So, inspired by Jason Wadell aka Trunkers article, and my general dissatisfaction with mana bases in my cube since going up to 500+, I've decided to try running a second set of fetchlands. Herein I explain why I've come to this, what I expect to happen, and the results. Feel free to share opinions and play experiences.
The Problem:
There is a clear top tier of manafixing lands, consisting of fetches, shocks, and duals. After that you get a combination of the WWK manlands (which I love) and a slew of crap like filters, bounces, vivids, painlands, tap if you don't have the right lands, or tap if you have too many lands. Now, all these "tier two" lands are acceptable, if you are playing the right archetype in the right color. My Boros aggro deck might love that painland, but my control deck in the same colors sure doesn't.
That is the beauty of the top tier lands. They are equally appealing to all archetypes. This was great at 360, but as my cube grew (which I loved) the mana fixing provided became more and more narrow (which I hated). This lead to lands being unused, even when players are in the proper color pair. I then tried to add more lands, but I never felt like I ended up with the correct balance between amount of lands in the draft and quality of fixing that ended up in the decks. Three color decks were abundant, while two color decks were more rare than they should be. People were grabbing whatever fixing they could get their hands on in hopes that it might cobble together into a decent manabase. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together!
Now, this may not be true for a lot of cubes and playgroups. We tend to vary wildly in size of drafting group, and drafting style, so I think we want a very versatile set of lands. If you are always booster, winchester, or rochester drafting, you may be able to easily find a setup that works for you.
The Solution:
I am going to try to run a second set of 10 fetchlands.
Why Fetchlands?
A few reasons. First, fetchlands often offer the most versatility when it comes two color fixing, as Trunkers does a good job of breaking down in his article. Second, I like that fetchlands come with a bit of a drawback, while also requiring play decisions (unlike straight duals). And, I kinda like the balance of 20 fetches and fetchables, since they work so well together.
Additional Steps:
While I am not really upping the land count, since the quality of fixing is going up, I have to be careful that fixing does not get so good that a three color deck is always easy to assemble. My goal has always been for decks to easily run two colors, and constantly be tempted to run or splash a third. I find that this leads to the most interesting draft and deckbuilding decisions.
So in addition to this step, I am going to make sure that decks, especially aggro decks, have the ability to attack greedy manabases. Trunkers decided to go up to 4 Wastelands, and cut Strip Mine. I think that is interesting, but I'm not ready to assume that we can't control this issue within the singleton structure yet. I am going to look through my on deck pile (Goblin Ruinblaster and Fulminator Mage bought themselves a reprieve) but I would love suggestions in any color.
Where does the madness stop(!?!):
Ahh, ye old Slippery Slope Fallacy. I am trying to address a very specific problem that I feel is nigh unsolvable without breaking the singleton rule (I have certainly tried). If I am presented with a similar issue down the road, I might again look to rule breaking as an option, but I doubt I will be running 10 Goblin Guides and 8 Lightning Bolts anytime soon.
I must be the only one without mana fixing problems. I don't need duplicate lands (even at 540!) to feel like the mana fixing is adequate for all the archetypes we build.
I've been at 540ish for a long time, and never have 'trouble' with mana fixing. Do you need to be sure you prioritize your fixing? Yes! That's the way that is should be! But that doesn't mean it isn't good enough. In fact, I probably include more land than most Cubes because of my love for lands, especially ones that have spell effects included.
I've been at 540ish for a long time, and never have 'trouble' with mana fixing. Do you need to be sure you prioritize your fixing? Yes! That's the way that is should be! But that doesn't mean it isn't good enough. In fact, I probably include more land than most Cubes because of my love for lands, especially ones that have spell effects included.
-AA
See, I think what I am doing will actually make people prioritize fixing more, since the fixing being passed around will be a bit more flexible and universal. We see the less flexible bounce/filter/pains table occasionally even when people are in those colors. This never happens with duals or fetches. Basically, I am trying to have an environment you describe, but with less "randomness" of what lands show up.
Basically, instead of throwing more narrow lands at the problem, I am breaking to rules of cube. We'll see how it works.
Fixing doesn't seem to be a problem in my cube either. Either the decks are relatively tight two color affairs, or the 3-5 color control deck prioritized mana fixing. With too many high quality options you reduce the value each individual piece has. I LIKE that someone can pick duals highly and play a wonky deck that works because it has its fixes, and that someone who is unfocused but doesn't worry about fixing is probably getting beat down. Add to the lands, signets and other fixing rocks and I think there are plenty of options that don't require 'breaking' the singleton 'rule'. As always, feel free to do your own thing, and let us know how it goes. I'm always interested!
I can see running 2 of each fetch and cutting some other mana fixing, it would make cards that have Landfall, and Knight of the Reliquary better. I run 555 and have not had any problems with mana fixing.
I definitely respect that you acknowledge beforehand it breaks the rules. I hope the test is informative one way or the other.
As a side note about fetches ... I do wish Wizards would print another untapped fetch cycle ... something like:
Distant Plain
Land
T: Sacrifice ~. Search your library for a Plain and put into play. Shuffle Library.
If I understand the OP correctly, it seems the problem easy mana for 4-5 color decks primarily comes from having a high ratio of basic-typed duals to fetchlands. Most cubes run ABU duals and shocks and the set of fetches to get a ratio of 2-to-1. Adding a second cycle of fetches puts the ratio at 1-to-1. For those who want to avoid breaking the singleton rule, couldn't you solve the problem of making fixing too easy for 3+ color decks by replacing the ABU duals with non-basic-typed duals instead of adding more fetches? This solution has the added side-effect of not requiring people to buy or proxy the most expensive dual land cycle.
It'd be similar to the difference between powered vs. unpowered cubes - you're running "worse" cards in order to create a draft environment that better suits your needs. It certainly doesn't seem unreasonable for people to consider ABU duals in the same category as other power in terms of working contrary to the type of play environment they want.
I am trying to address a very specific problem that I feel is nigh unsolvable without breaking the singleton rule
What problem is this? Your mana is so bad that decks are unplayable without running 10 more fetches? I find that hard to believe.
You're doing it because 10 more fetches and 10 less "fringe" lands will improve the mana in your drafts. Arid Mesa is better than Battlefield Forge. I get it. We all do.
But what is the need for this? Clearly there are marginal improvements that can be made all over the cube by replacing the next best card with a copy of a better one. What's the justification for doing it for just the fetches? If the reason you're doing this is because you have a "problem" with the 4th and 5th best cycles of fixers not being as good as the Duals/Shocks/Fetches, that's not really a problem. Any more than Savannah Lions and Elite Vanguard not being as good as Isamaru is a "problem". It seems like a simple fix to an issue that doesn't really need repair, and it seems just as arbitrary to break the rule for mana fixers as it would to do it in any other area of the cube.
You're doing it because 10 more fetches and 10 less "fringe" lands will improve the mana in your drafts. Arid Mesa is better than Battlefield Forge. I get it. We all do.
But what is the need for this? Clearly there are marginal improvements that can be made all over the cube by replacing the next best card with a copy of a better one. What's the justification for doing it for just the fetches? If the reason you're doing this is because you have a "problem" with the 4th and 5th best cycles of fixers not being as good as the Duals/Shocks/Fetches, that's not really a problem. Any more than Savannah Lions and Elite Vanguard not being as good as Isamaru is a "problem". It seems like a simple fix to an issue that doesn't really need repair, and it seems just as arbitrary to break the rule for mana fixers as it would to do it in any other area of the cube.
Again here, you are creating a false equivalency. If you want a better one, I would propose this:
Let's say you needed red aggro to be viable in a given cube in order to keep the archetype balance in check, but the red one drops were bad. Maybe you needed 8 good ones, and you had a pool of four good ones. Now, you could throw in more and more one drops, hoping that while they were narrow, they might meet the needs of specific red aggro decks and end up as viable. Or, you could simply run two copies of the given one drops.
In the first situation, you end up keeping the singleton rule, coming close to your goal, but flooding your red section and cube with narrow, often undesirable red one drops. In the second situation, you end up solving your problem, keeping the exact amount of desired one drops, but breaking your singleton rule.
Is one way better than the other? Maybe. Will one change like that lead to chaos? I doubt it.
Again, I express in the OP that many are not feeling this problem the same as I (though clearly some are). It is a combination of cube size, and playgroup style.
Additionally, manabases are really the one place where luck can get in the way of fun, so I am willing to try so called "radical" things to cut down on drafts where people see a lot of fixing, and absolutely none they can use.
But that situation isn't arising. Decks have the mana fixing they need to function. So the option isn't break the singleton rule or fail. It's break the singleton rule to provide a slight improvement. And doing it to the mana is just as arbitrary as doing it anywhere else in the cube.
Fixing doesn't seem to be a problem in my cube either. Either the decks are relatively tight two color affairs, or the 3-5 color control deck prioritized mana fixing. With too many high quality options you reduce the value each individual piece has. I LIKE that someone can pick duals highly and play a wonky deck that works because it has its fixes, and that someone who is unfocused but doesn't worry about fixing is probably getting beat down. Add to the lands, signets and other fixing rocks and I think there are plenty of options that don't require 'breaking' the singleton 'rule'. As always, feel free to do your own thing, and let us know how it goes. I'm always interested!
Thanks for the response. I certainly wouldn't suggest this for anyone who doesn't have a problem with their manabase.
The idea is not to de-valuate fixing, but to boost its value by making the fixing a bit more universal. For example, instead of running 50 two color lands, some of which are unplayable not only out side that color pair, but outside that specific archetype, run 40 lands which can go into many colors pairs and all archetypes.
For a drafting example, when I crack a Dimir Aqueduct, I will often pass it, because it is only playable in a deck that is slowish and plays blue and black. When I crack a fetch, I almost always grab it, because there is a good chance it will be useful, or will open up my drafting possibilities as we go along.
But that situation isn't arising. Decks have the mana fixing they need to function. So the option isn't break the singleton rule or fail. It's break the singleton rule to provide a slight improvement. And doing it to the mana is just as arbitrary as doing it anywhere else in the cube.
You are talking about your cube, which is why I'm not recommending it for you. I'm assuming you aren't telling me how my cube functions?
And as stated, the problem isn't drafting the mana fixing they need to function. I could just throw lands at the problem if that was the case.
To start off, you're going to have to forgive this bit of 'get off my lawn'ing that I'm about to write, but something is rankling me.
Isn't breaking the singleton rule making a Cube no longer a Cube? We often talk here about the 'right' cube, and what cards 'belong' in a Cube. We often say that Cube is 'what you want it to be' when talking about things such as:
I know the Cube Fallacy article has caused a lot of stir about that sort of thing, because the stance on what is right/wrong was in opposition to the prevailing thought here that each Cube should be tailored to the group/people/person who plays it most for maximum enjoyment.
At some point, however, words have to mean things, and Cube has always been a singleton format. If you change that fundamental rule, it becomes something other than a Cube and more like a custom draft format (even though Cube is a custom draft format, it is a specific type of draft format). What's the point of having a definition of a word/format if you can just change that definition?
So if you'd like to say 'I have this box of cards, and it is like a Cube but I have doubles of some cards in it', have at it. But that isn't a Cube, at least not in my book. The same way you don't get to run multiples of the same card in Commander/EDH, which is why functional reprints hold so much value when the card is good (Reach Around/Cultivate, e.g.)
I actually like that after the top 3 cycles of lands the cards are more desirable in some decks than others. Players have to be skilled and draft correctly to get the lands that cater to their decks. The challenge is part of the fun.
At some point, however, words have to mean things, and Cube has always been a singleton format. If you change that fundamental rule, it becomes something other than a Cube and more like a custom draft format (even though Cube is a custom draft format, it is a specific type of draft format). What's the point of having a definition of a word/format if you can just change that definition?
So if you'd like to say 'I have this box of cards, and it is like a Cube but I have doubles of some cards in it', have at it. But that isn't a Cube, at least not in my book. The same way you don't get to run multiples of the same card in Commander/EDH, which is why functional reprints hold so much value when the card is good (Reach Around/Cultivate, e.g.)
-AA
Well, an unpowered cube isn't a cube in my book, but that makes my book stupid and cranky.
I would much rather take the "Supreme Court view on pornography" here, and say rather than apply ridiculous, strict boundaries to the word, just say that we all know a cube when we see one.
Especially since such a definition would be counterproductive, as a powered cube with a few duplicates plays much more similarly to another powered cube than a theme or combo or even peasant cube. So now it's not a cube because it wants to run 3 Squadron Hawks in order to have some fun?
First I thought I would mention that I do think this will have the result you are looking for.
See, I think what I am doing will actually make people prioritize fixing more, since the fixing being passed around will be a bit more flexible and universal. We see the less flexible bounce/filter/pains table occasionally even when people are in those colors. This never happens with duals or fetches. Basically, I am trying to have an environment you describe, but with less "randomness" of what lands show up.
Basically, instead of throwing more narrow lands at the problem, I am breaking to rules of cube. We'll see how it works.
I tend to disagree with you here. Adding more fetches can't make people prioritize fixing more. You are choosing to makes these cards the most common in your cube. When I now open a pack and see a card I know I will not see again that I want, or a fetch I want but where there is a possibility i will see another copy I am going to be more inclined to pick the card I know I'll never get another shot at. Hence the fetches value is now reduced.
In regards to seeing second tier fixing table, I’m going to argue that this is actually a very good thing. It means that when drafting you need to not only consider what card you are taking now – but what cards could be tabling to you. If you are playing UW and you see a Tundra, you can probably assume you will not see it come back to you. However that Mystic Gate may table. They you need to decide if your deck would be stronger with a playable spell, and potentially the gate, or if that Tundra is really going to make or break your deck on its own. Personally I think there are more conventional ways of fixing the problem you are having. Having a mixed set of duals rather than a cycle I think will certainly help. Maybe a list something like this:
There are lots of ways to change this up – but pick lands that are going to pick the standard drafted deck types that your group likes to play. I would definitely fine having these options available far more interesting than a second set of fetchlands.
I think a cube is simply a custom limited environment. I think allowing multiples is no different than being powered/unpowered. In the future, cubes will be likely be designated as [Singleton] or [Multiples] in the same way that they're [Powered] or [Unpowered] today. It's not how I choose to do things, but it doesn't suddenly make it not a cube anymore.
I'll put 10 more fetches in my cube once they print another cycle of them, and when they do I'll be super excited about it! That's one of the things I like as a cube designer, that I have to make due with what WotC gives me. It might be arbitrary of course, but it makes every set awesome. I remember how ecstatic I was when the zendikar fetches came out, I had been waiting for them forever. And if I just make my mana better by adding the same card twice, I'll be making things smoother, but when they do release new fetches (if they ever do) then I won't be as excited about it. And getting cards printed that I've been looking for is a huge part of why I still maintain a cube.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to Cube but don't have one? Check the map if anyone is in your area and get cubing!
I think a cube is simply a custom limited environment. I think allowing multiples is no different than being powered/unpowered. In the future, cubes will be likely be designated as [Singleton] or [Multiples] in the same way that they're [Powered] or [Unpowered] today. It's not how I choose to do things, but it doesn't suddenly make it not a cube anymore.
I just disagree with that, and will go back to saying that while a Cube is a custom limited environment, a custom limited environment isn't always a Cube. I also believe that singleton/multiple is different than powered/unpowered in constructed.
Just my thoughts on it, since I'd not rather not have the word 'Cube' mean any custom-built limited environment. Multiple-card Cubes should be called 'dice box' or some such.
That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion of course. I just define the cube differently than you. If you design a custom limited environment and throw it into a box to be drafted, who am I to say it's not a cube just because you have 2 Flooded Strands in it?
I personally adhere to the Singleton rule (I added Singleton Legal to the description of my cube in its OP) but if you don't, that's cool too. It's still a cube, IMO.
If it is just an extra duplicate card here or there it would still have a distinct cube feel, but if you realy get rid of the singleton rule, then it stops being a cube for me too and becomes a custom set.
Making the perfect custom set is a very worthwhile goal and much harder then making the perfect cube, because there are less restrictions and a lot more options. So far I haven't seen anybody here really take this to its logical conclusion and really go for it.
One small problem that comes with breaking this rule is that it becomes more difficult to give good advice about another ones cube if you don't know where they draw the line. I would advise everyone to include Savanah Lions and elite vanguard, but if people start running 20 fetchland and four Steppe Lynxes then my advise is clearly not relevant anymore. Or what if we are discussing the new White walker and somebody just says to run an extra Ajani, Caller of Pride. There can be no discussion if people follow totally different rules. It is the reason why I don't give advice in peasant, tribal or combo cubes. It is a totally different universe.
One small problem that comes with breaking this rule is that it becomes more difficult to give good advice about another ones cube if you don't know where they draw the line. I would advise everyone to include Savanah Lions and elite vanguard, but if people start running 20 fetchland and four Steppe Lynxes then my advise is clearly not relevant anymore. Or what if we are discussing the new White walker and somebody just says to run an extra Ajani, Caller of Pride. There can be no discussion if people follow totally different rules. It is the reason why I don't give advice in peasant, tribal or combo cubes. It is a totally different universe.
Agreed. Which is why I feel that just like [Powered] and [Unpowered] cubes often have different results and don't share advice, [Singleton] and [Multiples] cubes would be just as different. Maybe even moreso.
It's definitely an idea worth testing out. At 550, I imagine it would have the impact you are looking for. At 360, it would probably make the manabases too good (for your desired 2 color+ splash), but yeah, I think it'll hit the spot for 550. You can also sneak in a few more fetch interactions: landfall, stifle, search blockers, etc.
In my 360 I wanted to give a nod towards aggro and replaced the ABU duals with a 2nd Set of Ravnica Shocklands. It was well received by my playgroup, and no one thought it made the cube less cube-like. Without delving too far into the "what is cube?" philosophical debate: if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you should probably just jam that second set of fetches in your cube and not worry about ducks.
I tend to disagree with you here. Adding more fetches can't make people prioritize fixing more. You are choosing to makes these cards the most common in your cube. When I now open a pack and see a card I know I will not see again that I want, or a fetch I want but where there is a possibility i will see another copy I am going to be more inclined to pick the card I know I'll never get another shot at. Hence the fetches value is now reduced.
Sure, but only if you are looking at this in a vacuum. If I add extra fetches, and cut nothing, the value of a fetchland goes down a tad, but that is not what I'm doing. I'm upping the quality of fixing, but slightly decreasing the amount (probably adding ten and cutting 20).
One small problem that comes with breaking this rule is that it becomes more difficult to give good advice about another ones cube if you don't know where they draw the line. I would advise everyone to include Savanah Lions and elite vanguard, but if people start running 20 fetchland and four Steppe Lynxes then my advise is clearly not relevant anymore. Or what if we are discussing the new White walker and somebody just says to run an extra Ajani, Caller of Pride. There can be no discussion if people follow totally different rules. It is the reason why I don't give advice in peasant, tribal or combo cubes. It is a totally different universe.
This is a good point, but I'm not sure if it is true. Honestly, I could probably add 40 duplicates to my cube, and have it play closer to a "standard" cube than to a quarter the cubes on this site, and certainly closer to powered cubes than peasant or pauper cubes are.
Basically, I think we are close to a point where cubes and cube groups are so distinct that giving specific advice to them has to come through dozens of filters already. Adding duplicates is no different than any other card difference, when it comes to advice. The only real exception I can see is if you can offer duplicates as additions, which certainly complicates things a bit, since we don't tend to think that way.
If anything, then mana fixing is too good in cube. I always thought it's a problem that everyone can play his colors so easily and that monocolor decks don't have a place in cube. I would be more inclined to start giving incentives to go monocolor or make meaningful decisions during drafts.
I don't agree with this double fetchland thingy at all. It's a fix for a problem that doesn't exist in lists with less than 700 cards.
Also, what's wrong with running painlands? I don't get it.
I thought I made this clear, but enough people have asked that I either didn't, or people don't believe me. The article I linked does a good job at explaining why extra fetches in theory promote two color decks.
My exact issue isn't that fixing wasn't good enough, but that I was unsatisfied with the way fixing lands were playing out in my draft and play environment. My problem with the pain/filter/vivid/M10/etc lands were how narrow they were, especially when compared to fetches and duals. I will grab a fetch or a dual even if I am simply sniffing at one of the colors, while the second tier of lands, not only require you to be in a specific color pair, but also in a specific archetype. To me, this presents several problems:
- These narrow fixing cards often table and go completely unusued.
- These narrow fixing cards often lead to players switching archetypes unwillingly, and falling into predictable decks. I hate dictanting to my players, and want them to have the manabases to be creative.
- I was having to run a huge amount of land in a 500 card cube in order to make sure everyone's color pair showed up enough.
Fetches and duals don't suffer from any of these two problems, and allow me to design around the third, by running less lands, but still offering as much fixing.
The Problem:
There is a clear top tier of manafixing lands, consisting of fetches, shocks, and duals. After that you get a combination of the WWK manlands (which I love) and a slew of crap like filters, bounces, vivids, painlands, tap if you don't have the right lands, or tap if you have too many lands. Now, all these "tier two" lands are acceptable, if you are playing the right archetype in the right color. My Boros aggro deck might love that painland, but my control deck in the same colors sure doesn't.
That is the beauty of the top tier lands. They are equally appealing to all archetypes. This was great at 360, but as my cube grew (which I loved) the mana fixing provided became more and more narrow (which I hated). This lead to lands being unused, even when players are in the proper color pair. I then tried to add more lands, but I never felt like I ended up with the correct balance between amount of lands in the draft and quality of fixing that ended up in the decks. Three color decks were abundant, while two color decks were more rare than they should be. People were grabbing whatever fixing they could get their hands on in hopes that it might cobble together into a decent manabase. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together!
Now, this may not be true for a lot of cubes and playgroups. We tend to vary wildly in size of drafting group, and drafting style, so I think we want a very versatile set of lands. If you are always booster, winchester, or rochester drafting, you may be able to easily find a setup that works for you.
The Solution:
I am going to try to run a second set of 10 fetchlands.
Why Fetchlands?
A few reasons. First, fetchlands often offer the most versatility when it comes two color fixing, as Trunkers does a good job of breaking down in his article. Second, I like that fetchlands come with a bit of a drawback, while also requiring play decisions (unlike straight duals). And, I kinda like the balance of 20 fetches and fetchables, since they work so well together.
Additional Steps:
While I am not really upping the land count, since the quality of fixing is going up, I have to be careful that fixing does not get so good that a three color deck is always easy to assemble. My goal has always been for decks to easily run two colors, and constantly be tempted to run or splash a third. I find that this leads to the most interesting draft and deckbuilding decisions.
So in addition to this step, I am going to make sure that decks, especially aggro decks, have the ability to attack greedy manabases. Trunkers decided to go up to 4 Wastelands, and cut Strip Mine. I think that is interesting, but I'm not ready to assume that we can't control this issue within the singleton structure yet. I am going to look through my on deck pile (Goblin Ruinblaster and Fulminator Mage bought themselves a reprieve) but I would love suggestions in any color.
Where does the madness stop(!?!):
Ahh, ye old Slippery Slope Fallacy. I am trying to address a very specific problem that I feel is nigh unsolvable without breaking the singleton rule (I have certainly tried). If I am presented with a similar issue down the road, I might again look to rule breaking as an option, but I doubt I will be running 10 Goblin Guides and 8 Lightning Bolts anytime soon.
Thoughts?
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!
-AA
I use descriptive language. Assume that I'm being nice and respectful. (I'll tell you when I'm not.)
My Cube: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/9029
See, I think what I am doing will actually make people prioritize fixing more, since the fixing being passed around will be a bit more flexible and universal. We see the less flexible bounce/filter/pains table occasionally even when people are in those colors. This never happens with duals or fetches. Basically, I am trying to have an environment you describe, but with less "randomness" of what lands show up.
Basically, instead of throwing more narrow lands at the problem, I am breaking to rules of cube. We'll see how it works.
http://cubetutor.com/cubeblog/993
http://www.cubetutor.com/cubeblog/23690
https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/3pq
As a side note about fetches ... I do wish Wizards would print another untapped fetch cycle ... something like:
Distant Plain
Land
T: Sacrifice ~. Search your library for a Plain and put into play. Shuffle Library.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=385729
It'd be similar to the difference between powered vs. unpowered cubes - you're running "worse" cards in order to create a draft environment that better suits your needs. It certainly doesn't seem unreasonable for people to consider ABU duals in the same category as other power in terms of working contrary to the type of play environment they want.
What problem is this? Your mana is so bad that decks are unplayable without running 10 more fetches? I find that hard to believe.
You're doing it because 10 more fetches and 10 less "fringe" lands will improve the mana in your drafts. Arid Mesa is better than Battlefield Forge. I get it. We all do.
But what is the need for this? Clearly there are marginal improvements that can be made all over the cube by replacing the next best card with a copy of a better one. What's the justification for doing it for just the fetches? If the reason you're doing this is because you have a "problem" with the 4th and 5th best cycles of fixers not being as good as the Duals/Shocks/Fetches, that's not really a problem. Any more than Savannah Lions and Elite Vanguard not being as good as Isamaru is a "problem". It seems like a simple fix to an issue that doesn't really need repair, and it seems just as arbitrary to break the rule for mana fixers as it would to do it in any other area 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!
I explain the problem above, and this is nowhere close to it. I'll rehash it if need to, but this seems like exaggeration for effect.
Again here, you are creating a false equivalency. If you want a better one, I would propose this:
Let's say you needed red aggro to be viable in a given cube in order to keep the archetype balance in check, but the red one drops were bad. Maybe you needed 8 good ones, and you had a pool of four good ones. Now, you could throw in more and more one drops, hoping that while they were narrow, they might meet the needs of specific red aggro decks and end up as viable. Or, you could simply run two copies of the given one drops.
In the first situation, you end up keeping the singleton rule, coming close to your goal, but flooding your red section and cube with narrow, often undesirable red one drops. In the second situation, you end up solving your problem, keeping the exact amount of desired one drops, but breaking your singleton rule.
Is one way better than the other? Maybe. Will one change like that lead to chaos? I doubt it.
Again, I express in the OP that many are not feeling this problem the same as I (though clearly some are). It is a combination of cube size, and playgroup style.
Additionally, manabases are really the one place where luck can get in the way of fun, so I am willing to try so called "radical" things to cut down on drafts where people see a lot of fixing, and absolutely none they can use.
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!
Thanks for the response. I certainly wouldn't suggest this for anyone who doesn't have a problem with their manabase.
The idea is not to de-valuate fixing, but to boost its value by making the fixing a bit more universal. For example, instead of running 50 two color lands, some of which are unplayable not only out side that color pair, but outside that specific archetype, run 40 lands which can go into many colors pairs and all archetypes.
For a drafting example, when I crack a Dimir Aqueduct, I will often pass it, because it is only playable in a deck that is slowish and plays blue and black. When I crack a fetch, I almost always grab it, because there is a good chance it will be useful, or will open up my drafting possibilities as we go along.
You are talking about your cube, which is why I'm not recommending it for you. I'm assuming you aren't telling me how my cube functions?
And as stated, the problem isn't drafting the mana fixing they need to function. I could just throw lands at the problem if that was the case.
Isn't breaking the singleton rule making a Cube no longer a Cube? We often talk here about the 'right' cube, and what cards 'belong' in a Cube. We often say that Cube is 'what you want it to be' when talking about things such as:
Powered/Unpowered
Pauper/Peasant/standard
Reject Rare
No LD
Aggro-supported/Dragon Cube
EDH Cube
Multicolored/monocolored Cubes
Color-excluded Cubes
Banned cards
No Un-cards
Fun/unfun cards
Etc...
I know the Cube Fallacy article has caused a lot of stir about that sort of thing, because the stance on what is right/wrong was in opposition to the prevailing thought here that each Cube should be tailored to the group/people/person who plays it most for maximum enjoyment.
At some point, however, words have to mean things, and Cube has always been a singleton format. If you change that fundamental rule, it becomes something other than a Cube and more like a custom draft format (even though Cube is a custom draft format, it is a specific type of draft format). What's the point of having a definition of a word/format if you can just change that definition?
So if you'd like to say 'I have this box of cards, and it is like a Cube but I have doubles of some cards in it', have at it. But that isn't a Cube, at least not in my book. The same way you don't get to run multiples of the same card in Commander/EDH, which is why functional reprints hold so much value when the card is good (Reach Around/Cultivate, e.g.)
-AA
I use descriptive language. Assume that I'm being nice and respectful. (I'll tell you when I'm not.)
My Cube: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/9029
Draft my cube!
Watch me stream!
Well, an unpowered cube isn't a cube in my book, but that makes my book stupid and cranky.
I would much rather take the "Supreme Court view on pornography" here, and say rather than apply ridiculous, strict boundaries to the word, just say that we all know a cube when we see one.
Especially since such a definition would be counterproductive, as a powered cube with a few duplicates plays much more similarly to another powered cube than a theme or combo or even peasant cube. So now it's not a cube because it wants to run 3 Squadron Hawks in order to have some fun?
Get off my lawn indeed.
I tend to disagree with you here. Adding more fetches can't make people prioritize fixing more. You are choosing to makes these cards the most common in your cube. When I now open a pack and see a card I know I will not see again that I want, or a fetch I want but where there is a possibility i will see another copy I am going to be more inclined to pick the card I know I'll never get another shot at. Hence the fetches value is now reduced.
In regards to seeing second tier fixing table, I’m going to argue that this is actually a very good thing. It means that when drafting you need to not only consider what card you are taking now – but what cards could be tabling to you. If you are playing UW and you see a Tundra, you can probably assume you will not see it come back to you. However that Mystic Gate may table. They you need to decide if your deck would be stronger with a playable spell, and potentially the gate, or if that Tundra is really going to make or break your deck on its own.
Personally I think there are more conventional ways of fixing the problem you are having. Having a mixed set of duals rather than a cycle I think will certainly help. Maybe a list something like this:
GW: Horizon Canapy" target="blank">Horizon Canapy
WU: Flood Plain" target="blank">Flood Plain
UB: Bad River" target="blank">Bad River
BR: Blackcleave Cliffs" target="blank">Blackcleave Cliffs
RG: Copperline Gorge" target="blank">Copperline Gorge
RW: Battlefield Forge" target="blank">Battlefield Forge
WB: Caves of Koilos" target="blank">Caves of Koilos
BG: Twilight Mire" target="blank">Twilight Mire
GU: Flooded Grove " target="blank">Flooded Grove
UR: Cascade Bluffs" target="blank">Cascade Bluffs
There are lots of ways to change this up – but pick lands that are going to pick the standard drafted deck types that your group likes to play. I would definitely fine having these options available far more interesting than a second set of fetchlands.
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 Great Cube Map!
My Powered Cube
Draft it here!
I just disagree with that, and will go back to saying that while a Cube is a custom limited environment, a custom limited environment isn't always a Cube. I also believe that singleton/multiple is different than powered/unpowered in constructed.
Just my thoughts on it, since I'd not rather not have the word 'Cube' mean any custom-built limited environment. Multiple-card Cubes should be called 'dice box' or some such.
-AA
I use descriptive language. Assume that I'm being nice and respectful. (I'll tell you when I'm not.)
My Cube: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/9029
I personally adhere to the Singleton rule (I added Singleton Legal to the description of my cube in its OP) but if you don't, that's cool too. It's still a cube, IMO.
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!
Making the perfect custom set is a very worthwhile goal and much harder then making the perfect cube, because there are less restrictions and a lot more options. So far I haven't seen anybody here really take this to its logical conclusion and really go for it.
One small problem that comes with breaking this rule is that it becomes more difficult to give good advice about another ones cube if you don't know where they draw the line. I would advise everyone to include Savanah Lions and elite vanguard, but if people start running 20 fetchland and four Steppe Lynxes then my advise is clearly not relevant anymore. Or what if we are discussing the new White walker and somebody just says to run an extra Ajani, Caller of Pride. There can be no discussion if people follow totally different rules. It is the reason why I don't give advice in peasant, tribal or combo cubes. It is a totally different universe.
I feel compelled to repeat everything I hear
Agreed. Which is why I feel that just like [Powered] and [Unpowered] cubes often have different results and don't share advice, [Singleton] and [Multiples] cubes would be just as different. Maybe even moreso.
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!
In my 360 I wanted to give a nod towards aggro and replaced the ABU duals with a 2nd Set of Ravnica Shocklands. It was well received by my playgroup, and no one thought it made the cube less cube-like. Without delving too far into the "what is cube?" philosophical debate: if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you should probably just jam that second set of fetches in your cube and not worry about ducks.
"I'm the Best!"
Toad, Mario Kart 64
Only if that's what your playgroup wants. My group would despise that idea, so it's a bad one for me to make.
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!
Sure, but only if you are looking at this in a vacuum. If I add extra fetches, and cut nothing, the value of a fetchland goes down a tad, but that is not what I'm doing. I'm upping the quality of fixing, but slightly decreasing the amount (probably adding ten and cutting 20).
This is a good point, but I'm not sure if it is true. Honestly, I could probably add 40 duplicates to my cube, and have it play closer to a "standard" cube than to a quarter the cubes on this site, and certainly closer to powered cubes than peasant or pauper cubes are.
Basically, I think we are close to a point where cubes and cube groups are so distinct that giving specific advice to them has to come through dozens of filters already. Adding duplicates is no different than any other card difference, when it comes to advice. The only real exception I can see is if you can offer duplicates as additions, which certainly complicates things a bit, since we don't tend to think that way.
I thought I made this clear, but enough people have asked that I either didn't, or people don't believe me. The article I linked does a good job at explaining why extra fetches in theory promote two color decks.
My exact issue isn't that fixing wasn't good enough, but that I was unsatisfied with the way fixing lands were playing out in my draft and play environment. My problem with the pain/filter/vivid/M10/etc lands were how narrow they were, especially when compared to fetches and duals. I will grab a fetch or a dual even if I am simply sniffing at one of the colors, while the second tier of lands, not only require you to be in a specific color pair, but also in a specific archetype. To me, this presents several problems:
- These narrow fixing cards often table and go completely unusued.
- These narrow fixing cards often lead to players switching archetypes unwillingly, and falling into predictable decks. I hate dictanting to my players, and want them to have the manabases to be creative.
- I was having to run a huge amount of land in a 500 card cube in order to make sure everyone's color pair showed up enough.
Fetches and duals don't suffer from any of these two problems, and allow me to design around the third, by running less lands, but still offering as much fixing.