Hey guys my question is why do people put fetch lands in decks that dont even run both of the colors. I have been looking at some of the new standard deck lists and some people will run polluted delta or wooded foothillls, but they dont have blue or red in their deck... Is this just to mill through lands better in your deck?
Fetch lands are used in mono-colored decks to control land drop percentages. A fetchland pulls 2 lands from the deck, so cracking fetches leads to less land drops, which means more gas.
Also, off-color fetches still produce 2 colors with battle lands, which means better fixing
Fetch lands are used in mono-colored decks to control land drop percentages. A fetchland pulls 2 lands from the deck, so cracking fetches leads to less land drops, which means more gas.
This is wrong. The only legitimate reason to run fetch lands in a mono colored deck is to fuel Delve or a similar mechanic such as Grim Lavamancer. It doesn't impact your draws in any real way; the math has been done many times before and proved that any change is statistically insignificant.
Ahhhhhh this makes sense! I looked at many of the math equations/research theories and all the outcomes point to what you said. I never thought about delve!!
Along the same lines but more legal would be minor interactions with scry. Scrying on my turn or early in my opponent's turn can mean a card I keep on top is no longer important, so I shuffle it away eot for a different draw. Say I scry and see a card I might really need if my opponent's turn goes a certain way, like a Languish; I put it on top and see how my opponent plays, then decide eot if I still need it or not and crack my fetch now or after my draw depending on my decision. It's certainly not the main reason to include fetches, but instead more of an incidental upside.
As a control player, they also interact favorably with Dig Through Time, fueling delve and giving you a shuffle to get the cards you bottomed back in the deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard
Meh
Modern BUWEsper ControlWUB BRUGrixis DelverURB WRBGKiki ChordGBRW WBGAbzan MidrangeGBW BRGJundGRB
Fetch lands are used in mono-colored decks to control land drop percentages. A fetchland pulls 2 lands from the deck, so cracking fetches leads to less land drops, which means more gas.
This is wrong. The only legitimate reason to run fetch lands in a mono colored deck is to fuel Delve or a similar mechanic such as Grim Lavamancer. It doesn't impact your draws in any real way; the math has been done many times before and proved that any change is statistically insignificant.
This is wrong. Mono-red decks with landfall triggers use fetchlands to trigger it multiple times per land drop.
Fetch lands are used in mono-colored decks to control land drop percentages. A fetchland pulls 2 lands from the deck, so cracking fetches leads to less land drops, which means more gas.
This is wrong. The only legitimate reason to run fetch lands in a mono colored deck is to fuel Delve or a similar mechanic such as Grim Lavamancer. It doesn't impact your draws in any real way; the math has been done many times before and proved that any change is statistically insignificant.
The first link illustrates the fact that you sacrifice 20% of your life (using fetchlands T1-4) to get a 5% increased chance to draw a nonland turn 5. Which is not a smart tradeoff. Unless you're getting something else out of it, like delve or Lavamancer. Fetchlands are very good cards... but not because of deck thinning.
Another reason is that having allied fetchlands and allied battlelands (but not enemy fetchlands or enemy battlelands) means that off-color fetches can sometimes fetch *more* colors than the "correct" fetches.
For example, if you are Abzan (G/W/B), the G/W fetchland can never get black mana. On the other hand, you could play the G/R fetchland, play the G/W battleland and maybe a copy or two of the R/B battleland, and your G/R fetchland can now fetch all three colors of mana.
This also explains why "Dark Jeskai" or "Blue Abzan" are now real decks -- if you are going to do this weird thing to your mana base to make your Abzan deck run smoother, it barely costs anything to just put the 4th color in anyway.
It's a bit of an over-exaggeration when people say that fetchlands don't thin out the deck. I mean, you're taking a land out of your deck, that is thinning the deck.
HOWEVER, I would say, that the thinning alone is not worth the price(Both in life and actual money.)of the fetchland for a small chance at not drawing a land when you don't need it. That is something I can get behind on. And makes a lot more sense then saying, "Fetchlands do not thin out your deck", which is honestly silly from a strict point-of-view.
I would never advise running fetches ONLY to thin out a deck. As the math has shown, is not statistically worth it, both in terms of money and in life totals in MTG.
It doesn't impact your draws in any real way; the math has been done many times before and proved that any change is statistically insignificant.
The exceptions being really late draws or really low land counts. The first is never worth the life cost, but the latter can be useful to some decks.
9 Land Green ran Land Grant for years, and many still do. Throwing fetches into the deck on top of this can increase the spell draw some 10ish percent. More specifically, though, testing - and math - shows increasing the land count to 10 while switching in 4-6 fetches increases the rate of hitting 2 lands while decreasing the chance of hitting 3. This works perfectly for the desires of the deck, and the life loss is less of an impact in an aggro deck.
So there are times when running fetches in single color can be worth it - but they are the minority of exceptions.
Fetchlands are just OP lands, for the sake that they interact with so many mechanics of the game in your favour.
Theres just way too little punishment for the lands, especially as they tutor basics, they lose just another drawback of any other non-basic land (being non-basic that is).
Any graveyard mechanic (be it delve, threshold, whatever)
Any library manipulation mechanic (scry/brainstorm)
Any land drop mechanic,
Any shuffling mechanic (wastes time a lot, super annoying)
Even the "drawback" of paying life can be translated into an advantage, if you desire that (mechanics like Fateful hour that want you at a low life total and the like)
The added stupidity that they grab dual lands is just icecream on the cake.
They are unquestionable "too strong" as they are, but in the end, nobody really cares and its just how it is and probably will be for the forseeable future (as its more than unlikely they will print "stronger" fetchlands, or any other land that would rival them).
Arguably fetchlands are stronger than the original dual lands, for the reason alone that they interact much more favourable with so many mechanics.
And as decks get more and more aggressive, it becomes less of an issue to just pack lots of them.
For controll decks fetchlands are decent, but if you are slow and you know you need like 5-10 land drops, they better not be all fetchlands.
Using a fetchland just to grab a land and reduce the chance to draw another is indeed small. But decks that allready use plenty of fetchlands obvisiously decrease the chance by a lot more ; in addition to all the other benefits they provide.
A deck like mono red burn will use fetchlands for the reason alone to not draw more lands later on, as you depend a lot on your topdecks of actual burn spells (which is every card beside land).
But still, adding just a small amount of fetchlands for mono colored is "ok" , but if you tremendously increase the number, you will see that it starts to hurt you way more :
just imagine you play mono red with 16 fetchlands and 4 mountain ; 40 burn spells
You hurt yourself a lot just to make sure you will draw less lands, against any reasonable opponent your life total will matter more than that, so its arguably wrong to include fetchlands if thats your sole reason.
But thats just theory, in the end, fetchlands are so OP with allmost any mechanic, that theres little to no reason to not use them, which makes all the brainstorming about the %-part of land drops quite useless and a case-by-case scenario.
The first link illustrates the fact that you sacrifice 20% of your life (using fetchlands T1-4) to get a 5% increased chance to draw a nonland turn 5. Which is not a smart tradeoff.
Paying 1 life for a 1% increased chance of getting what you want is not a terrible tradeoff. Certainly the thinning is not worth it on its own but it shouldn't be completely ignored. In standard I don't think there are any decks fast enough for it to be relevant over the course of a tournament but RDW and Burn in Legacy and Modern get plenty of value out of the thinning.
And because of the new BFZ lands, each fetchland can get you any one of up to 4 colors of mana
Was going to say this exact thing.
With the BFZ lands mana fixing for three and four color decks has gotten much easier. Instead of being limited to polluted delta to get a swamp, I can run Wooded Foothills to get a Smoldering Marsh or Flooded Strand to get a Sunken Hollow. Running more fetches with fetchable duals increases your chances of getting all the colors your need when you need them.
Thanks. Sorry, I thought you actually had a specific source, rather than just being generally aware of something, so I was asking what that was. As you say, google will find things.
In my opinion, a 5% better chance to draw a nonland card on T5 (using the scenario you outlined) is statistically significant. In a lot of matchups the life is irrelevant. I play enough games that I'll take a 5% edge (or more, or less, depending on the turn and number of fetches I've cracked), thanks. That means 1/20 games I'll draw a nonland card when I otherwise wouldn't have (assuming that these numbers are on the money). Sometimes, drawing a land or not is the gamebreaker. I'll take any way I can of controlling that, however slight.
If you think the numbers are so slight as to make no difference to you, then that's fine, and likewise, a matter of opinion.
From the first link I posted:
Poker players (great card players and math wizards some of them are) tell us that anything less than a 5% advantage is irrelevant.
So you're looking at losing 1/5 of your starting life total in order to reach the bare minimum of "acceptable" advantage. If the only reason you're running fetches is deck thinning, that price is not worth the result.
There are a lot of other reasons to use fetches, though, which have nothing to do with deck thinning. Even in mono-color.
In my opinion, a 5% better chance to draw a nonland card on T5 (using the scenario you outlined) is statistically significant.
You are misusing the term. Statistical significance isn't a matter of opinion, it's a measurable metric. And you cannto say your opinion is that it is statistically significant any more than one can claim that 2+2=5 because that is their opinion.
And to OP: If you play Abzan (WBG) a Wooded Foothills can fetch you All three colours with the combination of the battlelands.
And had you read the links you would have seen that you are closer to half an extra spell by turn 16.
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
The reason they run Fetches is that they act as mana fixing that can also help fix draws, though not as well as scrying can. The downside, as others have pointed out, is that the lands deal damage to the player when using them. However, like shocklands I think the damage is worth the effect the majority of the time, plus it seems to make casual players think that you are helping them win for some reason (not that much would help my friends with their horrible concept of 20 lands per 60 card deck notion they got crammed into their brains thanks to Portal...).
Needless to say, if you want to give them a try just print some out on paper and proxy them for a bit. I've found they are worth the $20 usd price tag and 90% of the time, unless you are primarily playing at FNM, no one is going to care much if someone has to proxy a card for a deck given how expensive a lot of the cards are now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
In my opinion, a 5% better chance to draw a nonland card on T5 (using the scenario you outlined) is statistically significant.
You are misusing the term. Statistical significance isn't a matter of opinion, it's a measurable metric. And you cannto say your opinion is that it is statistically significant any more than one can claim that 2+2=5 because that is their opinion.
While I do agree the definitions are not matters of opinion... I don't think this entire line of conversations/quotes was using the term in the context of the actual definition as that has more to do observed results and likelihood of differences those results to true values or other results being due to chance.
But here we are talking about the known true statistical odds. Mathematically or just common sense will tell you that it will definitely provide some statistical increase. So I think what people are really debating when they say "statistically significant" here is how substantial a difference that makes (easily mathed out in the links you provided) and how relevant that will be and also how that compares to the difference of less life. The last 2 aren't as easy as they are often it depends a lot on what's being played and played against both of which change.
Something else to think about is from what I skimmed of those links they were comparing 2 decks with the exact same land counts and using "normal" lands counts. While that does fit the context of most deck design as already mentioned low land counts can provide larger differences and there is the potential to alter land counts sometimes in order to keep early odds the same or similar but later on increasingly more spell heavy later in the game.
In my opinion, a 5% better chance to draw a nonland card on T5 (using the scenario you outlined) is statistically significant.
You are misusing the term. Statistical significance isn't a matter of opinion, it's a measurable metric. And you cannto say your opinion is that it is statistically significant any more than one can claim that 2+2=5 because that is their opinion.
While I do agree the definitions are not matters of opinion... I don't think this entire line of conversations/quotes was using the term in the context of the actual definition as that has more to do observed results and likelihood of differences those results to true values or other results being due to chance.
But here we are talking about the known true statistical odds. Mathematically or just common sense will tell you that it will definitely provide some statistical increase. So I think what people are really debating when they say "statistically significant" here is how substantial a difference that makes (easily mathed out in the links you provided) and how relevant that will be and also how that compares to the difference of less life. The last 2 aren't as easy as they are often it depends a lot on what's being played and played against both of which change.
Something else to think about is from what I skimmed of those links they were comparing 2 decks with the exact same land counts and using "normal" lands counts. While that does fit the context of most deck design as already mentioned low land counts can provide larger differences and there is the potential to alter land counts sometimes in order to keep early odds the same or similar but later on increasingly more spell heavy later in the game.
Statistics are a wibbly wobbly mess of fuzziness. That's probably a good enough reason to try and stay away from any discussion involving them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thanks!
Also, off-color fetches still produce 2 colors with battle lands, which means better fixing
Ahhhhhh this makes sense! I looked at many of the math equations/research theories and all the outcomes point to what you said. I never thought about delve!!
That would be an interesting inclusion in a standard deck. If I ever play standard I hope all my opponents include it.
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
Man, some of y'alls standard decks are way better than mine, I've been doing this wrong for years!
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
Meh
Modern
BUWEsper ControlWUB
BRUGrixis DelverURB
WRBGKiki ChordGBRW
WBGAbzan MidrangeGBW
BRGJundGRB
Legacy
UBRGrixis DelverRBU
Commander
Also meh
This is wrong. Mono-red decks with landfall triggers use fetchlands to trigger it multiple times per land drop.
And the second hit: http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/print.asp?ID=3096
The first link illustrates the fact that you sacrifice 20% of your life (using fetchlands T1-4) to get a 5% increased chance to draw a nonland turn 5. Which is not a smart tradeoff. Unless you're getting something else out of it, like delve or Lavamancer. Fetchlands are very good cards... but not because of deck thinning.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
For example, if you are Abzan (G/W/B), the G/W fetchland can never get black mana. On the other hand, you could play the G/R fetchland, play the G/W battleland and maybe a copy or two of the R/B battleland, and your G/R fetchland can now fetch all three colors of mana.
This also explains why "Dark Jeskai" or "Blue Abzan" are now real decks -- if you are going to do this weird thing to your mana base to make your Abzan deck run smoother, it barely costs anything to just put the 4th color in anyway.
HOWEVER, I would say, that the thinning alone is not worth the price(Both in life and actual money.)of the fetchland for a small chance at not drawing a land when you don't need it. That is something I can get behind on. And makes a lot more sense then saying, "Fetchlands do not thin out your deck", which is honestly silly from a strict point-of-view.
I would never advise running fetches ONLY to thin out a deck. As the math has shown, is not statistically worth it, both in terms of money and in life totals in MTG.
Special thanks to XenoNinja of Heroes of the Plane Studios for the awesome avy!
9 Land Green ran Land Grant for years, and many still do. Throwing fetches into the deck on top of this can increase the spell draw some 10ish percent. More specifically, though, testing - and math - shows increasing the land count to 10 while switching in 4-6 fetches increases the rate of hitting 2 lands while decreasing the chance of hitting 3. This works perfectly for the desires of the deck, and the life loss is less of an impact in an aggro deck.
So there are times when running fetches in single color can be worth it - but they are the minority of exceptions.
No longer staff here.
Theres just way too little punishment for the lands, especially as they tutor basics, they lose just another drawback of any other non-basic land (being non-basic that is).
Any graveyard mechanic (be it delve, threshold, whatever)
Any library manipulation mechanic (scry/brainstorm)
Any land drop mechanic,
Any shuffling mechanic (wastes time a lot, super annoying)
Even the "drawback" of paying life can be translated into an advantage, if you desire that (mechanics like Fateful hour that want you at a low life total and the like)
The added stupidity that they grab dual lands is just icecream on the cake.
They are unquestionable "too strong" as they are, but in the end, nobody really cares and its just how it is and probably will be for the forseeable future (as its more than unlikely they will print "stronger" fetchlands, or any other land that would rival them).
Arguably fetchlands are stronger than the original dual lands, for the reason alone that they interact much more favourable with so many mechanics.
And as decks get more and more aggressive, it becomes less of an issue to just pack lots of them.
For controll decks fetchlands are decent, but if you are slow and you know you need like 5-10 land drops, they better not be all fetchlands.
Using a fetchland just to grab a land and reduce the chance to draw another is indeed small. But decks that allready use plenty of fetchlands obvisiously decrease the chance by a lot more ; in addition to all the other benefits they provide.
A deck like mono red burn will use fetchlands for the reason alone to not draw more lands later on, as you depend a lot on your topdecks of actual burn spells (which is every card beside land).
But still, adding just a small amount of fetchlands for mono colored is "ok" , but if you tremendously increase the number, you will see that it starts to hurt you way more :
just imagine you play mono red with 16 fetchlands and 4 mountain ; 40 burn spells
You hurt yourself a lot just to make sure you will draw less lands, against any reasonable opponent your life total will matter more than that, so its arguably wrong to include fetchlands if thats your sole reason.
But thats just theory, in the end, fetchlands are so OP with allmost any mechanic, that theres little to no reason to not use them, which makes all the brainstorming about the %-part of land drops quite useless and a case-by-case scenario.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
And especially now that BFZ is in standard, they also trigger landfall twice.
And because of the new BFZ lands, each fetchland can get you any one of up to 4 colors of mana
Paying 1 life for a 1% increased chance of getting what you want is not a terrible tradeoff. Certainly the thinning is not worth it on its own but it shouldn't be completely ignored. In standard I don't think there are any decks fast enough for it to be relevant over the course of a tournament but RDW and Burn in Legacy and Modern get plenty of value out of the thinning.
With the BFZ lands mana fixing for three and four color decks has gotten much easier. Instead of being limited to polluted delta to get a swamp, I can run Wooded Foothills to get a Smoldering Marsh or Flooded Strand to get a Sunken Hollow. Running more fetches with fetchable duals increases your chances of getting all the colors your need when you need them.
What you can get with each fetchland now:
Bloodstained Mire - Smoldering Marsh, Cinder Glade, Sunken Hollow, Swamp, Mountain
Flooded Strand - Prairie Stream, Sunken Hollow, Canopy Vista, Plains, Island
Polluted Delta - Sunken Hollow, Prairie Stream, Smoldering Marsh, Island, Swamp
Windswept Heath - Canopy Vista, Cinder Glade, Prairie Stream, Plains, Forest
Wooded Foothills - Cinder Glade, Canopy Vista, Smoldering Marsh, Mountain, Forest
So you're looking at losing 1/5 of your starting life total in order to reach the bare minimum of "acceptable" advantage. If the only reason you're running fetches is deck thinning, that price is not worth the result.
There are a lot of other reasons to use fetches, though, which have nothing to do with deck thinning. Even in mono-color.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Disclaimer: I don't play Standard because I've heard it has cooties.
You are misusing the term. Statistical significance isn't a matter of opinion, it's a measurable metric. And you cannto say your opinion is that it is statistically significant any more than one can claim that 2+2=5 because that is their opinion.
And to OP: If you play Abzan (WBG) a Wooded Foothills can fetch you All three colours with the combination of the battlelands.
And had you read the links you would have seen that you are closer to half an extra spell by turn 16.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Needless to say, if you want to give them a try just print some out on paper and proxy them for a bit. I've found they are worth the $20 usd price tag and 90% of the time, unless you are primarily playing at FNM, no one is going to care much if someone has to proxy a card for a deck given how expensive a lot of the cards are now.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
But here we are talking about the known true statistical odds. Mathematically or just common sense will tell you that it will definitely provide some statistical increase. So I think what people are really debating when they say "statistically significant" here is how substantial a difference that makes (easily mathed out in the links you provided) and how relevant that will be and also how that compares to the difference of less life. The last 2 aren't as easy as they are often it depends a lot on what's being played and played against both of which change.
Something else to think about is from what I skimmed of those links they were comparing 2 decks with the exact same land counts and using "normal" lands counts. While that does fit the context of most deck design as already mentioned low land counts can provide larger differences and there is the potential to alter land counts sometimes in order to keep early odds the same or similar but later on increasingly more spell heavy later in the game.
Statistics are a wibbly wobbly mess of fuzziness. That's probably a good enough reason to try and stay away from any discussion involving them.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!