Imagine the following experiment: put a person who has never heard of MTG into a room filled with thousands of cards from all editions and a booklet with the rules of the game. We ask her to read the brochure carefully and then prepare a deck. The results of the experiment will most likely be as follows: a deck of two hundred cards in five different colors and a ridiculously small number of lands. The explanation for this phenomenon is that new players are not immediately aware of the importance of matching the means of mana production to the amount of spells included in the deck and their costs in mana. They focus much more on what the spells do, less on the speed of creating the conditions that allow their use. They soon realize their mistake and learn about the great importance of achieving operational synergy.

Operational Synergy is designed to reduce as much as possible one of the most frustrating problems in the game: unusable cards in hand. Unusable cards are cards that you hold but are unable to cast due to mana problems (too expensive, you don’t have the mana of a suitable color) or because the special conditions that allow them to be cast (for example a legal target) have not been met. A player holding an unusable card actually plays with fewer cards. Players should be sensitive to the problems surrounding unusable cards. This lack of awareness sometimes leads to the inclusion of too many expensive cards in the deck, to hasty decisions to play a third color or even a fourth and to use very situational cards that may turn out to be unproductive (e.g., pointless artifact/enchantment destroyers in the main deck).

A possible solution to the unusable cards problem is to include a larger number of mana producing cards in the deck. However, in doing so we only exchange one problem for another. Indeed, cards whose entire function is to generate mana worsen the player’s card balance in relation to his opponent by not forcing that opponent to give up one of her own cards for each card you use. That’s why adding the right number of lands for the deck is so important. This balance minimizes the number of cards that I can’t play or that I can’t trade for an opponent’s card. Therefore, operational synergy is clearly related to achieving a positive card balance against the opponent: the player with more efficient operational synergy can expect to enjoy an advantage in cards. This synergy consists of two dimensions:

• To what extent is there a match between the number of mana production means (in most cases lands) and the amount of mana required to cast spells?

Achieving operational synergy requires a balance between the number of mana production means and the amount of mana required. If we include in the deck too few mana generators compared to the number required, we run the risk of not being able to use the spells in our hand, which gives the opponent a serious advantage, tilting the card balance in her favor. Yet, if the deck includes too many mana generators, we can be flooded with useless cards while we desperately need the very tools that are supposed to ensure victory (or prevent defeat). These two situations, infamously known in game jargon as mana screwedness and mana floodness, are often due to a lack of operational synergy in the deck (although sometimes they are the product of nothing more than bad luck).

The Desired Number of Lands: In a limited environment it is customary to include in a deck a number of lands varying between 40% and 45% of all cards. For a 40-card deck this number ranges from 16 to 18 lands. Seventeen is the most common number and is usually the default. If the spells in the deck are especially cheap, it is advisable to lower the number to 16. When the cards are expensive above average or the mana composition is problematic, it is advisable to play with 18 lands or use other mana generators.

Mana Accelerators: As you will remember, mana accelerators are cards that improve the tempo of the deck and therefore can be a valuable tool in certain decks. Their disadvantage is the fact that they upset the balance of cards with the opponent since casting them does not force her to give up his own card. In this respect mana accelerators are similar to lands. If we add to the desired number of lands in a deck (say 17) more mana accelerators, we are at greater risk of mana floodness. In that case we have to ask ourselves how much the cards we included in our deck ‘need’ this mana acceleration. It should also be remembered that the more expensive a mana accelerator is, the less effective it is since mana accelerators are very sensitive to their casting cost. However, in some cases the problem of including mana accelerators is reduced:

* If the mana accelerator is a cheap card (1–2 mana) it can be included instead of a land. In this case mana acceleration is achieved without significantly increasing the chance of excess mana. Cheap mana accelerators also maximize the reward in terms of gaining tempo. For this reason, they are extremely effective and are not that common in the game. Often, they concern vulnerable creatures that give the opponent a chance to get rid of them (examples: Llanowar Elf, Birds of Paradise). In such cases, using a mana accelerator instead of a land involves a gamble.

*If the mana accelerator gives us an additional advantage that maintains a positive card balance with the opponent , then it is less problematic to include them in the deck. For example: an efficient creature, the ability to draw an extra card (cantrip), etc.

• To what extent is there a match between the mana production means and the type of mana required to cast the spells?

(*Note: the following does not apply to multicolor sets, which constitute a specific case requiring different rules to those detailed below).

Basically, the wider the pool of spells available to a player, the better positioned she is to put together an efficient deck, both in terms of the raw quality of the cards and, more importantly, the ability to create functional synergy. The fact that the spells are divided into five colors that each require a different type of mana generation makes it difficult for the player to use the entire pool of cards at his disposal. This creates a tension between the desire to build a deck that is as coherent as possible (functional synergy) and the desire to make sure that the deck will work consistently, meaning that I can cast spells quickly (operational synergy).

There are two acceptable solutions to this problem. The first solution is to sacrifice the former in favor of the latter by reducing the number of colors played in a deck. This creates more consistency in the ability to cast spells but reduces the pool from which I can choose these spells. The second solution is to sacrifice the second on the altar of the first: I will play a larger number of colors at the cost of possible problems in the ability to cast them. In constructed, the large pool of cards at our disposal allows extreme solutions in both directions. We can play a mono-colored deck since even one color has enough cards to enable powerful functional synergy (White Winnie, Red deck wins, Suicidal Black, etc.). On the other hand, we can play a five-colored deck since we have at our disposal means (mana fixers) to reduce the danger of mana inconsistency.

There are no similar solutions in a limited environment. The single-color solution is not possible as it does not allow us a sufficient pool of cards to build a deck with enough card quality let alone to attain functional synergy (this slightly changed now – card quality is good enough to support mono color, and ocassionally formats encourage it with mechanics:Eldraine had Adamant, Theros had devotion, Shadowmoor had a deep dive into hybrid mana). Yet, we don’t usually have the means to support a large number of colors without losing much of our operational synergy. Therefore, the dilemma in a limited environment is reduced in most cases to the question of whether to play two colors or two colors and a third one as a splash. These alternatives seem quite close, yet the difference between them is important. A wrong choice could severely damage the operational synergy and therefore greatly impede the chances of winning. The number of colors included in the deck is determined according to two criteria: (1) the number of mana fixers available to us; (2) the profit we can derive from the combination of additional colors beyond two.

Number of mana fixers available: In order to play a color as a main color, it must be supported by at least six cards capable of providing mana in the same color. The desired number is seven or eight cards that provide mana of the same color. If the deck has an especially high number of cards of the same color (10 or more) or many cards require 2 mana of the same color (especially if they are cheap), then the minimum number of cards generating mana of this color will be at least 8, while 9 is preferable.

In order to play a color as a splash, you need a number of mana-producing cards in the color of the splash that will not be less than the number of splash cards played. For example, if we make a splash for 3 cards that require red mana, we must play at least 3 cards capable of producing red mana. The desired number is the number of cards in the color of the splash+1: so, if we make a splash for 3 cards that require red mana, it is advisable to include in the deck 4 cards capable of producing red mana. In general, it is highly inadvisable to include cards that require 2 or more mana in the splash color. A simple calculation shows that in a typical deck of 40 cards, of which 17 are lands, we can play at most 2 colors and a third color as a splash (2–3 cards) if we don’t have mana fixers. Mana fixers give us the possibility of playing more cards in the color of the splash, and even more colors as a splash. However, when using these cards, several considerations must be taken into account:

Just like a mana accelerator, a mana fixer is a card that results in a negative card balance with the opponent because it does not force her to give up one of his own cards. Therefore, it is highly desirable that this card have additional functions as well as mana fixing. For example, lands with the ability to produce mana in several colors are a convenient solution because they enable operational synergy to be achieved without having to increase the number of mana-producing cards in a deck. Lands of this type will almost always have a certain drawback, but in most cases the tradeoff will be profitable. A second solution is creatures capable of producing mana of a certain color. However, in this case, one must consider both the effectiveness of the creature without the ability to produce the mana and its vulnerability, which could result in us being unable to produce the mana required.

The art of mana-fixing

The profit we can derive from the inclusion of additional colors beyond two: Not in every situation will we want to generalize a third color as a ‘splash’, even if we have the necessary mana fixers to do so. We must make sure that the cards in the additional color are of high enough quality for us to take the risk that we will not be able to cast them consistently (the assumption is that this risk will be greater in most cases compared to spells in our main colors). We want these cards to be of high quality, that is, those that can give us a significant advantage. Good removals meet this criterion and are often used as a ‘splash’. So are powerful creatures. However, the quality consideration is not the only one that should be taken into account. Another criterion is spells that solve specific problems in the deck, which in most cases arise from weak points inherent in the main colors that we play. A green-red deck, for example, often lacks creatures with stealth ability, and it may be appropriate to add 2–3 creatures with this ability in a third color. A green-white/red-white deck sometimes lacks the tools to continue momentum gained in the early stages of the game; in order to solve this problem we can include a finisher in another color.