I still kind of disagree with this. I think that the fact that we're discussing the cards at least should imply that they are cubeable and appropriate for consideration. In fact there are very, very few cards that I would actually feel comfortable saying 'this has to be in every cube'. A lot of our cubes share cards, yes, but it's an extremely personal draft environment. Listing the cards' assets allows a reader to decide if that's what they want in their cube, and they can infer that it is somewhat widely played from the mere fact that it's being discussed. I don't think they need any hand-holding with us saying things like 'should be in every cube' or '100% staple' because they might make a personal decision based on the facts available to not include it - a group that doesn't want to support with aggro-only cards, for example. If you get my drift
I don't expect you to include my bit about Porcelain Legionnaire being better in red decks; it's an opinion (because red's two drops are so much worse, I will fully defend it). But so is a comment about 'should be in every cube'. More so, possibly, because philosophical differences on cube construction come into play.
I agree with a lot of what has been said over the last few posts. Lets focus on what each card does, how it interects, which decks it excells in, where it doesn't, tricks, advantages, and drawbacks.
Lets turn this into a Wiki of sorts for cubable cards. That would give me a resource I would frequent quite often. Even if it was just to find new interactions I hadn't thought of yet.
I cube with lots of different people and I am always happily surprised when someone else comes up with an interaction I had not thought of. This is a perfect opportunity to share that with the community.
Discussing if a card is cubable, staple etc. is irrelevant at this point. There is also no real advantage to comparing one to another either. We already have card rankings by color and CMC. This type of individual card information we are discussing is worth more than those approximations (in a different way). It allows observers to draw lines between strategies and cards.
I agree with a lot of what has been said over the last few posts. Lets focus on what each card does, how it interects, which decks it excells in, where it doesn't, tricks, advantages, and drawbacks.
Lets turn this into a Wiki of sorts for cubable cards. That would give me a resource I would frequent quite often. Even if it was just to find new interactions I hadn't thought of yet.
I cube with lots of different people and I am always happily surprised when someone else comes up with an interaction I had not thought of. This is a perfect opportunity to share that with the community.
Discussing if a card is cubable, staple etc. is irrelevant at this point. There is also no real advantage to comparing one to another either. We already have card rankings by color and CMC. This type of individual card information we are discussing is worth more than those approximations (in a different way). It allows observers to draw lines between strategies and cards.
All of this. It would be a great resource for certain. It's off to a good start already thanks to the OP but this would be the best direction IMO.
Another Example of subjective ratings in the descriptions; Knight of Meadowgrain's entry is very positive, while the two pegasi are 'unexciting'.
The term "unexciting" isn't meant to be a statement about its power, but rather that it only has one ability, and doesn't do much but turn sideways.
And I would argue heavily that Knight of Meadowgrain is easily good enough for your 360 list - I wouldn't run both 2/1 flyers, but just one. I think that the Knight's presence in that white section would be better than having the redundancy of another 2/1 flyer in the smaller cube environment.
But, its your cube, and you make the decisions, which is why you run duplicates of the 2/1 flyer and not the Meadowgrain. HOWEVER, in our discussion, the Knight of Meadowgrain was revered and spoken of very highly, so the closing notes are going to reflect that - They are notes of our discussion, and many discussed how good Knight of Meadowgrain has been in their cube. 5-6 people saying he is good enough for 450 lists are going to have that opinion reflected more than the 1 360 player who doesn't think it makes the cut even at 360.
I agree with a lot of what has been said over the last few posts. Lets focus on what each card does, how it interacts, which decks it excels in, where it doesn't, tricks, advantages, and drawbacks.
Lets turn this into a Wiki of sorts for cubeable cards. That would give me a resource I would frequent quite often. Even if it was just to find new interactions I hadn't thought of yet.
I have no problem with adding interactions into the closing notes (See: Kor Skyfisher), but I'm not sure what you are suggesting here.
Discussing if a card is cubable, staple etc. is irrelevant at this point. There is also no real advantage to comparing one to another either. We already have card rankings by color and CMC. This type of individual card information we are discussing is worth more than those approximations (in a different way). It allows observers to draw lines between strategies and cards.
I don't think its irrelevant; its actually the reason I started this thread. The advantage to comparing these cards is to make all of our cubes better, in whatever way we wish.
The "card rankings" don't mean as much as you might think; Just because a bunch of people play a certain card doesn't mean there isn't a better option that they've never thought of or seen before. Or, seeing some of these interactions we talk about (Look at the Weathered Wayfarer discussion a few pages back) can cause some people to think quite differently about a card or two.
And assuming we all have the same goal - to play the most powerful cards in limited, then some cards are just staples (Sulfuric Vortex, Survival, etc). [Obviously, certain people ban cards because of power level, fun level, etc, but the "standard" cube has this goal at heart.]
Having this be a repository of reasoning for every card is extremely useful as a tool. Having it also be somewhat of a 'ranking' process, calling out cube sizes and 'better', 'worse', 'staple', 'borderline', 'unexciting', 'best' etc. doesn't contribute anything we don't have already.
Don't let this project lose the value it should have.
If relative ranking of cards is important, we have multiple statistical ranking and inclusion tools available already. Why a card is good, and the advantages/disadvantages are what we need. That is what this thread *could* be.
Leave those words out of the discussion. Talk about what makes cards good. Talk about what cool interactions or tricks there are. You could even mention that opinions vary widely about cards which are controversial, but beyond that, leave ranking out of it.
Any ranking is exactly as up-to date as the time of writing if comparatives are involved. Outdated in 3 months, and difficult for a later reader to separate the ranking from the reasoning, especially if some cards are described mostly in terms of cube sizing etc. By the time we finish this, the stuff we are writing today will be out of date.
I think there needs to be a basis for what cards are discussed. Probably use Eidolon's tool + the Power Rankings for this. After selecting cards which are 'worth discussing', I would move that we throw the idea of ranking them out the window and just talk about them as individual cards and what they do.
I will be very willing to contribute a lot if we go down this road, but I can't see the value in spending time writing up descriptions which will be 'summarized' into combination ranking-descriptions and I probably won't help much at all if we go that route.
Obviously it is up to you mrmaul558 what you want your first post summaries to reflect, but I urge you to consider the immense potential of this project if you keep it independent of the ranking tools.
Having this be a repository of reasoning for every card is extremely useful as a tool. Having it also be somewhat of a 'ranking' process, calling out cube sizes and 'better', 'worse', 'staple', 'borderline', 'unexciting', 'best' etc. doesn't contribute anything we don't have already.
Don't let this project lose the value it should have.
If relative ranking of cards is important, we have multiple statistical ranking and inclusion tools available already. Why a card is good, and the advantages/disadvantages are what we need. That is what this thread *could* be.
Leave those words out of the discussion. Talk about what makes cards good. Talk about what cool interactions or tricks there are. You could even mention that opinions vary widely about cards which are controversial, but beyond that, leave ranking out of it.
Any ranking is exactly as up-to date as the time of writing if comparatives are involved. Outdated in 3 months, and difficult for a later reader to separate the ranking from the reasoning, especially if some cards are described mostly in terms of cube sizing etc. By the time we finish this, the stuff we are writing today will be out of date.
I think there needs to be a basis for what cards are discussed. Probably use Eidolon's tool + the Power Rankings for this. After selecting cards which are 'worth discussing', I would move that we throw the idea of ranking them out the window and just talk about them as individual cards and what they do.
I will be very willing to contribute a lot if we go down this road, but I can't see the value in spending time writing up descriptions which will be 'summarized' into combination ranking-descriptions and I probably won't help much at all if we go that route.
Obviously it is up to you mrmaul558 what you want your first post summaries to reflect, but I urge you to consider the immense potential of this project if you keep it independent of the ranking tools.
But we DON'T have a ranking system - all we have is quantitative data based on how many cubes play a particular card. I think that the qualitative descriptions of why we play these cards certainly helps, but what is their point if not coupled with a ranking system (even if it is loose)? What you are suggesting is merely a list of what cards do - I don't think that helps anyone, really. We all know what these cards do (yes, there may be a few interactions that a few people may not have thought of, but those will be revealed in this process, as they already have).
I'm not suggesting just ranking the cards outright and that being all that the thread is - But coupling the ranking TOGETHER with the advantages/disadvantages seems to be the most useful thing we could create here. Why can't we have the best of both worlds?
If you think we already have a ranking system that is sufficient, I disagree. Eidelon's data is helpful, but it is not the final story. Looking at that list tells a newcomer/someone who is building their first cube NOTHING helpful at all; sure, they can see that 84 people run Oblivion Ring (or whatever), but they might not understand why it is so good. Why can't this thread have the best of both schools of thought?
And you say rankings will be out-of-date in 3 months - sure, if we rank every single card. How many cards have been ranked in the first two sections? One - Mother of Runes. There may be a few qualitative sentences here and there, but I think they are actually necessary to give the factual data some grounding in actual "feeling" of the cube and the cards inside of it. I don't think it harms anything if I call Mother of Runes a staple - does anyone really disagree with that?
And calling a card "borderline at xxx size" - Well, if 1/2 of the 450 cards run a certain card, that seems like the definition of borderline, doesn't it? Without getting into all of that data (which is useful in a different way than Eidelon's raw data), I just use a term - "Borderline", which describes how a 450 cuber should feel about the card based on other 450 cubes - You can run it if you want, but its not necessary. Mother of Runes, on the other hand, belongs in every cube. Without question. If a cube isn't running Mother of Runes, its for a very particular reason - the vast majority of "standard" cubes run the card, and for good reason. Why can't I just present all that data in the most efficient way possible; a single word, 'Staple'. Of course, you back that word up with its uses and versatility, but I don't see why both can't coexist.
Also, yes, we're using Eidolon's data to decide which cards to talk about, but how do we decide which cards get talked about?? Only the cards that make a 360 list? a 540? a 720??? You have to make an arbitrary decision somewhere along that line of thought... The way I've been doing it, I just submit all the cards played in all the cubes, and people discuss what they play and what they think about playing. If a card is worth playing, someone will bring it up.
tl;dr version; I'm not trying to rank every single card, but I think that qualitative terms such as "staple" and "borderline" can be quite helpful to someone making their first cube, or someone looking at the thread and trying to learn the format, etc. If you disagree with something that's been said in a Closing Note, then bring it up! That's the point of this.
But we DON'T have a ranking system - all we have is quantitative data based on how many cubes play a particular card. I think that the qualitative descriptions of why we play these cards certainly helps, but what is their point if not coupled with a ranking system (even if it is loose)? What you are suggesting is merely a list of what cards do - I don't think that helps anyone, really. We all know what these cards do (yes, there may be a few interactions that a few people may not have thought of, but those will be revealed in this process, as they already have).
I'm not suggesting just ranking the cards outright and that being all that the thread is - But coupling the ranking TOGETHER with the advantages/disadvantages seems to be the most useful thing we could create here. Why can't we have the best of both worlds?
If you think we already have a ranking system that is sufficient, I disagree. Eidelon's data is helpful, but it is not the final story. Looking at that list tells a newcomer/someone who is building their first cube NOTHING helpful at all; sure, they can see that 84 people run Oblivion Ring (or whatever), but they might not understand why it is so good. Why can't this thread have the best of both schools of thought?
And you say rankings will be out-of-date in 3 months - sure, if we rank every single card. How many cards have been ranked in the first two sections? One - Mother of Runes. There may be a few qualitative sentences here and there, but I think they are actually necessary to give the factual data some grounding in actual "feeling" of the cube and the cards inside of it. I don't think it harms anything if I call Mother of Runes a staple - does anyone really disagree with that?
And calling a card "borderline at xxx size" - Well, if 1/2 of the 450 cards run a certain card, that seems like the definition of borderline, doesn't it? Without getting into all of that data (which is useful in a different way than Eidelon's raw data), I just use a term - "Borderline", which describes how a 450 cuber should feel about the card based on other 450 cubes - You can run it if you want, but its not necessary. Mother of Runes, on the other hand, belongs in every cube. Without question. If a cube isn't running Mother of Runes, its for a very particular reason - the vast majority of "standard" cubes run the card, and for good reason. Why can't I just present all that data in the most efficient way possible; a single word, 'Staple'. Of course, you back that word up with its uses and versatility, but I don't see why both can't coexist.
Also, yes, we're using Eidolon's data to decide which cards to talk about, but how do we decide which cards get talked about?? Only the cards that make a 360 list? a 540? a 720??? You have to make an arbitrary decision somewhere along that line of thought... The way I've been doing it, I just submit all the cards played in all the cubes, and people discuss what they play and what they think about playing. If a card is worth playing, someone will bring it up.
tl;dr version; I'm not trying to rank every single card, but I think that qualitative terms such as "staple" and "borderline" can be quite helpful to someone making their first cube, or someone looking at the thread and trying to learn the format, etc. If you disagree with something that's been said in a Closing Note, then bring it up! That's the point of this.
Firstly;
Yes - a master ranking and description tool, wouldn't that be nice. Every cubeable card ranked and qualified. That isn't what you are generating. What you have is abbreviated descriptions, many of which consist largely of semi-qualitative ranking information.
We have a top 20 cards from each color vote, plus we have a top cards vote compiled by Eidolon (Every cube owner casts a vote by including a card in his/her list). The tool even recommends cards for you and points out unusual cards in your list. This is considerable data to draw on, and represents the cumulative knowledge of a vast array of cube managers. It isn't the end-all-be-all, but what it is missing is simple descriptions of what the card does, and what it interacts with. That is the information that new and old cube designers are looking for a repository of. We already know what cards are consensus top picks and which cards are controversial.
When I say "rank", I mean stuff like calling something a 'staple', saying it belongs in 360 card cubes, or that it is borderline in 450, etc. Those are most certainly rankings just not in the #1, 2, 3, etc. fashion. But this sort of 'it belongs in a 360 card cube' can easily become obsoleted whenever a new set comes out. Staples of yesteryear have fallen out of countless cubes.
Eidolon's cube data represents the community's opinion of which cards are worth running. So lets use that list to prioritize what descriptions we create. Some criteria needs to be established for this, (I'd say probably anything that appears in 25 or more cubes out of the 100 or so that are ranked should get a blurb written about it).
Mother of Runes — Has a multitude of uses; destroying auras, forcing attackers through, protecting your creatures from removal, preventing your creatures from being killed in combat, attacking or blocking, preventing your opponent from targeting their own creatures. The list goes on. Can drastically influence the outcome of a game without ever attacking. Fits into all archetypes.
Student of Warfare — Excellent early AND late creature, which fits into most any white deck. Efficient leveling costs allow for you to choose how to invest in this guy, providing a lot of flexibility from a creature which beats down out of the gate and still can make swing games on turn 15.
Isamaru, Hound of Konda — Being legendary is almost a non-existant drawback in the typical cube's highlander environment. Being a 2-power, 1 mana creature makes it a great creature for aggro decks. Has an edge over Savannah Lions and Elite Vanguard because it can't get killed by 1 point of splittable red damage or pingers.
Etc...
Take this for what you will; but I think you can both simplify your workload here while simultaneously making a more powerful tool for the cube owner by providing date independent (does not expire) explanations of why we run certain cards in our cubes which they can use to try and understand all the numerical data we are now generating.
What you have is abbreviated descriptions, many of which consist largely of semi-qualitative ranking information.
We already know what cards are consensus top picks and which cards are controversial.
But this sort of 'it belongs in a 360 card cube' can easily become obsoleted whenever a new set comes out.
Eidolon's cube data represents the community's opinion of which cards are worth running. So lets use that list to prioritize what descriptions we create. Some criteria needs to be established for this, (I'd say probably anything that appears in 25 or more cubes out of the 100 or so that are ranked should get a blurb written about it).
What this Thread could be like:
...
Take this for what you will; but I think you can both simplify your workload here while simultaneously making a more powerful tool for the cube owner by providing date independent (does not expire) explanations of why we run certain cards in our cubes which they can use to try and understand all the numerical data we are now generating.
I agree with a lot of what you've said. If we want this to be a more factual, evidence-based project, then the approach our discussion takes must shift as well.
Take wtwlf's comment from earlier:
"I think the Cathar is pretty good too. A par of 2-power creatures for 2 mana is solid at the very least. I'd strongly consider it at 450+."
This is a highly qualitative assessment, and the closing notes have, I think, reflected the style of discussion that takes place. I enjoy this discussion, and this was my goal of this thread.
Now, the purely factual "this card does this and functions this way" approach is different, achieves different goals, and, I think, facilitates far less interesting discussion when we are merely stating facts about cards. When only facts are stated, then there can be no argument/discussion/contention, only agreement, as everything stated will be a fact.
I REALLY don't want to go down this road, because discussion will just halt. Every group of cards will amount to a few people writing out what the cards do, perhaps someone else will chime in with a missed interaction, and we will move on to the next section. No discussion, since there's nothing to discuss.
Also, just because we already know what the consensus "top picks" and "contentious" cards are, doesn't mean that every new cuber does. I have quite a few friends in RL whom I've directed to this thread because it will give them a better sense and feel for the cube environment in a variety of ways (one of these friends wants to build a cube herself; if she is presented with a list of cards and what they do, how is she to know which of the 20 or so 2-drops to run in her cube with no cube experience? This is where my "qualitative assessments" come in handy.)
As far as the "what this thread could be like"... I like that. I like it a lot. But I don't like it alone. Also, no one submitted any descriptions near that length per-card, so the notes weren't lengthy either.
Yes, if we take your approach, the data doesn't expire. Sure. But, I'm ok with continuing discussion in order to prevent expiration - also, not all of the data expires, only select parts. And if it gets too outdated, we can just do it again!
Now, the purely factual "this card does this and functions this way" approach is different, achieves different goals, and, I think, facilitates far less interesting discussion when we are merely stating facts about cards. When only facts are stated, then there can be no argument/discussion/contention, only agreement, as everything stated will be a fact.
I REALLY don't want to go down this road, because discussion will just halt. Every group of cards will amount to a few people writing out what the cards do, perhaps someone else will chime in with a missed interaction, and we will move on to the next section. No discussion, since there's nothing to discuss.
I don't agree that keeping the comments about what the card does for cube will halt discussion. I really don't see why it would, people don't all evaluate cards the same way so there will be discussion.
As for the qualitative comments, there's the cube comparison project and the power rankings for that. Comments like 'staple', 'borderline at X' just aren't very useful or interesting IMO. It should be clear from the notes if there are differences in people's opinions about a card, and anyway the reader should decide for himself which cards to run and why.
t
About the Soltaris entry, it currently reads:
Soltari Priest/Soltari Monk - 2/1 Shadow for WW is super aggressive. Which one is better is a spot of contention for
many; Priest protects from a greater number of cards, but it has been argued that black control decks want to remove the Monk more than red aggressive decks care about removing the Priest. Whichever one you think is good, they both are quite good and are run in most cubes.
I don't think which one is better is a spot of contention at all. I may be in the minority to consider the pro black Soltari borderline, but I don't think there are many people who actually think pro black is equally good as pro red.
The argumentation for this point was raised by a single person, and I think it is fundamentally flawed. For one, it assumes that black decks are control and red decks are aggressive, which just isn't always the case - in our cube, we see black aggro and red control very regularly and I'm sure we're not unusual in that regard. Secondly, it's suggested that black decks would actually have a problem with removing the pro black creature, which is unlikely to be the case since black has many ways to get rid of creatures that do not involve damage or targeting and so are not hindered by the protection.
Protection from red is quite objectively a far stronger ability than protection from black. So, objectively, Soltari Priest > Soltari Monk.
Having this be a repository of reasoning for every card is extremely useful as a tool. Having it also be somewhat of a 'ranking' process, calling out cube sizes and 'better', 'worse', 'staple', 'borderline', 'unexciting', 'best' etc. doesn't contribute anything we don't have already.
Don't let this project lose the value it should have.
If relative ranking of cards is important, we have multiple statistical ranking and inclusion tools available already. Why a card is good, and the advantages/disadvantages are what we need. That is what this thread *could* be.
Leave those words out of the discussion. Talk about what makes cards good. Talk about what cool interactions or tricks there are. You could even mention that opinions vary widely about cards which are controversial, but beyond that, leave ranking out of it.
Any ranking is exactly as up-to date as the time of writing if comparatives are involved. Outdated in 3 months, and difficult for a later reader to separate the ranking from the reasoning, especially if some cards are described mostly in terms of cube sizing etc. By the time we finish this, the stuff we are writing today will be out of date.
I think there needs to be a basis for what cards are discussed. Probably use Eidolon's tool + the Power Rankings for this. After selecting cards which are 'worth discussing', I would move that we throw the idea of ranking them out the window and just talk about them as individual cards and what they do.
I will be very willing to contribute a lot if we go down this road, but I can't see the value in spending time writing up descriptions which will be 'summarized' into combination ranking-descriptions and I probably won't help much at all if we go that route.
Obviously it is up to you mrmaul558 what you want your first post summaries to reflect, but I urge you to consider the immense potential of this project if you keep it independent of the ranking tools.
This is much more valuable than writing a few bits about the card along with some subjective statements about it being a staple and 'consider at 450+'. Like multiple users have pointed our, that won't be consistant in 2 months' time, but any qualitative assessment on each card's merits, drawbacks and interactions is much more useful, and for a lot longer.
By the way, Take a Bow's example entries for the one mana CMC should be exactly what we are aiming for in this thread. i.e...
Mother of Runes — Has a multitude of uses; destroying auras, forcing attackers through, protecting your creatures from removal, preventing your creatures from being killed in combat, attacking or blocking, preventing your opponent from targeting their own creatures. The list goes on. Can drastically influence the outcome of a game without ever attacking. Fits into all archetypes.
Student of Warfare — Excellent early AND late creature, which fits into most any white deck. Efficient leveling costs allow for you to choose how to invest in this guy, providing a lot of flexibility from a creature which beats down out of the gate and still can make swing games on turn 15.
Isamaru, Hound of Konda — Being legendary is almost a non-existant drawback in the typical cube's highlander environment. Being a 2-power, 1 mana creature makes it a great creature for aggro decks. Has an edge over Savannah Lions and Elite Vanguard because it can't get killed by 1 point of splittable red damage or pingers.
That excites a lot more than writing that Knight of Meadowgrain is a staple because 5 users wrote on it favourably. That is not enough data to make such a judgement properly. Let's focus on what is good about each card. Same with the Pegasus brothers. If you think they are 'borderline' or 'unexciting', don't write that. Write something like this: They are splashable, evasive two-power beaters for two mana. They get damage through in an efficient manner. As far as drawbacks go? They don't have the upside or stats-cost ratio that some other two drops offer, and are vulnerable to flying token blockers and split burn.
Even two sections in, there's a huge amount of subjectivity creeping into the analyses. For example, the worst offender:
This is among the best 2CMC White dudes - Both First Strike and Lifelink make WW easily worth it. This guy is great against aggro decks and also puts pressure on mid-range/control strategies as well.
The first two sentences have no place in this project. Let's explain why the combination of first strike and lifelink are good on a 2/2, and are both particularly important in the aggro mirror, where he is very hard to get round in combat. On the other hand, the life-link can be irrelevant against control, where you don't care about your life total. That leaves you with a 2/2 first strike, which is still good value. Saying that WW make lifelink and first strike 'easily worth it' adds nothing, and is entirely subjective. Separate out the Soltari WW guys. They aren't the same card. Make the case for each regarding protections.
This shouldn't turn into a few users' views filtered through the OP's personal lens on what is a staple and what isn't. That's not a useful resource, IMO.
I don't think there are many people who actually think pro black is equally good as pro red.
In a vacuum? No. But on these shadow creatures with the roles they perform? I think they're at least even, because of everything I said in my post before. We see black aggro and red control too, but they're not as common as red aggro and black mid-range/control. Because of how the matchups play out on average with the Soltaris against those colors, the pro:black is often a more relevant protection. Edicts are a popular way around that protection, but they're not super effective against aggro. So other than Bane and Damnation, the Monk is immune to pretty much all the removal they'll have available. The shadow creature is a bigger threat to the average black deck than the average red deck, because of the nature of the colors in the cube, and therefore the Monk's protection is just as relevant (if not arguably more relevant) than the Priest's. Even though pro:red is generally better.
I don't agree that keeping the comments about what the card does for cube will halt discussion. I really don't see why it would, people don't all evaluate cards the same way so there will be discussion.
With what you are talking about - Purely objective facts about what a card does in the cube, doesn't create any discussion AT ALL. We all list the facts about what it does... what is there to discuss beyond that?? No, people don't evaluate cards the same way, but you are talking about removing all evaluation from the project! Evaluation is subjective, what you are talking about is observation, not evaluation. I could change this to the "Cube Observation Thread", but that is far less interesting. You want to merely observe what cards do and write it down. How is that interesting at all?
As for the qualitative comments, there's the cube comparison project and the power rankings for that. Comments like 'staple', 'borderline at X' just aren't very useful or interesting IMO. It should be clear from the notes if there are differences in people's opinions about a card, and anyway the reader should decide for himself which cards to run and why.
The Cube Comparison project gives NO Qualitative comments. None. When you look at that, all you see is that a ton of people run a certain card, but you don't know why.
Just because they aren't useful or interesting to you doesn't mean they aren't useful or interesting to others. I, on the other hand, find that sort of discussion very, very interesting. Look at the set reviews for cube... they are quite qualitative with very little testing. They rank cards as staple, borderline, etc, whatever. Making this a "cube review" rather than just a list of what cards do seems MUCH more interesting to me.
And yes, the reader should decide for himself which cards to run and why. How are we taking that away from readers? We're not. That's actually impossible. But, someone building their first cube might want to know what are considered "staples" by the community and what aren't, etc. Sure, the Power Rankings give that information, but that doesn't give information as to WHY. We can have both the list of good cards AND why they are good.
I don't think which one is better is a spot of contention at all. I may be in the minority to consider the pro black Soltari borderline, but I don't think there are many people who actually think pro black is equally good as pro red.
The fact that you think so heavily about one over the other, and other people think that they are even only proves my point that it is a spot of contention. (I think they are equally as good, because of wtwlf's reasons)
The argumentation for this point was raised by a single person, and I think it is fundamentally flawed. For one, it assumes that black decks are control and red decks are aggressive, which just isn't always the case - in our cube, we see black aggro and red control very regularly and I'm sure we're not unusual in that regard. Secondly, it's suggested that black decks would actually have a problem with removing the pro black creature, which is unlikely to be the case since black has many ways to get rid of creatures that do not involve damage or targeting and so are not hindered by the protection.
This type of discussion continues to prove the "spot of contention" point. The fact that this type of discussion is even happening proves it.
This is much more valuable than writing a few bits about the card along with some subjective statements about it being a staple and 'consider at 450+'. Like multiple users have pointed our, that won't be consistant in 2 months' time, but any qualitative assessment on each card's merits, drawbacks and interactions is much more useful, and for a lot longer.
Qualitative = Subjective. I'm not against the strengths and weaknesses of each card being put int here, but I don't think I can make it much clearer that MOST people have NOT been evaluating these cards simply objectively. I think the notes have done a pretty good job reflecting the discussion - If you want the notes to change, then change the discussion. A purely objective discussion would probably yield purely objective notes. But purely objective facts about these cards are incredibly boring and useful to no one without a subjective point of reference.
By the way, Take a Bow's example entries for the one mana CMC should be exactly what we are aiming for in this thread. i.e...
Well, no one gave those sorts of descriptions initially, so they didn't show up in the notes. If you want to see more of that type of thing in the closing notes, than make your initial descriptions of the cards more like that.
That excites a lot more than writing that Knight of Meadowgrain is a staple because 5 users wrote on it favourably. That is not enough data to make such a judgement properly. Let's focus on what is good about each card. Same with the Pegasus brothers. If you think they are 'borderline' or 'unexciting', don't write that. Write something like this: They are splashable, evasive two-power beaters for two mana. They get damage through in an efficient manner. As far as drawbacks go? They don't have the upside or stats-cost ratio that some other two drops offer, and are vulnerable to flying token blockers and split burn.
Again, if you want to see that written, than write it! No one wrote anything like that about them, they just gave qualitative assessments. I hate to beat a dead horse, but no one is even recognizing this point that I am trying to make... Let me help.
You guys gave qualitative assessments, so the notes reflected that. If you guys want simple, objective facts, then a good place to start would be to change your own descriptions to be like that. But no one has done that.
Even two sections in, there's a huge amount of subjectivity creeping into the analyses. For example, the worst offender:
The first two sentences have no place in this project. Let's explain why the combination of first strike and lifelink are good on a 2/2, and are both particularly important in the aggro mirror, where he is very hard to get round in combat. On the other hand, the life-link can be irrelevant against control, where you don't care about your life total. That leaves you with a 2/2 first strike, which is still good value. Saying that WW make lifelink and first strike 'easily worth it' adds nothing, and is entirely subjective.
I think those types of sentences are perfect for this project. Perhaps more description is needed, but this is an evaluation, not a description or observation.
This shouldn't turn into a few users' views filtered through the OP's personal lens on what is a staple and what isn't. That's not a useful resource, IMO.
You act like I'm throwing the term "staple" around willy-nilly. If 81 people out of approx 85 run Mother of Runes, how is that not a staple???
Also, there is much more information in the notes that JUST what is a staple and what isn't. The descriptions you are looking for are in the entries. If you think that its insufficient, than suggest new entries or more descriptions, and the information will be added.
Just because they aren't useful or interesting to you doesn't mean they aren't useful or interesting to others. I, on the other hand, find that sort of discussion very, very interesting. Look at the set reviews for cube... they are quite qualitative with very little testing. They rank cards as staple, borderline, etc, whatever. Making this a "cube review" rather than just a list of what cards do seems MUCH more interesting to me.
Dude, if it's more interesting to you, then I can't do a thing about it. You can 'review' cards without trying to show-horn them into some preconceived category of playability level. Whatever you want to do - it's your thread after all- I'll do my best to suggest amendments, additions and corrigenda where I see appropriate. I'll write descriptions in the vein of what TAB was aiming for you to include.
We can have both the list of good cards AND why they are good.
That's what I'm saying. The list WILL be good cards. The entire point to the whole exercise is saying WHY they are good. List the cards' attributes and downsides. I'm also saying we don't need to write 'it's good!', 'it's really good!' or 'it's somewhat good!', because that's not helpful. If someone wants to infer it's what you seem to call a staple (high percentage of cubes play it), we already have the resources for that. It's just redundant. If you absolutely HAVE to get this across, why not include the number of cubes that run it at the time of writing in a sub-heading? As long as you're willing to update it, which you'll have to do anyway if you add stuff like 'borderline', 'cubeable' everytime a new set comes out.
i.e.
Mother of Runes (81/85 cubes)
Bla bla bla
___
That way, people can know how widely played it is without us forum regulars shoving some pre-concieved status down their throats. That is the only way of doing it in my opinion. It doesn't tell you about how good the card is, as our evaluations aren't infallible. Who knows, some marginal card from now that's played by 5 people could be everywhere in 5 months. But it does what you want to get across in a nice way. Then we can say WHY it's widely played.
In a vacuum? No. But on these shadow creatures with the roles they perform? I think they're at least even, because of everything I said in my post before. We see black aggro and red control too, but they're not as common as red aggro and black mid-range/control. Because of how the matchups play out on average with the Soltaris against those colors, the pro:black is often a more relevant protection. Edicts are a popular way around that protection, but they're not super effective against aggro. So other than Bane and Damnation, the Monk is immune to pretty much all the removal they'll have available. The shadow creature is a bigger threat to the average black deck than the average red deck, because of the nature of the colors in the cube, and therefore the Monk's protection is just as relevant (if not arguably more relevant) than the Priest's. Even though pro:red is generally better.
- just because black aggro and red control happen less often than black control and red aggro is no reason to remove this from the equation entirely;
- saying 'edicts aren't super effective against aggro' is no reason to remove this argument from the equation entirely;
- you do not take into account the games where the black deck also has red removal, any of which will take down the pro black Soltari.
Anyway. We can argue about what's better 'on average' until we're blue in the face, but neither of us has any figures to back these statements up so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I found that the pro red Soltari did a *much* better job staying alive and doing his thing than the pro black Soltari, you found they are equally resilient. Let's move on.
t
@ MrMaul - I really don't like the turn this discussion is taking. You're not listening to my and other people's points, you're twisting my words, and have become very defensive.
Just to set a few things straight: I am not advocating removing all evaluation from this project, merely to keep out the information already available through other projects. Staple status and which size cube plays what is available from the cube comparison project. Relative power is available from the power rankings. What should remain is the different reasons why people are running what they're running. That's also evaluation, and it's perfectly possible to have discussions about it.
But anyway, run your project whichever way you prefer. I was just trying to help.
Oh, you quoted me on stuff I didn't write, by the way.
The fact that you think so heavily about one over the other, and other people think that they are even only proves my point that it is a spot of contention. (I think they are equally as good, because of wtwlf's reasons)
Ok, keep the 'contention' comment and put me down as being baffled that more than one person can reach such a bizarre conclusion.
@ MrMaul - I really don't like the turn this discussion is taking. You're not listening to my and other people's points, you're twisting my words, and have become very defensive.
Just to set a few things straight: I am not advocating removing all evaluation from this project, merely to keep out the information already available through other projects. Staple status and which size cube plays what is available from the cube comparison project. Relative power is available from the power rankings. What should remain is the different reasons why people are running what they're running. That's also evaluation, and it's perfectly possible to have discussions about it.
Ok, keep the 'contention' comment and put me down as being baffled that more than one person can reach such a bizarre conclusion.
I don't know... I may have been a bit headstrong back there.
If we all want a more objective thing, than I would appreciate more suggestions as to what you'd like to see, specifically, rather than just attacking the notes in general.
I will copy/paste the 1-drop things posted before, and if people want to see specific changes in particular posts, please post replacement notes, and they will be added/switched out.
After the fixing of the previous notes, we shall continue on to the 3-drop discussion.
I do appreciate all of the feedback, even if I don't listen to all of it initially.
- just because black aggro and red control happen less often than black control and red aggro is no reason to remove this from the equation entirely;
Of course. I never suggested that black aggro and red control never happen. Only that on average, those roles are switched, and that shouldn't be ignored.
Quote from Fredo »
- saying 'edicts aren't super effective against aggro' is no reason to remove this argument from the equation entirely;
I didn't say that Edicts should be ignored. Simply that they aren't as good against decks that the Monk is commonly found in (exclusively found in?).
Quote from Fredo »
- you do not take into account the games where the black deck also has red removal, any of which will take down the pro black Soltari.
And you don't take into account the red decks that have black removal in them that can kill the Priest.
Quote from Fredo »
Anyway. We can argue about what's better 'on average' until we're blue in the face, but neither of us has any figures to back these statements up so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I found that the pro red Soltari did a *much* better job staying alive and doing his thing than the pro black Soltari, you found they are equally resilient. Let's move on.
I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. I just wanted to point out that simply because pro:red is better than pro:black in general doesn't mean that the Priest is better than the Monk. There are cases where the values of the protections change; matchup strength and roles creatures perform are two such cases.
I like the changes I would be inclined to add something on Loyal Cathar in the 2 drop bit. There have been a fair few posts about him in this thread that you can use. He gives card advantage versus removal and trading in combat, and leaves a free body after sweepers/removal. He's most useful for aggro against aggro, owing to his vigilance and extra relevant body, and for aggro against control, where he dodges Wrath. He's not pickable very high for control, but that's not an issue for most cubers when it comes to WW cards.
Mirror Entity: Despite its fragility, Mirror Entity can frequently win the game the turn after playing it by pumping the entire team for large X values. It's at its best in token builds which tend towards midrange, but is very pickable indeed in aggro. Comes with a big target on its head. There are some niche interactions with cards like Gravecrawler and Graveborn Muse.
Mirran Crusader: Possibly the best stats:cost ratio of any 3 drop in white; it has protection from a relevant removal colour, and black/green have some strong 4 drops that Crusader can swing into with no fear. Furthermore he swings for 4 with no help, and gets silly with equipment, pump or haste effects.
Blade Splicer: Played by dint of cost effectiveness rather than being spectacular. Ignoring the 1/1 Splicer itself, a 3/3 first strike is a reasonable deal for three mana. With bounce or blink effects, making multiple Golems is a possibility. Anthem effects put extra power on the board by pumping the Splicer, and she can swing with equipment to become a relevant attacker. Lastly, the capacity to swing for 4 on an empty board should not be overlooked.
Flickerwisp: A very cost-effective blink support card that is also playable on an empty board. Its ability can remove blockers to allow extra attack damage, or blink your own ETB creatures for card advantage. 3 evasive power for 3 is a good deal.
Soltari Champion: A splashable, unblockable 2/2 for 3 is not really a bad deal to being with. The main strength of Soltari Champion lies in being a Glorious Anthem during every one of your turns, pumping the whole team and getting in for 2. That can add up to a huge amount of damage for a 3 drop, and of course being unblockable further increases the synergy of cards in your deck that care about damaging the opponent, like the Swords.
I like Mirror Entity more in aggro than mid-range as you can turn all your 2/1s and 1/1s into 4/4s the turn after he hits. That's usually just game over for your opponent.
I'd add that you can use Flickerwisp to untap one of your lands if you don't have a better target. Resetting Tangle Wire is just mean and he can reset persist creatures and Planeswalkers as well (or reduce your opponent's walkers).
I like Mirror Entity more in aggro than mid-range as you can turn all your 2/1s and 1/1s into 4/4s the turn after he hits. That's usually just game over for your opponent.
Me too, and that's usually how he plays I was trying to say he's 'optimal' in tokens where you have more stuff to pump. Depends what archetype you consider tokens to be, I guess.
I'd add that you can use Flickerwisp to untap one of your lands if you don't have a better target. Resetting Tangle Wire is just mean and he can reset persist creatures and Planeswalkers as well (or reduce your opponent's walkers).
Yes, this should definitely be added. I'd never thought about the Tangle Wire interaction. That's why this thread is awesome.
I'll add something about the only 3-drop I run that wasn't mentioned above:
Paladin en-Vec - 1WW has new standards with the printing of Mirran Crusader, but 2/2 First Strike Pro Black/Red is still very resilient in both combat and against most of the removal that would get rid of it.
Good catch on the paladin. A fair few people still run Pianna, Nomad Captain: She pumps your whole team on the offence including herself, which gives you a 3/3 attacker in the worst case scenario and a considerable amount of extra damage if you have other creature attacking too.
I agree with a lot of what has been said over the last few posts. Lets focus on what each card does, how it interects, which decks it excells in, where it doesn't, tricks, advantages, and drawbacks.
Lets turn this into a Wiki of sorts for cubable cards. That would give me a resource I would frequent quite often. Even if it was just to find new interactions I hadn't thought of yet.
I cube with lots of different people and I am always happily surprised when someone else comes up with an interaction I had not thought of. This is a perfect opportunity to share that with the community.
Discussing if a card is cubable, staple etc. is irrelevant at this point. There is also no real advantage to comparing one to another either. We already have card rankings by color and CMC. This type of individual card information we are discussing is worth more than those approximations (in a different way). It allows observers to draw lines between strategies and cards.
http://hgcube.blogspot.com/ (help me Make my Custom CUBE!)
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=382498
The "Make a Proxy Thread
Redit Proxy Article "current gallery"
MY LEGACY ALTERS
All of this. It would be a great resource for certain. It's off to a good start already thanks to the OP but this would be the best direction IMO.
On spoiled card wishlisting and 'should-have-had'-isms:
The term "unexciting" isn't meant to be a statement about its power, but rather that it only has one ability, and doesn't do much but turn sideways.
And I would argue heavily that Knight of Meadowgrain is easily good enough for your 360 list - I wouldn't run both 2/1 flyers, but just one. I think that the Knight's presence in that white section would be better than having the redundancy of another 2/1 flyer in the smaller cube environment.
But, its your cube, and you make the decisions, which is why you run duplicates of the 2/1 flyer and not the Meadowgrain. HOWEVER, in our discussion, the Knight of Meadowgrain was revered and spoken of very highly, so the closing notes are going to reflect that - They are notes of our discussion, and many discussed how good Knight of Meadowgrain has been in their cube. 5-6 people saying he is good enough for 450 lists are going to have that opinion reflected more than the 1 360 player who doesn't think it makes the cut even at 360.
I have no problem with adding interactions into the closing notes (See: Kor Skyfisher), but I'm not sure what you are suggesting here.
I don't think its irrelevant; its actually the reason I started this thread. The advantage to comparing these cards is to make all of our cubes better, in whatever way we wish.
The "card rankings" don't mean as much as you might think; Just because a bunch of people play a certain card doesn't mean there isn't a better option that they've never thought of or seen before. Or, seeing some of these interactions we talk about (Look at the Weathered Wayfarer discussion a few pages back) can cause some people to think quite differently about a card or two.
And assuming we all have the same goal - to play the most powerful cards in limited, then some cards are just staples (Sulfuric Vortex, Survival, etc). [Obviously, certain people ban cards because of power level, fun level, etc, but the "standard" cube has this goal at heart.]
My 360 Commons Cube
Your favorite MTG website
Don't let this project lose the value it should have.
If relative ranking of cards is important, we have multiple statistical ranking and inclusion tools available already. Why a card is good, and the advantages/disadvantages are what we need. That is what this thread *could* be.
Leave those words out of the discussion. Talk about what makes cards good. Talk about what cool interactions or tricks there are. You could even mention that opinions vary widely about cards which are controversial, but beyond that, leave ranking out of it.
Any ranking is exactly as up-to date as the time of writing if comparatives are involved. Outdated in 3 months, and difficult for a later reader to separate the ranking from the reasoning, especially if some cards are described mostly in terms of cube sizing etc. By the time we finish this, the stuff we are writing today will be out of date.
I think there needs to be a basis for what cards are discussed. Probably use Eidolon's tool + the Power Rankings for this. After selecting cards which are 'worth discussing', I would move that we throw the idea of ranking them out the window and just talk about them as individual cards and what they do.
I will be very willing to contribute a lot if we go down this road, but I can't see the value in spending time writing up descriptions which will be 'summarized' into combination ranking-descriptions and I probably won't help much at all if we go that route.
Obviously it is up to you mrmaul558 what you want your first post summaries to reflect, but I urge you to consider the immense potential of this project if you keep it independent of the ranking tools.
[Remixes] - [The Brutal Cube - 360 Powered] - [My Cube Article] - ['Print-This' Wishlist]
But we DON'T have a ranking system - all we have is quantitative data based on how many cubes play a particular card. I think that the qualitative descriptions of why we play these cards certainly helps, but what is their point if not coupled with a ranking system (even if it is loose)? What you are suggesting is merely a list of what cards do - I don't think that helps anyone, really. We all know what these cards do (yes, there may be a few interactions that a few people may not have thought of, but those will be revealed in this process, as they already have).
I'm not suggesting just ranking the cards outright and that being all that the thread is - But coupling the ranking TOGETHER with the advantages/disadvantages seems to be the most useful thing we could create here. Why can't we have the best of both worlds?
If you think we already have a ranking system that is sufficient, I disagree. Eidelon's data is helpful, but it is not the final story. Looking at that list tells a newcomer/someone who is building their first cube NOTHING helpful at all; sure, they can see that 84 people run Oblivion Ring (or whatever), but they might not understand why it is so good. Why can't this thread have the best of both schools of thought?
And you say rankings will be out-of-date in 3 months - sure, if we rank every single card. How many cards have been ranked in the first two sections? One - Mother of Runes. There may be a few qualitative sentences here and there, but I think they are actually necessary to give the factual data some grounding in actual "feeling" of the cube and the cards inside of it. I don't think it harms anything if I call Mother of Runes a staple - does anyone really disagree with that?
And calling a card "borderline at xxx size" - Well, if 1/2 of the 450 cards run a certain card, that seems like the definition of borderline, doesn't it? Without getting into all of that data (which is useful in a different way than Eidelon's raw data), I just use a term - "Borderline", which describes how a 450 cuber should feel about the card based on other 450 cubes - You can run it if you want, but its not necessary. Mother of Runes, on the other hand, belongs in every cube. Without question. If a cube isn't running Mother of Runes, its for a very particular reason - the vast majority of "standard" cubes run the card, and for good reason. Why can't I just present all that data in the most efficient way possible; a single word, 'Staple'. Of course, you back that word up with its uses and versatility, but I don't see why both can't coexist.
Also, yes, we're using Eidolon's data to decide which cards to talk about, but how do we decide which cards get talked about?? Only the cards that make a 360 list? a 540? a 720??? You have to make an arbitrary decision somewhere along that line of thought... The way I've been doing it, I just submit all the cards played in all the cubes, and people discuss what they play and what they think about playing. If a card is worth playing, someone will bring it up.
tl;dr version; I'm not trying to rank every single card, but I think that qualitative terms such as "staple" and "borderline" can be quite helpful to someone making their first cube, or someone looking at the thread and trying to learn the format, etc. If you disagree with something that's been said in a Closing Note, then bring it up! That's the point of this.
My 360 Commons Cube
Your favorite MTG website
Firstly;
Yes - a master ranking and description tool, wouldn't that be nice. Every cubeable card ranked and qualified. That isn't what you are generating. What you have is abbreviated descriptions, many of which consist largely of semi-qualitative ranking information.
We have a top 20 cards from each color vote, plus we have a top cards vote compiled by Eidolon (Every cube owner casts a vote by including a card in his/her list). The tool even recommends cards for you and points out unusual cards in your list. This is considerable data to draw on, and represents the cumulative knowledge of a vast array of cube managers. It isn't the end-all-be-all, but what it is missing is simple descriptions of what the card does, and what it interacts with. That is the information that new and old cube designers are looking for a repository of. We already know what cards are consensus top picks and which cards are controversial.
When I say "rank", I mean stuff like calling something a 'staple', saying it belongs in 360 card cubes, or that it is borderline in 450, etc. Those are most certainly rankings just not in the #1, 2, 3, etc. fashion. But this sort of 'it belongs in a 360 card cube' can easily become obsoleted whenever a new set comes out. Staples of yesteryear have fallen out of countless cubes.
Eidolon's cube data represents the community's opinion of which cards are worth running. So lets use that list to prioritize what descriptions we create. Some criteria needs to be established for this, (I'd say probably anything that appears in 25 or more cubes out of the 100 or so that are ranked should get a blurb written about it).
Secondly, an example;
What this Thread could be like:
Mother of Runes — Has a multitude of uses; destroying auras, forcing attackers through, protecting your creatures from removal, preventing your creatures from being killed in combat, attacking or blocking, preventing your opponent from targeting their own creatures. The list goes on. Can drastically influence the outcome of a game without ever attacking. Fits into all archetypes.
Student of Warfare — Excellent early AND late creature, which fits into most any white deck. Efficient leveling costs allow for you to choose how to invest in this guy, providing a lot of flexibility from a creature which beats down out of the gate and still can make swing games on turn 15.
Isamaru, Hound of Konda — Being legendary is almost a non-existant drawback in the typical cube's highlander environment. Being a 2-power, 1 mana creature makes it a great creature for aggro decks. Has an edge over Savannah Lions and Elite Vanguard because it can't get killed by 1 point of splittable red damage or pingers.
Etc...
Take this for what you will; but I think you can both simplify your workload here while simultaneously making a more powerful tool for the cube owner by providing date independent (does not expire) explanations of why we run certain cards in our cubes which they can use to try and understand all the numerical data we are now generating.
[Remixes] - [The Brutal Cube - 360 Powered] - [My Cube Article] - ['Print-This' Wishlist]
I agree with a lot of what you've said. If we want this to be a more factual, evidence-based project, then the approach our discussion takes must shift as well.
Take wtwlf's comment from earlier:
"I think the Cathar is pretty good too. A par of 2-power creatures for 2 mana is solid at the very least. I'd strongly consider it at 450+."
This is a highly qualitative assessment, and the closing notes have, I think, reflected the style of discussion that takes place. I enjoy this discussion, and this was my goal of this thread.
Now, the purely factual "this card does this and functions this way" approach is different, achieves different goals, and, I think, facilitates far less interesting discussion when we are merely stating facts about cards. When only facts are stated, then there can be no argument/discussion/contention, only agreement, as everything stated will be a fact.
I REALLY don't want to go down this road, because discussion will just halt. Every group of cards will amount to a few people writing out what the cards do, perhaps someone else will chime in with a missed interaction, and we will move on to the next section. No discussion, since there's nothing to discuss.
Also, just because we already know what the consensus "top picks" and "contentious" cards are, doesn't mean that every new cuber does. I have quite a few friends in RL whom I've directed to this thread because it will give them a better sense and feel for the cube environment in a variety of ways (one of these friends wants to build a cube herself; if she is presented with a list of cards and what they do, how is she to know which of the 20 or so 2-drops to run in her cube with no cube experience? This is where my "qualitative assessments" come in handy.)
As far as the "what this thread could be like"... I like that. I like it a lot. But I don't like it alone. Also, no one submitted any descriptions near that length per-card, so the notes weren't lengthy either.
Yes, if we take your approach, the data doesn't expire. Sure. But, I'm ok with continuing discussion in order to prevent expiration - also, not all of the data expires, only select parts. And if it gets too outdated, we can just do it again!
I don't know. Am making sense to anyone?
My 360 Commons Cube
Your favorite MTG website
I don't agree that keeping the comments about what the card does for cube will halt discussion. I really don't see why it would, people don't all evaluate cards the same way so there will be discussion.
As for the qualitative comments, there's the cube comparison project and the power rankings for that. Comments like 'staple', 'borderline at X' just aren't very useful or interesting IMO. It should be clear from the notes if there are differences in people's opinions about a card, and anyway the reader should decide for himself which cards to run and why.
t
About the Soltaris entry, it currently reads:
I don't think which one is better is a spot of contention at all. I may be in the minority to consider the pro black Soltari borderline, but I don't think there are many people who actually think pro black is equally good as pro red.
The argumentation for this point was raised by a single person, and I think it is fundamentally flawed. For one, it assumes that black decks are control and red decks are aggressive, which just isn't always the case - in our cube, we see black aggro and red control very regularly and I'm sure we're not unusual in that regard. Secondly, it's suggested that black decks would actually have a problem with removing the pro black creature, which is unlikely to be the case since black has many ways to get rid of creatures that do not involve damage or targeting and so are not hindered by the protection.
Protection from red is quite objectively a far stronger ability than protection from black. So, objectively, Soltari Priest > Soltari Monk.
This is much more valuable than writing a few bits about the card along with some subjective statements about it being a staple and 'consider at 450+'. Like multiple users have pointed our, that won't be consistant in 2 months' time, but any qualitative assessment on each card's merits, drawbacks and interactions is much more useful, and for a lot longer.
By the way, Take a Bow's example entries for the one mana CMC should be exactly what we are aiming for in this thread. i.e...
That excites a lot more than writing that Knight of Meadowgrain is a staple because 5 users wrote on it favourably. That is not enough data to make such a judgement properly. Let's focus on what is good about each card. Same with the Pegasus brothers. If you think they are 'borderline' or 'unexciting', don't write that. Write something like this: They are splashable, evasive two-power beaters for two mana. They get damage through in an efficient manner. As far as drawbacks go? They don't have the upside or stats-cost ratio that some other two drops offer, and are vulnerable to flying token blockers and split burn.
Even two sections in, there's a huge amount of subjectivity creeping into the analyses. For example, the worst offender:
The first two sentences have no place in this project. Let's explain why the combination of first strike and lifelink are good on a 2/2, and are both particularly important in the aggro mirror, where he is very hard to get round in combat. On the other hand, the life-link can be irrelevant against control, where you don't care about your life total. That leaves you with a 2/2 first strike, which is still good value. Saying that WW make lifelink and first strike 'easily worth it' adds nothing, and is entirely subjective. Separate out the Soltari WW guys. They aren't the same card. Make the case for each regarding protections.
This shouldn't turn into a few users' views filtered through the OP's personal lens on what is a staple and what isn't. That's not a useful resource, IMO.
On spoiled card wishlisting and 'should-have-had'-isms:
In a vacuum? No. But on these shadow creatures with the roles they perform? I think they're at least even, because of everything I said in my post before. We see black aggro and red control too, but they're not as common as red aggro and black mid-range/control. Because of how the matchups play out on average with the Soltaris against those colors, the pro:black is often a more relevant protection. Edicts are a popular way around that protection, but they're not super effective against aggro. So other than Bane and Damnation, the Monk is immune to pretty much all the removal they'll have available. The shadow creature is a bigger threat to the average black deck than the average red deck, because of the nature of the colors in the cube, and therefore the Monk's protection is just as relevant (if not arguably more relevant) than the Priest's. Even though pro:red is generally better.
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!
With what you are talking about - Purely objective facts about what a card does in the cube, doesn't create any discussion AT ALL. We all list the facts about what it does... what is there to discuss beyond that?? No, people don't evaluate cards the same way, but you are talking about removing all evaluation from the project! Evaluation is subjective, what you are talking about is observation, not evaluation. I could change this to the "Cube Observation Thread", but that is far less interesting. You want to merely observe what cards do and write it down. How is that interesting at all?
The Cube Comparison project gives NO Qualitative comments. None. When you look at that, all you see is that a ton of people run a certain card, but you don't know why.
Just because they aren't useful or interesting to you doesn't mean they aren't useful or interesting to others. I, on the other hand, find that sort of discussion very, very interesting. Look at the set reviews for cube... they are quite qualitative with very little testing. They rank cards as staple, borderline, etc, whatever. Making this a "cube review" rather than just a list of what cards do seems MUCH more interesting to me.
And yes, the reader should decide for himself which cards to run and why. How are we taking that away from readers? We're not. That's actually impossible. But, someone building their first cube might want to know what are considered "staples" by the community and what aren't, etc. Sure, the Power Rankings give that information, but that doesn't give information as to WHY. We can have both the list of good cards AND why they are good.
The fact that you think so heavily about one over the other, and other people think that they are even only proves my point that it is a spot of contention. (I think they are equally as good, because of wtwlf's reasons)
This type of discussion continues to prove the "spot of contention" point. The fact that this type of discussion is even happening proves it.
This is simply untrue. There are pros and cons to both, but wtwlf has already addressed this.
Qualitative = Subjective. I'm not against the strengths and weaknesses of each card being put int here, but I don't think I can make it much clearer that MOST people have NOT been evaluating these cards simply objectively. I think the notes have done a pretty good job reflecting the discussion - If you want the notes to change, then change the discussion. A purely objective discussion would probably yield purely objective notes. But purely objective facts about these cards are incredibly boring and useful to no one without a subjective point of reference.
Well, no one gave those sorts of descriptions initially, so they didn't show up in the notes. If you want to see more of that type of thing in the closing notes, than make your initial descriptions of the cards more like that.
Again, if you want to see that written, than write it! No one wrote anything like that about them, they just gave qualitative assessments. I hate to beat a dead horse, but no one is even recognizing this point that I am trying to make... Let me help.
You guys gave qualitative assessments, so the notes reflected that. If you guys want simple, objective facts, then a good place to start would be to change your own descriptions to be like that. But no one has done that.
I think those types of sentences are perfect for this project. Perhaps more description is needed, but this is an evaluation, not a description or observation.
I did add some of your description to the entry.
The case is made for each, but I think that they are similar enough to warrant the same entry.
You act like I'm throwing the term "staple" around willy-nilly. If 81 people out of approx 85 run Mother of Runes, how is that not a staple???
Also, there is much more information in the notes that JUST what is a staple and what isn't. The descriptions you are looking for are in the entries. If you think that its insufficient, than suggest new entries or more descriptions, and the information will be added.
My 360 Commons Cube
Your favorite MTG website
Dude, if it's more interesting to you, then I can't do a thing about it. You can 'review' cards without trying to show-horn them into some preconceived category of playability level. Whatever you want to do - it's your thread after all- I'll do my best to suggest amendments, additions and corrigenda where I see appropriate. I'll write descriptions in the vein of what TAB was aiming for you to include.
That's what I'm saying. The list WILL be good cards. The entire point to the whole exercise is saying WHY they are good. List the cards' attributes and downsides. I'm also saying we don't need to write 'it's good!', 'it's really good!' or 'it's somewhat good!', because that's not helpful. If someone wants to infer it's what you seem to call a staple (high percentage of cubes play it), we already have the resources for that. It's just redundant. If you absolutely HAVE to get this across, why not include the number of cubes that run it at the time of writing in a sub-heading? As long as you're willing to update it, which you'll have to do anyway if you add stuff like 'borderline', 'cubeable' everytime a new set comes out.
i.e.
That way, people can know how widely played it is without us forum regulars shoving some pre-concieved status down their throats. That is the only way of doing it in my opinion. It doesn't tell you about how good the card is, as our evaluations aren't infallible. Who knows, some marginal card from now that's played by 5 people could be everywhere in 5 months. But it does what you want to get across in a nice way. Then we can say WHY it's widely played.
On spoiled card wishlisting and 'should-have-had'-isms:
If anything I think the discussion so far has shown they are different enough to warrant 2 different entries.
- saying 'edicts aren't super effective against aggro' is no reason to remove this argument from the equation entirely;
- you do not take into account the games where the black deck also has red removal, any of which will take down the pro black Soltari.
Anyway. We can argue about what's better 'on average' until we're blue in the face, but neither of us has any figures to back these statements up so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I found that the pro red Soltari did a *much* better job staying alive and doing his thing than the pro black Soltari, you found they are equally resilient. Let's move on.
t
@ MrMaul - I really don't like the turn this discussion is taking. You're not listening to my and other people's points, you're twisting my words, and have become very defensive.
Just to set a few things straight: I am not advocating removing all evaluation from this project, merely to keep out the information already available through other projects. Staple status and which size cube plays what is available from the cube comparison project. Relative power is available from the power rankings. What should remain is the different reasons why people are running what they're running. That's also evaluation, and it's perfectly possible to have discussions about it.
But anyway, run your project whichever way you prefer. I was just trying to help.
Oh, you quoted me on stuff I didn't write, by the way.
Ok, keep the 'contention' comment and put me down as being baffled that more than one person can reach such a bizarre conclusion.
EDIT: agreed with Goodking on all points.
I don't know... I may have been a bit headstrong back there.
If we all want a more objective thing, than I would appreciate more suggestions as to what you'd like to see, specifically, rather than just attacking the notes in general.
I will copy/paste the 1-drop things posted before, and if people want to see specific changes in particular posts, please post replacement notes, and they will be added/switched out.
After the fixing of the previous notes, we shall continue on to the 3-drop discussion.
I do appreciate all of the feedback, even if I don't listen to all of it initially.
My 360 Commons Cube
Your favorite MTG website
Of course. I never suggested that black aggro and red control never happen. Only that on average, those roles are switched, and that shouldn't be ignored.
I didn't say that Edicts should be ignored. Simply that they aren't as good against decks that the Monk is commonly found in (exclusively found in?).
And you don't take into account the red decks that have black removal in them that can kill the Priest.
I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. I just wanted to point out that simply because pro:red is better than pro:black in general doesn't mean that the Priest is better than the Monk. There are cases where the values of the protections change; matchup strength and roles creatures perform are two such cases.
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!
My 360 Commons Cube
Your favorite MTG website
On spoiled card wishlisting and 'should-have-had'-isms:
My 360 Commons Cube
Your favorite MTG website
Mirror Entity: Despite its fragility, Mirror Entity can frequently win the game the turn after playing it by pumping the entire team for large X values. It's at its best in token builds which tend towards midrange, but is very pickable indeed in aggro. Comes with a big target on its head. There are some niche interactions with cards like Gravecrawler and Graveborn Muse.
Mirran Crusader: Possibly the best stats:cost ratio of any 3 drop in white; it has protection from a relevant removal colour, and black/green have some strong 4 drops that Crusader can swing into with no fear. Furthermore he swings for 4 with no help, and gets silly with equipment, pump or haste effects.
Blade Splicer: Played by dint of cost effectiveness rather than being spectacular. Ignoring the 1/1 Splicer itself, a 3/3 first strike is a reasonable deal for three mana. With bounce or blink effects, making multiple Golems is a possibility. Anthem effects put extra power on the board by pumping the Splicer, and she can swing with equipment to become a relevant attacker. Lastly, the capacity to swing for 4 on an empty board should not be overlooked.
Flickerwisp: A very cost-effective blink support card that is also playable on an empty board. Its ability can remove blockers to allow extra attack damage, or blink your own ETB creatures for card advantage. 3 evasive power for 3 is a good deal.
Soltari Champion: A splashable, unblockable 2/2 for 3 is not really a bad deal to being with. The main strength of Soltari Champion lies in being a Glorious Anthem during every one of your turns, pumping the whole team and getting in for 2. That can add up to a huge amount of damage for a 3 drop, and of course being unblockable further increases the synergy of cards in your deck that care about damaging the opponent, like the Swords.
On spoiled card wishlisting and 'should-have-had'-isms:
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.
Me too, and that's usually how he plays I was trying to say he's 'optimal' in tokens where you have more stuff to pump. Depends what archetype you consider tokens to be, I guess.
Yes, this should definitely be added. I'd never thought about the Tangle Wire interaction. That's why this thread is awesome.
On spoiled card wishlisting and 'should-have-had'-isms:
Paladin en-Vec - 1WW has new standards with the printing of Mirran Crusader, but 2/2 First Strike Pro Black/Red is still very resilient in both combat and against most of the removal that would get rid of it.
My 360 Commons Cube
Your favorite MTG website
On spoiled card wishlisting and 'should-have-had'-isms: