Miracle Control

[Whitefaces]

I thought Meddling Mage was for Abrupt Decay.

Totally matchup dependent. Would you board in mage vs Shardless and name Decay?

[Cipher]

Totally matchup dependent. Would you board in mage vs Shardless and name Decay?

That's my point. If you board them in, you almost have to name Decay, not the combo piece you really want to hit. How is boarding Mage in and naming Decay better than Clique against Storm?

I can't imagine boarding them in against Shardless is good, but I'm sure people would try it and I'm sure it sometimes works. I'm not a fan of committing even more to the Counter-Top soft lock when your opponent is boarding in even more cards to stop it.

[Whitefaces]

That's my point. If you board them in, you almost have to name Decay, not the combo piece you really want to hit. How is boarding Mage in and naming Decay better than Clique against Storm?

I can't imagine boarding them in against Shardless is good, but I'm sure people would try it and I'm sure it sometimes works. I'm not a fan of committing even more to the Counter-Top soft lock when your opponent is boarding in even more cards to stop it.

I totally agree with you, I was just trying to understand his point. I can't imagine Mage is good vs Shardless either.

Like you point out, decay deals with mage easily, so you want them in multiples ideally. Shardless runs a full set (it should, at least), as naming combo pieces followed up by another naming decay/pyroclasm can put a soft lock in place until they put the game away. I don't think Miracles has enough space in the SB to run a full set so their power drops in that sense. The combo matchup is much better for Miracles too..honestly, not a fan of MM myself at all.

[KZhang]

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:



...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.

Totally aligned with Cipher on this. i'm also prefer Mentors in the board, and instead having cliques mainboard. My rationale is that with 4 swords & 4 terminus, and XX Snapcasters, we are already in good shape against creature based decks.

What i want for my mainboard is a deck that has game against as wide a variety of decks as possible G1. Cliques help to improve matchups against both control & combo based decks, which are areas in which we are weaker at in G1. (as compared to Mentors)

Essentially, Phillip's List:

Mainboard
-2 Mentor
-1 Counterspell

+2 Cliques
+1 Terminus

With Regards to Hatebears, in most cases i still prefer Canonist to Meddling Mages.

[chaosjace]

I haven't had much practice with Miracles but I am wondering why do some people run any creatures beyond snapcaster/clique? I feel like I would rather have True Name than Mentor, and Clique or Snap instead of that.

[Quasim0ff]

I haven't had much practice with Miracles but I am wondering why do some people run any creatures beyond snapcaster/clique? I feel like I would rather have True Name than Mentor, and Clique or Snap instead of that.

True-Name is literally useless in our deck.

Mentor ends the game so quick, once you have control - It can also help stabilise as well as provide a clock in other matches (MUD, 12-post, decks where Angels are way too slow).

Vensor is good versus Show and Tell, Stoneforge Mystic and incredible with Karakas.

[chaosjace]

True-Name is literally useless in our deck.

Mentor ends the game so quick, once you have control - It can also help stabilise as well as provide a clock in other matches (MUD, 12-post, decks where Angels are way too slow).

Vensor is good versus Show and Tell, Stoneforge Mystic and incredible with Karakas.

But we aren't trying to end the game quickly, or not all of us are. I feel like in a control deck I Definately don't want to have to protect a creature by burning spells, if I was going to go Aggro, TNN protects himself at least.

I am also specifically talking about MD creatures, sorry. MD mentors seems to be popular.

[Quasim0ff]

But we aren't trying to end the game quickly, or not all of us are. I feel like in a control deck I Definately don't want to have to protect a creature by burning spells, if I was going to go Aggro, TNN protects himself at least.

I am also specifically talking about MD creatures, sorry. MD mentors seems to be popular.

Have you played Mentor?

True Name directly goes against the purpose of the deck. He is a 3/1 with 0 abilities, besides blocking. You want to play him early, otherwise he's even more useless.

If you don't like Mentor, EtA is still your best card. It's also much stronger vs BUG Decks.

[Misersoneof]

But we aren't trying to end the game quickly, or not all of us are. I feel like in a control deck I Definately don't want to have to protect a creature by burning spells, if I was going to go Aggro, TNN protects himself at least.

I am also specifically talking about MD creatures, sorry. MD mentors seems to be popular.

My thinking on mentor is is that he fills many roles.

He can act as a pseudo wrath in that your opponent won't attack into him and a few of his tokens for fear of losing their board.

He can kill troublesome planeswalkers that have the ability to protect themselves by making more guys at instant speed.

Finally, he can pretty much combo off and kill the opponent. One of the worst late game draws (arguably) is a second top. He turns that into a combo piece when he is on the board.

I agree that control decks don't want to use him to end a game early. But if we find out that we are not the control deck (when we play 12 post for example) then slamming him early becomes an option.

[twndomn]

My thinking on mentor is is that he fills many roles.

He can act as a pseudo wrath in that your opponent won't attack into him and a few of his tokens for fear of losing their board.

He can kill troublesome planeswalkers that have the ability to protect themselves by making more guys at instant speed.

Finally, he can pretty much combo off and kill the opponent. One of the worst late game draws (arguably) is a second top. He turns that into a combo piece when he is on the board.

I agree that control decks don't want to use him to end a game early. But if we find out that we are not the control deck (when we play 12 post for example) then slamming him early becomes an option.

Legacy is not as simple as dropping a Mentor to act as a pseudo wrath. Mentor and monks can't even block a Delver. How difficult can it be for a Delver player to hit you for 3 via air and then some direct damage like Bolt to the face to finish the game off? That's not to mention things like Inkmoth nexus, Creeping Tarpit, TNN. None of these care about Mentor blocking.

Mentor can kill planeswalker... only if it says on the board long enough, that's not a small task to ask. Most Miracle's fair deck opponents SB-out creature removal, but they do have plenty of them game one. For the sole purpose of killing planeswalker, Clique does a much better job for obvious reasons.

Most people would tell you that a resolved Mentor or a resolved EtA can finish the game at about equal speed, on average; sometimes EtA is actually faster, assuming it happens late game for both cards.

However, I totally disagree with BBD about SB-in Mentor. I actually want Mentor in the MD. At this point in time, if your 75 deck doesn't utilize artifact, you Need a justification for not having needle + null rod in your SB. Hence, in the SB games, your SDT gets locked out and you're under a threat's clocking. Now you draw into a Mentor, do you just jam Mentor and deplete your cantrips to generate as many monks as you can? Based on others and my experience, that's a dead end. You probably got 2 Monks, Mentor died to decay and so do rest of Monks at a later time. They probably got in for one attack for all the troubles.

Even if you run like 3 EtA or more win conditions, some have brought back the idea of Elspeth/Keranos. EtA is too clunky and most likely end up in the graveyard thanks to Hymn and Liliana, then you risk the card getting surgical-ed. Elspeth is generic enough but difficult to protect until you have enough soldier tokens. Keranos is simply too narrow. So, yes, most Shardless BUG builds will defeat Miracles, assuming the pilots know what they are doing. You could improve this MU by running Keranos, but it's a horrible win-con in other MU. All these post GP builds have Top-8 potentials, but I don't see them winning anything GP-sized, not anymore.

[Minniehajj]

There are 2 pretty firm camps in this, as there has been since the card started seeing play in miracles: Pro-Mentor and Against-Mentor. Against mentor argues the same as you said, it doesn't go with our plan, isn't an effective wrath effective, and causes us to play differently. However, Pro-Mentor argues that sometimes we'll want to play differently. It's an extremely polarizing card and there is no doubt that it is extremely powerful. Whether you're playing it or not is a deckbuilding constraint and a playstyle difference, nothing more. One approach isn't arguably better than the other, it depends on metagame and personal preference more so than anything else. Hope this helps :)

[Curby]

One approach isn't arguably better than the other, it depends on metagame and personal preference more so than anything else.

Good luck with that argument. I agree, but I've been saying this about decks for years.

I think it's safe to say that TNN doesn't belong in this deck though, so regardless of whether you love Mentor in Miracles, you'd probably prefer it over TNN.

[Minniehajj]

Good luck with that argument. I agree, but I've been saying this about decks for years.

I think it's safe to say that TNN doesn't belong in this deck though, so regardless of whether you love Mentor in Miracles, you'd probably prefer it over TNN.

Your signature makes me happy :)
And yeah, TNN is a thing to be feared when equipment is involved. It's MUCH worse than mentor.

[mort-]

So, this is the fourth try on this as I somehow ended up ranting more about some arguments that I read on the last two pages. This is not a pro or contra Mentor post, even if it sounds a lot like a pro one. It just seems to me that there are some misunderstandings and many people don't understand the card or why it's good the deck.
So, first things first.
The deck is not strong because it can Terminus at instant speed. Or because it can lock out opponents with Counter/Top. Other decks could also do that. It is strong because it can adapt to situations while using those tools in the most efficient way.
When do you want to see Entreat the Angels? With a huge amount of mana, when you have at least 4 untapped Lands (no Fetchland) and your opponent is resolving a Planeswalker and when you want to counter a CC3 spell with a Counterbalance. So while it's (undeniable) a strong wincondition, I don't want to see the card for most of the game - and that is the exact reason why I hate it. It's clunky and most of the time useless.
There are many posts regarding when to play Mentor, how much to commit to Mentor and what it does and doesn't do.
The nice thing is, those are wrong. Mentor shines because it's a high quality win condition that you can also use while you're durdling around in the midgame. The greatest missunderstanding lies in the commitment. No, you don't have to commit anything here. While those are corner cases, you can play Mentor turn 3 and I've done so often enough. While you can try to throw all your cantrips out there and create as many tokens as you want, you don't have to. Why not play one cantrip, keep open your counter and just attack for 3? Or without a trigger at all with one or two tokens.
It's a card that gives you another option to adapt to a gamestate, something which Clique and Snapcaster never could because if they block, they can't tell the tale.
The same thing counts for Terminus in that regard. There is a clear option here. Do you have a Mentor and the boardstate is favorable? Or are you able to make it favorable before you die? Uuuuuh, don't use Terminus then? Mentor isn't free, but the tokens are. So when the argument is that you lost a lot of creatures because of Terminus, you either missplayed Terminus or it was the right decision and you lost ONE creature. The same creature that could've been a Vendilion Clique. That one also gets hit by creature removal removal, just to get this argument out of the way, too.
To conclude, Mentor isn't the new messiah. It's worse than Clique in the regard of information and Planeswalker killing due to flash. It's worse than EtA in terms of pure power and endgame quality. To make up for it, it's almost never dead, gives you another angle of attack and the ability to tap for 3 mana once, then go along with your original gameplan while forcing your opponent to handle Mentor AND the stuff you play in your "free time" so it actually supports our gameplan pretty perfectly.
Bonus: It actually gives you a fighting chance against 12Post and destroys the mirrormatch.

Over the last month I've been playing a list with 3 Mentor and 0 EtA MD pretty succesfully, maybe losing 1 out of 3 or 1 out of 4 matches and have missed EtA maybe once or twice (in about 100 matches). And that was in situations where the game was absolutly unwinnable without it. I never wanted to see it in the other matches.

Also, strongly disagree with BBDs opinion on Spell Pierce. Miracles gets stronger the later in the game it gets, so a cheap counterspell is actually exactly what you want to have to survive the early game. It's dead in the lategame, but most of the time you won't need it then anyway.

So, I hope the explanation did somehow work as I intended it too. What I'm trying to say is basicly, widen your vision. It's what makes a good miracle player. And then you'll also see that the arguments against Mentor are pretty much made up. I can also see why you would want to play Clique though. Love that card.

[Misersoneof]

It's a card that gives you another option to adapt to a gamestate, something which Clique and Snapcaster never could because if they block, they can't tell the tale.
The same thing counts for Terminus in that regard. There is a clear option here. Do you have a Mentor and the boardstate is favorable? Or are you able to make it favorable before you die? Uuuuuh, don't use Terminus then? Mentor isn't free, but the tokens are. So when the argument is that you lost a lot of creatures because of Terminus, you either missplayed Terminus or it was the right decision and you lost ONE creature. The same creature that could've been a Vendilion Clique. That one also gets hit by creature removal removal, just to get this argument out of the way, too.
To conclude, Mentor isn't the new messiah. It's worse than Clique in the regard of information and Planeswalker killing due to flash. It's worse than EtA in terms of pure power and endgame quality. To make up for it, it's almost never dead, gives you another angle of attack and the ability to tap for 3 mana once, then go along with your original gameplan while forcing your opponent to handle Mentor AND the stuff you play in your "free time" so it actually supports our gameplan pretty perfectly.
Bonus: It actually gives you a fighting chance against 12Post and destroys the mirrormatch.

Over the last month I've been playing a list with 3 Mentor and 0 EtA MD pretty succesfully, maybe losing 1 out of 3 or 1 out of 4 matches and have missed EtA maybe once or twice (in about 100 matches). And that was in situations where the game was absolutly unwinnable without it. I never wanted to see it in the other matches.

So, I hope the explanation did somehow work as I intended it too. What I'm trying to say is basicly, widen your vision. It's what makes a good miracle player. And then you'll also see that the arguments against Mentor are pretty much made up. I can also see why you would want to play Clique though. Love that card.

I agree with you completely. Mentor is helpful in a lot of situations but he also needs to be dealt with by the opponent.

Many times opponents become enamoured with an active mentor. They will force it or use up removal and then I am able to play my counter lock or Jace and can pull ahead. The fact that he can be cast as early as turn 3 gives him much more potential than Entreat.

[Cipher]

Also, strongly disagree with BBDs opinion on Spell Pierce. Miracles gets stronger the later in the game it gets, so a cheap counterspell is actually exactly what you want to have to survive the early game. It's dead in the lategame, but most of the time you won't need it then anyway.

Perhaps Lightning Bolts in place of Terminus will also turn out to be much more effective in Counter-Top decks that replace miracles with Mentors. Seriously; you should give it a shot. Mentor becomes even more reliable and you diminish your ability to stop what? Elves? You can even cut Jace entirely and run the full playset of Snapcasters. Without the expensive top end you can cut even more lands.

[Ltj999]

Any tips on the shardless matchup? Seems to be one that gives me the most trouble.

[Quasim0ff]

Any tips on the shardless matchup? Seems to be one that gives me the most trouble.

Keranos, Gott der Stürme and Blutmond.

Also, Board out Willenskraft (and Gegengewicht, if you're into that kind of stuff) for Cliques, Wirrsturm, Roter Urknall (For Jace, Vision, Tar Pit). Perhaps consider Lähnumsnadel.

Verschleiss//Abnutzung is also a consideration, due to Waldesbibliothek as well as Stab des Nichts and Lähnumsnadel from them.

Depending if you like Gegengewichts or not, In Frieden Ruhen is also a consideration. Depends if you want to blank their Abrupter Verfall or not.

@Mort: I'm trying your list today, with -1 Jace +1 REB maindeck, as well as -1 Judgement +1 Gegenzauber.


Also: German cards best cards.

[PhyrexianLibrarian]

Keranos, Gott der Stürme and Blutmond.

Also, Board out Willenskraft (and Gegengewicht, if you're into that kind of stuff) for Cliques, Wirrsturm, Roter Urknall (For Jace, Vision, Tar Pit). Perhaps consider Lähnumsnadel.

Verschleiss//Abnutzung is also a consideration, due to Waldesbibliothek as well as Stab des Nichts and Lähnumsnadel from them.

Depending if you like Gegengewichts or not, In Frieden Ruhen is also a consideration. Depends if you want to blank their Abrupter Verfall or not.

@Mort: I'm trying your list today, with -1 Jace +1 REB maindeck, as well as -1 Judgement +1 Gegenzauber.

I can't decide if this is the best or worst post in the thread. XD Let me take a crack at this...

Keranos, God of Storms and Blood Moon.

Board out Force of Will (and... Counterbalance?), board in Cliques, Flusterstorm and REB.

Wear//Tear against Sylvan Library, Pithing Needle, and... Null Rod?

If you like CB, maybe Rest in Peace?

[Quasim0ff]

I can't decide if this is the best or worst post in the thread. XD Let me take a crack at this...

Keranos, God of Storms and Blood Moon.

Board out Force of Will (and... Counterbalance?), board in Cliques, Flusterstorm and REB.

Wear//Tear against Sylvan Library, Pithing Needle, and... Null Rod?

If you like CB, maybe Rest in Peace?

Nailed it. :)

I was hoping he would work a little for it, since he can't go two pages back, at least...