For a long time, I’ve argued about cantrips and their place in control decks. Testing seems to have shown me that four cantrips seems to be like playing an extra two lands – but am I really right? Is it just a feeling that can’t be nailed down… Or does playing with cards really give you an intuitive feel for what they really mean to your deck? Hopefully, by the end of this article we’ll know, and you’ll have some reference tables to help you build decks with the right amount of land!
Peek, Opt, Sleight of Hand, and Lay of the Land: All of them cost one mana to cast, but what do they really do? Some people call them”library manipulation,” as they let you dig a little deeper into your deck and give you extra options. Some people call them”deck thinners” because they say that these cards make your deck play as if it only had 56 cards.
Their most popular use is the latter: To make your deck seem thinner and therefore more consistent. With a thinner deck, you will (theoretically) have better land draws, and later on in the game they can help you get to a card you need to win (or to not lose depending on how your game is going). They’ve been dropped into Psychatog to thin the deck, and fill up the graveyard at the same time. They’re used in Miracle Gro to get the land you desperately need, and get to the business cards as quickly as possible. They’re also used in many U/W/x control decks to give you more options later on in the game. (No, I don’t want a land… What’s under that?)
One question I’m asked – and the real purpose of this article – is how many land can you take out if you’re playing four of these and what’s the real difference between them?
To start I’m going to apologise: There’s going to be a lot of tables of numbers in this article, but in each case I’ll try to miss out what I can to get to the bare bones.
Now, before we know what our 1cc friends are doing to help us, we really need to know some basic facts. In order to help I have compiled a set of tables. Each table shows you the probability of drawing at least L land by the Tth turn in a deck with N land in it. I’ve chosen a small range (20, 22, 24 and 26) land in the deck as the majority of decks have land in this range. In each case we’re going second and have eight cards when we get to our first main phase.
Probability of drawing at least L land by turn T in a 60 card deck with 20 land:
| Number of Land we want | |||||
Turn |
| L=1 | L=2 | L=3 | L=4 | L=5 |
T=1 | 97% | 82% | 54% | 25% | 7% | |
T=2 | 98% | 88% | 64% | 34% | 13% | |
T=3 | 99% | 92% | 72% | 44% | 19% | |
T=4 | 99% | 94% | 79% | 53% | 27% | |
T=5 | 100% | 96% | 85% | 66% | 36% | |
In each case I have rounded the percentages to the nearest percentage. All of these percentages were calculated by building a deck with N Swamps and 60-N Forests in Magic Suitcase and using their ‘Probabilities’ function in the Statistics window.
We can see that we should see two land by turn 4 in nearly nineteen games out of twenty (T=4, L=2: 94%) and three land in nearly four-fifths of the games we play (T=4, L=3: 79%). In roughly half our games we should have four land by turn 4 (T=4, L=4: 53%).
So twenty land seems fine for a deck that needs two or three lands quickly, but doesn’t need much more early on… Sligh, anyone?
Probability of drawing at least L land by turn T in a sixty-card deck with 22 land:
| Number of Land we want | |||||
Turn |
| L=1 | L=2 | L=3 | L=4 | L=5 |
T=1 | 98% | 87% | 62% | 32% | 11% | |
T=2 | 99% | 92% | 72% | 43% | 18% | |
T=3 | 99% | 95% | 80% | 54% | 27% | |
T=4 | 100% | 97% | 86% | 64% | 37% | |
T=5 | 100% | 98% | 90% | 72% | 47% | |
Adding only two land makes a big difference already – as we can see, we should now see four land by turn 4 in over three-fifths of our games now, and three land by turn four in over 17 games out of every 20. Let’s keep adding land…
Probability of drawing at least L land by turn T in a 60 card deck with 24 land:
| Number of Land we want | |||||
Turn |
| L=1 | L=2 | L=3 | L=4 | L=5 |
T=1 | 99% | 91% | 70% | 40% | 16% | |
T=2 | 99% | 94% | 79% | 52% | 25% | |
T=3 | 100% | 97% | 86% | 63% | 36% | |
T=4 | 100% | 98% | 90% | 73% | 47% | |
T=5 | 100% | 99% | 94% | 80% | 57% | |
We’re now into control deck territory. By turn 4, we have a 73% chance of drawing four land – that’s nearly three from every four matches! In fact there should only be one game in every five that we don’t see four land by turn 5. On the flip side, there’s now nearly a one in five chance that our opening hand will have five land in it!
Probability of drawing at least L land by turn T in a 60 card deck with 26 land:
| Number of Land we want | |||||
Turn |
| L=1 | L=2 | L=3 | L=4 | L=5 |
T=1 | 99% | 94% | 77% | 48% | 21% | |
T=2 | 100% | 96% | 85% | 61% | 33% | |
T=3 | 100% | 98% | 90% | 72% | 45% | |
T=4 | 100% | 99% | 94% | 80% | 57% | |
T=5 | 100% | 99% | 96% | 87% | 67% | |
Now we have the comfort of knowing that, with 26 land in our deck, we’ll be drawing four land in the first five turns nearly nine games from every ten. On the downside, we’ll be drawing five land in our opening hand in one game of every five.
So the more land we add, the better our chances of drawing it get.
WOW! Isn’t it amazing what statistics can show us?
Our problem is that as we add more land, we get worse and worse opening hands packed with more and more land – making us more vulnerable to the fast, aggressive decks.
So, what happens if we add four Peeks to a deck?
For each Peek that we draw, assuming that we can cast it, we can draw one more card. That means we (effectively) have moved forward a turn in our tables above.
With twenty land, by turn 2 we have a 64% chance of having three land (we’ve drawn nine cards from sixty). If we’ve drawn a Peek and can cast it, we get to draw one more card (ten from six) and now have a 72% chance of that same third land.
BUT – and this is a big one – you have to have drawn a Peek.
With twenty lands, by turn 2 the chance of drawing at least three land now has an extra condition: We can draw at least two land and draw at least one Peek so long as when we cast Peek, we see a land. We therefore need to add up the chance of drawing two land and one Peek, then drawing a land; three land and one peek, then drawing a land, etc. as well as two Peeks, two land and drawing a land, and so on.
Probability of drawing at least L land by turn T in a sixty-card deck with twenty land and four Peeks. If we draw at least one Peek we can cast it:
| Number of Land we want | |||||
Turn |
| L=1 | L=2 | L=3 | L=4 | L=5 |
T=1 | 97% | 84% | 59% | 30% | 10% | |
T=2 | 98% | 90% | 69% | 39% | 16% | |
T=3 | 99% | 94% | 77% | 49% | 22% | |
T=4 | 99% | 96% | 84% | 58% | 30% | |
T=5 | 100% | 98% | 89% | 71% | 39% | |
As we can see, for just one land there is no difference – because we can’t cast Peek if we don’t have one land. As long as we have at least one land, drawing a Peek helps us out a little – but not as much as just having 22 land in our deck would in the first few turns. Our draws get nearly as good as having twenty-two lands, but we’re never quite there. On the other hand, if we played twenty-one lands and four Peeks, we’ve beat the twenty-two land chances most of the time.
I calculated the above by adding the following:
For Turn T where we want land L:
Chance of exactly L land and no Peeks from T+7 cards +
Chance of exactly L+1 land and no Peeks from T+7 cards +
Chance of exactly L+2 land and no Peeks from T+7 cards….
For all L+x where 0 <= x <= T+7-L.
I then added to this the chance of drawing L-1 land from T+7 cards and at least one Peek, and then finding a land when you cast a Peek.
Finally, I added the chance of drawing L land and at least one Peek from T+7 cards and not finding a Land when you cast a Peek (it doesn’t matter as you already have L land).
So adding four Peeks is almost like adding an extra two lands to your deck, almost. The disadvantage is that it’s not quite true, but you get to dig through your deck faster. This is true for any 1cc cantrip like Peek (Opt is, not strictly speaking, a cantrip).
So what about the other 1cc cards?
Lay of the Land is a little different from Peek because when we cast it, we always get a land. As an extra, it helps our draws later in the game because we know we’re more likely to draw a spell, because we’ve taken a land out. On the downside we can’t cycle them in the same way that we can with Peek – all it does is get us a land.
So, in the first few turns, drawing a Lay of the Land is exactly like drawing the basic land that you need – as long as you already have green mana to cast it. As the game goes on, for each Lay of the Land you cast your deck gets an extra card smaller and the chance of drawing land goes down and down. Basically at the start of the game, with twenty land, it’s like playing with twenty-four land – as time goes on, it’s more and more like playing with only sixteen! No wonder the Aggro-control decks love it so much.
On another side note, Land Grant acts in much the same way – but only for Forests – and Harrow and Rampant Growth do something similar, too.
Where Lay of the Land (and Rampant Growth and Harrow) really helps is that it lets us get a specific land and so smooths our colour production out. We need white mana? Let’s get a Plains. We need blue mana – oh look, there’s an Island.
Finally, Opt and Sleight of Hand. These cards let us look up to two cards deep – one better than Peek. This affects our table quite a lot:
Probability of drawing at least L land by turn T in a 60 card deck with 20 land and four Opts (or Sleight of Hand) if we draw and can cast one:
| Number of Land we want | |||||
Turn |
| L=1 | L=2 | L=3 | L=4 | L=5 |
T=1 | 97% | 86% | 62% | 33% | 12% | |
T=2 | 98% | 92% | 72% | 42% | 18% | |
T=3 | 99% | 96% | 80% | 52% | 25% | |
T=4 | 99% | 98% | 87% | 62% | 33% | |
T=5 | 100% | 100% | 93% | 75% | 42% | |
Again, they don’t affect getting just one land, as we can’t cast them with no land – but once we get into looking for three or four land, the fact that we can dig down two cards instead of one gives us a much better chance. So much so that we’re better than having twenty-two lands altogether – and nearly as good as having twenty-four lands in our deck!
The main difference between Opt and Sleight of Hand is that Opt gives us less choice. We can look at one card and decide whether we want it, or one card we haven’t seen yet, while Sleight of Hand gives us two cards to choose between. In either case, our chances of drawing Land are much improved and later on in the game we can pretty much ignore any card we don’t want and get something much better.
So do all of these numbers really mean anything? What can you take away from this and think about when you’re building decks?
Well, four Peeks are nearly the same as running two extra land. Four Opt or Sleight of Hand on the other hand is very nearly like running three extra land – but later in the game, they’re always better than just a cantrip like Peek (although seeing what’s in your opponent’s hand might help you win the game, so don’t write it off).
Peek thins your deck, but not to the extent that Opt and Sleight of Hand do, so either of the last two are better in Combo decks where you need to dig for the combo pieces.
Lay of the Land isn’t as good as Opt at digging and card options, but lets you get the land you want, when you want it. Rampant Growth does a similar thing – but accelerates your mana, as does Harrow, and all three green spells make you draw more and more spells in the late game.
One final point: If land destruction is hot, you’re better off running Land than things that get it, or search for it. With only twenty land in a deck, even running four Opts and a few Lay of the Land, you may find your early land – which you’ve had to dig and search for – blown to bits, and as you’re less likely to draw more, you could be in big trouble.
Personally, if I’m playing a control deck I’m going to start to use 23 land and four Opts, unless seeing my opponent’s hand is that important. If it is I’ll stick to twenty-four lands and four Peeks.
Please also remember that all of this only holds true if you can cast the cards you’re drawing. In a multicoloured deck, you might not be able to cast an Opt or a Lay of the Land until you’ve seen the right land – and that affects things a lot. You also need to spend the mana to cast them, something you don’t have to do if you’re only laying a land.
Next Week: More on OBC.
Cheers, Jim.
Team PhatBeats
Team Diaspora
Level 2 DCI Judge.
What do YOU think? Share your
opinion with the community and you just may walk away with some FREE Magic cards… courtesy of your friends at
StarCityGames.com!