Muspellsheimr, I looked through both your Glissa decklist as well as your Teysa decklist, and I now understand why you wouldn't choose to include the Battlebond lands in them provided such lands existed in the first place. It's for the same reason you've neglected to include Command Tower in either deck. The combined number of utility plus basic lands you play in both decklists is absolutely ridiculous.
Now, in Glissa, this gets a free pass. The deck isn't so much a BG deck as it is a C deck because you're playing 41 separate artifacts. Less than 40% of your spells even include color at all, and less than 15% of your spells require more than one of the same color of mana. As such, it's no surprise you wouldn't include a hypothetical Battlebond land here. You hardly need color at all in this deck.
Your Teysa deck, on the other hand, is extremely suspect. Over 67% of your lands produce one or fewer colors. Now, I understand that two color decks usually don't have as stringent color needs as 3+ color decks do, but that's still a dubiously high number, especially given the fact that you're only playing 34 lands in the first place, an atypically low number of lands given an average CMC of 2.85. The five rocks in the deck aren't helping much either. Mox Diamond can't even function without pitching another mana source to it.
So, having looked over both lists, it's no surprise to me now that you've arrived at the position you are. Your two-color decks are extremely atypical, and they play too many basics, too many utility lands, and too few lands in general. The vast, vast majority of two-color decks would greatly benefit from including the Battlebond lands (not to mention Command Tower), and those cards rightfully deserve a spot in almost every deck that can include them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Even in my lists that carry 12-14 basics (sometimes by necessity) or my three color one where I have only 8, I would go out of my way to find room for these duals.
I'm uncertain as to why this topic is still open for debate. It seems like it has been decided that these will be a "meta call" many posts back.
I'll share some examples that have happened in my play-group that displays why I would never play these;
#1, last week, in a 4-player game someone ran nuts with an early varolz, the scar-striped and infect-killed two opponents before turn-5. The last surviving player was a little behind (the reason they were not attacked first or second), and the only answer was an already-in-hand damnation. They had to top-deck any untapped source. If they had ran a battlebond land they would have died, but they drew a basic and killed the Varolz, and eventually won the game.
#2, also just last week, in a 4-player game, someone built up enough storm with their new jhoira deck and used aetherflux reservoir to kill two opponents around turn-5. Once again the jhoira player left the weakest opponent alive (due to having been stunted earlier), but this player just had to get an untapped land to cast their woodland bellower to go find reclamation sage to blow up the reservoir. Guess what they drew? A kangaroo land. They died on the following turn.
#3, infinite stories about infinite games where I, or my friends, were all one mana away from winning or combo'ing off, but some thalia, heretic cathar effect or just because we drew a tap-land, the last surviving opponent kills us instead.
Moral of these stories; tap-lands will eventually make you fail in a game. Anyone arguing for these lands is most likely in a fairly casual meta and hasn't experienced this (enough). Yes a multi-player game starts with these lands coming in untapped, but you can't control just how long your opponents will all survive. These lands are unreliable.
IMO pain and filter will always be better than these. If you are using the argument that filter lands can't be used for turn-1 color'd plays, then perhaps you should play the other land in the hand, or just mulligan.
If you are in a more casual meta where people play budget lands, then they are just fine. If your group is medium to competitive, then these just won't do.
Note that this was not the conclusion reached by the cEDH subreddit thread on the subject. Folks play fastlands in certain cEDH decks. Those also don't enter untapped in the scenarios you listed, which don't come up that frequently in cEDH anyway.
They're fringe for budgetless cEDH, but should appear every once in a while.
I'm more than familiar with that subreddit, and I personally try not to post there. There is actually more discussion and information in this thread about these lands than that subreddit offers (at this time).
There is no clear conclusion in that subreddit.
And in all honesty, you can't always rely on every word spoken from the cedh subreddit. Yes a few gurus commented saying how these can replace a few allied color lands and may work in hermit druid decks, but then there are also posters there talking about how they will use this to swap out a karoo. The big take-home point I saw from reading all of that was the number of posters that just referenced these to be "budget" options and complaints that they were not fetch'able.
Again, the usefulness of these will just end up being meta and deck dependent.
Moral of these stories; tap-lands will eventually make you fail in a game. Anyone arguing for these lands is most likely in a fairly casual meta and hasn't experienced this (enough). Yes a multi-player game starts with these lands coming in untapped, but you can't control just how long your opponents will all survive. These lands are unreliable.
Man I hate these kinds of circumstantial arguments. Of course situations will arise where one land or another is better than another. 2 players being killed very early while one is left alive AND that player has an answer that needs this turn's land drop AND has the BBD dual that they haven't played AND doesn't have any other untapped lands is really, really rare. I could craft tons of situations where filters or pains are game-losing and a BBD wins, but that doesn't really prove anything.
Merely pointing out a scenario where one land is better than another is pointless unless you can put it into the context of how likely it is, which is basically impossible without knowledge of the deck and meta - at least for lands that are reasonably close in power. That said, BBD duals have a very low risk even compared to other good lands, and I imagine will have a hard time not fitting in to decks that play any other non-typed duals.
In post #35 of this exact thread I already mentioned that the use of these lands will end up being personal preference and financial investment.
The scenario was to emphasize my argument that these are not "always strictly better" than pain and filter lands, and how unreliable these lands can be in stronger groups.
In my group, with my decks, against my opponents, the possible absence of turn-1 color play (from a filter) and/or loosing a few points of life over the game (from a painland) is more acceptable than a tap-land. Even in my storm decks that run ad nauseam, where life = cards drawn, I'd run a pain land over a battlebond land. I even play a few tap-lands in some of my stronger decks. In decks that run high tide or bubbling muck I personally value a canyon slough or fetid pools over luxury suite or morphic pool.
That is my opinion, for my decks, regarding my group. My opinion isn't perfect, and not everyone plays the decks and cards I play, so the battlebond lands may be just perfect for someone else.
Is there any new information to consider?
Does anyone want to make a new hierarchical list for lands in EDH?
Reading over these replies, if you can't afford to play fetch and shock lands, then sure play these. But these seem pretty medium when compared to the other available lands.
There have been many posts ranking available lands for this format (example). With so many options that are just better (fetch, abu, shock, pain, filter), and arguable better (tango, fetchable cycle, fastlands, checklands, evolving wilds variants, or in some situations just plain old basic lands), this topic is going to end up just being everyones opinion, influenced by their own financial power they put in decks
That's not what your post says, at all. You're pretty clear that you consider these acceptable for budgetary reasons only - with one caveat that it will be everyone's opinions....but influenced by their own budget, so anyone who thinks these are good is actually just deluding themselves because they don't want to shell out for pricier duals. Well, for the record, I've got all the duals, fetches, and shocks, and I'm going to happily play these in probably every 2-3 color deck that supports them.
Command tower is strictly better. duals, shocks, and fetches (assuming you have duals/shocks) are almost strictly better. pain and filter are generally worse but might be better if you value colorless, or have a lot heavy colored mana costs without many 1-drops (for filters) or just really don't care about life at all (pains). tango are much worse unless you have fetches but lack duals/shocks for some reason, and need fetch targets. fastlands are extremely close to strictly worse - even in cEDH, if someone is losing the game on t3 it's almost certainly because the whole game is over - so why you'd suggest that they're "arguably better" is baffling. Checklands are a lot more likely to etbt early imo, and therefore worse. the other lands are a little trickier to compare because they either provide other benefits or fix for more than 2 colors.
If I were ranking duals - budget agnostic - I'd probably top the list with fetches, duals, shocks, and then the BBD duals. Not to say that these rankings hold for all decks and metas, but they're definitely among the best unless you're playing 1v1 or your meta/deck is extremely aberrant. How you've managed to convince yourself that these are a weak, budget choice is beyond me - especially when you're generalizing outside of your own decks/meta.
Moral of these stories; tap-lands will eventually make you fail in a game. Anyone arguing for these lands is most likely in a fairly casual meta and hasn't experienced this (enough). Yes a multi-player game starts with these lands coming in untapped, but you can't control just how long your opponents will all survive. These lands are unreliable.
In my experience it's rare for a game to get down to two players. Normally, the player winning the game eliminates 2-3 opponents at once, or uses an alternate wincon like Lab Man. In that sense, Battlebond duals are more reliable than checklands or fastlands. (I realize there are cEDH decks that run fastlands, but the same turns where a fastland comes in untapped should be a turn where a Battlebond dual would also come in untapped.)
I'd still prefer fetchable duals, but the Battlebond duals are far from the worst options available.
Reading over these replies, if you can't afford to play fetch and shock lands, then sure play these. But these seem pretty medium when compared to the other available lands.
There have been many posts ranking available lands for this format (example). With so many options that are just better (fetch, abu, shock, pain, filter), and arguable better (tango, fetchable cycle, fastlands, checklands, evolving wilds variants, or in some situations just plain old basic lands), this topic is going to end up just being everyones opinion, influenced by their own financial power they put in decks
That's not what your post says, at all. You're pretty clear that you consider these acceptable for budgetary reasons only - with one caveat that it will be everyone's opinions....but influenced by their own budget, so anyone who thinks these are good is actually just deluding themselves because they don't want to shell out for pricier duals. Well, for the record, I've got all the duals, fetches, and shocks, and I'm going to happily play these in probably every 2-3 color deck that supports them.
Command tower is strictly better. duals, shocks, and fetches (assuming you have duals/shocks) are almost strictly better. pain and filter are generally worse but might be better if you value colorless, or have a lot heavy colored mana costs without many 1-drops (for filters) or just really don't care about life at all (pains). tango are much worse unless you have fetches but lack duals/shocks for some reason, and need fetch targets. fastlands are extremely close to strictly worse - even in cEDH, if someone is losing the game on t3 it's almost certainly because the whole game is over - so why you'd suggest that they're "arguably better" is baffling. Checklands are a lot more likely to etbt early imo, and therefore worse. the other lands are a little trickier to compare because they either provide other benefits or fix for more than 2 colors.
If I were ranking duals - budget agnostic - I'd probably top the list with fetches, duals, shocks, and then the BBD duals. Not to say that these rankings hold for all decks and metas, but they're definitely among the best unless you're playing 1v1 or your meta/deck is extremely aberrant. How you've managed to convince yourself that these are a weak, budget choice is beyond me - especially when you're generalizing outside of your own decks/meta.
'
The only thing I'd add to your ranking is that the more I consider it, Filters and Battlebond Duals are probably tied overall. in a vacuum, I'd wager they are probably equivalent, splitting the difference on fixing colors better (battlebond slightly more reliable, but filters occasionally doing a better job of fixing) and with BBD rarely risking being tapped (often times when they do it will be irrelevant) with Filters rarely risking only making colorless (and it will almost always be relevant when this happens).
Still, like I said before, in a 2 color deck where budget is no consideration, you should just run all of them. The Dual, Filter, Shock, BBD, and all relevant fetches will bring you to 11 lands, plenty of room to throw in a bunch of utility lands and 10-12 basics. Depending on your utility/basic needs, you can also throw in the relevant painland and/or tango land.
The following is not in response to Dirk:
I get the people saying that these aren't enough of an upgrade for people to seek them out, but I tend to talk about running cards based on the assumption that I have access to them. Whether you should run a card is a different discussion from whether you should go buy a card to add it to your deck, because the latter involves budget. Everyone should run a full suite of duals and fetches, but not everyone should acquire them because of budget reasons. I myself own no duals and like 2 fetches in paper, but online everything is cheap so having the full suite (playsets even) is no problem for me, so all my decks have optimized mana bases. Its feels great and makes decks perform much better, but there's no way in hell I'm dropping thousands on making that happen IRL. I will be acquiring BBDs in both real life and online, the former when my playgroup drafts the set (I'll buy what we open if I can from them then buy the remainder later), and online when they become available there. These are good cards that are going to be correct to include in most two color decks with very few exceptions, and some three color deck as well (though I wouldn't say most).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I'm not even convinced that Blood Crypt is better than Luxury Suite. I can understand playing shocklands if someone doesn't own the original ABU duals, and they need the basic land types to turn their fetchlands gold. Aside from that, the Battlebond duals are better than shocklands in almost every instance.
Luxury Suite — Enters untapped throughout the vast majority of the game, if not the entire game, at no cost.
Blood Crypt — Only enters untapped at the cost of life.
So, really, if you're playing Blood Crypt over Luxury Suite aside from the reason I set out in my opening paragraph, what you're saying is that you're willing to make a minor life payment at every stage of the game to ensure that your dual land can enter the battlefield untapped during the absolute latest stages of the game if it needs to. To me, that's an absolutely ridiculous trade to make. Sure, a single 2 life payment isn't much in the grand scheme of things, but it isn't a non-existent cost either. If you're playing multiple shocks, fetches, and other such cards that extract minor amounts of life over the course of the game, these cards compound, and their net result isn't insignificant.
It's only during the extreme lategame where a game of Commander comes down to you and one other guy, and it's entirely possible that you don't even need access to every point of mana you could potentially make when it's time to make your land drop and Luxury Suite is in your hand. Only in the instance where Luxury Suite enters the battlefield tapped, AND you need access to every single point of mana you could possibly make that turn, AND you have no other lands you can play that will enter the battlefield untapped that Blood Crypt is better than Luxury Suite. That scenario is just so narrow that choosing to include Blood Crypt over Luxury Suite (again, aside from the reason I set out in my opening paragraph) is just baffling.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Especially in 2-3 color where you might want multiple hittable duals off fetches (2 color especially, you've got 1 dual and 7 fetches, even minus the possibility of crucible or loam or whatever) I think the ability to hit a second land in each color combo is well worth the small life disadvantage. At least until you're at 4-5 colors, and then it depends on color balance imo. Plus, since they are hittable off fetches, you can often find a turn where you don't need an untapped land and can use that turn to fetch the shock (or cycler/battle land, if you're running those) tapped, while having the option to hit the dual instead if you do want the land untapped. Or, my personal favorite - play the fetch and keep it up to play a response, cracking for a tapped shock eot if nothing required response.
Anyway I guess my point is that I stand by my rankings. Shocks aren't amazing on their own, but they're worth it for redundancy on fetches even without a budget. Doubly so if you're running nature's lore type stuff, or fetch recursion like lftl or crucible.
I'm not even convinced that Blood Crypt is better than Luxury Suite. I can understand playing shocklands if someone doesn't own the original ABU duals, and they need the basic land types to turn their fetchlands gold. Aside from that, the Battlebond duals are better than shocklands in almost every instance.
I think you are right on, but most people I think fall into the group where the shock is the go to fixer early if you have to land something. I have all the ABU but stopped playing them for fear of theft / damage. I just cant decide if I want to start playing the CIPT lands with types for times when I would not pay for the shock anyway (T1 with no play, coming into my turn with no instant etc).
GRRR now I really want the enemy cycle in C19, and we know its not coming...
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
Yeah, I agree with you on the redundancy issue Dirk, and I should have mentioned that in my post. I was mostly just comparing the two lands in a vacuum. For the most part, two color decks are going to want to play both lands anyway, and three color decks are likely none too different.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I am finding the BBD duals to be pretty good even in three or four-colored decks, usually taking the place of Temples or checklands of the same color combinations. I don't run them in some of my three-color decks decks which have the full range of original duals and fetchlands (including the enemy-color ones, of which I have relatively few), but have found them extremely strong in slightly less optimized mana bases, since they almost always come in tapped just because I am playing a multi-player game. I have so far had exactly one instance of one of the BBD duals coming in tapped because I was down to only a single opponent when I drew it, and I still won that game.
Aside from that, the Battlebond duals are better than shocklands in almost every instance.
Luxury Suite — Enters untapped throughout the vast majority of the game, if not the entire game, at no cost.
Blood Crypt — Only enters untapped at the cost of life.
This.
Outside of G the case for BBD duals gets even better. Sure, there are fetches, but tbh i think their advantages in EDH are fairly limited, unless you run all possible (off color) fetches and are 3C or more.
In G i favor duals with the land type Forest, because my usual ramp suite has several cards that can fetch them - Farseek, Nature's Lore, Skyshroud Claim, Wood Elves & Yavimaya Dryad. So, in my Prossh, Skyraider of Kher deck Overgrown Tomb and Stomping Ground are preferable early fetch options, heck, even Cinder Glade and Sheltered Thicket would do. Sure, i run full cycles of the shocks and others, but considering i'm not playing fetches they aren't as good as BBD duals or check lands.
Outside of G and without fetches BBD duals are certainly better than shocks, though shocks help with check lands, which then in return are better than shocks. Yada yada, it takes fetches for shocks to be better than BBD duals.
My ranking of 2C cycles in EDH would be:
1. ABUR duals (Taiga and others) - duh.
2. BBD lands (Luxury Suite) - no land types, other than that they're amazing.
3. Shock lands (Blood Crypt) - strong. Considerably stronger than the rest when combined with fetches.
4. Check lands (Rootbound Crag) - up to 3C more or less failproof outside of turn 1 (just play another land, duh).
5. Pain lands (Adarkar Wastes) - might hurt in the early game, irrelevant later on.
6. Cycle lands (Fetid Pools) - etbt, but they come with land types and utility. Questionable if one should play a full cycle 3C and up.
7. Scry lands (Temple of Malady) - etbt but unless you overload on etbt lands they're fine.
8. Battle lands (Cinder Glade) - requires rather conservative mana bases 3C and up, unproblematic in 2C.
9. Filter lands (Mystic Gate) - no big influence in 2C, can be problematic in the early game 3C and up.
10. Reveal lands (Port Town) - i don't like giving away info about my hand too much. They are propably fine in 2C.
11. Fast lands (Copperline Gorge) - no need for them in casual EDH and even in cEDH i wouldn't see them as auto includes.
12. Manlands (Raging Ravine) - clearly depends on the manland.
13. Bounce lands (Gruul Turf) - just don't, unless you can exploit them.
I don't have any ABUR duals and i usually don't play anything worse than battle lands.
1. ABUR duals (Taiga and others) - duh.
2. BBD lands (Luxury Suite) - no land types, other than that they're amazing.
3. Shock lands (Blood Crypt) - strong. Considerably stronger than the rest when combined with fetches.
4. Check lands (Rootbound Crag) - up to 3C more or less failproof outside of turn 1 (just play another land, duh).
5. Pain lands (Adarkar Wastes) - might hurt in the early game, irrelevant later on.
6. Cycle lands (Fetid Pools) - etbt, but they come with land types and utility. Questionable if one should play a full cycle 3C and up.
7. Scry lands (Temple of Malady) - etbt but unless you overload on etbt lands they're fine.
8. Battle lands (Cinder Glade) - requires rather conservative mana bases 3C and up, unproblematic in 2C.
9. Filter lands (Mystic Gate) - no big influence in 2C, can be problematic in the early game 3C and up.
10. Reveal lands (Port Town) - i don't like giving away info about my hand too much. They are propably fine in 2C.
11. Fast lands (Copperline Gorge) - no need for them in casual EDH and even in cEDH i wouldn't see them as auto includes.
12. Manlands (Raging Ravine) - clearly depends on the manland.
13. Bounce lands (Gruul Turf) - just don't, unless you can exploit them.
The very top of the list should be 7 fetchlands. And because of that, #2 and #3 should be the ABUR and shock lands. Basic-Land typed Duals don't turn the fetchlands into gold. It's the other way around. Fetchlands are the strongest mana-fixing lands.
The problem with the Battlebond lands is that there is absolutely no upside to them beyond manafixing and a 2 color deck is typically not going to need the marginal boost to mana-fixing. Even painlands will make colorless, Battle for Zendikar lands power up "land-types matter" cards (e.g. Valakut), Filter lands help you play stuff for devotion (e.g. Invoke Prejudice being the most extreme example).
It's when you move into 3-5 colors, where the Battlebond duals start to edge up higher on the list.
Kinda off topic, but does anyone run the Temples (scry duals)?
I do. Keep in mind, I don't run a full set of 10 in a five-color deck or anything crazy like that, but I do run them to some extent, in two or three colors. Just because scry is just that good. And I'm one of those people who tries to keep his nonbasic count down just because Blood Moon and [card}Back to Basics[/card] exist.
If tutors were banned, they'd probably be auto-includes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
The problem with the Battlebond lands is that there is absolutely no upside to them beyond manafixing and a 2 color deck is typically not going to need the marginal boost to mana-fixing. Even painlands will make colorless, Battle for Zendikar lands power up "land-types matter" cards (e.g. Valakut), Filter lands help you play stuff for devotion (e.g. Invoke Prejudice being the most extreme example).
Thats kinda the point. In 2 color you can easily swing BBD dual in for a basic because you will be playing a bunch and when it matters they will come in untapped.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
Kinda off topic, but does anyone run the Temples (scry duals)?
I do. Keep in mind, I don't run a full set of 10 in a five-color deck or anything crazy like that, but I do run them to some extent, in two or three colors. Just because scry is just that good. And I'm one of those people who tries to keep his nonbasic count down just because Blood Moon and [card}Back to Basics[/card] exist.
If tutors were banned, they'd probably be auto-includes.
I do too. I don't have ABUR duals, nor do I have many ZEN fetches, so my duals for a typical three-color mana base start with shocks, checks, fastlands, and temples. I get by fine.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Can you name all of the creature types with at least 20 cards? Try my Sporcle Quiz! Last Updated: 6/29/20 (Core Set 2021).
One of the arguments you pro-BDD-guys use most is, that the ETBT effect won't matter most of the time. Well, in those occasions when it matter, I'd rather have a land that doesn't enter tapped. And another thing I can't understand is that late game you don't need additional mana? I tend to always be in need of mana. In late game it might be crucial with a lot of manato make that final blowout.
One of the arguments you pro-BDD-guys use most is, that the ETBT effect won't matter most of the time. Well, in those occasions when it matter, I'd rather have a land that doesn't enter tapped. And another thing I can't understand is that late game you don't need additional mana? I tend to always be in need of mana. In late game it might be crucial with a lot of manato make that final blowout.
Of course you would rather have a land that comes in untapped, but its so rare the fixing overcomes rare occasion. And yes you can need mana late, but the likelyhood a game is 1v1 AND you need only 1 mana that turn to win is remote.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Now, in Glissa, this gets a free pass. The deck isn't so much a BG deck as it is a C deck because you're playing 41 separate artifacts. Less than 40% of your spells even include color at all, and less than 15% of your spells require more than one of the same color of mana. As such, it's no surprise you wouldn't include a hypothetical Battlebond land here. You hardly need color at all in this deck.
Your Teysa deck, on the other hand, is extremely suspect. Over 67% of your lands produce one or fewer colors. Now, I understand that two color decks usually don't have as stringent color needs as 3+ color decks do, but that's still a dubiously high number, especially given the fact that you're only playing 34 lands in the first place, an atypically low number of lands given an average CMC of 2.85. The five rocks in the deck aren't helping much either. Mox Diamond can't even function without pitching another mana source to it.
So, having looked over both lists, it's no surprise to me now that you've arrived at the position you are. Your two-color decks are extremely atypical, and they play too many basics, too many utility lands, and too few lands in general. The vast, vast majority of two-color decks would greatly benefit from including the Battlebond lands (not to mention Command Tower), and those cards rightfully deserve a spot in almost every deck that can include them.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
The Unidentified Fantastic Flying Girl.
EDH
Xenagos, the God of Stompy
The Gitrog Monster: Oppressive Value.
Marchesa, Marionette Master - Undying Robots
Yuriko, the Hydra Omnivore
I make dolls as a hobby.
I'll share some examples that have happened in my play-group that displays why I would never play these;
#1, last week, in a 4-player game someone ran nuts with an early varolz, the scar-striped and infect-killed two opponents before turn-5. The last surviving player was a little behind (the reason they were not attacked first or second), and the only answer was an already-in-hand damnation. They had to top-deck any untapped source. If they had ran a battlebond land they would have died, but they drew a basic and killed the Varolz, and eventually won the game.
#2, also just last week, in a 4-player game, someone built up enough storm with their new jhoira deck and used aetherflux reservoir to kill two opponents around turn-5. Once again the jhoira player left the weakest opponent alive (due to having been stunted earlier), but this player just had to get an untapped land to cast their woodland bellower to go find reclamation sage to blow up the reservoir. Guess what they drew? A kangaroo land. They died on the following turn.
#3, infinite stories about infinite games where I, or my friends, were all one mana away from winning or combo'ing off, but some thalia, heretic cathar effect or just because we drew a tap-land, the last surviving opponent kills us instead.
Moral of these stories; tap-lands will eventually make you fail in a game. Anyone arguing for these lands is most likely in a fairly casual meta and hasn't experienced this (enough). Yes a multi-player game starts with these lands coming in untapped, but you can't control just how long your opponents will all survive. These lands are unreliable.
IMO pain and filter will always be better than these. If you are using the argument that filter lands can't be used for turn-1 color'd plays, then perhaps you should play the other land in the hand, or just mulligan.
If you are in a more casual meta where people play budget lands, then they are just fine. If your group is medium to competitive, then these just won't do.
Links to my most current deck lists;
Primary EDH; Rakka Mar Token Perfection, Crosis Mnemonic Betrayal, Cromat Villainous, Judith Gravestorm, Rakdos Empty Storm, Exava Artifacts, Bant Trash, & Fumiko Voltron!
EDH kept at home; Ruzzian Isset & Rakdos LoR!
EDH (nostalgic/pimp/retired) in storage;
Latulla Burns, Akroma Smash, Jeska Voltron, Rakdos Storm, Bladewing Darghans, Lyzolda Worldgorger, Xantcha Steals your Heart, Jori Storm, Wydwen Permission, Gwendlyn Paradox, Jeleva Warps, & Sigarda Brick!
Legacy Showanimator and High Tide!
They're fringe for budgetless cEDH, but should appear every once in a while.
There is no clear conclusion in that subreddit.
And in all honesty, you can't always rely on every word spoken from the cedh subreddit. Yes a few gurus commented saying how these can replace a few allied color lands and may work in hermit druid decks, but then there are also posters there talking about how they will use this to swap out a karoo. The big take-home point I saw from reading all of that was the number of posters that just referenced these to be "budget" options and complaints that they were not fetch'able.
Again, the usefulness of these will just end up being meta and deck dependent.
Links to my most current deck lists;
Primary EDH; Rakka Mar Token Perfection, Crosis Mnemonic Betrayal, Cromat Villainous, Judith Gravestorm, Rakdos Empty Storm, Exava Artifacts, Bant Trash, & Fumiko Voltron!
EDH kept at home; Ruzzian Isset & Rakdos LoR!
EDH (nostalgic/pimp/retired) in storage;
Latulla Burns, Akroma Smash, Jeska Voltron, Rakdos Storm, Bladewing Darghans, Lyzolda Worldgorger, Xantcha Steals your Heart, Jori Storm, Wydwen Permission, Gwendlyn Paradox, Jeleva Warps, & Sigarda Brick!
Legacy Showanimator and High Tide!
Merely pointing out a scenario where one land is better than another is pointless unless you can put it into the context of how likely it is, which is basically impossible without knowledge of the deck and meta - at least for lands that are reasonably close in power. That said, BBD duals have a very low risk even compared to other good lands, and I imagine will have a hard time not fitting in to decks that play any other non-typed duals.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
The scenario was to emphasize my argument that these are not "always strictly better" than pain and filter lands, and how unreliable these lands can be in stronger groups.
In my group, with my decks, against my opponents, the possible absence of turn-1 color play (from a filter) and/or loosing a few points of life over the game (from a painland) is more acceptable than a tap-land. Even in my storm decks that run ad nauseam, where life = cards drawn, I'd run a pain land over a battlebond land. I even play a few tap-lands in some of my stronger decks. In decks that run high tide or bubbling muck I personally value a canyon slough or fetid pools over luxury suite or morphic pool.
That is my opinion, for my decks, regarding my group. My opinion isn't perfect, and not everyone plays the decks and cards I play, so the battlebond lands may be just perfect for someone else.
Is there any new information to consider?
Does anyone want to make a new hierarchical list for lands in EDH?
Links to my most current deck lists;
Primary EDH; Rakka Mar Token Perfection, Crosis Mnemonic Betrayal, Cromat Villainous, Judith Gravestorm, Rakdos Empty Storm, Exava Artifacts, Bant Trash, & Fumiko Voltron!
EDH kept at home; Ruzzian Isset & Rakdos LoR!
EDH (nostalgic/pimp/retired) in storage;
Latulla Burns, Akroma Smash, Jeska Voltron, Rakdos Storm, Bladewing Darghans, Lyzolda Worldgorger, Xantcha Steals your Heart, Jori Storm, Wydwen Permission, Gwendlyn Paradox, Jeleva Warps, & Sigarda Brick!
Legacy Showanimator and High Tide!
Command tower is strictly better. duals, shocks, and fetches (assuming you have duals/shocks) are almost strictly better. pain and filter are generally worse but might be better if you value colorless, or have a lot heavy colored mana costs without many 1-drops (for filters) or just really don't care about life at all (pains). tango are much worse unless you have fetches but lack duals/shocks for some reason, and need fetch targets. fastlands are extremely close to strictly worse - even in cEDH, if someone is losing the game on t3 it's almost certainly because the whole game is over - so why you'd suggest that they're "arguably better" is baffling. Checklands are a lot more likely to etbt early imo, and therefore worse. the other lands are a little trickier to compare because they either provide other benefits or fix for more than 2 colors.
If I were ranking duals - budget agnostic - I'd probably top the list with fetches, duals, shocks, and then the BBD duals. Not to say that these rankings hold for all decks and metas, but they're definitely among the best unless you're playing 1v1 or your meta/deck is extremely aberrant. How you've managed to convince yourself that these are a weak, budget choice is beyond me - especially when you're generalizing outside of your own decks/meta.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I'd still prefer fetchable duals, but the Battlebond duals are far from the worst options available.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
The only thing I'd add to your ranking is that the more I consider it, Filters and Battlebond Duals are probably tied overall. in a vacuum, I'd wager they are probably equivalent, splitting the difference on fixing colors better (battlebond slightly more reliable, but filters occasionally doing a better job of fixing) and with BBD rarely risking being tapped (often times when they do it will be irrelevant) with Filters rarely risking only making colorless (and it will almost always be relevant when this happens).
Still, like I said before, in a 2 color deck where budget is no consideration, you should just run all of them. The Dual, Filter, Shock, BBD, and all relevant fetches will bring you to 11 lands, plenty of room to throw in a bunch of utility lands and 10-12 basics. Depending on your utility/basic needs, you can also throw in the relevant painland and/or tango land.
The following is not in response to Dirk:
I get the people saying that these aren't enough of an upgrade for people to seek them out, but I tend to talk about running cards based on the assumption that I have access to them. Whether you should run a card is a different discussion from whether you should go buy a card to add it to your deck, because the latter involves budget. Everyone should run a full suite of duals and fetches, but not everyone should acquire them because of budget reasons. I myself own no duals and like 2 fetches in paper, but online everything is cheap so having the full suite (playsets even) is no problem for me, so all my decks have optimized mana bases. Its feels great and makes decks perform much better, but there's no way in hell I'm dropping thousands on making that happen IRL. I will be acquiring BBDs in both real life and online, the former when my playgroup drafts the set (I'll buy what we open if I can from them then buy the remainder later), and online when they become available there. These are good cards that are going to be correct to include in most two color decks with very few exceptions, and some three color deck as well (though I wouldn't say most).
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Luxury Suite — Enters untapped throughout the vast majority of the game, if not the entire game, at no cost.
Blood Crypt — Only enters untapped at the cost of life.
So, really, if you're playing Blood Crypt over Luxury Suite aside from the reason I set out in my opening paragraph, what you're saying is that you're willing to make a minor life payment at every stage of the game to ensure that your dual land can enter the battlefield untapped during the absolute latest stages of the game if it needs to. To me, that's an absolutely ridiculous trade to make. Sure, a single 2 life payment isn't much in the grand scheme of things, but it isn't a non-existent cost either. If you're playing multiple shocks, fetches, and other such cards that extract minor amounts of life over the course of the game, these cards compound, and their net result isn't insignificant.
It's only during the extreme lategame where a game of Commander comes down to you and one other guy, and it's entirely possible that you don't even need access to every point of mana you could potentially make when it's time to make your land drop and Luxury Suite is in your hand. Only in the instance where Luxury Suite enters the battlefield tapped, AND you need access to every single point of mana you could possibly make that turn, AND you have no other lands you can play that will enter the battlefield untapped that Blood Crypt is better than Luxury Suite. That scenario is just so narrow that choosing to include Blood Crypt over Luxury Suite (again, aside from the reason I set out in my opening paragraph) is just baffling.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Anyway I guess my point is that I stand by my rankings. Shocks aren't amazing on their own, but they're worth it for redundancy on fetches even without a budget. Doubly so if you're running nature's lore type stuff, or fetch recursion like lftl or crucible.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
GRRR now I really want the enemy cycle in C19, and we know its not coming...
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Outside of G the case for BBD duals gets even better. Sure, there are fetches, but tbh i think their advantages in EDH are fairly limited, unless you run all possible (off color) fetches and are 3C or more.
In G i favor duals with the land type Forest, because my usual ramp suite has several cards that can fetch them - Farseek, Nature's Lore, Skyshroud Claim, Wood Elves & Yavimaya Dryad. So, in my Prossh, Skyraider of Kher deck Overgrown Tomb and Stomping Ground are preferable early fetch options, heck, even Cinder Glade and Sheltered Thicket would do. Sure, i run full cycles of the shocks and others, but considering i'm not playing fetches they aren't as good as BBD duals or check lands.
Outside of G and without fetches BBD duals are certainly better than shocks, though shocks help with check lands, which then in return are better than shocks. Yada yada, it takes fetches for shocks to be better than BBD duals.
My ranking of 2C cycles in EDH would be:
1. ABUR duals (Taiga and others) - duh.
2. BBD lands (Luxury Suite) - no land types, other than that they're amazing.
3. Shock lands (Blood Crypt) - strong. Considerably stronger than the rest when combined with fetches.
4. Check lands (Rootbound Crag) - up to 3C more or less failproof outside of turn 1 (just play another land, duh).
5. Pain lands (Adarkar Wastes) - might hurt in the early game, irrelevant later on.
6. Cycle lands (Fetid Pools) - etbt, but they come with land types and utility. Questionable if one should play a full cycle 3C and up.
7. Scry lands (Temple of Malady) - etbt but unless you overload on etbt lands they're fine.
8. Battle lands (Cinder Glade) - requires rather conservative mana bases 3C and up, unproblematic in 2C.
9. Filter lands (Mystic Gate) - no big influence in 2C, can be problematic in the early game 3C and up.
10. Reveal lands (Port Town) - i don't like giving away info about my hand too much. They are propably fine in 2C.
11. Fast lands (Copperline Gorge) - no need for them in casual EDH and even in cEDH i wouldn't see them as auto includes.
12. Manlands (Raging Ravine) - clearly depends on the manland.
13. Bounce lands (Gruul Turf) - just don't, unless you can exploit them.
I don't have any ABUR duals and i usually don't play anything worse than battle lands.
(U/B)(U/B)(U/B) JUMP IN THE LINE, ROCK YOUR BODY IN TIME
(R/W)(R/W)(R/W) RISING FROM THE NEON GLOOM, SHINING LIKE A CRAZY MOON
(U/R)(R/G)(G/U) STEALIN' WHEN I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUYIN'
The very top of the list should be 7 fetchlands. And because of that, #2 and #3 should be the ABUR and shock lands. Basic-Land typed Duals don't turn the fetchlands into gold. It's the other way around. Fetchlands are the strongest mana-fixing lands.
The problem with the Battlebond lands is that there is absolutely no upside to them beyond manafixing and a 2 color deck is typically not going to need the marginal boost to mana-fixing. Even painlands will make colorless, Battle for Zendikar lands power up "land-types matter" cards (e.g. Valakut), Filter lands help you play stuff for devotion (e.g. Invoke Prejudice being the most extreme example).
It's when you move into 3-5 colors, where the Battlebond duals start to edge up higher on the list.
I do. Keep in mind, I don't run a full set of 10 in a five-color deck or anything crazy like that, but I do run them to some extent, in two or three colors. Just because scry is just that good. And I'm one of those people who tries to keep his nonbasic count down just because Blood Moon and [card}Back to Basics[/card] exist.
If tutors were banned, they'd probably be auto-includes.
On phasing:
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Thats kinda the point. In 2 color you can easily swing BBD dual in for a basic because you will be playing a bunch and when it matters they will come in untapped.
(U/B)(U/B)(U/B) JUMP IN THE LINE, ROCK YOUR BODY IN TIME
(R/W)(R/W)(R/W) RISING FROM THE NEON GLOOM, SHINING LIKE A CRAZY MOON
(U/R)(R/G)(G/U) STEALIN' WHEN I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUYIN'
I do too. I don't have ABUR duals, nor do I have many ZEN fetches, so my duals for a typical three-color mana base start with shocks, checks, fastlands, and temples. I get by fine.
My 720 Peasant Cube