The fact that commonly arising situations exist where it is worse makes it a downside. How strongly you weigh that against the other factors is up to you. You may not consider it a net downside, but it is 100% a downside.
I do of course realize that there are situations where Barrens is worse than Wilds. I never said anything else. But there are exactly the same amount of situations where it is better than Wilds.
So, T1 Swamp, Thoughtseize.
Now T2 ...I want to be able to play Gravecrawler AND use Ash Barrens to get a Mountain, but I can't. If I get my Mountain, I have no other T2 play. If I get another Swamp, I can play the 'crawler, but my hand is without red mana after using my Barrens. So I have to choose between playing my Gravecrawler OR getting the mana I need. If that had been a Wilds/Expanse instead, I could do both. Literally any other ETBT mana fixer would do what I need it to, but Barrens can't.
There are certainly a lot of situations where Barrens is better. But requiring me to use colors of mana I need now to secure colors of mana I'll need later is absolutely a relevant drawback. I get that it's "different", but sometimes those differences are really important, and it is 100% a relevant downside to the way the fixing on Barrens works.
Replace Gravecrawler with Jackal Pup and you have the opposite dilemma. See the symmetry of the situations? One could reasonably say that's a complete wash.
The hand works just fine if it's a Jackal Pup, yes. But in a deck that's heavier in one color than another, and you're using Ash Barrens to help secure a secondary and/or splash color, those situations can arise often. In a deck that's exactly half and half, you'd be right. But often (especially with aggro) one color will be more heavily slanted than another. And if the above deck had a few BB spells in it, cutting a Swamp for Barrens would be a bad deckbuilding choice. So it's not just random in-game situations that matter; choosing Wilds over Barrens can be a correct choice during the draft because you're playing a deck where the above situations are more likely to occur than others. Like, the deck may not have Pups in it at all because red is a color only represented with a handful of cards. Maybe I only need like 6-7 sources of red because they're all 1R and 2R cards, but black represents all of your 1-drop suite, and a lot of 2-drops including some BB cards. It can be correct to draft/deckbuild with Wilds over Barrens because of the manner in which Barrens fixes your mana. So using it to get a mountain and play Pup is only relevant in the situations where the deck is equally represented with cards of both colors. This certainly won't always be the case. Evidence that Barrens is worse than Expanse/Wilds? Of course not. But a commonly arising situation showcasing some of its shortcomings in comparison to similar cards? Yes.
It's absolutely not proof that the land is worse, but there are a lot of relevant scenarios that can commonly arise where it'll prevent you from curving properly. It has upsides too, but it definitely has scenarios where it's not only worse than Wilds, but is literally the worst fixing land you could possibly have. That's not just a standard drawback, it's a big one. And it's relevant.
The point was that it is a drawback that needs to be considered during evaluation. Not as a reason to dismiss Barrens entirely.
T1 Swamp, Thoughtseize.
T2 Cycle Ash Barrens for a Mountain to play Jackal Pub.
No ETBT land would let you use your existing lands to pay for the cycling and let you use the missing mana right away.
That's Phitt77's point, if I understood correctly: It only depends what kind of mana you need. If you need the mana that you already have on the turn you play the fixing land, an ETBT land is better. If you need the missing kind of mana on the turn you play the land, cycling for 1 is better.
I'm not sure whether those two situations are equally likely, but no card seems to come out in favor in that regard.
Edit: haha, hivemind loves pub. I swear I didn't read either of your posts before I finished mine.
Again, that example only works for decks that are equally represented with cards of both colors. If Barrens is functioning as a source of a secondary/splash color, you're more likely to run into a situation where it can damage your hand than help it (in comparison to Wilds/Expanse).
And that's cool! I like Ash Barrens quite a bit. I'm adding it in, and I expect it to play well for us.
I'm simply pointing out that there are situations that need to be considered as part of Barrens' evaluation where it can be lacking in comparison to the existing ETBT fixing options. That's all. For me:
Wilds/Expanse Pros:
Interactions with Crucible of Worlds.
Interactions with Landfall cards.
Post-mulligan 1-land hand decisions.
Situations where I can't afford to spend colors of mana I need now for colors of mana I'll need later.
Barrens' Pros:
Situations where I want/need any ol' untapped mana source.
Situations where I need the C.
Situations where I can afford to spend colors of mana I have (but don't need now) for colors of mana I do need now.
Situations where cycling the land at instant speed allows me to hold up reactive spells if needed.
Interactions with Life from the Loam.
The pros on Barrens are likely to be more impactful, and therefore overall, you guys are right that Barrens' upsides are relevant in more overall situations. But I want to make sure that item 4 remains on the list of pros for Wilds/Expanse, because it can impact not only the way a game plays out, but which card I should take during the draft and/or deckbuild with.
All the best to everybody. Cheers, and happy cubing.
I think that's really a complete pro/con list now (and much more thorough than I would have initially made it out, at first I just thought, "cool, another Wilds").
If red is your main color and you just splash for black, then why do you have a swamp and not a mountain in your starting hand? And why are the only two one drops black if you just splash for black?
That's the opposite of what I said. Red is the splash color in that deck. So you're more likely to have multiple black 1-drops (since there are no red 1-drops). And you're more likely to have Swamps and no Mountains (because red has less sources). And because of the deck configuration, you can't remove a Swamp for a Mountain during deckbuilding because you need to maximize untapped black sources. So the Barrens replaces a Mountain during deckbuilding, and this is the kind of situation that can arise from that. And one that is more likely to arise because of how the deck needs to be properly built. And if the Barrens was a Wilds, this wouldn't happen.
Okay, I see your point. Still, what it comes down to is:
Terramorphic is better if you need exactly the colors you have up already, with no generic mana costs this turn.
Barrens is better if you need access to a colored mana this turn that you don't already have.
I would also add the flexibility of instant speed to the list of Barrens' pros, where Terromorphic forces you to commit the mana at sorcery speed. Being able to leave counterspell mana up turn 2 and still fix mana for your 3 drop if you don't need the counterspell is handy.
I would also add the flexibility of instant speed to the list of Barrens' pros, where Terromorphic forces you to commit the mana at sorcery speed. Being able to leave counterspell mana up turn 2 and still fix mana for your 3 drop if you don't need the counterspell is handy.
You're right! I was bundling that as part of the advantage of spending mana you don't need for something you'll need later, but I will definitely add it to the list. On T2, you can cycle this away if you don't need your counter (or other reactive spell), and have an untapped source at the ready on the following turn. Nice.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating the exclusion of Barrens. Just trying to come up with a comprehensive pros and cons list that covers the relative comparisons between the effects. FWIW, I think Barrens is a sweet card. I'm including it, and I expect it to do well. Extra universally playable fixing and shuffle effects are always welcome!
..........
Edit: The pros on the Wilds/Expanse interaction with Crucible of Worlds are pretty big game. The pros on the Barrens' interaction with Life from the Loam seem less significant, no? Other than playing a different land entirely, and being able to landscycle for the sole purpose of sandbagging extra basics in my hand ...are there other advantages I'm missing? Because Loam's interaction with Wilds/Expanse does most of the other interactions pretty much exactly the same way (deck thinning, extra land drops, repeatable shuffle effects, etc...). I still added it to the "pro" list for Barrens, but does anyone envision an interaction with Barrens and Loam that I don't see?
The only difference with Loam that I can see is that cycling Ash Barrens doesn't eat your land drop for the turn. I can Loam, play a different land and then cycle. Can't do that with Expanse / Wilds.
im just gonna thank wtwlf for pointing out a weakness he found while play testing. I'd hate it if this became a place where sharing playtest data caused drama on the regular.
I was drawn to this forum for at least a year before I even began to cube seriously because of the quality of the card discussion. I've yet to find a better place to dive into the value of a card, and it's made me a better Magic player outside of cube as a result.
I'm wondering, just looking a decklist, do you think you can tell if you'd prefer to run Wilds/Expanse or Barrens in it (ignoring specific lands matter interactions)? Do you think there will be a lot of variance there?
Actually, the example changes everything. I think it's really easy to look at a list and tell right away whether the fixing on Wilds or Barrens will be better for you... if you really want a detailed explanation on how to figure it out, I can create one.
But as you say, we're talking past each other because the point is that each land has its pros and cons, and all I was doing was trying to be complete with my analysis. If people can list the advantages about the way Barrens fixes as a pro, than the shortcomings regarding the way it fixes needs to be identified as a con.
I like Barrens more in a deck that supports colorless / Loam. I think I'd rather keep Expanse / Wilds in most other decks and ones supporting Crucible / Landfall.
I don't support colourless and I have a few cards that synergise well with Wilds/Expanse (Lotus Cobra, Steppe Lynx, Plated Geopede, Tireless Tracker and Crucible of Worlds) so I'm keeping the two of them for now. I've intended to cut Expanse for a while, just waiting for better lands/colourless cards, but I don't think Ash Barrens is the card to make me do it.
However, the fact Barrens can be played as a Wastes later when you already have the colours you need and Expanse/Wilds would be a tapland in the same scenario seems to be a strong point of Barrens.
Now that I think about it, you're probably playing both Barrens and Wilds / Expanse in a Loam deck regardless, you'd just probably prioritize the Barrens as a draft pick over Wilds / Expanse if you already have the Loam.
And vice versa with the Crucible. In actuality, the lands are really close. There might be some decks/interactions that would make me slightly prefer one over the other, but neither becomes suddenly unplayable or anything.
So I have a hard time seeing either as different enough in power to be more than trivial. What my questions is how many of the effects do you want in a given cube size? I know a few years ago wilds was not that popular, now everyone seems to run at least one. I consider running both to be a 360 requirement and will most likely run ash barrens as my only C16 card.
wtwlf123's mana short article really refocused me one how many fixing lands are really needed. He points to a little more than my group has an affinity for but wilds/expanse are always taken mid-pack and always played. I have a hard time believing that this card shouldn't be played by all cubes, especially those avoiding expanse because it was a functional reprint of wilds. And larger cubes seem like a slam duck.
And if we get more (I think wizards is comfortable with the power level) how many do people want?
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
Thus why I considered the cards comparable.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
Example hand:
So, T1 Swamp, Thoughtseize.
Now T2 ...I want to be able to play Gravecrawler AND use Ash Barrens to get a Mountain, but I can't. If I get my Mountain, I have no other T2 play. If I get another Swamp, I can play the 'crawler, but my hand is without red mana after using my Barrens. So I have to choose between playing my Gravecrawler OR getting the mana I need. If that had been a Wilds/Expanse instead, I could do both. Literally any other ETBT mana fixer would do what I need it to, but Barrens can't.
There are certainly a lot of situations where Barrens is better. But requiring me to use colors of mana I need now to secure colors of mana I'll need later is absolutely a relevant drawback. I get that it's "different", but sometimes those differences are really important, and it is 100% a relevant downside to the way the fixing on Barrens works.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
It's absolutely not proof that the land is worse, but there are a lot of relevant scenarios that can commonly arise where it'll prevent you from curving properly. It has upsides too, but it definitely has scenarios where it's not only worse than Wilds, but is literally the worst fixing land you could possibly have. That's not just a standard drawback, it's a big one. And it's relevant.
The point was that it is a drawback that needs to be considered during evaluation. Not as a reason to dismiss Barrens entirely.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
Thoughtseize
Jackal Pup
Abbot of Keral Keep
Stormblood Berserker
Goblin Rabblemaster
Swamp
Ash Barrens
T1 Swamp, Thoughtseize.
T2 Cycle Ash Barrens for a Mountain to play Jackal Pub.
No ETBT land would let you use your existing lands to pay for the cycling and let you use the missing mana right away.
That's Phitt77's point, if I understood correctly: It only depends what kind of mana you need. If you need the mana that you already have on the turn you play the fixing land, an ETBT land is better. If you need the missing kind of mana on the turn you play the land, cycling for 1 is better.
I'm not sure whether those two situations are equally likely, but no card seems to come out in favor in that regard.
Edit: haha, hivemind loves pub. I swear I didn't read either of your posts before I finished mine.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
I'm simply pointing out that there are situations that need to be considered as part of Barrens' evaluation where it can be lacking in comparison to the existing ETBT fixing options. That's all. For me:
Wilds/Expanse Pros:
Interactions with Crucible of Worlds.
Interactions with Landfall cards.
Post-mulligan 1-land hand decisions.
Situations where I can't afford to spend colors of mana I need now for colors of mana I'll need later.
Barrens' Pros:
Situations where I want/need any ol' untapped mana source.
Situations where I need the C.
Situations where I can afford to spend colors of mana I have (but don't need now) for colors of mana I do need now.
Situations where cycling the land at instant speed allows me to hold up reactive spells if needed.
Interactions with Life from the Loam.
The pros on Barrens are likely to be more impactful, and therefore overall, you guys are right that Barrens' upsides are relevant in more overall situations. But I want to make sure that item 4 remains on the list of pros for Wilds/Expanse, because it can impact not only the way a game plays out, but which card I should take during the draft and/or deckbuild with.
All the best to everybody. Cheers, and happy cubing.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
That's the opposite of what I said. Red is the splash color in that deck. So you're more likely to have multiple black 1-drops (since there are no red 1-drops). And you're more likely to have Swamps and no Mountains (because red has less sources). And because of the deck configuration, you can't remove a Swamp for a Mountain during deckbuilding because you need to maximize untapped black sources. So the Barrens replaces a Mountain during deckbuilding, and this is the kind of situation that can arise from that. And one that is more likely to arise because of how the deck needs to be properly built. And if the Barrens was a Wilds, this wouldn't happen.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
I would also add the flexibility of instant speed to the list of Barrens' pros, where Terromorphic forces you to commit the mana at sorcery speed. Being able to leave counterspell mana up turn 2 and still fix mana for your 3 drop if you don't need the counterspell is handy.
Yes. And there are decks where each situation will shine more, depending on color saturation and untapped mana sources of your corresponding colors.
You're right! I was bundling that as part of the advantage of spending mana you don't need for something you'll need later, but I will definitely add it to the list. On T2, you can cycle this away if you don't need your counter (or other reactive spell), and have an untapped source at the ready on the following turn. Nice.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating the exclusion of Barrens. Just trying to come up with a comprehensive pros and cons list that covers the relative comparisons between the effects. FWIW, I think Barrens is a sweet card. I'm including it, and I expect it to do well. Extra universally playable fixing and shuffle effects are always welcome!
..........
Edit: The pros on the Wilds/Expanse interaction with Crucible of Worlds are pretty big game. The pros on the Barrens' interaction with Life from the Loam seem less significant, no? Other than playing a different land entirely, and being able to landscycle for the sole purpose of sandbagging extra basics in my hand ...are there other advantages I'm missing? Because Loam's interaction with Wilds/Expanse does most of the other interactions pretty much exactly the same way (deck thinning, extra land drops, repeatable shuffle effects, etc...). I still added it to the "pro" list for Barrens, but does anyone envision an interaction with Barrens and Loam that I don't see?
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
My High Octane Unpowered Cube on CubeCobra
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
I'm wondering, just looking a decklist, do you think you can tell if you'd prefer to run Wilds/Expanse or Barrens in it (ignoring specific lands matter interactions)? Do you think there will be a lot of variance there?
Cubetutor Link
But as you say, we're talking past each other because the point is that each land has its pros and cons, and all I was doing was trying to be complete with my analysis. If people can list the advantages about the way Barrens fixes as a pro, than the shortcomings regarding the way it fixes needs to be identified as a con.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
My High Octane Unpowered Cube on CubeCobra
However, the fact Barrens can be played as a Wastes later when you already have the colours you need and Expanse/Wilds would be a tapland in the same scenario seems to be a strong point of Barrens.
My High Octane Unpowered Cube on CubeCobra
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
wtwlf123's mana short article really refocused me one how many fixing lands are really needed. He points to a little more than my group has an affinity for but wilds/expanse are always taken mid-pack and always played. I have a hard time believing that this card shouldn't be played by all cubes, especially those avoiding expanse because it was a functional reprint of wilds. And larger cubes seem like a slam duck.
And if we get more (I think wizards is comfortable with the power level) how many do people want?
ALSO: If you only run one of Terramorphic Expanse/Evolving Wilds, which do you choose and which version?
Also, follow us on twitter! @TurnOneMagic