Anyone else find it ridiculous when cube people get excited about a card being reprinted at a different rarity?
General CBS
- Thread starter James Stevenson
- Start date
Only when it’s a rarity other than common (for pauper Cubes) or uncommon (for peasant/artisan cubes).
but wotc rarity is so arbitrary, and correlates so loosely with something like power
e.g. peasant cube with Sol Ring
the only argument I could really make in favor of these restrictions is that it cuts the search space / mental load of designing, but in terms of creating a desired gameplay dynamic I don't see the purpose
if your goal is "I want to create a grinder low power environment without super swingy cards like board wipes", then you as a designer should be able to assess whether any given card serves your goal better than the color of the stamp some corporation put on the card
if your cube improves by a card being downshifted, then, prior to downshifting, a 359 common + 1 uncommon card cube would have been better than a 360 common card cube
to me these restrictions are more or less an extension of people treating cube design like building a constructed deck, e.g. try to build the most powerful [cube/deck] you can given a set of restrictions (rarity, standard, singleton, color identity, etc)
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
But that's not the goal. The goal is "I want to create an enjoyable cube experience using only commons" (for Pauper cubes), or "using only commons and uncommons" (for Peasant cubes). It's just as arbitrary as my goal of creating an enjoyable cube experience using an alternate color wheel, or some people's goal of creating an enjoyable cube experience using only cards from a certain setting (e.g. Innistrad cubes), and it's just as valid. There's a certain charm to crafting an environment while eschewing part of the available building blocks on purpose. It becomes a different kind of puzzle, plus it gives the cube a clear and easy to communicate identity.
Arguably, but it certainly wouldn't hit the brief anymore. The whole point of limiting your resources is to come up with something cool given those resources. You give up on your cube's identity and your self-imposed design goals for a marginally better experience. Why would you do that?
I really wonder why you think this is a bad thing? It's one way to channel one's creativity in cube design, and it leads to more varied design space and cube experiences.
For a marginally better experience. And then again and again until you have a significantly better experience.
I feel like restrictions can be an interesting starting point, but once you're in a place where you see a card (e.g. Myth Realized) would improve your environment (because it's perfect glue for your themes or whatever) then to me it seems super counterproductive to exclude it because of some rule, self imposed or otherwise.
To be clear I think rarity restrictions are super different from what you (@Onderzeeboot) do with your color spaces. Your sets create super cool, innovative play experiences as a function of their structure. Color pairings create an actual play element, whereas a card does the same thing regardless of how WOTC colors the set symbol.
I am with Jason here. Yes, restrictions breed creativity, but focusing on rarity is as bland as a restriction as possible and seems generally to be more a money concern. Like "Yeah, I am building a pauper/peasant cube now, because I can't afford a real one", often not knowing yet that power max isn't the only way to approach cube. So yeah, I think 90% of the rarity restricted cubes would be better of if their designers would focus more on what they want their cubes to do.
The same is true for non-rarity-restricted power max cubes. I've always had a hard time understanding how the mtgsalvation crowd complained and cried when they "had to cut" a card they really, really liked in their cubes, just because WotC printed enough objectively stronger things for that slot.
The same is true for non-rarity-restricted power max cubes. I've always had a hard time understanding how the mtgsalvation crowd complained and cried when they "had to cut" a card they really, really liked in their cubes, just because WotC printed enough objectively stronger things for that slot.
It is similar with singleton. When a reprint is available with a different name it is suddenly allowed… if the cube is better with multiples then go for it!
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
I mean, I get what you're saying, but you're reasoning from a completely different frame of mind than the curator of a Pauper of Peasant cube does. Neither approach is wrong in my mind, it just depends on your goals. Pauper and Peasant are very strong identities that offer plenty of design space. It's not objectively wrong to purposefully stay in that design space, nor is it objectively wrong to step out of that design space because you feel you can sculpt a "better" experience by doing so.
What you are doing reads to me like berating people for enjoying what you feel are suboptimal or inferior design goals, and I don't see why we should be taking down to people who do enjoy setting arbitrary limits on the card pool they consider for their cube. Ultimately, the important thing is that people are aware of the impact of their design choices and goals, and the fact that it is okay to adjust those choices and goals over time if that means you derive more joy from curating your cube. Because that's the end goal, enjoying your hobby. If curating a Pauper cube is what you do enjoy, whether that is because you enjoy the challenges of glueing together archetypes with limited resources, because you are an avid Pauper player who aims to replicate similar play styles in their cube, or for another reason altogether, than more power to you! If you feel like adhering to commons only is stifling your creativity and your joy of curating your cube, however, then yes, shift those goalposts and start introducing other rarities!
If Pauper weren't a constructed format, I'd agree with you, Jason. However, because it exists, I view Pauper cubes as an extension of that, similar to how you can have a Modern cube or a Vintage cube that tries to recreate aspects of a specific constructed format in a draftable manner.
Peasant is just people seeing a gap between Pauper and unrestricted and wanting to fill it because our monkey brains like patterns.
Peasant is just people seeing a gap between Pauper and unrestricted and wanting to fill it because our monkey brains like patterns.
I think it's entirely dependant on your cube.
Are you running a rarity restricted cube where you have 1 rare in each pack, 3 uncommons and 11 commons, then I think it's not fair to call it ridiculous.
Are you running a rarity unrestricted cube, then you probably don't care about rarity.
So I would say it's entirely dependant on your cube.
I hate to break it to you guys, but none of your cube design constraints are valid. Seriously, look at you, following the rules of Magic like sheep. Until you have the force of will to create your own rules, your "cubes" are just piles of base cardboard. You disgust me.
#BTPforLIFE
/s Actually, we're all cool. I hope we're cool. Are we cool?
#BTPforLIFE
/s Actually, we're all cool. I hope we're cool. Are we cool?
yes
But I also understand that people obtain some form of satisfaction by operating within constraints, even though there's probably a lot of cube designers whose motivation for making rarity restricted cubes I would question.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
There's like a loose financial argument, but I appreciate wotc making suggestions to pauper/peasant cubers if nothing else.
I wanted to give this a like, a heart and a Riptide.
Rarity-restricted cubes "sound" fun, and are an easy and affordable way to build a cube. It's immediately easy to understand what is allowed and not allowed, and it does help re: communication with other players to know what they're getting themselves into. In this regard, it's certainly better to say "I've got a pauper cube, wanna play?" than "hey my cube is a 5 on the Strix scale, does that sound fun?" With over 22,000 unique cards printed, it can be overwhelming to start putting together a cube, and people love labels for many psychological reasons. Without getting into a full psychology discussion, the ease of communication and goals that come from these labels provide real value.
For me, every time I've put aside cards for a Peasant/Pauper cube, I realized that it'd be more interesting or dynamic if I started from that point as an easy frame of reference and then build out beyond that based on my own determinations. For example, I think cubes with a relatively flat power-level are the most fun to draft and play, as it puts more focus on synergy and thoughtful drafting, and when you limit yourself to the arbitrary measure of a card's rarity, you're either going to 1) accidentally power-max it, which takes the whole fun out of the exercise or 2) impose restrictions on inclusions that don't actually breed creativity since it's a limitation that's honestly more aesthetic than anything.
However, if you're new to the game and/or don't think so dynamically about cards, you do believe that rarity actually has some intrinsic meaning. And sure, within the context of a single set, rarity does say something. But as we see with these Masters sets, it's context dependent. And an even more critical context is the constantly-shifting design philosophy of WotC / Team X. What "defines" an uncommon has little to do with what uncommons looked like a decade ago, and are completely foreign to those a decade before that.
Something like a "Modern" cube is similarly arbitrary, but has two key differentiators that justify it in my opinion: 1) you're at least clustering design sensibilities of "what do Modern cards (i.e. the most recent 2/3rds of the game's history) play like", and more critically 2) you're trying to emulate elements of a favored format/era. I still wouldn't use a date-bound restriction like that for a cube of my own design, but I think it makes sense for a lot of players.
Personally, I think Pauper and Peasant cubes are inferior way to curate a draft experience. I have no disrespect for folks who maintain a pauper or peasant cube, and think that an excellent cube environment that happens to meet those limitations can be a 10/10 format, but beyond the ease of conceptualization for the curator and communication with other curators/players, even something like a "characters with hats only" cube has more meaning and invites more interesting design limitations. Even for those on a strict budget, price is a better limiting factor than the color of the rarity symbol in assembling a compelling cube.
For me, every time I've put aside cards for a Peasant/Pauper cube, I realized that it'd be more interesting or dynamic if I started from that point as an easy frame of reference and then build out beyond that based on my own determinations. For example, I think cubes with a relatively flat power-level are the most fun to draft and play, as it puts more focus on synergy and thoughtful drafting, and when you limit yourself to the arbitrary measure of a card's rarity, you're either going to 1) accidentally power-max it, which takes the whole fun out of the exercise or 2) impose restrictions on inclusions that don't actually breed creativity since it's a limitation that's honestly more aesthetic than anything.
However, if you're new to the game and/or don't think so dynamically about cards, you do believe that rarity actually has some intrinsic meaning. And sure, within the context of a single set, rarity does say something. But as we see with these Masters sets, it's context dependent. And an even more critical context is the constantly-shifting design philosophy of WotC / Team X. What "defines" an uncommon has little to do with what uncommons looked like a decade ago, and are completely foreign to those a decade before that.
Something like a "Modern" cube is similarly arbitrary, but has two key differentiators that justify it in my opinion: 1) you're at least clustering design sensibilities of "what do Modern cards (i.e. the most recent 2/3rds of the game's history) play like", and more critically 2) you're trying to emulate elements of a favored format/era. I still wouldn't use a date-bound restriction like that for a cube of my own design, but I think it makes sense for a lot of players.
Personally, I think Pauper and Peasant cubes are inferior way to curate a draft experience. I have no disrespect for folks who maintain a pauper or peasant cube, and think that an excellent cube environment that happens to meet those limitations can be a 10/10 format, but beyond the ease of conceptualization for the curator and communication with other curators/players, even something like a "characters with hats only" cube has more meaning and invites more interesting design limitations. Even for those on a strict budget, price is a better limiting factor than the color of the rarity symbol in assembling a compelling cube.
But what if you want to give your players a rogue-like deck-builder experience like so many of us do? (Kidding, I know I am pretty alone)
I like to give my players an initial draft of a low power card pool with rarity restricted and color sorted booster packs. (2 rares, 4 uncommon and 8 common in each.) (At least 1 common of each mono color in each pack)
And after the first game, the players gain some new and better cards to craft a deck with their existing low-power cards.
For this format I need rarity restriction.
I like to give my players an initial draft of a low power card pool with rarity restricted and color sorted booster packs. (2 rares, 4 uncommon and 8 common in each.) (At least 1 common of each mono color in each pack)
And after the first game, the players gain some new and better cards to craft a deck with their existing low-power cards.
For this format I need rarity restriction.
Last edited:
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Oh crap I accidentally added Hymn of the Wilds again halp
The important question is... does that rarity restriction have to be based off of WotC's rarity, and not, say, your own personal evaluation?
Like, maybe your format works best if Chart A Course is a "common" or if Bannerhide Krushok is a "rare" — if so, why not treat them that way (other than the fact that WotC hasn't colored their set symbols the right color yet)?
EDIT: Then again, I'm one to talk — my first "real" cube has an incredibly arbitrary constraint on card inclusion.
You are welcome to take a look if you think you can find a card in the cube that would function better if it was another rarity.
Here:
https://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/ascension.3588/
Random thought I had today:
No Limits Modern would actually be more balanced if you combined it with a seven card version of 3-Card Magic.
This is entirely due to the fact that Lovecraft completely invalidates Chancellor of the Dross hands.
No Limits Modern would actually be more balanced if you combined it with a seven card version of 3-Card Magic.
This is entirely due to the fact that Lovecraft completely invalidates Chancellor of the Dross hands.
Friendly reminder that the next Standard legal set we will get is Dominaria United.
I think it is very nice we've had all this quiet the last few months. We also haven't been leaked on the set. It's like we actually get a short pause for once. Obviously we've had a Commander set, a Masters set, we're gonna get a Warhammer set and an Un set. But for Standard it's nice a quiet for a change.
I think it is very nice we've had all this quiet the last few months. We also haven't been leaked on the set. It's like we actually get a short pause for once. Obviously we've had a Commander set, a Masters set, we're gonna get a Warhammer set and an Un set. But for Standard it's nice a quiet for a change.