I don't get it.
Modern Deck Help forum
Posted on June 3, 2015, 10:06 a.m. by APPLE01DOJ
Why do so many people undervalue land counts on this site. I see it all the time 20 lands with a bunch of 5 drops or Smallpox. Makes no sense to me, maybe we need some kind of mana base tutorial.
I think a problem is that many top tiered decks use around 20 lands give or take and when people are brewing they think "why can't I do that with my deck" meanwhile they aren't seeing that a lot of the top tier decks are running around a 2 or less average cmc where they top out at 3 if not the top of the curve has some alternative payment method i.e. delve.
I'm not trying to bash anybody, I'm guilty of the same stuff from time to time when I try building control decks, hate high land counts.
June 3, 2015 11:18 a.m.
UrbanAnathema says... #4
Obviously if you're running more cantrips, tutors, fetched, etc and your curve is low you can get away with fewer lands than the prototypical 24 lands. Its a fairly straightforward tutorial.
With that said, the right answer really only shines through after playtesting with that particular deck.
June 3, 2015 11:24 a.m.
vampirelazarus says... #5
Because casuals.
Remember a huge majority of people on this site don't know deck building theory and are pretty much playing casually with friends.
June 3, 2015 1:02 p.m.
DeletedNow4ever says... #6
Land count, configuration, and knowing what sequence to fetch lands in based on your hand and whats left in your deck are things all deck builders and players should learn before almost anything else. This entire game is based on numbers...every single interaction whether it shows through on the surface or not deals with numbers.
That being said I still find it funny that one of my Modern decks runs 18 lands and has 6 and 7 drops in it ;)
June 3, 2015 1:10 p.m.
Serendipitous_Hummingbird says... #7
I'm a pretty casual player but I'd much rather be mana flooded than mana screwed. General rule of thumb is build your deck then add one more land than you think you need. Missing a land drop and not being able to cast a spell because of it is like giving out a free Time Walk.
June 3, 2015 1:38 p.m.
UrbanAnathema says... #8
I mean, I run 20 lands and I have 4 6 drops and a 15 drop. :)
But its also an insane ramp deck and runs cantrips, fetches, tutors, etc. There is no tutorial that can encompass every scenario in a formulaic way to encompass the optimized manabase for each and every type of deck.
June 3, 2015 1:45 p.m.
"Because casuals.
Remember a huge majority of people on this site don't know deck building theory and are pretty much playing casually with friends."
This.
Take every deck on this site with a grain of salt.
June 3, 2015 1:45 p.m.
Honestly, it's the negative reinforcement of friendly mulligans.
Most folks are not playing in competitive settings, and there's nothing wrong with that - I think one of the best aspects of Magic is it can be a different game for different people. But I would immediately cut down on land sources if the mulligans rules changed to redraw seven. Since so many people play like this it's teaching them that their shaky mana base is fine and an ideal mana base is actually a little sub-optimal.
June 3, 2015 1:47 p.m.
HolyFalcon says... #11
On the back of vampirelazarus, casuals, and well, noobs. To be honet, and I'm not trying to bash anyone, not very many people at my school really build decks that could even go 2-2 at an FNM, because they've never actually played competitively.
June 3, 2015 1:49 p.m.
UrbanAnathema says... #12
No one in my playgroup or at my LGS allows friendly mulligans unless both players don't wish to keep.
June 3, 2015 1:57 p.m.
Serendipitous_Hummingbird says... #14
I hate blaming casuals because some (in fact many) of us know what we are doing and just don't want to play competitive magic.
Eager people. People who don't realize that a kickass 5 cmc doesn't do shit if you don't have the mana. It's fun to pack a deck full of powerful and flashy cards. It's smart to use lands.
June 3, 2015 3:49 p.m.
vampirelazarus says... #15
No one's blaming anyone, we're just saying high number of casual players on site, high number of decks not built "properly" and their seems to be a connection.
June 3, 2015 5:19 p.m.
canterlotguardian says... #16
You also have to realize, some decks just don't need to run 24 lands to stay competitive. I'm far from being a "casual" and I still only run 18 lands in my R/W Standard aggro deck. Why? Because that's the right amount for me. Any more, and I get land flooded. Any less, and I'm land screwed.
June 3, 2015 5:21 p.m.
vampirelazarus says... #17
Yes, reading the OP, I read it as "lower than necessary land count", not "20 is what everyone should run"
June 3, 2015 5:23 p.m.
TheAnnihilator says... #18
To be fair, correlation =/= causation.
However, in this case, new players lack a strong grasp on deckbuilding theory, and the majority of new players are casual players. Hence why casual players are given the stigma of less-experienced.
June 3, 2015 5:26 p.m.
APPLE01DOJ says... #19
Well 18 can be the right number just like 25 can be. ...but if you're running 18 you're probably not planning to hardcast anything beyond 2cmc.
June 3, 2015 5:31 p.m.
JexInfinite says... #20
I think we just need to lecture them about land-count every time. Or someone could post an article.
June 4, 2015 3:47 a.m.
JexInfinite says... #22
vampirelazarus This is true. I just can't be bothered telling a lot of scrubs how Soul Sisters works. The problems of being a fringe archetype major.
June 4, 2015 9:03 a.m.
Serendipitous_Hummingbird says... #23
This article is a must read for ALL new players. I'm not kidding. Perfectly explains not only construction of an appropriate mana base but also how to decide how many copies of each card to run.
http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/rc/188
JexInfinite this is the tutorial that new people need.
sergiodelrio says... #2
That would actually be very helpful!
Maybe also explain how additional mana sources aka ramp creatures or mox opal, etc. and card draw/tutoring relate.
June 3, 2015 10:31 a.m.