How many tapped lands are right for PDH? - PDH Lands Guide
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ย. 2024
- I looked at over 1000 decks to make this video and learned quite a bit. I'm so excited to share what I found.
Learn More about PDH (Pauper Commander) www.pdhhomebas...
Linktree: linktr.ee/lobbert
Patreon: / lobbert
Twitch: / lobbert
Twitter: / lobbert8
Common Connoisseurs Discord - / discord
==Music Attribution==
Title - Haven
Author - Alexander Nakarada
Source - www.free-stock...
License - CC BY 4.0
Title - Village Ambiance
Author - Alexander Nakarada
Source - www.free-stock...
License - CC BY 4.0
Title - Winning Loop
Author - Alexander Nakarada
Source - www.free-stock...
License - CC BY 4.0
This was very encouraging to help me learn more about what my land base should be. Thanks.
This was very thorough and well made. Thanks!
Definitely a lot of helpful insight and knowledge into the whole deal with mana bases for this format. Thank you for the in depth discussion about the decisions for certain cards being worth including or not.
I'm only 5 minutes in and I'm genuinely scandalized that Crystal Grotto and Tocasia's Dig Site are coming out of decks. They're the first two cards I add to decks. I think they're both outstanding. I only cut them when my mana-color needs are extreme, like in 3- or 5-color.
The amount of research done is insane. Easy subscribe and I know I'm gonna watch more. Thanks so much for the great quality content!
I also appreciate the length of the video. I'd much rather have these thoroughly explained so I can understand the concepts better
Great stuff. No notes.
Okay, one note: I truly love that we have so many utility lands and that they're not always the right call, but can be in specific decks. I agree with you on Dig Site, but that card does work in decks with a ton of mana, like Risen Reef.
I love your deep dive into data on this one. Very Nice. I also love the way you display the cards, very reminiscent of how I physically lay out cards to make decisions.
Thank you! I feel like it really puts it into perspective better than a simple average or something does.
Good info, thanks. Gonna have to think on this...
Great video and great insights!
There's a ton of statements all over online magic communities touting how much mana you lose out on by playing taplands, but my observation is that this is really only true for decks that consistently need to curve out. If your deck doesn't curve out, it's pretty easy to have a tapland, sometimes two, played by T5/6 without slowing yourself down. The other side of the coin is how often you are scrambling the last 2/3 turns to dig for an extra card that you need, and cycling lands and spheres do a great job of providing that. If you aren't playing against T3-5 combo wins, I usually recommend running 4 cycling lands or spheres. I feel like those lands have saved games for me about equally as often as the tap lands have hurt me, so it just feels like a matter of personal preference for me, not a matter of what is better or worse.
The other important part of this conversation is the risk of being a little behind (tapland on a turn you needed to curve out) vs the risk of being out of the game for several turns (if you don't have your colors). My usual rule of thumb is wanting 20+ lands that could provide each color in the deck (so in an orzhov deck, at least 20 lands that can provide black or fetch a swamp). Think about how often you've seen a Gretchen Titchwillow deck mull to a small hand and have trouble finding their colors.
So both of the above reasons contribute to me consistently being towards the top of the "how many taplands are in your decks" scale. In a 2-color deck, I think I usually end up with 7-10 taplands, occasionally going higher.
I love the data gathering part of this episode! The only potential stumbling block I see is that many of the in-person tournaments have drawn a lot of players that were newer to the format, and that demographic is much more likely to have a 35-basics-and-a-Command-Tower style of mana base, just because they aren't familiar with the options and the mana base was treated as an afterthought. I could see that skewing your data for organized play even lower than optimized decks would cause.
The average number of tapped lands in organized play was 6.9 but if you exclude in-person tournaments, the average fell to 5.8 so you're absolutely right about that.
Before finishing this script, I reduced my tapped land count in my decks because of what I learned and in my test games that followed, I've still had access to my colors so I wanted to focus on getting people to play a faster manabase.
You're right that you can get away with a lot more tapped lands in games that go longer. I briefly mentioned in the vid that I found that slower decks with lots of interaction tended to have more tapped lands but it does bear repeating because I only devoted like 1 sentence to that 😅. I will say that in competitive, I'd rather be on the deck curving out and winning quickly than a midrange or control deck trying to have the answers while developing with tapped lands so I'll admit that bias in my writing.
Great video!
Hahaha, all that data up there and then there's me, a psychopath with nearly 200 online lists, putting Tapped Fetches in all my Mono-colored decks 'cause I'm a slut for Scaretiller XD
This is good stuff!
Logging your data specifically made me question my parameters haha. I only grabbed your moxfield stuff. An interesting fact is that column B was “Pal?”. So I could filter you guys out because I figured you’d skew the results and I wanted to know by how much. Comparing the graphs before and after I removed you, the graphs looked almost unchanged, which is why it’s not mentioned in the video.
This is a cool video! New sub
If you could do a video about why you use Snow lands so often, other than for the obvious reason. I personally don't use them, due to them being much more expensive.
I play Arcum's Astrolabe in most decks so I need to play snow lands to support that. I made a video on that. Also, I came from playing standard, modern, and legacy where the price to play is a lot higher so paying more for a marginally better manabase is a given for me. Also, when I do a card order, a always check if any sellers in my cart have snow lands for sale to stock up while I can. I figure that I'm going to want full art lands anyway so I might as well get snow ones.
th-cam.com/video/VN6aM0K0gFs/w-d-xo.html