NO, again you misinterpret me. i was responding to a post which said they didn't want to change their deck despite the fact that there might be MLD. its hard to take people seriously who refuse to prepare for MLD or (any strategy for that matter) despite the fact that they KNOW they are going to be up against it in a game. if you don't like MLD, that is FINE, i've said that in literally every post i've made in this thread. i'm not in charge of you or your playgroup and i respect everyone's opinion here. all i am saying is that is easier to relate to someone with actual gameplay experience against it and who has ideas of how to deal with it. correct me if i'm wrong, but nobody here who was pro-MLD has said flat out 'you're wrong MLD is fine' without some explanation as to why.
I feel like you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I really don't see much MLD in my meta, certainly not enough of it to bother changing my decks for. I'm not saying all MLD is bad and I don't refuse to play against MLD cards. The more severe case that tobyornottoby quoted was referring to this kind of deck:
[...]Needless to say, the game was absolutely miserable. Had the second player not left we might have managed to get enough resources together between the two of us. But instead I, faced with the unenviable proposition of 20+ turns of "attack for 1-2, Dwarven Miner activation," scooped feeling like I’d wasted the past three hours and needed a shower, and a good three hours with an abuse counselor.
If I knew an opponent was playing a deck like that, I might just walk away. Same thing if it's a dedicated Hermit Druid combo deck. "Hey man, I'm sorry, but with the decks I have on me, I don't think I'd have any fun playing against you." I stand by my right not to play if I'm not going to have fun.
I won't continue the musical taste analogy as analogies can get very messy very quickly.
I've experienced enough land destruction to know I don't like it. I've also had plenty of games where I basically wasn't doing anything due to mana screw. I don't want to cause that for anyone else, so I don't run MLD in any of my decks (except one Cataclysm, but the deck that is in can be a real jerk sometimes). Most, if not all, of my playgroup feels the same way. I don't refuse to play against MLD, I just don't have to because no one around here likes it. And since it isn't part of the meta, I don't need to adapt to it.
But that's me and mine. I can't give advice for adapting to a more hostile meta, and I won't tell anyone not to play a format-legal card. Just stating my opinion.
This is something that I see pop up here fairly frequently. The short answer to the OP's question is: Because people don't feel like building/playing around it.
That's basically true. I like my decks and I'd rather leave them the way they are than fine-tune them to adapt to high-level strategies like mana denial and early-game combo. It's not a matter of skill, however, but of preference.
The interesting thing is, I have yet to find a skilled, knowledgeable player who was for banning MLD in EDH. I find quite a few who hate it being played against them, but that's because it generally makes them lose and they don't like to lose. I haven't met anyone with any amount of skill in this game that thinks it should be banned. It just seems that most players that I run with accept that it's a viable strategy, accept that people might be playing it in their decks, and plan and play accordingly.
I agree that MLD should not be banned. I just think that regardless of skill, games without it are more fun. It's the same reason I took Skullclamp out of my EDH decks.
Sorry for derailing the thread; discussion about fun should really go somewhere else.
It really depends on the motivation of the person casting the MLD spell. As long as they aren't griefing me or the rest of the table, I wouldn't be upset with the decision to play it. But I can't guarantee I'll enjoy myself either.
In the case where massive land destruction is part of the opposing deck's game plan, I may decline to play against it because I don't think I would enjoy myself. I don't think most of my decks could handle it.
-Forced Fruition
+Rite of Replication
Forced Fruition is like putting fireworks in a bonfire. There's a chance it could go off and be pretty, but just as likely to blow up in your face. If you like explosions and dislike having eyebrows, that's okay, but I prefer the predictability of being able to have five of something.
-Beck//Call
+Helm of Awakening
Beck & Call is only really good because of the interaction between Beck and Alliance of Arms. I need more from my cards. Helm of Awakening adds some simple Hug to the deck at a low mana cost.
-Duplicant
+Mercy Killing
Since I don't care much about my board state, Mercy Killing is a much better and more flexible bit of spot removal. It can be used to kill the worst thing at the table, or bolster another player's army. Great synergy with Coat of Arms too.
-Temple Bell
+Otherworld Atlas
I don't always tap Temple Bell when it's on the battlefield, so I'd rather use the imposing Otherworld Atlas. Even if I never use it, the threat/promise of drawing mass cards may sway the game more predictably than handing out cards every turn.
I'll update the first post when these changes make it to the physical deck.
I only have one deck with real (non-land) tutors, and that has 4 or 5. I even removed Sunforger from my RW combo deck because I don't want the game to play out the same way every time. Where's the fun in that?
Edit: I forgot a bunch, especially my pan-tribal Reaper King deck which thrives on using tribal tutors to find my changelings. Let me be more thorough...
Just build a new deck that isn't as good. When my Sygg deck wouldn't stop winning, I built a crappy group hug deck that has evolved into my favorite deck ever.
I enjoy the game when it is played back and forth and across a curve, not just hey hugs guy played a turn 1 veteran explorer into a turn two collective voyage /rites of flourishing /font of mythos. To me that completely ruins a game in the same vein as someone casting jokulhops/ decree of annihilation / Armageddon without any foreseeable path to victory.
I totally agree! To make sure that doesn't happen, I have to be careful and subtle when piloting Phelddagrif.
When I use my chaos/hug deck, I try to make interesting things happen without making the game draw out for two hours. My opponents may not get to execute their game plans precisely, but they always have plenty of options. Of course we're still playing Magic. But more importantly, we're having fun.
I don't play against stax often, as you might guess from my comments. But if I'm in a situation where I have literally nothing to do but pass priority, and this is the desired outcome of an opponent's deck, can you blame me for feeling like I'm not playing Magic either?
I've read enough on this board to understand that the stax player is not simply trying to grief his opponents. Its a valid strategy that adds layers of complexity to deckbuilding and gameplay. Although I don't like the archetype, I respect it and the people who pilot it intelligently. All I want is the same courtesy from you.
Elvtyrr, that was very well put and I can't argue with anything you said. I just don't think the end result--decks tuned to assume plenty of resources--is so bad. Whatever results in everyone having more fun, you know?
You need to play around stax, you need to play with hug. They are completely different decks. People dislike hug because it invalidates games, people dislike stax because they don't like having their stuff destroyed.
I agree that hug and stax are completely different, but they both disrupt games by forcing you to play differently. Playing with stax is like racing up a cliff face; playing with hug is like racing in freefall. I'd say they are two sides of the same coin.
When you say that it "invalidates games", what do you mean? As though the game result doesn't count and needs to be thrown out?
Note that I did not say win condition, merely gameplan. I don't want to win every game, just to try and engage my gameplan as I envisioned it. I dislike hug because it says to everyone else that they cannot do that. Instead, they *must* play in the way the hugged wants. That is what I dislike so damn much.
I really don't think that a deck needs to have to fight for the right to *play* the game. That seems silly to me.
That's the same reason why Stax is not fun to play against.
I feel like you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I really don't see much MLD in my meta, certainly not enough of it to bother changing my decks for. I'm not saying all MLD is bad and I don't refuse to play against MLD cards. The more severe case that tobyornottoby quoted was referring to this kind of deck:
If I knew an opponent was playing a deck like that, I might just walk away. Same thing if it's a dedicated Hermit Druid combo deck. "Hey man, I'm sorry, but with the decks I have on me, I don't think I'd have any fun playing against you." I stand by my right not to play if I'm not going to have fun.
You should see Celestial Prism. Honestly, Manalith is fairly high on the spectrum of mana rocks for :3mana:.
I've experienced enough land destruction to know I don't like it. I've also had plenty of games where I basically wasn't doing anything due to mana screw. I don't want to cause that for anyone else, so I don't run MLD in any of my decks (except one Cataclysm, but the deck that is in can be a real jerk sometimes). Most, if not all, of my playgroup feels the same way. I don't refuse to play against MLD, I just don't have to because no one around here likes it. And since it isn't part of the meta, I don't need to adapt to it.
But that's me and mine. I can't give advice for adapting to a more hostile meta, and I won't tell anyone not to play a format-legal card. Just stating my opinion.
That's basically true. I like my decks and I'd rather leave them the way they are than fine-tune them to adapt to high-level strategies like mana denial and early-game combo. It's not a matter of skill, however, but of preference.
I agree that MLD should not be banned. I just think that regardless of skill, games without it are more fun. It's the same reason I took Skullclamp out of my EDH decks.
It really depends on the motivation of the person casting the MLD spell. As long as they aren't griefing me or the rest of the table, I wouldn't be upset with the decision to play it. But I can't guarantee I'll enjoy myself either.
In the case where massive land destruction is part of the opposing deck's game plan, I may decline to play against it because I don't think I would enjoy myself. I don't think most of my decks could handle it.
None of those sound like any fun to me.
What combo is that? Wake of Destruction keys off of lands' names and Blood Moon only changes their types.
-Forced Fruition
+Rite of Replication
Forced Fruition is like putting fireworks in a bonfire. There's a chance it could go off and be pretty, but just as likely to blow up in your face. If you like explosions and dislike having eyebrows, that's okay, but I prefer the predictability of being able to have five of something.
-Beck//Call
+Helm of Awakening
Beck & Call is only really good because of the interaction between Beck and Alliance of Arms. I need more from my cards. Helm of Awakening adds some simple Hug to the deck at a low mana cost.
-Duplicant
+Mercy Killing
Since I don't care much about my board state, Mercy Killing is a much better and more flexible bit of spot removal. It can be used to kill the worst thing at the table, or bolster another player's army. Great synergy with Coat of Arms too.
-Temple Bell
+Otherworld Atlas
I don't always tap Temple Bell when it's on the battlefield, so I'd rather use the imposing Otherworld Atlas. Even if I never use it, the threat/promise of drawing mass cards may sway the game more predictably than handing out cards every turn.
I'll update the first post when these changes make it to the physical deck.
Edit: I forgot a bunch, especially my pan-tribal Reaper King deck which thrives on using tribal tutors to find my changelings. Let me be more thorough...
*searches opponent's deck
Sygg (UB control, lots of answers)
Full tutors: Vampiric Tutor, Demonic Tutor, Diabolic Tutor
Limited tutors: Riptide Shapeshifter, Mystical Tutor
1 fetchland
Phelddagrif (WUG group hug/control)
Full tutors: Noble Benefactor, Jester's Mask*
Limited tutors: Weird Harvest
Ramp: New Frontiers, Collective Voyage, Tempt with Discovery
2 fetchlands
Gisela (RW damage combo)
Ramp: Surveyor's Scope, Burnished Hart
Land: Armillary Sphere, 2 fetchlands
Endrek Sahr (B tokens/creature stax)
Full tutors: Diabolic Intent, Rune-Scarred Demon
Wrexial (UB mill/reanimation)
Misc: Grinning Totem*
2 fetchlands
Reaper King (WUBRG budget changelings/pan-tribal)
Tribal tutors: Defiant Falcon, Goblin Matron, Higure, the Still Wind, Moggcatcher, Seahunter, Sliver Overlord
Land: Maze's End, Armillary Sphere, 1 fetchland
I totally agree! To make sure that doesn't happen, I have to be careful and subtle when piloting Phelddagrif.
When I use my chaos/hug deck, I try to make interesting things happen without making the game draw out for two hours. My opponents may not get to execute their game plans precisely, but they always have plenty of options. Of course we're still playing Magic. But more importantly, we're having fun.
I don't play against stax often, as you might guess from my comments. But if I'm in a situation where I have literally nothing to do but pass priority, and this is the desired outcome of an opponent's deck, can you blame me for feeling like I'm not playing Magic either?
I've read enough on this board to understand that the stax player is not simply trying to grief his opponents. Its a valid strategy that adds layers of complexity to deckbuilding and gameplay. Although I don't like the archetype, I respect it and the people who pilot it intelligently. All I want is the same courtesy from you.
I agree that hug and stax are completely different, but they both disrupt games by forcing you to play differently. Playing with stax is like racing up a cliff face; playing with hug is like racing in freefall. I'd say they are two sides of the same coin.
When you say that it "invalidates games", what do you mean? As though the game result doesn't count and needs to be thrown out?
That's the same reason why Stax is not fun to play against.