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 have a unpowered budget cube. If I wanted to add sac lands I only have Polluted Delta and Flooded Strand. If I wanted to add dual lands I only have 5 including Underground Sea, Tropical Island, Scrubland, Savannah and Taiga. Some people don't have the original duals so they use the ravnica duals instead. I could put dual lands in my cube but choose not to. I have my budget cube currently set up in which the most expensive card is Umezawa's Jitte. I don't want my cube to have a bunch of expensive cards. I use 10 painlands, 10 signets and 10 bouncelands. The only sac lands I have are the mirage sac lands. I added the sac lands because I need more targets for Life From the Loam.
[COLOR=black] 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:
I think this would actually be the opposite of what the OP is talking about - this is basically saying "Oh, the extra WB land is a painland, that must be an aggro color!" and letting the manafixing decide the deck instead of just running the manafixing that works for every archetype.
I'm more concerned about the slippery slope. If you decide you "need" another set of fetches, why not run another copy of cards X, Y, and Z? It'd be much easier to support aggro with 5 Steppe Lynxs, 5 Gravecrawlers, and 5 Goblin Guides.
Good points. The main thing that slippery-slope arguments miss is that they often assume that choices are made for power maximization rather than for some other synergy / interaction / balance of dynamics reason.
Not at all, actually. The cube functions without the extra fetches. So they're being added in not to make it work, but to improve the cube's performance (call it what you want, power, balance, synergy, interaction, dynamics ...it doesn't matter). Which is exactly the same justification that would be used to replace any other card in the cube with a duplicate. And then a triplicate. And then a quadruplicate until every card plays like the perfect card. The first change is just as arbitrary as the last one.
It's one of the reasons why my list will always remain singleton format legal. Not because I can't help myself from overpowering my cube by replacing all the secondary and tertiary cards with bombs, but because replacing all the looser choices with more powerful and dynamic cards increases the overall gameplay. You will always be able to find multiple justifications for replacing a worse card with a better one. You can say you're not doing it for power but instead doing it to "make the cube perform better" ...but in the end it's the same thing.
The cube functions without the extra fetches. So they're being added in not to make it work, but to improve the cube's performance (call it what you want, power, balance, synergy, interaction, dynamics ...it doesn't matter)..
I don't build my cube to merely function. I build my cube with a specific purpose. Perhaps for your purpose you don't need an extra set of fetchlands. I know for my purposes I certainly don't need them. However I don't find it inconceivable that for someone else's purposes a second set of fetchlands is the best solution to reaching their goal. I can even conceive many good reasons for doing so that have nothing to do with power level.
Optimization of our goals does not logically lead to taking out "worse" cards for "better" ones. It leads to taking out the "wrong" cards for the "right" ones which is completely different and what every cube manager does.
Did you even read the section of my post that you quoted? I just said the exact same thing. You don't have to make changes for power-level. You can call it whatever you want. You're making the change to improve the cube. And there's always more improvements to be made.
Did you even read the section of my post that you quoted? I just said the exact same thing. You don't have to make changes for power-level. You can call it whatever you want. You're making the change to improve the cube. And there's always more improvements to be made.
Alright, I'm completely lost. Are you saying we shouldn't make improvements because it might make the cube work too well? That we shouldn't make improvements because we'll have to make more later? I don't think that's what your saying, but I'm not sure so I'll throw out these likely completely incorrect statements to bridge the conversation. Consider them a nice target you can demolish better clarify your point. Thank you for your patience.
I'm saying that we all make improvements to the cube to make it play the best it can with the restrictions we have in place.
Once you allow multiples, power-level isn't the only thing that's going to stop you from replacing every card with multiple copies of the best cards available. All aspects of the draft improve by replacing all 7 of your black 1-drops with Gravecrawlers. Power, balance, synergy, archetypes ...all of it. So when someone says that slippery-slope arguments only apply to people why try to maximize the power level of their cubes is wrong. The slippery slope argument applies to every cube manager that makes changes to improve their draft experience.
All aspects of the draft improve by replacing all 7 of your black 1-drops with Gravecrawlers.
I completely disagree and so do you.
You wouldn't have instituted the singleton rule if you thought replacing all your black one drops with gravecrawlers would improve all aspects of the cube. You would not have instituted a rule that categorically makes your cube less awesome. It is the antithesis of cube management. It makes no sense. There are many, and possibly an infinite number, of reasons not to run 7 gravecrawlers as your one drops that don't require a specfic ban on doing so.
So when someone says that slippery-slope arguments only apply to people why try to maximize the power level of their cubes is wrong. The slippery slope argument applies to every cube manager that makes changes to improve their draft experience.
Well, if the "danger" of the slippery slope is that our "draft experiences will improve", I don't see the "problem".
No, I agree with what I said. I enforce a singleton rule because that's the experience that my players and I want to draft. It provides a level of variance and diversity that isn't reached by trying to create the perfect environment by running multiples. They're two different schools of thought. I try and create the most perfect environment I can with the restrictions I have in place (singleton and vintage legal). If either of those restrictions were removed, there would be room for improvement. Not just in powerlevel, but in consistency, archetype support, synergy, interactions and every other aspect of design we want.
You wouldn't have instituted the singleton rule if you thought replacing all your black one drops with gravecrawlers would improve all aspects of the cube. You would not have instituted a rule that categorically makes your cube less awesome. It is the antithesis of cube management. It makes no sense. There are many, and possibly an infinite number, of reasons not to run 7 gravecrawlers as your one drops that don't require a specfic ban on doing so.
That's not true either. Like I said above, we enforce the singleton rule because it creates the environment we want to play. But if my maxim was different, and I didn't care about diversity and variance, all levels of the cube could be improved upon by replacing lesser cards with more interactive, powerful and universally valuable ones.
Well, if the "danger" of the slippery slope is that our "draft experiences will improve", I don't see the "problem".
The only problem is that design with multiples would no longer appeal to the maxim of my cube.
If your maxim doesn't include variety, diversity and a classic singleton feel as part of the design, then the cube can do nothing but improve by breaking the singleton rule all over the place. But my maxim does, so that improvement isn't available to me.
..........
It happens in every Magic format. My Legacy deck would improve if I added a Black Lotus into my deck. But I can't, because it would no longer be Legacy legal if I did. The same thing applies to the cube. I could improve my cube by adding in nothing but Gravecrawlers in my black 1cc creature section, but it would no longer conform to the contraints of my maxim if I did so.
No, I agree with what I said. I enforce a singleton rule because that's the experience that my players and I want to draft. It provides a level of variance and diversity that isn't reached by trying to create the perfect environment by running multiples. They're two different schools of thought. I try and create the most perfect environment I can with the restrictions I have in place (singleton and vintage legal). If either of those restrictions were removed, there would be room for improvement. Not just in powerlevel, but in consistency, archetype support, synergy, interactions and every other aspect of design we want.
How would failing to create "the experience that my players and I want to draft" be an improvement? If you added 7 gravecrawlers to your cube, you and your playgroup would find it less fun. I'm not sure how you can classify making something worse at its intended purpose as an improvement.
That's not true either. Like I said above, we enforce the singleton rule because it creates the environment we want to play. But if my maxim was different, and I didn't care about diversity and variance, all levels of the cube could be improved upon by replacing lesser cards with more interactive, powerful and universally valuable ones.
I think my confusion is that you are using the word improve to mean something I don't understand. To me, improve means to better fulfill its intended purpose. For many intended purposes, replacing "lesser" cards with "more interactive, powerful and universally valuable ones" would NOT be an improvement.
What do you mean by improve?
The only problem is that design with multiples would no longer appeal to the maxim of my cube.
If your maxim doesn't include variety, diversity and a classic singleton feel as part of the design, then the cube can do nothing but improve by breaking the singleton rule all over the place. But my maxim does, so that improvement isn't available to me.
I can think of several cubes that don't include variety, diversity and a classic singleton feel as a primary maxim that would not be improved by breaking the singleton rule all over the place.
It happens in every Magic format. My Legacy deck would improve if I added a Black Lotus into my deck. But I can't, because it would no longer be Legacy legal if I did. The same thing applies to the cube. I could improve my cube by adding in nothing but Gravecrawlers in my black 1cc creature section, but it would no longer conform to the contraints of my maxim if I did so.
Cubes don't play against each other. They only care about how their contents interact. If there are two otherwise identical cubes and one has Black Lotus in the slot where the other has Lotus Petal, I fail to see any reasonable way to call one and "improvement" over the other. And I can imagine many different reasons why each might be the better designed cube.
I don't know how I can state things more clearly than I already have.
My players want the most powerful singleton legal environment they can get. So that's what I give to them. If we wanted to run multiples, the cube could improve in every aspect. But we don't. We want singleton.
Explain to me how I can spell that out more clearly for you, and I'll give it a shot.
Quote from FlowerSunRain »
What do you mean by improve?
It depends on what metric you're using. But it doesn't matter. Synergy? Improved. Power-level? Improved. Archetype support? Improved. Creating interesting interactions? Improved. No matter what aspect of improvement you're looking for, breaking the singleton rule does for you. All over the cube. Unless of course, you and your playgroup value the singleton legal cube experience. Which we do.
Quote from FlowerSunRain »
I can think of several cubes that don't include variety, diversity and a classic singleton feel as a primary maxim that would not be improved by breaking the singleton rule all over the place.
I can't. Can you provide me with an example maxim that doesn't value the singleton rule that would fail to improve by running multiples?
My players want the most powerful singleton legal environment they can get. So that's what I give to them. If we wanted to run multiples, the cube could improve in every aspect. But we don't. We want singleton.
Explain to me how I can spell that out more clearly for you, and I'll give it a shot.
Your intent is clear. I think I'm just hung up on your use of the word "improve". The way you are using it very confusing. I don't understand how running seven gravecrawlers would inherently improve the cube, except in the way that taking your lightning bolts and changing the word "three" to "twenty" would.
(Which is to say, for almost every purpose, the exact opposite of an improvement.)
Most every cube designer is trying to make their environment do a specific thing the best it can. No matter what way that is, running multiples would make their cube better except for one. Which are the ways where the singleton rule adds to your draft experience.
Tweaking the basic formula of cube is just wrong and unnecessary. Cube is a singleton format! So I am completely with wtwlf here.
Cube is not a format. Cubes don't need to have standardized rules because cubes don't compete with each other. Its not like when we play cube, you bring your cube and I bring my cube and we have to make sure each others cube is legal.
Each individual cube is an individual format. Discussion of cube is a discussion on how to make those formats the best they can be.
Cube is not a format. Cubes don't need to have standardized rules because cubes don't compete with each other. Its not like when we play cube, you bring your cube and I bring my cube and we have to make sure each others cube is legal.
Each individual cube is an individual format. Discussion of cube is a discussion on how to make those formats the best they can be.
I agree. What makes a cube for me doesn't have to be the same criteria as what makes a cube for you.
I'm interested in this, FlowerSunRain:
Quote from me »
Can you provide me with an example maxim that doesn't value the singleton rule that would fail to improve by running multiples?
If I could see an example maxim from a cube designer that doesn't value the advantages of the singleton rule that would fail to improve their cube by violating it, it would allow me to understand your position better.
Quote from Trunkers »
For me fun is the primary metric (with synergy, balance, interactivity, depth and variety being components of that). I add more fun by adding more copies of fetchlands and Steppe Lynx I add far more fun to my environment. Replacing Reveillark with a second Baneslayer does not add more fun to my environment (in my opinion). This is the essence of design. It's nuanced, it's nebulous. When Mark Rosewater and co. add a card to a set, they are doing it to maximize fun (all things considered), not power. I don't believe power maximization equates to fun maximization.
And because your cube values synergy, interactivity (and I assume archetype development too), and doesn't adhere to a singleton legal format, your cube improves in pretty much every category by breaking the singleton rule. You don't have to be maximizing power in order to benefit from running multiples. The cube improves in pretty much every way you can outline a maxim for by running multiple copies of the cards that appeal to your maxim the most. Except for one. And since playing a singleton environment is important to me and my drafters, I can assume you also understand why we don't want to violate it.
Most every cube designer is trying to make their environment do a specific thing the best it can. No matter what way that is, running multiples would make their cube better except for one. Which are the ways where the singleton rule adds to your draft experience.
I really don't see it. I've never had a singleton rule, yet most versions of my cube have had few or no multiples* and I've (usually, sometimes we make mistakes) felt that its been the best it can be. I guess I'm either terrible at cube design or my standards are rather arcane and unknowable.
(*Actually, most versions of my cube have had fewer functional/practical "multiples" then people who use the singleton rule! Searing Spear lasted all of a day before it was booed out of the cube.)
I really don't see it. I've never had a singleton rule, yet most versions of my cube have had few or no multiples* and I've (usually, sometimes we make mistakes) felt that its been the best it can be. I guess I'm either terrible at cube design or my standards are rather arcane and unknowable.
(*Actually, most versions of my cube have had fewer functional/practical "multiples" then people who use the singleton rule! Searing Spear lasted all of a day before it was booed out of the cube.)
No matter what metric you use, your cube experience could get better if you violated the singleton rule.
If I could see an example maxim from a cube designer that doesn't value the advantages of the singleton rule that would fail to improve their cube by violating it, it would allow me to understand your position better.
One of my regular drafters really doesn't like archtypes. His ideal in limited Magic (and really all Magic as he never really liked constructed) is to organize a chaotic mishmash of cards into something vaguely coherent. I try to preserve some of this in my cube. As such, I like to minimize redundancy. However, when some redundancy is needed to serve some other purpose, to me its irrelevant whether it is accomplished through multiple copies of the same card or through different cards. That decision is based on the purpose at hand. Using different cards is usually better because different cards allows different stuff to happen and more draft options, but I don't feel that categorically shutting that door is valuable because when you need 3 Life from the Loam, no other card will substitute.
But you still have a very high powered environment even when it is not sure that is more interactive or more fun. Maybe a mid level power cube (without 'broken') cards can be more fun. A lot of mediocre cards are very interactive with subpar abilities that might add more fun. If I got rid of the hig power goal and the singleton rule, I would have to totally rebuild my cube from scratch, as all the previous includes have no logical fundament anymore.
I'll quote my own post from one of the other threads. Very tiring to have the same discussion in five different threads.:cool2: I think both 'camps' understand the other side, but have a hard time really getting the logic of the other side.
^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.
Yes, I do understand that. But I'm still going to do my darndest to present the opposing case.
I understand, and you have. I understand the merits of running multiples. How can you not? No matter what you're trying to improve, it's easier to do it by running multiple copies of the best cards available than it is to come up with a more creative solution that conforms to your design restrictions.
The maximizing power comment was more referring to the "why not run 8 Goblin Guides" type of argument. I don't do that because it doesn't improve the quantities I mention. If I were trying to maximize power I would have no such justification.
But it might in the future. As soon as the first few changes are made to improve archetype A) running X Steppe Lynx to improve aggro because we have 20 fetches now, the next logical step may be to improve mid-range by adding in a 2 or 3 more Thragtusk. In which case the next step may be to improve control because mid-range is too dominant now, so you add in extra great counters and wraths. So control becomes the best, and so you boost aggro to counter it. And then mid-range to counter that, and control to counter the next mid-range boost. Eventually, in order to have all the decks compete properly against each other, all of your red 1-drops may need to be goblin guides because the other cards are too low power to compete with the improved control decks, which were forced to increase because of the power of mid-range and so on.
One of my regular drafters really doesn't like archtypes. His ideal in limited Magic (and really all Magic as he never really liked constructed) is to organize a chaotic mishmash of cards into something vaguely coherent. I try to preserve some of this in my cube. As such, I like to minimize redundancy. However, when some redundancy is needed to serve some other purpose, to me its irrelevant whether it is accomplished through multiple copies of the same card or through different cards. That decision is based on the purpose at hand. Using different cards is usually better because different cards allows different stuff to happen and more draft options, but I don't feel that categorically shutting that door is valuable because when you need 3 Life from the Loam, no other card will substitute.
So, what is your cube maxim? To include a random mishmash of cards with no synergy that doesn't maximize power, balance, interactions or combos? If that was the case, than sure. Perhaps the cube wouldn't benefit from running multiples. But if you're trying to create the best environment using any distinct criterium, it's very likely that violating the singleton rule would allow you to do this better than not.
Once you include enough multiples of the specific archetype support cards (reanimator support, loam/crucible support, pox/stax support and so on) other areas of the cube will have to improve in order to stay competitive. Once the singleton options have been exhausted and aggro still can't beat those decks, multiple goblin guide and lightning bolts may be the only options left to you.
Quote from Zulo »
Not every aspect of the Cube improves if every class of cards becomes homogenous. Maybe the red decks become too good if they contain 3 Goblin Guides most of the time instead of 1 Goblin Guide some of the time.
Yes, but then you can increase quantities of the cards that best combat them in the other archetypes in order to balance it out. You can wind up with the same level of balance at the end, but you do it with multiples instead of singles. It wouldn't stop until the environment plays perfectly, but in order to conform to pretty much any maxim, multiples will be a part of that solution. Unless singleton legal is part of the maxim itself.
There's no clear, non-arbitrary line that separates singleton and non-singleton Cubes
Yes there is. Make the cube singleton legal. Singleton is a format with a distinct set of design criteria. Its no more arbitrary to choose to design a singleton legal cube than it is to play Legacy instead of Vintage. Wizards produces duplicate effects for limiting formats that will benefit from running multiples. I don't think following a defined format is arbitrary.
I think it's arbitrary to violate the rule in some cases and not in others without some sort of objective limitation.
So, what is your cube maxim? To include a random mishmash of cards with no synergy that don't maximize power, balance, interactions or combos? If that was the case, than sure. Perhaps the cube wouldn't benefit from running multiples. But if you're trying to create the best environment using any distinct criterium, it's very likely that violating the singleton rule would allow you to do this better than not.
Like I said before, I'm either bad at cube design or my criteria are completely arcane. What I seek to maximize is how fun my cube is to play. This is an objective design objective, but it requires catering to many (often contradictory) subjective design goals that its pretty hard to explain. I assure you that my cube is not a random mismash of cards. They are picked with meticulous purpose, but that purpose has little to do with power or combos. They aren't intended to appeal to Johnnys, Timmys or Spikes. They're intended to create the types of games we like.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Calvin and Hobbes
Cube Tutor
I think this would actually be the opposite of what the OP is talking about - this is basically saying "Oh, the extra WB land is a painland, that must be an aggro color!" and letting the manafixing decide the deck instead of just running the manafixing that works for every archetype.
I'm more concerned about the slippery slope. If you decide you "need" another set of fetches, why not run another copy of cards X, Y, and Z? It'd be much easier to support aggro with 5 Steppe Lynxs, 5 Gravecrawlers, and 5 Goblin Guides.
-rexx
Draft my 540 card powered cube here: http://www.cubetutor.com/draft/36935
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!
-rexx
Draft my 540 card powered cube here: http://www.cubetutor.com/draft/36935
Not at all, actually. The cube functions without the extra fetches. So they're being added in not to make it work, but to improve the cube's performance (call it what you want, power, balance, synergy, interaction, dynamics ...it doesn't matter). Which is exactly the same justification that would be used to replace any other card in the cube with a duplicate. And then a triplicate. And then a quadruplicate until every card plays like the perfect card. The first change is just as arbitrary as the last one.
It's one of the reasons why my list will always remain singleton format legal. Not because I can't help myself from overpowering my cube by replacing all the secondary and tertiary cards with bombs, but because replacing all the looser choices with more powerful and dynamic cards increases the overall gameplay. You will always be able to find multiple justifications for replacing a worse card with a better one. You can say you're not doing it for power but instead doing it to "make the cube perform better" ...but in the end it's the same thing.
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 don't build my cube to merely function. I build my cube with a specific purpose. Perhaps for your purpose you don't need an extra set of fetchlands. I know for my purposes I certainly don't need them. However I don't find it inconceivable that for someone else's purposes a second set of fetchlands is the best solution to reaching their goal. I can even conceive many good reasons for doing so that have nothing to do with power level.
Optimization of our goals does not logically lead to taking out "worse" cards for "better" ones. It leads to taking out the "wrong" cards for the "right" ones which is completely different and what every cube manager does.
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!
Alright, I'm completely lost. Are you saying we shouldn't make improvements because it might make the cube work too well? That we shouldn't make improvements because we'll have to make more later? I don't think that's what your saying, but I'm not sure so I'll throw out these likely completely incorrect statements to bridge the conversation. Consider them a nice target you can demolish better clarify your point. Thank you for your patience.
Once you allow multiples, power-level isn't the only thing that's going to stop you from replacing every card with multiple copies of the best cards available. All aspects of the draft improve by replacing all 7 of your black 1-drops with Gravecrawlers. Power, balance, synergy, archetypes ...all of it. So when someone says that slippery-slope arguments only apply to people why try to maximize the power level of their cubes is wrong. The slippery slope argument applies to every cube manager that makes changes to improve their draft experience.
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!
You wouldn't have instituted the singleton rule if you thought replacing all your black one drops with gravecrawlers would improve all aspects of the cube. You would not have instituted a rule that categorically makes your cube less awesome. It is the antithesis of cube management. It makes no sense. There are many, and possibly an infinite number, of reasons not to run 7 gravecrawlers as your one drops that don't require a specfic ban on doing so.
Well, if the "danger" of the slippery slope is that our "draft experiences will improve", I don't see the "problem".
No, I agree with what I said. I enforce a singleton rule because that's the experience that my players and I want to draft. It provides a level of variance and diversity that isn't reached by trying to create the perfect environment by running multiples. They're two different schools of thought. I try and create the most perfect environment I can with the restrictions I have in place (singleton and vintage legal). If either of those restrictions were removed, there would be room for improvement. Not just in powerlevel, but in consistency, archetype support, synergy, interactions and every other aspect of design we want.
That's not true either. Like I said above, we enforce the singleton rule because it creates the environment we want to play. But if my maxim was different, and I didn't care about diversity and variance, all levels of the cube could be improved upon by replacing lesser cards with more interactive, powerful and universally valuable ones.
The only problem is that design with multiples would no longer appeal to the maxim of my cube.
If your maxim doesn't include variety, diversity and a classic singleton feel as part of the design, then the cube can do nothing but improve by breaking the singleton rule all over the place. But my maxim does, so that improvement isn't available to me.
..........
It happens in every Magic format. My Legacy deck would improve if I added a Black Lotus into my deck. But I can't, because it would no longer be Legacy legal if I did. The same thing applies to the cube. I could improve my cube by adding in nothing but Gravecrawlers in my black 1cc creature section, but it would no longer conform to the contraints of my maxim if I did so.
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 think my confusion is that you are using the word improve to mean something I don't understand. To me, improve means to better fulfill its intended purpose. For many intended purposes, replacing "lesser" cards with "more interactive, powerful and universally valuable ones" would NOT be an improvement.
What do you mean by improve?
I can think of several cubes that don't include variety, diversity and a classic singleton feel as a primary maxim that would not be improved by breaking the singleton rule all over the place.
Cubes don't play against each other. They only care about how their contents interact. If there are two otherwise identical cubes and one has Black Lotus in the slot where the other has Lotus Petal, I fail to see any reasonable way to call one and "improvement" over the other. And I can imagine many different reasons why each might be the better designed cube.
My players want the most powerful singleton legal environment they can get. So that's what I give to them. If we wanted to run multiples, the cube could improve in every aspect. But we don't. We want singleton.
Explain to me how I can spell that out more clearly for you, and I'll give it a shot.
It depends on what metric you're using. But it doesn't matter. Synergy? Improved. Power-level? Improved. Archetype support? Improved. Creating interesting interactions? Improved. No matter what aspect of improvement you're looking for, breaking the singleton rule does for you. All over the cube. Unless of course, you and your playgroup value the singleton legal cube experience. Which we do.
I can't. Can you provide me with an example maxim that doesn't value the singleton rule that would fail to improve by running 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!
(Which is to say, for almost every purpose, the exact opposite of an improvement.)
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!
Cube is not a format. Cubes don't need to have standardized rules because cubes don't compete with each other. Its not like when we play cube, you bring your cube and I bring my cube and we have to make sure each others cube is legal.
Each individual cube is an individual format. Discussion of cube is a discussion on how to make those formats the best they can be.
I agree. What makes a cube for me doesn't have to be the same criteria as what makes a cube for you.
I'm interested in this, FlowerSunRain:
If I could see an example maxim from a cube designer that doesn't value the advantages of the singleton rule that would fail to improve their cube by violating it, it would allow me to understand your position better.
And because your cube values synergy, interactivity (and I assume archetype development too), and doesn't adhere to a singleton legal format, your cube improves in pretty much every category by breaking the singleton rule. You don't have to be maximizing power in order to benefit from running multiples. The cube improves in pretty much every way you can outline a maxim for by running multiple copies of the cards that appeal to your maxim the most. Except for one. And since playing a singleton environment is important to me and my drafters, I can assume you also understand why we don't want to violate 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!
(*Actually, most versions of my cube have had fewer functional/practical "multiples" then people who use the singleton rule! Searing Spear lasted all of a day before it was booed out of the cube.)
No matter what metric you use, your cube experience could get better if you violated the singleton rule.
What is your cube 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!
I'll quote my own post from one of the other threads. Very tiring to have the same discussion in five different threads.:cool2: I think both 'camps' understand the other side, but have a hard time really getting the logic of the other side.
I feel compelled to repeat everything I hear
I understand, and you have. I understand the merits of running multiples. How can you not? No matter what you're trying to improve, it's easier to do it by running multiple copies of the best cards available than it is to come up with a more creative solution that conforms to your design restrictions.
But it might in the future. As soon as the first few changes are made to improve archetype A) running X Steppe Lynx to improve aggro because we have 20 fetches now, the next logical step may be to improve mid-range by adding in a 2 or 3 more Thragtusk. In which case the next step may be to improve control because mid-range is too dominant now, so you add in extra great counters and wraths. So control becomes the best, and so you boost aggro to counter it. And then mid-range to counter that, and control to counter the next mid-range boost. Eventually, in order to have all the decks compete properly against each other, all of your red 1-drops may need to be goblin guides because the other cards are too low power to compete with the improved control decks, which were forced to increase because of the power of mid-range and so on.
So, what is your cube maxim? To include a random mishmash of cards with no synergy that doesn't maximize power, balance, interactions or combos? If that was the case, than sure. Perhaps the cube wouldn't benefit from running multiples. But if you're trying to create the best environment using any distinct criterium, it's very likely that violating the singleton rule would allow you to do this better than not.
Once you include enough multiples of the specific archetype support cards (reanimator support, loam/crucible support, pox/stax support and so on) other areas of the cube will have to improve in order to stay competitive. Once the singleton options have been exhausted and aggro still can't beat those decks, multiple goblin guide and lightning bolts may be the only options left to you.
Yes, but then you can increase quantities of the cards that best combat them in the other archetypes in order to balance it out. You can wind up with the same level of balance at the end, but you do it with multiples instead of singles. It wouldn't stop until the environment plays perfectly, but in order to conform to pretty much any maxim, multiples will be a part of that solution. Unless singleton legal is part of the maxim itself.
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!
Yes there is. Make the cube singleton legal. Singleton is a format with a distinct set of design criteria. Its no more arbitrary to choose to design a singleton legal cube than it is to play Legacy instead of Vintage. Wizards produces duplicate effects for limiting formats that will benefit from running multiples. I don't think following a defined format is arbitrary.
I think it's arbitrary to violate the rule in some cases and not in others without some sort of objective limitation.
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!