[Deck] Merfolk

[benthetenor]

The deck thinning property of fetchlands is a fallacy. At best, and over the course of a long game, you're only going to see 2% improvement on your draws. Goblins play fetchlands for splashes, and those are justified here too when splashing black / red. The base blue build does not want nor need fetchlands.

Fairly certain it is not a fallacy, given that that is not what a fallacy is. You're getting two lands out of your deck for every one you play if you're using fetchlands, and since that the last thing you want to be drawing late game is lands, having fewer in the deck in the late game is only going to be a good thing. It is true that it is a subtle thing that will not matter in many games, but that is not the same thing as saying that it is non-existent or fallacious.

[Koby]

Fairly certain it is not a fallacy, given that that is not what a fallacy is. You're getting two lands out of your deck for every one you play if you're using fetchlands, and since that the last thing you want to be drawing late game is lands, having fewer in the deck in the late game is only going to be a good thing. It is true that it is a subtle thing that will not matter in many games, but that is not the same thing as saying that it is non-existent or fallacious.

Brush up on your theory:
http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/print.asp?ID=3096

In summary:

Ultimately, then, I would argue that the data bears out the contention that playing fetch-lands for their thinning effects are a bad idea: Only a suicidally reckless aggro deck can afford 4 life for a card, and those decks can’t afford to wait 20+ turns for it.

[benthetenor]

Brush up on your theory:
http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/print.asp?ID=3096

In summary:

Brush up on your dictionary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

I'm not saying it's a large effect, or even a good idea, I'm saying that it is not fallacious to suggest that the effect exists, as it very clearly does. My original post was looking for some reasons, so I thank you for passing that along to me, though I could have done with a good deal less snark. I will say for my own part that I have experienced the benefits (and sometimes detriments) of deck thinning via fetchlands. I'm very familiar with the mathematics involved. But, you know, it's funny, somehow I've noticed that I tend to draw fewer lands when there are fewer lands in the deck....

It's usually small edges that decide games played at high levels. I'd rather give myself every edge that I possibly can. Is that a ridiculous position?

[Julian23]

If you want to give yourself every edge there is, don't play Fetchlands for the sole purpose of thinning.

/edit: thanks for directing to the article, Koby. Every time people asked about deck thinning, it reminds me I wanted to bookmark it for future reference. Maybe we should get it sticky somewhere in the Format Discussion section at some point.

[Koby]

Brush up on your dictionary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

I'm not saying it's a large effect, or even a good idea, I'm saying that it is not fallacious to suggest that the effect exists, as it very clearly does. My original post was looking for some reasons, so I thank you for passing that along to me, though I could have done with a good deal less snark. I will say for my own part that I have experienced the benefits (and sometimes detriments) of deck thinning via fetchlands. I'm very familiar with the mathematics involved. But, you know, it's funny, somehow I've noticed that I tend to draw fewer lands when there are fewer lands in the deck....

It's usually small edges that decide games played at high levels. I'd rather give myself every edge that I possibly can. Is that a ridiculous position?

blah blah... "a fallacy is usually an error in reasoning often due to a misconception or a presumption."

Is deck-thinning as a bonus considered a misconception? Yes.
Is deck-thinning as a bonus considered a presumption? Yes.

Fallacy.

Dictionary/wikipedia aside, your own benefits and detriments are a result of variance within the model established. This is reinforced with confirmational bias towards the idea that reducing the number of lands in your deck has a cumulative benefit. The truth is that it requires numerous turns to realize that benefit, at the cost of life as a resource. It's not worth the risk to Stifle and the life payment to squeeze out perhaps a single improved card off the top of your deck.

If this argument was used in a deck with 8 lands, then I would tend to agree. However, playing a deck with 22 lands, 8 of which are not-fetchable, does not make a good argument for running fetchlands for deck-thinning. Snark will be issued when people selectively focus on being grammar nazis/nbitpickers instead of heeding the intent of the message.

[Ace/Homebrew]

Not looking to dogpile, but Scatman and Koby are correct here Ben.

I checked the last 5 pages or so of the Elves! thread here and also the first 10 listings for Elves! at TCDecks. The only decks that played fetchlands also play Savannahs. EVERY mono-green list ran 12-13 Forests. The fetchlands in 'splash' lists obviously serve a different purpose than deck-thinning.

The Goblins thread here has actually beaten this topic to death... Do people play mono-red Goblins with fetchlands? I'm sure some do, but the lists that place highly in tournaments don't use them. Also consider that Ringleader puts our non-creature cards on the bottom of our library. Cracking a fetchland shuffles those back into the deck to potentially be drawn. Yes, Matron makes us shuffle anyway, but the benefit of getting the exact card you need makes it worth it.

Considering Stifle and the decks that WANT you to ping yourself into lethal range, the benefit of drawing 1 less land after fetching 4 times is not worth it.

Bringing the topic back to Merfolk... The manabase is 12 Islands, 4 Wasteland, and 4 Mutavault. That gives you space for 8ish fetchlands. Let's say that you actually use the 4 fetches you need to to get the extra card (for 4 life). Now your next fetchland is a dead card because you have no basics to find!

[benthetenor]

blah blah... "a fallacy is usually an error in reasoning often due to a misconception or a presumption."

Is deck-thinning as a bonus considered a misconception? Yes.
Is deck-thinning as a bonus considered a presumption? Yes.

Fallacy.

Dictionary/wikipedia aside, your own benefits and detriments are a result of variance within the model established. This is reinforced with confirmational bias towards the idea that reducing the number of lands in your deck has a cumulative benefit. The truth is that it requires numerous turns to realize that benefit, at the cost of life as a resource. It's not worth the risk to Stifle and the life payment to squeeze out perhaps a single improved card off the top of your deck.

If this argument was used in a deck with 8 lands, then I would tend to agree. However, playing a deck with 22 lands, 8 of which are not-fetchable, does not make a good argument for running fetchlands for deck-thinning. Snark will be issued when people selectively focus on being grammar nazis/nbitpickers instead of heeding the intent of the message.

It is, quite simply, not an error in reasoning to suggest that the effect exists. Using a fetchland will very slightly decrease the probability of drawing a land in the future. It is not fallacious because the effect does, in fact, exist. It's easy to demonstrate. I had 17 lands in my deck, after activating a fetchland, I have 16. It's not a misconception that using a fetchland will alter the probability of drawing a land. What you are arguing is that it is not a tradeoff worth making, which the math does in fact bear out. But that's a statement of opinion, rather than a demonstrably false fact.

Snark turns people off of the message, intent or otherwise. If your intent was to inform me, adding in snarkiness ensured that the only opinion I would come away with was "man, that guy is a jerk". It also makes it much, much less likely that I will listen to anything you have to say, and implants a desire to continue to argue with you just because you're being a jerk. As it stands, having read the article, I agree with what you're saying. Doesn't mean you didn't come off like a jerk.

[methadron]

hey guys,
I need some help. I play since 2 month yesterday I gone 3:3 on a 50+ tournament. Last game I lost cause I was screwed (I took muligan to 5 both games). But I´ve a problem I don´t now how to use my sideboard.
I play this list

Maindeck:

Artifacts
4 Aether Vial

Creatures
2 Coralhelm Commander
4 Cursecatcher
4 Lord of Atlantis
4 Master of the Pearl Trident
4 Merrow Reejerey
4 Silvergill Adept

Enchantments
3 Standstill

Instants
3 Daze
2 Dismember
4 Force of Will
2 Spell Pierce

Basic Lands
12 Island

Lands
4 Mutavault
4 Wasteland

Sideboard:
1 Relic of Progenitus
3 Tormod's Crypt
2 Phantasmal Image
1 Blue Elemental Blast
1 Spell Pierce
4 Submerge
1 Umezawa's Jitte
2 Kira, Great Glass-Spinner

My meta is mixed up dredge, blade control, goblins, maverick etc.
Against dredge for example I take out the standstill and a spell pierce for the cryps an the relict.
My problem is that I know which cards I´ve to take in against the most decks but I don´t know what I´ve to take out.
Maybe some one can give me a little workaround?

[SageShadows]

I've been out of the loop for a while now, so I had two major questions:

1) I know the general consensus on this board has been Standstill is not that good of a card in Merfolk, but yet again at a SCG Open, a Standstill Merfolk deck did pretty well: http://sales.starcitygames.com//deck...p?DeckID=50695. I'm kind of confused as to why we don't reconsider our initial assumption about standstill. For the record, I don't like Standstill in Merfolk, but I do like winning.

2) I know there was a small discussion about Cavern of Souls, but came out of that? Are most people just sticking with 12-13 Islands?

Thanks!

[Hanni]

Did anybody tried carry away against stoneforge?

How about Thada Adel, Acquisitor?

[Hammunition]

It is, quite simply, not an error in reasoning to suggest that the effect exists. Using a fetchland will very slightly decrease the probability of drawing a land in the future. It is not fallacious because the effect does, in fact, exist. It's easy to demonstrate. I had 17 lands in my deck, after activating a fetchland, I have 16. It's not a misconception that using a fetchland will alter the probability of drawing a land. What you are arguing is that it is not a tradeoff worth making, which the math does in fact bear out. But that's a statement of opinion, rather than a demonstrably false fact.

Yeah, it's definitely a worthwhile effect that you would want if there was no cost. But it's usually not worth paying a life for such a small improvement.

There are certainly many games where it doesn't matter at all, but while constructing the deck, you have to weigh the risk of potentially losing games if you put fetches in the deck just for thinning.

[Vandalize]

@Fetchlands in Mono-Colour decks:

I'm far from a math wizard, but I'll tell how bad is to play fetchlands in monocolored decks. I was playing this very deck a while ago with 8~6 fetch/island split, for this thinning prupose. I was playing against Storm, and I used two fetchlands to get my lands. Turns out that he combo'd me for 9 storm Tendrils, my Dazes couldn't be cast, as he had abundant Dark Rituals and it would only up his storm counting. I just lost that game because of the fetchlands, he couldn't up his Storm count for 10 in any ways.

I thought: "oh, that might just be a corner case, let's keep testing". Then I've faced 3 burn decks in a row, in which I popped 2~3 fetchlands, bolting myself for no reason. In one match, I had him in topdeck mode, when I was at 1 life, and had a FoW in my hand, as well as a double-lord board. I just couldn't interact.

Another argument: This deck is pretty much straightfoward aggro-deck. We do not trade Merfolks with blocking unless we're in the red zone. Every Merfolk adds a good amount of damage when Islandwalking. Goblins is a different deck, they have infinite useless 1/1 that can chump forever. They can afford to lose those tokens/matrons. I usually take every damage income until I'm almost dead, and that's when we usually Alpha-Strike. Fetching yourself two~three points of life might make a difference in a lot of matchups.

[anakyn]

The deck thinning property of fetchlands is a fallacy. At best, and over the course of a long game, you're only going to see 2% improvement on your draws.

+1

There was a specific article which mathematically demonstrated how the argument "fetching lands helps drawing more spells" is statistically non-sense.
But I lost the link...


EDIT:
I hadn't read the following posts... fortunately there is someone who saved the link to that article :)

I'm not saying it's a large effect, or even a good idea, I'm saying that it is not fallacious to suggest that the effect exists, as it very clearly does.

Sorry but the main point of this discussion, imho, is trying to understand if using fetchlands has some sense "in itself".

And there's no sense at all.

The thinning effect is statistically so irrelevant that paying several lives for it is not worth it. Never.

The best example for that is in my opinion Burn decks.
Right now there are 2 main and different competitive Burn builds:
- one uses 10-12 fetchlands, not for thinning purposes but for Lavamancer fuel
- the other one plays no Lavamancer, therefore no fetchlands

There are also some no-Lavamancer builds with some fetchlands, but only if they play Barbarian ring cause fetch helps reaching threshold.

[benthetenor]

...I agreed with you guys five days ago. Good job, internet!

But while we're on the subject of anecdotal games where fetchlands were bad, there was one game I played with UG Fish in Vintage quite a few years ago. I was facing down a lethal Darksteel Colossus and had one turn to find my one-outer Echoing Truth. I fetched at his end-step to thin the deck and give myself the best probability of drawing the one card I needed to win, and after shuffling up, the top card was my Echoing Truth. I won that game solely because I had a fetchland in play that I could use to thin my deck.

I'm not saying that one game one time with a ridiculously small percentage to win is a reason to play fetchlands forever, but in the same vein, if you're just looking at the games that you lost because damage ended up mattering, and ignoring the much more difficult to quantify effect of increasing the card quality over the course of every game that you played, it's going to seem pretty cut and dried. In most games, 2-3 damage isn't going to matter. In some it will. If you're going to cite all of the games that it did matter, it's only fair to cite those where it didn't, as well. I've absolutely won games because of the deck thinning nature of fetchlands. I've also lost games due to the life loss. But in all honesty, I'm having trouble remembering games where the life-loss mattered. More often than not, when I've lost a close game like that, it's been due to a play error. If the game's a blowout, the fetchland damage isn't going to matter. If it's a close one, playing tighter will usually have won me the game. It's just one more constraint that you put on yourself in the deckbuilding phase. I can see why some people are uncomfortable making that tradeoff. I'm on the fence myself, and find myself agreeing that, in the long run, the damage maybe isn't worth the increase of card quality. But that doesn't mean that I haven't won games based solely on the increased card quality that came from running fetchlands. Card quality is a very subtle thing that's difficult to quantify, but it absolutely exists and it absolutely matters.

[anakyn]

My problem is that I know which cards I´ve to take in against the most decks but I don´t know what I´ve to take out.

You are the same guy who asked this question also on MTGSalvation, so I'll give you here the same answers.


Your gameplan is aggro-control tempo, so imho you should never take out:
- most of your creatures
- Aether vial
- Daze
- your lands

The rest of the deck can be sideboarded out depending on opponent:
- Force of will: generally against non-combo decks.
- Dismember: I hate this card. I don't play them at all, not main nor side. I'd say board them out almost every time, cause against Maverick, RUG and Zoo you have Submerge
- Spell pierce: against heavy-creature decks
- Coralhelm commander: imho it's the only creature of your deck that sometimes can be sideboarded out (EDIT: along with Reejerey), if you need a lot of space. It's a bit slow, but it's also your only flying creature. Usually I take them out against Burn (I need space for 3 Hydroblast, 2 Jitte, 1 Pierce, usually 2 Kira) and generally against fast decks without flying threats.
- Standstill: maybe the most tricky choice. As I already said, right now I'm using them 3x but I'm not completely convinced. They can be either a bomb or a dead card depending on situation and opponent.
Imho they can be strong against combo, Burn, and decks slower than us.
They are NOT strong against RUG (they are fast, they have even more denial than us), against Goblin (they are fast, they have Aether vial), and against decks that can establish board advantage faster than us (Affinity, Zoo).

[anakyn]

...I agreed with you guys five days ago. Good job, internet!

I know I know sorry, it's just I've read the last posts only today...

[anakyn]

1) I know the general consensus on this board has been Standstill is not that good of a card in Merfolk, but yet again at a SCG Open, a Standstill Merfolk deck did pretty well: http://sales.starcitygames.com//deck...p?DeckID=50695. I'm kind of confused as to why we don't reconsider our initial assumption about standstill.

I've decided to give Standstill another chance about 2 weeks ago, mainly because the alternative build I tried (4 Pierces and 12 counters total maindeck) wasn't working too well: since we are a tempo deck which tends to tap out the first turns, drawing multiple Pierces generally means we have dead cards in hand.
So I went back to 2 Pierces (+1 SB) and made room for 3 Standstills cutting 1 Reejerey.


The list I'm trying now is this, and I'll probably play it in 2 weeks on a local tournament:

Lands (20)
4 Wasteland
4 Mutavault
12 Island

Creatures (23)
4 Cursecatcher
2 Phantasmal Image
4 Silvergill Adept
4 Lord of Atlantis
4 Master of the Pearl Trident
2 Coralhelm Commander
3 Merrow Reejerey

Spells (17)
4 AEther Vial
3 Standstill
2 Spell Pierce
4 Daze
4 Force of Will


Sideboard
2 Kira, Great Glass-Spinner
3 Tormod's Crypt
2 Umezawa's Jitte
1 Spell Pierce
1 Hydroblast
2 Blue Elemental Blast
4 Submerge


Small tweaks:
- I'm back with 20 lands and 12 Islands
- my GY hate is now 3 Tormod's and not anymore 2 Tormod's + 1 Relic, cause I don't wanna waste any mana on it --> 1 less answer to Tempo Threshold and its Goyfs, but now I also have 1 more Submerge to bring in
- I don't play anymore the 3rd Image in SB; I think 2 are the best number
- I said goodbye to Dismember. I hope it's forever.

[dunk]

But while we're on the subject of anecdotal games where fetchlands were bad, there was one game I played with UG Fish in Vintage quite a few years ago. I was facing down a lethal Darksteel Colossus and had one turn to find my one-outer Echoing Truth. I fetched at his end-step to thin the deck and give myself the best probability of drawing the one card I needed to win, and after shuffling up, the top card was my Echoing Truth. I won that game solely because I had a fetchland in play that I could use to thin my deck.

Sounds more like you were cheating. You know, as in "but thanks to my fetchland I was able to get a free Vampiric Tutor, you could never do that with a basic island!".
Anyway, your example is pretty flawed - we don't even know how many cards were left in your deck. If only 5 cards were left it would be a big deal, but if you got like 30 cards left your probability to draw your out increases like what, 0.01 percent? I mean sure, every little bit counts but... that was just random. You could have had the random topdeck without fetching as well, 0.01% difference comes up every hundred games, and it's more likely that the lifeloss or stiflebility ( I know, I should stop to make up words ) will hurt your more often in those games than increasing the chance to draw a specific out.

[benthetenor]

Sounds more like you were cheating. You know, as in "but thanks to my fetchland I was able to get a free Vampiric Tutor, you could never do that with a basic island!".
Anyway, your example is pretty flawed - we don't even know how many cards were left in your deck. If only 5 cards were left it would be a big deal, but if you got like 30 cards left your probability to draw your out increases like what, 0.01 percent? I mean sure, every little bit counts but... that was just random. You could have had the random topdeck without fetching as well, 0.01% difference comes up every hundred games, and it's more likely that the lifeloss or stiflebility ( I know, I should stop to make up words ) will hurt your more often in those games than increasing the chance to draw a specific out.

Drawing one card with a library sized 30 cards gives you a 3.33% chance. One card with a 29 card library is 3.45%. It's more than a tenth of a percent better, twelve times greater than the .01% that you're giving me. The effect is even greater as you increase the number of outs, as you're subtracting from the number of cards that are not outs (lands) and holding the number of outs constant. If you had 10 lands in the deck, for instance, and your outs were "anything that's not a land" then your probability of drawing a land goes from 33% to 31%, a 2% probability swing for just one life point. If you are counting the 2 Mutavaults still in your deck as outs as well, then your odds only get better, going from 27% to draw a non-Mutavault land to 24%. In fact, the worst possible situation, statistically speaking, is when you only have one out, but even in that situation, fetching out a land is better than not fetching out a land.

I was not, in fact, cheating. I'm not sure what the purpose of suggesting something like that would have in this discussion. My opponent cut me right to my Echoing Truth, which is not something he would have been able to do had I not had my fetchland. My point is, randomness happens. The top card, pre-fetching, was not an Echoing Truth. I checked. You would, too. And if a .01% chance comes up every hundred games, by your logic, then a .12% chance would come up every ten games. I think you're math is wrong since you pretty much don't know what you're talking about, but if the effect is ten times greater than you think it is, wouldn't that be something worth thinking about? Not only that, but playing with fetchlands increases your odds of drawing a card you need every single game. Small percentages add up. This is only one example, which I gave you because I was getting examples when the life loss matters. If you want to analyze one side of the effect, you should analyze the other side, too.

I would just like to emphasize that I agree that the math bears out that it's probably not a tradeoff worth making. The reason why I continue to post is because your reasons for it not being good are, quite simply, wrong. When you fetch out a land, your chances of drawing non-lands goes up. Whether or not the small increase in card quality is worth the life loss depends entirely on the player's judgement, the deck in question, and the board state. Saying it's wrong all the time in all situations is pretty clearly wrong, as I've demonstrated at least one time when the increased card quality has won me the game (and match). Saying that it's not something we do because no one does it, in this archetype or others, is so far from an argument that it's not even worth disputing. I believe we play a game that is based on probability and randomness, which means that increasing your probability to draw your outs is something worth doing most of the time. I also believe that the only life point that matters is the last one, which is one flaw in the analysis done in the article that we're talking about, which treats all life points as being equal. Whether I win a game 20-0 or 1-0, both count as a win. You're free to disagree with me, but simply disagreeing does not mean that I am wrong, particularly when we're talking about a judgement call (whether or not the increase in probability of drawing live cards is worth the tradeoff in life), rather than something that can be objectively stated to be right or wrong (Islands produce blue mana).

[SupREME-10]

I like your deck anakyn, but I am still not a fan of Standstill. I cut mine out and added the 4th Rejeerey, and 2 jittes MB. That open the SB for more Hydroblast as my meta sees a fair amount of Canadian Thresh, Goblins, and/or Sligh decks.

I have found dismember to be a dead card and standstill was too often useless to me as well.