Dorvan: Well, I guess you disagree with recent sentiments in this thread, then? The Sentinel itself may be weak or not, but if Red is strong primarily on the back of its x/4 and x/5 creatures as people are saying here, then I have a hard time understanding that Sentinel isn't a major part of that.
It's a fine card for the deck, but it can't pivot to offense nearly the way the weird could. The main strength of the card is that it's red, devoid, and a 2-drop. There's a large distance between 'not good' and 'the best frostburn weird', and the Sentinel falls in there, that's all I'm saying.
I think the big problem is that B/G has lots of token makers at common, but needs more payoff cards for having lots of tokens as Swarm Surge and Vampiric Rites are both pretty weak and Tajuru Beastmaster is expensive and more valuable to the ally deck. Catacomb Sifter is a strong card, but it just kind of gives the deck what it already has at common and an efficient on-curve play as opposed to something more game dominating that really rewards you for going B/G. It would be a more viable archetype if a perhaps weaker-variation of Brood Butcher was the uncommon instead.
One tiny change that's really small but I think would have been nice is if Natural Connection gained some life, like maybe 3 life. That way it would be better, which would boost green-based converge or landfall archetypes, and it would also play into the life gain themed cards.
I'd put BfZ well below Innistrad and Khans but slightly above lots of medium sets like Dragons and Scars, which is disappointing as at the start it seemed like it could even have been ahead of Khans.
I think giving the BG deck a better common reward "build-around" would have helped. Maybe a slightly toned down Zulaport Cutthroat or Rot Shambler, weak enough that no one else wanted them, but still strong with the token makers. In my limited experience with/against the deck the Cutthroat in particular seems to be the card it needs to draw to really be scary, but I've also been beaten by a Shambler that just got enormous.
Since Shambler doesn't have any evasion or any way to protect itself, I've found that it usually isn't too scary. It can be chumped/walled for a while, and it's vulnerable to Complete Disregard/burn early and Smite the Monstrous late. Bounce really sets it back as well of course.
Cutthroat on the other hand can make life (no pun intended) quite difficult.
Yeah, Cutthroat especially makes the BG deck significantly stronger. The problem is that those cutthroats are being grabbed by anyone even considering BW allies. I mean, if your early black picks are Complete Disregard + Bone Splinters + Zulaport Cutthroat + Silent Skimmer, the problem is not that you don't have decent cards for BG but that there's no payoff to start drafting green as opposed to some other color. If the BG uncommon was stronger then grabbing that early would make you want to commit to grabbing green cards. As is, you just never reach that decision point unless you're dumped 2 Eyeless Watcher + Voracious Null and then P2P1 a Brood Butcher.
I think I'm coming to the opinion that this is a horrible environment.
I am inclined to think that people's initial reactions to the format--mine included--were before people had come to really 'get' the set.
As one example, Mist Intruder looks terrible at first glance. Storm Crow never got anyone's approval. However, it is one of the key enablers of an entire deck archetype.
Green, as well... it's been discussed to death, but I do think the issue is that the fixing isn't there. I want to say that BFZ was intended as a 3-color format base. If you look at it from that perspective, a lot of the Converge cards become quite reasonable. Tajuru Stalwart is a 3rd/4th turn 3/4 in a 3-color deck (and that makes it about the same as Vestige of Emrakul). WotC may have figured on the colorless cards kind of making the color needs lower (which would make Titan's Presence 'better'), but if so, they failed.
The basic issue for draft, at least, is that there is a central Catch-22 in this set, and I will highlight it in a big way in the AAR for the 2nd 8-Way Draft.
Assuming an average drafting success, how would you generally rank the following archetypes of the format? I have them ranked about what I think they are, but I'm still kind of noobish to the format.
UR Devoid
BR Devoid
UB Devoid
BW Allies
BG Allies
GW Allies
RW Allies
BR Allies
RG Landfall
I think I'm coming to the opinion that this is a horrible environment.
I am inclined to think that people's initial reactions to the format--mine included--were before people had come to really 'get' the set.
As one example, Mist Intruder looks terrible at first glance. Storm Crow never got anyone's approval. However, it is one of the key enablers of an entire deck archetype.
I consider this as a positive for my evaluation of whether or not BFZ is enjoyable. I like that cards have gone significantly up or down in value as we have played the set; it highlights the complexity and subjectivity.
In my view all of these are about on par if relatively open in a draft, not in any particular order:
UB ingest/process
UR colorless matters
BR aggressive and colorless matters
BW Allies and life gain matters
UW Flyers
These are the next tier in my view, still good if you can get the pieces:
RW Allies
GW Allies
GRW Allies
BG Tokens, swarm surge, big eldrazi
RG Landfall
GUx Converge
There are also plenty of just "good decks" to be had in any of the 4 colors (other than green), and those work fine albeit not optimized.
Also, in my view anything not green with more than 2 colors is a recipe for mana problems (and green is usually a recipe for not a good deck) unless it's truly a splash of one off-color high casting cost and high impact card, or if you are not green but get lucky to draft a few cards which fix (Evolving Wilds and Pilgrim's Eye) then 3 color might be fine.
Thanks for the response. I'm still trying to figure out how to prioritize drafting choices. Lately I sit down planning from the start to play UR colorless, UB, or BR, unless I get something really strong as the Pick-1 in either of the first two packs. Like, if I pull Gideon in P1, I'm almost definitely playing Wx allies.
Pretty much agree with NFLed, except I think Gx allies and Gx converge are the same deck. I have had some moderate success playing 4 color allies, either RW splashing BG or G splashing RWU. I would still rather be devoid or uw or bw allies but so would everyone else, so I think the key to drafting this format is what you do after you abandon your Ruination Guide + [card]Herald of Kozilek
I think you have to be greedy and splash for double colored bombs like Tajuru Warcaller and Guardian of Tazeem. Last time I did this I opened Drana (ALLY!) in pack 3 but could not quite warp the mana base or cut a color to play her.
I also think the Gx tokens decks can be U (ruination guide, skyspawner, incubator), B (swarm surge, vampiric rites), or W (Grove tender, Inspired charge) - sometimes 3 colors.
Haven't seen anyone ramp past 8 in many many matches.
I think I'm coming to the opinion that this is a horrible environment.
I am inclined to think that people's initial reactions to the format--mine included--were before people had come to really 'get' the set.
As one example, Mist Intruder looks terrible at first glance. Storm Crow never got anyone's approval. However, it is one of the key enablers of an entire deck archetype.
I consider this as a positive for my evaluation of whether or not BFZ is enjoyable. I like that cards have gone significantly up or down in value as we have played the set; it highlights the complexity and subjectivity.
Agreed. Scott's example is exactly WHY it is a good set IMO. Sets where what is good/bad is obvious tend to be shallow, getting boring fast (see Origins, which I stopped drafting online after like a week). I much prefer a set like this, where card values change significantly as you play and can swing wildly from deck to deck.
NFLed/Golden: Well, you only have half of my argument, so I cannot really discuss this until after the second 8-Way without giving massive spoilers to people involved (Golden being one of them).
However, I don't think you're even replying to my entire post, but only one part where you (incorrectly) disagree with me.
I have no issue with cards going up and down in value, even by a great deal, between deck archetypes. However, there is a risk inherent in doing this, and BFZ did not sufficiently handle this risk, which has led to a bad if not degenerate format.
Ironically, this was supposed to be a lesson they learned from Rise of the Eldrazi--among other lessons, don't warp standard Limited practices into a pretzel to make the format work--and consciously worked to avoid it, and still failed.
This goes beyond color balance and into fundamental lessons of Limited play, both in Draft and in Play. From what I can deduce:
1) Bears are at their lowest power level since Rise of the Eldrazi (the point I mentioned above).
2) More generally, very basic card evaluation methods fail miserably.
3) Signals don't work. This is not the hallmark of a high synergy, low 'goodstuff' format.
4) Pros giving advice to completely avoid a specific color is not only taken seriously but is even mostly correct.
1) That's fine.
2) That's very much fine.
3) I don't agree that signals don't work. Why do you think they don't?
4) This is a clear dent in the format, but for a comparison to RoE: the first thing I did when drafting that format on Modo was to right-click and hide white. I felt it was that bad, and would absolutely not draft it.
I'll have to agree with the other fellas here - things not being what they seem isn't a drawback. Quite the contrary: I consider it a hallmark of a great format. A format that I think new players are going to enjoy? No. But it's fantastic for experienced players, the player group that I would suggest that I belong to at this point, and it is from this point of view that I evaluate the format.
One thing to remember, Scott: The two 8-ways are barely data points; they're only two drafts. Whatever has happened in those (and as you say, we shouldn't talk about the second one yet), the data is inconclusive. We'd need a lot of 8-way drafts to have a reasonable sample for a discussion like this. Besides, weird things will happen in 8-ways, as different styles collide to create drafts that are a mix of all. Differing preferences pull players in separate directions within the same draft seat.
I enjoy drafting this set. The actual game play, I can take or leave; the process of navigating through a pod and finding the right archetype for your seat is very enjoyable.
NFLed/Golden: Well, you only have half of my argument, so I cannot really discuss this until after the second 8-Way without giving massive spoilers to people involved (Golden being one of them).
However, I don't think you're even replying to my entire post, but only one part where you (incorrectly) disagree with me.
I have no issue with cards going up and down in value, even by a great deal, between deck archetypes. However, there is a risk inherent in doing this, and BFZ did not sufficiently handle this risk, which has led to a bad if not degenerate format.
Ironically, this was supposed to be a lesson they learned from Rise of the Eldrazi--among other lessons, don't warp standard Limited practices into a pretzel to make the format work--and consciously worked to avoid it, and still failed.
This goes beyond color balance and into fundamental lessons of Limited play, both in Draft and in Play. From what I can deduce:
1) Bears are at their lowest power level since Rise of the Eldrazi (the point I mentioned above).
2) More generally, very basic card evaluation methods fail miserably.
3) Signals don't work. This is not the hallmark of a high synergy, low 'goodstuff' format.
4) Pros giving advice to completely avoid a specific color is not only taken seriously but is even mostly correct.
It sounds like you are putting too much stock into those 8-ways. Don't get me wrong, they are interesting, but you are talking about tiny samples with specific pools of players and packs. One weird set of packs for pack 1 can throw off a draft. A few groups making unusual moves can do it too. It isn't like we have any way of knowing how good the people involved actually are. (I also think the nature of that kind of group voting/drafting leads to generally worse decks/signals/drafts, as right or wrong one person will tend to go in a given direction sooner than the group as a whole will (i.e. the group will waffle longer) which hurts everyone's draft and reduces signaling)
1. Bears being bad - This is bad because?
2. Completely disagreed. Going into the format I expected Mist Intruder to be EXACTLY what it is, a niche card with an important role in a particular archetype. The only question was how good that archetype was. Same for most of the cards in the set. Using my previous experience I could come up with a relatively accurate picture, playing just brought it into focus. With some exceptions of course, Sludge Crawler being the biggest that jumps to mind, but that is true of pretty much any set.
3. This just isn't true at all. Signals are always unreliable at times, but they work here just like they do in other sets. I've been able to find a good deck reliable in 8-4's for about 3 weeks running now (i.e. no more trainwrecks) and a big part of that is reading signals and finding the open deck. Not gonna happen every time by any means, but that is true of every set.
Have to disagree with Zenbitz on splashing for double-coloured cards. I don't think you should be playing a double-coloured card without at least six sources of the colour, and in this format (most formats) six sources is well beyond a splash.
No, not ideally. Of course not, in fact. But you shouldn't be playing green/multicolor unless your plan A fell through anyway.
I agree I am kind of stretching the definition of a splash here, but the first one had only 2 green cards and the 2nd one had 2 blue, 2 black, 3 white, 1 blue/white. And Plated Crusher!
Neither of these decks were great, but they were pretty solid for not getting shipped the nuts and playing the worst color. It's high variance to play sketchy mana bases like this, I would SET OUT to do so.
EDIT: Before anyone comments - I agree ahead of time that plated crusher cannot be cast reliably at all in this deck, and if I had any other reasonable dude I would have played that instead. I am already scraping the bottom with Call of the Scions as you can see.
If you can't reliably cast your CCC 7-drop you're probably better off with another land, especially with landfall triggers and awaken spells. That said, I don't necessarily think it's too much of a stretch in that deck. You do technically have 10 green sources.
Just for the record. I got to play against the full on engine last night. Opponent had: Vampiric Rites Catacomb Sifter Rot Shambler
and a million scions/blister pods all at the same time.
He did eventually get a Cutthroat out too, but I think he only drained me for 4 or so.
I still beat him. He made a 16/16 Rot shambler that he could not attack with and eventually I went wide enough (like 6 guys) and allied triggered him (+1/+1 vigilance) on successive turns.
I just lost to BG control/sac in the finals of an 8-4. He had Cutthroat, Sifter, random green dudes and token makers...and a boatload of removal. The removal is really what made it a tough match, although in the decider a turn 5 Bane on the play was also brutal (Gnarlid, Sifter, Watcher, Bane, then Monitor, nice curve). I had a reasonably good answer to the bane with a Front for 4 (I was playing GWbr allies and drawing my Smite or Snare would have been better, but outside of that direct removal the Front was my best answer), but overall it plus a good curve was just too much to overcome.
I think I am done with allies (except BW). It seems like just such a gamble. Either you draw your haymaker ally with a big board state and win, or your guys don't really do anything.
Played FNM for the first time in a while and watched Nettle Drone.dek fall into my lap. Three Drones, a Vile Aggregate, and only two non-colorless spells in the deck. It was a 10-person pod so four rounds, and I went 3-1. The one loss was really close and I still feel like I should have pulled it out, don't know what mistakes I made though. Still, I think this is one of the best draft formats in a while. You do watch bad green cards fly around the table and that's kinda ehh, but otherwise it's fun to draft and fun to play.
I'm pretty much always defaulting to some combination of BUR colorless. UB has gotten me 1st. I played all 3 last time and got 2nd in a 10-person pod. I didn't even get any Nettle Drones, Skyspawners, or Grip of Desolation. I'm unlikely to play anything else unless the first pick in pack 1 is a bomb for one of the other archetypes.
Actually, being a 10-man pod increases the likelyhood of getting multiple of a common. Each pack can only contain a copy (ignoring foils), so having more packs open increase the number of drones floating around. You just need to have 1-2 person on each side not in devoid red to get multiple drones. It's a mediocre card in non-devoid decks. (There are better red commons for ally and landfall.)
Actually, being a 10-man pod increases the likelyhood of getting multiple of a common. Each pack can only contain a copy (ignoring foils), so having more packs open increase the number of drones floating around. You just need to have 1-2 person on each side not in devoid red to get multiple drones. It's a mediocre card in non-devoid decks. (There are better red commons for ally and landfall.)
Yep. And honestly even in 8-4's, which tend to be pretty competitive, I've found you can get there with a grixis colored deck more often than not. Even though green's weakness is common knowledge now, not everyone will have the discipline or desire to avoid it.
I think BR is the only deck I haven't done at least 2-1 with at this point, I think too many of it's pieces get nabbed by those UR and BR decks and its more knife edge than the others.
It is hard to fight for the UR or UB deck in the draft...I have had my fair share of meh, although my last UR deck was truly insane and didn't lose a game.
I play green going wide not ramping into stuff most of the time. scion scion scion, warcaller dead. Also works with the 6 mana +1/+1 and the swarm +2-0 card. Green is a synergy deck like in most in the format it's just that the cards are more meh without compared to a lot of the UB cards that are fine.
It's a fine card for the deck, but it can't pivot to offense nearly the way the weird could. The main strength of the card is that it's red, devoid, and a 2-drop. There's a large distance between 'not good' and 'the best frostburn weird', and the Sentinel falls in there, that's all I'm saying.
I think giving the BG deck a better common reward "build-around" would have helped. Maybe a slightly toned down Zulaport Cutthroat or Rot Shambler, weak enough that no one else wanted them, but still strong with the token makers. In my limited experience with/against the deck the Cutthroat in particular seems to be the card it needs to draw to really be scary, but I've also been beaten by a Shambler that just got enormous.
Cutthroat on the other hand can make life (no pun intended) quite difficult.
Also, maybe if Algae Gharial or Lumberknot was in this set...
I am inclined to think that people's initial reactions to the format--mine included--were before people had come to really 'get' the set.
As one example, Mist Intruder looks terrible at first glance. Storm Crow never got anyone's approval. However, it is one of the key enablers of an entire deck archetype.
Green, as well... it's been discussed to death, but I do think the issue is that the fixing isn't there. I want to say that BFZ was intended as a 3-color format base. If you look at it from that perspective, a lot of the Converge cards become quite reasonable. Tajuru Stalwart is a 3rd/4th turn 3/4 in a 3-color deck (and that makes it about the same as Vestige of Emrakul). WotC may have figured on the colorless cards kind of making the color needs lower (which would make Titan's Presence 'better'), but if so, they failed.
The basic issue for draft, at least, is that there is a central Catch-22 in this set, and I will highlight it in a big way in the AAR for the 2nd 8-Way Draft.
UR Devoid
BR Devoid
UB Devoid
BW Allies
BG Allies
GW Allies
RW Allies
BR Allies
RG Landfall
I consider this as a positive for my evaluation of whether or not BFZ is enjoyable. I like that cards have gone significantly up or down in value as we have played the set; it highlights the complexity and subjectivity.
UB ingest/process
UR colorless matters
BR aggressive and colorless matters
BW Allies and life gain matters
UW Flyers
These are the next tier in my view, still good if you can get the pieces:
RW Allies
GW Allies
GRW Allies
BG Tokens, swarm surge, big eldrazi
RG Landfall
GUx Converge
There are also plenty of just "good decks" to be had in any of the 4 colors (other than green), and those work fine albeit not optimized.
Also, in my view anything not green with more than 2 colors is a recipe for mana problems (and green is usually a recipe for not a good deck) unless it's truly a splash of one off-color high casting cost and high impact card, or if you are not green but get lucky to draft a few cards which fix (Evolving Wilds and Pilgrim's Eye) then 3 color might be fine.
I think you have to be greedy and splash for double colored bombs like Tajuru Warcaller and Guardian of Tazeem. Last time I did this I opened Drana (ALLY!) in pack 3 but could not quite warp the mana base or cut a color to play her.
I also think the Gx tokens decks can be U (ruination guide, skyspawner, incubator), B (swarm surge, vampiric rites), or W (Grove tender, Inspired charge) - sometimes 3 colors.
Haven't seen anyone ramp past 8 in many many matches.
Agreed. Scott's example is exactly WHY it is a good set IMO. Sets where what is good/bad is obvious tend to be shallow, getting boring fast (see Origins, which I stopped drafting online after like a week). I much prefer a set like this, where card values change significantly as you play and can swing wildly from deck to deck.
However, I don't think you're even replying to my entire post, but only one part where you (incorrectly) disagree with me.
I have no issue with cards going up and down in value, even by a great deal, between deck archetypes. However, there is a risk inherent in doing this, and BFZ did not sufficiently handle this risk, which has led to a bad if not degenerate format.
Ironically, this was supposed to be a lesson they learned from Rise of the Eldrazi--among other lessons, don't warp standard Limited practices into a pretzel to make the format work--and consciously worked to avoid it, and still failed.
This goes beyond color balance and into fundamental lessons of Limited play, both in Draft and in Play. From what I can deduce:
1) Bears are at their lowest power level since Rise of the Eldrazi (the point I mentioned above).
2) More generally, very basic card evaluation methods fail miserably.
3) Signals don't work. This is not the hallmark of a high synergy, low 'goodstuff' format.
4) Pros giving advice to completely avoid a specific color is not only taken seriously but is even mostly correct.
2) That's very much fine.
3) I don't agree that signals don't work. Why do you think they don't?
4) This is a clear dent in the format, but for a comparison to RoE: the first thing I did when drafting that format on Modo was to right-click and hide white. I felt it was that bad, and would absolutely not draft it.
I'll have to agree with the other fellas here - things not being what they seem isn't a drawback. Quite the contrary: I consider it a hallmark of a great format. A format that I think new players are going to enjoy? No. But it's fantastic for experienced players, the player group that I would suggest that I belong to at this point, and it is from this point of view that I evaluate the format.
One thing to remember, Scott: The two 8-ways are barely data points; they're only two drafts. Whatever has happened in those (and as you say, we shouldn't talk about the second one yet), the data is inconclusive. We'd need a lot of 8-way drafts to have a reasonable sample for a discussion like this. Besides, weird things will happen in 8-ways, as different styles collide to create drafts that are a mix of all. Differing preferences pull players in separate directions within the same draft seat.
UR Blue-Red Control
Modern:
UBR Grixis Control
UWR Jeskai Control
It sounds like you are putting too much stock into those 8-ways. Don't get me wrong, they are interesting, but you are talking about tiny samples with specific pools of players and packs. One weird set of packs for pack 1 can throw off a draft. A few groups making unusual moves can do it too. It isn't like we have any way of knowing how good the people involved actually are. (I also think the nature of that kind of group voting/drafting leads to generally worse decks/signals/drafts, as right or wrong one person will tend to go in a given direction sooner than the group as a whole will (i.e. the group will waffle longer) which hurts everyone's draft and reduces signaling)
1. Bears being bad - This is bad because?
2. Completely disagreed. Going into the format I expected Mist Intruder to be EXACTLY what it is, a niche card with an important role in a particular archetype. The only question was how good that archetype was. Same for most of the cards in the set. Using my previous experience I could come up with a relatively accurate picture, playing just brought it into focus. With some exceptions of course, Sludge Crawler being the biggest that jumps to mind, but that is true of pretty much any set.
3. This just isn't true at all. Signals are always unreliable at times, but they work here just like they do in other sets. I've been able to find a good deck reliable in 8-4's for about 3 weeks running now (i.e. no more trainwrecks) and a big part of that is reading signals and finding the open deck. Not gonna happen every time by any means, but that is true of every set.
No, not ideally. Of course not, in fact. But you shouldn't be playing green/multicolor unless your plan A fell through anyway.
I agree I am kind of stretching the definition of a splash here, but the first one had only 2 green cards and the 2nd one had 2 blue, 2 black, 3 white, 1 blue/white. And Plated Crusher!
My "splashed" warcaller/skyrider elf/coastal discovery deck (base RW) had:
1 Cinder Glade
1 Lumbering Falls
2 Evolving Wilds
2 Forest
1 Island
Everything else was RW allies + spells.
The "splashed" guardian deck ... well you just have to see it:
1 Snapping Gnarlid
1 Tide Drifter
2 Lifespring Druid
1 Taruju Stalwart
1 Call the Scions
1 Eyeless Watcher
1 Murasa Ranger
1 Woodland Wanderer
1 Kozilek’s Channeler
1 Noyan Dar, Roil Shaper
1 Guardian of Tazeem
1 Tajuru Beastmaster
1 Greenwarden of Murasa
1 Plated Crusher
1 Mire’s Malice
1 Complete Disregard
1 Smite the Monstrous
1 Sheer Drop
1 Retreat to Emeria
1 Exert Influence
1 Blighted Woodland
1 Evolving Wilds
1 Mortuary Mire
1 Skyline Cascade
2 Fertile Thicket
1 Swamp
3 Island
3 Plains
5 Forest
Neither of these decks were great, but they were pretty solid for not getting shipped the nuts and playing the worst color. It's high variance to play sketchy mana bases like this, I would SET OUT to do so.
EDIT: Before anyone comments - I agree ahead of time that plated crusher cannot be cast reliably at all in this deck, and if I had any other reasonable dude I would have played that instead. I am already scraping the bottom with Call of the Scions as you can see.
Vampiric Rites
Catacomb Sifter
Rot Shambler
and a million scions/blister pods all at the same time.
He did eventually get a Cutthroat out too, but I think he only drained me for 4 or so.
I still beat him. He made a 16/16 Rot shambler that he could not attack with and eventually I went wide enough (like 6 guys) and allied triggered him (+1/+1 vigilance) on successive turns.
Interesting to note that both decks were Gx.
Yep. And honestly even in 8-4's, which tend to be pretty competitive, I've found you can get there with a grixis colored deck more often than not. Even though green's weakness is common knowledge now, not everyone will have the discipline or desire to avoid it.
It is hard to fight for the UR or UB deck in the draft...I have had my fair share of meh, although my last UR deck was truly insane and didn't lose a game.
I play green going wide not ramping into stuff most of the time. scion scion scion, warcaller dead. Also works with the 6 mana +1/+1 and the swarm +2-0 card. Green is a synergy deck like in most in the format it's just that the cards are more meh without compared to a lot of the UB cards that are fine.
Pioneer:UR Pheonix
Modern:U Mono U Tron
EDH
GB Glissa, the traitor: Army of Cans
UW Dragonlord Ojutai: Dragonlord NOjutai
UWGDerevi, Empyrial Tactician "you cannot fight the storm"
R Zirilan of the claw. The solution to every problem is dragons
UB Etrata, the Silencer Cloning assassination
Peasant cube: Cards I own