This is an effort to concentrate discussions that are going on in various threads. I do not intend to bash or offend anyone, but I do realize that I did not quite write a neutral article here, it probably ended up as an ardent plea.
With the printing of the Innistrad spell lands Moorland Haunt, Kessig Wolf Run and Gavony Township and the Dark Ascension land Vault of the Archangel that all see constructed play, the importance of the cube sections for cube design is more apparent than ever. The spell lands give decks something to do even when they run out of spells, at the relatively small cost of playing a colorless-mana-producing land. However, because of the way most cubes are organized in sections, many cube designers claim that there is no room for these lands in their cube. On the other hand, lands are where cube decks can improve the most. Most spells are now of high quality even in larger cubes, but most cube decks still play a lot of basic lands. Now why are cube sections important here?
Cube lists are generally divided up in sections. In his article How To Begin Your Cube, Evan Erwin suggests the sections White, Blue, Red, Green, Lands, Artifacts, Gold and Hybrid. The Gold and Hybrid sections contain a fixed number of cards for each two-color pair. Because of the lack of good hybrid mana cards in some color combinations, it is now common practice to consider Gold and Hybrid cards the same and include them in a Multicolor section. Because of the difference in card quality between the various two-color pairs, some cube designers chose an Unbalanced Multicolored section where they only include cards they consider powerful enough.
In August 2010, Cube Enthusiast Mark Oberdries proposed to reorganize the sections in what is now known as the Guild System. The traditional sections Land, Multicolor and Artifacts are split up and recombined in two sections: A Guild section that includes the traditional Multicolor section as well as the two-color fixing lands (like Tundra) and two-color fixing artifacts (like Azorius Signet) and a Colorless section that includes all the lands and artifacts that are not included in the Guild section.
The Guild System is widely used and to different degrees, but it remains a controversial topic to this day. Critics consider the potentially uneven amount of mana fixing for the different two-color pairs problematic. It also continues the trend of hiding lands among spells that was started when color aligned lands (like Treetop Village) were moved to their respective color.
The main idea of the Guild System is to have the same support for all ten two-color pairs. I think that it does a reasonable job at that, but it also creates a rather narrow focus. A land like Kessig Wolf Run now has to make it in the top 6 or 7 out of Taiga, Wooded Foothills, Stomping Ground, Raging Ravine, Kird Ape, Bloodbraid Elf, Stormbind and more. This is a huge barrier to entry.
You only get to play ~23 spells in your deck, but you pick 45 cards. Every non-basic land you pick is an additional card that you can play in your deck. If the nonbasic land is good in your deck, it will make your deck better. A spell you pick may very well end up in the sideboard. So whatever your cube sections are now, do not let that artificial structure keep you from playing good cards that make your decks better. I suggest using a separate land section - these are the cards that fight for ~17 land slots during deck construction, do not hide them among the cards that fight for the other ~23 slots! Then cut cards from the other sections for more lands - cut good cards, as good as they may be, being spells dooms the (comparatively) worst of them to be sideboard cards anyway.
Of course, the problem is the balance - one of the reasons things like the Guild System were introduced in the first place. The simple truth is - there is no perfect balance. Now you can either try to force as much balance as possible at the cost of excluding good cards - especially good lands - from your cube. Or you can bite the bullet and just add the four currently existing good spell lands, even if that means that the other six color pairs are at a slight disadvantage. I think the most important part of giving all the color pairs an equal chance is to run the same amount of mana fixing lands for each. You can do that too in your new, separate land section!
That's a very interesting topic and extremely worthy of discussion.
You talk about hiding lands among spells. Hiding anything among anything else is potentially dangerous as it can distort your perception and create invisible imbalance. But not playing lands among spells is dangerous, too, because you're hiding red cards among colorless/fixing cards. I hope you agree with me that Ghitu Encampment is a red card in that it can only be played in decks with red mana sources, as is the case for Lightning Bolt, Sulfuric Vortex, Ghostfire, ... So sorting in Ghitu Encampment as a land means hiding a red card among "other", which leads to imbalance too!
You made a very intelligent statement: "The simple truth is - there is no perfect balance." I totally see your point, but that doesn't mean one should not try to achieve balance wherever possible. Sorting in Ghitu Encampment in a separate land section balances land - nonland, which is potentially valuable, but it also threatens to lead to a very grave sort of imbalance, namely color imbalance. Now of course, this can be given up to a small extent - one, two, maybe four cards is the absolute maximum as I see it.
What I actually wanted to say: You have two options: Running lands among spells, or giving them an own separate section. Running them among spells, you guarantee that each drafter can expect to see the same number of relevant cards no matter which color he chooses, but you risk not playing powerful cards. Running them in their own section, you guarantee that powerful lands get played, but you risk color imbalance.
My proposed solution: Run monocolored lands among their colors, that's easy and convenient. Any land that is appropriate for more or less than one color should be run in a more or less loose land section where you should try to keep an eye on color balance. I think that's a good compromise between color balance and powerful cards.
Specialities about the cube: U tempo, B aggro, R slow-ish are supported. G aggro is not.
Currently trying to support tokens in all colors but blue, in different ways: W pumps them, B sacrifices them, R suicides them, G has decent-sized ones.
cube list outdated
*literal C/U definition according to gatherer
**some cards are banned. Library of Alexandria, Land Tax, Sol Ring.
I agree with NewbornMuse that you have to pay attention to the deck distribution for these extra lands. If what ends up going into the new land section isn't balanced, you wind up with extra support for some guilds/colors/archetypes, and less for others. One of the advantages of the guild system is making sure that each guild and color has the same quantity ofsupport in the cube, and how you decide to balance/distribute that support is up to the cube manager.
Quote from Konfusius »
You only get to play ~23 spells in your deck, but you pick 45 cards. Every non-basic land you pick is an additional card that you can play in your deck. If the nonbasic land is good in your deck, it will make your deck better. A spell you pick may very well end up in the sideboard. So whatever your cube sections are now, do not let that artificial structure keep you from playing good cards that make your decks better. I suggest using a separate land section - these are the cards that fight for ~17 land slots during deck construction, do not hide them among the cards that fight for the other ~23 slots! Then cut cards from the other sections for more lands - cut good cards, as good as they may be, being spells dooms the (comparatively) worst of them to be sideboard cards anyway.
Adding extra lands may get extra picks of more value than card #24 that misses the cut, but whatever you're removing from the cube to get the land in there is lost entirely as an option ...forever. I'd rather cut a card from a deck than run a subpar card in the cube, because in the next deck I build, that card that I cut from deck #1 could be an all-star in deck #2, but it's no longer in the cube at all. So with the separate (read: more) non-basic land method, you may get a card that two decks mildly want, instead of a card that one deck may really need.
In addition to what wtwlf and newbornmuse have said, I don't like putting color-aligned lands (Treetop Vilage, Academy Ruins, etc.) in the land section because you then have an arbitrary limit to how many lands each color or color pair will have. Blue has at least three cubeworthy lands while black only really has one. So I either short blue two excellent lands or I include two really suboptimal cards in black to balance things out. By having the lands compete with the spells, it solves the problem. Some colors end up with a land or two more than others, but all have the same number of cards--and, I like to think, the best cards for each color.
I've been thinking a lot about this lately, particularly considering the cycle of spell lands that they said will be finished in AVR. Right now I just have a "Lands" section, a Multicolored section and my colors, but I'm considering reworking all of those to allow color lands in colors and multi, while shrinking the number of lands in general. I mean, I already run Vedalken Shackles in blue, why not Treetop Village in green?
It is impossible to perfectly balance the cube. That does not mean you should not try, but it is also worth considering what cost you pay for the attempted balance.
Let's take color aligned lands as an example. I used to play them in the land section and wanted to have them balanced. But if I want to play with both Academy Ruins and Faerie Conclave, I have to play with some sub-par black aligned land. If I am not willing to do that, I can either run an unbalanced number of lands or I don't play with a really good land. The solution then was to put it in the respective color section, but here is the problem with that: just because there are more good lands in blue does not mean that blue decks need less spells.
So one of four things happen:
1. good lands are excluded
2. bad lands are included
3. some colors get less spells than other colors
4. some colors get more lands than other colors
It is basically pick your own poison. I think currently, the most common solutions are 1 and 3, but I think that for the cube as a whole, solution 4 is the best.
So one of four things happen:
1. good lands are excluded
2. bad lands are included
3. some colors get less spells than other colors
4. some colors get more lands than other colors
If you count the lands in their respective colors/sections, 1 and 2 don't happen at all. 3 and 4 both do, but it doesn't create any real imbalance. Each color still gets the same quantity of support cards. It's up to the cube manager to decide how to balance them. For example, I have 2 lands in blue, and none in red. But both colors have the same quantity of support, they're just supported differently. Lands and nonland cards play differently, but so do creatures and spells, or aggro cards and control cards. Yet, every manager is comfortable having Savannah Lions and Wrath of God in the same section, even though they're completely different types of cards. Just as different as comparing Academy Ruins to a random blue card. If the cube manager can decide how many Wraths and aggro creatures can go into white without creating an imbalance, surely that same manager can decide what lands deserve a slot for color support.
If you count the lands in their respective colors/sections, 1 and 2 don't happen at all. 3 and 4 both do, but it doesn't create any real imbalance. Each color still gets the same quantity of support cards. It's up to the cube manager to decide how to balance them. For example, I have 2 lands in blue, and none in red. But both colors have the same quantity of support, they're just supported differently. Lands and nonland cards play differently, but so do creatures and spells, or aggro cards and control cards. Yet, every manager is comfortable having Savannah Lions and Wrath of God in the same section, even though they're completely different types of cards. Just as different as comparing Academy Ruins to a random blue card. If the cube manager can decide how many Wraths and aggro creatures can go into white without creating an imbalance, surely that same manager can decide what lands deserve a slot for color support.
Good point. Looking at it like this, being a land is just a property of the card, like being aggro, being a sweeper, or making CA and like those other properties, it factors in when evaluating the card's value.
By the way, don't you run Ghitu Encampment? It's really good.
Specialities about the cube: U tempo, B aggro, R slow-ish are supported. G aggro is not.
Currently trying to support tokens in all colors but blue, in different ways: W pumps them, B sacrifices them, R suicides them, G has decent-sized ones.
cube list outdated
*literal C/U definition according to gatherer
**some cards are banned. Library of Alexandria, Land Tax, Sol Ring.
I don't run any of the red lands anymore. Barbarian Ring is pretty good, but I recently cut it. The Encampment worked okay at 450/500, but it was too lackluster for 360.
But I don't want to go off on that tangent here. We can take it to my cube list if you wanna discuss it further. Let's not derail Konfusius's thread.
The way that I read your post, it looks to me that the general issue that you want to address is that a lot people tend to underestimate the value that you are getting by replaying one of your basics with another fixer or utility land.
Although I did not call it that way initially, throwing color aligned cards + spells together has always been a way for me to run more lands and certainly not the opposite.
Cool. But from reading the card evaluation thread, I often feel many do it the other way round. I might be wrong, though.
But I don't want to go off on that tangent here. We can take it to my cube list if you wanna discuss it further. Let's not derail Konfusius's thread.
Much appreciated.
I see what you are saying. It is about balance between the colors, and that is the way most current sections work. That is fine. But there is not only balance to consider, but also the power level. I think the power level can be increased by playing more lands, but that is more or less bound to upset the color balance slightly. I think that is not so bad as not playing more lands.
I don't think the power-level is increased simply by including more lands. I addressed that point in my first post above. Just because a deck can replace a basic with a nonbasic doesn't mean that land will always provide more value than whatever card you cut could have brought. For example, Wolf-Run vs Stormbind. In a mid-range RG build, the Wolf Run may be the better card because it will fit into the deck without taking up a land slot and the 'Bind may miss the cut. But in 15-land Gruul aggro, the 'Bind is going to be the better card because it fits the archetype better, and Wolf Run wouldn't be able to simply replace a land in that deck. So while multiple decks will be happy to toss the Wolf Run into it to improve the quality of the deck slightly, a deck that needs the effect of Stormbind and doesn't have it is going to suffer more.
Whatever card you cut from the cube to get the extra non-basic in will provide less value, but (potentially) to more decks. It's not simply win-win. And that's not taking balance into account at all. Simply being better than a basic doesn't equal automatic value in the cube. I'd rather have a card that's a bomb for one deck and perhaps card #24 for another than a land that's making the cut simply because I can swap out a basic for it. Not to mention that lands that tap for colorless often have to be run as spells anyways, and in the cases where they're not replacing basics, you haven't netted any value for the cube.
I don't think the power-level is increased simply by including more lands. I addressed that point in my first post above. Just because a deck can replace a basic with a nonbasic doesn't mean that land will always provide more value than whatever card you cut could have brought. For example, Wolf-Run vs Stormbind. In a mid-range RG build, the Wolf Run may be the better card because it will fit into the deck without taking up a land slot and the 'Bind may miss the cut. But in 15-land Gruul aggro, the 'Bind is going to be the better card because it fits the archetype better, and Wolf Run wouldn't be able to simply replace a land in that deck. So while multiple decks will be happy to toss the Wolf Run into it to improve the quality of the deck slightly, a deck that needs the effect of Stormbind and doesn't have it is going to suffer more.
If I choose between a land that is the right card for some decks and a spell that is the right card for other decks, then I think the land should get extra points for being a land. With the argument you provide here, you can also justify playing more than 360 cards because sometimes, those additional cards might enable decks that would otherwise not exist. That is true, but you are willing to sacrifice that for the higher power density of a 360 list. I think it is similar with cutting spells for additional lands.
Whatever card you cut from the cube to get the extra non-basic in will provide less value, but (potentially) to more decks. It's not simply win-win. And that's not taking balance into account at all. Simply being better than a basic doesn't equal automatic value in the cube. I'd rather have a card that's a bomb for one deck and perhaps card #24 for another than a land that's making the cut simply because I can swap out a basic for it. Not to mention that lands that tap for colorless often have to be run as spells anyways, and in the cases where they're not replacing basics, you haven't netted any value for the cube.
Simply being better than a non-basic is not good enough, that is true. The cycling lands, for example, are not good enough. But cards like Kessig Wolf Run really do add a lot of value to the deck they go in. And because they take up a land slot, they will make such a deck even more powerful.
Lands that tap for colorless don't always simply replace basics. That's part of my point above. Simply because it's a land doesn't mean you can just cut your basics for it.
Wolf-Run does add value to the decks it fits in. But so does whatever card you're taking out of the cube to get it in. And it doesn't automatically fit into every deck as a land.
Lands that tap for colorless don't always simply replace basics. That's part of my point above. Simply because it's a land doesn't mean you can just cut your basics for it.
Wolf-Run does add value to the decks it fits in. But so does whatever card you're taking out of the cube to get it in. And it doesn't automatically fit into every deck as a land.
This is all true. But there are only 23 spell slots, so the land means you can play more of your picks and have a better deck overall. It is not always like that, but adding Wolf Run opens that possibility while keeping a spell instead does not.
But before we go for the throat here, let us not forget that we come from different drafting environments. We mainly draft 6-10 players and other formats are not frequently played, so it is very uncommon for us not to have like 30+ playables and cutting really good cards to get down to 23 spells. This is where I am coming from when I see so much potential in additional lands. I know you wrote in an earlier part of this discussion (before it had this thread) that in Winston, it is sometimes hard to even get to the necessary 23 spells.
But before we go for the throat here, let us not forget that we come from different drafting environments. We mainly draft 6-10 players and other formats are not frequently played, so it is very uncommon for us not to have like 30+ playables and cutting really good cards to get down to 23 spells. This is where I am coming from when I see so much potential in additional lands. I know you wrote in an earlier part of this discussion (before it had this thread) that in Winston, it is sometimes hard to even get to the necessary 23 spells.
Sure. So in your environment, running more lands makes sense. So if extra nonbasics is what you wanna do, you don't need to create a separate land section to do it. You could cut some extra gold cards for more lands in that section. You could cut more artifacts for extra colorless lands. You could cut some extra mono-colored cards to get more lands in that support the colors. That would keep the quantity of support for each color/guild balanced so all the drafters have the same number of tools, AND have extra nonbasics available.
I don't think the power-level is increased simply by including more lands. I addressed that point in my first post above. Just because a deck can replace a basic with a nonbasic doesn't mean that land will always provide more value than whatever card you cut could have brought. For example, Wolf-Run vs Stormbind. In a mid-range RG build, the Wolf Run may be the better card because it will fit into the deck without taking up a land slot and the 'Bind may miss the cut. But in 15-land Gruul aggro, the 'Bind is going to be the better card because it fits the archetype better, and Wolf Run wouldn't be able to simply replace a land in that deck. So while multiple decks will be happy to toss the Wolf Run into it to improve the quality of the deck slightly, a deck that needs the effect of Stormbind and doesn't have it is going to suffer more.
Whatever card you cut from the cube to get the extra non-basic in will provide less value, but (potentially) to more decks. It's not simply win-win. And that's not taking balance into account at all. Simply being better than a basic doesn't equal automatic value in the cube. I'd rather have a card that's a bomb for one deck and perhaps card #24 for another than a land that's making the cut simply because I can swap out a basic for it. Not to mention that lands that tap for colorless often have to be run as spells anyways, and in the cases where they're not replacing basics, you haven't netted any value for the cube.
You are right. Value for the drafter, which playing more drafted cards certainly is, does not automatically mean value for the cube manager. Being a land is not a wild card for being played in any deck, nor is universal playability always positive, but I prefer erring on the flexible side. That's actually another kind of balance: The balance of universally playable cards versus narrow cards.
Being a land certainly pulls a card towards flexibility. But whether or not a card is narrow, being a land is a huge boon to its play- and pickability.
To summarize what has been said: Konfusius says "lands are fantastic." Haha, that sounds cool... No seriously:
Lands are fantastic and increasing the amount of lands leads to more powerful decks. However, being a land does not automatically mean being an automatic high pick or an auto-include in a given deck, so one still has to be careful not to overdose flexible cards by adding lands.*
Also, by establishing a land section, one could potentially imbalance the colors (by adding five green lands and no black land or something similar), so that's another thing to be wary of. Does everyone more or less agree on that summary?
Good discussion, I'm really enjoying it.
* That's why Moorland Haunt, being a land but narrow, is cool. That somehow holds true for the whole cycle: They're restrictive because they're multicolor and don't produce colored mana and their effect is, archetypically speaking, pretty narrow.
Specialities about the cube: U tempo, B aggro, R slow-ish are supported. G aggro is not.
Currently trying to support tokens in all colors but blue, in different ways: W pumps them, B sacrifices them, R suicides them, G has decent-sized ones.
cube list outdated
*literal C/U definition according to gatherer
**some cards are banned. Library of Alexandria, Land Tax, Sol Ring.
Universally playable cards pretty much should include things like Evolving Wilds and Terramorphic Expanse . To be honest, if given choice, I would run these two cards in most cube deck I play. However, they don't feel exciting enough. And doesn't feel powerful enough compare to other cards I do run.
Last year I ran an idea past Fredo to balance out colours by counting how many cards they have in multiple sections. Hmm, the idea is a bit hard to put together in one sentence so lets try an example.
Let us take blue in a hypothetical cube:
- 56 spells
- 3 'blue' lands
- 1 mox
- 3 signets/talisman
- 9 multicoloured cards (8 two colour, 1 three colour)
- 2 hybrid cards
- 1 multicoloured land
I proposed to quantify the total support by adding these all up. For the multicoloured cards I proposed to count two colour cards for 1/2 and three colour cards for 1/3. Hybrids would just count as one. So total blue support: 56+3+1+8/2+1/3+2+1/2=66.83.
This way if a certain colour pair has a higher quality then another you can just go unbalanced in gold spells or lands, but even things out by giving other colours an extra card in their own coloured section.
I understand the system can get quite arcane if you do it by hand, but using an Exell file should make it pretty straightforward. You will not be able to balance things out completely, but 0,4 card difference should be acceptable.
BTW, Fredo though my system was hopelessly complicated and it got shelved. Am I crazy or is their something to be said for this way of balancing colours?
...just because there are more good lands in blue does not mean that blue decks need less spells.
This line really made me pause. It makes absolutely sense. Whether categorizing differently actually makes any significant difference is another matter entirely though. Putting lands in a section separate from the colored section does make it easier to include them, as you won't necessarily have to cut another card for them. And when comparing utility lands to spells, it's easy to forget to factor in the 'does not take a spell slot' attribute (and thus underestimate the lands). I can see why Konfusius chose to go this route.
Adding extra lands may get extra picks of more value than card #24 that misses the cut, but whatever you're removing from the cube to get the land in there is lost entirely as an option ...forever. I'd rather cut a card from a deck than run a subpar card in the cube, because in the next deck I build, that card that I cut from deck #1 could be an all-star in deck #2, but it's no longer in the cube at all. So with the separate (read: more) non-basic land method, you may get a card that two decks mildly want, instead of a card that one deck may really need.
I think this effect is the most interesting aspect of utility lands, which also makes them probably the hardest type of card to evaluate (unless they're Library of Alexandria or Strip Mine, obviously). I agree with Konfusius that cube managers (myself included) are currently underestimating the 'does not take a spell slot' attribute. Which means that some utility lands are being underestimated.
I agree with wtwlf that I do not want a mediocre card in my cube, even if it doesn't take a spell slot in my deck. But a card that offers a useful effect without taking a spell slot is maybe not actually as mediocre as it is commonly considered, once this attribute is valued correctly. A card might look mediocre, but in reality increase the power of decks and thus the power of the cube.
As I see it, the task is to find out which utility lands I don't run are in fact cubeworthy once the 'does not take a spell slot' attribute is factored in properly. Quite difficult, but I'm willing to experiment.
Last year I ran an idea past Fredo to balance out colours by counting how many cards they have in multiple sections. Hmm, the idea is a bit hard to put together in one sentence so lets try an example.
Let us take blue in a hypothetical cube:
- 56 spells
- 3 'blue' lands
- 1 mox
- 3 signets/talisman
- 9 multicoloured cards (8 two colour, 1 three colour)
- 2 hybrid cards
- 1 multicoloured land
I proposed to quantify the total support by adding these all up. For the multicoloured cards I proposed to count two colour cards for 1/2 and three colour cards for 1/3. Hybrids would just count as one. So total blue support: 56+3+1+8/2+1/3+2+1/2=66.83.
This is the method I use in my head, never put it down in a spreadsheet or anything. Its pretty easy to balance because there are almost no tricolor cards really.
This is the method I use in my head, never put it down in a spreadsheet or anything. Its pretty easy to balance because there are almost no tricolor cards really.
So do you have some colours with more mono coloured spells then others? Because it could be that red has a lot more gold cards counting all combinations then let's say white and thus should have less mono coloured cards using this method.
I agree that utility lands are currently being under-rated by the cubing community as much as gold cards used to be overrated. That being said, let me make two minor points.
As Konfusius pointed out, the viability of utility lands may depend heavily on your drafting style. Since I mainly Winston-draft, I have removed every single manland from my cube besides Tar Pit. The reason is that deckbuilders are often scrapping to get that 21st and 22nd playable in, especially in two color decks. If I want to expand my utility lands section (which I think I do), I would have to start Winstoning with 120 rather than 90 cards.
Second, ytility lands offer another advantage besides not costing a spell spot. They allow you to bolster your board position while getting around Counterspells, Nether Void, Standstill, and Glen Elendra. Obviously, this matters more if your cube runs more of these cards. I think this may be a subtle but actually quite important advantage to playing utility lands.
I don't have much to say as I haven't used too many utility lands, but I do think on limited testing that my cubes power level was improved by adding a fourth round of lands too my 360 cube.
But too all the people with lot's to say thanks for posting it, some very interesting stuff in here.
I decided to nix color and guild balance. It's worked for me (it's not like real mtg sets are properly color balanced. Sure the number is the same but the quality isn't. Just look at blue in Onslaught, black in Time Spiral and goblins (B/R) in Lorwyn. Granted, they have been better, mostly, recently, though non-poison black was awful in Scars too).
I think people are mistaking my argument for saying that utility lands aren't good. That's not the case. I simply believe in providing an equal number of tools for every color/guild, and including the lands that are good enough to make it in. I'm all for increasing the number of nonbasics in the cube, I just don't think you need to create a land section to facilitate that change.
With the printing of the Innistrad spell lands Moorland Haunt, Kessig Wolf Run and Gavony Township and the Dark Ascension land Vault of the Archangel that all see constructed play, the importance of the cube sections for cube design is more apparent than ever. The spell lands give decks something to do even when they run out of spells, at the relatively small cost of playing a colorless-mana-producing land. However, because of the way most cubes are organized in sections, many cube designers claim that there is no room for these lands in their cube. On the other hand, lands are where cube decks can improve the most. Most spells are now of high quality even in larger cubes, but most cube decks still play a lot of basic lands. Now why are cube sections important here?
Cube lists are generally divided up in sections. In his article How To Begin Your Cube, Evan Erwin suggests the sections White, Blue, Red, Green, Lands, Artifacts, Gold and Hybrid. The Gold and Hybrid sections contain a fixed number of cards for each two-color pair. Because of the lack of good hybrid mana cards in some color combinations, it is now common practice to consider Gold and Hybrid cards the same and include them in a Multicolor section. Because of the difference in card quality between the various two-color pairs, some cube designers chose an Unbalanced Multicolored section where they only include cards they consider powerful enough.
In August 2010, Cube Enthusiast Mark Oberdries proposed to reorganize the sections in what is now known as the Guild System. The traditional sections Land, Multicolor and Artifacts are split up and recombined in two sections: A Guild section that includes the traditional Multicolor section as well as the two-color fixing lands (like Tundra) and two-color fixing artifacts (like Azorius Signet) and a Colorless section that includes all the lands and artifacts that are not included in the Guild section.
The Guild System is widely used and to different degrees, but it remains a controversial topic to this day. Critics consider the potentially uneven amount of mana fixing for the different two-color pairs problematic. It also continues the trend of hiding lands among spells that was started when color aligned lands (like Treetop Village) were moved to their respective color.
The main idea of the Guild System is to have the same support for all ten two-color pairs. I think that it does a reasonable job at that, but it also creates a rather narrow focus. A land like Kessig Wolf Run now has to make it in the top 6 or 7 out of Taiga, Wooded Foothills, Stomping Ground, Raging Ravine, Kird Ape, Bloodbraid Elf, Stormbind and more. This is a huge barrier to entry.
You only get to play ~23 spells in your deck, but you pick 45 cards. Every non-basic land you pick is an additional card that you can play in your deck. If the nonbasic land is good in your deck, it will make your deck better. A spell you pick may very well end up in the sideboard. So whatever your cube sections are now, do not let that artificial structure keep you from playing good cards that make your decks better. I suggest using a separate land section - these are the cards that fight for ~17 land slots during deck construction, do not hide them among the cards that fight for the other ~23 slots! Then cut cards from the other sections for more lands - cut good cards, as good as they may be, being spells dooms the (comparatively) worst of them to be sideboard cards anyway.
Of course, the problem is the balance - one of the reasons things like the Guild System were introduced in the first place. The simple truth is - there is no perfect balance. Now you can either try to force as much balance as possible at the cost of excluding good cards - especially good lands - from your cube. Or you can bite the bullet and just add the four currently existing good spell lands, even if that means that the other six color pairs are at a slight disadvantage. I think the most important part of giving all the color pairs an equal chance is to run the same amount of mana fixing lands for each. You can do that too in your new, separate land section!
"What am I looking at? Ashes, dead man."
You talk about hiding lands among spells. Hiding anything among anything else is potentially dangerous as it can distort your perception and create invisible imbalance. But not playing lands among spells is dangerous, too, because you're hiding red cards among colorless/fixing cards. I hope you agree with me that Ghitu Encampment is a red card in that it can only be played in decks with red mana sources, as is the case for Lightning Bolt, Sulfuric Vortex, Ghostfire, ... So sorting in Ghitu Encampment as a land means hiding a red card among "other", which leads to imbalance too!
You made a very intelligent statement: "The simple truth is - there is no perfect balance." I totally see your point, but that doesn't mean one should not try to achieve balance wherever possible. Sorting in Ghitu Encampment in a separate land section balances land - nonland, which is potentially valuable, but it also threatens to lead to a very grave sort of imbalance, namely color imbalance. Now of course, this can be given up to a small extent - one, two, maybe four cards is the absolute maximum as I see it.
What I actually wanted to say: You have two options: Running lands among spells, or giving them an own separate section. Running them among spells, you guarantee that each drafter can expect to see the same number of relevant cards no matter which color he chooses, but you risk not playing powerful cards. Running them in their own section, you guarantee that powerful lands get played, but you risk color imbalance.
My proposed solution: Run monocolored lands among their colors, that's easy and convenient. Any land that is appropriate for more or less than one color should be run in a more or less loose land section where you should try to keep an eye on color balance. I think that's a good compromise between color balance and powerful cards.
450, Peasant*, unpowered**
Specialities about the cube:
U tempo, B aggro, R slow-ish are supported. G aggro is not.
Currently trying to support tokens in all colors but blue, in different ways: W pumps them, B sacrifices them, R suicides them, G has decent-sized ones.
cube list outdated
*literal C/U definition according to gatherer
**some cards are banned. Library of Alexandria, Land Tax, Sol Ring.
Adding extra lands may get extra picks of more value than card #24 that misses the cut, but whatever you're removing from the cube to get the land in there is lost entirely as an option ...forever. I'd rather cut a card from a deck than run a subpar card in the cube, because in the next deck I build, that card that I cut from deck #1 could be an all-star in deck #2, but it's no longer in the cube at all. So with the separate (read: more) non-basic land method, you may get a card that two decks mildly want, instead of a card that one deck may really need.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
Cheers,
rant
My Cube
CubeCobra: https://cubecobra.com/cube/overview/5f5d0310ed602310515d4c32
Cube Tutor: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/1963
MY CUBE!
EDH Decks
Tomorrow, The Pitcher's Name
Let's take color aligned lands as an example. I used to play them in the land section and wanted to have them balanced. But if I want to play with both Academy Ruins and Faerie Conclave, I have to play with some sub-par black aligned land. If I am not willing to do that, I can either run an unbalanced number of lands or I don't play with a really good land. The solution then was to put it in the respective color section, but here is the problem with that: just because there are more good lands in blue does not mean that blue decks need less spells.
So one of four things happen:
1. good lands are excluded
2. bad lands are included
3. some colors get less spells than other colors
4. some colors get more lands than other colors
It is basically pick your own poison. I think currently, the most common solutions are 1 and 3, but I think that for the cube as a whole, solution 4 is the best.
"What am I looking at? Ashes, dead man."
If you count the lands in their respective colors/sections, 1 and 2 don't happen at all. 3 and 4 both do, but it doesn't create any real imbalance. Each color still gets the same quantity of support cards. It's up to the cube manager to decide how to balance them. For example, I have 2 lands in blue, and none in red. But both colors have the same quantity of support, they're just supported differently. Lands and nonland cards play differently, but so do creatures and spells, or aggro cards and control cards. Yet, every manager is comfortable having Savannah Lions and Wrath of God in the same section, even though they're completely different types of cards. Just as different as comparing Academy Ruins to a random blue card. If the cube manager can decide how many Wraths and aggro creatures can go into white without creating an imbalance, surely that same manager can decide what lands deserve a slot for color support.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
Good point. Looking at it like this, being a land is just a property of the card, like being aggro, being a sweeper, or making CA and like those other properties, it factors in when evaluating the card's value.
By the way, don't you run Ghitu Encampment? It's really good.
450, Peasant*, unpowered**
Specialities about the cube:
U tempo, B aggro, R slow-ish are supported. G aggro is not.
Currently trying to support tokens in all colors but blue, in different ways: W pumps them, B sacrifices them, R suicides them, G has decent-sized ones.
cube list outdated
*literal C/U definition according to gatherer
**some cards are banned. Library of Alexandria, Land Tax, Sol Ring.
But I don't want to go off on that tangent here. We can take it to my cube list if you wanna discuss it further. Let's not derail Konfusius's thread.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
Cool. But from reading the card evaluation thread, I often feel many do it the other way round. I might be wrong, though.
Much appreciated.
I see what you are saying. It is about balance between the colors, and that is the way most current sections work. That is fine. But there is not only balance to consider, but also the power level. I think the power level can be increased by playing more lands, but that is more or less bound to upset the color balance slightly. I think that is not so bad as not playing more lands.
"What am I looking at? Ashes, dead man."
Whatever card you cut from the cube to get the extra non-basic in will provide less value, but (potentially) to more decks. It's not simply win-win. And that's not taking balance into account at all. Simply being better than a basic doesn't equal automatic value in the cube. I'd rather have a card that's a bomb for one deck and perhaps card #24 for another than a land that's making the cut simply because I can swap out a basic for it. Not to mention that lands that tap for colorless often have to be run as spells anyways, and in the cases where they're not replacing basics, you haven't netted any value for the cube.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
Simply being better than a non-basic is not good enough, that is true. The cycling lands, for example, are not good enough. But cards like Kessig Wolf Run really do add a lot of value to the deck they go in. And because they take up a land slot, they will make such a deck even more powerful.
"What am I looking at? Ashes, dead man."
Wolf-Run does add value to the decks it fits in. But so does whatever card you're taking out of the cube to get it in. And it doesn't automatically fit into every deck as a land.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
But before we go for the throat here, let us not forget that we come from different drafting environments. We mainly draft 6-10 players and other formats are not frequently played, so it is very uncommon for us not to have like 30+ playables and cutting really good cards to get down to 23 spells. This is where I am coming from when I see so much potential in additional lands. I know you wrote in an earlier part of this discussion (before it had this thread) that in Winston, it is sometimes hard to even get to the necessary 23 spells.
"What am I looking at? Ashes, dead man."
Sure. So in your environment, running more lands makes sense. So if extra nonbasics is what you wanna do, you don't need to create a separate land section to do it. You could cut some extra gold cards for more lands in that section. You could cut more artifacts for extra colorless lands. You could cut some extra mono-colored cards to get more lands in that support the colors. That would keep the quantity of support for each color/guild balanced so all the drafters have the same number of tools, AND have extra nonbasics available.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
You are right. Value for the drafter, which playing more drafted cards certainly is, does not automatically mean value for the cube manager. Being a land is not a wild card for being played in any deck, nor is universal playability always positive, but I prefer erring on the flexible side. That's actually another kind of balance: The balance of universally playable cards versus narrow cards.
Being a land certainly pulls a card towards flexibility. But whether or not a card is narrow, being a land is a huge boon to its play- and pickability.
To summarize what has been said: Konfusius says "lands are fantastic." Haha, that sounds cool... No seriously:
Lands are fantastic and increasing the amount of lands leads to more powerful decks. However, being a land does not automatically mean being an automatic high pick or an auto-include in a given deck, so one still has to be careful not to overdose flexible cards by adding lands.*
Also, by establishing a land section, one could potentially imbalance the colors (by adding five green lands and no black land or something similar), so that's another thing to be wary of. Does everyone more or less agree on that summary?
Good discussion, I'm really enjoying it.
* That's why Moorland Haunt, being a land but narrow, is cool. That somehow holds true for the whole cycle: They're restrictive because they're multicolor and don't produce colored mana and their effect is, archetypically speaking, pretty narrow.
450, Peasant*, unpowered**
Specialities about the cube:
U tempo, B aggro, R slow-ish are supported. G aggro is not.
Currently trying to support tokens in all colors but blue, in different ways: W pumps them, B sacrifices them, R suicides them, G has decent-sized ones.
cube list outdated
*literal C/U definition according to gatherer
**some cards are banned. Library of Alexandria, Land Tax, Sol Ring.
My cube
My cube on Cube tutor
I'm OP_Forever. I'll be putting this in my signature for a while so everyone know I change my nickname.
Let us take blue in a hypothetical cube:
- 56 spells
- 3 'blue' lands
- 1 mox
- 3 signets/talisman
- 9 multicoloured cards (8 two colour, 1 three colour)
- 2 hybrid cards
- 1 multicoloured land
I proposed to quantify the total support by adding these all up. For the multicoloured cards I proposed to count two colour cards for 1/2 and three colour cards for 1/3. Hybrids would just count as one. So total blue support: 56+3+1+8/2+1/3+2+1/2=66.83.
This way if a certain colour pair has a higher quality then another you can just go unbalanced in gold spells or lands, but even things out by giving other colours an extra card in their own coloured section.
I understand the system can get quite arcane if you do it by hand, but using an Exell file should make it pretty straightforward. You will not be able to balance things out completely, but 0,4 card difference should be acceptable.
BTW, Fredo though my system was hopelessly complicated and it got shelved. Am I crazy or is their something to be said for this way of balancing colours?
I feel compelled to repeat everything I hear
This line really made me pause. It makes absolutely sense. Whether categorizing differently actually makes any significant difference is another matter entirely though. Putting lands in a section separate from the colored section does make it easier to include them, as you won't necessarily have to cut another card for them. And when comparing utility lands to spells, it's easy to forget to factor in the 'does not take a spell slot' attribute (and thus underestimate the lands). I can see why Konfusius chose to go this route.
I think this effect is the most interesting aspect of utility lands, which also makes them probably the hardest type of card to evaluate (unless they're Library of Alexandria or Strip Mine, obviously). I agree with Konfusius that cube managers (myself included) are currently underestimating the 'does not take a spell slot' attribute. Which means that some utility lands are being underestimated.
I agree with wtwlf that I do not want a mediocre card in my cube, even if it doesn't take a spell slot in my deck. But a card that offers a useful effect without taking a spell slot is maybe not actually as mediocre as it is commonly considered, once this attribute is valued correctly. A card might look mediocre, but in reality increase the power of decks and thus the power of the cube.
As I see it, the task is to find out which utility lands I don't run are in fact cubeworthy once the 'does not take a spell slot' attribute is factored in properly. Quite difficult, but I'm willing to experiment.
This is the method I use in my head, never put it down in a spreadsheet or anything. Its pretty easy to balance because there are almost no tricolor cards really.
So do you have some colours with more mono coloured spells then others? Because it could be that red has a lot more gold cards counting all combinations then let's say white and thus should have less mono coloured cards using this method.
I feel compelled to repeat everything I hear
As Konfusius pointed out, the viability of utility lands may depend heavily on your drafting style. Since I mainly Winston-draft, I have removed every single manland from my cube besides Tar Pit. The reason is that deckbuilders are often scrapping to get that 21st and 22nd playable in, especially in two color decks. If I want to expand my utility lands section (which I think I do), I would have to start Winstoning with 120 rather than 90 cards.
Second, ytility lands offer another advantage besides not costing a spell spot. They allow you to bolster your board position while getting around Counterspells, Nether Void, Standstill, and Glen Elendra. Obviously, this matters more if your cube runs more of these cards. I think this may be a subtle but actually quite important advantage to playing utility lands.
But too all the people with lot's to say thanks for posting it, some very interesting stuff in here.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!