Nonbasics and vintage

[ruken]

Hm, these days I wish I hadn't sold Keeper at Gencon 2003.  I'm rebuilding it in the image of 4cc and it's going to cost three times as much.  Ugh.

Anyhoo, I'm having to play catch-up with the T1 scene.  It's been an interesting evolution over the last year, and one of the things that really stuck out at me was the wane of basic land usage.  These days, it seems as if the only decks you're going to run into that have much in the way of basic land are Fish and mono-blue.  A year ago, you'd see the last gasps of suicide black, the little kid wandering into the T1 tournament with a Stompy deck (tech with Skyshroud Elite!) and the mutually-assured-destruction mentality of Ankh Sligh, all complete with basic lands of their respective colors.

Crucible of Worlds has contributed to this.  I underestimated this card and the impact it would have on T1, and it's now a major force.  A lot of decks are using and abusing this card, and personally, I think it's great.  I'm happy that Wizards is still printing cards with impacts that span the range of competitive play, including the most competitive format of all.  

With all that in mind, non-basic land usage is at an all-time high.  Tournament reports are coming in one after another with more Goblin Welders and Mishra's Workshops in the top 8 than basic lands.  Wastelands and Strip Mine are gold with a Crucible in play.  Fetchlands allow for massive deck thinning and reshuffle effects while building a powerful (and frequently non-basic) mana base.  Crucible is good right now.

However, I don't think it will last.  Part of Crucible's efficiency is that people haven't started building against it yet.  When the top strategy to deal with Crucible is to pack your own, by countering its offensive effects with your defensive effects and vice versa, the results betray the card's relative newness in that people have not started to adapt to aggressively play against Crucible and the decks that abuse it

I'm not advocating an approach specifically against Crucible, as it has not become the Skullclamp of Vintage, where everyone's packing 4.  Rather, the best measure in my views would be to play counter-measure against the second component in the Crucible strategy-the lands, with an approach that will bear fruit whether Crucible is in play or not.  As the stripping of Zuran Orb from Keeper and the prevalence of Exalted Angel in 4cc shows, accomplishing multiple ends at once is the way to get it done.  By dealing with non-basic lands, you deal with Crucible, in such a fashion as to make use of the Crucible in the first place is to invite trouble.

Two punishers resonate well with this idea, and the first isn't really even a punisher of non-basic lands.  Ankh of Mishra was a catch-all to forward the mana denial theme of Ankh Sligh back in 2003, which consisted of Gorilla Shaman and Wasteland/Strip Mine to put the squeeze on mana producers, with Ankh to back up the direct damage and creature attacks by punishing recovery attempts.  It had the unexpected side effect of severely hosing fetchlands, against a red deck which was already dipping dangerously deep into its opponent's life total.  Fetchlands were too good not to use in a hedge against Ankh, of course, smoothing out Keeper's manabase in ways previously reserved for that temperamental City of Brass, so the two decks remained fundamentally opposed.  The artifact builds had a much easier time of it, having much more flexibility with fewer lands and much lower colored mana requirements.  Ankh of Mishra is going to severely
terrorize anyone with a Crucible in play, by punishing its source of advantage.  Assum-
ing the outcome of the game is still in doubt, the Ankh will prevent 'redundant' free land drops from the graveyard, punish necessary land drops (ergo land drops to regain lost time and make broken plays), and all but eliminate fetch land usage (and if they are used, they pay a very heavy price.)  It also has the effect of discouraging strip effects, since the tradeoff is mutual, and generally decks playing -with- Ankh of Mishra are unconcerned about their own life totals, making an even trade uneven.

The other punisher hits strictly non-basic lands, but it's horribly powerful.  I can't for the life of me understand why this card doesn't get used more often, given its low casting cost and ability to be snuck through a wall of defense.  People tend to think in terms of maintaining their original game plan and preventing the opponent from executing their game plan instead of just winning.  Price of Progress.

(more to follow..)

---

edit: add:

JPMeyer linked me to Korean porn so I had to retype this message.

Price of Progress isn't subtle.  It's less akin to the 'tap a land during their upkeep, draw an extra card' tempo of the blue side of Fire/Ice than it is to the 'I BERSERK MY TOG HOW'S THAT FOR TEMPO??!!!11!1!' aggression that ran all over T1 until Gush got restricted.  It can be a lot of damage very quickly.  It's 6-8 or more damage for a few mana, which can quickly finish a game.

There were a bunch of other salient points that I had but I forgot all about them after looking up JPMeyer's porn, so I forgot all about them.  Anyway.
Anyway, I'm going to be giving it a try and seeing what kind of damage I can squeeze out of these things.  I have a feeling that there's some interesting choices that will be worth playing.

[Necrologia]

For what it's worth, some people have been running both Ankh and Pop in the reincarnation of sligh: Burninator. One player did fairly well with it at Waterbury, writting a report for the tourney forum, and another wrote a tourney report about playing it at Endicott. That report is in the newbie forum right now.

Part of what makes Price so good right now is the prevelence of self abuse in today's decks. 4cc runs Skeletal Scrying and City of Brass, shop runs Ancient Tombs, and combo runs Necro/Bargain/Death Wish. I think it's that, combined with the surprise factor that make the card playable right now. Once people start keeping UU open against mono red again I think the deck will fade back into obscurity.

[ruken]

How retarded of me.  When you mentioned Burninator the first thing I thought of was that janky Bruce Lee deck in Vintage forum.  I looked up Burninator on the forum and found this:

--In response I PoP him for TWELVE. He says OK and is about to draw when I say still in response PoP for another twelve. He mumbles something and curses PoP.--

BLAM.  That's the kind of nuclear fission I'm talking about.  Ridiculous damage.

I'm the type of player who would put Price of Progress in a 4cc sideboard as a Wish target, in the event that I rip a Cunning Wish and it lets me win NOW.  Based on board situations, it's certainly conceivable.

Kevin

[LotusHead]

SlapJack's fighting back with 6 basic lands to deal with Waste Hate in particular. (See Newbie Thread for what the hell SlapJack is).

Price of Progress THIS!  

[Royal Ass.]

i would argue the opposite, that in fact the amount of basic land has increased (in non-budget decks) due to people not wanting to get hated out to crucible and people playing back to basics.  THis is why 4cc has a hard time winning, because its mana base gets crewed to opposing crucible wasteland back to basicness.  

You are confusing the decrease of basic land with the dissaperance of budget decks like sligh and suicide. Its not the land that went away, so much as the actual decks themselves due to the increased competativeness of type one.  

if you just look at the competative non budget decks you will see that people have had to start playing more basics to keep from getting screwed to non basic hate.

if you were to look just at top 8 finnishers from now and a year ago, i guarantee you there would be a lot more basic land in the top 8 because mono negro and mono roso or mono bianco werent top 8ing back then either.  (specialmente mono verde)

4cc was king right up until crucible got real popular and people started plaing mono azure.

[Marton]

basic lands are used in vintage as a way to strengthen your mana base. non-basics are getting more fragile due to heavy use of wastelands, crucibles and recently back to basics, thus forcing people to play more basic lands as a result.

[Sagath]

SlapJack's fighting back with 6 basic lands to deal with Waste Hate in particular. (See Newbie Thread for what the hell SlapJack is).

Price of Progress THIS!  

Does anyone else see the irony in this statement? Fighting back with six basics. S-i-x. Unless your running 10 mana producers (outside solo-moxen) that isnt exactly a high ratio, now is it? Considering most decks run anywhere from say 12 to 20+ lands. Six isnt alot. Is this really fighting back?

basic lands are used in vintage as a way to strengthen your mana base. non-basics are getting more fragile due to heavy use of wastelands, crucibles and recently back to basics, thus forcing people to play more basic lands as a result.

I do not disagree with the first statement. However, the 2nd seems to almost be a lie. Id like to see some firm stats (Phil?) but I would guess that since the release of crucible, top 8's, and tournaments in general are still using just as many, if not more, Nonbasics. Outside of maybe Monoblue, and the rare burninator deck, every other Top 8er' is using atleast 10+ nonbasics. Now, this is including the 5 Strip effects 80%+ of the field runs, but whatever

The nonbasic hate seems to be stemming more from decks that arnt running basics themselves for a reason, not to avoid hate, but as a form of mana denial, and control. mono-u runs Back to basics, red runs pop, etc. This strategy, in my opinion, has its pluses and minuses. Consistancy in mana development being among the biggest advantage, while color limitation, and inherant 'brokenness' other multicolor decks produce being among the strategies main weakness. (note for the picky guys out there: this is not me saying mono u is bad, just giving a point of view on multi vs basics)

Its a healthy format, when many decks can have their moment in the sun (if piloted by a skilled player), and may different strategies are prevalent.

I love it

[the Luke]

Sagath,

I don't think you are taking fetch lands into account.  Six basic lands IS sufficient when you count the fetch lands as pseudo-basic.  Barring Root Maze, they have virtually the same immunity to non-basic hate as basic lands do.

-Luke

[Addolorisi]

they have virtually the same immunity to non-basic hate as basic lands do.

Except for when they count as nonbasic Mountains.

On PoP: Given its symmetry, it seems like an instant speed version of Balance, in that if you sucessfully set it up and then resolve it, you win. Given that 4CC has been running, at most, 1 basic land (which doesn't even produce the appropriate mana) the odds of setting up a lethal PoP seem far more remote that setting up a game ending Balance. Also, decks with access to PoP also have access to Blood Moon, which is a pretty thorough and savage beating all its own.

[Marton]

I was mostly referring to increase use of basic lands in decks that used to be almost 100% non basics (or have like 1x island). Now theses days it seems like you need at least 2/3 basic lands (plus the obligatory fetches which were already there) to have a better stability/resistance to the current rise of anti non-basics lands. Conserning new decks resurging packing lots of basic lands (mono-u), I would rather classify theses as metagamed decks. Everyone knows mono-u IS a metagamed deck, but what I meant here is that deck that packs lots of basic lands is not a deck being adapted to match the new metagame, but rather a totally new deck being built for metagame. I personally believe that the old(er?) decks packing lots of non-basics did not become unplayable due to the resurgeance of non-basic hate. I believe that they become weakened, and the 'fix' is to strengthen/adapt their mana base, thus upping the basic lands count.

In other words, your options to adapt to the metagame are simple:

1- Make a totally metagamed deck like mono-u which uses basic lands as a strength against the expected decks it plans to face. Needless to say this means, in the general sense, that you intentionally make a deck which is sub-par against a wide field of decks but powerfull against a narrower set of decks.

2- Adapt an already existing deck by making it less vulnerable to non-basic lands hate. This usually means increase the number of basic lands, or in some cases, add some darksteel citadel (which also can serve as uncounterable welder-fodder). Those deck can also add crucible as a possible mana fixer.

3- Don't adapt.

[LotusHead]

Without delving into the workings of my deck, the mana base looks like this: 28 Mana Sources (35% Basic land, including Fetch for Basic)

5 Island (Tech!)
1 Plains (Tech in my deck)
4 Tundra (one will probably be replaced by a 5th fetchland)
4 Flooded Strains (to get basic Island Tech)
2 Volcanic Island (uh...see Newb forum for explanation)
1 Tolarian Academy (so you can't play yours...wait! New Legendary rule...)
5 Moxen
1 Black Lotus
1 Sol Ring
1 Mana Crypt (MVP unless it kills me)
1 Lion's Eye Diamond (my deck is Combo/Control with beatdown backup)


Sagath asks if this is really fighting back?

Hell yeah! Fish is the Achilles Heel to my deck, and Fish always run 5 wastes AND Null Rod.  Now, after discovering the POWER of Basic Islands, I can laugh at Wasteland packing decks (75% in my meta) and comfortably make land drop after land drop, secure in my basic landness. No, I haven't actually faced Mono-Blue Smemmen Style yet (luck of the pairing via DCI computer...) or faced Blood Moon lately.

(Additional Dialog: Ignore if it is not on-topic enough)
While we are on the topic of Non-basic land/Basic Land/Non-basic Land hate, what is up with Sacred Ground?

I know not all decks run white (it just isn't blue, or black, or red, or green), but for decks that DO run white, isn't Sacred Ground the best "My land stays in play, Smokestack/Wastelands be damned" card out there?

That card has been in and out of my maindeck since I first felt the gayness of F-n Fish decks. I'm inclined to at least keep in in the board if my opponent is doing the Waste/Crucible/Smokestack thing at the very least.

[goober]

i don't care about a crappy deck, its not worth discussing.

sacred ground isn't as good as crucible because of its purely defensive nature.  you can't go on the offence with strips or aggressivly fetch your lands out.  that alone is why i perfer the crucible.

pop isn't seeing a ton of play because of the symmetry, and the only real way to break it is to play monored decks. 2 color could work, but if it is aggro it can play something like juggs which will beat harder, or it is controling and doesn't care about the damage.  also with the new resurgance of basics it is becoming even less effective.

i think overal this shift is very interesting, reviving a lot of discarded arcetypes and making a huge change to the format as a whole.  even though there was never a good argument for calling us stagnent, it just got even worse.

[Covetous]

You are about two sets too late for this thread to make sense.  Before Crucible hit the scene, there were many fewer basics than there are now.  Mono-color aggro hasn't really been good since O-Stompy left (although apparently Burninator's not bad).  However, most successful decks now are trying to run more basics (think C-Slaver, Mono-U) and many of the decks that aren't running many basics haven't been as successful as of late (think 4cC, Hulk) because of Wasteland + Crucible.  So, in fact, there are MORE decks running MORE basic lands now than a few months ago.  JP came up with a mono-G survival deck (although I'm not sure how much of a splash it has made) which obviously has basics, and generally people are trying to increase their basic land counts to keep their manabase more stable.  
Sagath--Marton is right.  Nonbasics are inherently unstable (wasteland, back to basics, blood moon) and basics are inherently stable (strip mine is restricted).  People who want to make their manabase more stable (i.e. waste/cow resistant or B2B resistant, etc.) try to add more basic lands and sometimes more fetches as well.  Also, when fetches are being played, it's like having that many more basic lands in your deck.  A smart player expecting non-basic hate will keep fetching basics until they really need a dual.  I think of someone playing Titan/Cslaver (the difference is getting smaller and smaller) against me when I am playing Stax.  They fetch for their 5 or 6 basic islands until they want to drop a welder, then they either play a volcanic or fetch for one.  They don't bother dropping their non-basics early unless they really need to because Waste/Crucible will own them if they don't get their Islands.  This is the stability of basic lands.  Name one card that specifically hoses all basic lands (as opposed to something that hoses all lands of a basic land type which is different).  I can't think of one--and if you can, you certainly can't think of as many cards as the number which can hose nonbasic lands.  That is stability.

[ruken]

I'll have to back up a bit with my beliefs.  I had based the assumption that basic land was dwindling in T1 on some faulty data and some skewed tournament reports.  Upon closer inspection, in one of the Dulmen tournaments, there were 6 decks utilizing basic land for a total of 27 basic lands in top 8.  In Waterbury, there were 6 decks utilizing 31 basic lands in the top 8 (although it bears worth mentioning that spots 9-16 only accounted for 11 more total).  I guess basic lands -are- indeed a part of Type 1, probably more so than they have been in the multi-thousand dollar decks at all.

Now my opinion of Price of Progress remains unchanged, in that even the decks that utilize basic land are still going to suffer from it.  Even 2 non-basic lands in play will make Price of Progress hit harder than a Lightning Bolt.  And that's to say nothing of the decks that -don't- use basic land at all (with the exception of Belcher..)

Covetous is right on the money though, I'm wrong.  More decks use basic land nowadays, even if the decks that use basic land these days don't use as many as the mono-color monoliths of the past would.