I had a ton of fun during the Draft but unceremoniously lost the first round. Skip to content. And whether this is always the case. First Big Issue: A land deck may miss early land drops The prevailing wisdom is that Limited decks should have around 17 lands. These Constructed decks can run a low number of lands sometimes even 20 or fewer because they have at least one of two characteristics: A low curve.
The average converted mana cost is low, and the deck can function on only two lands. As a rough approximation, the average CMCs are 1. This does not apply to the typical Limited deck. And a typical Limited deck cannot function on only two lands, especially when they run a handful of 4-drops. With 14 lands, you will miss your fourth land drop You need more lands or ways to get lands if you want to curve out.
In Limited, however, alternatives to lands are hard to find. It might have been different had I opened more dual lands, but with "only" three in my colors, I managed to have something that works reliably. The mistakes most new players do it is to get super greedy with their splash. They would play a few more red cards because they have five red sources. The risk of not having the mana is just too high compared to the low reward of having a slightly better card in a splash color.
When you're playing that guy who lays a UB dual land, then a GW dual land, plays a white card, a blue card, a green card, and a black card, it feels like there's no reason not to run all your colors, it looks so easy.
However, you don't see the five other games that guy plays where he can't play a single card from his hand. The same goes when you've faced this rare once that you couldn't deal with, and now you want to run it at any cost, stretch your mana as much as possible in order to play it. The five-color strategy exists in this format and can be a successful one, but it's not what we're looking at here.
My deck was pretty good without being totally insane. I was missing a win condition and was going to play Thornwood Falls and Opulent Palace for Icefeather Aven anyway, so I only needed an extra green source to play Dromoka.
The two Write into Being would help me get to that green mana or just make sure I don't draw the Dragon when I don't have my green mana yet. It wasn't before I considered all my options that I added it. Playing one Forest only for the Dragon and the Icefeather Aven feels very awkward. I would have loved another fixer than a basic forest, but I simply didn't have it. In that case, Dromoka is a card that would simply win games on its own, at almost any time you could cast it.
The risk of being annoyed by this Forest existed, but was made up for by the potential of the Dragon. I had another option as well. Along with Opulent Palace , that would be three black sources that I could run easily replace an Island by the Dismal Backwater , the Forest by the Jungle Hollow , and voila!
This UW deck is definitely lacking removal spells it has none, just bounce spells. I really like Debilitating Injury , but it's not worth the splash in the main. Having the double splash green and black , gives you an extra chance to jam your hand with an unplayable card and make the deck a bit more unstable. Specifically, I used the least squares approach from simple linear regression to minimize the sum of the squared distances between the fitted line and all the data points.
I got a reasonable R-squared value loosely speaking, a statistical measure of how close the data points are to the fitted line of 0. The fitted model, based on my data set, is that the number of lands in a deck is given by 16 plus 3.
But you can at least get a rough guideline from this analysis. An interesting observation is that the decks that won the last 3 Pro Tours, pointed out in red, all lie all above the regression line. Combining key numbers from both methodologies in a single table, I can offer a suite of recommendations for card decks. I hope that my analysis will prove useful to deck builders all around the world. Skip to content. To determine the probability of hitting your 4th land drop, I will assume the following mulligan strategy: You mulligan any 7-card hand with 0, 1, 6, or 7 lands.
You mulligan any 6-card hand with 0, 1, 5, or 6 lands. You mulligan any 5-card hand with 0 or 5 lands. You keep any 4-card hand. After a mulligan, you always scry a land to the top and a spell to the bottom. The Formula Given a card deck with a given number of lands, I started by determining the probability of keeping any opening hand with a certain number of cards and a certain number of lands.
Click to enlarge. How about Limited? All right, I can do that too. Musings — Can you cut a land on the draw? Musings — How to balance mana screw and mana flood? About The Author. Hackworth Unless there's something unusual going on lots of mana creatures, for instance , I'd anticipate 26 lands being a good number for a card deck.
I think there's a lot more flexibility in a card deck, as you are able to tune it more than a limited deck and depending on the deck's strategy, you may not need a large mana base. I believe "conventional wisdom" is anywhere from 18 to 28 lands.
Most people I know run lands in a 60 card constructed deck. I think that mana curves are a little bit lower than they were in my day, due to today's card packing more bang for their buck! In my day we got 1 power for 1 mana and 2 power for 3 mana and counted ourselves lucky Bolster against a little bad luck, add another land or two depending on how bad you need it.
Add a little mana fixing and take some out. Show 3 more comments. Active Oldest Votes. Improve this answer. Ian Pugsley Ian Pugsley 4, 28 28 silver badges 38 38 bronze badges.
0コメント