Why do people hate Stone Rain?
Land destruction is…controversial in Commander. It’s typically regarded as unfun and doesn’t play well with others’ play experiences. In casual play, many players are typically playing to do a certain thing, or interact in a certain way, either mechanically, strategically, or socially. Stone Rain is considered the antithesis of all of that, and for good reasons. People can’t cast their spells without lands. No matter where you go, you’ll be hard pressed to rule zero your way into playing heavy land destruction, and even if you do, you’re probably going to be playing a handicap match against the other three people.
But how much land destruction is too much land destruction?
This is a weird one. I’m often very critical about how people conflate rule zeroing with hard and fast rules, and a topic like this is a good example of that. I personally would not have an issue with land destruction, because if anything, it may be a good insight into how I can better configure my decks, or better mulligan, etc. If your deck doesn’t function because you lost two lands, then it probably means you can do something a bit better along the process. Now, I understand that some people aren’t trying to think that far, and that’s fine. If that’s the case, then where exactly is the line? Are we really going to keep the land destruction player from playing land destruction because “we don’t like it”? How far do we lean the slope?
Is a turn two Sinkhole really going to ruin everyone’s day? Are we conflating said Sinkhole to Obliterate? This sounds like wild comparison, but my foray into commander has yielded some interesting experiences with how to approach playing with players, and it’s often become frustrating.
One of the many upsides of playing cEDH is that the format is the rule zero. You already know that going in, the expectation is to win, however means the players involved are capable of. With this like minded mindset, you can build your decks, approach a table, and socialize and politicize accordingly. It feels like a proper board game being played competitively, as opposed to a social game that you have to pre-emptively walk on eggshells for. Casual commander will always have a place, and it’s extremely important for that format to exist. But, I think it’s also important to be critical of how we approach things like rule zero, and how it’s interpreted across communities you may end up in.
So, what exactly do we do about this? How does the Stone Rain enjoyer actually get to play games without making people miserable? I don’t know the answer, but I think that if you know what you’re getting yourself into, build your deck accordingly? There are already not enough lands being played in 90% of commander decks, and if getting your lands destroyed doesn’t highlight that for you, then it’s ultimately on you.
But also…
If we’re really going to beat that player, then just keep land heavy hands? Land destruction has notoriously lost to hands with a lot of lands, and it’s why it hasn’t been too viable of a strategy for years now. If you’re the big green monsters person, then you might want to lean more towards your mana dorks and look into the long game. If you’re the control player, there’s no real reason to interact early if you aren’t going to die, and if you’re the aggro player, hitting the ground running and working with someone to pressure in tandem might work.
Maybe this is ambivalent and indifferent towards the archetype, maybe it’s a bit too harsh on the casual commander players.
But maybe it’s worth doing a bit more on our end to make things enjoyable for everyone, even if they’re playing a deck we may not be a fan of.
Anthony Lowry (they/he) is a seasoned TCG, MMORPG, and FPS veteran. They are extensively knowledgeable on the intricacies of many competitive outlets, and are always looking for a new challenge in the gaming sphere.