General Re-examining The Basic Land Box

[Chris Taylor]

The more I think about this idea, the more I like it. The Fetchland / Wasteland gets far more interesting when you have on color fetches (Scalding Tarn in your deck), but it's pretty impractical from a "I need 10 playsets and each playset costs $200" point of view.

Maybe Brass Caves in the basics box?

 

[CML]

A powerful argument against Wasteland is the number of non-games it can produce.

As a competitive junkie and lover of the creature I was overjoyed when Thoughtseize got reprinted, for it is part of team fair in Legacy. Arguably Thoughtseize and Wasteland together are what keep Legacy Combo in check (almost all the combo decks pack just as many, or more, counters, as the fair blue decks) ... yet look what happened to that Standard format. And Wasteland is significantly more disruptive than Thoughtseize.

Sell me on it.

 

[Jason Waddell]

A powerful argument against Wasteland is the number of non-games it can produce.

As a competitive junkie and lover of the creature I was overjoyed when Thoughtseize got reprinted, for it is part of team fair in Legacy. Arguably Thoughtseize and Wasteland together are what keep Legacy Combo in check (almost all the combo decks pack just as many, or more, counters, as the fair blue decks) ... yet look what happened to that Standard format. And Wasteland is significantly more disruptive than Thoughtseize.

Sell me on it.

I wouldn't suggest unlimited Wastelands, and personally wouldn't want more than 2 in a cube deck.

The biggest issue I have with Wasteland in my own cube is that sometimes you just can't play around it. You're a deck, and you need your Arid Mesa to grab you blue mana. You have to get a non-basic. If you are stocked up on Flooded Strands you have a say in the matter re basics vs non-basics, and this happens far more frequently when you get to pick your fetches.

Regarding balance, I've accepted Wasteland as a tool that boosts Aggro's win rate, and it's possible that more than a peppering is undesirable in cube. Yet to test.

 

[Suicufnoc]

I wouldn't suggest unlimited Wastelands, and personally wouldn't want more than 2 in a cube deck.

The biggest issue I have with Wasteland in my own cube is that sometimes you just can't play around it. You're a deck, and you need your Arid Mesa to grab you blue mana. You have to get a non-basic. If you are stocked up on Flooded Strands you have a say in the matter re basics vs non-basics, and this happens far more frequently when you get to pick your fetches.

Regarding balance, I've accepted Wasteland as a tool that boosts Aggro's win rate, and it's possible that more than a peppering is undesirable in cube. Yet to test.

Basically for these reasons, I've cut the wastelands. Also I can confirm that aggro can definitely survive with no wastelands, and the greedy decks will often lose to their own manabases anyways.

That said, I'm not doing the land thing, so that could change things

 

[safra]

A powerful argument against Wasteland is the number of non-games it can produce.

As a competitive junkie and lover of the creature I was overjoyed when Thoughtseize got reprinted, for it is part of team fair in Legacy. Arguably Thoughtseize and Wasteland together are what keep Legacy Combo in check (almost all the combo decks pack just as many, or more, counters, as the fair blue decks) ... yet look what happened to that Standard format. And Wasteland is significantly more disruptive than Thoughtseize.

Sell me on it.

Cube is about curving out and techy plays, right? Even cubes that don't come out of the gates running still reward deliberate mana development and efficient use thereof. Thoughtseize standard (the worst one anyway) was ruined by the lack of t2 plays better than thoughtseize your answer>pack rat. Wasteland doesn't need anything else to be good, which is why I've had similar concerns. But at the same time, Cube is slower and more stately than Legacy; we have more turns to hit more land drops.

Putting fear in my players so they fetch basics instead of splash duals hates against 4c midrange. Unfortunately I happen to think that 4c midrange can be cool and interesting if built and enabled properly so I'm hesitant! But it still comes together with 4/360, it's just not as frequent and has a less legitimate late-game. If your decks aren't typically 2+splash or 3-colours then it's likely "unlimited fetches" is less useful, cf how much better it is to have mesa, strand and tarn, which means people are going to fetch duals, which means they'll get wasted. But again all of this has to do with incredibly volatile value calculations on colour greed and consistency as filtered through the drafting process so who gives a shit about this level of detail management?

We have ways to interact with the board, with the stack, with cards in hands, with dudes and artifacts and enchantments and very very very occasionally lands. As we make lands more important in our cubes it follows, imo, that we should add decision points that effect them too. Wasteland is real good but I don't (yet) think it's too good in Cube, and the other options (strip mine? ghost quarter?) are even worse. Are we just supposed to have manlands be dark horses in our environments? Cast Stone Rain? 3-mana LD says some pointed things about when people can afford to be messing with the other player's resources, but the land promises nothing (and keeps its promise).

 

[Aoret]

A powerful argument against Wasteland is the number of non-games it can produce.
...
Sell me on it.

If you are stocked up on Flooded Strands you have a say in the matter re basics vs non-basics, and this happens far more frequently when you get to pick your fetches.

Basically I can confirm this as being the case. The only time you get non-games are when somebody is getting punished for a loose mana base in a 10 color good stuff deck.

I'm even starting to see some interesting metagame relationships emerge between lower curve decks jammed full of wasteland, conservative good mana decks, and greedy mana decks. The neat thing about it is that (with the exception of wasteland suggesting that you play a lower curve) there aren't really restrictions about what strategies you can use with what type of mana. It adds texture to the format and, as Safra pointed out, increases interaction along an axis that is largely untouched in our environments.

 

[sigh]

Almost guaranteed that this has been at least suggested somewhere else, but can't remember where:

I think the cost ones are the best for the BLB cuz they can mitigate both flood and color screw. I could see just tossing in a hodgepodge of all of them though. What are people's thoughts on this nowadays?

 

[Aston]

I kind of want to make a rule that all basic lands have cycling to see what it would be like.

 

[genericco]

I could even see a future where basic lands are officially printed with that rule or something similar. Drawing lands when you don't need them feels like a special sort of screw. Maybe cycle-into-exile.

 

[Aoret]

I kind of want to make a rule that all basic lands have cycling to see what it would be like.

Dooooo it! Report back!


edit: off topic (does that make it on-topic at RL?) I saw a random dude in the park today playing Pokemon Go and looking towards the gym I was walking towards.

I gave him a bro nod and said "What team?"
"Blue. Mystic"
"Cool. Let's take it."
"Your shirt says CubeTutor... what's that mean?"
"I play Magic"
"Cool me too"

...we're friends now.

 

[James Stevenson]

Dooooo it! Report back!


edit: off topic (does that make it on-topic at RL?) I saw a random dude in the park today playing Pokemon Go and looking towards the gym I was walking towards.

I gave him a bro nod and said "What team?"
"Blue. Mystic"
"Cool. Let's take it."
"Your shirt says CubeTutor... what's that mean?"
"I play Magic"
"Cool me too"

...we're friends now.

wow you have a cubetutor shirt? Can we see?

 

[Aoret]

wow you have a cubetutor shirt? Can we see?

OP delivers. Don't mind the fuzz and cat hair...

 

[Gozmit97]

On dual basics that ETB tapped
https://adventares.wordpress.com/2016/02/01/basic-duals/

 

[Onderzeeboot]

On dual basics that ETB tapped
https://adventares.wordpress.com/2016/02/01/basic-duals/

Nice idea! Pretty sure Wizards is going to go there some day actually

 

[whydirt]

I'm considering going down to 13 card packs and just putting Aether Hubs and Evolving Wilds in the basic land box (or maybe just hand out a fixed number to each player at the end of the draft) just to simplify things for the newer and more casual players I often play with. The tension of weighing fixing versus action would be lost on most of them anyway and more experienced players already have tons of advantage in drafting, deckbuilding, and playing that I'm okay with leveling the playing field here. Smaller packs should also speed up the draft, even if just by a little bit.

-----

Almost guaranteed that this has been at least suggested somewhere else, but can't remember where:

I think the cost ones are the best for the BLB cuz they can mitigate both flood and color screw. I could see just tossing in a hodgepodge of all of them though. What are people's thoughts on this nowadays?

Don't the ones that cycle for 1 colored mana do that better? If you already have the color of the cycling land in question, you can cycle it for cheaper and if you don't have that color you probably want to play the land. I think the Barren Moor cycle is probably better thought of as being 1-mana cantrips that fill a spell slot and only occasionally get used as a land when you're mana screwed. In other words, for most decks they should generally be your 23rd spell slot while you still run 17 lands. It's kind of similar to how power-max cubes generally count Chrome Mox as a land, but Mox Diamond as a spell when figuring out mana ratios.

 

[Chris Taylor]

Do be prepared to answer the question "How many evolving wilds should I play?" A LOT if you do

 

[sigh]

I'm considering going down to 13 card packs and just putting Aether Hubs and Evolving Wilds in the basic land box (or maybe just hand out a fixed number to each player at the end of the draft) just to simplify things for the newer and more casual players I often play with. The tension of weighing fixing versus action would be lost on most of them anyway and more experienced players already have tons of advantage in drafting, deckbuilding, and playing that I'm okay with leveling the playing field here. Smaller packs should also speed up the draft, even if just by a little bit.

-----



Don't the ones that cycle for 1 colored mana do that better? If you already have the color of the cycling land in question, you can cycle it for cheaper and if you don't have that color you probably want to play the land. I think the Barren Moor cycle is probably better thought of as being 1-mana cantrips that fill a spell slot and only occasionally get used as a land when you're mana screwed. In other words, for most decks they should generally be your 23rd spell slot while you still run 17 lands. It's kind of similar to how power-max cubes generally count Chrome Mox as a land, but Mox Diamond as a spell when figuring out mana ratios.

You are probably right on the cycling land point.

Regardless, every cycling land printed up to this point has been absolutely obliterated by

 

[Onderzeeboot]

You are probably right on the cycling land point.

Regardless, every cycling land printed up to this point has been absolutely obliterated by

I disagree. The (other) cycling lands draw you a random card, which is more desirable than drawing lands in certain parts of the game, and they trigger dredge cards, which Ash Barrens doesn't do. Not saying that Ash Barrens is a bad card, but it fills a very different role than the (other) cycling lands.

 

[sigh]

I disagree. The (other) cycling lands draw you a random card, which is more desirable than drawing lands in certain parts of the game, and they trigger dredge cards, which Ash Barrens doesn't do. Not saying that Ash Barrens is a bad card, but it fills a very different role than the (other) cycling lands.

I'd say in overall power level, Barrens is far and away the best. Yes drawing a card is better in some parts of the game, but casting Lay of the Land is better in other parts of the game. And Barrens slots into any deck unlike every cycling land except blasted landscape.

It's the most generically useful cycling land.

It even fixes ! Again, only BL also does this.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

I'd say in overall power level, Barrens is far and away the best. Yes drawing a card is better in some parts of the game, but casting Lay of the Land is better in other parts of the game. And Barrens slots into any deck unlike every cycling land except blasted landscape.

It's the most generically useful cycling land.

It even fixes ! Again, only BL also does this.

Oh, I totally agree that Barrens is better in a vacuum, but when do we ever judge cards in a vacuum? Given that I'm in, say, , and I already have good fixing, I'ld much rather pick up a Barren Moor or a Tranquil Thicket than an Ash Barrens. I don't care that Barrens is generically the most useful cycling land if I can get specifically better cycling lands. Basically...

Ash Barrens

• Better when I need mana fixing
• Better when I need colorless mana (for eldrazi)
• Better when I need an untapped land (though if your not going to use the basic landcycling, why not run a basic land instead?)

Tranquil Thicket

• Better when I'm close to the maximum number of lands I need in play (and thus a random card is better than a guaranteed land)
• Better with synergies (Darkblast, Life from the Loam, Chasm Skulker, etc.)
• Better if I already picked up a few colorless sources (Gavony Township, Aether Hub, etc.)

Not to knock on Ash Barrens, like I said, it really is an excellent card, but there are a lot of times when I'ld be much, much happier with the colored cyclers.

 

[sigh]

All valid, but I wasnt being specific. Taken all things as a general whole, Ash Barrens is the best cycling land. Basically count the number of times I'd be happy to take Barrens versus every other individual cycling land. Evaluating cards ina vacuum is extremely useful when its a onerous task to analyze each indivodual tiny corner case, especially on lands that go in any deck. But here we are. Even in specific cases, it's better a good fraction of the time. if we want to nitpick, for some reason:

-Thins your deck for the rest of the game
-A shuffle effect (brainstorm?)
-better with life from the loam, builds the critical mass of 3 lands faster to enable max shenanigans. Need at least two basic cyclers to not make LftL just a waste of time.
-Better with Reach of Branches
-interacts with Converge better
-interacts with sunburst better
-interacts with domain better
-cycling cost is the least painful of any of the cycling lands
-enables a one-off splash better. Let's say a GB deck with good GB fixing, that suddenly finds themselves wanting to run Sidisi
-provides all these benefits in one card, generally need to run 5 of the others to handle the color pie. Not an issue in the BLB.

I was just hyperbolizing and generalizing a little. Cycling lands are still neat, but more players in more situations will be happy with an Ash Barrens. Don't let that stop you from playing other cycling lands.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Oh, I totally agree that Barrens is better in a vacuum, but when do we ever judge cards in a vacuum? Given that I'm in, say, , and I already have good fixing, I'ld much rather pick up a Barren Moor or a Tranquil Thicket than an Ashen Barrens. I don't care that Barrens is generically the most useful cycling land if I can get specifically better cycling lands. Basically...

fwiw I would rather have the barrens: doesn't have to CIPT.

With Moor/thicket, the cycling is nice in slower decks with weak draw engines, that are more likely to be dependent on top decks. Being able to mitigate flood is really nice in that instance, and the CIPT doesn't matter much. I like those cards, but its true that they are a lot more narrow in more situations than they look. Still great cards though.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

All valid, but I wasnt being specific. Taken all things as a general whole, Ash Barrens is the best cycling land. Basically count the number of times I'd be happy to take Barrens versus every other individual cycling land. Evaluating cards ina vacuum is extremely useful when its a onerous task to analyze each indivodual tiny corner case, especially on lands that go in any deck. But here we are. Even in specific cases, it's better a good fraction of the time. if we want to nitpick, for some reason:

(List)

I was just hyperbolizing and generalizing a little. Cycling lands are still neat, but more players in more situations will be happy with an Ash Barrens. Don't let that stop you from playing other cycling lands.

Well, since this is a thread about the BLB we have the luxury to be specific. It's perfectly reasonable to want only one additional land in the BLB, and in that case I would definitely pick Ash Barrens over Blasted Landscape. However, my list was based on the premise that a hypothetical cube owner is choosing between Barrens or the other cycle lands, but heck, you could even add both, who's going to stop you?

Anyway, if you get to be nitpicky...

-Thins your deck for the rest of the game: irrelevant. Both cards draw you a card from your deck. If a cycling land draws you a land, the composition of your deck is the same as with Barrens. If a cycling land draws you a nonland, good! You drew gas! You have a land more in your deck that you will eventually draw, leveling the composition of your deck once again.
-A shuffle effect (brainstorm?): Yes, this is an interaction that is relevant and Barrens is potentially better here (unless you don't want to shuffle).
-better with life from the loam, builds the critical mass of 3 lands faster to enable max shenanigans. Need at least two basic cyclers to not make LftL just a waste of time.: I... disagree? Once you're recurring Barrens with LftL you will thin your deck, making the dredge cost slightly more painful, and you will arrive at a point where recurring Barrens doesn't do anything. The cycling lands will be good targets for LftL throughout the game. Of course, on the other hand, if you have no targets because of Barrens recursion, you will draw pure gas (and nonbasics). This one depends a bit on the number of nonbasics in your deck I'ld say.
-Better with Reach of Branches: true
-interacts with Converge better: true...
-interacts with sunburst better: ... yeah, sunburst = converge
-interacts with domain better: ... you know, I just put this under one bullet (better with synergies), you're splitting that into four, all of which are basically "better with cards that care about basic land types". 1. That's cheating! 2. Typed duals have the same benefit, and are better than Barrens in three of the four cases, whereas the cycling lands have (imo more interesting) synergies that no other land provides.
-cycling cost is the least painful of any of the cycling lands: irrelevant, if you have the right color with one of the traditional cycling lands you can cycle it, if not you play it so you get access to the color you were missing
-enables a one-off splash better. Let's say a GB deck with good GB fixing, that suddenly finds themselves wanting to run Sidisi: very true, and one of the best reasons to run Barrens!

 

[sigh]

Stop it! You are completely missing the point of the post I made.

I apologize that from my perspective, Your argument doesn't make it sound like you were thinking about the BLB, where you have to consider the needs of every drafter, in a general setting. I don't have the time or place to go deeper, but Ash barrens will be more useful to your average drafter by a wide margin, and thus seems a much better pick for a BLB setting.

Basically, I think AB will be more well received and overall useful to more people than the old cycling lands at even optimal settings for the old lands: if I was drafting, I might want 1-2 regular cycling lands, if my deck can handle the tapland. I could, however, see myself wanting 2-4 ash barrens almost regardless of deck. That was my basis.

 

[sigh]

I said I didn't have time, but I made it, so I could vent. Based on my hypothesis above:
1.5 old-cyclers per player. 12 total.
3 ash barrens per player. 24 total.

Just on that Ash Barrens is twice as usual to my group as a whole. But that's 1 vs. 5. Comparing the raw usefulness of Ash barrens against 1 cycling land means you need to:
12 total divided by five. 2.4 of each cycling land per draft.

That puts ash barrens at 10 times more "useful" than any one old-cycler. Seems like absolute obliteration to me.

And even if both sets of cards go in decks at the same frequency, AB is still five times more useful.

And to expand on my previous post, I like a BLB land that more evenly benefits every drafter, not one(s) that benefit more a drafter who has the right setup, but doesn't really help others at all. I like the narrower power band (good for everyone)