It's been mathematically proven for over 6 years now that fetchlands do thin your deck, but they thin your deck by such an insignificant amount that you won't actually detect it:
I've linked this article several times to people who tell me, "Play fetchlands to thin your deck!!!!111". The above article proves otherwise. Fetchlands do not thin your deck by any notable margain at all. This isn't an opinion; it's fact.
Of course, I know there will be people that continue to dismiss the statstics behind the data. Numbers don't lie folks.
This article has been debated itself for over 6 years. It has also been highly rejected for over 6 years.
To counter your point on "thinning your deck so insignificantly" is a bad move against certain archetypes. You could be absolutely correct. The fact of the matter is the X number of fetchlands you play is the X number of dead cards you are going to draw against that deck.
Your Fact that is based off that article has huge mathematical errors and biases surrounding it. I take statistics every year for my masters. Thats a highschool project put into a computer program with ridiculous numbers as baselines for manabases. I will criticize that paper because I can. I can also bring up statistics that whenever fetchlands were in standard, everyone used them. Those stats are staggering, and probably alot more sound then the argument you linked to.
We aren't debating marginal, because thats a personal perspective as to what that exactly is. Even the original poster said it probably ranges higher then 5%, and that is statistically significant.
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.
This post is not intended to have any weight on the discussion (I might post something later) but the said deck wen 3-3 in the standard portion
Deck thinning from fetches is definitely a myth. The lifeloss is not worth a negligible increase in the chance of drawing a spell. First of all, sometimes you want to draw lands. Secondly, if you people think 5% sounds like a good percentage increase, think about it this way. A 5% increase in chance of drawing a spell will, on average, give you 1 additional spell over TWENTY TURNS or some such. Games are decided in far fewer than that, and the life loss from the amount of fetchlands required to even reach that threshold is definitely relevant.
Now, fetchlands are definitely worth running if they serve other purposes, like pumping a geopede or changing your top card when you have a nocturnus, but if you are running them purely to thin, you are doing it wrong.
5% is more than enough to play fetches in fast aggro decks.
This is the main reason i run them in my zoo deck. Also to fix my mana, and to raise relequary out of bolt range when i play her.
I am a computer programmer and i want to write a program to randomly make a deck and find out the probabilities of drawing lands on the first few turns with and then with out fetch lands.
I really don't get some people. Seriously, they are stupid enough to say that fetchlands are good for thinning, just because the good players play them. Please look at the hard facts, and not at what good players do! That is just a terrible argument!
Sphinx is really good. Control will play it and be able to protect him just fine, hes a much better finisher then Jwar Isle and thats saying a lot considering how good he alone is. Bazzar Trader.dec now has 16 threaten effects. Thats really, really, really,really good. Really good.
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.
Well vamps need fetch for more reasons. To get back bloodghast and just incase the top of your deck is a land and its stops you from getting the Nocturnous buff. Red deck wins needs it for the Plated Geopede. I dont think u underdand how effective they are. Well all and all the statements you are making that 1 life is more important then for some landfall decks + land for lotus cobra, +1 4/4 beast, gives 1 creter +4/ +4 and trample and more.
Here some examples to show how much/less fetch lands thins the deck
And here a litle calculation (done by myself because I don't really believe all I read and don't want to recalculate all the other things)
if you start the game with a hand with 7 cards of which 3 are lands and you are running a 24 card deck.
If you start the game with 7 cards not running fetchlands you will draw:
3.622641509 cards until turn 7
If you play a fetchland on turn 1 you will draw:
3.692307692 spells until turn 7
so you lose 1 life and you will draw 0.069666183 more cards until turn 7
this is 1 additional card you draw in 14.35 games.
when you play 1 fetchland turn 1 and 1 fetchland turn two you will draw
3.753846154 spells until turn 7. and lose 2 life.
This is 0.1312046448 cards more. this means 1 card more every 7.62 games.
when you are running less lands (or the game takes even longer) this will become a lot more.
So another example to show this.
you are playing against a controlldeck you play a fetchland turn 1 turn 2 and turn 7 then you will have drawn:
9.071328671 spells until turn 15 and lost 3 life
if you would run no fetchlands you would have drawn:
8.452830189 spells and lost no life.
This are 0.6184984823 spells less. This means you would draw 1 card more in 6 out of 10 games.
My new houserules:
1. Every player saing exiled or battlefield will be kicked out.
2. Not using you mana deals 2 points of manaburn.
3. Combat damage goes over the Stack and you can freely assign it.
4. Lifelinks does stack and doesn't safe you from dying.
5. Tokens are owned bye the one who has made them.
Everyone thinking M10 will not affect a lot of cards or Limited a lot, either has no clue about magic or has never played limited or is getting paid by wizards to do propaganda.
I've also seen some analytical data proving that fetch lands barely improve your chances of drawing a spell. I agree with the article in terms of pure deck thinning, however, I don't believe there's a single deck in standard that runs fetchlands without another reason behind it.
RDW: creates nasty hands with Plated Geopede, and this interaction should not be overlooked.
Vampires: the synergy between Vampire Nocturnus and fetchlands is a large reason why he works so well. Plus, they allow for instant-speed Bloodghasts.
WW: Steppe Lynx is much like Plated Geopede here. Plus, they run 16 lands, half being fetches. Therefore it does allow for major deck thinning.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Amazing Avy & Sig by mchief111 @ Rising Studios [4/22/11]
Deck thinning is not a myth at all, you just need to have a legitimate draw engine to see the results. Now if you're talking about Standard only, with no good card-draw, then maybe it seems like a myth. Try playing an Elf-Clamp deck with and without fetchlands though, the difference will be clear and obvious.
TBH, I think this thread was started just because soemone didn't want to splurge on fetch lands, so they diss them to TRY to falsely drive the price down.
Look, if I show ppl that there is only a small, irrelevent percentage of "deck thinning", maybe they will not feel they NEED to put them in their deck. Then I can get that set of Misty Rainforests for a small irrelevent discount.
/absurd
This argument is only discussing the fetch-for-pain fetch lands. What about Panoramas and Terramorphic Expanses?? You are not losing life with those.
/ha
sry, but this argument is kinda ridiculous.
Math or no. Pain or No. I think this is more a discussion of Cost Effective vs. Cost Opportunity rather than the relevance of "thinning".
If you are going to use math to solidify your argument, try some real probability analysis rather than a simple linear noncontextual algebraic ones.
To top it off, Geopede reaching for 5 is turn 3. Hellspark Elemental is better on turn three if played and unearthed turn 3 after initial play turn 2. Hellspark also has trample so he wont get chumped.
Well, just a little correction:
Geopede's pump doesn't cost you mana. You can pump the Geopede and play a Hellspark turn 3 if you want, with fetches. That's the main advantage in RDW.
TBH, I think this thread was started just because soemone didn't want to splurge on fetch lands, so they diss them to TRY to falsely drive the price down.
Look, if I show ppl that there is only a small, irrelevent percentage of "deck thinning", maybe they will not feel they NEED to put them in their deck. Then I can get that set of Misty Rainforests for a small irrelevent discount.
/absurd
This argument is only discussing the fetch-for-pain fetch lands. What about Panoramas and Terramorphic Expanses?? You are not losing life with those.
/ha
sry, but this argument is kinda ridiculous.
Math or no. Pain or No. I think this is more a discussion of Cost Effective vs. Cost Opportunity rather than the relevance of "thinning".
If you are going to use math to solidify your argument, try some real probability analysis rather than a simple linear noncontextual algebraic ones.
Totally agree with everything you just said.
I find this to be the norm on these boards. If you cant afford something
(Fetches, BSA, Elspeth and Ect...) you bash it and say its not that good and should not cost as much as it does. If you cant afford something thats fine not everyone has tons of cash to throw at this game, just dont try to make yourself feel better by saying the high priced cards are no good cuz you cant afford them.
@OP: You admit it yourself that fetches give you higher chance of drawing a spell. Even in Zendikar Standard, drawing a spell in late game is usually better than drawing a land. So using fetches = higher chance of winning the game, even if it's only 5%. Casual FNM player probably doesnt care about that little advantage but dedicated tournament player will want to use every little advantage he or she can.
To sum it up: Do fetches help you win? Yes. Will you buy them? It depends on how serious you are about this game.
It's not 5% chance of winning the game, its 5% chance of drawing 1 extra non-land card compared to a land.
What about when you have a 2 lander opening and you really want to draw a land, but both your lands are fetches? Looks like your reducing your own chance to draw lands (and according to fetch-for-thinning-only supporters, it is a significant amount). It gets even worse when the enemy starts whacking on you and your doing nothing but helping them out.
The next time you die to the aggro deck by 1 or 2 life, look at how many fetch lands you cracked.
If fetches didn't cost life, nobody would argue not to play them, even budget minded folks wouldn't be arguing at all, its a no brainer. But the life loss IS RELEVENT. More so than the Thinning.
If fetches didn't cost life, nobody would argue not to play them, even budget minded folks wouldn't be arguing at all, its a no brainer. But the life loss IS RELEVENT. More so than the Thinning.
Sometimes, but not always.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There are two types of people in this world: people who think that countermagic is the most powerful effect in the game and people who aren't morons.
My color is Purple. I value diversity, smashed color pies and obsolete Inquest articles. At my best, I can redefine MTG in a new and wonderful way. At my worst, I can end up as an Unhinged joke. My symbol is not defined. My enemies are 5 old and bureaucratic angry colors.
The next time you die to the aggro deck by 1 or 2 life, look at how many fetch lands you cracked.
Or how many non-relevant cards you drew, how you misplayed, how you improperly blocked, when you timed your removal, and when you just sucked at playing magic that time.
There's alot more reasons to lose a game then 1 point of life.
I would start any game, and I mean any game against any player with 4 less life, and my choosing of basic lands for the first few turns, and 4 less cards in my deck.
If you wouldn't, there is something terribly wrong with you.
I would start any game, and I mean any game against any player with 4 less life, and my choosing of basic lands for the first few turns, and 4 less cards in my deck.
If you wouldn't, there is something terribly wrong with you.
Any game against any player? Okay, sounds good. All-in red (or some equivalent) says thanks. I for one wouldn't want to lead the game off with fetch x4.
Fetches are good, even great in certain decks, but they are not an auto-include in decks just for the thinning. Their real benefit is: triggering landfall, graveyard filling, library manipulation (top/scroll rack/ponder), and color fixing. The thinning should be seen as an added bonus, not the sole reason for inclusion. In that case, imo, its extremely close whether you want them in there or not.
Also, whoever said "goblin decks in the onslaught era used them solely for thinning" needs to think again:
Mono R goblins used *0* fetches; Goblin Bidding used 4 - for color fixing. There was a R/g goblins that used 4 elsewhere for sided Naturalize and the like, but no goblin deck of the era used 8 exclusively for thinning. That is as good an indictment against the "thinning is king" argument I can find - a quality aggro deck that could hang in the midgame didn't feel it was worth it to include 8 fetches to thin.
With the abundance of NetDecking on MTGO, it's probably always run the fetches. Since my competitor and I are likely running the same lame azz deck that is dominating the format, see JUND, I'll take the percentage points. I'm assuming that the other player is as awesome as me, of course.
Realistically, I'd bet on player error to be the #1 reason that I'd win or lose. Further, simple statistics is inappropriate here. You are assuming the events are random. Players capacity to play the game changes that. AS does the busting 4 fetch lands by round 4 and having 16 life. The math is off, though still on target as far as I'm concerned.
My question is, would a player be willing to start with a 56 card deck and 16 total life points? Or a 54 card deck and 14 total life points? I'd probably bet that most players would rather start at 20 life and 60 cards, and rightfully so.
I remember reading a similar bit about how fetchlands thin your deck, but statistically, we don't see an "improvement in draws" until the late (10+) turns of the game.
I am going on the assumption that the above is true. Playing against aggro, this is no good: you generally won't live long enough to reap the benefits. Against midrange\control: yeah sure, I'd say it's valid - longer games.
For colorfixing, there is obviously no argument.
And then we have tactics like counter\top, brainstorm, and other forms of library manipulation, which are just insane with fetchlands. There's no argument here.
It largely depends on the deck you are playing with, and the deck you are playing against, which will determine if the "thinning" part of fetchlands is relevant or not. I don't deny its existence, but I do question its effectiveness for each deck or matchup.
Thanks for botching what I said. I said "Block", and at the same time, thanks for the findings that 7/8 non-affinity decks in the top 8 use fetchlands, even in standard.
At the same time, this represents only 2 major tournaments, I'm sure you could do more homework. I played super competitively that era. I saw decks with fetchlands, I played against top decks with fetchlands, and it's going to happen again.
Those are pretty good statistics right there.
EDIT: I think people are really and I mean really underestimating the fact that the numbers being splooged out are in percentages, and these percentages are factoring in a 53 card deck (assuming you didn't mulligan). Then these numbers increase by a large amount when you factor in other methods of card draw, top decking, etc.
This "marginal" thinning, is good enough for all professional magic players. So it's good enough for me, whether you calculate the correct decimal number or not.
EDIT: I think people are really and I mean really underestimating the fact that the numbers being splooged out are in percentages, and these percentages are factoring in a 53 card deck (assuming you didn't mulligan). Then these numbers increase by a large amount when you factor in other methods of card draw, top decking, etc.
This is what I was saying in my previous post. Those "10 turns to see a whole card difference" quotes are assuming you draw 1 card per turn. In some mono-colored decks like Elf-Clamp you'll be drawing more than 10 cards in one turn and will easily see the benefits of running fetches. As this applies to Standard though (with no good card draw) you probably won't see much benefit from the thinning. Any benefit at all is worth one life to me though. I'd gladly pay one life just to make my opponent recite the A-B-C's if I could.
I find this to be the norm on these boards. If you cant afford something
(Fetches, BSA, Elspeth and Ect...) you bash it and say its not that good and should not cost as much as it does. If you cant afford something thats fine not everyone has tons of cash to throw at this game, just dont try to make yourself feel better by saying the high priced cards are no good cuz you cant afford them.
So are you really saying that fetchlands are worth so much because of the 'deck thinning' effect they have in monocoloured decks? I think not, it's obvious it's because they provide great fixing in every single format of the game.
Therefore the original post was not made because the poster 'can't afford fetchlands lulz' he makes it quite clear that they're purpose is primarily colour fixing.
I have to agree with him really, slapping 8 fetchlands in your moncoloured deck purely for 'deck thinning' seems very pointless. It's like giving your opponent a free burn spell at the start of every game for very little if no return.
Ok, here's a quote I always fall back on:
"Statistics are just a way for stupid people to quantify their ignorance." - Charles Krouthammer
The people playing fetchlands for "deck thinning" are the same people who don't understand why they keep going 2-3 at fnm.
Bottom line is, play fetchlands if they serve a *specific *mechanical purpose in the deck (ie. fixing or top-of-deck-manipulation). Otherwise you're better off saving $.
This article has been debated itself for over 6 years. It has also been highly rejected for over 6 years.
To counter your point on "thinning your deck so insignificantly" is a bad move against certain archetypes. You could be absolutely correct. The fact of the matter is the X number of fetchlands you play is the X number of dead cards you are going to draw against that deck.
Your Fact that is based off that article has huge mathematical errors and biases surrounding it. I take statistics every year for my masters. Thats a highschool project put into a computer program with ridiculous numbers as baselines for manabases. I will criticize that paper because I can. I can also bring up statistics that whenever fetchlands were in standard, everyone used them. Those stats are staggering, and probably alot more sound then the argument you linked to.
We aren't debating marginal, because thats a personal perspective as to what that exactly is. Even the original poster said it probably ranges higher then 5%, and that is statistically significant.
Have you ever seen Onslaught Block goblins? I guarantee you the reason they used fetchlands were to thin out that deck. This isn't even arguable.
This post is not intended to have any weight on the discussion (I might post something later) but the said deck wen 3-3 in the standard portion
Now, fetchlands are definitely worth running if they serve other purposes, like pumping a geopede or changing your top card when you have a nocturnus, but if you are running them purely to thin, you are doing it wrong.
This is the main reason i run them in my zoo deck. Also to fix my mana, and to raise relequary out of bolt range when i play her.
I am a computer programmer and i want to write a program to randomly make a deck and find out the probabilities of drawing lands on the first few turns with and then with out fetch lands.
It is mentioned before, but http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/print.asp?ID=3096, that proves that deck thinning is a myth.
Well vamps need fetch for more reasons. To get back bloodghast and just incase the top of your deck is a land and its stops you from getting the Nocturnous buff. Red deck wins needs it for the Plated Geopede. I dont think u underdand how effective they are. Well all and all the statements you are making that 1 life is more important then for some landfall decks + land for lotus cobra, +1 4/4 beast, gives 1 creter +4/ +4 and trample and more.
And here a litle calculation (done by myself because I don't really believe all I read and don't want to recalculate all the other things)
if you start the game with a hand with 7 cards of which 3 are lands and you are running a 24 card deck.
If you start the game with 7 cards not running fetchlands you will draw:
3.622641509 cards until turn 7
If you play a fetchland on turn 1 you will draw:
3.692307692 spells until turn 7
so you lose 1 life and you will draw 0.069666183 more cards until turn 7
this is 1 additional card you draw in 14.35 games.
when you play 1 fetchland turn 1 and 1 fetchland turn two you will draw
3.753846154 spells until turn 7. and lose 2 life.
This is 0.1312046448 cards more. this means 1 card more every 7.62 games.
when you are running less lands (or the game takes even longer) this will become a lot more.
So another example to show this.
you are playing against a controlldeck you play a fetchland turn 1 turn 2 and turn 7 then you will have drawn:
9.071328671 spells until turn 15 and lost 3 life
if you would run no fetchlands you would have drawn:
8.452830189 spells and lost no life.
This are 0.6184984823 spells less. This means you would draw 1 card more in 6 out of 10 games.
1. Every player saing exiled or battlefield will be kicked out.
2. Not using you mana deals 2 points of manaburn.
3. Combat damage goes over the Stack and you can freely assign it.
4. Lifelinks does stack and doesn't safe you from dying.
5. Tokens are owned bye the one who has made them.
Everyone thinking M10 will not affect a lot of cards or Limited a lot, either has no clue about magic or has never played limited or is getting paid by wizards to do propaganda.
RDW: creates nasty hands with Plated Geopede, and this interaction should not be overlooked.
Vampires: the synergy between Vampire Nocturnus and fetchlands is a large reason why he works so well. Plus, they allow for instant-speed Bloodghasts.
WW: Steppe Lynx is much like Plated Geopede here. Plus, they run 16 lands, half being fetches. Therefore it does allow for major deck thinning.
That was standard, with essentially the same lands and a full block to work with it.
Trade Thread
Modern
RWGBurnGWR
GUInfectUG
GRTronRG
UWGifts TronWU
URBGrixis DelverBRU
RGWZooWGR
Legacy
BUWTinFinsWUB
UROmniTellRU
BURTESRUB
GElves!G
GBPSIBG
RGBelcherGR
UBRGWDredgeWGRBU
UBAffinityBU
RBurnR
Vintage
UBGDoomsdayGBU
0Martello Shops0
GElves!G
UBTPSBU
UBelcherU
0Dredge0
Look, if I show ppl that there is only a small, irrelevent percentage of "deck thinning", maybe they will not feel they NEED to put them in their deck. Then I can get that set of Misty Rainforests for a small irrelevent discount.
/absurd
This argument is only discussing the fetch-for-pain fetch lands. What about Panoramas and Terramorphic Expanses?? You are not losing life with those.
/ha
sry, but this argument is kinda ridiculous.
Math or no. Pain or No. I think this is more a discussion of Cost Effective vs. Cost Opportunity rather than the relevance of "thinning".
If you are going to use math to solidify your argument, try some real probability analysis rather than a simple linear noncontextual algebraic ones.
Well, just a little correction:
Geopede's pump doesn't cost you mana. You can pump the Geopede and play a Hellspark turn 3 if you want, with fetches. That's the main advantage in RDW.
Totally agree with everything you just said.
I find this to be the norm on these boards. If you cant afford something
(Fetches, BSA, Elspeth and Ect...) you bash it and say its not that good and should not cost as much as it does. If you cant afford something thats fine not everyone has tons of cash to throw at this game, just dont try to make yourself feel better by saying the high priced cards are no good cuz you cant afford them.
It's not 5% chance of winning the game, its 5% chance of drawing 1 extra non-land card compared to a land.
What about when you have a 2 lander opening and you really want to draw a land, but both your lands are fetches? Looks like your reducing your own chance to draw lands (and according to fetch-for-thinning-only supporters, it is a significant amount). It gets even worse when the enemy starts whacking on you and your doing nothing but helping them out.
The next time you die to the aggro deck by 1 or 2 life, look at how many fetch lands you cracked.
If fetches didn't cost life, nobody would argue not to play them, even budget minded folks wouldn't be arguing at all, its a no brainer. But the life loss IS RELEVENT. More so than the Thinning.
Sometimes, but not always.
Or how many non-relevant cards you drew, how you misplayed, how you improperly blocked, when you timed your removal, and when you just sucked at playing magic that time.
There's alot more reasons to lose a game then 1 point of life.
I would start any game, and I mean any game against any player with 4 less life, and my choosing of basic lands for the first few turns, and 4 less cards in my deck.
If you wouldn't, there is something terribly wrong with you.
Any game against any player? Okay, sounds good. All-in red (or some equivalent) says thanks. I for one wouldn't want to lead the game off with fetch x4.
Fetches are good, even great in certain decks, but they are not an auto-include in decks just for the thinning. Their real benefit is: triggering landfall, graveyard filling, library manipulation (top/scroll rack/ponder), and color fixing. The thinning should be seen as an added bonus, not the sole reason for inclusion. In that case, imo, its extremely close whether you want them in there or not.
Also, whoever said "goblin decks in the onslaught era used them solely for thinning" needs to think again:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Events.aspx?x=mtgevent/worlds04/t8decks
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=sideboard/worlds03/t8decks
Mono R goblins used *0* fetches; Goblin Bidding used 4 - for color fixing. There was a R/g goblins that used 4 elsewhere for sided Naturalize and the like, but no goblin deck of the era used 8 exclusively for thinning. That is as good an indictment against the "thinning is king" argument I can find - a quality aggro deck that could hang in the midgame didn't feel it was worth it to include 8 fetches to thin.
Realistically, I'd bet on player error to be the #1 reason that I'd win or lose. Further, simple statistics is inappropriate here. You are assuming the events are random. Players capacity to play the game changes that. AS does the busting 4 fetch lands by round 4 and having 16 life. The math is off, though still on target as far as I'm concerned.
My question is, would a player be willing to start with a 56 card deck and 16 total life points? Or a 54 card deck and 14 total life points? I'd probably bet that most players would rather start at 20 life and 60 cards, and rightfully so.
I am going on the assumption that the above is true. Playing against aggro, this is no good: you generally won't live long enough to reap the benefits. Against midrange\control: yeah sure, I'd say it's valid - longer games.
For colorfixing, there is obviously no argument.
And then we have tactics like counter\top, brainstorm, and other forms of library manipulation, which are just insane with fetchlands. There's no argument here.
It largely depends on the deck you are playing with, and the deck you are playing against, which will determine if the "thinning" part of fetchlands is relevant or not. I don't deny its existence, but I do question its effectiveness for each deck or matchup.
Thanks for botching what I said. I said "Block", and at the same time, thanks for the findings that 7/8 non-affinity decks in the top 8 use fetchlands, even in standard.
At the same time, this represents only 2 major tournaments, I'm sure you could do more homework. I played super competitively that era. I saw decks with fetchlands, I played against top decks with fetchlands, and it's going to happen again.
Those are pretty good statistics right there.
EDIT: I think people are really and I mean really underestimating the fact that the numbers being splooged out are in percentages, and these percentages are factoring in a 53 card deck (assuming you didn't mulligan). Then these numbers increase by a large amount when you factor in other methods of card draw, top decking, etc.
This "marginal" thinning, is good enough for all professional magic players. So it's good enough for me, whether you calculate the correct decimal number or not.
This is what I was saying in my previous post. Those "10 turns to see a whole card difference" quotes are assuming you draw 1 card per turn. In some mono-colored decks like Elf-Clamp you'll be drawing more than 10 cards in one turn and will easily see the benefits of running fetches. As this applies to Standard though (with no good card draw) you probably won't see much benefit from the thinning. Any benefit at all is worth one life to me though. I'd gladly pay one life just to make my opponent recite the A-B-C's if I could.
Trade Thread
Modern
RWGBurnGWR
GUInfectUG
GRTronRG
UWGifts TronWU
URBGrixis DelverBRU
RGWZooWGR
Legacy
BUWTinFinsWUB
UROmniTellRU
BURTESRUB
GElves!G
GBPSIBG
RGBelcherGR
UBRGWDredgeWGRBU
UBAffinityBU
RBurnR
Vintage
UBGDoomsdayGBU
0Martello Shops0
GElves!G
UBTPSBU
UBelcherU
0Dredge0
So are you really saying that fetchlands are worth so much because of the 'deck thinning' effect they have in monocoloured decks? I think not, it's obvious it's because they provide great fixing in every single format of the game.
Therefore the original post was not made because the poster 'can't afford fetchlands lulz' he makes it quite clear that they're purpose is primarily colour fixing.
I have to agree with him really, slapping 8 fetchlands in your moncoloured deck purely for 'deck thinning' seems very pointless. It's like giving your opponent a free burn spell at the start of every game for very little if no return.
"Statistics are just a way for stupid people to quantify their ignorance." - Charles Krouthammer
The people playing fetchlands for "deck thinning" are the same people who don't understand why they keep going 2-3 at fnm.
Bottom line is, play fetchlands if they serve a *specific *mechanical purpose in the deck (ie. fixing or top-of-deck-manipulation). Otherwise you're better off saving $.
I am John Galt.