now either that article is a fake or the Garrett Johnson on these forums is a fake.
A few notes to help people decide what to think of that article:
1) The "Garrett Johnson" in that thread registered in December 2009. The "Garrett Johnson" who wrote the article did so in June 2003. However, the "Garret Johnson" in that thread posted on December 8, 2009 that he hadn't gone to any tournaments before and wondered if promo versions of a card were tournament legal.
2) The professor cited in the opening paragraph is, according to Google, Professor of Mathematics at Harvey Mudd College in Claremont, CA, and has been teaching there for the past 10 years. Both people claiming to be named Garrett Johnson claim to live in California. Amusingly, the professor in question has his own "mathemagics" program where he "[performs] rapid mental calculations faster than a calculator." This is noted in the fetchland article as the inspiration for the article's name.
3) The math in the articles (there are 4 on tcgplayer) checks out as near as I can tell. The logic behind the assumptions he puts into his Monte Cristo simulations is quite sound.
Either way, you're only deluding yourself if you think spending unnecessary money on fetchlands for mono-colour decks is going to help you in any significant number of games. Is it the end of the world to run it? Of course not. Will the increased presence of money rares give a false sense of increased status to the deck? You better believe it.
Also, I was going to make this into point 4, but it's rather subjective: To this day, I haven't seen any mathematical proofs saying that running fetchlands without some other benefit (landfall, KotR, colour fixing, etc) is worth the investment of life. You'd think that the "use fetchlands in every deck" thumpers would be very quick to pull up such an unassailable defence as a mathematical proof.
You only need 3 Nissa's Chosen, since the card Nissa's chosen really isn't all too great without Nissa herself.
Infiltration lens has no place in this deck. Nobody is going to chump block a 2/2 attacking elf.
I don't think Contagion Clasp is a good play here. What's the point? If you really want removal, splash black or white as they give you better options without a real risk of mana screw.
I would cut out tanglewurm also. It's bad. At a cost of 7, there are about 20 other creatures that would be better to play. Wurmcoil Engine, Precursor Golem, Mitotic Slime, Khalni Hydra would all be better choices to add a few big beaters that are tough to deal with regardless of eldrazi monument.
I'm still meh on Genesis wave. Seems win more to me still. I don't see why simply playing a Wolfbriar wouldn't be a better play given the mana commitment you need for Genesis wave, not to mention you'll likely get duplicates of planeswalkers, monuments, or useless lands.
alright i see you point about the contagion clasp, but it is used mostly for the poliferate.
i am definaltlly cutting the wolf brier because i see your point.
i am also thinking of throwing in a single omnath so i can go 2 turn clock with a taglewurm or battery mana for the overrun elf.
but i will be dropping a single nissa chosen.
finally about the lens... this is a green deck either they kill the 2/2 with the lens in a green deck, or they take 2 damage. this deck is fine with trading one creature for 2 cards... this is a mono green deck anything that draws cards for us is at a premium, espically since we lose visionary. i am fine with trading a lanowar turn 4 that is a 2/2 or a 3/3 for 2 cards wouldn't you
finally about the lens... this is a green deck either they kill the 2/2 with the lens in a green deck, or they take 2 damage. this deck is fine with trading one creature for 2 cards... this is a mono green deck anything that draws cards for us is at a premium, espically since we lose visionary. i am fine with trading a lanowar turn 4 that is a 2/2 or a 3/3 for 2 cards wouldn't you
But see, here's the thing. If you're attacking with a bunch of elves, and they have blockers, they'll simply block the ones that don't draw you cards. If you're only attacking with one elf... you're doing it wrong.
As a connoisseur of fun, interesting matches, I still to this day have not been able to craft that "perfect deck"; the deck that I can play and have fun over time, doesn't get boring, but simultaneously is fun to play against. I honestly don't think it exists. It's like a unicorn. A ninja unicorn.
But see, here's the thing. If you're attacking with a bunch of elves, and they have blockers, they'll simply block the ones that don't draw you cards. If you're only attacking with one elf... you're doing it wrong.
alright i see you point about the contagion clasp, but it is used mostly for the poliferate.
i am definaltlly cutting the wolf brier because i see your point.
i am also thinking of throwing in a single omnath so i can go 2 turn clock with a taglewurm or battery mana for the overrun elf.
but i will be dropping a single nissa chosen.
finally about the lens... this is a green deck either they kill the 2/2 with the lens in a green deck, or they take 2 damage. this deck is fine with trading one creature for 2 cards... this is a mono green deck anything that draws cards for us is at a premium, espically since we lose visionary. i am fine with trading a lanowar turn 4 that is a 2/2 or a 3/3 for 2 cards wouldn't you
What I was getting at with the lens, is that nobody is going to block the 2/2, so you're not going to be drawing any cards with it. You're essentially using your equipment to make an elf unblockable. If this were a deck with really big threats, it may make sense, but it's not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find me online - I'm on Cockatrice * Tag - Badd B - Or on MTGO - Tag - Cbus05
This is just insane, we debate so much just talking only about fetchlands.
For those who said that this deck doesn't need any fetchlands, have you at least trying to use one??? Me myself are using 8 fetches and did 11 wins and 3 loses, how's that possible if you see the graphics you mentioned earlier that thinning deck is a myth? And all the 3 loses not because of damages from fetches or miss land drops, but that's just because I drew too much lands and had less creatures than opponent.
Statistical evidence is as close to facts as we can get when it comes to discussing magic.
That you won 11 games and lost 3 (which means absolutely nothing, statistically, you could have had good matchups, good die rolls whatever and even then 14 games means nothing statistically) is great, but not something that disproves statistics. Even so, how does it proof that you wouldn't have won 11 games and lost 3 if you didn't use fetchlands?
Unneccesary lifeloss for no effect might not have mattered in the games you played but when you're optimizing a deck you're looking for the most effective list. Even a small loss, like using fetchlands, is eliminated in that process.
A few notes to help people decide what to think of that article:
Thanks for the clarification on who wrote that article. I still maintain that the article is not that useful. What people need to know is what is the probability that running fetch lands will cause the player to not draw a land and what is the expected life cost of that. That is practicle information that could be used for building a deck. Not to mention you don't need to run a simulation to find out the chance of getting a card benifit from a fetchland, you just need to do a statistical analysis. You already know the number of cards and lands in the deck and what the effect of fetching is on those numbers.
As far as elfdrazi is concerned I would say that the loss of life matters against any fast deck, why give a RDW an extra bolt to the face worth of damamge, why not just scoop report and get something to eat while waiting for the next round? Against slower decks I looked at it this way: Really around turn 7-10 is where I'm needing to not topdeck land. Now what is the chance that by turn 7-10 I would topdeck a spell when I would have top decked a land in a non-fetch deck? Now What I figured out it would be around 10-15%(I don't have the spreadsheet in front of me). So that means one in 10 games that goes long where I would get that card advantage. Which in a 5 round +top 8 tournament might be 14 games at the most that go long with elfdrazi probably less. So really one game in a tounrey I might get a one card advantage in one game at a cost of life in almost every game, usually 2 life but more often 3 than 1 in a long game. With putting my deck at a big disadvantage against aggro decks on top of that I have no reason to run fetches. What I did was try to run a practical analysis, my numbers may be off but at least my goal is useful.
Fetches are great for Elfdrazi when the opponent is running them. I don't know how many times that extra few life plus a couple early tiny hits have meant the difference between winning and losing. How many times have you heard "man, I had a DOJ or AID or quake in my hand" when you just squeek out a win?
Maybe a lot of the people promoting fetches for deck thinning are really just hoping that they will run up against decks using fetches only to deck thin?
This is just insane, we debate so much just talking only about fetchlands.
For those who said that this deck doesn't need any fetchlands, have you at least trying to use one??? Me myself are using 8 fetches and did 11 wins and 3 loses, how's that possible if you see the graphics you mentioned earlier that thinning deck is a myth? And all the 3 loses not because of damages from fetches or miss land drops, but that's just because I drew too much lands and had less creatures than opponent.
That means you're running too many lands, or need some draw, not that your fetch lands are saving you / are beneficial or whatever conclusion you're trying to prove. Your argument doesn't make sense.
The evidence is there. Several article have been written on it. The math is solid. Do what you will.
Maybe a lot of the people promoting fetches for deck thinning are really just hoping that they will run up against decks using fetches only to deck thin?
This is a good theory.
I'd also like to point out that the original deck from (I think) US Nats last year ran zero fetch. The "Japanese Green" build that did well at Japanese Nats in the spring also ran zero fetch.
What people need to know is what is the probability that running fetch lands will cause the player to not draw a land and what is the expected life cost of that.
The article does expand on that subject, for those who read it:
Quote from Article »
The overall impact of fetch lands upon the number of extra spells, (as opposed to the true lands the fetch lands removed from the deck,) drawn is not nearly as high as the number life sacrificed for the effect. While the dead draws over the first 16 turns are not surprisingly negligible, over the first 16 turns we cannot realize, on average, a single extra card from our fetch lands. Even if we propagate this data further, the first card we see in the 4/16 case is not realized until around the 36th turn, and at an average cost of 2.8 life. The first card for 8/12 is realized on the 25th turn, but at a cost of 4.3 life.
Translation for those who aren't very math-inclined: Any "thinning" in the first 16 turns of play is a complete and utter placebo, even when you're running like 16 fetches.
Also, this comment isn't aimed at any specific person but more in general: Simply because the math looks like incomprehensible voodoo to those who aren't good at math doesn't mean it's wrong.
Finally, on a less serious/more anecdotal subject, there have been games where Valakut Titan has been able to hit me for 18 in one turn but not kill me on that same turn. Had I fetched twice in any of those games, I'd have lost immediately.
The article does expand on that subject, for those who read it:
Translation for those who aren't very math-inclined: Any "thinning" in the first 16 turns of play is a complete and utter placebo, even when you're running like 16 fetches.
Also, this comment isn't aimed at any specific person but more in general: Simply because the math looks like incomprehensible voodoo to those who aren't good at math doesn't mean it's wrong.
Finally, on a less serious/more anecdotal subject, there have been games where Valakut Titan has been able to hit me for 18 in one turn but not kill me on that same turn. Had I fetched twice in any of those games, I'd have lost immediately.
For me, I choose to believe that no matter how small the effect of deck thinning, I feel that it helps just that little into improving my draws/top decks into spells and not lands. Just as part of any deck, life management is always an issue of course.
I still believe fetches work differently depending on how many land you actually run, I run 18 right now was running 17 if 4 of those are fetches thats 13 land i can hit out of 56 cards, so roughly estimating I have a 17% chance of drawing a land vs 20 land and 4 fetches I have a 30% chance of drawing a land, I did this using simple math I have not read the article i am just going on the fact i have 60 cards and what percent of that is lands minus the fetches because if you run fetches you technically are running 4 or 8 or 12 less land depending on how many you run. A 13% increase in chance that i draw a land seems pretty significant.
EDIT: I also run nissa so i really dont care about life half the time and Ive yet to lose to because of a fetch, normally I lose in one turn or lose to control and didnt stand a chance in the first place.
"On top of that, if you ever manage to T2 Lead the Stampede, fill your hand, and pitch two Vengevines on your cleanup phase, the sky rains kittens wearing tophats, each carrying a sock full of quarters. True story."
The article does
Translation for those who aren't very math-inclined: Any "thinning" in the first 16 turns of play is a complete and utter placebo, even when you're running like 16 fetches.
I think my problem is that I am math inclined and I don't like the presentation of the data, I don't want to know when I can expect to gain that card advantage, I want to know what it the exact per turn chance of having drawn that extra spell. The article says when the advantage can be gained on average which I know means >50% chance. I think though since I have always agreed that fetch lands are not worth running without running multi-color or landfall or having a need to shuffle I'll quit arguing about the math. I mean why not run 4xteramorphic expanses and 4xevolving wilds for deck thinning? Well because they slow your deck down? really you only miss a land drop for a double land drop the next turn. It's funny how the onslaught style fetches are forced into decks they shouldn't be in but the cheap common fetches aren't.
I think my problem is that I am math inclined and I don't like the presentation of the data, I don't want to know when I can expect to gain that card advantage, I want to know what it the exact per turn chance of having drawn that extra spell. The article says when the advantage can be gained on average which I know means >50% chance. I think though since I have always agreed that fetch lands are not worth running without running multi-color or landfall or having a need to shuffle I'll quit arguing about the math. I mean why not run 4xteramorphic expanses and 4xevolving wilds for deck thinning? Well because they slow your deck down? really you only miss a land drop for a double land drop the next turn. It's funny how the onslaught style fetches are forced into decks they shouldn't be in but the cheap common fetches aren't.
Well certain decks can run those, but like you said it slows your deck down and magic is all about tempo.
EDIT: excuse me alot of magic is about tempo unless your playing control and they run all the tap lands they want but doesnt matter because the deck isnt about speed its about controlling the turns. elfdrazi is about speed atleast for my deck it is i like that 4th turn kill and I cant do that with evolving winds or teramorphics.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"On top of that, if you ever manage to T2 Lead the Stampede, fill your hand, and pitch two Vengevines on your cleanup phase, the sky rains kittens wearing tophats, each carrying a sock full of quarters. True story."
Sorry for multiple posts but I can also put it like this now correct me if im wrong but say we have this as our deck on the table stacked
Fetch land spell spell spell land spell land spell land, Say i fetch the first land and dont shuffle just for this experiment, thats a 37.5% chance i will draw a land now vs 50% chance. I go from drawing land for 2 turns to top decking. I cant count how many times I have won games because I dont draw land after 3 or 4. decks cant keep up with that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"On top of that, if you ever manage to T2 Lead the Stampede, fill your hand, and pitch two Vengevines on your cleanup phase, the sky rains kittens wearing tophats, each carrying a sock full of quarters. True story."
Sorry for multiple posts but I can also put it like this now correct me if im wrong but say we have this as our deck on the table stacked
Fetch land spell spell spell land spell land spell land, Say i fetch the first land and dont shuffle just for this experiment, thats a 37.5% chance i will draw a land now vs 50% chance. I go from drawing land for 2 turns to top decking. I cant count how many times I have won games because I dont draw land after 3 or 4. decks cant keep up with that.
Sure, but that assumes you run 3 lands in your entire deck. When you shuffle, your entire scenario there goes up in smoke. You'd have to include most of your deck for your reasoning to be valid, and that means that the difference in percentages drops to single digits, at least. It's not worth the life loss.
As a connoisseur of fun, interesting matches, I still to this day have not been able to craft that "perfect deck"; the deck that I can play and have fun over time, doesn't get boring, but simultaneously is fun to play against. I honestly don't think it exists. It's like a unicorn. A ninja unicorn.
To the whole fetch land topic: Now that Condemn will see more play, it might be good to have something to shuffle the library unless you run the Shaman.
Coming back to topic: I was wondering what you think of including Culling Dais to create a card draw possibility together with nissa and nissa's chosen?
I really miss some carddrawing in the whole deck...
Like people are saying the usual win cons are Garruk/Ezuri overrun and/or Monument FTW. A proven strategy now with usable regeneration capabilities. Thanks Scars
I'm loving Wave, so no Warcallers for the moment, though they may well come back in over the Scouts. Just giving them a test run to see how they feel. I like the possibilities with them, but they may turn out to be too ineffective.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I edit after I post... just a heads up.
Currently Running Legacy: Burn; Various Stompy's; Food Chain Goblins; FC Elves Standard: Junk Super Friends, Elf-Wave Elder Dragon Highlander: Animar, Skithiryx, Bosh, Konda, Wort, Ezuri, Patron of the Moon
I'm loving Wave, so no Warcallers for the moment, though they may well come back in over the Scouts. Just giving them a test run to see how they feel. I like the possibilities with them, but they may turn out to be too ineffective.
You really think its worth it to run just a single Asceticism? How do you plan on getting it out when needed? Seems like you should ditch it for that all-important 3rd Monument.
The idea is that it is Monument #3, just a little different (again this is in testing), but I've played a number of games where it was actually the preferable of the 2. But the primary reason is that I never really want to land 2 monuments, but an Asceticism + Monument is perfectly fine by me. It's not about finding it specifically when needed, it's good enough that just stumbling upon it is plenty fine. And in the match ups where one of the 2 is better than the other I board in to a majority of it (2 Asceticism, 1 Monument board). Like I said I'm just giving it a test run, but so far I've few complaints.
Scout is playing well, allows for explosive turns off of fewer resources, but it is still juts another 1/1 in a slot that could be something much bigger, so we'll see.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I edit after I post... just a heads up.
Currently Running Legacy: Burn; Various Stompy's; Food Chain Goblins; FC Elves Standard: Junk Super Friends, Elf-Wave Elder Dragon Highlander: Animar, Skithiryx, Bosh, Konda, Wort, Ezuri, Patron of the Moon
Statistical evidence is as close to facts as we can get when it comes to discussing magic.
That you won 11 games and lost 3 (which means absolutely nothing, statistically, you could have had good matchups, good die rolls whatever and even then 14 games means nothing statistically) is great, but not something that disproves statistics. Even so, how does it proof that you wouldn't have won 11 games and lost 3 if you didn't use fetchlands?
Unneccesary lifeloss for no effect might not have mattered in the games you played but when you're optimizing a deck you're looking for the most effective list. Even a small loss, like using fetchlands, is eliminated in that process.
On the topic of fetches, lets just run some numbers. Let's say you crack a fetchland and fetch your foil forest.
The odds of you drawing that foil forest were about 10% (about 5 cards drawn in the rest of the game and about 50 in your deck).
You are now replacing the foil forest with a random cards that has a 2/3 chance of being a nonland card.
So, for every fetchland you sacrifice, you have a roughly 6.5% chance of replacing a land draw with a nonland card.
Put another way, you lose an average of about 16 life for every land draw that you turn into a nonland card.
Edit: The monte-carlo simulation article has the math right also. It's figure of ~4 life per land comes from the assumption that the game is going to go long (~20 draw steps). In this deck games go shorter (~5 draw steps, so the life cost is much higher). Most of the other math on this thread is based off of incorrect assumptions. I need to go do my mechanics homework now, PM if you want me to explain further.
On the topic of fetches, lets just run some numbers. Let's say you crack a fetchland and fetch your foil forest.
The odds of you drawing that foil forest were about 10% (about 5 cards drawn in the rest of the game and about 50 in your deck).
You are now replacing the foil forest with a random cards that has a 2/3 chance of being a nonland card.
So, for every fetchland you sacrifice, you have a roughly 6.5% chance of replacing a land draw with a nonland card.
Put another way, you lose an average of about 16 life for every land draw that you turn into a nonland card.
Edit: The monte-carlo simulation article has the math right also. It's figure of ~4 life per land comes from the assumption that the game is going to go long (~20 draw steps). In this deck games go shorter (~5 draw steps, so the life cost is much higher). Most of the other math on this thread is based off of incorrect assumptions. I need to go do my mechanics homework now, PM if you want me to explain further.
Actually, I like having an extra 6.5% to draw a nonland card instead of a land card. In elfdrazi, we are the beatdown.. not the control. Let's say board position is equal, life is equal, everything else equal. The person who have 1 less life, but drew an extra creature, is going to have much better board position, right? And this advantage is incremental. It's not only for one draw, it's for all future draws. This is something that all the simulations/hypothesis refused to take into account.
edit: If you're playing against a burn deck, paying life to filter lands are of course a bigger risk, but you don't play against burns everyday. And then you probably should be more careful in managing your life total! We can't have the best of all worlds.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A few notes to help people decide what to think of that article:
1) The "Garrett Johnson" in that thread registered in December 2009. The "Garrett Johnson" who wrote the article did so in June 2003. However, the "Garret Johnson" in that thread posted on December 8, 2009 that he hadn't gone to any tournaments before and wondered if promo versions of a card were tournament legal.
2) The professor cited in the opening paragraph is, according to Google, Professor of Mathematics at Harvey Mudd College in Claremont, CA, and has been teaching there for the past 10 years. Both people claiming to be named Garrett Johnson claim to live in California. Amusingly, the professor in question has his own "mathemagics" program where he "[performs] rapid mental calculations faster than a calculator." This is noted in the fetchland article as the inspiration for the article's name.
3) The math in the articles (there are 4 on tcgplayer) checks out as near as I can tell. The logic behind the assumptions he puts into his Monte Cristo simulations is quite sound.
Either way, you're only deluding yourself if you think spending unnecessary money on fetchlands for mono-colour decks is going to help you in any significant number of games. Is it the end of the world to run it? Of course not. Will the increased presence of money rares give a false sense of increased status to the deck? You better believe it.
Also, I was going to make this into point 4, but it's rather subjective: To this day, I haven't seen any mathematical proofs saying that running fetchlands without some other benefit (landfall, KotR, colour fixing, etc) is worth the investment of life. You'd think that the "use fetchlands in every deck" thumpers would be very quick to pull up such an unassailable defence as a mathematical proof.
alright i see you point about the contagion clasp, but it is used mostly for the poliferate.
i am definaltlly cutting the wolf brier because i see your point.
i am also thinking of throwing in a single omnath so i can go 2 turn clock with a taglewurm or battery mana for the overrun elf.
but i will be dropping a single nissa chosen.
finally about the lens... this is a green deck either they kill the 2/2 with the lens in a green deck, or they take 2 damage. this deck is fine with trading one creature for 2 cards... this is a mono green deck anything that draws cards for us is at a premium, espically since we lose visionary. i am fine with trading a lanowar turn 4 that is a 2/2 or a 3/3 for 2 cards wouldn't you
But see, here's the thing. If you're attacking with a bunch of elves, and they have blockers, they'll simply block the ones that don't draw you cards. If you're only attacking with one elf... you're doing it wrong.
true
What I was getting at with the lens, is that nobody is going to block the 2/2, so you're not going to be drawing any cards with it. You're essentially using your equipment to make an elf unblockable. If this were a deck with really big threats, it may make sense, but it's not.
For those who said that this deck doesn't need any fetchlands, have you at least trying to use one??? Me myself are using 8 fetches and did 11 wins and 3 loses, how's that possible if you see the graphics you mentioned earlier that thinning deck is a myth? And all the 3 loses not because of damages from fetches or miss land drops, but that's just because I drew too much lands and had less creatures than opponent.
The point he made about Wolfbriar is that it would be a better investment than Genesis Wave. So why would you cut it?
EDIT: Never mind, I see what you were saying. I would suggest using commas in the future.
GGGOmnath, Locus of ManaGGG
Standard
RMyrboltR
That is the only argument that makes sense.
This.
Thanks for the clarification on who wrote that article. I still maintain that the article is not that useful. What people need to know is what is the probability that running fetch lands will cause the player to not draw a land and what is the expected life cost of that. That is practicle information that could be used for building a deck. Not to mention you don't need to run a simulation to find out the chance of getting a card benifit from a fetchland, you just need to do a statistical analysis. You already know the number of cards and lands in the deck and what the effect of fetching is on those numbers.
As far as elfdrazi is concerned I would say that the loss of life matters against any fast deck, why give a RDW an extra bolt to the face worth of damamge, why not just scoop report and get something to eat while waiting for the next round? Against slower decks I looked at it this way: Really around turn 7-10 is where I'm needing to not topdeck land. Now what is the chance that by turn 7-10 I would topdeck a spell when I would have top decked a land in a non-fetch deck? Now What I figured out it would be around 10-15%(I don't have the spreadsheet in front of me). So that means one in 10 games that goes long where I would get that card advantage. Which in a 5 round +top 8 tournament might be 14 games at the most that go long with elfdrazi probably less. So really one game in a tounrey I might get a one card advantage in one game at a cost of life in almost every game, usually 2 life but more often 3 than 1 in a long game. With putting my deck at a big disadvantage against aggro decks on top of that I have no reason to run fetches. What I did was try to run a practical analysis, my numbers may be off but at least my goal is useful.
Fetches are great for Elfdrazi when the opponent is running them. I don't know how many times that extra few life plus a couple early tiny hits have meant the difference between winning and losing. How many times have you heard "man, I had a DOJ or AID or quake in my hand" when you just squeek out a win?
Maybe a lot of the people promoting fetches for deck thinning are really just hoping that they will run up against decks using fetches only to deck thin?
That means you're running too many lands, or need some draw, not that your fetch lands are saving you / are beneficial or whatever conclusion you're trying to prove. Your argument doesn't make sense.
The evidence is there. Several article have been written on it. The math is solid. Do what you will.
This is a good theory.
I'd also like to point out that the original deck from (I think) US Nats last year ran zero fetch. The "Japanese Green" build that did well at Japanese Nats in the spring also ran zero fetch.
The article does expand on that subject, for those who read it:
Translation for those who aren't very math-inclined: Any "thinning" in the first 16 turns of play is a complete and utter placebo, even when you're running like 16 fetches.
Also, this comment isn't aimed at any specific person but more in general: Simply because the math looks like incomprehensible voodoo to those who aren't good at math doesn't mean it's wrong.
Finally, on a less serious/more anecdotal subject, there have been games where Valakut Titan has been able to hit me for 18 in one turn but not kill me on that same turn. Had I fetched twice in any of those games, I'd have lost immediately.
Counter Argument. Did you end up winning?
But in all seriousness, your right.
GGGOmnath, Locus of ManaGGG
Standard
RMyrboltR
EDIT: I also run nissa so i really dont care about life half the time and Ive yet to lose to because of a fetch, normally I lose in one turn or lose to control and didnt stand a chance in the first place.
I think my problem is that I am math inclined and I don't like the presentation of the data, I don't want to know when I can expect to gain that card advantage, I want to know what it the exact per turn chance of having drawn that extra spell. The article says when the advantage can be gained on average which I know means >50% chance. I think though since I have always agreed that fetch lands are not worth running without running multi-color or landfall or having a need to shuffle I'll quit arguing about the math. I mean why not run 4xteramorphic expanses and 4xevolving wilds for deck thinning? Well because they slow your deck down? really you only miss a land drop for a double land drop the next turn. It's funny how the onslaught style fetches are forced into decks they shouldn't be in but the cheap common fetches aren't.
Well certain decks can run those, but like you said it slows your deck down and magic is all about tempo.
EDIT: excuse me alot of magic is about tempo unless your playing control and they run all the tap lands they want but doesnt matter because the deck isnt about speed its about controlling the turns. elfdrazi is about speed atleast for my deck it is i like that 4th turn kill and I cant do that with evolving winds or teramorphics.
Fetch land spell spell spell land spell land spell land, Say i fetch the first land and dont shuffle just for this experiment, thats a 37.5% chance i will draw a land now vs 50% chance. I go from drawing land for 2 turns to top decking. I cant count how many times I have won games because I dont draw land after 3 or 4. decks cant keep up with that.
Sure, but that assumes you run 3 lands in your entire deck. When you shuffle, your entire scenario there goes up in smoke. You'd have to include most of your deck for your reasoning to be valid, and that means that the difference in percentages drops to single digits, at least. It's not worth the life loss.
Coming back to topic: I was wondering what you think of including Culling Dais to create a card draw possibility together with nissa and nissa's chosen?
I really miss some carddrawing in the whole deck...
I like something along these lines:
4 Llanowar Elves
4 Arbor Elf
4 Sylvan Ranger
3 Nissa's Chosen
3 Mul Daya Channelers
4 Elvish Archdruid
2 Ezuri, Renegade Leader
2 Joraga Warcaller
3 Nissa Revane
3 Garruk Wildspeaker
Other
2 Genesis Wave
3 Eldrazi Monument
Land
19 Forest
4 Oran-Rief, the Vastwood
3 Plummet
3 Nature's Spiral
3 Tajuru Preserver
3 Naturalize
3 Vines of Vastwood
Like people are saying the usual win cons are Garruk/Ezuri overrun and/or Monument FTW. A proven strategy now with usable regeneration capabilities. Thanks Scars
:symg::symw::symr: Allies :symr::symw::symg:
2 Oran-Rief, the Vastwood
4 Llanowar Elves
4 Arbor Elf
3 Joraga Treespeaker
2 Copperhorn Scout
4 Sylvan Ranger
3 Nissa's Chosen
4 Elvish Archdruid
2 Ezuri, Renegade Leader
3 Garruk Wildspeaker
4 Genesis Wave
2 Eldrazi Monument
1 Asceticism
I'm loving Wave, so no Warcallers for the moment, though they may well come back in over the Scouts. Just giving them a test run to see how they feel. I like the possibilities with them, but they may turn out to be too ineffective.
Currently Running
Legacy: Burn; Various Stompy's; Food Chain Goblins; FC Elves
Standard: Junk Super Friends, Elf-Wave
Elder Dragon Highlander: Animar, Skithiryx, Bosh, Konda, Wort, Ezuri, Patron of the Moon
You really think its worth it to run just a single Asceticism? How do you plan on getting it out when needed? Seems like you should ditch it for that all-important 3rd Monument.
:symg::symw::symr: Allies :symr::symw::symg:
Scout is playing well, allows for explosive turns off of fewer resources, but it is still juts another 1/1 in a slot that could be something much bigger, so we'll see.
Currently Running
Legacy: Burn; Various Stompy's; Food Chain Goblins; FC Elves
Standard: Junk Super Friends, Elf-Wave
Elder Dragon Highlander: Animar, Skithiryx, Bosh, Konda, Wort, Ezuri, Patron of the Moon
On the topic of fetches, lets just run some numbers. Let's say you crack a fetchland and fetch your foil forest.
The odds of you drawing that foil forest were about 10% (about 5 cards drawn in the rest of the game and about 50 in your deck).
You are now replacing the foil forest with a random cards that has a 2/3 chance of being a nonland card.
So, for every fetchland you sacrifice, you have a roughly 6.5% chance of replacing a land draw with a nonland card.
Put another way, you lose an average of about 16 life for every land draw that you turn into a nonland card.
Edit: The monte-carlo simulation article has the math right also. It's figure of ~4 life per land comes from the assumption that the game is going to go long (~20 draw steps). In this deck games go shorter (~5 draw steps, so the life cost is much higher). Most of the other math on this thread is based off of incorrect assumptions. I need to go do my mechanics homework now, PM if you want me to explain further.
Actually, I like having an extra 6.5% to draw a nonland card instead of a land card. In elfdrazi, we are the beatdown.. not the control. Let's say board position is equal, life is equal, everything else equal. The person who have 1 less life, but drew an extra creature, is going to have much better board position, right? And this advantage is incremental. It's not only for one draw, it's for all future draws. This is something that all the simulations/hypothesis refused to take into account.
edit: If you're playing against a burn deck, paying life to filter lands are of course a bigger risk, but you don't play against burns everyday. And then you probably should be more careful in managing your life total! We can't have the best of all worlds.