Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-May-22 10:01 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Why do people irrationally hate some MLD and not others?
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-03 5:17 pm 

Joined: 2015-Apr-01 9:35 am
Age: Wyvern
So here's the situation. 3 player game, I got screwed out of black mana, other person got screwed out of mana period. Captain Sissay deck kind of ran away with the game for a bit, ramped like 17 lands by turn 7 (technically 6), had a few creatures (it got hit with a board wipe once) and had just tutored up an Eldrazi and something else to play next turn.

I have an exile effect in hand that can deal with the Eldrazi. Problem, I need black to do it an I only have one black mana source. Worse, the Eldrazi is Ulamog and the guy knows my mana is vulnerable. Here's how this goes (I know how this goes because I've lost to this deck many times before I built my current one): Cast Ulamog, target swamp, equip boots to Ulamog, swing, annihilate my lands. With me out of the picture and the other guy screwed out of something, he then swings at the other guy, blows up HIS lands and that's basically game while we wait for our health to be whittled down.

Screw that. If I know my lands are on the chopping block, I'm striking first and I'm striking hard. I play Sensei's Divining Top, Gift of Estates to get 3 plains into my hand (R/W shock, B/W shock, plains) and cast Armageddon. No Eldrazi cast, no cast trigger. The other guy who had 6 lands to his name scoops and says he won't play with anyone who uses Armageddon.

To preface, yes I'm aware that Armageddon can be used to durdle and just stop the game, and I also know how to use it responsibly. i'd never use it if I didn't have 3 land and on curve productive things to do with that land to get back to a win condition. The third guy had the highest chance of anyone at the table of getting lands and bouncing back due to having drawn few all game, so he probably had the most to gain from this change in game state. The whole thing makes no sense.

Why are Eldrazi nukes OK, but pre-emptive resource denial to stop such blowouts frowned upon? What am I supposed to do, see open mana and a revealed Eldrazi and just surrender? I don't think that's ideal, I do think there needs to be an outlet for punishing greedy manabases, this thing makes no sense.


Last edited by Logos89 on 2015-Oct-04 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why do people irrationally hate some MLD and not others?
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-03 5:54 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2015-Sep-28 11:55 am
Age: Wyvern
First off, "irrationally" is pretty inflammatory. MLD hate is quite rational -- people like to play Magic. People hate MLD because it stops players from playing Magic for the next 6-7 turns if not the rest of the game. Full stop, no more interaction. Period.

While Ulamog (and annihilator triggers in general) can have the same effect as MLD, that's A) not a guarantee and B) ten friggin' mana and C) attached to a creature that can in theory be answered with something beyond just a well-timed counterspell. While this specific situation ended up with the same effect, there were more opportunities to stop it, and Ulamog isn't always swinging into an empty board. I still dislike playing legendary Eldrazi personally because any annihilator more than 2 I find obnoxious, even annihilator 4 often just eats tokens or artifacts in Commander.

Also, casting MLD on turn 8-10 is way different than casting it on turn 4 while rigging it so you'd have enough land while everyone else starved. Someone punched you in the face kinda hard, so you decided to cut everyone in half with a chainsaw. For what little it's worth, I wouldn't play with you either.

_________________
"I'd rather lose an awesome game than win a boring one."

Decks:
Karrthus, Jund Cena
Hazezon Tamar, Token Spammer
Jeleva, Herald of Cruel Ultimatums


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why do people irrationally hate some MLD and not others?
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-03 7:48 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Sep-15 5:03 am
Age: Dragon
Tbh, eating an Eldrazi could be less painful then playing with 0 lands (especially if you have no lands in hand) against a guy who has 3 lands and can use divining top to make sure he gets more land drops...
Eating an Eldrazi is a quicker death.

_________________
Sid the Chicken wrote:
Curse of the Swine is like the unholy love child of Terastodon and Dregs of Sorrow. AND it makes bacon!


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why do people irrationally hate some MLD and not others?
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-03 8:19 pm 

Joined: 2008-Aug-08 6:34 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Rouen, France
I have no issue whatsoever playing against MLD if the person weilding it (or another player) can win quickly in the aftermath. I do have an issue with a random Obliterate because "I need time to build up my hand"

_________________
Current decks:
Sydri's random pile of cards with "Artifact" on them
Scarab God Zombie Horde
Atraxa Superfriends
Yidris Eldrazi (4C Devoid)
Sissay Angel Oath
Wort's Goblin Conspiracy
Gonti's Mega-Bouncy Castle


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why do people irrationally hate some MLD and not others?
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-03 11:41 pm 

Joined: 2009-May-05 9:45 pm
Age: Dragon
Location: Acworth, GA
Honestly, Logos, I agree with you that there is no real difference. Armageddon is a prison card, so are Eldrazi with annihilator. The difference between us, however, is that I see no place for any prison cards in a casual game. The whole point of prison is to deny your opponents the ability to play, which is very close to denying them the opportunity to have fun to most people.

_________________
Well, that was special.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why do people irrationally hate some MLD and not others?
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-04 12:40 am 

Joined: 2012-Sep-19 2:29 pm
Age: Wyvern
Location: Brazil
I see MLD as a classic strategy that needs to be played wisely and sparsely. If a deck does MLD, fine, it will live with the stigma. Cause people will feel bad about an armageddon even if it was a wincon. The Eldrazi in there... Well.. Concede and go to another game where maybe you guys wouldnt be mana screwed?
Now, I am against LD in our group, unless its a wincon. Dedicated LD decks appear from time to time, but it takes 2-3,games until it gets old.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why do people irrationally hate some MLD and not others?
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-04 4:19 am 

Joined: 2015-Apr-01 9:35 am
Age: Wyvern
trdl23 wrote:
First off, "irrationally" is pretty inflammatory. MLD hate is quite rational


I didn't say hate for all MLD is irrational. I claimed that hating some forms of MLD while giving others a free pass is irrational.

trdl23 wrote:
People hate MLD because it stops players from playing Magic for the next 6-7 turns if not the rest of the game. Full stop, no more interaction. Period.


Depends on the board set up, but you're right for a majority of games.

trdl23 wrote:
A) not a guarantee


In this game it was, hence my call to look at the game state as a whole before whining about a card that would put you in the same position the Eldrazi did, but would give you a statistically higher fighting chance.

trdl23 wrote:
B) ten friggin' mana


Peanuts to any green deck that knows how to build. Also my set up took 7 and didn't blowout the game near as hard.

trdl23 wrote:
attached to a creature that can in theory be answered with something beyond just a well-timed counterspell.


The annihilator would trigger on cast, and the other card he tutored for was Dramoka. Dramoka into Ulamog, into Avacyn / Kozilek next turn.

trdl23 wrote:
I still dislike playing legendary Eldrazi personally because any annihilator more than 2 I find obnoxious, even annihilator 4 often just eats tokens or artifacts in Commander.


That's what board wipes are for I guess. He does have indestructible.

sir squab wrote:
Tbh, eating an Eldrazi could be less painful then playing with 0 lands


He'd have had 2-3 lands one round from now and was having trouble playing things on curve at 6. Functionally, there would have been no difference except it takes 2 less turns for a guaranteed kill, vs a game that could still go to anyone, but is less likely to go to the guy that pulled over half the lands out of his deck that's still 2/3 full.

trdl23 wrote:
Someone punched you in the face kinda hard, so you decided to cut everyone in half with a chainsaw. For what little it's worth, I wouldn't play with you either.


Here are the facts. In 2 turns everyone has zero lands, starting with me because I'm the biggest threat. The fact that you would say game state 1 is "getting punched kinda hard" whereas game state 2 is "getting cut in half with a chainsaw" while both game states feature an identical board for all but one player (the one who's winning and not the one who complained) but also features a statistically higher chance of the game being turned around for the 2 who have been missing land drops for a chunk of the game, is what I'm talking about. Any statistically sane person would switch the two outcomes. State 1 is one player cutting two in half with a chainsaw, state 2 is player 1 getting cut in half with a chainsaw and roundhouse kicking the other two players in the face.

sir squab wrote:
Eating an Eldrazi is a quicker death.


But a guaranteed one. Why are people so quick to turn MtG into a $400 coin toss, and why are ramp strategies which regularly create these game states allowed and applauded, while their natural punishments, low curve efficient resource denial strategies, are hated? I see people complain on this forum ALL THE TIME about early game combo, green in general, profit of Kruphix, and all sorts of other complaints from week to week which boil down to people trying to creatively race ramp decks.

zimagic wrote:
I have no issue whatsoever playing against MLD if the person weilding it (or another player) can win quickly in the aftermath. I do have an issue with a random Obliterate because "I need time to build up my hand"


Why are MLD's implicitly assumed to be game ending cards? Should it not be a viable strategy to wait for a ramp player to get greedy, play few lands, and punish them for being greedy? We're talking the ability to play an Eldrazi on turn 4-5 greedy here, not someone who merely gets 1-2 ahead of curve. MLD on such a slight difference is a dick move, because it doesn't significantly counter the strategy employed by any player, it just trolls and makes everyone restart the game at no advantage to the user.

Buthrakaur wrote:
Honestly, Logos, I agree with you that there is no real difference.


Thank you!

Buthrakaur wrote:
The difference between us, however, is that I see no place for any prison cards in a casual game.


Well, I agree with you. I build my deck with the understanding that I can't always control who I play against. Out of 3 games played with the deck, I only used MLD on the one and only because we were looking at one player with 17 lands while I just hit 7. It was either lose or use the natural counter to the strategy of this player, knowing that 2 other players gained from it via the fact they were behind in lands played, so they were getting lands to field quickly. It was a statistical necessity.

Buthrakaur wrote:
The whole point of prison is to deny your opponents the ability to play, which is very close to denying them the opportunity to have fun to most people.


At 10/11 mana you're starting to look at things that just "end the game" anyway though. Burn spells, combos, Eldrazi, etc. Abstractly I make no distinction between 10 mana used to fuel doubling cube + tap/untap effects + burn spell to blowout the table, or an Eldrazi with artifact support, or MLD -> ramp -> commander with haste to swing out the game. One way or another, very soon, the game is just going to end. That's the natural progression of the game.

Morfeatire wrote:
I see MLD as a classic strategy that needs to be played wisely and sparsely.


Agreed.

Morfeatire wrote:
The Eldrazi in there... Well.. Concede and go to another game where maybe you guys wouldnt be mana screwed?


Obviously I acknowledge this as an option. I'm here to suggest that this way of thinking benefits exactly one color out of all others on the wheel. Green. And then people complain about green/ramp strategies, or combos built to race those strategies, instead of looking into the natural counter to the strategy that's at the root of these shenanigans. I will say this though. I would happily trade my Armageddon/Jokulhops for a card that just says "Destroy X lands target player controls".

That way I have a more niche tool to punish the specific strategy employed by my specific opponent without hurting the rest of the table.

Morfeatire wrote:
Now, I am against LD in our group, unless its a wincon. Dedicated LD decks appear from time to time, but it takes 2-3,games until it gets old.


Agree with this too. I have 2 MLD cards in the whole deck, and i pull them out only when something truly degenerate is about to be done by my opponent, as a last resort. By no means am I justifying the regular use of MLD, but I am noting that people seem to be fine with the regular use of Eldrazi while against even the most strategic, counterplay oriented uses of MLD (Again, I would switch it for targeted multi-land destruction in a heartbeat)

Thanks for reading, and the replies! Once we start getting into specifics I think I can get to the bottom of this.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why do people irrationally hate some MLD and not others?
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-04 4:23 am 

Joined: 2012-Apr-11 7:17 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Logos89 wrote:
The other guy who had 6 lands to his name scoops and says he won't play with anyone who uses Armageddon.
Thats his right, but I think its short sighted. If you have a plan to win soon after, MLD is OK to me.
Quote:
To preface, yes I'm aware that Armageddon can be used to durdle and just stop the game, and I also know how to use it responsibly.
This may be true, but here I think you used in irresponsibly. I don't see anything that looks like a win condition, and you have set everyone else back to the stone age.

This sounds like you not wanting to lose, so you made the game unfun for everyone else, hidden by 'Annihilator is MLD too'. Maybe but if it starts taking out lands, the game is over.

_________________
sir squab wrote:
My... history of buying Magic cards is probably a tapestry of bad financial decisions >_>
niheloim wrote:
No, I think he's right. I'm just all butt-hurt over prophet.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why do people irrationally hate some MLD and not others?
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-04 5:05 am 

Joined: 2015-Apr-01 9:35 am
Age: Wyvern
MRHblue wrote:
This may be true, but here I think you used in irresponsibly. I don't see anything that looks like a win condition, and you have set everyone else back to the stone age.


Again, what I'm getting from this is that if someone uses any form of MLD, the game is assumed to be over. Why? Let's phrase this question another way:

If someone ramps to 10 lands to everyone else's 4 and you have armageddon. Do you use it if you know they're going to attempt to end the game next turn?

How about if they ramp to 20? To 100? To 1000? Is there a breaking point for you in which you'll admit, "Yeah blowing up this guys lands, in general, might be a sufficient hard counter to their particular strategy to justify its use."

Also of note, one player was already at the stone age, and the game wasn't going to get much better with an Eldrazi on the field, so there's that.

MRHblue wrote:
This sounds like you not wanting to lose, so you made the game unfun for everyone else, hidden by 'Annihilator is MLD too'. Maybe but if it starts taking out lands, the game is over.


It sounds like me not wanting the game to end at turn 7 because someone went 10 over curve. For the third player, the change in game state is zero to in his favor since the rest of his deck has more lands in it than everyone else's does, so he's now the most likely to be ahead in lands for the remainder of the game. Being land screwed is now his blessing rather than his curse and the game can do something interesting besides "end suddenly".

Let's try one more question:

You punish combo by countering and exiling key pieces while providing pressure so they have less time to "set up".

You punish aggro by countering things that give them haste/infect/etc. that let them suddenly swing game, and by keeping their board clean of swingers.

You punish ramp by doing what exactly? They leave mana open for protection, put their stock in lands to play bomb after bomb several turns early. Unlike aggro where it's OK to mass kill their creatures, unlike combo where it's OK to snipe their pieces, it's not OK to deny ramp it's primary win resource. Where is this special exception coming from exactly?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why do people irrationally hate some MLD and not others?
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-04 5:22 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Sep-15 5:03 am
Age: Dragon
People dislike MLD because they can't play magic for several turns, they spend several turns hoping they topdeck a land.

What you need to understand is people hate MLD before they consider why the MLD is being played. Players don't see your MLD as a way to stop the ramp player - they just see it as MLD and hate MLD because it removes their ability to play magic.

That's actually why ramp is one of the best strategies in EDH, because the answer to is is generally considered socially unacceptable.

A low curve efficient resource denial deck is less fun to play against a deck that oppressively ramps, for most players. Against the second one, they can fight it, they can play their spells, they can do whatever their deck is supposed to do while fighting the ramp deck. Against a resource denial deck, they can't play their deck.

As I said, it boils down to this: I have a deck that loses to oppressive ramp and also loses to a resource denial deck. Against oppressive ramp, I can at least PLAY my deck before I lose. Against resource denial? I can't.

It's like how people dislike counterspells more then they dislike their creature being destroyed before it has a chance to do anything. I think psychologically it boils down to one being "I tried and I failed" whereas the other one is "I wasn't allowed to try."

_________________
Sid the Chicken wrote:
Curse of the Swine is like the unholy love child of Terastodon and Dregs of Sorrow. AND it makes bacon!


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why do people irrationally hate some MLD and not others?
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-04 5:55 am 

Joined: 2015-Apr-01 9:35 am
Age: Wyvern
sir squab wrote:
People dislike MLD because they can't play magic for several turns, they spend several turns hoping they topdeck a land.


Absolutely. This is why I wish that Wizards would make a targeted player land destruction card. Right now I think we have like, one planeswalker that does that as an ult? I hate that it affects other players, and that's why I run as absolutely little as possible and wouldn't consider using it if other players on the table can help deal with a threat and have sufficiently complex board states that would be derailed by it.

sir squab wrote:
What you need to understand is people hate MLD before they consider why the MLD is being played. Players don't see your MLD as a way to stop the ramp player - they just see it as MLD and hate MLD because it removes their ability to play magic.


I understand that this is true, I'm still getting to the bottom of the "why" it's true. I mean it takes like 10 minutes tops to reach turn 7-10 of a game depending on the interactions at the beginning. I don't understand why people would painstakingly construct 100 card decks, dump hundreds into this thing, and boil the game down to a 10 minute coin toss. To be clear I'm not suggesting that the whole game boils down to a coin toss, but when certain strategies are used in which the only "socially acceptable" recourse to those strategies is "Concede if they start wining before you do", IMO that's hat the game ultimately becomes, and why combo is so prevalent.

sir squab wrote:
That's actually why ramp is one of the best strategies in EDH, because the answer to is is generally considered socially unacceptable.


EXACTLY. I'm bored with green. I'm bored with running green. I'm bored of playing AGAINST green. I made a Zurgo deck to do something different, and that "something different" after having conversations like this is "Aggro/combo faster than the ramp deck can ramp". No. That just starts an arms race which puts casual decks right in the middle of games that end up being turn 4 coin flips and is no fun for anyone.

Logos89 wrote:
Against the second one, they can fight it, they can play their spells, they can do whatever their deck is supposed to do while fighting the ramp deck. Against a resource denial deck, they can't play their deck.


Right. That's why I'm specifically not making a "resource denial / lockdown" deck. I'm making a deck that happens to run 2 MLD cards as, quite LITERALLY, a last resort. The only time I'd consider using them is if other players at the table are struggling to play their decks ANWYAY and it makes sense strategically to do so. If the other players are playing their decks, I'd hope to god they have some way to help me counter the threats a ramp player puts out, and the board never gets as out of control as it could.

Logos89 wrote:
It's like how people dislike counterspells more then they dislike their creature being destroyed before it has a chance to do anything. I think psychologically it boils down to one being "I tried and I failed" whereas the other one is "I wasn't allowed to try."


That makes sense. Again, I think the answer is for Wizards to print Commander specific cards to answer a specific player's lands so the rest of the table isn't dragged into things, but paradoxically, they won't print one because everyone hates the very mention of Land Destruction. Then they'll whine about combo being tuned to beat ramp. Makes no sense.

Also, your signature quote is amazing!


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why do people irrationally hate some MLD and not others?
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-04 6:38 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2015-Sep-28 11:55 am
Age: Wyvern
I doubt anything we say is going to dissuade you. Play your Geddon on 4 if that's what you want; it's not illegal in the format. But don't be surprised when nobody wants to play with you. To them, playing with you and not playing at all are the same things. "Running as little as possible" is disingenuous; you could choose not to run it at all, yet you choose to. At least own your decision, dude.

Squab iterates a recurring theme here -- people would rather play Magic than not play Magic. An Ulamog on turn 7, while oppressive, still allowed people to play Magic, even after he dropped in many (not all) scenarios. A Geddon on 4 -- often even on 7 -- does not, and no justification is going to change that.

Do keep in mind that almost nobody minds targeted land destruction, especially if it keeps a ramp deck in check. But I'm not sure that matters. When all you have is a hammer...

Finally, you keep bringing up this one game as an anecdote, then asking us a question for the general case. Not only is that deceitful, it's not even accurate -- your assertion that your Geddon is a "last resort" doesn't hold water when you play it on turn 4 after a Gift of estates out of sheer spite.

Maybe others will be more sympathetic to your viewpoint. They probably will. But I'm the type to call a spade a spade, even if your question would have merited better discussion had it not come in such a one-sided, ill-conceived manner.

_________________
"I'd rather lose an awesome game than win a boring one."

Decks:
Karrthus, Jund Cena
Hazezon Tamar, Token Spammer
Jeleva, Herald of Cruel Ultimatums


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why do people irrationally hate some MLD and not others?
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-04 7:31 am 

Joined: 2015-Apr-01 9:35 am
Age: Wyvern
trdl23 wrote:
Play your Geddon on 4 if that's what you want;


I played it on 7 when my mana base was threatened first. I didn't "want" to play it but I wasn't just going to concede after such a short, pitiful durdlefest of a game either.

trdl23 wrote:
To them, playing with you and not playing at all are the same things.


They are? Do they think I'm a figment of their imagination or something?

trdl23 wrote:
you could choose not to run it at all, yet you choose to. At least own your decision, dude.


I do own my decision. I run it, I think it's the natural counter strategy for people that want to get greedy with mana and slam bombs down on turn 5-6. Nothing in this discussion should lead you to conclude that I'm "not owning" anything. What it sounds like YOU are attempting to do is suppose that since I run MLD as a spot counter to an overaggressive strategy, I'm just a sadist who wants to turn 4 durdletroll people which is highly disingenuous.

trdl23 wrote:
An Ulamog on turn 7, while oppressive, still allowed people to play Magic


Except that one time they didn't and then the game ended.

trdl23 wrote:
Do keep in mind that almost nobody minds targeted land destruction, especially if it keeps a ramp deck in check. But I'm not sure that matters. When all you have is a hammer...


Well good, at least we agree somewhere.

trdl23 wrote:
Finally, you keep bringing up this one game as an anecdote, then asking us a question for the general case.


The statement posed to me was of the general case: "I don't [ever] play with anyone who uses Armageddon." The situation I described is an attempt at specifics to ferret out if this community is going to let ramp bait combo into an arms race and, basically, get away with murder, or if ther are ACTUALLY some nuances and strategy that people may actually appreciate that goes into such decisions. So far what I'm seeing:

MLD doesn't let people play magic. Fair, I argue green will be fine because they're green, and for everyone else, I'd love to trade in my Armageddon for target player land removal. Some in this thread agree with that, some still might disagree.

If there was, say, a mono red (2)(3R) that said something like: Target opponent sacrifices half their lands rounded up. Fine or no? If not, why? I'm not trying to get anyone to change their minds on anything, I'm trying to get to the bottom of how deep this MLD hatred rabbit hole goes, to see if there is any nuance or substance to this idea. If so, maybe, just maybe, the RC might suggest to Wizards to print some cards the community CAN tolerate that might help deal with the ramp strategy in a way that isn't "combo off before they finish ramping."

"your assertion that your Geddon is a "last resort" doesn't hold water when you play it on turn 4 after a Gift of estates out of sheer spite."

Turn 7. Giving me just enough to play a Divining Top, a Gift of Estates, and Armageddon. And as a last resort absolutely holds water when my key land pieces which could help me survive were under attack from an on-cast trigger. There's no other word to describe that situation EXCEPT last resort.

trdl23 wrote:
They probably will. But I'm the type to call a spade a spade, even if your question would have merited better discussion had it not come in such a one-sided, ill-conceived manner.


Good, so let's get to naming this spade. Because I'm sick of seeing playgroup after playgroup turning into a ramp vs combo arms race to see "who goes off first". Ramp needs a more targeted strategy that's not "Run blue and counter everything they play", because that's how I already have to deal with combo players and dangit, there aren't enough counters in a deck for that nonsense.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why do people irrationally hate some MLD and not others?
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-04 8:14 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Feb-07 4:15 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Buthrakaur wrote:
Honestly, Logos, I agree with you that there is no real difference. Armageddon is a prison card, so are Eldrazi with annihilator.

I'd have to disagree. If your board state is significantly better than the opponents late game, Armageddon functions as basically just an overwhelming Stampede that takes a few extra turns.

Edit: Clarifications and grammar

_________________


Last edited by Uktabi_Kong on 2015-Oct-04 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why do people irrationally hate some MLD and not others?
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-04 8:25 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Sep-15 5:03 am
Age: Dragon
Logos89 wrote:
That makes sense. Again, I think the answer is for Wizards to print Commander specific cards to answer a specific player's lands so the rest of the table isn't dragged into things, but paradoxically, they won't print one because everyone hates the very mention of Land Destruction. Then they'll whine about combo being tuned to beat ramp. Makes no sense.

Also, your signature quote is amazing!


Thanks. Also, wizards is never gonna print a "destroy all lands target player controls" for the same reason most boardwipes hit all creatures, and boardwipes that only hit opponents stuff costs a lot more. One sided wipes are so much worse then wipes that hit everyone.

The closest I could see them doing is "all players sac lands untill all players have the same amount of lands." But since that's still land destruction, the more likely one I see (which is unfortunately still gonna be green, MAYBE white) is "each player who controls less lands then the player with the most lands searches his or her library for basic lands and puts them into play until everyone has the same amount of lands." (And yeah none of my formatting is correct but I'm lazy and I think you get my drift.)

A card I don't see them doing, but could potentially happen, is "destroy all of target players lands, sac/exile all your lands." That's the closet they'll come to hitting one players lands.

Lastly, here's a tip that really helps when trying to understand humans: humans think emotionally. Humans think of something emotionally first, and logically second. So most magic players have a strong, negative emotional reaction to land destruction. Logic and/or the particulars of how this game is going generally don't enter into the equation, at least not until they've made up their mind that they dislike you for playing land destruction and are trying to rationalize it.

Another thing I've really noticed about commander: people don't usually use a players history when doing threat evaluation. Threat evaluation is done based off of board state, excessive amount of cards in hand, cards in hand + untapped blue mana, sometimes known cards in hand... I very rarely see people take into account a players playing history when doing threat evaluation. (As in, take into account what they've done in previous games when doing threat evaluation.)

You can see that "Oh, Ulamog in hand, enough mana for it, he's gonna target my swamp because that's how he plays." Most players only see "Ulamog in hand, lands for it, gotta deal with Ulamog somehow."

Lastly, playing Gifts of Estates to get 3 lands in hand, playing a Sensei's Divining Top so you can do library manipulation (to, say, find more lands) and then playing Armageddon is a dick move regardless of board state. What you've done is "no one has lands, I have at least 3 lands in hand, I can find lands more easily then everyone else." Regardless of the previous board state, that's what you have done.

_________________
Sid the Chicken wrote:
Curse of the Swine is like the unholy love child of Terastodon and Dregs of Sorrow. AND it makes bacon!


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: