it removes two potentially game-ending permanents/threats. So it's fine, just not exciting.
Posted By:
LordOfTheFlies87
(10/30/2013 9:47:45 AM)
I was gonna rate this 2.5 until I noticed it's one or BOTH...
Two for one is alright. It's nice to have options.
Posted By:
NARFNra
(10/30/2013 10:47:08 AM)
Destroying 2 permanents is GREAT.
THIS is how LD should be. I understand "People want to cast their spells".
I understand wanting to cost LD around 4 or maybe even more mana to help accomplish that.
But when you put a high cost on a spell, give us an effect that's equal for the timing.
Destroying a Land is *diminishing returns* over time-- eventually, It just will not matter how many lands you destroy at once if the spell can only be cast on the 40th turn of the game. Eventually you can expect the opponent's board to be plenty developed and threatening you, so for 12 mana I want to be destroying more than just All Lands, I want at least one more type of permanent too, and I want that spell to be uncounterable.
LD is powerful. LD is griefish. LD is even 'unfun'. that's all true. So in those interests, straight-up Stone Rain is not a card that's easy to get into Standard at all, because 4 in one deck....it's rough, ok?
But, LD is absolutely a fundamental part of the game, nee... (see all)
Posted By:
DarthParallax
(10/30/2013 11:49:55 AM)
I'm pretty sure this is just here to be the junk common of the Grixis deck.. I mean who in the right mind would actually consider a card with such limited potential? At best it is knocking down a player by a step or two, and at worst it just doesn't do anything.
True, there is always going to be a nonbasic land for this to strike in an average Commander game, but it's just so mediocre at doing what other cards excel at. Just look at Stone Rain for instance - you would always want to use that in a land destruction deck. Using this in an LD deck would just make the other players cringe at how bad it is.
Posted By:
Brakken
(10/30/2013 1:40:03 AM)
I've found that land destruction is the work of scum. Those who think it's fine in a multiplayer format don't understand how much it ruins someone's day. "But wait! I just played Armageddon! What's wrong with that? We're all on even playing fields!" is one answer I've heard many times.
It's the fact that you're only allowed one land per turn that annoys everyone. It's like you're building up this epic orchestra of magic, but you can't because someone cut your string sections' violin chords.
Spells like Acidic Slime, Mold Shambler, and Decimate are fine, because you're not playing it primarily for the land destruction. If there is a land that needs to be blown up, then by all means.
I understand why lands like Gaea's Cradle are powerful cards, and sure, it's fine to destroy it. But...
1. How many people play Gaea's Cradle?
2. Which pre-con deck came with Gaea's Cradle?
The non-... (see all)
Posted By:
Ferlord
(11/26/2013 8:08:28 PM)