Page 276 of 276 FirstFirst ... 176226266272273274275276
Results 5,501 to 5,519 of 5519

Thread: [Deck] UW(x) Landstill

  1. #5501

    Re: [Deck] UW(x) Landstill

    I like 1 or 2 loams. If dark bant can run it we should be even better with it. Saga, hall, boseiju are all very impactful.

    I personally dislike lotus field; hands of saga + lotus field or karakas + lotus field seem aweful. The deck is already at the bare minimum W and U sources (14). I am also not sure that access to basic plains is more important than getting green; I would be tempted to run Misty over vista. We already have dragon to get plains.

    W + a draw step is a real cost, and you wonít see your targets that much more since you only have one e tutor. There are best targets and worst targets in your etutor package. You arenít reliably seeing that 1 etutor that much in a deck thatís isnít running ponder. Either the cost is worth it and you should cut the worst targets for more tutors so you can see the better ones more frequently; or the cost isnít worth it and you should cut the worst targets for 2x of all the better ones.

  2. #5502
    Tundra Player
    alphastryk's Avatar
    Join Date

    Feb 2011
    Location

    Atlanta
    Posts

    1,056

    Re: [Deck] UW(x) Landstill

    I'm not super sold on Run Afoul being better than even just a Path to Exile in the board, but I could be wrong.

    Loam does have potential, and would enable the Lotus Field play pattern again. From the lists we're discussing, seems like potential cuts would be Turtle or Seveinne's which fill similar roles.

    I'm becoming less convinced that Crop Rotation works well, especially without the Forest (or changing some Prismatic Vistas to Misty Rainforests) - its not realistic to be able to rotate for Bog consistently before turn 3-4, which brings the questions of "what decks are we trying to beat with this" and whether we'd rather have things that are easier to cast instead.

    2 E Tutors feels to me like the sweet spot if we're going with an E Tutor package in the sideboard.

  3. #5503
    Member

    Join Date

    Sep 2011
    Posts

    3,894

    Re: [Deck] UW(x) Landstill

    Quote Originally Posted by Reeplcheep View Post
    W + a draw step is a real cost, and you wonít see your targets that much more since you only have one e tutor. There are best targets and worst targets in your etutor package. You arenít reliably seeing that 1 etutor that much in a deck thatís isnít running ponder. Either the cost is worth it and you should cut the worst targets for more tutors so you can see the better ones more frequently; or the cost isnít worth it and you should cut the worst targets for 2x of all the better ones.
    W + draw step would be the argument against too many ETutors.

    But 1-ETutor + 1-ofs is better than a bunch of 2-ofs, as said before. You don't have to run bad tutor slots in the freed up space. That space could go to other cards. Saving SB space is still good. Suppose you board in ETutor + Canonist instead of 2 Canonists. You're going to see Canonist as often to hate on combo, except that some of the time you could choose to get Standstill or Pithing Needle instead of Canonist, and you never have to draw 2 Canonists in a row when it would be redundant, so you gain more flexibility. Without Ponder you won't see the 2-of that often either, and you'll have a harder time filtering away from the redundant 2 Canonist draws, so it's not like running 2 Canonist instead is somehow better.

  4. #5504

    Re: [Deck] UW(x) Landstill

    The chance of you hitting both Canonists, and you not having a brainstorm, and you know the opponent has no way to answer the first one, is so small that I donít understand why itís even worth mentioning. Having a 50% chance of not having to pay W and a Card for the first one is way more impactful and likely.

  5. #5505

    Re: [Deck] UW(x) Landstill

    If seeing the cards more often and consolidating sideboard slots is worth W and a Card, then the losing access to the worst card in your sideboard (say the 2nd veil) is worth accessing the best tutor target 50%! more. Saying that neither of the above options is true seems ludicrous.

    Itís like those 4c loam players who played 1 dryad arbor and 1 GSZ. It doesnít make any sense.

  6. #5506
    Member

    Join Date

    Sep 2011
    Posts

    3,894

    Re: [Deck] UW(x) Landstill

    Quote Originally Posted by Reeplcheep View Post
    The chance of you hitting both Canonists, and you not having a brainstorm, and you know the opponent has no way to answer the first one, is so small that I donít understand why itís even worth mentioning. Having a 50% chance of not having to pay W and a Card for the first one is way more impactful and likely.
    Decks like this tend to draw through at least half the deck before finishing the game. Unlike a tempo deck or midrange deck that can play the odds and gamble against unlikely draw sequences, Landstill will draw its 2-ofs a non-negligible amount of the time, and it doesn't have the full Xerox package to smooth draws (like Bant Uro or Jeskai HullDay would). That leads to building Landstill differently than you'd build a UWx Xerox deck.

    Fundamentally, Landstill has always been about choosing your 60 so that you can slam T2 Standstill with confidence that your random topdecks are favored over your opponent's random topdecks (more lands, more non-spell actions to take, opponent's deck full of dead draws), because Landstill is constructed for that kind of game while their deck isn't. If the opponent refuses your gambit, you go +3 cards in the fair game. You pick the 60 so both options are good for you and opponent is stuck with a lose-lose. It's a different engine, design, and play style. Landstill also gains some win% by constructing to have favorable late game draws and avoid these weird draw sequences while opponents can hit multiple dead draws; their decks are quadlasered to optimize the early game but can top deck worse in the lategame.

    I think that's why Fox talks so much about Xerox decks losing "at deck construction" to draw sequences like multiple Expressive Iteration or multiple Dreadnought enabler. That's a very (narrow and specific) Standstill view of Legacy interactions, because those are the small edges where Standstill decks pull ahead of other fair blue. In general, a tempo player isn't going to care about those things, they just want the highest % of doing the thing on turn 2-3 against the other fast deck, then accept some losses to variance (sculpting with cantrips to avoid). Landstill's long games see those effects come up more often. Landstill prefers to minimize avoidable variance because that variance adds up over a much longer number of random draws. It's easy to forget that after so many years of playing Delver and Uro-type decks, but I'm getting back some of that old intuition after picking up Landstill again.

    That's also why 2 Shark is fine. You don't need to quadlaser to have Shark. By the time we've stabilized the game and hit big mana, we've hit some threat. It's more important to save that space for tools to help stabilize than to go overboard on threats. We are pretty much always the control, not the aggressor.

    For ETutor, the W cost is minor. Unlike the tap-out Ux decks that play at sorcery speed, Landstill makes a lot of reactive plays at instant speed. You pass with mana up, see what the opponent does, then decide to EOT ETutor into hate. You'll have open mana so it's a matter of using that mana on ETutor instead of some other action (Brainstorm? cycle? Construct?). That doesn't work in all decks, but seems fine here.

    Paying a card is the relevant cost. It's not negligible, but it's a cost this style of deck can handle better than other fair blue decks, due to Standstill's draw engine (also how Dreadstill deals with the 2-for-1 12/12). We're OK temporarily going down a card to have a very strong play that shuts down the opponent's deck, particularly when that card is not a 1-for-1. If it fails, we can recover cards (Xerox decks would struggle more to do that). Landstill's weakness is stabilizing early, so it's worth sucking up the -1 card early if it means access to powerful tools that help stabilize.

    Why not just play 2 Canonist and not go down the card? SB is 15 cards. 1 slot that essentially doubles all copies of Canonist, Humility, EE, Needle, etc saves space in the 15. Avoiding double Canonist or avoiding Canonist when you'd rather have Standstill are also useful modes, but the big one is SB space.

    Give the deck a test run if you want to explore some interactions and card choices. I am curious about these green tools and if we can find some real value there.

    Edit: I would not recommend the same construction choices for your Bumbleberry Pie. This is just a thing that tends to work in Landstill. I remember the old days of 1x Tolaria West tutor packages with 1x Academy Ruins 1x Dust Bowl into lategame 1x Mindslaver. Why not play more copies of them if they're that good or cut them if they're bad? That's tempo thinking. You rarely went for 2+ Tolaria because the 2nd tutor is much less useful and the ETB tapped land is bad tempo for early stabilizing. Still, having the 1x tutor increased access to those tools.
    Last edited by FTW; 04-21-2022 at 06:17 PM.

  7. #5507
    Member

    Join Date

    May 2015
    Location

    PDX
    Posts

    2,282

    Re: [Deck] UW(x) Landstill

    To expand on what @FTW is talking about:
    It's also worth pointing out that playing multiples of the same artifact/enchant SB things, usually means you can't put them onto the table at the same time (that's code for the redundant copies just get stranded in hand). If you were to put 2 Canonists into play at the same time, then you have both failed to apply a new prison effect & will lose them both to a single FoV.

    It's particularly important for any deck to be able to stagger a prison effect the FoV-user must kill to progress, with cards like like Map/Soul-Guide/Standstill/etc. You make the gamestate intolerable for them, thus you make them discard FoV targeting 2 things on our schedule...and b/c it's all according to our plans and timings, FoV can't get a clean 2-for-2 vs the value stagger...so you let FoV go [b/c one of the targets cantrips] -> FoW their comeback card -> restart the intolerable prison effect plan. Ofc, we can also just FoW the FoV in that spot if it's favorable to do so. We don't stop there though - it's time to drive the point home to team FoV: we add Ashiok into our sequence.

    Let's go back to the non-FoV users for a moment though. Note how by targeting FoV with deckbuilding theory of must-FoV effect -> Ashiok <--> cantipping prison effect sequence, that we are naturally set up to grief non-FoV users as well. We're not going to give them a moment to recover by flooding on the same prison effect. We're going to keep hitting them with different prison effects, and it will be their job to tell us which one is crippling them the most. They must telegraph what matters the most with spot removal [that's free info for us], and we will choose if it is worth letting that interaction resolve. While this is happening we will be throwing Teferi to Tourach at their blue cards in hand and take their agency with our now unopposed FoW/FoN...and if they can't stop Teferi, well then we just added another prison effect they can't tolerate.
    ---
    @Reeplcheep I'm going to look past how horrifically bad of a strategy it is to take a perfectly good 7 card hand, then discard land to play -> discard Mox to play & discard a second land to yard -> discard Chalice to play -> yay I nuked my hand down to 3!!!

    GSZ makes a thing. E Tutor doesn't. It is because GSZ makes a thing, rather than going down a thing, that it isn't comparable.

    The thing you have to keep in mind is that "getting" people with 1 card name is regressive deckbuilding. It's not like AggroLoam is being held down because they couldn't topdeck a replacement Chalice after the inevitable Ending - they mind twisted their own hand to oblivion, and big surprise 3 card hands lose to 7 card hands. I mean this is a FoV format too, you can't seriously play a 75 that deckbuilt itself into a corner where it topdecked that second Chalice and had to put it on the table at the same time, that's decisively losing.

    Since you're bringing up AggroLoam, let's be clear that these are the guys still saying "ban Griselbrand" and hopping on the MurkGoyf is a problem bandwagon. The problem with their deck is that the worst cards in it are Chalice, Mox, and KotR. Like for god's sake build the deck to have game versus Ending, Endurance, and FoV. Delver has AggroLoam's back too; they're making 7/7 to 8/8 flying dudes that kill Grisel, keeping SnT numbers low. It can't be that hard for AggroLoam to kill a power-crept Goyf, and turn the rest of their attention on what they're actually losing to.

  8. #5508

    Re: [Deck] UW(x) Landstill

    Quote Originally Posted by FTW View Post
    Decks like this tend to draw through at least half the deck before finishing the game. Unlike a tempo deck or midrange deck that can play the odds and gamble against unlikely draw sequences, Landstill will draw its 2-ofs a non-negligible amount of the time, and it doesn't have the full Xerox package to smooth draws (like Bant Uro or Jeskai HullDay would).
    If you are drawing half your deck, you have a slightly less than 25% chance to draw both cards of a 2 of. You have a ~95% chance to draw a brainstorm to get rid of the extra one if you so choose.

  9. #5509

    Re: [Deck] UW(x) Landstill

    Quote Originally Posted by FTW View Post
    For ETutor, the W cost is minor. Unlike the tap-out Ux decks that play at sorcery speed, Landstill makes a lot of reactive plays at instant speed. You pass with mana up, see what the opponent does, then decide to EOT ETutor into hate. You'll have open mana so it's a matter of using that mana on ETutor instead of some other action (Brainstorm? cycle? Construct?). That doesn't work in all decks, but seems fine here.

    Paying a card is the relevant cost. It's not negligible, but it's a cost this style of deck can handle better than other fair blue decks, due to Standstill's draw engine (also how Dreadstill deals with the 2-for-1 12/12). We're OK temporarily going down a card to have a very strong play that shuts down the opponent's deck, particularly when that card is not a 1-for-1.
    All of this logic applies to a 2nd or 3rd etutor too. I like tutor packages but significantly more targets than tutors is bad deckbuilding. Itís like those pox players with a million non-tutorable one-ofs, but in disguise.

  10. #5510
    Tundra Player
    alphastryk's Avatar
    Join Date

    Feb 2011
    Location

    Atlanta
    Posts

    1,056

    Re: [Deck] UW(x) Landstill

    If you're going to go the E Tutor route, I think 2 copies of the tutor is the sweet spot.

  11. #5511

    Re: [Deck] UW(x) Landstill

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox View Post
    If you were to put 2 Canonists into play at the same time, then you have both failed to apply a new prison effect & will lose them both to a single FoV.

    It's particularly important for any deck to be able to stagger a prison effect the FoV-user must kill to progress, with cards like like Map/Soul-Guide/Standstill/etc. You make the gamestate intolerable for them, thus you make them discard FoV targeting 2 things on our schedule...and b/c it's all according to our plans and timings, FoV can't get a clean 2-for-2 vs the value stagger...so you let FoV go [b/c one of the targets cantrips] -> FoW their comeback card -> restart the intolerable prison effect plan. Ofc, we can also just FoW the FoV in that spot if it's favorable to do so. We don't stop there though - it's time to drive the point home to team FoV: we add Ashiok into our sequence.
    You know if they FoV the thing you etutor for that is a 2 for 2 all by itself, right? Also, by definition, a canonist and something you etutor for will also be exposed to getting hit by FoV. You either sandbag the second piece of hate or you donít; the fact you tutored for it doesnít change that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox View Post
    @Reeplcheep I'm going to look past how horrifically bad of a strategy it is to take a perfectly good 7 card hand, then discard land to play -> discard Mox to play & discard a second land to yard -> discard Chalice to play -> yay I nuked my hand down to 3!!!

    GSZ makes a thing. E Tutor doesn't. It is because GSZ makes a thing, rather than going down a thing, that it isn't comparable.
    Yes, I took an example of terrible deckbuilding from a deck full of terrible deckbuilding choicesÖ What is your point?

    E tutor does make a thing, it just costs a card. The more important point I was trying to illustrate was that the amount of times you draw GSZ AND use it to get dryad is going to be significantly less than the times you draw dryad and itís aweful. Assuming GSZ isnít worth playing without dryad, you should be on either 0 gsz 0 dryad or 3-4 gsz 1 dryad. You are doing the same thing here.

  12. #5512
    Member

    Join Date

    May 2015
    Location

    PDX
    Posts

    2,282

    Re: [Deck] UW(x) Landstill

    Quote Originally Posted by Reeplcheep View Post
    You know if they FoV the thing you etutor for that is a 2 for 2 all by itself, right? Also, by definition, a canonist and something you etutor for will also be exposed to getting hit by FoV. You either sandbag the second piece of hate or you donít; the fact you tutored for it doesnít change that.



    Yes, I took an example of terrible deckbuilding from a deck full of terrible deckbuilding choicesÖ What is your point?

    E tutor does make a thing, it just costs a card. The more important point I was trying to illustrate was that the amount of times you draw GSZ AND use it to get dryad is going to be significantly less than the times you draw dryad and itís aweful. Assuming GSZ isnít worth playing without dryad, you should be on either 0 gsz 0 dryad or 3-4 gsz 1 dryad. You are doing the same thing here.
    Not sure what you're missing here, but if you have the prison effect they can't tolerate (Canonist, for example), the FoV player will come out worse if the next prison effect is going to draw cards the moment they put FoV on the stack. That prison effect can be eating away at their yard, it can be the Map threatening to find Heliods, the Standstill, a card FoV can't hit (PW), etc... That's how you beat FoV in legacy; you don't ever give them agency by offering them the blowout. Them casting FoV is the gameplan because we are not all-in, and that's why we can afford to let them resolve it.

    The mindset you're using is "I need this hate card to not die," so when they do something like blow up your Leyline and E-Bridge, you lose. What we're doing in Standstill is forcing the opponent do what we tell them to: trade poorly. They don't get to win b/c they had a way to trade; that's bad deckbuilding.

    On GSZ the point is that GSZ isn't self-defeating. Multiple copies of GSZ don't cost the player velocity because each GSZ you cast makes a thing. E Tutor does not work like this. If E Tutor put the target in hand rather than top of deck, your analogy would work.

    The only other time >1 E Tutor has worked well is when we could play 1x Astrolabe. This worked b/c Astrolabe cantripped (replacing E Tutor's velocity loss), while also ensuring white mana could find blue (variance reduction, mulligan reduction), while also being an easy way to get the most out of a Teferi vs REB/Ending-type opponents with nothing to bounce.

  13. #5513
    Member

    Join Date

    Sep 2011
    Posts

    3,894

    Re: [Deck] UW(x) Landstill

    Quote Originally Posted by Reeplcheep View Post
    The more important point I was trying to illustrate was that the amount of times you draw GSZ AND use it to get dryad is going to be significantly less than the times you draw dryad and itís aweful. Assuming GSZ isnít worth playing without dryad, you should be on either 0 gsz 0 dryad or 3-4 gsz 1 dryad. You are doing the same thing here.
    That's tempo thinking. Narrowly thinking about the early game, ignoring the late game impact.

    3-4 GSZ + 1 Dryad improves the chances of having T1 GSZ into Arbor for ramp. But it also means a much higher chance of drawing GSZs later when you don't want them. Dead draw steps = card disadvantage. For a control deck trying to win the long game, the long-term disadvantage hurts you, it isn't just about the early tempo boost. If you only care about the early turns, you either play a lot of GSZ or you play 0 GSZ 0 Arbor because you won't get the turn 1 play consistently enough. 3-4 GSZ is a no-brainer for Maverick and GW Depths that want early plays and have a lot of tutor targets, but perhaps a control deck would think differently. (I don't play Loam so I can't justify whether 1 GSZ 1 Dryad is overall a good idea, but you are ignoring disadvantages to extra GSZs when the GSZ could be dead)

    Same thing applies here. 3 ETutor increases odds off having that hate piece early. But it also means drawing more ETutors later in the game. Each extra ETutor drawn is card disadvantage (either from using it or having a dead card in hand). Going down -1 card for a powerful prison piece is one thing. Going -2 or -3 cards for the game is another. Personally, I'm fine with the 2nd tutor, but with 3-4 copies that card disadvantage really adds up over the long game.

    As Fox mentioned, the other factor is that we aren't dependent on that 1 hate piece to win the match. It's just 1 tool that swings that matchup, but we can fight on other axes without committing too hard to one direction.

    Aggro decks are different. An aggro SB may have 3-4 Mindbreak Trap and 4 Leyline of the Void because it is absolutely dependent on that 1 hate piece to determine the match. If aggro doesn't draw it, they lose. If aggro draws it and opponent can't answer it, aggro wins. Therefore, aggro wants 4 copies to maximize the chance of seeing it early. Extra copies are not a big deal because opponent may answer the first and aggro absolutely has to have that hate piece to not lose. Aggro doesn't care about the risk of topdecking too many copies later in the game. That's negligible for them, because they just need to stick the first piece and end the game quickly. It's much more important that they draw that card early because the whole match depends on it. Stompy decks are similar. The game is decided by whether you can stick that lock piece early.

    Control decks, particularly these Landstill builds, approach the game differently. Ethersworn Canonist is very strong vs combo and Elves, but it's not like Landstill will auto-lose if it doesn't draw Canonist the way aggro would if it doesn't draw Mindbreak or Stompy will lose if it doesn't stick a prison piece. Landstill can already fight those decks other ways. Prison pieces like Canonist are strong silver bullets for those matchups, but the game plan is less dependent on always having it. You have some piece of disruption that forces the opponent to stop what they're doing and warp their game plan around answering your disruption. That disruption could be Force of Will, FoN, Surgical, Canonist, Needle, or something else. You can disrupt in different ways. Combo player is forced to stop doing their thing and the game warps around them needing an answer for the disruption you present. You can then choose to fight over that, or you can let it go and disrupt on another angle, forcing them to find an answer to that other disruption piece. If you disrupt from 2 different directions (e.g. Prison piece + FoW, instead of all counters or all artifacts), then it's that much harder for the combo deck to keep finding answers to your disruption, because they'll need different tools instead of getting to use the same tool against everything you do. If they board in 3x FoV + 3x Veil of Summer to fight disruption on different angles, they've just diluted their deck and you've given them dead draws if you don't choose to pick fights on the angle they're prepared for. This is how control can outplay decks with decisions, instead of just gambling on random odds to see cards in the opening hand. Control tends to play that way, while aggro tilts towards gambling on the random odds. Basically, the Canonist is good but not essential enough to go down -3 cards or eat up a lot of SB space.

    Yes, we will draw Brainstorm. But Brainstorm isn't always hanging out in hand waiting to fix a bad topdeck. We have to use Brainstorm for various things over the game. If we don't, then we're using that Brainstorm suboptimally and losing advantages in other areas just to fix a potential bad topdeck later. Xerox decks have more cantrips to fix bad topdecks. 4 Brainstorm isn't THAT much. Given that, drawing a dead card in 25% of games seems bad when it could be avoidable with other construction choices. If the game plan was absolutely dependent on resolving Canonist, then we might have to suck that up and play more Canonists or more tutors. But it isn't. It's just one tool.

  14. #5514
    Tundra Player
    alphastryk's Avatar
    Join Date

    Feb 2011
    Location

    Atlanta
    Posts

    1,056

    Re: [Deck] UW(x) Landstill

    Thanks FTW, that was a really good explanation.

    Its a bit of the same weakness I saw in the SB Crop Rotation -> Bog plan.

    In theory, the fact that both tutors would find cards that progress our main strategy would allow the second copy drawn to not be a dead card. E Tutoring for Standstill, Saga, or Shark is a little underwhelming, but the real cost is going down a card because E Tutor goes to the top of the deck rather than to hand.

  15. #5515
    Member

    Join Date

    May 2015
    Location

    PDX
    Posts

    2,282

    Re: [Deck] UW(x) Landstill

    Quote Originally Posted by alphastryk View Post
    E Tutoring for Standstill or Shark is a little underwhelming
    ^refining your statement.

    This is an incorrect understanding. If the hand is Standstill or Shark'nado + E-Tutor, you have a very clear plan: find the missing piece [Standstill or Shark'nado] -> turn 2 slam Standstill.

    This is a very good opener, but it gets significantly worse for each copy of E-Tutor you topdeck after that point. It's a lot like Library of Alexandra, in that a turn 1 Library can take over a game...but spamming a quad laser Library [were it legal] would cost you more games than you'd win due to self-inflicted mana instability. There are a lot of cards in magic where less is more.

  16. #5516
    Tundra Player
    alphastryk's Avatar
    Join Date

    Feb 2011
    Location

    Atlanta
    Posts

    1,056

    Re: [Deck] UW(x) Landstill

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox View Post
    ^refining your statement.

    This is an incorrect understanding. If the hand is Standstill or Shark'nado + E-Tutor, you have a very clear plan: find the missing piece [Standstill or Shark'nado] -> turn 2 slam Standstill.

    This is a very good opener, but it gets significantly worse for each copy of E-Tutor you topdeck after that point. It's a lot like Library of Alexandra, in that a turn 1 Library can take over a game...but spamming a quad laser Library [were it legal] would cost you more games than you'd win due to self-inflicted mana instability. There are a lot of cards in magic where less is more.
    I definitely should have included a little more context, that would indeed be a powerful opening hand (although the card disadvantage would grow if our Standstill failed to resolve).

  17. #5517
    Member

    Join Date

    May 2015
    Location

    PDX
    Posts

    2,282

    Re: [Deck] UW(x) Landstill

    Quote Originally Posted by alphastryk View Post
    I definitely should have included a little more context, that would indeed be a powerful opening hand (although the card disadvantage would grow if our Standstill failed to resolve).
    Not really. If they want to discard 2 blue cards to stop it, they're at parity, but down to a maximum of 5x Force permissions vs 6x still in our deck. If they were a Daze deck, they don't win by Daze targeting E-Tutor, and you just untap land drop and kill their dude paying for Daze; the Standstill can wait for land drop 3, so just....take your time.

  18. #5518
    Tundra Player
    alphastryk's Avatar
    Join Date

    Feb 2011
    Location

    Atlanta
    Posts

    1,056

    Re: [Deck] UW(x) Landstill

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox View Post
    Not really. If they want to discard 2 blue cards to stop it, they're at parity, but down to a maximum of 5x Force permissions vs 6x still in our deck. If they were a Daze deck, they don't win by Daze targeting E-Tutor, and you just untap land drop and kill their dude paying for Daze; the Standstill can wait for land drop 3, so just....take your time.
    Fair enough, and playing around Daze should be assumed when possible / relevant.

  19. #5519
    Member

    Join Date

    Sep 2011
    Posts

    3,894

    Re: [Deck] UW(x) Landstill

    Bosh N Roll finally runs UWr SagaStill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJCzE4Qjpwo
    Very close to what we were discussing, including the red splash for blasts and the Saga -> Map -> Heliod tech.

    Bosh N Roll version (4-1)

    //Lands: 21
    4 Flooded Strand
    2 Prismatic Vista
    1 Scalding Tarn
    2 Tundra
    1 Volcanic Island
    3 Snow-Covered Island
    2 Snow-Covered Plains
    1 Karakas
    1 Wasteland
    1 Hall of Heliod's Generosity
    3 Urza's Saga

    //Artifacts: 3
    1 Currency Converter
    1 Expedition Map
    1 Retrofitter Foundry

    //Enchantments: 8
    4 Standstill
    4 Shark Typhoon

    //Spells: 21
    4 Force of Will
    4 Brainstorm
    4 Ponder
    4 Swords to Plowshares
    4 Prismatic Ending
    1 Force of Negation

    //Creatures: 2
    2 Timeless Dragon

    //Planeswalkers: 5
    2 Narset, Parter of Veils
    1 Teferi, Time Raveler
    2 The Wandering Emperor

    //Sideboard: 15
    1 Pyroblast
    2 Red Elemental Blast
    4 Deafening Silence
    2 Surgical Extraction
    1 Rest in Peace
    1 Soul-Guide Lantern
    1 Grafdigger's Cage
    1 Supreme Verdict
    1 Force of Negation
    1 Snow-Covered Mountain


    It went 4-1. The only loss to Red Prison seems somewhat avoidable with more focus on basics. Unreliable red, 0 Verdict main, and lack of SB answers to permanents are all unnecessary construction choices.

    I would probably play:
    -4 Ponder, -1 Retrofitter, -1 Narset, -2 Emperor, -2 Shark Typhoon
    +1 Vista, +1 Mountain, +1 Soul-Guide, +1 Sevinne's Reclamation, +1 Teferi, +1 FoN, +2 Supreme Verdict, +2 flex (Burning Wish, Karn, Snapcaster, other engine, instant cantrip)

    The SB could be more efficient too. Brian says he overboarded for the MTGO combo-heavy leagues.
    -3 Deafening Silence, -4 cards moved to main, -1 Cage, -1 RiP
    +2 ETutor, +1 Ethersworn Canonist, +1 Powder Keg, +1 Alpine Moon, +1 Humility, +3 others (depends if on Wish or Karn or something else)

    With 6 Forces to fight turn 1 wins, you should have time for T1 ETutor into T2 hate instead of needing to overload with 4 anti-storm and 5 anti-GY.

    I've been watching his other Standstill runs for a while.
    80-card RebelStill managed 4-1 even with 19 bad cards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtr4SDaIWw

    RebelStill (4-1)

    //Companion: 1
    1 Yorion, Sky Nomad

    //Lands: 27
    4 Urza's Saga
    4 Flooded Strand
    4 Polluted Delta
    0 Prismatic Vista
    3 Tundra
    2 Underground Sea
    3 Snow-Covered Island
    2 Snow-Covered Plains
    0 Swamp
    1 Cavern of Souls
    1 Karakas
    1 Hall of Heliod's Generosity
    2 Wasteland

    //Spells: 21
    4 Force of Will
    4 Brainstorm
    4 Ponder
    4 Swords to Plowshares
    4 Prismatic Ending
    1 Force of Negation

    //Rebels: 13
    4 Ramosian Sergeant
    2 Blightspeaker
    1 Whipcorder
    2 Lin-Sivvi, Defiant Hero
    2 Mirror Entity
    2 Big Game Hunter

    //Enchantments: 10
    2 Training Grounds
    4 Standstill
    4 Shark Typhoon

    //Artifacts: 6
    3 Aether Vial
    1 Currency Converter
    1 Retrofitter Foundry
    1 Nihil Spellbomb

    //Planeswalkers: 3
    0 Teferi, Time Raveler
    0 Kaya, Orzhov Usurper
    1 Narset, Parter of Veils
    2 The Wandering Emperor

    //Sideboard: 14
    4 Deafening Silence
    3 Rest in Peace
    3 Surgical Extraction
    2 Plague Engineer
    1 Force of Negation
    1 Shadowspear


    Just barely missing the 5-0 in R5G3 running out of gas vs Goblins (bad matchup). Imagine how much better it would be without 19 chaff cards!

    A few months ago, he also got 5-0 with this cheesy UR MinotaurStill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVe71xtwIno

    MinotaurStill (5-0)

    //Lands: 20
    4 Scalding Tarn
    3 Flooded Strand
    0 Prismatic Vista
    3 Volcanic Island
    3 Island
    1 Mountain
    4 Urza's Saga
    2 Ancient Tomb

    //Spells: 12
    4 Force of Will
    4 Brainstorm
    4 Ponder

    //Enchantments: 5
    3 Standstill
    2 Shark Typhoon

    //Artifacts: 8
    3 Chrome Mox
    4 Didgeridoo
    1 Retrofitter Foundry

    //MinoLOLs: 15
    4 Neheb, Dreadhorde Champion
    4 Sethron, Hurloon General
    4 Moraug, Fury of Akoum
    3 Boros Battleshaper

    //Sideboard: 15
    2 Pyroblast
    1 Red Elemental Blast
    1 Flusterstorm
    1 Pithing Needle
    1 Soul-Guide Lantern
    2 Surgical Extraction
    2 Brazen Borrower
    1 Hurkyl's Recall
    1 Abrade
    2 Ruination


    Clearly Standstill can win games. Even moreso if not memeing! That's a 13-2 record including meme tribal decks!
    Last edited by FTW; 07-28-2022 at 02:50 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)