Quote from RivenVII »Well, you are running a primer and I am literally telling you that there are people, especially in my area, that do not use Partial Paris mulligans. Given that it is the normal MtG mulligan that we're using, I'd say it isn't that outlandish. You can be combative with me if you want and insinuate I'm a liar, but if you are making deck choices based on the fact that you play with Partial Paris mulligans, I think it is reasonable to include how you would run the deck if you don't play with PP. It's kind of the literal job of a primer. It is supposed to teach and instruct and cover just about everything; that is why you get the tag.
Quote from RivenVII »I love the new "discount double check" lands as well. I don't think I'd cut the core set duals though. To me, those are some of the best duals available, especially since they come in untapped if you have a basic of the set type, or any of your shocks or original duals. They have a lower threshold to be brought in untapped than those checking for 2 basics, imo, which might be harder in a 3 color deck. I'd look at them as being better than fast lands, bounce lands, pain lands, guild gates, and temples, but not shocks, ABUR duals, core duals, and fetches.
Hero would be better if he had flash. Giving indestructible benefits more if you are an aggro deck and/or care about your creatures living. Generally, with an ETB value list, you don't care so much if your creatures die until late game. So it's a little more situational, albeit cheaper, than OG Avacyn.
Quote from RivenVII »There is an argument both ways I think. They are probably about equal, but I'd cut the ones I mentioned first if you have any of those in your list.
In my list, for example, I'm cutting Razorverge Thicket and Temple of Enlightenment for them.
Quote from ISBPathfinder »If you have a deck fully to the teeth with ABU, Shocks, Fetches... I think the Glacial Fortress, Sunpetal Grove, Hinterland Harbor cycle is superior. They trigger off of the other fetchable duels and not just the basics. If you are looking at a list with any sense of a budget landbase I think the BFZ duals are stronger.
The check lands are strong because they come in untapped more frequently. Assuming you have original ABU duals and shocks the new BFZ lands will be a lower priority than both of the other two types of duals. That is low enough in my mind to make it be to the point where you are likely not fetching them with any sort of need for them.
The BFZ cycle is more interesting in my mind in a 2 color deck where there are less duals you can fetch. They are also interesting in Standard and Modern which is likely where their prices will really be based on use.
Quote from ISBPathfinder »They don't though. Shocks and ABU duals are still going to be the target of early game fetches.
In the first 5 turns of the game what are you going to fetch given the option? ABU duals if you need the land untapped. Shocks are also superior in the early game assuming you have ABU duals because a shock can come in tapped or untapped for very little downside in this format where as the BFZ lands don't give you an option on their tapped or untapped status. BFZ are essentially last string dual fetch targets. If you are talking that late in the game then you can be fetching basic lands too just fine. The check lands have the advantage of having a broader base in which they can come into play untapped for.
BFZ are going to be inferior to ABU and Shocklands assuming you have all of them. If you lack ABU lands then they become possibly more powerful than shocks but definitely not if you have an ideal landbase. I am saying that they are low enough string tutor targets that having them be a tutor target is likely not really that much of an asset in an ideal landbase 3 color deck. The checks have more chance to come in untapped than the BFZ duals do and that is why I think they are superior. If I planned to fetch them sooner in the game it would be one thing but they are really only superior in a deck that lacks ABU duals.
Quote from RivenVII »I think the BFZ discount double checks do a good job of providing dual land targets for things like fetches, Wood Elves, et al., but I don't know that they just outclass the check lands. If you play a BFZ dual on turn one, you get an untapped check land on turn 2. Hitting your colors on turn 3 with Jenara is important and having a CitP Tapped land can really kill your tempo. These lands have immense value, but their abusability via fetches and creatures only exists if you don't own ABU duals (like me). Since I only have the shocks, these lands are very good for me being able to tutor up land fixing with basic land types, but the fact that they will come in tapped more often than a check land cannot be understated. They check for basic lands, not basic land types, which means that they can slow you down. There are intended to be trade-offs with these kinds of things, but you aren't running most of the cards you mentioned that make the presence of basic land types that much more advantageous, especially if you have ABUs and Shocks already. While I think they probably should be included in the list if possible, cutting a check land for them is probably not the best choice if you can avoid it. Looking at your list, I'd consider anything that comes into play tapped unconditionally, the artifact lands, any utility land that isn't essential (dunno how much Boseiju helps you), and maybe the all-color pain lands.
Quote from ISBPathfinder »I am with swift and Riven here.
Artifact Lands - they present a lot of liability with mass artifact / enchantment sweepers. Even with the option of Tezzeret fetching them I think they contain too much liability for my likes.
BFZ duals - I think they are good. I am just establishing that I would not cut the check lands for them. I think they fall a little behind the check lands in usability.
As to how many Strip Mine effects, it comes to personal preference as well as what his meta runs. I just ran one myself but I also only ran one creature (Acidic Slime) that could remove lands. It comes down to how many targets and how often you need to use these effects.
Quote from RivenVII »Also, do you need both Wasteland and Strip Mine? I just run one, personally. Without Crucible, running both doesn't make much difference and takes up a colorless land slot in a 3-color list.
Quote from Swift2210 »There are better, more efficient ways to ramp without the vulnerabilities you're exposed to by using artifact lands.
Quote from Swift2210 »That's ridiculous. Of course it's relevant. Resiliency is not watching half your land base go boom to a Bane or O-stone. I don't know how you can say artifact lands adds to your versatility when you don't even play an artifact theme. It's mindboggling.
Quote from Dictionary.com »versatile
[vur-suh-tl or, esp. British, -tahyl]
1. capable of or adapted for turning easily from one to another of various tasks, fields of endeavor, etc.:
2. having or capable of many uses:
Quote from Tjornan »Call me crazy, but seems like this thread ends up being a veritable shouting match rather than a primer discussion.
I think the artifact lands are a bad idea, as does ISB and Swift. Zen disagrees, and I have doubts about convincing him otherwise. And that's fine. That's his business.
Anyway, what do you guys think about the new artifact that exiles power 5 and above? It avoids most of our creatures and can really hurt big green stompy.deck. Probably not worth it but the idea is interesting.
Quote from TheGodOfWar91 »So far BFZ has a couple cards I'm considering for my Jenara build:
Canopy Vista and Prairie Stream are shoe-ins, obviously. Even better for me since I don't have the ABUR duals yet but even if I did I'd probably still put them in.
I'm debating on Kiora, Master of the Depths. Right now in my testing she's replacing Solemn Simulacrum and she's doing very well. Being able to give Jenara or any other creature to protect her pseudo-vigilance is really good, and she untaps a land that you might have used to give Jenara a +1/+1 counter or equip a sword. I've also consistently been able to get 2 cards off of her -2 ability whenever I use it. The major downside to her (like all planeswalkers) is she's harder to search for and recur. But so far I'm pretty impressed.
When I first saw Greenwarden of Murasa, I thought it was pretty much an auto-include, but now I'm not so sure. One of the advantages of Eternal Witness is that because she's so cheap to cast, you often get to use the card you just got back after you play her. She's also able to be recurred by both Reveillark AND Sun Titan, and when you 'clamp her you get to draw 2 cards immediately. None of those criteria fit with the greenwarden. It's still awesome and I'm definitely going to test it more, but I'm on the fence about it as of now.