Don't worry, some people are so spiked out they could trip a referee.
General What is "higher power level"?
- Thread starter Kuldahar
- Start date
I'm definitely on the Timmy/Jenny end of things, as well. I think my favorite example of a high-power cube is the Degenerate Micro Cube — most powermax cubes are baby stuff in comparison. If you're going to make me be a Spike, let me be maximum Spike.
In general, though, I think referring to "power level" as if it were a singular "thing" is missing the point, especially if you're looking at cubes with gimmicks. It's better to talk about how fast your environment is, how vital it is to hold up interaction, or how much support a given card needs to fit in an environment.
Take this little cutie:
If you want to reliably flip Delver, you either need to have 15+ instants and sorceries in your deck or your cube needs to support some powerful top-deck manipulation. It's a powerful card, but it also demands a lot of support — whether or not your cube can supply that support has little to do with power level.
In general, though, I think referring to "power level" as if it were a singular "thing" is missing the point, especially if you're looking at cubes with gimmicks. It's better to talk about how fast your environment is, how vital it is to hold up interaction, or how much support a given card needs to fit in an environment.
Take this little cutie:
If you want to reliably flip Delver, you either need to have 15+ instants and sorceries in your deck or your cube needs to support some powerful top-deck manipulation. It's a powerful card, but it also demands a lot of support — whether or not your cube can supply that support has little to do with power level.
I'm definitely on the Timmy/Jenny end of things, as well. I think my favorite example of a high-power cube is the Degenerate Micro Cube — most powermax cubes are baby stuff in comparison. If you're going to make me be a Spike, let me be maximum Spike.
In general, though, I think referring to "power level" as if it were a singular "thing" is missing the point, especially if you're looking at cubes with gimmicks. It's better to talk about how fast your environment is, how vital it is to hold up interaction, or how much support a given card needs to fit in an environment.
Take this little cutie:
If you want to reliably flip Delver, you either need to have 15+ instants and sorceries in your deck or your cube needs to support some powerful top-deck manipulation. It's a powerful card, but it also demands a lot of support — whether or not your cube can supply that support has little to do with power level.
If you think Andy Mangold's Degenerate Micro Cube is powermaxed then just wait until you get a load of this Even More Degenerate Micro Cube Than Andy Mangold's Degenerate Micro Cube
Yeah it's super stupid hahahaha. Most games are just force-check combo where you hope you have more forces then your opponent so you don't immediately die.
Build it!
A Timmy aka me, wants to play those Baneslayers, and a spike wants to kill it with the most efficient removal in the game. I know what you are saying, but in the context of Timmy vs Spike I was exaggerating the scenario of uselessness because I am the Timmy... and I want to play my Baneslayers... the cards you are referring to are spike cards so of course Spike is going to use them.
WHY CANT WEEEEEE BE FRIENDS
WHY CANT WEEEE BE FRE-HENDS
I have never had a strict definition but I do think some of you have some excellent points!
I have always (and I know this isn’t correct) defined a cube to be power max if the cube owner values each card that is included or cut from the cube based on the power level of the specific card.
Example “Card A is stronger than card B and therefore I will cut B to make room for A.”
Usually this leads to the cube owner buying only the strongest cards from each set and replacing them with a card of a lower power level. This leads to a cube that doesn’t have much synergy and the decision to include/cut cards is a no-brainer because it is decided by Wizards of the Coast before print.
I have always (and I know this isn’t correct) defined a cube to be power max if the cube owner values each card that is included or cut from the cube based on the power level of the specific card.
Example “Card A is stronger than card B and therefore I will cut B to make room for A.”
Usually this leads to the cube owner buying only the strongest cards from each set and replacing them with a card of a lower power level. This leads to a cube that doesn’t have much synergy and the decision to include/cut cards is a no-brainer because it is decided by Wizards of the Coast before print.
I think this might be a little reductionist, if only because power level is self-referential. For example, Second Sunrise is by no means going to be great if you stick it in a random cube, and will be cut in this 'iterative powermax' process you describe. However, if you have a functioning Eggs deck existing in that environment, there a good chance that Second Sunrise WILL survive (n.b. idk how good Eggs is in cube, substitute your dominant combo deck of choice here if you prefer another. Also note that this holds for aggro/midrange/control as well, but this makes for a much better example). This means that depending on precisely how one iterates, there are multiple local maxima that one could arrive at, in which no single change could make your cube "stronger" than it was before. Therefore the process of making a power max cube is probably a little more complex than you seem to propose.
Again, it's also important to note that A/B power level testing is actually really hard. A lot of things may be no-brainers, but some of them really aren't.
Last edited:
landofMordor
Administrator
Like you intimate, this flattens a lot of nuance (and, read by a third party, it does seem to be needlessly passive-aggressive and/or inflammatory. "no brainer" typically holds negative connotations).
Folks I know who self-describe as maximizing power (myself included) always do so within a set of clearly defined goals for gameplay. The caricature of blindly taking good cards and cubing them applies to 0% of the cubers who engage in internet communities like RTL (because those cubers, though they might exist, don't engage in internet fora to discuss their design goals).