I don't really know what Earthcraft does outside of a cube where the interactions it can provide are heavily supported. In a typical list, I don't see it doing much of anything.
It is an interesting effect, which is extremely volatile and depends highly on your deck coughing up the percentages you want.
If it generated card advantage, I would say it had a lot more potential, but as it stands, it is difficult to justify, especially at sorcery speed. I probably wouldn't include it even in the largest of cubes.
Yup. I'm surprised these two land cycles have not shown up yet. I would go with nimbus maze cycle though because it is more flavor neutral. (river reminds me of landfall)
I would include some planeswalkers based on merit, not specify any particular requisite number of them per color or section. They are basically enchantments you can attack, but get better the longer they stay in play.
They are powerful cards and many of them are worthy of inclusion in the cube. I would evaluate them on a case by case basis just like you do with every other card.
Don't forget that you can tinker away something which is spent or no longer useful like Tangle Wire or a tapped Mana Vault just to get some added utility or equipment.
I would, however, venture to say that the Terminate/Vindicate test is one of the less useful criterion in assessing an expensive creature. It certainly has some value, and I think that by this point in time the Vindicate test has been ingrained in the subconscious of virtually every cube designer. Nevertheless, it's merely one of several criterion in assessing finishers, and not even the premier one at that.
The other 'tests' are things that are more obviously apparent to cube designers. These are for creatures with CMC 5+
Card Advantage Test: Will this card provide me with card advantage?
Power Test: How does this card's power relate to its casting cost? Bigger? At least equal?
Evasion Test: Does this creature have trample/unblockable/flying to allow it to connect?
Added Benefits Test: Does the creature have First Strike/Lifelink/Haste? Does it provide benefits to my other creatures?
Cost test: How much more than 5 does the creature cost?
Color Test: Does the creature costs 2 or less colored mana?
etc. etc. etc.
The thing is that we understand what is a 'good deal' and a 'bad deal' for our mana. And there are plenty of very powerful creatures who can quickly end games if they are unanswered. But what separates many of them from the creatures we typically cube with is their inability to provide some value for your mana when the opponent removes your 5+ mana spell with a 1 or 2 mana card. We cite the terminate test as a way to differentiate the 'good' creatures from the 'great' ones, and it is a very good tool for that purpose.
Penumbra Wurm passes the Terminate test. But we don't talk about including it because it falls short of what we expect for its mana cost.
There are 1695 creatures with CMC greater or equal to 5 in print (at the time of this post). I include 21 in my cube. Probably 80-100 of those 1600+ are 'good enough' to cube with if you discount the terminate test.
But you can still do 20 power on that third turn, because you 'waste' an activation to make a guy, then sacrifice the planeswalker so you can win the game.
And that is nothing to say what else happens if you let other planeswalkers activate twice.
I strongly agree with all the cuts and additions, except for maybe Lightning Helix. I think the land might actually be better, but I don't have enough playtesting experience. Please keep us up to date on how it fares in your group.
At least for us, the land has been performing very well. Generally it turns all of the cheap creatures into serious threats the turn you draw them. Stormfront Pegasus effectively becomes a 2WWR 4/1 Flying, Haste, Vigilance out of nowhere. It provides a ton of flexibility and reach. Yesterday it got used to make Soltari Trooper a 5 turn clock.
Planeswalkers you control may activate abilities twice per turn.
+1: Put a 1/1 Spirit with Flying into play.
+1: Put a 2/2 Wolf into play.
-9: Creatures you control get +3/+3 and gain Flying, Trample, and Lifelink until end of turn. At end of turn, destroy all creatures.
4
Um... What?
The first turn you play this dude, get 2x 2/2 wolves
The next turn you have 4x 2/2 wolves
Overrun with your wolves the next turn with 20 power of flying, lifelinking, trampling dudes? then wrath. And your planeswalker survives at 2 loyalty after this too.
I'm curious to hear learn what the Hell's Thunder detractors think about this card. I find that the Lava Axe mode is by far the most common use of this card.
It doesn't combo well with blink or effects which grant haste, so it has less upside opportunity. And Marauders typically does 5 damage for 2 mana, while Thunder can't do more than 4 damage without costing 8 mana.
I don't agree. Skill is never a dog to luck. It could easily be argued that a higher level of skill is required when dealing with an increasing randomness. But that's beside the point.
Linear thinking in regard to Cube building leads to linear strategizing. If a particular aspect of a Cube is overrepresented, then viable strategies will narrow toward that aspect. It's similar to what we saw with the M10 rules changes, when WotC removed combat damage from the stack. Players huffed and puffed about Wizards dumbing down the game, and they were right - to some extent. When it came to damage on the stack, there was a de facto optimal line of play to use. Other options existed but they were just not as effective as playing with stacked damages and effects. When they changed that, Wizards removed the mathematical skill required to use to stack and replaced it with the need to use strategical skill when it came to combat. One is not necessarily better than the other, but the latter offer a greater variety of options in regard to combat.
Now, this is not to start a whole new argument, but the point is that options are good and healthy in a Cube environment. I'm not saying that removal should be removed from Cubes. I'm not even saying that is should be drastically reduced. I'm just saying that many Cube builders - for whatever reasons - are overdoing it. And by doing so, they are making removal spells less relevant and interesting (because there are too many of them), and they are limiting their own options when it comes to selecting which creatures they can put in their Cube (because many of them are worthless if they are immediately removed).
The terminate/vindicate tests only apply to creatures with CMC>4, which is maybe 25-30 creatures in a typical cube (21 in mine). Of those cards, I would guess that 80% of those are going to be the best creatures regardless of where the removal landscape is. And unless you take removal away completely, the creatures which stand up to it better are going to be the best options anyhow.
And as far as 'overdoing' removal in cubes, creating the right level of interactivity is up to the cube designer, and I think the average number of creatures in play is something that is far more relevant to determining the right number of removal spells than the viability of a few expensive creatures. Not to say that it isn't a factor in the decision, but on the whole it isn't the priority. I don't like having the board stagnated with creatures. I think that is boring. So do my players. We have enough removal that the games play out similar to how constructed games would. I would say that my # of removal spells is very close to ideal for what I want to accomplish.
On luck/skill;
Magic is component of two factors: Luck and Skill. Making the correct decision in every situation, from which cards to take in the draft, which cards to include in your list, and when and where to play cards determines the outcome of games. But if the cards available in the draft pool have a wider variance in power level, then skill becomes less important because the factor of chance increases. Player A might be the best drafter/deckbuilder/player in the world, and sitting across from terrible player B, but due to the cards that player B opening and being passed being so much higher in overall power level than the cards that player A has access to, he is now disadvantaged in deckbuilding and play relative to B. That isn't to say that his skill won't still allow him to win every game in spite of it, but he is less likely to win them due to what boils down to luck. Increasing the variance in power level in the cube causes the variance in the drafting process to increase, which in turn increases the factor that luck plays in every game. Small, perhaps, but noticeably enough that many choose to play with unpowered cubes to try to more tightly control the effects of luck by reducing the variance in card power level.
If it generated card advantage, I would say it had a lot more potential, but as it stands, it is difficult to justify, especially at sorcery speed. I probably wouldn't include it even in the largest of cubes.
Pelakka Wurm
Hornet Queen
Woodfall Primus
Terastodon
I run both Pegasi; Mistral Charger and Stormfront Pegasus in my 360 powered cube.
What about the horizon canopy cycle?
They are powerful cards and many of them are worthy of inclusion in the cube. I would evaluate them on a case by case basis just like you do with every other card.
The other 'tests' are things that are more obviously apparent to cube designers. These are for creatures with CMC 5+
Card Advantage Test: Will this card provide me with card advantage?
Power Test: How does this card's power relate to its casting cost? Bigger? At least equal?
Evasion Test: Does this creature have trample/unblockable/flying to allow it to connect?
Added Benefits Test: Does the creature have First Strike/Lifelink/Haste? Does it provide benefits to my other creatures?
Cost test: How much more than 5 does the creature cost?
Color Test: Does the creature costs 2 or less colored mana?
etc. etc. etc.
The thing is that we understand what is a 'good deal' and a 'bad deal' for our mana. And there are plenty of very powerful creatures who can quickly end games if they are unanswered. But what separates many of them from the creatures we typically cube with is their inability to provide some value for your mana when the opponent removes your 5+ mana spell with a 1 or 2 mana card. We cite the terminate test as a way to differentiate the 'good' creatures from the 'great' ones, and it is a very good tool for that purpose.
Penumbra Wurm passes the Terminate test. But we don't talk about including it because it falls short of what we expect for its mana cost.
There are 1695 creatures with CMC greater or equal to 5 in print (at the time of this post). I include 21 in my cube. Probably 80-100 of those 1600+ are 'good enough' to cube with if you discount the terminate test.
But you can still do 20 power on that third turn, because you 'waste' an activation to make a guy, then sacrifice the planeswalker so you can win the game.
And that is nothing to say what else happens if you let other planeswalkers activate twice.
At least for us, the land has been performing very well. Generally it turns all of the cheap creatures into serious threats the turn you draw them. Stormfront Pegasus effectively becomes a 2WWR 4/1 Flying, Haste, Vigilance out of nowhere. It provides a ton of flexibility and reach. Yesterday it got used to make Soltari Trooper a 5 turn clock.
Um... What?
The first turn you play this dude, get 2x 2/2 wolves
The next turn you have 4x 2/2 wolves
Overrun with your wolves the next turn with 20 power of flying, lifelinking, trampling dudes? then wrath. And your planeswalker survives at 2 loyalty after this too.
It doesn't combo well with blink or effects which grant haste, so it has less upside opportunity. And Marauders typically does 5 damage for 2 mana, while Thunder can't do more than 4 damage without costing 8 mana.
The terminate/vindicate tests only apply to creatures with CMC>4, which is maybe 25-30 creatures in a typical cube (21 in mine). Of those cards, I would guess that 80% of those are going to be the best creatures regardless of where the removal landscape is. And unless you take removal away completely, the creatures which stand up to it better are going to be the best options anyhow.
And as far as 'overdoing' removal in cubes, creating the right level of interactivity is up to the cube designer, and I think the average number of creatures in play is something that is far more relevant to determining the right number of removal spells than the viability of a few expensive creatures. Not to say that it isn't a factor in the decision, but on the whole it isn't the priority. I don't like having the board stagnated with creatures. I think that is boring. So do my players. We have enough removal that the games play out similar to how constructed games would. I would say that my # of removal spells is very close to ideal for what I want to accomplish.
On luck/skill;
Magic is component of two factors: Luck and Skill. Making the correct decision in every situation, from which cards to take in the draft, which cards to include in your list, and when and where to play cards determines the outcome of games. But if the cards available in the draft pool have a wider variance in power level, then skill becomes less important because the factor of chance increases. Player A might be the best drafter/deckbuilder/player in the world, and sitting across from terrible player B, but due to the cards that player B opening and being passed being so much higher in overall power level than the cards that player A has access to, he is now disadvantaged in deckbuilding and play relative to B. That isn't to say that his skill won't still allow him to win every game in spite of it, but he is less likely to win them due to what boils down to luck. Increasing the variance in power level in the cube causes the variance in the drafting process to increase, which in turn increases the factor that luck plays in every game. Small, perhaps, but noticeably enough that many choose to play with unpowered cubes to try to more tightly control the effects of luck by reducing the variance in card power level.