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.
I wouldn't be caught dead running 22 lands in mono W, even with smuggler's copter (which I also hugely recommend).
I didn't have a chance to respond to this earlier, but 22 lands is probably the right number. There's a little bit of room to debate it, but I suggest you make the switch and never look back.
Smuggler's copter helps sift through lands (or find them), but the issue has more to do with upping my keepable openers. I've extensively tested both 22 and 23 in an assortment of builds, and I tend to prefer 23, altho it depends on the curve and build of course. But for mono W, I believe 23 to be the correct number if you're running something close to the stock build. Of course some of our land choices affect this decision as well. Having 4x horizon canopy for instance that flooding is reduced. In my opinion, such a list is able to both have the optimal amount of good starting hands while also not concerning itself too heavily with flooding.
Of course, we're arguing over a fairly small percentage (I'm sure you have the numbers. I don't have them on hand.), but I do think that 23 (and 4x canopy) is correct for a list resembling the stock mono W list.
I'm probably going to believe this sentiment even more so once we're trying to run a whopping 10x LD lands.
The weirdest part about this discussion is that you and I have access to the same set of numbers. I can virtually guarantee that 23 lands with 4x Horizon Canopy is not the optimal way to build a mono-white manabase, and especially so if the deciding factor is keepable openers. Keepable openers are a function of probabilistic certainty; they're a set of numbers that you can't easily argue with.
If you were optimizing for something like T3/T4 land destruction plays, it would be much harder to reach a consensus. But given the criteria you're using, your conclusion only makes sense if you're aggressively cracking utility lands, in which case you should probably be closer to 24 or 25 lands anyway.
It's possible that you're simply piloting the deck to more grindy games than I am, but I tend to want to draw more gas than cantrips. If I can swap out a cantrip for more gas, I'm going to try to do it. That 4th Horizon Canopy for a 38th spell seems like an easy exchange given the difference in the probability of a keepable opener.
Perhaps we're looking at this in a different way, but a keepable opener can mean a lot of different things. For instance if you know what you're playing against, you might try to mulligan to find good cards for the MUs, but I don't think that's what either of us mean as we're talking about land count. There are 2 scenarios in my mind that lands might not make your opener keepable.
1) Too many lands. This would mean 5+ lands in the opener. if you have 2 cards that are good in the MU and some of your lands are utility in either the form of a man land, redraw, or LD, you might be able to keep a hand that has 4-5 lands, but I don't think any player would want to keep a hand that had 6-7 lands in it.
2) Too few lands. This is where you simply can't keep the hand because you can't cast your cards. This is likely going to be 2 or fewer lands. While our deck has aether vial which obviously helps to mitigate this issue and let us keep otherwise poor 1 landers, generally you can't keep a hand that has 2 lands and mono 3-4 drops. Another possible scenario would involve color screw. For mono W, this might mean finding something like 2x tec edges and then a bunch of cards that require a colored source.
Keeping all that in mind, I mulligan far more hands from issue #2 than issue #1. That's not to say that it never happens, but it happens much less. Specifically, I'll see hands that have 1 lands and no vial or hands with 0 lands.
So, while you're right that that extra canopy could be spell and not a land which is obviously good in the late game, I'd much rather be able to play the game more often at the start than have the potential of flooding out later. Your opening 7 affects the course of the game more than most any other factor. Having 4 of lands that can be redraws to find gas thus makes sense in this context. In this way you get to have more keepable starts in seeing enough lands as well as being willing to keep those 4-5 landers given redraws. Similarly, in the late game, the canopy helps you get to gas.
Play style may have something to do with this as well. I might be more willing to fire off GQs/crack canopies, but even so I think that doesn't have much to do with a "keepable 7."
I wouldn't be caught dead running 22 lands in mono W, even with smuggler's copter (which I also hugely recommend).
I didn't have a chance to respond to this earlier, but 22 lands is probably the right number. There's a little bit of room to debate it, but I suggest you make the switch and never look back.
Smuggler's copter helps sift through lands (or find them), but the issue has more to do with upping my keepable openers. I've extensively tested both 22 and 23 in an assortment of builds, and I tend to prefer 23, altho it depends on the curve and build of course. But for mono W, I believe 23 to be the correct number if you're running something close to the stock build. Of course some of our land choices affect this decision as well. Having 4x horizon canopy for instance that flooding is reduced. In my opinion, such a list is able to both have the optimal amount of good starting hands while also not concerning itself too heavily with flooding.
Of course, we're arguing over a fairly small percentage (I'm sure you have the numbers. I don't have them on hand.), but I do think that 23 (and 4x canopy) is correct for a list resembling the stock mono W list.
I'm probably going to believe this sentiment even more so once we're trying to run a whopping 10x LD lands.
I appreciate the shout-out and am flattered, although I have to disagree with some of what you said. I'm gonna focus on the stuff I disagree with as I think the stuff we agree on that you said has already been explained.
FOR WG:
1) I would not play GW without 4 hierarch. It's the reason to splash for G followed by scavenging ooze and collected company. The only way I'd play G without it is if I was on a microsplash for gavony township. The card makes attacks better and makes the deck into the explosive force that it is and should be. If anything, I'd switch your hierarch and oath numbers.
2) 4 horizon canopy is absolutely correct. 22 lands is right in GW and while those pings from it may make burn worse, you can still flood. So unless you expect a lot of burn, play it. There aren't many other decks to punish you and the grind is real right now. Mono W's thraben inspector gives it extra grind power that we just don't have here because we're trading that grindiness for extra power in the form of hierarch.
3) 10 1 drops CAN be okay since 6 of them either help your combat get better or help you dig for another dude.
Unrelated thing that I (kind of?) like:
playing 2 fecthes with rallier is good. I like the synergy there, but the card ends up being a build around card that is often just ramping/LD. While those things are good, you have to ask yourself if doing that is better than just playing something like eternal witness or if you really want the LD, ramunap excavator.
FOR MONO W:
1) I wouldn't be caught dead running 22 lands in mono W, even with smuggler's copter (which I also hugely recommend).
Unrelated recommendation:
Try not to sacrifice the core elements of the deck. Gideon of the Trials seems great right now and I do love thalia, heretic cathar and a 1x aven mindcensor, but going down on thraben inspectors, restos, and splicers comes with consequences. In particular, Inspector is very good. Brian Coval said it's the best card in the deck, and while I'm not sure I 100% agree, I also don't disagree. The card is VERY good for us right now. Never forget that where mono W lacks the raw power, explosiveness, or trickness of the various splashes, it tries to make up for these things in consistency in the deck (both in mana and otherwise).
@redtwister
Yeah, the mana being better is huge. I'm really looking forward to updating this decks SB with a certain W card coming out soon that helps aggro MUs
@redtwister I find it somewhat surprising that you find GBx to be such a difficult MU. I find it to often be very close. The RW version has lots of nice value cards I've tested like Pia and Kiran Nalaar, nahiri, the harbinger, chandra, torch of defianceand hazoret the fervent, but even in mono W, just adding a few blinkable targets can go a long way. I was playing a 1x MD blade splicer. If it's GBx that you're scared of in particular, you could also try mirran crusader.
Also, I feel that thalia, heretic cathar is one of the ways we beat those creature mirrors as she's formidable in combat, while slowing their role and pushing through damage. She doesn't fix those MUs entirely, but she does a lot vs a lot of the field.
Hey guys. I picked back up the deck recently. I went 4-1 in one league, 3-2 in another (but it should have been a 4-1. I had a modo misclick thing), and then 5-0 in the last. The later two I did on stream with the following list: http://www.streamdecker.com/deck/BJoeDEUYZ. I think I may try going back to mono W after the next set comes out, but some of the R cards are just super good. Pia and Kiran Nalaar + displacer just destroys grindy MUs. The reach alone is huge.
WU has multiple different ways to build it. The main two ways (there still a lot of others) are tempo oriented and grindy. It looks like you're trying to both at the same time. I'd recommend trying to decide which direction you want to go. If you're curious, here's a tempo list I 5-0ed with some time back (multiple times) https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/703080#paper. It might be a good starting point. If you want to go a grindier direction, feel free to PM me. I have about a billion versions of the deck and would be happy to share them with you. Furthermore, if you haven't already, there's a cool WU miniprimer on the first page of the our thread that I'd recommend reading.
@dopespot
While we are a meta deck, I think you have the wrong idea of what that might mean. The idea of a meta deck means that our deck can be tuned to beat most decks. While the stock list might be a little poor VS something like affinity doesn't mean that every iteration of the deck would be. But yes, the stock list is well tuned in the current metagame. We have an enormous presence online right now, such to the extent that I'd call us a tier 1 deck right now.
So I lost two matches to BG elf company with a mono w build. They sat back and defended and simply outranged meby generating craptons of mana and company/chording me to death with Shamans. Didn't see a single path, sunlance, or Crusader in any of those games though.
What is the plan for that? Sunscour for when a deck like that overcommits?
Elves is a traditionally poor MU. Unless you skew your deck to deal with them, it's going to stay that way. phyrexian revoker and linvala, keeper of silence are good cards that you can bring in vs them. grafdigger's cage stops a decent chunk of their deck. Spot removal is helpful like you mentioned. If you splash (or micro splash), engineered explosives (ratchet bomb could be okay if you're in only mono W) is one of our best options. Beyond that, there's color specific stuff like orzhov pontiff or cards that are difficult to play here just for decks like them such as wrath of god. A more unconvetional approach might include something like walking ballista.
But unless you want to do all that stuff just for them, you might just want to dodge them.
I'm sorry to hear Wg didn't feel like it worked out.
One thing I'm curious about (splash regardless) is why many of us only run 3 Thalia, guardian of thraben. I understand we don't have much cycling effects so drawing multiples could feel bad, but the card is amazing right now and can lead to many of our more unfair games (t1 thalia anyone?).
Additionally, I've been looking for ways to fix that draw problem since running canopy is hard in WR and we run a lot of dead draws. I feel like matter reshaper might just be our best bet with copter as a close second. Every time I try to run something else, I struggle to find room and end up cutting reshapers for the new card in question and it always feels less consistent. I've tried chandra, torch of defiance and hazoret the fervent both of which were nice options, but costing more mana than reshaper mattered. Reshaper costs us 2-3 (temple dependent)and doesn't need R which makes it more consistent, relevant more quickly, and easier cast. As a said, the only other card that seems a suitable replacement to me at this point is smuggler's copter, yet I still feel like there's a hole to fill there. Anyone else have any thoughts there?
I'm not sure I understand the need to go GW. Gaddock teeg seems like an interesting SB option. I guess you bring it in vs coco decks and control? Qasali helps vs affinity. You also get to run more horizon canopy which is great, but I"m not sure it's worth it. You're still weak to creature decks and even if qasali does help vs affinity, it doesn't seem to do nearly as much as anger of the gods. Also, casting simian spirit guides can really matter. It seems like simian pushes us towards splashing R while canopy pushes us towards G.
I know I've brought this up before and even got it included in leonin's library, but I'd like to bring everybody's attention to this yet again.
With mono W being so well positioned right now, I feel like microsplashes are something we need to seriously consider. You get to keep all of that wonderful consistency from mono W while eking out the advantage of your microsplashed color. It's a low risk with high reward idea. I recently did such a micro splash with U and 5-0ed a league. While this may not speak toward the microsplashes power and more toward mono W's power, I really do believe this is how "mono-W" can be taken to the next level.
For reference, the list I played was a fairly stock take on the current mono W list (see GP Vegas list) except I got to run nearly free moorland haunts and fancy U SB tech like ceremonious rejections.
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.
Perhaps we're looking at this in a different way, but a keepable opener can mean a lot of different things. For instance if you know what you're playing against, you might try to mulligan to find good cards for the MUs, but I don't think that's what either of us mean as we're talking about land count. There are 2 scenarios in my mind that lands might not make your opener keepable.
1) Too many lands. This would mean 5+ lands in the opener. if you have 2 cards that are good in the MU and some of your lands are utility in either the form of a man land, redraw, or LD, you might be able to keep a hand that has 4-5 lands, but I don't think any player would want to keep a hand that had 6-7 lands in it.
2) Too few lands. This is where you simply can't keep the hand because you can't cast your cards. This is likely going to be 2 or fewer lands. While our deck has aether vial which obviously helps to mitigate this issue and let us keep otherwise poor 1 landers, generally you can't keep a hand that has 2 lands and mono 3-4 drops. Another possible scenario would involve color screw. For mono W, this might mean finding something like 2x tec edges and then a bunch of cards that require a colored source.
Keeping all that in mind, I mulligan far more hands from issue #2 than issue #1. That's not to say that it never happens, but it happens much less. Specifically, I'll see hands that have 1 lands and no vial or hands with 0 lands.
So, while you're right that that extra canopy could be spell and not a land which is obviously good in the late game, I'd much rather be able to play the game more often at the start than have the potential of flooding out later. Your opening 7 affects the course of the game more than most any other factor. Having 4 of lands that can be redraws to find gas thus makes sense in this context. In this way you get to have more keepable starts in seeing enough lands as well as being willing to keep those 4-5 landers given redraws. Similarly, in the late game, the canopy helps you get to gas.
Play style may have something to do with this as well. I might be more willing to fire off GQs/crack canopies, but even so I think that doesn't have much to do with a "keepable 7."
Smuggler's copter helps sift through lands (or find them), but the issue has more to do with upping my keepable openers. I've extensively tested both 22 and 23 in an assortment of builds, and I tend to prefer 23, altho it depends on the curve and build of course. But for mono W, I believe 23 to be the correct number if you're running something close to the stock build. Of course some of our land choices affect this decision as well. Having 4x horizon canopy for instance that flooding is reduced. In my opinion, such a list is able to both have the optimal amount of good starting hands while also not concerning itself too heavily with flooding.
Of course, we're arguing over a fairly small percentage (I'm sure you have the numbers. I don't have them on hand.), but I do think that 23 (and 4x canopy) is correct for a list resembling the stock mono W list.
I'm probably going to believe this sentiment even more so once we're trying to run a whopping 10x LD lands.
I appreciate the shout-out and am flattered, although I have to disagree with some of what you said. I'm gonna focus on the stuff I disagree with as I think the stuff we agree on that you said has already been explained.
FOR WG:
1) I would not play GW without 4 hierarch. It's the reason to splash for G followed by scavenging ooze and collected company. The only way I'd play G without it is if I was on a microsplash for gavony township. The card makes attacks better and makes the deck into the explosive force that it is and should be. If anything, I'd switch your hierarch and oath numbers.
2) 4 horizon canopy is absolutely correct. 22 lands is right in GW and while those pings from it may make burn worse, you can still flood. So unless you expect a lot of burn, play it. There aren't many other decks to punish you and the grind is real right now. Mono W's thraben inspector gives it extra grind power that we just don't have here because we're trading that grindiness for extra power in the form of hierarch.
3) 10 1 drops CAN be okay since 6 of them either help your combat get better or help you dig for another dude.
Unrelated thing that I (kind of?) like:
playing 2 fecthes with rallier is good. I like the synergy there, but the card ends up being a build around card that is often just ramping/LD. While those things are good, you have to ask yourself if doing that is better than just playing something like eternal witness or if you really want the LD, ramunap excavator.
FOR MONO W:
1) I wouldn't be caught dead running 22 lands in mono W, even with smuggler's copter (which I also hugely recommend).
Unrelated recommendation:
Try not to sacrifice the core elements of the deck. Gideon of the Trials seems great right now and I do love thalia, heretic cathar and a 1x aven mindcensor, but going down on thraben inspectors, restos, and splicers comes with consequences. In particular, Inspector is very good. Brian Coval said it's the best card in the deck, and while I'm not sure I 100% agree, I also don't disagree. The card is VERY good for us right now. Never forget that where mono W lacks the raw power, explosiveness, or trickness of the various splashes, it tries to make up for these things in consistency in the deck (both in mana and otherwise).
Yeah, the mana being better is huge. I'm really looking forward to updating this decks SB with a certain W card coming out soon that helps aggro MUs
But this is where I was at the last time I was on mono W. http://www.streamdecker.com/deck/rJ4O_t2q-
Also, I feel that thalia, heretic cathar is one of the ways we beat those creature mirrors as she's formidable in combat, while slowing their role and pushing through damage. She doesn't fix those MUs entirely, but she does a lot vs a lot of the field.
While we are a meta deck, I think you have the wrong idea of what that might mean. The idea of a meta deck means that our deck can be tuned to beat most decks. While the stock list might be a little poor VS something like affinity doesn't mean that every iteration of the deck would be. But yes, the stock list is well tuned in the current metagame. We have an enormous presence online right now, such to the extent that I'd call us a tier 1 deck right now.
Elves is a traditionally poor MU. Unless you skew your deck to deal with them, it's going to stay that way. phyrexian revoker and linvala, keeper of silence are good cards that you can bring in vs them. grafdigger's cage stops a decent chunk of their deck. Spot removal is helpful like you mentioned. If you splash (or micro splash), engineered explosives (ratchet bomb could be okay if you're in only mono W) is one of our best options. Beyond that, there's color specific stuff like orzhov pontiff or cards that are difficult to play here just for decks like them such as wrath of god. A more unconvetional approach might include something like walking ballista.
But unless you want to do all that stuff just for them, you might just want to dodge them.
One thing I'm curious about (splash regardless) is why many of us only run 3 Thalia, guardian of thraben. I understand we don't have much cycling effects so drawing multiples could feel bad, but the card is amazing right now and can lead to many of our more unfair games (t1 thalia anyone?).
Additionally, I've been looking for ways to fix that draw problem since running canopy is hard in WR and we run a lot of dead draws. I feel like matter reshaper might just be our best bet with copter as a close second. Every time I try to run something else, I struggle to find room and end up cutting reshapers for the new card in question and it always feels less consistent. I've tried chandra, torch of defiance and hazoret the fervent both of which were nice options, but costing more mana than reshaper mattered. Reshaper costs us 2-3 (temple dependent)and doesn't need R which makes it more consistent, relevant more quickly, and easier cast. As a said, the only other card that seems a suitable replacement to me at this point is smuggler's copter, yet I still feel like there's a hole to fill there. Anyone else have any thoughts there?
I know I've brought this up before and even got it included in leonin's library, but I'd like to bring everybody's attention to this yet again.
With mono W being so well positioned right now, I feel like microsplashes are something we need to seriously consider. You get to keep all of that wonderful consistency from mono W while eking out the advantage of your microsplashed color. It's a low risk with high reward idea. I recently did such a micro splash with U and 5-0ed a league. While this may not speak toward the microsplashes power and more toward mono W's power, I really do believe this is how "mono-W" can be taken to the next level.
For reference, the list I played was a fairly stock take on the current mono W list (see GP Vegas list) except I got to run nearly free moorland haunts and fancy U SB tech like ceremonious rejections.
I think microsplashes ought to be explored more. If you're wondering what cards might warrant such a thing beyond the power lands(which are good enough by themselves), I can give you all some ideas; U: spell queller, B: lingering souls/ orzhov pontiff, R: magus of the moon, G: qasali pridemage/ new crucible of worlds on a stick.
I know the format's about to change, but I hope to see some other folks trying out the idea.
Have fun brewing!
~Spider
EDIT: it also opens a while new world of SB options for "mono W" specific to each color that I'll happy refer to as EE+.