I want to use this particular card (the most classic example) to discuss a basic function in the gameplay that has been mostly eliminated - land destruction. While the reasons for its elimination might seem obvious and appropriate, I would like to consider introducing new cards to the gameplay that incorporate the function. Early on, cards like Armageddon, Tsunami, or Flashfires may have ended games unfairly, but a more reasonable card like Stone Rain is still relevant, I think. (However, with the introduction of non-basic lands that would be unaffected by the latter 2 examples, those cards might still have their place) Stone Rain is the most basic example of land destruction, and even in only taking one land away from the opposition, packs a powerful effect. Given that the drawing of mana is inherently random, losing even a single land can dramatically alter the results of play. On the other hand, sometimes the effect will be irrelevant, especially against decks that pull a lot of mana from the library. Land destruction, in the current game, has been highly limited, probably because attention is being mostly given to a different aspect of the game, the lack of popularity of such cards, or for perceived unfairness of its use. Honestly, I think the biggest reason is probably the lack of value being placed the game's basic functions. Personally, one of my favorite functions is to grab lands from the library, because I realize how essential a good mana base is, and value efficiency and versatility over any sort of cheap trick. And when I'm playing with red, one of my first thoughts might be whether or not to include land destruction, in a differently-designed game. As it is, this is not a consideration, because I realize that it is ineffective to focus my strategy on things like this. But, I strongly feel that it should be. The potency of these such cards should be a real consideration that your opposition should need to make, and fine-tuning one's deck to account for all factors should be a protocol in any winning player's mentality. I might include higher cost cards that destroy 2 or more lands in a set that I designed, for example, giving players something to look out for. Completely ignoring certain possibilities should be a bigger downfall in the strategies of players who design a deck that relies on fragile components to achieve the expected result. You should need to build something more solid than that, where losing one specific thing didn't ruin the whole game, and coming back to win was more a matter of careful prediction and preparation. I hate that games end in just a few turns, or are all-of-the-sudden completely insurmountable. A better game would allow you errors or misfortunes, and require your opponent to beat you thoroughly before they can actually declare victory. But I endlessly run into the common, wanna-be, smart -ass, who starts mocking you with a "Good Game" emote long before the result should be determined. That guy deserves punishment, in the form of having their ego slaughtered by someone who can display superior skill, coming back to win after the ass had a lucky draw and gained their false confidence. If they can't handle a more real gameplay dynamic, they should be told to cry-off, as they so wishfully and proudly tell much better players to do. |
