I would think that Legionnaire is going to see play much more often in white aggro decks that it does in nonwhite aggro decks.
If this is what actually happens in your drafts, you're probably evaluating the Legionnaire too low outside white. Even without considering blue, white is still outnumbered 3 to 1 by the other colors - for every white deck that wants the Legionnaire, there will be 3 non-white decks in the draft that also want it. It should easily be played outside white much more often than inside it.
At least you are fine with admitting that the imbalance exists and that you do not mind because it is so small. I am ok with your reasoning; you simply do not want to do the bookkeeping because the effect is pretty small. I happen to enjoy the little things like this, and as you can see, I'm passionate.
The other thing about that, is that I'm not comfortable adding in "colorless" cards that are by nature strictly better in one color than another.
Adding Legionnaire/Metamorph in as colorless cards is fine too, so long as you're okay that it give's white/blue a distinct advantage over any other color that takes them.
I can admit that I'm creating an imbalance by adding in a "white" card that can be stolen by other decks if you can admit you're creating an imbalance by adding in a "colorless" card that's inherently better in one color over another.
Either way, no organizational method is perfect unless you have a "phybrid mana" section, and you have a balanced and equal representation of phybrid mana cards in there.
It creates a super-slight imbalance either way you categorize it. I wanna put it where it's best, others wanna put it where it's used most often. Both options are fine, but neither are perfect and both create slight imbalance.
Quote from Lasserini »
I categorize the Legionaire as a colorless card, because its being highly drafted by aggrodecks in all colors.
It sure is. That doesn't change the fact that it's strictly better in a deck that has white mana in it. No matter how often it's played for three.
You're telling me that it's going to be strictly better in a white deck that has 4 wraths than in red aggro?
(really?)
No.
Lets say that there's two decks that want Legionnaire (both aggro). One has white mana available, and the other doesn't. The Legionnaire is strictly better in the deck that has white mana available than the one that doesn't. Because having all casting options available is always better than only having one casting option available.
The point about "counting him as a colorless card gives other colors an extra card" is invalidated by the fact that every aggressive deck values him exactly the same way, white or not.
Maybe, but the point there was to illustrate that there is imbalance on both sides of the coin and that no cube will ever be 100% perfectly balanced. If you include Legionnaire in white, then you take the chance that a nonwhite aggro deck will take it in the draft, which gives white a slight set back for being down a card in the draft. If you include it in colorless, then you're giving any white deck a slight advantage. Either way there's a small amount of imbalance.
Another thing to note is that, even if a red based aggro deck picks up Legionnaire in the draft and cuts white out of a card, that's really no different than if that drafter had hated out the Silver Knight because he didn't want to play against it.
I'm also ok with the imbalance, but it should be noted that there's no such thing as complete balance when it comes to the cube.
If this is what actually happens in your drafts, you're probably evaluating the Legionnaire too low outside white. Even without considering blue, white is still outnumbered 3 to 1 by the other colors - for every white deck that wants the Legionnaire, there will be 3 non-white decks in the draft that also want it. It should easily be played outside white much more often than inside it.
We're not evaluating it too low, we just don't draft that large of a pool. There's literally never a time when there will be three non white decks in the draft that also want Legionnaire. Our norm is one of three things: Winston, 3-man, or 4-man. Anything more than that is a very rare occasion.
It's hard to evaluate this in a Winston draft because piles get taken that contain off color cards all the time. At the end of the draft, it's likely that your s/b includes several cards that would have been really good for my deck. It's also likely that your deck includes a couple of artifacts that would have been really good for my deck. This will happen no matter where Legionnaire is sorted.
In 3-4 man drafts, there's really just not enough decks being built for Legionnaire's colorless option to be that relevant. If we have four drafters it's not likely that more than two of them will be in aggro, and again if one aggro player takes the Legionnaire from the other aggro player, it's about as devastating to the draft and the other aggro deck as run of the mill hate draft is.
I admit that the 2 life does make the card superficially better in white. To be fair, this is true.
Also, Winston drafting sucks. At this point, people should be trying to find other 2 man draft options. If the mod would get back to me about my article concerning the one my group use, hopefully more people will see it and abandon such a poor format.
In any case, my bookkeeping is important for the format I use. We see 128 cards (which is only a few cards shy of one third of the cube) every draft, so that extra one card does have a real effect. It is obscenely common for players to get exactly 23 or 24 playables (with the rest out of color, no less), so that extra card will matter, and in my experience that card will matter more than the two life.
Also, remember that I use a c/u cube. Creature based decks are 65% or more of the builds, and aggro vs midgrange is the most common
Lets say that there's two decks that want Legionnaire (both aggro). One has white mana available, and the other doesn't. The Legionnaire is strictly better in the deck that has white mana available than the one that doesn't. Because having all casting options available is always better than only having one casting option available.
Read what you wrote. Specify next time, not after you give a facepalm.
It depends on how aggro the white deck is that wants P. Leg, which was the point of me bringing that up.
As you've mentioned, a red aggro deck will make better use of P. Leg than a white control deck. Who's to say that it won't make better use of it in a red aggro deck than a white aggro deck?
Everyone has their own preference with how they're going to be categorizing phyrexian mana cards, it's not obvious, and it's not strictly better in white aggro than it is in red aggro.
We're not evaluating it too low, we just don't draft that large of a pool. There's literally never a time when there will be three non white decks in the draft that also want Legionnaire. Our norm is one of three things: Winston, 3-man, or 4-man. Anything more than that is a very rare occasion.
It's hard to evaluate this in a Winston draft because piles get taken that contain off color cards all the time. At the end of the draft, it's likely that your s/b includes several cards that would have been really good for my deck. It's also likely that your deck includes a couple of artifacts that would have been really good for my deck. This will happen no matter where Legionnaire is sorted.
In 3-4 man drafts, there's really just not enough decks being built for Legionnaire's colorless option to be that relevant. If we have four drafters it's not likely that more than two of them will be in aggro, and again if one aggro player takes the Legionnaire from the other aggro player, it's about as devastating to the draft and the other aggro deck as run of the mill hate draft is.
Yeah, that makes sense. My logic was assuming an 8 man draft, which is our default. In your case, I can see how it makes more sense in white.
In any case I completely agree that whatever 'imbalance' results from either categorization method exists mostly in us cube managers' obsessed minds.
EDIT: @ Blimpy: this was turning out one of the most reasonable, gentlemanlike discussions I've ever witnessed anywhere on the interwebz. Please don't ruin it.
EDIT: @ Blimpy: this was turning out one of the most reasonable, gentlemanlike discussions I've ever witnessed anywhere on the interwebz. Please don't ruin it.
You have an odd sense of what is reasonable and gentlemanlike if you think I'm ruining the discussion.
You have an odd sense of what is reasonable and gentlemanlike if you think I'm ruining the discussion.
That was perhaps not very gentlemanlike, I agree. But you saw the facepalm and raised him 2 rows of facepalms. That's the classical recipe for a flame war.
Anyhow, I've no problem with you or the way you usually express yourself. I'd just prefer this thread to remain a nice place to be in, 's all. Peace 'n love and all that
@Fredo: I agree that the discussion was going very well up until that point. Let's continue with civilized discussion.
@Leelue: I think Eiodolon's way of organization is very good. If it costs 4 or more life initially, or if it has an activation with a phyrexian mana in it, it can be classified within its color. Otherwise, it can easily be colorless.
We have P. Metamorph and P. Legionnaire in the colorless section while Moltensteel Dragon and Dismember are in their respective colors.
I think those are the only Phyrexian cards we're adding. Noxious Revival doesn't make the cut for us.
I'd just prefer this thread to remain a nice place to be in, 's all. Peace 'n love and all that
So what time do we light the bonfire and start singing Kumbaya?
In seriousness, I havn't gotten around to updating my cube for New Phyrexia yet (though I've had a chance to cube draft since the set came out either so no-harm-no-fowl, I suppose) but when I do, I'll almost certainly be applying the principle eidolon232 described. (If the card can be played in any deck for only 2 life, it's colorless. If you would need 4 or more life to make it work off-color, it's a colored card.) This seems like really reasonable way go about it.
I agree that Eidolon's method seems very solid. We ended up categorizing the same way, except that we put Dismember in colorless because:
1) if Snuff Out is great in black, Dismember should be at least equally great outside black;
2) non-black decks are likely to actually need Dismember a lot more than black decks, which have an entire arsenal of removal at their disposal already.
But I admit it's the one I'm the least certain of, it could very well end up in the black section anyway if it turns out to be played most often in black decks after all.
Read what you wrote. Specify next time, not after you give a facepalm.
I didn't think I needed to specify that when referring to Porcelain Legionnaire, I'd be referring to an aggro deck.
If there are two equally powerful aggro decks, whichever one has access to casting Legionnaire in multiple ways instead of only one will get more out of the card.
So, any card is strictly better in a situation where it has multiple casting options instead of just one casting option.
I gave a facepalm because I thought it was perfectly clear, intuitive and self-explanatory. If I must say aggro decks when referring to aggro cards from here on out, I will. But I really hope that's not necessary.
Every time I say "Jackal Pup is a good red card for the cube", I certainly hope I don't have to add an aggro caveat to that statement every time.
Quote from Leelue »
I admit that the 2 life does make the card superficially better in white. To be fair, this is true.
Also, Winston drafting sucks. At this point, people should be trying to find other 2 man draft options. If the mod would get back to me about my article concerning the one my group use, hopefully more people will see it and abandon such a poor format.
In any case, my bookkeeping is important for the format I use. We see 128 cards (which is only a few cards shy of one third of the cube) every draft, so that extra one card does have a real effect. It is obscenely common for players to get exactly 23 or 24 playables (with the rest out of color, no less), so that extra card will matter, and in my experience that card will matter more than the two life.
Also, remember that I use a c/u cube. Creature based decks are 65% or more of the builds, and aggro vs midgrange is the most common
Ya, like I've been saying. All current organizational choices lead to minor imbalances. Choose the one that's best justified in your mind and to your group.
I love Winston drafting. And Sealed. We play both of those formats all the time, and I'm not looking for an alternative 2-man format at all. Winston is fun and fast and skill-intensive.
Bookkeeping is important to me too. But we don't "seed" our packs for balance anyways, so random pool is random. 1 extra card in each color that could potentially be drafted by an off-color drafter isn't going to imbalance a draft.
And we ALWAYS have more playables and have to trim down. And that's in Winston! I don't know how you guys are coming up so short on playables. :mystery:
Also remember that C/U cubes, regular cubes and powered cubes all differ from each other. Card advice, organizational methods and archetype results are going to be pretty different for you than for me. Just something to keep in mind.
Quote from Blimpy »
...and it's not strictly better in white aggro than it is in red aggro.
I disagree with this. The card is intrinsically better when all of its casting options are available. This is true of every card. So if two decks of equal power that both want Legionnaire equally are put head-to-head, the Legionnaire will be better in the one that has the potential to cast it multiple different ways.
Everything can differ on a case-to-case basis, but the card is intrinsically more powerful when it gives you the most options.
And this is even more true of Metamorph; who's clone/steel ability doesn't rely on speed to make it efficient. That card is much better in a deck that can cast it later on in the game (when the targets are better) without having to pay the life to do so. Especially when it also has the option of coming down on T3 when advantageous.
Just put the cards where you think they should go. A lot of people put them where they function at the highest level (Nacatl in RWG, Kird Ape in RG, Shackles in U), some people use a guild system (putting Dimir Signet in UB, e.g.), and some people put the cards where they are printed (Nacatl in G, Kird Ape in R, etc.).
Do whatever you want to do, and just be sure to keep track of how archetypes are performing in your cube. If you find that the 'extra' cards certain colors/pairs are getting are adversely affecting your drafts/decks, then try something else.
Me? I put everything where it is printed on the card, and haven't balance issues in a LONG time. Nothing is perfect, but if your Cube works how you want it to then that is 'perfect' enough.
Woah woah woah. woah. Winston is not skill intensive. There is a terrible, terrible lack of choices in Winston, and the opportunity costs for picking cards is close to nonexistent. Once you're in a color, you take packs with cards you feel you can play, and occasionally hate draft (which the opportunity cost for is still close to nonexistent).
I used to love it, but over time I realized that it's a bad format. A lot of important things from a game design standpoint are significantly less relevant than they should be, and reading signals is so easy it is infantile.
Hell, they even wrote an article last week on the mothersite about how bad it is. The article was about something called winchester drafting.
Winston is also not fast. At all. The drafting process involves so many motions and "decisions" that it takes a good deal of time to go through it all. Perhaps it is faster than say... an 8 man draft, but in reality that is not hard to do.
-------
when I draft with 2 players (simplified explanation upcoming) we make small packs, pick a card, pass, pick, trash the packs, and repeat (total of 12 rounds = 24 picks). there is more to it than that (which is how we get a little more than only 24) but using this format is actually skill intensive and fast, unlike Winston. The draft process takes about 2 minutes and 30 seconds, give or take 30 seconds.
-------
You said the P leg is better in white. White has much, much better two drops than red. That's why red needs burn spells, haste and every form of reach it can find to scrape wins together. You give red super efficient creatures like P Leg, and the two aggro decks are no longer on even footing;
the two colors do not want legionairre equally, red wants it more.
It is well known how stacked the white two drop slot is. This guy is just another strong dude for white, but is the absolute nuts for other colors because a guy of this caliber virtually never gets printed for them.
To put it another way
White decks may actually pass him for a knight of meadowgrain, red decks will toss kiln fiend to the curb for him. The way I see it, if mono any color aggro decks got put together, this card gets put in every other deck more than monowhite.
If the card actually gets played less than a quarter of the time in white, how can I keep it there?
--------
the difference between p leg and metamorph is that the reason why the former is even cubable is because you can and will play him for two. The card's worth revolves not around flexibility or utility (like most phybrids), but in efficiency. This is why I don't 100% agree with eidelon (the method is undeniably a good rule of thumb and I wouldn't go to great lengths to argue with it. That's saying a lot; I argue everything. Everything.) Dismember sees a lot of non-black play though (hence colorless), Act of aggression is borderline (but for now it is colorless in mine to make sure. Keeping a close watch on it though.), and I would assume that there is a small chance Tanadon would be borderline as well instead of auto green(same argument as the white creature, only substitute efficiency for "sheer size". It is bigger than every black creature in the c/u cube, btw...).
--------
I also want to say again that putting kird ape in red and not in gruul is completely wrong, and unlike the prior discussion, this cannot possibly be up for debate. At least P Leg in white has an argument behind it, kird ape will never get played without forests (at least not if winning is on the agenda).
---------
I didn't think I needed to specify that when referring to Porcelain Legionnaire, I'd be referring to an aggro deck.
If there are two equally powerful aggro decks, whichever one has access to casting Legionnaire in multiple ways instead of only one will get more out of the card.
So, any card is strictly better in a situation where it has multiple casting options instead of just one casting option.
I gave a facepalm because I thought it was perfectly clear, intuitive and self-explanatory. If I must say aggro decks when referring to aggro cards from here on out, I will. But I really hope that's not necessary.
Every time I say "Jackal Pup is a good red card for the cube", I certainly hope I don't have to add an aggro caveat to that statement every time.
I knew what you were saying when I asked the question. I was looking for an explanation because the one you provided was very superficial. I thought you would have known this from my last post, but apparently you didn't.
Everything isn't as crystal clear as your intentions might have it anyway. It's nice to get qualifiers out there, even if they aren't required. No one believes that you think P. Leg is amazing in a control deck. The question is whether or not you truly believe it's strictly better in a deck that has white it in. Which is your next point, and I'm glad you brought up.
The card is intrinsically better when all of its casting options are available. This is true of every card.
You just argued against this point. If you have a white control deck and a red aggro deck, even though the white control deck can utilize all of it's casting options, it's still better in the red aggro deck because the card is more suited for that deck.
This isn't semantics. This is two arguments clashing very violently against one another.
On the one hand, you're saying that if a deck can cast it with more options, it automatically makes the card better in that deck. On the other hand, you're saying that the deck which is more aggro can utilize the card better. Well which is it? Which one takes precedence? Do the decks just need to be similar in function and then whatever one has access to white is the one P. Leg will fit better into? What are your parameters here? Red aggro cards and white aggro cards are much different.
I think we can evaluate P. Leg based on commonly played cards within the cube in each color instead of just looking superficially at what deck can simply cast it with more options available. If P. Leg was blue instead of white with everything else equal, would you still put it in the blue section? Even though blue can cast it more often than not, other colors will play that card far more often than blue decks will.
So if two decks of equal power that both want Legionnaire equally are put head-to-head, the Legionnaire will be better in the one that has the potential to cast it multiple different ways.
That's assuming two decks of "equal power" want Legionnaire "equally." We all know what happens when we assume.
The entire debate is whether it's equal or not between colors, I don't know how you can so easily gloss over that unless you haven't read most of the replies in this thread. Red might want P. Leg more than white does. In fact, I would argue that if you sat down and looked at your red section and looked at your white section, you might agree that your red could use P. Leg more than your white in most scenarios.
Everything can differ on a case-to-case basis, but the card is intrinsically more powerful when it gives you the most options.
This is absolutely not true for the same reason that P. Leg is worse in a white control shell than it is in a red aggro shell. You need to add more to this statement to make it true.
And this is even more true of Metamorph; who's clone/steel ability doesn't rely on speed to make it efficient. That card is much better in a deck that can cast it later on in the game (when the targets are better) without having to pay the life to do so. Especially when it also has the option of coming down on T3 when advantageous.
I would argue that P. Metamorph is stronger in the colorless section than P. Leg is, so I have no idea what you're saying here and would prefer to keep the argument to P. Leg because that's what we've been on for a while. We can change the topic after we hammer some of your statements out.
Nice reply by the way, I appreciate getting a better sense of where you're coming from rather than facepalms. Keep it up.
It's better in red aggro than white control. I never said different.
If two decks that can get equal value from the card are compared to one another, the one that lets you cast it in two different ways will get more value from that card than the deck that only has one way to cast it.
It's that simple. I'm not debating semantics. I'm debating simple fact. 2 ways to cast > 1 way to cast; when all other aspects are equal. You can add in other factors that change that, but when those factors are absent, 2 > 1.
It's better in red aggro than white control. I never said different.
I never said otherwise.
If two decks that can get equal value from the card are compared to one another, the one that lets you cast it in two different ways will get more value from that card than the deck that only has one way to cast it.
If two decks can get "equal value" from one card, I'd like to see those decks. One deck will always get more value out of the card based on the fact that the decks are different.
It's that simple. I'm not debating semantics. I'm debating simple fact. 2 ways to cast > 1 way to cast; when all other aspects are equal. You can add in other factors that change that, but when those factors are absent, 2 > 1.
So what decks are you playing where all other aspects are equal?
Seems to me your argument can't exist in your own cube, let alone others.
Two similarly powerful aggro decks. They will both want the Legionnaire. But it'll be ever so slightly better in the deck that has more than one way to cast it.
Sorry you disagree, but I can't illustrate it any clearer than that. If you still disagree, we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on.
Two similarly powerful aggro decks. They will both want the Legionnaire. But it'll be ever so slightly better in the deck that has more than one way to cast it.
Similar =/= Equal. This is the crux of the argument. You're saying that you categorize P. Leg in white because all things being equal, it's stronger in the color that it can be cast without life payment.
I'm saying all things can't be equal and that other colors might actually desire P. Leg more than white does (namely, red).
Sorry you disagree, but I can't illustrate it any clearer than that. If you still disagree, we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on.
That's fine if you want to end it this way. Like you and I have both said, categorization is personal and everyone decides their own way differently. Glad this could end on a good note.
And just like Fire // Icecould be better in some red decks without blue, and even some blue decks without red depending on all other circumstances. I'm still gonna count it as a UR card, because individual deck circumstances aside, it's "best" when you can cast either side. It's all good man, we don't have to agree on everything. It'd be a pretty boring forum if we did.
I also want to say again that putting kird ape in red and not in gruul is completely wrong, and unlike the prior discussion, this cannot possibly be up for debate. At least P Leg in white has an argument behind it, kird ape will never get played without forests (at least not if winning is on the agenda).
---------
Obviously it is up for discussion because I brought it up, right? And wrong according to whom, you? Last I checked, the card cost red mana to cast and not green mana. While it functions BEST in r/g decks, I've definitely played it in R/W decks that can use the w/g and r/g duals...easier when you draft lands as highly as I do. When you have fetchlands and a couple w/g or r/g duals, you don't need to cast green spells.
You classify how you want if it works for you; I'll classify the way that works for me. I don't need the room in red, and if r/g aggressive decks 'get' another card, I'm OK with that too.
Well then you're playing the card in a deck with forests. Which is what I said.
If there were no forests, then it'd be different. But you need a land that says "forest" for him to not just be cubable, but playable. It can not and will not be used in a deck that does not make him a 2/3, which means either you are in green, or you have used picks to allow him to function properly. The times you don't happen to come across random green lands that say "forest" invalidate his inclusion in the deck, and by extension his inclusion in the Mono Red section.
If you are able to consistently get the proper duals and fetches to efficiently (key word) run the ape in a deck that runs no green spells, then one of three things is happening...
1) There is a problem with the size of the drafted pools, allowing you to freely pick lands up for no opportunity cost. Doing 3 packs of 15 does this, and I don't know why this isn't common knowledge. Cubes are made of playables, real sets aren't, so it is easy to get 35+ cards that you can play and have about 5 of them be lands/moxen. Also, if you are unfortunate enough to Winston, Winstoning does this as well because the format is very, very, very poorly put together from a game design standpoint. (Free random cards, zero tradeoff for taking them, and zero incentive not to? How could I not!)
2) The sheer amount of mana fixing is making things far to easy (seriously, if you can splash for a 1 drop creature consistently, it is too easy).
3) You are only remembering the times that you had the creature and the mana base to support him, and not the times you passed him because the land wasn't in your pool yet/he sat on somebody's sideline because he wouldn't be consistent. This is very normal. It's how our memory functions and I do not fault you for it.
Wtwlf
*essay warning* *not for the easily discouraged*
if we lived in a universe where white creatures were all goyfs and red creatures were all goblin pikers, then porcelain legionairre would be a bad white creature but the best creature ever printed for red. This is an obvious exaggeration, but merely an extension of a portion of my argument and a big part of what we are getting at. You may be able to cast him for 3, but when he's surrounded by other guys who are obviously worse than him (in red, usually) he makes the deck/archetype better and is more highly picked for the colors he would make a difference in. Using my example, he would see 0% play in white and 100% play in red and this argument would not exist. At what point in time this goes from "obviously wrong for this deck" (my example) to "debatable"(what you're saying) is a new argument on its own, one that would probably also be fun (but too large a tangent for the moment). All I'm doing is bringing my fanciful example with the goyfs to a realistic setting, aka reality. The numbers are probably closer to 65% and 90% (white gets played as aggro quite a bit less than red, one has to admit. To be fair, both can be nonaggro. The rest of the difference in these particular figures would come from white aggro occasionally passing him for another white creature, an action that would not easily happen in another aggro deck). That is still a very real disparity and a very real difference in value.
Attacking this from another angle, legionairre will get cast for 2 mana somewhere around 70% of the time in white decks, and the 2 life will matter in probably around one out of 25 games where it is paid (That's being generous. I have still not seen the 2 life from porcelain legionairre actually definitely decide the game's outcome, and I've seen just about 20 games with this guy). So 1.2% (Taking 70% out of 4%) of the time that you draw this guy, the 2 life could matter. One out of about 90 games, and that is when I give you a kind estimate.
So honestly if you take into account our tendency to remember really close games, there are just not a lot where the aggro deck needed exactly 2 life to actually turn a definite loss into a definite win. There just aren't. And this is the entirety of your argument - that aggressive decks will lose a statistically relevant number of games by starting at eighteen instead of 20 around 30% of the time.
If the advantage (two life) doesn't affect the ultimate outcome (winning and losing), then it might as well not exist, (which is what I'm saying).
Just because there is a argument for some decision doesn't mean that the argument is as valid as another, and mathematics does not lie. P Leg is significantly more efficient than nonwhite creatures, and is "just over the curve" for white creatures - these are clear facts. He will get played in nonwhite decks more often than in white ones (3 other colors that frequently attack on turn 3 force this to also be fact, even before I throw real world testing into the mix which only support my side regardless.) The games that the 2 life on this creature will actually make a player's guaranteed win a guaranteed loss (which, I repeat, is THE ONLY way the opposing argument has validity) are insane statistical outliers, and these games are only remembered because they are so rare and exciting. Outliers (those games) =/= General play and common occurrences (the card being used more often and with greater relative value in other colors).
I cannot possibly dissect the issue more.
I cannot possibly show you more evidence to support my claim.
I cannot possibly make it more clear.
By the way, the 30% figure isn't pulled out of thin air. I've been keeping close tabs on the times this guy (and others, all to an obsessive degree), and 30% is erring on the side of caution. And just because I own a c/u cube doesn't mean I don't have more experience. There is a powered cube in my playgroup, and a nonpowered one at a local store. So yes, I have sufficient experience to cover any perceived environmental influences when I advance my argument.
If this was some conceptual problem about an imaginary card with an imaginary alternative casting option that we aren't able to test, then I would actually agree with you. If the card actually Gained efficiency when you played him with plains instead of occasionally not costing you life at the Cost of efficiency, then you'd have a point. But they printed a powerful card with more applications in other colors, with a drawback that does not matter when used in decks of those colors, and these things can be tested and observed. This is science at work.
*exhale*
I think that I have run out of arguments for my side of the debate. If someone can read what I have written which is inspired by real numbers, mountains of experience, and borderline unhealthy observations, then I simply cannot convince you of anything.
Sorry about writing an essay. I am passionate. I needed to make sure every possible side of this debate was covered as well as humanly possible, and every dead horse was beaten thoroughly. Thank you for reading the entire thing.
If any of that was disjointed at all, it is because it is 4am and uncomfortably hot right now.
If this is what actually happens in your drafts, you're probably evaluating the Legionnaire too low outside white. Even without considering blue, white is still outnumbered 3 to 1 by the other colors - for every white deck that wants the Legionnaire, there will be 3 non-white decks in the draft that also want it. It should easily be played outside white much more often than inside it.
The other thing about that, is that I'm not comfortable adding in "colorless" cards that are by nature strictly better in one color than another.
Adding Legionnaire/Metamorph in as colorless cards is fine too, so long as you're okay that it give's white/blue a distinct advantage over any other color that takes them.
I can admit that I'm creating an imbalance by adding in a "white" card that can be stolen by other decks if you can admit you're creating an imbalance by adding in a "colorless" card that's inherently better in one color over another.
Either way, no organizational method is perfect unless you have a "phybrid mana" section, and you have a balanced and equal representation of phybrid mana cards in there.
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!
It sure is. That doesn't change the fact that it's strictly better in a deck that has white mana in it. No matter how often it's played for three.
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!
You're telling me that it's going to be strictly better in a white deck that has 4 wraths than in red aggro?
Blimpy's Aggro-Focused Cube (powered 360)
I'm always open to suggestions on how to improve my cube. Take a look and ask a question, or give a constructive critique whenever you can.
(really?)
No.
Lets say that there's two decks that want Legionnaire (both aggro). One has white mana available, and the other doesn't. The Legionnaire is strictly better in the deck that has white mana available than the one that doesn't. Because having all casting options available is always better than only having one casting option available.
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!
Maybe, but the point there was to illustrate that there is imbalance on both sides of the coin and that no cube will ever be 100% perfectly balanced. If you include Legionnaire in white, then you take the chance that a nonwhite aggro deck will take it in the draft, which gives white a slight set back for being down a card in the draft. If you include it in colorless, then you're giving any white deck a slight advantage. Either way there's a small amount of imbalance.
Another thing to note is that, even if a red based aggro deck picks up Legionnaire in the draft and cuts white out of a card, that's really no different than if that drafter had hated out the Silver Knight because he didn't want to play against it.
I'm also ok with the imbalance, but it should be noted that there's no such thing as complete balance when it comes to the cube.
We're not evaluating it too low, we just don't draft that large of a pool. There's literally never a time when there will be three non white decks in the draft that also want Legionnaire. Our norm is one of three things: Winston, 3-man, or 4-man. Anything more than that is a very rare occasion.
It's hard to evaluate this in a Winston draft because piles get taken that contain off color cards all the time. At the end of the draft, it's likely that your s/b includes several cards that would have been really good for my deck. It's also likely that your deck includes a couple of artifacts that would have been really good for my deck. This will happen no matter where Legionnaire is sorted.
In 3-4 man drafts, there's really just not enough decks being built for Legionnaire's colorless option to be that relevant. If we have four drafters it's not likely that more than two of them will be in aggro, and again if one aggro player takes the Legionnaire from the other aggro player, it's about as devastating to the draft and the other aggro deck as run of the mill hate draft is.
MTGS Average Peasant Cube 2023 Edition
Follow me. I tweet.
Also, Winston drafting sucks. At this point, people should be trying to find other 2 man draft options. If the mod would get back to me about my article concerning the one my group use, hopefully more people will see it and abandon such a poor format.
In any case, my bookkeeping is important for the format I use. We see 128 cards (which is only a few cards shy of one third of the cube) every draft, so that extra one card does have a real effect. It is obscenely common for players to get exactly 23 or 24 playables (with the rest out of color, no less), so that extra card will matter, and in my experience that card will matter more than the two life.
Also, remember that I use a c/u cube. Creature based decks are 65% or more of the builds, and aggro vs midgrange is the most common
My CubeCobra (draft 20 card packs, 2 packs.)
430, Peasant, Very Unpowered
Why you should take your hybrids out of your gold section
Manamath Article
Read what you wrote. Specify next time, not after you give a facepalm.
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
It depends on how aggro the white deck is that wants P. Leg, which was the point of me bringing that up.
As you've mentioned, a red aggro deck will make better use of P. Leg than a white control deck. Who's to say that it won't make better use of it in a red aggro deck than a white aggro deck?
Everyone has their own preference with how they're going to be categorizing phyrexian mana cards, it's not obvious, and it's not strictly better in white aggro than it is in red aggro.
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
Blimpy's Aggro-Focused Cube (powered 360)
I'm always open to suggestions on how to improve my cube. Take a look and ask a question, or give a constructive critique whenever you can.
Yeah, that makes sense. My logic was assuming an 8 man draft, which is our default. In your case, I can see how it makes more sense in white.
In any case I completely agree that whatever 'imbalance' results from either categorization method exists mostly in us cube managers' obsessed minds.
EDIT: @ Blimpy: this was turning out one of the most reasonable, gentlemanlike discussions I've ever witnessed anywhere on the interwebz. Please don't ruin it.
You have an odd sense of what is reasonable and gentlemanlike if you think I'm ruining the discussion.
Blimpy's Aggro-Focused Cube (powered 360)
I'm always open to suggestions on how to improve my cube. Take a look and ask a question, or give a constructive critique whenever you can.
That was perhaps not very gentlemanlike, I agree. But you saw the facepalm and raised him 2 rows of facepalms. That's the classical recipe for a flame war.
Anyhow, I've no problem with you or the way you usually express yourself. I'd just prefer this thread to remain a nice place to be in, 's all. Peace 'n love and all that
@Leelue: I think Eiodolon's way of organization is very good. If it costs 4 or more life initially, or if it has an activation with a phyrexian mana in it, it can be classified within its color. Otherwise, it can easily be colorless.
We have P. Metamorph and P. Legionnaire in the colorless section while Moltensteel Dragon and Dismember are in their respective colors.
I think those are the only Phyrexian cards we're adding. Noxious Revival doesn't make the cut for us.
Blimpy's Aggro-Focused Cube (powered 360)
I'm always open to suggestions on how to improve my cube. Take a look and ask a question, or give a constructive critique whenever you can.
In seriousness, I havn't gotten around to updating my cube for New Phyrexia yet (though I've had a chance to cube draft since the set came out either so no-harm-no-fowl, I suppose) but when I do, I'll almost certainly be applying the principle eidolon232 described. (If the card can be played in any deck for only 2 life, it's colorless. If you would need 4 or more life to make it work off-color, it's a colored card.) This seems like really reasonable way go about it.
Nominee for awesome poultry typo of the day!
t
I agree that Eidolon's method seems very solid. We ended up categorizing the same way, except that we put Dismember in colorless because:
1) if Snuff Out is great in black, Dismember should be at least equally great outside black;
2) non-black decks are likely to actually need Dismember a lot more than black decks, which have an entire arsenal of removal at their disposal already.
But I admit it's the one I'm the least certain of, it could very well end up in the black section anyway if it turns out to be played most often in black decks after all.
I didn't think I needed to specify that when referring to Porcelain Legionnaire, I'd be referring to an aggro deck.
If there are two equally powerful aggro decks, whichever one has access to casting Legionnaire in multiple ways instead of only one will get more out of the card.
So, any card is strictly better in a situation where it has multiple casting options instead of just one casting option.
I gave a facepalm because I thought it was perfectly clear, intuitive and self-explanatory. If I must say aggro decks when referring to aggro cards from here on out, I will. But I really hope that's not necessary.
Every time I say "Jackal Pup is a good red card for the cube", I certainly hope I don't have to add an aggro caveat to that statement every time.
Ya, like I've been saying. All current organizational choices lead to minor imbalances. Choose the one that's best justified in your mind and to your group.
I love Winston drafting. And Sealed. We play both of those formats all the time, and I'm not looking for an alternative 2-man format at all. Winston is fun and fast and skill-intensive.
Bookkeeping is important to me too. But we don't "seed" our packs for balance anyways, so random pool is random. 1 extra card in each color that could potentially be drafted by an off-color drafter isn't going to imbalance a draft.
And we ALWAYS have more playables and have to trim down. And that's in Winston! I don't know how you guys are coming up so short on playables. :mystery:
Also remember that C/U cubes, regular cubes and powered cubes all differ from each other. Card advice, organizational methods and archetype results are going to be pretty different for you than for me. Just something to keep in mind.
I disagree with this. The card is intrinsically better when all of its casting options are available. This is true of every card. So if two decks of equal power that both want Legionnaire equally are put head-to-head, the Legionnaire will be better in the one that has the potential to cast it multiple different ways.
Everything can differ on a case-to-case basis, but the card is intrinsically more powerful when it gives you the most options.
And this is even more true of Metamorph; who's clone/steel ability doesn't rely on speed to make it efficient. That card is much better in a deck that can cast it later on in the game (when the targets are better) without having to pay the life to do so. Especially when it also has the option of coming down on T3 when advantageous.
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!
Do whatever you want to do, and just be sure to keep track of how archetypes are performing in your cube. If you find that the 'extra' cards certain colors/pairs are getting are adversely affecting your drafts/decks, then try something else.
Me? I put everything where it is printed on the card, and haven't balance issues in a LONG time. Nothing is perfect, but if your Cube works how you want it to then that is 'perfect' enough.
-AA
I use descriptive language. Assume that I'm being nice and respectful. (I'll tell you when I'm not.)
My Cube: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/9029
I used to love it, but over time I realized that it's a bad format. A lot of important things from a game design standpoint are significantly less relevant than they should be, and reading signals is so easy it is infantile.
Hell, they even wrote an article last week on the mothersite about how bad it is. The article was about something called winchester drafting.
Winston is also not fast. At all. The drafting process involves so many motions and "decisions" that it takes a good deal of time to go through it all. Perhaps it is faster than say... an 8 man draft, but in reality that is not hard to do.
-------
when I draft with 2 players (simplified explanation upcoming) we make small packs, pick a card, pass, pick, trash the packs, and repeat (total of 12 rounds = 24 picks). there is more to it than that (which is how we get a little more than only 24) but using this format is actually skill intensive and fast, unlike Winston. The draft process takes about 2 minutes and 30 seconds, give or take 30 seconds.
-------
You said the P leg is better in white. White has much, much better two drops than red. That's why red needs burn spells, haste and every form of reach it can find to scrape wins together. You give red super efficient creatures like P Leg, and the two aggro decks are no longer on even footing;
the two colors do not want legionairre equally, red wants it more.
It is well known how stacked the white two drop slot is. This guy is just another strong dude for white, but is the absolute nuts for other colors because a guy of this caliber virtually never gets printed for them.
To put it another way
White decks may actually pass him for a knight of meadowgrain, red decks will toss kiln fiend to the curb for him. The way I see it, if mono any color aggro decks got put together, this card gets put in every other deck more than monowhite.
If the card actually gets played less than a quarter of the time in white, how can I keep it there?
--------
the difference between p leg and metamorph is that the reason why the former is even cubable is because you can and will play him for two. The card's worth revolves not around flexibility or utility (like most phybrids), but in efficiency. This is why I don't 100% agree with eidelon (the method is undeniably a good rule of thumb and I wouldn't go to great lengths to argue with it. That's saying a lot; I argue everything. Everything.) Dismember sees a lot of non-black play though (hence colorless), Act of aggression is borderline (but for now it is colorless in mine to make sure. Keeping a close watch on it though.), and I would assume that there is a small chance Tanadon would be borderline as well instead of auto green(same argument as the white creature, only substitute efficiency for "sheer size". It is bigger than every black creature in the c/u cube, btw...).
--------
I also want to say again that putting kird ape in red and not in gruul is completely wrong, and unlike the prior discussion, this cannot possibly be up for debate. At least P Leg in white has an argument behind it, kird ape will never get played without forests (at least not if winning is on the agenda).
---------
My CubeCobra (draft 20 card packs, 2 packs.)
430, Peasant, Very Unpowered
Why you should take your hybrids out of your gold section
Manamath Article
I knew what you were saying when I asked the question. I was looking for an explanation because the one you provided was very superficial. I thought you would have known this from my last post, but apparently you didn't.
Everything isn't as crystal clear as your intentions might have it anyway. It's nice to get qualifiers out there, even if they aren't required. No one believes that you think P. Leg is amazing in a control deck. The question is whether or not you truly believe it's strictly better in a deck that has white it in. Which is your next point, and I'm glad you brought up.
You just argued against this point. If you have a white control deck and a red aggro deck, even though the white control deck can utilize all of it's casting options, it's still better in the red aggro deck because the card is more suited for that deck.
This isn't semantics. This is two arguments clashing very violently against one another.
On the one hand, you're saying that if a deck can cast it with more options, it automatically makes the card better in that deck. On the other hand, you're saying that the deck which is more aggro can utilize the card better. Well which is it? Which one takes precedence? Do the decks just need to be similar in function and then whatever one has access to white is the one P. Leg will fit better into? What are your parameters here? Red aggro cards and white aggro cards are much different.
I think we can evaluate P. Leg based on commonly played cards within the cube in each color instead of just looking superficially at what deck can simply cast it with more options available. If P. Leg was blue instead of white with everything else equal, would you still put it in the blue section? Even though blue can cast it more often than not, other colors will play that card far more often than blue decks will.
That's assuming two decks of "equal power" want Legionnaire "equally." We all know what happens when we assume.
The entire debate is whether it's equal or not between colors, I don't know how you can so easily gloss over that unless you haven't read most of the replies in this thread. Red might want P. Leg more than white does. In fact, I would argue that if you sat down and looked at your red section and looked at your white section, you might agree that your red could use P. Leg more than your white in most scenarios.
This is absolutely not true for the same reason that P. Leg is worse in a white control shell than it is in a red aggro shell. You need to add more to this statement to make it true.
I would argue that P. Metamorph is stronger in the colorless section than P. Leg is, so I have no idea what you're saying here and would prefer to keep the argument to P. Leg because that's what we've been on for a while. We can change the topic after we hammer some of your statements out.
Nice reply by the way, I appreciate getting a better sense of where you're coming from rather than facepalms. Keep it up.
Blimpy's Aggro-Focused Cube (powered 360)
I'm always open to suggestions on how to improve my cube. Take a look and ask a question, or give a constructive critique whenever you can.
If two decks that can get equal value from the card are compared to one another, the one that lets you cast it in two different ways will get more value from that card than the deck that only has one way to cast it.
It's that simple. I'm not debating semantics. I'm debating simple fact. 2 ways to cast > 1 way to cast; when all other aspects are equal. You can add in other factors that change that, but when those factors are absent, 2 > 1.
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!
I never said otherwise.
If two decks can get "equal value" from one card, I'd like to see those decks. One deck will always get more value out of the card based on the fact that the decks are different.
So what decks are you playing where all other aspects are equal?
Seems to me your argument can't exist in your own cube, let alone others.
Blimpy's Aggro-Focused Cube (powered 360)
I'm always open to suggestions on how to improve my cube. Take a look and ask a question, or give a constructive critique whenever you can.
Sorry you disagree, but I can't illustrate it any clearer than that. If you still disagree, we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on.
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!
Similar =/= Equal. This is the crux of the argument. You're saying that you categorize P. Leg in white because all things being equal, it's stronger in the color that it can be cast without life payment.
I'm saying all things can't be equal and that other colors might actually desire P. Leg more than white does (namely, red).
That's fine if you want to end it this way. Like you and I have both said, categorization is personal and everyone decides their own way differently. Glad this could end on a good note.
Blimpy's Aggro-Focused Cube (powered 360)
I'm always open to suggestions on how to improve my cube. Take a look and ask a question, or give a constructive critique whenever you can.
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!
Obviously it is up for discussion because I brought it up, right? And wrong according to whom, you? Last I checked, the card cost red mana to cast and not green mana. While it functions BEST in r/g decks, I've definitely played it in R/W decks that can use the w/g and r/g duals...easier when you draft lands as highly as I do. When you have fetchlands and a couple w/g or r/g duals, you don't need to cast green spells.
You classify how you want if it works for you; I'll classify the way that works for me. I don't need the room in red, and if r/g aggressive decks 'get' another card, I'm OK with that too.
-AA
I use descriptive language. Assume that I'm being nice and respectful. (I'll tell you when I'm not.)
My Cube: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/9029
If there were no forests, then it'd be different. But you need a land that says "forest" for him to not just be cubable, but playable. It can not and will not be used in a deck that does not make him a 2/3, which means either you are in green, or you have used picks to allow him to function properly. The times you don't happen to come across random green lands that say "forest" invalidate his inclusion in the deck, and by extension his inclusion in the Mono Red section.
If you are able to consistently get the proper duals and fetches to efficiently (key word) run the ape in a deck that runs no green spells, then one of three things is happening...
1) There is a problem with the size of the drafted pools, allowing you to freely pick lands up for no opportunity cost. Doing 3 packs of 15 does this, and I don't know why this isn't common knowledge. Cubes are made of playables, real sets aren't, so it is easy to get 35+ cards that you can play and have about 5 of them be lands/moxen. Also, if you are unfortunate enough to Winston, Winstoning does this as well because the format is very, very, very poorly put together from a game design standpoint. (Free random cards, zero tradeoff for taking them, and zero incentive not to? How could I not!)
2) The sheer amount of mana fixing is making things far to easy (seriously, if you can splash for a 1 drop creature consistently, it is too easy).
3) You are only remembering the times that you had the creature and the mana base to support him, and not the times you passed him because the land wasn't in your pool yet/he sat on somebody's sideline because he wouldn't be consistent. This is very normal. It's how our memory functions and I do not fault you for it.
Wtwlf
*essay warning* *not for the easily discouraged*
if we lived in a universe where white creatures were all goyfs and red creatures were all goblin pikers, then porcelain legionairre would be a bad white creature but the best creature ever printed for red. This is an obvious exaggeration, but merely an extension of a portion of my argument and a big part of what we are getting at. You may be able to cast him for 3, but when he's surrounded by other guys who are obviously worse than him (in red, usually) he makes the deck/archetype better and is more highly picked for the colors he would make a difference in. Using my example, he would see 0% play in white and 100% play in red and this argument would not exist. At what point in time this goes from "obviously wrong for this deck" (my example) to "debatable"(what you're saying) is a new argument on its own, one that would probably also be fun (but too large a tangent for the moment). All I'm doing is bringing my fanciful example with the goyfs to a realistic setting, aka reality. The numbers are probably closer to 65% and 90% (white gets played as aggro quite a bit less than red, one has to admit. To be fair, both can be nonaggro. The rest of the difference in these particular figures would come from white aggro occasionally passing him for another white creature, an action that would not easily happen in another aggro deck). That is still a very real disparity and a very real difference in value.
Attacking this from another angle, legionairre will get cast for 2 mana somewhere around 70% of the time in white decks, and the 2 life will matter in probably around one out of 25 games where it is paid (That's being generous. I have still not seen the 2 life from porcelain legionairre actually definitely decide the game's outcome, and I've seen just about 20 games with this guy). So 1.2% (Taking 70% out of 4%) of the time that you draw this guy, the 2 life could matter. One out of about 90 games, and that is when I give you a kind estimate.
So honestly if you take into account our tendency to remember really close games, there are just not a lot where the aggro deck needed exactly 2 life to actually turn a definite loss into a definite win. There just aren't. And this is the entirety of your argument - that aggressive decks will lose a statistically relevant number of games by starting at eighteen instead of 20 around 30% of the time.
If the advantage (two life) doesn't affect the ultimate outcome (winning and losing), then it might as well not exist, (which is what I'm saying).
Just because there is a argument for some decision doesn't mean that the argument is as valid as another, and mathematics does not lie. P Leg is significantly more efficient than nonwhite creatures, and is "just over the curve" for white creatures - these are clear facts. He will get played in nonwhite decks more often than in white ones (3 other colors that frequently attack on turn 3 force this to also be fact, even before I throw real world testing into the mix which only support my side regardless.) The games that the 2 life on this creature will actually make a player's guaranteed win a guaranteed loss (which, I repeat, is THE ONLY way the opposing argument has validity) are insane statistical outliers, and these games are only remembered because they are so rare and exciting. Outliers (those games) =/= General play and common occurrences (the card being used more often and with greater relative value in other colors).
I cannot possibly dissect the issue more.
I cannot possibly show you more evidence to support my claim.
I cannot possibly make it more clear.
By the way, the 30% figure isn't pulled out of thin air. I've been keeping close tabs on the times this guy (and others, all to an obsessive degree), and 30% is erring on the side of caution. And just because I own a c/u cube doesn't mean I don't have more experience. There is a powered cube in my playgroup, and a nonpowered one at a local store. So yes, I have sufficient experience to cover any perceived environmental influences when I advance my argument.
If this was some conceptual problem about an imaginary card with an imaginary alternative casting option that we aren't able to test, then I would actually agree with you. If the card actually Gained efficiency when you played him with plains instead of occasionally not costing you life at the Cost of efficiency, then you'd have a point. But they printed a powerful card with more applications in other colors, with a drawback that does not matter when used in decks of those colors, and these things can be tested and observed. This is science at work.
*exhale*
I think that I have run out of arguments for my side of the debate. If someone can read what I have written which is inspired by real numbers, mountains of experience, and borderline unhealthy observations, then I simply cannot convince you of anything.
Sorry about writing an essay. I am passionate. I needed to make sure every possible side of this debate was covered as well as humanly possible, and every dead horse was beaten thoroughly. Thank you for reading the entire thing.
If any of that was disjointed at all, it is because it is 4am and uncomfortably hot right now.
My CubeCobra (draft 20 card packs, 2 packs.)
430, Peasant, Very Unpowered
Why you should take your hybrids out of your gold section
Manamath Article