So, appearently modo will run a paupercube event soon.
Obv they use Styrboskis crapcube. So instead of gathering more players to the format, most will turn their back in disgust.
Is so sad, that he overtook the scene just because of a website.
I hate this guy.
Well, they've gotta pull a list from somewhere. Also, Styb no longer maintains the cube. He's passed it off to some other guys, who now maintain the cube through community feedback. I've enjoyed their youtube videos for the last couple sets - they stream themselves looking at all the new commons, and bring Chat into the conversation. They listen to other people's ideas pretty well. The cube has become something that a greater amount of people have built together and seem to all be in agreement with.
That being said, I obviously think my cube is superior
Looking at the Styborski Cube today, I think it has definitely improved since he has stopped working on it, but there still are a lot of borderline -> bad cards, which might have been in some lists here a long time ago, but no one runs anymore.
I'm not sure, but the cube might still have the policy of forcing at as many new cards from recent sets into it, as possible, no matter how bad they are. The manacurve is pretty bad and the creature/spell ratio for most colors are off, especially green. There are also a lot of cards, which have been cut, just because of the power level, which is something, I don't think is necessary. I especially can't understand the reasoning, why Ravnica Bounce lands shouldn't be in there. Sure they are good, but not game breaking in any way.
Forcing UW Flicker as an archetype is simply not viable and way too many cards are dedicated towards that, apart from the fact, that I dislike restricting archetypes to 2 specific colors anyway, but I know I'm alone with that opinion and it goes off topic.
To see what would be good changes you can simply compare his list to any of the updated ones around here. The amount of discrepancy is insane. You can also take a look into the Evaluate Everything project. Even though it's not perfectly up to date and some ratings are outdated it still is mostly a good reference point and I think most people agree on the bad cards, of which none should be represented here.
There are also a lot of cards, which have been cut, just because of the power level, which is something, I don't think is necessary.
I think it is absolutely fine to lower the power level of a cube in favor of synergies and archetype cards. The most enjoyable gameplay isn't necesarily the most powerful gameplay, but I trust you all to understand that, or you wouldn't be playing pauper cube in the first place.
There are also a lot of cards, which have been cut, just because of the power level, which is something, I don't think is necessary.
I think it is absolutely fine to lower the power level of a cube in favor of synergies and archetype cards. The most enjoyable gameplay isn't necesarily the most powerful gameplay, but I trust you all to understand that, or you wouldn't be playing pauper cube in the first place.
You can surely exclude cards, because you find them to be too powerful, but as I said I find this completely unnecessary in the context of pauper. The most powerful commons aren't insane bombs like Dream Trawler, which win you the game, just because you have them. I've experimented with archetypes a lot and I didn't ever feel the need to cut cards for powerlevel reasons. For me part of the interesting point about a pauper cube is something that Styborski actually said about his: "a cube of commons that should probably have never been printed". If you cut the strongest cards you simply go down to a collection of commons, that were pretty good, but definitely have their intended rarity.
as someone who has a powered down archetype driven cube, which still looks quite different to that cube, I can see why certain cards have to go. Removal for example is just too efficient, if you want to support an aura-nonhexproof archetype or some durdle decks.
Gameplaywise I was always back and forth between my cubes. In the end powerlevel is much more fun than archetype though. Drafting is slightly less interesting, but the decks have so much more momentum.
Adams cube fell ballsdeep in the "danger of cool things region" and never crawled out of it.
Well, they've gotta pull a list from somewhere. Also, Styb no longer maintains the cube. He's passed it off to some other guys, who now maintain the cube through community feedback. I've enjoyed their youtube videos for the last couple sets - they stream themselves looking at all the new commons, and bring Chat into the conversation. They listen to other people's ideas pretty well. The cube has become something that a greater amount of people have built together and seem to all be in agreement with.
That being said, I obviously think my cube is superior
As someone who set reviewed commons for a bit. It can be difficult to understand the power of each card in a vacuum without some kind of codex of relative card power levels. I typically referenced this forum for ratings, but it was still early days because other than staples, people here hadn't really agreed on much. I have to admit Al putting together the Evaluate Everything project really helped, although it already is in need of a bit of modernisation.
It can be useful to consult all black creature 3's and have a peek at staple 2's and 4's when working on a curve for black. Even though Soulcage Fiend and Blind Zealot are underrated. Carnophage based strategies are still strong although somewhat risky and Blind Zealot is an evasive 3 drop that is all upside.
I would say that the people who put together that cube typically avoid the resources we use.
Looking at the Styborski Cube today, I think it has definitely improved since he has stopped working on it, but there still are a lot of borderline -> bad cards, which might have been in some lists here a long time ago, but no one runs anymore.
I'm not sure, but the cube might still have the policy of forcing at as many new cards from recent sets into it, as possible, no matter how bad they are. The manacurve is pretty bad and the creature/spell ratio for most colors are off, especially green. There are also a lot of cards, which have been cut, just because of the power level, which is something, I don't think is necessary. I especially can't understand the reasoning, why Ravnica Bounce lands shouldn't be in there. Sure they are good, but not game breaking in any way.
Forcing UW Flicker as an archetype is simply not viable and way too many cards are dedicated towards that, apart from the fact, that I dislike restricting archetypes to 2 specific colors anyway, but I know I'm alone with that opinion and it goes off topic.
To see what would be good changes you can simply compare his list to any of the updated ones around here. The amount of discrepancy is insane. You can also take a look into the Evaluate Everything project. Even though it's not perfectly up to date and some ratings are outdated it still is mostly a good reference point and I think most people agree on the bad cards, of which none should be represented here.
Al's vacuum evaluations are typically pretty spot on, although we will disagree on specifics.
There are also a lot of cards, which have been cut, just because of the power level, which is something, I don't think is necessary.
I think it is absolutely fine to lower the power level of a cube in favor of synergies and archetype cards. The most enjoyable gameplay isn't necesarily the most powerful gameplay, but I trust you all to understand that, or you wouldn't be playing pauper cube in the first place.
You can surely exclude cards, because you find them to be too powerful, but as I said I find this completely unnecessary in the context of pauper. The most powerful commons aren't insane bombs like Dream Trawler, which win you the game, just because you have them. I've experimented with archetypes a lot and I didn't ever feel the need to cut cards for powerlevel reasons. For me part of the interesting point about a pauper cube is something that Styborski actually said about his: "a cube of commons that should probably have never been printed". If you cut the strongest cards you simply go down to a collection of commons, that were pretty good, but definitely have their intended rarity.
Dreamtrawler costs 6 and is pretty weak to countermagic. I think the strength of Trawler is mostly in player's willinglessness to adapt.
"A cube of commons that should probably have never been printed" sounds like vapid advertising and no actual substance to back up the claim. Although I wouldn't take the quote too seriously because frankly people say a lot of random things off-handedly, myself included, and I wouldn't take it too seriously. I enjoyed Adam when he posted on the mothership, although I felt he was appealing to a casual crowd, rather than the competitively minded. And I took it in with a biiiig pinch of salt. Although it's been quite some time since I read all the mothership's weekly posts back to front. Hmmm.
In the end powerlevel is much more fun than archetype though.
I know it's against the popular opinion, but I agree with this. Simply having a collection of good cards, where drafters can get creative opens up so much more design space for decks. People can get highly creative with what they do and draft synergies I didn't even see, when I put the cards in the cube.
I think it's the opposite. When you have a very archetype heavy cube your decks will look more similar to each other. You might see a color combination you like and want to go in a specfic direction, but then you realise, there are way too few playables for that strategy. I've actually drafted the cube on mtgo, because I had some Tix left, when I stopped playing that *****ty game years ago, and it's just horrible, how you are forced into playing a crappy UW flicker deck, when you just want to go for UW Control or UW Skies.
When archetypes play only a supporting role they are totally fine, but they always decrease the amount of variance you would have compared to an otherwise purely goodstuff cube with some synergies, but no fleshed out archetypes.
i guess you haven looked at my t2 for quite a while. the archetypes there are crossbreeds, so your not railroading. gy, discard, madness for example work together quite well.
i guess you haven looked at my t2 for quite a while. the archetypes there are crossbreeds, so your not railroading. gy, discard, madness for example work together quite well.
Id say the main reason T1 is less interesting to draft, is because you know all the cards already. (for a seasoned drafter)
This is a lot of reading, but from glancing at the white section seems quite interesting. There are lots of varying strength and they seem to fluctuate with the game state. I haven't seem this list before, so I'll need to check it out in more depth later.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There's no word in the goblin language for "strategy." Then again, there's no word in the goblin language for "word."
really not sure what about his cube is bad. I see a lot of cards that most of us run, and I'm not seeing any bad cards. just seems like you have a personal vendetta against Adam.
its no surprise he runs a lot of the better commons at 540!
but at the same time there are 180 cards that can be cut lol.
it looks closer to a 540 average list cube than a curated list.
no bad cards? then you must be very unexperienced. there are tons of cards that look kinda good on paper but play horrible.
like loyal cathar and werebear ,Skittering Crustacean,the whole green ramp plan
but yeah, i dont like adam, because he promotes the format with a deeply flawed product. pretty much everybody says his cube plays bad and then generalize it on the format.
I'll give you Prophet of the peak as an odd choice but loyal cathar(recurring creature) and werebear(4/4 for 2) are good cards and the crustacean is alright as an early game blocker late game win condition. whats wrong with the green ramp?
no bad cards? then you must be very unexperienced. there are tons of cards that look kinda good on paper but play horrible.
cathar is bad, because the recurring creature cant block. so by the time the front is outclassed, the backside cant even be defensive. Effectively its just a 2/2 for WW.
werebear is a 1/1 for 2 and will never reach tresh in 98% of the games, without heavy support.
you never played with those i guess.
blues 3 are probably one of the most competititve slots and you run a quasi vanilla 2/3 that skips a turn and dies in response later?
green ramp is just discarding cards, especially when he could use Sylvan Ranger and satyr wayfinder instead, so it would look like at least some thought went into building this *****.
we all have pet cards I guess. I really like Cathar and I've never had a problem getting threshold. you really like Empyrial armour which is good for a few turns but there are much better cards to fill that slot imho. I like ramp and if you support it right it works. nothing like dropping a fattie on turn 3-4 and stopping agro in their tracks. no need to tell me I don't have experience playing because I evaluate cards differently. I played competitive with Brad Nelson and Corey Baumeister before they went professional(or maybe pro players don't mean anything).
Well Ramp is not really viable in pauper, not because the quality of the ramp cards isn't excellent (it absolutely is), but there simply aren't finisher. The argument "Dies to removal" is nowhere as accurate as it is here, because pauper has the highest discrepancy in power level between noncreature spells and creatures than any other format. You can't simply play Eldrazi Devastator and hope, that it will win the game for you. I've played a heavy hexproof archetype for the longest time and there it was worth ramping into Rubbleback Rhino and Benthic Giant and put some auras on it, which requires a lot of mana to be good, but at least it was somewhat of a save bet. If you hope that big dumb vanillas will win you the game in this format, just because you got them out a bit earlier is simply not the case and the Styborski cube has no shortage of cheap removal.
I still had some tix on mtgo left and played the cube a couple of times. It's Ok, but Green is literally unplayable trash in his cube. There is no Sprout Swarm (which I can understand) or Blastoderm (which I can't understand) and simply no reason to be green at all.
I would love to support the Flicker archetype in the Esper Colors, but sadly it is as unviable as ramp. Again not because we don't have good flicker effects, but because most etb-effects in pauper are fine as they are attached to their bodies, but spending a card just to draw a card or let the opponent discard a card simply doesn't get you anywhere. I also dislike self bounce, because it requires you to cast the creature again, which is a huge tempo downside.
The flexibility of flicker effects to either trigger an etb effect or save a creature from removal is ok, but the idea, that you save your etb creature from removal and get "double value" is magical christmas land. Most of the time the creature with an etb effect isn't worth a removal, especially not if there is a chance, that you have mana left to save it.
There are only 2 creatures in pauper, which have an etb effect, that is worth spending a card on it, which are Mulldrifter, the strongest blue card, which you are very unlikely to get in a draft and Dinrova Horror, which doesn't help UW flicker.
There are also only 4 Flicker Spells, which can flicker more than once, which are Momentary Blink, Ephemerate and Ghostly Flicker/Displace.
I think it's totally fine to run Momentary Blink and Ephemerate as good cards in a vacuum. There is an overabundance of decent flicker targets, without specifically forcing some in, but playing all the bad flicker cards and some bad cards with etb effects doesn't really do anything, as I just explained.
Additionally there is the Archaemancer/Ghostly Flicker combo, but that's really more a combo than the base for an archetype.
we all have pet cards I guess. I really like Cathar and I've never had a problem getting threshold. you really like Empyrial armour which is good for a few turns but there are much better cards to fill that slot imho. I like ramp and if you support it right it works. nothing like dropping a fattie on turn 3-4 and stopping agro in their tracks. no need to tell me I don't have experience playing because I evaluate cards differently. I played competitive with Brad Nelson and Corey Baumeister before they went professional(or maybe pro players don't mean anything).
ok, in which situation cathar is better than armor lol.
Armor really is insane and not just a petcard of mine. Its the only viable option to have a fattie in white. Otherwise all your lowdrops are outclassed real quick. And it gets stronger with the turns, not worse.
Ill still assume you dont have play experience with all those cards, otherwise you would make reasonable arguments.
I played pretty much all staple to borderline cards in either my cubes by now and threshold is crazy hard to reach, especially in green. Werebear is never a 4/4 when you need it.
(and he was a petcard of mine of quite some time, being an oldschool canadian thresh guy)
As Al says, dropping an early fattie is quite irrelevant, because most removal costs 2. meanwhile you just spend 1-2 cards for ramp and lost a 3 for 1. If the cube is well constructed, aggro buffs its early drops (with pet-y armor for example) or pumpspells to run through your "fattie". Which is a 5/5 at best.
No deck or table needs like 6 copies of farseek on top of all the other rampcards. Thats not only bad, but boring design for everyone involved.
cathar is very similar to doomed traveler and is great in white aggro decks, I can't see how cathar and armor are comparable one is a recurring creature and the other is a 2 for 1 waiting to happen, I've played armor before and it was never good, you can really only use it in a W/U hexproof deck. most drafts are quick games and not playing cards so armor gets better is bad value.
why run mana elves if ramp is bad? they are more useful as you can attack and block but they are outclassed to fast, so you use them to smooth mana and ramp. why would instant/sorcery ramp spells be bad then? dies to removal is such a week crutch to stand on, so I don't ramp and get crusher out turn 8, he will still die to the same removal he would have if I ramped, so why run anything that will die to removal then? I get building around removal for constructed meta's but for cube it is a really week argument.
Just my opinions and I'm sure I haven't played enough to know how magic works
Obv they use Styrboskis crapcube. So instead of gathering more players to the format, most will turn their back in disgust.
Is so sad, that he overtook the scene just because of a website.
I hate this guy.
powpercube Johnny https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t
That being said, I obviously think my cube is superior
GWUBRDraft my Old Border Nostalgia Cube! and/or The Little Pauper Cube That Could!RBUWG
Modern:WDeath & TaxesW | RUGRUG DelverRUG
powpercube Johnny https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t
My Omniscience Draft Cube[/b]
My Commander Cube
My Pai Gow Cube
My Two-Headed Giant Cube
I'm not sure, but the cube might still have the policy of forcing at as many new cards from recent sets into it, as possible, no matter how bad they are. The manacurve is pretty bad and the creature/spell ratio for most colors are off, especially green. There are also a lot of cards, which have been cut, just because of the power level, which is something, I don't think is necessary. I especially can't understand the reasoning, why Ravnica Bounce lands shouldn't be in there. Sure they are good, but not game breaking in any way.
Forcing UW Flicker as an archetype is simply not viable and way too many cards are dedicated towards that, apart from the fact, that I dislike restricting archetypes to 2 specific colors anyway, but I know I'm alone with that opinion and it goes off topic.
To see what would be good changes you can simply compare his list to any of the updated ones around here. The amount of discrepancy is insane. You can also take a look into the Evaluate Everything project. Even though it's not perfectly up to date and some ratings are outdated it still is mostly a good reference point and I think most people agree on the bad cards, of which none should be represented here.
Pauper Cube & Artifact Pauper Cube & Multiplayer Cube
Interested in building your own Pauper Cube? Take a look at some of the lists and the following project: The "Evaluate Everything" Project (updated to M21/JMP)
I think it is absolutely fine to lower the power level of a cube in favor of synergies and archetype cards. The most enjoyable gameplay isn't necesarily the most powerful gameplay, but I trust you all to understand that, or you wouldn't be playing pauper cube in the first place.
Pauper Cube & Artifact Pauper Cube & Multiplayer Cube
Interested in building your own Pauper Cube? Take a look at some of the lists and the following project: The "Evaluate Everything" Project (updated to M21/JMP)
Gameplaywise I was always back and forth between my cubes. In the end powerlevel is much more fun than archetype though. Drafting is slightly less interesting, but the decks have so much more momentum.
Adams cube fell ballsdeep in the "danger of cool things region" and never crawled out of it.
powpercube Johnny https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t
I have no clue what this means
I disagree with this part, but it's a matter of taste, and it's probably why I like Peasant cube over Pauper.
Cant compare
powpercube Johnny https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t
As someone who set reviewed commons for a bit. It can be difficult to understand the power of each card in a vacuum without some kind of codex of relative card power levels. I typically referenced this forum for ratings, but it was still early days because other than staples, people here hadn't really agreed on much. I have to admit Al putting together the Evaluate Everything project really helped, although it already is in need of a bit of modernisation.
It can be useful to consult all black creature 3's and have a peek at staple 2's and 4's when working on a curve for black. Even though Soulcage Fiend and Blind Zealot are underrated. Carnophage based strategies are still strong although somewhat risky and Blind Zealot is an evasive 3 drop that is all upside.
I would say that the people who put together that cube typically avoid the resources we use.
Haven't looked at it, and probably won't.
Al's vacuum evaluations are typically pretty spot on, although we will disagree on specifics.
Dreamtrawler costs 6 and is pretty weak to countermagic. I think the strength of Trawler is mostly in player's willinglessness to adapt.
"A cube of commons that should probably have never been printed" sounds like vapid advertising and no actual substance to back up the claim. Although I wouldn't take the quote too seriously because frankly people say a lot of random things off-handedly, myself included, and I wouldn't take it too seriously. I enjoyed Adam when he posted on the mothership, although I felt he was appealing to a casual crowd, rather than the competitively minded. And I took it in with a biiiig pinch of salt. Although it's been quite some time since I read all the mothership's weekly posts back to front. Hmmm.
Classic article.
I think it's the opposite. When you have a very archetype heavy cube your decks will look more similar to each other. You might see a color combination you like and want to go in a specfic direction, but then you realise, there are way too few playables for that strategy. I've actually drafted the cube on mtgo, because I had some Tix left, when I stopped playing that *****ty game years ago, and it's just horrible, how you are forced into playing a crappy UW flicker deck, when you just want to go for UW Control or UW Skies.
When archetypes play only a supporting role they are totally fine, but they always decrease the amount of variance you would have compared to an otherwise purely goodstuff cube with some synergies, but no fleshed out archetypes.
Pauper Cube & Artifact Pauper Cube & Multiplayer Cube
Interested in building your own Pauper Cube? Take a look at some of the lists and the following project: The "Evaluate Everything" Project (updated to M21/JMP)
I dont have an colorbalanced version available, but the latest is found here
https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/5dbad85558fd1c406dd3b75b
Id say the main reason T1 is less interesting to draft, is because you know all the cards already. (for a seasoned drafter)
powpercube Johnny https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t
This is a lot of reading, but from glancing at the white section seems quite interesting. There are lots of varying strength and they seem to fluctuate with the game state. I haven't seem this list before, so I'll need to check it out in more depth later.
https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/mtgo_pauper_cube?view=spoiler
what a bloated pile of crap.
powpercube Johnny https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t
https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/9o1
but at the same time there are 180 cards that can be cut lol.
it looks closer to a 540 average list cube than a curated list.
no bad cards? then you must be very unexperienced. there are tons of cards that look kinda good on paper but play horrible.
like loyal cathar and werebear ,Skittering Crustacean,the whole green ramp plan
also Prophet of the Peak, srsly?
but yeah, i dont like adam, because he promotes the format with a deeply flawed product. pretty much everybody says his cube plays bad and then generalize it on the format.
powpercube Johnny https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t
https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/9o1
cathar is bad, because the recurring creature cant block. so by the time the front is outclassed, the backside cant even be defensive. Effectively its just a 2/2 for WW.
werebear is a 1/1 for 2 and will never reach tresh in 98% of the games, without heavy support.
you never played with those i guess.
blues 3 are probably one of the most competititve slots and you run a quasi vanilla 2/3 that skips a turn and dies in response later?
green ramp is just discarding cards, especially when he could use Sylvan Ranger and satyr wayfinder instead, so it would look like at least some thought went into building this *****.
powpercube Johnny https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t
https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/9o1
I still had some tix on mtgo left and played the cube a couple of times. It's Ok, but Green is literally unplayable trash in his cube. There is no Sprout Swarm (which I can understand) or Blastoderm (which I can't understand) and simply no reason to be green at all.
I would love to support the Flicker archetype in the Esper Colors, but sadly it is as unviable as ramp. Again not because we don't have good flicker effects, but because most etb-effects in pauper are fine as they are attached to their bodies, but spending a card just to draw a card or let the opponent discard a card simply doesn't get you anywhere. I also dislike self bounce, because it requires you to cast the creature again, which is a huge tempo downside.
The flexibility of flicker effects to either trigger an etb effect or save a creature from removal is ok, but the idea, that you save your etb creature from removal and get "double value" is magical christmas land. Most of the time the creature with an etb effect isn't worth a removal, especially not if there is a chance, that you have mana left to save it.
There are only 2 creatures in pauper, which have an etb effect, that is worth spending a card on it, which are Mulldrifter, the strongest blue card, which you are very unlikely to get in a draft and Dinrova Horror, which doesn't help UW flicker.
There are also only 4 Flicker Spells, which can flicker more than once, which are Momentary Blink, Ephemerate and Ghostly Flicker/Displace.
I think it's totally fine to run Momentary Blink and Ephemerate as good cards in a vacuum. There is an overabundance of decent flicker targets, without specifically forcing some in, but playing all the bad flicker cards and some bad cards with etb effects doesn't really do anything, as I just explained.
Additionally there is the Archaemancer/Ghostly Flicker combo, but that's really more a combo than the base for an archetype.
Pauper Cube & Artifact Pauper Cube & Multiplayer Cube
Interested in building your own Pauper Cube? Take a look at some of the lists and the following project: The "Evaluate Everything" Project (updated to M21/JMP)
ok, in which situation cathar is better than armor lol.
Armor really is insane and not just a petcard of mine. Its the only viable option to have a fattie in white. Otherwise all your lowdrops are outclassed real quick. And it gets stronger with the turns, not worse.
Ill still assume you dont have play experience with all those cards, otherwise you would make reasonable arguments.
I played pretty much all staple to borderline cards in either my cubes by now and threshold is crazy hard to reach, especially in green. Werebear is never a 4/4 when you need it.
(and he was a petcard of mine of quite some time, being an oldschool canadian thresh guy)
As Al says, dropping an early fattie is quite irrelevant, because most removal costs 2. meanwhile you just spend 1-2 cards for ramp and lost a 3 for 1. If the cube is well constructed, aggro buffs its early drops (with pet-y armor for example) or pumpspells to run through your "fattie". Which is a 5/5 at best.
No deck or table needs like 6 copies of farseek on top of all the other rampcards. Thats not only bad, but boring design for everyone involved.
powpercube Johnny https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t
why run mana elves if ramp is bad? they are more useful as you can attack and block but they are outclassed to fast, so you use them to smooth mana and ramp. why would instant/sorcery ramp spells be bad then? dies to removal is such a week crutch to stand on, so I don't ramp and get crusher out turn 8, he will still die to the same removal he would have if I ramped, so why run anything that will die to removal then? I get building around removal for constructed meta's but for cube it is a really week argument.
Just my opinions and I'm sure I haven't played enough to know how magic works
https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/9o1