Land Destruction: A social conversation
General forum
Posted on Dec. 3, 2018, 5:02 a.m. by Shrazik
So I wanted to "pole the audience" so to speak.
I want to ask you all on your views on land destruction. I can't be the only one that doesn't have a problem with it.
This stems from an argument I had with a person I played with. This player is against the idea of blowing up lands on the account of it draining all the fun out of a game by not letting your opponent play magic. However, he is also the kind of player that will riddle his deck with all kinds of infinite combos. He also likes to go through the motions of the combo instead of just skipping to the end where he kills everyone at the table.
So my question is this; Is it wrong for me, or anyone for that matter, to delve into magic's shunned aspect of land destruction to combat the heavy combo meta of a playgroup?
SynergyBuild says... #3
Just like many strategies, Land Destruction is a counter to large ramp lists. Blowing up lands is a rude to a green player with Rampant Growth as Lightning Bolting a Birds of Paradise is.
Nothing wrong with it at all. I play combo, and land destruction doesn't really affect me. I am sure some combo decks like Scapeshift in modern could have an issue, but against storm or burn, a land destruction deck needs a bit of interactions outside of it to close out a game.
I don't know any players who have an issue with it, at least in modern, commander, or standard, the three formats I personally play. TBH I don't know a standard land destruction deck, but if there is I wouldn't have an issue with it.
Honestly, land destruction isn't busted. Just like a control deck isn't busted. Both are reactive strategies, and therefor cannot be more busted than the decks that they are reacting to. They can be really good, and there are really good land destruction cards throughout MTG history, but not necessarily broken as a deck's goal.
Strip Mine is stupid good, but a deck that's whole goal is to find a Strip Mine with an Expedition Map, find a Crucible of Worlds, and then slowly blow up your opponents lands will be really inconsistent and not that good. If you go up against a decent aggro list, they drop a Goblin Guide, and while you blow their lands up until they only have 1 land, but they only might need one, or none at all if they have a field.
December 3, 2018 9:03 a.m.
CharlesMandore says... #4
It’s a part of the game, and as has been said above, eventually someone will get upset, and it’s more predicated upon the playgroup than anything.
December 3, 2018 9:46 a.m.
I think it’s mainly commander (not cEDH) that has a problem with it. In this format Armageddon type effects feel like you don’t get to play magic. Even then, if someone has a way to win on board, the game takes a couple more cycles and the game is over. If someone just does it to do it, then the game becomes a stalemate as people hope to naturally draw into lands. Then, the game takes another hour or more, and leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths. This is probably where the outcry comes from against land destruction.
Single target land destruction is overall acceptable in EDH as usually it only sets you and one other person behind. If someone infinitely loops it, they will likely win, and everyone plays another game. Similarly, other formats (standard, modern, etc) have the understanding that everyone is trying to win as quick as they can, and nothing or nearly nothing is frowned upon (at least to the extent of EDH)
December 3, 2018 10:56 a.m.
SynergyBuild says... #6
ERoss8 lol in standard everyone shunned their LGS's Nexus of Fate player back before GRN rotation.
I heard a story of someone taking someone else's Nexus deck, putting under their card, and running over it! I feel bad for the Nexus player xD.
Apparently before that, there was a game 1 that was so long that the first game went to time before the nexus player finally won. The other player should have just scooped, but I don't know because I only heard of it.
Onto land destruction, if your playgroup has an issue with Armageddon, they should have a problem with land-ramp. If they don't want the answer, they can't run the problem. Just like instant-speed combo is the problem instant speed interaction solves. From Swords to Plowshares, Nature's Claim, Abrupt Decay, Cyclonic Rift, and Counterspell, whatever works.
If you don't want Wrath of God, don't play swarm, if you don't want Diabolic Edict, don't run hexproof, if you don't want to discard cards, don't draw them and if you don't want Armageddon, don't only use lands for mana, or ramp out lands as your way to accelerate.
These are social solutions. No one wants to run Armageddon in a place where 70% of everyone's mana is coming from dorks and rocks. It is really simple when you think of it.
Now, if your playgroup does make Armageddon appealing, using Sakura-Tribe Elders and Rampant Growths and not holding up Counterspell, then they deserve it. If you run a deck with Howling Mine and don't expect them to use the cards you draw on you, you are stupid. It is the same principle.
December 3, 2018 11:14 a.m.
For being cut-throat competitive my vote is that if you are able to win consistently with it then I view it to be a perfectly legit strategy just like any other deck out there.... but winning doesn't exactly equate to being fun.
Whethere its a super fast kill from Mutagenic Growth on an infect creature like Glistener Elf or glass cannon Goryo's Vengeance into Griselbrand or some other insta-win combo..... or an agonizing and painfully long control brew like a Turbofog putting Dawn Charm onto Isochron Scepter and durdling into win condition "X"... my point is sure all decks have there weaknesses and can be hatted out but even win/lose/draw everyone can still feel dirty/unsatisfied afterwards.
But if you run the deck and you LIKE/ENJOY the deck and you have fun playing it then go for it... but the voice of the playgroup Does matter.... i went through a phase where i was all about instant win/oppressive control brews and sure i won a lot but it put a bad taste in my playgroups mouth and the nexst thing i knew i found it kinda tough to even get my friends to play at all.... so we agreed that decks like that sit on the side lines most of the time and try to stick to fair decks that allow for interaction and are more balanced (lots of tribal decks) and its been good for the group as a whole.
December 3, 2018 11:18 a.m.
SynergyBuild says... #8
Wait... but control is interaction. Why can't your opponents just run some good interaction over your combos?
Also, assuming you play modern, I think you'd know that humans, a tribal deck, is one of the decks that is least likely to be interacted with.
December 3, 2018 12:33 p.m.
Well your not wrong...my commentary regarding my playgroup revolved around the subjective word "*Fun." .... basically regardless of the deck/archetype/card ect ect... when it comes to a playgroup if it is viewed as toxic/not fun to play with/against then it just makes it so nobody wants to play the game in general anymore...and therefore everyone loses in that regard so we all agreed to stick with "Fair" decks and stray aways from instant/early win combos and spamming Fog and things like that....and its just overall lead to more games of magic with my friends and therefore more fun.
It isnt wrong for anyone to delve into magic's shunned aspect of land destruction to combat the heavy combo meta of a playgroup....or similarly running turbofog in a creature/aggro focused meta in playgroup....if playing magic is solely about winning games against faceless opponents on MTGO/Arena or people you dont care about at a LGS FNM event then by all means you do you and play whatever you feel like to get the wins/prizes... just make sure you have fun doing it.....but when you play with your friends its wise to play nice.
December 3, 2018 2:33 p.m.
-
MLD is parallel & a gamble to boot... More than anything it can be a strong way to 'put the screws' to the reactionary decks.
-
I use it regularly in Sram voltron, otherwise its just too damn difficult to work around all the instant bluism of my meta, keeps 'em honest. Lets me play permanents without the constant checks & balances against permanents.
-
In my meta, want to know the best insurance against MLD?... Play a permanent. If I have to set myself back 4 mana using MLD + have self-sufficent permanents in play & you still have none, there are problems beyond MLD. This becomes even more true against planeswalkers - those guys are incredible MLD insurance.
-
So IMO, MLD is just another way of telling your meta to shift their strategy to fielding more permanents, and maybe doing so early, telling them not-so-subtly to "use it or lose it".
December 3, 2018 5:26 p.m.
SynergyBuild says... #11
Icbrgr players intend to win, while also being nice is good, when deckbuilding, pet cards, improvements, and staples come before 'fun cards' for most players.
This means that players who are in a meta that doesn't pay for Rhystic Study will start running it more often, or if they are in a meta that shuns removal, they will run Big Boy Vorinclex or Consecrated Sphinx. These are greedy cards, and unless a meta will shift to pay for the Study or run removal, the greed won't stop.
Eventually, a meta I had played in (anecdotal, might not be everyone's experience) went for turn 1-2 wins. If your opponents don't run the Swords to Plowshares, you get to always Hermit Druid turn 1 and win turn 2. When your playgroup doesn't like Counterspell, run the Flash/Protean Hulk and don't bother protecting it.
Similarly, allowing decks to ramp out with big mana towards a win, and shunning the answer, land destruction, is just asking for greed. Players that shun this are like the artifact players against Stony Silence, Null Rod, and Kataki, War's Wage, the blue players against Grand Abolisher, the swarm players who hate board wipes.
Land Destruction is resource denial, as is any other answer in the game from removal, to countermagic, to stax, to a sweeper, to discard, even wincons like mill and life loss. Life and cards are resources. To think of it as anything else is just as biased and selfish as any player who has found a loophole in their meta is. To preemptively ban the solution to the problem you bring to the table is disgusting IMO.
December 3, 2018 6:10 p.m.
correct on all counts SynergyBuild..... however when it come down to playing magic with friends....thats when agreements/ground rules/house rules get made... really no different then any othher kind of video game like a fighting game where everyone agrees nobody can play as meta knight...or a shooter gamer where nobody can play as oddjob/no golden gun.... yeah they are perfectly legit characters to hit starts and play as but people complain/dont wanna play if you do/abuse it too hard....thats all im getting at....otherwise all bets are off when it comes down to just trying to win against strangers/acquaintances at a tournament/LGS/online at least within the parameters set by WOTC.
December 3, 2018 6:41 p.m.
SynergyBuild says... #13
So, while Metaknight is particularly broken, do you believe land destruction is broken?
I'd take a look at the best decks in the format, of which, for all of the tier 1 lists, land destruction isn't present, even the next best tier only run a single card or two that destroys lands, and some run Strip Mine.
That is because competitive EDH rarely needs use of land ramp, and while it is certainly present for a deck to have more than 5 lands, it isn't the most common occurrence.
Your claim that Land Destruction is like something that is broken and unbalanced is simply false. It is a responsive effect, making it only as strong as the effect it is counter to.
A more proper comparison is if your friends always play Metaknight, you find a way to beat it with some consistency, finally hurdling some huge mountain in the game, and because your friends are so selfish they want to always win, and never want to lose against you, they ban you from playing with them just so they can keep playing Metaknight and never have any impunity from you.
December 3, 2018 6:49 p.m.
metaknight/oddjobb were merely common mainstream examples of things that people typically agree upon before playing games..... specifically when it comes to magic....i like playing magic a lot but i like it better with my friends... playing magic without my friends is possible and i do play without them on Arena and such but its honestly not really as fun for me... so yeah im willing to budge in areas for the sake of continuing to play magic with my friends because thats when its the most fun for me anyway.
This is just the nature of my particular playgroup and the mindset that allows us to keep playing and enjoying the game together.... as i said i went through a phase where i was really into instant win combos and rediculous control and they moaned and groanded about it and i basically said "deal with it" and it just turned into few and far between games of magic..... thats what i mean by the voice of the playgroup matters..... so we just set up some house rules that keeps our games going... every now and then i ask to play "The for bidden decks" and they will induldge me and thats good enough for me and how we compromised.
December 3, 2018 7:22 p.m.
Rabid_Wombat says... #15
When land destruction is combined with a high end Zo-Zu the Punisher deck then you have a right to complain...otherwise just mana up and deal with the situation.
December 3, 2018 7:42 p.m.
In my opinion, the reason why MLD is so reviled by most players is more specific than "it ruins everyone's fun" because in the vast majority of cases it completely stalls the game and is very rarely an immediate win condition for the player playing MLD. I'd much rather a Lord Windgrace or Zo-Zu player play MLD and effectively end the game on the spot, as opposed to the Kaalia player with a modest leading boardstate play Armageddon and proceed to take 10 more turns to attempt to kill everyone, often with only modest success.
I firmly believe every strategy available to EDH players should be acceptable in even semi-competitive environments, including MLD. That said, the more precon and kitchen table-type metas can and should institute "house rules" to limit such strategies. Ideas could include no infinite combos for the first 10 turns for all players, no combo can be repeated more than 3 times per turn, no MLD, etc.
As the OP noted, if a combo-player whines about MLD but continues to combo off for the win and goes through all the iterations of their combos every time, there's a word for that...hypocrite.
December 3, 2018 8:09 p.m.
SynergyBuild says... #17
A player who drops a ton of lands onto the field with Sakura-Tribe Elder, Cultivate, Farseek, etc. and complains about Armageddon is just as much a hypocrite as the player who drops a Consecrated Sphinx and complains about the Swords to Plowshares, or the player who drops Counterbalance and Sensei's Divining Top and complains about Abrupt Decay, or the player who drops Expropriate and complains about Counterspell.
To run a game-winning effect, or an effect like Expropriate that helps you to win and claims players that run the appropriate answer is 'ruining their fun' is being hypocritical.
From what I have heard from Azdranax, Rabid_Wombat, Icbrgr, ERoss8, clayperce and everyone outside of this post that the 'issue' with land destruction is twofold:
-
It isn't 'fun', generally predicated by the fact that they cannot play.
-
It stops players from winning, therefor isn't fun.
In that case, should we accept players frowing upon any deck that's goal is to stop others from winning or playing?
Well, on the surface, everytime a player wins the game, both conditions are decks. By a lot of the people on this forum's logic:
Banning winning is acceptable.
This is downright stupid. Even excluding this, any control deck is now banned, from permission to stax. Discard stops people from playing the cards they discarded, so it should be banned? Counterspells - banned. Removal - Banned, Hate - banned.
In fact pillow fort should be banned too, by the fact that it can stop your opponents from playing if their only play is to attack you, but your Glacial Chasm is stopping them or something.
At this point, by that logic, you can't defend youself, stop your opponents, or even win, when that is taken to its logical extremes.
Separately, even to Azdranax slightly better variant on this argument, if stalling the game and not immediately winning is bannable, should every single board wipe be banned? They can also ruin people's fun, so can single target removal when in a specific situation.
In fact, a Blind Obedience, Stony Silence, Peacekeeper, Stranglehold, or any well-timed hatepiece can do this. Your argument would ban tons of normally played, fair, balanced cards. Unless you want every card like this to be banned or frowned upon, you are the hypocrite.
Even if you were to say these previously mentioned examples would only sometimes stall out a game, so would MLD, many times every player has an abundance of dorks or rocks, and wouldn't be affected in any meaningful way. Sometimes it accelerates the game, under effects like a Dingus Egg effect, or a deck aiming to abuse their own lands being destroyed, such as Titania, Protector of Argoth or The Gitrog Monster.
December 3, 2018 9:06 p.m. Edited.
-
From a perspective of someone who frequently makes the 1st aggressive move & frequently used MLD. At the heart of it MLD promotes a different playstyle than the more accepted M_D. Mass creature destruction is generally accepted, as mentioned above, it is thrown around left and right... often without follow up win-plans & to a horribly game-delaying effect (common citation against MLD).
-
MLD = USE it OR lose it = Strong promotion of early permanent drops (can lock early game/agro strategies which are a vast minority of decks in EDH)
-
MCD/M_D = IF you use it THEN you lose it = Strong promotion early conservative and heavy late game/control decks (a vast majority of EDH builds)
-
I think what some of the prevailing view comes from is a majority opinion on tempo & playstyle that EDH should be played. Since agro decks are few & far between in EDH... of course all those controlly majority are going to hate a strategy that punishes holding onto a bunch of junk & rewards early aggressive plays.
December 3, 2018 9:36 p.m.
Flooremoji says... #19
Land destruction isn't fun.
That dosen't mean it is fun to play against any deck. Almost every deck has unfun elements. Is it fun to watch a KCI player combo (For me yes) the general public says no. Is it fun to lose on turn two to infect? No. Do you like getting Thoughtseized? No. LD is just another nail in the coffin for players who want to feel as if they have the best deck, but don't. I am sorry for being insulting here, but in a way it's true. And yet, we (most of us) still play Magic. Even through the LD, even through The Rack. The game is still overall fun. I bet you could look through everyone's deck, and find unfun things (If the decks were made on the principle of winning) to pick at. Even if you get staxed out with Trinisphere and Molten Rain, it could be Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker and Restoration Angel. I think that LD is not present enough in any (Non-Commander, because I know nothing about the metagame of EDH) format to warrant much hate, aside from Pauper LD.
December 3, 2018 9:38 p.m.
its perfectly fine, killing mana dorks is the same thing but less frowned upon
discard is the same
countering everything i do is just as mean.
play whatever u like
December 4, 2018 6:02 a.m.
SynergyBuild says... #21
Vman, sweet, short, and to the point. I would be unimpressed most of the time, but I am impressed now, as it apparently really difficult for most people to allow others to do as they want.
Flooremoji. I would beg to differ. I like when an opponent Ruination's my 5 color combo list helmed by the Najeela. I may lose, but I don't mind it, because it is the appropriate answer to the decks in my meta with 3+ colors most of the time. That player won after the Ruination, with twelve turns of lock pieces like Static Orb, Thorn of Amethyst and I think a Tangle Wire or Smokestack, I don't remember which.
Point is, though the other two players hated it, I respect the deck trying to win with Kiki-Jiki, a lackluster commander at a more competitive table. This was a nice play, and while it may slow a game, and not be fun for some players, the same is for losing.
I like getting thoughtseized, killed by infect, getting my lands destroyed, and I really love watching KCI go off (I actually don't like the old Faith's Reward lists, much more a fan of the newer Scrap Trawler decks... they are great!).
Why do I like these things? Well, to start if I lose to infect, it is either in EDH and is hilarious, or is in modern (legacy infect is a meme, not a deck BTW) and I should be holding removal or countermagic or some answer. Otherwise I go to sideboard and probably have the wins the next two games.
Thoughtseize is a skill intensive card that is a staple in Legacy and Modern and even some EDH lists. It is a powerhouse, but needs to be played properly against. In modern, I find that against the decks that play it, it turn one isn't much better than a Inquisition unless they are Death's Shadow. I don't play tron or anything with big cards too often, so I don't find that the two life loss is huge. Against my burn list, it isn't even that good.
Krark-Clan Ironworks decks are just amazing, all their little bobs and bits turning like a mad scientist. They are kind of hilarious, and you can just concede if you don't want to watch them. No one is stopping you, and as soon as they have cast like ~5 cards, they can't really fizzle often enough to matter. Sweet deck IMO. Played it myself for a while, after Scrap Trawler was released with Aether Revolt.
December 4, 2018 8:48 a.m.
LordBlackblade says... #22
I actually want to agree with something SynergyBuild said earlier in their post about greed. When an action goes unpunished, it becomes ever more likely to crop up. If you punish a greedy action on the other hand, it becomes less likely in future games.
An anecdotal example from my personal meta is the card Tempt with Discovery. When this card first showed up, stompy players were running it like crazy. The threat of the card was underestimated by a lot of players, so they always took the search. Then we were playing a game one night and it got dropped. The first guy took it and said "Everybody go get Strip Mine if you've got it." Two of us fished it out, and the fourth player declined the search. The Green player was blown away by it. He never considered he'd pay four mana and end up with a single basic. Since that night this is basically standard house policy now. Either decline the search or get your Strip Mine. The card doesn't see as much play as it used to now because that greed has been punished.
Another thought I have on this is that lands are viewed as low-threat when played, but removing them is a high-threat action. I think it requires playgroups to reevaluate the threat level of ramp to be more appropriate. I can't tell you how many games someone plays Cultivate, and nobody bats an eye. Perhaps its time they should. Lately I've found myself more conscious of who ramps and when in my meta. Its often highly relevant to why they win, but its dismissed out of hand, especially if the ramp is for basic lands.
December 4, 2018 6:55 p.m.
Never thought of it that way. Probably the most thought provoking stance on the subject I've heard of. After thinking back on past games, there is a lot of times where one person has ramped like two or three times within the first couple turns and after that they couldn't be dealt with on account of their mana advantage.
December 4, 2018 7:17 p.m.
SynergyBuild says... #24
LordBlackblade thank you.
Personal suggestion is to not talk about it so the player who casts tempt will still fetch out their best, but give the 'look.'
December 4, 2018 9:08 p.m.
AngelDiscarnate says... #25
My LGS has a house rule against mass land destruction, just to keep the pace, and get more games in on commander night. I don't have a problem with it myself, but I do get a little salty when I lose more than a couple lands when I don't have a way to recover quickly.
December 4, 2018 9:28 p.m.
SynergyBuild While I agree with almost all of your points in isolation, and I personally do not have an issue with MLD strategies as I previously noted, I think you are potentially missing the underlying issue players really have with MLD - one of perception far more than reality. Lands are the single-most important resource to playing Magic, regardless of deck strategy, with few exceptions.
Decks are typically optimized with lands (number and variety) to ensure they are able to cast their chosen spells on curve in order to execute the deck's desired effect(s). While completely legitimate to play in my opinion, MLD denies this opportunity better than any other strategy, leaving players unable to play their deck to anywhere near their desired effectiveness. In my experience, dating back to Unlimited, nothing frustrates players more (in general) than being mana screwed.
As you've pointed out in many different examples, the game can be simplified around the principles of resource aggregation and resource denial. MLD is really no different than any other method of this principle, but that's not the perception by players in game. Drawing several high CMC spells when you lack the mana resources to play them is considered bad luck or RNG, while being unable to play any spells due to MLD destroying the resources in order to do so is considered taboo. Reality says there isn't much of a difference in various mass resource denial effects, but perception clearly says there is a difference with MLD for the majority of players. The hope of a "top deck" miracle draw that could conceivably work against other deck strategies pretty much flies out the window with MLD.
This concept tends to be reinforced when MLD does little to create an advantage for the player choosing to destroy the lands as well, for example an Alesha player with commander on board who Armageddon's on turn 4, hoping to at worst start discarding into reanimation options while everyone tries to recover. The typical commander deck build is going to take roughly 7-8 turns to draw into three more lands, based on drawing for turn alone, which is where the issue becomes engrained, as it then boils down to the most limited actual resource available to players, which is time.
Depending on your LGS or playgroup, you may have any range of time available for games, from an hour or two up to an entire day or more. Combining the perception of being mana screwed with the reality of losing time to recovering those land resources, MLD leaves many players bitter in a way that no other strategy does. Is that really accurate, in that MLD stalls and extends a game anymore than a solid stax deck does...ultimately I'd say probably not, but I'd also say that's clearly not the perception of most players, and changing player perception is an even tougher proposition than overcoming MLD.
Again, as I previously said, in any moderately competitive environment, MLD shouldn't be viewed any differently than any other resource denial strategy. 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. However, the less competitive the environment, the more poorly MLD is likely to be received, and the less effectively it is likely to be played. In so much, this argument's perception becomes reality. In reality, your arguments are valid and fairly well supported, but the perception leaves those arguments falling on many deaf ears.
December 5, 2018 12:54 a.m.
A very well put together rebuttal Azdranax. In the last paragraph of your previous post, you stated that SynergyBuild's arguments were, in reality, well supported and valid but that all of which fell on deaf ears. 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? I realize that this question in and of itself makes me a sort of hypocrite from my aforementioned complaining about the aspects of combo, but regardless I'm interested to read your responses for this particular query.
December 5, 2018 2:59 a.m.
SynergyBuild says... #28
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?
Secondly, I will quote you, Azdranax, and ask you to clarify further, your sentence #3, paragraph #5, comment #26:
"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, Azdranax, 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.
Nice fake anecdote Azdranax.
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 Azdranax'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.
December 5, 2018 9:52 a.m.
- My favorite strategy with MLD is less punishment of overextension & moreso punishment of UNDEREXTENSION :) ... Again, if your meta is underaggressive & tends to hold everything until they have 14 card hands & all their silver bullets. It can be a real fun message to say; I have 2 permanents out 4 mana up... you are refusing to play permanents, lets really punish you for not playing ball.
December 5, 2018 11:23 a.m.
SynergyBuild Thanks for pointing out my gross error on the Windgrace play - obviously I got that very wrong, but it wasn't a fake anecdote, it was just me thinking of multiple instances I've recently experienced with MLD and combining them while quickly writing up my prior response (the Alesha example I noted earlier would have been the silence + armageddon, while the Windgrace MLD was definitely Jokulhaups now that you called attention to it). Had I taken even a few extra moments to re-read what I had written, that would have been obvious, but I didn't and it made me look stupid in this instance - my fail.
That said, I'm really quite baffled by the venom of your response here, considering I've literally been agreeing with the majority your positions regarding MLD in both of my prior responses. If it wasn't crystal clear previously, let me say with clarity - I often find players disdain for MLD hypocritical compared to the other strategies they play and defend. Even so, my opinion doesn't change that perception, and I think it's primarily based on the resource then missing from the board.
You asked me to clarify, "MLD leaves many players bitter in a way that no other strategy does." I think the reason this is true is the overwhelming reliance of most decks on using lands to play their decks efficiently. When that most basic resource is destroyed, the board lays barren and feels worse than a board state perpetually being tapped down or slowly sacrificed into oblivion by stax effects. Is there a difference? Realistically..no, but perceptually, there is, as the lack of the resource in front of you simply feels different to most players. Regardless of the number of mana rocks and dorks players may run in a deck, the vast majority of decks rely most heavily on lands to function efficiently (I believe you previously noted that a deck might run on 70% mana rocks and dorks - I don't know of a single competitive deck in any format that has a 3/7 land to rock/dork ratio, but maybe I'm wrong).
Again, let me agree that I don't think MLD should be banned in any setting, but let me provide a comparison with college basketball that may provide a correlation why many players feel this way. In the 1980's, North Carolina was the premier college basketball program in the country. The team was filled with incredible athletes year after year, including Michael Jordan, and could put on an incredible display of athleticism and scoring at virtually any time. Despite those players and skills, the team was best known for an offensive set known as "the four corners." This offensive set was designed to simply burn the clock, preventing the opponent from getting the ball while North Carolina was holding a lead, effectively guaranteeing a win without any further action.
The four corners was so effective when executed, the team could run several minutes off the game clock in one possession. As there were no rules to prevent this, UNC ran it to victory with regularity, in so much as they changed the entire rules of the game starting in the 1985-1986 season, when the NCAA instituted the 45-second shot clock for the first time. The shot clock rule was instituted not because the concept of the four corners was illegal, but because it slowed the pace of play so significantly that the entertainment value of the games were suffering significantly.
Realistically, the zone defense has proven to be more effective in consistently preventing scoring than the four corners ever could, which is why zone defense is generally banned in the NBA. However, it does not prevent the opportunity for the opponent to score to create the perception that the game is not still progressing, as the opponent still ends up getting the resource (the ball) to do so, they will just be less effective in doing so. These same concepts apply to actual banned lists in the various formats sanctioned by Magic, as at a competitive level MLD will never be banned, nor should it be.
Casual and kitchen table formats aren't typically competitive though, and whether players attribute it to fun, pace of game, lack of the primary resource of the game, or extended time to complete a game, the negative perception of MLD that is fairly pervasive continues to be reinforced in one or more of those ways in almost every case. Changing that perception then seems like an insurmountable task, but just because the perception is what it is, it doesn't diminish your points - it just falls on deaf ears.
If you think I'm wrong, that's fine, but I'd analogize it with playing a game of keep away (aka monkey in the middle) - if the player in the middle continues to be denied what they are chasing, eventually they will rage-quit. That's ultimately the perception of MLD I see when players argue against it. I think that's short sighted, but I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind.
If my responses elicit you to dislike me as you noted, so be it - we've butted heads before on another topic related to competitiveness, and at this point I don't expect to change your mind, I'm just failing to see where any of what I've stated is BS.
December 5, 2018 11:50 a.m.
Thank you very much for answering my previous question. Your previous post rings true with a lot of my own personal beliefs on the subject. I will admit that as you were recounting all of the "shutdown" decks there have been over the years, I recalled some moments of hatred in my past for said decks. Fortunately it is very hard for those decks to do anything without their lands. It was very interesting to read your take on casual vs the competitive scene and your very sound reasoning for leaving the casual format behind you.
Make no mistake, I saw Azdranax's example and was . . . doubtful to say the very least. I was more interested in his argument of reality vs perception and the resource of time. But as I read that it brought a bigger problem to light, hence my last question.
In an effort to keep the peace, Azdranax and SynergyBuild, I would like the argument to stay further away from the merits of either of you as players or people and have it be more directed to SynergyBuild's latest question.
Why does land destruction draw more hate than the popular "Shoutdown" decks?
December 5, 2018 11:54 a.m.
Haha.... But land destruction IS the 45-second violation rule! At least in my case. :)...
-
Force action or lose your chance, that is where the argument can reach a conceptual dichotomy. MLD can be used on either end of the spectrum. Either to hose ramp/fixing (I love using for a mono color edge in this way too)... Or to attempt to secure wins for an agro boardstate (like I sometimes do with Sram + Sword of x/y) - MLD in voltron can also effectively change the prevailing thought of agro voltron not being a winning strategy in EDH. I personally like strategies that break normative statements such as that.
-
Besides, I like to say: theres always the Atraxa player, run your stinking universal, seen-everywhere commander & don't even worry about MLD ;).... I'd call Atraxa a "dime-a-dozen" but her pricetag disqualifies that
December 5, 2018 12:53 p.m.
SynergyBuild says... #33
Gleeock thank you! You made great points!
Shrazik no problem. I wouldn't speak of merits unless if Azdranax made up a lie and attempted to use it to support their point.
December 5, 2018 1:09 p.m.
@Shrazik I think the reasons why land destruction draw more hate than the popular "Shutdown" decks is purely psychological....kinda like someone hating a mill deck.
Let's say an opponent plays a game and never draws their awesome creature. Are they upset? Not majorly so. Players get that they are not going to see every card every game. Sometimes the most powerful card/answer is just on the bottom of the deck. Let's take the same player and have them get Milled. Among the cards that get put into the graveyard is their bomb/answer. This is rather upsetting for most players; seeing key cards go to their graveyard is a big morale blow.
But why? What's the difference between the card getting Milled and it just being the bottom card of the deck? Logically, very little. Psychologically, a lot. The card sitting in your deck is potentially their next draw. Sure, they might never draw it, but they don't know that. The lack of knowledge about where key cards are is gives a player hope/"The Heart of the cards" feel to their draws. Milling can take all that away from the opponent having a stronger psychological impact than logic would assume. Opponents are much more likely to be feel Milling effects are stronger than they actually are when their hopes and dreams are put into the graveyard....same logic as lands getting blown up.... in the end losing is losing but sometimes depending on the player it just can tough to swallow especially if its a playgroup that has the same regulars with the same decks just a different day.... unless they make changes to there deck they eaither auto concede/dont play at all or whine and complain the whole time before during and after lol.... for some getting run over by creatures or taking Banefire to the face is just more palatable as long as they feel like that have a chance before there life total/library reaches zero.
December 5, 2018 2:04 p.m. Edited.
Shrazik to answer your question regarding community-based issues in support or in denial of certain strategies, I think it often boils down to motivated reasoning – something that is being similarly demonstrated by the interaction of SynergyBuild in response to each of my previous posts.
In my experience, in the absence of defined house/LGS rules, most playgroups have an underlying set of unwritten rules or play expectations that help to drive interactions within that community, in this case, I’m specifically referring to EDH. My experience is also that MLD is one of the most common points of contention and can derail communication between players very easily. Whether it is the loudest of the group, the most likely to be present, or the least prepared to deal with it based on their style of play and/or deck construction choices, players will express their dislike and preference to avoid certain aspects they determine undesirable (like MLD, but also combo and other options I noted in my first post), then support that opinion via motivated reasoning by any evidence available, no matter how minor or misconstrued it may be in the scope of the topic.
To that point, my prior responses on this thread have been invalidated by SynergyBuild and they’re now calling me a liar based on an erroneous example I provided, which is fine – the error I made in the example provided was egregious, and I can’t find fault in his calling me out. It was and is utterly ridiculous in hindsight, and I should have re-read what I was writing before I posted. I’m sure it makes it significantly easier to completely dismiss what I was attempting to demonstrate. That said, the odd thing is that specific example wasn’t necessarily to support my opinion, which is really that I agree with SynergyBuild that MLD (or any other type of strategy) shouldn’t be banned – it was to support that MLD is not only a reasonable and viable strategy, in that situation it was also a game winning play. The fact that many players take issue with MLD as a strategy is not something I agree with or think is justified, it’s simply an observation based on my interactions with players, and I’ve attempted to articulate “why” that is the case in my previous posts. Had I left out the failed example, would all my other points be any more or less valid?
I suppose I could have saved a lot of time and grief on this topic by simply saying, anyone who chooses to play MLD, or any other strategy not banned for that specific type of sanctioned-play format, should be acceptable, but that’s not how players or people react, in Magic or any other endeavor in life. Why that is, that’s beyond my comprehension, but it clearly doesn’t take much to get pushed off the rails.
Perception becomes reality, and I appreciate that your perception of my responses wasn’t completely diminished based on the failed example I provided.
December 5, 2018 3:03 p.m.
SynergyBuild says... #36
Azdranax honestly didn't see your comment, don't know how, but I did.
I don't hold grudges, I may have a different outlook than you, but hope to really come to a consensus.
I don't see why casual players dislike MLD, I play casually with MLD often. I play old trash Savannah Lions/Armageddon weenie decks and they are really fun when playing old standard with friends. No feelings are hurt.
Look, I claimed your last comment was BS about the Windgrace anecdote, nothing else, however I want clarification as to how MLD is keep away. I actually don't get what you were saying, mind simplifying the comparison for me?
BTW I had left, sorry I wasn't interacting, just saw your new comment, will make a new one!
December 5, 2018 3:05 p.m. Edited.
SynergyBuild says... #37
Azdranax okay, look. I wasn't trying to invalidate your argument off of your error. I might have done that subconsciously, but I think I thoroughly debated all of those points before going over your severely false anecdote. Am I wrong about that? (Comment #28 to read it if you want.)
December 5, 2018 3:20 p.m.
Long posts can be an issue. The more content, the more likely for errors, or to be misconstrued. Brevity is the heart of something, something...
-
I'm surprised the topic isn't MORE contentious actually. Maybe a sign of change, even with the tiny sample size.
-
Then again the most contentious counterpoint I really see is LD/MLD is "unfun" which is a much more difficult argument to hold than it being "unfair"
-
I think its just a bizarre topic of such opinion. As a fan of the Red sometimes winning in EDH I am a fan of the MLD
-
As a fan of trying to beat people with groupslug or incremental dmg + bleeding effects and enchantments I am a fan of MLD... particularly Decree of Annihilation - the way I once killed 2 players with Mogis 2-pings, which is pretty fun to me. Same applies for Rite of the Raging Storm. It is a fantastic way of winning a game of EDH incrementally instead of being one of the MANY players who are all trying to build to a "big-ticket"
-
As a fan of early agro-commander I am a fan of MLD
-
All those items are not MLD "without a plan".
-
Common MLD complaint is the horrid slowdown of the game, in practice this has been erroneous. In practice, MLD causes VERY fast yes-no turns after use (did I draw a land? Yes? No? - That's my play then). Turns after MLD tend to swing blistering pace until someone comes back out on top again.
December 5, 2018 3:30 p.m.
I am a bit late to the party here, and have only skimmed the replies, so I'll probably be a bit repetitive. Still, this is a topic I've put a bit of thought into, so wanted to share my own points.
First, I don't have a problem with land destruction. In fact, in a very sadistic way, I enjoy playing against it. Land destruction, like any resource denial deck, is somewhat terrifying to play against--you're on a clock, and each turn, your enemy is slowly building up their resources, while you're increasingly stagnating. As the person against land destruction, I love how it forces me to think about my resources, carefully planning ahead, terrified those resources might suddenly vanish.
However, I understand the dislike others have for land destruction, and, in the interest of playing devils advocate to myself, am about to ramble a lot about why players see MLD as different from other control methods.
Speaking really generally, Magic has several different resources. In most games, there's the library, your life total, your graveyard, cards in your hand, cards on the stack, the command zone, nonland permanents on the battlefield, and lands (they're both on the battlefield, but fill very different roles, so I think it's fair to treat them as different resources). Some cards allow you to use cards in exile (ex. Squee, the Immortal) as a resource, and two (Darkpact and Jeweled Bird) allow you to use cards in the now-defunct Ante zone as a resource.
There exists denial of most all of these resources.
The library is the weakest resource--it generally doesn't do anything for you until those cards are actualized and put into your hand. Mill, and library exiling effects, can be considered "library denial." These strategies tend to be weak--you're not actively interacting with a resource that matters. It's a bit silly to get upset about being the target of library denial, as your opponent is only going after a weak resource--yes, they might sometimes hit your win condition, but they are also likely to miss it entirely--after all, they have very little control over what they're actually denying.
Life denial is pretty clear--combat damage and burn spells. If your deck is not prepared for life denial, you've made a serious miscalculation. This is, after all, probably the most common type of resource denial.
Graveyard denial exists in many forms, such as Tormod's Crypt. Not everyone uses the graveyard as a resource, and, those who do, need to be sure to protect against graveyard denial. If they don't, that's on them--not the person countering their strategy.
Cards in hand - Duress. This is another one which, like MLD, many players find problematic--after all, you are denying them a resource they know about, but have not yet been able to use. This is mitigated some because you always have your draw step, so can conceivably still win or get ahead before the card is discarded.
Spells on the stack - counterspells. Again, this is such a fundamental part of Magic, it's expected, and you need to be prepared for it. That it is expected weakens the sting of this form of denial.
Nonland permanents - removal of all sorts. Same as life loss and counterspells--this is just a fact of Magic.
Now, rambling aside, on to Land Destruction.
Land destruction is resource denial that is not common, so many decks are not prepared for it. Unlike life/nonland permanent/counterspell-based denial, you don't see MLD as often, so many players have not mentally sealed themselves for this form of denial.
Second, with other forms of denial, you are likely to draw into a card that will help you--lands make up less than 50% of the deck, so you are less likely to draw one and "catch up" after some of your lands are axed.
Further, unlike counterspells or discard, which are only useful at certain times (a spell worth countering on the stack/cards in hand), land destruction can, and should, always be played, meaning a land destruction card is never a dead draw and there's no skill to using it as you can't fire one off at an inopportune time (i.e. countering the wrong spell, leaving a player open to cast a bomb).
Finally, when your spell is countered, your one turn behind, but can catch up next turn. With MLD, you are perpetually one, then two, then three turns behind, lacking the mana to even make a measly turn 2 play on turn 6.
Anyway, that's a bit ramble-y, but here is the TL:DR:
The combination of its rarity makes MLD "sting" a lot more to players. The fact it is relevant and never a dead draw or misfire makes it feel oppressive, and like the MLD-user doesn't need any real skill. Players don't like feeling as if they are perpetually playing catch-up.
December 5, 2018 4:04 p.m.
All good SynergyBuild, there's no animosity here, and in fact if the shoes were on the other feet, I'd have called you out as well. In this case, I'd prefer to be viewed as an idiot rather than a liar though, as that is accurate in this case. Considering I only get the opportunity to play about every 4 weeks, I tend to remember a lot of the games most recently played, but in this case they definitely bled together, to epic failure effect. I'm sure my collection would choose another owner in a heartbeat if they had such a choice...my cards are really good, my ability to pilot them leaves a lot to be desired due to my limited play opportunities.
I also agree with Gleeock across their points as well, but as Icbrgr noted, the perception/psychology of the circumstances clouds the reality of MLD as a strategy. With the "keep away" analogy, I think the issue becomes that every non-land draw feels worse and worse, when even a brainstorm is unplayable if you lack a blue mana source. A signet remaining on the board is just a slap in the face...things like that which enhance the perception that MLD is worse, even when it's not compared to a root maze and derevi lock down or something similar.
To SynergyBuild's point, back in the unlimited to revised era, white weenie armageddon was totally a thing, and adding black for targeted sinkholes, strip mines, royal assassin, terror, swords to plowshares, etc. was tolerated way better than MLD is received today. I think another aspect of the issue that hasn't been discussed too much thus far is the fact that WoTC moved away from MLD spells being printed in any quantity, and becoming less viable in competitive scenarios, as any spells including the effect were also increased in CMC fairly significantly. When Ravages of War costs as much as two complete precon commander decks, you might assume that wizards has made the decision to abandon this strategy, which also further supports the perception. It's hard to make the same argument about combo when standard sets continue to pump out cards like walking ballista, paradox engine, felidar guardian and a slew of other infinite combo pieces.
It remains an interesting and enigmatic topic, but I wish more players would come around to embrace MLD as a play-style option, or at least accept the practice. I will also admit I fully do not expect that to occur.
December 5, 2018 4:18 p.m.
SynergyBuild says... #41
Azdranax sucks you can't play often I spend all of the free time I have on mtg, as little free time as it is. Sorry you get such little game in.
Glad we understand each other.
Good luck!
December 5, 2018 4:31 p.m.
Azdranax, I do agree on many fronts... However, I disagree that MLD is a no-choice play. Again, Atraxa is out? Self-sufficient permanents are out? A planeswalker is out?... These are all fantastic reasons to call MLD a dead draw & not the best choice. I have played some games where I end up never playing a MLD option the whole game because of these deterrents.
December 5, 2018 9:07 p.m.
I've even played a game where the player recognized the self-sufficiency of his board-state so he tried to goad me into popping the ability on Myojin of Infinite Rage by exiling him (I didn't, but that is what he was trying for :).
clayperce says... #2
It depends on the playgroup.
In kitchen-table magic, sometimes Labd Destruction is a little less fun than the group prefers.
In competitive Magic though, it's just a semi-busted strategy in a sea of busted strategies. Haters are gonna hate any deck that isn't theirs, and whiners gonna whine about any deck they don't want to bother figuring out how to beat.
December 3, 2018 6:06 a.m. Edited.