I tried to keep it from being a wall of text, but it was late and I was in an argumentative mood.
I came back to edit the instance of when I say white decks (combined all archetypes) pick and play him 65% of the time and red decks play him 90% of the time. I was going to move the red figure down by 5% to be fair, but either way that really doesn't change much.
And then there are also, you know, Death's shadow. (now I'm Clearly just being a jerk :b)
If two decks can get equal use from the Legionnaire, the one that can cast it in multiple ways has better value from the card, no matter how small the margin.
That's a well thought out response, and I appreciate the debate. But the simple fact still stands that the card is better if you can cast it multiple ways.
If you think the margin is small enough that it belongs in colorless, go for it. But I don't like to run colorless cards that are intrinsically better in a specific color. So, it will remain a white card for me indefinitely. That's how I organize my entire cube. Wherever the card is intrinsically ideal. I used the Fire // Ice example above (it's cast as Fire 95% of the time, but I still count it as a UR card because it's intrinsically better when both casting options are available). If you don't like to organize your cards that way, you don't have to. But that's how I do it. And neither method is perfect, and both methods carry some level of imbalance.
The fact that this particular imbalance which I have shown to be statistically irrelevant can sway someone's decision boggles my mind. The option to pay more more mana for a then more ineffective creature just to keep from losing two life doesn't keep you from losing the game. That is the entire benefit to playing him in white, and this "extra use" (of now paying for a much worse creature) has a bearing on the outcome of matches at what is almost 0% of the time. Like I said, I have never seen it matter in any game, from Prerelease to now (thundering tanadon, on the other hand, has killed the owner a couple times now). The benefit with porcelain legionairre doesn't actually DO anything except make the player feel better, in practice.
...
leelue, calm down...
....
At least you're doing it to be consistent to some method, which is another debate to itself. I won't go after that for three reasons.
1) I only try to debate things if I'm certain. This, you can see from before.
2) I put fire/ice in red blue too... which makes me a total hypocrite, ha.
3) I'm tired of arguing about phyrexian mana. Stupid mechanic...
Thanks for the recognition about my post. It is appreciated, even if you're one of them...
I don't think it's statistically insignificant, fyi. I appreciate your stance, but I don't agree with it.
If a white aggro deck topdecks it on T6 or whatever and doesn't have to pay the life, when any non-white deck would have to pay it... it's statistically significant to some degree. Even if that degree is small.
I also saw the life matter twice at the pre-release, and it's already come up once in our games in the cube (where I was able to drop a different creature on T2, and run out the Legionnaire on T3 and not have to pay the life for it). It was particularly nice against Waterfront Bouncer... having to repeatedly pay 2 life at a time in a non-white deck would've rendered the card nigh-unusable in that particular situation. But whatever, do what you want man, I'm not going to hassle you about it.
Ah, waterfront bouncer is a good example for your side! why wasn't this brought up before? Crystal shard isn't and erratic portal aren't as good a counter because they are conditional.
Yes, if an aggressive blue deck was brought to my attention, I perhaps would not have been so rabid in my postings. I certainly wouldn't change my mind, go figure, but that counts for something more than the single instance of 2 life.
your example in the last paragraph doesn't make sense. Did you end that game on 1 or two life (or with the enemy holding a 1 or 2 damage shy of lethal burn)? If not, then it didn't matter since the option did not take part in deciding the end of the match.
Even if you did end the match on 1, perhaps a 3/1 first striker would have been the better play and would have actually kept you from being at 1 by virtue of being a better creature. I obviously don't know, I'm just saying that from your story it is impossible to tell the big picture relevance of that play.
Ya, bounce can be rough against it if you don't have white. But that's a small percentage of the time, so I didn't bring it up before. It's not the crux of the argument for me, so I left it out. It's better in white against Capsize too. Against most other single-effect bounce though, it's just a second single instance of two life, and in the majority of cases, it's still statistically insignificant, like you say.
There was one game at the prerelease where my buddy was able to get his opponent to one before they stabilized and won. He had played a Legionnaire that game, but with white mana. They'd have lost that game if they didn't have white available.
And the 2nd example from the cube (besides the Bouncer experience), it was an aggro mirror, and we were trading combat steps (me playing WW aggro and my opponent in BR aggro). I was at nine, and he was at six. He had a Fireblast and a Volcanic Hammer in his hand, and had to use them on my creatures instead of on me, because I played my Legionnaire on T3 (paying no life) instead of T2 (where I opted to play an Accorder Paladin instead). I'd have been at 7 (and dead) if I wasn't able to pay the "Kicker W: Gain 2 Life" on the Legionnaire.
..........
I understand that these examples represent a small percentage of cases, but I feel that they're still significant (even if only barely significant). I also only have only seen this card cast like 10 times, and four of those times, the flexibility in the cost was important. You're saying it's like 0%, but that's just not what I'm seeing.
The majority of our decks are 2 colors. Which means for us, 40% of the decks will have an advantage when using Legionnaire over the other 60%. Even if that advantage is small, it impacts a good amount of our decks, and that's significant enough for me.
I think you should do whatever is best for your group, and however you wanna justify classification is fine. But for me, I will remain consistent with my "optimal intrinsic value" classification, and be just fine with it.
Well then you're playing the card in a deck with forests. Which is what I said.
No, what you actually said was that putting it into the red section was wrong, that it needs to be in R/G, and that it isn't up for debate. THEN you said it needs forests.
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 would have taken a second and read what I posted, I said that it definitely functions best as a R/G card but has seen play in other places in decks without green spells. And he still costs R to play, not R/G or RG, or anything involving G. He just needs some trees to swing in. When you look him up in card databases, he is listed as a red card and never as a green card. Ergo, red section. I'm a purist that way. Haven't had balance issues in all these years.
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.
I GLADLY use picks in a draft on lands instead of spells, and the ability to cast your spells reliably is WELL worth the picks, as your spells will be of high quality regardless of what you pick because of the nature of the Cube. What is in limited supply, however, are awesome lands. I think the opportunity cost of always picking spells over lands is actually HIGHER than using picks to strengthen your mana (see my most recent podcast, for a longer discussion on this very topic). This is true regardless of pool size. Kird Ape has seen play in decks where I don't deem any of the green spells I picked powerful enough for that particular deck, but most of the time I play him in non-green decks I REALLY needed the 1-drop despite having to jump though a hoop to have him be 2 power. Lucky for me, I prioritize drafting good lands (unlike a lot of other people) so I often have very strong and flexible mana bases that can support things like that when I'm put in that sort of situation.
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).
See above. When you prioritize your awesome lands (fetches, duals, shocks), you can do a LOT of things that seem improbable. I'm not taking things like Kodama's Reach in my aggressive decks, so lands are it. And if the cycle of 30 duals, shocks, and fetches are too much fixing for you? Well, I daresay you're doing it wrong (podcast plug).
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.
I'm going to ignore your neuro-science condescension, because my memory of Cube drafts works quite well after seven+ years of doing it. I'm not saying he has never sat on the bench because the mana wasn't good enough; that would be hyperbole and ridiculous. The times he gets run in a non-green spell deck are actually the times my creature base DOESN'T support him, since I need his help to make it function properly. I pass Kird Ape plenty if he doesn't work in a deck. If you don't wind up with any forests, oh well, you cut him. Without proper land-based mana fixing, he doesn't function optimally in a proper R/G deck, either! I've had straight up R/G decks without non-basics in which he has to sit in play as a 1/1 for multiple turns until I find a forest...is it wrong to run him in those decks? Of course not. If I can somewhat reliably support a forest in play in the first few turns and my deck needs the help, then I am absolutely playing him.
It doesn't happen often, but if you prioritize your land drafting you'll be surprised at what you can do in Cube.
Bottom line, repeated from an earlier post: You do what works best for your organizational sanity, I'll do what I do, and wtwlf will do what he does. We're obviously all pretty happy with how it is working out so far. I understand most of your points, but I just don't agree with some of them. Shrug.
Those are Damn Near close to the exact words I used! Lol Aw man I love XKCD.... nof is now my favorite magic player
Also, antknee, it is most assuredly not true regardless of pool size. If you drafted in a way that you end up with 23 cards, then suddenly lands are undraftable. This is clearly a terrible idea, but I just needed to clear up the lapse in thoroughness. The way my group drafts, you end up with about 28 picks (and a minimum of 32 cards), and each pick is much more precious because of it.
When you draft in a way that allows you to get 45 cards (a traditional draft), this is no longer the case. There is a point where the draft pools are too big, and 45 cards is over that point by a number I do not know.
I obviously cannot convince you that if you're passing the ape because you don't have the green aligned lands that this should be strong evidence to say he belongs in red/green. So I won't go in depth here.
I said he needed forests in my first post formally concerning him, in the same segment where I listed my reasons. I don't see how the order of my points makes any difference.
The aforementioned comment wasn't mean to be condescending. It IS extremely common for people to remember things a certain way. It is of no fault to that person, it is how we are wired.
If you're keeping multiple hands with kird ape and no forests, it brings into question the validity of your play. If you're finding yourself in need of help by a sometimes inconsistent 1 drop (multiple times) since your deck was poorly drafted, this brings into question the validity of your drafting skill.
Finally, you almost certainly wouldn't notice an imbalance from one card, no matter how often you play. One out of 360/400/500/750 is simply not something anyone would readily pick up on.
Why are we arguing about Kird Ape in a thread about phyrexian mana?
It seems to me that there are 4 'tiers' of colour'd-ness:
1. Colourless - can be run in any deck, much in demand. e.g. Wurmcoil Engine
2. Hybrid - easier to cast than a mono-coloured card, but has some coloured mana interactions. E.g. Kitchen Finks, Porcelain Legionaire, Squee
3. Monocoloured. Requires a colour of mana to play or be useful. E.g. Snuff Out, Vedalken Shackles
4. Multicoloured. Not playable (in a good deck) without multiple colours available. E.g. Ajani Vengeant, Kird Ape
If you would have taken a second and read what I posted, I said that it definitely functions best as a R/G card but has seen play in other places in decks without green spells. And he still costs R to play, not R/G or RG, or anything involving G. He just needs some trees to swing in. When you look him up in card databases, he is listed as a red card and never as a green card. Ergo, red section. I'm a purist that way. Haven't had balance issues in all these years.
-AA
Like Ive read your Cube list, and listen to most of your podcasts. And we cube so diferently, but thank you for using the words ergo, and purist, in this debate. Its rather easy to understand your position. I too go by the number in the right hand corner. I am glad I too am a purist!
And I will agree with you Antknee, that there are many ways to balance a Cube.
Anyone who says diferent, one question, Is Blue the most powerful colour in your Cube? Yes, then thats imbalance, then.
Why are we arguing about Kird Ape in a thread about phyrexian mana?
It's a similar vein and should be talked about in a thread where we're already discussing categorization of certain types. It's really not that far off base.
Speaking of,
Where do you guys put Squee Goblin Nabob? We put him in the colorless section since he ends up in more non-red decks than red ones.
I put him in the red section. He can be played in a deck without red, but some of his interactions come from cards that want to cast him. Plus, sometimes having an unkillable Jitte carrier is just fine. Another example of "gets used without it's color, but reaches it's full potential when it's available".
@ Leelue: You responded to AAs comment... did mine get missed/lost at the bottom of the last page, or are we just done? Either way is fine, I just wanted to see if you saw my last response relating to our previous discussion.
Also, antknee, it is most assuredly not true regardless of pool size. If you drafted in a way that you end up with 23 cards, then suddenly lands are undraftable. This is clearly a terrible idea, but I just needed to clear up the lapse in thoroughness. The way my group drafts, you end up with about 28 picks (and a minimum of 32 cards), and each pick is much more precious because of it.
How do you draft, then? I'd like to hear more about it, but I can't help but feel that reducing your number of picks so severely that drafting non-spells causes deck weakness isn't a way I want to play Magic.
I obviously cannot convince you that if you're passing the ape because you don't have the green aligned lands that this should be strong evidence to say he belongs in red/green. So I won't go in depth here.
I've already said a million times that he is best in R/G, but that I put him in red because of his casting cost. I'm done with that argument, because we agree on all but classification.
I said he needed forests in my first post formally concerning him, in the same segment where I listed my reasons. I don't see how the order of my points makes any difference.
Because order of speech (typing) usually implies order of importance, and the forest comment was the last thing you stated as well as the least polarizing (w is wrong, x is right, y is not up for discussion, z needs forests).
The aforementioned comment wasn't mean to be condescending. It IS extremely common for people to remember things a certain way. It is of no fault to that person, it is how we are wired.
Fine, but it wasn't the comment about remembering that was the condescending part (being a former poker player, I am all too aware of what we remember); it was the 'it's not your fault' part. That part insinuated that I was wrong and you were being patronizing. Just so you know.
If you're keeping multiple hands with kird ape and no forests, it brings into question the validity of your play. If you're finding yourself in need of help by a sometimes inconsistent 1 drop (multiple times) since your deck was poorly drafted, this brings into question the validity of your drafting skill.
Dunno about the world you live in, bro, but not every draft goes according to plan. I never said the Ape thing happens often, just that it happened. Also, you've never kept a hand with Ape/Lion and no forest? Must be nice to live in such a blessed world. It happens, and if I have an otherwise strong hand (possibly involving other 1-drops) I'll gladly keep an Ape/Lion no-forest hand. Maybe you should consider the validity of your experience or other drafters, if those things have never happened to you.
Granted, you don't know me, but don't assume you know how I play and how I draft. Having lots of miles on my spellcasting fingers means I've had lots of game experiences, including having to cobble together a deck from a draft that fell apart part-way through. If I could draft perfectly every time, I sure as heck wouldn't be some random dude on a casual forum; I'd be a multiple-time PT winner.
Finally, you almost certainly wouldn't notice an imbalance from one card, no matter how often you play. One out of 360/400/500/750 is simply not something anyone would readily pick up on.
Exactly. So why does it even matter? It is impossible to do, and furthermore, if I don't notice a difference then I think I've done a pretty good job of balancing things! I'd prefer, in fact, to have my Cube skewed towards aggressive cards if anything. Just because I classify my cards a slightly different way than you do doesn't make it incorrect if the final result is the same.
-AA
@Ponder: Thanks. I don't think I play Magic significantly different than most people other than having a sharper competitive edge than the majority of players, and I try to translate that to my Cube as much as possible while still having fun/funny/absurd things to differentiate my Cube from my tournament play (hence the Un-cards, the Door, the errata, etc.). Oh, and my Cube list is a few sets outdated
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.
i'm not going to get too far into this but this particular argument comes up whenever the subject arises and it's just completely inaccurate. we can see this by substituting any gold card into your quote:
While stormbind functions BEST in r/g decks, I've definitely played splashed for 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 [other] green spells.
the fact that you play kird ape and no other red green spells in these situations is related more to your evaluation of the card's value (or your need for one drops, which could be because of a number of factors i won't get into right now) than its categorization by color requirement. i'm not going to argue that you should put kird ape anywhere in particular, you're welcome to put it wherever you want and the balance issues will be negligible. but your reasoning to put it in red is aesthetic in nature and i think that should be out in the open. your argument above describes splashing for a gold card rather than anything fundamentally different than that.
When I see Healing Salve, I'm often like "Oh girl, I wish I could turn every card into this." Thanks they removed the gain life part, otherwise this would have been broken.
I think actual casting cost is beyond aesthetic, but that is a pointless argument.
My point was more that it is able to see play in red decks w/o green spells, albeit suboptimally. You can't even cast Stormbind without green mana.
Perhaps I spent too much time talking about a corner case to prove a minor point; everyone's focus is on that instead of the point that different classifications work for different people, which wasn't my intent. My point was only that (UUR coming) it isn't a non-issue and shouldn't not be discussed, because it can be done another way without world-ending consequences.
@Ponder: Thanks. I don't think I play Magic significantly different than most people other than having a sharper competitive edge than the majority of players, and I try to translate that to my Cube as much as possible while still having fun/funny/absurd things to differentiate my Cube from my tournament play (hence the Un-cards, the Door, the errata, etc.). Oh, and my Cube list is a few sets outdated
Oh really like The Third Power, but I cant download anything for weeks, so I havent heard from past ep10 or so, but I would say I would have heard most of them twice, I like Cube, and its super-relevant. But havent been able to comment recently, cause I havent heard them.
Your Cube is interesting, as I know it doesnt take the Conventional Cube 100%, and it has niche and pet cards. Mine has a lot of pet cards, I run Serra Angel, I havent seen that on any other rare-Cube list. So I like that part of your Cube design. Like Im making a MWS Power Cube, so I can have some more relevant discussion, because I understand that most people have a conventional Cube.
But like I dont understand all the argument about Conventional Cubes, like half of the current Cube articles dont even used todays standard or even its terminology. So when people say that the current convention is the only way, IMO they are limiting the experice they could be having.
I would rather see debate and conjecture about design theories and card interaction ,than being told Im doing it wrong for not following the current standard. Like I just say to people I count the card by the template its not confusing. So when I made my list, it was easy just to say Flame Javelin is a CMC6 red spell. Kird Ape is red. et al.
Like you made a comment on another thread about Trinket Mage, its not the same card in T2 as it is legacy, as you say, sometimes the Moxen is the right play, but how do you explain those things? but thats the debate that I like, its about cards.
Like maybe Im missing something, I understand its important to some people designs, but does not influence me or mine what so ever. I find it interesting the experience people have had, with the Phyrexian Mana, but I dont really care much for this debate, tbh.
My point was only that (UUR coming) it isn't a non-issue and shouldn't not be discussed, because it can be done another way without world-ending consequences.
you can also sort psychatog in red without world-ending consequences. "it doesn't ruin the balance" isn't a reason for anything, it's just a rationalization of an action taken for different reasons. it can be applied to doing literally anything to your cube in small quantities so it has no value as an argument for anything from a color balance perspective.
i understand your overall point. there are systems i use that i wouldn't argue are perfect (sorting hybrid in multicolor, running equal amounts of cards in each color) and i think there is good discussion on both sides of these and other systems. but you chose a poor example to make this point: i still haven't seen a good argument for sorting kird ape in red related to color balance. i understand the "it is easier to physically sort" argument, and i understand the "visually red cards look better sorted with other red cards" argument. but "if i have a lot of nonbasic forests i can splash for kird ape" is not convincing me that it's red. if you can guarantee kird ape will be worth maindecking you can guarantee a splash of any card that requires one G.
I think actual casting cost is beyond aesthetic, but that is a pointless argument.
kird ape costs R and visually is a red card. in actual practice it behaves exactly like a red/green gold card, so its "redness" is purely aesthetic. it looks red but it doesn't act red. i don't see anything beyond that, but if you refuse to discuss it i guess i will never know. since it's relevant to the subject, we disagree on it, and it relates to how our cubes are organized, i would say "it isn't a non-issue and shouldn't not be discussed."
When I see Healing Salve, I'm often like "Oh girl, I wish I could turn every card into this." Thanks they removed the gain life part, otherwise this would have been broken.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
^^ what he said.
Lol that feels so cheap.
But it sums up my own ideas on the subject really well, so what else can I say.
I came back to edit the instance of when I say white decks (combined all archetypes) pick and play him 65% of the time and red decks play him 90% of the time. I was going to move the red figure down by 5% to be fair, but either way that really doesn't change much.
And then there are also, you know, Death's shadow. (now I'm Clearly just being a jerk :b)
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
That's a well thought out response, and I appreciate the debate. But the simple fact still stands that the card is better if you can cast it multiple ways.
If you think the margin is small enough that it belongs in colorless, go for it. But I don't like to run colorless cards that are intrinsically better in a specific color. So, it will remain a white card for me indefinitely. That's how I organize my entire cube. Wherever the card is intrinsically ideal. I used the Fire // Ice example above (it's cast as Fire 95% of the time, but I still count it as a UR card because it's intrinsically better when both casting options are available). If you don't like to organize your cards that way, you don't have to. But that's how I do it. And neither method is perfect, and both methods carry some level of imbalance.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
...
leelue, calm down...
....
At least you're doing it to be consistent to some method, which is another debate to itself. I won't go after that for three reasons.
1) I only try to debate things if I'm certain. This, you can see from before.
2) I put fire/ice in red blue too... which makes me a total hypocrite, ha.
3) I'm tired of arguing about phyrexian mana. Stupid mechanic...
Thanks for the recognition about my post. It is appreciated, even if you're one of them...
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
If a white aggro deck topdecks it on T6 or whatever and doesn't have to pay the life, when any non-white deck would have to pay it... it's statistically significant to some degree. Even if that degree is small.
I also saw the life matter twice at the pre-release, and it's already come up once in our games in the cube (where I was able to drop a different creature on T2, and run out the Legionnaire on T3 and not have to pay the life for it). It was particularly nice against Waterfront Bouncer... having to repeatedly pay 2 life at a time in a non-white deck would've rendered the card nigh-unusable in that particular situation. But whatever, do what you want man, I'm not going to hassle you about it.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
Yes, if an aggressive blue deck was brought to my attention, I perhaps would not have been so rabid in my postings. I certainly wouldn't change my mind, go figure, but that counts for something more than the single instance of 2 life.
your example in the last paragraph doesn't make sense. Did you end that game on 1 or two life (or with the enemy holding a 1 or 2 damage shy of lethal burn)? If not, then it didn't matter since the option did not take part in deciding the end of the match.
Even if you did end the match on 1, perhaps a 3/1 first striker would have been the better play and would have actually kept you from being at 1 by virtue of being a better creature. I obviously don't know, I'm just saying that from your story it is impossible to tell the big picture relevance of that play.
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
There was one game at the prerelease where my buddy was able to get his opponent to one before they stabilized and won. He had played a Legionnaire that game, but with white mana. They'd have lost that game if they didn't have white available.
And the 2nd example from the cube (besides the Bouncer experience), it was an aggro mirror, and we were trading combat steps (me playing WW aggro and my opponent in BR aggro). I was at nine, and he was at six. He had a Fireblast and a Volcanic Hammer in his hand, and had to use them on my creatures instead of on me, because I played my Legionnaire on T3 (paying no life) instead of T2 (where I opted to play an Accorder Paladin instead). I'd have been at 7 (and dead) if I wasn't able to pay the "Kicker W: Gain 2 Life" on the Legionnaire.
..........
I understand that these examples represent a small percentage of cases, but I feel that they're still significant (even if only barely significant). I also only have only seen this card cast like 10 times, and four of those times, the flexibility in the cost was important. You're saying it's like 0%, but that's just not what I'm seeing.
The majority of our decks are 2 colors. Which means for us, 40% of the decks will have an advantage when using Legionnaire over the other 60%. Even if that advantage is small, it impacts a good amount of our decks, and that's significant enough for me.
I think you should do whatever is best for your group, and however you wanna justify classification is fine. But for me, I will remain consistent with my "optimal intrinsic value" classification, and be just fine with it.
Cheers dude, this was a good discussion.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
No, what you actually said was that putting it into the red section was wrong, that it needs to be in R/G, and that it isn't up for debate. THEN you said it needs forests.
If you would have taken a second and read what I posted, I said that it definitely functions best as a R/G card but has seen play in other places in decks without green spells. And he still costs R to play, not R/G or RG, or anything involving G. He just needs some trees to swing in. When you look him up in card databases, he is listed as a red card and never as a green card. Ergo, red section. I'm a purist that way. Haven't had balance issues in all these years.
I GLADLY use picks in a draft on lands instead of spells, and the ability to cast your spells reliably is WELL worth the picks, as your spells will be of high quality regardless of what you pick because of the nature of the Cube. What is in limited supply, however, are awesome lands. I think the opportunity cost of always picking spells over lands is actually HIGHER than using picks to strengthen your mana (see my most recent podcast, for a longer discussion on this very topic). This is true regardless of pool size. Kird Ape has seen play in decks where I don't deem any of the green spells I picked powerful enough for that particular deck, but most of the time I play him in non-green decks I REALLY needed the 1-drop despite having to jump though a hoop to have him be 2 power. Lucky for me, I prioritize drafting good lands (unlike a lot of other people) so I often have very strong and flexible mana bases that can support things like that when I'm put in that sort of situation.
See above. When you prioritize your awesome lands (fetches, duals, shocks), you can do a LOT of things that seem improbable. I'm not taking things like Kodama's Reach in my aggressive decks, so lands are it. And if the cycle of 30 duals, shocks, and fetches are too much fixing for you? Well, I daresay you're doing it wrong (podcast plug).
I'm going to ignore your neuro-science condescension, because my memory of Cube drafts works quite well after seven+ years of doing it. I'm not saying he has never sat on the bench because the mana wasn't good enough; that would be hyperbole and ridiculous. The times he gets run in a non-green spell deck are actually the times my creature base DOESN'T support him, since I need his help to make it function properly. I pass Kird Ape plenty if he doesn't work in a deck. If you don't wind up with any forests, oh well, you cut him. Without proper land-based mana fixing, he doesn't function optimally in a proper R/G deck, either! I've had straight up R/G decks without non-basics in which he has to sit in play as a 1/1 for multiple turns until I find a forest...is it wrong to run him in those decks? Of course not. If I can somewhat reliably support a forest in play in the first few turns and my deck needs the help, then I am absolutely playing him.
It doesn't happen often, but if you prioritize your land drafting you'll be surprised at what you can do in Cube.
Bottom line, repeated from an earlier post: You do what works best for your organizational sanity, I'll do what I do, and wtwlf will do what he does. We're obviously all pretty happy with how it is working out so far. I understand most of your points, but I just don't agree with some of them. Shrug.
-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
Also, antknee, it is most assuredly not true regardless of pool size. If you drafted in a way that you end up with 23 cards, then suddenly lands are undraftable. This is clearly a terrible idea, but I just needed to clear up the lapse in thoroughness. The way my group drafts, you end up with about 28 picks (and a minimum of 32 cards), and each pick is much more precious because of it.
When you draft in a way that allows you to get 45 cards (a traditional draft), this is no longer the case. There is a point where the draft pools are too big, and 45 cards is over that point by a number I do not know.
I obviously cannot convince you that if you're passing the ape because you don't have the green aligned lands that this should be strong evidence to say he belongs in red/green. So I won't go in depth here.
I said he needed forests in my first post formally concerning him, in the same segment where I listed my reasons. I don't see how the order of my points makes any difference.
The aforementioned comment wasn't mean to be condescending. It IS extremely common for people to remember things a certain way. It is of no fault to that person, it is how we are wired.
If you're keeping multiple hands with kird ape and no forests, it brings into question the validity of your play. If you're finding yourself in need of help by a sometimes inconsistent 1 drop (multiple times) since your deck was poorly drafted, this brings into question the validity of your drafting skill.
Finally, you almost certainly wouldn't notice an imbalance from one card, no matter how often you play. One out of 360/400/500/750 is simply not something anyone would readily pick up on.
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
On spoiled card wishlisting and 'should-have-had'-isms:
It seems to me that there are 4 'tiers' of colour'd-ness:
1. Colourless - can be run in any deck, much in demand. e.g. Wurmcoil Engine
2. Hybrid - easier to cast than a mono-coloured card, but has some coloured mana interactions. E.g. Kitchen Finks, Porcelain Legionaire, Squee
3. Monocoloured. Requires a colour of mana to play or be useful. E.g. Snuff Out, Vedalken Shackles
4. Multicoloured. Not playable (in a good deck) without multiple colours available. E.g. Ajani Vengeant, Kird Ape
Like Ive read your Cube list, and listen to most of your podcasts. And we cube so diferently, but thank you for using the words ergo, and purist, in this debate. Its rather easy to understand your position. I too go by the number in the right hand corner. I am glad I too am a purist!
And I will agree with you Antknee, that there are many ways to balance a Cube.
Anyone who says diferent, one question, Is Blue the most powerful colour in your Cube? Yes, then thats imbalance, then.
Magic Work Station Winston-180 http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=315755
It's a similar vein and should be talked about in a thread where we're already discussing categorization of certain types. It's really not that far off base.
Speaking of,
Where do you guys put Squee Goblin Nabob? We put him in the colorless section since he ends up in more non-red decks than red ones.
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.
@ Leelue: You responded to AAs comment... did mine get missed/lost at the bottom of the last page, or are we just done? Either way is fine, I just wanted to see if you saw my last response relating to our previous discussion.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
How do you draft, then? I'd like to hear more about it, but I can't help but feel that reducing your number of picks so severely that drafting non-spells causes deck weakness isn't a way I want to play Magic.
I've already said a million times that he is best in R/G, but that I put him in red because of his casting cost. I'm done with that argument, because we agree on all but classification.
Because order of speech (typing) usually implies order of importance, and the forest comment was the last thing you stated as well as the least polarizing (w is wrong, x is right, y is not up for discussion, z needs forests).
Fine, but it wasn't the comment about remembering that was the condescending part (being a former poker player, I am all too aware of what we remember); it was the 'it's not your fault' part. That part insinuated that I was wrong and you were being patronizing. Just so you know.
Dunno about the world you live in, bro, but not every draft goes according to plan. I never said the Ape thing happens often, just that it happened. Also, you've never kept a hand with Ape/Lion and no forest? Must be nice to live in such a blessed world. It happens, and if I have an otherwise strong hand (possibly involving other 1-drops) I'll gladly keep an Ape/Lion no-forest hand. Maybe you should consider the validity of your experience or other drafters, if those things have never happened to you.
Granted, you don't know me, but don't assume you know how I play and how I draft. Having lots of miles on my spellcasting fingers means I've had lots of game experiences, including having to cobble together a deck from a draft that fell apart part-way through. If I could draft perfectly every time, I sure as heck wouldn't be some random dude on a casual forum; I'd be a multiple-time PT winner.
Exactly. So why does it even matter? It is impossible to do, and furthermore, if I don't notice a difference then I think I've done a pretty good job of balancing things! I'd prefer, in fact, to have my Cube skewed towards aggressive cards if anything. Just because I classify my cards a slightly different way than you do doesn't make it incorrect if the final result is the same.
-AA
@Ponder: Thanks. I don't think I play Magic significantly different than most people other than having a sharper competitive edge than the majority of players, and I try to translate that to my Cube as much as possible while still having fun/funny/absurd things to differentiate my Cube from my tournament play (hence the Un-cards, the Door, the errata, etc.). Oh, and my Cube list is a few sets outdated
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'm not going to get too far into this but this particular argument comes up whenever the subject arises and it's just completely inaccurate. we can see this by substituting any gold card into your quote:
the fact that you play kird ape and no other red green spells in these situations is related more to your evaluation of the card's value (or your need for one drops, which could be because of a number of factors i won't get into right now) than its categorization by color requirement. i'm not going to argue that you should put kird ape anywhere in particular, you're welcome to put it wherever you want and the balance issues will be negligible. but your reasoning to put it in red is aesthetic in nature and i think that should be out in the open. your argument above describes splashing for a gold card rather than anything fundamentally different than that.
My point was more that it is able to see play in red decks w/o green spells, albeit suboptimally. You can't even cast Stormbind without green mana.
Perhaps I spent too much time talking about a corner case to prove a minor point; everyone's focus is on that instead of the point that different classifications work for different people, which wasn't my intent. My point was only that (UUR coming) it isn't a non-issue and shouldn't not be discussed, because it can be done another way without world-ending consequences.
-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
Oh really like The Third Power, but I cant download anything for weeks, so I havent heard from past ep10 or so, but I would say I would have heard most of them twice, I like Cube, and its super-relevant. But havent been able to comment recently, cause I havent heard them.
Your Cube is interesting, as I know it doesnt take the Conventional Cube 100%, and it has niche and pet cards. Mine has a lot of pet cards, I run Serra Angel, I havent seen that on any other rare-Cube list. So I like that part of your Cube design. Like Im making a MWS Power Cube, so I can have some more relevant discussion, because I understand that most people have a conventional Cube.
But like I dont understand all the argument about Conventional Cubes, like half of the current Cube articles dont even used todays standard or even its terminology. So when people say that the current convention is the only way, IMO they are limiting the experice they could be having.
I would rather see debate and conjecture about design theories and card interaction ,than being told Im doing it wrong for not following the current standard. Like I just say to people I count the card by the template its not confusing. So when I made my list, it was easy just to say Flame Javelin is a CMC6 red spell. Kird Ape is red. et al.
Like you made a comment on another thread about Trinket Mage, its not the same card in T2 as it is legacy, as you say, sometimes the Moxen is the right play, but how do you explain those things? but thats the debate that I like, its about cards.
Like maybe Im missing something, I understand its important to some people designs, but does not influence me or mine what so ever. I find it interesting the experience people have had, with the Phyrexian Mana, but I dont really care much for this debate, tbh.
--
Also update your Cube then Antknee, its lazy!
Magic Work Station Winston-180 http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=315755
you can also sort psychatog in red without world-ending consequences. "it doesn't ruin the balance" isn't a reason for anything, it's just a rationalization of an action taken for different reasons. it can be applied to doing literally anything to your cube in small quantities so it has no value as an argument for anything from a color balance perspective.
i understand your overall point. there are systems i use that i wouldn't argue are perfect (sorting hybrid in multicolor, running equal amounts of cards in each color) and i think there is good discussion on both sides of these and other systems. but you chose a poor example to make this point: i still haven't seen a good argument for sorting kird ape in red related to color balance. i understand the "it is easier to physically sort" argument, and i understand the "visually red cards look better sorted with other red cards" argument. but "if i have a lot of nonbasic forests i can splash for kird ape" is not convincing me that it's red. if you can guarantee kird ape will be worth maindecking you can guarantee a splash of any card that requires one G.
kird ape costs R and visually is a red card. in actual practice it behaves exactly like a red/green gold card, so its "redness" is purely aesthetic. it looks red but it doesn't act red. i don't see anything beyond that, but if you refuse to discuss it i guess i will never know. since it's relevant to the subject, we disagree on it, and it relates to how our cubes are organized, i would say "it isn't a non-issue and shouldn't not be discussed."