Miracle Control

You picked a sweet spot, Sir, as this is one of the things that is still not really set in stone for the time being.

I think the up- and downsides of both variants are quite clear, but let me bring up one point that is my main argument for 4 Balance, as of now:

Having four Counterbalance allows you to deploy them early vs an unknown opponent. So what does this mean? Well, that if we kept a hand that just outright sucks vs some of kind combo, we still have Balance. We can hardly overpower Storm/Show in the first game without Balance, as we cannot pack as much disruption in the MB. So we need Balance. If we have less Balance we will have to fight these decks on their terms, and lose more often than not.

Additionally, Balance is absolutely crucial in the mirror, having one less is a fucking nightmare, even if the card you have instead is insane, in the postboard games you always want to be the player with 4 Balance in the deck. (scrolling down to see whether you actually do have a copy in the SB, which you do. Nice. :))

Preboard decks have way less answers to it, even thought BUG has 4 Decay it's Delver that gets crippled under Balance as well. Postboard they're ready, and we don't have them any more, more often than not.

To me, this card is a mainboard-match-turner that is outstandingly important to have vs UNKNOWN opponents. Playing 3, however, isn't bad, though. It's an option, though an inferior one, as I feel.

Greetings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Einherjer

You picked a sweet spot, Sir, as this is one of the things that is still not really set in stone for the time being.

I think the up- and downsides of both variants are quite clear, but let me bring up one point that is my main argument for 4 Balance, as of now:

Having four Counterbalance allows you to deploy them early vs an unknown opponent. So what does this mean? Well, that if we kept a hand that just outright sucks vs some of kind combo, we still have Balance. We can hardly overpower Storm/Show in the first game without Balance, as we cannot pack as much disruption in the MB. So we need Balance. If we have less Balance we will have to fight these decks on their terms, and lose more often than not.

Additionally, Balance is absolutely crucial in the mirror, having one less is a fucking nightmare, even if the card you have instead is insane, in the postboard games you always want to be the player with 4 Balance in the deck. (scrolling down to see whether you actually do have a copy in the SB, which you do. Nice. :))

Preboard decks have way less answers to it, even thought BUG has 4 Decay it's Delver that gets crippled under Balance as well. Postboard they're ready, and we don't have them any more, more often than not.

To me, this card is a mainboard-match-turner that is outstandingly important to have vs UNKNOWN opponents. Playing 3, however, isn't bad, though. It's an option, though an inferior one, as I feel.

Greetings

---

While I do agree with the rationalle behind CB being oustanding, I actually disagree with it being so insane. Vs the Stifle/Wasteland Delver deck's I'll actually much rather have REB, and I would so too in the mirror, honestly (being able to t2, on the draw, to counter cb is just better than having your own, I feel like.
TIt also hits Jace, which as you've mentioned, is basically the best card in the mirror (doesn't get terminus'd away G2).

Vs an open field, I find the first REB to be averagely better than the 4th CB.

It might be that I'm biased due to my local meta (which isn't actually all that blue - Few delver, very little control, 3 BUG lists, some DnT, some Storm, some Elves etc - a generic meta, I think?), but I actually don't think that's the case in the first place.

*This MIGHT look like I discourage 4 CB maindeck - I DON'T. I just don't want to start out with 4 "bad" cards, vs all the abrupt decay that's current here locally.

I feel you overestimate your opponents ability to find Decays against active Counterbalances as a reason to cut those down to three. Mind that you can find a second one in cases of need much faster than your opponent a Decay thanks to SDT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quasim0ff

While I do agree with the rationalle behind CB being oustanding, I actually disagree with it being so insane. Vs the Stifle/Wasteland Delver deck's I'll actually much rather have REB, and I would so too in the mirror, honestly (being able to t2, on the draw, to counter cb is just better than having your own, I feel like.
TIt also hits Jace, which as you've mentioned, is basically the best card in the mirror (doesn't get terminus'd away G2).

Vs an open field, I find the first REB to be averagely better than the 4th CB.

It might be that I'm biased due to my local meta (which isn't actually all that blue - Few delver, very little control, 3 BUG lists, some DnT, some Storm, some Elves etc - a generic meta, I think?), but I actually don't think that's the case in the first place.

*This MIGHT look like I discourage 4 CB maindeck - I DON'T. I just don't want to start out with 4 "bad" cards, vs all the abrupt decay that's current here locally.

---

If you play a couple of games vs RUG-Delver you will find that not only is CB great but Reb is a liability because of wasteland. I agree however that CB is not that great vs Patriot which has a flat CMC-curve and TNN which we want to blast on the stack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

I feel you overestimate your opponents ability to find Decays against active Counterbalances as a reason to cut those down to three. Mind that you can find a second one in cases of need much faster than your opponent a Decay thanks to SDT

---

Games VS Local shardlessBUG players postboard, i notice more and more of the local lads have noticed that i cut the CB's postboards. Because of that maybe board out 2-3 Abrupts since CB is the only target (if they not target Sdt to get a window.)

What do you guys think about next leveing them? and keep my CB's in?

@21 Lands
Einherjer's land count is completely fine, my manabase is greedier (i play 3 islands, 1 plains, 4 tundra, 3 volcanic, 10 fetch) and i don't have any problems against Delver decks. People who are worried about playing only 21 lands, should do some math. The difference between 21 and 22 isn't that big.

@drocker23: Thank you for your feedback. I could have built a completly new list, but I only publish lists that I'd take to a GP tomorrow. There is no reason to build a flashy cool new build, that isn't better than everything else. On alll of your other posts, I can't help but wonder whether you've played Miracles already? And if so, if you have won a match of Legacy already? These points of critique are so far-fetched from reality that I can't really respond to them. I mean... like really? Getting manascrewed by Delver all the time? Maybe you should practice the MU.

To summarize my points were:

1) I thought you were gonna build a new list, you didn't. But I liked that a slot was found for DTT and that CJ made it back into the main.
2) I have concerns about getting mana screwed against the Stifle/Wasteland decks with a low land count of 21 lands.
3) I don't believe the sideboard you presented was diverse enough for large tournaments like a Starcity Open.
4) In a Legacy meta, no matter if Delver decks are good or bad they are almost always have the highest number of people playing them.
5) If Stifle makes a large comeback, which I believe it will, it's going to be tough to resolve our Miracle spells in clutch situations.

How are these "so far-fetched from reality" as you so elequently put it?

All these things u list are not even problems. I have been running that Ovino sideboard since then and it's one of the best sideboards I ever played(still w 2 RIP). If u are concerned about Stifle, flusterstorm helps tremendously in those mu's. Playing around wasteland is not a huge deal here.

lol...

Ein's already flown to a 4000+ GP in the US and Top 8-ed, then attended a SCG and Top 16-ed. He has a strong set of strong beliefs and he obviously knows what he's doing. I am not sure what more can you ask him to do to convince you at this point. Of course people disagree, I prefer 22 personally. Why not just agree to disagree? It's not the end of the world really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madsk

Games VS Local shardlessBUG players postboard, i notice more and more of the local lads have noticed that i cut the CB's postboards. Because of that maybe board out 2-3 Abrupts since CB is the only target (if they not target Sdt to get a window.)

What do you guys think about next leveing them? and keep my CB's in?

---

Haha, I always wonder why BUG players never try and next level me by boarding out Decay. You have to make sure they don't deduce that you're leaving in Counterbalance, though. If you pause too much, or go back into your deck than it's a tossup what happens from there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adryan

@21 Lands
Einherjer's land count is completely fine, my manabase is greedier (i play 3 islands, 1 plains, 4 tundra, 3 volcanic, 10 fetch) and i don't have any problems against Delver decks. People who are worried about playing only 21 lands, should do some math. The difference between 21 and 22 isn't that big.

---

Neither is the difference between 20 and 21. :-o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drocker23

2) I have concerns about getting mana screwed against the Stifle/Wasteland decks with a low land count of 21 lands.
3) I don't believe the sideboard you presented was diverse enough for large tournaments like a Starcity Open.
5) If Stifle makes a large comeback, which I believe it will, it's going to be tough to resolve our Miracle spells in clutch situations.

How are these "so far-fetched from reality" as you so elequently put it?

---

I'm going to be putting Spell Pierce back in my maindeck over the 2 Red Blasts. As bad as late-game Spell Pierce is, the work it does against Stifle, Hymn, combo, etc early on makes it worth it in my mind. If people are boarding in Flusterstorm against RUG and BUG, maindeck Pierce seems good enough.

The sideboard he made is what you do when you expect to go to large tournaments. You've got that one completely backwards. You need to weight your decks for the top tables, not Nic-Fit and Co.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cipher

The sideboard he made is what you do when you expect to go to large tournaments. You've got that one completely backwards. You need to weight your decks for the top tables, not Nic-Fit and Co.

---

This ^^^ is VERY well said. When you are going to a unknown/large meta you need as many general answers and as little few bullets as possible. Any SB card that cannot be brought in against multiple decks is a wasted slot.

I modify my SB b/c I know my meta is really really heavy in fair grindy decks and at any one event there will probably be at least 2 full-on graveyard based decks (dredge, lands, etc). If I were to attend an SCG I could never run the same SB I run at my local store.

@ein: as a previously dedicated lossett build player, who after playing URW stoneblade for a couple months, has gone to your full on ponder list, I'm shocked by how differently the deck plays. Not getting into better or worse, just the overall game plan and approach feels much different. Less grindy more combo-like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ltj999

@ein: as a previously dedicated lossett build player, who after playing URW stoneblade for a couple months, has gone to your full on ponder list, I'm shocked by how differently the deck plays. Not getting into better or worse, just the overall game plan and approach feels much different. Less grindy more combo-like.

---

This, I feel, is the main reason Ein's version is better. Joe plays a fair deck, Ein plays an unfair deck. We are still fairer than Storm, but "You can't play Spells" on turn three is a very unreasonable combo, and so is "I mulled to five but made a T1 Top, so here's 16 power of Angels". The deck just does more powerful things, and is much more consistent. Joe plays a grindy deck very well, Ein plays a deck that grinds as well, has more trump cards in the mirror (because I could not give two shits about Clique or Venser in Game 1) and does its broken things more often.

It's why I'm playing Preordane over Dig. Dig is not an unfair card, so I will play a card that finds my unfair shit. REB is unfair, because Counterspell is definitely good enough as a protection strategy, and a 1-mana Counterspell that can also be a Swords to Plowshares or - erm - whatever "destroy target Jace, the Mind Sculptor" is called, is definitely as good. (But obviously it is situational, so I only play the one.)

Dig is powerful, but I don't think it's powerful enough for me to justify it.

Maybe I should just concede that I'm no longer a control player and play some CounterTop/Doomsday monstrosity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YamiJoey

This, I feel, is the main reason Ein's version is better. Joe plays a fair deck, Ein plays an unfair deck. We are still fairer than Storm, but "You can't play Spells" on turn three is a very unreasonable combo, and so is "I mulled to five but made a T1 Top, so here's 16 power of Angels". The deck just does more powerful things, and is much more consistent. Joe plays a grindy deck very well, Ein plays a deck that grinds as well, has more trump cards in the mirror (because I could not give two shits about Clique or Venser in Game 1) and does its broken things more often.

It's why I'm playing Preordane over Dig. Dig is not an unfair card, so I will play a card that finds my unfair shit. REB is unfair, because Counterspell is definitely good enough as a protection strategy, and a 1-mana Counterspell that can also be a Swords to Plowshares or - erm - whatever "destroy target Jace, the Mind Sculptor" is called, is definitely as good. (But obviously it is situational, so I only play the one.)

Dig is powerful, but I don't think it's powerful enough for me to justify it.

Maybe I should just concede that I'm no longer a control player and play some CounterTop/Doomsday monstrosity.

---

this is one of the worst comments i have read in a long time. Fair and unfair things? are you kidding me?
Joe's list has much more upside and requires much more skill (experience) than the ponder list. the ponder list is much more straight forward whereas the legendary built can get little edges with every instant/flash creature.
However the ponder list is obviously much more consistent and easier to pickup.
In the end it all comes down to philosophy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by decan

this is one of the worst comments i have read in a long time. Fair and unfair things? are you kidding me?
Joe's list has much more upside and requires much more skill (experience) than the ponder list. the ponder list is much more straight forward whereas the legendary built can get little edges with every instant/flash creature.
However the ponder list is obviously much more consistent and easier to pickup.
In the end it all comes down to philosophy.

---

I have to disagree as I think it is a very good comment. Joes list is doing sweet firnge things (Venser+Karakas) - Philipp's list has only the best cards and has the highest chance to do whatever you want to do. (finding top, cb, angels...)

I play this deck - which was Ein's opening 60 for a while - basically like a combo deck. You cast draw Spells such as Top, Ponder, and Brainstorm, until you find your unfair cards, Entreat, Counterbalance, in some MU's Terminus. In the meantime you play disruption, Swords to Plowshares, Counterspell, until you find that combo, then you use protection, Force of Will, Counterspell, to ensure your combo lands and stays around for the duration it takes to win the game. We also play Jace, which acts as a draw Spell and a win condition if the game goes longer.

I don't see how you can play Legacy and not understand the concept of a fair deck against an unfair deck. Ein's build plays a higher amount of CB's, and more ways of finding them. That is objectively more unfair than making a 3/1 for 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YamiJoey

I play this deck - which was Ein's opening 60 for a while - basically like a combo deck. You cast draw Spells such as Top, Ponder, and Brainstorm, until you find your unfair cards, Entreat, Counterbalance, in some MU's Terminus. In the meantime you play disruption, Swords to Plowshares, Counterspell, until you find that combo, then you use protection, Force of Will, Counterspell, to ensure your combo lands and stays around for the duration it takes to win the game. We also play Jace, which acts as a draw Spell and a win condition if the game goes longer.

I don't see how you can play Legacy and not understand the concept of a fair deck against an unfair deck. Ein's build plays a higher amount of CB's, and more ways of finding them. That is objectively more unfair than making a 3/1 for 3.

---

Using fair/unfair is just too blurry, it's misleading. The concept of fair/unfair in the context of miracle builds is not definitive. I would describe as this:

Ponder Snapcaster build is more consistent at finding pieces. Let the pieces be the land you need at a particular moment, the CB-T piece, the finisher. As a result, you get a more combo feel to it.

Legend build has more standalone strong card choices. Clique in a vacuum, in any decks, is a decent card choice. Any Blue decks can play Clique in respond to opponent's SFM activation, doesn't have to be Miracles. You don't need Karakas for that. If I have to attempt to read Joe's mind, he certainly believes Red Blast effect card is diverse and individually more powerful than StP, as evident in running only 2 StP as supposed to 4. Of course, this can sometimes lead to clunky draws and you wish you were on Ponder build.

Please don't use fair/unfair, solid/not as solid adjectives anymore. It's just... not expressive enough.

obviously you fanboys are all on the ponder bandwagon.
there is not a single unfair card in miracles. what makes miracles less fair is the combination of good spells in the right situation.
i stongly encourage people to ponder (haha) over the deck and all the cards you could be playing and not just copy and paste a list. Unfortunately i have to mention: I despise people (you know who you are, ponder fanboys) trying to force their opinion upon others. Different lists work for different people.
On another note: i do strongly believe that karakas+venser are about 9.672 times as good as council's judgment.

@tomas: are you still going to write a report about scgrich and gpnj? I am still wondering how you picked up your two draws in richmond.
@twndomn: well said....

Isn't "unfair" basically just a term for people to describe decks which doesn't let them execute their own gameplan of smashing with creatures?

Terminus is as "unfair" as Belcher.dec in the casual hive mind, lets not forget that. Using the word within a single archetype to discuss simply decklists is irritating. It's like arguing if Ad Nauseam or PIF is "more unfair" without any context

It is true, and I suppose every deck is 'unfair' in its own way or else it wouldn't be a real Legacy deck, but we cast cards that are significantly more overpowered than a vast amount of decks in Legacy. Against Creature decks we play the single best removal Spell ever printed, but StP could well be considered fair. 1-mana Instant speed Final Judgment is not a fair and balanced Magic card if you are attempting to make any number of Creatures that do not win you the game the turn they enter the battlefield. Entreat the Angels is not a fair and balanced form for Serra Angel; if its Miracle Cost was its natural cost it would be the single most played 'Creature' in legacy, and probably get banned. (It is THAT good as an effect.) Counter/Top is an unfair combo. It is as good as Sneak Attack/Emrakul. You win the game 99% of the time you reach your next turn with it.

That is what I mean by "Unfair". We are manipulating the cards we play in such a way as to make them more powerful than any effect that should be printed. When played as such; the deck is playing broken cards that should not be allowed in Magic. The tradeoff is the deck construction restrictions. Chalice of the Void is completely broken in Legacy. The reason it is not banned is because it forces you into a very specific set of rules for constructing your deck. If you could play Ponder, Brainstorm et al alongside it, the card would be banned immediately. We have similar restraints, though they are much less obvious. Sensei's Divining Top is probably the most underpowered card that sees legitimate play in major Magic the Gathering tournaments. It does nothing, costs a lot of mana doing it, and takes a long time to do that very nothing. But then you assemble one of your contraptions and suddenly all of your other Spells seem completely busted. We MUST play 4 Top, and Top is an incredibly low-impact card, that is pretty bad in multiples. The overpowered cards we play become significantly less powerful when we don't have it.

Chalice is bad if you're on the draw and don't have a Sol Land.
Tendrils, Ad Nauseum, PiF, Wish, all these cards are bad if you don't have the set-up.

Tarmogoyf is still a 4/5 or 5/6 for 2.
Thalia is still a 2/1 for 2 that wins all non-Goyf/cheated Creature combat, that disrupts Spells.
Liliana is basically a 3-mana Raven's Crime with a downside, or an Edict, but she is still always that when you cast her.

Fair decks play cards that do good things, and when combined do something powerful.
Unfair decks play cards that are sort of awkward/bad, but when combined win you the game on the spot most of the time.

EDIT: This is how I view Legacy at the moment, anyway. Shardless Sultai strays a line. Sometimes it plays 3-mana 2/2's with Thoughtseizes and shit, sometimes it casts multiple Ancestral Recalls. That deck is generally fair, with a sprinkle of unfair. The real problem is that your Ancestral is generally just drawing you more fair shit, so all you did was make a 2/2.

Unfair and unfun are the words that destroyed Standard for me and made cards like Mana Leak too powerful to be ever reprinted in a Standard set. In every competitive game it is kind of hilarious to think that everyone should be having fun....

I don't want to sound like a dick, but i never heard any really good player (i don't consider myself to be among them) say "Woah that Legend build with Karakas& Clique &Venser is such a great way to build Miracles, it's really good".- that's something to think about.

If you're open minded and play a lot, you'll find out that the legend version is just an inferior way to build miracles. I really want it to be better, because it's more fun to play, because Venser is such a cool card and doing cool tricks is fun, but sadly it is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adryan

Unfair and unfun are the words that destroyed Standard for me and made cards like Mana Leak too powerful to be ever reprinted in a Standard set. In every competitive game it is kind of hilarious to think that everyone should be having fun....

I don't want to sound like a dick, but i never heard any really good player (i don't consider myself to be among them) say "Woah that Legend build with Karakas& Clique &Venser is such a great way to build Miracles, it's really good".- that's something to think about.

If you're open minded and play a lot, you'll find out that the legend version is just an inferior way to build miracles. I really want it to be better, because it's more fun to play, because Venser is such a cool card and doing cool tricks is fun, but sadly it is not.

---

Venser + Clique + Karakas is clunky as hell, that's the whole Problem. It does absolutely nothing in the first 4 turns which are the most important ones to stabilize. Ponder builds shine here but lack the toolbox character of the Legends build late in the game, which doesn't even need Entreat to close out the game.

The deck has already enough bricks to draw in your opener, and Venser + Clique doesn't improve the deck in that regards, which is the same reason why I hate DTT. For me it is questionable to include plenty of good lategame cards if I struggle to stay alive long enough to use them.

I think it's a good sign of a healthy format that Joe did well with it. It shows that you can play a complete pile incredibly well and still win.

EDIT: This is mostly a joke. I have a lot of respect for Joe, and have played builds very similar to his before porting over to Ein's lists. I think it's worse, but I also think every deck is an objectively worse choice than the Miracles build I'm playing at this point in time, or else I wouldn't be playing it. His build is very reasonable, but I don't see why you'd fuck about with a 5-mana "Counter one Spell per turn" on a 2/2 when we have 3-mana "Counter all Spells your opponent plays forever" in the same deck. It is marginally more stable as an individual card, but just putting CB on the table with no backup causes people to either answer it immediately under threat of you having Jace, Brainstorm, or Top, or risk just having their Spells countered at random for the rest of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Einherjer

Thanks for the feedback, guys!

@Hrothgar: Disenchant is only worse vs Miracle but takes a lot of strains off the manabase in MUs where we either do not want to rely on red at all or where the Volcanics are taxed with casting the REBs and flashing them back. It's a more stable and easier to cast / flashback version of Wear/Tear and what I feel to be the superior variant right now.

---

Thank you for the feed, Ein.
Yesterday i have some problems vs MUD for the flashback cost, 'cause a Sundering Titan destroy my 2 Volcanic and at this point my 2nd Wear Tear in the deck (and a Pyroclasm but ok) are deadly card...
Well...today i will test with a split (1 Wear Tear and 1 Disenchant - I try to maintain 1 Wear Tear vs Maverick, Junk and Mirror, for the presence of this archetype in my metagame) and i post my impressions tonight.

Thanks a lot for your advice....Improve how to correctly sideboarding is fundamental.

:)

I believe the reason Joe Lossett gave that made Venser good was that it was really good vs Stoneblade decks. Most people will attack with batterskull and stoneforge mystic for 5 damage on an empty board on turn 4 after putting it into play the turn before. The concept he proposed was you flash in venser, bounce the token, and block the stoneforge mystic. and the reason for the vendilion cliques was to have a flash creature with evasion that could attack a liliana of the veil since she wrecks us if left unchecked. Clique was also really good at stripping equipment from the opponent's hand after a stoneforge mystic activation. I believe at the time he built the legendary build of miracles, stoneforge mystic was the most played creature in legacy. Also, if I remember correctly, Sneak and Show was played in very high numbers then as well. Venser is extremely good to put into play when they cast show and tell, and clique can try to strip a card from their hand before it resolves either by taking whatever they were going to show and tell, or by eating their force of will so you can counter the show and tell. If all else failed, drop venser and bounce whatever they put into play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drocker23

I believe the reason Joe Lossett gave that made Venser good was that it was really good vs Stoneblade decks. Most people will attack with batterskull and stoneforge mystic for 5 damage on an empty board on turn 4 after putting it into play the turn before. The concept he proposed was you flash in venser, bounce the token, and block the stoneforge mystic. and the reason for the vendilion cliques was to have a flash creature with evasion that could attack a liliana of the veil since she wrecks us if left unchecked. Clique was also really good at stripping equipment from the opponent's hand after a stoneforge mystic activation. I believe at the time he built the legendary build of miracles, stoneforge mystic was the most played creature in legacy. Also, if I remember correctly, Sneak and Show was played in very high numbers then as well. Venser is extremely good to put into play when they cast show and tell, and clique can try to strip a card from their hand before it resolves either by taking whatever they were going to show and tell, or by eating their force of will so you can counter the show and tell. If all else failed, drop venser and bounce whatever they put into play.

---

Actually, I think it was due to SnT being so dominant in the US, at that time. Don't remember him actually mentioning Venser regarding Stoneblade decks.

Anyhow, I think Swords and snapcaster is better than venser vs. stoneforge.

Venser is far better against Stoneforge. It's also far better against BUG and every other midrange value deck. Of course, Snapcaster should be ran in some number as well, just not as a 3-of if you don't have a full playset of Ponder. Never once heard Joe mention running Venser for Show and Tell, though it's an obvious thing to board in.

Venser is just a singleton. Highlighting a weak singleton, which he admits is somewhat of a pet card, and using it to characterize his entire list is ridiculous. If you love Ponders, feel free to extol the virtues all you want. But please don't mis-characterize other list so blatantly. It isn't "Ponder Miracles" vs. "Venser Miracles" as the competitive options.

Lemnear said everything of importance and explained why the Legend build is not good. As long as you don't live from grinding on Magic Online or want to Top 8 some Legacy GP's running an inferior version is ok, but if you really want to play the best list, Einherjer's list is a good way to start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Venser + Clique + Karakas is clunky as hell, that's the whole Problem. It does absolutely nothing in the first 4 turns which are the most important ones to stabilize. Ponder builds shine here but lack the toolbox character of the Legends build late in the game, which doesn't even need Entreat to close out the game.

The deck has already enough bricks to draw in your opener, and Venser + Clique doesn't improve the deck in that regards, which is the same reason why I hate DTT. For me it is questionable to include plenty of good lategame cards if I struggle to stay alive long enough to use them.

---

Although i completely disagree on the DTT part. That card is completely awesome, and you need a very good reason not to play at least 1 copy of it. With 10 fetchlands, an abundance of cantrips casting DTT for UU consistently on Turn 4 is great. Miracle also lacked non virtual card advantage outside of Jace, which is of course more powerful than DTT, but difficult to resolve and benefit from it against Combo& Delver decks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cipher

Venser is far better against Stoneforge. It's also far better against BUG and every other midrange value deck. Of course, Snapcaster should be ran in some number as well, just not as a 3-of if you don't have a full playset of Ponder. Never once heard Joe mention running Venser for Show and Tell, though it's an obvious thing to board in.

Venser is just a singleton. Highlighting a weak singleton, which he admits is somewhat of a pet card, and using it to characterize his entire list is ridiculous. If you love Ponders, feel free to extol the virtues all you want. But please don't mis-characterize other list so blatantly. It isn't "Ponder Miracles" vs. "Venser Miracles" as the competitive options.

---

If it came across as a flame towards his list; I'm sorry. It wasn't meant it like that. I find it impressive, with him performing so well with his list.

Lossett doesn't like 4x swords since they are dead in the match ups he cared about (storm, show and tell, reanimator, the mirror). He justified the 1st and 2nd blast over the 3rd and 4th swords because of blasts utility in the match ups he cared about. Blast is still removal against delver, and it kills true-name on the stack. He was willing to give up being weak to dark confidant, but he thought that card wouldn't be that popular since true-name pushes some of those dark confidant decks out of the meta.

Lossett likes main deck cliques because of the planeswalker/legend rule change last year. Since you can no longer kill your opponent's Jace by casting your own Jace, you're going to need creatures to kill Jace. Also blasts kill Jace too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by decan

this is one of the worst comments i have read in a long time. Fair and unfair things? are you kidding me?
Joe's list has much more upside and requires much more skill (experience) than the ponder list. the ponder list is much more straight forward whereas the legendary built can get little edges with every instant/flash creature.
However the ponder list is obviously much more consistent and easier to pickup.
In the end it all comes down to philosophy.

---

Sounds like you're disagreeing about semantics with respect to "fair" and "unfair". The post you're replying to was quite accurate.

Having played both variants of Miracles, I do think that the variants play out quite differently: Einherjer's list is one in which I'm much less hesitant about tapping out.

I don't believe either version is significantly more difficult to play than the other, but I do agree that the Ponder list is more consistent but lacks the random 1- or 2-ofs that are awesome in specific matchups.

Just one question, what is you guys plan when you face decks with turn 1 chalice such as MUD and UB Tezzeret? I feel really difficult to play against these types of decks, especially at game 1 . Any suggestions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wtfzero

Just one question, what is you guys plan when you face decks with turn 1 chalice such as MUD and UB Tezzeret? I feel really difficult to play against these types of decks, especially at game 1 . Any suggestions?

---

counter the chalice, find Entreat/Resolve jace on empty board ASAP

Sorry for the basicness of my question, but I'm looking how to use Jace correctly. I get counter-top with fetchlands and when to Miracle something, but when to Jace -0 vs +2 always gets me.

If it's mid-game and I'm not under any threat (and no top/brainstorm), should I -0 to dig through my deck further to find an Entreat? Should I +2 my opponent to keep them off threats? If I have a top with Jace out, should I be fatesealing my opponent or getting rid of dead weight off the top of my deck? If my opponent has a top out, I feel using the +2 fateseal ability on them useless and then should I be +2 myself or -0 brainstorm (assuming no other top/brainstorm action is present)?

I would love either a primer on Jace or example situations and how to deal with them correctly.

Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JediCheese

Sorry for the basicness of my question, but I'm looking how to use Jace correctly. I get counter-top with fetchlands and when to Miracle something, but when to Jace -0 vs +2 always gets me.

If it's mid-game and I'm not under any threat (and no top/brainstorm), should I -0 to dig through my deck further to find an Entreat? Should I +2 my opponent to keep them off threats? If I have a top with Jace out, should I be fatesealing my opponent or getting rid of dead weight off the top of my deck? If my opponent has a top out, I feel using the +2 fateseal ability on them useless and then should I be +2 myself or -0 brainstorm (assuming no other top/brainstorm action is present)?

I would love either a primer on Jace or example situations and how to deal with them correctly.

Thanks!

---

Personally i always +2 Jace, unless i need something specific. Ie find a Entreat/Terminus or bounce a Marit Lage token or whatever. Worst case you fateseal yourself getting rid of useless cards. The thing is with +2ing Jace, it gets you closer to actually win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobmans

Personally i always +2 Jace, unless i need something specific. Ie find a Entreat/Terminus or bounce a Marit Lage token or whatever. Worst case you fateseal yourself getting rid of useless cards. The thing is with +2ing Jace, it gets you closer to actually win.

---

On an open board vs an aggro deck, no cards in either players hands, would you +2 yourself or +2 your opponent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JediCheese

On an open board vs an aggro deck, no cards in either players hands, would you +2 yourself or +2 your opponent?

---

Opponent, unless he has a Top, Library or fetch (sometimes i bluf them to force to break the fetch). Mostly letting him keep stuff like lands, removal with no targets or stuff for which i have answers online like Counterbalance or Plow/Counterspell. Being able to control what your opponent draws is so powerful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JediCheese

Sorry for the basicness of my question, but I'm looking how to use Jace correctly. I get counter-top with fetchlands and when to Miracle something, but when to Jace -0 vs +2 always gets me.

If it's mid-game and I'm not under any threat (and no top/brainstorm), should I -0 to dig through my deck further to find an Entreat? Should I +2 my opponent to keep them off threats? If I have a top with Jace out, should I be fatesealing my opponent or getting rid of dead weight off the top of my deck? If my opponent has a top out, I feel using the +2 fateseal ability on them useless and then should I be +2 myself or -0 brainstorm (assuming no other top/brainstorm action is present)?

I would love either a primer on Jace or example situations and how to deal with them correctly.

Thanks!

---

I basically brainstorm with Jace till 1) the board is clear of threats, 2) I find 1 form of protection for the Jace (counterspell, swords, CB+top, etc.), and 3) I have more cards in hand than my opponent (or CB+top) . Once I have those 3 things, then start fatesealing. So if I cast jace on an empty board with more cards than my opponent and protection in my hand, I immediately start fatesealing.

I almost always fateseal my opponent unless they have top/library. I don't care if they have fetches. I am also a pretty aggressive fatesealer, basically if the card is better than the average card they could draw, it goes to the bottom. Cantrips always go to the bottom (unless you have CB lock). I'll fateseal myself if my opponent still has a bunch of library manipulation. And I will fateseal the turn the play jace if my opponent has between 3-4 power of creatures in play, or has instant speed dues (vial, clique, etc).

If both players are in topdeck mode and empty hands/boards and my opponent doesn't have many draws that just wreck jace (punishing fire, red blast, bloodbraid elf, etc) I will sometimes ignore my "have 1 form of protection" rule and just immediately start fatesealing, and brainstorm later if needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adryan

Although i completely disagree on the DTT part. That card is completely awesome, and you need a very good reason not to play at least 1 copy of it. With 10 fetchlands, an abundance of cantrips casting DTT for UU consistently on Turn 4 is great. Miracle also lacked non virtual card advantage outside of Jace, which is of course more powerful than DTT, but difficult to resolve and benefit from it against Combo& Delver decks.

---

The reason is that with BS/Ponder/SDT/Jace/Fetches you browse through your library for an unmatched card-selection in Legacy and already run CB/Jace/Terminus for cardadvantage. Getting the card online by turn 4 is a joke for combo decks. I don't see a reason to add a clunky card selection/advantage tool if you already run all the beforementioned stuff. I don't say the card is Junk itself, but I don't see it achieving anything beyond the decks regular tools

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

The reason is that with BS/Ponder/SDT/Jace/Fetches you browse through your library for an unmatched card-selection in Legacy and already run CB/Jace/Terminus for cardadvantage. Getting the card online by turn 4 is a joke for combo decks. I don't see a reason to add a clunky card selection/advantage tool if you already run all the beforementioned stuff. I don't say the card is Junk itself, but I don't see it achieving anything beyond the decks regular tools

---

You're wrong it's very good against every Combo deck. It's an instant, and digs like no other card for additional counterspells or permission. For me a 2/2 split of Jace and Dig Through Time is very good. Both cards have a similar purpose. Jace is more powerful, but can suck in a lot of situations or against some decks (Combo, Infect, Delver, the mirror etc.).

And by suck i mean, it's not a consistently good card. Jace is only good against f.ex Delver when you are already winning, he doesn't help you get out of tough situations because a 4 mana Brainstorm and gain 3 life for 4 mana is not good etc.

Come on, man. Jace is only good against Delver? I run a full playset, but I can understand people running 3. Saying it's not a core card is too much.