tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7069223956725485027.post6919620416856759708..comments2024-03-23T14:47:08.716-07:00Comments on MTG Cube: Results for Rotisserie VNick Nobodyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08217616255450989605noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7069223956725485027.post-21415387372624385212017-12-21T08:38:33.236-08:002017-12-21T08:38:33.236-08:00Alas, mana rocks should rarely be considered as su...Alas, mana rocks should rarely be considered as substitutes for lands. Even Mox lose much of their value if you substitute them too much for lands. The strength of a Mox is that you can lay it and a land thus providing ramp and immediate tempo. If you don't make a land the Mox is simply as good as a land. The Signet example is more appreciable, three lands is a lot better than two lands and a Signet. Both produce three mana on turn three but the Signet line doesn't have any spare mana to do other things on turn two.<br /><br />The reason to play mana rocks is not to cut lands but to increase the average CMC of your deck. Mana rocks let you play bombs like Karn and Ugin. There is enough power in such cards so as to offset playing a much higher proportion of mana sources in your deck. The other thing to try and do when playing lots of mana rocks is to include card quality, filtering and draw as well as mana sink cards. Walking Ballista, Thirst for Knowledge, Merfolk Looter, Pull from Tomorrow etc are the kind of cards you want to play in decks with lots of ramp. This is how you avoid screws and floods. <br /><br />Flooding with 14 is just bad luck, it will happen but less than it will with more land obviously. Floods also feel more like floods when you have extra mana sources! Just offset with more filtering etc.Nick Nobodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08217616255450989605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7069223956725485027.post-9171691258761740152017-12-21T06:16:42.610-08:002017-12-21T06:16:42.610-08:00I totally agree, I assess the quality of games in ...I totally agree, I assess the quality of games in much the same way. A good game in an involved one where choices matter and no one card dominates the game. There is definitely a time and a place for sideboards and they do add to the overall game. Drafting cubes are not the time or the place for sideboard only cards at least! <br /><br />Also entirely agree about the relevance of record on the day. A Bo3 is pretty laughable in terms of its ability to reflect a win percentage, a Bo5 isn't that much better either. I always say you need about 100 games before you can start to comment on match percentages and even then it will be pretty rough. Thousands of games would be far better and offer a greater degree of precision! Nick Nobodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08217616255450989605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7069223956725485027.post-74465373483568331262017-12-20T16:12:31.158-08:002017-12-20T16:12:31.158-08:00Off topic of this article but i had an issue come ...Off topic of this article but i had an issue come up in a recent team sealed that i though warrants discussion. I was playing a Grixis control deck in peasant w 2 signets, sol ring, renegade map, and 14 lands. I also had everflowibg chalice which I chose not to include because I did not want to go below 14 actual lands and did not want to flood. As it was I found that I flooded in several games. <br /><br />This led me to to think about what the optimal number of mana rocks in a deck is. And the related question of how many lands can you trim for mana rocks. Obviously a complex question depending on archetype and type of rock. Moxes are easy since you can just sub 1 for 1 for lands. Sol ring is essentially the same. But once you get up to signets and bigger rocks like thrun dynamo I am not sure what the optimal mix is.mfeincathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02176335462018304989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7069223956725485027.post-41555195755057621782017-12-20T07:11:09.018-08:002017-12-20T07:11:09.018-08:00Not really at all. If you want to use cards like t...Not really at all. If you want to use cards like that the best ways are the open card pool formats like rotisserie. Aluren would be one of the more difficult combos to add to a drafting cube. Nick Nobodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08217616255450989605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7069223956725485027.post-35595288865989933082017-12-18T19:41:36.466-08:002017-12-18T19:41:36.466-08:00Awesome. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I di...Awesome. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. <br /><br />I didn't intend for it to sound like an exam question, but now that I re-read what I posted, it totally does. LOL. I agree with your assessment. Magic is such a dynamic game that some of this took the community I think a long time to fully understand. I'm still uncovering quite a bit of depth even after more than a decade playing. Cube has really offered me opportunities to confirm assumptions I had about the game (and disprove many others). Cubing has been somewhat humbling truthfully.<br /><br />On the subject of winning/losing... I find the final record often poorly reflects how games actually play out. By that I mean, I've had plenty of "losing" decks that were extremely competitive and just ran into a lucky play or bad draw. Or maybe the game came down to one card and my opponent drew it first, etc. Basically, on a different night the deck could have easily run the table. And then on the flip side of the coin, you have decks that "win", but it ends up being more match-up related and/or your opponents just got some slow starts or whatever. <br /><br />I think I feel the best about how things go not based on win/loss but on how many competitive games there were and how often a game is decided not by specific cards but by play decisions. For that reason, I have a love/hate relationship with obtuse sideboard specific cards and much prefer drafting cubes where these types of cards are generally excluded (sideboard tech thereby being somewhat muted).<br />gazzlefrazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10273395347695080111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7069223956725485027.post-77136913450003711422017-12-18T13:36:53.684-08:002017-12-18T13:36:53.684-08:00Are there other archetypes that cross section with...Are there other archetypes that cross section with Aluren? I want to try that card in my cube.Franknicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08072747043276359457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7069223956725485027.post-52995384434150217022017-12-18T09:26:26.994-08:002017-12-18T09:26:26.994-08:00Wow! This is like an exam question! I think it pro...Wow! This is like an exam question! I think it probably has always been true in the general sense, or as true as a sweeping statement can be in magic at least. I think as the game evolves and the collective understanding of it grows these aspects become more established and ultimately obvious. When I started the idea of a mana curve was still to be properly understood and now it is quite an early thing you learn about. I have seen a decent number of these developments over the years. They always existed but they were a lot less relevant before people became generally aware of them. <br /><br />Magic is great because it has so much wiggle room. A meta will evolve to reach an equilibrium point of sorts so you can have decks that "lose" to other decks and decks that "lose" to sideboard cards and it can all still work out nicely due to the counter play options in deck design and RNG in games. The term "lose" in magic in this kind of sense always just translates to some unfavourable win percentage. So while there may be a sideboard card out there that knocks a massive 10% off your win percentage that might just be fine based on the starting matchup percentages being enough in your favour. The fair and linear decks do have consistency on their side, often speed too, which puts them in a good starting position. I certainly don't think my statement is something that is a problem, more just a useful trend to be aware of when selecting an archetype. <br /><br />Specifically to cube is rather harder to answer as cubes differ as do the ways in which they are played. This particular format we used (rotisserie) involves the most savage of sideboard cards and they are highly relevant to the event. In my booster draft and sealed games of cube the sideboards are frequently not touched and even when they are they don't have a massive effect on the game. Much of that is my cube design which involves very few cards that hose specific strategies or colours. I would say that the trend applies to most, if not all, magic formats but to rather differing degrees. The more constructed the formats the more it is true, the more limited in nature the less so. Nick Nobodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08217616255450989605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7069223956725485027.post-75593947086243432492017-12-17T13:56:43.448-08:002017-12-17T13:56:43.448-08:00"Basically, the fair decks lose to the unfair..."Basically, the fair decks lose to the unfair decks and the linear decks lose to the sideboards."<br /><br />Do you believe this has always been the case or has the game (cubing specifically) evolved to this point over time (i.e. how much can be attributed simply to the evolution of modern Magic)? gazzlefrazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10273395347695080111noreply@blogger.com