Are fetches worth it?
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Jan. 6, 2015, 1:33 p.m. by Indigoindigo
When the fetches was spoiled in KTK I thought that I should finally put two of them in my bant EDH-deck, but lately I've read several articles with authors claiming they're not really that good.
From Bennie Smith:"I've always preferred the Panoramas over the fetches because I like having the option of holding off using the search function until later in the game when you might want reset the top of your library if you're using Sylvan Library, Scroll Rack, or Sensei's Divining Top. The problem with the fetchlands is that they can't provide you mana on their own so if you need the mana you've got to sacrifice them right away. Sure, the Panoramas are a bit "slower" than the fetchlands, but I think the extra utility makes them worth it."
From Sheldon Menery:"I realized about a year ago that most of my decks didn't care about the minute details of the manabase. You'll notice in the neighborhood of twenty basic lands in many of my decks. I had the colored mana that I needed to cast my stuff. Fetchlands weren't significantly helping me do it more consistently."
What are your opinions on fetches like Windswept Heath? Are they essential for competitive play, or are the effects so small that they rarely matter much? Are they better in 3-color decks compared to 2-color decks (or the other way around)? Are they less neccessary in green decks because of greens ability to ramp and fetch? Do you agree that the panoramas might be just as good because of the added utility?
lemmingllama says... #3
Fetches aren't essential, but they are very useful. We can get our duals and shocks, and we can get lots of extra value out of Sensei's Divining Top and Scroll Rack, or just being able to hit our land drops off of Courser of Kruphix and Oracle of Mul Daya. I personally prefer them to the Panoramas, mainly since the Panoramas can't be used on turn 1 for a good play, and the lands we fetch enter the battlefield tapped. I would say Fetches > Panorama > Evolving Wilds/Terramorphic Expanse
January 6, 2015 1:46 p.m.
Purplemandown says... #4
The power of a fetch land isn't so much in the shuffle (while that can be nice), it's in the fact that any one fetch land can get up to two lands of any color (4 if you have both ABURs and shocks). They fix colors far and away superior to anything the panoramas can (which are, for the most part, crap).
January 6, 2015 2 p.m.
Purplemandown says... #5
(Just to clarify, as I realize now that's a bit vague, that they have the selection to get one of four, not that they alone get 2 or 4 of them)
January 6, 2015 2:01 p.m.
Remember that both the people you quoted are a member of the Commander Rules Committee and a writer for SCG, both of whom value the more casual experience of Commander. As another example, Sheldon Menery has said before that he has cut down on the number of tutors in his decks to increase the variance and make the games play out less of the same.
Epochalyptik is probably one of the most competitive EDH players on T/O and his assessment is accurate, for a competitive playgroup. If you want a competitive deck (as in as Spikey as possible), you want to run fetches. If more of your games take place around the kitchen table or are more casual in nature, you can run the panoramas just fine. Just take into account your playgroup when building your deck.
January 6, 2015 2:14 p.m.
You can get by without them, but you'd ideally like to use them. One life is nothing to fetch up duals and shocks. With recursion, you get added mileage. Some decks adore the idea of an on-command shuffle. I'll tuck these guys in on any tri-color deck I make.
The way I approach land-bases in EDH is as follows: Duals, Shocks, Fetches, Checks. After that, consider if you need non-basics that tap for several colors aside from the ones you already have. Finally, basics and utility lands. Now start refining and adjusting it.
January 6, 2015 2:37 p.m.
Indigoindigo says... #8
Still worth it in a semi-competitive environment without ABUR duals? Do others agree with TheDevicer that shocks > fetches? I've found the shocks to be a really good investment with green ramp spells like Farseek, Nature's Lore and Skyshroud Claim
January 6, 2015 3 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #9
One of the things that I notice more in Commander than in other formats is that people tend to include "good" cards only because they're good, and they end up misusing them or otherwise not capitalizing on all the options.
I see plenty of people running fetches in EDH decks that don't have shocks or ABUR duals. If you're only grabbing basics, you're really missing the point of the fetches; they're better versions of Terramorphic Expanse, yes, but they're good because they can provide (effectively) free color fixing by finding lands with multiple BLTs. Once you get to the competitive level, fetches are mandatory for three-color decks because they make it much, much, much easier to take varied actions and pay highly saturated costs (like 
for Necropotence) without losing tempo or screwing yourself out of other colors. But you need the shocks and ABUR duals for that. You can't just run the fetches alone and get there in competitive circles.
Deck thinning in EDH is pretty negligible unless you're talking about running 9+ fetches and recurring them with Crucible of Worlds for multiple land drops through Exploration effects. Apart from explosive ramp like that, you aren't getting ROI on the fetches if your primary concern is thinning.
As for semi-competitive environments, I advise including at least the three completely on-color fetches (still assuming three-color decks, which actually see benefits from fetches) and the three shocks. Even if you don't run ABUR duals, you'll still get value there. But if you have to choose between shocks and fetches in that scenario (usually for monetary reasons), then go with shocks over fetches. Compared in a vacuum, and assuming you can only choose one group, shocks add more value to a deck than fetches do. They tap for two colors (as opposed to a fetch only finding a basic land), and they can still interact with cheap ramp of the kind that's already been mentioned (Nature's Lore, etc.). Fetches are the kind of thing you pick up once you're at a certain point in the deck's design that you can see drastic increases in performance.
January 6, 2015 3:09 p.m.
For me, the simple element of fetches to help thin out your deck is what makes them worth while.
January 6, 2015 3:40 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #11
@-Axion-: See paragraph 3 of post 8.
The deck thinning you get from fetches in EDH makes such little statistical difference that it's not worth actually factoring into your deck's design. It might influence some of your in-game decisions (do you recur the fetch from your yard or play a land from your hand, for example), but you won't see worthwhile thinning unless you're running Crucible of Worlds and multiple Exploration effects.
The other benefits of fetches are much more relevant.
January 6, 2015 3:46 p.m.
Indigoindigo says... #12
Really good answer Epochalyptik, that cleared up a lot for me.
January 6, 2015 3:52 p.m.
zyphermage says... #13
I guess bennie smith has never heard of Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth or even Riftstone Portal, or other many similar effects... and sheldon menery is a casual player, which is fine.
January 6, 2015 4:07 p.m.
@IndigoindigoMy short list wasn't in any particular order. I auto-include all applicable versions of those cycles and then thin out cards if necessary. That's just how I make a base for EDH. Sorry if I gave off the impression. I've never even thought about which lands were better since EDH's high card count and singleton format allows me to run them all. I think debating the order of the 5 best cycles of multi-tap lands in the format is rather moot as a result.
January 6, 2015 4:18 p.m.
Schuesseled says... #15
If your deck uses Crucible of Worlds or Life from the Loam fetchlands are a great inclusion.
I certainly wouldn't use them in every deck and I would never use off colour ones 'just cause'.
January 6, 2015 4:51 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #16
Now everyone has a different opinion on things, but here's how I see it, fetches give you four things:
- 1 less land in you library (land thinning)
- loss of 1 life
- color fixing in 2-5 color decks
- 1 land in your graveyard
If you are playing graveyard shenanigans where you can return lands from your graveyard, fetches are amazingggg. Even in mono colored decks, like Titania, Protector of Argoth, fetches are super powerful synergistically. Without that synergy, I feel that you can hurt yourself more by using too many of them if you are on the low side mana-wise. Imagine using fetches when you are low on mana, and consequently causing yourself to be mana screwed. Replacing them with other lands (there is no lack in color fixing nonbasics) can get rid of that downside. Normally it's a good thing but in EDH, you WANT lands. More mana is always a good thing because there is a card you can cast when your hand is empty: your commander.
Because of all that, I say fetches are ill-suited for replacing other dual lands in EDH unless you need the shuffle or graveyard synergy.
Additionally, some win cons say losing life is extra bad: Felidar Sovereign.
January 6, 2015 6:20 p.m.
KindredDiscovery says... #17
I can't add anything that hasn't already been said about how they help your mana base. I don't think there's any question that they can push your deck to the next level in that regard.
So instead, I'll just note that they have lots of synergies that you might not notice until you slip them in your deck. I think my favorite interaction is Rings of Brighthearth. It basically gives you a colorless Farseek every time you crack a fetch. How many decks do you have right now that you could wish had access to that?
Scroll Rack works really good with them too. Put stuff you don't want on top, crack that land, and shuffle it away.
January 6, 2015 7:12 p.m.
@Epochalyptik - My apologies, somehow I missed that this was EDH specific. I stand by my word's when it comes to a 60 card deck though. =)
January 6, 2015 10:16 p.m.
the "deck thinning" aspect of fetchlands is less important than the mana fixing.
the difference in deck functionality is obvious when you pitch 2 identical decks against each other with the only difference being one has fetches and one doesn't.
all the other bonuses that fetchlands give like adding to delve etc are just that... bonuses but its key function is still mana fixing.
January 6, 2015 10:19 p.m.
Ya, that's a given. It's the thinning that is the most important 'bonus' though, and still a great one at that.
January 6, 2015 10:25 p.m.
January 6, 2015 11 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #22
Ah so basically: "Is my deck going to do anything special with a shuffle effect and a land in my graveyard?" has the same answer as "Should I run fetchlands in my deck?"
January 6, 2015 11:14 p.m.
SimicPower says... #24
After the reprint in KTK, I thought it would be worth it to add fetchlands to many of my commander decks (that already had shocks). Playtesting with them, my mana base seemed not noticeably more consistent. The only real difference I noticed was that at times I began the game with 39 life instead of 40. I was about to remove them, when I realized that they worked really well with Brainstorm because of the shuffle ability. I still play fetches now, but I removed off-color fetches for flavor reasons, plus they don't help the mana base as much.
January 6, 2015 11:40 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #25
I guess the benefits of fixing two colors at once can be good enough on one land, so on color fetches in three color decks are actually pretty good.
So run on-color fetches in 3-5 color decks unless you can't afford NOT being at 40 life (Felidar Sovereign). For all other fetches, run them only if your deck can utilize a shuffle effect and/or a land in your graveyard. :)
January 7, 2015 1:48 a.m.
MagicalHacker says... #26
Scratch that, literally the only thing better in a three colored deck than a fetchland (even off colored ones!) is a land that taps for all three colors.
January 7, 2015 1:54 a.m.
HeroInMyOwnMind says... #27
I just play green, and try to ignore color fixing in favor of ramp fixing! If you don't play green, there are easy arguments to be made for either side. I think the main thing to remember in EDH is that you want as much value as possible from each card, so try not to let them in your deck if you don't have cards that compliment them and add value to their use.
January 13, 2015 2:37 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #28
@HeroInMyOwnMind: In three- or five-color decks, fetches add a lot of value on their own. You don't need to run Lotus Cobra or Crucible of Worlds to get value from them (although you should if you can).
January 13, 2015 10:07 a.m.
MagicalHacker, -Axion-: The article that shuflw linked is very, very poorly articulated and contains faulty logic.
Whilst it is certainly true that mathematically you're only increasing the chance of drawing nonland cards by a few percentage points by turn 20 or so, what it fails to mention is that if you repeat the process hundreds of times it will make real differences. What I'm effectively saying is that a 1% extra chance of drawing a nonland card will make an impact if you play hundreds of games. Whilst this might not be significant to a casual player, for those who regularly enter high level play this is actually quite a big deal.
What the article therefore fails to recognise is that statistics cannot be applied to single events but rather must be measured over the wholeness of time. That is to say - we cannot make an accurate assessment of what a fetchland does in a single game because a 1% higher chance means nothing. However describing what it does over the course of 50 or 100 or even 1000 games is more meaningful. In these situations it certainly seems to be the case that this tiny difference multiplies into something quite worthwhile. It's about applying statistics properly - to large samples, rather than single cases.
January 13, 2015 11:06 a.m.
i agree that fetchlands are very useful in deckbuilding for 2+ color decks. landfall, shuffling, and finding dual lands are all useful. playing fetches to thin your deck is not a great reason to play them. the article i linked was also written regarding 60 card decks and 20 pt life totals, for what that's worth.
while it's true that over 1000's of games, all that fetching may eventually draw you extra cards, you also need to take into account the life points that you lost. if you're multiplying the odds of hitting an extra card off of fetching, you're multiplying the life loss as well. by ChiefBell's logic, we should all be buying lottery tickets if we can afford a few dollars a day, because over a large enough sample we're bound to strike it rich.
if we're talking competitive edh and not casual or a 60-card format, i would assume most games end with an infinite combo, and not with the winner at 5 or less life. so in that world, it's probably worth it to pay as much life as possible just to have a fraction of a chance to draw more gas.
in a different format, or a less-than-tournament level edh deck, the life loss is probably not worth the thinning effect.
January 13, 2015 3:44 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #31
Life is a resource. There are ways to pay life without losing, and it's a matter of capitalizing on that.
Of course, it does get harder when you're playing semi-competitive and most games are ending through combat, but you can make it work.
January 13, 2015 4:14 p.m.
shuflw - the life loss from fetchlands is barely worth talking about and not worth comparing to the shuffling and thinning effects. Life loss doesn't actually impact most competitive games of magic at all until the final moments in which you've obviously lost. In those moments it becomes immaterial however much life you have - you've lost. For example a T3 karn to most decks is a loss regardless of whether you have 100 life or 4. A pod deck gaining superior board presence over you is going to win regardless of whether you have 4 life or 100. The only time that life loss actually matters is against aggro decks where it does actually become important to preserve life. However the proof of the pudding is in the eating as they say - if the life loss really mattered then competitive mono red decks wouldn't run fetchlands, but they do. Rock decks would cut back from around 10 fetchlands to the bare minimum and opt for alternatives; but they don't.
Obviously it's worth considering the life loss but I'm really not sure it's a big deal in most situations. Therefore I wouldn't compare the very real advantage of having more nonland cards to the intangible and rarely relevant disadvantage of life loss. Like EDH the majority of modern games are won from situations where you're just outplayed and that's it. Really in most situations, from a modern perspective, fetches have 0 downside. Just don't fetch into untapped shock into thoughtseize.
Finally regarding lottery tickets; don't be facetious about this. Obviously 1 or 2% is appreciable, whilst somewhere around 0.001% is not appreciable. You could buy thousands of lottery tickets and nothing is likely to happen. You can crack fetches thousands of times and something WILL happen. Maybe you were joking, maybe you were serious. Unsure.
January 13, 2015 4:40 p.m.
Epochalyptik- i agree, and in edh it's a much more plentiful and less precious resource than in a 60-card format. my comments were originally in response to an earlier comment regarding 60-card formats.
ChiefBell - i originally posted the article in response to the blanket statement of "running fetches to thin your deck makes them worthwhile" because i think that statement is incorrect. as i stated above, in regards to competitive edh that statement is probably true because 40 life is excessive in an infinite combo format, but for any other format i believe more thought has to be put into a manabase than jamming any fetches that fit. they absolutely have merit, but thinning your deck should be at the bottom of any list of perceived benefits.
some players running mono red decks run fetches, some don't. i wouldn't run them in mono red unless i was certain there were no other aggressive decks in the meta, as the life loss in an aggro matchup would certainly not be worth the (small) percentage points of drawing extra spells. most RDW decks these days are splashing blue or white or black, so i'm having some trouble finding many relevant "competitive" mono red decklists to discuss.
3-color decks play as many fetches as possible because they maximize color fixing. if a rock deck draws 4 Temple Gardens then they don't have access to a third color, but if they draw 2 Temple Gardens and 2 Windswept Heaths, then they have every color they need. in non-standard formats it's important to maximize hitting the color you need on every turn, so the life payment is worth it. not to mention in your example of rock decks, they have access to Scavenging Ooze, Siege Rhino, Kitchen Finks, Deathrite Shaman, etc (depending on the deck and the format) to mitigate some of the incidental life loss from the mana base.
the lottery ticket example was a joke, as i thought your first post came off as unnecessarily condescending.
January 13, 2015 5:59 p.m.
I'm not being condescending towards you at all. I'm being condescending to the article. I'm not really arguing with you, I'm arguing with the conclusions that the article makes. I agree with you that deck thinning is by no means the primary reason to run fetchlands but I disagree that it is a negligible reason to consider. It's not the top reason, but it is certainly an important factor when considering high level play.
I understand why a 3 colour deck runs fetches. I play BG, BGR and BGW at a high level. My observation there was that they certainly run more than is necessary, and there is a reason for this besides the extra fixing. The overboard fetchland inclusion becomes more obvious when you realise you're considering a deck that runs Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth, Woodland Cemetery, Twilight Mire, Stirring Wildwood and many other lands that fix your manabase nicely but cannot be fetched for at all.
My stance on this effectively is that you run fetchlands to make mana fixing a lot easier. You may also run them because you expect to play your deck hundreds of times and you want to sometimes have an advantage from it. Whilst this isn't the primary reason it is a certain advantage that you'd be silly not to take.
Epochalyptik says... #2
Panoramas are trash.
Fetches are a fantastic inclusion if you're running three-color decks in a competitive or semicompetitive environment. However, you need to run them with shocks (and preferably with both shocks and ABUR duals) in order to see any benefit. If you're only running basics, you're not getting much in return.
Fetches gain value exponentially with cards like Crucible of Worlds and Lotus Cobra.
Don't bother with them in two-color decks.
January 6, 2015 1:41 p.m.