|Commander / EDH||Legal|
Printings View all
|Ninth Edition (9ED)||Common|
|Ninth Edition Foreign Black Border (9EDFBB)||Common|
|Champions of Kamigawa (CHK)||Common|
|Eighth Edition (8ED)||Common|
|Seventh Edition (7ED)||Common|
|Starter 2000 (S00)||Common|
|Mercadian Masques (MMQ)||Common|
|Starter 1999 (S99)||Common|
|Portal Three Kingdoms (PTK)||Common|
|Classic Sixth Edition (6ED)||Common|
|Portal Second Age (P02)||Common|
|Fifth Edition (5ED)||Common|
|Ice Age (ICE)||Common|
|Fourth Edition (4ED)||Common|
|4th Edition Foreign Black Border (4EDFBB)||Common|
|Revised Edition (3ED)||Common|
|Revised Foreign Black Border (3EDFBB)||Common|
|Unlimited Edition (2ED)||Common|
|Collector's Edition (CED)||Common|
|International Collector's Edition (CEI)||Common|
|Limited Edition Beta (LEB)||Common|
|Limited Edition Alpha (LEA)||Common|
|Promo set for Gatherer (PSG)||Rare|
Combos Browse all
Destroy target land.
Price & Acquistion Set Price Alerts
|Have (11)||richardmv , corys , anonymausguy , XxCataclysmiCxX , ahobrien , AlbinoLion , MythicWinter111 , frederiklw , Benniator , bakeraj4 , Forge|
|Want (10)||Upyron , CryAll , xDaedalus , abascon , mrfab13 , Awuztein , melkor10 , Shadows_lurk , MenacingSailboat , telepathyoverdrive|
Stone Rain Discussion
2 weeks ago
Now my stance on land destruction is that of scarcity. Certain lands may needs to be dealt with and for that I wholeheartedly enjoy the Wasteland- and Tectonic Edge-esque type of lands. The choice is to blow up your land with your opponent's land so you're likely only doing it if that trade is favorable to you. For instance if your opponent has a Gaea's Cradle then you will easily trade your Wasteland for their Cradle unless they cannot utilize it at all. In that situation I say it's a tech choice. You include Wasteland to get rid of annoying or greedy lands.
Cards like Stone Rain are a lot worse (for the game) in my eyes because you don't trade resources. You trade a card versus your opponent's land. There's no limit to how many Stone Rains or similar you can play, given you have the mana and cards for it while lands are usually locked to once a turn.
I am mainly a multiplayer (Commander) player and therefore single-target land destruction is not really something people can efficiently run because they have multiple opponents. However land destruction in those formats are usually attributed to continuous land destruction, like that on Numot, the Devastator or mass land destruction, like that of Armageddon. Both types have attributes in common; they affect their opponents far more than they affect the player.
Land destruction is not really an integrated part of Magic's repertoire and therefore there exists very few cards that deal with that situation and in even fewer colors - white being the one that has most effects that hinder their loss of lands, through cards like Sacred Ground or Faith's Reward or Teferi's Protection. Because there's little counterplay to land destruction, I find that those who do use it are disproportionately capitalizing on a gameplay with limited or weak counterplay.
If Wizards printed an Artifact that said the exact same as Sacred Ground AND replaced itself for a semi-small cost of 3-4 CMC, then I figure land destruction would take a heavy toll on its effectiveness. Add an instant in black that makes your lands or even non-creature permanents indestructible and hexproof and retaliate if an ability or spell would destroy your lands, do so against the controller of that ability or spell.
Wizards will unlikely do this as those would be a primary direct countertool to land destruction which as said before is not an integrated part of Magic. The existence of such cards are not to be utilized in their own rights but rather to remove/keep away land destruction as a viable option. However if land destruction would ever become a more integrated part of Magic, counterplay would need to follow. And to be honest, most of such effects I figure would be either too hamstring on counterplaying land destruction that their uses for anything else is rather limited or useless, or they manipulate lands in a way that is otherwise unhealthy whether for direct resource manipulation or they provide those greedy lands (Gaea's Cradle Cabal Coffers UrzaTron) too much protection that those tech cards you have a few of to dispose of those greedy lands, suddenly ain't cutting it.
There's so little recursion of lands from the graveyard and they are such an integrated part of being able to play the game that land destruction on a scale that becomes a lock/hindrance to play the game and not a technical countertool is not fun for the receiving party.
Imagine if creature removal didn't exist. Auras and equipment would become so broken. Or they would take into effect that nothing could really stop them and be made useless.
It's a fine line between providing win conditions or advantageous effects and appropriate countermeasures and I think land destruction is a REALLY crappy one to balance out. And for that I am thankful that Wizards largely have avoided land destruction as a viable tactic.
2 weeks ago
I will say, land destruction is my least favorite mechanic. I understand why it exists, and in some cases it is necissary. that said, blink-riders in standard was one of the few times that I ended up taking over a year long break from magic.
oddly, land hate wans't always (or even primarily) red. black and blue had some solid hozing abilities right at the start.
Erosion and Psychic Venom were punishing as hell for early game, and while it may not destroy the land, Phantasmal Terrain does mess with mana bases pretty well. Evil Presence and Blight helped round out Sinkhole for black. red had Stone Rain, Boil, Flashfires, and Fissure. blue had Volcanic Eruption and Acid Rain, (to counter act green's Tsunami, or Desert Twister). White had color hate for days with Drought and Conversion to name a few
oddly enough, the color pie was really into opposing color hate and ally color help at the start.
I don't think it was really until urza's block that red came to the forefront. and what a forefront it was. Wake of Destruction. as in, "see that mono colored deck over there? END THEM."
2 weeks ago
I think that the last land-destruction decks that I remember being viable in Standard were the U/R Wildfire decks of Kamigawa standard. Cards like Boomerang, Eye of Nowhere, Stone Rain, Annex, and of course Wildfire made it an extremely punishing deck to play against. I also think that deck is why Wizards seems to have restricted bounce spells from being able to target lands. Playing first and being able to bounce an opponent's first land on your second turn with Boomerang is a ridiculous tempo advantage.
The original Mirrodin standard did have the mono-red Arc-Slogger decks too, which used artifact mana ramp to cast turn 2 Stone Rain and Molten Rain to stall for time until they could drop Arc-Slogger.
3 weeks ago
Kitsune sounds okay.
For the creatures, I have no problem dropping Ogres. To work around the land destruction CMC requirements, I think low-cost akki would be general permanent destruction/forced sac (Akki Underminer) and land sac for benefit (Akki Avalanchers), and higher-up ones would be the targeted land destruction. As a rough eyeball, maybe for a etb Stone Rain on a 2/2 creature? Comparing to Avalanche Riders.
Ogres out, Kitsune in, Humans pretty balanced through the colors. I like it.
seshiro_of_the_orochi Snake Ninja. Yes. Do you have any special reason for why Sultai ninjas might be wrong, or is it just a gut feeling?
Am I completely taking over this thread?
3 weeks ago
Flooremoji Goblins and land destruction. This. Changes. Everything.
So, because I'm still thinking...
Orochi-- with splash
Nezumi-- with splash
Soratami-- splashing both and
Ogres--mid- to high-cost
seems underdeveloped--maybe edge Humans toward and , with a light sprinkle in other colors. Seems okay, as far as creature color balance goes.
1 month ago
If you want a way to deal with opponents’ lands without expending your own, then there’s always Field of Ruin. Faith's Fetters can deal with problem lands too, although it doesn’t stop Cabal Coffers or Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx. There’s always good old Stone Rain too
I think one of our problems is that we don’t see eye to eye on hate cards. I LOVE cards like Blood Moon, Rest in Peace, Aven Mindcensor, Torpor Orb etc because they all punish degenerate decks! It brings me so much joy to drop a hate card because it helps me just as much as any other card that only helps me - by hurting everyone else
Aura of Silence is exactly like that. You’re wrong about it being a 1:1 answer card because it prevents players from doing everything they want in a turn. No matter what, it deters further threats, and once someone plays something that you don’t like, you can just blow it up!
You can also think about it this way - hitting your opponents in the face with Kalemne doesn’t help you, it only hurts your opponents. Hate cards are no different
Anyways that’s just me - I’m not here to tell you to build a certain deck or play a certain way, I just want you to know where I come from :)
1 month ago
Why not have Zurgo Stone Rain when he attacks. at 6-8 mana I don't think he would be that bad. You could maybe have him destroy non basics only when he attacks.