Miracle Control

For all the people hating on Predict. Why is predict good? Because we play fewer lands than we used to. With fewer lands we cannot afford to miss our land drops and Predict helps with that, especially when our Ponders and Brainstorms get turned off by Chalice of the Void. It helps us dig for our answers and win conditions faster. Since we are also playing less fetchlands than we used to, (down to 9 from 10) it allows us to make sure the top 3 cards of our library stay valuable for a longer period of time. What Predict does is allows us to play the leanest version of Miracles possible. It is also a fantastic card when Monastery Mentor is in your 75.

If one were to look at the classic core of Miracles you would find there isn't a lot of room for adding in extra cards. In order to make room for these cards, we're forced to cut lands and card advantage spells. Predict makes up for those cuts.

So the core of Miracles looks like this

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

3 Snapcaster Mage

3 Jace, the Mind Sculptor

4 Brainstorm
4 Sensei's Divining Top
4 Counterbalance
4 Force of Will
4 Swords to Plowshares
4 Ponder
4 Terminus
2 Counterspell
2 Entreat the Angels

With this core there are 0 cuts for making use of 1 of answers that we have to play now like Engineered Explosives, Council's Judgment, and Kozilek's Return. Cards that we must find in a timely manner or we are very likely to die. So when you think about what cards to cut, the only cards that are cuttable are cards that still give you an advantage on cards. So you want to add in Monastery Mentor? that's fine but then you have to look at cutting cards like Entreat the Angels and Terminus because they fill similar roles. Now the deck becomes less consistent and Monastery Mentor is effective against some decks but not all decks, is easy to answer in Game 1 and makes winning on the spot a whole lot harder with fewer copies (or no copies in some lists) of Entreat the Angels. So you have to make cuts elsewhere. Some people tried cutting Counterbalance and realized that it was a terrible idea. You don't want less counterbalances than your opponent in the mirror match otherwise you're more likely to get locked out. So we have to trim on some cards like Jace, Counterspell, and Lands. But if you just cut Jace and Counterspell to put in cards like Engineered Explosives and Council's Judgment, well you just cut a lot of your long game card advantage. So if we trim on lands and add Predict, we're able to now play these extra cards, keep our card advantage engines running, without sacrificing consistency. The way the format is looking these days some future cuts of Force of Will and maybe even the other Counterspell for other cards might be what the deck does moving forward.

Right now I'm testing out Anuraak Das's list which is 1 card different than Sam Roukas's list and have a 65% win percentage with it in 20 games so far. The list for reference

Miracles
Anuraak Das
24th Place at StarCityGames.com Legacy Open on 11/5/2016
Legacy

Creatures (3)
3 Snapcaster Mage

Planeswalkers (2)
2 Jace, the Mind Sculptor

Lands (20)
4 Island
2 Plains
1 Arid Mesa
4 Flooded Strand
4 Scalding Tarn
3 Tundra
2 Volcanic Island

Spells (35)
1 Engineered Explosives
4 Sensei's Divining Top
4 Counterbalance
4 Brainstorm
1 Counterspell
4 Force of Will
2 Predict
4 Swords to Plowshares
1 Council's Judgment
2 Entreat the Angels
4 Ponder
4 Terminus

Sideboard
2 Monastery Mentor
2 Flusterstorm
1 Kozilek's Return
2 Pyroblast
1 Red Elemental Blast
2 Surgical Extraction
2 Wear
2 Vendilion Clique
1 Mountain

I feel like this is where we want our Miracles list to be. It has everything we need:
1) Answers to Chalice of the Void in Game 1
2) Extra land available in the sideboard when we're up against a mana denial deck
3) The ability to switch between a list focused to beat combo and a list focused to beat aggro

With these 75 cards, we're able to mix/match our cards to be most effective against aggressive strategies or combo/control strategies. We may not have any super hoser cards against anything in particular, but we have all the tools at our disposal to give ourselves the ability to play the best control game possible against anything that's thrown our way.

mini-report

round 1: dnt
I don't know why he would cast Palace Jailer after I have Entreated. I got to attack him when he has no flyer And I got to draw a card at each end step, sign me up!
1-0

round 2: elves
Timely Terminus. Elves players seem to think that Miracles player always has it on the Natural order turn.
2-0

round 3:legend miracles
This guy is just not very good, he didn't understand the approach in the mirror, even kept couple StP in the SB matches.
3-0

round 4: dnt
This guy is nuts, he has double ghost quarters. I was forced to lose a Mentor because I was under heavy pressure and cannot find removals for a stint. Then his 2nd ghost quarter, which was a surprise to me when he played it, cut me off from winning via Entreat. On the last possible turn, I found last Mentor, played Tundra and cast it, saved myself from losing a 20+ minute game 1.
4-0

round 5: aluren
Game 1 he flashback-ed therapy then combo off, I was not able to float the counter. Game 2 he Shardless Agent valued me to death.
4-1

round 6: elves
Same result as round 2, a timely clique cut off Natural order, you kind of had to sense if he's going for it.
5-1

round 7: id

quarter-final: lands
This person gambled for loam game 1 early, I was about the wet my pants if this person gambled for the missing piece. Boseiju + Loam = sad news for Miracles. Some lands players now MD a single Boseiju. If they've managed to get that mini-combo going, you must, must, cut off Exploration and try to win quickly. Won. Split and went home after that.

Take-away:
I ran 3 Ponder, replaced 4th Ponder with a Spell Snare. I was used to 1 Counterspell and 4 Ponders, but Lossett and everyone else started to run Snare, figured I should give another shot. I am much happier on the card this time around, too bad I can't find a slot for both the 4th Ponder and Snare, as I am still running 1 CJ and 1 EE.

Tonight I've been thinking about the difference between playing online and in real life. For a long time I didn't really think there was one. The metagame might shift a little bit here or there because of card prices and the player base, but I didn't think that mattered (CON2 changes that but let's set that aside for now). I have never had a different version for each. Anything I was playing was happening in both locations. However, for going on a year now my results have been radically different.

On MTGO I do okay. I don't keep track anymore but am confident I win more than 50% in leagues, but probably not much more. I played in three Legacy Challenges and have done poorly each time. There are a number of Miracle pilots who perform significantly better than I do.

At live events I would be hard-pressed to name anyone currently playing the deck in the US that is on my level, and the results bear that out. You may disagree. But the point of this post is not to glorify myself but to figure out what causes the disparity.

I can think of a few possible reasons. Maybe someone else has another.

1 The real life metagame is better suited to legend miracles.
2 I play significantly worse online.
3 Other people play better online.
4 MTGO is a harder field than real life.
5 Some aspect of tournament logistics gives me an advantage.
6 Lots of players are ghosting.
7 Byes

#1 is possible. I feel like there is more delver online, and that isn't my best matchup. My concentration level is much higher at tournaments than playing online, so #2 makes some sense. That should be fixable but will probably take serious work. #3 makes more sense now that I have witnessed AnziD mess up mechanically a few times. I know he crushes online where it is impossible to draw a card and forget to check if it is a miracle. That segues into #4, which I definitely believe to be true. I don't think #6 is an issue, and I had never even thought of it before I made this little list. Finally #7. This helps, but I can't imagine it is the sole difference. Also there are no byes in SCG classics, and I have been doing well in those too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drocker23

" Predict is not particularly good to set-up a Terminus "

Yes it is. You just put Terminus second from the top.

---

I mean, Predict make you draw, right, but that's it. To make a set-up, you need to know where terminus is in the top card of your library, and Predict on its own can't tell you that (just like Impulse). You need something else (Ponder, Sensei's Top) to actually MAKE the Terminus set-up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kravkenov

I mean, Predict make you draw, right, but that's it. To make a set-up, you need to know where terminus is in the top card of your library, and Predict on its own can't tell you that (just like Impulse). You need something else (Ponder, Sensei's Top) to actually MAKE the Terminus set-up.

---

predict helps find terminus, if you need it (by decreasing library size), and it helps protect it, by drawing protection/find protection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutthroatCasual

This deck is going to get banned because of this knob on cam right now :mad:

---

I am said knob in the NALC top 8. I was joking during and directly following my match that I was certainly not helping the argument to keep top unbanned. My play was super sloppy and slow in the top 8, which I attribute to my very poor sleep the night before. (I almost always Day 2 GPs/SCGs, but I had never top 8'ed an event larger than 500 people and the tournament I want to win more than any other is Champs. Excitement kept me restless, and I only got about 2 hours sleep total.)

While the play didn't seem slow at the venue with all the joking between players, judges and crowd, it was slow and appears glacial on camera. The vast majority of the blame is mine. Fwiw, in the semifinals, my opponent Macenzie Doyle was very precise and technically accurate with his actions, especially port activations. I cannot fault him for doing the correct plays, but it does prolong the game. For several turns in a row I tried to shortcut "you are tapping my white sources during my upkeep" which ended up frustrating him and actually prolonging the game. After I gave up trying to shortcut, it went faster, but still not as fast as if I could have just kept the targeted lands tapped every turn.

I apologize for anything I did to enhance the stereotype that miracles players are glacially slow and that top is a time waster. I assure you, it was not intentional. If anything, it's the opposite since I designed my deck to be about as fast as possible without resorting to maindeck mentors/cliques.

In the Jaceless (or 1Jace) version, anyway, I find that more than 4 Miracle are way too dangerous and you have to rely on your Brainstorm much more.

I think I would do like 3 Terminus and 1 Entreat.

Overall with the rise of DnT and Eldrazi I question myself on the opportunity of 4Counterbalances..

Sudden Shock is instead stellar against both Mentor Miracle, Infect and DnT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loam_Fohr_Lyphe

Fwiw, in the semifinals, my opponent Macenzie Doyle was very precise and technically accurate with his actions, especially port activations. I cannot fault him for doing the correct plays, but it does prolong the game. For several turns in a row I tried to shortcut "you are tapping my white sources during my upkeep" which ended up frustrating him and actually prolonging the game. After I gave up trying to shortcut, it went faster, but still not as fast as if I could have just kept the targeted lands tapped every turn.

---

While I appreciate you had good intentions to shortcut, you can't expect the opponent to do that in this case. What gets ported against Miracles can change a lot depending on the board state, what lands you have and what (in this case) the DnT player has in play and in hand. If he allows the shortcut of just tapping two white sources each turn then you can use this information to float or not float an Entreat of Terminus for example, among many other things. Port is an incredibly complex card in this stage of the game. His frustration was clear on camera, and I would be in his spot too. If you both simply play technically and correctly time wouldn't be an issue in this regard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oarsman

Tonight I've been thinking about the difference between playing online and in real life. For a long time I didn't really think there was one. The metagame might shift a little bit here or there because of card prices and the player base, but I didn't think that mattered (CON2 changes that but let's set that aside for now). I have never had a different version for each. Anything I was playing was happening in both locations. However, for going on a year now my results have been radically different.

On MTGO I do okay. I don't keep track anymore but am confident I win more than 50% in leagues, but probably not much more. I played in three Legacy Challenges and have done poorly each time. There are a number of Miracle pilots who perform significantly better than I do.

At live events I would be hard-pressed to name anyone currently playing the deck in the US that is on my level, and the results bear that out. You may disagree. But the point of this post is not to glorify myself but to figure out what causes the disparity.

I can think of a few possible reasons. Maybe someone else has another.

1 The real life metagame is better suited to legend miracles.
2 I play significantly worse online.
3 Other people play better online.
4 MTGO is a harder field than real life.
5 Some aspect of tournament logistics gives me an advantage.
6 Lots of players are ghosting.
7 Byes

#1 is possible. I feel like there is more delver online, and that isn't my best matchup. My concentration level is much higher at tournaments than playing online, so #2 makes some sense. That should be fixable but will probably take serious work. #3 makes more sense now that I have witnessed AnziD mess up mechanically a few times. I know he crushes online where it is impossible to draw a card and forget to check if it is a miracle. That segues into #4, which I definitely believe to be true. I don't think #6 is an issue, and I had never even thought of it before I made this little list. Finally #7. This helps, but I can't imagine it is the sole difference. Also there are no byes in SCG classics, and I have been doing well in those too.

---

I think it's mostly metagame differences. If you compare the last 2 months on mtgtop8.com you can even see numbers showing a much higher percentage of blue decks in the top tables of MODO tournaments. Meanwhile, Death and Taxes is actually tied with Miracles on paper. Online, I feel as if it's practically a coin flip to play against a Delver/Shardless deck.

This is also a deck where turns could be played several different ways by several different, talented players. It's not like with Aggro where you can do the combat math and come to the "right" decision. There's a lot of intuition that may be affected by your surroundings and mindset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cipher

I think it's mostly metagame differences. If you compare the last 2 months on mtgtop8.com you can even see numbers showing a much higher percentage of blue decks in the top tables of MODO tournaments. Meanwhile, Death and Taxes is actually tied with Miracles on paper. Online, I feel as if it's practically a coin flip to play against a Delver/Shardless deck.

This is also a deck where turns could be played several different ways by several different, talented players. It's not like with Aggro where you can do the combat math and come to the "right" decision. There's a lot of intuition that may be affected by your surroundings and mindset.

---

This is also because when you actually have an human face as your opponent, you can "read" his emotions and appreciate how he plays (speed, confidence, stress, where does he look, etc.). This is not possible in "screen to screen" matches, and it does matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kravkenov

This is also because when you actually have an human face as your opponent, you can "read" his emotions and appreciate how he plays (speed, confidence, stress, where does he look, etc.). This is not possible in "screen to screen" matches, and it does matter.

---

That's a good point. I have always assumed the opposite, but I suppose it is possible that I am picking up more from my opponents than other players are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oarsman

Tonight I've been thinking about the difference between playing online and in real life. For a long time I didn't really think there was one. The metagame might shift a little bit here or there because of card prices and the player base, but I didn't think that mattered (CON2 changes that but let's set that aside for now). I have never had a different version for each. Anything I was playing was happening in both locations. However, for going on a year now my results have been radically different.

On MTGO I do okay. I don't keep track anymore but am confident I win more than 50% in leagues, but probably not much more. I played in three Legacy Challenges and have done poorly each time. There are a number of Miracle pilots who perform significantly better than I do.

At live events I would be hard-pressed to name anyone currently playing the deck in the US that is on my level, and the results bear that out. You may disagree. But the point of this post is not to glorify myself but to figure out what causes the disparity.

I can think of a few possible reasons. Maybe someone else has another.

1 The real life metagame is better suited to legend miracles.
2 I play significantly worse online.
3 Other people play better online.
4 MTGO is a harder field than real life.
5 Some aspect of tournament logistics gives me an advantage.
6 Lots of players are ghosting.
7 Byes

#1 is possible. I feel like there is more delver online, and that isn't my best matchup. My concentration level is much higher at tournaments than playing online, so #2 makes some sense. That should be fixable but will probably take serious work. #3 makes more sense now that I have witnessed AnziD mess up mechanically a few times. I know he crushes online where it is impossible to draw a card and forget to check if it is a miracle. That segues into #4, which I definitely believe to be true. I don't think #6 is an issue, and I had never even thought of it before I made this little list. Finally #7. This helps, but I can't imagine it is the sole difference. Also there are no byes in SCG classics, and I have been doing well in those too.

---

You definitely have more experience than I do, but #1 is, for me, anecdotally the most likely explanation. The online metagame tends to be much more streamlined, especially since you tend to play against the same people (who only own a few decks), and people are more competitive there anyway.

In real life there's a large variety of decks: people play things like random blue Stoneforge decks, Painter, Junk, Jund, or crazy brews. That dilutes your bad delver matchups. Also, people in real life often don't have access to playing against good Miracles players so their experience playing against Miracles is limited.

I think the major difference between online and paper is that there aren't as many great Legacy players grinding paper tournaments in the US (which is basically SCG circuit) as there are playing online.

in a matter of years, online will be better than paper for everything.

More comfortable, cheaper, safer..

there is need to play physically also the world series. In 5 years, I think we will be there

Hi everyone! I need some input:

How many FoWs would you put in your deck going into a GP?

I'm running a Legends build and am trying to decide if I need all 4 or if I can go down to 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icedagger

Hi everyone! I need some input:

How many FoWs would you put in your deck going into a GP?

I'm running a Legends build and am trying to decide if I need all 4 or if I can go down to 3.

---

Play 4. 3 is a trap.

Guys, what about Ash Barrens?

It dodges Blood Moon, it's perfect with From the Ashes, it's much better than any fetchland against Thalia 2.0 and allow you to fetch 3 colors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loam_Fohr_Lyphe

I apologize for anything I did to enhance the stereotype that miracles players are glacially slow and that top is a time waster. I assure you, it was not intentional.

---

What do you have to say about the excessive time spent resolving Top activations? On more than one occasion you would arrange the 3 cards within 5 seconds (which is great) but then spend the next 15+ looking at that order and back at your hand before putting the cards back on top without anything changing.

And then what about when you: activated Top, shuffled the 3 cards around, then put them back in order? What exactly were you trying to accomplish? Because no one does that anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poron

Guys, what about Ash Barrens?

It dodges Blood Moon, it's perfect with From the Ashes, it's much better than any fetchland against Thalia 2.0 and allow you to fetch 3 colors.

---

Don't see how we would use this. It costs one mana, so the net result is the same against Thalia 2.0 and with from the Ashes I would rather destroy one of my duals / fetches to go get a basic. We have no use for colourless mana.

I'm not sure how From the Ashes is relevant to Ash Barrens at all. What's the interaction here? I mean, they both allow you to search out basics. Yeay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twndomn

1. Assume your name is Not Joe Lossett, think long and hard if you want to run Legend build in a GP. Do you really want to be durdling with "block with legendary creature, bounce it with Karakas" play?

2. Assume your name is Not Joe Lossett, how long have you been playing on Legend build? We are not referring to Miracles the archetype, we are referring to Legend build specifically. This is the most time consuming version, you need to get pass a long learning curve to get pass draws.

3. When BR reanimator recently becomes a thing, I'm not sure 4 FoW is enough. We would turn 1 FoW on Aether Vial, every, single, time, correct? Do you really want to run 3? I guess the counter-argument is that Legend build has 2 Karakas. However, if your opponent gets to draw 7, I would say damage is already done.

---

1. I've spent more time practicing on the Legend build than I have on any of the other Miracle variants. Right now it's the only variant I'd be confident enough to pilot at a major event.

2. Not that long. 5 months give or take.

3. Point taken. The reason i ask is I see decklists with only 3 FoW on SCG and wonder if this would work out at a GP.

everyone but Miracle is playing Wasteland.. not sure Karakas depending lists is where we want to be

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icedagger

2. Not that long. 5 months give or take.

---

Joe's been on the list for years. There's a very high likelihood you scrub out with it. 5 months is nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twndomn

1. Assume your name is Not Joe Lossett, think long and hard if you want to run Legend build in a GP. Do you really want to be durdling with "block with legendary creature, bounce it with Karakas" play?

2. Assume your name is Not Joe Lossett, how long have you been playing on Legend build? We are not referring to Miracles the archetype, we are referring to Legend build specifically. This is the most time consuming version, you need to get pass a long learning curve to get pass draws.

3. When BR reanimator recently becomes a thing, I'm not sure 4 FoW is enough. We would turn 1 FoW on Aether Vial, every, single, time, correct? Do you really want to run 3? I guess the counter-argument is that Legend build has 2 Karakas. However, if your opponent gets to draw 7, I would say damage is already done.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutthroatCasual

Joe's been on the list for years. There's a very high likelihood you scrub out with it. 5 months is nothing.

---

This has got to be the worst 'advice' I've ever seen on this forum, what do your posts achieve?

This thread is embarrassing considering it's the best deck in the format. Rather than talk strategy you belittle and talk down to each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icedagger

1. I've spent more time practicing on the Legend build than I have on any of the other Miracle variants. Right now it's the only variant I'd be confident enough to pilot at a major event.

2. Not that long. 5 months give or take.

3. Point taken. The reason i ask is I see decklists with only 3 FoW on SCG and wonder if this would work out at a GP.

---

Going from 4 to 3 FoWs was to fit the second Spell Snare. So in total you are running 5 counters. Spell Snare hits almost any target you don't want to see hit the table including sideboard hate. Also it's splendid in the mirror!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poron

everyone but Miracle is playing Wasteland.. not sure Karakas depending lists is where we want to be

---

Decks where we are dependant on bouncing opponents creatures those decks do not run Wasteland. Also you can just bait the wasteland if you are playing against DnT and need to bounce Thalia etc.

If you don't want to run Karakas simply don't run it. Doesn't mean others shouldn't consider it as a viable option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dissection

This has got to be the worst 'advice' I've ever seen on this forum, what do your posts achieve?

This thread is embarrassing considering it's the best deck in the format. Rather than talk strategy you belittle and talk down to each other.

---

I second this. I come to this thread often looking for... something. This is a reminder why I rarely post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icedagger

3. Point taken. The reason i ask is I see decklists with only 3 FoW on SCG and wonder if this would work out at a GP.

---

I don't think there is any real difference in putting together a list for a GP vs SCG. A GP will have an extra thousand players, but it is mostly just more of the same people.

EDIT: I wrote that assuming you were talking about an SCG Open. Lists from Classics or IQ's are more suspect because players aren't battling through nearly as many rounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dissection

This has got to be the worst 'advice' I've ever seen on this forum, what do your posts achieve?

This thread is embarrassing considering it's the best deck in the format. Rather than talk strategy you belittle and talk down to each other.

---

He asks everyone for feedback, I gave mine.

You did not give any.

Instead, you label my feedback as belittle and talk down. Who gave you the right to label other people's comments as belittle and talk down? As matter of fact, your comment is precisely what you are against: nothing miracles related.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twndomn

He asks everyone for feedback, I gave mine.

You did not give any.

Instead, you label my feedback as belittle and talk down. Who gave you the right to label other people's comments as belittle and talk down? As matter of fact, your comment is precisely what you are against: nothing miracles related.

---

"If you are not Joe Lossett, you won't succeed" is not feedback.

No one is belittling anyone. Miracles has been around for a very long and a lot of seasoned and experienced pilots have very thorough reasons for their card choices and high-held opinions of what cards are good and what cards are suboptimal. A lot of it has to do with their comfort zones as players. For example, I personally don't believe the Legends build is an optimal build of the deck unless you are Joe Lossett or are strictly planning to play against the mirror/attritiony midrange decks all day. I also believe Predict is "fluff" in a lot of lists and is largely unneeded. I'm certainly not going to "belittle" anyone for contradicting my personal opinions regarding Miracles, but at the same it would be very difficult for me to provide constructive advice to a poster looking to play 3 main deck Predict for a Grand Prix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dissection

This has got to be the worst 'advice' I've ever seen on this forum, what do your posts achieve?

This thread is embarrassing considering it's the best deck in the format. Rather than talk strategy you belittle and talk down to each other.

---

Agreed. When a new person asks for relevant advice, how much of an ass do you have to be to punch down on them? When someone asks something in the Lands thread my response is not to ask them why they are bothering. You are being toxic. Stop it.

This thread has a hideous reputation and shit like this is the reason why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twndomn

He asks everyone for feedback, I gave mine.

You did not give any.

Instead, you label my feedback as belittle and talk down. Who gave you the right to label other people's comments as belittle and talk down? As matter of fact, your comment is precisely what you are against: nothing miracles related.

---

Let me see if I can try.

"Legends is the hardest build of Miracles to play without a large amount of practice. Are you sure you wish to play this at a GP?"

Sometimes it's less about what you say and how you are saying it. What you did was belittling and talking down. He called you out on it. He should have reported the post but that doesn't make him calling you out incorrect.

Edit:
Guys, report shit. I don't come in here often, I don't see this shit myself. If you see something you think is rude, disrespectful or something that brings down the reputation of the site, please, be our eyes. Report it and we will be in here as soon as we can be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icedagger

Hi everyone! I need some input:

How many FoWs would you put in your deck going into a GP?

I'm running a Legends build and am trying to decide if I need all 4 or if I can go down to 3.

---

In a GP, you will face a lot of "everything" decks, from combo-turn-1 to really slow grinding deck (at least in the first and second round, and even a bit more if you didn't managed to X-0). But consider you are good and lucky enough to beat the early random deck, you still have to answer critical game-winning-spell your opponent will do, and imo, 4 FoW is the best thing. If you suspect lot of hand-disruptive decks, and want to go down to 3 FoW, you really should remplace the 4th FoW by one or maybe 2 other counters.

@Kentheide: Thanks. I've been experimenting with the different counter packages lately and spell snare seems great.

@kravkenov: Ah, I see. That makes a lot of sense. Thanks!

@oarsman: Thanks! I'll keep that in mind.

Just wondering, I noticed you ran 4 FoW in your GP Columbus list. Did you have any specific reason for this over the 3 FoW + 2 Spell Snares configuration you've been using at recent SCG opens?

General question about side boarding option.
With this deck, I have good time playing, and usually, random deck are behind, while few heavy-creature are really hard to beat. I think about Eldrazi, Death & Taxes, Shardless BUG, and even Goblins (as here in my area, the main TO has several decks to borrows, and 2 Goblins are part of them).

So while I was surfing and looking everywhere for nothing on mtgtop8 and co, my mouse cursor aimed at Thing in the Ice.
I think this creature coud be a good point to rise a bit our percentage win against those kind of deck. With 4 counter, it will flip relatively fast, and once it's flipped, it's just like "Terminus + Big haste-creature". Any of you already thought about and tested it ?

In my sideboard, I do it like this :

2 Flusterstorm
3 Pyroblast
2 Wear // Tear
2 Containment Priest
3 Surgical Extraction
3 Thing in the Ice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kravkenov

General question about side boarding option.
With this deck, I have good time playing, and usually, random deck are behind, while few heavy-creature are really hard to beat. I think about Eldrazi, Death & Taxes, Shardless BUG, and even Goblins (as here in my area, the main TO has several decks to borrows, and 2 Goblins are part of them).

So while I was surfing and looking everywhere for nothing on mtgtop8 and co, my mouse cursor aimed at Thing in the Ice.
I think this creature coud be a good point to rise a bit our percentage win against those kind of deck. With 4 counter, it will flip relatively fast, and once it's flipped, it's just like "Terminus + Big haste-creature". Any of you already thought about and tested it ?

In my sideboard, I do it like this :

2 Flusterstorm
3 Pyroblast
2 Wear // Tear
2 Containment Priest
3 Surgical Extraction
3 Thing in the Ice

---

I think there are a few problems for Thing in the Ice here.

1) It wants you to be running proactive spells, Miracles is largely reactive so you'll have a harder time flipping it than you think.
2) Miracles doesn't have much card advantage (virtual CA from CB doesn't work here), so you'll have it stuck with two counters or so fairly often and not be able to flip it in time.
3) Mentor and Entreat are just better and more threatening cards to follow up a Terminus with.

If you're having trouble beating creature decks maybe try some Supreme Verdicts. They're not great vs DnT (but neither is Thing as your cantrips will be taxed), but good vs Eldrazi, Shardless, Delver etc. Goblins is just a horrible matchup, for that sweepers aren't good enough. You want something like Moat.

EDIT: I just remembered you're not running Terminus, maybe that's why creature decks are being problematic :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whitefaces

EDIT: I just remembered you're not running Terminus, maybe that's why creature decks are being problematic :wink:

---

This is just a try (not running Terminus). I feel the deck still competitive (because only 3 cards switch dosent change completely the deck into complete trash) while being a bit more aggressive, especially when Attacking/Blocking with Mentor. Splitcecond really shine against "creature-ability" like Mother of Runes, Deathrite Shaman or mirror Mentor, but are really useless against Tarmogoyf/Eldrazi decks except making tokens and 2 hp burn.

In these scenari, Supreme Verdict could be nuts but these deck also run manadenial, which make problematic to cast Supreme Verdict or Moat. That's why I thought about Thing in the Ice among Ensnaring Bridge, Blood Moon and co. for the last 3 Flex slots in my sideboard.

But you are right, I might have more difficulties than I expect to flip Thing. At least, a 0/4 can still block several creatures and put real pressure to get answered. I will test it a bit and see how it goes before providing a feedback.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icedagger

@oarsman: Thanks! I'll keep that in mind.

Just wondering, I noticed you ran 4 FoW in your GP Columbus list. Did you have any specific reason for this over the 3 FoW + 2 Spell Snares configuration you've been using at recent SCG opens?

---

I hadn't made the change yet at that point. Since I did it, I have played the 3 force / 2 snare version at all my events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oarsman

I hadn't made the change yet at that point. Since I did it, I have played the 3 force / 2 snare version at all my events.

---

can you advocate running 3 force of will, 2 spell snare, 0 counterspell in a Miracles build that isn't the Legends version? Or is this combination only suited for the Legends build specifically?

Apologies if this has been discussed already. I've used the search function on this thread for:

• "Emrakul, the Promised End"
• Emrakul
• "Promised End"

And didn't find any real discussion. I've noticed a few decklists that have put up results that are running [[Emrakul, the Promised End]], and I'm wondering if anyone has any insight to its effectiveness. If running [[Nahiri, the Harbinger]], why wouldn't you just run [[Emrakul, the Aeons Torn]]? Is it really realistic to be casting the Promised End?

Here are the decklists:
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/506339
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/511595