MTG Cube

This blog is dedicated to Cube construction and drafting for Magic: The Gathering. Features weekly articles about cube design with daily updates of things more generally cube or MtG related.

[gavinverhey]

hi gavin! I've never made a cube before but I decided that i would make a Conspiracy draft cube (just cards from CNS). which do you think would be the best ratio of cards to preserve the feel of the cns draft format, 4-3-2-1 common to mythic, or 4-2-1 common-uncommon-rare/mythic, or some other ratio? do you think there are cards that should be in more limited numbers than other cards at their rarities, or the opposite, in higher numbers? what else should I consider? thanks!

Outside of purposefully singleton formats (like Cube) I never like knowing that after I have seen a card there cannot be any more in the draft. For that reason, I’d have 2 of each rare and mythic. Also, be sure to figure out what you’re doing with conspiracies - my recommendation is to seed them one per pack.

[mtgfan]

The Beast

Each player starts with 30 life and seven cards. Your opening hand consists of three lands from a shared land pile in the middle of the table, and four cards from your stack of cards. Your stack of cards consists of a bunch of cards from the Cube that are selected sight unseen. The Cube is randomized before anyone selects a stack of cards, so the cards you are playing with will likely be a mix of all five colors. The stack of land in the middle of the table is half basic lands and half nonbasic lands. If the lands in your opening hand do not allow access to at least two different colors of mana, you can draw three new lands and discard the old ones.

…

The Beast is, in fact, one of every card in Magic. That’s more than THIRTY THOUSAND cards! As Uriah described it to me, it includes “just about every card from every set, supplemental product, and promotional card ever printed. If it has an original expansion symbol, it goes in.” The Beast is missing about twenty or thirty cards from hard-to-find Portal Three Kingdoms and a few judge foils. Rob Moffitt, owner/creator/curator of The Beast, gets a copy of every card from each new release and adds the cards to the ever-growing Beast.

[mtgcube]

Cubing with the Pros: Lenticular Design

Lenticular design is a way that designers at Wizards of the Coast make cards that fulfill different function depending on how you look at them. Maro likes to use the example of Black Cat, a 1/1 creature with a death trigger that makes an opponent discard a card. Newer players see it as a 1/1 creature first, and will play it as such, then just take the death trigger as a happy bonus. More skilled players will see that in some circumstances the discard is often more useful than the 1/1 creature and that this is the sort of thing you can try to build a combo around. Cube designers are somewhat limited in how they can apply lenticular design to cube construction, but it does have some important lessons for us.

Designers at Wizards have a big leg up when it comes to lenticular design: they can create fresh new cards that people will have to look at in different ways before figuring out all the ways they can use them. Cube designers have only existing cards with which to try and bring something new and interesting into our cubes. If you have newer players in your play group, then you can make similar decisions to Wizards, such as including Black Cat simply because some players will see the value of the death trigger while others will only see it as a 1/1 creature with a random bonus if it dies. But if your play group is anything like mine, things are fairly stable and the players are all of roughly equal skill levels. They wouldn't fall into drafting something like Dragon's Claw and including that cycle in my cube would only mean some players get stuck with bad cards that they know are bad on their sideboard. Bad cards have their place, but I think they should generally still make players wonder if they would be worth drafting in some circumstances. Even your “bad” cards should have some sort of value.

Your attempt at something like lenticular design has to take your entire cube into account, as well as whatever you know about your play group. For instance, I know I have a Timmy, a few Johnnys and a Spike in my play group. I can choose cards that each of those players will value, but for different reasons. Timmy is probably the easiest to please: throw in the biggest spells and creatures I can and player will be happy to draft them and even happier when they get to cast them. Johnnys want to build a unique deck and so often need combo options of some sort available. They don't always have to be the most powerful; it's usually enough when it's something that will surprise the other players. When possible, I like to trade a few cards into my cube when I know a friend is aware of that combo. I want to see if they'll put it together and manage to pull it off in game. Finally, Spike just wants to win and will try to draft whatever they think gives them the best chance to do that. In a new cube they won't necessarily know what that is; in older cubes I try to switch things up enough to keep my Spike on his toes without making him feel like I've hamstringed his favorite decks (though sometimes it's hard to avoid that).

Which brings us to a card that could have all those players considering how it might fit into their deck. Abhorrent Overlord is a big flier for Timmy, a resource for a sac outlet due to all those Harpies for Johnny, and good mid-endgame for Spike. Not many cards appeal to all these types of players, but a good number of cards will mean different things to two of them at the same time. Finding and including some of these cards can transform draft into a more interesting competition by causing players to value the same cards highly, where perhaps before they were each in their own little world, Timmy not too concerned with what Johnny might do. When the same card means different things to different people, assuming those things are good, it's value increases and your draft takes on a whole new life. And that's what good lenticular design is all about.

[gavinverhey]

Other than pack wars, do you have any draft formats for 4 players?

Depends how skill intensive you’re looking for. You can actually do a reasonable booster draft or rochester draft with four people. You can also do two separate heads-up Winston or Winchester drafts and then play.

But if you’re looking for something crazy and ridiculously skill intensive, you can do the Fact or Fiction draft.

Here’s how it works: on your “turn” you open a pack, shuffle it, and reveal five cards. The player to your left splits them into two piles. You choose one, they get the other. Then repeat this process with 5 more cards with the person to your right, and then again with the last 5 cards with the person across from you. 

After your turn, the person to the left of you goes. Once it goes around the table, the person on the end “wheels” and it heads back counterclockwise. 

It’s one of the most skill intensive draft formats I’ve ever played. Give it a try!

[mtgcube]

Cubing with the Pros: Keeping it Fresh

Wizards of the Coast helps insure the game is always new and interesting by rotating old cards out of standard while it brings new cards (or reprints of cards we've been missing) into the game. They do this multiple times a year, at least in regards to adding cards. If drafting and playing your cube is starting to get stale then you shouldn't be afraid to freshen things up!

Not that you need to change things up as often as Wizards, especially once your cube's found a sweet spot. But it couldn't hurt to keep a healthy “side board” of cards you can trade in and out to keep players on their toes. This also can help you keep dominating metas in check without completely eliminating them; just make them less appealing due to cost or by switching them from instant speed to sorcery.

We can see how Wizards does this by looking at Doom Blade. It's really efficient creature removal for black at instant speed. Other cards that do that at different speeds and costs include Annihilate, Asphyxiate, Assassin's Strike, Assassinate, and Attrition. And we haven't even gotten out of A yet! You have a lot of options to change up your cube and make your players reevaluate their favorite cards and strategies without doing a whole lot of tinkering. Just make sure your curves don't go to far askew when trading in new cards and your next draft will be an exciting and fun new experience!

[theblogeternities]

THE FIVE ICONICS Version 2 | Innistrad | Ravnica | Theros Now with each iconic to a certain mana symbol - White Angel, Black Demon, Red Dragon, Green Hydra, Blue Sphinx. Avacyn and Griselbrand comes from Innistrad. Hellkite Tyrant was chosen for his win the game flavor. Polukranos was chosen for the Theros Block; and Prognostic Sphinx because still… Gandalf.

[mtgcube]

Something to keep in mind when creating a cube. Is there a place for the iconics? Players like to see these big, game changing creatures.

[justanothercubeplayer]

There’s roughly 2 angels that are strong enough to see play in the average cube: Baneslayer and Resto. Exalted Angel doesn’t miss it by too much though, and could also be included.

The only worthwhile Sphinx is Consecrated, and he can be a bit iffy depending on the cube.

As far as demons go, there’s Griselbrand, but he’s only good enough if you go all-in on reanimate and S&T archetypes, plus a couple super undercosted ones like Master of the Feast, but those aren’t as iconic feeling lol

I think Thundermaw Hellkite is really the only dragon who is worth it in a traditional cube.

And then Kalonian Hydra sees some use.

I think even at 450 those are about the only ones you see.

[mtgcube]

I know people tend toward higher power cubes, in which case you are spot on. I prefer to mess around with the power level a little more so I can work in cards I like but don’t necessarily get to play as often.

[justanothercubeplayer]

Well sure, whatever, everyone builds there own cube, but the average cube is intended to be very high-powered, which is the context in which I offer all of my advice, unless I have a specific reason to do it with any other context. Since the statement was “is there a place for the iconics” I was just talking about which of them can fit into an average cube. The goal being to make the information as accessible as possible.

[theblogeternities]

THE FIVE ICONICS Version 2 | Innistrad | Ravnica | Theros Now with each iconic to a certain mana symbol - White Angel, Black Demon, Red Dragon, Green Hydra, Blue Sphinx. Avacyn and Griselbrand comes from Innistrad. Hellkite Tyrant was chosen for his win the game flavor. Polukranos was chosen for the Theros Block; and Prognostic Sphinx because still… Gandalf.

[mtgcube]

Something to keep in mind when creating a cube. Is there a place for the iconics? Players like to see these big, game changing creatures.

[justanothercubeplayer]

There’s roughly 2 angels that are strong enough to see play in the average cube: Baneslayer and Resto. Exalted Angel doesn’t miss it by too much though, and could also be included.

The only worthwhile Sphinx is Consecrated, and he can be a bit iffy depending on the cube.

As far as demons go, there’s Griselbrand, but he’s only good enough if you go all-in on reanimate and S&T archetypes, plus a couple super undercosted ones like Master of the Feast, but those aren’t as iconic feeling lol

I think Thundermaw Hellkite is really the only dragon who is worth it in a traditional cube.

And then Kalonian Hydra sees some use.

I think even at 450 those are about the only ones you see.

[mtgcube]

I know people tend toward higher power cubes, in which case you are spot on. I prefer to mess around with the power level a little more so I can work in cards I like but don't necessarily get to play as often.

[theblogeternities]

THE FIVE ICONICS Version 2 | Innistrad | Ravnica | Theros Now with each iconic to a certain mana symbol - White Angel, Black Demon, Red Dragon, Green Hydra, Blue Sphinx. Avacyn and Griselbrand comes from Innistrad. Hellkite Tyrant was chosen for his win the game flavor. Polukranos was chosen for the Theros Block; and Prognostic Sphinx because still… Gandalf.

[mtgcube]

Something to keep in mind when creating a cube. Is there a place for the iconics? Players like to see these big, game changing creatures.

[theconspiracycube]

Conspiracy Draft Archetypes: Izzet Dethrone

Izzet does something very different in this set - it attacks, and often.  Normally Izzet decks do something more offbeat like focus on artifacts or it’s a spell based archetype with supporting mechanics.  In Conspiracy, it’s definitely an aggressive archetype looking for ways to keep attacking with its dethrone creatures until they’re big enough to just outright win combat.  The deck is also very tempo-oriented.  You want to drop a bunch of dethrone creatures early and then back them up with removal and counterspells to keep getting in until you can start finishing people off.  Dethrone’s an all-new mechanic for Conspiracy and it’s definitely an interesting one to try and maximize. Between trying to maximize the amount of dethrone triggers you’re getting as well as making sure you attacks are meaningful, you get a lot of interesting tension and decision making.  

Best uncommons for this archetype:

Marchesa’s Infiltrator - decent dethrone guy that can keep your hand full while attacking

Marchesa’s Smuggler - seeder uncommon that does everything the deck wants

Treasonous Ogre - gives you a way to accelerate a bit, but more importantly gives you a way to decrease your own life total to get dethrone triggers again

Uncontrollable Anger - combat trick that also plays well into what you want to do with your dethrone creatures anyway

Wind Dancer - makes your dethrone guys much harder to block

Best commons for this archetype:

Grenzo’s Cutthroat - plays very well with the other combat tricks available due to first strike

Marchesa’s Emissary - comes down a little later but a great target for enchantments or equipment due to hexproof

Orcish Cannonade - clears out an early blocker, helps keep your life lower than someone’s, and cantrips

Traveler’s Cloak - cantrips through your deck while making your dethrone guy unblockable against one or more opponents

Wrap in Flames - keeping up to 3 creatures from blocking almost guarantees a solid attack, perfect for later when you want to get multiple dethrone triggers in a single turn

Izzet is one of the most early game focused decks I’ve had a chance to draft so far.  It definitely wants to beat down early and often.  A dethrone creature is slightly overcosted with one dethrone trigger and noticeably undercosted with 2, so you definitely want to start attacking as soon as possible and keep doing it.  Fortunately, there’s plenty of support for it in the set, especially at common.  There are multiple spells that do a great job of making a path for your dethrone creatures or making them unblockable.  I don’t think much needs to be done to improve this archetype when it comes to modification time.

[mtgcube]

I'm not sure if this blog is still updating, but the posts that are here are absolute goldmines of information on Conspiracy draft/cube. If you have been thinking about putting together a Conspiracy cube, posts like this can give you a head start on what to expect. This stretches from overall archetype analysis to some talk about how drafts went, to individual card analysis. Even just as an example of how to evaluate a cube or how to evaluate cards for a cube, this blog is great. Be sure to check out the rest of their stuff.

[mraptronym]

Manalink was an ability I was toying with. I think it has a lot of developmental and memory issues and in the end I wouldn’t use it, but I wanted to show off some of what I was looking at.

It went through several iterations: Triggering only on damage to players, adding mana of the any of the creature’s colors. But Both seemed more trouble than they were worth. The mechanic was planned for Green and red with secondary black. It was there as an enabler for some big Second Main Phase plays, Rise of the Eldrazi style.

[thesnacken]

This is such a cool idea, I’d hate for it to die on the table because it couldn’t be worded elegantly or be made to function clearly.

[dailygamedesign]

Love it!

[jwilkes99999]

This was an awesome idea, the cards are just going to have to be costed more. Think about how things like 1 and 2 drop attack bonuses are going to interact with this. You could giant growth for +3 mana on turn 2 (The creatures natural 1/1 pays for the growth itself) so even with a sub-par hand you could have Blood-Bound out on turn 2. Maybe turn it into either combat damage to players or combat damage to creatures (I particularly like this idea - the flavor of draining a creatures essence through damage to channel your own spells) to encourage/discourage blocking.

[mraptronym]

I am surprised at how much people liked this one. Aye, the interaction with cards like giant growth is my main concern. I had it as damage to a player at the start and I am inclined to go back to that.

My issue was that unreliable mana sources are not very fun. (Rhystic Cave) but as a wholly supplemental sources it should be okay. It just makes it really hard for most people to plan their turns I suspect, which I think many players wouldn’t like. In fact though, it seems like its an effect an opponent SHOULD have a way to block out. Playing around with the idea, I have decided bringing back that restriction is the best course.

The downside is of course all the non-combat abilities will be lost. It still allows you to giant growth for a burst of mana, but it gives your opponent a fair shake at stopping it. Cards that grant trample or prevent blocking would be fun, and even one extra cog in a combo can take it from game-breaking to novelty.

Increasing the cost is also viable, but fundamentally its not very fun, and cost can’t really buy away certain kinds of broken-ness like I am worried about here. Ramp cards become much less useful/fun with an increase in cost. Some will need tweaking for sure though.

Sorry for the rambling reply.

[zanmor]

I think I like this more as a red creature ability. It rewards aggro and you could drop the bit where it doesn’t empty from the mana pool—use it to cast a burn spell at instant speed before the phase ends or to pay for some activated ability. I think I would specify combat damage because it feels like the sort of thing that would be easy to turn into an infinite damage combo if it works with any damage.

I really like this mechanic though.

[misterlamp]

Ok so unpowered around 360 then.

Alright that’s the same thing I’m currently running.

The first thing I recommend doing is just running up a list of what you want to have in the final cube, but that isn’t easy to do with no experience with the format.

The best way to decide what needs to be in the goal list is by looking at what you want to support.

You want monoblack Pox/Stax to be a thing? (Hint: If you want mono-B to be draftable, you do) That requires certain support cards. Natural Order? Different cards. Tinkersteel? Different cards again.

You don’t need to do this step immediately, but definitely keep in mind what archetypes you want as you go. (ex. I support Stax, UR Spells Matter, UW Blink, and soon Splinter Twin.dec)

Once you’ve got an idea of your end goal, you have to build it. Unfortunately, most people don’t have a set of fetches/shocks/OGs sitting around, so you have to start budget.

There’s a couple good ways to budget a cube:

Proxy it. I’m… not going into how to do this in public due to legal things. If you really want to go for this, message me about it. Pros: Very Cheap, Lets you run whatever cards you want. Cons: Not real cards.

Start with a CU/be. Look up a list for a pauper/peasant cube (I have a few I can recommend). One of these will usually run you about $300 if you have none of the cards, and they have a good amount of cards you’ll want in a traditional cube. From there, add rares from your collection/trades/purchases/etc. Pros: Have cube to draft throughout the process. Cons: Won’t always be balanced due to the nature of how you’re upgrading.

Just throw one together from cards you have now and upgrade. Pros: You have a cube throughout, No initial investment. Cons; Will not be balanced, Probably not the best draft experience initially.

Just save up and purchase the whole thing at once. I don’t think I need to elaborate on this one.

If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.

[mtgcube]

In regards to number three, I think the balance of the cube depends more on how big your personal card pool is and how much experience you have with the format. I also prefer to toss in a lot of potential cards then weed out the things that don't really fit, starting to see themes and archetypes come together as I actually see what cards made the cut, instead of planning ahead for what I want to try to squeeze in. That's just me personally, but I feel that strategy works better if you want to try to build from a personal collection you already have. And of course you're still open to upgrade as you can and as you get feedback. I also like number three because it can provide an opportunity to play some of your cards that you've been ignoring.

I'd also offer that you could do a quick cube by grabbing 24 booster packs all from the same set or block and tossing those together. It'll be as balanced as any draft, and at about $100 it is on the cheaper end of building a cube from nothing.

Really good advice on approaching building a cube.

[mtgcube]

Cubing with the Pros: Complexity

The last Cubing with the Pros post talked about how Wizards uses card rarity to help keep control of the complexity of the game: commons make up most cards and in general are less complex. There are certain things that Wizards just wouldn't do at common today because it would make the game even more difficult for new players. While you might understand the rules really well and maybe even scoff at that idea, you should know that even the best players can only handle so much complexity in the game.

By limiting the complexity in your cube, you are able to encourage players to put their efforts in the right places, instead of leaving them to mull over every single card, reread this one, forget what another does, and wonder if they made the best draft choices. As far as individual card complexity goes, it's often useful to drafters to be able to glance quickly at some of the cards to see what they do. A 1/2 flier, okay. A 1/1 vanilla goblin. Those cards only require a quick look so that they can focus the rest of their efforts the more complex cards. If every card they come across is a more complex card then mental fatigue occurs very quickly and it becomes harder and harder to make good choices when drafting.

That sort of mental fatigue continues in game. More complex cards have more complicated effects on the board state and how they interact with other cards. A game should be decided based on who played best, not because someone missed some bookkeeping on a card or was too busy reading what their cards do to focus enough of their efforts on winning the game. In short, decreasing complexity in places where it doesn't contribute to a fun and competitive game allows your players to focus on the game and play better. Where you no longer have a complex card to bring something special to the game, you instead have players focused and calculating how they can win. A good cube will balance the two, providing cards that are just complicated enough to keep game play interesting, without being so complicated as a group that they make it difficult for players to play.

[mtgcube]

Vanilla creatures refers to creature cards without any rules text. This is not an actual cube but will instead be a card list of all such creatures. I hope you find it a useful reference when finding a flavorful fit for your cube.

Here you go. Hopefully a similar list of french vanilla creatures will follow soon.

[mtgcube]

Playtesting Constructed

A few weeks ago, I talked about playtesting Limited, and this week I want to talk about the corollary in how we playtest Constructed. This article will mostly focus on the structure of how and why we playtest Limited, and not on the actual mechanics of it. Playtesting in the Pit differs quite a bit from playtesting in the real world for a few reasons:

You read "Playtesting Limited" a few weeks ago (or maybe even a few months ago when it was originally published), now check out the ideas and processed used to playtest Constructed. If you like playing Sealed with your cube, or maybe even use your cube for your own custom Constructed play, this article is definitely worth checking out. And even if those formats aren't the ones you prefer, the ideas on card balance and creating a fun experience are still incredibly useful to us cubers.

[mtgcube]

Rich Player’s Cube

[mtg-talk]

My box of M15 Came!

Now the real question is how many packs I should open. It feels like a waste to open them all without doing anything with most of them, so I want to save some behind for drafting.

I think I’m going to use this box as the start of a “draft pool” of packs. The idea (which I got off the internet) is that whenever you and your friends want to crack packs, everyone buys 3 packs and add them to the pack pool. Then draft out of the pool, taking whatever packs you want! That way you keep a supply of old and new packs to draft with, and the supply is constantly rotating. Chaos drafting!

I think I’m cracking 2/3 of the box and keeping the final 1/3 for my Chaos Draft Pool. Thoughts?

[zanmor]

Contraptions and Riggers

The idea of the contraption card type hinted at on Steamflogger Boss really intrigued me so I decided to come up with my own. What I’ve got isn’t quite true to Steamflogger Boss, but I like it nonetheless.

As you can see, first we need to errata the second ability on Steamflogger Boss a bit so it works in regards to counters placed on contraptions instead of the idea of assembling contraptions as a game mechanic. So that’s not a huge departure from how Magic plays already. Nor is the use of Riggers to put assembly counters on contraptions. Things put counters on permanents all the time, this is just uses the assemble keyword to denote a specific type of counter and a specific type of permanent. This is more a nod to Steamflogger Boss’ original rules text than anything else. In fact, I could probably reword SFB to say, “If a Rigger you control would assemble, it assembles twice instead.”

What’s quite different from anything seen in Magic before is the contraption card type. First, contraptions have no mana cost. You cannot cast them from your hand. You have to get them into play in some other manner, namely with a Rigger’s ability, though there are other methods. Second, contraptions don’t really do anything at first. They’re just piles of scrap metal junk, like the junk ability says. Once you get enough assembly counters on them (that is, once your Riggers have worked on them enough to assemble them) they start to do useful things.

As I made these cards ideas just started flowing and I’ve come up with a few more mechanics to play with the contraptions as well as quite a few more contraptions. Dwindle, an anti-proliferate mechanic, would be a small sub-theme to help the loxodons fight the goblin contraptions. My concern is how many contraptions could conceivably show up at common? It’s a totally new card type and it doesn’t function like anything else. But as MaRo says, your theme usn’t your theme unless it’s at common. I’m just concerned that they’re generally too complex for common (the simplest is probably Junk 1 and the ability T: Deal one damage to target creature or player).

Anyway, there you go. I’m sure I’ll continue to work on this and maybe some day even proxy them.