Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VonDoom
I changed Black to Red just some weeks ago.
And i top4ed in the first (really small) tourney (34 ppl) I partecipated.
Your list seems tough, but I think too radical.
Probably you win g1 against merfolks, zoo, creatures in generally
But probably you lose g1 in mirror matches and against WStax, having no more time to play g3.
You don't recycle nothing, no CoTW, no Ruins
Landstill is good because we have 50-50 against quite everyone, i think you are 70-30 against aggros and 30-70 against the rest.
But I like a lot your sb strategy :wink:
22 lands are too few imho, and 6 fetches are too many!!!!
Against ANT you've 9 dead cards, +3 "maybesometimesuseful" cards in mainboard
In g2, you have maximum 6 cards to side in
There should be 23 lands. I'll probably cut a FoF for an Academy Ruins.
Admittedly, this deck is skewed to beat aggro, but Zoo and Merfolk are among the most played decks right now. With this build, I don't see how I lose to them. Also, Goblins is going to rise in popularity with Warren Instigator. Whether the new Goblins decks will actually be good or not is yet to be seen, but I anticipate them in higher numbers.
So, what matchups are going to be worse? Sure, the landstill mirror won't be great. However, Landstill isn't that widely played, and I'd rather make that matchup worse than continue to lose to the most played decks. Wstax barely exists at all and that deck is pretty terrible anyways. Ichorid is always bad, but Relics in the board plus EE, Humility, and Firespout should make it at least winnable. I guess the real question comes down to if this list can beat countertop. With the minimal testing I have done, I still deem that matchup to be favorable with this list. EE deals with their entire deck, Spell Snare helps a lot, FoF wins in the mid/late game, and sticking an Elspeth or Humility is an auto-win. Firespout isn't great, but the ability to bring in Pyroblasts is pretty nice.
The black splash is probably stronger in a more balanced metagame. The versatility of Vindicate is certainly useful. However, with aggro dominating the format, black just seems ineffective.
What's your red list like? How is your board strategy different than mine?
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Some more points about Spell Pierce.
It only answers vial or any 1cc spell 50% if the time - only if you're on the play. If you're on the draw, they've already cast it. For the answer to Vial be any viable, it should be possible to use it after Vial hit play. The only worthy cards I can think of are Disenchant and Pithing Needle. And like I've said both are of a broad use, but a bit too narrow. Let me explain the contradiction here: what I mean, is that while they would have a target almost every game, the number of targets we'd really want to use it for is narrow. E. g. you can stop Grim lavamancer with Needle, or Pernicious Deed with Disenchant, but why wouldn't you play some better spells instead.
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Based on the way we're talking about Spell Pierce and how "effective" it may be in the maindeck, why arent we talking about Disrupting Shoal instead? [/end sarcasm]
Seriously, the point of Landstill is to have an inevitably good late game by running cards that have quality late game, such as Swords to Plowshares, Spell Snare, Force of Will and EE to an extent.
This is also why we dont run cards like Force Spike... and instead, run cards like Path to Exile+Swords to Plowshares, Force of Will and such.
If you truly want to answer cards like Vial, just run more EE. Really, that's all there is to it.
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Dropping a preemptive EE@1 when on the play vs goblins/merfolk is almost always a good idea :)
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Citrus-God
Based on the way we're talking about Spell Pierce and how "effective" it may be in the maindeck, why arent we talking about Disrupting Shoal instead? [/end sarcasm]
Seriously, the point of Landstill is to have an inevitably good late game by running cards that have quality late game, such as Swords to Plowshares, Spell Snare, Force of Will and EE to an extent.
This is also why we dont run cards like Force Spike... and instead, run cards like Path to Exile+Swords to Plowshares, Force of Will and such.
If you truly want to answer cards like Vial, just run more EE. Really, that's all there is to it.
Citrus we both know theres no way for landstill to have inevitability over the entire format. It's simply too big and the variety of decks make it litterally impossible to play the (right 75).
My only reasoning behind pierce is that it does everything snare does in the early game (completely freeing your mid-game to win) which is when Land still should want to be finishing games between t8-12. Pierce allows you room between t1-3 against the problematic situations that snare doesn't resolve. Its better then snare against combo, burn for the most part, vial obviously, roughly the same against loam (besides for DD) and as a general principle completely fucks opposing plains walkers ee's. etc. Now if your seeing spell stutter sprite then perhaps it's not feasible, but honestly I think it should be given a shot.
Snare is phenomenal but there are tons of problems that pierce also addresses that snare doesn't accept. I'm just asking to see if anyone has tested it and if its actually worth it. Also pierce counters stifle.
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
That pierce counters stifle is the main reason I'll advocate for playing pierce. Ofc pierce is only good on the play, but does not snare has the same limitations? you know I'm not fond on "modal" spells (which let the opponent a second chance), but this spell spierce is really great on most of what snare already counters, except for bob and goyf which, indeed, are fair good targets. I don't think one can substitute the other, but a split may be considered, as it would be a MD answer to decks lilke ant and ichorid, due to their lack of mana resources...Would spell pierce not have been restricted to noncreature spells, it would have been phaenomenical...
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Genericcactus
There should be 23 lands. I'll probably cut a FoF for an Academy Ruins.
Admittedly, this deck is skewed to beat aggro, but Zoo and Merfolk are among the most played decks right now. With this build, I don't see how I lose to them. Also, Goblins is going to rise in popularity with Warren Instigator. Whether the new Goblins decks will actually be good or not is yet to be seen, but I anticipate them in higher numbers.
So, what matchups are going to be worse? Sure, the landstill mirror won't be great. However, Landstill isn't that widely played, and I'd rather make that matchup worse than continue to lose to the most played decks. Wstax barely exists at all and that deck is pretty terrible anyways. Ichorid is always bad, but Relics in the board plus EE, Humility, and Firespout should make it at least winnable. I guess the real question comes down to if this list can beat countertop. With the minimal testing I have done, I still deem that matchup to be favorable with this list. EE deals with their entire deck, Spell Snare helps a lot, FoF wins in the mid/late game, and sticking an Elspeth or Humility is an auto-win. Firespout isn't great, but the ability to bring in Pyroblasts is pretty nice.
The black splash is probably stronger in a more balanced metagame. The versatility of Vindicate is certainly useful. However, with aggro dominating the format, black just seems ineffective.
What's your red list like? How is your board strategy different than mine?
Here it is :smile:
4 Flooded Strand
4 Tundra
4 Mishra's Factory
3 Wasteland
1 Academy Ruins
2 Island
2 Plains
3 Volcanic Island
1 Plateau
4 Force of Will
3 Counterspell
3 Spell snare
4 Brainstorm
4 Swords to Plowshares
1 Fact or Fiction
1 Enlightened Tutor
1 Humility
3 Standstill
1 Decree of Justice
1 Wrath of God
1 Crucible of Worlds
3 Engineered Explosives
1 Nevinyrral's Disk
1 Pithing Needle
1 Relic of Progenitus (now i'm testing tormod)
1 Jace Beleren
1 Elspeth
1 Ajani Vengeant
SIDE
4 Meddling Mage
2 Ethersworn Canonist
4 Lightning Helix
1 Humility
1 Runed Halo
2 Seal of Cleansing
1 CoP:Red
my SB strategy is
burn
in everything except humility and seals
aggros
in humility and helixes, if r/g zoo, cop:red is welcome too
Ichorid
in everything except cop:red and seals
stax
in seals
mirror
in creatures and helixes
combos
in creatures and halo
Has i said, i prefer to play a more "balanced" list, also because agaisnt some decks, you will play g3, against others (mirror and stax) you'll barely play g2. Due to that it's extremely important to win g1 agaisnt these, while against others you can also lose g1....
the fact behind our list is probably the metagame
in last tourney (35 players), some weeks ago I met
1 bant, 2 wstax, 2 nassif-style, 2 merfolks, 1 survivalcombo
at Ovino in Milan (more than 250 players), in early september, i met
1 bant, 1 mirror, 1 aggro, 1 stax, 1 merfolk, 1 survivalcombo
As you can see, in my block there are some people playing stax.....
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
I think in your build gustha where you run more than 4 stp effects dropping spell snares for pierces would be worth testing. The logic of this is that pierce protects you from early game obstacles like stifle, chalice. You wouldn't really need snares since you have so many creature removals already and cb gets hit by pierce as well.
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mossivo1986
Citrus we both know theres no way for landstill to have inevitability over the entire format. It's simply too big and the variety of decks make it litterally impossible to play the (right 75).
Obviously... but this is just a technicality at this point: we all know Landstill has dead cards against control and combo, and is mostly designed against Aggro or creature type decks. Against control, you will only lose against a true control deck (but those dont exist because of Aggro), and your only chance of winning against combo if you dont have CB in the maindeck is to board addition counters in. Keep in mind though, they slow down post board to keep up with your disruption, so that gives Negate and Spell Snares validity.
Quote:
My only reasoning behind pierce is that it does everything snare does in the early game (completely freeing your mid-game to win) which is when Land still should want to be finishing games between t8-12.
Then why are we not running Force Spike?
Quote:
Its better then snare against combo
Sure, but only against Ichorid, ANT and TES
Quote:
burn for the most part
With the rise of Zoo, Burn seems like an awfully bad choice in terms of consistency. Especially with Counterbalance in the metagame.
I dont think you want to board such narrow spells (or play maindeck for that matter) against decks with AEther Vial. Like, Spell Pierce is only good against Cephalid Breakfast.... we thrash that deck regardless. Against Merfolk, we want to concentrate on the board, which means the better and more obvious solution here is to run more S2P effects.
Quote:
roughly the same against loam (besides for DD)
They run so many lands, the point of casting such a spell against them is nullified after Turn 3.
Quote:
and as a general principle completely fucks opposing plains walkers
Wouldnt Negate do the same thing? I mean, assuming if you will crash into opposing Planeswalkers, Negate would seem to be the more sensible counter to run. Against the mirror, Negate will be better. Against Monogreen Stompy, Negate will be better. Against Stax, Negate operates under Chalice for 1 and can effectively counter better a Spell Pierce can under three mana assuming they opened with a 3Sphere and they ramp tons of mana up for the first 3-4 turns. Sure, you can counter 3Spheres if you're on the play, but chances are, you will have to pull a Stax and "mull into oblivion" just to get a FoW or a Spell Pierce in your opening hand, or else Spell Pierce loses it's value.
If people cast EE against you, chances are, they casting it for Zero. If it's to wipe a Planeswalker off a board, chances are, they'll leave 2 mana open to detonate it so that they dont walk into your EEs, which they can use to activate EE and inevitable tap the two mana for your Spell Pierce. If you do get them to tap out and proceed to drop your own EE, congratz, you've spent 2 cards to get rid of 1. Negate, easily turns this into a 1 for 1.
Quote:
Now if your seeing spell stutter sprite then perhaps it's not feasible, but honestly I think it should be given a shot.
I did not say Spellstutter Sprite, I said Disrupting Shoal. Also, the Germans (Kimberly) have used it before in Landstill, and with success (until the printing of Goyf).
Quote:
Snare is phenomenal but there are tons of problems that pierce also addresses that snare doesn't accept. I'm just asking to see if anyone has tested it and if its actually worth it.
I dont see why you cant just board in cards that actually take care of the problems, or just learn how to play around shit.... Like, if you're scared of Vial, why cant you just play more EEs or play Vindicates/Mortify? Or better yet, you could run Annul! That counters Back to Basics, SDT, Counterbalance, AEther Vial, Chalice of the Void, Smokestacks, Powder Keg,Trinisphere, Jittes, Shackles, CoW, EE, LED, Moxes, Petals, the list goes on. Oh, and it counters Arcbound Ravager, Cranial Platings and Master of Etheriums... it tears Affinity to bits, basically.
Quote:
Also pierce counters stifle.
You can... you know, play around or bait Stifle. Or better yet... cut down on your fetchlands. Like, thankfully, magic is a game with hidden information, which means you obviously also have the option (especially in this deck) to play in a way where you can persuade your opponent that you're fucking crippled when you're perfectly fine in reality. Like, if you need to cast EE to wipe that Vial off the board, just play in a way where you're deprived of a color and just force them to Stifle your fetch and then proceed to cast and crack EE.
Honestly, I never had a problem with Stifle... mainly because I only run 4 fetchlands and 2 Dragons. Also, casting Dragon eot on their turn is brutal, it forces them to decide whether to color screw you or let you have your way.
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
4 Flooded Strand
4 Tundra
4 Mishra's Factory
3 Wasteland
1 Academy Ruins
2 Island
2 Plains
2 Volcanic Island
1 Plateau
4 Force of Will
3 Counterspell
3 Spell snare
4 Brainstorm
4 Swords to Plowshares
1 Enlightened Tutor
1 Humility
4 Standstill
3 Wrath of God
4 Sensei's Divining Top
2 Engineered Explosives
2 Elspeth
1 Ajani Vengeant
SIDE
4 Counterbalance
4 Meddling Mage
4 Firespout
3 Oblivion Ring
That's what I'd do.
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
I'd rather have rebs and path to exile in the sb instead of firespout... 3 wrath seems enough...
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mossivo1986
Citrus we both know theres no way for landstill to have inevitability over the entire format. It's simply too big and the variety of decks make it litterally impossible to play the (right 75).
I always thought Landstill was designed to have inevitability over the entire format, it is the reason to play the deck. I doubt there is any matchup where Landstill wants to play the aggro role, besides a control mirror maybe. I honestly can't think of any deck where Landstill doesn't have inevetiability against, but perhaps you can enlighten me.
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mantis
I always thought Landstill was designed to have inevitability over the entire format, it is the reason to play the deck. I doubt there is any matchup where Landstill wants to play the aggro role, besides a control mirror maybe. I honestly can't think of any deck where Landstill doesn't have inevetiability against, but perhaps you can enlighten me.
Landstill wants to play aggro against most decent combo decks. They have a better late game than you in this matchup.
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mantis
I always thought Landstill was designed to have inevitability over the entire format, it is the reason to play the deck. I doubt there is any matchup where Landstill wants to play the aggro role, besides a control mirror maybe. I honestly can't think of any deck where Landstill doesn't have inevetiability against, but perhaps you can enlighten me.
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bahamuth
Landstill wants to play aggro against most decent combo decks. They have a better late game than you in this matchup.
I think you're thinking of Solidarity. Against ANT and TES, a good Landstill player will do well if he plays his counters wisely. That means knowing how far 2 soldier tokens and a Factory can go while having a gripload of counters.
Btw, try not to let SDT resolve post board against ANT.
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Cant really decide which deck you are talking about to answer my question but I bet it plays Tarmogoyf 4 times.
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Citrus-God
I think you're thinking of Solidarity. Against ANT and TES, a good Landstill player will do well if he plays his counters wisely. That means knowing how far 2 soldier tokens and a Factory can go while having a gripload of counters.
Btw, try not to let SDT resolve post board against ANT.
This doesn't change the fact that Landstill is the aggro deck here. It's generally bad for the Landstill player to even play Standstill against ANT, as they will draw into better stuff than you in this matchup.
Playing your counters wisely means countering as many Chants as possible, and countering any early Tops. If ANT resolves Top, you're going to lose anyway, unless you play like 3 Factories the first 3 turns and beat them hard enough so they can't shape a hand that wins through counters. This is highly unlikely though.
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
I've been liking Spell Pierce alot, so far I'm testing it as a replacement for Spell Snare. Its nice that it also stops an early LED, Duress, or Thoughtseize as well. It still needs more testing but so far its pretty good.
I've been liking maindeck Crucible since it has its uses in plenty of matchups but I could see the logic for it being in the sideboard.
DoJ has been a bit underwhelming lately, perhaps its just bad luck but its been too slow for what it does.
And yet another point; I'd love to fit in some maindeck Path like some others are doing so I'll do some testing and see what I can take out. I could go back down to 23 lands but that could cause some problems.
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bahamuth
This doesn't change the fact that Landstill is the aggro deck here. It's generally bad for the Landstill player to even play Standstill against ANT, as they will draw into better stuff than you in this matchup.
I definitely dont mind playing a Standstill against them as long as I'm not playing it over a resolved SDT. Other than that, if they shape their hand, I'll be shaping mine too.
And no, Landstill is the control deck in that match up. If I had Morphling in play on Turn 2, then yes, I would be the Aggro deck using counters to cancel interaction. But, I dont. I'm going to beat down with Factories and Soldier tokens, which means I'm playing control because the point of control is to make an attempt to force the opposing deck to interact with you, which implies countering Chant effects. If Chant resolves, you must be an awful Landstill player. If Chant doesnt resolve, then you still have game because now they're forced to interact with you still.
I know what you're trying to get at, but saying Landstill should be aggro in this match up isnt the best way to describe what you're to say.
Quote:
Playing your counters wisely means countering as many Chants as possible, and countering any early Tops.
Not always. Spell Snares cant counter any of those, so those disrupt the opponent by countering Infernal Tutors. Everything else is either wiped off the board via EE or you should saccing Wastelands to slow them down.
Quote:
If ANT resolves Top, you're going to lose anyway, unless you play like 3 Factories the first 3 turns and beat them hard enough so they can't shape a hand that wins through counters. This is highly unlikely though.
That's a must counter, definitely.
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Jamie Wakefield:
A week or two ago I said I would explain why the French Regionals MGA decks were not really aggro decks at all.
Ghazban Ogre is Beatdown.
Sakura-Tribe Elder, Birds of Paradise and Eternal Witness are not Beatdown or even Aggro. They are Green control.
Forest go.
Forest, play a 1/1, sac him to go get another Forest, is not beatdown.
-
Forest, Ghazban, Go.
Forest, Rancor, Rancor, pitch a card for Bounty, attack for nine on turn 2 is BEATDOWN.
Well, i think its similar, just because you might attack earlier than in other MUs you are still not taking the aggro role. I think of it more as an opportunity strike (and a necessary one at that).
As far as I remember the article that put up the aggro/control statement did not include combo decks. So naming a role would be really difficut.
