a) Based on the fact that I've seen some cube pundits advocate support for aggro in Blue, one theoretical answer is "all of them".
b) Based on the fact that some cube owners don't listen to the pundits, one theoretical answer is White, Black, Red, Green.
c) Based on the fact that the question of "do you support aggro in Green" seems to come up frequently, one theoretical answer is White, Black, Red.
d) Based on the above, I suppose, another possible answer is White, Blue, Black, Red. However, it does seem odd at first blush that Blue might support aggro while Green does not.
I tend to think in terms of 2-colour decks when I'm designing my cube, even though I'm fully aware that players will pretty much do whatever they want. The question isn't what can they do, but rather what do I encourage as a cube designer? (I aim for 2-colour decks to be easy, with 3-colour decks a definite possibility. Therefore, I'm designing for the "easy" case in the first instance when considering archetypes.)
So then, if the answer is a) then theoretically an aggro deck exists in all 10 colour pairs. Does this seem reasonable? Is this something that you want to actively support? On the one hand, I mean, why not support everything possible? But on the other hand, I'd like to provide adequate support for whatever archetypes I encourage and there are a number in addition to aggro.
To this end, I'm also interested in looking at what each colour brings to aggro. I'm quite happy to support archetypes that feel different from one another, but I'd like to avoid having a bunch of decks that are basically all the same.
:symw:: White brings some efficient 1-, 2- and 3-drops, a very little bit of evasion, and some protection (though this is partially on the way out as cards like White Knight, Silver Knight and Paladin en-Vec are disappearing from cubes). White also brings some efficient-ish removal, though it tends to have drawbacks that aren't ideal for aggro (e.g. life gain on Swords to Plowshares, additional land on Path to Exile) though it is often at least acceptable. Finally, White has the lion's share of team pump effects to make weenies more relevant in the late game (e.g. Glorious Anthem, Mirror Entity, Soltari Champion, etc.). The card Armageddon (and, in those cubes that can afford it, Ravages of War) seems to be a critical card in defining viable White-based aggro decks in cube.
:symu:: If aggro is supported, Blue brings mostly reasonably efficient fliers plus bounce for tempo and countermagic to protect the early threats. Because of this contribution, Blue tends to be the defining colour in "tempo" or "aggro-control" archetypes.
:symr:: Red brings a few efficient 1-drops, some efficient 2-drops, and a fair number of "all-in" creatures that provide highly efficient one-shot (or two-shot) effects (e.g. Hellspark Elemental, Hell's Thunder, Keldon Marauders. Red also obviously provides 2 metric tonnes of burn, which is probably the single most "aggressive" effect available to aggro decks. Depending how a cube is designed, Red can also provide varying amounts of land destruction as a form of disruption.
:symg:: Green can provide a few efficient 1-drops (e.g. Jungle Lion, Pouncing Jaguar) and a couple of efficient 2-drops (e.g. Tarmogoyf obv., Strangleroot Geist), plus some utility on early drops. It can provide a little bit of disruption in the form of Plow Under. What else does it bring to the table?
So, what's different? All colours except Blue seem to provide 1- and 2-drops, though Green appears to be lagging on numbers. Whereas Blue offers something a little different - reasonably efficient fliers.
All of the colours except Green seem to provide an additional element which can be used for disruption or at least to give an aggro deck late-game reach.
Green seems to be the colour least equipped to support a strong aggro archetype. Early on, Evan Erwin wrote an article tagging R/G aggro as one of the most effective cube archetypes. His example cards were the likes of Boggart Ram-Gang, Giant Solifuge, Rumbling Slum and Tattermunge Maniac but most cubes don't seem to run these cards anymore.
What colours do you think should actively support aggressive strategies? Where has my analysis gone awry?
My cube is one where blue "aggro" is supported, but green is not. The reason I have aggro in quotation marks is that blue gets tempo cards, not traditional 2 power 1-drops and efficient beaters. Here is my blue aggro package:
Dungeon Geists - It's actually a 3/3 flier that taxes their resources. A classic tempo card.
Force Spike - In order for tempo to work, you need to be ahead in the early game. Cards like Force Spike can help this, especially since blue doesn't get 1-drop creatures that are good for tempo.
a) Based on the fact that I've seen some cube pundits advocate support for aggro in Blue, one theoretical answer is "all of them".
b) Based on the fact that some cube owners don't listen to the pundits, one theoretical answer is White, Black, Red, Green.
c) Based on the fact that the question of "do you support aggro in Green" seems to come up frequently, one theoretical answer is White, Black, Red.
d) Based on the above, I suppose, another possible answer is White, Blue, Black, Red. However, it does seem odd at first blush that Blue might support aggro while Green does not.
I tend to think in terms of 2-colour decks when I'm designing my cube, even though I'm fully aware that players will pretty much do whatever they want. The question isn't what can they do, but rather what do I encourage as a cube designer? (I aim for 2-colour decks to be easy, with 3-colour decks a definite possibility. Therefore, I'm designing for the "easy" case in the first instance when considering archetypes.)
So then, if the answer is a) then theoretically an aggro deck exists in all 10 colour pairs. Does this seem reasonable? Is this something that you want to actively support? On the one hand, I mean, why not support everything possible? But on the other hand, I'd like to provide adequate support for whatever archetypes I encourage and there are a number in addition to aggro.
To this end, I'm also interested in looking at what each colour brings to aggro. I'm quite happy to support archetypes that feel different from one another, but I'd like to avoid having a bunch of decks that are basically all the same.
:symw:: White brings some efficient 1-, 2- and 3-drops, a very little bit of evasion, and some protection (though this is partially on the way out as cards like White Knight, Silver Knight and Paladin en-Vec are disappearing from cubes). White also brings some efficient-ish removal, though it tends to have drawbacks that aren't ideal for aggro (e.g. life gain on Swords to Plowshares, additional land on Path to Exile) though it is often at least acceptable. Finally, White has the lion's share of team pump effects to make weenies more relevant in the late game (e.g. Glorious Anthem, Mirror Entity, Soltari Champion, etc.). The card Armageddon (and, in those cubes that can afford it, Ravages of War) seems to be a critical card in defining viable White-based aggro decks in cube.
:symu:: If aggro is supported, Blue brings mostly reasonably efficient fliers plus bounce for tempo and countermagic to protect the early threats. Because of this contribution, Blue tends to be the defining colour in "tempo" or "aggro-control" archetypes.
:symr:: Red brings a few efficient 1-drops, some efficient 2-drops, and a fair number of "all-in" creatures that provide highly efficient one-shot (or two-shot) effects (e.g. Hellspark Elemental, Hell's Thunder, Keldon Marauders. Red also obviously provides 2 metric tonnes of burn, which is probably the single most "aggressive" effect available to aggro decks. Depending how a cube is designed, Red can also provide varying amounts of land destruction as a form of disruption.
:symg:: Green can provide a few efficient 1-drops (e.g. Jungle Lion, Pouncing Jaguar) and a couple of efficient 2-drops (e.g. Tarmogoyf obv., Strangleroot Geist), plus some utility on early drops. It can provide a little bit of disruption in the form of Plow Under. What else does it bring to the table?
So, what's different? All colours except Blue seem to provide 1- and 2-drops, though Green appears to be lagging on numbers. Whereas Blue offers something a little different - reasonably efficient fliers.
All of the colours except Green seem to provide an additional element which can be used for disruption or at least to give an aggro deck late-game reach.
Green seems to be the colour least equipped to support a strong aggro archetype. Early on, Evan Erwin wrote an article tagging R/G aggro as one of the most effective cube archetypes. His example cards were the likes of Boggart Ram-Gang, Giant Solifuge, Rumbling Slum and Tattermunge Maniac but most cubes don't seem to run these cards anymore.
What colours do you think should actively support aggressive strategies? Where has my analysis gone awry?
Cheers.
I think all cube should support red and white aggro and at least one of the other three colors. I personally support aggro in white, red and green. I think blue is the best color not to support because it has so many good cards for control and the artifact deck that I don't want to dillute it with aggro cards. As for running black or green, I chose green because I think the disruption part is better than the black disruption, it can go midrange aggro nicely, and also that it's gold cards are more aggro than blacks gold cards. By that I mean the gold cards that pair with the aggro colors like loam lion, kird ape and qasali pridemage are all sweet aggro cards where as the black gold cards that pair with those colors are more things like vindicate, lingering souls, redcap and bitblast, which play more more midrange or control.
That being said I think an argument could be made to put aggro in black and not in green because the black aggro creatures are better and black has maybe less other things open to it. Either way I definitely think that limiting aggro to 2 colors is a bad idea.
I don't support aggro in blue. I find the blue aggro guys to be underwhelming and the control cards too good to cut. I'm happy with blue being the control color because it's so good at it but has cards to support aggro and tempo builds.
I'm a fan of green aggro. It has a number of good 1-drops and it's 2-drops are either resilient (the boas) or bigger than is reasonable for the mana (Albino Troll, Tarmogoyf). It's got a few hasty guys and disruption in the form of Plow Under and sex monkey (and friends). I find when drafting green aggro, you are most likely doing RG or sometimes BG. Also, in green aggro decks I'm more willing to go a little higher on my curve for stuff like Indrik Stomphowler, Thornling, or Spiritmonger.
I agree that at least three colors should support aggro and prefer that four do so. Remember that supporting aggro in a color doesn't have to mean nerfing everything else that color does. Green still does great work in in midrange in my cube, and white is a seriously good control color.
I think all colors should be able to support a tempo-oriented deck, even if it's not necessarily aggro. Red and White are predestined for aggro in its purest form: one mana, two power to the brim, removal, burn and, you know, just the critical density are pretty much given in these colors. These colors are primarily aggro.
Black has been getting 1 mana 2/X lately, meaning that it is fully capable of supporting full-fledged aggro decks nowadays. But black can also go a slightly slower, more disruption-heavy route, relying more on two- and three-drops as well as the occasional four- or five-drop. Although it's slower, it still tries to win before your opponent can do anything constructive.
Green has a certain amount of traditional aggro support, but the lack of (a great number of) two-power one-drops is notable. The two-drops is where it gets juicy. Green is not so much of an aggro color, but its tempo-oriented archetype is ramp, where you want to be a turn or two ahead of your opponent.
Last but not least, there's blue. Blue has traditionally been a control color ever since, but there are enough cards to support a tempo archetype as well. It is a lot less fast than, say, a RW aggro, but it is more resilient, can react more to what your opponent does. meep's list is a pretty good starting point.
In conclusion, don't try to squeeze a bunch of aggro creatures in every color, but I would try to give each color the tools to unfold its very own and unique style of tempo.
Specialities about the cube: U tempo, B aggro, R slow-ish are supported. G aggro is not.
Currently trying to support tokens in all colors but blue, in different ways: W pumps them, B sacrifices them, R suicides them, G has decent-sized ones.
cube list outdated
*literal C/U definition according to gatherer
**some cards are banned. Library of Alexandria, Land Tax, Sol Ring.
White and Red should support it pretty heavily. Black should support it with what's available, so that B/X aggro can be forced if you want to. Green should have some so that it can function as a support color for aggro more efficiently, and enable Nacatl and friends for Zoo decks. Blue is so good that the universally powerful cards can be used in every archetype (including aggro when desired) and X/u tempo/aggro decks will fall together naturally. In larger cubes where the critical mass of 1 and 2-drop creatures in the other 4 aggro colors are lower by percentage, I would suggest bolstering aggro by bringing in a dedicated aggro/tempo package into blue.
Great thread! There is a lot of useful information here.
What exactly is aggro, anyway? The answer to that question is quite relevant for this discussion. The posters above me make a distinction between what I paraphrase as "aggressive strategy" and "traditional/true/hard aggro". I like that a lot, because it seems to be very successful at avoiding some of the traditional heated debates when blue and green "aggro" is concerned.
If I use "aggressive strategy" as a broader term that incorporates not only the traditional true hard aggro decks, but also tempo-oriented decks and aggressive midrange decks, then here is what my respective colors have to offer for aggressive strategies:
White: A lot of one and two mana creatures to get on the board early, very good 3 and 4 mana creatures, spot removal and tap effects to push the damage through, anthems to win the creature battles and some disruptive elements (well, Armageddon at least). White can form the backbone of an aggressive deck, and even mono white is possible (that does not happen often, though, because splashing for Ajani Vengeant and 1-2 burn spells is more common).
Blue: Very good tempo cards, a few good creatures and some that are less good, disruption in the form of two mana counterspells, Crystal Shard and Opposition. As an aggressive deck, blue cannot stand on its own, it does need a backbone of early creatures from one of the other colors. It is a really good secondary color for aggressive decks, though.
Black: A lot of one and two mana creatures to get on the board early, removal on 3-4 mana creatures and spells to push the damage through, hand disruption and some other ways to lock the opponent out (Braids, Cabal Minion, Nether Void). Black can form the backbone of an aggressive deck, and even mono black is possible but typically you draft at least one card you really want to splash for.
Red: A lot of one and two mana creatures to get in the board early, hasty or disruptive 3-4 mana creatures, and a lot of burn that doubles as removal to clear a path and as reach. Some land destruction as disruption. Red can be the backbone of an aggressive deck, and mono red is not uncommon, because if you can get enough burn spells you often don't really want to splash for anything - rather you are happy with a very consistent mana base and play every colorless-producing land coming your way that can attack the opponents mana or that doubles as a threat.
Green: A lot of mana acceleration at one and two mana, something you cannot get in colorless in my cube. Solid creatures all up the curve and the potential to drop them very early. Some disruptive creatures and Plow Under to slow down the opponent, but often green just buries the opponent in hard to handle threats until he is overwhelmed. Green can be the backbone of an aggressive midrange deck, and mono green starts to become a thing. This is because quite a few cards care about being green (Natural Order, Green Sun's Zenith) or about having forests in play (Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary).
So aggressive strategies are possible in all two color pairs, and what I like best, they all feel a bit different.
Ok, great responses so far! Thanks to everyone who's responded to this point. Sorry in advance for the long post...I'm prone to those and not likely to change anytime soon.
@Konfusius: I agree that definitions are maybe important here. Based on the responses so far along with my own understanding, I think it might be useful to create distinctions as follows:
Aggro: Critical mass of undercosted (high power to mana cost ratio) 1- and 2- drops. An aggro deck needs more cogs, but this seems to be the factor that distinguishes a colour that contributes to aggro from one that doesn't. White and Red are the consensus here, with Black reaching critical mass rather recently and Green offering a little something without perhaps having really the critical mass/quality at 1 CMC.
Tempo: Basically, what Blue does. Bounce, countermagic, some evasive pressure from the mid-game. As a result, in future I'll refer to "aggressive Blue decks" as "U/x Tempo".
Midrange: Outclassing the opponent on threat quality starting in the midgame. Again, a midrange deck needs more cogs, but colours contributing midrange creatures are strongly lead by Green, along with Black and pretty much all of the other colours. Interestingly, some people seem to refer to starting on a mana elf and getting good midrange creatures into play a turn or two ahead of schedule as "aggro", but I would consider this approach to be a midrange strategy, using ramp in the early game to advance quickly to the midgame (another approach, of course, being using disruption of various kinds to get to the midgame). (I'd also distinguish this from ramp/ramp/ramp/game-winning fatty or X-spell, which I'd refer to explicitly as a Ramp strategy).
@rantipole: The description you give of going higher on your curve for those 5-drops you've listed to me is the very definition of midrange. Just because your deck started on turn one doesn't change that for me. Not trying to pick a fight, just distinguishing that for me this isn't aggro.
Not sure if everyone would agree, but this would help me to distinguish.
@meep98324: Thanks for that! I agree with your definition (see above ;)). I like your "Tempo Package". I'm actually running most of those cards already and actually own all of the rest (except for Tamiyo, the Moon Sage obv. and Vexing Sphinx), so I'll likely try to work the rest in. (Currently missing Coralhelm Commander, Wake Thrasher, Dungeon Geists, Riftwing Cloudskate which was removed a few months back, Standstill, and Vexing Sphinx which is the only one I'm slightly dubious on. I'll likely make a post in my cube thread seeking advice for what to remove, since, as others have stated, Blue does have a lot of sweet control cards.
From a design perspective, I'm very keen for Green to have a bit of a unique identity, and focusing on the ramp/midrange aspect seems like the most obvious route and something I'd like to try. (I mean, it's pretty easy to get to 8 1-drop mana accelerating creatures if you want to go that route).
One observation that acts as an argument against dropping Green aggro entirely is that people just seem to love them some Kird Ape and some Wild Nacatl. I haven't even been running Nacatl but perhaps I should. These cards only go in certain decks but people do seem to try to make those decks happen. (As an aside, I don't run the ABUR dual lands and I'm wondering whether the lack of Taiga and Savannah could hold my cube back from properly supporting these). But even if you do run these particular cards, does that mean that you must supply the Green 1-drops? I mean, most of them are meh in an aggro deck anyway, just filler.
Obviously, a lot of people still support aggro in Green, but I guess one thing that I hadn't considered was just allowing it to find it's natural home as a support/secondary colour in an aggro deck.
Question: Which of the Green 1-drops would you consider crucial to supporting Green aggro even as a supporting colour?
...
What about another approach: don't bother with the Green 1-drops but support Green aggro cards explicitly in the gold sections? This was actually my original goal but it has gone off-track. To me this would mean something like having an R/G section running cards like Kird Ape obv., Bloodbraid Elf (more midrangy), but also maybe bring back some combination of Boggart Ram-Gang, Giant Solifuge, Tattermunge Maniac, Burning-Tree Shaman, etc. G/W section would have cards like Watchwolf (recently removed), Loam Lion, etc.
So, even if Green itself just support aggro as best it can, without trying too hard, the gold sections could help support it. I've seen people draft X/g decks a number of times where the only Green spells are gold cards anyway.
@rantipole: The description you give of going higher on your curve for those 5-drops you've listed to me is the very definition of midrange. Just because your deck started on turn one doesn't change that for me. Not trying to pick a fight, just distinguishing that for me this isn't aggro.
No problem. I don't consider differences of opinion picking a fight until it's done in a douchey way. There was no douchery in your post, so we're all good.
To clarify what I said, I'd still consider it an aggro deck if the curve was as you describe--mostly 1- and 2-mana creatures with some burn/disruption/removal--and then one (or at most two) 5-mana creature or spell (Plow Under plus the cards I mentioned earlier).
That's the second time I've seen the argument here that having 5 drops is by definition not aggro, I personally don't believe in that theory but was curious if that's a general opinion?
As for green aggro, green is entirely a support color for aggro in my cube, and the strongest cards for it's aggro leanings are multicolor (Kird Ape, Loam Lion, Wild Nacatl, Bloodbraid Elf) in fact the only time it really shows up is Naya or R/g.
Also for those interested there was an article on channelfireball today that spent most of it's length talking about which colors should be able to support aggro as a near mono color deck, spoilers it only liked red for that.
Spoiler: Aggro decks don't always lose if the game lasts past turn 6 or 7. With that in mind, it's nice to have a 5-drop that can give you reach. Memory Jar is a great aggro curve-topper. Tamiyo, the Moon Sage will go in my Blue based aggro decks. I think most people would run Siege-Gang Commander in their aggro decks as well.
As for green aggro, green is entirely a support color for aggro in my cube, and the strongest cards for it's aggro leanings are multicolor (Kird Ape, Loam Lion, Wild Nacatl, Bloodbraid Elf) in fact the only time it really shows up is Naya or R/g.
Also for those interested there was an article on channelfireball today that spent most of it's length talking about which colors should be able to support aggro as a near mono color deck, spoilers it only liked red for that.
I think you meant to put "spoiler: don't listen to this article...in fact, don't read it".
Green aggro is definitely very often zoo variety (in addition to what you listed: Tarmogoyf, Rancor, Geist, and Vengevine are all great) but we still occasionally see some weird/fun combinations.
I think this speaks to an issue that all cube owners have to deal with at a certain point. How much do you want to tell your players what to play, and how much freedom do you want them to have to experiment with archetypes and colors?
Can't speak for Drana or Archon because they don't live in my cube, but Stomphowler is a fine curve-topper for aggro. You get a Naturalize and a 3-mana 4/4. Not too bad. It can really help aggro out by preventing control/midrange from stabilizing by dropping Moat, Disk, Deed, Razormane, or a Sword.
I think you meant to put "spoiler: don't listen to this article...in fact, don't read it".
Basically, that said it seemed very relevant so I figured I'd at least link it and let people make up their own minds.
I'm beginning to think that he might have a point about Black aggro though, I can't remember black being the base color in an aggro deck that had a good winning percentage.
Before you react to that and say I'm not doing it right, Black aggro has been insane when paired with Red or White just not support the awesome Geralf's Messanger on turn 3 every single time levels of Black.
Basically, that said it seemed very relevant so I figured I'd at least link it and let people make up their own minds.
I'm beginning to think that he might have a point about Black aggro though, I can't remember black being the base color in an aggro deck that had a good winning percentage.
Before you react to that and say I'm not doing it right, Black aggro has been insane when paired with Red or White just not support the awesome Geralf's Messanger on turn 3 every single time levels of Black.
Mono black aggro can be a powerful deck, but rarely is, which is why I don't include cards that only are cube worthy in mono black decks. This seems to be the norm here (and most places).
In my cube I primarily support R,W and B aggro (in that order). In green I focus on ramp as the main strategy, but that doesn't mean you can't make a good GX tempo/aggro deck. Likewise with XU tempo/aggro decks - most often in the form of RU burn decks.
I think all colors can support aggro if you want them to. It's just about how you build the colors. I've chosen to focus on green ramp, because I wanted to try something different than the green mediocre (imo) two power one mana creatures. So far me and my playgroup have been really happy about this change.
I think this speaks to an issue that all cube owners have to deal with at a certain point. How much do you want to tell your players what to play, and how much freedom do you want them to have to experiment with archetypes and colors?
This is an excellent point, and I guess I have a couple of ways that I think about it:
1. I definitely don't want to tell my players anything about what they should draft. That's why I prefer these cube design discussions be separate from my cube thread - most of my group don't read the thread anyway, but even if they do, I don't want to tell them what to draft. (Obv. they can read these other threads but that's when they choose the red pill for themselves. ;))
2. That being said, as a cube designer you're responsible for the cards that are available to players. They can only draft what you put in the cube. So every inclusion and exclusion is a design decision, regardless of how much thought you actually put into it.
3. Given that players may have limited information about "what's good" in cube (this is quite obviously group dependent), they must place their faith in the fact that you as the cube designer won't lead them astray. If they see Savannah Lions and Isamaru, Hound of Konda, then they're going to expect that White-based aggro decks are at least viable. If those are the only two White 1-drops in your cube, then you've broken their trust by implying an archetype is available which isn't.
Ok, so what does this mean? It means to me that I want to know what's in my cube and why. I fully admit that I started my cube just over a year ago and basically scrambled to get cards and copy what others on this forum were doing. But now my designer side is kicking in and I'm looking very closely at what I'm supporting and how that will be perceived by my players.
I'd like to squeeze as much into it as possible to allow for exploration. This is why I'm currently on a mission to map out all of the archetypes that I'd like to support, and then take a closer look at those and decide how many I can actually fit in.
The other option, I believe, is to throw a bunch of awesome cards into a box and explore the possibilities with your players. I get the feeling that this is where Cube started, and why some cubers still insist that Cube should simply be nothing but the very best cards. if this is the case, then I don't think you'd do anything in terms of design - not even laying out "sections" or doing any kind of colour balancing, etc. You'd just have a box of cards and what's best is what's best. There is a certain frontier spirit about this approach...but I design software for a living and I can't possibly just leave it as a box of "good stuff" without any structure. So, the design approach is the one for me and my task is to design as much opportunity for exploration into it as I can.
Is it a double-post if my last one was 12 hours ago? Anyway...
As part of this analysis, it might make sense to look at the numbers more directly. Can we answer this question:
How many aggro 1-drops do you need in your cube?
What about per colour that supports aggro?
2-drops are also important and might be worth running the numbers on, but my gut tells me that there are "enough", and that the 1-drops are the limiting factor. Interestingly, this line of analysis could potentially give us an indication of the maximum cube size that can adequately support this definition of aggro (which will increase over time as more aggressively costed 1-drops become available).
Ok, so how do you do this? This is my first attempt.
Assumptions
a) Aggressively costed (i.e. power > CMC) 1-drops are a critical factor in defining an aggro deck. The primary purpose of this is to apply pressure to the opponent from the opening turn.
b) Since this is the resource that appears to be in shortest supply, it will be the limiting factor.
c) While Cube is a Limited format, from a design perspective the goal is to allow players to draft and build Constructed-style decks (but only if they want to ;)). This means that we can look to successful Constructed decks of a similar archetype as a basis for comparison.
Steps
Step 1.
Depending on the format, a typcial Constructed aggressive deck (e.g. Zoo) will run anywhere from 8-16 aggressive 1-drops (in a 60-card deck). The level of aggression is roughly correlated to this number. 8 only provides a 65.4% probability of having a 1-drop in your opening hand, while 16 provides a 90.1% of the same. From personal experience, I think that 8 is too few, and that a successful number tends to be 10-12. (Validated this against a couple of tournament winning zoo lists). 10 provides 74.1% probability of having a 1-drop in your opening hand.
Step 2.
To find the equivalent number in a 40-card deck, we simply find the number that provides the closest to 74.1%. In a 40-card deck, 6 1-drops provides a 71.1% chance of having one in your opening hand, while 7 provides a 77.1% chance. For the purposes of this analysis, I'll say therefore that the prototype aggro deck wants 7 1-drops.
Step 3.
So, for every aggro deck that could be drafted, you'll need about 7 1-drops in the draft. Ignoring variance for a minute (see step 4), if you have 8 drafters and a 360-card Cube (meaning all cards are available in the draft), then you need to determine how many aggro decks you want available in a given draft. Of course, this doesn't mean that this many decks will be drafted, but does indicate the number of 1-drops you would need. Let's say you want n aggro decks available in the draft. This means that you need n * 7 aggressive 1-drops. I'll say that I want 3 aggro decks in my 8-person draft, so I need at least 21 1-drops in the draft.
Step 4.
What happens if the entire cube is not drafted? I'll take the example of a 450-card cube with 8 people drafting. This means that 360/450 cards are available in the draft. If you still want n aggro decks, then you still need n * 7 1-drops in the draft. So then how many do I need in my 450-card Cube?
360/450 = 21/x
Solve for x...x=26.25
I need 26-27 aggressive 1-drops in my cube. Of course, the split won't always be exactly this ratio. Sometimes there will be more or less available. You have two options: You can add more 1-drops than the calculated minimum to try to ensure that there are at least enough available most of the time, or you can accept that sometimes there will be 2 aggro decks available and sometimes there will be 3 (or whatever you calculated for). That's the variance.
Step 5.
It's all well and fine to know that you need X 1-drops, but how should these be divided by colour? It's probably not viable to expect the lone aggro drafter to put together a 4-colour deck to make it happen.
My own principle is to assume that the mana is good enough to run 2-colour decks fairly easily. I also don't personally plan to guarantee to my players that mono-X aggro will be supported. On the flipside, if a player wants to run Naya Zoo, that's fine but I don't think you necessarily need to do anything to support that other than make the mana available.
This means that the number of aggro decks that you want to support should be divided across the colours in which you want to support aggro. For the purposes of this calculation, I think that you need to include the Blue-based tempo decks, because if they're paired with an aggro colour for efficient 1-drops, then they'll be pulling from your the same pool. In fact, since Blue doesn't really have any aggro 1-drops (or maybe Phantasmal Bear), you might need the second colour to provide the full complement.
So, then, for every 3.5 1-drops you have in a given colour which are available in a given draft, you can support half of a deck. So if a 360-card cube with 8 drafters has 7 White 1-drops, 4 Black 1-drops and 3 Red 1-drops, then your Cube can roughly support 2 aggro decks. Further, you can expect that either one will be mono-White and the other will be Black/Red, or both will be White/X.
I suppose in an ideal world I'd see something like 2 aggro decks, 2 aggro control decks, 2 midrange decks and 2 control decks in an 8-person draft. These numbers are very rough and I wouldn't want it to always be exactly the same, but the kind of tells me that I'd really need about 28 1-drops in a draft!
Adjustments
There are other factors that can affect the numbers. For example, some players might draft 1 or 2 1-drops but not see anything else to support aggro (cut-off) so they might abandon that plan. That means that those picks are stranded in a non-aggro deck or sideboard, and are not available to the other players drafting aggro. It might be worthwhile erring on the side of greater than the minimum calculated.
On the other hand, you might not want it to be too easy, either. Part of drafting is knowing that resources are limited and that you need to know what to prioritise. If 1-drops are abundant, then drafters will not need to prioritise them as much.
Reverse Analysis
Now I'll look at my cube to figure out what I can support. From my current list:
White: 5 (not counting Mother of Runes...this is part of another whole discussion around what actually counts :))
Blue: 0
Black: 5
Red: 3 (not counting Mogg Fanatic, Grim Lavamancer or Spikeshot Elder...would you count those? This also tells me that I need Goblin Patrol back desperately!)
Green: 3 currently, but just cut some.
Ugh. Based on these numbers, I might get 2 aggro decks in but they're likely to be a bit anemic in this area.
tldr; Basically, I don't support aggro (as evidenced by aggressive 1-drops) nearly as well as I should based on this analysis. I should look for good 1-drops wherever I can. This may well mean bringing back a few recent cuts in Green, and maybe even consider returning a card like Tattermunge Maniac.
I'd be keen to see a list of what people think are the most Cubable aggressive 1-drops by colour.
I did a similar analysis to determine how I want my creatures distributed mana-wise. Between white, black and red I run 24 creatures for one mana (well, that is counting Greater Gargadon as a one drop too, but I think that is fine because it is a great turn one play for aggro). I include not-exactly-stellar cards like Gideon's Lawkeeper, Goldmeadow Harrier, Fume Spitter, Pulse Tracker, Goblin Patrol, Tattermunge Maniac and Stromkirk Noble to get to that number. Please note that the cards are still quite good, I'd just gladly replace them all with Savannah Lions clones.
Very interesting analysis, the one thing that makes me question it's validity is that while cube is much closer to constructed than normal limited, it is still a limited format, and is slower than most constructed formats.
That leads me to believe that basing the number of 1 drops desired off a constructed aggro deck (that runs a high % of 1 drops) would skew the numbers more than necessary. Based on personal experience (I know it's a terrible indicator but bear with me) 1 drops are so much less powerful than 2, 3, and 4 drops in a cube setting that I wouldn't ever want more than 5, and I think 4 is an ideal number in my aggro decks. This is supported by a quick glance through the forum drafts, I couldn't find an aggro deck in the 3 drafts I glanced at that ran more than 5 one drop creatures. By running more in cube you are lowering your card quality too much, and hurting yourself by getting rid of room for burn, ridiculous 4 drops, equipment, and Armageddon's.
Example running 7 one drops and 15 land leaves you with only 18 more slots in your deck. Assuming 5 two cc creatures 4 three cc creatures and 3 four cc creatures that leaves room for only 6 non creature spells, and still doesn't run as many 2's and 3's as I'd like to have. And that's running only 15 land which is not something I ever want to do even with 7 one drops.
In short cube isn't constructed and assuming numbers based off constructed decks seems like it would not provide accurate numbers for cube. Especially when that deck is Zoo which runs and insane amount of one drops compared to most decks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
a) Based on the fact that I've seen some cube pundits advocate support for aggro in Blue, one theoretical answer is "all of them".
b) Based on the fact that some cube owners don't listen to the pundits, one theoretical answer is White, Black, Red, Green.
c) Based on the fact that the question of "do you support aggro in Green" seems to come up frequently, one theoretical answer is White, Black, Red.
d) Based on the above, I suppose, another possible answer is White, Blue, Black, Red. However, it does seem odd at first blush that Blue might support aggro while Green does not.
I tend to think in terms of 2-colour decks when I'm designing my cube, even though I'm fully aware that players will pretty much do whatever they want. The question isn't what can they do, but rather what do I encourage as a cube designer? (I aim for 2-colour decks to be easy, with 3-colour decks a definite possibility. Therefore, I'm designing for the "easy" case in the first instance when considering archetypes.)
So then, if the answer is a) then theoretically an aggro deck exists in all 10 colour pairs. Does this seem reasonable? Is this something that you want to actively support? On the one hand, I mean, why not support everything possible? But on the other hand, I'd like to provide adequate support for whatever archetypes I encourage and there are a number in addition to aggro.
To this end, I'm also interested in looking at what each colour brings to aggro. I'm quite happy to support archetypes that feel different from one another, but I'd like to avoid having a bunch of decks that are basically all the same.
:symw:: White brings some efficient 1-, 2- and 3-drops, a very little bit of evasion, and some protection (though this is partially on the way out as cards like White Knight, Silver Knight and Paladin en-Vec are disappearing from cubes). White also brings some efficient-ish removal, though it tends to have drawbacks that aren't ideal for aggro (e.g. life gain on Swords to Plowshares, additional land on Path to Exile) though it is often at least acceptable. Finally, White has the lion's share of team pump effects to make weenies more relevant in the late game (e.g. Glorious Anthem, Mirror Entity, Soltari Champion, etc.). The card Armageddon (and, in those cubes that can afford it, Ravages of War) seems to be a critical card in defining viable White-based aggro decks in cube.
:symu:: If aggro is supported, Blue brings mostly reasonably efficient fliers plus bounce for tempo and countermagic to protect the early threats. Because of this contribution, Blue tends to be the defining colour in "tempo" or "aggro-control" archetypes.
:symb:: Black has a number of efficient 1- and 2-drops and a metric tonne of efficient creature removal to clear the path. It also brings efficient hand disruption (e.g. Thoughseize, Inquisition of Kozilek, Duress, Hymn to Tourach, Mind Twist.
:symr:: Red brings a few efficient 1-drops, some efficient 2-drops, and a fair number of "all-in" creatures that provide highly efficient one-shot (or two-shot) effects (e.g. Hellspark Elemental, Hell's Thunder, Keldon Marauders. Red also obviously provides 2 metric tonnes of burn, which is probably the single most "aggressive" effect available to aggro decks. Depending how a cube is designed, Red can also provide varying amounts of land destruction as a form of disruption.
:symg:: Green can provide a few efficient 1-drops (e.g. Jungle Lion, Pouncing Jaguar) and a couple of efficient 2-drops (e.g. Tarmogoyf obv., Strangleroot Geist), plus some utility on early drops. It can provide a little bit of disruption in the form of Plow Under. What else does it bring to the table?
So, what's different? All colours except Blue seem to provide 1- and 2-drops, though Green appears to be lagging on numbers. Whereas Blue offers something a little different - reasonably efficient fliers.
All of the colours except Green seem to provide an additional element which can be used for disruption or at least to give an aggro deck late-game reach.
Green seems to be the colour least equipped to support a strong aggro archetype. Early on, Evan Erwin wrote an article tagging R/G aggro as one of the most effective cube archetypes. His example cards were the likes of Boggart Ram-Gang, Giant Solifuge, Rumbling Slum and Tattermunge Maniac but most cubes don't seem to run these cards anymore.
What colours do you think should actively support aggressive strategies? Where has my analysis gone awry?
Cheers.
My Cube
My Blog
Coralhelm Commander - It's like a 3/3 flier for UU with echo, except better.
Wake Thrasher
Serendib Efreet - big beaters. Can't argue with the stats.
Dungeon Geists - It's actually a 3/3 flier that taxes their resources. A classic tempo card.
Force Spike - In order for tempo to work, you need to be ahead in the early game. Cards like Force Spike can help this, especially since blue doesn't get 1-drop creatures that are good for tempo.
Glen Elendra Archmage
Sower of Temptation - Once you're ahead, you need to stay ahead. Cards like these do that job nicely.
Into the Roil
Repeal
Riftwing Cloudskate
Venser, Shaper Savant
Man-o'-War - Classic tempo cards, they gain you resource advantage (since your opponent has to cast the same spell twice), while netting you either a creature or a card.
Kira, Great Glass-Spinner - A lot of blue aggro cards like Sower and Dungeon Geists really can hurt you if they get killed. Kira protects them well.
Pestermite - Evasive body that can slow your opponent down or make a nice combat trick.
Standstill - Great card for tempo, since you should be ahead early. Also great with manlands, try to pick them up if you get Standstill.
Tamiyo, the Moon Sage - Keeps their biggest threat locked down, and can draw you a lot of cards while you hit them with your 2/1 fliers.
Vexing Sphinx - Relevant body, looting effect is nice for your dead draws.
Control Magic
Treachery - Card and tempo advantage. Hard to beat that combination.
Blue is best as an aggro support color. I've seen UB tempo, UR burn with blue for reach, and UW aggro all win drafts with my cube.
I think all cube should support red and white aggro and at least one of the other three colors. I personally support aggro in white, red and green. I think blue is the best color not to support because it has so many good cards for control and the artifact deck that I don't want to dillute it with aggro cards. As for running black or green, I chose green because I think the disruption part is better than the black disruption, it can go midrange aggro nicely, and also that it's gold cards are more aggro than blacks gold cards. By that I mean the gold cards that pair with the aggro colors like loam lion, kird ape and qasali pridemage are all sweet aggro cards where as the black gold cards that pair with those colors are more things like vindicate, lingering souls, redcap and bitblast, which play more more midrange or control.
That being said I think an argument could be made to put aggro in black and not in green because the black aggro creatures are better and black has maybe less other things open to it. Either way I definitely think that limiting aggro to 2 colors is a bad idea.
I'm a fan of green aggro. It has a number of good 1-drops and it's 2-drops are either resilient (the boas) or bigger than is reasonable for the mana (Albino Troll, Tarmogoyf). It's got a few hasty guys and disruption in the form of Plow Under and sex monkey (and friends). I find when drafting green aggro, you are most likely doing RG or sometimes BG. Also, in green aggro decks I'm more willing to go a little higher on my curve for stuff like Indrik Stomphowler, Thornling, or Spiritmonger.
I agree that at least three colors should support aggro and prefer that four do so. Remember that supporting aggro in a color doesn't have to mean nerfing everything else that color does. Green still does great work in in midrange in my cube, and white is a seriously good control color.
Cheers,
rant
My Cube
CubeCobra: https://cubecobra.com/cube/overview/5f5d0310ed602310515d4c32
Cube Tutor: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/1963
Black has been getting 1 mana 2/X lately, meaning that it is fully capable of supporting full-fledged aggro decks nowadays. But black can also go a slightly slower, more disruption-heavy route, relying more on two- and three-drops as well as the occasional four- or five-drop. Although it's slower, it still tries to win before your opponent can do anything constructive.
Green has a certain amount of traditional aggro support, but the lack of (a great number of) two-power one-drops is notable. The two-drops is where it gets juicy. Green is not so much of an aggro color, but its tempo-oriented archetype is ramp, where you want to be a turn or two ahead of your opponent.
Last but not least, there's blue. Blue has traditionally been a control color ever since, but there are enough cards to support a tempo archetype as well. It is a lot less fast than, say, a RW aggro, but it is more resilient, can react more to what your opponent does. meep's list is a pretty good starting point.
In conclusion, don't try to squeeze a bunch of aggro creatures in every color, but I would try to give each color the tools to unfold its very own and unique style of tempo.
450, Peasant*, unpowered**
Specialities about the cube:
U tempo, B aggro, R slow-ish are supported. G aggro is not.
Currently trying to support tokens in all colors but blue, in different ways: W pumps them, B sacrifices them, R suicides them, G has decent-sized ones.
cube list outdated
*literal C/U definition according to gatherer
**some cards are banned. Library of Alexandria, Land Tax, Sol Ring.
Hope that helps.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
What exactly is aggro, anyway? The answer to that question is quite relevant for this discussion. The posters above me make a distinction between what I paraphrase as "aggressive strategy" and "traditional/true/hard aggro". I like that a lot, because it seems to be very successful at avoiding some of the traditional heated debates when blue and green "aggro" is concerned.
If I use "aggressive strategy" as a broader term that incorporates not only the traditional true hard aggro decks, but also tempo-oriented decks and aggressive midrange decks, then here is what my respective colors have to offer for aggressive strategies:
White: A lot of one and two mana creatures to get on the board early, very good 3 and 4 mana creatures, spot removal and tap effects to push the damage through, anthems to win the creature battles and some disruptive elements (well, Armageddon at least). White can form the backbone of an aggressive deck, and even mono white is possible (that does not happen often, though, because splashing for Ajani Vengeant and 1-2 burn spells is more common).
Blue: Very good tempo cards, a few good creatures and some that are less good, disruption in the form of two mana counterspells, Crystal Shard and Opposition. As an aggressive deck, blue cannot stand on its own, it does need a backbone of early creatures from one of the other colors. It is a really good secondary color for aggressive decks, though.
Black: A lot of one and two mana creatures to get on the board early, removal on 3-4 mana creatures and spells to push the damage through, hand disruption and some other ways to lock the opponent out (Braids, Cabal Minion, Nether Void). Black can form the backbone of an aggressive deck, and even mono black is possible but typically you draft at least one card you really want to splash for.
Red: A lot of one and two mana creatures to get in the board early, hasty or disruptive 3-4 mana creatures, and a lot of burn that doubles as removal to clear a path and as reach. Some land destruction as disruption. Red can be the backbone of an aggressive deck, and mono red is not uncommon, because if you can get enough burn spells you often don't really want to splash for anything - rather you are happy with a very consistent mana base and play every colorless-producing land coming your way that can attack the opponents mana or that doubles as a threat.
Green: A lot of mana acceleration at one and two mana, something you cannot get in colorless in my cube. Solid creatures all up the curve and the potential to drop them very early. Some disruptive creatures and Plow Under to slow down the opponent, but often green just buries the opponent in hard to handle threats until he is overwhelmed. Green can be the backbone of an aggressive midrange deck, and mono green starts to become a thing. This is because quite a few cards care about being green (Natural Order, Green Sun's Zenith) or about having forests in play (Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary).
So aggressive strategies are possible in all two color pairs, and what I like best, they all feel a bit different.
"What am I looking at? Ashes, dead man."
@Konfusius: I agree that definitions are maybe important here. Based on the responses so far along with my own understanding, I think it might be useful to create distinctions as follows:
Aggro: Critical mass of undercosted (high power to mana cost ratio) 1- and 2- drops. An aggro deck needs more cogs, but this seems to be the factor that distinguishes a colour that contributes to aggro from one that doesn't. White and Red are the consensus here, with Black reaching critical mass rather recently and Green offering a little something without perhaps having really the critical mass/quality at 1 CMC.
Tempo: Basically, what Blue does. Bounce, countermagic, some evasive pressure from the mid-game. As a result, in future I'll refer to "aggressive Blue decks" as "U/x Tempo".
Midrange: Outclassing the opponent on threat quality starting in the midgame. Again, a midrange deck needs more cogs, but colours contributing midrange creatures are strongly lead by Green, along with Black and pretty much all of the other colours. Interestingly, some people seem to refer to starting on a mana elf and getting good midrange creatures into play a turn or two ahead of schedule as "aggro", but I would consider this approach to be a midrange strategy, using ramp in the early game to advance quickly to the midgame (another approach, of course, being using disruption of various kinds to get to the midgame). (I'd also distinguish this from ramp/ramp/ramp/game-winning fatty or X-spell, which I'd refer to explicitly as a Ramp strategy).
@rantipole: The description you give of going higher on your curve for those 5-drops you've listed to me is the very definition of midrange. Just because your deck started on turn one doesn't change that for me. Not trying to pick a fight, just distinguishing that for me this isn't aggro.
Not sure if everyone would agree, but this would help me to distinguish.
@meep98324: Thanks for that! I agree with your definition (see above ;)). I like your "Tempo Package". I'm actually running most of those cards already and actually own all of the rest (except for Tamiyo, the Moon Sage obv. and Vexing Sphinx), so I'll likely try to work the rest in. (Currently missing Coralhelm Commander, Wake Thrasher, Dungeon Geists, Riftwing Cloudskate which was removed a few months back, Standstill, and Vexing Sphinx which is the only one I'm slightly dubious on. I'll likely make a post in my cube thread seeking advice for what to remove, since, as others have stated, Blue does have a lot of sweet control cards.
From a design perspective, I'm very keen for Green to have a bit of a unique identity, and focusing on the ramp/midrange aspect seems like the most obvious route and something I'd like to try. (I mean, it's pretty easy to get to 8 1-drop mana accelerating creatures if you want to go that route).
One observation that acts as an argument against dropping Green aggro entirely is that people just seem to love them some Kird Ape and some Wild Nacatl. I haven't even been running Nacatl but perhaps I should. These cards only go in certain decks but people do seem to try to make those decks happen. (As an aside, I don't run the ABUR dual lands and I'm wondering whether the lack of Taiga and Savannah could hold my cube back from properly supporting these). But even if you do run these particular cards, does that mean that you must supply the Green 1-drops? I mean, most of them are meh in an aggro deck anyway, just filler.
Obviously, a lot of people still support aggro in Green, but I guess one thing that I hadn't considered was just allowing it to find it's natural home as a support/secondary colour in an aggro deck.
Question: Which of the Green 1-drops would you consider crucial to supporting Green aggro even as a supporting colour?
...
What about another approach: don't bother with the Green 1-drops but support Green aggro cards explicitly in the gold sections? This was actually my original goal but it has gone off-track. To me this would mean something like having an R/G section running cards like Kird Ape obv., Bloodbraid Elf (more midrangy), but also maybe bring back some combination of Boggart Ram-Gang, Giant Solifuge, Tattermunge Maniac, Burning-Tree Shaman, etc. G/W section would have cards like Watchwolf (recently removed), Loam Lion, etc.
So, even if Green itself just support aggro as best it can, without trying too hard, the gold sections could help support it. I've seen people draft X/g decks a number of times where the only Green spells are gold cards anyway.
My Cube
My Blog
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=300733&page=39
For people wondering how blue aggro works, I hope this gives a good example of a solid blue aggro-support deck.
No problem. I don't consider differences of opinion picking a fight until it's done in a douchey way. There was no douchery in your post, so we're all good.
To clarify what I said, I'd still consider it an aggro deck if the curve was as you describe--mostly 1- and 2-mana creatures with some burn/disruption/removal--and then one (or at most two) 5-mana creature or spell (Plow Under plus the cards I mentioned earlier).
Cheers,
rant
My Cube
CubeCobra: https://cubecobra.com/cube/overview/5f5d0310ed602310515d4c32
Cube Tutor: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/1963
As for green aggro, green is entirely a support color for aggro in my cube, and the strongest cards for it's aggro leanings are multicolor (Kird Ape, Loam Lion, Wild Nacatl, Bloodbraid Elf) in fact the only time it really shows up is Naya or R/g.
Also for those interested there was an article on channelfireball today that spent most of it's length talking about which colors should be able to support aggro as a near mono color deck, spoilers it only liked red for that.
Link for those interested: CFB Silvestri cube article
Spoiler: Aggro decks don't always lose if the game lasts past turn 6 or 7. With that in mind, it's nice to have a 5-drop that can give you reach. Memory Jar is a great aggro curve-topper. Tamiyo, the Moon Sage will go in my Blue based aggro decks. I think most people would run Siege-Gang Commander in their aggro decks as well.
Cards I wouldn't run are things like Indrik Stomphowler, Archon of Justice, or Drana, Kalastria Bloodchief. Basically, utility/midrange creatures should not be jammed in, but wincons with reach are great.
I think you meant to put "spoiler: don't listen to this article...in fact, don't read it".
Green aggro is definitely very often zoo variety (in addition to what you listed: Tarmogoyf, Rancor, Geist, and Vengevine are all great) but we still occasionally see some weird/fun combinations.
I think this speaks to an issue that all cube owners have to deal with at a certain point. How much do you want to tell your players what to play, and how much freedom do you want them to have to experiment with archetypes and colors?
Can't speak for Drana or Archon because they don't live in my cube, but Stomphowler is a fine curve-topper for aggro. You get a Naturalize and a 3-mana 4/4. Not too bad. It can really help aggro out by preventing control/midrange from stabilizing by dropping Moat, Disk, Deed, Razormane, or a Sword.
Cheers,
rant
My Cube
CubeCobra: https://cubecobra.com/cube/overview/5f5d0310ed602310515d4c32
Cube Tutor: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/1963
Basically, that said it seemed very relevant so I figured I'd at least link it and let people make up their own minds.
I'm beginning to think that he might have a point about Black aggro though, I can't remember black being the base color in an aggro deck that had a good winning percentage.
Before you react to that and say I'm not doing it right, Black aggro has been insane when paired with Red or White just not support the awesome Geralf's Messanger on turn 3 every single time levels of Black.
These are the agro colors, but that doesn't mean the other two can't play their part.
http://hgcube.blogspot.com/ (help me Make my Custom CUBE!)
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=382498
The "Make a Proxy Thread
Redit Proxy Article "current gallery"
MY LEGACY ALTERS
Mono black aggro can be a powerful deck, but rarely is, which is why I don't include cards that only are cube worthy in mono black decks. This seems to be the norm here (and most places).
I think all colors can support aggro if you want them to. It's just about how you build the colors. I've chosen to focus on green ramp, because I wanted to try something different than the green mediocre (imo) two power one mana creatures. So far me and my playgroup have been really happy about this change.
My Tribal cube
My 93/94 old school cube
My Artifact cube
My Hearthstone Quiz App for iOS
This is an excellent point, and I guess I have a couple of ways that I think about it:
1. I definitely don't want to tell my players anything about what they should draft. That's why I prefer these cube design discussions be separate from my cube thread - most of my group don't read the thread anyway, but even if they do, I don't want to tell them what to draft. (Obv. they can read these other threads but that's when they choose the red pill for themselves. ;))
2. That being said, as a cube designer you're responsible for the cards that are available to players. They can only draft what you put in the cube. So every inclusion and exclusion is a design decision, regardless of how much thought you actually put into it.
3. Given that players may have limited information about "what's good" in cube (this is quite obviously group dependent), they must place their faith in the fact that you as the cube designer won't lead them astray. If they see Savannah Lions and Isamaru, Hound of Konda, then they're going to expect that White-based aggro decks are at least viable. If those are the only two White 1-drops in your cube, then you've broken their trust by implying an archetype is available which isn't.
Ok, so what does this mean? It means to me that I want to know what's in my cube and why. I fully admit that I started my cube just over a year ago and basically scrambled to get cards and copy what others on this forum were doing. But now my designer side is kicking in and I'm looking very closely at what I'm supporting and how that will be perceived by my players.
I'd like to squeeze as much into it as possible to allow for exploration. This is why I'm currently on a mission to map out all of the archetypes that I'd like to support, and then take a closer look at those and decide how many I can actually fit in.
The other option, I believe, is to throw a bunch of awesome cards into a box and explore the possibilities with your players. I get the feeling that this is where Cube started, and why some cubers still insist that Cube should simply be nothing but the very best cards. if this is the case, then I don't think you'd do anything in terms of design - not even laying out "sections" or doing any kind of colour balancing, etc. You'd just have a box of cards and what's best is what's best. There is a certain frontier spirit about this approach...but I design software for a living and I can't possibly just leave it as a box of "good stuff" without any structure. So, the design approach is the one for me and my task is to design as much opportunity for exploration into it as I can.
My Cube
My Blog
As part of this analysis, it might make sense to look at the numbers more directly. Can we answer this question:
How many aggro 1-drops do you need in your cube?
What about per colour that supports aggro?
2-drops are also important and might be worth running the numbers on, but my gut tells me that there are "enough", and that the 1-drops are the limiting factor. Interestingly, this line of analysis could potentially give us an indication of the maximum cube size that can adequately support this definition of aggro (which will increase over time as more aggressively costed 1-drops become available).
Ok, so how do you do this? This is my first attempt.
Assumptions
a) Aggressively costed (i.e. power > CMC) 1-drops are a critical factor in defining an aggro deck. The primary purpose of this is to apply pressure to the opponent from the opening turn.
b) Since this is the resource that appears to be in shortest supply, it will be the limiting factor.
c) While Cube is a Limited format, from a design perspective the goal is to allow players to draft and build Constructed-style decks (but only if they want to ;)). This means that we can look to successful Constructed decks of a similar archetype as a basis for comparison.
Steps
Step 1.
Depending on the format, a typcial Constructed aggressive deck (e.g. Zoo) will run anywhere from 8-16 aggressive 1-drops (in a 60-card deck). The level of aggression is roughly correlated to this number. 8 only provides a 65.4% probability of having a 1-drop in your opening hand, while 16 provides a 90.1% of the same. From personal experience, I think that 8 is too few, and that a successful number tends to be 10-12. (Validated this against a couple of tournament winning zoo lists). 10 provides 74.1% probability of having a 1-drop in your opening hand.
To find the equivalent number in a 40-card deck, we simply find the number that provides the closest to 74.1%. In a 40-card deck, 6 1-drops provides a 71.1% chance of having one in your opening hand, while 7 provides a 77.1% chance. For the purposes of this analysis, I'll say therefore that the prototype aggro deck wants 7 1-drops.
So, for every aggro deck that could be drafted, you'll need about 7 1-drops in the draft. Ignoring variance for a minute (see step 4), if you have 8 drafters and a 360-card Cube (meaning all cards are available in the draft), then you need to determine how many aggro decks you want available in a given draft. Of course, this doesn't mean that this many decks will be drafted, but does indicate the number of 1-drops you would need. Let's say you want n aggro decks available in the draft. This means that you need n * 7 aggressive 1-drops. I'll say that I want 3 aggro decks in my 8-person draft, so I need at least 21 1-drops in the draft.
What happens if the entire cube is not drafted? I'll take the example of a 450-card cube with 8 people drafting. This means that 360/450 cards are available in the draft. If you still want n aggro decks, then you still need n * 7 1-drops in the draft. So then how many do I need in my 450-card Cube?
360/450 = 21/x
Solve for x...x=26.25
I need 26-27 aggressive 1-drops in my cube. Of course, the split won't always be exactly this ratio. Sometimes there will be more or less available. You have two options: You can add more 1-drops than the calculated minimum to try to ensure that there are at least enough available most of the time, or you can accept that sometimes there will be 2 aggro decks available and sometimes there will be 3 (or whatever you calculated for). That's the variance.
It's all well and fine to know that you need X 1-drops, but how should these be divided by colour? It's probably not viable to expect the lone aggro drafter to put together a 4-colour deck to make it happen.
My own principle is to assume that the mana is good enough to run 2-colour decks fairly easily. I also don't personally plan to guarantee to my players that mono-X aggro will be supported. On the flipside, if a player wants to run Naya Zoo, that's fine but I don't think you necessarily need to do anything to support that other than make the mana available.
This means that the number of aggro decks that you want to support should be divided across the colours in which you want to support aggro. For the purposes of this calculation, I think that you need to include the Blue-based tempo decks, because if they're paired with an aggro colour for efficient 1-drops, then they'll be pulling from your the same pool. In fact, since Blue doesn't really have any aggro 1-drops (or maybe Phantasmal Bear), you might need the second colour to provide the full complement.
So, then, for every 3.5 1-drops you have in a given colour which are available in a given draft, you can support half of a deck. So if a 360-card cube with 8 drafters has 7 White 1-drops, 4 Black 1-drops and 3 Red 1-drops, then your Cube can roughly support 2 aggro decks. Further, you can expect that either one will be mono-White and the other will be Black/Red, or both will be White/X.
I suppose in an ideal world I'd see something like 2 aggro decks, 2 aggro control decks, 2 midrange decks and 2 control decks in an 8-person draft. These numbers are very rough and I wouldn't want it to always be exactly the same, but the kind of tells me that I'd really need about 28 1-drops in a draft!
There are other factors that can affect the numbers. For example, some players might draft 1 or 2 1-drops but not see anything else to support aggro (cut-off) so they might abandon that plan. That means that those picks are stranded in a non-aggro deck or sideboard, and are not available to the other players drafting aggro. It might be worthwhile erring on the side of greater than the minimum calculated.
On the other hand, you might not want it to be too easy, either. Part of drafting is knowing that resources are limited and that you need to know what to prioritise. If 1-drops are abundant, then drafters will not need to prioritise them as much.
Reverse Analysis
Now I'll look at my cube to figure out what I can support. From my current list:
White: 5 (not counting Mother of Runes...this is part of another whole discussion around what actually counts :))
Blue: 0
Black: 5
Red: 3 (not counting Mogg Fanatic, Grim Lavamancer or Spikeshot Elder...would you count those? This also tells me that I need Goblin Patrol back desperately!)
Green: 3 currently, but just cut some.
Ugh. Based on these numbers, I might get 2 aggro decks in but they're likely to be a bit anemic in this area.
tldr; Basically, I don't support aggro (as evidenced by aggressive 1-drops) nearly as well as I should based on this analysis. I should look for good 1-drops wherever I can. This may well mean bringing back a few recent cuts in Green, and maybe even consider returning a card like Tattermunge Maniac.
I'd be keen to see a list of what people think are the most Cubable aggressive 1-drops by colour.
And also feedback on my first-shot analysis.
My Cube
My Blog
My Cube
My Blog
"What am I looking at? Ashes, dead man."
That leads me to believe that basing the number of 1 drops desired off a constructed aggro deck (that runs a high % of 1 drops) would skew the numbers more than necessary. Based on personal experience (I know it's a terrible indicator but bear with me) 1 drops are so much less powerful than 2, 3, and 4 drops in a cube setting that I wouldn't ever want more than 5, and I think 4 is an ideal number in my aggro decks. This is supported by a quick glance through the forum drafts, I couldn't find an aggro deck in the 3 drafts I glanced at that ran more than 5 one drop creatures. By running more in cube you are lowering your card quality too much, and hurting yourself by getting rid of room for burn, ridiculous 4 drops, equipment, and Armageddon's.
Example running 7 one drops and 15 land leaves you with only 18 more slots in your deck. Assuming 5 two cc creatures 4 three cc creatures and 3 four cc creatures that leaves room for only 6 non creature spells, and still doesn't run as many 2's and 3's as I'd like to have. And that's running only 15 land which is not something I ever want to do even with 7 one drops.
In short cube isn't constructed and assuming numbers based off constructed decks seems like it would not provide accurate numbers for cube. Especially when that deck is Zoo which runs and insane amount of one drops compared to most decks.