[Deck] UW(x) Landstill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rsaunder

I haven't been having any issues running three brainstorm with two SDT. I know you guys have been looking at SDT as fulfilling the same role as FOF, but in my experience SDT also substitutes (though not necessarily quite as efficently) for brainstorm. If I wasn't running SDT (like rockout's recent list) I'd definitely want the 4 brainstorms.

That being said, Geoff, would you mind posting your list? I'm especially interested to see your board and what you were expecting to play against with that much hate.

---

Sorry don't remember the differences between the test build I won the Trops with and the one I will be running at Gencon. I guess you can harass the guy who ran the event to put the lists up if he hasn't already.

I don't care for SDT personally in Landstill, I prefer card quantity over quality as long as the deck is built correctly you will win more games with quantity advatage than gaining improved card quality. Landstill is based on redundency not on silver bullets, although silver bullets can be game breakers at times.

@Rockout- I see your curve is lower than mine but running the 61st card throws off the land math at times. I don't really ever give advice on particular lists but I would cut the Disk, drop a FoF for the 4th Brainstorm, Drop an Extirpate from the SB and put a FoF in the SB. I'd probably also drop the Humility for the 3rd Wish and make a few SB changes accordingly. Just my 2 cents.

Is FoF really a card you want to wish for? I mean, when playing Wish you normally have a particluar problem you want a solution for. Playing Wish on FoF seems like win more to me (a little like Enlightened Tutor on Standstill). I think when there is no particular problem you shouldn't play your Wish and keep it untill there is something you need it for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spur Grappler

Is FoF really a card you want to wish for? I mean, when playing Wish you normally have a particluar problem you want a solution for. Playing Wish on FoF seems like win more to me (a little like Enlightened Tutor on Standstill). I think when there is no particular problem you shouldn't play your Wish and keep it untill there is something you need it for.

---

Not at all. When you're casting Wish to "solve" a problem, you're being reactive. Wishing for FoF is being proactive, allowing you to get ahead of your opponent. When you see matches with control decks against other decks, when control decks have a tutor and a threat isnt present, they tend to go for card advantage to stay ahead of the opponent. And at times, there are definitely match ups you want to board FoF in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spur Grappler

Is FoF really a card you want to wish for? I mean, when playing Wish you normally have a particluar problem you want a solution for. Playing Wish on FoF seems like win more to me (a little like Enlightened Tutor on Standstill). I think when there is no particular problem you shouldn't play your Wish and keep it untill there is something you need it for.

---

What you're saying is you're holding on to a wish for when this problem arises, basically making your hand smaller since right now it's doing nothing :)
I guess that's what Konsultant means by redundancy. Resolving a FoF and digging 5 cards into your library should be enough to get all the answers you need, instead of waiting with a wish in hand.

Yes that makes sence. I will see if I can fit a FoF in my board. It looks like this at the moment:

2 Ajani
3 Path
3 Negate
1 Pulse
1 Extirpate
1 Crucible
1 Enlightened
1 Return to Dust
1 Relic
1 Crypt

Any suggestions?

No plague? One relic? And do you really need 2 ajani alongside pulse?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ectoplasm

He might be running vindicate and/or 3 EE's though :)
But I agree that boarding out FoW seems like a bad move, since winning a counterwar over say, elspeth or a wog, will become pretty hard.

---

I found out that much by myself.

First of all I am running the same main deck as Geoff.

The obvious would be to board out standstill. But if I do that, I doubt if I have enough blue cards to support FoW.
On the other hand if I actually drop FoW then I have very few early answers and can lose before I stabilize.

Vindicate may be another choice being at 3 mana and being a sorcery that goed 1 for 1. But quite a few Merfolk builds in my meta run Back 2 Basics so I might want to keep it in.

All in all a very difficult choice and I am still very unsure what is best.

I think by now most of us have figured out which play style we prefer. Wether you prefer vindicate or wish or a mix of both makes all the ideal difference into what you build should or shouldn't look like.

If you choose to go with Vindicate then Geoff is more then likely correct in his assessment with redundancy over tool-box. Simply put Land Still is a deck loaded with answers to the meta-game. How proactive you choose to build is based mostly on your play style and skill level. As you see more information you start to understand more about the arch type and where it inevitable leaves you on a consistent basis in the meta game.

I personally feel like the Tool-Box strategy is the single strongest in the meta-game right now. Theres simply too many different arch types to build a list and prepare for only the meta. This is where the fight comes to either play white splash thresh (I believe is the most consistent boring deck in the format) or play with the knowledge you have and try to out prepare for other arch types. Land still is a deck that beats a meta game by knowledge and preperation. If you don't have it simply put you won't win.

Morbid wrote a report not too long ago with I believe a virtually Identical list to mine. His matchups included quite a few that i've tested extensively and consider knowledge of the match up and not card quality to beat your opponent. This is where I most strongly feel about the unique tool-box style of play of my build wins over a majority of the format. If you answer. Now Morbid didn't do so well in his match ups and I believe that in large part to side-boarding incorrectly and probobly some mis plays. That doesn't make him a bad player but one example was siding in relic against zoo. This is absolutely not necessary. POP was often more of a problem then it has been for me as of late as well and he played +1 island. This was very strange to me to be running 7 basic lands 6 fetches and still get blazed out of a game based on that card. I just think it's a knowledge difference with the deck and knowledge of the format.

Geoff mentioned something about how he doesn't like Top because he favors redundancy. I beg the question, How is top not more redundant and efficient then say FOF? While FOF can end games based on card quality and digging Top fundamentally does the same thing, earlier; and also creates virtual card advantage in matchups where you may or may not be able to win based on control of the board. I would dare say Geoff that Top creates more redundant situation and consistent removal over a longer period in time then FOF ever could hope for. Along with the given shuffle synergy with fetches how is Top not a given for land still?

Regarding Merfolk. Generally when I play the matchup I side out:

3 Still
1 jace
1 Vendillion/2 C.S. (If I see snare)/2 decree

You need a combined 6 slots. And while Geoff's approach to the matchup is different in that he uses decree's and wastelands to out manuever, I tend to raw dogg the matchup forcing the late game as long as possible; then create CA situations with EP into Elspeth and eventually Disk Elspeth lock. This shouldn't be overly difficult as your maindeck after siding should contain 17 removal (2 wish for pulse or e tutor or negate/counterspell if you need them).

Merfolks lack of Real CA is their downfall and if you can stop islandwalking and overredundant 1/1, 2/1, 2/2 beaters from hammering you then you can easily win with you inevitability post board. Granted the matchup is difficult but the approach I have taken is consistent and works. I'm probobly more then 50% in my matchups as of lately, and I can't remember the last time I lost to the deck in a full out match.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mossivo1986

Land still is a deck that beats a meta game by knowledge and preperation. If you don't have it simply put you won't win.

Morbid wrote a report not too long ago with I believe a virtually Identical list to mine. His matchups included quite a few that i've tested extensively and consider knowledge of the match up and not card quality to beat your opponent. This is where I most strongly feel about the unique tool-box style of play of my build wins over a majority of the format. If you answer. Now Morbid didn't do so well in his match ups and I believe that in large part to side-boarding incorrectly and probobly some mis plays. That doesn't make him a bad player but one example was siding in relic against zoo. This is absolutely not necessary. POP was often more of a problem then it has been for me as of late as well and he played +1 island. This was very strange to me to be running 7 basic lands 6 fetches and still get blazed out of a game based on that card. I just think it's a knowledge difference with the deck and knowledge of the format.

---

First part QFT.

And yeah, this was my first "bigger" tourney for a pretty long time, MWS testing helps, but doesn't substitute. I made the mistake of not doing a little heavier research or trying to find the metas. If I had know there were a little more unfavorable matchups, I might have tweaked the SB a little bit before submitting a list, but that's not a valid excuse for my actual game play.

In terms of SB'ing, retrospectively, yes moss, that was a bad decision with the Relic. I still need to get a little more intimate with the cards, reading a larger portion of the DtB/Established deck threads will probably help, but it was my fault for going in unprepared. Speaking of SB'ing, however, I was thinking about Imperial Painter (the list runs 7-8 Red Blasts). I may be seeing that soon, what is the best way to play around this matchup?

Theory question: suppose I'm splashing for 4 Smother/Diabolic Edict (1B) and 2 The Abyss (3B) and have 6 fetches - how many black sources do I have to run, given my meta has a notable amount of wastelands.

1 Swamp,
1 Scrubland
1-2 Sea should do fine.

Has anyone considered a 1/1/1 split with Humility/WoG/The Abyss?

There are more aggro players in my meta than there are control players, blue decks show up as merfolk and tempo thresh so i've been testing this deck with Carabas for a while against, goyf sligh, tempo thresh, merfolk, and goblins and its been good for me:

1 Eternal dragon
4 Brainstorm
3 Counterspell
3 Fact Or Fiction
4 Force Of Will
4 Swords
3 Decree of Justice
3 Wrath of God
3 Standstill
2 Engineered Explosives
1 Nevinyrral's Disk
1 Path to Exile
2 Vendilion Clique
2 Elspeth
1 Academy Ruins
4 Flooded Strand
3 Island
4 Plains
3 factories
2 Polluted Delta
1 Tolaria West
4 Tundra
2 Wasteland

60 total- 24 lands

I don't think the abyss could replace Wrath of God, your opponent could always play around it. Wrath of God gets rid of your problems while humility just makes them easier to deal with. Then the abyss would be just worse than humility because it doesn't deal with what's killing you at the moment. I'd splash black just for vindicate or plague at the moment. Test it though, this is just how i feel, i see how the abyss works cute with a ton of tokens and manlands buuuut is that worth it? mmm if i were to do a split, i'd try the 2 wraths 1 humility that rockout uses in his list.

Against Merrows I usually keep forces in allthough I know they suck postboard.
If you keep them, you have to sandbagg even brainstorms to force Plague/Wrath through their "pay1" shit and everything.
I also keep vendilion in the main because it often kills an attacking lord or steals a force so that EP can resolve even without more backup.
I believe this "strategy" is strong and has always worked great for me so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rsaunder

No plague? One relic? And do you really need 2 ajani alongside pulse?

---

In my meta there is not much the plague is good against except merfolk. I like the Ajanis in the mirror or against zoo (and i have to play against zoo in nealry every tournament) and they are quite good against merfolk too if I survive long enough to cast them of course. But the main reason for them is zoo where plague does nothing.

I have dicided to put the Crucible back in the main and now I go for 1 Extripate, 2 Relic, 1 Crypt (I play it because of Tolaria West and Academy Ruins)

But I think all the stuff in my board is more important than FoF.

@Moss: I'm starting to agree more and more. I've won countless games on the back of SDT and card selection... it's unfair.

@Merfolk: I'm not sure how I want to board for this matchup. I've played against some players that board OUT standstills against me, and when they do that I'm far less scared of vial. I generally have enough removal to deal with their lords and the matchup gets nice and easy. In this case, I think 1 FOW can get boarded out, but I don't think that this is the right play for the merfolk player, is it? It's the intuitive one but I haven't lost more than a few games against this strategy, largely due to epic manascrew.

Should I just assume that the merfolk player is going to keep standstill in? If so:

-3 Standstill
-3 Counterspell
+3 P2E
+3 Plague

If not.. I'm tempted to board out Spell Snares and standstills instead.

Post board, should I drop a pre-emptive EE@1 if I'm on the play or just haven't seen vial yet? Of course you EE@1 if they've already GOT a vial. I've had a lot of luck with this play since lots of lists are cutting stifle, but I'm just a tad curious as to how everyone else is playing it.

The only weakness in my list is it can't hit 3 for EE if you need to get rid of a goblin warchief or a merfolk reejery but running 2 colors lets me play clique and path to exile which can remove these cards. Clique in my testing against merfolk has been able to hit 2 merfolk lords, one in hand and 1 in play. For me 2 colors is a lot more stable because i can play more basics and hit 4 lands without fearing wastelands. Without vindicates though, opposing planeswalkers become more intimidating. What are you thoughts?

I don't think you should ever board Spell Snares out. Even the very thought of it just seems stupid to me. Being able to just counter Merrow-Reejerey, Lords and Standstill is super legit. Especially since it counters a Lord.

I play spell snare in the sb and board it in when needed since we aren't controlling them only by counters but by a variety of other spells that manipulate the game state