CubeCon notes possibly forthcoming - the cube was only drafted one time during the main event so not a lot of actionable data. It got drafted twice more afterward and those players were very helpful with feedback and recommendations (I know, Inti, Seneschal of the Sun has to go, just looking for a good swap). I'm generally pleased with where things are so no major overhauls for now!
Foundations and its Jumpstart pairing were quite kind to Counters Cube. There were a few unique counter types but they mostly stuck to +1/+1 counters which was perfect here.
A few card-specific notes for posterity:
CubeCon is coming up! A final few edits to get things ready for the event. Looking forward to seeing good friends here shortly.
A few notes for posterity:
I believe this is the highest number of cards from a single set that I'm testing since March of the Machine. Seeing adapt return at manageable costs is delightful and (as expected from a Horizons set) there are several clever one-off designs that I'm keen to get my hands on here.
As a general note, I'm continuing to gradually bump the mana curve down. I like to think that it also helps the pattern of building up a threat rather than getting to the top of the curve and dropping a haymaker. Maybe.
A few card-specific notes:
As always, many thanks to my friends who are quick to offer thoughts and suggestions. Excited to put the new iteration through a draft soon!
Running a few more small edits in preparation for CubeCon voting. MH3 spoilers are already loaded with cool +1/+1 counter cards and I'm stoked to review the full list once it's out.
Balancing a few colors based on hybrid categorization.
It's that time of year again! Submission deadlines for CubeCon consideration are fast approaching and I have a few things to polish in hopes of potentially showcasing this Cube again this Fall.
A big part of this update is a further reduction of the Cube's size from 480 to 450. 480 was a short-lived experiment on 16-card packs that ultimately didn't bear out how I had hoped. 450 will be more in line with standard 15-card drafts, still allow for 10 players, and help focus the draft experience. (As a side note, I still prefer that the entire cube doesn't get drafted each time. At 360 I find the experience is less 'what did you put together?' and more 'who got X deck?' Totally preference - I wouldn't put this on other designers.)
Outlaws of Thunder Junction is a fun-looking set but it doesn't have a loud +1/+1 counters theme. I'll be testing out a few crime-centric cards in , but most are one-offs.
A few individual card notes for history:
MKM and it's counterpart sets (in which I'm including CLU) don't have a particularly loud counters theme. There are a few cards with Disguise that care about counters in the main set and several in the Commander lists, but none that play particularly well on the axis of this cube. Vannifar, Evolved Enigma is highly speculative, but I'm hopeful that there is a unique theme to build around there.
The big update here is mostly a back-of-house one. I'm reconsidering how I define Hybrid cards and as such, numbers are getting a bit redone. While I loose the beauty of symmetry between columns on the page, treating hybrid as not gold because it's not gold will help me make more informed swaps in the future.
As part of this change, all but two of the 3-color cards are being removed. None of them overperformed and were in fact seldom played. Removing Immard, the Stormcleaver also means I can go back to saying there are no non-+1/+1 counters on creatures... except stun counters but I think the point is clear. I like the 3-color cards in concept, but if they're not actually getting used I'm happy to put in more cards that will be.
Finally, it's the end of an era for "Counter Lords." Players have spoken and the sensibility has finally caught up to me: 2- and 3-drop creatures that increase counter production (think Pir, Imaginative Rascal, Lae'zel, Vlaakith's Champion and the like) have a tendency to warp the game around themselves. While they don't all grant immediate value, they force subsequent decisions to all revolve around them to avoid value snowballing out of control. Cards in this lane may come back someday, but for now I'm inclined to look toward more even-handed options.
A few individual card notes for posterity:
I was honored to have Counters of Monte Cristo featured at CubeCon 2023. It was run alongside 49 (!) other amazing cubes and I'm grateful for the process that allowed us to get photos of each drafter's pool. CoMC was drafted four times over the weekend and 30 new drafters had opportunity to experience it for the first time. I've documented some thoughts below for posterity.
CaveatsTo be sure, four drafts is not significant data on which to base sweeping change. All data is good data though, so I'm taking it in consideration with past experience to maintain a more holistic sense of how the cube is perceived by others. In a less boring way of saying it (and to borrow from several others in the CubeCon Discord), I'm distilling this down to the 'vibes.'
Another critical note is that I only received photos of deck pools and not decks themselves. I could infer more strongly with some pools than others, but I did my best to assess what cards and colors were being played based on how photos were arrayed and the contents of the pool. My color data specifically is based on these assumptions, so take them with a grain of salt.
My final caveat is that I'm a musician, not a statistician. Most of these numbers were higher than four, so I'm a bit out of my league on the number-y front.
ReportOf the four drafts that took place over the weekend, three were full pods of 8 and one was a pod of 6 players. One match resulted in a draw, but otherwise all matches were reported as completed. Some players did request more ways to close the game in non-U colors (trample in G, direct damage or life loss in R or B) but it otherwise seems that games found their way to a conclusion.
Color representationI did a breakdown of points each color earned through decks, dividing the value based on the number of colors in each deck (i.e.: A 9-point finish for a WU deck would track as 4.5 points for W and 4.5 points for U). While not a perfect science, it got me rough numbers on how well each color performed on its own. The results were perhaps my favorite outcome of all the data I ran:
% of Total Points Earned
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
---|---|---|---|---|
18.84% | 21.83% | 20.71% | 19.59% | 19.03% |
It's important to note that this doesn't account for colorless cards and some decks certainly leaned more on artifacts than others.
Even accounting for some wiggle room, I'm thrilled that every color was within a few percentage points of each other in representation. My expectation going in was that I would encounter a color or two that were woefully behind or that far outperformed the others. As it turns out, I wasn't able to discern any significant outlier in terms of color or deck choice, which I'm pleased as punch about.
I tracked points for color pairs and 3+ color decks also, but that feels far less significant. In this event, GU only got drafted and built by itself one time and finished 1-2. Similarly, BR only appeared by itself twice and boasted a 2-1 and a 0-3 finish, which averaged to 2 points per play and only 4.48% of the total points earned on the weekend. Neither RG or WB were played by themselves at all, so there's no data for those pairs. On the other hand, 3+ color decks like Jund and Sultai represent 6 decks on the weekend, don't have any 3-0 records and hold one of the draws. Yet, 3+ color decks show the highest percentage of overall point totals just based on their frequency. It's tough to say with 30 decks across 4 drafts that any of the color pairs or trios really stood out.
That said, based on prevalence and performance, RW Modular is perhaps the loudest 'archetype' these days. It was quite clear every time it showed up in a pool and it typically performed well. I can see artifact creatures somehow feeling different from other decks, so I'm comfortable considering this a feature and not a bug. UB also got played a fair bit and put up the full array of results from 3-0 to 0-3. UR was the 'winningest' deck if you're just looking for a recommendation (even though it was only drafted twice).
![]() ![]() | ![]() ![]() | ![]() ![]() | ![]() ![]() | ![]() ![]() | ![]() ![]() | ![]() ![]() | ![]() ![]() | ![]() ![]() | ![]() ![]() | 3+ | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PPP | 4.33 | 4.2 | 2 | - | 4.5 | - | 7.5 | 6 | 5.25 | 3 | 4.16 |
OP% | 9.70% | 15.67% | 4.48% | - | 13.43% | - | 11.19% | 8.96% | 15.67% | 2.24% | 18.66% |
*PPP - Points per Play ([number of times played]/[total points earned])
*OP% - Overall Point Percentage ([total points earned]/[total points in the event])
I ran numbers on individual cards as well, though these numbers are arguably more shaky than the color ones. I can show that the cards are in each pool, but I can't confidently guarantee that they were in each deck, even if it was on-color or on-theme. Perhaps the only honest thing I can say is that you were off to a good start if you had Arcbound Ravager in your pool!
The real satisfying conclusion for me on cards is that there weren't any real outliers on the 3-0 or 0-3 lists. Each card only appeared twice at most across either record. Even in the 2-1 records, Chrome Host Seedshark, Subtle Strike, and Karplusan Forest were the only cards to appear more than three times in those pools. Subtle Strike was in on-color lists each time but Chrome Host Seedshark was only in on-color lists in three of the four times. Does that mean the Shark is problematic if it 2-1'd three of the three times it was played? It's up for debate. I think it helps point to and strongly support a noncreature-centric playstyle, but I could be convinced by a few more top-end results. Frankly, I enjoy the play patterns it provides - there are no other cards that do exactly what it does.
Even with all of the card-by-card data and tables of overlaps, I don't have any one card that just swept the weekend... by data anyway. I heard that Animation Module was a menace in the first draft of the event but if was quietly in the middle when it was drafted later.
Also critical for individual card stats, the cube was 540 at the time. Players were only seeing two thirds (and in some cases only a half) of the cube. Identifying outliers in that setting is far more difficult since each card appears far less frequently.
ConclusionIn conclusion... I'm pretty happy. I was a bit worried going in that the folly of my ways would be revealed and that I had missed some critical balancing lever. This doesn't appear to have been the case, much to my relief - data suggests that all colors had a chance to shine and a chance to grace the bottom tables.
The best feedback I received was from players individually, even taking time to sit down with me and discuss draft picks, deck construction, joys and dislikes. One player helpfully suggested that while the gameplay was tight, the draft itself wasn't particularly good. I've endeavored to address that since CubeCon, first by reducing the size of the cube. A smaller cube means that there are fewer 'filler' cards and that each individual pick should carry more weight since cards should be less replaceable in theory. I'm seeking more feedback on this pursuit also.
As far as broad card changes, I don't think the draft data shows need for huge overhauls. New sets are coming out so I'll be making adjustments along the way, but I'm not seeing a critical drive for 'fixing' anything at this point.
AfterwordThis cube gets played pretty regularly around my local group but I'm so glad it got to have this foray into a larger stage. I'm planning on submitting it again next year, though I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't make the featured brackets again... which doesn't make me as sad as I thought it would. I got to visit with so many folks who were inspired this year, I'd be shocked if the event isn't absolutely flooded with delightful, innovative designs. I just need to keep iterating and exploring myself!
If you've read this far, thank you. I hope your own cube journey has been fulfilling and perhaps some of this will help guide you toward new ways of thinking about your environment.
More complete written thoughts coming when I'm awake. Short synopsis is that some of the cards I was most excited about from LCI played in ways that I'm not interested in for this environment. This set pushes the envelope for power in some ways that I believe will prove fun but several cards look to be far too efficient (looking at you Subterranean Schooner).
I'm also 3/4ths of the way through processing CubeCon pool images so I'll have some broad conclusions to document soon.
So many thoughts to come. For now, I'm laying the groundwork for what I hope to be important quality of life updates for the cube.
A valuable piece of feedback I received at CubeCon was that while the gameplay itself was fun, the draft felt unfocused. While I consider it a feature that it's difficult to end up with a non-functional deck, I do want to have more clarity during the draft itself.
To this end, I'm starting by reducing the cube size to 480 from 540. The original design intent was for up to 12 players, something that hasn't been needed in our local play group for a long time. 480 is still 10 players at 16 cards per pack. This should allow for the variance I want draft-to-draft while not being so broad that I'm stretching to fill out colors with playable options.
16 card packs is also an experiment I'd like to try. Getting to see two cards from every pack makes drafting decisions matter differently since you know get two looks at every pack, including pack 8. This is hardly set in stone, but it seems worth exploring.
Speaking of exploration, LCI prerelease is in two weeks. I'm thrilled for the return of explore and there are already several spoilers that I have my eye on. I'll endeavor to have more thoughts to jot down here when the full spoilers are up. I plan to detail some of the decisions I'm making, at least for myself for posterity.
Here we are! After months of preparation I finally have to lock in all of my decisions. I'm thrilled to get to share this with a new group of cubers and I'm looking forward to the feedback and stories that go with it.
Final Changes:
A hearty 'thank you' to so many friends who have helped immeasurably through testing, conversation, and card acquisition. I'm so grateful to be able to pester folks with potential swaps and theory chatter - and to have them listen! This cube is infinitely better because of your contributions. I'm so excited to celebrate this cube with y'all at CubeCon!
Never say 'never' I suppose! More changes prior to the CubeCon lock.
We got to do a draft through the CubeTalk Discord and it was so helpful to get more new eyes on the environment. I got to see fresh lines of play (which is always exciting) and I received the greatest blessing of getting live reactions of folks reading new cards and realizing their value in this context.
I'll note a few reasonings in particular then touch on two broader ideas that warranted change.
I've taken recent feedback regarding B to heart, in particular that too many cards push into a sacrifice theme that's difficult to support. I'm leaning more into Amass as an option as it plays quite cleanly on average and generally plays well with the remaining sacrifice cards. Cards like Lazotep Reaver and Easterling Vanguard both act as multiple bodies for example.
U has solidified it's identity as being quite evasive here, so I'm working to keep an eye on just how much there is. It's tough to make many swaps at this point but I'll be looking for viable non-fliers where possible in coming sets. There may be one or two more before the list is locked in but there simply aren't many competitive options in U.
As always, feedback is welcome! Thanks so much to all who've helped so far through testing, conversation, and playing. Looking forward to taking it on the road here in a month!
This is likely the second-to-last update before CubeCon lists are locked in. After the land-count update I should be down to single card swaps for tuning. I'd love to get hands on cardboard before the 12th but if in doubt I'll leave some cards in the maybeboard until after the event.
I wasn't sure how much to expect in a set like WOE that isn't centered around counters. Other than Freeze in Place somehow already being a strictly better Impede Momentum there are a number of compelling new effects to test. A few notes for those curious.
This is a big 'un! In concept anyway.
I've had privilege to draft a bit more in recent months and it's been incredibly helpful to get more hands and helpful feedback on the cube. This update aims to address a comment I've heard from many - players want more fixing.
In a 540 cube, 45 lands represent 8.3% of the cube. A bit lower than average but not untenable. I don't know why I hadn't considered it before, but while listening to a cube podcast a host noted that density as compared to the cube doesn't matter as much as density per draft. I realized that with 8 players in a normal draft (a standard setup at our shop) lands would only make up an average of 5.5% of the cards you'd see. In a two-player Hexagon draft (another favorite of ours) you'd only see 10-11 lands total - less than 2%! These changes bring us to 65 lands and brings the total density up over 12%.
In keeping with my design goals, I don't want to push multicolor piles as an ideal play pattern. I'm fine with it happening but I don't want it to consistently be the best deck. That said, I am interested in making gold cards more playable and having fewer duds left at the end of the draft. With a broad theme like +1/+1 counters, so may cards play well together automatically and players are left with more cuts than usual. Upping land density should provide more picks that make it into the final deck and more opportunity to play the cards you picked (shocking, I know!).
I've explored a number of options, but I'll note that this isn't really a fetch-shock format in my experience (and preference). I've also been pleased with how few search effects there are in general. Less time playing leaves more time for playing in this case. After lengthy conversations, until a few rare cycles are finished out I'm going to test two additions:
We'll see how these changes impact play, but I'm hopeful. There's still plenty of time before CubeCon changes need to be locked in so more testing is needed! Excited for upcoming WOE additions as well.
Several changes this go around, but much fewer than I anticipated with counters being a theme in both the main and Commander set. Many of the counters-matter cards spread into multiple counter types (looking at you, Arwen, Mortal Queen) or introduce The Ring. There are certainly enough playables, I don't want to muddy the water with a bunch of extra trinket text or tokens. Additionally, the power level on this set is slightly lower than the cube on average and I don't want to introduce a bunch of straight-to-sideboard options.
I anticipate a few more swaps as more decisions are made and more testing is done. For the moment, I'm most excited to try out Goldberry, River-Daughter - she seems like a sweet value engine that can play in neat ways with Sagas and artifacts, plus 3 toughness means she can often slow down early plays.
Report and further thoughts forthcoming, but some initial ideas after a draft yesterday.
There are several cool +1/+1 counters cards but most of them are either more narrow or more powerful than I'm interested in for this environment. A few considerations that haven't found a home: