I haven't actually played against the deck so I don't know what to expect. But I take out the 4th Terminus because I MD a Supreme Verdict. It really all depends on what I see out of the deck G1 and whether or not I feel comfortable with the 4 Terminuses G1 (in other words, am I always thinking, "There better fucking be a Terminus on top.")Originally Posted by presquepartout
As much as I like the idea of 4 Snapcaster, don't you feel only 1 Entreat is too dangerous? The back-up plans of Jace ult and Snappy beats seem dubious.
The whole concept of control is to stabilize and to control. Win condition is the least of your concern. If you can control the board state, you can pretty much win with anything.
The reason for running multiple Entreat really is for time constraint. Most of us can struggle finishing game 2 or game 3. Entreat's closing speed is as good as and sometimes faster than Mentor.
hi, i would say my opinion. i've played and won an event in Italy with Miracle with Mentor MD like the GP Kyoto. it was the first time i played miracle in a tounrament, but the deck performed very well.
the main things that i find out are 2:
1) Mentor can keep under control the board event if you don't see remuvals, thing that Angels can't do in early game, and sometimes even in late.
2) For the oppo is very hard find a good side in/out, because if they keep the remuvals could died by Jace or other spells like CB...here there is a report made by guy who did top8 and played against me on round 5 and than in top8, as you can read, it was hard for him find the right side against me.
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...onder-Miracles
The reasoning of B88 is right in my opinion... but i will still play Entreat maindeck
both cards basically reads: two turns, you win the game... don't get tricked by the cc of Mentor, it basically costs 4 or 5 like entreat for win the game, one makes you tap 3 sorcery speed and 1 or 2 at instant speed, the other one basically makes you tap 5 at instant speed, but in topdeck mode Entreat is simply superior, for mentor to work properly you better have 2 or 3 cards in hand,and entreat plays better in a deck that's packing terminus.
Having Mentor sb also gives your opponents an hard time sideboarding, even playing 1 if they keep in hate for creatures they're drawing dead until you cast mentor, if they're not keeping it in they're concedeing to it.
Mentor is a little better in the midgame, entreat is better in the late... where we want to go usually...
only my two cents
I was commenting on @presquepartout's list with 4 Snapcasters and a single lonely Entreat, not trying to compare Entreat to Mentor or anything like that. I was just pointing out that having only one copy of a card that needs to resolve for you to end the game in a reasonable amount of time would make me uncomfortable. I was just curious how it was working out for him.
...Because on your other point, IMO, the win-con does matter quite a bit. Entreat is a huge positive to the deck when compared to other control strategies, the fact that the win con is so explosive means you can win games even if you do end up falling behind on board. So yes, your goal is to control the board, and plenty of games are won on the back of wizard beats, but I for sure prefer being able to win anyway when that strategy doesn't pan out.
I have had a number of instances where something happens to my first set of tokens (Verdict, EE, Toxic Deluge, what have you) and win anyway off the back of the second copy. Not having another "oops I win" in your pocket seems like it will lose/draw games while you try to ramp up a Jace or beat down with a 2/1.
As a specific example, a few weeks ago I won a grindy game against Tezzeret. I was staring down an enemy Jace + Tezzeret + newly summoned Thopter/Sword combo with nothing but lands and a Top in play. My first army of angels had eaten a Toxic Deluge a few turns prior. I still won despite the board state because I was able to make 9 more hasty angel tokens.
So, as much as I like the idea of bumping snappy up to 4, removing the powerhouse win-con #2 option to do it I think would lose me games in the long run... but maybe I'm off base here.
Last edited by RogueMTG; 06-15-2015 at 05:52 PM.
When people make statements like this, I want to agree in a vacuum. However, Cavern makes the comparison complicated. I will assume all the Mentor lists contain Cavern. Hence,
un-counterable mentor vs the opportunity cost of running Cavern (Need W Mana asap but Cavern is mocking you) is an footnote that needs to be mentioned in this context. Also, just because you run Cavern, that does not mean you will always want to name Human/Monk in the SB games and you'll always have it when you want to play Mentor.
My take is that if you're convinced of running Cavern in your 75. Mentor is just the next logical step.
How do you guys would board vs. the mentor deck from GP Kyoto? I guess the plan is basically to lock them down with CB and then win from there, but i'm not sure if i should keep in some removals ( Terminuses) or if I should board in mentor, in the first case i guess we're basically losing until we don't resolve a counterbalance, in the second case it seems to me that we are playing an underpowered version of the deck for the "Mentor Mirror" because they're basically playing twice our mentors and the first who resolve that is greatly advantaged IMHO...
in my previous experience i thought of this two plans:
-4 STP, -1/2 Plains, -4 Terminus,
+2 Reb, +Wear/Tear, +Council's Judgment, +Engineered Explosives, +2 Monastery mentor, +2 Vendilion/ Flusterstorm
or:
-4 STP, -1/2 PLains -1/2 Terminus
+2 Reb, +Wear/Tear, +Council's Judgment, +Engineered Explosives, +2/3 Vendilion/ Flusterstorm
playing this decklists:
4 Flooded Strand
4 Misty Rainforest
3 Tundra
3 Volcanic Island
3 Island
2 Plains
1 Arid mesa
3 Snapcaster Mage
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Sensei's Divining Top
4 Swords to Plowshares
2 Pyroblast
1 Counterspell
4 Counterbalance
2 Jace, the Mind Sculptor
4 Force of Will
4 Terminus
2 Entreat the Angels
2 Dig Through Time
SB:
1 Red Elemental Blast
1 Pyroblast
1 Rest in Peace
1 Containment Priest
2 Ethersworn canonist
2 Monastery Mentor
2 Flusterstorm
2 Vendilion Clique
1 Engineered Explosives
1 Council's Judgment
1 Wear/Tear
Does anybody have any experience in this matchup?
What's the plan to fight Boseiju? Yuta Takahashi played two Wasteland at GP Kyoto, apparently to good effect, it just feels so weird.
Otherwise we have to let SnT resolve then fight the stack after that with Pyros, Clique and countermagic?
Yeah, that's how it's done. That just requires for you, almost, to have CB, as he otherwise can just do everything on the stack, with more cards being relevant than you do.
Seems tough, but definitely doable, cheers. Might consider upping the Flusterstorm count to 3 to fight in this situation then. I think every Omni list will have 2 Boseiju after board now so it will happen a lot.
I assume people have tried Meddling Mage in the board, any success with that?
Considering Omnitell is a spell based combo deck, permanent based hate is pretty good. Just put MM on SnT and make sure their Wishes dont resolve and you should be golden.
That's the plan! I just wonder if Meddling Mage is worth the sideboard slot, though. It does get Pyroblasted too.
If they are playing the red splash, chances are they don't have that many Boseiju's and then you just need to watch out for Pyromannen.
MM is also excellent versus storm. Just stick it and say Abrupt Decay and your CB is safe forever.
I never understood why people board out Terminus in the mirror if you expect them to have creatures post-board. In my Legacy 18-man last week, I faced two mirrors and I kept in at least 2-3 Terminus for both matches, and I won both mirrors 2-0.
With your list, if you're playing an exact mirror, I would board like so:
-1 Ponder
-1 FoW
-1 Dig
-1 Entreat
-1 Terminus
-2 Swords
-1 Snapcaster
+1 Pyrob
+1 REB
+2 Mentor
+1 Wear/Tear
+2 V Clique
+1 Council's Judgment (because sometimes you'll come across a pesky permanent and want that extra removal—a topdeck CJ saved my ass in the mirror when he had a Jace on 9)
This board plan is also valid for a Legends Miracles list. If you're playing against a different list that isn't creature heavy, I would board differently. I am not a fan of EE because why do half the job a Terminus can do? EE is not Pernicious Deed, and that's why I don't play it in my SB. My board wipe should be able to wipe the entire board or else I'm not playing it.
Why don't you board plains in the mirror? I'd much rather have Ponder than Plains, that's for sure...
He also boards out Snapcaster and Dig (and Ponder/FoW) while keeping Swords. I think we have found ourselves a new Poron.
I think you need to calm down, first of all. We're discussing the motion towards creatures. Not the standard 3 snap, 2 clique configuration, where REB killed everything.
Why do we need to keep in Plows? The only creature that doesn't die to Reb is mentor that usually leaves behind 1 or 2 tokens. .. i'd prefer to cut 1 plains and the other 2 plows and keep in FoW Snapcaster and Dig...
My mistake, I do board out a Plains. But I don't think 4 Ponder in G2 is where you want to be (I play a 3-Ponder list myself so I guess my personal preference is leaking)
Because they might board into more creatures so you would often just want more spot removal, plus it frees up your REB effects for noncreature spells if you need it. Don't just board for what you see, you also need to plan for what might come in on their side. And yea I suppose I would keep in a FoW, now looking back at my board plan from last week in the mirror. :shrug: Keep in mind I only play 2 Snaps so I'm not used to seeing more than 1 every couple games. Maybe you're heavily reliant on him and want to see him every game and that's your play style.
Ha you're funny. I wonder how I went 2-0 (2-0, 2-0) in both Miracles mirrors I played last week:
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Reply With Quote