Miracle Control

[Adryan]

I tried him over the course of about four 4-round local tournaments and wasn't impressed.

This is not how testing works.


You should know what you get from Keranos. He's not the new bread & butter of Miracles, but has some advantages over a 3rd Entreat.

-) Easier to cast, is not as clunky as Entreat in your hand. In addition to that he is a creature spell so Gaddock Teeg and Thalia don't work against him.
-) Doesn't care about the hate people bring to fight Entreat. Ensnaring Bridge, Pernicious Deed, Engineered Explosives for 0, Ratchet Bomb....

etc.

I played him a lot and i like it, because killing all the Deathrite Shamans, Delver of Secrets and all the nasty Planeswalkers, while having a permanent that is REALLY hard to answer for your opponent is great.

Edit: From time to time i even forget that Keranos is kind of a creature, because for me it's a legendary indestructible enchantment that becomes a creature when your opp is dead.

[afb0032]

I think that if Keranos could hit devotion more easily or if you could trigger his ability on opponents' turns with Brainstorm/Top then he'd be much more playable. As he is though, in order to be able to commit five mana to casting him, the board state has to be pretty stable already. Around the midgame when I'd want to cast Keranos, I found myself having to hold up mana for Venser, Snapcaster, Clique, (one time FoW for their Ancestral), mini-Entreat (to protect a Jace), etc.

Creatures at least can block the turn they come into play and Venser or Snapcaster can each deal with an additional creature by bouncing or flashing back removal. The fact is that Keranos does nothing against even a single Goyf or Batterskull and tapping five mana probably means that you're just going to be taking whatever they are offering for at least that turn. If DnT has a Vial and any piece of equipment in play then they can play around Keranos quite easily by EoTing a creature and just suiting it up on their turn (putting it out of Keranos range). Keranos is probably better than Jace or a mini-Entreat on an empty or nearly-empty board, but unlike Jace it can't dig for sweepers and unlike Entreat it can't provide blockers.

This is not how testing works.


You should know what you get from Keranos. He's not the new bread & butter of Miracles, but has some advantages over a 3rd Entreat.

-) Easier to cast, is not as clunky as Entreat in your hand. In addition to that he is a creature spell so Gaddock Teeg and Thalia don't work against him.
-) Doesn't care about the hate people bring to fight Entreat. Ensnaring Bridge, Pernicious Deed, Engineered Explosives for 0, Ratchet Bomb....

etc.

I played him a lot and i like it, because killing all the Deathrite Shamans, Delver of Secrets and all the nasty Planeswalkers, while having a permanent that is REALLY hard to answer for your opponent is great.

Edit: From time to time i even forget that Keranos is kind of a creature, because for me it's a legendary indestructible enchantment that becomes a creature when your opp is dead.

The reasons Dzra lists are scenarios typically when you might want to play reactively. The reasons Adryan lists to me seem to embrace more of a proactive threat. It also may just come down to a matter of playstyle.

[Dzra]

Yeah, it could possibly be a matter of play style. It's probably like Joe suggested and more a matter of builds. I can see how having a lot of Snapcasters and access to a lot more Plows per game allows you to control the early turns more easily so that a Keranos lands on a clean board and is just game. The Legend build usually has to spend the midgame playing a little more catchup against creature decks than the Snapcaster build.

[StefN]

Today I tried Reid Duke's list at a small tournament and made 1'st place with 3-0.
He plays no Snapcaster and Clique main. 4 Balance and 4 Jace. 2 RelicofP. that I cutted for 2 ponder and 1 Predict that I also switched for the second Councils Judgment.
I really liked it ;). Didn't miss the creature package and the 1off Red Elemental Blast was awesome. Will definitely test the deck tomorrow again.
Just want to know if anyone has tried his list (or a creature-less list) and what you thinck about it.

http://www.tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=14119&iddeck=103914

[tempothresh]

Philipp already wrote a good summary about the Shardless BUG MU, and BUG Delver is with UWR the most favored Delver deck for us, so i'm only adressing the Death and Taxes MU.

The most important part of the Death and Taxes MU is: Does the opponent have Aether Vial? The game changes radically if the opponent has Aether Vial. All your countermagic becomes really bad and the Death and Taxes deck is in it's full element because it can deploy threats while attacking our manabase. Thankfully the chances that a Death and Taxes player has a Aether Vial on Turn 1 are about ~40 %. Without Death and Taxes deck struggles to deploy threats while attacking our mana.

Jace is your best wincon overall against Death and Taxes. Play him, protect him, use the 0 ability every turn, kill all their creatures and then end the game somehow. The Jace "game" is a lot easier to achieve when they don't have Vial, because uncounterable Creatures with flash make him very hard to protect.

Entreat the Angels for 4 or more Angels should also end the game preboard. Postboard it's a lot different because Death and Taxes has more answers f.ex Ratchet Bomb, Cataclysm etc.

A few sideboarding tips, i'm very comfortable with:

-) Don't play Counterbalance postboard, take them out. Counterbalance is a poor card on it's own in this MU. It doesnt impact the board, is kind of bad without library manipulation in this MU. It's even worse when the opponent has a resolved Vial.

You want card's that impact the board, f.ex remove Vial, kill Creatures, create an advantage for you (Jace, Entreat, Keranos) or prevent something bad from happening to you (like a resolved Cataclysm, yes Counterbalance can counter Cataclysm but it doesn't do that as reliable as FoW or Counterspell).

-) Don't play Spell Pierce postboard. Yes it counters the Turn 1 Vial when you're on the play. But that's very bad gambling. First the opp has to have the Turn 1 Vial, 2nd you then need Spell Pierce in your hand, and if drawn later you have a superdead card that does nothing besides maybe countering a Cataclysm.

Is this the general consensus for DnT? I've been struggling vs the better DnT players sometimes and reading that you board out all of the counterbalances g2 & 3 made me have a epiphany. I know how strong vial can be so usually I board out 2 CB and try to play them later in the game after I have destroyed a vial. I typically board down to two FOW's just as a catch all vs cataclysm. I think I've just been approaching this match all wrong as I have died to a resolved cataclysm while having a CB out, if that CB was a FOW I would of been able to counter it for sure instead of missing on the trigger. I'm going to try this approach in testing tonight.

Some background, I've been playing Joe's list for a few months with minor difference (trying out pyroclasm SB and only one reb effect MB). I will be trying the ponder lists that Einherjer has been advocating and the list you posted on mtgo later tonight.

Thanks.

[Malakai]

Someone wanted to play with Back to Basics, here's my list:

4 Swords to Plowshares
4 Brainstorm
4 Sensei's Divining Top
4 Counterbalance
4 Force of Will
4 Terminus
1 Entreat the Angels
3 Jace, the Mind-Sculptor
2 Vendilion Clique
2 Snapcaster Mage
1 Counterspell
2 Spell Pierce
2 Back to Basics
4 Flooded Strand
4 Scalding Tarn
1 Arid Mesa
2 Tundra
4 Plains
7 Island
1 Mountain

The mana with this was surprisingly good. Obviously you could play around with the numbers on some of the cards, but I found that 1 Counterspell was good but 2 was occasionaly a little wonky. For the most part you only ever fetched islands, as the plains count was sufficient to just draw them. I played a second Counterspell and a second Entreat in the board; I had also tried this with the SFM package and that was quite good. Basically all the normal tweaks are still live here, just watch your UU and WW. The 4th Plains isn't really needed in the above list as this is the version without a Council's Judgement, but I would never go below 3 and was happy with 4.

[twndomn]

The reasons Dzra lists are scenarios typically when you might want to play reactively. The reasons Adryan lists to me seem to embrace more of a proactive threat. It also may just come down to a matter of playstyle.

Come on~! This has nothing to do with playstyle. If you are going to tap-out to play a spell on your turn that costs more than 4 or more, and it's NOT Jace/Supreme Verdict, you better have one or more justifiable reason(s).

There're only 2 match-ups I would consider Keranos: Shardless BUG and Jund. Entreat is better in almost every other MU in which you would normally SB-in.

Some background, I've been playing Joe's list for a few months with minor difference (trying out pyroclasm SB and only one reb effect MB). I will be trying the ponder lists that Einherjer has been advocating and the list you posted on mtgo later tonight.

Thanks.

I personally believe 4 Ponders + 21 lands = a mistake. 2 Ponders + 22 lands is the limit, from my own testing.

[mort-]

I personally believe 4 Ponders + 21 lands = a mistake. 2 Ponders + 22 lands is the limited, from my own testing.

Agreed.

[Poron]

How often does it happen that we have less than 3-4 Islands? Wouldn't Vedalken Shackles be great in order to protect Jace to the win or in order to gain tempo for a good Entreat? it also deals with MoR in case of need.

[Mackan]

With terminus in the deck I don't think we need more boardcontrol, I would rather play Swords to plowshares or stoneforge mystic in those slots. I love Vedalken shackles but ever since abrupt decay showed up (and later TNN) I think it's not worth it.

[MrShine]

Here's my evaluation of Keranos.

First, let's look at his role: he's a Hard-to-deal-with finisher, usually taking the slot of the 3rd Entreat in the SB. Notably, I categorize him as a Finisher over a source of Board control, and that's because we want him only for specific matchups (or else he'd be Maindeck).

Where and why do we want him? Primarily, the Mirror. He's a planeswalker that can't be attacked, and either draws you a card or Bolts something every turn, hopefully as you wish using a Top. In the mirror, they are bringing out most of their creature removal, STP and Terminus, in favour of Red Blasts and other control cards (more Counterspell). He can, yes, be countered on the stack, but in that sense only loses ground vs Entreat because he's U; they have 2-4 more cards (Blasts) that can interact with him on the stack. He can't be Blasted once in play (Indestructible), can't be Disenchanted / Torn, and can't be attacked like Jace can be. Basically, once it hits play, they may have no way to deal with it. Council's Judgment stands out as the only answer, speaking to the power of the card (and why we should all be running it ;) ).

[Aside: I didn't board out all of my removal (STP/terminus) the last time I played the mirror, and some of you didn't agree. Still waiting on comments on boarding for the mirror from you folks]

So what do his abilities gain us that might be desirable over Entreat? Drawing when revealing Land gets you through land patches, letting you see more cards. 3 Damage closes decently quickly, especially when the Mirror turns into a lot of draw-go. Note his 3 dmg can be redirected to Jace if need be, as well as obviously clearing out creatures (Snap, Clique, Venser). Lastly, diversifying your threats is always beneficial, as your opponent won't necessarily know what to play around; you can tailor your plays differently to maximize the information difference. I guess he can also be Pitched to Force, if necessary. Entreat can be answered by Terminus, Big K cannot.

What it loses against the Entreat is, as I mentioned before, he is susceptible to an additional few cards when on the stack; is Sorcery Speed where Entreat can (potentially) be cast at instant speed with a Top. There is the slight upside of being able to cast Keranos in your 2nd Mainphase, however, where Entreat is restricted to Draw Step if we are comparing situations where we don't have Top (or Brainstorm, sometimes). Entreat is also usually easier to work around an opposing Counterbalance, as we can set the CMC, whereas Keranos is stuck at 5 - although they will only ever have Force for that. Keranos probably won't close the game as quickly as an EOT Entreat.

All this being said, I still like Keranos. He's another threat that is very hard (nigh impossible) to deal with once he hits the board, and simply because they might not know what to play around when both he and Entreat are potential threats. For that reason, I like the 2 Entreat / 1 Keranos split. It is pretty clear that Entreat does have the instant-speed-win edge against Keranos, and that's why I'm still running more Entreat.

AND all that is simply for the mirror.

Where else is he good? I can only theorize, for lack of testing at this point, but I see him as the same sort of Finisher-role in other control MUs, namely Shardless. He has the benefit of being able to deal with their weenies with dmg, and is very hard for them to remove outside of Liliana.

I also can't really comment authoritatively on his usefulness vs DnT for lack of testing, but again, since it's a source of CA that can't be attacked, doesn't get taxed by Thalia, and probably won't get answered (Mangara is an out, if they are running it), it seems quite good. It is relevant that since they are concentrating on taxing W to keep you off Entreat and Terminus, his UR cost may get around their denial. Additionally, DnT is packing cards like Ratchet Bomb, Cataclysm, and Ensnaring Bridge (occasionally) to answer Entreat post-board, all of which do not hit Keranos. After you wipe their board once, having a source of recurring removal (or draw-accel into more answers) to pick off their creatures one by one as they try to rebuild is definitely very strong. This logic seems like it would extend to other midrange-ish creature MUs, like UWR or Junk or BUG delver, where their plan is to survive the sweepers and stick one threat to finish things off. He also isn't a creature most of the time so you can keep sweeping while he's in play if necessary.

TLDR: He's great in the Mirror, diversifies your threat potential, and seems like he's quite useful as a finisher/board-clean up against midrange-ish creature decks. Indestructible Enchantments FTW.

Hope this helps! :)

[twndomn]

Here's my evaluation of Keranos.

First, let's look at his role: he's a Hard-to-deal-with finisher, usually taking the slot of the 3rd Entreat in the SB. Notably, I categorize him as a Finisher over a source of Board control, and that's because we want him only for specific matchups (or else he'd be Maindeck).

Where and why do we want him? Primarily, the Mirror.

TLDR: He's great in the Mirror, diversifies your threat potential, and seems like he's quite useful as a finisher/board-clean up against midrange-ish creature decks. Indestructible Enchantments FTW.

Hope this helps! :)

Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't Miracles known for having 2~4 Blasts in the SB and/or MD? Isn't Keranos the perfect target for these Blasts? Why would you want to tap 5 lands on your own turn to cast your win condition, only to get Blasted? Entreat on the other hand, doesn't have this kind of problem. Hence, I wouldn't board it in, even if it's Mirror.

[MrShine]

Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't Miracles known for having 2~4 Blasts in the SB and/or MD? Isn't Keranos the perfect target for these Blasts? Why would you want to tap 5 lands on your own turn to cast your win condition, only to get Blasted? Entreat on the other hand, doesn't have this kind of problem. Hence, I wouldn't board it in, even if it's Mirror.

Why would you quote only half my statement? I clearly point out that he is susceptible to this fact.

What I didn't say is, despite that fact, I still find him useful, as in my experience the Blasts post-board are critical for stopping CB and Jace, and that's where the majority of them get directed (directly, or indirectly as part of a counter-war).

[Poron]

Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't Miracles known for having 2~4 Blasts in the SB and/or MD? Isn't Keranos the perfect target for these Blasts? Why would you want to tap 5 lands on your own turn to cast your win condition, only to get Blasted? Entreat on the other hand, doesn't have this kind of problem. Hence, I wouldn't board it in, even if it's Mirror.

Countertop for 1 is a must in the mirror. Usually the one who sets it out first wins.

That's also why I like a lot Spell Snare

[lordofthepit]

Hey Einherjer, has SCG told you anything about when (or if) your article will be going online?

[Julian23]

Hey Einherjer, has SCG told you anything about when (or if) your article will be going online?

Philipp is currently deployed to Sweden; don't know when he'll be back again.

[klaus]

[...]It also may just come down to a matter of playstyle.

Come on~! This has nothing to do with playstyle.

Something along the lines of "well, at the end of the day this comes down to playstyle" is being used incredibly inflationary all over these boards, despite being overly simplifying & misleading.
When discussing approaches / strategies / deck building (card choices) / meta choices / etc., it's actually impossible for several dozens of nerds to agree on semi-controversial stuff. Well, welcome to the interwebz - I know... buuut: in my opinion the actual "right and wrong principle" holds true for most of such discussions.

The assumption of Random Deck Builder (RDB): "I tend to play more aggressively, thus 3 EtA fit my playstyle better, which is why 3 EtA is correct here" is completely off.
There are numerous factors to consider that might indeed make this a valid choice - e.g. RDB's meta is full of dumb Aggro. However playstyle is a worse than wishywashy justification here. "I don't know how to support my choice comprehensively, and actually am too lazy to go there even if I could, so I'll leave it at >>because playstyle<<, hmk?", would be more honest imo.

The only time "playstyle yadayada" actually seems acceptable is when someone mercifully tries to bring a senseless discussion to an end with it

[Ltj999]

So here is a question:

Why do you guys think that this deck makes up such a gigantic portion of the online meta, while in paper formats it seems so much more reasonably represented?

I feel as though in person it is certainly a good popular deck, but no where even near the dominating numbers that it seems to be online.

Also how would yall set up the deck/sideboard for a fairly fair-deck heavy meta?

My list is currently:

4 Arid Mesa
2 Flooded Strand
4 Island
1 Karakas
2 Plains
4 scalding tarn
2 Tundra
1 Volcanic Island
1 mystic gate
1 mountain

4 Brainstorm
4 Sensei's Divining Top

2 Spell Pierce
3 Force of Will
1 misdirection
3 Counterbalance
2 Counterspell

2 Vendilion Clique
2 Snapcaster Mage
1 venser

2 Entreat the Angels

3 Jace, the Mind Sculptor

4 Terminus
4 Swords to Plowshares
1 Council's Judgment

Sideboard:

1 Engineered Explosives
2 Flusterstorm
1 Pithing Needle
2 Pyroblast
1 Red Elemental Blast
1 Relic of Progenitus
1 wear/tear
2 Rest in Peace
1 Entreat the Angels / Kreanos (I keeping going back and fourth)
1 Sulfur Elemental
1 Supreme Verdict

[afb0032]

Something along the lines of "well, at the end of the day this comes down to playstyle" is being used incredibly inflationary all over these boards, despite being overly simplifying & misleading.
When discussing approaches / strategies / deck building (card choices) / meta choices / etc., it's actually impossible for several dozens of nerds to agree on semi-controversial stuff. Well, welcome to the interwebz - I know... buuut: in my opinion the actual "right and wrong principle" holds true for most of such discussions.

The assumption of Random Deck Builder (RDB): "I tend to play more aggressively, thus 3 EtA fit my playstyle better, which is why 3 EtA is correct here" is completely off.
There are numerous factors to consider that might indeed make this a valid choice - e.g. RDB's meta is full of dumb Aggro. However playstyle is a worse than wishywashy justification here. "I don't know how to support my choice comprehensively, and actually am too lazy to go there even if I could, so I'll leave it at >>because playstyle<<, hmk?", would be more honest imo.

The only time "playstyle yadayada" actually seems acceptable is when someone mercifully tries to bring a senseless discussion to an end with it

Fair enough, I will clarify what I meant. As I believe Einherjer said in one of his articles, more instant speed things in a deck increases the complexity because of the amount of OPTIONS in represents. EtA has a wide range of utility as it creates single or multiple blockers/attackers, close a game out in a single turn, provide a slow clock, etc. Because of it's flexibility for utility, I deem it more of a reactionary card since it does not have a straight forward role or linear purpose. Keranos on the other hand is sorcery speed, and it's ability only happens at the beginning of your turn. I understand that top can set it up on the previous turn, but the options on when to get it onto the battlefield and when to use the ability is fixed. Once he sticks he is a big threat (a set high cmc threat though) no doubt. I view it as a proactive card because of the limitations on casting options/timing and the normal role it will play in a given match. It serves a more linear purpose by playing it on your turn, get it to stay on the board, then try and control the board 1 lightning bolt or card draw at a time. My assessment and opinion could be completely off base and wrong (I am a newer player to miracles), but that is how I distinguish the difference between the 2 cards by playstyle.

[rickster]

Why do you guys think that this deck makes up such a gigantic portion of the online meta,

Assuming you didn't mess with the default settings, go back a few pages to page 265.