Miracle Control

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cschacal

Why nobody plays unexpectedly absent in this deck? It deals with nasty non creature permanents like Liliana.

---

I play 1 Main and 1 Side and it's been excellent. The deck has few ways to deal with non-creature permanents, whether it be artifacts, enchantments, or planeswalkers. Liliana, Koth, Jace, and Pithing Needle are all big problems in my experience. So's Sylvan Library. Most of the time, you have to let the problem do work and wait for a fetch, but people really just don't expect it. I nailed my Esperblade opponent when I was behind with an UA on his Jace into a fetch, and he lost the Jace, allowing me to pull back into the game. Regarding D. Sphere, if you're against BGx, they just decay the Sphere and you're back where you started. At least UA can put the card a few down if need be, buying you some time. Plus, it means they might constrict themselves if it's a great card and they subsequently play fetches afterwards. They might have to play back for a few turns to draw that critical card again.

It also has game in returning your own stuff for protection, or flipping to Counterbalance. Sure it's cute, but it's been worth it before. Protecting Jace from Pulse, Counterbalance from Decay, or just to flip a 2 to Counterbalance.

Also, sickest play of Seattle: Brainstorm and set up Turn 3 Counterbalance + Top on the same Turn, floating a 3 on top after Brainstorm to counter the Patriot player's TNN. What does he cast instead? Fused Wear/Tear. B-B-B-B-BLOWOUT.



-Matt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YamiJoey

Detention Sphere is actually really good and doesn't require your opponent to crack a Fetch to be cast. It's also a 3 which we have even less of than 2's, which are important for Lilianas and TNN's.

---

Don't fall into the trap of thinking you can only cast Unexpectedly Absent in response to a fetch; that's a "danger of cool things" problem.

Evaluate it as a way to get a second chance at dealing with problem permanents, including Liliana (which is one of the most problematic of them all for Miracles). It's great at resetting an opposing planeswalker or Vial, it's occasionally decent insurance for something non-Griselbrand that got snuck into play and that you now have the counter for, etc.

Right now I'm experimenting with one in the main (since my 2-drop slot is more in need of shoring up than 3, and I've never much cared for Detention Sphere anyway since it gets hit by both red Blasts and Abrupt Decays), and finding it useful primarily as the "I'd be winning the game right now if only he hadn't stuck that thing before I got control" roleplayer.

Hey guys,

recently i have seen some lists with a 3FOW/1Misdirection (basically Oarsman and his companions) cut. As far as i can remember, einh once wrote that misdirection isn't good. So who's right?

Would be nice if J.Lossett senpai could write a few lines about how the misdirection worked for him and why he cuts my precious FOW. :smile:


Unexpectedly Absent Topic: Blowing it on a creature seems kinda mediocre, and most of the other stuff can be handled by a pithing needle, too. It seems like no one considers running a maindeck needle though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Panda-san

Hey guys,

recently i have seen some lists with a 3FOW/1Misdirection (basically Oarsman and his companions) cut. As far as i can remember, einh once wrote that misdirection isn't good. So who's right?

Would be nice if J.Lossett senpai could write a few lines about how the misdirection worked for him and why he cuts my precious FOW. :smile:

---

Yes, you are correct that I wrote that this card isn't good. It's horrible, to be honest. Splitting up Force of Will is just bad, having a 1of against one particular archetype isn't good either. I won't go too much into detail as I thought it was common knowledge that this card is just unplayable. But I am happy to hear reasonings why it'd be good, I'll respond in a proper way then.

Greetings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Panda-san

Hey guys,

recently i have seen some lists with a 3FOW/1Misdirection (basically Oarsman and his companions) cut. As far as i can remember, einh once wrote that misdirection isn't good. So who's right?

Would be nice if J.Lossett senpai could write a few lines about how the misdirection worked for him and why he cuts my precious FOW. :smile:

---

Joe has explained his card choices like... no less than ten times, you can just watch those clips here: http://www.twitch.tv/oarsman79, if you dig hard enough.

My opinion is that Joe focuses on stack manipulation, it's evident in the inclusion of Venser, he's customized Miracles into a version in which he can maximize his play style and ability. That's why there's a Misdirection in his version. There's no right vs wrong, you have to compare deck list vs deck list as a whole.

I discover that if I play his version, I too often think too hard, think too slow, and cause myself to draw.

The basic reason why I don't like Misdirection is that my plan against GBx (Hymn/Decay) decks is basically as follows:
1. Kill all their creatures.
2. Neutralize Liliana.
3. Kill more creatures.
4. Entreat. (or Blood Moon)

Misdirection is very, very good against Hymn and Abrupt Decay, but it doesn't actually do anything to directly affect my goals in the matchup.

Hymn can potentially be problematic because it will sometimes hit lands, which in turn affect my ability to Entreat. However, Top (and Brainstorm to a lesser degree) helps keep the land drops coming. Misdirection is good against discard, yet at the same time, its innate card disadvantage makes it awkward against discard.

Abrupt Decay is actually not even that good against us since it does not directly affect any of our game plan except perhaps hitting Rest in Peace (which helps neutralize creatures). Luckily all of our < 3 cmc permanents post-board have EtB triggers that make them worthwhile even if they are immediately removed by Abrupt Decay.

Misdirection doesn't kill creatures, doesn't kill Liliana, and in an attrition based and grindy battle against a discard deck, Misdirection isn't what I want to be topdecking. Joe and others have their reasons for liking the card (in part, a different approach to the MU), so this is simply my take on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Einherjer

Yes, you are correct that I wrote that this card isn't good. It's horrible, to be honest. Splitting up Force of Will is just bad, having a 1of against one particular archetype isn't good either. I won't go too much into detail as I thought it was common knowledge that this card is just unplayable. But I am happy to hear reasonings why it'd be good, I'll respond in a proper way then.

Greetings

---

Well, Misdirection is just icing on the cake in that specific build. While you can always argue why it would be horrible and could never replace a force, you can also say that it doesn't need to be a Force.
While acting like a force in an ongoing counterwar, it can also cause some random blowouts like misdirect a Hymn, or redirecting a Bolt to a Nemesis. Even though these blowouts don't happen often, discard like Thoughtseize is often a thing. When your hand is Jace, Force + random pitchcard, you dont really want to force a Thoughtseize, but you might need to do it. With Misdirection you can get a 2for2 at least. Being able to fight over a CB being decayed is pretty nice also.

I played the 3/1 split for like 6 months, switched to 4 Forces for like a week, and immediately wanted the Misdirection back. Its neither broken nor always great, but far from unplayable.

Thanks for your advice about UA Philipp. It would be great to hear you and Joe talking about this deck :smile: I'll try your version but with a 2/2 split between snapcasters and vendilions, only 3 FOW and 3/1 split of terminus and SV. I hate Misdirection as much as I hate Force of Will. I have been playing misdirections in the sideboard but I have decided to change them for more flusterstorms. I thought misdirection would help against discard but it didn't. I only play 3 FOW because this card is only good against combo and it is for sure the most removed card after game one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThoSha

Well, Misdirection is just icing on the cake in that specific build. While you can always argue why it would be horrible and could never replace a force, you can also say that it doesn't need to be a Force.
While acting like a force in an ongoing counterwar, it can also cause some random blowouts like misdirect a Hymn, or redirecting a Bolt to a Nemesis. Even though these blowouts don't happen often, discard like Thoughtseize is often a thing. When your hand is Jace, Force + random pitchcard, you dont really want to force a Thoughtseize, but you might need to do it. With Misdirection you can get a 2for2 at least. Being able to fight over a CB being decayed is pretty nice also.

I played the 3/1 split for like 6 months, switched to 4 Forces for like a week, and immediately wanted the Misdirection back. Its neither broken nor always great, but far from unplayable.

---

Saying that it is generally unplayable was a hyperbole. I didn't think you'd take it that literal.

Misdirection should not played as the 4th Force. Because if we do this we can also cut the 4th Terminus for a Supreme Verdict, because it's uncounterable, and then we cut the 4th Swords to Plowshares for UA/EE because it can hit Planeswalkers and Permanents, then we cut the 4th Top for Ponder, because Top cannot shuffle, and Ponder is better if we already have a Top, later on we cut the 4th Flooded Strand for a Mystic Gate, cause it can't get stifled, then we cut the 4th/3rd Jace for an Elspeth, because she can't be REBed, only to cut the 4th/3rd Tundra for an Island, because it can't get wastelanded.

See what I did there? Replacing the 4th copy of a playset with something that's better in some narrows scenarios is not the way I build decks anymore. I kind of this this back at GP Strasbourg, and even though it worked out rather well I grew as a player, not doing that again. Having super icey 1ofs is a great feeling, if you draw them. But for wha I can say is that it is important to do your thing in a constant way. You want to be able to remove creatures for W, which forces you to play 4 Swords to Plowshares (the only counterargument I'd kind of accept here is the inclusion of REBs in the MB - but I am still in the process of testing), you want to interact with your opponent as soon and as efficiently as you can. This is why playing less than 4 Force of Will is bad, plus Miracles has a hard time dealing with Show and Tell strategies preboard, as we have many dead cards.

Short: It's not good to split a playset of cards 3/1, simply because the 4th card holds some superior value in some certain situations. You want your deck to work like an oiled machine, over and over and over again. That's how I build decks, if you want an inconsistent but individually more powerful deck - go ahead and do the hillarious cuts I advised above.

Greetings

The main reason I like the 4th force of will over 1 misdirection.

1) Can handle planeswalkers.
2) Can handle creatures.
3) Is always a counterspell (misdirection is only a counterspell if a counterspell has been played), so it has huge flexibility.
4) When hardcastable, is always relevant. (Misdirection hard cast is really not very relevant. Nice thoughtseize on turn 10...)
5) When you really need force, it usually stops you from losing the game and can often just win you the game.

The main reasons I like 1 misdirection over the 4th force:

1) Sometimes when you'd have two forces you'll have 1 force and 1 misdirection which can give you more options.
2) Misdirection can gain huge advantage against heavy discard/decay decks.

I can't come up with many more compelling reasons for misdirection over the 4th force of will. I think most importantly there's two very strong reasons not to run misdirection over force of will. Misdirection is never necessary, whereas force of will often is. Your opponent trying to go off turn 1 with a combo? You need to have force of will. Compare: Your opponent hymns you. You're down 2 cards, but your opponent can't win for many turns, allowing you to gain advantage and still win. Even if you expect discard heavy metas, it's still incredibly unsafe to not have the 4th force of will, because you still have a high chance of playing against decks where force of very vital. The second reason is that misdirection is usually only good early and is usually only good at stopping other early game cards. Yet as a 1-of, you're unlikely to even see the card when it matters and misdirection loses so much value over time, whereas force is always relevant. It does retain relevance against an abrupt decay, but I don't think it's worth devoting space specifically to handle that card, given what you're giving up for it.

Misdirection can be a very awkward counterspell, helping in counterwars only if other countermagic has been played already. For this reason, if you want a 5th force of will effect in these situations, running 1 Misdirection in the sideboard certainly seems acceptable to me (although I'd probably prefer flusterstorm most of the time).

I haven't followed this entire exchange, but wasn't Misdirection originally added for one main reason: Abrupt Decay (with splash benefits against Hymn to Tourach and Ancestral Visions)?

Yet the arguments above don't seem to discuss saving your Counterbalance or Rest in Peace...

Misdirecrion is really good in other decks like BUG and Bant. Here we'd rather Force their thing. It hits Abrupt Decay, but apart from that we simply do not care. Play an extra Balance if your Balances keep rotting.

Great arguments, i can get behind that.
I can totally understand why one would want to play 4 Force of Will to play it safe.
There is just one point tough, that is huge in a deck like this that you have forgotten.

Miracles runs 4 Sensei's Divining Tops and many shuffle effects. While splitting up playsets is narrow in Delverdecks that don't have as great card selection over a long game as we do, we might split up some playsets to gain more versatility when games get grindy. Its funny that most of those things you mentioned are things that i do. I play 3/1 split of Force/MD, 3/1 split of Terminus/Verdict, 2/2 StP/REB. Also Mystic Gates to have some outs for Choke. But of course i would never cut a top, because then you would be absolutely right about all this being narrow.

I have to be fair that i am running 74 cards from the oarsman-list. But only because it works that way, no need to change anything for consistency really.

I've played both oarsman's list as well as Einherjer's list, following some of their changes for the last few months. I think oarsman's list is fine, and I've certainly done well with it, but I've fared better with Einherjer's, winning and top 8'ing several 50+ man events recently. I also took a modified version to Seattle, where I finished 7-2 with terrible breakers due to an embarrassing early loss to Burn and a terrible punt against feline; I attribute the losses to my poor play (particularly against High Tide) rather than to the deck sputtering on me, and I am still very happy with how the deck performed overall (although I think I'll switch things up and play different decks at smaller events).

Joe's list allows for more blowout opportunities and cool stack tricks with cards like Venser, extra Cliques, Misdirection, and second Karakas, as well as more one-ofs which can be situationally useful at different times. I feel like it's stronger once it gets to the late game, due to all the tricks it can play. Einherjer's list feels more streamlined, starting with the six hard counters, but also with the emphasis on Ponders and Snapcasters to give it more reliable control of its draws in the early game. In my personal experience, when I performed poorly with the oarsman list, it was usually due to stumbling early (e.g. not being able to find that fourth land, Swords, Terminus, or Force of Will that you needed).

I think the decks play out most differently against B/G decks, several of which are unfavorable to even matchups. Joe has the ability to use Misdirection against Hymn/Abrupt Decay, uses Karakas tricks with Venser/Clique to control Liliana, and slaps down a Rest in Peace to cripple their threats. In contrast, Einherjer tries to blank Abrupt Decay by removing most of his removal, control discard with Pierce/Flusterstorm, and stall opposing threats with an endless barrage of removal backed by Snapcaster; however, the presence of two Ponders in addition to Snapcasters allows this decklist to more quickly find Entreat the Angels or Jace to pull ahead.

I think it really comes down to pilot preference.

Well said, Lord, I agree.

ThoSha: You could say I am wrong about one thing, you could claim my testing is flawed in another aspect or point at my wrong conclusions. This all was, is and will be true, to some extent. But I find it kind of bold telling me I forgot about 4 Top + Library Manipulation. Like really? Are you telling me I forgot about this aspect?

Greetings

It was kind of bad written from me. Of course I expect a player of your caliber to not forget about this given thing.
I just felt like this point is tremendous and should be given credit, because it should change how you look at these one-offs, not making them ridiculous.

By your logic with the well-oiled machine that does the same things every game, you should even reconsider your list.
Like cutting the 1-of Clique and Karakas, to add a 4th Tundra and Snapcaster Mage. Also cut the singletons in your sideboard as they are random.
Of course you won't do that, because you know that they are worth it in a deck like this. So why wouldn't that apply to other splits that are reasonable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThoSha

It was kind of bad written from me. Of course I expect a player of your caliber to not forget about this given thing.
I just felt like this point is tremendous and should be given credit, because it should change how you look at these one-offs, not making them ridiculous.

By your logic with the well-oiled machine that does the same things every game, you should even reconsider your list.
Like cutting the 1-of Clique and Karakas, to add a 4th Tundra and Snapcaster Mage. Also cut the singletons in your sideboard as they are random.
Of course you won't do that, because you know that they are worth it in a deck like this. So why wouldn't that apply to other splits that are reasonable?

---

I expected this question, so let me elaborate.

1) It's not the fact that I hate 1of silver bullets. I hate it, if they take the place of much needed cards, that should be played in playsets like Swords, Force, Top, Brainstorm... It'd be totally okay for me to play 4 Force of Will 1 Misdirection, whereas 3/1 is a no-go.

2) Snapcaster / Clique ist not a split.

3) Karakas is not in the slot of any mana-producing land, it's in the utility-land slot.

4) Three Tundra are enough. If four were necessary to produce the mana this deck needs in a given time frame I'd play 4. But three are enough. This logic applies to 3 Jace and 2 Angels aswell.

5) Sideboard cards are 1ofs, but not at the cost of other cards.

I hope I could get my point across, if I didn't - please tell me and I will write alot more than just this few sentences.

Greetings

Now it makes perfect sense for me.
So the main difference in our opinions is just that you set the playset of Forces in stone, which I don't.
If I wouldn't value the Red Blasts in the maindeck more than a set of Swords, i would agree with you on that also.

At the end of the day it comes down to preference, both lists have been proven to be very good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Einherjer

Short: It's not good to split a playset of cards 3/1, simply because the 4th card holds some superior value in some certain situations. You want your deck to work like an oiled machine, over and over and over again. That's how I build decks, if you want an inconsistent but individually more powerful deck - go ahead and do the hillarious cuts I advised above.

---

This is an excellent explanation, and I'm 100% behind this concept in regards to Miracles.

New question: has anyone tried out Swan Song in the place of Flusterstorm? I've been liking the added utility vs Sneak and Show, and the fact that it is a hard counter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matunos

I haven't followed this entire exchange, but wasn't Misdirection originally added for one main reason: Abrupt Decay (with splash benefits against Hymn to Tourach and Ancestral Visions)?

Yet the arguments above don't seem to discuss saving your Counterbalance or Rest in Peace...

---

Yeah, I think this gets to the heart of it. BGx is the only reason to run Misdirection. I'm pretty sure it's worse than a fourth Force by in every single other matchup. BGx was the deck for a while, and it's still popular in my area, but I don't think the upside is so great against the deck to begin with. I used to run a single Misdirection out of the sideboard, but ended up cutting it because it felt high-risk with medium reward. I loved flipping a Hymn to Tourach, but you were still down the extra card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Einherjer

Misdirection should not played as the 4th Force. Because if we do this we can also cut the 4th Terminus for a Supreme Verdict, because it's uncounterable, and then we cut the 4th Swords to Plowshares for UA/EE because it can hit Planeswalkers and Permanents, then we cut the 4th Top for Ponder, because Top cannot shuffle, and Ponder is better if we already have a Top, later on we cut the 4th Flooded Strand for a Mystic Gate, cause it can't get stifled, then we cut the 4th/3rd Jace for an Elspeth, because she can't be REBed, only to cut the 4th/3rd Tundra for an Island, because it can't get wastelanded.

Short: It's not good to split a playset of cards 3/1, simply because the 4th card holds some superior value in some certain situations. You want your deck to work like an oiled machine, over and over and over again. That's how I build decks, if you want an inconsistent but individually more powerful deck - go ahead and do the hillarious cuts I advised above.

---

That's how I go about things, as well. I don't even understand why people run only 3x Jace, much less cutting Swords or Terminus. RUG Delver is hardly a deck anymore.