|Commander / EDH||Legal|
Printings View all
|Eternal Masters (EMA)||Rare|
|Zendikar Expeditions (EXP)||Mythic Rare|
|Tempest Remastered (TPR)||Rare|
|Promo Set (000)||Uncommon|
|Promo set for Gatherer (PSG)||Uncommon|
|Magic Online Promo Cards (MOP)||Rare|
Combos Browse all
: Add to your mana pool.
, Sacrifice Wasteland: Destroy target nonbasic land.
Price & Acquistion Set Price Alerts
6 days ago
I never claimed that perception didn't make it seem worse, however perception doesn't make it worse. Players who don't play around MLD might be screwed, if they don't sandbag unnecessary lands they are asking for it though.
This idea is a very simple one that many players, especially in EDH are familiar with, "overextending into a board wipe". Heard of it?
My points never stated that players should love MLD, they shouldn't, but they can't cope with things they outright ban, and you trying to support their idealistic world of no interaction is downright disgusting. If a player loses to something, they should either
A: Not get mad, because it was a loss out of luck.
B: Not get mad, learn something from it, perhaps play around it, change their playstyle.
C: Get mad, because the loss was unwarranted, and was predicated on collusion (players teaming up outside of the game), something outside of the game outside of collusion (an example is a player conceding when you stole a permanent of theirs, therefor depriving you of a resource you fairly gained), or something inside of the game that is broken for obvious reasons, such as a combo that is particularly degenerate due to game rules that do not work in the given format (many believe Felidar Sovereign falls under this category).
Which does land destruction fall under? No one has been able to convince me that C is the appropriate response, and a deck built around it is most likely much more consistent than A would have me believe.
This implies that B is the proper response.
If you think we should frown upon learning experiences, you know, like any interaction, win, or play in any game of magic, then you might as well not play, or is there something so integrally broken about the removal of lands that it in particular is the focus of contempt?
"MLD leaves many players bitter in a way that no other strategy does."
Leovold shutting off hands, GAAIV stax type decks, stax decks of nearly any kind, decks that use Blood Moon, Contamination, Back to Basics, Static Orb, Hall of Gemstone, Winter Orb, Stasis, Tangle Wire, and other cards of that vein, decks that abuse discard like Nath and any deck with Sadistic Hypnotist for that matter, any deck that takes advantage of infinite turns or particularly long turns that imply storm or another slow to watch, difficult to interact with once it is going off style deck.
Yes, many of these are frowned upon, yet Land Destruction is the target of much more hate. Why? Can you explain that to me?
Above was my argument to anyone like Shrazik who reads your BS, , I honestly didn't dislike you until the last paragraph.
Nope, not one bit, but at that point I was considering going off on you, however thought that anyone who read this would think I didn't have a rebuttal to your first 5 paragraphs. Those are above.
Here is a quote, sentence #2, paragraph #6, comment #26. Don't hand me BS like this anecdote again, as anyone with half-working eyes and a quarter-working brain can see that it won't work:
"Recently, a fairly competitive pod of 4 I was playing in lost to a Lord Windgrace deck that cast Silence + Armageddon + Splendid Reclamation on turn 6 - it was a brilliant play and the game was over in less than 10 minutes from that play."
Nice, a jund (Lord Windgrace's color identity of , , and ) deck that can run Armageddon and Silence. Also, nice that a combo that a third grader could see from miles away is considered "brilliant" in a moderately competitive table. BTW that combo takes 9 mana and seems like hot trash for even moderate cEDH IMO, specifically Splendid Reclamation, as Windgrace can do that effect himself.
Also, try not to claim that Ruination and Autumn's Veil are the cards at hand, or that he cycled Decree of Annihilation, or that Impending Disaster was the real effect, as all of those are extremely different and memorably so.
I almost could respect you.
Shrazik I hope your eyes glanced over the end, so you didn't see 's BS in the last paragraph that you quoted, however I will attempt to answer your questions anyway.
"Going a little off topic here but do you think that delves deeper into a more community based issue? One where players would ignore how wrong or right a strategy/playstyle might be in favor of their own perception of what should or shouldn't be played within their playgroup?"
This is the reason that I personally don't play casual EDH, it is competitive EDH, but less compassionate to new strategies, and is so toxic I just can't handle it.
The vast majority of formats, cEDH, Standard, Modern, Pauper, Legacy, Vintage, etc. are all more accepting than casual EDH, so I have just had to stop playing it. Almost every other MTG community is cool with land destruction, Ponza lists in modern are fun midrange strategies that blow up lands and want to go turn one Arbor Elf, turn two Utopia Sprawl and get 4 mana for some sick plays early on. It is a nice and hilarious deck.
Other times it has occurred in modern like in some newer Ramunap Excavator/Azusa, Lost but Seeking/Ghost Quarter lists with Collected Company in modern the decks have been cool but not oppressive, and though they can be rough matchups for some decks, they aren't ever called out to be banned or anything, and even in Vintage when Shops, a deck with some land destruction (Strip Mine, etc.) was a problem the issue was the turn one Lodestone Golem, not land destruction, and no one really minded or thought Wasteland should be restricted, but the Golem should.
As you can see, toxicity of casual EDH isn't much further, but is a problem for a lot of less toxic players who play EDH casually and want to bring a fun, janky Hokori, Dust Drinker to the table, but are banned from playgroups (anecdotal, and an example, not anyone I know, but I have heard of this situation).
Outside of land destruction, I think combo is pretty fair game as long as it doesn't do something unable to be interacted with. Like Flash Hulk turn two is cool, but Spell Pierce exists, so does Spell Snare, Swan Song, Containment Priest, Rest in Peace, Grafdigger's Cage, Leyline of the Void, Force of Will, etc.
1 week ago
Here is a list of cards in no particular order that will definitely increase the deck synergy.
Sylvan Library, Demonic Tutor, Vampiric Tutor, Amulet of Vigor, Strip Mine, Wasteland, Entomb, World Shaper, Squandered Resources, Dark Confidant, Zuran Orb, Wheel of Fortune, Reforge the Soul, Dark Petition, Natural Order, Prismatic Omen, Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle, Dark Depths, Thespian's Stage, Glacial Chasm
Some of the cards are definitely over $20 but off the bat I would invest in Amulet of Vigor or Sylvan Library first.
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 definitely want to find room for Overburden, I love that card.
Mox Diamond is amazing, but a little outside of my price range (I try to avoid spending more than $40 - $50 on a single card).
I definitely want to find room for the land's you listed, especially Strip Mine, that's been on my list for a while.
2 weeks ago
It's a fun idea, and if you have flex spots you can try it out. It does work with Deepglow Skate because it is a trigger ability so it does double twice. It's also funny that it can trigger Contagion Engine ETB effect twice LOL!
3 weeks ago
Wasteland will make it into the deck, Field of Ruin, I can see it's benefits, throw the opps off, especially if there was a Mystical Tutor, Worldly Tutor, Enlightened Tutor, etc. I'll see where I can fit them in, what lands have been dead on board and deserve a spot.
I haven't put Dash Hopes in, and I doubt it'll actually find a real spot in the deck. There's just something I gotta do to protect my enchantments, and or be able to remove enchantments on the field.
3 weeks ago
Drakoy07 If you want to be greedy with the mana base there are some cards I would suggest, I'm not too sure of your budget but for ramp wise I been cutting Tempt with Discovery for alternative options because nowadays my playgroup has been getting quite smart and been tutoring for Strip Mine or Wasteland. In return I use the more lower alternative curve, Nature's Lore, Farseek, if you have the budget Three Visits. I don't like having any 4 drop ramp spell in 4C decks as generally they are too slow. I see that you have Carpet of Flowers in your maybe board, I definitely recommend that if you are playing against plenty blue players as even just one Island you already have your value back.
I would also say add in Sylvan Library, in replacement of Greed, Underworld Connections, or Kumena's Awakening. Search for Azcanta Flip is also a great card, and for the recursion issue there are cards like Regrowth and Noxious Revival which are good in itself, my pet card is also Seasons Past which I absolutely adore.
4 weeks ago
It's not really combo but something I have really enjoyed doing is playing Tempt with Discovery.
If Lucky and all my opponents choose to search for land. I searched through my deck until everyone else has picked their card nine times out of 10 it's something extremely good like cradle or Shrine of Nyx maybe a cabal coffers
Then use Lord Windgrace ability to return one of them then play it for the land drop that turn and blow up the third land.
Not a combo but incredibly mean 2 Mana ramp and then destroy their best lands and from that point on you just sit on to land destruction cards in your graveyard that you can pull back in.