Pointed Discussion

Magic: The Gathering Card Comments Archive

Lay Waste

Multiverse ID: 5817

Lay Waste

Comments (6)

Rudy_Summers
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
In my opinion, significantly worse then stone rain.
achilleselbow
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0) (1 vote)
Do you expect it to cost the same AND have the cycling ability? It's more flexible, so it costs one more. The difference between 3 mana and 4 mana is scant in terms of tempo (unlike the difference between 4 and 5). If you're going the land destruction route, why not have 4 of these and 4 Stone Rains?
KikiJikiTiki
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0) (3 votes)
Land destruction is always relevant. It's not the type of ability you're going to wait for. The earlier the better, and when possible, if possible. Because you'll VERY rarely find a game where the ability isn't useful, cycling isn't really necessary, and thus not worth the addition mana compared to Stone Rain.
HuntingDrake
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0) (1 vote)
A perfectly-designed cycling card.
use643
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0) (1 vote)
Im starting to like Demolish more...
TheWrathofShane
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
There is rarely situations where cycling ability is relevant. Only time is very late game, when they have 11+ basic lands and no nonbasic lands. But you rarely see those kinds of games.