U/R Mattiuzzo Landstill

[Stormanimagus]

Hey, I'm kinda new to these forums but I am a long-time Vintage player and I'm wondering if Landstill can again be a successful archetype. The amount of Wasteland and Wasteland/Crucible Lock decks seems at an all time low right now and this deck seems ready for a comeback. I'm currently working on the following list of the February 16 Waterbury and I'd like all of your input on it. Here it is:

UW Landstill

Land (25):
3 Faerie Conclave
4 Mishra’s Factory
4 Flooded Strand
1 Polluted Delta
3 Tundra
4 Wasteland
1 Library Of Alexandria
1 Strip Mine
3 Island
1 Plains

Artifacts (3):
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Crucible Of Worlds

Enchantments (4):
4 Standstill

Instants (24):
4 Brainstorm
4 Force Of Will
4 Mana Drain
2 Misdirection
4 Swords To Plowshares
4 Stifle
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Chain Of Vapor

Sorceries (4):
2 Decree Of Justice
1 Time Walk
1 Balance

SB
2 Jotun Grunt
3 Kataki, War’s Wage
3 Threads Of Disloyalty
3 Pithing Needle
3 Meddling Mage
1 Crucible Of Worlds

Some of the cards I'm shaky on are the 1 MD Balance (Can be good, can be crap), and not being able to fit in a second Chain of Vapor in the MD. I'd like your opinions on this list and ask me about any specific card choices you please.

[Anusien]

Why is it in particular you think this is an excellent metagame choice?  Landstill used to be quite alright against Stax because of Deed, but I'm skeptical now.  Modern Stax has the ability to deploy multiple threats, and Thorns and Spheres will make it quite difficult to drain into a Nevinyrral's Disk.  Lacking this play, I can't see Stax being good for your fairly shaky manabase: 10 lands that don't produce colored mana and three that come into play tapped.  Plus I can't see you doing well against GAT; the addition of Balance doesn't compensate for losing Ponder and 4+ duress effects.

Decree of Justice seems ludicrously slow, and Standstill seems horrible if your opponent can get a creature down first (not an unreasonable proposition).  Even if they don't, answering a Standstill with a Duress or a Thoughtseize, and following it up with a creature or even starting the Gush chain seems like a huge kick in the junk for you.

[hauntedechos]

Sup Stormanimagus,

I've been working on a casual pet Landstill deck as well.  I'm not terribly convinced that it has the "junk" to compete in Vintage Tournys, but does have it's control appeal.  My initial thoughts on U/W are that it wants to play out control and then develop some sort of a "lock" or "prison" aspect.  This being the case, one would think of Stax decks as the superior Prison deck.

Never the less, I DO applaud you for playing something out of left field, as even U/R Landstill doesn't seem to recive much support.  The fastest components you seem to have with this deck is mana denial (Wasteland, Stripmine, Stifle, with a mid/lategame Crucible lock) and thusly I think you need to focus on this somewhat.  After this opening of mana denial, you have to play the conrtol route, and it's at this point that I am unsure as to why you don't include the Chalices?  In some testing against Superlong and Tropical storm (admittedly NOT the best combo decks to be testing against) I found that Chalice @ 1 was pretty hard to get out of barring a quick Merchantscroll for Hurkels/Echoing Truth when counter magic was in hand.  This left a Tinker for DSC as the win condition..but I'm getting off topic here.

On white over Red:

I think that the swords removal, as always, is best.  In the above posters concerns of creatures, you have swords and should also have bounce back up.  In concerns with breaking a Landstill with Duress/Seize.  This is a card/play that would be made against any deck.  The key I think to playing Standstill in this deck is timing.  Have you thought about the addition of Seal of Cleansings?  I do think this would warrent a Mox Pearl and possibly a Lotus Petal (though petal and Black Lotus leave you open to Welder shinanigans, which would be something you want to avoid during an already hard matchup).  In terms of Gush and other Combo related issues, have you thought about Orim's Chants or the slow Rule of Law?  I think that because Landstill is so incredibly slow, you have to really force the opponent to play "fair" and thusly control the "cheating" that a given deck is prone to abusing.  it's in your best interest to research cards that will minimize the number of spells played per turn.

I do agree that the need for Ponders is apparent.  In a redundent deck such as this, card selection becomes very important to retaining your tempo gains and control over the game state.  Drain into Nevenryls is/was a classic play which you don't have in here, I'm curious as to why?  Also witht the lone Crucible, I'm curious about the absence of Tinker in this List.
     
      Side Rant on the Staxx issue:  Null Rod, Kataki, E.Flux, Pithing Needle, Swords  /End Rant.

3 Conclaves are a bit much (although only by 1).  As stated, they do come into play tapped and do require  to activate.  Keeping in mind that you are going to want to keep open to bluff or cast Drain, activating a conclave is going to be taxing.  I'd like to see this Conclave turn into Tundra 4.  While we are on the land issue, I'm not sold on LoA.  This deck doesn't appear to be in a position to have 7 on board to reliably activate the Library.  I would also be hesitent to hold onto cards I want/need to cast simply for LoA activation, instead I'd rather see this as Plains 2 to further stabilize the manabase.  Now that we are into changes, how about reducing the Drains to 3 to bring up the MisD count to 3 as well.  In fact if you really fear a Druress effect into the Standstill, then 4 MisD would be the right number and possibly looking to add scrolls to keep the counter magic comming..I mean since you aren't doing anything but casting wastelands and manlands, you might as well be tutoring up the countermagic right?  And since your countermagic, at this point, would be mainly pitch magic, it's ok to tap down for Scrolls.

Keep in mind, I am NOT a seasoned Landstill player by any means.  I would imagen in this day of Vintage, you would have to be a pretty damn good player to pilot something as slow as this deck in a Vintage tourny.  You will really need to assess your meta and then plan out your Main and Side board accordingly.  A final suggestion to you, to allow us to further look into this deck, would be to come back with your meta considerations and the current Vintage meta consideration as well.  This would allow us to better look at card selection to optimize the list.

cheers and good luck
Michael

[Robert the Swordsman]

I'm a huge Landstill fan, but I've never actually played the deck in any competitive environment... that being said, I have a few questions / suggestions:

- Is there a reason for the absence of Mox Pearl? Proxy limit, maybe?

- It seems like this deck would benefit greatly from the addition of Mystical Tutor; you could very easily dig up the necessary Balance / Chain of Vapor / Ancestral, et cetera.

- I believe it's been suggested, but Tinker seems like it would be pretty swell in this list, though with your current low amount of artifacts, it might be hard to make it consistent. Still, I think it'd be worth it to find room for Tinker and DSC (adding both Mystical and the additional Mox may make Tinker more reasonable... and Tinker -> Disk?! Unstoppable! )

[Stormanimagus]

Sup Stormanimagus,

I've been working on a casual pet Landstill deck as well.  I'm not terribly convinced that it has the "junk" to compete in Vintage Tournys, but does have it's control appeal.  My initial thoughts on U/W are that it wants to play out control and then develop some sort of a "lock" or "prison" aspect.  This being the case, one would think of Stax decks as the superior Prison deck.

Never the less, I DO applaud you for playing something out of left field, as even U/R Landstill doesn't seem to recive much support.  The fastest components you seem to have with this deck is mana denial (Wasteland, Stripmine, Stifle, with a mid/lategame Crucible lock) and thusly I think you need to focus on this somewhat.  After this opening of mana denial, you have to play the conrtol route, and it's at this point that I am unsure as to why you don't include the Chalices?  In some testing against Superlong and Tropical storm (admittedly NOT the best combo decks to be testing against) I found that Chalice @ 1 was pretty hard to get out of barring a quick Merchantscroll for Hurkels/Echoing Truth when counter magic was in hand.  This left a Tinker for DSC as the win condition..but I'm getting off topic here.

Actually, I ran Chalice in my UR list and it was the toughest thing to cut here. The reason I had to cut it was because I ran sooo many of my own 1CC spells that I wouldn't have anything realistic to set it at. I run, currently, 4 Stifle, 4 BS, 4 Swords, 1 Chain, and 1 Recall. That's 14 cards out of my MD. That's a huge problem for running Chalice. Now, I DO love the card as it can be an awesome Drain Sink into Chalice at 1, and it is always playable as Chalice at 0 but can I really Make room for it MD? I'd really only want to play it MD I think as a 4-of because that's where it'd have the most notable game effect. If I were to drop Brainstorm from this list, as I did in the U/R list then could I be bold enough to run Chalice on the premise of running these kinds of plays against GAT?

Stifle fetch on turn 1
Chalice for 1 on turn 2
If they drop a creature either tutor for bounce, chump or wait for them to bounce Chalice at 1 then Swords?

That seems a bit risky to me. Cutting off Swords could be a problem. Hmmmmm. . . This is going to require some serious thought because Chalice could make or break it for this deck.

On the topic of Decree. I don't see where people don't see the inherent awesomeness of this card. Off any 2+ drain this card should be rockin. You can then Decree for at least 2 and possibly 3 soldiers consistently and they are uncounterable while netting you a card in the process. Oh, yeah, and Decree doesn't break standstill. It's a remarkable card and should be run as a 2-of in every UW landstill list IMO.

Disk is a great card and I see its uses (I was gonna run 3 in the board a while back), but it is just too slow and easy to hate on right now and is pretty much only good against Stax (as I see it because creature decks out there right now run a lot of artifact answers and this one CIPT which is a huge problem) and I'd rather run a proactive answer like SB Kataki. Chalice could be sick in that matchup too though as Chalice at 0 into Kataki prevents them from play Moxen/Lotus and paying for Kataki in that way. Hmmmmm. . . I think BS can leave the deck actually, because it is more a digging tool and not pure CA. This deck is about pure CA and pure answers. We run a high answer density (kinda like MUD but in a different way) and we are basically hoping to hit 1-2 relevant ones in the opening 7 so as to really challenge most decks out there on a fundamental level. Chalice is gonna get the nod I think.

As for Tinker/DSC. Even with Mystical I don't think I run nearly enough tutors or alternate Tinker targets to warrant that. There is also a record amount of bounce in the format thanks to GAT so the DSC plan isn't always that great. Oh yeah, and the ever present STP. Oh yeah, and the BIG reason for my deck not to run that engine. I only have 3 MD Tinker targets (2 Moxen and 1 Lotus, Crucible doesn't count as I'll want to keep that in play). Running Tinker/DSC in this deck would be foolish and I think any experienced Vintage player would agree with me on that one. Most Tinker Decks in the field run AT LEAST 6-12 easily sackable artifacts to make it a useful card (Tyrant Oath is kinda the minimum artifact tinker deck).

Oh, and btw. This may sound absurd, but, against GAT, this deck's real Bomb and threat is Threads Of Disloyalty. This card is a such a bomb in Vintage right now that I can't even express how highly I think of it. I want to run 4 SB and I very well still may. That is our proactive threat in many matchups and snatches up the following awesome cards that you should see at least a couple different matches per tourney:

Tarmogoyf
Quirion Dryad
Dark Confidant
Jotun Grunt
Gorilla Shaman
Goblin Welder (Use Welder tricks to screw them)

Less seen but played:
Kird Ape
Skyshroud Elite

Most any G/R beats creature.

Threads Of Disloyalty will single handedly allow you to NOT lose to GAT and many forms of Junk Fish or just Junk out there. The card significanly helps this deck from the SB.

I don't really know if this deck needs a bomb threat. It runs a pseudo such cards in Decree Of Justic if you generate enough mana to make x 2 Angels, but other than that I'm not seeing what I could add to give the deck a bomb without offsetting the controlling strategy too much. I have considered the Exalted Angel route as that card just seems all around amazing, but the double white in the CC is a huge problem and keeps me from playing the card. Here's a revised list for you guys to tear into:

UW Landstill

Land (24):
2 Mutavault
4 Mishra’s Factory
4 Flooded Strand
1 Polluted Delta
4 Tundra (Proxy x2)
4 Wasteland
1 Strip Mine
3 Island
1 Plains

Artifacts (7):
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Pearl
1 Crucible Of Worlds
3 Chalice Of The Void

Creatures (2):
2 Exalted Angel

Enchantments (4):
4 Standstill

Instants (21):
4 Force Of Will
4 Mana Drain
3 Misdirection
3 Swords To Plowshares
4 Stifle
1 Ancestral Recall

Sorceries (4):
2 Decree Of Justice
1 Time Walk
1 Balance

SB
3 Jotun Grunt
3 Kataki, War’s Wage
3 Threads Of Disloyalty
3 Pithing Needle
3 Meddling Mage

[zeus-online]

Is there any reason not to run more mana acceleration? I can only see benefits?

/Zeus

[Stormanimagus]

Is there any reason not to run more mana acceleration? I can only see benefits?

/Zeus

There is a great reason. This deck is not looking to power anything out fast and slots for off-colored moxen would only eat up the slots I have for answers. Not all decks in Vintage run full power and there's a reason for this. I run on-colored moxen because they allow for good turn 1 plays like Kataki, and Chalice @1, but not for many other reasons. Fish decks don't often run many and Landstill certainly should not. It just isn't the way this deck plays out.

[Anusien]

Decree off a Drain requires tapping out in your main phase.  Even Drain your Merchant Scroll, Decree for 3 soldiers requires 4 mana from you main phase, and three 1/1 dorks looks pretty insignificant next to a Psychatog.  The Tog decks are no longer all that vulnerable to Wasteland, which was one of the main reasons Landstill was ever any good.

[Stormanimagus]

Decree off a Drain requires tapping out in your main phase.  Even Drain your Merchant Scroll, Decree for 3 soldiers requires 4 mana from you main phase, and three 1/1 dorks looks pretty insignificant next to a Psychatog.  The Tog decks are no longer all that vulnerable to Wasteland, which was one of the main reasons Landstill was ever any good.

True, and I'd maybe side them out vs. TOG. But resistant to FoW still certainly counts for Something VS. TOG and swords MD is a fine answer to the TOG. Actually TOG variants are going to harder for this deck than GAT, because post board we have Threads for GAT and they are null against TOG. We do have meddling mage, however, and that card can be great vs. either build. Oh yeah, Grunt also shines in the TOG matchup where it is not quite as amazing vs. GAT. I think that Draining into an uncounterable Win Condition is always a good proposition and it is just TOO good to count vs. MUD or Mono-Red Stax.

I've been thinking recently that what this deck really needs is Chalice Back. Chalice to stop all the annoying CA and threats of the current meta while also being flexible in that it can stop Moxen. Here's a new proposed list that I believe has a VERY favorable matchup vs. MUD, a mediocre one against Mono-Red Stax and an unkown (better poast board) matchup vs. TOG and GAT.

UW Landstill

Land (24):
2 Mutavault
4 Mishra’s Factory
4 Flooded Strand
1 Polluted Delta
4 Tundra (Proxy x3)
4 Wasteland
1 Strip Mine
3 Island
1 Plains

Artifacts (7):
1 Black Lotus (Proxy)
1 Mox Sapphire (Proxy)
1 Mox Pearl (Proxy)
1 Crucible Of Worlds
3 Chalice Of The Void

Creatures (2):
2 Exalted Angel

Enchantments (4):
4 Standstill

Instants (19):
4 Force Of Will
4 Mana Drain (Proxy x 4)
3 Misdirection
3 Swords To Plowshares
4 Stifle
1 Ancestral Recall (Proxy)


Sorceries (4):
2 Decree Of Justice
1 Time Walk (Proxy)
1 Balance

SB
3 Jotun Grunt
3 Kataki, War’s Wage
3 Threads Of Disloyalty
3 Pithing Needle
3 Meddling Mage

[Shock Wave]

There really is no good reason to run white over red. I've been telling players this for years.

White = STP, Balance

Red = REB, Pyro, Rack and Ruin, F/I

I know there are other cards that fall into those categories, but those are the big players. I beg anyone who is considering UW to ask themselves to think of the conditions under which STP and Balance are unequivocally more useful than the red options. Hint: There aren't very many.

Oh, and DoJ and Exalted Angel truly suck in this deck.

[Stormanimagus]

There really is no good reason to run white over red. I've been telling players this for years.

White = STP, Balance

Red = REB, Pyro, Rack and Ruin, F/I

I know there are other cards that fall into those categories, but those are the big players. I beg anyone who is considering UW to ask themselves to think of the conditions under which STP and Balance are unequivocally more useful than the red options. Hint: There aren't very many.

Oh, and DoJ and Exalted Angel truly suck in this deck.

I've been testing Red extensively and been using Rich Mattiuzzo's list from Gen Con 2007 as a guide so don't lecture about R better than W to me. I think White offers many more unique and relevant solutions to the meta right now:

STP is huge right now because it takes out creatures with more than 2 toughness and there are a lot (Jugg, Trike, Grunt, Goyf, Tog, Dryad-once pumped-) and they are played in ALL the competitive decks. Basically Fire // Ice only shines in that it takes out Welders, Confidants and pitches to FoW. Big Whoop. I've been playing the card and it has been underwhelming me over and over.

The format has slowed down to the induction of Thorn of Amethyst and the revival of Stax Prison decks so we must too adapt. Creatures are a great option against decks like that. So is landstill.

Mana Drain + Decree Of Justic = Synergy
Mana Drain + Exalted = Synergy
Creatures = Beats Thorn

You are also forgetting the awesome SB cards we get in this deck from white:

Meddling Mage
Jotun Grunt
Kataki, War's Wage

Kataki is brilliant vs any sort of stax deck right now because he evades Thorn Of Amethyst and most often Chalice (they will rarely want to set it on 2 because it will negate their prison strategy of Sphere + Thorn so our deck is a headache for them because we have Drain, Standstill, Balance, and Kataki from the SB all at 2 CC. This also makes it very confusing for them post board. Do I leave Chalice in? Take it out? We have threats/outs that cost both 1 and 2 mana and we have manlands to break a standstill. ).

Anyway, I've been testing both builds and UW has a WAYYYY better game vs. any variety of Stax. U/R might have a slight edge over U/W in the TOG or GAT matchup (haven't really tested that one much), but I'm confidant that we can win a war of attrition post SB with Meddling Mage and either Threads or Grunt to back it up). GAT will be a battle, but a winnable one IMO. Stifle is a house game 1 in that matchup as it can really wreck their tempo if they try to fetch to find a land to cast BS or Ponder (remember, they'll often be doing that in order to find FoW and won't necessarily have it yet. in fact are, the odds are exactly the same that we'll have one at that point as both decks run 4).

I hate it when people act all high and mighty about their opinions on online forums without actually explaining their thinking in some detail. I've tested both decks and I like U/W better. What are the specific reasons I should go back to U/R? It has almost an Auto-loss to Prison and a poor matchup against mono-red stax, or really any of the 9-balls variants running around, of which there are a lot.

Until someone makes a compelling argument, it's UW for me.

One card I would like some real criticism on is Exalted Angel. I like that you can play her morph cost relatively easily and then unmorph through spheres and the like, but I'm not sure she fits. I really like the setup of Win Conditions/bombs in my deck, but perhaps she isn't meant to be it?

[feyd]

I am going to have to go with shockwave on this one.  In our current metagame the only clear advatage a u/w variant holds is swords to plowshares.  Lightning bolt can usually get the job done against many opposing strategies.  There are times when a swords to plowshares would be infintely more useful than a lightning bolt but on the other hand I am sure there have been close matches for a u/w player where they were wishing they had a lightning bolt to aim at their opponents head.
   White, in my opinion, and I know this may sound ridiculous, has too slow of a game plan.  There are times when swordsing an opponents creature will give them a lot of breathing room and further slow landstill's already decrepitly slow win conditions.  F/I are both equally useless when squaring off against an opponent who drops turn one DSC with counter backup.  Against decks that run combo reds pyro/red elemental blasts act as hard counters.  Red has a more zesty approach to artifact destruction.  Kataki is white's energy flux which is useful but at the same time allows your opponent to choose.  Having the option to decide exactly which two artifacts to blow up with rack and ruin can be decisively better than dropping kataki.
     Red has the offensive options to throw straight burn at an oppoenent's head while white must plod along hoping to drain into something big.  The decks play out differently but I think the more versatile aggresive of the two runs red.  White may have swords but burn holds its own even in todays metagame.

[Stormanimagus]

I am going to have to go with shockwave on this one.  In our current metagame the only clear advatage a u/w variant holds is swords to plowshares.  Lightning bolt can usually get the job done against many opposing strategies.  There are times when a swords to plowshares would be infintely more useful than a lightning bolt but on the other hand I am sure there have been close matches for a u/w player where they were wishing they had a lightning bolt to aim at their opponents head.
   White, in my opinion, and I know this may sound ridiculous, has too slow of a game plan.  There are times when swordsing an opponents creature will give them a lot of breathing room and further slow landstill's already decrepitly slow win conditions.  F/I are both equally useless when squaring off against an opponent who drops turn one DSC with counter backup.  Against decks that run combo reds pyro/red elemental blasts act as hard counters.  Red has a more zesty approach to artifact destruction.  Kataki is white's energy flux which is useful but at the same time allows your opponent to choose.  Having the option to decide exactly which two artifacts to blow up with rack and ruin can be decisively better than dropping kataki.
     Red has the offensive options to throw straight burn at an oppoenent's head while white must plod along hoping to drain into something big.  The decks play out differently but I think the more versatile aggresive of the two runs red.  White may have swords but burn holds its own even in todays metagame.

White also has Jotun Grunt BTW, which should not be discounted. I am realizing that my list, post-board, looks a bit like a UW fish list with some minor alteration (lol, I actually like how that just happended by me choosing the best SB cards).

Anyway, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I am sorry, but I just don't think you are up to date to what is happening in Vintage right now. Shop decks running 9 spheres are at an all time high, but only 5 of those 9 spheres affect Kataki.

Sure, R & R is powerful and is probably better immediatly than Kataki, but it will cost 3R to play 90 % of the time and that will leave us open unless we have FoW available. Kataki clogs them up for at least a turn and Kataki + Chalice at 0 should probably be bordering on GG vs. Stax.

Here's the important part: Kataki will hit play far more than R & R ever will. This difference of 1 in the mana cost is HUGE right now with the aforementioned 9 sphere decks running around and Kataki is a reasonable and offensive threat. Kataki combined with Pithing Needle for Wastes and/or SoFI or some other such nonsense seems pretty awesome right now and I don't think I'll have a problem with Stax after game 1.

Now, as for GAT. I would actually have to agree with you there. U/R is significantly superior to U/W in that you can run 4-6 Blast effects in the SB to help win the Counter war, but I don't think you should underestimate what U/W can do. Notice that I still run Chalice in my MD and Chalice at 1 gives GAT a very hard time. I basically have a more proactive solution and unless they can find a FoW for EVERYTHING (unlikely) I should have a fair game against them. Here are some very well-tuned cards between the MD and SB that can reallly hurt GAT:

4 Stifle — Mana denial is huge right now, as our good friend Magus of the Moon is proving. Stifle is still one of the best in the biz and GAT and TOG both run 6 fetch. Good answer IMO

3 Chalice — I'll set this on 1 all day vs. GAT unless we are in the late game and I need my STP to nuke their guy.

3 STP — Often the only removal spell that will kill TOG or Dryad or Goyf in my MD. There are arguments for running 4. Perhaps I still will.

2 Exalted Angel — GAT doesn't run much in the way of removal and bounce won't always do it vs. this guy as he'll just come back swinging. Tempo can be huge and this guy can be the nuts when he hits fast enough.

2 Decree — People are really hating on this card and I don't understand why. At worst it is a way to make 3-4 blockers in the Midgame for TOG or Dryad or Goyf that buys you time to find an answer. I suppose Berserk makes that plan worse, but this card is just too good to give up. Doesn't break Standstill, doesn't get hosed by Wasteland. I personally like not having to rely on Manlands FTW right now because of all the creature decks floating around.

1 Balance — This card can be good if you are behind in cards, but watch out for Gush and losing your lands. be prepared for that and know what you'd have to sac. They'll have to disc much of their hand usually, so if that's what you want then play this card.

SB

3 Threads Of Disloyalty – An absolute house against Goyf and Dryad. Make sure you don't side it in against the pure TOG matchup.

3 Jotun Grunt — An Absolute house against the TOG build. They no long have a huge GY to pump TOG or to make a huge Will from. 4/4 beatstick also applies pressure to a slow deck (TOG is significantly slower than GAT IMO)

3 Meddling Mage — Names TOG vs. TOG and names Dryad or Gush (depending on if you think they are running Goyf or not) or some other random goodness vs. the rest of the GAT decks out there. Still classically good in vintage and has applications across the board.

Now I haven't even mentioned that we run 4 Force, 3 Misd. and 4 Drain MD and 4 Standstill as a way to draw into them. I mean, we won't OFTEN win the first counter war with GAT, but the idea is to at least draw out their FoW with an amazing threat (and either FoW back or not depending) from the above list and then to quickly drop another that will hopefully make up for the lost tempo of losing the first.


Whew. That was a lot. Anyway, can someone give me their definitive opinion regarding Exalted Angel? Garbage? Applicable? Where is it Applicable?

[hitman]

@ Stormanimagus - Shockwave is Rich Mattiuzzo.  Secondly, creatures are poor in Landstill for the simple reason that you are drawing dead cards when your opponent decideds to pop the Standstill.  If you play your creatures under a Standstill, you're letting your opponent Ancestral for free.  You want to draw into spells that stop the ones they're playing.  Creatures off a popped Standstill are horrible.  Thirdly, why do you need Swords over Fire/Ice, anyway.  If it's Collossus, you can Ice it and swarm or Chain of Vapor.  If its creatures like Juggernaut, you can block, shoot with Fire, pump with other Factories, etc, etc.  Fire/Ice is ridiculously efficient against Goblins, Confidants, Welders, etc.  I just don't understand why you think White makes you stronger against Workshops than Red.  Red has the most powerful and efficient artifact removal spells.  You're playing with four White cards that clog up your early game hand with high casting costs.  Just some thoughts.

[Shock Wave]

I've been testing Red extensively and been using Rich Mattiuzzo's list from Gen Con 2007 as a guide so don't lecture about R better than W to me.

Oh, that Rich Mattiuzzo guy. I hear he's been playing Landstill for some 7 years now. What does he know though, eh?! He's probably been doing it all wrong. Don't flatter yourself by assuming that I want to lecture you. I've beaten this horse far too many times to see anything productive come of an elaborate explanation as to why white is a strictly inferior colour. I'm posting to save you the aggravation of all my testing over the years. If you think you're right, hey, all the power to you. Sleeve up your favourite UW build and prepare to get your havoc wreaked at the next tournament you attend.

STP is huge right now because it takes out creatures with more than 2 toughness and there are a lot (Jugg, Trike, Grunt, Goyf, Tog, Dryad-once pumped-) and they are played in ALL the competitive decks. Basically Fire // Ice only shines in that it takes out Welders, Confidants and pitches to FoW. Big Whoop. I've been playing the card and it has been underwhelming me over and over.

Here's the problem: You are touting STP as an amazing aggro stopper. I'm not going to disagree there. It is an amazing aggro stopper. The problem is that Landstill is not a good choice against aggro decks, and its weakness in this department is not mitigated substantially with the addition of 3 or even 4 STP. Adding 4 STP to Landstill, in preparation for an aggro metagame, is like putting on a bulletproof vest and then jumping in front of a rocket launcher.

The format has slowed down to the induction of Thorn of Amethyst and the revival of Stax Prison decks so we must too adapt. Creatures are a great option against decks like that. So is landstill.

Mana Drain + Decree Of Justic = Synergy
Mana Drain + Exalted = Synergy
Creatures = Beats Thorn

You plan on resolving Mana Drain to feed a huge DoJ or Exalted Angel against a Shop deck? Pray tell, what kind of players are giving you these sorts of gifts? Shops often pump out Sphere/Thorn on Turn 1, immediately setting your drain back a turn if you are on the draw. If you're on the play, unless you've drawn your Sapphire or Lotus, or burn a FoW on their first Sphere, you're not going to be draining into anything. If they manage to pump out another Sphere, your Drains are essentially dead. Mana Drain is actually Landstill's weakest disruption against Stax, because your "bombs" are very underwhelming.

Curiously, you've removed Null Rod from your deck, yet seem to be focusing on beating Stax. You do realize that your best shot at victory is through winning the mana denial war, right?

You are also forgetting the awesome SB cards we get in this deck from white:

Meddling Mage
Jotun Grunt
Kataki, War's Wage

No, I haven't forgotten about any of these cards. Meddling Mage is solid, but is unreliable against any deck that runs Wasteland. You're running 11 colorless sources of mana. It's pretty ambitious to hope to have UW and a Mage available by turn two. I've tested this card in the past, and while it can be great when resolved, it does have a prohibitive cost against certain archetypes. There's also the problem of just totally whiffing with Mage, at which point it becomes an awful 2/2 vanilla beater.

Kataki is solid coming out of the board. This will make your post-board matchup against Stax significantly better. You are missing Null Rod though. It seems counterintuitive to bring in Kataki and not have Null Rod to complement it.

Jotun Grunt out of the board is terrible. What are you bringing this in against?

Anyway, I've been testing both builds and UW has a WAYYYY better game vs. any variety of Stax. U/R might have a slight edge over U/W in the TOG or GAT matchup (haven't really tested that one much), but I'm confidant that we can win a war of attrition post SB with Meddling Mage and either Threads or Grunt to back it up). GAT will be a battle, but a winnable one IMO. Stifle is a house game 1 in that matchup as it can really wreck their tempo if they try to fetch to find a land to cast BS or Ponder (remember, they'll often be doing that in order to find FoW and won't necessarily have it yet. in fact are, the odds are exactly the same that we'll have one at that point as both decks run 4).

Yup, you can certainly taper a UW build to smash modern-day 9s.dec. That's a fact. The problems arise when you get paired against other matchups. Building Landstill has nothing to do with one matchup and everything to do with designing it go 50/50 against the field. By "the field", I mean any deck that you can expect to play against, within reason. I don't think your UW build has a better chance of making T8 than a UR build. You have have a slightly better chance of winning the Workshop matchups, but that's the only meager advantage your build provides.

I hate it when people act all high and mighty about their opinions on online forums without actually explaining their thinking in some detail. I've tested both decks and I like U/W better. What are the specific reasons I should go back to U/R? It has almost an Auto-loss to Prison and a poor matchup against mono-red stax, or really any of the 9-balls variants running around, of which there are a lot.

Heh, high and mighty. I equally dislike it when new Landstill players ask for a critique of their builds, yet seemingly already have all the answers. I've played this deck in many variations, for many years. If there's an archetype I'm qualified to lecture on, this is certainly it. That doesn't mean you have to listen, you're free to do whatever you wish.

Until someone makes a compelling argument, it's UW for me.

Here's one for you. Let's assume a 6 round tournament, with a heavy Shop/GAT metagame. Therefore, we can assume 2 GAT/Shop matchups. Let's say you win the 2 Shop matchups, and squeak through one of the GAT matchups (which is very generous, because GAT will rape this deck). That leaves us with 2 random matchups. What gives this deck an advantage over UR builds against the rest of the field?

Here's what I see: You've marginally upped your chances against Stax (on the strength of Kataki, that's about it). You've significantly worsened your matchup against GAT. You have not improved any other matchups, and you've weakened Landstill's primary strength (mana denial) with the exclusion of Null Rod.

If anything, it's you that needs to make compelling arguments as to why your changes are reasonable. That also includes applying your reasoning, successfully, in a high-level event. Nobody here needs to prove to you why UR Landstill is successful.

[Stormanimagus]

I've been testing Red extensively and been using Rich Mattiuzzo's list from Gen Con 2007 as a guide so don't lecture about R better than W to me.

Oh, that Rich Mattiuzzo guy. I hear he's been playing Landstill for some 7 years now. What does he know though, eh?! He's probably been doing it all wrong. Don't flatter yourself by assuming that I want to lecture you. I've beaten this horse far too many times to see anything productive come of an elaborate explanation as to why white is a strictly inferior colour. I'm posting to save you the aggravation of all my testing over the years. If you think you're right, hey, all the power to you. Sleeve up your favourite UW build and prepare to get your havoc wreaked at the next tournament you attend.

STP is huge right now because it takes out creatures with more than 2 toughness and there are a lot (Jugg, Trike, Grunt, Goyf, Tog, Dryad-once pumped-) and they are played in ALL the competitive decks. Basically Fire // Ice only shines in that it takes out Welders, Confidants and pitches to FoW. Big Whoop. I've been playing the card and it has been underwhelming me over and over.

Here's the problem: You are touting STP as an amazing aggro stopper. I'm not going to disagree there. It is an amazing aggro stopper. The problem is that Landstill is not a good choice against aggro decks, and its weakness in this department is not mitigated substantially with the addition of 3 or even 4 STP. Adding 4 STP to Landstill, in preparation for an aggro metagame, is like putting on a bulletproof vest and then jumping in front of a rocket launcher.

The format has slowed down to the induction of Thorn of Amethyst and the revival of Stax Prison decks so we must too adapt. Creatures are a great option against decks like that. So is landstill.

Mana Drain + Decree Of Justic = Synergy
Mana Drain + Exalted = Synergy
Creatures = Beats Thorn

You plan on resolving Mana Drain to feed a huge DoJ or Exalted Angel against a Shop deck? Pray tell, what kind of players are giving you these sorts of gifts? Shops often pump out Sphere/Thorn on Turn 1, immediately setting your drain back a turn if you are on the draw. If you're on the play, unless you've drawn your Sapphire or Lotus, or burn a FoW on their first Sphere, you're not going to be draining into anything. If they manage to pump out another Sphere, your Drains are essentially dead. Mana Drain is actually Landstill's weakest disruption against Stax, because your "bombs" are very underwhelming.

Curiously, you've removed Null Rod from your deck, yet seem to be focusing on beating Stax. You do realize that your best shot at victory is through winning the mana denial war, right?

You are also forgetting the awesome SB cards we get in this deck from white:

Meddling Mage
Jotun Grunt
Kataki, War's Wage

No, I haven't forgotten about any of these cards. Meddling Mage is solid, but is unreliable against any deck that runs Wasteland. You're running 11 colorless sources of mana. It's pretty ambitious to hope to have UW and a Mage available by turn two. I've tested this card in the past, and while it can be great when resolved, it does have a prohibitive cost against certain archetypes. There's also the problem of just totally whiffing with Mage, at which point it becomes an awful 2/2 vanilla beater.

Kataki is solid coming out of the board. This will make your post-board matchup against Stax significantly better. You are missing Null Rod though. It seems counterintuitive to bring in Kataki and not have Null Rod to complement it.

Jotun Grunt out of the board is terrible. What are you bringing this in against?

Anyway, I've been testing both builds and UW has a WAYYYY better game vs. any variety of Stax. U/R might have a slight edge over U/W in the TOG or GAT matchup (haven't really tested that one much), but I'm confidant that we can win a war of attrition post SB with Meddling Mage and either Threads or Grunt to back it up). GAT will be a battle, but a winnable one IMO. Stifle is a house game 1 in that matchup as it can really wreck their tempo if they try to fetch to find a land to cast BS or Ponder (remember, they'll often be doing that in order to find FoW and won't necessarily have it yet. in fact are, the odds are exactly the same that we'll have one at that point as both decks run 4).

Yup, you can certainly taper a UW build to smash modern-day 9s.dec. That's a fact. The problems arise when you get paired against other matchups. Building Landstill has nothing to do with one matchup and everything to do with designing it go 50/50 against the field. By "the field", I mean any deck that you can expect to play against, within reason. I don't think your UW build has a better chance of making T8 than a UR build. You have have a slightly better chance of winning the Workshop matchups, but that's the only meager advantage your build provides.

I hate it when people act all high and mighty about their opinions on online forums without actually explaining their thinking in some detail. I've tested both decks and I like U/W better. What are the specific reasons I should go back to U/R? It has almost an Auto-loss to Prison and a poor matchup against mono-red stax, or really any of the 9-balls variants running around, of which there are a lot.

Heh, high and mighty. I equally dislike it when new Landstill players ask for a critique of their builds, yet seemingly already have all the answers. I've played this deck in many variations, for many years. If there's an archetype I'm qualified to lecture on, this is certainly it. That doesn't mean you have to listen, you're free to do whatever you wish.

Until someone makes a compelling argument, it's UW for me.

Here's one for you. Let's assume a 6 round tournament, with a heavy Shop/GAT metagame. Therefore, we can assume 2 GAT/Shop matchups. Let's say you win the 2 Shop matchups, and squeak through one of the GAT matchups (which is very generous, because GAT will rape this deck). That leaves us with 2 random matchups. What gives this deck an advantage over UR builds against the rest of the field?

Here's what I see: You've marginally upped your chances against Stax (on the strength of Kataki, that's about it). You've significantly worsened your matchup against GAT. You have not improved any other matchups, and you've weakened Landstill's primary strength (mana denial) with the exclusion of Null Rod.

If anything, it's you that needs to make compelling arguments as to why your changes are reasonable. That also includes applying your reasoning, successfully, in a high-level event. Nobody here needs to prove to you why UR Landstill is successful.

All your points are well taken. But I do still have a few of my own. First off, questions:

Why is Fire//Ice really any better than STP at removing creatures? From what I can tell it is far worse in the current meta because most creatures are either x/3's or can easily be with time (Goyf, Dryad). Stax decks don't really rely on Welder any more so killing it isn't necessarily going to solve your problem. Killing Bob is nice, but STP does that too and for 1 mana less.
Ice is fun and makes the card pitchable to FoW. It also allows you to time walk vs. Oath and disrupt manabases, but I really don't see it being particularly broken. If Ice had more applications that you could explain to me you might convince me to go back to red. Basically Red offers Fire // Ice MD and other stuff sb.

Are you saying Fire // Ice is better than STP? I don't really see it to be honest. fighting a fire // ice across the board vs. Welder stax is just as hard as fighting a drain across. fighting an STP across? rarely a problem.

So then we go to SB. You are absolutley right. Grunt sucks. I am changing that right now. I'm also cutting Balance from the MD for another STP because Balance is rarely a winning proposition for me as I often have a bigger hand than opponent (reactive deck that I am) and pretty much always have more land. It's just too risky a card for this deck and has far better fits IMO.

As for the SB, here's what I may run to help the GAT matchup:

3 Echoing Truth/Aven Mindcensor
3 Meddling Mage
3 Threads Of Disloyalty
3 Pithing Needle
3 Kataki, War's Wage

Truth/Mindcensor could be very helpful. Now there it is. The SB. If (and I'm not saying this is a yes) we agree that STP and Fire // Ice have their own separate gains MD and are both relatively even then we examine the SBs. Here's a good UR SB:

3 Threads
2 Pyro
3 REB
3 Rack And Ruin
4 Chalice Of The Void

Now notice I run Chalice MD in my list above first off. That means I do have mana denial and IMO Chalice >>>>> Null Rod against the field right now. Sure they'll get to drop their stuff if they're on the play, but Null Rod is basically ONLY GOOD AGAINST STAX (or bomberman) right now. Not many decks a)run full power b)rely on that full power right now so I think the Rod is kinda weak to be honest. I'd run Needle to act as a Wasteland hoser any day over Null Rod. I've considered Rod and I just don't see it having wide enough applications. However, if I was UR and didn't have access to Kataki, I'd certainly Make room for the Rods at least in the SB.

IMO the only reason to run Red is REB and Pyro and I'm not entirely sure that they make up the difference for me that you get from running white for Mage, kataki, STP and, to a lesser extent, Decree and/or Exalted.

You've made pretty convincing arguments and I may yet go back to red, but here's another thing. Red seems to make really poor use out of Mana Drain. I mean, the sinks aren't great and don't necessarily do much VS. Stax. Idea's for good Sinks if I were to run red?

I'm sorry for coming across badly earlier btw. I didn't mean to sound like a know-it-all because clearly you have experience with this deck. I'm just trying to innovate a bit to a new metagame that isn't the one Rich Mattiuzzo faced last year at Gen Con. No hard feelings I hope?

[G-A-T 177]

I've been testing Red extensively and been using Rich Mattiuzzo's list from Gen Con 2007 as a guide
I'm sorry for coming across badly earlier btw. I didn't mean to sound like a know-it-all because clearly you have experience with this deck. I'm just trying to innovate a bit to a new metagame that isn't the one Rich Mattiuzzo faced last year at Gen Con. No hard feelings I hope?

the gencon t8 had 2 gat's and 2 stax. while im not sure what the metagame is at the moment, it seems like the you are speaking alot about these 2 matchups..... so u/r then? btw do you know who you've been arguing with?

[Stormanimagus]

I've been testing Red extensively and been using Rich Mattiuzzo's list from Gen Con 2007 as a guide
I'm sorry for coming across badly earlier btw. I didn't mean to sound like a know-it-all because clearly you have experience with this deck. I'm just trying to innovate a bit to a new metagame that isn't the one Rich Mattiuzzo faced last year at Gen Con. No hard feelings I hope?

the gencon t8 had 2 gat's and 2 stax. while im not sure what the metagame is at the moment, it seems like the you are speaking alot about these 2 matchups..... so u/r then? btw do you know who you've been arguing with?

No I don't, and I feel awful. You know guys. I'm sorry. I thought U/W could add some teched out stuff to do better against the field. I thought Decree could be a strong win condition if things go south for the lands due to wasteland. I thought that Kataki was a great SB choice for Stax. I thought STP was the bomb. I don't think I'm really correct on anything. Mainly I was worried about losing to junk decks in the first round due to the lack of various Win Conditions and that's why I liked White (Decree and Exalted) but if I can't beat a few janky decks in the first rounds then I don't deserve to make it to the later rounds. Fire // Ice does actually deal with most of the cards I've been worried about (namely goblins) U/R not being able to deal with. What I've been afraid of with U/R is that if they drop a creature with toughness >2 I basically have to chump it or find a way to bounce it and then counter it (Chain Of Vapor). Game 2 things get better with Threads and such but it just seems that U/R is walking a very thin Tightrope. I do agree though now after some examination that Red is probably the more solid choice for this archetype. Maybe if I want to go UW I should just switch over to Bomberman. Man, Innovater dude (me) is depressed. Sorry to have wasted your time and effort guys. Oh, and funny enough. After fenagling my UR list it looks almost exactly like Mattiuzzos. Guess he really did have it right. Rod is still good and better MD than SB. Only thing I changed was to include 1 Needle MD as added protection (basically Crucible number 2 but with a different effect) and have 2 more SB. Almost everything else is exactly the same. Again, sorry guys.

[dicemanx]

No need to apologize - UW is a tempting option, and it is only natural to explore it as an alternative to UR. But as Rich mentioned, we've been down this path before. I think the take-home message (for any innovators, including the more experienced) is that there is still a wealth of information buried in the archives and some of the older threads on TMD, so it is usually worthwhile to do a little mining and let the research guide your innovation. Even if the current environment is a little different then metagames of old, the same basic principles tend to apply. Nevertheless, it is still nice to see some current discussion of Landstill since the deck is quite fascinating - it looks substandard on paper, and has been much maligned in its history, but has finally gained the respect and attention it deserves.

[Stormanimagus]

The more and more you really get down to it. U/R should be able to cut it vs. Stax and it is definitely much better vs. GAT. Here's a list that is much like Rich Mattiuzzo's from last year (I do actually think some of the same principles still apply and Null Rod has even more applications at shutting down MUD Completely and hampering Mono-Red Stax). What I'd like to know is whether you think the land base is correct (with Mutavault update) and whether or not you think the SB could be tweaked. Here goes my stab at U/R.

U/R Landstill

Land (24):
1 Faerie Conclave
2 Mutavault
4 Mishra’s Factory
2 Flooded Strand
2 Polluted Delta
4 Volcanic Island
4 Wasteland
1 Strip Mine
1 Library Of Alexandria
3 Island

Artifacts (7):
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Sapphire
3 Null Rod
1 Crucible Of Worlds
1 Pithing Needle

Creatures (1):
1 Viashino Heretic

Instants (27):
1 Ancestral Recall
4 Force Of Will
3 Misdirection
4 Mana Drain
4 Standstill
4 Stifle
3 Chain Of Vapor
4 Fire // Ice

Sorceries (1):
1 Time Walk

SB
3 Chalice Of The Void
2 Pithing Needle
4 Red Elemental Blast
2 Rack And Ruin
1 Viashino Heretic
3 Threads Of Disloyalty

[mistervader]

I'm not the landstill expert at all, but is 24 lands really enough for the deck?

[Phele]

Just to note: This is the list that came in second in an highly competetive field of 78 people at Badalona recently.

1 Black Lotus
2 Crucible of Worlds
1 Mox Sapphire
3 Null Rod
1 Ancestral Recall
2 Echoing Truth
4 Force of Will
4 Mana Drain
2 Misdirection
3 Spell Snare
4 Standstill
4 Stifle
1 Time Walk
1 Decree of Justice
3 Swords to Plowshares

Lands (24):
4 Flooded Strand
2 Island
1 Library of Alexandria
4 Mishra's Factory
1 Plains
2 Polluted Delta
1 Strip Mine
3 Tundra
2 Underground Sea
4 Wasteland

3 Aven Mindcensor
2 Exalted Angel
3 Meddling Mage
3 Serenity
4 Yixlid Jailer

Seems that UW at least also has a shot in a big field. He added White mainly for sideboard options. Serenity for example can be a huge bomb against the actual Workshop decks.

Fair to say, that an UR list came in seventh too.

[Shock Wave]

No need to apologize - UW is a tempting option, and it is only natural to explore it as an alternative to UR. But as Rich mentioned, we've been down this path before. I think the take-home message (for any innovators, including the more experienced) is that there is still a wealth of information buried in the archives and some of the older threads on TMD, so it is usually worthwhile to do a little mining and let the research guide your innovation. Even if the current environment is a little different then metagames of old, the same basic principles tend to apply. Nevertheless, it is still nice to see some current discussion of Landstill since the deck is quite fascinating - it looks substandard on paper, and has been much maligned in its history, but has finally gained the respect and attention it deserves.

What he said. There's no need to apologize. Just keep in mind that when changing around a decklist that has a proven track record, you're always going to be moving against the current. Proven decks perform well because they're usually designed well and tested extensively. The card choices are well thought out and balanced. There are usually very good reasons for certain choices/omissions, and often, the reasons do not seem strategically sound. However, this game isn't all about theory. Sometimes a list seems great on paper, and the perceived game plan seems solid, but then it falls apart in testing. Landstill's development worked in reverse; it seemed horrible on paper and yet performed very well in practice.

Why is Fire//Ice really any better than STP at removing creatures?

It's not. Fire/Ice is rarely better at removing creatures. It costs more, and it only pings smaller threats. Fire/Ice isn't played because it is better at removing creatures, it is played because it is a decent removal spell for some of Landstill's biggest banes (Dark Confidant, Goblin Welder) and is never a dead card. This is a very important reason for its inclusion. The fact that it pitches to FoW/Misd is absolutely critical. Have you ever wished you could pitch your STP to win a counter war? Probably not right? Well, try playing a few hundred games and you'll find out it happens often enough to lose you a significant number of counter battles. Very often, Landstill wins because your opponent is forced to go all-in and instigate a counter war. Landstill preys on these situations. The more non-blue spells you have in your deck, the less likely you are to survive these critical counter battles. Also, Ice is an amazing spell! The ability to tap a permanent can be absolutely huge. It wins games. You can randomly tempo rape an opponent, keep them off Drain mana, open the path for your beaters, etc. The versatility of Fire/Ice makes it a very powerful spell in this deck.

As for your sideboard, I like some of your card choices, but you haven't really elaborated on how you plan on applying them. How do you plan on boarding in your matchups?

I like your U/R list, although I feel the 1 Needle and 1 Heretic are weak. Crucible is a great one-of, because you want to draw it in the late game to seal the deal. Heretic and Needle don't seem to fit that bill. If you want to hedge strongly against Stax, cut the Needle and a Misdirection and go up to 3 Heretic. I personally don't like hedging/guessing against archetypes, but if you want to risk a little without sacrificing too much in other matchups, that seems like a decent approach.

Just to note: This is the list that came in second in an highly competetive field of 78 people at Badalona recently.

Seems that UW at least also has a shot in a big field. He added White mainly for sideboard options. Serenity for example can be a huge bomb against the actual Workshop decks.

Fair to say, that an UR list came in seventh too.

That's not a UW list though. That's a 3 colour list. Certainly, white has its assets. The conundrum is determining whether those assets translate to a better chance of winning against a varied field.

This 3 colour list has a serious upside against non-Wasteland decks. Serenity is definitely a bomb against Stax. However, this deck also is running 10 colourless sources of mana and will be colour screwed more often than not. It's a calculated risk, but I can understand why this list performed well. There seems to have been a lot of careful consideration put into this. Do you have any idea what the matchups were like?

Edit: My mistake. There are clearly only 3 colours

[Phele]

4 colour? I guess you count the high amount of colourless mana as the fourth colour. I actually don't really see a reason for the addition of black, he could have easily filled the anti Ichorid sideboard slots with some on colour weapons. But anyway: I am sorry to say, that I can't say much about the matchups, there hasn't been a report. But I can guess about the meta when looking at the top8 which can be found here:

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=35247.0

Lots of Gush Tinker and Control Slaver and Landstill with a Splash of UB Mask (go, go, go) and GAT. So it seems, as you said, that this UW build was highly tuned against the field. But there has been mana denial: The top8 has two heavy Stifle/Wasteland decks and two Moon decks. The unpowered dude coming in 12th also went the heavy Wasteland/Stifle way. I am not sure about the Workshop count, but Spain usually shows a hight percentage of Mud players.

I wouldn't go so far to say that UR is better than UW in general. The variety of tools for all of these colours meanwhile got so big, that you can easily exchange things. I, for example, don't care too much, if I play R'n'R or Serenity. Even if weaker, I also don't care too much, if I play Spell Snare/Disrupt or REB. Even though REB is THE sideboard weapon. So imo it comes down to the rather unique abbilities of Red and White. Which are: Stuff like Fire/Ice, Lighting and with that the abbility to smash face directly, mass removal like Pyroclasm for Red. And Meddling Mage (and I would never underestimate the power of Meddling Mage) and Swords (great point removal with the downside of spending life and so being much less aggressive than direct damage can be). So, I would say it's a meta question. I think, I would prefer to go with UR to an unknown field, but love UW against Oath for example.

[Stormanimagus]

No need to apologize - UW is a tempting option, and it is only natural to explore it as an alternative to UR. But as Rich mentioned, we've been down this path before. I think the take-home message (for any innovators, including the more experienced) is that there is still a wealth of information buried in the archives and some of the older threads on TMD, so it is usually worthwhile to do a little mining and let the research guide your innovation. Even if the current environment is a little different then metagames of old, the same basic principles tend to apply. Nevertheless, it is still nice to see some current discussion of Landstill since the deck is quite fascinating - it looks substandard on paper, and has been much maligned in its history, but has finally gained the respect and attention it deserves.

What he said. There's no need to apologize. Just keep in mind that when changing around a decklist that has a proven track record, you're always going to be moving against the current. Proven decks perform well because they're usually designed well and tested extensively. The card choices are well thought out and balanced. There are usually very good reasons for certain choices/omissions, and often, the reasons do not seem strategically sound. However, this game isn't all about theory. Sometimes a list seems great on paper, and the perceived game plan seems solid, but then it falls apart in testing. Landstill's development worked in reverse; it seemed horrible on paper and yet performed very well in practice.

Why is Fire//Ice really any better than STP at removing creatures?

It's not. Fire/Ice is rarely better at removing creatures. It costs more, and it only pings smaller threats. Fire/Ice isn't played because it is better at removing creatures, it is played because it is a decent removal spell for some of Landstill's biggest banes (Dark Confidant, Goblin Welder) and is never a dead card. This is a very important reason for its inclusion. The fact that it pitches to FoW/Misd is absolutely critical. Have you ever wished you could pitch your STP to win a counter war? Probably not right? Well, try playing a few hundred games and you'll find out it happens often enough to lose you a significant number of counter battles. Very often, Landstill wins because your opponent is forced to go all-in and instigate a counter war. Landstill preys on these situations. The more non-blue spells you have in your deck, the less likely you are to survive these critical counter battles. Also, Ice is an amazing spell! The ability to tap a permanent can be absolutely huge. It wins games. You can randomly tempo rape an opponent, keep them off Drain mana, open the path for your beaters, etc. The versatility of Fire/Ice makes it a very powerful spell in this deck.

As for your sideboard, I like some of your card choices, but you haven't really elaborated on how you plan on applying them. How do you plan on boarding in your matchups?

I like your U/R list, although I feel the 1 Needle and 1 Heretic are weak. Crucible is a great one-of, because you want to draw it in the late game to seal the deal. Heretic and Needle don't seem to fit that bill. If you want to hedge strongly against Stax, cut the Needle and a Misdirection and go up to 3 Heretic. I personally don't like hedging/guessing against archetypes, but if you want to risk a little without sacrificing too much in other matchups, that seems like a decent approach.

Just to note: This is the list that came in second in an highly competetive field of 78 people at Badalona recently.

Seems that UW at least also has a shot in a big field. He added White mainly for sideboard options. Serenity for example can be a huge bomb against the actual Workshop decks.

Fair to say, that an UR list came in seventh too.

That's not a UW list though. That's a 3 colour list. Certainly, white has its assets. The conundrum is determining whether those assets translate to a better chance of winning against a varied field.

This 3 colour list has a serious upside against non-Wasteland decks. Serenity is definitely a bomb against Stax. However, this deck also is running 10 colourless sources of mana and will be colour screwed more often than not. It's a calculated risk, but I can understand why this list performed well. There seems to have been a lot of careful consideration put into this. Do you have any idea what the matchups were like?

Edit: My mistake. There are clearly only 3 colours

Yeah, I'm not sure that UWB list would cut it at a Waterbury this year. Serenity is good, but is it really that much better than Kataki? I mean, when you play Serenity, it blows and you may nab a couple artifacts (R & R) style but then they just drop more. Right? Kakati, though bad at stopping a slew of Moxen is nice in that it basically time walks you until you can find a Null Rod to make them start Saccing. It avoids Thorn Of Amethyst entirely and, most importantly, it applies pressure and that is something that Landstill in general seems to have a tough time doing. To me, Serenity seems like a quick fix, while Kataki seems more offensive.

Next point, yeah, you are right that the 1-of Needle and 1 of Heretic are a little wierd in my MD but let me explain my thinking.

First, the needle:

a)Pretty much never dead game 1

b)I expect to see a lot of Stax and that means a lot of Wastelands (also playing Wastes are Goblins and Oath, but I digress) and Crucibles SB. I like the one MD needle as basically Crucible #2 game 1 that, when naming Wasteland, protects me against losing my only Win Condition.

Speaking of Win Conditions:

Heretic:

a)This one is harder to back up, but here's my thinking. A lot of MUD lists running around and a lot of decks running some big threats. Although, now that I think of it, the one card I'd like to kill most often with this guy is Trike and it can kill him first (lol). So perhaps he's actually not as strong.

b)I do like having an offensive weapon vs. Aggro Stax. Killing their Juggernaut while also doing 4 to the face seems good.

c)This guy does have the upside of getting around Thorn Of Amethyst and not really being affected by Trinisphere. That leaves playing around Sphere Of Resistance and, to a lesser extent, Tangle Wire. Doable I think.

But yeah, you may be right on the Heretic. I just like running one other pseudo bomb threat as U/R in case my lands plan doesn't work against Stax and they have a bunch of creatures out early (Ravager etc.)

Also an Idea I had thought about vs. Stax for the SB was Ingot Chewer. He seems pretty good because he is very flexible. If I need a beat stick?
Drain into this guy at 4R and kill an important artifact. If I need to kill something annoying early game? Spend R to do it.

Thoughts on the Chewer? Any other anti-Stax cards in U/R to discuss?

[Stormanimagus]

What are people's thoughts on Chalice Of The Void in the SB of this deck? Is it overkill? I don't like it because Chalice @1 cuts off my Stifle, Chain, Ancestral, (Gorilla Shaman, which I'm now going to play as a 1-of) and my SB REB and Pithing Needle. Mattiuzzo ran it in his SB. Thoughts? How would you SB vs GAT with Chalice? I assume that is what it was for? I just see it being in my way in the matchups where I'd want it. Against Storm it may cut them off from stuff, but it makes my Stifles null. Against GAT it may cut off BS/Ponder/Fastbond/Duress but it makes my ways of dealing with threats null (REB, Chain) not to mention my mana denial plan. Against Stax I already have Nulls to take care of Artifacts and I have Shamans to take care of artifacts (Shamans are also excellent at eating Chalices for 1 btw). Anyhoo, I think I'm gonna cut Chalice from the SB for now for stuff which I think is more relevant right now. Here's my most recent update to the U/R list:

U/R Landstill

Land (25):
2 Faerie Conclave
2 Mutavault
4 Mishra’s Factory
2 Flooded Strand
2 Polluted Delta
4 Volcanic Island
4 Wasteland
1 Strip Mine
1 Library Of Alexandria
3 Island

Artifacts (7):
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Sapphire
4 Null Rod
1 Crucible Of Worlds

Instants (27):
1 Ancestral Recall
4 Force Of Will
3 Misdirection
4 Mana Drain
4 Standstill
4 Stifle
3 Chain Of Vapor
4 Fire // Ice

Sorceries (1):
1 Time Walk

SB
3 Pithing Needle
3 Red Elemental Blast
2 Pyroblast
2 Rack And Ruin
2 Gorilla Shaman
3 Threads Of Disloyalty

[Shock Wave]

What are people's thoughts on Chalice Of The Void in the SB of this deck? Is it overkill? I don't like it because Chalice @1 cuts off my Stifle, Chain, Ancestral, (Gorilla Shaman, which I'm now going to play as a 1-of) and my SB REB and Pithing Needle. Mattiuzzo ran it in his SB. Thoughts? How would you SB vs GAT with Chalice? I assume that is what it was for? I just see it being in my way in the matchups where I'd want it. Against Storm it may cut them off from stuff, but it makes my Stifles null. Against GAT it may cut off BS/Ponder/Fastbond/Duress but it makes my ways of dealing with threats null (REB, Chain) not to mention my mana denial plan. Against Stax I already have Nulls to take care of Artifacts and I have Shamans to take care of artifacts (Shamans are also excellent at eating Chalices for 1 btw). Anyhoo, I think I'm gonna cut Chalice from the SB for now for stuff which I think is more relevant right now.

I personally would never cut Chalice from the sideboard. Bringing it in from the side and being on the play is just lethal against certain archetypes. Remember, Landstill wins by not allowing you to cast stuff and countering the spells you do manage to cast. Stunting your opponent's mana development on turn 1 is consistent with that strategy. At last summer's Gencon, playing against Workshop Aggro in the final round of the swiss, I was able to win the match on the strength of an opening CotV = 0. The game was won many turns later, but the opening CotV allowed me to stabilize early against an explosive archetype.

[Stormanimagus]

What are people's thoughts on Chalice Of The Void in the SB of this deck? Is it overkill? I don't like it because Chalice @1 cuts off my Stifle, Chain, Ancestral, (Gorilla Shaman, which I'm now going to play as a 1-of) and my SB REB and Pithing Needle. Mattiuzzo ran it in his SB. Thoughts? How would you SB vs GAT with Chalice? I assume that is what it was for? I just see it being in my way in the matchups where I'd want it. Against Storm it may cut them off from stuff, but it makes my Stifles null. Against GAT it may cut off BS/Ponder/Fastbond/Duress but it makes my ways of dealing with threats null (REB, Chain) not to mention my mana denial plan. Against Stax I already have Nulls to take care of Artifacts and I have Shamans to take care of artifacts (Shamans are also excellent at eating Chalices for 1 btw). Anyhoo, I think I'm gonna cut Chalice from the SB for now for stuff which I think is more relevant right now.

I personally would never cut Chalice from the sideboard. Bringing it in from the side and being on the play is just lethal against certain archetypes. Remember, Landstill wins by not allowing you to cast stuff and countering the spells you do manage to cast. Stunting your opponent's mana development on turn 1 is consistent with that strategy. At last summer's Gencon, playing against Workshop Aggro in the final round of the swiss, I was able to win the match on the strength of an opening CotV = 0. The game was won many turns later, but the opening CotV allowed me to stabilize early against an explosive archetype.

True, but are we in agreement then that you'll be setting Chalice on 0 more often than Chalice on 1 (That already doesn't make sense to me as we run Null Rod to serve that purpose and I thought Chalice was in there to be set at 1 for GAT, TOG, and Combo)? Doesn't Null Rod accomplish the same thing? I mean, it's a difference of 1 turn if you hit your land drops but it stops their power for the rest of the game while also hosing the following cards that Chalice @ 0 does not:

SoFI
Trike (Very Important for us)
Jitte
Karn
Ravager (Also Important)
Moxen + Lotus (Important for Bomberman Combo)
Aether Spellbomb
Slaver (Less Relevant right now)
Goblin Charbelcher (pretty much not relevant right now)

Anyhoo, you get the idea. If we are strictly talking about Chalice @ 0 Null Rod really seems to take the cake. I was under the impression that Chalice @ 0 was designed to be run in decks that seem to abuse power on turn 1 AND THEN Chalice for 0 to stop the opponent. We run 2 0 cc artifacts. I don't think we would be trying to take advantage of that feature.

Now, the reason *I* used to run Chalice in the MD (or at least SB) was to set it at 1 when I ran Echoing Truth as my bounce. The plan was:

1. Set Chalice at 1 vs. GAT with counter backup to make sure it sticks.
2. Echoing Truth any threats that hit.

If I am to run REB and Chain Of Vapor however that seems like a losing proposition. They'll just Gush a couple times and then Force any answers I might have and procede to Wish for bounce for Chalice before going off. I will have 0 ways of winning the counter war (Chalice @ 1 remember) unless I'm really lucky and just have more FoW or Misd. then GAT (unlikely) and I will have 0 ways to bounce the TOG or Dryad (again, Chalice @ 1). Chalice @ 1 seems to stink there. I would probably never bring it in against GAT. Oh yeah, it would also cut off my Stifle—>mana denial plan, though that I can stomach more as I'll probably still get to stifle their opening fetch.

Now as for Storm combo, the other deck where we want Chalice @ 1 we run into a similar problem. I really REALLY want to be able to cast Stifle against that deck. With FoW backup you should be good to ruin their "all-in" strategy and leave them draining you for 2 every time. Alternate Win Condition like Tinker/Darksteel? Well, then I'll be needing that Chain Of Vapor. If I've set Chalice @ 1 though. Whoops! No Chain Of Vapor for that 11/11 Trample.

You see what I mean? Chalice seems to only be valuable at 0 for my deck the way it's construced right now and I don't see why Rod isn't enough hatred for Power? Oh yeah, and now I'm running 2 Shaman in the SB which is ANOTHER way to eat mana. I know Mattiuzzo ran 4 in his SB, but given the current meta, which, oddly enough can't be too much unlike the one he was facing, is it really that important to shut off power on turn 1? We have bounce and answers like FoW for anything that REALLY needs countering right?

I'm actually kinda befuddled by that choice of his in the SB. I agree with pretty much the rest of his deck across the board (though I prefer 3 MD island instead of 2 and less Duals, but that's just cause of Magus Of The Moon), but I wish I could ask him why those 4 Chalice are needed. Was he expecting a lot of Hulk-Flash? I could Chalice @ 0 really being solid in that matchup on the play (or the draw really if they don't go broken turn 1). I like the Gorilla Shaman as he is a lot of nice things for this deck:

Mox eater
Chalice eater
answer to lackey
Drain Sink to eat bigger things if you can swing it

The other key difference in our SB is that I include Needle. Forgive me if this is wrong, but doesn't he auto-lose to Ichorid? Is he relying on Stifle keeping him around long enough to beat FTW? Fire // Ice his own guy to remove the bridges? That seems like an inconsistant plan and just very easy for an Ichorid player to sweept through. Needle makes the matchup winnable IMO. That, and needle has a bunch of other applications right now. . . like stopping the infamous Psychatog. . .

Anyway, I'd really like your thoughts on what I've said. Am I totally off-base? Is my logic flawed? Is Chalice @ 0 vs. Stax really needed when we have Gorilla and Null and R & R. 9 spheres is intimidating but you should be able to resolve a relevant piece of hate before the pressure is too great to overcome. Remember that we have Factories to trade with Juggernaut all day long.

Again, to pose the question: I see why mana denial is important, but don't we have enough of that already? I mean, we have quite a suite without Chalice:

Null Rod
Stifle
Wasteland/Strip Mine/Crucible
Gorilla Shaman

Do we really NEED it to seal the deal? Or is it a "Win More" or I guess, in this case "Cover your ass More" sorta card that is redundant with other stuff in the deck? I mean, if I have Chalice in the opener AND Rod or Chalice AND Shaman I'll probably feel like that Chalice is a bit of a wasted card as I'll have answers to my opponents stuff on turn 2 anyway.

[Shock Wave]

True, but are we in agreement then that you'll be setting Chalice on 0 more often than Chalice on 1 (That already doesn't make sense to me as we run Null Rod to serve that purpose and I thought Chalice was in there to be set at 1 for GAT, TOG, and Combo)? Doesn't Null Rod accomplish the same thing? I mean, it's a difference of 1 turn if you hit your land drops but it stops their power for the rest of the game while also hosing the following cards that Chalice @ 0 does not:

No, we're not in agreement that Chalice gets set to 0 or 1. It gets set to whatever it needs to be set at to win a match. Against any deck that runs full power, you should have both Null Rod and Chalice in your arsenal post board. Null Rod does not accomplish that same thing as Chalice on Turn 1 very frequently, and often that is the difference between winning and losing a match. One turn makes a huge difference. Setting Cotv = 1 can be a very strong play against a lot of decks. It doesn't matter that it shuts off a lot of your spells. You don't need to resolve anything to win the match. Your opponent does.

Anyhoo, you get the idea. If we are strictly talking about Chalice @ 0 Null Rod really seems to take the cake. I was under the impression that Chalice @ 0 was designed to be run in decks that seem to abuse power on turn 1 AND THEN Chalice for 0 to stop the opponent. We run 2 0 cc artifacts. I don't think we would be trying to take advantage of that feature.

Your analysis of how Chalice functions in this deck, and the conditions under which playing it is advantageous, is incorrect. Chalice at 0 stops your opponent from accelerating. This advantage of this play is not contingent upon whether or not you've played any acceleration of your own. Again, Landstill wants to stop the opponent from playing spells. The combination of Chalice and Null Rod is very strong (particularly against Stax) because it increases the probability that you'll be able to lock your opponent. If you can resolve Chalice = 0, that's great! That doesn't make your Null Rod or further Chalice draws dead. If it is more crippling to your opponent to set CotV = 1, go for it. It depends what archetpye you're playing against. I've also won many games by sinking drain mana into a lategame Cotv to seal the match. Decks that rely on Yawgmoth's Will hate to see Cotv = 2 and Cotv = 3.

They'll just Gush a couple times and then Force any answers I might have and procede to Wish for bounce for Chalice before going off. I will have 0 ways of winning the counter war (Chalice @ 1 remember) unless I'm really lucky and just have more FoW or Misd. then GAT (unlikely) and I will have 0 ways to bounce the TOG or Dryad (again, Chalice @ 1). Chalice @ 1 seems to stink there. I would probably never bring it in against GAT. Oh yeah, it would also cut off my Stifle—>mana denial plan, though that I can stomach more as I'll probably still get to stifle their opening fetch.

Who ever said you need to bring in Chalice against GAT?

Now as for Storm combo, the other deck where we want Chalice @ 1 we run into a similar problem. I really REALLY want to be able to cast Stifle against that deck. With FoW backup you should be good to ruin their "all-in" strategy and leave them draining you for 2 every time. Alternate Win Condition like Tinker/Darksteel? Well, then I'll be needing that Chain Of Vapor. If I've set Chalice @ 1 though. Whoops! No Chain Of Vapor for that 11/11 Trample.

Why do you want to cast Stifle against Storm combo? Seriously. Does it really happen to you in this matchup that your opponent dumps their hand and walks into your Stifle? By that comment, I'm not very convinced that you've tested this matchup or the GAT matchup as extensively as you initially implied. Extensive testing of the UR list from Gencon would yield an intimate understanding of the role Chalice plays (if any) in these matchups.

The best way for you to figure out how Chalice performs in these matchups is test them out yourself. Test it on the play, test it on the draw. Make a note of what changes you've made and the resulting gameplan. You will draw different conclusions about its efficacy.

Chalice seems to only be valuable at 0 for my deck the way it's construced right now and I don't see why Rod isn't enough hatred for Power?

Chalice on turn one is a more reliable way of stunting your opponent's mana than trying to resolve Null Rod on Turn 2. It's that simple. The two used in conjunction provide a very powerful mana denial/spell lock strategy.

Oh yeah, and now I'm running 2 Shaman in the SB which is ANOTHER way to eat mana. I know Mattiuzzo ran 4 in his SB, but given the current meta, which, oddly enough can't be too much unlike the one he was facing, is it really that important to shut off power on turn 1? We have bounce and answers like FoW for anything that REALLY needs countering right?

No. It is always better to prevent opponents from being able to play spells as opposed to burning bounce and counters to try to stop them.

I wish I could ask him why those 4 Chalice are needed. Was he expecting a lot of Hulk-Flash? I could Chalice @ 0 really being solid in that matchup on the play (or the draw really if they don't go broken turn 1).

You are asking him. I am the person you are referring to. Chalice of the Void is a very versatile, powerful lock component. Think of it as a Null Rod for spells. It has the potential to both mana lock and spell lock your opponent. This is what makes it a very important component of the sideboard that has not changed for many years because of its potency and effectiveness.

I like the Gorilla Shaman as he is a lot of nice things for this deck

I really dislike Gorilla Shaman. He is mana intensive. He isn't blue. He doesn't prevent moxen from resolving (this is not trivial). His usefulness is upstaged by the effects of Null Rod and Chalice of the Void. These are the conclusions I came to in my testing.

The other key difference in our SB is that I include Needle. Forgive me if this is wrong, but doesn't he auto-lose to Ichorid? Is he relying on Stifle keeping him around long enough to beat FTW? Fire // Ice his own guy to remove the bridges? That seems like an inconsistant plan and just very easy for an Ichorid player to sweept through. Needle makes the matchup winnable IMO. That, and needle has a bunch of other applications right now. . . like stopping the infamous Psychatog. . .

Ichorid is an auto-loss. This was an accepted weakness of the deck and taken into consideration during its design. I suggest you read the Landstill Primer. There are some principles in the primer and in the following thread that will illustrate to you how Landstill is designed to function.

Anyway, I'd really like your thoughts on what I've said. Am I totally off-base? Is my logic flawed? Is Chalice @ 0 vs. Stax really needed when we have Gorilla and Null and R & R. 9 spheres is intimidating but you should be able to resolve a relevant piece of hate before the pressure is too great to overcome. Remember that we have Factories to trade with Juggernaut all day long.

I'm trying to explain to you how the Gencon listen functions and what avenues to victory it has in certain matchups. I haven't tested every possible combination of cards/matchups to say that your build is inferior. What I can tell you is that the combination of Null Rod and Chalice, especially against Stax, is very powerful. I've tested 1 Gorilla Shaman in the main and I did not have good results with it for the reasons I've stated above. If you think that multiple Shaman in the board are a good idea, then stick to it and test the matchup. Again, make a note of what your sideboarding strategy is and post the results.

Again, to pose the question: I see why mana denial is important, but don't we have enough of that already? I mean, we have quite a suite without Chalice:

Null Rod
Gorilla Shaman

Consider: You resolve Null Rod. How useful is your Shaman now?
Consider: You resolve a 1st turn Shaman, and are holding a Rod for turn 2. Let's assume your opponent doesn't drop a bunch of moxes and shit on you right away. You get to your turn and play your Null Rod. What is the value of your on board Shaman? What is the value of any subsequent Shaman draws?

Shaman is also a horrible first turn play with Landstill. Yay, you've played a Shaman. You have to wait a full turn to use him, since you only have a Sapphire to accelerate with, and then you have to expend precious mana for his abiliity. Chalice comes down for free on the play, allowing possibilities such as Stifle/REB + CotV. It prevents silly Tinker shenanigans that Shaman does not stop. It is also not a dead draw when Null Rod has resolved. Often, you'll use Chalice to stop your opponent's way of removing Null Rod (w/e bounce/removal you suspect they'll use).

Do we really NEED it to seal the deal? Or is it a "Win More" or I guess, in this case "Cover your ass More" sorta card that is redundant with other stuff in the deck?

It is an essential component of the sideboard. I've given you some food to work with. Now, it's up to you to determine if my conclusions are sound through your own testing. If your results do not agree with me, then you'll have the confidence to try a build of your own as opposed to mine.

[Stormanimagus]

Who ever said you need to bring in Chalice against GAT?

I figured that was a primary function of it as Chalice @1 vs. GAT shuts down much of the threatening parts of the deck. I guess not then huh.

Why do you want to cast Stifle against Storm combo? Seriously. Does it really happen to you in this matchup that your opponent dumps their hand and walks into your Stifle? By that comment, I'm not very convinced that you've tested this matchup or the GAT matchup as extensively as you initially implied. Extensive testing of the UR list from Gencon would yield an intimate understanding of the role Chalice plays (if any) in these matchups.

I mean, Stifle still seems like a more final answer to Storm Combo than anything else. Chalice can be played around (I used to play Pitch Long a lot. It was kinda my pet deck). Storm Combo seems to have a lot of bounce answers to Chalice at any number between 0 and 2, and they can find them easily with tutors/draw. While Chalice @1 significantly slows them down doesn't Stifle backed up by FoW or Misd just mean game over? I mean, I know they may not necessarily walk into it but can't we apply enough pressure in the meantime? Well, I suppose Manlands aren't really a LOT of pressure so you may be right on this one. Chalice @1>>>>Stifle in general here.

The best way for you to figure out how Chalice performs in these matchups is test them out yourself. Test it on the play, test it on the draw. Make a note of what changes you've made and the resulting gameplan. You will draw different conclusions about its efficacy.

No argument here. Unfortunately I don't know any Vintage players in this area to test against (I live in Brooklyn now btw). If you know any in the NYC area you're welcome to refer them to me. Whenever I GO to Waterbury I usually hang with Jeff and Jeremiah, but it's obviously late to test at that point. There is one guy I test with online and he pretty much always plays Stax variants of all kinds (though he has agreed to play GAT once—but that wasn't a great indication of the GAT matchup because he admitted to being poor with the deck) so I have a reasonable understanding of what to expect there. Other matchups I'm kinda shooting in the dark.

Chalice on turn one is a more reliable way of stunting your opponent's mana than trying to resolve Null Rod on Turn 2. It's that simple. The two used in conjunction provide a very powerful mana denial/spell lock strategy.

This would seem to really help at winning the Stax matchup but aren't we already favored in it? I mean, we have lands to block their dudes (and kill them if they are Jugg and we are Factory), FoW for important spells, Null Rod for Mana and other stuff I've mentioned, Bounce for important stuff. Aren't we good against them without the Chalice? Or do we need it for consistency and efficiency?

No. It is always better to prevent opponents from being able to play spells as opposed to burning bounce and counters to try to stop them.

It's always better but can I ask you this question as someone who knows this deck very well: Can we get away with not doing it against the matchups that matter and still have enough game against them?

You are asking him. I am the person you are referring to. Chalice of the Void is a very versatile, powerful lock component. Think of it as a Null Rod for spells. It has the potential to both mana lock and spell lock your opponent. This is what makes it a very important component of the sideboard that has not changed for many years because of its potency and effectiveness.

K, now I feel a bit dumb. I've been debating card choices with the deck's creator (or at least the guy that honed the deck to what it is).

I guess my only knocks on Chalice right now are it's lack of synergy when set @1 VS GAT (now I know I may not side it in vs. GAT) because I'm thinking that matchup will come to me a lot at Waterbury (or at least BS/Ponder/Fastbont based decks). To break down: Decks where Chalice @1 seems good:

GAT
Tyrant Oath (I know I'll see at least a bit of this at Waterbury)
Super/Ponder Long or really any Long variant
Hulk Flash (though Chalice @0 is better so it's a mute point)

Anyway, I'm concerned that Chalice @1 is a problem against those decks as I then have 0 ways to bounce their actual men.

As the creator of the deck could you explain to me why you run a MD bounce suite of 3 Chain Of Vapor as opposed to 3 Echoing Truth? Truth seems nuts for our deck as it can:

Remove multiple Sphere or Multiple Dryad
Remove Zombie Tokens completely to maybe make the Ichorid matchup possible when coupled with Needle
Remove Tyrant

And it does all of this with a resolved Chalice @1 on the table. I dunno. I'm not an expert on this deck but Echoing Truth seems to offer us more options and it's only glaring weaknesses, as far as I can see are:

a)it's 1 cc more than Chain and that is relevant vs. Stax.

b)it gets hit by Chalice @2 against Stax and we don't what them keeping that on the board as it shuts off Drain, Standstill and Fire // Ice.

Can you explain to me more in detail the inclusion of Chain MD over Truth? I've really liked Truth in testing and it seems almost as powerful as Chain MD vs. STAX (sometimes better sometimes worse) but Alwaysbetter vs. GAT and Oath when coupled with Chalice @1 for the obvious reason that you can cast it with chalice @1 on the board.

Also, I'm not so sure I'd like to completely nuke the Ichorid matchup as it might show up now that people don't really expect it. It can play around the lock components of STAX and that's gotta count for something. I like to include Needle, personally, for that matchup but also for the following:

Stax: Protects my Win Condition when naming Wasteland, stops Welder shenanigans
TOG: Lists running TOG to name TOG. Many lists are going to 3-4 TOG and dropping Dryad now.
Dawn Of The Dead: A crazy new deck that abuses Bazaar and Squee synergy. Stops Bazaar
Goblins: Not as effective but stops Vial and Wasteland. Vial is the key here as it allows your countermagic to do something.
Bomberman: Helps shut off combo pieces.

Needle + Truth make Ichorid very winnable in my opinion. Is this simply not the case? Is it worth it to even try to make that matchup winnable?