Over the last few days, Stensia Innkeeper has been one of the more prominent topics at MaRo's tumblr. It's been clear for some time now that R&D considers traditional LD unfun and therefore won't print any efficient LD cards. Now they are experimenting with new forms of mana denial for red, trying to find something that wouldn't be so oppressive.
I personally love LD. I enjoy playing with and against mana denial (just knowing there's a mana denial deck in your meta adds a very interesting facet to deckbuilding for me). I understand why people think it's unfun, just like I understand why some people don't like having their cards discarded or spells countered. However, I firmly believe that efficient LD should be a part of Magic, just like efficient counterspells and discard.
I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority here, I just want to know how much of a minority it is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
standard: BUG The Baron (it doesn't work, but I try anyway)
Land Destruction is one of Red's niche roles, and the lack of it over the last few years shows a surprising unwillingness on R&D to push the boundaries within Red's general role as the colour of destruction. I firmly believe that hyper-efficient cards like Sinkhole & Armageddon should be the near-exclusive purview of Red.
I highly dislike Stensia Innkeeper, the effect feels too much like something Blue and/or White would do. The 3/3 body is good enough, but simply tapping a land and forcing it to remain untapped for a turn is underwhelming. Especially for a colour known to deal direct damage in some shape or form. Perhaps if an effect had been included that dealt damage to that lands controller after becoming untapped I'd be less sour. As it stands, meh.
I like the idea of lands being a resource that is targetable like life totals, creatures, or your ability to play spells. Like anything else, I wouldn't mind it being balanced out through answers and the like, but that ability to target a resource in of itself is something that should be one of many strategies available to us.
(Outside of modern, Standard and the like, thinking more casual/not so structured play with older cards for a moment... I love how Painter's Servant not specifying "nonland" permanents allows you to bring land destruction down to Rper land if you use Pyroblast, Red Elemental Blast, and Active Volcano (or U if you name blue, use Hydroblast and Blue Elemental Blast). I also love that at the same time, P.S makes it so pretty much any spell that does not have split second, or "can not be countered" can be countered for R using Pyroblast, and Red Elemental Blast (or U if you name blue, use Hydroblast and Blue Elemental Blast)... but then again, I learned how to play from people who like shenanigans, so no wonder stupid stuff like that amuses me. )
I learned to play in a meta where Winter Orb, Stasis and, to a lesser degree,Armageddon were nasty things to worry about. That was a long time ago.
The new meta seems fun, but it kind of annoys me when newer players complain about a deck with Force of Will trumps their carefully structured first or second turn spell or when a Lightning bolt wipes out one of their creatures. But then the same people gloat when they get infinite mana (can't remember the combo pair off the top of my head) or drop an Eldrazi through some cheap shenanigans.
I get that people want to have fun, but that nonsense isn't a one way street. I don't get upset when my opponent successfully plays Emrakul, the Promised End and makes my game miserable.
It should exist to provide an answer to manlands and ramp decks, but I don't think a deck that goes all-in on LD (imagine something like 20 LD spells main) is healthy for a format.
I think the challenge is printing a spell that mostly counters ramp decks (like, say, Ancient Grudge vs artifacts or Rest in Peace vs graveyards) without it simply *****ting on "fair" decks playing three colors.
Land destruction is fine.
multiple efficient LD effects in the same meta is not.
I mean, a little land destruction that allows you to target a couple problematic lands or set your opponent back a turn or two is ok.
Enough land destruction to make an entire deck that will use LD as it's primary strategy.
decks that are full LD will ALWAYS end up frustrating someone.
when it works, it frustrates the opponent, when it doesn't it frustrates it's player.
there's simply no way to have a good mtg match againt a deck with 24 LD spells... every match will suck because one of the players simply won't matter.
I don't mind LD decks in casual as long as the LD deck has a viable win condition. If I have a deck that can't reasonably respond to your LD spells and I then have to wait until you lay your 8th land until you get comfortable enough to start going after my life total, well I just don't have the patience for that. One of the guys I play with regularly had an LD deck. Once he destroyed my first land I usually announced "You have 5 turns to kill me". And if he didn't, I conceded. Others we played adopted that philosophy and soon enough he got sick the constant no joy.
Ponza was my favorite deck back in the Uzra's/Masques Type 2. I wish decks like that still existed. On the other hand, I understand why many folks dislike mana denial.
I do like the design of the card, and I hope that in the future they expand upon it in higher rarities. I think a single LD spell at 3cmc is fair in standard, with the rest being 4+. Even if it just hits nonbasics.
I play commander as my main format, and I'm in a situation where budget commander is the only real option to me. It's a format where turns can take a long time, which allows for great socialisation around a game, but can and frequently does devolve into watching one guy play solitaire for 10-30 minutes. Anything that encourages this kind of solitaire play, I find personally annoying. This has become a far too common story for me: After suffering through agonising mana-screw or colour-screw, waiting to finally hit that critical land drop and actually get into the game, only to have that key land destroyed. The first few times it happened, I suffered through several more turns of draw-discard-go before someone put me out of my misery and we got to shuffle up another game. The next few times, I scooped after the LD, chatted with the guys as they played, and watched from the sidelines. Lately, it's one of the reasons why I only make it a point go meet up with my playgroup when they're drafting the cube (which, incidentally, does not feature LD). Let it be noted, that I am the king of negative variance; my decks might be made of 95% commons and uncommons, my rares are usually jank, and almost none of my cards are worth much on the secondary market, but I make absolutely sure to keep my balance of spells, creatures and lands as statistically perfect as possible. All my games aren't ruined by LD, but I've never been on the receiving end of it where I didn't end up a bored spectator. The problem with efficient LD is not that it's just "feel bad." Countermagic is "feel bad" too, but they continue to print Cancel variants. Efficient LD has a magnitude of "feel bad" that few other mechanics have in Magic. While resource attack should be a viable tactic, lands, more than any other resource, are already at the mercy of variance. You don't need LD to get "feel bad" about lands, and when LD combines with unfortunate variance, it goes from "feel bad" to rubbing salt in a wound. If variance wasn't so powerful force in Magic, then traditional LD wouldn't be as hated. But variance can't viably be changed in the game. The Stensia Innkeeper effect feels weird in red, and I don't think that's where mana denial will ultimately end up, but I think it's a step in the right direction. I'd like to see an experiment with a Path to Exile effect for lands. It could be effective at removing powerful lands without completely breaking a mana- or colour-screwed player's capability to recover.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A polite player might call my card choices "interesting." At my budget, "interesting" is the only option.
I stopped playing standard after they quit printing wastelands, ghost quarters, tec edges, and stone rains and allowed a more greedy mana base than ever before. While my decks were never full of land destruction, there was enough of it to punish players runnin more than 2 colors.
My opinion is probably colored because in standard at least, I typically like to play R/B midrange or other non green/white based midrange. Mana denial is back breaking. In modern, it's less oppressive since everything is so efficient.
It's right up there with counter spells with being strategies that irk some people like no other. The both do the same thing. Rather than going tit for tat with the opp, only 1 person gets to play magic. In fact, you could argue it's worse because the opp will eventually run out of counters but if you have two key lands destroyed, you may never cast another spell.
This is the reason I don't think we'll ever see land destruction under 4 mana again, unless it has a big downside.
Here's what I would like: one playable LD card that discourages a total mana-denial strategy. Something like:
Thinkhole RR
Destroy target land. Thinkhole does 2 damage to you for each land card in that player's graveyard.
I like it. Would never see play in modern because of fetch lands. I would change it though to deal 2 damage regardless of lands in GY. So word it like "Pay 2 life. Pay 2 more life for each land in target opponents graveyard. Destroy target land". Getting 1 free 2 mana land destruction is OP IMO.
Or, get creative and make it "RR Pay 2 Life Destroy Target Land. That person gets XYZ artifact that can tap for any color of mana you decide. Color cannot already be a color another XYZ Artifact already produces "
I like that it's an option, because that increases the mechanical depth of the game. I know a lot of people dislike it, because it's an extreme example of a "no fun" strategy, but removing the strategy altogether makes for a more shallow game.
The game should have more depth than turning creatures sideways and occasionally casting a counter or burn spell.
I personally love LD. I enjoy playing with and against mana denial (just knowing there's a mana denial deck in your meta adds a very interesting facet to deckbuilding for me). I understand why people think it's unfun, just like I understand why some people don't like having their cards discarded or spells countered. However, I firmly believe that efficient LD should be a part of Magic, just like efficient counterspells and discard.
I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority here, I just want to know how much of a minority it is.
BUG The Baron (it doesn't work, but I try anyway)
modern:
RGShaman Aggro
legacy:
UHigh Tide
German highlander:
BUG aggro control
EDH:
a positively unhealthy amount of decks
As Counterspell & Control Magic are iconic for Blue; Lightning Bolt & Ruination needs to be the spotlight for Red.
I highly dislike Stensia Innkeeper, the effect feels too much like something Blue and/or White would do. The 3/3 body is good enough, but simply tapping a land and forcing it to remain untapped for a turn is underwhelming. Especially for a colour known to deal direct damage in some shape or form. Perhaps if an effect had been included that dealt damage to that lands controller after becoming untapped I'd be less sour. As it stands, meh.
Land Destruction is both tactical and annoying as hell; no different from a Counterspell. It's a legitimate strategy and not supporting it further limits Red's role within the game. I want more Wildfire, Mudhole, Price of Progress, Lava Blister & Impending Disaster.
(Outside of modern, Standard and the like, thinking more casual/not so structured play with older cards for a moment... I love how Painter's Servant not specifying "nonland" permanents allows you to bring land destruction down to Rper land if you use Pyroblast, Red Elemental Blast, and Active Volcano (or U if you name blue, use Hydroblast and Blue Elemental Blast). I also love that at the same time, P.S makes it so pretty much any spell that does not have split second, or "can not be countered" can be countered for R using Pyroblast, and Red Elemental Blast (or U if you name blue, use Hydroblast and Blue Elemental Blast)... but then again, I learned how to play from people who like shenanigans, so no wonder stupid stuff like that amuses me. )
The new meta seems fun, but it kind of annoys me when newer players complain about a deck with Force of Will trumps their carefully structured first or second turn spell or when a Lightning bolt wipes out one of their creatures. But then the same people gloat when they get infinite mana (can't remember the combo pair off the top of my head) or drop an Eldrazi through some cheap shenanigans.
I get that people want to have fun, but that nonsense isn't a one way street. I don't get upset when my opponent successfully plays Emrakul, the Promised End and makes my game miserable.
I think the challenge is printing a spell that mostly counters ramp decks (like, say, Ancient Grudge vs artifacts or Rest in Peace vs graveyards) without it simply *****ting on "fair" decks playing three colors.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
multiple efficient LD effects in the same meta is not.
I mean, a little land destruction that allows you to target a couple problematic lands or set your opponent back a turn or two is ok.
Enough land destruction to make an entire deck that will use LD as it's primary strategy.
for short, having Pillage is fine... having Pillage, Stone Rain, Molten Rain and Boom // Bust in the same environment is not.
decks that are full LD will ALWAYS end up frustrating someone.
when it works, it frustrates the opponent, when it doesn't it frustrates it's player.
there's simply no way to have a good mtg match againt a deck with 24 LD spells... every match will suck because one of the players simply won't matter.
Thinkhole
RR
Destroy target land. Thinkhole does 2 damage to you for each land card in that player's graveyard.
It's right up there with counter spells with being strategies that irk some people like no other. The both do the same thing. Rather than going tit for tat with the opp, only 1 person gets to play magic. In fact, you could argue it's worse because the opp will eventually run out of counters but if you have two key lands destroyed, you may never cast another spell.
This is the reason I don't think we'll ever see land destruction under 4 mana again, unless it has a big downside.
I like it. Would never see play in modern because of fetch lands. I would change it though to deal 2 damage regardless of lands in GY. So word it like "Pay 2 life. Pay 2 more life for each land in target opponents graveyard. Destroy target land". Getting 1 free 2 mana land destruction is OP IMO.
Or, get creative and make it "RR Pay 2 Life Destroy Target Land. That person gets XYZ artifact that can tap for any color of mana you decide. Color cannot already be a color another XYZ Artifact already produces "
The game should have more depth than turning creatures sideways and occasionally casting a counter or burn spell.
Death and Taxes
Pauper
UB Teachings
Tortured Existence
Murasa Tron
Modern
Pod (RIP)
Bloom(RIP)
Merfolk