When you're adding 15 cards (incl 3 cliques), are you cutting all 4 Mentors?Originally Posted by Minniehajj
I assume it's this, but I'm curious how you approach it:
-4 Mentor, -4 StP, -4 Terminus, -2 EE, -1 Preordain
I no longer have Preordain in my list at all.
Vs Omni, I board as follows:
-4 StP
-4 Terminus
-4 Mentor
-1 Plains
-2 EE
+ The Entire Sideboard
Sometimes I will leave in some number of Mentors though, depending on how I feel about the player/match up until that point.
So you went back to 20 lands and 0 preordains, can I ask you why this choice? I always feel that this 4mentor list is less "mana hungry" than normal miracle lists and for this reason we can play more cantrips (probably it is just a my feel and I am pretty wrong). The sideboard is pretty similar to mine , for the exception of the 3rd vendilion clique...
So, after playing a bit with the Wilson list I tried to play a more...combo?maybe extreme?...version of his list.
4 Monastery Mentor
2 Snapcaster Mage
4 Brainstorm
4 Force of Will
3 daze
4 Swords to Plowshares
4 Ponder
2 preordain
4 Terminus
1 Engineered Explosives
4 Sensei's Divining Top
4 Counterbalance
1 Counterspell
1 Arid Mesa
4 Flooded Strand
4 scalding tarn
4 island
1 plains
2 volcanic island
3 tundra
I don't have any result with this list yet (aside from some testing and some random online matches) but if someone is interested I can post once in a while
I tried going down this route and it was just too all in and one dimensional, and I wanted more flexibility. The issue with this approach overall is that it's rather "win more." If you get to untap with a mentor, aren't you already far ahead? You don't need to add substance to that plan at all. I don't want to play any bad or situational cards (Predict can be considered a situational one, but the payoff is well worth it IMO).So you went back to 20 lands and 0 preordains, can I ask you why this choice? I always feel that this 4mentor list is less "mana hungry" than normal miracle lists and for this reason we can play more cantrips (probably it is just a my feel and I am pretty wrong
So, after playing a bit with the Wilson list I tried to play a more...combo?maybe extreme?...version of his list.
4 Monastery Mentor
2 Snapcaster Mage
4 Brainstorm
4 Force of Will
3 daze
4 Swords to Plowshares
4 Ponder
2 preordain
4 Terminus
1 Engineered Explosives
4 Sensei's Divining Top
4 Counterbalance
1 Counterspell
1 Arid Mesa
4 Flooded Strand
4 scalding tarn
4 island
1 plains
2 volcanic island
3 tundra
I don't have any result with this list yet (aside from some testing and some random online matches) but if someone is interested I can post once in a while
I wanted to let the deck have the ability to turn on a dime and transform to fill whatever role it would need to and I believe that this iteration retains the "power" of the 4 mentor build without being too all in on it. It's for this reason that I cut the Preordain and moved the land that was in the sideboard back into the main deck to try to solidify the manabase further.
I'm happy to read this, because when I come here to talk about my list with no-Jace, no-Entreat, people (not every one, but the first answers was that) just told me to go away as it is no more Miracle... Keep open minded, thank you Minniehajj for your kind and constructive report and evaluation of the deck.
IT IS TWO AND A HALF MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
I play both EE and CJ in my list. All bases covered.
The purpose of any moat is to impede attack. Some are filled with water, some with thistles. Some are filled with things best left unseen.
I've been running the four mentor list since the brainstorm show came out with it. I did update with the changes they and Minniehajj prescribed. I have tried one JTMS over the second preordain and it definitely has won me games where I would have lost if it was a preordain. I'm not 100% sold on it, but it definitely warrants more testing.
Jace is EXTREMELY powerful and wanting Jace and a lot of it's power comes from it's ability to "grind" i.e. extend the length of the game and allow his card advantage to finally capitalize as you can eventually just start throwing your cards at your opponent. I never said Jace wasn't powerful.
However, I disagreed heavily with the direction that the Brainstorm Show went with the deck, because removing the Predicts to add in more mentor fuel and a counterspell doesn't actually help the deck's weaknesses. If you look at my post here: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...l=1#post960967
I detail what I believed the decks weaknesses really are, and it's one-dimensionality is the biggest reason IMO. If you don't play Jace, it basically boils down to you NEEDING a card advantage source of some sort, such as Predict, otherwise you'll just flounder. You don't need to win-more, like preordains with Mentor. If you're untapping with Mentor, you should have "fuel" and then you just start going off. You need this "fuel" not more single-use cantrips. You still have bad cards that can be non-bos with mentor, like Terminus and reactive spells like Force, etc. It's not a fool-proof plan a lot of the time. Therefore, you also need to remain flexible. Increasing your cantrip count to fuel Mentor isn't really the way, you need card advantage somewhere and if you want to play a no-Jace approach, Predict is the biggest way to do this.
The card advantage of Miracles is built into the core of the deck - CounterTop, Terminus, and a threat that makes an army by itself. I think more Preordains are good for the deck because you increase the consistency of operating around these three powerful gameplans. I am always open-minded to running Jace, but I think beginning the brainstorming process with the assumption that you "need" more card advantage is not necessarily correct.
Obviously, I didn't begin the brainstorming process behind adjusting the deck from this =P.
I decided to try UW miracle's list with out red support:
mainboard:
3 monastery mentor
3 snapcaster mage
2 jace, the mind sculptor
4 sensei's divining top
4 brainstorm
4 ponder
1 predict
4 force of will
3 counterbalance
2 counterspell
4 swords to plowshares
4 terminus
1 council's judgment
1 echoing truth
4 flooded strand
3 scalding tarn
2 arid mesa
1 karakas
2 tundra
7 island
2 plains
total: 61 cards
sideboard:
2 flusterstorm
1 hydroblast
2 surgical extraction
1 disenchant
1 dismantling blow
2 meddling mage
2 vendilion clique
1 venser, shaper savant
1 batterskull
1 supreme verdict
1 back to basics
echoing truth - vs CotV + many features like recasting scm or recasting cb with monastery mentor on board)
dismantling blow and batterskull - vs mirror (weakest match-up for my deck) and vs shardless bug
Any suggestions? I'll be happy to any ideas for this deck's developing.
The batterskull plan is one of the weakest plans VE. Miracles in general IMHO, I would not board that in, echoing truth main deck is ugly, cut and go to 60 cards, you need at least another disenchanted effect in the 75 I suppose because dismantling blow seems totally over costed, I would runa at least another b2b and cut mono veneer from the board, with a miser karakas it isn't worth it
I can still play legacy
Thank you for the constructive post, very much appreciated
I saw some decklists from really strong legacy players (Tholance, Tristan Polzl and Johannes Gutbrod) who plays 4xReb effects and 1x Mountain in the board, would anyone please list the matchup where this land would be boarded in? When to cut a land and when not to? And VE. Which matchup do I get to board in all the 4 Rebs?
Last edited by Gros; 07-18-2016 at 03:59 PM.
Very often you will exchange your FoWs for the Rebs and/or Flusterstorm especially against other blue decks that are not combo-based. Any delver strategy that doesn't play Liliana would be a good example. Not even sure if keeping FoW for Liliana would be worth it either. Would depend on the rest of your list as you can easily kill her with a Vendilion Clique aswell.
Where Liliana is, thoughtseize and hymn often follow.
Echinoderm is the common name given to any member of the Phylum Echinodermata.
Consider making powerful additions to your legacy deck by including the following cards.
http://images.magicmadhouse.co.uk/im...3-69441300.jpg
http://images.magicmadhouse.co.uk/im...0-27931100.jpg
Denying Thoughtseize and Hymn to resolve is situational. If you are on the draw and you know they have thougtseize you might want to keep FoW. They can also be countered by the Flusterstorm you bring in if you absolutely want to.
For that matchup in particular Spell Snare would also shine as it would be able to target Sylvan Library aswell as Hymn.
I think each problem can be attacked with the different angles presented by the Predict lists: Monastery Mentor and surplus creatures (Snap, Clique) for the former; postboard Wear//Tear for the latter. In both cases, a proactive and spell-based gameplan is still essential.
I have several remarks and questions about the new design of the deck. A cursory observation of this list relative to the previous ones in the development of the Predict lists:
-2 Jace; -2 Counterspell; -1 Tundra || SB: -1 Wear//Tear
+2 Monastery Mentor; +1 Plains; +1 EE; +1 Counterbalance || SB: +1 Clique
In testing, has the second EE compensated for the absence of the third Wear//Tear? I've been on the fence about a third Wear//Tear because of how many Snaps and sifting cards we have.
Does the second EE also assist with the idea of making answers more efficient than counters in the list? It appears that the second EE has come at the expense of a Counterspell (or at the expense of switching a Counterspell back into a Counterbalance).
In this sense, the deck becomes weaker to spells overall. Is that the reason that the 4th Counterbalance is brought back in? I'd really liked the strength of the extra hard Counterspells over the 4th Counterbalance; duplicates of CB are uninteractive and a Counterspell has a very high power level at the expense of its situational use.
In your testing, have you found that the EEs help with card advantage (e.g. getting both a DRS and a Delver with the same activation), or more with answering problem permanents (Chalice, Thorn, etc...)? Is its value the mixture of both?
Overall, I think that removing Jace is a good idea: the metagame may be fair, but it's also relatively fast. Because I'd considered it a kind of sacred cow, I hadn't ever thought to remove it in the main in place of any other win conditions.
Because of the re-addition of a second Plains, did your testing team also consider any othercards, like a 1-of Entreat instead of a 4th Mentor, during your development of the most recent list?
~~~
Has anyone else tested with Price of Progress in either the main or the side? Mark Kugel/kravkenov's list seems like it could fit it in, but I can't recall his ever posting a list where he tested it.
Great insights! I want to start off by saying that this decklist is part of a thought experiment originally started by the Brainstorm Show guys: Is Jace necessary? It is independent of the lists that we created when working on Predict and follows its own schools of thought and has its own set of trials and tribulations.I think each problem can be attacked with the different angles presented by the Predict lists: Monastery Mentor and surplus creatures (Snap, Clique) for the former; postboard Wear//Tear for the latter. In both cases, a proactive and spell-based gameplan is still essential.
I have several remarks and questions about the new design of the deck. A cursory observation of this list relative to the previous ones in the development of the Predict lists:
-2 Jace; -2 Counterspell; -1 Tundra || SB: -1 Wear//Tear
+2 Monastery Mentor; +1 Plains; +1 EE; +1 Counterbalance || SB: +1 Clique
In testing, has the second EE compensated for the absence of the third Wear//Tear? I've been on the fence about a third Wear//Tear because of how many Snaps and sifting cards we have.
Does the second EE also assist with the idea of making answers more efficient than counters in the list? It appears that the second EE has come at the expense of a Counterspell (or at the expense of switching a Counterspell back into a Counterbalance).
In this sense, the deck becomes weaker to spells overall. Is that the reason that the 4th Counterbalance is brought back in? I'd really liked the strength of the extra hard Counterspells over the 4th Counterbalance; duplicates of CB are uninteractive and a Counterspell has a very high power level at the expense of its situational use.
In your testing, have you found that the EEs help with card advantage (e.g. getting both a DRS and a Delver with the same activation), or more with answering problem permanents (Chalice, Thorn, etc...)? Is its value the mixture of both?
Overall, I think that removing Jace is a good idea: the metagame may be fair, but it's also relatively fast. Because I'd considered it a kind of sacred cow, I hadn't ever thought to remove it in the main in place of any other win conditions.
Because of the re-addition of a second Plains, did your testing team also consider any other
~~~
Has anyone else tested with Price of Progress in either the main or the side? Mark Kugel/kravkenov's list seems like it could fit it in, but I can't recall his ever posting a list where he tested it.
Game one pushes forward our plan of maximizing the power of Monastery Mentor, and only mentor. EE then slots into the maindeck because it is either often a) a 1 sided wrath to capitalize with mentor afterwards or b) Kills chalice, allowing mentor to run rampant. This is a cost though, not just due to the inclusion of the EE's but because the tap out style of a deck that lends itself to a high number of Mentors is, by virtue of design, going to be weaker vs combo decks. Because of this, the fourth counterbalance then becomes necessary to help shore up this weakness. However, that's very clearly not enough. Wilson's sideboard had a lot of hedging involved, but I think it's necessary to have even more, especially against decks that are now playing cards like Boseiju etc.
My sideboard, now, is designed to either "power up" the fair plan of the mentor beatdown while remaining versatile with the combo hate by flinging Cliques at their faces.
You don't need another WW card like EtA or w/e because mentor is just powerful enough on it's own. I cut the EtA that Wilson originally included because I was already favored in matchups where EtA was necessary, I felt. Some smart play and Shardless Bug isn't that scary, for example.
I will say that this theory is still just a theory. I'd still take my 3 CS 3 CB list to a GP if I had one tomorrow, but I'm in the process of collecting data for this build and so far, results have been extremely promising. I top 8'd the Super Sunday Series after GP Columbus with Wilson's exact 75, but I disagreed with his changes after the GP and this is simply the route that I took.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Reply With Quote