Messing with a mana base- cool or foul?

[Aetherium Slinky]

But I don't want to argue around that much. I am just a casual-commander player who plays the format now and then, so please don't give to much on my opinion. 

Oh no I didn't mean it that way! The entire reply wasn't to about you, I was just quoting it as a nice segway into what I was about to say in general. I'm not judging you, at all!

[TropicalBoi]

To everybody who said it's fine to them (Akira, Musta, Clean, Tropical), would you still say it's fine to play MLD/Back To Basics/Blood Moon if the player can't actually do anything with it?

Ok, I see where you are coming from, but I guess I've personally never been in that situation before, my playgroup always capitalizes on their spells. Good one though, I never thought of it that way.

[Akira Foxmind]

But I don't want to argue around that much. I am just a casual-commander player who plays the format now and then, so please don't give to much on my opinion. 

Oh no I didn't mean it that way! The entire reply wasn't to about you, I was just quoting it as a nice segway into what I was about to say in general. I'm not judging you, at all!

It's fine, I'm not offended. I just wanted to point out that I'm not a pro-commander-player and thus my opinion shouldn't be valued high. No offense on anybody or in any direction. 

[CleanBelwas]

To everybody who said it's fine to them (Akira, Musta, Clean, Tropical), would you still say it's fine to play MLD/Back To Basics/Blood Moon if the player can't actually do anything with it? I.e. they play Armageddon and durdle because they can only rebuild as quick as everybody else.

I think a big thing about public perception of land disruption is altered because most non cEDH players don't know how to utilize it. They see that it's recommended in EDHRec and think that it's an auto include and should be played whenever.

Yea dude, I wouldn't give a shit. I'm a live and let live kind of guy. If that's how they want to play, it's fine by me.

The only thing I get salty about is cheating, which luckily isn't a problem as I play with friends mostly. If it's in the rules of the game, I'm cool with it. I mostly play to hang out, drink beers and eat pizza anyway.

[Xaarvaxus]

I've played LD and against it a ton in the past so I guess I'm still acclimated to losing lands in a game whether from a Pillage or an Armageddon.  I don't even get that salty if someone nukes the lands without a way to win because I don't think its really a problem to broach the subject of everyone just scooping if its obvious that nothing is going to happen anytime soon and just play another game.  Obviously I prefer if someone is using it to shut the door on a win and its all over within 2 turns but, hey, sometimes it just doesn't work out. 

As for Blood Moon and Back to Basics style effects.  I try to build and play with those strategies in mind.  One of things that made the biggest difference for me and was an easy fix, when fetching, fetch basics if you can.  Flooded Strand typically gets Island for me instead of Tundra.  I also try to get a feel from folks if they're packing such strats and avoid playing my Sliver Overlord deck [with only 5 basics] for that game and pick something that has 12-18 basics instead.  And needless to say, pack enough removal so that such things aren't an issue for long and be wary of tapping out.  If you get caught with your pants down, Force of Vigor or similar may be a solution for the future [you're probably holding onto that extra green card without access to mana you can use...]

So, I'll be voting 'cool' for the poll though its more like 'fine'.

From CleanBelwas "If it's in the rules of the game, I'm cool with it. I mostly play to hang out, drink beers and eat pizza anyway."  I'm in this camp as well, emphasis on the pizza [not much of a drinker if I have to drive ]

[WizardSpartan]

So staying on the topic of land destruction (stax is another can of worms), I think it should only be used as a win con or to stop a land deck from winning to put it simply. Otherwise, they are likely using it incorrectly or just don't have a good enough deck for it.

[stuffnsuch]

It's generally not cool, but every once in a while, there's some land hate that sparks interest and is worth including.  I once had to preak up an infinite combo and did so by storming off with Temporal Fissure.  I bounced all the lands back to the players hand, giving us a couple turns of relief.  He still won, because he eventually got two lands down again which was enough to go off, but bouncing the lands was by far the most interesting thing that happened that game.  It was temporary (if he'd had to draw into more lands, we'd have really stopped him), it was targeting a present threat, and it was using a card that's not strictly for land hate.  I think in that situation it's absolutely okay.  Most of the time, however, not the target isn't able to recover really ever, and that's just not cool.

[Slyvester12]

I'm against it in general, assuming the deck would be played against random people. If building for a meta, depends on the meta. Is targeted or mass hate acceptable and do people have answers? If yes, sure, play it. If no, then it's the same as every other strategy: if the playgroup can't handle it, it's probably best not to run it.

I think it's fine to talk to people about improving their decks, even on a budget, so adding new elements to an existing local meta isn't bad, but I've played against many people who have a favorite precon and no intention of ever upgrading or building another deck. In that situation, I'd avoid land hate or anything else likely to ruin the game for others.

[robort]

I am fine with it. Like a previous poster said it is a puzzle that has to be solved and I like solving puzzles. When you play this game long enough you have to adapt,adjust and accept when a card gets played. Your strategy is going to get hosed from time to time that is just the nature of the beast. If I saw everytime someone played a card I didn't particularly like that wasn't cool. The card pool selection would be miniscule to make decks because of not liking it, I remember one game with 4 of us playing and a player drops a blood moon on turn 3 while we all have non basics in play. I was trying so hard not to laugh but 4 turns later and not a single one of us drew a basic land. Also like in the opening posters comment about it coming down to 1 vs 1 and a player scooped. I came into that situation myself once before where my opponent had a card in play and I knew there wasn't a card in my deck that would deal with the situation. I told him that the game is his and I had nothing.

Let's now do a little math here as well. You've played how many magic games? Guesstimate a number. You've faced blood moon, back to basics et-cetra in those games how many times? Guesstimate a number. Without adding tutors and with a 100 card deck and 1 card being one of those cards the chances of facing it are? Guesstimate a number. So on a guesstimate I am assuming you don't see them often. Unless of course a person only has 1 deck and plays that constantly against you.

With all that said in my playgroups we all know you play stuff that people don't like then expect to be targeted. I will make a point in hand but it isn't about something we don't like but a certain player in our playgroup we don't care much to play against. Every deck he has is optimized/competitive to where he only makes those types of decks. He is smug and laughs with that smug. So when we do randomization for pods and those of us experienced against play him. He gets targeted by those of us with the experience against him. There are other reasons as well such as having the exact same opening hand ihat had from the previous game. Yes the same exact 7 cards to start in back to back games.

Sorry for the long rant

[G. Moto]

I don't like land destruction unless it's in the case of specific lands that need to be removed. If someone is playing a black deck with crypt ghast and cabal stronghold and then they drop a Urborg, tomb of yawgmoth then i will completely understand the land destruction. But i see outright destroying a person's mana base keeps them from playing the game. How can you really say that "i defeated that person" if you destroy their lands so that they cannot play or interact with you? I come from a mindset of learning from your opponent and being able to play your deck so that you can learn where to tweak and improve the deck and to "out-play" the opponent. Destroying lands directly contributes to preventing that from happening, in my opinion anyway.

[Judaspriester]

With Land Destrucrtion I'm somewhat fine, as long as it's used as silver bullets.
Mass Land Destruction on the other hand usually isn't fun, unless the game gets finished fast afterwards.

There are some exceptions like From the Ashes, since it only really punishes the people with a very greedy mana base.

[Varatius]

With Land Destrucrtion I'm somewhat fine, as long as it's used as silver bullets.
Mass Land Destruction on the other hand usually isn't fun, unless the game gets finished fast afterwards.

There are some exceptions like From the Ashes, since it only really punishes the people with a very greedy mana base.

If you make it impossible to play you make it so your opponents can't misplay.

When it come to land destruction I think its fine if you either can win shortly after or you deck is built back out faster than youre opponents. 

[Morganator 2.0]

I come from a mindset of learning from your opponent and being able to play your deck so that you can learn where to tweak and improve the deck and to "out-play" the opponent.

Doesn't using Blood Moon on a 5-color deck count as out-playing them? Or using Armageddon on a deck that can't recover quickly?

[Aetherium Slinky]

I come from a mindset of learning from your opponent and being able to play your deck so that you can learn where to tweak and improve the deck and to "out-play" the opponent.

Doesn't using Blood Moon on a 5-color deck count as out-playing them? Or using Armageddon on a deck that can't recover quickly?

I've been waiting for you to comment on this thread. What's your take on the matter?

[Morganator 2.0]

Nothing that hasn't been said already. I'm okay with stax and land destruction as long as it's part of a win-condition. I don't like it when people play land-hate without a goal after, in the same way that I don't like chaos decks without a win-con, or group-hug without a win-con, or when someone plays Phage the Untouchable just so they can lose the game.

Land-hate is a good tactic, as a lot of decks are vulnerable to it. Playing Back to Basics is a good way to bring 5-color decks down to size. I have no problem with this.