Lands are restricted to one per turn to limit the tempo of the game. Resetting the tempo back to zero without a clear victory in sight is to reset the entire game. Nobody can execute a game plan, it's not interesting or fun. One beginning is enough for most games.
Wiping out creatures, artifacts, enchantments, or a graveyard is different, people still have resources and can restore their board state or increase their resources as fast as they are able to. A single good topdeck could produce a nice new interesting game plan for the player. It alters the tempo of the game, but not nearly so dramatically as a land wipe does.
Two things.
1) Taking this rationale to its logical end (i.e., that MLD is bad because it alters the one-land-per-turn tempo) demands that any effect that accelerates acquisition of land must be considered bad. For the same reason. So if you soft-ban MLD for this rationale, then you must soft-ban Boundless Realms as well.
2) If we view post-MLD as a new beginning, then what is the fundamental difference between that scenario and someone's winning that turn through a massive burn spell? What makes "start building from zero resources" fun on the one hand and craptastic on the other? I honestly can't even begin to empathize, because I can't at any level see how Devastation Tide+Sunder is phenomenologically worse than Krenko, Mob Boss->a billionty damages.
This is getting a bit silly. Really? No lands = Too many lands?
What "massive burn spell" wins with 4-mana? I mean, come on now, you can't seriously believe anything you just typed.
Are you incapable of parsing a syllogism?
His argument:
1) if x significantly alters the land-per-turn tempo, then x is bad.
This is his assumed premise. It is controversial and not agreed upon, so to show it false I presume it true and derive an absurdity.
1) if x significantly alters the land-per-turn tempo, then x is bad.
2) Boundless Realms significantly alters the land-per-turn tempo
3) Boundless Realms is bad
We know (3) is absurd, so we must reject (1)
Note that I am not arguing in favor of MLD, merely showing that his was a poor argument against it.
As for there being a four mana burn spell that ends the game, the mana cost of the MLD was not previously at issue, so why should we be concerned with the cost of the burn spell?
Lands are restricted to one per turn to limit the tempo of the game. Resetting the tempo back to zero without a clear victory in sight is to reset the entire game. Nobody can execute a game plan, it's not interesting or fun. One beginning is enough for most games.
Wiping out creatures, artifacts, enchantments, or a graveyard is different, people still have resources and can restore their board state or increase their resources as fast as they are able to. A single good topdeck could produce a nice new interesting game plan for the player. It alters the tempo of the game, but not nearly so dramatically as a land wipe does.
Two things.
1) Taking this rationale to its logical end (i.e., that MLD is bad because it alters the one-land-per-turn tempo) demands that any effect that accelerates acquisition of land must be considered bad. For the same reason. So if you soft-ban MLD for this rationale, then you must soft-ban Boundless Realms as well.
2) If we view post-MLD as a new beginning, then what is the fundamental difference between that scenario and someone's winning that turn through a massive burn spell? What makes "start building from zero resources" fun on the one hand and craptastic on the other? I honestly can't even begin to empathize, because I can't at any level see how Devastation Tide+Sunder is phenomenologically worse than Krenko, Mob Boss->a billionty damages.
Are you incapable of parsing a syllogism?
His argument:
1) if x significantly alters the land-per-turn tempo, then x is bad.
This is his assumed premise. It is controversial and not agreed upon, so to show it false I presume it true and derive an absurdity.
1) if x significantly alters the land-per-turn tempo, then x is bad.
2) Boundless Realms significantly alters the land-per-turn tempo
3) Boundless Realms is bad
We know (3) is absurd, so we must reject (1)
Note that I am not arguing in favor of MLD, merely showing that his was a poor argument against it.
As for there being a four mana burn spell that ends the game, the mana cost of the MLD was not previously at issue, so why should we be concerned with the cost of the burn spell?
Two things.
1) Taking this rationale to its logical end (i.e., that MLD is bad because it alters the one-land-per-turn tempo) demands that any effect that accelerates acquisition of land must be considered bad. For the same reason. So if you soft-ban MLD for this rationale, then you must soft-ban Boundless Realms as well.
2) If we view post-MLD as a new beginning, then what is the fundamental difference between that scenario and someone's winning that turn through a massive burn spell? What makes "start building from zero resources" fun on the one hand and craptastic on the other? I honestly can't even begin to empathize, because I can't at any level see how Devastation Tide+Sunder is phenomenologically worse than Krenko, Mob Boss->a billionty damages.