If your cube would be better with two copies of Duress, I would run two copies of Duress.
My cube would love four dark confidants, but once we remove the original Singleton restriction, so much creativity and variety is lost. That's the reason many of us got into cubing in the first place. Including multiples of certain cards seems like a creative failure in cube, which has been defined as a Singleton format.
There are loads of good one mana discard spells. Cabal Therapy is probably worth a try.
I think you underestimate how much creativity there is in selectively breaking the singleton rule and including synergies through a multiplicity of effects that would not otherwise be possible in a cube environment.
I understand if you prefer not to, but there's a lot of unexplored and creative design space to explore. I would hardly say that retail draft sets are not creative because some cards are common and others are Mythic.
Absolutely, I can see how that is possible. But one of the constraints within which we develop our cubes is that Singleton framework. A list containing multiples becomes more akin to exactly what you say: a retail draft set. There's nothing wrong with that, but I would suggest that is more of a 'custom draft set' than a traditional cube.
If I allowed myself to break the singleton rule, I would have to rethink the entire cube, and the strongest possible resulting list would probably bear little resemblance to its current state. Once the rubicon is crossed, the list should be optimised for the possibility of including multiples. All or nothing. If I saw a 'regular' cube list with singletons barring 2x Duress and 3x Llanowar Elves (for example), I'd just be confused.
I wouldn't call that drafting list a cube any more, but I'm sure it would be fun. I would give my foil playset of Aether Burst a new lease of life.
Personally I'm not even talking about the "care about multiples" cards like Squadron Hawk, but I know others would go that route.
Some of those seem like sensible includes if you're going to allow multiples. Especially the ones that are half decent on their own like Flame Burst.
345 uniques out of 360 seems high for such a list - are you suggesting that there aren't ANY other cards other than Steppe Lynx that would benefit from multiples, seeing as that's now a possibility? It seems that now that rule is out the window, there are a lot more possibilities than just including 1 x extra set of fetchlands and two more Steppe Lynxs. From a neutral observer, that gives the impression that it's just a regular cube list whose owner really really likes landfallaggro.dec. Honestly, if you're going to allow a non-Singleton cube, then surely
lot of unexplored and creative design space to explore
amounts to more than adding another set of lands and a couple of creatures. Which doesn't add enough to justify losing the unique rule, to me. Why not push the boat out? Go crazy.
I've played a cube that broke the singleton rule before. It was an artifact themed cube that was centered around boosting particular strategies that you struggled to be able to under the singleton restriction.
Cube, to me, requires that singleton restriction to feel like cube drafting. Cubes that run multiples seem to pigeonhole certain strategies, and it feels more like drafting a specific constructed format rather than drafting a cube. Legacy makes more streamlined decks and has better manabases than cube decks do, but playing multiples of fetches and duals in order to make it play more like a constructed environment doesn't appeal to me. The restrictions breed creativity, and that's one of the things I like the most about the cube.
I'm not saying that running multiples no longer makes the cube a cube, because it doesn't. A cube is simply a custom limited environment. I played multiples in my M10 intro cube because it was simpler to construct and provided multiple copies of cards I needed in order to get it to function. But the regular cube doesn't have those same restrictions, and I personally dislike the solution of running multiple copies of the same card simply to plug holes here and there.
Wizards designed Evolving Wilds to be played alongside Terramorphic Expanse in singleton and other limited environments that would want more than one of those effects. They deemed the effect okay for functional reprinting, and they felt it necessary to benefit environments with those restrictions. Otherwise, they would've just reprinted Expanse again. Some formats, like Commander, Pauper and Singleton need functional reprints to reach a critical mass of basic effects that will help them function. Saying I want three T1 disruption spells in black and running Duress, Thoughtseize and Inquisition is a lot more interesting solution than running 3 Thoughtseizes, even if the latter would make the environment "stronger".
If Wizards deems an effect important enough to require multiple copies for limited environments, I'll run more than one. But I dislike breaking the singleton rule from a design standpoint because I think it breeds creativity having the restrictions in place, in addition to making the drafts more interesting and diverse than they would be if it was designed from a consistency standpoint.
Part of the appeal of the cube is getting a sampling from cards from different formats, timeframes and environments from throughout the history of the game. It's much more interesting to have a white creature section that contains an Isamaru, a Steppe Lynx, a Lions, a Vanguard and a Student than it is to have 5 elite vanguards. Same goes for multiple copies of anything in the cube. It may be more powerful by using my 5 land slots as 2 duals and 3 fetches per color, but it's not as interesting. Same goes for having a diverse suite of red 1-drops instead of running 8 goblin guides.
Like I said, a cube is a custom limited environment, and it can be designed however you want. But there are some traditions present in the cube that are actually there for a reason. I like diversity, and I like the creativity and problem-solving solutions that are brought upon by design restrictions. When you throw them all all out the window, you will still have a "cube", but it won't be one I'm as interested in playing as I was before. I like getting 45 different cards in my cube drafts. Running 4 Wastelands is fine, but I'd rather see 1 Strip Mine, 1 Wasteland, 1 Dust Bowl and 1 Tectonic Edge, because I think it's more interesting that way.
The question is whether the "interesting" quality that you cite is based on gameplay or via the enjoyment of seeing cards with different cards and art.
It's a combination of both.
But it's really simple. You run 20 fetches instead of 10 fetches and a cycle of 10 lands that aren't as good. Why? Because it makes the cube stronger and more consistent.
So why run 8 different red 1-drops instead of 8 Goblin Guides? It would do the same thing for your red section as the multiples did for your lands. It would improve red. So why not do it? Why run Counterspell when you can run another Mana Drain? Why run Searing Spear when you could run a 2nd Incinerate? The list goes on and on.
The answer is because the cube is more than just mimicking a perfect version of whatever shell you're trying to build. It's about drafting the best builds you can with a variety of different tools. It's about having 45 different cards at the end of the draft and making the most powerful deck you can with the variety in front of you. I think you lose that when you run multiples for the sake of power or efficiency.
There's nothing wrong with running multiple copies of better cards to improve the cube. It will certainly play better with 4 Thoughtseizes than it will with 4 different 1-mana disruption spells. But it will come at the cost of a lack of variety, and a loss of part of what makes the cube the cube.
I love the fact that cube drafting winds up as a unique hybrid between a constructed shell with a limited feel. The more we sculpt our cubes to mimic constructed, the more we lose that feeling and wind up with cookie-cutter Legacy imitations in front of us instead of cube decks.
But as always, to each their own, and all that good stuff.
I think you drastically misunderstand my motivations. I don't do it to make the cube stronger and more consistent, but because it creates an overall increase in fun and interesting decision points. If there's any consistent theme to my designs it's that I specifically don't do things for the sake of power maximization.
If your takeaway from the 20 fetchlands decision was that I am trying to power maximize then I don't really know how to address this conversation. It was all about creating interesting decisions and approaching a way to balance a dynamic that historically cube designers have wrestled with.
A couple things. First, I don't think that diversifying a suite of effects makes things less interesting. Less different effects would make the dynamic less interesting, IMO. Part of the interest in the cube is finding alternative solutions to running multiples.
Second, I haven't wrestled with a dynamic that running multiple copies of all the fetches would solve (outside of simply making the mana-fixing better, of course).
..........
That's why I don't think "run another duress" is the most interesting solution. It doesn't breed decision making choices, it simply adds another copy of a better spell instead of trying to find a more dynamic solution. To get back on topic.
If you run a Commander deck with Wildfire and Burning of Xinye ... No problem. If you run 2 copies of Wildfire it is no longer a commander deck. Period.
That said, there is nothing stopping you from making any such casual deck to play with your friends at the kitchen table, but it is no longer Commander.
I feel same applies to this duplicates house rule discussion. Do what you want, just don't call it a Cube, because it isn't. The singleton rule is one of the few rules we actually have ...
Because they are still tools following the self-imposed rules, and as such, are fair game.
Because this is an arbitrary decision based on a non-gameplay factor, it doesn't seem to be a very useful distinction.
That is to say, I don't think you could make a compelling gameplay based argument as to why its perfectly fine to use two copies of armageddon but not two copies of duress.
The crux of cube is that you define the format, so comparing it to an illegal choice in a standardized format is meaningless. Admittedly, the singleton rule is overwhelmingly popular which makes such a suggestion practically meaningless. The difference is someone "could" find the suggestion to two copies of duress useful advice because you "can" put two copies of a card and still draft your cube. You "can't" play 8 copies of Experiment One and still play Standard.
But nobody would ever suggest that, because it's not how most paygroups want to play.
Except, someone did suggest that.
So, that matter is not WOULD anyone suggest that, but instead SHOULD anyone suggest that. Or perhaps more to the point, SHOULD THEY BE ENCOURAGED to suggest that.
How many people do you think adhere to the singleton rule not because that's how they want to play, but rather that's how you are "supposed" to play?
There are compelling gameplay reasons to run multiple copies of a card. If there weren't, no one would run both Llanowar Elves and Fyndhorn Elves. Ravages of War and Armageddon. Or even Lightning Bolt and Searing Spear. And if a compelling gameplay reason exists to do something, as well as precident that doing it is not inherently detrimental, then we certainly leave it open to exploration.
Part of the beauty of cube is that we don't have be restricted by format limitations in order to achieve our goals. If someone does not value the singleton rule and finds it interferes with there core cube tennets, they are doing their cube and playgroup a terrible disservice by sticking just because "they're supposed to".
How many people do you think adhere to the singleton rule not because that's how they want to play, but rather that's how you are "supposed" to play?
Nobody. Everybody's cube is exactly the format they want it to be, and nothing more. People don't run cards or impose design restrictions because they're supposed to, they do it because that's how they want to design and play their cube.
I personally like the singleton rule because it's just easier. If I decided I wanted two copies of Duress, then I could do that, but now where do I draw the line? Do I play Squadron Hawks now? What about just playing more copies of Goblin Guide or Jackal Pup to get up the red 1 drops? How about more Gravecrawlers? Once you break the rule, it can be hard to find that line, so following the rule strictly makes it easier to decide what to do.
I don't care if other people want to run multiples, but for me, one copy of each card seems like a good thing.
Nobody. Everybody's cube is exactly the format they want it to be, and nothing more. People don't run cards or impose design restrictions because they're supposed to, they do it because that's how they want to design and play their cube.
A longtime friend of mine, who through some cruel twist of fate I have never gotten to cube with even though we've both played Magic since the beginning, mentioned that he was building a cube. I casually had asked him if he was going to include multiple copies of cards and he responded to me with a confused "Of course" like there was no other answer. But, he came to the format naturally: he was a long time casual player who wanted to play more Magic, but didn't like the sanctioned formats. So he's making his own.
I think many people come to cube because they "heard of it" AS A FORMAT and entered it in an fashion where they adopted other people's cards and restrictions as intrinsic to the format. I think this is readily apparent to see in many articles and comments on this and other sites*. This isn't a bad thing at all: many people probably don't have the time, energy or circumstances to build a cube naturally and lots of cubes are fun even if they aren't "your" cube.
However, someone can't build a cube how they want unless they know what they want and they can't know what they want unless they learn what could be. Ideas need to be constantly circulating or else, no, people will not cube's that are exactly what they want it be, because they won't know that they can be that way.
Whether or not "play two duress" is a good suggestion, I think we need to consider the suggestion on its gameplay merits. Dismissing it because it fails to meet some sort of non-gameplay restriction just stunts growth and hinders people from realizing the ultimate goal having a cube that is exactly what they want it to be.
*I remember seeing an article that basically said "Black sucks in cube" and I thought it was the funniest thing in the world. You picked the cards, so if it sucks, whose fault is that? The only way such an assertion makes sense is if there is a "proper" way to build a cube and when built that proper way, Black underperforms the other colors.
I personally like the singleton rule because it's just easier. If I decided I wanted two copies of Duress, then I could do that, but now where do I draw the line? Do I play Squadron Hawks now? What about just playing more copies of Goblin Guide or Jackal Pup to get up the red 1 drops? How about more Gravecrawlers? Once you break the rule, it can be hard to find that line, so following the rule strictly makes it easier to decide what to do.
I don't care if other people want to run multiples, but for me, one copy of each card seems like a good thing.
Agreed 100%.
Quote from FlowerSunRain »
Whether or not "play two duress" is a good suggestion, I think we need to consider the suggestion on its gameplay merits.
I don't. I already understand the gameplay merits. Cutting every black disruption spell for more Thoughtseizes makes black better. It's an improvement. So is running 8 Gravecrawlers. Or cutting every red 1-drop for Goblin Guides. And Lightning Bolts. And Mana Drains. Etc, etc.
The gameplay merits are easy to understand. But it doesn't fit with the design of the cube the way I want to play it.
I don't. I already understand the gameplay merits. Cutting every black disruption spell for more Thoughtseizes makes black better. It's an improvement. So is running 8 Gravecrawlers. Or cutting every red 1-drop for Goblin Guides. And Lightning Bolts. And Mana Drains. Etc, etc.
The gameplay merits are easy to understand. But it doesn't fit with the design of the cube the way I want to play it.
I do not understand what this comment has to do with anything I said. Can you please explain this in more detail?
To elaborate, would you say a cube made of 100 Fireball, 100 Channel and 160 Black Lotus has gameplay merit? I would say it has about as close to zero gameplay merit as you can possibly get in a functional cube.
I do not understand what this comment has to do with anything I said. Can you please explain this in more detail?
The merit of running 2 duress instead of 1 duress and 1 appetite for brains is that the x2 duress package will play better. Otherwise, there's no reason to do it.
But why stop there? Almost every card in the cube could be upgraded to a 2nd copy of a better card. And then a 3rd copy of the better card. And then nothing but copies of the best card. That's the point. That's what it had to do with your comment. Your comment is asking what the merits of the double duress option is. I'm explaining. The merits are that the cube gets better. The downside, is that the cube has less variety.
Variety is the main reason I like to cube. Every deck is different. Every draft is different. Every card is different. If I wanted to play with a bunch of duplicate cards in the most efficient environment possible, I'd play constructed.
Variety is the main reason I like to cube. Every deck is different. Every draft is different. Every card is different. If I wanted to play with a bunch of duplicate cards in the most efficient environment possible, I'd play constructed.
To be fair, we almost always choose power over variety when it comes to cube choices. Unless you are talking about English character or art variety, which I'm assuming you are not.
I do understand operating within some common sense boundary (the singleton rule) but I also understand breaking that rule when it makes sense to you to do so. After all, we allow multiple copies of basic lands. More reasonably, if there was only one set of dual lands available in Magic, it might make perfect sense to scale the amount of dual lands to the size of your cube, even if it means some duplicates. I think you can easily do this without falling into the "slippery slope" fallacy of "why not have a red section of lightning blots"?
I completely agree that this needs to be split out ASAP.
You, in this very post list a good reason to stop there. I think most people can easily think of other good reasons.
Should I run 2 duress and should I run 10 goblin guides may, superficially, seem like similiar questions, but in actuality they share nothing in common. This is why I don't understand your response: its answering some other question. People are perfectly willing and able to "stop there" when it comes to only including 2 Armadeggons. I believe people have enough self control to "stop there" without needing to invoke some arbitrary rule to "force" themselves to. If you can get the variety you crave while playing both Armageddon and Ravages of War, I'm sure you can get it playing Duress x2.
The challenge isn't to never duplicate, I think, its to carefully and analytically decide where duplication improves gameplay without impinging on variety and where it duplication is only harmful. Making that decision based on some sort of arbitrary rule that has nothing to do with gameplay is fine and convenient, but that doesn't mean its the best way and it certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't explore other avenues.
I choose to increase my power and consistency with different effects for the sake of variety (which I explained in the last post). Except in those rare occasions where Wizards determines that functional reprints are acceptable for certain formats to function better.
I know there's a reason to stop including multiples, but I prefer to simply not start.
This conversation has made me reconsider running cards that are identical. Because some cards really are changed purely on flavor reasons, I can't bring myself to easily justify them beyond "they happen to exist".
Should I run 2 duress and should I run 10 goblin guides may, superficially, seem like similiar questions, but in actuality they share nothing in common.
If you're looking at 10 goblin guides, then sure, they have nothing in common. But 2 goblin guides does. Red has a lack of quality aggressive 1 drops. I mean, we're playing Stromkirk Noble, and he's pretty lackluster, and even with him I'd like to be playing 1 or 2 more. Black has a lack of quality 1CMC discard spells. In my cube we play Thoughtseize, Duress, and Inquisition, and I really wish I had 2 more. I don't see the difference between choosing to play a 2nd duress and choosing to play a 2nd Goblin Guide.
Moreover, I personally don't want to deal with the additional questions it generates. Now that I'm doing this, I have to consider whether storm can be an archetype, because suddenly I can run enough rituals and cantrips to make it good if I want to. I'm not saying I have to run storm, I'm just saying that if I decide I can break the singleton rule when the cube needs it, I have to consider whether the cube needs it for all sorts of other situations, and I run out of give-a-crap really quickly.
Wizards will let me know when it's okay to run more than one copy of the same card, because they'll print one for me.
While we are on the same page (I draw the line at one card with the same name, as otherwise the genie is out of the bottle), this is a bit an easy answer. I know you put the smily in there, but there are people who really think Wizards has any authority about what cubing should be, while they don't.
We don't follow Wizards, we follow our own self chosen restrictions for our own cube. It is a personal choice, just as house rules are. It also is a fact that house rules are not standard, just as multiple copies are not standard, but functionable reprints are. Our standard, not Wizards'.
My Pauper Cube ♤ The Pauper Cube Thread Common Knowledge — 1 2
My cube would love four dark confidants, but once we remove the original Singleton restriction, so much creativity and variety is lost. That's the reason many of us got into cubing in the first place. Including multiples of certain cards seems like a creative failure in cube, which has been defined as a Singleton format.
There are loads of good one mana discard spells. Cabal Therapy is probably worth a try.
On spoiled card wishlisting and 'should-have-had'-isms:
Absolutely, I can see how that is possible. But one of the constraints within which we develop our cubes is that Singleton framework. A list containing multiples becomes more akin to exactly what you say: a retail draft set. There's nothing wrong with that, but I would suggest that is more of a 'custom draft set' than a traditional cube.
If I allowed myself to break the singleton rule, I would have to rethink the entire cube, and the strongest possible resulting list would probably bear little resemblance to its current state. Once the rubicon is crossed, the list should be optimised for the possibility of including multiples. All or nothing. If I saw a 'regular' cube list with singletons barring 2x Duress and 3x Llanowar Elves (for example), I'd just be confused.
I wouldn't call that drafting list a cube any more, but I'm sure it would be fun. I would give my foil playset of Aether Burst a new lease of life.
On spoiled card wishlisting and 'should-have-had'-isms:
Some of those seem like sensible includes if you're going to allow multiples. Especially the ones that are half decent on their own like Flame Burst.
345 uniques out of 360 seems high for such a list - are you suggesting that there aren't ANY other cards other than Steppe Lynx that would benefit from multiples, seeing as that's now a possibility? It seems that now that rule is out the window, there are a lot more possibilities than just including 1 x extra set of fetchlands and two more Steppe Lynxs. From a neutral observer, that gives the impression that it's just a regular cube list whose owner really really likes landfallaggro.dec. Honestly, if you're going to allow a non-Singleton cube, then surely
amounts to more than adding another set of lands and a couple of creatures. Which doesn't add enough to justify losing the unique rule, to me. Why not push the boat out? Go crazy.
On spoiled card wishlisting and 'should-have-had'-isms:
Cube, to me, requires that singleton restriction to feel like cube drafting. Cubes that run multiples seem to pigeonhole certain strategies, and it feels more like drafting a specific constructed format rather than drafting a cube. Legacy makes more streamlined decks and has better manabases than cube decks do, but playing multiples of fetches and duals in order to make it play more like a constructed environment doesn't appeal to me. The restrictions breed creativity, and that's one of the things I like the most about the cube.
I'm not saying that running multiples no longer makes the cube a cube, because it doesn't. A cube is simply a custom limited environment. I played multiples in my M10 intro cube because it was simpler to construct and provided multiple copies of cards I needed in order to get it to function. But the regular cube doesn't have those same restrictions, and I personally dislike the solution of running multiple copies of the same card simply to plug holes here and there.
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!
If Wizards deems an effect important enough to require multiple copies for limited environments, I'll run more than one. But I dislike breaking the singleton rule from a design standpoint because I think it breeds creativity having the restrictions in place, in addition to making the drafts more interesting and diverse than they would be if it was designed from a consistency standpoint.
Part of the appeal of the cube is getting a sampling from cards from different formats, timeframes and environments from throughout the history of the game. It's much more interesting to have a white creature section that contains an Isamaru, a Steppe Lynx, a Lions, a Vanguard and a Student than it is to have 5 elite vanguards. Same goes for multiple copies of anything in the cube. It may be more powerful by using my 5 land slots as 2 duals and 3 fetches per color, but it's not as interesting. Same goes for having a diverse suite of red 1-drops instead of running 8 goblin guides.
Like I said, a cube is a custom limited environment, and it can be designed however you want. But there are some traditions present in the cube that are actually there for a reason. I like diversity, and I like the creativity and problem-solving solutions that are brought upon by design restrictions. When you throw them all all out the window, you will still have a "cube", but it won't be one I'm as interested in playing as I was before. I like getting 45 different cards in my cube drafts. Running 4 Wastelands is fine, but I'd rather see 1 Strip Mine, 1 Wasteland, 1 Dust Bowl and 1 Tectonic Edge, because I think it's more interesting that way.
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!
It's a combination of both.
But it's really simple. You run 20 fetches instead of 10 fetches and a cycle of 10 lands that aren't as good. Why? Because it makes the cube stronger and more consistent.
So why run 8 different red 1-drops instead of 8 Goblin Guides? It would do the same thing for your red section as the multiples did for your lands. It would improve red. So why not do it? Why run Counterspell when you can run another Mana Drain? Why run Searing Spear when you could run a 2nd Incinerate? The list goes on and on.
The answer is because the cube is more than just mimicking a perfect version of whatever shell you're trying to build. It's about drafting the best builds you can with a variety of different tools. It's about having 45 different cards at the end of the draft and making the most powerful deck you can with the variety in front of you. I think you lose that when you run multiples for the sake of power or efficiency.
There's nothing wrong with running multiple copies of better cards to improve the cube. It will certainly play better with 4 Thoughtseizes than it will with 4 different 1-mana disruption spells. But it will come at the cost of a lack of variety, and a loss of part of what makes the cube the cube.
I love the fact that cube drafting winds up as a unique hybrid between a constructed shell with a limited feel. The more we sculpt our cubes to mimic constructed, the more we lose that feeling and wind up with cookie-cutter Legacy imitations in front of us instead of cube decks.
But as always, to each their own, and all that good stuff.
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!
A couple things. First, I don't think that diversifying a suite of effects makes things less interesting. Less different effects would make the dynamic less interesting, IMO. Part of the interest in the cube is finding alternative solutions to running multiples.
Second, I haven't wrestled with a dynamic that running multiple copies of all the fetches would solve (outside of simply making the mana-fixing better, of course).
..........
That's why I don't think "run another duress" is the most interesting solution. It doesn't breed decision making choices, it simply adds another copy of a better spell instead of trying to find a more dynamic solution. To get back on topic.
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!
Of course. You'd be running a bunch of duplicate cards that would dramatically increase the powerlevel of the cube.
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!
That said, there is nothing stopping you from making any such casual deck to play with your friends at the kitchen table, but it is no longer Commander.
I feel same applies to this duplicates house rule discussion. Do what you want, just don't call it a Cube, because it isn't. The singleton rule is one of the few rules we actually have ...
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=385729
Because this is an arbitrary decision based on a non-gameplay factor, it doesn't seem to be a very useful distinction.
That is to say, I don't think you could make a compelling gameplay based argument as to why its perfectly fine to use two copies of armageddon but not two copies of duress.
The crux of cube is that you define the format, so comparing it to an illegal choice in a standardized format is meaningless. Admittedly, the singleton rule is overwhelmingly popular which makes such a suggestion practically meaningless. The difference is someone "could" find the suggestion to two copies of duress useful advice because you "can" put two copies of a card and still draft your cube. You "can't" play 8 copies of Experiment One and still play Standard.
Except, someone did suggest that.
So, that matter is not WOULD anyone suggest that, but instead SHOULD anyone suggest that. Or perhaps more to the point, SHOULD THEY BE ENCOURAGED to suggest that.
How many people do you think adhere to the singleton rule not because that's how they want to play, but rather that's how you are "supposed" to play?
There are compelling gameplay reasons to run multiple copies of a card. If there weren't, no one would run both Llanowar Elves and Fyndhorn Elves. Ravages of War and Armageddon. Or even Lightning Bolt and Searing Spear. And if a compelling gameplay reason exists to do something, as well as precident that doing it is not inherently detrimental, then we certainly leave it open to exploration.
Part of the beauty of cube is that we don't have be restricted by format limitations in order to achieve our goals. If someone does not value the singleton rule and finds it interferes with there core cube tennets, they are doing their cube and playgroup a terrible disservice by sticking just because "they're supposed to".
Nobody. Everybody's cube is exactly the format they want it to be, and nothing more. People don't run cards or impose design restrictions because they're supposed to, they do it because that's how they want to design and play their cube.
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 don't care if other people want to run multiples, but for me, one copy of each card seems like a good thing.
My MTGSalvation Cube Page (not always up to date, but sweet pics of my alters)
A longtime friend of mine, who through some cruel twist of fate I have never gotten to cube with even though we've both played Magic since the beginning, mentioned that he was building a cube. I casually had asked him if he was going to include multiple copies of cards and he responded to me with a confused "Of course" like there was no other answer. But, he came to the format naturally: he was a long time casual player who wanted to play more Magic, but didn't like the sanctioned formats. So he's making his own.
I think many people come to cube because they "heard of it" AS A FORMAT and entered it in an fashion where they adopted other people's cards and restrictions as intrinsic to the format. I think this is readily apparent to see in many articles and comments on this and other sites*. This isn't a bad thing at all: many people probably don't have the time, energy or circumstances to build a cube naturally and lots of cubes are fun even if they aren't "your" cube.
However, someone can't build a cube how they want unless they know what they want and they can't know what they want unless they learn what could be. Ideas need to be constantly circulating or else, no, people will not cube's that are exactly what they want it be, because they won't know that they can be that way.
Whether or not "play two duress" is a good suggestion, I think we need to consider the suggestion on its gameplay merits. Dismissing it because it fails to meet some sort of non-gameplay restriction just stunts growth and hinders people from realizing the ultimate goal having a cube that is exactly what they want it to be.
*I remember seeing an article that basically said "Black sucks in cube" and I thought it was the funniest thing in the world. You picked the cards, so if it sucks, whose fault is that? The only way such an assertion makes sense is if there is a "proper" way to build a cube and when built that proper way, Black underperforms the other colors.
Agreed 100%.
I don't. I already understand the gameplay merits. Cutting every black disruption spell for more Thoughtseizes makes black better. It's an improvement. So is running 8 Gravecrawlers. Or cutting every red 1-drop for Goblin Guides. And Lightning Bolts. And Mana Drains. Etc, etc.
The gameplay merits are easy to understand. But it doesn't fit with the design of the cube the way I want to play it.
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 do not understand what this comment has to do with anything I said. Can you please explain this in more detail?
To elaborate, would you say a cube made of 100 Fireball, 100 Channel and 160 Black Lotus has gameplay merit? I would say it has about as close to zero gameplay merit as you can possibly get in a functional cube.
The merit of running 2 duress instead of 1 duress and 1 appetite for brains is that the x2 duress package will play better. Otherwise, there's no reason to do it.
But why stop there? Almost every card in the cube could be upgraded to a 2nd copy of a better card. And then a 3rd copy of the better card. And then nothing but copies of the best card. That's the point. That's what it had to do with your comment. Your comment is asking what the merits of the double duress option is. I'm explaining. The merits are that the cube gets better. The downside, is that the cube has less variety.
Variety is the main reason I like to cube. Every deck is different. Every draft is different. Every card is different. If I wanted to play with a bunch of duplicate cards in the most efficient environment possible, I'd play constructed.
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!
To be fair, we almost always choose power over variety when it comes to cube choices. Unless you are talking about English character or art variety, which I'm assuming you are not.
I do understand operating within some common sense boundary (the singleton rule) but I also understand breaking that rule when it makes sense to you to do so. After all, we allow multiple copies of basic lands. More reasonably, if there was only one set of dual lands available in Magic, it might make perfect sense to scale the amount of dual lands to the size of your cube, even if it means some duplicates. I think you can easily do this without falling into the "slippery slope" fallacy of "why not have a red section of lightning blots"?
I completely agree that this needs to be split out ASAP.
You, in this very post list a good reason to stop there. I think most people can easily think of other good reasons.
Should I run 2 duress and should I run 10 goblin guides may, superficially, seem like similiar questions, but in actuality they share nothing in common. This is why I don't understand your response: its answering some other question. People are perfectly willing and able to "stop there" when it comes to only including 2 Armadeggons. I believe people have enough self control to "stop there" without needing to invoke some arbitrary rule to "force" themselves to. If you can get the variety you crave while playing both Armageddon and Ravages of War, I'm sure you can get it playing Duress x2.
The challenge isn't to never duplicate, I think, its to carefully and analytically decide where duplication improves gameplay without impinging on variety and where it duplication is only harmful. Making that decision based on some sort of arbitrary rule that has nothing to do with gameplay is fine and convenient, but that doesn't mean its the best way and it certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't explore other avenues.
I know there's a reason to stop including multiples, but I prefer to simply not start.
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 CubeCobra (draft 20 card packs, 2 packs.)
430, Peasant, Very Unpowered
Why you should take your hybrids out of your gold section
Manamath Article
If you're looking at 10 goblin guides, then sure, they have nothing in common. But 2 goblin guides does. Red has a lack of quality aggressive 1 drops. I mean, we're playing Stromkirk Noble, and he's pretty lackluster, and even with him I'd like to be playing 1 or 2 more. Black has a lack of quality 1CMC discard spells. In my cube we play Thoughtseize, Duress, and Inquisition, and I really wish I had 2 more. I don't see the difference between choosing to play a 2nd duress and choosing to play a 2nd Goblin Guide.
Moreover, I personally don't want to deal with the additional questions it generates. Now that I'm doing this, I have to consider whether storm can be an archetype, because suddenly I can run enough rituals and cantrips to make it good if I want to. I'm not saying I have to run storm, I'm just saying that if I decide I can break the singleton rule when the cube needs it, I have to consider whether the cube needs it for all sorts of other situations, and I run out of give-a-crap really quickly.
My MTGSalvation Cube Page (not always up to date, but sweet pics of my alters)
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!
While we are on the same page (I draw the line at one card with the same name, as otherwise the genie is out of the bottle), this is a bit an easy answer. I know you put the smily in there, but there are people who really think Wizards has any authority about what cubing should be, while they don't.
We don't follow Wizards, we follow our own self chosen restrictions for our own cube. It is a personal choice, just as house rules are. It also is a fact that house rules are not standard, just as multiple copies are not standard, but functionable reprints are. Our standard, not Wizards'.
I feel compelled to repeat everything I hear