toctheyounger wrote: ↑4 years ago
Rorseph wrote: ↑4 years ago
pokken wrote: ↑4 years ago
I feel like the lands available in EDH are too strong to be without at least incidental interaction for them.
Precisely. I'll stop playing
Strip effects when people stop playing things like
Gaea's Cradle,
Serra's Sanctum,
Maze of Ith,
Rogue's Passage, and
Glacial Chasm.
____
On topic, I'd say that it's no-holds-barred when it's down to 1v1. When there's no longer a political advantage to being coy, then I'm going to go ham.
Strong agree on both accounts. Once you're down to a showdown you end things however you can. And running at least spot LD is acceptable. MLD varies from meta to meta ofc, but with Coffers, Cradle, Maze, Sanctum,
Field of the Dead and on and on, if you don't at least consider running
Ghost Quarter,
Field of Ruin,
Terastodon or whatever budget land destruction you can you're a chump who's asking to be pubstomped. It doesn't necessarily mean going all in on
Strip Mine variants, but having the option of leveling the odds for yourself is too good not to give yourself the option.
Coming from a player that loves his utility lands (especially in Karador), I agree with this as well. I have had games end, or at least get out of control, because I couldn't get rid of a
Field of the Dead or an
Alchemist's Refuge. People have slowed me down by getting rid of my
Diamond Valley. There is nothing wrong with spot removal for lands. The mindset that it is bad, which Wizards tends to share, is why
Field of the Dead got banned in Standard (and maybe some other format; I don't remember).
As to the topic at hand, the play was solid and I would have no problem being the opponent in that case. If it was 3 players in the game, I had the fewest lands, and I was being targeted like that, I would probably be pretty upset. If I had the most lands, or the strongest board state, I would understand it but still probably be a little miffed.
But, once we get to 1v1, the game is now cutthroat. I don't build decks to win on turn 3 or anything but once it gets down to me and another person, I am doing everything to win that game. The player I am attempting to beat at least got second (or, I at least get second if I lose here). There is no reason to pull punches at this stage. The game is less about making sure my opponent has a good time and more about just ending it.
I enjoy the 1v1 aspects of a game, if I survive that long, because now the game is more about tight play and navigating certain lines. You don't get bailed out of a mistake because there are other people for your opponent(s) to focus on. It is just you and one other player trying to play their best Magic. I don't think the line outlined in the OP is wrong once the game gets to that point and I would have no problem scooping it up and saying "good game" in this situation. I outlasted 2 other people and did my best to win.
As was suggested earlier by 3drinks: if we get to this stage of the game, and the opponent isn't playing their hardest, it is a hollow victory. I don't want to win and then hear "good thing I didn't blow up 5 of your lands; I could have had that game". I don't want a win tainted when the obvious clear play is to just shut me down when it is just 1v1. I want the player to go for it and, if I can manage to come back from it, it makes the win all that much sweeter. And it makes the story of that victory so much better.
So, yeah, I think the mindset for multiplayer of "let's try to all have a fun game and enjoy ourselves" goes out the window once it is no longer multiplayer.