Lame puns aside, how many sacrifice / cycle lands do I need to make Crucible of Worlds a viable play option in say, a nongreen deck?
While land destruction should be factored in, for prudence, bear in mind the unlikely event that you do not meet a deck with land destruction. Thanks in advance.
Entirely dependent on what they do. I wouldn't run Crucible just for fetches, but I'd strongly consider it if I was running only a couple sac lands alongside powerful lands that were likely to draw hate that I would like to keep in play. I'd also be more likely to include it if my sac lands were giving me interesting effects other than land destruction. So my answer is that I don't have such a threshold. There are too many other factors to just give it a number.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[Pr]Jaya | Estrid | A rotating cast of decks built out of my box.
I recently cut it from Kaalia for Sun Titan as I saw myself rarely getting good mileage out of it(or Titan would recur what I wanted anyway) and he is easier to recur himself if something happened to him.
And I play 3 on-colour fetches, and strip mine. Crucible was only "decent" if replaying a fetch for me to keep making land drops. So in my exp, Titan is better for me.
I was just having this debate yesterday on twitter.
I feel as though it's a "necessary" card if you've got at least 4 fetches, 1-3 LD lands, and library manipulation of some sort (say, top). However, it's not entirely necessary for every deck, and heavy consideration should be given towards how important lands are before including it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks, Heroes of The Planes! You guys are great!
Actual Truth:
"You heard it here folks:
Anyone who disagrees with "Jack from NC" is an idiot."-The Dead Weatherman
I was just having this debate yesterday on twitter.
I feel as though it's a "necessary" card if you've got at least 4 fetches, 1-3 LD lands, and library manipulation of some sort (say, top). However, it's not entirely necessary for every deck, and heavy consideration should be given towards how important lands are before including it.
Sounds about right for why I cut it. 3 fetches, 1 strip mine, and top. Makes sense that Sun Titan usually gets the job done for me just fine.
My advice would be to run it with 5-6 Fetches, 2-3 Land D, a couple powerful legendary lands, with a Buried Ruins and a Tolaria West for good measure. Well thats what i do anyway and i would never go below 5 fetches with Crucible if you are 2+ colors.
I cut it from Animar. Ended up being a win-more, and the ramp via fetches was minimal.
This is the reason I started using Life from the Loam instead of Crucible. Crucible's main advantage is that it can be played in any deck. If you have access to Green, I think Life from the Loam is generally just better, especially since you can abuse cycle lands with it.
This is the reason I started using Life from the Loam instead of Crucible. Crucible's main advantage is that it can be played in any deck. If you have access to Green, I think Life from the Loam is generally just better, especially since you can abuse cycle lands with it.
Actually it depends. Life from the Loam is not very optimal in decks which run any of those two legendary Eldrazis (especially as your deck grows thinner and thinner) and yes, it has caused me a few games before.
That said, the hypergeometric probability is pretty negligible (about less than 10% on average) which is why Life from the Loam still gets a spot in one of my green decks.
I run this with couple of LD cards like Restore Balance, Death Cloud, and good ol geddy. Also, Tolaria West and a couple of Fact or Fictioning helps recover lands pretty eaasily.
I think it depends a lot on your playgroup too in my group there are lots of sundering titans and reap and so type effects plus everyone runs strip mine acidic slime ect and I make sure I put one in every deck
Actually it depends. Life from the Loam is not very optimal in decks which run any of those two legendary Eldrazis (especially as your deck grows thinner and thinner) and yes, it has caused me a few games before.
That said, the hypergeometric probability is pretty negligible (about less than 10% on average) which is why Life from the Loam still gets a spot in one of my green decks.
I started a thread about Crucible vs. LftL not too long ago and the general consensus was that a deck that wants one really wants both. I found this to be true in my decks, even though LftL can make Crucible unnecessary at times, I appreciate having both.
I think Crucible is great in 2 and 3 color decks running the maximum amount of fetches. I run a full 9 fetches in my three color deck and I really appreciate that 1 fetch + Crucible means that I don't need to focus on my land drops. This means that I can use Top, Sylvan Library, cantrips, JTMS, etc. to dig for more action instead of hitting land drops.
as powerful as it is, i feel that the community largely overrates it. it should never be an auto include. the way i see it, it should only be placed in decks that can get maximum advantage out of it. MINIMUM 6 fetches, 2 LD lands and 3 other lands that are in the deck that are guaranteed to hit the yard (horizon canopy, mouth of ronom and such). and thats just bare minimum...those lands should also be interacting with other cards. for example, buried ruin to constantly recur artifacts you sacrifice, fetches for lethal avenger of zendikar triggers or whatever.
all in all, its inclusion should complement your deck. you should not have to work hard to get mileage out of it. its a card that realistically has no effect on the game by itself, so why jump through hoops for it?
I find it to be a really good addition if you can use it to great effect. If you just have it in there becasue it is a good card. You need to be able to take advantage of it on many different levels. The recuring land one is clear but the fetch land one is a good one because it allows you to shuffle. Learn to take advantage of the card as much as you can. Figure out what you are trying to do and see if you can get the mass effect you want out of it.
I started a thread about Crucible vs. LftL not too long ago and the general consensus was that a deck that wants one really wants both. I found this to be true in my decks, even though LftL can make Crucible unnecessary at times, I appreciate having both.
I feel like this isn't entirely true. LftL is an engine unto itself that stocks your graveyard while enabling land drops. It's not something which needs to be built around, necessarily, it does all of the work. Sure, it's better when you have a ton of sac lands and whatnot, but you can always cast Loam for zero lands, and then start dredging it to find lands and other spells that you can rebuy later.
Loam has the capability of doing very different things than Crucible, and so I don't think that comparing the two is necessarily valid.
Regarding Crucible of Worlds, I don't think that there's a set number of sac lands and cycle lands that makes Crucible playable. A better question to think about is "how frequently will there be lands in my graveyard, and how much value do I get from replaying them?", regardless of how they got there.
In these cases, your general means that consistency of land drops is incredibly valuable, so the upside on Crucible will be way higher than the downside, and it's probably worth running.
Decks that don't consistently get value from Crucible due to interactions with their general need to think about the kinds of lands they're running, and whether the value/tempo/cards generated by your lands are worth using a slot to stabilize your mana. How high is the upside, and how bad is it if the card does nothing?
If I'm running Mono-Red artifacts, for example, and am heavily reliant on Buried Ruin, I'm going to add Crucible to take advantage of that. From there, I'll probably add Terramorphic Expanse/Evolving Wilds and Mouth of Ronom, think about the various cycling lands, to make it less dead when I don't have Buried Ruin. If the Crucible/Buried Ruin interaction is everything I wanted it to be, then I'll probably be happy, since the upside is what my deck needs, and the downside isn't too bad.
I run it in Thrax, with Dust Bowl, Strip Mine, 5 Fetches, and Urborg/Coffers. It is something that I like to draw, so I guess it is good and worth running.
Although people do overrate it. I wouldn't run it unless I had mass LD or lots of sac lands.
I've never run it without at least 4 fetchlands and two strip mine type lands and maybe 1 manland. Seems to be enough. Less than that might not be worthwhile.
I think if you have ~10 ways to interact with it (counting Strip Mine effects, Fetches, Cyclers, sacrifice effects (Mouth of Ronom), or even hate drawing lands (Gaea's Cradle, Academy Ruins) that you want to fight through hate), Crucible would be an excellent edition. These effects are going to be abused, so you don't need a plethora of options at all times. I'd say most decks with well built land bases would welcome the edition.
Crucible is really, really good. Even if you run minimial lands to interact with Crucible directly, it provides self-recursion for your lands against LD. This is especially good when you can recur lands that can take over games by themselves like Academy Ruins, Volrath's Stronghold, and Gaea's Cradle. (And I'd say Kessig Wolf Run and even Gavony Township are making their way up my personal list of problem lands.)
Most of my decks run problem lands that need to be destroyed, lands that can sac for stuff, or both. Crucible of Worlds usually finds its way into most of my decks as a result.
I sometimes run Crucible in my three-color decks, but I always consider it. I run at least 10 lands in a 3-color that Crucible can use to facilitate tempo advantage for me. If there are more, then so much the better, but about 10 lands with protection against land destruction is usually enough to make me run Crucible.
To me, it mostly comes down to the deck itself and not just the landbase. What am I trying to achieve with the deck? My Numot deck loves to 'Geddon as much as the next guy. The staxy behavior of the deck itself means that it's fine saccing the land for a cause. Namely through card advantage. Ever tried using Trade Routes or Claws of Gix to get rid of land for Land Tax? It's a real blast I tell ya. My land count in play can usually get absurdly low in order to fulfill my goals. Seismic Assult is also in the deck to ping off threats. It's not uncommon to see me Memory Jar off atleast 3 times in a single game either, so lands are ALWAYS hitting my graveyard outside of fetches.
Sharuum loves Crucible as much as Numot does. The deck thrives off of other players' tears. Tangle Wire, Nether Void, and most importantly, Braids, Cabal Minion, and Smokestack. Losing lands to Smokestack or Braids is nothing for me if Crucible is in play. Eventually, my opponents will lose all their lands (assuming they don't have crucible in play), and I'll be fine.
Crucible definitely an "I win" card (We won't get into Walk the Aeons+ Azusa, lost but seeking combo with it), but it definitely stablizes your gameplay that much more. It's one of those compromises a person can have...
Lame puns aside, how many sacrifice / cycle lands do I need to make Crucible of Worlds a viable play option in say, a nongreen deck?
While land destruction should be factored in, for prudence, bear in mind the unlikely event that you do not meet a deck with land destruction. Thanks in advance.
Actually, I am aware of that
I was just wondering what would be your personal threshold of land sac effects that you will need to consider CoW to be worth it?
Legacy: UB(R/G) Storm UB(R/G)
Vintage: UBG Gush Storm UBG
And I play 3 on-colour fetches, and strip mine. Crucible was only "decent" if replaying a fetch for me to keep making land drops. So in my exp, Titan is better for me.
Steel Sabotage'ng Orbs of Mellowness since 2011.
I feel as though it's a "necessary" card if you've got at least 4 fetches, 1-3 LD lands, and library manipulation of some sort (say, top). However, it's not entirely necessary for every deck, and heavy consideration should be given towards how important lands are before including it.
Thanks, Heroes of The Planes! You guys are great!
Actual Truth:
Optimal Arcum-Control
Teferi, Lockdown Mage
Animar, Aggro-Combo Beatdown
Grand Arbiter Augustin IV: Total Control
5-Color Control
Sounds about right for why I cut it. 3 fetches, 1 strip mine, and top. Makes sense that Sun Titan usually gets the job done for me just fine.
Steel Sabotage'ng Orbs of Mellowness since 2011.
This is the reason I started using Life from the Loam instead of Crucible. Crucible's main advantage is that it can be played in any deck. If you have access to Green, I think Life from the Loam is generally just better, especially since you can abuse cycle lands with it.
Legacy: UB(R/G) Storm UB(R/G)
Vintage: UBG Gush Storm UBG
Actually it depends. Life from the Loam is not very optimal in decks which run any of those two legendary Eldrazis (especially as your deck grows thinner and thinner) and yes, it has caused me a few games before.
That said, the hypergeometric probability is pretty negligible (about less than 10% on average) which is why Life from the Loam still gets a spot in one of my green decks.
I started a thread about Crucible vs. LftL not too long ago and the general consensus was that a deck that wants one really wants both. I found this to be true in my decks, even though LftL can make Crucible unnecessary at times, I appreciate having both.
I think Crucible is great in 2 and 3 color decks running the maximum amount of fetches. I run a full 9 fetches in my three color deck and I really appreciate that 1 fetch + Crucible means that I don't need to focus on my land drops. This means that I can use Top, Sylvan Library, cantrips, JTMS, etc. to dig for more action instead of hitting land drops.
all in all, its inclusion should complement your deck. you should not have to work hard to get mileage out of it. its a card that realistically has no effect on the game by itself, so why jump through hoops for it?
thats just the way i see it.
Mono-Black Oona, Queen of the Fae
Athreos, God of Passage
I feel like this isn't entirely true. LftL is an engine unto itself that stocks your graveyard while enabling land drops. It's not something which needs to be built around, necessarily, it does all of the work. Sure, it's better when you have a ton of sac lands and whatnot, but you can always cast Loam for zero lands, and then start dredging it to find lands and other spells that you can rebuy later.
Loam has the capability of doing very different things than Crucible, and so I don't think that comparing the two is necessarily valid.
Regarding Crucible of Worlds, I don't think that there's a set number of sac lands and cycle lands that makes Crucible playable. A better question to think about is "how frequently will there be lands in my graveyard, and how much value do I get from replaying them?", regardless of how they got there.
An Ib Halfheart, Goblin Tactician deck wants Crucible, even with zero sac lands or cycling lands. An Azusa, Lost But Seeking deck probably wants Crucible even if it only runs Terramorphic Expanse and Evolving Wilds.
In these cases, your general means that consistency of land drops is incredibly valuable, so the upside on Crucible will be way higher than the downside, and it's probably worth running.
Decks that don't consistently get value from Crucible due to interactions with their general need to think about the kinds of lands they're running, and whether the value/tempo/cards generated by your lands are worth using a slot to stabilize your mana. How high is the upside, and how bad is it if the card does nothing?
If I'm running Mono-Red artifacts, for example, and am heavily reliant on Buried Ruin, I'm going to add Crucible to take advantage of that. From there, I'll probably add Terramorphic Expanse/Evolving Wilds and Mouth of Ronom, think about the various cycling lands, to make it less dead when I don't have Buried Ruin. If the Crucible/Buried Ruin interaction is everything I wanted it to be, then I'll probably be happy, since the upside is what my deck needs, and the downside isn't too bad.
Although people do overrate it. I wouldn't run it unless I had mass LD or lots of sac lands.
Turn 2 Two Goblin Guide
(U/B)(U/B)(U/B) JUMP IN THE LINE, ROCK YOUR BODY IN TIME
(R/W)(R/W)(R/W) RISING FROM THE NEON GLOOM, SHINING LIKE A CRAZY MOON
(U/R)(R/G)(G/U) STEALIN' WHEN I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUYIN'
Thank You Rivenor/Miraculous Recovery Studios!
GGGSKamahl's Band of Monstosities SGGG
RRRSFreaki-Kiki, The Goblin DoucheSRRR
BBGGNath, Raper of Hands and Spewer of Tokens!GGBB
BUGDamia, Sage of AnswersBUG
WIPs
BBBXiahou Dun, the Bitter Stax Enabling BastardBBB
On Break
BBBSKagemaro, First to RetireSBBB
BBBThe Walking DeadBBB
UUUSTeferi Combo PrimerSUUU
Whatever I feel like building.
BRRakdos, Lord of RiotsBR
Most of my decks run problem lands that need to be destroyed, lands that can sac for stuff, or both. Crucible of Worlds usually finds its way into most of my decks as a result.
Sharuum loves Crucible as much as Numot does. The deck thrives off of other players' tears. Tangle Wire, Nether Void, and most importantly, Braids, Cabal Minion, and Smokestack. Losing lands to Smokestack or Braids is nothing for me if Crucible is in play. Eventually, my opponents will lose all their lands (assuming they don't have crucible in play), and I'll be fine.
Crucible definitely an "I win" card (We won't get into Walk the Aeons+ Azusa, lost but seeking combo with it), but it definitely stablizes your gameplay that much more. It's one of those compromises a person can have...
Much thanks to Heroes of the Plane Studios for the siggy!
[EDH Decks]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WBG ~Teneb, the Harvester; Boardwipes FTW~ GBW
WUR ~Numot, the Devestator; Mid-Range Stax~ RUW
[EDH in Progress]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
URG ~Riku of Two Reflections; Clones and Copies~ GRU
WUB ~Sharuum, the Hegemon; Stax Control~ BUW
Generation 14: The first time you see this, add it to your sig, but add 1 to the number. Call it a social experiment.