Hey everybody! So I just started playing Magic about a month ago but I already love everything about it. I'm curious to know how many lands people usually run in a 60-card deck? Everything I've read says to play at least 24 and I've had some experienced Magic players tell me they only use 20. I've been using 22 and that's been okay but I would really like to know what everyone else thinks. Cheers
It really depends on what kind of deck you play. Aggressive low curve decks obviously play less lands while high cost midrange or control decks play more.
There's a good article somewhere around here about it, but I'm a little er... stuck at the moment.
Google "Hypergeometric Distribution" and "mana curve" for really good starting points. The articles are interesting reads.
To put it simply, the formula helps you figure out the likelyhood you'll draw card X. Mana Curve helps you figure out when you want to be hitting your spells.
So if you're running say... an Aggro (I still think of it as Weenie, but whatever.), you're running a lot of low cost 1 or 2 CMC spells so you really only need a small number of land because you're pounding away at your opponent and basically top decking by turn three or four or whatever. So you want to run lean on land. After turn four (or thereabouts) lands are just dead cards in your hand.
Battleship decks on the other hand run really high mana cards, like Gleemax . Without cheating high cost cards into play, you need to hit your land drop every turn. And you need to look at ramping techniques. The old Legacy ramp cards are Black Lotus, Moxes Sol Ring, and classics like Lotus Petal or Lion's Eye Diamond. Mana rocks, elves, birds, myr's. The list goes on and on, anything to get more mana into your pool for casting cards. (assuming no cheating of course).
IMHO mastering the Hypergeometric Distribution formula really helps me fine tune my decks for land and spell balances. It's not the only thing to look at, but it's a big factor.
20/60 = 33.333%
33.333% * 7 = 2.33, rounded down to 2 lands
24/60 = 40%
40% * 7 = 2.8, rounded up to 3 lands
Your next few draws each have about the same odds of being a land as in your opening hand. So does your deck's mana curve center around 2, 3, 4, or even 5? How quickly do you need to get to that critical land amount? Answer those and adjust accordingly.
I think it should be fairly obvious that 20 is too low for most decks. 23-24 is reasonable amount of land for most decks.
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
Yes! But I could see an argument for 61 in Enchantress, I have never run 61 in anything but Lands.
61 has a very small effect on the probability of drawing a four-of. But the extra utility land I get to run can be found fairly reliably with all my tutors and Loaming. It's a good trade. I used to go back and forth between 60 & 61, but I can't see myself going back to 60 any time soon.
In my testing I have found out that 22 is the best number (for an average mana curve).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your thoughts, for they become words.
Watch your words, for they become actions.
Watch your actions, for they become habits.
Watch your habits, for they become character.
Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.
I play a B/G delirium with quite a few large creatures. I play 24 lands because while my opponents are paying more attention to my delirium they are not expecting me to suddenly swing all my lands and pull out something massive that kills them next turn. Muahahahaha!
20-25 depending on curve, ability to ramp, what the deck is aiming to do, etc.
deck loaded with a ton of dorks or with a curve of like 1.5 with the ability to filter/draw? we'll shoot low. some rando bull***** dick around thing at the kitchen table that's more about dropping cruel ultimatum and copying it 30 times? probably closer to 25
a lot of inexperienced players take a very formulaic approach to deck building like they have to adhere to set rules on how many creatures/lands/spells to include and frankly... it just promotes poor deck building
What if you're playing cards that tap for mana? e. g. a bunch of Ilysian Caryatids and some of the Ikoria 3 colour mana artifacts. How does that impact the ideal number of lands?
Also, if you're playing dual colour decks vs mono decks would that impact the number of lands needed to get the drop you want each turn?
What if you're playing cards that tap for mana? e. g. a bunch of Ilysian Caryatids and some of the Ikoria 3 colour mana artifacts. How does that impact the ideal number of lands?
Any such card that costs 3+ mana to play should be ignored when figuring out the number of lands for a deck. That cost is already too high to have those cards help your mana development much. Cards that cost 1 or 2 mana can somewhat lower the number of lands necessary, though only to a certain degree. I usually consider three such cards capable of replacing about one land. But in moderation, not en masse. 20 Elvish Mystic equivalents cannot replace 7 Forests.
Also, if you're playing dual colour decks vs mono decks would that impact the number of lands needed to get the drop you want each turn?
With enough dual lands, there is no real difference. The more your mana base relies on basic lands, however, the harder it is to get the right configuration. And then it may very well be better to add one or two more lands to get colors more consistently.
Standard: BG Golgari Midrange
Modern: U Merfolk GWUBR 5 Color Humans UBW Esper Gifts GW Bogles
Google "Hypergeometric Distribution" and "mana curve" for really good starting points. The articles are interesting reads.
To put it simply, the formula helps you figure out the likelyhood you'll draw card X. Mana Curve helps you figure out when you want to be hitting your spells.
So if you're running say... an Aggro (I still think of it as Weenie, but whatever.), you're running a lot of low cost 1 or 2 CMC spells so you really only need a small number of land because you're pounding away at your opponent and basically top decking by turn three or four or whatever. So you want to run lean on land. After turn four (or thereabouts) lands are just dead cards in your hand.
Battleship decks on the other hand run really high mana cards, like Gleemax . Without cheating high cost cards into play, you need to hit your land drop every turn. And you need to look at ramping techniques. The old Legacy ramp cards are Black Lotus, Moxes Sol Ring, and classics like Lotus Petal or Lion's Eye Diamond. Mana rocks, elves, birds, myr's. The list goes on and on, anything to get more mana into your pool for casting cards. (assuming no cheating of course).
IMHO mastering the Hypergeometric Distribution formula really helps me fine tune my decks for land and spell balances. It's not the only thing to look at, but it's a big factor.
20/60 = 33.333%
33.333% * 7 = 2.33, rounded down to 2 lands
24/60 = 40%
40% * 7 = 2.8, rounded up to 3 lands
Your next few draws each have about the same odds of being a land as in your opening hand. So does your deck's mana curve center around 2, 3, 4, or even 5? How quickly do you need to get to that critical land amount? Answer those and adjust accordingly.
I think it should be fairly obvious that 20 is too low for most decks. 23-24 is reasonable amount of land for most decks.
if you need to have 3 lands by turn 3, then you need more than 20.
These articles will be helpful.
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/articles/brewer-s-minute-how-many-lands
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
I'm pretty sure you missed the '60-card deck' part of the question
W(W/U)U Ephara - Flash & Taxes W(W/U)U || B(B/G)G Meren - Circle of Life B(B/G)G
RGW Marath - Ever shifting Wilds RGW || (U/R)C(W/B) Breya - Artificial Dominion (U/R)C(W/B)
UBR Becket Brass - take what you can, give nothing back UBR
Otherwise, that's a pretty crazy deck.
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
Is that for Lands? Because if not that's crazy
BUG Reanimator
BWG Nic-Fit
BGR Punishing Nic-Fit
Yes! But I could see an argument for 61 in Enchantress, I have never run 61 in anything but Lands.
61 has a very small effect on the probability of drawing a four-of. But the extra utility land I get to run can be found fairly reliably with all my tutors and Loaming. It's a good trade. I used to go back and forth between 60 & 61, but I can't see myself going back to 60 any time soon.
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
Watch your words, for they become actions.
Watch your actions, for they become habits.
Watch your habits, for they become character.
Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.
UGMefolkGU
GElvesG
Casual
UBPirate ArtifactsBU
20-25 depending on curve, ability to ramp, what the deck is aiming to do, etc.
deck loaded with a ton of dorks or with a curve of like 1.5 with the ability to filter/draw? we'll shoot low. some rando bull***** dick around thing at the kitchen table that's more about dropping cruel ultimatum and copying it 30 times? probably closer to 25
a lot of inexperienced players take a very formulaic approach to deck building like they have to adhere to set rules on how many creatures/lands/spells to include and frankly... it just promotes poor deck building
High curves deck: UG Ramp (27 lands), Niv To Light (27 lands)
Mid curve: Jund (25 lands)
Low mana curves: Humans (19 lands), U/R Delver (17-20 lands)
EDH: Xenagos, God of Revels.
Also, if you're playing dual colour decks vs mono decks would that impact the number of lands needed to get the drop you want each turn?
Any such card that costs 3+ mana to play should be ignored when figuring out the number of lands for a deck. That cost is already too high to have those cards help your mana development much. Cards that cost 1 or 2 mana can somewhat lower the number of lands necessary, though only to a certain degree. I usually consider three such cards capable of replacing about one land. But in moderation, not en masse. 20 Elvish Mystic equivalents cannot replace 7 Forests.
With enough dual lands, there is no real difference. The more your mana base relies on basic lands, however, the harder it is to get the right configuration. And then it may very well be better to add one or two more lands to get colors more consistently.
Former Rules Advisor
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge
(The Gamers: Dorkness Rising)
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
(Girl Genius - Fairy Tale Theater Break - Cinderella, end of volume 8)