Miracle Control

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Einherjer

But as said, there are things to this card that are easily overlookable. First and foremost: This card is god damn hard to kill, and not too easy to counter aswell. Being Spell Pierce proof while also blanking 99% of the options to destroy this thing makes it incredibly persistent in its effect on the battlefield. Keranos will never win the game as fast as Entreat, and he will never be able to give you enough cards to bury your opponent in CA just like Jace does. He does both, but in an inferior way. He will close out games, eventually. He will draw you a few cards, somewhere down the road. But due to his ability to stay onto the battlefield this is good enough.

The above mentioned split-nature of this card gets upgraded by the fact that this mix of cards makes it extremly powerful against a plethora of cards/situations/match-ups that are hard to overcome with a traditional Jace-Entreat-split. While both of the prior mentioned cards put up a fight against Liliana one way or another - Keranos just dominates her. Lightning Bolting every turn is just as good as it gets, - that's pretty powerful against Jace, the Mind Sculptor. The inevitable effect pushes this card over the top in the Shardless-MU where he also provides an unkillable out to nasty small creatures that made it through to the lategame, but aren't worth using Terminus on.

This repeatedly mentioned split nature of this card offers new ways of boarding too. I'd never ever bring in Entreat the Angels in the Mirror. Keranos? Any day of the week. I even had a situation where I could decide whether I'd cast an altered Jace, the Mind Sculptor and protect it with Force of Will and pitch Keranos or cast Keranos, and pitch the Jace. I did cast the Keranos, which lead to an concession of my mirror-opponent shortly after, due to him not playing Judgemental Miracles *coughs*.
I'd also never board in a 4th Jace in a match-up where I will be facing Punishing Fire. Keranos? Sure thing!

---

Keranos is a card that I found very intriguing and considered running, but it never actually made the cut in my deck. As you and others suggest, I saw it as a great card in Abrupt Decay matchups as well as in the mirror as an extremely hard card to remove if it resolved.

However, after playing a bunch of mirrors this week, I feel that haymakers which previously would have dominated the matchup (a resolved Jace, Counterbalance + Top, or even both) end up being easily dispatched by Council's Judgment, which I predict will find its way into more and more decks.

Granted, a Keranos is still more difficult for the opponent to remove than any of the aforementioned cards, but its upside on the battlefield is significantly lower, and it no longer represents inevitability. I had begun to devalue Entreat the Angels in the mirror based on some of your previous advice (previously boarding in a 3rd copy, eventually actually boarding out the second copy), but I am liking it once again because I no longer believe it represents an easier to remove threat than any of the other win conditions in the deck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by funnywille

Hey, I'm wondering if you guys have any insight on the burn matchup? I was the 2nd place player at SCG Vegas, and I have to admit to not being familiar with the matchup at all. I believe I did

+1 EE
+2 Flusterstorm
+1 Relic of Progenitus
+1 Wear // Tear
+1 Sulfur Elemental
-2 Terminus
-2 Ponder
-1 Entreat
-1 Force of Will

against Burn. Sulfur Elemental was probably not correct, but I wanted a blocker. I didn't want to Ponder too much into Eidolon of the Great Revels, so they came out.

I'm sure my play wasn't spectacular either. Game 1, I felt like a Plains + Top + Counterbalance + some other stuff on 6 cards was more playable than a 5 card hand on the draw. Then, I was considering racing with my Angel token instead of blocking Eidolon, since we were both at 14 with a Vortex on board. In the end, I felt like I had to block and hope for the Angel to eat a Lavamancer activation and hope to top my one out to Vortex. Searing Blaze sort of ended any hope I had.
Game 2, I opened Counterbalance + Top + Pierce in hand, and I topped on my second upkeep instead of slamming Counterbalance so I could Pierce Sulfuric Vortex if necessary. The Vexing Shusher sort of wrecked me. I had a bit of hope after I Terminus'ed it away, but I Brainstormed a one drop back on top because I thought he had a one drop he wanted to play with Vexing Shusher, and I didn't think he would keep Price of Progress against me.

I had played against Burn a few other times over the weekend, and I've been on the losing end more than the winning end by a small margin...

---

Congrats on a really strong performance!

I think Burn has gotten significantly improved by the addition of Eidolon, and I feel lists with Vexing Shusher represent a significantly more difficult matchup than lists without.

My old boarding plan (using Einherjer's GP Paris list) was something as follows:
-4 Terminus
-1 Vendilion Clique
-1 Jace, the Mind Sculptor
+3 Flusterstorm
+1 Counterspell
+1 Disenchant
+1 Entreat the Angels

I would never have considered cutting a Ponder in any of my matchups, but your point about Eidolon reducing its impact is a good one. I also don't generally shave Force of Will in this matchup, as I treat Burn as a seven-card combo deck (albeit one with more redundancy). I find that I am more likely to die with cards in hand than I am to die from being out-resourced.

However, given access to his decklist, your opponent is likely to present 14 creatures, 7 of which represent significant issues, so I'm more inclined to keep the Terminuses back in. I'm not particularly excited about Engineered Explosives either; previously, it presented a crappy way to sweep the board or to deal with a Sulfuric Vortex, but the addition of Council's Judgment is a hedge against the latter. In addition, with Eidolon now a staple in the maindeck, we likely should be bringing in all of our disenchant effects regardless of whether or not we see/expect Sulfuric Vortex. With these considerations, I think Engineered Explosives is marginalized to the point of not being worth including in the matchup.

Of course, everything I've said so far results in us boarding in more cards than we can take out. In terms of how I would have boarded with your decklists, I probably would have gone with the following:

+2 Flusterstorm
+1 Wear/Tear
+1 Entreat the Angels
-2 Terminus
-1 Volcanic Island
-1 Jace, the Mind Sculptor

I definitely do not bring in the Relic of Progenitus against him because I consider our maindeck to be much tighter to justify that utility. Given that I like Vendilion Clique less than you do in this matchup, it probably isn't surprising that I'm not bringing in Sulfur Elemental either, although I may likely be wrong on the upside of a 3-power flash creature in this matchup. I want especially want the extra Entreat in this matchup because your burn opponent's particular list seems quite strong at grinding opponents out, even potentially through Counterbalance, so I want to be able to close a game quickly.

Admittedly, the Entreats leave you vulnerable while tapped out, but I think all of our soft permission should be aggressively cashed in early when possible, and my inclusion of all the Force of Wills also help out for this type of a strategy.

As far as how you approached the matchup, there was one line I disagreed with (and I certainly am not saying I'm correct). IIRC, in game 2, you answered his Vexing Shusher by playing a Jace and bouncing, keeping open a fetchland, but at the cost of cashing in your Top. He played Sulfuric Vortex, resulting in you losing your top but managing to counter it with a blind reveal. I believe you had access to a Swords to Plowshares at that point, which I would have preferred to play instead of deploying the Jace; if my memory is correct, this would have left you with Counterbalance + Top against an empty board with no Shusher.

@ SB Counterspell:

I keep seeing those popping up in some Sourcers' SBs, probably because Einherjer added one to his.
To be honest, I find this choice very odd, to say the least.
CS is OK in most MUs, good in some and so so in a few. So in a nutshell it serves as a literal catch-all answer. In my opinion this is -exactly- what SB slots should not be used for. 15 is a tight limit, I'm sure most of you will agree. To max out the impact of every single SB choice, I want to make sure each one is "true hate", or at least has a strong potential to turn certain MUs in my favor, once I cast it.
RiP, Supreme Verdict, Canonist, Disenchant, and Flusterstorm are prime examples.

This reminds me of the days when people started adding subpar Oblivion Rings to the SBs before SnT became popular.

Back from a very good Aristoteles lecture! So where was I?

@Counterspell:
It wasn't my initial idea to add Counterspell to the deck, but I've been a strong proponent of this very card ever since I've put it in my sideboard. Great that you disagree, havn't talked about this slot in a while, I guess.

So you think that a sideboard slot should not be a good catchall and versatile card, did I get you right? While I cannot agree with this very sentiment, I can understand where you are coming from. I'll just quote myself from a post a few days back:
"But Judgements versatility has another aspect to it that is pretty essential. Due to its potential to deal with literally everything you have to put the first copy of this card in your mainboard, not in your sideboard. I've been playing Counterspell in my SB ever since GP Paris and I am still under the assumption that this is the correct way to go - but before I put the 3rd Counterspell in the SB, I've had two of them in the mainboard, reaching the cards threshold of mainboarded copies. Same thing goes for Councils Judgement - leading to the next point: "_{http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?20529-DTB-Miracle-Control&p=817472&viewfull=1#post817472}

So I guess we don't diverge too much, do we? We both acknowledge the power of versatile cards in the mainboard, first and foremost! But what does adding cards like Judgement+Counterspell to the sideboard actually do? As you realized correctly it does not influence any MU in a great way as things cards like Keranos, but if you look at my sideboard - most cards do not instantly win a game of Magic. Most are just other version of different cards, various approaches to the same goal, with new up- and new downsides. Counterspell is no exception. Flusterstorm is just another counterspell for Instants and Sorceries, whereas EE is just another removal with a wide range of applications, Disenchant is yet another way to deal with non-creature permanents, Clique is yet another disruptive spell. RIP/REB and Keranos do have some high impact in many MUs, though. But what this shows is that a sideboard does not have to consist of hatecards. I do not feature Ethersworn Canonist, I do not choose to play Blood Moon, I negated to include Supreme Verdict. I concluded that those things are not needed, as more versatile many-sided cards are better for a format that is as open as Legacy.

Approaching the Sideboard this way let's you be better prepared for an open metagame. If you play like 5 times against RUG and 5 times against Storm you'd love to have those extra RIPs, Supreme Verdicts and Ethersworn Canonists, but this isn't going to happen. Legacy does not work that way. Your first opponent can start casting Trinispheres while the second drops 20 Goblins. But you all know how Legacy works! Directly shaped cards will have a higher impact in the MU that you are preparing for, but won't cut it for pretty much all the other MUs.

Moreover, if you have cards like Judgement and Counterspell in your sideboard you can always bring in something, that's better than the worst cards in your maindeck for this very match. This allows you to board well and improve your sideboard matches to some extent, admittedly less so than if you had the best cards for this very MU. I'd rather improve all of my MUs by 5-10% than improving some by 15-20% and others by 0%. (All numbers are fictional and do not represent any value, other than, yet again, fictional comparison).

I don't agree on Fluster and Disenchant being direct cards for certain MUs, as you can bring in Fluster against any Delver deck, any combo deck, and if you run a slightly (like 1 card off) list of mine you can bring it in in the Mirror too. Disenchant can be brought in against Esper, Delver, Combo and Miracle too... so....

And when you mention O-Ring. My sideboarded Judgment isn't anything more than a way better O-Ring due to its ability to hit shrouded+protected stuff, doing tricks (Top, Vial) and being able to Snapcaster back.

@lordofthepit:
Yes, Keranos is easily removable due to Council's Judgement, but I think having more than 1 copy in the postboarded games isn't correct anyways, so I wouldn't worry too much. On Entreat though... the way I board right now is the following:

-4 Swords to Plowshares
-4 Terminus
-2 Entreat the Angels
+2 Red Elemental Blast
+1 Pyroblast
+2 Vendilion Clique
+2 Engineered Explosives
+1 Keranos, God of Storms
+1 Disenchant
+1 Counterspell

Disenchant isn't that set in stone, so you can bring in one more card here. If I wouldn't have Disenchant it'd probably be Flusterstorm, though 1of Fluster seems off, and if you don't have Keranos you can easily bring in the second Flusterstorm. But you could also take my list, and my approach and don't bring the Disenchant and grab a 1of Entreat as a late-game option if you think that it's better for you. I am not entirely sure about those last few slots. Disenchant doesn't seem to great many times, Flusterstorm varies greatly in impact too, and Entreat is just as swingey as it gets. My approach is the most steady one, yet I cannot claim to hold the only real approach for the mirror. (on another note- I did start winning Mirror matches again, so the curse of GP Paris is finally over, lol)

How do you approach the mirror with your current list? Would you board differently with mine? Let me know.

Greetings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by klaus

@ SB Counterspell:

I keep seeing those popping up in some Sourcers' SBs, probably because Einherjer added one to his.
To be honest, I find this choice very odd, to say the least.
CS is OK in most MUs, good in some and so so in a few. So in a nutshell it serves as a literal catch-all answer. In my opinion this is -exactly- what SB slots should not be used for. 15 is a tight limit, I'm sure most of you will agree. To max out the impact of every single SB choice, I want to make sure each one is "true hate", or at least has a strong potential to turn certain MUs in my favor, once I cast it.
RiP, Supreme Verdict, Canonist, Disenchant, and Flusterstorm are prime examples.

This reminds me of the days when people started adding subpar Oblivion Rings to the SBs before SnT became popular.

---

I agree with the above about Counterspell beeing a fair-powered catch-all and not the best option for a sideboard slot. There are a few exceptions I would consider over "true hate" cards though and the 4th Snapcaster is one of them.
Back when Snapcaster was brand new I played 2 main and 1 side in my Counterbalance-deck. This was before Miracles and we had to rely on Path to exile in our sideboards to get the job done. There were also Spell pierces in the sideboard meaning Snapcaster would be great in any matchup where we wanted either Spell Pierce or Path to exile (pretty much every time). I had not enough fodder for the 3rd snapcaster in my maindeck and even though I brought him in all the time he was a sideboard card. The same idea applies today. Extra snapcaster is nice when we bring flusterstorm, reb or whenever swords to plowshares is mvp. Overloading on snapcasters can be dangerous if certain hate is sided in to combat them. In this case the most commonly played graveyard hate is Rip and Deathrite Shaman. The first is not something that's worth a card against us anyway and I would be happy to see my opponent wasting a card on that. Deathrite is trickier but can be played around, and should be played around, anyway no matter how many snapcasters we have. Relic of progentius is the only card I can think of that is good against snapcaster but it rarely sees any play.

This leads to something else I wanted to bring up; The Rest in peace of our own.
The only goyf/drs-deck without abrupt decay we bring rip in against is RUG (Im currently on the "dodge decay completly-plan vs BUG). Is RUG a big part of the current metagame? I think not... There are a few grindy graveyard decks with loam, but those are not a big part of the meta either. Graveyard hate is mostly there for Dredge and Reanimator. So, given that we play Snapcasters is Surgical Extraction for example much worse than rip? I think it's actually better than rip vs Reanimator and vs dredge it's "good enough". The upside of surgical is that instead of beeing a non-bo with snapcaster it's actually great. I would for example bring it in versus aluren, storm, sneak and show and maybe painter. Instead of 2 rip and 1 cage Im currently running I could see playing 1 rip (or whatever), 2 surgivals and maybe even a relic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Einherjer

But Judgements versatility has another aspect to it that is pretty essential. Due to its potential to deal with literally everything you have to put the first copy of this card in your mainboard, not in your sideboard. I've been playing

---

You are right: Judgement is super versatile. However, the 2 main reasons it deserves a SB slot is that it's actually the only dedicated solution to TNN & Planeswalkers. In fact the comparison between CS and Judgement is quite misleading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Einherjer

As you realized correctly it does not influence any MU in a great way as things cards like Keranos, but if you look at my sideboard - most cards do not instantly win a game of Magic.

---

You're using a blunt hyperbole here. I never implied that SB cards should win games immediately, but have a strong potential to tip the game in our favor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Einherjer

Flusterstorm is just another counterspell for Instants and Sorceries

---

I disagree: Flusterstorm is not just another CS. Its mana cost, limited applications and Storm ability makes it targeted hate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Einherjer

EE is just another removal with a wide range of applications

---

EE is not just not any other removal. It's limited by sunburst, but acts as a neat wiper. And is indeed very nifty and (sorry for repeating myself) dedicated hate against permanent-heavy decks. In fact, there are few if any better dedicated hate cards against archetypes along the lines of Enchantress AND creature-heavy decks out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Einherjer

Disenchant is yet another way to deal with non-creature permanents

---

---> nope. It's actually a prime example of what I mean by actual hate spells. It's application range is rather limited but its effect can tip a game. i. e. removing Vial twice via Disenchant + SCM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Einherjer

I don't agree on Fluster and Disenchant being direct cards for certain MUs, as you can bring in Fluster against any Delver deck, any combo deck, and if you run a slightly (like 1 card off) list of mine you can bring it in in the Mirror too.
Clique is yet another disruptive spell.

---

See comments above. Just because you can bring in powerful SB cards against more than one archetype doesn't make them less dedicated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Einherjer

If you play like 5 times against RUG and 5 times against Storm you'd love to have those extra RIPs, Supreme Verdicts and Ethersworn Canonists, but this isn't going to happen.

---

This again is overly simplifying and in no way a proper argument in favor of CS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Einherjer

And when you mention O-Ring. My sideboarded Judgment isn't anything more than a way better O-Ring due to its ability to hit shrouded+protected stuff, doing tricks (Top, Vial) and being able to Snapcaster back.

---

Moot point. I never questioned the power of Judgement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Einherjer

I concluded that those things are not needed, as more versatile many-sided cards are better for a format that is as open as Legacy.
Approaching the Sideboard this way let's you be better prepared for an open metagame.

---

Disagree. 15 slots is indeed a tight confinement, but it allows enough space to -specifically- address the most common / problematic MUs.
I'd rather be able to bring in 5 superb SB cards, than 9 OK ones. Your assessment especially irritates me, considering that you propose 4-Ponder builds, allowing you to find those superb cards quite easily, while allowing for fewer SB copies, as they virtually multiply via cantrips. I mean: with 4 BS, 4 Ponder, 4 Tops (not counting SCM'ed canrtips and Jace) - I could totally see myself going with a SB boasting slick 1/2-ofs.

For those who play Miracles with the Stone Forge/Batterskull package main, do you board that out vs the majority of the combo decks, or leave it in for additional pressure, or is it dependent upon how much you have to bring in for games two and three?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by funnywille

Hey, I'm wondering if you guys have any insight on the burn matchup? I was the 2nd place player at SCG Vegas, and I have to admit to not being familiar with the matchup at all. I believe I did

I'm sure my play wasn't spectacular either. Game 1, I felt like a Plains + Top + Counterbalance + some other stuff on 6 cards was more playable than a 5 card hand on the draw. Then, I was considering racing with my Angel token instead of blocking Eidolon, since we were both at 14 with a Vortex on board. In the end, I felt like I had to block and hope for the Angel to eat a Lavamancer activation and hope to top my one out to Vortex. Searing Blaze sort of ended any hope I had.
Game 2, I opened Counterbalance + Top + Pierce in hand, and I topped on my second upkeep instead of slamming Counterbalance so I could Pierce Sulfuric Vortex if necessary. The Vexing Shusher sort of wrecked me. I had a bit of hope after I Terminus'ed it away, but I Brainstormed a one drop back on top because I thought he had a one drop he wanted to play with Vexing Shusher, and I didn't think he would keep Price of Progress against me.

---

First of all, congrats on your Swiss and playoff rounds to get yourself to the Final. Second, your Final is painful to watch.

Entreat is useless most of time. It's only useful for 2 things:
1. Float CB to flip for Vortex and rift bolt
2. Race opponent's life total if Vortex resolves for whatever reasons. This point is very important. You need to have an out against a resolved Vortex, the outs are: Entreat and go aggro ASAP, or find a Council's Judgement ASAP.

Your goal in this match-up:
1. get CB into play asap.
2. float 2 and 6. 2 would keep Price, Revel, and Searing away. 6 would keep Fireblast away. Try to hard-counter anything that cost 3.
3. once you have a clean board and you're able to stick in a Jace with immediate 5 loyalty, you're way ahead. if CB-T is applied, it's pretty much over.

Like Sullivan said, you'll probably lose if you cannot find CB in time. The hidden gem in this match-up is actually StP. Lossett's only 2 StP can really hurt here. I save myself plenty of times by StP my own creature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Einherjer

@Shardless BUG: Glad you picked the worst MU of them all :D - Sure let's get into it.

Shardless BUG is one of the decks in the current metagame that has the best shot of supressing Miracles in the long run of a tournament - meaning it is def. possible for Miracles to displatch one Shardless BUG on its way for the Top8, but also that reaching Top8 is going to be very tough if there are many Shardless BUG players in the room, because they'll get you, eventually. Their strengths lie in the fact that they abuse many angles of attack, reaching from Tarmogoyf beatdown, to creating CA with Ancestral Vision to Planeswalkers. Dealing with one, sometimes even two angles is no problem at all. Getting to fight the war on all three angles on the other hand is a tough one, and the basic reason why this MU isn't good at all. I tested the MU against one of the best Shardless-players (Lejay) and our 20-match-test-row ended in a fashion that represents the percentage of how this MU plays out if neither of the decks is overly tuned to beat the other one. --> 9:11. I obviously tested this MU more than just 20 games, but games against masters of their deck add more value to the testing than hundreds of matches against somebody.

---

Unnecessarily long. My take only requires 4 words: Blood Moon and Misdirection.

If you really want to improve this MU, run More of the cards I've just mentioned.

Responses like this make me reconsider whether I should post at all and invest any more work aka primer. Won't respond to the thread for a while. Feel free to hit me up via PM as usual.

Greetings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Einherjer

Responses like this make me reconsider whether I should post at all and invest any more work aka primer. Won't respond to the thread for a while. Feel free to hit me up via PM as usual.

Greetings

---

Seriously? Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean your work on the archetype isn't appreciated. Actually, I'm pretty sure the whole point of posting on forums is to get as many different point of views as possible. You should be happy that not everyone is kissing your feet and agreeing with all of your assessments, since that wouldn't make your decklist or matchup theories any better. I know I appreciate the work you put in and enjoy most of the posts you write. Don't cop out because someone disagrees, try and take the response with an open mind and think about what he meant by it. After all it wasn't a personal attack or anything of that nature, it was constructive criticism. Isn't that what you're here for in the first place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HammafistRoob

Seriously? Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean your work on the archetype isn't appreciated. Actually, I'm pretty sure the whole point of posting on forums is to get as many different point of views as possible. You should be happy that not everyone is kissing your feet and agreeing with all of your assessments, since that wouldn't make your decklist or matchup theories any better. I know I appreciate the work you put in and enjoy most of the posts you write. Don't cop out because someone disagrees, try and take the response with an open mind and think about what he meant by it. After all it wasn't a personal attack or anything of that nature, it was constructive criticism. Isn't that what you're here for in the first place?

---

Oh sorry, might not have made it clear enough. It's not because Klaus disagrees with me. Its the way twndomn answers, thats just unrespectful and hilarious.

Greetings

EDIT: But yeah, maybe I overreacted. I should just get around and put him on ignore once and for all. Will answer your Klaus as soon as I have time.

Sorry for the drama boys, will get to constructive content as soon as I have the time to. *sighs*

Ahh I see, I misunderstood your post. Well I'm glad I could somewhat help and you know I'm looking forward to your more constructive posts. It's funny because none of my own posts are very constructive :).

So Ein, thanks for input on the MUD MU. I forgot to mention another fringe deck I may have to face in the future at my local game store. You might just laugh when ask about it... GW ENCHANTRESS. What should I know about the matchup? I have heard it is another bad matchup for miracles. There is one person at my local game store, sort of a troll actually, that insists on playing it 99% of the time even though he gets smashed by the BUG Delver players in our meta frequently. Would appreciate input on this MU from you and anyone else who has experience with it at all.

It seems to me like Counterspell and Council's Judgment can both function either as dedicated hate cards or as generalized answers. That's part of their power. Counterspell is dedicated hate against things you do not want to resolve (such as combo pieces and various bombs), while is also happens to answer things that you'd rather not resolve but can otherwise deal with. Similarly, Council's Judgment specifically answers hard-to-deal-with permanents such as Planeswalkers and True-Name Nemesis, while it also happens to generally answer anything else that sits on the battlefield.

As such, Council's Judgment tends to be better in fair/interactive matchups, while Counterspell really gets to shine against non-interactive matchups (and either one is pretty good against Control). Right now, I think that the meta is leaning much more on the fair side of things and as such I think that Council's Judgment is much better positioned than Counterspell as a "catchall" sort of slot. I'd consider the biggest non-interactive strategies right now to be Elves and Dredge (and possibly Burn). Counterspell is great against Burn, alright against Elves, and poor against Dredge. If I saw more Storm decks or more Sneak Attack decks or maybe even more MUD and 12-Post decks then I'd say Counterspell is worth the slot, but for the current meta I don't find the additional Counterspell to be much needed.

And @funnywille: Congrats on the finish! I was sad to see you lose, but I definitely don't much like facing Burn in a tournament. As others have said, Counterbalance+Top is pretty much your only route to victory but if you resolve them then it's definitely a very good route. All manner of countermagic is good against them, including FoW. Even Venser lets you stall them and can even blow them out if they Fireblast. I like Clique because it can block and it can proactively get rid of their finishers (mainly Vortex and Fireblast).

I wouldn't side out any Terminus due to Eidolon and the ability to flip a six for Fireblast. In my experience, it's the permanents in the Burn deck that kill you: Shusher, Eidolon, early Goblin Guides, even Hellspark Elemental, and of course Vortex. Without their creatures to constantly pressure you, there's a good chance you stabilize, but even a couple swings from any creature will put you in very dangerous territory. Plow is very good in the matchup, either at answering their guys or for Plowing your own to gain life. Plowing a creature in response to Searing Blood is gravy.

Knowing his decklist, if I were you I would have sideboarded like so:

+2 Flusterstorm, +1 Pithing Needle (for Shusher), +1 Wear//Tear, +1 Vendilion Clique
-3 Jace, -1 Entreat, -1 Ponder

Ponder lets you find Counterbalance or Top and Entreat provides blockers or a clock. I could see a case for either taking out both Ponders or both Entreats, but it's probably safest to just take out one of each. Jace is clunky and forces you to tap too much mana during your turn, I don't see many arguments for leaving in Jace over another card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Einherjer

Oh sorry, might not have made it clear enough. It's not because Klaus disagrees with me. Its the way twndomn answers, thats just unrespectful and hilarious.

Greetings

EDIT: But yeah, maybe I overreacted. I should just get around and put him on ignore once and for all. Will answer your Klaus as soon as I have time.

Sorry for the drama boys, will get to constructive content as soon as I have the time to. *sighs*

---

You should keep scrolling whenever you see twndomn. There's never anything worth reading in his posts.


Just look at his sig:

Quote:

---

Am I in your head? Are you mad? :laugh:

---

Obvious Troll is Obvious.


I'll have to give Keranos a try now. I did not think of him being as half-jace, half-entreat.

@Ein: Yeah, I follow the thread very closely, so I've read the previous few pages.

@lordofthepit: Do you really think EE is that bad now? On 2, it answered Vexing Shusher and Eidolon, and in a pinch, I can always go to 3 and get rid of Vortex, though it was much more unlikely in that matchup.
My greed definitely lost me game 2 there. The only must-counter threat against burn was really just Sulfuric Vortex and he was only running 2 copies. Any other spell, I would have let resolve, and I had his 1s locked up with CB. I figured that Jace would eat a Price or maybe he would just replay Vexing Shusher. I was also pushed towards resolving Jace because my top 3 were very useless, and the entire game would have depended on the 3 cards I found with the fetch. I hoped to have another turn to Jacestorm the Miracles away. If I took the Swords in that case, I would have been left with Karakas, Jace, random. I would probably have had to fetch away Jace and been left with nothing again. My hand of Terminus, Entreat, Pierce wasn't very impressive. I actually considered brainstorming with Jace, keeping Swords and Top, fetching away the 2 Miracles, and using Swords on Shusher. However, then I would have been vulnerable to any 1's...

@twndomn: Yeah, I agree with what you say. However, I've played against burn a few times over the weekend, and it is REALLY HARD to get the lock, and even then, I've died to multiple Fireblasts when I haven't been able to find Terminus.

@dzra: Wow, that leaves you with very few win-conditions. Though I usually trim a couple Jaces, even I hesitate to trim all but 1 Entreat. Or maybe you just go on the beatdown plan with a few creatures instead? If I remember correctly, you play something like Lossett's Karakas/Venser version right? So it'd be much easier to be on a creature plan. You would add in your other Venser too? I was actually on the Karakas/Venser stuff until Saturday, before I decided that the clunkiness of Venser sometimes is just not worth the cool tricks you can do with it anymore. I didn't expect many S&S. I only missed the card once, against a Reanimator who got out Iona on White.

I see I was most probably incorrect in taking out some number of Terminus. I thought that the spot removal + ambush creatures would be enough to deal with the creatures, and it was better having creatures than having a 6 mana sorcery that could become awful if stuck in my hand. I think I was too used to playing against the older versions of burn, which rarely have more than 1 creature on the field.

In general, it seems like there is a disagreement on whether or not Entreat is super useful or not. I've always played the Burn matchup as a race to get the lock/grind them out, and boarded out a lot of win-conditions. I've never really considered using Entreat to quickly close out the game. I'll give it a try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Einherjer

@funnywille: Read the last 2 pages, we've talked about the Burn-MU quite a lot there :)

@MUD: Lol, someone asked me on Twitter too. This MU seems to trouble everybody. First, I'll you what my score in high-level-tournaments is. 0-1-1. Yes, that spectatular! Even though this deck is by far easier to beat than MUD it's still troublesome, at least some variants. If they have the Cloudpost-engine it's super tough, because its basically Cloudpost. If they play the Vintage-version then we have the best shot, as killing and countering is no problem. But if they play the Port+Skull - version it's tough once again, at least when the opponent knows how to operate this deck. As said previously, I wouldn't worry too much about this MU. It is winable, but a decent keep vs unknown will probably not cut it. All you basically want is a Top, Removal and Counterspells. Let their easy lockpieces resolve (like sphere of resistance, trinisphere and other stuff) and try to get them by just dealing with their creatures and Karn.

@Shardless BUG: Glad you picked the worst MU of them all :D - Sure let's get into it.

Shardless BUG is one of the decks in the current metagame that has the best shot of supressing Miracles in the long run of a tournament - meaning it is def. possible for Miracles to displatch one Shardless BUG on its way for the Top8, but also that reaching Top8 is going to be very tough if there are many Shardless BUG players in the room, because they'll get you, eventually. Their strengths lie in the fact that they abuse many angles of attack, reaching from Tarmogoyf beatdown, to creating CA with Ancestral Vision to Planeswalkers. Dealing with one, sometimes even two angles is no problem at all. Getting to fight the war on all three angles on the other hand is a tough one, and the basic reason why this MU isn't good at all. I tested the MU against one of the best Shardless-players (Lejay) and our 20-match-test-row ended in a fashion that represents the percentage of how this MU plays out if neither of the decks is overly tuned to beat the other one. --> 9:11. I obviously tested this MU more than just 20 games, but games against masters of their deck add more value to the testing than hundreds of matches against somebody.

Due to the natura of their restrictive deckbuilding you shouldn't worry about any countermagic, with the exception of the omnipresent Force of Will. This makes resolving Entreat the Angels pretty easy, which wins the game on the spot, most of the time. Preboard they might have Toxic Deluge, however they can't afford to keep it in in the sideboarded games and will probably rely on something like Maelstrom Pulse. - so keep those Angels flashy if you can.

So let's get to how to board:

3 Tundra
2 Volcanic Island
4 Flooded Strand
4 Scalding Tarn
2 Arid Mesa
4 Island
2 Plains

4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Sensei's Divining Top

4 Counterbalance
4 Force of Will
3 Snapcaster Mage
2 Counterspell

4 Swords to Plowshares
4 Terminus
1 Council's Judgement

3 Jace, the Mind Sculptor
2 Entreat the Angels

SB: 2 Red Elemental Blast
SB: 2 Rest in Peace
SB: 1 Pyroblast
SB: 2 Engineered Explosives
SB: 1 Counterspell
SB: 2 Flusterstorm
SB: 1 Disenchant
SB: 2 Vendilion Clique
SB: 1 Council's Judgement
SB: 1 Keranos, God of Storms

There is no such thing as a 100% correct boarding plan. There's a general direction that's correct and you can choose to which extent you will follow this approach, but following its direction is mandatory.

So first we are looking at the sideboard, what do we want in the sideboarded games?
Keranos is obviously very good against Shardless BUG, and very good doesn't even catch how insane he is there. Council's Judgement deals with everything but Creeping Tar Pit - sure. Vendilion Cliques pressure Planeswalkers, can kill the opponent and are able to chump-block, easy include. Disenchant will answer some evil stuff like Sylvan Library, at the very worst it deals with a Shardless Agent. Flusterstorms aren't good here. Counterspell is easily on of the best cards here, auto-include. Engineered Explosives are very potent when it comes to dealing with various threats from multiple angles. So it's correct to put them in. REBs and Pyros are very good as Jace + Vision are two of the main-threats here, whereas RIP isn't good enough. So we now have:

1 Keranos
1 Judgement
2 Clique
1 Disenchant
1 Counterspell
2 EE
2 REB
1 Pyro

That's 11 cards, which is quite a lot. Now let's look at we can take out:

Force of Will is not where we want to be, due to the nature of FoW, you all know that. Counterbalance is pretty unrelieable, not only due to Decay but mostly due to the fact that we have to deploy Counterbalance fast, in order to counter Vision, which then let's them Decay it EoT or in their Upkeep, leaving us with less ressources and therefore ensuring their Vision to resolve, which is crucial. Swords to Plowshares isn't at its best here, too, but is still a powerful tool to deal with a card like Creeping Tar Pit, which can be rather annoying to handle, otherwise.

The first thing you have to ask yourself is whether you want all 3 REB or only 2. Going less than 2 is no choice, as REB answers Jace+Vision, which is very crucial to our game plan. I'd go with three in the second game, and cut to two if I see enourmous amounts of Wastelands. But generally it might be correct to take all 4.

The next step to think about is how afraid you are of Sylvan Library and other mean enchantments/artefacts. You do have access to up to 5 answers to it, being 2 Judgement, 2 EE and 1 Disenchant. Despite the fact that EE does not deal with Null Rod it might be too much. I think that 4 is the minimum, and 5 being the maximum, with Disenchant being the 5th card, which can get the axe, depending on how you wish to board.

From all the cards that are coming out, Swords to Plowshares is the one that can stay the most, so this should be the place where fill mainboarded cards back to the sideboarded deck should you decide to not include all the possible options. So if you want to be on the safer side you can bring in less REBs and keep more Swords.

This leaves me with the following approach, but as said above, you can easily board a card more or less, the direction is all that matters here.

-4 Force of Will
-4 Counterbalance
-2 Swords to Plowshares
+2 Vendilion Clique
+1 Counterspell
+1 Keranos, God of Storms
+2 Engineered Explosives
+1 Council's Judgement
+2 Red Elemental Blast
+1 Pyroblast

General tips for the MU:

Utilize Terminus to combat their enourmous CA.
Counter Vision with Counterspell as you can. It may not be worth countering with your Force of Will, though - at least if you don't hardcast it.
Be patient with the deployance of your game-ending threats (Jace, Entreat, Keranos)
Counterbalance can counter Ancestral Vision with a Land on top
Waste most of your effort on their Planeswalkers + Vision. Their creatures will be dealt with, eventually. (hopefully)


Okay, well this wasn't as extensive as I'd have liked it to be, but I gotta head to university now, if anything is unclear, leave a comment below and I'll go into more detail. Do you disagree? I'd gladly hear your counter-opinion!

Greetings

---

Is counterbalance really that bad in this matchup?

I've often found it to be quite the opposite. CB is one of the only few ways, apart from entreat that really helps to fend off the insane CA engine that Shardless BUG has. An blind CB also hits A.Visions ~30% of the time.

An active CB really puts a damper on Shardless game plan. Adding in RIP to overload abrupt decay also helps to keep the CB in play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KZhang

Is counterbalance really that bad in this matchup?

I've often found it to be quite the opposite. CB is one of the only few ways, apart from entreat that really helps to fend off the insane CA engine that Shardless BUG has. An blind CB also hits A.Visions ~30% of the time.

---

I've found Counterbalance to be pretty good actually; the problem is just that it isn't reliable and we have better cards to bring in. They basically just have Jace and Ancestral that need to get countered and REBs cover those. Terminus and Supreme Verdict handle their creatures at good card advantage for us. Liliana can be dealt with in a number of ways, especially with Council's Judgment. Sure, Counterbalance can answer all of those things, but it doesn't do it reliably enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dzra

I've found Counterbalance to be pretty good actually; the problem is just that it isn't reliable and we have better cards to bring in. They basically just have Jace and Ancestral that need to get countered and REBs cover those. Terminus and Supreme Verdict handle their creatures at good card advantage for us. Liliana can be dealt with in a number of ways, especially with Council's Judgment. Sure, Counterbalance can answer all of those things, but it doesn't do it reliably enough.

---

Keranos and Council's Judgment changes everything. Without those we were forced to keep Counterbalance to stand a chance fighting their CA (and in the end, their planeswalkers). Now we can instead focus on surviving because our end-game with jace, entreat, batterskull and keranos is on par with whatever they are doing + our topdecks are generally much better. The loopsided strategy and guessing game of relying on Counterbalance to stop their ancestral vision is not needed anymore.

When discussing this matchup we have to consider a lot of things. Shardless BUG attack from a lot of angles and the matchup is very grindy. I allways vote for the plan that is the least loopsided but still "good enough". Basicly the least loopsided strategy wasn't good enough without judgment/keranos. I get tired when people suggest Blood Moon for this matchup because nobody takes into consideration how likely it is to have it in play when it matters (the very defintion of a loopsided card). If you want to be consistent about it you either run about 3 copies or play with enlightened tutor and I don't think we have room for either in the current metagame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mackan

Keranos and Council's Judgment changes everything. Without those we were forced to keep Counterbalance to stand a chance fighting their CA (and in the end, their planeswalkers). Now we can instead focus on surviving because our end-game with jace, entreat, batterskull and keranos is on par with whatever they are doing + our topdecks are generally much better. The loopsided strategy and guessing game of relying on Counterbalance to stop their ancestral vision is not needed anymore.

When discussing this matchup we have to consider a lot of things. Shardless BUG attack from a lot of angles and the matchup is very grindy. I allways vote for the plan that is the least loopsided but still "good enough". Basicly the least loopsided strategy wasn't good enough without judgment/keranos. I get tired when people suggest Blood Moon for this matchup because nobody takes into consideration how likely it is to have it in play when it matters (the very defintion of a loopsided card). If you want to be consistent about it you either run about 3 copies or play with enlightened tutor and I don't think we have room for either in the current metagame.

---

Wait! What do Keranos/Judgement change that their +3 cardadvantage suddenly doesn't matter anymore?? I think some peoples enjoyment over Keranos as a 5-mana off-color lategame bomb and CJ as a Silver bullet goes too far at this point...