Micro and the Macro Aspects of Cube Design

Like with the idealized thinking/additive distraction article, the purpose of this is more to define a concept in more depth than a blurb of words would do, so that I can just link to it. Like with many things I’ve written about, it may be something you’re already doing, but it’s good to have the terms defined to have them more in front of mind.

In the early days of cube design, a lot of it looked at cube design from the designer point-of-view, often with a big-picture view that often missed the forest for the trees. As time went on, I realized that - while it’s important - looking at things from that point of view as well as the nitty-gritty of individual cards is important as well.

In other words, both the micro and macro points of view are vitally important lenses to look at cube design.

Tl;dr:

• Macro refers to big picture things in a cube (macro)

• Micro refers to individual cards, but isn’t only for individual cards.

In my CubeCon panel about designing a cube for dummies, I started the meat and potatoes with this slide and this concept, talking about using macro design goals to define how a cube gets shaped.

Macro:

In cube design, things in the macro lens refer to big-picture goals that define a cube’s expected metagame/design goals. Usually, these are defined by constraints.

Oftentimes, these manifest in either macro-level concepts like power level or theme. Rarity, format, sets, ala Pauper/Peasant, Legacy/Vintage, Innistrad/Ravnica, singleton, etc. The usual suspects, but not limited to those, like having everything being a MDFC of being a Chromatic Sphere or 100 Ornithopters.

Those constraints are a big part of what defines elevator pitches for a cube when describing what a cube is: “What do games look like?” from a big picture POV. Even if these constraints aren’t explicitly stated, like “here’s a bunch of cards that I like,” there’s still an implicit constraint of what the power level is, given availability.

Generally, the goal for deck designers is to work within some form of maximizing fun and/or win potential, but even if focusing on the latter, usually people want to win the draft - and these define the parameters in which the cube’s decks work from.

Using constraints to define a cube meta has been there since beginning of cube history in Ontario, where it was initially just “power vs no power,” but there’s so much more that you can use to define and sculpt your metagame.

As an example, I used the example of an “artisan” cube, or what everyone calls a peasant cube.

I used these pictures to define some more macro concepts. Usually these types of things tend to appear on someone’s Cube Cobra about page. For the picture above, they represented constraints of:

• Things that are banned in Legacy and Vintage. (Sensei’s Divining Top)

• Things with initiative. (Passageway Seer.)

• Combo decks (because they require a lot of support cards.)

It’s a little obtuse, but the Boros Garrison represented having lots of mana fixing available in the draft.

All of these are broad macro-level decisions to illustrate big-picture goals within the even bigger macro-level decision that being an Artisan cube represents (only commons and uncommons.) Layers upon layers!

Micro:

Actually, before I get into talking about micro-level decisions in cube, Boros Garrison could also represent the micro decision of having the bounceland cycle in there and what those lands could represent, like synergies with things with Retrace and MDFCs.

We can zoom into more micro-level decisions to see how they impact cube design with this artisan example. In part, they’re individual decisions on cards, but also can represent more broad-level decisions.

• Sol Ring and Gut are cards that I don’t want because they’re well above the power level that I’m desiring. Micro-level in terms of individual cards, but representative of what the macro goals (power level band) are.

• Pyroclasm is an intentional design decision for aggressive decks; since there aren’t a lot of 2-mana wraths (it and Whipflare), these are represented via a micro-level exclusion, even if - like Sol Ring/Gut - they are part of what the macro goal represents.

• Lastly, for Call of the Death Dweller, it was less about power level and more about the “deathtouch and lifelink counter” baggage. Arguably, part of a complexity macro-level decision, but encapsulated with a micro-level decision.

I’ve talked about how individual cards can change context in different cubes and even over time in an individual cube. Sometimes individual cards can change how other cards interact with them like a Stoneforge Mystic in a cube with Kaldra Compleat and without it, if determining whether it’s worth countering (but even then, usually it’s more a micro than a macro thing.)

Individual cards can be part of a macro-level item, like what creatures’ “magic toughness” is against removal in the format, but for now, I’ll keep it simple and just say that it doesn’t represent anything. Firebolt, on its face, deals 2 and flashes back for a bunch of mana, easy peasy.

A phrase that I’ve been digging lately is “a micro solution to a macro problem,” which is a phrase that I used on a recent-ish episode of the Uber Cube podcast when talking about using some individual cards as a way to combat issues in a metagame (like Price of Progress to attack issues with 5-color good stuff in a metagame) which shows how the concepts can intertwine.

Obviously things can change over time; people tend to think of macro things as set in stone, but that ain’t the case, as macro-level decisions can be undone and it’s something I’ve done in my own cubes over the years.

As you can tell from all of this, sometimes the lines blur from what’s micro and what’s macro. It’s useful as a cube designer to be able to look at things from both lenses.

Thanks for reading.