I'm not a legacy player, but I find the format fascinating and have been watching some of the recent SCG legacy events, and I've noticed that a lot of players (especially combo decks) don't play their lands. Why is this? There have been several matches that I've seen now where a player will sit for 3-4 turns on 2-3 lands with another maybe one or two in their hand, and I can't figure out why. It doesn't seem like you actually lose anything by doing so, and the extra mana seems like it can be very relevant when you're playing a mana-tight deck like storm, especially when you're playing around things like daze and FOW. Is this just a weird isolated thing and not a widespread practice? Or is there an actual reason for this? I'm very confused, and any insight would be very helpful.
1) Brainstorming: You can draw a fresh three cards, putting two un-needed lands back, then cracking a fetch to get fresh draws. A lot of Legacy decks run a very low mana base and flooding out is bad. If you're whole deck operates on 1-2 mana you don't ever want to have more than 4 lands in play. Especially when you can shuffle your un-needed lands back into your deck.
2) Bluffing: If you're hellbent then your opponent knows that they can play anything they want without recourse.
3) Playing around Wasteland: If you have a key utility land/mana colour in your hand you need to protect - you can try to bait our their Wasteland on something in play rather than what you are protecting in your hand.
4) Added utility in your hand: As a corner case, some decks like Lands hold onto unneeded Lands - so they can pitch to a Mox Diamond.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing: Legacy: RUG(B)Lands UWRMiracles
I'll sometimes do this even in Limited, depending on the deck and the situation. I always want my opponent to think I could have something. In many Legacy decks, the bluff is better than extra mana on the board.
The threat of a counter or powerful hate card is a very powerful effect. It can make your opponent play around something that's not there since they potentially can't win through whatever you're trying to bluff. It also makes Brainstorming really good. There's few decks that need all that much mana to win.
Many Legacy decks can work fine with only a few lands on the battlefield, so the illusion of useful cards in hand is probably more useful than an unnecessary extra mana. Mind games can be quite useful in a power-packed format like Legacy. Plus, land destruction, usually in the form of Wasteland, has a large presence, so holding back some lands isn't a bad idea if they are important to a dexk's strategy.
In decks with brainstorm it is often correct to hold lands, once you have a necessary number in play (typically 2-4 in legacy), so that you have cards in your hand to put back with brainstorm. If you only have a brainstorm in hand and then cast it, you simply change the card in your hand, but if you have 4 cards, two of which are land, then cast your brainstorm and put 2 lands back you have effectively turned the brainstorm and 2 lands into 3 real spells. If you can then shuffle your library to get rid of the extra lands you have now hugely improved your hand and have fresh cards coming. People do hold lands as a bluff, but in legacy it is more common that they are holding them as brainstorm food. People are only half joking when they say the best combo in legacy is fetch land-brainstorm.
The brainstorm synergy makes the most sense to me.
I should clarify: I'm not talking about players keeping a two card hand with one or two lands in it, I'm talking about players having a 4 or 5 card hand with one or two lands in it, which makes the mind game aspect much weaker.
Another fringe-ish interaction is keeping lands in hand as Liliana of the Veil fodder (both when you play Liliana and when you see that your opponent plays her) so you don't have to discard something important instead (such as Omniscience) for as long as possible.
One other factor is that often there is simply nothing to gain by playing your land. Even if you're running a deck like Miracles that does play some relatively expensive cards, you only really need so many lands in play. There is rarely anything that would punish you for holding back a land.
As an example, even if I'm playing a deck running Batterskull, if I have four lands in play and draw my fifth there is not necessarily a reason to play it just yet. If I draw my Batterskull next turn, I'm still perfectly capable playing both the land and the Batterskull that turn. If not, then I didn't need that fifth mana anyway. Having an extra card in my hand to make my opponent think about was probably more valuable.
That said, this particular argument only really applies to holding a single land. Holding back two or three lands can backfire if you topdeck something that actually needs that extra mana, or if you need to play through Daze or Spell Pierce, or have mana to play + bounce that Batterskull, or whatever.
The brainstorm synergy makes the most sense to me.
I should clarify: I'm not talking about players keeping a two card hand with one or two lands in it, I'm talking about players having a 4 or 5 card hand with one or two lands in it, which makes the mind game aspect much weaker.
The most common bluff in Legacy is FOW+blue card. The more cards in hand, the more reasonable the bluff seems.
I have heard vague rumors of a moustache-dispensing vending machine in a distant laundromat, across the street from a tattoo parlor. However, this information is shaky, and time is of the essence.
One other scenario is if opponent is playing Sneak and Show decks; sometimes holding onto some lands just in case can pay off; if the Sneak Attacked Emrakul doesn't kill you, then it's possible that you can rebuild and win before they draw into another fatty. It's a rather corner case scenario, but if you don't need to lose 6 permanents when you don't have to, then don't.
That said, this particular argument only really applies to holding a single land. Holding back two or three lands can backfire if you topdeck something that actually needs that extra mana, or if you need to play through Daze or Spell Pierce, or have mana to play + bounce that Batterskull, or whatever.
Very true. Holding 2+ lands can be good bluff/easy brainstorm food/liliana discard, but sometimes it can backfire if you suddenly top deck a FoW/Batterskull and you need the mana to say, cast it alongside disruption (Thoughtseize --> Batterskull, etc. etc.).
Reprints the one card that people point to when saying that art objectifies women.
Well done Wizards.
Liliana does not objectify women in any way at all. We have gotten to a point in our society that every single picture of a women must be objectifying a women in some negative way......blah blah blah.. That is not the case. (((Sarcasm)))Picture of a girl drinking a milk shake, must be sex related and putting women down, picture of girl sitting on a beach, picture of a girl driving a car, picture of a girl on the moon at a new space station.)))
You have a picture of an attractive strong power women who girls dress up as for anime conventions. What more do you want? The picture is fine, happy to see a reprint. Sick of of seeing people claim that everything in existence must be putting women down. Then all I have to do is replace the word "women" with anything else to get the same mentality; fish, cats, arabs, blacks, jews, men, environment, whites, chinese, old people, etc. It doesn't matter what word I put in. Stop sucking life out of everything man. That artwork of her is awesome. Stop putting stuff down man. Just stop. If the picture was really as negative as you claim she would totally nude, in a kitchen, making sandwiches and giving blow jobs. Her abilities would be horrible as well. +1 do nothing -2 do nothing -6 do nothing. Instead liliana of the veil is an amazing planeswalker comparable to jace, the mind sculpter with great art to appreciate.
My suggestion listen to some comedy radio for a while, pandora is free, youtube is free there is something out there for you. ***** go make fun of somebody. The whole world is so serious and campaigning for some cause, or someones rights, everything is a hate crime, racist, sexist. blah blah blah.
"O no mcdonalds must be slandering a hate crime against skinny people every time they make a big mac." hahaha jeeze You're just someone perpetuating another groups negative perspective that they've made you believe is correct. Look at the picture for a hour and tell me what's wrong with it? I don't see anything.
I have heard vague rumors of a moustache-dispensing vending machine in a distant laundromat, across the street from a tattoo parlor. However, this information is shaky, and time is of the essence.
This falls under the baiting Wasteland category mentioned earlier, but you could try to make your opponent think you're mana screwed and either Waste your land or overcommit in some way.
There are specific lands I'll hold back until I need them, namely Cavern of Souls.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
The big reason is that most Legacy decks run optimally with just 2-3 mana available, so holding back extra lands doesn't create a significant disadvantage (except in certain MUs, e.g. vs Trinisphere or counter wars with Spell Pierce). On the other hand, holding back lands can create many advantages:
1) Brainstorm. This is the best card in Legacy for a reason. Among many other more complex functions, this card can morph excess lands into spells. If you topdeck Brainstorm but have an empty hand, you're not going to profit much beyond rearranging your top few cards. If you topdeck Brainstorm and have 1-2 lands in hand and access to an uncracked fetchland, those useless lands in hand suddenly morph into spells out of nowhere. That's a HUGE card advantage swing. It's often worth keeping back the lands just in case you hit a Brainstorm, especially if you don't actually need the mana.
2) Bluffing spells/tricks/combo pieces/blue cards for FoW.
Just having more cards in hand makes opponents play more cautiously. Bluffing has significantly padded my Limited rating.
3) Against black decks, baiting them to waste a Thoughtseize-type effect and blank on your land, netting card advantage and potentially protecting a spell later down the road. I guess this is a specific type of bluff.
4) If you are a combo deck, having more cards in hand makes them fear you are about to go off. Opponent may opt to keep disruptive mana open instead of casting permanents (afraid to tap out and get comboed out), which ultimately actually buys you time to draw into your combo. Similar to bluffing, though not as blatant.
5) Playing around Wasteland. You can bait them to Waste a land you don't care about by keeping a more valuable one in hand. You can also make it look like you're color-screwed in one color to bait them to use Wasteland only to later reveal you are mana flooded. Again, a bluff variation. This bluff effectively Stone Rains them for free. You're actually land-flooded, so you don't care about losing a redundant land, but you just tricked opponent into sacrificing a land. Seems good.
6) Playing around Deathrite Shaman. Holding back lands can keep fuel off enemy Deathrites, potentially mana screwing them in conjunction with recently-emptied graveyards.
7) Pretending to not have enough mana to combo off. Again, a bluff variation. Works particularly well with SneakShow against mediocre players. You might have Island + Volcanic (only 2 mana) after cantripping for a few turns, skipping a land drop at some point. Opponent will think you have no chance of going off next turn so may tap out or play aggressively. However you were just sandbagging manasources. You then drop Ancient Tomb+Lotus Petal and Sneak Attack out Griselbrand out of nowhere.
It's not always correct to hold back the land, and it's not always correct to play it. Really depends IMO.
This falls under the baiting Wasteland category mentioned earlier, but you could try to make your opponent think you're mana screwed and either Waste your land or overcommit in some way.
There are specific lands I'll hold back until I need them, namely Cavern of Souls.
Speaking of that, I think Ancient Tomb has to be the most commonly sandbagged land. Opponents tend to Wasteland it on sight, so people are particularly prone to holding them back until they're needed.
Obviously, after you stick a City of Traitors, you might want to hold back lands.
These are pretty corner case but I have seen them pop up multiple times.
Playing D&T or Maverick vs. Storm or any deck with Massacre. Not playing a plains can determine if you win or lose the game.
Not playing a forest (or mostly likely a Tropical) vs. a deck with submerge can also be pretty important.
There's also UB Tezzeret's habit of playing Darkslick Shores instead of Underground Sea(!!!). I think this is due to a related case--not playing Islands can be important against Merfolk if you have blockers.
i recently held a plains in my hand in enchantress to wait for exploration to get double white or even double serra's sanctum playing around wasteland and goblin planter in goblin stompy because they can copy him with kiki jiki every turn
The simplest reason not to play a land is that you don't need it in play at the moment and your curve supports not dropping your 4th or 5th land until you really want it in play. If you watch competitive matches a lot you'll find that the players tend to mirror each other on land drops if the disparity becomes 2 or more. It doesn't matter if your list only needs 3 lands in play to function if the opponent drops a land every turn and you're in danger of being tempo'd out of the game as a result of that.
I'm not a legacy player, but I find the format fascinating and have been watching some of the recent SCG legacy events, and I've noticed that a lot of players (especially combo decks) don't play their lands. Why is this? There have been several matches that I've seen now where a player will sit for 3-4 turns on 2-3 lands with another maybe one or two in their hand, and I can't figure out why. It doesn't seem like you actually lose anything by doing so, and the extra mana seems like it can be very relevant when you're playing a mana-tight deck like storm, especially when you're playing around things like daze and FOW. Is this just a weird isolated thing and not a widespread practice? Or is there an actual reason for this? I'm very confused, and any insight would be very helpful.
today i held back a land for no reason but to bluff, he plays an Armageddon and i recover the next turn
My Trade Thread
Draft My Cube
1) Brainstorming: You can draw a fresh three cards, putting two un-needed lands back, then cracking a fetch to get fresh draws. A lot of Legacy decks run a very low mana base and flooding out is bad. If you're whole deck operates on 1-2 mana you don't ever want to have more than 4 lands in play. Especially when you can shuffle your un-needed lands back into your deck.
2) Bluffing: If you're hellbent then your opponent knows that they can play anything they want without recourse.
3) Playing around Wasteland: If you have a key utility land/mana colour in your hand you need to protect - you can try to bait our their Wasteland on something in play rather than what you are protecting in your hand.
4) Added utility in your hand: As a corner case, some decks like Lands hold onto unneeded Lands - so they can pitch to a Mox Diamond.
Legacy:
RUG(B)Lands
UWRMiracles
The grind, the durdle, the control!
I should clarify: I'm not talking about players keeping a two card hand with one or two lands in it, I'm talking about players having a 4 or 5 card hand with one or two lands in it, which makes the mind game aspect much weaker.
As an example, even if I'm playing a deck running Batterskull, if I have four lands in play and draw my fifth there is not necessarily a reason to play it just yet. If I draw my Batterskull next turn, I'm still perfectly capable playing both the land and the Batterskull that turn. If not, then I didn't need that fifth mana anyway. Having an extra card in my hand to make my opponent think about was probably more valuable.
That said, this particular argument only really applies to holding a single land. Holding back two or three lands can backfire if you topdeck something that actually needs that extra mana, or if you need to play through Daze or Spell Pierce, or have mana to play + bounce that Batterskull, or whatever.
The most common bluff in Legacy is FOW+blue card. The more cards in hand, the more reasonable the bluff seems.
Very true. Holding 2+ lands can be good bluff/easy brainstorm food/liliana discard, but sometimes it can backfire if you suddenly top deck a FoW/Batterskull and you need the mana to say, cast it alongside disruption (Thoughtseize --> Batterskull, etc. etc.).
There are specific lands I'll hold back until I need them, namely Cavern of Souls.
My 1994 Magic Cube
Japanese cards on eBay -- Legacy, Modern, EDH, Cube.
1) Brainstorm. This is the best card in Legacy for a reason. Among many other more complex functions, this card can morph excess lands into spells. If you topdeck Brainstorm but have an empty hand, you're not going to profit much beyond rearranging your top few cards. If you topdeck Brainstorm and have 1-2 lands in hand and access to an uncracked fetchland, those useless lands in hand suddenly morph into spells out of nowhere. That's a HUGE card advantage swing. It's often worth keeping back the lands just in case you hit a Brainstorm, especially if you don't actually need the mana.
2) Bluffing spells/tricks/combo pieces/blue cards for FoW.
Just having more cards in hand makes opponents play more cautiously. Bluffing has significantly padded my Limited rating.
3) Against black decks, baiting them to waste a Thoughtseize-type effect and blank on your land, netting card advantage and potentially protecting a spell later down the road. I guess this is a specific type of bluff.
4) If you are a combo deck, having more cards in hand makes them fear you are about to go off. Opponent may opt to keep disruptive mana open instead of casting permanents (afraid to tap out and get comboed out), which ultimately actually buys you time to draw into your combo. Similar to bluffing, though not as blatant.
5) Playing around Wasteland. You can bait them to Waste a land you don't care about by keeping a more valuable one in hand. You can also make it look like you're color-screwed in one color to bait them to use Wasteland only to later reveal you are mana flooded. Again, a bluff variation. This bluff effectively Stone Rains them for free. You're actually land-flooded, so you don't care about losing a redundant land, but you just tricked opponent into sacrificing a land. Seems good.
6) Playing around Deathrite Shaman. Holding back lands can keep fuel off enemy Deathrites, potentially mana screwing them in conjunction with recently-emptied graveyards.
7) Pretending to not have enough mana to combo off. Again, a bluff variation. Works particularly well with SneakShow against mediocre players. You might have Island + Volcanic (only 2 mana) after cantripping for a few turns, skipping a land drop at some point. Opponent will think you have no chance of going off next turn so may tap out or play aggressively. However you were just sandbagging manasources. You then drop Ancient Tomb+Lotus Petal and Sneak Attack out Griselbrand out of nowhere.
It's not always correct to hold back the land, and it's not always correct to play it. Really depends IMO.
Speaking of that, I think Ancient Tomb has to be the most commonly sandbagged land. Opponents tend to Wasteland it on sight, so people are particularly prone to holding them back until they're needed.
Obviously, after you stick a City of Traitors, you might want to hold back lands.
Playing D&T or Maverick vs. Storm or any deck with Massacre. Not playing a plains can determine if you win or lose the game.
Not playing a forest (or mostly likely a Tropical) vs. a deck with submerge can also be pretty important.
There's also UB Tezzeret's habit of playing Darkslick Shores instead of Underground Sea(!!!). I think this is due to a related case--not playing Islands can be important against Merfolk if you have blockers.
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
WURUWr Stoneblade
Modern
WRGNaya Zoo Company
today i held back a land for no reason but to bluff, he plays an Armageddon and i recover the next turn