MDFC lands are just lands with upside.

[TheGildedGoose]

Why does Otawara, Soaring City go into the lands pile but Sink into Stupor another pile entirely?

I deeply appreciate Karsten's analysis of MDFC lands, but I feel like he's missing the forest for the trees. His analysis only looks at what is played and not how they are played, which is probably too difficult for one man to gather data for, admittedly. This is important because while he's ultimately looking at what works he's not understanding why it works. Since he doesn't have any sample for EDH, he extrapolates from his experience running regressions on 60 card formats and I think that's a fundamentally flawed approach. EDH generally has a much later critical turn and is significantly more swingy than competitive 1v1 formats. Early game tempo and life total are both significantly less important in EDH than in competitive 1v1, so entering tapped and bolting yourself aren't as much of a concern as they are in 1v1. Versatility and flexibility is even more important, too.

What does this mean? Well, I think the percentage that MDFC lands are of normal lands is significantly higher in EDH than in 1v1. If a tapped MDFC land is 0.38 in 1v1, for example, I think it's close enough to round up to an actual land, and untapped ones are equivalent to better-basics like Boseiju, Who Endures.

I've started putting all MDFC lands into the lands category. I give the ones that always come into play tapped the same consideration I give all other tapped lands with upside (mana fixing, card selection, or otherwise), and weigh the pros and cons of whether or not it's worth the potential loss of tempo. Otherwise, I usually just ask myself if it's actually better than a basic and then I have my answer as to whether or not to run it.

Just something I've bene thinking about for a while now and I thought it could be an interesting discussion.

[Sinis]

Why does Otawara, Soaring City go into the lands pile but Sink into Stupor another pile entirely?

I'll be honest, the difference for me is that one of them is a single-sided Magic card and the other is MDFC.

I hate unsleeving cards and then putting them back in. I hate it more than any mechanical disadvantage I will get from not playing them. I like the design of "lands that do stuff other than being just lands." The few MDFCs I do actually play are proxied with an art card, and the 'real' one is in a clear sleeve to the side. Despite how powerful the NEO cycle of legendary lands are, I really appreciate them as basically modal land-or-spells. I treat all these cards as lands for the purposes of deck construction

[TheGildedGoose]

Why does Otawara, Soaring City go into the lands pile but Sink into Stupor another pile entirely?

I'll be honest, the difference for me is that one of them is a single-sided Magic card and the other is MDFC.

I hate unsleeving cards and then putting them back in. I hate it more than any mechanical disadvantage I will get from not playing them. I like the design of "lands that do stuff other than being just lands." The few MDFCs I do actually play are proxied with an art card, and the 'real' one is in a clear sleeve to the side. Despite how powerful the NEO cycle of legendary lands are, I really appreciate them as basically modal land-or-spells. I treat all these cards as lands for the purposes of deck construction

I don't like doing it either, but those damn MDFC lands are so good. I won a game because of Fell the Profane last week that I otherwise would've lost if it was just a Swamp in my hand.

[Mookie]

I'm not opposed to putting MDFCs in the land pile, but I wouldn't necessarily count them as a full land. If you have a 50/50 split between using them as a land vs as a spell, then they're closer to half a land.

That said, I will agree that MDFCs are probably more likely to be lands in commander than they are in other formats - for one, commander decks tend to be mana-hungry and will still have uses for extra mana far into the lategame. Additionally, in 1v1 formats, they can be taken by Thoughtseize or exiled to cast Force of Will and other pitch cards, which makes them less likely to be used as a land. That's theoretically also true in commander, but far less common. I'll also note that you also can't choose them off Satyr Wayfinder or Mulch, or flip a MDFC spell in off Chaos Warp, which has implications for decks that care about card type density.

....we should all probably be playing more lands though. >_>

[void_nothing]

....we should all probably be playing more lands though. >_>

Death, taxes, play more lands and removal

[Sinis]

I'll also note that you also can't choose them off Satyr Wayfinder or Mulch, or flip a MDFC spell in off Chaos Warp, which has implications for decks that care about card type density.

This is a really clutch observation. If I played MDFCs with lands on the back, I might have noticed that because I love a good Satyr Wayfinder, Mulch, Winding Way...

[Mookie]

I'll also note that you also can't choose them off Satyr Wayfinder or Mulch, or flip a MDFC spell in off Chaos Warp, which has implications for decks that care about card type density.

This is a really clutch observation. If I played MDFCs with lands on the back, I might have noticed that because I love a good Satyr Wayfinder, Mulch, Winding Way...

On the flip side, I'm playing Sink into Stupor // Soporific Springs and other MDFCs in Kess, and getting them off Silundi Vision // Silundi Isle and Mizzix's Mastery is a nice perk (plus the ability to flashback them with Kess, obviously).

Playing Witch Enchanter // Witch-Blessed Meadow as a land and flickering it with Flickerwisp also comes up occasionally in Brago, and I've done similar things with Pinnacle Monk // Mystic Peak + Ghostly Flicker in Mizzix. There are a lot of interesting things you can do with MDFCs that can't be done with normal lands.

[materpillar]

I've started putting all MDFC lands into the lands category. I give the ones that always come into play tapped the same consideration I give all other tapped lands with upside (mana fixing, card selection, or otherwise), and weigh the pros and cons of whether or not it's worth the potential loss of tempo. Otherwise, I usually just ask myself if it's actually better than a basic and then I have my answer as to whether or not to run it.

Just something I've bene thinking about for a while now and I thought it could be an interesting discussion.

Personally, I used to slot MDFCs as lands. Now I tend to slot them into non-lands. This forces me to inflate my land which makes my deck more consistent. Even more than that though, I tend to cut them from my decks because they're a logistical pain.

[yeti1069]

The only decks for which I wouldn't/don't just call them lands are those that care about cards being lands when not in play. Teval, for instance, definitely cares about whether something is a land everywhere.

Otherwise, yeah, they're lands. I also don't think I have played anywhere the split is 50/50 land vs spell. It's generally more like 80/20 or 66/33. It's also very rare that I'll hold back an MDFC when I don't have another land drop unless I already have plenty of mana production.