Miracle Control

[Thorondor]

yeah why not.
I would then consider playing 23-24 lands and maybe even without mishras, since 4 jace and 2-3 entreat should be enough to win the game. It is the more controlish way or you go the more aggro way: clique/mishra/snap/entreat 3 jace.

[klaus]

yeah why not.
I would then consider playing 23-24 lands and maybe even without mishras, since 4 jace and 2-3 entreat should be enough to win the game. It is the more controlish way or you go the more aggro way: clique/mishra/snap/entreat 3 jace.

I think so too. 3 EtA & 4 Jace supported by CB-Top should be enough wincons.

[CookedChestnuts]

Why do people play up to 3 Glacial Fortress in this deck? That is just wrong. Hallowed Fountain is at least better.

[klaus]

Why do people play up to 3 Glacial Fortress in this deck? That is just wrong. Hallowed Fountain is at least better.

Choke.

[Einherjer]

@CookedChestnuts:You are right. I forgot CHOKE was a card. -.-

[CookedChestnuts]

If you're playing Fortress because of Choke, I honestly feel that you're approaching the post sideboard Maverick matchup totally wrong. It's not hard to save your Counterspells and Force of Wills for their two/three-of "silver bullet" against you. The matchup is atrocious for them, when you're playing 4 1 mana wrath effects, 4 Swords to Plowshares, and 4 Snapcaster Mages to ambush their creatures and recur Swords to Plowshares.

Glacial Fortress is terrible, especially if you're playing a Counterbalance version of the deck.

[Malakai]

If you're playing Fortress because of Choke, I honestly feel that you're approaching the post sideboard Maverick matchup totally wrong. It's not hard to save your Counterspells and Force of Wills for their two/three-of "silver bullet" against you. The matchup is atrocious for them, when you're playing 4 1 mana wrath effects, 4 Swords to Plowshares, and 4 Snapcaster Mages to ambush their creatures and recur Swords to Plowshares.

Glacial Fortress is terrible, especially if you're playing a Counterbalance version of the deck.

I have never had to do any work in order for my Glacial Fortress to come into play untapped.

[Julian23]

Glacial Fortress isn't much of a liability. The manabase isn't the greatest I have ever played but it works decently well. Postboard against Maverick, you're never putting all your eggs into the GF-basket since you've got Disenchant to deal with Choke anyways. Still, having Fortress in your deck helps more than it is gonna hurt you.

But only slightly. I can see people cutting them and I wouldn't mind too much.

[ivanpei]

If you're playing Fortress because of Choke, I honestly feel that you're approaching the post sideboard Maverick matchup totally wrong. It's not hard to save your Counterspells and Force of Wills for their two/three-of "silver bullet" against you. The matchup is atrocious for them, when you're playing 4 1 mana wrath effects, 4 Swords to Plowshares, and 4 Snapcaster Mages to ambush their creatures and recur Swords to Plowshares.

Glacial Fortress is terrible, especially if you're playing a Counterbalance version of the deck.

I don't play Glacial fortresses as well. So basically people who play it expect to draw a 1/2 of against Maverick in a post board game while not having any answers to choke. That sounds beyond narrow to me. The trade off is actually pretty serious, hands with Glacial fortress as the only coloured mana become terribad.

You are forced to play a CIPT tapped land on T1 OR forced to lay a fetch instead and risk running into Stifle. Running out a fetch early to support a T2 Fortress also makes Top/Brainstorming less efficient because you used your fetch too early. If it was a simple Tundra, you can just lay Tundra T1, fetch T2 and go about your business. Fortress messes up consistency in ALL your games in all matchups only to help slightly in postboard Mav matchups.

Glacial fortress is really really narrow and does very very little against Choke even if you draw it. A single Fortress won't save your ass from getting whooped if Choke is unanswered.

[klaus]

I don't play Glacial fortresses as well. So basically people who play it expect to draw a 1/2 of against Maverick in a post board game while not having any answers to choke. That sounds beyond narrow to me. The trade off is actually pretty serious, hands with Glacial fortress as the only coloured mana become terribad.

You are forced to play a CIPT tapped land on T1 OR forced to lay a fetch instead and risk running into Stifle. Running out a fetch early to support a T2 Fortress also makes Top/Brainstorming less efficient because you used your fetch too early. If it was a simple Tundra, you can just lay Tundra T1, fetch T2 and go about your business. Fortress messes up consistency in ALL your games in all matchups only to help slightly in postboard Mav matchups.

Glacial fortress is really really narrow and does very very little against Choke even if you draw it. A single Fortress won't save your ass from getting whooped if Choke is unanswered.

I'm with you on this one: -3 GF +3 basics improves several MUs of the Wasteland infested meta, while GFs are far from being an auto-win against Choke.dec. The MU is positive both pre and post board anyway..

[JimmyC27]

@klaus: I've been going back and forth between 3 Jace/1 Elspeth and 4 Jace. There have been a lot of times where the board looks pretty grim, and I have a miracle in hand. By resolving a Jace, I'm able to put the miracle on top, and most often watch my opponent attack into Jace for a turn (time walk). However, I have noticed that sometimes I get multiple Jaces stuck in my hand. Not sure what the correct answer is there.

[dsck]

@klaus: I've been going back and forth between 3 Jace/1 Elspeth and 4 Jace. There have been a lot of times where the board looks pretty grim, and I have a miracle in hand. By resolving a Jace, I'm able to put the miracle on top, and most often watch my opponent attack into Jace for a turn (time walk). However, I have noticed that sometimes I get multiple Jaces stuck in my hand. Not sure what the correct answer is there.

I think you just answered your own question there :)

[JimmyC27]

I think you just answered your own question there :)

Yeah.. I guess the problem of "too many Jaces" is a good problem to have.

[ivanpei]

Yeah.. I guess the problem of "too many Jaces" is a good problem to have.

I played 4 at first and it was fantastic in the control mirror. Then I played alot against rug, reanimator, sneakshow and gw Mav. 4 was definitely too much for those mus kept getting multiples stuck in hand. The current meta is too fast for 4 Jaces IMO. 3 is a nice. Number for me. Even against gw, thalia, teeq and wasteland makes it hard to cast jace consistently.

[Valtrix]

I played 4 at first and it was fantastic in the control mirror. Then I played alot against rug, reanimator, sneakshow and gw Mav. 4 was definitely too much for those mus kept getting multiples stuck in hand. The current meta is too fast for 4 Jaces IMO. 3 is a nice. Number for me. Even against gw, thalia, teeq and wasteland makes it hard to cast jace consistently.

This is completely true. I had the same problem in playing U/X control variants in the past. He's very strong, but you don't need multiples and you don't need him early. Additionally, I really disliked having two Jaces in hand, so if 4 planeswalkers was what one wanted, I would recommend 3/1 for Jace/Elspeth even.

[Thorondor]

well, this argument: "having 2 in the hand is bad", does not really count. Same for eslpeht/jace in the hand, is not much better in the given non controlish mus.

You also don't argue about STPs, having two in the hand against ench, tes, belcher, high tide and even s&t is also bad.

You can pitch jace to force and terminus into jace is one of the best plays we can do.

I am also playing 3 atm and no other planeswalker, but dunno, one in the sideboard or maybe even one more main, is something you have to consider.

[klaus]

well, this argument: "having 2 in the hand is bad", does not really count. Same for eslpeht/jace in the hand, is not much better in the given non controlish mus.

You also don't argue about STPs, having two in the hand against ench, tes, belcher, high tide and even s&t is also bad.

You can pitch jace to force and terminus into jace is one of the best plays we can do.

I am also playing 3 atm and no other planeswalker, but dunno, one in the sideboard or maybe even one more main, is something you have to consider.

After a bit of testing I've returned to the conclusion that 3 is most likely the correct number for the MD. That 4th SB Jace should be a given though for obvious reasons.

[Valtrix]

You also don't argue about STPs, having two in the hand against ench, tes, belcher, high tide and even s&t is also bad.

I think this is an unfair comparison to running 4 Jace. Sure, two STPs can be bad against those decks you mentioned, but in a large majority of matches you really want to see multiple swords, and early. They are great tempo, and can help you buy time to setup your more expensive spells. Jace requires a lot more work to the boardstate to be effective, and is difficult to even hope to play or keep alive against many decks. For this reason, having 2 Jaces can end up as a huge liability. Sure, you can pitch to force or what have you or shuffle with brainstorm, but getting two Jaces in hand without force or brainstorm ends up hurting more often than not.

And as for Jace in the board...

I know that Jace is amazing, but in the sideboard has anybody considered, or more importantly tested, considered Gideon Jura? 5 mana is pretty steep, but he does a lot in those matchups where you can afford to get to that mana. His versatility to deal with creatures or be a quick clock is very strong. Plus, playing him down after a Jace is pretty disgusting, since they'll be forced to attack Gideon instead of Jace, and will probably have to do this several turns before they have any hope of getting to Jace.

Swords is often one of the weakest cards against the deck due to the insignificance/low number of creatures most miracle decks seem to run, so I imagine people will bring out some number of swords in boarded games. This also plays to Gideon's advantage, as a 6/6 that can't take damage can't be ignored and will be hard to answer in this case. He can win the game fast, and beatdown an enemy Jace quickly.

That said, perhaps the 5cc is just a bit too much. His synergy with Jace is pretty insane, and I feel like in most matchups where you could afford the 4th Jace, you could afford to play Gideon too. So, it's difficult to say since I really haven't got to test with him much, but I really like his strength and versatility he provides as a board option.

[sarapfish]

I know that Jace is amazing, but in the sideboard has anybody considered, or more importantly tested, considered Gideon Jura? 5 mana is pretty steep, but he does a lot in those matchups where you can afford to get to that mana. His versatility to deal with creatures or be a quick clock is very strong. Plus, playing him down after a Jace is pretty disgusting, since they'll be forced to attack Gideon instead of Jace, and will probably have to do this several turns before they have any hope of getting to Jace.

Swords is often one of the weakest cards against the deck due to the insignificance/low number of creatures most miracle decks seem to run, so I imagine people will bring out some number of swords in boarded games. This also plays to Gideon's advantage, as a 6/6 that can't take damage can't be ignored and will be hard to answer in this case. He can win the game fast, and beatdown an enemy Jace quickly.

That said, perhaps the 5cc is just a bit too much. His synergy with Jace is pretty insane, and I feel like in most matchups where you could afford the 4th Jace, you could afford to play Gideon too. So, it's difficult to say since I really haven't got to test with him much, but I really like his strength and versatility he provides as a board option.

Ah...someone who also thought about using Gideon Jura. I consider him from time to time as a substitute for an Entreat the Angels. He is actually 'OK' and does get his job done, but not the type that would probably optimize a deck because of its price tag of 5cc and the argument of "might as well spend that mana for 3 4/4 angels". I guess, although not solid, he is an option...and if someone would have success running him in the deck...cheers!

[JonhLightning]

Yesterday I bought two Vendilion Clique and tried them, and they are very good in this deck. I'm running 3 Jaces, 2 Entreat as win con, with CounterTop soft lock. Clique just adds a lot of pressure by itself if not dealt with. I would recommend everyone to at least give it a serious try. I also don't run any man lands, or Glacial Fortress. Straight up 2 tundras, 9 fetches and rest are basics which almost nullify land destruction.

4 Brainstorm
4 Swords to Plowshares
3 Sensei's Divining Top
3 Spell pierce
4 Counterbalance
3 Counterspell
3 Snapcaster mage
2 Entreat the angels
2 Vendilion Clique
3 Jace, the mind sculptor
3 force of will
3 terminus

2 tundra
3 plains
4 flooded strand
1 arid mesa
4 scalding tarn
9 island

I'm gonna switch the 3 Spell pierce for the 4th Force of Will and 2 Repeal. The Spell pierce will move to my sideboard.