But then you've dedicated 40 slots to A and B spells. You have to reduce your variables here if you want a fair comparison - 20 slots available for A and B effects. Having 10 of each gives way lower chances of drawing what you need, when you need either A or B, than if you have 20 that do both. But if you're coming at this from 10 of each is what you need, then flexibility lets you free up 10 slots to other effects you want more of.
Strongly disagree with the "correct" ratio as a concept. More is always better. Having a reasonable ratio of effects improves your odds to draw what you want when you want it, but you can obviously still not draw what you need no matter how finely tuned your ratios. Flexible cards let you increase those odds by giving more than 100 effects in a 100 card deck. Imagine if every card in your deck was a split card with an etbt basic - you'd never get mana screwed ever. Think about how much better that would make your deck. Obviously that's a ridiculous example, but every flexible card you include increases your odds of drawing what you need, whatever that might be.
I don't love etbt lands but if they've got good utility I think it's fairly easy to justify. Within limits, of course. It's usually a balancing act of etbts, sources per color, total lands, basics vs BM, etc.
Sure you can justify demo as a bad mana crypt but it's obviously much better than that. Even in a linear combo deck, sometimes you'll need something else - if nothing else it's both halves of the combo. Flexibility is why the card is so strong. You can ignore that so you can keep justifying a simplistic heuristic if you want ooh, good band name.
I think most well-built decks probably can get somewhere within 3-4 lands of where they'd ideally want to be (closer for decks with multiple people working on them). More than that is enough you can probably notice it after a reasonable number of games. Most people probably start with a number they like and then maybe adjust it if they keep getting screwed or flooded, but in 100 cards they realistically probably don't have the reps to establish anything approximating a good statistical understanding of the deck, nor the clearheadedness to interpret that data. They'll eventually get close, but 1 more or one fewer land is going to be really hard to tell the difference just by playing it. Each land makes a difference of just a few percent, so you'd have to play dozens of games to ever even have it matter, let alone understand the precise difference, let alone have an accurate read on whether that difference was more or less effective than the new spell you added. These things get hammered out in other formats by pro teams doing many, many reps, with smaller decks and they still disagree. The idea of an amateur commander player perfecting their land count accurately with anything but sheer luck is borderline ludicrous.
I definitely feel that utility lands get too much praise. Lands, first and foremost, make mana and are going to be tapped to make mana each turn. So their extra "utility" tend to be over-touted. However, in the late game, man...they help grind out so much value or takeover in certain match-ups, e.g.Maze of Ith, The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale.
On some of the specific utility lands that you mentioned:
Arch of Orazca: Some people used to be happy to even talk about Sea Gate Wreckage. That card isn't good. Arch is solid. It definitely needs to be talked about more, especially with decks played at instant speed or decks with untap effects.
Tolaria West: Tolaria West is definitely an all-star in my lands.dec. Even though tutoring is very a strong effect, it seems overplayed to me. As an uncounterable 1UUFabricate for lands, it's not worth it. Should have a few 0cmc cards worth fetching to make worth it. CITP is a big cost, but as you OP mentioned, definitely mitigated when a deck doesn't require playing on curve.
Vesuva: My opinion is that you should have lands that are absolutely worth copying from your own deck. Playing this to fix mana is horrible. Playing this to get a 2nd Valakut, nice! I wouldn't count on copying opponents' lands.
I'm a purist when it comes to cramming utility effects in edh, as I want the maximum amount of options / decision trees when I shuffle up at the table. I like utility lands and how they allow you to conserve deck slots where you would otherwise slot a spell for that same effect. I also feel that not all utility is created equal, and as such, a utility card (land or otherwise) that works really well or synergistically in one deck wont have that same compatability in a other.
When I play utility lands, they often play a very specific role that I feel needs to be filled to shore up my deck. Personally, I rarely play a Tolarian West over a actual Tutor: I rarely play a deck that is looking for a 0cmc card or an X cmc spell, and prefer the increased targets that come with a less narrow Tutor. By that same token, I play Mirokoku when in decks that play both notion thief and Con-Sphinx, Bojuka bog in decks with bouncelands, and prefer Thesbian's stage over Vesuva because I can still copy other lands if needed when the gamedtaye changes . I wouldn't slot a tolarian west if my deck didnt hinge on specific 0 drops to run properly.
With that said, sculpting the perfect 99 is hard, and it's a great way to get the deck down to 99. My utility lands will typically also change my spell slots to ensure that I get the most synergy and value possible from it and the rest of the deck. When the land works as well as or better than the spell you'd slot to replace it, that's when it warrants serious consideration. To me, that's the reason why people gravitate to Strip, Wasteland, Cradle and Winding Canyons, and dont rush to play Soldevi Excavations, Yavamaya Hollow, Thawing Glaciers, or their ilk with the same ferver.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blue: teaching Magic players manners since 1995
Shops: Teaching blue players manners since 2009
I'm a purist when it comes to cramming utility effects in edh, as I want the maximum amount of options / decision trees when I shuffle up at the table. I like utility lands and how they allow you to conserve deck slots where you would otherwise slot a spell for that same effect. I also feel that not all utility is created equal, and as such, a utility card (land or otherwise) that works really well or synergistically in one deck wont have that same compatability in a other.
When I play utility lands, they often play a very specific role that I feel needs to be filled to shore up my deck. Personally, I rarely play a Tolarian West over a actual Tutor: I rarely play a deck that is looking for a 0cmc card or an X cmc spell, and prefer the increased targets that come with a less narrow Tutor. By that same token, I play Mirokoku when in decks that play both notion thief and Con-Sphinx, Bojuka bog in decks with bouncelands, and prefer Thesbian's stage over Vesuva because I can still copy other lands if needed when the gamedtaye changes . I wouldn't slot a tolarian west if my deck didnt hinge on specific 0 drops to run properly.
With that said, sculpting the perfect 99 is hard, and it's a great way to get the deck down to 99. My utility lands will typically also change my spell slots to ensure that I get the most synergy and value possible from it and the rest of the deck. When the land works as well as or better than the spell you'd slot to replace it, that's when it warrants serious consideration. To me, that's the reason why people gravitate to Strip, Wasteland, Cradle and Winding Canyons, and dont rush to play Soldevi Excavations, Yavamaya Hollow, Thawing Glaciers, or their ilk with the same ferver.
Hey, welcome back! Haven't seen you around here in a while.
I'm a purist when it comes to cramming utility effects in edh, as I want the maximum amount of options / decision trees when I shuffle up at the table. I like utility lands and how they allow you to conserve deck slots where you would otherwise slot a spell for that same effect. I also feel that not all utility is created equal, and as such, a utility card (land or otherwise) that works really well or synergistically in one deck wont have that same compatability in a other.
When I play utility lands, they often play a very specific role that I feel needs to be filled to shore up my deck. Personally, I rarely play a Tolarian West over a actual Tutor: I rarely play a deck that is looking for a 0cmc card or an X cmc spell, and prefer the increased targets that come with a less narrow Tutor. By that same token, I play Mirokoku when in decks that play both notion thief and Con-Sphinx, Bojuka bog in decks with bouncelands, and prefer Thesbian's stage over Vesuva because I can still copy other lands if needed when the gamedtaye changes . I wouldn't slot a tolarian west if my deck didnt hinge on specific 0 drops to run properly.
With that said, sculpting the perfect 99 is hard, and it's a great way to get the deck down to 99. My utility lands will typically also change my spell slots to ensure that I get the most synergy and value possible from it and the rest of the deck. When the land works as well as or better than the spell you'd slot to replace it, that's when it warrants serious consideration. To me, that's the reason why people gravitate to Strip, Wasteland, Cradle and Winding Canyons, and dont rush to play Soldevi Excavations, Yavamaya Hollow, Thawing Glaciers, or their ilk with the same ferver.
I feel like you're making bad comparisons. You probably wouldn't slot in TW over another tutor, you'd slot it in over a land. Saying a land is worse than a tutor is...kind of true, I guess, I mean tutors are much higher impact cards, but you still need lands. Getting them to pull double duty is a nice bonus, even if they're less good at both - that's the price you pay for flexibility.
I think it's pretty unrealistic to expect a utility land to be as powerful as a spell doing a similar thing. They are free, after all, and usually pull double duty as a mana producer (minus maze of ith, tabernacle, etc). Strip mine and cradle are aberrations, but I don't think that winding canyons is remotely in the same category. Not that it's a bad card, but I would only consider it in a small number of decks, and it's certainly less powerful than the spell equivalent (vedalken orrery, for one). Not that I wouldn't still play it over orrery in some decks, because it fits into that land slot, but if what you want is flashing in creatures then orrery is definitely better at that particular job. But I'd totally include yavimaya hollow as being quite strong, and not having a very direct spell equivalent. Maybe broken fall, but that's clearly much worse in almost any scenario. If I'm in green and playing very many creatures, that's a utility land I'd be very likely to include. And Thawing Glaciers is very slow, but it's pretty efficient at what it does if you can afford the tempo hit. Plus it does hilarious stuff with land untappers, especially stone-seeder hierophant. Not something I play in many decks, but a far cry from what I'd consider a bad utility land. I would have gone with something like, idk, blighted gorge that belongs in very few decks. Or something like maze of shadows that belongs in no decks at all.
Anyway, TW is not a card I'd run in every deck ever, but if it's a deck that either is highly dependent on a specific land (i.e. my child of alara build that almost needs a sac outlet land to work) or a deck like Phelddagrif that naturally plays a large number of utility lands of different stripes that would make drawing a land tutor late-game a reasonable topdeck, I think it's a pretty reasonable inclusion, especially if tempo isn't critical. Whether it should be played over sylvan scrying or expo map is a little tougher to answer.
It's fairly obvious to say that some utility lands are better in some decks than others, but I don't think it's a clear black-and-white between good enough for the deck and not. There are enough potentially playable utility lands out there that most decks can't run more than a handful unless they're very heavy on lands or monocolor, so things do generally get whittled down to just the very best. But there's always going to be a fuzzy line somewhere in the manabase where it's hard to say whether a utility land is better than a fixer or vice versa.
Thanks Cryo... Its been too long. but I have a kid now, no longer a step-dad,and young kids take up a lot of your time. I just had my rotator-cuff repaired Thursday, so I have more time to check out the threads since I'm resting up. I still visit the site every now and then, though not as often because I didn't have as much time to delve into discussions and respond quickly. It doesn't help that my Sharuum engine-based deck has gotten 0 love since Mirroden Besieged came out, and haven't had any relevant updates since.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blue: teaching Magic players manners since 1995
Shops: Teaching blue players manners since 2009
I would say that TW is better than sylvan scrying and expedition map, in that it can find mana crypt and 3 mana for a artifact that taps for 2 (and deals 1.5 damage per turn on avg) is fairly decent in EDH. So, early on its a land, when you get to 3 mana it is a fairly decent mana accel and late game it finds the best utillity land you have for the situration.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Hail to the speaker, hail to the knower; joy to he who has understood, delight to they who have listened." - Odin
@DirkGently - I get what you're saying but I don't think it rings on the inflection point I was trying to make, so I'll reword / elaborate on what I said. I make my point based on the assumption that we all can agree that EDH decks(and I'm not including cEDH decks in this discussion)are mainly driven / incentivised to be value based decks (based on the multiplayer aspects of the format, and how the benefits of card/tempo advantage are uniquely difficult to obtain and preserve against multiple oppnents). I am also assuming that, we are looking to find edges in card advantage, because we are discussing using utility lands, which have the sole purpose of creating such advantage with little to no cost in card slots, risk, or game play.
From that perspective, I'll take your points one-by-one.
I think it's pretty unrealistic to expect a utility land to be as powerful as a spell doing a similar thing. They are free, after all, and usually pull double duty as a mana producer (minus maze of ith, tabernacle, etc). Strip mine and cradle are aberrations, but I don't think that winding canyons is remotely in the same category. Not that it's a bad card, but I would only consider it in a small number of decks, and it's certainly less powerful than the spell equivalent (vedalken orrery, for one). Not that I wouldn't still play it over orrery in some decks, because it fits into that land slot, but if what you want is flashing in creatures then Orrery is definitely better at that particular job.
I don't think it's unrealistic that a utility land be as powerful as a spell. In Sharuum, I had the option of playing Attunement[/card} or Bazaar of Baghdad. Attunement sees me more cards and technically has a lower percentage of card disadvantage over multiple turns. However, because the deck plays a ton of mana rocks, losing a land drop for the effect was more advantage for that deck than the ability to dig deeper and generate, potentially, more explosive plays at the rick of tapping out more often to do so. Owning a Bazaar, I would not make that same decision in a Mimeoplasm decck: The deck begs to be much more color intensive (by the nature of not being artifact-based), and so missing land drops (especially those that generate mana) hurts much more. That leads me to prefer using Attunement in that graveyard-based deck every time, even if I have to pay 2U every time to use that effect. If you consider Bazaar to also be an aberration of a card, consider this: If you were playing Kestia, the Cultivator and wanted another explosive mana source besides Serra Sanctum would you first slot Gaea's Cradle or Rites of Itlamoc? i thnk most can agree that, Cradle is 99% of the time the better card in decks, but in once that can't get insane mana off of it until you are already vastly ahead, Itlamoc is the far better card here, although comparatively much weaker in a vacuum. For me, evaluating whether a spell land serves as good a role as a spell in a deck is only 1/3rd the equation. I also take into account the deck construction opportunity cost (how does that modify the other slots in the deck, and how/when they are used) and my play environment.
I also disagree that Winding Canyon is not the same category of card: I personally feel it is criminally underplayed. I've been playing EDH before Veldalken Orrey was a thing and can attest that, were it more widely available, would be more busted than Orrey strictly because of the lack of opportunity cost to play it. Jumping the turn cycle and your creatures evading sorcery speed sweepers is insanely valuable, and it is much easier for most decks to generate an additional2 than to play a sorcery speed 4 drop and protect it. Given that LD use is dicsouraged in EDH, I'd argue the card is much more abusive. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree
But I'd totally include yavimaya hollow as being quite strong, and not having a very direct spell equivalent. Maybe broken fall, but that's clearly much worse in almost any scenario. If I'm in green and playing very many creatures, that's a utility land I'd be very likely to include. And Thawing Glaciers is very slow, but it's pretty efficient at what it does if you can afford the tempo hit. Plus it does hilarious stuff with land untappers, especially stone-seeder hierophant. Not something I play in many decks, but a far cry from what I'd consider a bad utility land. I would have gone with something like, idk, blighted gorge that belongs in very few decks. Or something like maze of shadows that belongs in no decks at all.
I see your similar arguments for Y. Hallow, but I still disagree. I have multiples rotting in binders and only include it in one of my decks. In my eyes, its only good in decks where you only need one threat to stick to close out the game, and that deck better be at least 50% green based or more. If I have a deck, where, keeping a Thrasios or an Etali on the board will usually ride me out to victory, then I'll run it. But if I need a ton of creatures to stay on the board to get me ahead like most (Gb or GW decks I have seen and played), then Hallow is better off being another colored producing land, in my estimation. To me, this is a card that is better in a vacuum but worse in actual gameplay and gets used more than it maybe should. I will also say that, due to the amount of tuck sweepers, Cyclonic Rifts and exile effects i play against, I'm sure it affects my opinion some. I play EDH in NYC and North Jersey, which are far enough to not overlap playgroups and I'm seeing the same thing with both areas...
Regardless of our individual perspectives, I see many players jamming EDH "staples" into all of their decks and claiming hierarchies for cards that, to to me, don't exist. If Gaea's Cradle made black mana, it wouldn't see nearly as much play as it does, and possibly less than Coffers. Cradle is played in many decks where it isn't producing 4 or more mana every turn. When I see that, I'm thinking there's a better card for that slot in that list, but because of lack card availability, reps, net-decking, or even just not caring much to do something about it, these opportunities for find hidden gems for that deck is lost. I also understand that EDH decks are highly personal to the players that build them and that we humans, being creatures with failingly fragile egos, will rarely concede that our decks are less than optimal, unless that pilot's goal is to find that optimization. And that's understandable: most people don;t want to hear, "your deck is built wrong," even if we know it is.
On a side note, for many players, finding the right playgroup definitely involves whether that player is willing or able to listen and play against that kind of criticism, and to what extent or purpose. Optimization can take many forms. Players can optimize their decks for synergy (the reason I build mine), to win (which can be mutually exclusive with synergy... look at cEDH, but doesn't have to) or to garner a preferred play experience. I think a lot of discussions on EDH threads (and not just on this site) don't do well in outlining what kind of optimization that pilot is looking for, which would help keep discussions more concise and productive. but I digress, as that's not what I was responding to...
It's fairly obvious to say that some utility lands are better in some decks than others, but I don't think it's a clear black-and-white between good enough for the deck and not. There are enough potentially playable utility lands out there that most decks can't run more than a handful unless they're very heavy on lands or monocolor, so things do generally get whittled down to just the very best. But there's always going to be a fuzzy line somewhere in the manabase where it's hard to say whether a utility land is better than a fixer or vice versa.
I agree with what you said here, but I'm going to split hairs for clarity, and will go a step further. I dagree that there is no clear black and white between what makes something good enough, but i also see that line the way I see perfection: the closer you get to it, the better defined it becomes. And the more time a pilot devotes to their deck, the less fuzzy that line becomes, to the point that other people start to see that line define itself too (the fact we have Primers on this site are proof of that). Should every deck run utility lands?
No.
Should decks question whether they can, or whether their utility lands be better served by other cards?
Most definitely.
Are most players running format acknowledged "staples" that would be better served by better, more effective yet more niche cards?
I'd bet my Cradle on it. If I was able to justify, and show/replicate that understandin in other players that, Trinket Mage was a cuttable slot in a deck devoted to broken artifacts running tons of 0 and 1 drops, then I'll bet my ass that if others devoted the time and effort i did for their decks, they'd find their own discoveries too, and net-decking wouldn't be as relied upon.
With all that said, the OP wants to put in Tolaria West in his Pheldagriff deck. Because my focus is on deck optimization, personally I wouldn't, and I'm not going to fault the OP for doing so. He wants to use TW to tutor the card into his hand. You're saying Pheldagriff uses a lot of utility lands, making it a good choice. I'm not going to knock that either. I personally would run crop rotation over TW,to not telegraphy my play and burn a land drop of that land, 2 be able to use that land as an actual spell (because it isn't telegraphed and can be "tricked" into advanatge) and because, since his deck is mostly instant speed, I'd rather pay G and burn a land to have the instant speed than tap our 3 mana as a sorcery and announce an on-board trick to the whole table. I also understand that he's playing for a certain experience while I'm a utility purist, so we are look at this like apples vs oranges.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blue: teaching Magic players manners since 1995
Shops: Teaching blue players manners since 2009
Personally I wouldn't classify cradle as a utility land since it only generates mana, albeit significantly more than most. And while it might be a little asinine, I don't think I'd reeeaaally consider manaless lands like bazaar a utility land either, at least not in the same sense as I usually think of it when constructing decks. The value in most utility lands imo is being able to add mana OR do some other function, which allows you to save slots without limiting utility. Bazaar and cradle don't do that since they only do the one thing. Ofc that's just my definition, though, define it however you like.
canyons costs a further 3 on top of the cost of the creature, not 2. I mean it's fine, I don't hate it. Instant speed stuff is fun and all. It's glacially slow though. Usually I'm look at it thinking "ok, I cooouuuuld flash in my stuff and then I'd be able to keep up responses until eot...but then, if I just cast it now, I'd save 3 mana and I could hold up my responses anyway." I think the best value is being able to use it to make creatures into tricks, but I tend to favor real tricks over creatures anyway and don't like relying on drawing some particular card in order to make my deck reactive (which is why I'm also pretty down on orrery).
I find it somewhat contradictory that you acknowledge that very few, if any, commander decks are truly perfected, yet argue that perfection gets more clear the closer you get. To which I argue - hell no it doesn't. Perfecting a deck of any kind is really, really difficult, arguably impossible, especially for an amateur commander player. Teams of pros tweak decks relentlessly for months leading up to pro tours, and those are decks with many thousands of other players working on it at the same time and usually a much more limited card pool. No one here is "perfecting" their personal commander deck, if that even really means anything in a multiplayer format like commander, especially when you're talking outside of cEDH.
As far as TW specifically, I do think it's borderline in my deck, and I'm not sure which way I'll go on it. Crop rotation is a fine card and I've considered it in the deck as well, although I think you're misunderstanding the deck that you think ambushing people with lands is particularly valuable for the deck (With the possible exception of scavenger grounds). Kor haven? I'd rather have it out already to send the attack elsewhere. Arch? Not much value to tricking that into play. Arcane Lighthouse? I'd rather they knew they weren't protected if they're considering making a move against me. Strip mine is borderline, but I'm generally happy to have it sitting there, and flashing it in won't stop someone getting a first crack off cradle or coffers or whatever. So while crop rotation is fine I don't know that it really plays to the deck's strengths. I think it's better suited for a deck that cares more about hitting specific lands quickly. Comparing it to TW is a little hard, but comparing it to sylvan scrying is easy. Scrying costs 1 more and is a sorcery, but that's still pretty cheap and it keeps me equal on cards. crop rotation is much weaker when developing since it's not helping me hit land drops, and it's usually on par mid-late game because the mana cost becomes mostly irrelevant.
As far as the cost of TW, usually I'm in no big hurry to get utility lands (phelddagrif games go very long routinely). The points in the game where kor haven and arch, probably the two best lands in the deck, are useful is pretty late in the game. Not that being able to tutor them early isn't useful just to have a land drop, but TW does cover for that by being a playable land, and is easier to keep up answers around than sylvan scrying on T2/t3, if I'm in a situation that might require early answers.
I've gone ahead and thrown some land tutors (wargate, scrying, expo) into my deck to try them out, although currently not TW as I've played that quite a bit already), and we'll see how I feel about them compared to TW. I definitely don't think it's a clear-cut answer. If anything I think my occasional dissatisfaction with TW is partly because of my unwillingness to just play it as a land, which is probably the correct choice a significant percentage of the time. But I sometimes have the mentality that I need to save it for value if I don't have other obvious value generation in my hand.
And while it might be a little asinine, I don't think I'd reeeaaally consider manaless lands like bazaar a utility land either
We are just going to have to disagree here. My definition of a utility land is a land that land that does something than just tap for a mana. Tons of players run Maze of Ith and classify it a utility land and not a spell. By that same guideline, I also consider Gaea's Cradle and Cabal Coffere more as "rituals" than regular lands, but I acknowledge that this is a personal viewpoint that is only shared by a couple of by card buddies.
I find it somewhat contradictory that you acknowledge that very few, if any, commander decks are truly perfected, yet argue that perfection gets more clear the closer you get. To which I argue - hell no it doesn't.
I don't see a contradiction here. Players constantly tune their decks to get them to play more the way they want those decks to function... That is by that very definition a player perfecting their list. And the more you tune a list, the easier it becomes for you to define cards that don't fit or don't coincide with what that deck is trying to do. If people weren't trying to perfect lists, you wouldn't have decklist threads where people are actively looking for ideas to make then better.
The reason few decks are perfected, is because either the environment shifts creating new needs for the deck, or new sets come out, making people reevaluate it the deck can be further refined.
Can lists ever get tuned to the point a player stops tuning it... yes, at least until the next set release. To use your point, pros put in so many testing hours for the sole purpose of perfecting their deck, and when a deck becomes optimized to the point that it becomes oppressive, cards get banned.
The think the reason most players haven't found that golden spot for their lists, where they can say "I'm done" with pride and not frustration, is that they dont spend the astronomical amount of time and effort it takes to do so, and move on to the next shiny object instead of working through and solving the existing kinks to get that deck to truly be an extension of themselves. That takes passion. Those are the pet decks players can't put down, and the ones players keep coming back to. Few players have the passion to do the work. Those that do, wind up becoming experts on those decks, and of the few that do, even fewer put in the time to share their work and progress. That's why it's rare.
Crop rotation is a fine card and I've considered it in the deck as well, although I think you're misunderstanding the deck that you think ambushing people with lands is particularly valuable for the deck (With the possible exception of scavenger grounds). Kor haven? I'd rather have it out already to send the attack elsewhere.
It was just an example, and an explanation for why I'd do it, nothing more. The fact you're explaining to me that my example of crop rotation use suggests a misunderstanding of what your Pheldagriff deck is trying to do speaks exactly to my previous point about the deck perfection process
But like I was saying before... you value apples, I value oranges. Neither one is wrong, just different playstyles. Personally, I'd never play Pheldagriff cuz I hate kingmaker style decks, and so does my group. We also don't like playing a super long games, as we have wives and kids, and our free time is precious.
To each their own.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blue: teaching Magic players manners since 1995
Shops: Teaching blue players manners since 2009
I think we're making different points RE: perfection. I agree with your argument that, the more time you spend on a deck, the easier it is to see which cards are subpar and which ones are critical. But that wasn't my point, which is that the closer you get to perfection, the more difficult it is to see which changes need to be made. Starting with a precon it's extremely obvious that, say, razorjaw oni needs to be cut from Kaalia because it's hot trash. But when you're fiddling around with one more or one fewer land, or cards that are very close in power level, it's almost impossible to be able to tell which is better objectively, and a low sample size and results-oriented thinking will be very hard to overcome at super fine-grained detail. That's why it's easy to create a GOOD list, not too hard to create a GREAT list, but a PERFECT list is basically impossible. Even pro teams will have different lists than each other, and that's for a dumb-dumb format like standard that has 5% of our card pool and 1% of our meta complexity. Perfect EDH lists aren't "rare". They're nonexistent. Even if someone lucked into one, it'd be impossible to tell for sure.
And hey, Phelddagrif isn't a kingmaker, he's a king I'm pretty sure that deck has like a 75% winrate, and that's with the budget version.
Strongly disagree with the "correct" ratio as a concept. More is always better. Having a reasonable ratio of effects improves your odds to draw what you want when you want it, but you can obviously still not draw what you need no matter how finely tuned your ratios. Flexible cards let you increase those odds by giving more than 100 effects in a 100 card deck. Imagine if every card in your deck was a split card with an etbt basic - you'd never get mana screwed ever. Think about how much better that would make your deck. Obviously that's a ridiculous example, but every flexible card you include increases your odds of drawing what you need, whatever that might be.
I don't love etbt lands but if they've got good utility I think it's fairly easy to justify. Within limits, of course. It's usually a balancing act of etbts, sources per color, total lands, basics vs BM, etc.
Sure you can justify demo as a bad mana crypt but it's obviously much better than that. Even in a linear combo deck, sometimes you'll need something else - if nothing else it's both halves of the combo. Flexibility is why the card is so strong. You can ignore that so you can keep justifying a simplistic heuristic if you want ooh, good band name.
I think most well-built decks probably can get somewhere within 3-4 lands of where they'd ideally want to be (closer for decks with multiple people working on them). More than that is enough you can probably notice it after a reasonable number of games. Most people probably start with a number they like and then maybe adjust it if they keep getting screwed or flooded, but in 100 cards they realistically probably don't have the reps to establish anything approximating a good statistical understanding of the deck, nor the clearheadedness to interpret that data. They'll eventually get close, but 1 more or one fewer land is going to be really hard to tell the difference just by playing it. Each land makes a difference of just a few percent, so you'd have to play dozens of games to ever even have it matter, let alone understand the precise difference, let alone have an accurate read on whether that difference was more or less effective than the new spell you added. These things get hammered out in other formats by pro teams doing many, many reps, with smaller decks and they still disagree. The idea of an amateur commander player perfecting their land count accurately with anything but sheer luck is borderline ludicrous.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
On some of the specific utility lands that you mentioned:
Arch of Orazca: Some people used to be happy to even talk about Sea Gate Wreckage. That card isn't good. Arch is solid. It definitely needs to be talked about more, especially with decks played at instant speed or decks with untap effects.
Tolaria West: Tolaria West is definitely an all-star in my lands.dec. Even though tutoring is very a strong effect, it seems overplayed to me. As an uncounterable 1UU Fabricate for lands, it's not worth it. Should have a few 0cmc cards worth fetching to make worth it. CITP is a big cost, but as you OP mentioned, definitely mitigated when a deck doesn't require playing on curve.
Vesuva: My opinion is that you should have lands that are absolutely worth copying from your own deck. Playing this to fix mana is horrible. Playing this to get a 2nd Valakut, nice! I wouldn't count on copying opponents' lands.
I'm a purist when it comes to cramming utility effects in edh, as I want the maximum amount of options / decision trees when I shuffle up at the table. I like utility lands and how they allow you to conserve deck slots where you would otherwise slot a spell for that same effect. I also feel that not all utility is created equal, and as such, a utility card (land or otherwise) that works really well or synergistically in one deck wont have that same compatability in a other.
When I play utility lands, they often play a very specific role that I feel needs to be filled to shore up my deck. Personally, I rarely play a Tolarian West over a actual Tutor: I rarely play a deck that is looking for a 0cmc card or an X cmc spell, and prefer the increased targets that come with a less narrow Tutor. By that same token, I play Mirokoku when in decks that play both notion thief and Con-Sphinx, Bojuka bog in decks with bouncelands, and prefer Thesbian's stage over Vesuva because I can still copy other lands if needed when the gamedtaye changes . I wouldn't slot a tolarian west if my deck didnt hinge on specific 0 drops to run properly.
With that said, sculpting the perfect 99 is hard, and it's a great way to get the deck down to 99. My utility lands will typically also change my spell slots to ensure that I get the most synergy and value possible from it and the rest of the deck. When the land works as well as or better than the spell you'd slot to replace it, that's when it warrants serious consideration. To me, that's the reason why people gravitate to Strip, Wasteland, Cradle and Winding Canyons, and dont rush to play Soldevi Excavations, Yavamaya Hollow, Thawing Glaciers, or their ilk with the same ferver.
Blue: teaching Magic players manners since 1995Shops: Teaching blue players manners since 2009
Hey, welcome back! Haven't seen you around here in a while.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I think it's pretty unrealistic to expect a utility land to be as powerful as a spell doing a similar thing. They are free, after all, and usually pull double duty as a mana producer (minus maze of ith, tabernacle, etc). Strip mine and cradle are aberrations, but I don't think that winding canyons is remotely in the same category. Not that it's a bad card, but I would only consider it in a small number of decks, and it's certainly less powerful than the spell equivalent (vedalken orrery, for one). Not that I wouldn't still play it over orrery in some decks, because it fits into that land slot, but if what you want is flashing in creatures then orrery is definitely better at that particular job. But I'd totally include yavimaya hollow as being quite strong, and not having a very direct spell equivalent. Maybe broken fall, but that's clearly much worse in almost any scenario. If I'm in green and playing very many creatures, that's a utility land I'd be very likely to include. And Thawing Glaciers is very slow, but it's pretty efficient at what it does if you can afford the tempo hit. Plus it does hilarious stuff with land untappers, especially stone-seeder hierophant. Not something I play in many decks, but a far cry from what I'd consider a bad utility land. I would have gone with something like, idk, blighted gorge that belongs in very few decks. Or something like maze of shadows that belongs in no decks at all.
Anyway, TW is not a card I'd run in every deck ever, but if it's a deck that either is highly dependent on a specific land (i.e. my child of alara build that almost needs a sac outlet land to work) or a deck like Phelddagrif that naturally plays a large number of utility lands of different stripes that would make drawing a land tutor late-game a reasonable topdeck, I think it's a pretty reasonable inclusion, especially if tempo isn't critical. Whether it should be played over sylvan scrying or expo map is a little tougher to answer.
It's fairly obvious to say that some utility lands are better in some decks than others, but I don't think it's a clear black-and-white between good enough for the deck and not. There are enough potentially playable utility lands out there that most decks can't run more than a handful unless they're very heavy on lands or monocolor, so things do generally get whittled down to just the very best. But there's always going to be a fuzzy line somewhere in the manabase where it's hard to say whether a utility land is better than a fixer or vice versa.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Blue: teaching Magic players manners since 1995Shops: Teaching blue players manners since 2009
From that perspective, I'll take your points one-by-one.
I don't think it's unrealistic that a utility land be as powerful as a spell. In Sharuum, I had the option of playing Attunement[/card} or Bazaar of Baghdad. Attunement sees me more cards and technically has a lower percentage of card disadvantage over multiple turns. However, because the deck plays a ton of mana rocks, losing a land drop for the effect was more advantage for that deck than the ability to dig deeper and generate, potentially, more explosive plays at the rick of tapping out more often to do so. Owning a Bazaar, I would not make that same decision in a Mimeoplasm decck: The deck begs to be much more color intensive (by the nature of not being artifact-based), and so missing land drops (especially those that generate mana) hurts much more. That leads me to prefer using Attunement in that graveyard-based deck every time, even if I have to pay 2U every time to use that effect. If you consider Bazaar to also be an aberration of a card, consider this: If you were playing Kestia, the Cultivator and wanted another explosive mana source besides Serra Sanctum would you first slot Gaea's Cradle or Rites of Itlamoc? i thnk most can agree that, Cradle is 99% of the time the better card in decks, but in once that can't get insane mana off of it until you are already vastly ahead, Itlamoc is the far better card here, although comparatively much weaker in a vacuum. For me, evaluating whether a spell land serves as good a role as a spell in a deck is only 1/3rd the equation. I also take into account the deck construction opportunity cost (how does that modify the other slots in the deck, and how/when they are used) and my play environment.
I also disagree that Winding Canyon is not the same category of card: I personally feel it is criminally underplayed. I've been playing EDH before Veldalken Orrey was a thing and can attest that, were it more widely available, would be more busted than Orrey strictly because of the lack of opportunity cost to play it. Jumping the turn cycle and your creatures evading sorcery speed sweepers is insanely valuable, and it is much easier for most decks to generate an additional2 than to play a sorcery speed 4 drop and protect it. Given that LD use is dicsouraged in EDH, I'd argue the card is much more abusive. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree
I see your similar arguments for Y. Hallow, but I still disagree. I have multiples rotting in binders and only include it in one of my decks. In my eyes, its only good in decks where you only need one threat to stick to close out the game, and that deck better be at least 50% green based or more. If I have a deck, where, keeping a Thrasios or an Etali on the board will usually ride me out to victory, then I'll run it. But if I need a ton of creatures to stay on the board to get me ahead like most (Gb or GW decks I have seen and played), then Hallow is better off being another colored producing land, in my estimation. To me, this is a card that is better in a vacuum but worse in actual gameplay and gets used more than it maybe should. I will also say that, due to the amount of tuck sweepers, Cyclonic Rifts and exile effects i play against, I'm sure it affects my opinion some. I play EDH in NYC and North Jersey, which are far enough to not overlap playgroups and I'm seeing the same thing with both areas...
Regardless of our individual perspectives, I see many players jamming EDH "staples" into all of their decks and claiming hierarchies for cards that, to to me, don't exist. If Gaea's Cradle made black mana, it wouldn't see nearly as much play as it does, and possibly less than Coffers. Cradle is played in many decks where it isn't producing 4 or more mana every turn. When I see that, I'm thinking there's a better card for that slot in that list, but because of lack card availability, reps, net-decking, or even just not caring much to do something about it, these opportunities for find hidden gems for that deck is lost. I also understand that EDH decks are highly personal to the players that build them and that we humans, being creatures with failingly fragile egos, will rarely concede that our decks are less than optimal, unless that pilot's goal is to find that optimization. And that's understandable: most people don;t want to hear, "your deck is built wrong," even if we know it is.
On a side note, for many players, finding the right playgroup definitely involves whether that player is willing or able to listen and play against that kind of criticism, and to what extent or purpose. Optimization can take many forms. Players can optimize their decks for synergy (the reason I build mine), to win (which can be mutually exclusive with synergy... look at cEDH, but doesn't have to) or to garner a preferred play experience. I think a lot of discussions on EDH threads (and not just on this site) don't do well in outlining what kind of optimization that pilot is looking for, which would help keep discussions more concise and productive. but I digress, as that's not what I was responding to...
I agree with what you said here, but I'm going to split hairs for clarity, and will go a step further. I dagree that there is no clear black and white between what makes something good enough, but i also see that line the way I see perfection: the closer you get to it, the better defined it becomes. And the more time a pilot devotes to their deck, the less fuzzy that line becomes, to the point that other people start to see that line define itself too (the fact we have Primers on this site are proof of that). Should every deck run utility lands?
No.
Should decks question whether they can, or whether their utility lands be better served by other cards?
Most definitely.
Are most players running format acknowledged "staples" that would be better served by better, more effective yet more niche cards?
I'd bet my Cradle on it. If I was able to justify, and show/replicate that understandin in other players that, Trinket Mage was a cuttable slot in a deck devoted to broken artifacts running tons of 0 and 1 drops, then I'll bet my ass that if others devoted the time and effort i did for their decks, they'd find their own discoveries too, and net-decking wouldn't be as relied upon.
With all that said, the OP wants to put in Tolaria West in his Pheldagriff deck. Because my focus is on deck optimization, personally I wouldn't, and I'm not going to fault the OP for doing so. He wants to use TW to tutor the card into his hand. You're saying Pheldagriff uses a lot of utility lands, making it a good choice. I'm not going to knock that either. I personally would run crop rotation over TW,to not telegraphy my play and burn a land drop of that land, 2 be able to use that land as an actual spell (because it isn't telegraphed and can be "tricked" into advanatge) and because, since his deck is mostly instant speed, I'd rather pay G and burn a land to have the instant speed than tap our 3 mana as a sorcery and announce an on-board trick to the whole table. I also understand that he's playing for a certain experience while I'm a utility purist, so we are look at this like apples vs oranges.
Blue: teaching Magic players manners since 1995Shops: Teaching blue players manners since 2009
canyons costs a further 3 on top of the cost of the creature, not 2. I mean it's fine, I don't hate it. Instant speed stuff is fun and all. It's glacially slow though. Usually I'm look at it thinking "ok, I cooouuuuld flash in my stuff and then I'd be able to keep up responses until eot...but then, if I just cast it now, I'd save 3 mana and I could hold up my responses anyway." I think the best value is being able to use it to make creatures into tricks, but I tend to favor real tricks over creatures anyway and don't like relying on drawing some particular card in order to make my deck reactive (which is why I'm also pretty down on orrery).
I find it somewhat contradictory that you acknowledge that very few, if any, commander decks are truly perfected, yet argue that perfection gets more clear the closer you get. To which I argue - hell no it doesn't. Perfecting a deck of any kind is really, really difficult, arguably impossible, especially for an amateur commander player. Teams of pros tweak decks relentlessly for months leading up to pro tours, and those are decks with many thousands of other players working on it at the same time and usually a much more limited card pool. No one here is "perfecting" their personal commander deck, if that even really means anything in a multiplayer format like commander, especially when you're talking outside of cEDH.
As far as TW specifically, I do think it's borderline in my deck, and I'm not sure which way I'll go on it. Crop rotation is a fine card and I've considered it in the deck as well, although I think you're misunderstanding the deck that you think ambushing people with lands is particularly valuable for the deck (With the possible exception of scavenger grounds). Kor haven? I'd rather have it out already to send the attack elsewhere. Arch? Not much value to tricking that into play. Arcane Lighthouse? I'd rather they knew they weren't protected if they're considering making a move against me. Strip mine is borderline, but I'm generally happy to have it sitting there, and flashing it in won't stop someone getting a first crack off cradle or coffers or whatever. So while crop rotation is fine I don't know that it really plays to the deck's strengths. I think it's better suited for a deck that cares more about hitting specific lands quickly. Comparing it to TW is a little hard, but comparing it to sylvan scrying is easy. Scrying costs 1 more and is a sorcery, but that's still pretty cheap and it keeps me equal on cards. crop rotation is much weaker when developing since it's not helping me hit land drops, and it's usually on par mid-late game because the mana cost becomes mostly irrelevant.
As far as the cost of TW, usually I'm in no big hurry to get utility lands (phelddagrif games go very long routinely). The points in the game where kor haven and arch, probably the two best lands in the deck, are useful is pretty late in the game. Not that being able to tutor them early isn't useful just to have a land drop, but TW does cover for that by being a playable land, and is easier to keep up answers around than sylvan scrying on T2/t3, if I'm in a situation that might require early answers.
I've gone ahead and thrown some land tutors (wargate, scrying, expo) into my deck to try them out, although currently not TW as I've played that quite a bit already), and we'll see how I feel about them compared to TW. I definitely don't think it's a clear-cut answer. If anything I think my occasional dissatisfaction with TW is partly because of my unwillingness to just play it as a land, which is probably the correct choice a significant percentage of the time. But I sometimes have the mentality that I need to save it for value if I don't have other obvious value generation in my hand.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
We are just going to have to disagree here. My definition of a utility land is a land that land that does something than just tap for a mana. Tons of players run Maze of Ith and classify it a utility land and not a spell. By that same guideline, I also consider Gaea's Cradle and Cabal Coffere more as "rituals" than regular lands, but I acknowledge that this is a personal viewpoint that is only shared by a couple of by card buddies.
I don't see a contradiction here. Players constantly tune their decks to get them to play more the way they want those decks to function... That is by that very definition a player perfecting their list. And the more you tune a list, the easier it becomes for you to define cards that don't fit or don't coincide with what that deck is trying to do. If people weren't trying to perfect lists, you wouldn't have decklist threads where people are actively looking for ideas to make then better.
The reason few decks are perfected, is because either the environment shifts creating new needs for the deck, or new sets come out, making people reevaluate it the deck can be further refined.
Can lists ever get tuned to the point a player stops tuning it... yes, at least until the next set release. To use your point, pros put in so many testing hours for the sole purpose of perfecting their deck, and when a deck becomes optimized to the point that it becomes oppressive, cards get banned.
The think the reason most players haven't found that golden spot for their lists, where they can say "I'm done" with pride and not frustration, is that they dont spend the astronomical amount of time and effort it takes to do so, and move on to the next shiny object instead of working through and solving the existing kinks to get that deck to truly be an extension of themselves. That takes passion. Those are the pet decks players can't put down, and the ones players keep coming back to. Few players have the passion to do the work. Those that do, wind up becoming experts on those decks, and of the few that do, even fewer put in the time to share their work and progress. That's why it's rare.
It was just an example, and an explanation for why I'd do it, nothing more. The fact you're explaining to me that my example of crop rotation use suggests a misunderstanding of what your Pheldagriff deck is trying to do speaks exactly to my previous point about the deck perfection process
But like I was saying before... you value apples, I value oranges. Neither one is wrong, just different playstyles. Personally, I'd never play Pheldagriff cuz I hate kingmaker style decks, and so does my group. We also don't like playing a super long games, as we have wives and kids, and our free time is precious.
To each their own.
Blue: teaching Magic players manners since 1995Shops: Teaching blue players manners since 2009
And hey, Phelddagrif isn't a kingmaker, he's a king I'm pretty sure that deck has like a 75% winrate, and that's with the budget version.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6