I updated the OP, since it is somewhat reflective (and also includes a thank you to the people that helped) here is it reproduced below:
Hello!
Since I've completed the project, I am updating here. The spoilers below contain the original post.
The cube tutor link is
here. To recap, this is lower power environment, drawing inspiration from my experiences in pauper, VMA, MMA, III, RGD, and KTK. Its designed to be an affordable, accessible, draft format at 360, that still has rich sophisticated interactions.
Originally, this was to be a singleton format, but during the building process we realized that this was holding back some of the more interesting aspects of the cube. Some of the original themes didn't come to fruition either due to narrowness or a lack of space.
I would like to take a moment to thank everyone that participated, either by drafting a deck, or leaving comments or thoughts in the thread. There were several points during the design process where user contributions helped clarify the best way to achieve the format's goals, without which the project would have been a failure (or at least cost me/time money figuring out what went wrong.
Game Play
The unique gameplay angles that this cube is exploring are two fold:
1. The implications of a bounce land/cantrip based format to smooth out draws and prevent non-games.
2. The implications of a bounce land based format to enable sophisticated decks--in this instance, combo decks.
A theory for why RGD was such a beloved format is that it naturally had a lower % of non-games than other limited formats. You had amble access to cantrip effects,TOL manipulation, to power yourself through miserable draws, and bounce lands to address color/mana screw.
Higher power cubes can easily address color fixing issues with expensive fetch-shock-ABU dual lines, but fetch lands do not adequately address mana screw issues. Cheap bounce lands (unplayable in a higher powered format), however, do.
Another theory is that higher power (re: more expensive cards) allows for richer, deeper interactions than lower power cubes. I am not sure I agree with this, as I believe that lower power formats are uniquely positioned to enable a complex archetype that is generally problematic to design for in higher power environments: combo.
Lower power formats generally feature weaker combo disruption than their higher power brethern, as a natural result of WOTZ's card library. Their is more creative freedom to build from, and less of a need for non-interactive, largely spell-based, combo platforms. Here, I take heavy inspiration from Pauper's creature based, slightly slower, but very robust, familiar combo deck.
This is a bounceland based combo deck. As a result, the cube does not devout slots to narrow ritual effects (which rather jarringly jump the mana curve) the primary means of mana acc. (and color fixing) is provided for by the mana base itself. Bouncelands are a bit slower; and this is a win-win for everyone, as it allows for a complex archetype that a lot of people would enjoy, but dosen't ruin the fun of everyone else.
A final theory states that bouncelands are not really cubeable, since it creates an unfair disadvantage for aggro decks. I'm not sure I agree (at lower power level). KTK used CIPT lands to create a split in drafting strategies, with slower, greedy 4-5 color decks going down a strategic route of multi-color haymakers, while aggro decks use simplier mana bases to capitalize on the tempo loss inherient in CIPT lands. RGD had a similar (though perhaps not as pronounced) relationship with its multi-color haymaker strategies and its aggro strategies. I think this relationship is replicable here, and adds depth to the draft. I also have a few other strategic splits regarding the issue of mana fixing, represented by artifact eggs and green enchantments.
In sum, I think this limitation can result in interesting decisions, both in draft and in game.
Construction
Anyone that follows my posts knows that I favor an approach of writing out all 10 guilds, and developing a theme and sub-theme for each color pairing. This sort of structured design approach helps prevent "cube-designers regret" down the line, when you realize that no one is going into G/R, and now you need to patch in a few G/R decks, hoping that your inclusions/exclusions won't make the cube worse. By having all combinations represented, and a backup sub-theme, you help make sure that you have as broad a gamespace as possible for your drafters to explore, thus preventing (or at least delying) them from solving the format.
Also, people generally don't draft mono-colored decks, so i.m.o it makes little sense to think in terms of "what does my green section do." Your green section will never be played on its own, it will always be supplimented by another color, which will warp whatever it is that its doing. The only exception, I find, is red. Someone will, inevitably, draft a mono-red aggro deck.
The design of this cube also really hammered in the importance of having broadly applicable cards. I think I was knocked off track a bit by MMA and VMA, each which use print runs to enable narrow decks in their respective formats. However, in cube, since you can't use a print run to control the availability of certain cards, every card must be broadly applicable. Its a bit like designing a good sideboard for a constructed environment with a broad array of possible matchups: your cards have to be relevent in many places, not just a few. For example, in cube,
thirst for knowledge is a better card blue draw spell to run to support an artifact theme, than
thoughtcast.
Also, of course, the need to minimize variance caused by:
1. Mana flood (addressed via mana sinks)
2. Color Screw (addressed via the proportional availability of mana fixers)
3. Mana Screw (addressed via bounce lands/cycling/cantrips/cheap TOL manipulation)
4. Poor Hands (addressed via deck building, cycling, cantrips, cheap TOL manipulaton)
Finally, the need to prevent:
1. Board stalls (addressed via evasive creatures, removal, combat tricks, temporary protection)
2. Removal Check/attrition Format (addressed via balanced threats with not
toostrong/abundent removal)
Archetypes
The archetypes that I arrived at look to be:
UW: heroic/tempo
UB: Control/self-mill
BR: goblin Sacrifice/value reanimator
RG: Midrange Pump/Ramp
GW: Auras/+ + Counters
BW: Control/reanimator
UR: Spells Aggro-Combo/control
BG: Dredge/reanimation
RW: Wide Aggro/Control
GU: Ramp/self-mill
There is some flexibility here, of course. And:
R: goblin aggro
W: white weenie aggro
G: midrange
U: tempo
B: Control
Again, not too heavy of a focus on mono-color, since you will hardly every get a mono-color deck (beyond maybe red). I am ok with three+ color decks being a place of creative exploration, providing that they have a solid 2 color base to build from. Grixis and Esper are natural combo colors though.