Boy howdy, is it.
General Fetchland Density
- Thread starter Jason Waddell
- Start date
Boy howdy, is it.
I've looked over some of the cubes around here, and it seems like quite a few of us (e.g., CML's) with ~450 cubes are running significantly more land fixing than I am. I'm at a cycle of shocks, fetches, panaoramas, and a few others currently. What has everyone's experience been with running so much land fixing? On the one hand, enabling interesting 3+ color seems desirable. On the other hand, does upping the land fixing defeat the drafting competition for them? Is there still the tension between picking a good card and picking a fetch?
Competition for fetches is super high. With good players I have to take them super early over good spells or just never see them. The only reason competition would be low is because of a suboptimal playgroup.
There are drafts where I get cut off of fixing and just have to play two-color decks with bad fixing, and I prioritize lands quite aggressively.
imo the tension increases with double fetch / double shock because you are more likely to get the other shock or fetch you need to combo with it. it isn't just well "lol lets gamble", which isn't tension, it's just silly
also oh man cml has an opinion about this one
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/an-off-color-joke-fixing-dgr-cube-and-you.83/
also oh man cml has an opinion about this one
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/an-off-color-joke-fixing-dgr-cube-and-you.83/
There is always that tension between picking up the Watery Grave you desperately need, or the spell that would really round out your deck and fill up the hole in your mana curve. With fetches, it's a little easier, because I know that Flooded Strand, Misty Rainforest, and Bloodstained Mire all find that Watery Grave, but I still can't delay that decision for too long because everyone else is also busy filling up their lineup with those same fetches.
One benefit of land fixing is how it enables 2 and 3 color Aggro/midrange as opposed to signets which Aggro decks can't really afford to spend their second turn casting. Then suddenly all sorts of decks are going for fixing lands and that ups the competition.
Does that line up with other's experience?
Does that line up with other's experience?
Does this mean the quality of your deck is dependent on where the fetches fall out in the packs?
also to cite this article:
I'd call this a positive for weaker fixing. Also bombs are hot garbage.
Well, the quality of the deck depends on where all cards fall in the packs, but there are trade-offs to all options.
Getting into more than 2-colors allows your average pick quality to increase at the cost of investing picks in land cards to open yourself up to a third or fourth color. That's the fundamental trade-off. If I'm in two colors I spend less on fixing and more early picks on spells that will actually fill out my deck.
I imagine the question of when to pick fixing is super format dependent. For example in retail, with its skewed power curve you'd be nuts to first-pick a land, because the quality of cards in the pack drops off dramatically after 2-3 picks. I've first-picked fetchlands out of many many cube packs.
FlowerSunRain
Contributor
I empathize with both side of the issue, which is why I currently draft lands completely separately from the other cards in my cube. This creates a completely different set of issues, but I find this preferable to either alternative.
My experience is that I get to draft sweet 4-color aggro decks and my paygroup complains about the fixing being too good.
I'm guessing that's where I will end up too, after upping the lands. Most of my group is tragically casual.
This is a great way of looking at it that I really hadn't considered. Thanks!
FlowerSunRain
Contributor
While only tangentially related to the fetchland density issue, I've found that adding the land draft widens the advantage between the players with a strong knowledge of the MtG cardpoll/constructed Magic and those who are "tragically casual". Increasing the fetchland density does the same thing by changing what you can do with your manabase from what you might do in a retail limited/casual deck that uses the 3 random on-color dual lands you happen to own to something much closer to what you might find in constructed (though as CML will emphatically remind you, not quite as good as a modern/legacy deck).
To further explain, one of the dudes I commonly play with is "tragically casual" and has never went better then 1-2 in cube, but wins retail limited drafts with decent regularity (ie more then his fair share. He won like 6 straight once during Alara and Zendikar blocks).
To further explain, one of the dudes I commonly play with is "tragically casual" and has never went better then 1-2 in cube, but wins retail limited drafts with decent regularity (ie more then his fair share. He won like 6 straight once during Alara and Zendikar blocks).
That's an interesting point too. While a cube should be skill testing, there might be limits worth considering while going down that path.
For what it's worth, I was mostly including myself as "tragically casual" too; I don't even play constructed. I find "designing for your audience" to be one of the most - if not the most - challenging parts of cube creation. But I will keep this in mind when considering quantity of fixing.
For what it's worth, I was mostly including myself as "tragically casual" too; I don't even play constructed. I find "designing for your audience" to be one of the most - if not the most - challenging parts of cube creation. But I will keep this in mind when considering quantity of fixing.