Here is the article:
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=7908Let's see if this argument holds water. My initial read or two was that it does not for the simple reason that Black Vise is cheaper to play and leads directly to victory on its own, while Crucible is slower and requires a combo to do its work. That said let's see if Carsten's argument passes through Steve's restriction test.
Note: I am assuming that Carsten is advocating for such given that we all know that Black Vise is one of two archetypal cards worthing of banning not because of power but because what Steve calls "metagame distortion" i.e. overpopulation of the metagame leading to a warped metagame. Also, I am assuming that Steve's test, found here:
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=5613, is the test that guides the DCI along with their own criteria of "unrecoverable early game swing" as Aaron Forsythe talked about here:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/af17 and also used by Randy Buehler here:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/rb102 and here:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/rb100. I tried to articulate more clearly exactly what unrecoverable early game swing was in this letter published by SCG, found here:
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=6184.
Basically all of this stuff comes down to these 5 criteria:
1) Is the card the key factor in an dominant deck?
2) Is the card a key factor in a deck that is excessively metagame distorting?
3) Is the card too powerful on its own?
4) Does the card distort 1.5?
5) Does a card create an unrecoverable early game swing?
I think that criteria 4 is stupid since 1.5 should have its own list, but until that day comes, I think we all know that it is something that the DCI considers given that Entomb and Earthcraft are still on the list.
Okay, preliminary stuff out of the way, let's begin in earnest.
Test #1:
While Crucible is a great card in both 4cc and Fish I am pretty sure that this is not what Steve or the DCI had in mind when applying this test. The idea here is that one card breaks a deck and makes that deck so much better than every other deck. In my mind, a card like Necropotence in Trix or LED in Long is the best example. Without these cards, the given decks just can't work. The broken card that breaks the deck is essential to the deck's performance. In Carsten's article all but one deck he mentioned used Crucible as a supplement to their main plan. Decks like Fish and 4cc are BETTER with Crucible on the board but they don't need it to win. Only his mention of Turboland Redux or what ever it is called uses Crucible in a way that I think test #1 is aimed at. But here is the problem, at least so far, that deck is not dominant, so Crucible, as the heart of that deck, does not qualify under Test 1. I am pretty sure that Carsten does not think that Crucible is a problem in the same way LED is and thus would not make an argument under test #1, but it is at least worth noting that it fails this test.
Test #2:
More likely is that Carsten believes that Crucible is metagame distorting and thus should be restricted for meeting test #2. At least that is what the allusion to Black Vise would imply. However, I think that again Crucible does not meet the test.
Black Vise (and Strip Mine) while being good are clearly not as powerful, on their own, as a card like Yawgmoth's Will or Bargain or Tolarian Academy. The problem with these cards, and the reason they have to be restricted, is because in multiples they overwhelm many if not all deck strategies. They instantly winnow away tier 2 decks and they place inordinate amounts of pressure on tier 1 decks, forcing them to radically alter their deck lists. This is not a bad thing, per se, but it becomes a problem because every deck can run these cards. This means that the metagame revolves around two cards that everyone uses, in turn making games mere luck about who draws which first or more. In the end the cards and the strategies in between Strip Mine and Black Vise are unimportant. Another major problem is that these cards cannot readily be metagamed against. While Wasteland is virtually the same as Strip Mine, people can and do play basic lands to work around it. The same cannot be said for Strip Mine or Black Vise. Their indiscriminate nature makes its very difficult to alter a deck to compete against these cards without altering the deck entirely (like running Darksteel Citadel and even more 0 cc artifacts).
Here while Crucible can be played in every deck it is not. That alone is a sign that it is not, at least at this point, a card like Black Vise or Strip Mine. Furthermore, like Wasteland, but not like Strip Mine, Crucible can be hindered by a slight change in strategy. Adding a dash of artifact removal, graveyard removal, or basic lands guards against most of the problems Carsten mentioned in his article. Strip Mine and Crucible is still a dangerous combo, but Vintage is full of dangerous combos with Restricted cards as parts. In other words Crucible is not as indiscriminately powerful as Strip Mine and Black Vise. It is powerful only in combination with other cards and its effects can be guarded against with only slight changes to decks, SBs, and playstyle. I don't think that it passes this test for those reasons. It has potential, but I would say that the fact that it requires other cards--fetches or Wastelands/Strip Mine--to work makes me think that Crucible is not broken but merely very good. The problem is not Crucible/Fetch, but more Crucible/Waste and that is something we can guard against.
Test #3:
I think the archetypal card here is Mind's Desire, Yawg Win or Bargain, and while good Crucible is NOT in that league, nor do I think that Carsten is suggesting it is. I think he believes it to be akin to Black Vise. I disagree for reasons stated above.
Test #4:
Not applicable. Plus I don't have the expertise in 1.5 to comment. Suffice to say I think it is not going to kill the format, especially where FCG, Dragon, and Landstill make up the tier 1. Those decks are either not susceptible to the Wasteland recursion or too fast to be effected by Crucible.
Test #5:
I also think that this test heavily mitigates against Crucible's restriction. Crucible is a three mana card that requires another card to put you in a good position. It does not win the game on that turn. As such, while it is good it is neither fast enough, nor is the effect so debilitating as to qualify as an unrecoverable early game swing. With Belcher in this format and Force of Will heavily, heavily played, a 3cc artifact is going to have to do much more than let to get one land back a turn (something that takes up a land drop and whose greatest effect is to destroy another player's land) to meet this criteria. All of the effects that Carsten mentioned are mid- to late-game effects: the purification of your deck by recurring fetches and a lock created by Wasteland and Strip Mine. How is Crucible any more of a lock than a 1st turn Trinisphere? I just don't see it. Plus Crucible's effectiveness is limited by a fundamental rule of the game: one land per turn. Compare this to Storm, an ability that is the center of many combo decks in the format today. With the built in limitation of the land rule, I just can't see Crucible being as explosively devastating as Tendrils or Belcher. Nor do I see the lock as being substantially better than Turn 1 Trinisphere.
In conclusion I think that Carsten, though right to be concerned, is ultimately wrong. I also think that Crucible is an excellent card to stretch and test the metagame. I recognize its power, but I think that at this time, the case has not been made. Furthermore I think that it is not even a close case.
