I think having different opinions is ok and part of this forum, but I think you should calm down and apologize, since there is absolutely no reason to insult. For me the "discussion" is over at this point because every party will persist at their standpoint which is fine but in****ing is just kindergarten
Well, you did flat out say that they're "wrong" and that their cube is no longer a cube because it contains multiples:
Tweaking the basic formula of cube is just wrong and unnecessary. Cube is a singleton format! So I am completely with wtwlf here.
That doesn't seem very nice either.
You also say you're "with me" on this, but you and I seem to have very different stances.
I still think what they're doing is cubing. I prefer to use a singleton legal environment and they don't. They each have their pros and cons.
The only thing left debating here is weather or not cubes can stand to improve their drafts by running multiples if you ignore the singleton rule. I think it's a very clear yes. I think there's no way to perfectly conform to a maxim without using multiples unless you specifically forbid it. They feel different.
But I in no way endorse calling their exercise "wrong", and I also don't forbid them from calling their format a cube, because I think it still very much is. There are simply going to be cubes that are singleton format legal, and cubes that aren't from here on out. That's about all that can be done.
My argument:
I choose to run a singleton cube, and not allowing multiples is not in violation with my cube maxim.
Every cube would improve their list by violating the singleton rule regardless of what their maxim is.
Their argument:
Violating the singleton rule allows them to better sculpt the perfect environment for their playgroup.
/\ /\ /\ Which I agree with, btw.
The slippery slope argument only applies if power-level is your primary objective.
/\ /\ /\ This is the part I disagree with.
What I hope we can all agree on:
A cube is a custom limited environment and nothing more. Both singleton legal lists and lists that run multiples are both "cubes".
...but apparently that last bit is being challenged by some.
..........
Quote from FlowerSunRain »
They're intended to create the types of games we like.
So none of the types of decks you enjoy could be better achieved by running multiple copies of critical cards? Once that happens and those decks get stronger, none of the other decks would be served better by having multiple copies of their respective important cards available? I find that hard to believe. No cube list is perfect. Not even within the constraints most managers apply to their lists. With zero constraints, I don't think a perfect list could be obtained ...ever. Better yet without attempting to use the multiple card tool to its full potential.
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.
I think following a defined limitation that is completely unrelated to what you are doing is definitively arbitrary. Singleton legal is convenient, its well-unknown and its well-defined. It makes discussion easy. Using it has advantages. But it doesn't have any inherent gameplay advantage over any other system of controlling multiples so it is definitely arbitrary. There is no good gameplay reason you can, in your cube, play 2 Armageddons rather then 2 Sinkholes.
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."
Get your dirty non-sinleton lists out of the cube forum! ...j/k
I was hoping that this community would be more accepting than that, but there it is.
Quote from FlowerSunRain »
But it doesn't have any inherent gameplay advantage over any other system of controlling multiples so it is definitely arbitrary.
Yes it does. The format is more diverse and has more variety if it's singleton. That's an advantage.
And singleton is a defined format with a set of rules. Following them is not arbitrary.
Arbitrary would be making up restrictions on a whim with no reason to do so. Following defined formats provides guidelines for construction without arbitrary decision-making. Just like choosing to play Standard or Modern. Those rules and restrictions for those formats aren't arbitrary either.
I follow a format they make the restrictions for so my choices don't have to be arbitrary.
Get your dirty non-sinleton lists out of the cube forum! ...j/k
I was hoping that this community would be more accepting than that, but there it is.
Honestly, I don't want it to sound mean but I am as accepting to that kind of play as I am towards common/uncommon cubes as someone who doesn't play that style. It doesn't help me or anyone else who doesn't play it to create a better cube the same way we don't help them. C/Ubes have their own subforum and I am sure the discussion is better for it.
Yes it does. The format is more diverse and has more variety if it's singleton. That's an advantage.
And singleton is a defined format with a set of rules. Following them is not arbitrary.
Arbitrary would be making up restrictions on a whim with no reason to do so. Following defined formats provides guidelines for construction without arbitrary decision-making. Just like choosing to play Standard or Modern. Those rules and restrictions for those formats aren't arbitrary either.
I'm sorry if I'm being unclear. I'm not calling following the Singleton Rule arbitrary. I'm not saying that the Singleton Rule doesn't have advantages. I'm saying that the way the Singleton Rule is formulated is arbitrary. Its not based on any gameplay related logic.
Let's take two rules:
1) The official singleton rule.
2) The official singleton rule except you can't play both Armageddon and Ravages of War.
The first rule is easier to remember. Its better known. Its easier to discuss. However the second accomplishes the exact same design intent and arguably executes it better. If the logic of the singleton rule is to create variety, I think the second rule accomplishes it better. What's worth more, the ease of use of the first or the superior comprehensiveness of the second?
Whichever one you chose to follow will give you a very similar effect, but neither is more or less arbitrary then the other.
BUT I was only saying how cube is defined (which is a fact)
I think you'd have a hard time proving that. Posting an articles that my cube predates by over fifteen years and another that admits that "The basic concept of the Cube is to compile a collection of the most powerful 300-500 Magic cards ever made, in singleton form" is broken and required him to "refine our paramaters" isn't very convincing.
I'm sorry if I'm being unclear. I'm not calling following the Singleton Rule arbitrary. I'm not saying that the Singleton Rule doesn't have advantages. I'm saying that the way the Singleton Rule is formulated is arbitrary. Its not based on any gameplay related logic.
Let's take two rules:
1) The official singleton rule.
2) The official singleton rule except you can't play both Armageddon and Ravages of War.
The first rule is easier to remember. Its better known. Its easier to discuss. However the second accomplishes the exact same design intent and arguably executes it better. If the logic of the singleton rule is to create variety, I think the second rule accomplishes it better. What's worth more, the ease of use of the first or the superior comprehensiveness of the second?
Whichever one you chose to follow will give you a very similar effect, but neither is more or less arbitrary then the other.
I prefer to follow the official singleton legal format rules. If Wizards decides that singleton formats can benefit by producing Evolving Wilds instead of simply reprinting Terramorphic Expanse, I would like to benefit from those decisions.
The singleton format exists, and it allows functional reprints. If they changed those format rules to disallow functional reprints, I wouldn't include them. Following that clearly defined format gives me design restrictions that are easy to follow, and allows me to implement them without arbitrary decision making. No two cards with the same name is simple to follow, but it still allows me to benefit from certain functional reprints that Wizards sees fit to create for those formats.
Quote from MagicFever »
I was only saying how cube is defined (which is a fact)
Well, that's how Wizards defined the cube that they built. There's no steadfast list of rules for what constitutes a cube like there are for other formats. You can't enter a sanctioned Legacy tournament with Black Lotuses in your deck. But a playgroup could collect planeswalker points for drafting a cube list that has multiples in it.
Until it becomes an official format, the cube is whatever we want to make of it. Most lists are singleton. But they can still be by definition a cube even if they include multiples.
I prefer to follow the official singleton legal format rules. If Wizards decides that singleton formats can benefit by producing Evolving Wilds instead of simply reprinting Terramorphic Expanse, I would like to benefit from those decisions.
The singleton format exists, and it allows functional reprints. If they changed those format rules to disallow functional reprints, I wouldn't include them. Following that clearly defined format gives me design restrictions that are easy to follow, and allows me to implement them without arbitrary decision making. No two cards with the same name is simple to follow, but it still allows me to benefit from certain functional reprints that Wizards sees fit to create for those formats.
This is fascinating to me (honestly). I'm assuming you think your cube is better off and more enjoyable with functional reprints in it, no? Yet you would cut them just to follow some rule you don't have to? So basically, to you, following the rules you've predetermined is more important than the health of your cube?
I am the opposite. I set up rules to follow only for the purpose of the ultimate goal of creating the best cube I can. As soon as those rules get in the way of the first goal in a significant way, I will break them if I feel like it will solve the problem.
This is fascinating to me (honestly). I'm assuming you think your cube is better off and more enjoyable with functional reprints in it, no? Yet you would cut them just to follow some rule you don't have to? So basically, to you, following the rules you've predetermined is more important than the health of your cube?
I am the opposite. I set up rules to follow only for the purpose of the ultimate goal of creating the best cube I can. As soon as those rules get in the way of the first goal in a significant way, I will break them if I feel like it will solve the problem.
I assume that wtwlf finds his cube to be healthy as it is right now and stay healthy within the rules he has set for himself. That is what I have always found to be the case with my cube. There are enough cards in existence to shape a cube to be healthy without breaking the rules you have set for yourself in the past.
This is fascinating to me (honestly). I'm assuming you think your cube is better off and more enjoyable with functional reprints in it, no? Yet you would cut them just to follow some rule you don't have to?
I make the best cube I can within the guidelines I set. I use Vintage legal cards, and a Singleton legal format. If they theoretically changed the rules for Vintage or the rules for Singleton, I'd likely continue to follow them. But that's completely hypothetical of course; I know they're not going to change those formats, making that an easy thing to say.
What I find fascinating, is that that's somehow hard to comprehend.
Quote from Phantizle »
As soon as those rules get in the way of the first goal in a significant way, I will break them
The rules have never gotten in the way of any of my goals. Especially since that adhering to those rules is part of my goals.
If I entered a Legacy forum with a decklist that had four Demonic Tutors and explained how it made my deck better, I would get laughed out of town. Yet here, the same behavior is rewarded with open-mindedness and goodwill. On a certain level, I find this awesome.
You fine folk who wish to experiment: You're not actually pioneering anything of value to the cube forum, and I truly mean this kindly. The value lies elsewhere. You're discovering the infinite modality that the game's structure allows. In the same way that a Sphere or a Type 4 Stack is a solid, separate Limited format from Cube, a list that allows multiples would be a completely different beast. If anything, this experiment highlights the need for a subforum that can deliver alternative Limited formats to posters. It would be a breeding ground for creative designers.
Originally Posted by wtwlf123
There's no steadfast list of rules for what constitutes a cube like there are for other formats. You can't enter a sanctioned Legacy tournament with Black Lotuses in your deck. But a playgroup could collect planeswalker points for drafting a cube list that has multiples in it.
Elder Dragon Highlander was around for years without being sanctioned or officially recognized, but it still had a loose body of rules similar to the cube's. And like Cube, it had a wealth of house rules spring up around it as players adopted the format. In my opinion, this is a non-issue because we all go into a cube event with a few basic assumptions, whether it's a powered cube, a Modern cube or an artifact cube. And one of those basic assumptions is the singleton rule. This is key to the nature of games. If I play a soccer game in one country, I can reasonably expect to play more or less the same game if I travel to another country, and not a game where teams are allowed knives, guns and baseball bats. Those who argue that the Cube doesn't have the same codified body of rules, and is therefore "lawless", ignore that rules can also be built up by practice over time.
I think it would be really cool if we had a semi-official committee like EDH that could deal with these questions.
This is fascinating to me (honestly). I'm assuming you think your cube is better off and more enjoyable with functional reprints in it, no? Yet you would cut them just to follow some rule you don't have to? So basically, to you, following the rules you've predetermined is more important than the health of your cube?
As if the two were somehow mutually exclusive. Nice putting words in people's mouths, bro
I am the opposite. I set up rules to follow only for the purpose of the ultimate goal of creating the best cube I can. As soon as those rules get in the way of the first goal in a significant way, I will break them if I feel like it will solve the problem.
House rules are great and all, but they're not for everyone. As might be evident from the discussion
one of those basic assumptions is the singleton rule
I know it is, but maybe it shouldn't be anymore. That's what I'm saying. It's okay for things to change. I won't change my cube, but if someone wants to play 20 fetchlands in an otherwise identical cube, it's no longer a cube anymore?
I agree that cubes should be singleton. I also agree that they should be powered. I think it's the same difference of opinion.
Maybe I'm wrong and a cube HAS to be singleton in order to constitute a cube. In the same way that a deck has to adhere to the Legacy banned list in order to be legal. But maybe not.
I prefer to follow the official singleton legal format rules. If Wizards decides that singleton formats can benefit by producing Evolving Wilds instead of simply reprinting Terramorphic Expanse, I would like to benefit from those decisions.
The singleton format exists, and it allows functional reprints. If they changed those format rules to disallow functional reprints, I wouldn't include them. Following that clearly defined format gives me design restrictions that are easy to follow, and allows me to implement them without arbitrary decision making. No two cards with the same name is simple to follow, but it still allows me to benefit from certain functional reprints that Wizards sees fit to create for those formats.
They probably saw Evolving Wilds as a no-downside functional reprint. It's a baseline effect they were comfortable with, was fair but not overpowered, was standard legal alongside Terramorphic Expanse, had a more generic flavor for future reprints, etc. I can't say how much Wizards designs for singleton formats (outside of commander), but Evolving Wilds definitely did it a solid.
For the most part, functional reprints come about when a card is needed, but the existing naming doesn't fit the flavor of the set. Iona's Judgement became Angelic Edict, Rupture Spire became Transguild Promenade. These reprints aren't going to harm any formats, so they do them as they see fit (and more often, it seems they go for just reprint, rather than functional).
P3K, which was designed separately, for a specific market, and never designed to be tournament legal, gave us some functional reprints (and a couple strictly worse and some real oddducks). WotC's stance appears to be that they've made mistakes in Magic, but they'll stand by their word to have some format(s) where all MAGIC cards are legal. So while you can run 4 Armageddon + 4 Ravages of War in legacy, and 1 of each in singleton, I don't think that was the intent (or that such an interaction was considered when printing Ravages).
I guess my point is: functional reprints of newer cards probably are done with singleton (and more specifically, commander) in mind. But WotC's designs have had their mistakes, and particularly with older cards, they have to make do with the cards that have been printed.
Skullclamp was a mistake too; doesn't mean I shouldn't cube it.
They determined when they made those cards legal that both singleton formats and constructed formats having 2 (or 8) of those effects available wouldn't ruin them. I'm okay with that decision.
And as for newer functional reprints; they know what they're doing if they make a second version instead of making a reprint. Otherwise, they'd just reprint it.
..........
But it's even simpler than that. Singleton legal means no two cards of the same name. Functional reprints are legal in that format. And since my cube is singleton format legal, functional reprints are a-okay.
Those who argue that the Cube doesn't have the same codified body of rules, and is therefore "lawless", ignore that rules can also be built up by practice over time.
I don't think they do. I think they understand that cube is not a format, but rather each individual cube is a format. Cubes aren't lawless, but they aren't governed by a universal law. Each cube manager is the Sheriff of their Cubetown and keeps the peace for their citizens in the way that serves them best.
To use your example, Legacy has a defined set of cards on what you can use in your deck so that you can play against anyone else with a Legacy deck and get a fair game. In a cube, you are allowed to play any cards you draft from the cube. You don't need an outside list of cards that you are and aren't allowed to play on top of that. The composition of the cube itself provides that structure of what cards you are and aren't allowed to play. You don't need a rule that says "You can't put Contract from Below" in the cube. All you need to do is not put Contract from Below in your cube and the problem is solved. Anyone else who does use Contract from Below in there cube is really not your problem.
Anyway, given how open-minded wtwlf is on this topic, I expect he secretly wants to give duplicates a try.
I can assure you this is 100% not the case. I just realize that people like different things, and arguing about it will waste more time than accepting it and moving on. Plus, it's an easy concept to understand. If you're not opposed to breaking the singleton rule, it would definitely make the cube stronger. How can it not?
Though, I do like to drink and cube draft. I'm always down for that.
I'm just one of those crotchety old cubers that's set in my ways, and won't violate the sanctity of the singleton rule for my group.
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.
This is true, my cube is larger than that and it plays well without duplicates.
Another point, which many of you probably won't agree with but eh, is that drafts are more interesting when you can't have the perfect mana, or you can expect a "bad" fixer to table. If every UB land was an underground sea or a Delta, it'd be pretty uninteresting just first picking them every time.
I'm just one of those crotchety old cubers that's set in my ways, and won't violate the sanctity of the singleton rule for my group.
OK, so you don't have to get off my lawn, then.
Including multiples definitely INCREASES the power-level of Cubes, unless the cards you are duplicating are 'bad' cards, which shouldn't be in there anyway, really. But it changes the fundamental maxim of the singleton rule as applied to this custom draft format.
I personally think having multiples takes away from a lot of the excitement of Cube, and specifically the release of new sets. If I can include 4 Gravecrawlers and 4 Diregraf Ghouls, why on earth would I even be excited by Rakdos Cackler?
Just to throw my (late) 2c into this conversation:
one thing I've always appreciated about the Cube format is that it's very much a self defined and customized limited environment - one which is defined mostly by what the designer, and his playgroup enjoys most. this is why almost every cube list in the forum posts a quick blurb in the beginning outlining all "custom" cube rules involved, such as cube size, card legality (in my case I allow un-cards, many other cubes do not), custom banlists, power/unpoweredness, etc. - if there were a single "true" definition or rules to a Cube, there would be no need for this. Furthermore, I think the major difference between Cube and EDH is that the environment is entirely self contained. If EDH were lax on their rules, it would be impossible to play games between players. This is different in Cube, where players abide by whatever restrictions are defined by the designer, and whatever house rules the designer might lay out (such as custom errata, etc.).
For me, I think the biggest evidence that the Cube format is a diverse and "laxly ruled" format one is that all the cubes are so different. Of course, there is huge overlap in cards (evidence that most cubes tend towards the singleton and powered/unpowered rules they follow). In a perfectly defined and ruled cube world, I think 99% of the cubes would be identical - it's not impossible to create the most ideal, most powerful, and most efficient cube list if everyone is following the rules of the format, as opposed to the custom rules and nostalgic value that many cube designers currently follow. I love this format because I can do whatever I want with my stack, and as long as I have a playgroup that enjoys the experience with me, will never have to change my definition of the Cube.
just my 2c.
EDIT: just to throw my hat into the ring, I personally believe that the limitations of the singleton format are what makes cube designing so challenging, yet fun. I abide it to the extent where I do not allow functional reprints (even something like Aether Adept and Man o' War). Including functional reprints would undoubtedly improve power level (especially in cases of Burning of Xinye or Ravages of War), but I prefer a cube where each card offers an absolutely unique effect.
Including multiples definitely INCREASES the power-level of Cubes, unless the cards you are duplicating are 'bad' cards, which shouldn't be in there anyway, really. But it changes the fundamental maxim of the singleton rule as applied to this custom draft format.
I personally think having multiples takes away from a lot of the excitement of Cube, and specifically the release of new sets. If I can include 4 Gravecrawlers and 4 Diregraf Ghouls, why on earth would I even be excited by Rakdos Cackler?
Know what I mean?
-AA
Of course I do! That's why I enforce the singleton rule. I like the diversity and variety it brings with it. And it doesn't have to interfere with my maxim to enforce it.
I see both sides of the argument, and decide to remain singleton. I just don't want Phantizle, Trunkers or FlowerSunRain to feel like their opinions are less relevant or that their format shouldn't be seen as a cube simply because they have multiples of a few cards in their lists. It's not for me, but to each their own.
I guess the first statement was especially for you, and the rest was to contribute in general. And like I said, I'm older and likely more crotchety than most so the word 'Cube' just means a bit more to me than 'custom limited format'.
That doesn't mean what they are saying and doing don't have value; they are just creating their own custom format that is within a standard deviation of Cube
If multiples were allowed, this format would have been solved and most discussion ended a long time ago. I propose the theory that if multiples were included from the very beginning, the resulting output from this forum would have put together an ideal cube that could be easily tailored to specific needs. You can see the same type of stratification in the Legacy forums. Over time, those decks have been essentially solved, barring regional considerations, metagame decisions and the occasional new card that breaks in and shakes things up, like Abrupt Decay or Deathrite Shaman. In contrast, EDH decks are practically unsolvable by virtue of their singleton nature.
This isn't the massive sea change some posters are expecting. It's an experimental phase that more or less every cuber at least considers during their time here. It is the Cube equivalent of the midlife crisis
If multiples were allowed, this format would have been solved and most discussion ended a long time ago. I propose the theory that if multiples were included from the very beginning, the resulting output from this forum would have put together an ideal cube that could be easily tailored to specific needs. You can see the same type of stratification in the Legacy forums. Over time, those decks have been essentially solved, barring regional considerations, metagame decisions and the occasional new card that breaks in and shakes things up, like Abrupt Decay or Deathrite Shaman. In contrast, EDH decks are practically unsolvable by virtue of their singleton nature.
This isn't the massive sea change some posters are expecting. It's an experimental phase that more or less every cuber at least considers during their time here. It is the Cube equivalent of the midlife crisis
In Legacy, every deck has the same general goal: to be able to win Legacy tournaments. What's the goal of building a cube? The entire premise of an ideal cube seems flawed.
I mean, let's just ask this question: should your cube include ancestral recall? If we can come to a clean consensus on whether or not all cubes should include this one card, then I'll consider the notion that cube is somehow solvable.
Also, when do you think cube started? You have multiple times referred to "the beginning" and I am very confused as to when this is because your observations seem very different from mine.
In Legacy, every deck has the same general goal: to be able to win Legacy tournaments. What's the goal of building a cube? The entire premise of an ideal cube seems flawed.
Its exactly the same. You create a cube environment where people draft to win cube tournaments.
You try and make the best deck you can within the constraints of what's legal for the format.
Believe it or not, the goal of playing a game is to win.
Well, you did flat out say that they're "wrong" and that their cube is no longer a cube because it contains multiples:
That doesn't seem very nice either.
You also say you're "with me" on this, but you and I seem to have very different stances.
I still think what they're doing is cubing. I prefer to use a singleton legal environment and they don't. They each have their pros and cons.
The only thing left debating here is weather or not cubes can stand to improve their drafts by running multiples if you ignore the singleton rule. I think it's a very clear yes. I think there's no way to perfectly conform to a maxim without using multiples unless you specifically forbid it. They feel different.
But I in no way endorse calling their exercise "wrong", and I also don't forbid them from calling their format a cube, because I think it still very much is. There are simply going to be cubes that are singleton format legal, and cubes that aren't from here on out. That's about all that can be done.
My argument:
I choose to run a singleton cube, and not allowing multiples is not in violation with my cube maxim.
Every cube would improve their list by violating the singleton rule regardless of what their maxim is.
Their argument:
Violating the singleton rule allows them to better sculpt the perfect environment for their playgroup.
/\ /\ /\ Which I agree with, btw.The slippery slope argument only applies if power-level is your primary objective.
/\ /\ /\ This is the part I disagree with.What I hope we can all agree on:
A cube is a custom limited environment and nothing more. Both singleton legal lists and lists that run multiples are both "cubes".
...but apparently that last bit is being challenged by some.
..........
So none of the types of decks you enjoy could be better achieved by running multiple copies of critical cards? Once that happens and those decks get stronger, none of the other decks would be served better by having multiple copies of their respective important cards available? I find that hard to believe. No cube list is perfect. Not even within the constraints most managers apply to their lists. With zero constraints, I don't think a perfect list could be obtained ...ever. Better yet without attempting to use the multiple card tool to its full potential.
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'm pretty sure cube has always been a singleton environment. Maybe a non singleton draft environment should have its own sub forum and name?
Draft my cube!
Watch me stream!
Get your dirty non-sinleton lists out of the cube forum! ...j/k
I was hoping that this community would be more accepting than that, but there it is.
Yes it does. The format is more diverse and has more variety if it's singleton. That's an advantage.
And singleton is a defined format with a set of rules. Following them is not arbitrary.
Arbitrary would be making up restrictions on a whim with no reason to do so. Following defined formats provides guidelines for construction without arbitrary decision-making. Just like choosing to play Standard or Modern. Those rules and restrictions for those formats aren't arbitrary either.
I follow a format they make the restrictions for so my choices don't have to be arbitrary.
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!
Honestly, I don't want it to sound mean but I am as accepting to that kind of play as I am towards common/uncommon cubes as someone who doesn't play that style. It doesn't help me or anyone else who doesn't play it to create a better cube the same way we don't help them. C/Ubes have their own subforum and I am sure the discussion is better for it.
Draft my cube!
Watch me stream!
Let's take two rules:
1) The official singleton rule.
2) The official singleton rule except you can't play both Armageddon and Ravages of War.
The first rule is easier to remember. Its better known. Its easier to discuss. However the second accomplishes the exact same design intent and arguably executes it better. If the logic of the singleton rule is to create variety, I think the second rule accomplishes it better. What's worth more, the ease of use of the first or the superior comprehensiveness of the second?
Whichever one you chose to follow will give you a very similar effect, but neither is more or less arbitrary then the other.
I prefer to follow the official singleton legal format rules. If Wizards decides that singleton formats can benefit by producing Evolving Wilds instead of simply reprinting Terramorphic Expanse, I would like to benefit from those decisions.
The singleton format exists, and it allows functional reprints. If they changed those format rules to disallow functional reprints, I wouldn't include them. Following that clearly defined format gives me design restrictions that are easy to follow, and allows me to implement them without arbitrary decision making. No two cards with the same name is simple to follow, but it still allows me to benefit from certain functional reprints that Wizards sees fit to create for those formats.
Well, that's how Wizards defined the cube that they built. There's no steadfast list of rules for what constitutes a cube like there are for other formats. You can't enter a sanctioned Legacy tournament with Black Lotuses in your deck. But a playgroup could collect planeswalker points for drafting a cube list that has multiples in it.
Until it becomes an official format, the cube is whatever we want to make of it. Most lists are singleton. But they can still be by definition a cube even if they include 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!
This is fascinating to me (honestly). I'm assuming you think your cube is better off and more enjoyable with functional reprints in it, no? Yet you would cut them just to follow some rule you don't have to? So basically, to you, following the rules you've predetermined is more important than the health of your cube?
I am the opposite. I set up rules to follow only for the purpose of the ultimate goal of creating the best cube I can. As soon as those rules get in the way of the first goal in a significant way, I will break them if I feel like it will solve the problem.
I assume that wtwlf finds his cube to be healthy as it is right now and stay healthy within the rules he has set for himself. That is what I have always found to be the case with my cube. There are enough cards in existence to shape a cube to be healthy without breaking the rules you have set for yourself in the past.
Draft my cube!
Watch me stream!
I make the best cube I can within the guidelines I set. I use Vintage legal cards, and a Singleton legal format. If they theoretically changed the rules for Vintage or the rules for Singleton, I'd likely continue to follow them. But that's completely hypothetical of course; I know they're not going to change those formats, making that an easy thing to say.
What I find fascinating, is that that's somehow hard to comprehend.
The rules have never gotten in the way of any of my goals. Especially since that adhering to those rules is part of my goals.
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 fine folk who wish to experiment: You're not actually pioneering anything of value to the cube forum, and I truly mean this kindly. The value lies elsewhere. You're discovering the infinite modality that the game's structure allows. In the same way that a Sphere or a Type 4 Stack is a solid, separate Limited format from Cube, a list that allows multiples would be a completely different beast. If anything, this experiment highlights the need for a subforum that can deliver alternative Limited formats to posters. It would be a breeding ground for creative designers.
Elder Dragon Highlander was around for years without being sanctioned or officially recognized, but it still had a loose body of rules similar to the cube's. And like Cube, it had a wealth of house rules spring up around it as players adopted the format. In my opinion, this is a non-issue because we all go into a cube event with a few basic assumptions, whether it's a powered cube, a Modern cube or an artifact cube. And one of those basic assumptions is the singleton rule. This is key to the nature of games. If I play a soccer game in one country, I can reasonably expect to play more or less the same game if I travel to another country, and not a game where teams are allowed knives, guns and baseball bats. Those who argue that the Cube doesn't have the same codified body of rules, and is therefore "lawless", ignore that rules can also be built up by practice over time.
I think it would be really cool if we had a semi-official committee like EDH that could deal with these questions.
As if the two were somehow mutually exclusive. Nice putting words in people's mouths, bro
House rules are great and all, but they're not for everyone. As might be evident from the discussion
My Cube (DeckStats)
My Pauper Cube: 540 (CubeTutor link!)
Level 1 Judge
I know it is, but maybe it shouldn't be anymore. That's what I'm saying. It's okay for things to change. I won't change my cube, but if someone wants to play 20 fetchlands in an otherwise identical cube, it's no longer a cube anymore?
I agree that cubes should be singleton. I also agree that they should be powered. I think it's the same difference of opinion.
Maybe I'm wrong and a cube HAS to be singleton in order to constitute a cube. In the same way that a deck has to adhere to the Legacy banned list in order to be legal. But maybe not.
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!
They probably saw Evolving Wilds as a no-downside functional reprint. It's a baseline effect they were comfortable with, was fair but not overpowered, was standard legal alongside Terramorphic Expanse, had a more generic flavor for future reprints, etc. I can't say how much Wizards designs for singleton formats (outside of commander), but Evolving Wilds definitely did it a solid.
For the most part, functional reprints come about when a card is needed, but the existing naming doesn't fit the flavor of the set. Iona's Judgement became Angelic Edict, Rupture Spire became Transguild Promenade. These reprints aren't going to harm any formats, so they do them as they see fit (and more often, it seems they go for just reprint, rather than functional).
P3K, which was designed separately, for a specific market, and never designed to be tournament legal, gave us some functional reprints (and a couple strictly worse and some real odd ducks). WotC's stance appears to be that they've made mistakes in Magic, but they'll stand by their word to have some format(s) where all MAGIC cards are legal. So while you can run 4 Armageddon + 4 Ravages of War in legacy, and 1 of each in singleton, I don't think that was the intent (or that such an interaction was considered when printing Ravages).
I guess my point is: functional reprints of newer cards probably are done with singleton (and more specifically, commander) in mind. But WotC's designs have had their mistakes, and particularly with older cards, they have to make do with the cards that have been printed.
"I'm the Best!"
Toad, Mario Kart 64
They determined when they made those cards legal that both singleton formats and constructed formats having 2 (or 8) of those effects available wouldn't ruin them. I'm okay with that decision.
And as for newer functional reprints; they know what they're doing if they make a second version instead of making a reprint. Otherwise, they'd just reprint it.
..........
But it's even simpler than that. Singleton legal means no two cards of the same name. Functional reprints are legal in that format. And since my cube is singleton format legal, functional reprints are a-okay.
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!
To use your example, Legacy has a defined set of cards on what you can use in your deck so that you can play against anyone else with a Legacy deck and get a fair game. In a cube, you are allowed to play any cards you draft from the cube. You don't need an outside list of cards that you are and aren't allowed to play on top of that. The composition of the cube itself provides that structure of what cards you are and aren't allowed to play. You don't need a rule that says "You can't put Contract from Below" in the cube. All you need to do is not put Contract from Below in your cube and the problem is solved. Anyone else who does use Contract from Below in there cube is really not your problem.
I can assure you this is 100% not the case. I just realize that people like different things, and arguing about it will waste more time than accepting it and moving on. Plus, it's an easy concept to understand. If you're not opposed to breaking the singleton rule, it would definitely make the cube stronger. How can it not?
Though, I do like to drink and cube draft. I'm always down for that.
I'm just one of those crotchety old cubers that's set in my ways, and won't violate the sanctity of the singleton rule for my group.
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!
This is true, my cube is larger than that and it plays well without duplicates.
Another point, which many of you probably won't agree with but eh, is that drafts are more interesting when you can't have the perfect mana, or you can expect a "bad" fixer to table. If every UB land was an underground sea or a Delta, it'd be pretty uninteresting just first picking them every time.
OK, so you don't have to get off my lawn, then.
Including multiples definitely INCREASES the power-level of Cubes, unless the cards you are duplicating are 'bad' cards, which shouldn't be in there anyway, really. But it changes the fundamental maxim of the singleton rule as applied to this custom draft format.
I personally think having multiples takes away from a lot of the excitement of Cube, and specifically the release of new sets. If I can include 4 Gravecrawlers and 4 Diregraf Ghouls, why on earth would I even be excited by Rakdos Cackler?
Know what I mean?
-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
one thing I've always appreciated about the Cube format is that it's very much a self defined and customized limited environment - one which is defined mostly by what the designer, and his playgroup enjoys most. this is why almost every cube list in the forum posts a quick blurb in the beginning outlining all "custom" cube rules involved, such as cube size, card legality (in my case I allow un-cards, many other cubes do not), custom banlists, power/unpoweredness, etc. - if there were a single "true" definition or rules to a Cube, there would be no need for this. Furthermore, I think the major difference between Cube and EDH is that the environment is entirely self contained. If EDH were lax on their rules, it would be impossible to play games between players. This is different in Cube, where players abide by whatever restrictions are defined by the designer, and whatever house rules the designer might lay out (such as custom errata, etc.).
For me, I think the biggest evidence that the Cube format is a diverse and "laxly ruled" format one is that all the cubes are so different. Of course, there is huge overlap in cards (evidence that most cubes tend towards the singleton and powered/unpowered rules they follow). In a perfectly defined and ruled cube world, I think 99% of the cubes would be identical - it's not impossible to create the most ideal, most powerful, and most efficient cube list if everyone is following the rules of the format, as opposed to the custom rules and nostalgic value that many cube designers currently follow. I love this format because I can do whatever I want with my stack, and as long as I have a playgroup that enjoys the experience with me, will never have to change my definition of the Cube.
just my 2c.
EDIT: just to throw my hat into the ring, I personally believe that the limitations of the singleton format are what makes cube designing so challenging, yet fun. I abide it to the extent where I do not allow functional reprints (even something like Aether Adept and Man o' War). Including functional reprints would undoubtedly improve power level (especially in cases of Burning of Xinye or Ravages of War), but I prefer a cube where each card offers an absolutely unique effect.
Of course I do! That's why I enforce the singleton rule. I like the diversity and variety it brings with it. And it doesn't have to interfere with my maxim to enforce it.
I see both sides of the argument, and decide to remain singleton. I just don't want Phantizle, Trunkers or FlowerSunRain to feel like their opinions are less relevant or that their format shouldn't be seen as a cube simply because they have multiples of a few cards in their lists. It's not for me, but to each their own.
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!
That doesn't mean what they are saying and doing don't have value; they are just creating their own custom format that is within a standard deviation of Cube
Maybe we can call it a dodecahedron?
-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
This isn't the massive sea change some posters are expecting. It's an experimental phase that more or less every cuber at least considers during their time here. It is the Cube equivalent of the midlife crisis
My Cube (DeckStats)
My Pauper Cube: 540 (CubeTutor link!)
Level 1 Judge
In Legacy, every deck has the same general goal: to be able to win Legacy tournaments. What's the goal of building a cube? The entire premise of an ideal cube seems flawed.
I mean, let's just ask this question: should your cube include ancestral recall? If we can come to a clean consensus on whether or not all cubes should include this one card, then I'll consider the notion that cube is somehow solvable.
Also, when do you think cube started? You have multiple times referred to "the beginning" and I am very confused as to when this is because your observations seem very different from mine.
Its exactly the same. You create a cube environment where people draft to win cube tournaments.
You try and make the best deck you can within the constraints of what's legal for the format.
Believe it or not, the goal of playing a game is to win.
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!