tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-71105850712213469512024-03-14T21:46:42.236+13:00Delving for SecretsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18227099583089220279noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110585071221346951.post-89363494613652703972012-11-01T23:13:00.001+13:002012-11-22T17:33:18.775+13:00Green - Lean and Mean<script src="http://deckbox.org/javascripts/bin/tooltip.js"></script>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXFBc6yHlDachM6jJj4vPomgsveYK3t320LXzwaxNDvmGt2TWYYII5Wu1KA_gePUS5ryTyfaaeda-FDdZ72YRSTbdWR9VKffOHi7XQT3bJhWoLenacvzZFIaMfENmIIB9Qd48-cHMaFLY5/s1600/Rancor.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:right; float:right; margin-left:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="311" width="223" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXFBc6yHlDachM6jJj4vPomgsveYK3t320LXzwaxNDvmGt2TWYYII5Wu1KA_gePUS5ryTyfaaeda-FDdZ72YRSTbdWR9VKffOHi7XQT3bJhWoLenacvzZFIaMfENmIIB9Qd48-cHMaFLY5/s320/Rancor.jpg" /></a></div>
In a recent podcast entitled "<a href="http://www.gatheringmagic.com/matt-kranstuber-joy-of-cubing-10262012-greener-pastures/">Greener Pastures</a>", Matt "Kranny" Kranstuber and guest Tim Pskowski discussed the design of the Green sections of their cubes. The episode lasted about an hour and thoroughly covered many of the topics associated with choosing Green cards for your cube. I highly recommend having a listen if you have the time and interest. For me, there were three key points that I took away from their discussion. I'd like to discuss my thoughts on each of these and then take a look at how I plan to apply them to my own cube.
<br><br>
<h4>Clear philosophy</h4>
<br>
During the podcast, Tim stated his view that "Green is about mana and creatures." Many of us already know this to be true, but it's easy to get distracted when selecting cards for the cube. Tim went on to mention that he applies this in a number of ways:
<br>
<ul>
<li>
The creature:spell ratio in the Green section of his cube is 40:20. Setting these ratios is part of the art of cube design, but it's clear that Green should tip heavily toward creatures.
</li>
<li>
Of the 20 spells in his Green section, 10 are about creatures. Examples include <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Treetop Village">Treetop Village</a> (classed as a Green spell for the purposes of actual game play) and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Green Sun's Zenith">Green Sun's Zenith</a>.
</li>
<li>
Most of the other 10 spells in his Green section are about mana. Examples include <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Farseek">Farseek</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Cultivate">Cultivate</a>, and some unorthodox inclusions such as <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Utopia Sprawl">Utopia Sprawl</a>. He also include <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Growth Spasm">Growth Spasm</a>, which is a good example of a card that is about both mana and creatures.
</li>
<li>
Many of the creatures in his Green section are about mana. The traditional "mana dorks" are there in abundance - <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Birds of Paradise">Birds of Paradise</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Noble Hierarch">Noble Hierarch</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Llanowar Elves">Llanowar Elves</a>, etc. But he also includes mana producers further up the curve such as <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary">Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Somberwald Sage">Somberwald Sage</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Oracle of Mul Daya">Oracle of Mul Daya</a>.
</li>
</ul>
<br>
<h4>Unique identity</h4>
<br>
What makes a colour unique? Perhaps more importantly, what makes you want to draft a particular colour? Kranny and Tim discussed this last question in some detail and their thoughts - which are corroborated by my own experience - are revealing. The things that get a drafter to want to draft Green are the mana producers. If you want to ramp into stuff faster than the other decks, you need to be in Green. In my experience with cubes such as the MTGO cube, when Green ramp is heavily supported, things can get out of hand quickly which makes these decks good and therefore worth drafting.
<br><br>
In an article entitled "<a href="https://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/78">Nuts & Bolts: Design Skeleton</a>", Magic Lead Designer, Mark Rosewater, further clarified Green's role as the BIG creature colour:
<br><br>
<blockquote>For a long time, green was the color that got the most creatures but a year or so back we spent some time trying to differentiate between white and green and came to the realization that it was silly for green to be the color that got the most and the biggest creatures at common. White is the "army color" so we decided it would make sense for white to get the largest number of creatures and leave green the largest creatures at common. White beats you with numbers while green beats you with size.
</blockquote>
<br>
Many cube enthusiasts complain that Green is sub-par and lacks a real identity. But if you're trying to make Green be just another aggressive colour with lots of cheap and agressive 1- and 2-drops, then it has to compete directly with other colours that have better options in these slot. On the other hand, if Green is the dedicated colour of mana and big creatures, then it provides something that the other colours simply can't compete with. In a draft environment, this is exactly where we want a colour to be.
<br><br>
There are many cube enthusiasts who defend Green aggressive strategies, and that's fine. It does seem like the Gruul guild should be aggressive. But for me, 1-drop mana dork into powerful 3-drop seems like an effective strategy and one that I'm willing to support for now. Gold cards like <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Bloodbraid Elf">Bloodbraid Elf</a> play very nicely with this approach. It is also possible to splash key cards like <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Kird Ape">Kird Ape</a> in a mostly Red deck.
<br><br>
It turns out that the very thing that makes Green unique is it's clear and streamlined philosophy.
<br><br>
<h4>Attention to the overlap with other colours</h4>
<br>
In order to truly execute on the Green philosophy, a cube designer must ensure a consistent message throughout the cube. One way to do this is to examine each two-colour pair involving Green and ensuring that the cards in the Gold section for these guilds are consistent with the approaches that your Green section is supporting. I think that this is where it often becomes easy to be distracted - good gold cards can sometimes do something quite different from what the natural overlap of the colours should be. As an example, look at <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Firemane Angel">Firemane Angel</a> from the original Ravnica: City of Guilds - while this is a good card on it's own it does not really support the things that Red-White decks naturally want to be doing. As a minimum a gold section should encourage and support the strategies that are natural for those two-colour pairs.
<br><br>
As I am planning a big overhaul of the multi-coloured section of my cube just after Gatecrash is released, I'll save the analysis for then. However, I do think that it's an important aspect of supporting each individual colour which shouldn't be overlooked.
<br><br>
<h4>Don't steal pie</h4>
<br>
This topic wasn't discussed in the podcast, but I do believe it to be an important aspect of supporting Green in cube: cut the fast mana and coloured mana-producing artifacts. In a powered cube, the <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Mox Sapphire">Moxen</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Black Lotus">Black Lotus</a> are big offenders of both - fast coloured mana. In addition, a fair few people have caught on to the fact that cards like <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Sol Ring">Sol Ring</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Mana Crypt">Mana Crypt</a>, which provide mana acceleration the turn they come into play (e.g. mana generated > converted mana cost) provide unnaturally fast starts in decks that don't even require Green.
<br><br>
If you want to preserve Green as the primary ramp and fixing colour, then you simply can't make these effects available to decks that don't contain Green. Artifacts have their role, but I believe it's possible for them to complement Green rather than render it irrelevant. To this end, I currently apply the following restrictions to my cube:
<br><br>
<ol>
<li>
The mana rocks that produce more mana than their casting cost are not included. These include <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Sol Ring">Sol Ring</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Mana Vault">Mana Vault</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Mana Crypt">Mana Crypt</a>, etc. I understand that these are some of the best cards in Magic's history which is what many people are looking for in cube. However, I believe that having 5 strong colours is of paramount importance to diversity and creating fun and interesting cube experiences.
</li>
<li>
The mana rocks that produce coloured mana are not included. These include <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Azorius Signet">Signets</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Talisman of Progress">Talismans</a>, and even <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Coalition Relic">Coalition Relic</a> for now. I'm currently running <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Mox Diamond">Mox Diamond</a> as a special case because I think that the fact that you have to accept card disadvantage for the acceleration plus fixing makes it not quite as big of competition for Green.
</li>
</ol>
<br>
To distinguish, Green can accelerate, fix and even gain some card advantage while doing it (e.g. <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Cultivate">Cultivate</a>) or get a dude out of the deal which has it's own advantages (such as carrying swords and such).
<br><br>
Under this world view, artifacts are allowed to accelerate but only by providing colourless mana. The broken mana rocks shift the balance away from Green so restriction #1 applies. Dual lands can fix mana, and with fetches and shocklands (and eventually ABUR duals), they can do this rather effectively. Therefore, I don't need artifacts that also do this.
<br><br>
<h4>Fatties</h4>
<br>
So, if you're ramping...what are you ramping into? Green is supposed to be the colour of big creatures, and if this is true then Green must have most of the biggest creatures in the cube. This can be difficult, since big creatures have been printed in every colour and colourless and many of them are of cube quality. Cards like <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Sundering Titan">Sundering Titan</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Myr Battlesphere">Myr Battlesphere</a> - as well as the Eldrazi if you run them - mean that you don't necessarily need a big Green finisher in your ramp deck. However, if we limit the number of cards that fall into this category and provide a hearty helping of the biggest fatties in Green, then drafters already in Green for ramp will be looking for some of these on colour options as they come around. As Tim discussed, including a card like <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Natural Order">Natural Order</a> will also encourage this - ramping with a turn one mana dork into an early <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Natural Order">Natural Order</a> sacrificing the dork and getting a big Green fatty into play on turn three is a perfectly reasonable - and fun - thing to be doing in cube. Cards like <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Woodfall Primus">Woodfall Primus</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Pelakka Wurm">Pelakka Wurm</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Hornet Queen">Hornet Queen</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Avenger of Zendikar">Avenger of Zendikar</a> and others hitting play many turns early make Green a good place to be.
<br><br>
To be honest, there are actually a number of directions that you can take the "creatures" part of the Green philosophy. Support for token strategies, for example, is something that I'd like to see a little more of. And yes, supporting aggro is possible. However, each strategy that you choose to support stretches the colour thin in terms of support for other strategies. For me, the answer is to keep my Green section lean and mean.
<br><br>
<h4>Changes</h4>
<br>
Here's my current Green section:
<br><br>
<table align="center" bgcolor="333333">
<tr>
<th><font color="eeeeee">Green Creatures</font></th>
<th></th>
<th><font color="eeeeee">Green Spells</font></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top">
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Avacyn's Pilgrim">Avacyn's Pilgrim</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Birds of Paradise">Birds of Paradise</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Elves of Deep Shadow">Elves of Deep Shadow</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Fyndhorn Elves">Fyndhorn Elves</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Joraga Treespeaker">Joraga Treespeaker</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Llanowar Elves">Llanowar Elves</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Noble Hierarch">Noble Hierarch</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Wild Nacatl">Wild Nacatl</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Fauna Shaman">Fauna Shaman</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Lotus Cobra">Lotus Cobra</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Mire Boa">Mire Boa</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/River Boa">River Boa</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Sakura-Tribe Elder">Sakura-Tribe Elder</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Skinshifter">Skinshifter</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Strangleroot Geist">Strangleroot Geist</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Tarmogoyf">Tarmogoyf</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Wall of Blossoms">Wall of Blossoms</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Wall of Roots">Wall of Roots</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Wild Mongrel">Wild Mongrel</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Eternal Witness">Eternal Witness</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Great Sable Stag">Great Sable Stag</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Troll Ascetic">Troll Ascetic</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Uktabi Orangutan">Uktabi Orangutan</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Viridian Shaman">Viridian Shaman</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Yavimaya Elder">Yavimaya Elder</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Chameleon Colossus">Chameleon Colossus</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Obstinate Baloth">Obstinate Baloth</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Phantom Centaur">Phantom Centaur</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Thrun, the Last Troll">Thrun, the Last Troll</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Vengevine">Vengevine</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Wickerbough Elder">Wickerbough Elder</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Acidic Slime">Acidic Slime</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Deranged Hermit">Deranged Hermit</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Genesis">Genesis</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Indrik Stomphowler">Indrik Stomphowler</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Thornling">Thornling</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Thragtusk">Thragtusk</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Vorapede">Vorapede</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Rampaging Baloths">Rampaging Baloths</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Avenger of Zendikar">Avenger of Zendikar</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Gaea's Revenge">Gaea's Revenge</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Hornet Queen">Hornet Queen</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Krosan Tusker">Krosan Tusker</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Woodfall Primus">Woodfall Primus</a><br>
</td>
<td width="50">
</td>
<td valign="top">
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Treetop Village">Treetop Village</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Nature's Claim">Nature's Claim</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Rancor">Rancor</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Farseek">Farseek</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Regrowth">Regrowth</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Survival of the Fittest">Survival of the Fittest</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Beast Within">Beast Within</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Call of the Herd">Call of the Herd</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Cultivate">Cultivate</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Harrow">Harrow</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Kodama's Reach">Kodama's Reach</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Krosan Grip">Krosan Grip</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Garruk Wildspeaker">Garruk Wildspeaker</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Natural Order">Natural Order</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Garruk, Primal Hunter">Garruk, Primal Hunter</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Plow Under">Plow Under</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Primal Command">Primal Command</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Green Sun's Zenith">Green Sun's Zenith</a><br>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br>
Here are the changes that I'm proposing to update Green to be more lean and mean:
<br><br>
<table align="center" bgcolor="333333">
<tr>
<th><font color="eeeeee">Proposed Adds</font></th>
<th></th>
<th><font color="eeeeee">Proposed Drops</font></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Arbor Elf">Arbor Elf</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary">Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Overgrown Battlement">Overgrown Battlement</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Somberwald Sage">Somberwald Sage</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Ohran Viper">Ohran Viper</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Oracle of Mul Daya">Oracle of Mul Daya</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Primeval Titan">Primeval Titan</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Pelakka Wurm">Pelakka Wurm</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Utopia Sprawl">Utopia Sprawl</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Search for Tomorrow">Search for Tomorrow</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Explore">Explore</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Growth Spasm">Growth Spasm</a><br>
</td>
<td width="50">
</td>
<td>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Elves of Deep Shadow">Elves of Deep Shadow</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Mire Boa">Mire Boa</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Skinshifter">Skinshifter</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Strangleroot Geist">Strangleroot Geist</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Troll Ascetic">Troll Ascetic</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Great Sable Stag">Great Sable Stag</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Obstinate Baloth">Obstinate Baloth</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Wickerbough Elder">Wickerbough Elder</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Thornling">Thornling</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Gaea's Revenge">Gaea's Revenge</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Nature's Claim">Nature's Claim</a><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Primal Command">Primal Command</a><br>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Utopia Sprawl">Utopia Sprawl</a> is a sweet option from Tim's list that I just had to try when I saw it. If it doesn't work out, I can always look for something else. <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Arbor Elf">Arbor Elf</a> is just an upgrade over <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Elves of Deep Shadow">Elves of Deep Shadow</a> which now moves into the on deck box with <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Boreal Druid">Boreal Druid</a> as additional mana dorks available when the cube expands. <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Ohran Viper">Ohran Viper</a> is a card that has been in the cube before, but was removed largely to support more aggressive Green 3-drops. If we're wanting to support ramp and midrange strategies in Green, the viper is an excellent fit. Seeing a card like <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Great Sable Stag">Great Sable Stag</a> go is actually a shame because it's better in more matches than it first appears. But most cubes have cut this card from 450. Meanwhile, cards like <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Oracle of Mul Daya">Oracle of Mul Daya</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary">Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Primeval Titan">Primeval Titan</a> are cards that I was already planning to include in Green - this big update is just an excuse to work them in.
<br><br>
There are some other cards that I've moved into my on deck box as well. Cards like <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Devoted Druid">Devoted Druid</a> give me additional options if I feel that I need to push even harder in the ramp direction.
<br><br>
As it stands, it will likely take a week or two for me to pull together the remaining cards I need to make this change so there's still time to talk me out of it. Once I make the changes, the only way to know for sure whether things have improved is to play the cube.
<br><br>
And if you're cubing, it can't be that bad.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18227099583089220279noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110585071221346951.post-27083034494607458752012-10-25T22:23:00.001+13:002012-10-25T22:23:54.751+13:00Return to Ravnica League - 40 Cards<script src="http://deckbox.org/javascripts/bin/tooltip.js"></script>
Our three-person league kicked off the week after the pre-release. It's a little unconventional in that we start with our sealed pool from the pre-release and add two new booster packs each week, starting with the first week. Conveniently, our local store gives out two boosters to everyone who participated in the pre-release, so we were guaranteed to have the packs we need in week 1. We also split a booster box giving us another 12 packs each, which weren't available until week 2 of the league. We took advantage of a deal that involved getting a $20 gift voucher at our local store as well as getting the buy-a-box promo card, which is <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Supreme Verdict">Supreme Verdict</a>. We agreed to put up both of these for prizes, the voucher going to the first place winner and the promo card the prize for second place.
<br><br>
We also agreed on exactly the same structure as last time: seven weeks, starting with eight packs (sealed pool + two boosters) and building up to a total of 20 boosters. We'll play the first four weeks with 40-card decks and then shift up to 60-card decks for the final three weeks.
<br><br>
At this point, we've completed the first four weeks - the 40-card decks. Below is a summary of each of the weeks and the standings up to now.
<br><br>
<h4>Week 1</h4>
<br>
Here were the contents of my two booster packs for week one:
<br><br>
<b>White</b>
<br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Azorius Justiciar">Azorius Justiciar</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Sunspire Griffin">Sunspire Griffin</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Rootborn Defenses">Rootborn Defenses</a><br>
<br>
<b>Blue</b>
<br><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Crosstown Courier">Crosstown Courier</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Soulsworn Spirit">Soulsworn Spirit</a><br>
<br>
<b>Black</b>
<br><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Drainpipe Vermin">Drainpipe Vermin</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Stab Wound">Stab Wound</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Shrieking Affliction">Shrieking Affliction</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Ultimate Price">Ultimate Price</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Perilous Shadow">Perilous Shadow</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Catacomb Slug">Catacomb Slug</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Launch Party">Launch Party</a><br>
<br>
<b>Red</b>
<br><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Pursuit of Flight">Pursuit of Flight</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Cobblebrute">Cobblebrute</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Tenement Crasher">Tenement Crasher</a><br>
<br>
<b>Green</b>
<br><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Giant Growth">Giant Growth</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Korozda Monitor">Korozda Monitor</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Axebane Stag">Axebane Stag</a><br>
<br>
<b>Azorius</b>
<br><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Search Warrant">Search Warrant</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Dramatic Rescue">Dramatic Rescue</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Azorius Guildgate">Azorius Guildgate</a><br>
<br>
<b>Rakdos</b>
<br><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Rakdos Shred-Freak">Rakdos Shred-Freak</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Slaughter Games">Slaughter Games</a><br>
<br>
<b>Selesnya</b>
<br><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Risen Sanctuary">Risen Sanctuary</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Coursers' Accord">Coursers' Accord</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Selesnya Keyrune">Selesnya Keyrune</a><br>
<br>
<b>Golgari</b>
<br><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Trestle Troll">Trestle Troll</a><br>
<br>
<b>Izzet</b>
<br><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Counterflux">Counterflux</a><br>
<br>
A handful of potential goodies for Azorius and not much to pull me in another direction. <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Ultimate Price">Ultimate Price</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Stab Wound">Stab Wound</a> are good cards, but not enough even combined with my other Black to make me jump ship. Blue-White-Black (a.k.a. Esper) is not one of the tri-colour combinations supported by the mana in this set so there's little incentive to make major changes. Furthermore, I have neither <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Selesnya Guildgate">Selesnya Guildgate</a> nor <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Izzet Guildgate">Izzet Guildgate</a> in my pool, so beyond the one copy of <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Transguild Promenade">Transguild Promenade</a> and the newly opened <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Selesnya Keyrune">Selesnya Keyrune</a> there aren't really any mana fixers to support a natural splash.
<br><br>
Meanwhile, another <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Azorius Guildgate">Azorius Guildgate</a> makes my on-guild mana a little better. <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Azorius Justiciar">Azorius Justiciar</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Sunspire Griffin">Sunspire Griffin</a> #2 also seem like auto-includes. The cards that are debatable from my perspective are <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Crosstown Courier">Crosstown Courier</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Soulsworn Spirit">Soulsworn Spirit</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Dramatic Rescue">Dramatic Rescue</a> #3. The Courier's upside is not really something that is likely to greatly benefit my deck, so it would be included simply to have another 2-power beater on turn 2. It is more aggressive than <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Concordia Pegasus">Concordia Pegasus</a>, for example, and is probably worth trying just to see how it performs. <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Soulsworn Spirit">Soulsworn Spirit</a> continues the detain shenanigans that the deck really relies on to get the job done. It is also an unblockable threat, though without any equipment it's a little slow for a 4-drop. Perhaps it would make me consider playing a card like <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Ethereal Armor">Ethereal Armor</a> - I don't have <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Civic Saber">Civic Saber</a>. Evasion is very strong though and it seems like it should be worth playing. Finally, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Dramatic Rescue">Dramatic Rescue</a> is actually just what the deck needs, but I'm not really sure that it needs 3 copies. If I find that it does, then this card is available, but I'll leave it in the sideboard to begin with.
<br><br>
The cards that seemed to under perform included <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Palisade Giant">Palisade Giant</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Concordia Pegasus">Concordia Pegasus</a>. The pegasi can come in from the sideboard against heavy aggression if necessary. I'm conscious of the fact that if I remove 2 2-drops that's bad in general, but if I replace them with a 2-drop and a 3-drop and replace the giant with a 4-drop then overall I think my curve is adequately dealt to. The question is whether I can fit another 4-drop in. I decided to play the <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Soulsworn Spirit">Soulsworn Spirit</a> in the end.
<br><br>
I managed to defeat Gund 2-0 with his Rakdos build.
<br><br>
Meanwhile, Michael got the prize for being first to abandon his guild, and he did it grand fashion, switching from the Green and White of Selesnya to the Black and Red of Rakdos. This means that I have to play against all Rakdos all the time. Michael's deck was fast, too, and he played well, stocking up on burn to finish me off when things seemed to be stabilizing. I went down 1-2. With Michael defeating Gund as well, Michael jumped out to the early lead in the standings.
<br><br>
<h4>Week 2</h4>
<br><br>
Unfortunately, I forgot to write down what I opened and shuffled it all in with the following weeks before I realized. After opening, I did sent the following email summarizing: "I opened nothing and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Supreme Verdict">Supreme Verdict</a>".
<br><br>
So, the question is, would you play <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Supreme Verdict">Supreme Verdict</a> in a tempo deck? If it's in your opening hand, you can craft your game plan around it. But if it isn't, it pretty much works against what this deck is trying to do. I'd be interested to know what other people think. I ended up playing it. It was stuck in my hand more than once and I never ended up casting it which of course only reinforces my thoughts. But maybe I wasn't thinking about it the right way.
<br><br>
I ended up beating Gund 2-1. His deck has <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Pack Rat">Pack Rat</a> which scares me, but I always seem to have a way to deal with it - usually <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Detention Sphere">Detention Sphere</a>. That card is just always there when you need it.
<br><br>
I also beat Michael 2-0. It was a big reversal from the previous week. Michael also lost to Gund, erasing his early lead in the league standings.
<br><br>
<h4>Week 3</h4>
<br>
Once again I didn't open enough of anything to steer my pool on any course other than the Azorius detain plan. Here are the relevant cards that I opened:
<br><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Sunspire Griffin">Sunspire Griffin</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Runewing">Runewing</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Stealer of Secrets">Stealer of Secrets</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Crosstown Courier">Crosstown Courier</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Dramatic Rescue">Dramatic Rescue</a><br>
<br>
I don't need another bounce spell. The 2-drop could be a consideration if I'm looking to reduce my curve, but I'm more drawn to the two fliers. <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Stealer of Secrets">Stealer of Secrets</a> I was unsure about. I decided to try it just to see how it plays. My thinking was that if I'm detaining and bouncing things, it might just get through and do some good work.
<br><br>
The rares were <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Nivmagus Elemental">Nivmagus Elemental</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Death's Presence">Death's Presence</a>, neither of which I see much use for in my established deck. The Elemental really requires a build-around instant and sorcery theme and the Enchantment doesn't seem like enough to put me into Green. It's interesting to note that I'm building up some decent Rakdos in my pool, but not enough for a really strong deck and I definitely don't want to play Rakdos mirrors the whole week.
<br><br>
I ended up with the exact same record as the previous week, defeating Gund 2-1 and Michael 2-0. Michael managed to defeat Gund but I had a 6-point lead in the standings after week 3.
<br><br>
<h4>Week 4</h4>
<br>
Here are the relevant cards that I opened for Week 4:
<br><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Soulsworn Spirit">Soulsworn Spirit</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Keening Apparition">Keening Apparition</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Trostani's Judgment">Trostani's Judgment</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Avenging Arrow">Avenging Arrow</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Fencing Ace">Fencing Ace</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Crosstown Courier">Crosstown Courier</a><br>
<br>
Swaps:
+1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Keening Apparition">Keening Apparition</a><br>
+1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Soulsworn Spirit">Soulsworn Spirit</a><br>
-1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Crosstown Courier">Crosstown Courier</a><br>
-1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Supreme Verdict">Supreme Verdict</a><br>
<br>
I was thinking that <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Trostani's Judgment">Trostani's Judgment</a> might be a bit too slow in the harsh environment that I'm playing in - two Rakdos decks. <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Avenging Arrow">Avenging Arrow</a> is also mediocre here where you're looking to stop damage rather than take it. <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Fencing Ace">Fencing Ace</a> would be good in some environments, but I don't have ways to pump it unless I play <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Ethereal Armor">Ethereal Armor</a>, which just seems subpar.
<br><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Supreme Verdict">Supreme Verdict</a> has been awkward in a deck that is trying to tempo the opponent out. I left it in for Week 3 but decided to remove it for Week 4.
<br><br>
I won 2-1 over Gund - the games were close and I felt like I was on the back foot most of the time. I also got a little colour-screwed in two of the games, which made them a little closer.
<br><br>
I lost 0-2 to Michael. Once again I felt on the back foot a lot, even though the games were close.
<br><br>
The standings are close after the first four weeks as I'm holding on by a slim 3-point margin.
<br><br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgULHAAb_Wf1shKlvSu2K1KM-RCGufp9JM2rEYNPS02md5zt18gVBzUxDebtDjLHyU3jlBG0CkybPNQvw_J1PY2AWpoIxKejPNoaYdVVhUL5Xtgy3hBimKRnJDD_JFucbx1wKvoseeJKHZO/s1600/RTR+league+Week+4+standings.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="122" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgULHAAb_Wf1shKlvSu2K1KM-RCGufp9JM2rEYNPS02md5zt18gVBzUxDebtDjLHyU3jlBG0CkybPNQvw_J1PY2AWpoIxKejPNoaYdVVhUL5Xtgy3hBimKRnJDD_JFucbx1wKvoseeJKHZO/s320/RTR+league+Week+4+standings.PNG" /></a></div>
<br><br>
Next week we shift to 60-card decks. This changes things a bit and potentially provides a good opportunity to reassess the deck. In particular, I think that I need to consider whether my card pool can put together a strategy that can beat two Rakdos decks rather than just playing what my card pool does best.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18227099583089220279noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110585071221346951.post-84355150199279081572012-10-23T23:28:00.000+13:002012-10-23T23:28:24.374+13:00Modelling<script src="http://deckbox.org/javascripts/bin/tooltip.js"></script>
In a <a href="http://delvingforsecrets.blogspot.co.nz/2012/10/cube-rarity.html">previous post</a> I discussed examining existing draft environments as a way to help you build your own custom draft environments. The example application of this principle which I discussed was mapping the concept of card rarity to your cube. There are many other things to learn from looking at these draft environments as well, such as how many draft archetypes you can support, what are the pieces you need to build a viable ramp strategy or what makes a "fast" draft environment. However, at its core, these things are all examples of a more general concept: modelling.
<br><br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTjL2n0Q7jmm0akn05yWy0ZtdRpcgyg7zcI50nkVTPmgNpp0riTXublRIs9ChSdQ1Lbb1V1FDIZGcYofh6HZsUQ7qff2UeuIgRL_vbIxZZLoCYaOJ9VP5TlMpuL7GjkBTet8-sDaKBQf7x/s1600/Architectural+Model.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:right; float:right; margin-left:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="228" width="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTjL2n0Q7jmm0akn05yWy0ZtdRpcgyg7zcI50nkVTPmgNpp0riTXublRIs9ChSdQ1Lbb1V1FDIZGcYofh6HZsUQ7qff2UeuIgRL_vbIxZZLoCYaOJ9VP5TlMpuL7GjkBTet8-sDaKBQf7x/s320/Architectural+Model.jpg" /></a></div>
A model is an example that you use as a study reference which forms a basis of comparison; what you learn from studying the model can then be applied to your "actual" design - the real thing. Often models are created specifically as new things to be studied because they don't already exist. For example, an architect might build a scale model of a building in order to get a better feel for proportion and the overall impression of a design. With cube design, though, we have existing draft environments that we can study. However, existing draft environments aren't the only models that we have available to us. One of the goals of cube design - particularly for "best of" cubes - is to mimic Constructed playable decks and strategies within a Limited environment. It would make sense, then, to use Constructed decks as models for the type of decks we're trying to support in our cubes.
<br><br>
As an example, let's answer this question: How many aggro 1-drops do you need in your cube?
<br><br>
2-drops and a number of other factors are also important and might be worth running the numbers on, but 1-drops are the thing that allows aggro decks to start applying pressure straight away. Every turn you wait, that's an opportunity for your opponent to get their slower strategy online and functioning. Based on experience thus far, aggro 1-drops also seem to be the limiting factor in terms of how many aggressive decks can be supported in a cube. Interestingly, this line of analysis could potentially provide an indication of the maximum cube size that can adequately support this definition of aggro (which will increase over time as more aggressively costed 1-drops become available).
<br><br>
Ok, so how do you do this? I use the method below to build up my understanding of the problem domain and ultimately produce a number that answers the question.
<br><br>
<i>Aside: When doing analysis like this I rely heavily on probability as it applies to Magic. While I won't go into the detail here, there are some good articles available on the Internet which explain how this works. I've provided some references at the bottom. I've also distilled this into a basic spreadsheet which I add to from time to time. I've transferred some of this information into <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au8Q-ORHebn9dFJ5RkNjOEdPM1YwN3h0ckxuRE1CTHc#gid=0">this spreadsheet</a> online. While I definitely recommend learning the maths behind this, the spreadsheet is a handy quick reference.</i>
<br><br>
<h4>Assumptions</h4>
<br><br>
a) Aggressively costed (i.e. power > CMC) 1-drops are a critical factor in defining an aggro deck. The primary purpose of this is to apply pressure to the opponent from the opening turn.
<br><br>
b) Since this is the resource that appears to be in shortest supply, it will be the limiting factor.
<br><br>
c) While Cube is a Limited format, from a design perspective the goal is to allow players to draft and build Constructed-style decks (but only if they want to ). This means that we can look to successful Constructed decks of a similar archetype as a basis for comparison.
<br><br>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcbggLSIsth9UZ5L4mR1_LJEPaCVEgirTAzi-s-lL_1jGrVebj78O-bfB0p7IJVj9iJ58qT4jPiaEutP2d-XIYGq2s9H2dhwVpRBGumDY_dKyJ1AmavLA4nUCt_nGtMTKYZxvWyXhMVBzg/s1600/Gravecrawler.jpg" imageanchor="1" style=""><img border="0" height="310" width="223" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcbggLSIsth9UZ5L4mR1_LJEPaCVEgirTAzi-s-lL_1jGrVebj78O-bfB0p7IJVj9iJ58qT4jPiaEutP2d-XIYGq2s9H2dhwVpRBGumDY_dKyJ1AmavLA4nUCt_nGtMTKYZxvWyXhMVBzg/s320/Gravecrawler.jpg" /></a>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLgReTCU6IwNCISVFPFnMuKJYPJ0B-BWFvl6fSIcAu3BcAlAW3gaoMs5KvfbRJFBR9hRCs3RGvtXrNEKo7L-NaJnEn776XEyU4_R2uCFjohFHDd2hHV8COpl3bXhVawU03v58UrrwnXgP2/s1600/GoblinGuide.jpg" imageanchor="1" style=""><img border="0" height="310" width="223" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLgReTCU6IwNCISVFPFnMuKJYPJ0B-BWFvl6fSIcAu3BcAlAW3gaoMs5KvfbRJFBR9hRCs3RGvtXrNEKo7L-NaJnEn776XEyU4_R2uCFjohFHDd2hHV8COpl3bXhVawU03v58UrrwnXgP2/s320/GoblinGuide.jpg" /></a>
<br><br>
<h4>Analysis</h4>
<br><br>
<b>Step 1: Identify the model</b>
<br><br>
In this case, our model is really a collection of successful aggressive decks from across the history of the game. Some examples include <a href="http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/deck.asp?deck_id=851231">Zoo</a>, <a href="http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/pr/211">Zombies</a> and <a href="http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/deck/888">Boros</a>. (Many Green-based decks will consider themselves aggro but open with a turn one <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Birds of Paradise">mana-producer</a> to accelerate into powerful 3- and 4-drops ahead of schedule. I personally classify this as mid-range though you may classify it differently. Here I'm discussing the decks that want to be attacking for two on turn two.)
<br><br>
Depending on the format, a typical Constructed aggressive deck will run anywhere from 8-16 aggressive 1-drops in a 60-card deck. The level of aggression is roughly correlated to this number. Eight provides a 65.4% probability of having a 1-drop in your opening hand, while 16 provides a 90.1% of the same. From personal experience, I think that eight is too few, and that a successful number tends to be 10-12.
<br><br>
10 provides a 74.1% probability of having a 1-drop in your opening hand while 11 provides a 77.8% chance (from the spreadsheet).
<br><br>
<b>Step 2: Convert the model to your situation</b>
<br><br>
To find the equivalent number in a 40-card deck, we simply find the number that provides the closest probability to the target range (~74%-78%). In a 40-card deck, six 1-drops provides a 71.1% chance of having one in your opening hand, while seven provides a 77.1% chance. For the purposes of this analysis, I'll say therefore that the prototype aggro deck in cube wants seven 1-drops.
<br><br>
<b>Step 3: Decide how to apply the findings to your environment</b>
<br><br>
So, for every aggro deck that could be drafted, you'll need about seven 1-drops in the draft. Ignoring variance for a minute (see step 4), if you have eight drafters and a 360-card Cube (meaning all cards are available in the draft), then you need to determine how many aggro decks you want available in a given draft. Of course, this doesn't mean that this many decks will be drafted, but does indicate the number of 1-drops you would ideally need. Let's say you want n aggro decks available in the draft. This means that you need n * 7 aggressive 1-drops. I'll say that I want three aggro decks in my 8-person draft, so I need at least 21 1-drops in the draft.
<br><br>
<b>Step 4: Scale the model to your cube size</b>
<br><br>
What happens if the entire cube is not drafted? I'll take the example of a 450-card cube with eight people drafting. This means that 360/450 cards are available in the draft. If you still want n aggro decks, then you still need n * 7 1-drops in the draft as above. So then how many do I need in my 450-card Cube?
<br><br>
360/450 = 21/x
<br><br>
Solve for x...x=26.25
<br><br>
I need 26-27 aggro 1-drops in my 450-card cube to support three aggressive decks in an 8-person draft. Of course, the split won't always be exactly this ratio. Sometimes there will be more or less available. You have two options: You can add more 1-drops than the calculated minimum to try to ensure that there are at least enough available most of the time, or you can accept that sometimes there will be 2 aggro decks available and sometimes there will be 3 (or whatever you calculated for). That's the variance.
<br><br>
<b>Step 5: Make decisions about how to apply the numbers</b>
<br><br>
It's all well and fine to know that you need X 1-drops, but how should these be divided by colour? It's probably not viable to expect the lone aggro drafter to put together a 4-colour deck to make it happen.
<br><br>
My own principle is to assume that the mana is good enough to run 2-colour decks fairly easily. I also don't personally plan to guarantee to my players that mono-X aggro will be supported. On the flipside, if a player wants to run Naya Zoo, that's fine but I don't think you necessarily need to do anything to support that other than make the mana available.
<br><br>
This means that the number of aggro decks that you want to support should be divided across the colours in which you want to support aggro. For the purposes of this calculation, I think that you need to include the Blue-based tempo decks, because if they're paired with an aggro colour for efficient 1-drops, then they'll be pulling from your the same pool. In fact, since Blue doesn't really have any aggro 1-drops (or maybe just <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Phantasmal Bear">Phantasmal Bear</a>), you might need the second colour to provide the full complement.
<br><br>
So, then, for every 3.5 1-drops you have in a given colour which are available in a given draft, you can support half of a deck. So if a 360-card cube with eight drafters has seven White 1-drops, four Black 1-drops and three Red 1-drops, then your Cube can roughly support 2 aggro decks. Further, you can expect that either one will be mono-White and the other will be Black/Red, or both will be White/X.
<br><br>
I suppose in an ideal world I'd see something like 2 aggro decks, 2 aggro control decks, 2 midrange decks and 2 control decks in an 8-person draft. These numbers are very rough and I wouldn't want it to always be exactly the same every time, but this kind of tells me that I'd really need about 28 1-drops in an ideal draft!
<br><br>
<h4>Adjustments</h4>
<br><br>
There are other factors that can affect the numbers. For example, some players might draft 1 or 2 1-drops but not see anything else to support aggro (cut-off) so they might abandon that plan. That means that those picks are stranded in a non-aggro deck or sideboard, and are not available to the other players drafting aggro. It might be worthwhile erring on the side of greater than the minimum calculated.
<br><br>
On the other hand, you might not want it to be too easy, either. Part of drafting is knowing that resources are limited and that you need to know what to prioritise. If 1-drops are abundant, then drafters will not need to prioritise them as much. Mark Rosewater, the Lead Designer of Magic: the Gathering, addressed this point in a recent article entitled <a href="http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/218">When Cards Go Bad Revisited</a>. In it, he identified improvisation as a key element of game design:
<br><br>
<blockquote><b>Design Principle #4: Force Players to Improvise</b>
<br><br>
Another truism of game design is that you can't give the players everything they need. Games at their core are about allowing players to challenge themselves. A good game designer gives the players some tools but not enough to easily complete the task. Why? Because the goal of game design is to force the players to seek out their own solutions.</blockquote>
<br><br>
Another similar consideration is that you need to leave players wanting more. When drafting, you can build a great deck - say, a UW control deck - but even if you win with it, you can often look at it and think "this deck could have used one more removal spell" or "it was lacking a bit of card draw". It's not often that you build the perfect Limited deck, and that's what helps to keep an environment from getting stale. Over the weekend I drafted Return to Ravnica five times on Magic Online. In one draft, I had a really good Golgari beatdown deck. I had wanted to try out the Golgari scavenge strategy, but my deck only ended up with about 3 cards in it with scavenge. Fortunately, I realised pretty early that I might not get the pieces I needed for the scavenge deck and prioritised making a viable beatdown deck if there was nothing with scavenge available. It worked out reasonably well for me, but I still wanted to go back and try again. It happened in the very next draft - I ended up with a deck with about 8 or 9 scavenge cards, some black fliers, etc. The deck ended up not being that powerful, but I think I didn't quite have it right...I'd want to try it again. And that's the point - if you have too much of what the players need, then they'll get it and they might not even have to fight for it.
<br><br>
<h4>Reverse Analysis</h4>
<br><br>
So, how am I actually doing? I'll look at my cube to figure out what I can support. From my current list:
<br><br>
White: 5<br>
Blue: 0<br>
Black: 5<br>
Red: 3<br>
Green: 1<br>
Multi-Colour: 5
<br><br>
Total: 19
<br><br>
Based on these numbers, I'm likely to only get about two aggro decks in a given draft. It is possible to get a third, but I'd like to see a few more cube-quality aggro 1-drops printed before I try to increase the size of my cube. The recent additions of the incredibly flexible <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Rakdos Cackler">Rakdos Cackler</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Dryad Militant">Dryad Militant</a> have been a real boon to aggressive strategies in cube. Keep in mind that just throwing in bad 1-drops doesn't solve the problem. The cards being considered must be of cube quality. In addition, an aggro deck can also look to other plays that progress their strategy on turn one, such as <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/AEther Vial">AEther Vial</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Black Vise">Black Vise</a> or <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Bonesplitter">Bonesplitter</a>. That's where improvisation comes into play.
<br><br>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtcelMsTUDokVz9qz6OeAOGzHcn-E1xpAMe7B1JXnDWpteO-TQulPQtRJgzoWgAXZeyiSKF4Md8l8hYJSDwWeaS2Z8sb9V1szvdybtYGaygwNVqmZUIN2QWkH1NXFwiDvNnfvh0fHyhGs9/s1600/RakdosCackler.jpg" imageanchor="1" style=""><img border="0" height="311" width="223" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtcelMsTUDokVz9qz6OeAOGzHcn-E1xpAMe7B1JXnDWpteO-TQulPQtRJgzoWgAXZeyiSKF4Md8l8hYJSDwWeaS2Z8sb9V1szvdybtYGaygwNVqmZUIN2QWkH1NXFwiDvNnfvh0fHyhGs9/s320/RakdosCackler.jpg" /></a>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgojPiuFqQeOepCNPvMmceg4U7mt59eeE57ZD38D8PTXMlZPjme4lFA2BJOyiKR7I4WtLaW-pbK8pO20LZgQlJN6tJsTBfMCvVuYmQikmzKgLsVAs8lejvF_NlRn05YQUbyVvXk4_jIS7Lr/s1600/DryadMilitant.jpg" imageanchor="1" style=""><img border="0" height="311" width="223" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgojPiuFqQeOepCNPvMmceg4U7mt59eeE57ZD38D8PTXMlZPjme4lFA2BJOyiKR7I4WtLaW-pbK8pO20LZgQlJN6tJsTBfMCvVuYmQikmzKgLsVAs8lejvF_NlRn05YQUbyVvXk4_jIS7Lr/s320/DryadMilitant.jpg" /></a>
<br><br>
<h4>Wrap-Up</h4>
<br><br>
This method can be applied to any number of card classifications to help you make appropriate design decisions and card selections for your cube. The final step, of course, is to play your cube and get a feel for whether there are too many or not enough cards of a particular type.
<br><br>
And if you're cubing, it can't be that bad.
<br><br><br>
Reference Material
<br><br>
<a href="http://www.kibble.net/magic/magic10.php">http://www.kibble.net/magic/magic10.php</a><br>
<a href="http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/generallimited/24900-Limiting-Chance-The-Opening-Hand.html">http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/generallimited/24900-Limiting-Chance-The-Opening-Hand.html</a><br>
<a href="http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/generallimited/24978-Limiting-Chance-An-Explanation-Of-Methods.html">http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/generallimited/24978-Limiting-Chance-An-Explanation-Of-Methods.html</a>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18227099583089220279noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110585071221346951.post-79328955383531931482012-10-18T21:52:00.004+13:002012-11-22T17:45:02.802+13:00Returning to Ravnica<script src="http://deckbox.org/javascripts/bin/tooltip.js"></script>
I didn't go to Ravnica the first time around. Or, at least, I didn't go with everyone else on the big bus tour around the place. I've made a few side trips on my own, but sometimes it really is nice to get the thorough tour, complete with guide. Or something like that. In any event, I'm as excited as everyone else is to be spending the next year in the City of Guilds.
<br><br>
It's been a couple of weeks since the Return to Ravnica pre-release and that means that our new tradition of running a league at work is underway. Before I get to that, however, today I want to talk about the pre-release itself. Michael, Gund and myself all attended the pre-release at Vagabond, our local store, again. There was a pretty impressive turnout for our area - we counted more than 40 people, and while plenty of stores in larger cities have more, that seemed pretty strong for our smaller town. To be honest, there really wasn't room for more people.
<br><br>
I had been wanting to play both Izzet and Azorius. However, after the cards were spoiled on <a href="http://www.magicthegathering.com">magicthegathering.com</a>, I was very unimpressed with the cards in the Izzet guild - I'm talking about commons and uncommons here, the majority of what you have to work with in Limited. As a result, I decided to go with the Azorius guild pack and see how it ran.
<br><br>
Here's the pool that I opened:
<br><br>
<table align="center">
<tr>
<td valign="top">
<b>White</b><br>
2 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Keening Apparition">Keening Apparition</a><br>
2 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Concordia Pegasus">Concordia Pegasus</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Sunspire Griffin">Sunspire Griffin</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Palisade Giant">Palisade Giant</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Eyes in the Skies">Eyes in the Skies</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Soul Tithe">Soul Tithe</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Ethereal Armor">Ethereal Armor</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Trained Caracal">Trained Caracal</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Seller of Songbirds">Seller of Songbirds</a><br>
<br>
<b>Blue</b><br>
3 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Voidwielder">Voidwielder</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Isperia's Skywatch">Isperia's Skywatch</a><br>
2 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Inaction Injunction">Inaction Injunction</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Paralyzing Grasp">Paralyzing Grasp</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Mizzium Skin">Mizzium Skin</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Search the City">Search the City</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Psychic Spiral">Psychic Spiral</a><br>
3 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Doorkeeper">Doorkeeper</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Blustersquall">Blustersquall</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Dispel">Dispel</a><br>
<br>
<b>Black</b><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Drainpipe Vermin">Drainpipe Vermin</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Cremate">Cremate</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Daggerdrome Imp">Daggerdrome Imp</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Thrill-Kill Assassin">Thrill-Kill Assassin</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Sewer Shambler">Sewer Shambler</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Mind Rot">Mind Rot</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Perilous Shadow">Perilous Shadow</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Destroy the Evidence">Destroy the Evidence</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Zanikev Locust">Zanikev Locust</a><br>
<br>
<b>Red</b><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Electrickery">Electrickery</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Pursuit of Flight">Pursuit of Flight</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Splatter Thug">Splatter Thug</a><br>
2 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Lobber Crew">Lobber Crew</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Viashino Racketeer">Viashino Racketeer</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Batterhorn">Batterhorn</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Goblin Rally">Goblin Rally</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Minotaur Aggressor">Minotaur Aggressor</a><br>
<br>
<b>Green</b><br>
3 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Drudge Beetle">Drudge Beetle</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Stonefare Crocodile">Stonefare Crocodile</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Axebane Guardian">Axebane Guardian</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Oak Street Innkeeper">Oak Street Innkeeper</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Aerial Predation">Aerial Predation</a><br>
2 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Chorus of Might">Chorus of Might</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Axebane Stag">Axebane Stag</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Horncaller's Chant">Horncaller's Chant</a>
</td>
<td valign="top">
<b>Azorius</b><br>
2 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/New Prahv Guildmage">New Prahv Guildmage</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Vassal Soul">Vassal Soul</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Hussar Patrol">Hussar Patrol</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Archon of the Triumvirate">Archon of the Triumvirate</a><br>
2 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Dramatic Rescue">Dramatic Rescue</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Detention Sphere">Detention Sphere</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Search Warrant">Search Warrant</a><br>
<br>
<b>Rakdos</b><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Rakdos Charm">Rakdos Charm</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Hellhole Flailer">Hellhole Flailer</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Slaughter Games">Slaughter Games</a><br>
<br>
<b>Selesnya</b><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Heroes' Reunion">Heroes' Reunion</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Sundering Growth">Sundering Growth</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Centaur Healer">Centaur Healer</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Growing Ranks">Growing Ranks</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Coursers' Accord">Coursers' Accord</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Risen Sanctuary">Risen Sanctuary</a><br>
<br>
<b>Golgari</b><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Golgari Charm">Golgari Charm</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Trestle Troll">Trestle Troll</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Golgari Longlegs">Golgari Longlegs</a><br>
<br>
<b>Izzet</b><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Izzet Charm">Izzet Charm</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Frostburn Weird">Frostburn Weird</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Chemister's Trick">Chemister's Trick</a><br>
<br>
<b>Lands</b><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Azorius Guildgate">Azorius Guildgate</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Rakdos Guildgate">Rakdos Guildgate</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Overgrown Tomb">Overgrown Tomb</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Transguild Promenade">Transguild Promenade</a><br>
<br>
<b>Artifacts</b><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Azorius Keyrune">Azorius Keyrune</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Street Sweeper">Street Sweeper</a>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br><br>
I built the following deck, though some cards were a bit fluid throughout the day. One of the things that I really like about pre-releases is the ability to switch your deck around as you learn more about the new cards.
<br><br>
<table align="center" bgcolor="#333333">
<th height="25px" colspan="2" >
<font size="3" color="#eeeeee">RTR Prerelease Sealed Deck</font>
</th>
<tr>
<td>
<br>
<font color="#eeeeee"><b>Lands (17)</b>
<br>
8 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Plains">Plains</a><br>
8 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Island">Island</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Azorius Guildgate">Azorius Guildgate</a><br>
<br>
<b>Creatures (15)</b>
<br>
2 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Keening Apparition">Keening Apparition</a><br>
2 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Concordia Pegasus">Concordia Pegasus</a><br>
2 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/New Prahv Guildmage">New Prahv Guildmage</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Sunspire Griffin">Sunspire Griffin</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Vassal Soul">Vassal Soul</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Hussar Patrol">Hussar Patrol</a><br>
3 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Voidwielder">Voidwielder</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Isperia's Skywatch">Isperia's Skywatch</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Palisade Giant">Palisade Giant</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Archon of the Triumvirate">Archon of the Triumvirate</a><br>
<br>
</font>
</td>
<td align="center" valign="top" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<img src="http://deckbox.org/system/images/mtg/cards/270356.jpg"/>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<font color="#eeeeee"><b>Other Spells (8)</b>
<br>
2 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Inaction Injunction">Inaction Injunction</a><br>
2 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Dramatic Rescue">Dramatic Rescue</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Paralyzing Grasp">Paralyzing Grasp</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Detention Sphere">Detention Sphere</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Azorius Keyrune">Azorius Keyrune</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Eyes in the Skies">Eyes in the Skies</a><br>
<br>
</font>
</td>
<td>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br>
After my initial build, I played a practice game against Michael after which I decided to swap in the 2 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Dramatic Rescue">Dramatic Rescue</a> - I took out <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Mizzium Skin">Mizzium Skin</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Soul Tithe">Soul Tithe</a>. I had originally thought that <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Dramatic Rescue">Dramatic Rescue</a> only targeted your own permanents, but upon closer inspection it bounces any creature, so that fit in pretty well with all of the detain in the Azorius deck. I actually swapped the <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Soul Tithe">Soul Tithe</a> back in against opponents with a lot of big guys but generally was happy not to have it. In retrospect I don't think it's very good. I also swapped out <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Palisade Giant">Palisade Giant</a> several times. I was pretty disappointed with it, since usually it just bought me one turn - my opponent would swing for 7+ damage and just kill it. The only other change I made was after the first round, during which I found <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Transguild Promenade">Transguild Promenade</a> to be far too slow and unnecessary in a 2-colour deck.
<br><br>
Detain is a mechanic that performs better than I expected in practice. I guess I must have initially thought that it just bought you half a turn - either the block if you played it on your own turn, or their attack if you played it on theirs. However, since it lasts until your next upkeep, you actually get both, making it pretty effective in a tempo-based deck. I also notice afterward that all of the detain cards occur at sorcery speed anyway, so the point is moot.
<br><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Inaction Injunction">Inaction Injunction</a> was pretty good - not fantastic, but pretty good. It usually did what you wanted and it cycles for another card making it's cost actually pretty low. Sometimes stalling and digging for another card is exactly what you need to do. The number of times that I've needed a land, played <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Inaction Injunction">Inaction Injunction</a> and found my land - both during the pre-release and since - is actually pretty impressive.
<br><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Keening Apparition">Keening Apparition</a> was mostly pretty average because it gets outclassed so quickly. However, against my round 3 opponent who had a <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Collective Blessing">Collective Blessing</a>, it proved invaluable, destroying it both games. It's also pretty good against <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Stab Wound">Stab Wound</a>, and sometimes you just need a 2-power dude to start beating down on turn 2. So while not fanstastic, it turns out to be a pretty useful card.
<br><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Concordia Pegasus">Concordia Pegasus</a> looked bad, seemed good in the first match, and then didn't really seem very effective after that. I think it has it's place to stop the early beatdown and can be an effective sideboard card in this deck, but probably should not be maindeck if I have other options.
<br><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Hussar Patrol">Hussar Patrol</a> was pretty great on the day. People didn't seem to play around it and it managed to eat something in many games, giving me the 0-for-1. It's a nice pairing with Eyes in the Skies, since you could have either when you pass with 4 mana up.
<br><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Voidwielder">Voidwielder</a>, especially having 3 copies, played extremely well into the detain plan. In general, bounce is a natural companion to detain and I was very happy with these all day. I do think that they're very expensive and as I add more cards to the pool for league I think they may just be too slow. But I do think they were the right call during the Sealed event.
<br><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Detention Sphere">Detention Sphere</a> is obviously a great card, but I just seemed to always draw it as well. An answer card always seems much better when you always have it.
<br><br>
<b>Round 1</b> I played against a Rakdos guild pack that splashed Green. His deck had some threatening dudes but I always seemed to have something to hold him off. I would come to find out that this is the bread-and-butter of the Azorius detain decks. There were some good games here and I felt like I just managed to pull off the win. Most games ended with me staring down something like a <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Chaos Imps">Chaos Imps</a>.
<br><br>
2-1
<br><br>
<b>Round 2</b> I played against a solid Golgari deck with <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Underworld Connections">Underworld Connections</a>. My opponent, Jeremy, seemed to bury me in card advantage but somehow I pulled off the victory. Once again, I felt like I barely got away with it and snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, staring down a <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Corpsejack Menace">Corpsejack Menace</a> or an "active" <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Ogre Jailbreaker">Ogre Jailbreaker</a>.
<br><br>
2-1
<br><br>
<b>Round 3</b> I played against Kelly with an aggressive Selesnya build with a very low curve. These games seemed less close, but that's largely because "I always had it." By "it" I actually mean whatever wrecked his well-laid plans. To wit - both games Kelly played <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Collective Blessing">Collective Blessing</a> and both games I had <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Keening Apparition">Keening Apparition</a> to neutralize it; both games I had <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Detention Sphere">Detention Sphere</a> to take out multiple 3/3 or 4/4 tokens. My deck gave me what I needed when I needed it, and I was ecstatic to go 3-0 for the flight.
<br><br>
2-0
<br><br>
I'd be interested in knowing whether you would have built the deck differently and if so, why. I've been hearing that certain Izzet-aligned cards are maybe better than I thought so I wonder whether I should consider any of them. Should I have played <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Blustersquall">Blustersquall</a>? If so, over what? Were any cards in the pool worth splashing for in your opinion?
<br><br>
I ended up playing a Rakdos guild pack in the afternoon and went 2-1 with a good strong deck that I was very happy with. In the final round I made many very bad play mistakes and deserved to lose. Prior to that I was 5-0 on the day. Overall I was pleased with my 5-1 record and felt like the two guilds that I played were good choices. The other guilds didn't seem to come together as well, but that may just have been a result of my small sample size. One friend opened an Izzet pack and ended up building what was in his own words "an average Azorius deck" - that's just how poorly the Izzet cards were initially received. Of course, that's the deck I lost to in the final round of the afternoon flight, so it couldn't have been that bad.
<br><br>
In any event, the Azorius pack is the one that I'm using for league. Not only did I like it, but it seems right given that Michael and Gund didn't play the afternoon flight so this is the pack that we opened at the same time. Plus, Gund opened a Rakdos guild pack and Michael opened a Selesnya guild pack, so I'm all for diversity. More on the first week of league in my next post.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18227099583089220279noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110585071221346951.post-31464705478695960062012-10-09T23:28:00.001+13:002012-10-09T23:36:29.912+13:00Cube Rarity<script src="http://deckbox.org/javascripts/bin/tooltip.js"></script>
An important aspect of designing a cube of any kind is simply becoming familiar with a variety of draft environments. This allows you to compare and contrast various aspects of those environments - the things you liked and the things you didn't - with the draft environment that you're creating. Gaining this experience can be done in a number of ways. The first and most obvious is simply to draft a lot - whether in person or online, this is a great way to experience the nuances of an environment first-hand. However, if budget is an issue, there are other approaches. One simple one is to do mock drafts online. This <a href="http://draft.bestiaire.org/index.php">website</a> is one such place. Another good approach is to actually watch draft videos posted online by professional Magic players (at sites such as <a href="http://www.channelfireball.com">www.channelfireball.com</a>, <a href="http://www.starcitygames.com">www.starcitygames.com</a> and many others). This approach allows you to observe real-life drafts along with the commentary of the pros for little to no cost.
<br><br>
One of the ways that I use knowledge gained from such activities is to reference a draft environment as a basis of comparison for establishing card rarities. I started this approach with Magic 2011 which was a pretty good draft environment for a core set. However, one interesting thing to notice is that Magic 2010, Magic 2011, Magic 2012 and Magic 2013 are all exactly the same size in terms of the number of cards at each rarity. Because of this, and my experience with drafting these environments, I have a feel for how frequently a particular common or uncommon might appear in a draft. Extrapolating this into a cube environment allows me to tune numbers with relative rarity in mind.
<br><br>
In a singleton cube, of course, there will only be one copy of a particular card, but cube designers counteract this by including multiple cards with similar effects. For example, a cube might include both <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Wildfire">Wildfire</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Burning of Xinye">Burning of Xinye</a>. These cards are functionally identical and effectively create 2 copies of the effect. But the cards don't need to be quite so close - a cube designer might simply decide that any card that deals damage to a creature or player is a "burn" spell, and consider the number of these as an entire group. Likewise, the same approach can be applied to the number of one-cost creatures in Black or the number of <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Wrath of God">wrath</a> effects in White.
<br><br>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1dhGmtrAMZ4KnnG2rXIXBvjAjAN3ChgoTpzsJkqnGvfTOAL95RBS94X3660UljHbnX2S70QAjXHT_PdxTIip9KZmrs17P7tlivAzAE146KQTwqJLTcDnvUhRZ8sm9OQTfykEKaBH88D5b/s1600/wildfire.jpg" imageanchor="1" style=""><img border="0" height="320" width="234" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1dhGmtrAMZ4KnnG2rXIXBvjAjAN3ChgoTpzsJkqnGvfTOAL95RBS94X3660UljHbnX2S70QAjXHT_PdxTIip9KZmrs17P7tlivAzAE146KQTwqJLTcDnvUhRZ8sm9OQTfykEKaBH88D5b/s320/wildfire.jpg" /></a>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNMPHjAZ9PgRo9GD8LVoDw3l8_0qk10fwyvAj9SCHlstfby5OxLYr8eS9hFKqDS5RJIGQ-nluhON0wv39Ta5TtmqKEoTD8BMpOk3MNmWkJQykvJJh4vgta7SYBqoOySytODOSoEWtwFRCi/s1600/burning_of_xinye.jpg" imageanchor="1" style=""><img border="0" height="320" width="234" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNMPHjAZ9PgRo9GD8LVoDw3l8_0qk10fwyvAj9SCHlstfby5OxLYr8eS9hFKqDS5RJIGQ-nluhON0wv39Ta5TtmqKEoTD8BMpOk3MNmWkJQykvJJh4vgta7SYBqoOySytODOSoEWtwFRCi/s320/burning_of_xinye.jpg" /></a>
<br><br>
The effective rarity, then, can be calculated as a number that compares to a known draft environment. There is no correct answer in terms of which environment is the best choice - anything that is familiar to the designer is fine. I think that no matter what you choose, the numbers should turn out pretty similar. Also, the reason that I choose a triple-set draft (e.g. three packs of M11) is because it's easier on the math and also easier for me to remember as opposed to the frequency with which a particular card appeared in Scars of Mirrodin-Mirrodin Besieged-New Phyrexia draft, for example.
<br><br>
So, what are the numbers? The first thing to identify is that a booster pack of M11 (my target set) contains 1 rare (which could be a mythic rare but doesn't matter for our purposes), 3 uncommon, and 10 common cards. The final card is a Basic Land which we won't be using. It doesn't matter if your cube pack fills this 15th slot with a real card because we're only looking at the effective rarity of any given effect.
<br><br>
So, M11 contains 101 commons, 60 uncommons, 53 rares and 15 mythic rares (as do M10, M12, M13, Avacyn Restored and a number of other large sets, incidentally). From these numbers, we can determine the average number of each card that will appear in an 8-person booster draft. Of course, the actual number in a given draft will vary, but over time it will tend toward the average.
<br><br>
Since there are 10 commons per pack and 24 packs then 240 commons will be opened. With 101 commons in the set, this means that each common will appear approximately 2.4 times (or 2.37 to be a bit more precise). Applying the same logic, we find that each uncommon will appear on average 1.2 times. Since 1 in 8 packs contains a mythic rare instead of a rare, 21 packs should contain rares, meaning that each rare appears approximately 0.4 times. Mythic rares appear approximately 0.2 times.
<br><br>
Right, so how does this help? Well, if you are building a 360 card cube then you have your numbers. Obviously, you can't include 2.4 copies of a particular card effect, but at least you know that if you have 2 copies it will appear a little less frequently than a common, and if you have 3 copies then it will appear a little more frequently than a common. Likewise, something that appears only once is roughly equivalent to an uncommon - just a little less frequent.
<br><br>
If you have a cube of a different size then you just have to adjust the ratios. For my 450 card cube I find the following ratios:
<br><br>
2.4/360 = x/450<br>
x=3
<br><br>
Conveniently, a common equivalent appears exactly 3 times in my 450 card cube. An uncommon appears 1.5 times. From this point forward, I won't really bother with rares and mythic rares. The reason is that we only approach whole numbers (1) when cube size reaches 900 cards. Therefore, for any cube smaller than this, any card or effect that appears even once will be more frequent than a rare. Whatever your cube size, you simply need to convert these numbers to determine what your rarity equivalents will be.
<br><br>
I've been using these numbers (3 and 1.5) to assign values to a variety of effects within my cube for some time now. For example, if I have 6 1-drops in White, I know that that's equivalent to 2 different commons in a typical draft. This tells me that I have a good shot at finding a few copies during a typical draft. Also, if I have a single copy of an effect, I know it will turn up less frequently than an uncommon and I know that doubling it to 2 copies will result in it being more frequent than an uncommon. It is for this reason that I decided to spend the money to obtain a copy of <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Ravages of War">Ravages of War</a> - <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Armageddon">Armageddon</a> provides an important effect for White-based aggressive decks and I wanted this effect to be more frequent. Ideally it would be about as frequent as an uncommon, but I'd rather err on the side of too frequent than not enough.
<br><br>
To take another example, I'm also designing a cube that is intended to feel very similar to a real Limited draft environment (though of course with my own favourite cards to make up the draft set). In doing so, I realized that removal is more restricted in a typical Limited environment than it tends to be in high-powered cubes. For example, in M11, White effectively has 2 common removal spells - <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Pacifism">Pacifism</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Excommunicate">Excommunicate</a> - and one uncommon removal spell - <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Condemn">Condemn</a> (excluding the more situational <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Celestial Purge">Celestial Purge</a>). Setting aside the quality of the spells mentioned here, this means that a typical 8-person booster draft should only have about 6 removal spells in White. Given this, I have been sure to design my draft set to have a similar ratio of removal. While it is not perfect, it does provide a nice guideline to work with. From there, playtest and season to taste.
<br><br>
Of course, all of this assumes that you're also doing an 8-person draft with your cube. But the whole purpose is to provide a rough tool for calculating how frequently an effect should appear, regardless of how you end up using it.
<br><br>
After playing with the ratios for awhile, I recently realized that there is another nice round level at 600. In a 600 card cube, a common appears exactly 4 times and an uncommon appears exactly twice. These are very nice round numbers to work with. Furthermore, while a rare would appear about 0.67 times, it is certainly possible to create a pseudo-rare slot - any effect that appears exactly once is a little more frequent than a rare.
<br><br>
In a previous post I discussed the most common cube sizes and indicated that cubes were often built in multiples of 90-cards as a means of supporting exactly 2 drafters per 90 cards. This approach is not required of course, and as I consider expanding my cube from 450 cards, I am very seriously considering 600 as my next jump.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18227099583089220279noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110585071221346951.post-42762526366008350262012-10-04T22:10:00.000+13:002012-10-04T22:13:18.923+13:00Mixing the Fixing, part III<script src="http://deckbox.org/javascripts/bin/tooltip.js"></script>
Following on from my previous posts on mana fixing for budget three-colour decks, I thought I'd just quickly present the deck that I actually built for our challenge.
<br><br>
Because I like restrictions, I decided that I would also make my deck Standard-legal (just prior to the release of Return to Ravnica) and also adhere to the rules of Merchant Magic. Briefly, Merchant Magic sets limitations on the cards that a deck can have at each rarity as follows:
<br><br>
1. A deck may contain no more than 1 mythic rare card.<br>
2. A deck may contain no more than 5 cards that are rare or higher rarity combined.<br>
3. A deck may contain no more than 20 cards that are uncommon or higher rarity combined.
<br><br>
I'd decided that the two cards that I wanted in my deck would be <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Drogskol Captain">Drogskol Captain</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Lingering Souls">Lingering Souls</a>. The combination of these two cards put me into a three-colour deck. However, based on the premise that I like good mana, I decided that I wanted to make one of the colours a splash colour. There are different ways you could take this, but it seemed like the deck could work well without any Black sources until later in the game to pay the Flashback cost on Lingering Souls. So, while the deck could have used some of Black's creature removal, I stuck with a base White-Blue deck with a Black splash.
<br><br>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsQm0rgJC5Ds8fwUMq9cEzBXB447RoxuSqg9CJ452dhMT_iYvBRAfu2kqAwUfKod_6DXCYbf6xQkQFHfVsuQhguu7IemMgLHpS4Td7Anklg_Bmb0RHKem74o_Xmp4ioLoudKsebAfwxgmO/s1600/Drogskol_Captain.jpg" imageanchor="1" style=""><img border="0" height="310" width="223" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsQm0rgJC5Ds8fwUMq9cEzBXB447RoxuSqg9CJ452dhMT_iYvBRAfu2kqAwUfKod_6DXCYbf6xQkQFHfVsuQhguu7IemMgLHpS4Td7Anklg_Bmb0RHKem74o_Xmp4ioLoudKsebAfwxgmO/s320/Drogskol_Captain.jpg" /></a>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipr7vAFmpDsx27dZN496RqEPV2oNm6d7yD4sX6baXiagRxFbmNxsqpKAEBVWceBgtgtLXec2ABcirLmgfA377dtAesKMurlTqFI3CY0eBZ3FRbgY5m1fbhhYPow9LGOI-Ta3QMvvfRKUr8/s1600/Lingering_Souls.jpg" imageanchor="1" style=""><img border="0" height="310" width="223" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipr7vAFmpDsx27dZN496RqEPV2oNm6d7yD4sX6baXiagRxFbmNxsqpKAEBVWceBgtgtLXec2ABcirLmgfA377dtAesKMurlTqFI3CY0eBZ3FRbgY5m1fbhhYPow9LGOI-Ta3QMvvfRKUr8/s320/Lingering_Souls.jpg" /></a>
<br><br>
Here's the deck that I played:
<br><br>
Lands (24)
<br><br>
10 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Plains">Plains</a><br>
9 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Island">Island</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Swamp">Swamp</a><br>
4 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Evolving Wilds">Evolving Wilds</a><br>
<br>
Creatures (7)
<br>
3 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Niblis of the Urn">Niblis of the Urn</a><br>
4 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Drogskol Captain">Drogskol Captain</a><br>
<br><br>
Other Spells (29)
<br><br>
4 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Ponder">Ponder</a><br>
4 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Essence Scatter">Essence Scatter</a><br>
4 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Think Twice">Think Twice</a><br>
4 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Honor of the Pure">Honor of the Pure</a><br>
4 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Pacifism">Pacifism</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Oblivion Ring">Oblivion Ring</a><br>
4 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Midnight Haunting">Midnight Haunting</a><br>
4 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Lingering Souls">Lingering Souls</a><br>
<br><br>
One of the things that I've enjoyed about the recent sets is that there has been the number of anthem effects available, each rewarding a different creature characteristic. If you build your deck right, you can ensure that all of your creatures meet all of the characteristics to get full value from all of your anthems. The main options include <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Honor of the Pure">Honor of the Pure</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Drogskol Captain">Drogskol Captain</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Favorable Winds">Favorable Winds</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Intangible Virtue">Intangible Virtue</a>. I have previously built a deck that included the first three of these along with the creatures to match (nothing but flying White Spirits). This time, however, I decided to ease back on the anthems a bit and only include the first two. This left room for a few more options.
<br><br>
<a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Ponder">Ponder</a> is good at digging for what you need, including mana fixing and I liked having that in the deck. My opponents tend to like playing creature decks, so I wanted to include some good ways to combat that. In particular, based on past experience I thought I'd need a way to combat cards like <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Thragtusk">Thragtusk</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Rampaging Baloths">Rampaging Baloths</a> - and I was right - so I looked to <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Essence Scatter">Essence Scatter</a> as an option to take care of these cards.
<br><br>
The deck is a little light on creatures but plays a bit more like an aggro-control deck. You setup a bit with an anthem or just hold up counter magic, then start making Spirits when you have an opening. Before your opponent realises, they're facing down a bunch of 3/3 hexproof fliers.
<br><br>
I ended up winning my match against Michael but didn't get to play against Gund. The guys also wanted to play some multi-player and I managed to win the first game before becoming public enemy #1. If I wanted the deck to be a little better at multi-player I'd likely increase the creature and anthem counts and decrease the reactive stuff to ensure that I had more meaningful action to take on multiple opponents.
<br><br>
Overall, I really liked how the deck played out when dueling. I'll likely update the deck for the new Standard - <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Honor of the Pure">Honor of the Pure</a> is gone but <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Favorable Winds">Favorable Winds</a> can step right in to take its place. After that, I really only need a replacement for <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Ponder">Ponder</a>. Any suggestions?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18227099583089220279noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110585071221346951.post-41131906664176298842012-09-20T13:28:00.001+12:002012-09-20T13:57:45.579+12:00Mixing the Fixing, part II<script src="http://deckbox.org/javascripts/bin/tooltip.js"></script>
At the end of my last post, I presented the following deck list without much discussion.
<br><br>
<b>Jund on a Budget</b>
<br><br>
<b>Lands</b><br>
4 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Terramorphic Expanse">Terramorphic Expanse</a><br>
4 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Savage Lands">Savage Lands</a><br>
4 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Mountain">Mountain</a><br>
5 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Forest">Forest</a><br>
5 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Swamp">Swamp</a><br>
<br>
<b>Creatures</b><br>
4 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Putrid Leech">Putrid Leech</a><br>
4 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Sprouting Thrinax">Sprouting Thrinax</a><br>
3 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Borderland Ranger">Borderland Ranger</a><br>
4 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Bloodbraid Elf">Bloodbraid Elf</a><br>
3 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Broodmate Dragon">Broodmate Dragon</a><br>
<br>
<b>Other Spells</b><br>
2 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Veinfire Borderpost">Veinfire Borderpost</a><br>
2 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Firewild Borderpost">Firewild Borderpost</a><br>
3 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Bituminous Blast">Bituminous Blast</a><br>
4 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Blightning">Blightning</a><br>
4 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Lightning Bolt">Lightning Bolt</a><br>
2 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Terminate">Terminate</a><br>
2 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Resounding Thunder">Resounding Thunder</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Garruk Wildspeaker">Garruk Wildspeaker</a><br>
<br><br>
At first glance, the deck list may appear not to show much restraint - to be fair, the deck is trying very hard to exploit a number of the gold cards that were available at the time (the deck was built when Shards of Alara block was Standard legal). In particular, the deck is interested in playing <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Bloodbraid Elf">Bloodbraid Elf</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Blightning">Blightning</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Putrid Leech">Putrid Leech</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Sprouting Thrinax">Sprouting Thrinax</a>. The first three cards combined put us firmly in all three colours and the fourth does that all by itself.
<br><br>
On closer inspection there are a couple of things to notice. The first is that there are no one-drops. While <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Lightning Bolt">Lightning Bolt</a> has a casting cost of one, it is not often that you'll need or even want to actually cast it on turn one. A card like that has a lot more value a little later in the game and can usually trade for something better than whatever the opponent can produce on the first turn. Instead, the deck assumes that it will be fixing its mana on the first turn. <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Savage Lands">Savage Lands</a> provides all three colours which is a great boost for the deck. <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Terramorphic Expanse">Terramorphic Expanse</a> can find the basic land that you need to supplement and support your opening hand. And the borderposts can provide fixing on turn one as well.
<br><br>
On turn two there are a couple of options. With the right mana and a <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Putrid Leech">Putrid Leech</a> the deck can attempt to get agressive on the second turn. If the opponent has played something strong then <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Lightning Bolt">Lightning Bolt</a> or <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Terminate">Terminate</a> may be required to stem the bleeding. Alternatively, the deck can simply continue to setup with more mana fixing. Against some decks, this may be a bit slow, which is why there are some safety valves, but the deck hopes to catch up with a powerful mid-game.
<br><br>
The goal is to get into a position to cast all of your spells from turn three. <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Sprouting Thrinax">Sprouting Thrinax</a> requires all three colours but can stall the opponent's attacks for a bit or gain you a bit of card advantage. <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Borderland Ranger">Borderland Ranger</a> is a body that helps you fix your mana once again and should be able to block or even get in for some damage. After that, you're hoping to start to take over the game with cards like <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Bloodbraid Elf">Bloodbraid Elf</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Blightning">Blightning</a> or <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Garruk Wildspeaker">Garruk Wildspeaker</a>. There is removal to help mop up and even the infamous <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Broodmate Dragon">Double Dragon</a> to bring it home to victory.
<br><br>
While the deck starts out slow it hopes to dominate in the mid and late game, making up for being behind on the board early with powerful cards and a stream of card advantage.
<br><br>
So what can go wrong? Well, an openning hand that contains <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Terramorphic Expanse">Terramorphic Expanse</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Savage Lands">Savage Lands</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Veinfire Borderpost">Veinfire Borderpost</a> as the only mana source is going to be terribly slow. In this case, hands like that are the cost reaching for power in three colours. More restraint - perhaps choosing a different three-drop creature and leaving <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Sprouting Thrinax">Sprouting Thrinax</a> on the sideline - would help to reduce the burden on the mana. Either way, understanding how the deck will play out and how the mana needs to be designed to support that is the key. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18227099583089220279noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110585071221346951.post-19387919458058048082012-09-19T23:56:00.001+12:002012-09-20T00:05:41.194+12:00Mixing the Fixing<script src="http://deckbox.org/javascripts/bin/tooltip.js"></script>
This week's challenge at work is to build a three colour deck. The obstacles that you face when building such a deck are similar whether building for competitive play or on a budget, but the solutions available to you are different. In both cases, building a mana base that can support your spells is the fundamental issue to be resolved. When building on a budget, however, the tools are more restricted.
<br><br>
When building a three colour deck on a budget, there are three primary things to consider:
<br><br>
1. Why do you need three colours?<br>
2. What tools are available to build your mana base?<br>
3. What can you do to reduce the stress on your mana base?
<br><br>
<h3>1. Why do you need three colours?</h3>
<br>
There are many reasons why you might want to be in three particular colours, but the key is to understand what they are. If your deck can achieve its goal using only two colours, then you should probably consider cutting the third colour to make your mana base more consistent. Everybody is different, but for me, happiness is good mana. Nevertheless, every Constructed deck sprouts from some germinating idea and that idea may demand three colours. Here are just a few possibilities.
<br><br>
Building around a three colour card: While there are only so many three colour cards available, it certainly happens from time to time that you might want to build around one. If you want to build a deck around <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker">Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker</a> then you're going to need to be in Black, Blue and Red.
<br><br>
Building around a particular theme: Let's say you want to play Spirits in Standard. You identify the key cards to be <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Drogskol Captain">Drogskol Captain</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Lingering Souls">Lingering Souls</a>. Whatever other cards you include in your deck, you're going to need to figure out a way to produce White, Blue and Black mana.
<br><br>
Playing the best cards for a particular strategy: If you want to build an aggressive deck that includes <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Wild Nacatl">Wild Nacatl</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Kird Ape">Kird Ape</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Loam Lion">Loam Lion</a>, then you're going to need to be in Green, Red and White.
<br><br>
Once again, the key here is identifying why you want to be in these colours. This will help you later when you have to start making some hard decisions.
<br><br>
<h3>2. What tools are available to build your mana base?</h3>
<br>
If you have a lot of resources available to you, then you shouldn't have trouble finding a set of Rare lands and maybe some artifacts that meet your needs. When you're on a budget, you need to be a little more careful. Understanding the tools available to you at Common and Uncommon will be important. For example, in the current Standard format (just before the release of Return to Ravnica) the only real mana fixing lands available are <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Evolving Wilds">Evolving Wilds</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Shimmering Grotto">Shimmering Grott</a>o. While you can certainly give it a go with these lands, I personally wouldn't try it unless I was using Green as my primary colour. With Green, you have additional access to cards like <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Farseek">Farseek</a> that can help to fix your mana. Artifacts include <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Manalith">Manalith</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Mycosynth Wellspring">Mycosynth Wellspring</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Traveler's Amulet">Traveler's Amulet</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Horizon Spellbomb">Horizon Spellbomb</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Gem of Becoming">Gem of Becoming</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Sphere of the Suns">Sphere of the Suns</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Vessel of Endless Rest">Vessel of Endless Rest</a>. Most of these options are pretty slow, so unless your strategy allows you time to setup your mana fixing, they may or may not get the job done. Of these, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Sphere of the Suns">Sphere of the Suns</a> is generally the best option as a reasonable fixer. Regardless of your format, you should know what's available to help fix your mana.
<br><br>
From this, you can capture what will become a recurring pattern: the key categories of mana fixing tools are lands, artifacts and Green fixers.
<br><br>
If you're not restricted to Standard, there are number of popular options for budget deck builders:
<br><br>
<b>Lands</b>
<br><br>
Fetchlands: <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Terramorphic Expanse">Terramorphic Expanse</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Evolving Wilds">Evolving Wilds</a><br>
Shardlands: <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Arcane Sanctum">Arcane Sanctum</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Crumbling Necropolis">Crumbling Necropolis</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Jungle Shrine">Jungle Shrine</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Savage Lands">Savage Lands</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Seaside Citadel">Seaside Citadel</a><br>
Vivid Lands: <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Vivid Crag">Vivid Crag</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Vivid Creek">Vivid Creek</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Vivid Grove">Vivid Grove</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Vivid Marsh">Vivid Marsh</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Vivid Meadow">Vivid Meadow</a><br>
Ravnica "Karoo" Lands: <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Azorius Chancery">Azorius Chancery</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Dimir Aqueduct">Dimir Aqueduct</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Rakdos Carnarium">Rakdos Carnarium</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Gruul Turf">Gruul Turf</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Selesnya Sanctuary">Selesnya Sanctuary</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Orzhov Basilica">Orzhov Basilica</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Golgari Rot Farm">Golgari Rot Farm</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Simic Growth Chamber">Simic Growth Chamber</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Izzet Boilerworks">Izzet Boilerworks</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Boros Garrison">Boros Garrison</a>
<br><br>
Of course, there are more options, but these represent some good examples. The upcoming Guildgate cycle in Return to Ravnica block will add a new set of staples to this list.
<br><br>
<b>Artifacts</b>
<br><br>
Ravnica Signets: <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Azorius Signet">Azorius Signet</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Dimir Signet">Dimir Signet</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Rakdos Signet">Rakdos Signet</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Gruul Signet">Gruul Signet</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Selesnya Signet">Selesnya Signet</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Orzhov Signet">Orzhov Signet</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Golgari Signet">Golgari Signet</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Simic Signet">Simic Signet</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Izzet Signet">Izzet Signet</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Boros Signet">Boros Signet</a><br>
Mirrodin Talismans: <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Talisman of Dominance">Talisman of Dominance</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Talisman of Impulse">Talisman of Impulse</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Talisman of Indulgence">Talisman of Indulgence</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Talisman of Progress">Talisman of Progress</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Talisman of Unity">Talisman of Unity</a>
<br><br>
There are others, such as the obelisk cycle (e.g. <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Obelisk of Esper">Obelisk of Esper</a>) or the borderpost cycle (e.g. <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Veinfire Borderpost">Veinfire Borderpost</a>) from Shards of Alara. These tend to be more slow and ponderous but they are options for slower decks.
<br><br>
<b>Green Fixing</b>
<br><br>
Ramp spells: <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Farseek">Farseek</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Rampant Growth">Rampant Growth</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Cultivate">Cultivate</a>, etc.<br>
Creatures: <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Borderland Ranger">Borderland Ranger</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Dawntreader Elk">Dawntreader Elk</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Avacyn's Pilgrim">Avacyn's Pilgrim</a>, etc.
<br><br><br>
One thing that you'll notice is that all of these options take a little time to setup. Non-rare mana fixing notoriously enters the battlefield tapped, so in my opinion it will be very difficult to build a three colour aggressive deck with a consistent mana base. Reliably being able to produce Green, Red and White on the first turn to support <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Wild Nacatl">Wild Nacatl</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Kird Ape">Kird Ape</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Loam Lion">Loam Lion</a> is going to lead to some frustrating games. For this reason, in budget decks I think you're looking at midrange and control strategies when you're talking about three colour decks. Aggressive strategies really need to be thinking about restricting themselves to one or two colours.
<br><br>
That being said, this list is not exhaustive and you can see that there are many mana fixing options available if you know where to look.
<br><br>
Once you have identified them, you need to identify how many mana fixing options you have available to your particular deck and how much you can afford the drawback. At the end of the day, your deck will tend to under perform if all of your lands enter the battlefield tapped.
<br><br>
<h3>3. What can you do to reduce the stress on your mana base?</h3>
<br>
One of the best things that you can do is to ease the burden on your mana. Are you trying to cast several spells for each colour? One approach is to have a primary and secondary colour along with a "splash" colour. In the Spirits deck I mentioned above, you might decide that the entire deck can be built using White and Blue spells and that you only need Black to pay the flashback cost on <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Lingering Souls">Lingering Souls</a>. If this is the case, then you probably don't need many Black sources and probably don't need a Black source very early. This means that you can build your deck to have good Blue and White mana and include a couple of <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Swamp">Swamps</a> along with four <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Evolving Wilds">Evolving Wilds</a> to go and find a Swamp later in the game if you haven't drawn one already. Similarly, if you only need Red to cast <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker">Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker</a> in an otherwise Blue and Black deck, then you can have a similar setup.
<br><br>
If you do want to cast spells in all three colours, then another way to limit the burden is to restrict yourself to spells that only require a single mana of a particular colour, especially for those spells that you want to cast in the first few turns. So, while <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Murder">Murder</a> is a great spell, it's going to be difficult to cast in the same deck as <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Volcanic Geyser">Volcanic Geyser</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Mind Control">Mind Control</a>. Do yourself a favour and stick to cards that you will actually be able to cast with your mana base.
<br><br>
The more demanding your spells are on your mana, the more sources of each colour you're going to need. You may need to get creative by mixing the different types of fixing available to you. Take a look at the deck below. While it is certainly not perfect, it takes advantage of all three types of mana fixing in order to be able to cast many of the powerful spells that made the Jund deck so deadly in its day, while still being a budget version of the strategy. While the deck has taxing mana requirements, it is a midrange deck that is happy to spend the first turn or two setting up its mana before taking over during the middle turns.
<br><br>
<b>Jund on a Budget</b>
<br><br>
<b>Lands</b><br>
4 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Terramorphic Expanse">Terramorphic Expanse</a><br>
4 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Savage Lands">Savage Lands</a><br>
4 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Mountain">Mountain</a><br>
5 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Forest">Forest</a><br>
5 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Swamp">Swamp</a><br>
<br>
<b>Creatures</b><br>
4 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Putrid Leech">Putrid Leech</a><br>
4 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Sprouting Thrinax">Sprouting Thrinax</a><br>
3 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Borderland Ranger">Borderland Ranger</a><br>
4 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Bloodbraid Elf">Bloodbraid Elf</a><br>
3 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Broodmate Dragon">Broodmate Dragon</a><br>
<br>
<b>Other Spells</b><br>
2 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Veinfire Borderpost">Veinfire Borderpost</a><br>
2 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Firewild Borderpost">Firewild Borderpost</a><br>
3 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Bituminous Blast">Bituminous Blast</a><br>
4 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Blightning">Blightning</a><br>
4 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Lightning Bolt">Lightning Bolt</a><br>
2 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Terminate">Terminate</a><br>
2 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Resounding Thunder">Resounding Thunder</a><br>
1 <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Garruk Wildspeaker">Garruk Wildspeaker</a><br>
<br><br>
While this is certainly not the final word on mana, these are the first things that I'd take into consideration when building a budget three colour deck.
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18227099583089220279noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110585071221346951.post-64246184423053915022012-09-08T18:43:00.000+12:002012-09-08T18:44:16.693+12:00Size matters<script src="http://deckbox.org/javascripts/bin/tooltip.js"></script>
<i>You are sitting on your living room floor on a rainy Saturday afternoon, <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUMGXvBzPFEZFBgtX-zT_8JP092eUL49dj-iqGjR03NfIAyUFvlc9dad6qIbpNqpHlETT0wNLE684g_YFya2YtN3foAKKhP13a9VbnnMQiX65yEGN3TtIm-0DVkficA7e-WqTPFzqZBsY0/s1600/PileOfCards.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:right; float:right; margin-left:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="214" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUMGXvBzPFEZFBgtX-zT_8JP092eUL49dj-iqGjR03NfIAyUFvlc9dad6qIbpNqpHlETT0wNLE684g_YFya2YtN3foAKKhP13a9VbnnMQiX65yEGN3TtIm-0DVkficA7e-WqTPFzqZBsY0/s320/PileOfCards.jpg" /></a></div>
surrounded by your entire collection of Magic cards. You have been sifting through your once relatively organised collection like a mad scientist, selecting cards that you think you'd like to include in the cube that you've decided to build. A significant pile of potential inclusions is starting to take shape. With every new box of cards that you rummage through, you find another of your favourite cards that you'd love to play with again. Put it in the cube pile! Hours later, you take a look at the results of your feverish work. The pile is huge! How many cards are in there? You do an initial count...927. Ugh. That's a lot of cards. You start to get the feeling that perhaps you should cut a few. But how many?</i>
<br><br>
<b>Some questions to ponder</b>
<br><br>
One of the first decisions you'll need to make when you first build your cube is how many cards to actually include. There is, of course, no single correct answer. However, the answer that is right for you will depend on your answers to a few key
questions:
<br><br>
1. How will the cube be played?<br>
2. How many players do you want to be able to support at one time?<br>
3. How much variation do you want each time the cube is played?<br>
4. How strong do you want decks to be overall?<br>
5. Is there a limiting factor that caps the size of your cube?<br>
<br>
<b>Formats</b>
<br><br>
There are a variety of methods that people commonly use to build cube decks. These include multi-person <a href="http://www.wizards.com/Magic/TCG/Resources.aspx?x=mtg/tcg/resources/formats-sanctioned#limited">booster drafts</a>, two-person <a href="http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/af59">Winston</a> or <a href="http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/143">Winchester</a> drafts, <a href="http://www.wizards.com/Magic/TCG/Resources.aspx?x=mtg/tcg/resources/formats-sanctioned#limited">Sealed deck</a>, and more. Each and every method has merit, but each also brings certain constraints to the card pool. In general, booster drafts usually involve creating three 15-card piles of random cards per player. Winston drafts often involve a single pile of about 90-100 cards; Winchester drafts usually involve two piles of about 45-50 cards. Sealed deck usually involves 75-90 random cards per person. This leads us naturally on to the second question: how many players do you want to support at one time?
<br><br>
<b>Number of players</b>
<br><br>
If you plan to use your cube for two-person Winston or Winchester drafts exclusively, then you could get away with a cube with as few as 100 cards. If you generally have about four people and like to do 75-card Sealed pools each time you play, then you'll obviously need at least 300 cards to play with. If you want to support an eight-person booster draft, then you'll need at least 360 cards. The math is pretty straight forward.
<br><br>
<b>Variance</b>
<br><br>
However, the math only really tells you the minimum number of cards that you'll need. If you always booster draft with eight players and have a 360-card cube, then all cards will be drafted every time. This will create a fairly consistent environment but will also create a situation where players will tend to know that certain cards will turn up in an opponent's deck at some point. This could cause them to make certain decisions, such as always putting artifact removal in their main deck just in case they play the opponent with <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Sol Ring">Sol Ring</a>. On the other hand, the larger your cube, the greater the variation from draft-to-draft since some cards won't appear some percentage of the time. Generally, the more cards you have relative to the number of players, the greater the variation.
<br><br>
<b>Power level</b>
<br><br>
Counteracting the push to larger cubes - at least for "best of" cubes - is the simple fact that the more cards you have, the further down the list of top cards you have to go. There will likely be a significant difference in the overall power level between the top 10 and the 70th to 80th-best White cards, for example. The further down the list you go, the more cards you have to include of a lower power level. That's fine, of course, if you want a bit of a range of power levels of the cards in the average cube deck. But some cube designers prefer to keep the power level very high and therefore tend to prefer slightly smaller cubes. If you're playing cube to play with the best cards in Magic, then you you probably want those cards to actually turn up in a draft. If you're playing a powered cube, you might like to actually see <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Mox Sapphire">moxen</a> from time to time!
<br><br>
<b>Limiting factor</b>
<br><br>
On the other hand, if you're building a themed cube of some sort, then you might find that there are only so many cards that fit your theme. This is likely to grow over time, but you might need to do a little research before finalising the overall size. Let's imagine that you want to build a tribal-themed cube and one of the tribes that you'd like to include is Kithkin. A quick <a href="http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Advanced.aspx">Gatherer</a> search shows that there are only 58 different Kithkin creatures in print, while there are 134 Merfolk and 264 Goblins. Further, an analysis of the Kithkin cards could reveal that you don't actually want to include all of them for whatever reason. Assuming you want some balance between the various tribes, at first glance it appears that Kithkin could be your limiting factor. It might make sense to work out how many of these cards you'd like to include and go build up from there.
<br><br>
For cube designers working with a traditional cube, one limiting factor turns out to be the number of aggressive (e.g. 2-power) one drops available. Agressive decks in a "best of" environment need to get off to a fast start, and therefore require a critical mass of these one-drops - cards like <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Isamaru, Hound of Konda">Isamaru, Hound of Konda</a>, <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Goblin Guide">Goblin Guide</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Gravecrawler">Gravecrawler</a>. Unfortunately, there are only so many of these cards available. If you want to ensure that there are enough cards available in the cube to support aggressive strategies, then you can only grow your cube so big before there just aren't enough of these cards to appear with sufficient frequency to push someone into this strategy.
<br><br>
<b>Common approaches</b>
<br><br>
In practice, since booster drafts are one of the most popular ways to play cube, it is very common to select a cube size that is some multiple of 90. Common cube sizes include 360, 450, 540, 630 and 720 (with 630 being less common). Cubes tend to start at 360 in order to support an eight-person draft while 720 supports two eight-person drafts without the need to reshuffle (draft half the cube, then draft the other half). This is certainly not necessary, since any cards leftover just add to variance and can be shuffled back in for the next draft - the leftovers don't strictly need to be a multiple of 90. But it's a decent rule of thumb to consider.
<br><br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrdPwVE_NsIaEGmp0tnqcCOILo8elI5PsuU4MQMzKKhnKYiRWXkVLe09irqKxKyOddx0VlPU5SLIkmVp_iLUkmJzYOWWAyL1EtDtZK1fl-8vft-6hYmnJHrVkNsteGc8hKgXuOcukaS-3H/s1600/StackOfCards.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="178" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrdPwVE_NsIaEGmp0tnqcCOILo8elI5PsuU4MQMzKKhnKYiRWXkVLe09irqKxKyOddx0VlPU5SLIkmVp_iLUkmJzYOWWAyL1EtDtZK1fl-8vft-6hYmnJHrVkNsteGc8hKgXuOcukaS-3H/s320/StackOfCards.jpg" /></a></div>
What about the other formats, like Winston? Well, even a 360-card cube has enough cards to support multiple Winston drafts without reshuffling, so most cube builders tend to focus on the larger sizes. However, I have seen at least one 200-card cube designed for just this reason. You really are only limited by your own goals and preferences.
<br><br>
My own traditional "best of" cube currently contains 450 cards, in order to support an eight-person draft with some variance (20% of the cards will sit on the bench) and still keep the overall power level fairly high. 450 also supports exactly six 75-card Sealed pools which is one of the ways that I like to play when there are only 3-4 people. In practice, I have had more than one 10-person draft and have had to exclude people in the past as well due to the limitation of the cube size; as more cube-quality cards get printed I find myself considering a shift up to 540. However, I also experience the limiting factor listed above: I don't believe that there are quite enough aggressive one-drops of cube-quality for me to make the shift up to 540 cards. This could change over time as more of this type of card get printed.
<br><br>
The number 450 has another useful property. In a traditional eight-player booster draft using sealed booster packs, there are 24 packs, each pack containing 10 common cards (not counting basic lands) for a total of 240 common cards. The average set contains about 100 unique commons (for example, M13 has 101). Assuming that all of the packs are from the same set, then there are approximately 2.4 copies of each common in the draft on average. This number can be scaled to any cube size as a simple ratio, but if you scale it onto a 450-card cube then you find that the number is exactly 3. This means that for a 450-card cube, three cards that do approximately the same thing are the equivalent to a common in a traditional booster draft. This provides a meaningful metric that I can use to help determine how many cards that provide a particular effect I want to include. As your cube scales this number gets larger. For example, in a 720 card cube this number is 4.8.
<br><br>
For this reason, the themed cube that I am designing - which assigns actual meaning to card rarity - will also be designed as a 450-card cube as a starting point.
<br><br>
<b>Summary</b>
<br><br>
While size matters for getting started, ultimately you can always make changes at a later date if you need to. It will involve some work to change, but it can be done. So don't stress - just pick something reasonable and get started.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18227099583089220279noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110585071221346951.post-43455571614341598912012-09-05T23:41:00.000+12:002012-09-05T23:55:00.684+12:00Pattern Recognition<script src="http://deckbox.org/javascripts/bin/tooltip.js"></script>
As a software architect, one tool that has been very useful over the years is the identification and use of patterns. The concept of design patterns originated in traditional building architecture where similar problems were frequently encountered. Over time, standard solutions to these problems were documented and reused by other architects, thus allowing a buildup of professional knowledge and a common language for discussing the various solutions. An example of such a pattern in traditional building architecture is the arch. Patterns also creep up in software design, and they can apply to cube design as well. <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr4uDyDOwU4FjCPX03DgSul5wgNXyC2aecfYvgtcErHsnHiSjnqY1VCRKGc0jjfUi7jllhsE-qwZxizjV3IiN1btTK7ueJLZQm5SGn2x9x2Ry-LRzQFXajZBEtt1QilO3t19ZL7wfulJ4y/s1600/Fig-112-Exterior-of-Colosseum%255B1%255D.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:right; float:right; margin-left:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="241" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr4uDyDOwU4FjCPX03DgSul5wgNXyC2aecfYvgtcErHsnHiSjnqY1VCRKGc0jjfUi7jllhsE-qwZxizjV3IiN1btTK7ueJLZQm5SGn2x9x2Ry-LRzQFXajZBEtt1QilO3t19ZL7wfulJ4y/s320/Fig-112-Exterior-of-Colosseum%255B1%255D.jpg" /></a></div>
<br>
A pattern is a recurring solution to a common problem. For example, in software engineering, the Singleton Pattern is a solution to the requirement that there be only a single copy of a particular object at run-time. Cubes also traditionally follow a singleton pattern. But why?
<br><br>
In cube design, the singleton pattern refers to something slightly different: the cube contains only a single copy of each card. This is not strictly required; if you've ever played in a booster draft then you've probably seen more than one copy of a single card, especially among the commons. In fact, contemporary booster packs sometimes contain premium foils that can mean a single pack could contain two copies of the same card (one foil, one non-foil). On the other hand, booster packs otherwise do have a kind of contract with players: with the exception of premium foil cards, booster packs will not contain any duplicate cards. This helps to smooth out the drafting and avoids clumping of cards. It is made possible by the fact that booster packs are assembled in a controlled printing and packaging process that ensures the contract is met.
<br><br>
When you're building booster packs yourself everything is done manually. It is already tedious enough shuffling up several hundred cards; I don't also want to sort cards to ensure that multiple copies of the same card don't end up in the same pack. If there is only one copy of each card, then it is not necessary to do any additional sorting, as there will never be duplicates.
<br><br>
A happy by-product is that the singleton pattern provides a great deal of variety during a draft. The result is much more akin to the feel of a draft environment that includes all three sets of a block, rather than the early triple-large set drafts.
<br><br>
When multiple cards that provide a similar effect do appear in the same pack, this can actually create some interesting decision points for drafters. While you may always choose <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Lightning Bolt">Lightning Bolt</a> over pretty much any other burn spell, you might find the choice between <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Firebolt">Firebolt</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Searing Spear">Searing Spear</a> more interesting.
<br><br>
Including only one copy of each card also creates some interesting decisions for the design of the cube. If you were selecting only a single burn spell in Red, for example, you might choose something like <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Lightning Bolt">Lightning Bolt</a> for your set. When a new card comes along like <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Searing Spear">Searing Spear</a>, you can instantly see that it's not quite as good as <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Lightning Bolt">Lightning Bolt</a> so you might decide to just leave it be. However, in a singleton cube, you often want to accumulate a critcal mass of a similar type of effect. This redundancy basically acts as a bit of a counter-measure to the singleton pattern and may result in you including both <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Lightning Bolt">Lightning Bolt</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Searing Spear">Searing Spear</a> in your cube.
<br><br>
I follow the singleton pattern strictly for my traditional "best of" cube. For the most part, the themed cube that I am currently designing will also follow this pattern - with one exception. For a number of reasons, I have some issues in my White section which can be helped greatly if I include multiple copies of <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Squadron Hawk">Squadron Hawk</a>. <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Squadron Hawk">Squadron Hawk</a>, of course, is a very average card if there is only one copy available, and as a result it is almost universally shunned in cubes. However, if I were to include, say, four copies of <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Squadron Hawk">Squadron Hawk</a>, then the card becomes significantly stronger. In fact, it can create some interesting draft decisions in and of itself. It is very much a gamble to take the first copy of <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Squadron Hawk">Squadron Hawk</a> since it is not very good on its own. Collecting additional copies, though, can be very advantageous and even very powerful depending upon the draft environment that you're creating. In M11 draft, it was a very strong card indeed.
<br><br>
But what about that issue of having multiple copies in the same pack? Actually, I think that in this case it could once again make for some interesting draft decisions. If it's early in a pack and you're looking at two copies of <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Squadron Hawk">Squadron Hawk</a>, do you take one? If you do, what are the chances that someone else will take the other one, thus reducing the value of the first? What if you pass both? You can then no longer get both, meaning that you're passing on them entirely. Since these decisions will only come up periodically and since I'm planning to restrict it to the one card, I think that this sort of thing is fine. I just wouldn't want it to happen with a lot of cards; it makes a better exception than a rule.
<br><br>
So, the singleton pattern solves the problem of duplicates and simultaneously adds to the overall experience. As a result, most cube designers choose to follow this pattern by default. As I continue to explore cube design in more detail, I'll be on the lookout for more patterns used by other cube designers to solve common problems and apply them to my own cube designs wherever they seem appropriate.
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18227099583089220279noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110585071221346951.post-14708683129444717302012-09-02T11:49:00.000+12:002012-09-02T16:02:48.101+12:00Cube: More Than a Box of CardsEach person views the world through a unique lens. This, in turn, affects the manner in which each of us interacts with our environment. Ever since I can remember, I have always enjoyed activities that allowed for a great degree of variation while still imposing a distinct set of restrictions. I was never really into jigsaw puzzles, on the one hand, because there is only one correct solution. Painting, on the other hand, allows for too many possibilities since it imposes no restrictions beyond the two-dimensional canvas and the imagination of the artist. My favourite childhood toy was Lego: a large box of Lego pieces allowed for a huge set of possible outcomes while still very much restricting the builder to a set of basic shapes and mechanisms for interconnection. This same Lego-block style of thinking is what ultimately lead me to a career in engineering and is also a key reason that I enjoy Magic: the Gathering.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSVHzxyFyqbDiynw1qpzUfAWBnAc4bx1L3FH4WV0FnGyoIl7CzCoVrFUQNnF9XvED9X6sYeDC6PbHcFNdr6pIuWoHj48HEwaowVVNoFBZe5EFImSQtrlQNpQfEhlJhHCK3LRu2FzasZTFX/s1600/LegoCube.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:right; float:right; margin-left:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="320" width="318" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSVHzxyFyqbDiynw1qpzUfAWBnAc4bx1L3FH4WV0FnGyoIl7CzCoVrFUQNnF9XvED9X6sYeDC6PbHcFNdr6pIuWoHj48HEwaowVVNoFBZe5EFImSQtrlQNpQfEhlJhHCK3LRu2FzasZTFX/s320/LegoCube.jpg" /></a></div>
<br>
Building a Magic deck of any variation - whether it be Constructed, Sealed, Draft, Commander or whatever - requires the builder to select from a set number of pieces - the cards - and build a deck within some basic restrictions - deck size, number of copies of each card, etc. The card pool from which one may choose is effectively their box of Lego pieces. This may be defined by the format - Standard, Modern, Legacy, etc. - or simply by the cards physically on hand, as in the case of Limited formats. The resulting deck represents the builder's unique perspective exerted upon the Magic environment.
<br><br>
The concept of a box of Lego pieces has slowly developed within the Magic community not only into Limited formats, but over the past few years also into the concept of a cube. At its most basic level, a cube is simply a box of Magic cards that you use to build decks. The box could contain anything, such as the cumulative collection of cards obtained from past five years of pre-release events, for example. But it is human nature to exert one's will on the environment. Cube owners do this by selecting the cards that are contained in the box. Thus, cube design was born.
<br><br>
If you have followed some of the history of cube, from <a href="http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/9975_Gleaming_the_Cube.html">Sam Gomersall</a> and <a href="http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/15205_Arcane_Teachings_Six_Sides_on_the_Cube.html">Tom Lapille</a> to <a href="http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/multiplayer/11755_The_Cube_20.html">Evan Erwin</a> and <a href="http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/multiplayer/19953_Dark_Steele_Cube_Why_Cube.html">Thea Steele</a> and many others, then you're probably very familiar with the standard definition of cube as a collection of the most powerful cards in Magic's history stuffed together into a set to be drafted. To my engineering mind, this is simply a group of people agreeing on a basic design criteria: the cards in the box are selected because they're the best cards in the history of Magic. It is, indeed, a fine criteria for selection. In fact, whole cube communities have developed (such as this one at <a href="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/forumdisplay.php?f=349">mtgsalvation.com</a>) in which like-minded individuals gather to discuss exactly which cards should be included in a cube. Further, Wizards of the Coast has chosen to surf the wave of cube enthusiasm both by creating a cube that can be drafted on Magic Online, as well as recently featuring cube draft as an official format at the Magic Players Championship. This official support further cements the common understanding of what a cube represents. I have built such a cube myself, and have learned a great deal about cube design from the various cube communities and authors on the subject.
<br><br>
In the process of cube construction, I have come to realise that restricting the criteria for cube design only to the "best" cards has its own caveats and limitations. For one thing, it's difficult to get agreement on which cards, exactly, are the most powerful. Cube lists differ even among those who subscribe to this basic definition. There are those who for various reasons have decided to exclude the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Nine">"power 9"</a> cards - the most powerful and, generally speaking, most expensive cards ever printed. Some cube designers restrict the sets from which cards are considered acceptable for inclusion, excluding, for example, cards from the un-sets (Unglued, Unhinged) and sometimes from sets such as Portal which were never part of any official format. Most cube designers also make some attempt to give structure to their cube by balancing the five colours, artifacts, multi-coloured cards and lands. This is like choosing how many blocks of each colour will be in the box of Lego. Furthermore, experience with playing the cube has lead many cube builders to include selections that support various deck archetypes in order to create a more varied and balanced play environment. This also helps to create linkages between the pieces, much like selecting styles of Lego, such as Lego Castle or Lego City. However, every time a card is included for one of these reasons it is potentially replacing a card that is "better". As a result, there is already far more to a cube than simply being the best cards, even if this remains the primary design principle.
<br><br>
Upon further inspection, however, it becomes apparent that this is not the only possible design criteria. "Pauper" cubes refer to those built using only common cards; "Peasant" cubes are built using only common and uncommon cards. Generally these cubes are still applying the "best of" criteria, but only within their overarching restriction on card rarity. There is also the concept of Block cubes. These cubes are different in the sense that there really isn't any design involved; rather, they contain one copy of every card in a Block of sets as released by Wizards of the Coast. I have put together a couple of these myself: I have a complete set of Innistrad and a complete set of Dark Ascension in a box ready to be drafted. It is also possible to cross the concepts: I have a Block cube which is simply every common and uncommon in Scars of Mirrodin Block and another which is every common and uncommon in Innistrad Block (including Avacyn Restored). While there is no design involved in these cubes, they do provide a very good approximation of what it feels like to draft the entire set and get a feel for the various mechanics and interactions.
<br><br>
There are also "themed" cubes which attempt to build a cube based around some criteria other than "the best cards". A common example is a Tribal cube, which promotes drafting decks around a particular creature type. Themed cubes tend to get less attention within the cube communities. The primary reason for this seems to be that when a cube designer is building along some axis other than "the best", other cube designers find it difficult to provide input. This makes sense, but does not reduce the value of such cubes. In fact, this is probably the area of greatest interest to me currently - not so much designing a cube around a specific theme such as Tribal, but simply designing a cube which is a set all on its own, with cards chosen specifically for their fit within that specific environment.
<br><br>
Cube design provides an opportunity to design and build a Magic set of my own, using the pieces provided by Wizards of the Coast. The result of my effort, in turn, is a box of pieces to be used by myself and my friends to form our own creations. Cube design, for me, is the study and application of the various criteria for defining what is to be included in my box of cards, whether this be the structure, archetypes, mana curves, colour pie breakdown, individual card selection or any other criteria.
<br><br>
So, while it is common to refer to a cube as a collection of the best Magic cards of all time, I will also continue to explore the various facets of custom draft set design which represents the greater hobby that is cube design.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18227099583089220279noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110585071221346951.post-91775412901500266992012-08-30T10:46:00.000+12:002012-08-30T20:53:30.557+12:00A League of Our Own<script src="http://deckbox.org/javascripts/bin/tooltip.js"></script>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Finding time for a few casual games of Magic:the Gathering can be difficult, especially now that I've reached the point in my life at which family, career and mortgage(s) naturally claim priority. I was therefore pleasantly surprised a few weeks ago when I noticed a couple of the guys at work slinging spells in the lunch area on our floor. After a bit of a chat, we decided to hold a Magic night at the office each week. When the Magic 2013 (M13) Pre-Release event rolled around at the local gaming store, Vagabond, all three of us decided to attend.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">At the event, we each built and played our Sealed Deck with the six booster packs of M13 cards provided. The store also gave out an additional two boosters to all participants. Afterwards, I had the idea to start a League, having played in a couple of Leagues a few years ago when they were supported on Magic Online. To this end, the three of us decided to split a booster box (containing 36 packs of M13). This meant that, in addition to the six starting packs, we'd have an additional 14 packs each. I had thought that we might add one pack per week, but the guys were eager to crack packs and get at their new cards. We agreed to add two booster packs per week, for a total of seven weeks of Sealed Deck League play.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">We toyed around with different scoring systems. Most organised Magic events award three points for a match win (a match being best 2-of-3 games) and zero points for a loss, regardless of whether you win any games. Draws are possible, and in that case each player gets one point. For our League, I wanted to reward game wins as well, so we went with the following:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Helv; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><ul>
<li>1 point per game win</li>
<li>1 point per match win</li>
<li>0 points for game or match draw</li>
<li>0 points for game or match loss</li>
</ul>
</span></span>Basically, this means that if you win the match, you get 3 points as normal. However, if you lose the match but win one game, you get a point for your troubles.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Our booster box came with the buy-a-box promo foil <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Cathedral of War">Cathedral of War</a>, and since the card isn't much good torn in three, we decided to put it up as the prize to the winner: just a little something to make it interesting.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">With that out of the way, we got down to playing our games each week. Since this post is after the fact, I won't get into the week-by-week details. However, the key stats are listed below:</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5DphquetEkSUqqy6lvH0qZa7YynvhZae_2-d4J99o1OxF_AKXOTH8r1pgKGtwPe7pBQ6mvDUWa8MzZMO-k-dPiPBaFEi7SpslxHXHp_HN80jCx8Gzmp1hLm2weZ9RFB8Gl2YNL9o2nW1h/s1600/League1Standings.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5DphquetEkSUqqy6lvH0qZa7YynvhZae_2-d4J99o1OxF_AKXOTH8r1pgKGtwPe7pBQ6mvDUWa8MzZMO-k-dPiPBaFEi7SpslxHXHp_HN80jCx8Gzmp1hLm2weZ9RFB8Gl2YNL9o2nW1h/s320/League1Standings.PNG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
It was interesting to see the decks evolve both as a result of new cards added to the pool each week as well as in response to what the other players were playing: our own little metagame developed and we all spent our deckbuilding time strategising our best path to victory. Michael and Gund went through their own deck transformations, though Gund was largely on the White/Black exalted plan, sporting both <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Sublime Archangel">Sublime Archangel</a> and <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Nefarox, Overlord of Grixis">Nefarox, Overlord of Grixis</a> from very early on. Michael built some interesting Green-based ramp decks featuring <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Thragtusk">Thragtusk</a> and multiple <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Duskdale Wurm">Duskdale Wurm</a>s.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixoP_FeC_XPQUKvmEZKCzZ6GrAIaJ3Teh4kXHcArGAxK6eu19JVuSUYpDqnA5N_T3dZxqa_6faTWv7qZD7eH3UnuDJ54YmLykaU6-19T6jEyUmueVkMksbFaR-AypfagKPPLMW_a-59cMJ/s1600/NicolBolasPlaneswalker%255B1%255D.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixoP_FeC_XPQUKvmEZKCzZ6GrAIaJ3Teh4kXHcArGAxK6eu19JVuSUYpDqnA5N_T3dZxqa_6faTWv7qZD7eH3UnuDJ54YmLykaU6-19T6jEyUmueVkMksbFaR-AypfagKPPLMW_a-59cMJ/s1600/NicolBolasPlaneswalker%255B1%255D.jpg" /></a>At the pre-release I had played Green/Red with an overall week card pool, and only went 1-2. After talking to some friends at the event, it turned out that I was under-evaluating <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Duty-Bound Dead">Duty-Bound Dead</a> which had caused me to believe that I did not have enough playables in Black. As it turned out, I should have been in Green/Black.<br />
<br />
The two new boosters for Week 1 of our League provided mainly goodies in Green, and so I ended up running with Green/Black the first few weeks to great success. At one point I was in Jund (Green/Black/Red) and after opening a foil <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker">Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker</a> (along with a <a href="http://deckbox.org/mtg/Gem of Becoming">Gem of Becoming</a>) I just had to play Grixis (Black/Red/Blue) that week. The final couple of weeks I ended up in White/Red as the expanding pool provided agressive options in these colours. I was specifically interested in fliers and burn to overcome Michael's natural advantage on the ground in the late game.<br />
<br />
I initially supported the decision to switch to 60-card decks for the final three-weeks. The theory was that this would preserve the "Sealed feel" even as our card pools increased. However, I found that the mana became terrible and the decks were stuffed with filler to make numbers. I think that I'd probably rather see the 40-card decks evolve to become more powerful and focused in their strategies. I know that eventually it would be necessary to make the jump to 60 cards, I just don't think that it needed to happen during the first 20 packs. Aaron Forsythe wrote an <a href="http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/af181">article</a> a few years ago describing a "box league" in which players had an entire booster box of 36 packs to build decks, and they were also able to trade with one another. I think it's clear that 60-card decks are required in this scenario, but at what point that becomes true is still a mystery to me. In order to test my 40-card theory, the other guys obliged me and we all built 40-card decks from our pool for the week following the official end of the League. I was pretty happy with the result and I didn't feel that the decks were too powerful, but we'll see what the guys think next time.<br />
<br />
Speaking of next time, I'm excited for the Return to Ravnica. I think that we're likely to run another League, and if we do I plan to post more detailed information each week. It would be good to have a fourth to make better numbers - and we're working on that - but I'm keen either way. League seems like an excellent way to provide a little structure to casual card slinging for several weeks every few months. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18227099583089220279noreply@blogger.com0