Land destruction is always relevant. It's not the type of ability you're going to wait for. The earlier the better, and when possible, if possible. Because you'll VERY rarely find a game where the ability isn't useful, cycling isn't really necessary, and thus not worth the addition mana compared to Stone Rain.
Posted By:
KikiJikiTiki
(8/29/2010 3:21:10 PM)
Do you expect it to cost the same AND have the cycling ability? It's more flexible, so it costs one more. The difference between 3 mana and 4 mana is scant in terms of tempo (unlike the difference between 4 and 5). If you're going the land destruction route, why not have 4 of these and 4 Stone Rains?
Posted By:
achilleselbow
(7/6/2010 2:18:53 AM)
A perfectly-designed cycling card.
Posted By:
HuntingDrake
(11/21/2010 8:32:24 PM)
Im starting to like Demolish more...
Posted By:
use643
(8/10/2011 10:41:01 AM)
In my opinion, significantly worse then stone rain.
Posted By:
Rudy_Summers
(2/5/2010 8:11:52 PM)
There is rarely situations where cycling ability is relevant. Only time is very late game, when they have 11+ basic lands and no nonbasic lands. But you rarely see those kinds of games.
Posted By:
TheWrathofShane
(9/8/2013 5:39:30 AM)