Anyway, if you aren't building decks according to Aggro/Midrange/Control deckbuilding guidelines, how are you building decks? You say 'build around synergies', but then, are those synergies aggressive, controlling, or adaptive? What are your synergies trying to overcome? How do your opponents overcome them?
You don't have to see aggro/midrange/control interactions to have them exist. Your cards a weighted by mana cost, so there is natural stratification into fast and slow decks. You can't all play the same curve, and tempo will factor into who wins games.
I mean, you can choose to do a poor analysis, but that doesn't mean the analysis isn't poor just because you've prioritized it. Some people just enjoy the analysis and discussion enough to integrate it into their cubes. That's part of the fun, and why websites like this exist. If the answer to every question was "do whatever you want", then what do you do with those who want a refined answer?
And yet here people are arguing that we can somehow balance a meta around 100+ cards that essentially got banned because they fundamentally broke the game. If you want to believe that's possible, more power to you. Good luck with that. You are going to need it. I mind twist your hand on turn 2. Balance that.
Cube was invented to cater to those who enjoy this level of power. Those cards got banned because people were tired of them and WotC doesn't make money when people tire of the game. Cube is a dynamic limited format, so this isn't as large of a problem. The could reprint Mind Twist in M15 and it wouldn't be a huge problem for M15 limited, especially if is wasn't the only card at that power level. They won't do that because of what it does to constructed formats.
WotC's idea of balance has to cater to the long term health of their constructed formats. Cube design is very different. They didn't ban Jitte in modern because of the imbalance it created in Kamigawa limited.
You may not have caught that detail in my previous posts. My cube runs a unique set of parameters. Long story short, it plays like a cube from 5 years ago (pre M10). So those no longer broken draw engines that no longer work in most cubes still work and are broken in mine. As I mentioned to WtWlf, I desperately need to update my list on this site. And you can then add your 2 cents after you see what I'm actually running.
Well, I've had my Cube for over 5 years and Genesis wasn't broken then either, merely good.
The sense I get from your statements is that you run an 'underpowered/out of date' Cube that contains less inherently powerful cards that, in your opinion, increase in power level when built around (or 'combo' with other cards). You also say that your playgroup:
- Doesn't really try to win
- Aren't very good players
- Don't care to improve in any way
That last point, I think, is a bit odd as human nature tends to want to not fail at things or at the very least show some level of competency. The other, more important thing, is that games that are meant to to have a winner and loser are more fun when both teams are trying their hardest to win. I played in a Theros draft last night in which my first round opponent had all the 'terrible' cards in their deck, and it was literally no fun for me to just cave his skull in with my very good deck.
I guess my overall point is that you seem to be seeking a Cube experience that is significantly different than most others are doing, so there is a dissonance in what you are trying to 'teach' most people here.
Many are, yes. Would you consider the MTGO cube to cater more towards the competitive players or the casuals? I would say it's more the latter. And do you think that's because the guys at Wizards are morons and don't understand Aggro/Midrange/Control balance? Or do you think they have geared the cube for a different crowd?
I'm not suggesting that those of you making competitive spike cubes are going things incorrectly. Clearly that caters to your playgroup. I'm arguing there are other playgroups out there that don't approach the game that way. Do we not have a voice on this site?
I mean, you can choose to do a poor analysis, but that doesn't mean the analysis isn't poor just because you've prioritized it. Some people just enjoy the analysis and discussion enough to integrate it into their cubes. That's part of the fun, and why websites like this exist. If the answer to every question was "do whatever you want", then what do you do with those who want a refined answer?
I'd be choosing to do a poor analysis if I ignored what my playgroup enjoys. If I stuffed my cube with more aggro cards than I have now, guys would be unhappy because those aren't the decks they generally enjoy building.
Those cards got banned because people were tired of them and WotC doesn't make money when people tire of the game. Cube is a dynamic limited format, so this isn't as large of a problem. The could reprint Mind Twist in M15 and it wouldn't be a huge problem for M15 limited, especially if is wasn't the only card at that power level. They won't do that because of what it does to constructed formats.
Finally someone admits this point I made 4 pages ago. Limited (cube) and constructed are different. And because of that, you don't see the same level of hard lines between aggro/midrange/control.
As far as reprinting mind twist. No, that would never happen because the card is degenerate. It was a mistake, in the same way black lotus was a mistake. They didn't understand how much it would undermine the fundamental rules of the game (and by they, I mean Richard Garfield).
The cardinal rule is always to do what's best for the playgroup. If your dudes aren't forcing blue control decks to thrash your midrange heavy environment because everybody is playing a super lax table, then aggro isn't as important for you. It proved to be critical for us because control was too good in a format over-represented by midrange decks. Aggro had to be improved because players were breaking the table and exploiting the natural imbalances inherent to traditional midrange slugfest "dragon" cubes. If your playgroup isn't interested in exploiting format weaknesses to win, leave the Jackal Pups out of your list. If you find yourself (or others in your group) starting to take advantage of the laxness of your drafts and winning by forcing control, you might consider making aggro better to punish those players and fix the table. If it's not a problem for you because of the types of players you have, great. But if it starts to rear its ugly head at some point, you can start a new thread called: "My players are crushing my table with control, how do I make aggro better" ...and we can all chime in to help you out.
That last point, I think, is a bit odd as human nature tends to want to not fail at things or at the very least show some level of competency. The other, more important thing, is that games that are meant to to have a winner and loser are more fun when both teams are trying their hardest to win. I played in a Theros draft last night in which my first round opponent had all the 'terrible' cards in their deck, and it was literally no fun for me to just cave his skull in with my very good deck.
I guess my overall point is that you seem to be seeking a Cube experience that is significantly different than most others are doing, so there is a dissonance in what you are trying to 'teach' most people here.
-AA
For the record, I'm not trying to "teach" anybody anything. Unlike some on here who feel their opinion is somehow better than others, I simply am pointing out a different perspective on the game.
Guys in my group try to improve in a limited way. As we draft more, they make better decks. As we play more, they get more familiar with some of the newer cards and they make fewer mistakes (like not walking into my rebounded consuming vapors). They aren't a bunch of soulless vegetables. But by the same token, when we end game night they go home and live there lives. They don't jump on forums like I do and try to learn more about the game. Most of my players were into the game a long time ago, and they've moved on. They are playing my cube because I took the time to build it and they enjoy getting together and Magic is still fun for them as long as they don't have to buy cards. I've put a lot of things in the cube I know they enjoy doing - and that includes older cards (one of my players started playing back in 1993) and cards that favor decks which focus on a lot of synergistic effects.
The cardinal rule is always to do what's best for the playgroup. If your dudes aren't forcing blue control decks to thrash your midrange heavy environment because everybody is playing a super lax table, then aggro isn't as important for you. It proved to be critical for us because control was too good in a format over-represented by midrange decks. Aggro had to be improved because players were breaking the table and exploiting the natural imbalances inherent to traditional midrange slugfest "dragon" cubes. If your playgroup isn't interested in exploiting format weaknesses to win, leave the Jackal Pups out of your list. If you find yourself (or others in your group) starting to take advantage of the laxness of your drafts and winning by forcing control, you might consider making aggro better to punish those players and fix the table. If it's not a problem for you because of the types of players you have, great. But if it starts to rear its ugly head at some point, you can start a new thread called: "My players are crushing my table with control, how do I make aggro better" ...and we can all chime in to help you out.
Point well taken. And I certainly know enough about my cube to probably break my meta if I tried. But the lax environment lets my nurture my inner Johnny. And I don't care if I win as long as everyone is having fun (and I'm able to bust out a combo or two over the course of the night).
Honestly, deck building is the most enjoyable part of the game for me so it's really about the draft experience and what ideas I can come up with to push the synergies in different ways. Sometimes that works and I make a really good deck, and sometimes it ends up a pile of random stuff and I end up losing.
I want to preface this post by asking that I be pardoned for using this alternating "quote-reply" format, as it's a pretty easy way to be antagonistic. I think ahadabans actually raised some great points, and I'd like to go into some depth on them, so I hope not to sound like I'm being dismissive.
Many are, yes. Would you consider the MTGO cube to cater more towards the competitive players or the casuals? I would say it's more the latter. And do you think that's because the guys at Wizards are morons and don't understand Aggro/Midrange/Control balance? Or do you think they have geared the cube for a different crowd?
I don't know why they made the MTGO cube the way they have, but I don't think it is a result of extensive game-play analysis. I think it's somewhat a showcase for their products and that the people in charge are more concerned with their own pet cards than archetype balance. I think this cube is unpowered and large because they don't want people to figure it out too quickly, and they want to give time for players to play with their clunky, mediocre decks, rather than just letting other decks mop the floor with their powerhouse decks. In a powered 360, it can be much clearer much more quickly that you've built a bad deck.
I'm not suggesting that those of you making competitive spike cubes are going things incorrectly. Clearly that caters to your playgroup. I'm arguing there are other playgroups out there that don't approach the game that way. Do we not have a voice on this site?
You certainly do have a voice, and I don't think anyone is trying to take that away from you or otherwise be deaf to what you're saying. It's just that your core point, if taken to be a summary position on cube design, will tend to end discussion. When the question is "how are traditional archetypes important to cube design", you can't just say "they're not" and pretend to answer the question. In some cubes they may not be, but (a) that's debatable, and (b) that doesn't address the times when they are.
I'd be choosing to do a poor analysis if I ignored what my playgroup enjoys. If I stuffed my cube with more aggro cards than I have now, guys would be unhappy because those aren't the decks they generally enjoy building.
But that's a different problem domain altogether, and thus not what the topic at hand is trying to address. Everyone should already know you have to listen to your playgroup's wants, but when your playgroup wants balance, then you open up this kind of discussion about traditional archetypal roles. That's why this thread was created: if you want balance, how do you get it? What does it mean to have a balanced cube? Why does it matter?
Finally someone admits this point I made 4 pages ago. Limited (cube) and constructed are different. And because of that, you don't see the same level of hard lines between aggro/midrange/control.
The lines aren't in the same place, but they are usually still there. There are aggro and control decks in THS, RTR, ZEN, etc. These lines aren't drawn because the decks were explicitly built, but because the MTG mana system causes them. Once you realize that these systems exist -- that different decks both attack and use different resources -- then you can choose cards that do this more efficiently, which only helps to make the archetypes more stable and obvious. (Thus you get your Goblin Guides and Deep Analysises'ses.)
You could try to cut these cards, but you can't cut all the most powerful cards and expect control to disappear. Other cards will simply fall into their place, and control decks will use them instead. Cut Upheaval, they'll use Wrath. Cut Wrath, they'll use Shriekmaw. Cut Shriekmaw, they'll use Wall of Blossoms. That's already assuming you don't have any permission in your cube. You can't get rid of these archetypes because they are not dependent upon specific cards, but upon resources inherent to the game.
As far as reprinting mind twist. No, that would never happen because the card is degenerate. It was a mistake, in the same way black lotus was a mistake. They didn't understand how much it would undermine the fundamental rules of the game (and by they, I mean Richard Garfield).
Undermining the rules of the game is just changing the rules of the game. Was Pack Rat a mistake? Broodmate Dragon? Archangel of Thune? Travel Preparations? Just because a card dominates a limited format doesn't make it a mistake. Limited formats are already dominated by certain cards, and you can chalk it up to luck when you lose to them. Or, you could find the tools to answer them. Sometimes that means hitting them hard and fast to ensure they never have the time to interact in that manner.
I dislike Mind Twist in cube as much as the next person, but it doesn't imbalance the cube as a whole, only the games it shows up in. That's the beauty of limited, and the reason constructed makes WotC official limited formats weaker. It doesn't make cube weaker.
Thanks for the reply Retra. You make valid points and I just wanted to comment on two of them.
When the question is "how are traditional archetypes important to cube design", you can't just say "they're not" and pretend to answer the question. In some cubes they may not be, but (a) that's debatable, and (b) that doesn't address the times when they are.
This has been the crux of the argument I think. My stance is that there is a much softer line in cube when it comes to the R/P/S thing. Not that it doesn't exist at all (or you can't make the line harder if you want to), but simply that it's much less oppressive in general (and can be made even less oppressive with how you build your cube). If you have fewer tools that control can dominate games with (or at least ones that need to be built around) and fewer tools with which to make brutally efficient aggro decks, you end up with a more midrangy type meta - basically what you see in traditional limited formats. Except in cube it is more defined by broken card interactions and creative deck building versus repetitive creature wars of attrition (since limited is so underpowered by comparison).
I suppose we all just keep repeating the same arguments and it isn't getting us anywhere. So I won't keep going with this. I understand how traditional magic balances the game. It's not lost on me. I just don't believe that mechanic is as strong in cube because of the high power level and swingy nature of the games. When control can theoretically drop their finishers on turn 3 and midrange can still win via some broken card combination or aggro with a 5 drop or two can still get 10+ damage in late in the game. I don't know. I just don't see the Aggro/Midrange/Control thing being all that relevant.
I played constructed for years and I can't count how many games were decided simply by match-ups - no real skill involved at all. I'd play a control deck and my friend would bust out an aggro deck, and the game was over before it started. Turn one stomping ground Kird Ape. Turn two temple garden watch wolf - I check my hand, no sweeper, scoop (this is a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the idea). It was predictable in ways that cube never is. Constructed drove me from magic. Cube brought me back because it DIDN'T play the same way. My opinion I guess.
Undermining the rules of the game is just changing the rules of the game. Was Pack Rat a mistake? Broodmate Dragon? Archangel of Thune? Travel Preparations? Just because a card dominates a limited format doesn't make it a mistake.
I think there is a big difference between the cards you mentioned and mind twist / black lotus / library. There are cards that dominate a format and then there are cards that simply break the game. Two things you can't mess with in Magic - under costed fast mana and under costed draw/discard. The entire game is based around resources - mana to cast things and cards to play. By printing cards that mess that either of those things to the degree that the cards above do, you essentially break the game. It would be like printing a card that basically said "you win the game". Would that be changing the rules of the game too? Or just making the game entirely pointless? Why not just flip a coin before the match starts and heads you win, tails I win?
I understand one card out of 360+ in a limited format isn't going to break the game. Guys are certainly free to cube with mind twist, et. all. But IMO it only weakens your meta when guys can basically auto win games with a lucky draw. I realize sometimes you find a way to win after getting your hand mind twisted on turn 3. And if celebrating that one victory in 100 is something your group likes, more power to you. My group is not a fan of that kind of thing though. They don't mind losing, but they want to play cards and feel like they have a chance to win.
I think the important part isn't that the opponent have powerful card, but you also have powerful card of your own as well. That's why I run 360, so that powerful card can appear as often as possible and be spread to many players.
Winning 1 victory in 100 is just clear exaggeration, though. My opponent may have Library, but I got Sol Ring. That's the part I love about cube, and I wouldn't be interest in cubing without those interaction in the first place.
If you have a powered cube, you must not think in terms of
Quote from OP_Forever »
My opponent may have Library, but I got Sol Ring.
but start thinking in terms of "My opponent may have Library, but I got Manamorphose."
Except that I'd never run Manamorphose unless my cube was like 1,000 cards or I really wanted to support Storm. If I was supporting Storm, lots of things in my cube would be different. I think it's perfectly valid to think exactly as OP does and I often do.
I find in Powered cubes, Moxen/Recall/Lotus/Library/etc. are far from unbeatable. They are extremely powerful, but they can be beaten and get beaten pretty regularly.
To beat individual power cards (like the moxes, jitte, recurring nightmare, etc.) you need to build synergistic decks that do equally broken things. IMO, it's not good enough to run tons of power hate cards. A deck with mox monkey and pithing needle still loses most of the time to the mox/recurring nightmare deck/jitte deck because those cards warp the game way more than the specific answer cards do.
I've been working on an update to my cube that focuses even more on arch type support with some more narrow card choices. To test this, I've put together a really hard to beat aggressive deck with lots of really high powered cards in it (swords, jitte, armageddon). And to beat this deck, I have to build my other decks with tons of synergy not just answers. I've put together some really solid decks that lose to this power deck every time because they simply play to "fair".
Sometimes it's not enough to just get rid of the jitte, especially if you spent two turns looking for an answer while your opponent built a huge tempo lead on you. Answers are great, but birthing pod a string of ETB creatures for example is almost always better because it lets me ignore my opponents jitte (for the most part) plus it isn't useless if my opponent doesn't get his jitte (as it's a win condition and not just a hate play). That's what I want my cube doing - broken stuff left and right to where recurring nigthtmare feels par for the course.
The power cards are just another group of broken things floating around in the cube. It's nice to play answers to them, but the best way to beat power is to play a good deck.
I consider myself to be a pretty smart dude, to be knowledgeable about Cube and my vision of what it could/should be, to have a pretty extensive vocabulary and have a good ability to interpret and express concepts on a variety of topics.
And yet, Gubbe, I read some of your posts and really have no idea what exactly it is that you are trying to express. It seems like people agree with you, but then you say 'no it's more than that', and then expound about soccer and goblins and luck (?) and I'm left wondering what it is that you were trying to express deeper than what wtwlf has already said. The luck comment in particular makes no sense to me, as the reason Magic (and poker) are still around and played so widely is due to a higher variance factor than Vs. System and its ilk. Luck is part of the drafting process inherently, and that's OK, in my opinion. I don't think completely eliminating luck is something you want to be doing (or possible).
Good cube designers use all sorts of tools to balance their Cubes, but your posts often read to me as 'You're not doing enough to [evaluate] your Cube like I am' and I just can't find that new piece of groundbreaking Cube wisdom that you seem convinced you are expressing. I feel like the discussions in which you engage wind up being restatements of the same points, but using examples which don't really prove your point the way you want them to (like Manamorphose, seen above).
I say all of this not to be ill-spirited, but to try to help you focus what it is that you are trying to say. You obviously have a passion for this format that we have all come to love, and even after getting a mandatory vacation you came back to talk about it some more. I'd really like to be able to clearly understand what it is you are trying to say, and I hope this post helps you look inward a bit to find a way to do that and share your viewpoint more effectively.
In the Gruul thread, someone brought up what the definition of "aggro" actually was. And three different posters gave different definitions. One even had a ramp deck as "Aggro" (which I think most would generally consider midrange - though it was an aggressively built ramp deck to be fair).
Point being, it really depends on how you define "aggro" as to whether I would agree it is "niche". I think wtwlf would say aggro is defined by your 2 power one drop decks that put pressure on turn one (or two). If that is the definition we use, then I would agree that aggro is niche (or more specifically, it is an arch type like reanimator and not a theatre) and I'm personally not a fan of that particular deck representing 1/3 of my meta.
I like to see a 2 power one drop traditional aggro deck at the table because it is effective against a lot of slower decks, but I also want to see other aggressive decks that use different strategies - like tempo (typically blue), or aggressive midrange (like a fast ramp Grull deck with hasty beaters as per above), or even a denial deck of some kind (Pox or whatever). Those are all aggressive and yet are not 2 power one drop aggro.
For those of you who love the 2 power one drop aggro decks, more power to you. But I don't see why you guys want (or feel it is necessary) for one third of the table to be running it to balance your meta. That makes me sad honestly. Cube is capable of so much more than that. It's like owning a ferrari and never taking it past 65. IHMO.
First off, aggro is not a niche strategy. If you think that it is, or if it is for your cube, we're never going to see things the same way. It's not niche in my playgroup. It's the opposite of niche. It's equally represented, has multiple decks it can create from the same pool, and has a ton of interchangeable parts. By definition, that makes aggro the opposite of a niche strategy, if you support it appropriately. If you have poor aggro support, it's a niche strategy. That was a problem I fixed when designing my cube.
Secondly, the "all things being equal except one dude has power and the other dude doesn't" doesn't apply to the cube. It's a singleton environment with different cards that do different things in different ways. No two 40 card decks are the same. So you don't have player A with the exact same deck sans power as player B. Ever. So that logic doesn't apply. You pass good cards to take power cards, which means you may have a Mox in your deck, but that doesn't mean that your opponent's deck doesn't have 3 or 4 cards in their list that are massive upgrades over some similar cards in your deck, and it puts both players on relatively even footing again.
So your point becomes: "If player A and player B are doing identical things, and player B has better cards, his deck will be better". Profound.
Quote from ahadabans »
For those of you who love the 2 power one drop aggro decks, more power to you. But I don't see why you guys want (or feel it is necessary) for one third of the table to be running it to balance your meta. That makes me sad honestly. Cube is capable of so much more than that. It's like owning a ferrari and never taking it past 65. IHMO.
Aggro is a huge part of Magic's history and metagame. And it's come in all shapes, sizes, colors and strategies over the years. To have a cube draft only capable of producing maybe one beatdown aggro deck at a time makes me sad, honestly. The cube is capable of so much more than that.
So the cube can force multiple midrange goodstuff decks and multiple dedicated control decks at any given time, but for some reason it's a disappointment if you can churn out more than one traditional aggro deck. Interesting.
..........
And Antknee42, thanks for saying that. I thought I was alone on an island here struggling to understand what Gubbe85's been trying to illustrate. I want to have a constructive on-point discussion, but it seems like that might just be wishful thinking at this point.
I don't know if the discussion is suddenly about power/no power.
But this picture from my last cube session, in a random game on turn 2, shows why I like power.
It also shows the classical Aggro vs Control matchup.
To explain the situation, the guy with mox (me) also had a Lotus Petal. And the other guy made a fatal mistake of casting the O. Stone with Grim Monolith. He had another land in hand, and wanted to put a counter on his Sol Ring anyway, and proceed to kill the board. Unfortunately he hadn't thought about the Rishadan port.
- Balancing a cube means you strive for the elimination of as much luck as possible. (The possibility is arbitrarily dictated i.e., you could build a 540 pack rat cube)
This is just a byproduct of the end goal, not a meaningful goal in itself. The game's inherent nature means luck can only be minimized, never eliminated. Even with that nonsense example of a Pack Rat cube. You would have to change the fundamental rules of the game, which is a step most cubers don't really follow.
- Having a good deck means nothing if your opponent has the same deck with 4 moxes, black lotus and recall.
You seem to be under the impression that there are winners and losers in cube, where winners have power and losers don't. This couldn't be less true in my years of drafting a 720 powered cube.
In any case, I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what I would do with one if I caught it.
The Dark Knight references went out of style years ago and the implied Joker self-comparison, while shedding a light on some worrisome personality elements, is in bad taste. But hey, why not quote some Hunter S. Thompson and Che Guevara while you're at it, you gonzo revolutionary you. That'll make you look even more hip and intellectual
You've had a chance to expound (or is that excrete? :D) your views at length, so allow me to provide some free advice:
1. Speak English. You're not in philosophy class anymore, you're in the real world. No one is grading you on the size of your words or the lengths you go to in obfuscating your text. No one comes here for jargon masquerading as information. That's what the philosophy class was for! You've tightened up the screws and it shows, but the occasional stream of pseudo-academic prose still escapes. And it's a shame, because you sometimes show a brilliant turn of phrase lost in that self-congratulatory sludge. You have a gift that could spread understanding and instead spreads confusion.
2. No attacking other people's intelligence. Bad, bad Gubbe65. Just because Antknee considers himself fairly intelligent but might not be so, doesn't mean we have to compare him to Socrates (really, Socrates? You don't want to throw in Jesus Christ and Albert Einstein while you're at it?) just to make a point. That's what we save our arguments for.
3. If we have to talk about sending rabbits to Australia or soccer player Lionel Messi in a forum about Magic cards, you've probably gone too far. I'm not sure if you just like to wax lyrical without really thinking through the ramifications of your analogies or if you genuinely have no idea about limits, but I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt and ask that please, save yourself further embarrassment - when your next madcap idea clocks in with a flash of inspiration, check first to see if it holds water. Particularly if you're going to use it to challenge established ideas.
4. You are not the white knight, dark knight, or really any color knight this forum needs or deserves. When you spend as much time talking about your crusade as you do about your points, your entire "thing" becomes about the messenger instead of the message. And as much as Nietzsche popularized the "be a bastard to your fans" routine and your boy Socrates made it his signature style, it really doesn't work in a crowdsourced environment like the forums. You want to philosophize about Magic? Take some time and actually put together a theory with some substance. I welcome such a venture as something worthy of our intellects (if you'll excuse my humble belief that I even have an intellect, lol!). You want to use that opportunity to poke holes in the importance of aggro and talk about how dinosaurs actually had feathers? Yo, that sounds like a winning combination to me.
I would like you to be specific in this statement, because I don't think it is, or at least not enough to justify 1/3rd of the pie. Again, a request to name the beasts.
Sligh, Red Deck Wins, Burn, Ponza (all different variations of Red Aggro)
White Weenie
Suicide Black
Green Stompy
These are all classic mono-colored aggro decks from early standards, Extended, and Legacy.
Then you've got decks like Zoo, Goblins, Affinity, RDW variations in pretty much every standard ever, etc.
Modern Magic is very much Midrange everywhere, but historically, Aggro has been 1/3rd+ of most metagames pre Modern. The classic "balanced" meta was 1/3rd aggro 1/3rd combo 1/3rd control.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
Sligh, Red Deck Wins, Burn, Ponza (all different variations of Red Aggro)
White Weenie
Suicide Black
Green Stompy
These are all classic mono-colored aggro decks from early standards, Extended, and Legacy.
Then you've got decks like Zoo, Goblins, Affinity, RDW variations in pretty much every standard ever, etc.
Modern Magic is very much Midrange everywhere, but historically, Aggro has been 1/3rd+ of most metagames pre Modern. The classic "balanced" meta was 1/3rd aggro 1/3rd combo 1/3rd control.
The first 4 decks are all heavy (or mono) red based (how many of those can you really draft?). White Weenie really works better as an aggressive midrange deck because it has no late game reach like Boros does. Suicide black is cool (though generally weaker than red aggro decks because the creatures aren't better and you have more self inflicted life loss). Green stompy is garbage in cube - there's a reason most everyone has moved green towards midrange/ramp. Zoo, OK. Goblins? Affinity? In cube? Talk about niche. You might as well support storm or heartbeat combo. RDW - back to red decks.
I fail to see how you make the above 1/3 of your meta in cube. And you even pointed out that modern magic is very much midrange, so why shouldn't that be represented in cube?
The funny thing is that my cube is semi-retro. If anything, it should be playing more like classic magic not less. I really don't get how everyone running walkers and titans is stopping their cube from being midrange/control centric - well I know how you are doing it (by running tons of lackluster aggro cards to force an arch type into a theatre to get to some theoretical ideal). But I just don't understand the reasoning.
Anyway, if you aren't building decks according to Aggro/Midrange/Control deckbuilding guidelines, how are you building decks? You say 'build around synergies', but then, are those synergies aggressive, controlling, or adaptive? What are your synergies trying to overcome? How do your opponents overcome them?
You don't have to see aggro/midrange/control interactions to have them exist. Your cards a weighted by mana cost, so there is natural stratification into fast and slow decks. You can't all play the same curve, and tempo will factor into who wins games.
I mean, you can choose to do a poor analysis, but that doesn't mean the analysis isn't poor just because you've prioritized it. Some people just enjoy the analysis and discussion enough to integrate it into their cubes. That's part of the fun, and why websites like this exist. If the answer to every question was "do whatever you want", then what do you do with those who want a refined answer?
Cube was invented to cater to those who enjoy this level of power. Those cards got banned because people were tired of them and WotC doesn't make money when people tire of the game. Cube is a dynamic limited format, so this isn't as large of a problem. The could reprint Mind Twist in M15 and it wouldn't be a huge problem for M15 limited, especially if is wasn't the only card at that power level. They won't do that because of what it does to constructed formats.
WotC's idea of balance has to cater to the long term health of their constructed formats. Cube design is very different. They didn't ban Jitte in modern because of the imbalance it created in Kamigawa limited.
Well, I've had my Cube for over 5 years and Genesis wasn't broken then either, merely good.
The sense I get from your statements is that you run an 'underpowered/out of date' Cube that contains less inherently powerful cards that, in your opinion, increase in power level when built around (or 'combo' with other cards). You also say that your playgroup:
- Doesn't really try to win
- Aren't very good players
- Don't care to improve in any way
That last point, I think, is a bit odd as human nature tends to want to not fail at things or at the very least show some level of competency. The other, more important thing, is that games that are meant to to have a winner and loser are more fun when both teams are trying their hardest to win. I played in a Theros draft last night in which my first round opponent had all the 'terrible' cards in their deck, and it was literally no fun for me to just cave his skull in with my very good deck.
I guess my overall point is that you seem to be seeking a Cube experience that is significantly different than most others are doing, so there is a dissonance in what you are trying to 'teach' most people here.
-AA
I use descriptive language. Assume that I'm being nice and respectful. (I'll tell you when I'm not.)
My Cube: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/9029
Many are, yes. Would you consider the MTGO cube to cater more towards the competitive players or the casuals? I would say it's more the latter. And do you think that's because the guys at Wizards are morons and don't understand Aggro/Midrange/Control balance? Or do you think they have geared the cube for a different crowd?
I'm not suggesting that those of you making competitive spike cubes are going things incorrectly. Clearly that caters to your playgroup. I'm arguing there are other playgroups out there that don't approach the game that way. Do we not have a voice on this site?
I'd be choosing to do a poor analysis if I ignored what my playgroup enjoys. If I stuffed my cube with more aggro cards than I have now, guys would be unhappy because those aren't the decks they generally enjoy building.
Finally someone admits this point I made 4 pages ago. Limited (cube) and constructed are different. And because of that, you don't see the same level of hard lines between aggro/midrange/control.
As far as reprinting mind twist. No, that would never happen because the card is degenerate. It was a mistake, in the same way black lotus was a mistake. They didn't understand how much it would undermine the fundamental rules of the game (and by they, I mean Richard Garfield).
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
For the record, I'm not trying to "teach" anybody anything. Unlike some on here who feel their opinion is somehow better than others, I simply am pointing out a different perspective on the game.
Guys in my group try to improve in a limited way. As we draft more, they make better decks. As we play more, they get more familiar with some of the newer cards and they make fewer mistakes (like not walking into my rebounded consuming vapors). They aren't a bunch of soulless vegetables. But by the same token, when we end game night they go home and live there lives. They don't jump on forums like I do and try to learn more about the game. Most of my players were into the game a long time ago, and they've moved on. They are playing my cube because I took the time to build it and they enjoy getting together and Magic is still fun for them as long as they don't have to buy cards. I've put a lot of things in the cube I know they enjoy doing - and that includes older cards (one of my players started playing back in 1993) and cards that favor decks which focus on a lot of synergistic effects.
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
Point well taken. And I certainly know enough about my cube to probably break my meta if I tried. But the lax environment lets my nurture my inner Johnny. And I don't care if I win as long as everyone is having fun (and I'm able to bust out a combo or two over the course of the night).
Honestly, deck building is the most enjoyable part of the game for me so it's really about the draft experience and what ideas I can come up with to push the synergies in different ways. Sometimes that works and I make a really good deck, and sometimes it ends up a pile of random stuff and I end up losing.
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
I don't know why they made the MTGO cube the way they have, but I don't think it is a result of extensive game-play analysis. I think it's somewhat a showcase for their products and that the people in charge are more concerned with their own pet cards than archetype balance. I think this cube is unpowered and large because they don't want people to figure it out too quickly, and they want to give time for players to play with their clunky, mediocre decks, rather than just letting other decks mop the floor with their powerhouse decks. In a powered 360, it can be much clearer much more quickly that you've built a bad deck.
You certainly do have a voice, and I don't think anyone is trying to take that away from you or otherwise be deaf to what you're saying. It's just that your core point, if taken to be a summary position on cube design, will tend to end discussion. When the question is "how are traditional archetypes important to cube design", you can't just say "they're not" and pretend to answer the question. In some cubes they may not be, but (a) that's debatable, and (b) that doesn't address the times when they are.
But that's a different problem domain altogether, and thus not what the topic at hand is trying to address. Everyone should already know you have to listen to your playgroup's wants, but when your playgroup wants balance, then you open up this kind of discussion about traditional archetypal roles. That's why this thread was created: if you want balance, how do you get it? What does it mean to have a balanced cube? Why does it matter?
The lines aren't in the same place, but they are usually still there. There are aggro and control decks in THS, RTR, ZEN, etc. These lines aren't drawn because the decks were explicitly built, but because the MTG mana system causes them. Once you realize that these systems exist -- that different decks both attack and use different resources -- then you can choose cards that do this more efficiently, which only helps to make the archetypes more stable and obvious. (Thus you get your Goblin Guides and Deep Analysises'ses.)
You could try to cut these cards, but you can't cut all the most powerful cards and expect control to disappear. Other cards will simply fall into their place, and control decks will use them instead. Cut Upheaval, they'll use Wrath. Cut Wrath, they'll use Shriekmaw. Cut Shriekmaw, they'll use Wall of Blossoms. That's already assuming you don't have any permission in your cube. You can't get rid of these archetypes because they are not dependent upon specific cards, but upon resources inherent to the game.
Undermining the rules of the game is just changing the rules of the game. Was Pack Rat a mistake? Broodmate Dragon? Archangel of Thune? Travel Preparations? Just because a card dominates a limited format doesn't make it a mistake. Limited formats are already dominated by certain cards, and you can chalk it up to luck when you lose to them. Or, you could find the tools to answer them. Sometimes that means hitting them hard and fast to ensure they never have the time to interact in that manner.
I dislike Mind Twist in cube as much as the next person, but it doesn't imbalance the cube as a whole, only the games it shows up in. That's the beauty of limited, and the reason constructed makes WotC official limited formats weaker. It doesn't make cube weaker.
This has been the crux of the argument I think. My stance is that there is a much softer line in cube when it comes to the R/P/S thing. Not that it doesn't exist at all (or you can't make the line harder if you want to), but simply that it's much less oppressive in general (and can be made even less oppressive with how you build your cube). If you have fewer tools that control can dominate games with (or at least ones that need to be built around) and fewer tools with which to make brutally efficient aggro decks, you end up with a more midrangy type meta - basically what you see in traditional limited formats. Except in cube it is more defined by broken card interactions and creative deck building versus repetitive creature wars of attrition (since limited is so underpowered by comparison).
I suppose we all just keep repeating the same arguments and it isn't getting us anywhere. So I won't keep going with this. I understand how traditional magic balances the game. It's not lost on me. I just don't believe that mechanic is as strong in cube because of the high power level and swingy nature of the games. When control can theoretically drop their finishers on turn 3 and midrange can still win via some broken card combination or aggro with a 5 drop or two can still get 10+ damage in late in the game. I don't know. I just don't see the Aggro/Midrange/Control thing being all that relevant.
I played constructed for years and I can't count how many games were decided simply by match-ups - no real skill involved at all. I'd play a control deck and my friend would bust out an aggro deck, and the game was over before it started. Turn one stomping ground Kird Ape. Turn two temple garden watch wolf - I check my hand, no sweeper, scoop (this is a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the idea). It was predictable in ways that cube never is. Constructed drove me from magic. Cube brought me back because it DIDN'T play the same way. My opinion I guess.
I think there is a big difference between the cards you mentioned and mind twist / black lotus / library. There are cards that dominate a format and then there are cards that simply break the game. Two things you can't mess with in Magic - under costed fast mana and under costed draw/discard. The entire game is based around resources - mana to cast things and cards to play. By printing cards that mess that either of those things to the degree that the cards above do, you essentially break the game. It would be like printing a card that basically said "you win the game". Would that be changing the rules of the game too? Or just making the game entirely pointless? Why not just flip a coin before the match starts and heads you win, tails I win?
I understand one card out of 360+ in a limited format isn't going to break the game. Guys are certainly free to cube with mind twist, et. all. But IMO it only weakens your meta when guys can basically auto win games with a lucky draw. I realize sometimes you find a way to win after getting your hand mind twisted on turn 3. And if celebrating that one victory in 100 is something your group likes, more power to you. My group is not a fan of that kind of thing though. They don't mind losing, but they want to play cards and feel like they have a chance to win.
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
Winning 1 victory in 100 is just clear exaggeration, though. My opponent may have Library, but I got Sol Ring. That's the part I love about cube, and I wouldn't be interest in cubing without those interaction in the first place.
My cube
My cube on Cube tutor
I'm OP_Forever. I'll be putting this in my signature for a while so everyone know I change my nickname.
Except that I'd never run Manamorphose unless my cube was like 1,000 cards or I really wanted to support Storm. If I was supporting Storm, lots of things in my cube would be different. I think it's perfectly valid to think exactly as OP does and I often do.
I find in Powered cubes, Moxen/Recall/Lotus/Library/etc. are far from unbeatable. They are extremely powerful, but they can be beaten and get beaten pretty regularly.
Cheers,
rant
My Cube
CubeCobra: https://cubecobra.com/cube/overview/5f5d0310ed602310515d4c32
Cube Tutor: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/1963
To beat individual power cards (like the moxes, jitte, recurring nightmare, etc.) you need to build synergistic decks that do equally broken things. IMO, it's not good enough to run tons of power hate cards. A deck with mox monkey and pithing needle still loses most of the time to the mox/recurring nightmare deck/jitte deck because those cards warp the game way more than the specific answer cards do.
I've been working on an update to my cube that focuses even more on arch type support with some more narrow card choices. To test this, I've put together a really hard to beat aggressive deck with lots of really high powered cards in it (swords, jitte, armageddon). And to beat this deck, I have to build my other decks with tons of synergy not just answers. I've put together some really solid decks that lose to this power deck every time because they simply play to "fair".
Sometimes it's not enough to just get rid of the jitte, especially if you spent two turns looking for an answer while your opponent built a huge tempo lead on you. Answers are great, but birthing pod a string of ETB creatures for example is almost always better because it lets me ignore my opponents jitte (for the most part) plus it isn't useless if my opponent doesn't get his jitte (as it's a win condition and not just a hate play). That's what I want my cube doing - broken stuff left and right to where recurring nigthtmare feels par for the course.
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
And yet, Gubbe, I read some of your posts and really have no idea what exactly it is that you are trying to express. It seems like people agree with you, but then you say 'no it's more than that', and then expound about soccer and goblins and luck (?) and I'm left wondering what it is that you were trying to express deeper than what wtwlf has already said. The luck comment in particular makes no sense to me, as the reason Magic (and poker) are still around and played so widely is due to a higher variance factor than Vs. System and its ilk. Luck is part of the drafting process inherently, and that's OK, in my opinion. I don't think completely eliminating luck is something you want to be doing (or possible).
Good cube designers use all sorts of tools to balance their Cubes, but your posts often read to me as 'You're not doing enough to [evaluate] your Cube like I am' and I just can't find that new piece of groundbreaking Cube wisdom that you seem convinced you are expressing. I feel like the discussions in which you engage wind up being restatements of the same points, but using examples which don't really prove your point the way you want them to (like Manamorphose, seen above).
I say all of this not to be ill-spirited, but to try to help you focus what it is that you are trying to say. You obviously have a passion for this format that we have all come to love, and even after getting a mandatory vacation you came back to talk about it some more. I'd really like to be able to clearly understand what it is you are trying to say, and I hope this post helps you look inward a bit to find a way to do that and share your viewpoint more effectively.
-AA
I use descriptive language. Assume that I'm being nice and respectful. (I'll tell you when I'm not.)
My Cube: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/9029
Point being, it really depends on how you define "aggro" as to whether I would agree it is "niche". I think wtwlf would say aggro is defined by your 2 power one drop decks that put pressure on turn one (or two). If that is the definition we use, then I would agree that aggro is niche (or more specifically, it is an arch type like reanimator and not a theatre) and I'm personally not a fan of that particular deck representing 1/3 of my meta.
I like to see a 2 power one drop traditional aggro deck at the table because it is effective against a lot of slower decks, but I also want to see other aggressive decks that use different strategies - like tempo (typically blue), or aggressive midrange (like a fast ramp Grull deck with hasty beaters as per above), or even a denial deck of some kind (Pox or whatever). Those are all aggressive and yet are not 2 power one drop aggro.
For those of you who love the 2 power one drop aggro decks, more power to you. But I don't see why you guys want (or feel it is necessary) for one third of the table to be running it to balance your meta. That makes me sad honestly. Cube is capable of so much more than that. It's like owning a ferrari and never taking it past 65. IHMO.
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
Luckily that doesn't happen in a singleton format.
Secondly, the "all things being equal except one dude has power and the other dude doesn't" doesn't apply to the cube. It's a singleton environment with different cards that do different things in different ways. No two 40 card decks are the same. So you don't have player A with the exact same deck sans power as player B. Ever. So that logic doesn't apply. You pass good cards to take power cards, which means you may have a Mox in your deck, but that doesn't mean that your opponent's deck doesn't have 3 or 4 cards in their list that are massive upgrades over some similar cards in your deck, and it puts both players on relatively even footing again.
So your point becomes: "If player A and player B are doing identical things, and player B has better cards, his deck will be better". Profound.
Aggro is a huge part of Magic's history and metagame. And it's come in all shapes, sizes, colors and strategies over the years. To have a cube draft only capable of producing maybe one beatdown aggro deck at a time makes me sad, honestly. The cube is capable of so much more than that.
So the cube can force multiple midrange goodstuff decks and multiple dedicated control decks at any given time, but for some reason it's a disappointment if you can churn out more than one traditional aggro deck. Interesting.
..........
And Antknee42, thanks for saying that. I thought I was alone on an island here struggling to understand what Gubbe85's been trying to illustrate. I want to have a constructive on-point discussion, but it seems like that might just be wishful thinking at this point.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
But this picture from my last cube session, in a random game on turn 2, shows why I like power.
It also shows the classical Aggro vs Control matchup.
To explain the situation, the guy with mox (me) also had a Lotus Petal. And the other guy made a fatal mistake of casting the O. Stone with Grim Monolith. He had another land in hand, and wanted to put a counter on his Sol Ring anyway, and proceed to kill the board. Unfortunately he hadn't thought about the Rishadan port.
My Tribal cube
My 93/94 old school cube
My Artifact cube
My Hearthstone Quiz App for iOS
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
I almost stopped reading here. Morbid curiosity is my biggest flaw.
This is just a byproduct of the end goal, not a meaningful goal in itself. The game's inherent nature means luck can only be minimized, never eliminated. Even with that nonsense example of a Pack Rat cube. You would have to change the fundamental rules of the game, which is a step most cubers don't really follow.
You seem to be under the impression that there are winners and losers in cube, where winners have power and losers don't. This couldn't be less true in my years of drafting a 720 powered cube.
Gubbe85, the rebel without a cause.
The Dark Knight references went out of style years ago and the implied Joker self-comparison, while shedding a light on some worrisome personality elements, is in bad taste. But hey, why not quote some Hunter S. Thompson and Che Guevara while you're at it, you gonzo revolutionary you. That'll make you look even more hip and intellectual
You've had a chance to expound (or is that excrete? :D) your views at length, so allow me to provide some free advice:
1. Speak English. You're not in philosophy class anymore, you're in the real world. No one is grading you on the size of your words or the lengths you go to in obfuscating your text. No one comes here for jargon masquerading as information. That's what the philosophy class was for! You've tightened up the screws and it shows, but the occasional stream of pseudo-academic prose still escapes. And it's a shame, because you sometimes show a brilliant turn of phrase lost in that self-congratulatory sludge. You have a gift that could spread understanding and instead spreads confusion.
2. No attacking other people's intelligence. Bad, bad Gubbe65. Just because Antknee considers himself fairly intelligent but might not be so, doesn't mean we have to compare him to Socrates (really, Socrates? You don't want to throw in Jesus Christ and Albert Einstein while you're at it?) just to make a point. That's what we save our arguments for.
3. If we have to talk about sending rabbits to Australia or soccer player Lionel Messi in a forum about Magic cards, you've probably gone too far. I'm not sure if you just like to wax lyrical without really thinking through the ramifications of your analogies or if you genuinely have no idea about limits, but I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt and ask that please, save yourself further embarrassment - when your next madcap idea clocks in with a flash of inspiration, check first to see if it holds water. Particularly if you're going to use it to challenge established ideas.
4. You are not the white knight, dark knight, or really any color knight this forum needs or deserves. When you spend as much time talking about your crusade as you do about your points, your entire "thing" becomes about the messenger instead of the message. And as much as Nietzsche popularized the "be a bastard to your fans" routine and your boy Socrates made it his signature style, it really doesn't work in a crowdsourced environment like the forums. You want to philosophize about Magic? Take some time and actually put together a theory with some substance. I welcome such a venture as something worthy of our intellects (if you'll excuse my humble belief that I even have an intellect, lol!). You want to use that opportunity to poke holes in the importance of aggro and talk about how dinosaurs actually had feathers? Yo, that sounds like a winning combination to me.
Sincerely,
A former philosopher
My Cube (DeckStats)
My Pauper Cube: 540 (CubeTutor link!)
Level 1 Judge
Sligh, Red Deck Wins, Burn, Ponza (all different variations of Red Aggro)
White Weenie
Suicide Black
Green Stompy
These are all classic mono-colored aggro decks from early standards, Extended, and Legacy.
Then you've got decks like Zoo, Goblins, Affinity, RDW variations in pretty much every standard ever, etc.
Modern Magic is very much Midrange everywhere, but historically, Aggro has been 1/3rd+ of most metagames pre Modern. The classic "balanced" meta was 1/3rd aggro 1/3rd combo 1/3rd control.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
-AA
I use descriptive language. Assume that I'm being nice and respectful. (I'll tell you when I'm not.)
My Cube: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/9029
The first 4 decks are all heavy (or mono) red based (how many of those can you really draft?). White Weenie really works better as an aggressive midrange deck because it has no late game reach like Boros does. Suicide black is cool (though generally weaker than red aggro decks because the creatures aren't better and you have more self inflicted life loss). Green stompy is garbage in cube - there's a reason most everyone has moved green towards midrange/ramp. Zoo, OK. Goblins? Affinity? In cube? Talk about niche. You might as well support storm or heartbeat combo. RDW - back to red decks.
I fail to see how you make the above 1/3 of your meta in cube. And you even pointed out that modern magic is very much midrange, so why shouldn't that be represented in cube?
The funny thing is that my cube is semi-retro. If anything, it should be playing more like classic magic not less. I really don't get how everyone running walkers and titans is stopping their cube from being midrange/control centric - well I know how you are doing it (by running tons of lackluster aggro cards to force an arch type into a theatre to get to some theoretical ideal). But I just don't understand the reasoning.
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/