It's understandable blue control players would be shocked and in denial at the notion of this card, since their decks have been dominating multiple formats for an eternity yet they've curiously never once had to deal with any counter-hosers that weren't ineffectual, narrow CRAP.
This is ridiculous. This is what you give me as profound evidence? You search wizards database and find one, and I mean one mere top 8 as fact to disprove my point of view?
Let's see, PT Venice was the showcase for Onslaught block constructed. You previously claimed that mono red Goblin decks played fetchlands just to thin out their deck. I showed otherwise. You were the one that made such a moronic statement to begin with, so I set out to disprove said statement.
You said:
"You guys know nothing, mono-red Goblin decks played full sets of fetchlands so they could thin out their deck!"
I said:
"No, that's quite a silly statement; let me show you the biggest PT of that season showing clearly otherwise."
And yet, you're still trying to desperately defend your opinion when there is overwhelming evidence otherwise, as I will debunk in this post.
If you wanted me to bring more and more evidence to continue to disprove your claim, then I would have been quite happy to do so. But it seems you've already done the work for me, so I'll just go from there.
Here is a top 8 where two mono red goblins that run fetches. Also every deck in that list has quite a few.
Notice how every mono red deck played Barbarian Ring. Fetchlands put cards into your graveyard to achieve threshold to pop a late-game Barbarian Ring for a few critical points of damage.
Again, there's a reason why fetchlands are played in those decks, and it's not to thin the deck.
14, an astounding 14 decklists that are mono red goblins packed 3+ fetchlands.
Notice how in every one of those mono red goblin decks, every single one of them played Barbarian Ring. That is an actual reason to play with fetchlands as I stated above.
The thing is, I did my homework, because I played that era.
Cool story bro. I played in that era as well, considering that time was my stepping stone into competitive Magic.
I saw what happened, don't come in on forums and try to debate people with 1 or 2 "goodie" links that support your point of view in a fragment of time, and leave the whole spectrum blind to everyone else trying to dismiss me.
Except your rebuttals have been of massive fail, as I'm not the only one that has shown your shortcomings. Other people here see the light that fetchlands aren't used simply to thin your deck out as you have continued to argue. Fetchlands are actually used for mana fixing, triggering land fall, shuffling your library to benefit cards such as Brainstorm, and filling up your graveyard for threshold and other graveyard-reliant cards such as Grim Lavamancer.
This is a horrible attempt at ridicule, edit your post, because if you want to point and click examples off of Wizards database as your "hardcore evidence" lets rumble, because I can come up with 50 times more examples supporting what I say, then you can.
Edit my post? Because you say so? I really don't want to see more examples when I'm almost absolutely certain that they will continue to go against your "play fetchlands solely to thin your deck out!" mantra along with others who believe this falsehood.
A fraction of time (too long in fact, imo) was that no one knew how good fetchlands were, why did we need them? There was painlands in the format, and they don't provide 2 colors, City of brass and the CIPT dual lands were available as well.
As time went on, people started to realize the full potential of these cards. The actual price spike of them was almost immediately after the 2005 Extended season, where Antoine Ruel won with a classic UB psychatog. With life from the loam, cycle lands, and fetchlands in the format, card advantage screamed for mercy.
Isn't it quite coincidential that Ravnica duallands were released and then the fetchlands spike in price? Once again, fetchlands were used to fix the manabase, and not to thin your deck out.
Even his large competitors, the Japanese first formed what we call "Boros" style decks, lots of burn and efficient creatures. The most ridiculous factor of all, was the fact that they had more fetchlands then lands that provided mana. Why did every single notable Japanese player use them? Sure you can claim Grim Lavamancer is a reason, but no other card in that deck had direct synergy.
Nope, you miss the point of why fetchlands were played in that deck once more. Grim Lavamancer was the reason why 8 fetchlands were played in RDW to begin with. I hear 1/1s for 1 mana that create reusable Shocks were pretty good last time I checked. With a full suite of fetchlands, you have additional fodder to feed Lavamancer and squeeze even more burn and removal into the deck without actually having to sacrifice any real deck space.
Like I said, I can poke examples all day, and at a frequency you will not be able to compare.
Anyone can simply do this, Search "2003 X Fetchland name/Goblin" and you will see the results for yourself. Out of 10 links I've seen perhaps 5-8 decks that didn't run fetchlands that were mono colored. So congrats, a few top players disagreed with the other 500.
I've been making mincemeat of your "examples" already. It really does get boring having to continue to argue with you and others who swear by fetchlands simply to thin out the deck, when there is massive evidence in both the decklists and the math showing otherwise. But hey, if you want to keep setting them up, I'll just knock them down.
Next joke please, I will argue this all month if I have to. If your one of these people in denial, come and PM me. I will talk to you on MSN I don't care, I like sharing my point of view and learning from others. I will admit when I make mistakes (which I have written so in the past), but this is such a forte of mine, and my deck building is a reason im 1850 rating at the moment after a long long hiatus. Fetchlands are a key to my success, not going to lie one bit, they can be the key to yours.
Sure, I use fetchlands as well for success. Everyone does; it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. I just don't use them to simply thin out the deck like you persistantly argue they are used for. I use fetchlands for their true applications: mana fixing, triggering landfall, shuffling the deck, and putting cards into the graveyard.
I really don't see you admitting to your mistakes, especially with something like this. But hey, I could be wrong.
Seriously? I thought we already got past the point that fetchlands were played in mono-red decks to fuel Barbarian Ring and Grim Lavamancer. This above deck uses both cards in tandem with the 8 fetchlands. Double whammy!
A commonly occuring decklist for goblins in events past this one (Odyssey-Onslaught), but im pretty sure he is just mana fixing right?
Umm... no. At the very least, fetchlands were used to fuel Barbarian Ring.
Along with the other 10 goblin decks with similar if not more horrid amounts of fetchlands? In a format full of Discard/Madness decks?
See above. Maybe add in Grim Lavamancer if the deck was more RDW-oriented than Goblins-oriented.
How about the other 50 decks, that pack 8 fetchlands between 2 colors?
I'd like you to provide specific examples of this. I'm looking through the decklists since there are a ****load of them, and I'm not finding any examples of this being the case. What I do see though, is an two-colored deck that runs a set of the appropriate fetchland and then supplemental mana fixing and no other fetchlands. If there was a deck that did follow the previous criteria but played with additional fetchlands, other reasons such as shuffling your library, filling the graveyard, etc. were weighed in for playing extra fetchlands. It was not because "I needed them to thin my deck".
Enemy colors, by the way are they mana fixing too?
You're referring to Tight Sight, which is all about abusing Future Sight. Yeah, fetchlands are quite awesome with Future Sight. They were not played simply to thin the deck.
Final Note: I can't be bothered trying to post anymore, I'm buying fetchlands 10-15$ a pop depending what it is, any color combination any set. No questions asked.
You'll probably keep posting despite what you say. Don't kid yourself.
Hey, I've been buying fetchlands at roughly the same price as well. They're super awesome lands without a doubt. Like I mentioned though, I use fetchlands for their actual uses. Not for just thinning out the deck.
Myrman I think the OP is right in that it's a myth, or at least an readily-believed idea that you can spit out probability percentages for but can't truly prove. The only solid way in my opinion that we can prove they work is by results, as was the argument between Surging Chaos and Shmanka. I don't think that necessarily shows how many wins can be directly tied to the unobservable 1-4% advantage. Again, that's why I think decks should focus more on the substance of their spells and not immediately surrender to the popular opinion that tricking out your deck with fetches is guaranteed an advantage.
Since I'm in a humorous mood, let me present easily argued and debatable observations:
1. There are several lists at various FNMs and bigger tournaments in the current standard that run 8 fetches. In most cases if you pack 8 fetches in your deck, although it may give your deck a 1-4% thinning advantage, you're helping your opponent building his deck by giving him a lightning bolt - in other words, an average of 3 fetch activations per game. That's a 15% life total advantage you surrender to your opponent. Now guys, I know it's the season to give, but you may be a little too generous with that kind of handout on your life total.
2. Obviously Fetches are used for reasons other than thinning out your deck, since you have your landfall decks and you have your 3-5 color decks that need mana fixing. Landfall decks have come across the problem of encountering too many fetches after ridiculously thinning out their decks for big boosts, and eventually fall prey to an empty turn or two that usually spells doom for them. On that note I speak from experience.
3. If you're playing 3-5 color and you run fetches for fixing the color palette, you're decreasing the solid land count for your deck. I see too many decklists of multi-color decks that thin out their deck 2 slots for 1 land decrease the likeliness to keep the tempo up since they're more likely to draw more spells (according to pro-thinning ideas) than lands. In control you need a land every turn, so fetches have enough risks to go with that (unarguably good) reward. Missing land drops suck and if there's any hard evidence I can suggest, fetches help ensure I'm eventually missing a land drop if I run too many.
4. As LordofTexas pointed out, decklists have run only 4 fetches without stating (or possibly knowing) the reason why that is. If the purpose of fetches in mono-color is to thin the deck, Is only running 4 fetches defeating your own chance to achieve that purpose? If that's the case, in a mono-colored deck in which only 4 fetches are run, you have roughly a 60% chance by turn 3 to use a fetch in order to increase the probability of drawing a single card from 1.96% to 2%. So when people say that running fetches gives you a certain percentage advantage, they REALLY mean running said fetches gives you a certain percentage chance of getting that boost when you need it.
5. Most mtg players, including myself, don't have the solid math skills to analyze the results or theoretical situations these problems call for. In fact, I would be more than happy for the OP to correct my math in example 4, if any corrections are needed. I'm a pretty good guy when it comes to math, but only when it comes to more theoretical stuff and mathematical philosophies, if you can believe the term. Still goes without saying the average mtg player isn't hardcore studying a particular math in college, so as a community our understanding on what we're arguing about is not as strong as it could potentially be. Plus, Every math whiz/genius that knows his stuff who actually DOES contribute usually gets shot down, so I worry a little bit about the mtg community at times.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Seven Knights gathered under a single banner, but soon came to learn one more would join their cause.
Here's a stupid mathematical proof I just wrote:
'Let's say every game you draw a fetchland and get it right away and play it in a deck of 60 cards. Every 6 turns you get another fetch and sac it. This approximates thinning with 8 fetches.
You're running, let's say 24 lands. We'll compare this with the non-fetch versions, which are usually running 22 lands [this is just RDW, obviously, the comparison may not be valid with other mana-hungry decks].
Assuming you draw 3 lands in your opening hand for each deck and draw 1 land every 3 cards [which is kind of overkill in the first instance, and is an under-approximation in the second, but screw it I'm lazy and it's a freaking approximation: if you want the real thing do a monte carlo simulation].
24 lands w/fetches goes, in terms of chance of drawing into a non-land card:
32/52, 31/51, 31/50, 30/49, 29/48, 29/46. total 3.69 [or, divided by 6, ~.615]
24 lands w/o fetches goes:
32/53, 31/52, 31/51, 30/50, 29/49, 29/48. total 3.603 [divided by 6: ~ .6]
22 lands without fetches goes [assuming drawing three lands, again]:
34/53, 33/52, 33/51, 32/50, 31/49, 31/48. total 3.84167004 [divided by 6: ~.64]
Basically, within the first 6 turns, you have a 9 [3.69 vs. 3.6=.09]% chance of drawing an extra card through the fetch. Eventually you draw an extra card [I'd assume?], but that's after paying a bunch of life. Oh, and waiting a bunch of turns, I mentioned that, right? I'd extrapolate the relatively simple method I used above but it takes work and I didn't just write a program like the other guy who did the simulation did. That would've been smart, but I'm procrastinating studying for a calc 3 final, so intelligence isn't my strong suit right now.
I searched for the simulation that doesn't use the semi-moronic half-measures I used: it's here.
@ the post above, running four fetches gives you an average of a one-card boost on turn 36 at a cost of 3['2.8'] life. This is all exponential [why didn't he publish tables? argh] so on turn, say, 15, you won't have gained 1/2 a card, more like 1/3 or 1/4. Also note that the author there was using a 20-land deck, so the percentages in most decks are actually worse than the ones in the article [more lands=not as much of a thinning effect].
Tying it to wins: basically, losing life is bad. It's not the end of the world, but you're more likely to gain a turn through having enough life to survive for another turn if you're not running fetches. [IMHO, of course.]
That said, in RDW you obviously have to not run the Geopede to do that. Depends on how highly you value the 'Pede. If I had the fetches, I'd probably run them and the Geopede anyways. There are so many interactions with fetches in this set regardless that it's almost a moot point. I mean, Zendikar is out and its' main theme is landfall.
my mouth is full of winsome lies -
and eyes are full of death besides
but luckily the soul is wise -
it sees beyond my blindness and
forced failure makes a better guise,
so as i come again alive,
it feels like life's a decent plan
What I stated is that fetchlands does thin and does cost you life, different people have different perspective on how much each life is worth. In some formats 1 life is not worth much, in another format 1 life is worth a lot. There ARE monocolor decks in the onslaut era that didnt ran any interaction except thinning, top of my head is mono black cleric and MBC, latter being ody-ons and prior being mir-ons. There is 1 mono-black list in that euro link that ran fetches with a few skeletal scrying in the board, which I wont use as an example because there is, although only in game 2/3, still interacts with fetch lands. But I played t2 during that era, both mono-black-cleric(the scion deck) and MBC(a few) played fetches because of cabal archon life gain / corrupt, allowing those decks to offset the life loss pretty easily, in this case losing 1 life is less important than the increase in quality of draws. All in all it depends on the meta, I dont think anyone disagree here when I say there IS a gain, and there IS a loss.
You can't measure the minor thinning with 1 life ALL the time, even if the thinning is worse most of the times than 1 life, it does have its uses. If the meta is filled with fog deck / infi-combo decks, the 1 life wouldnt be relevant at all and everyone would run them in a mono-color deck, even against control its very very helpful. You cant just look at the current meta and say no deck have ever played fetch in a mono-deck for thinning and no deck ever will play them for thinning, the FACT is that it DOES THIN THE DECK,and whether the thinning is better than 1 life is RELATIVE and not ABSOLUTE.
I think we can conclude that in the current meta, mono-color shouldnt play fetches cause the life-loss isnt worth it. It's a little better in the last standard with t2 with more control decks present, but for the sake of the argument lets say overall 1 life is better than thin in that standard metagame. However the fact is that fetchlands does thin, even if its to a small degree, and life loss have no direct corrlation with the fact it does thin; thinning deck, eventhough minor, is totally separate from life gain so we cant use quantitative measurement to measure which one is better. It proves deck thinning is not a myth and in a control/combo heavy metagame, it would be worth it.
The deck thinning theory has been around since the original fetches and have been destroyed as a meaningful advantage years ago. That's why noone run the old fetches in decks that run a single color in Vintage or Legacy.
I wish people would stop saying this because it's false. Combo Elves plays fetches for deck thinning, and it works. Test the deck with 8 fetches and 7 other lands, then with just 15 forests. The result is extremely obvious. The thing that makes it worthwhile is a real draw engine.
What I can't get into my head, is why you would spend 4 or 8 card slots for a virtual card advantage that shows - at the earliest - by turn 16
First of all, I don't think the part about turn 16 is right. Even if it was, it wouldn't be "turn 16", it would be "when you draw your 16th card" which can be accomplished much much quicker than that.
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. This is obvious, but it's the most important point one can remember about deck thinning. Is it better to have a 3/3 plated on numerous turns, or a 5/5 plated once - maybe twice? The jury might be out on that one.
I meant:
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 slightly.
It was the use of the word dramatically that probably made my brain type the wrong thing.
Just because I made a mistake like this, it doesn't contradict very much. My post is based on solid and simple mathematics.
A lot of people are saying:
People never play Fetch Lands purely for deck thinning.
Yet, in fact, I see this all the time in local tournaments. In fact, this is the very reason that all of you are use to argue that Fetches belong in Vamps decks!!
------------------------------------------------
The only reason to use Fetch Lands in vamps is for top decking, but remember, 5% gain in top-decking is a best case scenario.
Some of you have yet to grasp that. I mentioned once or twice in my post that I was calculating an "ideal scenario."
This is very important. If I were to perform statistics on all of these ratios, I would probably arrive at the fact that Fetch Lands do not improve your chances of top decking significantly enough. Therefore, to say that fetch lands are required in a Vamp deck is folly.
If we can agree that Fetch Lands do not improve your top-decking enough, then how come we can't agree that playing Fetch Lands in vamps decks is a bad idea? After all, the point is to improve your chances in top-decking - which fetch lands clearly do not.
Also, only a few people have noticed the obvious problem here.
If you play a game where you have only 2 lands (and they were both fetch lands) - you have reduced your chances of drawing a land (slightly, but indeed). If you need a third land badly, it would have been better not to play fetch lands. So the deck thinning concept actually cancels out with the reality of Magic playing.
In the end, fetch lands only serve to damage you. They also color fix, put lands into your graveyard, and help landfall stomping abilities. I do NOT run plated in my Red Deck Wins. There are other card choices that are just as relevant, if not more supportive to the burn strategy. Plated is the sort of card that you wish you had never drawn after turn 3-4. That's why I took him out. Draw 2 of them in your opening hand, and your chances of winning diminish a bit. Sure, a 5/5 attacker is great on turn 2, but that's all Plated is. He is a turn 2 or 3 attacking machine, and little else. After that, he's little more than a 1/1 first strike chump block for 2 mana. Sure, this is how Red Decks Win, but I find that I can still beat opponents after turn 5 with strategic choices. Very strategic, mathematically sound choices.
Top-decking strategies in Vamps is ridiculous. Again, if we agree that top-decking is almost unaffected, then how come we all think that we need to use Fetch Lands to "improve" top-decking??
The life gain from your 2/3 flier only serves to replenish the life that you lost from 3-4 fetch lands! Ridiculous. If you hadn't run fetch, it would be more like you started the game with 24-26 life.
I'll start a game with 24-26 life over "thinning" my deck for 4% better chance at top-decking. Thanks.
I own Fetch Lands!! I choose to take them out of some of my decks, lol. It's a choice based on:
1) Logic
2) Math
3) Game analysis. Many times, I've needed 3-4 life to win a game. MANY times. Think about all those weenies and near-weenies in the meta. Think about them long and hard, and how your fetches help them out.
-------------------------------
I'm glad to have helped many of you see the light.
There are someVampires that does not agree with you
Bloodghast's ability doesn't require Fetch Lands. In fact, Fetch Lands reduce the probability that the card will be brought back into play. You need a land drop to bring him back. Fetch lands reduce the probability that you will get a land drop. Where is the benefit?
My post above was dealing primarily with Nocturnus.
Yes, Fetch Lands increase your odds of top-decking for Nocturnus. A whopping 2%-6% over not running Fetch. In return, you choose to begin the game with 16-17 life. That's not really a good trade, in my opinion.
Saying that Bloodghast benefits in some way from Fetch Lands is completely, utterly illogical. Fetch lands actually hurt Bloodghast's landfall ability (if you use math and logic to arrive at an educated answer).
______________
There's a common problem here. Just because a card has good use and is worth 10-15 dollars does not mean that it benefits every deck or every situation that you can put it in. I emplore people that play Magic to use logic and wisdom, and not rely on a "gut feeling" about something. Just because a card has a landfall ability DOES NOT mean that Fetch lands will automatically help that ability. Bloodghast is the perfect example.
By the way, the whole reason I did this research was because of Bloodghast. I realized that Fetch Lands actually hurt his ability from happening. Then I did some math. I learned a lot.
-Fetches reduce the chances of drawing land. A one to four percent chance is still significant.
-They allow you to fetch for one of two colors, which, when in an opening hand, can make it playable.
- Okay, if you pop three fetches a game, you're out three life. Three life should not be making/breaking a game for you.
I see fetches playing the biggest role in RDW and Boros (More Boros than RDW. I'm personally not too big of a fan of the Geopede in the RDW myself). Fetches make boros a force to be reckoned with, and the life loss is easily worth it in that deck. With two steppe Lynx in play, playing and fetching a fetch land costs you one life, and up to eight life on your opponent. I respect how much you've looked into the mathematical aspect of fetches on deck thinning and find your calculations are astute, yet you miss the big picture. The fetches are an accessory to landfall and a fix for manascrew. Deck thinning is a side-bonus, but not a stand-alone reason to run them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wake up every morning feeling like John Finkle; grab my deck, I'm out the door and surprised I'm still single.
It's just plain stupid to argue this case. For the people who feels it works, it works. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. No point arguing to death over this topic.
My only concern is the price of the card and whether do I feel that it is necessary for the deck. That's about it.
Fetchland are worth in a vampire deck if used in couple with brain....
Ex.1
have a blooghast in GY and a fetch in ur hand? play the fetch then pop it only when ghast hit GY again
Ex.2
Vampire Nocturnus in play togheter with a fetchland...
Pop Fetch only when ur card is not a black card(landcard) to shuffle your library and have a chance(bigger... even if not so bigger :D) to hit a black card and probably hit your opponent for the win...
Shuffling your library does not improve your chances in any way. I think you meant to say "removing a land" from the ratio.
How many times have you actually done what you just said in example 1? I have played more than 300 games against Vampire decks, and never have I seen someone "wait" to use a fetch so that they can get their Bloodghast back.
If you have a fetch in your hand, and you are planning to use it to get your Bloodghast back, what would be the difference if you had a swamp in your hand waiting to drop? Not much difference? I think not! There's a difference. In fact, the swamp is a better idea. At least the other player doesn't know that you can ressurect the Bloodghast. Putting down a Fetch and intentionally not using it should be alarming to your opponent. They know something is going to happen. So, as you can see, there is little benefit in this situation.
It seems that people will say anything to make Fetch Lands look good. The truth is, they aren't that great in a Vamps deck. Ob Nix? If you can cast him! Chances are, when playing in this meta, you'll take every land drop you get. You won't be holding on to your Fetch Lands for long periods just to bring back a Bloodghast.
Yes, Fetch Lands increase your odds of top-decking for Nocturnus. A whopping 2%-6% over not running Fetch. In return, you choose to begin the game with 16-17 life. That's not really a good trade, in my opinion.
Im no math genuis but i think your thinking about this incorrectly. Vamps run fetches so that if the top card isnt black, they can reshuffle. Im sure that gives it better than a 6% chance to get a black card.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTG Rules Advisor
Quote from thundyr »
Jacerator is an aggro deck - it just wins by attacking the library, it doesn't really control the board other than to play a few Fogs
Bloodghast's ability doesn't require Fetch Lands. In fact, Fetch Lands reduce the probability that the card will be brought back into play. You need a land drop to bring him back. Fetch lands reduce the probability that you will get a land drop. Where is the benefit?
You don't use the fetch until you fail to draw a land and need to get the bloodghast in for damage on a specific turn.
Yes, Fetch Lands increase your odds of top-decking for Nocturnus. A whopping 2%-6% over not running Fetch. In return, you choose to begin the game with 16-17 life. That's not really a good trade, in my opinion.
While you have Nocturnus out, if the top card of your deck is a land, you can use a fetchland to shuffle it in the hopes of getting a non-land card on top to activate his pump. Your chances of getting a non-land card are pretty good, as you've already played at least five lands (four for the nocturnus, one for the fetchland itself), and you're taking another out of the library.
Saying that Bloodghast benefits in some way from Fetch Lands is completely, utterly illogical. Fetch lands actually hurt Bloodghast's landfall ability (if you use math and logic to arrive at an educated answer).
Really? You get two landfall triggers from using a fetchland, but according to your math the percentage reduction in the chance of drawing a land is relatively small. I'll take two triggers for a "penalty" of having a slightly smaller chance of drawing a land, sure.
By the way, the whole reason I did this research was because of Bloodghast. I realized that Fetch Lands actually hurt his ability from happening. Then I did some math. I learned a lot.
I'm going to have to call troll. While I've got a low post count myself, I read through most of the thread last night, caught the last couple of pages today, and quite frankly your posts in this thread are ridiculous. I am interested in reading that brainburst article posted above this post, and I don't disagree that fetches may provide benefits too miniscule to matter in some decks.
But earlier, when you were equating a total of starting life percentage with percentage chance to win?
... And now, with two other people already mentioning Nocturnus
... And the repeated use of bold, red letters, despite the mod warning you not to.
I don't have any hard numbers on this, but I'm targeted more often than a black guy driving a beat-up sedan with a broken tail-light and no license plate, and Cy's well aware of that.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This.
If the fetches aren't doing anything but bleeding you, don't play them. =<
I mean, you can if you want to. Or if you can't do math.
Let's see, PT Venice was the showcase for Onslaught block constructed. You previously claimed that mono red Goblin decks played fetchlands just to thin out their deck. I showed otherwise. You were the one that made such a moronic statement to begin with, so I set out to disprove said statement.
You said:
"You guys know nothing, mono-red Goblin decks played full sets of fetchlands so they could thin out their deck!"
I said:
"No, that's quite a silly statement; let me show you the biggest PT of that season showing clearly otherwise."
And yet, you're still trying to desperately defend your opinion when there is overwhelming evidence otherwise, as I will debunk in this post.
If you wanted me to bring more and more evidence to continue to disprove your claim, then I would have been quite happy to do so. But it seems you've already done the work for me, so I'll just go from there.
Fine. I have nothing better to do I guess.
Notice how every mono red deck played Barbarian Ring. Fetchlands put cards into your graveyard to achieve threshold to pop a late-game Barbarian Ring for a few critical points of damage.
Again, there's a reason why fetchlands are played in those decks, and it's not to thin the deck.
Notice how in every one of those mono red goblin decks, every single one of them played Barbarian Ring. That is an actual reason to play with fetchlands as I stated above.
Cool story bro. I played in that era as well, considering that time was my stepping stone into competitive Magic.
Except your rebuttals have been of massive fail, as I'm not the only one that has shown your shortcomings. Other people here see the light that fetchlands aren't used simply to thin your deck out as you have continued to argue. Fetchlands are actually used for mana fixing, triggering land fall, shuffling your library to benefit cards such as Brainstorm, and filling up your graveyard for threshold and other graveyard-reliant cards such as Grim Lavamancer.
Edit my post? Because you say so? I really don't want to see more examples when I'm almost absolutely certain that they will continue to go against your "play fetchlands solely to thin your deck out!" mantra along with others who believe this falsehood.
Isn't it quite coincidential that Ravnica duallands were released and then the fetchlands spike in price? Once again, fetchlands were used to fix the manabase, and not to thin your deck out.
Nope, you miss the point of why fetchlands were played in that deck once more. Grim Lavamancer was the reason why 8 fetchlands were played in RDW to begin with. I hear 1/1s for 1 mana that create reusable Shocks were pretty good last time I checked. With a full suite of fetchlands, you have additional fodder to feed Lavamancer and squeeze even more burn and removal into the deck without actually having to sacrifice any real deck space.
I've been making mincemeat of your "examples" already. It really does get boring having to continue to argue with you and others who swear by fetchlands simply to thin out the deck, when there is massive evidence in both the decklists and the math showing otherwise. But hey, if you want to keep setting them up, I'll just knock them down.
Sure, I use fetchlands as well for success. Everyone does; it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. I just don't use them to simply thin out the deck like you persistantly argue they are used for. I use fetchlands for their true applications: mana fixing, triggering landfall, shuffling the deck, and putting cards into the graveyard.
I really don't see you admitting to your mistakes, especially with something like this. But hey, I could be wrong.
Seriously? I thought we already got past the point that fetchlands were played in mono-red decks to fuel Barbarian Ring and Grim Lavamancer. This above deck uses both cards in tandem with the 8 fetchlands. Double whammy!
Umm... no. At the very least, fetchlands were used to fuel Barbarian Ring.
See above. Maybe add in Grim Lavamancer if the deck was more RDW-oriented than Goblins-oriented.
I'd like you to provide specific examples of this. I'm looking through the decklists since there are a ****load of them, and I'm not finding any examples of this being the case. What I do see though, is an two-colored deck that runs a set of the appropriate fetchland and then supplemental mana fixing and no other fetchlands. If there was a deck that did follow the previous criteria but played with additional fetchlands, other reasons such as shuffling your library, filling the graveyard, etc. were weighed in for playing extra fetchlands. It was not because "I needed them to thin my deck".
You're referring to Tight Sight, which is all about abusing Future Sight. Yeah, fetchlands are quite awesome with Future Sight. They were not played simply to thin the deck.
You'll probably keep posting despite what you say. Don't kid yourself.
Hey, I've been buying fetchlands at roughly the same price as well. They're super awesome lands without a doubt. Like I mentioned though, I use fetchlands for their actual uses. Not for just thinning out the deck.
Well that was fun. Time for a sandwich.
Since I'm in a humorous mood, let me present easily argued and debatable observations:
1. There are several lists at various FNMs and bigger tournaments in the current standard that run 8 fetches. In most cases if you pack 8 fetches in your deck, although it may give your deck a 1-4% thinning advantage, you're helping your opponent building his deck by giving him a lightning bolt - in other words, an average of 3 fetch activations per game. That's a 15% life total advantage you surrender to your opponent. Now guys, I know it's the season to give, but you may be a little too generous with that kind of handout on your life total.
4. As LordofTexas pointed out, decklists have run only 4 fetches without stating (or possibly knowing) the reason why that is. If the purpose of fetches in mono-color is to thin the deck, Is only running 4 fetches defeating your own chance to achieve that purpose? If that's the case, in a mono-colored deck in which only 4 fetches are run, you have roughly a 60% chance by turn 3 to use a fetch in order to increase the probability of drawing a single card from 1.96% to 2%. So when people say that running fetches gives you a certain percentage advantage, they REALLY mean running said fetches gives you a certain percentage chance of getting that boost when you need it.
'Let's say every game you draw a fetchland and get it right away and play it in a deck of 60 cards. Every 6 turns you get another fetch and sac it. This approximates thinning with 8 fetches.
You're running, let's say 24 lands. We'll compare this with the non-fetch versions, which are usually running 22 lands [this is just RDW, obviously, the comparison may not be valid with other mana-hungry decks].
Assuming you draw 3 lands in your opening hand for each deck and draw 1 land every 3 cards [which is kind of overkill in the first instance, and is an under-approximation in the second, but screw it I'm lazy and it's a freaking approximation: if you want the real thing do a monte carlo simulation].
24 lands w/fetches goes, in terms of chance of drawing into a non-land card:
32/52, 31/51, 31/50, 30/49, 29/48, 29/46. total 3.69 [or, divided by 6, ~.615]
24 lands w/o fetches goes:
32/53, 31/52, 31/51, 30/50, 29/49, 29/48. total 3.603 [divided by 6: ~ .6]
22 lands without fetches goes [assuming drawing three lands, again]:
34/53, 33/52, 33/51, 32/50, 31/49, 31/48. total 3.84167004 [divided by 6: ~.64]
Basically, within the first 6 turns, you have a 9 [3.69 vs. 3.6=.09]% chance of drawing an extra card through the fetch. Eventually you draw an extra card [I'd assume?], but that's after paying a bunch of life. Oh, and waiting a bunch of turns, I mentioned that, right? I'd extrapolate the relatively simple method I used above but it takes work and I didn't just write a program like the other guy who did the simulation did. That would've been smart, but I'm procrastinating studying for a calc 3 final, so intelligence isn't my strong suit right now.
I searched for the simulation that doesn't use the semi-moronic half-measures I used: it's here.
@ the post above, running four fetches gives you an average of a one-card boost on turn 36 at a cost of 3['2.8'] life. This is all exponential [why didn't he publish tables? argh] so on turn, say, 15, you won't have gained 1/2 a card, more like 1/3 or 1/4. Also note that the author there was using a 20-land deck, so the percentages in most decks are actually worse than the ones in the article [more lands=not as much of a thinning effect].
Tying it to wins: basically, losing life is bad. It's not the end of the world, but you're more likely to gain a turn through having enough life to survive for another turn if you're not running fetches. [IMHO, of course.]
That said, in RDW you obviously have to not run the Geopede to do that. Depends on how highly you value the 'Pede. If I had the fetches, I'd probably run them and the Geopede anyways. There are so many interactions with fetches in this set regardless that it's almost a moot point. I mean, Zendikar is out and its' main theme is landfall.
and eyes are full of death besides
but luckily the soul is wise -
it sees beyond my blindness and
forced failure makes a better guise,
so as i come again alive,
it feels like life's a decent plan
Goblins run fetches for non thinning reasons. Merfolk and Elves do not. You sir are wrong.
You can't measure the minor thinning with 1 life ALL the time, even if the thinning is worse most of the times than 1 life, it does have its uses. If the meta is filled with fog deck / infi-combo decks, the 1 life wouldnt be relevant at all and everyone would run them in a mono-color deck, even against control its very very helpful. You cant just look at the current meta and say no deck have ever played fetch in a mono-deck for thinning and no deck ever will play them for thinning, the FACT is that it DOES THIN THE DECK,and whether the thinning is better than 1 life is RELATIVE and not ABSOLUTE.
I think we can conclude that in the current meta, mono-color shouldnt play fetches cause the life-loss isnt worth it. It's a little better in the last standard with t2 with more control decks present, but for the sake of the argument lets say overall 1 life is better than thin in that standard metagame. However the fact is that fetchlands does thin, even if its to a small degree, and life loss have no direct corrlation with the fact it does thin; thinning deck, eventhough minor, is totally separate from life gain so we cant use quantitative measurement to measure which one is better. It proves deck thinning is not a myth and in a control/combo heavy metagame, it would be worth it.
I wish people would stop saying this because it's false. Combo Elves plays fetches for deck thinning, and it works. Test the deck with 8 fetches and 7 other lands, then with just 15 forests. The result is extremely obvious. The thing that makes it worthwhile is a real draw engine.
First of all, I don't think the part about turn 16 is right. Even if it was, it wouldn't be "turn 16", it would be "when you draw your 16th card" which can be accomplished much much quicker than that.
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
I meant:
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 slightly.
It was the use of the word dramatically that probably made my brain type the wrong thing.
Just because I made a mistake like this, it doesn't contradict very much. My post is based on solid and simple mathematics.
A lot of people are saying:
People never play Fetch Lands purely for deck thinning.
Yet, in fact, I see this all the time in local tournaments.
In fact, this is the very reason that all of you are use to argue that Fetches belong in Vamps decks!!
------------------------------------------------
The only reason to use Fetch Lands in vamps is for top decking, but remember, 5% gain in top-decking is a best case scenario.
Some of you have yet to grasp that. I mentioned once or twice in my post that I was calculating an "ideal scenario."
This is very important. If I were to perform statistics on all of these ratios, I would probably arrive at the fact that Fetch Lands do not improve your chances of top decking significantly enough. Therefore, to say that fetch lands are required in a Vamp deck is folly.
If we can agree that Fetch Lands do not improve your top-decking enough, then how come we can't agree that playing Fetch Lands in vamps decks is a bad idea? After all, the point is to improve your chances in top-decking - which fetch lands clearly do not.
Also, only a few people have noticed the obvious problem here.
If you play a game where you have only 2 lands (and they were both fetch lands) - you have reduced your chances of drawing a land (slightly, but indeed). If you need a third land badly, it would have been better not to play fetch lands. So the deck thinning concept actually cancels out with the reality of Magic playing.
In the end, fetch lands only serve to damage you. They also color fix, put lands into your graveyard, and help landfall stomping abilities. I do NOT run plated in my Red Deck Wins. There are other card choices that are just as relevant, if not more supportive to the burn strategy. Plated is the sort of card that you wish you had never drawn after turn 3-4. That's why I took him out. Draw 2 of them in your opening hand, and your chances of winning diminish a bit. Sure, a 5/5 attacker is great on turn 2, but that's all Plated is. He is a turn 2 or 3 attacking machine, and little else. After that, he's little more than a 1/1 first strike chump block for 2 mana. Sure, this is how Red Decks Win, but I find that I can still beat opponents after turn 5 with strategic choices. Very strategic, mathematically sound choices.
Top-decking strategies in Vamps is ridiculous. Again, if we agree that top-decking is almost unaffected, then how come we all think that we need to use Fetch Lands to "improve" top-decking??
The life gain from your 2/3 flier only serves to replenish the life that you lost from 3-4 fetch lands! Ridiculous. If you hadn't run fetch, it would be more like you started the game with 24-26 life.
I'll start a game with 24-26 life over "thinning" my deck for 4% better chance at top-decking. Thanks.
I own Fetch Lands!! I choose to take them out of some of my decks, lol. It's a choice based on:
1) Logic
2) Math
3) Game analysis. Many times, I've needed 3-4 life to win a game. MANY times. Think about all those weenies and near-weenies in the meta. Think about them long and hard, and how your fetches help them out.
-------------------------------
I'm glad to have helped many of you see the light.
R
Click Here to Sign up for Free Live Chat Sessions with Some of Magic's Biggest Pros
Bloodghast's ability doesn't require Fetch Lands. In fact, Fetch Lands reduce the probability that the card will be brought back into play. You need a land drop to bring him back. Fetch lands reduce the probability that you will get a land drop. Where is the benefit?
My post above was dealing primarily with Nocturnus.
Yes, Fetch Lands increase your odds of top-decking for Nocturnus. A whopping 2%-6% over not running Fetch. In return, you choose to begin the game with 16-17 life. That's not really a good trade, in my opinion.
Saying that Bloodghast benefits in some way from Fetch Lands is completely, utterly illogical. Fetch lands actually hurt Bloodghast's landfall ability (if you use math and logic to arrive at an educated answer).
______________
There's a common problem here. Just because a card has good use and is worth 10-15 dollars does not mean that it benefits every deck or every situation that you can put it in. I emplore people that play Magic to use logic and wisdom, and not rely on a "gut feeling" about something. Just because a card has a landfall ability DOES NOT mean that Fetch lands will automatically help that ability. Bloodghast is the perfect example.
By the way, the whole reason I did this research was because of Bloodghast. I realized that Fetch Lands actually hurt his ability from happening. Then I did some math. I learned a lot.
Bold Red is Mod only. Don't use it.
Click Here to Sign up for Free Live Chat Sessions with Some of Magic's Biggest Pros
-They allow you to fetch for one of two colors, which, when in an opening hand, can make it playable.
- Okay, if you pop three fetches a game, you're out three life. Three life should not be making/breaking a game for you.
I see fetches playing the biggest role in RDW and Boros (More Boros than RDW. I'm personally not too big of a fan of the Geopede in the RDW myself). Fetches make boros a force to be reckoned with, and the life loss is easily worth it in that deck. With two steppe Lynx in play, playing and fetching a fetch land costs you one life, and up to eight life on your opponent. I respect how much you've looked into the mathematical aspect of fetches on deck thinning and find your calculations are astute, yet you miss the big picture. The fetches are an accessory to landfall and a fix for manascrew. Deck thinning is a side-bonus, but not a stand-alone reason to run them.
My only concern is the price of the card and whether do I feel that it is necessary for the deck. That's about it.
Currently playing:
T2
BW Aggro-Midrange BW
Shuffling your library does not improve your chances in any way. I think you meant to say "removing a land" from the ratio.
How many times have you actually done what you just said in example 1? I have played more than 300 games against Vampire decks, and never have I seen someone "wait" to use a fetch so that they can get their Bloodghast back.
If you have a fetch in your hand, and you are planning to use it to get your Bloodghast back, what would be the difference if you had a swamp in your hand waiting to drop? Not much difference? I think not! There's a difference. In fact, the swamp is a better idea. At least the other player doesn't know that you can ressurect the Bloodghast. Putting down a Fetch and intentionally not using it should be alarming to your opponent. They know something is going to happen. So, as you can see, there is little benefit in this situation.
It seems that people will say anything to make Fetch Lands look good. The truth is, they aren't that great in a Vamps deck. Ob Nix? If you can cast him! Chances are, when playing in this meta, you'll take every land drop you get. You won't be holding on to your Fetch Lands for long periods just to bring back a Bloodghast.
Click Here to Sign up for Free Live Chat Sessions with Some of Magic's Biggest Pros
Im no math genuis but i think your thinking about this incorrectly. Vamps run fetches so that if the top card isnt black, they can reshuffle. Im sure that gives it better than a 6% chance to get a black card.
You don't use the fetch until you fail to draw a land and need to get the bloodghast in for damage on a specific turn.
While you have Nocturnus out, if the top card of your deck is a land, you can use a fetchland to shuffle it in the hopes of getting a non-land card on top to activate his pump. Your chances of getting a non-land card are pretty good, as you've already played at least five lands (four for the nocturnus, one for the fetchland itself), and you're taking another out of the library.
Really? You get two landfall triggers from using a fetchland, but according to your math the percentage reduction in the chance of drawing a land is relatively small. I'll take two triggers for a "penalty" of having a slightly smaller chance of drawing a land, sure.
I'm going to have to call troll. While I've got a low post count myself, I read through most of the thread last night, caught the last couple of pages today, and quite frankly your posts in this thread are ridiculous. I am interested in reading that brainburst article posted above this post, and I don't disagree that fetches may provide benefits too miniscule to matter in some decks.
But earlier, when you were equating a total of starting life percentage with percentage chance to win?
... And now, with two other people already mentioning Nocturnus
... And the repeated use of bold, red letters, despite the mod warning you not to.
Wat.
Locked.
UUU Azami, Lady of Scrolls
RRR Diaochan, Artful Beauty
UR(U/R) Tibor, Lumia, & Melek (WIP)
Mafia Stats