Why doesn't R easily destroy lands anymore?
>>46878110
Nothing stops you using the cards that do that job.
>>46878110
The same reason why U doesn't easily counter spells anymore.
>>46878110
NWO and development fucking nerfing anything that isn't creature/timmy friendly
>>46878110
Because some people get their jimmies rustled when you destroy their lands. Personally, I love playing land destruction decks.
>>46878110
Because that would make things a little challenging for U and we don't want that, do we?
>>46878299
>Blame U for NWO
holy shit are you in every thread?
Structural Distortion, Crumble to Dust, and Consuming Sinkhole do something similar while not being as swingy between the play and the draw. The gameplay of cheap land destruction overemphasises the game's variance without providing justifying enjoyment for a vast majority of the playerbase.
>>46878142
NWO only governs the complexity level of commons; land destruction is one of the simplest and most intuitive things in the game, as indicated by its continued existence at common.
>>46878171
You're a small minority in the playerbase, and wizards is happy to lose your business to take money from newer, younger players which enjoy games with more than one participant.
>>46878393
Who said that I played with only one participant? I know my land destruction deck doesn't win much (or at all), but I play it for the shit and giggles (and when someone pisses me off and I'm going to make the suffer).
>>46878393
>The gameplay of cheap land destruction overemphasises the game's variance without providing justifying enjoyment for a vast majority of the playerbase.
The same exact thing can be said about counterspells, cheap removal, and creatures with flash/flipsides
Because Grognards with $1,000 mana pools and only 2 basic lands in their decks get extremely pissy when you wipe their mana supply for 4 mana.
>>46878457
Oh god, that card. I love using it in my LD deck for mutiplayer, because nearly everyone but me use muti-colored decks with a lot of non-basic lands.
>>46878469
Personally the only non-basic land I use is either:
A. One of the rare ones I pulled from a pack
or
B. 4x evolving wilds
>>46878481
They learned eventually, but sometimes they still do it (I'm still the only mono-color guy though). Also, I'm a big fan of Ember Swallower, because reasons.
>>46878507
I love "hundred-handed one" and "colossus of arkos" from that same set. Just the fact that paying some extra mana turns a creature into an absolute monster makes me happy.
>>46878546
Hundred-Handed One is legitimately one of the best designed cards from that set.
>>46878393
>NWO only governs the complexity level of commons...
ok look you've tried to make this correction before.
My issues till stands: If I want to call their design choices, other than complexity level, as a part of NWO, why not let me?
What the hell else should I call it?
>>46878568
Agreed. The Timmy in me bought a copy a long time ago.
>>46878603
Forgot image.
>>46878568
Ahhhh, I forgot about good old Hundred Hand. He's a god dam beast (especially when he's indestructible, good like trying to get pass me without having either Shadow or unblockable).
>>46878634
How do you make him indestructible? All I could find online was "Gift of immortality", which I bought 3 copies of out of principle that it's a fucking epic card for a modular deck.
>>46878649
Darksteel Plate can help
>>46878663
Meh. I usually rely on combos where no individual card costs more than $2. $7 for a, admittedly great, equipment card is a little steep for my casual budget.
>>46878611
Too bad it's W
By the way, how does everyone feel of Stronghold Overseer? I use him in my mono-black lifegain deck (mutiplayer casual deck that's got gary's and exsanguinate's and all the good stuff) and he seems to help the deck a fair amount.
>>46878689
Darksteel Plate is $7? Wew lad, I though it would be $3 at max. There's a 4 mana auara that does the same, I forgot its name right now.
>>46878110
Because people get buttblasted when you attack their resources, even though it's a valid fucking strategy.
WotC is caught up in an eternal cycle of slapping themselves on the back of the head and then slapping the guy for slapping them.
There cannot be any good counters, land destruction or other old, powerful effects anymore.
Then shit gets powerful that would have been kept in check by these effects, like mana bases get too greedy or combo spirals out of control.
So now need to keep that from happening, so we cannot have any meaningful ramp or lands anymore.
Repeat until it's complete shit.
>>46878697
It's a completely uncompetetive fatty that might work out in some casual decks.
You basically gave the answer yourself.
>>46878738
Meh. It's a 5/5 unblockable that can de-buff creatures during either player's combat step.
>>46878649
I play casual, so we use any card we want (which sadly means sometimes, someone makes something very disgusting and evil). I use Shielded by Faith or That Which Was Taken (only got one). There's a couple of other cards that make him immune to damage but they're not coming to mind yet.
>>46878738
Well shit, that was stupid of me.
>>46878140
Are you really putting counter-spell on the same tier as land-destruction?
>>46878910
I think he was just saying it fits the devs standard ideology of "nerf anything that's not a creature"
>>46878910
Why not? Many spells are so crucial for game fluency that having counterspells pop up every other action in the game completely fucks up any symbolism of fluency.
>>46879009
>I have never played against counterspells, nor have I ever played counterspells
>The post
Why not put all answers on the same tier then?
>>46879044
You're the one whose never played against a blue deck.
>>46879067
sure, and you think blue decks have an answer for everything all the time
>>46879067
You want to know what's fun, when you get a five person free for all (casual mind you)and everyone is using blue (be it mono-blue or blue with another color).
>>46879009
>game fluency
What the fuck does this mean?
Please define it
>>46879110
I assume he meant game flow/fluidity
>>46879124
Thats still not a definition
What is "game flow" and how do you measure it to know when Counter-magic disrupts is to much?
>>46879156
The guy above was complaining about how land destruction "is too complicated" for the game. I countered with counterspells (heh) and everyone suddenly forgot who I was talking to.
>>46879172
>The guy above was complaining about how land destruction "is too complicated"
[Citation needed]
Projection much?
It wasn't about it being complicated, it was about it being frustrating to NUBs. Both land destruction and countermagic infuriates idiots. but they are directly necessary to the core game-play
>>46878393
>The gameplay of cheap land destruction overemphasises the game's variance without providing justifying enjoyment for a vast majority of the playerbase.
>>46879211
[citation needed] here's your fucking citation fuckwit.
Removal, board wipes, and land destruction are all core to the gameplay. Controlling the opponent's mana supply is exactly the same as controlling what creatures are on the field and what spells can or cannot resolve.
>>46878978
So when will the devs limit lands to 4 per deck?
>>46879156
I don't know what his definition is, but having stuff that "stalls" the progression of the game, by removing lands from play or neutralising a card being played.
the person effected then gets to do the same thing next turn (put down a replacement land, play another spell) and the person who "neutralised" them spent a card to do it (so their main action was turning a game back a "step").
At worst, you've spent the players' turn doing nothing.
the game still moves forward to whatever victory state, but its length is pointlessly extended most of the time by doing-over some actions.
>>46879342
You could use the exact same argument to justify creature removal being unnecessarily disruptive to the game, do you believe this as well?
>>46879422
Feels like ever since Return to Ravnica, Wizards have been trying to somehow ignore the fact that someone has to actually lose.
>>46879422
creature removal is "closer" to combat, in that you're taking away a specific thing that you could also kill in combat. So there's an idea of "choice" in it.
lands are far more generic (any land destroyed will be replaced with an identical one), and other spells are less persistent than creatures
>>46879451
Yeah. But losing isn't the thing. Letting the other player play the god damn game for more than 4 turns is what's getting impossible right now.
>>46879342
>the person effected then gets to do the same thing next turn (put down a replacement land, play another spell)
Unless that person is either playing U or G it's not guaranteed, you could set him back for 2 or 3 turns by killing one of his lands
>>46879479
>So there's an idea of "choice" in it.
Sure, and when you remove a land you are denying your opponent resources they could use to cast spells that you could have different answers to.
>>46879479
>(any land destroyed will be replaced with an identical one)
Is this a serious comment? Have you ever played a real format competitively?
>>46879269
>enjoyment
>complicated
who's the fuck wit?
>>46879555
The same one saying that paying 4+ mana at sorcery speed to destroy 1 land is OP.
>>46878393
>players which enjoy games with more than one participant.
Tell that to the werewolf deck
>>46879665
The only viable werewolf is village messenger, and that's if you go first and the opponent doesn't play a spell his first turn.
>>46879665
Yeah, we had a guy who made a werewolf deck for our FFA casual night, and it was bad. I actually felt somewhat bad for him.
>>46879585
who said that?
why are you even responding if you don't quote
half this argument is you completely missing the point because you don't quote
>>46879787
Most land destruction spells are red, cost 4 or more mana, and target mostly non-basic lands.
>>46880177
land destruction was 2 cmc
land destruction now is 4
in fact the fucking op is 3 cmc with 2 extra damage, so who the fuck complained about 4 cmc land destruction?
this thread was more about reverse power creep, than 4 cmc land destruction being op
LD is one of those complicated things.
You need a little, but you don't want a lot.
Heavy LD is a dogshit strategy that loses more often than not and heartily deserves to because it's a deck about being a prick rather than trying to win, but the presence of heavy LD decks are extremely annoying whether they lose or not, which is bad for business.
You don't really need more than three or so decent land removal cards in most formats, usually less in smaller ones like Standard.
Costing it is also kinda wonky. Two mana is way too fucking cheap, three mana usually needs a little something extra to be good, and four mana requires a nice rider to be good.
>>46878649
>>46878689
If you're still here, look up Shielded by Faith. It sounds right up your alley if you're playing "literally anything goes" casual.
>>46878708
...Indestructibility?
>>46878110
Wizards' reasons is that they want people to be able to play Magic instead of looking at the cards in their hand and wishing they could play Magic. Thus, land destruction has gotten more expensive (though almost always with bonuses alongside the destruction itself) so as to not make shutting down Playing The Game as easy.
The power level of a game mechanic can be completely different from the quality of its gameplay.
Stone rain and their equivalents are not very good cards most of the time, but they usually result in terrible gameplay. That's why they are never pushed very hard in constructed.
Contrast this to dual lands, which are often extremely high above the power level they would need to be to influence constructed, yet they have god enough gameplay to get a pass.
Other card types with potentially poor gameplay, even if they are low power.
* Mind rot
* Invisible stalker
* moat
Other card types that tend to have good gameplay even when their power level is pushed
* high value creatures
* planeswalkers
* mana-sink abilities
>>46883865
moat is really good tho
