English-language Forums > Commander Discussion

Superior Numbers – Land Counts

(1/4) > >>

robort:
https://articles.edhrec.com/superior-numbers-land-counts/

I know it is an older article on Edhrec but it was interesting to read.

The average deck on EDHREC is running 29 lands and four mana rocks. Is that number too high or too low?


That statement is the opening for reading and the analysis of the stats is also interesting.

The average deck on EDHREC is running just over 29 lands.
Decks added in the last year average 31 lands.
The average deck on EDHREC has 4.15 mana rocks

But if you also read A couple of notes about those stats:
There are some reasons behind it.

Then even on the Cedh statistical part of that as well. 

Then something for the Non Cedh.
Number of lands = 31 + amount of colors in commander’s color identity + commander CMC, with 0-CMC mana rocks counting as lands. 

I like this part "Regardless of how you get there, the current average numbers are far too anemic for anything but the most tuned of cEDH lists"

Now after all that reading It made me think... Weather I am running enough lands, or what type of lands from shock, bounce, fetch, tapped et-cetra there was this one part of the article where he did some experimentation..

26% of the decks tested missed their T3 land drop and were unable to play any mana source within the first three turns.
21% of the decks tested missed their T3 land drop but were able to play a mana source, i.e. two lands and a Birds of Paradise or Talisman of Dominance or fetching a land with something like Wayfarer’s Bauble.
More than 1/4 of all decks tested just flat out missed their T3 land drop. That is terrible, and it will make you lose games before they’ve even begun

I've hit that terrible aspect for whatever reason. I've seen some others in my playgroup also do the same thing. Could it be because one isn't playing enough lands or enough ramp/rocks? Are though process of thinking is I will make it work no matter what ingrained? We to stubborn to actually mulligan to get out of that "terrible" to actually "to this is allright".

To me it was just a reminder that lands do matter/count in any game of EDH. I personally like to try to play the game of magic instead of draw/go all because I had a 2 land hand that I was on intent on keeping no matter what because I was going to make it work.

A car needs gas, and just like a car a deck needs gas. So without any lands/ramp/rock to gas your car, that car isn't going anywhere fast.


Soren841:
Basically cEDH is skewing the land count and casual is skewing the mana rock count. Also I dont think they counted dorks as rocks, which are popular in cEDH.

robort:
If you took the time to read on it especially in the notes soren but I will post what was under the notes..


Some decks choose to not run any mana rocks, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have other ramp options. Looking through my own list of decks, for example, my Sigarda, Host of Herons enchantress deck has zero artifacts, and thus zero mana rocks, instead electing to run enchantment-based ramp like Overgrowth and Wild Growth. Decks like this will drag the overall stats down while still being able to ramp effectively.

Landfall or other themed decks may also run less rocks. Again, looking at my own decks, my Mina and Denn, Wildborn Landfall list is running a single rock – Sol Ring – because the deck is designed around generating Landfall triggers. The ramp there is skewed heavily towards green’s land ramp spells like Nature’s Lore and Sakura-Tribe Elder. Green is also statistically the most popular color in Magic, and its native land ramp probably also somewhat depresses the mana rock count while still leaving a deck with enough non-rock ramp to function.

Mana dorks like Llanowar Elves were also not figured into the equation, giving us yet another ramp archetype that allows a deck to function while dragging our above statistics lower and lower.
Small draw spells and filtering like Ponder, Preordain, and Opt also make it easier to find the lands and rocks in a deck with a lower land count.

Soren841:
I read it when it came up last but I don't remember

Morganator 2.0:
I actually think that EDHREC has its numbers wrong. Each commander gives its average lands and none of them ever went below 29. The lowest I found was 33.

cEDH is a minority, so it's strange that the minority of decks would skew the data this much.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version