@Annihilator - I'm curious on the decision to run the second sphere in the sideboard? Seems odd to put such a broad answer in the SB instead of the main.
The only other comment I have is that I find it interesting that you cut justify a 4th verdict by cutting walls. I find the Wall enables the Verdict so well. Could you elaborate on your thinking there a little?
Well, Sphere is actually a card that I originally played just 1 of (the one in the main), but after deciding it was so good against RW Prison and Skred, I decided that I wanted another copy since it's quite good against Bridge decks in general. I don't really like it main since it's slow against most aggro decks (other than Affinity, since you can pair it with early interaction to nab a Plating), and weak to Stubborn Denial and Abrupt Decay. It's just a catchall 1-of game one with the ability to side in a second when it's good. I could see playing the 2nd main instead, but I don't really want to cut anything mb.
As for the 4th Verdict, I actually justified not playing walls because I play the 4th Verdict. I don't like Wall because it dies in blocks to Shadow/Eldazi decks. As for why I play the 4th Verdict, I wanted it mainly against Abzan Company, since you want to hit as many Verdicts in that matchup as possible. It's also one of the best cards (if not the best) against Shadow and Eldrazi while pulling double duty against tokens/go-wide strategies and Lingering Souls, and just a staple of UWx Control decks in general -- I definitely want 4.
Yea, I get why a 4th verdict would be good. I think it's the best card in the deck. I'm just curious why you think you need to cut walls because of verdict when they work so well in tandem.
Yea, I get why a 4th verdict would be good. I think it's the best card in the deck. I'm just curious why you think you need to cut walls because of verdict when they work so well in tandem.
I just don't like playing Walls, and with a 4th Verdict I feel comfortable playing without Walls because I have more sweepers to deal with multiple threats at once -- I won't need the blockers. See the bolded portion below.
Well, Sphere is actually a card that I originally played just 1 of (the one in the main), but after deciding it was so good against RW Prison and Skred, I decided that I wanted another copy since it's quite good against Bridge decks in general. I don't really like it main since it's slow against most aggro decks (other than Affinity, since you can pair it with early interaction to nab a Plating), and weak to Stubborn Denial and Abrupt Decay. It's just a catchall 1-of game one with the ability to side in a second when it's good. I could see playing the 2nd main instead, but I don't really want to cut anything mb.
As for the 4th Verdict, I actually justified not playing walls because I play the 4th Verdict. I don't like Wall because it dies in blocks to Shadow/Eldazi decks. As for why I play the 4th Verdict, I wanted it mainly against Abzan Company, since you want to hit as many Verdicts in that matchup as possible. It's also one of the best cards (if not the best) against Shadow and Eldrazi while pulling double duty against tokens/go-wide strategies and Lingering Souls, and just a staple of UWx Control decks in general -- I definitely want 4.
Edit: I can see why there was confusion -- yes, Wall can force them to overextend into Verdict (like Lil' Gideon), but I don't feel that Walls are good in this meta. I make up for their lack of presence by playing another Verdict to deal with wide boardstates where Wall might have helped, among other reasons. Hard to explain haha.
So during Bennyhillz' stream last night we were talking about maybe replacing Gideon Jura with Secure the Wastes I may try it tonight, but I'm not 100% sure yet. I tried to play a few games with it last night, but got home from work super late and was unable to play any matches where the card actually mattered. I don't like straight copying other people's decks which is why I'm not just going with exactly what Benny is playing. My deck is a little weird with Crucible Main, 3 snaps and only 24 lands so Secure might make more sense in my build, although I may replace snap #3 with temple of enlightenment but it feels bad just throwing my third snap back in the binder for a scry land :/
Here's my current list again, also trying a couple different 1 ofs in the SB which I think match up well with my local meta:
@Slowgod - There is nothing inherently wrong with playing someone else's list. Ben has put a lot of time and effort into that deck, it is probably near as good as it can be and starting from a list that someone has literally put hundreds of matches into is a great idea before you start making changes. Also, I can't speak for Ben, but I personally would be flattered if people were playing a list I championed.
That said, I don't think less than 25 lands is correct, even in a crucible build - land drop 4 is just too critical for our game plan. And reducing Snapcaster to 2 is probably correct; Snap in the opener feels so bad in this deck that I have often considered going down to 1 (I probably won't just because snap is so powerful, but I've spent a lot of time thinking about it). An interesting thing to think about if you decide to keep the 3rd Snapcaster is Elspeth, Knight Errant over Jura/Secure. Being able to +1 on a Snap or GoTT on curve probably feels great in some matchups (Titanshift for sure) and its probably a lot better than either Jura/Secure/Rev in blue control matchups - being able to jump over wall of omens or Spell Queller or being able to trade Snaps for Colonnade is probably great.
I personally feel Irrigated Farmland is better than temple, mostly because it turns on Glacial Fortress and can be fetched when you have an awkward mana situation in your opener (rare, but it happens, especially in lists with only 1 hallowed fountain), but it also has some added utility in your list specifically because of crucible.
Sideboard looks great - Between my personal experiences, the testimony of people on this thread, and the unconscionable amount of UW streams I've watched I've come to think that only 1 Stony Silence might be correct. Drawing more than 1 in a game obviously sucks, but it's more so that most of the match-ups that we want it for it isn't necessary for (except lantern where they have Abrupt Decay).
Off topic note on sideboards - Has anyone considered/tested Nimble Obstructionist for the storm match? I know it contends with Clique and Geist but against Storm specifically (which is arguably our worst match-up) the uncounterable stifle mode seems near unbeatable for them, I think. It also seems serviceable if not great against titanshift - stifle a primeval trigger is fine, or if we can put enough pressure on the opp that they need to shift for exactsies, stifling a single trigger seems fine, especially if that trigger is pointed at a Gideon when we have an emblem on the board. Also seems decent in blue control mirrors, stifle on any of their lands is fantastic, be it Tec Edge, man-land or even just a fetch in the early game. Thoughts?
Good points, I tried Benny's exact list from a few weeks ago when it had 26 lands and no supreme will and crushed with it. Now you got me wondering about a deck with mainboard Elspeth, Knight-Errant + Geist of Saint Traft, seems kinda crazy. I saw people discussing nimble obstructionist awhile ago, but never heard of anyone really trying it.
I've been doing really well against most of the tiered decks. I haven't played against Valakut much so I'm uncertain on when / what is the best time and way to try to disrupt their lands. As far as bringing in Surgical if you can't surgical a Valakut, what is the next best target? Stomping ground generally?
Played against my friend's stupid GR Ponza deck again last night, he always wins the roll and game 1 is pretty much an auto loss. Game 2 I took out cryptics and verdicts and somehow ended up with 8 lands and drawing nothing but more lands. Seemed like a case of bad luck and over-sideboarding because both cryptic and verdict would have won the game. Was able to path my own wall, mana leak a blood moon and D-Sphere another, but that was all that really happened the entire game.
I took this idea (which I'm sure has been done before) of Geist of Saint Traft + Elspeth, Knight-Errant and ran with it. I threw together a quick brew which is basically the same shell as this deck, and I'm wondering if this would be the right place to post it or somewhere else? I'm trying to decide if it's correct to go 4x geist and 4x elspeth to maximize chances of this combo even though you can obviously only have 1 of each on the battlefield at a time. Sorry for my kind of scatterbrained post, any responses to any of these 3 "questions" would be great!
I'm thinking through this quote from bloodyrabbit: Remember a trick: if they cast Scapeshift with 7 lands, you can actually keep Cryptic in your hand, let their Scapeshift resolving, then - when the trigger of the land is on the stack, bounce one of their Mountain. You lose only three life, and the opponent wasted a lot of red sources. Also, you can do the same with a Tectonic Edge on the play.
So if they grab 1x valakut and 6x mountains and you bounce 1 mountain wouldn't you take 0? The 5 mountains all see each other, but there is no sixth mountain and you take 0 damage on resolution. Is the three damage coming from the mountain that you have now returned to their hand when they play it next turn? I just want to make sure I understand this situation correctly.
Also is it preferable to play this way to get mountains out of their deck, or does this not really accomplish anything and would we just be better countering the scapeshift with the cryptic to begin with? Does this actually prevent the next scapeshift/titan from killing us?
Bonus Question : Does bouncing the valakut with cryptic do anything here? I'm thinking no as the triggers are already on the stack upon entering the battlefield right?
I'm thinking through this quote from bloodyrabbit: Remember a trick: if they cast Scapeshift with 7 lands, you can actually keep Cryptic in your hand, let their Scapeshift resolving, then - when the trigger of the land is on the stack, bounce one of their Mountain. You lose only three life, and the opponent wasted a lot of red sources. Also, you can do the same with a Tectonic Edge on the play.
So if they grab 1x valakut and 6x mountains and you bounce 1 mountain wouldn't you take 0? The 5 mountains all see each other, but there is no sixth mountain and you take 0 damage on resolution. Is the three damage coming from the mountain that you have now returned to their hand when they play it next turn? I just want to make sure I understand this situation correctly.
Also is it preferable to play this way to get mountains out of their deck, or does this not really accomplish anything and would we just be better countering the scapeshift with the cryptic to begin with? Does this actually prevent the next scapeshift/titan from killing us?
Bonus Question : Does bouncing the valakut with cryptic do anything here? I'm thinking no as the triggers are already on the stack upon entering the battlefield right?
The trigger from the specific mountain you targeted will hit you. Having 6 mountains is not the condition for a valakut trigger, the condition is having at least 5 other mountains. When the specific mountain you targeted triggers it will will count and find 5 other mountains on the battlefield. The rest of the mountain triggers will search for 5 other mountains and only find 4 others upon resolution.
Depending on the texture of the specific game it could be worthwhile to counter the scapeshift, but I think in most instances you will want to bounce/kill the enabling mountains - it means a lot less mountains in the deck. However, if taking the 3 damage will kill your Gideon, or put you in bolt range or in range of Sakura beats, its worth considering countering the scapeshift.
Your assessment of how bouncing the valakut works is correct - the triggers don't check for Valakut upon resolution, only the number of other mountains.
I've been doing really well against most of the tiered decks. I haven't played against Valakut much so I'm uncertain on when / what is the best time and way to try to disrupt their lands. As far as bringing in Surgical if you can't surgical a Valakut, what is the next best target? Stomping ground generally?
Played against my friend's stupid GR Ponza deck again last night, he always wins the roll and game 1 is pretty much an auto loss. Game 2 I took out cryptics and verdicts and somehow ended up with 8 lands and drawing nothing but more lands. Seemed like a case of bad luck and over-sideboarding because both cryptic and verdict would have won the game. Was able to path my own wall, mana leak a blood moon and D-Sphere another, but that was all that really happened the entire game.
I took this idea (which I'm sure has been done before) of Geist of Saint Traft + Elspeth, Knight-Errant and ran with it. I threw together a quick brew which is basically the same shell as this deck, and I'm wondering if this would be the right place to post it or somewhere else? I'm trying to decide if it's correct to go 4x geist and 4x elspeth to maximize chances of this combo even though you can obviously only have 1 of each on the battlefield at a time. Sorry for my kind of scatterbrained post, any responses to any of these 3 "questions" would be great!
Disrupting their lands at any point can be good depending on context of the game. Sometimes you just need to buy time to set up to be able to counter their last spell. And yes, the best target for surgical is a dual land that you're near certain they have 4 copies of. In order to make that decision it is best to have a good idea of what their mana base looks like. If you run multiple surgicals, or are able to snap a surgical the first one doesn't have to get full value because their is so much to be gained from knowing their mana base. This will allow you to make informed decisions with your LD spells/lands and future surgicals.
In the ponza match, is it possible that you assessed Blood Moon too highly as a threat? If you were able to Detention Sphere the second one and you didn't have Cryptic in your deck it's very possible that you would have been completely ok with at minimum one island and one plains in play because most of your other spells are not really heavy on colour requirements. You may have been able to wait to draw out of that position by finding some basics.
As far as the Geist/Elspeth thing is concerned I think I agree with Bloodyrabbit. It seems like a worse midrange deck. Elspeth is fine in the main or side, and it can certainly make for a nice sideboard package of an additional elspeth + 2 geists? I do also agree with rabbit that Gideon of the Trials is so good that I dont want less than 3. But I think Elspeth, knight errant could still work after 3 gideons because they also play nice together.
Good info, mostly what I thought since I've seen the match played a fair amount, but don't have much experience against it. I would probably just counter the scapeshift if I could because letting it resolve seems scary, but like you said that could be wrong a lot of the time.
In the ponza match I can usually deal with the blood moon, but they ALWAYS have it on turn 2 so I probably overboard trying to deal with it. The biggest problem is when they start blowing up all your basic lands. My opponent just always gets insane draws, sometimes there's nothing you can do about it.
My Geist/Elspeth idea is starting to seem like it would make more sense as a UW delver aggro deck, but I guess I'm on my own figuring out how to build that one.
The recent resurgence of Jeskai Control is largely due to a Spell Quellor 'trick' that is worth knowing...when it enters the battlefield, with the trigger on the stack, you can exile or destroy it and then when the trigger resolves the target spell is exiled permanently. Obviously Jeskai has a lot more tools to get this done, but it can be relevant with a Path and a Quellor in hand post board against, say a Scapeshift.
I also have say that this deck is miles better with Glacial Fortress in the mana base. I ran all over burn this week after bringing in 3 and I won Monday Modern if I didn't punt in the finals. (Fetched away Little Gideon on top with Geist facing down a Thought-Not: Woops, playing on 5 hours sleep after a 10 hour work day so I just had to laugh it off!)
I'm thinking through this quote from bloodyrabbit: Remember a trick: if they cast Scapeshift with 7 lands, you can actually keep Cryptic in your hand, let their Scapeshift resolving, then - when the trigger of the land is on the stack, bounce one of their Mountain. You lose only three life, and the opponent wasted a lot of red sources. Also, you can do the same with a Tectonic Edge on the play.
So if they grab 1x valakut and 6x mountains and you bounce 1 mountain wouldn't you take 0? The 5 mountains all see each other, but there is no sixth mountain and you take 0 damage on resolution. Is the three damage coming from the mountain that you have now returned to their hand when they play it next turn? I just want to make sure I understand this situation correctly.
Also is it preferable to play this way to get mountains out of their deck, or does this not really accomplish anything and would we just be better countering the scapeshift with the cryptic to begin with? Does this actually prevent the next scapeshift/titan from killing us?
Bonus Question : Does bouncing the valakut with cryptic do anything here? I'm thinking no as the triggers are already on the stack upon entering the battlefield right?
The trigger from the specific mountain you targeted will hit you. Having 6 mountains is not the condition for a valakut trigger, the condition is having at least 5 other mountains. When the specific mountain you targeted triggers it will will count and find 5 other mountains on the battlefield. The rest of the mountain triggers will search for 5 other mountains and only find 4 others upon resolution.
Depending on the texture of the specific game it could be worthwhile to counter the scapeshift, but I think in most instances you will want to bounce/kill the enabling mountains - it means a lot less mountains in the deck. However, if taking the 3 damage will kill your Gideon, or put you in bolt range or in range of Sakura beats, its worth considering countering the scapeshift.
Your assessment of how bouncing the valakut works is correct - the triggers don't check for Valakut upon resolution, only the number of other mountains.
Thanks for clarifying this, I found the explanation very helpful. Not to go to far with this corner case, but I think another consideration is that now they have a mountain in hand so you are giving up 6 total points of life if you can't shut down the valakut immediately. Much appreciated!
I've been thinking about cutting my maindecked second copy of Jace AOT and maybe running a 4th cyptic or something else. The amount of times where I feel safe casting Jace before turn 7 or 8 are extremely low. I think having a reactive answer that also provides card advantage may just be better. Has anyone considered putting Jace in the sideboard for slower matches or ones where his +1 is relevant? Such as abzan with souls, affinity, tokens, etc.
I've been thinking about cutting my maindecked second copy of Jace AOT and maybe running a 4th cyptic or something else. The amount of times where I feel safe casting Jace before turn 7 or 8 are extremely low. I think having a reactive answer that also provides card advantage may just be better. Has anyone considered putting Jace in the sideboard for slower matches or ones where his +1 is relevant? Such as abzan with souls, affinity, tokens, etc.
Yea, I've got the duel deck JAoT and I traded into a second one, but haven't found myself wanting to play two. When I started playing this a few months back (I was on Jeskai Nahiri Control, then Cheeri0s, then back to Lantern Control) I was running Ancestral Vision & Serum Visions, and that's when I thought I might want two Jace. After removing Ancestral and running a singleton Sphinx's Rev with two Gideon Jura and one Jace I found I really needed to be starting game at 25 life. Now that I've added Glacial Fortress to the manabase, dropped to 3 Cryptics & 3 Verdicts, and for walkers running 2 little Gideon, 1 Jura and 1 Jace, I'm rarely stabilizing below 8 life. (There's also a point to be made that maybe I'm just getting better at piloting the deck.)
I wasn't sold on Gideon of the Trials at first, but he has really grown on me, and while the first one almost never survives, if he leaves behind an emblem the next Gideon is a menace. The point that keeps getting made about him forcing opponents to go wide and making Verdict better is so true, but my opinion is that it is so much better that I only need 3 Verdicts in the main. I'm running one D-Sphere & one Blessed Alliance mainboard, with one more of each and a fourth Verdict in the side. Two D-Sphere main is probably correct overall, by my local meta both very diverse and Burn heavy, if that makes sense.
I do think a strong build might emerge with two Jace in the main, but I think it would be more of a tool-box archetype with a lot of 1 & 2-ofs in the list.
EDIT: @Bloody_Wabbit - That meta-guide post is absolute gold! I will buy you dinner if we ever meet in person. -Cheers!
Scenario - On the draw against Tron and they play a second Tron land on turn 2 and they have an Expedition Map in play. You play a Ghost Quarter on turn 2. How can you get the most mileage out of the GQ, or is this just doomsday?
Scenario - On the draw against Tron and they play a second Tron land on turn 2 and they have an Expedition Map in play. You play a Ghost Quarter on turn 2. How can you get the most mileage out of the GQ, or is this just doomsday?
I'm assuming that they will activate the map on your EOT to search for the last tron piece. My usual strategy is to kill the tower if it is in play since I assume they will hit tron at some point in the game and containing their mana to the minimum amount is helpful for mana leak and logic knot.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well, Sphere is actually a card that I originally played just 1 of (the one in the main), but after deciding it was so good against RW Prison and Skred, I decided that I wanted another copy since it's quite good against Bridge decks in general. I don't really like it main since it's slow against most aggro decks (other than Affinity, since you can pair it with early interaction to nab a Plating), and weak to Stubborn Denial and Abrupt Decay. It's just a catchall 1-of game one with the ability to side in a second when it's good. I could see playing the 2nd main instead, but I don't really want to cut anything mb.
As for the 4th Verdict, I actually justified not playing walls because I play the 4th Verdict. I don't like Wall because it dies in blocks to Shadow/Eldazi decks. As for why I play the 4th Verdict, I wanted it mainly against Abzan Company, since you want to hit as many Verdicts in that matchup as possible. It's also one of the best cards (if not the best) against Shadow and Eldrazi while pulling double duty against tokens/go-wide strategies and Lingering Souls, and just a staple of UWx Control decks in general -- I definitely want 4.
UWB Esper Draw-Go Control (clicky)
UW Azorius Control (clicky)
Currently pursuing a degree in Biochemistry.
EDH: I've decided I don't like multiplayer formats.
I just don't like playing Walls, and with a 4th Verdict I feel comfortable playing without Walls because I have more sweepers to deal with multiple threats at once -- I won't need the blockers. See the bolded portion below.
Edit: I can see why there was confusion -- yes, Wall can force them to overextend into Verdict (like Lil' Gideon), but I don't feel that Walls are good in this meta. I make up for their lack of presence by playing another Verdict to deal with wide boardstates where Wall might have helped, among other reasons. Hard to explain haha.
UWB Esper Draw-Go Control (clicky)
UW Azorius Control (clicky)
Currently pursuing a degree in Biochemistry.
EDH: I've decided I don't like multiplayer formats.
Here's my current list again, also trying a couple different 1 ofs in the SB which I think match up well with my local meta:
4x Celestial Colonnade
4x Flooded Strand
1x Ghost Quarter
2x Glacial Fortress
1x Hallowed Fountain
5x Island
1x Mystic Gate
3x Plains
3x Tectonic Edge
Enchantment (6)
2x Detention Sphere
4x Spreading Seas
Creature (5)
3x Snapcaster Mage
2x Wall of Omens
3x Cryptic Command
3x Mana Leak
1x Negate
4x Path to Exile
1x Secure the Wastes
1x Sphinx's Revelation
1x Think Twice
Sorcery (7)
4x Serum Visions
3x Supreme Verdict
Planeswalker (3)
2x Gideon of the Trials
1x Jace, Architect of Thought
Artifact (1)
1x Crucible of Worlds
1x Celestial Purge
1x Condemn
1x Dispel
1x Geist of Saint Traft
1x Grafdigger's Cage
2x Negate
1x Rest in Peace
1x Runed Halo
2x Stony Silence
1x Supreme Verdict
1x Surgical Extraction
1x Timely Reinforcements
1x Vendilion Clique
That said, I don't think less than 25 lands is correct, even in a crucible build - land drop 4 is just too critical for our game plan. And reducing Snapcaster to 2 is probably correct; Snap in the opener feels so bad in this deck that I have often considered going down to 1 (I probably won't just because snap is so powerful, but I've spent a lot of time thinking about it). An interesting thing to think about if you decide to keep the 3rd Snapcaster is Elspeth, Knight Errant over Jura/Secure. Being able to +1 on a Snap or GoTT on curve probably feels great in some matchups (Titanshift for sure) and its probably a lot better than either Jura/Secure/Rev in blue control matchups - being able to jump over wall of omens or Spell Queller or being able to trade Snaps for Colonnade is probably great.
I personally feel Irrigated Farmland is better than temple, mostly because it turns on Glacial Fortress and can be fetched when you have an awkward mana situation in your opener (rare, but it happens, especially in lists with only 1 hallowed fountain), but it also has some added utility in your list specifically because of crucible.
Sideboard looks great - Between my personal experiences, the testimony of people on this thread, and the unconscionable amount of UW streams I've watched I've come to think that only 1 Stony Silence might be correct. Drawing more than 1 in a game obviously sucks, but it's more so that most of the match-ups that we want it for it isn't necessary for (except lantern where they have Abrupt Decay).
Off topic note on sideboards - Has anyone considered/tested Nimble Obstructionist for the storm match? I know it contends with Clique and Geist but against Storm specifically (which is arguably our worst match-up) the uncounterable stifle mode seems near unbeatable for them, I think. It also seems serviceable if not great against titanshift - stifle a primeval trigger is fine, or if we can put enough pressure on the opp that they need to shift for exactsies, stifling a single trigger seems fine, especially if that trigger is pointed at a Gideon when we have an emblem on the board. Also seems decent in blue control mirrors, stifle on any of their lands is fantastic, be it Tec Edge, man-land or even just a fetch in the early game. Thoughts?
Played against my friend's stupid GR Ponza deck again last night, he always wins the roll and game 1 is pretty much an auto loss. Game 2 I took out cryptics and verdicts and somehow ended up with 8 lands and drawing nothing but more lands. Seemed like a case of bad luck and over-sideboarding because both cryptic and verdict would have won the game. Was able to path my own wall, mana leak a blood moon and D-Sphere another, but that was all that really happened the entire game.
I took this idea (which I'm sure has been done before) of Geist of Saint Traft + Elspeth, Knight-Errant and ran with it. I threw together a quick brew which is basically the same shell as this deck, and I'm wondering if this would be the right place to post it or somewhere else? I'm trying to decide if it's correct to go 4x geist and 4x elspeth to maximize chances of this combo even though you can obviously only have 1 of each on the battlefield at a time. Sorry for my kind of scatterbrained post, any responses to any of these 3 "questions" would be great!
Remember a trick: if they cast Scapeshift with 7 lands, you can actually keep Cryptic in your hand, let their Scapeshift resolving, then - when the trigger of the land is on the stack, bounce one of their Mountain. You lose only three life, and the opponent wasted a lot of red sources. Also, you can do the same with a Tectonic Edge on the play.
So if they grab 1x valakut and 6x mountains and you bounce 1 mountain wouldn't you take 0? The 5 mountains all see each other, but there is no sixth mountain and you take 0 damage on resolution. Is the three damage coming from the mountain that you have now returned to their hand when they play it next turn? I just want to make sure I understand this situation correctly.
Also is it preferable to play this way to get mountains out of their deck, or does this not really accomplish anything and would we just be better countering the scapeshift with the cryptic to begin with? Does this actually prevent the next scapeshift/titan from killing us?
Bonus Question : Does bouncing the valakut with cryptic do anything here? I'm thinking no as the triggers are already on the stack upon entering the battlefield right?
The trigger from the specific mountain you targeted will hit you. Having 6 mountains is not the condition for a valakut trigger, the condition is having at least 5 other mountains. When the specific mountain you targeted triggers it will will count and find 5 other mountains on the battlefield. The rest of the mountain triggers will search for 5 other mountains and only find 4 others upon resolution.
Depending on the texture of the specific game it could be worthwhile to counter the scapeshift, but I think in most instances you will want to bounce/kill the enabling mountains - it means a lot less mountains in the deck. However, if taking the 3 damage will kill your Gideon, or put you in bolt range or in range of Sakura beats, its worth considering countering the scapeshift.
Your assessment of how bouncing the valakut works is correct - the triggers don't check for Valakut upon resolution, only the number of other mountains.
Disrupting their lands at any point can be good depending on context of the game. Sometimes you just need to buy time to set up to be able to counter their last spell. And yes, the best target for surgical is a dual land that you're near certain they have 4 copies of. In order to make that decision it is best to have a good idea of what their mana base looks like. If you run multiple surgicals, or are able to snap a surgical the first one doesn't have to get full value because their is so much to be gained from knowing their mana base. This will allow you to make informed decisions with your LD spells/lands and future surgicals.
In the ponza match, is it possible that you assessed Blood Moon too highly as a threat? If you were able to Detention Sphere the second one and you didn't have Cryptic in your deck it's very possible that you would have been completely ok with at minimum one island and one plains in play because most of your other spells are not really heavy on colour requirements. You may have been able to wait to draw out of that position by finding some basics.
As far as the Geist/Elspeth thing is concerned I think I agree with Bloodyrabbit. It seems like a worse midrange deck. Elspeth is fine in the main or side, and it can certainly make for a nice sideboard package of an additional elspeth + 2 geists? I do also agree with rabbit that Gideon of the Trials is so good that I dont want less than 3. But I think Elspeth, knight errant could still work after 3 gideons because they also play nice together.
In the ponza match I can usually deal with the blood moon, but they ALWAYS have it on turn 2 so I probably overboard trying to deal with it. The biggest problem is when they start blowing up all your basic lands. My opponent just always gets insane draws, sometimes there's nothing you can do about it.
My Geist/Elspeth idea is starting to seem like it would make more sense as a UW delver aggro deck, but I guess I'm on my own figuring out how to build that one.
Esper draw go Control!
Twitch stream: http://www.twitch.tv/pimpdonny
Thanks for clarifying this, I found the explanation very helpful. Not to go to far with this corner case, but I think another consideration is that now they have a mountain in hand so you are giving up 6 total points of life if you can't shut down the valakut immediately. Much appreciated!
I've been thinking about cutting my maindecked second copy of Jace AOT and maybe running a 4th cyptic or something else. The amount of times where I feel safe casting Jace before turn 7 or 8 are extremely low. I think having a reactive answer that also provides card advantage may just be better. Has anyone considered putting Jace in the sideboard for slower matches or ones where his +1 is relevant? Such as abzan with souls, affinity, tokens, etc.
Yea, I've got the duel deck JAoT and I traded into a second one, but haven't found myself wanting to play two. When I started playing this a few months back (I was on Jeskai Nahiri Control, then Cheeri0s, then back to Lantern Control) I was running Ancestral Vision & Serum Visions, and that's when I thought I might want two Jace. After removing Ancestral and running a singleton Sphinx's Rev with two Gideon Jura and one Jace I found I really needed to be starting game at 25 life. Now that I've added Glacial Fortress to the manabase, dropped to 3 Cryptics & 3 Verdicts, and for walkers running 2 little Gideon, 1 Jura and 1 Jace, I'm rarely stabilizing below 8 life. (There's also a point to be made that maybe I'm just getting better at piloting the deck.)
I wasn't sold on Gideon of the Trials at first, but he has really grown on me, and while the first one almost never survives, if he leaves behind an emblem the next Gideon is a menace. The point that keeps getting made about him forcing opponents to go wide and making Verdict better is so true, but my opinion is that it is so much better that I only need 3 Verdicts in the main. I'm running one D-Sphere & one Blessed Alliance mainboard, with one more of each and a fourth Verdict in the side. Two D-Sphere main is probably correct overall, by my local meta both very diverse and Burn heavy, if that makes sense.
I do think a strong build might emerge with two Jace in the main, but I think it would be more of a tool-box archetype with a lot of 1 & 2-ofs in the list.
EDIT: @Bloody_Wabbit - That meta-guide post is absolute gold! I will buy you dinner if we ever meet in person. -Cheers!
I'm assuming that they will activate the map on your EOT to search for the last tron piece. My usual strategy is to kill the tower if it is in play since I assume they will hit tron at some point in the game and containing their mana to the minimum amount is helpful for mana leak and logic knot.