[Old Article Revisited] Onslaught Fetchlands

[Maagler]

Onslaught Fetchlands
Onslaught Fetch Lands Revisited


In these two articles Garrett Johnson explores the implications of fetchlands and how they thin decks. Using statistics and simulations he tries to disprove any significant effects fetchlands have on thinning a deck.

[Forbiddian]

If there's a measurable effect, then obviously with a large enough sample size, it will be statistically significant.

In fact, he runs an experiment in the end of article two where he demonstrates that even one fetchland has a significant effect even with just 500,000 games and 3 turns.

[freakish777]

I'm pretty sure his argument is that the point of life you spend is more important to the outcome of the game then the effect of thinning your deck.

That said, what fetchlands do in Legacy are ridiculous.

[sunshine]

I'm pretty sure his argument is that the point of life you spend is more important to the outcome of the game then the effect of thinning your deck.

That said, what fetchlands do in Legacy are ridiculous.

Agreed, fetchlands bring so much more than deck thinning. A comprehensive analysis would have to also weigh the value of the shuffle effect, and consider the risk of losing a land drop to Stifle.

[paK0]

I think he is basically wrong. Most of the time it depends on what your opponent is playing rather than your deck. Vs Zoo or GoyfSligh the 1 or 2 Lifepoints might actually make a difference but Vs something like Landstill it doesn't matter. Once these decks get rollin they don't care weather you have 20 or 50 life. So here the thinning might be worth it.

[Otter]

I think it's mostly an irrelevant analysis at this point -- the argument is never just "lifeloss versus thinning". Even if you were to ignore the interactions with Top and Brainstorm, the lifeloss versus thinning isn't the most important aspect of Fetches. For example, take mono-red Goblins: none of the analysis in the article has an effect on their match outcomes anywhere near as important as turning Tempo Thresh and Merfolk's Stifles back on if they play Fetches. That alone outweighs any of the pros and cons of paying a life to thin.

[FoolofaTook]

I think it's mostly an irrelevant analysis at this point -- the argument is never just "lifeloss versus thinning".

Yes, I can't imagine that anybody would play fetches just to thin at this point for the reasons you mentioned. Mono decks can get good use out of fetches if they play SDT, and certainly should include at least a few fetches if they do that, however they should never play so many fetches that they significantly effect their chances to drop a basic land on turn 1.

[Apex]

This article was written a LONG time ago. There was no such thing as Sensei's Divining Top back then. During those times, there was a prevailing opinion that, it was worth playing 8 fetchlands in your monocoloured deck because it thinned out the lands, like 14 Mountains and 8 fetches in your monored goblin deck (or whatever the ratio may be). And the author was trying to disprove that hypothesis.

It pretty much does not apply to the current legacy whatsoever. Heck, it doesn't even apply to standard, and the only monocolour deck in standard to play fetches (vampires) do so because fetches trigger additional landfall for Bloodghast and shuffles the library for another Nocturnus reveal.