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.
These were examples of historic archetypes. Cube Aggro Archetypes are generally:
Monored
Red/White
Red/Black
Black/White
And if you support Green Aggro,
Red/Green
Green/White
Green/Black
Plus the possibilities of various 3-color combinations (notably Naya for Wild Nacatl), and the various possibilities for a blue splash for tempo counterspells and bounce.
It's really just a question of whether or not you want to devote the slots to those one drops. Personally, I'm in favor of it, even for green. Heck, I'd run 2-power one drops in blue if there were enough playable of those to support blue aggro as an archetype.
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)!
my cube. Aggro is strong early . Midrange is strong midgame. Control is strong late.
Red seems to be in most winning decks. I've even had monogreen control deck win once. It was a weird deck, but id consider it control. I play multiplayer half the time and 1v1s the other half. That being said to give background on my cube, i dont think you need all archetypes, lots of people have fun with literally just midrange. Midrange is the most important archetype in my opinion, but the best part about it is that midrange takes from both aggro and control, so while it is the most important, it doesnt really even need to be supported. People will have fun playing magic, i think to maximize fun all archetypes help.
Aha, you are mixing up the messages. The question was, as I interpreted it, "name the aggro decks in the history and metagame of Magic" NOT "name aggressive decks in the history and metagame of Magic that are good Cube decks in today's Cubes". I think this kind of misinterpretation is what causes the Magic-go-round of conversations that lead nowhere and winds up derailing potentially good discussions.
To answer the first, those decks named are good umbrellas. To name all of the permutations would take a while (like he did with red aggro), much like with 'Zoo' we have Gaea's Might Get There, traditional Zoo, Snapcaster Zoo, Dark Zoo, etc. I'd also mention the combo/aggro decks as well:
- Hatred
- Affinity (which it was before the bannings; modern affinity looks much different)
- Infect
And I would classify Goblins as a midrange deck with a very good early game (and only because of Piledriver does it have that early game).
Colors have a priori nothing to do with archetypes. Actual cards define the difference. Could you elaborate a bit more on the actual difference between those archetypes? Or to put it in terms I use a lot lately, the difference in strategy?
I mean, the strategy of any Aggro deck is going to be swinging/burning your opponent from 20-0 as quickly as possible. They're obviously going to look something alike and run similar cards, depending on color.
Red's primary strength is burn, flexible removal that also allows it to finish out a game that has stalled by going to the dome. They also have multiple 4-drops that can add a lot of damage and reach to the board as soon as they hit, like Hero of Oxid Ridge and Hellrider. Some cubes can also incorporate Land Destruction like Molten Rain here.
White can supplement its one-drops with access to Anthem effects, which also play well with token production. Cards like Swords to Plowshares provide efficient removal to clear the path, and Armageddon can stop an opponent from stabilizing the board.
Black supplements its aggressive dudes with discard effects that can rip stabilizers out of the opponent's hand. They also have resilient threats, some of the most efficient removal around, Sinkhole, draw-dudes like Dark Confidant, and Dark Ritual for explosive starts.
Green is the weakest of the aggro colors on its own. It provides a few 2-power one drops, and cards like Rancor and Curse of Predation as buffs. It also provides some of the beefiest fat like Tarmogoyf, mana elves to enable a slightly higher curve, and some extremely powerful 4 and 5 drops like Kalonian Hydra, Deranged Hermit, Polukranos, etc. It can possibly run more Stone Rain type cards if you support LD.
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)!
Ah, yes. I see it now. My apologies, that wasn't clear indeed. I don't see the relevance of traditional constructed dynamics to a cube discussion (the actual point that started this thread), and I wasnt thinking about that at all :p.
I think the biggest reason to support Aggro as an archetype is for diversity. If your two options are Midrange and Control, decks end up looking and playing a lot alike. Cube is also the last bastion of traditional Aggro decks, which are all but obsolete in Standard and Eternal formats.
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)!
I think the biggest reason to support Aggro as an archetype is for diversity. If your two options are Midrange and Control, decks end up looking and playing a lot alike. Cube is also the last bastion of traditional Aggro decks, which are all but obsolete in Standard and Eternal formats.
There are actually a number of red-based (and a white-based splashing red) decks in standard that are very good. In fact, a recent GP (Santiago) was won by a RB aggro deck that looks like an awesome redundant draft deck:
What's missing in today's aggro decks are the 'nail in the coffin'; you're not going to find Winter Orb, Tangle Wire, or Armageddon anywhere but Cube nowadays.
You are talking about overly supporting a niche strategy, in the same way the theme 'packrats'.strat' would be overly supported when you put 400 of them in a 540 cube, filling the rest with 'normal' cube cards. They are highly interchangeable, mind you.
No, I'm talking about adequately supporting a broad strategy.
It's a niche strategy because it can't contain, by your definition as exposed in that one gruulthread post, much different approaches(strategies) to victory. This is the core of the problem that I would like to discuss first, before continuing to the rock paper scissors argument. But I have yet to see an argument that says this is not true and why this is not true. Until then I keep repeating myself.
This isn't true either. Midrange wins by outclassing early threats and overpowering the middle of the game with big threats that win the game. Control wins by surviving the early onslaught, stabilizing and closing out the game with a big resilient threat. Aggro wins by putting as much pressure on the opponent as fast as possible and overwhelming defenses before they can stabilize. Every theater has the same general approach to victory.
White aggro might do it with evasion and haymaker curve toppers. Red aggro might do it with reach. Black aggro might do it with disruption. Green aggro might do it with CA critters and oversized cost/power beaters. Blue tempo might do it with a clutch tempo counter to seal the deal. They all have the same goal, but they do it in different ways. Just like the variations between decks in every other theater.
tI was an argument pulled to the extreme to make it more clear (well, at least for me it was more clear). Of course cube is way too resilient to really be subjected to this logic, though you are going down that road if you overly support stuff. This would be I think the definition of the 'overly', in a cube with power.
I know what the example was trying to do, but it didn't help make the point more than just muddy up the water.
The overly support at work! Cut the similar but weaker cards to increase powerlevel of the cube, (without getting the whole thing undraftable of course).
But this is not very applicable to aggro anyway, (unless you're talking about goblin guide), since it is a niche strategy. Aggro is all about speed and curving out with dudes and cheap tricks. If you do that the best, you will most likely win. And moxes really really really help in that area. Aggro cards themselves are almost as interchangeable as savannah lions and elite vanguard. The only diversity of the thing lies in whether you use burn, discard (not that aggro), hard removal or pump. But here we go to the problem of green again.
Again, aggro is not a niche strategy unless it's undersupported. Any more than control would is a niche strategy when you decide to intentionally exclude tools it needs to retain parity with the other theaters.
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.
Zoo, white weenie, rdw/sligh, suicide black, stompy, fish (if you want to include tempo here). Plus all the specific aggro archetypes like Affinity and Ponza and the like that have been around.
And it doesn't have to constitute a third of the pie over the course of Magic's history in order to have it be important to represent a third of the decks at the table in the cube. Constructed and cube are different.
It's all about containing as much gameplay possible. Ecosystems, as seen from a relative macro-scale, become more resilient (more 'healthy') the more diversity in life it contains.
Agreed! Which is why I want multiple different aggro decks to be available regularly, instead of boros aggro being the only game in town.
Well, it did and it didn't. It doesn't move us forward at all. All of these points are recycled; all these arguments rehashed. I've already answered all these points multiple times in this thread (and in other threads), and yet we're back again. Instead of having new on-topic points to address, or moving forward in a new direction, I wade through rabbits in Australia, major league soccer, racism and enormous balls. You've asked questions. I've answered them. You disagree for reason X. I disagree with your reason X with reason Y. And yet, here we are again debating reason X again. It's tiring. Until something new comes up, there's nothing more to discuss.
In summary: Aggro is important. It's important to support aggro enough so it has the same representation as the other major limited theaters. Aggro is only a "niche" deck if you fail to adequately support it. Without enough aggro decks at the table, control has a fundamental advantage (one good aggro deck doesn't provide a challenge to keep control in check, and it's a terrible idea when there's nothing but midrange decks roaming around). Midrange decks and control decks can be blindly forced in multiples in every draft, aggro should have the same ability. You don't agree with those points, and that's fine. But you've done an abysmal job of trying to convince me that any of those points are wrong, for any reason.
I agree with this analysis. My conclusion has been that green is too weak in a powered cube to support aggro if not latched onto either red, black or white, because you need hard removal, or burn to the dome, to battle the 'unfair' speed midrange and control can get their hands on.
Green's take on aggro, beside being exactly the same in function and even a little worse as the other colors in 1 and two drops (beside goyf, experiment one, strangleroot geist, and kudzu), is pump. Pump is just not good enough unless on a stick named rancor and maybe curse. So what green substantially really adds to aggro is rancor, and maybe curse of predation then (which i'm still testing), though it plays similar to white's anthems. There is no further reason to justify green to be a support for aggro in a powered cube.
I think there's still plenty of reason to support Green as an aggro color. While mono-green's aggro may be a little weaker than some others, green/x aggro is some of the strongest around. You get access to incredibly powerful one drops like Kird Ape, Loam Lion, and Wild Nacatl. You have extremely powerful curve-toppers like Bloodbraid Elf and Xenagoas, the Reveler. You get powerful aggressive strategies like Fires in RG, Tokens with anthems in GW, and Tempo in GU. These all directly feed off of strong support for aggro in green.
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)!
I think there's still plenty of reason to support Green as an aggro color. While mono-green's aggro may be a little weaker than some others, green/x aggro is some of the strongest around. You get access to incredibly powerful one drops like Kird Ape, Loam Lion, and Wild Nacatl. You have extremely powerful curve-toppers like Bloodbraid Elf and Xenagoas, the Reveler. You get powerful aggressive strategies like Fires in RG, Tokens with anthems in GW, and Tempo in GU. These all directly feed off of strong support for aggro in green.
A thousand times this. If you want aggro to be successful and keep control in check, it needs to be fully supported. That means it needs support in at least three colors, with--I'd argue--four being ideal. Green may not be able to field a great mono aggro deck but it's a strong inclusion for other aggro decks. When RG aggro happens at my table it often wins the night.
I think there's still plenty of reason to support Green as an aggro color. While mono-green's aggro may be a little weaker than some others, green/x aggro is some of the strongest around. You get access to incredibly powerful one drops like Kird Ape, Loam Lion, and Wild Nacatl.
And Experiment One. These guys are straight up amazing for the cost. We never do have mono-green aggro decks but that's fine by me. I love me some WG and RG aggro. And Naya Zoo wins ALL THE TIME (just a dash of hyperbole): http://cubetutor.com/cubedeck/49566
You have extremely powerful curve-toppers like Bloodbraid Elf and Xenagoas, the Reveler. You get powerful aggressive strategies like Fires in RG, Tokens with anthems in GW, and Tempo in GU. These all directly feed off of strong support for aggro in green.
Though I don't agree with Fires being good in aggro decks, I can certainly get behind everything else. Green is key and Curse of Predation just made it even juicier.
What's missing in today's aggro decks are the 'nail in the coffin'; you're not going to find Winter Orb, Tangle Wire, or Armageddon anywhere but Cube nowadays.
These are exactly the types of cards that will make me go aggro during a draft. Black Vise. Ankh. Sulfuric Vortex. Braids. Every piece of equipment I run that's not named Batterskull.
Though I don't agree with Fires being good in aggro decks, I can certainly get behind everything else. Green is key and Curse of Predation just made it even juicier.
Fires is effectively a Midrange deck forced to be aggro. Rather than do midrangey things you aim at putting your opponent on a stupid clock by going t1 Elf, t2 Fires, t3 something big and stupid like Polukranos or Blastoderm or similar. It's about as aggressive as a Ramp deck can be.
In summary: Aggro is important. It's important to support aggro enough so it has the same representation as the other major limited theaters. Aggro is only a "niche" deck if you fail to adequately support it. Without enough aggro decks at the table, control has a fundamental advantage (one good aggro deck doesn't provide a challenge to keep control in check, and it's a terrible idea when there's nothing but midrange decks roaming around). Midrange decks and control decks can be blindly forced in multiples in every draft, aggro should have the same ability. You don't agree with those points, and that's fine. But you've done an abysmal job of trying to convince me that any of those points are wrong, for any reason.
I don't think it's ever been agreed upon what exactly constitutes "aggro". I'm probably mixing a few threads where this discussion has come up recently, but part of the disagreement (at least from my end) has to do with this fundamental definition (or lack there of).
In your post you listed tempo and WW as aggro decks. I bring those two up specifically, because neither (IMO) is as full on aggro as something like RDW or Boros. By this I mean, the WW deck and the tempo deck probably have a 5 drop or two in them whereas the RDW and Boros decks probably top out at 4 CMC.
While WW relies a lot on 2 power one drops (simply because it's strength is in small efficient creatures), tempo doesn't necessarily (especially UUx where you really don't have options for that).
I guess where I'm going with this is are we defining "aggro" as your 2 power one drop - put pressure on immediately decks? Or are we talking about aggressive strategies that just try to play out their hand faster than their opponent? Because if we are going with the second (looser) definition, then I completely agree "aggressive decks" should be a "theatre" in cube and represent an equal part of the pie (and I certainly aim to do that in my cube). But if the 2 power one drop - curve tops at 4 CC aggro deck is our definition, then I don't think it makes sense for that to represent 1/3 of the pie. And here is basically why.
In every matchup, one player is the "beat down" player and the other is the "control" player. It doesn't actually matter what decks you are playing. Both could be playing "aggressive" decks, but one of those decks is simply going to be faster. If they both go the beat down route, the faster deck is going to win pretty much every time. So in order for the slower aggro deck to win, they need to become the control player in essence - weather the faster decks storm (no pun intended) and then take over the game and win. There's no other way it can go down without ending in a loss and this is actually what separates good players from bad players - recognizing when you need to shift strategies based on what you are facing (IMHO anyway). With that in mind, it makes a lot of sense to build decks to your strength but have a plan B in there as well. For an aggressive deck, you need to be able to shift to a less aggressive approach otherwise you auto lose the mirror matchup against decks that are faster than you. I realize a lot of people just side board in to accomplish this, but we don't tend to side board in our group (people do it occasionally, but not so much to shore up matchup weaknesses but more because a card isn't working as expected or they messed up their land counts, etc).
And this is where I see the blur between A/M/C in cube that you don't tend to see as much in constructed. Because in a singleton format there is (by it's very nature) less redundancy. In other words, you have room in your deck for cards that give your deck some versatility because you aren't running 4 copies of anything. Just an example for WW is mentor of the meek. I know most don't run it, but it's a card advantage engine that is very powerful in that deck if it does unanswered (yet it's still a dork that can pick up a sword and swing - so it works in your plan A even if suboptimal). Against RDW, WW is the control deck generally (because you can't usually go faster than RDW), and having cards like that allow you to shift from the beat down to the control player more easily.
I hope that helps make my thoughts on this debate more clear and hopefully it adds more to the discussion to keep it going. I think this debate is a fundamentally important one for cube so even if it has been a lot of rehashing of the same arguments, I actually find most of this has been worth reading.
In every matchup, one player is the "beat down" player and the other is the "control" player. It doesn't actually matter what decks you are playing.
But it does matter what deck you're playing. Aggro is terrible at being the beatdown against midrange decks, and midrange is terrible at being the beatdown against control decks. No matter what role the basic speed of your deck pigeonholes you into, it doesn't mean that the fundamental matchup advantages are irrelevant.
Quote from ahadabans »
If they both go the beat down route, the faster deck is going to win pretty much every time.
I think this is false. In the aggro mirror, the more controlling of the two decks has the advantage.
Quote from ahadabans »
In your post you listed tempo and WW as aggro decks.
Actually, I listed Fish as a tempo deck if you wanted to classify tempo as aggro, which I don't. But in constructed it often filled the role of the beatdown deck because of how it played against the other decks in the format.
I disagree that WW isn't aggro. It's as aggressive as you want to build it. If you want to make it midrange by throwing in multiple 5cc cards, you can. But that's a different deck than WW aggro is.
Quote from ahadabans »
I hope that helps make my thoughts on this debate more clear and hopefully it adds more to the discussion to keep it going.
It does, but it doesn't really change much, IMO. Either you consider aggro important or you don't. If you think that simply because one player is going to be the beatdown in every match that aggro doesn't need as much support as midrange and control, I think you're wrong, plain and simple.
Quote from ahadabans »
And this is where I see the blur between A/M/C in cube that you don't tend to see as much in constructed.
It's because constructed is completely different. In constructed you build the best deck. Then, you build a deck that's designed to beat the best deck. So if control has a natural advantage in constructed, people either try to build an aggro deck to compete with it, or a more controlling control deck to beat it. What you wind up with is an A/M environment, or a M/C environment, or a A/C environment. In the cube, because the "best deck" isn't predetermined, and can change from draft to draft, you need to be able to build the deck that beats the best deck at the table in every draft. You can't accomplish this without being capable of producing good decks in every theater of equal quantity as one another. In a cube designed to churn out lots of midrange decks, control will be the deck to draft. Because just like constructed, you want to bring a deck that will have the best matchup against the greatest percentage of the field. And when there's only enough support to churn out one aggro deck at the table, why wouldn't I draft control? I know two things about the format: 1) midrange will comprise the greatest percentage of decks, and 2) aggro won't have an equal representation. With those two things combined, it creates the perfect breeding ground to have one dominant decktype. When cubing for money, I'd force control in midrange heavy cubes every single time. And I bet that over the long run, I'd be ahead. I don't want that to be the story of my cube experience. Having aggro be represented with an equal share of the draftable decks IS the solution to that problem.
But it does matter what deck you're playing. Aggro is terrible at being the beatdown against midrange decks, and midrange is terrible at being the beatdown against control decks. No matter what role the basic speed of your deck pigeonholes you into, it doesn't mean that the fundamental matchup advantages are irrelevant.
I just don't agree it's this black and white in cube. What cards you choose to run in your cube can completely change how your meta plays. It's very customizable.
I think this is false. In the aggro mirror, the more controlling of the two decks has the advantage.
If you adjust your play accordingly, I agree. As RDW, if you are facing a really aggressive WW or Boros deck and you choose to dome me with your lightning bolt instead of killing silverblade when he comes down, you are probably going to lose. That's not a great example but it illustrates what I'm getting at - where adjusting your gameplay based on what your playing against is where the game is often won or lost.
I disagree that WW isn't aggro. It's as aggressive as you want to build it. If you want to make it midrange by throwing in multiple 5cc cards, you can. But that's a different deck than WW aggro is.
We don't disagree. You can certainly make WW very aggressive, I just think it works better most times as an aggressive midrange deck because without R/B for burn or hand disruption, you pretty much have armageddon, winter orb and tangle wire. If you get all those cards, by all means go all in on WW aggro. But otherwise, you deck is going to lose to a lot of stuff because it won't be able to finish the deal against anyone that has a halfway decent deck.
It does, but it doesn't really change much, IMO. Either you consider aggro important or you don't. If you think that simply because one player is going to be the beatdown in every match that aggro doesn't need as much support as midrange and control, I think you're wrong, plain and simple.
But we still haven't agreed on the definition of aggro. And without that, we really can't even agree to disagree at this point. We are arguing apples and oranges without realizing it. It's pointless debate without a foundation. We don't disagree as much as you may think we do.
It's because constructed is completely different. In constructed you build the best deck. Then, you build a deck that's designed to beat the best deck. So if control has a natural advantage in constructed, people either try to build an aggro deck to compete with it, or a more controlling control deck to beat it. What you wind up with is an A/M environment, or a M/C environment, or a A/C environment. In the cube, because the "best deck" isn't predetermined, and can change from draft to draft, you need to be able to build the deck that beats the best deck at the table in every draft. You can't accomplish this without being capable of producing good decks in every theater of equal quantity as one another. In a cube designed to churn out lots of midrange decks, control will be the deck to draft. Because just like constructed, you want to bring a deck that will have the best matchup against the greatest percentage of the field. And when there's only enough support to churn out one aggro deck at the table, why wouldn't I draft control? I know two things about the format: 1) midrange will comprise the greatest percentage of decks, and 2) aggro won't have an equal representation. With those two things combined, it creates the perfect breeding ground to have one dominant decktype. When cubing for money, I'd force control in midrange heavy cubes every single time. And I bet that over the long run, I'd be ahead. I don't want that to be the story of my cube experience. Having aggro be represented with an equal share of the draftable decks IS the solution to that problem.
We agree for the most part here. My only disagreement is in how black and white the A/M/C theaters are in cube and how much you can influence them by which cards you have in your cube. Again, if control decks don't have baneslayers and wurmcoil engines to completely dominate the late game with, midrange has a lot more game against them. Aggro decks also don't need to be absurdly fast, allowing them to be a bit more midrangy (to shore up the midrange matchup).
Long story short... I think you can design a balanced cube that doesn't require you to overly emphasize the 2 power one drop form of aggro. It comes down to how you want to build your cube. I get that you want to run the most powerful cards possible. And that decision if FORCING you to make vanilla 2 power one drop aggro vital to the health of your meta. That is one approach, yes. The other approach is to nerf some of that power on the control side so that is isn't as black and white in the matchups.
You can nerf the card selection, but it doesn't change the matchup (and certainly not in a significant enough way to change the role of the theater). Slower aggro decks are still bad against midrange. Control decks will still have wraths, counterspells, draw spells and finishers, and those kinds of decks will still be good against midrange. No matter how you design your cube (unless you somehow prevent midrange and control decks from being draftable, forced and good) you need aggro to do its equal share of work.
If you can force multiple control decks, and force multiple midrange decks, you should be able to force multiple aggro decks. That's balance. Being able to auto-draft 4 midrange decks, 3 control decks and only 1 aggro deck does not create a balanced limited environment.
To help clarify the discussion, I'd like to point out that I read 'WW' as 'white weenie', which implies an aggro deck filled with 'weenie' creatures (2/1s for 1 mana, e.g.) and likely topping out at 4 mana for either type of spell (good examples would be Armageddon, Parallax Wave, or Hero of Bladehold).
I don't read 'WW' as 'mono-white', which is a different story and can contain a variety of decks from the aforementioned white weenie, through midrange white decks (that use 4s and 5s to dominate the board, up to and including mono-white control builds (which often feature cards like Weathered Wayfarer, Wraths, and big finishers).
---
Comparing constructed to Cube, while certainly somewhat related, really can't be put on equal footing when it comes to deck construction archetypes. When they come close to a 40-card version of a constructed deck, you often wind up with the best deck at the table. In order to achieve this similarity for aggressive decks (and therefore quality), it is necessary to strongly support it in terms of card quantity and quality because the nature of the singleton format makes it inherently more difficult to draft a focused strategy. With aggressive decks, this is even more important because of the timing needed to draw those 'weenie' creatures (turn 1-2, especially!). Control and midrange decks don't suffer the effects of this singleton-ism as much, since their window to draw important cards to their gameplan is much larger and later (typically turn 4 is where you want to have drawn your sweeper or 4/4), which means that you have at least 3 more draw phases to find one (and in blue control's case, more if you have card drawing spells).
If you are calling aggressive decks a 'niche' strategy in a perjorative way, I simply don't understand why. It keeps the format honest, as without that certain member of the food chain, the control decks would overpopulate the winning records of Cube drafts. The predator known as Aggro keeps a clock on the format that helps to keep slower and/or poorly build 4+color/control decks in line.
There's a reason it is often referred to as the Fun Police; not because it quashes fun Magical play, but because it keeps the EDH-style haymaker-Magic type of games to a manageable number (and often that's what Magic players call 'fun': being left alone to do your own cool things). This is essential if you want to have a vivid, dynamic environment that represents all the different styles/tempi of playing Magic.
Long story short... I think you can design a balanced cube that doesn't require you to overly emphasize the 2 power one drop form of aggro. It comes down to how you want to build your cube. I get that you want to run the most powerful cards possible. And that decision if FORCING you to make vanilla 2 power one drop aggro vital to the health of your meta. That is one approach, yes. The other approach is to nerf some of that power on the control side so that is isn't as black and white in the matchups.
I agree with you ONLY if you are willing to DRAMATICALLY nerf the power of the control side, or break the singleton rule.
Part of the problem with going "bigger agro" in cube, is the format is littered with strategies that go WAY over the top and it does so at multiple angles.
There's all the most powerful planeswalkers ever printed, there's reanimating enormous creatures like griselbrand, or every titan. There's cards like upheavel that in the right deck is basically "win the game"...
Tinkering into myr battlesphere, multiple control magic variants that laugh at most 4-5 mana creatures.
Even if you remove a few of these options, going "under" this power makes by far the most sense.
If you look at legacy, how do the "fair" midrange-agro type decks compete with the busted powerful decks?
disruption, disruption, disruption
4 wastelands, counter spells, targeted discard spells, extremly efficient removal, cards like thalia, aven midscensor, phyrexian revoker.. Designed to mess up and interact with their gameplan.
I agree with you ONLY if you are willing to DRAMATICALLY nerf the power of the control side, or break the singleton rule.
Part of the problem with going "bigger agro" in cube, is the format is littered with strategies that go WAY over the top and it does so at multiple angles.
There's all the most powerful planeswalkers ever printed, there's reanimating enormous creatures like griselbrand, or every titan. There's cards like upheavel that in the right deck is basically "win the game"...
Tinkering into myr battlesphere, multiple control magic variants that laugh at most 4-5 mana creatures.
Even if you remove a few of these options, going "under" this power makes by far the most sense.
I'm certainly willing to nerf control. And I run very little of what you listed to that point. I have no walkers and no titans. No wurmcoil engine. No grisslebrand. In my next update, Upheaval will likely be coming out too (funny you should mention it).
You can tinker the battlesphere though (or sundering titan), and that deck when it comes together is certainly very powerful (as is reanimator with the few fatties worth reanimating).
My cube plays more like the pre-M10 era in that respect (hence the semi-retro flair).
Reality is that my group doesn't enjoy all-in aggro decks, and so my cube has been tweaked to cater to that. There's still plenty of brokenness going on, but it tends to be pretty heavy midrange. And it doesn't feel unbalanced.
Drafting a lot and cutting cards that have proven to be bad or superfluous is a better way to organically balance your cube to your playgroup.
Really the simple message that most (if not all of us) can agree upon. The end result of that though can look very different depending on the cube designer and playgroup. You are running a lot of combo, my cube is very midrange, and wtwlf's cube is A/M/C centric.
But I think that is part of what makes the game good. If it was black and white, it would not be a quality game and I certainly wouldn't still be playing it over a decade after I was introduced to it. In fact, no game has ever kept my interest this long.
Certain influential members of this board seem to hold on to this pre-existing paradigm to cube-balance, which is unnatural to (r)evolution.
Actually, my paradigm was part of a new one, and was a response to the midrange heavy "combo" dragon cubes that were the norm before I designed my cube to fix the problems that were fundamentally embedded in those lists. And I certainly wasn't the only one. Tons of people were fed up with inconsistencies in narrow combo strategies like storm, and they were tired of the control-dominant nature of cubes without adequate aggro support. Where the cube is now is the next level of evolution moving away from lists that don't support aggro and have too many narrow combo elements.
Like global capitalism. This must be attacked, if only just for the reason of debate. The consequences have been to severe, having created a deadlock in the public opinion of cube.
You're not the revolutionary you think you are. NONE of your ideas are new or fresh, sorry to say. All of your cube design concepts have been done before, and never settled as "the norm" for a multitude of reasons. None of which have to do with me (or any other singular cube designer) creating a deadlock in public cube opinion. They have to do with their design failures.
And your notion that there's a public deadlock on cube opinion is a fallacy. No two cubes are the same. Everyone caters to different playgroups in different ways. Sometimes majority opinion is majority opinion because each individual reached those conclusions with their independent testing. Remember that when you make the unfair and incorrect assumption that the cube world needs to be rescued from itself. It doesn't. It's a self-regulating market. Problems fix themselves and the format evolves. It's why we see less storm, less narrow combo components, and less dragon cubes than we used to. Designers fixed the problems they found with those lists and made environments they feel run better. You don't have to like it, but ...too bad?
...I'm also just a guy that's propagating storm and turbolandish strategies because they create a more healthy (and ballsy) environment in (online) 8 player draft...
I think the problem with having archetypes like storm and turboland in cube is that the cards put into these decks are not flexible. What am I going to do with Tendrils of Agony outside of count to 10 with it? Which card is more flexible: Exploration or Elvish Mystic?
Granted, I have not read the entire monstrosity that is this thread, and I may be missing some key point; but, I would prefer to draft a cube that offers flexibility, not a cube that offers cookie-cutter archetypes with no wiggle room.
I don't know why I get involved in these things...
Why make a trollpost at all?
Why are we talking about balls again? Also, I still don't understand what your definition of 'balls' is...I'd love to read a straight answer that doesn't seem in love with itself and its vocabulary.
Here's the thing: We WANT people to draft your Cube and enjoy it. We WANT people to draft ours and enjoy it. We WANT people to just enjoy Cube in general! What we also want is to actually figure out what exactly it is that you are talking about. You seem to do a lot of posturing on the whole 'fighting the establishment' soapbox, but I'm not sure why, other than 'for its own sake'.
What you seem to be missing is that we (I can speak for myself, mainly, but I have the feeling others have also done it) have gone thru similar thinking and come out the other end with a basic Cube design philosophy that you are now seeing as 'The Man' that must be defied to 'combat the social norm' or some such.
My Cube, which was made quite a few years ago before all of the literature/discussion/forums that we have now, started out as just a collection of good cards jammed together and balanced by number (like most people's, I would assume). Through the years, we've noticed things that we do/don't like, and we make adjustments. We found that we didn't like midrange durdle decks overpopulating the drafts. We didn't like the control decks having ownership of the drafts when they started dominating the durdle decks. We liked having a clock on the format, but realized that 1 aggro deck per draft (IF it came together) wasn't enough. We haven't gotten to the point where we hate the number of "niche" or "weak" 2/1s for one mana because it is watering down the draft, but I'm sure that will get changed if and when it does. We liked certain archetypes, and added cards to make them work or took away other cards that held them down. We add new cards, and sometimes they spark new ideas for archetypes and support chains (see: Master of Waves/Thassa/True-Name). It is CONSTANTLY evolving.
If your group loves the midrange slugfest (dragon Cube/EDH Cube/haymaker Cube), then awesome (ahada's group seems to fit here)! A LOT of people love Magic in that form, and there isn't anything wrong with that. If your group loves the challenge of putting together more narrow cards into combo-esque archetypes where you can exploit those interactions, then awesome! There isn't anything wrong with that, either.
The thing that most people take exception to, I think, is when an individual comes in and starts exclaiming that 'you are all wrong! I am right!'. It is disrespectful to those who have put years of testing, tweaking, and enjoying their Cubes to be told those things, especially when they come with no more reason behind it than "You're old! You need to (r)evolutionize your Cube/thinking! Why? Because, that's why!"
I've come to learn that there isn't a black and white right/wrong way to do things, and the amount of different permutations of Cube that are forming all over is a testament to that, because people are enjoying all of those different Cubes...how can they be wrong? I know I've been pretty confrontational on these boards at times (as has wtwlf, Kojiro, etc.), but mostly it's because we are passionate and strongly believe in what we are saying. Who wants to listen to someone be wishy-washy about their opinions? But the other thing we have learned is that logic and well thought and articulated arguments are better for actually accomplishing your objectives; you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and all that.
You have that passion, and I think all of us want you to now move away from the lead pipe revolutionary viewpoint and more into the 'explain what you mean' viewpoint. Frankly, I think some of us are a bit tired of the former. You said yourself that you were coming on too strong/aggressive, and it wound up getting you suspended, right? Continue to work on that path, and I'm guessing that we will start moving forward with our discussions instead of taking the same old lap over and over like NASCAR.
You can do it; if you don't, people will likely stop listening.
I have found the aggro'theater' to be too weak to demand a 1/3rd slice of the pie. Filling this gap with more 'fair' midrange and control cards would be nonsensical because then those would be overly supported, i.e., you just end up with more of the same, which is a thing I'd like to avoid. And it wouldn't be 'fair', r/p/s-balance-wise to aggro. So what you do, (or what I've done), is filling this gap with an actual powerful-enough midrange-replacement to aggro, and a different gameplan entirely, so that players that like this kind of magic the most, can draft it, and do not get forced into 'fair' decks, or worse, an aggrodeck. I'm talking of course about storm and turbolandish strategies. If you classify these strategies to this favorable matchup-ideology, i'd say favorable vs control, unfavorable vs aggro, 50/50 to midrange. But I don't like to think that way, since it is a-priori irrelevant to cube design. Drafting a lot and cutting cards that have proven to be bad or superfluous is a better way to organically balance your cube to your playgroup. (Though, I don't have a playgroup since I only draft with 7 other-random-players online, which makes my opinion more representative to 'the norm' than anyone with a playgroup, ha! ).
Theoretically this concept makes sense, and is actually interesting. The real question is wether or not it actually works on the ground.
The boards don't need a revolution. There is no reason why a balancing scheme different from the a/m/c meta can't coexist on these boards with those of us who see things differently. Rather than continue fighting a battle for revolution, just develop your idea and turn it into a real and grounded theory of cube design that people enjoy. There are a lot of unanswered questions that are being focused on while you're in here debating with people who aren't going to agree with you, and who aren't going away. For example:
Do those two archetypes interact with the metagame the way that you say they do? Is there room for different archetypes to fill that space and if so, which ones? Do you need to balance the archetypes against each other, or will any old combination of archetypes work? Do you have to break the entirety of your cube into archetypes, or are their generic theaters that exist within your framework, and if so, how do the two archetypes you're adding fit into those generic theaters when all supporting cards don't come together or there is another drafter taking your pieces? Maybe start a new thread where discussion can answer these questions.
These were examples of historic archetypes. Cube Aggro Archetypes are generally:
Monored
Red/White
Red/Black
Black/White
And if you support Green Aggro,
Red/Green
Green/White
Green/Black
Plus the possibilities of various 3-color combinations (notably Naya for Wild Nacatl), and the various possibilities for a blue splash for tempo counterspells and bounce.
As long as they keep printing 2-power one drops (and they've printed some of the best of all time in the past few years: Soldier of the Pantheon, Firedrinker Satyr, Tormented Hero, Rakdos Cackler, Dryad Militant, Experiment One effectively, Gravecrawler, Diergraf Ghoul, etc), and other cards that help support aggro like Lightning Strike, aggro is in no danger of dying out as a Cube archetype, IF you support it.
It's really just a question of whether or not you want to devote the slots to those one drops. Personally, I'm in favor of it, even for green. Heck, I'd run 2-power one drops in blue if there were enough playable of those to support blue aggro as an archetype.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
Red seems to be in most winning decks. I've even had monogreen control deck win once. It was a weird deck, but id consider it control. I play multiplayer half the time and 1v1s the other half. That being said to give background on my cube, i dont think you need all archetypes, lots of people have fun with literally just midrange. Midrange is the most important archetype in my opinion, but the best part about it is that midrange takes from both aggro and control, so while it is the most important, it doesnt really even need to be supported. People will have fun playing magic, i think to maximize fun all archetypes help.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=484979
To answer the first, those decks named are good umbrellas. To name all of the permutations would take a while (like he did with red aggro), much like with 'Zoo' we have Gaea's Might Get There, traditional Zoo, Snapcaster Zoo, Dark Zoo, etc. I'd also mention the combo/aggro decks as well:
- Hatred
- Affinity (which it was before the bannings; modern affinity looks much different)
- Infect
And I would classify Goblins as a midrange deck with a very good early game (and only because of Piledriver does it have that early game).
-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
I mean, the strategy of any Aggro deck is going to be swinging/burning your opponent from 20-0 as quickly as possible. They're obviously going to look something alike and run similar cards, depending on color.
Red's primary strength is burn, flexible removal that also allows it to finish out a game that has stalled by going to the dome. They also have multiple 4-drops that can add a lot of damage and reach to the board as soon as they hit, like Hero of Oxid Ridge and Hellrider. Some cubes can also incorporate Land Destruction like Molten Rain here.
White can supplement its one-drops with access to Anthem effects, which also play well with token production. Cards like Swords to Plowshares provide efficient removal to clear the path, and Armageddon can stop an opponent from stabilizing the board.
Black supplements its aggressive dudes with discard effects that can rip stabilizers out of the opponent's hand. They also have resilient threats, some of the most efficient removal around, Sinkhole, draw-dudes like Dark Confidant, and Dark Ritual for explosive starts.
Green is the weakest of the aggro colors on its own. It provides a few 2-power one drops, and cards like Rancor and Curse of Predation as buffs. It also provides some of the beefiest fat like Tarmogoyf, mana elves to enable a slightly higher curve, and some extremely powerful 4 and 5 drops like Kalonian Hydra, Deranged Hermit, Polukranos, etc. It can possibly run more Stone Rain type cards if you support LD.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
I think the biggest reason to support Aggro as an archetype is for diversity. If your two options are Midrange and Control, decks end up looking and playing a lot alike. Cube is also the last bastion of traditional Aggro decks, which are all but obsolete in Standard and Eternal formats.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
There are actually a number of red-based (and a white-based splashing red) decks in standard that are very good. In fact, a recent GP (Santiago) was won by a RB aggro deck that looks like an awesome redundant draft deck:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/gpsnt13/welcome#1
What's missing in today's aggro decks are the 'nail in the coffin'; you're not going to find Winter Orb, Tangle Wire, or Armageddon anywhere but Cube nowadays.
-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
No, I'm talking about adequately supporting a broad strategy.
This isn't true either. Midrange wins by outclassing early threats and overpowering the middle of the game with big threats that win the game. Control wins by surviving the early onslaught, stabilizing and closing out the game with a big resilient threat. Aggro wins by putting as much pressure on the opponent as fast as possible and overwhelming defenses before they can stabilize. Every theater has the same general approach to victory.
White aggro might do it with evasion and haymaker curve toppers. Red aggro might do it with reach. Black aggro might do it with disruption. Green aggro might do it with CA critters and oversized cost/power beaters. Blue tempo might do it with a clutch tempo counter to seal the deal. They all have the same goal, but they do it in different ways. Just like the variations between decks in every other theater.
I know what the example was trying to do, but it didn't help make the point more than just muddy up the water.
Again, aggro is not a niche strategy unless it's undersupported. Any more than control would is a niche strategy when you decide to intentionally exclude tools it needs to retain parity with the other theaters.
Zoo, white weenie, rdw/sligh, suicide black, stompy, fish (if you want to include tempo here). Plus all the specific aggro archetypes like Affinity and Ponza and the like that have been around.
And it doesn't have to constitute a third of the pie over the course of Magic's history in order to have it be important to represent a third of the decks at the table in the cube. Constructed and cube are different.
What do you mean?
Agreed! Which is why I want multiple different aggro decks to be available regularly, instead of boros aggro being the only game in town.
Well, it did and it didn't. It doesn't move us forward at all. All of these points are recycled; all these arguments rehashed. I've already answered all these points multiple times in this thread (and in other threads), and yet we're back again. Instead of having new on-topic points to address, or moving forward in a new direction, I wade through rabbits in Australia, major league soccer, racism and enormous balls. You've asked questions. I've answered them. You disagree for reason X. I disagree with your reason X with reason Y. And yet, here we are again debating reason X again. It's tiring. Until something new comes up, there's nothing more to discuss.
In summary: Aggro is important. It's important to support aggro enough so it has the same representation as the other major limited theaters. Aggro is only a "niche" deck if you fail to adequately support it. Without enough aggro decks at the table, control has a fundamental advantage (one good aggro deck doesn't provide a challenge to keep control in check, and it's a terrible idea when there's nothing but midrange decks roaming around). Midrange decks and control decks can be blindly forced in multiples in every draft, aggro should have the same ability. You don't agree with those points, and that's fine. But you've done an abysmal job of trying to convince me that any of those points are wrong, for any reason.
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 think there's still plenty of reason to support Green as an aggro color. While mono-green's aggro may be a little weaker than some others, green/x aggro is some of the strongest around. You get access to incredibly powerful one drops like Kird Ape, Loam Lion, and Wild Nacatl. You have extremely powerful curve-toppers like Bloodbraid Elf and Xenagoas, the Reveler. You get powerful aggressive strategies like Fires in RG, Tokens with anthems in GW, and Tempo in GU. These all directly feed off of strong support for aggro in green.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
A thousand times this. If you want aggro to be successful and keep control in check, it needs to be fully supported. That means it needs support in at least three colors, with--I'd argue--four being ideal. Green may not be able to field a great mono aggro deck but it's a strong inclusion for other aggro decks. When RG aggro happens at my table it often wins the night.
Cheers,
rant
My Cube
CubeCobra: https://cubecobra.com/cube/overview/5f5d0310ed602310515d4c32
Cube Tutor: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/1963
And Experiment One. These guys are straight up amazing for the cost. We never do have mono-green aggro decks but that's fine by me. I love me some WG and RG aggro. And Naya Zoo wins ALL THE TIME (just a dash of hyperbole): http://cubetutor.com/cubedeck/49566
BG aggro just never happens for us though...
Though I don't agree with Fires being good in aggro decks, I can certainly get behind everything else. Green is key and Curse of Predation just made it even juicier.
Edit:
These are exactly the types of cards that will make me go aggro during a draft. Black Vise. Ankh. Sulfuric Vortex. Braids. Every piece of equipment I run that's not named Batterskull.
Fires is effectively a Midrange deck forced to be aggro. Rather than do midrangey things you aim at putting your opponent on a stupid clock by going t1 Elf, t2 Fires, t3 something big and stupid like Polukranos or Blastoderm or similar. It's about as aggressive as a Ramp deck can be.
Overrun isn't cubed terribly often I don't think, but other than that yeah, there are plenty of reasons to go Green Aggro.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
Most definitely!
I don't think it's ever been agreed upon what exactly constitutes "aggro". I'm probably mixing a few threads where this discussion has come up recently, but part of the disagreement (at least from my end) has to do with this fundamental definition (or lack there of).
In your post you listed tempo and WW as aggro decks. I bring those two up specifically, because neither (IMO) is as full on aggro as something like RDW or Boros. By this I mean, the WW deck and the tempo deck probably have a 5 drop or two in them whereas the RDW and Boros decks probably top out at 4 CMC.
While WW relies a lot on 2 power one drops (simply because it's strength is in small efficient creatures), tempo doesn't necessarily (especially UUx where you really don't have options for that).
I guess where I'm going with this is are we defining "aggro" as your 2 power one drop - put pressure on immediately decks? Or are we talking about aggressive strategies that just try to play out their hand faster than their opponent? Because if we are going with the second (looser) definition, then I completely agree "aggressive decks" should be a "theatre" in cube and represent an equal part of the pie (and I certainly aim to do that in my cube). But if the 2 power one drop - curve tops at 4 CC aggro deck is our definition, then I don't think it makes sense for that to represent 1/3 of the pie. And here is basically why.
In every matchup, one player is the "beat down" player and the other is the "control" player. It doesn't actually matter what decks you are playing. Both could be playing "aggressive" decks, but one of those decks is simply going to be faster. If they both go the beat down route, the faster deck is going to win pretty much every time. So in order for the slower aggro deck to win, they need to become the control player in essence - weather the faster decks storm (no pun intended) and then take over the game and win. There's no other way it can go down without ending in a loss and this is actually what separates good players from bad players - recognizing when you need to shift strategies based on what you are facing (IMHO anyway). With that in mind, it makes a lot of sense to build decks to your strength but have a plan B in there as well. For an aggressive deck, you need to be able to shift to a less aggressive approach otherwise you auto lose the mirror matchup against decks that are faster than you. I realize a lot of people just side board in to accomplish this, but we don't tend to side board in our group (people do it occasionally, but not so much to shore up matchup weaknesses but more because a card isn't working as expected or they messed up their land counts, etc).
And this is where I see the blur between A/M/C in cube that you don't tend to see as much in constructed. Because in a singleton format there is (by it's very nature) less redundancy. In other words, you have room in your deck for cards that give your deck some versatility because you aren't running 4 copies of anything. Just an example for WW is mentor of the meek. I know most don't run it, but it's a card advantage engine that is very powerful in that deck if it does unanswered (yet it's still a dork that can pick up a sword and swing - so it works in your plan A even if suboptimal). Against RDW, WW is the control deck generally (because you can't usually go faster than RDW), and having cards like that allow you to shift from the beat down to the control player more easily.
I hope that helps make my thoughts on this debate more clear and hopefully it adds more to the discussion to keep it going. I think this debate is a fundamentally important one for cube so even if it has been a lot of rehashing of the same arguments, I actually find most of this has been worth reading.
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
But it does matter what deck you're playing. Aggro is terrible at being the beatdown against midrange decks, and midrange is terrible at being the beatdown against control decks. No matter what role the basic speed of your deck pigeonholes you into, it doesn't mean that the fundamental matchup advantages are irrelevant.
I think this is false. In the aggro mirror, the more controlling of the two decks has the advantage.
Actually, I listed Fish as a tempo deck if you wanted to classify tempo as aggro, which I don't. But in constructed it often filled the role of the beatdown deck because of how it played against the other decks in the format.
I disagree that WW isn't aggro. It's as aggressive as you want to build it. If you want to make it midrange by throwing in multiple 5cc cards, you can. But that's a different deck than WW aggro is.
It does, but it doesn't really change much, IMO. Either you consider aggro important or you don't. If you think that simply because one player is going to be the beatdown in every match that aggro doesn't need as much support as midrange and control, I think you're wrong, plain and simple.
It's because constructed is completely different. In constructed you build the best deck. Then, you build a deck that's designed to beat the best deck. So if control has a natural advantage in constructed, people either try to build an aggro deck to compete with it, or a more controlling control deck to beat it. What you wind up with is an A/M environment, or a M/C environment, or a A/C environment. In the cube, because the "best deck" isn't predetermined, and can change from draft to draft, you need to be able to build the deck that beats the best deck at the table in every draft. You can't accomplish this without being capable of producing good decks in every theater of equal quantity as one another. In a cube designed to churn out lots of midrange decks, control will be the deck to draft. Because just like constructed, you want to bring a deck that will have the best matchup against the greatest percentage of the field. And when there's only enough support to churn out one aggro deck at the table, why wouldn't I draft control? I know two things about the format: 1) midrange will comprise the greatest percentage of decks, and 2) aggro won't have an equal representation. With those two things combined, it creates the perfect breeding ground to have one dominant decktype. When cubing for money, I'd force control in midrange heavy cubes every single time. And I bet that over the long run, I'd be ahead. I don't want that to be the story of my cube experience. Having aggro be represented with an equal share of the draftable decks IS the solution to that problem.
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 just don't agree it's this black and white in cube. What cards you choose to run in your cube can completely change how your meta plays. It's very customizable.
If you adjust your play accordingly, I agree. As RDW, if you are facing a really aggressive WW or Boros deck and you choose to dome me with your lightning bolt instead of killing silverblade when he comes down, you are probably going to lose. That's not a great example but it illustrates what I'm getting at - where adjusting your gameplay based on what your playing against is where the game is often won or lost.
We don't disagree. You can certainly make WW very aggressive, I just think it works better most times as an aggressive midrange deck because without R/B for burn or hand disruption, you pretty much have armageddon, winter orb and tangle wire. If you get all those cards, by all means go all in on WW aggro. But otherwise, you deck is going to lose to a lot of stuff because it won't be able to finish the deal against anyone that has a halfway decent deck.
But we still haven't agreed on the definition of aggro. And without that, we really can't even agree to disagree at this point. We are arguing apples and oranges without realizing it. It's pointless debate without a foundation. We don't disagree as much as you may think we do.
We agree for the most part here. My only disagreement is in how black and white the A/M/C theaters are in cube and how much you can influence them by which cards you have in your cube. Again, if control decks don't have baneslayers and wurmcoil engines to completely dominate the late game with, midrange has a lot more game against them. Aggro decks also don't need to be absurdly fast, allowing them to be a bit more midrangy (to shore up the midrange matchup).
Long story short... I think you can design a balanced cube that doesn't require you to overly emphasize the 2 power one drop form of aggro. It comes down to how you want to build your cube. I get that you want to run the most powerful cards possible. And that decision if FORCING you to make vanilla 2 power one drop aggro vital to the health of your meta. That is one approach, yes. The other approach is to nerf some of that power on the control side so that is isn't as black and white in the matchups.
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
If you can force multiple control decks, and force multiple midrange decks, you should be able to force multiple aggro decks. That's balance. Being able to auto-draft 4 midrange decks, 3 control decks and only 1 aggro deck does not create a balanced limited environment.
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 don't read 'WW' as 'mono-white', which is a different story and can contain a variety of decks from the aforementioned white weenie, through midrange white decks (that use 4s and 5s to dominate the board, up to and including mono-white control builds (which often feature cards like Weathered Wayfarer, Wraths, and big finishers).
---
Comparing constructed to Cube, while certainly somewhat related, really can't be put on equal footing when it comes to deck construction archetypes. When they come close to a 40-card version of a constructed deck, you often wind up with the best deck at the table. In order to achieve this similarity for aggressive decks (and therefore quality), it is necessary to strongly support it in terms of card quantity and quality because the nature of the singleton format makes it inherently more difficult to draft a focused strategy. With aggressive decks, this is even more important because of the timing needed to draw those 'weenie' creatures (turn 1-2, especially!). Control and midrange decks don't suffer the effects of this singleton-ism as much, since their window to draw important cards to their gameplan is much larger and later (typically turn 4 is where you want to have drawn your sweeper or 4/4), which means that you have at least 3 more draw phases to find one (and in blue control's case, more if you have card drawing spells).
If you are calling aggressive decks a 'niche' strategy in a perjorative way, I simply don't understand why. It keeps the format honest, as without that certain member of the food chain, the control decks would overpopulate the winning records of Cube drafts. The predator known as Aggro keeps a clock on the format that helps to keep slower and/or poorly build 4+color/control decks in line.
There's a reason it is often referred to as the Fun Police; not because it quashes fun Magical play, but because it keeps the EDH-style haymaker-Magic type of games to a manageable number (and often that's what Magic players call 'fun': being left alone to do your own cool things). This is essential if you want to have a vivid, dynamic environment that represents all the different styles/tempi of playing Magic.
-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
I agree with you ONLY if you are willing to DRAMATICALLY nerf the power of the control side, or break the singleton rule.
Part of the problem with going "bigger agro" in cube, is the format is littered with strategies that go WAY over the top and it does so at multiple angles.
There's all the most powerful planeswalkers ever printed, there's reanimating enormous creatures like griselbrand, or every titan. There's cards like upheavel that in the right deck is basically "win the game"...
Tinkering into myr battlesphere, multiple control magic variants that laugh at most 4-5 mana creatures.
Even if you remove a few of these options, going "under" this power makes by far the most sense.
If you look at legacy, how do the "fair" midrange-agro type decks compete with the busted powerful decks?
disruption, disruption, disruption
4 wastelands, counter spells, targeted discard spells, extremly efficient removal, cards like thalia, aven midscensor, phyrexian revoker.. Designed to mess up and interact with their gameplan.
Id say death and taxes http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=60781
is the definition of a white agro-midrange deck and it focuses on disruption to compete in a very powerful environment.
This style deck cannot be simulated in a singleton cube, because there just isn't enough powerful cheap disruption printed by Wotc.
Last Updated 02/07/24
Streaming Standard/Cube on Twitch https://www.twitch.tv/heisenb3rg96
Strategy Twitter https://www.twitter.com/heisenb3rg
I'm certainly willing to nerf control. And I run very little of what you listed to that point. I have no walkers and no titans. No wurmcoil engine. No grisslebrand. In my next update, Upheaval will likely be coming out too (funny you should mention it).
You can tinker the battlesphere though (or sundering titan), and that deck when it comes together is certainly very powerful (as is reanimator with the few fatties worth reanimating).
My cube plays more like the pre-M10 era in that respect (hence the semi-retro flair).
Reality is that my group doesn't enjoy all-in aggro decks, and so my cube has been tweaked to cater to that. There's still plenty of brokenness going on, but it tends to be pretty heavy midrange. And it doesn't feel unbalanced.
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
Really the simple message that most (if not all of us) can agree upon. The end result of that though can look very different depending on the cube designer and playgroup. You are running a lot of combo, my cube is very midrange, and wtwlf's cube is A/M/C centric.
But I think that is part of what makes the game good. If it was black and white, it would not be a quality game and I certainly wouldn't still be playing it over a decade after I was introduced to it. In fact, no game has ever kept my interest this long.
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
Actually, my paradigm was part of a new one, and was a response to the midrange heavy "combo" dragon cubes that were the norm before I designed my cube to fix the problems that were fundamentally embedded in those lists. And I certainly wasn't the only one. Tons of people were fed up with inconsistencies in narrow combo strategies like storm, and they were tired of the control-dominant nature of cubes without adequate aggro support. Where the cube is now is the next level of evolution moving away from lists that don't support aggro and have too many narrow combo elements.
You're not the revolutionary you think you are. NONE of your ideas are new or fresh, sorry to say. All of your cube design concepts have been done before, and never settled as "the norm" for a multitude of reasons. None of which have to do with me (or any other singular cube designer) creating a deadlock in public cube opinion. They have to do with their design failures.
And your notion that there's a public deadlock on cube opinion is a fallacy. No two cubes are the same. Everyone caters to different playgroups in different ways. Sometimes majority opinion is majority opinion because each individual reached those conclusions with their independent testing. Remember that when you make the unfair and incorrect assumption that the cube world needs to be rescued from itself. It doesn't. It's a self-regulating market. Problems fix themselves and the format evolves. It's why we see less storm, less narrow combo components, and less dragon cubes than we used to. Designers fixed the problems they found with those lists and made environments they feel run better. You don't have to like it, but ...too bad?
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 think the problem with having archetypes like storm and turboland in cube is that the cards put into these decks are not flexible. What am I going to do with Tendrils of Agony outside of count to 10 with it? Which card is more flexible: Exploration or Elvish Mystic?
Granted, I have not read the entire monstrosity that is this thread, and I may be missing some key point; but, I would prefer to draft a cube that offers flexibility, not a cube that offers cookie-cutter archetypes with no wiggle room.
Why make a trollpost at all?
Why are we talking about balls again? Also, I still don't understand what your definition of 'balls' is...I'd love to read a straight answer that doesn't seem in love with itself and its vocabulary.
Here's the thing: We WANT people to draft your Cube and enjoy it. We WANT people to draft ours and enjoy it. We WANT people to just enjoy Cube in general! What we also want is to actually figure out what exactly it is that you are talking about. You seem to do a lot of posturing on the whole 'fighting the establishment' soapbox, but I'm not sure why, other than 'for its own sake'.
What you seem to be missing is that we (I can speak for myself, mainly, but I have the feeling others have also done it) have gone thru similar thinking and come out the other end with a basic Cube design philosophy that you are now seeing as 'The Man' that must be defied to 'combat the social norm' or some such.
My Cube, which was made quite a few years ago before all of the literature/discussion/forums that we have now, started out as just a collection of good cards jammed together and balanced by number (like most people's, I would assume). Through the years, we've noticed things that we do/don't like, and we make adjustments. We found that we didn't like midrange durdle decks overpopulating the drafts. We didn't like the control decks having ownership of the drafts when they started dominating the durdle decks. We liked having a clock on the format, but realized that 1 aggro deck per draft (IF it came together) wasn't enough. We haven't gotten to the point where we hate the number of "niche" or "weak" 2/1s for one mana because it is watering down the draft, but I'm sure that will get changed if and when it does. We liked certain archetypes, and added cards to make them work or took away other cards that held them down. We add new cards, and sometimes they spark new ideas for archetypes and support chains (see: Master of Waves/Thassa/True-Name). It is CONSTANTLY evolving.
If your group loves the midrange slugfest (dragon Cube/EDH Cube/haymaker Cube), then awesome (ahada's group seems to fit here)! A LOT of people love Magic in that form, and there isn't anything wrong with that. If your group loves the challenge of putting together more narrow cards into combo-esque archetypes where you can exploit those interactions, then awesome! There isn't anything wrong with that, either.
The thing that most people take exception to, I think, is when an individual comes in and starts exclaiming that 'you are all wrong! I am right!'. It is disrespectful to those who have put years of testing, tweaking, and enjoying their Cubes to be told those things, especially when they come with no more reason behind it than "You're old! You need to (r)evolutionize your Cube/thinking! Why? Because, that's why!"
I've come to learn that there isn't a black and white right/wrong way to do things, and the amount of different permutations of Cube that are forming all over is a testament to that, because people are enjoying all of those different Cubes...how can they be wrong? I know I've been pretty confrontational on these boards at times (as has wtwlf, Kojiro, etc.), but mostly it's because we are passionate and strongly believe in what we are saying. Who wants to listen to someone be wishy-washy about their opinions? But the other thing we have learned is that logic and well thought and articulated arguments are better for actually accomplishing your objectives; you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and all that.
You have that passion, and I think all of us want you to now move away from the lead pipe revolutionary viewpoint and more into the 'explain what you mean' viewpoint. Frankly, I think some of us are a bit tired of the former. You said yourself that you were coming on too strong/aggressive, and it wound up getting you suspended, right? Continue to work on that path, and I'm guessing that we will start moving forward with our discussions instead of taking the same old lap over and over like NASCAR.
You can do it; if you don't, people will likely stop listening.
-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
Theoretically this concept makes sense, and is actually interesting. The real question is wether or not it actually works on the ground.
The boards don't need a revolution. There is no reason why a balancing scheme different from the a/m/c meta can't coexist on these boards with those of us who see things differently. Rather than continue fighting a battle for revolution, just develop your idea and turn it into a real and grounded theory of cube design that people enjoy. There are a lot of unanswered questions that are being focused on while you're in here debating with people who aren't going to agree with you, and who aren't going away. For example:
Do those two archetypes interact with the metagame the way that you say they do? Is there room for different archetypes to fill that space and if so, which ones? Do you need to balance the archetypes against each other, or will any old combination of archetypes work? Do you have to break the entirety of your cube into archetypes, or are their generic theaters that exist within your framework, and if so, how do the two archetypes you're adding fit into those generic theaters when all supporting cards don't come together or there is another drafter taking your pieces? Maybe start a new thread where discussion can answer these questions.
360 Unpowered Cube | Cubetutor