[mtgnexus] Random Card of the Day - Jetfire, Ingenious Scientist

[Moonlighter]

Please remember the common signs of a stroke:

• Inability to move one side of the body effectively - such as inability to lift left arm
• Sudden confusion - which can be indicated by slurred speech and/or use of 7 CMC sorcery removal
• Sudden dizziness or difficulty coordinating movements - such as deck shuffling
• Difficulty seeing out of both eyes - such as one eye seeing this card as good, and the other seeing it accurately

[3drinks]

Thursday, June 10th, 2021; Sunder

Ah yes. I was just complaining about U not having an Armageddon|leb effect..................

[Sinis]

Thursday, June 10th, 2021; Sunder



Ah yes. I was just complaining about not having an Armageddon effect..................

I played this way back when I first started playing EDH. I had a Patron of the Moon moonfolk tribal deck complete with Thwart, Flooded Shoreline, Storm Cauldron, Landfall cards and other crap. This was also the first deck I milled someone out in EDH (via Hedron Crab + Storm Cauldron + Patron of the Moon).

One of the first rule-0 conversations I had with people was whether Sunder was acceptable or not, and people considered it actually acceptable where they wouldn't find Armageddon acceptable. The reasoning was that at least you could keep lands in your hand and you (probably) weren't locked out of the game.

I'm not sure I agree with their logic, but, I definitely played Bluemageddon for as long as I had Patron of the Moon around.

[Lifeless]

Funny this should come up while people are talking about how bad Wheels are for the format. Not that I'd ever do something like that.......

[Wallycaine]

One of the first rule-0 conversations I had with people was whether Sunder was acceptable or not, and people considered it actually acceptable where they wouldn't find Armageddon acceptable. The reasoning was that at least you could keep lands in your hand and you (probably) weren't locked out of the game.

I'm not sure I agree with their logic, but, I definitely played Bluemageddon for as long as I had Patron of the Moon around.

There's definitely an interesting psychological difference here. I think a *big* part of it is the play pattern they each encourage. Commander, for a lot of players, is playing big wild stuff. This means that playing ramp, and more importantly, playing out your land every turn, are core things in the format to many players. But if I know you have Armageddon (or other destructive MLD), the appropriate play pattern is to carefully play lands, and only play as many as I need, so I can hold some back in hand to recover. That play pattern goes against many players first instincts, especially when it comes to Commander. Sunder, on the other hand, doesn't encourage that play pattern. If your opponent's are playing Sunder, there's no reason not to play out your lands, since they'll all end up back in your hand anyways. For a lot of people, consciously or subconsciously, it's not the effect of Armageddon that they object to, it's the playstyle it encourages of being cautious about playing out land. Sunder doesn't do that, so it's more acceptable, even if the effect is similar.

[Sinis]

For a lot of people, consciously or subconsciously, it's not the effect of Armageddon that they object to, it's the playstyle it encourages of being cautious about playing out land. Sunder doesn't do that, so it's more acceptable, even if the effect is similar.

I strongly agree, and I think that's a critical insight.

The thing I wonder about is cards that have the same play pattern like Insurrection that are widely played (in stark opposition to Armageddon/Ravages of War). If you believe someone has Insurrection, you should definitely not commit to the board, because you'll be punished for having a big board. Yet, people do it, and get blown out by Insurrection...

[3drinks]

One of the first rule-0 conversations I had with people was whether Sunder was acceptable or not, and people considered it actually acceptable where they wouldn't find Armageddon acceptable. The reasoning was that at least you could keep lands in your hand and you (probably) weren't locked out of the game.

I'm not sure I agree with their logic, but, I definitely played Bluemageddon for as long as I had Patron of the Moon around.

I first played it in a Zur the Enchanter deck, so I'm not sure I follow the logic on how it's any different than 'geddon, haha. Especially at instant. There's never a "fair" way to play this, it's always just "well I guess that's the game", when in the hands of a competent, responsible player, I guess.

There's definitely an interesting psychological difference here. I think a *big* part of it is the play pattern they each encourage. Commander, for a lot of players, is playing big wild stuff. This means that playing ramp, and more importantly, playing out your land every turn, are core things in the format to many players. But if I know you have Armageddon (or other destructive MLD), the appropriate play pattern is to carefully play lands, and only play as many as I need, so I can hold some back in hand to recover. That play pattern goes against many players first instincts, especially when it comes to Commander. Sunder, on the other hand, doesn't encourage that play pattern. If your opponent's are playing Sunder, there's no reason not to play out your lands, since they'll all end up back in your hand anyways. For a lot of people, consciously or subconsciously, it's not the effect of Armageddon that they object to, it's the playstyle it encourages of being cautious about playing out land. Sunder doesn't do that, so it's more acceptable, even if the effect is similar.

Does that mean I'm in the minority because I do hold back excess lands (whether to loot away or rebuild), and have a responsible mana curve? I guess similarly, everyone hates Gaddock Teeg but I find myself functioning under him with no issue, like it were a grizzly bears|leb.

[DirkGently]

Anyone who thinks this card is less offensive than geddon is a dumb-dumb. It's equally offensive, if not moreso for being blue and an instant. If you're casting either, it's because you have the best board position and you can leverage it to win easily.

Also the wheel synergy is kinda pointless. They're probably discarding most of their lands to hand size anyway so there's hardly any difference.

Anyhoo, screw this card and the horse it rode in on - that being the horse of MLD in general.

Oh, and the idea that you can beat MLD by sandbagging lands is the dumbest myth I've ever heard.

[3drinks]

Oh, and the idea that you can beat MLD by sandbagging lands is the dumbest myth I've ever heard.

Not beat, just recover better. Moreso than sitting and praying that you top deck lands.

[DirkGently]

Not beat, just recover better. Moreso than sitting and praying that you top deck lands.

If the person who played MLD could still lose the game just because you have a couple land drops in hand, that person did not play their MLD correctly.

[Wallycaine]

Not beat, just recover better. Moreso than sitting and praying that you top deck lands.

If the person who played MLD could still lose the game just because you have a couple land drops in hand, that person did not play their MLD correctly.

Sure, but shockingly many people play MLD badly, or are forced into bad situations. Or maybe they played it "correctly", but things broke badly for them because other players had cheap/free removal. The point is that the incentive is there, even if it doesn't come up every time someone uses MLD.

For a lot of people, consciously or subconsciously, it's not the effect of Armageddon that they object to, it's the playstyle it encourages of being cautious about playing out land. Sunder doesn't do that, so it's more acceptable, even if the effect is similar.

I strongly agree, and I think that's a critical insight.

The thing I wonder about is cards that have the same play pattern like Insurrection that are widely played (in stark opposition to Armageddon/Ravages of War). If you believe someone has Insurrection, you should definitely not commit to the board, because you'll be punished for having a big board. Yet, people do it, and get blown out by Insurrection...

I think the big difference is the prevalence of wrath effects. Most players already take wraths into consideration, so the mantra of "don't overcommit if you don't have to" applies more easily to creatures. And if you're a player that regularly overcommits into wraths, you're either used to it, or will learn quickly because wrath effects will happen nearly every game. With MLD being much rarer, it's harder to adjust play patterns to it, and feels more negative when it *does* come up.

[hyalopterouslemur]

Oh, and the idea that you can beat MLD by sandbagging lands is the dumbest myth I've ever heard.

Not beat, just recover better. Moreso than sitting and praying that you top deck lands.

MLD has value, just that it's ruined by Karens who play it when they're about to lose anyway. And Maro using the word "unfun".

Generally speaking you want some elves and rocks to beat MLD, maybe bounce a few lands. (Actually, I can beat it by bouncing three lands.) But a good MLD player will be sure to deny you those first.

Alternately you can have Crucible of Worlds, or a land engine like Zuran Orb to just get something out of them.

[DirkGently]

Sure, but shockingly many people play MLD badly, or are forced into bad situations. Or maybe they played it "correctly", but things broke badly for them because other players had cheap/free removal. The point is that the incentive is there, even if it doesn't come up every time someone uses MLD.

Sure, but some people act like holding onto a couple lands is just a hard counter to MLD instead of a last-ditch hope that might buy you a couple percentage points at best.

Add onto that, usually in a commander game, you have strong incentive to keep hitting your land drops. Even if your curve is low, more lands will allow you to keep your commander on the field and avoid it getting taxed out, or play more things in a turn. It's not like draft where playing land #7 may well be completely irrelevant and you should save it for discard fodder or bluffing. So you've gotta think there's a REALLY strong chance of MLD getting played in the near future to reasonably sandbag land drops.

MLD has value, just that it's ruined by Karens who play it when they're about to lose anyway.

MLD does not have value and should never have been printed. Or if it did, at like 10 cmc or something.

It's ruined by being an overly centralizing effect at a low cost that's almost impossible to meaningfully interact with for most decks.

[Mookie]

I think it's fine for MLD to exist, but I don't think it should ever be a strong strategy, primarily because it doesn't lead to fun gameplay. In a competitive format, I think it's healthy for strategies to have counterplay - if you're doing a ramp strategy, or a graveyard strategy, or aggro, or enchantress, or whatever, then there should be some way to tech against that strategy. This allows for people to the metagame to ebb and flow - if a given strategy becomes dominant, then people can target it.

However, EDH isn't a competitive format. It's a social format, which means that the promoted strategies should be ones that promote people being social - in other words, strategies that promote fun. It's fine if some strategies remain dominant, as long as they promote fun gameplay. And, as a general rule, not being able to do anything is not fun - both in EDH, and in pretty much anything else. Can it lead to interesting gameplay once in a while? Sure. But I dislike MLD for the same reason I dislike load screens, or waiting for a slow elevator, or being stuck in traffic - it wastes my time when I would rather be doing something else.

Anyway, as MLD goes, I don't mind Sunder that much (assuming it isn't followed up by a Windfall) - as others have pointed out, being able to replay your lands afterwards means you'll still be able to do something on your following turns. You may end up discarding a bunch of cards to hand size, but the difference between 'I have four mana available' and 'I have no mana available' is pretty huge, and allows you to still meaningfully participate in the game. Still certainly annoying though.

[3drinks]

Friday, June 11th, 2021; God-Pharaoh's Gift

Whew, good thing there's no way to cheat big expensive artifacts onto the battlefield, nope, dodged a bullet on that one..............

[Wallycaine]

Of the big artifacts you can cheat onto the battlefield, this is a pretty innocuous one. You still need a stuffed graveyard to take any advantage of it, so it's not one you can just turbocharge out there on it's own. It also encourages unusual reanimation selection, since the typical strategy (big dumb beaters) just nets you 4/4's with some combat abilities. Unfortunately, like a lot of cool cards of this type, it exiles, which causes conflict with your (presumed) other graveyard strategy cards. And a 4/4 a turn with cool abilities often isn't enough payoff for permanently exiling things.

[onering]

Anyone who thinks this card is less offensive than geddon is a dumb-dumb. It's equally offensive, if not moreso for being blue and an instant. If you're casting either, it's because you have the best board position and you can leverage it to win easily.

Also the wheel synergy is kinda pointless. They're probably discarding most of their lands to hand size anyway so there's hardly any difference.

Anyhoo, screw this card and the horse it rode in on - that being the horse of MLD in general.

Oh, and the idea that you can beat MLD by sandbagging lands is the dumbest myth I've ever heard.

Played correctly you're right, but I don't think that either played correctly is offensive. You've built your board and made sure that if nothing changes you win, then you lock it in with MLD. You worked for that, its not out of nowhere, and its more earned than a combo win or Hoof.

The difference is in when these cards aren't played correctly. Sunder stupidly, and it slows down the game but people can immediately start to rebuild their mana base. Stupidly fire of Armageddon and you basically hand the game to whoever randomly draws enough lands to get going again, after bringing the game to a standstill of at least half a dozen turns.

[pokken]

MLD does not have value and should never have been printed. Or if it did, at like 10 cmc or something.

It's ruined by being an overly centralizing effect at a low cost that's almost impossible to meaningfully interact with for most decks.

It's one of the effects that does not scale in a good way in multiplayer for sure. An effect like that in 1v1 magic is perfectly fine and sees almost no play - Cataclysm saw some VERY limited play in Legacy for a while in recent memory but not so much now. In the formats where it's legal you can easily lose to someone just having 2 more lands because the decks are so efficient.

In commander, you wind up taking 3 people out of the game for 4 mana a lot of the time which is a bit, well, stupid.

Sweepers in general are way more powerful in 4 player games than 1 player games but at least every color has answers to them - most colors have literally nothing they can do to defend their lands (basically green and white).

TLDR I'm with you on your hot take

[DirkGently]

I ran this in my Plargg, Dean of Chaos // Augusta, Dean of Order reanimator deck. Surprisingly, I never got it into play because I always hit the other reanimation tools first.

Neat big splashy card. I like exile-token reanimation since it prevents some of the dumber problems that repeated reanimation can cause.

Played correctly you're right, but I don't think that either played correctly is offensive. You've built your board and made sure that if nothing changes you win, then you lock it in with MLD. You worked for that, its not out of nowhere, and its more earned than a combo win or Hoof.

The vast majority of combos can be interacted with by all colors to some extent. Creature removal can stop a huge percentage of combos, and artifact/enchantment removal stops most of the others. All you've got left is a handful of Reiterate combos that can't reasonably be interacted without outside blue (and maybe red). Probably a few others that I'm forgetting, but I think you get my point. Hoof wins also are more interactable - fogs for green and white, board wipes for white red and black, counterspells for blue.

(also personally I find those ways to win to be boring and lazy and I never play them, but I understand that not everyone can be such a shining paragon of magic excellence )

With MLD, if you're playing, say, white, and you respond to their sunder with a flashed Rout, foiling their plans - you anticipated this perfectly because you're a god-tier player...great, awesome, now you're stuck in a game where no one has permanents. You sollllvvvvveeed iiiittttt.

[Wallycaine]

With MLD, if you're playing, say, white, and you respond to their sunder with a flashed Rout, foiling their plans - you anticipated this perfectly because you're a god-tier player...great, awesome, now you're stuck in a game where no one has permanents. You sollllvvvvveeed iiiittttt.

See, that's where I think the big difference between Sunder and Armageddon kicks in. There's a lot of people who don't mind MLD if it immediately secures a win. Cause then Yay, you won, lets shuffle up and play again. But when it goes sideways, Sunder basically mimics that. Sure, nobody's got permanents... but everybody basically has an opening hand again, with (presuming they had anything in hand before Sunder) a mix of spells and lands, so you basically get to redo the opening turns of the game. It's an annoyance, but it leaves everyone on roughly equal footing, and ensures that the rest of the game still feels "valid". Contrast that with what happens post Armageddon in this scenario. Now, everyone's just got a bunch of spells in hand and goes into topdeck mode hoping for lands. The game at that point becomes "who topdecks enough lands to recover", which feels purely random. It turns the game into a miserable slog, because whether or not you get more lands is (largely) outside your control.

[DirkGently]

That's a pretty uncommon scenario, though, someone having an instant-speed wipe. More common might be the MLDer having a single major threat that gets killed by targeted removal in response, which might put the game into that reset state, but if they have multiple threats and/or people don't have targeted removal, they'll be in a winning position regardless, in which case it doesn't matter much whether it's geddon or sunder.

There are certainly scenarios where geddon can be more obnoxious but I would argue those are basically corner cases and that the root cause of the problem is exactly the same. And don't forget that sunder has its plusses too, like being instant-speed, and not in white. Cyc Rift into Sunder is game over unless someone has a counterspell, and that's all in one color.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

GPG is a neat 7 drop, and I don't hate it. Triggering in combat is sweet, haste is even better, and 4/4 is a respectable statline. Given the avergae cost of eternalize as an effect, I think you only need two triggers of GPG to get your mana's worth too. I just don't know where I'd ever play it. 5.2/9

[Mookie]

God-Pharaoh's Gift is fine. Turning your dead creatures into hasty 4/4s is certainly a reasonable upside over Séance - you can use them to beat down, or just re-trigger ETB abilities for value. Exiling the creatures is a bit awkward though, since you can't flicker or recur them multiple times, which is relevant for commanders like Karador, Ghost Chieftain and Muldrotha, the Gravetide. You also need to be able to dump things in your graveyard if you want repeated value - if you're only recurring one or two creatures with it, one-shot reanimation like Animate Dead looks a lot better. A seven-mana card that needs to stick around for multiple turns is... pretty high-variance. Still, if you have token synergies, GPG is pretty sweet. Works well with Trostani, Selesnya's Voice and Brudiclad, Telchor Engineer. Also gross with Parallel Lives effects.

I'll note that Gate to the Afterlife exists as a way to cheat GPG out. Both of them are pretty sweet build-arounds - they require some investment to work properly, and give a reasonable payoff for doing so.

[hyalopterouslemur]

One 4/4 a turn with a limited number of them altogether is pretty innocuous. I mostly imagine this in a deck with a lot of populate and token doublers.

I could see this as a way to get Kokusho and friends to trigger and then send them back go the comand zone. A bit coyote and roadrunner tho.

[3drinks]

Saturday, June 12th, 2021; Manglehorn

Staxy boi. <3