I'll admit I like consistency in my mana and such. If I want Rampant Growth, I want to see one turn 2, so I'm happy if I get to see one turn two in as many games as possible because better mana means that I get to excecute the deck better. Same with card selection (and draw). If I want it, I want the best of it, because it allows me to execute my deck better.
What I'm actually executing however varies from game to game and I like that variance. This is especially true in more casual decks, for example in my Wanderer deck I have like 30-ish cards that beat face, steals spells or generates even more advantage that all counts as some form of wincon. This means I'll have to try to win in different ways depending on which ones I get. I like that type of variance. Even in control decks, you have to play a bit differently and adapt to what cards you draw when determining how you want to control the game. I'm not saying you don't do this in quadrupleton (is this even a word) but it's not as noticeable.
I don't want to be rude but if you answer just the question from thread title but just ignore what is the rest of the thread than just don't bother to answer at all. If it wouldn't be fun people would not play it. Your answer isn't bringing anything to the table.
People do all sorts of things to limit themselves and then still try their best in a given situation.
Obviously, you can't run a 3 legged race (even with the worlds fastest man as your partner) as fast as you'd run a regular one. But when you do run that race, you still try to run as fast as you can.
Singleton is obviously a limitation. Some people embrace the chaos. Some people do not. Some people take joy in building the most consistent, streamlined deck possible despite the limitation. Some people like decks that play differently every game. Some people search to find a balance.
Pretty straight forward and good post. Thanks for contribution.
having 1 fetch land in deck sounds still like most of the people that play cosntructed but doesnt have a budget for multiple copies but it's still a point as it's limit here not the budget constraint.
I also get your point about incinerate and bolt being different to some extent but that's not exactly what I had in mind. I was saying that even if people like the limit of 1x they are still going to choose the cards as 'let's find all cards that do what bolt does' than 'wow incinerate is different'. That is my impression which in your case is not true but I feel for majority it is. Or am I wrong?
I have a question about the thing that bothers me a little when it comes to singleton (all singletons, not only commander). Because it applies to most of the singletons formats let's put the function of commander card aside.
I thought that the point of singleton is to have a little chaotic games that rarely looks the same because of well.. being singleton and 100 cards instead of 60. But when it comes to the decks that i see people put up I see a trends that.
- alot of cards are just mana accelerators or fixers that bring the count of the cards that supposed to be different to one another down.
- very ofthn there is just the same card in different cards - 1x lightning bolt, 1x incinerate, 1x lightning strike (it's just an example... i could use brainstorm, ponder, preordain, opt so don't take particular exaple as a BEST example of what is happening).
That trends removes what i thought was appealing about those formats.
What I understand is multiplayer aspect. However it doesnt meen that it couldnt be achieved in standard mtg rules (because of the trends i mentioned).
I don't play singleton that often so maybe I'm not getting it. So if you have other points that bring value to the singleton formats or just straight up you don't agree with the things i mention feel free to say that - I would love to understand your stand on that.
Not that it matters but i hate combo decks
Makes sense. Thanks
I don't want to be rude but if you answer just the question from thread title but just ignore what is the rest of the thread than just don't bother to answer at all. If it wouldn't be fun people would not play it. Your answer isn't bringing anything to the table.
Pretty straight forward and good post. Thanks for contribution.
I also get your point about incinerate and bolt being different to some extent but that's not exactly what I had in mind. I was saying that even if people like the limit of 1x they are still going to choose the cards as 'let's find all cards that do what bolt does' than 'wow incinerate is different'. That is my impression which in your case is not true but I feel for majority it is. Or am I wrong?
I have a question about the thing that bothers me a little when it comes to singleton (all singletons, not only commander). Because it applies to most of the singletons formats let's put the function of commander card aside.
I thought that the point of singleton is to have a little chaotic games that rarely looks the same because of well.. being singleton and 100 cards instead of 60. But when it comes to the decks that i see people put up I see a trends that.
- alot of cards are just mana accelerators or fixers that bring the count of the cards that supposed to be different to one another down.
- very ofthn there is just the same card in different cards - 1x lightning bolt, 1x incinerate, 1x lightning strike (it's just an example... i could use brainstorm, ponder, preordain, opt so don't take particular exaple as a BEST example of what is happening).
That trends removes what i thought was appealing about those formats.
What I understand is multiplayer aspect. However it doesnt meen that it couldnt be achieved in standard mtg rules (because of the trends i mentioned).
I don't play singleton that often so maybe I'm not getting it. So if you have other points that bring value to the singleton formats or just straight up you don't agree with the things i mention feel free to say that - I would love to understand your stand on that.