Rookie Mistake: Not Enough Land
Standard forum
Posted on May 12, 2015, 6:12 p.m. by BigFace
Getting into Magic is a daunting task, if you ask me. How many of us look back at old decks we started and say, "Wow, how I've come a long way!"
We learn things like synergy, mana sinking, what's good, better, and... just plain sucks for a deck. We catch on the lingo and make new friends. It's an interactive game who love to play.
But now it's time to learn about what is the foundation of a deck. No, it's not really your spells (though those are the meat). It's your land base.
After being a part of this website for 2 months now I've seen a pattern in inexperienced and experienced players: NOT ENOUGH LANDS. Or not the right kind of lands.
Prime example (and sorry if you really like this): 4x Mana Confluence to rely on to get our Savage Knuckleblade 2nd turn.
Prime example: Not using tapped lands to utilize mult-color mana for 2,3, and even 4 and 5 color decks!
One more: Mono White running 21 lands, Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx, and 2 Elspeth, Sun's Champion.
If there's anything playtesting has shown me is that having the right mana needed consistently is vastly better than not being able to cast my spells in my hand at all or a turn too late.
Ask yourself these questions:
Would I rather adjust my game plan to have Temple of Malady drop or even slow me down a turn to cast Rakshasa Deathdealer or not have any Black at all?
Is taking as much as 3,4,5 or more damage for multi-color spells with Mana Confluence worth it for your deck when you play against another aggro deck? If you're playing aggro at all.
There's other points to make but for the sake of simplicity I'll keep it at that. Think hard about your land base!
FAMOUSWATERMELON says... #3
"4x Mana Confluence to rely on to get our Savage Knuckleblade 2nd turn."
Wut
May 12, 2015 6:22 p.m.
Mana Confluence into Elvish Mystic into your T2 knuckle blade?
Seems a reasonable play.
May 12, 2015 6:23 p.m.
FAMOUSWATERMELON says... #5
Sorry, I thought that he had meant using only the Confluences as he did not mention any other support.
May 12, 2015 6:24 p.m.
JANKYARD_DOG says... #6
I think we can all agree to some extent about looking back at the old and the new. It does take work, unless you just net deck and are already a good strategist.
The land deal I think is more based on a play style. As ChiefBell said life is a resource. Wether or not you are comfortable using it... is up to you.
For instance; an aggro deck looking for a t4 win isn't going to worry about pain lands, where as something that takes longer to set up may be more conservative and choose slower lands.
Also you can balance out cost vs gain like if your run critters with lifelink, or a life drain type deck. Siege Rhino even can counter act the life loss from pain lands. It's all in how you play it and what your comfortable with.
May 12, 2015 6:30 p.m.
I second Chief's statement. Fetch > Shock > Thoughtseize can be a very painful t1, but it's won me plenty of games. Life is a resource, and really, every life except the last one doesn't matter.
May 12, 2015 6:41 p.m.
AngryBearTony says... #8
Hmm. For the sake of argument, let's just forget about running too many or too few lands (which I sometimes do, I'll admit).
But regarding the actual quality and type of land you use, you give some prime examples. Standard examples. Struck me as a little curious. So let's take a look at the standard lands. You have your lifegain lands coming in tapped. You have your scrylands coming in tapped. You have your fetches costing you 1 life, but only pulling basics. You have the painlands, (Caves of Koilos, etc.) which do NOT come in tapped but cost you a life to activate. So when you complain about people using Mana Confluence as a viable land base, let's keep in mind standard is not modern and just does not have the same land base like Overgrown Tomb et al. In some cases, Mana Confluence is necessary to make the deck faster and more consistent. Who gives a fig for 1 life?
Second, please keep in mind that a lot of these decks are by people who are scraping up the money to obtain the better cards, or people working with what they have, or just plain can't afford the better cards. Even the Temples in standard cost a penny. So rather than say rookie mistakes, maybe say instead, room for growth. Because let's face it, not everyone can afford to put together the bestest deck evah every time with their limited resources.
May 12, 2015 6:58 p.m.
ChiefBell Excellent points but this is a Standard forum when it comes to the shock land point. And yes, turn 2 Knuckleblade is an excellent play on turn 2 for 2 damage. Yet running 4x to make that happen is not worth it in a more decks than not. A lot of times I see 4x in Midrange decks. I would consider that a rookie mistake.
Mj3913 Really good observation. I do use fetch and painlands as well. I am also for Mana Confluence if applicable. The point I was trying to make was Mana Confluence in abundance to try to get out that 1 card quick. If you look at tournament and play in competitive tournaments you'll find that Mana Confluence don't show up a whole lot. Players will do everything they can to avoid them.
AngryBearTony I certainly respect your opinions but I'll make answer to your points in brief. 1. Certainly, life is expendable as will be used as such regularly (except decks like Red Deck Wins). Like I was trying to talk with Mj3913 about was the over abundance of Mana Confluence. 2. As far as budget Mana Confluence is by far the most expensive land in Standard. If someone is running 4x I think it's safe to presume they have the budget for scry lands for instance. And painlands, as well. 3. Not sure why you take this as complaining more than helping others. More for beginners than experienced. I think the title says that.
If not in budget for the more expensive multi-color lands then there are cheap lands like Sandsteppe Citadel and the gain-life lands you mentioned. They all are reasonable replacements.
Also, keep in mind guys/girls my main point was land amount. Not painlands as much.
May 12, 2015 8:07 p.m.
JANKYARD_DOG says... #10
The problem of over abbundance can also be balanced though. Normally the reasona card is run @4 is for a better chance of having it in your beginning hand. If you don't want more than 1-2 toss in some cards that have an additional discard cost or discard for effect. Obviously dependant on the play but still falls back to the point of balance. As I stated before about life gain, if you have alot of it, the life cost isn't going to be an issue.
Ammount of land as a general rule (as I have been told) is 24-27. Personally I try not to go above 23 as I'm not afraid to mulligan once or twice to get what I need. Again, all in the playstyle of the individual. What works for one person won't for another, there's really nothing 'set in stone'.
In my meta Confluence is a pain to play against because of the versatility it (and other pain lands) provides.
May 12, 2015 8:21 p.m.
Mj3913 I greatly appreciate those insights. One thing I have not covered is meta, which arguably make many "unorthodox" card selections justifiable in the name of winning.
And yes, balance is always key--I agree. If your playing Abzan Aggro running 2,3, maybe even 4 Mana Confluence you can help curve it with Siege Rhino and Roc, etc.
If new comers and experienced alike are reading these things it will help, I believe. This is what I hoped would come about in this forum.
I also hope players can see through others that are consistently winning against strong decks will take note.
May 12, 2015 9:47 p.m.
apple41792 says... #12
In my 4 color deck I run 5 fetches 3 Mana Confluence 3 trilands and 2 scrylands 1 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth 3 Haven of the Spirit Dragon and 7 basics I think. And hardly ever have mana issues.
I HATE having 3 Mana Confluence but I feel like I need it to help keep my deck fast and allow me to get the mana I need.
I would happily play turn 1 Elvish Mystic off of a Mana Confluence so I can play any land and drop Goblin Rabblemaster turn 2
May 13, 2015 10:23 a.m.
AngryBearTony says... #13
But here's the major problem with the lands you mentioned (gainlands, scrylands, trilands): they come in tapped. People use Mana Confluence because it's fast, it doesn't disrupt tempo, and especially for three-color decks, it immediately starts curving you into that three-color spot. If I have the budget for Mana Confluence, I'm playing competitively or trying to make the best deck I can, why wouldn't I run it?
I wouldn't have even mentioned experience level except you do mentioned inexperienced as well as experienced players.
You seem to have a really strong dislike for Mana Confluence, which is fine. I have a strong dislike for cards like Battle Mastery. At the end of the day, though, I'd far and away rather run Mana Confluence to make ANY deck better. 2, 3, or 4 copies, in most cases, not only allows you to sweep right into your curve, ensures you hit your colors when needed, and uses everything you have as a resource, but I don't think we have anything better out there right now for utility.
Let's go with a tapland as T1. Don't matter which, any tapped land. You've not dropped your Elvish Mystic, and in fact, you did nothing to your board. You're already behind in tempo and board state. No T1 play here (unless Ornithopter or some other jank 0-drop I'm forgetting). Even if that tapland was a triland in the three color deck you're running, aren't you behind?
I'm not saying there is no reason to disuse the taplands (any of them); in fact, they make life easier. But cards like Mana Confluence make life way easier, especially when you don't care about your life total.
May 13, 2015 12:25 p.m.
IndepenentMeta says... #14
- It happens to any magic player
- You have to balance low cmc with a few high cmc but enough for board presences
- Land tutor cards should be fundamental to any color, as always stated before
- Draw cards are always the best. As no tutors go
May 13, 2015 4:11 p.m.
apple41792 I have seen competitive decks running 4 colors with Haven, Confluences, and about 7 tapped lands or so. If it's running green with Sylvan Caryatid etc. it helps immensely. Perhaps you have your deck posted to help understand your land base?
I too love Goblin Rabblemaster turn 2. Mana Confluence is not needed, of course. More on the Savage Knuckleblade etc. was what I was pointing out.
AngryBearTony I had made note of budget tapped lands on the your previous talk of budget. If someone does play Confluence then they probably have bills in there wallet for scry and other painlands.
Also, I too love to play Confluence over not being able to play my multi-color cards at all. My main point with choosing the best land base is considering alternative options to maximize competitiveness. By that I'll give some prime examples with 1st place winning aggro archetypes:
1 Confluence and 10 tapped lands. Many of us know Abzan Aggro is mana intensive with having to tap the same lands multiple times. Very demanding to have correct mana. Yet just 1 Confluence. More interesting is that the person plays 26 lands. He/she could play less with more Confluence but chose the earlier.
This crazy deck is all over the place. 4x Goblin Rabblemaster, 4x Savage Knuckleblade and runs only 2x Confluence and 4x tapped lands.
Many decks alter this mana base with there own preferences and meta in mind but almost always stay away from what they don't have to play. Rookie mistakes put in whatever they think will work. Vets play what works better.
A loose-fitting comparison of your dislike for Battle Mastery to exploring better options than filling your deck with Confluence really doesn't do much for me.
IndepenentMeta Those are exact points I wish all new players will take heed. Thanks for the input!
May 13, 2015 6:39 p.m.
You're using a lot of blanket statements in that OP, which really damages any credibility you have, and that's not helped by your focus on 4 Mana Confluences being bad.
With a card like Mana Confluence, saying running 4 is wrong is insanity. You can't say with certainty that that's true for all decks, and anything like this needs to be looked at case by case. For example, there was a 4 colour aggro deck running around an SCG tournament a few months ago. While I'm not familiar with the decklist, 4 Mana Confluences may very well have been a part of it, since it wanted to curve out and hit all it's colours. It's all very well saying that you should look at taplands, but you're ignoring the fundamental part of Magic that is tempo.
And just for the record, both of the decks you listed aren't really linear agressive strategies (One has 26 lands, the other runs Crater's Claws). If you're going for a really linear agressive strategy, then your arguement really falls apart.
May 14, 2015 3:19 p.m.
awphutt To give you the benefit of the doubt I'll think that what you've read of my statements has been taken completely out of context. Also, I may even think you haven't read what I've said in it's entirety. Which, in turn makes take what you've said with a grain of salt if at all.
I've stated I am for Mana Confluence more than once. What I'm not for is players (primarily rookies) is putting in 4x Confluence when they could use other mana lands that will work much more fluid in the long run.
Any level of player can utilize 4x Confluence in any multi-color deck. My examples were to give an idea to players that aggro decks of all sorts don't necessarily need that many Confluence.
If I'm playing RD/GR aggro I'm more than likely running 4x. What I've been noticing on this site is people putting in Confluence in abundance when there may be alternatives that will serve them better in the long run. And I've stated that more than once. Perhaps you need to go back and look.
On another note it's interesting how you quick to point out what you don't agree with as much as what you might agree with. I've heard 95% about painlands when my title says Rookie Mistake: Not Enough Land. It's almost getting to the point of trolling.
May 14, 2015 3:41 p.m.
At this point I think it right to move on to talking about amount of lands. If all would like to continue discussing more on topic with the concepts of better improving mana base with amount, mana curve, and special lands like Nyx etc. let's do that. :)
Especially new players if you have thoughts, concerns, or questions I and I'm certain others would happy to help out!
May 14, 2015 4:37 p.m.
AngryBearTony says... #19
I'll wholeheartedly agree with you that a number of players, sometimes myself included, run a low number of lands. But the majority of your OP and remainder of your posts haven't touched much on that.
At any rate, regarding the Temur deck you linked to, it only ran 22 lands. I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb and say he did get very lucky in pulling his land and the exact ones he needed when they were drawn in order to get that 1st. Granted his blue wasn't a crazy amount, but running a 3-color with only 22 land is a mite...risky. On the other hand, running that Abzan deck with 26 land is also risky. So much of it!
I've found in most cases running 22 or 23 land for single color or even dual color with a nice heap of whatever dual land you want can be successful. Running a three color with anything fewer than 24 seems to almost be asking to be defeated. I get what you were saying in your OP about the mono-white deck, but realistically, if they had bumped it to 22 basics and the Shrine, it would probably be okay, depending on what else they're running other than 2 Elspeth.
May 14, 2015 4:41 p.m.
22 lands with 6 mana dorks in a slower format is acceptable, but a tad risky.
May 14, 2015 4:43 p.m.
BigFace What context have I missed? I read the OP and the all other comments.
I think a key point of yours is "in the long run". When talking about aggro decks, the long run is irrelevant.
Don't necessarily need is correct. However, it's much more of a personal point than you made it out to be. Consistency versus painfulness is not something that has a right or wrong answer in Standard currently. It depends on meta, deck choice, and above all, personal preference. You're also ignoring the fact that one of those decks ran 26 lands (as much as plenty of control decks I've seen) and the other a big X-cost spell. Clearly not traditional aggressive decks. I'd rather put them as midrange, albeit on the agressive side of midrange.
Again, you're speaking in the long run, and again, you're speaking from your perspective, where you value life over consistency.
You'll also find that, while the title did solely address the number of lands, the rest of your post does not. I addressed the post as a whole, not just the title.
May 14, 2015 5:10 p.m.
AngryBearTony: Yeah, I would agree. Anything less than 24 lands in 3 color is asking for trouble. I haven't play tested 23 (or even 22) in 3 color aggro so I wouldn't want to say for sure.
Certainly mono and dual gets away nicely with 22-23 lands. I do like that benefit. I also concur just 1 more land with the mono-white nyx example would just about do it. Depending on the deck, of course. I was thinking about breaking that down in the OP. I figured it would come about in discussion. With that I've experienced that 1 land makes or breaks the bank. It's still quite amazing to me.
I do apologize that my OP wasn't exactly on topic with title as much. Probably should of changed it to Rookie Mistakes: Not Enough/Right Kind of Lands.
ChiefBell It definitely is risky, for sure. Acceptable depending on meta I would think. As a rule of thumb I usually go with an extra land needed than 1 less land needed. Surely, I continue to tweak to have the right amount for consistency and being fluid.
awphutt I understand what you mean. Let's move on to land amount and how it relates to certain formats and archetypes etc.
ChiefBell says... #2
Most of the time taking damage from your manabase isn't a problem at all. Life is a resource to be spent, and if it makes your deck ore consistent then so be it.
You don't know about sacrifices until you've cast T1 Verdant Catacombs into an Overgrown Tomb into a Thoughtseize.
May 12, 2015 6:15 p.m.