I'm still a little wary about that kind of a package in black though. It's very strong and can lead to some pretty unfun game when no one has an answer at the ready. However, with some of the insane starts we've seen coming out of green, and the mad control coming out of blue and white, we felt providing black with it's own oppressive strategy wouldn't be so bad and might even help keep some of the other colors in check.
What do you guys think of this kind of package, and for those of you who like it, what are we missing from it?
I'm still a little wary about that kind of a package in black though. It's very strong and can lead to some pretty unfun game when no one has an answer at the ready. However, with some of the insane starts we've seen coming out of green, and the mad control coming out of blue and white, we felt providing black with it's own oppressive strategy wouldn't be so bad and might even help keep some of the other colors in check.
What do you guys think of this kind of package, and for those of you who like it, what are we missing from it?
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." -Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
Oh, ok then. That looks similar to the list that I use in one of my multiplayer Cubes. I actually find that Deathcloud works best in a BG Ramp archetype with Planeswalkers and not so much in the Black Prison deck, but hey, I'm sure that it's fine in there too.
One nice thing Black has that shines in multiplayer games is the big amount of scaling cards, ie. cards impacting each player or better, each opponent. When White has Swords to Plowshares and Red has Lightning Bolt, Black has Innocent Blood and Barter in Blood.
I realize that, hence my explanatory post about why I like Black so much in my MP Cubes lol.
I would not run Pox cards or Smokestack variants in my Cube though. These cards are so annoying that casting one of them would simply paint a big bulls-eye on your head. Making everyone hate you is not the best way to win at multiplayer games ^^
I'm not so sure about that. Having people dislike you doesn't help your cause but it doesn't always cripple you either. As long as people are willing to draft the archetype and as long as it wins a reasonable amount of games (not too many or too few) then I would strongly consider running it. Personally I've had to cut it from one of my Cubes because absolutely no one would ever draft it except for me. I LOVED the archetype but no one else did so it felt pointless to include it. I won and lost plenty of games with it, it seemed like a balanced archetype to me, but ultimately I think that you should support archetypes that people other than yourself enjoy playing.
I'm still a little wary about that kind of a package in black though. It's very strong and can lead to some pretty unfun game when no one has an answer at the ready. However, with some of the insane starts we've seen coming out of green, and the mad control coming out of blue and white, we felt providing black with it's own oppressive strategy wouldn't be so bad and might even help keep some of the other colors in check.
What do you guys think of this kind of package, and for those of you who like it, what are we missing from it?
Personally I don't find these kinds of cards to be overly oppressive. They may punish people once or twice but eventually people will learn that they have to maindeck those Allays, Stomp and Howls and Austere Commands. Field answers to enchantments or lose to them all game every game. It's your choice.
With respect to the creatures, they should never oppress a table. My MP Cube has a ton of mass removal and I think that most Cubes should follow suite. It encourages people to put their cards to use rather than to sit back and build up a stalemate force.
Discard is also pretty bad in multiplayer all things considered. The biggest weakness of discard-based decks in that other people are topdecking and playing threats while you topdeck useless discard later on. Axeing hands is annoying, but not game ending.
This is one of those instances where there is no one right answer in my mind. Multiplayer games, unlike duel sessions, are much less formulaic when it comes to determining the outcome of a game. Because of this, archetypes that work in one meta may not work at all in another. I've played in various multiplayer metas over the years and no two of the were the same. As such, the Cubes that I've built and played in each one have been fairly different all things considered. As much as a set of cards can lead to sweet decks and games in one, they might never get played or oppress the table in another. This is why I don't believe that you can ever "solve" a multiplayer Cube in the sense that the perfect Cube can only exist in the context one specific meta and nowhere else. As such, I think that it's completely reasonable that some of us would want to support Prison while others wouldn't care to.
Some cards may have been mentioned, but look at these: The Mimeoplasm --> Hits 2 critters in any grave. Can be ridiculous. Edric is another fun one.
Similarly, Isperia, Supreme Judge opens up UW to perks it doesn't usually see. You can couple that with prison effects in the draft or go UW aggro. RTR detain is useful in a multiplayer environment -- flavor-wise with politics as well as strategically. You can also have fun with blue by playing equilibrium or opposition.
Any of the Vows (commander pre-con). Lots of politics here.
Spells like Persecute get better with multi-player.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That which nourishes me, destroys me
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
Some cards may have been mentioned, but look at these: The Mimeoplasm --> Hits 2 critters in any grave. Can be ridiculous. Edric is another fun one.
Similarly, Isperia, Supreme Judge opens up UW to perks it doesn't usually see. You can couple that with prison effects in the draft or go UW aggro. RTR detain is useful in a multiplayer environment -- flavor-wise with politics as well as strategically. You can also have fun with blue by playing equilibrium or opposition.
Any of the Vows (commander pre-con). Lots of politics here.
Spells like Persecute get better with multi-player.
I tend to disagree with some of these views. Cube decks are rarely-if-ever mono-colored which makes Persecute a lackluster choice a fair amount of the time. This is especially true given that it's a 4 mana Sorcery speed spell that has 0 impact on the board and only serves to annoy one player immensely. Discard is quite weak on the whole (barring effects such as Myojin of Night's Reach) because people can easily topdeck threats and that's just plain going to happen in a long, drawn-out multiplayer game. This isn't the kind of card that wins games and it's not even "a lock" to force someone to empty his or her hand. I don't think that it's a worthwhile inclusion in most Cubes.
Detain also seems quite miserable. Detain creatures are fairly pitiful in terms of their size (barring a select-few) and so a lot of their value comes from their ETB ability. Still, stopping one attacker/blocker, from one opponent, for one circuit, once, seems extremely poor to me. You can say that is has "political" value or some other fluffy nonsense, but at some point you have to accept the fact that it's extremely marginal political value at best. While this may be "passable" as long as the creature itself is good, that is never going to be the case. Most detain creatures are no bigger than 3/3s (and those cost you 6 mana lol) which means that any "normal" creature is going to trade or crush them from turn 3 and beyond. Playing a bunch of bad bodies that have marginal effects just seems extremely poor to me.
Opposition is another card that I've never been impressed with. You can't "land lock" your 1 opponent out like you can in a duel and it's extremely difficult to suppress the offensive threats towards you. When Opposition is good is when you have a crushing board presence to begin with and thus are already well on your way to winning the game. It's terrible when you have a normal board that consists of a few creatures and even if you do slam a Deranged Hermot into play it's not like you've "just won" or anything. It's vastly overrated in my experience and I've never seen someone properly abuse it. At best I could see situations where you tap someone out and convince the table to attack them (instead of say you) but I rarely-if-ever see those types of tactics work.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." -Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
Detain also seems quite miserable. Detain creatures are fairly pitiful in terms of their size (barring a select-few) and so a lot of their value comes from their ETB ability. Still, stopping one attacker/blocker, from one opponent, for one circuit, once, seems extremely poor to me. You can say that is has "political" value or some other fluffy nonsense, but at some point you have to accept the fact that it's extremely marginal political value at best. While this may be "passable" as long as the creature itself is good, that is never going to be the case. Most detain creatures are no bigger than 3/3s (and those cost you 6 mana lol) which means that any "normal" creature is going to trade or crush them from turn 3 and beyond. Playing a bunch of bad bodies that have marginal effects just seems extremely poor to me.
I'm road-testing Detain in my cube at the moment, and while I am currently suffering from small sample size, it's not been miserable.
That said, I am only running Archon of the Triumvirate, Martial Law and New Prahv Guildmage. Those little guys (e.g. Lyev Skynight, Azorius Arrester)? Completely agree with you - they'd last nanoseconds. The three above got in because they were either a) huge, or b) capable of detaining more than once.
Archon hasn't made it into play yet, but Martial Law and the Guildmage have both proven very serviceable (especially the Guildmage - pretty good defensive card that can also throw some evasion around).
I don't find tapping effects much use in multiplayer. You don't want to stop people attacking, you just don't want them attacking you.
This. It's a big reason why I believe you should field cards like Stinkweed Imp and No Mercy whenever possible. Fatties are fine and they're great win conditions for you as long as they're not heading your way. Deterrents are incredibly effective tools in that sense.
Still, that's only one aspect of tapping. Like, I don't get how people use tappers period. Do you just mentally guess if someone is going to attack you? I mean once the creature is turned sideways to attack then it's too late to tap it. Unless you can psychically predict what to tap then you're basically just left in a horrible "best-guess" situation. With respect to starting an offense, again, I just don't get how tapping is good. People can just easily attack you, do nothing, attack someone else, etc. Unless you're legitimately conspiring against someone then you can't really abuse tappers in a multiplayer setting. You're purely reliant on politics and not power at that point. While politics can do "something" for you, if you're relying on it to win games then you're asking for trouble in my mind. Eventually people will smarten up and stop letting you get away with murder.
I'm road-testing Detain in my cube at the moment, and while I am currently suffering from small sample size, it's not been miserable.
That said, I am only running Archon of the Triumvirate, Martial Law and New Prahv Guildmage. Those little guys (e.g. Lyev Skynight, Azorius Arrester)? Completely agree with you - they'd last nanoseconds. The three above got in because they were either a) huge, or b) capable of detaining more than once.
Archon hasn't made it into play yet, but Martial Law and the Guildmage have both proven very serviceable (especially the Guildmage - pretty good defensive card that can also throw some evasion around).
I don't see how the Archon could realistically ever make the cut. A 7 mana 4/5 with no immediate impact and no real multiplayer value seems quite poor to me. The card wouldn't hit the table over here either because no one is going to assign to a deck slot to a card as mediocre as that. Martial Law seems like a glorified Prison Term and I'm not too sure what makes it powerful for you. The Guildmage I'm willing to concede is passable if only because it's a worthwhile early drop. I would play it for the flying more-so than anything else but I mean it does technically have Detain. If you're paying 5 mana to Detain a creature then I feel like you're losing the game, but hey, it could be relevant some % of the time I guess. Ultimately I just "don't get it." These cards do not scale well and they're much more powerful in tempo-based decks (which are rarely played in multiplayer).
I really don't understand any of your reasoning against tappers. They are emensely useful effects. You don't need to be a psychic to understand who the biggest threat at the table is. If it's not you, then you can play the "attack me once and never use your creature again" game. If it's not you, but you can't afford the damage, you tap it down. If it is you, then what's to wonder about? Is it political? Somewhat, but good politics is an essential skill that can often mean the difference between a win and a loss. Tappers also stop the damage from a creature outright when necessary, which is something most rattlesnake effects don't do. They also help clear the way of blockers when needed, and limit the abuse of some artifacts and land. What makes them good is that they're a form of removal that hits the biggest threat, rather than the first threat, and doesn't cost you a card for each threat it deals with since they survive most wraths.
I don't see how the Archon could realistically ever make the cut. A 7 mana 4/5 with no immediate impact and no real multiplayer value seems quite poor to me. The card wouldn't hit the table over here either because no one is going to assign to a deck slot to a card as mediocre as that. Martial Law seems like a glorified Prison Term and I'm not too sure what makes it powerful for you. The Guildmage I'm willing to concede is passable if only because it's a worthwhile early drop. I would play it for the flying more-so than anything else but I mean it does technically have Detain. If you're paying 5 mana to Detain a creature then I feel like you're losing the game, but hey, it could be relevant some % of the time I guess. Ultimately I just "don't get it." These cards do not scale well and they're much more powerful in tempo-based decks (which are rarely played in multiplayer).
Martial Law is essentially a Prison Term that you can move every turn - so better in Cube than Prison Term (and that sees play in places, as does Pacifism).
The Archon is something I guess I'm going to have to wait and see on, but I get the impression that if it stays on the table, it has the opportunity to stall the current threat's game plan. It's important to note that the Archon detains non-land permanents too, like the Guildmage (not just creatures like Martial Law) - that's pretty handy.
Of course, that's all dependent on it staying out, and these are very passive and defensive cards - very much the type of stuff you use to play a quiet control game before you combo out.
Surprisingly, the Guildmage saw its detain ability activated just as much as its flying one. The guy playing it was in the situation where he was trading blows - the flying ability got his gorilla over the top, and the detain one was locking down whatever would have beaten his face up in response.
I was surprised it was not in your list when I browsed it earlier today, hence my question. Not owning one is another story
Yeah, if I had one, it would likely be in.
It'd probably be a hard toss-up between that and Exhume in my cube (and yes, before people jump on me, Exhume is a wonderful, wonderful card... it's just that the odds of it backfiring on you increase for every extra player in the game).
I really don't understand any of your reasoning against tappers. They are emensely useful effects. You don't need to be a psychic to understand who the biggest threat at the table is. If it's not you, then you can play the "attack me once and never use your creature again" game.
So you're playing a conditional spot removal spell. Cool? I don't see how this type of spiteful retaliation brings you closer to winning the game. People who make ultimatums tend to incite hate and typically create a mutually assured destruction scenario where neither wins. They can and will carry out their threats to the end, I understand that, but they don't win games by doing so. The person who you're "picking on" is going to retaliate back more often than not and both of you are going to lose. This isn't a healthy, effective gameplan in the long-run in my mind.
If it's not you, but you can't afford the damage, you tap it down.
I really, really, really, really, really hate this type of argument. I don't get why people always make the claim that there can only be one "the threat" at a table. When I sit down and play with my best friends, I know that all of them are exceptional drafters, deckbuilders, and players. Each and every one of them is going to give me a run for my money. They are all going to play good creatures and spells and each of them could be a legitimate concern for me. The idea that there can only be one "the threat" is completely absurd to me because that's often ~4 people at my 8 player games. I'd be kidding myself if I ever thought otherwise. Maybe some metas are weaker than mine and don't have many good players, that could easily be the case, but I simply cannot stand the logic that there will only ever be one troublesome player to worry about it at a time. People don't give their opponents nearly enough credit in that respect.
Somewhat, but good politics is an essential skill that can often mean the difference between a win and a loss.
It's not an essential skill. I've played in thousands on MP games in my lifetime and the "quiet ones" have won a countless number of those. People grossly overestimate politics when, in reality, personalities, pre-existing rivalries, luck (good draws vs bad draws, good decks vs bad decks etc.) and much more all contribute more to game wins than anything else. In fact, the people who try and "play politician" are often the first to go because no one believes their **** past the first few play sessions. No one actually cares about you after all and people will do whatever it takes to win. As such, there's no reason to ever take something at face-value. You will almost always be back-stabbed, tricked, used, etc. if it allows someone else to further their position.
Tappers also stop the damage from a creature outright when necessary, which is something most rattlesnake effects don't do.
Yes, assuming you can psychically predict which ones are going to attack you. That's easier said than done in a big FFA game where everyone is playing with powerful creatures. Any number of them could easily attack you at any point in time. This defensive method is far from perfect. No Mercy isn't perfect either, I'm willing to accept that, but at least it will always punish the aggressor. The "threat of retaliation" is A) certain and B) severe which means that it falls on your opponents to make the judgment calls. Is their card really worth a bit of your life? In a deck that's probably brimming with Blood Tithe and Exsanguinate-like effects?
What makes them good is that they're a form of removal that hits the biggest threat, rather than the first threat...
The biggest threat in a duel is easy to discern. The biggest threat in a multiplayer game is much less certain. I feel like you're kidding yourself if you don't think that situations could arise where multiple players have multiple dangerous threats in play. That's basically every turn beyond turn 4 of every multiplayer Cube game that I play.
The Cemetery is fantastic and should make the cut in every Cube that can afford it. The mid-to-late game inevitability that it provides is amazing. Sure, the card is basically a mulligan early on, but I mean it's so deceptively powerful once the game gets in to full swing.
Pit Keeper, on the other hand, seems exceptionally bad. The 2/1 body is largely irrelevant and the recursion effect is far from powerful. It seems like a low-impact card that will rarely-if-ever make the cut in an actual deck.
Martial Law is essentially a Prison Term that you can move every turn - so better in Cube than Prison Term (and that sees play in places, as does Pacifism).
The Archon is something I guess I'm going to have to wait and see on, but I get the impression that if it stays on the table, it has the opportunity to stall the current threat's game plan. It's important to note that the Archon detains non-land permanents too, like the Guildmage (not just creatures like Martial Law) - that's pretty handy.
Law is better than Term because it doesn't randomly die to mass removal and whatnot. Even though it's a bit slower, it's much more durable and versatile. I still don't think that it makes the cut though.
With respect to the Archon, again, I just don't get it. Ok, it hits nonland perms. I get that. Do I have to state again that it's a 7 mana 4/5? Like, maybe I'm living in some dream world where 7 mana doesn't buy you something good, but what are people doing that Archon figures to be a game-ending threat? Or, can you afford to play 7 mana cards that provide marginal value nowadays? If you're attacking with an Archon and tapping down the best threats of your single opponent, sure, he's fine. I just don't see what he does in a multiplayer setting. His clock is pathetically slow for a 7 drop and his ability doesn't scale well at all as the number of threats on the table increases.
Surprisingly, the Guildmage saw its detain ability activated just as much as its flying one. The guy playing it was in the situation where he was trading blows - the flying ability got his gorilla over the top, and the detain one was locking down whatever would have beaten his face up in response.
Did he actually win the game? Like, I get that every ability can be useful in a specific context. I've never said otherwise. My argument was that a person in a position where he's spending his turn to Detain an opposing creature is probably going to lose. Unless that player actually won the game, I can't say that this type of play impresses me. While it might be fine in a duel in an RTR draft, I just don't see how this type of action is a "game-winner" in a multiplayer setting.
It'd probably be a hard toss-up between that and Exhume in my cube (and yes, before people jump on me, Exhume is a wonderful, wonderful card... it's just that the odds of it backfiring on you increase for every extra player in the game).
I don't think Exhume is good at all, unless your deck supports the hardcore reanimator deck with Mystical Tutor, Entomb, Frantic Search, Careful Study, etc. Mine don't because that deck rolls over to an StP or Innocent Blood or whatever every time, I've never seen it win, but I mean I'm sure that some do still support it.
I want to preface this entire post with an understanding that we've both failed to state up to this point. The larger the game, the less useful a tap effect is. But this can also be followed up with the thought that the larger the game the less useful any non-wrath removal is. We generally don't play in games with more than 5 or 6 players. At that point we break the game into pods.
So you're playing a conditional spot removal spell. Cool? I don't see how this type of spiteful retaliation brings you closer to winning the game. People who make ultimatums tend to incite hate and typically create a mutually assured destruction scenario where neither wins. They can and will carry out their threats to the end, I understand that, but they don't win games by doing so. The person who you're "picking on" is going to retaliate back more often than not and both of you are going to lose. This isn't a healthy, effective gameplan in the long-run in my mind.
Spiteful? It seems only logical to me. If the guy with the threat you're worried about is willing to swing at you when he knows you can tap it down every turn after that until it's removed, then spiteful is continuing to swing at you just because you tapped down their threat. Is it so silly to think, "Oh, this guy has an Icy Manipulator, and just let me get to my declare attackers step. I'd rather just try to get value out of my dude here, so I'm gonna leave him alone." That really doesn't seem so crazy to me. Or heaven forbid, he wasn't worried about it because he has instant speed removal. This doesn't need to be overtly stated (I agree that blatantly manipulative politics is bad. My post mentioned good politics.). It can easily be implied.
I really, really, really, really, really hate this type of argument. I don't get why people always make the claim that there can only be one "the threat" at a table. When I sit down and play with my best friends, I know that all of them are exceptional drafters, deckbuilders, and players. Each and every one of them is going to give me a run for my money. They are all going to play good creatures and spells and each of them could be a legitimate concern for me. The idea that there can only be one "the threat" is completely absurd to me because that's often ~4 people at my 8 player games. I'd be kidding myself if I ever thought otherwise. Maybe some metas are weaker than mine and don't have many good players, that could easily be the case, but I simply cannot stand the logic that there will only ever be one troublesome player to worry about it at a time. People don't give their opponents nearly enough credit in that respect.
You seem the think that I'm implying that the greatest threat has nothing to do with the board state. Everyone is "a threat", but not everyone is "the threat," and "the threat" shifts from turn to turn depending on who plays what. If you want to know who the threat is, you look at the board. If multiple people are in a spot where they have a scary board state, then you have to pick the one you're scared of most, or if god forbid you've actually used some politics to build an alliance with someone, you pick the guy that you're not allied with at that moment unless it's time for an "Et tu Brute?" moment.
It's not an essential skill. I've played in thousands on MP games in my lifetime and the "quiet ones" have won a countless number of those. People grossly overestimate politics when, in reality, personalities, pre-existing rivalries, luck (good draws vs bad draws, good decks vs bad decks etc.) and much more all contribute more to game wins than anything else. In fact, the people who try and "play politician" are often the first to go because no one believes their **** past the first few play sessions. No one actually cares about you after all and people will do whatever it takes to win. As such, there's no reason to ever take something at face-value. You will almost always be back-stabbed, tricked, used, etc. if it allows someone else to further their position.
Good politics isn't wheeling and dealing the table. In fact, that's bad politics because people don't like that guy. You don't have to be loud to play good politics. In fact the person who is quietest is probably playing the best politics at the table because he/she is not drawing attention to their manipulations. To think that you can sit at a table with 3-6 or more players and not communicate politically is rather silly to me. Even playing quietly is a political communication. I also didn't say that politics will win you the game all on its own. I said, it can mean the difference between a win and a loss. If you spend time watching the subtle politics at the table, you will see this for yourself. Good politics is essential because with it, you don't always have to take the entire table on all by yourself until you're ready, you can divert aggression away from you, or you can slip your game plan under the radar until it's too late.
Yes, assuming you can psychically predict which ones are going to attack you. That's easier said than done in a big FFA game where everyone is playing with powerful creatures. Any number of them could easily attack you at any point in time. This defensive method is far from perfect. No Mercy isn't perfect either, I'm willing to accept that, but at least it will always punish the aggressor. The "threat of retaliation" is A) certain and B) severe which means that it falls on your opponents to make the judgment calls. Is their card really worth a bit of your life? In a deck that's probably brimming with Blood Tithe and Exsanguinate-like effects?
The only person's mind you need to read in order to know which permanent on the board you're scared of the most is your own. But yes, rattlesnake effects have their place. I just don't think they replace tappers because they don't do anything if the aggressor is swinging for lethal.
The biggest threat in a duel is easy to discern. The biggest threat in a multiplayer game is much less certain. I feel like you're kidding yourself if you don't think that situations could arise where multiple players have multiple dangerous threats in play. That's basically every turn beyond turn 4 of every multiplayer Cube game that I play.
Sure, just about everyone is doing something crazy, but there is usually someone who's board is getting to the point of overwhelming, who is at least dominating, or either you or another has drawn a battle line. If I'm playing a multiplayer game, I'm not trying to fight the entire table all at once. I'm fighting one or two other players, maybe trying to manage another player, but not trying to piss him/her off, and am usually tentatively allied with at least one other player.
Are tappers conditional removal? Sure, but they're conditional removal survives past a wrath to deal with the next threat, and that is very valuable in long multiplayer games.
EDIT: Something else to consider is that games shrink as they go on, and tappers increase in value.
I want to preface this entire post with an understanding that we've both failed to state up to this point. The larger the game, the less useful a tap effect is. But this can also be followed up with the thought that the larger the game the less useful any non-wrath removal is. We generally don't play in games with more than 5 or 6 players. At that point we break the game into pods.
Spiteful? It seems only logical to me. If the guy with the threat you're worried about is willing to swing at you when he knows you can tap it down every turn after that until it's removed, then spiteful is continuing to swing at you just because you tapped down their threat. Is it so silly to think, "Oh, this guy has an Icy Manipulator, and just let me get to my declare attackers step. I'd rather just try to get value out of my dude here, so I'm gonna leave him alone." That really doesn't seem so crazy to me. Or heaven forbid, he wasn't worried about it because he has instant speed removal. This doesn't need to be overtly stated (I agree that blatantly manipulative politics is bad. My post mentioned good politics.). It can easily be implied.
Again, the issue that I have is that this assumes that there's only 1 worthwhile threat to concern yourself with any any point in time. The situation that you're describing could easily encompass 2-3 creatures from every player at the table. With respect to implying the use of spot removal, I don't know about your meta, but ours has moved way past that. That kind of trick works for the first few games but eventually people realize that everyone is crying wolf and lying out the ass. We make people "have it." If people still fall for that kind of trick, so be it, but at that point you can easily manipulate the table.
With respect to attacking into the guy with Icy Manipulator, again, we've moved way past that kind of stuff. Yes, he can tap something of ours. What's the alternative? Not mess with him and let him sit back and win the game? That's not going to happen; there's no way that we'll allow it. At the end of the day you better come with a defense that threatens something meaningful. I can't swing my 5/5 into your 26/26 Taurean Mauler but I can swing it into a Manipulator. If you want to tap my 5/5 and deal with a 26/26, so be it. Again, I feel like your descriptions are far too simplistic and don't accurately reflect an average multiplayer board state. My Kezzerdrix is not going to be the biggest thing on the table, but I am going to swing at you if your best defense is Martial Law. If you want to then tap my 4/4 instead one of the 6/6 dragons, so be it. There is an overwhelming number of cases where people will attack you with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th etc. best creature on the table. The biggest one is not your only concern.
You seem the think that I'm implying that the greatest threat has nothing to do with the board state. Everyone is "a threat", but not everyone is "the threat," and "the threat" shifts from turn to turn depending on who plays what. If you want to know who the threat is, you look at the board. If multiple people are in a spot where they have a scary board state, then you have to pick the one you're scared of most, or if god forbid you've actually used some politics to build an alliance with someone, you pick the guy that you're not allied with at that moment unless it's time for an "Et tu Brute?" moment.
The board O.O? That's basically only relevant once you get down to the last few players. People with big boards lose that much more to mass removal and so you typically just want to avoid them for a turn while you wait for someone to slam a mass removal spell and basically take them out of the game. The people to worry about are the ones who are sitting with lots of cards in hand and who are (correctly in my opinion) playing the "bare minimum" number of threats to stave-off attackers and apply some pressure. People who blow their load are going to lose a huge % of the time in our meta and so no one typically fears the people who played out their hand by turn 7. We don't need alliances to take out the big dogs. We have cards for that.
Good politics isn't wheeling and dealing the table. In fact, that's bad politics because people don't like that guy. You don't have to be loud to play good politics. In fact the person who is quietest is probably playing the best politics at the table because he/she is not drawing attention to their manipulations. To think that you can sit at a table with 3-6 or more players and not communicate politically is rather silly to me. Even playing quietly is a political communication.
If the definition of "politics" is "any inaction or inaction taken by a player" then sure, everyone uses politics. If a person who sits down, plays the game according to the rules and watches TV when it's not his/her turns is said to be political in your mind... whatever. Still, I have no idea what you're trying to prove here. You're making a claim can neither be proven nor disproven so it's a moot point. At best it'll boil down to unprovable, anecdotal evidence based on a specific cube which pertains to a specific metagame played by a specific group of players.
I also didn't say that politics will win you the game all on its own. I said, it can mean the difference between a win and a loss.
"This broad concept can win games in a fashion that isn't objectively measurable." Sure. Again, I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish. You're making claims that have no evidence backing them and and that aren't accurately measurable. I can't disprove your claim, but you can't prove it either. You seem to be making arguments that "can't possibly be right or wrong" and I don't understand why that is.
If you spend time watching the subtle politics at the table, you will see this for yourself. Good politics is essential because with it, you don't always have to take the entire table on all by yourself until you're ready, you can divert aggression away from you, or you can slip your game plan under the radar until it's too late.
Based on what? You keep saying that "politics is essential" but what are you using as proof to justify that claim? We can't just take everything said as "fact" unless people have some legitimate evidence that they can present to defend their claims. I see people employ good politics, bad politics, no politics and much more and it has little-if-any impact on the actual game. Regardless of how people try and play the game, the good players always gun for the other good players and the bad players durdle around, most of them die off, and sometimes one wins because the good players all cripple each other. The best deck of the day usually wins in the sense that it often boils down to who ran better. The people that I'm playing with aren't stupid enough to let me sit back and conserve resources because they know what I'm in it to win it. While flying under the radar worked when we were all 12, we've matured since then and know that you can't let someone sit back with 7 cards in hand and 1-2 creatures in play for defense. You kill them and beat his ass down and make him play spells. You don't give him a free ride to swoop in and win at the end. That sort of child's play ended 4 years ago.
The only person's mind you need to read in order to know which permanent on the board you're scared of the most is your own.
Personally I don't care if I'm getting hit for 5 or 7 since both options suck. Tapping a Dragon only to eat a hit from a slightly smaller Demon isn't exactly stellar. There are often a large number of relevant threats on the table in my games and they're each "scary."
Sure, just about everyone is doing something crazy, but there is usually someone who's board is getting to the point of overwhelming, who is at least dominating, or either you or another has drawn a battle line.
The person with the dominating board position is usually the first person who loses. He's "dominating" because he over-extended and one Austere Command later and he's out of the game. It doesn't happen much any more but people still make that mistake from time-to-time. In that sense, the "scariest person" is the one who dug his own grave and probably is only a turn or two away from losing the game. The rest of us have 5 cards in hand and like 1-2 bodies in play and we're just waiting for that Wrath to hit before we commit more ourselves.
If I'm playing a multiplayer game, I'm not trying to fight the entire table all at once. I'm fighting one or two other players, maybe trying to manage another player, but not trying to piss him/her off, and am usually tentatively allied with at least one other player.
If you're fighting 2 and trying to hold a third at bay then you're losing the game. Period. You're probably waging war with 0-1 people and are hoping that that number doesn't change in the foreseeable future. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. Either way, I don't think I've seen someone take hits from 3 people for many turns and win.
Are tappers conditional removal? Sure, but they're conditional removal survives past a wrath to deal with the next threat, and that is very valuable in long multiplayer games.
They survive creature-based removal. My Cube is jam packed with cards like Shattering Pulse, Allay, Austere Command, Fracturing Gust, Calming Verse, Shattering Spree, etc. People also take them highly because they know how obnoxious non-creature perms are. It could be a difference of metas and Cubes, that's possible, but I don't personally expect non-creature perms to stick around for an exceptionally long time.
EDIT: Something else to consider is that games shrink as they go on, and tappers increase in value.
... sure? They do indeed become marginally more effective. What you're basically saying is that you should play bad cards so that if you do well you'll have a better chance of winning if you make it to the top 2-3 or whatever. Have fun with that. I'm still going to slam my Syphon Minds all day every day because I want to make it to that "final 3" (or whatever) each and every time. Will some of my deck be worse once I get there? Sure. Mortivore won't be a 25/25 any more. That being said, it's those kinds of cards that got me there in the first place. Playing win-more cards that help when you're already doing well have never been ideal because they don't help you get to that winning position in the first place. That is, while Icy Manipulator can help you defeat your last opponent, it's not the kind of card that got you there. That's why they're weak in a multiplayer setting.
Again, the issue that I have is that this assumes that there's only 1 worthwhile threat to concern yourself with any any point in time. The situation that you're describing could easily encompass 2-3 creatures from every player at the table. With respect to implying the use of spot removal, I don't know about your meta, but ours has moved way past that. That kind of trick works for the first few games but eventually people realize that everyone is crying wolf and lying out the ass. We make people "have it." If people still fall for that kind of trick, so be it, but at that point you can easily manipulate the table.
If you are likely to be hit by 2-3 creatures from every player, then yeah, the only card that would be good is probably a rattlesnake kind of card like No Mercy. Good job describing the only situation in which No Mercy is the best deterrent. You should probably be running more wraths.
With respect to attacking into the guy with Icy Manipulator, again, we've moved way past that kind of stuff. Yes, he can tap something of ours. What's the alternative? Not mess with him and let him sit back and win the game? That's not going to happen; there's no way that we'll allow it. At the end of the day you better come with a defense that threatens something meaningful. I can't swing my 5/5 into your 26/26 Taurean Mauler but I can swing it into a Manipulator. If you want to tap my 5/5 and deal with a 26/26, so be it. Again, I feel like your descriptions are far too simplistic and don't accurately reflect an average multiplayer board state. My Kezzerdrix is not going to be the biggest thing on the table, but I am going to swing at you if your best defense is Martial Law. If you want to then tap my 4/4 instead one of the 6/6 dragons, so be it. There is an overwhelming number of cases where people will attack you with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th etc. best creature on the table. The biggest one is not your only concern.
The board O.O? That's basically only relevant once you get down to the last few players. People with big boards lose that much more to mass removal and so you typically just want to avoid them for a turn while you wait for someone to slam a mass removal spell and basically take them out of the game. The people to worry about are the ones who are sitting with lots of cards in hand and who are (correctly in my opinion) playing the "bare minimum" number of threats to stave-off attackers and apply some pressure. People who blow their load are going to lose a huge % of the time in our meta and so no one typically fears the people who played out their hand by turn 7. We don't need alliances to take out the big dogs. We have cards for that.
I'm really not sure what you are trying to argue with either of these comments. What do you imagine my group is like that they would just play bad magic as you've described here? You are absolutely right, the biggest threat on the table isn't my only concern. I pray I have more to do than try to hide behind an Icy Manipulator too. I pray the same is true if I'm trying to hide behind a No Mercy as well.
If the definition of "politics" is "any inaction or inaction taken by a player" then sure, everyone uses politics. If a person who sits down, plays the game according to the rules and watches TV when it's not his/her turns is said to be political in your mind... whatever. Still, I have no idea what you're trying to prove here. You're making a claim can neither be proven nor disproven so it's a moot point. At best it'll boil down to unprovable, anecdotal evidence based on a specific cube which pertains to a specific metagame played by a specific group of players.
I certainly hope that isn't what I said, and I certainly hope that isn't how your players play.
"This broad concept can win games in a fashion that isn't objectively measurable." Sure. Again, I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish. You're making claims that have no evidence backing them and and that aren't accurately measurable. I can't disprove your claim, but you can't prove it either. You seem to be making arguments that "can't possibly be right or wrong" and I don't understand why that is.
Based on what? You keep saying that "politics is essential" but what are you using as proof to justify that claim? We can't just take everything said as "fact" unless people have some legitimate evidence that they can present to defend their claims. I see people employ good politics, bad politics, no politics and much more and it has little-if-any impact on the actual game. Regardless of how people try and play the game, the good players always gun for the other good players and the bad players durdle around, most of them die off, and sometimes one wins because the good players all cripple each other. The best deck of the day usually wins in the sense that it often boils down to who ran better. The people that I'm playing with aren't stupid enough to let me sit back and conserve resources because they know what I'm in it to win it. While flying under the radar worked when we were all 12, we've matured since then and know that you can't let someone sit back with 7 cards in hand and 1-2 creatures in play for defense. You kill them and beat his ass down and make him play spells. You don't give him a free ride to swoop in and win at the end. That sort of child's play ended 4 years ago.
Yeah, when you were 12. How old are you now? 13? Come on, bro. Please do a little better when you try to troll. But hey, you're right. I can't present hard evidence that my assertion is correct, only logic, so I'll be sure to field a full scale anthropological study on the matter and get back to you. Funding may be an issue though, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
Personally I don't care if I'm getting hit for 5 or 7 since both options suck. Tapping a Dragon only to eat a hit from a slightly smaller Demon isn't exactly stellar. There are often a large number of relevant threats on the table in my games and they're each "scary."
True story. What do you think of getting hit for 12?
The person with the dominating board position is usually the first person who loses. He's "dominating" because he over-extended and one Austere Command later and he's out of the game. It doesn't happen much any more but people still make that mistake from time-to-time. In that sense, the "scariest person" is the one who dug his own grave and probably is only a turn or two away from losing the game. The rest of us have 5 cards in hand and like 1-2 bodies in play and we're just waiting for that Wrath to hit before we commit more ourselves.
Sweet, then the person who has the most dominating board position could only be the person who overextended. I really wish you would say something that didn't assume I was a complete idiot at magic.
If you're fighting 2 and trying to hold a third at bay then you're losing the game. Period. You're probably waging war with 0-1 people and are hoping that that number doesn't change in the foreseeable future. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. Either way, I don't think I've seen someone take hits from 3 people for many turns and win.
If you're trying to actively fight 2 and fend off a third at all by yourself, then yes you are right. But that's not what I said.
They survive creature-based removal. My Cube is jam packed with cards like Shattering Pulse, Allay, Austere Command, Fracturing Gust, Calming Verse, Shattering Spree, etc. People also take them highly because they know how obnoxious non-creature perms are. It could be a difference of metas and Cubes, that's possible, but I don't personally expect non-creature perms to stick around for an exceptionally long time.
'Kay, then I'll just remove your No Mercy, and swing for full power because your No Mercy can't tap down a threat. "Dies to removal" has never been a great argument.
... sure? They do indeed become marginally more effective. What you're basically saying is that you should play bad cards so that if you do well you'll have a better chance of winning if you make it to the top 2-3 or whatever. Have fun with that. I'm still going to slam my Syphon Minds all day every day because I want to make it to that "final 3" (or whatever) each and every time. Will some of my deck be worse once I get there? Sure. Mortivore won't be a 25/25 any more. That being said, it's those kinds of cards that got me there in the first place. Playing win-more cards that help when you're already doing well have never been ideal because they don't help you get to that winning position in the first place. That is, while Icy Manipulator can help you defeat your last opponent, it's not the kind of card that got you there. That's why they're weak in a multiplayer setting.
What does Syphon Mind have to do with tapping creatures, or Mortavore for that matter. I'm still of the opinion that it holds value in the early game. I just wanted to point out that it gets better and better the closer you get to winning. So no, not saying play bad cards. Saying play good cards that get better, a nice contrast to those that are good and get worse.
Honestly man, this argument has made me very sad, because you aren't interested in learning anything new, or understanding anything that I have said. Your only interest has been in condescension and argumentum verbosum.
With respect to the Archon, again, I just don't get it. Ok, it hits nonland perms. I get that. Do I have to state again that it's a 7 mana 4/5? Like, maybe I'm living in some dream world where 7 mana doesn't buy you something good, but what are people doing that Archon figures to be a game-ending threat? Or, can you afford to play 7 mana cards that provide marginal value nowadays? If you're attacking with an Archon and tapping down the best threats of your single opponent, sure, he's fine. I just don't see what he does in a multiplayer setting. His clock is pathetically slow for a 7 drop and his ability doesn't scale well at all as the number of threats on the table increases.
True, and this is why I'm testing him out at this stage - he's far from a permanent fixture (I suspect Drogskol Reaver might make a better WU bomb, long-term). That said, I like the looks of the political implications of swinging at the weak player to detain things belonging to the threat. That's kind of cute.
Did he actually win the game? Like, I get that every ability can be useful in a specific context. I've never said otherwise. My argument was that a person in a position where he's spending his turn to Detain an opposing creature is probably going to lose. Unless that player actually won the game, I can't say that this type of play impresses me. While it might be fine in a duel in an RTR draft, I just don't see how this type of action is a "game-winner" in a multiplayer setting.
Yes, that was once he got down to a single remaining opponent, and was duking it out for the win. It had its moments keeping him safe and in the game until there were two players left, and then it took off.
I don't think Exhume is good at all, unless your deck supports the hardcore reanimator deck with Mystical Tutor, Entomb, Frantic Search, Careful Study, etc. Mine don't because that deck rolls over to an StP or Innocent Blood or whatever every time, I've never seen it win, but I mean I'm sure that some do still support it.
That's kind of where I'm leaning, too. Wonderful card (I've had someone in my playgroup Exhume Jin on Turn 2 for lulz in a standard MP game lately), but ultimately a real roll of the dice, particularly as the game goes longer. It can end up a dead draw later in the game (do you really want to be casting Exhume when your opponents have bigger gorillas in their yards than you do?)... that's why Oversold Cemetery comes out ahead.
Also, back to red 4-drops... thoughts on Hound of Griselbrand? I know he's not spectacular in this environment, but he's likely better than most red 4-drops as we speak. Stick a Sword on and he might be worth it.
I like the Hound of Griselbrand. Undying is solid in multiplayer. I don't own one yet, and will add it as soon as I do.
Yeah, I know at the end of the day he's going to be a small double-striker, but he's going to be a resilient one (and he'll combo pretty well with Hex Parasite in my cube).
I really don't understand any of your reasoning against tappers. They are emensely useful effects. You don't need to be a psychic to understand who the biggest threat at the table is. If it's not you, then you can play the "attack me once and never use your creature again" game. If it's not you, but you can't afford the damage, you tap it down. If it is you, then what's to wonder about? Is it political? Somewhat, but good politics is an essential skill that can often mean the difference between a win and a loss. Tappers also stop the damage from a creature outright when necessary, which is something most rattlesnake effects don't do. They also help clear the way of blockers when needed, and limit the abuse of some artifacts and land. What makes them good is that they're a form of removal that hits the biggest threat, rather than the first threat, and doesn't cost you a card for each threat it deals with since they survive most wraths.
^^This
@Theogony_IX: thank you
Yea I made suggestions earlier for multiplayer EDH-inspired fun. At the whole "tapping" situation, I cannot see how cards like opposition aren't in a multiplayer EDH cube. Politics is a gigantic part of mutiplayer.
As for detain, yes, the smaller ones don't make the cut, but a lot of the bigger detain guys + guildmage are wild. I hope people also see detain reads "Until your next turn, those permanents can't attack or block and their activated abilities can't be activated." Attach that to some reasonably large flyer or enchantment and you're generating incredibly robust politics at the table. The little 2cc guys...not the best thing in the world because it's a 'detain this permanent once' situation. However, being able to have multiple detain effects every turn is brutal. At worst, you deactivate a problem permanent/stop their general. At best, you punish those with weak board state or help swing in for the win.
As for new ideas, Howling Mine can be a very interesting card to put in a draft. It has some very serious drawbacks (reward everyone else first), but again, politics is huge. And with all things EDH, the jank cards are sometimes absolutely bananas. Is this card the greatest ever? Haha no -- and I'm not implying it would break open a draft either. But it's yet another card to put in the pool that anyone can pick up (artifact) and has some rich lines of play. If you do 2 headed (2 vs 2), cards like this are intricate to play.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That which nourishes me, destroys me
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
I've heard of players in EDH playing Kami of the Crescent Moon as their general along with a bunch of group hug spells like Howling Mine. It's a very political strategy that everyone likes having around and no one really wants to get rid of . . . until it's helping their opponents more than them. (Some of our players have had to take some other random player, or even an ally out of the game a few times when they had the game pretty much locked up, and another player's effects were helping the person they were fighting with the hardest at the moment.) From what I understand about those decks though, they are meant to be a welcome presence until they can win the game out of nowhere with a combo or some other crazy kind of board lock, like Deadeye Navigator, Draining Whelk, and Venser, Shaper Savant.
Another effect like that is Rites of Flourishing. We had it in our cube for a while, but we really didn't like that it helped everyone else first. People would normally wait to get their value out of it and then blow it up so no one after them would get value.
Maybe if you could pair those kinds of effects with things that are more threatening, they might last, but then everyone else is probably doing the same. It might work well late game in a prison type strategy though with Rule of Law and Vedalken Orrery. Just spit-balling. Finding some way to mitigate the effect from the massive amounts of cards your opponents will have access to seems necessary though.
I've heard of players in EDH playing Kami of the Crescent Moon as their general along with a bunch of group hug spells like Howling Mine. It's a very political strategy that everyone likes having around and no one really wants to get rid of . . . until it's helping their opponents more than them. (Some of our players have had to take some other random player, or even an ally out of the game a few times when they had the game pretty much locked up, and another player's effects were helping the person they were fighting with the hardest at the moment.) From what I understand about those decks though, they are meant to be a welcome presence until they can win the game out of nowhere with a combo or some other crazy kind of board lock, like Deadeye Navigator, Draining Whelk, and Venser, Shaper Savant.
Another effect like that is Rites of Flourishing. We had it in our cube for a while, but we really didn't like that it helped everyone else first. People would normally wait to get their value out of it and then blow it up so no one after them would get value.
Maybe if you could pair those kinds of effects with things that are more threatening, they might last, but then everyone else is probably doing the same. It might work well late game in a prison type strategy though with Rule of Law and Vedalken Orrery. Just spit-balling. Finding some way to mitigate the effect from the massive amounts of cards your opponents will have access to seems necessary though.
Ah, Group Hug. Yeah, pretty prevalent in normal multiplayer. Though I find the idea of a mono-blue EDH version a bit wacked out... green gives you a lot in this archetype - Rites of Flourishing (as you mentioned), Aluren, Eladamri's Vineyard, Oath of Druids... (red's not bad either, with Mana Flare and all).
Magus of the Abyss
Braids, Cabal Minion
Smokestack
Butcher of Malakir
With a good number of support cards.
What do you guys think of this kind of package, and for those of you who like it, what are we missing from it?
360 Unpowered Cube | Cubetutor
The Abyss is notably missing here.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
My 380 Beginners’ Cube on Cube Tutor
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." -Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
Oh, ok then. That looks similar to the list that I use in one of my multiplayer Cubes. I actually find that Deathcloud works best in a BG Ramp archetype with Planeswalkers and not so much in the Black Prison deck, but hey, I'm sure that it's fine in there too.
I realize that, hence my explanatory post about why I like Black so much in my MP Cubes lol.
I'm not so sure about that. Having people dislike you doesn't help your cause but it doesn't always cripple you either. As long as people are willing to draft the archetype and as long as it wins a reasonable amount of games (not too many or too few) then I would strongly consider running it. Personally I've had to cut it from one of my Cubes because absolutely no one would ever draft it except for me. I LOVED the archetype but no one else did so it felt pointless to include it. I won and lost plenty of games with it, it seemed like a balanced archetype to me, but ultimately I think that you should support archetypes that people other than yourself enjoy playing.
Personally I don't find these kinds of cards to be overly oppressive. They may punish people once or twice but eventually people will learn that they have to maindeck those Allays, Stomp and Howls and Austere Commands. Field answers to enchantments or lose to them all game every game. It's your choice.
With respect to the creatures, they should never oppress a table. My MP Cube has a ton of mass removal and I think that most Cubes should follow suite. It encourages people to put their cards to use rather than to sit back and build up a stalemate force.
Discard is also pretty bad in multiplayer all things considered. The biggest weakness of discard-based decks in that other people are topdecking and playing threats while you topdeck useless discard later on. Axeing hands is annoying, but not game ending.
Cards that I've previously included to support a Prison gameplan are Ensnaring Bridge, Tangle Wire, The Abyss, Bloodline Keeper (he has generic value though) and even Painful Quandary. Unnerve usually works its way in there as well. If you really want discard to be a thing, Necrogen Mists and Bottomless Pit both do a great job of locking people at 0 cards. Liliana of the Veil isn't bad either and can even act as an Edict in a pinch.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
360 Unpowered Cube | Cubetutor
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
The Mimeoplasm --> Hits 2 critters in any grave. Can be ridiculous.
Edric is another fun one.
Similarly, Isperia, Supreme Judge opens up UW to perks it doesn't usually see. You can couple that with prison effects in the draft or go UW aggro. RTR detain is useful in a multiplayer environment -- flavor-wise with politics as well as strategically. You can also have fun with blue by playing equilibrium or opposition.
Any of the Vows (commander pre-con). Lots of politics here.
Spells like Persecute get better with multi-player.
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
I tend to disagree with some of these views. Cube decks are rarely-if-ever mono-colored which makes Persecute a lackluster choice a fair amount of the time. This is especially true given that it's a 4 mana Sorcery speed spell that has 0 impact on the board and only serves to annoy one player immensely. Discard is quite weak on the whole (barring effects such as Myojin of Night's Reach) because people can easily topdeck threats and that's just plain going to happen in a long, drawn-out multiplayer game. This isn't the kind of card that wins games and it's not even "a lock" to force someone to empty his or her hand. I don't think that it's a worthwhile inclusion in most Cubes.
Detain also seems quite miserable. Detain creatures are fairly pitiful in terms of their size (barring a select-few) and so a lot of their value comes from their ETB ability. Still, stopping one attacker/blocker, from one opponent, for one circuit, once, seems extremely poor to me. You can say that is has "political" value or some other fluffy nonsense, but at some point you have to accept the fact that it's extremely marginal political value at best. While this may be "passable" as long as the creature itself is good, that is never going to be the case. Most detain creatures are no bigger than 3/3s (and those cost you 6 mana lol) which means that any "normal" creature is going to trade or crush them from turn 3 and beyond. Playing a bunch of bad bodies that have marginal effects just seems extremely poor to me.
Opposition is another card that I've never been impressed with. You can't "land lock" your 1 opponent out like you can in a duel and it's extremely difficult to suppress the offensive threats towards you. When Opposition is good is when you have a crushing board presence to begin with and thus are already well on your way to winning the game. It's terrible when you have a normal board that consists of a few creatures and even if you do slam a Deranged Hermot into play it's not like you've "just won" or anything. It's vastly overrated in my experience and I've never seen someone properly abuse it. At best I could see situations where you tap someone out and convince the table to attack them (instead of say you) but I rarely-if-ever see those types of tactics work.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
My 380 Beginners’ Cube on Cube Tutor
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." -Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
I'm road-testing Detain in my cube at the moment, and while I am currently suffering from small sample size, it's not been miserable.
That said, I am only running Archon of the Triumvirate, Martial Law and New Prahv Guildmage. Those little guys (e.g. Lyev Skynight, Azorius Arrester)? Completely agree with you - they'd last nanoseconds. The three above got in because they were either a) huge, or b) capable of detaining more than once.
Archon hasn't made it into play yet, but Martial Law and the Guildmage have both proven very serviceable (especially the Guildmage - pretty good defensive card that can also throw some evasion around).
My Stupidly Large Number of Current Decks
PucaTrade with me!
The Multiplayer Power Rankings
Cube: the Gittening (My Multiplayer Cube) - MTGS Cube List | @ CubeTutor
The N00b Cube (Peasant cube for new players) - MTGS Cube List | @ CubeTutor
This. It's a big reason why I believe you should field cards like Stinkweed Imp and No Mercy whenever possible. Fatties are fine and they're great win conditions for you as long as they're not heading your way. Deterrents are incredibly effective tools in that sense.
Still, that's only one aspect of tapping. Like, I don't get how people use tappers period. Do you just mentally guess if someone is going to attack you? I mean once the creature is turned sideways to attack then it's too late to tap it. Unless you can psychically predict what to tap then you're basically just left in a horrible "best-guess" situation. With respect to starting an offense, again, I just don't get how tapping is good. People can just easily attack you, do nothing, attack someone else, etc. Unless you're legitimately conspiring against someone then you can't really abuse tappers in a multiplayer setting. You're purely reliant on politics and not power at that point. While politics can do "something" for you, if you're relying on it to win games then you're asking for trouble in my mind. Eventually people will smarten up and stop letting you get away with murder.
I don't see how the Archon could realistically ever make the cut. A 7 mana 4/5 with no immediate impact and no real multiplayer value seems quite poor to me. The card wouldn't hit the table over here either because no one is going to assign to a deck slot to a card as mediocre as that. Martial Law seems like a glorified Prison Term and I'm not too sure what makes it powerful for you. The Guildmage I'm willing to concede is passable if only because it's a worthwhile early drop. I would play it for the flying more-so than anything else but I mean it does technically have Detain. If you're paying 5 mana to Detain a creature then I feel like you're losing the game, but hey, it could be relevant some % of the time I guess. Ultimately I just "don't get it." These cards do not scale well and they're much more powerful in tempo-based decks (which are rarely played in multiplayer).
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
360 Unpowered Cube | Cubetutor
Bonkers good. I don't have any, and I want.
My Stupidly Large Number of Current Decks
PucaTrade with me!
The Multiplayer Power Rankings
Cube: the Gittening (My Multiplayer Cube) - MTGS Cube List | @ CubeTutor
The N00b Cube (Peasant cube for new players) - MTGS Cube List | @ CubeTutor
Incremental card advantage effects like this are always a plus.
My personal favorite, at least in EDH Cube where life is plentiful, is Phyrexian Reclamation.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
Martial Law is essentially a Prison Term that you can move every turn - so better in Cube than Prison Term (and that sees play in places, as does Pacifism).
The Archon is something I guess I'm going to have to wait and see on, but I get the impression that if it stays on the table, it has the opportunity to stall the current threat's game plan. It's important to note that the Archon detains non-land permanents too, like the Guildmage (not just creatures like Martial Law) - that's pretty handy.
Of course, that's all dependent on it staying out, and these are very passive and defensive cards - very much the type of stuff you use to play a quiet control game before you combo out.
Surprisingly, the Guildmage saw its detain ability activated just as much as its flying one. The guy playing it was in the situation where he was trading blows - the flying ability got his gorilla over the top, and the detain one was locking down whatever would have beaten his face up in response.
My Stupidly Large Number of Current Decks
PucaTrade with me!
The Multiplayer Power Rankings
Cube: the Gittening (My Multiplayer Cube) - MTGS Cube List | @ CubeTutor
The N00b Cube (Peasant cube for new players) - MTGS Cube List | @ CubeTutor
Yeah, if I had one, it would likely be in.
It'd probably be a hard toss-up between that and Exhume in my cube (and yes, before people jump on me, Exhume is a wonderful, wonderful card... it's just that the odds of it backfiring on you increase for every extra player in the game).
My Stupidly Large Number of Current Decks
PucaTrade with me!
The Multiplayer Power Rankings
Cube: the Gittening (My Multiplayer Cube) - MTGS Cube List | @ CubeTutor
The N00b Cube (Peasant cube for new players) - MTGS Cube List | @ CubeTutor
So you're playing a conditional spot removal spell. Cool? I don't see how this type of spiteful retaliation brings you closer to winning the game. People who make ultimatums tend to incite hate and typically create a mutually assured destruction scenario where neither wins. They can and will carry out their threats to the end, I understand that, but they don't win games by doing so. The person who you're "picking on" is going to retaliate back more often than not and both of you are going to lose. This isn't a healthy, effective gameplan in the long-run in my mind.
I really, really, really, really, really hate this type of argument. I don't get why people always make the claim that there can only be one "the threat" at a table. When I sit down and play with my best friends, I know that all of them are exceptional drafters, deckbuilders, and players. Each and every one of them is going to give me a run for my money. They are all going to play good creatures and spells and each of them could be a legitimate concern for me. The idea that there can only be one "the threat" is completely absurd to me because that's often ~4 people at my 8 player games. I'd be kidding myself if I ever thought otherwise. Maybe some metas are weaker than mine and don't have many good players, that could easily be the case, but I simply cannot stand the logic that there will only ever be one troublesome player to worry about it at a time. People don't give their opponents nearly enough credit in that respect.
It's not an essential skill. I've played in thousands on MP games in my lifetime and the "quiet ones" have won a countless number of those. People grossly overestimate politics when, in reality, personalities, pre-existing rivalries, luck (good draws vs bad draws, good decks vs bad decks etc.) and much more all contribute more to game wins than anything else. In fact, the people who try and "play politician" are often the first to go because no one believes their **** past the first few play sessions. No one actually cares about you after all and people will do whatever it takes to win. As such, there's no reason to ever take something at face-value. You will almost always be back-stabbed, tricked, used, etc. if it allows someone else to further their position.
Yes, assuming you can psychically predict which ones are going to attack you. That's easier said than done in a big FFA game where everyone is playing with powerful creatures. Any number of them could easily attack you at any point in time. This defensive method is far from perfect. No Mercy isn't perfect either, I'm willing to accept that, but at least it will always punish the aggressor. The "threat of retaliation" is A) certain and B) severe which means that it falls on your opponents to make the judgment calls. Is their card really worth a bit of your life? In a deck that's probably brimming with Blood Tithe and Exsanguinate-like effects?
The biggest threat in a duel is easy to discern. The biggest threat in a multiplayer game is much less certain. I feel like you're kidding yourself if you don't think that situations could arise where multiple players have multiple dangerous threats in play. That's basically every turn beyond turn 4 of every multiplayer Cube game that I play.
The Cemetery is fantastic and should make the cut in every Cube that can afford it. The mid-to-late game inevitability that it provides is amazing. Sure, the card is basically a mulligan early on, but I mean it's so deceptively powerful once the game gets in to full swing.
Pit Keeper, on the other hand, seems exceptionally bad. The 2/1 body is largely irrelevant and the recursion effect is far from powerful. It seems like a low-impact card that will rarely-if-ever make the cut in an actual deck.
+1. It's fine in non-EDH as well. Black is the king of lifegain when it comes to Bloodchief Ascension, Exsanguinate, Syphon Soul, Vampire Nighthawk,Blood Tithe, Polluted Bonds, Exquisite Blood, Kokusho, the Evening Star and then there's always cards like Loxodon Warhammer and Wurmcoil Engine as well. The cost is incredibly easy to support regardless of the format.
Law is better than Term because it doesn't randomly die to mass removal and whatnot. Even though it's a bit slower, it's much more durable and versatile. I still don't think that it makes the cut though.
With respect to the Archon, again, I just don't get it. Ok, it hits nonland perms. I get that. Do I have to state again that it's a 7 mana 4/5? Like, maybe I'm living in some dream world where 7 mana doesn't buy you something good, but what are people doing that Archon figures to be a game-ending threat? Or, can you afford to play 7 mana cards that provide marginal value nowadays? If you're attacking with an Archon and tapping down the best threats of your single opponent, sure, he's fine. I just don't see what he does in a multiplayer setting. His clock is pathetically slow for a 7 drop and his ability doesn't scale well at all as the number of threats on the table increases.
Did he actually win the game? Like, I get that every ability can be useful in a specific context. I've never said otherwise. My argument was that a person in a position where he's spending his turn to Detain an opposing creature is probably going to lose. Unless that player actually won the game, I can't say that this type of play impresses me. While it might be fine in a duel in an RTR draft, I just don't see how this type of action is a "game-winner" in a multiplayer setting.
I don't think Exhume is good at all, unless your deck supports the hardcore reanimator deck with Mystical Tutor, Entomb, Frantic Search, Careful Study, etc. Mine don't because that deck rolls over to an StP or Innocent Blood or whatever every time, I've never seen it win, but I mean I'm sure that some do still support it.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
Spiteful? It seems only logical to me. If the guy with the threat you're worried about is willing to swing at you when he knows you can tap it down every turn after that until it's removed, then spiteful is continuing to swing at you just because you tapped down their threat. Is it so silly to think, "Oh, this guy has an Icy Manipulator, and just let me get to my declare attackers step. I'd rather just try to get value out of my dude here, so I'm gonna leave him alone." That really doesn't seem so crazy to me. Or heaven forbid, he wasn't worried about it because he has instant speed removal. This doesn't need to be overtly stated (I agree that blatantly manipulative politics is bad. My post mentioned good politics.). It can easily be implied.
You seem the think that I'm implying that the greatest threat has nothing to do with the board state. Everyone is "a threat", but not everyone is "the threat," and "the threat" shifts from turn to turn depending on who plays what. If you want to know who the threat is, you look at the board. If multiple people are in a spot where they have a scary board state, then you have to pick the one you're scared of most, or if god forbid you've actually used some politics to build an alliance with someone, you pick the guy that you're not allied with at that moment unless it's time for an "Et tu Brute?" moment.
Good politics isn't wheeling and dealing the table. In fact, that's bad politics because people don't like that guy. You don't have to be loud to play good politics. In fact the person who is quietest is probably playing the best politics at the table because he/she is not drawing attention to their manipulations. To think that you can sit at a table with 3-6 or more players and not communicate politically is rather silly to me. Even playing quietly is a political communication. I also didn't say that politics will win you the game all on its own. I said, it can mean the difference between a win and a loss. If you spend time watching the subtle politics at the table, you will see this for yourself. Good politics is essential because with it, you don't always have to take the entire table on all by yourself until you're ready, you can divert aggression away from you, or you can slip your game plan under the radar until it's too late.
The only person's mind you need to read in order to know which permanent on the board you're scared of the most is your own. But yes, rattlesnake effects have their place. I just don't think they replace tappers because they don't do anything if the aggressor is swinging for lethal.
Sure, just about everyone is doing something crazy, but there is usually someone who's board is getting to the point of overwhelming, who is at least dominating, or either you or another has drawn a battle line. If I'm playing a multiplayer game, I'm not trying to fight the entire table all at once. I'm fighting one or two other players, maybe trying to manage another player, but not trying to piss him/her off, and am usually tentatively allied with at least one other player.
Are tappers conditional removal? Sure, but they're conditional removal survives past a wrath to deal with the next threat, and that is very valuable in long multiplayer games.
EDIT: Something else to consider is that games shrink as they go on, and tappers increase in value.
360 Unpowered Cube | Cubetutor
My games are 7+ people.
Again, the issue that I have is that this assumes that there's only 1 worthwhile threat to concern yourself with any any point in time. The situation that you're describing could easily encompass 2-3 creatures from every player at the table. With respect to implying the use of spot removal, I don't know about your meta, but ours has moved way past that. That kind of trick works for the first few games but eventually people realize that everyone is crying wolf and lying out the ass. We make people "have it." If people still fall for that kind of trick, so be it, but at that point you can easily manipulate the table.
With respect to attacking into the guy with Icy Manipulator, again, we've moved way past that kind of stuff. Yes, he can tap something of ours. What's the alternative? Not mess with him and let him sit back and win the game? That's not going to happen; there's no way that we'll allow it. At the end of the day you better come with a defense that threatens something meaningful. I can't swing my 5/5 into your 26/26 Taurean Mauler but I can swing it into a Manipulator. If you want to tap my 5/5 and deal with a 26/26, so be it. Again, I feel like your descriptions are far too simplistic and don't accurately reflect an average multiplayer board state. My Kezzerdrix is not going to be the biggest thing on the table, but I am going to swing at you if your best defense is Martial Law. If you want to then tap my 4/4 instead one of the 6/6 dragons, so be it. There is an overwhelming number of cases where people will attack you with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th etc. best creature on the table. The biggest one is not your only concern.
The board O.O? That's basically only relevant once you get down to the last few players. People with big boards lose that much more to mass removal and so you typically just want to avoid them for a turn while you wait for someone to slam a mass removal spell and basically take them out of the game. The people to worry about are the ones who are sitting with lots of cards in hand and who are (correctly in my opinion) playing the "bare minimum" number of threats to stave-off attackers and apply some pressure. People who blow their load are going to lose a huge % of the time in our meta and so no one typically fears the people who played out their hand by turn 7. We don't need alliances to take out the big dogs. We have cards for that.
If the definition of "politics" is "any inaction or inaction taken by a player" then sure, everyone uses politics. If a person who sits down, plays the game according to the rules and watches TV when it's not his/her turns is said to be political in your mind... whatever. Still, I have no idea what you're trying to prove here. You're making a claim can neither be proven nor disproven so it's a moot point. At best it'll boil down to unprovable, anecdotal evidence based on a specific cube which pertains to a specific metagame played by a specific group of players.
"This broad concept can win games in a fashion that isn't objectively measurable." Sure. Again, I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish. You're making claims that have no evidence backing them and and that aren't accurately measurable. I can't disprove your claim, but you can't prove it either. You seem to be making arguments that "can't possibly be right or wrong" and I don't understand why that is.
Based on what? You keep saying that "politics is essential" but what are you using as proof to justify that claim? We can't just take everything said as "fact" unless people have some legitimate evidence that they can present to defend their claims. I see people employ good politics, bad politics, no politics and much more and it has little-if-any impact on the actual game. Regardless of how people try and play the game, the good players always gun for the other good players and the bad players durdle around, most of them die off, and sometimes one wins because the good players all cripple each other. The best deck of the day usually wins in the sense that it often boils down to who ran better. The people that I'm playing with aren't stupid enough to let me sit back and conserve resources because they know what I'm in it to win it. While flying under the radar worked when we were all 12, we've matured since then and know that you can't let someone sit back with 7 cards in hand and 1-2 creatures in play for defense. You kill them and beat his ass down and make him play spells. You don't give him a free ride to swoop in and win at the end. That sort of child's play ended 4 years ago.
Personally I don't care if I'm getting hit for 5 or 7 since both options suck. Tapping a Dragon only to eat a hit from a slightly smaller Demon isn't exactly stellar. There are often a large number of relevant threats on the table in my games and they're each "scary."
The person with the dominating board position is usually the first person who loses. He's "dominating" because he over-extended and one Austere Command later and he's out of the game. It doesn't happen much any more but people still make that mistake from time-to-time. In that sense, the "scariest person" is the one who dug his own grave and probably is only a turn or two away from losing the game. The rest of us have 5 cards in hand and like 1-2 bodies in play and we're just waiting for that Wrath to hit before we commit more ourselves.
If you're fighting 2 and trying to hold a third at bay then you're losing the game. Period. You're probably waging war with 0-1 people and are hoping that that number doesn't change in the foreseeable future. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. Either way, I don't think I've seen someone take hits from 3 people for many turns and win.
They survive creature-based removal. My Cube is jam packed with cards like Shattering Pulse, Allay, Austere Command, Fracturing Gust, Calming Verse, Shattering Spree, etc. People also take them highly because they know how obnoxious non-creature perms are. It could be a difference of metas and Cubes, that's possible, but I don't personally expect non-creature perms to stick around for an exceptionally long time.
... sure? They do indeed become marginally more effective. What you're basically saying is that you should play bad cards so that if you do well you'll have a better chance of winning if you make it to the top 2-3 or whatever. Have fun with that. I'm still going to slam my Syphon Minds all day every day because I want to make it to that "final 3" (or whatever) each and every time. Will some of my deck be worse once I get there? Sure. Mortivore won't be a 25/25 any more. That being said, it's those kinds of cards that got me there in the first place. Playing win-more cards that help when you're already doing well have never been ideal because they don't help you get to that winning position in the first place. That is, while Icy Manipulator can help you defeat your last opponent, it's not the kind of card that got you there. That's why they're weak in a multiplayer setting.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
If you are likely to be hit by 2-3 creatures from every player, then yeah, the only card that would be good is probably a rattlesnake kind of card like No Mercy. Good job describing the only situation in which No Mercy is the best deterrent. You should probably be running more wraths.
I'm really not sure what you are trying to argue with either of these comments. What do you imagine my group is like that they would just play bad magic as you've described here? You are absolutely right, the biggest threat on the table isn't my only concern. I pray I have more to do than try to hide behind an Icy Manipulator too. I pray the same is true if I'm trying to hide behind a No Mercy as well.
I certainly hope that isn't what I said, and I certainly hope that isn't how your players play.
Yeah, when you were 12. How old are you now? 13? Come on, bro. Please do a little better when you try to troll. But hey, you're right. I can't present hard evidence that my assertion is correct, only logic, so I'll be sure to field a full scale anthropological study on the matter and get back to you. Funding may be an issue though, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
True story. What do you think of getting hit for 12?
Sweet, then the person who has the most dominating board position could only be the person who overextended. I really wish you would say something that didn't assume I was a complete idiot at magic.
If you're trying to actively fight 2 and fend off a third at all by yourself, then yes you are right. But that's not what I said.
'Kay, then I'll just remove your No Mercy, and swing for full power because your No Mercy can't tap down a threat. "Dies to removal" has never been a great argument.
What does Syphon Mind have to do with tapping creatures, or Mortavore for that matter. I'm still of the opinion that it holds value in the early game. I just wanted to point out that it gets better and better the closer you get to winning. So no, not saying play bad cards. Saying play good cards that get better, a nice contrast to those that are good and get worse.
Honestly man, this argument has made me very sad, because you aren't interested in learning anything new, or understanding anything that I have said. Your only interest has been in condescension and argumentum verbosum.
Warning for Flaming.
360 Unpowered Cube | Cubetutor
True, and this is why I'm testing him out at this stage - he's far from a permanent fixture (I suspect Drogskol Reaver might make a better WU bomb, long-term). That said, I like the looks of the political implications of swinging at the weak player to detain things belonging to the threat. That's kind of cute.
Yes, that was once he got down to a single remaining opponent, and was duking it out for the win. It had its moments keeping him safe and in the game until there were two players left, and then it took off.
That's kind of where I'm leaning, too. Wonderful card (I've had someone in my playgroup Exhume Jin on Turn 2 for lulz in a standard MP game lately), but ultimately a real roll of the dice, particularly as the game goes longer. It can end up a dead draw later in the game (do you really want to be casting Exhume when your opponents have bigger gorillas in their yards than you do?)... that's why Oversold Cemetery comes out ahead.
Also, back to red 4-drops... thoughts on Hound of Griselbrand? I know he's not spectacular in this environment, but he's likely better than most red 4-drops as we speak. Stick a Sword on and he might be worth it.
My Stupidly Large Number of Current Decks
PucaTrade with me!
The Multiplayer Power Rankings
Cube: the Gittening (My Multiplayer Cube) - MTGS Cube List | @ CubeTutor
The N00b Cube (Peasant cube for new players) - MTGS Cube List | @ CubeTutor
Yeah, I know at the end of the day he's going to be a small double-striker, but he's going to be a resilient one (and he'll combo pretty well with Hex Parasite in my cube).
My Stupidly Large Number of Current Decks
PucaTrade with me!
The Multiplayer Power Rankings
Cube: the Gittening (My Multiplayer Cube) - MTGS Cube List | @ CubeTutor
The N00b Cube (Peasant cube for new players) - MTGS Cube List | @ CubeTutor
^^This
@Theogony_IX: thank you
Yea I made suggestions earlier for multiplayer EDH-inspired fun. At the whole "tapping" situation, I cannot see how cards like opposition aren't in a multiplayer EDH cube. Politics is a gigantic part of mutiplayer.
As for detain, yes, the smaller ones don't make the cut, but a lot of the bigger detain guys + guildmage are wild. I hope people also see detain reads "Until your next turn, those permanents can't attack or block and their activated abilities can't be activated." Attach that to some reasonably large flyer or enchantment and you're generating incredibly robust politics at the table. The little 2cc guys...not the best thing in the world because it's a 'detain this permanent once' situation. However, being able to have multiple detain effects every turn is brutal. At worst, you deactivate a problem permanent/stop their general. At best, you punish those with weak board state or help swing in for the win.
As for new ideas, Howling Mine can be a very interesting card to put in a draft. It has some very serious drawbacks (reward everyone else first), but again, politics is huge. And with all things EDH, the jank cards are sometimes absolutely bananas. Is this card the greatest ever? Haha no -- and I'm not implying it would break open a draft either. But it's yet another card to put in the pool that anyone can pick up (artifact) and has some rich lines of play. If you do 2 headed (2 vs 2), cards like this are intricate to play.
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
Another effect like that is Rites of Flourishing. We had it in our cube for a while, but we really didn't like that it helped everyone else first. People would normally wait to get their value out of it and then blow it up so no one after them would get value.
Maybe if you could pair those kinds of effects with things that are more threatening, they might last, but then everyone else is probably doing the same. It might work well late game in a prison type strategy though with Rule of Law and Vedalken Orrery. Just spit-balling. Finding some way to mitigate the effect from the massive amounts of cards your opponents will have access to seems necessary though.
360 Unpowered Cube | Cubetutor
Ah, Group Hug. Yeah, pretty prevalent in normal multiplayer. Though I find the idea of a mono-blue EDH version a bit wacked out... green gives you a lot in this archetype - Rites of Flourishing (as you mentioned), Aluren, Eladamri's Vineyard, Oath of Druids... (red's not bad either, with Mana Flare and all).
My Stupidly Large Number of Current Decks
PucaTrade with me!
The Multiplayer Power Rankings
Cube: the Gittening (My Multiplayer Cube) - MTGS Cube List | @ CubeTutor
The N00b Cube (Peasant cube for new players) - MTGS Cube List | @ CubeTutor