It's something I've been testing for the last few months, and something I'm trying to gather some information on wether it's better or worse than being on the play. The reason was, at that time, that this matchup is so defensive, with none of us really being capable of making up for lost card advantage, besides from Counterbalance. This meant, at that time, that being up 1(2) cards, from the get-go would be really strong. This might change (and will change if people start playing predict, due to them having raw card advantage), but at that time, having that extra card to defend a quick Counterbalance which is, either secretly or not-so-secretly the most important card in the entire matchup.Originally Posted by Asthereal
It might be wrong or not, I'm not entirely sure so far. I found it's superior to being on the draw in the ponder-mirror (67%, or 2/3 games), where-as I'm about 53% in the Legends matchup. Due to Ponder being consistency over power, this makes a lot of sense to me. With Legends being stronger in the mirror (Karakas, Clique and Vensor basically), I feel that there's some merit to being on the draw, but I might be biased on me really prefer grinding and not slamming haymakers.
*Regarding Predict-Miracles: I think being on the draw, is even more important here, due to them actively drawing cards, and you not doing so. I haven't played the predict matchup so far (Not playing on modo, because WotC are BrokeBack and not making modo running on macs). This is pretty hard to just making up based on theory, however.
RE: Predict and on the play vs. on the draw. I think being on the play is pretty important in the predict matchup, while including everything that's already been discussed here, being able to resolve your own predict w/ counterbackup (mana advantage). Being able to filter through your cantrips and such and have, essentially a mana advantage, is pretty important when predict is in your deck. I've tested both pretty extensively, and predict rewards you a lot more if you're able to cast it before your opponent and make sure it resolves.
Exactly, which pretty much translates into my position on the matter: Without Predict in your game, you need that card to recoup some cards over the predict guy.
I am, however, under the impression that Predict might be a red herring in the matchup. It draws you an extra card, sure, but it's not a Jace, a Vendilion Clique, a Mentor or a Counterbalance. In the predict mirror, where you play 4 snapcasters, I think it might gain a lot of value, but in the Mentor vs Predict matchup, I would much, much rather save my Counterspell/REB/Force to either land one of my key spells than being slightly less protected due to losing card value on countering a predict. Spell Snare might be a lot better overall, however, if people start playing a lot of predict and snapcasters, compared to the current spell pierces. Snare's are garbage vs SnT and mostly against reanimator, where Spell Pierce is incredibly strong.
Thing is, Predict draws you into these cards + protection so if you're planning on fighting a war against these cards, you're going to be behind vs. someone that has bomb+defense or answers to just your bomb+x. You're immediately behind when your opponent has resolved a predict and you have not. Most mirrors are decided by resource management and predict is just raw resources in the mirror. That's why I count predict as one of these cards.
Which is also why I elect to be on the draw. Predict leaves you up one card: the same as being on the draw does. I'm not underselling predict: I definitely think it has its place in some meta games. If Miracles as well as bug are the two most dominant decks, I'd likely play a predict lost myself.. Or just main deck red blast, which I might anyway, actually.
If I get the chance to spell pierce that predict, I will do so. I won't counterspell it, force it or reb it, however, unless we are both really struggling for resources, which goes back to what I might do - main deck reb or predict myself.
Why the fuck do I have a second account linked to my phone? This makes no sense.
Sendt fra min LG-D802 med Tapatalk
The main thing I pointed out is that you actually don't really have a full card more when you're on the draw. Here's the exact situation when on the play and on the draw:
OTP:
1. During your turn: equal amount of cards, one land drop more
2. During opponents turn: one card less, equal amount of land drops
OTD:
1. During your turn: equal amount of lands, one card more
2. During opponents turn: equal amount of cards, one land drop less
When you are on the draw, only in half of the situations do you actually have a card more. In your opponents turn, you have an equal amount of cards. Only during your own turn you're that one card up. So my reasoning would be:
OTP:
+ I have the initiative because of my extra land drop.
+ I have an equal amount of cards during my own turn, which is the most relevant turn since I have the initiative.
- If I lose the initiative because I miss a land drop, my opponent can take over during his turn because he has a card more and a land drop more.
- If I play something and it gets countered, my opponent can take over during his turn because he has a card more and more mana (I spent mana on that spell).
=> Be careful not to lose the initiative. Missing land drops is bad.
OTD:
+ I have a card more during my turn, so I have more options and I am able to plan my game play better.
- I will have a card more, but an equal amount of mana during my own turn, so if I cast a spell for mana I will have less mana to use to protect my spell. This makes it hard to proactively try to profit from the fact that I have a card more during my turn.
- During my opponents turn, we have an equal amount of cards but I have a land less. So he can cast a CMC1 spell and have the same amount of mana to use for stack interaction as myself. The math tells me I need to have a better hand than him to be able to stop him from actively casting CMC1 cards during his turn.
+ If my opponent casts a CMC1 spell, during my next turn I will have a card more and a mana more. This gives me an opportunity to take over the initiative and actually make use of the card more situation during my own turns.
=> Be patient and just make land drops during your turn. Take over after the opponent tried to make use of his initiative.
Conclusion:
Both players profit most from doing a grand total of nothing during their own first few turns. Doing something OTP runs the risk of losing the initiative. Doing something OTD runs the risk of just losing the card you wanted to play, and puts you two (or more) mana behind during the opponents next turn. So pro's and con's considered, being on the draw gives you more options (so easier planning early game), less risk of missing a land drop, and a strong position for a counterattack. The trade-off is that you don't have the initiative from the get go, which could be devastating if the opponent draws the nuts.
Possible solutions:
I: Play a land more than him. (Missing land drops is bad!)
II: Choose OTP and side in 4x Ancestral Vision. You get to suspend it quickly, but you are untapped when it resolves, so you have mana to protect it. You can suspend it turn one and have two lands untapped when he is first able to cast Counterbalance. Vision will (if it resolves) also solve the (half) card down problem.
Thoughts?
Asthereal, that's a very interesting thought process that you have there. I didn't think of this before. There's one more thing that I'd like you do address, though. I totally agree that your analysis and the focus on initiative makes a lot of sense, but if you're thinking of a mirror match where neither player has any symmetry breaking cards (Cavern of Souls...) then there seems to be (in my experience) a very common scenario:
Both players do something in their first turns, the opponent is more often than not able to counter it or get rid of it otherwise (EE/WearTear/Judgement) (sometimes nobody does anything). The next few turns will then be spent doing nothing but drawing more cards before re-engaging in an eventual duel. Wouldn't it be strictly superior in this example to be on the play as you'd just have one more card to work with in these stages of the game? Or do you think that I am underselling the importance of initiative in the early parts of the game?
Thank you!
I think being on the play in the Miracles mirror gives you a HUGE advantage. I used to grind mirror testing games against my friend who is great with the deck, and we felt strongly that you are behind on so many subgames when you are going second because you're down mana for your Pierces and red blasts and then Snapcaster + those cards a couple turns later. The matchup is all about resolving Tops and Counterbalances and keeping your opponent from resolving them; it doesn't matter if you have some random Ponder floating around in your hand if your opponent lands a Counterbalance early.
http://www.mtgmintcard.com/articles/...-a-new-miracle
This is an article Philip Schoenegger wrote on the 28th of October. He came to the same conclusion, regarding being on the play/draw, around that time.
I'd actually find it interesting to know if he's still on that plan or not.
The point is not about your REB/Pierces being dead early on, and you being down landdrops. In the mirror, landdrops matter way less than people think. It matters much more about the card quality.
@Ast: Regarding your math, while the numbers do hold up, it's not only about card number. You've deployed 1(2) ressources (if you have t1 top or not), leaving you with either 6 or 7 cards in hand. If he goes for a turn two counterbalance, he has 5(4!) cards in hand in comparison - That's a huge amount of ressources, giving you much more possibilty to actually interact with him, compared to the other way around. The problem with holding your CB until you have a reb, is that the opponents reb counters balance, while your own reb does nothing against his - Hence flusterstorm and spell pierce being actively good cards in the post-board mirror.
Making your land drops matters tremendously. Also I just read through the mirror section of this article, and if I am on the play with my 3 Mentor SB plan against a 0 removal SB plan I feel like a 75/25 favorite at least. You basically have the same cards with the ability to dictate the pace of the game and which lines/threats are best for a given situation. If the opponent misses the 3rd land drop and you get a 4th land it starts to get out of hand quickly unless they have double Force, and even if they do then they have spewed their advantage once they use them. Mentor is just ridiculous in post-SB games of the mirror when your opponent boards in a bunch of Flusterstorms and red blasts, and being on the play makes it even better.
Yes, and no. :)
I just realized that I didn't really articulate it quite as well as I'd have hoped to. Now, initially, I was testing with Maxime Gilles a couple years ago. I don't really remember what exactly it was that we were looking at at the first batch of games but we realized that the one being on the draw won more than 50% of the games. Later tests with other people of equal skill level kind of confirmed this sentiment. (only 1 set of games ended with the player being on the play winning more games)
Now, I'm definitely not saying that this is empirically proven, as the total amount of games amounted to 100 matches at most (most of which have been conducted before Mentor got big), but it may be a sign that we can build a theory about. And I'd argue that when you're playing against classic Ponder Miracles or Predict Miracles (haven't tested it yet but all the parameters seem to fit perfectly) it is indeed beneficial to be on the draw more often not. As said in the article: Yes, you will lose to a T2 Balance backed up by one or two Force of Will but that's something I'm happy to accept if it means that I'll be favored in the other scenarios.
Additionally, this does not hold true at all when you are playing against Miracles with Daze or Cavern of Souls. It is rather apparent why this is the case with the Daze builds (even though you can make the claim that they'd board out all/many Dazes, making it a rather feasible move once more) but on the latter part it becomes more apparent. Having the 8th card predestines you for the grindy late game due to a certain lack of initiative and an advantage of cards. But this only works if your opponent cannot just play an uncounterable Mentor on the third turn while you're still keeping up counters.
To summarize, if I'm playing against people I know to be on a list similar to mine (or could clearly identify this in the first game), yes I'll let them play. If I get the time I'll go ahead and give a big testing round a go again, this time including Mentor in its fullest. But this will be after I've finally come around to test Predict Miracles, which sounds quite interesting, to be honest.
Greetings
Your conclusion about the initiative is correct but the disadvantage of beeing on the play is not allways the case in a game of the miracles mirror: On the play you are free to cast a top T1 which would help you draw better compared to your opponent and at some point net actual card advantage (when your opponent draws a blank and you don't) and thus compensate for beeing on the play. OTD you can't really afford to cast a T1 top and risk a Counterbalance from the other side (atleast not game2/3 where game1 is just random anyways and sometimes jamming is correct). This is one huge benefit from beeing on the play in the mirror.
I also think you overvalue landdrops. If the deck is constructed in such a way that you can cast enough spells to keep up with your opponent then additional lands is actually really bad. If your opponent want to cast Jace protected with a Counterspell backup he needs a total of 6 lands. If you can cast Spell Snare and Pyroblast you break even with 4 lands less meaning you "could" have 4 more spells to play with. I think landdrops is crucial for the legends build and traditional Entreat builds but not so much for Predictable Miracles and you are fine on 2-3 mana for quite a while.
Casting Top turn one OTP allows the opponent to also cast Top on turn one. Of course there's no guarantee he has a Top, but in the dark - theorycrafting, one should assume that if I do something good on turn one, I spend mana for it, which allows the opponent to capitalize on the fact that I am temporarily down on mana.
I have overevaluated many things and disregarded many other things. That's what happens if you evaluate a mirror match without actually going into detail about what happens when I draw this but he draws that. My analysis is based on two lists that are exactly the same and both players drawing equallyish good hands. If I have to include differences in lists and adjust my evaluation based on the idea that one of the players is going to be more lucky, my analysis will inevitably suck and lead to zero useful conclusions.
But never forget: my analysis is based solely on theorycrafting by a not very experienced Miracles pilot. So far I have played Miracles at zero competitive events, because I feel I lack understanding of how to approach various matchups, which hands to mull and so on. I read a statement about someone opting to be on the draw in the mirror match, and I thought that was odd. I asked why he chose to be on the draw, and tried to use his remarks and my own thoughts to do the analysis above. It's not a complete analysis, and it's not done by the best player here. I just hope some here find some elements of it useful, and I hope to learn from the responses of the strong Miracles players here.
EDIT: PS. My analysis is mostly about the first four to five turns. After that, drawing a relevant spell where your opponent draws crap will turn the advantage or disadvantage you had from being on the play around. If you are certain your game will be grindy and will never be decided by what happens in the first ten turns, you should always be on the draw so you have that half card more. But the reality is that being on the play can decide a game early. If you get your Top out, while managing to keep his off the board, you are pretty far ahead already.
I swear my experience in the mirror is totally different than what everyone on this thread talks about. For me, 20-30% of games involve around someone cheesing the other with Counterbalance + Top. The rest of the time, things drag way out, and the "last Jace standing" or Entreat end up the trump. I run the full playset of Jace, for example, but apparently people are cutting them all to dodge REB in the mirror.
Is cutting lands and trying to "go under" sensible in this mirror? In Magic, you generally only do this in a combo mirror. In any other scenario you slow your deck down and go for the late game. A deck that's "slightly bigger" ends up with the advantage.
Maybe cheesing with Counterbalance and Mentors is a higher percentage play, but I just don't see it. I was just considering boarding out lands for Flusterstorms, but I can't get with it. How do we cut land for Flusterstorm and call it card advantage, when we just cut all our copies of Jace the Mindsculptor? Maybe I'm biased because I've always been able to go bigger in mirrors, and 4x Ponder versions gravitated towards early-game power plays.
Few things that are issues with this. 1) Going bigger is next to meaningless when your "big" spells are countered by a 1CMC counterspell. Usually, the person with more mana intensive things going on in the mirror is the one with the disadvantage. This is the reason that old builds like RIP Helm or E-Tutor miracles died out, due to simply being worthless in the mirror. 2) 4 Jaces is a lot of Jaces, but the people that do choose to board out Jaces (myself not being of that camp) do so because they want to lower the curve of the deck and have less clunky cards in the mirror, because everything is so efficient. 3) Flusterstorm is something that was used in the mirror to combat opposing Entreats, but flusterstorm can become a bit of a trap because it requires you to be a bit more proactive than some mirror pilots want to be, since it's best used as an offensive counterspell rather than a defensive one, because it doesn't actually counter things that matter, as you said, like JTMS, Counterbalance, or creatures. I don't bring Flusterstorm in in the mirror unless I want to be more proactive, and I almost never want to be in that role.
Hope this helps!
Given enough turns have passed in a game, the mana starts being irrelevant. Jace becomes better than REB, because REB is a single card and Jace is Jace.
That's why I feel it's more about how fast do we think games are being decided in the mirror, that determines whether these sideboard choices make sense.
So, ponder is the greatest thing that ever happened to this deck. Obviously, it isn't the best card in the deck but it is a cheap card that helps you run. I think that within ponder variants of miracles there are about 4-5 flex spots where you can do things like predict or mentor. Both cards are quite good in their own right but they suffer from the same issues which is that they do very little when our deck is not running correctly. If I draw a hand with three lands, force, snap, swords, and predict or mentor, it is a good hand but it comes with no guarantee that our deck will actually do anything. It is a hand with some intereaction, but not setup or payoff because neither predict or mentor are setup cards and they require setup in order to payoff in a meaningful way. I believe this represents a problem as the payoff they represent is relatively minimal compared to say an instant speed board wipe or countering every spell your opponent casts for the rest of the game. I do not currently have a solution to my feeling that the current variations of the deck could benefit from even more setup cards.
I have been testing predict +1 plain +1 entreat -2 snare for quite some time and the deck is certainly real. I have had some issues in matches against shardless where both of our decks are operating smoothly throughout the game, but eventually I run out of ways to actually win. This happened two games in a row and I am wonding if you guys have had similar issues? Obviously, this is an issue that can be fixed by playing in a certain conservative style, but that represents a significant opprotunity cost when you start counting your snapcasters so early in the game. Also, and perhaps more importantly, how in god's name do you people beat a resolved lilliana? I feel like the vast majority of my losses to shardless no longer come off them having more cards than me, thank god, but rather just because at any stage in the game lilliana is an incredibly difficult threat to beat.
On a positive note, I have found my delver matchup to be much improved with predict due to the presence of four snapcasters. I think that the card predict itself is quite poor in these matchups, especially on the draw, due to my previous feelings that the card is subpar when your deck doesn't work and delver is all about making their opponent's deck flounder. However, four snapcasters is four snapcasters. It is one of those cards where your opponent is really going to struggle to beat if it resolves casting something even slightly meaningful but that you as the miracles player rarely need to fight over. It fills a simillar role to clique in the mirror, you cast it before your haymaker to clear the way, if it resolves; great you're probably ahead, if it doesn't then that terminus ontop of your deck probably will.
Basically, my experiences with predict are making me want to play 2014 miracles so that I can beat a resolved lilliana, but then playing that I will want a less clunky way to win and play mentor again, but then playing that I will want a way to break parity in the mirror and go back to predict. Currently, there are so many great ways to build miracles and it is hard to find just the right list.
I definitely agree with that sentiment. Having so many ways to build the deck keeps me from getting bored with it. Hopefully it doesn't get banned...
On another note, I saw some of the early lists of predict miracles and haven't had a chance to throw the deck together to try it out. I assume since those initial lists, players have been tinkering with the deck. What are some sample lists that people are currently playing for predict miracles?
After about 20 daily events and some number of matches on MODO I finally got the chance to play Predictable miracles in a real life tournament for the first time. A lot of people have said that the biggest drawback to this version is that there is no reasonable way to close out games in a timely fashion. On MODO the chess clock makes it so that time is usually never a problem but in a real life setting you have to share the 50 minutes with your opponent. The extra percentages I was hoping to gain with this list (compared to more traditional builds) would be worthless the moment I get a draw in a match I for sure was winning. It was something I was concerned about when I sat down and looked around I was also concerned that miracles might have not been the best choice for this tournament...
I registered the same list I've been playing on MODO for the last couple of weeks.
CREATURES (4)
4 Snapcaster Mage
ENCHANTMENTS (4)
4 Counterbalance
SORCERIES (8)
4 Ponder
4 Terminus
INSTANTS (18)
4 Brainstorm
4 Swords to Plowshares
2 Counterspell
2 Spell Snare
4 Force of Will
2 Predict
PLANESWALKERS (2)
2 Jace, the Mind Sculptor
ARTIFACTS (4)
4 Sensei’s Divining Top
LANDS (20)
1 Mountain
4 Island
1 Volcanic Island
1 Plains
4 Flooded Strand
4 Scalding Tarn
2 Arid Mesa
3 Tundra
SIDEBOARD (15)
2 Blood Moon
2 Red Elemental Blast
1 Pyroblast
2 Stoneforge Mystic
1 Batterskull
2 Wear // Tear
1 Surgical Extraction
2 Flusterstorm
2 Vendilion Clique
R1: MonoG 12 Post (2-1)
R2: Death and taxes (2-0)
R3: Burg-delver (2-0)
R4: Bug-Food chain (2-0)
R5: Burn (2-0)
T8:
R1: Shardless BUG (2-1)
T2: Shardless BUG (2-0)
Split finals with bug-food chain.
I had about 20 minutes left in each of matches in the swiss. It's hard to say if time was an issue given that most matches ended in 2 games. In the T8 we had 70 minutes each round but I actually needed it all for the semis. Game1 took forever and ended when my opponent could not draw any more cards from his library thanks to my Jace ultimate. At that point I had one card left myself because...well I like drawing cards. On his last turn with a library an Ancestral Vision came off suspend but luckily my counterbalance revealed a sandbagged land so that I didn't draw those 3 and died as a result. A very cool game indeed. Other than that I think nothing out of the ordinary happened. I faced some rough matchups, did what I had to do and got lucky when it mattered. Feel free to ask any questions! I think I'll stick with the list for now and will play another tournament this coming weekend.
Mackan's list is not only a starting point but the list that I also ended up on many different deviations.
Another try, if you want mentor instead of the SFM package:
-2 SFM
-1 BSkull
+2 Mentor
+1 Surgical/Izzet Staticaster/Containment priest.
All are solid options. Good luck and let us know how it goes!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote