Thankfully, there's the internet.

Thanks to Usman over at MTGSalvation I have received recommendations across the board for the cube.

There's quite a few awesome cards I'd never seen before or even knew could be a common (False Demise... as close to common Control Magic as there is!) and it's going to take some time to cross reference all of the recommendations with the cards I've found in the gatherer (creatures that the cube desperately needs to support aggro) to really make the next push in changes.

What I truly need is a team of players to test with and work through where the finer sticky points are: there is only so much I can do myself with theorycrafting and online posts.

Any volunteers?

Spring Cleaning

While the namesake card is not in the cube, I did make some fairly dramatic changes to the cube to move it in the right direction. Here's the take-away style summary:

1. More chicks, less tricks. By upping the creature count the cube feels more smooth and natural in terms of Limited play.
2. Better tricks and tricks on sticks. By keeping the best tricks and swapping in creatures that have a trick stapled onto it play is stronger and more efficient both more like a cube should be.
3. Domain in twain. By scaling back the inclusion of domain mechanic cards, I made room to more general efficiency and creatures. However, domain should still have enough presence to be a great subtheme.
   
4. Slivers in 'da house. Slivers are included and should help promote a minor tribal subtheme.
5. Colored shift. By cutting out some lands and artifacts and upping the monocolor count the cube feels more similar to a traditional cube than before (and this is a good thing).

However, some questions still concern me and they won't be answers without more testing:

1. Is there still too much mana fixing? If so, where is the weakest fixing? Did I miss something better?
2. Are there enough creatures now? If not, what spells can be shifted into a creatures (a la Tin Street Hooligan)? What spells can be outright cut for creatures?
3. Do shard-based archetypes bear fruit? If there enough depth in monocolor cards and allied cards to make a two color deck (or if I've really screwed up a monocolor deck!) viable or better than the three-or-more color possibilities?
4. Are domain and sliver compatible or competing subthemes? What can be some to bring synergy between archetypes and themes traditionally present in one or two colors to be meaningfully integrated for three-or-more color decks?
5. What the hell did I screw up and overlook?

I'm looking forward to any feedback; you can find the thread that details the breakdown of the cube by color and creature/noncreature, with links by card, at the PMC thread on MTGSalvation.

All the Glitters is not Gold...

...except in my cube now. I recently placed and order through some of my favorite Magic online retails or basically foiled out almost all of my gold, hybrid, artifact, and land cards. With my so-call "focus on multicolor" I really wanted it to stand out in sharp contrast to all of the monocolored cards I've added recently.

"Cards I've added?" you ask? Some slivers, as promised, and some significant upgrades across all the colors. I will be making a sweeping update to my list of cards, as well as finishing a spreadsheet detailing the breakdown by color, type, and print version (i.e. set, foil, FNM, or other information pertinent) to post for anyone who cares.

"[W]ho cares" is a phrase that leads me to ask something of anyone reading this: if you're into Magic and want to see more information please add yourself as a follower for this blog. I'm going to list some pretty convincing reasons now:

1. I'm an average guy doing something that isn't quite as average as you think. Also, I'm just as bad at Magic as you.
2. This is just the beginning of the story; there will be significantly deeper analysis of cards along with commentary, feedback, and support from players who can actually play this game.
3. Magic 2010 is bringing a shitload of rules changes to Magic. This actually isn't a reason to follow me but it's worth stating it if, by some miraculous failure, you're hearing it from me first.
4. This stuff is downright fun, and not just a "Oh, cool." kind of fun: this fun is the kind that makes you think "Huh. I never would have tried that." and "Holy shit. That's a common!" It's an addictive process of evaluation and trial (and lots of errors on my part) and you need to experience it, even if it's just vicariously through my posts.

Well, there you have it: four great reasons to follow me. I will throw a secret fifth reason out there for those of you who really, really read this: I will give you a fun card just for being one of the first three followers. Follow me and I'll pass along something special; details to follow in an email (because you have to follow me first)!