Is Mass Artifact/Enchantment Destruction BM?
Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2023 12:09 am
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?
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?