I think it's critical to realize that comparing Legacy to a cube where Noose Constrictor is the best two-drop isn't going to align on card analysis. Ideas from Legacy could port to that cube, but the cards have a much lower chance of doing so.
Sets (STX) Strixhaven Testing/Includes Thread
- Thread starter TrainmasterGT
- Start date
I suppose a lot of that comes from a difference in expectations out of the draft/build phase - I love drafting wacky, unexpected decks and I like seeing them crop up in my environment (I actually often try and support them if I find room). That being said, if I play that deck and it just gets stomped by a more pushed deck built around one of the cube's intentional synergies, I personally won't have that much fun. For some people, just the fun of drafting and playing something unorthodox is enough for them to have a satisfactory draft experience, and for others (me included) they won't have that much fun if the deck doesn't perform well, so I think that spectrum is part of how these varying designs can differ.
Those wacky unexpected decks are more planned for here and the power level is lowered to make them viable
I'm aware of that, but even in a Riptidian cube if you explicitly support white aggro and don't actively support black aggro, only incidentally, the black aggro deck is going to be considerably weaker than the white aggro deck (unless you forsake the concept of specific archetypes almost entirely)
sure, but the lower the power level and less emphasis on efficiency and speed, the more space there is for exploratory drafting and discovery
by wacky strategies I mean things like a simic ramp deck built around dredge and splendid reclamation more so than black aggro
I agree that those strategies can exist at a reasonable level, even for high powered cubes (although the decks will be less wacky). I may not have conveyed it well, but the intention of my point revolved more around explicit synergy decks that are 'expected' to come up even without any support, using black aggro as that was the comparison Zoss brought up in their post
The effectiveness of the actual 2/1 and 1/1 outputs can vary widely between cube types. In my cube they are almost useless for the deck they appear in (
), and the draw order restriction only adds to this lack of usefulness. I have a high density of spells available for use in spells decks. The fail state isn't that it doesn't trigger (even though that can happen in any deck obviously), it's that the triggers don't mean much, and the card is nigh-useless if drawn in a bad spot in the game arc. Game velocity doesn't stay that high in my late games so it doesn't keep gaining value for me.I need a card that provides consistency of effect across a broad spectrum of my normal play scenarios, and that can operate effectively in the boards my games develop. My go-to example magmatic channeler can come down at any point in the
decks play arc and either benefit from the game that has already happened, or contribute towards the game advancing. The 4/4 buffed body is optimized to break through my cube's P/T curve, and the 1/3 pre-buff body is optimized to block that same P/T curve without dying. It draws my decks cards to help them into that late game at a faster pace (also helpful in boros or gruul decks that take it).Peezy just doesn't fit into the broad context of how my games play, and doesn't provide the tools that I want my drafters to have.
I think that's simply a case of not running a deck that wants the card, not a statement against the power level of the card. It's unreasonable to expect people to evaluate a specific card in your exact context in a non cube-specific environment, so when people present their personal experiences and takes on the card it seems odd to discredit their arguments because they don't apply to your exact needs
Focusing on a card like Champion of the Parish makes more sense to me in making that context dependent argument. YP is different to me...even at a lower power level you could have things like retrace spells, firebolts, blast from the past, etc sitting in the yard to profit from. It definitely has more potential for late value than a lot of other cheap creatures
Froggy, I think we're on the same page here in that it's a lot nicer if these off-the-wall things are appropriately supported (which is what I think Inscho is getting at). That's one of the reasons why I've advocated for paying attention to Funch's (and your!) philosophies--you're really good at supporting your decks, which is something which we've historically not been quite as good at (IMO/or at least that I've not been as good at).
On a different tangent, I'd appreciate it if you actually quoted me when you quote me. If you're responding to something in particular, I can carry on that conversation. If you're talking about me in general, I say a lot of things, so I'm likely going to pick a different direction than you wanted to go, which can lead to difficulties in communication.
Yes, an archetype that is supported will be stronger than an unsupported archetype. However, rogue decks aren't always about power. Surprise is an advantage all to itself. Finally, the sheer joy of playing a rogue deck may be an even more powerful draw for some people than winning. See LSV and Storm (yes, he IS a pro and so he does tend to win; however, he would win more if he did something different and therefore we can conclude that winning is not his sole motivation. Also, no, I'm not implying that Storm is a rogue deck in the context of MTGO Vintage).
That's my bad, sorry
I'm simply trying to articulate that the inherent gameplan of trying to cast a 7 mana card is flawed in and of itself, that isn't something the mana system of Magic is built to do, or at least not without significant deckbuilding concessions, even in retail limited that's not something the decks are really capable of reliably doing, it just takes too much time to do it and the opportunity cost of having a bricked card for 90% of the game is too severe. As a player I do not care about a game designers intent or the interactions they wish to see within their game, I care about the playing the best I can to execute a gameplan that matches up well against what I can expect my opponents to be doing such that I can get me them W's. You can tell me that playing 7 drops is a plan I can have in your cube, and I'll tell you it's a plan I'm not interested in implementing because its more likely to result in a loss compared to other options that are present within the format's cardpool. Regardless of your decision to notpowermax the environment or your own personal aversion to min-maxing while deckbuilding, that has no baring on a drafters ability to spike the format and approach it as a format to be solved rather than explored; and someone trying to solve it will find themselves playing our favorite drafting subgame that we talk about on Brainstorming, "dodge the traps", ie: itentionally avoiding suboptimal cards and strategies in lieu of stronger ones to maximize their winrate. Maybe that's not your playgroup, if so I'm sure your design decisions suit their needs just fine, but I design for myself and my playgroup and as such I need to be concerned with a totally different dynamic where a flatter power band and tighter balance are useful tools to suit their needs.
Efficiency of rate is the primary method for how I evaluate cards, the rest of the stuff all boils down to subjective personal preferences that are impossible to quantify or disagree with, it's all Chocolate vs Vanilla ice cream; if you like a thing that I don't think is particularly powerful or effective that's fine, you're the king of your cube castle and I'm not gonna call the cube police on you for any design decisions you make, so keep doing whatever makes you and your drafters happy. No need to take what some random ass nerd on the internet said as some indicator that you're doing anything "wrong", only you know what you and your playgroup are looking for and I trust that you're making decisions that best keep their interests in mind.
That's not a difference between Classic Riptide and Cube Brainstorming Discord (CBD) philosophy in terms of outcome, that's a difference in individual design goals. Sirfunchalot's Cube is definitely focused on allowing players to draft decks that kind of feel like constructed decks, while a Cube like Sigh's is effectively allowing players to build decks that feel like improved versions of limited decks. However, I think that has little to do with the actual meat of each philosophy. You can make a Riptide Cube with decks that feel like constructed archetypes, and you could make a CBD Cube with decks that feel like limited decks. People on both platforms have. Both of these philosophies are based on Decks not Cards principles, the differences between the two mostly being how those decks fit together within the broader environment. I think my back and forth discussion with Onderzeeboot in my Cube's thread does a pretty reasonable hashing out the differences between the two ideologies, and where and how they overlap.
See, I think this is the actual source of the disagreement. Sigh is concerned with how these cards feel when they're not at their best, while Funch is more concerned with what value these cards can generate on average in decks that can support them. We can all go back and forth with numbers and hypotheticals about where a card is good or is not good, but the fact is that we're worried about different things. We have each come to different answers for the question: "Do we care if this card feels bad as a topdeck, regardless of power level?" Sigh does, Funch doesn't, it just means they have different gameplay feel priorities.
I don't think this is actually true. As you know, a lot of Riptide cubes need smoothing to ensure synergy decks are able to get all of their key peices. While this often manifests itself with lots of cycling cards, looters, card advantage engines, and eggs-type cards, those aren't the only ways to achieve smoothing. I assume a lower-power Riptide cube trying to use Young Pyromancer would have some sort of spells-matter theme, so playing a lot of cantrips is a perfectly viable option there. I see a lot of Cubers have just tried to build the smoothing into their archetypes as opposed to running more generically interchangeable cards that achieve the same goal. I think playing more cantrips and similar smoothing effects is something more Riptide cubers should try, actually.
I think you're spending a little bit too much time focusing on why cards are good in constructed, but not how that maps to Cube. It's totally possible to build a Cube with constructed compositions, and in those environments, the reason the card is good in constructed is going to map to that Cube, but that's not going to hold true for Cubes with compositions closer to booster limited.
For example, Dreadhorde Arcanist
I think it is prudent to make the destinction between the "powermaxing" that Sirfunchalot does and like traditional MTGO/MTGS style powermax. From my understanding of it, Funch isn't trying to play the most powerful cards or archetypes possible so much as he is trying to make sure his players are able to build the most powerful decks possible. It's decks not cards in a quite literal sense. A lot of cards that would get played in MTGO/MTGS style powermax Cubes are bad in his cube, and likewise a lot of cards that are good in his Cube would probably be very bad in those contexts. Skyshroud Elite is not one of the most powerful magic cards ever printed, but it's a pretty good filler aggressive 1-drop green creature for a singleton Zoo deck.
Yeah I agree.
Sorry if I'm scatterbrained in my writing and making little sense, I can clarify this at a later point when my mind is fully functional.
Also read these gosh darn posts OMG it would save so much time and effort.
I have spells decks, the rest of the cube pushes it out from operating effectively. It's not good in all contexts, which was the entire point of the original comments before everything went to shit. I very clearly defined why it doesnt work for me from the beginning, so why should I credit legacy and constructed decks repeatedly being brought in to the argument?
Most cards have nowhere near this level of variance. Cards like these have extremely delineated lines of: play this and then do as many of another specific thing only after it's played. That can fall apart much easier than your average ETB effect creature or french vanilla beater. This is only usually mitigated by duplication in constructed. But again, we aren't playing constructed here, and I dont build up huge rafts of redundant effects.
Last edited:
I never specified that hard casting the 7 drop was the main deck plan. Thats something you are extrapolating for yourself on a theoretical example of a 7 drop being in a hand turn 1 that wasn't even an example I came up with! And anyways my format sees 8+ drops being hard cast all the time. It's really not that hard or rare. In my example the 7 drop simply exists. Replace the example with a 5 drop if that works better for your sensibilities.I'm simply trying to articulate that the inherent gameplan of trying to cast a 7 mana card is flawed in and of itself, that isn't something the mana system of Magic is built to do, or at least not without significant deckbuilding concessions, even in retail limited that's not something the decks are really capable of reliably doing, it just takes too much time to do it and the opportunity cost of having a bricked card for 90% of the game is too severe. As a player I do not care about a game designers intent or the interactions they wish to see within their game, I care about the playing the best I can to execute a gameplan that matches up well against what I can expect my opponents to be doing such that I can get me them W's. You can tell me that playing 7 drops is a plan I can have in your cube, and I'll tell you it's a plan I'm not interested in implementing because its more likely to result in a loss compared to other options that are present within the format's cardpool. Regardless of your decision to notpowermax the environment or your own personal aversion to min-maxing while deckbuilding, that has no baring on a drafters ability to spike the format and approach it as a format to be solved rather than explored; and someone trying to solve it will find themselves playing our favorite drafting subgame that we talk about on Brainstorming, "dodge the traps", ie: itentionally avoiding suboptimal cards and strategies in lieu of stronger ones to maximize their winrate. Maybe that's not your playgroup, if so I'm sure your design decisions suit their needs just fine, but I design for myself and my playgroup and as such I need to be concerned with a totally different dynamic where a flatter power band and tighter balance are useful tools to suit their needs.
Efficiency of rate is the primary method for how I evaluate cards, the rest of the stuff all boils down to subjective personal preferences that are impossible to quantify or disagree with, it's all Chocolate vs Vanilla ice cream; if you like a thing that I don't think is particularly powerful or effective that's fine, you're the king of your cube castle and I'm not gonna call the cube police on you for any design decisions you make, so keep doing whatever makes you and your drafters happy. No need to take what some random ass nerd on the internet said as some indicator that you're doing anything "wrong", only you know what you and your playgroup are looking for and I trust that you're making decisions that best keep their interests in mind.
Fortunately my players know how to play without "spiking" everything. That's why they dont just play the top 3 CEDH decks all the time, and why they can have fun experimenting in a draft. Even if they did try, the power band is quite tight and the relative lack of baseline redundancies prevents any one person from assembling anything egregiously out of bounds.
If you can only evaluate a card on efficiency, that's unfortunate. Theres so much more depth to the game than that, and you can readily witness that by reading posts from all sorts of users here.
This sums up my take pretty well, I definitely don't care about "feel" of cards all that much as it takes a LOT for me to cut a card for any reason other than "card too strong" or "card too weak". The closest thing I can think of is a cards ability to remove agency from a game being an important factor, but very often the cards that do that also tend to map onto the "card too strong" pile in that Black Lotus sure as shit removes agency but it's also totally busted in half so that's not really surprising hahaha
I just kind of assumed this went without saying. Cards that mandate synergy to be good aren't good if you can't do the synergy. I wouldn't just randomly shove claim the firstborn into my cube as despite it being one of the most powerful enablers for Aristocrats ever printed, since my cube almost completely lacks ways to abuse this card in the narrow way it asks you to, it wouldn't make sense.
I bring up constructed formats when talking about these cards as the circumstances of the decks that play them are easily replicable a lot of the time in a cube context. Xerox decks exist in legacy, they can exist in cube too, even at lower power levels. If you support xerox, young pyromancer is busted. But even if you don't the card's still fine in most contexts as it was a first pickable bomb even in retail limited, saw standard play, and still to this day continues to see play in multiple eternal formats all of different power levels with different environmental contexts and speeds. You don't have to have a format that runs multiple copies of Brainstorm to make the card strong, even if the strongest cantrip in the format is something much weaker and closer to omen we're still looking at a fairly powerful interaction between two reasonable cards.
So I am kind of trying to do both of these things as I believe that powerful decks are entirely comprised of powerful interlocking cards that together can enact a specific gameplan. A URx tempo deck in my cube doesn't play fire ambush because it is an arbitrarily selected lower power level card that I've placed into my format to nerf the power of Red. Fire Ambush is played in these decks almost exclusively because the rate at which it does its thing is contextually still premium given the design restriction of the format's construction being a mostly singleton format that tries to support multiple drafters at the table playing decks that are interesting in having access to multiple flexible burn spells. What Fire Ambush does *is* more powerful than a lot of other more commonly chosen cube cards that do similar things because of its rate; 2 mana for 3 damage even at sorcery speed is a stronger effect than a card like Banefire is regardless of that card's ceiling value, because Fire Ambush is literally 3x as powerful at its floor than Banefire is at the same cost and games of magic are largely won and lost based on mana value exchanges.
Regarding cantrips, I'm specifically talking about blue ones (which is probably what you are going to be talking about in a YP deck). Grillo has made an abundance of arguments when he was here as to why and how this fundamentally shifts the balance of deck building towards blue and smothers other colors ability to compete in that arena. I cant just jam every preordain and serum visions variant I want; it would mess up a lot of what the other colors gain in utility by those not existing. If we are arguing that draw smoothing should exist in all colors, then yes absolutely. But that's not jamming cantrips for powering a YP spells deck.
If the card is included within the decklist, it's a plan for the deck. I tend not to randomly shove off-plan cards into decks "just in case" as that will lower my winrate and I want to win so if I have other better options that more suit my decks plan, I will do that to maximize my winrate. To your point about these sorts of cards being cast frequently, that is largely confirmation bias, we humans see things happen and then assume that because things went well in that time we remember that all of a sudden that it must be reliably true, and that sadly isn't the case. Now I haven't played your format, so I can't say with any degree of certainty that 7 or 8 mana cards are definitely unplayable or anything, but after looking over your list I find it highly unlikely that they're generically strong cards outside of big spell combo ramp decks trying to accelerate into them by earlier turns.
I'm glad that you and your playgroup have similar mindsets and you're able to find a gameplay experience that works for you. Myself and my paper playgroup, we're all mostly constructed grinders and the only edh we play is tier 1 cedh hahaha. I play T&T consult, another guy runs food chain first sliver, Kenrith + Zirda monolith combo, you get the picture. We like our Magic gameplay pretty spiky, but I totally get that that isn't everyone's cup of tea and I hope I'm not giving off the impression that I think it's wrong to enjoy the game in other contexts. So while my ability to view Magic through a more casual lens is mostly lost to time, I do love playing some Mario Kart from time to time despite sucking at it hahaha
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've seen Brainstorming cubes are much more focused on their power level floor, while Riptidian cubes tend to be more conscious of their ceiling.
This can cause a gap because the reason why one party considers a card to be not viable for inclusion is the reason why the other plays it.
This can cause a gap because the reason why one party considers a card to be not viable for inclusion is the reason why the other plays it.
I definitely can't speak to Riptide, but ceiling to floor delta is fairly important to quite a few Brainstorming folks, myself included. It's just as important to me when I exclude a card from my cube for being too weak as it is when I exclude companions, conspiracies and power for being too strong and great care is taken to ensure that the delta between those two things is quite small.
Total and complete opposite for me, I truly struggle to understand why the numbers on weak cards are as middling as they are and I frequently find myself wishing that WotC had just shaved a mana or two off the casting cost, added "etb draw a card", or given a couple extra points of stats where it could have mattered. I get incredibly excited by new pushed cards and I love seeing constructed formats get shaken up by the influence of new hotness.
Another thing that really interests me for lower power cards is that there are so many more cards in that part of the bell curve.
Sometimes I want to do something closer to powermax just because there are fewer cards to consider. It's what I did when I first started and it was pretty easy to go "This card is better than that card, I'll add it." and "Uh oh, that card is too strong, like I was worried about. I'll take it out."
The number of cards that are "not too bad" is really high. I get caught up considering the inclusion of most uncommons, a lot of commons, and any non pushed rare. It's often overwhelming and the post-COVID return with 50 new sets has my head spinning as I redesign.
EDIT: There's also more time in the games, giving an opportunity to additional strategies to consider.
Sometimes I want to do something closer to powermax just because there are fewer cards to consider. It's what I did when I first started and it was pretty easy to go "This card is better than that card, I'll add it." and "Uh oh, that card is too strong, like I was worried about. I'll take it out."
The number of cards that are "not too bad" is really high. I get caught up considering the inclusion of most uncommons, a lot of commons, and any non pushed rare. It's often overwhelming and the post-COVID return with 50 new sets has my head spinning as I redesign.
EDIT: There's also more time in the games, giving an opportunity to additional strategies to consider.