how is Mono Blue a perfectly acceptable deck type, but a land destruction deck isnt?
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
how is Mono Blue a perfectly acceptable deck type, but a land destruction deck isnt?
Getting your spells counters feels bad, but has some interplay with how/when you cast things. Getting your lands blown up means you don't get to play things at all, and when the Ponza deck works there's no real counterplay you can do because you have no mana. Instants, which most decks run, are a burden against draw-go control because they have to use their counters on their own turn rather than holding them up on yours. There isn't a ubiquitous type of card which can fight against LD: only Green gets mana dorks.
However, in an age where every deck is chock full of value bombs that draw 4 cards, remove something and also pump your whole board, I think a Stone Rain or two is a much lesser evil.
So, what I am hearing is that you're bad at magic and it's supposed to be my problem.
LD decks have never been particularly strong or difficult to beat, speaking as someone who played both RG Ponza and UR BoomerRain in the past. It's not about what deck types are competitive, but what are considered acceptable by WotC/the community.
And much as Ponza loses more often than it wins, it has a certain feelbad quality to it that has convinced WotC that playable LD is unacceptable.
Then why do you always b***h about them being unfair?
They're not unfair, people just don't like playing against them.
>but monoblue!!!
And there's plenty of people who won't play against monoblue as well.
moron, I literally said that I used to play these decks, I'm not whining about fairness.
"Unfair" and "unfun" are not the same thing. LD as a deck tends to win on the play and lose on the draw, for obvious reasons, so it's hardcapped at a 50% winrate and in practice does considerably worse. There's nothing *unfair* about using your own resources to deny your opponent resources, such as playing a discard-deck like 8-Rack.
As
mentions, the deck is *unfun* because whereas control/counterspell decks allow for some degree of interaction, losing to land destruction just means not getting to play the game at all. Which, even if the practical result of getting most of your spells countered is having no chance at winning, feels worse on an emotional level. And so it's considered unacceptable.
turn 1 mountain, chrome mox, slith firewalker, turn 2 mountain, molten rain is the most feels good opening in the game. for me.
counterspell, discard, graveyard recursion.
You know what all those things have in common? They need mana to use. Where do you get mana? Lands.
Discard isn't also a generally viable way of fighting LD because in formats where LD is playable they have plenty of redundancy.
I get you're clearly trolling, but there's a grand total of 7 creatures in all of magic that can be played for 0 mana, and only one of them has any Power at all. Most are shitty kobolds.
>Where do you get mana?
Treasure tokens
Mono Blue can incorporate variety of strategies, land destruction is a specific strategy.
Mono-blue can at least be built as a big dick sea monster deck which is acceptable. MLD is for nerds who really need to have a beer, get laid, and slam some fatties on the table. This is a Timmy pod bro.
>slam some fatties on the table
this is innuendo isn't it
>need to slam some fatties on the table
you have no fricking idea
Land destruction is unfun to play against, but in a different way then monoblue. With monoblue it feels as if your enemy is repeatedly shutting you down, which makes it extra satisfying when you actually push through their bullshit and throw something at them.
A successful land destruction is simply tedious. You look at your hand, go
>whelp, can't play anything
Pass your turn and wait for them to whittle you down. That's all.
>Land destruction is unfun to play against
an blue isn't?
>T1 counter
>T2 counter
>T3 counter, draw
>T4 counter, counter, draw
>T5 small creature +draw, counter, counter
>win
Are you not reading what I just wrote?
>Land destruction is unfun to play against, but in a different way then monoblue.
Are you illiterate or something? Do you have some sort of syndrome that makes you incapable of comprehending any text beyond the first seven words? Monoblue is unfun, because the other guy keeps saying "no" to everything you do, but you are still trying to do things. You are still playing cards, even if they're countered. You are doing things, trying to push through the barrier.
Land destruction doesn't do that. You sit there, look at your hand. Guess you can't play anything this turn. You pass turn. The other guy hits you for 4 damage. Your look at your hand. You can play a land- nothing else. You pass turn. The guy destroyed it. He hits you for 4 damage. Your turn- you wish you could just have a nice day already.
It's unfun in a different way. Monoblue is annoying and infuriating, but rage is a much better feeling then boredom.
He (
) is also describing what is basically a dream draw for MonoU. Most control games don't go nearly this smoothly - though the London Mulligan has been a disaster in this regard by making every deck far too consistent. Stuff gets through. Threats take time to answer. A deck that's solely counters and a handful of fliers can't deal with something once it's on board, so they end up having to use removal/walkers/means of slowing the opponent down other than counterspells. And thence, counterplay develops.
With land destruction, your 'dream draw' just results in that do-nothing-for-6-turns scenario, and most other draws tend to either go terribly or basically the same but slightly slower.
You have a higher chance of surviving land destruction than monoblue.
Are you incapable of reading the thread? Yes, LD isn't especially broken or even really good, it's just boring to play against. This point has been reiterated a dozen times over.
If your opponent gets LD off, you just sigh and wait as he whittles you down over 5-6 turns while you can't play any card in your hand. That's not just unfun, that's dull.
And if your opponent DOESN'T get LD off, you likely just kill him without any trouble, which again, is boring.
Then why do you insist LD is unfair if you yourself say it isn't broken?
Please read
, you seem unable to tell the difference between "unfair" and "unfun".
Or, more likely, you can't argue that playing against LD is fun, so you have to argue against something no one actually says.
>Yes, LD isn't especially broken or even really good, it's just boring to play against.
Then how did it become such a point of contention?
Because fun is the reason to play and boredom is like the literal opposite of that?
>Because fun is the reason to play
But watching people react to their land being destroyed is fun.
They aren't having any, and they want to. So they don't want to play with you anymore, that's all.
Mtg players just hate interaction.
the amazing answer to counterspells is to just play more spells they have to counter. get fricked midrangegay, real decks cast more than 1 spell per turn
I run a Ruination in my Phylath deck and I dont feel bad about it to punish dualgays. Basic lands are based. Play Basic lands.
I'm fine with LD even in EDH, as long as you've got a way to close out the game. If you're wiping lands but have nothing to advance the game/kill your opponents, it just ends up being a slog as no one does anything for the next 20 minutes.
Is there an equivalent of LD in other TCGs? A "the other guy can't do shit so he stands there waiting for the game to end as the guy slowly whittles him down" deck?
Floodgates/stun in yugioh is different but kind of similar. Same end result of "you sit there doing nothing because you are unable to play anything". Certainly hated as much if not more than LD.
KNEEL
i can't believe you buttholes are still playing this game.
The only buttholes I know play Yu-Gi-Oh
How do MTG players have endless complaints, but still insist on paypigging for Hasbro and secondary market scalpers?
Why do fent junkies keep buying shit they know will kill them?
Because they're dysgenic morons
Go ahead and destroy my lands* homie I run landfall you're handing me value
* wait until I got crucible of worlds out first
Don't care
I love this art so much.
Same.
Well I hope you’ll enjoy its reprint in 2026 where a third of the art will be taken up by a strawng, black kwaen drooid
$0.85 card,
>exiles it
BTFO
Because blue is the "big brain" deck while land destruction has no positive stereotypes.
You can play arround counterspells. You can't play arround not having mana.
there are non-land ways of getting mana though.
Ways that generally require mana, outside of absurd eternal format shenanigans.
counter spells basically take away your mana though.
Land destruction is not a problem if all of your creatures cost 1 or 0. Problem solved. Don't be a greedy shitter trying to run 5 mana cards
acceptable to whom?
>Why is it perfect acceptable to block a dudes punches all match but not tie him to corner post and just wail on him when he can't fight back.
You tell me, anon.
>Like poison
>like counterspells
>like milling
I am attracted to unfun cancer.
LD hasnt been viable for like a decade in any relevant format
and if you play LD in commander you just get lynched irl because they are manchildren
Counter spells kill one spell at a time
An armageddon on turn four is going to kill x many of spells until you get back up and running. Even worse the later the game is and the weaker players hands/board states are.
Mono Blue, Ponza, and Prison are all based. Meanwhile WotC prioritizing "muh feelings" has led to atrocious design decisions.