Locations
Read this entire article series:
I love cube drafting. In fact, I love it so much my first instinct is to capitalize it: Cube Draft. It may not be a format listed in the Comprehensive Rules documentation but, damn it, the longer you stick around Magic the more you end up being drawn into someone's cube.
We capitalized Elder Dragon Highlander before it made the rules, didn't we?
While I'm not here to declare how much of an expert I am at cube draft, I do feel confident talking about what I've learned from my cube. Last time it was the lessons I could apply in general; this time I'm looking directly into the heart of the beast itself.
Dogged and Dragged
I don't believe I've ever really explained my cube. In fact, my initial statements at the outset more than a year ago (more power to you if you know what I'm talking out) are grossly off the mark now. Originally, my goal was to apply two overriding principles:
- Cards printed at common rarity only (true pauper)
- Support and provide multicolor play
Sounds pretty simple and, in my infinite naivety, it was pretty simple. However I was wrong about many things and it took dozens of iterations and trials to discover:
- No one likes being forced into something (in this case it was three color decks)
- Cube is more often associated with powerful rares than commons (Time Walk vs. Rampant Growth)
- Commons facilitate traditional Limited play better than constructed archetypes
Plowing through versions, testing cards and attempting to find archetypes, sleeving and resleeving everything, creating a comprehensive spreadsheet documenting various datum – it's clear that I'm passionate about what I'm doing. Funneling this passion into my cube only resulted in more and more information being gathered. Three things quickly became apparent:
- Aggressive three-color (or more) decks were not effective
- Four and five color control decks had the long game locked up
- Functional copies of cards were highly desirable
Does that sound familiar? Applying the standard cube caveat – every card is, generally, a very high pick and consistently desirable – reveals nothing more interesting than what you can gain from a few rounds of drafting:
- Monocolor and color pairs provide focus, and therefore consistency
- Splashing for cards that can take control of a game is acceptable
- Achieving consistency through redundancy of cards is a powerful strategy
But here lies and interesting divide in the cube community: to include functional reprints or to not include functional reprints. For my cube, some of the highlights are:
- Civic Wayfinder – Borderland Ranger
- Kodama's Reach – Cultivate
- Cloud Spirit – Rishidan Airship
And there are some pairs that are virtually functional reprints:
- Terror – Doom Blade
- Sakura Tribe Elder – Sylvan Ranger (worth a discussion elsewhere)
- Mire Boa – River Boa
- Carnophage – Vampire Lacerator
- Rampant Growth – Farseek
I could go on but my point is that I clearly believe in having multiple copies of similar, powerful effects in a constrained draft space.
Some Terminology
When I say "constrained draft space" I mean exactly what I say: a draft environment where variability is limited and reduced. Have you ever drafted triple "small expansion" in the recent year or so? Multiples begin to pile up quickly and archetypes are limited.
The most powerful strategies are parasitic perversions that can't exist elsewhere. What a lovely way to transition back to my cube.
Consistency in Limited decks can be achieved in a number of ways, primarily:
- Following a Mana Curve to ensure threats are distributed across converted mana costs
- Restricting colors to a synergistic pair, splashing only for great effect (Fireball, Clone, etc.)
- Pulling multiple copies of strong cards (multiples of Doom Blade, Stormfront Pegasus, etc.)
While following a mana curve and focuses draft picking are things still controlled by the players of a cube, it is only the cube owner that can permit or deny redundancy of effects.
It's an odd discussion I've seen moving around that hasn't settled much beyond the old standby of "since cube is anything you want just do what you want" solution. Is Kodama's Reach sufficient alone or is adding Cultivate better? What about Terror and Doom Blade? Or Control Magic and Binding Grasp?
There are a lot more cubes with multiple Control Magic effects than Rampant Growth effects. The reason for this is the not-so-subtle ramping effect the Signets from Ravnica block provide in conjunction with the mana smoothing impact of the bounce lands, also from Ravnica block. A nice set of sets if I must say so.
In a different vein, Monday brought some Twitter discussion regarding Squadron Hawk and cube: is it possible to get the "best of both worlds" with the Hawk – include one Hawk and, by picking it, get the three more that make it worth running? The consensus from Kelly Digges (@kellydigges), Sam Stoddard (@samstod), Alexis Jansen (@alexisjansen), Trick Jarrett (@mananation), and Evan Erwin (@misterorange) was that it sounded like a good solution. Similarly, if the Nissa's Chosen from Nissa Revane came from nowhere – just "Poof! Here's a 2/3 dude!" - then Nissa could be an excellent cube addition.
Redundancy is a powerful, attractive thing.
But part of what makes Squadron Hawk interesting is that you have to actually spend picks on supporting the Hawk, otherwise you end up with an underpowered 1/1 flying Bird.
Redundancy is a powerful, attractive thing that rewards those who know how to find it.
I don't like the "pick one, get four" solution for Hawks. Part of working with a cube is adhering to the boundaries you set and working within the window of "one copy per card" makes functional reprints (and near reprints) exciting. Suddenly, seeing Cultivate and Kodama's Reach feels more natural.
Imagine if Squadron Hawk instead let you pay 
to put a copy into play up to three times. Ignoring very awkward templating issues ("Use this ability no more than three times in the game." Wait, what?), would this card still be a common? Of course not – it's clearly something much more. By having to pay multiple picks for the effect of filling your hand with a creature the redundancy comes with an opportunity cost of other things that may, individually, be stronger.
Splitting Hairs
It's this narrow division that drives the of redundancy for me: the tension between raw power, and potential power, and having multiple copies of moderately effective cards. The core of virtually every blue-based control deck in cubes are Control Magic effects. They serve as a combination of removal and bodies, giving a power tool to taking control of a board.
There is little trade-off here: stealing creatures is generally the best thing a deck can do at any point in the game. Mana ramping, for comparison, is best early in the game. Taking multiple ramp effects is a risk that, if executed properly, rewards playing creatures a turn or two ahead of where your opponent is. Turn three Blastoderm or Calciderm is pretty rough beats.
Redundancy is powerful mitigation against randomness. Redundancy without risk is boring.
Running a very tight cube – about 365 cards or just enough for a full eight man draft – virtually guarantees that all of the copies of cards will be seen. Providing opportunities for players to make decisions is part of the skill testing element that makes cube draft so engaging. Of course, with a larger cube running functional reprints gets the desirable effects to show up more consistently, providing opportunities for players to recognize their potential during drafts.
So why would you ever make the decision easier than it needs to be? (Don't answer that – it's a trick question.)
I include a lot of ramping effects in green for three reasons:
- It feels natural as part of it's color identity
- It provides intuitive support for multicolored decks
- Green has the best creatures to ramp into
However, green also has strong creatures along a mana curve as well – it's not all land fetching and mana bugs. The decision to grab the correct amount, not too much or too little, of the right mana ramping will yield a more optimal deck than one that either ignored or overvalues the same pieces.
Redundancy in the form I present it is meant to achieve the ultimate goal of providing a sufficient number of pieces for multiple drafters to grab the correct number and types of pieces. Everyone else ends up punished for greed or ignorance.
Skill testing indeed.
So how do you feel about redundancy? Where do you see it falling within the spectrum of draft and what are you looking for it to achieve – or for you to achieve with it? Join me next week when I show you some pretty graphs and delicious, crunchy numbers.
Read this entire article series:
