Tokens is loved in my group too, with green and red and white all viable choices. Just wanted to point out that you do run what I consider the best token anthem: Mirror Entity. In our cube Symbol Status is the king of all tokens. Casting Status for 8-10 1/1s is pretty easy. Following up with Mirror Entity and then making them even 2/2s will often end the game on the spot. Its like a better Craterhoof.
Tokens is loved in my group too, with green and red and white all viable choices. Just wanted to point out that you do run what I consider the best token anthem: Mirror Entity. In our cube Symbol Status is the king of all tokens. Casting Status for 8-10 1/1s is pretty easy. Following up with Mirror Entity and then making them even 2/2s will often end the game on the spot. Its like a better Craterhoof.
Just my $.10.
Yes Mirror Entity is pretty much kill on sight. Its really good in these types of decks
"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
Mirror Entity is a house, I agree. It often comes out of nowhere too. If you have enough mana, you don't even need a huge army for that to just wreck people.
Mirari's Wake never really got traction with our group. It's super powerful obviously, but I don't like that it costs 5 (though in ramp that is not as much of an issue). I'm really wanting to try out Sigarda, Host of Herons. That thing just seems really hard to deal with. I also have a soft spot for angels.
So I'm thinking about cutting aggro from my cube because it's an incredibly linear and parasitic archetype. My cube is really tiny and I find myself devoting more and more cards to trying to make aggro work, and it's killing more fun and broad archetypes. I generally agree with the discussion here about keeping a balanced format, but it's hard in a 180 cube. Does anyone else feel that way? What major downsides do you think there would be if I did that?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
An accurate description of myself:
Quote from Megiddo »
You're the dude who just lies a lot and makes people hate you and then magically becomes town later, right?
Disregarding the fact that I think playing a streamlined aggro deck is one of the most enjoyable experiences, I think a very important role for aggro decks in cube is keeping the rest of the decks honest. Without the fear of losing to an aggro deck in 4-5 turns, I'd be worried that my cube environment would turn into complete dirdleville. That doesn't sound too fun to me, it's what I imagine EDH is for.
So I'm thinking about cutting aggro from my cube ... What major downsides do you think there would be if I did that?
This entire thread discusses exactly why doing that is a terrible idea.
Aggro is no more parasitic than any other major theater. Control is parasitic to players that want to play midrange slugfests and think that wraths and countermagic are "un-interactive" and not fun. Midrange is parasitic to the players that want games to be as fast as possible and want their 1 and 2cc creatures to carry their deck to victory. And aggro is parasitic to players that want to do nothing and durdle all game long, stretching out games into the turn 10+ range. EVERY theater is included as a counterbalance for the other two. And removing one in its entirety would be a terrible thing to do for the health and balance of the metagame.
I have read this entire thread at least once, although it's been a couple months. I generally agree with the concept that aggro is needed to keep the balance of the cube. But now having a cube myself for the first time and trying to balance versatile cards and make lots of things viable, I'm finding aggro incredibly parasitic on par with something like storm. Literally nothing but the aggro deck wants the 2-power one-drops that now make up more than 10% of my cube.
I'm devoting a LOT of space to cards that are playable in exactly one deck, and it's limiting how many archetypes I can support.
So I'm thinking about cutting aggro from my cube ... What major downsides do you think there would be if I did that?
This entire thread discusses exactly why doing that is a terrible idea.
Aggro is no more parasitic than any other major theater. Control is parasitic to players that want to play midrange slugfests and think that wraths and countermagic are "un-interactive" and not fun. Midrange is parasitic to the players that want games to be as fast as possible and want their 1 and 2cc creatures to carry their deck to victory. And aggro is parasitic to players that want to do nothing and durdle all game long, stretching out games into the turn 10+ range. EVERY theater is included as a counterbalance for the other two. And removing one in its entirety would be a terrible thing to do for the health and balance of the metagame.
I definitely disagree with you there. Big removal spells, board wipes, ramping artifacts, value cards of many kinds, bombs and finishers of a few varieties, etc are all playable in midrange, control, pod, reanimator, etc. Random token generating cards are fine in midrange and also awesome in focused token decks. Sure each archetype has a couple of specific cards that only it wants or "build around me" cards, but aggro in general has an entire suite of cards that are literally unplayable in every other deck and take up a huge amount of cube space to keep aggro competitive.
Again for context, I'm running a 180 card cube meant for mostly 2-man Winston/Winchester drafts so every card has to serve as many roles as possible. That is what made me start thinking about this over a larger more balanced cube. Is there ever a situation where it's just not worth it to support aggro?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
An accurate description of myself:
Quote from Megiddo »
You're the dude who just lies a lot and makes people hate you and then magically becomes town later, right?
Is there ever a situation where it's just not worth it to support aggro?
No.
I mean, maybe a 90 card pile designed to winston draft that has no control elements and no aggro elements so it's midrange vs midrange every single time you play. That's the only scenario I can come up with. If you can draft control, you need to be able to draft aggro.
And your examples of cards being used in multiple decktypes don't have the overlap you think they do. A token generator being good in "tokens" and good in midrange are the same thing. "Tokens" is just an archetype inside the midrange theater. It plays exactly like a midrange deck does, except it is looking for a specific type of synergy. Aggro creatures are playable in both aggro and tempo decks, which is essentially saying exactly the same thing as "Tokens" and midrange. But cards like Wraths are only used in one decktype, but they're somehow okay. Control-exclusive cards take up less slots, which is why they feel less "parasitic", but you're including the number of tools needed to make the theaters viable. Control needs less tools, but you still wind up with 1 aggro deck, 1 midrange deck and 1 control deck, even if the tools are split up in a 3/2/1 ratio.
I will agree with Asenion, however, that when I was mostly drafting my cube two-player Winston, it was really hard to support aggro effectively. You pick up all sorts of "extra" cards that fit into midrange strategies in a Winston draft, and it's hard to get enough of the classic aggro support to make the decks work--particularly because you're likely to be facing a value midrange deck. I feel that to make aggro work in a Winston cube as well as it does in an 8-man, you'd need to increase the number of aggro-centric cards by a lot--30% more?. That's a lot in a tiny cube. So, after trying to force aggro and losing over and over again, I too wondered whether it worth it. And once aggro was seen as a losing proposition and avoided, we devolved a bit into classic dragon cube slugfests.
Which were awesome, by the way. And if you want to experiment with weakening or removing classic aggro, you should, and see if you like the kinds of games that result. But, like many here, I got tired of that style of play. (Not as much as most here, as you can tell by slower-than-average cube.)
For me, the solution was to adjust my 2-player draft style, to allow each person to see more cards. (I can detail what we do now, if you like, but it's a bit off-topic.) I also usually get 4-6 folks now, and the three theaters "work" better to hold each other in check than they did when I exclusively Winstoned.
And your examples of cards being used in multiple decktypes don't have the overlap you think they do. A token generator being good in "tokens" and good in midrange are the same thing. "Tokens" is just an archetype inside the midrange theater. It plays exactly like a midrange deck does, except it is looking for a specific type of synergy. Aggro creatures are playable in both aggro and tempo decks, which is essentially saying exactly the same thing as "Tokens" and midrange. But cards like Wraths are only used in one decktype, but they're somehow okay. Control-exclusive cards take up less slots, which is why they feel less "parasitic", but you're including the number of tools needed to make the theaters viable. Control needs less tools, but you still wind up with 1 aggro deck, 1 midrange deck and 1 control deck, even if the tools are split up in a 3/2/1 ratio.
Token generators tend to be good in aggro as well, at least to some extent. Wraths are only really good for low creature control decks, but I only play two wraths as opposed to the roughly 12 one-drops and at least that number again of two-drops which are only playable in aggro. I guess you could argue counterspells are the next biggest offender, as I run about 6 of those, but it's still not as bad. The amount of dedicated aggro cards which aren't playable elsewhere easily beats any other archetype.
Also, I don't really support Tempo (At least not a version that would willingly play one-drops), which might be a problem with my cube. I'm not really sure how to make tempo a thing even though I like the concept of supporting a deck where aggro cards and control cards are playable alongside each other. Along those lines, I think some of the issue stems from the fact that I consider the variety of midrange decks very different. Midrange ramp, midrange reanimator, midrange pod, midrange burn/beatdown, etc all feel like different decks. Boardwipe or tapout control vs spot removal or counterspell control vs ramp/Upheaval control also feel different. Aggro always feels like the same deck. Take all the dedicated aggro cards in whichever two colors are most available and turn your guys sideways every turn. The only synergy between the cards is that they all do damage and the only interesting deck decision tends to be how many burn spells to play or if it's worth playing Vivid land to get your mana up to par.
I also make this observation because I'm realizing that my aggro isn't strong enough and I'm soon to have to devote even more slots to it and taking out even more cards that are more fun in more decks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
An accurate description of myself:
Quote from Megiddo »
You're the dude who just lies a lot and makes people hate you and then magically becomes town later, right?
I'm devoting a LOT of space to cards that are playable in exactly one deck, and it's limiting how many archetypes I can support.
I definitely disagree with you there. Big removal spells, board wipes, ramping artifacts, value cards of many kinds, bombs and finishers of a few varieties, etc are all playable in midrange, control, pod, reanimator, etc. Random token generating cards are fine in midrange and also awesome in focused token decks. Sure each archetype has a couple of specific cards that only it wants or "build around me" cards, but aggro in general has an entire suite of cards that are literally unplayable in every other deck and take up a huge amount of cube space to keep aggro competitive.
Again for context, I'm running a 180 card cube meant for mostly 2-man Winston/Winchester drafts so every card has to serve as many roles as possible.
Based on this post I think you're having the same issue I have a lot. You're trying to support more archetypes than the size of your cube allows.
At 180, you have to have a super tight list which means most, if not all, of the cube should probably be aggro/midrange/control support. Are you really trying to support Reanimator at 180? True, combo reanimator is difficult to support at any cube size, but at 180 that requires, what, like 1/30th of your cube to be reanimation spells?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rest in RIP My Signature, I guess. 2015-2016, we hardly knew ye.
Total side note but I like how people are discussing running this over itself.
Well, it has to be said that Kolaghan is clearly better than Kolaghan. Considering what BR decks usually want and how stiff the competition in this guild is, there is no way that I would run Kolaghan over Kolaghan! Kolaghan might make it in as the sixth guild card or so. Kolaghan on the other hand ranks several places below that.
It was so funny to me when they described this as a downgrade to the original Zurgo during the Pax East panel. I was thinking if this is a downgrade, they should really "downgrade" all legendary creatures. Haha.
My deck designing is quite concise at this point:
1. Come up with deck idea
2. Realize this idea is somehow fundamentally similar to another deck I have or that is commonly played in my group
3. Decide I don't want to disassemble one of my existing decks
4. Give up and do nothing
I don't see the point of this new shroud mechanic. It's strictly worse than Hexproof. Threshold is pretty bad too, Delirium is a much better mechanic and probably easier to activate.
Otherwise this card is a pretty neat guy. Dodges removal and grows into a Primal Huntbeast. 3/5
And your examples of cards being used in multiple decktypes don't have the overlap you think they do. A token generator being good in "tokens" and good in midrange are the same thing. "Tokens" is just an archetype inside the midrange theater. It plays exactly like a midrange deck does, except it is looking for a specific type of synergy. Aggro creatures are playable in both aggro and tempo decks, which is essentially saying exactly the same thing as "Tokens" and midrange. But cards like Wraths are only used in one decktype, but they're somehow okay. Control-exclusive cards take up less slots, which is why they feel less "parasitic", but you're including the number of tools needed to make the theaters viable. Control needs less tools, but you still wind up with 1 aggro deck, 1 midrange deck and 1 control deck, even if the tools are split up in a 3/2/1 ratio.
Token generators tend to be good in aggro as well, at least to some extent. Wraths are only really good for low creature control decks, but I only play two wraths as opposed to the roughly 12 one-drops and at least that number again of two-drops which are only playable in aggro. I guess you could argue counterspells are the next biggest offender, as I run about 6 of those, but it's still not as bad. The amount of dedicated aggro cards which aren't playable elsewhere easily beats any other archetype.
Also, I don't really support Tempo (At least not a version that would willingly play one-drops), which might be a problem with my cube. I'm not really sure how to make tempo a thing even though I like the concept of supporting a deck where aggro cards and control cards are playable alongside each other. Along those lines, I think some of the issue stems from the fact that I consider the variety of midrange decks very different. Midrange ramp, midrange reanimator, midrange pod, midrange burn/beatdown, etc all feel like different decks. Boardwipe or tapout control vs spot removal or counterspell control vs ramp/Upheaval control also feel different. Aggro always feels like the same deck. Take all the dedicated aggro cards in whichever two colors are most available and turn your guys sideways every turn. The only synergy between the cards is that they all do damage and the only interesting deck decision tends to be how many burn spells to play or if it's worth playing Vivid land to get your mana up to par.
I also make this observation because I'm realizing that my aggro isn't strong enough and I'm soon to have to devote even more slots to it and taking out even more cards that are more fun in more decks.
I'm going to try and save you some grief Asenion because you are stumbling into a mine field. Trust me on this one.
I recommend you check out riptidelab. It's a smaller group, but you'll find a lot of different out-of-the-box ideas there. I feel like you are going to get better feedback for what you are trying to do. This forum is geared more towards traditional/power-max cubing and that isn't what you are trying to build.
I think building a midrange only 180 cube could work. There are a few one-drops and two-drops that fit into multiple deck types and could allow you to make aggro playable without putting aggro-only cards in, but not enough. It's true that aggro requires more cards dedicated to it than the other major theatres, but that's never been a problem for us, even at 360. It is a fun and necessary part of the cube meta that we have created.
I'm going to try and save you some grief Asenion because you are stumbling into a mine field. Trust me on this one.
I recommend you check out riptidelab. It's a smaller group, but you'll find a lot of different out-of-the-box ideas there. I feel like you are going to get better feedback for what you are trying to do. This forum is geared more towards traditional/power-max cubing and that isn't what you are trying to build.
I've been following the cube scene for a long time, but I'm inexperienced at actually managing my own cube and what I'm doing is quite different from the norm. I'm happy to take all advice in all forms. Also, I doubt I'll actually be cutting aggro from my cube. This is more of a thought experiment and a way to get some feedback. Thanks for the invitation to Riptide lab though, I've seen you guys before and I might stop by and see what you have to say.
I think building a midrange only 180 cube could work. There are a few one-drops and two-drops that fit into multiple deck types and could allow you to make aggro playable without putting aggro-only cards in, but not enough. It's true that aggro requires more cards dedicated to it than the other major theatres, but that's never been a problem for us, even at 360. It is a fun and necessary part of the cube meta that we have created.
That was kind of my thought for how this could go. There could be faster and slower midrange with various control elements. I actually think "midrange" is really diverse and covers numerous fun archetypes. It might be something I test at some point.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
An accurate description of myself:
Quote from Megiddo »
You're the dude who just lies a lot and makes people hate you and then magically becomes town later, right?
Ya, if you build an environment where there's no control to beat, aggro certainly loses its value. Which would mean cutting all counterspells and wraths, pretty much.
Alternately, it's possible to give midrange the tools to beat control. Cards that generate enough value that they can beat the card advantage like Genesis or threats that are extremely difficult to deal with and ways to get them into play.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
An accurate description of myself:
Quote from Megiddo »
You're the dude who just lies a lot and makes people hate you and then magically becomes town later, right?
There aren't enough of those to bring the matchup to even footing. They help shore up the weakness, but ultimately the matchup will still be favorable for the control player over a long enough timeline.
..........
@Asenion: I hope you understand that our advice and opinion sharing is always intended to enrich your cube experience. We're not trying to tear down your ideas or prohibit your playgroup from having fun. Everybody's goal here is to share our experiences to help make everybody else's time spent cubing more enjoyable. We're not pushing aggro because we have some agenda or because we care about nothing but "power max cubing" ...I suggest supporting aggro because my experiences with cubes that undersupport it (or don't support it at all) haven't been as rich and diverse (or as healthy) as my experiences with cubes that do. It's a tough hurdle for a lot of players because it dedicates a lot of slots to cards that aren't splashy and necessarily exciting. But I assure you, everybody's advice is driven by the desire to help make your cube drafting more enjoyable. None of our suggestions are driven by a desire to see uniformity or tear down others' ideas—they're coming from a place of support and good-will. That gets lost sometimes because I think we all assume (even when we shouldn't) that it's a given, when some folks interpret it as anything but. Please understand every bit of advice shared on these forums by the vast majority of posters comes from the desire to help.
No need for the disclaimer; I know at the end of the day that it's my cube and I try to make the decisions that are best for it. I appreciate the discussion.
I tend to agree with you that there aren't enough tools to make midrange truly equal control, but in a 180 cube it's a lot easier than in something larger. If I devoted maybe 5% of the cube to midrange answers for control decks, I could play the best ones and the midrange decks would have a reasonable chance of getting at least one or two every draft. I think because of my size, it might be plausible. (Imagine if you could run 3x of every Genesis quality-level card in a 540, because that is the density I would have at 180.)
Anyway, for the moment I would rather focus on making aggro strong enough to consistently beat control instead of making midrange better.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
An accurate description of myself:
Quote from Megiddo »
You're the dude who just lies a lot and makes people hate you and then magically becomes town later, right?
For those of you who don't like dedicating a lot of slots to aggro, or just don't find it interesting, I'd really suggest building an EDH or EDH style cube. The format is specifically tailored to mid-range strategies and doesn't have much room for aggro or control in the traditional fashions. The format is more focused on card interactions as well as creative deckbuilding and play. Where aggro/midrange/control cubes are narrow and deep, each color having specific strategies for each theatre, EDH cube is shallow but wide, each color having a variety of stategies in midrange. Just a thought.
I've been following the cube scene for a long time, but I'm inexperienced at actually managing my own cube and what I'm doing is quite different from the norm. I'm happy to take all advice in all forms. Also, I doubt I'll actually be cutting aggro from my cube. This is more of a thought experiment and a way to get some feedback. Thanks for the invitation to Riptide lab though, I've seen you guys before and I might stop by and see what you have to say.
For what it's worth, I think you have a lot of options. All of them will require a lot of testing though as I don't know of anyone who has done specifically what you are trying (so you will be blazing some new ground here). But if you do make this work (and I think you can if you put time into it), I'd love to see the list because I would probably run it myself since my group is flaky as a whole but I can get one or two guys regularly if I had a viable cube for a group that small (which currently I do not).
I don't think it's that hard to take tools away from control and add tools to midrange to even that matchup up in cube. Card advantage is attached to almost every card in cube, so that really isn't as much of an advantage for control as it is in other formats (IMO anyway). Wrath effects are not as damaging here because you can play around them easily in midrange (between your own two for one cards and all the recurring threats - wrath and board sweeping effects really aren't what wreck midrange). Counterspells can be a small problem though if you have too many since it hurts the midrange player's tempo so much, so I would probably limit those a bit (though you don't have to remove them IMO - maybe just get rid of the more broken ones like mana drain and counterspell). Sure, control still has the advantage in the long run, but all you need is enough of a shift to bring the matchup more even.
I'd start with limiting bombs first personally. These are going to do way more damage to your meta than anything else. Cards that completely undo board presence AND give the other guy complete control (I'm thinking dudes like Wurmcoil and Grave Titan) are going to be really bad for your meta without a strong aggro presence to keep people honest. With no aggro, everyone is free to durdle, and that means games will come down to who can drop the most bombs. IMO, you sill want aggressive midrange to be good and these types of cards completely undo those decks.
Another option is one that requires a break from a lot of hard rules for cubing. Mainly breaking singleton. Some guys are experimenting with "draft one get two". So you draft something like Firedrinker Satyr and you get two of them instead of one. What this will do is allow you to much more easily assemble an good aggro deck without having to rely on getting enough two power one drops. It also saves slots in your cube at the same time (since you only waste one slot on the aggro dude but that ends up giving two of those cards during deck building). This will need a lot of testing obviously since too many 2 for 1 cards and you make aggro too easy to assemble.
I was looking for a place to put some of my thoughts down about aggressive decks in 2022.
Aggressive decks have become the most prevalent archetype with manlands, Canopy Lands etc, endless number of strong red, black, white 2-4 drops, aggressive planeswalkers, strong 2 for 1 removal, tempo creatures etc. I feel that aggro/ tempo decks should be the most dominant archetype over midrange.
My goal is to move aggressive decks as 40-50% of the decks with midrange/ combo/ archetype/ control decks representing the remaining 50-60%:
- Red, Black, White 2-4 drops are the most competitive cube cards with many playables while ramp/ control cards/ combo pieces are the least competitive and cubes are 500-700 cards are often scraping for playables for their minimum archetype support.
- Aggressive decks are much more interactive/ tempo based than 6 years ago. Decks with cheap creatures, tempo card advantage etc. are much more decision heavy/ interactive than traditional decks
- Removal and especially sweepers in combo decks will be much more powerful and will significantly help to improve the strength of these decks.
- Cube Power 9 such as Recurring Nightmare, Mana Drain, Treachery etc. are nightmares in midrange vs midrange matchups, but aggressive decks can often keep unfair strategies in check limiting their potency
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm actively maintaining a comprehensive article to help explain to new cube players how some complex vintage level cards work in a cube environment. Vintage Cube Cards Explained
I enjoy reading posts like this about macro-design philosophy.
40-50% seems like a lot to me, but definitions are important. If blue tempo is part of this aggro density then it makes sense, because you’re not really saying “half the draft is hard aggro.” In our 8-person drafts it feels right to have 2 of the players drafting dedicated/hard aggro, one that’s more tempo, and one that’s a bit more oddball like combo-aggro or aggressively slanted midrange.
It could look something like this:
-Red aggro
-White aggro
-BlueX tempo (often Izzet but sometimes Dimir, Azorius, or mono)
-Secondary aggressive-style deck (aggro reanimator, aggro black devotion/stax aggressively slanted green midrange)
It’s also common for us to have a Boros aggro drafter in which case the aggro decks at the table may look more like:
-Boros aggro
-Rakdos aggro/midrange
-BW tokens (aggro)
-BlueX tempo
I like the drafts that shape up like this because they are more interesting than “find my mono aggro lane.”
I was looking for a place to put some of my thoughts down about aggressive decks in 2022.
Aggressive decks have become the most prevalent archetype with manlands
I've actually had the opposite experience where aggressive strategies have been on the decline since around MH2. I'd imagine it was a combination of a few things for me:
- I went down to 480 from 540 when MH2 was released. In my experience, aggro performs better in larger cubes (at least ones similar to mine) than they would in a smaller cube of the same power level. The smaller the cube is, the better chances that combo / control / midrange will be able to keep up with aggro's consistency.
- The prevalence of new free spells like the MH2 evoke elementals and increased modality of cards like MDFCs / channel / etc is an overall net negative for aggro since these types of cards favor midrange / control, and gives them a lot more options to interact with aggro in the early game.
- While aggro has been getting some nice upgrades, I think they're marginal upgrades compared to what everything else has been getting.
Here's my 3-0 results since the release around MH2, 72 drafts recorded:
Aggro: 12
Control: 17
Combo: 16
Midrange: 20
Tempo: 3
Ramp: 4
Total: 72
In previous years, aggro was usually #2 to midrange (which is usually at the top because it has the widest umbrella). Control was on a pretty steep decline before last year, but the trends have reversed since MH2 for me. The meta is still fairly balanced overall between the 4 big archetype theaters. I'll probably be moving up to 540 again soon to expand on some design concepts / make room for more new cards, and I think that will help balance out things a bit more with making aggro more consistent and bring down blue down a notch.
Tokens is loved in my group too, with green and red and white all viable choices. Just wanted to point out that you do run what I consider the best token anthem: Mirror Entity. In our cube Symbol Status is the king of all tokens. Casting Status for 8-10 1/1s is pretty easy. Following up with Mirror Entity and then making them even 2/2s will often end the game on the spot. Its like a better Craterhoof.
Just my $.10.
Yes Mirror Entity is pretty much kill on sight. Its really good in these types of decks
https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/3pq
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
Mirari's Wake never really got traction with our group. It's super powerful obviously, but I don't like that it costs 5 (though in ramp that is not as much of an issue). I'm really wanting to try out Sigarda, Host of Herons. That thing just seems really hard to deal with. I also have a soft spot for angels.
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
My cube: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/9981
Visual Spoiler
Draft!
This entire thread discusses exactly why doing that is a terrible idea.
Aggro is no more parasitic than any other major theater. Control is parasitic to players that want to play midrange slugfests and think that wraths and countermagic are "un-interactive" and not fun. Midrange is parasitic to the players that want games to be as fast as possible and want their 1 and 2cc creatures to carry their deck to victory. And aggro is parasitic to players that want to do nothing and durdle all game long, stretching out games into the turn 10+ range. EVERY theater is included as a counterbalance for the other two. And removing one in its entirety would be a terrible thing to do for the health and balance of the metagame.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
I'm devoting a LOT of space to cards that are playable in exactly one deck, and it's limiting how many archetypes I can support.
I definitely disagree with you there. Big removal spells, board wipes, ramping artifacts, value cards of many kinds, bombs and finishers of a few varieties, etc are all playable in midrange, control, pod, reanimator, etc. Random token generating cards are fine in midrange and also awesome in focused token decks. Sure each archetype has a couple of specific cards that only it wants or "build around me" cards, but aggro in general has an entire suite of cards that are literally unplayable in every other deck and take up a huge amount of cube space to keep aggro competitive.
Again for context, I'm running a 180 card cube meant for mostly 2-man Winston/Winchester drafts so every card has to serve as many roles as possible. That is what made me start thinking about this over a larger more balanced cube. Is there ever a situation where it's just not worth it to support aggro?
My cube: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/9981
It could possibly just be the size of your cube, I just can't imagine myself cutting down to that size. Aggro should always be supported.
No.
I mean, maybe a 90 card pile designed to winston draft that has no control elements and no aggro elements so it's midrange vs midrange every single time you play. That's the only scenario I can come up with. If you can draft control, you need to be able to draft aggro.
And your examples of cards being used in multiple decktypes don't have the overlap you think they do. A token generator being good in "tokens" and good in midrange are the same thing. "Tokens" is just an archetype inside the midrange theater. It plays exactly like a midrange deck does, except it is looking for a specific type of synergy. Aggro creatures are playable in both aggro and tempo decks, which is essentially saying exactly the same thing as "Tokens" and midrange. But cards like Wraths are only used in one decktype, but they're somehow okay. Control-exclusive cards take up less slots, which is why they feel less "parasitic", but you're including the number of tools needed to make the theaters viable. Control needs less tools, but you still wind up with 1 aggro deck, 1 midrange deck and 1 control deck, even if the tools are split up in a 3/2/1 ratio.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
Which were awesome, by the way. And if you want to experiment with weakening or removing classic aggro, you should, and see if you like the kinds of games that result. But, like many here, I got tired of that style of play. (Not as much as most here, as you can tell by slower-than-average cube.)
For me, the solution was to adjust my 2-player draft style, to allow each person to see more cards. (I can detail what we do now, if you like, but it's a bit off-topic.) I also usually get 4-6 folks now, and the three theaters "work" better to hold each other in check than they did when I exclusively Winstoned.
My $40 MTGO cube
Draft my cube at Cubetutor!
Token generators tend to be good in aggro as well, at least to some extent. Wraths are only really good for low creature control decks, but I only play two wraths as opposed to the roughly 12 one-drops and at least that number again of two-drops which are only playable in aggro. I guess you could argue counterspells are the next biggest offender, as I run about 6 of those, but it's still not as bad. The amount of dedicated aggro cards which aren't playable elsewhere easily beats any other archetype.
Also, I don't really support Tempo (At least not a version that would willingly play one-drops), which might be a problem with my cube. I'm not really sure how to make tempo a thing even though I like the concept of supporting a deck where aggro cards and control cards are playable alongside each other. Along those lines, I think some of the issue stems from the fact that I consider the variety of midrange decks very different. Midrange ramp, midrange reanimator, midrange pod, midrange burn/beatdown, etc all feel like different decks. Boardwipe or tapout control vs spot removal or counterspell control vs ramp/Upheaval control also feel different. Aggro always feels like the same deck. Take all the dedicated aggro cards in whichever two colors are most available and turn your guys sideways every turn. The only synergy between the cards is that they all do damage and the only interesting deck decision tends to be how many burn spells to play or if it's worth playing Vivid land to get your mana up to par.
I also make this observation because I'm realizing that my aggro isn't strong enough and I'm soon to have to devote even more slots to it and taking out even more cards that are more fun in more decks.
My cube: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/9981
Based on this post I think you're having the same issue I have a lot. You're trying to support more archetypes than the size of your cube allows.
At 180, you have to have a super tight list which means most, if not all, of the cube should probably be aggro/midrange/control support. Are you really trying to support Reanimator at 180? True, combo reanimator is difficult to support at any cube size, but at 180 that requires, what, like 1/30th of your cube to be reanimation spells?
I'm going to try and save you some grief Asenion because you are stumbling into a mine field. Trust me on this one.
I recommend you check out riptidelab. It's a smaller group, but you'll find a lot of different out-of-the-box ideas there. I feel like you are going to get better feedback for what you are trying to do. This forum is geared more towards traditional/power-max cubing and that isn't what you are trying to build.
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
On spoiled card wishlisting and 'should-have-had'-isms:
I've been following the cube scene for a long time, but I'm inexperienced at actually managing my own cube and what I'm doing is quite different from the norm. I'm happy to take all advice in all forms. Also, I doubt I'll actually be cutting aggro from my cube. This is more of a thought experiment and a way to get some feedback. Thanks for the invitation to Riptide lab though, I've seen you guys before and I might stop by and see what you have to say.
That was kind of my thought for how this could go. There could be faster and slower midrange with various control elements. I actually think "midrange" is really diverse and covers numerous fun archetypes. It might be something I test at some point.
My cube: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/9981
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
My cube: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/9981
..........
@Asenion: I hope you understand that our advice and opinion sharing is always intended to enrich your cube experience. We're not trying to tear down your ideas or prohibit your playgroup from having fun. Everybody's goal here is to share our experiences to help make everybody else's time spent cubing more enjoyable. We're not pushing aggro because we have some agenda or because we care about nothing but "power max cubing" ...I suggest supporting aggro because my experiences with cubes that undersupport it (or don't support it at all) haven't been as rich and diverse (or as healthy) as my experiences with cubes that do. It's a tough hurdle for a lot of players because it dedicates a lot of slots to cards that aren't splashy and necessarily exciting. But I assure you, everybody's advice is driven by the desire to help make your cube drafting more enjoyable. None of our suggestions are driven by a desire to see uniformity or tear down others' ideas—they're coming from a place of support and good-will. That gets lost sometimes because I think we all assume (even when we shouldn't) that it's a given, when some folks interpret it as anything but. Please understand every bit of advice shared on these forums by the vast majority of posters comes from the desire to help.
Cheers, and happy cubing!
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
I tend to agree with you that there aren't enough tools to make midrange truly equal control, but in a 180 cube it's a lot easier than in something larger. If I devoted maybe 5% of the cube to midrange answers for control decks, I could play the best ones and the midrange decks would have a reasonable chance of getting at least one or two every draft. I think because of my size, it might be plausible. (Imagine if you could run 3x of every Genesis quality-level card in a 540, because that is the density I would have at 180.)
Anyway, for the moment I would rather focus on making aggro strong enough to consistently beat control instead of making midrange better.
My cube: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/9981
360 Unpowered Cube | Cubetutor
For what it's worth, I think you have a lot of options. All of them will require a lot of testing though as I don't know of anyone who has done specifically what you are trying (so you will be blazing some new ground here). But if you do make this work (and I think you can if you put time into it), I'd love to see the list because I would probably run it myself since my group is flaky as a whole but I can get one or two guys regularly if I had a viable cube for a group that small (which currently I do not).
I don't think it's that hard to take tools away from control and add tools to midrange to even that matchup up in cube. Card advantage is attached to almost every card in cube, so that really isn't as much of an advantage for control as it is in other formats (IMO anyway). Wrath effects are not as damaging here because you can play around them easily in midrange (between your own two for one cards and all the recurring threats - wrath and board sweeping effects really aren't what wreck midrange). Counterspells can be a small problem though if you have too many since it hurts the midrange player's tempo so much, so I would probably limit those a bit (though you don't have to remove them IMO - maybe just get rid of the more broken ones like mana drain and counterspell). Sure, control still has the advantage in the long run, but all you need is enough of a shift to bring the matchup more even.
I'd start with limiting bombs first personally. These are going to do way more damage to your meta than anything else. Cards that completely undo board presence AND give the other guy complete control (I'm thinking dudes like Wurmcoil and Grave Titan) are going to be really bad for your meta without a strong aggro presence to keep people honest. With no aggro, everyone is free to durdle, and that means games will come down to who can drop the most bombs. IMO, you sill want aggressive midrange to be good and these types of cards completely undo those decks.
Another option is one that requires a break from a lot of hard rules for cubing. Mainly breaking singleton. Some guys are experimenting with "draft one get two". So you draft something like Firedrinker Satyr and you get two of them instead of one. What this will do is allow you to much more easily assemble an good aggro deck without having to rely on getting enough two power one drops. It also saves slots in your cube at the same time (since you only waste one slot on the aggro dude but that ends up giving two of those cards during deck building). This will need a lot of testing obviously since too many 2 for 1 cards and you make aggro too easy to assemble.
Good luck and keep us posted.
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
Aggressive decks have become the most prevalent archetype with manlands, Canopy Lands etc, endless number of strong red, black, white 2-4 drops, aggressive planeswalkers, strong 2 for 1 removal, tempo creatures etc. I feel that aggro/ tempo decks should be the most dominant archetype over midrange.
My goal is to move aggressive decks as 40-50% of the decks with midrange/ combo/ archetype/ control decks representing the remaining 50-60%:
- Red, Black, White 2-4 drops are the most competitive cube cards with many playables while ramp/ control cards/ combo pieces are the least competitive and cubes are 500-700 cards are often scraping for playables for their minimum archetype support.
- Aggressive decks are much more interactive/ tempo based than 6 years ago. Decks with cheap creatures, tempo card advantage etc. are much more decision heavy/ interactive than traditional decks
- Removal and especially sweepers in combo decks will be much more powerful and will significantly help to improve the strength of these decks.
- Cube Power 9 such as Recurring Nightmare, Mana Drain, Treachery etc. are nightmares in midrange vs midrange matchups, but aggressive decks can often keep unfair strategies in check limiting their potency
Vintage Cube Cards Explained
Here are some other articles I've written about fine tuning your cube:
1. Minimum Archetype Support
2. Improving Green Archetypes
3. Improving White Archetypes
4. Matchup Analysis
5. Cube Combos (Work in Progress)
Draft my Cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/overview/d8i
40-50% seems like a lot to me, but definitions are important. If blue tempo is part of this aggro density then it makes sense, because you’re not really saying “half the draft is hard aggro.” In our 8-person drafts it feels right to have 2 of the players drafting dedicated/hard aggro, one that’s more tempo, and one that’s a bit more oddball like combo-aggro or aggressively slanted midrange.
It could look something like this:
-Red aggro
-White aggro
-BlueX tempo (often Izzet but sometimes Dimir, Azorius, or mono)
-Secondary aggressive-style deck (aggro reanimator, aggro black devotion/stax aggressively slanted green midrange)
It’s also common for us to have a Boros aggro drafter in which case the aggro decks at the table may look more like:
-Boros aggro
-Rakdos aggro/midrange
-BW tokens (aggro)
-BlueX tempo
I like the drafts that shape up like this because they are more interesting than “find my mono aggro lane.”
I've actually had the opposite experience where aggressive strategies have been on the decline since around MH2. I'd imagine it was a combination of a few things for me:
- I went down to 480 from 540 when MH2 was released. In my experience, aggro performs better in larger cubes (at least ones similar to mine) than they would in a smaller cube of the same power level. The smaller the cube is, the better chances that combo / control / midrange will be able to keep up with aggro's consistency.
- The prevalence of new free spells like the MH2 evoke elementals and increased modality of cards like MDFCs / channel / etc is an overall net negative for aggro since these types of cards favor midrange / control, and gives them a lot more options to interact with aggro in the early game.
- While aggro has been getting some nice upgrades, I think they're marginal upgrades compared to what everything else has been getting.
Here's my 3-0 results since the release around MH2, 72 drafts recorded:
Aggro: 12
Control: 17
Combo: 16
Midrange: 20
Tempo: 3
Ramp: 4
Total: 72
In previous years, aggro was usually #2 to midrange (which is usually at the top because it has the widest umbrella). Control was on a pretty steep decline before last year, but the trends have reversed since MH2 for me. The meta is still fairly balanced overall between the 4 big archetype theaters. I'll probably be moving up to 540 again soon to expand on some design concepts / make room for more new cards, and I think that will help balance out things a bit more with making aggro more consistent and bring down blue down a notch.
My High Octane Unpowered Cube on CubeCobra