Having more time to think cube during the summer, I wanted to run by you fine folks an attempt at updating cube vocabulary.
In my experience, enablers, payoffs and glue cards are the most used terms to describe a card's role in a given cube. I think these terms are great at conveying what a card does, but I wonder if we can't push a little deeper now that cards are getting wordier and cubes are getting more refined.
The three words above mix up the intrinsic and contextual properties of a card. Enablers and Glue highly depend on what the rest of the cube looks like. Let's take a classic example
Faithless Looting does many things, including being a draw 2 enabler. However, if you don't have cards like Irencrag Pyromancer, you don't care about that specific angle. Instead, maybe you care about the discard aspect, which is context dependent. Using the Looting again, if you have a GY theme, but don't support spells matter, draw 2 or discard, thenwhat are you even doing Faithless Looting isn't really a glue card, it's just a GY enabler. An enabler is the factor of the relationship between a card and its environment.
Contextual
One way to view glue cards is asking this question
On the opposite end of the spectrum, a payoff is a payoff no matter the cube context. Look at this example
No matter the cube, the power level, the archetypes, Lotus Cobra is a land payoff. You play a land and get rewarded for doing so. However, by itself it isn't a ramp enabler. It's a ramp enabler because your cube has ramp payoffs.
So being an enabler and a glue card are contextual, whereas being a payoff is intrinsic. What I'd like to add are a couple of extra intrinsic card characteristics, that are true whatever the context.
Intrinsic
1. Because it lets us communicate more precisely. You say "Looking for a discard enabler". That doesn't tell me if you looking for Faithless Looting or Trading Post. Saying "Looking for an engine that is a discard enabler" limits things considerably. I also think that if you are able to narrow down what you want, it probably means a better understanding of what you are trying to build.
2. It lets you parse multifunctional designs more easily. Cards are increasingly more complex and it's easy to get lost in a web of synergies you might not even need.
vs
Both are engines and both are land payoffs. One bridges towards artifacts, the other towards elves and/or elementals.
3. Avoid the dreaded rails. The nightmare for a synergy cube is not having your archetypes communicate with each other. With the bridge identifier, you can objectively see if you connecting your themes.
Some examples,
- Is an engine (repeated resource generation)
- Is a bridge (between lands and artifacts)
- Is a payoff (for lands)
In my cube, he is also
- Is an enabler for the artifact archetype (artifact ETB + artifact sacrifice)
- A medium glue card
Note that I don't have any life gain payoffs, making that part of the card useless for synergy purposes.
- Is not an engine
- Is not a bridge
- Is a payoff (creature sacrifice and artifact sacrifice)
In my cube it is
- An enabler for the artifact archetype
- A medium glue card
- Is not an engine
- Is a bridge (between the GY and counters)
- Is a payoff (cards leaving the GY)
In my cube it is
- an enabler for the discard archetype and the persist combo
- a low glue card
The base rate, the rare archetypes it enables and the rare payoff it provides makes this a good card in my cube even though the "stats" don't look so hot.
Is it worth the time and effort to add this extra dimension to cube lingo? Maybe, maybe not. I can see people building databases that use the intrinsic characteristics of cards so you can find all the: lands -> artifact bridges or sort by engines for your slower controlling decks for example. Suggestions or other point of views are always welcome!
In my experience, enablers, payoffs and glue cards are the most used terms to describe a card's role in a given cube. I think these terms are great at conveying what a card does, but I wonder if we can't push a little deeper now that cards are getting wordier and cubes are getting more refined.
The three words above mix up the intrinsic and contextual properties of a card. Enablers and Glue highly depend on what the rest of the cube looks like. Let's take a classic example
Faithless Looting does many things, including being a draw 2 enabler. However, if you don't have cards like Irencrag Pyromancer, you don't care about that specific angle. Instead, maybe you care about the discard aspect, which is context dependent. Using the Looting again, if you have a GY theme, but don't support spells matter, draw 2 or discard, then
Contextual
- Enabler – provides archetypes with access to a resource or condition they rely on.
- Glue – broadly desirable across multiple decks.
One way to view glue cards is asking this question
Usually yes, but the archetypes become less consistent and less intertwined with the rest of the cube.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, a payoff is a payoff no matter the cube context. Look at this example
No matter the cube, the power level, the archetypes, Lotus Cobra is a land payoff. You play a land and get rewarded for doing so. However, by itself it isn't a ramp enabler. It's a ramp enabler because your cube has ramp payoffs.
So being an enabler and a glue card are contextual, whereas being a payoff is intrinsic. What I'd like to add are a couple of extra intrinsic card characteristics, that are true whatever the context.
Intrinsic
- Engine – repeatedly generates resources.
- Bridge – converts one resource into another.
- Payoff – rewards a condition or accumulated resource.
1. Because it lets us communicate more precisely. You say "Looking for a discard enabler". That doesn't tell me if you looking for Faithless Looting or Trading Post. Saying "Looking for an engine that is a discard enabler" limits things considerably. I also think that if you are able to narrow down what you want, it probably means a better understanding of what you are trying to build.
2. It lets you parse multifunctional designs more easily. Cards are increasingly more complex and it's easy to get lost in a web of synergies you might not even need.
vs Both are engines and both are land payoffs. One bridges towards artifacts, the other towards elves and/or elementals.
3. Avoid the dreaded rails. The nightmare for a synergy cube is not having your archetypes communicate with each other. With the bridge identifier, you can objectively see if you connecting your themes.
Some examples,
- Is an engine (repeated resource generation)
- Is a bridge (between lands and artifacts)
- Is a payoff (for lands)
In my cube, he is also
- Is an enabler for the artifact archetype (artifact ETB + artifact sacrifice)
- A medium glue card
Note that I don't have any life gain payoffs, making that part of the card useless for synergy purposes.
- Is not an engine
- Is not a bridge
- Is a payoff (creature sacrifice and artifact sacrifice)
In my cube it is
- An enabler for the artifact archetype
- A medium glue card
- Is not an engine
- Is a bridge (between the GY and counters)
- Is a payoff (cards leaving the GY)
In my cube it is
- an enabler for the discard archetype and the persist combo
- a low glue card
The base rate, the rare archetypes it enables and the rare payoff it provides makes this a good card in my cube even though the "stats" don't look so hot.
Is it worth the time and effort to add this extra dimension to cube lingo? Maybe, maybe not. I can see people building databases that use the intrinsic characteristics of cards so you can find all the: lands -> artifact bridges or sort by engines for your slower controlling decks for example. Suggestions or other point of views are always welcome!
