Another reason to have extra lands in your partner deck: flooding is less of a problem when you essentially have two creatures in your hand at all times.
Honestly I'm with Dana on this one. Card draw is the perfect way to have more of everything in your deck without actually having more of everything in your deck. Well that is if you actually already have what you need in your deck.
@@kingfuzzy2 Four colorless mana for the first scry 2 plus no draw and four colorless and four black plus damage delt for a tutor? If you're working with a strict budget they might be playable at a low power level but even with a strict budget there are much better ways to go. If you are spending 8 mana you should be trying to win the game or playing a game changing haymaker, I can win the game with three black mana if I have what I need.
I'm new and thinking of it as card advantage was pretty big for me. Playing in jeskai so look at any time and/or play the top card effects or exile and play effects, are essentially card draw without your hand getting any bigger. Obviously Simic is crazy stuffed with the ability to play lands off the top, but Fortune Keepers Talent is immediately useful with impulse draw and more so with investment, if the game goes long enough the full unlock is good mana acceleration for big drops. I love the card a lot
This is how I do it. Ask yourself when you are okay with missing a land drop-that is the minimum number of lands you want in hand by that turn. Then figure out the ratio of lands vs non-lands in your deck to match that.
100% and this also means Dana is entirely correct with the draw spells. The number of lands you need by Turn X is a ration of HOW MANY CARDS YOU WILL HAVE SEEN BY TURN X. Someone who sees, on average 12 cards by the end of T3 is going to need fewer lands than the person who sees, on average, 10 cards by the end of Turn 3. Other factors to consider: are you able to aggressively mulligan with your deck? What potential downsides does your deck have with a higher or lower land count? (burst draw in the mid and late game is much less effective if you have a ton of lands, do you tend to have to discard lands a lot?)
Hypergeometric distribution is a pain to learn how to understand but an invaluable tool when trying to determine land balance, not just for full land counts but also when determining color bias it is very useful as well.
Exactly. And the math shows that 34 lands is therefore plenty to make your first four land drops ~90% of the time - even excluding card draw or ramp. Adding another three lands only increases this to ~93%. My logic has always been to playtest and see how often I'm disappointed to draw another land vs how often I'm missing important land drops. In my experience, the former is a much more prevalent issue.
@@adamrobinson6951 how are you getting 90% ? I ran it on a hypergeometric calculator and I get 56% chance to get 4 lands out of 34 with 11 cards drawn (7 opening hand + 4 turns)
I start with 40 land slots, then remove one land for each two mana rocks and finally adjust for curve or other deck specifics. It usually puts me at about 35-38 lands, on average. I also take the CMC of my commander into account.
Oh man Dana almost killed Matt with that breakfast nonsense. You guys have the best chemistry as hosts, always a delight to listen to you guys play off of each other.
Dana is ENTIRELY correct, card draw is how you see more lands. Everyone who is running 38 lands cut one of them and add one of these in its place: Green: Sylvan Library or Harmonize White: Weathered Wayfarer or Alms Collector Red: Faithless Looting or Thrill of Possibility Blue: Brainstorm or Ponder Black: Night's Whisper or Sign in Blood
Joey & Matt looking at Dana like he's crazy for the most lands in a deck he's running being 37, and changing the other parts of the deck instead of upping the lands, but that's the way to do it imo 😀 . And yes...one and two mana cantrippy cards or loot effects (if it's red) over adding more lands works like a charm to keep you digging through into them without flooding. This is the way. The wisdom must come from eating a balanced & complete breakfast if it's going to rain 😆
One thing you didn't mention that affects the number of lands I run is the number and quality of mana sinks in my deck. The more and the better the sinks the more lands I want to run. Knowing extra mana has a strong use beyond my spells makes late mana drops feel better than if I lack meaningful sinks..
Perfect timing! Can't wait to hear all the great stuff you guys have to say today. Personally all of my decks run around 35. It depends on the curve. If my deck has a higher curve I either at least run more accelerates or straight up run more lands, whereas if my curve is lower I might run a few lands less.
I generally run 35 to 37 lands, works for me, but I also tend to run a lot of ramp and card draw (usually 12 - 15 of each, sometimes more) so for anyone who runs a bit less ramp, I wouldn't recommend going down to 35 lands unless your curve is very low. I'd say say generally 37 is the sweat spot that will work for most decks
Just to say this is a particularly intelligent and entertaining episode amongst a generally excellent recent crop. I really enjoy the podcast. Personally, I don't run less than 37 in any of my decks and I was rather surprised that I seem to be the exception.
I agree, I also use 36 as base number for lands + 10ish dorks/rocks/similar stuff ... it also depends from deck to deck. My Jhoira deck only runs around 30 lands or so but my Omnath landfall deck runs like 44 (if you count mdfcs)
I'm definitely quite a bit more similar to Dana when it comes to lands. I cap out at 35 lands, though the lowest amount of lands is in my Valduk (Keeper of the Flame) voltron brew at 30 lands. Not far behind is my Kazarov (Sengir Pureblood) removal gimmick brew at 32 lands, but lots of mana rocks are in it, due to the commander being a mana sink. My Valduk deck definitely needs more tuning to figure out how to plug some holes in the roughshod boat, but Kazarov is sitting quite pretty, especially when some of the strategies are somewhat stax-like without preventing my opponents from playing the things I'm going to remove anyway. Now to improve my Karazikar (the Eye Tyrant) goad brew.
I've been playing EDH since the beginning and I have always used 40 as a baseline. I either adjust up or down from 40, but I have found that most decks I build want 40. I have one deck at 38 (mono-colored average CMC is 3) one at 36 (Edric) and almost all of the other decks is 40. My favorite deck has 44 and is casting 6 drops on turn 4 regularly (Not a landfall deck). For me a good number is 38-40 with my skew towards 40. Too many games I win because they don't get land drops. I want land drops every turn till I hit the top end of CMC's for the deck. By and large people don't run enough. 40 is the starting number...skew from there. People need to start with more.
I also run 40, sometimes I add one more if I don't have enough color color fixing or ramp then take it out once I get the fix or ramp I was missing, and also my lower land deck is a mono color with 38 (mono black with various rocks and some cheap draw spells). I hate doing nothing in a game because I miss a land drop, if I get flooded at least I can cast my commander multiple times.
I've adapted my deck building to Command Zone's template a couple years ago when they initially introduced it. Since then, I kept all my decks at 38 lands with the exception of Mizzix at 37. So far, it's served me well. Theres likely room for fluctuation, but im also trying to accomplish the 33 deck challenge with added restrictions, so consistency isn't quite as strong as if I was tweaking and optimizing one or two
Dana is correct about building your deck around lands first. Adding land base before building the deck has saved me so much time in building decks because I end up with significantly fewer cuts than I used to when I built decks the other way.
Great job on the podcast as always. I always appreciate the insights you gentlemen have to offer. There was one angle of discussion I’m surprised you didn’t explore in more detail, however. I wanted to hear you discuss how decks have simply become more efficient because card quality and efficiency has increased over the length of the game. For example, if you were simply looking to slow your opponents’ creature-based strategies down, why would you play blind obedience when you can play authority of the consuls? As the power level and efficiency of cards has increased, it would seem that mana curves in general have decreased overall, leading players to run fewer lands simply because they don’t need them, because most of the spells that they run have become cheaper overall. I know you touched on the mana curve versus land count issue in your discussion, but I am curious to see what your thoughts on this particular line of reasoning are. Once again, great job on the podcast.
I play between 34 to 37 Lands depending on the Curve of the Deck and the theme. If I have many Mana-Dorks, e.g. in my Lathril-Deck, or create many Treasure, e.g. my Prosper or my Breeches/Malcolm-Deck, than I use 34 Lands as starting Point. If I don't have these options I use 36 Lands as Starting Point and adjust them according to my experiences with my Deck during Gameplay. Generally I try to have around 50 Manasources in the Deck, regardless of wether I play green and am able to search for Lands. The only Decks that play less are Decks were my Curve ends by around 4 or 5 Mana, since than the deck is so aggressive that I don't need as much Manasources as for instances in an Ur-Dragon-Deck were the Curve is relatively high.
29-34 is about where I usually fall, but I play high power games mostly and have all the fast mana I can jammed in there. Average CMC is pretty low as well which helps.
I think I run too many lands. I run a mono white with 40 lands, 10 mana rocks, 10 card draw (+2 more as two of the lands provides card draw). But, I don't know, I feel like I would just prefer to be mana flooded than mana screwed.
Mono coloured decks are the hardest for me to include basics I usually end up including 60% or greater of non-basics. there is so many Janky lands why not run them.
@@kingfuzzy2 lol most mono color decks for me I run mostly basics for Extra Planar Lense shenanigans. In Azusa I have 20 snow Forests and 2 regular Forests the other 38 lands are utility lands and other good lands that give green sources.
Right on even when I run lens I still include more non-basics in my mono coloured decks (mono white ramp and mono red beserker tribal with birgi as the commander)
@@kingfuzzy2 Emiria, the Sky Ruin is the only non basic I run in mono white but that's also because it itself needs you to have 7 basic plains to get the trigger every upkeep but damn is it a powerful effect.
I run 36-37 typical. But I disagree entirely. I'd much rather have a handful of plays and just need to draw a land or a rock or something so I can actually make a play. Having a hand full of land AND hoping that you can topdeck a card you need/can use in that exact moment is so much more frustrating to me.
@@ryansprenkle6356 that's why magic is great. Everyone is different! I did just play a game where I ran out of cards in hand. Might add some card draw instead. I'll hit the land drops anyways if I do
@@kingfuzzy2 No deck should run 60 lands lol, with the exception of maybe Azusa, but even then 50 is probably plenty. I run 42 in my Tatyova (Land's matter) deck, and 35 - 37 is my other decks. I almost never have mana problems because I run a lot of ramp and card draw and don't have insanely high curves. You should never be mana screwed if you are running over 40 lands, if you are, there is almost certainly another issue with your deck that needs to be looked at, or you aren't shuffling well enough.
As a starting point for a deck, I have a rule that the land count is 31+[the number of colours in the deck's colour identity]+[your commander's CMC] then adjust that up or down based on the curve, velocity, and goals of the deck.
I start at 35 - 37 then adjust as needed. I've got one deck at 43 (Lord Windgrace) and one at 27 (Jhoira, Weatherlight Captain) but most stay in that 35 to 37 range.
27 seems ludicrous nearly 1/10th of starting hands will have 0 lands and over 1/3rd will have 1 or less. Even including every 1/0 cost artifact ramp you can seems like that would be too greedy of a land base. I assume it's justification is the commander drawing a bunch of cards to compensate. But need to cast the commander first for that to happen. So I'm curious, how often is mana a problem?
@@XcomfygamerX occasionally but not super often. Flood is a bigger risk once the deck starts going. Aggressive mulliganing plus 18 mana rocks plus an average cmc of well under 2 helps. I've seen lists with fewer lands but 27 is a low as I'm willing to go unless I make some other alterations to the deck. It's my borderline cEDH deck.
In average I run 36 lands and 3 MDFCs in that way I kinda run both 36 and 39 lands at the same time depending on how my starting hand looks. It has served me well so far. :)
On the topic of mana curve, it does really depend on the deck, but I think it's moreso how often some of your big stuff will actually be hard cast. There's a good number of decks that will not be actually casting their larger spells for the casting cost. Jhoira, Saheeli, a lot of reanimator decks, Mayael, all these decks cheat things into play and it's not fair to consider the larger spells as truly part of the mana curve as it should be rare you actually play them honestly.
Usually start with 36 lands for most decks, but have an outlier in a recently constructed Florian, Voldaren Scion with only 34, and it also only starts to do things at 4/5CMC. However it is so good at filtering through the deck that often withing 2 turns after playing Florian, I have sifted through 2/3rds of the deck and can consistently tutor anything to the top of my library, and play it (Varragoth & Neheb, the Eternal)
As a general rule, I start with 35, then add X, where X is the mana value most represented in the list. Those are only lands, MDFC's are extra. I will swap 2 MDFC's for a spell and a land if they are decent effects.
A recent Reddit post made me tally my decks, so this is funny timing for this video to come out. 25 lands - 3 decks (soon to be 4) 30 lands: 10 decks 35 lands: 28 decks 40 lands: 2 decks 50 lands: 1 deck
To answer the question about the deck you have with the most lands (not landfall), I have a 4 color cycling deck that runs 39-40 because a lot of the lands cycle, and I use them for more than just land drops, so I wanted to smooth out my drop rate.
My land count starts at 37. I usually go up from there. My two most tuned decks are -Maelstrom wanderer 41 lands 19 ramp 15 card draw 5 ways to cheat costs -and Ghalta 15ramp 14 card draw 38 lands I still feel like ghalta needs one more land. I agree that cutting cards from highly tuned decks is hard, though. I think that people are abusing friendly mulligans in friendly settings to basically just guarantee playable hands. A note about the mana curve. While having many low cmc cards is great, it doesn't mean you need to stop hitting land drops later in the game. Casting multiple spells in a game is usually a great sign. Having a 2 and a 3 drop means that I need 5 mana to do both, and doing both is always more powerful. A note about mana efficiency as well: Often you want to leave mana open for countermagic, removal spells, or protection. That means there might be mana you waste because you end up not using it. That means you even want more mana at your disposal if you intend to make lines like this because wasting mana puts you behind on tempo. And not just behind against 1 player like in 60 card formats, but behind three! That means if you leave open 2 mana, you lost 6 mana in tempo if you don't cast the spell. I only count MDFCs as lands because I have perfect mana bases in terms of color fixing(duals, shocks, fetches, etc) and because I am only using the ones that can enter untapped. I generally don't tolerate etb tapped lands because it ruins my curve and the flow of gameplay. There are exceptions of course. Hall of the bandit lord is still a great inclusion in kaalia and basically "ramps" me by letting kaalia attack a turn earlier. For the most part I think people are running way too few lands and need to add a LOT more. It's boring, you get less toys, and it gets more difficult the more tuned the deck becomes, but it's very important for the consistency of your decks over time. Thanks for the great content, and I hope everyone has a great day.
I'm normally at 35-37 lands, my Landfall deck is at 41 Edit: I will say I probably include around 12 ramp cards... if I add it to my land count, it's close to 50 (so I should on avg have 3 or 4 lands/ramp cards in opening hand)
@@kingfuzzy2 Funny thing for my Selvala/Hydra deck, out of 5 games, 1 of them I was Colour-screwed, 2 of them I was Land-screwed, 1 of them I was Land-flooded.. Last one I was creature-screwed, since my card draw is tied to getting fat creatures into play
My first commander deck was the Kathril aspect warper deck which is a keywords/counters deck that has slippery bog binder in it. As soon as I heard Kyler and using other counters I knew the challenge was gonna be that.
I'm only running 32 lands in a current Memnarch build which runs a few very big spells like Ugin and a couple of Eldrazis at 10 and 11 cmc. I do have to mulligan quite often with the deck, but it mulligans SO easily! But, I'm running 18 0-2 cmc mana rocks (and a handful at 3+ cmc) in the deck lol. I have no issues with mana unless I run into a ton of artifact hate super early in the game. It's not at all uncommon for me to drop an Ugin, Jin-Gitaxias or Kozilek on turn 3 or 4. I'm loving this deck so much haha
I have Rielle deck as well... and I am having the same problem every time either 2 lands and nothing more or just floooooooooded and no actual spells to cast :(
Since this is the most recent time you talked about this (even though the episode is about a year old by now), I'll drop my 2 cents here (yaay, engagement): I have seen multiple times MDFCs showing up with their backside, with Westvale Abbey being classified as a creature the prime offender in my experience, so that might skew your data a bit. The same is likely true for some of the Zendikar ones (I think I use both sides of Sea Gate Resto about 50%, and Agadeem definitely less than that), which I mostly use in spots where they either win me the game (or close to)- or otherwise, just as lands. Also, the new cycling cards from LOTR brought an interesting facet, to my deckbuilding, anyways. And I have been looking more into ways of making cheap spells more effective late game (34 cards anonymous here), which led me down a different path than you, but not necessarily with bad results. All I'm trying to say is: Let's talk more about it.
I fully agree with Dana's approach of adding more draw spells than lands :D I'm a dimir mage and don't have issues with 32/33 lands but therefore ~13-16 cantrips/carddraw spells(or engines)
I had to help a friend with their atraxa populate deck. 22 lands in the deck >.> I hooked them up with some nice full art basics and shocks. RUN MORE LANDS!!! They have pretty art.
I think this boils down to how much ramp do you have in the deck? There is like 60-70 ramp cards ( not counting the expensive ones) thats 1-3 mana. I usually cut one land for every 3 ramp cards, and i run at a minimum 10 ramp cards. Got 35 lands in all my commander decks, except a landfall one, with 42 lands. And even that landfall deck manages to get mana screwed lol
Generally I tend to like going with 36/37 lands, depending on if I'm in 1/2 or 3 colours? In 5c decks I normally go more towards 38, just to make sure I'm hitting my land drops and fixing my mana! That said, I do have one deck where I run 32 lands - Breena, a deck where the curve pretty much ends at 3 (with one 4 drop), designed around playing a 1 drop, a 2 drop, Breena, swing, draw, and go aggro! So you only need the 32 lands to get a few in your opening hand and first few turns, in order to get going fast enough to start drawing!
But Dana, if U don’t have enough “income” in your deck, would there be quite many high-end “toys” that are just impracticable to run? & almost no amount of tweaking the deck (outside of bumping up mana production) can properly access those big toys?
I alway start with 30 + the commander’s CMC/MV + the number of colors in the commander’s color identity. This usually roughs out to around 35-38. Then I adjust from there depending on the decks curve, mana dorks/rocks, ramp spells, etc
So, do the EDHRec average land stats account for MDFCs? The way you discussed them, it sounds like they don't. My view on them is the same as Dana: play as a land unless you top deck it in the late game. If that's how others play them, 35 lands plus 2-4 MDFCs sounds close to right for a lot of decks. And a Windgrace deck with 40 lands plus 6-8 MDFCs sounds close to right.
I usually run 35 actual lands and then 1-3 MDFC lands. My Maja landfall deck is at 39 or 40, Yarok does some landfall but draws so much that it’s not a big issue. My only lower one is Kinnan, Bonder Prodigy, which has 30 full lands and 4 MDFCs. Once I’ve made a few land drops, I’m focused on loading up on the 18 or so dorks and rocks who Kinnan augments. Every non creature in that deck is a trade off because I’m minimizing the chance of whiffing a Kinnan activation.
I generally run about 36-37 land in all of my deck + 8 or so ramp spells. I tend to run more card draw and lower mana curves than most people so it tends to work out quite well. In more aggressive decks that want to curve out I try to run one or two more lands, and cut down on the ramp. If I want to be playing a creature on turns 1-5, ramp can be really awkward (Thinking decks like Edgar Markov). As for MDFCs, I generally count them as lands, but that comes with a caveat. I try to keep ~4 tap lands in my deck, some of the slower decks ill go up to 5, some of my more aggressive ones I go down to 0-1, and as soon as my tap land limit is reached, every other MDFC that goes in the deck counts as a spell. The number of colors in the deck also matters, if I am running 3+ colors the number of utility lands that you can run gets quite limited, at 3 colors I generally run 3-5 depending on the number of lands and how color intensive the deck is, in 4 and 5 colors I generally run 1-2 at most, and MDFCs always occupy these slots, and as soon as those slots are filled (either through MDCS or just other good utility lands) they go straight to the spell slots.
I run 34 lands in all of my decks. By turn 6, I'm usually using them as discard fodder if an effect forces discard or just holding them in hand as a bluff. You get a free mulligan in this format. You should be mulliganing until you get a hand with at least three lands (two if reduced to 5 cards or fewer). The table below outlines how regularly you should be hitting your land drops on curve. Turn 34 lands 37 lands Difference 1 100% 100% 0pp 2 100% 100% 0pp 3 97% 99% 1pp 4 89% 93% 4pp 5 74% 82% 7pp 6 66% 76% 11pp 7 51% 62% 11pp 8 44% 56% 11pp Note: My analysis assumes one additional card drawn on the 4th, 6th and 8th turns with no tutored lands or equivalent. This feels like a worst case scenario, as you should have some draw or ramp effects playable. I do not consider these differences significant enough to be worth the risk of drawing no playable cards. I would much rather use those three slots on removal, board wipes and other cards that will help me catch up if needed. For comparison, consider how many cards you play that fit the theme or playstyle of your deck. Discounting lands, removal, ramp, draw, board wipes and other "eat your veg" cards you're typically left with at most 35 slots. While this seems to compare favourably to your land count, you aren't guaranteed to be able to play the themed cards you draw on any given turn (mana curve, prerequisites on board etc). I would much rather have a game where I play the first few turns then slow down slightly because I missed my fifth land drop than a game where I've left my pet cards at home and haven't played anything noteworthy by that turn.
51:50 - I've heard people say that deckthinning in Commander is mathematically irrelevant, but you're forgetting one thing - If I get ALL the lands on the battlefield, I now have a 100% chance of drawing a nonland, and I'm certain to have the mana to cast it. I joke, but I've had all 40 lands on the table with my budget Tatyova deck, and Blackblade Reforged is a legit terror in that situation.
It's also worth keeping in mind the land counts of other formats. In 60 card decks, a common land count is 24 land, which is comparable to 39 or 40 land in a 99 card deck. In 40 card Limited decks, a common land count is 17 land, which is comparable to 42 land in a 99 card deck. So I'd say that 35 or even 37 land is too low.
I generally run 36+2 MDFCs, but adjust up or down for the average CMC. I seldom run into issues with having enough lands to do what I want to do. I try to keep my average CMC low though.
35 is my minimum, has been for a long time, but these days I tend to run 36. I honestly can't imagine going much higher than that because between them, draw spells, ramp, and removal (which are never fully on theme no matter how hard you try) I want * some * room for my actual deck.
I guess my local edh scene is just higher power, how often do you ever get over 10 lands out in a game, its pretty rare like maybe 1 game in 15 for edh, and that is with budget decks 1~500. I have a kodama/kraum landfall wincon and I play about 36, if that, and I always feel land heavy, and thats with running natures lore/skyshroud/farseek(no cultivates etc) the deck is maybe a high 7 to mid 8ish, and any of my cedh competitive decks starts at 31 and goes down to 27/28 with MDF, mulligans are a part of the game, and running 15 rocks is actually fairly easy to have the land you need. Back to EDH normal if your manabase starts with duals-> shocks-> battlebond->tower/confluence/city of brass->painlands->check/fast/tango how many slots do you have for basics, I find its actively hard to include basics on multicolored decks, usually its a conscience effort to not include battlebond+ lands just so I can have the basics in. PS golos ban killed my mazes end deck qqqqqqqq
Most of my decks are 37 lands, couple are 39ish playing with a suite of MDFCs to give options. And even in the land base we run Tranquil Thicket so some of the lands have options if we don't need them as lands. My exceptions are 40 for Windgrace who needs ready lands to discard and still have lands to play. And my 5-color and ramp decks. Actually, Reaper King is both. Intet/Spells matter/Ramp is 33 lands. Horde of Notions Combos is 32 lands. And Reaper King is 31. That deck also having some 30 odd ramp cards or cards that can find a land... like oops, hate to do T2 Demonic Tutor for a land, but lets find a Rav Bounce land and get my next two land drops. These decks accept that they're not drawing lands, but digging them from the deck kicking and screaming. Also a big note for things like Cultivate and Verdant Mastery which both do the land search thing, but also provide a spare land to play this turn as well. It's something that just sort of happened with Reaper King by accident, but with Intet, I tried normal land counts, but always ended up with 5 lands in play, 3 lands in hand, and no plays. So just kept ratcheting up the cheap card draw/selection to patch the interim spaces and find plays. Even going so far as Evolution Charm since early it finds me land 3 for the Cultivates, or late game retrieves a haymaker creature from the yard.
The number of lands that I play stays fairly consistent at 37-39 but the ramp and card draw that I choose for the deck may change. If you're playing a 5 CMC commander, for instance. Kodama's reach and Cultivate suddenly become very attractive because it ramps to 4 and gives you a basic to hand for your fifth mana. On the other hand, in a deck with a 3 CMC commander, dark ritual or llanowar elves might be more attractive.
There's a player that runs 12-18 lands and is never Manascrewed me however running 40-47 gets Mana screwed every other game. And don't get me started on the 5 landless decks my other friend runs
I run a very finely tuned Queen Marchesa deck. I run only 34 lands, but this is because the mana curve is extremely low. The deck also has tons of ways of getting exactly the card i need what i need as well as 10 mana rocks.
I think my lowest land count is 30 for my Svella deck, cause I only need three before I start making Manaliths, and when you can afford her big ability you want less of them getting in the way.
You know....I've never actually thought about Svella as a commander before, but that deck seems like it would be really fun....it also seems like a fun deck for big expensive idiots that don't really fit in other decks very well.
I play 40 lands in every single one of my decks (including my Kenrith deck running 25+ ramp cards), as I have noticed that 2/5ths of the deck being lands works best for me. I happen to play a lot of mana sinks, though, so that probably helps with the possibility of flooding.
I'm a stinky filthy low land player and am happier for it. Sure, I could run more to maybe be a little more "consistent" but I just want to jam as many things in the deck as possible to have fun. Most of my decks sit between 33 and 35 lands. Been completely Mana screwed and flooded plenty of times with them but no more or less than my opponents. I think it comes down to personal preference and I feel personally attacked every time below 36 lands is viewed as crazy or abnormal lol
I'm with Dana here. I often know I need one or two extra lands, but I just can't find a cut. It's easier to make a 1-for-1 swap, a nonland for nonland.
I might have missed this, so i apologize if i did. With these averages you pulled from the database, did you filter out cEDH lists? While the number of competitive players is much lower than casual players it could be a significant enough number of entries to lower the averages by 1-2 cards especially when the average land count in most cEDH lists are between 27-30. I know the focus of the discussion is more geared toward the casual side but if the numbers are being skewed then that changes the appearance of where the format sits. In 60 card formats there's a relevant enough correlation between power level of a deck and the number of lands in said deck (excluding outliers like charbelcher or "oops all lands"). Standard sits around 23-24 average, Modern is closer to 20 lands average, and Legacy and vintage have averages in the mid/high teens. It wouldn't be that crazy to say the same to be true with 100 card singleton formats. As the strategies become more dialed in, and the average cmc drops along with cheap/free ramp, less lands are needed to reach the same end goal. I agree with many of the points you guys brought up today but I think considering the power level of the playgroup may have a factor here too. A 6/10 on our arbitrary power scale probably has a higher curve and needs to hit more land drops to function than say an 8/10
Alibou is currently my favorite deck :) just play an absurd amount of mana rocks, cheap artifacts, and wheels and you get an incredibly fun, decently powerful deck
I forget who, but some professional magic player who knows his magic math said that MDFC's count as 2/3 of a land. So for every 3 you run, you can remove 2 lands.
I really enjoy landfall decks. Here is something I do. Do not count fetch lands as lands but spells. The landfall triggers are all to important, especially when you can play multiple lands a turn.
A lot of groups I've played with have very forgiving mulligan rules. I think that's one of the biggest reasons for the ridiculously low numbers of lands that some people run.
I agree with Dana. If 35 lands aren't enough, i put in some quick draw and lower the mana curve. I usually play aggro and have low curves, but need constant threats. And having more than 35/36 lands can increase the possibility of flooding in the beginning of the game, before you get a chance to draw a draw spell to keep the engine going. But given most people i know play only 30 lands, i think the 35 average is misleading, as if the average is 35, it means many players are playing with much less, to average out players like you guys, who play over 35
I recently built a Tergrid deck. I know she is kill-on-sight, so I put in 15 mana rocks so that commander tax doesn't matter. Also, Tergrid wants to see the battlefield as early as possible. Still, my land total is 38 lands.
My decks tend to run around 36 to 38 lands depending on my reduced Mana costs, rocks and ramp. My lowest land count is in my Edgar Markov deck at 35 because I can pretty much cast anything I want with 3 lands.
Another reason to have extra lands in your partner deck: flooding is less of a problem when you essentially have two creatures in your hand at all times.
Honestly I'm with Dana on this one. Card draw is the perfect way to have more of everything in your deck without actually having more of everything in your deck. Well that is if you actually already have what you need in your deck.
I like card selection more so cards like Crystal ball and night dealings I'm always a fan of seeing more similar cards printed to slot in decks
@@kingfuzzy2 Four colorless mana for the first scry 2 plus no draw and four colorless and four black plus damage delt for a tutor? If you're working with a strict budget they might be playable at a low power level but even with a strict budget there are much better ways to go. If you are spending 8 mana you should be trying to win the game or playing a game changing haymaker, I can win the game with three black mana if I have what I need.
I'm new and thinking of it as card advantage was pretty big for me. Playing in jeskai so look at any time and/or play the top card effects or exile and play effects, are essentially card draw without your hand getting any bigger. Obviously Simic is crazy stuffed with the ability to play lands off the top, but Fortune Keepers Talent is immediately useful with impulse draw and more so with investment, if the game goes long enough the full unlock is good mana acceleration for big drops. I love the card a lot
So wild, like looking back through a time machine... there was a time Joey was able to make segways into Challenge the Stats.
It’s okay Dana. I know what “the bones are their money. So are the worms,” is from. You are officially the youngest and coolest host.
I was like “did Dana just make an I Think You Should Leave reference? He has all my respect now.”
AND THAT WAS THE NIGHT THAT THE SKELETON'S CAME TO LIFE
Just remember folks, “If it’s raining in the morning, make sure to have a big breakfast!”
Cannot state enough to newer commander players how much this will improve your decks consistency
@@blaze556922 (no... Which is the whole point ☺️)
I love how we lost Matt for an entire minute after Dana made this statement.
@@ancientswordrage I
This is how I do it. Ask yourself when you are okay with missing a land drop-that is the minimum number of lands you want in hand by that turn. Then figure out the ratio of lands vs non-lands in your deck to match that.
100% and this also means Dana is entirely correct with the draw spells. The number of lands you need by Turn X is a ration of HOW MANY CARDS YOU WILL HAVE SEEN BY TURN X.
Someone who sees, on average 12 cards by the end of T3 is going to need fewer lands than the person who sees, on average, 10 cards by the end of Turn 3.
Other factors to consider: are you able to aggressively mulligan with your deck? What potential downsides does your deck have with a higher or lower land count? (burst draw in the mid and late game is much less effective if you have a ton of lands, do you tend to have to discard lands a lot?)
Hypergeometric distribution is a pain to learn how to understand but an invaluable tool when trying to determine land balance, not just for full land counts but also when determining color bias it is very useful as well.
Exactly. And the math shows that 34 lands is therefore plenty to make your first four land drops ~90% of the time - even excluding card draw or ramp. Adding another three lands only increases this to ~93%.
My logic has always been to playtest and see how often I'm disappointed to draw another land vs how often I'm missing important land drops. In my experience, the former is a much more prevalent issue.
@@adamrobinson6951 how are you getting 90% ? I ran it on a hypergeometric calculator and I get 56% chance to get 4 lands out of 34 with 11 cards drawn (7 opening hand + 4 turns)
I start with 40 land slots, then remove one land for each two mana rocks and finally adjust for curve or other deck specifics. It usually puts me at about 35-38 lands, on average. I also take the CMC of my commander into account.
Oh man Dana almost killed Matt with that breakfast nonsense. You guys have the best chemistry as hosts, always a delight to listen to you guys play off of each other.
I’m a hardline 38 lands for most decks. Landfall I’ll do over 40, low cmc I go 35-36 as exceptions.
I run a similar style to you. I always start at 37-38 and I will pull out 1-2 after playtesting. I never start with 35... that is insane
Me playing Urza with 28: sweating nervously
The lowest land count I have is 33 but I normally play around 36-37
@@NotSoSerious69420 👀
@@sosukelele it’s funny because that was when I was even less efficient than it is now,
22 lands with 2 MDFCs lmao.
Dana is ENTIRELY correct, card draw is how you see more lands. Everyone who is running 38 lands cut one of them and add one of these in its place:
Green: Sylvan Library or Harmonize
White: Weathered Wayfarer or Alms Collector
Red: Faithless Looting or Thrill of Possibility
Blue: Brainstorm or Ponder
Black: Night's Whisper or Sign in Blood
I'm not kidding - I listened to this podcast in the morning, while it was raining, on my way to get a Big Breakfast from McDonalds. Dana is a god.
Joey & Matt looking at Dana like he's crazy for the most lands in a deck he's running being 37, and changing the other parts of the deck instead of upping the lands, but that's the way to do it imo 😀 . And yes...one and two mana cantrippy cards or loot effects (if it's red) over adding more lands works like a charm to keep you digging through into them without flooding. This is the way. The wisdom must come from eating a balanced & complete breakfast if it's going to rain 😆
One thing you didn't mention that affects the number of lands I run is the number and quality of mana sinks in my deck. The more and the better the sinks the more lands I want to run. Knowing extra mana has a strong use beyond my spells makes late mana drops feel better than if I lack meaningful sinks..
Perfect timing! Can't wait to hear all the great stuff you guys have to say today. Personally all of my decks run around 35. It depends on the curve. If my deck has a higher curve I either at least run more accelerates or straight up run more lands, whereas if my curve is lower I might run a few lands less.
If my command zone contains good draw I dip down to 34 + 13 ramp.
Great ITYSL reference Dana!
I generally run 35 to 37 lands, works for me, but I also tend to run a lot of ramp and card draw (usually 12 - 15 of each, sometimes more) so for anyone who runs a bit less ramp, I wouldn't recommend going down to 35 lands unless your curve is very low. I'd say say generally 37 is the sweat spot that will work for most decks
“The bones are his money and so are the worms” is the single funniest thing ever said on this podcast
Just to say this is a particularly intelligent and entertaining episode amongst a generally excellent recent crop. I really enjoy the podcast. Personally, I don't run less than 37 in any of my decks and I was rather surprised that I seem to be the exception.
I usually run 36 lands + 11 mana-makers. The playgroup I play w/ most allows the first mulligan in each game as a freebie.
This is the correct answer.
I agree, I also use 36 as base number for lands + 10ish dorks/rocks/similar stuff ... it also depends from deck to deck. My Jhoira deck only runs around 30 lands or so but my Omnath landfall deck runs like 44 (if you count mdfcs)
Just so you know: the first mulligan in a multiplayer game is always free regardless of your playgroup. See rule 103.4c.
I'm definitely quite a bit more similar to Dana when it comes to lands. I cap out at 35 lands, though the lowest amount of lands is in my Valduk (Keeper of the Flame) voltron brew at 30 lands. Not far behind is my Kazarov (Sengir Pureblood) removal gimmick brew at 32 lands, but lots of mana rocks are in it, due to the commander being a mana sink. My Valduk deck definitely needs more tuning to figure out how to plug some holes in the roughshod boat, but Kazarov is sitting quite pretty, especially when some of the strategies are somewhat stax-like without preventing my opponents from playing the things I'm going to remove anyway. Now to improve my Karazikar (the Eye Tyrant) goad brew.
I've been playing EDH since the beginning and I have always used 40 as a baseline. I either adjust up or down from 40, but I have found that most decks I build want 40. I have one deck at 38 (mono-colored average CMC is 3) one at 36 (Edric) and almost all of the other decks is 40. My favorite deck has 44 and is casting 6 drops on turn 4 regularly (Not a landfall deck). For me a good number is 38-40 with my skew towards 40. Too many games I win because they don't get land drops. I want land drops every turn till I hit the top end of CMC's for the deck. By and large people don't run enough. 40 is the starting number...skew from there. People need to start with more.
I also run 40, sometimes I add one more if I don't have enough color color fixing or ramp then take it out once I get the fix or ramp I was missing, and also my lower land deck is a mono color with 38 (mono black with various rocks and some cheap draw spells).
I hate doing nothing in a game because I miss a land drop, if I get flooded at least I can cast my commander multiple times.
I’m the opposite. My decks are really low curve, so I start at 30 and add or subtract
Never build a deck with an average cmc above 2.75
I've adapted my deck building to Command Zone's template a couple years ago when they initially introduced it. Since then, I kept all my decks at 38 lands with the exception of Mizzix at 37. So far, it's served me well.
Theres likely room for fluctuation, but im also trying to accomplish the 33 deck challenge with added restrictions, so consistency isn't quite as strong as if I was tweaking and optimizing one or two
Dana is correct about building your deck around lands first. Adding land base before building the deck has saved me so much time in building decks because I end up with significantly fewer cuts than I used to when I built decks the other way.
Great job on the podcast as always. I always appreciate the insights you gentlemen have to offer.
There was one angle of discussion I’m surprised you didn’t explore in more detail, however. I wanted to hear you discuss how decks have simply become more efficient because card quality and efficiency has increased over the length of the game. For example, if you were simply looking to slow your opponents’ creature-based strategies down, why would you play blind obedience when you can play authority of the consuls? As the power level and efficiency of cards has increased, it would seem that mana curves in general have decreased overall, leading players to run fewer lands simply because they don’t need them, because most of the spells that they run have become cheaper overall. I know you touched on the mana curve versus land count issue in your discussion, but I am curious to see what your thoughts on this particular line of reasoning are.
Once again, great job on the podcast.
36-37 is my stock standard. Definitely agree 3-color decks need that extra land (& good ramp fixers) to stay reliable.
I play between 34 to 37 Lands depending on the Curve of the Deck and the theme. If I have many Mana-Dorks, e.g. in my Lathril-Deck, or create many Treasure, e.g. my Prosper or my Breeches/Malcolm-Deck, than I use 34 Lands as starting Point. If I don't have these options I use 36 Lands as Starting Point and adjust them according to my experiences with my Deck during Gameplay.
Generally I try to have around 50 Manasources in the Deck, regardless of wether I play green and am able to search for Lands. The only Decks that play less are Decks were my Curve ends by around 4 or 5 Mana, since than the deck is so aggressive that I don't need as much Manasources as for instances in an Ur-Dragon-Deck were the Curve is relatively high.
29-34 is about where I usually fall, but I play high power games mostly and have all the fast mana I can jammed in there. Average CMC is pretty low as well which helps.
I think I run too many lands. I run a mono white with 40 lands, 10 mana rocks, 10 card draw (+2 more as two of the lands provides card draw). But, I don't know, I feel like I would just prefer to be mana flooded than mana screwed.
Victory Chimes is a HOUSE in my Xantcha deck
All I could hear after 49:00 was Tom Cardy's The Big Breakfast playing in my head
I run 50 lands in my Azusa deck where the win cons are Eye of Ugin, Field of the Dead, and Dark Depths. I also run alot of utility lands in this brew.
Mono coloured decks are the hardest for me to include basics I usually end up including 60% or greater of non-basics. there is so many Janky lands why not run them.
@@kingfuzzy2 lol most mono color decks for me I run mostly basics for Extra Planar Lense shenanigans. In Azusa I have 20 snow Forests and 2 regular Forests the other 38 lands are utility lands and other good lands that give green sources.
Right on even when I run lens I still include more non-basics in my mono coloured decks (mono white ramp and mono red beserker tribal with birgi as the commander)
@@kingfuzzy2 Emiria, the Sky Ruin is the only non basic I run in mono white but that's also because it itself needs you to have 7 basic plains to get the trigger every upkeep but damn is it a powerful effect.
Emeria I've often found is the best card in a white +x deck nearly every game I see it
Mana screwed is far worse than excess mana by far for me. I haaaate it. 37-38 lands Minimum. Usually 40. Landfall or not
I run 36-37 typical. But I disagree entirely. I'd much rather have a handful of plays and just need to draw a land or a rock or something so I can actually make a play. Having a hand full of land AND hoping that you can topdeck a card you need/can use in that exact moment is so much more frustrating to me.
@@ryansprenkle6356 that's why magic is great. Everyone is different! I did just play a game where I ran out of cards in hand. Might add some card draw instead. I'll hit the land drops anyways if I do
I found bogbinder to put into a skullbriar deck, seems alright in that as well
Honestly, I've found myself thinking like Dana more often than not. I agreed with him though most of the episode, despite the others' reactions
I have a Titania deck with 42 lands, sometimes I don't even think that's enough
As someone who's gotten Mana screwed multiple times in 47 lands decks it's never enough lands I'm tempted to run 60
@@kingfuzzy2 No deck should run 60 lands lol, with the exception of maybe Azusa, but even then 50 is probably plenty. I run 42 in my Tatyova (Land's matter) deck, and 35 - 37 is my other decks. I almost never have mana problems because I run a lot of ramp and card draw and don't have insanely high curves. You should never be mana screwed if you are running over 40 lands, if you are, there is almost certainly another issue with your deck that needs to be looked at, or you aren't shuffling well enough.
Yeah I do shuffle quite well but sometimes I forget I have small hands and shuffle wrong.
2yrs later, coming back to this video to say 30-34 has been fine for me for years now
As a starting point for a deck, I have a rule that the land count is 31+[the number of colours in the deck's colour identity]+[your commander's CMC] then adjust that up or down based on the curve, velocity, and goals of the deck.
I start at 35 - 37 then adjust as needed. I've got one deck at 43 (Lord Windgrace) and one at 27 (Jhoira, Weatherlight Captain) but most stay in that 35 to 37 range.
27 seems ludicrous nearly 1/10th of starting hands will have 0 lands and over 1/3rd will have 1 or less. Even including every 1/0 cost artifact ramp you can seems like that would be too greedy of a land base. I assume it's justification is the commander drawing a bunch of cards to compensate. But need to cast the commander first for that to happen.
So I'm curious, how often is mana a problem?
@@XcomfygamerX occasionally but not super often. Flood is a bigger risk once the deck starts going.
Aggressive mulliganing plus 18 mana rocks plus an average cmc of well under 2 helps.
I've seen lists with fewer lands but 27 is a low as I'm willing to go unless I make some other alterations to the deck.
It's my borderline cEDH deck.
In average I run 36 lands and 3 MDFCs in that way I kinda run both 36 and 39 lands at the same time depending on how my starting hand looks. It has served me well so far. :)
It's raining here but luckily it's noon already
On the topic of mana curve, it does really depend on the deck, but I think it's moreso how often some of your big stuff will actually be hard cast. There's a good number of decks that will not be actually casting their larger spells for the casting cost. Jhoira, Saheeli, a lot of reanimator decks, Mayael, all these decks cheat things into play and it's not fair to consider the larger spells as truly part of the mana curve as it should be rare you actually play them honestly.
You guys are freaking awesome haha always super informative and entertaining!
I think you should leave reference!!!!
God I knew I loved Dana!
Before I watch this video, I run 37 lands and roughly 9-11 forms of ramp in every deck unless its has some special condition that would change that.
SO GLAD you shouted out Frank's work. It's so frustrating to hear these fools scream from the mountain tops about thinning in EDH.
Usually start with 36 lands for most decks, but have an outlier in a recently constructed Florian, Voldaren Scion with only 34, and it also only starts to do things at 4/5CMC. However it is so good at filtering through the deck that often withing 2 turns after playing Florian, I have sifted through 2/3rds of the deck and can consistently tutor anything to the top of my library, and play it (Varragoth & Neheb, the Eternal)
As a general rule, I start with 35, then add X, where X is the mana value most represented in the list. Those are only lands, MDFC's are extra. I will swap 2 MDFC's for a spell and a land if they are decent effects.
Just played a Lavinia Renegade deck where I play 37 lands, and I was mana-screwed up to turn 8. Sometimes it happens.
shuffle better lol
A majority of my decks sit at 1/3 lands (33) and I find that works fine for me. I have a few exceptions that go down to 29 and one that goes up to 35.
A recent Reddit post made me tally my decks, so this is funny timing for this video to come out.
25 lands - 3 decks (soon to be 4)
30 lands: 10 decks
35 lands: 28 decks
40 lands: 2 decks
50 lands: 1 deck
it would be an understatement to call you a poweruser of edh lol
Dana just inspired me to make Old Stickfingers with Tim Robinson. 🤣🤣🤣
To answer the question about the deck you have with the most lands (not landfall), I have a 4 color cycling deck that runs 39-40 because a lot of the lands cycle, and I use them for more than just land drops, so I wanted to smooth out my drop rate.
My land count starts at 37. I usually go up from there. My two most tuned decks are
-Maelstrom wanderer
41 lands
19 ramp
15 card draw
5 ways to cheat costs
-and Ghalta
15ramp
14 card draw
38 lands
I still feel like ghalta needs one more land.
I agree that cutting cards from highly tuned decks is hard, though.
I think that people are abusing friendly mulligans in friendly settings to basically just guarantee playable hands.
A note about the mana curve. While having many low cmc cards is great, it doesn't mean you need to stop hitting land drops later in the game. Casting multiple spells in a game is usually a great sign. Having a 2 and a 3 drop means that I need 5 mana to do both, and doing both is always more powerful.
A note about mana efficiency as well: Often you want to leave mana open for countermagic, removal spells, or protection. That means there might be mana you waste because you end up not using it. That means you even want more mana at your disposal if you intend to make lines like this because wasting mana puts you behind on tempo. And not just behind against 1 player like in 60 card formats, but behind three! That means if you leave open 2 mana, you lost 6 mana in tempo if you don't cast the spell.
I only count MDFCs as lands because I have perfect mana bases in terms of color fixing(duals, shocks, fetches, etc) and because I am only using the ones that can enter untapped. I generally don't tolerate etb tapped lands because it ruins my curve and the flow of gameplay. There are exceptions of course. Hall of the bandit lord is still a great inclusion in kaalia and basically "ramps" me by letting kaalia attack a turn earlier.
For the most part I think people are running way too few lands and need to add a LOT more. It's boring, you get less toys, and it gets more difficult the more tuned the deck becomes, but it's very important for the consistency of your decks over time.
Thanks for the great content, and I hope everyone has a great day.
I'm normally at 35-37 lands, my Landfall deck is at 41
Edit: I will say I probably include around 12 ramp cards... if I add it to my land count, it's close to 50 (so I should on avg have 3 or 4 lands/ramp cards in opening hand)
My lands deck is at 47 and even then I get Mana screwed every other game very tempted to run 60+ lands at this point
@@kingfuzzy2 Funny thing for my Selvala/Hydra deck, out of 5 games, 1 of them I was Colour-screwed, 2 of them I was Land-screwed, 1 of them I was Land-flooded.. Last one I was creature-screwed, since my card draw is tied to getting fat creatures into play
That's hilarious and unfortunate have about the same experience in my horde of notions big Mana deck
My first commander deck was the Kathril aspect warper deck which is a keywords/counters deck that has slippery bog binder in it. As soon as I heard Kyler and using other counters I knew the challenge was gonna be that.
I'm only running 32 lands in a current Memnarch build which runs a few very big spells like Ugin and a couple of Eldrazis at 10 and 11 cmc. I do have to mulligan quite often with the deck, but it mulligans SO easily!
But, I'm running 18 0-2 cmc mana rocks (and a handful at 3+ cmc) in the deck lol. I have no issues with mana unless I run into a ton of artifact hate super early in the game. It's not at all uncommon for me to drop an Ugin, Jin-Gitaxias or Kozilek on turn 3 or 4.
I'm loving this deck so much haha
I have Rielle deck as well... and I am having the same problem every time either 2 lands and nothing more or just floooooooooded and no actual spells to cast :(
Since this is the most recent time you talked about this (even though the episode is about a year old by now), I'll drop my 2 cents here (yaay, engagement): I have seen multiple times MDFCs showing up with their backside, with Westvale Abbey being classified as a creature the prime offender in my experience, so that might skew your data a bit. The same is likely true for some of the Zendikar ones (I think I use both sides of Sea Gate Resto about 50%, and Agadeem definitely less than that), which I mostly use in spots where they either win me the game (or close to)- or otherwise, just as lands. Also, the new cycling cards from LOTR brought an interesting facet, to my deckbuilding, anyways. And I have been looking more into ways of making cheap spells more effective late game (34 cards anonymous here), which led me down a different path than you, but not necessarily with bad results. All I'm trying to say is: Let's talk more about it.
I fully agree with Dana's approach of adding more draw spells than lands :D
I'm a dimir mage and don't have issues with 32/33 lands but therefore ~13-16 cantrips/carddraw spells(or engines)
I had to help a friend with their atraxa populate deck. 22 lands in the deck >.>
I hooked them up with some nice full art basics and shocks.
RUN MORE LANDS!!!
They have pretty art.
I think this boils down to how much ramp do you have in the deck? There is like 60-70 ramp cards ( not counting the expensive ones) thats 1-3 mana. I usually cut one land for every 3 ramp cards, and i run at a minimum 10 ramp cards. Got 35 lands in all my commander decks, except a landfall one, with 42 lands. And even that landfall deck manages to get mana screwed lol
That Joey intro for Dana is golden.
Also, as one of the 400 Chainer decks, can confirm: he's incredibly busted.
Generally I tend to like going with 36/37 lands, depending on if I'm in 1/2 or 3 colours? In 5c decks I normally go more towards 38, just to make sure I'm hitting my land drops and fixing my mana! That said, I do have one deck where I run 32 lands - Breena, a deck where the curve pretty much ends at 3 (with one 4 drop), designed around playing a 1 drop, a 2 drop, Breena, swing, draw, and go aggro! So you only need the 32 lands to get a few in your opening hand and first few turns, in order to get going fast enough to start drawing!
But Dana, if U don’t have enough “income” in your deck, would there be quite many high-end “toys” that are just impracticable to run?
& almost no amount of tweaking the deck (outside of bumping up mana production) can properly access those big toys?
I alway start with 30 + the commander’s CMC/MV + the number of colors in the commander’s color identity. This usually roughs out to around 35-38. Then I adjust from there depending on the decks curve, mana dorks/rocks, ramp spells, etc
Thats an interesting formula you have!
@@screwthisin thanks! I’ve used it for years. Always gives me a good place to start
So, do the EDHRec average land stats account for MDFCs? The way you discussed them, it sounds like they don't. My view on them is the same as Dana: play as a land unless you top deck it in the late game. If that's how others play them, 35 lands plus 2-4 MDFCs sounds close to right for a lot of decks. And a Windgrace deck with 40 lands plus 6-8 MDFCs sounds close to right.
I usually run 35 actual lands and then 1-3 MDFC lands. My Maja landfall deck is at 39 or 40, Yarok does some landfall but draws so much that it’s not a big issue. My only lower one is Kinnan, Bonder Prodigy, which has 30 full lands and 4 MDFCs. Once I’ve made a few land drops, I’m focused on loading up on the 18 or so dorks and rocks who Kinnan augments. Every non creature in that deck is a trade off because I’m minimizing the chance of whiffing a Kinnan activation.
I generally run about 36-37 land in all of my deck + 8 or so ramp spells. I tend to run more card draw and lower mana curves than most people so it tends to work out quite well. In more aggressive decks that want to curve out I try to run one or two more lands, and cut down on the ramp. If I want to be playing a creature on turns 1-5, ramp can be really awkward (Thinking decks like Edgar Markov).
As for MDFCs, I generally count them as lands, but that comes with a caveat. I try to keep ~4 tap lands in my deck, some of the slower decks ill go up to 5, some of my more aggressive ones I go down to 0-1, and as soon as my tap land limit is reached, every other MDFC that goes in the deck counts as a spell. The number of colors in the deck also matters, if I am running 3+ colors the number of utility lands that you can run gets quite limited, at 3 colors I generally run 3-5 depending on the number of lands and how color intensive the deck is, in 4 and 5 colors I generally run 1-2 at most, and MDFCs always occupy these slots, and as soon as those slots are filled (either through MDCS or just other good utility lands) they go straight to the spell slots.
I run 34 lands in all of my decks. By turn 6, I'm usually using them as discard fodder if an effect forces discard or just holding them in hand as a bluff.
You get a free mulligan in this format. You should be mulliganing until you get a hand with at least three lands (two if reduced to 5 cards or fewer). The table below outlines how regularly you should be hitting your land drops on curve.
Turn 34 lands 37 lands Difference
1 100% 100% 0pp
2 100% 100% 0pp
3 97% 99% 1pp
4 89% 93% 4pp
5 74% 82% 7pp
6 66% 76% 11pp
7 51% 62% 11pp
8 44% 56% 11pp
Note: My analysis assumes one additional card drawn on the 4th, 6th and 8th turns with no tutored lands or equivalent. This feels like a worst case scenario, as you should have some draw or ramp effects playable.
I do not consider these differences significant enough to be worth the risk of drawing no playable cards. I would much rather use those three slots on removal, board wipes and other cards that will help me catch up if needed.
For comparison, consider how many cards you play that fit the theme or playstyle of your deck. Discounting lands, removal, ramp, draw, board wipes and other "eat your veg" cards you're typically left with at most 35 slots. While this seems to compare favourably to your land count, you aren't guaranteed to be able to play the themed cards you draw on any given turn (mana curve, prerequisites on board etc).
I would much rather have a game where I play the first few turns then slow down slightly because I missed my fifth land drop than a game where I've left my pet cards at home and haven't played anything noteworthy by that turn.
5:00 Time to throw myself under the bus before you really get into it. I run 38-40 lands in all my decks. Works in my playgroup just fine. :)
@@BulbiDay Then you risk what happened to me today. Mana flooded and top decking. :( But that's still better to me than being mana starved.
51:50 - I've heard people say that deckthinning in Commander is mathematically irrelevant, but you're forgetting one thing - If I get ALL the lands on the battlefield, I now have a 100% chance of drawing a nonland, and I'm certain to have the mana to cast it. I joke, but I've had all 40 lands on the table with my budget Tatyova deck, and Blackblade Reforged is a legit terror in that situation.
It's also worth keeping in mind the land counts of other formats. In 60 card decks, a common land count is 24 land, which is comparable to 39 or 40 land in a 99 card deck. In 40 card Limited decks, a common land count is 17 land, which is comparable to 42 land in a 99 card deck. So I'd say that 35 or even 37 land is too low.
I generally run 36+2 MDFCs, but adjust up or down for the average CMC. I seldom run into issues with having enough lands to do what I want to do. I try to keep my average CMC low though.
35 is my minimum, has been for a long time, but these days I tend to run 36. I honestly can't imagine going much higher than that because between them, draw spells, ramp, and removal (which are never fully on theme no matter how hard you try) I want * some * room for my actual deck.
Modular spells help me slot in more lands / ramp if that helps
I put all my mdfc's in land side facing out. Really helps me realize I need the land now rather than the spell later
I end up doing this a lot, especially if I plan on focusing on one side over the other.
I guess my local edh scene is just higher power, how often do you ever get over 10 lands out in a game, its pretty rare like maybe 1 game in 15 for edh, and that is with budget decks 1~500. I have a kodama/kraum landfall wincon and I play about 36, if that, and I always feel land heavy, and thats with running natures lore/skyshroud/farseek(no cultivates etc) the deck is maybe a high 7 to mid 8ish, and any of my cedh competitive decks starts at 31 and goes down to 27/28 with MDF, mulligans are a part of the game, and running 15 rocks is actually fairly easy to have the land you need. Back to EDH normal if your manabase starts with duals-> shocks-> battlebond->tower/confluence/city of brass->painlands->check/fast/tango how many slots do you have for basics, I find its actively hard to include basics on multicolored decks, usually its a conscience effort to not include battlebond+ lands just so I can have the basics in. PS golos ban killed my mazes end deck qqqqqqqq
Extra points to Dana quoting "The Night the Skeletons Came to Life"
Most of my decks are 37 lands, couple are 39ish playing with a suite of MDFCs to give options. And even in the land base we run Tranquil Thicket so some of the lands have options if we don't need them as lands.
My exceptions are 40 for Windgrace who needs ready lands to discard and still have lands to play. And my 5-color and ramp decks. Actually, Reaper King is both. Intet/Spells matter/Ramp is 33 lands. Horde of Notions Combos is 32 lands. And Reaper King is 31. That deck also having some 30 odd ramp cards or cards that can find a land... like oops, hate to do T2 Demonic Tutor for a land, but lets find a Rav Bounce land and get my next two land drops.
These decks accept that they're not drawing lands, but digging them from the deck kicking and screaming. Also a big note for things like Cultivate and Verdant Mastery which both do the land search thing, but also provide a spare land to play this turn as well.
It's something that just sort of happened with Reaper King by accident, but with Intet, I tried normal land counts, but always ended up with 5 lands in play, 3 lands in hand, and no plays. So just kept ratcheting up the cheap card draw/selection to patch the interim spaces and find plays. Even going so far as Evolution Charm since early it finds me land 3 for the Cultivates, or late game retrieves a haymaker creature from the yard.
The number of lands that I play stays fairly consistent at 37-39 but the ramp and card draw that I choose for the deck may change. If you're playing a 5 CMC commander, for instance. Kodama's reach and Cultivate suddenly become very attractive because it ramps to 4 and gives you a basic to hand for your fifth mana. On the other hand, in a deck with a 3 CMC commander, dark ritual or llanowar elves might be more attractive.
As someone putting together a Kyler deck, mmmmmm thanks for the slippery bogbonder rec
There's a player that runs 12-18 lands and is never Manascrewed me however running 40-47 gets Mana screwed every other game. And don't get me started on the 5 landless decks my other friend runs
I run on avg 30-32 lands as of late, with about 20 ramps. i used to run 36 no matter what but i feel like i get land flooded too often
I run a very finely tuned Queen Marchesa deck. I run only 34 lands, but this is because the mana curve is extremely low. The deck also has tons of ways of getting exactly the card i need what i need as well as 10 mana rocks.
So the 38 number is that counting all lands plus the mana rock cards or no just lands?
I think my lowest land count is 30 for my Svella deck, cause I only need three before I start making Manaliths, and when you can afford her big ability you want less of them getting in the way.
You know....I've never actually thought about Svella as a commander before, but that deck seems like it would be really fun....it also seems like a fun deck for big expensive idiots that don't really fit in other decks very well.
I’m calling the land side of Bala Ged Recovery, “Bala Ged Bed,” and calling it a night!
I play 40 lands in every single one of my decks (including my Kenrith deck running 25+ ramp cards), as I have noticed that 2/5ths of the deck being lands works best for me. I happen to play a lot of mana sinks, though, so that probably helps with the possibility of flooding.
"The bones are his money and so are the worms" killed me xD Got to love I Think You Should Leave
I'm a stinky filthy low land player and am happier for it. Sure, I could run more to maybe be a little more "consistent" but I just want to jam as many things in the deck as possible to have fun. Most of my decks sit between 33 and 35 lands. Been completely Mana screwed and flooded plenty of times with them but no more or less than my opponents. I think it comes down to personal preference and I feel personally attacked every time below 36 lands is viewed as crazy or abnormal lol
I'm with Dana here. I often know I need one or two extra lands, but I just can't find a cut. It's easier to make a 1-for-1 swap, a nonland for nonland.
I use 37 in most of my decks including mdfc if they are there. I do wonder if I need to reassess my ramp/mana dork number of cards though.
I basically run about 35 lands in my decks that more then 1 third of my deck and basically I never really have problems
I might have missed this, so i apologize if i did. With these averages you pulled from the database, did you filter out cEDH lists? While the number of competitive players is much lower than casual players it could be a significant enough number of entries to lower the averages by 1-2 cards especially when the average land count in most cEDH lists are between 27-30. I know the focus of the discussion is more geared toward the casual side but if the numbers are being skewed then that changes the appearance of where the format sits.
In 60 card formats there's a relevant enough correlation between power level of a deck and the number of lands in said deck (excluding outliers like charbelcher or "oops all lands"). Standard sits around 23-24 average, Modern is closer to 20 lands average, and Legacy and vintage have averages in the mid/high teens. It wouldn't be that crazy to say the same to be true with 100 card singleton formats. As the strategies become more dialed in, and the average cmc drops along with cheap/free ramp, less lands are needed to reach the same end goal.
I agree with many of the points you guys brought up today but I think considering the power level of the playgroup may have a factor here too. A 6/10 on our arbitrary power scale probably has a higher curve and needs to hit more land drops to function than say an 8/10
Alibou is currently my favorite deck :) just play an absurd amount of mana rocks, cheap artifacts, and wheels and you get an incredibly fun, decently powerful deck
I forget who, but some professional magic player who knows his magic math said that MDFC's count as 2/3 of a land. So for every 3 you run, you can remove 2 lands.
I really enjoy landfall decks. Here is something I do. Do not count fetch lands as lands but spells. The landfall triggers are all to important, especially when you can play multiple lands a turn.
A lot of groups I've played with have very forgiving mulligan rules. I think that's one of the biggest reasons for the ridiculously low numbers of lands that some people run.
I agree with Dana. If 35 lands aren't enough, i put in some quick draw and lower the mana curve. I usually play aggro and have low curves, but need constant threats. And having more than 35/36 lands can increase the possibility of flooding in the beginning of the game, before you get a chance to draw a draw spell to keep the engine going.
But given most people i know play only 30 lands, i think the 35 average is misleading, as if the average is 35, it means many players are playing with much less, to average out players like you guys, who play over 35
I recently built a Tergrid deck. I know she is kill-on-sight, so I put in 15 mana rocks so that commander tax doesn't matter. Also, Tergrid wants to see the battlefield as early as possible. Still, my land total is 38 lands.
My decks tend to run around 36 to 38 lands depending on my reduced Mana costs, rocks and ramp. My lowest land count is in my Edgar Markov deck at 35 because I can pretty much cast anything I want with 3 lands.