How many do I need to reach my goal?
It depends on what cards I need multiple copies of to reach my goal.
Of course.
I am if I need them to reach my goal
Yes.
However, I find that most cube players enjoy diversity and that even without a singleton rule, most cubes will tend towards having few or no multiples. I just don't see a point in arbitrarily disallowing multiples when clearly sometimes they can be beneficial.
I feel like you're intentionally trying not to understand what I'm saying.
I believe it is my responsibility as a cube owner to create the best environment for playing magic within the restrictions my playgroup and I have agreed upon. Currently, my cube is created using the singleton rule. Let's say my playgroup and I agree that black just needs more discard, and the only way to accomplish that is to abolish the singleton rule. Then my ENTIRE cube does not have the singleton rule governing it. I believe it is my responsibility as a cube owner to now evaluate the entire cube while allowing multiples, depending on what the new restrictions are. Some potential options.
Potential Replacements for the Singleton Rule Only Duress May Have Multiples - This is obviously ridiculous, but is shown for comparison's sake as one extreme. All cards may have as many copies of them as the cube needs - This is the other extreme. At this point it's unlikely black will have 1 drops that aren't gravecrawler, and it's unlikely that red will have 1 drops that aren't goblin guide. I think most people will agree that this isn't good either. When more copies of an effect are needed, the cube may run more copies of a card, but only after running all viable unique versions - So I can run a second Goblin Guide, but I can't replace Jackal Pup with Goblin Guide. I can run a second Sinkhole because Rain of Tears isn't viable, but Sinkhole is.
Are you proposing the third one? Or are you propsing the 1st one? Or are you proposing nothing at all? I just don't understand, and your answers seem designed to have no actual meaning to them.
I think another reason people prefer the singleton rule (at least for me) is that it provides a "history of Magic" feel as you're drafting. Art, card mechanics, hell even the funky wordings they don't use any more like "mana source" and "interrupt" - it's pretty cool to build decks that reach across the entire spectrum of Magic and have cards interact with each other in ways that were never done before, back when they were standard or even now in legacy.
Breaking the singleton rule lessens this feeling - you're taking out unique cards for some consistency, which is fine, but at that point you're moving away from a casual format towards a more competitive one, which I think is a mistake. I think alot of cubers moved towards cube in the first place because they got tired of the competitive scene - they just want to play with the same broken cards they used to play back in the day, and who cares if some of them are better than others? The challenge is making the best deck with what's available.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I think it's important to pay attention to the feeling of cube drafting just as much as its core mechanics. I think its way cooler (as a vet who's been playing since '95) to open a pack and see Duress, Thoughtseize, and Inquisition rather than, say, three Thoughtseizes. Way more variety, and, (just as important) way more nostalgia.
I feel like you're intentionally trying not to understand what I'm saying.
I believe it is my responsibility as a cube owner to create the best environment for playing magic within the restrictions my playgroup and I have agreed upon. Currently, my cube is created using the singleton rule. Let's say my playgroup and I agree that black just needs more discard, and the only way to accomplish that is to abolish the singleton rule. Then my ENTIRE cube does not have the singleton rule governing it. I believe it is my responsibility as a cube owner to now evaluate the entire cube while allowing multiples, depending on what the new restrictions are. Some potential options.
Potential Replacements for the Singleton Rule Only Duress May Have Multiples - This is obviously ridiculous, but is shown for comparison's sake as one extreme. All cards may have as many copies of them as the cube needs - This is the other extreme. At this point it's unlikely black will have 1 drops that aren't gravecrawler, and it's unlikely that red will have 1 drops that aren't goblin guide. I think most people will agree that this isn't good either. When more copies of an effect are needed, the cube may run more copies of a card, but only after running all viable unique versions - So I can run a second Goblin Guide, but I can't replace Jackal Pup with Goblin Guide. I can run a second Sinkhole because Rain of Tears isn't viable, but Sinkhole is.
Are you proposing the third one? Or are you propsing the 1st one? Or are you proposing nothing at all? I just don't understand, and your answers seem designed to have no actual meaning to them.
Well, part of the problem is that the hypothetical in this case "run two duress" doesn't particularly resonate with me, making my answers somewhat clinical. But let's run with it anyway.
A cube owner comes to the conclusion that, in order to achieve their gameplay goals, they need 6 viable one mana black discard spells and that there is no alternative to this requirement. However, when looking over the black one mana discard spells, they notice that only five viable ones exist. This leads to a problem that has a few potential solutions:
1) Abandon the gameplay goal that has lead to this conclusion.
2) Adjust the gameplay goal so that a formerly non-viable one mana black discard spell will now be viable.
3) Change the cube structure so that fewer then 6 viable one mana black discard spells are required.
4) Invent a new viable one mana black discard spell and play it along the 5 existing ones.
5) Put the cube on hiatus until WotC prints a new, viable one mana black discard spell.
6) Include some combination of six copies of the five viable one mana black discard spells.
What I am saying is that I feel that #6 is a reasonable option. And if #6 is the option that makes your cube exactly how you want it to be, you probably should pick that one. Obviously if you feel the singleton rule adds significant value to the cube, you should not pick that one.
I think part of the conversational dissonance comes from the fact that you feel that the singleton rule I an assumed quality of the cube that is being broken, while I feel that the singleton rule itself is breaking an assumed quality of the cube: the freedom to include whatever cards I want.
I don't feel like this is true. Some justifications are more legitimate than others.
Of course. We all break the rules a little (or would, given the right circumstances) and justify it some way. The justification to run more than 1 basic land per deck (or to not include basics in the draft) might feel more or less justified to different people.
Let me jump out of this for a second. Let's say wizards lost their mind and printed a card that won the game for one mana (and didn't ban it in Vintage). Would you run it in your cube?
I am sure you, as I, would step in and say "look, while I normally adhere to rule X when it comes to card inclusion, I'm not going to ruin the integrity of my cube by running stupid, un-fun card Y."
So in the end, we have all set up a rule system that we are willing to break under certain circumstances. We all just have different levels of when and how we break it, and I don't think any of those reasons are somehow more legitimate than others as long as they are in pursuit of what we all are going after: a better cube.
This is an impossible debate. If you think the best thing for your cube is multiples, than it is. Just like the decision to play powered/unpowered, banning cards for power level, picking a cube size or anything else. Some folks like the variety, diversity and creativity that's bred by adhering to a singleton rule for the cube. Other people like the flexibility of being able to improve deficient areas of the cube by running multiples. I think it's going to simply boil down to that, and we'll have to move on. We all have our playgroup's best interests in mind, and that's all you can ask from a cube manager.
This is an impossible debate. If you think the best thing for your cube is multiples, than it is. Just like the decision to play powered/unpowered, banning cards for power level, picking a cube size or anything else. Some folks like the variety, diversity and creativity that's bred by adhering to a singleton rule for the cube. Other people like the flexibility of being able to improve deficient areas of the cube by running multiples. I think it's going to simply boil down to that, and we'll have to move on. We all have our playgroup's best interests in mind, and that's all you can ask from a cube manager.
Hooray! After 60 posts, we all arrive at the same place. Glad we can all agree on this.
On topic: Just run four copies of Duress. It's what's best for everyone's cube in the world.
I think part of the conversational dissonance comes from the fact that you feel that the singleton rule I an assumed quality of the cube that is being broken, while I feel that the singleton rule itself is breaking an assumed quality of the cube: the freedom to include whatever cards I want.
That is part of the difference in point of view indeed but only part of it.
For you (and others, I am not singling you out), adding an extra Duress (or whatever, we all know this is not about Duress) is justified if it solves a perceived problem (like I need more cheap discard, or I need a better manabase for two colour decks). You might call this a bottom up approach, starting from either specific problems or specific cards.
For JeffDerek, Wtwfl and myself adding an extra copy of a card breaks a basic rule of cube construction. I think we look more top down at cube construction. We have total freedom within our (self-chosen) rules (singleton, power or unpowered, ban list or not?,...). We strive for optimalisation within the restriction of the format.
It is the difference between a more organic, step-by-step approach and the need for having a iron set of rules. We feel that without a clear logical limit , constructing our cube would become arbitrary. It is the difference between making a casual deck and making a Standard or Modern deck.
Sure I can do whatever I want in my cube, but it has to feel logical to me. Not just one change here or there (I can certainly see the logic in adding an extra fetchland or Hymn), but there has to be one all encompassing logic to make all choices reasonable.
Both ways are ok. It just makes for though communication if two different worldviews (well actually cubeviews ;)) collide.
I'm going to add another piece of info into my cube thread's OP indicating that I follow a Singleton design. I think this is going to be a big factor in future cube design choices (just like powered/unpowered) and I'm going to label myself in the "Singleton" camp.
Quote from Hicham »
We strive for optimalisation within the restriction of the format.
This. Since I want to make the environment the most powerful that I can given my design limitations (Vintage legal & Singleton are the only two) I can't allow duplicates in one area to improve the powerlevel of the cube without maxing out multiple copies of the best available cards everywhere. I just wouldn't be able to justify it in a way that would not seem arbitrary to me.
If, by your maxim, you wouldn't include a duplicate copy of a card, then the singleton rule is extraneous. The "highlander nature" of your cube is due to adherence to your maxim, not the result of some arbitrary limitation.
Adhering to the singleton rule is part of my maxim.
I feel this thread has become a bit disjointed, so I may have missed something earlier in the discussion. My thought, I suppose, comes out of this post by Shalazar back on page 2:
Quote from Shalazar »
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.
Now Commander is an official format, and thus Wizards has declared rules for it. Cube is not 'official' though the MTGO cube seems to be moving in that direction. MTGO, as far as I know, has not run a cube with multiples yet (though I could be wrong). It certain'y seems to me that Cube is quickly moving toward some official recognition, and then I suppose powers greater than us will rule.
Of course, like Cube, EDH had casual, community monitored rules to start too. I understand it is different since the point of EDH was that two people with separate decks could play each other in a format where both decks had to conform to certain rules. Cube only has one person - the designer. Everyone else has to follow the designer's rules. Period.
It seems to me that most of the cube community has decided, however arbitrarily, that it is a singleton format. And even Wizards has followed suit (so far). Not playing by the community rules is in no way wrong. Just not apart of the community.
So far posters have been arguing about their cube vs your cube vs my friend's cube, whatever. Perhaps the better question is what is the goal of the community at large? If a Cube is nothing more than a custom draft set, then we should be clear about that. If a cube is something more specific, then we should be clear about that too.
TL;DR:
So the central question here is "what is a cube?" Is it simply a custom draft set? Or something more specific than that? And the community should grow into that answer.
It seems to me that what this community is about is up for debate. Are we trying to be a community that works together within certain rules to create our perfect "Cube"? Are we a community of custom draft set makers that just wants to show our sets off? Are we so general that the whole needs to splinter for meaningful discussion?
We're a community that likes to share and promote all things cube.
My cube is more traditional in the sense that it's built around power level and balance, it's vintage legal and singleton legal.
But all other lists are also cubes, and I'm happy to read about their experiences regardless of how different their maxims are from mine.
We like to debate the merits of our own lists and philosophies, but I hope that we can all agree on 2 things:
1) A cube is a custom limited environment, and all discussion relating to that kind of format is welcome, and
2) As long as you're making the best decisions for your playgroup and your maxim, you're doing everything right.
I will continue to post, share and discuss as long as those things remain true. We have an AMAZING discussion group here, and it's a glorious community. The resources and information available are invaluable, and even though every one of our cubes is different, we find value in everybody's contributions.
I agree. This community is the reason I have a cube. It's great. Which is why I edited the above post and took out the part you quoted almost immediately. The community prospers but we do seem to be talking about what a "cube" is.
Regardless I am proud to be able to participate here.
Singleton is pretty close to the top of the list for my standards for what is a cube, but I agree that "Custom limited environment" is the only essential component to be a cube.
I think there are a number of interesting ideas and permutations out there for Cubes, many of which I never would have thought of by myself. What amazes me is how much you can learn about your own cube even from ones that are very dissimilar.
That being said, I wouldn't know what to do with a Cube that involved using multiples. I wouldn't know where to stop, and wouldn't like updating it. For me, the singleton rule is a very important restriction that makes it possible for me to decide what to include and what to cut. I like the variety and it focuses how I can improve archetypes or colors.
And lastly, I really like the feeling that if I buy one old expensive card I am set for life to cube with that card.
Having thought it over, I do agree that any custom limited environment should be called a cube, regardless of the rules used (banlist or not, singleton or not, house rules, home-made cards, whatever).
However, a cube allowing multiples will have very different dynamics (even if it doesn't go further than 10 additional fetches), which will muddy discussions. Simply put, it's not possible to discuss a card if you're not following at least similar rules because you'll probably just be talking next to one another and could well both be right. That's not a discussion, it's meaningless noise.
So if breaking the singleton rule really becomes a thing, discussion should at least be clearly tagged as such, or just be held in a subforum reserved for it.
I was always introduced to cube as a singleton format and would just assume a customized draft experience that included multiples of certain cards would be its own format. I agree with the idea that these kinds of draft formats would muddy up a singleton environment discussion area. Why create a thread for Appetite for Brains when you know that Thoughtseize is always going to be better and you should just run more copies of it. Why would people post a sorcery speed lightning bolt in the Please Print This Card thread if you could just run multiple lightning bolts? Maybe a subforum next to the C/Ube subforum would be more appropriate for that kind of format?
As with a lot of people, I was introduced to Cube experience via singleton. I've had the urge to throw in a few multiple copies of cards. Mostly artifacts though, but I'll have to see how my current cube incarnation evolves before I go forth with that particular idea.
Well, it's not pollution. It just doesn't apply to the majority of current cube managers. When [Multiples] cubes increase in popularity that advice will be relevant to more people. In the same way that "add in a Mana Vault to make ramp better" doesn't apply to people with unpowered cubes that ban fast mana, "run a second Duress" doesn't apply to managers that build singleton legal cubes.
It's still a cube, it's just a cube that looks and plays drastically different from yours. I also imagine it would be a cube that would get boring very quickly, but that is just from my perspective. Ignoring the question of whether multiple copies is right or wrong, I think a better question is what would having multiple copies really mean for cube?
Multiple copies actually opens up a completely different dimension of cube design. A singleton cube has never had to look at balancing draft variegation in the same way as a multiple copies cube would. A singleton cube designer would just increase the size of their cube to increase the variegation. However, if what you want is to lessen the power variance within your cube, you are constrained by the minimum number of cards you need to support all of your drafters. This gives you a power level upper limit that drops the larger your cube gets. A 12-man singleton cube will just not have the same average power level as an 8-man singleton cube. With a multiple copies cube, you don't need to change the size of your cube, you just need to adjust the internal numbers. A multiple copies 540 cube cube very easily have the same average power level as a 360 cube then. The problem then becomes finding the balance you'd want between a much more adjustable power level and variety in cards you want across drafts. That's actually really interesting.
Even Wizards of the Coast considers Cube a singleton format:
"One of the projects I've had the opportunity to use that voice on is the Magic Online Cube. Cubing is the art of designing and developing a large, singleton set from existing cards—typically among the most powerful ever printed—for use in various Limited formats, especially Draft."
I feel like you're intentionally trying not to understand what I'm saying.
I believe it is my responsibility as a cube owner to create the best environment for playing magic within the restrictions my playgroup and I have agreed upon. Currently, my cube is created using the singleton rule. Let's say my playgroup and I agree that black just needs more discard, and the only way to accomplish that is to abolish the singleton rule. Then my ENTIRE cube does not have the singleton rule governing it. I believe it is my responsibility as a cube owner to now evaluate the entire cube while allowing multiples, depending on what the new restrictions are. Some potential options.
Potential Replacements for the Singleton Rule
Only Duress May Have Multiples - This is obviously ridiculous, but is shown for comparison's sake as one extreme.
All cards may have as many copies of them as the cube needs - This is the other extreme. At this point it's unlikely black will have 1 drops that aren't gravecrawler, and it's unlikely that red will have 1 drops that aren't goblin guide. I think most people will agree that this isn't good either.
When more copies of an effect are needed, the cube may run more copies of a card, but only after running all viable unique versions - So I can run a second Goblin Guide, but I can't replace Jackal Pup with Goblin Guide. I can run a second Sinkhole because Rain of Tears isn't viable, but Sinkhole is.
Are you proposing the third one? Or are you propsing the 1st one? Or are you proposing nothing at all? I just don't understand, and your answers seem designed to have no actual meaning to them.
My MTGSalvation Cube Page (not always up to date, but sweet pics of my alters)
Breaking the singleton rule lessens this feeling - you're taking out unique cards for some consistency, which is fine, but at that point you're moving away from a casual format towards a more competitive one, which I think is a mistake. I think alot of cubers moved towards cube in the first place because they got tired of the competitive scene - they just want to play with the same broken cards they used to play back in the day, and who cares if some of them are better than others? The challenge is making the best deck with what's available.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I think it's important to pay attention to the feeling of cube drafting just as much as its core mechanics. I think its way cooler (as a vet who's been playing since '95) to open a pack and see Duress, Thoughtseize, and Inquisition rather than, say, three Thoughtseizes. Way more variety, and, (just as important) way more nostalgia.
Well, part of the problem is that the hypothetical in this case "run two duress" doesn't particularly resonate with me, making my answers somewhat clinical. But let's run with it anyway.
A cube owner comes to the conclusion that, in order to achieve their gameplay goals, they need 6 viable one mana black discard spells and that there is no alternative to this requirement. However, when looking over the black one mana discard spells, they notice that only five viable ones exist. This leads to a problem that has a few potential solutions:
1) Abandon the gameplay goal that has lead to this conclusion.
2) Adjust the gameplay goal so that a formerly non-viable one mana black discard spell will now be viable.
3) Change the cube structure so that fewer then 6 viable one mana black discard spells are required.
4) Invent a new viable one mana black discard spell and play it along the 5 existing ones.
5) Put the cube on hiatus until WotC prints a new, viable one mana black discard spell.
6) Include some combination of six copies of the five viable one mana black discard spells.
What I am saying is that I feel that #6 is a reasonable option. And if #6 is the option that makes your cube exactly how you want it to be, you probably should pick that one. Obviously if you feel the singleton rule adds significant value to the cube, you should not pick that one.
I think part of the conversational dissonance comes from the fact that you feel that the singleton rule I an assumed quality of the cube that is being broken, while I feel that the singleton rule itself is breaking an assumed quality of the cube: the freedom to include whatever cards I want.
I don't feel like this is true. Some justifications are more legitimate than others.
I just don't see a point in arbitrarily allowing multiples...
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
Of course. We all break the rules a little (or would, given the right circumstances) and justify it some way. The justification to run more than 1 basic land per deck (or to not include basics in the draft) might feel more or less justified to different people.
Let me jump out of this for a second. Let's say wizards lost their mind and printed a card that won the game for one mana (and didn't ban it in Vintage). Would you run it in your cube?
I am sure you, as I, would step in and say "look, while I normally adhere to rule X when it comes to card inclusion, I'm not going to ruin the integrity of my cube by running stupid, un-fun card Y."
So in the end, we have all set up a rule system that we are willing to break under certain circumstances. We all just have different levels of when and how we break it, and I don't think any of those reasons are somehow more legitimate than others as long as they are in pursuit of what we all are going after: a better cube.
I don't see the point of arbitrarily banning cards. Then again, no one is doing any of these things arbitrarily, now are they?
I'll cross that bridge if we come to it.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
As will I for running any further duplicates.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
Hooray! After 60 posts, we all arrive at the same place. Glad we can all agree on this.
On topic: Just run four copies of Duress. It's what's best for everyone's cube in the world.
That is part of the difference in point of view indeed but only part of it.
For you (and others, I am not singling you out), adding an extra Duress (or whatever, we all know this is not about Duress) is justified if it solves a perceived problem (like I need more cheap discard, or I need a better manabase for two colour decks). You might call this a bottom up approach, starting from either specific problems or specific cards.
For JeffDerek, Wtwfl and myself adding an extra copy of a card breaks a basic rule of cube construction. I think we look more top down at cube construction. We have total freedom within our (self-chosen) rules (singleton, power or unpowered, ban list or not?,...). We strive for optimalisation within the restriction of the format.
It is the difference between a more organic, step-by-step approach and the need for having a iron set of rules. We feel that without a clear logical limit , constructing our cube would become arbitrary. It is the difference between making a casual deck and making a Standard or Modern deck.
Sure I can do whatever I want in my cube, but it has to feel logical to me. Not just one change here or there (I can certainly see the logic in adding an extra fetchland or Hymn), but there has to be one all encompassing logic to make all choices reasonable.
Both ways are ok. It just makes for though communication if two different worldviews (well actually cubeviews ;)) collide.
I feel compelled to repeat everything I hear
This. Since I want to make the environment the most powerful that I can given my design limitations (Vintage legal & Singleton are the only two) I can't allow duplicates in one area to improve the powerlevel of the cube without maxing out multiple copies of the best available cards everywhere. I just wouldn't be able to justify it in a way that would not seem arbitrary to me.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
My Pauper Cube ♤ The Pauper Cube Thread Common Knowledge — 1 2
Adhering to the singleton rule is part of my maxim.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
Now Commander is an official format, and thus Wizards has declared rules for it. Cube is not 'official' though the MTGO cube seems to be moving in that direction. MTGO, as far as I know, has not run a cube with multiples yet (though I could be wrong). It certain'y seems to me that Cube is quickly moving toward some official recognition, and then I suppose powers greater than us will rule.
Of course, like Cube, EDH had casual, community monitored rules to start too. I understand it is different since the point of EDH was that two people with separate decks could play each other in a format where both decks had to conform to certain rules. Cube only has one person - the designer. Everyone else has to follow the designer's rules. Period.
It seems to me that most of the cube community has decided, however arbitrarily, that it is a singleton format. And even Wizards has followed suit (so far). Not playing by the community rules is in no way wrong. Just not apart of the community.
So far posters have been arguing about their cube vs your cube vs my friend's cube, whatever. Perhaps the better question is what is the goal of the community at large? If a Cube is nothing more than a custom draft set, then we should be clear about that. If a cube is something more specific, then we should be clear about that too.
TL;DR:
So the central question here is "what is a cube?" Is it simply a custom draft set? Or something more specific than that? And the community should grow into that answer.
We're a community that likes to share and promote all things cube.
My cube is more traditional in the sense that it's built around power level and balance, it's vintage legal and singleton legal.
But all other lists are also cubes, and I'm happy to read about their experiences regardless of how different their maxims are from mine.
We like to debate the merits of our own lists and philosophies, but I hope that we can all agree on 2 things:
1) A cube is a custom limited environment, and all discussion relating to that kind of format is welcome, and
2) As long as you're making the best decisions for your playgroup and your maxim, you're doing everything right.
I will continue to post, share and discuss as long as those things remain true. We have an AMAZING discussion group here, and it's a glorious community. The resources and information available are invaluable, and even though every one of our cubes is different, we find value in everybody's contributions.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
I agree. This community is the reason I have a cube. It's great. Which is why I edited the above post and took out the part you quoted almost immediately. The community prospers but we do seem to be talking about what a "cube" is.
Regardless I am proud to be able to participate here.
I think there are a number of interesting ideas and permutations out there for Cubes, many of which I never would have thought of by myself. What amazes me is how much you can learn about your own cube even from ones that are very dissimilar.
That being said, I wouldn't know what to do with a Cube that involved using multiples. I wouldn't know where to stop, and wouldn't like updating it. For me, the singleton rule is a very important restriction that makes it possible for me to decide what to include and what to cut. I like the variety and it focuses how I can improve archetypes or colors.
And lastly, I really like the feeling that if I buy one old expensive card I am set for life to cube with that card.
However, a cube allowing multiples will have very different dynamics (even if it doesn't go further than 10 additional fetches), which will muddy discussions. Simply put, it's not possible to discuss a card if you're not following at least similar rules because you'll probably just be talking next to one another and could well both be right. That's not a discussion, it's meaningless noise.
So if breaking the singleton rule really becomes a thing, discussion should at least be clearly tagged as such, or just be held in a subforum reserved for it.
Draft my cube!
Watch me stream!
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
Multiple copies actually opens up a completely different dimension of cube design. A singleton cube has never had to look at balancing draft variegation in the same way as a multiple copies cube would. A singleton cube designer would just increase the size of their cube to increase the variegation. However, if what you want is to lessen the power variance within your cube, you are constrained by the minimum number of cards you need to support all of your drafters. This gives you a power level upper limit that drops the larger your cube gets. A 12-man singleton cube will just not have the same average power level as an 8-man singleton cube. With a multiple copies cube, you don't need to change the size of your cube, you just need to adjust the internal numbers. A multiple copies 540 cube cube very easily have the same average power level as a 360 cube then. The problem then becomes finding the balance you'd want between a much more adjustable power level and variety in cards you want across drafts. That's actually really interesting.
360 Unpowered Cube | Cubetutor
"One of the projects I've had the opportunity to use that voice on is the Magic Online Cube. Cubing is the art of designing and developing a large, singleton set from existing cards—typically among the most powerful ever printed—for use in various Limited formats, especially Draft."
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/189a
And the beloved Gleaming the Cube article from Sam Gomersall states that cube is a singleton format as well:
http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/9975_Gleaming_the_Cube.html
Draft my cube!
Watch me stream!