3 ms·

He's not talking about mana burn, that was never really a problem except for extremely niche combo decks. He's talking about when you draw lands/mana producers

He's not talking about mana burn, that was never really a problem except for extremely niche combo decks. He's talking about when you draw lands/mana producers for 5 turns in a row after starting with a heavy mana hand. That is "mana flooding".

stephengillie 8y ago
Oh, that's either an issue of an unbalanced deck, or insufficient randomization. My best decks started with the "rule of 1/3", and added/trimmed 1-2 lands to optimize. The "rule of 1/3" is that 1/3 of the deck should be lands, for best land draw. So a 60 card deck would start with 20 lands, and maybe swap 1-2 forests for elves in an elf deck. And from a recent card randomizing thread, it takes 7 "riffles" to fully randomize a deck.
- ufo 8y ago
  20 lands is a little low and is only appropriate if you have a very aggressive deck, with very few cards costing 3 or more mana. Conventional wisdom suggests going for around 40% lands. So 24ish lands for 60 card decks, 17ish for a 40 card deck.
  - stephengillie 8y ago
    My "blue bertha" decks were 40% to 45% lands. They were usually 100+ cards and consisted almost exclusively of 6+ casting cost creatures. These were only used for fun, mostly for other players to test their new decks against, never in any competition. Having more than 35% lands leads to the very mana flooding complained about in the root comment.
    - ufo 8y ago
      For a more detailed analysis on land percentages I'd refer to Frank Karsten (scroll down to the conclusion if you want just the numbers): https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/how-many-lands-do-you-need-to-consistently-hit-your-land-drops/ https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/how-many-lands-do-y... With 35% lands (21/60) you are likely to end up mana-screwed (not enough lands) unless you build your deck to match the low land count. For a generic rule of thumb I think it is better to recommend a bit more lands than that.
- bena 8y ago
  That's for a 52 card deck. The numbers would be different for decks of smaller and larger sizes.
- BookmarkSaver 8y ago
  No, it's a fundamental part of the game which forces a high level of variance. That is what OP was complaining about. Even the best decks are prone to mana flooding or screwing. Your brilliant "1/3" strategy is literally the first thing beginners learn about deckbuilding, and doesn't change the high variance of each game. >And from a recent card randomizing thread, it takes 7 "riffles" to fully randomize a deck. I don't think you understand what "randomize" means. It doesn't mean "you get proportional hands", it means that the state isn't predictable. It is still subject to variation in the amount of mana you draw. Seriously, you are reciting trivially basic concepts, that everyone is aware of, and completely ignoring and/or misunderstanding what is being said and the real situation.

stephengillie 8y ago

Oh, that's either an issue of an unbalanced deck, or insufficient randomization. My best decks started with the "rule of 1/3", and added/trimmed 1-2 lands to optimize. The "rule of 1/3" is that 1/3 of the deck should be lands, for best land draw. So a 60 card deck would start with 20 lands, and maybe swap 1-2 forests for elves in an elf deck. And from a recent card randomizing thread, it takes 7 "riffles" to fully randomize a deck.

ufo 8y ago
20 lands is a little low and is only appropriate if you have a very aggressive deck, with very few cards costing 3 or more mana. Conventional wisdom suggests going for around 40% lands. So 24ish lands for 60 card decks, 17ish for a 40 card deck.
- stephengillie 8y ago
  My "blue bertha" decks were 40% to 45% lands. They were usually 100+ cards and consisted almost exclusively of 6+ casting cost creatures. These were only used for fun, mostly for other players to test their new decks against, never in any competition. Having more than 35% lands leads to the very mana flooding complained about in the root comment.
  - ufo 8y ago
    For a more detailed analysis on land percentages I'd refer to Frank Karsten (scroll down to the conclusion if you want just the numbers): https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/how-many-lands-do-you-need-to-consistently-hit-your-land-drops/ https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/how-many-lands-do-y... With 35% lands (21/60) you are likely to end up mana-screwed (not enough lands) unless you build your deck to match the low land count. For a generic rule of thumb I think it is better to recommend a bit more lands than that.
bena 8y ago
That's for a 52 card deck. The numbers would be different for decks of smaller and larger sizes.
BookmarkSaver 8y ago
No, it's a fundamental part of the game which forces a high level of variance. That is what OP was complaining about. Even the best decks are prone to mana flooding or screwing. Your brilliant "1/3" strategy is literally the first thing beginners learn about deckbuilding, and doesn't change the high variance of each game. >And from a recent card randomizing thread, it takes 7 "riffles" to fully randomize a deck. I don't think you understand what "randomize" means. It doesn't mean "you get proportional hands", it means that the state isn't predictable. It is still subject to variation in the amount of mana you draw. Seriously, you are reciting trivially basic concepts, that everyone is aware of, and completely ignoring and/or misunderstanding what is being said and the real situation.