Skimping on the Mana

[Grand Inquisitor]

This is a strange topic, but I wanted to see if anyone has seen what I'm talking about.

Over the course of my membership on this site, I've seen a subtle but consistent difference in the way Europeans build decks when compared with US or at least non-European players.  I know my observations are almost exclusively qualitative, but it just seems that when I look on morphling.de, and then think about versions of Combo-Keeper, TnT, GAT, or whatever, that the European builds are always 1 or 2 mana sources lighter.

I wonder if play style is different in that Europeans simply expect to mulligan more aggresively, or that there is a distinct lack of wastelands across the ocean.

I know I'm painting with broad brushes here.  No one should take offense, and I only posted it here (as opposed to beginner/newbie) because I feel that they haven't had the chance to look at decklists over a long period of time, and in threads by some of our better European players.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[MoreFling]

There's definately not a lot of wastelands here. I think it also depends on where you look. Duelmen and Eindhoven are very serious metagames, while some american metagames are like our very own Castricum:people stick to their stuff. So metagame shifts like in Duelmen or Eindhoven might not occur everywhere.
The playstyle depends on the player, but to take myself as example, I'm not afraid to mulligan aggressively. Maybe that also has something to do with the decks I play. With parfait I always mulliganed aggressively (key to success!) and with Combo, I mulligan into a hand that can win in acceptable fashion (read: speed).
Basicly, what I'm saying is, you work with the data your metagame provides.

[Lord of the Goats]

tnt originally ran 30 mana sources. it got cut down to 28 later.

i just personally hate most european mana bases... they somehow seem really janky and untuned. now that i think about it, one of the first things i do when testing a european deck is cut off a mana source or 2 but stabalize the remaining mana base. i'm speaking mostly of workshop based decks here though so my opinions may be somewhat skewed.

i also think that US players are lazy and like to use to many mana sources... keeper ran 28 mana sources for the longest time and while most people will agree that it was the right number, that's a lot of mana for a deck that's not going to be welding half of it away.

[dandan]

I remember reading about 'the Swedish/Finnish gambit' of running a land or too short (different sources said it was a Finnish thing or a Swedish thing) along the lines of consistancy moves you closer to the average, being erratic makes you better or worse depending on your luck so on a good day having a couple less land makes your deck better. On bad day you lose anyway (except with less land, you lose big time). This 'theory' surfaced about 5 years ago.

The recent 'speeding up' of the format also makes getting mana flooded almost as fatal as getting mana screwed and getting to 4 mana is not as important as it once was.

As a European I should point out that only Freddie has ever exceeded my old Sligh mana count of 24 (he had 25 in a Rb version). Since dropping the Cursed Scrolls I've taken it down to 23/22 although all development work on Sligh is on hold as I like to win occasionally. I used to run 27 sources in my Keeper before it was trendy although that is probably an indicator of my (bad) skills as a Keeper player than a European trend.

[rozetta]

My current build of turbland runs 28 lands

But on a serious note, there's not a lot of power and a lot of suicide, sligh and crap.dec here in the Helsinki meta and I find, in testing, that often the German builds of decks seem a little mana-light for my liking. Anything that might be screwed by 2-3 early LD is a scary proposition in a meta where a good percentage of the decks run 5 strips.

That being said, there aren't a lot of people from my area posting original decks or contributing on this site (damn netdeckers), so our inverse trend would probably not show up anyway.

[Rico Suave]

Quote (Lord of the Goats @ Sep. 18 2003,23:38)keeper ran 28 mana sources for the longest time and while most people will agree that it was the right number, that's a lot of mana for a deck that's not going to be welding half of it away.

That's true, but that's also because control mirrors were decided by mana-denial.  Not to mention suicide was a popular foil to Keeper, so it needed a lot of mana to overcome the Wastes/Sinks.  Those were also the winning decks of the time.

That's not the case nowadays.  Suicide isn't exactly everywhere, nor are there many mana-denial control decks.  People have to worry about combo and Tog, not to mention a lot of other decks without Wasteland.

I would agree though, that it was a lot of mana.  But fetchlands have revolutionized T1 too.

[Grand Inquisitor]

Quote I remember reading about 'the Swedish/Finnish gambit' of running a land or too short (different sources said it was a Finnish thing or a Swedish thing) along the lines of consistancy moves you closer to the average, being erratic makes you better or worse depending on your luck so on a good day having a couple less land makes your deck better. On bad day you lose anyway (except with less land, you lose big time). This 'theory' surfaced about 5 years ago.

@dandan, anyone else

Was this a word of mouth idea, or did you actually read it somewhere?  Does anyone know where this link might be found?

[Ocifer]

Hmm, I've never really noticed the differences between American and European mana bases. I must say, though, I kind of lean toward the European way of thinking myself. I sincerely think that most American decks are just running 2-3 lands too heavy in most cases.
In my case, I think that too much more than 20-22 sources in an aggro deck is just a little too high. I even consider 25 to be just a tad too high for combo/control. So I guess you can say I run toward the European play style. But I've never had any problems with getting the mana I need. I can't say I run into too many situations where I have to aggressively mulligan.
Maybe this has alot more to do with the local metagame and personal preference than it does with geography.

[brianb]

The whole low-land viking gambit thing originated with Oole Rade.  In one of the first pro tours, he sided out a couple land in one match, justifying it by saying that he'd have to get lucky to win anyway, so he might as well just go low on land.  I don't remember 100%, but I think it worked out for him.

Don't try it at home, though, kids.  Siding out land is a bad idea (unless you realize mid-tourney that you're just playing too much, or unless there's a legitimate reason why you need less mana in a given matchup).  Your goal is to maximize your chances of winning, not to bake a bad matchup worse by giving yourself even more ways to lose.

[BWM]

Quote (dandan @ Sep. 18 2003,22:13)As a European I should point out that only Freddie has ever exceeded my old Sligh mana count of 24 (he had 25 in a Rb version).

24  

omg, I thought my 16 sources was already pretty much...


okay okay, I'm not running strips or rings...

[Eastman]

I don't hesitate to side out a land/2 against a deck that I know isn't running any LD. Part of why I need so many sources is the prevelance of land hate in many of the better decks here in NE.

[Moobius]

Though I've never heard a name for it I realize that I'm of the "[Swed | Finn]ish Gambit" school of "land light/mulligan heavy". It is very true that if you deck is just going to land screw you then 1-2/60 sources just isn't going to make a difference. What you really need is a good shuffle and 1 less card in hand. Sitting there on turn 5 with 2 fetch lands in play and you haven't seen source 3 yet I guarantee you're thinking "If I fetech I can clean up the clump on the bottom of my deck" and you'd gladly discard a card from you hand rather than use the fetch to shuffle your deck.

[suicide_slushy]

Why would you rather discard a card than activate a fetchland?

[Crater Hellion]

because he "knows" a land has to be coming up next at that point maybe?  

[Ultima]

It also greatly depends on the cards your holding in hand and the deck your running however.

Hulk can still work effectively with only 2 fetches, Long only has 1-2 two land before it kills you, and stax or mud can work with just one workshop.

[dandan]

Quote (BWM @ Sep. 19 2003,18:06)

Quote (dandan @ Sep. 18 2003,22:13)As a European I should point out that only Freddie has ever exceeded my old Sligh mana count of 24 (he had 25 in a Rb version).

24  

omg, I thought my 16 sources was already pretty much...


okay okay, I'm not running strips or rings...

It's because I run Sligh, the aggro-control deck. Goblins need less mana. (Besides 5 of my land are normally used as LD with a further 4 frequently used as Wasteland destruction or 2/2s, only 15 are 'proper' mana)

[walking dude]

I don't know all of Europe, but I know I’ve found a lot of Dulmen decks to be mana shy for my taste. I usually take a deck, do several test draws to find what cards I like least then cut something to add an extra mana or two.

My theory is this, an extra land that you draw that you don’t need is a virtual mulligan, but drawing 6 because you don’t have enough mana is an actual mulligan. The difference between virtual and actual can be huge when you need safety from a hymn or just want that last point with a tog.

[Necropotenza]

I used to side out 4 land for 4 Smother when I was playing Hulk Smash (non-restricted Gush) against GrowAtog.
My reasoning was that I needed to increase the businiess spells against them because they played the Aggro role in that matchup.

I'm European...

[Ric_Flair]

I too have noticed this trend.  My Sui deck is running 21 permanent mana sources (15 Swamps, 5 Strip Effects, 1 Mox) and 5 non-permnanent sources (4 D. Rits and Lotus).  My Gro deck has a mana based copied from one of the T8 decks on Morphling.com:

4 Tundra
4 Trops
4 Flooded Strand
4 Windswept Heath

In neither deck, have I been mana screwed.  Ever.  Weird.  I never even noticed, but your right.