Y'shtola, Night's BlessedY'shtola, Night's Blessed | Art by Magali Villeneuve
Hello, and welcome to Am I the Bolas? This week, are ABUR duals really all that good?
This column is for all of you out there who have ever played some Magic and wondered if you were the bad guy. I'm here to take in your story with all of its nuances so I can bring some clarity to all those asking, "Am I the Bolas?"
I'm ready to hear you out and offer advice. All you have to do is email amithebolas@gmail.com with your story, a pseudonym you want to use, and of course, only include details you don't mind in the column! You might see your story below one day. You might even hear it on the podcast. Which podcast?
THIS PODCAST! Do us a favor a subscribe to us. We've got some fun stuff in the works, and it would mean a lot to Michael, Morgan, and I if you did! Become a Bolcut and get into the Bolcast!
I'm Mike Carrozza, and I thought I knew Marvel stuff at least a little.
Who da heck are these people???
(Post edited for brevity, clarity, and then some.)
SUBMISSION
Dear Mike,
I have been reading your column passionately from Spain, where you have quite a big fan base!
A while ago, I read your article on proxying the original dual lands, and I wanted to share the story of my play pod to see whether you might have a different opinion this time.
First of all, I should say that we are a very close group. We have known each other for years, and we were all competitive Legacy players at one point in our lives. Now our competitiveness has dropped below sea level, and we almost exclusively play Commander between ourselves, where nobody really cares who wins. We cherish spectacular and unusual finishers, unseen powerful cards, and new decks and playstyles.
As such, we have a few Rule Zero agreements, particularly aimed at keeping deckbuilding interesting and affordable while maintaining a fun game experience. First, no two-card combos, no fast or overly strong tutors, no fast mana artifacts that cost a billion euros, and also no Sol RingSol Ring. Second, no “game changers,” as we like to challenge ourselves by building different decks with different cards (it is not very fun to see four copies of Rhystic StudyRhystic Study in one game). Third, no proxies. We have nothing against proxies per se (and I am personally pushing for us to make a fully proxied cEDH deck), but we all love real cards and real art. I would say we spend most of our money on full-art basic lands with different foilings. Every time someone plays a card with a beautiful or unusual art, we pass it around as if it were a newborn and compliment the owner for the good taste and spectacular selection, praising them as a true connoisseur.
Because of these restrictions, most of our decks officially fall into Bracket 2. Yet they are still very powerful, and the few times we play in stores against Bracket 3 or 4 pods, we still tend to win.
One of us — let’s call him Player A — loves playing three- and four-color commanders, with Y'shtola, Night's BlessedY'shtola, Night's Blessed and Yidris, Maelstrom WielderYidris, Maelstrom Wielder being the strongest ones. In all of his multicolor decks, he includes proxies of every dual land he can run (e.g., BadlandsBadlands or ScrublandScrubland). Every time he plays one, we point out that it is a proxy of questionable taste, make a few jokes, and keep playing. However, this is getting a bit old for everyone.
My point is that these lands are simply too strong to be played when nobody else does. Having a fetchable dual that enters untapped is incredibly powerful. In my three- or four-color decks, there are times when I cannot double-spell because I lack the right colors, or I do not have enough blue mana both for a spell on my turn and a CounterspellCounterspell afterward. Other times, a land entering tapped stops me from playing on curve. This is fine to me, but it is not a minor drawback (which is also why I think Wizards should reprint dual lands into the ground until they cost 10p's).
His view is exactly the opposite. He says dual lands make essentially no difference, maybe in "one game out of twenty". He argues that we are making a fuss over nothing, and that if it bothers us so much, we should just proxy them ourselves.
To me, either argument reinforces my point. If they are very powerful, they should probably be excluded. If, as he claims, they barely matter, then excluding them should not be an issue either.
In our last game, we asked him to at least take two damages every time he played a proxy dual, as if it were a shockland, which he of course did not like.
Now the biggest question of all: am I, are we, or is he the Bolas?
Best,
Jacob
VERDICT
Thank you for writing and asking me to weigh in on your story. As I mention every week, if folks don't write to me, there's no column, so if you, the reader, want to send me a story, whether it's your own or one from Reddit or a friend's, please send it to amithebolas@gmail.com and I'll get to it here.
Hi Jacob, thank you so much for telling me about my Spanish following! I hope you are many and still find joy and interesting insights from the column after all these years. I really appreciate the kind words.
I want to focus on this part first:
He says dual lands make essentially no difference, maybe in "one game out of twenty". He argues that we are making a fuss over nothing, and that if it bothers us so much, we should just proxy them ourselves.
If they essentially make no difference, take them out of your deck then, Player A! You're the one breaking the rules of the agreement so you can have a perfect mana base. You can't sit there and downplay their impact when you know that replacing one with a surveil land, like Undercity SewersUndercity Sewers, or a check land, like Woodland CemeteryWoodland Cemetery, would be worse for your tempo. It's unfair to look at people with whom you've developed the house rules and tell them it doesn't matter.
It looks like it might be time for a whole group discussion about this proxying rule and how it applies to ABUR dual lands. I imagine that, since it seems like the majority of the group disagrees with Player A, most of you will remain on the same page, but maybe there's room to bend or amend rules to be stricter or more lenient.
While I agree that you're not the Bolas for enforcing the rules everybody's agreed to, I think that Player A breaking these rules and holding steadfast about it, pushing back even, potentially points to a bubbling need for change. A conversation within the group needs to happen to really address this.
If the majority of the group doesn't want proxied ABUR duals on the table, Player A's affront to this rule constitutes a declaration of disagreement and that this rule doesn't apply to him. I don't think that's fair, and frankly there should be some penalties, like the shock land idea you suggested and he bristled at. There should be consequences for not meeting the vibe of the group when the rules are outlined and previously agreed upon. You've let it slide for long enough, but it seems like more deliberate discussions around these proxies being prohibited needs to be had.
Come back together and set aside some time to really address this issue. If the proxies get a laugh and then move on, but underneath, the rest of the group doesn't appreciate it, it's pretty disrespectful for Player A to keep playing them. Once a chat is had, I suspect there's a chance that Player A may not want to play those decks with your group anymore and it's even possible he seeks an exit from the group.
Be prepared to have an open discussion about all of these and to be receptive to any outcome as it best benefits the group.
Mike Carrozza
Mike Carrozza is a stand-up comedian from Montreal who’s done a lot of cool things like put out an album called Cherubic and worked with Tig Notaro, Kyle Kinane, and more people to brag about. He’s also been an avid EDH player who loves making silly stuff happen. @mikecarrozza on platforms.
Your opinions are welcome. We love hearing what you think about Magic! We ask that you are always respectful when commenting. Please keep in mind how your comments could be interpreted by others. Personal attacks on our writers or other commenters will not be tolerated. Your comments may be removed if your language could be interpreted as aggressive or disrespectful. You may also be banned from writing further comments.