Land-destruction viable in Modern?

Modern forum

Posted on May 16, 2014, 3:04 p.m. by MagnusMTG

LD is pretty annoying, but I wanted to try it. I worry that it would be too slow - by the time I have enough mana to blow up lands, my opponent is already winning.

kintighd says... #2

I think you're on the right track when you say it's too slow. Maybe look up the blue moon deck lists. That was a control deck that tried to take advantage of all the fetch lands being played in the format right now.

May 16, 2014 3:28 p.m.

Servo_Token says... #3

I'd have to agree, blue moon is pretty much the only competitive viable version of LD right now. There's a RG version that is ok, but it flops to every combo deck save pod.

May 16, 2014 3:45 p.m.

beckhr says... #4

GW Hatebears leans on some land destruction.

May 16, 2014 4:16 p.m.

EvenDryke says... #5

Short answer: No.

Long answer: It doesn't work for the same reason discard doesn't work. You spend the bulk of your resources trying to Deprive your opponent of resources, meaning you aren't really doing anything yourself. Meanwhile your opponent IS doing things - and games of magic are won by doing things. Things and stuff.

May 16, 2014 5:29 p.m.

sylvannos says... #6

I was playing 4-Color Land Destruction for a while. The deck worked better when you had Deathrite Shaman to go with Birds of Paradise for the guaranteed turn two Stone Rain or Rain of Tears . The banning really hurt the deck.

May 16, 2014 5:47 p.m.

kintighd says... #7

Magic: the gathering a game of doing things and stuff.

May 16, 2014 5:48 p.m.

MagnusMTG says... #8

I made a LD-dedicated deck and tested it out. Turn 2 Stone Rain or Molten Rain after a turn 1 mana dork, then I was killing 1 or 2 lands each turn after that.

I wouldn't consider it competitive, but just for the lulz to test people's patience, it's pretty fun.


The Screw Playtest

Modern* MagnusMTG

SCORE: 0 | 0 COMMENTS | 4 VIEWS

May 16, 2014 10:26 p.m.

KingSorin says... #9

nickiru has made a pretty good land kill deck.

May 17, 2014 7:05 a.m.

This discussion has been closed