[Deck] UW(x) Landstill

[mossivo1986]

@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

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

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

[mossivo1986]

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

[FoolofaTook]

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.

[rsaunder]

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.

[FoolofaTook]

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.

[Elf_Ascetic]

@ 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?

[NQN]

Currently I´m testing 61 cards with E.Dragon as the 1 utitily card and for now it works great.

[rsaunder]

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.

[LostButSeeking]

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.

[ultimoman]

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.

[Rinello]

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.

[Citrus-God]

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.

[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.

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.

[mossivo1986]

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.

[LostButSeeking]

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.

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.”

[mossivo1986]

@LostButSeeking

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?

[Ectoplasm]

Can you name any card in our deck—any card at all!—that’s going to be useful against every matchup?

Vindicate? :D

[klaus]

Vindicate? :D

+ FOW & CS, Top and Brainstorm

[rockout]

^^ Served?