Cube vs Set Design / Goodstuff vs Theme
I've been comparing cube design vs set design for a little while (since I've moved to custom set design) and started rereading Maro's article, Nuts 'n' Bolts 4: Higher Rarities. In it he's got this part on uncommons that stood out. He puts them into 3 catagories, but the way he puts them on the chopping block is almost the opposite of how I'd think about cube. I'll put it down below in a second. It's a bit strange to me that cards that are "nice in vacuum" are the first on the chopping block. Cube was kinda built around the idea of cutting the chaff and putting these at the forefront to create a good limited environment. Here's the full quote below, but you can also read the article for more context.
>"First will be things that are necessary because they follow up on things you've established in common. For instance, you will have chosen your major focus and you will want to continue it in uncommon. This first category is things you have to work in if at all possible.
>The second category is things that tie into what you are doing but aren't inherently part of the structure. An example of this would be a card that's very in-theme for the set but has no specific role. It's important to have a list of cards from this category because it will help inform you when you are making less clear-cut decisions.
>The last category is things that are nice in a vacuum but don't particularly advance any element of the set. These things should in no way shape what the set becomes. Too often in early design, a designer will warp the set to fit in elements that are essentially superfluous. Be careful not to do that.
>To recap, the first category should help shape your uncommons. The second category should help guide you when you are unsure which path to take. The third category should never guide you, as it will cause you to make concessions that should never be made. This isn't to say things from the third category cannot get into the set; they just shouldn't have any say in shaping it."
I think the first and second category swap places depending on if the set is bottom-up (mechanics based) or top-down (flavor based) but by placing so much emphasis on these two and less on the last it creates limited formats that are easy to pitch, but also easy to throw away. They have a selling point that gets people hooked, but likely lacks replayability due to lacking cards which are generically good in limited.
As I design custom sets, I'm try to bring a bit of a "cube mentality" to them. Theme cubes are great, but they come and go just like many WotC sets while those built less around cards that are "nice in vacuum" tend to stick around more.
What do people think? Do I have a point or am I off base here?