For those of you that have been playing Field of Ruin, how often has it been stranded as a C land while wanting for a target?
Sample isn't massive, but rarely...
Wouldn't main deck it in agro decks where getting that turn 1 source is so important.
There are decks where it will be a bigger deal than others, but compared to other colorless lands, the ability to fetch a basic land makes it MUCH easier on the mana base.
I imagine if you've used Wasteland, you have an idea of how much it whiffs.
Not really. If I don't have a target for my Wasteland, I don't really care. I just keep on doing my thing. But if I need a target for Field of Ruin in order to use it as a mana fixer, it can be a big deal if it whiffs. I imagine it'll be a lot more noticeable for decks that want Field and can't use it than it is for decks that want Wasteland when it lacks a target. Which is why I was asking in this thread how often you can't use Field as a mana fixer, and how much it impacts its value.
When your wasteland has targets so would your Field of Ruin, so you apply that line of thought there. It'll be more noticeable, sure, but that doesn't increase or decrease the amount of times non basic lands appear. Maybe we're stuck on semantics here, but the only real difference is the amount of care involved, not the amount of whiffing, and wasteland has been around long enough to get an idea of how often it has targets.
My point is, I don't have to care very much about Wasteland targets. So if it's generally "more often than not" I'm okay with that. Field of Ruin needs more consistency than that to be worthwhile. I don't have the exact numbers on Wasteland because I've never really needed them. I wanted to see how it was working for folks running Field of Ruin.
More often than not, Wasteland finds a target. But is that 51%? 66%? 75%? 90%? It doesn't matter much on that card. It matters a lot for Field of Ruin, so I was looking to see if someone that's been playing Field since it was spoiled has some useful data for me, outside of the general assumptions we can make based on cards like Wasteland and Dust Bowl. Especially since the timing matters more here too. So even if my historical data on Wasteland is say, 75%, that doesn't tell me at what point in the game the target has become available either. Is that 75% on T3 when I might want to be activating Field of Ruin for mana fixing? Or 75% at the end of the curve when Wasteland is the last land I run out? That matters too. Which, again, is why I was asking for specific feedback/data on Field of Ruin. It's a very different effect from Wasteland, and the consistency/timing is far more important here.
It's not a % or anything, but if it's the determining thought of whether or not I try a card then it's not really a stretch to say I'll have a good idea of how it'll perform based on Wasteland existing during the entirety of my cubing experience, and then taking steps to compare how those cards would act if they were switched around.
If this was a new card then I'd want some numbers too or if it was something like paying attention to artifact count in regards to aggro decks then yeah maybe I would want the numbers because those are concepts I haven't put a lot of (sub)conscious thought into due to a variety of reasons. But it's Wasteland and the concept of non-basics & their frequency of showing up at points where Field would want to hit them, looking back on my entire cubing experience is pretty easy to pull from.
With our playgroup it's rare that Wasteland is tapping for colorless turn after turn unless it's a late game scenario at least in game 1s when Wasteland isn't being played around, and it's rare that it's being held in our hands due to there being no targets and slow rolling. None of that is scientific, but it's telling that I can't remember the last time I've been disappointed with a wasteland in that regard--something that sticks out a *lot* more than hitting with it.
The only reasons I'm not running it is that I think it's really subpar for/against aggro decks, and I don't really want this waste effect for the other decks as I don't think it's needed. Perhaps that's wrong and it'll come in down the line, but if you think that's an effect you need I don't think the frequence of nonbasics occurring would be as big of an issue as whether or not it's worthy of a 405 spot.
tl;dr eidolon would've had these numbers for ya but instead I think you're overthinking this and should prob just throw it in to test
A lot has been said about how Field doesn't set your opponent back a land compared to similar cards. And a lot has been said about how it can fix your mana.
But not much has been said about how it can inadvertently fix your opponent's mana. Helping them find a basic in their splash color, or getting them to double of a single color for spells with two in the cc.
This could be a pretty significant downside if it allows your opponent to cast cards that would otherwise be stranded for awhile.
Any experience with Field inadvertently fixing your opponent's mana?
Thats a good point but i think it is pretty negligible. Most cases this is going to be hitting a dual land of some sort so fetching a basic isn't going to give them any better access to CC costs since they wwould have already had access to both colours from that land. helping them dig for their 1 or 2 of splash colour can be a downside but you are still limiting their main colour options. If the splash might only be for one card its still worth hindering their main mana base.
there are times where you might kill something like a mutavault or maze of ith, where they now have better access to coloured mana but getting rid of problematic lands outweights helping your opponents fixing in most cases. I wouldn't recommend using this on a gemstone mine with 1 counter or aether hub obviously.
Any experience with Field inadvertently fixing your opponent's mana?
Most of the time, true splash colors are secured w/out basics. So, if I hit my opponent's Tundra in their WU/r deck, they're unlikely to be playing a basic Mountain for their Dack Fayden splash. However, against that same deck, if I clip their Volcanic Island with Field of Ruin, they might not have another source of red for a long while, and Field can actually keep them off their splash.
It's always possible that when you hit a colorless land with Field that you might give your opponent a useful basic, but it beats the alternative of dying to their manland or having their Library continue to draw cards for 'em. I'd wager that for each time the opponent gets an unforeseen basic land choice that provides valuable mana to them they didn't have before, there'll be 20+ times where the land they fetch up is a strict downgrade to what you killed off. Outside of decks that are solidly in all 3 of their colors with enough splash cards to justify basics, there really isn't much risk of that happening. And even against those decks, the chances are low that it'll be relevant.
And as always, you're in control of the effect. If you don't absolutely need to fetch, and you're in a gamestate where their random 2-color land isn't providing a huge bonus, you don't have to activate Field. Just wait for a juicier target, and don't run the risk of giving them access to a color they might be missing.
The vast majority of the time, you'll downgrade their powerful land into a worse one, and fetch yourself a useful land in the process.
I've only seen it in a couple drafts so far, but I've been impressed.
..........
Just like in Modern right now. If I Field of Ruin their Urza's Tower away and they go get a Forest they needed for Ancient Stirrings, so be it. It was still the right decision to attack their powerful land, even in the instances where it can backfire on you. Them getting access to green and playing Stirrings is a bummer, but it's better than conceding Tron to them and losing the game because of it. Same theory applies here. Even if the opponent gets a randomly useful basic that fixes their mana, killing off the Raging Ravine that had me on a 2-turn clock was still the right call.
I've always found the biggest issue with Field of Ruin to be that it always ends up up being the 'I've run out of cards in my colors so I'll pick something colorless that may or may not be useful'. It's a fine card and it's almost always run, but it just doesn't feel particularly cube worthy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sample isn't massive, but rarely...
Wouldn't main deck it in agro decks where getting that turn 1 source is so important.
There are decks where it will be a bigger deal than others, but compared to other colorless lands, the ability to fetch a basic land makes it MUCH easier on the mana base.
Last Updated 02/07/24
Streaming Standard/Cube on Twitch https://www.twitch.tv/heisenb3rg96
Strategy Twitter https://www.twitter.com/heisenb3rg
Also, follow us on twitter! @TurnOneMagic
Not really. If I don't have a target for my Wasteland, I don't really care. I just keep on doing my thing. But if I need a target for Field of Ruin in order to use it as a mana fixer, it can be a big deal if it whiffs. I imagine it'll be a lot more noticeable for decks that want Field and can't use it than it is for decks that want Wasteland when it lacks a target. Which is why I was asking in this thread how often you can't use Field as a mana fixer, and how much it impacts its value.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
Also, follow us on twitter! @TurnOneMagic
More often than not, Wasteland finds a target. But is that 51%? 66%? 75%? 90%? It doesn't matter much on that card. It matters a lot for Field of Ruin, so I was looking to see if someone that's been playing Field since it was spoiled has some useful data for me, outside of the general assumptions we can make based on cards like Wasteland and Dust Bowl. Especially since the timing matters more here too. So even if my historical data on Wasteland is say, 75%, that doesn't tell me at what point in the game the target has become available either. Is that 75% on T3 when I might want to be activating Field of Ruin for mana fixing? Or 75% at the end of the curve when Wasteland is the last land I run out? That matters too. Which, again, is why I was asking for specific feedback/data on Field of Ruin. It's a very different effect from Wasteland, and the consistency/timing is far more important here.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
If this was a new card then I'd want some numbers too or if it was something like paying attention to artifact count in regards to aggro decks then yeah maybe I would want the numbers because those are concepts I haven't put a lot of (sub)conscious thought into due to a variety of reasons. But it's Wasteland and the concept of non-basics & their frequency of showing up at points where Field would want to hit them, looking back on my entire cubing experience is pretty easy to pull from.
With our playgroup it's rare that Wasteland is tapping for colorless turn after turn unless it's a late game scenario at least in game 1s when Wasteland isn't being played around, and it's rare that it's being held in our hands due to there being no targets and slow rolling. None of that is scientific, but it's telling that I can't remember the last time I've been disappointed with a wasteland in that regard--something that sticks out a *lot* more than hitting with it.
The only reasons I'm not running it is that I think it's really subpar for/against aggro decks, and I don't really want this waste effect for the other decks as I don't think it's needed. Perhaps that's wrong and it'll come in down the line, but if you think that's an effect you need I don't think the frequence of nonbasics occurring would be as big of an issue as whether or not it's worthy of a 405 spot.
tl;dr eidolon would've had these numbers for ya but instead I think you're overthinking this and should prob just throw it in to test
Also, follow us on twitter! @TurnOneMagic
That's the plan.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
But not much has been said about how it can inadvertently fix your opponent's mana. Helping them find a basic in their splash color, or getting them to double of a single color for spells with two in the cc.
This could be a pretty significant downside if it allows your opponent to cast cards that would otherwise be stranded for awhile.
Any experience with Field inadvertently fixing your opponent's mana?
there are times where you might kill something like a mutavault or maze of ith, where they now have better access to coloured mana but getting rid of problematic lands outweights helping your opponents fixing in most cases. I wouldn't recommend using this on a gemstone mine with 1 counter or aether hub obviously.
Most of the time, true splash colors are secured w/out basics. So, if I hit my opponent's Tundra in their WU/r deck, they're unlikely to be playing a basic Mountain for their Dack Fayden splash. However, against that same deck, if I clip their Volcanic Island with Field of Ruin, they might not have another source of red for a long while, and Field can actually keep them off their splash.
It's always possible that when you hit a colorless land with Field that you might give your opponent a useful basic, but it beats the alternative of dying to their manland or having their Library continue to draw cards for 'em. I'd wager that for each time the opponent gets an unforeseen basic land choice that provides valuable mana to them they didn't have before, there'll be 20+ times where the land they fetch up is a strict downgrade to what you killed off. Outside of decks that are solidly in all 3 of their colors with enough splash cards to justify basics, there really isn't much risk of that happening. And even against those decks, the chances are low that it'll be relevant.
And as always, you're in control of the effect. If you don't absolutely need to fetch, and you're in a gamestate where their random 2-color land isn't providing a huge bonus, you don't have to activate Field. Just wait for a juicier target, and don't run the risk of giving them access to a color they might be missing.
The vast majority of the time, you'll downgrade their powerful land into a worse one, and fetch yourself a useful land in the process.
I've only seen it in a couple drafts so far, but I've been impressed.
..........
Just like in Modern right now. If I Field of Ruin their Urza's Tower away and they go get a Forest they needed for Ancient Stirrings, so be it. It was still the right decision to attack their powerful land, even in the instances where it can backfire on you. Them getting access to green and playing Stirrings is a bummer, but it's better than conceding Tron to them and losing the game because of it. Same theory applies here. Even if the opponent gets a randomly useful basic that fixes their mana, killing off the Raging Ravine that had me on a 2-turn clock was still the right call.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
Anyone else having success with this card?
The list on cube cobra
Read my blog on cube - Latest post June 2nd 2022
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!