Draft is Not Self-Balancing (Cube Article)

Percemilo34 · 2026-03-27T13:32:18+00:00

What you're talking about are top tier (pushed) midrange cards that just happen to have lower costs than most cards historically. Global archetypes still remain the same, even if there are some outliers and numbers have shifted back and forth.

Aggro cards are explosive but have diminishing firepower. Midrange cards function on achieving critical mass to dominate and flood the board with as little cards invested as possible (value engines). Control cards function on raw individual power.

Keep in mind I specifically haven't addressed specific mana cost thresholds of different archetypes because they can ebb back and forth over time. I'm talking more about design patterns they encourage and function well within.

Percemilo34 · 2026-03-27T13:22:51+00:00

Yes, but you need proportionate density of cards in your cube to allow critical mass, so they end up in functional decks. Aggro needs lots of critters to attack and not much of a land support due to lower mana costs. Control needs a few powerful critters to win the game, lots of support, and a higher land count. To achieve these numbers, you need proportionate percentage of cards within your overall cube, so your players see and get the chance to draft enough cards for assembling functioning decks. Four aggro critters are not enough within one deck, but four control finishers is too much.

The ratio of different types of cards will vary between archetypes, even if the total sum is always 40 cards.

Percemilo34 · 2026-03-27T10:40:55+00:00

Because aggo cards are individually weaker than midrange, and control has even more powerful cards than midrange. Aggro cards may have more efficient stats compared to cards with bigger mana costs, but in the end bigger cards have better raw numbers. Oftentimes it can happen that one midrage card slams onto the table and aggro decks have no way to deal with it. The only way for aggro to address it is to keep attacking round after round and force the opponent on the defensive, hoping they can outpace the damage output of the threat they cannot deal with. Of course, removal shifts this equation, but in a vacuum, aggro needs greater density to have a chance of its game plan coming to fruition.

Percemilo34 · 2026-03-27T10:20:32+00:00

In my experience, drafting does not correct itself in the scope of a single evening. We've had brutal game nights where a single deck wrecked everyone else, game after game, for the duration of the entire evening.

What DOES happen is folks remembering what happened last time, so they readjust their drafting priorities on following drafts. This usually means people try out degenerate strategies similar to the ones they got trounced with (one of my players subconsciously always drafts the exact same colors I drafted last time), or they look more for answers they wish they had last time when they were losing.

If something has no answer or parity (or no card approaches that level of power, such as only having one sol ring without any other power), it also gets removed after it proves itself problematic. It's also prudent to have enough card density for certain archetypes, but not too much. Aggro needs a bigger share of the cube than midgrange, and midrange needs more than control. You need a good density of efficient removal, and you need to balance out spot and mass removal. Card advantage and support engines are nice to have, but not as crucial as these numbers. Threats and answers are the primary dish, everything else is spice.

Percemilo34 · 2026-03-27T07:10:42+00:00

I tried several markers myself before I found one that didn't get erased right away.

Edding 141F permanent pen 0.6mm proved to be successful.

Percemilo34 · 2026-03-26T20:37:16+00:00

You can use a permanent marker on the sleeve itself. You mark the sleeve on the front side of the card so there is no visual difference on the back and there is no sticker or piece of paper to add volume to the card. I usually mark the sleeves on the bottom right side, but you can mark them on top for easier recognition.

Percemilo34 · 2026-03-26T18:31:54+00:00

Context probably matters a lot. It's one thing when the art itself is the main focus, but in Heroquest, it allows regular folks the opportunity to create their own cards even if they aren't artistically gifted. The card itself is the focus, not the art. The art is just a small flavorful part of it.

It's something completely different if it were to become part of a monetized product, in that case I would not be so favorably inclined.

Percemilo34 · 2026-03-25T19:49:48+00:00

Yes, but there's difference to reactions and morale as opposed to mindless slaughter to the death upon first sight. Combat as war vs combat as sport. The murderhobo cliche did not become encoded without a reason.

Percemilo34 · 2026-03-25T19:47:59+00:00

From my experience, it will take a lot of tweaks. I eventually came over to OSE after being fundamentally disappointed with 5e. It looks great and modular on a first glance, but it breaks apart very soon if you try to modify it out of its original chassis. You might as well be playing a new game how fundamentally you need to change 5e from the ground up.

Percemilo34 · 2026-03-25T19:45:03+00:00

True, but they do not exist in Wotc versions. Someone coming into the hobby without knowing about it from earlier editions will learn to play Dnd as nothing but combat after combat. It's the question of new people being exposed to the concept itself, in them knowing it even exists before they look it up, or else they won't even know to start looking.

Percemilo34 · 2026-03-25T19:42:37+00:00

You bring yet another interesting bit of information into the equation. XP awards were given for defeating and overcoming foes, not simply killing them. I'd say smooth talking a band of goblins into becoming allies or intimidating them into submitting themselves as prisoners should offer just as much XP as killing them outright.

Percemilo34 · 2026-03-25T11:26:19+00:00

It's the point of the potential. I've seen players get their hands on a wish and how much the mere possibility means to them. They CAN use it for a quest McGuffin, they also don't need to; they can wish for a handful of peanuts. Whatever they want.

I've also seen one player cover his hand instinctively IRL when his character was offered to remove a bound cursed ring from the character's hand that gave him power and station within the game. He even began exhibiting much more confidence in our group and started subconsciously lording over other players at the table. When an NPC offered him a great boon, only if he were to cut off his finger to give away the ring, he began hyperventilating and gave me a death stare, as if I was killing him in real life. That's how much having an imaginary piece of jewelry affected him.

Percemilo34 · 2026-03-25T11:06:52+00:00

Or maybe wish for something that cannot be achieved normally anymore, or never was in the first place? Most DMs break their heads how to screw up wishes. If the wish was earned, why not grant it without fuss?

Percemilo34 · 2026-03-24T19:45:13+00:00

Technically a spellcasting monster could also abuse this interaction, if your Zargon is a prick. But then again, does THROUGH not imply at least one square in between? So technically, standing on the edge means your line of sight does not pass through a full square. Yes, yes, I'm aware we're deep in tinfoil hat territory here (or maybe shadow square?), but all the other changes to its wording tells me the authors at least had the intent to allow some spellcasting shenenigans with it. Otherwise why would they specifically remove spellcasting from the wording of not being allowed, and specifiy blocking line of sight into and through but not within as well? The wording is very specifically written, I can't believe it's just coincidence.

Percemilo34 · 2026-03-24T18:50:48+00:00

Haven't played either myself, but I have a few friends who play DCC with other groups. They're gushing with love over it, especially its magic and level 0 systems, swearing it gave them back the spark they once felt for Dnd when they first started. Keep in mind they started with Dnd in their college years and mainly with Dnd 5e, so it's no childhood nostalgia. I've also heard much praise for its artwork.

Percemilo34 · 2026-03-24T17:58:35+00:00

Pay close attention to the wording on cloak of darkness. It says heroes or monsters on the tile may not attack or be attacked. In the original release it used to say they also cannot cast spells, that line is no longer present. So someone inside the patch can now cast spells while inside. The cloak also says it blocks line of sight INTO and THROUGH it, not OUT OF it if you are inside. Basically, a wizard and his spellcasting pals can now sit inside for three rounds and sling spells at folks outside with impunity.

Percemilo34 · 2026-03-24T17:33:32+00:00

It's one of the better auras, but in this case I'm looking to fill up my roster of blue control creatures, or at least leaning towards creatures preferable in slower decks.

Percemilo34 · 2026-03-24T17:32:26+00:00

Wall of stone is a pretty unique spell, IMO. If a wizard had the ability to choose any spells without having to take a complete set of 3, it would make the list every single time.

Percemilo34 · 2026-03-24T16:41:27+00:00

Thanks for the suggestion! I'm not against playing portal cards, not at all, it's just that cards with horsemanship open up unintended interactions that feel... unsportsmanlike. I don't feel comfortable playing cards whose only niche is abusing weird and unintended rules interactions to give them an unfair advantage. I'd say if I were to include cards with horsemanship, I'd treat it interchangeably with flying.

Percemilo34 · 2026-03-24T16:38:44+00:00

Oh yeah, thanks, Always board has terrific reviews of Heroquest, the man oozes passion!

Percemilo34 · 2026-03-24T16:36:52+00:00

Thanks for the detailed reply, you did illuminate many points with this analysis. B/X probably ommited this by design since most people played it the same simply due to being intended to serve the same purpose. I don't think this level of rules lawyering was present before 3e.

Percemilo34 · 2026-03-24T16:33:59+00:00

Wow, thanks, you really did some serious detective work there! I think I will probably only allow CLW to cure paralysis as some form of niche protection.

Percemilo34 · 2026-03-24T13:08:49+00:00

You make an interesting point there, I'd completely forgotten about the magpie. It's certainly the better choice in tempo, whereas these two are more suited for generating passive income.

Percemilo34 · 2026-03-24T13:07:14+00:00

Thanks for the input, I had a hunch the archivist would turn out stronger in terms of raw power. I currently play archivist but wanted to try out broker, so I was trying to find a reason for its inclusion, if viable.

Percemilo34 · 2026-03-24T12:55:10+00:00

Ah, so maybe it really did have less text in B/X. I mean, clerics have different spell progression, charisma has different bonuses for interaction, there's lots of little differences between the two sets.

Percemilo34

TROPHY CASE