Is Mass Artifact/Enchantment Destruction BM?

[DirkGently]

Something that often gets brought up when arguing over whether MLD is BM (which I do not wish to litigate in this thread, please) is the existence of mass artifact removal such as Vandalblast. "It's considered fair game to blow up all my artifacts" the argument goes, "so why is blowing up all your lands not okay?"

Setting aside the comparison to MLD, I do think it raises an interesting question. I think most people would agree that running cards like Flashfires or, to pick a less land-based example, Lifeforce, is pretty BM. Conversely, I think most people would consider mass creature removal like Wrath of God to be completely reasonable. Why is that so?

I think those two extreme examples exist on a continuum between narrow hate cards and very broad hate cards. Most commander decks are going to field creatures, so running creature wipes is both logical and expected. On the other hand, a card like Wrath of Marit Lage is much more narrow, so it's not as logical and thus not as expected. But when it does come down it can be extremely damaging, at least partly because it wasn't anticipated.

Somewhere in the middle, though, we've got Vandalblast. Vandalblast is just a good overall card, which typically picks up a couple mana rocks per opponent and maybe a few relevant utility artifacts. But, of course, sometimes your opponent is playing Alibou, Ancient Witness and vandalblast completely solos them. I don't think it's illogical to run vandalblast in the 99, so I don't think it should be wholly unexpected, but it's certainly less common than a creature-wipe and thus less likely. So while it's not completely out of left field, like Flashfires, it's still somewhat unlikely, and thus more reasonable to play assuming that it won't happen, even if the possibility is still there.

To a certain extent, I do think that playing an all-artifacts deck without outs to vandalblast is kind of an unforced error imo. Creature-based decks should, and usually do, build and play around the expectation of board wipes, by diversifying, having protection, or holding back threats to redeploy quickly. Playing an all-artifacts deck means you know you're weak to Vandalblast etc, so not planning around that to some extent seems like a mistake to me, even if it's less likely than a creature wipe. Not to focus too much on the MLD comparison, but MLD is difficult, bordering on impossible to plan around for many decks. There are very few replacements for the early-game mana that (nearly) every deck needs, few ways to protect them, and they can't be redeployed quickly regardless of how many held in reserve. Sure, Alibou is spicier when you're running as high of an artifact count as possible, but you shouldn't be too surprised when your glass cannon gets shattered.

Idk, what do you think? Do you plan around artifact wipes when building artifact decks? Do you consider them BM?

[RedCheese]

I bring Scrap Mastery type of cards for those mass artifact destruction cards. I don't think is bm because you can still play the game. You can't play exactly with out lands. Also the game almost becomes a slog because even with no lands a player won't give up. I think Vandalblast is the same tier as Wrath of God (yes i know Vandablast is only for opponents unlike wrath) and i think they are fair and not bm.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

Not BM. Playing artifact removal is playing an answer to a common and powerful strategy. Playing MLD is wasting everyone's time and reducing the game to a topdeck war.

[darrenhabib]

No

[pokken]

I always design my decks assuming someone will Bane of Progress or Vandalblast me.

I think these effects are the price you pay for going too deep on artifact and enchantment enablers. I wish planeswalkers were in the same attack surface personally. If they'd been printed from the beginning they likely would be.

The baseline plan of play big creatures and then Creeping Corrosion has been around a long time. It's basically greens color identity in a nutshell.

I feel like the converse strategy of play busted enablers (Rhystic Study ) then Wrath of God is universally viewed as fair. So the opposite has to be too.

In general relying heavily on mana rocks is a problem in commander that is managed by more of these effects too.

[Treamayne]

BM

BM? Bloodmoon?

...is the existence of mass artifact removal such as Vandalblast...

I think modal versions are better than something like Shatterstorm - if used responsibly. I think it may be a Rule 0 discussion in some situations. Sure Alibou, Ancient Witness and Sydri, Galvanic Genius type decks should build and play with artifact wipes in mind; but something like a casual Mono-Brown* doesn't really have that option. If you are packing Vandalblast/Austere Command/etc. you at least have the option of choosing a different mode if casting to artifact wipe would basically stop a player from playing (ditto Aura Shards in some cases). Even that is contextual - if mono-Brown is struggling (rocks - easy / ramp - hard) is one context; while mono-brown RoxGalore runaway turns is a very different context (and should expect blowback for overextending).

I would say about half of my Karn, Silver Golem tribal games have resulted in me back to 1-2 lands, and few cards in hand from an early Vandalblast, Aura Shards, etc. essentially making me a spectator the rest of the game just because somebody wanted to destory the Sol Ring/Mana Crypt of the runaway threat deck. Shards is more annoying because it's a may ability, but they will still destory everything I have "just because it triggered" - even when I have next to nothing.

TLDR: Context matters

*as opposed to mono-Grey Eldrazi decks that likely deserve what they get.

[Mookie]

BM? Bloodmoon?

'Bad manners' - generally, any actions that may technically be legal, but are generally considered to be in poor taste.

Anyway, I don't think there are any issues with mass removal, whether that be artifact, enchantment, or creature removal. If you're building a deck based around a specific card type, I think you should take the possibility of mass removal into account and plan accordingly - whether that be to run Scrap Mastery / recursion, countermagic, or Heroic Intervention / Teferi's Protection. There are plenty of solutions, and there are answers in most colors.

(and I say this as a person that has both artifact-heavy decks and decks running Bane of Progress)

I put land destruction into a different category because playing lands isn't something you intentionally opt into - MLD is just as backbreaking for a land-heavy ramp deck as it is for any other deck (and if you do try to play around it by playing lots of mana rocks / mana critters, that just opens you up to the other types of mass removal). Simultaneously, there are significantly fewer options to stop it - mass recursion isn't an option (because you won't have the mana to cast it), which means that the only realistic solutions are instant-speed interaction (of which there are few playable options outside blue countermagic, and not all decks are designed to hold open mana at all times).

[pokken]

My lands decks tend to have enough splendid reclamation and loam effects that they are more likely than not to combo with Armageddon.

Armageddon effects are more of a way to completely put a casual deck on blast than equalize against ramp most of the time. Half the time I played Armageddon I couldn't safely cast it because it would be winning for the crucible or mana rock heavy deck.

[Serenade]

If you run an artifact-heavy deck, you should expect VB. Luckily you have access to some excellent sac outlets and recursion, so it might not be that bad!

Enchantments do not have many free sac outlets (and I hope our upcoming GWB Commander deck does not include a new one). Enchantress knows it will need to rebuild after a Farewell a few times each game. That's just the risk of a heavy concentration in one card type.

No bad manners.

[NZB2323]

Zur the Enchanter is a big reason why people run Mass artifact/enchantment destruction. Greater Auramancy copied with Mirrormade, Estrid's Invocation, or Copy Enchantment. You need enchantment sweepers against that, and even if you get them, they might get countered, and even if they don't, they can come back with Replenish, Hall of Heliod's Generosity, Resurgent Belief, and Brilliant Restoration.

Not only that, but going back to the days of legacy/modern, artifact hate and GY hate are 2 pieces of hate that every sideboard should have. We don't play with sideboard in commander, so we need to have options to deal with these decks.

If you look up the 100 saltiest cards on EDHREC, the only Mass artifact/enchantment destruction cards are Jokulhaups, Obliterate, Cyclonic Rift, Apocalypse, Decree of Annihilation, and Worldpurge, which aren't really on there because they destroy artifacts and enchantments.

[ISBPathfinder]

People that get taken out by Vandalblast are probably doing degenerate dumb %$#% and deserve it. People who get taken out by MLD are probably people doing innocent things and don't deserve it.

[BaronCappuccino]

When I caricature a Commander player in my mind, mass enchantment and artifact removal are anathema to them as much as any other interaction. Discouraging removal promotes degeneracy, so, if you have the luxury of a consistent playgroup, and they have these sorts of house rules, best practice is to demonstrate the error of their ways by replacing your Teferi's Protection with their house rules. I've posted a few times on the merits of sticking to green's land-based ramp whenever possible, because protecting your mana sources is for suckers. Save a deck slot or two and house rule their safety. The same applies to any permanent, if you're ambitious enough.

[3drinks]

Let me set the premise to this as I always do; perfect mana is a privilege, not a right. And at that, the crux of this argument is, people play cards in their decks because they are going to leverage those cards to win, it's not about the individual card types as our 100 will inherently be used in conjunction with the rest to seal a victory.

Of course I come to this as the resident stax player, and that is the fairly unpopular position especially in these types of online discussions. Every type of answer - from Back to Nature to Hurkyl's Recall to Back to Basics to Damn - is designed to check a card type from getting out of hand. Whenever you take one of these genre of card checks off the table, the corresponding type will naturally become more egregious as it pulls ahead, because you just upset the Natural Balance of the game at it's corre. People getting mad because they were ganked by a sweeper for whatever thing their deck is doing, that's a them problem and that should be addressed at the deckbuilding level with a hard look at the person in the mirror. How can it be unreasonable for me to stop your strategy, but it's not unreasonable for you to roll over the table with your strategy because you "got mad at my answers"? In tandem with the aforementioned vandalblast|tsr, is it not cool strategy to main deck Viridian Revel, or a xu to main Insight because g is a popular colour? What about the g deck running Compost/Carpet of Flowers?

To say nothing however, of colour hosers, which are the symptom of an imbalance problem in the table you play at, rather than the inherent problem themselves. Indeed, I play Perish in Vial/Dargo and I am very unapologetic because I know my 2/3 goblin struggles to swing past Big Dumb Green Things^TM and I am accounting for that with my limited deck space. Similarly if I know everyone is on Shorikai, Genesis Engine or Osgir, the Reconstructor, am I in the wrong to start bringing Null Rod and Omen of Fire? Certainly not, because I am reading the table correctly and planning accordingly. Obviously these are some extreme examples, but I believe the point is clear.

Armageddon effects are more of a way to completely put a casual deck on blast than equalize against ramp most of the time. Half the time I played Armageddon I couldn't safely cast it because it would be winning for the crucible or mana rock heavy deck.

This. I can't reliably cast 'Geddon outside of Kaalia of the Vast these days, and even then it's not even the guarantee because a single Bootleggers' Stash adjacent effect will at least allow a smart player some play into my own 'Geddon.

[BeneTleilax]

I think that unlike most MLD, artifact removal is acceptable because it only targets a niche of decks. While everyone runs lands, not all decks get blown out by Vandalblast. Furthermore, those effects are standard across most playgroups, most even somewhat experienced players have seen mass artifact removal of some form, unlike color hate, which outside of pyroblast has gotten rarer over the years. So in choosing to play decks that rely on putting a lot of artifacts into play (even then a subset of artifact decks, unlike those that prefer only one or two high value artifacts on board), players are in a sense "opting in" to the risk of getting punished by mass artifact removal. I say, having a couple decks that fit that profile; I have countermeasures of course, but sometimes mass removal still gets through, but it's a risk I'm willing to take, and one that I accept.