Page 314 of 645 FirstFirst ... 214264304310311312313314315316317318324364414 ... LastLast
Results 6,261 to 6,280 of 12895

Thread: Miracle Control

  1. #6261

    Re: [DTB] Miracle Control

    Questions:

    Vs. Storm (ANT), do you keep the following hand on the draw

    FOW top Clique 4 lands (1 is a fetch)

    And on the play do you keep

    FOW Clique Counterspell 4 lands (2 are fetches)

    Also if you have 2 outs to empty the warrens postboard (pyroclasm and EE), and your opponent empties with storm count 5 when you are at 20, do you counter one of the storm triggers to buy a turn on the clock (assume this situation comes up with both those hands and your draws for t1/t2 are lands)

  2. #6262
    Tundra Player
    alphastryk's Avatar
    Join Date

    Feb 2011
    Location

    Atlanta
    Posts

    1,072

    Re: [DTB] Miracle Control

    Quote Originally Posted by AnziD View Post
    Questions:

    Vs. Storm (ANT), do you keep the following hand on the draw

    FOW top Clique 4 lands (1 is a fetch)

    And on the play do you keep

    FOW Clique Counterspell 4 lands (2 are fetches)

    Also if you have 2 outs to empty the warrens postboard (pyroclasm and EE), and your opponent empties with storm count 5 when you are at 20, do you counter one of the storm triggers to buy a turn on the clock (assume this situation comes up with both those hands and your draws for t1/t2 are lands)
    I'd say yes to keeping both hands, but it might be right to mulligan depending on how many better 6 card hards you could get.

    In the third scenario do we have mana to cast clique? if no, I think it is correct to FoW.

  3. #6263

    Re: [DTB] Miracle Control

    Quote Originally Posted by alphastryk View Post
    I'd say yes to keeping both hands, but it might be right to mulligan depending on how many better 6 card hards you could get.

    In the third scenario do we have mana to cast clique? if no, I think it is correct to FoW.
    Okay I'm going to assume when you say "Storm" you are referring to "Belcher" not "ANT" or "TES" because ANT doesn't play Empty the Warrens last I checked. But don't worry, I'll talk about all three lists.

    If you keep a hand against Belcher with FoW, then when they cast the mana spell that gets them to 4 mana, such as Ritual, Ritual, Seething Song, then you want to stop them there and FoW the Seething Song. If you allow them to go any further, you might get lucky with them trying to cast Charbelcher or you may have just lost the game because they made a bunch of tokens with Empty the Warrens.

    Now, if you keep the Pyroclasm hand, without FoW, you are keeping a risky hand because if they have Charbelcher, you're just dead. But if they have Empty the Warrens then you just Pyroclasm. If you're going to use FoW, you don't wait for them to cast an Empty the Warrens. You try to stop them from ever casting it with FoW in the first place. Then if they're still able to sneak some Goblins through, then you just Pyro or EE or Brainstorm and put Terminus on top. Unfortunately if while doing so, they put in 20 goblins on your turn 1 then you're just dead. But I do not think it is ever correct to hold back FoW and wait.

    If you are playing against ANT or TES, most of the same rules apply, except that they play discard. So good luck holding on to your FoW's. In the event they try to go off anyway, then it is more important to counter their big spells rather than counter their mana production. The cards I am referring to are Infernal Tutor, Burning Wish, Past In Flames, and Ad Nauseam. In certain situations, Cabal Ritual may be an exception to the rule.

    So basically this is a really long winded answer, but going by these rules will help you determine whether or not to keep a certain type of hand against ANT, TES, and Belcher.

    Also depends on whether you are on the play or draw. For example, if I got lucky against Belcher Game 1 and won, and I opened the Pyroclasm hand game 2, I may just keep it and cross my fingers that they're on the Empty the Warrens plan. If they aren't, well there's always game 3.

    In a nutshell, I wanna see FoW against Belcher, but against ANT and TES, I want to see Counterbalance. Those are the priority cards I will be looking for in those matchups.

    Hope that helps!

  4. #6264

    Re: [DTB] Miracle Control

    Quote Originally Posted by alphastryk View Post
    I'd say yes to keeping both hands, but it might be right to mulligan depending on how many better 6 card hards you could get.

    In the third scenario do we have mana to cast clique? if no, I think it is correct to FoW.
    So he did this on his second turn and I only had 2 mana open.

  5. #6265

    Re: [DTB] Miracle Control

    Quote Originally Posted by AnziD View Post
    So he did this on his second turn and I only had 2 mana open.
    Odds are that there was something you should have FoW'd prior to him having enough mana to even cast Empty the Warrens.

  6. #6266
    Member

    Join Date

    Nov 2014
    Location

    Drammenn Norway
    Posts

    34

    Re: [DTB] Miracle Control

    Quote Originally Posted by AnziD View Post
    Questions:

    Vs. Storm (ANT), do you keep the following hand on the draw

    FOW top Clique 4 lands (1 is a fetch)

    And on the play do you keep

    FOW Clique Counterspell 4 lands (2 are fetches)

    Also if you have 2 outs to empty the warrens postboard (pyroclasm and EE), and your opponent empties with storm count 5 when you are at 20, do you counter one of the storm triggers to buy a turn on the clock (assume this situation comes up with both those hands and your draws for t1/t2 are lands)
    Both hands have the lands i need, it got disruption in clique and force, pluss counterspell or cardselection in sdt.
    So even if i know what i was up against i would keep both hands
    1 i would fow spell chains that would push him/her past 4 mana, and after that i hope i draw into more interaction or do a blowout with clique after a tutor.
    2 if he get to cast a empty i would ofcourse counter a trigger if it bought me a turn to find an answer.
    Edit: if you expect to mulligan to better 6 card hands than this vs storm, Then you run on better luck than me

  7. #6267

    Re: [DTB] Miracle Control

    Quote Originally Posted by drocker23 View Post
    Okay I'm going to assume when you say "Storm" you are referring to "Belcher" not "ANT" or "TES" because ANT doesn't play Empty the Warrens last I checked.
    TES plays EtW as its primary wincon and ANT has EtW out of the board, just FYI.

  8. #6268

    Re: [DTB] Miracle Control

    Quote Originally Posted by rlesko View Post
    TES plays EtW as its primary wincon and ANT has EtW out of the board, just FYI.
    I wasn't aware of that. I assume they bring it in as an alternate win con in sideboarded games?

  9. #6269
    Site Contributor
    Quasim0ff's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2013
    Posts

    1,433

    Re: [DTB] Miracle Control

    Quote Originally Posted by drocker23 View Post
    I wasn't aware of that. I assume they bring it in as an alternate win con in sideboarded games?
    yeah, in order to maximize chance to go off as soon as possible, and without the need to storm for 10. Usually 5 storm gets the job done, which is really easy to get in ant (and if you keep a hand that can't either generate 14 gobs by at least turn 2/kill by turn 2 in TES, you are likely playing the deck wrong.

  10. #6270
    Tundra Player
    alphastryk's Avatar
    Join Date

    Feb 2011
    Location

    Atlanta
    Posts

    1,072

    Re: [DTB] Miracle Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Madsk View Post
    Both hands have the lands i need, it got disruption in clique and force, pluss counterspell or cardselection in sdt.
    So even if i know what i was up against i would keep both hands
    1 i would fow spell chains that would push him/her past 4 mana, and after that i hope i draw into more interaction or do a blowout with clique after a tutor.
    2 if he get to cast a empty i would ofcourse counter a trigger if it bought me a turn to find an answer.
    Edit: if you expect to mulligan to better 6 card hands than this vs storm, Then you run on better luck than me
    I've historically had more storm hate than most people due to my local Metagame. There was certainly a point in time where my average 6 would be better. Most modern lists it is correct to keep those hands however.

  11. #6271
    In Response...
    exallium's Avatar
    Join Date

    Feb 2014
    Location

    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Posts

    281

    Re: [DTB] Miracle Control

    Hey,

    For those interested, I did a writeup of my experiences from New Jersey here: http://exallium.wordpress.com/2014/1...ix-new-jersey/
    They banned Top, so now I play Grixis Delver.

  12. #6272

    Re: [DTB] Miracle Control

    Quote Originally Posted by exallium View Post
    Hey,

    For those interested, I did a writeup of my experiences from New Jersey here: http://exallium.wordpress.com/2014/1...ix-new-jersey/
    So..., Lossett lost to Burn and Tezzeret Day one (maybe something else I don't remember). You lost to Zoo, WUR Delver, and drew against Infect. Let's say fatigue isn't a factor at round 8, I'm a bit alarmed by losing to WUR Delver.

    Just reading through the standing at Super Sunday, there're plenty of big names there like Haas and Yim. I've heard that Naas slow-played his way into the Top 8. Too bad you dropped out early on Sunday.

  13. #6273
    In Response...
    exallium's Avatar
    Join Date

    Feb 2014
    Location

    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Posts

    281

    Re: [DTB] Miracle Control

    I'm not Joe losset. I'm also surprised I lost to uwr delver.

    Also, for numerous reasons fatigue was a factor.

    I dropped out early due to being 1-2 and having a 14 hour drive home ahead of me ;)
    Last edited by exallium; 11-22-2014 at 10:12 PM.
    They banned Top, so now I play Grixis Delver.

  14. #6274

    Re: [DTB] Miracle Control

    Quote Originally Posted by exallium
    My final round in this event was against Chi Hoi Yim playing Miracles as he always does. I end up losing in three games, but I believe I could have won had I boarded a bit differently. True-Name Nemesis got him there in two out of three games. I boarded exactly as I had in my other Miracles matchups, as Tomas had shown me, but I was unable to find an answer for the Merfolk Rogue. Oh well. I was happy to just have met Chi Hoi.
    He played TNN in Miracles? Probably a Sideboard card for the mirror, right? Can you tell us more about the deck? Did he have a stoneforge package to go with it?

  15. #6275
    Member
    YamiJoey's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2013
    Location

    Bury, Manchester, England
    Posts

    715

    Re: [DTB] Miracle Control

    With people now looking into cards like GosT, True-Name, and the use of Vendilion Cliques, it might do us well to make sure we leave in some number of Terminuses.

    I'm personally on the 2 Entreats, 2 Council's Judgement, everything Blue plan. I usually just expect to concede the game if they make a large Entreat, unless I block with my own Angels. For me it's all about CounterTop, and everything else is secondary.
    Quote Originally Posted by useL View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by twndomn View Post
    If you pay me or give me some benefits, I might consider writing reports.
    Can I pay you for not posting in this thread?
    The conspiracy goes deeper than you might think.

    Quote Originally Posted by Einherjer View Post
    That's.... that's not how deckbuilding works.

  16. #6276
    In Response...
    exallium's Avatar
    Join Date

    Feb 2014
    Location

    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Posts

    281

    Re: [DTB] Miracle Control

    Quote Originally Posted by decan View Post
    He played TNN in Miracles? Probably a Sideboard card for the mirror, right? Can you tell us more about the deck? Did he have a stoneforge package to go with it?
    Well. He had a full on stoneforge plan. I asked him about it after the games and he said he was just trying something different. Also saw a dig through time. I'm thinking it was all mainboard, as I did see mystic game 1.

    I agree with YamiJoey, this version of miracles could require a few terminus to be left in, and I believe access to it would have potentially won me the game.
    They banned Top, so now I play Grixis Delver.

  17. #6277

    Re: [DTB] Miracle Control

    That was a little... strange. Did Lossett give his opponent enough time to put Vortex trigger on the stack? Better question, did Lossett go thru his draw step the same way every turn, including that controversial upkeep?

    Schönegger's so eager to show Lossett how it's done, strongest rail yet.

  18. #6278
    itsJulian.com - Legacy Videos
    Julian23's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2007
    Location

    Munich / Germany
    Posts

    3,141

    Re: [DTB] Miracle Control

    It doesn't matter how fast Joe draws his card. If the UR Delver guy wanted the trigger to happen, he could just point at his Vortex. In fact though, he forgot about it and even agreed to Joe resolving SDT. At that point it's apparent he forgot about it.
    The seven cardinal sins of Legacy:
    1. Discuss the unbanning of Land Tax Earthcraft.
    2. Argue that banning Force of Will would make the format healthier.
    3. Play Brainstorm without Fetchlands.
    4. Stifle Standstill.
    5. Think that Gaea's Blessing will make you Solidarity-proof.
    6. Pass priority after playing Infernal Tutor.
    7. Fail to playtest against Nourishing Lich (coZ iT wIlL gEt U!).

  19. #6279

    Re: [DTB] Miracle Control

    I am DYING to hear Schonegger's opinion after watching Joe through the finals....

  20. #6280

    Re: [DTB] Miracle Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Ltj999 View Post
    I am DYING to hear Schonegger's opinion after watching Joe through the finals....
    Pretty scummy of Joe. He knew he was dead and needed that extra turn to pull out the win. He untapped drew (knowing it was top) and put it right into play tapping his land. Then, the question came up, hey what about the two damage? If I was the U/R player I would have appealed to the head judge. Clearly its a close game, the u/r player would be counting down 3 of his turns til he was dead.

    Lossett = Scum

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)