I play Horizon Canopy in addition to the four lands per guild I run. Traditional dual lands are like gold cards: if you can't use both colors, the land doesn't do anything for you. Horizon Canopy is like a hybrid card: it is perfectly playable if you play white OR green, and it is at its best if you play both.
I'd love a Horizon Canopy cycle. It would make me increase the number of lands per guild from 4 to 5. Lands that tap for two different colors turn 1 and that can be cashed in for a card later are great for any deck. The life loss is more of a concern for control decks than for aggressive decks, which is great because it balances the Worldwake manlands (which are also great for any deck, but better for slower decks than for faster decks that really want their turn one mana).
I agree with a lot of what you said, but it's more nuanced than what you said. The speed of the format is very relevant when you are examining the efficacy of a strategy.
I am sorry that my post led to confusion. I was not examining the efficacy of a strategy, I was examining why Abbot of Keral Keep is a good card in the PT-winning deck. I then proceeded to explain why Abbot cannot achieve the same performance in Cube. I think this is a helpful analysis, because if expectations for a card are set too high, there is a chance that it is perceived as too weak in testing, when in truth it is just weaker than expected.
I agree that you can't expect to do Abbot as well in Cube as it did in Standard. But not because Standard is slow. The reason is that in constructed non-singleton formats, decks can be much more streamlined in order to maximize the efficiency of the cards with the most potential.
Consider the deck Joel Larson won the PT with: it plays 19 spells that cost 1 mana, 12 that cost 2 and only 8 that cost more than 2 (and 4 of them are Stoke the Flames which has Convoke, so it does not always cost more than 2). I have not done the math, but with 3 mana available, you are roughly >60% to net a card with Abbot, with 4 mana available roughly >80%. Also, the deck plays a 18/21/21 split of creatures/spells/lands. That means triggering Prowess (on one of the 8 Prowess creatures) will happen relatively often.
In a singleton limited format like Cube, you don't have access to a critical mass of Prowess creatures. That probably means you are better off playing a higher percentage of creatures in your Cube deck than Joel in his Standard deck. Also, the number of quality one-mana spells is not there to go super low on the mana curve. Neither is there a reason to do that, because a singleton Abbot does not justify playing one-drops over two-drops (we can assume that in Cube, reasonably powerful two-drops are available), so you are probably better off playing a mix of one- and two drops rather than just one drops. So by nature of the format, Abbot of Keral Keep is not as powerful in Cube as it is in Standard.
All that said, Abbot can still be a good Cube card. I'd say it depends on the deck-building preferences of your red drafters.
How big a Cube are we talking here? Sunblast Angel only kills tapped creatures, so even though it is one more mana, I'd prefer Martial Coup. Akroma's Vengeance does kill artifacts which may hurt you more than your opponent (artifact mana), but does not kill planeswalkers (which may or may not be good for you, depending on the board state). Planar Cleansing would be a true reset button, but a mix of the 4 and 5 mana wraths to target creatures and flexible Oblivion Ring-style removal for everything else seems more desirable to me.
I'm a proponent of including a lot of utility lands in the Cube. But I found that lands like Flagstones of Trokair are usually not worth a draft pick. The effect is just not powerful enough to pick it over a potential maindeck or sideboard card. I'd like to find a way to include such marginal lands in the Cube, but just including it in the main list did not do it for me.
Glad to see that Thopter Spy Network gets a chance. I can see it being quite the powerhouse in Rochester. Would you consider it for regular drafts as well?
Is Abbot of Keral Keep in over Ash Zealot mainly for the easier mana cost, or do you think that it is generally the stronger card? I think I haven't played with Abbots ability and it is hard for me to evaluate.
I can see Battle Screech being very powerful in the right decks. I hope it performs well for you!
I assume that Elite Vanguard is a cut because in Rochester you don't need as much redundancy in the one drop slot in white.
You keep Trusty Machete over Silver-Inlaid Dagger. Is the toughness-boost that relevant, or is it just the consistency of the Machete vs. the Dagger?
Finally, how has Alesha, Who Smiles at Death played? The effect looks really strong on paper and competitively prized as well.
Yes, red has a lot of reanimator support and synergy, but having to discard everything is not part of its game plan. You also want to be getting online faster than turn 5 anyway, which is when you would be top-decking your Reanimate assuming you get that lucky. So it's really an aggro-only four drop in my eyes.
Agree. But it is a very good aggro-only four drop. You should pretty much always be able to cast it as your last card, so you don't actually discard, and if they still have removal for it right away at that point, more power to them. I like the idea of cutting one of the traditional four drops for this just to mix it up. We can do seasonal Cube now anyway, with Dragons in the fall and Land Destruction when Winter Is Coming.
I'm happy with the choice of evergreen keyword abilities come Magic Origins: Scry is in! Prowess as well, which is good for the blue based aggro and the up-and-coming spells matter archetype. Judging by my experiences with Stormblood Berserker, Menace (This can't be blocked except by two or more creatures.) is a good one as well.
Three keyword abilities lose evergreen status: Intimidate, Landwalk and Protection. All three abilities range from very good to irrelevant depending on your opponents colors. I prefer abilities with less variance, so that change is good with me!
The important thing is that the rules are known when you start drafting. Building a 40 card deck that folds to a single card is only a mistake if you are not allowed to change the deck to adapt to said card, and even then it may be worth the gamble depending on the lieklihood of facing said card at all (in order to play against said card, you have to be paired against the player who drafted it and he has to actually draw it).
I can see circumstances where playing with no sideboards at all is the most practical thing to do. I prefer playing with sideboards, though. I like the idea of 10-cards sideboards because it feels more like constructed. You draft your deck and choose the tools against various problematic decks or cards you might encounter along the way. In draft, you can still include most picks that did not make the main deck (because you also draft non-basic lands, chances are that 20 cards or less don't make your main deck; some of those are late picks that just happened to end up in your pile). In sealed, it significantly reduces the options post-board, which is a good thing.
I like precise game rules because the rules help avoid that things get personal. Take your free mulligan rule, for example. I would hate to make a mulligan decision based on that rule, because rather than making a purely mathematical decision (is it more likely to win with this 7 card starting hand or a random 6 card starting hand) I would have to weigh my chances of winning with a given starting hand vs. my chances of being seen as a dick for abusing the free mulligan. I'd also feel somewhat cheated because I don't get rewarded for building a consistent deck if my opponents can just mulligan away the lack of consistency their deck has.
@calibretto: Let me be the devil's advocate here. So you say you don't have fun, because your opponent refuses to be utterly crushed by your UW Moat Control deck that he knows he can't beat with his Rakdos aggro deck? Instead of changing his deck, using the cards he drafted, in order to maximize his chance of winning, you would have him play the same Rakdos aggro deck with maybe 1-3 cards changed? Maybe he does not have fun playing a deck that is a huge underdog if instead he could play a more evenly matched one.
Personally, I play Cube as a limited format as far as sideboarding is concerned. All cards that did not make your main deck are your sideboard, you get access to as many basic lands as you want. Making big changes between games is a legitimate limited strategy which involves some fun mind games. As long as players take a reasonable time sideboarding, I don't have a problem with that.
I have to say I also like the idea of 10-card pseudo-constructed sideboards.
What I don't like at all is no sideboard. Because there is such a variety of decks, there are cards that are dead in certain match-ups and crucial in others. It's OK to have a few of the former and lack a few of the latter game one, but for games two and three I really like the option to make a few tweaks.
A lot has been written about Swords being oppressive and that being the reason to cut them. At least for me, that is not the reason. My reasons are:
Five Swords are too many for small Cubes
Swords are powerful, colorless cards and therefore good first picks. After picking a Sword, you are looking to play a midrange creature deck (hard aggro, creatureless control or combo are not good decks for a Sword). We went from two Swords back in the day to five Swords at present, which in a 450 cards Cube means from one Sword for every five players to one Sword for every other player. This is too much support for what is essentially a midrange deck. I think a good number of Swords for a 450 cards Cube is 3, which makes room for two other interesting artifact options to cater to other decks.
Protection from Color is detrimental to monocolor decks
I want monocolored decks to be a thing. It may be nostalgia, but I do enjoy them. Those decks can pretty much lose to a single protection from color creature. On the other hand, protection from color is not even very good in an average scenario. So I decided to remove the randomness that protection from color creatures bring to the tables. Later, I faded out protection from color entirely by cutting the Swords.
Cutting all the Swords is probably not the best idea, because without them the equipment section feels a bit thin. I hope they print more broken equipment without protection from color. Until then, I may consider playing one or two Swords. Sword of Fire and Ice because it is the best of the bunch, and Sword of Feast and Famine because it has combo potential.
Protection from color is not at all in line with what I envision for a Cube environment, so from that point of view the Swords are indeed bad design.
TheElGrande may not have put it the most eloquent way, but the point he makes is worth considering. What if the swords did not provide protection, would they be good? The triggered abilities could then easily be stopped by blocking. Sorcery speed removal or instant speed removal drawn a turn too late would still be helpful. Of course a single hit from a Sword would still provide a lot of value, and it is certainly possible to engineer a turn where you can play and equip a Sword. 5 mana in that scenario is definitely not on the cheap side.
With the protections mixed in, the Swords provide the value necessary for the 5 mana investment, but because of the nature of protection from color in a limited environment, the price for this is a higher variance. Some people like high variance, some despise it.
I'd love a Horizon Canopy cycle. It would make me increase the number of lands per guild from 4 to 5. Lands that tap for two different colors turn 1 and that can be cashed in for a card later are great for any deck. The life loss is more of a concern for control decks than for aggressive decks, which is great because it balances the Worldwake manlands (which are also great for any deck, but better for slower decks than for faster decks that really want their turn one mana).
Consider the deck Joel Larson won the PT with: it plays 19 spells that cost 1 mana, 12 that cost 2 and only 8 that cost more than 2 (and 4 of them are Stoke the Flames which has Convoke, so it does not always cost more than 2). I have not done the math, but with 3 mana available, you are roughly >60% to net a card with Abbot, with 4 mana available roughly >80%. Also, the deck plays a 18/21/21 split of creatures/spells/lands. That means triggering Prowess (on one of the 8 Prowess creatures) will happen relatively often.
In a singleton limited format like Cube, you don't have access to a critical mass of Prowess creatures. That probably means you are better off playing a higher percentage of creatures in your Cube deck than Joel in his Standard deck. Also, the number of quality one-mana spells is not there to go super low on the mana curve. Neither is there a reason to do that, because a singleton Abbot does not justify playing one-drops over two-drops (we can assume that in Cube, reasonably powerful two-drops are available), so you are probably better off playing a mix of one- and two drops rather than just one drops. So by nature of the format, Abbot of Keral Keep is not as powerful in Cube as it is in Standard.
All that said, Abbot can still be a good Cube card. I'd say it depends on the deck-building preferences of your red drafters.
Glad to see that Thopter Spy Network gets a chance. I can see it being quite the powerhouse in Rochester. Would you consider it for regular drafts as well?
Is Abbot of Keral Keep in over Ash Zealot mainly for the easier mana cost, or do you think that it is generally the stronger card? I think I haven't played with Abbots ability and it is hard for me to evaluate.
I can see Battle Screech being very powerful in the right decks. I hope it performs well for you!
I assume that Elite Vanguard is a cut because in Rochester you don't need as much redundancy in the one drop slot in white.
You keep Trusty Machete over Silver-Inlaid Dagger. Is the toughness-boost that relevant, or is it just the consistency of the Machete vs. the Dagger?
Finally, how has Alesha, Who Smiles at Death played? The effect looks really strong on paper and competitively prized as well.
Three keyword abilities lose evergreen status: Intimidate, Landwalk and Protection. All three abilities range from very good to irrelevant depending on your opponents colors. I prefer abilities with less variance, so that change is good with me!
I can see circumstances where playing with no sideboards at all is the most practical thing to do. I prefer playing with sideboards, though. I like the idea of 10-cards sideboards because it feels more like constructed. You draft your deck and choose the tools against various problematic decks or cards you might encounter along the way. In draft, you can still include most picks that did not make the main deck (because you also draft non-basic lands, chances are that 20 cards or less don't make your main deck; some of those are late picks that just happened to end up in your pile). In sealed, it significantly reduces the options post-board, which is a good thing.
I like precise game rules because the rules help avoid that things get personal. Take your free mulligan rule, for example. I would hate to make a mulligan decision based on that rule, because rather than making a purely mathematical decision (is it more likely to win with this 7 card starting hand or a random 6 card starting hand) I would have to weigh my chances of winning with a given starting hand vs. my chances of being seen as a dick for abusing the free mulligan. I'd also feel somewhat cheated because I don't get rewarded for building a consistent deck if my opponents can just mulligan away the lack of consistency their deck has.
Personally, I play Cube as a limited format as far as sideboarding is concerned. All cards that did not make your main deck are your sideboard, you get access to as many basic lands as you want. Making big changes between games is a legitimate limited strategy which involves some fun mind games. As long as players take a reasonable time sideboarding, I don't have a problem with that.
I have to say I also like the idea of 10-card pseudo-constructed sideboards.
What I don't like at all is no sideboard. Because there is such a variety of decks, there are cards that are dead in certain match-ups and crucial in others. It's OK to have a few of the former and lack a few of the latter game one, but for games two and three I really like the option to make a few tweaks.
Five Swords are too many for small Cubes
Swords are powerful, colorless cards and therefore good first picks. After picking a Sword, you are looking to play a midrange creature deck (hard aggro, creatureless control or combo are not good decks for a Sword). We went from two Swords back in the day to five Swords at present, which in a 450 cards Cube means from one Sword for every five players to one Sword for every other player. This is too much support for what is essentially a midrange deck. I think a good number of Swords for a 450 cards Cube is 3, which makes room for two other interesting artifact options to cater to other decks.
Protection from Color is detrimental to monocolor decks
I want monocolored decks to be a thing. It may be nostalgia, but I do enjoy them. Those decks can pretty much lose to a single protection from color creature. On the other hand, protection from color is not even very good in an average scenario. So I decided to remove the randomness that protection from color creatures bring to the tables. Later, I faded out protection from color entirely by cutting the Swords.
Cutting all the Swords is probably not the best idea, because without them the equipment section feels a bit thin. I hope they print more broken equipment without protection from color. Until then, I may consider playing one or two Swords. Sword of Fire and Ice because it is the best of the bunch, and Sword of Feast and Famine because it has combo potential.
TheElGrande may not have put it the most eloquent way, but the point he makes is worth considering. What if the swords did not provide protection, would they be good? The triggered abilities could then easily be stopped by blocking. Sorcery speed removal or instant speed removal drawn a turn too late would still be helpful. Of course a single hit from a Sword would still provide a lot of value, and it is certainly possible to engineer a turn where you can play and equip a Sword. 5 mana in that scenario is definitely not on the cheap side.
With the protections mixed in, the Swords provide the value necessary for the 5 mana investment, but because of the nature of protection from color in a limited environment, the price for this is a higher variance. Some people like high variance, some despise it.