[Discussion, Play More Land] What the Hell is Wrong with you People?

[frogboy]

Why doesn't anyone want to actually make their land drops anymore? Pretty much all the Daze aggro decks are playing like eighteen or nineteen lands and banking on Ponder and Brainstorm to get there. I can see that in the decks that stop at two, but then you've got the control decks like It's the Fear playing like 22 lands; don't you pretty much always want to get your first five land drops or so? You've obviously got to get to three, and if you have to do something to the board instead of Intuition for Loam it's kind of rough when you can't do multiple things per turn. There's that Intuition-Threshold list that's trying to do things with Deed and Intuition and plays like eighteen land or whatever. Mono White Control plays 22 lands? I'm pretty sure my mono white Onslaught Block deck played like 26 plus four Eternal Dragons. Even Vorosh cheats on lands a little.

I can buy that Daze lets you basically rebuy a land drop, but then you've got decks like Dreadstill that have Counterbalance and Trinket Mage but are also running Factories and Wastelands. Do people just not want to use Brainstorm to find real cards? One of the reasons I thought Aggro Loam was so exciting was because it played like 26 lands and had Loams so you always got to make all your drops and it was awesome.

Discuss.

[blacklotus3636]

People tend to view land as dead draws so they try to minimize that as much as possible. I understand the trend but I always liked running a few extra lands than I needed so I didn't have to worry about being land fucked. I have noticed though that legacy decks tend to have a very low curve for tempo and to take advantage of things like counterbalance. Many decks also play blue for force and cheap draw which makes playing less land even easier. I ran 18 lands in my madness survival deck and it worked out ok because I had birds, elves, multiple rofellos and a curve that had very few creatures above 2 cc but generally speaking I need a pretty strong reason to play less than 20 lands in a non-combo deck. Hell even burn played 19 and it was combo-ish. I think the trend of cutting lands makes resource denial better but everyone has already written it off because the format is too fast. Its the state of things at the moment

[frogboy]

Like, I lose a lot more games because I didn't draw enough lands than games I lost because I drew too many. Playing mana guys is one thing, but using your first few turns to make your land drops isn't very impressive if the other guy is doing things to actually affect the board.

[Pinder]

I think that people are just getting too greedy. While it may not be optimal or smart to cheat so much on mana, if it's possible and you can still pull out wins, then you can bet that people are going to.

Plus, between having fetchlands and real, honest-to-God dual lands, I think that Legacy players are a little spoiled when it comes down to being able to stretch manabases, at least in terms of color requirements, so it's only natural to think you can stretch it in other ways, too.

Of course, I'm admittedly pretty horrible at designing manabases.

[Aggro_zombies]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I have fucking terrible luck and get consistently mana flooded - just ask anyone who knows me, I lose more games to "15 lands, 5 spells in a 17 land deck" than anything else. It's so bad it's become a joke around here. I even ran 16 lands in Threshold at one point in the hopes that dropping my land count would reduce my mana flood, and it did...so much so that I got consistently mana screwed. And no, it's not my shuffling - I could mana weave my deck, or put all the lands on top, or whatever, and shuffle it twenty times and STILL get mana flooded.

If I could run 16.5 lands, I'd be set.

Seriously, fuck this. :cry:

[Shugyosha]

Threshold runs 17-18 lands for years as well as Landstill running 23-24 lands + Crucible for years. So its pretty much proven that these are the correct numbers. ITF for example needs steady land drops but it hasn't the problem of Landstill that many lands don't produce colored mana and it doesn't need to attack or defend with lands as Landstill does.

Threshold needs 2-3 lands to operate. By turn three (on the play) you will have seen more than 10 cards of your deck (7 + draw two + cantrip/Top/fetch). 17 out of 60 cards means you will see probably see at least 2 lands. As you play 6-8 fetches color requirements are not an issue. Thats why T2 decks usually run more than 20 lands. They are not only mana hungry but lack our format's fixing (card quality spells and efficient fetches/duals).

[Maveric78f]

In my aggro control deck, I play 21 lands plus 4 vials. As I hate dead draws too, my strategy is to play 4*wastelands and 4*rishadan ports, and no card that requires double coloured mana. I commonly keep hands with no coloured mana but a vial or hands with 5 lands. I have to say also that I play stifle and trickbind (yeah I play dreadnought), so that it completes my LD (taking advantage of bad built manabases) and it protects me from opponent wastelands. I also play daze and FoW of course, which protects me against any other kind of land destruction.

There is a lot to say about legacy players making all the same mistakes, regarding mana base. Waiting the opponent's turn before fetching (risk of stifle) and playing an EOT brainstorm (although BS is not a card you want to play turn1, except in combo or in resp to a threat, chalice, counterbalance, a spell you want to coutnerspell). The number of players that daze without taking the mana first in order not to be dazed in resp is also amazing. And I'm not talking about MWS tests, but about tourney games, where people usually come with a deck they know. As I play rishadan port, I can also tell that 80% of the players I meet in tournaments play BS in response to the port activation during upkeep, although, they should keep the mana and play the BS after the draw. It's a bit off subject, but you have to figure out that legacy players do not learn from their mistakes. See Aggro_zombies telling that he's flooded when he plays 17 lands and mana screwed when he plays 16 lands. The clue here is maybe that he doesn't play his cantrips the right way. 17 is already far too low. And playing 12 cantrips is dumb since threshold is irrelevant, i.e. since tarmogoyf exists. I'm still not convinced about playing more than 4 actually.

[Citrus-God]

The point of running cantrips is to find lands early game and deny the drawing of lands midgame. Control decks run 25+ mana sources.

Besides that, running lands are awesome. If you truly hate drawing them midgame, just run more fetchlands. Deck thinning is awesome I hear. Besides that, playing a lot of land is important because you're relying on your opening hand to help you make land drops usually. More lands = less mulligans which means the more consistent and strong your early-midgame is, the less likely the mana flooding will matter if you can execute your plan and put yourself in a position to be ahead of your opponent. Vial Goblins is a good example of this.

[Maveric78f]

The point of running cantrips is to find lands early game and deny the drawing of lands midgame.
When you play 12 cantrips, in the best case you'll lose 1 land: the one you'll tap each turn to cantrip into a business card. In the worst case it will lock you up against chalice, trinisphere, thorn of amethyst, discard or counterbalance. In general legacy players play their cantrips too early in the game. They should 1st devote their mana to play business spell and once their hand is emptied of spells they want to play, they play their cantrips to find other ones. But the new builds are stupid since there is not anymore any 1CC business spell, except mongoose (which is not as good as it used to be btw), but a lot of players start playing it only when they have threshold. Good cantrips are necessarily instants, because you want first of all to play it when you have some mana left (because the mana you kept for stifle/spell snare or disrupt has been useless this turn). So that, BS is obviously a must have, but after that, the best is opt, and everybody will agree it's still quite bad.

[Citrus-God]

When you play 12 cantrips, in the best case you'll lose 1 land: the one you'll tap each turn to cantrip into a business card. In the worst case it will lock you up against chalice, trinisphere, thorn of amethyst, discard or counterbalance. In general legacy players play their cantrips too early in the game. They should 1st devote their mana to play business spell and once their hand is emptied of spells they want to play, they play their cantrips to find other ones. But the new builds are stupid since there is not anymore any 1CC business spell, except mongoose (which is not as good as it used to be btw), but a lot of players start playing it only when they have threshold. Good cantrips are necessarily instants, because you want first of all to play it when you have some mana left (because the mana you kept for stifle/spell snare or disrupt has been useless this turn). So that, BS is obviously a must have, but after that, the best is opt, and everybody will agree it's still quite bad.


// Lands 17
3 Wooded Foothills
3 Flooded Strand
4 Volcanic Island
3 Tropical Island
1 Forest
3 Island


// Creatures 10
4 Nimble Mongoose
4 Werebear
2 Fledgling Dragon


// Spells 33
4 Brainstorm
4 Portent
2 Serum Visions
2 Sensei's Divining Top
4 Predict
4 Daze
2 Counterspell
4 Force of Will
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Pithing Needle


// Sideboard 15
4 Pyroclasm
3 Krosan Grip
1 Sensei's Divining Top
4 Counterbalance
2 Ancient Grudge
1 Fledgling Dragon


And yes, this is why we run free counters; the mana curve of the deck is so low, we get away with running cards like Daze. But what makes the turbo xerox engine good is that post-board, we get away with boarding out lands if the opponent isnt running LD for more business and whatever we board in, we can use cantrips to cycle through the deck to find you that particular card. This was amazing because finding Pyroclasm was a priority for the deck in the era of Werebears and Pyroclasm. Finding and setting up the Counterbalance lock was a priority for the Threshold mirror.

So the point I'm getting here is that the engine was amazing because it not only gave you a strong pre-board game, but an absolutely amazing post-board game as well because of it's flexibility and raw power.

[Maveric78f]

Most of all it was amazing because the deck NEEDED threshold, which is not the case anymore.

[Citrus-God]

Most of all it was amazing because the deck NEEDED threshold, which is not the case anymore.

No, the deck used Threshold creatures as threats, nothing more. The deck still functioned well with other threats, but Threshold creatures were used because they were better than Dryads, Watchwolves, and Jotun Grunt because the point of Threshold back then was to play control until midgame thanks to free counters, then you move into midgame, drop some threats in which you already happen to have Threshold at the time, and just win.

What made the deck amazing was the superior card quality you have over your opponent via cantrip chain, your amazing post-board games, and the fact you rarely had any dead cards in hand because they were denied as you chain cantrips to cycle through your deck. The deck wasn't about amazing back then because chaining cantrips got you Threshold, the deck was amazing because the deck offered the pilot efficiency, flexibility and versatility.

[Maveric78f]

I completely disagree. Tormod's crypt was a good hate against threshold and gob had a positive MU (against Ugw threshold at least), because the creatures were big too late (at turn 4 in best cases), meaning that if threshold could have avoided to have these weaknesses it would have done it. The goal of threshold was to cheat with creature's cost and at this time, there was not a single creature that could compete with threshold's except terravore (no tarmogoyf, no stalker, no epochrasite, no dreadnought, no crusher). Threshold could dominate the board the creature's board with its 1CC or 2CC creatures. Moreover at this time, chalice did not see much play.

Today, this deck has evolved to tarmhold and finally, only Ubased aggro-control featuring tarmo decks remain (and sometimes mongoose). But people fail to remove those damn cantrips for obscur reasons, thinking it enables them to reduce their land count, but it is irrelevant to pay mana to find mana. You only need BS, in order to get rid in midgame of useless cards or to find an early solution. Most of the time, cantrips addicted players play them as soon as they can in order to get rid of them and to be able to set a strategy once, they at least can read their hand.

Ps: I prefer to precise that I don't consider SDT as a cantrip, even if it can serve this purpose randomly, and SDT is clearly a good inclusion to those U based aggro-control decks including tarmogoyf, specially for counterbalance, but not only.

[Citrus-God]

I completely disagree. Tormod's crypt was a good hate against threshold and gob had a positive MU (against Ugw threshold at least), because the creatures were big too late (at turn 4 in best cases), meaning that if threshold could have avoided to have these weaknesses it would have done it.

It's called Pithing Needle. If Pithing Needle didnt protect the graveyard, it wouldnt matter; as long as a cantrip gets cast, the chain keeps going.


The goal of threshold was to cheat with creature's cost and at this time, there was not a single creature that could compete with threshold's except terravore (no tarmogoyf, no stalker, no epochrasite, no dreadnought, no crusher). Threshold could dominate the board the creature's board with its 1CC or 2CC creatures. Moreover at this time, chalice did not see much play.

There were creatures in that era that questioned the size of Threshold creatures; Exalted Angel, Ravenous Baloth, Flametongue Kavu etc, etc...


Today, this deck has evolved to tarmhold and finally, only Ubased aggro-control featuring tarmo decks remain (and sometimes mongoose). But people fail to remove those damn cantrips for obscur reasons, thinking it enables them to reduce their land count, but it is irrelevant to pay mana to find mana. You only need BS, in order to get rid in midgame of useless cards or to find an early solution. Most of the time, cantrips addicted players play them as soon as they can in order to get rid of them and to be able to set a strategy once, they at least can read their hand.


They still run cantrips because cantrips do lower their land count, allows them to keep more opening hands, and finds vital pieces. And had you casted those cantrips aggressively, you should avoid drawing into dead cards because the only other cards you need to cast after those cantrips are either threats, business, counters, and more cantrips. SDT also helps filter bad draws.

I know you dislike Threshold as a deck because of the cantrips solely, but results as far as I know, also matters. Threshold is still a top deck.

[Maveric78f]

I mean that most players play their cantrips although they don't even know what they are looking for. They are just seaching for tarmogoyf. If that's their only purpose, eladarmi's call would be better, being an instant.

When threshold players will stop playing their BS at the end of their first turn, I'll start considering that they know what they do with their cantrips. Also, most threshold players start their game by cantriping, not even knowing what their opponent is playing. How can you cantrip with effectiveness, if you don't even know what you need?

Of course, don't get me wrong, I know very good threshold players, but they left most of their cantrips (only 8 left), and they know how to play them.

[Omega]

I always first turn ponder no matter what my opponent is playing just to get first turn daze if i dont have it. Or to get a force of will. Otherwise, it is preparing my next draws. Setting up my game.

Brainstorm : Mid-late game, im using it with fetchland to gain "card advantage/quality". Early game, if im casting it, it is to find an answer (daze/fow) or it is to find lands. I never brainstorm for no reason EOT turn 1.

That said, there is no universal guide on using cantrip in ThreshThreshThreshThreshThreshThreshThreshThresh. You don't know why they are playing them, so stop assuming they don't know what they are doing

Cantrips also allow you to run consistenly with less lands. Like what everyone said, 3 lands is about what Threshold needs to operate very well. Over 3 lands is not necessary. Thus the needs of all the cantrips. Late game, i didnt write it, but ponder serve as a mini tutor (top 3) to find a card that is relevant to the game state

Rbert

[Deep6er]

Why doesn't anyone want to actually make their land drops anymore? Pretty much all the Daze aggro decks are playing like eighteen or nineteen lands and banking on Ponder and Brainstorm to get there. I can see that in the decks that stop at two, but then you've got the control decks like It's the Fear playing like 22 lands; don't you pretty much always want to get your first five land drops or so? You've obviously got to get to three, and if you have to do something to the board instead of Intuition for Loam it's kind of rough when you can't do multiple things per turn. There's that Intuition-Threshold list that's trying to do things with Deed and Intuition and plays like eighteen land or whatever. Mono White Control plays 22 lands? I'm pretty sure my mono white Onslaught Block deck played like 26 plus four Eternal Dragons. Even Vorosh cheats on lands a little.

I can buy that Daze lets you basically rebuy a land drop, but then you've got decks like Dreadstill that have Counterbalance and Trinket Mage but are also running Factories and Wastelands. Do people just not want to use Brainstorm to find real cards? One of the reasons I thought Aggro Loam was so exciting was because it played like 26 lands and had Loams so you always got to make all your drops and it was awesome.

Discuss.

So I'm just going to throw this out there, but it's because of a funny little thing called a mana curve.

Do you know why Threshold doesn't want to hit land drops every single turn? Because they don't need more than two land to operate efficiently. Three lands operates optimally. After that, lands are dead draws.

It's the Fear plays twenty-two lands because that's all you need. When I tested twenty-three it was too many. For a deck that wants to make sure the top three cards vary according to casting cost, having too many lands fucks up that equation. I'm fine with getting to three, then waiting to hit land after that. Top helps quite a bit for the slower matches, but I need gas in hand to stop my opponent, and land is not gas. Since most of the spells I'll be casting to stop my opponent are relatively cheap (Deed, Swords, Explosives at one or two), then constantly drawing lands will kill me more effectively than their creatures would. It's about balance.

Why are you stuck in the idea that a control deck has to have infinity-million mana sources? I played Onslaught block too. My Rifter deck had twenty-seven lands. Want to know something? We're not playing Onslaught block. What is your deal with all the land drops? You've made this complaint constantly. Why not play 40-X lands? That deck fucking makes it's land drops like nobody's business.

Your arguments don't make any sense. We build the decks to play well. You come in with, "this deck should play more lands because that's what I did in Onslaught block." To which we respond, "we build the decks like we did because that's how it works, and that's what happened after months of testing and refining." Comparing Legacy to Onslaught Block is absolutely mind boggling. The mana curve in Onslaught Block was insanely high. Vengeance, Akroma, Decree (all of them), Dragon, etc. means that you wanted as many lands as possible. In Legacy, nobody plays anything that costs more than six mana except for the odd Eternal Dragon in some Landstill lists.

I would recommend getting out of the Onslaught Block mindset and looking at Legacy. It might help.

[TheLion]

Yes, Deep6er is completely right. As long as the deck works with their land count, all is fine, isn't it?


In Legacy, nobody plays anything that costs more than six mana except for the odd Eternal Dragon in some Landstill lists.


Please make Tooth and Nail.dec and Enduring Ideal.dec work in Legacy! :-D

Maybe people are just too focussed on the "i-must-play-fetchlands-because-they-thin-my-deck-and-other-people-say-this-is-good"-Theory, that they can't play a higher curve, since they never draw enough lands.

If decks would play without 8 fetchlands, they could obviously play a higher curve. Isn't that the reason, why RW Rifter didn't play any Fetchlands, back in 2005?

[Forbiddian]

If decks played fewer fetchlands, they would pretty much have to go mono (or run pain lands, shock lands, etc.).

Dual colored is easily supportable and not very vulnerable to non-basic hate, and gives you the flexibility of Swords or KGrip or whatever else you want.

Decks mainly run fetches for the benefit of mana smoothing or the free shuffle.

[bruno_tiete]

Mono White Control plays 22 lands? I'm pretty sure my mono white Onslaught Block deck played like 26 plus four Eternal Dragons. Even Vorosh cheats on lands a little.

While I agree people tend to grow greedy regarding land count, Legacy manabases have the "right" to be smaller due to the lower average mana cost. Control cards in Legacy cost 4. Thats what people pay for a beater in Standard.
This is the same reason why Chalice of the Void is so good in Legacy. Mana costs are seldom above 4.

It's pretty common to see people cut a land for that last business spell. In most of this last minute changes, people would be better off playing 61 cards than increasing their chances of manascrew.

Loam can play its high land count comfortably because it can get rid of some through cycling, as well as it can maximize its mana usage throughout the game.

[T is for TOOL]

Improving manabases is based mostly trial and error, right?
Guidelines for ratios of colors, basics vs. nonbasics, and utility lands can be established by examining what works and what doesn't. There is a method to choosing a manabase that dictates how you will alter the land counts for the next iteration of the manabase. 'Trial and error' is an oversimplification.


Do we need this thread to reach this profound conclusion?
If you don't find any value in this discussion, then why bother to post in the thread?

[Benie Bederios]

A: http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=890

If you read rule 1, a deck with only 0-2 CC spells can operate on 18/19 lands. Thresh has such a low curve.

B: I think most people... well lets rephrase that -> I don't try to play as few lands as possible, but as many business spells without going over 60 cards total. That's a big difference.

C: The power of cantrips are, that they are lands in the early turns, and are everything but lands later on.

BB

[frogboy]

Do you know why Threshold doesn't want to hit land drops every single turn? Because they don't need more than two land to operate efficiently. Three lands operates optimally. After that, lands are dead draws.

I should've been more clear; regular Threshold lists, fine. That deck that's trying to do things with Intuition and Pernicious Deed, not as much. Don't you want to be able to do multiple things in a turn? Cast and use Pernicious Deed? Have your opponent locked under Counterbalance but still be able to do things about what they have in play?

It just feels like a lot of the games I lose can be attributed to stalling out on lands and I don't really get why people want to exacerbate that.

[Citrus-God]

I mean that most players play their cantrips although they don't even know what they are looking for. They are just seaching for tarmogoyf. If that's their only purpose, eladarmi's call would be better, being an instant.

Game 1, your priority with that Eladamri's Call is to find a Tarmogoyf, hypothetically let's say Game 2, you're looking for an Abeyance or AEther Vial. That Eladamri's Call isn't so hot anymore.

So when players cast their cantrips first turn blind against an unknown deck, knowing what to stack isn't very difficult. You go for that Daze/FoW to go with your hand, you go for a Counterbalance/Top component, you go for land, you go for land destruction, you go for threats, you go for other cantrips.


When threshold players will stop playing their BS at the end of their first turn, I'll start considering that they know what they do with their cantrips.

If tells that that easy to pick off that easily after a cast cantrip, then I'm sure it's easy for them to telegraph something else and mislead you. Based on what you just said, if they figure you to be a rational and competent player, they will make attempts to mislead you then.


Also, most threshold players start their game by cantriping, not even knowing what their opponent is playing. How can you cantrip with effectiveness, if you don't even know what you need?

Because it's not hard picking Daze, FoW, or a Swords to Plowshare off that cantrip.


Of course, don't get me wrong, I know very good threshold players, but they left most of their cantrips (only 8 left), and they know how to play them.

I've met many good Threshold players too. Before CounterTop was introduced, the only Threshold advice I will willingly receive are from the Hatfields, Happy Gilmore, Anwar, and plethora of others who played the old school 4 Brainstorm, 4 Portent, 4 Serum Visions, 4 Predict suite.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

I think that people are just getting too greedy. While it may not be optimal or smart to cheat so much on mana, if it's possible and you can still pull out wins, then you can bet that people are going to.



Guilty as charged. That's my problem. I often have too many ideas for the amount of land that I need.

That said, one great advantage of boards like these is that the problem can be rectified. It just takes a willingness to

1.) Recognise the problem
2.) Provide decent alternatives


Unfortunately, one or the other of those tends to be missing from the discussion. And sometimes, it just pays to cheat and fake it.

One last thing: it takes a great deal of work to develop an adequate manabase. If people aren't putting in the work to help a poster, well, that's really prohibitive.

[mercenarybdu]

lands are usually dead draws unless you have ways to play tons of them at a time while still giving you benefits in the process.

I only run 20 in most of my decks and at times 22 in others that need the extra lands.

[TheRock]

Generally, a good sign that a manabase needs to be looked at again is if HYPGEOMDIST shows that you have a ridiculously high chance of getting stuck with no-land and one-land hands versus three-land hands.

Brainstorm isn't the best way to find lands, and Brainstorm isn't going to do that much about floods if you almost never get into the situations. Most decks that operate efficiently with X lands simply can't play all of the business spells correctly and/or get behind against decks that are simply faster or balls-to-the-wall fast when they can't reach their optimal Y count. I see control decks doing it all the time, but good late-game decks shouldn't be in topdeck mode that often.

[FoolofaTook]

It just feels like a lot of the games I lose can be attributed to stalling out on lands and I don't really get why people want to exacerbate that.

Land flood and the stalls it produces are nearly as bad as missing your drops. Frequently when you are stalled because of not enough mana you can draw one land and activate your hand. It's much harder to draw one spell and suddenly alleviate the problem that mana flood caused earlier on.

It's not uncommon for a Legacy deck that's constructed properly to win based on just a few land draws during the game, staying just even with the curve needed to win. Ironically Stiflenought in it's various incarnations is an example of a deck that can draw two lands and no other mana and still get lucky and win the game based on the opponent not being able to interact appropriately with the threat when it presents itself. On the flipside Goyf Sligh is another example of a deck that can win off of two lands unexpectedly if Krosan Grip is not needed in the process. Both of those decks also win when a deck like Landstill is in the process of drawing 10 lands in 19 cards at the start of the game.

[frogboy]

It's much harder to draw one spell and suddenly alleviate the problem that mana flood caused earlier on.

Deed, Intuition, sometimes Tarmogoyf, Brainstorm, Explosives, etc. If you just say go on turn three, you're usually way too far behind to catch up, though.

[FoolofaTook]

Deed, Intuition, sometimes Tarmogoyf, Brainstorm, Explosives, etc. If you just say go on turn three, you're usually way too far behind to catch up, though.

This is true. However many of the tier 1 decks in the current meta can play on turn 1 and turn 2 off of the 2 mana they have in the opening hand. They can then play on turn 3 and turn 4 also if they don't draw another land, because that's the curve of the deck and if they're not drawing land they're drawing things to play.

You're just as likely to be screwed with 5 land in the opening hand and a couple of answers that you expend while drawing a mix of land and answers over the next half dozen turns. That's not saying that a land heavy deck like Landstill isn't a superior deck to most fast aggro decks, because it is, but throwing more land into the aggro decks to improve their land drop rate isn't going to create a more favorable matchup for them.

When I beat Landstill it's generally because I did something very effective in the way of creating a threat in the first couple of turns or because they did a poor job of defending in the early mid-game. Most of the time the poor job of defending consists of dropping a land and saying go and then getting antsy as what presents itself is more land.

[Happy Gilmore]

No, the deck used Threshold creatures as threats, nothing more. The deck still functioned well with other threats, but Threshold creatures were used because they were better than Dryads, Watchwolves, and Jotun Grunt because the point of Threshold back then was to play control until midgame thanks to free counters, then you move into midgame, drop some threats in which you already happen to have Threshold at the time, and just win.

What made the deck amazing was the superior card quality you have over your opponent via cantrip chain, your amazing post-board games, and the fact you rarely had any dead cards in hand because they were denied as you chain cantrips to cycle through your deck. The deck wasn't about amazing back then because chaining cantrips got you Threshold, the deck was amazing because the deck offered the pilot efficiency, flexibility and versatility.


Umm...the strategy has not changed. One of the biggest mistakes I see people make playing Threshold is to go agro too early (generally playing a threat with little to no protection). Having the option to do so is great, but getting too greedy can lose you the game in many matchups.

[morgan_coke]

what's really wrong is none of you have read http://mtgsalvation.com/article/354/terms-metrics-and-mana-v20] (http://mtgsalvation.com/article/354/terms-metrics-and-mana-v20) article.

[troopatroop]

what's really wrong is none of you have read http://mtgsalvation.com/article/354/terms-metrics-and-mana-v20] (http://mtgsalvation.com/article/354/terms-metrics-and-mana-v20) article.

I think its funny how at the beginning of the article, he says that it doesn't apply to eternal formats. Fail.

[Giles]

what's really wrong is none of you have read http://mtgsalvation.com/article/354/terms-metrics-and-mana-v20] (http://mtgsalvation.com/article/354/terms-metrics-and-mana-v20) article.
Shameless plug much?

[bigbear102]

Of course, don't get me wrong, I know very good threshold players, but they left most of their cantrips (only 8 left), and they know how to play them.

I'm pretty sure that there are very few Threshhold/blue based aggro control decks that play more than 8 Cantrips. Most of them play 4 BS, 4 Ponder, and maybe 1-2 extras. You are making an argument about a build that was abandon years ago.

@Frogboy: Dave has answered your question about ITF. Too many lands messes with Counterbalance, a good reason why most Landstill decks can't play the card effectively. He also has Loam which will make sure he can consistently hit his land drops in the control matchups where it really counts.

As for me, I have always played less lands than what most people assume to be the correct number. When I played Thresh it had 17 lands in it (not too controversial), with 4 colors. My survival builds rarely go over 20, and even my Landstill has either 22 or 23 most of the time. Burn obviously can cheat on lands, and it's a solid 18 usually because of a lack of a draw engine outside of Magma Jet.

[morgan_coke]

Shameless plug much?

Every chance I can get. :wink:


I think its funny how at the beginning of the article, he says that it doesn't apply to eternal formats. Fail.

The disclaimer is there because when I wrote it a few years ago I didn't know much about Legacy and if I'd tried to include that it would have probably included bad info. That said, I'm familiar enough with Legacy now to comfortably say that the principles work for this format too.

[raharu]

As for me, I have always played less lands than what most people assume to be the correct number.

I concur.

[TheRock]

On top on not having enough lands, you also have to have enough ways to get the colors you need without going "turn one Brainstorm - whiff, whiff, whiff". There is a reason why Threshold has major problems dealing with mana disruption. Some builds only run 12 sources of green and you can't play aggressively without it.

The one thing that I have noticed is that the people who post very positive tournament reports here seem to run good manabases and seem the colors they need more often because they don't cheat the number of lands they need and, in turn, don't cheat their configurations. The people who post "2-2" records seem to make more questionable manabase choices.

Math is the best way to make your manabase work. I can explain all of the math that I want, but at the end of the day, this is still a game of personal preference.

[Finn]

On top on not having enough lands, you also have to have enough ways to get the colors you need without going "turn one Brainstorm - whiff, whiff, whiff". There is a reason why Threshold has major problems dealing with mana disruption. Some builds only run 12 sources of green and you can't play aggressively without it.

The one thing that I have noticed is that the people who post very positive tournament reports here seem to run good manabases and seem the colors they need more often because they don't cheat the number of lands they need and, in turn, don't cheat their configurations. The people who post "2-2" records seem to make more questionable manabase choices.

Math is the best way to make your manabase work. I can explain all of the math that I want, but at the end of the day, this is still a game of personal preference.

QFT

I get quite a kick out of beating all those decks with paper thin manabases time and time again simply because I was rogue enough to pack something like Rishadan Port. I can't begin to tell you how often somebody will show up with something like Fear or Threshold or Loam and get annoyed that my "janky Fish" or "random white weenie" kept him off green all game long.

But I fail when something like Landstill plays two colors and has a reasonable amount of basics. The current trend of shaving lands is going to continue until enough people acknowledge that it sets them up for an additional way to fail.

[TeenieBopper]

Reading this thread has made one thing incredibly clear to me.

If I ever hear someone bitching about being mana screwed (to a lesser extent, color screwed) while they're playing a control deck with less than 25 lands in it, I'm going to slap them with my dick.

That is all.

[Citrus-God]

Umm...the strategy has not changed. One of the biggest mistakes I see people make playing Threshold is to go agro too early (generally playing a threat with little to no protection). Having the option to do so is great, but getting too greedy can lose you the game in many matchups.

I never said the point of Threshold was to go Aggro too early. However, I see the strategy slightly changing now because we're now incorporating Counterbalance/Top into our strategy as a way to move into midgame.

However, I may retract my statement on that strategy being past tense on the Threshold strategy having changed due to incorporation of Counterbalance as an additional threat, since this is how you win (or end the game) midgame.'

[mercenarybdu]

I would play with 16 lands if possible for the least. Then if Land is my primary then I'd play the amount I need for my personal gain.

[Forbiddian]

I would play with 16 lands if possible for the least. Then if Land is my primary then I'd play the amount I need for my personal gain.

Useless....

Anyway, I have noticed that with all the Wastelands getting thrown around, I'm more comfortable edging on the side of more land.


Mana flood by 1 or 2 land (like say you want 4 max and by your tenth card you have 6 land) can set you back a bit, might even cost you a close game. That's frustrating. I understand trying to minimize this.

If you get stuck on 1 or 2 land when you need 3, YOU LOSE. I don't understand compounding the risk of mana fuck in every game you play just to try to turn some endgame land into an extra business spell or two (your worst business spell, I might add).

Running 16-17 land is like playing Russian Roulette. When it pays off, you maybe pick up a few dollars. When it backfires, you fucking die.

[Tosh]

In control decks, I prefer to play 23-25 lands and in aggro-control I prefer 19-21 lands (depending on cantrips). I also run 4x SDT in pretty much every deck that I play so that makes finding lands when you need them and not drawing lands when you want business spells much easier and more common. Ideally, you shouldn't have to expend a card just to make a land drop; Brainstorming to hit a land drop means that you're probably in a bad situation.

Additionally, I don't know why people don't run more basic lands. I don't think people realize how real the wasteland/PoP threat is and you can't count on being able to counter PoP and/or having enough lands that wasteland doesn't screw you.

I also agree with Forbiddian in that being mana flooded doesn't always cause you to lose the game, it will make it tough but it's doable whereas on the other hand, being mana starved will lead to a loss in the vast majority of games.

[Mantis]

Gerry Thompson (for the people that don't know him, he's one of the rising stars in the professional circuit) always says; 'I love lands, they allow me to outplay my opponent because I don't get stuck on mana.' I sort of agree with him, although I'm not nearly as good of a player as he his so the argument applies less to me. Lands do so many good stuff that you can easily get away with adding an extra land in the form of Volrath's Stronghold, Academy Ruins, Mishra's Factory etc. Still, there needs to be a cutoff point as you also need spells, the trick is really finding the right mixture. I play 23 lands in my Goblins deck, that's one more than people usually run. This way I can get away with playing 4 Wastes and 4 Ports and not get color screwed.

But in a deck like Threshold you really only need 2 or 3 manasources, so you really don't want to draw that much land. The trick here is finding the right balance, decks like those really need to have an opening off 2 land, 2 instants and a creature or something, whereas some control decks can get away with a hand that is 5 lands, a Deed and a STP. In those kind of decks play a ton of mana to cast your superpowerful spells like Deed, Shackles, WoG, Decree of Justice etc.

[Bardo]

Gerry Thompson (for the people that don't know him, he's one of the rising stars in the professional circuit) always says; 'I love lands, they allow me to outplay my opponent because I don't get stuck on mana.' I sort of agree with him, although I'm not nearly as good of a player as he his so the argument applies less to me. Lands do so many good stuff that you can easily get away with adding an extra land in the form of Volrath's Stronghold, Academy Ruins, Mishra's Factory etc.

Pros have been saying this for years (Randy Buehler and Kai Budde come to mind) and I agree. You can use play skill to get navigate through the occasional land flood, but no amount of skill can save your ass when your stuck on 1 or 2 with a fistful of 3s.

My last iteration of Witch-Maw (U/b/g/w) Landstill ran 26 land, and that gave it an advantage against other like control decks; Vorosh ran 24 (which was 1 too few, IMO), but then Counterbalance becomes inconsistent. I think that also accounts for ITF's lower-than-usual land count for a control deck: the lower the land-spell density, the less you can rely on Counterbalance for blind flips or with Top (except 1cc, for obvious reasons).

It's a classic, risk vs. reward situation. Play too few lands and you invite land/color screw; yet, if % go your way, you'll have more action. Play too many lands and you're more likely to hit your land drops, but you run the risk of ripping another land when you really need action at certain points in the game. Thing is, you can salvage some of the games when you're flooded; but not the games when you're screwed.

Psychologically, I think people tend to get greedy in these situations since spells are much cooler than lands, and when you're shaving, it's easier, mentally, to cut Island #3 than some second-string spell.

Just this week I got all of the remaining cards I needed (Intuition #4, Etched Oracle, an Eternal Witness frogboy "stole," etc.) and built the current version of ITF. The deck is awesome and reminds me of playing Psychatog; I'd forgotten how much fun it is to resolve Intuition. Anyway, I've had to mulligan a distressing amount of "1 land, 6 awesome spell hands" this week; that could be obviated by another land or two, then you run into issues with CB.

If I get bored/have the time, I should write another one of these kinds of articles for ITF: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9601

I'm curious to see how it would go.


But in a deck like Threshold you really only need 2 or 3 manasources, so you really don't want to draw that much land.

Dunno, I was always in the "18 land" camp; when most of MTS was happy with 17. You don't need/want to draw that much land, but you need to get off to a good start vs. decks like gobs/aggro or lose.

[Forbiddian]

Psychologically, I think people tend to get greedy in these situations since spells are much cooler than lands, and when you're shaving, it's easier, mentally, to cut Island #3 than some second-string spell.


That's a really good insight.


One thing that I hear all the time as well is: "I only run 18 land, but I run 4 Brainstorm, and Brainstorm functions as extra land."

Ah... WTF? No. Brainstorm is strongest when you're mana FLOODED and can use it to stick two land on top and then shuffle them away. Brainstorm is weakest when you have a 1-land hand and Brainstorm and pray that your top 4 has a fetchland (and you miss your T2 drop because you had to first mainphase your Brainstorm to see the extra card).

Sometimes the top 4 has the stuff you need to live. Sometimes you lose. The games you pull it off and have to struggle to win the rest of the game are called "normal" the games you lose are called "bad luck." "Bad luck" happens to everyone, but not everyone sets himself up for bad luck.



There is a lot of difference between 1.5 and other formats, though. In 1.5, you actually get a big advantage by shavings lands because there are more good spells, so cutting a land turns into a good spell instead of a second or even third rate spell like in T2 or block. Also, cards-that-aren't-land are usually inexpensive enough that you can actually cast them and affect the board state. In T2, if your mana doesn't curve out properly, you can die with a fistful of spells but can only play one per turn.

In 1.5, there should be fewer land. Still, I think the general rule of thumb should be to play more land (or at least analyze how often you mana fuck). Especially against Wasteland or if you have a stretched color base.

[frogboy]

I forgot all about that Witness! I probably still have it somewhere.

I'm pretty sure I'd play 25 or 26 lands in Goblins given that the deck wants to make it's first five or six land drops so that you can just bury the opponent with men, and I'm fairly sure the Extended Counterbalance decks played 25 lands, so I'm not super convinced by the Counterbalance argument. Plus, like, blind Counterbalance is hardly reliable, and you get, what, an extra 2.5% to hit on a blind Counterbalance if the spell they're casting happens to be the same CMC as the spell you cut your land for?

[Bardo]

@ Frogboy. I'm no 1.x expert, but the Fortier deck from GP Valencia ran 21 land + 4 Chrome Mox (+3 Top), and the curve is pretty broad (0 cmc: 5 spells; 1 cmc: 5; 2 cmc: 16; 3 cmc: 10; 4 cmc: 2; x cmc: 1 [EE]).

(First Place; GP Valencia; Extended)
4 Dark Confidant
4 Tarmogoyf
3 Trinket Mage
2 Venser, Shaper Savant

4 Chrome Mox
1 Tormod's Crypt
3 Sensei's Divining Top
2 Stifle
4 Counterspell
2 Counterbalance
2 Umezawa's Jitte
4 Thirst for Knowledge
3 Threads of Disloyalty
1 Engineered Explosives

4 Flooded Strand
4 Polluted Delta
4 Island
1 Plains
1 Forest
1 Swamp
1 Breeding Pool
1 Hallowed Fountain
1 Steam Vents
1 Watery Grave
1 Seat of the Synod
1 Academy Ruins

@ Forbiddian. From this classic (http://wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mf38), the formula is something like 2 blue 1cc cantrips = 1 land.

[MattH]

Intuition decks like ITF can be something of a special case; if they get to 3 and resolve an Intuition, fetch+loam can guarantee land drops forever and ever. So they only really need enough to make 3 land drops.

[raharu]

Intuition decks like ITF can be something of a special case; if they get to 3 and resolve an Intuition, fetch+loam can guarantee land drops forever and ever. So they only really need enough to make 3 land drops.
On that note, if Landstill were to play two or three MD Crucibles, could it go to running one or two less land? Then would Landstill be a special case? Since CoW is colorless, could every deck running Crucible + fetch (which is potentially ~100%) be a special case? Not trying to make it seem as though your logic is flawed (it isn't, IMO), I'm just wondering... It's something that has been rattling around in my head for a few weeks and I can't come to any solid conclusions.

[Tosh]

Intuition decks like ITF can be something of a special case; if they get to 3 and resolve an Intuition, fetch+loam can guarantee land drops forever and ever. So they only really need enough to make 3 land drops.

This may be true; however, if the ITF player has to resort to (more or less) waste their Intuition to make land drops, the game probably won't go too well for them.

I'd much rather draw lands and Brainstorm/Intuition/Top into nonland since those cards allow you to choose which nonland you draw (pick the more relevant ones) whereas choosing which land you draw (unless you're color screwed) isn't really that powerful.


On that note, if Landstill were to play two or three MD Crucibles, could it go to running one or two less land? Then would Landstill be a special case? Since CoW is colorless, could every deck running Crucible + fetch (which is potentially ~100%) be a special case? Not trying to make it seem as though your logic is flawed (it isn't, IMO), I'm just wondering... It's something that has been rattling around in my head for a few weeks and I can't come to any solid conclusions.

Crucible seems interesting to put in a control deck (not that interesting in landstill, but in non-landstill control decks). The only thing holding me back from running Crucible in my ~ITF deck is that it's not as good as LftL in an Intuition stack. In order for Crucible to do the same job as LftL you'd have to dedicate all 3 cards to making sure Crucible got to the table instead of getting 1 utility card w/ LftL + <land>.

[frogboy]

Well, Moxes are lands for Counterbalance purposes. Remi's deck also wasn't as based around Counterbalance as much as the NLB decks were during the PTQ season. He only had two, etc. Most of the NLB decks had around a dozen twos, ten threes, and eight ones.

Intuitioning for Loam is sort of loose because you're tying up all this mana but it does imply that you have a bunch of spells (since you only have three land) so that's not entirely unjustified. Still, like, 22 lands? Really?

Crucible is obviously bad in multiples and is an open invitation to get destroyed by Counterbalance or Intuition on the turn that you play it. People are also running Deeds and EEs to get Counterbalances in the matchups where it's best, and it gets caught in the crossfire.

[Forbiddian]

@ Forbiddian. From this classic (http://wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mf38), the formula is something like 2 blue 1cc cantrips = 1 land.

The formula would actually be: the lands/(N) - lands/(N+1) where N is the number of non-cantrip cards in the deck = land total land value of all cantrips.

This actually comes from an integral and I simplified some parts, but yeah.

Such that with 30 lands in the deck in a 61 card deck, each cantrip is worth half a land. The formula can be derived from the pseudo belief that cantrips act as though they do not exist (so a 61 card deck with 1 cantrip and 30 land plays like a 60 card deck with 30 land).

Of course, this is a gross oversimplification. There's stuff like tempo, counter vulnerability, etc. Type 1.5 is so fast that cards like Impulse are simply not used (even though they are very powerful and would make a big splash in other formats... assuming that blue was playable, I mean).


Still, it's not just 2 cantrips = 1 land. This is an important distinction when decks now run land counts sub-20. With 25+ land in the deck and a 2 land hand, you can expect your Brainstorm to hit a third land when you really need it. Thus, your brainstorm can act as a land whenever you want.

With 16 land in the deck, your brainstorm is not nearly as likely to hit up a second land. It becomes more unreliable and more risky.


I think brainstorm should be viewed more like a draw engine (when combined with "bad" spells or lands and a shuffle or mental note), a tutor (dig out something relevant) or in a pinch comboing against Duress/Thoughtseize/Cabal Therapy or with Counterbalance or digging for extra land.

Especially TEMPO Thresh (it's in the name) shouldn't spend its first two turns praying to dig out the second land.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

This is the kind of thing that applies to a lot of new decks, but mostly just sounds good in theory. Why does Quinn have 22 lands, despite being MWC? Because it's Legacy, and the mana curve is low and decks can run good card manipulation, especially Top. I ran 26 in Train Wreck and 23 in Truffle Shuffle. I ran a deck similar to Mighty Quinn in T2 this Summer that ran 26 lands, Sheets and Mouth of Ronom and Deserts and everything. I suppose Dave runs 22 in ITF for the same stupidly obvious reason I do; he's tested the deck a lot and found that to be the best possible number.

People lose games to mana screw. People lose more games, in my experience, to relevant-card screw. So, no, I don't care what Pros say, everyone does leave themselves open to bad luck. All you can do is minimize it based on your mana curve, your color demands and your matchup requirements and general strategy. "Play more lands" is a meaningless profundity as a maxim. It's no more a universal truth than, "Maindeck two Stifle", or, "Run Yixlid Jailer over Tormod's Crypt in the board".

You want a series of deckbuilding rules to live by?

Rule 1) Situation Dictates

Rule 2) Situation Dictates

Rule 3) See above.

[raharu]

Crucible seems interesting to put in a control deck (not that interesting in landstill, but in non-landstill control decks).

Huh?


The only thing holding me back from running Crucible in my ~ITF deck is that it's not as good as LftL in an Intuition stack. In order for Crucible to do the same job as LftL you'd have to dedicate all 3 cards to making sure Crucible got to the table instead of getting 1 utility card w/ LftL + <land>.

Well, non-Intuition control decks don't have a whole lot of reason to run LftL, so the question is (I guess):

What purpose, outside of ensuring land drops, does CoW serve?

Personally, I always run some sort of recursion in whatever deck I'm playing (be it minor recurring removal/ pump/ lifegain in the form of Jitte in agro, or recurring EE in Control, or Volrath's Stronghold creature recursion in XXb agro), so it's safe to say that it's secondary function is keeping my recursion lands online. Well... Consistent land drops and protecting your recursion lands (note that Academy Ruins + Crucible is pretty persistent) sounds pretty okay, but it doesn't do a whole lot for getting the engines online in the first place. LftL doesn't do that by itself, obviously, but it's a key piece of most, if not all Intuition stacks. So I guess you have to ask yourself is, when comparing LftL and CoW, does the ease of casting (colorless v. Green), lack of sustained mana investment, ability to dodge CB (most of the time) and graveyard hate (kinda) outweigh the synergy with Intuition, resiliency (dredgeability), and... I know I'm forgetting something, but whatever it is I'm forgetting, that?

Personally, I hate stretching into green if I'm playing Ubw (as much as I like ITF), and I can't do control without StP, so... I like Crucible more. That's just me, though, and it's important that I don't play Intuition.

[Tosh]

Huh?

What I mean is, I generally don't think of putting Crucible in non-landstill control decks and that it is something worth looking into, but since I play ~ITF, I won't get the opportunity to since it just doesn't fit in.


What purpose, outside of ensuring land drops, does CoW serve?

Personally, I hate stretching into green if I'm playing Ubw (as much as I like ITF), and I can't do control without StP, so... I like Crucible more. That's just me, though, and it's important that I don't play Intuition.

Like I said above, I think that it's worth looking into. It ensures your land drops after turn 3 (provided you made the first 3 drops). The one thing that I'd be careful with is that turn 3 is a pretty crucial turn in a lot of match ups, and you have to be hesitant to tie up all of your mana on your own turn, especially in a control deck that takes advantage of having instants.

[raharu]

Crucible is obviously bad in multiples and is an open invitation to get destroyed by Counterbalance or Intuition on the turn that you play it. People are also running Deeds and EEs to get Counterbalances in the matchups where it's best, and it gets caught in the crossfire.

What?

Also, land is bad in excess, but you're telling everyone to play more of it. I'm just saying that playing two or three Crucibles (or ways to tutor them) is a plausible idea for making consistent land drops after whatever turn you drop it. How is LftL okay for this purpose, with it's recurring mana investment, but somehow Crucible is going to get your shit wrecked (or something, whatever you meant to say)?

[frogboy]

Loam costs two and so, assuming you Intuitioned for it, you will have two mana up the turn in which you cast it. Crucible obviously costs three and isn't an instant. It's hard to do nothing on turn three against an aggressive deck, and if you've tapped out on turn three against a control deck, you've given them an awesome window to resolve something backbreaking, as opposed to Loam + Counterspell. Additionally, everyone has Deeds and Explosives anyway, so relying on permanents is loose.

The second Crucible is obviously bad; the sixth or seventh land still lets you, you know, cast spells.

Loam also costs two mana every two or three turns, and gets you all your best lands, and sometimes you get Lonely Sandbar and all systems are go.


People lose games to mana screw. People lose more games, in my experience, to relevant-card screw.

In my experience, it's the opposite. That looks more pompous than it is, but like, if I can actually cast spells, I can get somewhere. It's also worth noting that you probably don't lose too many games because you specifically drew a land instead of the particular spell you cut for that land because all of your best cards that would presumably bail you out are probably four ofs.

[Sanguine Voyeur]

It's simple; decks are like a gasoline explosion. They need to have the right mixture of air (lands) and petrol (business). Most people don't know the right mixture, so they just throw as much gas on it as they can with just enough air to get by. As a result, it may explode, but not as well as it could have. Though careful testing, the proper mix of air, gas, and additives (Tribe-Elders, Eternal Dragons, and cantrips) can be derived.

[raharu]

Loam costs two and so, assuming you Intuitioned for it, you will have two mana up the turn in which you cast it. Crucible obviously costs three and isn't an instant. It's hard to do nothing on turn three against an aggressive deck, and if you've tapped out on turn three against a control deck, you've given them an awesome window to resolve something backbreaking, as opposed to Loam + Counterspell. Additionally, everyone has Deeds and Explosives anyway, so relying on permanents is loose.

Well, relying on LftL is loose as well, not everyone has Deeds and Explosives, the problem you have with Crucible still applies to Intuition (and no, I don't care that it's an instant, you can cast Crucible on turn 4 and still get that land drop, while having a land up for op's turn, but you insist it's a turn 3 play, so whatever).

Also, since we're assuming we have Counterspell (which isn't a 4-of in most ITF lists, using ITF because it's the only Intuition-Loam deck I know of to be a DTW ever) and Loam, why not assume we have Force of Will to cover the turn that CoW hits the table?


The second Crucible is obviously bad; the sixth or seventh land still lets you, you know, cast spells.

Loam also costs two mana every two or three turns, and gets you all your best lands, and sometimes you get Lonely Sandbar and all systems are go.

Sometimes you get held off Green, can't stabilize your manabase and get rolled, sometimes you get too much land, sometimes sometimes sometimes whatever. The second Crucible is like the second Counterbalance: you'll wish it was something else when you already have one on the table, but you're glad to have it when Krosan Grip takes the one you had. Also, making land drops while still drawing relevant cards is tech, I hear.






People lose games to mana screw. People lose more games, in my experience, to relevant-card screw.
In my experience, it's the opposite. That looks more pompous than it is, but like, if I can actually cast spells, I can get somewhere. It's also worth noting that you probably don't lose too many games because you specifically drew a land instead of the particular spell you cut for that land because all of your best cards that would presumably bail you out are probably four ofs.

It's not that it happens once, but that it happens two, three, or more times per game. It's kinda like asking if the deck could benefit from a 5th free Brainstorm, or more accurately, a free Ponder. I'm not going to blather about pushing edges and whatnot, but if you can push the edges of a MU before you even sit down at the table, then you should. Obviously there's a difference between pushing the edges and not being able to cast cards, but I'm pointing out that the two are mutually exclusive.

[Forbiddian]

Yeah, I've been calling my decks "lean" or "rich" based on their land concentrations for a while. A lot of deck designers have faulty carburetors.


Basically if it's worth discussing ad nauseum every spell selection in a deck, it should be worth discussing the mana base as well. A lot of people just don't put the same work into the mana base as they do figuring out whether the third Savannah Lions should instead be an Isamaru.

[Mantis]

Because it's so damn hard to figure out the perfect manabase, you never know it's perfect or not. You can easily count the number of times you the second Isamaru was dead and set the number you want to play accordingly.

There are so many 'rules of thumb' when it comes to the manabase but none has ever applied. Sure, there are some very rough guidelines, but you will have to figure out the manabase through testing, it's the only way.

[Forbiddian]

You can script a program (I have one on my TI that I wrote in Ochem during boring-ass lectures). I could convert it to java or C.

Anyway, it generates hands and then generates topdecks and records how long it takes to get un-mana fucked. Depending on how you play brainstorm, and your mulliganning habits as well. I need to program in SDT, Opt, Ponder, and combinations as well.

Fewer land = more mulligans, some even mulligans-to-oblivion. It's better to mulligan than take your chances off the top, though if you have one land.

It also unlocked some interesting things like: Is it better to second mainphase the brainstorm, or should you endstep it (when looking for land) and keep your second turn. It also records mana floods and how effective burying the flood with a storm is.



The other thing I'll do is a Chi2 on pile shuffling vs. riffling vs. theoretical random on clumping. Should be fun. I hear a lot of claims that they're different.