The best advice I ever received about the mirror was to board out 2 Plains, value the Counterbalance fight over everything, and take all of the white cards out of the deck.
This was back in the days before Monastery Mentor and in 4 Ponder Miracles.
Re: RIP/Helm, actually I was messing with this a few weeks ago and it isn't bad at all. With a 20 land mana base, 4 Ponder, 2 Enlightened Tutor, 2 RIP, 1 Blood Moon, 1 Helm in the MD, and a Moat either MD or SB, you're good to go.
The thing about the average Decay deck is that it's really soft to Blood Moon. Let them play their games with Counterbalance and RIP, drop the Moon once you can win whatever fight is over it, and the next Terminus will take the game away no questions asked.
RiP/Field Miracles builds should be running 1-2 maindeck Blood Moons since you can tutor for them easily, give you a 3 for counterbalance triggers, and destroy decks that rely on Abrupt Decay to deal with your cards as they're running very few or no basics (Jund, BUG Delver, Shardless). Deathrite Shaman isn't an out for them since you have RiP.
Indeed, the Counterbalance trigger CMC consideration is not at all trivial, but I struggle to find a good CMC 3 besides Blood Moon for the effect: the Moon is dead a lot of the time, or else it would damage my own manabase (by turning off my fetches or sticking me with only one white source). It would be great to have another CMC 3. I'm thinking Oblivion Ring, but that's icky, and Detention Sphere gets Pyroblasted too much.
I also feel pretty confident that 1 Blood Moon is the right number in a deck that sports 1-2 Enlightened Tutors along with all the other library manipulation. Many games have a window of 2-3 turns where Blood Moon would straight up win, after that it's just good, and after that it's not worth playing anymore.
CMC 4 also deserves some consideration, I think, and I've taken to playing my Moat in the MD. It's often game-winning. Other times it's dead.
I think it's time to dumpster-dive the old Landstill and Countertop archives for a good CMC 3 enchantment/artifact.
Hi all, Legacy newbie here. Long story short, I've played draw-go control since the mid nineties, with a brief hiatus on the early 2000s. Since draw-go is basically dead in std and modern, a buddy recommended getting into Legacy miracles. I have experience with hard to play control decks, and have some experience playing miracle cards back when they were in std, but my knowledge of the legacy metagame (what are the important threats, sideboarding guidelines vs different matchups, etc) is very low. Before I splash out the $$ to buy into the missing parts of the deck (I own a decent chunk of it already, but I'll still have to pony up a few hundred), is there any good miracles stream I can watch to sort of get a feel for the games? Reading primers is great, but I also feel that a great way to learn a new format i watch good players stream it and explain their thought patterns. Thanks!
Hi guys, I'm new to Miracle. I've played a couple of games with my friend who piloted Shardless BUG. I find the MU very difficult because of Shardless Agent and Hymm. I lost every match against him last night...It is normal to this deck in general or is it just because I am new?
The trehad seems litle dead. Too bad.
I've recently started legacy with UW(r) miracles on MTGO and i woud love to talk about the deck who is really hard and fun to play but still have some issue to find out how to bord out in MU
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Decks on Paper: UWR Control/Midrange/Delver UWR Twin Miss you GBWJunk (still semi-budget; 3 tarmo only) GWAura Hexproof GWHatebears
It is a shame this thread is dying off a bit, but I hope to something about that. I have been playing CounterTop online for almost ten years now, with some breaks in between. I just returned from one of those breaks and have finally moved away from the combo-version I have been favoring for most of my time with the deck. My current list is as follows:
As you may notice, I do not play Terminus main and play no third color. This may be controversial to some, so I will briefly explain my reasoning:
I believe the deck does not have room in the maindeck for 8 cards that do not interact with combo-decks. Simultaneously, I want to play 4 Swords to Plowshares, as I believe there is a big drop-off in efficiency between Swords and Terminus. Additionally, Terminus' near dependency on Sensei's Divining Top is a huge weakness. The deck is already very good when you have drawn Top. Cards that still excel without Top are extra valuable in the deck (like Jace, the Mind Sculptor for example). I still value a maindeck sweeper effect, so Supreme Verdict is unlikely to go anywhere anytime soon.
I am certainly a lot closer to playing a third color (red) than I am to playing maindeck Terminus. I have done so on numerous occasions, do not fault anyone for doing it and may return to playing red sometime soon. Red offers some slightly better SB-cards, but their degree of additional merit is debatable. For example, I would play a Pyroblast instead of a Flusterstorm in my current version if its casting cost was U instead of R. Wear//Tear is undeniably better than Disenchant, but not by much. I also want to test out From the Ashes at some point. Red SB-cards certainly has appeal, but at the moment I do not think the additional weakness to Wasteland and mana-inconsistency is worth it.
I plan on being active in this thread, so I would be happy to answer questions on UW(x)Miracles/CounterTop from newer players and discuss the deck in general with experienced ones. I see that a fair amount of questions have gone unanswered semi-recently. As there is quite a few of them, I will not answer any posted so far unless the question is restated. Although I plan on being active, I would like to avoid providing answers no-one is going to read. Any critique on my own version, or questions, is naturally welcome.
I've argued with people over the number of cards in a deck many times, and I feel that having a high number of "good cards" is better than having a small number of "really good" cards. I laugh at the people who argue that with a smaller deck you're more likely to draw what you need, because if you get in that situation you're gonna NOT end up drawing it many many more times than you would.
Spell Pierce seems suspect, but I'm not sure I'd know of a better alternative without Red. Do you not prefer an unconditional counterspell in that slot? Or more Ponders?
Two small asides. The link to SDT in your deck list is broken, perhaps due to the smart quote character? Also, given your sig you might be interested in this thing I wrote: http://www.thrabenuniversity.com/?p=593
I have had the pleasure of arguing for Spell Pierce several times before. I absolutely would play it irregardless of whether I am playing red or not. More and earlier interaction is a big boon for the deck, and the Pierces very rarely become dead unless the game is already over in favor CounterTop. It may sound weird, but considering an unconditional counter like Counterspell truly unconditional is a bit misleading in my mind. I know, I know, it certainly is technically unconditional and I am not going to argue the term itself. What I want to get to however is how important mana is in Legacy and how Pierce benefits twice from this. The opponent's restricted mana makes Pierce more of a Negate and your own mana restriction allows you to for example Top, protect a Jace or save a fetch. Counterspell however often requires you to devote your turn to countering the opponent's next spell. I like a mix, and especially now that I have started playing Snapcaster Mage. I believe 2 Spell Pierces have been the most constant part of my list beyond the very core (4 Top, 4 BS, 4 StP, 4 CB, 4 FoW, 2 JTMS).
Regarding the footnotes, thank you for the read. I disagree -strongly- on whether there is any merit to adding additional cards beyond the 60th, but I do not want to derail the thread. And you are right on the STD-link... Weird.
I've argued with people over the number of cards in a deck many times, and I feel that having a high number of "good cards" is better than having a small number of "really good" cards. I laugh at the people who argue that with a smaller deck you're more likely to draw what you need, because if you get in that situation you're gonna NOT end up drawing it many many more times than you would.
Just got to say, you've definitely earned distinction as an MTGS hero
Quote from Stardust »
Because he's the hero MTGS deserves, and the one it needs right now. So we'll global him. Because he can take it. Because he's not just our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. An expired rascal.
Quote from LuckNorris »
ExpiredRascals you sir are a god-like hero.
Quote from Lanxal »
ER is a masterful god who cannot be beaten in any endeavour.
That is indeed a more typical comparison, and I should have devoted some lines in my previous reply to address that. Although I have played plenty of CounterTop and a tried a lot of different cards, I have never tested Spell Snare. I simply do not see the appeal. Half the point of Snare is enabling you to catch up after being on the draw, but Pierce does that as well. Pierce's utility on turns 3, 4 and 5 is also big, as almost all decks high-CC cards are non-creatures. Snare's utility edges towards a cliff after the opponent's turn 2. Comparing the two cards as two one-mana conditional counters is fair, but the comparison quickly falls apart in favor of Spell Pierce in my opinion.
I play on MTGO and have never played Legacy in paper, so it is difficult for me to compare the online metagame to anything. Here is the meta, though I believe it only counts 5-0 lists: https://www.mtggoldfish.com/metagame/legacy#online.
I've argued with people over the number of cards in a deck many times, and I feel that having a high number of "good cards" is better than having a small number of "really good" cards. I laugh at the people who argue that with a smaller deck you're more likely to draw what you need, because if you get in that situation you're gonna NOT end up drawing it many many more times than you would.
Snare's utility edges towards a cliff after the opponent's turn 2.
This seems to only be true if they stop drawing 2-drops, or if 2-drops are no longer relevant to the game state, or if they're drawn and relevant but always caught by Countertop by that point.
The "less powerful in the late game" argument better applies to Pierce: it seems to lose relevance in a grindy game that goes long and ends up with both players having 5+ land in play.
I did use too much hyperbole and was a bit too critical of Spell Snare in my last post. Apologies.
What I meant to get to is how Spell Pierce is more likely to interact with the opponent on their turn 1, 3, 4 and 5. Pierce also catches cards that typically escape Counterbalance, which Snare does not. In the later parts of the game, the deck aims to catch 2CC-cards with Balance or deal with them through removal. If you see a Pierce in the late-game, there is a fair chance you are looking at it through a Top and have a CB in play, or that you can easily shuffle it away, or you can pitch it to a Force of Will, or that you might even still get to play it for value. There is also the case of almost all hate-cards against the deck being non-creatures.
Are there typical cards being cast which Snare handles better which Pierce does not? Of course; absolutely. What I believe is that Pierce far better shores up the deck's weaknesses. The removal spells in the deck can easily handle 90% of the Snare-able non-creatures while retaining or winning on mana-usage.
I've argued with people over the number of cards in a deck many times, and I feel that having a high number of "good cards" is better than having a small number of "really good" cards. I laugh at the people who argue that with a smaller deck you're more likely to draw what you need, because if you get in that situation you're gonna NOT end up drawing it many many more times than you would.
I hope I have not ended up killing any discussion here by being too dismissive. Questions and suggestions are naturally welcome. Any discussion is in my mind the most useful for those who are undecided and read the thread. Those people can see both sides being argued and land wherever between that seems the most reasonable.
I have played the last Leagues with the following changes:
So I switched the maindeck Mentors with two of the Termini in the sideboard. It really made a lot of sense and I am very happy with the switch. Mentors under-perform in Game 1's before the opponent has reduced the amount of removal they play. Setting up Mentors with counter-backup from Force of Will, Counterspell or Counterbalance is often difficult to do and gets foiled by Abrupt Decay and mass-removal anyway.
The Bridges got removed because there were so few matchups where I wanted to side them in. Eldrazi was really the main one, and so far I have faced very few of those. Instead, there has been a lot of Reanimator/Dredge, especially the faster Black Red Reanimator with Dark Ritual. Hence, Surgical Extraction for the rescue. Again, I am happy with the switch.
Although I have only had one 5-0 so far in the leagues, I have had a ton of 4-1's. I think that if I were to make more changes to the deck, it might be to test out From the Ashes. Maybe in 2017; we shall see.
I've argued with people over the number of cards in a deck many times, and I feel that having a high number of "good cards" is better than having a small number of "really good" cards. I laugh at the people who argue that with a smaller deck you're more likely to draw what you need, because if you get in that situation you're gonna NOT end up drawing it many many more times than you would.
As you say yourself Man_of_Pong, your build is pretty straightforward. Also, you have not played it much and may therefore not have formed an opinion on many of the cards. I do have some comments though:
-You have two unusual sideboard cards, namely Izzet Staticaster and Kozilek's Return. I can see the appeal of the former, as a singleton that continuously answers threats and provides card advantage in certain matchups. Being pitchable to Force of Will is also great. The latter seems like a poor man's sweeper effect and I do not get it at all. If you really want a cheap sweeper-effect, is not Pyroclasm or Rough/Tumble just better? Alternatively, go all the way up to Moat? (I realize that Moat is a very expensive card in paper)
-The 1-1 split between maindeck and sideboard Engineered Explosives is very weird to me. EE is a somewhat clunky "catch-all" that loses little value between different matchups. It is certainly better in some matchups (like Death&Taxes), but I am personally of the firm opinion that it does not warrant extra space in the sideboard based only on that. I think you should consider either moving the sideboard EE to the maindeck or straight-up cutting it.
-I have a similar objection to the Vendilion Clique split. Clique is also a diverse card that does not have a very fluctuating value between matchups. I know there are established players sporting splits of this card between the maindeck and sideboard, but I happen to disagree with them.
-Playing three basic Plains and no non-basic hate is a poor choice in my opinion. The deck is very heavy on blue and often wants to have UUU available on turn 3. Playing few duals is a valid strategy, but Wasteland is not really the reason to do it. In fact, Wasteland sometimes incentivizes you to play more duals, as you want to get new Tundras after your old ones got destroyed. I can absolutely understand that you do not want to spend more money on duals. Luckily, combined with some non-basic hate in your sideboard, this is a completely legitimate strategy. With the basic Mountain you play, 1-2 From the Ashes seems like a winner to me. That is completely up to you though.
Please, keep in mind that despite my criticisms, I believe you have a strong version of the deck. I merely would be interested to hear why you have made some of the choices you have made and think you might be better off with some slight changes.
I've argued with people over the number of cards in a deck many times, and I feel that having a high number of "good cards" is better than having a small number of "really good" cards. I laugh at the people who argue that with a smaller deck you're more likely to draw what you need, because if you get in that situation you're gonna NOT end up drawing it many many more times than you would.
Actually I've seen a fair amount of Koz's Return in Miracles recently, probably due in part to the rise in D&T. Prelates on 1 and 6 is a common end-game strategy for D&T, and Moms just make that worse if all you have is a sweeper that does colored damage. I wouldn't call it a must have, or strictly better than the other options, but it's definitely a viable and defensible choice.
@Pyromancer999
I do not think that is a silly question at all. In fact, I have never really considered the gains and losses of including it since right after Rise of the Eldrazi was released. I know it was tested by a substantial number of players, as it is clearly a tempting inclusion. In the paragraph below, I try to reason why I believe it is a sub-par inclusion. I do not plan on testing at this point to check whether my assumptions are true, but feel free to do it yourself.
Basically, Temporal Mastery fails to complement the rest of the deck appropriately for its setup demands. If Time Walk was a legal card, the deck would clearly play it. One only needs to look to the Vintage format to confirm this. Mastery is however not Time Walk, as it requires a Sensei's Divining Top, Brainstorm, Ponder or Jace, the Mind Sculptor to work properly. Although these cards typically make up roughly 20% of the deck, this is by no means a guarantee of setting it up in the more fast-paced Legacy games. Unlike Time Walk, Mastery cannot "just be fired off" unless you makes strides to manipulate the top of your deck. There is also the case of CounterTop being among the poorest decks at taking advantage of a Time Walk-effect. The deck does not apply pressure effectively and is rather looking to get rid of the opponent's pressure. If you are activating Jace for value uninterrupted, you are probably already winning. This showcases why Terminus is actually a great fit, as it has tremendous synergy with Jace.
I just wanted to quickly mention that I have moved away from playing Meddling Mage in the SB. I have been a proponent of the 4-of for a long time, but I have grown to dislike their general inefficiency and slight dis-synergies with the rest of the deck. Although MM is a very versatile SB-card, I am currently playing what is a very "all-round" maindeck and would rather have more specialized answers and threats in the SB. I started off replacing them with 2 Containment Priests, 1 Disenchant and 1 Entreat the Angels. After two League-playthroughs (10 matches total), I figured that the extra Entreat was overkill and often difficult to fit in. It has therefore ended up as Leyline of Sanctity instead. I have not played any more matches yet, but the theory goes that it is a strong singleton against most Abrupt Decay decks (including combo) that does not get hit by AD itself. I have played the singleton Leyline before and was quite pleased with it.
I've argued with people over the number of cards in a deck many times, and I feel that having a high number of "good cards" is better than having a small number of "really good" cards. I laugh at the people who argue that with a smaller deck you're more likely to draw what you need, because if you get in that situation you're gonna NOT end up drawing it many many more times than you would.
We recently posted an article on our site inspired by this deck and more specifically Sensei's Divining Top. It's basically a short fictional story that tries to portray the Miracles strategy, hope you guys like it!
Hey, all, I've been thinking of getting into Miracles, and I was wondering what permutation you all feel is best for someone starting out in Legacy. I've been following the scene for a while now, so I'm by no means totally new, but I definitely don't feel I'd have the expertise to pilot Joe Lossett's Legendary build.
I'll also be moving in a few months, so I'll be walking into an unknown meta. Is there some build of Miracles that does better in general against an unknown field? I'm not in tune with the format enough to know whether Mentor or Entreat are better when you don't know what you're up against.
Thanks! I look forward to getting to know and love Miracles!!
Hey, all, I've been thinking of getting into Miracles, and I was wondering what permutation you all feel is best for someone starting out in Legacy. I've been following the scene for a while now, so I'm by no means totally new, but I definitely don't feel I'd have the expertise to pilot Joe Lossett's Legendary build.
I'll also be moving in a few months, so I'll be walking into an unknown meta. Is there some build of Miracles that does better in general against an unknown field? I'm not in tune with the format enough to know whether Mentor or Entreat are better when you don't know what you're up against.
Thanks! I look forward to getting to know and love Miracles!!
I'm still learning the deck myself, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to go wrong with something like the following:
This version is pretty straightforward (no Predict shenanigans or extra miracle cards [Entreat the Angels] to worry about), has 8 cantrips (12 including Top) to smooth out draws, and a flexible set of one-of answers (Counterspell, EE, CJ). Mentor is a very quick win condition when you can avoid Abrupt Decay / etc. Or you can keep the same deck and swap one Mentor for one Entreat the Angels. And you can start cutting a few things to add in 1-3 Predict later, once you have a feel for this deck.
I don't have any experience with the newest trend (2-4 Predict, 2 Jace, 2 Entreat, 3 Snap, no Mentors [or only in the side]), unfortunately. It does seem to be much better against the various BUG decks with Liliana/Hymn/etc. (as long as you can keep Leovold off the table!), but probably gives up a little against combo.
I've been slowly building into Miracles and I mentioned it to some guys at my LGS last night. Their response was to stop building it because of speculation that Top or Mentor was going to be banned. However, with the recent change to how split cards function off the stack acting as a nerf to Counterbalance, what are your opinions regarding the chance of a ban to either or both?
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?20529-DTB-Miracle-Control
2) Use the right number of each card.
3) Know your probabilities.
4) Print your deck lists; make yourself and your judges happier.
This was back in the days before Monastery Mentor and in 4 Ponder Miracles.
Re: RIP/Helm, actually I was messing with this a few weeks ago and it isn't bad at all. With a 20 land mana base, 4 Ponder, 2 Enlightened Tutor, 2 RIP, 1 Blood Moon, 1 Helm in the MD, and a Moat either MD or SB, you're good to go.
The thing about the average Decay deck is that it's really soft to Blood Moon. Let them play their games with Counterbalance and RIP, drop the Moon once you can win whatever fight is over it, and the next Terminus will take the game away no questions asked.
Overall record: 139-98-15
Total number of matches: 252
Win percentage ignoring draws: 58.649789
Win percentage including draws: 55.158730
I also feel pretty confident that 1 Blood Moon is the right number in a deck that sports 1-2 Enlightened Tutors along with all the other library manipulation. Many games have a window of 2-3 turns where Blood Moon would straight up win, after that it's just good, and after that it's not worth playing anymore.
CMC 4 also deserves some consideration, I think, and I've taken to playing my Moat in the MD. It's often game-winning. Other times it's dead.
I think it's time to dumpster-dive the old Landstill and Countertop archives for a good CMC 3 enchantment/artifact.
Overall record: 139-98-15
Total number of matches: 252
Win percentage ignoring draws: 58.649789
Win percentage including draws: 55.158730
I've recently started legacy with UW(r) miracles on MTGO and i woud love to talk about the deck who is really hard and fun to play but still have some issue to find out how to bord out in MU
UWR Control/Midrange/Delver
UWR TwinMiss youGBWJunk (still semi-budget; 3 tarmo only)
GWAura Hexproof
GWHatebears
It is a shame this thread is dying off a bit, but I hope to something about that. I have been playing CounterTop online for almost ten years now, with some breaks in between. I just returned from one of those breaks and have finally moved away from the combo-version I have been favoring for most of my time with the deck. My current list is as follows:
4x Flooded Strand
2x Misty Rainforest
2x Tundra
2x Polluted Delta
2x Scalding Tarn
7x Island
2x Plains
Creatures (6)
2x Snapcaster Mage
2x Monastery Mentor
2x Vendilion Clique
Instants (16)
4x Brainstorm
4x Swords to Plowshares
2x Spell Pierce
2x Counterspell
4x Force of Will
2x Ponder
2x Council's Judgement
1x Supreme Verdict
1x Entreat the Angels
Artifacts (4)
4x Sensei´s Divining Top
Enchantments (4)
4x Counterbalance
Planeswalkers (3)
3x Jace, the Mind Sculptor
2x Flusterstorm
4x Meddling Mage
1x Disenchant
2x Back to Basics
2x Ensnaring Bridge
4x Terminus
As you may notice, I do not play Terminus main and play no third color. This may be controversial to some, so I will briefly explain my reasoning:
I believe the deck does not have room in the maindeck for 8 cards that do not interact with combo-decks. Simultaneously, I want to play 4 Swords to Plowshares, as I believe there is a big drop-off in efficiency between Swords and Terminus. Additionally, Terminus' near dependency on Sensei's Divining Top is a huge weakness. The deck is already very good when you have drawn Top. Cards that still excel without Top are extra valuable in the deck (like Jace, the Mind Sculptor for example). I still value a maindeck sweeper effect, so Supreme Verdict is unlikely to go anywhere anytime soon.
I am certainly a lot closer to playing a third color (red) than I am to playing maindeck Terminus. I have done so on numerous occasions, do not fault anyone for doing it and may return to playing red sometime soon. Red offers some slightly better SB-cards, but their degree of additional merit is debatable. For example, I would play a Pyroblast instead of a Flusterstorm in my current version if its casting cost was U instead of R. Wear//Tear is undeniably better than Disenchant, but not by much. I also want to test out From the Ashes at some point. Red SB-cards certainly has appeal, but at the moment I do not think the additional weakness to Wasteland and mana-inconsistency is worth it.
I plan on being active in this thread, so I would be happy to answer questions on UW(x)Miracles/CounterTop from newer players and discuss the deck in general with experienced ones. I see that a fair amount of questions have gone unanswered semi-recently. As there is quite a few of them, I will not answer any posted so far unless the question is restated. Although I plan on being active, I would like to avoid providing answers no-one is going to read. Any critique on my own version, or questions, is naturally welcome.
Two small asides. The link to SDT in your deck list is broken, perhaps due to the smart quote character? Also, given your sig you might be interested in this thing I wrote: http://www.thrabenuniversity.com/?p=593
2) Use the right number of each card.
3) Know your probabilities.
4) Print your deck lists; make yourself and your judges happier.
Regarding the footnotes, thank you for the read. I disagree -strongly- on whether there is any merit to adding additional cards beyond the 60th, but I do not want to derail the thread. And you are right on the STD-link... Weird.
Also, is your meta weighted in any particular direction? (Low incidence of chalice decks and beatdown decks, high amount of combo, perhaps?)
Body Count: GRRRUUUUUUUUUUU
إن سرقت إسرق جمل
Level 1 Judge
My Cube for use with 6th ed. Rules
I play on MTGO and have never played Legacy in paper, so it is difficult for me to compare the online metagame to anything. Here is the meta, though I believe it only counts 5-0 lists: https://www.mtggoldfish.com/metagame/legacy#online.
This seems to only be true if they stop drawing 2-drops, or if 2-drops are no longer relevant to the game state, or if they're drawn and relevant but always caught by Countertop by that point.
The "less powerful in the late game" argument better applies to Pierce: it seems to lose relevance in a grindy game that goes long and ends up with both players having 5+ land in play.
2) Use the right number of each card.
3) Know your probabilities.
4) Print your deck lists; make yourself and your judges happier.
What I meant to get to is how Spell Pierce is more likely to interact with the opponent on their turn 1, 3, 4 and 5. Pierce also catches cards that typically escape Counterbalance, which Snare does not. In the later parts of the game, the deck aims to catch 2CC-cards with Balance or deal with them through removal. If you see a Pierce in the late-game, there is a fair chance you are looking at it through a Top and have a CB in play, or that you can easily shuffle it away, or you can pitch it to a Force of Will, or that you might even still get to play it for value. There is also the case of almost all hate-cards against the deck being non-creatures.
Are there typical cards being cast which Snare handles better which Pierce does not? Of course; absolutely. What I believe is that Pierce far better shores up the deck's weaknesses. The removal spells in the deck can easily handle 90% of the Snare-able non-creatures while retaining or winning on mana-usage.
I have played the last Leagues with the following changes:
Maindeck
-2 Monastery Mentor
+2 Terminus
Sideboard
-2 Terminus
-2 Ensnaring Bridge
+2 Monastery Mentor
+2 Surgical Extraction
So I switched the maindeck Mentors with two of the Termini in the sideboard. It really made a lot of sense and I am very happy with the switch. Mentors under-perform in Game 1's before the opponent has reduced the amount of removal they play. Setting up Mentors with counter-backup from Force of Will, Counterspell or Counterbalance is often difficult to do and gets foiled by Abrupt Decay and mass-removal anyway.
The Bridges got removed because there were so few matchups where I wanted to side them in. Eldrazi was really the main one, and so far I have faced very few of those. Instead, there has been a lot of Reanimator/Dredge, especially the faster Black Red Reanimator with Dark Ritual. Hence, Surgical Extraction for the rescue. Again, I am happy with the switch.
Although I have only had one 5-0 so far in the leagues, I have had a ton of 4-1's. I think that if I were to make more changes to the deck, it might be to test out From the Ashes. Maybe in 2017; we shall see.
-You have two unusual sideboard cards, namely Izzet Staticaster and Kozilek's Return. I can see the appeal of the former, as a singleton that continuously answers threats and provides card advantage in certain matchups. Being pitchable to Force of Will is also great. The latter seems like a poor man's sweeper effect and I do not get it at all. If you really want a cheap sweeper-effect, is not Pyroclasm or Rough/Tumble just better? Alternatively, go all the way up to Moat? (I realize that Moat is a very expensive card in paper)
-The 1-1 split between maindeck and sideboard Engineered Explosives is very weird to me. EE is a somewhat clunky "catch-all" that loses little value between different matchups. It is certainly better in some matchups (like Death&Taxes), but I am personally of the firm opinion that it does not warrant extra space in the sideboard based only on that. I think you should consider either moving the sideboard EE to the maindeck or straight-up cutting it.
-I have a similar objection to the Vendilion Clique split. Clique is also a diverse card that does not have a very fluctuating value between matchups. I know there are established players sporting splits of this card between the maindeck and sideboard, but I happen to disagree with them.
-Playing three basic Plains and no non-basic hate is a poor choice in my opinion. The deck is very heavy on blue and often wants to have UUU available on turn 3. Playing few duals is a valid strategy, but Wasteland is not really the reason to do it. In fact, Wasteland sometimes incentivizes you to play more duals, as you want to get new Tundras after your old ones got destroyed. I can absolutely understand that you do not want to spend more money on duals. Luckily, combined with some non-basic hate in your sideboard, this is a completely legitimate strategy. With the basic Mountain you play, 1-2 From the Ashes seems like a winner to me. That is completely up to you though.
Please, keep in mind that despite my criticisms, I believe you have a strong version of the deck. I merely would be interested to hear why you have made some of the choices you have made and think you might be better off with some slight changes.
2) Use the right number of each card.
3) Know your probabilities.
4) Print your deck lists; make yourself and your judges happier.
I do not think that is a silly question at all. In fact, I have never really considered the gains and losses of including it since right after Rise of the Eldrazi was released. I know it was tested by a substantial number of players, as it is clearly a tempting inclusion. In the paragraph below, I try to reason why I believe it is a sub-par inclusion. I do not plan on testing at this point to check whether my assumptions are true, but feel free to do it yourself.
Basically, Temporal Mastery fails to complement the rest of the deck appropriately for its setup demands. If Time Walk was a legal card, the deck would clearly play it. One only needs to look to the Vintage format to confirm this. Mastery is however not Time Walk, as it requires a Sensei's Divining Top, Brainstorm, Ponder or Jace, the Mind Sculptor to work properly. Although these cards typically make up roughly 20% of the deck, this is by no means a guarantee of setting it up in the more fast-paced Legacy games. Unlike Time Walk, Mastery cannot "just be fired off" unless you makes strides to manipulate the top of your deck. There is also the case of CounterTop being among the poorest decks at taking advantage of a Time Walk-effect. The deck does not apply pressure effectively and is rather looking to get rid of the opponent's pressure. If you are activating Jace for value uninterrupted, you are probably already winning. This showcases why Terminus is actually a great fit, as it has tremendous synergy with Jace.
I just wanted to quickly mention that I have moved away from playing Meddling Mage in the SB. I have been a proponent of the 4-of for a long time, but I have grown to dislike their general inefficiency and slight dis-synergies with the rest of the deck. Although MM is a very versatile SB-card, I am currently playing what is a very "all-round" maindeck and would rather have more specialized answers and threats in the SB. I started off replacing them with 2 Containment Priests, 1 Disenchant and 1 Entreat the Angels. After two League-playthroughs (10 matches total), I figured that the extra Entreat was overkill and often difficult to fit in. It has therefore ended up as Leyline of Sanctity instead. I have not played any more matches yet, but the theory goes that it is a strong singleton against most Abrupt Decay decks (including combo) that does not get hit by AD itself. I have played the singleton Leyline before and was quite pleased with it.
4x Flooded Strand
2x Misty Rainforest
2x Tundra
2x Polluted Delta
2x Scalding Tarn
7x Island
2x Plains
Creatures (4)
2x Snapcaster Mage
2x Vendilion Clique
Instants (16)
4x Brainstorm
4x Swords to Plowshares
2x Spell Pierce
2x Counterspell
4x Force of Will
2x Ponder
2x Council's Judgement
2x Terminus
1x Supreme Verdict
1x Entreat the Angels
Artifacts (4)
4x Sensei´s Divining Top
Enchantments (4)
4x Counterbalance
Planeswalkers (3)
3x Jace, the Mind Sculptor
2x Flusterstorm
2x Surgical Extraction
2x Containment Priest
2x Disenchant
2x Back to Basics
2x Monastery Mentor
1x Leyline of Sanctity
2x Terminus
http://sylvanstudies.com/2017/03/10/sylvan-stories-legacy-miracles/
I'll also be moving in a few months, so I'll be walking into an unknown meta. Is there some build of Miracles that does better in general against an unknown field? I'm not in tune with the format enough to know whether Mentor or Entreat are better when you don't know what you're up against.
Thanks! I look forward to getting to know and love Miracles!!
I'm still learning the deck myself, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to go wrong with something like the following:
4 Flooded Strand
5 other fetchlands
3 Tundra
2 Volcanic Island
4 Island
2 Plains
3 Snapcaster Mage
2 Jace, the Mind Sculptor
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Sensei's Divining Top
4 Counterbalance
4 Force of Will
4 Terminus
1 Counterspell
1 Engineered Explosives
1 Council's Judgment
This version is pretty straightforward (no Predict shenanigans or extra miracle cards [Entreat the Angels] to worry about), has 8 cantrips (12 including Top) to smooth out draws, and a flexible set of one-of answers (Counterspell, EE, CJ). Mentor is a very quick win condition when you can avoid Abrupt Decay / etc. Or you can keep the same deck and swap one Mentor for one Entreat the Angels. And you can start cutting a few things to add in 1-3 Predict later, once you have a feel for this deck.
I don't have any experience with the newest trend (2-4 Predict, 2 Jace, 2 Entreat, 3 Snap, no Mentors [or only in the side]), unfortunately. It does seem to be much better against the various BUG decks with Liliana/Hymn/etc. (as long as you can keep Leovold off the table!), but probably gives up a little against combo.
Modern: (G/U)Infect (G/U)Tron
Legacy: (U/B)Tezzeret (U/B)(W/U)Miracles(W/U)(B/G)Dredge(R/W)
Commander:(U/R)Mizzix (U/R)(W/U)Sydri(U/B)(W/U)Zur(U/B)