I want to know how everyone on this forum feels about Land Destruction in EDH. Specifically, I want to know what everyone's opinion regarding whether it should be banned or not is.
My personal take is that only the uncounterable variety (namely Obliterate and Decree of Annihilation) should be even considered for banning, as they are the most detrimental to games. All other varieties of Land Destruction are capable of being dealt with depending on what cards a given person who is sitting across from the Land Destruction player is playing.
I personally do not play Decree, or Obliterate, nor do I play Obliterate's little brother Jokulhaups. However I do feel that land destruction is a key strategy, especially in Red, and other colors that have access to it. As such I do not feel that it is a good idea to ban the strategy as a whole. However I want to see what everyone thinks on this issue.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero." -- Varsuvius, Order of the Stick
I do agree. If you ban Land Destruction most decks will become (even more) "mana ramp" style and the one with the most lands will win.
Moreover answers must be available against problematic lands that ruin full strategies or allow combos (Maze of ith, Bazaar of Baghdad, Tolarian academy, Gaea's cradle, Kor haven...).
Big land destruction spells are only "un-fun" to those that consider that lands as mana sources are a given during a whole game.
I couldn't agree more. My only stipulation, is that the uncounterable's are kind of unfun in that they present a challenge that is difficult to answer unless you are completely prepared for them prior to their being cast. Which is why I voted to ban the uncounterable ones.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero." -- Varsuvius, Order of the Stick
This argument seems rather moot since the un-banning of Crucible of Worlds. It along with cards Life From The Loam and re-shuffle effects all make these strategies balanced in EDH. If land destruction is very rampant in your meta then you need to design your decks accordingly and play smarter (holding excess lands and such).
This argument seems rather moot since the un-banning of Crucible of Worlds. It along with cards Life From The Loam and re-shuffle effects all make these strategies balanced in EDH. If land destruction is very rampant in your meta then you need to design your decks accordingly and play smarter (holding excess lands and such).
um... actually, Life from the Loam and Crucible of Worlds... make the most powerful land destruction lock down in the game possible, especially when combined with the cards Fastbond and Zuran Orb. I don't see how anyone can claim these cards make land destruction "balanced"? The only thing they really do, is allow the decks that run them, to run more powerful land based strategies, or to run more powerful land destruction strategies themselves.
And those decks that do run them so that they can run against land destruction, need to get these cards out before some mass land destruction effect screws them over in the first place. Otherwise they don't stand a chance.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero." -- Varsuvius, Order of the Stick
So are you saying that you can't use those cards against land destruction strategies because they can also help those strategies? I'm not sure I understand your position.
Teferi decks packed with counters (and consequently uncounterable stuff due to Teferi) are unfun too... Obliterate answers that.
One of the strength of red is its uncounterable stuff: banning it is nerfing one of the 5 colors. You'd be fair by banning at the same time card draw which allows for too much broken things... (do you see my point?)
yeah I suppose I do....
As for my point Skumbunny, no, I did not mean to imply that you cannot use those strategies against land destruction. Just that more often they will be used to enhance land destruction.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero." -- Varsuvius, Order of the Stick
When you say 'land destruction,' you mean universal land destruction, yes? Just things that sweep all or many lands, not pinpoint land removal. Because that would be silly.
My area has banned Armageddon effects from casual play, which is how we usually play EDH. If any of you find it really annoying, I suggest running Oath of Lieges... it helps EVERYONE dig back out, and makes you a lot of friends at the table to boot :D.
Mass land destruction is lame, totally unfun, drags games out by like 30 minutes, and I would never play with it simply as a matter of principle. However, I don't think it should be banned. I think there is a place for unfun griefer cards.
What I don't like is when people group "nonbasic land destruction" with "land destruction." There's an easy way to get around that people. *rolls eyes* I haven't played against much land destruction, but I feel that it shouldn't be banned simply because it's "unfun." Currently the "unfun" list includes, but is not limited to:
Counterspells
Land Destruction
Discard
... And more. Should we ban all of them? Also, if you run any of these in multiplayer groups, politics will fight against you.
I dislike mass land destruction for reasons alot have stated in multiplayer casual: It drags the games out way too much. I understand that it can be a viable strategy (non-land mana, board wipe+fatty etc) but too often when I see it is just done for kicks, and I dislike having the game essentially start over again while people once again build up their mana.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH Decks:
Halfdane Sek'Kuar
Please remember to autocard, just do [ card ] CARD NAME [ / card ] and for decks you can cover the whole thing in one deck tag like this: [ deck ] All of the cards in the deck [ / deck ]
Legacy/Vintage GWREnchanted Eve (building) ~ BPoxy Pox
Standard WUMeow-Go~BU Infection
Casual BWAngel Doom ~ GRWWarpride ~ WGUStoic Control (ARG)
EDH BRGWUScion of the Ur-Dragon ~ BSiezan, The Perverter of Truth ~ W 8.5 Tails (needs work) All my Decks.
the game is full of checks and balances across colors and strategies. land destruction essentially accomplishes the same thing as counter magic does, denying a play.
i myself am a control player who enjoys the denial aspect of blue, and i recognize that i am no different than a control player who would rather destroy the enemy's mana sources.
as far as uncounterable land destruction goes, there are as many options for countering it as there are for playing it. Venser, Shaper Savant and Time Stop. While venser is just a stall, it gives you and any other player another turn to stop the person who wanted to blow up the land.
and lest we forget, Sacred Ground stops land destruction cold.
there are only 2 land destruction cards worth banning in my opinion and they already are: Balance and Limited Resources
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Selling Foil Fetchlands, Judge Promos, and MORE HERE
Well, honestly, I'd only play Decree of Annnihilation if I were going to win with Barren Glory. I think the unfunness of mass land destruction would be countered by the coolness of actually seeing someone win with that thing once. I have to wonder why it's not banned like Biorythm is, though. It's 2 cards and 16 mana, but Biorythm is likely at least 3 cards and 13 mana. It's not likely that anyone's going to do anything relevant before your next upkeep with no permanents besides enchantments and walkers and one randomly drawn card.
My point of view is mostly from 1v1 and I don't see a problem with LD. Just because something isn't fun to deal with doesn't make it ban worthy. An EDH deck is supposed to be ready for anything and still have a winning strategy. Take Zur for example, once he has vanishing on him its most likely game over regardless of LD. Use Turn to Mist on one of your creatures before everything goes boom. Just try to think of anti-board-sweeper strategies. Braids doesn't need to worry about LD either since she can probably lock all of her opponent's before they can even play any LD. As others have said there are ways to get back your lands if your that dependant on them via Life from the Loam, Crucible of Worlds, Land Tax, and Fastbond + any of the prior 3 cards.
There are many ways to make the game "un-fun" for others (i.e. Erayo, Soratami Ascendant + Arcane Laboratory or Capsize + Sol Ring + Mana Crypt + 2 Islands) but thats just something you have to deal with. If your playgroup agrees that they want to ban it thats fine but I certainly don't believe LD needs to be banned for all of EDH.
For multiplayer EDH I understand that players want to have fun and I see where you're coming from. My first experience in multiplayer EDH was that I lost to a crappy EDH deck because our friend playing Jhoira didn't want to die by my hands and played Obliterate leaving the Bolas player ready to win since he had resolved his Nicol Bolas planeswalker the turn before. It made the game exceedingly dumb for the rest of the table as we watched Bolas blow up land after land and then just kill each of us 1 at a time. I could maybe agree that Obliterate merits banning in the multiplayer format but only for being uncounterable. Again though there are some options out there that could help persuade your opponent not to play Obliterate like Penumbra Wurm.
My personal take is that only the uncounterable variety (namely Obliterate and Decree of Annihilation) should be even considered for banning, as they are the most detrimental to games. All other varieties of Land Destruction are capable of being dealt with depending on what cards a given person who is sitting across from the Land Destruction player is playing.
I personally do not play Decree, or Obliterate, nor do I play Obliterate's little brother Jokulhaups. However I do feel that land destruction is a key strategy, especially in Red, and other colors that have access to it. As such I do not feel that it is a good idea to ban the strategy as a whole. However I want to see what everyone thinks on this issue.
I couldn't agree more. My only stipulation, is that the uncounterable's are kind of unfun in that they present a challenge that is difficult to answer unless you are completely prepared for them prior to their being cast. Which is why I voted to ban the uncounterable ones.
um... actually, Life from the Loam and Crucible of Worlds... make the most powerful land destruction lock down in the game possible, especially when combined with the cards Fastbond and Zuran Orb. I don't see how anyone can claim these cards make land destruction "balanced"? The only thing they really do, is allow the decks that run them, to run more powerful land based strategies, or to run more powerful land destruction strategies themselves.
And those decks that do run them so that they can run against land destruction, need to get these cards out before some mass land destruction effect screws them over in the first place. Otherwise they don't stand a chance.
yeah I suppose I do....
As for my point Skumbunny, no, I did not mean to imply that you cannot use those strategies against land destruction. Just that more often they will be used to enhance land destruction.
My area has banned Armageddon effects from casual play, which is how we usually play EDH. If any of you find it really annoying, I suggest running Oath of Lieges... it helps EVERYONE dig back out, and makes you a lot of friends at the table to boot :D.
Trades
Articles
Winner of SSC 1 & ">3 & 6
Counterspells
Land Destruction
Discard
... And more. Should we ban all of them? Also, if you run any of these in multiplayer groups, politics will fight against you.
GX Tron XG
UR Phoenix RU
GG Freyalise High Tide GG
UR Parun Counterspells RU
BB Yawgmoth Token Storm BB
WB Pestilence BW
Halfdane
Sek'Kuar
Please remember to autocard, just do [ card ] CARD NAME [ / card ] and for decks you can cover the whole thing in one deck tag like this: [ deck ] All of the cards in the deck [ / deck ]
Flavour-Deckbuilder of the Flittering Clique
The [Pack] My Trade List
Cardshark IS AWESOME!
Trade me Crusaders?
GWREnchanted Eve (building) ~ BPoxy Pox
Standard
WUMeow-Go~BU Infection
Casual
BWAngel Doom ~ GRWWarpride ~ WGUStoic Control (ARG)
EDH
BRGWUScion of the Ur-Dragon ~ BSiezan, The Perverter of Truth ~ W 8.5 Tails (needs work)
All my Decks.
i myself am a control player who enjoys the denial aspect of blue, and i recognize that i am no different than a control player who would rather destroy the enemy's mana sources.
as far as uncounterable land destruction goes, there are as many options for countering it as there are for playing it. Venser, Shaper Savant and Time Stop. While venser is just a stall, it gives you and any other player another turn to stop the person who wanted to blow up the land.
and lest we forget, Sacred Ground stops land destruction cold.
there are only 2 land destruction cards worth banning in my opinion and they already are: Balance and Limited Resources
I don't care if they ban it, but I don't use mass LD in my decks. If someone regularly started using it against me, I'd stop playing against them.
I do not have a problem with balanced cards like Realm Razer. Stuff like Obliterate though was around before EDH was even a consideration.
There are many ways to make the game "un-fun" for others (i.e. Erayo, Soratami Ascendant + Arcane Laboratory or Capsize + Sol Ring + Mana Crypt + 2 Islands) but thats just something you have to deal with. If your playgroup agrees that they want to ban it thats fine but I certainly don't believe LD needs to be banned for all of EDH.
For multiplayer EDH I understand that players want to have fun and I see where you're coming from. My first experience in multiplayer EDH was that I lost to a crappy EDH deck because our friend playing Jhoira didn't want to die by my hands and played Obliterate leaving the Bolas player ready to win since he had resolved his Nicol Bolas planeswalker the turn before. It made the game exceedingly dumb for the rest of the table as we watched Bolas blow up land after land and then just kill each of us 1 at a time. I could maybe agree that Obliterate merits banning in the multiplayer format but only for being uncounterable. Again though there are some options out there that could help persuade your opponent not to play Obliterate like Penumbra Wurm.