|
8 fetchlands for the soul purpose of one Grim Lavamancer? Ok, sure...
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 12:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 06:07 |
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:8 fetchlands for the soul purpose of one Grim Lavamancer? Ok, sure... Now ask yourself why the deck is playing Sacred Foundry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 12:24
|
|
|
Jabor posted:Now ask yourself why the deck is playing Sacred Foundry. Ok rather than going back and forth here’s Owen’s article from 2015 explaining all the different ways you can use fetchlands to be good at Magic. https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/to-fetch-or-not-to-fetch/?fbclid=IwAR0UINzVnXRmUILoMoKJqSzX37xypEWkmVHM-UNC-GUugQBCrs-gksddLbc
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 12:27
|
|
|
You didn't realise that there was a Boros Charm and white cards in the sideboard, did you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 12:27
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:Ok rather than going back and forth here’s Owen’s article from 2015 explaining all the different ways you can use fetchlands to be good at Magic. Burn plays Boros charm and path in the side though, isn't that why they use fetchlands more than anything else? They absolutely need to have white on turn 2 to have a fast enough clock I thought? I feel like a better example would be Mono-R blitz: https://www.mtggoldfish.com/archetype/modern-blitz#paper But it definitely doesn't play fetchlands, instead they use firey islets for extra card draw late.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 12:29
|
|
|
Jabor posted:You didn't realise that there was a Boros Charm and white cards in the sideboard, did you? Lmao 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 12:31
|
|
|
That burn deck absolutely needs all its lands to be untapped and produce R but is also playing Kor Firewalker, a WW card, out of the sideboard. There's no way to swing that other than with fetches + Sacred Foundry. Deck thinning is a minor consideration during gameplay, but it's not important enough to affect deckbuilding decisions basically ever. That Turtenwald article was written in the context of a standard where there was no real alternative to playing fetches + basics in a multicolour deck (note that mono-red did not play any fetches in that format).
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 12:36
|
|
|
uncle blog posted:Why are fetch lands so popular? Because they give you more control when playing multi-color decks? To me they seem very expensive to use. If you mean monetarily expensive, that has no bearing on any given mtg player
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 12:46
|
|
|
Bust Rodd is like mcmagic lite
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 12:53
|
|
|
Deck thinning is like 9 life per 1 card. On average. A bad rate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 12:53
|
|
|
Elvis_Maximus posted:Burn plays Boros charm and path in the side though, isn't that why they use fetchlands more than anything else? They absolutely need to have white on turn 2 to have a fast enough clock I thought? A mono-R deck in modern could play fetchs if you prioritized magmatic sinkhole and lavamancer. This one doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 12:54
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:Sometimes it’s even correct to put fetchlands into your mono-color deck because using one land in your deck to scoop another land out of your deck means that you’re less likely to draw more lands and more likely to keep drawing good spells. Deck thinning isnt a thing
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 13:16
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:Ok rather than going back and forth here’s Owen’s article from 2015 explaining all the different ways you can use fetchlands to be good at Magic. The math has been done a million times on fetches being used as deck thinning and every single time the answer is “it doesn’t change the outcome by an appreciable enough amount to be worth it” The only competitive decks that run them use them to 1) color fix 2) shuffle 3) stock yard for delve or guy like lavamancer 4) some other corner cases or things I forgot You will not find a competitive deck that uses them for thinning, and we haven’t seen anybody do it at a high level for years because it has been pretty resoundingly proven as bad
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 13:41
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:Sometimes it’s even correct to put fetchlands into your mono-color deck because using one land in your deck to scoop another land out of your deck means that you’re less likely to draw more lands and more likely to keep drawing good spells. This is the worst post you've ever made
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 13:47
|
|
|
Bust Rodd is right, you're all just dog piling idiots.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 13:48
|
|
|
Reik posted:Bust Rodd is right, you're all just dog piling idiots. Nah, he's wrong. Feel free to take your turn at the bat if you want though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 13:51
|
|
|
Reik posted:Bust Rodd is right, you're all just dog piling idiots. No he isn't. It's one of the most proven fallacies in magic. Deck thinning (via fetches) isn't a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 13:52
|
|
|
Burn was also running Searing Blaze for a while, which has a Landfall trigger that fetches help enable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 13:53
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Deck thinning is a minor consideration during gameplay, but it's not important enough to affect deckbuilding decisions basically ever. That Turtenwald article was written in the context of a standard where there was no real alternative to playing fetches + basics in a multicolour deck (note that mono-red did not play any fetches in that format). I agree with this answer, deck thinning with fetches is a gameplay decision not a deck building one and is what the turtenwald article says, or at least that's what I took from it. At the start of the game it makes little appreciable difference (though if you treat magic as one long game then it should be a consideration) and in the late game it can have a large impact on the probability of drawing a non land when you need to. Stangg fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Jul 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 13:54
|
|
|
The Turtenwald article isn't wrong. If: - you have a fetchland that you don't need to crack this turn, but you're pretty sure you'll need to crack at some point (so you're spending 1 life either way) - you're sure you won't colour-screw yourself by fetching now - you don't have any relevant effects that could benefit from shuffling your deck in future then the minor consideration of deck thinning is the only factor that matters when it comes to deciding whether to fetch now or later. But the comparison is different when choosing how to build a monocoloured deck. Let's say you'd crack 2 fetches per game. Isn't it clear that being down 2 life every game is going to lose you more games than drawing 1 additional nonland every ~5 games or so will win you games?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 14:20
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:8 fetchlands for the soul purpose of one Grim Lavamancer? Ok, sure... This post is art, no one can convince me otherwise
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 14:21
|
|
|
Stangg posted:At the start of the game it makes little appreciable difference (though if you treat magic as one long game then it should be a consideration) and in the late game it can have a large impact on the probability of drawing a non land when you need to. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 14:24
|
|
|
reasons to run fetches, roughly in order 1) fix your colors 2) shuffle your library 3) stock your graveyard 4) play more copies of mystic sanctuary 5) trigger revolt 6) trigger landfall reasons not to run fetchlands 1) thinning your deck
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 14:30
|
|
|
Thank god for mister Rodd
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 14:33
|
|
|
Reik posted:Bust Rodd is right, you're all just dog piling idiots. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 14:36
|
|
|
Conspicuous Snoop actually creates a playable incentive to shuffle just now, like Vampire Nocturnus in monoblack vampires. Don't think Bolas' Citadel ever saw modern play but that's another one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 14:38
|
|
|
This poor new guy just asked a basic question about fetch lands and got a classic MTG thread slobber knocker instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 14:40
|
|
|
I play legacy infect, there are 19 lands in the deck 4 if which are threats (inkmoth nexus). Let's say the game has gone long, as they sometimes do, and I've fetched 4 times and need a threat. For the sake of argument I've drawn 15 cards total and just shuffled my deck. Since I've fetched 4 times there are 7 non threat lands in my deck, as opposed to 11 if I haven't. This means the probability that I will topdeck a non threat land go from 11/45 or 24.4% to 7/45 or 15.6%. I would call that significant, though it won't make a difference every game obviously. You shouldn't include fetchlands to thin your deck, but that doesn't mean that they don't and over the long run it makes a difference.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 14:42
|
|
|
Delver of Secrets and Mishra's Bauble are other good reasons to play shuffle effects. I guess there is also 'your opponent's Goblin Guide' but you do not want to be taking more damage against burn
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 14:42
|
|
|
neaden posted:I play legacy infect, there are 19 lands in the deck 4 if which are threats (inkmoth nexus). Nobody is disagreeing that they thin your deck, and it’s pretty intuitive that the fewer cards there are in your library, the more powerful the ability of ripping lands out of your deck is. It’s just that in 99% of games getting nothing but that thinning is not worth the life you spend. You’re more likely to play games where the life is more important than the small amount of thinning they provide. There will be matchups where it’s beneficial to run more than sixty cards, but they’re so few and far between that it’s not worth doing. Same principle applies here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 14:48
|
|
|
neaden posted:I play legacy infect, there are 19 lands in the deck 4 if which are threats (inkmoth nexus). Sure, but for the purposes of the question it's a mistake to cite deck thinning as a reason to run them. It's a minor side benefit but 4 life is often more valuable than the thinning (matchup dependent obv). 84% chance to hit a threat compared to 75% is something but your example is essentially the best case scenario and you still aren't seeing a 10% increase.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 14:51
|
|
|
Babe! it's 4 pm, time for your deck thinning!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 14:51
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Babe! it's 4 pm, time for your deck thinning! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 14:52
|
|
|
MTG: Dog piling idiots dog piling idiots
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 15:10
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:https://mtgtop8.com/event?e=26379&d=401505&f=MO that two color deck is definiely playing fetches for the thinning and not any other reason lmao
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 16:00
|
|
|
Bust Rodd
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 16:01
|
|
|
I mean what other reason would Boros Burn play fetches?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 16:03
|
|
|
Elvis_Maximus posted:Burn plays Boros charm and path in the side though, isn't that why they use fetchlands more than anything else? They absolutely need to have white on turn 2 to have a fast enough clock I thought? Fetch + Shock manabases are by far the most consistent way to have untapped sources of all your colors. The only downside is having to pay life, which burn rarely cares about, so they lean really hard on them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 16:04
|
|
|
E: If I'd clicked on the link, I would've figured that out myself. Still, 5c Elementals gives me hope for the future. InterrupterJones fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Jul 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 16:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 06:07 |
|
|
Aranan posted:MTG: Dog piling idiots dog piling idiots Magic: the Gathering: Circle of jerks all circlejerking whenever Bust Rodd posts
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 16:12
|
|
