How are you guys with less than 30% lands

Discussion in 'Casual Decks/Variants/Etc' started by BigBlue, Dec 20, 2002.

  1. BigBlue Magic Jones

    getting your decks to do anything but frustrate you?

    I don't get it. 55 card decks with 15 lands, 12 lands in a deck...

    Either you have incredible luck, or we've been doing something wrong all these years, because 20 isn't enough for most 60 card decks, and I don't run a 40 with under 16 anymore...

    I don't mean to be mean, but holy cow. Is it because you haven't played for very long and don't have the lands? or do you cheat in your shuffle or take infinite mulligans until you get enough lands to start? I don't get it.
  2. Jigglypuff Big Cute Pink Thing

    I've run decks with less than 30% lands before. Sometimes you just don't need all of those lands. If I have a lot of other forms of mana or if most of my spells are really cheap, I might run only 20 or 21 lands. But in general, you would want at least 23 lands in a 60 card deck.

    (- Steve -)
  3. train The Wildcard!!!...

    I've run 16-land decks before... at it really depends on the mana curve...

    I was lucky to have hatter around, as he never minded helping with mana curves...

    The most land I ever run in a deck is 22...

    For many decks consisting of over half the cards under 3cc - that would be up to 66% of the deck(including 18-19lands) that you need no more than 3 mana for...

    if you have at 5 cards with 5cc or higher - you should be running at least 22-24 lands as these will be stuck in hand and taking up playable card space if you don't draw the lands...

    If you runa n efficient Goblin or Elf deck - you can go with as little as 15-16 lands... Elves of course provide mana.. But red now has a dark ritual!...

    But it all boils down to the curve...

    Overall best card for curve = nevinyrral's Disk!...
  4. BigBlue Magic Jones

    the MOST is 22? Really? What is the avg CC of your spells? I used to exclusively run 20 (33%), but I got tired of too many mana screws, so now I usually run 22-24 in most decks. I have 1 deck with 18 (and nothing costs more than 2 in the deck).

    In my Big Blue deck, I run 26, because nothing sux worse than a mana screwed counterspell/control deck.

    Do you have Moxen? I suppose if I had a mox, I'd run 1 fewer land per. But since most of the time random is not equal distribution of lands, I don't get enough with 20 consistently.

    And I hate Paris mulligans (which is what we do).
  5. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I tend to initially run 23-24 and then depending on how it plays, adjust accordingly. The least I've gone down to is around 20 and that was either for a white weenie deck or a green deck that had lots of mana producers.

    And depending on what other cards I have that might help, like Thawing Glaciers, Land Tax, or if more land might be useful like that red spell where discard a land does 2 damage.
  6. train The Wildcard!!!...

    No - I run efficient mana decks... I I'm going to get mana screwed - it's because i didn't shuffle... color screwed is a different story.. I sometimes get color-screwed with my 5-color deck...

    My typical deck is 12-16 creatures, 12-16 spells, and stuff to cycle(graveyard mostly)... but the rest is misc...

    Here's my black white deck running 61 cards - 19 land...

    4 - Spectral Lynx
    4 - Vindicate
    4 - Teroh's faithful
    4 - Cease Fire
    2 - Angel(choose protection color when she cip)
    3 - wrath of god
    1 - disenchant
    2 - Rout
    1 - Karmic Justice
    1 - Malevolent Awakening
    4 - crypt Keeper
    2 - Rotting Giant
    3 - Ghastly Demise
    3 - Chainer's Edict
    4 - Death Grasp

    8 swamps and 8 plains and 3 caves of coilos...

    It's actulally pretty nasty...

    Try it - you might like it... Sounds like something you hear with Broccoli!!!>..
  7. BigBlue Magic Jones

    What, no Coat? :D

    I can't see how you'd ever get to cast Rout. With 19 lands, I'd be lucky to get 3 by turn 5. Which would be death.
  8. Rooser Thread Necromancer

    Most of the time I've found having 1/3 of the deck as land has been all well and good. In fact, Big Blue's insitence that it can't possibly be enough and we're all newbie morons if we don't agree seems a bit silly to me.

    Of course you should go up or down from 20 land depending on the style of the deck, and such style choices may or may not have anything to do with the average casting cost of the deck.

    But I suppose and objective way to approach this would be to do it mathematically. If you are running 20 land in a 60 card deck, then you should get a land one out of every three cards. Assuming you go first and don't draw on your first turn then by the end of turn three you will have seen at least nine cards; seven in your opening hand and the two others that you drew. Typically three of these nine cards will be land, so therefore you shouldn't miss a land drop until your fourth turn. If you don't have three land by the end of turn three then you're the victim of bad luck, not bad deck design, (And perhaps Big Blue is just the chronic victim of bad luck). If this principle is taken in to account then it would seem that the magical casting cost is 3. If nothing in your deck costs more than 3 than 20 is the most land you should ever play. If you don't run any sort of mana speed, deck thinning, or card drawing, then you are usually gonna have at least 4 land by turn 6 and 5 by turn 9. If all of your four and five casting cost spells can wait that long, then you probably shouldn't worry about playing with more than 20 either.

    The three things I mentioned earlier - mana speed, deck thinning, and card drawing - are useful tools to making sure you climb the mana curve at a reasonable speed. As these things can help out more than just the mana curve, I'd argue that if you're deck needs more than 20 land then you just haven't built an efficient deck. Please note that I did say "maybe." Of course there are plenty of strategies and styles where you want to run more than 20, but even in these decks' cases you almost always don't want to run more than 24 land.

    I understand a healthy fear of being "mana screwed"; it sucks, but so does having 8 land on the table and no spell to cast.
  9. train The Wildcard!!!...

    Actually... Rout is the highest casting cost card - and there are only 2 in the deck... so my chances of seeing one in the first 23 turns is about even...

    As for the other spells... 31 spells are 3 mana or less... 17 of those are 2 mana or less... in all the deck has 50 cards to play, including lands, that are = to or less than 3 mana - so it runs pretty efficiently... In order for me to mathematically see one of my 4-5 cc spells... I should have 4 land in play in order to cast it by turns 5-6... That's 12-13 cards from the deck, 7 opening hand, 2 of which are land, and 2 more land drawn in the 5-6 turns - remember my probability is about even...

    The trick is... running 19/61 as lands is just under 33%... The curve I've built allows for easy play early, because everything's cheap... And since I'm just under 33% for lands - I still have the same chance to have just as much land as someone running 20 or 21 land... I just end up with more spells... and that can really help!...

    It's not his insistence... it just hasn't worked for him, and it's not directed at newbies - they just seem to be the ones posting with limited land in their decks... As such - I've come forward and I'm not a newbie...

    But style choices do - they determine what you play, and what you play has a cost... that's why a mana curve is good to look at - not necessarily use... Elves - you could run 12 mana and be fine... you have another mana source in play with just one land... Goblins - 1 land can cast your entire deck so 12 may begood in it... Artifacts - normally 2 mana to build an extra base... Black - well blacks strength is not always cheap - most of it's power cards are 4-6cc... thus more mana is needed early on... or utility cards to keep you alive...

    At times Color-Screw is the culprit... if you're not playing mono color, than this becomes a stronger possibility for each color you add to the deck...


    :D
  10. theorgg Slob

    I think this post is tward longpolecole and purplelephant. Cole posted a deck that was sixty cards... with twelve lands; he also said the deck worked well. What that probably is, I do believe, comes from the playgroup. If everyone playes with twelve land, they all get mana screw'd, and thus it's fair... but the "upward race of knowledge" for any group must begin sometime... or the game dies for that group.
  11. Thallid Ice Cream Man 21sT CeNTuRy sChIZoId MaN

    I always play with at least 20 lands, you're not alone.
  12. purplelephant New Member

    speaking for myself... i have rarely been mana screwed with my small amount of mana... neither do most people in our group, or any of them for that matter... maybe it is because i am lucky or something... but, every time i put more mana in, i always seem to get 5 and 6 mana in my hand with nothing else to play... this is why i try to keep my number of mana down... i am not saying this is the way to go because, and i'll admit it, i am a newbie, but it really does seem to work for me...
  13. train The Wildcard!!!...

    Purplelephant - I personally hope that luck could do you well in the Magic scene...:D
  14. theorgg Slob

    *Bing-- You don't know how to shuffle that well. No problem... Invest a dollar in a deck of poker cards to get a little practice shuffling, and then shuffle at least twelve "riffle" shuffles each time you play and shuffle your deck. That's probably what is happening.

    If you arn't good with riffle shuffles, try about eight "pile" shuffles. You put about twelve cards down
    [ex:]( "H" represents a card)
    H H H H
    H H H H
    H H H H
    [/ex:]
    , then you do another stack on top of them, and keep on putting them in the piles. When the deck runs out, pick them up in a random order, and do it at least seven or eight more times.
    Then try to riffle a couple of times.

    You'll get better at shuffling the more you practice... actually, I was AWFUL at shuffling when I first started playing-- I still am not too good with it. When you are doing O.K. but are having trouble getting the hang of Magic cards, practice with two poker decks together-- its closer to a Magic deck in thickness, then. Use different backs, too, to see how it gets mixed up fairly well, too... More than twelve of the same deck back in a row means you need to relese the stacks at a more even speed. I like to have it where at most three or four cards from each stack are stuck together without the other's intervention... but that probably isn't that well shuffled. Twelve is realistic after about fifteen riffle shuffles.

    I hope that helps.. and the reason for the high land count is to get a land in play each turn for at least the first four turns, and the reason for a "mana curve" is to use the mana you have avaible to its fullest extent.
  15. Rooser Thread Necromancer

    okay so maybe I got a little defensive, and I knew the commonets were directed at some of the newbie decks, sorry if I upset anybody.

    Train: what I meant when I said that one's decision to play with more or less than 20 land may or may not depend on the average casting cost of the deck, (notice the "mays" and the "or"), was that some deck styles want to change up their land count for reasons other than a mana curve. The simplest examples are certain types of Seismic Assault or Stasis decks. These are decks with low casting costs on the whole, but they want to run land heavy for various other utilitarian reasons. By no means was I suggesting that considerations of mana curve should be tossed out the window.
  16. train The Wildcard!!!...

    Gotcha...

    As for shuffling...

    The ideal randomization for riffle shuffling is 7 times...

    That's mathematically the most random organization for the deck... Please note- This is ideal - where only one card falls from each stack onto a single card from the other stack and each stack has an equal amount of cards...

    Actually if done properly you caould have a great deal of knowledge as to the order of your cards to be drawn... even after the cut by your opponent...

    If they shuffle it it's a different story...
  17. purplelephant New Member

    thanks for the info on shuffling... i'll try it out...
  18. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Rooser: I slightly disagree with your reasoning behind having 20 lands. I think that would work IF shuffling worked properly and the deck is totally "randomized" after each game and if each spell cost the same.

    However, no one shuffles that way (though they might try) and spells increase in their casting cost. Sure, you're supposed to get 1 land every 3 spells, but that doesn't help if all of your spells are the higher casting ones in the beginning and/or you draw your 6 spells first and then your one land. There's no guarantee that you know the next two cards will be lands so most likely you're going to mulligan.

    The way I see it, if you mulligan "a lot", like at least once every five or so games at the max, something is wrong with the mana balance.

    Now obviously this is opinion and again, it depends on the style of deck (weenie or other light mana users), but it'd be interesting to see, for instance, what the mana ratio is in winning tourney decks. I would bet they have more than 33%. :)
  19. train The Wildcard!!!...

    Spidey - as usual - has some good points...

    Technically 1 land every 2 spells for 20/60 or 2 for every 3 for 24/60...;)

    This should always be the case... unless you're cheating or perfectly shuffling.

    Right- very few decks have strong advantages even after mulliganing...

    Except for Sligh and turbo they actually have about 40%...
    Tha's why my deck doesn't do so well... all the time...:D
  20. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    This is the only one that confuses me... are you saying they should be 2 lands after unless you're cheating or perfectly shuffling?

Share This Page