I have stopped looking at decks that only run 20 land. Without {gitaxian probe} and {ponder} or the rest of the ridiculously under-costed spells lost in rotation, 20 land is no longer viable in the format.
22 is about as low as a deck can go with the current cards available. The over-all curve of the standard legal cards being played is focused on 2-3CMC where as it used to be 0-2CMC.
Decks are peforming best right now with 23-26 land. Please people! Do not be concerned about drawing land instead of playable cards, your average card costs much more than before and that goes for your opponent as well so dont feel like youre falling behind. The meta is slower now.
*beathe* i feel a little better now.
Ok you happy now
We'll see if every third deck posted starts having more than 20 land...but i do feeling better getting that out there. At least now i know I have done my part, and should it continue then oh well the problem is bigger than myself.
I like slower decks now what to do with the rotation
You should be runing atleast 23 if your running Aggro. Control shouldn't be anywhere close to 20...
What percentage should I be aiming for? (for those of us who don't run 60 card decks lol)
Cca 40% is optimal..;)
I'd say atleast 35%. if your trying to be competitive in standard than your deck shouldnt be more than 60 cards anyway.
Yeah but the Timmy/Johnny in me really struggles to limit my deck to 60 cards! It's so restrictive!
:D hehe but noone says u must have 60 cards in deck...;)
Quote from: Wally on October 10, 2012, 08:27:06 AM
Yeah but the Timmy/Johnny in me really struggles to limit my deck to 60 cards! It's so restrictive!
Lol
The standard enviroment does not boad well for those who dilute their probabilities with over 60 cards in a deck. I am an extreme jank and combo player and i still have not built over 60 in the standard enviroment. Te minimum ensures you a better chance of hitting your fun interactions even if you cant run every single one there is.
Bump...sadly it has once again become a relevant topic to address.
I only run 20 lands if its mono colored and even then rarely!
Quote from: Kaleo42 on October 29, 2012, 12:43:32 PM
Bump...sadly it has once again become a relevant topic to address.
>.<
Less than 20 lands in standard is no no.
Quote from: Willthomjr on October 29, 2012, 01:05:20 PM
Quote from: Kaleo42 on October 29, 2012, 12:43:32 PM
Bump...sadly it has once again become a relevant topic to address.
>.<
Less than 20 lands in standard is no no.
Lol every deck I make now is Atleast 22 to 24 lands has to be with new new meta and mana curve of the cards
Quote from: Wally on October 10, 2012, 08:27:06 AM
Yeah but the Timmy/Johnny in me really struggles to limit my deck to 60 cards! It's so restrictive!
I feel for you!
My Human deck(mono-white) runs 20 lands, and I haven't lost a round since I started using it. In fact, in the course of a game, I feel mana-flooded usually.
Quote from: Dawnk41 on October 29, 2012, 07:30:21 PM
My Human deck(mono-white) runs 20 lands, and I haven't lost a round since I started using it. In fact, in the course of a game, I feel mana-flooded usually.
That's because you curve out at three with one color. Of course you don't need the lands.
I run 19 lands in my b/u/g splinterfright/troll deck with amazing efficacy. Mulch + dawntreader + deathrite shaman gives me everything while powering my engine
If either of you running 20 or less land would like to play a couple rounds on cockatrice i feel i could thuroughly spell out why so few doesnt work in this meta.
That being said there are some stratagies that can play out on few land, i wont argue that. However those have a next to nothing chance of going 5-0 at any fnm that has enough people for 5 rounds.
I agree, my magic number seems to be 24 lands in multi-colored decks and 22-23 in mono-colored(depending on the average mana cost of spells). In my control decks I try to stay at 26 lands if I can. It just makes them run so much smoother.
Its not standard, but in my Kuldotha Red deck its all red and highest cost is two. I run 21 land.
Quote from: izik99 on October 30, 2012, 10:05:00 AM
Its not standard, but in my Kuldotha Red deck its all red and highest cost is two. I run 21 land.
Then everything said here is still true. I was very specific to say that low land counts dont work in the current meta. The old meta loved them.
It's happening again...do i need to bump this thread once a month to keep the new people informed?
Im newer to MTG and have never run less than 20 land...I usually use more land than I should to be honest. I started playing with a u/w control deck with 26 land in, so whenever I made a deck i aimed for 26 land ...silly me lol. I am now really just starting to build and use other style decks competitively :)
I made a rat deck that could get by on 20 land. But I keep 24 in it because of the {veilborn ghoul} + {pack rat} combo.