General Mana Base Brainstorm Thread
- Thread starter Grillo_Parlante
- Start date
If it's not the focus of most designers (me included, for 100% sure), then the opportunity cost of a few different lands that let you try out cool stuff is super duper low, as is trying out ~a handful of cool cards. Let me also point out that experimental themes is by nature how you "solidly test" something, or at least that's how I take it
To talk about mana bases in general: My mana base right now is totally whack compared to the riptide standard, but I don't see my drafters being miserable.
-The 5 BFZ lands
- all 10 shocks
- all 10 fetches
- the 5 mirage fetchlands
- the 5 enemy painlands
- evolving wilds
- terramorphic expanse
- Mirrodin's core
- tendo ice bridge
- potentially the five BFZ block manlands, soon
EDIT: I also don't ULD (gasp!). I have drafting group that is strained just drafting normal style and/or likes the "usual" approach
I feel like you found that on another forum? Here it is:
edit: WHOA. The other intriguing thing about a River of Tears cycle is that you can splash for main-phase stuff but can't splash for instants. I think that's more bad than good, but it's an "interesting restriction" which Rosewater would say "breeds creativity".Bolivian Trolling Paste said:
editors: I don't mean that whydirt's idea is bad, it just has that faint balduvian scent of rewriting MtG's rules which we all know is tons of fun!
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
Yeah, I don't ULD either, for a lot of the same reasons, and because I find it makes format balancing much harder. If you were really using the format competitively, you would be kind of expected (I feel) to have done the testing before hand, rather than using consumers (which they would be in that instance) as guinea pigs. Thats all I meant by that.
Not taking digs at anyone: it is what it is. There is always going to be this weird dissonance, I feel, between competitiveness and casualness in cube design. Realistically, everyone is going to just jam these cards in, which is fine, especially in a thread about brainstorming.
That mana base though is really raining on my appreciation of all things symmetrical.
-------
I was thinking that if anyone wants to go up to the constructed quality mana base, it should be a relatively simple fix of reducing each colored section by <x> number of cards. I did the math before, and though I don't remember the percentages, I think it meant just running 47-48 card colored sections at 360. It really wasn't that big of a change.
The real solution is running more fetch lands since they give you more than 2 colors, but the cost is so prohibitive on the enemy ones especially. I'm already nervous playing with one copy of Scalding Tarn, let alone 2 or 3 of them in my cube. In fact, I had double fetch for awhile, but I took out the second set once prices got stupid and I started doing the math on what it would cost me to replace if something happened. I know, I should proxy. But Wizard's should be reprinting that shit so people don't have to shell out hundreds of dollars for lands. I mean, WTF with that? It's laughable.
I'm actually genuinely interested as to what you mean? The cycles are all horizontally complete at least halfway. Are you talking about the differences between the Allied/Enemy cycles? I'm aware of that being.... funny. I'm really really sad they didn't print the enemy BFZ lands...
. Like I said, the set seems to be working, but I'm definitely open to suggestions. As soon as I finally get around to a CT list, the whole pile can come to light.
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
I was just teasing, and it might even be right to run your mana base like that; but all those half cycles...it just looks like a real motley mana crew.
I'm glad I didn't buy the tangos, WOTC really left me hanging there.
I'm glad I didn't buy the tangos, WOTC really left me hanging there.
Give those poor Hasbros a break - there's no room for them to fill in land cycles. Set space is very tight. They gotta print enough Wetland Sambars to ensure everyone gets a playset!
When they didn't finish the tango land cycle, I think I almost cried. I had five slots all ready and everything. Oh well.
My first instinct would be to take out the tangos and put all 10 painlands in, which I might very well do as part of my colorless plan. This would leave me with 10/10/10/5/5. My lands are very motley indeed
.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Hey man, Magic Set Editor is free to download if you want your own enemy tangos
I'm up to 50 dual lands in 360, after being convinced by a couple of folks on here about a year ago, and I'm really happy with those numbers now. You won't miss or even notice that the worst two cards of any given colour are gone, but on the other hand, you'll fist pump so hard when that bonus Overgrown Tomb or Verdant Catacombs makes its way around the table. This is one of those things we can afford to carve out space for in cube because of the relatively flat power levels, which ensures that even with an abundance of fixing lands, no one's ever struggling to come up with 23 playables.
The other advantage of giving everyone great mana is that it's far less likely a colourless utility land or two will throw a monkey wrench into their carefully laid plans; it's a great insurance policy against colour screw.
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
Thats probably a much better general structure.
I just did the math again, and you can go to 50 color fixing lands at 360, which divides out to 6.25 color fixing lands per drafter (at 8 drafters), or 15.6% mana fixing lands per deck. If you want to have an additional 10 slots (for maindeck utility lands), which would bring your land section up to 60 cards, you just need to go to 48 card color sections.
Thats lower than the 21% (I think it was) that was recommended by karsten's article, but its still much better, especially for people running fast formats where mana stumbles are going to resonate more.
I just did the math again, and you can go to 50 color fixing lands at 360, which divides out to 6.25 color fixing lands per drafter (at 8 drafters), or 15.6% mana fixing lands per deck. If you want to have an additional 10 slots (for maindeck utility lands), which would bring your land section up to 60 cards, you just need to go to 48 card color sections.
Thats lower than the 21% (I think it was) that was recommended by karsten's article, but its still much better, especially for people running fast formats where mana stumbles are going to resonate more.
This assumes that the drafters aren't competing for the scarce resources (particular color pairs in Ridetide cubes), though. What percentage of lands are more-or-less unusable in the average draft? Or maybe not unusable, but facilitating some inane splash like a lightning bolt or brainstorm. The 10-color-pair, dual-color deck paradigm is just hard to support in a cube draft environment without a lot of waste. And while going up in fetches is a big step in making land picks usable by more of a given table, I am surprised more riptiders haven't gone heavier on Mana Confluence or gone down to a 5-color-pair, dual-color multicolor & land section (or most of the land section; maybe only running the on-color fetches).
Well, the more fetches you have, the less likely a dual-color land is to be left in the sideboard. I probably leave a land in the board once every few drafts though. The problem happens less frequently when you run full 8-man drafts.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
I always secretly worry that my breeding pools are secretly a 4/10
Chris Taylor
Contributor
So my last cube draft added these three:
and more to the point, reality smasher was actually in my deck (Seer got hate drafted and Displacer wasn't in the draft, though I might have played it)
My deck had an unsually large ammount of colorless sources at Five (Double Mutavault, Double Wasteland, and Gavony Township) which is still nowhere close to the seven karseten recommends, and here's what I found
-I played about 13 games that night (Games against lucas went VERY quickly) and I had at least one colorless land is all but one of them. In a few games I'd had 2, but 13 games is hardly a proper sample size.
-Reality Smasher is strong, but not too strong. I imagine it sucks cast against you when you're hellbent, but what doesn't.
-Wasteland is somewhat frustrating for these cards as compared to tectonic edge, since you're more likely to have used it early. I'm still not switching, but it's something to keep in mind, both in cube design and while you're playing.
-They all felt nice and castable off of lands I already wanted, and my mana didn't feel stretched. I was straight 2 color though, so perhaps these being the 6th color is more appropiate than we thought.
-I think I would have felt comfortable with 4 sources for smasher.
-I think it's good that Seer and Smasher probably feel at home in a deck that wants mind stone, though I'm less sure eldrazi displacer does.
I'm going to shop up a cycle of <>/ fetchalble dual lands for use by everyone here, and I'd recommend those going in the ULD.
and more to the point, reality smasher was actually in my deck (Seer got hate drafted and Displacer wasn't in the draft, though I might have played it)
My deck had an unsually large ammount of colorless sources at Five (Double Mutavault, Double Wasteland, and Gavony Township) which is still nowhere close to the seven karseten recommends, and here's what I found
-I played about 13 games that night (Games against lucas went VERY quickly) and I had at least one colorless land is all but one of them. In a few games I'd had 2, but 13 games is hardly a proper sample size.
-Reality Smasher is strong, but not too strong. I imagine it sucks cast against you when you're hellbent, but what doesn't.
-Wasteland is somewhat frustrating for these cards as compared to tectonic edge, since you're more likely to have used it early. I'm still not switching, but it's something to keep in mind, both in cube design and while you're playing.
-They all felt nice and castable off of lands I already wanted, and my mana didn't feel stretched. I was straight 2 color though, so perhaps these being the 6th color is more appropiate than we thought.
-I think I would have felt comfortable with 4 sources for smasher.
-I think it's good that Seer and Smasher probably feel at home in a deck that wants mind stone, though I'm less sure eldrazi displacer does.
I'm going to shop up a cycle of <>/
fetchalble dual lands for use by everyone here, and I'd recommend those going in the ULD.Thanks for writing this little bit up! Excited to see that someone's already testing them. Those three + Worlrdbreaker and Blink-Drazi would probably be where my cube starts. Interesting thought that Reality Smasher is good in a deck with hand-hate potentially, to keep the opponent off the card they need to pay the tax.
One thing I'm liking about the two <> drazi is that they seem to be above the "magic butt number", which apparently is three for a riptide-y environment (YMMV). Cool incentive.
Anyway, the <>/X lands should be super neat for this purpose!
One thing I'm liking about the two <> drazi is that they seem to be above the "magic butt number", which apparently is three for a riptide-y environment (YMMV). Cool incentive.
Anyway, the <>/X lands should be super neat for this purpose!
You are offering Wastes in the basic land pile though right?
Because I feel like most decks splashing <> will want one or maybe even two to fetch via basic land options (sakura-tribe, etc). My thought is this would be like what you would do splashing Banefire or whatever the example we used was (run a single token mountain or two maybe).
5 sources is probably what a lot of people run with when they do a splash, no? 7 might be the number to hit 90% castability by T4, but was anyone doing that when they made their WUr deck? I'm guessing not, otherwise I'd be getting less heat on the argument.
Treating <> as the 6th color of mana makes the most sense to me though. To me, a card that costs 2<> is not different from something that costs 2B. You want swamps in a deck with lots of B cards. Same is going to be true for a deck dominated by <> cards. ULD adds a cushion though since a ton of lands there will also tap for your splash "color", making them more appealing for players that decide to run <> cards. Mutavault essentially becomes a Treetop Village that doesn't ETB tapped, so if it wasn't appealing before to the <> splash guy it's like Christmas come early now.
Because I feel like most decks splashing <> will want one or maybe even two to fetch via basic land options (sakura-tribe, etc). My thought is this would be like what you would do splashing Banefire or whatever the example we used was (run a single token mountain or two maybe).
5 sources is probably what a lot of people run with when they do a splash, no? 7 might be the number to hit 90% castability by T4, but was anyone doing that when they made their WUr deck? I'm guessing not, otherwise I'd be getting less heat on the argument.
Treating <> as the 6th color of mana makes the most sense to me though. To me, a card that costs 2<> is not different from something that costs 2B. You want swamps in a deck with lots of B cards. Same is going to be true for a deck dominated by <> cards. ULD adds a cushion though since a ton of lands there will also tap for your splash "color", making them more appealing for players that decide to run <> cards. Mutavault essentially becomes a Treetop Village that doesn't ETB tapped, so if it wasn't appealing before to the <> splash guy it's like Christmas come early now.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
So, I have been thinking about my cube, which limits the available color pairs to five and their corresponding three-color combinations (also five). While it's cool to play and draft, it somewhat limits creativity because it excludes possible color combinations by virtue of its mana base and card pool. Sometimes (read: often) I find myself wishing to include a cool card that doesn't fit my available color pairs. Problem is, I also want to support the cool three-color cards (see other thread) but they're pretty hard to justify using regular mana bases. I also think the karoos offer cool lines of play, but are awful for aggro decks, which I really want to support as well, because good mana fixing is maybe even more important in those decks than in midrange decks, who have more time to find the correct mana source. So.... a few ideas.
Free fixing with three-color cards.
Add three-color cards to the cube, but not the corresponding fixing. Instead, if you pick a three-color card, you also get a land tapping for those colors, so you can actually splash for the cool card if you are in two of the three colors.
e.g., if you draft Sidisi, Brood Tyrant, you also get this card for free:
Split land card.
Introduce split land cards to the draft, which can be exchanged after the draft for either part of the split card. This way you can staple, for example, a karoo onto a split card together with aggro-friendly fixing.
Any other cool combinations? Is this idea viable at all? Maybe this is a way to sneak utility lands into the main draft?
Fetchable color fixing for two guilds on one card
The idea is to enable good good fixing for multiple guilds while compressing the amount of fixing slots needed in my cube and reducing wasted picks (because a given guild isn't being drafted). It's also a little easier to support splahes for a third color with these. You probably shouldn't cube Oblivion Stone with my current wording though
Free fixing with three-color cards.
Add three-color cards to the cube, but not the corresponding fixing. Instead, if you pick a three-color card, you also get a land tapping for those colors, so you can actually splash for the cool card if you are in two of the three colors.
e.g., if you draft Sidisi, Brood Tyrant, you also get this card for free:
Split land card.
Introduce split land cards to the draft, which can be exchanged after the draft for either part of the split card. This way you can staple, for example, a karoo onto a split card together with aggro-friendly fixing.
Any other cool combinations? Is this idea viable at all? Maybe this is a way to sneak utility lands into the main draft?
Fetchable color fixing for two guilds on one card
The idea is to enable good good fixing for multiple guilds while compressing the amount of fixing slots needed in my cube and reducing wasted picks (because a given guild isn't being drafted). It's also a little easier to support splahes for a third color with these. You probably shouldn't cube Oblivion Stone with my current wording though
Chris Taylor
Contributor
You are offering Wastes in the basic land pile though right?
Because I feel like most decks splashing <> will want one or maybe even two to fetch via basic land options (sakura-tribe, etc). My thought is this would be like what you would do splashing Banefire or whatever the example we used was (run a single token mountain or two maybe).
5 sources is probably what a lot of people run with when they do a splash, no? 7 might be the number to hit 90% castability by T4, but was anyone doing that when they made their WUr deck? I'm guessing not, otherwise I'd be getting less heat on the argument.
Treating <> as the 6th color of mana makes the most sense to me though. To me, a card that costs 2<> is not different from something that costs 2B. You want swamps in a deck with lots of B cards. Same is going to be true for a deck dominated by <> cards. ULD adds a cushion though since a ton of lands there will also tap for your splash "color", making them more appealing for players that decide to run <> cards. Mutavault essentially becomes a Treetop Village that doesn't ETB tapped, so if it wasn't appealing before to the <> splash guy it's like Christmas come early now.
I will be, but I'm probably only going to have like 4 in the box
I really hope people don't have to splash these cards off nothing but REALLY useless lands.I've got a souped up evolving wilds in my cube, so they can go get wastes with that. Good call! Sakura Tribe Elder isn't currently in my cube, and all my rampant growths are farseeks, which is the problem.
Anyways, the 5 sources I felt was a bit much, is what I'm saying, and that was with lands I didn't have any way of fetching.
So, I have been thinking about my cube, which limits the available color pairs to five and their corresponding three-color combinations (also five). While it's cool to play and draft, it somewhat limits creativity because it excludes possible color combinations by virtue of its mana base and card pool. Sometimes (read: often) I find myself wishing to include a cool card that doesn't fit my available color pairs. Problem is, I also want to support the cool three-color cards (see other thread) but they're pretty hard to justify using regular mana bases. I also think the karoos offer cool lines of play, but are awful for aggro decks, which I really want to support as well, because good mana fixing is maybe even more important in those decks than in midrange decks, who have more time to find the correct mana source. So.... a few ideas.
Free fixing with three-color cards.
Add three-color cards to the cube, but not the corresponding fixing. Instead, if you pick a three-color card, you also get a land tapping for those colors, so you can actually splash for the cool card if you are in two of the three colors.
e.g., if you draft Sidisi, Brood Tyrant, you also get this card for free:
View attachment 588
Split land card.
Introduce split land cards to the draft, which can be exchanged after the draft for either part of the split card. This way you can staple, for example, a karoo onto a split card together with aggro-friendly fixing.
View attachment 586
Any other cool combinations? Is this idea viable at all? Maybe this is a way to sneak utility lands into the main draft?
Fetchable color fixing for two guilds on one card
The idea is to enable good good fixing for multiple guilds while compressing the amount of fixing slots needed in my cube and reducing wasted picks (because a given guild isn't being drafted). It's also a little easier to support splahes for a third color with these. You probably shouldn't cube Oblivion Stone with my current wording though
View attachment 587
You know, if oblivion stone switched which dual land I had in play, I think I'd laugh rather than rage
I do wonder why the GW version is fine but the UW version deals 1 damage to you. Or if it's not supposed to be that way, word this card like mana confluence rather than city of brass, where the life payment is in the cost.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
You know, if oblivion stone switched which dual land I had in play, I think I'd laugh rather than rage
I do wonder why the GW version is fine but the UW version deals 1 damage to you. Or if it's not supposed to be that way, word this card like mana confluence rather than city of brass, where the life payment is in the cost.
Do note it doesn't get destroyed either
Anyway, the life loss triggers regardless, but your suggestion is a good one for clarity!I'll edit it for clarity
Chris Taylor
Contributor
As a somewhat annoying note, the colorless symbol update for MSE won't actually update if you keep your MSE directory in programs files, like it does by default. The way W10 treats permissions pisses me off -_-
Strictly better New Benalias for everyone!
Strictly better New Benalias for everyone!
Chris Taylor pointed out that for Cube, we don't necessarily have to abide by the "can't be strictly better" rule they follow for land design because all our good nonbasics have the additional line "this costs you a pick and is not a spell". Lotta folks run ABU duals yaknow?
Plus some of the baloney downsides they've used aren't real and the land is absolutely better than a basic.
Plus some of the baloney downsides they've used aren't real and the land is absolutely better than a basic.