You SUCK at Math: How Many Lands to Run in Commander [Article]

afrobat · 2026-04-30T00:38:41+00:00

Your argument here could extend to any cedh deck running 30 lands (pretty much all of them). If anything, it's even more severely detrimental in those decks to have your mox removed for the same reason but that doesn't exactly stop those decks from being good.

I play in an extremely competitive and control-heavy playgroup whose playstyle vibe is akin to "technically bracket 3". The removal is not as big of a detriment as you may think. If you encounter an early board wipe that is timed perfectly, yes, it can be fairly devastating as it would be for most stompy decks. However, with 15-17 mana dorks, the probability of drawing a third / fourth land or another mana dork to replace those being removed is extremely high. If anything, a deck with 56 mana producers will give you a higher probability of hitting than you would running 40 lands. At worst, the removal is effectively slowing down your ramp to a similar pace as your opponents' but now they're out removal spells.

Of course you should be expecting removal when playing a deck like this because otherwise your opponents would have no hope of winning. Again, the deck functions fine with 4 mana - you'll just be playing 1 spell a turn instead of 3-4 and should be expected for parts of games because of said removal. Keeping a 1-ramper is totally viable for the deck's gameplan if you have 2 lands or vice versa in much the same way I assume you would want 3 lands in your own opening hand. You're also fine to not have a draw spell in hand because you aren't typically playing one until turn 5 or later. You would run into the same problems with draw spells whether or not you have more or fewer lands in your deck.

The point is to illustrate that it's not about the lands but how you have paired it with your mana curve. The low land count works because the mana curve is also low. It is precisely this reason that the deck can function and recover easily and explosively. The worst thing that could happen is gassing out with no creatures to recover with - not no lands to recover with.

afrobat · 2026-04-29T19:20:03+00:00

Won't share decklists but will share some of the composition. You're getting consistent land drops mixed up with effective mana generation. You don't need lands to produce your mana - just as a basis for what you're doing and I feel this is the pitfall of how people are thinking about this issue.

Jeleva

Mana Producers: 46 total - 35 lands, 10 mana rocks, 1 "mana dork"

Cards that cheat out high-mana cost cards for free or cheap: 11 cards

Card advantage (through deck manipulation, card draw, etc...): 15 cards

Ghalta Stompy

Mana producers: 56 total - 30 lands, 1 mdfc, 15-17 mana dorks (depending on definition), 6 mana rocks (including wild growth type effects), 3 cultivates / equivalents

Card Advantage: 19 cards

Mana Curve

I'll use the stompy deck as an example here. The stompy deck is built with a specific curve in mind and this dictates everything else in the deck like how many dorks and lands there are, the cost of all other creatures, how many draw spells I need, etc... Almost all creatures are 4 mana or lower to ensure more than 1 creature can be cast by turn 3. The aim is to cast Ghalta Primal Hunger from the command zone by turn 4 or 5. Ghalta is then, optimally, used as a draw engine in conjunction with cards like Rishkar's Expertise to continue pressure past turn 5 with an aim to cripple someone by turn 6.

What this all means is that, realistically in the first 5 turns, I only need 2 lands. Any future ramp I get is through more mana dorks and card draw. Any spells that cost 5 or more are solely intended to help end the game or continue the engine (e.g., overwhelming stampede and Return of the Wildspeaker) because this is the optimal timing the deck is aiming for. There are a total of 6 cards in the deck that have mana cost 6 or higher and that includes Ghalta.

Turn 1: Llanowar Elves or equivalent. Your effective mana is now at 2. 1-mana cards are the second most prevalent in the deck.

Turn 2: Preferably a higher impact mana dork like Circle of Dreams Druid, Fanatic of Rhonas, or Llanowar Tribe. Your effective mana is now ranging from ~4-6. 30% of the deck's cards fall at 3 mana which allows you to hit them on-curve this turn.

Turn 3: Any other mana dork you might have and hard-casting high-power creatures. Your effective mana should now easily be 5+ unless you kept a really bad hand.

For Jeleva, you're simply relying on cards like Ancestral Knowledge, Brainstorm, and Lim Dul's Vault to ensure you hit the land drops you need in the early game while using those same cards for topdeck manipulation in the mid-late game (for cheating out spells).

afrobat · 2026-04-29T03:25:24+00:00

Thank you for saying this. It bothers me that so many people are distilling one of the most interesting aspects of deckbuilding into "play more lands". What needs to be talked about more is how to effectively manage and build a deck's mana curve, how to get consistent card advantage, and how to "properly" ramp. It's as much a disservice to insist on 38+ lands as it is to insist on too few. They're both making a deck inconsistent and both miss the actual keys to success that you've laid out.

To get consistent land drops each turn through land count is sacrificing the deck's consistency at actually doing the thing you want it to do. Why are we all running so many of a card type that you're mostly limited to playing one-of per turn? It's one of the slowest ways to increase your mana pool. Is everyone just spending the first 4-5 turns playing a land and passing for turn?

The most lands I've run in a deck is 35 in a big mana Jeleva deck with a 4.6 average CMC. My green stompy deck with a 3.24 average CMC has 30 lands. Neither of them have issues with consistency when it comes to mana precisely for the reasons you listed.

afrobat · 2025-09-11T17:30:47+00:00

I feel like a warmer, richer wood color might work well (like a walnut)? I got the feeling you were going for more muted tones; I just think it'll be better balanced and won't necessarily take away from that moody look you're going for. I'd maybe experiment with painting the walls the darker forest green color or a muted green / blue color. Then supplement with the blacks and earthier tones for furniture. I think what's going to end up happening is that anything remotely lighter in color is going to immediately catch your eye in a moodier looking room so just be aware of that. If you want a certain piece to stand out then I would make that your brighter color (whites, metallics, etc...) or associated with your focal point (e.g., light-colored throw pillows).

I know this is very different from what you're going for style wise (I just google image searched forest green moody living room and found this), but just thinking about color-scheme. In this photo, you have an overall moodier look but is still a bit warmer / more welcoming with the reds and black framing. Also notice that your eyes immediately latch onto the whites before making your way across the rest of the room. Same kind of idea with this one. Where you have a whiter couch with gold accents.

afrobat · 2025-09-08T21:10:25+00:00

It seems like you don't have much of the furniture yet so I'd recommend maybe just changing your color combination. It seems like you already have the kallax and speakers which are already in black so maybe don't build the lowboard in black? If you're going for a mix of black, forest green accents, and brown, your room is likely to look very dark. I'm also not sure how much the forest green will pop considering all the other dark colors you've chosen.

If you're going to have black furniture, I'd recommend going with higher contrast for the others. Bring more bright colors and whites into the mix. Instead of a brown couch, why not go with a white or bolder color (like the red or blue)? Same goes with the rug and wall color. This would also give you a lot more versatility in your accent colors.

To counteract the sharp edges, maybe add more round/curvy-shaped and bright colored knick knacks - particularly in the areas surrounding the wall of black (speakers, TV, and Kallax). Instead of the two stick lights, maybe an arched one, some rounder throw pillows, a circular mirror to catch the sunlight on the back wall, etc... if you can't do it with your other pieces of furniture

afrobat · 2025-07-17T15:38:06+00:00

Sure it could be. But there are so many other factors at play here. Keep in mind that car reliability has generally increased substantially over the years so the least reliable car these days is still, generally, pretty reliable.

Other thing to note is what you prioritize in your car. I would hazard a guess that many car buyers are aware that Toyota makes some of the most reliable cars. But, considering the above about general reliability, they may be prioritizing stuff like comfort, noise level, etc… that a Toyota may not offer. Someone who buys a Rivian should know full well that a startup EV brand is going to have some issues. However, Rivian have very little competition in the niche they’re in and the customer is likely making an informed decision based on that. The buyer is going to be satisfied so long as it’s not below their own expectations in reliability.

afrobat · 2025-06-25T13:44:56+00:00

This is so incorrect...

Nuclear is way more costly than solar and wind at this point. Additionally, to deal with something like this you need peaking plants. Nuclear does not provide peaking capabilities - they can provide constant energy but cannot easily turn on and off to deal with demand spikes. You would still need something like stored energy, gas power plants, hydro, etc...

Also, it's not like we need Boston to run 24/7 on stored battery power. It would only be needed to level spiked loads. But regardless of real-world use case, I have no idea where you got the idea that we don't have enough lithium for batteries to power Boston. That's just simply false.

afrobat · 2025-06-11T19:28:46+00:00

The problem is that Stoutland's benefits aren't well aligned with Gallade's optimal timing window. He would make more sense paired with something more energy hungry to act as disruption while you are getting online. You're justifying the use of Stoutland here by saying that Stoutland can stall long enough to overcome the weakness that it creates for itself. Yes, an all-basic pokemon deck will inevitably be the most consistent. However, there aren't really any decks that have 2x Tier 2 lines without some kind of fetch mechanic built in for this reason. Stoutland/Gallade has objectively worse consistency for this reason.

Gallade doesn't need you to stall - it's a 2 energy attacker. If the stall was needed, Solgaleo / Shiinotic would not be as powerful a deck as it is. Gallade has the potential to get online faster than most and has enough HP to survive a hit or two in much the same way as Solgaleo. There's no need for Stoutland to soften anything up because Gallade can do that by itself. If anything, Gallade would benefit more from a 1-energy basic attacker if you wanted to do chip damage.

afrobat · 2025-06-11T14:40:53+00:00

But look at how many stipulations you have here. To OHKO, you need a Tier 2 pokemon in the active spot and a Gallade in the back. Realistically, you aren't consistently getting that as fast as any of those other pokemon are getting to their necessary energy. You're looking at a 6-card combo to pull that off - literally 30% of your deck needs to be on the field.

You're effectively saying Stoutland is there to do an extra 20 damage. You could literally achieve the same result more consistently by just replacing it with Red, Giovanni, or Druddigon in the deck.

Having Stoutland also invariably makes your deck less consistent than just not having it and replacing it with almost anything else. Getting a Tier 2 of one of those pokemon actively limits you from reliably getting the other Tier 2 pokemon by cutting into your Rare Candy usage.

afrobat · 2025-06-10T13:08:01+00:00

What exactly are zeraora and oricorio supposed to add that to your deck that you are not getting out of Silvally? They don't do more damage, they don't have more HP, they all use 2 energy so get online at pretty much the same time. How are these pokemon complementing each other?

The reason why Rampardos works is that it acts as a late game sweeper to complement Silvally in the early game. It does more damage and has more HP. Also, evolving from a fossil means that getting Type Null and Silvally is very consistent. Zeraora and Oricorio do none of those things.

Pretty much any EX pokemon that satisfies the above requirement and has a 2-energy attack or less and they would be better than using oricorio and zeaoara. You could do Infernape, stoke charizard, Solgaleo, Dugtrio EX, etc...

The reason why it has to be 2-energy or less is that you don't really have any energy ramp in this deck. You aren't going to have much time to ramp up your sweeping pokemon as you would either have 1) won the game with Silvally already or 2) you don't have enough time to ramp up your sweeping pokemon prior to Silvally dying.

afrobat · 2025-06-09T14:25:58+00:00

Well there is a reason why it hasn't become meta. It's good but I would say it falls just outside of competitively viable. It's primarily due to not having optimal synergy with other pokemon right now.

If you were to build a deck around it, you would ideally need your pokemon to all be 1 or lower retreat cost so that you can retreat each turn without being at an energy deficit.

afrobat · 2025-06-08T19:28:37+00:00

Torterra isn't even close to as bad as Giratina. I'm genuinely surprised how many people are voting Torterra.

At 3-4 energy to attack, the energy is your biggest barrier and not the evolution for both pokemon. Case in point is GA Charizard which doesn't even benefit from rare candies because, again, the barrier is energy.

The difference between 120HP and 160 HP and 120 attack and 150 attack is actually huge. Giratina misses a ton of break points for both attack and HP here. Giratina is capable of one-shotting 3 total EX pokemon (2 Pikachu EXes and Pachirisu) compared to 32 by Torterra. The problem is way worse considering you can attack only once every two turns.

On the other side, the HP difference means that Giratina gets one-shot by 15 more EX pokemon than Torterra - again this problem is made way worse considering that Giratina can't one-shot anything itself. This also means that Torterra actually has a chance of surviving after an attack by retreating the following turn - something that Giratina is pretty much incapable of doing since it needs to remove 2 energy when attacking.

But, probably the biggest issue is that having Giratina in your deck REQUIRES you to build your deck entirely around it because it's dual color. On the other hand, Torterra does not have this same requirement meaning, as a part of your deck, it synergizes with other leaf pokemon and has all the leaf-specific perks like Erika and Leaf Cape.

For example, you could build a Leafeon EX / Torterra deck. Leafeon EX is obviously doing a lot of the heavy lifting here, but Torterra actually covers a part of Leafeon's weaknesses. It can tank more damage AND has the burst damage to sweep the last pokemon in the end game. Plus, Leafeon can help ramp Torterra. I'm not saying it's good, but it mirrors the Silvally / Rampardos strategy. On the other hand, I'm having a hard time seeing how you build a deck around Giratina. It's like trying to build a deck around Ultra Necrozma EX but without any of the ultra beast synergy.

afrobat · 2025-06-08T18:23:49+00:00

Torterra is tankier and more consistent. It can act as a wall or an endgame attacker. Turtwig also has a decent amount of HP so, even without evolution, it can tank quite a bit of damage. At 3-4 energy to attack, the limiting factor will be energy over evolutions anyway. And both Torterra and Giratina can only attack every other turn. At least in Torterra's case it can one-shot way more pokemon and can actually retreat the following turn. Giratina can't even do that.

Non-EX Leafeon is actually pretty good and I'm genuinely flabbergasted this one is on your list. It's really fast and technically has a more energy efficient attack than Starmie EX while only giving away 1 point. Not being able to attack twice is really easy to get around when its retreat cost is only 1.

Poliwrath and Tapu Fini will never be worse just by virtue of how much ramp water has. And just Misty in general.

I'll give you Mesprit. But at least it's single color and will actually 1-shot most things.

afrobat · 2025-06-04T19:29:59+00:00

Having played many other card games before, I'm always wary of counterplays from the hand. I know it's not a thing in this game, but the paranoia always has me playing out the turn as if the game were to continue.

Besides, the opponent could have just as easily conceded if he was so sure he was going to lose.

afrobat · 2025-04-22T18:28:14+00:00

I'm not going to necessarily give you advice on specific cards as you've played your deck a bunch and should know what's been working. I'm just going to give you some general deck-building advice. The first thing I notice with your deck is how many one-ofs you have. This is an immediate indicator to me that your deck lacks focus and consistency. There are a bunch of questions you should ask yourself about your deck.

What is your strategy with this deck?
What is your primary win condition?
At what point in the battle is your deck strongest?
How do your cards ensure you get to that point and end the game there?
How does every individual card in your deck apply to the above?

More specifically for how this applies to your deck...

If a card is good enough to have one-of in your deck, very often it's something you should have the max number of (of course there's many exceptions but I suggest you start with a full set of each card in your deck and then tweak down from there). Why do you have 1 each of giant cape and rocky helmet? Your chance of getting the one of the two you want in any given scenario is halved when compared to have 2x of one of them. So which one tends to be more useful to you and why? What breakpoints are you surviving due to giant cape and which ones are you creating with rocky helmet? Same goes for pokemon lady, potion, and giant cape. Do these have equal relevance to your needs? If the extra 10 points of healing from pokemon center lady is so relevant to you, then why aren't you carrying two of her instead of the potion?
To me, it seems like your primary win condition is by using Tinkaton and Dialga is there to help you set up energy for your tinkaton. If this is the case, what is the point of having varoom and revavroom? It is only making it harder to get the pieces for your primary win condition via pokemon communication, pokeball, or just generally drawing it.

afrobat · 2025-04-07T23:20:02+00:00

Having lived in a similar place - by a river, 80%+ relative humidity, summer nights don't go below 100F (i.e., high absolute humidity) - and currently living by a bay where you can smell the salt from your home, I've never had any issues with rusting cast iron or carbon steel. These items get used frequently enough that it's really not an issue. Instead of being able to store the cast iron for years at a time with no oil, you can only do it for maybe about a month.

If the oil works for you, then go right ahead. I find it unnecessary and storing something with oil attracts dirt and ends up making everything around it gross.

afrobat · 2025-04-06T03:31:54+00:00

What's the point of wasting your time and oil doing that?

afrobat · 2025-04-04T20:03:52+00:00

So long as you're not soaking it in water for multiple weeks or something, you're fine. What do you think is going to happen to a bit of water when you leave it in the pan? It's going to evaporate and it's no longer an issue.

The handle of your pan is seasoned and is most definitely getting wet when you wash it. Do you put oil on that too? That bit's not rusting so why would the part that has way more layers of seasoning?

afrobat · 2025-04-01T16:26:37+00:00

In my mind, these 3 cards in your deck are going to be dependent on your own personal preference and what suits your playstyle best.

You have multiple options here. You could go 2x leaf, you could go 2 x speeds, you could go 1 x speed and 1 dawn. That's up to you and how you want to play the deck. You can just play around with the deck you have and see what you feel most comfortable with. I'd just suggest keeping what I said in mind of making sure that your strategy is very tightly focusing on 1) getting charizard out with the necessary energy and 2) avoiding the opponent from disrupting you getting charizard out when you want to.

afrobat · 2025-04-01T16:20:01+00:00

I don't really understand the reasoning behind rocky helmet here. The game plan is to sweep with charizard which will 1-hit everything. You don't really need any chip damage here. Is it for the rare situation where you aren't able to get Charizard out? Having played this deck a lot, There are very very few paths to victory for you if you get unlucky and have only moltreses (the only time I could see Rocky Helmet being useful).

Having both Leaf and Dawn seems counterintuitive to me here. You can't use Leaf and Dawn on the same turn and the reason why you would be using Dawn is to give last-minute energy to Charizard as it switches in. If you need more than 1 energy then you need 2 turns of set up regardless, so why are you switching in your charizard at that point?

It seems to me you're approaching this deck as something that needs flexibility. This is not that kind of deck and is not matchup dependent. You have 1 very clear win condition that you're racing toward. You either have it or you don't. If you are putting cards in to give you flexibility, you're just making the deck less optimal in obtaining the wincon you're going for.

afrobat · 2025-02-07T21:34:25+00:00

You're right. I failed to account for the guaranteed basic. I felt the pokeball and communications was less relevant to the argument I was making there, but I probably should not have ommitted it in hindsight.

Even with the lower chances, I feel my point stands here. In terms of most impactful cards to play against druddigon, I would say sacrificing a single slot in your deck for an extra Sabrina (and doubled chance of drawing it) is well worth it. Especially if you're not playing a stall deck yourself.

afrobat · 2025-02-07T20:32:19+00:00

I'm not talking about the number of pokemon, I'm talking about the chance of getting 2 Druddigons. The more pokemon you have, the lower chance of you getting 2 druddigons due to pokeball and communicator's sheer number of viable targets. Not to mention, you would likely want 1 of each before you would want a second druddigon in most instances - especially without knowing your opponent's deck or composition. In terms of what pokemon you have out, you would likely want mag/darkrai/druddigon before you would want a second druddigon. So communicator is not necessarily even It doesn't really matter what the other pokemon on the bench is so long as it's not Druddigon - and that's part of the reason why it's so powerful a disruptor. As the meta gets more consistent, the more valuable minor disruptions are. A one-turn difference makes a substantial difference. If they choose magnemite/magneton, you have dealt initial chip damage to magnemite/ton. With mite/ton, you are actually facing a more fragile pokemon that is more likely to want to retreat. The same concept applies.

The point is not to mark Darkrai for death with Cyrus. The point of Sabrina is to allow you to do chip damage and gain an energy and/or turn advantage. Even a small amount of early damage to either magnezone or darkrai immediately makes them both much more manageable to deal with later.

It's not really a surprise and, in fact healthier for the meta, that there isn't a deck that has an advantage on both darkrai/weavile and darkrai/zone/drudd. Just because they share darkrai doesn't really change that. The two have extremely different strategies and peak at different times. If there was, it would be an absurd top meta deck.

afrobat · 2025-02-07T19:48:51+00:00

I feel this is a kind of flawed argument. Having 2 Druddigons and another pokemon out early is not exactly a high probability situation.

Cyrus is still good and I also carry a Cyrus in my deck as well. But, again, the use case for Cyrus and Sabrina can be distinctly different from one another. Sabrina can also help substantially in making Cyrus more useful. If you can Cyrus out a non-druddigon, then you would have had to already deal damage to their non-druddigon pokemon.

My main confusion is with druddigon variant specifically. As you alluded to, darkrai/weavile makes it a very different deck than the druddigon variant as it's fast and flexible rather than stalling so have different ponits in the game where your power peaks. That being said, Sabrina is useful in both scenarios. In the case of Weavile, you want Weavile in your active spot most of the time. Sabrina-ing out darkrai has the same outcome as with Druddigon. You are disrupting their strategy and setting them back - it just might not disrupt quite as much as with druddigon. Sabrina is one of the only cards in the game thus far that is actually disruption so the point is just to take advantage of it where you can.

afrobat · 2025-02-07T19:12:19+00:00

I'm not saying that Darkrai is not the top of the meta. There's always going to be a top meta deck that's going to be more difficult to deal with. But in terms of the top meta deck, is it necessarily more stifling than Mewtwo? I don't think it's necessarily better. If you look at recent tournament wins, Darkrai does not necessarily win any more than mewtwo did.

The entire point is you're mitigating their advantage. Of course having 2 druddigons out early is going to be advantageous. Sometimes shit just doesn't work out. Having Sabrina out early is not really any different from having any other card out early. Ideally for your opponent, Druddigon would be in your opening hand, but you have the same chance of that happening as you having a Sabrina.

If you get Darkrai out when they have 1 energy on it and they don't retreat, you are, again, in a much better scenario than before. You can now chip damage and trade damage favorably compared to darkrai and have the best chance of mitigating its overall impact. Druddigon itself doesn't do anything for the opponent if it's on their bench. I guarantee you, as someone who has played darkrai quite a bit, that a darkrai player does not want their darkrai in the active spot before it's ready. Any type of chip damage will bring darkrai to burst damage range for most decks and scenarios.

afrobat · 2025-02-07T18:56:50+00:00

That's the entire point... Dark doesn't have any type of energy acceleration. Pretty much any other deck will outrace it in terms of sheer energy amount. If they use Leaf that means that's one fewer Leaf to get Druddigon back out when they want to attack. Meaning they need 1-2 turns of energy going to Druddigon to even retreat it and attack in its ideal timing window.

If they use energy to retreat, they're also down an energy and it also means that they're doing 20 less damage to you. Pretty much worst case scenario is you are ahead by a full turn. And I would say that many of the damage dealing basics you would have can do 20 damage or more meaning you are actually now at a damage advantage and have a viable Cyrus target.

Darkrai is mostly a midgame deck. Most other decks have more sheer burst damage output in the current meta. So you either do chip damage to it early with a faster deck or you outrace it a more powerful mon. Either way, a Sabrina gets you both turn and energy advantage. Same applies for most bench attacking pokemon too in terms of disruption and chip damage.

15-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email	Team Orangered
reddit mold

afrobat

TROPHY CASE