[Premium Article] I’m a Landlubber: The Land Deck in Legacy

[Smmenen]

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/19345_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Im_a_Landlubber_The_Land_Deck_in_Legacy.html

Editor's Blurb:





Monday, May 17th - The current Legacy metagame is brimming with playable options, as befits a format with an explosive card pool. Of course, there are some decks that rise to the top… One such deck is Lands, an uncommon strategy based around the most simple of resources. Stephen Menendian analyzes what’s needed to master the archetype.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

This was a good read - i'm happy you are writing about Lands. Are you planning a follow up article, maybe with comments on the polls results? It would also be interesting to see a more in-depth analysis of real in-game decisions; there are a few very good introductory articles about this deck (such as this one, hi-val's and Chris Woltereck), but not much on analysing the lines of play and common mistakes in different scenarios.

[Eldariel]

Regarding the last hand, Foothills -> Diamond (disc Tabernacle; in this order to avoid Daze) -> Explo -> Factory -> Loam seems like the correct line of play. Regardless of what happens, you can dredge Loam next turn to draw much more than you would otherwise, and if you get to return two lands to hand, all the better. Factory over Port since you aren't going to be using either this turn anyways and this has the subtle benefit of giving you an unsick Factory, while there's no benefit to playing Port now.

Foothills -> Diamond -> Explo -> Port 'em is a reasonable play on the draw and if you expect keeping opponent off two mana to buy you sufficient time to make up for one missed dredge. With the amount of mana denial you have right now, they'll likely get there very soon anyways though, and you need to get Dredge engine going to get more mana denial in play. There are definitely scenarios where "Port 'em" is correct; it depends on your opponent's plays (if they made no turn 1 play and are playing a 2-drop heavy deck, for example), but in vacuum it seems weaker. Though the vacuum is ultimately irrelevant; "on the play in G1 with no scouting info" is the closest match, and there you obviously don't think about Porting since there's nothing to Port.

[Smmenen]

Regarding the last hand, Foothills -> Diamond (disc Tabernacle; in this order to avoid Daze) -> Explo -> Factory -> Loam seems like the correct line of play. .


My problem with that line of play is: what happens if they Force Exploration? If they do that, then you can't play Loam this turn.

I think the correct play is just to play Loam and then play Exploration at a later point to guarantee that you can Loam next draw step. It's more important to Loam sooner than get one more land drop this turn.

People on the SCG forums have been asking about that, and that's my answer.

[Aggro_zombies]

My problem with that line of play is: what happens if they Force Exploration? If they do that, then you can't play Loam this turn.

I think the correct play is just to play Loam and then play Exploration at a later point to guarantee that you can Loam next draw step. It's more important to Loam sooner than get one more land drop this turn.

People on the SCG forums have been asking about that, and that's my answer.
If Exploration is getting Forced, Exploration is getting Forced. It's better to do it sooner rather than later because, even if they're a blue deck, doing it on the play means they need to have an opener with Force. Trying to mulligan into Force against a completely unknown opponent is not often the best line of play.

That means that, round 1 game 1, you'd expect your opponent to have Force in hand less than 20% of the time given an average field structure (Merfok, Counterbalance, and Reanimator rarely make up more than 40% of the field combined). I would rather go for the Exploration and make them have it than give them a chance to draw it while also stunting my own development. Really, Loaming automatically is pretty shitty if you're only going to get +1 land per turn out of it, so it's a waste to start Loaming before trying to make Loam actually good.

[hi-val]

Decks that play FOW can't put enough pressure on such that being down one Loam will sink you. The deck really doesn't want to be Loaming all the time; regular draw steps are crucial for getting Intuition, for example. I'd much rather have the extra land in play from Exploration, since they'll Force the enchantment anyway.

You have all the time in the world to draw with Loam, but you only have limited land drops.

[Smmenen]

If Exploration is getting Forced, Exploration is getting Forced. It's better to do it sooner rather than later because, even if they're a blue deck, doing it on the play means they need to have an opener with Force. Trying to mulligan into Force against a completely unknown opponent is not often the best line of play.

That means that, round 1 game 1, you'd expect your opponent to have Force in hand less than 20% of the time given an average field structure (Merfok, Counterbalance, and Reanimator rarely make up more than 40% of the field combined). I would rather go for the Exploration and make them have it than give them a chance to draw it while also stunting my own development. Really, Loaming automatically is pretty shitty if you're only going to get +1 land per turn out of it, so it's a waste to start Loaming before trying to make Loam actually good.

I disagree on both counts.

First of all, I disagree that loaming is shitting if you are only getting one land drop a turn. That's, imo, completely wrong. Loam is generating card advantage, which, in time, will equate into board advantage even if, for the first 6 turns, you only get one land drop per turn. At some point, you'll be making land drops and your opponents won't be. If they have alot of dual lands, your Wastelands will recur indefinitely. And, even though you are only making one land drop, what you overlook is the fact that you will begin cycling Tranquil Thicket for card advanage, which will help you find Mox Diamonds, Explorations, etc.

And if Exploration is forced, within a short time, you'll be able to find another by using Cephalid Coliseum to draw one or Tranquil Thickets.

Second, it's also not true that if they have force they'll be able to force exploration anyway. There is a chance that they'll force one of your loams to slow down your tempo lead, particularly if they can get a few fast creatures on the board. If they Force your exploration one, you won't be able to Loam. At this point, I want to find Wasteland and Tranquil Thicket as soon a possible. If your turn one Exploration is forced, you won't be able to Loam on turn one, which is more important, imo.


Playing Exploration there is the wrong play. Play it on turn two.

I think it's a good example of not focusing on what's important because people don't understand whats important. For some reason, people think that have to try to resolve Exploration here. That's just a misconception. The deck has inevitability built into it. At some point, Manabond will come down and end the game. Getting Exploration down on turn one just isn't that critical to survival. Would it help? Of course. But as long as you are making a land drop per turn, you can tie up your opponent. You have Port already, and the faster you dredge, you'll find more Ports and Wasteland.

[Smmenen]

Decks that play FOW can't put enough pressure on such that being down one Loam will sink you. The deck really doesn't want to be Loaming all the time; regular draw steps are crucial for getting Intuition, for example. I'd much rather have the extra land in play from Exploration, since they'll Force the enchantment anyway.

You have all the time in the world to draw with Loam, but you only have limited land drops.

being down a loam won't sink you, nor will not having exploration.

It's not that being down a loam will sink you, as much as it is i think you maximize your chances of winning by dredging faster rather than the slightly more probably resolution of exploraton on turn one.

while you are right the deck doesn't want or need to be loaming all of the time, aloto f the non-loaming happens after you've loamed alot. that's when Cephalid Coliseum becomes Ancestral Recall every turn.

If they'll Force the enchantment, I'd rather they do it on turn two, when i have already been generating card advantage and digging with Loam.

You'll find Tolaria West, Thicket, Maze, and Wasteland sooner if you dredge sooner. you don't need to explode on the to the table to win. one land drop a turn plus card advantage will do that just fine.

[hi-val]

On turn 2 though, isn't the only card advantage just getting back Tabernacle? That's not exactly an advantage...

The key to the deck when playing against blue opponents is early Rishadan Ports. Nothing else really matters as much (though Maze does in the midgame). I don't want to see Thicket, I want two Ports to pester the hell out of their mana. The only way I get those working, though, is with a lot of mana from Exploration!

[Eldariel]

I cannot really agree with your conclusion here; if you do resolve Exploration, you'll be able to Loam twice much earlier. Yes, if your Explo is forced you'll be two cards short of what you'd be if you played Loam first, but your Explo resolves, you'll be two cards deeper in few turns (as soon as you find Thicket) and 2+ more each turn. Since the expected event is Exploration resolving, I'll take the extra cards it provides me with over the safety of Loaming straight. Simple mathematics dictate that if something inconveniences you 20% of the time (by Troll's numbers; half the tourney plays FoW and there's a ~40% chance they have it) and benefits you 80% of the time, you take that action since probabilities dictate it's going to benefit you.

[Smmenen]

I cannot really agree with your conclusion here; if you do resolve Exploration, you'll be able to Loam twice much earlier. Yes, if your Explo is forced you'll be two cards short of what you'd be if you played Loam first, but your Explo resolves, you'll be two cards deeper in few turns (as soon as you find Thicket) and 2+ more each turn. Since the expected event is Exploration resolving, I'll take the extra cards it provides me with over the safety of Loaming straight. Simple mathematics dictate that if something inconveniences you 20% of the time (by Troll's numbers; half the tourney plays FoW and there's a ~40% chance they have it) and benefits you 80% of the time, you take that action since probabilities dictate it's going to benefit you.

The issue isn't whether you play Exploration; it's when. I say turn one Exploration is a mistake because if its countered you cant play loam. That doesn't mean I say don't play Exploration. Rather, I say play it on turn two.

[Anusien]

If you're on the play especially, you'd rather run out Exploration early. It stops them from Brainstorming/Pondering/Topping into Exploration and it prevents them from countering it with Daze (or multiple Dazes if you're on the draw and you can play around one.)

[Smmenen]

On turn 2 though, isn't the only card advantage just getting back Tabernacle? That's not exactly an advantage...

The key to the deck when playing against blue opponents is early Rishadan Ports. Nothing else really matters as much (though Maze does in the midgame). I don't want to see Thicket, I want two Ports to pester the hell out of their mana. The only way I get those working, though, is with a lot of mana from Exploration!

I think there is alot of confusion/disagreement because we have different views about whats important, and that disagreement is manifesting in the relatively minor issue of whether to play Exploration on turn one or turn two.

I don't agree that nothing else (aside from ports) really matters.

It sounds like you are trying to be too aggressive. Thinking big picture, how is your blue opponent (merfolk or countertop) opponent going to win? Let's focus on that instead of tactics.

Both decks have to win with creatures. Tabernacle + Wasteland + Mazes with Loam going will allow you to stabilize. Ports will slow down their ability to play more creatures, but Taberacle is more important there. The CounterTop player can win with Natural Order or try to stop your loam engine with Counterbalance This is where dredging faster will help you more, since you can find EE to blow up C-Balance, if it hits, and Ghost Quarter + Tabernacle + Loam will eventually allow you to stop a natural order. Wastelands, them paying for Tabernacle, and ports will also prevent Natural Order from being cast. EE can take care of Noble Hierarchs.

With the hand we have, I'm not really that concerned about anything a Merfolk pilot can do.

[Smmenen]

If you're on the play especially, you'd rather run out Exploration early. It stops them from Brainstorming/Pondering/Topping into Exploration and it prevents them from countering it with Daze (or multiple Dazes if you're on the draw and you can play around one.)

Your conclusion doesn't really follow. You've just explained the reasons why you want to play exploration, but you haven't addressed the problems with it or explained why those benefits outweight the problems. You don't address the possibility that they Force turn one Exploration, which then percludes you from Loaming on turn one, which is bad.

If your opponent Dazes your turn two Exploration, that's actually a minor victory for you, as they've just lost another land drop, kinda like a mini-exploration for you.

[Smmenen]

I cannot really agree with your conclusion here; if you do resolve Exploration, you'll be able to Loam twice much earlier. Yes, if your Explo is forced you'll be two cards short of what you'd be if you played Loam first, but your Explo resolves, you'll be two cards deeper in few turns (as soon as you find Thicket) and 2+ more each turn. Since the expected event is Exploration resolving, I'll take the extra cards it provides me with over the safety of Loaming straight. Simple mathematics dictate that if something inconveniences you 20% of the time (by Troll's numbers; half the tourney plays FoW and there's a ~40% chance they have it) and benefits you 80% of the time, you take that action since probabilities dictate it's going to benefit you.

One issue, also, is not how much you dredge, but the intersection of 1) how much, and 2) how quickly. That's too reductionist.

The goal is not to dredge as much as possible, but to hit certain cards in a certain time frame.

You don't need two Wastelands. You need one. You don't need two Tolaria Wests. You only need one.

[Aggro_zombies]

One issue, also, is not how much you dredge, but the intersection of 1) how much, and 2) how quickly. That's too reductionist.

The goal is not to dredge as much as possible, but to hit certain cards in a certain time frame.

You don't need two Wastelands. You need one. You don't need two Tolaria Wests. You only need one.
This deck hits certain cards in a certain time frame by dredging.

Life from the Loam is an Ancestral Recall in this deck regardless of what you return with it. By dredging repeatedly, you see more of your deck and therefore have a better chance of finding the cards you need to return with Loam. However, dredging enough to make that relevant requires you to have lots of mana in play. It's better to accelerate your board development initially rather than focus on getting card advantage because then you'll be in a better position to take advantage of all those cards you're seeing.

I mean, sure, you can play Exploration on turn two. If they didn't have the Force, you're down a mana that you had available on turn one had you played differently. In a deck where setup is so important, that can be a big deal.

[Smmenen]

I posted this hand in this article for a number of reasons. Having seen the poll responses, the thread on SCG, and the thread here, I understand why people have difficulty understanding this deck.

The issue is a seemingly simple one: Turn one Exploration or turn two?

The benefits of playing turn one Exploration are very easy to understand. You get one more land drop. Your opponent has a slightly lesser chance of seeing/playing Force. Etc.

But what if its countered? Does an Ad Nauseam player every say: oh man, if this Ad Nauseam, resolves, how good will it be for me? No. They look at what happens if its countered, too. That’s shockingly missing here. I understand that it’s not as big of an investment as Ad Nauseam, and it hurts a lot to have your Ad Nauseam countered, but the costs here are a lot greater actually than people understand.
If it’s Forced on turn one, you lose the ability to Loam on turn two because you’ll likely want to Port. And, if you want to play turn three Tabernacle and use port (which is likely), that delays Loam until turn four, and that means you won’t be dredging until turn five! That’s what happens if Exploration is countered! And that only can be understood if you understand why dredging is important (i.e. finding Wasteland, Thicket, etc).

The proponents of turn one Exploration are framing the issue in terms of the benefits that accrue if it resolves. But when has that ever been the way to address an issue? The costs are always measured against the benefits. We look at what happens if it resolves, and we look at what happens if it doesn’t. If it resolves, things are great. But if it doesn’t? What are the costs? It would be one thing if resolving it on turn one was necessary to win, but it’s not. Then, the costs would be irrelevant. We would play it, win, lose or draw.

But the issue is always: the benefits of playing a card against the harms of what could go wrong, weighted against the risks of either eventuality happening. When you look at this particular situation, I think the problem is pretty simple: getting Exploration countered here leads to a series of negative consequences: 1) you can’t loam on turn one, 2) you likely won’t loam until turn three or four) and 3) you won’t be Dredging until turn four or five, at the earliest, 4) you lose some card advantage, and 5) you are slower in finding Wasteland, etc. If you don’t lose by not playing Exploraton on turn one, then the tremendous tempo losses of getting it countered and not being able to play Loam until turn three (at the earliest, if not later), certainly persuade me that it’s the wrong turn one play.

It would be one thing if resolving Exploration on turn one as opposed to turn two was some magical, amazing thing. It’s not. You need not resolve Exploration this entire game and you can still win just fine against many, if not most, decks. This idea that you need Exploration to ‘take advantage’ of your card advantage is just wrong.

The only thing you really need to seal up the game is a late game Manabond, which is easy to set up with Cephalid Coliseum on turn 10 to 30. 1-3 activations with Coliseum when you have 30 or so cards left in your deck and you are likely to find Manabond or Exploration that you need to seal it all up.

It’s pretty simple to understand why Exploration is the wrong turn one play. The more interesting question is: why do so many people make it?
I think this question is a container issue. The issue of whether to play Exploration or not is actually a container for a larger issue, which is understanding what is important with this deck. Put up against this, the issue of whether to play turn one or turn two Exploration is actually minor.

What’s revealing is that people’s arguments in favor of Exploration on turn one actually reveal a stunning lack of strategic understanding of how this deck works. People say: focus on what’s important, but the issue here is that there is actually a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding about whats important.

The first problem is that Magic conditions players to think like tacticians. The reasons for are evident. Are tactics are so powerful that when strung together, they naturally win games. I play Tarmogoyf. I Force your threat. I attack and win.

This deck is more like Chess. You need to be thinking big picture immediately. Players look at decks and get bogged down in tactics. I Port this, I Wasteland that, etc. That’s just the wrong approach.

This deck is designed to win strategically against the vast majority of decks in legacy. You don’t even have to do much. If your opponent is winning with creatures, then you can probably play like a donk and still win. But that doesn’t mean you are doing the right thing.

The kneejerk response to play Exploration is generated out of misconceptions about the relative value and importance of Exploration. This is tactical thinking. People are thinking about how they string together their tactics: “If I can Exploration, I can play more lands, do more stuff, and Loam more lands into play.” That’s exactly what Max just said. But the thing is this: you don’t need to do all of that to win. You don’t actually need Exploration or Manabond until the very end of the game, in most game states. You play turn one Mox, Land, Loam, They play something on turn one, maybe a creature, maybe not. On turn two, you play Port, and Port them. On turn three, you play Tabernacle. If you have been dredging, you'll soon find Wasteland and or Thicket or T. West or Maze and keep building your defense.

You can match your opponent land for land until they stop dropping lands, tying up ad limiting their mana base in the process. At that point, you can Coliseum to draw your Manabond and end the game. Exploration just makes doing things a little bit easier. And before that even even happens, you’ve probably used a Tranquil Thicket to draw an additional card per turn, which finds mox Diamonds to help you accelerate a little bit, and Tolaria West to find EE to clear the board of anything annoying.

It’s true that resolving Exploration puts you in a better position, but you don’t need it to win. And when you don’t need something to win, and the costs of doing it could actually make you lose, it makes no sense to do it. This hand is perfectly set up to neutralize most opponents without using Exploration.

[Aggro_zombies]

I'M SORRY, I CAN'T HEAR THE CRITICISM OVER THE SOUND OF HOW RIGHT I AM
You're basically making the counter equivalent of the "Tarmogoyf sucks because it dies to removal" argument.

So let's put it this way.

The scenario was against a totally unknown opponent. If we assume an "average" field, the three biggest decks you have to worry about having Force are Counterbalance (maybe 25% of the field, combining all varieties), Merfolk (maybe 15% of the field), and Reanimator (maybe 10% of the field). So, let's say that our theoretical opponent has a 50% chance of even having Force of Will in his deck.

What happens when you open with Loam and your opponent opens with Swamp, Thoughtseize? Nice Exploration there.

What happens if your opponent opens Heath into Taiga, Nacatl, go? Exploration on turn one would have put you in a better position in the long term to lock down Zoo by slowing down the rate at which you lose life. That's relevant in this case because of burn spells and Price of Progress.

What happens if your opponent opens Foothills, Mox, Exploration, Wasteland, Loam, go?

What happens if your opponent opens Underground Sea, go? Not playing Exploration against Reanimator can potentially be deadly as you want to develop as explosively as possible there. Not opening with Port against Storm is quite bad because the mana denial is your only hope of winning. One of these decks has Force, and one doesn't. How are you going to tell the difference between them on turn two, and what happens if Exploration gets countered anyway?

And most of all, what happens if your opponent doesn't even HAVE the Force of Will?!

Giving him a turn to play an Island and have Brainstorm mana up seems absolutely asinine. Saying, "This deck doesn't really need Exploration" is also asinine. You're a deck built around lands. The only reason your deck is even good in the first place is because it breaks the rules regarding normal mana development. Like, sure, your example is basically tailor-made to allow you to argue that you don't want to execute your normal game plan starting on turn one. Let's say that the Tabernacle (a two-of in your deck!) isn't there. Let's say it's an EE or something. Now what do you do? The costs of being wrong about your opponent having Force are now much higher.

Also, you shouldn't play Loam on turn one. Your opponent could Extirpate it.

[Smmenen]

You're basically making the counter equivalent of the "Tarmogoyf sucks because it dies to removal" argument.

Not at all. That's an acontextual argument.

My argument is deeply contextual: decisions about what cards to play when should always be informed by not just what happens if things go your way, but what happens if they don't.

If your exploration is forced on turn one, you are going to lose so much more than the one land drop advantage you would have gained if you played it on turn two instead. And, people are dramatically overestimating how important Exploration is because they don't understand this deck.


Saying, "This deck doesn't really need Exploration" is also asinine. You're a deck built around lands. The only reason your deck is even good in the first place is because it breaks the rules regarding normal mana development.

Newsflash: there is a difference between not needing something to win and doing better with it. The reason the deck is good in the first place is because Tabernacle + Wastelands + Maze of Ith forged and protected by Loam can halt almost any aggro assault in the format. The rest of the cards play cleanup and revolve around that central synergy.

It's a really simple issue to understand: playing turn one Exploration and having it countered actually puts you in a much, much worse position than if you wait to play Exploraton on turn two and its countered than the benefit of resolving on turn one versus turn two (one land drop). The harder question to understand is why you, and others, are ignoring this fact, and also don't seem to really understand this deck very well. I think that has to do with a lack of strategic understanding of how deck deck is properly piloted and perhaps just ignorance.

Next week, I pit Reanimator against Lands, in an extremely long, complex match, that will hopefully teach people how this deck actually works.

[Aggro_zombies]

Not at all. That's an acontextual argument.

My argument is deeply contextual: decisions about what cards to play when should always be informed by not just what happens if things go your way, but what happens if they don't.

If your exploration is forced on turn one, you are going to lose so much more than the one land drop advantage you would have gained if you played it on turn two instead. And, people are dramatically overestimating how important Exploration is because they don't understand this deck.
And, what, you do? For a master of this deck, I haven't seen your name on any winning lists lately; in fact, the statistics from the last several large tournaments would seem to indicate that Menendian averages 0.0% with Lands. Besides, if we really wanted to know what the right play is, we wouldn't appeal to play skill. We would look at all the games where players had this exact opening hand against an unknown opponent, what they played, and how that correlates with game wins and tournament performance.

I've been playing with Life from the Loam almost since the card came out. I would hope I know my way around decks that use it by now.


Newsflash: there is a difference between not needing something to win and doing better with it. The reason the deck is good in the first place is because Tabernacle + Wastelands + Maze of Ith forged and protected by Loam can halt almost any aggro assault in the format. The rest of the cards play cleanup and revolve around that central synergy.

It's a really simple issue to understand: playing turn one Exploration and having it countered actually puts you in a much, much worse position than if you wait to play Exploraton on turn two and its countered. The harder question to understand is why you, and others, are ignoring this fact, and also don't seem to really understand this deck very well. I think that has to do with a lack of strategic understanding of how deck deck is properly piloted and perhaps just ignorance.
Let's concede that Life from the Loam is the most important card in this deck (it is). Life from the Loam is mana-intensive and slow in a format very much defined by its opening turns. Saying, "I don't need Exploration to win" is technically true. However, you're also ignoring the fact that you won't have the resources to do everything you need to do to not die against most of the decks in the format if you develop normally. I said it before, but I'll reiterate it: Lands is only good because you break the normal mana development rules. That Wasteland/Port/Maze thing? Not so hot when you and your opponent are laying lands down at the same rate.

In most matchups in this format, you're the control deck. Control decks suck in Legacy. Like, they're really, really awful. This deck does well because it's "faster" than most control decks in the sense that it has much more board presence, much earlier, and has a more proactive card advantage engine. You need Exploration to win. You're simply too slow without it.

Besides, you're looking at a potential turn-zero Force of Will maybe 15-20% of the time maximum against a random opponent. If you wanted people to be paranoid about counters, there were better ways to frame it than "In a vacuum, how would you play this hand?" I can tell you for a fact that keeping that hand and having your opponent play turn zero Leyline makes playing turn one Loam much worse. But since our opponent is a goldfish here (for all we know, anyway), then there's no compelling reason not to play the Exploration.

[Smmenen]

And, what, you do? For a master of this deck, I haven't seen your name on any winning lists lately; in fact, the statistics from the last several large tournaments would seem to indicate that Menendian averages 0.0% with Lands. Besides, if we really wanted to know what the right play is, we wouldn't appeal to play skill. We would look at all the games where players had this exact opening hand against an unknown opponent, what they played, and how that correlates with game wins and tournament performance.

I've been playing with Life from the Loam almost since the card came out. I would hope I know my way around decks that use it by now.


Let's concede that Life from the Loam is the most important card in this deck (it is). Life from the Loam is mana-intensive and slow in a format very much defined by its opening turns. Saying, "I don't need Exploration to win" is technically true. However, you're also ignoring the fact that you won't have the resources to do everything you need to do to not die against most of the decks in the format if you develop normally.



I completely disagree. That's why this deck is so powerful. You actually dont need to play two lands a turn to stabilize. You won't be able to win until you do more than stabilize, but you can actually stop them from killing you against many, if not most, decks without Exploration or Manabond.

The main reason is because Loam is generating card advantage for you, even if you only make one land drop per turn. But other reasons include the fact that Tabernacle affects a bunch of their permanents simultaneously. It's like 6 land drops in one card (Ports + lands to activate it).

I would go through a sequence that looks like this:

Mox, Land, Loam
Port, Port Them
Tabernacle, Port Them
Wasteland them, Port Them

Etc.

You can pretty much do that indefinitely, one land per turn, especially when aided with things like EE or Bridge.




I said it before, but I'll reiterate it: Lands is only good because you break the normal mana development rules. That Wasteland/Port/Maze thing? Not so hot when you and your opponent are laying lands down at the same rate.

But that's the thing that you are overlooking: at some point your opponent will not hit land drops. You will continue to make land drops every turn of the game. your opponent will run out of land drops because they don't have more lands in hand to play. At that point, you really pull ahead. You will be able to use Cephalid Coliseum to find Manabond and then clear their board with EE recursion and kill them with Factories.




In most matchups in this format, you're the control deck. Control decks suck in Legacy. Like, they're really, really awful.



Not control decks. Blue control decks. And the reason is simple: Legacy is so tempo oriented due to Daze/Force and hyper efficient creatures like Goyf. In a symmetrical situation, where both players have the same blue cards, the aggresor wins. Simple magic theory.

The land control deck uses totally different princples. It's built around the fact that over 70% of Legacy decks win with creatures, and are particularly vulnerable to the synergy of Tabernalce + Wasteland + Maze powered (meaning dredged) and protected by Loam.



This deck does well because it's "faster" than most control decks in the sense that it has much more board presence, much earlier, and has a more proactive card advantage engine. You need Exploration to win. You're simply too slow without it.



Completely disagree. This deck does better because Tabernacle is a super card. It ties up mana and limits the number of creatures that can be on the table. It also does better because it generates uncounterable card advantage with Loam. It's not because this deck is somehow faster, although that helps. The two main reasons are the power of Tabernalce and the card advantage with Loam.




Besides, you're looking at a potential turn-zero Force of Will maybe 15-20% of the time maximum against a random opponent. If you wanted people to be paranoid about counters, there were better ways to frame it than "In a vacuum, how would you play this hand?" I can tell you for a fact that keeping that hand and having your opponent play turn zero Leyline makes playing turn one Loam much worse. But since our opponent is a goldfish here (for all we know, anyway), then there's no compelling reason not to play the Exploration.

That's some very strange analysis. Virtually no Legacy decks have maindeck Leyline, and since we don't know what the opponent is playing, this is game one. We would never assume that we would be facing turn zero leyline.

There is a non-trivial chance that the opponenth as force.

Advantages of playig Exploration on turn one instead of turn two:
* you get one more land drop
* reduced chance they topdeck/brainstorm into force

Drawbacks:
* If exploration is forced, a whole series of negative consequences ensues:

1) You can't Loam on turn one
2) you can't loam on turn two (since you'll be Porting them)
3) You can't dredge until turn four (since if you don't play loam until turn three, you can't dredge unti the next turn)
4) since you can't drdge until turn four, you are much slower in finding your Wasteland, Maze etc,
5) since you haven't loamed until turn three, you've lost alot of potential card advantage
6) you probably won't even dredge until turn give, since you';ll probably play Tabernacle on turn three and port them, and Loam on turn four.

The drawbacks are much worse than the alleged benefits. Playing Exploraton on turn one is clearly incorrect by any measure.

[majikal]

Can we please just admit the play is situational and stop stroking our e-peens? There is no end-all, be-all of turn one plays for this deck. It is so versatile that each and every correct play is determined by a number of outside factors, which is the reason why the deck is both so good and so hard to pilot.

[edgewalker]

Advantages of playig Exploration on turn one instead of turn two:
* you get one more land drop
* reduced chance they topdeck/brainstorm into force

Drawbacks:
* If exploration is forced, a whole series of negative consequences ensues:

1) You can't Loam on turn one
2) you can't loam on turn two (since you'll be Porting them)
3) You can't dredge until turn four (since if you don't play loam until turn three, you can't dredge unti the next turn)
4) since you can't drdge until turn four, you are much slower in finding your Wasteland, Maze etc,
5) since you haven't loamed until turn three, you've lost alot of potential card advantage
6) you probably won't even dredge until turn give, since you';ll probably play Tabernacle on turn three and port them, and Loam on turn four.

The drawbacks are much worse than the alleged benefits. Playing Exploraton on turn one is clearly incorrect by any measure.

I feel like this is a strawman. I've never played this deck, nor am I a good magic player. What I do know if philosophy and logic. It seems to me that you're attributing more attention to the cons than you are the pros. Your argument is that there is a loss of tempo if exploration gets countered if played on turn one. However isn't sandbagging the exploration for fear of FoW a loss of tempo itself?

[Julian23]

I feel like this is a strawman. I've never played this deck, nor am I a good magic player. What I do know if philosophy and logic. It seems to me that you're attributing more attention to the cons than you are the pros. Your argument is that there is a loss of tempo if exploration gets countered if played on turn one. However isn't sandbagging the exploration for fear of FoW a loss of tempo itself?

It is. Steve argues that the loss of tempo provided by playing Exploration one turn later is less damaging than the loss of tempo by running out Exploration turn 1 and getting it countered.

For what it's worth I've been playing Lands.dec to a quite a lot of success recently and Steve conviced me that waiting a turn on the Exploration might actually be the right play although I first rooted for running it out there no matter what. This is the kind of writing I expect from a Premium article (although the most relevant part was posted openly in this forum).

[edgewalker]

Fair enough, I hadn't noticed he conceded the point of tempo loss in both scenarios.

[morgan_coke]

I think this is a massive case of overcomplication.

What are the best and most important cards in Lands? 1. Life from the Loam. 2. Manabond. 3. Exploration.

If you have a chance to play two of those three cards on turn one, is the advantage gained from it enough to offset the potential loss if one of them is countered? In my significant experience with Loam decks the answer is always unequivocally yes.

Sometimes its hard to remember, but 9x% of the time, its better to forward your own gameplan than to worry about your opponents'.

[frogboy]

Mox, Land, Loam
Port, Port Them

Fetchland, go.

edit: I'd like to see some commentary on how Lands handles Jace, the Mind Sculptor, which has been growing more popular recently and is a huge gigantic beating if it hits play against Lands.

[Forbiddian]

The crux of the simplified issue is whether or not Exploration on turn 1 is required to win the game. If it's not, then the safer route is probably better, even if the Exploration-first route leads to a quicker victory. Mox Diamond, Exploration, Loam is an incredibly powerful hand, close to the best that you'll ever see. This hand will beat the vast majority of decks if you trust it. Running out Loam first is much safer against blue decks, since you'll be dredging for wasteland faster and your turn 2 Exploration/Port play is still very destructive.

Still, the real issue is which play maximizes the win probability. Even in matchups where you don't "need" the added speed from Turn 1 Exploration, the added speed can still help you win games when the rest of your draws are bad or your opponent draws a very strong hand as well. The earlier exploration (+1 land drop and +1 mana on turn 2 since you don't have to cast exploration turn 2 --> +2 mana on turn 2) will help against the following decks (plus others).

Decks like Ichorid, Team America (or another deck combining a quick clock with discard) could potentially force you to discard the Exploration and be able to take advantage of the slow-down in tempo.

Decks like Belcher, SI Pact, Ad Nauseam can go off quickly but you have a markedly better chance to win if you're going balls out already. If they don't turn 1 you, you'll have a much better chance of winning if you have the turn 1 Exploration.

Even against a deck like Zoo, where you'll almost certainly win regardless what you do, the five mana turn 2 and extra land every turn significantly speeds you up. It's still conceivable that you'll drop two games, especially if they're packing Price of Progress, Zoo is by no means a bye. I understand the sentiment that this should be written off as a win anyway, but Zoo has some chance and playing out the extremely fast hand goes farther to shutting the door.



I know people don't want to hear this, but I think if anything, Steve is still making the situation too simple. In most of these matchups, you'll win (or lose) regardless of the extra 2 mana on turn 2 + an extra land out, and therefore it seems better to concentrate on the up-in-the-air situations like against Blue decks where if they have the Force of Will it's now pretty conceivable that you'll lose if they have a good hand.

It's interesting, I don't think I would have considered turn 1 Loam before this, but now it seems very obvious that's the correct play against a blue deck you expect to be packing Force of Will, though I remain unconvinced that it's better against an unknown field.


It's significantly better against decks with Blue (where admittedly you're going to see the biggest difference in terms of win probability), but even sliding the Zoo, Goblins, Ichorid, Belcher, etc. matchups a few percentage points might overall overshadow the Merfolk, Bant, Countertop, etc. decks.

[Aggro_zombies]

I know people don't want to hear this, but I think if anything, Steve is still making the situation too simple. In most of these matchups, you'll win (or lose) regardless of the extra 2 mana on turn 2 + an extra land out, and therefore it seems better to concentrate on the up-in-the-air situations like against Blue decks where if they have the Force of Will it's now pretty conceivable that you'll lose if they have a good hand.

It's interesting, I don't think I would have considered turn 1 Loam before this, but now it seems very obvious that's the correct play against a blue deck you expect to be packing Force of Will, though I remain unconvinced that it's better against an unknown field.
The most annoying thing about the example he gave is that it's framed as a "Here's the hand in a total vacuum, what do you do?" scenario. The options he gives are all technically correct, but against different decks. Like, if you know your opponent is blue, it might very well be correct to play the Loam first, especially if you're playing against a slow Counterbalance build (primarily in the Nassif vein). However, even against a blue opponent, you're changing what you're doing based on what kind of blue they are: for example, faster development is much better against Merfolk because the lords and the presence of Wasteland mean they can do a lot of damage with only a few creatures, and do it through Chasm/a single Maze. Against NO, it's probably best to disrupt their mana heavily to keep them off tutoring up Progenitus, so your focus should be on Tabernacle, Port, and Wasteland, at which point an active Loam is more important than faster development because Loam is digging through your library to find you more mana denial. Against slow Counterbalance, the only relevant thing they can do to you is Jace and maybe lock you out of Loam, so you should be focused entirely on Wasteland and Port and not care about creature control strategies.

In each of those blue deck scenarios, how much having Exploration hit by Force hurts varies. It can certainly be lethal against Merfolk because of how quickly the damage can add up, but against Counterbalance decks, you have more time to recover from it. Which is not to say it doesn't hurt; it does, but in a Nassif-esque matchup, for example, a lot of things need to go right for them and wrong for you before you can say that you lost to them basically starting the game on five cards.

Of course, this is assuming they even have Force and another blue card. There are plenty of times when they won't, so it may still be worth the risk if your opponent is slow because you don't give them the time to dig for the counter and the incremental advantage can add up.

I mean, if we really want to consider all the possible scenarios here, the best play is to Port them to keep them off black mana so you don't have to worry about losing Loam to maindeck Extirpate. Hey, it could happen. Or they could be Leyline of the Void/Helm of Obedience combo and open on Leyline, in which case you want to play Exploration and Port and try to dig for EE.

My point here is that you're asking a trick question by giving us that hand with no other information. Saying after the poll, "LOL all u scrubs r not gud w/teh dek becuz BLUE" is pretty douchey when people went in assuming unknown opponent, open meta, chances of being blue with counters less than 50%, so chances of having the Force actually quite low.

[hi-val]

Fetchland, go.

edit: I'd like to see some commentary on how Lands handles Jace, the Mind Sculptor, which has been growing more popular recently and is a huge gigantic beating if it hits play against Lands.

Good question! I have been playing against CounterTop with Jace in it and it is, indeed, pretty strong. In two games, Jace went Ultimate. In the other three, I was able to either use Mishra's Factory to minimize the card or otherwise, use Mox Diamonds to help get my EE to 4 counters and get rid of it. If you cannot answer it soon, then Jace probably will go ultimate. It's kind of depressing, but if you've got the opponent locked up anyway with EE, then you can go get Factories to do some work.

[frogboy]

Good question! I have been playing against CounterTop with Jace in it and it is, indeed, pretty strong. In two games, Jace went Ultimate. In the other three, I was able to either use Mishra's Factory to minimize the card or otherwise, use Mox Diamonds to help get my EE to 4 counters and get rid of it. If you cannot answer it soon, then Jace probably will go ultimate. It's kind of depressing, but if you've got the opponent locked up anyway with EE, then you can go get Factories to do some work.

My experience is generally that Counterbalance can establish Counterbalance and Top without a ton of problems, or can use counters to contain Loam in the midgame, but it can't really capitalize on either opportunity because of Maze of Ith and whatnot. However, whenever I play Jace, I usually spam the fateseal ability straight to ultimate, and just park Tarmogoyf in front of Mishra's Factory to protect it. The EE line is sort of effective, but if you're on a Jace plan you're obviously going to be countering Intuition pretty aggressively. I'm like x-1 in games where I play Jace against Lands, and lost the one game when a Raging Ravine got larger than my lone Tarmogoyf to smack Jace around. At this point, it's my primary plan against Lands with Counterbalance, and it defeats them pretty handily.

[ramanujan]

Why do you choose to use two Tabernacles? I was under the impression that one was the correct number. In additon, why would you play a configuration that does not have access to smokestack, mindslaver, or dark depths in the main? It is just my opnion but your deck seems to lack a good knockout punch. Do you have difficulties when people want to play it out?

[hi-val]

My experience is generally that Counterbalance can establish Counterbalance and Top without a ton of problems, or can use counters to contain Loam in the midgame, but it can't really capitalize on either opportunity because of Maze of Ith and whatnot. However, whenever I play Jace, I usually spam the fateseal ability straight to ultimate, and just park Tarmogoyf in front of Mishra's Factory to protect it. The EE line is sort of effective, but if you're on a Jace plan you're obviously going to be countering Intuition pretty aggressively. I'm like x-1 in games where I play Jace against Lands, and lost the one game when a Raging Ravine got larger than my lone Tarmogoyf to smack Jace around. At this point, it's my primary plan against Lands with Counterbalance, and it defeats them pretty handily.

Ah, in that instance, I would try to get EE and Ruins up and try to take out your Counterbalance. It's kind of like you're the Wolf in Pulp Fiction; you've got a lot of problems but you have to solve them in order and on a clock. Once you've got Counterbalance and Goyf away, you can proceed from there.

[gottfrid]

Arguments for playing exploration on turn one.

1. If your opponent is going to force the exploration, it is by far best to have him do it on turn one. This gives him less card to choose from to pitch, and eliminates the (quite high) probability that he draws into a force he didn't have from the beginning.

2. Your opponent could draw into something else that prevents you from playing the exploration later (thoughtseize, chalice, spellstutter etc)

3. I think the importance of maximizing the number of turns that exploration is in play is underestimated. It is not important to get t1 exploration, but it is not something that you can afford to refrain from considering the low probability of a force.

Don't forget that many matchups can lead up to very tight games for this deck. Games that can often be decided by the the lands player having one land more/less in play.

It is easy to see how getting the t1 exploration forced, not being able to loam could lose you the game. It is harder to see how not playing the t1 exploration could lose you the game. BUT! it still might.

Lands is a very interactive and mana hungry deck, that has to keep an engine going and simultaneously perform different functions that require lots of lands. Here the t1 exploration could tip the scales in your favor.

I just don't believe the "you would've won anyways so go for the safe play" argument, mainly because I don't believe that this deck, or this hand, is of the kind that wins regardless against that many decks. I just believe that the % of games where you actually need the exploration on t1 to win (although it is not obvious from the start of the game) is high enough that considering the low probability of a force, it is worth it.

Adding points 1 and 2 from above basically makes this a no-brainer in my opinion.

[Forbiddian]

I just don't believe the "you would've won anyways so go for the safe play" argument, mainly because I don't believe that this deck, or this hand, is of the kind that wins regardless against that many decks. I just believe that the % of games where you actually need the exploration on t1 to win (although it is not obvious from the start of the game) is high enough that considering the low probability of a force, it is worth it.


You have to think that your deck can get you there when you draw a good hand or you're not playing good Magic.

If you uncork a fucking monster like Loam, Exploration, Mox, Port, and other key lands, you have to think your deck is going to get there against most decks or you have absolutely no business playing Lands.

Or really any deck if when you rip a ridic seven, you ask, "How do I take more risks?"

The question should definitely be, "How do I play this hand safely while still abusing the fact that I just pulled the pin out of an atomic bomb?"

[Julian23]

Do you have difficulties when people want to play it out?

Yes. Dealing with all the 1-0-1 wins you accumulate because your opponent dragged out game 1 for so long that time will run out in game 2.

[Smmenen]

To learn how to actually play the land deck, read my article this week: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/19378_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Grand_Prix_Columbus_2010_Exclusive_Future_Finals_Coverage.html

Thread is here: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?17660-[Premium-Article]-Grand-Prix-Columbus-2010-Exclusive-Future-Finals-Coverage!

(And yes, I mistakenly forgot that Reanimate was only a sorcery)

[Aggro_zombies]

To learn how to actually play the land deck, read my article this week: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/19378_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Grand_Prix_Columbus_2010_Exclusive_Future_Finals_Coverage.html
That article would have been better if you had realized that Reanimate is actually a sorcery.

[Julian23]

I EMBRACE this kind of article, discussing each decision in depth. HOWEVER assuming Reanimate was an instant changes quite a lot. Still, I love your analysis, keep them coming!

[Smmenen]

I EMBRACE this kind of article, discussion each decision in depth. HOWEVER assuming Reanimate was an instant changes quite a lot. Still, I love your analysis, keep them coming!

Thanks.

If Reanimate is a sorcery (which, of course, it is) this isn't really a game, as Land probably wins quite easily.

The point of the article remains the same, which is how you think through scenarios. I offer the kind of thought process the land pilot here goes through as a counter point to the people who think that t1 exploration is the correct play in the previous article.

[OneBigSquirrelGod]

The choice is easy... just play Manabond turn 1..... it makes the most sense..