Messages

1

Commander Discussion / Re: Taking Sol Ring out of my commander decks - a reasoning.

« on: April 01, 2024, 05:05:40 pm »

I took it out of my decks with commanders less than 6 cmc and not my top power level decks and I'll never go back. Games are way more fun not having it.

Agree with this. Some commanders do need the boost if they want to come down early enough to be relevant, especially those released before they were designing with this format in mind.

2

Commander Discussion / Re: Tier List: Tutors

« on: July 12, 2023, 04:28:54 am »

I'm curious about where you would put Traverse the Ulvenwald. I can never decide how I feel about it. With delirium on, it seems B-Tier, but the hoops you have to jump through are very E-Tier. I'm wondering how much the low cost mitigates that in your opinion. Even though I find I do run it, the variability is a huge turn-off for me, and I always worry that it's a trap I've fallen for.

3

Commander Discussion / Re: So of the four Commander Masters commanders spoiled so far, who do you like?

« on: May 10, 2023, 03:24:23 pm »

I feel the same way about Slivers. I'm actually debating doing a second Sliver deck building around this legend and focusing on the graveyard. (shocker I know, me doing a graveyard deck or something with Slivers)

I think Sliver Gravemother is a bit more... intentional than some other sliver legends. The multiple copies part of encore is whatever, but the unearth effect is bonkers. It's a bit like dregscape sliver, in that you can keep combo or closer pieces safely in the graveyard, waiting to be deployed for the one turn that matters. A self-mill powered, graveyard based sliver deck would be really cool.

Slivers? Ugh. As a veteran magic player I'm no stranger to slivers... I just never could get into them. Like... I understand their point... but... just not my jam.

I have to say I sort of agree with you. I pulled a Sliver Queen from a pack back in Stronghold days and got hooked on the coolness of a 5 color tribal card. Slivers were easy to build and I wasn't very good at the game so they stuck, and now I'm the slivers guy in my group. I've never been interested in playing her as the classic combo commander, since the lines of play tend to be boring for everyone at the table, so I made myself a rule that I have to actually use slivers as much as possible. And it still accidentally turned into an infinite combo deck. But at least it uses slivers to do it, so it feels more honest?

If I encountered them for the first time now, I don't think I'd be as interested. As excited as I am, I'm a little bit worried about new slivers, since they are hard to make interesting without accidentally being too much. A tribe of all lords is a neat idea, but it goes off the rails pretty quickly, or else it does nothing at all.

4

Commander Discussion / Re: So of the four Commander Masters commanders spoiled so far, who do you like?

« on: May 09, 2023, 11:30:58 pm »

Slivers slivers slivers slivers slivers. Slivers.

For real though, it's not everyday we get new slivers, and that makes me happy because I'm terrible.

5

Commander Discussion / Re: Is Ramp Too Good?

« on: May 06, 2023, 09:23:14 pm »

Indeed, you seem to have hit upon that yourself:

At lower power level the community is self-regulating and responsibility to play appropriate cards is on the player. So that, by definition, cannot be a problem.

This sounds a lot like the "well EDH has this problem but we don't play EDH so we're happy so therefore EDH is great!" argument which... well, you can spot the flaw.

Saying the community self-regulates is not the same as saying it has a problem. Self-regulation is the means by which it is not a problem. Some people just like playing with slower mana. Some people just like playing faster mana. By and large, players with similar likes choose to play together, and everyone can have fun. If you are playing fast games and wish your games were slower, the problem is not the mana rocks.

Your responses have just become restatements of people's positions as non-sequitur straw men, and then addressing those. I won't accuse you of arguing in bad faith, but I am finished responding to this line of "discussion".

6

Commander Discussion / Re: Is Ramp Too Good?

« on: May 05, 2023, 09:38:30 am »

I feel as though it's got to be one thing or another.
"We don't play fast ramp because we prefer lower-powered games" is akin to saying, yes, ramp is "too good" (whatever that means). Which is fine, but let's just say that, not "ramp is fine if you just don't play it!"
If you're saying, actually, no, there are plenty of mechanically-sound reasons that an optimal deck wouldn't run ramp, then that's a totally different thing... but I am dubious.

No, I don't think anyone is saying they intentionally nerf themselves to play slower. I'm using every Sol Ring I have around. You are saying that you don't like faster games, and I am asking if you have tried simply playing slower, because my slower games don't seem to have the problems you are describing. Other people don't seem to have the same complaints that you do at your level of ramp usage. You are the one with the concern. No one is defending fast mana; we just (apparently) aren't hugely troubled by it.

And I'm not saying that there are mechanically sound reasons for an optimal deck to not run ramp; I am saying that your focus on an optimal deck is what is causing you to run more ramp than you find enjoyable, and if you stopped building optimally you might have more of the experience that you want. I am also saying the difference in performance between optimal and the next step down is marginal, and that at lower power levels the variance of the game provides a more even footing between decks of differing powers. The same variance that you find un-fun at higher levels is integral to the proper functioning of the game at other levels. You can't just toss it out without consequences.   

You keep asking and people keep saying it: no, a modified-EDH-with-worse-ramp would be neither better nor more balanced than the current rules, partly because it doesn't actually address the root problem, and partly because it ignores a great deal of non-corner cases that would be impacted by the decision.

Well now, this is really what I wanted to get into in the first place! But, why do you say that? If by "the root problem" you're just talking about the general speed and power level of the format then, well, actually it probably does help with that, though it's hardly a silver bullet. But honestly my point is more just that ramp is all but ubiquitous in a way that doesn't really seem to add anything to the game. You say that EDH-with-worse-ramp would not be better, but let's look at the converse: why is EDH with all this fast ramp better than it would be without?

The root problem is not the speed of the whole format, it's the power-level of EDH that you play. This is not an EDH problem, but a high-level problem. Most upgraded pre-cons don't have much 0-drop ramp. Changing the rules would not empower you to make any deckbuilding decision that you can't make right now, it would just change the pool of optimal cards that you would be forced to play, and then those would feel ubiquitous. Everything you have suggested that it might accomplish is a state that many many people are currently already playing in. People don't (just) play budget decks to save money; those kinds of restrictions are what other people have come up with to address the issues that you are having. It slows the game down and eliminates the best-in-class options so you have to play more nuanced cards, tailored more specifically to your deck, which promotes variety. It's really fun too! You are welcome any time to play like that.

I'm just not sure where the difficulty is here. It sounds like your concern is that you aren't having fun with fast mana, but have discounted any solution that involves just... not doing that, unless everyone else has to as well. But most people already aren't using fast mana, so... you could just do that? It's like you are trying to convince people to stop doing something that they aren't doing but you are, but you want to make a rule against it so you don't feel like a chump for playing at a lower level. Even though it is the level that you wish you were playing at. Just cut some rocks if you think they're bad for your game.

7

Commander Discussion / Re: Is Ramp Too Good?

« on: May 04, 2023, 07:26:24 am »

So... kind of, yeah, but in a way it doesn't matter what decks you're building or playing, because I'm talking about the format as a whole. Admittedly, you could argue that this kind of boils down to "I don't like cEDH, wouldn't it be great if EDH were more like... not that?" but frankly even relatively low-powered games often see a lot of Sol Rings and two-mana rocks, and really (budget or deliberate handicapping aside) there's no real reason for them not to. My janky Mutant Ninja Turtles deck is no more or less interesting or janky if it used Manaliths rather than signets.

Now, sure, I can just choose to run worse (or no) ramp, but that's kind of a nonargument; in order for that to work, I need the whole table to agree to do the same - at which point we're essentially playing a modified EDH with a more restricted card pool. And so the question remains: would modified-EDH-with-worse-ramp be "better" or "more balanced" (or whatever) than regular EDH? It's funny because I saw someone on Reddit (I know) complaining about people complaining about things, who said "yeah but some people want to ban cmc 2 mana rocks! That's obviously insane!" but... is it?

I think you're correct when you say that maybe you just don't like cEDH/high-power EDH. I don't think you can be talking about the format as a whole if you think the experience of ramp is the same in cEDH and lower powered games. You've gotten a lot of feedback on the topic from players who very much don't have the same experience you do. You say there's no reason not to use Sol Rings and two-mana rocks in lower powered games, but we gave a bunch, from the negative benefit from Sol Ring to preferring draw and land drops. But I think the best reason is the one you've been getting at: building the same all the time is boring, and it's fun to mix it up even if that means a marginal drop in effectiveness. At lower power levels you can get away with that without being punished as severely.

Basically, yes you can just choose to run no or worse ramp (like other people do), and that will have an impact on how your deck feels to build and play. You only "need" to have the whole table agree if you think they owe you a win. Some people enjoy playing a more competitive sort of deck, and it seems heavy handed to simply tell people to build their decks to your standard of fun. And isn't that what you are proposing with a cap on what ramp is allowed? You are allowed to play slower if you feel like without making sure everyone else is too, especially if the changes you propose would cripple any deck that isn't already running all best-in-class cards. If you don't like playing in a competitive meta, then maybe talk to your table or investigate some other groups.

You keep asking and people keep saying it: no, a modified-EDH-with-worse-ramp would be neither better nor more balanced than the current rules, partly because it doesn't actually address the root problem, and partly because it ignores a great deal of non-corner cases that would be impacted by the decision. The only thing it would accomplish would be a way to force your table to lower their power level without having to talk to them about it. And it might be a little much to propose that the rules of the whole format be changed for everyone to accomplish this.

8

Commander Discussion / Re: Is Ramp Too Good?

« on: May 03, 2023, 07:11:37 pm »

Ah. My mistake. Anjinsan, I just looked at your decks to see how you build, and your worst deck would probably beat my best one and be bored doing it. If your decks are reflective of the meta you play in, then I understand your perspective better. I would also wish for a world where Cultivate was the standard for ramp.

I think for a lot of people Cultivate is the standard. Maybe you just need to build worse decks? That probably doesn't help.

9

Commander Discussion / Re: Is Ramp Too Good?

« on: May 03, 2023, 06:05:21 pm »

I've been lurking this thread since it was first posted and reading every incredibly long reply. Yet still, have have no idea what this discussion is about. I know that it concerns mana ramp, but that's the extent of it.

What's the goal of this discussion? In one or two sentences please.

I have no idea. I think it's just an argument against fast mana, but with all ramp being too fast. I find it a difficult hypothetical to parse, and I feel like the goalposts keep moving.

Anjinsan, if the goal is to have slower games, then you can just play less ramp. If the goal is to beat players faster, and you think you have to use more ramp, then do that. If you think it sucks that you have to use ramp when you don't want to because other people are going to... well, I can't help with that. I personally disagree. I already gave examples of decks that I use with very little ramp that work just fine. If the benchmark is a win on turn 1-3, we're definitely talking about cEDH and that's not typical play. If the argument is that top-tier decks use a lot of ramp, then yes, that's probably the case, but not every deck is meant to be (or ever could be) top-tier.

But in answer to the original question: Is ramp too good? No. What would EDH look like with only weak mana rocks? Currently competitive decks would be slower, and many weaker decks would become fully nonviable (I ain't playing Gabriel Angelfire if I have to wait until turn 7 or later). Competitive players would not take the moment to appreciate a slower pace of game, but would push the meta further toward lower-mana strategies, and any commander over 3 cmc would be too slow to seriously consider. The game would contract to a smaller pool of playable cards, and then we would be on here complaining about low cmc commanders and how we miss the days when we could play big spells. But unless this is actually up for proposal, I don't fully see the point in considering it beyond just ruminating on the function of ramp (which, to be fair, can be fun).

10

Commander Discussion / Re: Is Ramp Too Good?

« on: May 02, 2023, 03:33:16 am »

However, the variance thing is I think a bit more subtle than that. Being a 100-card singleton format, I think, is probably meant to increase variance in a fun way - as in, sometimes you see this card, sometimes you see that card. You don't normally get the same combination of cards together, so every game is different (not that that worked out, given how many tutors and combo wins there are, but that's the idea, right?). That's not the same, though, as "sometimes you don't draw any lands, do nothing for the whole game, and just lose" or "sometimes you get 7 mana by turn 2 and just win".

Ramp, though, I think makes the issues worse, not better. We can imagine that with just lands, we have three possible situations: not enough lands, enough lands, and too many lands (which is only an issue because that means fewer nonland cards). With ramp, though, we have more situations: not enough lands or ramp, ramp but not enough lands (so the ramp kind of makes up for the missed drops, at a price), lands but no ramp, OK, fine, lands and ramp, which is even better, and of course still too many lands/ramp. Perhaps the middle situations become more common, but the extremes become more extreme: the difference between missing some lands drops and getting way-above-curve mana is a lot bigger than just that between missing and hitting one land per turn.

Okay, I think I understand your position better now!

What it sounds like you're describing as a downside is what I consider the fun challenge of this game/format. With the ramp situation, it adds a whole lot more fiddly dials and tweaks to alter the deck in a million subtle ways - and it adds a million ways to screw it up if you don't get it right. I find attempting to build around the variance issue caused by land and mana to be a fun part of the deckbuilding puzzle. It's even more complicated when you factor in whether you prefer to hit your land drops consistently or want to ramp fast then stop hitting lands. This calls into question not just ramp, but number of lands, mana curve, draw rate (do you want cantrips or Blue Sun's Zenith?), commander cost, tempo etc. I enjoy other methods like Hearthstone and Slay the Spire as well, but managing the scary random element of EDH is a compelling challenge, and I think it is one of the factors keeping the game from being even faster.

I would say people think they need ramp when what they really need is a resource management strategy of some kind, ramp being one option. But not every deck benefits the same from ramp. Someone who would put Sol Ring in literally every deck is wasting slots. Some decks don't need Sol Ring because they don't have a use for colorless mana or they would benefit more from draw or their strategy favors creature-based ramp or their plan is to kill while everyone else is setting up. Sometimes it's a choice of whether your pacing wants Sol Ring or Cultivate, and other times you just want to hit 4 mana and never draw another land again. Commander selection and deck strategy have a large impact on the kinds of resource management that are needed, and ramp is only one piece of the picture. I disagree that running Sol Ring (or other fast mana) in every deck is always an optimal choice, and I enjoy the fact that not everyone sees it this way. This gives me a chance to test my understanding of the game against theirs, and that's what makes deckbuilding fun for me.

I think what this all boils down to, though, is that the faster-ramping deck is probably still stronger overall?

I guess my position is that the deck that accesses its needed resources faster is probably stronger, but ramp is only the key if access to mana is what is limiting your speed. Sometimes Mana Vault launches you 3 turns ahead and you win; sometimes it sits there waiting for you to draw something good, wishing you'd put in more cantrips or wheels. Some decks are so thirsty for mana there's no real point where you get diminishing returns, but most decks that over-stuff on ramp will consistently lose access to value cards.

If a card should go in every deck and you actually have to come up with a rationale for not running it as opposed to a justification for running it, then it's probably too good and would serve the format well to be removed.

I personally don't think it's an issue for all decks to require some attention to the question of how fast it needs to be and how much mana it really needs to work. To me, that falls under the regular learning curve of the game. If a player just chooses to jam in the most popular options, I think they are missing a chance to tailor their deck better. I think it's a positive element of the game to force players to have to consider that part of the process.

I can understand why a person would think fast mana is necessary (because a lot of people say it is), and I know what kind of un-fun pressures that puts on card choices. But as MustaKotka mentioned earlier in the thread, that much-sought turn 1 Sol Ring has only a marginal, and sometimes negative, impact on performance. I just don't think the pressure is really there to run ramp that you don't want to run, so the restriction is largely propaganda by Big Mana. (Either that or I'm just trying to convince everyone else to play slower so I can win.)

11

Commander Discussion / Re: Is Ramp Too Good?

« on: May 01, 2023, 12:20:56 am »

This is a fun topic! I feel like it's a Rorschach test for how people understand the game.

tl;dr Ramp exists because some people want to do the thing, but faster, so faster ramp will always be more desirable to them. Everyone else plays ramp to the degree that they still want to win sometimes, but no one actually has to if it's not fun for them or they don't need it.

To specifically address your questions:

1. Do we think (the best) ramp is good? Everyone runs ramp, and so far as I can tell the accepted wisdom is that it's the best thing to do. The most competitive decks in the format use large amounts of ramp and, even at non-cEDH tables, the ability to explode early and achieve an unassailable lead requires ramp. I certainly cannot imagine doing the most powerful things decks can do without more than the normal one mana per turn. No, ramp is not sufficient to win, but I would argue that it is necessary. So I am arguing for yes on this one, but willing to be challenged.

I don't think the question can really be whether it's "good" on its own. No ramp is necessary to cast all the big EDH spells if you are willing to wait. You are guaranteed to eventually hit your max power if you live long enough. The reason people ramp is because the game has a timer they can't wait for: the game ends when one player locks in their wincon. You don't ramp so you can cast spells; you ramp so you can cast spells sooner than your opponents. If you play against slower decks, then you have more freedom to play slower. If you play against fast decks, then you need to be fast in order to win. Most people try to play as fast as possible because we don't know the speed of the deck we're playing against. If Deck 1 is playing 5 Manalith variants and Deck 2 is a direct copy but with the Manaliths swapped for Sol Ring, Arcane Signet, Mana Vault, etc., Deck 2 is probably going to win because it does the same thing but sooner (that's just going to be a reality in a game where some cards are better than others - better cards will win). But if Deck 1 has no ramp and instead has more redundant cards for their strategy, then there really is a trade-off in choosing how much ramp to include. Deck 1 would be gambling that a greater density of useful cards will outweigh a slower average start, and Deck 2 would be gambling that they will hit only enough ramp to act sooner without replacing useful card draws with useless ramp.

2. If 1. is true, and ramp is so good to be ubiquitous, is that a problem? My proposition (something to be discussed) is that, actually, EDH would be better without it. These spells take up slots in the deck, introduce (unneeded and possibly excessive/unhealthy) variance, and don't really add anything to the game. If it were tuned to the point where it were more of a balanced trade-off, such that some decks would want and run ramp but others might put in none at all, would the format be more interesting? It would also likely be slower, which I propose is also no bad thing.

I think you are making an unfounded logical leap here. Saying it is good is not the same as agreeing that it is ubiquitous, and something being ubiquitous does not make it a problem. You say EDH would be better without it, but it sounds like you mean it would be slower without it, and slower is somehow better. The issues that you mentioned, deck slots and variance, seem like strange issues since this entire format is designed with 40 extra card slots and is singleton to increase variance. This is the lots-of-cards-high-variance format. I guess I would suggest that creating a high-variance format where these cards are legal is the whole point of EDH. So to say that they are bad for the format makes me wonder if maybe it's the format itself that is the issue.

Don't get me wrong. I hate how fast the game is nowadays. I like my games to take an hour or more, and all my games are definitely faster now than they were, say, 10 years ago. I don't really like the standardization of decks that comes when people feel like they have to include the same suite of good ramp in every deck, and I agree that it would be a lot more fun, casual, and janky if we had more room for niche cards. But that's also all my own fault because I'm trying to win as well as have fun. There is no authority that forces me to play fast except the knowledge that another player might. The reason EDH has become more "solved" is because we are all actively trying to solve it against each other. If you aren't playing a big 8-drop Elder Dragon with a three-color upkeep cost because you know you'll lose before you ever cast it, then you've already made choices to play smarter to win the game. Observing that one strategy will typically defeat another strategy is not the same as being forced to adopt that strategy. Only a desire to win does that. I remember Sheldon's main argument against fast mana boiled down to "I don't want to play fast mana and I lose to people who play it, but I would also like to win, so can people not play it and let me win". And the response that will always get is, "No, I want to win so I'm going to", which is why we will always be in this position. (Side story: last night I cut Nissa, Who Shakes the World for Woodland Druid in my Seton deck and it made me feel ruthless. I am not immune to lure of fast mana.)

As for ramp being a balanced trade off with some decks wanting it and others not, I would say that's already the case. I think we're in agreement that ubiquity is not quality, so the fact that everyone runs Sol Ring doesn't mean every deck benefits optimally from running it. My Nicol Bolas has 9 pieces of ramp, including Mana Vault, Sol Ring, and Arcane Signet, and every one of them hurts because it's taking a slot away from another fun giant sorcery. My Tuya Bearclaw, which wins a lot more often, has 2 ramp cards (Domri, Anarch of Bolas and Caravan Vigil) because there is a trade-off between drawing mana versus useful cards, and she tops out at 3 cmc and wants the cards. I've never felt that deck needed a Sol Ring.

It sounds like you are saying that fast mana puts restrictions and pressures on deckbuilding that aren't fun, and I think a lot of people would agree. In the end I don't quite understand why it should be a conversation about whether the whole idea of ramp as a game mechanic is good. Certainly the variance and restrictions caused by ramp are nowhere near the variance and wasted slots caused by the land/mana system in general, right? It seems like, if anything, the ramp strategy exists primarily to smooth out the effects of that design choice.

12

Commander Discussion / Re: Is Ramp Too Good?

« on: April 28, 2023, 06:06:45 am »

This whole thread is a great argument for always using Path to Exile on one of your own creatures. It works best if you stare your opponent in the eyes while you do it, to show dominance.

13

Commander Discussion / Re: Brain Freeze combo crafting

« on: April 29, 2022, 12:22:03 am »

I don't know if it's good, but since you already include Dramatic Reversal and Jeska's Will, Reiterate can potentially get you infinite storm counters (the copies won't count, but recasting Reiterate will) and exile your deck. It's pretty conditional, requiring a bunch of rocks with Dramatic Reversal or an opponent with a big hand for Jeska's Will, but, you know, infinite storm counters.

I've been trying it out in Nin, the Pain Artist as a backup to Isochron Scepter to scam infinite mana. I'm still not 100% sold on it being worth the inclusion, but being able to copy an opponent's tutor does feel pretty good.

14

Commander Discussion / Re: A little bit of land destruction

« on: March 13, 2022, 08:25:18 pm »

None of those options are really "dead" cards if you don't have good lands to hit - Strip Mine and its copycats are still lands that tap for mana, and the cantrips cantrip. Each has a cost if you draw it when you don't really want it, but none of those costs are a card. That's why people don't really like to run stuff that can, say, only remove enchantments, however good it is (that can be a dead card quite often).

Stuff like Beast Within you probably aren't taking with the aim of destroying lands (indeed, if you were, you'd probably go for the dedicated options that are just better for that purpose). It's just nice to have another card that can deal with one, in a pinch.

That's a good point about none of those cards being technically "dead" in the same sense that Carpet of Flowers is dead without a blue player. But to the extent that there is not a target for the purpose of their inclusion, they can feel like duds. Getting a Wasteland in my opening hand can feel awkward, and paying 2 to cantrip to the same number of cards isn't parity, it's paying 2 for nothing.

I also agree that I've never reached for a Generous Gift to put in my deck thinking that I was filling a land destruction slot, but that doesn't mean it isn't. If I'm putting in a Spreading Seas specifically with the idea that it will be my solution to Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx then maybe Beast Within should be considered for the land destruction slot. Compared to say, Cleansing Wildfire, the trade-off seems reasonable to me if there was going to be a slot dedicated to it anyway. That being said, my gut tells me that the makeup of the rest of the deck (and each builder's personal tolerance for risk) is going to do more to make that choice than an evaluation of the cards in a vacuum. That's why I'm glad we have the variety!

(I also want to add that I personally prefer the non-land options because I just find them more fun I think Cleansing Wildfire is such an elegant card!)

15

Commander Discussion / Re: A little bit of land destruction

« on: March 12, 2022, 09:14:35 pm »

I do agree that every deck should have some kind of solution for the threats it is likely to encounter, and that includes problem lands. Honestly, I'm glad both options exist (land or cantrip)! Especially with an interaction like land destruction, I think it's great that we can tailor our level of response from the recoverable options like Lithoform Blight and Spreading Seas, through the fairer trades like Strip Mine and Cleansing Wildfire, up to the nuclear options like Armageddon. As the OP suggested, land destruction can be a touchy subject, so having the range gives us the option to slip some into our own metas without going all out.

For me, the idea of the "best" targeted land destruction has to account for the synergies of the deck. I just picked up a Lithoform Blight for my Pharika enchantress deck, but I like the versatility of Cleansing Wildfire for my 4-colour Omnath landfall. If the deck doesn't suggest any obvious synergies I'll slot in a Wasteland or Ghost Quarter, or even an Encroaching Wastes just to have the option in there, but I usually feel like the lands are the less flavourful options. I really could be convinced otherwise, but I don't think there is any way to say which is the best use of the slot without evaluating the other payoffs the deck has built in. Some decks can afford a colourless land, and others already filled those slots with their strategy; some actively favour the use of certain card types, and some are especially resilient to certain kinds of setbacks.

Was there a consensus, though, that the "destroy target permanent" cards like Beast Within are the actual way to go in terms of power and versatility? Because it seems like they are never dead and have none of the drawbacks of the others. Is sounds like the debate between lands and cantrips is really about whether or not they turn out to be a dead card. Wasteland has a low risk of inclusion if it's dead, but a fairly steep payment price to use (losing a land kinda sucks even if it's a smart trade). On the other hand, Cleansing Wildfire in your hand feels bad if there's nothing good to hit, but can replace itself while turning that Gaea's Cradle in to a forest.




For the record, my preferred land destruction is Rain of Thorns, and I can confirm that is probably not what you should run lol