[Discussion-Strategy Issues] Crucible- Post Gencon

[Kerz]

Before GenCon, Crucible was talked up all over the magic community to the point where it was referred to as "the new black vise" and "restriction worthy" by big names.

With the grandest Type One tournament of the year come and gone, are such comments affirmed or discredited? There was a decent amount of Crucibles in the top 8 (11), but was the card dominant itself, or did it just complement the decks it was in well?

How many games ended by someone casting Crucible? Were there any times where an inferior player won by simply playing the card?

Wielding a lot more data in regards to type one with Crucible of Worlds, I ask: Is it really as broken as it was talked up to be?

Aaron Kerzner

[LoA]

No, it's not restriction worthy.

Looking over the pre-tournament hype and the decklists, it seems like a lot of GenCon was geared towards facing Fish, and Crucible is a good card in that matchup.  Once you add Crucible to decks to fight Fish, you also need to expect your non-Fish/non-combo opponents to be playing Crucible as well.  As it so happens, Crucible is a great anti-Crucible card (God, that sounds convoluted).

Crucible has the potential to be a dumb "I win" card in some situations, but that's hardly new in Type 1.  When I first added it to my deck I was a little too Crucible happy in terms of how I set up my board position and it cost me some games.  I've seen other players make the same sort of mistake recently.  Sometimes Crucible is game-altering and sometimes it seems to stall out a game at a given number of lands, something most decent decks can find a way around.

[Machinus]

I have always said that Crucible's place in Type 1 was in a control deck. I have liked it from the beginning but never thought it was too powerful. It is definitely not restriction worthy, but it is a strong card that deserves a place either in the main or in the sideboard of most decks.

It's better than Forgotten Ancient, anyway, haha.

[Wollblad]

Crucible is not worhty restriction in type 1. It just alters the prerequisites for building a deck. Strictly, it does nothing at all by itself. For Black Vise, you know that your opponent will have cards in hand when the game starts, but you don't know if he has a Waste or Strip (which Crucible can nullify). Instead you need to combine it with some lands of your own, like Wasteland or fetch lands. But as a two card combo it is not particularly powerful compared to for example Illusions/Donate. Sure there is a broader range of possible combinations, but non of them wins you the game without aid from other sources.

Crucible is good in control, but it is ridiculously good in Stax and Mud because it can be played early in such a consistent way. But it is then Workshop, not Crucible, that should be considered too powerful.

[wuaffiliate]

No it isn't broken enough, people are just afraid of things they dont test enough.

[Kowal]

No it isn't broken enough, people are just afraid of things they dont test enough.

[Vegeta2711]

No it isn't broken enough, people are just afraid of things they dont test enough.

[dicemanx]

it's broken enough, people just dont test enough.

[Zherbus]

Conversation isn't broken, it's just not used enough.

[jpmeyer]

[Shock Wave]

Yes, it is broken, and yes, 9/10 times I resolved it at Gencon the game was hopelessly swung in my favour. Yes, almost every good deck at Gencon was running it, and yes, it is abusable by almost every deck in the format. If those aren't enough reasons to give it the axe, then I have no idea what criteria a card needs to satisfy in order to become restriction worthy.

[Smmenen]

how about: It was in a deck that dominated the format and everyone agrees is the best t1 deck and makes it that best deck?

[Kowal]

Using GenCon for results is hot.  Almost every country was representing, so nobody can bitch it wasn't competitive.

First place did not run Crucible.
Second place didn't even run a whole set, nor was it horribly broken unless it teamed up with a Strip Mine and a Trinisphere on turn two (which is a VERY low likelihood, considering he wasn't running a full set of trinispheres either)
Simister wasn't running it, obviously.
Giovanni wasn't even running ANY in his maindeck.

Steve didn't run it.

That leaves the rest of the t8 as Kevin (running the full set), Nick Trudeau with TnT (running a whopping two) and Rotchadl, also running two.

Sometimes, playing and resolving Crucible will just win you the game.  I could say the same for Skeletal Scrying, Accumulated Knowledge, or Thirst for Knowledge, and it would still apply.  Just because you CAN put Crucible in any deck doesn't mean it SHOULD go in every deck.

If you're afraid of crucible, run more basics or run more artifact removal.

[jpmeyer]

how about: It was in a deck that dominated the format and everyone agrees is the best t1 deck and makes it that best deck?

I think a more Skullclamp-like approach to restriction is appropriate:

Crucible of Worlds was restricted in Type 1, frankly, because it was everywhere. Every competitive deck either had four in the main deck, had four in the sideboard, or was built to try and defend against it. And there were a lot more successful decks in the first two categories than in the third. Such representation is completely unhealthy for the format. Your deck has to either have Crucible, or have Crucible in its crosshairs—a definitive case of a card “warping the metagame.�

(snip)

We did not restrict Crucible to “hurt Workshop decks,� as some players believe. We weren't out to kill one specific deck (and if we were, we would have chosen a different card), but rather to salvage the entire format. Some decks are just naturally going to be better than others, and if Workshop is one of the better decks, we're ok with that. What we're not ok with is having one card be the focal point of every viable strategy.

The “best decksâ€? in Type 1 pre-banning can all do ridiculous things early in the game without Crucible.  All these decks, should they survive into the newer metagame, will still be capable of such antics. Decks that can sometimes make plays like that are fun and exciting—the problem was that Crucible gave them all a resilience and a robustness that they had no right to have.  We do not want that being the only viable plan for successful deck building

I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is then I see it as a viable reason to restrict Crucible.

[Shock Wave]

Using GenCon for results is hot.  Almost every country was representing, so nobody can bitch it wasn't competitive.

First place did not run Crucible.
Second place didn't even run a whole set, nor was it horribly broken unless it teamed up with a Strip Mine and a Trinisphere on turn two (which is a VERY low likelihood, considering he wasn't running a full set of trinispheres either)
Simister wasn't running it, obviously.
Giovanni wasn't even running ANY in his maindeck.

Steve didn't run it.

That leaves the rest of the t8 as Kevin (running the full set), Nick Trudeau with TnT (running a whopping two) and Rotchadl, also running two.

Sometimes, playing and resolving Crucible will just win you the game.  I could say the same for Skeletal Scrying, Accumulated Knowledge, or Thirst for Knowledge, and it would still apply.  Just because you CAN put Crucible in any deck doesn't mean it SHOULD go in every deck.

If you're afraid of crucible, run more basics or run more artifact removal.

None of these arguments are convincing. Please, let's not get started on the subject of mono blue. Running a mono-colour deck to fight Crucible is the most atrocious solution ever. If you run a mono colour deck in a big T1 event, provided that you're not extremely lucky, you're going to get your ass handed to you every which way possible. This is T1 folks. Do we really want to go back to the days of Keeper, Mono U, and Suicide?

Comparing Crucible to Skeletal Scrying or any of the other above mentioned cards doesn't work either. Skeletal Scrying isn't a game deciding card for *every* deck. Crucible can be made to fit into any deck outside of combo, and yes, it is almost always worthwhile to make it fit. What control deck *doesn't* run Crucible nowadays? What about MWS decks or Aggro? Doesn't that seem too large a chunk of the archetypes for an *artifact* to fit into? What other artifact that isn't restricted fits into both control, aggro, and MWS decks?

When have Skeletal Scrying or Thirst for Knowledge ever been even remotely considered for restriction?  

[Matt]

What other artifact that isn't restricted fits into both control, aggro, and MWS decks?

Tormod's Crypt? The lengths I had to go to answer your question is telling.

[Purple Hat]

Tormod's Crypt? The lengths I had to go to answer your question is telling.

since when have control, MWS and aggro decks all been maindecking multiple coppies of tormond's crypt?  The only deck I can think of that MD's Tormond's Crypt, much less multiple coppies of it is Sharazad.dec clearly that's not what Shok Wave was taking about.

Hale

[Matt]

He didn't say it had to be maindecked, and he didn't say that decks had to be using it, only that it would not be out of place if they did.

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

how about: It was in a deck that dominated the format and everyone agrees is the best t1 deck and makes it that best deck?

I think a more Skullclamp-like approach to restriction is appropriate:

Crucible of Worlds was restricted in Type 1, frankly, because it was everywhere. Every competitive deck either had four in the main deck, had four in the sideboard, or was built to try and defend against it. And there were a lot more successful decks in the first two categories than in the third. Such representation is completely unhealthy for the format. Your deck has to either have Crucible, or have Crucible in its crosshairs—a definitive case of a card “warping the metagame.�

(snip)

We did not restrict Crucible to “hurt Workshop decks,� as some players believe. We weren't out to kill one specific deck (and if we were, we would have chosen a different card), but rather to salvage the entire format. Some decks are just naturally going to be better than others, and if Workshop is one of the better decks, we're ok with that. What we're not ok with is having one card be the focal point of every viable strategy.

The “best decksâ€? in Type 1 pre-banning can all do ridiculous things early in the game without Crucible.  All these decks, should they survive into the newer metagame, will still be capable of such antics. Decks that can sometimes make plays like that are fun and exciting—the problem was that Crucible gave them all a resilience and a robustness that they had no right to have.  We do not want that being the only viable plan for successful deck building

I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is then I see it as a viable reason to restrict Crucible.

Indeed alot of it does seem to fit, but try replacing it with null rod or wasteland or w/e .

There is a big difference between a 1cc artifact that draws mad cards and a 3cc artifact that alows for 1/turn land recursion(yes even with workshop and other mana accel).  This thing doesn't even take effect untill turn 2 in play.  (crucible+ waste from grave= colourless stone rain wow or with fetch it's a bad nature's lore varient)  T1 also has much more effective artifact h8 cards, etc.  Not to mention all the tormo'ds crypts .  Adding another game swinging 3cc card that in unrestricted in nothing new to type 1, espesially as the effect is not immediate with crucible.