How many lands in a 60-card deck?

[ekans_]

On this website I see a lot of decks only playing 20-21 lands, while playing with an average converted mana cost of 2.5 and upwards. Also in YouTube deck-techs I see a lot of decks with arguably pretty greedy mana-bases.

So I'm wondering since a pretty long time: How many lands do I actually need to play for what average cmc without ramp and cheating stuff into play?

I balance my land count like this (ramp and so on excluded):
NEVER go under 22 lands
2.3 average cmc = 23 lands
2.4 average cmc = 24 lands
2.6 - 2.9 average cmc = 25 lands
3+ average cmc = 26 lands

[robort]

The simplistic way which I was taught without getting into the mana curve and so forth is...

24 Lands for a 60 card deck. With 36 cards you have the 4 of's in your deck and can hit them consistantly. I am going to guess is the videos you've been watching have been mana greedy because more play is happening online then in paper magic. The rng for online gaming isn't close to paper magic percentages. This holds true especially for mtg arena where you can be and get greedy mana bases.

[stuffnsuch]

I've written about this before.  People see that an "average" deck should have between 22 and 25 lands.  They figure their deck is average, so they assume it's okay with 22.  As more and more people do this, the average deck starts to have fewer and fewer lands.  Pretty soon, new players are looking at a statistic that says the average deck has 21 to 24 lands.  They assume 21 is plenty and start bringing the number down even more.  The average number of lands will typically go down, but the RIGHT number of lands is not the same thing.  There are, in a few instances, circumstances where lower CMC cards get printed, resulting in less need for as many lands, but your strategy of finding average CMC should be consistent no matter what new cards or strategies come along.  Unless there's significant, reliable, low CMC ramp, I wouldn't even bother worrying about factoring any of that in either.

[WWolfe]

I don't know that I'd say never go below 22 lands. My old Boros Heroic deck runs 18 lands and has never had a problem getting mana screwed. As long as my starting hand has two lands (one of each color), the deck can run perfectly fine. The deck also has an average CMC of 1.29 so it's likely an exception. But I'd still never say never.

[helloc]

I have 25 lands in any deck with a average CMC around 2

[crimsonking]

It heavily depends on the format.
I used to play Legacy and there going down to 18 lands is common practice. Generally, 22 lands are for heavy control decks.
For what I know, in Vintage you can go easily down to 15 lands.

[Elan Morin Tedronai]

I'm a Tribal player. For my decks if CMC is 5-6? 22 lands. More than 7, but not many more than 8? 23 lands. Lesser and up to 4? 20 lands. Particular decks like my "Sea Monsters" or "Giants" where there are high CMC spells: 24 lands, but I don't have many Tribal decks with such high CMC creatures and 20 to 22-23 lands are mainstay in my Tribal combinations. Probably only the "Dwarves and Vehicles" require 21 lands, but it was found through careful testing that I need another land, because people at FNMs play with Path to Exile or Field of Ruin and I'm used to play my Tribal decks mostly with basic lands.
Kind regards,
Chavo

[morganic007]

I like this idea based off the average CMC and I took a screenshot to use later. In the past I have just had the general rule of 23 lands ... kind of like in draft decks to have 17 lands.

I know it gets more complicated with more mana sources, like mana dorks or mana rocks, and also when you play more than one color.

I wonder how this rule changes with double faced cards, like in Zendikar. It probably would bring the number of lands down because of their versatility.  I read somewhere that modal cards will be part of future sets so it's an important factor to keep in mind for standard.  What do you all think?

[ekans_]

I wonder how this rule changes with double faced cards, like in Zendikar. It probably would bring the number of lands down because of their versatility.  I read somewhere that modal cards will be part of future sets so it's an important factor to keep in mind for standard.  What do you all think?

If I have a MDFC which is a spell and a land, I always count 2 of them as a land when I play four copies total. Because I don't want to rely on the land side too much; I also want to cast the spell side.

[MattPCA]

If you keep you're lands at 40% of the entire deck you will be fine usually. (24 lands divided by 60 card deck =40%)  If you want more cards than 60 just keep doing your math to find 40%.

[Federico Rosano]

I'm usually thinking about having the correct amount of lands to cast all the main spells in the game at the correct time. Too little lands and I have to wait an extra turn to cast my spells, too many and I have too few spells to cast. The average cmc is a good starting point but it's only half of the story. My Manaless Dredge has no lands at all and it's working pretty fine

As an example: my Heroic deck is a straight, classic and simple mono-W and has a low mana curve, so I need 3 lands on the board at turn 3 to play everything. At the beginning of turn 3, I'll see 9 total cards (7 in hand + 1 turn 2 + 1 turn 3) and statistically I want that 3 of them are lands: 3/9 = 0.33. So 33% of my deck has to be lands (20 out of 60 cards). If I'm starting second, then I'm gonna draw one card more, increasing the chances of an extra land.

On the other hand I have a Pirate deck where the highest cmc is 4, so ideally I'd like to statistically have 4 lands on turn 4 (4/10*60 = 24 lands out of 60 cards).

Another aspect is how much colorless mana is required. My Selesnya deck is absolutely horrible regarding this: most of the cards require both {G} and {W} to be casted and this definitely increases the mana requirements for the deck. My Vehicle deck, on the other hand, has a lot of colorless cards and it's quite versatile on this aspect, so it can run with fewer lands than the ideal number.

I also suggest to check this online tool: https://mtgcalc.shinyapps.io/manacurve/

[Lusunu]

I'm usually thinking about having the correct amount of lands to cast all the main spells in the game at the correct time. Too little lands and I have to wait an extra turn to cast my spells, too many and I have too few spells to cast. The average cmc is a good starting point but it's only half of the story. My Manaless Dredge has no lands at all and it's working pretty fine

As an example: my Heroic deck is a straight, classic and simple mono-W and has a low mana curve, so I need 3 lands on the board at turn 3 to play everything. At the beginning of turn 3, I'll see 9 total cards (7 in hand + 1 turn 2 + 1 turn 3) and statistically I want that 3 of them are lands: 3/9 = 0.33. So 33% of my deck has to be lands (20 out of 60 cards). If I'm starting second, then I'm gonna draw one card more, increasing the chances of an extra land.

On the other hand I have a Pirate deck where the highest cmc is 4, so ideally I'd like to statistically have 4 lands on turn 4 (4/10*60 = 24 lands out of 60 cards).

Another aspect is how much colorless mana is required. My Selesnya deck is absolutely horrible regarding this: most of the cards require both {G} and {W} to be casted and this definitely increases the mana requirements for the deck. My Vehicle deck, on the other hand, has a lot of colorless cards and it's quite versatile on this aspect, so it can run with fewer lands than the ideal number.

I also suggest to check this online tool: https://mtgcalc.shinyapps.io/manacurve/

This is an interesting way of thinking about it, and for lower cost decks this sounds like a good idea. But decks with higher upper ranges (for instance, I have a jank 60-card deck based around Nicol Bolas because it's funny) probably don't want to have 8 lands out of 15 cards. Card draw is also a factor that has to be taken into account.

I'd say for the most part you want between 22 and 24 lands overall in a deck. More than that just feels like overkill, unless you have a *ton* of card draw.

[The Golgari Guy]

NEVER go under 22 lands

There are no general rules like this. I've been playing Burn for a long time in Legacy and I've always played 19-20 lands.

There is no such thing as an "average" deck. A control deck may want 26-27 lands. An aggro deck may want 20. It really depends a lot on your curve and strategy. Test the deck, and figure out the right amount.