2 mana spend on turn 2 is much more impactful than 2 mana spent on turn 5. Said more generally (and I believe this is fairly intuitive if you think about it), the earlier you spend a given increment of mana, the more it is worth. For instance, lets just assume we have a very simple situation where you only have creatures and each creatures P and T are equal to the CMC of the card. So a 1/1 has a CMC of 1, a 2/2 CMC of 2, and so on. Let us also assume, for simplicity, every creature has haste and cannot block. A 1 drop will have done 5 points of damage by turn 5. Meanwhile, your 4 drop will have only done 8 points of damage. Divide this 8 points by the amount of mana you spent on it (8 damage / 4 mana = 2 damage/mana) and you can see that the one mana you spent on turn 1 was far more important than 1 of the mana spent on turn 4. Obviously this was an incredibly simplified example. But the point remains, all mana expenditures are not equal--the earlier you can spend it the more valuable it is, even if it may not be linear. Bottom line, reading his article before I even had come to this realization it felt like he was way undervaluing 1 drops. After all, if you look at his prescription for a limited deck's mana curve, you will see he thinks all limited decks (whether they be in X = 5, 6, or 7) should contain ZERO one-drops. And this just seemed wrong. I think we can call agree that a cube with zero 1 drops has some serious issues--especially a fantastically fast Cube that average 5 turn games. My suggestion is that points of mana be valued up based on how early they are spent. The formula should be something closer to:
value = [X - turn mana is spent on] x [Amount of mana spent]
So the value of 1 mana spent on turn 1 in an X = 5 environment would actually be FOUR not ONE. And the value of 3 mana spend on turn 4 in an X = 7 environment would be NINE not THREE. And so on. This would likely push the valuation of 1-drops much higher. I think even this formula would need adjusting. Perhaps there is some diminishing returns. Like maybe a 1-drop on turn one is worth 1 on turn two, 1.75 on turn three, 2.25 on turn four, and 2.5 on turn five.
Anyways those are just some random thoughts. I will keep thinking about it. It would be nice to come up with a formula where you can enter X (length of games you want your cube to produce) and it will give you general guidelines for a curve that should produce such games.
https://www.channelfireball.com/art...e-optimal-mana-curve-via-computer-simulation/
However, I do think there are some flaws to his reasoning. Effectively, he is saying the more total mana you can spend by a given turn X, the better the curve of your deck. He then sets X at different numbers based on the environment, with X being lower in faster environments and higher in slower ones. This raises two points of discussion in my mind:
1) What is "X" for your cube? I am sure this has been discussed in detail by every cube designer many times, and I am sure throughout many threads on this forum. But is obviously a very important question. But in this case it is perhaps a weird chicken and the egg thing. A better way to say it is, decide what you want your X to be, and then build your curve to match it. In this way it is actually a much more powerful question. It begins to give you actual analytical tools to create the type of environment you want. If you want it to be 7, then this article would (or the computer program he wrote) tell you what your curve should be to produce that. Of course the actual card choices would ultimately play a large effect on it, too, but fundamentally it starts with curve.
2) I believe his method of determining the ideal curve is wrong. While I do like a of his approach, there is at least one thing I would adjust. He even points it out at one point. He treats every point of mana you spend as identical, which I think is wrong. 2 mana spend on turn 2 is much more impactful than 2 mana spent on turn 5. Said more generally (and I believe this is fairly intuitive if you think about it), the earlier you spend a given increment of mana, the more it is worth. For instance, lets just assume we have a very simple situation where you only have creatures and each creatures P and T are equal to the CMC of the card. So a 1/1 has a CMC of 1, a 2/2 CMC of 2, and so on. Let us also assume, for simplicity, every creature has haste and cannot block. A 1 drop will have done 5 points of damage by turn 5. Meanwhile, your 4 drop will have only done 8 points of damage. Divide this 8 points by the amount of mana you spent on it (8 damage / 4 mana = 2 damage/mana) and you can see that the one mana you spent on turn 1 was far more important than 1 of the mana spent on turn 4. Obviously this was an incredibly simplified example. But the point remains, all mana expenditures are not equal--the earlier you can spend it the more valuable it is, even if it may not be linear. Bottom line, reading his article before I even had come to this realization it felt like he was way undervaluing 1 drops. After all, if you look at his prescription for a limited deck's mana curve, you will see he thinks all limited decks (whether they be in X = 5, 6, or 7) should contain ZERO one-drops. And this just seemed wrong. I think we can call agree that a cube with zero 1 drops has some serious issues--especially a fantastically fast Cube that average 5 turn games. My suggestion is that points of mana be valued up based on how early they are spent. The formula should be something closer to:
value = [X - turn mana is spent on] x [Amount of mana spent]
So the value of 1 mana spent on turn 1 in an X = 5 environment would actually be FOUR not ONE. And the value of 3 mana spend on turn 4 in an X = 7 environment would be NINE not THREE. And so on. This would likely push the valuation of 1-drops much higher. I think even this formula would need adjusting. Perhaps there is some diminishing returns. Like maybe a 1-drop on turn one is worth 1 on turn two, 1.75 on turn three, 2.25 on turn four, and 2.5 on turn five.
Anyways those are just some random thoughts. I will keep thinking about it. It would be nice to come up with a formula where you can enter X (length of games you want your cube to produce) and it will give you general guidelines for a curve that should produce such games.
Wow, this is an old thread. It's interesting to reread things I wrote years ago. Some things I still agree with, others I've gone completely 180 on.
FWIW, I don't think it's worth trying to have each color hit the same CMC average. I did try it and I found it to be too forced. I mean, you can make any constraint work. I really believe that. But in this case, I don't think it had much value. However, I do think the idea behind having some constraints to work with is a good one. Analysis paralysis is certainly a thing, at least for me (I'm guessing for others as well). At a minimum, constraints prevent a lot of unproductive second guessing, which is a time saver.
That said, I DO think you should be looking to hit an average CMC overall. And that this number is somewhere around 3.0 for most cubes. That's something I think the power max community arrived at years ago, and I believe it's pretty accurate. Every time I draft a cube (my own or another) with an average CMC higher than that (say 3.2, which is where many lower powered cubes seem to wind up), decks tend to be top heavy unless you really prioritize filling out the bottom of your curve. And the reason for this is simple - supply and demand. To average 3.0 CMC, you need a certain quantity of 1 and 2 mana cards in your deck to bring the average down. If the cube has a short supply of them, you will struggle to find playable ones in the draft. This problem gets worse in lower powered lists where so many cards are only conditionally powerful requiring synergistic combinations to even be playable. If your deck doesn't support the necessary synergy, you can't run the card.
This ties into a discussion I had somewhere else about artificial scarcity. I think it was around fixing specifically, but it applies to cards along the curve too. Artificial scarcity is basically when you have a short supply of something everyone needs or wants. That isn't a bad thing necessarily. Maybe you want fixing to be hard to get so that you discourage 5 color goodstuff. Or maybe you intentionally want games to start on T2 instead of T1, so your curve is higher on purpose. Or maybe you don't want too much removal so board states can develop, etc. These are all very practical design decisions for artificial scarcity. It's more having an awareness of it and knowing where you have scarcity and why you have it (i.e. ensure you intended to have it for reason X,Y,Z).
FWIW, I don't think it's worth trying to have each color hit the same CMC average. I did try it and I found it to be too forced. I mean, you can make any constraint work. I really believe that. But in this case, I don't think it had much value. However, I do think the idea behind having some constraints to work with is a good one. Analysis paralysis is certainly a thing, at least for me (I'm guessing for others as well). At a minimum, constraints prevent a lot of unproductive second guessing, which is a time saver.
That said, I DO think you should be looking to hit an average CMC overall. And that this number is somewhere around 3.0 for most cubes. That's something I think the power max community arrived at years ago, and I believe it's pretty accurate. Every time I draft a cube (my own or another) with an average CMC higher than that (say 3.2, which is where many lower powered cubes seem to wind up), decks tend to be top heavy unless you really prioritize filling out the bottom of your curve. And the reason for this is simple - supply and demand. To average 3.0 CMC, you need a certain quantity of 1 and 2 mana cards in your deck to bring the average down. If the cube has a short supply of them, you will struggle to find playable ones in the draft. This problem gets worse in lower powered lists where so many cards are only conditionally powerful requiring synergistic combinations to even be playable. If your deck doesn't support the necessary synergy, you can't run the card.
This ties into a discussion I had somewhere else about artificial scarcity. I think it was around fixing specifically, but it applies to cards along the curve too. Artificial scarcity is basically when you have a short supply of something everyone needs or wants. That isn't a bad thing necessarily. Maybe you want fixing to be hard to get so that you discourage 5 color goodstuff. Or maybe you intentionally want games to start on T2 instead of T1, so your curve is higher on purpose. Or maybe you don't want too much removal so board states can develop, etc. These are all very practical design decisions for artificial scarcity. It's more having an awareness of it and knowing where you have scarcity and why you have it (i.e. ensure you intended to have it for reason X,Y,Z).
I agree with basically everything you said, ahadabans. Well said.
I am curious, if we take your 3.0 as an agreed upon average CMC, where do you see it shaking out color-wise? What I mean is, you said you agree not all colors need to hit 3.0, so which colors would diverge from that?
Without giving it too much thought, I basically see it as every color goes for 3, then Red is a little below 3 and green is a little above 3. Not sure about colorless, though...probably 3.0 as well?
I am curious, if we take your 3.0 as an agreed upon average CMC, where do you see it shaking out color-wise? What I mean is, you said you agree not all colors need to hit 3.0, so which colors would diverge from that?
Without giving it too much thought, I basically see it as every color goes for 3, then Red is a little below 3 and green is a little above 3. Not sure about colorless, though...probably 3.0 as well?
Hmm, let me check my cubetutor stats. Woah, my average CMC excluding lands is 3.009, so I just naturally arrived there without doing anything special. So I guess that feels about right.
White's average is 2.9, blue and green are tied at 3.2, black is on the money at 3, and red is like 2.5.
Blue tends to be high. 3.2ish? Blue's one drop section is bad outside spells.
In my combo cube, black is hanging on the bottom of the curve with red, but in the Kamigawa/Innistrad project I'm working, it's the highest CMC color. So it all depends.
Colorless I find is lower than 3 almost always because how much of the high end do you really want usually and some of the coolest cards are 1-2 mana (chromatic star and company).
In my combo cube, black is hanging on the bottom of the curve with red, but in the Kamigawa/Innistrad project I'm working, it's the highest CMC color. So it all depends.
Colorless I find is lower than 3 almost always because how much of the high end do you really want usually and some of the coolest cards are 1-2 mana (chromatic star and company).
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
My cube averages 3.134, a bit higher than 3, mainly because of the emphasis on multicolored cards. The average of my monocolor and artifact sections is 2.99 The average CMC of multicolored cards is 5.2 (!) thanks to stuff like Cruel Ultimatum and Karador, Ghost Chieftain. My white section actually sits at a super low average of 2.673. Black and red dip below 3 as well, blue has the highest average at 3.173.
The average CMC of multicolored cards is 5.2 (!) thanks to stuff like Cruel Ultimatum and Karador, Ghost Chieftain. My white section actually sits at a super low average of 2.673. Black and red dip below 3 as well, blue has the highest average at 3.173.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
http://www.cubetutor.com/analysis/1
Where 1 is the id of your cube. Look under 'cmc charts' in the graph 'Combined Averages'. The second to last column (the grey one) shows the average cmc of your whole cube, excluding lands.
Oh, I see now. I overlooked that number because it was thrown off by the way I categorize my lands (technically all my mono numbers are as well). It seems that I'm right around 3.00 overall CMC.
My cube averages 3.134, a bit higher than 3, mainly because of the emphasis on multicolored cards. The average of my monocolor and artifact sections is 2.99
One thing I have been working toward is a better metric than CMC for evaluating a card's casting difficulty. Ultimately what we are attempting to deconstruct when talk about CMC is how difficult a card is to cast, or, said another way, how likely a card is to be playable on a given turn. While CMC is a good start at it, obviously there are other factors. Many people on riptide often talk about it abstractly when we look at a cards devotion (i.e. a 1U card and a UU card. Same CMC, but clearly a UU card is more difficult to cast). I think it would be nice to have some type of formula that creates some type of 'adjusted-CMC' that takes more than just the CMC into account. For instance, perhaps a generic mana is worth 1, and a specific colored mana (red, white, blue, whatever), is 1.25. Or maybe this is too simple, maybe the adjusted cost should go up exponentially rather than linearly with each incremental increase in devotion. Cryptic Command (cost = 1uuu) does feel like quite a burden to cast in a limited environment (I don't even run it in my cube because of the 3 devotion even though it is a great card). Going even further, though, perhaps taking into account DIFFERENT color requirements makes sense. That is, a card that costs 1WR is harder to cast than 1WW and therefore should have its 'adjusted-CMC' take this into account. Whereas split costs (i.e. cards like Deathrite Shaman could be adjusted downwards). A card that costs EITHER a G or B is easier to cast than one that costs just G or just B (though still more difficult to cast than 1 generic mana). So maybe it would land somewhere between 1 and 1.25.
Obviously the format of your Cube plays a large part in how you would calculate your 'adjusted-CMC'. The amount of fixing would play a large role. Perhaps you could take into account the amount of slots in your cube that are dedicated to full cycles of fixing lands relative to the total size of your cube. Idk, just spit-balling.
All this is to say that while average CMC is a good indicator, obviously not all CMCs are created equal. A cube that has a large chunk of gold cards may actually have a deceptively high casting-difficulty-per-capita. Just something to think about, Onderzeeboot--though I am sure you already have if the theme of your cube was its gold section.
A very interesting topic, though I have not much to add except for the fact that 1WR is easier to cast than 1WW or RR, it just requires the drafter to be in a more specific combination of colors and that is why we usually take care with how many gold cards we put in our cubes. Which, now that I think about it, could open a discussion about why we put gold and hybrid cards in the same pack (or at least I do), when the gap between hybrid and gold seems wider than the one between monocolor and gold.
I suppose this is just another way of looking at it. The only way a gold card is "easier to cast" to me seems to be if you come across one late in the draft that just happens to be in colors you are already playing. More commonly, though, it seems gold cards are higher powered cards that you include in a deck because the extra effort of accommodating its casting requirements make it worth it. I guess it is kind of a chicken and the egg situation. It really depends on the deck.
Ever since I started creating my cube about 2 years ago I have never understood why people count hybrids as gold cards. This, among many other factors, is why I do not use cube tutor to track my cube (I put it on tutor for display purposes but I track it in a custom spreadsheet). The best estimation of a hybrid is half one color half the other, which is how I track them in my spreadsheet (Deathrite Shaman is 0.5 Green cards and 0.5 Black cards). Obviously even this isn't perfectly correct. But it is more correct than counting Deathrite as a golgari card. It is definitively easier to cast than any green or black 1 drop.
Along the same lines, I consider Kird Ape to be a Gruul card. And Soulfire Grand Master to be 0.5 Boros cards and 0.5 Azorious cards.
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
Its mostly because its easier to catogorize the card for the designer, but yeah, I agree. Sometimes people will do it just because its creates more artifical space in the format--their green and white sections are overflowing, so they put finks in selesnya, to create up two slots in those colors.
Multi-colored cards that aren't strictly running multiple mana symbols in the CMC can be hard to track though, since they partially depend on how people use them. Sometimes its best not to be overly logical.
Multi-colored cards that aren't strictly running multiple mana symbols in the CMC can be hard to track though, since they partially depend on how people use them. Sometimes its best not to be overly logical.
Dom Harvey
Contributor
That is kind of funny because I am the exact opposite. I always feel like I need more room in my gold space. I find it very hard to narrow one of my guild sections down to just 7 or 8 cards. My favorite cards are always gold but riptide tells me I'm not allowed to run that many
Yes I considered this line of thinking when I made my original post. I almost said something to the effect of "a CD [sic] card is only easier to cast if you have an approximately equal number of lands of each color in your deck" in which case of course CD is easier to cast. Which is the only hypothetical that Jason appears to have explored in his post. But lets pretend you are playing a mostly "C" color deck with a splash of "D". Say you have 12 lands that produce 'C' and 5 that produce 'D'. In that case CD is always going to be harder to cast.
Maybe I am just bad at magic, but I feel like my scenario happens much more often in deck construction in a limited environment than Jason's. In which case your gold cards are more often than not going to be hard to cast.
Dom Harvey
Contributor
In a Cd deck (i.e. a deck that's predominantly C), sure, but a CD card can fit in a Cd or Dc deck whereas 1DD is likely off the table in Cd and vice versa
Now it seems that we do not only need a better way of quantifying difficulty of casting, but it also has to be adapted to each environment. I think monocolor (or almost monocolor) decks are very rare in my cube besides the omnipresent Red Deck Wins, so I tend to avoid multiple mana simbols of the same color below 4 CMC and also tend to think that XCD is pretty easy to cast.
Yes, I don't disagree with either of you on any particular point. Obviously most of what I am saying is going to be colored by my experiences with my cube and my playgroup. I have never seen a mono-color deck played from my cube. Never. I would say the most common is a 2 color deck with a splash of a 3rd.
Bottom line, if you have a CC card and a CD card, the CD card will only be easier to cast if you have exactly equivalent amounts of land. How often does that happen?
@Dom I guess you would have to use numbers to say what you mean. But if you are playing a CD deck with 10 C lands and 7 D lands a CC card will always be more castable than a CD card, right?
Bottom line, if you have a CC card and a CD card, the CD card will only be easier to cast if you have exactly equivalent amounts of land. How often does that happen?
@Dom I guess you would have to use numbers to say what you mean. But if you are playing a CD deck with 10 C lands and 7 D lands a CC card will always be more castable than a CD card, right?