Ditto on Winds of Abandon. I usually run with as few basics as possible and will happily slot in Winds of Abandon, and when it's used on me, I'll take my free library shuffle like a man!
You can make a neat package with Veteran Explorer, Avatar of Growth, Collective Voyage, and New Frontiers that will really punish greedy manabases by making them watch the rest of the table ramp out like crazy!
Land destruction is perfectly fine. Mass land destruction (without an immediate win condition afterwards) is not. I don't think anyone is going to bat an eye if someone blows up a token deck's Gaea's Cradle. If a player is committing tax fraud with a land, it's free game.
@@BorkBigFrighten2 bro I legit had a player rage quit on me when I blew up his Cradle of Itlamoc when he had a board of tokens! I blew it up with a Field of Ruin (playing a precon) so it wasn't even like he was behind on mana.
@martaneon5310 I could maybe understand being a bit salty if it was a Strip Mine (I personally wouldn't though), but if it's literally just getting replaced by a basic land, I see zero issue lol I mean, if someone's built their token deck to need Cradle to win, that sounds like a pretty shitty token deck tbh
@BorkBigFrighten2 mld without an immediate wincon is great, if it isn't symmetrical. Symmetrical mld without a wincon is just being an ass. Edit: For reference, I mean doing something like Natural Affinity+Ezuri's Predation.
@@thetrinketmage I don't play Ruination much anymore, but that's because I play From the Ashes instead usually. I find it solves a lot of the salt problems when the only reason someone gets completely blown out by the non-basic MLD is because they didn't just happen to have a lot of non-basics in play at that moment, but specifically build their mana base to be so all in on non-basics that they had 0-3 basics in their deck to fetch up after FtA nuked all their non-basics in play. Because FtA is more of a "any player that is 100% punished by this card did it to themselves with choices they made to get too greedy with their mana base" rather than "a player with 50% basics and non-basics could just be unlucky and have all non-basics this specific game" most players are never completely taken out of the game and don't feel bad for the occasional player that is. Which lets you get away with legitimately screwing up people's mana fixing and also often really mana screw them because you set them back from 8 lands that tap for 2+ colors to 5-8 lands that tap for 1 color each and reduced the probably of them drawing additional lands. I've had plenty of games where people never realize the reason they are frustrated about being stuck at 6 lands for 3 turns because they just can't seem to draw lands is because almost half their lands aren't in their deck anymore. There are plenty of other effects that destroy non-basics and give the target a basic land. They still solve all the biggest non-basic land stand out problems like Gaea's Cradle and even help situationally color screw someone in the early game and most tables will not agree with anyone that gets salty in response to be targeted by them because they either got a basic or failed to because they aren't playing any basics. Is it as good as just destroying a non-basic and giving them nothing in return? No, probably not. But it has felt like a weird hack to get most of the benefit of that without almost zero of the salt or hate.
I run tons of land hate in my decks specifically because of the amount of powerful lands in the format. So many people at my LGS have just been stone walled by a glacial chasm w/ their only *land* removal being the Generous Gift they cast on arbitrary threat on t5.
"I'm considering you'll be running 2, 3, 4, 5... 6! of these." Me with 14 mdfc lands in one deck: Ah yes, 6. Such an extreme number that needs emphasis. Right.
Mercadia's Downfall has become a real card: 3 mana red instant "Each attacking creature gets +1/+0 until end of turn for each nonbasic land defending player controls."
@@nosrin1988 Especially since Blood Moon effects are a real threat in the format. People already are running enough basics to get by so PoP has already been slightly neutered.
There are a minimum number of basics I think are needed. I'm not sure I'd ever go under 1 basic of each color in my deck. There are too many common removal spells that compensate you by letting you fetch a basic. That being said, while basic land hate is so wildly taboo there is no reason to run more basic lands than the minimum to feel safe for the forced basic land fetches.
everyone in my circle questioned me why i use strip mine in my deck, until the time i crop rotation to it to blow up the maze end that would win the game
I learned how to play Magic via Commander, and one of the first questions I asked was, "Can lands be destroyed?" and the answer was "Yes, but people don't do that in Commander." I imagine it was taboo because it shuts players down much more firmly than a board wipe, and unless it's the entire table's lands, you've probably just lost the game but have to sit there and wait to actually lose while the person who just wrecked the table durdles into a win. 😂
One of the reasons I don't care to play Commander too much beyond just casual bsing with friends. I'm so happy that Commander is popular. That's a good thing! The Commanderification of Magic as a whole, however, isn't good. 😢
You don't actually have to sit and wait. You can just concede if it's clear that you've got no choice to win. Also, you should now make a land hate deck and become the bane of your game group. 😂
It's taboo because it severely prolongs games and make outcome too much random. You basically restart the game except you can't mulligan. Competitive decks that run mass land destruction can close up games relatively easy, casual decks don't.
5:25 you say mono color decks have less tools, which is true, but also I think disingenuous regarding all of the implications of monocolored vs not. Less tools doesn't mean worse. A monocolor deck has easier access to cards with multiple pips of one color (like the Invoke cycle from Neon Dynasty) and a lot of synergy related to basics (corrupt, cabal coffers etc but you did briefy touch on this) and less vulnerability to landwalk as well as needing less lands in the deck due to needing less colors. It's a trade off, like every other deck building decision.
I know of about five different decks at one of my local scenes that are filled with Non-Basic Land Hate. I own two of them. Price of Progress has gotten my Ashling deck several wins.
Honestly this is such a cool video. I have been wondering exactly this for so long. "If non-basic lands are so goated, why do we play basic lands". Tysm great vid. Good things to think about for modern play as well as CEDH. Thanks!
Targeted land desctruction should be completely fine. MLD is usually no point to (not to say there never is), esp against decks that mainly ramps and plays extra lands. Unless you know you can win in like a turn, MLD is most likely to just slow the game down a whole lot, without contributing to very many gameplans. Most landfall/lands-matter decks run a huge amount of ramp and land recursion, so you will either make the game take 2x as long, or give the game to the deck you wanted to stop. This is just based on my experiences, and the decks I play, and play agains. As well as what I have seen from other peoples games, and heard from other peoples experiences.
i actually like basic lands. especially full art lands. or at the least those basic lands with just the big mana symbol. just a good world tour type experience looking at fantastic art.
Same here! I have a friend who negs me about it but if I'm gonna buy a deck, I'd rather spend 25$ on a full set of ~30 full-art basics than throw in a few more duals to save a mulligan here or there
@@milii113 same. i also like to make sure to have at least two each of a different art for all my basic lands, get as much variety of landscapes as possible in a deck
Another point against blood moon in cEDH is that usually if you're running it it's because you need stax pieces to slow down the game; you're not on a turbo combo list. Since you're not on a turbo combo list, you are at least at some level relying on the more interactive decks to stop the turbo decks that are inherently way faster than what you're doing. Basically, if you play a blood moon, you threaten to kingmake turbo dockside decks by shutting out a third/fourth player from interacting.
Destroy all creatures = Cool Destroy all artifacts = Cool Destroy all enactments = Cool Destroy all lands = Bad Casual Commander should embrace land destruction.
Fully agree that it shouldn't be the demon it is, but I think the main problem comes with the once per turn inherent to lands that isn't present in the other categories. But that being said if your landfall deck is running mass artifact hate without a problem, then my artifact deck should be able to run mass land hate without an issue too
Yeah, I've always been annoyed that you essentially have to have sets of non-basic lands, be it for commander or cube or whatever, yet they are so expensive.
@@garak55 my play group has really powerful stuff. Unlike the folks TM is talking about, we play land destruction, hate etc. And we all run fast mana and perfect lands. You just have to
I think dual lands are the easiest to justify proxying! Cause it won't make your deck overpowered. It just makes your decks more consistent leading to less non games where you are unable to find one color
Always include at least one basic. You need a fetchable target for Path to Exile, Winds of Abandon, and Settle the Wreckage. I typically like to include at least one basic per color, with some exceptions for greedy 5-color decks.
Ive added a lot more MDF land cards and bounce lands to my deck just because it feels good to bounce it back to cast it. I also have a lot if discard and recursion, meaning if i need a land for whatever reason its pretty easy to recursion one and just play it as a land.
That whole scene with the beast within on cabal coffers is spot on. I have a 4 color omnath deck thats only win con is gates, so most games, people just remove my commander over and over again, thinking they are knee capping me, but in reality im playing gate after gate, and even if I TELL people how i win before the game, and am very clear during the game about my quantity of gates get caught off guard constantly with maze’s end, even if its been out a few turn cycles. The amount of games I’ve stalled out with glacial chasm, when someone beast withined my commander instead of my win con, which I told them was there is very interesting. One guy even said he was going to save removal for my lands but then felt bad and decided not too because of social conventions, and I told him “never worry about that around me, play for fun, and for the win” (I also had deflecting swat in my hand, so it didn’t matter anyways lmao)
Very cool video! I find myself running less and less basic lands in my mono colored decks as well. I think i'd be interesting to see cards that don't hate on non-basic lands, but give you an advantage whenever an opponent plays or taps a non-basic land (for example something that says: "Whenever an opponent taps a non-basic land, scry 1"). This would go around the land destruction taboo and yet give players a reason to run more basics again.
Big non basic land hater, love me some non basic land hate. On a real note though I feel like some players overvalue non-basics and put in a bunch of non basics that suck when basics would be better. You see decks with 20 tapped dual lands for a two color deck that would be perfectly fine with being 90% basics. At the same time though, if you've got the money(or printer) for it most colors have some pretty busted lands they could get. Love me some price of progress though
Agreed 100%, I can at least understand non-basics when they're more than just a dual land, or if you're splashing 3/4/5 colors and consistency becomes a real issue, but most of the time it feels like heavy dual land inclusion for 2 colors just ends up saving maybe a mulligan here or there, and even worse if they come in tapped or have another downside. And that's not even mentioning the fact that a lot of decks people run in lower power (especially people relatively new I've seen) have like 1/4-1/3 of their budget blown on non-basics that are just thrown in because they match the colors See also: Talismans & signets thrown in every 2 color deck
I think part of the issue is "Nonbasic land hate is taboo". We keep complaining about nonbasic lands, and then repeating that it is taboo to interact with them. Taboo only exists if you let it. Just play the Blood Moon. Yes people will be annoyed, but annoying them is the only way to make it normal. Blood Moon should be annoying, or it isn't powerful enough to play in your meta. People whine about counterspells and board wipes and anything else that inconveniences them. We still play those cards, and tell them to get over it. There is a difference between interaction and stax. Blood Moon interacts with your mana base by punishing your greed. Winter Orb simply prevents you from playing the game. Cards that "keep the game fair" aren't the same kind of "stax" as cards that prevent gameplay from even occurring.
For anyone looking for a couple of solid includes for nonbasics, putting lotus field and thespian stage into every deck that is 3 colors and less has become a staple for me. If you have specific land tutors (weathered wayfarer is the best for this) those 2 cards can be early game ramp, and even if you dont get them early, thespians stage is always a great include (especially as people learn to put more good utility lands into their decks).
I, just as a magic player, love having my manabase blinged and stacked so I absolutely agree but I think I already covered the bases this video talked about (I played 16 mountains in a mono red deck lol)
One of the best MDFCs is Bushwhack. For one green mana you either get a fight spell or you get to search your library for basic land card (which you then play untapped). That's basically a tapland, like most mdfcs. But the spellside is just a super cheap fight spell for one green mana. It's so good. Also Abundant Harvest. For one green mana "chose land or non-land, reveal cards until reveal the chosen type. put that card into your hand, put the rest under your library". This is just so smooth. Either get a land or draw gas. Whenever a spell costs just one mana and it has two or more modes with one of them being "get a land into your hand" then it's basically a tapped mdfc.
Non basic lands have always been incredibly powerful. I think we’re just starting to hit a concentration point in EDH of there being enough good non basics to make basics obsolete. You aren’t forced to run bad non basics to make a greedy mana base. We even have fetchable common duals as a budget option. I definitely think we need some form of land hate, maybe a balance effect for non basics, something to even the playing field without being MLD.
also also, some cards that get crazy strong depending on the amount / variety of basic lands you have (not just the "Domain" effects, because Domain care only on basic land types, not basic lands **per se** ).
Non basic land destruction being taboo is a bit strange to me. I think going after basics should be a thing that is hard/frowned upon, but you should be able to hurt someones greedy manabase. Its like how people will complain if you kill or counter their commander. I mean I get it if you want to have fun, but if you just cast it off a jeweled lotus on turn 1 or 2, and now your whole strategy is ruined by a single path to exile...you had this coming.
I do love myself a blood moon/winter moon/back to basics for the decks that can fit them. Even if it takes only a few lands off each player, I like the ability to slow the table by a turn or two. I also feel most two color decks could 100% run these effects by including additional basics. Sure they might work best in mono color decks, but they still are powerful ways of slowing down opponents on 3-5 colors.
I don't have the guts to bring Ruination to my friend's table, but From the Ashes is a pet card of mine that serves a similar purpose! Still cleanses the nonbasics, and only punishes those who were greedy enough to run little to no lands in their 99.
My play group has developed a meta where pretty much every deck is running Maze of Ith. Because of that, we have collectively started running land hate to deal with the maze. Same thing happened with GY hate and exiling removal, in that it became prevalent so we started understanding why we should run more of it. It’s been a neat progression
I recently tried making a Boros Burn deck using Taii Wakeen and I found that dropping Sunspine Lynx in that deck is a good tool against lifegain and synergizes with Wakeens ability in a way that can just straight destroy someone on the spot if you have enough mana. Quite fun.
Unfortunately, like most things in commander it depends on the deck. I looked at a few of your lists to compare to mine and for some we are similar, and some are very different for reasons I understand. I have a range in my head for how many basics are too much and too little but when it comes to non-basics, it's difficult for me to cram in more text than I think needed. It might have something to do with knowing there is a simpler mana source type with basics in the deck than non-basics that have word soup. Also, I'm not sure why but, thinking about using the same budget MDFCs in every deck for each deck makes me feel like the decks are more similar than unique. I'm sure as players work on optimization this could be more of a regular thing. All that said and despite my opinions I would love to see a mono green deck with 37 non basics making up the land base for peak greed and value. Keep up the great videos!
I think land hate should not be taboo. Especially since more and more people are abusing land strategies like landfall… I should not automatically have to loose the game because my oponents play green/blue every game. If you get greedy, you should be punished by land destruction.
I really dont believe that MLD is the solution. (I acknowledge that you didnt say it was, im just offering a perspective to those that think it is the solution) Many playgroups dont play MLD but will run targeted removal like strip mine, field of ruin, and other cards that can kill any permanent. The issue is even if you play ruination or Armageddon, the landfall deck is still at an overwhelming advantage because everyone else is now at 0 lands, but if they have any pieces on board with a landfall effect, they just get free things. Like a rampaging baloths or tireless tracker. Also, many land decks will be running pieces like crucible of worlds to be able to recycle the lands that were destroyed, and maybe an exploration or azusa to add several more land drops per turn. They recover so much more quickly than non land decks after a land wipe, so MLD can be very problematic. I dont want to sound like "that guy" but having strong threat assesment, as well as ample tools in your decks, AND knowing how and when to mulligan, are all tools that i would recommend before saying to play MLD. Targeted removal to kill a cradle, or an urborg, is super important. And again, i hope i dont come across as lecturing. That's not my intent at all, just offering a perspective for anybody who cares to read!
@Bindersquinch I mostly agree, though will say that like most things MLD shouldn't be seen as the demon it is now. Like all symmetrical effects if done correctly, it is a completely valid strategy though the problem is that if it doesn't have something to follow up with then it is essentially just tossing the game, which is certainly frustrating. However if I have my artifact deck up and running and I can essentially play out my hand each turn without tapping a land, then yeah I'm gonna go nuclear. I fully agree though that mld isn't the best solution to punish land ramp as there's so many other things that punish heavy ramp in a way that will actually target a landfall player a lot more. Things like Confounding Conundrum, Tunnel Ignis, or Ankh of Mishra for a colorless option go a long way when playing against someone trying to throw out 2-3 lands a turn
I added sunspine lynx to a deck because I pulled it at my prerelease and it was awesome. I run mostly basics in my decks since I’m big into budget and the lynx helped me take out a pesky non basic land deck. I agree that landfall decks tend to be quite powerful and feel like targeted land removal and nonbasic hate are the only way to keep these decks “honest.” I think the problem with nonbasic land hate is most of them are extremely powerful against decks that only run nonbasics. I feel like some less powerful nonbasic land hate would be more acceptable to playgroups if they realize like you do how powerful nonbasics can be.
I agree with this as a whole and unless your playing green cut those Basics. But even then I’ve found my self cutting my forests for the Non basics with the Forest type so I can color fix with ramps cards like Nature’s Lore, Three Visits, Wood Elves, Krosan Verge, Ranger’s Path, and Skyshroud Claim. Even Spoils of Victory works on non basics with a land type
A couple months ago I threw together a nonbasic land destruction deck that was Mina and denn and it wasn't built to destroy all the nonbasics all the time it was just a lands deck that kept everyone else in check by removing problematic lands or pulling back decks that ramped too much. It worked great and people generally thought it was fine. Although some were upset about specific cards like ruination.
You will play one game with blood moon, it will do nothing. Then the next game you will randomly color screw the Simic player while somehow doing nothing to the Muldrotha player. Then you will remove it from your deck. That was my experience at least.
I build a mono Red Calamity, Galloping Inferno deck. I put Krenko's buzzcutter in there so that I can deal with the many powerful lands that need to be taken care of.
Green and White are the two colors that I value running basics in. Green because of the obvious ramp effects that only get basics. And White because of Land Tax.
Another reason for basics is Snow. Snow lands are arguably stronger than regular basics simply because there's added synergies (cards that care about Snow Permanents) that can add some unique variety to your games. Plus, in your Field of the Dead example, that's an additional land name if you have Forest AND Snow-Covered Forest
I just upgraded a doctor who precon. I changed a few lands but I kept the 6 basics, just cause I like them. My recent precons have so few basics I'm not used to that, since I play two mono colored decks and two budget decks with mainly basics (a bant and a gruul). When playing my white deck with 30 basic plains I always felt like my opponents had an unfair advantage when playing fetches, shocklands, or even proxies of og duals, since playing more than 2 colors was supposed to mean a less stable manabase, to balance the fact they have more options to play.
i play extraplanar lense in pretty much every mono and dual color deck i own, because so many people dont play that many basics. all my green decks also include collective voyage. and its always been amazing lol
I like to play a basic of each for path to exile and to fetch if I need no damage untapped or to fetch with a blood moon / back to basics in there. In mono color decks, I avoid running lands that always enter untapped for that color because I play extraplanar lens / gauntlet of power / caged sun, and in red you have gauntlet of might if no budget, in blue high tide, in green a BUNCH of forest synergies. Two color decks I run maybe 4-10 basics. 3 color decks I run 2-4 basics. Generally run 32-34 lands.
I run Demolition Field in every deck. Still producing mana is good, and the option to destroy and replace non-basics for just me and the owner is really solid.
1. Single target land destruction is perfectly fine and to be expected in casual commander to deal with the occasional/problematic land. Usually run about 3-4 cards that do that and many of them let the opponent fetch a basic... so nothing to complain about unless you build with no basics at all. 2. I always include at least one basic of every color of the commanders color identity for exactly this reason. In 2-3 color decks more like 2-4. Even if no one plays land destruction that lets you fetch basics, some of the popular removals, like path to exile, do so as well and it just feels bad not being able to fetch that basic on top of the other thing you lost. 3. Bit controversial, but I think mass land destruction, as well as some other "salty" things, are fine, too in casual, as long as the player controlling it is able to end the game in the next 1-2 turns.
Having a few basics is a good idea (often times even in cEDH) just to have something to fetch off of path and assasin trophy and other such removal. But when I say a few I mean 1-3 MAX unless you are in mono color.
I have a few 5 color decks and my favorite one has nothing but basics. It's a Codie, Vocifious Codex and all the ramp spells in it searches up basic lands so when I fall into one, it's just always has a land to pull.
I personally run a lot of cards that punish greedy mana bases like From the Ashes and Wave of Vitriol. It feels great when I can comfortably replace my duals with basics from my library and my opponents failed to find and end up lower on land.
That's an interesting direction to go in. Doubling down on the greedy powerful free wins lands provide. My pod had the opposite reaction to the same realization, we were just sick of lands deciding who wins. The MDFCs make the game more fun by preventing mana screw and mana flood at the same time, but all these win condition lands and copy effects just make for an archenemy game where because lands are untouchable (harder to kill than an enchantment which we know 3 colors can barely touch) even with everyone running single target land destruction (which you need to pair with a GY exile effect because they will just recycle it if they are in green), everyone has to ignore each other and hate out the lands deck, then the power dynamic of the three left is either so far that the game is over because people had to essentially kingmake, or the lands player has to sit and twiddle their thumbs for an hour or two because everyone spent every single resource preventing them from winning the game and have minimal resources left to play against each other.
In case of Field of Ruin - play Demolition Field instead as it's exactly the same except it only gives land to you and player whose land you destroy, not all players.
I run a decent number of basics for a few reasons. First, a lot of good nonbasics are expensive. Second, I'm building a collection of decks and giving each one a number of basics according to the color requirements helps keep them a bit more in line. Third, full art basics are just so nice to look at. I try to keep my basics on theme with the deck. As for MDFCs, I just don't want to deal with flipping them. It's a weak reason, I know, but that's really it. I think you do make some good arguments to run more targetted land destruction or mass nonbasic hate, so i will be looking to add a few to my decks.
I at minimum run enough basics to be able to cast any of my spells (one exception: only 6 basics in my Slivers deck and Morophon is 7), usually I run more than that, basically if I am hit with a From the Ashes I wanna be able to cast my stuff on the nect turn still I run From The Ashes in one deck, Demolition Field/Field of Ruin in most if my decks, sometimes more of those effects, and I've found that giving a basic in return takes most of the salt out of the land destruction and if they have no basics because they ramped too hard or have too greedy a base it is a plus for me
I made a silly deck with 12 nonland permanents and 43 lands using Sarulf, Realm Eater for this very reason. I get to do field wipe exiles frequently and nobody can touch my land creatures. Then once everyone is out of things on their boards, I just plink them down with my 2/2 and 3/3 land creatures for the win. If they shoot my wolf with stuff, then I just play it again since I'm running so much ramp or I play one of the 1 cost instants in black or green that give hexproof or indestructible and a +1/+1 counter. I also get a bunch of value out of the lands that let you draw cards because even though they cost a lot of mana to activate, I'm always flush with it and can dedicate some lands just for an extra draw or two each turn once I get to midgame.
I do pretty much the opposite. Cut down on multicolored lands in favor of basics and only keep the most important utility lands. Main motivation for that is budget tho. And I do play blood moon in quiet a few deck and hall of gemstone in others.
My new white deck has the Balance effects and it feels good to play, especially with my land count reduction effects, but then my pod isn't all babies.
Considering how popular cards like Path to Exile of assassin's trophy are I believe you still need to include 5/6 basics just in case some effect forces you to Fetch them. Heck even in modern player opt to include a few basics just to avoid getting sacked by that kind of card
Interesting video. If you could do a video on what you consider a Budget Deck to be, that be great. I personally consider any EDH Deck that is under $20 to be budget, but thats just me.
The store my friend and I used to go to for commander had a heavy nonbasic hate. Most decks that could run blood moon usually run it. I find myself at a middle ground for basic and nonbasic lands
Imo it depends on the type and goals of the deck. If you're running a beat-down Isshin deck, you want as to get as many creatures on the field as quick as possible - basics are the best way to do this. If, however, you're playing a combo based Tasigur deck, it doesn't matter as much how fast your landbase is
A note on tap lands. I think this is somewhat dependant on the commander. For example in my decks with 3 mv commanders or less I tend to avoid tap lands like the plague because I really want to cast my commander consistently on 3. Besides that I think the point of this video is in a funny place. It's somewhat acknowledging how unregulated lands are in the format and says "well if you can't beat em join em".
I want them to print more nonbasic hate, since every time they do that, my European Highlander deck gets better and better. In commander I love casting Price of Progress especially as it usually kills a player or two immediately and no one really gets salty about that card in specific.
Kessig Wolf Run and Rogue's Passage; 2 lands i never seem to care about until it's too late! Both of them just subtly sit there for most of the game and then, BAM, they just kill someone!
I do agree Nonbasics aren't really checked in Commander. And we get strong ones in every new set. But I only run nonbasic land hate in one deck currently. I play Back to Basics in my Azami EDH as I don't play many nonbasics in the deck so it doesn't hurt me much. I also recently got the Bello Animated Army precon, and I plan to swap out most of the nonbasics in the deck so I can play things like Burning Earth & Virtue of Strength. As they're on theme with Bello when he's in play
For lower power decks in EDH and other formats yes, run basics, they’re awesome and you’ll never sweat a Blood Moon. In cEDH the only basic I run is an island to Otawara a Blood Moon
Honestly this is why my playgroup only plays with the “Cabal Pit” cycle (forget the name but taps like a regular land but shocks you for 1) and errata to remove the threshold and to make them basic. Taping for blue for example is to op like how you can using island. And you can have as many of these as you want? Crazy.
I love land destructions and I have a deck of my own that frequently finds itself blowing up all sorts of different lands. Basic and non-basic alike. It might not be a popular strategy but it shouldn't get hated put of the format like it's being done right now
I think it is fine to have some target removal for lands, because they ofte yield so much value, as long as just dangerous lands get destroyed and don't lock the player out of the game, because you destroy all their lands just because. The opponents reaction should be "yeah, I can see why you would destroy that" :)
When my brother tried playing Utopia Sprawl I had to tell him "Karplusan Forest is not a forest"
Wotc gaslighting us fr fr
It's not?
@@MTG69no basic land type on the card
Tragic lmao
Next you'll tell me Island of Wak-Wak isn't an island
the basic land hate is so crazy in the format lately. everyone needs to start playing winds of abandon more.
I love winds of abandon! I think I need more copies of it cause I only have 1
Ditto on Winds of Abandon. I usually run with as few basics as possible and will happily slot in Winds of Abandon, and when it's used on me, I'll take my free library shuffle like a man!
You can make a neat package with Veteran Explorer, Avatar of Growth, Collective Voyage, and New Frontiers that will really punish greedy manabases by making them watch the rest of the table ramp out like crazy!
@Kryptnyt don't really wanna do that when I play cEDH ninety percent of the time. Hahahahaha.
But Veteran explorer brings back memories.
Keep crying
Interesting points. But full art basic lands do be drippy and makes me happy.
Honestly yea… there are so many cool basic land arts it feels bad not running all of them!
AVON!
"If you don't want land destruction in your pod, don't run lands worth destroying."
real. stripmine is a very level 7 card
Land destruction is perfectly fine. Mass land destruction (without an immediate win condition afterwards) is not.
I don't think anyone is going to bat an eye if someone blows up a token deck's Gaea's Cradle. If a player is committing tax fraud with a land, it's free game.
@@BorkBigFrighten2 bro I legit had a player rage quit on me when I blew up his Cradle of Itlamoc when he had a board of tokens! I blew it up with a Field of Ruin (playing a precon) so it wasn't even like he was behind on mana.
@martaneon5310 I could maybe understand being a bit salty if it was a Strip Mine (I personally wouldn't though), but if it's literally just getting replaced by a basic land, I see zero issue lol
I mean, if someone's built their token deck to need Cradle to win, that sounds like a pretty shitty token deck tbh
@BorkBigFrighten2 mld without an immediate wincon is great, if it isn't symmetrical. Symmetrical mld without a wincon is just being an ass.
Edit: For reference, I mean doing something like Natural Affinity+Ezuri's Predation.
Yes. Play non-basics.
It will only make my Ruination stronger.
chad answer
if you get me with a ruination... then you deserve the win!
Ruination in anything that runs red is a must; the nuke won't effect you if 50 to 60% of your land base is immune.
@@thetrinketmage I don't play Ruination much anymore, but that's because I play From the Ashes instead usually. I find it solves a lot of the salt problems when the only reason someone gets completely blown out by the non-basic MLD is because they didn't just happen to have a lot of non-basics in play at that moment, but specifically build their mana base to be so all in on non-basics that they had 0-3 basics in their deck to fetch up after FtA nuked all their non-basics in play.
Because FtA is more of a "any player that is 100% punished by this card did it to themselves with choices they made to get too greedy with their mana base" rather than "a player with 50% basics and non-basics could just be unlucky and have all non-basics this specific game" most players are never completely taken out of the game and don't feel bad for the occasional player that is. Which lets you get away with legitimately screwing up people's mana fixing and also often really mana screw them because you set them back from 8 lands that tap for 2+ colors to 5-8 lands that tap for 1 color each and reduced the probably of them drawing additional lands. I've had plenty of games where people never realize the reason they are frustrated about being stuck at 6 lands for 3 turns because they just can't seem to draw lands is because almost half their lands aren't in their deck anymore.
There are plenty of other effects that destroy non-basics and give the target a basic land. They still solve all the biggest non-basic land stand out problems like Gaea's Cradle and even help situationally color screw someone in the early game and most tables will not agree with anyone that gets salty in response to be targeted by them because they either got a basic or failed to because they aren't playing any basics. Is it as good as just destroying a non-basic and giving them nothing in return? No, probably not. But it has felt like a weird hack to get most of the benefit of that without almost zero of the salt or hate.
Good ol trailblazer boots might be a thing again later on. That and Dryad Sophistcate
I run tons of land hate in my decks specifically because of the amount of powerful lands in the format. So many people at my LGS have just been stone walled by a glacial chasm w/ their only *land* removal being the Generous Gift they cast on arbitrary threat on t5.
"I'm considering you'll be running 2, 3, 4, 5... 6! of these."
Me with 14 mdfc lands in one deck: Ah yes, 6. Such an extreme number that needs emphasis. Right.
Price of Progress goes in *ALL* of my red decks. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
the fact that MH has given us stuff like ragavan and nadu, but chain lightning and price of progress are too strong for modern is bullshit.
Good, get em king
Price of Progress is based, not even a feel bad
Mercadia's Downfall has become a real card:
3 mana red instant
"Each attacking creature gets +1/+0 until end of turn for each nonbasic land defending player controls."
@@nosrin1988 Especially since Blood Moon effects are a real threat in the format. People already are running enough basics to get by so PoP has already been slightly neutered.
No, 99 dragons approach
With a solo Rograkh in the command zone to show dominance
I always play some number of basics. Even in 4-5 color, I will include 1 of each.
Agreed. Path to exile, sassassins trophy, demolition field are reasons to keep them in.
I put From the Ashes in most my decks running Red and it’s funny when players fail to find because they’re only running a couple of basics
There are a minimum number of basics I think are needed. I'm not sure I'd ever go under 1 basic of each color in my deck. There are too many common removal spells that compensate you by letting you fetch a basic. That being said, while basic land hate is so wildly taboo there is no reason to run more basic lands than the minimum to feel safe for the forced basic land fetches.
@@hamsterfromabove8905 I miss getting blood mooned at my lgs
What’s it like to suck ?
everyone in my circle questioned me why i use strip mine in my deck, until the time i crop rotation to it to blow up the maze end that would win the game
Casual players’ aversion to land destruction should be adequately punished as you are planning
That’s why I love my ramp deck! It feels unbeatable at casual tables
Yeah if you don’t want anyone to play magic with anymore
I think people should run at least 3 to 5 basics for effects like path to exile and targeted land removal
Path is a good reason to have one or two basics
@@thetrinketmage I've seen multiple times people draw their two basics before a path to exile so that's why I put the minimum at 3 xdd
@@thetrinketmage I generally build 3 color decks and have a minimum of 1 basic of each of my colors.
@@hamsterfromabove8905 I use collective voyage just to get more basics than greedy decks. I ramp 4, you ramp 1
As a casual player who does not like using proxies, this is not a question i can afford to ask. 20+ basics it is.
Winter moon is amazing right now for two or mono colored decks. Not even in just stax deck, just works in alot of decks
I learned how to play Magic via Commander, and one of the first questions I asked was, "Can lands be destroyed?" and the answer was "Yes, but people don't do that in Commander." I imagine it was taboo because it shuts players down much more firmly than a board wipe, and unless it's the entire table's lands, you've probably just lost the game but have to sit there and wait to actually lose while the person who just wrecked the table durdles into a win. 😂
One of the reasons I don't care to play Commander too much beyond just casual bsing with friends.
I'm so happy that Commander is popular. That's a good thing!
The Commanderification of Magic as a whole, however, isn't good. 😢
@@drew8235My main interest as a format is EDH and even I agree wholesale with that.
You don't actually have to sit and wait. You can just concede if it's clear that you've got no choice to win. Also, you should now make a land hate deck and become the bane of your game group. 😂
It's taboo because it severely prolongs games and make outcome too much random. You basically restart the game except you can't mulligan. Competitive decks that run mass land destruction can close up games relatively easy, casual decks don't.
@@eggu1828sounds like a deck construction issue then aka a skill issue
5:25 you say mono color decks have less tools, which is true, but also I think disingenuous regarding all of the implications of monocolored vs not. Less tools doesn't mean worse. A monocolor deck has easier access to cards with multiple pips of one color (like the Invoke cycle from Neon Dynasty) and a lot of synergy related to basics (corrupt, cabal coffers etc but you did briefy touch on this) and less vulnerability to landwalk as well as needing less lands in the deck due to needing less colors. It's a trade off, like every other deck building decision.
I know of about five different decks at one of my local scenes that are filled with Non-Basic Land Hate.
I own two of them. Price of Progress has gotten my Ashling deck several wins.
Honestly this is such a cool video. I have been wondering exactly this for so long. "If non-basic lands are so goated, why do we play basic lands". Tysm great vid. Good things to think about for modern play as well as CEDH. Thanks!
Fantastic advice for someone like me, who just started building a mono colored deck 😂
don't forget about "Dwarven Driller", some lifegain stuff like Basilisk's Collar, Grafted Hexoskeleton and some damage increaser/multiplier :D
Targeted land desctruction should be completely fine. MLD is usually no point to (not to say there never is), esp against decks that mainly ramps and plays extra lands. Unless you know you can win in like a turn, MLD is most likely to just slow the game down a whole lot, without contributing to very many gameplans. Most landfall/lands-matter decks run a huge amount of ramp and land recursion, so you will either make the game take 2x as long, or give the game to the deck you wanted to stop.
This is just based on my experiences, and the decks I play, and play agains. As well as what I have seen from other peoples games, and heard from other peoples experiences.
i actually like basic lands. especially full art lands. or at the least those basic lands with just the big mana symbol. just a good world tour type experience looking at fantastic art.
Same here! I have a friend who negs me about it but if I'm gonna buy a deck, I'd rather spend 25$ on a full set of ~30 full-art basics than throw in a few more duals to save a mulligan here or there
@@milii113 same. i also like to make sure to have at least two each of a different art for all my basic lands, get as much variety of landscapes as possible in a deck
I feel like this channel is gonna blow up soon, really great content.
Fingers crossed!
Another point against blood moon in cEDH is that usually if you're running it it's because you need stax pieces to slow down the game; you're not on a turbo combo list. Since you're not on a turbo combo list, you are at least at some level relying on the more interactive decks to stop the turbo decks that are inherently way faster than what you're doing. Basically, if you play a blood moon, you threaten to kingmake turbo dockside decks by shutting out a third/fourth player from interacting.
Land destruction is not taboo, mass land destruction, with no win-con, is.
That's just another form of taxes. 😂
dusting off my blood moon in anticipation
Destroy all creatures = Cool
Destroy all artifacts = Cool
Destroy all enactments = Cool
Destroy all lands = Bad
Casual Commander should embrace land destruction.
Fully agree that it shouldn't be the demon it is, but I think the main problem comes with the once per turn inherent to lands that isn't present in the other categories.
But that being said if your landfall deck is running mass artifact hate without a problem, then my artifact deck should be able to run mass land hate without an issue too
I Proxy ever single land over 10bucks. It's insane that something so fundamental to the game is gatekept behind money
why though? just play with a given budget within your group. At $30 budget limit, everybody plays basic lands.
Yeah, I've always been annoyed that you essentially have to have sets of non-basic lands, be it for commander or cube or whatever, yet they are so expensive.
@@garak55 my play group has really powerful stuff. Unlike the folks TM is talking about, we play land destruction, hate etc.
And we all run fast mana and perfect lands. You just have to
I think dual lands are the easiest to justify proxying! Cause it won't make your deck overpowered. It just makes your decks more consistent leading to less non games where you are unable to find one color
@@thetrinketmage 100 percent agree. I have sheets of duals ready to give to people who don't have em
This is why I love this trend for my mono-red Zirilan deck. Ruination, Blood Moon, Price of Glory; a little something for everyone.
Always include at least one basic. You need a fetchable target for Path to Exile, Winds of Abandon, and Settle the Wreckage. I typically like to include at least one basic per color, with some exceptions for greedy 5-color decks.
Ive added a lot more MDF land cards and bounce lands to my deck just because it feels good to bounce it back to cast it. I also have a lot if discard and recursion, meaning if i need a land for whatever reason its pretty easy to recursion one and just play it as a land.
That whole scene with the beast within on cabal coffers is spot on. I have a 4 color omnath deck thats only win con is gates, so most games, people just remove my commander over and over again, thinking they are knee capping me, but in reality im playing gate after gate, and even if I TELL people how i win before the game, and am very clear during the game about my quantity of gates get caught off guard constantly with maze’s end, even if its been out a few turn cycles. The amount of games I’ve stalled out with glacial chasm, when someone beast withined my commander instead of my win con, which I told them was there is very interesting. One guy even said he was going to save removal for my lands but then felt bad and decided not too because of social conventions, and I told him “never worry about that around me, play for fun, and for the win” (I also had deflecting swat in my hand, so it didn’t matter anyways lmao)
Very cool video! I find myself running less and less basic lands in my mono colored decks as well.
I think i'd be interesting to see cards that don't hate on non-basic lands, but give you an advantage whenever an opponent plays or taps a non-basic land (for example something that says: "Whenever an opponent taps a non-basic land, scry 1"). This would go around the land destruction taboo and yet give players a reason to run more basics again.
Isn't there a red enchantment that says when a basic is tapped for mana the person gets a second?
Big non basic land hater, love me some non basic land hate. On a real note though I feel like some players overvalue non-basics and put in a bunch of non basics that suck when basics would be better. You see decks with 20 tapped dual lands for a two color deck that would be perfectly fine with being 90% basics. At the same time though, if you've got the money(or printer) for it most colors have some pretty busted lands they could get.
Love me some price of progress though
After I built my first deck with no tapped lands I have never gone back
Agreed 100%, I can at least understand non-basics when they're more than just a dual land, or if you're splashing 3/4/5 colors and consistency becomes a real issue, but most of the time it feels like heavy dual land inclusion for 2 colors just ends up saving maybe a mulligan here or there, and even worse if they come in tapped or have another downside.
And that's not even mentioning the fact that a lot of decks people run in lower power (especially people relatively new I've seen) have like 1/4-1/3 of their budget blown on non-basics that are just thrown in because they match the colors
See also: Talismans & signets thrown in every 2 color deck
I think part of the issue is "Nonbasic land hate is taboo". We keep complaining about nonbasic lands, and then repeating that it is taboo to interact with them. Taboo only exists if you let it. Just play the Blood Moon. Yes people will be annoyed, but annoying them is the only way to make it normal. Blood Moon should be annoying, or it isn't powerful enough to play in your meta. People whine about counterspells and board wipes and anything else that inconveniences them. We still play those cards, and tell them to get over it.
There is a difference between interaction and stax. Blood Moon interacts with your mana base by punishing your greed. Winter Orb simply prevents you from playing the game. Cards that "keep the game fair" aren't the same kind of "stax" as cards that prevent gameplay from even occurring.
The more magic goes in this direction the more I play winter moon and LD with a clear conscience.
For anyone looking for a couple of solid includes for nonbasics, putting lotus field and thespian stage into every deck that is 3 colors and less has become a staple for me. If you have specific land tutors (weathered wayfarer is the best for this) those 2 cards can be early game ramp, and even if you dont get them early, thespians stage is always a great include (especially as people learn to put more good utility lands into their decks).
I, just as a magic player, love having my manabase blinged and stacked so I absolutely agree but I think I already covered the bases this video talked about (I played 16 mountains in a mono red deck lol)
One of the best MDFCs is Bushwhack. For one green mana you either get a fight spell or you get to search your library for basic land card (which you then play untapped). That's basically a tapland, like most mdfcs. But the spellside is just a super cheap fight spell for one green mana. It's so good.
Also Abundant Harvest. For one green mana "chose land or non-land, reveal cards until reveal the chosen type. put that card into your hand, put the rest under your library". This is just so smooth. Either get a land or draw gas.
Whenever a spell costs just one mana and it has two or more modes with one of them being "get a land into your hand" then it's basically a tapped mdfc.
Non basic lands have always been incredibly powerful. I think we’re just starting to hit a concentration point in EDH of there being enough good non basics to make basics obsolete. You aren’t forced to run bad non basics to make a greedy mana base. We even have fetchable common duals as a budget option.
I definitely think we need some form of land hate, maybe a balance effect for non basics, something to even the playing field without being MLD.
also also, some cards that get crazy strong depending on the amount / variety of basic lands you have
(not just the "Domain" effects, because Domain care only on basic land types, not basic lands **per se** ).
Non basic land destruction being taboo is a bit strange to me. I think going after basics should be a thing that is hard/frowned upon, but you should be able to hurt someones greedy manabase.
Its like how people will complain if you kill or counter their commander. I mean I get it if you want to have fun, but if you just cast it off a jeweled lotus on turn 1 or 2, and now your whole strategy is ruined by a single path to exile...you had this coming.
I do love myself a blood moon/winter moon/back to basics for the decks that can fit them. Even if it takes only a few lands off each player, I like the ability to slow the table by a turn or two. I also feel most two color decks could 100% run these effects by including additional basics. Sure they might work best in mono color decks, but they still are powerful ways of slowing down opponents on 3-5 colors.
If you're asking this question, you haven't been hit by blood moon yet. Always run basic lands.
I don't have the guts to bring Ruination to my friend's table, but From the Ashes is a pet card of mine that serves a similar purpose! Still cleanses the nonbasics, and only punishes those who were greedy enough to run little to no lands in their 99.
My play group has developed a meta where pretty much every deck is running Maze of Ith. Because of that, we have collectively started running land hate to deal with the maze. Same thing happened with GY hate and exiling removal, in that it became prevalent so we started understanding why we should run more of it. It’s been a neat progression
Basic lands are icky, yep, PTEW, hate em! The worst! You should run only cool mana bases!
Anyways, mountain for turn tap 3 casting blood moon?
I recently tried making a Boros Burn deck using Taii Wakeen and I found that dropping Sunspine Lynx in that deck is a good tool against lifegain and synergizes with Wakeens ability in a way that can just straight destroy someone on the spot if you have enough mana. Quite fun.
Unfortunately, like most things in commander it depends on the deck. I looked at a few of your lists to compare to mine and for some we are similar, and some are very different for reasons I understand. I have a range in my head for how many basics are too much and too little but when it comes to non-basics, it's difficult for me to cram in more text than I think needed. It might have something to do with knowing there is a simpler mana source type with basics in the deck than non-basics that have word soup. Also, I'm not sure why but, thinking about using the same budget MDFCs in every deck for each deck makes me feel like the decks are more similar than unique. I'm sure as players work on optimization this could be more of a regular thing. All that said and despite my opinions I would love to see a mono green deck with 37 non basics making up the land base for peak greed and value. Keep up the great videos!
I think land hate should not be taboo. Especially since more and more people are abusing land strategies like landfall… I should not automatically have to loose the game because my oponents play green/blue every game. If you get greedy, you should be punished by land destruction.
I really dont believe that MLD is the solution. (I acknowledge that you didnt say it was, im just offering a perspective to those that think it is the solution) Many playgroups dont play MLD but will run targeted removal like strip mine, field of ruin, and other cards that can kill any permanent.
The issue is even if you play ruination or Armageddon, the landfall deck is still at an overwhelming advantage because everyone else is now at 0 lands, but if they have any pieces on board with a landfall effect, they just get free things. Like a rampaging baloths or tireless tracker.
Also, many land decks will be running pieces like crucible of worlds to be able to recycle the lands that were destroyed, and maybe an exploration or azusa to add several more land drops per turn.
They recover so much more quickly than non land decks after a land wipe, so MLD can be very problematic.
I dont want to sound like "that guy" but having strong threat assesment, as well as ample tools in your decks, AND knowing how and when to mulligan, are all tools that i would recommend before saying to play MLD. Targeted removal to kill a cradle, or an urborg, is super important.
And again, i hope i dont come across as lecturing. That's not my intent at all, just offering a perspective for anybody who cares to read!
@Bindersquinch I mostly agree, though will say that like most things MLD shouldn't be seen as the demon it is now. Like all symmetrical effects if done correctly, it is a completely valid strategy though the problem is that if it doesn't have something to follow up with then it is essentially just tossing the game, which is certainly frustrating. However if I have my artifact deck up and running and I can essentially play out my hand each turn without tapping a land, then yeah I'm gonna go nuclear.
I fully agree though that mld isn't the best solution to punish land ramp as there's so many other things that punish heavy ramp in a way that will actually target a landfall player a lot more. Things like Confounding Conundrum, Tunnel Ignis, or Ankh of Mishra for a colorless option go a long way when playing against someone trying to throw out 2-3 lands a turn
I love love love playing Burning Earth at the table and hearing everyone groan about it. It's hilarious
You better because I run Ruination and Blood Moon. It’s so wonderful seeing the look on their faces!
I added sunspine lynx to a deck because I pulled it at my prerelease and it was awesome. I run mostly basics in my decks since I’m big into budget and the lynx helped me take out a pesky non basic land deck. I agree that landfall decks tend to be quite powerful and feel like targeted land removal and nonbasic hate are the only way to keep these decks “honest.” I think the problem with nonbasic land hate is most of them are extremely powerful against decks that only run nonbasics. I feel like some less powerful nonbasic land hate would be more acceptable to playgroups if they realize like you do how powerful nonbasics can be.
Good to hear the Lynx is working well! I’m excited to try that card out!
I agree with this as a whole and unless your playing green cut those Basics. But even then I’ve found my self cutting my forests for the Non basics with the Forest type so I can color fix with ramps cards like Nature’s Lore, Three Visits, Wood Elves, Krosan Verge, Ranger’s Path, and Skyshroud Claim. Even Spoils of Victory works on non basics with a land type
Dunkey with some lukewarm takes here. Be the change you want to see, play mass land destruction! Let the salt of their tears fuel you.
A good use for basics tied directly to the power of non-basics is having at least one to grab with your demolition field
A couple months ago I threw together a nonbasic land destruction deck that was Mina and denn and it wasn't built to destroy all the nonbasics all the time it was just a lands deck that kept everyone else in check by removing problematic lands or pulling back decks that ramped too much. It worked great and people generally thought it was fine. Although some were upset about specific cards like ruination.
My local store recommended me sunspine for my group burn Torbran deck. Best choice I ever made as I needed more life and damage precention!
Alright that does it I'm splurging for blood moon
You will play one game with blood moon, it will do nothing. Then the next game you will randomly color screw the Simic player while somehow doing nothing to the Muldrotha player. Then you will remove it from your deck. That was my experience at least.
@@9forMortalMen Idk, screwing simic players is always morally correct so it's worth it.
I build a mono Red Calamity, Galloping Inferno deck. I put Krenko's buzzcutter in there so that I can deal with the many powerful lands that need to be taken care of.
I haven’t run land destruction, but I love some land HATE. Acidic soil is my go to answer to a landfall deck.
Green and White are the two colors that I value running basics in. Green because of the obvious ramp effects that only get basics. And White because of Land Tax.
Another reason for basics is Snow. Snow lands are arguably stronger than regular basics simply because there's added synergies (cards that care about Snow Permanents) that can add some unique variety to your games. Plus, in your Field of the Dead example, that's an additional land name if you have Forest AND Snow-Covered Forest
I just upgraded a doctor who precon. I changed a few lands but I kept the 6 basics, just cause I like them.
My recent precons have so few basics I'm not used to that, since I play two mono colored decks and two budget decks with mainly basics (a bant and a gruul).
When playing my white deck with 30 basic plains I always felt like my opponents had an unfair advantage when playing fetches, shocklands, or even proxies of og duals, since playing more than 2 colors was supposed to mean a less stable manabase, to balance the fact they have more options to play.
i play extraplanar lense in pretty much every mono and dual color deck i own, because so many people dont play that many basics. all my green decks also include collective voyage. and its always been amazing lol
I live for the Combat Step so any land that has Haste printed on it is a must have!
I like to play a basic of each for path to exile and to fetch if I need no damage untapped or to fetch with a blood moon / back to basics in there. In mono color decks, I avoid running lands that always enter untapped for that color because I play extraplanar lens / gauntlet of power / caged sun, and in red you have gauntlet of might if no budget, in blue high tide, in green a BUNCH of forest synergies. Two color decks I run maybe 4-10 basics. 3 color decks I run 2-4 basics. Generally run 32-34 lands.
This is why I love putting Trailblazer's Boots in all my Voltron-style decks. Time to stomp faces!
I run Demolition Field in every deck. Still producing mana is good, and the option to destroy and replace non-basics for just me and the owner is really solid.
Someone’s been listening to the Commander Clash podcast 😊 Richard would be proud.
I do listen to their podcast, and I thought it was really funny cause they just uploaded a video talking all about mana bases.
1. Single target land destruction is perfectly fine and to be expected in casual commander to deal with the occasional/problematic land. Usually run about 3-4 cards that do that and many of them let the opponent fetch a basic... so nothing to complain about unless you build with no basics at all.
2. I always include at least one basic of every color of the commanders color identity for exactly this reason. In 2-3 color decks more like 2-4. Even if no one plays land destruction that lets you fetch basics, some of the popular removals, like path to exile, do so as well and it just feels bad not being able to fetch that basic on top of the other thing you lost.
3. Bit controversial, but I think mass land destruction, as well as some other "salty" things, are fine, too in casual, as long as the player controlling it is able to end the game in the next 1-2 turns.
When I included wintermoon into my monoG Legolas, I realized just how many nonbasics i am running, like half my lands are nonbasic. So crazy
Also, Sunspine Lynx slips right into the monored damage-doubling decks that might also feature Heartless Hidetsugu.
Having a few basics is a good idea (often times even in cEDH) just to have something to fetch off of path and assasin trophy and other such removal. But when I say a few I mean 1-3 MAX unless you are in mono color.
I have a few 5 color decks and my favorite one has nothing but basics. It's a Codie, Vocifious Codex and all the ramp spells in it searches up basic lands so when I fall into one, it's just always has a land to pull.
I personally run a lot of cards that punish greedy mana bases like From the Ashes and Wave of Vitriol. It feels great when I can comfortably replace my duals with basics from my library and my opponents failed to find and end up lower on land.
That's an interesting direction to go in. Doubling down on the greedy powerful free wins lands provide. My pod had the opposite reaction to the same realization, we were just sick of lands deciding who wins. The MDFCs make the game more fun by preventing mana screw and mana flood at the same time, but all these win condition lands and copy effects just make for an archenemy game where because lands are untouchable (harder to kill than an enchantment which we know 3 colors can barely touch) even with everyone running single target land destruction (which you need to pair with a GY exile effect because they will just recycle it if they are in green), everyone has to ignore each other and hate out the lands deck, then the power dynamic of the three left is either so far that the game is over because people had to essentially kingmake, or the lands player has to sit and twiddle their thumbs for an hour or two because everyone spent every single resource preventing them from winning the game and have minimal resources left to play against each other.
In case of Field of Ruin - play Demolition Field instead as it's exactly the same except it only gives land to you and player whose land you destroy, not all players.
Or try to save it until Ankh of Mishra or Zozu comes online.
I run a decent number of basics for a few reasons. First, a lot of good nonbasics are expensive. Second, I'm building a collection of decks and giving each one a number of basics according to the color requirements helps keep them a bit more in line. Third, full art basics are just so nice to look at. I try to keep my basics on theme with the deck.
As for MDFCs, I just don't want to deal with flipping them. It's a weak reason, I know, but that's really it.
I think you do make some good arguments to run more targetted land destruction or mass nonbasic hate, so i will be looking to add a few to my decks.
I at minimum run enough basics to be able to cast any of my spells (one exception: only 6 basics in my Slivers deck and Morophon is 7), usually I run more than that, basically if I am hit with a From the Ashes I wanna be able to cast my stuff on the nect turn still
I run From The Ashes in one deck, Demolition Field/Field of Ruin in most if my decks, sometimes more of those effects, and I've found that giving a basic in return takes most of the salt out of the land destruction and if they have no basics because they ramped too hard or have too greedy a base it is a plus for me
Path to Exile, Ghost Quarter, and other similar effects being common mean I'll always run SOME basics. I'm down to six in my Esper Control deck.
I made a silly deck with 12 nonland permanents and 43 lands using Sarulf, Realm Eater for this very reason. I get to do field wipe exiles frequently and nobody can touch my land creatures. Then once everyone is out of things on their boards, I just plink them down with my 2/2 and 3/3 land creatures for the win. If they shoot my wolf with stuff, then I just play it again since I'm running so much ramp or I play one of the 1 cost instants in black or green that give hexproof or indestructible and a +1/+1 counter. I also get a bunch of value out of the lands that let you draw cards because even though they cost a lot of mana to activate, I'm always flush with it and can dedicate some lands just for an extra draw or two each turn once I get to midgame.
Bro’s not ready for the overloaded winds of abandon. (It’s me, I’m the Bro, and my sliver deck weeps for its greed)
I do pretty much the opposite. Cut down on multicolored lands in favor of basics and only keep the most important utility lands. Main motivation for that is budget tho. And I do play blood moon in quiet a few deck and hall of gemstone in others.
Yes
I am a proud runner of From the Ashes. For some people in my pod it last basically a Ruinations and I never feel bad.
My new white deck has the Balance effects and it feels good to play, especially with my land count reduction effects, but then my pod isn't all babies.
Considering how popular cards like Path to Exile of assassin's trophy are I believe you still need to include 5/6 basics just in case some effect forces you to Fetch them. Heck even in modern player opt to include a few basics just to avoid getting sacked by that kind of card
Interesting video. If you could do a video on what you consider a Budget Deck to be, that be great. I personally consider any EDH Deck that is under $20 to be budget, but thats just me.
The store my friend and I used to go to for commander had a heavy nonbasic hate. Most decks that could run blood moon usually run it. I find myself at a middle ground for basic and nonbasic lands
Imo it depends on the type and goals of the deck. If you're running a beat-down Isshin deck, you want as to get as many creatures on the field as quick as possible - basics are the best way to do this. If, however, you're playing a combo based Tasigur deck, it doesn't matter as much how fast your landbase is
A note on tap lands. I think this is somewhat dependant on the commander. For example in my decks with 3 mv commanders or less I tend to avoid tap lands like the plague because I really want to cast my commander consistently on 3.
Besides that I think the point of this video is in a funny place. It's somewhat acknowledging how unregulated lands are in the format and says "well if you can't beat em join em".
I want them to print more nonbasic hate, since every time they do that, my European Highlander deck gets better and better.
In commander I love casting Price of Progress especially as it usually kills a player or two immediately and no one really gets salty about that card in specific.
Kessig Wolf Run and Rogue's Passage; 2 lands i never seem to care about until it's too late!
Both of them just subtly sit there for most of the game and then, BAM, they just kill someone!
I do agree Nonbasics aren't really checked in Commander. And we get strong ones in every new set. But I only run nonbasic land hate in one deck currently. I play Back to Basics in my Azami EDH as I don't play many nonbasics in the deck so it doesn't hurt me much. I also recently got the Bello Animated Army precon, and I plan to swap out most of the nonbasics in the deck so I can play things like Burning Earth & Virtue of Strength. As they're on theme with Bello when he's in play
I imagine a core set of only basics cards. Creatures, Lands, Sorceries, Artifacts, and Enchantments. Maybe Instants and PWs.
For lower power decks in EDH and other formats yes, run basics, they’re awesome and you’ll never sweat a Blood Moon. In cEDH the only basic I run is an island to Otawara a Blood Moon
Honestly this is why my playgroup only plays with the “Cabal Pit” cycle (forget the name but taps like a regular land but shocks you for 1) and errata to remove the threshold and to make them basic. Taping for blue for example is to op like how you can using island. And you can have as many of these as you want? Crazy.
I agree, more people should run more non-basic lands. It powers up my Price of Progress and Sunspine Lynx.
I love land destructions and I have a deck of my own that frequently finds itself blowing up all sorts of different lands. Basic and non-basic alike. It might not be a popular strategy but it shouldn't get hated put of the format like it's being done right now
I think it is fine to have some target removal for lands, because they ofte yield so much value, as long as just dangerous lands get destroyed and don't lock the player out of the game, because you destroy all their lands just because.
The opponents reaction should be "yeah, I can see why you would destroy that" :)