General When Is Fixing Too Good?

[Eric Chan]

I just feel that there's a multitude of cleaner approaches that do this, that also never overstep their bounds and waylay the guy who's already mulled once and is now keeping a questionable six. He's already not having fun. Why pile onto his misery?

To me, if a two-colour splash deck is stopped dead in its tracks by a Wasteland just once in an environment that I curated, that's already too much.

Perhaps Wasteland is acting as a crutch for aggro decks - to prop them up because the fear is that they wouldn't be able to stand on their own two legs. But with the high power levels and low curves that you guys run, I actually think aggro would be just fine without the free, colourless land destruction.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

While I don't really like tec. edge (because no one plays it, except maybe for a control deck looking for utility land answers), wasteland was always a strange beast for me:

1. You don't really have the density to design a format around it
2. Aggro decks can't rely on having it, so you still have to focus on designing aggro decks to not be overly dependent on the early game
3. It randomly screws people
4. If wasteland is primarily there for aggro, now I am devoting 2-4 slots in my land section to a specific archetype support card.

Yet, at the same time, if you want to run non-manland utility lands, you want to have some land destruction, and 3+ mana land destruction cards often feel like clunky niche cards during the draft and deck building.

At the end of the day, turn 0 LD always came back around to a very awkward "why" for me.

 

[Eric Chan]

I will say that Wastelands might make more sense for Aoret's unlimited fetches environment, where a player is much less likely to become randomly colour-screwed if their first or second land explodes.

But the random colour-hosing in normal cubes - and sometimes double hosing, if your non-basic was the source of off-colour splashes - is a tough pill to swallow. Like, we make fun of people running powered cubes, and how there are bunch of non-games because Villain drew two pieces of power and Hero didn't, so he couldn't do anything about it. But I've been a part of and witnessed a bunch of early-Wasteland-hosing games, and it may or may not be hyperbole to lump the two under the same umbrella. These are games whose decision trees become massively reduced, and what were interesting back and forths morph into only one player playing Magic.

 

[Aoret]

I like this post a lot Eric. I think you're right that the wastelands work a lot better in a format where your manabase is commonly half fetchlands.

You also made me realize that there's a fundamental difference in ideologies underlying this discussion that I don't think has been explicitly stated. To be clear: I'm actively trying to suppress loose off-color splashes. I want people to feel afraid of doing them (and to feel like they got away with something if it works etc). I also want to reward players who play tight two-color decks (whether that's with the ability to punish or just room to include more sweet utility land in their manabase). For those of you who want four color decks because you find them fun and think they're super sweet (I believe safra and jason are both on record as being in this camp), then you don't wanna take my suggestion.

I will say that I feel like the "wasteland = non game" thing is being a bit overstated though, at least based on my experience playing with them the past couple months. I made a big point in front of everyone about wasteland being a large change to the format, and now people play accordingly. You don't get color screwed out of games if you:

• prioritize adding basics to your manabase (I concede that extra fetches do help)
• don't run loose splashy decks (I concede that you may find them fun/desirable)
• don't keep hands where your only colored source is a nonbasic (I concede that non-games do exist in the scenario where you get randomly punished for drawing two shocks in your opener)

and in my experience players have adapted and do all of the above.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

I will say that Wastelands might make more sense for Aoret's unlimited fetches environment, where a player is much less likely to become randomly colour-screwed if their first or second land explodes.


But the random colour-hosing in normal cubes - and sometimes double hosing, if your non-basic was the source of off-colour splashes - is a tough pill to swallow. Like, we make fun of people running powered cubes, and how there are bunch of non-games because Villain drew two pieces of power and Hero didn't, so he couldn't do anything about it. But I've been a part of and witnessed a bunch of early-Wasteland-hosing games, and it may or may not be hyperbole to lump the two under the same umbrella. These are games whose decision trees become massively reduced, and what were interesting back and forths morph into only one player playing Magic.

Yeah, I kind of feel that the articles Ahadaban linked to are kind of damning: if 11-12% color fixing is already statistically thin, do we really want to accentuate that on turn 0, with a play that has no consistent counter?

I feel like the sort of spell velocity focused formats we encourage are less products of wasteland's presence, and more the result of constricting curves down to emphasize impactfull 1-3 mana interaction.

And incidentally, like you said, with a format naturally having a focus on board presence and mana efficiency, aggro decks should already be in a favored spot in the format, as thats what aggro decks do well.

 

[Jason Waddell]

To me, if a two-colour splash deck is stopped dead in its tracks by a Wasteland just once in an environment that I curated, that's already too much.

Just to be clear, any, say, 3 CMC land destruction spell can do this too. Let's not pretend this is Wasteland specific.

There's something that I think is not being addressed here. Look at the various aggro decks that pass through standard, and a lot of them are full of very specific interactions. If not tribal, then something like Temur Battle Rage + Become Immense. Or Kudoltha Rebirth. Or whatever.

And the typical Standard control deck is kind of just a pile of cards. Maybe there are some interactions in there, but it's usually some mix of card draft, removal, counterspells and finishers.

It's far more easy to assemble a Constructed-esque control deck than a Constructed-esque aggro deck. I'm never going to explode out of the gates with a Turn 3 aggro kill. It's really not possible.

So by design you have this sort of inequality that nobody wants to talk about, and it's more than just powering down wraths. Just because there's good mana (or good-ish) doesn't put aggro in the upper hand.

I will say that Wastelands might make more sense for Aoret's unlimited fetches environment, where a player is much less likely to become randomly colour-screwed if their first or second land explodes.

I agree a lot with this point. In my original "learning from legacy" bit, I wanted Wastelands to be something you could play around more. Obviously most of the time you don't get the fetches that perfectly match your colors so that you are free to get whatever basic. Or could get a basic but want to risk getting a non-basic.

I push aggro a bit more than the average 360 (better Turn 1 mana, breaking singleton on a few effects), but I also don't run a lot of the GRBS aggro cards (no Winter Orb, Sulfuric Vortex, Armageddon, etc). People have complained about aggro forever and ever and if you strip away land destruction I don't think aggro is doing so much better in my environment than elsewhere. Even if you push the wraths back a turn there are other T3 and T4 stabilizers.

So the question I would ask is, what knobs do you want to twist? I'm willing to try double shock no dual. I'm willing to try some variant on Wasteland, so long as it can be used on MTGO (ala strip mine errata). Something like:

: Destroy target non-basic. Only activate this ability if your opponent controls 3 or more lands.

Does 3 do it? Tec Edge is a two-color Control card and Wasteland is an aggro card, should we find some actual middle ground? Should Wasteland cost you a mana to activate (that you just have to drain from your pool)? Should it have some Serra Avenger clause on it? Activate only if your opponent controls lands that tap for 3 or more colors of mana? I'm not going to take the Wastelands out without some more appealing alternative.

 

[Jason Waddell]

Off topic (but probably kind of on-topic): a lot of the reason behind the formats that were dominated by 4+ color decks (like the current Standard) is the lack of turn 1 fetch lands. Battle lands are not great for aggro starts, but pretty great for durdling for a turn or two and then hitting your stride on turns 3 and 4. Same goes for Vivid lands and filter lands.

Random idea that I don't really like (because of memory issues): what if you weren't allowed to EVER wasteland their first 2 lands (the whole game). Like, those ones were sacred, so fetch the one you care about most because your next one is getting bumrushed. It changes sequencing, and as a control deck there is more counterplay (non-basic, non-basic, basic, basic, wrath) and sequencing. You guys are smart though, I'm sure you can come up with something better or more elegant.

What modified Wasteland leads to the best dynamics.

 

[safra]

or in the instance I witnessed, you were trying to drop a couple of red aggro animals on-curve. Is preventing the occasional greedy splash worth all of the extra collateral damage that Wastelands add?

iirc i actually tutored for this wasteland b/c it was my strongest play. That deck only had one wasteland but Demonic and Vampiric tutors gave me a lot more consistency with my flexible cards. blowing up the chained to the rocks on the plateau I think is exactly the kind of play wasteland should be punishing; a t2 Chained on a basic mountain would've been safe but playing it on the Plateau was riskier and quicker

also not sure what the answer is but wasteland, while strong, isn't just for aggro either

it's definitely been strong here but I don't want to cut it just yet, maybe this is some emotional thing but like Aoret I'm also a fan of punishing double-splash decks (fun and tricky as they are to pilot though). Do we need more CC spells as well?

 

[Jason Waddell]

Revised dumb suggestion:

only the first land you played is protected. uh... but "first land" means any lands that ETBd on their first turn. So you can fetch up your dual for your two-color deck and be fine, but if you have a dual and a utility you have to choose how to sequence. Fewer memory issues. Also ensures no T1 Wasteland happens (or Turn 0 as people have been dramatically saying).

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

it's definitely been strong here but I don't want to cut it just yet, maybe this is some emotional thing but like Aoret I'm also a fan of punishing double-splash decks (fun and tricky as they are to pilot though). Do we need more CC spells as well?

I think this brings us back to ahadaban's post, of going up to 20% fixing. If you could do that (say push fetchlands to 40) you than have a lot of anti-wasteland counter play, as well as the ability to support a greater density of CC spells.

It's far more easy to assemble a Constructed-esque control deck than a Constructed-esque aggro deck. I'm never going to explode out of the gates with a Turn 3 aggro kill. It's really not possible.

So by design you have this sort of inequality that nobody wants to talk about, and it's more than just powering down wraths. Just because there's good mana (or good-ish) doesn't put aggro in the upper hand.

Er...I think there are a few things to unpack here. "Constructed-esque" aggro deck is an extremely broad brush, and it sounds like the model you are describing will never be consistent enough for cube.

If you give aggro tools to blank or overwhelm removal, and neutralize blockers, it can scale surprisingly well into the later portions of the game.

I'll agree that inequality can exist by design, but I don't think that inequality is so much a natural byproduct of aggro as a strategy, so much as it is reflective of the role being assigned to the deck in the environment. The more you make aggro about consistent damage performance in the early game, the harder is is for it to be competitive, and it ends up feeling a bit hackneyed both in draft and in game.

On the other hand, if your format is about impactfull mana efficient plays, and your aggro decks are resilient enough where they can stumble on early game damage production and be fine, than I would say they are pretty well positioned for the format, perhaps even too much so.

I don't think this is that foreign of a concept. If a format's model of an aggro deck, is the sort of "constructed-esque" aggro decks that wants to curve out the same way every time, you are setting yourself up for disappointment, both due to the practical inability of doing this in cube, but also because of the cube space wasted in trying to make it happen.

 

[Eric Chan]

Just to be clear, any, say, 3 CMC land destruction spell can do this too. Let's not pretend this is Wasteland specific.

Let's not pretend that Stone Rain or Ice Storm should be mentioned in the same sentence as Wasteland. They require a colour commitment; take up a spell slot in your deck; don't produce mana; are narrow spells that often don't make the maindeck of even the most aggressive lists; and, without great difficulty, generally can't be used on turn one or two.

You like to make the argument that cards that get played in constructed make for better cube cards; how often does Stone Rain make a top 8 decklist in a format with Show and Tell?

I've played Molten Rain and the like in my own list, and if we're saying that Tectonic Edge is too weak for consideration, these dedicated land destruction spells are another tier or two below that. When I finally cut Molten Rain, it wasn't because it was too oppressive; it was the opposite.

So by design you have this sort of inequality that nobody wants to talk about, and it's more than just powering down wraths. Just because there's good mana (or good-ish) doesn't put aggro in the upper hand.

I would contest this point. Is this something you've actually tested, or is this more on the theorycraft end of things? I think you might be surprised at how well aggro can stand on its own two feet, if you tried.

 

[ahadabans]

I first want to just comment that I love this forum. Even if I stopped posting, as long as I were even remotely still connected to this game I'd continue coming here just to read the back and forth.

It's far more easy to assemble a Constructed-esque control deck than a Constructed-esque aggro deck. I'm never going to explode out of the gates with a Turn 3 aggro kill. It's really not possible.

So by design you have this sort of inequality that nobody wants to talk about, and it's more than just powering down wraths. Just because there's good mana (or good-ish) doesn't put aggro in the upper hand.

Well, at the risk of sounding like a broken record. I think there are other reasons why aggro needs help in many cubes. And I really believe it has to do with many of these 5-6 mana creatures y'all are running. While aggro has gotten ungraded Jackal Pups, midrange/control are getting WAY better stuff than that comparatively speaking. And because midrange runs those same high end creatures, if the "aggro>control>midrange>aggro" paradigm is to be believed, this represents a serious balance problem for aggro that is making it somewhat imperative that there be a mechanism to keep everyone off 5/6 mana before the game ending cards come down and aggro folds.

I'm telling you guys. If you all swapped your 5-6 mana dudes for shit like Keiga, the Tide Star the question you'd be asking yourself is how in the hell do I stop aggressive decks from running everything else over? And that's coming from a guy whose meta is largely midrange (though to be fair aggro decks here are more like fast midrange).

: Destroy target non-basic. Only activate this ability if your opponent controls 3 or more lands.

I'd play that. I'm all for having a healthy amount of LD for utility/manlands and keeping guys honest on splashes, but color screw when you have a solid mana base feels like a design flaw so it's hard for me to fully get behind wasteland (though I've considered it in the past).[/quote]

 

[Eric Chan]

Grillo makes some great points about trying to model your cube list after constructed, in that the goal itself may be a bit misguided. I think that, while there are valuable lessons to learn about archetype construction and individual card evaluation from Legacy, Modern, and Standard, we shouldn't necessarily be trying to pull decks wholesale and reconstruct them in a draft environment. Cube is very much its own animal that can't directly be compared to retail limited formats nor constructed ones, and trying to port over design ideas directly from either can have unintended consequences.

I think we're saying that constructed aggro decks generally want consistency - lots of four-ofs, roughly the same one and two drops every game, a focused game plan - while constructed control decks generally want access to lots of varied answers, and that the latter is easier to reproduce in cube. I think we're all in agreement there. I'd rather approach this problem by either a) restoring consistency to the aggro decks, i.e. with Jason's multiple Gravecrawler plan for black aggro, or b) giving aggro decks ways to close out the late game outside the red zone, i.e. with Jason's Goblin Bombardment tech. Indeed, when I ran a neutered version of that archetype in my own list, it was by far the dominant deck, no land destruction required.

I've since toned down that particular archetype, but it's still incredibly satisfying to win with a tuned cube aggro list, especially when you take down a dedicated control deck on the way to the top. No colour hosing shenanigans required. Again, it's my personal belief that there are plenty of knobs and sliders to tweak in the eternal aggro-vs-control struggle, without needing to reach for the big red nuclear button.

 

[Jason Waddell]

On the other hand, if your format is about impactfull mana efficient plays, and your aggro decks are resilient enough where they can stumble on early game damage production and be fine, than I would say they are pretty well positioned for the format, perhaps even too much so.

Can you be more specific? With examples? This feels like a bunch of jargon to me, and I'm not sure how impactful mana efficient plays are supposed to shift the balance in one direction or another.

 

[Jason Waddell]

Grillo makes some great points about trying to model your cube list after constructed, in that the goal itself may be a bit misguided. I think that, while there are valuable lessons to learn about archetype construction and individual card evaluation from Legacy, Modern, and Standard, we shouldn't necessarily be trying to pull decks wholesale and reconstruct them in a draft environment. Cube is very much its own animal that can't directly be compared to retail limited formats nor constructed ones, and trying to port over design ideas directly from either can have unintended consequences.

I'm not saying I am modelling the cube list after constructed. It's more that, if I watch a Standard match on CFB, if the person is playing control, I often think "this looks like a hand that could occur in my cube". Sure, the spells may be a little different, maybe that crackling doom is a Hero's Downfall or the finisher is something else, but I see a lot of similarities.

With aggro decks there is often some explosiveness due to some multiplicative interaction. If the two are relatively balanced against each other in Standard, and if our control decks are of roughly equal power level but our aggro decks are toned down, then it stands to reason that there would be an imbalance in our environments. I'm not modelling it this way or designing it this way, just making a comparison.

 

[Diakonov]

I think we're saying that constructed aggro decks generally want consistency - lots of four-ofs, roughly the same one and two drops every game, a focused game plan - while constructed control decks generally want access to lots of varied answers, and that the latter is easier to reproduce in cube. I think we're all in agreement there. I'd rather approach this problem by either a) restoring consistency to the aggro decks, i.e. with Jason's multiple Gravecrawler plan for black aggro, or b) giving aggro decks ways to close out the late game outside the red zone, i.e. with Jason's Goblin Bombardment tech. Indeed, when I ran a neutered version of that archetype in my own list, it was by far the dominant deck, no land destruction required.

I've since toned down that particular archetype, but it's still incredibly satisfying to win with a tuned cube aggro list, especially when you take down a dedicated control deck on the way to the top. No colour hosing shenanigans required. Again, it's my personal belief that there are plenty of knobs and sliders to tweak in the eternal aggro-vs-control struggle, without needing to reach for the big red nuclear button.

I've found it to be difficult to include enough options for aggro to have the consistency that it needs from the cube without making the draft stale and awkward. Not impossible, but difficult. I double-squad a few aggro cards exactly for this purpose.

I completely agree that the primary way to make aggro better/more interesting is to give support to their plan B.

At this point for my cube, Wasteland isn't a requirement for aggro to succeed; it's just another support option. It seems like the place where we don't see eye to eye is how detrimental their existence is to the format. Personally, I've never had any complaints or heard any horror stories from my drafters (so far). It could also be that most of our drafters come from constructed formats that have been laden with Wastelands for years (most of us played Vintage for a decade and several have continued to play a lot of Legacy). It certainly isn't perceived as a nuclear red button.

To address the Wasteland vs. Stone Rain question: if Wasteland is "free", then Stone Rain reads "destroy target land and ramp one." It's actually even better than that, because ramping from 2 to 3 is better than ramping from 3 to 4.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

To address the Wasteland vs. Stone Rain question: if Wasteland is "free", then Stone Rain reads "destroy target land and ramp one." It's actually even better than that, because ramping from 2 to 3 is better than ramping from 3 to 4.

So you are saying Gilded Lotus is better than Black Lotus because when you can use an effect and how much it costs you is irrelevant?

 

[sigh]

I think more that wasteland costs a land drop. It's not "free".

 

[Diakonov]

I think more that wasteland costs a land drop. It's not "free".

This

Edit: to be clear I'm not saying Stone Rain is as good as Wasteland.

 

[Eric Chan]

I'm not sure I follow the Stone Rain arguments, nor do I understand folks continuing to mention it in the same sentence as Wasteland (literally!). Does anyone actually cube with the card?

To be clear, it's not so much semantics that I'm discussing, as much as the power level concerns. Tectonic Edge is clearly made of the same cloth as Wasteland, but it's being pooh-poohed as 'not good enough'. Meanwhile, Demolish also destroys lands - not to mention artifacts, so, bonus! - and by this new definition I suppose it also "ramps". Is this a trendy new spell we should all consider running?

 

[Diakonov]

Wasteland is stronger for sure. I'm just pointing out that it definitely isn't free.

Stone Rain is actually pretty similar to Tec Edge in power level, I think.

 

[Eric Chan]

The reason why Tectonic Edge will always win that comparison, in my books, is that it doesn't cost you a spell slot. You lose a land in the exchange, but you're typically trading your worst land for their best land, and the fact that you get to cherry pick your target means you're not just trading land drops in the abstract. To clarify my earlier comment, that's mostly what I meant with by 'free' - besides not costing mana to activate, you're also not using up a spell slot.

The other upside is that Tec Edge makes mana when you don't need land destruction, and requires no colour commitment. The best Magic cards are flexible, and one that helps you cast spells when you're short on mana and destroys opponent's lands when you're flooded is often just what the doctor ordered.

As I've said before, I'm almost certain the card is underrated in cube, especially if we're only using ZEN/SOM Standard as a barometer, seeing as that was one of the highest powered Standard formats in existence. This is a card you can happily run as your 18th land, and not regret.

With aggro decks there is often some explosiveness due to some multiplicative interaction. If the two are relatively balanced against each other in Standard, and if our control decks are of roughly equal power level but our aggro decks are toned down, then it stands to reason that there would be an imbalance in our environments. I'm not modelling it this way or designing it this way, just making a comparison.

I still think it takes a leap of logic to go from "my aggro decks may be slightly underpowered, given my observations of a neighbouring format" to "Wasteland is how we even out the playing field". Again, I would say that empirical testing would be more valuable here than pure theorycraft.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Anyway, I'll be testing Chris's suggestion (Ghost Quarter for nonbasics that puts the basic in hand instead of on the field) at the end of the month and see what that does for Aggro decks! Fast disruption that slows down your opponent so you can keep jamming those one-drops without the feel bad of color screw. Curious to see what those will do.

Unfortunately there's no printed land that does something similar enough that you can test this on MtGO with some errata.

 

[sigh]

honestly, I think more people should be investigating other sections of their cubes before or alongside looking at LD. Looking at some lists has me dizzy with how many sweepers and other powerful removal effects are stacked up. we're talking like 30% of white being removal, a good portion of it not spot removal. That's more individual cards run at 360 than I run at 415 (like 15 compared to 12). Maybe not surprising that aggro is alive and very very well in my sessions.

I just think giving more varied and potentially narrower answers to control will end up more fun than LD at really any level. As discussed, this is largely personal preference.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Can you be more specific? With examples? This feels like a bunch of jargon to me, and I'm not sure how impactful mana efficient plays are supposed to shift the balance in one direction or another.

hmmm...I have a long post written, but I'm not sure it wouldn't result in us talking past one another. Framing it as "balance" shifting seems a bit off as well. My post just simply stated the more a format condenses down, the more it operates on aggro's basic strategic axis (mana efficiency, tempo generation) and it should thrive in those types of environments, for obvious reasons. Kind of like this:

I'm at the point now where the card Wrath of God isn't that good against the aggro decks in my Cube. Between recursive creatures, flash/instants, 'when this dies' triggers, creature lands, bestow, and so on, it's pretty easy to power through a Wrath. If anything, I'd like more focused anti-aggro cards to give my control decks a fighting chance.

Wrath is a clunky and tempo-inefficent spell, and is outclassed by the threats that it has to face. A lot of our format's reward tempo generation pretty heavily, and this is a good example of:

I don't think that inequality is so much a natural byproduct of aggro as a strategy, so much as it is reflective of the role being assigned to the deck in the environment. The more you make aggro about consistent damage performance in the early game, the harder is is for it to be competitive, and it ends up feeling a bit hackneyed both in draft and in game.

On the other hand, if your format is about impactfull mana efficient plays, and your aggro decks are resilient enough where they can stumble on early game damage production and be fine, than I would say they are pretty well positioned for the format, perhaps even too much so.

It sounds like Dom is in a situation where the format is rewarding tempo generation more than card advantage, and this places the control decks in an awkward position of not really being in line with what the format wants to do.

I hope that helps, but as I'm not sure what language is coming across as jargon, its difficult for me to pinpoint the exact issues I should be responding to.