[Discussion] Meddling Mage, what do you name?

[Finn]

Has anyone noticed that shutting down combo with Meddling Mage requires atleast two? The combo decks of today are better equipped to handle them than in the past. I think we all knew it, but one thing is being laid out clearly from this discussion. Meddling Mage is not nearly as good as it used to be. I think we can agree that allowing combo access to its engine, which is variable out of necessity, will result in a game loss. So why is this card as popular as it is when it is clearly not very good at preventing that? Chalice is better, occasionally coming down on turn 1 and hitting groups of cards. But Nightmare said that he won with TES through 3 of them. That example may be a bit extreme, but the point remains.

Am I the only person playing Sphere of Resistance?

[Citrus-God]

Has anyone noticed that shutting down combo with Meddling Mage requires atleast two? The combo decks of today are better equipped to handle them than in the past. I think we all knew it, but one thing is being laid out clearly from this discussion. Meddling Mage is not nearly as good as it used to be. I think we can agree that allowing combo access to its engine, which is variable out of necessity, will result in a game loss. So why is this card as popular as it is when it is clearly not very good at preventing that? Chalice is better, occasionally coming down on turn 1 and hitting groups of cards. But Nightmare said that he won with TES through 3 of them. That example may be a bit extreme, but the point remains.

Am I the only person playing Sphere of Resistance?

Chalice of the Void, Trinisphere, Glowrider, Counterbalance, Stifle, more weird anti-combo stuff?

[scrumdogg]

You are correct that Meddling Mage by itself isn't the house it used to be. That is why any successful deck playing them does so as part of a package. Meddling Mage + True Believer, Mom, Trinisphere, Sphere of Resistance, Aether Vial, Jotun Grunt, Counterspell/FoW/other counters, Duress/Cabal Therapy - you can have a pretty good deck when you combine Meddling Mage with part of the buffet.

[Brushwagg]

You are correct that Meddling Mage by itself isn't the house it used to be. That is why any successful deck playing them does so as part of a package. Meddling Mage + True Believer, Mom, Trinisphere, Sphere of Resistance, Aether Vial, Jotun Grunt, Counterspell/FoW/other counters, Duress/Cabal Therapy - you can have a pretty good deck when you combine Meddling Mage with part of the buffet

You forgot Arcane Lab/Rule of Law. Meddling Mage and one of those makes alot of combo decks cry. Just make sure you name Burning/Cunning Wish with Mage.

[Tacosnape]

Yeah, I've been convinced. LED first. Burning Wish 2nd, maybe?

I can't imagine a situation where you'd follow naming LED with Burning Wish unless you were completely unable to defend your pair mages from Clasm/Rough with any sort of countermagic. My next target after LED would be Dark Ritual. If you're going to go the mana denial route, stick to it.

[Volt]

I can't imagine a situation where you'd follow naming LED with Burning Wish unless you were completely unable to defend your pair mages from Clasm/Rough with any sort of countermagic. My next target after LED would be Dark Ritual. If you're going to go the mana denial route, stick to it.

Hmm... I'm not sure I agree. Naming LED isn't just about mana denial. And naming Burning Wish isn't just about protecting your mages from Earthquake/Rough (they don't run Pyroclasm, btw; kills their Swarms).

[scrumdogg]

You forgot Arcane Lab/Rule of Law. Meddling Mage and one of those makes alot of combo decks cry. Just make sure you name Burning/Cunning Wish with Mage.

Dead on, Nat, and important potential weapons in the arsenal. As to naming Burning/Cunning Wish, they are key if you don't have a counter for what is wished for (or the card has Split Second). They also deny your opponent access to other combo pieces stashed in the SB (becoming more & more common). Your opponent has have boarded in removal, if they didn't, Wish is still the right call. If your opponent did board in removal, then your Mages(s) are dead anyway vs TES as they have leventy-million tutors but you have a better shot versus IGGy. Go for the possibility that you can control the outcome rather than name cards that won't matter once they fry your Mage(s). This also has the advantage of making them burn tutors (and possibly cards) to get rid of your Mage(s).

[Citrus-God]

Hmm... I'm not sure I agree. Naming LED isn't just about mana denial. And naming Burning Wish isn't just about protecting your mages from Earthquake/Rough (they don't run Pyroclasm, btw; kills their Swarms).

It's about what card that enables TES the best to Combo off with. LED combos off with LED and enable 1st-2nd turn kills all the time. Burning Wish is like naming Cunning Wish against Solidarity. Look, thing is, Mage is useless after one comes up and names LED. Dark Confidant can just outdraw you Game 2 without the aid of LED.

[Brushwagg]

If your going mana denial then vs. TES you name Dark Ritual, Cabal Ritual, Rite of Flame. Pretty much in that order. TES needs the Black mana alot more then the Red.

[Happy Gilmore]

Against TES, I don't name win conditions, I name tutors. Burning Wish first, and then beyond that it's Infernal Tutor or Plunge. It's really nice if you can cast a Duress first, but not always necessary. Cutting them off of tutors though severly limits their ability to combo off on you... at the least it slows them incredibly (since now they have less outs). Unless you have double mage, you don't want to name win conditions... even naming both, they can still pull removal out with Burning Wish. If you want to answer the win condition, run Stifle (and removal, since you need Xantid off the table).

Thats what I would have said as well, but I have not real testing against TES to see if it is correct. I'll feel much better if this situation comes up in the future.

BTW, Counterbalance > Meddling Mage, but that is besides the point.