[Deck] Landstill - Former DTB

[diffy]

Hey all,

Regarding to the UWbg debate, I can oly say that UW Landstill is alot more consistant... and has a better game against Goblins with 5 basics...
And also I would seriously advice to play the Tutor build because that one is even more consistant and less draw dependant than normal UW.

This is the list I'm currently testing:

---Mainboard--- (60)

--Lands-- (24)

1x Faerie Conclave
4x Mishra's Factory
3x Wasteland

4x Flooded Strand
2x Polluted Delta

4x Tundra
3x Island
2x Plains
1x Seat of the Synode

--Creatures-- (1)

1x Eternal Dragon

--Permission-- (10)

4x Force of Will
4x Counterspell
4x Mana Leak

--Card draw-- (9)

4x Brainstorm
3x Standstill
2x Fact or Fiction

--Removal-- (6)

2x Wrath of God
4x Swords to Plowshaeres

--Tutor Stuff-- (8)

3x Enlightened Tutor

1x Humility
2x Moat
1x Pithing Needle
1x Crucible of Worlds


---Sideboard--- (15)

1x Engineered Explosives -> Gro, random aggro
1x Null Rod -> iggy, salgame, affinity
1x Sacred Ground -> Gro/w, gobos
1x Stabilizer -> 3c Slide
1x CoP Red-> Gobs, Burn
1x CoP Green->*****

4x Meddling Mage -> combo
2x Misdirection -> deadguy, solidarity

3x Jotun Grunt-> LftL decks, Grow



The main gameplan for this deck is to stall early game, stabilize the mana base and than drop a gamebreaking bullet (moat, Humility) and protect it 4teh win...
I think the main discussion should be about why play this or Landstill in general over other control decks (rifter [see thread @tmd], Truffle Shuffle, MonoBorW control, TaoXsUrvival...).

Thanks for input

[Complete_Jank]

Hello,

The following list is a landstill deck that took 6th in Kobe Japan in October. It is pretty much the blue/white version except with fire//ice. I do believe that the major downfall to the deck above is the enlightened tutor toolbox. There is just too much going on in this type of deck to make the tutor work correctly and the environment is fast. Does anyone think that blue/white landstill will be better after planar chaos? It does have the new white drop of honey that may be useful in this deck?

...

Below is also a B/W/G/U landstill deck that took 9th at a star city games duel for duals tournament in October. What do you think of this deck compared to the one above? What road should landstill take in the future legacy format? What changes would be made to the top landstill decklist?

...

I personally like the 4 color landstill and think that it is the stronger out of the 2. The thing I am concerned with is the manabase. A lot of nonbasics are in there so you are open to land destruction more easily and a price of progress hurts, if you don't have a counter. I dislike the sideboard though on the 4 color landstill. I would like to see crypts and misdirection in there but maybe that is not possibly. I would also take out the 2 diabolic edicts for 2 wrath of gods if the manabase could handle it. I like the board clearing power of landstill and this deck presently does not have that except for the deeds. I would also bump the list up to 61 cards to fit in the 4th stifle.

What does everyone else think? Lets get this topic deck going again.

The Landstill Deck from Kobe doesn't have any way to recur lands. If he casts FoF and has to discard Man-Lands then he is lossing them for good.

It should also be noted that the one you posted that took 9th also took 8th the day prior, and it was in a larger field.

I am supporter of 61 card decks because the % change it has on the overall draw is so little. Running 4 Stifles will roughly increase your draw of it by about 1.6% each draw. Running 4 Stifles in a 61 card deck will give you a 48.3% chance of having one in your opening hand. Chance of drawing 3 stifles in a 60 card deck are 36.9% in your opening hand.

Note these are % chances not odds.
Odds are similar, but not the same.
Odds count down, %'s count up, but you can be fooled by both.

Chance to draw a card In Opening Hand / If on the Draw / After Muligan
4 cards in a 61 card deck = ~48.3% / ~55.7% / ~89.4%
4 cards in a 60 card deck = ~49.2% / ~56.7% / ~91%
3 cards in a 61 card deck = ~36.3% / ~41.8% / ~67%
3 cards in a 60 card deck = ~36.9% / ~42.5% / ~68.2%
2 cards in a 61 card deck = ~24.2% / ~27.9% / ~44.7%
2 cards in a 60 card deck = ~24.6% / ~28.4% / ~45.5%
1 cards in a 61 card deck = ~12.1% / ~13.9% / ~22.3%
1 cards in a 60 card deck = ~12.3% / ~14.2% / ~22.7%

[jrp]

@Complete Jank:

I thought that when determining the % chance for a card to be in your opening hand it was done using this formula: 1 - (%chance of not having the card), which is carried out as follows:

Assume a 60 card deck, that contains a 4 of (say Stifle for example).

The chance of not drawing a Stifle on your first draw is (Total Cards in Deck - Number of Stifles) divided by Total cards in deck -> (60 - 4)/60 = 56/60

The chance of not drawing a Stifle on your second draw is (59-4)/59 = 55/59

This continues...
3rd draw -> 54/58
4th draw -> 53/57
5th draw -> 52/56
6th draw -> 51/55
7th draw -> 50/54

To calculate the probability of all of these events occuring, multiply the individual probabilities......

(56/60) * (55/59) * ... * (50/54) ~= .601 or 60.1%

Then back to the original formula:

1 - (%chance of not having the card) = 1-.601 = .399 or 39.9%

So, according to my knowledge of the math you have a 39.9% chance of seeing a Stifle in your opening 7 cards, when playing a 60 card deck. It's been awhile since I've done this so I may be mistaken, but this is how I remember it to be done.

[JACO]

@Complete Jank:

I thought that when determining the % chance for a card to be in your opening hand it was done using this formula: 1 - (%chance of not having the card), which is carried out as follows:

Assume a 60 card deck, that contains a 4 of (say Stifle for example).

The chance of not drawing a Stifle on your first draw is (Total Cards in Deck - Number of Stifles) divided by Total cards in deck -> (60 - 4)/60 = 56/60

The chance of not drawing a Stifle on your second draw is (59-4)/59 = 55/59

This continues...
3rd draw -> 54/58
4th draw -> 53/57
5th draw -> 52/56
6th draw -> 51/55
7th draw -> 50/54

To calculate the probability of all of these events occuring, multiply the individual probabilities......

(56/60) * (55/59) * ... * (50/54) ~= .601 or 60.1%

Then back to the original formula:

1 - (%chance of not having the card) = 1-.601 = .399 or 39.9%

So, according to my knowledge of the math you have a 39.9% chance of seeing a Stifle in your opening 7 cards, when playing a 60 card deck. It's been awhile since I've done this so I may be mistaken, but this is how I remember it to be done.

@JRP, that is the correct way to calculate. The odds posted by Complete Jank are nowhere near accurate.

[Jander78]

Either way, even if Complete Jank's numbers were correct, even though adding an extra card only decreases the chance of drawing a specific card slightly, the fact is that it still decreases the chances of drawing said card, making the deck less consistent. Keeping a deck to the minimum allotted cards makes it more efficient.

[Complete_Jank]

@JRP, that is the correct way to calculate. The odds posted by Complete Jank are nowhere near accurate.

JACO, we had this same discussion in your dining room and Lucas comfirmed with the same results I had by figuring it out.


I'll simplify it for you, with out the long drawn out method of the calculation.

4 cards in a 60 card deck is 4/60. Wouldn't you agree?


Well, this would be the same as 2/30 or 1/15.

You now can effectively look at your deck as a 15 card deck when trying to draw 1 card of 4. You get to draw 7 cards, one of them is the one card you are looking for. After you have 7 cards draw, you have 8 cards left, so you almost have exactly half the cards, thus just less than 50%.

Either way, even if Complete Jank's numbers were correct, even though adding an extra card only decreases the chance of drawing a specific card slightly, the fact is that it still decreases the chances of drawing said card, making the deck less consistent. Keeping a deck to the minimum allotted cards makes it more efficient.

Yielding ~1.5% on any card to give you an added ~11.5% to see a certain card can be worth it.

If someone really wants 4 cards instead of 3, I first recommend cutting something, and if they can't just add the one card.


I argue the less consistent statement and the more efficient statement. You will actually have a more consistent draw of the particular card, but a slightly less consistent draw on every other card, if this helps the deck to be more efficient then so be it.

I am not saying every deck is more effecient, because goblins is one deck that I wouldn't want to allow to have 59 cards instead of 60.

[rsaunder]

JACO, we had this same discussion in your dining room and Lucas comfirmed with the same results I had by figuring it out.


I'll simplify it for you, with out the long drawn out method of the calculation.

4 cards in a 60 card deck is 4/60. Wouldn't you agree?


Well, this would be the same as 2/30 or 1/15.

You now can effectively look at your deck as a 15 card deck when trying to draw 1 card of 4. You get to draw 7 cards, one of them is the one card you are looking for. After you have 7 cards draw, you have 8 cards left, so you almost have exactly half the cards, thus just less than 50%.

This equation comes directly from my statistics textbook (a reliable source, wouldn't you agree?)

"The formula given in Eq. 5 is particularly useful to calculate certain probibilities having to do with card games. For example, we might ask the probability that a certain 13-card hand contains exactly 6 spades. There are M=52 cards, total, and one can model the card shuffling and dealing process by assuming that the 13 card hand represents a sample size of 13 drawn from the 52 cards without replacement from the 52 cards. Let A [subscript6] denote the event of exactly 6 spades. There are a total of 13 spades; so...

P[a(subscript6)]=((13/6)((52-13)/(13-6)))/(52/13)"

So, to find the probability of say, a 4-of in a 60 card deck in your opening grip, replace the 13 (the number of spades, origionally) with the number of the card you are planning on running, 4. Then, replace the 6 spades you needed to draw with 0, thusly finding the chance of not drawing the specified card (then, just subtract the final percentage from 100%, and you'll have your indicator). Replace the 52 with 60, i.e., the number of cards in the deck, and the 13 subtracted from it with 7, the number of cards from the opening hand. Then, for the next set in the equation, the denominator, sub in 60 and 7, for the size of the deck and the size of one's hand. Then, to factor in the multiple draws, take the factorial of each now finished part in the equation. It'll end up looking something like this:

=(56!/(49!7!))/(60!/(7!53!))

There. Another way to go about it.

Or, you could listen to jrp who, although he went about it differently, also would end up with similar numbers. In fact, He's more likely right than I, as his way made more overall sense, so I'd go with his way.

My head a-splode.

EDIT: After looking back over that mess, I'm not 100% on it. I think I got confised in there, might be right, might not. I do know, however, that jrp's numbers are accurate, though, as they are in fact the commonly agreed upon numbers of Statistics majors I have known ot have bothered doing all of this out.

[Complete_Jank]

This equation comes directly from my statistics textbook (a reliable source, wouldn't you agree?)

Actually no. I've been finding flaws in textbooks since 1st grade, Kindergarden and Preschool taught me how to find them.

I also confused and frustrated my math teachers because I could solve problems with logical steps that contradicted books and theorems that did not exist.

I will admit I have a backwards way of thinking about most things, and sometimes I am wrong because of it, but I'm pretty sure this is not one of those times.

"The formula given in Eq. 5 is particularly useful to calculate certain probibilities having to do with card games. For example, we might ask the probability that a certain 13-card hand contains exactly 6 spades. There are M=52 cards, total, and one can model the card shuffling and dealing process by assuming that the 13 card hand represents a sample size of 13 drawn from the 52 cards without replacement from the 52 cards. Let A [subscript6] denote the event of exactly 6 spades. There are a total of 13 spades; so...

P[a(subscript6)]=((13/6)((52-13)/(13-6)))/(52/13)"

So, to find the probability of say, a 4-of in a 60 card deck in your opening grip, replace the 13 (the number of spades, origionally) with the number of the card you are planning on running, 4. Then, replace the 6 spades you needed to draw with 0, thusly finding the chance of not drawing the specified card (then, just subtract the final percentage from 100%, and you'll have your indicator). Replace the 52 with 60, i.e., the number of cards in the deck, and the 13 subtracted from it with 7, the number of cards from the opening hand. Then, for the next set in the equation, the denominator, sub in 60 and 7, for the size of the deck and the size of one's hand. Then, to factor in the multiple draws, take the factorial of each now finished part in the equation. It'll end up looking something like this:

=(56!/(49!7!))/(60!/(7!53!))

There. Another way to go about it.

Or, you could listen to jrp who, although he went about it differently, also would end up with similar numbers. In fact, He's more likely right than I, as his way made more overall sense, so I'd go with his way.

My head a-splode.

EDIT: After looking back over that mess, I'm not 100% on it. I think I got confised in there, might be right, might not. I do know, however, that jrp's numbers are accurate, though, as they are in fact the commonly agreed upon numbers of Statistics majors I have known ot have bothered doing all of this out.

I just tried the first formula and came up with ~7% to draw 1 in a 7 card hand.

I don't know what you did with the second one, but doesn't look like the same formula. Also, you have to realize we are talking about 1 card in a 7 card hand, and it doesn't matter if you have more than one.

The example you provided talks about 6 cards in a 13 card hand with no more or no less than 6 Spades. Sounds like the wrong formula.

[Adan]

Aw, this higher maths is driving me crazy!

But what I can say is, you can manage your slots and distribution of your business spells better.

I like the 4Tutor-Build....wish I had all my UW LS stuff back.
The BHWC Landstill IS a crappy build. It runs 10 offcolor Lands, but is 4color. That doesn't fir together. Plus, the Monastery needs 2 colored Mana.
Wrapping up, this deck is very fragile at it's Mana base and can be screwed very easily.
Imo it's just laid out to beat every Grow.dec.
But it would lose to Goblins, LftL-Decks or LS Mirror.

And that doesn't sound good to me.

But I'm a littlebit disappointed that there's no UR landstill in the American Meta. It became my pet deck and it was always reliable.
I only lost to goblins though I have a well-balanced matchup. But I just recently noticed that Pyroclasm isn't that big against Goblins and that additional Hydroblasts beside the Blue Elemental Blasts are superior to Pyroclasm.

So, I think I should post a list of UR landstill, to fuel this discussion about the landstill archetype:

My list, based on the one which placed 3rd in the GP Barcelona SE:

// Lands
2 [UL] Faerie Conclave
2 [TSP] Island (1)
4 [4E] Mishra's Factory
1 [TSP] Mountain (1)
4 [R] Volcanic Island
4 [TE] Wasteland
1 [OD] Barbarian Ring
1 [TSP] Academy Ruins
2 [ON] Flooded Strand
2 [ON] Bloodstained Mire

// Spells
2 [FD] Crucible of Worlds
3 [AT] Nevinyrral's Disk
4 [MM] Brainstorm
4 [AL] Force of Will
4 [OD] Standstill
4 [SC] Stifle
4 [GP] Electrolyze
4 [AP] Fire/Ice
4 [AT] Lightning Bolt
2 [ON] Slice and Dice
3 [BOK] Disrupting Shoal

// Sideboard
SB: 3 [WL] Phyrexian Furnace
SB: 4 [4E] Blue Elemental Blast
SB: 3 [MR] Chalice of the Void
SB: 3 [SOK] Pithing Needle
SB: 2 [IA] Hydroblast

Not this build is a littlebit irregular. Maybe the Academy Ruin looks strange.
PLUS, there seems to be no CA-Spell that draws a lot of cards like Thirst or FoF.
But I can explain them:

Academy Ruins: It protects Crucible. And Crucible protects Academy Ruins.
Plus, it brings back Crucibles I had to blow up with Nevin's Disk and it can create a lock with Nevin's Disk.
My friend played Angel Stompy, be smashed me to 1 Life, and then I blew up Nevin's Disk and dropped Academy Ruin. "Oh no, now he will stall araound and burn me to death", he said and scooped.

Errr, yeah, next choices:

Slice and Dice: They are good against Thresh and against Rift. The cards I fear the most in these Matchups are Nimble Mongeese and Decree of Justice.

And Slice and Dice often saved my ass against Rifter.

Me: I drop Standstill
Opp: Ok, i'm gonna cycle my Decree for...8 Soldiers
Me: Fuck...but...CYCLE SLICE! BAM!

And here is the new inclusion, Electrolyze.

it gives the deck more speed and damage-potential. It's THE mix betreen Fire/ice I ever wanted in thsi deck.
It can kill 2 creatures and then cantrips. THAT's cardadvantage.
This cardadvantage is similar to the cardadvantage a Ancestral Recall generates. So CA doesn't need to be pure carddraw imo.

[JACO]

JACO, we had this same discussion in your dining room and Lucas comfirmed with the same results I had by figuring it out.

I'll simplify it for you, with out the long drawn out method of the calculation.

4 cards in a 60 card deck is 4/60. Wouldn't you agree? Well, this would be the same as 2/30 or 1/15.

You now can effectively look at your deck as a 15 card deck when trying to draw 1 card of 4. You get to draw 7 cards, one of them is the one card you are looking for. After you have 7 cards draw, you have 8 cards left, so you almost have exactly half the cards, thus just less than 50%.

NO. NO. NO. This is not how you figure out probability. You and Lucas were wrong in my dining room, and you're still wrong. Here is an example of the correct formula for what you're trying to figure out (odds of seeing a card in opening hand):
1) Odds of a 4 of in 7 cards (on the play) = 1 - [(56/60)*(55/59)*(54/58)*(53/57)*(52/56)*(51/55)*(50/54)] = 0.399499626 = roughly 39.95%
2) Odds of a 4 of in 8 cards (on the draw) = 1 - [(56/60)*(55/59)*(54/58)*(53/57)*(52/56)*(51/55)*(50/54)*(49/53)] = 0.444820409 = roughly 44.48%
3) Odds of a 3 of in 7 cards (on the play) = 1 - [(57/60)*(56/59)*(55/58)*(54/57)*(53/56)*(52/55)*(51/54)] = 0.315429573 = roughly 31.54%
4) Odds of a 3 of in 7 cards (on the play) = 1 - [(57/60)*(56/59)*(55/58)*(54/57)*(53/56)*(52/55)*(51/54)*(50/53)] = 0.354178843 = roughly 35.42%

Before you go arguing about something you clearly have no idea about, just do some actual reading on probability and/or statistics. Many brilliant minds have already done tons of research and theorizing so you don't have to use a flawed method of calculation. When you can comprehend that, then just create a basic Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to do the math for you. Rather than clutter up this thread, you can send me a PM if you feel the need to argue any further, which I doubt.

I like the 4Tutor-Build....wish I had all my UW LS stuff back.
The BHWC Landstill IS a crappy build. It runs 10 offcolor Lands, but is 4color. That doesn't fir together. Plus, the Monastery needs 2 colored Mana.
Wrapping up, this deck is very fragile at it's Mana base and can be screwed very easily.
Imo it's just laid out to beat every Grow.dec.
But it would lose to Goblins, LftL-Decks or LS Mirror.

And that doesn't sound good to me.

But I'm a littlebit disappointed that there's no UR landstill in the American Meta.

I'm not sure if the above qualifies as the worst post in this thread, but it's got to be in contention. BHWC Landstill is the king, and has the results to back it up when piloted by competent players. It's obvious you've never played the deck with any regularity, and don't realize how good Nantuko Monastery is. The reason there's no UR Landstill in the Amercian meta is because Blue-Red Landstill variants are garbage. Swords to Plowshares is better removal than anything Red has to offer, and cards like Electrolyze, Slice and Dice, Nevinyrral's Disk, Barbarian Ring, Faerie Conclave, and Disrupting Shoal are all pretty weak compared to other available options. Sure, if your opponent manages to do NOTHING during the first 4 turns of the game, those cards might be good in a specific situation (like if you're playing against Goblins every round, and every game your opponent manages to do nothing for the first 3 turns, and doesn't play any land disruption). You aren't even playing the card Counterspell for Allah's sake, which is one of the best tools for allowing you to get to the midgame (which is what Landstill revolves around). I don't feel the need to comment further, because it would be pointless. A blind man can't be taught to see.

[rsaunder]

I just tried the first formula and came up with ~7% to draw 1 in a 7 card hand.

I don't know what you did with the second one, but doesn't look like the same formula. Also, you have to realize we are talking about 1 card in a 7 card hand, and it doesn't matter if you have more than one.

The example you provided talks about 6 cards in a 13 card hand with no more or no less than 6 Spades. Sounds like the wrong formula.

Like I edited in, I think I sort of lost it about half way through. The example would still hold, though, if I had translated it properly

[Oathmaster]

Hello,

To the couple people posting back and forth about the correct prob and stat formula. Since both of you know each other, please discuss it between yourself or in a different thread specific for determining the correct formula? I think everyone now has the point behind what was trying to be brought across between the difference of 60 cards and 61 cards.

To Adan, I have to give you complements for building your own deck. UR landstill sounds interesting but I do feel that it will just not work in the states. The meta game would just not be feasible to play that deck but I like the creativity behind it.

I do have to agree about the unstable manabase behind 4 color landstill but I don't disagree that it is extrememly more powerful than U/W landstill. The thing I fear with 4 color landstill is the manabase and the amount of non basic lands. A crucible of the worlds/ wasteland would ruin your day. I would like to purpose possibly creating a 3 color landstill deck. What would peoples ideas and thoughts behind this would be? Is this even a logical idea? I think this would still give you the distinct advantages that 4 color landstill has over U/W landstill but does not open you up as much to that crazy mana base. I feel the colors that would go well would be blue/black/green. I know you lose some high power weapons from white but they can be overcome with this color combination. Here are some good replacements:

nantuko monestary: I would replace with treetop village. I would prefer to have the bigger frame but I like trample more than first strike. I also like only one color activation compared to two.

swords to plowshares: I would replace this with innocent blood (possibly). It still only cost one and can hit those pesky annoying "can't be the target of spells and abilities" creatures, like the nimble mongoose.

wrath of god: Give it a month and we will have damnation. I feel that this is the most important card that white was giving to landstill and now it is in black so it is not a lose.

The other cards would be decree of justice and eternal dragon. I sure if I did some research I could find cards to go into their slots.

I presently don't have a deck in mind but am trying to change my 4 color landstill deck into 3 color landstill. It been taking me awhile because landstill is not my current priority in magic. It is developing my other two decks in legacy because I feel that one of them will be stronger to take to Columbus in May.

Can't wait to here peoples thoughts.

[Meekrab]

JACO, we had this same discussion in your dining room and Lucas comfirmed with the same results I had by figuring it out.


I'll simplify it for you, with out the long drawn out method of the calculation.

4 cards in a 60 card deck is 4/60. Wouldn't you agree?


Well, this would be the same as 2/30 or 1/15.

You now can effectively look at your deck as a 15 card deck when trying to draw 1 card of 4. You get to draw 7 cards, one of them is the one card you are looking for. After you have 7 cards draw, you have 8 cards left, so you almost have exactly half the cards, thus just less than 50%.

Doesn't your opponent like, call a judge after you draw 46% of your deck as your opening hand?

Edit, before I get hit by Wrath of Moderator: Probability is exponential, not linear. The 'long drawn out method of the calculation' is actually correct, and you should study statistics and be armed with a formal proof before you assert in a public forum that it is not, because it has held up for as long as decks of cards have existed.

[Complete_Jank]

Aw, this higher maths is driving me crazy!

The BHWC Landstill IS a crappy build.

Interesting, I'm with JACO on this one. BHWC is about the best version of Landstill to date, and we went through 2-3 years of different Landstill decks as the number one type of deck in our meta.

Like I edited in, I think I sort of lost it about half way through. The example would still hold, though, if I had translated it properly

No worries, I thought I knew what formula you were getting at after I calculated the 7%.


@JACO - If I am wrong, I'll continue to believe I am wrong, and it won't change the outcome of my draws. BTW, I too have an excel spread sheet that proves what I say.

...

I would like to purpose possibly creating a 3 color landstill deck.

...

Can't wait to here peoples thoughts.

I have a G/B/U Landstill deck that was created to abuse Eternal Witness when it was printed. Recurring Standstill and Pernacious Deed is strong. Also ran Baloth.

The 3 color doesn't save you much better against wasteland than what the 4 color version suffers.

[Adan]

Ok, then let's move back to the school to the...tenth class.

Didn't you learned to write arguments when you got a statement?

"UR Landstill variants are garbage". And now give me some reasons.

Swords to Plowshares is superior to Burn if you REALLY need serious removal.
But I don't think your Meta is full of fat creatures Lightning Bolt can't handle.
Anyways, you post tells me that you have absolutley NO idea of UR landstill.

By the way, I must mention that this is NOT my idea, but this deck should have been introduced to you by kimberley.

At the beginning Ur landstill ran Fact or Fiction. But FoF was often used just as a tutor to find a burnspell to kill. And having Counterspell in a Fact ist'n that cool either.
So the Counterspells were replaced by Disrupting Shoal.
And it was better. Sure it generates some Carddisadvantge, but it can counter 1st Turn Aether Vial even though you don't have a FoW and it's good when you WANT TO resolve 2nd turn Standstill.

Ahh, anyways, I'm confident enough about UR Landstill that I would dare to challenge you in some MWS games.

[URABAHN]

What about the Black variant? Anyone cooking up some lists with Damnation? Is it wise to play with maindeck discard or would you save it in the board for combo decks?

[Adan]

Let's wait until Damnation is out, then we can see if the Black Variant can beat some nasty things.

But I would guess it can be good. Sengir Nosferatu is a good finisher.
Damnation is a good sweeper. And there should be some good removal...Diabolic Edict, Smother...Then you can play Duress or maybe Hymn.

Sounds quite interesting imo.

edit:

But you really shouldn't underestimate UR Landstill.

[Bane of the Living]

Someone should make a thread for Duck Hunt, aka UBG Landstill. Its much different, loads more than the age old arguement of white vs red.

[Oathmaster]

Hello,

The U/B/G landstill decklist that I have been working is below:

4 Standstill
4 Brainstorm
2 Undermine
4 Force of Will
4 Counterspell
4 Stifle
3 Decree of Pain (will be 3 damnation here soon)
4 Innocent Blood
4 Pernicious Deed
3 Crucible of Worlds
4 Mishra's Factory
4 Treetop Village
4 Underground Sea
3 Tropical Island
3 Bayou
4 Polluted Delta
3 Wasteland

Have not determined a sideboard yet.

What are people's thoughts? Presently right now my 4 color landstill post better results against other decks but the problem is the decree of pain. I started proxing the damnations and the deck seems a lot better, go figure. The problem I have been running into with 4 color landstill is not getting all 4 colors due to wasteland, sinkholes and other land destruction spells.

[Complete_Jank]

Someone should make a thread for Duck Hunt, aka UBG Landstill. Its much different, loads more than the age old arguement of white vs red.

I did it is in the N&D section.