mana issues - a short perspective

[bebe]

Some people really get bent out of shape over manasrew and manaflood.
They don’t understand that’s it’s a part of the game and sometimes its going to happen.
The truth of the matter is better players and deck builders don't experience manascrew
as often as lower level players and deck builders. However, it happens even to them.


I've noticed threads over the years where players complain about manascrew being
almost a flaw in the game after losing a match. Reports would better explain why they lost and what was
in their decks and their opponents deck that made them win or lose the match. Maybe we do need to examine
this issue a little closer. Manascrew is not easy bear and manaflood remains thoroughly unpleasant
if you build a deck with too maqny lands.

I can remember going to a tournament last May and of of the
twelve games played, I lost (23%) because of manascrew or manaflood.
This was with the same deck. So the answer as to the right amount of mana
is not always obvious. We can look at the number of colors we are playing,
the average casting costs of our spells, whether it is a control, combo or aggro
deck and make what we consider to be the correct choice.

Manascrew needs to be solved if we want to be taken
seriously by as competent players. Much has been written about manascrew.
WotC made the mulligan rule for good reason. Mulligans do reduce the chance to have mana
problems, but is not a guarantee and the drawback is hindering higher levels of play.
Every deck is going to drop a few games to manascrew, mana flood or bad draws.
But some decks have a slightly higher chance to screw the player over than others.

We have no consensus here either. How many lands does control play in the United States
as compared to Europe? I find the Europeans succeed with fewer lands. Do they fear manaflood
more than manscrew? Multiu-clorerd control decks in North America typically use twenty-seven
( and somwetimes more) sources of mana. Europeans will go down to twenty-five at times.
RG beatz uses twenty-six sources as well. Europeans typically use twenty-four.

So my question ... What is thwe right amount mana to play. How many fetches do we want.
How many lands do you want in your opening hand? Two or three. How much mana do we
need in a monocolored deck, an aggro-control deck a combo deck ( some combo decks play
over thirty sources of mana and only two lands - Belcher). Is it possible to devise a working
framework for the correct amount of mana. I hate to see new players manascrewed or manaflooded.
What can we do to structure the issue?

[LordLamneth]

The reason that no one's been able to fix the problem after 10+ years is that there is no fixing it. Everyone's had one of those days when mana's just not working for you, and you're left feeling bummed out about Magic.

New players tend to not put enough mana in their decks (and put lots of expensive cards in). Part of the learning curve is learning how to add mana and use cheaper spells.

All you can do is try to reduce the manascrew/manaflood as best you can. While you play, keep track of how many games you were manascrewed, manaflooded, and how many games were just right. If it's skewed to the screw side, add land. If it's skewed the other way, take some land out.

Also, draw spells (Brainstorm, Accumulated Knowledge) help to solve mana screw, and cards that utilize late-game lands (Wild Mongrel, Trade Routes) help with that "this land is useless now" feeling.

Anybody else have suggestions?

LordLamneth

[jpmeyer]

Here's a better way to look at it:

Stop calling manaflood and manascrew and call it "mulligan error."

[Lucentspirit]

It's not always a mulligan error. I once had a match in a tournament where my opponet kept a decent hand, but, then drew 7 lands in a row. That instance was a little extreme, but things like that happen sometimes.

[bebe]

Certainly knowing when to mulligan is very important. I do mention that WotC put the mulligan rule into effect for a reason. Learning how to shuffle your deck is some good too, I hear.
Brainstorms skew the math, I agree. If I'm playing three or four Brainstorms in two color control, I will play less land.
Still, this does not answer why European builds tend to play less land then the North american builds. I would be curious to see some Dr. Sylvan stats on the mana used in various decks. I tend to play less land in most of my decks then others ( by one, sometimes two). I also hate three and four color builds as it leaves me open to these problems and I prefer a more stable mana base.
But n
I'm hoping to get some other's perspective. Here is an example ...
Do you consider Land Grants a mana source. They can be countered. Whern i play G/w Stompy,
I play eight standard lands, four fetches, four EsGs and four land grants. I alsom play three Quirion Rangers. Consuider how many of these mana sources are not permanent. Yet, I'm rarely manascrewed.  I usually play two color control with twenty-four or twenty-five mana sources. I have Phids, Shoreline, Drains and Brainstorms along with Ancestral.
When i played Dragon i cut down my mana sources by two in order to add two Twisted Abominations. I was seldom manascrewed. Experienced players have a feel for the correct amount of mana to use and know when to mulligan. I remember teaching a new player by setting him up with hands of on, two and three mana and then shuffling his library. He quickly readjusted the amount of mana he used in his deck. New players tend to use less mana then experienced ones.
I know that there is no absolute way to adjust your mana base but I'm looking to see what guidelines are used by the more experienced players.

[Apollyon]

The rule for lands and decks:

Use what you are comfortable with. If you want no early game mana problems, run more lands. You'll get mana flooded more often, but that might not be a problem to you.

[Kowal]

Still, this does not answer why European builds tend to play less land then the North american builds.

The jokes that the germans don't know what wastelands are, are not unfounded.  When you put wastelands in Europe, this happens.

[Rico Suave]

In testing, I like to mark a single land and see how the game would play out if it was a land/spell whenever I draw it.  That's usually not until the end of fine-tuning though, since it's very tedious, but it gets the job done.  

Then when it comes time to the tournament, your mana ratios will provide you with the best performance, but you still gotta mulligan.  Even the really tempting hands that make you say "if only I can topdeck a land..." are really the ones that make you lose.  This is especially true in any deck with cheap draw like Ancestral, Brainstorm, and other things that let you overcome a mulligan.  There's nothing like mulling into Ancestral.

[Kowal]

There's also people who are terrified of mulling down to five when their deck gives them a poopy hand.

I'm pretty sure Brian Phelon won a game in Hadley a few months ago in the t8 with Rector Tendrils, after mulling to 4 because he didn't trust his topdecking.  It seems ballsy, but it's really the intelligent play.

[bebe]

Kowal - I believe its the absence of Wastelands in many builds that lead to their lower land counts in Europe as they can fit in more colored sources. Here in north america it much rarer to see decks do not run Wastes.
We all look to see how many colored sources we have for the cards in the deck. Typically I will want access to twelve colored sources for my main color but if I'm using double color in the cc for a number of cards this will obviously change.  
Rico - I confess that I do the same when I'm into the final tweaks of a deck. I'm often matking cards to see how the deck plays out with a land or two more or less, a tutor more or less, etc. It is tedious but i think it a necessary step if you want the best possible version. With combo deck this process often takes even more time.

[Godot]

There's also people who are terrified of mulling down to five when their deck gives them a poopy hand.

Preach on brotha!

How many times you should mulligan is an extremely poorly understood concept by most players.  Too often they cling to the idea that its too important to not give away significant card advantage, when its arguable that  losing tempo to a missed land drop in the first 2-3 turns is much more devastating--especially in vintage.

Obviously the decision about whether to mulligan to 5 or even 4 vs. keeping a dodgy hand and hoping to topdeck something useful is very dependant on the deck you are playing and the deck you're playing against.  In general I think aggressive mulliganing isnt the horrible play that most people assume.

[Ephraim]

New players tend to not put enough mana in their decks (and put lots of expensive cards in). Part of the learning curve is learning how to add mana and use cheaper spells.

While this is partly a function of being new to the game, it also has to do with the atmosphere in which new players are playing. Transitioning from casual play to competetive play requires a change in the way one looks at a deck's performance. In competetive play, 25-27 mana sources help to ensure that the deck doesn't miss early land drops. Since the game is likely to be over (or at least in the bag) within just a couple of turns, this is okay. In casual play, where games often go into dozens of turns, having so much land still helps ensure early-game consistency, but can also lead to late-game land glut.

On one hand, this could simply be called poor deckbuilding - an optimal build would clearly win before the excess land became an issue. On the other hand, "poor" decks are part of the casual Magic culture. Bringing one's fully powered Keeper deck to a friendly game is usually frowned upon. Bringing one's Tooth and Nail deck is just fine.

[InsaneScrub]

I agree knowing when to mulligan can save your rump, also, building your deck correctly, and playtesting it, is essential to stop the amount of mana floods and screws you get.  Blue is the one color that worries less about mana screw and floods.  In green if you top deck an elf midgame you wanna scream.  I have always found draw cards an essential way of beating bad draws and mana screws or floods.  Needless to say a deck without draw power would, to me that is, be a bad deck.

If I were to complain about anything it's the mulligan rule, I think they need to combine the old and new mulligan.  If you get 0 lands or 7 lands draw back to 7, or you can just mulligan for any reason, drawing one less card.

[Rico Suave]

If I were to complain about anything it's the mulligan rule, I think they need to combine the old and new mulligan.  If you get 0 lands or 7 lands draw back to 7, or you can just mulligan for any reason, drawing one less card.

No.  That would make combo decks ridiculous, since they could run 0 lands in the entire deck and constantly mulligan into a god-hand.

[DragonFire]

The right amount of mana depends on the Deck, a Stompy just needs mana to go off, so you can easilly mulligan down when u have not enough mana. a stable manabase in keeper is another story, playing 4 colors and add strip mines (5) could easily be ripped off, but it works when you use stifles and brainstorms. In My Mud build there are 28 Mana sources + 4 Metalworker, but I've a lot of options to spend that high amount of mana.

The statistical difference between 25 and 26 Manasources is very hard to feel, when you play this deck. It must be played over a long periode of time.

The jokes that the germans don't know what wastelands are, are not unfounded. When you put wastelands in Europe, this happens.

*smile*, first Turnhout is not germany and second nearly every Deck (including Keeper) plays 5 wastelands here and often Gorilla Shaman, you should read more carefully....

[Matt]

Here's an important note about mulliganing: it's better to keep a mana-heavy hand than a mana-light one. This is because your chances of drawing nonmana cards are about twice as great as drawing mana cards at any given point in the game (barring something extreme like when combo runs 30 mana sources). I'll keep a four- or five-mana hand a lot more often than I'll keep a one-mana hand.

[Jacob Orlove]

Here's an important note about mulliganing: it's better to keep a mana-heavy hand than a mana-light one. This is because your chances of drawing nonmana cards are about twice as great as drawing mana cards at any given point in the game (barring something extreme like when combo runs 30 mana sources). I'll keep a four- or five-mana hand a lot more often than I'll keep a one-mana hand.

But on the other hand, if you do draw another land or two in the first four turns, that hand will have a really hard time winning. Granted, a one-land hand is usually not a keeper, but I'd need some good cards to keep a 5 land hand.

[Matt]

Well yeah, you're not going to keep 5 lands, Brainstorm, and Drain. But like 5 lands, Drain, and a powerful mana sink (Decree, Twist, Deep Anaylsis) is worth keeping, whereas a one-land hand really needs like "Ancestral with Force backup" or something else really powerful to be good.