-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
@Rockout
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rockout
Your list runs 17 blue cards. 1 above the bare minimum of 16.
you missed wish which makes 19
3 bs
3 still
1 jace
4 force
4 snare
2 cs
2 wish
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LostButSeeking
Adding two tops (and I'm considering adding a 3rd) considerably helped my matchup against Merfolk and that tempo-thresh-like dreadstill list I constantly complain about. In your first 10 cards, you usually see 4 lands, and when they stifle/waste two of them (denying you dual lands and therefore both of your main colors) it's really, really ugly. Being able to look for lands anywhere in your top 3 cards rather than just your top card is really, really helpful.
+1
@FoolofaTook
Quote:
You ditched a brainstorm, a counter spell and a vindicate (basically) to add 3 tops.
I Ditched 4th brainstorm for the third top
I Ditched 3rd counter spell for fourth snare
And I Ditched 2nd vindicate for disk; which is much more important in many more matches. Realistically this was the second vindicate (4 utility slots, 2 of them are wish, 1 vindicate which used to be 2 relic, followed by 1, then switched to 1 of vindicate)
Quote:
You have a better chance to sort things out early, but with spell snare and S.T.P you really don't want to tap out to drop S.D.T on turn 1
If your on the draw against most of the decks in this format you probably aren't playing top on your t1. You more then likely play it t2 where its a safe reliable play. Obviously it depends on the match ups etc.
Quote:
then on turn 2 you'd really like to keep two mana open to at least bluff a counter spell
That's not as realistic with spell snare and daze in the meta any longer. On top of that your more then likely not getting double blue in the early game. If you are it's through a dual and that in itself isn't exactly optimal.
Quote:
You also don't have as much leverage to do the drop a fetch, drop a fetch thing that messes with a lot of aggro control attempts to dictate tempo early.
Leverage meaning counter-magic? What aggro control are you talking about? Be a-bit more specific.
Quote:
I guess I can see where top makes the deck a bit stronger in the mid game, but I think it weakens the position overall until you get there and I don't think Land-still wants to do that.
a.Top makes the overall game plan more redundant which in terms means YOU WIN MORE OFTEN.
b. There really isn't a (Getting there) position your referring to. Top on the play is so stupid strong that you dictate the game from t2 on. I hear library manipulation wins games. also to note that it enables stupid-ness from your other synergies ie decree off the top force off the top wish e.o.t earlier redundancy in your draws. Your also allowed to cut the crap from your models that makes land-still fundamentally weak because most of the older models play cards that are (Fair) top is (Unfair) which leads to scenarios where you win because of the (Unfair-ness)
c. I've been testing Top in land-still for 7 months personally and i'm telling you it's both incredibly solid and it deserves slots in the deck. Even the people who prefer F.O.F over top i.e. Konsultant (Geoff Smelski) and Rockout (Micheal mzzsszzeck.....<3) agree that top is good and the difference between F.O.F and Top is more play style preference then anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LostButSeeking
Adding two tops (and I'm considering adding a 3rd) considerably helped my matchup against Merfolk and that tempo-thresh-like dreadstill list I constantly complain about. In your first 10 cards, you usually see 4 lands, and when they stifle/waste two of them (denying you dual lands and therefore both of your main colors) it's really, really ugly. Being able to look for lands anywhere in your top 3 cards rather than just your top card is really, really helpful.
+1
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mossivo1986
Leverage meaning counter-magic? What aggro control are you talking about? Be a-bit more specific.
I meant the ability to just drop fetches until the opponent actually does something that requires responding to. Playing 3x Top means wanting to put it out there early to get maximum effect from it. That interferes with the ability to put land in play that is not touchable by wasteland.
I have games where I put out two flooded strand and a polluted delta before I actually crack anything. That's because the opponent is sitting there with a stifle in hand and a wasteland and he doesn't want to tap out to drop a threat because he loses the stifle opportunity. The first three turns of that game have gone at my pace, not his, despite him having the nuts in hand to make me miserable if I have to actually start breaking the fetches. Playing 3 top would make me have to play that differently enough of the time for the character of the matchup to change.
One of the beautiful things about Landstill is that it both has enough land not to have to worry about digging frantically for some at the start, and it really doesn't have to play anything at all early other than land. That's a big part of why the deck is good against a lot of the meta, it's the ultimate passive aggressive deck and that's because it can be just passive.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
I meant the ability to just drop fetches until the opponent actually does something that requires responding to. Playing 3x Top means wanting to put it out there early to get maximum effect from it. That interferes with the ability to put land in play that is not touchable by wasteland.
I think your logic is flawed on two parts.
1. Not being interactive. There are VERY few matchups where landstill should just not be interactive in the early game. And to this extent I mean land pass unless they do something. Yes Landstill does have the ability to just whipe matchups based on it's inevitable card quality, but the sheer ammount of matchups landstill operates on beating is massive. This is the first reason few players choose landstill as an archtype when it comes to legacy. With such a wide variety one must first understand the timing of every matchup in order to just play non-interactive draw go. While I do agree that in matchups like Ant you don't make a move until you see a reasonable win or stopper (Much like euchre) when it comes to trumping your opponent. Where-as against MUC you want to abuse the shit out of every resource you have because they generally have inevitability on landstill because of their massive ca (the ability to play rediculous draw like 3-4 FOF or 3 Stroke of genius, etc.) The bottom line is that against models like threshhold that pack stifle you don't have a prayer if your going to play for the late game say against w thresh. They can simply lock you in the long game with the counterbalance teeg hard lock. The only prayer you have in those matchups from what I understand (without top) is to play decree, which most people run 2, and if they run stifle thats basicly GG right there.
2. Land choices. I don't know about you but unless I absolutely fully understand the situation (and even when I do) I generally fetch and island or a plains. Now granted some of you play a swamp and I understand the logic behind it, but unless you have 4 basics out or you absolutely know your not playing against wasteland/stifle combintion then I would venture to say your ALWAYS grabbing T1. U T2. W T3. U T4. W. It is with this logic and your statement that I assume that you generally fetch for duals.
Remember this logic:
Legacy: Basics>Fetches>Duals
Quote:
I have games where I put out two flooded strand and a polluted delta before I actually crack anything.
This is a flaw as your limiting your card quality unless you have reasonable belief that your opponent is in fact running stifle. If this is your logic and your drawing multiple fetches then yes I do understand your logic but I would think under these circumstances that you lead with a basic then top on t2 with fetch in play. If you see the daze and stifle thats ok because then your one basic against 2 duals and a basic comming into your t3 and while you've lost one land and a top to 2 spells you can just as easily recover if you have another land force standstill brainstorm stp ee you get the point. It's all about your timing and its something you can't teach, but you have to know based on your hand when its time to procede with the countermagic.
Quote:
That's because the opponent is sitting there with a stifle in hand and a wasteland and he doesn't want to tap out to drop a threat because he loses the stifle opportunity. The first three turns of that game have gone at my pace, not his, despite him having the nuts in hand to make me miserable if I have to actually start breaking the fetches. Playing 3 top would make me have to play that differently enough of the time for the character of the matchup to change.
.
Overall the nuts should be talked about in regards to what your card quality. One mans x3 goyf hand is a landstill's dream. Bottom line landstill needs card quality over CA and your promoting CA, which I gaurentee you will change your mind with testing and lots of love <3!
Quote:
One of the beautiful things about Landstill is that it both has enough land not to have to worry about digging frantically for some at the start, and it really doesn't have to play anything at all early other than land.
This is myth now. It's something that is the way landstill used to play. No longer; hoever, because experianced players will rip your ass if they see your going to play reactive still. Landstill CAN NOT be a reactive deck. You can't just not be aggresive. Even Konsultants list with all it's removal still proactively plays it ahead of time, (see 2x disk.) Landstill has to win a mid-game tempo war most games to come out on top. Most of the time this is rather easy because the rest of the format rides on this t2-t3-t4 crap that is always 50-50 depending on what you play. Not with landstill. Your mid-game should be filled with interactive cards that you not only set up in the early game with top brainstorm, sometimes standstill and once in a while jace, humility or elspeth, but you honeslty need to understand that not being interactive allows for your opponent to play shenanigans, and sometimes landstill can't answer those shenanigans when your playing draw go. This is the exact same reasoning for months that Dif and I both said that counterspell was not only factually not strong (snare, daze, counterbalance.) but also because it's theoreticly bad because it stop mid and late game tempo (bad) because we are already supposed to have won by that purposed late game. Now to note I have re-added counterspell back because the meta has slowed and one just cannot hope to beat ant without some combination of countermagic other then snare force in the main. The other half of it is that counterspell is good at stopping opposing plainswalkers (Something I had a problem with dealing with other then in combat with my old model) It is with this reasoning that counterspell actually became semi-viable.
Quote:
That's a big part of why the deck is good against a lot of the meta, it's the ultimate passive aggressive deck and that's because it can be just passive.
Actually I would have to say 43land.dec is the ultimate passive aggresive monster. That or White thresh. That deck is just rediculous with card quality.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
Counterspell has always been a staple in Landstill. It's the midgame do-all counter that stabilizes the card disadvantage that Force of Will loses in the early game.
Spell Snare is a relatively recent addition to the deck because more than a few bombs in the meta are at 2cc and they tend to happen early enough that it's hard to counter them satisfactorily with Counterspell.
Landstill doesn't work in the absence of Counterspell unless you have a way to really increase the tempo of the game in your favor. At that point you're really not playing Landstill any more you're playing something else that shares many of the characteristics of Landstill but not the deliberate play style, something like Ultimate Walker.
3x Sensei's Divining Top and 3x-4x Standstill is a lot of pressure to move faster than you'd normally like too. Those cards in the opening hand have to be used or you have virtual card disadvantage working against you. Standstill has always had the issue that it's a situational card that can sit in the hand unused due to circumstances. Having SDT also be a card that can get pinned in the hand, or open you up to a devastating opposing opening is a lot of weight for the deck to bear.
I just see a bunch of situations where I'm staring at an SDT in the hand, even on the play, and knowing that I'm opening myself up to opposing plays if I choose to play it.
It's just an opinion, but I'm very uncomfortable with playing a Landstill deck that has to play stuff early before the opponent has been parried. It just doesn't feel right.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FoolofaTook
I just see a bunch of situations where I'm staring at an SDT in the hand, even on the play, and knowing that I'm opening myself up to opposing plays if I choose to play it.
What turn 1 plays are you thinking of when one mana of any color would make a difference? Maybe for SS if you're on the draw, but honestly, most people especially game 1 tend not to throw 2cc cards into an open U
Also, Counterspell isn't card advantage. It's a 1-for-1 trade.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rsaunder
What turn 1 plays are you thinking of when one mana of any color would make a difference? Maybe for SS if you're on the draw, but honestly, most people especially game 1 tend not to throw 2cc cards into an open U
Also, Counterspell isn't card advantage. It's a 1-for-1 trade.
I said Counterspell began to stabilize the card disadvantage that Force of Will creates. A 1 for 1 looks very good if you've had to do a 2 for 1 early on to avoid a problem. It looks particularly good when you're using it to stop their pitch FoW, something Spell Snare cannot do. Being unable to answer an early midgame spell because you're holding Spell Snare instead of Counterspell can be a game breaker. Also 4 Spell Snare/2 Counterspell splits are probably unwieldy in a big meta, with 3/3 more rational against the potential threats.
The 1 mana spell you're most likely to play on turn 1 is Swords to Plowshares, which if you don't have access to it is rarely game-breaking, although not having access to Brainstorm can be . Spell Snare is iffy on the draw game 1, against aggro-control you'll walk into their Daze a lot, although again that's not always critical unless they just dropped Counterbalance on you. Storm decks have a real tendency to go off on turn 2 on the play though - especially if the other deck tapped out on turn 1. Having a tapped land and a Sensei's Divining Top on the board instead of a fetch you're going to break for blue and Spell Snare can be a big deal in that situation. That's a situation in which having SDT in your hand on turn 1 is a bad and potentially fatal thing to have in the build - it has no positive attributes for you.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
@ Foolofatook:
You are now stating that Top is bad by quoting some bad plays with top. I could do the same for Elspeth: Elspeth is bad because he could have a Grim Lavamancer and a 5/6 Goyf, Elpeth doesn't fix that. You see? Total bullshit.
Top makes this deck more consistent. Running Top means you'll be able to flow land, removal, counter smoothly, and find a wincon when needed.
I still think that 3 is too much, but 2 is fine, IMO.
I wouldn't drop Top either when I have spell snare available and he is on the play, just wait a turn, that's fine.. Top is a lategame gamebreaker, and far from useless. He lets you find all the great stuff that landstill has to offer.You should test it. Btw, I like a hand with 3 fetches and a top more then 3 fetches without the ability to abuse them.
About Spell Snare: You're making too much a deal out of the fact that someone prefers 4 Snare / 2 Counterspell, where you (and myself) prefer 3/3. It's all dependant on the meta, and you don't know no shit about the decks Moss is seeing. Don't hammer so much on the choice of a single card.
Question for all: 60 cards, or 61 with one utility card more?
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
Currently I´m testing 61 cards with E.Dragon as the 1 utitily card and for now it works great.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NQN
Currently I´m testing 61 cards with E.Dragon as the 1 utitily card and for now it works great.
I ran the 61 card list for a while, but now I wouldn't touch it. 60 cards has just seemed infinitely more consistent mana-wise for me.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
I ran 61 cards (with Tolaria West as card 61) but was convinced to cut it for another island (making E. Dragon card 61). Now I don't get EE lock nearly as often, but am more resistant to land destruction. C'est la vie.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
I'm using 24 lands with 61 cards but no E. Dragon. I'm not sure if I want to go back to 60 or not somehow.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
61 cards is good only if you play E.Dragon since he can just be a plain or a lategame threat.
I prefer to keep my colorless card count low, so I run 2 Mishra, 1 Mutavault, 1 Ruins, 1 Dust Bowl and 1 Tolaria West.
Maindeck I use 2 Vindicate and I am testing 1 Mystical Tutor, but I'm not sure if he belongs to this deck.. He could be Jace, but I feel the tutor ability neat in this deck.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
You get away with playing 61 cards because you're playing a control deck. That's really all there is to it. Compared to every other deck, the 61st card is less likely to fuck you over because your goal isnt to win, it's to control.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
61 cards still makes the deck less predictable. Not hugely so, but in a competition where bad draws is one of the reasons you go out, and it is, running 61 cards is a competitive disadvantage even if a small one.
If you really feel you need to run 61 cards to get an option in the deck that would not be there otherwise then it's probably wiser to install some way to get the option via a wishboard or alternately just to put it in the sideboard and go without it in game one. There's no absolutely necessary option that's going to get left out of a 60 card base, because if it was absolutely necessary you'd find a way to squeeze it in given that there are situational cards in the deck already (Standstill being the primary one) that can always be reduced by one to fit in your necessary card.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
I've done pleanty of research with the 61st cards and 62nd cards in land still. 61 doesn't hurt. 62 was really just bad for consistency.
Also counter spell in landstill isn't exactly a staple. Yes it's good, but theres pleanty of ways to play around counterspell as I have succesfully shown for quite some time. I decided to re-ad it in because I needed it for utility mid-late game use against certain matchups. Not because I needed the 1-1. I needed ANT to be slightly better, and I also needed stax to be much more winnable then it was before. Without counterspell those matchups are INCREDIBLY hard. With them the matchups are still reasonably tough, but it's significantly easier then it was before.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FoolofaTook
61 cards still makes the deck less predictable. Not hugely so, but in a competition where bad draws is one of the reasons you go out, and it is, running 61 cards is a competitive disadvantage even if a small one.
I disagree with this. Mathmatically, this deck wants 23.5 lands. Obviously, I can’t run half a land. The best solution that I can come up with is to run a 61st card that sometimes is a land and sometimes isn’t. E. Dragon is both a land and a not-land. Tolaria west operates in much the same way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FoolofaTook
If you really feel you need to run 61 cards to get an option in the deck that would not be there otherwise then it's probably wiser to install some way to get the option via a wishboard or alternately just to put it in the sideboard and go without it in game one. There's no absolutely necessary option that's going to get left out of a 60 card base, because if it was absolutely necessary you'd find a way to squeeze it in given that there are situational cards in the deck already (Standstill being the primary one) that can always be reduced by one to fit in your necessary card.
I also disagree with this.
Aggro, Aggro-Control and Combo all want to run exactly 60 cards because you want to see your most correct threat and your most correct protection as often as possible. Thus, your deck needs to contain as few cards as you are allowed to run (60). For Aggro and Aggro Control, the most important number in the game is the opponent's lifetotal, but for Standstill and its ilk, the most important number is yours. Standstill (and its family) does not deal in threats, it deals in answers
And running answers is dangerous. Can you name any card in our deck—any card at all!—that’s going to be useful against every matchup? Even the ever-versatile, swiss-army-knife-of-a-solution counterspell falls flat on its face against one land belcher or something like it. There isn’t a slot that says most correct answer the way tarmogoyf says most correct threat. Because of this, we have to squeeze our lists to accomplish answers for as many different situations as possible. We want both to run an extra card (the land/not-land) and have as many answers to as many solutions as possible. I (and NQN, and Ultimoman, and Mossivo) have all made peace with these two competing desires by going up to 61 cards.
I think that here, and with your comments on SDT, you are asking the wrong questions. You seem to me to be concerned with whether something is correct on basic principles. I think it is more important to ask whether or not something works. Mossivo (you don’t have to listen to me, I’m a scrub) is a great landstill player, and he says yes, top works. NQN and Ultimoman say yes, 61 cards works. “Yes, it works” is a lot more important that “no, that shouldn’t work.”
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
@LostButSeeking
Quote:
Mossivo (you don’t have to listen to me, I’m a scrub) is a great landstill player
Am I allowed to +1 my own ego?
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LostButSeeking
Can you name any card in our deck—any card at all!—that’s going to be useful against every matchup?
Vindicate? :D
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ectoplasm
Vindicate? :D
+ FOW & CS, Top and Brainstorm
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
Clearly, most of us agree that this deck needs 23+a-little land. I use 22 + Tolaria West as 23th, and dragon as the +23,5th land.
But if we are agreeing on the need of Dragon, what other card is your 61th card? Following this logic:
Lands: 23 + Dragon
Removal: 10
Permission: 10
Win: 4
Utility: 2 (3 would make 61)
What is the 3th Utility slot? Disk? Vindicate? Clique? Relic? And why is that card better then none? I understand the situation if it's a tutorable answer a la moat or crucible (note that I listed moat as removal, and crucible as win), but a Vindicate as 61th card isn't that great I think.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Mathmatically, this deck wants 23.5 lands.
Elaborate. Specifically, how many consecutive land drops do you want to make?
re: drawing two Tops: How does that ever even happen aside from your opening hand? Further, with a fetchland, they have cycling 1.
re: Counterspell: I usually want to die when this is in my opening hand against Daze aggro on the draw. It's ludicrously slow until turn four or so. It is obviously sick in the mid and late game and absurd in the mirror etc.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
Here's my list for Waco, TX this Saturday (assuming it's a balanced meta with Loam/Goblins/Thresh/Landstill/combo/tribal etc).
Lands
4 Flooded Strand
2 Polluted Delta
3 Tundra
2 Underground Sea
1 Scrubland
3 Plains
2 Island
4 Mishra's Factory
1 Academy Ruins
1 Dust Bowl
1 Mystical Tutor
3 Brainstorm
2 Sensei's Divining Top
3 Standstill
2 Cunning Wish
3 Engineered Explosives
4 Swords to Plowshares
2 Vindicate
2 Wrath of God
1 Humility
1 Nevinryall's Disk
4 Force of Will
3 Spell Snare
2 Counterspell
2 Elsepth, Knight Errant
2 Decree of Justice
1 Eternal Dragon
SB:
1 Pulse of the Fields
1 Extirpate
1 Enlightened Tutor
1 Crucible of Worlds
1 Return to Dust
3 Relic of Progenitus
2 Engineered Plague
2 Path to Exile
3 Negate
Mana-cost for CB/Chalice issues:
0cc - 3
1cc - 13
2cc - 5
3cc - 4
4cc - 6
5cc - 4
others - 3
This list is therefore prone to Chalice/CB@1 but you have EE/Disk/Return to Dust/Vindicate which dodges Chalice/CB to set your cards free. In an unknown meta, 2 Vindicates seems ideal for me. I haven't played at Waco so it's relatively unknown, and I feel assured with a list that's more flexible yet without losing power. The list I'm playing has a little less draw power, but much more diverse answers in game 1. Post-board games should be in my favor. I'm still reluctant to cut Return to Dust since it's saved my ass a couple of games, although it's the rarest tutor since with Disk, you can Wish for ETutor and blow up the artifacts/enchantments anyway.
3 Negates is good. I've been testing 2 Negates, 1 Forbid and I never wished for Forbid. Discarding 2 cards isn't cool since this deck is about resources. And if you did discard 2 cards, it means you're winning more since if you're not winning more and you're discarding 2 cards, then you've just lost 2 cards to answer the next dangerous threat.
I'm only playing 2EPlague. My strategy against Ichorid/tribal is to pack 2 EPlague, 2 Wrath, 6 StP effects. StP effects alone should stay a game good enough (think of it as game 1 but better with more STP and answers). Against Elves or green tribal, I'm wary of Grips, but since I have 3EE, 1 Disk, 1 Humility, 2 Plague, they have 4 Grips, I should be fine anyway since them gripping = them losing possible MD space for more threats.
I'm a big fan of MTutor, and after debating the last slot with:
VClique, 4th Standstill, 3rd Vindicate, 3rd Wish, 4th Brainstorm, 4th snare, 3rd Top, I preferred MTutor as a silver bullet to grab anything that I need (wincon = Decree, sweeper = Wrath, CB/Chalice destroyer = Vindicate, other answers = Wish, Counterspells = FOW/Snare/CS). I most likely will replace it with the 4th Snare if testing isn't good tonight.
This last slot is still flexible and after testing tonight, I'll see if I hated MTutor at all. If I don't and it adds to consistency and tutoring for needed answer, I'll play with 2 Extirpates in the board and maybe even 2 pulses so I can board one in the MD and leave one in the SB so I can Wish or MTutor them, increasing the chances of seeing the needed spell in my bad matchups.
Testing results will come tonight. Wish me luck. (By the way, after this tourney, I'm back to working my old old old UWg Loamstill that I've been advocating I think 30 pages back lol).
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
klaus
+ FOW & CS, Top and Brainstorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ectoplasm
Vindicate? :D
My apologies if I'm a little bit less that perfectly precise here, I write at work and I'm a little distracted. I also had a much longer post written, but it was really windbagg-y, so I shortened it. Apparently some of the meaning of the post was lost. I'll try to explain again.
Tarmogoyf is "the most efficient threat". Every aggro deck, generally, wants to see him, and play him. (And Aggro-Control wants to protect him.) Because of this, aggro decks want to have as few cards as possible so they see TMET as often as possible. You see? Tarmogoyf is “the best” card in the deck.
Landstill doesn’t have a “best” card in the deck because it’s not a threat deck, it’s an answer deck. “The Most Efficient Answer” would be something like
Force of Elephant 4UU
Instant
You don’t have to play ~’s mana cost.
Choose one: Destroy any number of target permanents or counter target spell or counter target activated or triggered ability.
Split Second
That would be about perfect (it still doesn’t kill shroud creatures, but we’ll try to contain the pain). But we don’t have that and are forced to work with what we have. And while force of will is useful facing a lethal fireball, it’s not useful facing down lethal goyf damage. Similarly, while Vindicate is a great card, if you top-deck it facing down a nimble mongoose, it’s not going to save you. Brainstorm and Top aren’t answers, they help you hit the answers you need (force or swords or wrath of god or whatever). We are forced to live under a patchwork umbrella of answers which won’t completely keep out every threat. The additional protection you gain from running the single additional card is, I think, more useful than living with a 60 card restraint. Running 37 non-land cards allows you to have a better umbrella, even if it’s technically incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
frogboy
Elaborate. Specifically, how many consecutive land drops do you want to make?
Well that’s the rub, isn’t it? I want four in the first four turns, two of which tap for white, and hopefully one of which (at least) taps for blue. But if I’m facing merfolk or tempo thresh or eva green or team america, I’ll need more than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
crz87
Wish me luck.
Good luck! Your list is interesting. It looks like you've cut some draw--a standstill, a brainstorm, fact or fiction--for space to run more answers. Let us know how it goes.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
What a bullshit. Clearly, there are better answers then other. Should a deck run 1 Terror, 1 Diabolic Edict and 1 Disenchant, settle for 61 cards, or run Vindicate twice? The goal of the deck doens't state the number of cards that is optimal, it will always be 60. (Unless you're running Battle of Wits). IMO, Disk is definitly the weakest card in the deck. Or crucible, or whatever. The point is, there is a card weaker then the rest. The only reason I can understand for running 61 cards is to fix your ratio's between land:removal:permission:win. I don't think it's necessary, though. By just altering the cards (run a BS, top or dragon more) or altering your playstyle, you'll be able to run a deck with 60 cards consistently.
Moss, you said 61 is good, 62 is bad for consistenty. 61 is just as bad, but a little less obvious. Please explain why 61 is better then 60.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
Lands
4 Flooded Strand
2 Polluted Delta
3 Tundra
2 Underground Sea
1 Scrubland
3 Plains
2 Island
4 Mishra's Factory
1 Academy Ruins
1 Dust Bowl
3 Brainstorm
2 Sensei's Divining Top
3 Standstill
3 Cunning Wish
3 Engineered Explosives
4 Swords to Plowshares
2 Vindicate
2 Wrath of God
1 Humility
1 Nevinryall's Disk
4 Force of Will
3 Spell Snare
2 Counterspell
2 Elsepth, Knight Errant
2 Decree of Justice
1 Eternal Dragon
SB:
1 Pulse of the Fields
1 Extirpate
1 Enlightened Tutor
1 Return to Dust
3 Path to Exile
3 Negate
3 Relic of Progenitus
2 Engineered Plague
Mana-cost for CB/Chalice issues:
0cc - 3
1cc - 12
2cc - 5
3cc - 5
4cc - 6
5cc - 4
others - 3
Testing yesterday:
Aggro Loam (pre-board) 1-2
Aggro Loam (post-board) 1-1
ANT (pre-board) 1-2
ANT (post-board) 2-1
Survival Elves (pre-board) 2-0
Pox (pre-board) 2-0
Burn (pre-board) 1-2
Trends that I noticed: The matchup pre-board v.s. aggroloam is tough. Their gameplan nullifies your attempt to 1for1 or xfor1 them. If they get loam going, you're in bad shape. Wishing for Extirpate on Loam slows them but they have 3 Burning Wish to fetch the other in the SB. Vore is the main threat, and Devastating Dreams is a huge one that is salvagable by Snares. Everything is a goddamn threat. Bobs/Goyfs/Vores/Seismic/Loam. You want to save StP on Vores and playing against this deck is tough because of the more limited choices you can play your deck. I.e. you can't just snare bob/goyfs when risking yourself to possible DD. Their recursion really nullifies your removal (non-StP removal).
Postboard Relics helped a lot. I want to play 4 Relic, which should help the Dredge matchup, but the deal with Aggro-Loam is that they tend to board out Vores, knowing the hate's in. Humility becomes less potent when they bring in grips. Overall, this isn't a good matchup even post board. It's in our favor, but it's a tough matchup to play, and very easy to make play mistakes. I've tweaked my list for 3 Paths in the SB due to this matchup, and the fact that Path should improve other aggro-matchups as well (I used to run 2 Paths postboard).
Vindicate was good all day, although 3cc sorcery is still a bugger lol. Vindicate would shine in the mirror against Planeswalkers. I think Vindicate is the right decision for an unknown meta. Return the Dust was very relevant for me in the SB and it gave me outs to Crucible/Wastelock and nuking Survival.
I don't feel secure against the combo matchup without hate-bears. But I thought about it more, they're going to hate on the hate-bears anyway, so just deal with it. I wished landstill has a better clock, which is why I liked the hate-bears for nullifying ANT. I might play 2-3 Canonist to house Enchantress as well. But right now, I'm not sure about the TX metagame. Should be more aggro-focused according to my friends, so EPlague stays in. I won against ANT because I drew way more countermagic. 7 Chant ANT is pretty scary for this deck though since we're not relying on CB to help out, so it's going to be 1fo1 or 2for1 in their favor as they bait out counters and FOWs.
I've decided on 3 Cunning Wishes after testing. I feel that most of the games, I've won or recovered from Cunning Wish. MTutor's only drawback was the card disadvantage. It's still HUGE in the deck due to its ability to fetch so much in the deck, but I realized that I wanted to escape another 1cc slot against Chalice/Countertop.
Cunning Wish seemed good since it could fetch me:
ETutor - If I'm in good board position, I'll grab Standstill
- If I'm not in good board position, it grabs Disk/Humility
Negate - Against FOW/combo etc
Pulse - Needless to say
Extirpate - Always good in the mid-game when cards are in the yard and you can get rid of what's potentially a threat in future turns e.g. Tombstalker or Wastelock.
Path - the crucial creature removal.
Return to Dust - There's always going to be a target. Just relying on EE and Disk doesn't do it for me. Now I have 3 EE, 3 Wish, 1 Disk as outs to arti/enchant hate.
Then again, I might swap the 3rd Wish for the 4th Standstill. As far as I know, I think it's wrong not to play 4 Standstill. I'm just worried about an unknown meta being vial/Dreadstill infested, which it probably will be.
I'm just wondering who has tested 3 Wish builds? The thing I note that if the 3rd Wish is winning more, that's not too bad since you can grab ETutor to secure a win to prevent them from recovering (Standstill/Disk/Humility). Most cases, Wish saves my ass out of tight corners (aggro/control alike). What W,B,U instant mass removal is available as a wish target? If there's one, I'd drop to 1 Wrath MD and a Wishable Wrath in the SB since I'm running Vindicate.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Elf_Ascetic
IMO, Disk is definitly the weakest card in the deck. Or crucible, or whatever. The point is, there is a card weaker then the rest. The only reason I can understand for running 61 cards is to fix your ratio's between land:removal:permission:win. I don't think it's necessary, though.Moss, you said 61 is good, 62 is bad for consistenty. 61 is just as bad, but a little less obvious. Please explain why 61 is better then 60.
QFT. 61 decreases the consistency. Why should we handicap ourselves?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chapin
[B] 2) My mana ration requires 25.5 land if I were 60, so I'm playing 25 in a 61 (or 62).[/B]
You are rationalizing the terrible. (You want to draw those Natural Orders, right?) I'll admit I've been guilty of this before, but it is wrong. First, you have so many ways to add the equivalent of fractional amounts of mana to your deck. Ending up with a fractional amount (if it's even really what you need / want) should not be a problem.
http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/s...hat_of_it.html
http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/s..._Roulette.html
Quote:
What W,B,U instant mass removal is available as a wish target? If there's one, I'd drop to 1 Wrath MD and a Wishable Wrath in the SB since I'm running Vindicate.
Wing Shards? It's really slow, and if you are playing Path in the side as well, it's not worth running. It's nice against random, but Path is more effecient, and rarely will it storm for two or more. The other ones I can think of are narrow; Fracturing Gust and Tsabo's Decree. Enlightened Tutor out of the wish-board can fetch "mass removal", in the form of Explosives, Humility, or Disk. It's card-disadvantage, and super slow, however. (2U+W+a draw step+at least 2) The gatherer shows a card called Retaliate, but it's really bad. 2WW Instant destroy all creatures that dealt you damage this turn. Seize the Soul can act as a two-for one, but it's costs BB, and can't hit W or B creatures.
Quote:
Seize the Soul 2BB
Instant
Destroy target nonwhite, nonblack creature. Put a 1/1 white Spirit creature token with flying onto the battlefield.
Haunt (When this spell card is put into a graveyard after resolving, exile it haunting target creature.)
When the creature Seize the Soul haunts is put into a graveyard, destroy target nonwhite, nonblack creature. Put a 1/1 white Spirit creature token with flying onto the battlefield. (kill a dude, haunt token, throw token in front of a guy to kill him.)
Quote:
I'm just wondering who has tested 3 Wish builds?
I used to run 3 Wish, 0 Fact, and now I run a 2/2 split. I thought about running three to be able to see cards like Pulse faster against sligh, and maybe add more bombs in the side to Wish for, but for now I'm playing just two. With three they can clog your hand and in some matchups, but if you play multiple Path that shouldn't be a problem.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
I might do 2 Wish, 1 Fact. The problem now is my 4cc slot is tight:
2 Wrath
1 Humility
1 Disk
2 Elspeth
That's six 4cc slot. I can push it with a FoF but I don't feel comfortable playing eight 4cc slots and play against matchups where I cannot hit my 4th land as consistently as I want to, or matchups that end before 4cc. How did you find your 4cc slots? Perhaps you were playing speedstill with no wrath? I might drop down to 1 Wrath, but 2 Wrath has been good for me all the time, even in 1 for 1 Goyfwraths or Stalkerwraths.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
I don't think you need to be too concerned with running more 4 drops. I remember a conversation I had with Moss awhile back that included the phase: "We run so many unfair cards." This got me thinking about Humility, Elspeth, FOF, and Disk. All cost 4, all are insanely good even on their own. How often do you lose when you have 4 or 5+ mana in play? I know that answer for me isn't very often. In closing, our 4 drops > format. No need to cut them.
BTW: I finally blocked progenitus with a factory at my last tournament. Hoorah!
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
The problem with having 8 4cc cards is that a significant part of the meta won't let you get to 4cc easily and some won't let you keep it (particularly on-color) when you do get there. I hate to go back to the Tao of Landstill, but a huge part of what we do well is not beat ourselves.
A 61 card deck with 7 or 8 4cc cards is just spitting in the wind. It'll look great when it clicks and it will fail to click more often than a 60 card deck with 6 4cc spells.
Consistency has to be the hallmark of an archetype like this.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
I used to run only 1 wrath of god in my landstill builds, having 4 swords, 3 ee and 2 wishes that can get 2 path or 1 slaughter pact have been ok for me to control creature decks.
my 4c spells consist in:
2 elspeth
1 wog
1 humility
1 moat
1 fof
having moat+humilty locks the game totally agaisnt most decks in the format, but i'm thinking on replacing the moat for another wog since pridemage came out. that cat sucks.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rockout
I don't think you need to be too concerned with running more 4 drops. I remember a conversation I had with Moss awhile back that included the phase: "We run so many unfair cards." This got me thinking about Humility, Elspeth, FOF, and Disk. All cost 4, all are insanely good even on their own. How often do you lose when you have 4 or 5+ mana in play? I know that answer for me isn't very often. In closing, our 4 drops > format. No need to cut them.
BTW: I finally blocked progenitus with a factory at my last tournament. Hoorah!
I run 8 4c cards, and Konsultant runs 10.
I have 2 Elspeth, 3 DoJ and 3 WoG. Konsultant has that plus 2 Disks. Also, when we cast EE, we tend to invest an average of 4+ mana on it.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
I believe in the current models that I play that there are 4 overall utility slots. If you look at the previous posts by me and look at any of my models you will see I label as so.
The problem is this: When you have 4 utility slots you also need to have even numbers across the board for your different suits I.E. removal, draw, permission, win. Now granted in a metagame like todays it's much easier to see that if your playing a heavier aggro/ aggro control lineup then perhaps the removal suit should be heavier then the permission etc. The Model's I present to everyone are specific models against a general consensus of the meta-game; so any specific meta-tuning is up to you all.
Back to the point: in order to satisfy my requirements and have 4 utility slots you are more then likely playing 61 cards based on a 23 land mana base. I feel like the 2% chance you take in drawing inefficiency more then makes up for it in overall card quality.
I personally run one of the lowest curves in this thread. I have for a long time. that doesn't mean that I don't believe that other cards are bad, outdated, etc. I personally don't pay as much attention to the 4cc cards as I do the 2-3 drops this deck has to offer. To give you an idea the normal landstill list runs something like 2.6 ish for an average curve "maybe more."
At one point my curve was 2.18 which was a laugh riot to me because I was running 17 1cc cards. I still beat half the format, but the ends more then justified the means so I went back to running a much more top heavy version of the deck in order to beat normally winnable but happened to be problem matchups for me.
Consensus:
My model is the best, you all should run it and see how great I am. (extreme sarcasm)
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Citrus-God
I run 8 4c cards, and Konsultant runs 10.
I have 2 Elspeth, 3 DoJ and 3 WoG. Konsultant has that plus 2 Disks. Also, when we cast EE, we tend to invest an average of 4+ mana on it.
The "extra" 4 drops do require you play a tighter game the first few turns of the game. Don't piss away your Force on something that isn't really that relevent. They are also considerably stronger cards than most decks play. My wins have been easier than ever with this build. Pretty much I hit my 4th land cast one spell and realistically my opponent's begin to lose. Mana denial decks are a factor but then again they do give us a side board.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
Konsultant, mind posting a list? I know the ones at Hadleys included lots of FoF, which I'm a fan off. I've just not been experienced with playing with so many 4cc spells, partly because my meta is so LD-based lol.
Also, just curious, what are your real names on deckcheck?
Konsultant
Moss
Citrus-God
I believe you guys were the top8s at Hadley?
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
crz87
Konsultant, mind posting a list? I know the ones at Hadleys included lots of FoF, which I'm a fan off. I've just not been experienced with playing with so many 4cc spells, partly because my meta is so LD-based lol.
Also, just curious, what are your real names on deckcheck?
Konsultant
Moss
Citrus-God
I believe you guys were the top8s at Hadley?
Real names:
Since konsultant rarely posts on here and probobly wont see it. Konsultant's name is Geoff Smelski. My name is Joel Ferris. I don't know Citrus god, but I have his aim :).
Also Rockout, Konsultant, and another Team Left Fielder Top8'd Hadley, not me.
but I would like to mention that I haven't placed out of the top2 since Chicago in any tourney i've been in so far. I'm also in the source Legacy tourney if that means anything to you guys.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
crz87
Konsultant, mind posting a list? I know the ones at Hadleys included lots of FoF, which I'm a fan off. I've just not been experienced with playing with so many 4cc spells, partly because my meta is so LD-based lol.
If your meta is full of LD (meaning Aggro Loam, Sui and Stax. Merfolk and Tempo Thresh excluded), you should be running a better deck for that metagame instead of playing Landstill. Try something like Ichorid or Merfolk. But that's my opinion as a competitive magic player. If you want my advice on FoF and Landstill, it's good against LD. Sure you need to build up to 4 mana, but against LD, you will on average have 4 mana in play regardless due to you having such a high land density. So cast FoF, they'll separate those cards in one of those boring land vs. spells piles, and just proceed to stabilize. If you're playing against Merfolk or Tempo Thresh, just learn how to be patient and you'll win (I'm sorry that was brief, vague and lame, but that's always been how I approached those decks in testing).
Quote:
Also, just curious, what are your real names on deckcheck?
Citrus-God
Oh man, the last time I even Top 8 was with UGW CounterTop Thresh. That was a long ass time ago. But even if I play, the tournaments I play at dont put their Top 4-8 decklists on deckcheck.net.
Also, I havent played in a tournament for 4 months. I do playtest with my team still, so I'm still sharp enough to play magic properly. I'm sure I could Top 8 a tournament easily with Landstill. Especially with the new addition of SDTs in the maindeck and Counterbalances in the board.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
I've noticed our transvestite friend Meddling Mage falling out of grace lately, any specific reason to it? He/she seems like a real swiss army knife that can help in so many matchups, from siding him/her in against burn for dead cards like wog to shutting down aggroloam and annoying ichorid, posing a roadblock to TES/ANT, it just seems like a really solid sideboard slot to me.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ectoplasm
I've noticed our transvestite friend Meddling Mage falling out of grace lately, any specific reason to it? He/she seems like a real swiss army knife that can help in so many matchups, from siding him/her in against burn for dead cards like wog to shutting down aggroloam and annoying ichorid, posing a roadblock to TES/ANT, it just seems like a really solid sideboard slot to me.
theres more aggro in the format then combo or control (Bad) because of this control decks are packing more removal (bad) combo decks are faster (If they beat you it's going to be based on you not having an answer versus it being specificly MM.) This is also the reason why we play negate.
-
Re: [DTB] UW(x) Landstill
So apparently I didn't top 8 the source tourney. Opponents not showing up is just a bitch. I would have finished 4-1-1 and instead finished 3-1-2
