I agree with most posters here that a finalized, polished land base can only be made through playtesting and trial-and-error, but to say that there are no workable formulas for making land bases is flat wrong. Here are the two articles I normally reference when making a mana base:
The method used in the second article is similar the the method most people here have posted, the only real difference lies in how you decide to account for multi-colored cards. Using those methods you can easily make a playable mana base for most decks (not something like five-color control) using only basic lands. After that, you can take into account dual lands. How many to use is dependent on the speed of your deck, when you need specific colors on what turns, if you have any odd cards that affect your lands (Shard Volley and Ghitu Encampment both will affect the land you might use), and perhaps the phases of the moon.
Playtesting is essential, but using the above two articles is a good starting point. After that, adding non-basics, mana producers, cutting cards that are just too mana intensive, etc., should only make your deck better and better. I normally stop making changes when my deck stops giving me mana problems and operates smothly. Using the basic land formula and 4-6 Vivid Lands, Alara Shardlands, and Terramorphic Expanse, has worked for most decks I've built because I don't have the money to buy expensive dual-lands.
Deck 1: The problem here is that you can't survive taking much damage from painlands against aggro, but don't have the cards to finish it without manlands. 4 Jungle Shrine, 2 Reflecting Pool, 4 Treetop Village, 2 Mutavault, 4 Battlefield Forge, 2 Fire-Lit Thicket, 2 Wooded Bastion, 1 Rugged Prairie, 1 Mountain, 1 Plains. Most of your spells should be playable most of the time, while still having a fairly decent set of manlands. There will be the occasional hand with no color, but it's pretty much unavoidable given the constraints.
Deck 2: 11 Plains, 4 Caves of Koilos, 4 Fetid Heath, 4 Reflecting Pool. Everything makes white, to allow for the two drops and the figures. You will rarely Thoughtsieze t1, but that's ok. Better to land a two drop t2, and then a two drop + thoughtsieze t3. It really wants Muta, but is much too color intensive to use it. I'd also probably drop a plains for the fourth finks.
Deck 3: 4 Mutavault, 4 Faerie Conclave, 16 Island. Multiple effects that reduce the cost of other spells along with being mono colored means manlands ftw.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Fogatog of Epic for the awesome avatar and spiderboy4 of High~Light Studios for the amazing banner.
"Playtesting" and "trial & error" are simply the real world result of theoretical probabilities. As such, they can be deduced through mathematical formula.
What you need to do is figure out all the variables involved, and how they relate to one another. Converted mana cost, colour cost, and card drawing are the three most important variables.
People are able to make quick decisions about complex situations, which we say is "going by feel". The problem with your question is that once you take a deep look at everything that goes into a mana base, you start seeing how complex it really is, thus making the creation of a "master formula" all the more difficult.
If you do manage to come up with one, please post it here. (otherwise, just go with 24 land. hehe)
The method used in the second article is similar the the method most people here have posted, the only real difference lies in how you decide to account for multi-colored cards. Using those methods you can easily make a playable mana base for most decks (not something like five-color control) using only basic lands. After that, you can take into account dual lands. How many to use is dependent on the speed of your deck, when you need specific colors on what turns, if you have any odd cards that affect your lands (Shard Volley and Ghitu Encampment both will affect the land you might use), and perhaps the phases of the moon.
These are what I was looking for last week--thank you.
I like the way that ghitu encampment was accounted for in the article--treat it as another spell. this makes your deck of size x and makes it x+1 for each of these cards with the mana cost considered into it as well. I think that perhaps is the answer for dealing with CIPT lands as well.
The other option is to assign "pieces" of mana. Saying, for example, that Jungle Shrine gives 3/4 of a mana for red, green, and white. If CIPT lands have this as thier 'cost', Shows why we will never be able to play a one cc card on our first turn--we only have 3/4 of a mana. But that would shift a little because on turn two, we do have two possible mana. Maybe then it would signify that you have a 3 in four chance of casting a 2 cc creature on that turn?
So it seems there are two possible options for 'handicapping' lands--making less than their amount of mana or by making the deck actually 'larger' in count because of side effects.
Not sure which of these would effect the shadowmoor lands however. Perhaps a sliding scale of usefulness. Say we're running 10 forest, 6 plains, 4 fire-lit thicket, and 4 wooded bastion in a sixty card deck. We could figure out a sliding scale on the odds of green on turn one, white on turn one and colorless on turn one. The odds for colorless are tricky because they depend not just on whether or not you COULD create colorless (you've got about a 60% chance of having one of the mana fixers in hand), but also not having a forest or a plains.
Lastly, how do you handicap for pain lands? a fraction of mana doesn't seem to fit because you ge it first turn. Enlarging the deck doesn't seem to fit too well either. It seems like pain lands focus on making the game shorter--on an exponential curve, for that matter (early on, what's one life? But by turn ten... =( ). How do you change that into the terms of mana?
This post focuses entirely on the lands themselves, not considering the curve or how to determine how much of what mana you need in a specific deck. I think that can be saved for a little while...though it's next on my list of things to think about while i should be doing something else.
"Playtesting" and "trial & error" are simply the real world result of theoretical probabilities. As such, they can be deduced through mathematical formula.
What you need to do is figure out all the variables involved, and how they relate to one another. Converted mana cost, colour cost, and card drawing are the three most important variables.
People are able to make quick decisions about complex situations, which we say is "going by feel". The problem with your question is that once you take a deep look at everything that goes into a mana base, you start seeing how complex it really is, thus making the creation of a "master formula" all the more difficult.
If you do manage to come up with one, please post it here. (otherwise, just go with 24 land. hehe)
What he said. Manabases are one of the areas of magic that can be almost entirely figured out using math. Oh, and for the love of god don't run less than 22 lands unless you are running an extreme version of elf-ball. Personally, I tend to run 1 more land than everyone says Budde-style.
I've struggled with this, but almost always try 24 lands and then modify up or down as needed. In cases where I have a very low curve I can get away with fewer land, and with Elf-Ball (the more extreme Combo version) you can get away with 18 or less, but outside of that I average between 20-24, and I never use complicated or expensive manabases either.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks
Commander
Ezuri, Renegade Leader (Aggro/Combo - Favorite) Skullbriar, the Walking Grave (Sac and Grave hijinks) Azusa, Lost but Seeking (Landfall hijinks) Kaalia of the Vast (Heavily modded)
The problem with your question is that once you take a deep look at everything that goes into a mana base, you start seeing how complex it really is, thus making the creation of a "master formula" all the more difficult.
I've been working on simply sorting out all the lands and it makes my head hurt. Almost there though... I mean, should I really have to consider Sapseep Forest for crying out loud?!? (the answer is yes for completeness, but still...)
Also, does anyone have any thoughts on what to do with the Vivid's? How do you define what they're worth--they've got a 2 for ability, and need to be able to interact with reflecting pool, but the second part is a reflecting pool issue . . .
i wonder if there needs to be a turn one, turn two, turn three analysis of these choices...
There is a great website for that on this website. I don't remember the actual topic so I'll post is later when I get home. It doesn't work out how many total for you but it's pretty accurate in determining the amount of color taking into account colorless land/tri lands etc. I used it for my toast deck and it worked wonders. I'll go through my History and post it here when I get home.
these methods are clever and get you half way there - but they're way too approximate, And by approximate - I mean they completely miss the mark on some issues, like hybrid costs.
so you have a hybrid card such as Unmake... are you telling me I need 1.5 black sources and 1.5 white sources to properly account for mana sources? These formula's don't account for leaning heavier towards one hybrid cost without affecting the reliability of casting a hybrid.
also the amount of land people are suggesting are still 'rule of thumb'
i am tempted to write something to calculate probability of casting certain cards by turn, and then optimizing the land sources per card per turn... a sort of brute force method.
my only issue is how do you account for vivid lands? how do you calculate the probability that you had a vivid land played in a previous turn, that still has a counter on it.
these methods are clever and get you half way there - but they're way too approximate, And by approximate - I mean they completely miss the mark on some issues, like hybrid costs.
so you have a hybrid card such as Unmake... are you telling me I need 1.5 black sources and 1.5 white sources to properly account for mana sources? These formula's don't account for leaning heavier towards one hybrid cost without affecting the reliability of casting a hybrid.
Agree with you, but it's not hard to change the idea--use unmake as an example. We need either three black, three white, or a combination of both. I might suggest counting the other ones, and then adding in proportion. If you already have 8 white and 4 black, change it to 10 white and 5 black. But again, this is all approximation.
also the amount of land people are suggesting are still 'rule of thumb'
Again agreed. Where did 24 come from in the first place? I've been smelling a diff-e-q in here, and I'm not sure I like the connotations of it.
my only issue is how do you account for vivid lands? how do you calculate the probability that you had a vivid land played in a previous turn, that still has a counter on it.
First turn, it acts just like all other CIPT lands. Second turn, use a similar figure to the overall--what are the general odds of using a vivid crag for red as opposed to anything else? If your mana base dictates 45 red and 15 other, then VERY VERY ROUGHLY there is a 25% chance of using a red rather than an other. Of course, this is also dicated by overall mana costs. You won't use blue for a cruel ultimatum on turn three, for example. Unless you're really, really awesome.
I personally looks through my list and count out:
1) Number of times each mana symbol is accounted for in the deck by card.
2) Once I have the mana symbol count, I could how many of each of the cards I have 1-4's of.
3) Split things into percentages.
If you feel like getting your thoughtseize off first turn you can tweek your other colors lands into hybrids, for instance, since you know you may need 2W 2nd turn for your runed halos you may want to run a little more w/b hybrid heavy.. ie: Caves of Koilos/Fetid Heath. While still looking to your %'s and making them still thru.
Fortunately we have so much mana fixing in the format right now, you can bash your face into your landbase and it will probably work out.
Hope that helps, I usually only use these kind of formulas in 3-5 colors decks, otherwise I just wing it.
edit: Bleh, should have read you got your answer already, sorry
edit: Bleh, should have read you got your answer already, sorry
The more comments the better--it's about figuring out how people do it and what they do different more than just a simple way to do it. You option into messing around to make sure you can do a first turn thoughtseize--which means you need to avoid more of the shadowmoor lands. I wonder if we can quantify it a little better than 'bash your face into it'.
Though the imagery is fantastic.
We would need to analyze the amount of lands needed for a one drop of black--which means the odds of having a land that works and a thoughseize in your opening hand...actually, using the tecniques outlined in this article, we should be getting closer and closer. . .
playtesting is the best way. I tbh dont have fancy math formulas, though a lot of peeople do. I use 24 lands as a starting base. Then a cut a couple lands for an aggro deck, and for some control decks add a land or 2 (more cutting then adding). For colors, i think it IS important to add up the colored symbols. however, you do need to see how far down on your curve it is, and to use a math forumula would have to get rediculous complicated, and tbh not worth common sense and testing. (I mean, how MUCH does 2 white symbols on turn 2 matter compared to 2 white symbols on turn 5? Itd be incredibly hard to break that into a pure formula). Not impossible, but impractical compared to just playtesting and common sense. (cut a few lands, add a few in another color, see when it feels and looks right)
First turn, it acts just like all other CIPT lands. Second turn, use a similar figure to the overall--what are the general odds of using a vivid crag for red as opposed to anything else? If your mana base dictates 45 red and 15 other, then VERY VERY ROUGHLY there is a 25% chance of using a red rather than an other. Of course, this is also dicated by overall mana costs. You won't use blue for a cruel ultimatum on turn three, for example. Unless you're really, really awesome.
you've certainly put some thought into it. I really didn't even know how to approach modeling a vivid. I just cracked open my probability and random variables book - and i think my mind is about to explode... luckily i won't have to delve outside of chapter one.
you've certainly put some thought into it. I really didn't even know how to approach modeling a vivid. I just cracked open my probability and random variables book - and i think my mind is about to explode... luckily i won't have to delve outside of chapter one.
It's not that the steps themselves are too complicated--it's more that the pieces add upon each other, over and over in complicated ways. Once you get the flow going it's not too bad--I don't think.
Try reflecting pool on for size though. That guy keeps me awake at night because of his overall interactions with the other cards.
Here's a site that explains magic in terms of math.
this page specifically explains land count in terms of probability of drawing the ubiquitous 4 Mana by turn 4 (ie: wrath).
Mana Intensive Control: 25+
Control: 24
Midrange/Slower Aggro: 23
Fast aggro: 22
Some stuff does fall outside of that (aka Elf Ball) but it's just the general guideline I start with on any deck. You will still need to goldfish it to see how well it draws and runs. At least it's a starting point.
As for color commitment I usually just count all the colors up(Cryptic Command = 3 blue) and it gives me a better idea of my where I need what. You also have to consider when you are going to need what color during the game as others have said.
I second the above in it's entirety. Those are the numbers I generally go by. Just look at Pro deck builds that have similar colors/requirements for ideas. I do agree that some sort of formula would be possible, but it would still need to be tested and very very involved. Even something simple like draw spells are going to change the entire formula, so you'll need to modify the calculations and formula for every single build you do. Best to just stick to the guidelines the guy gave you above and test.
If everything else has a true method, then surely there must be a way to create for this...
At one point I remember someone linking to an article that gave a nice rendition of it--but I've lost the link. Any ideas?
The easiest way to observe this, and use mathematics to work out the best mana base, without investing allot of time and brain cells in physical calculations, is through Magic Workstation (MWS). See www.magicworkstation.com
To calculate a manabase within the program, you open the main interface, load a deck, and click the "Deck Statistics" icon located near the top (the icon is a picture of colored chart lines). This will open a sub-menu, from here click on the "Deep Analysis" tab near the lower right. A new menu will pop up, and click on the "George Baxter Analysis" tab. Once you open this, you will see the contents of your deck in a scrolling chart, listing the following info: Amount of a particular card, card name, the colored mana required, and the level of importance of that spell. Simply click on the "Analysis" button, and the program will calculate the number of "mana slots" and color requirements your deck needs. An important thing to note is setting the "importance" of each card in your deck, for example, if I was analyzing a Faeires deck, I would set Bitterblossom, and Cryptic Command to "hi" level of importance, as I want to make their mana requirements ASAP.
While this program doe snot flat out tell you how many lands to play, it gives you a very powerful calculation that you can use to easily and accurately deduce the required amount of lands.
Does anyone know George Baxter's mana Analysis? How does he calculate the needed sources. I can't find his algo on the net. it looks like its in his book "Deep Magic"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/890.html
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/tf87
The method used in the second article is similar the the method most people here have posted, the only real difference lies in how you decide to account for multi-colored cards. Using those methods you can easily make a playable mana base for most decks (not something like five-color control) using only basic lands. After that, you can take into account dual lands. How many to use is dependent on the speed of your deck, when you need specific colors on what turns, if you have any odd cards that affect your lands (Shard Volley and Ghitu Encampment both will affect the land you might use), and perhaps the phases of the moon.
Playtesting is essential, but using the above two articles is a good starting point. After that, adding non-basics, mana producers, cutting cards that are just too mana intensive, etc., should only make your deck better and better. I normally stop making changes when my deck stops giving me mana problems and operates smothly. Using the basic land formula and 4-6 Vivid Lands, Alara Shardlands, and Terramorphic Expanse, has worked for most decks I've built because I don't have the money to buy expensive dual-lands.
Deck 2: 11 Plains, 4 Caves of Koilos, 4 Fetid Heath, 4 Reflecting Pool. Everything makes white, to allow for the two drops and the figures. You will rarely Thoughtsieze t1, but that's ok. Better to land a two drop t2, and then a two drop + thoughtsieze t3. It really wants Muta, but is much too color intensive to use it. I'd also probably drop a plains for the fourth finks.
Deck 3: 4 Mutavault, 4 Faerie Conclave, 16 Island. Multiple effects that reduce the cost of other spells along with being mono colored means manlands ftw.
Thanks to Fogatog of Epic for the awesome avatar and spiderboy4 of High~Light Studios for the amazing banner.
What you need to do is figure out all the variables involved, and how they relate to one another. Converted mana cost, colour cost, and card drawing are the three most important variables.
People are able to make quick decisions about complex situations, which we say is "going by feel". The problem with your question is that once you take a deep look at everything that goes into a mana base, you start seeing how complex it really is, thus making the creation of a "master formula" all the more difficult.
If you do manage to come up with one, please post it here. (otherwise, just go with 24 land. hehe)
These are what I was looking for last week--thank you.
I like the way that ghitu encampment was accounted for in the article--treat it as another spell. this makes your deck of size x and makes it x+1 for each of these cards with the mana cost considered into it as well. I think that perhaps is the answer for dealing with CIPT lands as well.
The other option is to assign "pieces" of mana. Saying, for example, that Jungle Shrine gives 3/4 of a mana for red, green, and white. If CIPT lands have this as thier 'cost', Shows why we will never be able to play a one cc card on our first turn--we only have 3/4 of a mana. But that would shift a little because on turn two, we do have two possible mana. Maybe then it would signify that you have a 3 in four chance of casting a 2 cc creature on that turn?
So it seems there are two possible options for 'handicapping' lands--making less than their amount of mana or by making the deck actually 'larger' in count because of side effects.
Not sure which of these would effect the shadowmoor lands however. Perhaps a sliding scale of usefulness. Say we're running 10 forest, 6 plains, 4 fire-lit thicket, and 4 wooded bastion in a sixty card deck. We could figure out a sliding scale on the odds of green on turn one, white on turn one and colorless on turn one. The odds for colorless are tricky because they depend not just on whether or not you COULD create colorless (you've got about a 60% chance of having one of the mana fixers in hand), but also not having a forest or a plains.
Lastly, how do you handicap for pain lands? a fraction of mana doesn't seem to fit because you ge it first turn. Enlarging the deck doesn't seem to fit too well either. It seems like pain lands focus on making the game shorter--on an exponential curve, for that matter (early on, what's one life? But by turn ten... =( ). How do you change that into the terms of mana?
This post focuses entirely on the lands themselves, not considering the curve or how to determine how much of what mana you need in a specific deck. I think that can be saved for a little while...though it's next on my list of things to think about while i should be doing something else.
What he said. Manabases are one of the areas of magic that can be almost entirely figured out using math. Oh, and for the love of god don't run less than 22 lands unless you are running an extreme version of elf-ball. Personally, I tend to run 1 more land than everyone says Budde-style.
GX Tron XG
UR Phoenix RU
GG Freyalise High Tide GG
UR Parun Counterspells RU
BB Yawgmoth Token Storm BB
WB Pestilence BW
Commander
Ezuri, Renegade Leader (Aggro/Combo - Favorite)
Skullbriar, the Walking Grave (Sac and Grave hijinks)
Azusa, Lost but Seeking (Landfall hijinks)
Kaalia of the Vast (Heavily modded)
Standard
Waiting for Innistrad...
Extended
Hah!
Modern
Living End Cascade (RGB)
Legacy
Burn
Vintage
None
Casual
WB Aggro-Control
Green Stompy
Pink Floyd (UWr Wall Control)
Lunch Box (Fatty ramp)
D-Bag (White Control)
Level 13 Task Mage
I've been working on simply sorting out all the lands and it makes my head hurt. Almost there though... I mean, should I really have to consider Sapseep Forest for crying out loud?!? (the answer is yes for completeness, but still...)
Also, does anyone have any thoughts on what to do with the Vivid's? How do you define what they're worth--they've got a 2 for ability, and need to be able to interact with reflecting pool, but the second part is a reflecting pool issue . . .
i wonder if there needs to be a turn one, turn two, turn three analysis of these choices...
Edit: home now, http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=3304230#post3304230
so you have a hybrid card such as Unmake... are you telling me I need 1.5 black sources and 1.5 white sources to properly account for mana sources? These formula's don't account for leaning heavier towards one hybrid cost without affecting the reliability of casting a hybrid.
also the amount of land people are suggesting are still 'rule of thumb'
i am tempted to write something to calculate probability of casting certain cards by turn, and then optimizing the land sources per card per turn... a sort of brute force method.
my only issue is how do you account for vivid lands? how do you calculate the probability that you had a vivid land played in a previous turn, that still has a counter on it.
Agree with you, but it's not hard to change the idea--use unmake as an example. We need either three black, three white, or a combination of both. I might suggest counting the other ones, and then adding in proportion. If you already have 8 white and 4 black, change it to 10 white and 5 black. But again, this is all approximation.
Again agreed. Where did 24 come from in the first place? I've been smelling a diff-e-q in here, and I'm not sure I like the connotations of it.
First turn, it acts just like all other CIPT lands. Second turn, use a similar figure to the overall--what are the general odds of using a vivid crag for red as opposed to anything else? If your mana base dictates 45 red and 15 other, then VERY VERY ROUGHLY there is a 25% chance of using a red rather than an other. Of course, this is also dicated by overall mana costs. You won't use blue for a cruel ultimatum on turn three, for example. Unless you're really, really awesome.
Well written and thought out. Thank you for this.
1) Number of times each mana symbol is accounted for in the deck by card.
2) Once I have the mana symbol count, I could how many of each of the cards I have 1-4's of.
3) Split things into percentages.
For example:
4 Esper charm 1B 1W 1U x4 4B 4W 4U
3 Bant Charm 1G 1W 1U x3 3G 3W 3U
4 Runed Halo 2W x4 8W
4 Thoughsieze 1B x4 4B
Totals: 8B 15W 3G 7U = 33 Instances of colors.
8/33 = 24% 15/33 = 45% 3/33 = 9% 7/33 = 21% = 99%
Then you can take your curve into count.
If you feel like getting your thoughtseize off first turn you can tweek your other colors lands into hybrids, for instance, since you know you may need 2W 2nd turn for your runed halos you may want to run a little more w/b hybrid heavy.. ie: Caves of Koilos/Fetid Heath. While still looking to your %'s and making them still thru.
Fortunately we have so much mana fixing in the format right now, you can bash your face into your landbase and it will probably work out.
Hope that helps, I usually only use these kind of formulas in 3-5 colors decks, otherwise I just wing it.
edit: Bleh, should have read you got your answer already, sorry
The more comments the better--it's about figuring out how people do it and what they do different more than just a simple way to do it. You option into messing around to make sure you can do a first turn thoughtseize--which means you need to avoid more of the shadowmoor lands. I wonder if we can quantify it a little better than 'bash your face into it'.
Though the imagery is fantastic.
We would need to analyze the amount of lands needed for a one drop of black--which means the odds of having a land that works and a thoughseize in your opening hand...actually, using the tecniques outlined in this article, we should be getting closer and closer. . .
Thanks to Spiderboy4 of High~Light Studios!
Or, I just play with no lands, and more Herbal Poultices. Tends to do the trick.
Herbal_Poultice_Deck_Wins
Rules Advisor
haha - its all probability. discrete and finite, which should be solvable using bayes theorem... and probably... diff-eq in the form of riemen sums.
you've certainly put some thought into it. I really didn't even know how to approach modeling a vivid. I just cracked open my probability and random variables book - and i think my mind is about to explode... luckily i won't have to delve outside of chapter one.
It's not that the steps themselves are too complicated--it's more that the pieces add upon each other, over and over in complicated ways. Once you get the flow going it's not too bad--I don't think.
Try reflecting pool on for size though. That guy keeps me awake at night because of his overall interactions with the other cards.
this page specifically explains land count in terms of probability of drawing the ubiquitous 4 Mana by turn 4 (ie: wrath).
http://www.kibble.net/magic/magic10.php
I second the above in it's entirety. Those are the numbers I generally go by. Just look at Pro deck builds that have similar colors/requirements for ideas. I do agree that some sort of formula would be possible, but it would still need to be tested and very very involved. Even something simple like draw spells are going to change the entire formula, so you'll need to modify the calculations and formula for every single build you do. Best to just stick to the guidelines the guy gave you above and test.
Yes there is, many infact.
The easiest way to observe this, and use mathematics to work out the best mana base, without investing allot of time and brain cells in physical calculations, is through Magic Workstation (MWS). See www.magicworkstation.com
To calculate a manabase within the program, you open the main interface, load a deck, and click the "Deck Statistics" icon located near the top (the icon is a picture of colored chart lines). This will open a sub-menu, from here click on the "Deep Analysis" tab near the lower right. A new menu will pop up, and click on the "George Baxter Analysis" tab. Once you open this, you will see the contents of your deck in a scrolling chart, listing the following info: Amount of a particular card, card name, the colored mana required, and the level of importance of that spell. Simply click on the "Analysis" button, and the program will calculate the number of "mana slots" and color requirements your deck needs. An important thing to note is setting the "importance" of each card in your deck, for example, if I was analyzing a Faeires deck, I would set Bitterblossom, and Cryptic Command to "hi" level of importance, as I want to make their mana requirements ASAP.
While this program doe snot flat out tell you how many lands to play, it gives you a very powerful calculation that you can use to easily and accurately deduce the required amount of lands.