Hey, guys. Here's another topic that kinda seems like something we'd have discussed long ago, but didn't: Lands in Cube decks.
From the very beginning, I intuitively understood that Cube had a lower basend land count for its decks. Yet it was never explicitly outlined or discussed in most cases. I wanna change that.
Theory crafted supposition: Cube is a base 16 land format.
Given the fact that the average cube card is low cost, cube decks tend not to need as many lands to play (the vast majority of) their cards. Some decks may need higher counts, some may want lower, but 16 seems like a good base. (I could off here, though.)
Statistical analysis: Roughly 10 to 15 percent of drafters will run 1 too many lands due to lack of experience and/or format knowledge. Even some frequent drafters on this site have been guilty of this (yes, I'm watching you XD).
And then, of course, some cubes may have higher or lower than average base land counts for decks. A Peasant cube will typically how very little at the top end due to the diminished quality of cards at lower rarities and lack of support. A wonky format like Commander cube will often have a higher curve than mosy, by contrast.
All this brings me to my two main questiona for the community:
1. What's the average deck land count for cube overall? (In your opinion)
2. What's the average land count for decks with your specific cube? (Give 1 answer per cube, please.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
Eh, I feel pretty bad running 16 lands in a percentage of my decks. The only time I won't run min 17 is:
-Aggro
-Playing moxen (which I count as land, but some people don't)
-Some number of signets
-Having a ton of elves (which is also debatable, since you still want to hit your land drops and you can end up with awkward hands of 1-2 elves, 1-2 lands and then miss drops.)
Otherwise, I like running 17. Now there are a decent amount of decks that fall under the above categories, but there are also a decent amount that don't, so Im hesitant to say the base is 16.
I also lean towards 17 but come down for the reasons Salmo mentioned. I don't often reduce my land-count because of mana-elves though since they are so easily killed.
I'll generally run 17 for any deck that wants to get to 5 mana, 18 for 7. I'll reduce my land count by 1 for every 2 mana rocks or 3 mana creatures at 2cmc or lower. Imo 17 is the baseline for an unpowered cube, and 16 for powered.
17 is usually right, except in situations where you have an abnormally low curve, like in hard aggro decks. But for most decks, 17 is correct. This value changes with non-land mana sources, of course ...but as a base, 17 is correct. Probably even 18 for dedicated control decks with multiple important 6+cc spells.
Meeting color demand is more important in this format, thanks to unusually difficult mana demands in comparison to regular limited. My article covers this.
A lot of cube experts have argued that the critical turn for the cube is on T4, where significant game-altering spells are being cast (this turn is lower in constructed). With that in mind, 17 is the first land-count threshold that brings you over a 70% chance of playing a 4th land on T4. In most cube decks, it's really important to do this (even for decks/cubes with lower curves). So I'd argue that considering 16 as a correct "average" count would be inaccurate for this format.
I normally go with 17 lands for most of my cube decks. 16 is the lowest I'll go and that's only if my deck has an extremely low curve. Losing to mana screw is the pits.
Great topic! We spend so much time talking about how to build our cubes, it's nice to see a thread about how to build the decks when we're actually playing cube.
I assume a baseline of 16 land for hard aggro and tempo decks (with 2 or less 4CMC spells at the top of the curve) as well as ramp decks, 17 land for mid-range or combo-based decks, and 18 for control.
I'll usually cut a land if my deck meets any of the following conditions:
- I'm running 2+ 1-2 CMC mana accelerants
- I'm running 2+ I-2 CMC cantrips
- I'm running Chrome Mox (but not Mox Diamond)
If I'm drafting a powered cube I'll swap each on-color Mox for a basic land. I don't play enough powered cube to be sure, but I don't think it's correct to swap an off-color Mox for a land.
This means I'm actually in the habit running 16 lands pretty often since I love playing aggro and tempo decks, even if I don't consider it an average.
A lot of cube experts have argued that the critical turn for the cube is on T4, where significant game-altering spells are being cast (this turn is lower in constructed). With that in mind, 17 is the first land-count threshold that brings you over a 70% chance of playing a 4th land on T4. In most cube decks, it's really important to do this (even for decks/cubes with lower curves). So I'd argue that considering 16 as a correct "average" count would be inaccurate for this format.
I'd love to know a bit more about the numbers behind this if you can point me in the direction of some resources, wtwlf. I'll admit that my assumptions about how much land I should be playing comes largely from what I know about retail limited, so some critical analysis on this subject is absolutely welcome.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
465 card Unpowered cube thread. Draft it here and I'll be happy to return the favor.
450 card Peasant cube thread. Draft it here.
If you're referring to mana demand and probability, you could read my article... it's specifically engineered to discuss mana issues in this format.
If you're referring to the "critical turn" bit, you might have to google it. Search for "critical turn in the cube" and it should bring up an article or two discussing the impact that a proper T4 play has on the outcome of a typical cube match.
One article suggested that it will land somewhere in the range of 3.0 to 4.5 for typical cube lists. In a nutshell, it's based on the average impact powerlevel of a given CMC. And while there are powerful T3 plays in this format, most "tide-turning" and/or "nail-in-the-coffin" plays that really determine the outcome of the game reside in the 4-drops, IMHO (maybe even a turn later for slower lists). Control has a chance to win if it can resolve that Wrath in a timely manner to clean up the board. Aggro can close out a game if it can resolve that Geddon/Hellrider on T4 to seal the deal. Midrange can create a secure and dominating board on T4 by resolving that Garruk/Gideon, etc. I think that the development stages are vital to your deck's overall success, but we see games "won and lost" by 4cc plays moreso than any other CMC, if I had to wager.
I usually run 17 as that is the common wisdom; I'll occasionally run 16 if I'm some balls to the walls agro deck, or 18 if my control deck's curve skimps on the 1-3 drops. I have chrome mox so I'll always cut a land for that.
I'm not the best at working out land bases (especially for 3 colours including lots of fetches duals) so I tend to play it safe and not try anything too special.
I will add that my cube has very good fixing, and generally easy mana costs, so running higher land counts to help with color availability usually isn't necessary. I don't want to play a format where you have to run extra lands as an alternative to good fixing.
Also I think turn 3 is probably the critical turn for my cube. (I've stayed away from some of the more busted 4 drops.)
So 16 is usually correct here. If you want that, run more fixing lands, lower your curve, run less CC and 1CC cards, run more hybrids, and run slightly less game changing 4 drops(and maybe 5 drops)
It's hard to avoid playing game-changing 4-drops outside of C/Ubes or cubes with an intentionally lowered powerlevel. Because even in unpowered cubes, there's a wealth of critical 4cc spells.
It's interesting to see so many people sticking more or less to the established land-base wisdom of retail limited. I suppose Cube's top end has too many solid pay offs (and most players/cubers tend to favor more midrangey decks) that going below 17 on average will feel like too much of a liability.
For my Modern banlist format, I feel like it's a 16 land format, but maybe that might just be my aggro bias talking. If I'm being totally honest, I do have great pay-offs for turns 4 and beyond. I'm just not sure that there are enough of them to be worth the dead draw. Also, there's enough scaled sweepers that a legit low-curve control deck could crop up. Eh. If I believed in using decimals, I'd probably call it a 16.5 format. In lieu of that, I'll begrudgingly call it a 17 land format, for better or worse.
My Budget Monocoolor, being a glorified Peasant Cube, has little to no pay-off at higher CMCs, and a monocolor focus. I'd like to call it base 15.5 (again assuming I believed decimals weren't just a cheat). Barring that, I'd have to say 16.
I will add that my cube has very good fixing, and generally easy mana costs, so running higher land counts to help with color availability usually isn't necessary. I don't want to play a format where you have to run extra lands as an alternative to good fixing.
Also I think turn 3 is probably the critical turn for my cube. (I've stayed away from some of the more busted 4 drops.)
So 16 is usually correct here. If you want that, run more fixing lands, lower your curve, run less CC and 1CC cards, run more hybrids, and run slightly less game changing 4 drops(and maybe 5 drops)
Not to get off topic, but your format looks like it has okay--not "very good"--fixing for its size. You run an amount of fixing lands that's rather low for 420, actually. The specific lands you chose are almost universally well-regarded, especially in reduced powerlevel circles, yes. And the fact that you run a cycle of rare lands in an otherwise Peasant cube certainly creates a marked, artificial boost to the quality of your landbase, of course. But I can totally see a draft pod of 8 feeling like they're not able to snap up the amount of fixing they need, especially given the distinct possibility that some of it could end up in unused packs.
And like Mark said, it's a Peasant cube. Your card pool is drastically different from the average cube (even my Modern Banlist cube), so your advice is not really applicable to most cube managers. No offense intended by any of this, just trying to lend some objectivity here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
I will add that my cube has very good fixing, and generally easy mana costs, so running higher land counts to help with color availability usually isn't necessary. I don't want to play a format where you have to run extra lands as an alternative to good fixing.
Also I think turn 3 is probably the critical turn for my cube. (I've stayed away from some of the more busted 4 drops.)
So 16 is usually correct here. If you want that, run more fixing lands, lower your curve, run less CC and 1CC cards, run more hybrids, and run slightly less game changing 4 drops(and maybe 5 drops)
Not to get off topic, but your format looks like it has okay--not "very good"--fixing for its size. You run an amount of fixing lands that's rather low for 420, actually. The specific lands you chose are almost universally well-regarded, especially in reduced powerlevel circles, yes. And the fact that you run a cycle of rare lands in an otherwise Peasant cube certainly creates a marked, artificial boost to the quality of your landbase, of course. But I can totally see a draft pod of 8 feeling like they're not able to snap up the amount of fixing they need, especially given the distinct possibility that some of it could end up in unused packs.
And like Mark said, it's a Peasant cube. Your card pool is drastically different from the average cube (even my Modern Banlist cube), so your advice is not really applicable to most cube managers. No offense intended by any of this, just trying to lend some objectivity here.
Crap I need to change my sig. Not running a peasant cube anymore. I'm running a 360 unpowered with a slightly more aggressive "banlist" than most people, and slight focus on more interesting or fun cards rather than raw power(though the cube's power level really isn't much lower than most unpowered cubes. Then I run double fetches. Fetches make more maindecks than even duals, as you can run off-color ones.
Not a super-normal cube, but more relatable to your average unpowered cube than a peasant cube.
Super aggro: 16 lands
Regular deck: 17 lands
Super controlly: 18 lands
If you have special cases such as ramp, as a rule of thumb 2/3 mana accelerants is equal to one land. So in an artifact ramp deck with 3 manastones I would sometimes run 16 lands.
If you run Karoos generally
1 Karoo = 16 lands
2/3 Karoos = 15 lands
4 Karoos = 14 lands
I will add that my cube has very good fixing, and generally easy mana costs, so running higher land counts to help with color availability usually isn't necessary. I don't want to play a format where you have to run extra lands as an alternative to good fixing.
Also I think turn 3 is probably the critical turn for my cube. (I've stayed away from some of the more busted 4 drops.)
So 16 is usually correct here. If you want that, run more fixing lands, lower your curve, run less CC and 1CC cards, run more hybrids, and run slightly less game changing 4 drops(and maybe 5 drops)
Not to get off topic, but your format looks like it has okay--not "very good"--fixing for its size. You run an amount of fixing lands that's rather low for 420, actually. The specific lands you chose are almost universally well-regarded, especially in reduced powerlevel circles, yes. And the fact that you run a cycle of rare lands in an otherwise Peasant cube certainly creates a marked, artificial boost to the quality of your landbase, of course. But I can totally see a draft pod of 8 feeling like they're not able to snap up the amount of fixing they need, especially given the distinct possibility that some of it could end up in unused packs.
And like Mark said, it's a Peasant cube. Your card pool is drastically different from the average cube (even my Modern Banlist cube), so your advice is not really applicable to most cube managers. No offense intended by any of this, just trying to lend some objectivity here.
Crap I need to change my sig. Not running a peasant cube anymore. I'm running a 360 unpowered with a slightly more aggressive "banlist" than most people, and slight focus on more interesting or fun cards rather than raw power(though the cube's power level really isn't much lower than most unpowered cubes. Then I run double fetches. Fetches make more maindecks than even duals, as you can run off-color ones.
Not a super-normal cube, but more relatable to your average unpowered cube than a peasant cube.
My bad, then. I'd love to see your list.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
From the very beginning, I intuitively understood that Cube had a lower basend land count for its decks. Yet it was never explicitly outlined or discussed in most cases. I wanna change that.
Theory crafted supposition: Cube is a base 16 land format.
Given the fact that the average cube card is low cost, cube decks tend not to need as many lands to play (the vast majority of) their cards. Some decks may need higher counts, some may want lower, but 16 seems like a good base. (I could off here, though.)
Statistical analysis: Roughly 10 to 15 percent of drafters will run 1 too many lands due to lack of experience and/or format knowledge. Even some frequent drafters on this site have been guilty of this (yes, I'm watching you XD).
And then, of course, some cubes may have higher or lower than average base land counts for decks. A Peasant cube will typically how very little at the top end due to the diminished quality of cards at lower rarities and lack of support. A wonky format like Commander cube will often have a higher curve than mosy, by contrast.
All this brings me to my two main questiona for the community:
1. What's the average deck land count for cube overall? (In your opinion)
2. What's the average land count for decks with your specific cube? (Give 1 answer per cube, please.)
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
Cubes:
Modern Banlist Cube
Monocolor Budget Cube
-Aggro
-Playing moxen (which I count as land, but some people don't)
-Some number of signets
-Having a ton of elves (which is also debatable, since you still want to hit your land drops and you can end up with awkward hands of 1-2 elves, 1-2 lands and then miss drops.)
Otherwise, I like running 17. Now there are a decent amount of decks that fall under the above categories, but there are also a decent amount that don't, so Im hesitant to say the base is 16.
Also, follow us on twitter! @TurnOneMagic
360-cube - Suggestions welcome!
Meeting color demand is more important in this format, thanks to unusually difficult mana demands in comparison to regular limited. My article covers this.
A lot of cube experts have argued that the critical turn for the cube is on T4, where significant game-altering spells are being cast (this turn is lower in constructed). With that in mind, 17 is the first land-count threshold that brings you over a 70% chance of playing a 4th land on T4. In most cube decks, it's really important to do this (even for decks/cubes with lower curves). So I'd argue that considering 16 as a correct "average" count would be inaccurate for this format.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
MTGS Average Peasant Cube 2023 Edition
Follow me. I tweet.
I assume a baseline of 16 land for hard aggro and tempo decks (with 2 or less 4CMC spells at the top of the curve) as well as ramp decks, 17 land for mid-range or combo-based decks, and 18 for control.
I'll usually cut a land if my deck meets any of the following conditions:
- I'm running 2+ 1-2 CMC mana accelerants
- I'm running 2+ I-2 CMC cantrips
- I'm running Chrome Mox (but not Mox Diamond)
If I'm drafting a powered cube I'll swap each on-color Mox for a basic land. I don't play enough powered cube to be sure, but I don't think it's correct to swap an off-color Mox for a land.
This means I'm actually in the habit running 16 lands pretty often since I love playing aggro and tempo decks, even if I don't consider it an average.
I'd love to know a bit more about the numbers behind this if you can point me in the direction of some resources, wtwlf. I'll admit that my assumptions about how much land I should be playing comes largely from what I know about retail limited, so some critical analysis on this subject is absolutely welcome.
450 card Peasant cube thread. Draft it here.
If you're referring to the "critical turn" bit, you might have to google it. Search for "critical turn in the cube" and it should bring up an article or two discussing the impact that a proper T4 play has on the outcome of a typical cube match.
One article suggested that it will land somewhere in the range of 3.0 to 4.5 for typical cube lists. In a nutshell, it's based on the average impact powerlevel of a given CMC. And while there are powerful T3 plays in this format, most "tide-turning" and/or "nail-in-the-coffin" plays that really determine the outcome of the game reside in the 4-drops, IMHO (maybe even a turn later for slower lists). Control has a chance to win if it can resolve that Wrath in a timely manner to clean up the board. Aggro can close out a game if it can resolve that Geddon/Hellrider on T4 to seal the deal. Midrange can create a secure and dominating board on T4 by resolving that Garruk/Gideon, etc. I think that the development stages are vital to your deck's overall success, but we see games "won and lost" by 4cc plays moreso than any other CMC, if I had to wager.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
I'm not the best at working out land bases (especially for 3 colours including lots of fetches duals) so I tend to play it safe and not try anything too special.
Also I think turn 3 is probably the critical turn for my cube. (I've stayed away from some of the more busted 4 drops.)
So 16 is usually correct here. If you want that, run more fixing lands, lower your curve, run less CC and 1CC cards, run more hybrids, and run slightly less game changing 4 drops(and maybe 5 drops)
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
For my Modern banlist format, I feel like it's a 16 land format, but maybe that might just be my aggro bias talking. If I'm being totally honest, I do have great pay-offs for turns 4 and beyond. I'm just not sure that there are enough of them to be worth the dead draw. Also, there's enough scaled sweepers that a legit low-curve control deck could crop up. Eh. If I believed in using decimals, I'd probably call it a 16.5 format. In lieu of that, I'll begrudgingly call it a 17 land format, for better or worse.
My Budget Monocoolor, being a glorified Peasant Cube, has little to no pay-off at higher CMCs, and a monocolor focus. I'd like to call it base 15.5 (again assuming I believed decimals weren't just a cheat). Barring that, I'd have to say 16.
Not to get off topic, but your format looks like it has okay--not "very good"--fixing for its size. You run an amount of fixing lands that's rather low for 420, actually. The specific lands you chose are almost universally well-regarded, especially in reduced powerlevel circles, yes. And the fact that you run a cycle of rare lands in an otherwise Peasant cube certainly creates a marked, artificial boost to the quality of your landbase, of course. But I can totally see a draft pod of 8 feeling like they're not able to snap up the amount of fixing they need, especially given the distinct possibility that some of it could end up in unused packs.
And like Mark said, it's a Peasant cube. Your card pool is drastically different from the average cube (even my Modern Banlist cube), so your advice is not really applicable to most cube managers. No offense intended by any of this, just trying to lend some objectivity here.
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
Cubes:
Modern Banlist Cube
Monocolor Budget Cube
Crap I need to change my sig. Not running a peasant cube anymore. I'm running a 360 unpowered with a slightly more aggressive "banlist" than most people, and slight focus on more interesting or fun cards rather than raw power(though the cube's power level really isn't much lower than most unpowered cubes. Then I run double fetches. Fetches make more maindecks than even duals, as you can run off-color ones.
Not a super-normal cube, but more relatable to your average unpowered cube than a peasant cube.
Regular deck: 17 lands
Super controlly: 18 lands
If you have special cases such as ramp, as a rule of thumb 2/3 mana accelerants is equal to one land. So in an artifact ramp deck with 3 manastones I would sometimes run 16 lands.
If you run Karoos generally
1 Karoo = 16 lands
2/3 Karoos = 15 lands
4 Karoos = 14 lands
Never run more than 4 Karoos!
My Tribal cube
My 93/94 old school cube
My Artifact cube
My Hearthstone Quiz App for iOS
My bad, then. I'd love to see your list.
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
Cubes:
Modern Banlist Cube
Monocolor Budget Cube