I've been working on my own brew last few weeks (bw vehicles) so haven't been running much death and taxes, but since I have a pretty large tournament this weekend I will be going back to a pretty stock list. I am running kitchen finks and Brimaz due to most of the attrition Decks locally are jeskai geist. The rest of the deck is a pretty stock heavy tax list(with wingmare.) For mana-base I'm using the split charons has in the past with the 4-3-2 colorless split. 4 ghost quarter, 3 tectonic edge, 2 field of ruin.
You and I are talking about the same thing, except the math doesn't agree with you. The ideal number of lands in your deck to maximize your chances of having an opening 7 with 3 or 4 lands in hand, is 30 lands. I'm going to suggest to you that this really isn't the circumstance you want to optimize for.
For comparison, if you wanted to run the same analysis except for 2 or 3 lands in your opening 7, the ideal number of lands in your deck would be 21. And if you wanted to run that same analysis again with 2, 3, or 4 lands in your opening 7, the ideal number of lands in your deck would be 25.
It gets much, much more complicated when you start talking about color screw, because cards like Flickerwisp and Eldrazi Displacer are often only playable after the first few turns of the game anyway.
I know that the range of acceptable opening hands is hard to pin down, but I would almost always prefer an opener with two lands rather than four. You don't mind the four because you're hoping that at least one of them is a Canopy, but that deckbuilding approach is likely to cost you life, tempo, or both while you're curving out.
I can see why you took that to mean 3-4 lands are ideal in every opener, but that's still not quite what I meant. I was trying to clarify what a keepable seven looked like and while I'm sure we all keep many 1-2 land hands, it also totally depends on the scenario. Furthermore, I'm sure there are plenty of unkeepable 3-4 landers. I can envision a scenario where you have resto, resto, wisp or say 3x vial. But that's getting into to extremely specific scenarios, which really isn't the point. But yes, if you frame my argument as I must have 3-4 lands in every hand, obviously the math doesn't agree with me, because who runs 30 lands? Nobody. Perhaps the error is on my side in that the implications that 3-4 lands are always good might be seen in what I said, but I don't think it's very easy to clarify what exactly a good starting seven is. If you'd like to make your own/ expand on my definition of it, be my guest.
As I stated earlier, the difference between 22 and 23 lands is small mathematically, so we're really arguing about that tiny percent difference.
Going off your last sentiment, I'm assuming you do understand why I might prefer 23 over 22. Given that, I can tell you that I've had to mulligan more hands when my list was on 22 lands than when it was on 23. While yes, it may occasionally cost me life or tempo, I'd rather ensure a better start. While the joke on my twitch is that I'm the dean of "Luck Sack University," I also understand where to take my chances and if I can guarantee a safer start without too much of a late game drawback, I'm going to do so.
It's worth noting that we're having two arguments in one here. We're arguing both about whether 22 or 23 lands is correct AS WELL AS whether running canopy is right or not and in what numbers. It might be helpful to separate those as if I were going to run 22 lands in mono W, I'd still have 4x canopy in my deck and I'm sure you wouldn't. This begs the question, why wouldn't you want to have a higher chance of having a canopy in that 4 land opener? Unless you're in a very burn heavy meta, you likely won't be punished for the canopies.
For what it's worth, I've liked both the 4/3/2 and 4/4/1 colorless land splits. I think that Tectonic Edge is probably better than Field of Ruin in most lists, but the difference will likely be less noticeable in lists that run maindeck Mindcensor. Catmix and I are also going to be testing the utility land splits; please let us know how it works for you.
I do think you can comfortably cut the Shefet Dunes though. Dunes works much better in lists that run Eldrazi Displacer because it produces both white and colorless mana. But I think that your list probably wants something like (-2 Dunes, -1 Plains, +3 Flagstones of Trokair) because the ability to turn a Ghost Quarter into a Plains is going to be relevant as you try to curve out.
I can see why you took that to mean 3-4 lands are ideal in every opener, but that's still not quite what I meant. I was trying to clarify what a keepable seven looked like and while I'm sure we all keep many 1-2 land hands, it also totally depends on the scenario. Furthermore, I'm sure there are plenty of unkeepable 3-4 landers. I can envision a scenario where you have resto, resto, wisp or say 3x vial. But that's getting into to extremely specific scenarios, which really isn't the point. But yes, if you frame my argument as I must have 3-4 lands in every hand, obviously the math doesn't agree with me, because who runs 30 lands? Nobody. Perhaps the error is on my side in that the implications that 3-4 lands are always good might be seen in what I said, but I don't think it's very easy to clarify what exactly a good starting seven is. If you'd like to make your own/ expand on my definition of it, be my guest.
Obviously, the range of keepable hands varies by matchup. But given you have access to perfect mathematical information about probability distributions, the situation that you optimize for should be G1 in some reasonable approximation of the metagame.
If you're not willing to use the perfect information that math gives you, that's fine. You don't have to. You can run 23 lands or 30 lands. But as far as I'm concerned, you've provided no evidence for why 23 lands is the right number.
As I stated earlier, the difference between 22 and 23 lands is small mathematically, so we're really arguing about that tiny percent difference.
This is true, but I could spin this the exact opposite way. Given the percentage difference is small mathematically, why haven't you cut that 23rd land?
(In practice, exactly how small of a difference depends on what constitutes a keepable opening hand. If keepable hands have 2-3 lands, then the difference between 22 and 23 land is only 0.62% in favor of 22. But if keepable hands have 3-4 lands, then the difference between 22 and 23 lands becomes 2.69% in favor of 23.)
Going off your last sentiment, I'm assuming you do understand why I might prefer 23 over 22. Given that, I can tell you that I've had to mulligan more hands when my list was on 22 lands than when it was on 23. While yes, it may occasionally cost me life or tempo, I'd rather ensure a better start. While the joke on my twitch is that I'm the dean of "Luck Sack University," I also understand where to take my chances and if I can guarantee a safer start without too much of a late game drawback, I'm going to do so.
This is basically a direct contradiction of your previous sentiment. If you're mulliganing significantly more hands having only 22 land as opposed to 23, that's probably variance, because they're so probabilistically similar. You would have to play literal thousands of games before you would notice this, which again begs the question: why are you still playing that 23rd land?
It's worth noting that we're having two arguments in one here. We're arguing both about whether 22 or 23 lands is correct AS WELL AS whether running canopy is right or not and in what numbers. It might be helpful to separate those as if I were going to run 22 lands in mono W, I'd still have 4x canopy in my deck and I'm sure you wouldn't. This begs the question, why wouldn't you want to have a higher chance of having a canopy in that 4 land opener? Unless you're in a very burn heavy meta, you likely won't be punished for the canopies.
I would like to have a higher chance of having Canopy in my 4-land opener. But the cost is that I also have a higher chance of having Canopy in my 2-land opener, which feels much worse.
Again, math can answer your question. Regardless of whether you have 22 or 23 lands, the chance of you having exactly 2 lands (30.02%, 28.56%) is higher than you having exactly 4 lands (15.98%, 17.82%). That means that you're more likely to have a 2-land opener with Canopy than a 4-land opener with Canopy. (That statement would still be true even if you only had one Canopy as opposed to four, but I digress.) My point is that the cost of making your 4-land openers better is making your 2-land openers significantly worse; not only are 2-land openers more likely, but the Canopies are probably costing you more life in the 2-land openers than the 4-land openers.
I agree with you that Canopy should be played in mono-white. I just think the correct number is probably 2-3.
Playing millions of cards every turn... Slowly and systematically obliterating any chance my opponent has of winning... Clicking the multitude of locking mechanisms into place... Not even trying to win myself until turn 10+ once I have nigh absolute control... Watching my opponent desperately trying to navigate the labyrinthine prison that I've constructed... Seeing the light of hope fade and ultimately extinguished in an excruciatingly slow manner... THAT'S fun Magic.
We have 2-3 users that are dramatically making this thread incomprehensible and non-productive for anyone else to possibly join in the discussion. This needs to change.
Every time I see [ktkenshinx] post in here, I get the impression of a stern dad walking in on a bunch of kids trying to do something dumb and just shaking his head in disappointment.
Near Mint: The same as Slightly Played, but we threw some Altoids in the box we stored it in to cover up the scent of dead mice. Slightly Played: The base condition for all MTG cards. This card looks OK, but there’s one minor annoying ding in it that will always irritate and distract you whenever you draw it. Moderately Played: This card looks like it survived the Tet Offensive tucked inside the waistband of GI underwear. It may smell like it, too. Heavily Played: This card looks like the remains of Mohammed Atta’s passport after 9/11. It may be playable if you double-sleeve it to stop the chunks from falling out. The condition formerly known as "Washing Machine Grade" Damaged: This card is the unfortunate victim of a Mirrorweave/March of the Machines/Chaos Confetti/Mindslaver combo.
[M]aking counterfeit cards is the absolute height of dishonesty. Ask yourself this question: Since most people...are totally cool with the use of proxies...what purpose do [high] quality counterfeit cards serve?
@charons:I ran dull 4x in eldrazi build but found it to be occasionally useful, epithet for alpha or as enough of a deterrent to get in the opponent's head and aty times have them play sub optimal. As far ad field it is unique enough to warrant investigation, with true power on the play against tron to stop before ot stats. But usually bee about the same. I'll give you my thoughts as I go on. Mb aven is due to uptick in valakut lists as well.
I'm a Merfolk player at heart but wanted to build towards a new deck to try out when I fancy something different and the other best Aether Vial deck in the format seemed a good play to go. I'm currently building towards a Mono White build (Noble Hierarch is something I can't afford right now as is Horizon Canopy, which I should hopefully be able to afford with the reprinting)
Any suggestions for this build in the current meta?
I have a question! Is this attached photo....good?
(Sorry! I took this photo in a 1997 vcr).
Do you always play standing on your head? Because if that explains your success, I'm willing to give it a try.
Living the dream with Settle the Wreckage there! Seems a very solid sideboard card that might be worth a few points in competitive match-ups (heavy aggro, Elves, Etron, Merfolk).
@Tsunami these are the reasons for Sunlance. For elves, we don't have the density of removal to try and keep then off 1 mana dorks, shop use on important cards like heritage, archdruid, ezuri etc... against merfolk kill lords and master of waves. Use first quarter etc... tip kill your lands with spreading seas and flickerwisp as combat trick when possible. First striking a Lord by surprise can heavily shift a big combat in our favor. Also remember if you run mutavault that Lord or Atlantis pumps it and gives it island walk.
Hey all! So I've been thinking of building into a Death and Taxes Deck for a little while now. Problem is I can't seem to decide which variation I'd want to use. I was leaning towards B/W Eldrazi & Taxes but I'm not entirely sure. Could anyone give a basic rundown on how the different variations work with the current meta? Or rather the pros and cons of the different kinds?
Any feedback to help me get into the deck would be appreciated : )
I'm running W/B Eldrazi and I've been really liking Fatal Push in the SB, scared to maindeck it with 4 vials, but I think it's good as a 3 of in the board. W/B does give better removal options than Mono W.
Hello there, DNT Squad! Let's dive right into this. We have become a Tier 1 deck in the last 6 months. There are two builds primarily responsible for this: Mono-White DNT & Eldrazi And Taxes. This is not to say other builds haven't had major success but the major meta share is from the aforementioned duo. The next step is to see if either of those lists got better with Ixalan, and to determine what specific cards will be utilized from the new set.
Ixalan Playables: [These cards have the potential of being used for Death And Taxes in the maindeck and/or sideboard].
Field of Ruin: This card seems to be the clear winner as most likely played card for our archetype. I am not sold on it taking over Tectonic Edge slots like some others have been thinking. I do believe that this could be the 8th and 9th colorless land slots.
Settle the Wreckage: Path of God, Wrath to Exile, Mass Path (or whatever!) This is very likely in contention with the Dusk/Dawn slots in Mono-White's board. Not having to lose your own team is great. Having to wait for an opponent to alpha swing might be problematic, though. I do like this card a lot and look forward to testing it.
Kinjalli's Sunwing: This card has potential to be a flex slot for Mono-White. The body is "reasonable" and the tax is pretty affective in Modern. If a list wants Thalia, Heretic Cathar, there might be a chance this takes some of the same slots (maybe).)
Deadeye Tracker: Surprisingly, I think this might be a viable (pun intended) target for Eldrazi and Taxes. One Drops have proven to be pretty important. Having a card that can filter cards, scale in size, and force removal from the opps could be great. Eldrazi And Taxes players should really, really, really look at addressing the mana issues with the list. That deck has access to so many great tools but punishes itself so much with the current configuration.
“Modern has provided us a non-rotating format that is far more accessible than Legacy or Vintage, but still retains many of the qualities that people enjoy in those formats—such as a more stable metagame, the ability to play and tweak the same deck week after week, and simply a much more powerful card pool than Standard.”
- Sam Stoddard, “Developing Modern” (June 21, 2013) (by means of Sheridan Lardner, "Fixing Modern: Defining Format Mission (March 16, 2016))
Obviously, the range of keepable hands varies by matchup. But given you have access to perfect mathematical information about probability distributions, the situation that you optimize for should be G1 in some reasonable approximation of the metagame.
If you're not willing to use the perfect information that math gives you, that's fine. You don't have to. You can run 23 lands or 30 lands. But as far as I'm concerned, you've provided no evidence for why 23 lands is the right number.
Since you refuse to present your own logical framework of what a keepbable hand is and instead chose to cherry pick my argument with your position being simply that of a contrarian with no logical explanation behind it, I suppose I'll have to send you to other magic players explanation of what a good 7 might mean. Here Reid Duke breaks down how different general archetypes mulligan. Of course, this isn't about our deck in particular, and we have to define our deck via one of his general deck types. D&T is often called a "aggro-control" deck, but that doesn't much clear things up. Based on the amount of turns the game tends to go, we'd likely be defined as a midrange deck, but we do this by often taxing our opponents and keeping the game in a approximation of the early game longer than it might otherwise go. Thus, while this is a useful tool, it can be challenging to fit our deck neatly into a category. However, according to his breakdown, I'd say that we most closely resemble a midrange deck what with having some cards that are very good in some MUs, but absolutely terrible in others. Then the question becomes, how many lands does a generic midrange deck want to typically see?
To better understand what makes one mulligan, modern nexus breaks it down here . The mulligans we're talking about fall into their type #1, the inherent mulligan. That is, we're mulliganing because our hand is in some way not okay due to the land in or the lack of lands in the hand.
This is true, but I could spin this the exact opposite way. Given the percentage difference is small mathematically, why haven't you cut that 23rd land?
(In practice, exactly how small of a difference depends on what constitutes a keepable opening hand. If keepable hands have 2-3 lands, then the difference between 22 and 23 land is only 0.62% in favor of 22. But if keepable hands have 3-4 lands, then the difference between 22 and 23 lands becomes 2.69% in favor of 23.)
This is basically a direct contradiction of your previous sentiment. If you're mulliganing significantly more hands having only 22 land as opposed to 23, that's probably variance, because they're so probabilistically similar. You would have to play literal thousands of games before you would notice this, which again begs the question: why are you still playing that 23rd land?
Unfortunately, we don't know what percentage of mulligans come specifically from "inherent mulligans," making this even harder to pin down.
This was me offering you the olive branch in that unless you play thousands of games, as you said, it's going to be hard to see the difference between the two different land counts. HOWEVER, since you insist that we are able to find the ultimate truth of how many lands should we run, I'm going to have to throw my anecdotal evidence in the 23 land side of things as I have played literally thousands of games with this deck. You seem to assume that I never tried 22 lands. This couldn't be farther from the truth. In actuality, the difference between the two land counts likely comes down to preference, but that ~1% difference in mulligans, according to the program I've been using since the start of the year, agrees with the rest of the games I've played and my experience with it in that I get to mulligan less. While I have played MANY games, they're not all with the stock mono W list (with 22vs23 lands) verbatim, which makes this even harder to say is a certainty. Of course, most every top finish with the deck has 23 lands and 4 canopies, but you refuse to see those results. Now, just because everyone does something does not make it the truth, but it certainly makes us wonder if there is a reason behind their choices. We have the statistics, but can't seem to agree on how they should be interpreted. While the math represents the truth of the situation, how we interpret it introduces opinion and human error.
I would like to have a higher chance of having Canopy in my 4-land opener. But the cost is that I also have a higher chance of having Canopy in my 2-land opener, which feels much worse.
Again, math can answer your question. Regardless of whether you have 22 or 23 lands, the chance of you having exactly 2 lands (30.02%, 28.56%) is higher than you having exactly 4 lands (15.98%, 17.82%). That means that you're more likely to have a 2-land opener with Canopy than a 4-land opener with Canopy. (That statement would still be true even if you only had one Canopy as opposed to four, but I digress.) My point is that the cost of making your 4-land openers better is making your 2-land openers significantly worse; not only are 2-land openers more likely, but the Canopies are probably costing you more life in the 2-land openers than the 4-land openers.
I agree with you that Canopy should be played in mono-white. I just think the correct number is probably 2-3.
Where does having canopy feel much worse? I reiterate, the only deck that can consistently punish us is burn. Where's the math behind the canopy numbers? I'd love to see the average damage taken from canopies over the course of the game with 2vs3vs4 of them. Currently, we're just saying why we like one or the other and explaining it via play theory.
EDIT: I realize your issue with my initial statement may have been with the strength of the rhetoric I used; "I wouldn't be caught dead running 22 lands (and less than 4 canopies in mono W)."
Obviously, the range of keepable hands varies by matchup. But given you have access to perfect mathematical information about probability distributions, the situation that you optimize for should be G1 in some reasonable approximation of the metagame.
If you're not willing to use the perfect information that math gives you, that's fine. You don't have to. You can run 23 lands or 30 lands. But as far as I'm concerned, you've provided no evidence for why 23 lands is the right number.
Since you refuse to present your own logical framework of what a keepbable hand is and instead chose to cherry pick my argument with your position being simply that of a contrarian with no logical explanation behind it, I suppose I'll have to send you to other magic players explanation of what a good 7 might mean. Here Reid Duke breaks down how different general archetypes mulligan. Of course, this isn't about our deck in particular, and we have to define our deck via one of his general deck types. D&T is often called a "aggro-control" deck, but that doesn't much clear things up. Based on the amount of turns the game tends to go, we'd likely be defined as a midrange deck, but we do this by often taxing our opponents and keeping the game in a approximation of the early game longer than it might otherwise go. Thus, while this is a useful tool, it can be challenging to fit our deck neatly into a category. However, according to his breakdown, I'd say that we most closely resemble a midrange deck what with having some cards that are very good in some MUs, but absolutely terrible in others. Then the question becomes, how many lands does a generic midrange deck want to typically see?
To better understand what makes one mulligan, modern nexus breaks it down here . The mulligans we're talking about fall into their type #1, the inherent mulligan. That is, we're mulliganing because our hand is in some way not okay due to the land in or the lack of lands in the hand.
This is true, but I could spin this the exact opposite way. Given the percentage difference is small mathematically, why haven't you cut that 23rd land?
(In practice, exactly how small of a difference depends on what constitutes a keepable opening hand. If keepable hands have 2-3 lands, then the difference between 22 and 23 land is only 0.62% in favor of 22. But if keepable hands have 3-4 lands, then the difference between 22 and 23 lands becomes 2.69% in favor of 23.)
This is basically a direct contradiction of your previous sentiment. If you're mulliganing significantly more hands having only 22 land as opposed to 23, that's probably variance, because they're so probabilistically similar. You would have to play literal thousands of games before you would notice this, which again begs the question: why are you still playing that 23rd land?
Unfortunately, we don't know what percentage of mulligans come specifically from "inherent mulligans," making this even harder to pin down.
This was me offering you the olive branch in that unless you play thousands of games, as you said, it's going to be hard to see the difference between the two different land counts. HOWEVER, since you insist that we are able to find the ultimate truth of how many lands should we run, I'm going to have to throw my anecdotal evidence in the 23 land side of things as I have played literally thousands of games with this deck. You seem to assume that I never tried 22 lands. This couldn't be farther from the truth. In actuality, the difference between the two land counts likely comes down to preference, but that ~1% difference in mulligans, according to the program I've been using since the start of the year, agrees with the rest of the games I've played and my experience with it in that I get to mulligan less. While I have played MANY games, they're not all with the stock mono W list (with 22vs23 lands) verbatim, which makes this even harder to say is a certainty. Of course, most every top finish with the deck has 23 lands and 4 canopies, but you refuse to see those results. Now, just because everyone does something does not make it the truth, but it certainly makes us wonder if there is a reason behind their choices. We have the statistics, but can't seem to agree on how they should be interpreted. While the math represents the truth of the situation, how we interpret it introduces opinion and human error.
I would like to have a higher chance of having Canopy in my 4-land opener. But the cost is that I also have a higher chance of having Canopy in my 2-land opener, which feels much worse.
Again, math can answer your question. Regardless of whether you have 22 or 23 lands, the chance of you having exactly 2 lands (30.02%, 28.56%) is higher than you having exactly 4 lands (15.98%, 17.82%). That means that you're more likely to have a 2-land opener with Canopy than a 4-land opener with Canopy. (That statement would still be true even if you only had one Canopy as opposed to four, but I digress.) My point is that the cost of making your 4-land openers better is making your 2-land openers significantly worse; not only are 2-land openers more likely, but the Canopies are probably costing you more life in the 2-land openers than the 4-land openers.
I agree with you that Canopy should be played in mono-white. I just think the correct number is probably 2-3.
Where does having canopy feel much worse? I reiterate, the only deck that can consistently punish us is burn. Where's the math behind the canopy numbers? I'd love to see the average damage taken from canopies over the course of the game with 2vs3vs4 of them. Currently, we're just saying why we like one or the other and explaining it via play theory.
EDIT: I realize your issue with my initial statement may have been with the strength of the rhetoric I used; "I wouldn't be caught dead running 22 lands (and less than 4 canopies in mono W)."
Spider, I'm just going to let this one go. Obviously, you're entitled to build your manabase however you want and I'm not going to stop you. I'm just trying to stop the lurkers from feeling obligated to run 23 lands with 4 Canopies in Mono-white D&T.
There is an interesting article on Thraben university for mana bases with vial taken into consideration. There is also source code for a small programm. http://www.thrabenuniversity.com/?page_id=1288
Maybe this will help settle your argument.
Unfortunately, it won't. Both Spider and I have access to pretty comprehensive probability distribution tables for this deck, and I have additional access to a Monte Carlo simulator for figuring out everything else (e.g., "what are the odds I draw a Hierarch, Arbiter, Ghost Quarter, and WG source in my opening hand?"). Both Spider and I know the math, although I'm more of a purist about it (as you can probably tell).
Either way, neither of us need additional resources on this topic. We've both played this game for a very long time. We both know this deck inside and out. We're arguing about performance information that's really on the margin of mainstream gameplay and not readily answerable using a goldfish simulator.
Playing millions of cards every turn... Slowly and systematically obliterating any chance my opponent has of winning... Clicking the multitude of locking mechanisms into place... Not even trying to win myself until turn 10+ once I have nigh absolute control... Watching my opponent desperately trying to navigate the labyrinthine prison that I've constructed... Seeing the light of hope fade and ultimately extinguished in an excruciatingly slow manner... THAT'S fun Magic.
We have 2-3 users that are dramatically making this thread incomprehensible and non-productive for anyone else to possibly join in the discussion. This needs to change.
Every time I see [ktkenshinx] post in here, I get the impression of a stern dad walking in on a bunch of kids trying to do something dumb and just shaking his head in disappointment.
Near Mint: The same as Slightly Played, but we threw some Altoids in the box we stored it in to cover up the scent of dead mice. Slightly Played: The base condition for all MTG cards. This card looks OK, but there’s one minor annoying ding in it that will always irritate and distract you whenever you draw it. Moderately Played: This card looks like it survived the Tet Offensive tucked inside the waistband of GI underwear. It may smell like it, too. Heavily Played: This card looks like the remains of Mohammed Atta’s passport after 9/11. It may be playable if you double-sleeve it to stop the chunks from falling out. The condition formerly known as "Washing Machine Grade" Damaged: This card is the unfortunate victim of a Mirrorweave/March of the Machines/Chaos Confetti/Mindslaver combo.
[M]aking counterfeit cards is the absolute height of dishonesty. Ask yourself this question: Since most people...are totally cool with the use of proxies...what purpose do [high] quality counterfeit cards serve?
Spider, I'm just going to let this one go. Obviously, you're entitled to build your manabase however you want and I'm not going to stop you. I'm just trying to stop the lurkers from feeling obligated to run 23 lands with 4 Canopies in Mono-white D&T.
There is an interesting article on Thraben university for mana bases with vial taken into consideration. There is also source code for a small programm. http://www.thrabenuniversity.com/?page_id=1288
Maybe this will help settle your argument.
Unfortunately, it won't. Both Spider and I have access to pretty comprehensive probability distribution tables for this deck, and I have additional access to a Monte Carlo simulator for figuring out everything else (e.g., "what are the odds I draw a Hierarch, Arbiter, Ghost Quarter, and WG source in my opening hand?"). Both Spider and I know the math, although I'm more of a purist about it (as you can probably tell).
Either way, neither of us need additional resources on this topic. We've both played this game for a very long time. We both know this deck inside and out. We're arguing about performance information that's really on the margin of mainstream gameplay and not readily answerable using a goldfish simulator.[/quote]
I very nearly said the same thing instead of my last tirade there . I know we're both making our arguments for the community here, altho there may have been a bit of pride involved there ;). You're right that it's not a hard and fast rule that people always need to follow. I was trying to stress that in our discussion. I do however, think that for people unfamiliar with he deck that 23 lands with 4 canopy is a good place to start. Obviously it's possible to do well without canopy. Catmix just had a good finish with a list with 22 lands and a number of canopy that was not 4. It's a well crafted list. My understanding is that you had a similar list and also did quite well.
@Soladoc that is an excellent resource however that is worth putting into leonin's library.
To chime in about the mana issue (take it with a grain of salt I am in no way an expert) It may come down to preference and your specific deck. I ran 22 lands once and had to mulligan many times and was land screwed the entire night. one reason I believe is that i run 4 Eldrazi Displacer which uses a lot of mana. If I did not have vial out I could not use the ability at all. I am up to 24 lands now and although I feel flooded often I think it is better than the alternative. I also plan on adding smuggler's copter and Thraben Inspector both of which I expect to smooth out my draws and help use some of the Mana. I just need to make room.
Hey guys I have a couple of questions about the Mono White version. Could someone explain running the Flagstones? I don't really get why you don't just want more plains. Also Mangara of Corondor seems like it would be really really good with resto angel and wisp considering it's any permanent. Is he not seeing play cuz of his week stats?
4 leonin arbiter
4 Thalia, guardian of thraben
3 serra avenger
4 blade splicer
4 flickerwisp
2 aven mindcensor
2 kitchen finks
2 vryn wingmare
1 Brimaz, lung of Oreskos
3 restoration angel
4 aether vial
4 path to exile
Lands 23
4 ghost quarter
3 tectonic edge
2 field of ruin
2 shefet dunes
1 eiganjo castle
11 plains
3 burrenton forge-tender
2 stony silence
2 rest in peace
2 grafdigger's cage
2 Sunlance
2 mirran crusader
2 dusk // dawn
WDeath and TaxesW
RWGBurnGWR
I can see why you took that to mean 3-4 lands are ideal in every opener, but that's still not quite what I meant. I was trying to clarify what a keepable seven looked like and while I'm sure we all keep many 1-2 land hands, it also totally depends on the scenario. Furthermore, I'm sure there are plenty of unkeepable 3-4 landers. I can envision a scenario where you have resto, resto, wisp or say 3x vial. But that's getting into to extremely specific scenarios, which really isn't the point. But yes, if you frame my argument as I must have 3-4 lands in every hand, obviously the math doesn't agree with me, because who runs 30 lands? Nobody. Perhaps the error is on my side in that the implications that 3-4 lands are always good might be seen in what I said, but I don't think it's very easy to clarify what exactly a good starting seven is. If you'd like to make your own/ expand on my definition of it, be my guest.
As I stated earlier, the difference between 22 and 23 lands is small mathematically, so we're really arguing about that tiny percent difference.
Going off your last sentiment, I'm assuming you do understand why I might prefer 23 over 22. Given that, I can tell you that I've had to mulligan more hands when my list was on 22 lands than when it was on 23. While yes, it may occasionally cost me life or tempo, I'd rather ensure a better start. While the joke on my twitch is that I'm the dean of "Luck Sack University," I also understand where to take my chances and if I can guarantee a safer start without too much of a late game drawback, I'm going to do so.
It's worth noting that we're having two arguments in one here. We're arguing both about whether 22 or 23 lands is correct AS WELL AS whether running canopy is right or not and in what numbers. It might be helpful to separate those as if I were going to run 22 lands in mono W, I'd still have 4x canopy in my deck and I'm sure you wouldn't. This begs the question, why wouldn't you want to have a higher chance of having a canopy in that 4 land opener? Unless you're in a very burn heavy meta, you likely won't be punished for the canopies.
4 tectonic edge
4 ghost quarter
2 sea gate wreckage
2 horizon canopy
1 Gemstone Caverns
1 Eiganjo Castle
9 Plains
8 non creature spells
4 Aether Vial
4 Path to Exile
4 Leonin Arbiter
4 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
3 Selfless Spirit
2 Spellskite
1 Phyrexian Revoker
3 blade splicer
3 Eldrazi Displacer
2 Fiend Hunter
4 Flickerwisp
3 Restoration Angel
2 Blessed Alliance
2 Rest in Peace
2 Stony Silence
2 Ghostly Prison
1 Worship
1 Gideon, Ally of Zendikar
2 Surgical Extraction
1 Sundering Growth
2 Plains
1 Forest
2 Razorverge Thicket
1 Temple Garden
2 Brushland
3 Horizon Canopy
4 Ghost Quarter
2 stirring wildwood
2 Gavony Township
1 tectonic edge
1 gemstone caverns
10 noncreature spells
4 Path to Exile
4 Aether Vial
2 Collected Company
28 creatures
4 Noble Hierarch
4 Leonin Arbiter
3 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
2 Scavenging Ooze
2 Spellskite
1 Selfless Spirit
4 Flickerwisp
2 Thalia, Heretic Cathar
2 Courser of Kruphix
1 Eternal Witness
1 Eldrazi Displacer
2 Restoration Angel
2 Stony Silence
2 Rest in Peace
2 Surgical Extraction
2 Burrenton Forge-Tender
2 Blessed Alliance
2 Ghostly Prison
1 Worship
1 Gideon, Ally of Zendikar
4 Caves of Koilos
4 Concealed Courtyard
2 Godless Shrine
1 Shambling Vent
4 Ghost Quarter
4 Eldrazi Temple
1 Vault of the Archangel
2 Plains
1 Gemstone Caverns
8 Noncreature Spells
4 Aether Vial
4 Path to Exile
4 Tidehollow Sculler
4 Leonin Arbiter
3 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
4 Flickerwisp
4 Eldrazi Displacer
2 Spellskite
2 Selfless Spirit
3 Wasteland Strangler
4 Thought-Knot Seer
2 Surgical Extraction
2 Rest in Peace
2 Gideon, Ally of Zendikar
2 Sin Collector
2 Orzhov Pontiff
2 Blessed Alliance
2 Burrenton Forge-Tender
1 Worship
3 Brushland
3 Eldrazi Temple
1 Forest
2 Gavony Township
1 Gemstone Caverns
4 Ghost Quarter
2 Plains
3 Razorverge Thicket
2 Stirring Wildwood
1 Temple Garden
10 noncreature spells
4 Aether Vial
2 Ancient Stirrings
4 Path to exile
4 Noble Hierarch
3 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
3 Leonin Arbiter
1 Aven Mindcensor
1 Thalia, Heretic Cathar
1 Spellskite
1 Scavenging Ooze
3 Eldrazi Displacer
4 Flickerwisp
1 Eternal Witness
4 Thought-knot seer
2 Reality Smasher
1 Reclamation Sage
2 Stony Silence
2 Rest in Peace
2 Surgical Extraction
2 Burrenton Forge-Tender
2 Blessed Alliance
1 Worship
1 Spellskite
2 Gideon, Ally of Zendikar
4 Ghost Quarter
1 Hallowed Fountain
4 Seachrome Coast
1 Eiganjo Castle
2 Tectonic Edge
1 Moorland Haunt
2 Mutavault
1 Island
2 Plains
2 Horizon Canopy
1 adarkar wastes
1 flooded strand
9 noncreature spells
4 Aether Vial
4 Path to Exile
1 detention sphere
28 creatures
3 Spell Queller
3 Selfless Spirit
3 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
3 eldrazi displacer
3 Reflector Mage
4 Flickerwisp
2 Phyrexian Revoker
3 leonin arbiter
2 Venser, Shaper Savant
2 spellskite
2 Rest in Peace
2 stony silence
1 Engineered Explosives
1 Gideon, Ally of Zendikar
2 ghostly prison
2 burrenton forge-tender
2 Surgical Extraction
1 kira, great glass-spinner
1 blessed alliance
I do think you can comfortably cut the Shefet Dunes though. Dunes works much better in lists that run Eldrazi Displacer because it produces both white and colorless mana. But I think that your list probably wants something like (-2 Dunes, -1 Plains, +3 Flagstones of Trokair) because the ability to turn a Ghost Quarter into a Plains is going to be relevant as you try to curve out.
Obviously, the range of keepable hands varies by matchup. But given you have access to perfect mathematical information about probability distributions, the situation that you optimize for should be G1 in some reasonable approximation of the metagame.
If you're not willing to use the perfect information that math gives you, that's fine. You don't have to. You can run 23 lands or 30 lands. But as far as I'm concerned, you've provided no evidence for why 23 lands is the right number.
This is true, but I could spin this the exact opposite way. Given the percentage difference is small mathematically, why haven't you cut that 23rd land?
(In practice, exactly how small of a difference depends on what constitutes a keepable opening hand. If keepable hands have 2-3 lands, then the difference between 22 and 23 land is only 0.62% in favor of 22. But if keepable hands have 3-4 lands, then the difference between 22 and 23 lands becomes 2.69% in favor of 23.)
This is basically a direct contradiction of your previous sentiment. If you're mulliganing significantly more hands having only 22 land as opposed to 23, that's probably variance, because they're so probabilistically similar. You would have to play literal thousands of games before you would notice this, which again begs the question: why are you still playing that 23rd land?
I would like to have a higher chance of having Canopy in my 4-land opener. But the cost is that I also have a higher chance of having Canopy in my 2-land opener, which feels much worse.
Again, math can answer your question. Regardless of whether you have 22 or 23 lands, the chance of you having exactly 2 lands (30.02%, 28.56%) is higher than you having exactly 4 lands (15.98%, 17.82%). That means that you're more likely to have a 2-land opener with Canopy than a 4-land opener with Canopy. (That statement would still be true even if you only had one Canopy as opposed to four, but I digress.) My point is that the cost of making your 4-land openers better is making your 2-land openers significantly worse; not only are 2-land openers more likely, but the Canopies are probably costing you more life in the 2-land openers than the 4-land openers.
I agree with you that Canopy should be played in mono-white. I just think the correct number is probably 2-3.
WUDeath&TaxesWG
Legacy
UBRGDredgeUBRG
UHigh TideU
URGLandsURG
WR Card Choice List
WUR American D&T
WUB Esper D&T
The Reserved List
Heat Maps
(Sorry! I took this photo in a 1997 vcr).
WWModern Death And Taxes (w/ Militia Bugler) (JUL '19)
GWModern Maverick (JUL '19)
WBCatmix on Twitch!
WWCatmix on Youtube
WDeath and TaxesW
RWGBurnGWR
Any suggestions for this build in the current meta?
4 Blade Splicer
4 Flickerwisp
4 Leonin Arbiter
2 Mirran Crusader
1 Aven Mindcensor
4 Restoration Angel
1 Selfless Spirit
4 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
4 Thraben Inspector
1 Weathered Wayfarer
4 Aether Vial
Instants
4 Path to Exile
Lands
1 Cavern of Souls
1 Eiganjo Castle
4 Ghost Quarter
11 Plains
2 Shefet Dunes
4 Tectonic Edge
2 Burrenton Forge-Tender
1 Dusk // Dawn
1 Settle the Wreckage
1 Grafdigger's Cage
1 Mirran Crusader
3 Relic of Progenitus
3 Stony Silence
1 Sunlance
1 Celestial Purge
1 Phyrexian Revoker
Do you always play standing on your head? Because if that explains your success, I'm willing to give it a try.
Living the dream with Settle the Wreckage there! Seems a very solid sideboard card that might be worth a few points in competitive match-ups (heavy aggro, Elves, Etron, Merfolk).
WDeath and TaxesW
RWGBurnGWR
Any feedback to help me get into the deck would be appreciated : )
WWModern Death And Taxes (w/ Militia Bugler) (JUL '19)
GWModern Maverick (JUL '19)
WBCatmix on Twitch!
WWCatmix on Youtube
- Sam Stoddard, “Developing Modern” (June 21, 2013) (by means of Sheridan Lardner, "Fixing Modern: Defining Format Mission (March 16, 2016))
How to Use Spoiler Tags
Starting Over: The Origins of the Mulligan Rule
Practical Approach to Slow Play
THE Guide to Aggro, Part 2: SWARM and TOOLBOX
THE Guide to Aggro, Part 3
THE Guide to Aggro, Part 4
These videos are by MTG Salvation Moderator Lantern!
Introduction to Tempo
Controlling Tempo
Elements of Tempo
Roadblocks to Tempo
How Not To Build A Deck - Tempo
Learn How To Sideboard, Dammit!
Mulligan's Island
The Art of the Mulligan
The Art of the Mulligan: Eight Case Studies
Fundamentals: The Mulligan
Some Mulligan Exercises
A Mulligan Is Worth Three Cards
The Mulligan Debate
Common Sense: The Art of the Mulligan
Who's The Beatdown?
3 Caves of Koilos
3 Eldrazi Temple
2 Fetid Heath
3 Godless Shrine
4 Ghost Quarter
3 Plains
3 Shambling Vent
2 Tectonic Edge
Artifacts (4):
4 Æther Vial
4 Path to Exile
Creatures (29):
3 Aven Mindcensor
3 Eldrazi Displacer
3 Fiend Hunter
4 Flickerwisp
4 Serra Avenger
3 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
3 Thought-Knot Seer
3 Tidehollow Sculler
3 Wasteland Strangler
3 Chalice of the Void
2 Dismember
2 Oblivion Ring
2 Rest in Peace
3 Stony Silence
3 Surgical Extraction
3 Flooded Strand
6 Island
3 Polluted Delta
3 Steam Vents
3 Sulfur Falls
Creatures (16):
4 Delver of Secrets
4 Monastery Swiftspear
4 Snapcaster Mage
4 Stormchaser Mage
2 Gut Shot
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Mutagenic Growth
3 Spell Pierce
3 Twisted Image
3 Vapor Snag
Sorceries (8):
4 Gitaxian Probe
4 Serum Visions
2 Ancient Grudge
2 Blood Moon
2 Dispel
1 Forked Bolt
1 Hurkyl's Recall
1 Repeal
2 Roast
1 Spell Snare
2 Spellskite
1 Vapor Snag
4 Bloodstained Mire
1 Clifftop Retreat
1 Copperline Gorge
5 Mountain
3 Sacred Foundry
2 Stomping Ground
4 Wooded Foothills
Creatures (14):
4 Eidolon of the Great Revel
4 Goblin Guide
2 Grim Lavamancer
4 Monastery Swiftspear
4 Atarka's Command
4 Boros Charm
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Lightning Helix
3 Searing Blaze
Sorceries (8):
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
2 Deflecting Palm
4 Destructive Revelry
2 Kor Firewalker
2 Path to Exile
2 Rending Volley
3 Skullcrack
19 Forest
3 Treetop Village
Creatures (24):
4 Avatar of the Resolute
4 Dryad Militant
2 Dungrove Elder
4 Experiment One
4 Leatherback Baloth
2 Scavenging Ooze
4 Strangleroot Geist
4 Rancor
Instants (10):
3 Aspect of Hydra
4 Vines of Vastwood
3 Dismember
2 Choke
2 Gut Shot
2 Deglamer
2 Feed the Clan
2 Oxidize
2 Relic of Progenitus
2 Skylasher
1 Unravel the Æther
To better understand what makes one mulligan, modern nexus breaks it down here
. The mulligans we're talking about fall into their type #1, the inherent mulligan. That is, we're mulliganing because our hand is in some way not okay due to the land in or the lack of lands in the hand.
Unfortunately, we don't know what percentage of mulligans come specifically from "inherent mulligans," making this even harder to pin down.
This was me offering you the olive branch in that unless you play thousands of games, as you said, it's going to be hard to see the difference between the two different land counts. HOWEVER, since you insist that we are able to find the ultimate truth of how many lands should we run, I'm going to have to throw my anecdotal evidence in the 23 land side of things as I have played literally thousands of games with this deck. You seem to assume that I never tried 22 lands. This couldn't be farther from the truth. In actuality, the difference between the two land counts likely comes down to preference, but that ~1% difference in mulligans, according to the program I've been using since the start of the year, agrees with the rest of the games I've played and my experience with it in that I get to mulligan less. While I have played MANY games, they're not all with the stock mono W list (with 22vs23 lands) verbatim, which makes this even harder to say is a certainty. Of course, most every top finish with the deck has 23 lands and 4 canopies, but you refuse to see those results. Now, just because everyone does something does not make it the truth, but it certainly makes us wonder if there is a reason behind their choices. We have the statistics, but can't seem to agree on how they should be interpreted. While the math represents the truth of the situation, how we interpret it introduces opinion and human error.
Where does having canopy feel much worse? I reiterate, the only deck that can consistently punish us is burn. Where's the math behind the canopy numbers? I'd love to see the average damage taken from canopies over the course of the game with 2vs3vs4 of them. Currently, we're just saying why we like one or the other and explaining it via play theory.
EDIT: I realize your issue with my initial statement may have been with the strength of the rhetoric I used; "I wouldn't be caught dead running 22 lands (and less than 4 canopies in mono W)."
4 tectonic edge
4 ghost quarter
2 sea gate wreckage
2 horizon canopy
1 Gemstone Caverns
1 Eiganjo Castle
9 Plains
8 non creature spells
4 Aether Vial
4 Path to Exile
4 Leonin Arbiter
4 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
3 Selfless Spirit
2 Spellskite
1 Phyrexian Revoker
3 blade splicer
3 Eldrazi Displacer
2 Fiend Hunter
4 Flickerwisp
3 Restoration Angel
2 Blessed Alliance
2 Rest in Peace
2 Stony Silence
2 Ghostly Prison
1 Worship
1 Gideon, Ally of Zendikar
2 Surgical Extraction
1 Sundering Growth
2 Plains
1 Forest
2 Razorverge Thicket
1 Temple Garden
2 Brushland
3 Horizon Canopy
4 Ghost Quarter
2 stirring wildwood
2 Gavony Township
1 tectonic edge
1 gemstone caverns
10 noncreature spells
4 Path to Exile
4 Aether Vial
2 Collected Company
28 creatures
4 Noble Hierarch
4 Leonin Arbiter
3 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
2 Scavenging Ooze
2 Spellskite
1 Selfless Spirit
4 Flickerwisp
2 Thalia, Heretic Cathar
2 Courser of Kruphix
1 Eternal Witness
1 Eldrazi Displacer
2 Restoration Angel
2 Stony Silence
2 Rest in Peace
2 Surgical Extraction
2 Burrenton Forge-Tender
2 Blessed Alliance
2 Ghostly Prison
1 Worship
1 Gideon, Ally of Zendikar
4 Caves of Koilos
4 Concealed Courtyard
2 Godless Shrine
1 Shambling Vent
4 Ghost Quarter
4 Eldrazi Temple
1 Vault of the Archangel
2 Plains
1 Gemstone Caverns
8 Noncreature Spells
4 Aether Vial
4 Path to Exile
4 Tidehollow Sculler
4 Leonin Arbiter
3 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
4 Flickerwisp
4 Eldrazi Displacer
2 Spellskite
2 Selfless Spirit
3 Wasteland Strangler
4 Thought-Knot Seer
2 Surgical Extraction
2 Rest in Peace
2 Gideon, Ally of Zendikar
2 Sin Collector
2 Orzhov Pontiff
2 Blessed Alliance
2 Burrenton Forge-Tender
1 Worship
3 Brushland
3 Eldrazi Temple
1 Forest
2 Gavony Township
1 Gemstone Caverns
4 Ghost Quarter
2 Plains
3 Razorverge Thicket
2 Stirring Wildwood
1 Temple Garden
10 noncreature spells
4 Aether Vial
2 Ancient Stirrings
4 Path to exile
4 Noble Hierarch
3 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
3 Leonin Arbiter
1 Aven Mindcensor
1 Thalia, Heretic Cathar
1 Spellskite
1 Scavenging Ooze
3 Eldrazi Displacer
4 Flickerwisp
1 Eternal Witness
4 Thought-knot seer
2 Reality Smasher
1 Reclamation Sage
2 Stony Silence
2 Rest in Peace
2 Surgical Extraction
2 Burrenton Forge-Tender
2 Blessed Alliance
1 Worship
1 Spellskite
2 Gideon, Ally of Zendikar
4 Ghost Quarter
1 Hallowed Fountain
4 Seachrome Coast
1 Eiganjo Castle
2 Tectonic Edge
1 Moorland Haunt
2 Mutavault
1 Island
2 Plains
2 Horizon Canopy
1 adarkar wastes
1 flooded strand
9 noncreature spells
4 Aether Vial
4 Path to Exile
1 detention sphere
28 creatures
3 Spell Queller
3 Selfless Spirit
3 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
3 eldrazi displacer
3 Reflector Mage
4 Flickerwisp
2 Phyrexian Revoker
3 leonin arbiter
2 Venser, Shaper Savant
2 spellskite
2 Rest in Peace
2 stony silence
1 Engineered Explosives
1 Gideon, Ally of Zendikar
2 ghostly prison
2 burrenton forge-tender
2 Surgical Extraction
1 kira, great glass-spinner
1 blessed alliance
Unfortunately, it won't. Both Spider and I have access to pretty comprehensive probability distribution tables for this deck, and I have additional access to a Monte Carlo simulator for figuring out everything else (e.g., "what are the odds I draw a Hierarch, Arbiter, Ghost Quarter, and WG source in my opening hand?"). Both Spider and I know the math, although I'm more of a purist about it (as you can probably tell).
Either way, neither of us need additional resources on this topic. We've both played this game for a very long time. We both know this deck inside and out. We're arguing about performance information that's really on the margin of mainstream gameplay and not readily answerable using a goldfish simulator.
WUDeath&TaxesWG
Legacy
UBRGDredgeUBRG
UHigh TideU
URGLandsURG
WR Card Choice List
WUR American D&T
WUB Esper D&T
The Reserved List
Heat Maps
Unfortunately, it won't. Both Spider and I have access to pretty comprehensive probability distribution tables for this deck, and I have additional access to a Monte Carlo simulator for figuring out everything else (e.g., "what are the odds I draw a Hierarch, Arbiter, Ghost Quarter, and WG source in my opening hand?"). Both Spider and I know the math, although I'm more of a purist about it (as you can probably tell).
Either way, neither of us need additional resources on this topic. We've both played this game for a very long time. We both know this deck inside and out. We're arguing about performance information that's really on the margin of mainstream gameplay and not readily answerable using a goldfish simulator.[/quote]
I very nearly said the same thing instead of my last tirade there . I know we're both making our arguments for the community here, altho there may have been a bit of pride involved there ;). You're right that it's not a hard and fast rule that people always need to follow. I was trying to stress that in our discussion. I do however, think that for people unfamiliar with he deck that 23 lands with 4 canopy is a good place to start. Obviously it's possible to do well without canopy. Catmix just had a good finish with a list with 22 lands and a number of canopy that was not 4. It's a well crafted list. My understanding is that you had a similar list and also did quite well.
@Soladoc that is an excellent resource however that is worth putting into leonin's library.
4 tectonic edge
4 ghost quarter
2 sea gate wreckage
2 horizon canopy
1 Gemstone Caverns
1 Eiganjo Castle
9 Plains
8 non creature spells
4 Aether Vial
4 Path to Exile
4 Leonin Arbiter
4 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
3 Selfless Spirit
2 Spellskite
1 Phyrexian Revoker
3 blade splicer
3 Eldrazi Displacer
2 Fiend Hunter
4 Flickerwisp
3 Restoration Angel
2 Blessed Alliance
2 Rest in Peace
2 Stony Silence
2 Ghostly Prison
1 Worship
1 Gideon, Ally of Zendikar
2 Surgical Extraction
1 Sundering Growth
2 Plains
1 Forest
2 Razorverge Thicket
1 Temple Garden
2 Brushland
3 Horizon Canopy
4 Ghost Quarter
2 stirring wildwood
2 Gavony Township
1 tectonic edge
1 gemstone caverns
10 noncreature spells
4 Path to Exile
4 Aether Vial
2 Collected Company
28 creatures
4 Noble Hierarch
4 Leonin Arbiter
3 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
2 Scavenging Ooze
2 Spellskite
1 Selfless Spirit
4 Flickerwisp
2 Thalia, Heretic Cathar
2 Courser of Kruphix
1 Eternal Witness
1 Eldrazi Displacer
2 Restoration Angel
2 Stony Silence
2 Rest in Peace
2 Surgical Extraction
2 Burrenton Forge-Tender
2 Blessed Alliance
2 Ghostly Prison
1 Worship
1 Gideon, Ally of Zendikar
4 Caves of Koilos
4 Concealed Courtyard
2 Godless Shrine
1 Shambling Vent
4 Ghost Quarter
4 Eldrazi Temple
1 Vault of the Archangel
2 Plains
1 Gemstone Caverns
8 Noncreature Spells
4 Aether Vial
4 Path to Exile
4 Tidehollow Sculler
4 Leonin Arbiter
3 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
4 Flickerwisp
4 Eldrazi Displacer
2 Spellskite
2 Selfless Spirit
3 Wasteland Strangler
4 Thought-Knot Seer
2 Surgical Extraction
2 Rest in Peace
2 Gideon, Ally of Zendikar
2 Sin Collector
2 Orzhov Pontiff
2 Blessed Alliance
2 Burrenton Forge-Tender
1 Worship
3 Brushland
3 Eldrazi Temple
1 Forest
2 Gavony Township
1 Gemstone Caverns
4 Ghost Quarter
2 Plains
3 Razorverge Thicket
2 Stirring Wildwood
1 Temple Garden
10 noncreature spells
4 Aether Vial
2 Ancient Stirrings
4 Path to exile
4 Noble Hierarch
3 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
3 Leonin Arbiter
1 Aven Mindcensor
1 Thalia, Heretic Cathar
1 Spellskite
1 Scavenging Ooze
3 Eldrazi Displacer
4 Flickerwisp
1 Eternal Witness
4 Thought-knot seer
2 Reality Smasher
1 Reclamation Sage
2 Stony Silence
2 Rest in Peace
2 Surgical Extraction
2 Burrenton Forge-Tender
2 Blessed Alliance
1 Worship
1 Spellskite
2 Gideon, Ally of Zendikar
4 Ghost Quarter
1 Hallowed Fountain
4 Seachrome Coast
1 Eiganjo Castle
2 Tectonic Edge
1 Moorland Haunt
2 Mutavault
1 Island
2 Plains
2 Horizon Canopy
1 adarkar wastes
1 flooded strand
9 noncreature spells
4 Aether Vial
4 Path to Exile
1 detention sphere
28 creatures
3 Spell Queller
3 Selfless Spirit
3 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
3 eldrazi displacer
3 Reflector Mage
4 Flickerwisp
2 Phyrexian Revoker
3 leonin arbiter
2 Venser, Shaper Savant
2 spellskite
2 Rest in Peace
2 stony silence
1 Engineered Explosives
1 Gideon, Ally of Zendikar
2 ghostly prison
2 burrenton forge-tender
2 Surgical Extraction
1 kira, great glass-spinner
1 blessed alliance
To chime in about the mana issue (take it with a grain of salt I am in no way an expert) It may come down to preference and your specific deck. I ran 22 lands once and had to mulligan many times and was land screwed the entire night. one reason I believe is that i run 4 Eldrazi Displacer which uses a lot of mana. If I did not have vial out I could not use the ability at all. I am up to 24 lands now and although I feel flooded often I think it is better than the alternative. I also plan on adding smuggler's copter and Thraben Inspector both of which I expect to smooth out my draws and help use some of the Mana. I just need to make room.
Gary