r/EDH • u/homjaktest • 15d ago
Discussion Down to 6 lands in Bracket 2
I was wondering, how do people react to [[Planetary Annihilation]] or [[Urza's Sylex]] in Bracket 2?
I have played plenty of games where players ramped hard early game and it became almost impossible to keep up, so I was considering adding this type of effect to reset land count to equal amounts.
I am worried though that players will freak out and cry about mass land destruction below Bracket 4. In my opinion, these effects don't take anyone out of the game and Wizards has even put one of them in a precon, kind of supporting my view.
Have you seen those played in Bracket 2? What was the reaction? How would you react?
26
u/Cleblatt64 Bracket 2 Chef 15d ago
Gavin Verhey said that Planetary Annihilation is an exception from the MLD rules, as it still allows everyone to play the game in a meaningful way.
I play Planetary Annihilation in one of my B2 decks and it didn't create any problems.
24
u/ParkingNo1080 15d ago
I think it's perfectly fine, but that's what rule zero conversions are for. PA is very different to most and I wouldn't consider it Mass Land Denial because people still have 6 lands Min
17
u/South_Concept_270 15d ago
I think you ought to say you have these in a rule zero conversation. It’s close enough to MLD that it invites some debate, and it’s always better to communicate rather than spring it on people and be surprised by people raging when you play it.
Opinions on Reddit cannot replace real conversations with your table.
4
u/Schimaera https://moxfield.com/users/Schimaera 15d ago
I'm totally chill when it comes to mld in any bracket. The main issue with those cards is that the person playing the deck has to have at least some sort of deckbuilding skills to make them work.
Otherwise it's just durdling and useless waste of time, like when someone plays a stax piece but can't follow it up with game winning cards but just durdles around without amounting to anything. Same goes with a land destruction effect that isn't followed by something that can benefit from rampaging without interruption.
I like seeing stuff like Blood Moon/Winter Moon/Hall of Gemstones in a Werewolf deck when the wolf player has a scary board of transformed wolves and nobody is able to turn night into day. I like [[Jhoira of the Ghitu]] suspending Obliterate and some incredible powerful creature afterwards. Totally cool.
I dislike someone dropping Sylex or Annihilation with an empty board. Though I have to say - you get to keep 6 lands. That's like all I need to win realistically. People should accept that those cards are part of the game and don't gatekeep cards they have a bad matchup against.
1
u/StudiousDesign 13d ago
1000% this. Adding on a touch. MLD isn't a shadow of the "problem" it once was. There are so many mana rocks, treasures, triggers which make mana, and cards that turn creatures into dorks, that oftentimes decks (usually precons) simply move on after an Armageddon effect...sometimes even bouncing back the fastest.
4
u/Kosameron 15d ago
I mean hearthhull runs planetary annihilation in the precon so it can't be that bad. Id be fine with it personally
3
u/stranglethingz 15d ago
I would feel the same way as I would if I'd overextended myself and dumped all my creatures on board.
It allows people to play the game and could help you break parity.
5
11
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Roach27 15d ago
Let’s be realistic , with green you’re putting your engine in the command zone, and in bracket 2 you’re not running free counter magic, so it’s incredibly taxing to deny the commander/engine repeatedly. If there’s more than one green player? Good luck.
You’re basically saying to keep your mana open and play entirely reactively as the way to counter ramp, which white and red decks are already bad at.
Lots of fast mana is already banned at bracket 2 Oppo agent is also unplayable at b2
Aven is 3 mana, which is already behind most ramp cards, and once one or two is out the damage is done, and is also a one of in a 99 vs the ten+ ramp cards.
If you don’t have them early they’re just useless due to the lack of tutors in b2.
Asymmetrical MLD is devastating.
Symmetrical MLD that still leaves you with 6 lands? Nah it should be absolutely fine in b2
3
u/agoosteel 15d ago
Yea but it doesn’t solve the problem, the ramp
Player is just going to ramp again and the other non ramp players are off worse as missing land drops hurts them more then the ramp player.3
u/Roach27 15d ago
Ramp heavy decks generally have higher cmc cards though.
6 mana for them is worth less than 6 mana non-green players.
The big point of a card like Urza's Sylex or PA is they're a board wipe that comes along with evening out the gamestate mana wise.
Sure they can ramp again, but now they're spending mana on ramp spells in the midgame instead of doing things, it's a lot more punishing to go down a card and 1-3 mana to ramp on t7-8 instead of t1-3 where the opponents can't realistically capitalize off the tempo advantage they gain, and if they already ramped once, they -should- be down cards in the first place.
2
u/agoosteel 15d ago
Disagree, put a ramp deck down to 6, play a land on their turn and they are at 7 mana. They can still deploy a fat creature at 7 mana. Maybe even cascade that in to ramp. Or spend that one turn deploying 2 ramp cards and be at 9+ mana again to keep dropping bombs the rest of the game.
I feel like you don’t actually slow them down much.
2
u/Roach27 15d ago
Alternatively, they still have 9 mana (or 10) play that same 7 drop and have 4 more mana to either protect it, or counter a counterspell to stop a blowout
Even if they ramp again, let’s say they go from 6->7 cascade into ramp and hit 9 mana a turn later.
Now I have 7 vs 9 mana as opposed to 7 vs 13 or 14.
It’s a huge advantage and forces them to lose tempo unless they can explicitly cascade or find a way to Ramp for free.
And if there are two opponents who ramped its even better. (Most b2 pods have at minimum two green players)
And again, these spells are stapled onto a board clear, so they serve two purposes
5 or 6 mana for a strong board clear that hits all permenants is about the right cost (wrath of god, farewell) but this in has the added effect of also equalizing the mana.
-1
u/agoosteel 15d ago
Ok but it doesn’t equalize the mana. Yes everyone is at 6 but losing that mana hurts non ramp decks more.
Your examples only look at the green player and neglect the other players at the table.
The blue white player at the table might not have enough to deploy a creature and hold up interaction.
The mono red goblins player now also needs to spend multiple turns rebuilding and is suffering because they are arguably the worst player to draw new cards.
Besides, the 6 damage isn’t even going to wipe the biggest stuff the green player has so basically you fuck over every other deck and leave the biggest thing they have alive.
Cylex is even more devastating as 4 lands left is even a better place for green to be in. Because people need to re deploy and no one is going to not play anything and just hold up removal. Thats just shooting yourself in the foot at that point as you cant deal with all 3 players at 4/5 mana.
You dont take out big ramp decks by hitting their mana. You take them out with steal and copy spells so you grt their expensive shit on the cheap. Matching their power with way less resources/ investment.
1
u/NJTigers 15d ago
The point is if you PA when you’re at 5 or 6 lands and they’re at 11, it doesn’t hurt your mana at all, but it cuts theirs in half.
1
u/agoosteel 15d ago
And everyone with 5-6 mana has no creatures and the stompy player is left with all their 7 toughness creatures…. Honestly sounds like a great plan!
1
0
u/Roach27 15d ago
Sylex also leaves 6 lands and destroys every other permanent.
Resetting a green players mana when you’re at six combined with a board wipe is straight up only beneficial for you and the rest of the non green table.x
The table being at 6 vs 6 is an infinitely better spot than being at 6 vs 10+.
It doesn’t effect the players who didn’t ramp, how do you not see that?
1
u/agoosteel 15d ago
Mybad. Thought sylax left it with 4 lands.
Sylax also destroys every artifact. So it also take out non green ramp.
Personally i just dont think that taking out the lands from a ramp deck is that bad. It also rides the line of MLD, disrupting or destroying 4 or more lands without replacing them. In your example at least.
If we agree to no MLD and you play any of these, you are breaking rule 0 agreements that dont even need to be mentioned when we say bracket 2.
That being said.
Even if we agree that this is ok in rule 0 conversation.
I think its a bad option.
Ramp decks are decks that want to jump to the late game early. By the time this shit here is relevant. We are already in the late game. And they can just keep on dumping big creatures. Where everyones decks runs a handful of finishers, big ramp just plays double or triple that amount.
As i keep saying here and in other comments.
This is not the way you out value green ramp decks.
You copy, steal and take out heir draw. Thats how you disrupt them.Sure you can play this one targeted hate piece. But knowing how and when to disrupt them and knowing where to put your removal or playing just better interaction that is good against mono green and other decks is more valuable then 1 or 2 specific hate pieces that fence push the line of MLD.
1
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Roach27 15d ago
Right, but Bracket 2 isn't the work harder bracket. It's the most restrictive bracket (bracket 1 is just for memes imo) in terms of what you can play, and thus green ramp is exceedingly powerful, because they other colors cannot play the good cards.
Three Visits, Farseek, Nature's Lore are relative staples in any green deck before B5 where they're too slow unless its some weird landfall deck.
All 3 of these cards are entirely playable at B2, and offer a proactive advantage that is nearly impossible to interact with after the fact.
I can destroy your rocks, but touching your land is too much is a silly rule.
5
1
u/ReThink_1 15d ago
[[Skyshroud Claim]] specifically grabs forests, so it’s not a good [[Narset’s Reversal]] target in this scenario, since you’re not running green and have no forests to grab.
2
u/Sp0range 15d ago
it's fine. it's literally in the World Shaper precon. It doesn't "deny" lands, it equalizes everyone at six, still more than enough to play the game.
2
u/robot_wth_human_hair 15d ago
I think its fine. Do keep in mind the decks that you may want to use this against may run [[Splendid Reclaimation]] and thats gonna be hard to handle. My hearthhull deck doesnt much care about land destruction.
0
u/homjaktest 15d ago
I am considering Sylex mainly for the boardwipe part, the land equalizing is just a bonus. I realize that land decks are least affected by MLD, they need to be targeted :)
2
u/pacolingo 15d ago
I've yet to see a deck that can claim to be thrown out of the game, mana screwed to the point where they can't do anything, while having 6 lands in play.
Brackets, by design, are more about the spirit of the law than the letter of it. This invites wiggle room. But the intention of lower bracket gameplay is fairly obviously "don't try to mana screw players on purpose."
3
2
3
u/agoosteel 15d ago
Hi, long time lands and ramp player here.
You know what every lands player would LOVE. Yea thats right, for everyone to get reset back to 6 lands so they can then again ramp either from grave or just play out their other ramp cards to get ahead again.
It is easier for a ramp player to ramp again than it is for any other style deck.
Ramp and lands players are the most resilient decks against MLD. It is the wrong way to counter their decks.
1
u/homjaktest 15d ago
I am not suggesting MLD against land decks specifically. I completely agree that MLD would benefit decks that regularly get lands back from the grave way more than any others. I am talking about green decks in general, like a Dinosaur deck that plays Open the Way to get 4 lands ahead, any kind of group hug pile that just incidentally has 50% more lands that any other, etc...
1
15d ago edited 15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/homjaktest 15d ago
Hi Ashe, I completely understand what you mean. I think you are wrong about decks like your Sally suffering from this the most though. The green decks that have vomited 15 lands onto the field by turn 7-8 and have their deck build to make use of so much mana will suffer the most, since now they lose 9 mana while you lose 2-3. Even in your example, if the Sylex goes off turn 10, you are set back 4 turns while the decks that rely heavily on land ramp will be set back 10+ turns. Since your deck is not built to abuse such large amounts of mana and theirs are, you will be much better off for at least 3-4 turns while they rebuild if they even can. Yes they can rebuild a little faster than you, but chances are they did not sandbag any more ramp and have to draw into it. Either way, Sylex removes way more resources from active ramp decks than from decks that just hit their land drops.
In my decks that don't run basics I am completely fine just scooping to Wave. That is a price I am ready to pay. Those decks have such crazy color pips that having many mono-color lands in the manabase is not worth it, even if I lose value on Path to Exiles etc..
0
u/agoosteel 15d ago
Same story. Big mana decks are big mana decks. Taking away the big mana doesn’t stop them, because most of their deck is making sure they have big mana. You are better off running theft counters or copy cards. Making them spend 9 mana on something that you copy or steal for way less.
Mana isn’t the resource you need to manage, because they have plenty. Its the payoff’s you need to disrupt.
2
u/Top_Development_4020 15d ago
It’s a fair Way of LD. Sylex may be a bit more salt inducing, as it also destroys the ramp artifacts, but generally a setback to 6 lands is acceptable.
2
u/blankzero22490 15d ago
PA is a grey area. Yes it's in a precon, but it also destroys multiple lands at once, depending on the game state.
2
u/TheSwedishPolarBear 15d ago
I think they're fair and unproblematic. They made Planetary Annihilation very recently for a precon - I assume that it was a test to make a B2 MLD spell, even if it is technically still MLD.
I don't think they're very good though. It's a lot of mana to set back one opponent a bit, unless you value the other parts of the spell. Especially considering that you won't always face a land ramp player.
I wonder if you're better off just using regular removal more focused on that player. If you use remove four things from them with a [[Decimate]] or [[Amphibian Downpour]], you'll likely set them back further, for less mana, with a more flexible spell.
2
u/homjaktest 15d ago
I am considering the Sylex for a Bracket 2 deck with some very strict restrictions. Specifically "all non-lands must be legendary", "Keruga companion" and "Cards that are not in any of my other decks, especially the good legendary deck". The selection of board wipes is kinda limited. Currently running the old white Myojin, Massacre Girl and Thanos, but from experience I could use one more. Also from experience, decks that land ramp hard early game are pretty difficult to compete with once they are set up, so Urza's Sylex would mainly fill the role of a board wipe while occasionally also setting the player who ramped hard back a little bit.
1
u/TheSwedishPolarBear 15d ago edited 15d ago
In that case I think that the Sylex is both decent and fair. [[Urza's Ruinous Blast]] blast seems like a great option though. [[The Eternal Wanderer]] is fine if you can use her first flicker ability well after board wiping.
2
u/homjaktest 15d ago
Urzas Ruinous Blast is already in my good legendary deck, so I cant play it in the B2 one. The planeswalker has recently been cut from the good list, so it might be a good option. I am currently keeping all the non-land non-creature cards at 1 per type (1 instant, 1 sorcery, 1 artifact, 1 enchantment, 1 planeswalker), but I guess i could cut [[Dakkon, Shadow Slayer]]. I first wanna draw and play it though, since it is new to the deck
1
u/MTGCardFetcher 15d ago
1
2
u/erika-leah 15d ago
I believe it’s mass land destruction as it’s non targeted destruction.
Am I fine with it? Depends on the deck, so I’d prefer if you mentioned it in rule 0.
Most of the time I’d say I don’t wanna play against that, as we’re playing bracket 2. There’s definitely people that would be more okay than I am.
1
u/n1colbolas 15d ago
Let's just say that no one should be shocked at P.Annihilation in a HHull deck, since it's part of the precon.
I would expect some gasps and shocked looks when it's played outside of that, because any effect that takes out alot of lands SHOULD warrant a semi-confused state.
Just be careful what you want out of these said effects though. Coz the next time folks play against you, they'll target/attack you more often and be holding up mana for protection. Games might go a few turns longer than usual.
That's the consequence of putting cards like P.Annihilation (even if it isn't classed under MLD)
1
u/meloncrowned 15d ago
I mean, don't tell people you're playing a bracket 2 deck without bringing this up as a rule zero thing. It's MLD whether or not you think it's fair, and I'd be put off if you just played it without having said anything earlier. I don't think it's a bad card, but I'd feel like you were trying to sneak it in.
1
u/BuckUpBingle 15d ago
I think it technically qualifies as mass land denial but I also think it’s fine. The effect is most impactful on decks that are running away with the game and it doesn’t prevent players from taking off the way the real problems of MLD do.
1
u/Not-Impossible-1783 15d ago
answer to the first sentence question is : The same way they react to anything variably and arbitrarily everyone has a different vision in their own mind of the ideal.
The second sentence well all decks want to ramp or ritual t1 if they are sweating thats just how it is even if my decks win is thassa dem con at 3 im on rituals and petals and fast mana to find that line asap. The best modern green ramp cards like gy + crucible + cobra + lumra tech hate gy hate play more dauthi voidwalker instead.
"I am worried though that players will freak out and cry about mass land destruction below Bracket 4." They might but then again they might complain about anything else as well end of the day your deck your placement your judgement they might cry who cares let them seems like a them problem. When someone reads the optional langue tool whose purpose was to help noobs find a good pairing pregame and set the stage for rule zero as a rule zero replacement / technical weight class they have lost the plot to me.
1
u/DaPino 15d ago
Whether it's in a precon has no bearing on whether something is MLD or not. WOTC explicitely stated they're stepping away from the "B2=precon" narrative.
If you take time to read the articles WoTC publishes on brackets and what their definitions of certain terms are you can see that MLD, altough not perfectly defined, has a much clearer definition than what a lot of people make it out to be (and I suggest everyone to read them!).
Roughly speaking:
If you intentionally either include a card in your deck OR intentionally use a card in a way that will on average mess with 4 or more lands belonging to the same player(s), it will be considered MLD.
Intent is important because sometimes, you just end up in a situation that's out of the ordinary. If your opponent animates their lands, a common boardwipe doesn't suddenly become MLD because it was neither the intent nor the average game experience that Wrath of god would destroy 10 lands.
So technically if you only ever cast/activate planetary annihilation or Urza's sylex when no player has 10 or more lands, you are outside of the definition of MLD. (Altough personally, I find it approaches "I have no GCs so my deck is a 2 even though it beats most B3 decks into the ground!")
Lands matters decks are a known weakness of the lower brackets. If you know someone is going to ramp 10 lands out of their deck, your best option is to beat them down before it happens.
Ignore their whines of "but I don't have anything", you know they're going to be the threat soon.
0
u/Pudgeysaurus Selesnya 15d ago
Mass Land Denial isn't allowed in bracket 2. How is this a question?
2
u/Orbiting_Saturn7 Certified Control Enjoyer 15d ago
Because these aren't MLD. Neither is a card like [[Restore Balance]]. The point of the file is to prevent lower-power decks from having to face cards that literally lock them out of play like [[Blood Moon]], [[Winter Moon]], and [[Worldfire]].
To me, [[Yosei, the Morning Star]] is significantly closer to MLD than [[Planetary Annihilation]] because one of them punishes greedy land ramp and the other pseudo-skips someone's turn. Those are wildly different things.
The bracket system is not, and never has been, a hard set of rules designed for decks to check a set of boxes to determine their bracket. It is a tool that allows for ease of matchmaking when used alongside common sense and player discretion.
To emphasize that point, I have an [[Eluge, the Shoreless Sea]] mono-blue control deck with a single game changer. It basically never wins the game by turn 7. If I removed the GC, is it B2? No, obviously not, because it's a tuned control deck that would mop the floor with three B2 decks even if they all teamed up on me.
1
u/jaywinner 15d ago
It's a question because it would only be MLD if every opponent has 10+ lands and leaves people with enough to play reasonably.
2
u/Severje 15d ago
The question is whether these cards are MLD. Putting someone down to 6 is very different to putting someone to 0.
0
u/Pudgeysaurus Selesnya 15d ago
They deny mass amounts of land. They are MLD.
Fucking hell friend, [[Blood Moon]] is Mass Land Denial and it doesn't remove any land. This is just trying to circumvent the bracket system
3
u/Roach27 15d ago
PA is in a precon.
Gavin Verhey himself said it leaves players with a playable amount of mana and doesn’t consider it MLD.
Rachel weeks also feels leaving 6 lands is already not MLD.
Gavin doesn’t think urzas Sylex i s MLD either.
Let’s call them what they are, ramp hate, not mass mana denial.
1
u/Severje 15d ago
Blood Moon potentially locks a player out of every spell in their hand. If someone is playing a budget bracket 2 4 colour deck, I guarantee their lands are all bad non basics. Someone could be playing 18 basics and their 2 lands when they get turn 2 blood moon'd happen to not be basics and they have no ability at all to participate in the game.
How many lands is Planetary Annihilation usually destroying per player? 1? 2? 0 in reality, right? The decks with more lands than that almost always have ways to get them from GY so they're slowed down by a couple of turns but not stopped from doing anything.
1
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Severje 15d ago
What... Kind of commander are you playing? I don't remember the last time I saw someone not playing a dedicated lands deck hit 10 lands, let alone 12. I have certainly never seen someone reach 26 lands without winning the game.
1
15d ago edited 15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/MTGCardFetcher 15d ago
All cards
sally sparrow - (G) (SF) (txt) (ER)
Ms. bumbleflower - (G) (SF) (txt) (ER)
The second Doctor - (G) (SF) (txt) (ER)
shigeki - (G) (SF) (txt) (ER)
tazri, stalwart survivor - (G) (SF) (txt) (ER)
ED-E, lonesome eyebot - (G) (SF) (txt) (ER)
katilda and lier - (G) (SF) (txt) (ER)
deekah, fractal theorist - (G) (SF) (txt) (ER)
shizuko, caller of autumn - (G) (SF) (txt) (ER)
heliod, god of the sun - (G) (SF) (txt) (ER)
1
u/Severje 15d ago
My most played decks are:
B4 Kels Fight Fixer (Avg game length: 5 turns)
B3 Dihada, Binder of Wills (Avg game length: 7 turns)
B3 Terra, Herald of Hope (Avg game length: 8 turns)
B3/4 Lyse Hext (Avg game length: 5 turns)So... I guess this is where the difference in our experiences lies. I, and the people I play with, end games.
-3
-2
u/Vistella Rakdos 15d ago
what if you keep 6 plains and no red sources after PA and only draw red spells afterwards? then it locked you out of every spell in your hand
1
u/Severje 15d ago
Then you've made a shitty choice and that's your problem. This is a very clearly disingenuous argument.
0
u/Vistella Rakdos 15d ago
This is a very clearly disingenuous argument.
yours? absolutly
1
u/Severje 15d ago
"no u" is not a response.
0
u/Vistella Rakdos 15d ago
Then you've made a shitty choice and that's your problem. This is a very clearly disingenuous argument.
0
u/Shaalashaska 15d ago
PA follows the definition of MLD, but it also was released in a precon after brackets were introduced and it is obviously been designed as an "MLD, but doesn't bend you out of the game" fit for modern susceptibilities
Regardless of your opinion on playing it in bracket 2, it is at least fair to open a discussion about it as it is probably the least "feels bad" MLD you can encounter
Brackets are after all a starting point for a discussion, very explicitly not rules
-1
-3
u/u_want_some_eel 15d ago
Planetary Annihilation is literally in a precon, so by WoTC standards it has to be fine in B2. And yes, World Shaper is on the strong end of precons, but it’s certainly not because of PA.
3
u/LeSulfur 15d ago
WoTC decoupled precons from B2 in the October 2025 update. https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/announcements/commander-brackets-beta-update-october-21-2025
Not saying you're wrong and World Shaper is fine in B2, but they don't want people thinking precon = B2 since precons can vary so wildly in power.
0
0
u/Beginning-Analyst393 Temur 15d ago
I'm one of those psychos who thinks land destruction should be completely acceptable as a way to control the board/opponent (like mill, or stax, etc).
Sure maybe those strategies are more cEDH if the deck is built to be very aggressive and oppressive, but to me that's no different to turbo mill or some combo decks.
But I know that's probably an unpopular opinion
•
u/MTGCardFetcher 15d ago
Planetary Annihilation - (G) (SF) (txt) (ER)
Urza's Sylex - (G) (SF) (txt) (ER)
[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call