Agreed on all these points. It's not a card you can just throw into any deck and expect to be good as a value engine. It's only good when you stick it in a deck that really wants the effect because it has ways to abuse it or generate value beyond the land it gets you, and usually these decks will be throwing lands into the yard even without crucible, so it exists solely as a way to extract value from something you are already doing.
The one place where I have personally liked having Crucible of Worlds in my deck is my Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind deck that pretty much exemplifies this premise. I'm running 3 Fetchlands, 7 Cycling lands, Cephalid Coliseum, Blighted Cataract, Dust Bowl, and 11 other spells that discard cards. For a deck that wants to hit land drops every turn Crucible of Worlds is great, and it goes a long way towards letting me keep more spells in hand and play lands out of the graveyard. There are very few decks out there that can say that they have 24 ways to interact with Crucible, and in those cases I totally agree that Crucible is overrated and probably better served as something else.
Since this is a good topic that has gotten too focused on a specific card, I want to give a few more examples for discussion to get back to Talerans original post:
Lurking Predators: how many creatures does your deck need to run to make this worthwhile (this one is purely a numbers game, as the more you have the more likely it is to fire and the more times it fires)
Lurking Predators is one of those cards that I would rarely just run "in the dark" without some sort of manipulation of the top of the deck. It was one of the best cards in my old "top of the deck matters" deck because I had Sensei's Divining Top, Scroll Rack, Jace, the Mind Sculptor, Sylvan Library, etc. to manipulate the odds in my favor, plus multiple other ways to take advantage of controlling that top card of the deck. There is also something to be said about the value it generates when it misses; having the option of moving the card to the bottom helps you dig to better cards and helps with late game card selection. These are harder things to measure, but it helps to take these things into consideration. Overall, green has gotten more and more ways to generate card advantage over the last few years so a card like Lurking Predators is probably less ideal than a lot of other options (especially at 6 mana), but if you run enough high-CMC payoffs and even a few ways to manipulate the top of your deck then it might be worthwhile.
Isochron Scepter: how many instants? Let's leave aside combos for a moment. How many 2cmc instants would you need in your deck before you consider including scepter just as a value card. Not planning on getting a specific instant, but being willing to put whatever you have available under it for value.
I tried it in my Gisela Burn deck with 10 potential Imprint targets and it was not worth it. I think that if I had 14+ potential cards to Imprint, then I might consider it. The fact that it allows you to cast the copy makes it synergistic with Spellslinger cards like Young Pyromancer, Guttersnipe, Monastery Menor, etc., so I would think you would really want some additional synergy that way before considering Scepter. I would think that otherwise, you would have to have some really important spells you want to copy where quality counts over quality.
From random card of the day, Secret Plans: how many morphs? This one is probably pretty irrelevant, as I just don't see people running a moderate number of morphs. Usually people either run a handful of particularly useful morphs, say 1-5, that would be below any reasonable threshold for a parasitic card like secret plans, or they are committed to a morph strategy and running around 30+. The wrinkle here is that you don't need to just play morphs for secret plans, you need to turn them face up to draw a card. That means the X isn't necessarily how many you are running, but how many of those you expect to turn over in the course of a game. Or maybe that's better thought of as another variable.
Doubling Season: Depends on the cards. Some of its interactions are so good that its close to a combo (or is actually a combo). I'd say if I'm throwing it in a deck that isn't all in on a particular strategy (super friends, tokens, +1 counters), then its probably a deck that incidentally hits multiple angles of what Doubling Season offers. It probably has a few token generators, a few creatures that get +1 counters, a few planeswalkers, and maybe a few odd counters like Jitte. In such a deck, if I have a few walkers that this will let me ult immediately and stay on the field, then I'm probably around the 15-20 range, as those actions are so splashy that I'd need fewer other benefits to convince me to include it. Like if I have the two good Elspeths, Nissa Vital Force, Narset and Bant Tamiyo in my deck, then it isn't going to take much more to convince me to add Doubling Season. A Martial Coup here, a mana gorger hydra there, we get around 15 and we're doing business, because just firing off one of those ults is big. Otherwise, its more in the 20-25 range. Again, that's mixed, some +1 counter creatures, some charge counters, a couple walkers, some tokens. If I'm going all in on those strategies then I'm probably going over the threshold anyway, and probably have some stronger interactions that would lower the threshold.
A's Archive: 25, but draw spells that multiple cards (either at once or over time) count twice. A commander that draws repeatedly can be worth it on its own, while one that draws incidentally (or repeatedly but slowly, like 1 a turn or with a heavy activation cost) counts as 4 cards. This is for a couple reasons. First, a large draw effect nets a ton of value and makes me willing to take a larger risk that I only see one or two. If seeing 2 nets me 6-8 cards, then its getting me enough value that I'm not disappointed. Larger draw spells are also going to get you through your deck faster, and that increases your odds of hitting that next spell, so you can get away with running fewer. Ponder would only count as one, but Brainstorm would count as 2, as it will net you three extra cards. Then you get into things like Sylvan Library or Sphinxes Rev, which get nuts. I'm willing to mix in lifegain with the draw, as it keeps the archive from being dead, but I ignore small incidental lifegain and only count serious lifelinkers or major sources of lifegain.
Mishra's Self Replicator: 30+. This isn't all that hard though, since historic is such a broad category. If its a cheap commander that can be easily recast, I'd go lower as then its a strong synergy with the commander.
Paradox engine: 12. That's enough to get crazy, and even with just rocks you'll be getting degenerate. The key here is that you'll need other support cards, like draw spells, to really unlock its power. Rather than being parasitic, it actually wants a variety of spells, both spells that it directly effects and the spells that make that worthwhile.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I play Trinket Mage with as little as 3 targets. Since it is an ETB and I don't blink, only a single trigger will be common in that particular deck.
For cards that expect multiple triggers, then I would be inclined to play 6-10 cards that work well with that card. Really depends on the deck and the specific card.
Examples: Trinket Mage - 3+ targets unless I'm planning on blinking trinket mage, then start at 5 targets (artifact lands maybe). Crucible of Worlds - 8-10+ lands that put themselves in the graveyard and/or other cards that put lands in graveyards. Right now I'm only playing it Titania, Protector of Argoth where lands in the graveyard is a primary theme. Recruiter of the Guard - 6+ available targets. Preferably more. Life from the Loam - 6+ lands that like the graveyard. Maybe less if your heavy graveyard synergy, which I am. It makes it's own targets, but I would still favor some fetch lands and cycle lands for more synergy. Sunforger - 5-6+ available targets depending on how often I tutor Sunforger. 4 would be quite low, but I never see Sunforger tutor more than 2-3 times. Stoneforge Mystic - 3+ targets. Usually non-equipment decks may have a few targets that will be good enough to warrant Stoneforge for Skullclamp, Lightning Greaves, or Basilisk Collar. Spellseeker - I have not played this card yet, but I anticipate wanting 6+ targets for this card, as I expect to see a small selection of go-to with maybe a silver bullet or two. Pongify and Mana Drain being high on the list. Thousand Year Elixir - This one is tough, although even when my Commander had a Tap effect, I still like about 10+ cards to synergize with this card. Otherwise it risks being dead. 10 would be a minimum for this card.
After typing all this, I am seeing a pattern. Tutors require overall less targets to be effective compared to cards that are simply synergies. Trinket Mage and Stoneforge Mystic are commonly run with only a few targets, where Thousand Year Elixir and others would require a heavy commitment to theme in order to warrant inclusion. It makes sense when the tutors can find their own targets, while others need to have their targets available for as long as they are on the battlefield, which is much more difficult to maintain.
I'd say that spellseeker only needs 2-3 cards to look for. In theory, just one (cyclonic rift), but you'd want a couple backups in case you draw rift naturally. In practice, many blue decks would have enough targets anyway, but including spellseeker to fetch rift (one of the all stars of the format) would incentivize playing a few other silver bullet answers. I mean, you will often have access to a counter or two and creature kill (either pognify or something from another color), but you might want to run a gigadrowse with isochron, or a disenchant in UW, or something more niche, just because it's easier to toolbox those cards with an extra tutor.
Thousand year elixir is.interesting to me. I'd say it's one of those cards that can often only need 1 card to be worth it, if that card is your commander. I've personally included it in decks whose commanders have tap abilities just to let them work immediately and get multiple activations. Merieke loves it. Lots of these decks will end up with other creatures that benefit, but that's getting into a chicken or egg discussion: for me, I'm running those creatures because the deck already has untap synergies because of my commander.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Since this is a good topic that has gotten too focused on a specific card, I want to give a few more examples for discussion to get back to Talerans original post:
Lurking Predators: how many creatures does your deck need to run to make this worthwhile (this one is purely a numbers game, as the more you have the more likely it is to fire and the more times it fires)
Isochron Scepter: how many instants? Let's leave aside combos for a moment. How many 2cmc instants would you need in your deck before you consider including scepter just as a value card. Not planning on getting a specific instant, but being willing to put whatever you have available under it for value.
From random card of the day, Secret Plans: how many morphs? This one is probably pretty irrelevant, as I just don't see people running a moderate number of morphs. Usually people either run a handful of particularly useful morphs, say 1-5, that would be below any reasonable threshold for a parasitic card like secret plans, or they are committed to a morph strategy and running around 30+. The wrinkle here is that you don't need to just play morphs for secret plans, you need to turn them face up to draw a card. That means the X isn't necessarily how many you are running, but how many of those you expect to turn over in the course of a game. Or maybe that's better thought of as another variable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Since I was the first person to throw shade at Crucible of Worlds, I think it may be helpful for me to elaborate on why I think the card is so rotten. Fresh perspective and all.
First, I want to say that Crucible of Worlds obviously isn't a terrible card. It's just an okay-ish card. It isn't Chimney Imp, but it's no Necropotence either. When played in any kind of deck without extreme synergy (think Azusa + Strip Mine), Crucible of Worlds is just a decent value engine. That's it. By comparison though, there are so many better cards out there that Crucible of Worlds's role as a value engine is better fulfilled by dozens of other cards.
See, here's the beef that I have with the card, a lot of which has already been echoed by darrenhabib:
1.) Crucible of Worlds is susceptible to both spot removal and graveyard hate. Now, this isn't that big of a deal. Most value engines (think Phyrexian Arena) tend to be vulnerable to spot removal anyway since they're almost always permanents. Crucible of Worlds just also happens to have an extra layer with which opponents can interact with it. That's a strike against the card since it's less reliable as a value engine as a result.
2.) It only functions as a value engine if you're able to put lands into your graveyard. Now, clearly, any deck playing Crucible of Worlds is obviously going to be able to do this (or else they wouldn't be playing the card in the first place), but sometimes you won't draw your fetchlands or your Faithless Lootings, and Crucible of Worlds will just be a dead card as a result. And the longer the game goes on where Crucible is dead, the worse it gets since value engines like Crucible derive their worth from staying in play turn after turn. The more turns have passed, the fewer turns there will be left in the game for Crucible of Worlds to extract value, so the fact that it can sometimes be a dead card is depressing. You want to play value engines like this as early as possible.
3.) Even in the best case scenario where you land an early Crucible and you have a fetchland to support it, you're now drawing something like 33% fewer cards because it's incredibly unlikely that you'll be able to do anything productive with the lands you'll periodically draw off the top of your deck. That's abysmal. You don't need a card like Crucible of Worlds to ensure you make all of your land drops. Playing a sensible amount of card draw will just naturally guarantee you have all the lands you need anyway. And potentially missing a land due to a poor streak of draws might not be a catastrophe either, especially considering that drawing land cards tends to be much worse than drawing card cards in the later stages of the game.
So, if Crucible of Worlds is so lackluster, what do I propose players play instead? Any decent card draw.
With perhaps the exception of mono-white, every color combination has access to sufficient draw power. Hell, even white has access to great land drawing effects in cards like Tithe and Land Tax. They're not going to be equally good, but they don't need to be. Each color just needs to be sufficient enough at drawing cards to make something like Crucible of Worlds not worthwhile, and that's exactly where they stand. Blue, black, and green have obviously potent draw potential, but red also has access to things like wheels, looting, and Act on Impulse effects. There's just little reason to play Crucible of Worlds when the alternatives are so much better.
Agreed on all these points. It's not a card you can just throw into any deck and expect to be good as a value engine. It's only good when you stick it in a deck that really wants the effect because it has ways to abuse it or generate value beyond the land it gets you, and usually these decks will be throwing lands into the yard even without crucible, so it exists solely as a way to extract value from something you are already doing.
The best way I can describe when it's worth running is when it is both garaunteed to get you a land from your yard every turn the turn you drop it, AND it's most likely going to generate some sort of additional value every turn. It's reasonable in Titania to expect it to generate an extra land and a 5/3 every turn once it sticks. It's reasonable for it generate at least a land per turn and and extra card drawn per turn in Gitrog, and will quite often generate a great deal more (2 fetches basically makes it draw you two extra cards a turn while building your Mana). I'd consider the Titania example the performance floor at which this card should be included. Any less, and it doesn't belong. I could see possibly running it to abuse mld by breaking symmetry, or in situations like 5 color gates where it served to both protect a combo and let you reuse a few key lands, but those are specific situations where it's being used in a strong synergy rather than as a value engine.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Its really weird of you to try to argue that this goes without stating, when in your previous post you said it isn't even good in specialized decks.
I do think that most times it's unnecessary in Gitrog Monster as the engine of card draw will most times get you into land drops and I also think that it's not good in landfall without other cards to fuel it like Exploration, Azusa, Lost but Seeking, etc.
So even in the decks that it's more specialized for, I still think that it's only an average card for the builds. Not a very weird statement at all.
Well, yeah, its still pretty weird, considering that you've now changed your assessment twice. You've argued in two separate posts that A) crucible isn't good in specialized decks that can benefit from it's effect and B) it goes without stating that crucible is good in specialized decks that can uilize it's effect, so it's irrelevant to talk about it, complete with a mocking emoji to drive that point home. So yes, it is pretty weird to make both of those arguments, because those arguments are contradictory and mutually exclusive. You either think that the card isn't good in those decks, which opens discussion as to whether that is indeed the case, or you think that it's so obvious that the card is good in those decks that its silly to point it out. You can't make both claims without it looking like you are changing your argument to suit whatever point your trying to make at the time.
It's also kind of weird that you've made the point that you should already be hitting land drops with Gitrog when I already made the counterpoint that playing lands from the graveyard when you have lands in hand is usually superior because you A) get to reuse the best land for the job, including sac lands that let you draw more cards, and B) not playing the cards in your hand let's you get over 7 cards, making you discard down to 7, which triggers Gitrog drawing you more cards. Repeating your first argument doesn't change this, so yeah, that's a bit weird.
It really looks like a situation where you've over reacted in your assessment of the card. You are correct that it's outright bad in most decks, and i, and most people in the thread, agree. It's open to debate whether it's good, bad, or just ok in specialized decks that can maximize it's value. It looks like you want to take the strongest possible position (the card sucks), and are adverse to a more nuanced assessment (the card generally sucks, but has valid uses where it can be pretty good). The idea that the crucible is an overrated trap card that is overplayed and the idea that crucible can be a powerful and effective support card in certain decks are not mutually exclusive.
We will just have to agree to disagree on what weird means. Getting defensive over a card discussion is what I would consider weird lol. I'm just giving my personal opinions and so are you, and that's fine.
I never changed my mind, you'll just have to read the posts properly.
No, I read them just fine, trolling emoji included. I didn't say you changed your mind, I said you changed your argument.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Its really weird of you to try to argue that this goes without stating, when in your previous post you said it isn't even good in specialized decks.
I do think that most times it's unnecessary in Gitrog Monster as the engine of card draw will most times get you into land drops and I also think that it's not good in landfall without other cards to fuel it like Exploration, Azusa, Lost but Seeking, etc.
So even in the decks that it's more specialized for, I still think that it's only an average card for the builds. Not a very weird statement at all.
Well, yeah, its still pretty weird, considering that you've now changed your assessment twice. You've argued in two separate posts that A) crucible isn't good in specialized decks that can benefit from it's effect and B) it goes without stating that crucible is good in specialized decks that can uilize it's effect, so it's irrelevant to talk about it, complete with a mocking emoji to drive that point home. So yes, it is pretty weird to make both of those arguments, because those arguments are contradictory and mutually exclusive. You either think that the card isn't good in those decks, which opens discussion as to whether that is indeed the case, or you think that it's so obvious that the card is good in those decks that its silly to point it out. You can't make both claims without it looking like you are changing your argument to suit whatever point your trying to make at the time.
It's also kind of weird that you've made the point that you should already be hitting land drops with Gitrog when I already made the counterpoint that playing lands from the graveyard when you have lands in hand is usually superior because you A) get to reuse the best land for the job, including sac lands that let you draw more cards, and B) not playing the cards in your hand let's you get over 7 cards, making you discard down to 7, which triggers Gitrog drawing you more cards. Repeating your first argument doesn't change this, so yeah, that's a bit weird.
It really looks like a situation where you've over reacted in your assessment of the card. You are correct that it's outright bad in most decks, and i, and most people in the thread, agree. It's open to debate whether it's good, bad, or just ok in specialized decks that can maximize it's value. It looks like you want to take the strongest possible position (the card sucks), and are adverse to a more nuanced assessment (the card generally sucks, but has valid uses where it can be pretty good). The idea that the crucible is an overrated trap card that is overplayed and the idea that crucible can be a powerful and effective support card in certain decks are not mutually exclusive.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Lots of good cards get hosed by graveyard hate, so that's not a convincing argument at all. The real question is whether what you are getting from the card is valuable enough that your are willing to risk it being dead to gy hate. For crucible, in a generic deck, the answer is no, but with a ton of synergy the answer is yes.
The decks that want it have lands that can be repeatedly sacrificed for value, specifically lands that you would want to repeatedly reuse over just playing another land from your hand, and get you additional value from playing or sacrificing land. The arguments you make are invalid when applied to the decks that want crucible. In Gitrog, you get an extra land drop a turn, and your lands dying draw you cards. You are incentivized to continually replay whatever your most valuable sac land is over and over again. Yes, that can often involve a strip mine that let's you clear out any cradles and coffers, and even color screw people, or it might mean resetting glacial chasm every couple turns. In lands.dek, your often have several cards that increase your number of land drops, and yeah you get a ton of value from strip mining three lands in a turn with Titania or Omnath out. It helps boost that decks grindy plan B if the combo win doesn't work out, not to mention it helps protect the combo win.
Those are the types of decks that really benefit from it. I've seen it work well enough in stax or as a way for someone to break synergy on geddon, but I've never done it and it's likely that if I looked at their decks I'd be able to figure out a better card that could replace crucible, but as I havent seen their full lists I can't say.
I'm pointing out that many people assume a particular thing from Crucible, and that they can put it in almost any deck, and that it instantly means that they get a land drop every turn for the rest of the game, this was highlighted by the below user...
While I agree Crucible of Worlds is a bit overrated by the larger MtG community, it’s been a bit unfairly maligned in this thread. It does have good uses. I run it in my monored deck, where there are four fetchlands and tons of mountains all those fetches can hit. In a deck like this, Crucible is essentially “3: never miss a land drop,” which I absolutely consider worthwhile. Monoblue would benefit similarly (coincidentally, the other best color for artifacts). The upside of reusing a Strip Mine is pure gravy.
So it's important to make it clear to players, that this is not true all the time. This is not an argument, it's a fact.
Yeah, you should have quoted his post to discuss that. You quoting me and then going there made it sound like you were trying to refute me with that point, which is kind of weird considering my post said multiple times that 20 sac lands wouldn't be enough to run crucible without other support.
The thing is all I'm basically seeing is some very specific decks, Gitrog Monster, landfall (Titania or Omnath) and mass land destruction. At this point it's just a combo card, much like Food Chain is for certain decks.
So sort of pointing out that Food Chain is good for Prossh, Skyraider of Kher, is really the same thing as pointing out that Crucible is good for Gitrog, not necessary
So the thing is that this thread was about a formula for playing Crucible in decks, and this alluded to it being a sort of catch all card for any deck, "as long as you play a certain number of targets".
These conclusions have all come from actually playing the cards in a variety of decks, and ended up being cut due to ir underperfoming, for the reasons I've pointed out. Listen that's not to say that in synergy with cards it can't be good, Exploration, Azusa, Lost but Seeking, but we really are talking combo at this stage.
A lot of casual players are simply slotting it into their deck, thinking that they are going to get immediate value from the card because they are playing X number of fetches, and this is not what really happens.
If you had followed the thread, there's a common theme that some of these cards, like crucible and trinket mage, don't fit the how many x to run y formula. The entire point that Crucible is worthwhile in certain decks even with only a few lands that hit the yard naturally, yet bad in some decks that have a bunch that do, is important, because it shows that Crucible really isn't a card that can be assessed according to the thread's premise, unlike an enchantress. It isn't a critical mass card, its a synergy card (combo is way too strong of a word, that's like saying Doubling Season is a combo with +1/+1 counters, or Wee Dragonauts is a combo with instants), just like trinket mage isn't a critical mass card, its a tutor. The point is that there is no answer to X, because X is irrelevant. You can answer X for an enchantress, because those care about the number of enchantments you cast, so you need to be able to see a certain number for it to pay off. For Crucible, you literally need to see just one sac land for it to do its thing, and that thing isn't good enough on its own, so you need support cards, preferably a commander, that make it better. This results, like I said, in just 1 card, Gitrog in the command zone, being good enough, because Crucible will help rebuild your mana base without playing lands from your hand (because then you can discard those lands to draw even more cards with Gitrog), but not worth it with X= 20 if its just lands that sac and no other support. Its really weird of you to try to argue that this goes without stating, when in your previous post you said it isn't even good in specialized decks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Crucible is good in decks that will see lots of lands hit the graveyard. You basically need to be getting value out of it immediately when you cast it and every turn from then on. So yeah, Gitrog, lands.dek, etc. Just fetches and mine/wasteland isn't enough. Getting some value going with Dustbowl+Bog to get remove a land and a graveyard each turn, or Dustbowl + Flagstones of Torkair, or something like Gitrog or Titania or Omnath 2.0 that wants recurrent landfall/land death lets it perform well enough in a grindy way. If you have access to Life from the Loam, its usually better, because it helps with everything Crucible does and more, while fueling your graveyard.
Because of all this, Crucible can go anywhere from being worth it with just 1 card (Gitrog, as your commander) to 20 not being good enough (a slew of fetches, some strip mine effects, myriad landscape, and like harrow and crop rotation).
The thing people don't calculate is that it is vulnerable to graveyard hate. Somebody in the thread was mentioning that it represents a land drop every turn, and this is not correct. First you need to have the renewable land type (fetches). Then it has to survive all the graveyard hate during a game. This is the where I find it can stall for use during a game.
If you're using it with Strip Mine, Dust Bowl, Wasteland, this essentially doesn't even include being a land drop as you are using it for land destruction. You're not gaining traction on the opponents you're not destroying lands. Great in duels, not so great in multiplayer.
Then the thing that makes it least useful is when you just have natural lands to play from your hand. I mean you really have to have a deck that is very poor at drawing cards, because most games you have lands to play from your hand. Even a Gitrog deck tends to get a draw engine going where it's not often you don't have the lands to play from your hand.
So even in specialized decks, like landfall, it's an overrated card for the reasons I pointed out.
Most times it would be better off just being some other card, and that's why I'm calling it out as a trap card for many.
Lots of good cards get hosed by graveyard hate, so that's not a convincing argument at all. The real question is whether what you are getting from the card is valuable enough that your are willing to risk it being dead to gy hate. For crucible, in a generic deck, the answer is no, but with a ton of synergy the answer is yes.
The decks that want it have lands that can be repeatedly sacrificed for value, specifically lands that you would want to repeatedly reuse over just playing another land from your hand, and get you additional value from playing or sacrificing land. The arguments you make are invalid when applied to the decks that want crucible. In Gitrog, you get an extra land drop a turn, and your lands dying draw you cards. You are incentivized to continually replay whatever your most valuable sac land is over and over again. Yes, that can often involve a strip mine that let's you clear out any cradles and coffers, and even color screw people, or it might mean resetting glacial chasm every couple turns. In lands.dek, your often have several cards that increase your number of land drops, and yeah you get a ton of value from strip mining three lands in a turn with Titania or Omnath out. It helps boost that decks grindy plan B if the combo win doesn't work out, not to mention it helps protect the combo win.
Those are the types of decks that really benefit from it. I've seen it work well enough in stax or as a way for someone to break synergy on geddon, but I've never done it and it's likely that if I looked at their decks I'd be able to figure out a better card that could replace crucible, but as I havent seen their full lists I can't say.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Crucible is good in decks that will see lots of lands hit the graveyard. You basically need to be getting value out of it immediately when you cast it and every turn from then on. So yeah, Gitrog, lands.dek, etc. Just fetches and mine/wasteland isn't enough. Getting some value going with Dustbowl+Bog to get remove a land and a graveyard each turn, or Dustbowl + Flagstones of Torkair, or something like Gitrog or Titania or Omnath 2.0 that wants recurrent landfall/land death lets it perform well enough in a grindy way. If you have access to Life from the Loam, its usually better, because it helps with everything Crucible does and more, while fueling your graveyard.
Because of all this, Crucible can go anywhere from being worth it with just 1 card (Gitrog, as your commander) to 20 not being good enough (a slew of fetches, some strip mine effects, myriad landscape, and like harrow and crop rotation).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Those are some juicy ones:
Doubling Season: Depends on the cards. Some of its interactions are so good that its close to a combo (or is actually a combo). I'd say if I'm throwing it in a deck that isn't all in on a particular strategy (super friends, tokens, +1 counters), then its probably a deck that incidentally hits multiple angles of what Doubling Season offers. It probably has a few token generators, a few creatures that get +1 counters, a few planeswalkers, and maybe a few odd counters like Jitte. In such a deck, if I have a few walkers that this will let me ult immediately and stay on the field, then I'm probably around the 15-20 range, as those actions are so splashy that I'd need fewer other benefits to convince me to include it. Like if I have the two good Elspeths, Nissa Vital Force, Narset and Bant Tamiyo in my deck, then it isn't going to take much more to convince me to add Doubling Season. A Martial Coup here, a mana gorger hydra there, we get around 15 and we're doing business, because just firing off one of those ults is big. Otherwise, its more in the 20-25 range. Again, that's mixed, some +1 counter creatures, some charge counters, a couple walkers, some tokens. If I'm going all in on those strategies then I'm probably going over the threshold anyway, and probably have some stronger interactions that would lower the threshold.
A's Archive: 25, but draw spells that multiple cards (either at once or over time) count twice. A commander that draws repeatedly can be worth it on its own, while one that draws incidentally (or repeatedly but slowly, like 1 a turn or with a heavy activation cost) counts as 4 cards. This is for a couple reasons. First, a large draw effect nets a ton of value and makes me willing to take a larger risk that I only see one or two. If seeing 2 nets me 6-8 cards, then its getting me enough value that I'm not disappointed. Larger draw spells are also going to get you through your deck faster, and that increases your odds of hitting that next spell, so you can get away with running fewer. Ponder would only count as one, but Brainstorm would count as 2, as it will net you three extra cards. Then you get into things like Sylvan Library or Sphinxes Rev, which get nuts. I'm willing to mix in lifegain with the draw, as it keeps the archive from being dead, but I ignore small incidental lifegain and only count serious lifelinkers or major sources of lifegain.
Mishra's Self Replicator: 30+. This isn't all that hard though, since historic is such a broad category. If its a cheap commander that can be easily recast, I'd go lower as then its a strong synergy with the commander.
Paradox engine: 12. That's enough to get crazy, and even with just rocks you'll be getting degenerate. The key here is that you'll need other support cards, like draw spells, to really unlock its power. Rather than being parasitic, it actually wants a variety of spells, both spells that it directly effects and the spells that make that worthwhile.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I'd say that spellseeker only needs 2-3 cards to look for. In theory, just one (cyclonic rift), but you'd want a couple backups in case you draw rift naturally. In practice, many blue decks would have enough targets anyway, but including spellseeker to fetch rift (one of the all stars of the format) would incentivize playing a few other silver bullet answers. I mean, you will often have access to a counter or two and creature kill (either pognify or something from another color), but you might want to run a gigadrowse with isochron, or a disenchant in UW, or something more niche, just because it's easier to toolbox those cards with an extra tutor.
Thousand year elixir is.interesting to me. I'd say it's one of those cards that can often only need 1 card to be worth it, if that card is your commander. I've personally included it in decks whose commanders have tap abilities just to let them work immediately and get multiple activations. Merieke loves it. Lots of these decks will end up with other creatures that benefit, but that's getting into a chicken or egg discussion: for me, I'm running those creatures because the deck already has untap synergies because of my commander.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Lurking Predators: how many creatures does your deck need to run to make this worthwhile (this one is purely a numbers game, as the more you have the more likely it is to fire and the more times it fires)
Isochron Scepter: how many instants? Let's leave aside combos for a moment. How many 2cmc instants would you need in your deck before you consider including scepter just as a value card. Not planning on getting a specific instant, but being willing to put whatever you have available under it for value.
From random card of the day, Secret Plans: how many morphs? This one is probably pretty irrelevant, as I just don't see people running a moderate number of morphs. Usually people either run a handful of particularly useful morphs, say 1-5, that would be below any reasonable threshold for a parasitic card like secret plans, or they are committed to a morph strategy and running around 30+. The wrinkle here is that you don't need to just play morphs for secret plans, you need to turn them face up to draw a card. That means the X isn't necessarily how many you are running, but how many of those you expect to turn over in the course of a game. Or maybe that's better thought of as another variable.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Agreed on all these points. It's not a card you can just throw into any deck and expect to be good as a value engine. It's only good when you stick it in a deck that really wants the effect because it has ways to abuse it or generate value beyond the land it gets you, and usually these decks will be throwing lands into the yard even without crucible, so it exists solely as a way to extract value from something you are already doing.
The best way I can describe when it's worth running is when it is both garaunteed to get you a land from your yard every turn the turn you drop it, AND it's most likely going to generate some sort of additional value every turn. It's reasonable in Titania to expect it to generate an extra land and a 5/3 every turn once it sticks. It's reasonable for it generate at least a land per turn and and extra card drawn per turn in Gitrog, and will quite often generate a great deal more (2 fetches basically makes it draw you two extra cards a turn while building your Mana). I'd consider the Titania example the performance floor at which this card should be included. Any less, and it doesn't belong. I could see possibly running it to abuse mld by breaking symmetry, or in situations like 5 color gates where it served to both protect a combo and let you reuse a few key lands, but those are specific situations where it's being used in a strong synergy rather than as a value engine.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
No, I read them just fine, trolling emoji included. I didn't say you changed your mind, I said you changed your argument.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Well, yeah, its still pretty weird, considering that you've now changed your assessment twice. You've argued in two separate posts that A) crucible isn't good in specialized decks that can benefit from it's effect and B) it goes without stating that crucible is good in specialized decks that can uilize it's effect, so it's irrelevant to talk about it, complete with a mocking emoji to drive that point home. So yes, it is pretty weird to make both of those arguments, because those arguments are contradictory and mutually exclusive. You either think that the card isn't good in those decks, which opens discussion as to whether that is indeed the case, or you think that it's so obvious that the card is good in those decks that its silly to point it out. You can't make both claims without it looking like you are changing your argument to suit whatever point your trying to make at the time.
It's also kind of weird that you've made the point that you should already be hitting land drops with Gitrog when I already made the counterpoint that playing lands from the graveyard when you have lands in hand is usually superior because you A) get to reuse the best land for the job, including sac lands that let you draw more cards, and B) not playing the cards in your hand let's you get over 7 cards, making you discard down to 7, which triggers Gitrog drawing you more cards. Repeating your first argument doesn't change this, so yeah, that's a bit weird.
It really looks like a situation where you've over reacted in your assessment of the card. You are correct that it's outright bad in most decks, and i, and most people in the thread, agree. It's open to debate whether it's good, bad, or just ok in specialized decks that can maximize it's value. It looks like you want to take the strongest possible position (the card sucks), and are adverse to a more nuanced assessment (the card generally sucks, but has valid uses where it can be pretty good). The idea that the crucible is an overrated trap card that is overplayed and the idea that crucible can be a powerful and effective support card in certain decks are not mutually exclusive.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Yeah, you should have quoted his post to discuss that. You quoting me and then going there made it sound like you were trying to refute me with that point, which is kind of weird considering my post said multiple times that 20 sac lands wouldn't be enough to run crucible without other support.
If you had followed the thread, there's a common theme that some of these cards, like crucible and trinket mage, don't fit the how many x to run y formula. The entire point that Crucible is worthwhile in certain decks even with only a few lands that hit the yard naturally, yet bad in some decks that have a bunch that do, is important, because it shows that Crucible really isn't a card that can be assessed according to the thread's premise, unlike an enchantress. It isn't a critical mass card, its a synergy card (combo is way too strong of a word, that's like saying Doubling Season is a combo with +1/+1 counters, or Wee Dragonauts is a combo with instants), just like trinket mage isn't a critical mass card, its a tutor. The point is that there is no answer to X, because X is irrelevant. You can answer X for an enchantress, because those care about the number of enchantments you cast, so you need to be able to see a certain number for it to pay off. For Crucible, you literally need to see just one sac land for it to do its thing, and that thing isn't good enough on its own, so you need support cards, preferably a commander, that make it better. This results, like I said, in just 1 card, Gitrog in the command zone, being good enough, because Crucible will help rebuild your mana base without playing lands from your hand (because then you can discard those lands to draw even more cards with Gitrog), but not worth it with X= 20 if its just lands that sac and no other support. Its really weird of you to try to argue that this goes without stating, when in your previous post you said it isn't even good in specialized decks.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Lots of good cards get hosed by graveyard hate, so that's not a convincing argument at all. The real question is whether what you are getting from the card is valuable enough that your are willing to risk it being dead to gy hate. For crucible, in a generic deck, the answer is no, but with a ton of synergy the answer is yes.
The decks that want it have lands that can be repeatedly sacrificed for value, specifically lands that you would want to repeatedly reuse over just playing another land from your hand, and get you additional value from playing or sacrificing land. The arguments you make are invalid when applied to the decks that want crucible. In Gitrog, you get an extra land drop a turn, and your lands dying draw you cards. You are incentivized to continually replay whatever your most valuable sac land is over and over again. Yes, that can often involve a strip mine that let's you clear out any cradles and coffers, and even color screw people, or it might mean resetting glacial chasm every couple turns. In lands.dek, your often have several cards that increase your number of land drops, and yeah you get a ton of value from strip mining three lands in a turn with Titania or Omnath out. It helps boost that decks grindy plan B if the combo win doesn't work out, not to mention it helps protect the combo win.
Those are the types of decks that really benefit from it. I've seen it work well enough in stax or as a way for someone to break synergy on geddon, but I've never done it and it's likely that if I looked at their decks I'd be able to figure out a better card that could replace crucible, but as I havent seen their full lists I can't say.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Because of all this, Crucible can go anywhere from being worth it with just 1 card (Gitrog, as your commander) to 20 not being good enough (a slew of fetches, some strip mine effects, myriad landscape, and like harrow and crop rotation).
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!