I can pretty damn near guarantee you that Monastery Mentor is not getting banned in Legacy. Although he is probably overall the most used win-condition in the deck, he is by no means integral. In Vintage however, he very well may be banned, but that is not really relevant to this.
I personally have not heard or read anything about Top-banning recently, but do not really read that many MTG websites anymore. I do not see why it should be banned -now-. CounterTop has been one of the biggest decks, and often the biggest depending on your categorization, in Legacy for a long, long time. It would probably shake up Legacy noticeably if either Top or Counterbalance were to be banned, but so would banning Deathrite Shaman or Abrupt Decay. I do not think WotC wants to shake up the format at this point, merely judging by recent (last 5 years?) management of it. They rather seem to want to print some cards they think might be impact it, like Leovold recently, and change it slowly through that. Some argue that this slow trickle of relevant cards is mostly a coincidence, as WotC may just do not care that much about the format.
Feel free to wait to the next B&R announcement (in a week or so? Two?), but I personally do not see why things would change now when they have not in years.
@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.
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 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 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.
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 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.
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 get that there is a very distinct difference between "lucky" and "good", but you seem to argue a very though case. OhDaisy! has, according to his post, a 34-5 record (this is single-elimination). You have a very far-fetched definition of skill in Magic if you do not think that indicates that someone is "good" in a particular format.
By your standards, he needs to perform worse than 50/50 for the next 60 matches until he can call himself "good". If 3xSoM queues were up for another two weeks, I am sure they would be happy to oblige.
This absolutely qualifies as unconstructive, but I am very pleased nonetheless:
I have again reached 2020 in Limited rating on MTGO. The Shadowmoor and Cube gods have been kind to me. After 15 3x SHM, 9 SHMSHMEVE and currently 11 Cube drafts, I am left with 23 3-0s. All in the single elimination queues, for what it is worth. The total W/L is 83-12, if my quick math is right.
In Shadowmoor drafts, I don't think I have any in-depth wisdom beyond "try to go for monocolor, possibly with a light splash. Monowhite and monored are clearly the best, and the former can support two good decks". That format will not return for another year or so at minimum, so I do not think my thoughts are relevant to any great extent.
In Vintage cube, prioritize mana highly. Mana is the limiting factor of any Vintage cube deck, and the acceleration and silly-good fixing is what allows you to do all the other broken stuff. Exceptions are made for monored and monowhite, but I personally do not feel comfortable taking the risk of drafting either deck, as either deck cannot really support two players. Two-cards combos with interchangeable pieces are the best ways to win unless you are either of the aforementioned decks, but early planeswalkers work too. The most typical two-card combos are Kiki/Twin and basic mana-cheating (Reanimator/Show&Tell/Channel/Welder/etc.).
I am happy to answer any questions
Edit: Aaaaand I lost in the first round. It seems the 2020 is not meant to be broken.
Although the above has happened, it is painting the situation with somewhat of a bleak brush. MTGO is certainly a very poor program with a ton of faults, but it has (as far as I can tell) gotten better the last six months. More importantly, the worst-case scenario is rarely helpful when considering things, as it is very, very unlikely*.
*"being in the lead" + "tournament failing" + "negligible refund"
I actually think that is a very fair interpretation of "freely accessible". On the other side, an argument could be made for the videos already being "freely" available, in the sense that anyone with a very (relatively) minute amount of money can access them. No "discrimination".
Either way, I doubt that anything will actually change. There is no popular moment as far as I am aware that is looking to make the video content of SCG free. If there is no popular moment and WotC is not losing money on it, I cannot see them actually wanting to do anything about it.
Is streaming that is only accessible to subscribers a thing now, or is it pretty much just the videos on SCG?
I figured it might not only be me that was curious as to what changes were made to the User Agreement with the latest update. Truth to be told, I do not know what wordings they actually changed, so I would love to hear if anyone did. Either way, here are the paragraphs that have been added/changed:
Prize Splitting
In the final round of an event, two players matched against each other may negotiate their match result to split whatever prizes are at stake between them, including (but not limited to) Qualifier Points and invitations. If an event cuts to a Top 8 playoff, the final round is defined as the last round of that playoff. For league events, the final round is defined as a match between players who are both in the last possible match of their current league course. Offering prizes outside those Magic Online would award based on the outcome of that match to the participants is still considered bribery, as is offering a prize split prior to the final round of an event.
All prize splits are done at the players’ own risk, and Magic Online will not enforce any agreed-upon splits in any situation.
Streaming.
Wizards encourages you and other Magic Online players to stream and share Magic Online gameplay and content, but you are solely responsible for your content including obtaining permission from third party intellectual property owners and ensuring it does not violate the Code of Conduct. All videos and streams must be freely accessible and may not feature or promote competing games or services. Matches may be impacted by streaming gameplay; if you choose to stream your play, it is at your own risk.
Restrictions.
The Game, Game Service, Software and any Game related products or services are made available solely for use by Accounts holders according to the terms of this User Agreement. Any use, reproduction or redistribution of the Game, Game Service, Software or Game related products or services (including without limitation, Digital Objects) not expressly authorized by this User Agreement is expressly prohibited and may result in severe civil and criminal penalties. You are strictly prohibited from engaging in, or assisting others to engage in, conduct that would damage or impair the property of Wizards including, without limitation, the following: (a) copying, distributing, transmitting, displaying, performing, framing, linking, hosting, caching, reproducing, publishing, licensing, or creating derivative works from any information, software, products or services obtained from the Game, Game Service or Software; (b) modifying, reverse engineering, disassembling or decompiling the Game, Game Service or Software except to the extent that this restriction is expressly prohibited by applicable law; (c) using intellectual property contained in the Game, Game Service or the Software to create derivatives or to provide any other means through which others may play the Game such as through server emulators; (d) taking actions that impose an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on Wizards' network infrastructure or that could damage, disable, overburden, or impair any of Wizards' websites or other services; (e) interfering with any other party's use and enjoyment of the Game, Game Service and/or Software (including cheating, collusion, or exploiting software defects to gain an unfair advantage over other players) and any Wizards' websites or services; (f) attempting to gain unauthorized access to third party Accounts, the Game, the Game Service or Software via any means; (g) misrepresenting the nature of your Account or creating any misrepresentative or misleading in-Game communications (including chat, incident reporting, or trade posts) and (h) violating Wizards Code of Conduct (http://company.wizards.com/policies/web/conduct).
Wizards does not recognize any purported transfers or sales of Digital Objects, event tickets or other virtual assets outside of the Software. Accordingly, you are strictly prohibited from selling, gifting (except as permitted herein) or exchanging Digital Objects, event tickets or other virtual Game items for currency or other value outside of the Game.
Moreover, Wizards does not recognize or sanction player created events in the Game Service and is not liable for any issues that may occur during such an event including, without limitation, entry requirements, match disputes and arbitration, or prize fulfillment.
IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER RIGHTS AND REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO WIZARDS, IF WIZARDS BELIEVES YOU HAVE, OR WILL ENGAGE IN ANY OF THE ABOVE CONDUCT IN THIS SECTION 10, IT MAY, IN ITS SOLE DISCRETION AND WITHOUT NOTICE, TERMINATE YOUR ACCESS TO THE GAME AND GAME SERVICES, AND SUSPEND OR DEACTIVATE YOUR ACCOUNTS WITH NO LIABILITY TO IT RELATING THERETO.
No Assignment.
This User Agreement is personal to you, and may not be assigned. Wizards may transfer or assign this User Agreement, the Game, Game Service Your Accounts, or Software, in whole or in part, to third parties of its choosing.
I can broadly say that the User Agreement in general says that you as a user has -zero- rights and that WotC may terminate your account for no reason whenever they feel like it. I would also like to point out their depressing stance on feedback (according to the User Agreement):
Feedback.
Wizards' does not accept unsolicited suggestions, comments or feedback regarding its products and other offerings ("Feedback"). In the event you provide Feedback, such Feedback with be treated by Wizards in accordance with its Unsolicited Idea Submission and Feedback polices further described in Sections 11 and 12 of Wizards' Terms of Use (http://company.wizards.com/policies/web/tou), incorporated by this reference.
You are sort of describing the answer to your implied question yourself ("are these events random?"), by pointing out that it is happening repeatedly. Drawing forests and only white spells is what actually may happen from time to time when you're dealing with actual* randomness. It might be a bit bitter when you're subject to it, but it may be a comfort to you in knowing that we are all equally subject to it on average.
I saw your list a few years ago, I believe because it won some Pauper league or something? I've never liked Origin Spellbomb, and even less the full playset of it, so I would cut them entirely for a full playset of Counterspell + 2 supplementary counterspells like Prohibit or Muddle the Mixture. 3 Guardian of the Guildpact also seem too much, I would run just 2, and you're even running Cenn's Enlistment as a finisher too, so just 1 Guardian seems okay. I'll add a bit more removal from the cuts in the form of Sunlance. Swapping Viridian Longbow with Flayer Husk is also a good call, as these days it's all about big creatures, so Longbow being slow and durdly as you said won't do much early game while being useless late. I ran Longbow main before, but I found myself swapping it for Husk a lot of the time in G2 and 3, so I finally decided to relegate it to the board. Husk also makes up for the Spellbombs by being a cheaper, fetcheable body with an equipment that boosts toughness as well.
I'm curious about why Preordain instead of Ponder. The later digs deeper, and even shuffles the deck for Brainstorm.
About Trinket Mage vs Sea Gate Oracle, even with just three pieces of equipment, it still has targets in the Artifact lands, which means getting ahead early game and having Retrace fodder for Enlistment late game.
Perhaps the lack of counterspells and overall Instants is what makes you feel like an inferior version of Kuldotha Jeskai? They operate slow because they run durdly 2 mana Artifacts that they have to bounce back and forth at Sorcery speed, which leaves little room for reactive play and counterspells. On the other hand, our 2 CMC fliers provide far more card advantage than theirs, as well as hitting harder thanks to equipment. We can draw cards, answer threats, set up draws, counter spells, and overall operate at Instant speed, so we're definitely faster than them, and we draw more cards to boot.
Not liking Origin Spellbomb is completely fair. I have already stated my criticism of it in my previous post. While it is card that is very synergistic with the rest of the deck, it is also very durdly.
It may seem there is simply a disagreement in philosophy when it comes to the aim of the deck. You are advocating more counterspells and fewer finishers. This is turning it into a Control deck in my mind. A worse one than for example Teachings, in my opinion, but each to their own.
The swap of Viridian Longbow for Flayer Husk does not really make sense to me, at least if they are supposed to perform the same roles. I can absolutely see the merit of playing Husk, it is just that I would view it more as a Spellbomb that draws you a poor-mans Leonin Schimitar instead of a card. Also, just to be clear on the merits of Longbow, it is excellent lategame, not "useless". It is just a matter of not running into artifact-hate, which is usually not present game 1. The reason it is even in the deck is that it wins game 1 against other creature-based attrition decks.
Even if ran some number of Terramorphic Expanses, I would absolutely still run Preordain over Ponder. Getting to get rid of a card, as opposed to drawing that useless land, equipment or second Squadron Hawk is miles better. While Ponder makes more sense in decks with a lot of fetchlands in Legacy, I do not think it does so in most Pauper decks.
My experience with Trinket Mage is that I often want to go grab a Spellbomb. Against Control decks, that is some serious value, and those games typically go long. That means it is a very fair chance you will run out of targets. With two Cenn's Enlistments in the deck, instead of a singleton, I believe it is far more fair to argue for the merits of getting artifact lands. The second copy almost triples the chances of having drawn one by the point there is only twenty cards left in the deck.
So, considering your comparison to Kuldotha Jeskai, I will say this:
I think that this deck is a worse creature-based attrition deck than KJ, and a worse Control deck than for example Mystical Teachings. While the deck certainly can perform, I simply think it performs worse on either axis than the previously mentioned decks operate on and that the hybrid strategy does not work in this form. A more concise aggro-control deck like Mono-Blue Delver performs that role. Squadron Hawk + Brainstorm is a very sexy idea, and it was got me started on the deck years ago. Unfortunately, it just does not seem to reach up to Tier 1.
I am still very willing to discuss the deck though, as you hopefully can see from the above. It was not my intention to be dismissive of your ideas, merely to supply my own assessments and experiences.
I personally have not heard or read anything about Top-banning recently, but do not really read that many MTG websites anymore. I do not see why it should be banned -now-. CounterTop has been one of the biggest decks, and often the biggest depending on your categorization, in Legacy for a long, long time. It would probably shake up Legacy noticeably if either Top or Counterbalance were to be banned, but so would banning Deathrite Shaman or Abrupt Decay. I do not think WotC wants to shake up the format at this point, merely judging by recent (last 5 years?) management of it. They rather seem to want to print some cards they think might be impact it, like Leovold recently, and change it slowly through that. Some argue that this slow trickle of relevant cards is mostly a coincidence, as WotC may just do not care that much about the format.
Feel free to wait to the next B&R announcement (in a week or so? Two?), but I personally do not see why things would change now when they have not in years.
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
-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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
By your standards, he needs to perform worse than 50/50 for the next 60 matches until he can call himself "good". If 3xSoM queues were up for another two weeks, I am sure they would be happy to oblige.
I have again reached 2020 in Limited rating on MTGO. The Shadowmoor and Cube gods have been kind to me. After 15 3x SHM, 9 SHMSHMEVE and currently 11 Cube drafts, I am left with 23 3-0s. All in the single elimination queues, for what it is worth. The total W/L is 83-12, if my quick math is right.
In Shadowmoor drafts, I don't think I have any in-depth wisdom beyond "try to go for monocolor, possibly with a light splash. Monowhite and monored are clearly the best, and the former can support two good decks". That format will not return for another year or so at minimum, so I do not think my thoughts are relevant to any great extent.
In Vintage cube, prioritize mana highly. Mana is the limiting factor of any Vintage cube deck, and the acceleration and silly-good fixing is what allows you to do all the other broken stuff. Exceptions are made for monored and monowhite, but I personally do not feel comfortable taking the risk of drafting either deck, as either deck cannot really support two players. Two-cards combos with interchangeable pieces are the best ways to win unless you are either of the aforementioned decks, but early planeswalkers work too. The most typical two-card combos are Kiki/Twin and basic mana-cheating (Reanimator/Show&Tell/Channel/Welder/etc.).
I am happy to answer any questions
Edit: Aaaaand I lost in the first round. It seems the 2020 is not meant to be broken.
*"being in the lead" + "tournament failing" + "negligible refund"
Either way, I doubt that anything will actually change. There is no popular moment as far as I am aware that is looking to make the video content of SCG free. If there is no popular moment and WotC is not losing money on it, I cannot see them actually wanting to do anything about it.
Is streaming that is only accessible to subscribers a thing now, or is it pretty much just the videos on SCG?
I figured it might not only be me that was curious as to what changes were made to the User Agreement with the latest update. Truth to be told, I do not know what wordings they actually changed, so I would love to hear if anyone did. Either way, here are the paragraphs that have been added/changed:
In the final round of an event, two players matched against each other may negotiate their match result to split whatever prizes are at stake between them, including (but not limited to) Qualifier Points and invitations. If an event cuts to a Top 8 playoff, the final round is defined as the last round of that playoff. For league events, the final round is defined as a match between players who are both in the last possible match of their current league course. Offering prizes outside those Magic Online would award based on the outcome of that match to the participants is still considered bribery, as is offering a prize split prior to the final round of an event.
All prize splits are done at the players’ own risk, and Magic Online will not enforce any agreed-upon splits in any situation.
Wizards encourages you and other Magic Online players to stream and share Magic Online gameplay and content, but you are solely responsible for your content including obtaining permission from third party intellectual property owners and ensuring it does not violate the Code of Conduct. All videos and streams must be freely accessible and may not feature or promote competing games or services. Matches may be impacted by streaming gameplay; if you choose to stream your play, it is at your own risk.
The Game, Game Service, Software and any Game related products or services are made available solely for use by Accounts holders according to the terms of this User Agreement. Any use, reproduction or redistribution of the Game, Game Service, Software or Game related products or services (including without limitation, Digital Objects) not expressly authorized by this User Agreement is expressly prohibited and may result in severe civil and criminal penalties. You are strictly prohibited from engaging in, or assisting others to engage in, conduct that would damage or impair the property of Wizards including, without limitation, the following: (a) copying, distributing, transmitting, displaying, performing, framing, linking, hosting, caching, reproducing, publishing, licensing, or creating derivative works from any information, software, products or services obtained from the Game, Game Service or Software; (b) modifying, reverse engineering, disassembling or decompiling the Game, Game Service or Software except to the extent that this restriction is expressly prohibited by applicable law; (c) using intellectual property contained in the Game, Game Service or the Software to create derivatives or to provide any other means through which others may play the Game such as through server emulators; (d) taking actions that impose an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on Wizards' network infrastructure or that could damage, disable, overburden, or impair any of Wizards' websites or other services; (e) interfering with any other party's use and enjoyment of the Game, Game Service and/or Software (including cheating, collusion, or exploiting software defects to gain an unfair advantage over other players) and any Wizards' websites or services; (f) attempting to gain unauthorized access to third party Accounts, the Game, the Game Service or Software via any means; (g) misrepresenting the nature of your Account or creating any misrepresentative or misleading in-Game communications (including chat, incident reporting, or trade posts) and (h) violating Wizards Code of Conduct (http://company.wizards.com/policies/web/conduct).
Wizards does not recognize any purported transfers or sales of Digital Objects, event tickets or other virtual assets outside of the Software. Accordingly, you are strictly prohibited from selling, gifting (except as permitted herein) or exchanging Digital Objects, event tickets or other virtual Game items for currency or other value outside of the Game.
Moreover, Wizards does not recognize or sanction player created events in the Game Service and is not liable for any issues that may occur during such an event including, without limitation, entry requirements, match disputes and arbitration, or prize fulfillment.
IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER RIGHTS AND REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO WIZARDS, IF WIZARDS BELIEVES YOU HAVE, OR WILL ENGAGE IN ANY OF THE ABOVE CONDUCT IN THIS SECTION 10, IT MAY, IN ITS SOLE DISCRETION AND WITHOUT NOTICE, TERMINATE YOUR ACCESS TO THE GAME AND GAME SERVICES, AND SUSPEND OR DEACTIVATE YOUR ACCOUNTS WITH NO LIABILITY TO IT RELATING THERETO.
This User Agreement is personal to you, and may not be assigned. Wizards may transfer or assign this User Agreement, the Game, Game Service Your Accounts, or Software, in whole or in part, to third parties of its choosing.
I can broadly say that the User Agreement in general says that you as a user has -zero- rights and that WotC may terminate your account for no reason whenever they feel like it. I would also like to point out their depressing stance on feedback (according to the User Agreement):
Wizards' does not accept unsolicited suggestions, comments or feedback regarding its products and other offerings ("Feedback"). In the event you provide Feedback, such Feedback with be treated by Wizards in accordance with its Unsolicited Idea Submission and Feedback polices further described in Sections 11 and 12 of Wizards' Terms of Use (http://company.wizards.com/policies/web/tou), incorporated by this reference.
https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/2o73b4/incontrovertible_fact_of_the_unfairness_of_the/
You are sort of describing the answer to your implied question yourself ("are these events random?"), by pointing out that it is happening repeatedly. Drawing forests and only white spells is what actually may happen from time to time when you're dealing with actual* randomness. It might be a bit bitter when you're subject to it, but it may be a comfort to you in knowing that we are all equally subject to it on average.
Let me know if I misunderstood your question.
*approximated
Not liking Origin Spellbomb is completely fair. I have already stated my criticism of it in my previous post. While it is card that is very synergistic with the rest of the deck, it is also very durdly.
It may seem there is simply a disagreement in philosophy when it comes to the aim of the deck. You are advocating more counterspells and fewer finishers. This is turning it into a Control deck in my mind. A worse one than for example Teachings, in my opinion, but each to their own.
The swap of Viridian Longbow for Flayer Husk does not really make sense to me, at least if they are supposed to perform the same roles. I can absolutely see the merit of playing Husk, it is just that I would view it more as a Spellbomb that draws you a poor-mans Leonin Schimitar instead of a card. Also, just to be clear on the merits of Longbow, it is excellent lategame, not "useless". It is just a matter of not running into artifact-hate, which is usually not present game 1. The reason it is even in the deck is that it wins game 1 against other creature-based attrition decks.
Even if ran some number of Terramorphic Expanses, I would absolutely still run Preordain over Ponder. Getting to get rid of a card, as opposed to drawing that useless land, equipment or second Squadron Hawk is miles better. While Ponder makes more sense in decks with a lot of fetchlands in Legacy, I do not think it does so in most Pauper decks.
My experience with Trinket Mage is that I often want to go grab a Spellbomb. Against Control decks, that is some serious value, and those games typically go long. That means it is a very fair chance you will run out of targets. With two Cenn's Enlistments in the deck, instead of a singleton, I believe it is far more fair to argue for the merits of getting artifact lands. The second copy almost triples the chances of having drawn one by the point there is only twenty cards left in the deck.
So, considering your comparison to Kuldotha Jeskai, I will say this:
I think that this deck is a worse creature-based attrition deck than KJ, and a worse Control deck than for example Mystical Teachings. While the deck certainly can perform, I simply think it performs worse on either axis than the previously mentioned decks operate on and that the hybrid strategy does not work in this form. A more concise aggro-control deck like Mono-Blue Delver performs that role. Squadron Hawk + Brainstorm is a very sexy idea, and it was got me started on the deck years ago. Unfortunately, it just does not seem to reach up to Tier 1.
I am still very willing to discuss the deck though, as you hopefully can see from the above. It was not my intention to be dismissive of your ideas, merely to supply my own assessments and experiences.