|Commander / EDH||Legal|
Printings View all
Combos Browse all
Land — Mountain Forest
(: Add or to your mana pool.)
Price & Acquistion Set Price Alerts
|Have (7)||almeidafabio , Famicomania , TheDuggernaught , Big-Foot , lorddarkstar , Azdranax , MagnaAura|
|Want (15)||Turtlelover73 , Poptartz95 , SamCre1993 , Ocheyo , Doom_of_Valyria , GeminiSpartanX , Forkbeard , MindAblaze , CastleSiege , LTmiller , pskinn01 , Spinalripper , ryuzaki32667 , Feyd-Rautha , aeonstoremyliver|
10 hours ago
Mostly expensive spells that would dramatically improve the speed and consistency of this deck.
4 days ago
I came here after looking at your lands deck. I love this deck, it looks pretty fun to play. I only have two questions. Why not run Jace, the Mind Sculptor? I saw a similar deck that played him, and he seemed like a pretty useful tool in the deck. Lastly I was looking at the land counts. I liked all of the lands that were there but I was wondering why 3 Taiga and only 2 Tropical Island and 2 Volcanic Island. Since you also play grove I wondered why not 1 Taiga and 3 of each of the other two?
3 weeks ago
Yo' mama so fat she have her own Stomping Ground!
Hey baby, I'm not a fan of Cougars, but you look more like a Taiga ;]
I've never dated someone from the Carribean before, but I always fancied Birds of Paradise...
1 month ago
Just wondering what would be the best substitute for it, am considering either Sterling Grove or Drift of Phantasms for now. Which is better? Maybe both of them in place of the two cards above. Or should I use Windfall in place of Timetwister?
Also how about Zur the Enchanter to search for Food Chain or Necropotence, I'm guessing its not included because the mana cost is too high.
For the mana base, I tried replacing basic Forest with Taiga but then feel the basic forest is better. There was one occasion where I cannot find the red mana to cast Fire Covenant in time though but otherwise it was okay.
Since this deck is often able to produce G,U and B consistently, I am considering replacing Tundra with Scrubland, as triple black is important if Necropotence is needed early somehow. Not sure if it is a good idea though?
Would love to hear your opinion. Thanks in advance.
2 months ago
3 months ago
3 months ago
The problem with the article (and this has been pointed out all over the place over the years every time it gets posted) is that it assumes everything in a vacuum. It ignores that life is a resource.
For example, suppose I lose next turn to my opponent's infinite combo and the only way I can win is if I do so on my current turn. In that case, paying all but 1 of my life total to gain a even a 1% chance of drawing the card I need to execute my own combo is worth it. If I'm playing Storm and sitting at 4 life, paying 3 of that life to go grab a Steam Vents before I try to draw a card is worth it.
This is done at multiple instances throughout the game because I can only play one land a turn. So with the example of Storm in Modern, if I'm going up against another fast deck like Death's Shadow, Burn, or another combo deck, I can map out the number of cards my opponent can play.
So let's continue by taking a look at Burn. It can do 4 damage with Boros Charm. 2 damage a turn with Goblin Guide is one of its more efficient means of damage. Monastery Swiftspear does a lot of damage but is limited by the mana available. Atarka's Command likely does the most damage. A resolved Eidolon of the Great Revel is enough to kill me on its own. What's the fastest way that a burn deck can kill me, as a Storm player?
Hitting a land drop each turn is ideal for the Burn player. If they hit 4 lands and nothing but spells, they should be able to do 20 damage by turn 4.
So with 7 starting cards and then 4 turns being on the draw, they have 11 cards total. 4 of those are lands, meaning they get 7 of their burn spells. The absolute nuts is if they get multiple Goblin Guides and Atarka's Command. So:
Turn one: Goblin Guide, attack for 2 (18 life remaining).
Turn two: Cast another Goblin Guide, attack for 4 (14 life remaining). Cast Lightning Bolt (11 life remaining).
Turn three: Monastery Swiftspear -> Atarka's Command for 3 to the face (8 life remaining), pump the team, attack for 9 (0 life remaining).
That's 21 damage by turn 3, with the Burn player getting a strong draw. So if I'm on the play, and I know I take 21 damage by the Burn player's turn 3, that means the most life I can pay of my own is 10. That's because it's what keeps me alive at the end of turn 2. If I pay even 1 life, I'm dead on turn 3 regardless of what else I play. Because of this, any life I pay by turn 3 is irrelevant.
So if my opening hand has only 2 Misty Rainforest, but I need , then I'm going to pay at least 2 life to fetch a pair of Steam Vents. If I have to fetch and shock twice, I go to 14. I'm dead when my opponent gets their turn three, so I decide to combo off. Part way through my combo, I draw Scalding Tarn and Island. I can still play a land and I only need to get , so I can play the Island. However, since I know I'm dead the following turn, I may as well pay the life to use Scalding Tarn, even if it only improves my draw by 0.000000000000001%.
This is a long, convoluted example, but I hope it illustrates my point. Life is a resource. Games more often that not depend on certain life total breakpoints (in our Burn example, it goes 18 -> 13 -> 1). Using a fetch to thin out your deck in those cases makes the smallest percent worth it.
The times where the article is correct is when looking at a meta that does random amounts of damage each turn and you're playing Mono-Red Burn. It's better off to play nothing but basic Mountains, even if the option of fetches is there. That's because you'll never be in a situation where paying life to improve your chances will be relevant.
Even then, sometimes the shuffling itself becomes a relevant resource. Or you want to fill your graveyard (Grim Lavamancer being the go to example). But most of the time, it comes down to mana fixing. Because fetchlands can grab dual lands, they open up all 5 colors without any issues. If you rely just on dual lands, you may draw all of your spells, but only your lands. If those lands were Verdant Catacombs? It's no longer an issue because you can go get your Taiga or Badlands.
This becomes even more obvious against decks with few actual win conditions. Sneak and Show is going to attack me with either Griselbrand, Emrakul, the Aeons Torn, Ashen Rider, or all of the above. Scapeshift is going to kill me with Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle. Once you know the threshold for when these decks can kill you, crossing that threshold means any life you pay from fetchlands makes the deck thinning worth it.
Edit: I should mention, my point is that "Fetches are good for thinning your deck" is a correct statement. This is only clear if you take the time to think about why. But once you do, it's obvious and becomes second nature to most players.
3 months ago
So.... if you take out all those lands like Scrubland and Bayou and whatnot, this deck is less than $200. If you want this deck, but at a lower power level and MUCH lower cost, cut these: