All this talk of 1-for-1 trades and yet everyone conveniently ignores that if Wasteland were reprinted, nearly every competitive players would be playing it. The only thing it would succeed in doing is artificially slowing down Standard and Modern and making them crawls to round time. That isn't healthy for the game or formats. It's a necessary evil for Legacy due to some of the non-basic lands it has access to, but by no means is it anywhere near necessary for Modern or Standard.
The decision to restrict the amount of land destruction seeing print has and will continue to be a good decision, because the only thing worse than banging your head into a counterspell wall is not having any mana to play anything unless you're playing control yourself (to which there would still be limited response as counerwalls are also unacceptable, as they should be). A quite severe lack of foresight in threads today is very unfortunate. Other people saying that they find land destruction fun is not an argument, either. People who get off from or enjoy playing by causing the most frustration possible for their opponent are not the people who should be making design decisions about this game. That is about sadism, not fun.
Fair point. I guess I'll just have to settle for my Stone Rain and Molten Rain. *sigh*
What's a "greedy mana base?" A mana base that lets you play spells that cost more than three and are more than one color?
The horror.
While I'm not for Wasteland being reprinted and enabled to be played in Standard and Modern, I will say that it is certainly greedy to be able to play any card of any color in a deck because your mana base is nothing but duals. Truthfully I do think the dual land situation has gotten out of hand and it lessens the meaning of there even being different colors in the game when you can play so many at a time so easily.
What's a "greedy mana base?" A mana base that lets you play spells that cost more than three and are more than one color?
The horror.
No, a greedy manabase is one where you run a ton of nonbasic lands in order to cast 3-5 colours worth of spells. In a perfect world, choosing to run more colours should be a tradeoff for more options at the cost of stability and consistency. The fetchland + shockland/dual land combination gives you the ability to do this with relatively little trouble or drawback. This ends up devolving the format to a bunch of goodstuff decks where the colour pie doesn't actually mean anything.
Lorwyn/Shadowmoor + Shards Standard is an example of this. Vivid Lands+Reflecting Pool made manabases in that Standard season far too robust. When you can run Cryptic Command and Cruel Ultimatum in a control deck and still comfortably run Cloudthresher in your sideboard, something is very wrong.
In Legacy, greed is kept in check through Wasteland. Wasteland's ubiquity keeps manabases honest and promotes sticking to 1-3 colours and the inclusion of basic lands. Modern, conversely, doesn't have a police card like Wasteland. I do think that Wasteland would be too oppressive in a format where all of the best dual lands cost you 2 life, but Modern does need something else to combat the multicoloured madness.
Special thanks to Hakai Studios and SushiOtter for the sig!
Legacy:UR Sneak and Show IUBG Team America IX Metalworker MUD Modern:UBR Blue Jund IWBX Eldrazi Processors IX Affinity IWRG Nacatl Burn IGR Tron IUBR Grishoalbrand
No, a greedy manabase is one where you run a ton of nonbasic lands in order to cast 3-5 colours worth of spells. In a perfect world, choosing to run more colours should be a tradeoff for more options at the cost of stability and consistency. The fetchland + shockland/dual land combination gives you the ability to do this with relatively little trouble or drawback. This ends up devolving the format to a bunch of goodstuff decks where the colour pie doesn't actually mean anything.
Lorwyn/Shadowmoor + Shards Standard is an example of this. Vivid Lands+Reflecting Pool made manabases in that Standard season far too robust. When you can run Cryptic Command and Cruel Ultimatum in a control deck and still comfortably run Cloudthresher in your sideboard, something is very wrong.
In Legacy, greed is kept in check through Wasteland. Wasteland's ubiquity keeps manabases honest and promotes sticking to 1-3 colours and the inclusion of basic lands. Modern, conversely, doesn't have a police card like Wasteland. I do think that Wasteland would be too oppressive in a format where all of the best dual lands cost you 2 life, but Modern does need something else to combat the multicoloured madness.
You completely missed his point. Decks right now, at least in standard, are almost all 1-3 colors and it still punishes all of them (the mono-colored decks are still running scry lands). We don't have a problem with four colored decks running around because the fixing isn't good enough. When was the last time four color decks were even good in standard? Even with checks and shocks (and Farseek and Chromatic Lantern), which was the best fixing has been in standard in ages, only one deck ran 4-5 colors and it was already greatly limited by a lack of reliability.
Modern decks seem to be mostly 2-3 colors, as well, and the three color decks are undeniably less reliable already (although not enough so that they're bad decks, obviously). I feel like you guys are trying to "fix" a problem that doesn't need fixing. What, exactly, is wrong with people running three color decks? Wasteland wouldn't even fix the "problem," it just might randomly "get them." They already run some basics for multiple other reasons and they're certainly not going to stop playing three colors.
You completely missed his point. Decks right now, at least in standard, are almost all 1-3 colors and it still punishes all of them (the mono-colored decks are still running scry lands). And why, exactly, do we have a problem with people playing 4-5 colors? No matter how good the fixing is, that's still far less reliable than just running 2-3 colors. They're already losing consistency. Even then, just reprint Tectonic Edge or similar if there's some magical, nonsensical issue with less consistent 4 color decks running around.
In modern, with fetches, you can run any color combination you want. You can do the same in legacy, but if you do you're likely to eat a wasteland at some point in the game.
In modern, with fetches, you can run any color combination you want. You can do the same in legacy, but if you do you're likely to eat a wasteland at some point in the game.
Hence why this thread.
The top 8 at GP Antwerp consisted of 1 copy of Affinity, 1 copy of RG Tron, and 6 3-color decks.
The top 8 at GP Brisbane consisted of 2 copies of Affinity, 2 copies of 2 RG Tron (one with a single black source for sideboard Slaughter Games), 3 3-color decks, and a single 4-color deck (Kiki-Pod).
The top 8 at GP Detroit consisted of 1 copy of Affinity, 2 copies of BG Rock, 4 3-color decks, and a single 4-color deck (Ajundi).
The top 8 at GP Kansas City consisted of 6 3-color decks, and two 4-color decks (Kiki-Pod and a Burn deck that splashed every other color except blue).
It may be true that you can play any color combination you want in Modern, but present evidence suggests that it's not generally a very good idea to play more than three colors if you actually want to win.
In modern, with fetches, you can run any color combination you want. You can do the same in legacy, but if you do you're likely to eat a wasteland at some point in the game.
Hence why this thread.
First, this thread clearly states standard first. No one cares about legacy and modern is an afterthought. Second, if decks really could easily run 4-5 colors in modern, they'd be doing it. If a jund deck could easily handle adding in another color, why wouldn't they for some of white's best sideboard cards, sweepers or removal? They don't because it would make the deck significantly less consistent for a slight improvement in certain scenarios.
It's a necessary evil for Legacy due to some of the non-basic lands it has access to, but by no means is it anywhere near necessary for Modern or Standard.
99% of the time, whenever I Wasteland something in Legacy, it's a dual land of some sort, and I'm aiming to cut them off a colour or keep them from reaching a certain amount of mana. Other times it's something like a Grove of the Burnwillows or a sol land. It's not really a "necessary evil" so much as a pillar of the format. The format could certainly exist without it. It'd just look different, with more emphasis on three-colour decks than exists now (I play Jund in both formats and I don't have to put nearly as much effort into planning out smooth mana in Modern as I do in Legacy).
I think this thread separates Magic players who are motivated by personal desires and those who are motivated by reason.
The idea of reprinting Wasteland in Standard has nothing to do with making Standard better...it's about making non-rotating formats cheaper. You even hear it in some of the arguments...the whole idea is that you design standard around not being wrecked by Wasteland so it can be safe to reprint.
Standard gains absolutely nothing by rehashing old ideas so new players can more easily play the expensive collectors formats. Wizards is giving everyone $10 Thoughtseizes and still people are thirsty for more and more from their expansive volumes of old classics. I just want to see new experiences and new cards so I can look forward to buying new product rather than watch the cards recycled over and over again. (it's not easy for them to get me to try new things, so they have to be really really good at it, better than they are now)
At any rate, Wasteland is way to efficient for manabases that aren't Legacy bases and mana-curves that aren't Legacy curves...but I guess a lot of people want to see them all those cards come back to standard until they've finally cycled back around to reprinting Shocklands and Deathrite Shaman, square one.
When I posted this thread, I did not even know the price of Wasteland until people starting bringing it up. I was only focusing on the gameplay aspects of this card. I play mostly Standard and Modern, and seeing as how this card is not currently legal in either format, I could care less how expensive it is. To sum up my point, I do not think it is fair to label one side as "Magic players who are motivated by personal desires."
Wasteland gives legacy it's destinctive flavor. Tec edge and ghost quarter do it's job in modern. I don't want modern to be legacy lite. I think it is only now getting a large enough card pool to be interesting and more than a stack of good stuff decks.
Definitely not in standard. WotC have found a great way to encourage mono colour decks in standard. .. devotion!
When I posted this thread, I did not even know the price of Wasteland until people starting bringing it up. I was only focusing on the gameplay aspects of this card. I play mostly Standard and Modern, and seeing as how this card is not currently legal in either format, I could care less how expensive it is. To sum up my point, I do not think it is fair to label one side as "Magic players who are motivated by personal desires."
I'm sorry, I just assumed. I've read many threads about similar subjects before and there are trends that are similar to each of them.
You have people who want Wasteland reprinted because they don't have Wasteland and want it primarily for eternal formats.
There are modern players who want is so they can put the second-to-last 'nail-in-the-coffin' to Legacy (the last being FoW), assuming that Modern with Wastelands would be every bit as good and 'skillful'.
Then, you have Legacy players without player-bases who just want more people to have Wasteland. I personally wouldn't mind having more people to play with myself, but I fear the effect that reintroducing eternal format pillars on a massive scale would have.
So, that is what I meant by personal desires.
I've spent time in a small, 'how do they stay in business' LGS, and that forever changed my views on what should and should not happen to the game of Magic. Doing things that explicitly encourage players to buy old staples and play at centralized Legacy events hurts the wider MTG scene. Only so many people can like Magic at once and only so many people can play formats at once.
The best thing about standard is that a lot of people play it, which could be hurt by giving people Legacy Power (especially the wealthier kids who tend to anchor the playerbase and feed the store owner). The best thing about legacy is arguably-controversially that the cards do not rotate, which is not profitable for MTG in any way, shape or form long term...unless you want to power-creep the heck out of the game and create rapid deck turn-over in Legacy, which a lot of people wouldn't like.
That's all. I don't mean to be the grinch who stole wasteland, I just have a broad vision of what is possible within Magic and what is unfeasible.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks:
Legacy: RWBG Goblins RRR Burn WBU Affinity UBR Sac-Land Tendrils! BBBPox
Next possible deck: D&T, but that just wouldn't be right.
Modern: R Goblins (work in progress)
Standard: I only care about standard when Goblins is a deck.
Limited: I only care about limited when Goblins are in the set.
I would hazard a guess and say that people who've played with and against wasteland are less worried about it than people who've never played against it. Same goes for a number of high profile eternal cards. They seem incredibly powerful and broken, but they have their limitations and risks just like anything else. If your benchmark for land destruction is 4 mana, even stone rain seems deadly, and wasteland seems outright broken. But when you play against those cards a lot, you learn to play around it, and tend not to worry about it so much. The benchmark for what counts as oppressive now seems to be quite low.
As someone who remembers playing strip mine in "standard," and plays legacy almost exclusively, I have to agree with this. Wasteland is not that scary.
Wasteland is a brilliantly designed card, and both makes legacy more interesting and more highly varied. It allows control/prison decks like pox and death and taxes to be viable, and strengthens mono-color aggro decks like merfolk and goblins, who are themselves largely immune to wasteland. Yet, it doesn't stop 4-color deathblade, RUG delver, BUG control, jund, and a litany of other decks with unbelievably greedy mana bases to remain tier 1.
Wasteland would be great for modern, and would help some of it's issues. It would give mono-color decks like soul sisters some tools, and probably strengthen modern D&T, hate bears, pox, ect. It would weaken UWR and Jund lists, but in no way would it make them non-viable.
Finally, wasteland would NOT fit into every current modern list. It takes away valuable colored-mana slots and is quite difficult to fit into 3-color decks, especially as a 4-of. Running it means running fewer other utility lands, and opening yourself up to opposing wastelands to a greater degree. Jund and UWR, for example, would have quite a tough time finding room for more than 2 wastelands.
Since the most basic LD is 4 mana or more, this would be impossibly broken. If they did do something like this, I imagine it would be something like "Pay 3 colorless mana: sacrifice a land, then your opponent sacrifices a land." It would have to be a spell, not a land.
The best thing about standard is that a lot of people play it, which could be hurt by giving people Legacy Power (especially the wealthier kids who tend to anchor the playerbase and feed the store owner). The best thing about legacy is arguably-controversially that the cards do not rotate, which is not profitable for MTG in any way, shape or form long term...unless you want to power-creep the heck out of the game and create rapid deck turn-over in Legacy, which a lot of people wouldn't like.
Unless they reprinted Legacy staples regularly, but Yu-Gi-Oh is already an example of what would happen. More people want to play the main game than even something as simple as sealed, and it forces power creep to get any amount of cards in competitive gameplay.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you don't wear your seatbelt, the police will shoot you in the head."
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
Everyone knows that good luck and good game are such insincere terms that any man who does not connect his right hook with the offender's jaw on the very utterance of such a phrase is no man I would consider as such.
is this really an acceptable topic? I get suspended repeatedly but **** like this is reasonable to talk about? what the hell
yeah, wasteland would be awesome there is nothing I love more than a standard in which everything that costs more than 3 is completely unplayable stop making suggestions jesus
is this really an acceptable topic? I get suspended repeatedly but **** like this is reasonable to talk about? what the hell
yeah, wasteland would be awesome there is nothing I love more than a standard in which everything that costs more than 3 is completely unplayable stop making suggestions jesus
I can't tell if this is sarcasm, bad phrasing, or just a lack of punctuation. Do you want Wasteland in Standard or not? I have no idea.
You seem to be operating under the assumption Wasteland can hit basics. Having Wasteland in the format wouldn't push things that cost more than 3 mana out of the format; it would just promote more monocolor decks.
You seem to be operating under the assumption Wasteland can hit basics. Having Wasteland in the format wouldn't push things that cost more than 3 mana out of the format; it would just promote more monocolor decks.
Thanks to Devotion, Theros has already been pushing the format in that direction. I think Wasteland should be reprinted, but not in this rotation. I think there's already enough reason to go mono color and basic heavy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
Thanks to Devotion, Theros has already been pushing the format in that direction. I think Wasteland should be reprinted, but not in this rotation. I think there's already enough reason to go mono color and basic heavy.
This.
Right now mono-color is actually really good in standard and doesnt need any help. In the Rav-Inn Standard wasteland would have been really nice. It would have given a reason to actually play basics and not just play 3 color piles of 4-7 drops.
It would be nice in modern, again to make constructing manabases a more thoughtful process and not just a greedfest. Basics would actually serve a purpose.
Also, it would be nice to have a format besides legacy and vintage were it is actually viable to play a deck that curves out at 2 or 3.
In the Rav-Inn Standard wasteland would have been really nice. It would have given a reason to actually play basics and not just play 3 color piles of 4-7 drops.
Inn-Rav std had way to many 3-color good card.decks in it, and modern has to much of the same.
For a format to be truely healthy and diverse we need something to keep people form just assembling a mana base that has enough fetches and shocks/duals to be able to trivialy cast anything, with less then 3 coloured mana symbols in its casting cost.
Wasteland is one of the few cards that punishes these mana bases, but barely phases basic heavy 1-2 color decks and can be put in enough deck lists to make a difference.
If it causes problems then there is something wrong with the rest of the card pool and meta-game, not wasteland itself, If is one of the most fair pieces of land D that they have ever printed, strong enough to be playable, but not so over powered that it can lock your oppoent out of the game.
Heck, most new players are runnign so many basics that it barely even affects them. So it does not even scare players away from the game.
It would be nice in modern, again to make constructing manabases a more thoughtful process and not just a greedfest. Basics would actually serve a purpose.
You all keep repeating this mantra, yet it has no basis in reality. The vast majority of quality decks in Modern are 1-3 colors. If you could effortlessly go 4-5 colors, everyone would be doing it. Why wouldn't Jund add in Path to Exile and Ajani Vengeant if it could with no drawback? It would. It doesn't because it can't. Some people try, but it makes the deck so much less consistent. I can't see any argument for it besides that people hate spending a ton of money on a manabase and this would make basics more justifiable.
Not to mention that really all it would do is either make three color decks unplayable (which is horrible) or have no impact whatsoever. It's not Legacy. You're already running some basics for things like Path to Exile - you're not running any more because of wasteland. To play three colors, you'd still need more than enough non-basics for Wasteland to always have a target anyway. Basics don't counter Wasteland unless almost your entire deck is basics (again, this is specific to Modern and Standard, not Legacy). Think about it (assuming you're capable of deckbuilding). If you're running three colors in Modern right now, do you actually increase your basic land count above the 4 or 5 it's currently at because of Wasteland? How few non-basics do you need to be running for Wasteland not to have a target almost every single time in the first place?
You know they have plenty of three color decks in legacy, too, and they all only run a couple of basics as well, right?
Fair point. I guess I'll just have to settle for my Stone Rain and Molten Rain. *sigh*
While I'm not for Wasteland being reprinted and enabled to be played in Standard and Modern, I will say that it is certainly greedy to be able to play any card of any color in a deck because your mana base is nothing but duals. Truthfully I do think the dual land situation has gotten out of hand and it lessens the meaning of there even being different colors in the game when you can play so many at a time so easily.
(Also known as Xenphire)
No, a greedy manabase is one where you run a ton of nonbasic lands in order to cast 3-5 colours worth of spells. In a perfect world, choosing to run more colours should be a tradeoff for more options at the cost of stability and consistency. The fetchland + shockland/dual land combination gives you the ability to do this with relatively little trouble or drawback. This ends up devolving the format to a bunch of goodstuff decks where the colour pie doesn't actually mean anything.
Lorwyn/Shadowmoor + Shards Standard is an example of this. Vivid Lands+Reflecting Pool made manabases in that Standard season far too robust. When you can run Cryptic Command and Cruel Ultimatum in a control deck and still comfortably run Cloudthresher in your sideboard, something is very wrong.
In Legacy, greed is kept in check through Wasteland. Wasteland's ubiquity keeps manabases honest and promotes sticking to 1-3 colours and the inclusion of basic lands. Modern, conversely, doesn't have a police card like Wasteland. I do think that Wasteland would be too oppressive in a format where all of the best dual lands cost you 2 life, but Modern does need something else to combat the multicoloured madness.
Special thanks to Hakai Studios and SushiOtter for the sig!
Legacy: UR Sneak and Show I UBG Team America I X Metalworker MUD
Modern: UBR Blue Jund I WBX Eldrazi Processors I X Affinity I WRG Nacatl Burn I GR Tron I UBR Grishoalbrand
You completely missed his point. Decks right now, at least in standard, are almost all 1-3 colors and it still punishes all of them (the mono-colored decks are still running scry lands). We don't have a problem with four colored decks running around because the fixing isn't good enough. When was the last time four color decks were even good in standard? Even with checks and shocks (and Farseek and Chromatic Lantern), which was the best fixing has been in standard in ages, only one deck ran 4-5 colors and it was already greatly limited by a lack of reliability.
Modern decks seem to be mostly 2-3 colors, as well, and the three color decks are undeniably less reliable already (although not enough so that they're bad decks, obviously). I feel like you guys are trying to "fix" a problem that doesn't need fixing. What, exactly, is wrong with people running three color decks? Wasteland wouldn't even fix the "problem," it just might randomly "get them." They already run some basics for multiple other reasons and they're certainly not going to stop playing three colors.
In modern, with fetches, you can run any color combination you want. You can do the same in legacy, but if you do you're likely to eat a wasteland at some point in the game.
Hence why this thread.
Hoi, hoi, u embleer hrair
M'saion ulé hraka vair.
The top 8 at GP Antwerp consisted of 1 copy of Affinity, 1 copy of RG Tron, and 6 3-color decks.
The top 8 at GP Brisbane consisted of 2 copies of Affinity, 2 copies of 2 RG Tron (one with a single black source for sideboard Slaughter Games), 3 3-color decks, and a single 4-color deck (Kiki-Pod).
The top 8 at GP Detroit consisted of 1 copy of Affinity, 2 copies of BG Rock, 4 3-color decks, and a single 4-color deck (Ajundi).
The top 8 at GP Kansas City consisted of 6 3-color decks, and two 4-color decks (Kiki-Pod and a Burn deck that splashed every other color except blue).
It may be true that you can play any color combination you want in Modern, but present evidence suggests that it's not generally a very good idea to play more than three colors if you actually want to win.
First, this thread clearly states standard first. No one cares about legacy and modern is an afterthought. Second, if decks really could easily run 4-5 colors in modern, they'd be doing it. If a jund deck could easily handle adding in another color, why wouldn't they for some of white's best sideboard cards, sweepers or removal? They don't because it would make the deck significantly less consistent for a slight improvement in certain scenarios.
99% of the time, whenever I Wasteland something in Legacy, it's a dual land of some sort, and I'm aiming to cut them off a colour or keep them from reaching a certain amount of mana. Other times it's something like a Grove of the Burnwillows or a sol land. It's not really a "necessary evil" so much as a pillar of the format. The format could certainly exist without it. It'd just look different, with more emphasis on three-colour decks than exists now (I play Jund in both formats and I don't have to put nearly as much effort into planning out smooth mana in Modern as I do in Legacy).
When I posted this thread, I did not even know the price of Wasteland until people starting bringing it up. I was only focusing on the gameplay aspects of this card. I play mostly Standard and Modern, and seeing as how this card is not currently legal in either format, I could care less how expensive it is. To sum up my point, I do not think it is fair to label one side as "Magic players who are motivated by personal desires."
Definitely not in standard. WotC have found a great way to encourage mono colour decks in standard. .. devotion!
Pioneer:UR Pheonix
Modern:U Mono U Tron
EDH
GB Glissa, the traitor: Army of Cans
UW Dragonlord Ojutai: Dragonlord NOjutai
UWGDerevi, Empyrial Tactician "you cannot fight the storm"
R Zirilan of the claw. The solution to every problem is dragons
UB Etrata, the Silencer Cloning assassination
Peasant cube: Cards I own
I'm sorry, I just assumed. I've read many threads about similar subjects before and there are trends that are similar to each of them.
You have people who want Wasteland reprinted because they don't have Wasteland and want it primarily for eternal formats.
There are modern players who want is so they can put the second-to-last 'nail-in-the-coffin' to Legacy (the last being FoW), assuming that Modern with Wastelands would be every bit as good and 'skillful'.
Then, you have Legacy players without player-bases who just want more people to have Wasteland. I personally wouldn't mind having more people to play with myself, but I fear the effect that reintroducing eternal format pillars on a massive scale would have.
So, that is what I meant by personal desires.
I've spent time in a small, 'how do they stay in business' LGS, and that forever changed my views on what should and should not happen to the game of Magic. Doing things that explicitly encourage players to buy old staples and play at centralized Legacy events hurts the wider MTG scene. Only so many people can like Magic at once and only so many people can play formats at once.
The best thing about standard is that a lot of people play it, which could be hurt by giving people Legacy Power (especially the wealthier kids who tend to anchor the playerbase and feed the store owner). The best thing about legacy is arguably-controversially that the cards do not rotate, which is not profitable for MTG in any way, shape or form long term...unless you want to power-creep the heck out of the game and create rapid deck turn-over in Legacy, which a lot of people wouldn't like.
That's all. I don't mean to be the grinch who stole wasteland, I just have a broad vision of what is possible within Magic and what is unfeasible.
Legacy:
RWBG Goblins
RRR Burn
WBU Affinity
UBR Sac-Land Tendrils!
BBBPox
Next possible deck: D&T, but that just wouldn't be right.
Modern: R Goblins (work in progress)
Standard: I only care about standard when Goblins is a deck.
Limited: I only care about limited when Goblins are in the set.
Pauper:
RGoblins
URCloudpost
other decks
Goblins.
But I also propose even distribution of number of cards in each rarity: Large set: 60 c, 60 u, 60 r, 60 m.
Probabilities of particular cards: Common 7/60, Uncommon 1/12, Rare 1/20, Mythic 1/60.
As someone who remembers playing strip mine in "standard," and plays legacy almost exclusively, I have to agree with this. Wasteland is not that scary.
Wasteland is a brilliantly designed card, and both makes legacy more interesting and more highly varied. It allows control/prison decks like pox and death and taxes to be viable, and strengthens mono-color aggro decks like merfolk and goblins, who are themselves largely immune to wasteland. Yet, it doesn't stop 4-color deathblade, RUG delver, BUG control, jund, and a litany of other decks with unbelievably greedy mana bases to remain tier 1.
Wasteland would be great for modern, and would help some of it's issues. It would give mono-color decks like soul sisters some tools, and probably strengthen modern D&T, hate bears, pox, ect. It would weaken UWR and Jund lists, but in no way would it make them non-viable.
Finally, wasteland would NOT fit into every current modern list. It takes away valuable colored-mana slots and is quite difficult to fit into 3-color decks, especially as a 4-of. Running it means running fewer other utility lands, and opening yourself up to opposing wastelands to a greater degree. Jund and UWR, for example, would have quite a tough time finding room for more than 2 wastelands.
Stone Rain is legal in Modern.
Unless they reprinted Legacy staples regularly, but Yu-Gi-Oh is already an example of what would happen. More people want to play the main game than even something as simple as sealed, and it forces power creep to get any amount of cards in competitive gameplay.
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
yeah, wasteland would be awesome there is nothing I love more than a standard in which everything that costs more than 3 is completely unplayable stop making suggestions jesus
Infraction issued for trolling. -Xen
I can't tell if this is sarcasm, bad phrasing, or just a lack of punctuation. Do you want Wasteland in Standard or not? I have no idea.
PucaTrade Invite. Sign up and enjoy the first 500 points ($5) free!
Thanks to Devotion, Theros has already been pushing the format in that direction. I think Wasteland should be reprinted, but not in this rotation. I think there's already enough reason to go mono color and basic heavy.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
This.
Right now mono-color is actually really good in standard and doesnt need any help. In the Rav-Inn Standard wasteland would have been really nice. It would have given a reason to actually play basics and not just play 3 color piles of 4-7 drops.
It would be nice in modern, again to make constructing manabases a more thoughtful process and not just a greedfest. Basics would actually serve a purpose.
Also, it would be nice to have a format besides legacy and vintage were it is actually viable to play a deck that curves out at 2 or 3.
For a format to be truely healthy and diverse we need something to keep people form just assembling a mana base that has enough fetches and shocks/duals to be able to trivialy cast anything, with less then 3 coloured mana symbols in its casting cost.
Wasteland is one of the few cards that punishes these mana bases, but barely phases basic heavy 1-2 color decks and can be put in enough deck lists to make a difference.
If it causes problems then there is something wrong with the rest of the card pool and meta-game, not wasteland itself, If is one of the most fair pieces of land D that they have ever printed, strong enough to be playable, but not so over powered that it can lock your oppoent out of the game.
Heck, most new players are runnign so many basics that it barely even affects them. So it does not even scare players away from the game.
It was poorly written, but it was pretty clearly sarcasm.
You all keep repeating this mantra, yet it has no basis in reality. The vast majority of quality decks in Modern are 1-3 colors. If you could effortlessly go 4-5 colors, everyone would be doing it. Why wouldn't Jund add in Path to Exile and Ajani Vengeant if it could with no drawback? It would. It doesn't because it can't. Some people try, but it makes the deck so much less consistent. I can't see any argument for it besides that people hate spending a ton of money on a manabase and this would make basics more justifiable.
Not to mention that really all it would do is either make three color decks unplayable (which is horrible) or have no impact whatsoever. It's not Legacy. You're already running some basics for things like Path to Exile - you're not running any more because of wasteland. To play three colors, you'd still need more than enough non-basics for Wasteland to always have a target anyway. Basics don't counter Wasteland unless almost your entire deck is basics (again, this is specific to Modern and Standard, not Legacy). Think about it (assuming you're capable of deckbuilding). If you're running three colors in Modern right now, do you actually increase your basic land count above the 4 or 5 it's currently at because of Wasteland? How few non-basics do you need to be running for Wasteland not to have a target almost every single time in the first place?
You know they have plenty of three color decks in legacy, too, and they all only run a couple of basics as well, right?