You have 5 Terminus in your 75. Is the one in your sideboard something else?Quote:
Originally Posted by klaus
Printable View
You have 5 Terminus in your 75. Is the one in your sideboard something else?Quote:
Originally Posted by klaus
Mana leak is way better than counterspell in a non-monoU deck. Especially in a format where everyone play less than 20 lands, including 4 wastelands. It is this debate of versability versus raw power.
I do not think that Mana Leak is an option in this kind of deck. Sure it's wayyy better during the first few turns but we are already aiming at getting UU by turn 2 so Counterspell shouldn't be much of a problem. In addition to this, Counterspell is still a counter in the late-game, which we are aiming at. So I'd never chose Leak over Spell.
@5 Terminus: Nah, 5 Terminus is fine, I guess it's just for the tough MUs where 4 aren't enough :cool::cool::cool::cool:
Greetings
There are too many plains/karakas/wastelands in the lists I see to comfortably rely on a turn two counterspell. And with the presnece of show and tell it seems a really bad choice not to be able to counter every game on turn two.
I agree with the fact that the deck wants to reach the late game, but you forget that in the late game the deck is so powerful that we'll win whatever happens. It's the early game that needs to be improved, and that's exactly why mana leak is better than CS.
Counterbalance, Delver, Clique and Jace are among the cards I fear most - Flusterstorm does not answer them, while REBs even kill them after resolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyC27
Straight UW with Fluster Storms is a valid choice and the R splash is a meta choice obviously, but for the time being I'm quite satisfied with it.
@ Terminus #5: The SB Terminus is my current flex slot. :smile: (fixed.)
Agreed. Negate has turned out to be a really good sb card just for those reasons. Snapcaster builds are much more manageable with Leak over Cspell when the decks are playing 21 or less lands with 2 plains, Karakas, 4 Mish/Waste.Quote:
Originally Posted by frenchy-man
Opening hands can look ugly making Ponders vital in there, although not playing Wastes or Mishra and/or around 24 lands would also reduce those openers and draws.
At the moment, I probably wouldn't replace Counterspells with Mana Leak or Negate...as there's already Force of Will or/and Spell Pierce to handle the early threats.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by sarapfish
One cannot afford to lose to turn two show and tell with fow back up. It is very important to have the maximum amount of counters available in the early game.
And three more to pay is almost like a hard counter. I mean, we are in legacy.
I tried a mana leak instead of the 4th counterspell and it was awful. If you're fetching correctly and not trying to splash for cute tricks you'll never have a problem getting your colors. Mana leak is just not good, for the same reason spell pierces 3-4 are usually bad (but necessary to see them early). Competent opponents can easily play around soft counters, especially when they have time because we aren't the fastest kid on the block by any stretch. So they wait it out and you're stuck with force bait/shitty counters you wish just read "counter target spell".
Tell me how to play around mana leak please.
It's a 3 step process. Each involving playing a mana source.Quote:
Originally Posted by frenchy-man
Sure Aggro decks won't be able to play around it so well, but S&T can, Maverick can, Blade control can, pretty much everything can given enough time, I'm sure I don't need to point out that they will get that time against us. Especially when they know you run them, they lose novelty after game 1, and the game winning threats will be waiting.
The point is, mana leak is cmc 2. Counterspell is cmc 2. Why, just why would you ever want to run a conditional counter over a hard counter when they fill the exact same spot on your curve, in a deck that is primarily U?
(Again, I can see the argument if you're running splashes, but there's no excuse if you're running UW)
@frenchy-man: What does your manabase look like?
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Teknique
Also, if the situation is that the colorless sources really bother the consistency of the U/W build (by using Wasteland or Mishra's Factory) as per individual preference and experience, then I guess you should remove some (or all) of them and just put in more blue mana sources. I think either way the deck will work just fine.
I hesitated using Mishra's Factories at first for the same reason, so I guess it's a matter of just stretching out the stability of the manabase to its limit when we add colorless sources. I currently play with 4 factories in a 22-land count (similar to Hanni's)
Why? They give your opponent a use for their spot removal.. I enjoy just grinding the games out by landing CB-Top & Jace followed by an EtA in a controled game stateQuote:
Originally Posted by sarapfish
As already mentioned from pages back, it provides an alternative option to damage your opponent plus it can be a body to protect Jace.Quote:
Originally Posted by klaus
A use for their spot removal? Well yes, but you don't just recklessly transform them to be blasted away. Wait until the coast is clear, like when they're tapped out, or when you got things under control with a CounterTop online.
But like I said, the deck works with or without them, so it's just a matter of preference.
Counterbalance + SDT eliminates about 95% of the removal in Legacy (STP, PTE, Lightning Bolt, Ghastly Demise, etc.)
One disadvantage of Mishra's Factory is that it opens you up to Wasteland. For those who run Mishra's Factory, are you also running Crucible of Worlds?
My favorite use for Mishra's is stopping early aggression. A single Mishra's can stop a Thalia, Goblin Guide, or Dark Confidant and double Mishra's can stop a threshed Mongoose, Wild Nacatl, or Hellspark Elemental (not that the later two are seeing much play).
Currently, I'm not running Mishra's Factory, but I'm considering it for its ability to "survive" a Terminus, offer early defense and protection, and its ability to be a 2/2 when Humility is in play.
I played this deck a tone and found that its biggest weakness was,if an opponent dropped a permanent on turn 1 or 2 that was not countered. To fix this problem I put 2 repeals in the main instead of the O rings.
Advantage :
- let you bounce at end of turn + draw
- you do not need to tap out on your turn like O ring
- rarely a dead draw in any match up
- good vs creature and permanent heavy decks
- is a good out vs opposing counterbalance ( make X= 3, 4 or more )
- you can buy back with snap - mot Oring
Disadvantage :
- weaker against Show and tell
what do you guys think of repeal?
What are some examples of non-creature problem permanents you're dealing with on turns 1 and 2?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaslan
Personally, I don't like repeal because it doesn't actually solve any problems and can get quite expensive. But, I'm interested to hear more about your experiences with it.
I'm noticing a lot more straight UW lists are running only three Tundras. Why are people cutting the fourth Tundra?
Also, I don't have experience in the match up, but it seems like the consensus is Maverick is very favourable for this deck. Can't help but think Gaddock Teeg protected by Mom would be very difficult to deal with. What's the answer for this?