I think the point in the land destruction conversation that you’re missing, and that commander players seem to be trying to get you to recognise, is that *ramp* is too hard to answer. Inefficient land removal doesn’t help. Land removal is inefficient to stop non-games where you stone rain your opponent’s only island. I remember those days. I’m glad they’re gone. But I don’t think anyone wants those days back. I think what people want is a way to effectively and efficiently answer someone who has six basic lands on turn 3.White kind of has an answer in that it ramps if anyone has ramped more than them, but maybe it and others can punish those who have jumped too far ahead too quickly. Perhaps more efficient land destruction would be okay if the opponent chose which land gets destroyed and only if they have a lot of lands. A sacrificing stone rain like that could probably cost 3 and be fine to help out against ramp decks since the only way someone could have a lot of lands and this be eligible to be hit by it by turn 3 is if they’ve been ramping like crazy.

Thanks for better spelling out the issue. It’s a tough window to hit, but we can look at it. And odds are, have been looking at it. I’m much more focused on the front-end, large structural issues and this is a much crunchier individual card design issue, but we have a casual play design team that focuses on this kind of stuff.

"Which is a good segue to gather some thoughts from all you Question Marks? How do you feel about the current volume and strength of counterspells?" I like the amount and variety of counterspells, but some of us do want more land destruction. It doesn't have to be in a premier set, and we get that you won't make another Stone Rain. Green and black haven't had any for a long time, and red gets mostly unplayable stuff when we do get it.

I hear the request.

Fun fact - with the reprint in Midnight Hunt, Evolving Wilds is now the card (that isn't a basic land) with the most unique arts! It used to be tied with Counterspell and Stone Rain

FYI

Earlier you said, (in regards to counterspells) that even though some players may find the playsyle unfun, there is a subset of players that enjoy it, and as such, there are still counterspells in blue. Does this mean strong land destruction cards like stone rain and Armageddon can come back if we enjoy playing them?

Whether or not there is a big enough audience determines whether we make certain effects. What leads to the best game play determines how strong we make them.

Is the problem with Stone Rain that its cost is too agressive or splashable? And would a Stone Rain varient that cost tripple red mana be acceptable in Standard?

The issue is not wanting it cast on turn three. Limiting it to monored decks doesn’t address that issue.

The request to have Stone Rain back made me think. It’s pretty common to see a land destruction spell in standard sets for 4 CMC. Sometimes there’s a tacked on effect, but regardless, the cards are rarely played in limited. If the fans of land destruction aren’t happy with this effect at 4, who are the cards for? Is it one of those “there need to be bad cards for learning” situations?

Data from Magic Online, which already leans towards more enfranchised players, has taught me that every card will get played by someone. Who would ever play *that* card? Apparently, a lot of players.

In standar: Counterspell or stone rain

Counterspell.

Does Anguished Unmaking not target lands because of power concerns or fun concerns? I guess I'm asking if three life is enough downside to allow Stone Rain effects at three mana in Standard.

Fun concerns. We do not like efficient & flexible tournament-viable land destruction.

can i please have late birthday trivia on stone rain? If you don't have any, I would also welcome anything about the atogs.

Atog is an anagram of the word “goat” because like a goat, they’ll eat most things. Happy Belated Birthday!

I really don't believe that the majority of players hate Land Destruction. Since there are so many 1-2 cmc mana-accelerants why isn't there be a similar number of 2-3 cmc mana destruction spells to keep that in check? Stone Rain and Sinkhole just provide a crucial foil to those cards, and should be much more common. Or, better yet, just print cheaper non-basic LD cards, and only punish the greedy tournament decks, and let the casuals at the kitchen table ignore it since they use mostly basics.

The reason I bring up data is to try and be as transparent as I can about our motivations. If we honestly believed land destruction was something the majority of players enjoyed, we’d have more of it and at a higher power level. There is no reason for us to act against the interest of the majority of the players.