I also find it absolutely absurd that you think a 3/3 first striker over 3 turns has an advantage over a 5/5 first striker one turn + 1/1 first striker for 2 turns. Heck, with a fetch, you could have a 3/3 first striker defending if you needed it.
OP makes grandiose claims and wall-of-text math in an attempt to attain validity, and falls on his face. OP goes another step by adding contradicting claims that are essentially irrelevant to his original claim. Grade: B-, try again next week.
one thing I think is interesting is people saying vamp should have fetch cause life lose, you have feast of blood and night hawk gaining you life. if I use 1 fetch and a feast of blood I'm back at the same. and that's not even all the life gain in there. If you are gonna be gaining the life use it for something, I'd rather have 54 cards in my deck by running 6 fetch lands and losing 6 of the life I've gained
Let's look at the decks running Fetchlands, and their reasons for doing so:
Mana-Fixing: Jund, Naya, Bant
Landfall Abuse: Boros
Top-card Manipulation: Vamps
None of these 5 decks are running Fetchlands purely to "thin". The statistical odds related to thinning may benefit them slightly, but they mainly use fetchlands for the type of fixing and manipulation they provide.
Now you seem to be referring to RDW in this topic... i.e. RDW players wanting to run 8 fetches to increase their chances of drawing into burn spells. Frankly, I wouldn't be too surprised by RDW making odd deck building or design choices with regard to the meta because selecting RDW right now is such a poor meta choice
Post-Worlds, Naya and Boros are going to get a boost in play, as they've clearly proven their ability to fight Jund. That means two of the top four decks in the format are running both Path and Bolt maindeck. Elemental Appeal, Ball Lightning, and Goblin Guide? Sorry guys... you're dying.
Without the creature-damage engine, RDW decks now have to win off of burn spells, but simultaneously, they can't allow Naya to keep a Lifelink creature on the board, and they can't allow Boros to run its creatures in unopposed. Letting Jund get away with T2 Rampant Growth, T3 Bloodbraid into Thrinax? A bad, bad idea...
So that leaves RDW having to run sweepers (Pyroclasm, Earthquake) and yet unable to access the card advantage available to Naya, Boros, or Jund (Ranger of Eos, Bloodbraid Elf, etc...). It will have to draw its advantage from sweeping out its opponents advantage. Honestly though - the debate over statistics via self-burn becomes irrelevant here. RDW is losing due to card disadvantage and powerful creatures in the format. It can't kill a Baneslayer with anything short of 6 mana (banefire for 5) or a pair of card (double Bolt)... that's not the path to victory they want to take. I can understand why, in that case, they'd want to run the Fetches, simply because they're not going to win if their opponent lives past turn 5. Something as simple as a Kabira Crossroad on their opponent's table requires them to draw into even more burn, and if Fetches can improve their draws over the game, it's worth it to them.
-
Of course yes, academically the deck-thinning from Fetchlands is tiny. If you want to really thin your deck, cards like Khalni Heart and Harrow provide more of an impact... combine those with Fetches and land-grab creatures, and you might be able to empty a deck of lands completely.
s. Frankly, I wouldn't be too surprised by RDW making odd deck building or design choices with regard to the meta because selecting RDW right now is such a poor meta choice
Without the creature-damage engine, RDW decks now have to win off of burn spells, but simultaneously, they can't allow Naya to keep a Lifelink creature on the board, and they can't allow Boros to run its creatures in unopposed. Letting Jund get away with T2 Rampant Growth, T3 Bloodbraid into Thrinax? A bad, bad idea...
So that leaves RDW having to run sweepers (Pyroclasm, Earthquake) and yet unable to access the card advantage available to Naya, Boros, or Jund (Ranger of Eos, Bloodbraid Elf, etc...). It will have to draw its advantage from sweeping out its opponents advantage. Honestly though - the debate over statistics via self-burn becomes irrelevant here. RDW is losing due to card disadvantage and powerful creatures in the format. It can't kill a Baneslayer with anything short of 6 mana (banefire for 5) or a pair of card (double Bolt)... that's not the path to victory they want to take. I can understand why, in that case, they'd want to run the Fetches, simply because they're not going to win if their opponent lives past turn 5. Something as simple as a Kabira Crossroad on their opponent's table requires them to draw into even more burn, and if Fetches can improve their draws over the game, it's worth it to them.
-
Of course yes, academically the deck-thinning from Fetchlands is tiny. If you want to really thin your deck, cards like Khalni Heart and Harrow provide more of an impact... combine those with Fetches and land-grab creatures, and you might be able to empty a deck of lands completely.
I find it strange that you say RDW is a bad deck choice, considering it just won the Magic Online championship, versus a great player with one of the strongest decks in the format.
I understand the point you are trying to make with green land grab spells, but not every deck runs those, and every deck runs lands.
The deck thinning a fetchland provides is not worth one life, especially when that extra one life here and there can be a liability against red decks. Mathematically, the deck thinning is so insignifcant that you won't be able to notice it.
You can keep throwing around percentages, and talking about how mathematically the difference shouldn't be noticeable, but the bottom line is this: There are less lands in my deck. Even if it's one or two lands, thats still one or two lands I might be able to avoid in a deck trying to win by turn 4 or 5, at the cost of a few points of life. On top of this, Plated Geopede is a house with fetches, potentially digging for 5 before they even have a blocker for him.
You can keep throwing around percentages, and talking about how mathematically the difference shouldn't be noticeable, but the bottom line is this: There are less lands in my deck. Even if it's one or two lands, thats still one or two lands I might be able to avoid in a deck trying to win by turn 4 or 5, at the cost of a few points of life. On top of this, Plated Geopede is a house with fetches, potentially digging for 5 before they even have a blocker for him.
This thread is going nowhere. There are people who use logic and people like this guy who just use brute force and ignore numbers. This is a card game. It involves statistics and percentages.
Purely using fetches to thin with no other reason is just bad. If you look at the numbers it is a bad cost/benefit situation. The price you pay is not worth the benefit you gain. Saying "screw percentages, there are less lands in the deck" is a pretty primitive cave man approach to justifying your side.
Other cards that involve paying life actually give you something. This gives you a low percentage of getting something. Thoutsieze is good because the benefit outweighs the cost. Putrid leach is good because the benefit can be well worth the cost. Using fetchlands are like buying a lottery ticket. Your paying for something that you most likely wont get a real return on.
So you say theres a 3% chance increase? I'll take it. Hell, if it gave a .05% increase, I'll take that too.
I won't make assumptions about you, but at the top levels of play, ANY advantage is an an advantage you need. You cannot make mistakes. A minor increase in a chance to draw into gas instead of land can, and does mean the difference between a celebration and going home ticked off.
Anecdotal: I've been in many top 8s locally, I've won a few, and lost many more. I can trace nearly all my losses on one of two things.
1) Mana screw.
2) Drawing land when I need gas.
I have noticed, the more fetches I run, the better I end up. I use to be about 50/50 getting to top 8. Now with fetches (Eldrazi Green deck) I'm much more consistent in my top 8 pursuits.
/Ancedotal
------------------
So yes, while the chances are slim, any advantage is needed to take home the prize. Its no myth.
To drive home my point. The mirror match. Identical decks, expect your running Fetches and your opponent isn't. Who now has the statistical better chance at winning?
If the life loss from a fetchland or two loses me the game, I was probably going to lose anyway. My life total is an asset I actively use, but having even a 3% better chance to topdeck a card that could win me the game..... I'd have to say that sounds pretty good.
So you say theres a 3% chance increase? I'll take it. Hell, if it gave a .05% increase, I'll take that too.
I won't make assumptions about you, but at the top levels of play, ANY advantage is an an advantage you need. You cannot make mistakes. A minor increase in a chance to draw into gas instead of land can, and does mean the difference between a celebration and going home ticked off.
Anecdotal: I've been in many top 8s locally, I've won a few, and lost many more. I can trace nearly all my losses on one of two things.
1) Mana screw.
2) Drawing land when I need gas.
I have noticed, the more fetches I run, the better I end up. I use to be about 50/50 getting to top 8. Now with fetches (Eldrazi Green deck) I'm much more consistent in my top 8 pursuits.
/Ancedotal
------------------
So yes, while the chances are slim, any advantage is needed to take home the prize. Its no myth.
To drive home my point. The mirror match. Identical decks, expect your running Fetches and your opponent isn't. Who now has the statistical better chance at winning?
Well you sir must be correct. Mono colored decks should for sure run fetches to thin because it is obviously worth it. Take a few proven legacy decks for example. Merfolk and Elves are both mono colored decks and they use fetches...wait a sec...
However, Vamps also benefit greatly from top card manipulation because of their lord. I personally consider running 3 terramorph expanses instead of fetches in Vamps, because combined with 4 sign in bloods they give me a better chance to get a black card on top, which helps my deck running smoother. They are not taking me 1 life and they don't slow me down a great deal because the mana curve is pretty low anyway. Also, they cost me 15 cents
People who have all the fetches tend to run them in every possible deck, but like you said - they are not worth it in many cases. It also depends on the meta how much you need this 1 life. Joel Callafel was running 4 Kabira Crossroads to gain 6-8 life in his mill deck - deck thinning and fetching in his turbofog would be stupid.
and you running terramorph is a terrible budget move. Okay, you go ahead and run your terramorph while i run fetchs... as you do this, you'll have slower tempo, play cards a turn too late constantly and i'll just destroy you.
Seeing as even if you top deck that terramorph, the swamp comes onto the battlefield tapped... while my fetch brings it untapped. I'll just play my turn 4 vampire nocturnus, turn 5 bloodwitch/mind sludge and you can continue to play a turn behind me because you couldn't do a turn 4 vamp noc or a turn 5 mind sludge.. which is one of the main ways to win in the mirror btw. You just have to hope to have a terramorph in your opening hand to pop turn 1 not to lose tempo.. so the only time this would ever help you is if you somehow played a terramorph turn 6, and it didn't already screw you from being on top of your library to screw up vamp noc.
Well you sir must be correct. Mono colored decks should for sure run fetches to thin because it is obviously worth it. Take a few proven legacy decks for example. Merfolk and Elves are both mono colored decks and they use fetches...wait a sec...
Because we are clearly talking about legacy, as this is the legacy discussion board...wait a sec...
The fetch land don't even give you 3% increase of drawing spells.
It is the THIRD fetch lands you CRACKED that gives you 3% increase for spell in TOTAL.
Your FIRST fetch lands cracked only increase you chance of drawing spell by roughly 1% or less, independent of which turn you crack it.
so to sum it up, each FETCH land CRACKED is only worth around 1% increase in spell density. It is good if it does not cost you 1life, or you have infinite life, but that is not magic.
If you just play fetches for deck thinning-purpose, I want to be your opponent every day, so I can see you lose the game by 1 life much more frequently than 1% of the game.
Whos excited to read the next person who is ready to say a 1% increase in drawing gas is worth a 5% life loss in an aggro meta...
The problem is fetches are expensive and are considered good. Yes they are good. Good is an understatement but they are good for certain reasons. If they are not put to their intended use then they are not really worth it. Color fixing is there purpose. Not thinning. People get into the mind set that throwing money at deck makes it better. Fact is it is not needed.
Yes, but remember, it reduces your chances of winning substantially because the fetch lands reduce your life total. You are trading upwards of 10-20% chances of winning for a small advantage in top-decking. That was my ultimate point.
I agree that 5% is a decent advantage, but not at the ultimate cost of winning.
Boros and Jund aside (and other decks where Fetch are essential), I still don't see the major advantage.
---
Alright some things have been misunderstood. You don't gain a 5% chance of winning through deck thinning. You actually lose percentage points towards winning because of the life loss. The loss of life outweighs the small advantage thinning provides.
Indeed, my point entirely.
And all this talk of "top decks running fetch lands" is a bit silly.
Those top decks you refer to are probably Jund and Boros, etc. These decks I openly acknowledge - they need fetch lands.
Why don't you see RDW or Vamps winning enough? Fetch hurts them more than it helps them! That is the point of my research. That is what I have discovered.
better example, recently the world champs took place....including a deck...that did exceptionally well...ran 16 lands...8 of them fetch....now re do your math........statistically his thinning is noticeable in the extreme...although that said the time that thinning comes into effect is around turns 6-7 when one or both players are in 'top-deck' mode...at this point who draws least lands wins.
Well you sir must be correct. Mono colored decks should for sure run fetches to thin because it is obviously worth it. Take a few proven legacy decks for example. Merfolk and Elves are both mono colored decks and they use fetches...wait a sec...
First why are we talking legacy in a standard forum? Second Elves don't need the fetches to thin their deck because most if not all are running Land Grant to fetch a forest for free. Third look things like burn where your running 16-18 lands by 1 fetch that's 11-12.5% of my lands out per fetch making my chance to draw a spell 46/58-44/58 or 75-78%chance. When drawing lands 4-6 are bad I'll take the 1-4 damage over the course of a game. but back to the first point whether they are good for standard or legacy are two differnt points.
.......Ummm time for my two cents. you people keep going on back and forth plated Geopede getting huge becuase of fetch lands, you people seem to forget about a little card called Termante, or Lightning Bolt on the stack of your fetch land and if you sack and fetch your guy still dies cause he goes upto 3/3 takes3 damage then dies, and for this 5% chance of getting a spell over a land, just be quiet and go back to losing. holding onto your weak arguments, and sad stats. Last to FNMs i went to there was 6 RDW and 7 Mill guess what. All 13 of them made up the bottom half of the roaster list.
I win by running tiny amounts of life gain and it screws up your chances of winning by huge amounts. I crack on Sunspring expadistion, and i just negated 3 burn spells to the face. think about it that's two bolts and a burst lightning.
I'm not saying fetch lands are bad there just not overly worth it in a mono red burn deck.
you want true deck thinning run mono green....
rampant growth next turn drop a land your at 4 harrow and a second harrow into rampant gorwth = how much mana out of your deck? 6 lands on the field turn 3.
hey look you can now drop a huge fatty turn 4.
My friend played Violent ultimatum and Acidic Slime both on turn 5 what does RDW have to say about that????
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Generation 18: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and add 1 to the generation. social experiment.
"Over the first 1-5 turns, Deck Thinning via Fetch Lands give you a 1-4% higher chance of drawing a spell (rather than a land). Over turns 5-10, a "thinned" deck gives the player a 3-7% higher chance of drawing spells over land."
"For landfall abilities: While fetch lands can "pump" your landfall abilities dramatically at the start of a game (pretty good), they also reduce your chance of drawing a land drastically."
While I'm definitely a fan of math, I like English too. These statements are in direct conflict with one another. If statement A is true, our thinning doesn't impact our deck much, so our ability to draw a land for Landfall stays fairly static, invalidating statement B. This obviously applies vice-versa as well. As is usually the case when presented with two extreme points of view, a reasonable middle ground is pretty close to the truth here.
In any event, while your effort and analysis is appreciated, this discussion has already taken place dozens, maybe even hundreds of times since the release of Onslaught.
what are the percentages that a deck gets thinned by if i'm only running 16 lands. 8 of which are fetches?
that new wight weenie deck that ran top 8 in rome only ran 16, and i tested that out in my little white kor/solder deck and it ran quite consistently. by the end of the game, i might only have 3 lands out on the field, but have a couple 5/5 fliers or double strikers out.
___________________
and again....
if people want to play fetches, let them. it only helps to stimulate their prices. its like trying to convince obama to go communist or something, just let it be.
For those of you that are still running fetches to thin your deck, how many games have you lost because the opponent was able to hit you for lethal damage because of the life you lost?
Obviously there's a benefit to thinning your deck, even just a little bit, and even if it only helps (not necessarily "helps you win," mind you) in 1 out of every 10 games. But the question is whether or the life trade is worth it. Are you now going to lose more than 10% of those deck-thinned games because of the life you're losing? If so, then it's just not worth running the fetches.
Let's say you get one extra card every 10 games you play. Is that worth the cost of 30+ life over the course of those games? Sorry, but no. I think it's pretty clear that the life loss is not worth the simple benefit of thinning your deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thinning your deck seems like a bad reason to run fetches.
Making Plated Geopede "Tarmogoyf when attacking" is a good reason.
OP makes grandiose claims and wall-of-text math in an attempt to attain validity, and falls on his face. OP goes another step by adding contradicting claims that are essentially irrelevant to his original claim. Grade: B-, try again next week.
Legacy:
RGWBUDredgeUBWGR
:symrg:Belcher:symrg:
WD&TW
Affinity
WGriffinsW (pauper)
U/thopter comboU/ (peasant)
:symbg:Moosebite:symbg: (peasant)
RGobo tokensR (peasant)
R slide R (peasant)
:symur:pingers:symur:
Mana-Fixing: Jund, Naya, Bant
Landfall Abuse: Boros
Top-card Manipulation: Vamps
None of these 5 decks are running Fetchlands purely to "thin". The statistical odds related to thinning may benefit them slightly, but they mainly use fetchlands for the type of fixing and manipulation they provide.
Now you seem to be referring to RDW in this topic... i.e. RDW players wanting to run 8 fetches to increase their chances of drawing into burn spells. Frankly, I wouldn't be too surprised by RDW making odd deck building or design choices with regard to the meta because selecting RDW right now is such a poor meta choice
Post-Worlds, Naya and Boros are going to get a boost in play, as they've clearly proven their ability to fight Jund. That means two of the top four decks in the format are running both Path and Bolt maindeck. Elemental Appeal, Ball Lightning, and Goblin Guide? Sorry guys... you're dying.
Without the creature-damage engine, RDW decks now have to win off of burn spells, but simultaneously, they can't allow Naya to keep a Lifelink creature on the board, and they can't allow Boros to run its creatures in unopposed. Letting Jund get away with T2 Rampant Growth, T3 Bloodbraid into Thrinax? A bad, bad idea...
So that leaves RDW having to run sweepers (Pyroclasm, Earthquake) and yet unable to access the card advantage available to Naya, Boros, or Jund (Ranger of Eos, Bloodbraid Elf, etc...). It will have to draw its advantage from sweeping out its opponents advantage. Honestly though - the debate over statistics via self-burn becomes irrelevant here. RDW is losing due to card disadvantage and powerful creatures in the format. It can't kill a Baneslayer with anything short of 6 mana (banefire for 5) or a pair of card (double Bolt)... that's not the path to victory they want to take. I can understand why, in that case, they'd want to run the Fetches, simply because they're not going to win if their opponent lives past turn 5. Something as simple as a Kabira Crossroad on their opponent's table requires them to draw into even more burn, and if Fetches can improve their draws over the game, it's worth it to them.
-
Of course yes, academically the deck-thinning from Fetchlands is tiny. If you want to really thin your deck, cards like Khalni Heart and Harrow provide more of an impact... combine those with Fetches and land-grab creatures, and you might be able to empty a deck of lands completely.
Spike School
Spike doesn't think. Spike doesn't feel. Spike doesn't laugh or cry. All Spike does from dusk till dawn is make the Johnnys die
If you aren't competitive for the meta it's called for. Then don't play in competitive environments. The odds are against you no matter how long of a diatribe you write.
I find it strange that you say RDW is a bad deck choice, considering it just won the Magic Online championship, versus a great player with one of the strongest decks in the format.
I understand the point you are trying to make with green land grab spells, but not every deck runs those, and every deck runs lands.
I like the odds.
peace
^-- And this is exactly why these forums are for whiny little babies who can't deal with the fact that they are wrong. So they go cry to a mod. Lawl.
The deck thinning a fetchland provides is not worth one life, especially when that extra one life here and there can be a liability against red decks. Mathematically, the deck thinning is so insignifcant that you won't be able to notice it.
This thread is going nowhere. There are people who use logic and people like this guy who just use brute force and ignore numbers. This is a card game. It involves statistics and percentages.
Purely using fetches to thin with no other reason is just bad. If you look at the numbers it is a bad cost/benefit situation. The price you pay is not worth the benefit you gain. Saying "screw percentages, there are less lands in the deck" is a pretty primitive cave man approach to justifying your side.
Other cards that involve paying life actually give you something. This gives you a low percentage of getting something. Thoutsieze is good because the benefit outweighs the cost. Putrid leach is good because the benefit can be well worth the cost. Using fetchlands are like buying a lottery ticket. Your paying for something that you most likely wont get a real return on.
I won't make assumptions about you, but at the top levels of play, ANY advantage is an an advantage you need. You cannot make mistakes. A minor increase in a chance to draw into gas instead of land can, and does mean the difference between a celebration and going home ticked off.
Anecdotal: I've been in many top 8s locally, I've won a few, and lost many more. I can trace nearly all my losses on one of two things.
1) Mana screw.
2) Drawing land when I need gas.
I have noticed, the more fetches I run, the better I end up. I use to be about 50/50 getting to top 8. Now with fetches (Eldrazi Green deck) I'm much more consistent in my top 8 pursuits.
/Ancedotal
------------------
So yes, while the chances are slim, any advantage is needed to take home the prize. Its no myth.
To drive home my point. The mirror match. Identical decks, expect your running Fetches and your opponent isn't. Who now has the statistical better chance at winning?
Banner by Nakamura, Thanks!
EDH Math
EDH Decks:
Ghost Council: The Magic Mafia of Orzhova
BB Drana: Down with the Sickness
Rasputin: Reality is Broken
Vish Kal Bleeder: Bloody Kisses
Teysa, Orzhov Dominatrix
Stonebrow: Breaking Things
BWR Kaalia Punisher: Heaven's on Fire
Grimgrin: Dead Reckoning
Well you sir must be correct. Mono colored decks should for sure run fetches to thin because it is obviously worth it. Take a few proven legacy decks for example. Merfolk and Elves are both mono colored decks and they use fetches...wait a sec...
and you running terramorph is a terrible budget move. Okay, you go ahead and run your terramorph while i run fetchs... as you do this, you'll have slower tempo, play cards a turn too late constantly and i'll just destroy you.
Seeing as even if you top deck that terramorph, the swamp comes onto the battlefield tapped... while my fetch brings it untapped. I'll just play my turn 4 vampire nocturnus, turn 5 bloodwitch/mind sludge and you can continue to play a turn behind me because you couldn't do a turn 4 vamp noc or a turn 5 mind sludge.. which is one of the main ways to win in the mirror btw. You just have to hope to have a terramorph in your opening hand to pop turn 1 not to lose tempo.. so the only time this would ever help you is if you somehow played a terramorph turn 6, and it didn't already screw you from being on top of your library to screw up vamp noc.
MY TRADING POST!
I play Standard and Draft at The Universe of Superheroes / The Wizard's Guild in Athens, OH.
Because we are clearly talking about legacy, as this is the legacy discussion board...wait a sec...
Sorry aggro decks in legacy that dont need color fixing are obviously different from aggro decks in type two that dont need fixing.
Whos excited to read the next person who is ready to say a 1% increase in drawing gas is worth a 5% life loss in an aggro meta...
The problem is fetches are expensive and are considered good. Yes they are good. Good is an understatement but they are good for certain reasons. If they are not put to their intended use then they are not really worth it. Color fixing is there purpose. Not thinning. People get into the mind set that throwing money at deck makes it better. Fact is it is not needed.
better example, recently the world champs took place....including a deck...that did exceptionally well...ran 16 lands...8 of them fetch....now re do your math........statistically his thinning is noticeable in the extreme...although that said the time that thinning comes into effect is around turns 6-7 when one or both players are in 'top-deck' mode...at this point who draws least lands wins.
First why are we talking legacy in a standard forum? Second Elves don't need the fetches to thin their deck because most if not all are running Land Grant to fetch a forest for free. Third look things like burn where your running 16-18 lands by 1 fetch that's 11-12.5% of my lands out per fetch making my chance to draw a spell 46/58-44/58 or 75-78%chance. When drawing lands 4-6 are bad I'll take the 1-4 damage over the course of a game. but back to the first point whether they are good for standard or legacy are two differnt points.
Legacy:
RGWBUDredgeUBWGR
:symrg:Belcher:symrg:
WD&TW
Affinity
WGriffinsW (pauper)
U/thopter comboU/ (peasant)
:symbg:Moosebite:symbg: (peasant)
RGobo tokensR (peasant)
R slide R (peasant)
:symur:pingers:symur:
I win by running tiny amounts of life gain and it screws up your chances of winning by huge amounts. I crack on Sunspring expadistion, and i just negated 3 burn spells to the face. think about it that's two bolts and a burst lightning.
I'm not saying fetch lands are bad there just not overly worth it in a mono red burn deck.
you want true deck thinning run mono green....
rampant growth next turn drop a land your at 4 harrow and a second harrow into rampant gorwth = how much mana out of your deck? 6 lands on the field turn 3.
hey look you can now drop a huge fatty turn 4.
My friend played Violent ultimatum and Acidic Slime both on turn 5 what does RDW have to say about that????
While I'm definitely a fan of math, I like English too. These statements are in direct conflict with one another. If statement A is true, our thinning doesn't impact our deck much, so our ability to draw a land for Landfall stays fairly static, invalidating statement B. This obviously applies vice-versa as well. As is usually the case when presented with two extreme points of view, a reasonable middle ground is pretty close to the truth here.
In any event, while your effort and analysis is appreciated, this discussion has already taken place dozens, maybe even hundreds of times since the release of Onslaught.
that new wight weenie deck that ran top 8 in rome only ran 16, and i tested that out in my little white kor/solder deck and it ran quite consistently. by the end of the game, i might only have 3 lands out on the field, but have a couple 5/5 fliers or double strikers out.
___________________
and again....
if people want to play fetches, let them. it only helps to stimulate their prices. its like trying to convince obama to go communist or something, just let it be.
Obviously there's a benefit to thinning your deck, even just a little bit, and even if it only helps (not necessarily "helps you win," mind you) in 1 out of every 10 games. But the question is whether or the life trade is worth it. Are you now going to lose more than 10% of those deck-thinned games because of the life you're losing? If so, then it's just not worth running the fetches.
Let's say you get one extra card every 10 games you play. Is that worth the cost of 30+ life over the course of those games? Sorry, but no. I think it's pretty clear that the life loss is not worth the simple benefit of thinning your deck.