General Breaking Singleton

[ahadabans]

So, I have been working on a major overhaul of my cube for months now. And I'm ready to break singleton. I've always supported the idea conceptually, I just haven't considered putting it into practice until now. I'm ready. Let's do this.

I'd appreciate some feedback on this though because it has me somewhat overwhelmed from a design standpoint. Cube designing was hard enough when I had hard (albeit somewhat silly) rules like singleton limiting my options. Now it seems like I can do anything which means I have no idea where to even start.

1. What cards benefit the most from multiples?
2. Which cards don't work without multiples?
3. What are some arch types / build around ideas that have suddenly become great (both for your meta and fun to draft/play) because you are now running multiples?

I have an idea on some of this, but I'd like to get some discussion going in one place.

Cheers.

 

[FlowerSunRain]

I think the best two places to look at for duplication are 1 drops and lands.

I know you've said that your group doesn't like aggro much. While that might be because they don't like the fundamental concept of aggro, it also might be that singleton constraints typically do a great job of making aggro less fun because:

(1 drops) You have to grid fill with terrible cards to meet the aggro quota

and

(lands) You don't have enough lands to play your cards consistently on time

while

(other slots) there are tons of high quality, high variety, high interest cards at the higher casting costs making singleton a relative non-factor for other decktypes

 

[ahadabans]

It seems to me gravecrawler and birthing pod both really benefit from running more than one copy. Wildfire wants multiple copies too I think.

Where I'm struggling a bit is finding that sweet spot where I enable a cool deck without adding too much redundancy (thus making it too good) which in turn can reduce the number of playable arch types (by making currently playable stuff no longer competitive). It's such a hard thing to balance honestly.

Redundancy beyond a bare minimum is actually not desirable IMO. I don't want my cube playing like constructed as I think constructed sucks donkey balls. This is the biggest roadblock I have to fully embracing multiples. I don't want guys auto drafting pod.dec and zombies.dec because I've tuned my cube to make those easy to assemble and ultra lethal. That isn't the cube I want to have. So I'd rather just run some universally cool tools that have many applications and let guys come up with shit on their own. Half of the fun is seeing the bizarre combinations that come together. It's really all about exploiting synergy for me. That is where I think cube's sweet spot is. But there is a middle point I want to achieve. I'm not looking to squeeze all the power possible out of gravecrawler for example. So that is the angle I'm coming at this from. Where is that middle ground?

I'm getting a bit off topic here, but this is an important design philosophy / group play-style thing worth discussing, so please excuse the word vomit spewing forth here. I've read comments from several guys about Living Death not being any good because you couldn't build around a single copy. And that is probably true if you are building super efficient decks (which look more like constructed decks and less like limited decks). But IMO, Living Death is amazing in tons of decks because I'm not intentionally building around it. It's synergy I'm exploiting. I'm simply making a graveyard centric deck, and that card ends up being great in it. But the deck works without it because it's not really about setting up Living Death (though some level of deck building is required otherwise you end up on the losing end when it resolves). Any GB pod or Genesis style deck is all about drawing Living Death. Any sac theme deck loves Living Death. Any deck where you are discarding tons of crap to pay for stuff. Reanimator is especially broken when you draw Living Death. Sneak attack is even more broken with Living Death. But none of these decks require Living Death. Synergy baby.

Anyway, just some random thoughts here.

 

[Changling Bob]

I'm getting a bit off topic here, but this is an important design philosophy / group play-style thing worth discussing, so please excuse the word vomit spewing forth here. I've read comments from several guys about Living Death not being any good because you couldn't build around a single copy. And that is probably true if you are building super efficient decks (which look more like constructed decks and less like limited decks). But IMO, Living Death is amazing in tons of decks because I'm not intentionally building around it. It's synergy I'm exploiting. I'm simply making a graveyard centric deck, and that card ends up being great in it. But the deck works without it because it's not really about setting up Living Death (though some level of deck building is required otherwise you end up on the losing end when it resolves). Any GB pod or Genesis style deck is all about drawing Living Death. Any sac theme deck loves Living Death. Any deck where you are discarding tons of crap to pay for stuff. Reanimator is especially broken when you draw Living Death. Sneak attack is even more broken with Living Death. But none of these decks require Living Death. Synergy baby.

To my way of thinking, if this is your opinion, you don't need to break singleton. Just play more interesting value/synergy cards. All the stuff that 'needs' to break singleton will tend to be for build-around-me reasons; see our collective love multiples of gravecrawler (zombie agro) and pod (erm, pod decks). Alternatively, jam gravecrawler, bloodghast, nether spirit, nether traitor, etc and some value zombies, and a single pod, other sac outlets, persist dudes, etc etc and let synergy and value fall out instead of specific decks to aim towards.

Hence why I have a bunch of reasonable flanking creatures and incidentally cavalry master, three splicers and a handful of golem artifact creatures. And clones work well with both of those. And gravecrawler and some zombies. Now I think about it I should jam some changelings to hit golem and zombie and also shore up colour support for those things a bit. I've got random value madness cards, who if you get some reanimator enablers you get bonus value out of. I've got heroic dudes you can put rancor on if you want, and I've got young pyro and guttersnipe and spells. Pretty much nothing in my list will sit and make you a sweet deck to build around, but all of it interacts in multiple places (I hope!) so that you can do interesting things with most of the cards.

 

[Chris Taylor]

Yeah, most of the reason for multiples of a card is when it really has no comparison. There's no card in magic that does whatbirthing pod does (Since natural order is kinda the same but plays REALLY differently).
While there may be a bunch of cards like gravecrawler:

None of them are that great, and fewer still of them fit in anything other than a dedicated sac deck, whereas crawler still beats for 2. Bloodghast is kinda the only one that comes close

It doesn't just apply to build around me cards, however. I've got 3 each of Volcanic Hammer and Soul Reap in my cube because I wanted my removal to be more sorcery speed. Soul Reap is the only sorcery speed doom blade that exists

 

[ahadabans]

Thanks for the feedback. I can't help but think there may still be some synergy opportunities by breaking singleton. Like brainstorm for instance. That is just so much better than the alternatives and it interacts with a whole heck of a lot (especially if you run multiple fetches or library manipulation stuff). Seems to me running more than one copy of that card is better than tossing in one brainstorm and one ponder. But I don't know. Maybe not?

If I were to approach building a cube from the ground up and let's say I came to the conclusion that I needed 12 blue 1 drops. What would those 12 cards be? Clearly, it would depend on what I wanted blue to do. But let's say I want blue to be heavily focused on control elements (with a tempo sub theme). How many brainstorms would be ideal from a synergistic standpoint? These are all theoretical questions that likely do not have a perfect answer (and could vary depending on how fast I want my cube, what the other colors do, etc). But I know guys have been experimenting with this, so I'd love to hear some experiences.

Brainstorm is one I'm interested in particular. What have the effects been of running more than one copy? What has that helped to strengthen?

 

[Chris Taylor]

Apparently its the best way to boost control without nerfing aggro/midrange. I'm loving it so far, but then again I have 33 fetches, terminus, and a few library manipulation cards.
Though one awesome thing with brainstorm:

 

[Jason Waddell]

Thanks for the feedback. I can't help but think there may still be some synergy opportunities by breaking singleton. Like brainstorm for instance. That is just so much better than the alternatives and it interacts with a whole heck of a lot (especially if you run multiple fetches or library manipulation stuff). Seems to me running more than one copy of that card is better than tossing in one brainstorm and one ponder. But I don't know. Maybe not?

If I were to approach building a cube from the ground up and let's say I came to the conclusion that I needed 12 blue 1 drops. What would those 12 cards be? Clearly, it would depend on what I wanted blue to do. But let's say I want blue to be heavily focused on control elements (with a tempo sub theme). How many brainstorms would be ideal from a synergistic standpoint? These are all theoretical questions that likely do not have a perfect answer (and could vary depending on how fast I want my cube, what the other colors do, etc). But I know guys have been experimenting with this, so I'd love to hear some experiences.

Brainstorm is one I'm interested in particular. What have the effects been of running more than one copy? What has that helped to strengthen?

Okay, Brainstorm is great in multiples, and it works with so many interactions. You have decks with Cascade, shuffle effects, Miracles, Delver, Augur of Bolas, Dark Confidant, etc., and it sets up all of those and is super skill intensive. I love it. I don't run any Ponder / Preordain anymore.

As far as breaking goes, there are varying degrees of "elegance" in design. Probably the most successful ever has been the Gravecrawler one, because it was just taking up slots that cubes already had allocated to Sarcomancy and Diregraf Ghoul and whatever other dorks.

Lately I've been veering towards breaking for cards that support multiple archetypes, like Kitchen Finks supporting my Pod decks and lifegain decks. I think the most important thing is to have some awareness of what breaking singleton for specific effects actually does for your environment, but if you haven't done it before I wouldn't wring your hands over it too much. Just try ideas and then evaluate. My cube briefly had a trio of Young Pyromancer and Gitaxian Probe and it turned out to be balls, so, there you have it. I also once ran multiple Greater Gargadons, which was also dumb. There's no substitute for testing.

 

[ahadabans]

Thanks Jason. I didn't even consider the brainstorm/bob interaction. That's the kind of synergy I love uncovering in cube. It's what I want my cube to actually be about.

I do think that brainstorm is better in your cube because of the fetches. I think you need shuffle effects to really get the most out of that card because sometimes you have just a bunch of chaff and unless you can shuffle it away, you end up just moving jank around. Sensei's Games-Take-Forever Divining Top has a similar problem.

I want to move away from proxies because I hate them. And if I do that there is no way I'm buying another set of fetches. Is running 4 brainstorm still the way to go do you think?

 

[CML]

Chinese fakes!

Top fills me with joy in Cube and if someone is taking too long tell them to drink another beer and hurry up, basketball got better with a shotclock amirite

I still like Ponder and I don't like Preordain much, Ponder is "better than Brainstorm" in combo decks (digging 4 > 3 deeper + shuffles) but it's also great fun in fair decks, which is basically every Cube deck. I guess I'm having trouble filling out my Blue section and I use cantrips as filler, but they also "smooth out the games" and avoid the goddamn TOPDECK WARZ or CARDS IN HAND?? TEN!! which is one of the principal afflictions of Grim Mongoloid Cubes.

what i'm saying is I prefer having 2x ponder to 1x ponder and 1x deep analysis, so to speak

 

[ahadabans]

I like ponder as well, and it compliments brainstorm as it gives a shuffle effect. I wouldn't get rid of it even if I ran 4 brainstorms.

Deep analysis is great in reanimator, so I like having one around.

 

[CML]

it is a nice one to dredge into. maybe i will change my mind.

 

[Diakonov]

So, I'm about to experiment with "draft one copy: receive multiple copies." Some players in my group complain about the boredom of seeing a selection of mostly-vanilla aggro creatures to choose from in a pack, but I still want aggro to be a thing (and I want it be competitive, also). Would "draft one Savannah Lions receive two" be too good? It would add consistency and strength to the aggro decks while providing variety to the packs, since I wouldn't have to take up multiple slots for the same aggro creature.

 

[FlowerSunRain]

I do this for a select few cards and it has been well received. My reasoning was EXACTLY the reasons you said. See my cube list for how I do it (the cards marked "double" give you two with one pick).

http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/9224

 

[Diakonov]

That's great news. I look forward to trying it tomorrow.

 

[FlowerSunRain]

I've considered "take one" multi-picks as well for sets of interesting cards where I don't particularly want slots for all of them/all of them in play at the same time, but haven't pulled the trigger on it due to added complexity of execution. I mean, I already have cards randomly sleeved (double face card sleeved with its checklist and double picks sleeved together), so having a few more sleeved together is no big deal, but needing to communicate which cards you get two picks and which you only get one adds some rules weight to the process that might not be worth it.

Sarkhan Vol, B/W Sorin, Kiora and Ral Zarek as a multi-color planeswalker pick, for example.

 

[ahadabans]

So, I'm about to experiment with "draft one copy: receive multiple copies." Some players in my group complain about the boredom of seeing a selection of mostly-vanilla aggro creatures to choose from in a pack, but I still want aggro to be a thing (and I want it be competitive, also). Would "draft one Savannah Lions receive two" be too good? It would add consistency and strength to the aggro decks while providing variety to the packs, since I wouldn't have to take up multiple slots for the same aggro creature.

That's certainly one way to go about it.

I've taken a different angle on this though. I'm not a big fan of consistency, which probably sounds strange. But I don't like constructed magic at all because I find that it over emphasizes roshambo (aggro > control > midrange... or whatever flavor is relevant to the format). IMO, the game is better when you do everything possible to remove "match-up" from the equation. The perfect meta for me would be one where every deck had a roughly equal chance of beating every other deck and the winner was (more often than not) the guy that made the best play decisions. Luck still plays a role (and an important one - If I wanted a 100% skill based game I'd play chess), but I don't want matches determined by the match-up as much as I can help it.

So breaking singleton and doubling up cards I think goes against what I'm trying to do to some extent. With that said, I have decided to break singleton but only to shore up weaknesses (like blue one drops which suck donkey balls) and the occasional card that opens up a lot of interesting synergies (gravecrawler is a great example). As far as making aggro viable, I don't play a lot of the broken high powered cards. I think most of you find aggro struggling because it has to deal with nonsense like wurmcoil, grave titan, baneslayer, et all. I don't run any of those cards, so midrange and control guys can't just auto dominate the game when they get to 5/6 mana. My cube meta basically runs the way the game used to play before M10. You didn't need a deck full of goblin guides as the aggro player to win games back when skeletal vampire was a viable control finisher and your best ramp target was simic sky swallower.

 

[FlowerSunRain]

Just to clarify, the "double" cards I run are not the goblin guides or mothers of runes, its the firedrinker satyrs and tormented heroes. I mean, sure I could run Firedrinker Satyr AND Jackal Pup, but what's the point? They are nichewise the exact same card, I don't see any reason to run an obsolete version of it that takes up a second slot just to ensure decks can draft enough 1 drops. The reason my cube doesn't run multiple copies of the same card isn't to fulfill some abstract criteria, its to be able to play with different cards. Shoving two Tormented Heroes into a sleeve accomplishes that way better then having to cut an actually different card so I can slap a Diregraf Ghoul in to meet a quota.

Also, I like Grave Titan, but hate Wurmcoil Engine with all my heart, go figure! I think largely its because Grave Titan forms part of the black's niche in my cube while Wurmcoil just, umm, Wurmcoils it up?

You are dead on about carefully selecting cards, though. It can be surprising how much a cube environment can change with only a few cards swaps if those decisions are made with purposeful design (rather then attempting to achieve arbitrary standards).

 

[ahadabans]

I don't play my cube enough to really have a finely tuned meta. Even if I did, my group is too casual to really exploit it's weaknesses. So it's all just theory for me honestly. I've played the game for well over a decade, so cube was/is my opportunity to try and fix the things I find weak about the game.

I agree about not wanting to run functionally weaker version of cards. So doubling firedrinker makes perfect sense if you need an extra aggro dude. I don't push aggro as hard, so it's not that I'm running firedrinker and pup, I'm only running one of them (my list is small though - 400 cards). I'd rather see a slightly slower form of aggro though anyway (decks that run a 5 drop or two or some tempo based flavor which is more interesting) versus hyper-fast aggro (topping with a single 4 drop or just 3 drops with a game plan of drop stuff and turn it side ways - rinse and repeat). Games that go too fast IMO are bad. No one likes to auto lose on turn 3 to some super tuned aggro deck. It removes all the play decisions from the game (or most of them anyway). What choices can you make when you literally saw 9 cards from your 40 and only had two cards you could theoretically even play before you ate 20 damage (and neither of those cards could help you)? Maybe it's your fault for not building a better deck. Or maybe that's just a crappy game of magic?

That's extreme of course, but this is a fundamental issue I have with aggro as an over pushed theatre. There are fewer play decisions to be made on both sides of the table when games are over quickly. It discourages creativity too because the only strategies which work against efficient decks of this nature are your standard tried and true decks. If I wanted to just build the same decks all the time... well, let's just say I wouldn't want to play Magic. What makes cube so fun is creating something new each time. You have less incentive to do that if you know that the aggro guy can build a turn 4 goldfish deck every draft without trying. You then are forced to make decks that can compete with that, reducing your options.

My beef with most of the titans is that they represent nearly unlimited card advantage (virtual or otherwise). It's the same issue I have with walkers. They are designed in a way to where they must be answered or you cannot win against them. You can say that about a lot of cards in theory (you have to technically answer my 5/5 dragon or you will lose) but in most of those cases it's not run away card advantage. I can race your dragon. I cannot race Grave Titan. It must be killed or I lose. Grave Titan if he lives a single turn auto wins the game against most decks barring silver bullet answers (wrath or something). Those cards IMO suck because they wreck the game state. Grave Titan should have cost 8 or 9 mana. Any black deck that can cast grave titan is better with that card in their final 40. No effort has to go into making the card good. That is why I prefer conditional finishers like Massacre Wurm (which you can't just throw into every deck as it can wreck your board state too) or vanilla finishers like the kamigawa dragons (which offer value if they die so you don't lose too much tempo if your opponent answers them, but they don't destroy the board state when they come down).

That's all just my take on it though - I'm old school. You can certainly build a healthy meta with Grave Titan and more consistent aggro decks to counter balance - I'm not saying you can't. I just prefer how the game played before the power explosion.

 

[CML]

That's certainly one way to go about it.

I've taken a different angle on this though. I'm not a big fan of consistency, which probably sounds strange. But I don't like constructed magic at all because I find that it over emphasizes roshambo (aggro > control > midrange... or whatever flavor is relevant to the format). IMO, the game is better when you do everything possible to remove "match-up" from the equation. The perfect meta for me would be one where every deck had a roughly equal chance of beating every other deck and the winner was (more often than not) the guy that made the best play decisions. Luck still plays a role (and an important one - If I wanted a 100% skill based game I'd play chess), but I don't want matches determined by the match-up as much as I can help it.

So breaking singleton and doubling up cards I think goes against what I'm trying to do to some extent. With that said, I have decided to break singleton but only to shore up weaknesses (like blue one drops which suck donkey balls) and the occasional card that opens up a lot of interesting synergies (gravecrawler is a great example). As far as making aggro viable, I don't play a lot of the broken high powered cards. I think most of you find aggro struggling because it has to deal with nonsense like wurmcoil, grave titan, baneslayer, et all. I don't run any of those cards, so midrange and control guys can't just auto dominate the game when they get to 5/6 mana. My cube meta basically runs the way the game used to play before M10. You didn't need a deck full of goblin guides as the aggro player to win games back when skeletal vampire was a viable control finisher and your best ramp target was simic sky swallower.

this makes some sense for constructed, but none for draft, if all the decks were equal then no drafting decisions would matter. i love a flat power curve and everything but difficult and subjective decisions that require both judgment and number crunching should take place over the course of the draft and not just the games. one argument that you might use would be that since a completely flat power curve and thus a 'zero-sum' draft are impossible in practice, trying to design in that direction with no danger of hitting the extreme would make sense.

the notion that aggro struggles with cards CMC 5 and 6 because they're power-maxed used to be something i subscribed to, it's probably true if your curve is low and your fixing CIPT but these traits (which are ubiquitous in grim mongo cubes) are not design choices i would make. double cackler seems like a reasonable way to deal with this.

as for consistency, i think i agree to some extent (you don't want decks to do the same thing every game) but grim mongoloid cube games so often involve someone flooding out or boringly ripping off the top or whatever that i'm happy to increase the consistency of my cube decks by comparison. this is especially true for the mana, because color screw is gay

 

[ahadabans]

this is especially true for the mana, because color screw is gay

No truer words have ever been spoken.

 

[CML]

"if your curve is high" i mean. anyway, i abhor powermaxing as a thought process but going full throttle with fixing and 1- and 2-drops has let me add back in old anathemas like Thragtusk and Grave Titan. I draw the line right before Wurmcoil Engine, I guess

 

[ahadabans]

I understand. Each group is different too. My cube is more retro (I don't even run walkers), so a lot of the power creep is out of place with what I'm after.

I can tell your cube has been finely tuned from a lot of hands on experience - the best way to do this obviously. I wish I could say the same about mine, but the reality is my group is flakey as hell and has pretty much fallen apart over the last few months. Cube now is more theory for me which is unfortunate. And so a lot of my ideas right now are really untested (and probably won't work exactly as intended in practice). But what can you do?

 

[Lucre]

Those lands just feel so good man.
And you are waaaay less reliant on what wizards decides to print a million incarnations of in order to support themes / balancing / health.

 

[CML]

I understand. Each group is different too. My cube is more retro (I don't even run walkers), so a lot of the power creep is out of place with what I'm after.

I can tell your cube has been finely tuned from a lot of hands on experience - the best way to do this obviously. I wish I could say the same about mine, but the reality is my group is flakey as hell and has pretty much fallen apart over the last few months. Cube now is more theory for me which is unfortunate. And so a lot of my ideas right now are really untested (and probably won't work exactly as intended in practice). But what can you do?

my recommendation is to t8 some events and then accomplish nothing. this will make people want to play with you, because you are good, then want to keep playing with you, because your sucky presence is comforting

huh, i wonder what it'd be like without walkers in my cube. i bet midrange would need some extra support, since walkers are pretty much all midrange cards.