This is just for me to see how far off I am with my opinion regarding the fetchlands 
I don't know if this has been discussed before, I just would like to hear peoples take on this.
I think the fetchlands (Onslaught flooded, Strand, Polluted Delta, etc and Zendikar Arid Mesa, Marsh Flats, etc) aren't good for the format.
Reasons:
1. shuffling takes waaaayyyy too much time. Shuffling before games is already a time consuming activity with a 100 card deck. I don't have a study to back me up on this, but I have the feeling that in 3 games against a 3 or 4 colour deck 10 minutes are devoted to shuffling. That sounds like an exaggeration, but think about your last game against 4 colour Blood. Think about the shuffling before the game, the cutting/shuffling you do with your opponents deck, mulligan shuffling, first fetchland searching/shuffling, cutting/shuffling your opp.'s deck, second fetchland searching/shuffling, cutting/shuffling your opp.'s deck, tutor searching/shuffling, cutting/shuffling your opp.'s deck, third fetchland.... I'll stop here. Playing a lot on cockatrice makes you forget how time consuming these actions really are. But in a real life card game you are forced to watch your opponent shuffle for a loooooong time. Don't get me wrong, shuffling will always be a part of the game with all its various tutor effects, but the Fetchlands take this to another level by adding an additional 7-10 fetch effects to almost every deck playing at least two colours ( for example even Izzet decks often play delta, strand, tarn, foothills, mesa, mire, rainforest)
2. banning the fetchlands would strengthen peoples deck-/manabase-building skills. Right now you can just jam all the on-colour duals and x fetchlands in your deck and call it a day because fetchlands work as duals and basic lands at the same time.
3. It would weaken multicolour decks by creating a downside to playing multiple colours. We all know that 4 colour blood is the best deck in the format because it combines incredibly powerful cards from 4 different colours with perplexing consistency. I find it weird that a deck with 4 colours is perhaps the most consistent in the format. Having access to 4 colours allows this deck to play so many threats that basically do the same (undercosted powerful creatures, powerful planeswalkers, really good removal, etc), therefore bypassing the thought of highlander as a format where every game feels different.
4. It wouldn't kill multicolour decks, they just have to adapt to playing different lands. There are so many sets of duals and dual coloured manlands out there that building a multi colour manabase is still easily possible without having fetchlands around.Furthermore there are enough signets, talismans, keyrunes, etc around to give you colour fixing/ramp without playing green.
(5. It would weaken dredge cards. Without fetchlands filling up the yard, DTT and TCruise would be reduced to an acceptable powerlevel) -> this is just my hate for TCruise.
Think of it as an extra argument
To draw a conclusion, I think the fetchlands make people wait for searching/shuffling instead of playing magic for an unnessecarily long period of time and have created an environment in which there is absolutely no downside to playing 3 or 4 colours (I know that blood moon, back to basics, etc are in the format, but they've been for quite some time and it hasn't slowed Blood decks down/stopped them from winning tounaments one bit). The latter has the affect that creatures like siege rhino, which have their multicolour casting cost as their only downside, are basically cards without downside at all, creating a disadvantage for every deck which limits itself to fewer colours. Right now, this isn't problematic because we have a diverse metagame (in part thanks to people playing their pet decks instead of the strongest) but I doubt that this will hold with multicolour decks (especially Blood) winning more and more tournaments all the while Wizards is printing more and more powerful multicolour cards.
Thank you in advance for your answers.
I don't know if this has been discussed before, I just would like to hear peoples take on this.I think the fetchlands (Onslaught flooded, Strand, Polluted Delta, etc and Zendikar Arid Mesa, Marsh Flats, etc) aren't good for the format.
Reasons:
1. shuffling takes waaaayyyy too much time. Shuffling before games is already a time consuming activity with a 100 card deck. I don't have a study to back me up on this, but I have the feeling that in 3 games against a 3 or 4 colour deck 10 minutes are devoted to shuffling. That sounds like an exaggeration, but think about your last game against 4 colour Blood. Think about the shuffling before the game, the cutting/shuffling you do with your opponents deck, mulligan shuffling, first fetchland searching/shuffling, cutting/shuffling your opp.'s deck, second fetchland searching/shuffling, cutting/shuffling your opp.'s deck, tutor searching/shuffling, cutting/shuffling your opp.'s deck, third fetchland.... I'll stop here. Playing a lot on cockatrice makes you forget how time consuming these actions really are. But in a real life card game you are forced to watch your opponent shuffle for a loooooong time. Don't get me wrong, shuffling will always be a part of the game with all its various tutor effects, but the Fetchlands take this to another level by adding an additional 7-10 fetch effects to almost every deck playing at least two colours ( for example even Izzet decks often play delta, strand, tarn, foothills, mesa, mire, rainforest)
2. banning the fetchlands would strengthen peoples deck-/manabase-building skills. Right now you can just jam all the on-colour duals and x fetchlands in your deck and call it a day because fetchlands work as duals and basic lands at the same time.
3. It would weaken multicolour decks by creating a downside to playing multiple colours. We all know that 4 colour blood is the best deck in the format because it combines incredibly powerful cards from 4 different colours with perplexing consistency. I find it weird that a deck with 4 colours is perhaps the most consistent in the format. Having access to 4 colours allows this deck to play so many threats that basically do the same (undercosted powerful creatures, powerful planeswalkers, really good removal, etc), therefore bypassing the thought of highlander as a format where every game feels different.
4. It wouldn't kill multicolour decks, they just have to adapt to playing different lands. There are so many sets of duals and dual coloured manlands out there that building a multi colour manabase is still easily possible without having fetchlands around.Furthermore there are enough signets, talismans, keyrunes, etc around to give you colour fixing/ramp without playing green.
(5. It would weaken dredge cards. Without fetchlands filling up the yard, DTT and TCruise would be reduced to an acceptable powerlevel) -> this is just my hate for TCruise.
Think of it as an extra argumentTo draw a conclusion, I think the fetchlands make people wait for searching/shuffling instead of playing magic for an unnessecarily long period of time and have created an environment in which there is absolutely no downside to playing 3 or 4 colours (I know that blood moon, back to basics, etc are in the format, but they've been for quite some time and it hasn't slowed Blood decks down/stopped them from winning tounaments one bit). The latter has the affect that creatures like siege rhino, which have their multicolour casting cost as their only downside, are basically cards without downside at all, creating a disadvantage for every deck which limits itself to fewer colours. Right now, this isn't problematic because we have a diverse metagame (in part thanks to people playing their pet decks instead of the strongest) but I doubt that this will hold with multicolour decks (especially Blood) winning more and more tournaments all the while Wizards is printing more and more powerful multicolour cards.
Thank you in advance for your answers.
