Mainly 2, beastmaster ascension and sanguine bond. It just gives me another out if I don't find a cleansing.

I don't think it's worth it because if you can't counter it on the way back out, then Snare is comparable to Fog. Voyage's End is just too good in this deck to not run the full playset, IMO.

Not to mention, you can Negate/Dissolve those 2 enchantments. They cost more or the same as your counterspells do.

I'm currently running 7 decks, so thought I'd post them here for anyone interested.

Blueshift

12 x Plains
9 x Island
3 x Azorius Guildgate

4 x Cloudshift
3 x Wall of Omens
3 x Lone Missionary
2 x Mentor of the Meek
2 x Seance
4 x Kor Cartographer
2 x Resolute Archangel
4 x Voyage's End
2 x Talrand, Sky Summoner
4 x Archaeomancer
1 x Time Warp
3 x Switcheroo
2 x Sphinx-Bone Wand


If anyone's followed my posts on the forums, this is the finished version a deck I was mainly hyping pre-release. ETB abuse with Cloudshift and Seance, plus casting benefits with the Wand and Talrand. The main engine is flickering an Archaeomancer repeatedly and either drawing lots of cards with the Mentor, generating tons of Drakes with Talrand, or doing increasingly lethal damage with the wand.

A little fragile, as there's so many moving parts that I found it hard to put in counterspells. I'm still undecided between Voyage's End and Negates, but went with the bounce as they can protect one of my creatures from removal for the same cost, retrigger the ETB when recast, and also, crucially, dealy with an enemy creature, if only for a turn. I can also remove creatures by repeatedly pulling back Switcheroo via Seance and trading the token, which is my other win condition. It's also relatively easy to string together a lot of turn via the same method.

If I go off, I can win in a turn or two, and there's very little anyone can do to stop it. I've also made a later Selesnya deck off the same white core, and it's actually a better, more powerful example of a Seance deck. While very important here, this exploits and relies more on Cloudshift than anything.

Stevolutionary, have you considered testing Angelic Accord with that?

It's a good idea, but what to remove is the issue. It'd also mean putting in another Missionary. I like the fact at the moment, I only need Cloudshift and the Archaeomancer as the engine to trigger three different win-cons (Mentor, Talrand and the Wand) and the Archaeomancer pulls Cloudshift back, so I have equity to use it earlier defensively.

By switching to the Missionary as another win-con, it makes me less free to burn early Cloudshifts, and is a harder combo to assemble as a result of the Missionary not fetching Cloudshift for me.

It's an excellent combo, but one made for a different deck I feel. Maybe in a Black/White lifegain/punisher deck. There's a little too much going on here to also squeeze that in without compromising the rest.

I think Sphinx-Bone Wand is terrible in multiples and should be always be a singleton. I think Switcheroo is all kinds of terrible because it's both conditional and expensive. Resolute Archangel is a nice effect to have access to, but I still wouldn't play more than one. I won't even mention how bad Seance is (oh wait, I just did). Moving on.

You are admittedly a combo deck but eschew Think Twice? That's puzzling. Where is Dissolve to protect your win conditions once you've dropped them? What is Lone Missionary doing in this deck besides "comboing" with Seance? Instead of Cloudshifting it for a Meditation Puzzle, why not play a real card? Moving on.

Kor Cartographer? You realize this costs four mana, right? You can say you'll Cloudshift it repeatedly to thin your deck, but if all you are drawing is more Cartographers then what's the point?

Where is Planar Cleansing?

Where is Baneslayer?

Why are you not running four gates?

Please don't take this as me ragging on you, but I honestly think that playing too much 2HG/Planechase is detrimental to one's deck construction abilities. I'm sure you're a great player because I've read your posts so I know you're capable of winning at a high rate with this deck, but don't assume that a high win-rate is indicative of an optimal deck.

You've built a cute deck, I'll concede, but cute is all it is. Either build the best deck or give me a "this deck is cute" disclaimer so I don't have to respond.

B/W doesn't impress me to be honest, I have a deck list that runs Seance and Angelic Accord accord combo on the previous page. I think U/W runs it a lot more smoothly to the point that it just looks broken at times. I am sure you wont change your deck so I wont implore you to do so.

Have you playtested this yet, or are you ragging on it based on theory here? I've extensively playtested this, and won consistently. All your criticisms show is you're judging it on theory.

Sphinx-Bone wand wins games, so I need two for frequency. They also stack.

Kor Cartographer is ramp, and crucially it ramps Plains. The more Plains I have, the more Cloudshifts I can do, and the easier the Wand is to afford.

I have 4 Negates to protect my wincons. Why would I use dissolves when a lot of my spells are already double Blue? That means I'd need quad blue to cast and protect.

Misionaries stall for me to ramp into the combo. They provide a ton of breathing room. As does the Resolute Archangel (again, two for frequency, and the Kor always gets me there) Baneslayer is just a big body without ETBs, and Planar Cleansing kills all my setup. Neither advance what I want to do.

Switcheroo is fantastic with Seance and the Archaeomancer. I can steal all your threats and give you useless tokens that exile. Again, Kor ramp gets me to this point quicker, and the missionaries help me survive until this point.

The only legit critique is the guildgates, and that has a mundane explanation - the Ravnica glitch took one away from me so I can't.

Seriously - play the deck a dozen times or so, then come back. It's clear to me you're judging it too harshly without really understanding how it works and just kicking out the old, orthodox tier lists of cards without bothering to think how or why they work here.

I honestly feel very little need to defend my decks. I win with them and that's enough. If you don't understand them, or lack the patience to play them first and try to, then you really shouldn't critique them.

My record in the game stands for itself, and I don't need or seek your validation. That you feel I do is the "cute" thing here.

Then why post the list?

a) Because people have requested them.

b) Because I am open to criticism, but only intelligent criticism. Yours is simple knee-jerk reactionism to the inclusion of cards you dislike, or the exclusion of staples such as Baneslayer without actually trying to think why I did that.

Play it over a dozen games, then come back to me. I'm being dismissive because all you're doing is parroting the accepted line of thought. There's zero insight, so that, for me, is worthless. Harbinger made a much better point about Angelic Accord that made me think, because he actually understood what it was trying to do.

I don't think you do, and your bias towards a certain school of thought prevents you from making an attempt to. I will happily listen to criticism, just not from that particular strain because I feel it has no merit. Your tone was patronising from the start, hence I will patronise your criticism in return.

If you notice, I rarely critique other people's builds, and that's because I lack the time and the will to playtest them thorougly enough to come to an intelligent conclusion, and feel trotting out lazy canards like "needs moar Baneslayer" is both shallow and pointless.

I'm hardly a "needs more Baneslayer" type of player, just so you know, but it is a tremendously powerful card in any deck that can cast it. Purposefully excluding it just seems like you want to win without it so you can say how awesome you are.

This whole attitude about "parrotting wisdom" you have is pretty strange. People have been winning at Magic with powerful cards and decks for a long time, so why not apply what we've learned from them? Wisdom is wisdom for a reason.

I get that you want to build piles that max out and synergy and cute interactions, and I can appreciate them, but what does being dismissive of conventional wisdom do for you? It seems like you're ignoring something simply because it's mainstream and it doesn't jive with your need to play offbeat. That's fine with me. Just recognize it and say "this is a cool, offbeat deck" and I'll get behind it.

Because when I want criticism, I want insight. Do you really think I didn't consider Baneslayer? That I didn't test it? Then did it not occur to you that there could have been a reason? Did you attempt to think or ask why I didn't include it?

It's not the accepted wisdom bit I have an issue with, but the parroting element, and the associated tone. If you're only telling people things they already know, you don't really have a right to be condescending with it, and that's the issue I had - your first post was hostile and dismissive for no reason, and contained no real original ideas.

Such a reply shuts down and punishes thought, instead of rewarding it and opening new avenues, as genuine criticism does. I don't feel you're making the effort to improve a deck, so much as make it conform to your ideals, even if it would ruin the deck entirely.

Conventional wisdom is fine, but if someone chooses to reject it for a reason, just repeating it to them without trying to understand why they did so isn't helpful.

I think what's getting lost here is that these decks aren't just for a few of you to discuss... They are to give us all insight into combinations that work. Personally, I get a ton of value out of you posting these and then reading the replies.

So Stev... When you say there is no value to Hakeem parroting conventional wisdom, you need to remember that new people to the game, myself included, are learning that for the first time as Hakeem is writing it. Same to the insight you provide.

This is an excellent post and a good follow up to what I just posted in the Izzet thread.

I do think sometimes some nicer tones could be communicated while achieving the same goal, a discussion about what we see works better in our experiences. Perhaps a little less "matter of fact" type of demeanors could be used. Using some "softer" or "kinder" words never hurts anyone.

I see the Geist of MobiusBiscuitCrumbs...ah...ButterBiscuits...ahh no that isn't right either.....how about ChickenFingers?...has left it's mark on these forums!

To anyone who has tried this, what do you think of swapping out Kozilek for a Resolute Archangel? It lowers the curve, has a very relevant EtB for a slow deck, and has lots of synergy with Cloudshift. I'm thinking of making the swap.

Not a bad idea, the only reason I like kozilek is if I draw too much of my deck but outside of that I don't like drawing it. Angel would stop me getting burnt out after I have established control

Greasy fingers get the most flies.