MTG Salvation

I was wondering why so many cubes seem to have so much high costing cost stuff. Clearly these cards are powerfull, but are quick aggro creatures, blast and so on not better?

Are a lot of cubes build with 'fun' in mind, more then power? Or do people compare power more card by card, then as a part of a deck? I mean sure some random fatty is more powerfull then some small creatures for a weenie/ponza style deck, but a deck full of small stuff should be in a cube too,no?

I have a feeling that people make their cubes so blast and aggro are less powerfull then they could/should. Am I right or is this just a typical Cube beginner mistake?

What would a cube look like that had the goal of building the most powerfull decks instead of the most powerfull cards taken together?

Sounds like a statement that lacks experience. Some of my favorite cube archtypes are white weenie and mono-red ponza. Both require a curve that typically ends at 4CMC, 5 at the most.

The Cubes I see tend to have a healthy mix of cards at all casting costs. I don't see the high-cc spells outnumbering the low-cc spells too much, and the majority of spells end up being in the 3-5 cc range. This does vary by color; red and white tend to have more 1-2 cc spells than blue does. Most Cubes designed for 1-on-1 games seem to have healthy aggro support.

Cheers,
rant

And isn't the definition of a "powerful" card when you get any type of an effect at a CHEAPER than normal cost?

I try to keep the bulk of my cards in the 2-4 range, and then combining (and now that everyone knows I'm a numbers hound, I'm gunna have to work this out) with all the high cost stuff, the average cc should be in the threes, MAYBE fours.

EDIT: Quick math tells the tale...

Average Converted Casting Cost (NorCal Cube)
Black - 2.94
Blue - 3.29
Green - 2.94
Red - 3.02
White - 3.21
Artifact - 2.42

It's not totally accurate, as you have to account for the X spells in each color. I had X = 0 when determining the averages. I skipped the Multis/Hybrids because I didn't want to be here forever trying to figure this out.

Here are the average casting costs for the cards in my cube (by color):

White = 3.077
Blue = 3.185
Black = 2.923
Red = 2.831
Green = 2.615
Artifact = 2.581
Gold = 3.576

Blue is at the top, White and Black are in the middle, and Red and Green are the colors with the lowest average casting costs.

They all hover around three, which means I have about an equal number of cards with costs >3, as I do cards with cost <3. The curve has always worked out great, and Aggro and Control archetypes are balanced 50/50 in their overall W/L records.

Quote from wtwlf123

Blue is at the top, White and Black are in the middle, and Red and Green are the colors with the lowest average casting costs.

They all hover around three, which means I have about an equal number of cards with costs >3, as I do cards with cost <3. The curve has always worked out great, and Aggro and Control archetypes are balanced 50/50 in their overall W/L records.

I found that it's not that you have an equal number of CARDS with high cc as 1 and 2cc, but that if you add up their collective cc (8 cards at 1cc VS 1 card at 8cc -- which would in fact turn into 9 cards at 16 total cc, or an average of 1.78) is how it balances out.

It's not exact, but it's close. I have a 2 and a 4... 3. I have a 1 and a 5... 3. It's not always like that, but it's pretty close.

I think OP's point is overall correct. But the factor he is not adjusting for is that this is a limited format, no matter how constructed the cards "feel." In constructed, the curve is narrower and drops off sooner than in limited and almost always has. Well, even in a format as powerful as the cube, there are still some basic deckmaking factors like the inconsistency of a highlander format, or the "basicness" of the meta, or the inability of efficient small cards to win without dedicated support as well as bomby bombs.

So overall I do think that it is to be expected that there is a slight bulging of the mana curve in the cube compared to constructed decks.

I have taken into account that lots of deck need 2 and 3 drops. So most of the cards are 2,3 and 4 mana costs cards. (4 is usually hard to cut, and still easily playable with so much acceleration in cube)
I've paid a lot of attention not to put too many 5+ cards in there, simply because you don't need them that much.
I've drafted a deck with 15 lands, 3 3-drops, 1 4-drop and all others were 1 and 2.
I lost 1 game out of 6 with that deck.
The only color where my manacost is higher is green, but because they have even more accelerators, they need something to accelerate into.

My average CCs:

White - 3.24
Blue - 3.46
Black - 3.07
Red - 3.24
Green - 3.21

Observations:
1)Reanimation targets raise the curve.
2)When your cube is larger the differences between each color's average casting cost are smaller.

I think there may actually be something to the notion that ramping up to a serious threat as a viable strategy for decks leads to a higher overall cost. And it does seem that expensive cards will get you closer to the win than the aggro ones that plug away in the red zone from early turns on. Most of the cubes I have seen have a slight or strong midrange/ramp/bomby quality to them and I don't think it's a coincidence.

On the other hand, while the huge cards may finish the deal and win the game, you can't ignore the cheaper cards like utilty, fetch, removal, stall, and cheap beaters that got you there.

I'm one of those people that likes to keep everything in my decks at 4cc or less unless it's an absolute bomb/win-condition (for the sanity of wtwlf123, I won't say Rude Awakening; but it is a good example -- but also stuff like Tinker and Tooth & Nail targets <Darksteel Colossus, Akromas, Kiki-Jiki, Hellkite Overlord, Sharuum, etc> or just win cards like Exalted Angel <who rarely ever gets hardcasted anyways...she's more of a 2WW as I see it> or tough to deal with cards like Kokusho, Yosei, Keiga or Morphling or the standard gold card: Spiritmonger. Typically, I like to stay in the 3cc and 4cc 'useful' creature areas - Troll Ascetic, Ravenous Baloth, Chameleon Colossus, Hypnotic Specter, Venser, Shaper Savant, etc. I think I may have set an MTGSalvation record for longest parenthesis statement.)

In the end, I've seen our Cube shape up as it fits our personalities when it comes not only to the cards and the style of cards, but also something like the casting cost of cards.

I clearly understand that Reanimation, Tooth and Tinker targets create the situation where you'll have a higher average cc per color (especially in Red, Green and Black). That makes perfect sense to me.

I must have more aggro enabler cards (and less fatties) in my cube because all most of my average costs are under 3. I try and make sure that I have more 1, 2, & 3 drops than 4, 5, & 6+ drops because aggro needs more low-cc stuff to stay ahead of the curve.

As it is right now, even blue (as the highest) has an average cost of 3.1 which is lower than almost all of Metamind's average CCs. Interesting.

Quote from wtwlf123

I must have more aggro enabler cards (and less fatties) in my cube because all most of my average costs are under 3. I try and make sure that I have more 1, 2, & 3 drops than 4, 5, & 6+ drops because aggro needs more low-cc stuff to stay ahead of the curve.

As it is right now, even blue (as the highest) has an average cost of 3.1 which is lower than almost all of Metamind's average CCs. Interesting.

Maybe it really does come down to preference in the end. I have tried to nudge my cube more towards aggro and cheaper and it's tougher to do than I thought. It was like some of the cheaper cards wouldn't stick. Or perhaps you have to build with all that in mind and therefore each cheaper card reinforces the others but only if you have a large bulk of them.

@ wtwlf - I could see why your cube is cheaper, you're missing Bogardan Hellkite, Hellkite Overlord, Empyrial Archangel, Inkwell Leviathan, Woodfall Primus, Rude Awakening, Tooth and Nail and more

Sure, but if my cube was bigger, I would compensate all those additions with a greater number of low casting-cost aggro cards to keep the average casting cost of the cards in the cube low.

I think the point I was trying to make earlier, which this conversation seems to be bearing out is that aggro and lower cost cards is a very linear mechanic and requires a lot of support to get it to work. Perhaps the same can be said in a general sense about higher cost stuff, too using the logic of an inverse principle. Because it seems like the cubes that do well with cheap stuff are built with support for it, but more impolrtantly, they have a lot of it.

I know the same thing is true of reanimator, combo and ramp in the Cube.

Sure, but if my cube was bigger, I would compensate all those additions with a greater number of low casting-cost aggro cards to keep the average casting cost of the cards in the cube low.

I was talking about the expansions. 19.8% of my white are two-drop creatures, for example. These high cost cards do have a disproportional effect on the average CMC.

Sorry if my OP seemed a bit negative, especially from a new poster here. It could be that my relative inexperience with Cubing shone through though.

As some posters have alluded to allready, I think that low casting cost stuff makes the other low casting cost cards better. So even if some bomby dragon might be a better card by itself, it could be that a simple 2/2 first striking Knight could make for better decks. Could it be that a lot of cubes accept ramping up to high mana as a supportive strategy more then overwhelming with 'simple' creatures and blast? I mean aggro cards need more aggro cards to make them shine, but high CC cards need other stuff (mana accelaration, stalling cards,...)

Because the naked power level of the high CC cards seems higher, people might be more focussed on this when building a cube, then in having the endresult be the strongest decks.

Or it could be that I should just stop building my Cube and actually play more;)

Well, there is no replacement for experience as that is the best teacher in these matters. The more you get, the better understanding you will have. And your point about a 2 drop is fine, but generally applies best to constructed. In limited formats, the 2/2's are generally all shut down by 2/3's, which fold to 3/3's, which are now worthless because of that 4/5 on the table. That, along with the power of sweeping effects means you want to get a lot of bang from each creature.

tl;dr Playing the cube you will see timmy effects do matter more than usual. Just don't go crazy with them as cheap stuff is still good.

Even if you do have a deck like Tooth, Reanimation, Tinker, whatever, and you're going to ramp into that specific spell -- you're still going to need a lot of cheap spells to make the ramp possible: Llanowar Elves, Kodama's Reach, STE, Farseek, Sylvan Scrying, Birds of Paradise, Harrow, Moxes, Sol Ring, Grim Monolith, Tutors, etc. That's all 3cc and less spells. That's not counting stuff like Fetch Lands, Ancient Tomb, City of Traitors and the like.

So even if you have an Empyrial Archangel, Hellkite Overlord, Progenitus, DSC, etc. -- those high cc cards will still be offset from the low cc stuff that has to support their viability.

Then, you go to the principle of swinging with three 2/2 creatures over the course of a few turns versus 2 swings from an 11/11. Those 2/2's can cause equal or more damage before that 11/11 hits in a ramp deck (obviously you can legitimately Tinker into a Colossus on turn 1 -- I'd also like to point out that this directly relates to wtwlf123's very interesting take on Phyrexian Processor, as seen here - Post #63).

I don't know if 3 is the magical number, it might be 2.9. But maybe we should be doing some sort of analysis on what the "sweet spot" or most efficient average casting cost is for each color. I'm sure through enough study, we'll show that White's sweet spot may be 2.7, but blue might be 3.1.

We'd also have to have a set of guidelines. Because cards like Exalted Angel, Force of Will, etc have casting costs that RARELY get paid when the cards get paid. It's arguable that Exalted Angel's cc is really 2WW and Force of Will's cc is 0. We'd also have to discuss what X is equal to on the X spells. It's possible that Braingeyser and Stroke of Genius are typically 1 or 2, and that Banefire is always 5+. The X spells are where the study numbers can get royally screwed.

I did my figures what what I consider the casting cost to usually be at (FoW at 0, Rude Awakening at 8, Martial Coup at 7) - things like that and typically didn't use X spells at all when considering averages because it got wonky and figured that it didn't make much sense to count them in an average. (I know, I counted Coup, but the only time that I saw it cast as less than 5 was when I casted it for 2 to make some soldiers to equip in an emergency situation.)

See, I had X = 0 when I did my averages. If every color had an equal number of X spells, then you could do that. But Black, for instance, has Mind Twist, Profane Command and maybe Death Cloud. Blue will have Braingeyser and Stroke of Genius, Green has Hurricane and possibly Chord of Calling, and Red brings the house with Fireball, Starstorm, Banefire, Demonfire, Rolling Earthquake, Molten Disaster, etc. and White has Decree of Justice and Martial Coup, Artifact has Engineered Explosives, Sigil of Distinction and possibly Chalice of the Void, Gold has Death Grasp and I can't think of any others.

That being said, I think it would be best to either have X = 0 (as it is generally stated on MTG reminder or rules text) or have X = 1, because when you play the card, it'll be for a minimum of 1. And that would only be fair since we're talking about what we play the other cards at (e.g. Rude Awakening, Force of Will, Exalted Angel, etc.)

EDIT: Damn card tags.