Renewing the Debate about Crucible

[Smmenen]

At the time of Gencon, Richard Mattiuzzio insisted that Crucible should be restricted.  At the time he was playing Workshop deck with Crucibles, Chalices and Mana Drains.  Kenny Oberg wrote an article about Crucible and one of the Germans wrote an article for SCG that Crucible was the new black vise.

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=7908

As it stands, Control has evolved.  Almost every control deck that is played at the moment runs 4+ basic lands.

Meandeck Oath has 5 Islands and 4 fetch.  Rich Shay's Control Slaver has 4 Islands and 4 Fetch.  Titan variants have similar mana bases.  MOno blue (which really isn't played at the moment) has lots of basic Islands.  

Is this a tactic to deal with Crucible and Back to Basics?  If so, does that mean that control is making the adjustment or does Crucible still need restriction as Rich would like?  Are there side effects of this fact?  Does this make Titan a weaker card?

[Revvik]

The addition of more basic lands to decks can be attributed to many things, not just Crucible of Worlds & Back to Basics, though they more than likely keyed people in to the idea of basic lands.

Fish revolved around a mana-denial strategy, which was mimicked by a number of budget aggro decks (ones I've seen, anyhow).  It turned out that for many of these high-threat-density decks, drawing two wastelands in the first couple of turns could very well have meant 'Good game' against the fully-powered decks of the field that relied on more than one color (or a tertiary splash) - effectively forcing the high-powered decks to play on the budget decks terms.  Fish managed to do this pretty well, and accompany the mana denial with Null Rod (duh).

Crucible of Worlds awakened many to the potency and incredible possibility of the slow, yet powerful Crucible/Wasteland 'soft-lock.'  Back to Basics only supported the realization that the basic land = good.

But it wasn't just the Crucible and the B2B - adapting a deck so that it wasn't susceptible to non-basic hate in the form of the uncounterable Wasteland/Strip Mine MVP quintuplets of the budget deck was pretty necessary in an environment where little blue curious men were running amok.

[The M.E.T.H.O.D]

1. Control decks, like all other decks ARE making the changes to survive in the current metagame.

2. It does make titan a weaker card.

3. Are there any side effects? YES
In my opinion I think crucible is a fine example of a card that forces people to become better.  Better in the sense with playskill, but also In the sense with deck construction, sideboarding, etc.  I started playing 2 years ago, when keeper WAS the deck.  People played suicide, sligh, stompy, and other decks.  Crucible is one of those cards, like mindslaver, chalice of the void, trinisphere, that force people to explore the cardpool to be able to deal with the broken cards.  It also forces people to actually tweak there decks to able to function against the tier 1 in the current metagame. People used to be like "OMG IM RUNNING SOME U/W DECK, IM DEFINITLY RUNNING 4 TUNDRAS, 4X RANDOM CARD, blah blah."

Now you can't just throw cards together with somewhat of an effort and do well.  You have to test, your card quantities have to be JUST RIGHT, metagame and build a correct board. You can't take the same X deck to every tourney and expect to do well, because you have to deal with the GOOD cards.

I know what I want to say, I really don't know if it made any sense.  If anyone feels they understand why im trying say maybe they can elaborate.

EDIT: lol I forgot to mention, I DON'T FEEL CRUCIBLE NEEDS RESTRICTION

[Sauron]

I've played Stax for over a year now, and while Crucible is beyond fantastic in that deck all it takes is a change to multiple basics for most decks to drastically reduce its power.

If Stax, which is essentially the best deck to showcase Crucible, can't dominate a format with Crucible then it suggests to me that it doesn't require restriction.

EDIT: On the analogy of Vice and Crucible - the fundamental difference is that while its possible alter a few cards in a decks build to negate/minimise Crucible, the same isn't really true of Vice.

[andrewpate]

I totally agree; Crucible does not need to be restricted.  If anything, I think that it is a positive addition to the metagame.  Just like FoW makes people think twice about first-turn combos (although it doesn't nullify them completely) and Null Rod keeps fast mana in check (but again, not completely), Crucible finally reins in dual lands a bit.  Forcing the Fish/Landstill/Stax/etc player to find their one Strip Mine is something most decks can handle with a bit of work on the mana base, and building decks with that capability is one more step in the continuing progression of Vintage deck technology.  I never thought it needed to go.

[jpmeyer]

Honestly, Crucible just seems more like it's causing people to go "Waah, I can't play 30 colors with no drawback anymore waaaah."

[Grand Inquisitor]

It's type 1's market correction for fetchlands.

On the other hand, I think there is still some work to be done with a turbo-land type deck.  Not focusing on it as a wasteland engine (which is relatively slow once you hit midgame), but as a source of card advantage could see this card's true potential.

[rvs]

There is another reason why Crucible would be a canditate for restriction: It's pretty much in every deck. And don't try to deny it ;/
To make a comparison, T2 saw Skullclamp go on the rationale that decks were either jumping on the Clamp-bandwagon, or were severely playing against it (and still lost). Something similar is going on in T1 (even though it's harder to prove, since metagames are so diverse, and we have this thing called not-playing-a-good-deck-because-of-no-cash going on).

[JACO]

There is another reason why Crucible would be a canditate for restriction: It's pretty much in every deck. And don't try to deny it ;/

First of all, while people have tested Crucible in pretty much every deck, it's not being played in every deck.

To make a comparison, T2 saw Skullclamp go on the rationale that decks were either jumping on the Clamp-bandwagon, or were severely playing against it (and still lost). Something similar is going on in T1 (even though it's harder to prove, since metagames are so diverse, and we have this thing called not-playing-a-good-deck-because-of-no-cash going on).

Secondly, your Type 2 comparison is way off base. 4 Skullclamps were being played in pretty much every deck. That means there were often 28-32 Skullclamps in the Type 2 Top 8's everywhere, in addition to all the hate being packed (like 4 Oxidizes being played by everyone). Crucible is played mostly in Workshop decks, Fish, and Goblin Welder decks, and even those are usually using 2-3. The numbers just aren't there to support your comparison and argument.

While Crucible is certainly strong, and dominating against particular decks (Fish or Landstill, unless they have their own on the board), it is definitely not worthy or in need of restriction.

[Smmenen]

There is another reason why Crucible would be a canditate for restriction: It's pretty much in every deck. And don't try to deny it ;/
To make a comparison, T2 saw Skullclamp go on the rationale that decks were either jumping on the Clamp-bandwagon, or were severely playing against it (and still lost). Something similar is going on in T1 (even though it's harder to prove, since metagames are so diverse, and we have this thing called not-playing-a-good-deck-because-of-no-cash going on).

Since when does Meandeck Oath, Mono Blue, DeathWish.dec or many other decks run Crucible?  I would beleive you if more than like 1-2 Tier one decks ran it, but few do.

[Ric_Flair]

Crucible of Worlds is the best example of a new card at a good, competitive power level.  It does not deserve to be restricted for reasons we have gone through in the original thread.  It is a new generation of good cards for Vintage and I, for one, love seeing them.

Plus it is its own silver bullet.  How elegant is that?

[Komatteru]

I think JP had it right when he said that players are upset that Crucible has made us change our (antiquitated) mana bases.  Hell, the manabase in multicolor control was just thrown together.  Include 3 of these, 4 of those, 2 of those, and play a bunch of fetchlands and it'll all work out.  No where near as much thought as there should be.  There was no reason to put a lot of thought into it.  It has been far too easy to play multicolor decks with no drawbacks.  We really were spoiled in that respect.  Fetchlands make it easier than ever to play 4 or 5 colors.  "Back in the day" multicolor decks had to run 3-4 City of Brass to make things work.  Now, the real reason for running multiple CoB in multicolor control is to guard against Titan.  The color smoothing ability of CoB is really secondary to immunity to 7/10.   The real issue here is that playing multiple colors with no drawbacks has been part of Vintage for so long that we don't want to let it go.

Crucible of Worlds is the best example of a new card at a good, competitive power level.

This is pretty much the truth.  There are other cards stronger than Crucible that are not restricted: Mishra's Workshop, Mana Drain/Force of Will, and Bazaar of Baghdad.  You don't see people clamoring for restriction of those (ok, Workshop, but only by those who don't have them and think they are too expensive).  Cunning Wish, Skeletal Scrying, Brainstorm, and a host of other cards are really strong, but fair.  You wouldn't dream of thinking of any of those cards should be restricted.  Crucible fits in with those cards there.  Really strong, but not broken.  This is Vintage.  There are a lot of really strong cards.  Get used to it and stop crying.

[dicemanx]

I only wished that more of you Yanks would come to our events, because we wouldn't have to worry about seeing CoW so much. We have two huge Lotus events in November - why don't you try us?

And let's be clear here. Rich and I *never* suggested that CoW was too broken for T1. Instead it is too random (much like Trinisphere) and quite distortive.  Sure, it is *so easy* to hedge against it, and like jp points out it is its own hoser, but that doesn't make it any less random.

Rich and I have played way too many matches that were decided in the most stupid of ways via braindead CoW locks/partial locks (and lets toss in Trini in there as well). We'd probably have stronger views on Trinisphere too were it not for the fact that Workshop decks get hated out severely in Toronto. Yes, T1 is all about the busted plays and the broken cards, but we don't have to make our format too random. It's already bad enough as it is.

Anyways its all moot because CoW and Trinisphere will not get the axe. Smennen and others seemed to have arrived at some agreement as far as what the criteria should be for the B/R list. Steve has his own vision of what T1 should be, but that is just *his* opinion. I don't share some of his views, but I acknowledge that many people do take his side and share his vision.

[Covetous]

There are a lot of early plays you can make in type 1 that just win with little skill.  This is type 1, remember.  Turn 1 mox orchard oath isn't exactly rocket science to perform.  Turn 1 mox bazaar discard dragon turn 2 black land animate win isn't either.  Turn 1 mox welder, turn 2 thirst-->titan, weld is pretty offensive yet not so complicated.  The list goes on.

If you run fetches and basics, you can laugh at your opponent who plays turn 1 crucible turn 2 waste because they won't be able to touch you and have cut themself off from colored mana for a few turns.  Again, the reason that crucible is offensive to so many is the vulnerability of tight/unstable manabases to wasteland.  If you could only have 2 strip effects in your deck instead of 5, crucible would be mediocre.

I agree that having your opponent lock you out of the game by early waste/crucible lock IS pretty lame.  However, there are a lot of successful decks that are barely fazed by such lameness--just play one of those and win.  As JP has said time and time again, people are just pissed because they can't play 4-5 colors with no drawback.  Decks need to evolve and just because Crucible has caused evolution doesn't mean it requires restriction.  If nearly every deck in the top 8 of several big tourneys was running 3-4 crucibles, then maybe that would be evidence for its restriction.  But, that is not the case--it may have been for one tourney but that was before Mr. Darwin came along and decreed that manabases must become better to meet the demands of the environment.

[dicemanx]

As JP has said time and time again, people are just pissed because they can't play 4-5 colors with no drawback.

This is an exaggeration, and you know it.

Even if you "adapt", you can fall prey to a mindless lock. Plus, what you call adaptation I call the results of distortion - purposefully weakening color consistency in order to deal with non-basic hate. There are very few decks in the environment that are strong enough to compete while hedging successfully against CoW locks - we have mono-U and now Meandeck Oath, but apart from that there's really nothing else.

But you're right about one thing - since CoWs are not abundant in many Top-8s, and they are not part of a dominating deck, they will not get restricted.

[Covetous]

CSlaver runs 5 or 6 basics, 1-2 indestructibles plus 4-5 fetches and moxen--that's most of the manabase that laughs at crucible/waste.  TPS, the deck that everyone in america talks about but no one plays also has a bunch of basics and fetches.  Decks with Crucible/Waste haven't been winning as many tourneys as decks that are immune to crucible/waste.  While it's possible that nonbasic hate has made many multicolor decks unplayable, I say it's just a matter of time until they adapt.  Once everyone has adapted their manabase to be resistant to non-basic hate, there will be no reason to run crucible/waste.  Then once crucible/waste drops down a bit, multicolor will be able to return until the meta reacts with increased crucible/waste--it's a cycle like everything else (i.e. null rod).

[andrewpate]

I seems like this debate has become almost more about guidelines for restriction than about Crucible itself.  Most acknowledge that it is distorting, but beatable.  In my opinion, that means that it is not restriction-worthy.

Do we need a card to be a 4-of in nearly every viable deck to ban/restrict it (Strip Mine in Vintage, Skullclamp in Standard)?  Do we need a specific deck to bend us all over and show us the problem (Lion's Eye Diamond in Vintage, Goblin Recruiter in Extended)?  I think that both of these are good reasons, but that "This card goes a long way toward making a lot of good cards bad," is not one.  If this were the case, we would be talking about restricting far more distorting cards than CoW, such as Force of Will and Null Rod.  Certainly nobody wants those cards axed.

I would like to hear a good argument on why Crucible would be restricted but FoW, Trinisphere, Null Rod, Wasteland, Misdirection, and Mana Drain would all continue not to be.  I'm not saying that any of those should be--they shouldn't--but I can't see any philosophy that would hit CoW but not at least one of those.

[jpmeyer]

I think the difference between a card like Crucible and a card like Trinisphere is that the random turn 1 Trinisphere usually leads to a win while the Crucible leads to a win only if your opponent's deck lets it lead into a win.  That said, both of which are frustrating and really don't require any skill to win with.

[dicemanx]

Look, we already know that:

There are ways to hedge (ie "adapt") against CoW.

CoW doesn't dominate the format.

T1 is already filled with broken, mindless combos.

We've heard all of these things already. When will you guys stop repeating yourselves? This is the problem with threads like this. An argument is presented, and yet for some reason most posters choose to ignore it.

Cards like crucible are also important to have around becuase they add a new element to the game. They make deck builder think "How do I deal with a turn one Crucible?" "How do I deal with turn one Trinisphere" ect. While the answers to these problems may seem simple (run FOW and basic lands) they nevertheless make one stop to think about both their short and long term game strategies in the given matchup.

No.

It's more like, do I play a mono-color deck (mono-U or Oath, bleh), or do I toss in a couple of basics and maybe some removal and keep my fingers crossed that some random won't annihilate me with his CoW or Trinisphere.

[bebe]

Dicemanx, Shockwave and other Toronto players have pretty much had it with Crucible. I've faced it one too many times to side with the argument that it makes Type 1 somehow more interesting. I agree that if a card DISTORTS the environment and is mindless to play as well, it warrants restriction. The argument that a number of decks are capable of winning on turn one or two is without merit as most of those decks can be severely hated out and I really dislike games that are decided on a coin flip. I am having the same problem with Oath but I'm not advocating restriction as a number of cards really work Oath over. Every time I play island/crypt/tinker turn one with counter back up I feel somewhat dirty - not enough to stop me playing it though   But this is a restricted combo so why is Crucible exempt.
As for Workshops - believe me, decks running Workshops will adapt if it became restricted - they would run land they gets them two instead three
mana and be marginally slowed down. It is Welder that makes these decks strong. So comparing Crucible to Workshop is not a productive argument.

[Moxlotus]

Dicemanx, Shockwave and other Toronto players have pretty much had it with Crucible. I've faced it one too many times to side with the argument that it makes Type 1 somehow more interesting. I agree that if a card DISTORTS the environment and is mindless to play as well, it warrants restriction. The argument that a number of decks are capable of winning on turn one or two is without merit as most of those decks can be severely hated out and I really dislike games that are decided on a coin flip. I am having the same problem with Oath but I'm not advocating restriction as a number of cards really work Oath over. Every time I play island/crypt/tinker turn one with counter back up I feel somewhat dirty - not enough to stop me playing it though   But this is a restricted combo so why is Crucible exempt.
As for Workshops - believe me, decks running Workshops will adapt if it became restricted - they would run land they gets them two instead three
mana and be marginally slowed down. It is Welder that makes these decks strong. So comparing Crucible to Workshop is not a productive argument.

I agree with you, but where would it stop?  I'd say mana drain distorts the environment possibly more than any other card and it is pretty mindless to play-so do you restrict that?  I doubt it, but my point is that if you make a set of criteria to justify restricting a card then why can't you use the same set to justify restricting another card that shouldn't be?

[CHA1N5]

Moxlotus is right.  Nearly every card that sees play in T1 "distorts" the format.

I mean, take a look at $T4KS:

Trinisphere
Crucible

fine... those are cards that make lucky wins.... but how about:

Tangle Wire
Smokestack
Meditate
Tinker
Welder
Wheel
Trike
Titan
Wasteland
Strip Mine
Black Lotus

... ever been blown out by an opponent who topdecked any one of those cards?  We all have.  Every deck in the format (at least, the good ones) has several cards where, if you've not prepared for them, they will blow you out.  

If your deck design is not "distorted" by a card that might be played against you, then you are not properly designing your deck.  What you call "distortion" I call "environment".

[que jape's party line....]

[jpmeyer]

I think people are all using different definitions for "distortion" or applying the term "distortion" to different aspects, which is making it hard to figure out what people believe.  I always thought that it was based on distortion in the metagame, rather than a distortion in deck construction (or both, in the case of the deck vs. hate deck format,) that was a problem.

[bebe]

@ CHAINS
Tangle Wire
Smokestack
Meditate
Tinker
Welder
Wheel
Trike
Titan
Wasteland
Strip Mine
Black Lotus

Of the cards you mention these are the unrestricted ones ....
Tangle Wire
Smokestack
Meditate
Welder
Trike
Titan
Wasteland

Of these only Wasteland is widely played. Now you can combine that with the widely played Crucible. A card is distorting when it can be played in nearly EVERY deck out there. This is so far not the case in the States but in Canada it seems much more pervasive and for good reason ... it wins games randomly that otherwise would be lost.
I love Tangles and Stacks and was among the first to play lock style decks. Trinisphere is not on the restriction list because only one archtype plays it - as in the case of Oath. It is not pervasive. As for Wastes - they do distort the environment a bit but they don't lead to random wins as often as Crucible does. They are a necessary glue at this point.

[andrewpate]

I agree that if a card DISTORTS the environment and is mindless to play as well, it warrants restriction.

I would refer you to my earlier post:  how, under this definition of restrictability, do FoW, Trinisphere, Null Rod, Wasteland, Misdirection, and Mana Drain stay?

FoW:  you are distorted away from fragile turn-1 combo (Belcher and friends do not dominate)

Trinisphere:  we've been over this one

Null Rod:  you are distorted away from decks that rely heavily on artifact abilities and esp. artifact mana (Affinity does not dominate)

Wasteland:  we've been over this one

Misdirection:  you are distorted away from powerful targeted kills (Stroke is no longer a viable primary kill condition)

Mana Drain:  we've been over this one

There are dozens of cards that fit your description; those are just the examples I used earlier.  Isn't Tendrils distortive?  It makes a lot more people run Stifle.  What about Duress?  The list is long and boring.

I really dislike games that are decided on a coin flip.

Wow.  So go play Extended.  Not like Crucible wins on turn 1 anyway.  Wasn't it JP who said over on SCG, "Okay, so you lay Crucible, Strip a land, and pass turn.  Then combo untaps and wins."  We are in a format where half our decklists start with "10 SoLoMoxCrypt," and some combo decks run on 1 or 2 lands in the entire thing.  Crucible on turn 1 is not game; Crucible is never "game" unless other factors allow it to be.  A manascrewed opponent sent to oblivion by Wasteland recursion or a Landstill player frustratedly laying down one more Faerie Conclave as he struggles to find his own Crucible is hardly grounds for a restriction.  Look at the cards that have been hit lately:  with the exception of the precautionary cut to Chrome Mox, they have all been cards that act as lynch-pins to dominating archtypes:  Entomb, LED, Burning Wish, etc.  Show me the new Long that has Crucibles and I will agree with you.

[jpmeyer]

I think part of the problem is that speaking for myself anyway, I don't know what's played in Canada that would make Crucible so dominant there.

[Smmenen]

I would like Rich and Peter to stand up for thier position.

I have an article on this subject to go up this week, but I ask:  Is the issue even relevant anymore given that recent Control decks run 4-5 basics?

[Razvan]

Why is crucible so dominant in Canada?

1) Lack of combo
2) Half the people play idiotic hate-decks with no clear plan in mind

Simple. That is the position.

[Komatteru]

Is the issue even relevant anymore given that recent Control decks run 4-5 basics?

Your answer can be found why control runs 4-5 basics.  Do you believe that Control Slaver and Mono blue are better control decks than Hulk Smash and 4CC were/are?  I think the answer to that is decidedly "no."  The former used to be considered second tier to the latter until recently.  Hulk Smash was well feared in its time.  The rise of Fish killed its play, but why don't we see it now that Fish has taken a hiatus?  Crucible.  3-Color 'tog has replaced Hulk for that reason.  Control Slaver has replaced 4CC as well.  As a former control player, I wouldn't pick up Control Slaver or mono Blue because I feel they are inferior to my first place choices of Hulk and 4CC, both of which are much less viable because of Crucible.

[dicemanx]

Well put Razvan.

And for those people that like to lump in cards like Mana Drain, Force of Will, etc to the distortion issue: you're missing the key point. Trinisphere and CoW often lead to those "oops I win" game ending plays. I do enjoy the brokenness of the T1 format, but there are some cards I could do without, because they simply can get too ridiculous and make it far too random to my liking.

s the issue even relevant anymore given that recent Control decks run 4-5 basics?

Well, the choices are then limited to mono-U, Oath, and maybe Control Slaver (which can barely pull off running so many basics, but it has Blood Moon to assist). That's two, maybe three decks out of something like 20+ decks in the environment which could be considered viable. I must say though, my choice of decks would *not* be based on the susceptibility to CoW. CoW is the tip of the iceberg - there are far more dangerous threats to prepare for in the local meta, so I'm willing to sacrifice some games to the random mindless CoW/Trini assisted win.