Fetchland Deck Thinning - FALSE!
General forum
Posted on Sept. 16, 2013, 2:27 p.m. by aeonstoremyliver
Fetchlands are quite popular for numerous reasons in the Eternal formats. Arid Mesa , Misty Rainforest , Wooded Foothills , Polluted Delta , and the like have all been in high demand and are commanding higher prices as a result. They're a phenomenal resource to mana fix, and coupled with their ability to pull numerous land types, can be cracked to fetch Tropical Island , Overgrown Tomb , and other powerful dual lands. Also worth noting is the shuffle effect after the fetch has been cracked. This is often useful on it's own accord.
Because of this most Eternal format decks (i.e. - Vintage, Legacy, Modern, and EDH) run multiple copies. However a long time trend and thought has crept into the consciousness of Deckbuilders: Fetchlands thin your deck. You'll see this in many Mono colored decks like Sligh, Red Deck Wins, Mono Green Beats/12 Post, Merfolk, Mono Black Control, etc. Aside from the shuffle effect, there really is no other benefit to include fetchlands in a mono colored deck. Sidenote- Decks utilizing mechanics like Threshold, Grim Lavamancer , etc. will still see benefits.
Gasp! That's right folks, I said it. My case in point is this article:
http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/print.asp?ID=3096
I should state that fetchlands do thin your deck, however you won't see the results until many, many turns later, like turn 16 or so. In an Eternal format setting other than EDH, this is not optimal.
Do take a few minutes with an open mind and read the article. If anyone has any additional information to add in contrast or in defense of this article, we'd love to hear it!
aeonstoremyliver says... #3
@ DrFunk27 Dude, I totally opened up the article with that...
September 16, 2013 2:46 p.m.
Statistically, yes, you won't see the card until much later in the game. Realistically, you'll never know exactly when you'll see the extra card, unless you somehow mark your cards and shuffle very carefully. In practice, you might as well use it to thin your deck, as there is a (small) possibility you'll draw a spell instead of a land because of it. The life loss is often inconsequential.
But yeah, don't go dropping bricks of money to buy fetches for your mono color deck.
September 16, 2013 2:49 p.m.
Sorry, I skipped down to the article. Yes, you are correct. Do people claim they thin your deck? I've never heard that as a reason to use them. I use them because they are literally the best lands ever created (next to the original duals.)
September 16, 2013 2:50 p.m.
From reading the article, he certainly makes a case for why you shouldn't feel like you must go out and spend hundreds of dollars on fetchlands, as the impact is comparatively minimal on the actual output of the deck.
But there IS an actual impact on the performance of the deck. That means that if you already have the fetches in your possession, or money is not a concern of yours, the deck still is better with fetches than without.
Even if it's only a TINY bit better, Even if you only get 1 extra spell in the first 4 turns, once every 5 games, that is still optimal, and at the top levels of competition, that is a degree of optimality that can make the difference between a win and a loss.
And yes, if you have 20 basic lands, versus 12 and 8 fetches, it's pretty much going to work out that for your first 4 or 5 turns, you might as well just use basics in terms of thinning the deck etc, but seriously, the shuffle is a HUGE benefit in MANY cases in many decks. Whether it's to shuffle away bad cards from brainstorm or dive top, or with top, to abuse triggers to get the extra draw without having to re-draw the top the next turn.
I'm also just really not sure about his data on the deck thinning when it comes down to it. You are drawing one land card (the fetch) and as a result, pulling a second land card from the deck without using a draw on it. If your opening hand had 4 fetches in it, there are 16 land left out of 53 cards (30.1% chance to draw a land)
If those 4 fetches were basics, after 4 turns of drawing if there were no land in those draws, and just playing 1 per turn, you have 16 land left out of 49 cards (32.65% chance to draw a land next) If instead, they were fetches and each turn you played and cracked one for one of the basics, after 4 turns there are 12 land left out of 45 cards (26.6% chance to draw a land next)
In an aggro deck where a land draw on turn 5 would probably kill you, 6% better chance of drawing a spell is pretty big, especially across a whole tournament.
September 16, 2013 2:53 p.m.
Not to mention Fetch lands are key players for cards like Deathrite Shaman.
September 16, 2013 2:58 p.m.
However, you have to consider life.
Life is a resource, however, it isn't one you can waste willy-nilly. Is that spell on turn 4 in 1/4 of games really worth the life spent on it.
Another thing is with Deathrite and the like, is the pay off of 1 card worth, when you are letting them do silly things with extra mana.
I won't be running fetchlands in any of my mono coloured decks, for sure, unless I have a way to abuse them.
September 16, 2013 3:20 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #10
Thank you to everyone who also pointed out the life issue. Giving yourself a statistically insignificant "advantage" is not worth putting a free Shock in your opponent's hand. The only reason to put fetchlands in a mono-color deck is to charge up cards that use the graveyard for ammunition, like Grim Lavamancer , Deathrite Shaman , etc.
September 16, 2013 3:39 p.m.
SnowCoveredRevenge says... #11
They thin your deck significantly, each land you pull out of your deck is one less dead card to draw, meaning every time you crack Misty Rainforest to get a Tundra , that is one less card on top of that Stoneforge Mystic you are trying to top deck.
You cannot accurately quantify what this means as it is impossible to determine how many times they save you from a dead draw.
September 16, 2013 3:42 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #12
It can be quantified, and the URL in the OP (not a live link, so maybe that's why you missed it) does quantify it: http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/print.asp?ID=3096
Anyway, getting Tundra with a fetch land is a great idea, because in that case your fetch is an extra copy of your dual. That effect of fetch lands does exist. The "thinning" effect doesn't.
September 16, 2013 3:45 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #13
Using the math that Devonin put forward and using the same assumptions you would have on average a 3% chance of drawing an extra spell on turn 5 (0% extra chance for 0/4 fetches drawn, 1.5% for 1/4, 3% for 2/4, 4.5% for 3/4, 6% for 4/4 0+1.5+3+4.5+6/5=3) at 3% you will need to play 33 hands to see 1 extra spell. I know that this type of margin is what high level competitors thrive on to give them an edge I don't feel that the average player needs to worry about such slim margins.
The main thing about "deck thinning" that irritates me is the people who don't understand just how slim of a margin one gets from running fetch lands. My introduction to the idea was from a guy who know that high level competitors would run the actual fetch lands for thinning. He had a knee jerk reaction and just thought that anything that would help you get lands out must be an awesome strategy and he was advocating leaving a single Evolving Wilds in my first deck after I no longer needed it so that I could deck thin with it.
September 16, 2013 3:59 p.m.
aeonstoremyliver says... #15
I definitely concur that utilizing fetchlands to get a Tropical Island , Breeding Pool , etc. is a phenomenal idea. I also agree that cards that have synergy with the graveyard like fetches. I think I mentioned that in the original post...
The life loss issue is a great point. Against an Aggro deck those extra life points could cost you the game for very little payout in a mono deck. Even a minute, statistical advantage over a large portion of time isn't worth that loss, IMHO.
In regards to seeing a small percentage of a benefit on turn 5, in Legacy the game should be over by then, especially when running Red Deck Wins or Elves.
I myself use fetches in my RDW deck purely for Grim Lavamancer
and Barbarian Ring
. And I only run a few.
I suppose when building a mono colored deck and the quandary of fetchlands comes into play, one must weigh the risks v.s. the benefits.
September 16, 2013 4:08 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #16
@DrFunk27 I know right? He is one of those guys that net decks spending hundreds of dollars and then somehow still manages to loose to the guy that bought the event deck an hour before FNM. I'm sure we all know someone like this that hears what the pros are doing and then messes the idea all up so that it doesn't even mean what the pro said. Luckily I had a friend who knew about the math behind it and told me not to listen to him. Since the whole coming in tapped is much worse than just not having the extra spell. We are talking a single copy in a 23 land deck; the chance for an extra spell would be well under 1%.
September 16, 2013 4:22 p.m.
SnowCoveredRevenge says... #17
How can you say they do not thin your deck, lets assume I am on the play so I have 7 cards in my hand and 53 in deck, play a fetch, crack now i have 6 in hand and 52 in deck?
September 16, 2013 4:26 p.m.
SnowCoveredRevenge, we are saying that the card you would get is so negligible that you won't see the advantage until around turn 10. The life loss to card gain generally isn't worth it, unless you are able to abuse having cards in your graveyard or shuffling, for example, being able to shuffle away a bad hand from brainstorm or getting Threshold online.
Look at the maths in the article. It holds up.
September 16, 2013 4:33 p.m.
I would like to assert here and stress that even if it is negligible - IT IS STILL deck thinning and the OP is a little misleading. The reason why CERTAIN mono-colored decks in eternal formats don't run fetches is NOT because the thinning is negligible or the life loss is not worth the negligible thinning; several other (combination) of reason - to name a few: 1) cards like Bloodmoon, 2) cards like Stifle
, Trickbind
, Squelch
, Leonin Arbiter
, Aven Mindcensor
, Shadow of Doubt
, etc. and 3) the space for "non-mana producing lands" is limited - ie. if you need to run Wasteland
and/or other utility and have a plethora of double or triple colored CMC spells, you have very limited space to put fetches in.
September 16, 2013 4:54 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #20
Saying "even if it's negligible, it's still significant" doesn't make any sense. The math is there, and the effect isn't strong enough to matter in any game that doesn't run unreasonably long. The insignificant effect isn't worth the significant loss of life.
September 16, 2013 5:26 p.m.
aeonstoremyliver says... #21
The point of cards hosing fetches is a great one, and duly noted. Thanks for that @ jdcallirhoe. However Rhadamanthus makes and secures my counterpoint.
September 16, 2013 6:01 p.m.
I've read articles like this one before and this one made the same mistake: you're assuming the player has not drawn extra cards each turn, tutored, stacked the deck with cards like Land Tax + Sylvan Library , etc.
If I'm playing a very fast combo deck (where my goal is to win before turn four), it's not uncommon for me to draw or go through an extra 30 cards each game via Brainstorm , Peer Through Depths , Ancestral Recall , Demonic Consultation , Serum Visions , etc.
If I'm looking for specific combo pieces, I'm not comparing how many lands are left in my deck vs. how many spells are left. I'm comparing the number of combo pieces to the number of cards left. Fetches in this situation are more like: "When CARDNAME enters the battlefield, you may pay 1 life and draw a card" because of how much library manipulation is in my deck. It's a cumulative effect of constantly drawing and searching for cards that eventually uses life as a resource to improve my chances of drawing combo pieces.
You're absolutely right, however, when it comes to mono-color aggro decks with no library manipulation using fetch lands. RDW in Standard right now would actually be made worse if it included fetch lands over basic Mountain s because it gains very little benefit while narrowing the race.
September 16, 2013 6:03 p.m.
@Rhadamanthus Until that "negligible chance" happens on turn 4 and you draw your last combo piece instead of an island.
I think the point that should be made here is: For MOST PEOPLE'S PURPOSES, the thinning effect of fetchlands is nowhere near worth the cost to enable it. And so if you aren't using it for colour-fixing, or graveyard interactions, you're fine to not go spend hundreds of dollars on them.
That said, getting 1 extra spell every 10 rounds of play is completely worth it to someone on the pro tour. At a certain level of play, optimality regardless of how small that optimality becomes mandatory.
If they made a rule that said if you sat down at the table in a Princess Leia Gold Bikini, you got to have a 1% chance to start the game at 21 life instead of 20, there are people who would go shopping.
As soon as we cross from "non-existent" into "existent no matter how small" you lose the ability to say that the benefit is wrong or false, just not necessary for most people.
September 16, 2013 6:10 p.m.
this was disproved already
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/print.php?Article=15815
September 16, 2013 7:25 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #25
@Devonin: Yes, the probability of getting that extra card will stack up to something that might actually happen over the course of a long tournament. However, again there's the issue of the life loss. The probability of the life payments causing you to lose a game you would have otherwise won also stacks up. Unfortunately, it might actually be impossible to run the numbers on that to see how it compares to "thinning" and to what extent one dominates the other (unless someone way more intelligent than me comes up with a creative setup for it).
@Machinus: I wouldn't say that "disproves" it but you brought up a very important point, and I apologize for not bringing it up myself earlier as it's one I usually mention in conversations about this. That author is referencing decks that can see a ton of extra cards during the course of a game (Goblin Ringleader , Brainstorm , Fact or Fiction , Standstill , etc.). Doing this basically shoots the Monte Carlo analysis forward several turns, into the area where the probability of drawing the extra spell before the game ends starts to become meaningful. Instead of talking about the number of turns it takes before we reach significance, we should have been talking about the number of draws.
September 16, 2013 7:50 p.m.
The article in the original post is 10 years old and comes to the wrong conclusion. I'd say it was disproved
September 16, 2013 8:06 p.m.
aeonstoremyliver says... #27
On the contrary, the original article posted notes that deck thinning does occur, however much too late to be effective.
In the other article posted the averages listed without additional card draw aren't enough (like a .25 difference, I believe) to be worth both the life loss and the expensive nature of said fetches in a mono deck. Granted additional card draw is not mentioned in the Monte Carlo method, but seeing results by turn 10 is by no means advantageous.
Dredge decks are capable of winning by turn 2. Affinity by turn 4. Storm and Hive Mind by turn 2-4... and the list goes on. Very rarely have I seen a Legacy match go past turn 7. With that being said I hold my original stance that albeit graveyard synergy and a shuffle, fetch lands have no other benefit for a mono colored deck.
September 16, 2013 8:33 p.m.
You don't have have very much Legacy experience, then! The additional percentage of drawing spells is certainly "worth it," and the original article is wrong. Looking up some decklists would certainly help you understand.
September 16, 2013 9:11 p.m.
aeonstoremyliver says... #29
Machinus you're quite the comic!
How is increasing the potential to draw a spell on turn 10 beneficial when most matches last 4-5 turns? And a tiny, fraction of a percentage at that...
I prefaced my original post with the misconception of deck thinning within the MtG community has crept into the consciousness of deck building. Looking up deck lists hardly proves your point.
September 16, 2013 10:37 p.m.
It's not a misconception. It works. That's why the best Legacy players use it. If you played Legacy instead of theorycrafting you would already know about it
September 17, 2013 2:42 a.m.
There are lots and lots of good reasons to play fetchlands.
- Best mana fixing available in Legacy and Modern
- Provides fuel for Grim Lavamancer and Deathrite Shaman
- Provides a shuffle effect in conjunction with Brainstorm or Sensei's Divining Top
- Gives you a buzzword that you can invoke ("deck thinning") to make you feel better about your playing ability
Math really isn't that hard. If you assume a 23-land deck with two lands in the opening seven, then you're giving up 5% of your life to increase your chance of drawing a turn 2 spell by 1.2%.
In order to get a 5% better chance to draw a spell, you have to fetch on your first four turns. The cost is 20% of your life total and four turns. The latter's importance cannot be underestimated. In the formats where fetchlands are legal, they're probably too slow to gain you any statistically significant benefit.
Who thinks this is a good idea?
"Marginal advantage" is another nice buzzword to make the naive Magic player feel good about his Magic knowledge. But there's no marginal advantage here. You're giving up a much higher percentage of a vital resource (life) than your gaining in value (drawing spells instead of lands).
Fetchlands are undeniably worth the money even at these current ridiculously inflated prices, but if you're using them solely to thin your deck, just play a Mountain instead.
September 17, 2013 5:20 a.m.
@aeonstoremyliver @Rhadamanthus Thanks for the counterpoint. I don't disagree with the math. But it is still fact that fetches "thin" regardless of however negligibly - which is the title of this OP. From what I see the point of this discussion is to push the idea that the life loss is not in any way worth it. I'm hearing the term "significant life loss" thrown around quite a bit. "Significant life loss" is also a very subjective term. If you teach a person to play magic; then later ask them if they were willing to start the game with X less life to be able to play with a still balanced less than 60 card deck I don't think there will be any argument from most.
People on this post seem to focus on the life loss as only correlating to the "deck thinning" as well. There is a reason why the "pay 1 life" is on fetch lands. Half the cost is for the deck thinning, the other half for the color fixing. I think it's important to note that you're losing 1/2 a life point for the deck thinning - I think that's just as negligible as the effect if not even less quantifiable.
As magic players I think it's safe to say the thing we care about most is value. I don't think there is a more valuable replacement for fetch lands and what they do as a whole (if that's what you want to be doing in your deck). My people with articles written about established value on cards is that there is an agenda to be pushed behind it. It's not open up Pandora's Box, because downplaying the value and price justification for fetches is pretty folly.
September 17, 2013 9:32 a.m.
To be honest, the biggest issue I'm seeing here is everybody is focused on the math and the statistics. I know that that's a lot of what Magic is, but the x.xx% chance of finding the extra card is still that: chance. Just because it's PROBABLE to happen at turn 10 doesn't mean that it can't come into effect turn 3.
Life is expendable in Magic. We all know that. No points matter except the last. And just because of a greater CHANCE to get that card, regardless of the fractions and percents, most players find that worth it.
That being said, it's still unnecessary for many decks. The fact that they fuel opposing Deathrite Shaman s and such in decks that don't really need the extra card makes them often unfavorable. Especially for the extra few hundred dollars haha.
September 17, 2013 10:08 a.m.
Just look at the decklists that pro PLAYERS use (not pro internet forum posters use...) and you will resolve the question.
September 19, 2013 6:12 p.m.
Schuesseled says... #36
Yes they thin your deck, which is good, but the life lost will be far more relevant unless you have a way to interact with dumping stuff in your graveyard.
DrFunk27 says... #2
Fetchlands are not used for the sole purpose of thinning a deck but rather fetching the dual land needed. In your opening hand you will need a certain number of colors and using fetchlands fixes your mana.
September 16, 2013 2:44 p.m.