PROMOTING VARIETY IN CUBE
Some thoughts on how to create more varied experiences in Cube:
Macro-archetypes
The first answer you hear to 'what types of deck are there?' usually involves aggro, control, and... something. In the early days of Magic this was combo, with a suggested rock-paper-scissors relationship of aggro > control > combo > aggro that was always somewhat tenuous and relied on the Platonic form of a control deck that you could build at that time - your deck with 16 counterspells, card draw, and 1-2 win conditions would predictably beat the A + B combo deck and fold to Savannah Lions + Soltari Priest. Magic design has trended away from that for good reason and you can't replicate it in Cube unless you go out of your way to ensure that. In this original schema, midrange was a failure - your deck ended up there if it wasn't coherent enough to fit into another category and these midrange decks needed to boast an overwhelming advantage against aggro to make up for inherent weaknesses against both control and combo.
These days, it's combo that feels like more of an aberration - the midrange > aggro > control > midrange dynamic is more natural and accurate. This isn't just midrange being recognized as a distinct archetype - it's that midrange has swallowed up space that aggro and control used to occupy. Many aggro decks in Constructed feel like midrange decks that get on the board quickly and have a faster nut draw; many control decks are just bigger midrange decks that are more likely to have reactive cards. The decks that proudly identify as midrange aren't the clunkers of old that hoped not to draw the wrong half of their deck - they are tighter, more well-rounded decks that can compete at each stage of the game.
It's sometimes said that in Limited every deck is midrange until proven otherwise and that's how it often feels even when your deck successfully leans into its colour pair's assigned archetype. That partly reflects the power level of the average Limited deck and how Limited design operates but it's also a feature of the drafting process - unless an archetype is seeded and pushed strongly, it's hard to find a deck that departs enough from the midrange template to be called something else. The 'good cards in my colours' deck that is the easy default is almost always a midrange deck - even if you'd rather players be doing something more ambitious, you need to know what this deck will look like.
Beyond that the hybrid categories get weird. Aggro-control does the job but if you examine it closely it's tough to pin down (and that's before you get to the dreaded t*mpo). Combo-control is a very strong archetype in Constructed and tends to be the default for combo in Cube since you don't have enough redundancy on actual combo pieces to be all-in on one plan. Aggro-combo is elusive but very satisfying when it works. Some mostly Constructed-exclusive archetypes like Prison live in their own world.
Big games vs small games
https://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/mordors-cube-the-ship-of-theseus.3180/post-116425
One of the most illuminating questions you can ask to understand a deck/matchup/format is: what size of game are you hoping for? Parker did an excellent job exploring some of the nuances here and these two articles by Sam Black are what sparked my interest in the concept initially (as sketched in this post) and are required reading IMO:
https://articles.starcitygames.com/...erfang-disciple-the-nature-of-card-advantage/
https://articles.starcitygames.com/...ic-why-card-advantage-is-an-outdated-concept/
Modern Magic design votes emphatically for big games at every opportunity but most Cubes encompass cards from a wide range of design eras/philosophies and as a Cube designer you can choose a mix that works for you.
How quickly are your players amassing resources and what does this look like? Pauper Cubes (or high power/complexity retail Limited formats) tend naturally towards big games but it takes a while to get there - it's hard to apply pressure quickly and end the game before it becomes a Mulldrifter slugfest. At low rarity few creatures have impressive stats in their own right and you don't have planeswalkers or planeswalker-esque cards that threaten to dominate a game by themselves so you care more about raw resources than anything else.
This contextual fact about Pauper joins a general fact about longer games - Magic's game engine gives each player a gradual but continual drip of extra resources. A slow back-and-forth between mana-light draws will turn into a bigger battle between mana-heavy draws over time. When the game engine and the nature of the format scale in this linear way, it's easy for games to fall into a familiar rhythm.
You can have faster games that still scale in a predictable way - many Constructed ramp decks were strong because they amassed resources quickly but they did so in a way that usually hit each checkpoint at a certain time even if their payoffs actually threatened to end games. Commander exists in a weird liminal space here - the combination of a unique rule set designed to prolong games and strong social norms against doing anything means that players can acquire resources quickly (Sol Ring is legal in this format, people) but don't stop others from doing the same or do much with those resources themselves.
(Planeswalkers are an interesting example of predictability. You know what they are capable of and the abilities are generally costed so that activating them every turn isn't overwhelming by itself unless you paid a lot of mana up front - in one sense they lead to these progressively bigger games over time. On the other hand, the threat of the ultimate or another use of the minus ability often becomes the most contested part of a game that reaches that point. Sagas are predictable insofar as you know what they will do and they are hard to interact with barring removal but they have an in-built crescendo towards the final chapter that changes the pacing of the game)
Faster games can also scale quickly or unpredictably. Legacy and especially Vintage can be good examples - fast mana like Moxen and top-shelf card draw like Ancestral Recall break the rhythm set by the draw step + one land per turn system. At the other poles of Vintage you have Shops - whose namesake card gives it a massive mana jump to immediately constrict the opponent's access to anything via lock pieces - and the Bazaar decks, who subvert the resource system as we know it and replace it with a totally different game. If I Dredge a Golgari Grave-Troll and everything in my deck keys off the graveyard in some way, is that... card advantage?!
This sets up the first type of variety I like to encourage: rapid expansion/contraction of resources. To some extent this only registers if it's forced upon you - if your opponent makes some trades early and refuels with Escape to the Wilds or something, that's a classic play pattern but not one you have to struggle with yourself. If your expectations are shattered by a semi-symmetrical Wheel of Fortune on one extreme or a Cataclysm on the other, you have a new puzzle to solve quickly.
Zones
Where is the battle being fought? In smaller formats like Standard, barring the T5feri control decks of recent-ish past or some of the broken aberrations like Wilderness Reclamation, the answer is the battlefield - look at the most recent Set Championships and you'll usually see cluttered battlefields screaming out for simplification.
In older formats none of this can be taken for granted. I find Legacy coverage frustrating to watch sometimes in part because so much of the format revolves around decisions in the hand/library thanks to cantrips or tutoring effects that often becomes hidden information unless you have a platform/tech setup that allows full info and commentators who know their stuff. I'm less sympathetic than most to the cantrip-heavy Phoenix/Delver style of gameplay for this reason - it often feels like someone spending a lot of time spinning their tires on their own with the goal of removing future variety from the game.
This question is another way to look at differences in how an archetype manifests across formats. A UW Control deck from the draw-go era of the 90s - where you can count on one hand the number of non-land permanents - will feel very different from the tapout control decks of the mid-2000s or modern control decks that are keen to play to the board. A red deck full of burn spells where the creatures are themselves glorified burn spells will look and feel different from red decks that use their creatures as permanent damage sources and top off with cards like Embercleave.
Tall vs wide
This is a crucial distinction for proactive creature decks - are you aiming to go tall or wide? At a first pass your colour identity answers this - green tends to go tall, white and red go wide. It's a lot more complicated these days - you can easily build a green token deck that floods the board and converts those into other resources or a Berserkers-style Wx or Rx deck that banks on having the biggest creature on the board. Some pushed threats let you do both at once - Adeline or some of red's various Rabblemasters come to mind. Being able to pivot from one to the other makes your deck more resilient and offers up some fun tactical choices (this is part of my case for Embercleave - it lets you go wide as a means of going tall more easily, making you think about how to combine those goals).
It also has a big impact on other creatures and interaction in your environment. Rotting Regisaur is great if it's brawling with important but smaller creatures and much weaker if it's colliding with an expendable 1/1 every turn. Targeted removal wants to be aimed at creatures that took some investment rather than trading down on mana for yet another creature.
This overlaps closely with another infamous distinction I'll come to shortly but note that this isn't just about individual cards - a white aggro deck emptying its hand to cast a bunch of Savannah Lions is going wide in a way that can be punished differently than the same deck going wide with Blade Splicers and Spectral Processions.
B*nesl*yer VS M**********
The Baneslayer vs Mulldrifter distinction is all too familiar at this point and wasted no time taking over Cube discourse - go back ten years and you can find forum threads on creatures failing the Terminate/Vindicate test. I think LPR did a good job reframing this as Tarmogoyfs vs Elvish Visionaries, taking Baneslayer's hefty sticker price out of the picture and focusing on what part of the card is important.
Pauper Cubes can feel like a pile of Mulldrifters by necessity. There are absurd new Baneslayers printed every year but the bar for their inclusion in many Cubes gets higher and higher. Many of the best new cards are Mulldrifters by default and spill over into that third category of Titans - Tarmogoyfs that also give you a Mulldrifter's worth of value or more.
I think a more relevant divide these days is how much you care about the body on your Mulldrifter. Attaching any body to a spell generally expands what you can do with it - you lose some spellslinger synergies but open up a world of blink and reanimation over here or green 'find a creature' effects over there - but at some point these bodies start to feel like needless clutter. I need Satyr Wayfinder to be a creature and it probably has to be a 1/1 but what can I do with that beyond exploiting the type line?
I like Satyr Wayfinder more than Elvish Visionary because it makes you care about details - am I just looking for lands or a specific land? How important is filling my graveyard? - but the most precious example for me is Jadelight Ranger. It can be a 2/1 that draws two (land) cards, a 4/3 that does nothing else, or something in between and you need the context to determine which you want. Woe Strider is a good recent example of a card that straddles this divide neatly - its body and ability are threatening enough that they want to remove it, it leaves something tangible behind when that happens but that thing is the least relevant additional game piece possible, but there's the looming threat of it returning later if the game lasts that long.
Would Blade Splicer be a stronger card if it was a 3/3 that made a 1/1 (first strike aside)? Would it be more interesting? I don't think there's a clear answer to the second question but this alternate universe Splicer plays quite differently against removal - if most of your Mulldrifters look more like that, the incentives in your Cube will change.
Uniqueness vs redundancy
Some themes are so deep that it's hard to choose which cards to support them with. Others don't give you that choice - you play what you're given and make up the numbers somehow. At the far end of that spectrum you have unique build-around cards that allow no imitation.
It's impossible to fill out a Cube completely with these true singletons - there aren't enough of them to go around, you can't be solely committed to a singleton in Limited even with good card selection, and most of them require (often non-overlapping) support. At the other extreme, you can certainly build a Cube around redundancy but you then lack an appealing hook - I remember the Cultic Cube on MTGO was panned for its ruthless focus on redundancy at the expense of all else, such that the average deck was a less exciting/ideal version of an archetype you'd seen a hundred times before.
With the right care and setup, the unique one-ofs can use their slots much more efficiently than the next marginal red aggro or green ramp creature. In Vintage Cube the Sneak Attack deck is a fan favourite that mostly asks for cards that were in the Cube already and the one copy of Sneak Attack.
I think Storm is a difficult archetype to integrate well but at its best it turns redundancy into uniqueness - because each new win condition or mana engine functions in its own way and adds a new dimension to the deck, you can double down on Storm enablers without the 'I've run out of newly named Searing Spears' problem of a hyper-redundant red deck.
Goodstuff vs synergy
Synergy as shared goal vs synergy as combination
The apparent tension between synergy and 'goodstuff' is a well-worn topic in Cube design. It's hard to escape even if you want to focus on synergy - you need the successful synergy deck to be better than the average goodstuff deck for it to be worth the effort. Prioritizing one over the other is an early statement about how your Cube will play and how it should be designed.
Synergy is a murky concept, though. We tend to think of interactions between specific cards (Grand Architect is great with Master of Waves!) or membership of an archetype (I'm adding these to support the BR Sacrifice deck) but you can also frame cards having synergy as them sharing a goal (Goblin Guide and Fireblast don't have any explicit tie-in but help each other to get Villain dead ASAP).
On this reading, a tight list of red aggro or green ramp is in fact a highly synergistic deck. One way to see this is to contrast these ideal examples with the kind of muddled decks you see from less experienced drafters - I still dwell on the white deck that curved perfectly from Savannah Lions all the way up to Sun Titan against me a decade ago.
Here, the 'goodstuff' deck fills the same role as the 'midrange' deck in the aggro, control etc taxonomy - the default that a deck becomes when it doesn't have another identity. If the general power level is low enough (retail Limited almost always falls into this category but some Cubes will too), decks are necessarily confused - the aggro decks are only so fast and the slower decks will still have some Goblin Pikers. There's an old maxim that in Limited every deck is midrange - or goodstuff, even though this is only possible because the cards are bad.
Flip this around and you have the decks that have dominated many recent Standard formats - flexible midrange decks that can use the same cards to apply pressure or grind as needed. Here there isn't one shared goal - the goal is whatever it needs to be and your deck can adapt to that because your cards are so flexible. This can bring its own form of variety - the same cards being repurposed for different ends - but can also crowd it out if cards with a narrow skill are obsoleted by cards that do that same thing almost as well on top of everything else.
A key realization for me was that goodstuff can be a distinct archetype if the rest of the Cube is sufficiently synergy-driven. Not all colour pairs or archetypes are created equal and it's hard to fill in the gaps sometimes if you're working from the 'colour pair XY does Z' template - being able to fall back on WB Normal Cards as a breath of fresh air can be very useful there.
Swings vs even pros
How sure do you need to be of what will happen when you put a card in your deck? On the stack?
One of the things I associate most (hopefully fairly!) with Andy of Lucky Paper Radio is a strong emphasis on a card having a high floor and a baseline level of consistency - if a card is capable of great things but doesn't have a near-guaranteed use case that's worthy of inclusion by itself, that's a big mark against it. If it has that but also has amazing upside if things break right, that's just a good card - the tricky cases are where the ceiling is high but the floor is oh so low.
Sometimes a whiff of variance is enough to damn a card even if the average output is alright - Bloodbraid Elf is on the chopping block in many power-focused Cubes because why risk flipping a dud when there are so many strong fours in R, G, and RG that do exactly what they say on the tin?
I'm a big fan of these cards with explicit variance and high upside because they lead to those all-time Cube moments you're still talking about months later - hitting exactly the right card off your Cascade or the Magic equivalent of spiking the one-outer on the river. The game engine lends itself to a lot of that naturally (and attempts to make it in-your-face like Miracles fall flat for many players) but there are vocal Cube designers who try to stamp that out where possible - your cards and decks will work as advertised in roughly the same way most of the time.
This distinction exists at the archetype level too. Your ideal midrange-ish Cube deck aims to 'play Magic' every game - you play some threats, hope you can line up your interaction properly, etc. By contrast, the all-or-nothing version of Reanimator that exists in Vintage Cube either dominates the game or barely participates in it - in one sense there is a wider or sharper range of outcomes here, and there is also a perceived lack of agency that will scare off some drafters
Here we have a kind of variety at work at each stage - the range of outcomes of individual cards, the strategic goals of archetypes, and the philosophical direction of the Cube designer.
Power band
I'll finish this scattered meditation with the obvious example - the power band. Every format has one but as the Cube designer you get to choose how loose it is. Consider retail Limited, where the presence of bombs serves useful roles (allows less experienced players to win games, offers a direction in the draft, creates satisfying moments where you draw your bomb at the perfect time or manage to overcome theirs etc) but has to discover this purpose for itself because this is also the main pipeline for getting the desirable cards in the set to players and selling packs. You know the set will have some planeswalkers in it and that they will often be tough for your motley crew of commons and uncommons to beat - that's part of the experience.
When you have sole discretion over what your goals are and how you approach them, it's easy to find excuses to push the power band. New Cubers often end up with such a wide power band that the average card is a dangerous joke. Old Cubes many have outliers that don't fit the rest of the power band on either end because they have some sentimental or other value - and that's a good thing!
It's rare to find arguments in favour of having these outliers - at best you get an instrumental case that the easiest way to support a failing archetype is to give it some juicy on-theme reward - but these taking over a game is a memorable moment or source of tension in itself and this is a useful building block as long as it does that in an interesting way. I'm not a fan of powered Cube in general but I've seen some Cubes that keep the Moxen but cut Ancestral Recall/Time Walk where my instinct would be to do just the opposite - the Moxen aren't compelling in their own right whereas Recall/Walk are exciting to cast and can be built around to some extent.
To build on a point made in my LPR episode (see post above!), any Constructed format is defined by its power outliers - even in singleton formats with >60 cards, games often revolve around finding specific one-ofs. In even a small Cube, one copy of [design mistake] can only be so bad - and if it does ruin a game in paper, you can shuffle up and play again while the other matches finish (vs the Constructed experience of losing an important match in a brutally unsatisfying way).
As long as those power outliers have a selling point that other cards couldn't bring and don't entirely crowd out the interesting stuff at the regular power level, I think sprinkling some in judiciously can add a useful kick to your format.