Originally Posted by
Lormador
This is something I'd like to explore it further. You have succinctly stated what I'll call the Theory of the Standardized Decklist, the idea that a player (especially a new one) will experience the greatest success (defined by number of game wins) by copying a list that's proven to work well.
Doesn't our faith in this rest on a questionable assumption, however?
It's the idea of card independence. However, the cards don't play themselves. Even if we grant that a single, optimal decklist exists, does it follow that any given player will necessarily get his or her best results with this list? I don't think so. Would you use [insert famous Miracle pro here]'s deck if he handed it to you 5 minutes before GP deck registration if you looked at the list and were confused by some of the card choices, even if you had certain knowledge that this pro had tested the list and found it to be 5 percentage points higher than the nearest contender against every tier 1 and 1.5 deck?
I think most of us would not use that deck, but would instead wield the one we'd brought and worked on ourselves in preparation for the tournament. In my opinion, that would be the correct decision because we're more likely to win by playing a suboptimal list accurately than floundering around with the best list. This rests on another questionable assumption, that player decisions are the decisive factor in the outcome of most games, but since we're going to have to hold a questionable assumption to maintain anything at all about the game, I think we might as well choose this one.
Ah, but it'll be rejoined that it isn't 5 minutes before a GP, that now we are in that long period of preparation during which there is time to become familiar with the lines that exist in that best deck. According to our assumption that this is the best list, once a player is able to operate it with maximum accuracy, it follows that this player must necessarily win the greatest number of games.
This is logical, but the part we need to examine is the process by which a player can become proficient with the best list. Consider two hypothetical players.
Player A: netdecks the best list and jams 200 games with it against a variety of opponents
Player B: starts with any given list, jams 10-20 games with it, and adjusts until arriving at the best list; then jams the remaining games with it until reaching 200 games total
Which player is better at Magic, which one had more fun, and which player is better prepared for Chiba? Who will be better off next year? Add in the fact that Player A will quickly be playing an "outdated" list. In reality, all of our assumptions about there being a known best deck don't work out so well.
My beef with this thread, and the reason it has a reputation for toxicity, is that every time a (possibly new) player comes here with an idea or a question there's always someone whose response is purely negative. Minniehajj, I respect a lot of your ideas and I have sleeved up your list in the past, but in this case you provided absolutely no help or new information. The quality of that particular post was pretty low, and you're capable of real contributions. However, you're far from alone. Practically every page of this thread has a post like that on it, and your post is more an example of how a well-meaning player can get drawn into the negativity of this thread than anything else.
@KingOfThePanda, the card Ensnaring Bridge has recently seen a miniature resurgence in Miracles due to Monastery Mentor, and if you dig around you will find a few lists that have done well at small and medium-sized events. It doesn't synergize perfectly with the rest of the cards in the deck. You can't really run Entreat with it at all, and Jace tends to fill up your hand in a manner that counteracts the Bridge itself. Furthermore, it's pretty fragile at CMC 3, so any sacrifice to hand size you make by not Brainstorming with Jace to keep it on is liable to bite you later in the game.
In your meta, though, if you're sure to be playing against Eldrazi and Sneaky Show often, Ensnaring Bridge's effect is probably worth the drawbacks. Ensnaring Bridge has never been popular in Miracles, but that's probably because
Eldrazi hasn't existed for too long and Miracles always ran Entreat in the past. Bridge has a very long history of use in Countertop Thopters and UW Landstill, so if you want a history lesson about the card you can check out the archives for those decks.
Stifle has rarely been seen in UW pure control lists because the typical target, fetchland activations, isn't something we need to worry about in the archetype. We want the opponent to reach their endgame because their endgame isn't as good as ours. Without any need (or ability) to kill the opponent before they start casting 2-4 mana spells, few have ever considered it necessary to pack Stifles in a control deck.
