In Standard, you can use up to four copies of any legal card, and as many copies of any basic land you'd like. So why not allow up to four of any given card in a cube? Don't really feel like using one (previously) "unofficial" format as the basis of your argument is especially sound.
Not trying to be abrasive if it came off that way. But I feel like cube design is open ended and the "rules" themselves are interesting to tinker with (and add/remove).
In Standard, you can use up to four copies of any legal card, and as many copies of any basic land you'd like. So why not allow up to four of any given card in a cube? Don't really feel like using one (previously) "unofficial" format as the basis of your argument is especially sound.
Not trying to be abrasive if it came off that way. But I feel like cube design is open ended and the "rules" themselves are interesting to tinker with (and add/remove).
You're free to do that, but I would be wary about calling it a "cube" because that's just needlessly blurring the lines of what words mean. I mean, if you've got an opportunity to come up with something original then do it, but don't try latching onto the popularity of the name just because you can.
I'm going to go to the standard forums and show off my new Star Trek Proxy Mox standard deck, with 8 copies of Black Lotus in it. After all, I think "standard" is just a loose outline of what the format is about, and being as that it's the most popular format, I'd naturally call my format standard, too.
I'm being hyperbolic, of course. Cube is a well-defined and popular term that implies a singleton card selection rule. The further you deviate from this, the less you are justified in calling it Cube. Just because the 'cube police' aren't going to come and arrest you for breaking the rule doesn't mean you should break the rule or that the rule is unwarranted or invalid. That's really all there is to it.
Personally, I'd have little interest in a 4-of cube. That'd be almost like shuffling 4 cubes together. I mean, I'd play it and it might be fun, but I don't think the novelty will last. We use the singleton rule to enhance longevity and make maintenance easier.
Adding in more of the exact same named card would no longer make it a cube, but a custom draft format. Im pretty close to taking out some functional reprints myself. About the only ones I will leave in is Ravages of War and Burning of Xinye. Taking those out would weaken decks too much.
You don't need any additional rules to define the legal cards in your cube. All you need to know is that you can play any cards that you draft from the cube. If you don't want any decks created by your cube to have multiples, don't include any multiples in your cube. A rule specifically barring multiples accomplishes nothing.
A rule specifically barring multiples accomplishes nothing.
Except, you know, creating a format you're interested in. It accomplishes that for me. Just like people excluding rares from their c/u cubes, I exclude multiples from my singleton cube. It'd be like saying building a c/u cube accomplishes nothing.
Except, you know, creating a format you're interested in. It accomplishes that for me. Just like people excluding rares from their c/u cubes, I exclude multiples from my singleton cube. It'd be like saying building a c/u cube accomplishes nothing.
The fact that you refer to your cube as a singleton cube implies that there is a possibility of a multiples cube. I humbly disagree that such a concoction can still be called a cube.
Do you play functional reprints?
Do you wish there were more functional reprints of certain cards?
If so, you're already subconsciously "wanting" to get rid of the singleton rule. You're just giving R&D some accidental authority over how many copies of a given effect are allowed in your cube.
Do you play functional reprints?
Do you wish there were more functional reprints of certain cards?
If so, you're already subconsciously "wanting" to get rid of the singleton rule. You're just giving R&D some accidental authority over how many copies of a given effect are allowed in your cube.
Kinda like wanting to play peasant or pauper and giving R&D the authority over the rarity at which cards are printed?
Choosing to build a singleton legal list is no more arbitrary than building a pauper, peasant, legacy or modern-legal cube and confining the design to those restrictions. It's the format we want to play ...no more complicated than that.
Quote from FlowerSunRain »
What?
Pretty self explanatory. You say that a rule barring multiples accomplishes nothing. I say it accomplishes the same thing as barring rares does. People build common/uncommon cubes because that's the kind of environment they're interested in. We make our cubes singleton for the same reason. It's what we want to draft. Period.
Just like when you said in the other thread that not running multiples but allowing functional reprints is "logically inconsistent" and my response there was the same as it is here:
It's no more illogical for singleton legal cubes to exclude multiples than it is for a legacy legal cube to exclude power, a modern legal cube to exclude old-frame cards or a pauper/peasant cube to exclude rares.
Pretty self explanatory. You say that a rule barring multiples accomplishes nothing. I say it accomplishes the same thing as barring rares does. People build common/uncommon cubes because that's the kind of environment they're interested in. We make our cubes singleton for the same reason. It's what we want to draft. Period.
This has nothing to do with my post, which is why I responded as to being confused.
You said barring multiples accomplishes nothing. I don't agree.
Your point doesn't address the content of what I said, much like your response in the other thread didn't either. Also your summary of my point completely misrepresents what I said.
I have a 780 card cube with 2 of each triland. I still consider what I have a cube even with the broken 'rule'.With such a big cube I need lots of fixing and the trilands are a cheap and effective means to an end.
Your point doesn't address the content of what I said, much like your response in the other thread didn't either. Also your summary of my point completely misrepresents what I said.
Then clearly I'm having a hard time discerning what your point is in either thread.
You said both: not running multiples but playing function reprints is logically inconsistent and that barring multiples accomplishes nothing. Seems pretty clear what you mean.
Then clearly I'm having a hard time discerning what your point is in either thread.
You said both: not running multiples but playing function reprints is logically inconsistent and that barring multiples accomplishes nothing. Seems pretty clear what you mean.
Please explain what I'm missing.
The fact that I said neither of those things bereft of context as you are presenting them.
So if that context doesn't sum up how you feel about not running multiples, how do you feel? It seemed very clear that those summaries were exactly how you felt about people that don't like the idea of cubing with multiples. Do you no longer think there's a "logical inconsistency" with wanting to run functional reprints but not multiples? Do you think there's something to be accomplished in barring multiples from a cube? Or not?
So if that context doesn't sum up how you feel about not running multiples, how do you feel? It seemed very clear that those summaries were exactly how you felt about people that don't like the idea of cubing with multiples. Do you no longer think there's a "logical inconsistency" with wanting to run functional reprints but not multiples? Do you think there's something to be accomplished in barring multiples from a cube? Or not?
I have not in either of these threads given my opinion on whether or not any particular person should or should not run multiples, including myself. I have not commented on what someone should "want" out of their cube. I stand by my comment about there be no point to barring multiples in cube, but the preceding sentence to that claim gives very important context as to the scope of what that statement entails.
Wow. 10 pages on this topic? I feel compelled to throw my 2 cents in just to keep the chain going.
I personally like the singleton rule. In fact, I don't even like running functional reprints. Primarily because I actually DON'T want to push a level of consistency in line with constructed.
But I certainly see the argument for running duplicates to help certain arch types (like Wildfire for example). And anyone wanting to do that - I say go for it. As someone mentioned, that's one of the things that makes cube so great - the flexibility to build it how you want.
As far as a cube playing differently with multiples than singles. I agree, but IMO choosing to run power vs choosing not to run power makes a bigger impact on the cube than having duplicates. We already have environments that play differently. My cube doesn't run planeswalkers for example - yet another variation that has significant game play ramifications. I see no difference between that design decision and choosing to run multiples of certain cards. Who really cares anyway?
I have a cube with cards to fallen empires (94 cube). There are not enough of certain cards to support aggro for example, or enough duals... so why not run multiples. I don't like multiples in larger normal cubes, but if you cube has a theme, then why not... just let me know what is in multiples...
BTW I love my multiple mishra's factories...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All foil Invasion Draft Set (1 Rare, 3 Uncommon, 6 Common) California DCI Level 2 Judge
I've been thinking (since someone linked to an article) about the idea that multiples are acceptable under the following justification:
"If your cube needs two copies of Card A, then play two copies. Don't wait for WotC to print it, since you are the only obstacle to getting what you want."
While this is a noble claim per se, it isn't the complete picture. For one thing, if I'm understanding correctly, most cube designers don't believe there is some "ideal perfect cube" that they can build, so it's very difficult to say exactly what your cube needs. Most of us are perfectly happy with the idea of a dynamic cube that has some cards flowing in and out of it.
More importantly, this kind of thinking reduces the excitement of new cards. I would love it if WotC printed a second set of fetch-lands. You could argue "why not run a second set then?" and I'd reply "because then I wouldn't give a crap if WotC printed another set. I like being excited about the prospect of new cards." Elvish Mystic was exciting. Flames of the Firebrand was exciting. I'd have preemptively denied myself that excitement by running multiples. I'm not going to throw in another Gravecrawler so that I can ignore the next new B 1-drop that's printed. I don't want to ignore it, even though it would probably be worse than Gravecrawler.
So, if there is a perfect cube, and it takes multiples of cards to play, then I don't want it. It'll be boring for two reasons: not enough variance, and not enough excitement for new cards. At the very least I'd hope that this point of view is transparent enough to understand why someone can be so adamantly opposed to playing multiples. It infringes on some kinds of fun.
Granted, there are good reasons to run multiples, and simply running multiples doesn't guarantee you'll have these problems, but in general they are there. It's a bit lackluster if you ask me. Multiples can be fun or helpful in some ways, but it doesn't appeal to me to go all-in on it. A few strategic duplicates here and there are relatively harmless. A whole duplicates cube is not.
Not trying to be abrasive if it came off that way. But I feel like cube design is open ended and the "rules" themselves are interesting to tinker with (and add/remove).
My cube list on CubeTutor.
Both are very much under construction. Please stop by and talk about it!
You're free to do that, but I would be wary about calling it a "cube" because that's just needlessly blurring the lines of what words mean. I mean, if you've got an opportunity to come up with something original then do it, but don't try latching onto the popularity of the name just because you can.
I'm going to go to the standard forums and show off my new Star Trek Proxy Mox standard deck, with 8 copies of Black Lotus in it. After all, I think "standard" is just a loose outline of what the format is about, and being as that it's the most popular format, I'd naturally call my format standard, too.
I'm being hyperbolic, of course. Cube is a well-defined and popular term that implies a singleton card selection rule. The further you deviate from this, the less you are justified in calling it Cube. Just because the 'cube police' aren't going to come and arrest you for breaking the rule doesn't mean you should break the rule or that the rule is unwarranted or invalid. That's really all there is to it.
Personally, I'd have little interest in a 4-of cube. That'd be almost like shuffling 4 cubes together. I mean, I'd play it and it might be fun, but I don't think the novelty will last. We use the singleton rule to enhance longevity and make maintenance easier.
https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/3pq
You don't need any additional rules to define the legal cards in your cube. All you need to know is that you can play any cards that you draft from the cube. If you don't want any decks created by your cube to have multiples, don't include any multiples in your cube. A rule specifically barring multiples accomplishes nothing.
Except, you know, creating a format you're interested in. It accomplishes that for me. Just like people excluding rares from their c/u cubes, I exclude multiples from my singleton cube. It'd be like saying building a c/u cube accomplishes nothing.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
What?
The fact that you refer to your cube as a singleton cube implies that there is a possibility of a multiples cube. I humbly disagree that such a concoction can still be called a cube.
My Cube (DeckStats)
My Pauper Cube: 540 (CubeTutor link!)
Level 1 Judge
Do you wish there were more functional reprints of certain cards?
If so, you're already subconsciously "wanting" to get rid of the singleton rule. You're just giving R&D some accidental authority over how many copies of a given effect are allowed in your cube.
My cube list on CubeTutor.
Both are very much under construction. Please stop by and talk about it!
Kinda like wanting to play peasant or pauper and giving R&D the authority over the rarity at which cards are printed?
Choosing to build a singleton legal list is no more arbitrary than building a pauper, peasant, legacy or modern-legal cube and confining the design to those restrictions. It's the format we want to play ...no more complicated than that.
Pretty self explanatory. You say that a rule barring multiples accomplishes nothing. I say it accomplishes the same thing as barring rares does. People build common/uncommon cubes because that's the kind of environment they're interested in. We make our cubes singleton for the same reason. It's what we want to draft. Period.
Just like when you said in the other thread that not running multiples but allowing functional reprints is "logically inconsistent" and my response there was the same as it is here:
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
Then clearly I'm having a hard time discerning what your point is in either thread.
You said both: not running multiples but playing function reprints is logically inconsistent and that barring multiples accomplishes nothing. Seems pretty clear what you mean.
Please explain what I'm missing.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
The fact that I said neither of those things bereft of context as you are presenting them.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
I have not in either of these threads given my opinion on whether or not any particular person should or should not run multiples, including myself. I have not commented on what someone should "want" out of their cube. I stand by my comment about there be no point to barring multiples in cube, but the preceding sentence to that claim gives very important context as to the scope of what that statement entails.
Wanna share that now? Maybe knowing what your stance is will help me understand what it is you're trying to say.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
No. As it isn't relevant to this discussion, it would not.
So... your opinion on running multiples isn't relevant to the discussion in the "Multiple Copies of Cards in Cube" thread.
Haha okay bro.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
Ironic perhaps, but true.
I personally like the singleton rule. In fact, I don't even like running functional reprints. Primarily because I actually DON'T want to push a level of consistency in line with constructed.
But I certainly see the argument for running duplicates to help certain arch types (like Wildfire for example). And anyone wanting to do that - I say go for it. As someone mentioned, that's one of the things that makes cube so great - the flexibility to build it how you want.
As far as a cube playing differently with multiples than singles. I agree, but IMO choosing to run power vs choosing not to run power makes a bigger impact on the cube than having duplicates. We already have environments that play differently. My cube doesn't run planeswalkers for example - yet another variation that has significant game play ramifications. I see no difference between that design decision and choosing to run multiples of certain cards. Who really cares anyway?
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
I have a cube with cards to fallen empires (94 cube). There are not enough of certain cards to support aggro for example, or enough duals... so why not run multiples. I don't like multiples in larger normal cubes, but if you cube has a theme, then why not... just let me know what is in multiples...
BTW I love my multiple mishra's factories...
California DCI Level 2 Judge
"If your cube needs two copies of Card A, then play two copies. Don't wait for WotC to print it, since you are the only obstacle to getting what you want."
While this is a noble claim per se, it isn't the complete picture. For one thing, if I'm understanding correctly, most cube designers don't believe there is some "ideal perfect cube" that they can build, so it's very difficult to say exactly what your cube needs. Most of us are perfectly happy with the idea of a dynamic cube that has some cards flowing in and out of it.
More importantly, this kind of thinking reduces the excitement of new cards. I would love it if WotC printed a second set of fetch-lands. You could argue "why not run a second set then?" and I'd reply "because then I wouldn't give a crap if WotC printed another set. I like being excited about the prospect of new cards." Elvish Mystic was exciting. Flames of the Firebrand was exciting. I'd have preemptively denied myself that excitement by running multiples. I'm not going to throw in another Gravecrawler so that I can ignore the next new B 1-drop that's printed. I don't want to ignore it, even though it would probably be worse than Gravecrawler.
So, if there is a perfect cube, and it takes multiples of cards to play, then I don't want it. It'll be boring for two reasons: not enough variance, and not enough excitement for new cards. At the very least I'd hope that this point of view is transparent enough to understand why someone can be so adamantly opposed to playing multiples. It infringes on some kinds of fun.
Granted, there are good reasons to run multiples, and simply running multiples doesn't guarantee you'll have these problems, but in general they are there. It's a bit lackluster if you ask me. Multiples can be fun or helpful in some ways, but it doesn't appeal to me to go all-in on it. A few strategic duplicates here and there are relatively harmless. A whole duplicates cube is not.