Hey guys,
here's the first part of my article on how to kill Miracles. :)
Greetings
Goddamn it, I just recorded a podcast about this same thing :P Better release it then, huh? :POriginally Posted by Einherjer
The article was well-written and in-detail, but I was disappointed in the end. It misses is the actual "meat". This was an appetizer at best.
Joe Lossett claimed that Miracles only dominates because people don't pack enough hate for it. What people want and need are sideboard bombs and general strategies that make it possible to hate Miracles out of the metagame (and not just going ~50/50 with it).
This kind of dominance that Miracles has lately needs to be stopped - and that should the focus of the series. Nuances of what to counter when doesn't even help anybody who isn't playing blue.
For future articles, I would concentrate on the prime anti-Miracle strategies first and then go into details second.
The article I am hoping for is the one that actually addresses the whole "people aren't respecting/SBing enough against" Miracles with substacne. Joe is a great guy and probably one of the most reasonable people to talk to in Legacy, but I have a hard time seeing beyond those cryptic messages he and others repeat.
The second part that's never addressed is that most of the decks/cards that are acceptably good vs Miracles, are usually otherwise rather terrible decks. Eldrazi has been the first to step out of that light and become an overall really strong deck with a good Miracles matchup. I also like what Jona is doing with his 3 Winter Orbs in Canadian, even though I have little experience with that.
The seven cardinal sins of Legacy:
1. Discuss the unbanning ofLand TaxEarthcraft.
2. Argue that banning Force of Will would make the format healthier.
3. Play Brainstorm without Fetchlands.
4. Stifle Standstill.
5. Think that Gaea's Blessing will make you Solidarity-proof.
6. Pass priority after playing Infernal Tutor.
7. Fail to playtest against Nourishing Lich (coZ iT wIlL gEt U!).
I disagree with that.
From what I ave seen, most people don't need to know about which card they should have in they 75 to beat miracle, but more about how to play them.
A comprehensive article of how to play against miracle and why is a very good thing.
I'm looking forward to see the next parts.
I don't know what to think here, as the article (please correct me, if I am wrong here), tries to tell me "Don't mess with Miracles' early game. Let them gain full card qualiy via SDT and Brainstorm shuffling back Miracle spells. Try to fight their gamebreakers only, ignoring that they had turns of unmolested cantripping/Topspinning to sculpt their hand."
Did I miss something important here?
www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!
Join us at Facebook!
I understood it more as "in which cases should you lose CA (the article focuses on FoW, saying that daze/pierce on SDT/BS are often good) to counter BS/SDT?
Are you sure it is worth it?"
So for me it is more an advice of not throwing everything away in the first couple of turns, on the assumption that anyway, lategame is for miracle.
Assuming that makes it come true, as you play accordingly and do not have anything anymore to fight in lategame.
I agree.
I think a lot of work about beating miracles is about taxing your opponent's mind rather than just the deck. Besides, every article that tries to improve you playing abilities is always welcome.
P.s. I hope to we can also touch on discard spells against the deck.
The problem is, that you don't win against SDT/Countertop/Jace in the long run and allowing Miracles to assemble that without resistance, seems kinda wack for me. Beyond that, the article dodges the important questions of how to tackle Miracles with non-Decay decks which are the ones pushed out of the format with Miracles around. "Should I FoW the first Brainstorm/SDT?" is a bit limited. I hope for more practical, future volumes
www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!
Join us at Facebook!
I've won my share amount of games after the aforementioned card resolved.
The thing is, if you think that you'll never win in the lategame because you play accordingly. Then your experience will tell you that you have to try to win in the early game, as you never win in the late one.
Otherwise, the article says "part I". And made it clear that there will be a follow up.
To my mind, if there was an easy way to crush miracle that can be implemented in most decks without giving away too much, it would have been discovered since a while.
If there was an obvious way to handle how to answer miracles game situations, it would also be widely known.
But learning how to play in a better way against miracle will help the players that regularly say that they have an abysmal miracle MU. Players who says that do not need new cars that break miracle to pieces, but to understand how to play their cards in a more efficient way.
Aside from Decay and counters, the only way to tackle it are uncounterable, "hasty" creatures - which are commonly achieved with EoT Vial or haste + Cavern of Souls. There are other rare cases like hardcast Emrakuls from 12Post (which is also uncounterable + has pseudo haste), but it always comes down to not counterable + being able to attack immediately.
Einherjer, I don't recall if I gave you a hard time on your last article, but you need an editor, dude. You know your stuff, but the article is hard to read to the point that I can't even form opinions on the merits of the ideas you cover.
examples:
1. You are telling us not to FoW Top. That sounds very strange to me, and probably to a lot of people, though you may very well be correct. You apparently knew this would be news since we all know how critical the Top is to the success of that deck. Given how provocative a position that is, you really need more than the pittance of reasoning you supplied to back up that claim. And then you go on to give us paragraphs on the exceptions. This design makes it hard to figure out what message you are sending to the point that I am not even sure if I believe you.
2. You are telling us that Miracles is two decks in one, or some such. I don't really see any description of this. If there is any, it is not at all sufficient to balance the amount of words you spend telling us that this is so. I kept looking for the part that ties this again, provocative claim, only to be disappointed that the article ended with this remaining only a claim.
3. You are telling us that Miracles uses its cantrips as more than "filler". Honestly, I can make that argument for probably every cantripping deck in the format. If you mean that Brainstorm sets up miraculous draws, we got that. Is there more to this position? Once again, you highlight this provocative claim and don't deliver on the evidence. It's like reading Donald Trump on Magic theory.
4. There are other examples. The entire article is like this...
Great ideas. Terrible execution. I got to the end and I felt as if I got an hors d'oeuvre, but then no meal. (Saving it for part 2 is not good enough since you have a conclusion when none can be drawn.) All of my articles got edited. They all needed it too. Every professional writer is dependent upon an editor. All of them. Just get a friend to help you with this; someone with some literary chops.
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
"Politicians are like diapers. They should be changed often and for the same reason."
"Governing is too important to be left to people as silly as politicians."
"Politicians were mostly people who'd had too little morals and ethics to stay lawyers."
Thanks for the feedback, guys.
Allow me to respond to a few of the posts.
1) I have a very strict word limit, and I typically exceed it by 500-1000 words, which is probably as far as I can go. So I have several options. Write "Top 10 ways to beat Miracles" or try and make a multi-part article-series. I did decide that the second would be more useful to pretty much everyone.
2) Splitting it up in many points comes with several downsides, most of which you guys have mentioned already. I will try to address all of this over the course of the next articles.
3) Thanks for letting me know that the concept(s) were poorly explained, I'll focus on less concepts per article and flesh out my points more.
Thanks. :)
Greetings
If you want the take on the article of someone new(ish) to the format, it was:
Play blue if you want to win.
Which is no news, but IMO, seems far more worrying than Miracles being top dog.
But again, what do I know? Like Mr Snow, nothing.
Things I'd like to see:
- Sideboard cards you think are actually effective, and how to best use them
- Sideboard cards you don't think are actually effective
- Cards you'd suggest players side out
- When and what to Stifle/Daze/Port/Wasteland
- Keeping track of opponent's known vs unknown information as the non-Miracle player and risk assessment when it comes to playing creatures into Terminus, spells into a live Counterbalance etc.
*ahem*
Lord Commander, King in the North
Maybe this has something to do with the typical SB hate that Joe sees and he doesn't take the time to contextualize people's choices and rather thinks they're defaulting to suboptimal cards. For instance, I remember him mentioning on his stream that the CMC difference between Null Rod and Pithing Needle made Null Rod better against Miracles and despite that he still saw more Needles than Null Rods. There are reasons for this: some decks can't run Null Rod, some need the extra interaction against lands, Sneak Attack, or Planeswalkers, and others just see more EV in going for a broad rather than narrow answer in the board. This is a somewhat roundabout way of saying that there aren't many real haymakers against Miracles that also check enough boxes against other decks to make them worth running in an open meta.
Jon's version of RUG is pretty solid, though it does give up some value against decks like Shardless and Eldrazi to improve its Miracles matchup. As for decks that are otherwise good against Miracles, I think that depends on how you're defining 'good'. If it's 60+%, then I agree that most decks hitting that number tend to be bad against the field. Conversely, decks like Shardless and Loam that have favorable (but not lopsided) matchups against Miracles are fine general meta calls, but unlike Miracles are susceptible to being hated out by generically useful sideboard hate like Ruination or Blood Moon in a way that Miracles isn't.The second part that's never addressed is that most of the decks/cards that are acceptably good vs Miracles, are usually otherwise rather terrible decks. Eldrazi has been the first to step out of that light and become an overall really strong deck with a good Miracles matchup. I also like what Jona is doing with his 3 Winter Orbs in Canadian, even though I have little experience with that.
Just a content thing and adding to what others said (especially what Finn said), please try and tone down the use of overly verbose language. Sentence's such as;
"One may contest which cards are more powerful in their given field of application, and I'm not disputing the fact that such a claim could be made."
really do not add much to what you're trying to say, and by the end of the article I feel like I've taken in nothing because I've spent all my time bobbing and weaving around the pointlessly extravagant writing.
Please don't take this as a sign of rudeness, I'm glad you're back to writing and I recognise that English isn't your first language, but your point will be heard much clearer if you tone down the background noise.
This is the true heart of the argument, and probably the card that comes closest is Chalice of the Void. The clear problem with Chalice is that you can't run 1-drops, which are almost always the best cards in the format due to mana efficiency.
I have played to beat Miracles for close to two years now, and my record in that time is pretty strong, but I can say that Miracles has become stronger with almost every set release. The Delve cards from Khans were better exploited by other decks, but most releases have given Miracles new tools to shore up its weaknesses. I'll highlight what I feel are the most important ones in this evolution.
Wear/Tear: Before Wear/Tear, decks heavy on artifacts and enchantments were challenging for the Miracles player to fight. Miracles also got the bonus of having a superpowered card to float with Counterbalance (a CMC 1 that's also a CMC 2). MUD and Enchantress are two decks that have favorable matchups against Miracles, but the degree that these decks are favored has shifted. More importantly, decks that wanted to side in key artifact-based hate cards (like Null Rod) and enchantment-based hate cards (like Choke) can get 2-for-1'd. Card advantage is one of the minor weaknesses of Miracles -- this is something Philipp wrote about in an earlier article examining Miracles -- so cards that generate CA are boons for the deck. Being able to use one flexible sideboard card to answer multiple problem cards from an opposing deck is a powerful upgrade.
Council's Judgment: Planeswalkers were one of the best ways to attack Miracles before Council's Judgment. They are still good, but now Miracles has the ability to run a general answer card that also deals with hexproof and shroud. This made solutions like Mother of Runes plus Gaddock Teeg less reliable as a way to contain Miracles.
Rest in Peace: Miracles used to be very soft to graveyard-based decks. I used to have a lot of success with Dredge by grinding through games of Terminus, Swords to Plowshares, Surgical Extraction, and Snapcaster Mage to Dread Return a Sundering Titan and win with chip shots from various graveyard goons. That ended when Rest in Peace was printed and the grind plan became impossible. Similarly, the Loam decks I ran that were generally good against the rest of the field were hit very hard by Rest in Peace. Things like Worm Harvest and Raven's Crime used to be respectable against Miracles, but Rest in Peace is a true haymaker and entirely changes the game. It is true that some Miracles players skimp on this card or on any graveyard hate, but the card is prevalent enough that graveyard decks are weaker than they were before. Some Miracles players still play Rest in Peace in the main, sometimes paired with Helm of Obedience and/or Energy Field. I feel that these builds are weaker overall than the classic Schönegger list, but they absolutely steamroll graveyard-based decks.
Monastery Mentor: This is the biggest change of all the additions. Miracles was always a slow deck. Yes, sometimes a Turn 4 or Turn 5 Entreat the Angels would clean things up rapidly, but usually you could expect any given Miracles match to last much longer than that. Slaughter Games was briefly a strong card against Miracles, particularly in the time when the win conditions were only Jaces and Entreats. I won numerous matches casting multiple Slaughter Games on my Miracles opponents and removing win conditions. The addition of Monastery Mentor meant that going after the win condition became a weaker plan, because now there was a greater risk of naming the wrong win condition and there was a chance of a real win condition resolving before Turn 4. Monastery Mentor has enabled Miracles to switch roles and be the aggressor, generating free Overruns shortly after the turn or two of countering spells in the early game. This made lack of card advantage mean much less to Miracles, since the axis could switch from control to beatdown and render the opponent's surplus cards useless unless they interacted immediately with the Mentor. Currently, I feel that the strongest nonblue answer cards are Abrupt Decay, Sudden Shock, and Sulfur Elemental, but the presence of Monastery Mentor in a large number of Miracles builds -- but not all of them -- leaves the nonblue player with pieces that don't pull their weight in other matchups, as btm10 alluded to in his post.
Containment Priest is an honorable mention. It was yet another card that attacked multiple angles, weakening Aether Vial and Dredge and Green Sun's Zenith for Gaddock Teeg or a target like Wren's Run Packmaster or Primeval Titan. It sees some play but is not a mainstay.
I'm also going to touch on a few of Miracles' core problem pieces because I view these as the reason for Miracles' continued dominance. Miracles is mainly a difficult deck to fight against because it's a pile of great and flexible Magic cards.
* Terminus is an unreasonably cheap sweeper that is superior to Wrath of God in that deprives graveyard-based decks of creatures. This has relevance all the way down to things like Scavenging Ooze, which would otherwise be better out of decks like Elves or Maverick. There are very few nonblue cards that interact with Terminus. This is a key problem. Manlands are good but slow, except for Inkmoth Nexus. Gaddock Teeg is strong when protected. Thragtusk can generate a dude when it leaves play. Sundering Titan can blow up lands when it leaves play. Ultimately, my experience has shown me that the most successful way to fight Terminus is to play blue cards: Force of Will, Stifle, Vendilion Clique, Invasive Surgery, Swan Song, Trickbind. The next-best way is to play a strategy that relies on noncreatures.
* Sensei's Divining Top is very difficult to interact with due to its ability to bounce itself. It provides insane card selection and is played by a number of nonblue decks, but it is best in Miracles due to comboing with Counterbalance and enabling instant-speed Miracle spells. Chalice of the Void is great when played preemptively, but it's much weaker when there is already a Top in play. Answering a resolved Sensei's Divining Top is a key problem for the format. My experience has shown me that attacking lands and activated abilities can be successful when accompanied by pressure. Broad strokes like Suppression Field exist but are difficult to take advantage of, and despite how heavy on fetchlands Legacy is, Suppression Field doesn't do enough against the field to be called up for duty. Null Rod and Pithing Needle are played the most, and Winter Orb is reasonable in some decks. Damping Matrix is playable but slow. Land destruction is decent, but the Top is very good at digging for land, and fetchlands can be left uncracked to guard against Sinkhole or Vindicate. Once again, blue does it better here, with Stifle being a way to turn off Miracles and also being able to attack lands in situations when Miracles is land-light.
* Counterbalance is very difficult to interact with due to its ability to protect itself, frequently even without a Top. This is the primary reason that Abrupt Decay has become the removal spell of choice. The best way to fight Counterbalance is to play uncounterable spells or lands. Currently the best of these are Cavern of Souls, Abrupt Decay, Exquisite Firecraft, Emrakul, and Boseiju, Who Shelters All. Valakut is fringe but is playable in a deck built around it. Counterbalance is a key problem for the format because most decks play a low curve due to the speed of the format. Playing more cards with higher converted mana costs is not a good strategy anymore -- if it ever was -- due to Monastery Mentor being able to close out a game so swiftly. In order to leverage a higher end, you have to greatly speed up your mana production so that your strong higher-CMC cards are online before Miracles can cantrip into an answer for all of them. This is one of the reasons why decks that run Cloudpost are able to have good matchups. By contrast, symmetrical mana producers like Veteran Explorer often benefit the Miracles player just as much. Still, resolving spells through Counterbalance is only part of the equation.
* Counterspell lines up just as well against Natural Order as it does against Stoneforge Mystic or Argothian Enchantress or Null Rod or Armageddon. Beating Counterspell usually requires greater threat density or superior mana efficiency. Both of these must be considered in tandem with Counterbalance, which excels at locking out zero-mana and one-mana spells. Counterspell is a key card in answering opposing problem cards. When you consider that Miracles begins the game with six or seven or more all-purpose answer cards, you must question how many threats your deck can present. Is it greater than their number of answers, and is that true after sideboarding?
* Force of Will is the pinnacle of flexible answers. Most decks run sideboard cards to attack Miracles, but Force of Will is able to answer almost all of them. Playing powerful cards on the first turn of the game is a good strategy against Miracles, but Force of Will is able to stop all of these. This is why games that involve a resolved Turn 1 Chalice of the Void or a resolved Turn 1 Trinisphere play out so much differently than the ones where Miracles has a Force of Will. This card is also the biggest reason why Black Vise is not playable. One Force of Will answers not only the first copy; it ensures that hand size will be low enough that additional copies of Black Vise will not be powerful. Unlike Counterspell, mana efficiency doesn't work here as a trump to Force of Will, but greater threat density does. A deck like Burn, where most cards have equal value, is a way to weaken Force of Will.
My conclusion has been that blue-based decks are more able to fight Miracles than nonblue decks are due to the advantage of Force of Will and the superiority of stack-based interaction, although there are still a number of strong and playable nonblue decks in the format. I personally feel that Miracles is overpowered and that we are long overdue for bannings in this format (not just in Miracles), but I am also OK with the format as it is.
Everyone needs to read ESG and btm10's posts. Excellent breakdown of the reason people "just don't play enough sideboard hate." I've had my Null Rods Wear/Teared plenty of times. I've even seen it in the main once or twice because it's value off Counterbalance and in the mirror (which is getting increasingly popular).
Miracles is able to cheat on lands in a way no control deck ever has before because of the cantrip cartel and the miracle cost on Terminus. (That's why I'm even dubious of the strength of Winter Orb against the deck.) That also means it can play more anti-hate cards or cards like Back to Basics that mess up the decks that are supposed to have good matchups.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
