Which is more broken, Crucible or Wasteland?

[Covetous]

After reading the thread in the Type 1 forum about possible restriction of Crucible of Worlds, I wanted to discuss it in the open forum.  I apologize if this is a duplicate post in this forum and I missed the first one.  Most of my thoughts have been echoed to some extent by those in the other thread, but I noticed that people didn't mention the one thing I have been thinking:
Should Wasteland be restricted in the same way that Strip Mine has been?

People seem to focus on the Crucible/Wasteland synergistic brokenness, and say that if this combo is too broken and metagame-altering, then Crucible should be restricted.  However, with only one Wasteland and only one Strip Mine per deck, how good would Crucible really be?  Sure, you might get that broken Crucible/Strip opening hand, but theprobability would be no different from now, and you would also be 75% less likely to get the Crucible/Waste opener.  So my question is this:
Is Crucible of Worlds too broken, or is it really Wasteland that is too broken, as evidenced by its synergy with Crucible of Worlds?

I do not advocate the wanton restriction of cards just because people can do dirty things with them--however, having games basically end on turn 2 due to Crucible/Wasteland does seem a little pointless and unhealthy for the format.  On the other hand, decks that sport even a few basic lands, such as the 1st place GenCon finisher, can still compete and win in a format where Crucibles grow on trees and Wastelands kill those trees.  

The associated poll is not asking if one of these cards should be restricted, but rather which one is more DESERVING of restriction.  Think of it as if one of them had to go, which would be more appropriate.  I have purposely avoided discussion of the re-restriction of Mishra's Workshop because the idea scares me--I have a playset of shops and I would be most unhappy if they were restricted.

I personally think that it is Wasteland that makes Crucible so powerful.  How many decks run Crucible for a reason other than Wasteland recursion?  Only one, Turboland, which seemed to have about 14.5 minutes of fame.  So, restriction of Crucible would be pointless, although I must admit that restriction of Wasteland would at least seem fair.  But, in the absence of a single Crucible-toting deck dominating the metagame, I feel that neither restriction is appropriate--people will just have to turn to their good old friends Island, Plains, Forest, Mountain and Swamp, whom they haven't talked to since beginning to play type 1 in the first place.

[GlockAndRoll]

Restricting Wasteland would be a ridiculous idea, allmost all decks use it, so it isn't specifically advantaging one deck and breaking the format. Also, restricting wasteland would cause ridiculous brokenness with Tolarian Academy, Workshop, Bazaar, LoA and other Nonbasic lands who's only disadvantage have been that their waste-able. Restricting wasteland throws everything out of balance because these lands become so harder to get rid of. And about the crucible/ waste / strip sinergy, sure its good, maybe even broken. But we are allowed 4 workshops, 4 drains etc.. and lots of other broken stuff.. that's what t1 is about. And just like every other broken unrestricted card, theres ways to deal with it. Counter the crucible, destroy the crucible, play basic lands, play blood moon. With the mana investment crucible has, and if he's taking every land-drop he has to waste one of yours, outrace him with threats, he'll have to do something besides kill your lands. I know the lock can be online turn 1-2, which is extremely powerful, but so is turn 1 trinisphere against a lot of decks. I don't think Workshop deserves restriction, except I think it would have to go a hell of a lot sooner than crucible if it did.
-GlockAndRoll

[jpmeyer]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaah!  I can't play 30 colors in my deck with no drawback!  Waaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

[Vegeta2711]

Where is the 'they both are fine so STFU' option?

[johnstown713]

Wasteland has been around for a longer time so you can't really call it broken.  Crucible on the other hand is a new addition and seems to have way to much synergy with Wasteland.  If I had to I would say Crucible is the broken one only I don't think restriction worthy.  Wateland kept the metagame heathly while Crucible distorts it.  Crucible is the one that ruins everything not Wasteland.

Johnstown713

[IamBean]

@ GlockAndRoll: You say the restricting Wasteland would be ridiculous because almost all decks use it, but overabundance of a card is in itself criteria to restrict a card.

Anyways, I do not believe Wasteland should be restricted. It is not a broken card; I think that if any card was to be restricted, it would have to be Crucible.  I think that Wasteland by itself has a good balancing effect on Type  One that would be lost if it was restricted, whereas Crucible of Worlds is the card that breaks it and makes it unfair, thus Crucible of Worlds, if anything, should be restricted, not Wasteland.

[bebe]

The crucible arguments are too much. Just sideboard Crypts which are good against Welder, Crucible, Dragon, etc., I've been siding Crypts for the last year.

[MrZuccinniHead]

wastes are fine because they can be played around.  Crucible is VERY hard to play around tho.

[Kowal]

Wow, this thread is just like the other one, but worse.

[Raven Fire]

@ GlockAndRoll: You say the restricting Wasteland would be ridiculous because almost all decks use it, but overabundance of a card is in itself criteria to restrict a card.

Not really; the card needs to be damaging to the environment to justify restriction.  Otherwise, Polluted Delta and Force of Will would be gettin' the ax.  Give people a little time to adjust to Crucible before calling for restriction.

[Methuselahn]

Which card in the Crucible/Wasteland combo is more broken and thus more worthy of restriction (if one had to go)?

 * Crucible, because it makes Wasteland too powerful
 * Wasteland, because it makes Crucible too Powerful

then...

The associated poll is not asking if one of these cards should be restricted, but rather which one is more DESERVING of restriction.

then...

I feel that neither restriction is appropriate

So, you think the cards are strong but not restriction worthy.  Yes, I agree.  

It's a thread about nothing!!!!!!  (not that there's anything wrong with that.)

[jpmeyer]

Wow, this thread is just like the other one, but worse.

There should be a corollary to my rule about polls.  The corollary should be "any thread with a poll is strictly inferior to one without one."

[RobbieDal]

If you are playing against any artifact deck with prison components (i.e. 3Sphere, Tangle Wire, Smokestack) and your opening hand doesn't contain either a FoW or your own Workshop, the only realistic way to combat the frequent play of turn 1 Workshop-->Trinisphere is Wasteland, so at least its effect is symmetrical, and not distorted by their reusable Black Lotus.  If Wasteland becomes restricted, a blue player is forced to mulligan into a hand of Force of Will + blue card or risk being locked out of the game before they even get to lay a land, and, if you're not playing blue (or your own Workshops) then why even bother? FCG can't be paying 3 to cast their goblin lackeys...and not to mention combo, which just scoopes to first turn 3sphere.
Restricting Wasteland would only further distort the metagame towards Workshop decks, and would almost immediately warrant the restriction of 'Shop as well.

[Whatever Works]

Can anyone say STG forum???

On a side note however wasteland though amazing is not the problem. Wasteland is a format defining card in that it balances the format, and prevents 5 color decks, and slows down momentum.

Crucible on the other hand is inherently broken because it provides virtual card advantage, and breaks a fundemental strategy of the game: Denial. It would be good without wasteland (though slightly less broken), because you can use it to thin your deck, or bring bad gemstone minds or whatever lands have been destroyed by a titan/waste/strip etc.