I played a mini tournament with a D&T player at my LGS yesterday. My list is Schonegger's new list but with one needle in the SB over a flusterstorm since I don't have the 3rd.
Game 1 I have a lot of duals in my hand but keep. I force his turn 1 vial and keep killing his creatures until I'm able to play a jace and protect it. He scoops right before the ultimate.
I board out 1 force, 2 counterbalance, 1 counterspell and 1 council's judgement.
I bring in 1 needle, 1 staticaster, 2 wear // tear and 1 containment priest.
Game 2 Ends with me having a mentor, 2 tops and a bunch of tokens. I have brainstorm in hand. He cataclysms and I rebuild and kill him.
I can identify where I could have killed him earlier but didn't. I wasn't punished for it but I won't make the same mistake again.
I want to know about my boarding and whether it was the right mix of cards. Needle was useful as i was able to needle his vials.
mise 'miz v alter. of might as well (1997) 1: to win when you don't deserve to 2: to top-deck the "tings" you need 3: to be rewarded by an opponent's bad luck 4: to coin a phrase that spreads through the tournament scene like wildfire 5: to fling a monkey 6: to split firewood using a sharp instrument 7: To burn
It's not loading for me... have a transcript somewhere?Originally Posted by twndomn
don't board out fow but instead do board out all counterbalances. CJ is allright so keep that. You can cut a jace too.
Could anybody link Schoneggers current list please?
2 Arid Mesa
4 Flooded Strand
3 Island
1 Misty Rainforest
2 Plains
2 Polluted Delta
1 Scalding Tarn
3 Tundra
3 Volcanic Island
21 land
2 Monastery Mentor
3 Snapcaster Mage
5 creature
4 Brainstorm
1 Council's Judgment
4 Counterbalance
2 Counterspell
1 Entreat the Angels
4 Force of Will
3 Jace, the Mind Sculptor
4 Ponder
4 Sensei's Divining Top
4 Swords to Plowshares
3 Terminus
34 other spells
Sideboard (15)
1 Containment Priest
1 Izzet Staticaster
3 Flusterstorm
3 Pyroblast
1 Rest in Peace
1 Surgical Extraction
3 Vendilion Clique
2 Wear // Tear
15 cards
More details in this article
wohoo
Null Rod + Humility vs MUD!!
Brion, the Unarmed Warrior
Legendary Creature - Giant Warrior
All artifacts lose all abilities.
Artifact creatures have base power and toughness 1/1.
At the beginning of each player's upkeep, Brion, the Unarmed Warrior deals damage to that player equal to the number of artifacts he or she controls.
"Rely on your own skills rather than on clunky and disposable trinkets, and no battle will be impossible to win."
5/5
You mean the one posted in the shitty card creation thread?
not coming in next expansion?
Ok I retire with this.
First of all, I don't understand why this thread has de-generate into mind reading of a particular user, trying to seek out "wisdom" or comedy.
Second, BBD posted a premium article about GP, the mistakes he felt about playing Miracles, since he himself did not do so well. It's not free, so....
http://www.starcitygames.com/article...-Miracles.html
I just disclose the key points, or the key mistakes.
1. play situational or potentially dead cards.
2. aggressive game plan can backfire.
3. run less than 4 Terminus.
Last edited by twndomn; 11-19-2015 at 04:47 PM.
Why run less than 4?
It's more like what Not to do. He knew it's a bad idea, but he did it anyway at the GP. Long story short, he MD-ed mentors and 3 Terminus and felt he under-achieved at the GP, hence he wrote about what Not to do.
1. don't play situational or potentially dead cards.
Is he talking about blood moon or something even more situational? There is a lot of post in my local meta so I believe I can justify a single slot to something against them, but I'm not completly convinced that a single blood moon isn't worthwhile in an open meta. I think there is a very strong argument to be made that in a deck with unrivaled card selection there no reason to play 'redundant' cards in a sideboard. I think playing two copies of enchantments with a static effect like RIP and moon is a poor use of sideboard slots because the second one has little to no value. What I really like about Phillip's sideboard is that each card he has multiples of performs well in multiples like blasts and flusterstorms, or are incredibly critical in various matchups like wear//tear or clique.
2. aggressive game plan can backfire.
I think a lot of people are playing mentor wrong and treating it like a 3 drop. Unless I have very good reasons I want to be able to guarantee 2 monks out of it and not put myself in a position where my opponent can play something punishing on their turn. I think the presence of mentor encourages people not to play patiently. It is incredibly tempting to curve top into counterbalance into mentor, but at least in my experience that line is almost always wrong.
3. run less than 4 Terminus.
Do or do not run less than 4 terminus? After playing Phillip's most recent list I've decided to change it and go back to four terminus. My current cut is -1 snapcaster +1 terminus, but I think an argument could be made for shaving a counterspell instead.
He's talking about how he regrets maindecking pyroblast (spell pierce and flusterstorm) in the main deck because they are dead for certain matchups and the soft counters are useless after turn 5:
"The gameplan of Miracles is to drag the game out as long as it takes until you've established complete control, and then find a way to win somehow afterward. Cards like Flusterstorm, Daze, and Spell Pierce get worse and worse as the game progresses, they are only truly good in the first few turns. Yet Miracles is trying to drag the game out longer and longer, which means that these cards go directly against your gameplan. If you're trying to push the game past turn 10, keep away from situational cards that stop being relevant after turn 5."
I agree to a certain extent but I think its just more metagaming (he mentioned he faced belcher, punishing jund and maverick which pyroblast was bad against). If you expect a meta full of storm, sneak and show or miracles, I would rather have 2 spell pierces over 2 swords to plowshares, but swords to plowshares is more useful in more matches so I personally run 4 of those and 0 spell pierce.
Swing and a miss then I guess.
The whole point of playing Mentor is to be quicker. If you're going to try and go wide, ETA is just better. Yes, ETA requires you to "top deck" it whereas Mentor can be casted for just 3 mana, but he then requires you to have backup instants/sorceries. If you cast him with nothing in hand, good luck winning. Whereas if you cast ETA at instant speed, you make 3 tokens and have a really good shot at winning.
Thanks for the advice, I'll try that next time.
mise 'miz v alter. of might as well (1997) 1: to win when you don't deserve to 2: to top-deck the "tings" you need 3: to be rewarded by an opponent's bad luck 4: to coin a phrase that spreads through the tournament scene like wildfire 5: to fling a monkey 6: to split firewood using a sharp instrument 7: To burn
i'm surprised he doesn't like Vendilion Cliques, preferring meddling mages instead.
it's been consistently an all-star for me against combo and especially mirrors.
He claimed Meddling Mage is better in the matchups you bring it in. His specific example was Sneak and Show where he says it can stop Boseju + Show and Tell on turn 2. I think he chose those numbers because he was hard pressed to come up with a scenario where Clique wasn't superior. I spent a long time after reading his article trying to rationalize how some of the hate bears are better than Clique, but ended up scrapping the idea. Every deck in Legacy has 4x Abrupt Decay or 4x Pyroblast at this point, and a blind Meddling Mage may accomplish nothing and trade with a Decay at your opponent's convenience. That's how I see it at least.
His analysis on Mentor maindeck:
I only have Mentors sideboard, but this is exactly why I'm hesitant to try them main. After rereading Phillips explanation about how Mentor makes the deck play a bit more like Stoneblade, I think there's just a fundamental difference in playstyle/opinion. I called this way back in May, actually:When I play Miracles, I have one thought running through my mind every turn of the game. That thought is to reduce as many outs to win the game as possible for my opponent. Every turn, I want to increase the number of weak or dead draws for them until I reach a battlefield where they simply are locked out from winning the game anymore. There are some decks, like 12-Post or MUD, where they actually have inevitability and you have to play the aggressor role, but for most decks, Miracles has the ultimate endgame, and it's important to play every turn toward that endgame. Take away as many options from them as possible, each and every turn.
Monastery Mentor in the maindeck is counterproductive to this style of game. The style of game that Monastery Mentor is looking to play is a lot more aggressive. With Monastery Mentor, you don't need to necessarily restrict your opponent's outs every turn of the game. You need to simply prevent them from winning long enough for Mentor to kill them.
That sounds well and good, except for one thing. Mentor falls short of killing them a lot. When that happens, you've expended all your resources into this one aggressive gameplan designed to kill them quickly, and now you're ill-equipped to win past that point. I'd rather just play a Miracles build that is singularly focused and every card is in the deck for the purpose of accomplishing one single goal, rather than these schizophrenic builds that try to take complete control of the game some of the time, but then try to turbo win with Mentor some other part of the time. These kinds of half and half measures never seem to really work out.
...although I guess that "new version" won the GP a month later and that was the end of Dig. I can see people still pushing this envelope, with a hybrid of Chapin and Schonneger's decklists going down to 0 Entreat and maybe 2 Terminus, while running Mentor as opposed to Miracles as the additional payoffs for running Top.
I played two mentors yesterday, and was really happy with how they played out.
There's a lot of Young Pyromancer locally, which might make for them being slightly stronger than EtA, as you can actually get a strong board presence without having to waste terminus. I've found that the play of Mentor > a bunch of tokens > Entreat is an extremely strong line. (Happened twice, with me stabilising on like... 4 life against 6 tokens from him - Attacking into that, without two to lock the game up, wasn't really possible. Obviously, this doesn't happen often, but yeah).
Also, played 4 preordain over 4 ponder, and didn't mind it at all (My ponders are currently away for being altered, hence this :D).
I thought Meddling Mage was for Abrupt Decay.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote