Is this a personal list or based on overall deck stats, i ask because you are eidolon and have stats a lot of the time.
If its a personal list i would disagree in a few areas
Sarkhan and vol seem to be an either or in most cubes due to their similarity.
Rampager seems to be at least number 5 in that list. I've eard a lot of praise for that card. Im testing domri and feeel like 4-6 is te general area he would be in but im not sure.
My current Gruul cards: Bloodbraid Elf - By far the best card available. Domri Rade - Me (and my playgroup) really like build around me cards, and this one fits my green section a lot. Kessig Wolf Run - A finisher that doesn't take up a spell slot and makes your mana elfs deadly. Check. Sarkhan Vol - I like planeswalkers and I like Fires of Yavimaya. This is a good combo. Ghor-Clan Rampager - Fine beater or good uncountable combat trick. Boggart Ram-Gang - Good midrange beater, that also fits into Rx aggro as an added bonus. Ruric Thar, the Unbowed - Haven't tried him yet, but he looks like the perfect curve-topper of RG-Domri ramp decks. Kird Ape - After the removal of green aggro from my cube this is only really still in because of the "good ol' times".
Worth Mentioning: Stormbind - A good finisher card, but recently removed to make room for some of the other cards in my list. Flinthoof Boar - A bit redundant with Boggart, but still good. Huntmaster of the Fells - Would probably be in my list if it weren't for my hatred of flip-cards. Especially complex ones like this. It's ok with the vanilla-ones, but this is too much of a hassle for me and my playgroup.
I think this thread is for discussing whatever your RG section looks like. So if you are ranking your top 10 RG cards, feel free to leave out (or in) hybrids as you choose. By the same token, don't force other people to leave in or out other cards.
It would be similar to talking about white three drops. Some would rank Exalted Angel there, while others would not, and simply caveat there list or ideas with that information.
I think it's about discussing which Gruul cards get used in your cube. So if you have a split between a gold section and hybrid section (vs a guild section) those hybrid cards are still used in your cube, and therefore should be included as part of your suite of favorite Gruul cards. Making a comprehensive list of all of your top Gruul cards is more helpful; let the individual managers decide how they want to sort them for their own cube. Some people slot Kird Ape in red, but it can still be discussed here to show the importance of the card, regardless of where you personally sort it yourself. It might not be particularly relevant here yet, but excluding Kitchen Finks from your ranking implies that the card isn't a card you consider to be a top Selesnya card, no mater how you classify it.
I think it's about discussing which Gruul cards get used in your cube. So if you have a split between a gold section and hybrid section (vs a guild section) those hybrid cards are still used in your cube, and therefore should be included as part of your suite of favorite Gruul cards. Making a comprehensive list of all of your top Gruul cards is more helpful; let the individual managers decide how they want to sort them for their own cube. Some people slot Kird Ape in red, but it can still be discussed here to show the importance of the card, regardless of where you personally sort it yourself. It might not be particularly relevant here yet, but excluding Kitchen Finks from your ranking implies that the card isn't a card you consider to be a top Selesnya card, no mater how you classify it.
I agree absolutely that any card a poster thinks is RG should be able to be discussed here.
I think simply caveating that you rank hybrid cards separately is enough, since ranking hybrids against gold cards in the context of my cube is pointless (it would be like including gold cards in mono sections). Of course, it would probably be helpful to then rank the hybrid cards as well, but hybrids are really tough to assign objective value to since they get classified so many different ways.
The colorless lands compete with the colorless spells , the monocolored utility lands compete with the monocolored spells, so why shouldn't the multicolor lands compete with the multicolor spells?
Isn't that the main advantage of the guild system to use just the type and quantity of fixers in each color(pair) that it needs while still keeping everything balanced.
Agreed with this post ^^, except the balance part. The 'balance' reached by running equal number of cards per guild is almost completely in the eye of the beholder. We've been running an unbalanced multi-color section for a while now and have experienced no impact whatsoever on global color balance. There's just too much variance on multi-color cards, and anyway most cards need not only 2 specific colors but also a specific deck type.
By the by, we've had pretty good results with Burning-Tree Emissary here, I can recommend giving it a test run.
The colorless lands compete with the colorless spells , the monocolored utility lands compete with the monocolored spells, so why shouldn't the multicolor lands compete with the multicolor spells?
Mana fixers need to be represented proportionally in each guild to give each guild an equal chance in being drafted. If you line them up against spell cards you're upsetting that proportion.
Colorless lands and monocolored lands aren't mana fixers so you can have them compete with spells without compromising deckbuilding ability.
The colorless lands compete with the colorless spells , the monocolored utility lands compete with the monocolored spells, so why shouldn't the multicolor lands compete with the multicolor spells?
Isn't that the main advantage of the guild system to use just the type and quantity of fixers in each color(pair) that it needs while still keeping everything balanced.
No, the main advantage is to allow all the cards that aren't mana-fixing lands in a guild to compete against each other so you're not forced to include subpar gold cards or subpar hybrid cards. You just include all the best cards that are associated with the guild in the same section. Just like we do with the mono-colored sections.
Mana fixers need to be represented proportionally in each guild to give each guild an equal chance in being drafted. If you line them up against spell cards you're upsetting that proportion.
That proportion often has nothing to do with how often a color pair gets drafted, or the actual balance of a cube. Additionally, there are "gold" lands that are not fixers, so balancing the number of lands in a guild often makes no sense for cubes.
No, the main advantage is to allow all the cards that aren't mana-fixing lands in a guild to compete against each other so you're not forced to include subpar gold cards or subpar hybrid cards. You just include all the best cards that are associated with the guild in the same section. Just like we do with the mono-colored sections.
I pit mono colored cards against each other because they have the same relative narrowness in casting cost (simplistically, all white cards go in white decks only) which is why I pit gold cards against each other, and leave hybrids out of gold. I was also under the impression that the purpose of moving to a guild section was to pit gold, hybrid, and fixers (both land and non land) against each other, but I am no expert.
Basically, I am okay with people discussing the fixers in the guild threads, but obviously I am only one vote.
That proportion often has nothing to do with how often a color pair gets drafted, or the actual balance of a cube. Additionally, there are "gold" lands that are not fixers, so balancing the number of lands in a guild often makes no sense for cubes.
"Nothing to do with" is quite the overstatement. If I'm not getting the lands I need to mana-fix I'm generally not going to the build my deck with that color pair (there are exceptional deck compositions of course).
If I'm not getting the lands I need to mana-fix I'm generally not going to the build my deck with that color pair (there are exceptional deck compositions of course).
There are times when I would much rather draft a Vindicate than a B/W painland, so in that case including a gold card over a land has in fact upped the chance of that combination being played. Similarly, I'm sure if the worst gold card in any cube were replaced with the best fixing land available, I would be more likely to play that guild. My point is that balance is NOT numbers matching up. The more flexibility you give to (smart) cube builders, the better job they can do making sections as powerful as possible. Forcing their hand does not make for good balance.
This is the same reason I don't lock my casting costs in stone. Not running as many one drops in blue as in white might upset number balance, but it is good for draft and play balance, which is what I am interested in.
I pit mono-color cards against each other because they're all intrinsically best in decks with access to that color. Same as I do for the guilds.
That is fine, of course, and is probably why we differ on this and always will. I can't do this, because if I did, I would end up with a lot of mono colored cards in gold the gold sections of color combinations where they fit best. Simic Goyf! Grull Squee! Azorius Moat!
Well this is annoying metathread we've developed here.
Welcome to the cube forum!
Kidding aside, this can be split out, but is probably at least mildly important discussion, because there were no clear criteria set out for the guild threads.
That is fine, of course, and is probably why we differ on this and always will. I can't do this, because if I did, I would end up with a lot of mono colored cards in gold the gold sections of color combinations where they fit best. Simic Goyf! Grull Squee! Azorius Moat!
Those aren't intrinsic evaluations. Those are contextual evaluations, and I don't sort cards that way.
Well this is annoying metathread we've developed here.
I hear you man. I'm really tired of the same recycled boring classification discussions.
We need another spoiler season so we have something worthwhile to collectively discuss so we stop backsliding by default to the same waste of time debates we always do. I like constructive discussion just as much as anyone else. Bue when we hear the same stuff for the umpteenth time, it's damn-old.
I hear you man. I'm really tired of the same recycled boring classification discussions.
We need another spoiler season so we have something worthwhile to collectively discuss so we stop backsliding by default to the same waste of time debates we always do. I like constructive discussion just as much as anyone else. Bue when we hear the same stuff for the umpteenth time, it's damn-old.
Well i was trying to get things going with more discussion of the sorts of decks that pop up in colour combos etc in these MDCs.
I'd like to know more about the potential people try to work into their cubes and which colours lack identity or which archetypes seem persistent through alterations and multiple colour comboz, sorta root out where they find such tenacity.
I like it sorta from a non cube owner perspective and a card design perspective.
There are times when I would much rather draft a Vindicate than a B/W painland, so in that case including a gold card over a land has in fact upped the chance of that combination being played. Similarly, I'm sure if the worst gold card in any cube were replaced with the best fixing land available, I would be more likely to play that guild. My point is that balance is NOT numbers matching up. The more flexibility you give to (smart) cube builders, the better job they can do making sections as powerful as possible. Forcing their hand does not make for good balance.
This is the same reason I don't lock my casting costs in stone. Not running as many one drops in blue as in white might upset number balance, but it is good for draft and play balance, which is what I am interested in.
I think when it comes to resource management (lands, and the colors they provide) it's absolutely a numbers game - its the strategic crux of the game in general. Every deck needs to play one land per turn, and every deck needs to have their colors available to them when the player needs it. If you can't play the things you want, when you want, you're already losing the game.
I agree with casting costs, but the philosophy doesn't hold water with land mana-fixers IMO. I'm almost always not going to slot Vindicate into my deck without at least one mana-fixing land in my deck too (B/W or an any-color land).
I'm almost always not going to slot Vindicate into my deck without at least one mana-fixing land in my deck too (B/W or an any-color land).
If I'm a BW deck (or even 3c deck, B/W/X) with all basic lands, there is NO WAY IN HECK I'm not running Vindicate. The card is good whenever you get the mana for it, and often trades for cards worth more mana than it is. If it kills something that costs less, that means that it really needed to die and was also worth it.
I actually forgot the rest of what you wrote because of this last statement.
I agree with casting costs, but the philosophy doesn't hold water with land mana-fixers IMO. I'm almost always not going to slot Vindicate into my deck without at least one mana-fixing land in my deck too (B/W or an any-color land).
Your talking about in a BW deck? Vindicate could cost 3 and still be almost the same card in a pure 50/50 BW-deck? 1BW is easier to cast than 1WW or 1BB in a B/W deck. So I read that as you wouldn't play Vampire Nighthawk or Mirran Crusader in a BW-deck as well?
I think when it comes to resource management (lands, and the colors they provide) it's absolutely a numbers game - its the strategic crux of the game in general. Every deck needs to play one land per turn, and every deck needs to have their colors available to them when the player needs it. If you can't play the things you want, when you want, you're already losing the game.
I agree with casting costs, but the philosophy doesn't hold water with land mana-fixers IMO.
snip
Even without the vindicate comment, I'm not sure what you're saying here.
If it's that balancing fixing lands is necessary, I'm on board. If you're saying that fixing gold cards is necessary, I don't agree. If it's anything else, I have no clue what it might be
Separate thread might indeed be necessary for this discussion, which I personally think is interesting and worthwhile.
I think when it comes to resource management (lands, and the colors they provide) it's absolutely a numbers game - its the strategic crux of the game in general. Every deck needs to play one land per turn, and every deck needs to have their colors available to them when the player needs it. If you can't play the things you want, when you want, you're already losing the game.
I agree with casting costs, but the philosophy doesn't hold water with land mana-fixers IMO. I'm almost always not going to slot Vindicate into my deck without at least one mana-fixing land in my deck too (B/W or an any-color land).
Well, I think the above posters have made the point fairly well, so I'll address the idea itself, which I think is getting confused. I think people here "flexible lands slots" and think, "cutting lands is a terrible idea!". I'm not really cutting lands though, I'm adding them. Instead of running say five lands in each color pair and four gold cards, the weaker gold color pairs get six lands and four spells. Do we really think a section that cuts Wall of Denial for Celestial Colonnade (or Azorius Chancery) is suddenly going to become vastly overpowered in comparison to GW or BW? The only reason those color pairs aren't getting a 6/3 split like UW is because their gold cards are amazing enough to be picked or included) over an extra fixer.
Sure, I could run the same number of fixing lands for every pair, but that would either force me to run mediocre gold cards, or cut gold cards that I really want to play with (I'm looking at you Qasali Pridemage). I wasn't happy with either of those options.
Is this a personal list or based on overall deck stats, i ask because you are eidolon and have stats a lot of the time.
If its a personal list i would disagree in a few areas
Sarkhan and vol seem to be an either or in most cubes due to their similarity.
Rampager seems to be at least number 5 in that list. I've eard a lot of praise for that card. Im testing domri and feeel like 4-6 is te general area he would be in but im not sure.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=484979
Bloodbraid Elf - By far the best card available.
Domri Rade - Me (and my playgroup) really like build around me cards, and this one fits my green section a lot.
Kessig Wolf Run - A finisher that doesn't take up a spell slot and makes your mana elfs deadly. Check.
Sarkhan Vol - I like planeswalkers and I like Fires of Yavimaya. This is a good combo.
Ghor-Clan Rampager - Fine beater or good uncountable combat trick.
Boggart Ram-Gang - Good midrange beater, that also fits into Rx aggro as an added bonus.
Ruric Thar, the Unbowed - Haven't tried him yet, but he looks like the perfect curve-topper of RG-Domri ramp decks.
Kird Ape - After the removal of green aggro from my cube this is only really still in because of the "good ol' times".
Talisman of Impulse - In my cube over Gruul Signet because of Wildfire-strategies.
Worth Mentioning:
Stormbind - A good finisher card, but recently removed to make room for some of the other cards in my list.
Flinthoof Boar - A bit redundant with Boggart, but still good.
Huntmaster of the Fells - Would probably be in my list if it weren't for my hatred of flip-cards. Especially complex ones like this. It's ok with the vanilla-ones, but this is too much of a hassle for me and my playgroup.
My Tribal cube
My 93/94 old school cube
My Artifact cube
My Hearthstone Quiz App for iOS
This thread is for discussing Gruul cards, not exclusively RG gold cards.
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!
It would be similar to talking about white three drops. Some would rank Exalted Angel there, while others would not, and simply caveat there list or ideas with that information.
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!
I agree absolutely that any card a poster thinks is RG should be able to be discussed here.
I think simply caveating that you rank hybrid cards separately is enough, since ranking hybrids against gold cards in the context of my cube is pointless (it would be like including gold cards in mono sections). Of course, it would probably be helpful to then rank the hybrid cards as well, but hybrids are really tough to assign objective value to since they get classified so many different ways.
Guild ≠ gold. This is about the guild cards to my understanding.
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!
By the by, we've had pretty good results with Burning-Tree Emissary here, I can recommend giving it a test run.
Mana fixers need to be represented proportionally in each guild to give each guild an equal chance in being drafted. If you line them up against spell cards you're upsetting that proportion.
Colorless lands and monocolored lands aren't mana fixers so you can have them compete with spells without compromising deckbuilding ability.
No, the main advantage is to allow all the cards that aren't mana-fixing lands in a guild to compete against each other so you're not forced to include subpar gold cards or subpar hybrid cards. You just include all the best cards that are associated with the guild in the same section. Just like we do with the mono-colored sections.
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!
That proportion often has nothing to do with how often a color pair gets drafted, or the actual balance of a cube. Additionally, there are "gold" lands that are not fixers, so balancing the number of lands in a guild often makes no sense for cubes.
I pit mono colored cards against each other because they have the same relative narrowness in casting cost (simplistically, all white cards go in white decks only) which is why I pit gold cards against each other, and leave hybrids out of gold. I was also under the impression that the purpose of moving to a guild section was to pit gold, hybrid, and fixers (both land and non land) against each other, but I am no expert.
Basically, I am okay with people discussing the fixers in the guild threads, but obviously I am only one vote.
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!
"Nothing to do with" is quite the overstatement. If I'm not getting the lands I need to mana-fix I'm generally not going to the build my deck with that color pair (there are exceptional deck compositions of course).
And I'm not talking about non mana-fixing lands.
Good thing I used a qualifier then!
There are times when I would much rather draft a Vindicate than a B/W painland, so in that case including a gold card over a land has in fact upped the chance of that combination being played. Similarly, I'm sure if the worst gold card in any cube were replaced with the best fixing land available, I would be more likely to play that guild. My point is that balance is NOT numbers matching up. The more flexibility you give to (smart) cube builders, the better job they can do making sections as powerful as possible. Forcing their hand does not make for good balance.
This is the same reason I don't lock my casting costs in stone. Not running as many one drops in blue as in white might upset number balance, but it is good for draft and play balance, which is what I am interested in.
That is fine, of course, and is probably why we differ on this and always will. I can't do this, because if I did, I would end up with a lot of mono colored cards in gold the gold sections of color combinations where they fit best. Simic Goyf! Grull Squee! Azorius Moat!
Cube talk, design community and much much more!
Welcome to the cube forum!
Kidding aside, this can be split out, but is probably at least mildly important discussion, because there were no clear criteria set out for the guild threads.
Those aren't intrinsic evaluations. Those are contextual evaluations, and I don't sort cards that way.
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!
I hear you man. I'm really tired of the same recycled boring classification discussions.
We need another spoiler season so we have something worthwhile to collectively discuss so we stop backsliding by default to the same waste of time debates we always do. I like constructive discussion just as much as anyone else. Bue when we hear the same stuff for the umpteenth time, it's damn-old.
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!
My 450 Cube
Well i was trying to get things going with more discussion of the sorts of decks that pop up in colour combos etc in these MDCs.
I'd like to know more about the potential people try to work into their cubes and which colours lack identity or which archetypes seem persistent through alterations and multiple colour comboz, sorta root out where they find such tenacity.
I like it sorta from a non cube owner perspective and a card design perspective.
Cube talk, design community and much much more!
It's still pretty overstated
I think when it comes to resource management (lands, and the colors they provide) it's absolutely a numbers game - its the strategic crux of the game in general. Every deck needs to play one land per turn, and every deck needs to have their colors available to them when the player needs it. If you can't play the things you want, when you want, you're already losing the game.
I agree with casting costs, but the philosophy doesn't hold water with land mana-fixers IMO. I'm almost always not going to slot Vindicate into my deck without at least one mana-fixing land in my deck too (B/W or an any-color land).
If I'm a BW deck (or even 3c deck, B/W/X) with all basic lands, there is NO WAY IN HECK I'm not running Vindicate. The card is good whenever you get the mana for it, and often trades for cards worth more mana than it is. If it kills something that costs less, that means that it really needed to die and was also worth it.
I actually forgot the rest of what you wrote because of this last statement.
-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
Your talking about in a BW deck? Vindicate could cost 3 and still be almost the same card in a pure 50/50 BW-deck? 1BW is easier to cast than 1WW or 1BB in a B/W deck. So I read that as you wouldn't play Vampire Nighthawk or Mirran Crusader in a BW-deck as well?
Sorry, but that doesn't seem right.
My Tribal cube
My 93/94 old school cube
My Artifact cube
My Hearthstone Quiz App for iOS
If it's that balancing fixing lands is necessary, I'm on board. If you're saying that fixing gold cards is necessary, I don't agree. If it's anything else, I have no clue what it might be
Separate thread might indeed be necessary for this discussion, which I personally think is interesting and worthwhile.
Well, I think the above posters have made the point fairly well, so I'll address the idea itself, which I think is getting confused. I think people here "flexible lands slots" and think, "cutting lands is a terrible idea!". I'm not really cutting lands though, I'm adding them. Instead of running say five lands in each color pair and four gold cards, the weaker gold color pairs get six lands and four spells. Do we really think a section that cuts Wall of Denial for Celestial Colonnade (or Azorius Chancery) is suddenly going to become vastly overpowered in comparison to GW or BW? The only reason those color pairs aren't getting a 6/3 split like UW is because their gold cards are amazing enough to be picked or included) over an extra fixer.
Sure, I could run the same number of fixing lands for every pair, but that would either force me to run mediocre gold cards, or cut gold cards that I really want to play with (I'm looking at you Qasali Pridemage). I wasn't happy with either of those options.