Miracle Control

Even though goblins has answers to artifacts, I'd probably play more Ensnaring Bridge to deal with the aggro decks because the added benefit it has against big creature decks like reanimator and Sneak and Show. I don't think there's any other card that can help as many matchups. Goblins is tricky enough to deal with anyway, so just play an answer that crushes merfolk, helps against Big creature decks, and can be useful against Goblins.

Mass removal is tricky, since it tends to be pretty costly and can create some really slow hands. If I wanted more removal for tribal aggro in the board, I really think I would run Porphyry Nodes. It's a cheap answer so it can impact the board early, which is huge. I view it a lot like Dismember as you effectively pay life to play nodes, namely the amount of damage you take from getting swung at. That said, it has the potential to sweep a board, which is always huge, especially for one W. Most importantly though, it forces the aggro player to slow down or face nodes killing all their creatures, which is really what the miracles deck appreciates more than anything. Additionally, I have found this to be very good against RUG Delver due to its mana cost, time it gives you, and ability to deal with mongeese. As an added plus, you can put it into play from a show and tell.

To those running counterbalance (and probably those who aren't too): Try cutting your balance numbers down to fit in 2 Enlightened Tutor. They can function basically as tops #5-6, since top is that good in my opinion. They also have a lot of added utility and can save you in a pinch if needed. You can still have some counterbalances in the main too, so you can tutor for it still, but you don't need to worry as much about counterbalance ever being a liability. There is also the option to run a lot of great artifacts or enchantments as one-ofs in the main (I really like Ensnaring Bridge), and I think that tutor really improves boarding, especially against stuff like combo or reanimator.

I dont think Goblins is a hard fight: 4 STP 3SCM 3 Terminus (commonly in miracle maindeck )and 2 PTE 1 Terminus 2 Hydroblast 1 Vedalken Shakles (frequently in a sideboard) tend to be favour to us.
Surely Merfolks are harder cause they have counters and are not Hydro/BEB targetable and can be islandwalk!!!

Goblins is not a bad pairing I think that is enough positive for us. Terminus+ swords + snapcaster mages slow down their play. The key in this match up is to arrive a point that they have few creatures and them to cast a Entreat the Angels and putting 3 o 4 tokens.

Obvious the edge vs the goblin player depends a lot of his/her skill.

Philip802 brought up Fluster Storm as a potential (MD) Spell Pierce replacement.

At first I was like: "Nah. Those are obviously SB material due to their narrowness."
But after some thought I'm not absolutely sure anymore.

Beyond the mirror, Spell Pierce looks like could be inferior to F. Storm more often than not - at least in a DTB vacuum.
Anyone interested in a collaborative indepth analysis?
Discuss!

Meh, there's enough crap out there I still want to Pierce; Sylvan Library, equipment, EE, planeswalkers, and other randomness. Flusterstorm seems okay in a very specific meta, but for general game against an unknown field, 3 mb Pierce is where I want to be

Inability to deal with Aether Vial is the most impactful downside that comes to mind. Yes, I go up to 4 Spell Pierce against Goblins on the play. Down to 0 on the draw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by klaus

Beyond the mirror, Spell Pierce looks like could be inferior to F. Storm more often than not - at least in a DTB vacuum.
Anyone interested in a collaborative indepth analysis?
Discuss!

---

I was actually thinking about this too. Let's consider the main advantages of the two to consider what we're comparing. Spell Pierce has a wider array of targets it can hit, as it hits artifacts, enchantments, and planewalkers over Flusterstorm. Flusterstorm on the other hand is a better card to protect your own spells from counters (they always have to pay at least three), is itself resilient to being countered due to the storm mechanic, and will win counterwars on its own. So, even if a deck is running artifacts, enchantments, or planeswalkers that alone is not enough--Sometimes forcing our key spells through is stronger.

Let's consider the various decks to see the types of spells they're running. With this analysis, I think that I would argue for the inclusion of Flusterstorm, and here is why:

RUG Delver: This deck runs almost zero artifacts, enchantments, or planeswalkers. Flusterstorm is a clear advantage here, especially in forcing through terminus.

Maverick: Usually only 1 or 2 Sylvan Libraries, rarely an Elspeth, and an equipment or two. Probably brings in some number of chokes from the board. Neither flusterstorm or spell pierce are very good in this matchup, so they'll probably be sided out. Spell pierce has a slight advantage for the target choice, but it's pretty negligible.

Reanimator: Spell pierce can hit their animate dead, but that's pretty much it. On the other hand, flusterstorm is much better at making sure they don't resolve a key spell, especially through a daze or spell pierce. Despite the extra target hit, I think using Flusterstorm to protect our spells/win counter-wars is probably more productive here.

Sneak and Show: Similar to reanimator, in that pierce hits Sneak attack, which is all we really care about. I'd prefer flusterstorm to win counterwars, especially against misdirection.

UW Miracles: Not hitting Jace, top, and sometimes counterbalance is definitely a blow, and for that reason I'd say pierce is definitely better in the mirror. Flusterstorm still useful, but not nearly as good.

Various Stoneblade decks: Pierce and flusterstorm are probably relatively even. Again, you have some more targets in this matchups (Jace, Batterskull, etc.), but I think flusterstorm's ability for force through our key spells is equally important.

Storm-Combo: Not really a DTB, but flusterstorm is obviously superior in this match, since flusterstorm alone can win the game. Pierce is easier to play around.

As we can see from this, most of the decks in the format are running very few artifacts, enchantments, or planeswalkers. Even when they are, most of these decks are already blue, in which case wanting flusterstorm to help win counter wars or force through our key spells appears to me at least equal, if not better than the small increase in target selection. For Maverick, and other decks not running blue, spell pierce is better than flusterstorm mostly, but both are pretty terrible cards in these matchups usually anyway, so the difference seems pretty small. We also can't forget the usefulness in shutting combo down almost completely, since in bigger events you will likely run into it at least once, so it's always good to have a better gameplan against them.

Flusterstorm doesn't "win" counterwars that revolve around resolving an important spell on your own. It just trades 1:1 just like any other counterspell. Period.

Flusterstorm wins counterwars that revolve around preventing your opponent from resolving an important of his own.

It's got little increased value at defending your own spells compared to Spell Pierce. This is because your opponent will sometimes be able to pay two, but not three mana. However, this little increase in value doesn't justify running it over Spell Pierce when it comes to protecting our spells.

Therefore, when you really want to discuss Flusterstorm, treat it as a better answer to stuff like Show and Tell and the like. But not as a much better way to protect Terminus etc.

/Edit: Omg Dude! 666th post, burn him with fire! :eek::eek::eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julian23

Flusterstorm doesn't "win" counterwars that revolve around resolving an important spell on your own. It just trades 1:1 just like any other counterspell. Period.

Flusterstorm wins counterwars that revolve around preventing your opponent from resolving an important of his own.

It's got little increased value at defending your own spells compared to Spell Pierce. This is because your opponent will sometimes be able to pay two, but not three mana. However, this little increase in value doesn't justify running it over Spell Pierce when it comes to protecting our spells.

Therefore, when you really want to discuss Flusterstorm, treat it as a better answer to stuff like Show and Tell and the like. But not as a much better way to protect Terminus etc.

/Edit: Omg Dude! 666th post, burn him with fire! :eek::eek::eek:

---

Seems like you got that a little backwards. Flusterstorm will never be worse than Spell Pierce in a counter war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rxavage

Seems like you got that a little backwards. Flusterstorm will never be worse than Spell Pierce in a counter war.

---

No.
The point is that Flusterstorm doesn't add any storm value in protecting your spells from more counters. You Terminus, they counter, you counter with X, and they counter Terminus again - X doesn't matter if they're not going to pay it. Note that if you're in a counter war over their Jace, this works the same way - since you have to flusterstorm their counterspell, they just ignore it and counter your original counter again too.

Its stronger by taxing their instants/sorceries for more and by storming their instants/sorceries.

Valtrix's list mentioned several places where Flusterstorm might be better at forcing through Terminus, which it may be as a taxing counter, but not as a storm counter. I agree with much of that list, but think you've understated the importance of having live counters against Jace/Sneak Attack.

(There are some circumstances when it would be worse, actually. If they have Omniscience with 1 mana up and play a major spell and, in the ensuing counter-war, you Flusterstorm, they could Stifle/Trickbind the Storm trigger for free and only pay 1, rather than 2 off of Spell Pierce, with their now-live, still-free Stifle against your crappy Storm spell. I'd say that scenario is the main reason to prefer Spell Pierce.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julian23

Flusterstorm doesn't "win" counterwars that revolve around resolving an important spell on your own. It just trades 1:1 just like any other counterspell. Period.

---

While it does trade 1:1, what you're ignoring is the fact that Flusterstorm itself is very hard to stop. Let's look at the following example:

Opponent casts Show and tell
You force
They force your force
You flusterstorm with your last mana, all on the show and tell.

Now, they need to pay 4 mana, which is incredibly unlikely. Furthermore, if they have any other counter spell, they still can't stop flusterstorm, whereas they could have stopped pierce through having two mana, or having another counterspell. A single counterspell doesn't really stop Flusterstorm from doing its thing.

Quote:

---

It's got little increased value at defending your own spells compared to Spell Pierce. This is because your opponent will sometimes be able to pay two, but not three mana. However, this little increase in value doesn't justify running it over Spell Pierce when it comes to protecting our spells.

---

I highly disagree. The difference between two and three mana is huge, especially when most people try to play around pierce if possible. Sure, if they have another counter or the original item on the stack was a non-instant, non-sorcery, they can ignore your flusterstorm. Remember also that against Red Elemental Blast, flusterstorm is way stronger. Against, say RUG Delver, if you play terminus, they try to counter, and you flusterstorm, they can't just REB your flusterstorm and stop your terminus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anwei

(There are some circumstances when it would be worse, actually. If they have Omniscience with 1 mana up and play a major spell and, in the ensuing counter-war, you Flusterstorm, they could Stifle/Trickbind the Storm trigger for free and only pay 1, rather than 2 off of Spell Pierce, with their now-live, still-free Stifle against your crappy Storm spell. I'd say that scenario is the main reason to prefer Spell Pierce.)

---

This is horribly narrow, and I think a pretty poor argument for showing it as the "main" reason to run spell pierce over flusterstorm.

Quote:

---

I agree with much of that list, but think you've understated the importance of having live counters against Jace/Sneak Attack.

---

This is valid, and if you see a lot of Jace, perhaps pierce is better. While more counters for sneak attack is nice too, I think that they can often play it around pierce anyway, and I think flusterstorm in combination with others counters is probably still better at stopping them. You also can't forget the huge upside of Flusterstorm against Storm combo, because while not a huge portion of the field, I still think there's a good chance of running into it, especially at larger tournaments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valtrix

While it does trade 1:1, what you're ignoring is the fact that Flusterstorm itself is very hard to stop. Let's look at the following example:

Opponent casts Show and tell
You force
They force your force
You flusterstorm with your last mana, all on the show and tell.

---

Julian is saying this about fighting over *your* spells (re-read the part you quoted). SnT here is their spell - we're not debating the fact that Flusterstorm wins counterspell wars against their instants/sorceries because (a) the mana is too high to pay and (b) storm makes it effectively uncounterable.
It's even really good as your *only* counter in that setup - they SnT (tapping out, often), you Flusterstorm, and they need 2 Daze/FoW/Misdirection to stop you, where they could have just Forced your Spell Pierce.

The same is not true when it's your spell. You Terminus, they counter, you counter, they counter terminus again, you flusterstorm for 5, they ignore flusterstorm and force your terminus. When original spell is yours, the storm effect's "uncounterability" doesn't add any value against another opposing counterspell because if they have another counter, they'll counter your original spell again. The high "pay x" is very good if they don't have a counter, but if they do, storm doesn't auto-win the counterspell war (as it does against their Show and Tell).

Quote:

---

Against, say RUG Delver, if you play terminus, they try to counter, and you flusterstorm, they can't just REB your flusterstorm and stop your terminus.

---

Okay, so if you're trying to punch a non-blue spell through and their counter is Blast, then Flusterstorm's multiple-copies does help.

Quote:

---

This is horribly narrow, and I think a pretty poor argument for showing it as the "main" reason to run spell pierce over flusterstorm.

---

I tried to underscore sarcasm with hyperbole, but, I was just kidding.


Flusterstorm loses targets in many decks in exchange for being able to:
a. Put a higher "Pay X" tax on spells, and
b. Almost never be countered, which is really good if
b.i. They are relying heavily on free counters, or
b.ii. You need to win a big counter-war over (only) their instant/sorcery.

In most decks where I'm running one of them, I'm running more copies in the board as well. I think Flusterstorm is good enough to have available somewhere, but I think the gains are small enough that, in a random game 1 in most current metas, I'd rather be able to hit more targets.

I finally got Flooded Stands, now I'll be able to join this thread with some actual input. I'll be jamming this deck in about a week when the cards arrive. And I get what is being said about Flusterstrom, thanks.

Spell pierce can counter sylvan libraries, senseis divining tops, planeswalkers, vials and counterbalances. All these targets are very very importants, IMO spell pierce is not replaceable for flusterstorm in main deck, but in sb fluster worth two slots.

Another question, What do you think about splashing Red elemental blast in sb?

If you guys think goblins is a good matchup, then one of the following is happening:

1. You've never played it.
2. Your playtest partner has no idea what he's doing.

My experience and playtesting puts the matchup in a similar range as Lands vs. High Tide, or Zoo vs. Belcher. UW Miracles vs. Goblins is one the most lopsided matchups I have ever seen in this format. \\

The only strategy we could come up with that had any real traction was jamming enough Moats to ensure we drew it. We eventually decided to just dodge it.

just use a torpor orb.

just splash black and use engineered plague.

Malakai is absolutely right!

Goblins is by far my worst matchup. When we first playtested, i was winning almost all my matches but by now, it's like 65/35 in their favor. Unlike against other aggro decks, Terminus isn't the gameplan. It's just a temporary tactic to get some breathing room; if you can't stop Vial from sticking it even fails at that since they Vial in anything at end of turn and continue the beats.

When you Terminus any aggro deck on turn5, they have 2 cards left in hand. When you Terminus Goblins on turn5, they have 5-6 cards left. The only thing I try doing right now is try to survive long enough until I can End-of-Turn Entreat the Angels for lethal. Still, it's a losing battle in the long run.

Against Vials I have 2 engineered explosives in sb+ spell pierce + fows, also if you splash red you can put in your sb firespout for goblins and merfolks (although firespout now is worse vs merfolks)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiwi

Another question, What do you think about splashing Red elemental blast in sb?

---

That's what I am doing for the GP.