Dual Lands in EDH - A Primer

[WizardSpartan]

https://deckstats.net/decks/120669/1659958-lands-in-edh-a-primer?lng=en#show_description

[CleanBelwas]

Hey man,

So as I've already said, I'm a big fan of this. I think you've done a great job and it looks sweet.

I think there are maybe a few things that you could tweak to make it even better though, so I'll share my thoughts here.

The first is in regards to the primer in general. I think this could be an excellent resource for people looking to build mana bases on any level (I already think it's a great resource), but I think it would benefit from being a little more impartial. I think it's important to remember when creating a resource such as this that people will be playing at all different levels and with all different budgets. Obviously if we could, we'd all play with perfect mana bases with fetches and duals and all that excellent stuff, but that's not for everyone.

When I was reading it in more depth, some of the descriptions (especially for the more budget options) were mostly comparing that cycle to other cycles (usually more expensive/less easily available cycles) rather than considering them in their own right. I think it would be good to take each cycle in a vacuum and consider its pros and cons as well. Obviously, especially when it comes to tapped lands, there are versions that are strictly better than others and this should absolutely be considered and mentioned, but I think including some text considering each cycle on it's own merit would be a good inclusion. This is particularly relevant for the budget options. Generally speaking, people who are playing to a budget know that their mana base isn't going to be as good, but if we can offer them advice of "this is fine for budget because..." in addition to "these are better", the resource as a whole becomes much more useful for lots more people.

A good example of what I'm getting at is Slow Fetches. They are obviously worse than regular fetches, but they do have upsides compared to the likes of Evolving Wilds which is the other comparison you made. I think mentioning those upsides too is worthwhile and makes this already great resource even better. It gives unfamiliar players more information to inform their decisions of inclusion.

Some thoughts I had on each cycle that were different to your own:

General Tap lands: Between the various cycles of taplands that are all similar/the same, it could be worth including some information on the worth while gain from the different cycles compared to the others and if they are worth actively seeking out. Most players that are new or playing to a strict budget are playing these sorts of lands, so are most likely playing with stuff they already have. Gain lands are fine if you have them, but are they actively worth seeking out over regular taplands? Probably not. I mean, if your LGS has some going or you're placing an online order and can pick some up, sure, but is the difference between the two going to be significant to the results of your deck? Outside of synergies (in this example, life gain) it probably wont, and I think including that kind of information could be useful for new players who could be a little overwhelmed by all the choices.

Bounce lands:
Given their price point, I don't think they seem bad at all. They offer that "soft ramp" of missing fewer land drops, and are only really bad when you have nothing to play first to bounce a land you've already tapped. At this budget level, land destruction probably isn't all that common, so I think these are a perfectly fine inclusion if you're in the $ budget range. Obviously you do go in to their upsides in this one, but I think the opening sentence will likely put people off when these lands are actually OK if you are aware of their downsides and play around them.

Creature lands:
Just an additional synergy/upside as to why these see play that is worth mentioning. They can function as creatures that avoid wipes. Being a creature only some of the time comes with its own upside. I've seen these used in a Vehicle deck that used these, Vehicles and a fuck ton of board wipes and honestly, it was pretty sweet.

Deplete Lands / Slow untaps etc:
One possible thing to mention on these lands is their use in storm decks, especially budget ones. When you are using them on a turn when you intend to win, the downside is completely nullified and storm often requires quite a lot of specific colours to get started for its rituals etc. and usually spans 4-5 colours. If you're trying to build storm on a budget, these might have a place. Still after pain lands (which I agree are some of the best EDH lands around), but maybe useful to some people.

Slow Fetches:
As I mentioned, there are some upsides to these that I think are worth mentioning in their section. They are obviously much worse than regular fetches, but in comparison to Evolving Wilds and Terramorphic expanse they have the upside of a) fetching non basics and b) the fetched land (probably) enters untapped. This is great if you like to play responsively. With Wilds and Expanse, you take the turn off that you crack it. With these, you take the turn off that you play it, but once it's online it can be good. Deciding what to fetch based on if you want to counter a thing or activate an ability is still possible with these. They are also synergistic with the Triomes, Cycling Duals, Battle lands (which I found interesting btw. I've always known them as tango lands). Hell, even on a budget, some of us have the odd shock kicking around from Ravnica. There are definite upsides here and they are probably worth mentioning.

Storage Lands:
I think these are where our opinions differ the most. I absolutely don't think these are hidden gems or anything like that, but I do think that they have a place. At their price point, they're actually OK. In my opinion, the cost of including these is incredibly small. They enter untapped and tap for colourless. In a two colour deck, there is very unlikely to be a loss of tempo or a lack of colour fixing is a result of these. The ceiling for them is huge though. I don't see them as netting 1 mana every two turns. I see them (and have used them) as a place to store any left over mana for one big blow out. I run Dreadship Reef in Scarab God. This deck tends to be pretty reactive and leave mana open a lot. Charging these up in those kinds of decks isn't the worst or hardest. If we are in the early to mid game, my targets for reanimation might not be great or I'm not in a place where I'm particularly under pressure. Therefore I'm OK with charging this thing up. And there have been games where I've got a whole Scarab God activation out of it. Towards the end of the game, getting one extra activation out of The Scarab God in a turn cycle can be huge. I have a friend in our playgroup that loves them for the same reason. There is little to no downside for including them (assuming you don't have too many other colourless lands) and every so often they are really valuable. Sure, if you're looking for good lands, these aren't where you'd start, but for their price they do a job and do it reasonably well.


These are just my thoughts though dude. I hope I haven't come across negative or anything. Like I say, I think you've done a great job with this and think it's already really good. Please don't feel under any obligation to include any of my suggestions if you don't want to. This is your baby. I'm just putting in my two cents.

[WizardSpartan]

Wow, big response. I'll try to work through it and address all your points, going paragraph by paragraph.

I thought I sufficiently pointed out which cycles were really good despite being cheap (Battlelands, Painlands, etc.). I definitely explained that while Fetchlands and True Dual Lands are the best of the best, they are by no means necessary for a good mana base. I guess I do have a bit of a problem with being impartial, but this guide is mostly aimed at people looking to stretch their money as far as possible (rather than blow several thousand dollars on a perfect land base). I do that myself on a regular basis, so I figured that if I really like a certain cycle & explain why I like it in particular it would allow newer players to see what cheap cycles are best and why.

I do compare a lot of cycles to other cycles to let the reader know where a certain cycle stands in the grand scheme of things. About the Taplands, you make a very good point. I'll add some more discussing when it is fine to run a few of them to ensure you get the right colors. This would be a good instance when my budget level and inherent bias works against me. I am willing to spend enough money on my mana base to avoid Gainlands, Taplands, etc. which means I may rate them too low.

I will add some more specific information about the Slow Fetch Lands and specifically their upsides/downsides vs. Evolving Wilds and similar cards.

I didn't think of that and I agree with you. It's not really worth going out and purchasing Gainlands to replace Taplands as the upside really isn't worth it.

I guess I'll soften the opening sentence when discussing Bounce Lands.

The various additional synergies with Creature Lands are actually really cool. Vehicles + Creature Lands + Boardwipes galore actually sounds dope.

Yet again, did not think about how these lands could be used in Storm decks. They still don't seem particularly good imo, but I'll add it in.

Even with your explanation, I just don't like Storage Lands. It would take at least 2 turns of you having 2 extra mana to sink into the Storage Land before you actually net a mana. Even then, you get 1 colored mana instead of a colorless mana. In reality, you would have to spend 6 mana over 3 turns to actually get extra mana on that 4th turn. Imo, if you have 2 extra mana each turn for 3 turns, you might want to take a look at your deck. Even control-based reactive decks want to actually do stuff, good lord.

Thanks for all the feedback! You definitely make some strong points, and I will be editing my primer soon.

[CleanBelwas]

Ah shit dude. Having read your response, I think I misinterpreted the purpose of this primer.

I'd been looking at it from an "I own this card. Is actually any good or should I just run a basic" point of view. Just looking at it for what it does rather than what it does in relation to other things.

But from what you've said it seems more like an "assume I have nothing but the money in my wallet. What's the best mana base I can build with the smallest downside for this money. Which of these are actually worth pursuing?".

With that in mind, a lot of the shit I said is somewhat irrelevant. Some of these lands have upsides for certain decks/archetypes and can do a job if you already own them, but aren't worth actively seeking out. From the blank slate approach, this primer as it stands makes a lot more sense to me now.

[WizardSpartan]

It's not quite "I have nothing but money in my wallet" because then I would just be going "everybody should just purchase a set of fetches and true duals". It's more of a cost/analysis type of primer. I give a price estimate for each cycle, people then pick out the cycles within their budget range, and then I provide my opinion as to whether or not that cycle is worth its price point.

Don't beat yourself up. All of what you said was relevant, I just didn't agree with some of it.

I went ahead and rewrote some of the Bounce Land section, the entire Tap Land section, and the entire Slow Fetch Land section. Would love to hear how they match up to what you have been saying.

[CleanBelwas]

I said "nothing but THE money in my wallet", by which I meant "I'm aware of my budget and looking to do the best I can on that budget". I didn't mean that people will be approaching this with unlimited budget, just that they would know ahead of time what that budget is when using this resource.

I like the changes you made. I think it does a good job of highlighting where the positives are (if there are any) and does a good job of encouraging the reader to understand why they could choose to include these sub-optimal cycles. What are the upsides, what considerations need to be made, how to get the best out of them etc.

As for Storage Lands, that's a hill I'm willing to die on. I think they're fine. I agree that if you consistently find yourself with nothing to do but charge up a land, you're deck could do with being reassessed. However, there are times where even the most tuned of decks get left wanting. At the level of budget where players might be considering these lands, they aren't playing with the most tuned decks, so those scenarios are going to crop up a little more frequently. No one should be playing storage lands with the intention of using them consistently for ramp, but their effect is a nice thing to have on the odd occasion when your draws are bad and you're waiting to draw in to that thing to make your deck kick off. The reason I think they are fine is because the downside of including them is so minimal. They enter untapped and tap for mana regardless of storage counters (unlike their far inferior cousins such as Subterranean Hangar). Because of this, they don't lose you tempo on the times when you've hit good draws and have things to do consistently. If you're in the $ budget range where these sit, your options are pretty limited. You don't want to run too many colourless lands, but in most budget decks I'd pick one of these over say a Reliquary Tower. In terms of cost of inclusion vs. potential upside, I think a lot more budget decks would benefit from a storage land than a Reliquary Tower, especially in certain colours like Dimir where having a hand size can act as a way to fill up your graveyard.




Edit: Also, re slow fetches.

I don't quite understand your point on them being delayed compared to Evolving Wilds? Outside of very specific land fall synergies (which you've covered), they function identically in terms of tempo and (in 2-3 colour decks) fixing. It's like taxicab geometry. You can take different paths to the end route, but ultimately you get there at the same time. With wilds, the wilds comes in untapped and the fetched land is tapped. With Slow fetches it's the opposite. But you still have 2 fixed untapped lands by the end of it. As such, in two or three colour decks that don't care about landfall, you are just as well off with either and potentially better off with slow fetches if you have the right synergies with your other lands (especially battle/tango lands and shocks if you can fulfil their untapped clause). I'd certainly pick a wilds in a budget 5 colour deck for their potentially superior fixing, but in 2 or 3 I'd always pick slow fetches over them for that reason.

[paulusdeboself]

Thanks for this extensive lands primer.

I have one suggestion, make chapters or something like that according to price, one chapter for each of the ranges you already have made. Or just order the list on pricerange. It will be easier to find all lands in a certain pricerange.

[Morganator 2.0]

You can do that yourself. In the deck page you can ungroup the cards then sort the cards by price.

[WizardSpartan]

Thanks for this extensive lands primer.

I have one suggestion, make chapters or something like that according to price, one chapter for each of the ranges you already have made. Or just order the list on pricerange. It will be easier to find all lands in a certain pricerange.

Like Morg said, it's one click of a button for you to change the order. I prefer alphabetical, as that just seems the cleanest and best in general cases.

[WWolfe]

Where do you rate the snow duals?

[ApothecaryGeist]

Where do you rate the snow duals?

I would rate the new snow duals about the same as the original snow duals.  Which is the same as a guildgate.  If you really need the snow, then fine.  Otherwise, just a guildgate.  Fetchability is overrated in EDH (my opinion).  And much better fetchable options out there.

[WizardSpartan]

Where do you rate the snow duals?

I've already updated the description with my take on them, but I'm happy to talk about them further. 

I think the most attractive part of these lands is their availability. There are a decent number of EDH players who may primarily build decks from whatever they have on hand/open in packs or that operate on a very limited budget, and these lands are great options there. More importantly, they are just more dual typed lands for any mid-budget EDH deck that wants them. There are a lot of players at a budget level where they might play Nature's Lore and friends and/or High Tide, Nissa, Who Shakes the World, Crypt Ghast and similar cards, etc. but they may not want to pay ~$10 for shocks or even more for True Duals. I really think these lands will shine for players in situations like these.