Planetary AnnihilationPlanetary Annihilation | Art by Christi Balanescu

Planetary AnnihilationPlanetary Annihilation was recently introduced by the Jund () World Shaper Commander precon and challenges what the Commander Format Panel (CFP) means when they say "No Mass Land Denial (MLD) for Brackets 1-3."

Until now, cards like ArmageddonArmageddon and ObliterateObliterate have been premier examples for what land destruction meant and subsequently what wasn't desired for Brackets 1-3.

Land destruction on its own wasn't enough to encapsulate just what the CFP had in mind when it came to explaining which playstyles they wanted reserved for higher Brackets, and so they broadened the term into Mass Land Denial to include stax strategies.

Cards like StasisStasis or Vorinclex, Voice of HungerVorinclex, Voice of Hunger that explicitly seek to deny opponents access to basic and fundamental resources could now be included alongside land destruction spells under a single umbrella.

But this design philosophy has been focusing on instances where MLD is very "all-or-nothing." That's to say, players that seek to engage with MLD seek cards that are all encompassing, unrestricted. No one is running Winter OrbWinter Orb or its many variants by accident; MLD is intentionally built into a deck.

So what makes Planetary Annihilation so different?

How Planetary Annihilation Changes MLD

Denying your opponents Treasure generation with, say, a ManglehornManglehorn or sweeping everyone's mana dorksmana dorks with a Toxic DelugeToxic Deluge is not MLD.

Yes, it denies a lot of resources your opponents have spent the game building, but it's fundamentally different than running a Mycosynth LatticeMycosynth Lattice + Karn, the Great CreatorKarn, the Great Creator lock.

Your opponents should expect to be interacted with to some degree to prevent them from winning, but for Brackets 1-3, there's a social aspect that must be recognized before a game begins. Anyone can run enough MLD to win the game outright, but winning is not the singular goal of a Brackets 1-3 game.

A Bracket 1-3 Commander game seeks to allow players to explore their decks to varying degrees, but MLD often outright denies players this opportunity. This is where Planetary AnnihilationPlanetary Annihilation stands out.

Where MLD cards like CataclysmCataclysm and TrinisphereTrinisphere are devastating on their own, let alone easily exploitable in the right deck to act as one-sided stax pieces, Planetary Annihilation asks players to reset the game to a reasonable six lands instead.

That's it. No need to touch your nonbasic lands or scoop because your three-color aggro deck now must survive on a single Command TowerCommand Tower. Odds are this spell is being resolved around turn 5-6 anyways, so it's likely that you won't need to touch any of your lands.

Even if this spell is resolved late game when everyone has fetched and ramped as much as they can, six lands is still a respectable amount of lands to build back from, especially considering no one's mana rocksmana rocks were harmed in the making.

Additionally, this spell really desires to be played one way or another. Either you would like to reduce everyone to six lands or deal six damage to each creature.

It's very rare someone would be willing to play a bunch of dorks just to ramp into a board wipe. And if they ramp with rocks instead? Who cares? Everyone has fewer than six lands, anyways.

MLD as a Means of Playing Catch-Up

Planetary Annihilation is very clearly an easy answer for players to answer a slower hand/deck, similar to how the three cards above seek to level the playing field through white's signature "find land if opponent has more land" clause.

Any deck that can run green is automatically at an advantage with land fetching, which is something some decks can't compete with outright. Other colors, like white and red, sometimes rely on green's acceleration in order to function.

Your opponent's Simic () landfall deck that's three lands ahead to your Azorius () Vehicles deck will forever be ahead of your curve. This is doubly-so if you receive a single VandalblastVandalblast.

Ever thought that MLD was the answer to slowing them down? Kind of, but kind of not. Sure, you could build a Bracket 4 deck with ArmageddonArmageddon and sit happily with your many mana rocks, but I guarantee that the lands-matters deck will only need a turn or two before they have rebuilt everything Armageddon destroyed.

Now what if instead of Armageddon you ran Planetary AnnihilationPlanetary Annihilation? Your opponent has used the majority of their land-fetching cards to create an unholy amount of 4/4 beastsbeasts and/or 1/1 insectsinsects.

Now you can wipe their mass of tokens and slow them down a bit without rationalizing your two other opponents as collateral. Sure, the Simic deck could try and find a few more lands or draw some more cards, but they're now wide open and have three opponents with ample room to stop them.

This space of allowing players the chance to catch up to those who have had faster starts to Commander games is where more design space ought to be explored.

Granting players the ability to take a growing or established battlefield and rewinding it to a reduced yet enjoyable state is the Goldilocks of Bracket 1-3 "MLD."

How Should Precons Explore "MLD"?

For starters, I would argue that Planetary AnnihilationPlanetary Annihilation and cards like it not be classified as Mass Land Denial spells. Shocker, I know. But it's important to appropriately distinguish Planetary Annihilation from actual MLD cards that should never be near a precon.

MLD should be clarified explicitly to include the intent to engage in MLD. Cards and strategies that actively seek to deny players access to such fundamentals like access to lands should not be what precons promote.

However, just because a precon shouldn't run MLD doesn't bar precons from running premium point removal. A precon that runs multiple Beast WithinBeast Within effects can still be a precon and engage with a soft MLD design philosophy.

Imagine a precon that centers around creating copies of creatures, specifically creatures that trigger on entering. TerastodonTerastodon would be a safe inclusion for such a precon while exploring this concept of soft MLD.

In fact, there's no reason a new player has to choose lands as their targets. It's a new player, chances are they'll try and blow up everyone's Sol RingSol Ring before they even consider lands as legal targets.

Giving new players the ability to safely explore MLD is an important learning experience. They should have the ability to remove their opponent's Karn's BastionKarn's Bastion and Nesting GroundsNesting Grounds if need be.

There's no need to go overboard; a precon has no reason to create a reliable/repeatable means of blowing up lands. But more precons with more cards exploring new ways to remove threats in an opponent's land pile ought to be encouraged.

Yes, Precons Should Destroy (Some) Lands

Commander is best when every player can meaningfully engage in a game, letting their decks perform at their best and "doing the thing." Four players giving each other the ability to express themselves within a stack of some cardboard is what precons ought to strive for.

That being said, precons are not just for fun. They are undoubtedly tailored with enfranchised players in mind. It's only a matter of time before the next Standard set's Commander precon includes the latest and greatest utility land.

When such a time comes, it's only fair for each and every deck to have some means of dealing with lands that have been traditionally untouchable. More cards like Planetary Annihilation will enable for more interaction and thus a healthier game experience.

Traditional MLD can stay MLD, there's not a calling for Blood MoonBlood Moon to be available at Bracket 2. But what if WoTC started making Blood Moon into something precon friendly?

Something like Ultima, Origin of OblivionUltima, Origin of Oblivion may be worth dabbling with as a secondary Commander in a future precon, or perhaps a spin on Treasure NabberTreasure Nabber that temporarily swipes nonbasic lands.

How do you feel about designs like Planetary AnnihilationPlanetary Annihilation? Do you think that exploring a soft kind of MLD in precons is inappropriate? What are some other ways you would test the bounds of MLD?

I hope that this article is helpful in exploring what MLD is and how we as players can use it to teach newer players, but I'd love to hear from you and what your thoughts may be. Tune in next time to continue this deep dive in the Bracket system and more Commander Philosophy!