I would argue that in constructed you usually figure out what deck someone is playing just by like, their Turn 1/2 plays anyways. The value of the information is in knowing whether specific cards from that archetype are among their holdings.
Card/Deck Single Card Spotlight
- Thread starter Dom Harvey
- Start date
I would argue that in constructed you usually figure out what deck someone is playing just by like, their Turn 1/2 plays anyways. The value of the information is in knowing whether specific cards from that archetype are among their holdings.
I'm a big fan of Gitaxian Probe in cube. I'll play it in most blue decks. Probe and pinpoint discard are pretty clutch in low-powered reanimator, as targets don't impact the board like Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur or Griselbrand do. Sometimes I'll play it in a G/R Berserker deck to give Become Immense fodder, bump an Abbot of Keral Keep, and let me know whether I have the green light to dump my hand for the kill.
Is this card just complete garbage? I'm having dreams of playing this in fast reanimator off a T2 shallow grave. At what point in cube history do people feel like this card become non-viable (or was it ever)? Because I feel like I need one more fatty for my new combo list and I keep testing things and I don't like any of them. Some are too good (Craterhoof Behemoth), some are just too narrow (Progenitus), some are just too boring (Hellkite Overlord).
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
My rational side wants to say garbage, but I really like what you're thinking. Reanimator combo, one hit, and than it self bins so the game can go on.
The only thing I don't like is that it looks punishing outside of that narrow interaction.
The only thing I don't like is that it looks punishing outside of that narrow interaction.
Bolas feels like garbage most of the time. Even in a control deck that can cast this or reanimated later, that upkeep is really bad and the discard trigger is pretty useless late game. I really like nostalgic stuff like this so I'm always trying to figure out how to make it work. Clearly you could make a meta where a 7/7 flyer with URB upkeep was a good card as base value, but that list is probably like pauper/peasant level of power?
Dom Harvey
Contributor
One of my oldest memories of Riptide Lab is Jason making fun of me for loving Magus of the Tabernacle
I'd have thought the information is most useful in Cube; in Constructed you usually know the rough contents of someone's deck after the first few turns and you know which cards are likely to occupy which roles (e.g. they have Lightning Strike and Searing Blood so I need to worry about burn when they have 2 mana open and a 4-toughness creature will live) so Probe doesn't give you much additional info. In Cube they are guaranteed to have a more diverse and less predictable spread of cards, and knowing the specifics helps a lot (e.g. they drew their Mizzium Mortars but not their Lightning Bolt, so I have to worry less about reach but my Courser of Kruphix isn't safe)
As a competitive player the logistics of Probe annoy me too - sitting there as the opponent writes down your hand, having to track what they saw and what they didn't - as well as the loss of suspense to the early part of the game
There are lots of possible reasons and most of them aren't directly related to Cube's merit as a competitive format: institutional inertia, the logistical difficulties of organizing physical Cube drafts for anything larger than Worlds (all but limiting it to one event per year), lack of translation to store-level play and lack of direct influence over booster/singles sales etc
I don't know if the views of Owen Turtenwald - which are famously strident - about Holiday Cube, which is more swingy than the vast majority of Cubes, are representative of how Cube would be received as a competitive format. In any case, pros have to play whatever's chosen as a competitive format; there's not much they could do about it.
I'd have thought the information is most useful in Cube; in Constructed you usually know the rough contents of someone's deck after the first few turns and you know which cards are likely to occupy which roles (e.g. they have Lightning Strike and Searing Blood so I need to worry about burn when they have 2 mana open and a 4-toughness creature will live) so Probe doesn't give you much additional info. In Cube they are guaranteed to have a more diverse and less predictable spread of cards, and knowing the specifics helps a lot (e.g. they drew their Mizzium Mortars but not their Lightning Bolt, so I have to worry less about reach but my Courser of Kruphix isn't safe)
As a competitive player the logistics of Probe annoy me too - sitting there as the opponent writes down your hand, having to track what they saw and what they didn't - as well as the loss of suspense to the early part of the game
Grillo Parlante said:
There are lots of possible reasons and most of them aren't directly related to Cube's merit as a competitive format: institutional inertia, the logistical difficulties of organizing physical Cube drafts for anything larger than Worlds (all but limiting it to one event per year), lack of translation to store-level play and lack of direct influence over booster/singles sales etc
I don't know if the views of Owen Turtenwald - which are famously strident - about Holiday Cube, which is more swingy than the vast majority of Cubes, are representative of how Cube would be received as a competitive format. In any case, pros have to play whatever's chosen as a competitive format; there's not much they could do about it.
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
That post was directed at the narrow argument that "because competitive players enjoy cube, they would support contemporary cube design being a competitive format." Owen's post shows that while he is capable of enjoying cube as a format, his overarching metric for the suitability of a competitive format are variance levels--an argument I've heard from other pros as well. It makes sense. The higher the levels of variance you have, the less individual decisions matter, the less individual decisions matter the less player skill matters, the less player skill matters the less likely the competition results are valid indicators of who deserved what ranking. This is a running theme throughout his criticisms or praise of formats. This is why I didn't just quote the holiday cube exerts, though they certainly support the underlying argument.
I've never seen a current cube design that I would consider suitable for serious competitive play. We all make compromises in our design decisions for purposes of nostalgia, entertainment, group preference, or a dozen other factors far removed from establishing a reliable player competency ranking. This also makes sense, because the purposes of our cubing sessions isn't to ascertain the player skill of our group of friends--its so everyone has fun, and its hubris to forget this. However, our longstanding design schism from MTGSalvation, I feel, sometimes makes it easy for us to get caught up in the vanity of our own creations. Yes our design focus was always to curtail the GRBS, but there is plenty of lingering nonsense that we will never be pressured to change, and that we are largely blind too because our cube sessions are over kitchen tables with recreational players that pretty much like anything fun when nothing is on the line. And thats fine, but we shouldn't forget where we are coming from, otherwise we sound like modern players waxing philosophical about how their pet modern would be a "great" pro tour format.
I think that how a truly competitive cube would look is an interesting topic; though I realize its unlikely it would ever be realized, if for no other reasons than the ancillary reasons both you and I noted above.
I played him in TSP draft when I was on Grixis Control. I though "when else would I have a chance to actually maindeck Nicol Bolas in limited?" Connecting a hit with Bolas became the goal of the draft, and I achieved it on my last match, with suboptimal play. He's terrible. I'm sorry. Maybe at Masques limited power level it could be playable.
I really don't understand this.
To me, Magic is inherently a high variance game. And I don't care what format you use as context either, it's never going to not be a high variance game because the mechanics are designed largely around randomness. You start with 7 from 40-60 cards and only get 1 more per turn (barring draw spells). Games can end in 4 turns, sometimes even faster (so you often see less than 25% of your deck). How exactly is that not always high variance? How many play decisions are there in an average game (decisions that matter)?
IMO, cube is magnitudes deeper than anything I experienced while building constructed decks. It's a lot less about matchups. There were plenty of times in constructed I'd play a deck and just have basically no chance against something I was facing. Where's the skill in that? All the work is done prior to playing the game (playing the meta).
One of the things Magic does really well is convince people playing it that they are making decisions that matter when really a lot of those decision don't. You can see this if you play a game against yourself. Look at both starting hands, a lot of times you know which deck will win the game before a single card is played based on what each deck does and what the starting hands look like.
Again, I'm willing to just accept people telling me that I didn't play competitively so I don't know what I'm talking about. That's certainly a possibility. I would guess the vast majority of people posting in these forums think they are better at Magic than they really are. And that would include me.
Dom Harvey
Contributor
The original Modern Masters was beloved by a lot of the Spikiest pros and you could build a Cube modelled on that set that doesn't have to serve any other masters (e.g. making Blood Moon/Chalice of the Void 'more affordable' for Modern). A thoughtfully designed Pauper/Peasant Cube has a lot of the qualities those players like in their favourite Limited sets without the dumb rares or filler cards. If you just wanted to design a product for high-level competitive play, it would be relatively easy to build a Cube that would enter the 'top X draft formats' lists.
I still feel like that "You Make the Cube" contest sucked away part of my soul.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
because of unspoken constraints, or because of the old "Doing something you like when someone asks makes it work"
Just by how much the whole thing felt like a farce. Dare to dream, etc.
And because it's like, MTGO is such a shitcan that it's borderline impossible to get a draft going on there unless WOTC hosts it.
I used to regularly draft on TappedOut and then whoever's cube it was that had a MODO version would distribute the cards. The only issue was getting people together by the end of it, but at the beginning there was a lot of interest in it and otherwise it went really well.
Really you should just do what the cool kidz do and draft on xmage; been doing that all week since I got my computer back and the software is honestly great. There's a discord group too for setting up drafts, and people organize them on reddit as well.
How easy is deckbuilding, etc?
With xmage? Very. And you can use your own lists to draft from, but you have to import it into a deck. Essentially you draft from a 'deck', but it's not a deck it's just your entire cube list. It has its cons, but it's free magic and a platform where you can draft cube literally every day, so there's that. Also unlike other free platforms it has a lot of the automated features of MODO, which are great in comparison to something like cockatrice which I used 5-7 years ago. (that hurt to type lol)
FWIW, it's better to plan your own xmage drafts or host smaller ones as most people don't want to try cubes they don't know--they'll just join the vintage/legacy cubes. I personally don't mind drafting those cubes--any port in a storm, nah mean--but I get people have things they like and don't like.
That's also why we're working on putting together the xmage cube drafting group:
https://groups.google.com/d/forum/xmage-cube-group
and the discord chat group:
https://discord.gg/4eHADtb
FWIW, it's better to plan your own xmage drafts or host smaller ones as most people don't want to try cubes they don't know--they'll just join the vintage/legacy cubes. I personally don't mind drafting those cubes--any port in a storm, nah mean--but I get people have things they like and don't like.
That's also why we're working on putting together the xmage cube drafting group:
https://groups.google.com/d/forum/xmage-cube-group
and the discord chat group:
https://discord.gg/4eHADtb
So what does a cube designed for serious competitive play look like? I am going to be moving to a new city and I'd like to run some cube tournaments to court friends so I'd like to move my cube in that direction when I expand it. I guess a fairly flat power level among cards and across archetypes is likely helpful? Or at least the removal of high variance oops-I-win cards. Would it be structured more like a regular limited format with a fair number of duplicates or singleton like your average MTGS cube?
It feels like by removing the bomb-rare aspect of retail limited cube has an easier time being more competitive, as long as you aren't running Sol Ring and Ancestral et al.
It feels like by removing the bomb-rare aspect of retail limited cube has an easier time being more competitive, as long as you aren't running Sol Ring and Ancestral et al.
I think it would, yes. It probably resembles something akin to one of Grillo's projects. Low powered rare list with a ton of synergy and overlap between archetypes and a pretty flat power level. You want a very high density of relevant decisions early in the game. That's probably the most important factor, IMO anyway. A game can't be based on skill if there are no opportunities for people to make mistakes. Along that thinking, I personally feel you'd want to de-incentivize deck strategies that just play themselves and almost force people into more complicated decks to gain a power advantage. Storm is a bad example because it's horribly degenerate and hurts the quality of your draft, but the deck itself is extremely complicated and hard to play correctly. You want decks that are hard to play to do the best in the hands of a good player. Make that your design focus and you'll have a very skill intensive format.
It would be very difficult to perfectly balance obviously. But mainly because you'd wind up with people feeling like it wasn't balanced due to losing, misreading drafts, just getting unlucky, etc and confusing the unavoidable variance in the game (or their own limitations as players) with flaws in the card pool. But I think it could be done with a group of serious players that were being objective on their play testing and feedback.
I love to see a group of professionals really put energy into this because if someone made a cube this good, I'd almost certainly copy it and run that instead of my own home-brews.
It would be very difficult to perfectly balance obviously. But mainly because you'd wind up with people feeling like it wasn't balanced due to losing, misreading drafts, just getting unlucky, etc and confusing the unavoidable variance in the game (or their own limitations as players) with flaws in the card pool. But I think it could be done with a group of serious players that were being objective on their play testing and feedback.
I love to see a group of professionals really put energy into this because if someone made a cube this good, I'd almost certainly copy it and run that instead of my own home-brews.
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
With magic printings how they are, I'm kind of imagining something very midrangy and interactive. Slow enough where you have time to work out your deck's kinks, but lots of activity on the ground to maintain a sense of game momentum. I think power level is less important than how condensed the game states feel.
I would also like them to stop making stupid printings/reprints like thoughtseize, that augment the game's existing negative variance. Making something like cycling evergreen would probably be good too.
I would also like them to stop making stupid printings/reprints like thoughtseize, that augment the game's existing negative variance. Making something like cycling evergreen would probably be good too.
So in general you aren't a fan of targeted discard? I find it to be a powerful effect that lets black impact the game in a fairly unique way, so I tend to like it. I guess it is pretty swingy in that it can put games away during the first few turns but becomes less and less useful as the game progresses.
What is a "condensed" board state? One in which each decision matters quite a lot? Is this generally more combat focused? Would this kind of list allow for more tap-out or draw-go style control decks? Are agro decks a thing in this kind of format?
What is a "condensed" board state? One in which each decision matters quite a lot? Is this generally more combat focused? Would this kind of list allow for more tap-out or draw-go style control decks? Are agro decks a thing in this kind of format?
Funny you mention Thoughtseize. I can see that contributing to negative variance, certainly. On the other hand, it's also a pretty highly skill intensive card. It's just a one for one and it doesn't impact the immediate board (so there's no tempo in the traditional sense). It's also sometimes difficult to know what to take, especially when faced with a hand full of goodness? And if your opponent's deck was built well and/or they mulligan'd correctly, one targeted discard should not ruin the game or set them back to the stone age. Some decks too are slow and really need this sort of disruption to even be viable. In a combo heavy list, many midrange decks simply lose without disruption.
Another key factor for me - which sets cube above other formats - is the singleton nature of it. You can look at any card banned in multiple formats, and with a few exception each and every one can be run in a cube list and not destroy the meta. You simply can't do as much with broken cards when you only have 1 copy and you have to run 22 other unique cards in your deck. That right there is a really great limiter that goes a very long way to dealing with a core problem with Magic (broken cards and/or degenerate synergy achieved from running multiples).
Another key factor for me - which sets cube above other formats - is the singleton nature of it. You can look at any card banned in multiple formats, and with a few exception each and every one can be run in a cube list and not destroy the meta. You simply can't do as much with broken cards when you only have 1 copy and you have to run 22 other unique cards in your deck. That right there is a really great limiter that goes a very long way to dealing with a core problem with Magic (broken cards and/or degenerate synergy achieved from running multiples).
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
I don't like 1 mana targeted discard, as it punishes people for taking mulligans, and represents a sort of one-sided forced mulligan itself.
Condensed formats are formats where games have short time horizons. For example, if you average game ends on turn 4, it means that the only activity that really matters is your turn 0-4 activity. There are certain things that have to happen on each turn cycle (turn 0 being your mulligan decision), that dictate whether a deck can be successful or not. The smaller the time horizon becomes, the more punishing sub-optimal turns become, and the more punishing sub-optimal turns become, the more of a game-decider negative variance becomes.
That was what owen was complaining about as regards Modern, and he has several more articles from that time period that go into more detail, specifically regarding the infect deck, and how games in Modern were being heavily dictated by the results of turn 0 mulligan outcomes.
You can create a heavily condensed format out of any rarity of cards, as its just a product of format clock. There was a while when I was playing pauper, for example, where it felt heavily like a turn 0 format to me. That was back when storm was legal, however, so I don't know about now.
Condensed formats are formats where games have short time horizons. For example, if you average game ends on turn 4, it means that the only activity that really matters is your turn 0-4 activity. There are certain things that have to happen on each turn cycle (turn 0 being your mulligan decision), that dictate whether a deck can be successful or not. The smaller the time horizon becomes, the more punishing sub-optimal turns become, and the more punishing sub-optimal turns become, the more of a game-decider negative variance becomes.
That was what owen was complaining about as regards Modern, and he has several more articles from that time period that go into more detail, specifically regarding the infect deck, and how games in Modern were being heavily dictated by the results of turn 0 mulligan outcomes.
You can create a heavily condensed format out of any rarity of cards, as its just a product of format clock. There was a while when I was playing pauper, for example, where it felt heavily like a turn 0 format to me. That was back when storm was legal, however, so I don't know about now.
I've found Thoughtseize too often results in non-games, so I've been happy to cut it. The argument that it provides a "unique angle to black" is a valid one, but I find the game enjoyable enough with those effects curtailed significantly, because the cost of keeping that "totally cool effect" is some number of non-games.
Most of the arguments that keep Thoughtseize in lists also apply readily to Sol Ring, but the key difference there is that Sol Ring very obviously results in non-games when played on T1, whereas Thoughtseize probably only does so around a quarter of the time when played T1, and it's such an "iconic" effect that the "fun factor" distracts from the times it just ruins an otherwise fun game of Magic.
Most of the arguments that keep Thoughtseize in lists also apply readily to Sol Ring, but the key difference there is that Sol Ring very obviously results in non-games when played on T1, whereas Thoughtseize probably only does so around a quarter of the time when played T1, and it's such an "iconic" effect that the "fun factor" distracts from the times it just ruins an otherwise fun game of Magic.
An early thoughtseize leading to a non-game to me feels like a bigger problem. Are people keeping shaky hands with literally one card they can play in the first 4 turns of the game? If your opponent has a deck with a reasonable curve, the best you can get out of a thoughtseize is trading 2 life for both of you to basically skip a turn. Against combo, it's likely much better than that. But in a midrange list? I'm not seeing it. I've run Thoughtseize in most of my cube iterations and it's a good card but that 2 life is a real drawback against aggressive decks and it's not enough disruption to maim anything except combo. And again, even if it's a really good discard spell (which it is), you have one bloody copy of it in cube.
I would prefer to run multiple copies of Blackmail instead of Thoughtseize anyways, as I feel that card feels a bit better on the receiving end. I wonder, however, how Thoughtseize is so much worse an offender than, say, Counterspell. They both trade 1 for 1,they both require the caster to make strategic decisions, they are both very annoying to their victims, they both have the possibility to end a game if they can hit a key piece. Counterspell (or even Mana Leak) however, is very relevant throughout every stage of the game and is much more of an auto-include across multiple archetypes (provided your mana base can support it) whereas targeted discard becomes weaker as the game progresses and is not an auto-include for all decks running black (Or at least I don't always pick them highly, could be wrong).
Anyways, sort of getting into the weeds on that one. Just pondering.
In condensed formats, what do the control decks look like? Are their most important cards the low cmc interaction cards that will let them neutralize threats throughout this condensed early game window? I find it tough to balance the more proactive vs. reactive strategies while prioritizing a velocity-focused environment. There are a lot of cards that are good at simply blanking aggressive strategies and so many of the cards control decks want are universally desired (removal, counters, disruption) while many of the agro tools are far more niche (sad tabling Savannah Lions). Especially with newer players, the "hard agro" deck doesn't "just come together" the way that midrange and control-y decks do. Are aggressive strategies naturally more powerful in condensed formats?
Anyways, sort of getting into the weeds on that one. Just pondering.
In condensed formats, what do the control decks look like? Are their most important cards the low cmc interaction cards that will let them neutralize threats throughout this condensed early game window? I find it tough to balance the more proactive vs. reactive strategies while prioritizing a velocity-focused environment. There are a lot of cards that are good at simply blanking aggressive strategies and so many of the cards control decks want are universally desired (removal, counters, disruption) while many of the agro tools are far more niche (sad tabling Savannah Lions). Especially with newer players, the "hard agro" deck doesn't "just come together" the way that midrange and control-y decks do. Are aggressive strategies naturally more powerful in condensed formats?