I use URB Landstill.  I have plenty of tutoring.  As for the removal being easily removed, how so?  You have counters and burn.  (Welder.)  The burn is half the removal.  As for the null rod, it can be bounced.  (I.E. Chain of Vapor)

The clock is fine.  It might not get broken until your opponent has seven cards in hand, but then you have ten,  AND an answer to all the cards he has.

I don't really see any of your arguments as real problems.  You seem to center around disk more than you do other things.  Usually, I use disk to eliminate 2 or 3 cards, max.  I don't let a ton of things get out that could start causing me problems and then try to blow them all up at once.  It's too risky.  Burn is more removal than disk.

Landstill rizzocks.  It's my deck of choice.  I could play Tog if I wanted to.  I simply think Landstill is better.

It's not metagamed against which makes it = gold.

Why do people think Landstill is bad?

Oathstill is horrendous with anything not running creatures, (and most of the meta actually doesn't run creatures,) and what would you put in there anyway?  1 Akroma?  (hasteful attacker/blocker)  Darksteel Colossus?  (synergy with the disk/bigger clock)

Never liked oathstill although it's an interesting deck idea.

Green is the worst thing to use as a secondary color to a landstill deck.

My order goes:

Blue is primary in all builds (obviously)
Red is secondary because it accelerates the clock (burn your opponent) and takes out weenies better (fire/ice) as well as has a better mana denial theme (fire/ice) is better in the mirror versus a U/W Landstill, etc etc.
White is the third color that should be looked at for the sole reason of  Swords to Plowshares and Decree of Justice.  Those are the only good cards white has to offer.  Wrath of God can obviously not be substituted for Nevinyrral's Disk.
Black is fourth, as it adds wonderful anti-control elements like Duress, AND you get tutors.  You can even viably add in dark rituals for speed with Nevinyrral's Disk.  U/B Landstill is not that bad at all, indeed inferior to U/R _and_ U/W Landstill, it beats out U/G Landstill in a second.  And let's not forget the almighty Yawgmoth's Will.  Combined with Dark Rituals, Landstill becomes a broken deck if it can survive that far without creature removal outside of disk.
Green is dead last.  It only has one card even worth looking at, and that is Treetop Village.  Unfortunately, it produces green mana which is worthless in Landstill, and there are no other good green cards outside of regrowth.  Getting out a big fattie with oath is not substitionary for creature removal and tutors.

I only have three MD black cards with black:

Vampiric Tutor
Demonic Tutor
Yawgmoth's Will

They help so significantly, it's not even funny.

Dem Tutoring for an Ancestral or Nevinyrral's Disk has been gamebreaking.

An early Yawg's Will is always amazing.

If artifacts were heavy in my meta, I would run Rack and Ruin instead of the Tormod's Crypts in both builds.

I too run 2 Misdirections MD.  Getting rid of blue cards is never a problem for me, and I run 1 Teferi's Response/3 Stifles MD, 1 mox sapphire, 1 black lotus, 1 lotus petal for mana support for the first turn standstill, no ruby, no jet.

Maze of Ith is lovely.  You can't counter it and Tog doesn't have wastelands.  Screw you, king deck of type 1.

Thank you, Ephraim, for that response.

You've expanded upon much about what the scientific community wants you to believe concerning CFC's.

The fact of the matter is, if you actually research what happens, indeed the Chlorotrifluoromethane is split by solar radiation into a trifluorocarbon radical and a chlorine radical, but not much is known about what happens after that.

As for the 'laboratories,' this experiment was only done a few times in ONE laboratory with no control, yet it was pitched to the government as fact, and so our senators bought it.

The post I made was simply an allusion as to how people don't have common sense when it comes to scientific reasonings.  Science does not defy reason, it is in accord with it, and it's brother logic.

I appreciate the arguments, AIcOPed.

In every age, science has always held the answers to nearly everything, and people in mass have always listened to worldly science.

Of course, science wasn't right before that, and man's flawed reasoning was skewed after they discovered the earth was round as well.  Sir Isaac Newton, one of the race's most brilliant was a devout Christian in spite of science's reasonings.  He is quoted to have saying something along the lines of, "The planets in orbit are only suspended as much as God holds them there.  If God would withdraw his hand, they would all fly out of their orbit, chaotically and unorderly."

The simple fact of the matter is that God uses means to create ends.  God made the earth round not because he needed to do so, but because he chose to do so.  Now before you think I'm turning into a Christian Evolutionist, (and they do exist,) let me assure you that I'm certainly not.

I don't believe in evolution as Darwin posed it, nor any other man with a degree in science.  I believe it's a fallacy, just like the earth being flat was a fallacy.  Sure, they had tons of ways to prove that the earth was flat.  Of course, they were all wrong.  Then came people who started thinking the earth was round.  Despire the allusions in the bible, (of which there are more to the earth being round than being flat,) people were stubborn.

I'm just going to tell a story demonstrating faulty science.

Now, before I begin, I'll reckon myself as an observant man.  Someone who can clearly distinguish between truth and falsehood and who can tell that people who don't add black to U/R Landstill are either misinformed or just stubborn.

A scientist came into my 11th grade class the one day.  He talked about the ozone layer and how it was depleting due to various forms of pollution, etc etc.  Now, I had read up a good bit on the ozone layer.  He started talking about how CFC's and the like create holes in the ozone layer, yadda yadda yadda.

I spoke up, "Mr. Scientist, I don't believe a word you're saying."
"Oh really?  And why not?"
I said, "What creates ozone?"
"Lightning."
"Yes, we all know lightning creates a small bit of ozone, however, what has created the most ozone?"
"Well..."  (At this point he started to look sheepish.)
"It's sunlight, isn't it?"
"Yes, sunlight and lightning both create ozone."
"And where is the ozone layer at on earth?"
"On top of Antartica," was his reply.
"Mr. Scientist, don't you believe it's quite obvious that the ozone layer is over Antartica because they don't have lightning there?  And wouldn't it be even more obvious, if sunlight created a great deal of ozone, that antartica would have a hole of ozone over it?"
"Well, yes, but..."
"Well, hold on now just a second.  When did we discover the ozone layer?"
(he gave a year, I forget the year)
"And when did we discover the hole in the ozone layer?"
(he gave the same year)
"And when did global warming become a 'problem'?"
(he gave a year in the 90's, way after the previous years quoted)

There isn't evidence that CFC's destroy the Ozone Layer, although our government and schools and everyone else on God's Green Earth save anyone who has common sense believes that Aerosol Cans melt the icecaps.

Now, for me to believe that I'm smarter than the thing that created me (i.e., the big bang) is quite an audacious statement to make.  I believe it's common sense that evolution is bunk based on the following reasons:

1)  The missing link.  This should be obvious enough.  Where is it?  It's missing.  Why's it missing?

2)  Fossils made by Mount Saint Helen.  If you don't believe me, look it up.  It's well documented by secular research as well.  They appear to be millions of years old, even by carbon dating, but you guessed it, they were made 30 years ago.

3)  Any dinosaur bone that was proven to be only 2,000 years old.  That's happened too many times to count.  (I'm not saying that the bones are actually 2,000 years old, only that carbon dating is screwed up.)

And actually, I'd like to talk about carbon dating for a little bit too.  Why any type of dating is completely unreasonable.

Let's go with Krypton-Argon, quite possibly the longest bond formed that is datable by modern science.

Science relies upon the following assumptions to prove that something is 'so many' years old:

1)  That the material was 100% Krypton to begin with.  (That's a pretty funny assumption to make, I think.)
2)  That there was no Krypton that leaked out, or Argon that leaked in.  (and you would think after a million years, that would happen some how.)
3)  That their integers are correct and that things don't go in cycles.
4)  That the speed of light is not decreasing in any way.
5)  The poles of the earth switching magentism many MANY times didn't screw around with the contents or integers at all.
6)  That the half-life THEORY is viable for all radioactive materials, and not only carbon (which has the shortest lifespan available to us so that we can actually track it).

Anyway, I'm done talking about science for now... I really hate the obvious fallicies it makes constantly.  Most of the men who create these theories don't follow logic (or the periodic table for that matter) in the slightest bit and works off ways to exile God from creation.  There are, of course, exceptions.

If you think I'm just blowing at you a bunch of bull, then you've bought into the lie of evolution and have never questioned it.  Something that you accuse Christians of doing with their bible all too often.  Don't listen to what people tell you, listen to what makes sense.

For me, a God who created all things and is bringing all things to completion for the sole purpose of His glory makes sense.  It would make sense that the only people who are remembered in history for any great amount of time are religious leaders who follow the true God.

Name one unbiblical person pre-Christ that has come to be known from a source other than the bible.  Furthermore, name works that are written about him.  Name works that he wrote.  If you can do that, (and there actually are some, but very few exceptions,) go with pre-Moses.  I have yet to see someone name an unbiblical _individual_ that lived before Moses's day that is not mentioned in the bible, his works, works about him, or anything else.

My life, and your life will not be remembered.  It's supposed to be that way.  Because God alone withstands time.  In years past, Mohammed will be gone, as will his god, just like baal.  (which many of you have never heard of, nor will you ever)

Look at it this way:  Material things are lost upon death.

As are all those people and things when the world will come to a close, and the evil things are thrown into hell.  They will be forgotten about.

Look at it this way, if you like math:

9th grade Geometry;  The teacher is on the board writing the Pythagorean Theorem.  A squared + B squared = C squared.

The triangle he draws is with chalk, and it's not perfect.  It's squiggly and false and material.  But the thing it represents is perfect.  The thing it represents is a perfect triangle, with perfect lengths of sides and a perfect theory that exists only where?  Only in your mind.  (Spiritual over Physical, once again, rock on Christianity.)

We are the chalk triangle that represents the mind of God.  Everything that goes on, from me typing this letter to you reading this sentence is God's history being worked out - a thing of beauty.

This will all pass away, and we will be left with the true, not the false.  The only window of access to that truth is that triangle on the board.  The only way for us to understand the truth is to view it through a means...

That is the bible, my friends.  And until you read it, you will never understand why Christians are different from everyone else.

That's what I'll leave you with.  Thanks for reading this long post.

I run URB Landstill (black added, which helps insanely to the deck,)

And this is what I run in the sideboard:

4 Red Elemental Blast (any kind of blue based control and the mirror)
3 Maze of Ith (tog gets slain, also good for the mirror)
3 Tormod's Crypt (dragon, other graveyard-based decks - I'm thinking about substituting 3 BEB's in for these...they really don't help all that much)
2 Perish (For Oshawa Stompy, I can actually have an over 50% in this matchup with these)
1 Slice and Dice (anything running decree of justice)
1 Chain of Vapor (I don't run cunning wishes maindeck, this is just here in case)
1 Mind Twist (control)

If I wasn't running black...I would run this:

4 Red Elemental Blast
4 Blue Elemental Blast
3 Maze of Ith
2 Slice and Dice
2 Tormod's Crypt

The Blue Elemental Blasts help out more than most people think.  For your meta, they might do well.  Any deck that has red in it will be running 4 REB's for the sideboard, so they always help there.

To avoid posting two copies of the same post, only hit Submit once. Extraneous copy deleted. -Dr. Sylvan

No.  PA is dead with Type 1.

Therefore, I've taken the burden upon myself to start a monthly type 1 tournament.

I hope to eventually have a lotus and 2 moxes given out every month in central PA.  The setting will be Hershey, and tournaments will (without any supernatural interferences) be starting up within a month and a half.

The first place will be a mox, second place being probably a played LOA and third a set of volcanic islands.  It will be unlimited proxies, and I probably won't care what the proxies are, as long as people have what they do on them.  (Printed out paper inside sleeves will be fine.)

In about two weeks, be sure to check the tournament forum for when the tournament will be.

I've found NO tournaments in PA.  Not even bad ones.  It's dead.

Personally,  I would _really_ like to see fork unrestricted.  It's not that powerful at all, and gives straight burn a chance.  I LOVE STRAIGHT BURN even though it sucks poo, and would suck poo even with 4 forks.

I misdirected a browbeat the other day.  How cool is that?

I'd make a burn deck in a second to screw around with if fork were unresticted.

However, I don't have anything to complain about.  Type 1 right now is the best it's ever been, and although I think it could do better by allowing fork to be unrestricted, I don't have anything to complain about.

Good job, DCI in banning skullclamp, even though I was really looking to make a cool ironworks/skullclamp combo deck.  (It killed 3rd and 4th turn ALL THE TIME.)

Ratz.

The guy who wrote this is just trying to get his opinion heard, just like you.

There's a reason why people are so opposed to anything even semi-Christian, and it's not because Christians are arrogant, ignorant, etc people.  Their God is the true God and currently, you are on the other side.  An enemy of God and all his agents.

This guy is wrong, but he has a good heart.

Anyway, Christianity does not forbid me to play with Demonic Tutor, just as it doesn't forbid me from reading the Satanic Bible or Satanic Cookbook.  Although, I'm not familiar with either.  There is no information cult in Christendom, like you have with Islam or some of the other religions of the world.  Christianity is only found in the bible, and the bible no where explicitly or implicitly (and yes, I've looked at all those verses,) says that people can't play a card game using the words 'spells' 'demonic tutor' 'angelic page' etc.  Demons do exist.  Does that mean I'm conjuring them up with a card?  No.

Furthermore, Grim, they (and I) know you don't want to hear about it.  That's why we talk about it.  We didn't want to hear about it either before we were converted.  We've already looked at it from your point of view.  Our 'point of view' is that if you're not trusting that Jesus Christ lived and died for your sin, then you are on the highway to hell.  We don't want to see that happen to you.  Realize that it's not an attack on you.

Yeah, I've read this once before.

I'm a Christian who plays Magic.  I own probably 500 dollars worth of cards, maybe more.  A beat up Library of Alexandria and 4 Mana Drains are really what I have invested in the game.

That's really my biggest concern:  That I don't overindulge in purchasing worthless cards incomparable to an invaluable salvation from sin.

I know what sin is, I know who saved me from it two years ago.  Yes, Leviticus talks about sinning in ignorance, witchcraft, and all the above.  Magic is none of these things.  Where will it stop?

How about we stop our children from playing video games?  They have all kinds of wizardry in them.  I noticed today when playing Kessen II on the PSX2 that you cast spells like "Meteor Shower" and "Hail."

Does that make me want to run out and practice actual witchcraft or become a wiccan?  Of course not.  Neither does Magic with a little tm beside it.  Dungeons and Dragons doesn't either.

I can say the man who wrote the opinions on this site is a good man looking to protect people from dangers of witchcraft, other temptations, etc, but not only are there better orifices for young men to be made aware of (such as pornography or any other sexual sin,) [as we all know Magic is 85% male if not more,] but I don't see it as a danger at all.

Sure, you have cards like Demonic Tutor.  I play with the card.  It's a good card.  It's not particularly satanic or demonic in other than it's art and it's name.  It doesn't have a special curse on the card.  It doesn't do anything like put an actual hex on your opponent.  Players know this.

As for the addiction argument, everything can become an addiction.

My friend thought Magic was absolutely horrendous and an abomination to God.  I got him playing it today.  His mind is changed that it's just a harmless game.

Anyway, I've gotta go now.  I hope my opinions stirred minds.

This article is absolutely atrocious.

Milton hit the nail on the head.

This Bleiweiss' article has so many problems with it...*gag*

1)  What does Bleiweiss hope to accomplish by calling our innovation stagnant and dead?

2)  I don't see a new deck coming out of Bleiweiss' mind and fingertips which is completely different and ROCKS the meta of type 1.  I swear, the guy who posted the Intution for Squee, Bazaar to Zombie Infestation deck should be worshipped by Bleiweiss.

3)  The metagame in type 1 is CRAZY.  There are over 20 competative decks in type 1.  What do you expect us to do?  Create a new Academy deck that rocks EVERYTHING?  You're an idiot.

4)  What innovation is there in freaking type 2?  AFFINITY?  COME ON.  Affinity is a _MECHANIC_.  Think about that for a second.  R&D knew EXACTLY what decks they were making when they came up with the affinity mechanic.  "Affinity" is not a deck consisting of cards with wonderful synergy with each other, it's a deck where all the cards have the same mechanic, thereby making everything go 'bam bam bam.'  The only thing in affinity which had to be playtested even a LITTLE bit was Broodstar, and that turned out to be overshadowed by the almighty Ravager (duh).  What else is innovative?  Goblin Bidding?  Get real.  Tooth and Nail?  That's a given when you have Darksteel Colossus.  Type 2 sucks.

5)  His attitude towards players and type 1 itself is just disdainful.  He's not a type 1 player, he wouldn't know.  End of story.

I hate this article, and this gives me a newfound look of grotesqueness towards Ben Bleiweiss.

I've been fooling around with the Type 2 deck now for quite some time.

(I don't have a type 2 deck, and where I play is almost exclusive type 2, so I figured I might as well start.)

I _can_ go off 3rd turn, but I need an absolute nut draw, with a Talisman, a Disciple, TWO Myr Retrievers, a KC Ironworks, two lands, with one drawn.

Skullclamp just helps to accelerate you to that point.

My deck is completely based around the combo with no disruption (like echoing truth or ruin) maindecked.

I'm still experimenting with steelshaper's gift.  Right now I don't have any white artifact lands in, and I only run 16 lands, because once you start going off, it SUCKS to draw land.  Although, I find myself mana screwed more than going off screwed, so I will probably take out all the Great Furnaces and put in 4 Ancient Dens for Steelshapers Gifts.

28 creatures (
4 Disciple of the Vault
4 Ornithopter
4 Myr Moonvessel
4 Arcbound Worker (Skullclamp targets are essential in this build)
4 Myr Retriever
4 Frogmite
4 Myr Enforcer (these are good double-skullclamped, then sac to the KC)

4 combo
4 Krark-Clan Ironworks

4 draw
4 Skullclamp

8 additional mana/search
2 Thoughtcast (I'll test out steelshaper's gift in it's place)
2 Fabricate (gets you the KC ironworks third turn if you don't have it)
4 Talisman of Dominance (essential for putting down a disciple when going off)

16 mana
4 Great Furnace (soon to be Ancient Dens, probably)
4 Darksteel Citadel
4 Seat of the Synod
4 Vault of Whispers

15 Sideboard:
4 Echoing Ruin
4 Echoing Truth (return disciples to owner's hands)
4 Great Furnace (putting in Echoing Ruin)
3 ?


I go off fifth turn almost religiously.  Fourth turn can be done as well, by putting down a talisman second turn and using a fabricate or skullclamp etc to draw into the KC ironworks second/third turn.

A deck that goes off in four turns isn't too shabby in type 2.  Especially when you have WELL over enough blockers to hold everything dormant (aside maybe tooth and nail or something).

Ravager can't touch you, because you have disciples too.

We have disruption in type 1, faster sources of mana (so we're nearly never screwed mana-wise like I am sometimes in type 2,) etc etc.

This can be a very viable deck with no restrictions.

I'll do some testing and tell you guys what I find.

[After testing 100 games solo]

I really thought Steelshaper's Gift would come in handy more often.  It doesn't.

In fact, it sucks.  I lose way too much time getting the skullclamp and losing a dead card when usually, I could just cast Thoughtcast and get it by doing that.  I don't have a Talisman that can get a white mana out, (which often times I use my talisman of dominance for blue to cast thoughtcast because I don't have a seat of the synod out)

I'm going to revert back to Thoughtcast.

However, I'm probably going to rotate out 1 Myr Enforcer and 1 Arcbound Worker for two lands.  (Which will be Ancient Dens.)

You know, I'm trying to start up a healthy type 1 metagame in the store that I play in.  It's hard.

This is the main reason that it's hard.

"I know that all of you Type One players are the best in the world, because you can kill people on the first and the second turn often!"

This prevents more people from playing T1 than anything else.  I've heard everything from:

"It just comes down to the coin flip,"
to
"All anyone plays is combo,"
to
"You need the entire power 10 to make a good deck."

But the thing I've heard most is, "It just comes down to the coin flip."  People think that every match in T1 is decided within 5-10 minutes.  That nearly every game has a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th turn win, with the EXCEPTIONS lasting longer.

This is retarded:  "Returning up to five cards at once to your hand is major, and All Suns' Dawn is easily splashable in any deck that would want to return five colors of cards to their hand. Initially, I see a majority of Type One players pooh-poohing this spell as it requires five mana to cast."

Is he serious?

I hate the article.

If this is already a thread, or a wonderful article is written about this, please delete this post and paste the article for me or something on PM.

On another thread, the topic suddenly arose as to how to test a deck out.  One person takes as many cards as fit reasonably in the deck, (they might then have 70 cards or so,) and cut from there.

Usually what I do is netdeck something, take out the sideboard (as I always know exactly what I'll want), and play it 21 times against alot of archetypes I plan to face.  (Such as 21xTog games, 21xDragon games, etc.)

I then see what was crap against those decks, and adjust appropriately to my own liking.  I don't like misdirections much, so if a Landstill build is running 3 or 4, for instance, I will cut them down to 2, and maybe 1.

Right now, I play URB Landstill, and I'm thinking taking out a Misdirection for a 3rd Stifle.  (I currently run 2 misdirection, 2 stifle, 1 response MD - 0 of each in the sideboard).

How do you test a new deck?

I'm going to start a thread on how to test, asking for suggestions, etc, but I do the exact same things in play, (asking myself "which of these cards in my hand would I rather trade in for a Lotus, or Mox?")

I usually take the most played build, (a build that just won a recent tourney,) cut the sideboard immediately (as I always know exactly what I want in my sideboard,) and try to figure out what power or broken cards they aren't running.  Of course Lotus came up with this build.

Then I add them in and see what numbers they have.  I don't like misdirections, personally.  They sit in my hand way too long.  So if the tourney build ran 3, I might consider trimming it down to 2.  Same thing with dazes.  I really don't like daze hardly at all, so I might consider taking them out completely.

I run the tournament build 21 times against every major archetype as is (that is, 21 times for Dragon, 21 for Landstill, 21 for Tog, etc...), and see what is really subpar versus what I expect to play.  I take out what I think is crap and add in what I think would be better.

(for the cards that just sit in my hand, I think to myself:  "What would be PERFECT in this situation?)

When I topdeck a Lotus, I usually don't say, "This Lotus would be perfect as..."  I just take cards like Lotus or Ancestral as givens.

But, of course, an exception would have to be made in this build.

When it's time to cut cards, I usually have anywhere from 2 to 4 cards that I have to cut.  It's not all that hard for me to think what to cut.

I didn't even think about the Lotus with Misdirection or Force of Will.

Lotus essentially makes FoW a colorless counterspell if you don't have a Null Rod out.

Actually, those percentages are wrong.

Actual percentages are:

Topdecking is 1.88% if you go first, 1.92% if you go second and it increases although not much (about .04-.08) everytime you don't topdeck the lotus.  If you play a standstill, when the standstill breaks, you have about a 6% chance of getting the Lotus off the Standstill, for instance.  

A good integer to use is 2% when topdecking in the earlygame and 3%midgame.  In the late game, the percentage becomes closer to 5 percent.  (obviously if you have 20 cards left in your library.)

You have an 11.666% chance of getting the Lotus in your hand if you go first, and 13.333% chance if you go second.

That being said, the only way Lotus is going to be bad is if you draw it in the mid-game, as late-game cards you rarely get to.

Therefore, for Lotus to be bad, it needs to be within the 10 card-40 card section of your deck.  (Only 30 cards.)

This cuts in half Lotus's uselessness.

While you might not get it in your opening hand, the chance is even greater that you won't get it in the game at all.  (as your opening hand is only 7-8 cards, and you certainly usually have more than 7-8 cards in your library when you win or lose.)

The next time you win or lose, count how many cards you have in your library.  With Fish, I'd say somewhere around 20.  (and I'm shooting low.  It's honestly PROBABLY around 30.)

Lotus is PROBABLY as in 53%, drawn in that game.  If you win before that, the percentage goes down.  If you win after that, the percentage goes up.

However, when you draw 33 cards in a game...I'm pretty sure you won it with all the curiousities/standstills, and perhaps an ancestral.  Pretty hard to lose a game when you draw 33 cards beyond your opening hand.

So Lotus, in all actuality, is more likely NOT to be drawn or in your opening hand than you are to draw it.  How many times have you played a LIMITED GAME?  (40 cards) and not seen a single card in your deck?

I played over 12 games last limited tourney (last Friday) and did not see my single Juggernaut ONCE, while the first time I went there, played 10 games, and saw my Reiver Demon every time except for 1.  (the one game that I lost.)  I saw it in my hand every time except for 3, too, and I kept each of those hands.

Now, again, this is a 40 card deck - but it didn't have any card drawing, so it's probably a good example to use.

Do you always see your time walk, ancestral, lotus, and sapphire?  Sure, if you're Tog, but probably not if you're Fish.

I think the best argument is just that:  "Is a spell, lategame, more useful than Black Lotus, early-game?"

That's what we have to weigh.  Obviously you would want to get Black Lotus in your hand rather than a stifle when you have a hand of Mishra's Factory, Volc Island, Cloud of Faeries, Standstill, Curiousity (Black Lotus or Stifle).

However, you would almost always want to draw the stifle lategame moreso than a black lotus.

That's the real question.  It's both one card either way.

I'd personally rather have the Black Lotus early game, because it speeds up my hand so drastically that I could essentially force my opponent to play defensively.

Black Lotus, in general, is not the best card to draw, at all, in any deck in the lategame.  (Exceptions are of course decks that run Yawgmoth's Will, are mana-dependant, combo decks, etc.)

So why do people play Black Lotus at all?  Because of it's opening hand ability to make your opponent play defensively.

It's one card that basically says:  "I just increased my chances of winning this game by 10-15%" if you draw it in your opening hand.

The chances of topdecking it are 1.32%, and the chance of getting it in your opening hand is 8.1666%.

This is why it's the best card in magic.  Even though it sucks lategame, who cares?  So you forfeit a turn.  With it in your opening hand, you practically win the game.  And the chances of getting it in your opening hand are equal to roughly topdecking 8 times.

Teferi's Response absolutely always comes in handy where I play.  I have never had a game YET where I have ever had Teferi's Response in my hand when I've won the game.  (I play URB Landstill with ONE MD Teferi's Response, none sideboard.)

I constantly think about adding in another Response because they are so very very useful.

Honestly, I've never had to wait more than three turns to use the Response, and I've never not had a stifle in my hand (I run 2 MD, no SB) when I need to stifle a Decree or something else important.

Although, I don't think running more than 1 Response in this deck would be wise.  I'd go with my build:  1 Response, 2 Stifle MD, and maybe 1 Stifle in the sideboard as well.

I'd also try to run 1-2 Skeletal Scrying for a little bit, and see how well they fare you.  If they're unbelievable, (even with running the Circular Logics,) perhaps up that number by one, and then finally, if they're MORE useful than the Circular Logics, (which I doubt,) you might even want to go up to 4.

I honestly don't know how Skeletal Scrying would do in this deck, but honestly, for circular logic, you probably only need 3-4 cards in your graveyard for them to work.

This is such a cool deck idea.

The Lotus + Null Rod first turn versus first turn goblin welder:

Absolutely always assumes that you won the flip, because who would play a null rod with a lotus after seeing a Goblin Welder?  This is common sense.  That being said, it also assumes the following:

That you didn't also play a mox sapphire, that you used before you cast the null rod to get you a cloud of faeries, then played a razorfin hunter (if you're playing him).

That's the broken scenario.  It assumes that you didn't have a Mox Sapphire in your hand as well, (as you would use the mana from the Mox Sapphire to obviously cast the Null Rod,) and then use the extra three mana you had (after laying down a land) to lay down any number of cloud of faeries and then whatever else you had in your hand.

It assumes that you also don't have a force of will in your hand that you can counter the Goblin Welder with, or even just a freakin' daze.

It assumes that you don't have both a pinger AND a stifle in your hand, so you can play the pinger, pass the turn, stifle the welder, then kill the welder as well.

It assumes that this is game 1, and you didn't sideboard in any burn spells like fire/ice.

It assumes that you didn't play a freaking Spiketail Hatchling which forces the Welder Player to also have a mox in his hand.

There are so many assumptions in that argument.

"I'm not going to play Black Lotus because what about when you win the toss for your first turn first game Null Rod off Lotus and you don't play anything aside a standstill (which nets you no nothing to your advantage like a FoW or daze) or cloud of faeries double curiousitied which doesn't get you any burn or any pingers or any stifles when it attacks next turn, OR you played a standstill off the extra two mana which equally doesn't get you a FoW, daze, pinger + time walk, burn or stifles, or maybe it's a weird scenario where you have a lotus and five lands with a null rod in your hand, and you would totally keep that hand, wait...FIRST GAME."

Also, it's pretty stupid for a person to play a NULL ROD the FIRST GAME without knowing what the opponent has to begin with.  Wouldn't you rather play a cloud of faeries, curiousity it, and play a spiketail hatchling rather than playing a cloud of faeries, curiousity it, then playing a null rod?  or a null rod and spiketail hatchling?

It's even STUPIDER to play a null rod off a Lotus the SECOND GAME without having any answers to them playing a Goblin Welder when you know exactly what they're playing.

It ALSO assumes that you either don't have anything better to play, can't play anything else, or you're just a bad player to begin with and would rather play the null rod, (which might be absolute CRAP against your opponent) rather than playing creatures and/or curiousities and/or standstills.

So you're not going to play Black Lotus because of a FREAKISHLY UNCOMMON occurance in which millions of coincidences need to happen in order for you to be screwed?

Not playing Oshawa Stompy because your opponents MIGHT have Circle Of Protection: Green in the sideboard is more logical.

Three things:

1)  Knowing Lines is good, but when you get the point where your opponent makes a dastardly move which looks like it could be trouble for you, you NEED to know how to use principles and tactics in order to get yourself out of a situation that doesn't look favorable.

OR, how to capitalize on a blunder made by your opponent while still keeping your central strategy in tact.

That means that simply knowing lines won't do you any good.  You can memorize a line to a draw versus a GM if you're playing white, (as they make orthodox moves all the time), but you also have to know how to counter it when they do something that the line is not familiar with.

Some openings, like the Scotch, are crazy useful.  They have extremely high win percentages, but aren't used often.  Research the Scotch and English.  (English is used often in club play, but not at GM level.)

2)  Blitz tournaments are great.  Blitz players are (dare I say it) the truest of all chess players.  You have to make moves based nearly in all it's entirety on instinct.  It shows what chess skills you really have.  I feel when you have 10 minutes to make a move you can outweigh ALL the consequences of that move.  I prefer chess that relies upon pure instinct and theory.

3)  Play the Reti.  I will advocate that thing like I will advocate playing URB Landstill.  The thing is boarderline bizarre.  Who plays the Reti at a GM level?  No one, that's right.  But what kind of percentages does it rack up when it's actually played?  A crazy amount.  No one knows how to counter it via black.  With more study in the Reti, I'm positive I could play it at GM level.

The thing is the most versatile strategy I have ever come across.  Certainly tons more versatile than the King's Gambit.  (Although I like that one too.)  I hate rigid lines.  I like being able to take many paths to victory.  Usually the Reti plays out to be a typical kingside assault, but there are freakishly beautiful patterns and scenarios that present themselves when playing the Reti.

Also, the Reti in Blitz tournaments = TECH.  No one will beat you when you are playing white.  No one.

Nf3 d4
c4 CRAP.

That's what happens.

I'll also add in a semi P.S.

Semi P.S.  Black players everywhere need to study what to do about e4 and d4.  The King and Queen's Pawn Openings, no matter what they are, are the subject of mass study.  Even amateur players often know exactly what to do for 10+ moves when a white player plays e4.

My advice is to not play e4 or d4 for white (unless you have intensive study with the King's Gambit, which in my opinion is virtually unbeatable).  Theoretically, it is a very, very sound opening.

However:

Playing Chess is oddly enough ALOT like Magic in this facet:

If the 4-Tolarian Academy Deck were to come back, it would not win every tournament.  No, it would win very few.  Why?  Tons of massive sideboard hate in every deck.

If there were a top 8 where 7 people were running Academy Decks, and one guy was running a deck with 4 Red Elemental Blast, 4 Pyroblast, 4 Wasteland/1 Strip Mine MD...

Well.  We all know who would win that tourney.

In the same way, when all the black players know everything about e4 and d4, it's often like they're that red deck, just waiting to play an academy deck.  But if you play that red deck with O. Stompy, you win.  Which is often times what openings like the Reti are.

My advice to you is to become well endowed with knowledge about every kind of white opening, from the Reti to the King's Gambit and beyond, while concentrating a good chunk of time on e4 and d4 common openings like the Spanish, as everyone plays them.

Don't concentrate nearly any time on gambits for white (as black).  Most of them are easily foiled other than ones with all kinds of traps.  

Concentrate on 1, or perhaps 2 openings for white with which you will try to win nearly every single game.  Become familiar with a strategy and play it to it's death.  It's like making a good deck and just playing it, playing it, playing it more.

I do the Reti.  That's about all I know well.  I also like the King's Gambit because it wins so often.  Every GM knows how to combat the King's Gambit, however, while not every one is as knowledgable about the Reti.  (Although I'm sure they could school me by giving me some crazy unorthodox threat.)

Play 100% as white, and know all white strategies 75%.

You'll also want to get some strategies down moreso than others.  For instance, I know how to play the Grunsfeld well against the Queen's Pawn.  I know how to play the Closed Spanish well against the King's Pawn (Spanish.)

I try for those lines every time as black.

Dozer wrote:  "I think the Welder argument is insignificant, because you can always side out the Lotus for games 2 & 3 if you decide to play it anyway. Also, if you drop a first-turn Null Rod via Lotus, you still have a full turn to burn the Welder or counter it in the first place. The decision if you play Lotus or not should be a principal one, not a Welder-induced one."

I agree and disagree.

Although, even though I'm a big proponent for running Lotus, I do feel the Welder argument is somewhat significant.

Now, chances are that you're not going to be playing EVERY deck running a welder.  Lotus will most likely help you every single time against every single deck with it in your opening hand, except for ones that run Welder, AND, that you get the Lotus out first turn, AND they get a welder out first turn, AND you also play a null rod WITH that Lotus - First turn.

Now, as deck, turn, and hand specific as that is, it still has...

Wait a minute.  No, screw you guys who give the welder argument.

I completely agree, Dozer.  It should be out of principle.

Wuaffiliate,

two things:

1.  I believe Smmenen was talking to dicemanx who backed up JDawg13's (and my) point that Lotus is a fine inclusion in the deck.

The burden of proof does remain on the people who say that a Lotus isn't good in a deck.  You still haven't named a deck that does better without Lotus than with one.

2.  Once again, you've misinterpreted something I've said.  First, it was by saying that I thought Dragon was a consistant 1-turn kill.  You said that Dragon can't kill on turn 1, which I disproved.  Now you've said that I compared Landstill to Fish, which is not true at all.  I said that I've been playing Landstill and _using the Standstill engine_.  Both decks use the standstill engine.

Both of which you've manipulated to take shots at me being a newbie, 'basic user,' or whatever else aimed to make me look like I don't have any experience with Type 1 in the slightest.

The simple fact of the matter is this:

1.  You thought Dragon couldn't pull off a turn 1 kill.  That shows your lack of experience with the metagame.  You accuse others of things which you lack.  Similiar to how some closet homosexuals are extremely homophobic or a man with a small penis talks incessantly about size mattering.

2.  Zherbus could dominate Richard Garfield in a game of magic, proving that experience (or amount of time playing a certain game or deck,) does not create ability.  I'm also sure LeBron James could dominate Michael Jordan in a game of basketball, regardless of James being a rookie.

And I'm taking the best there, Michael Jordan.  Let's talk some washed up pro who was never 'the best,' or anywhere close to it but has been playing in the NBA for 15 years for one reason or another.

I could be saying the right things, while PTW could be saying the wrong.  It's not a diss against him, and I've got nothing against the guy for believing that Lotus sucks in the deck.  I just think he's wrong.

I don't take shots at him.

Wuaffiliate, I never said Dragon was a consistant first turn kill.

Anyway...

Give me one other good deck that doesn't run Lotus.  Can you think of one?  I can't.  You know why?  Because Lotus is the bomb.

In fact, give me ANY deck, aside your belief in U/R Fish that couldn't be benefitted with the addition of Lotus.

You can even make one up if you want.

It's like making a blue deck without Ancestral Recall.

Anyway:

If you're all talking about consistant manabases and the like, don't run any moxes and no lotus.  The mox sapphire is clearly inferior to the black lotus before the null rod hits.

The discussion is not, "Is Lotus good in this deck?" although it is certainly evolving into that.  it's, "Which is better in this deck?"

If you want a no-mox, no-lotus gay/r fish deck, then I guess that's cool.  You can be individual and lose to the mirror deck with the lotus and mox.

I could be absolutely wrong about Lotus.  I've never played U/R Fish, even though I've seen in played many times and I've played against it a good bit.

Mox Sapphire is crap if you draw it mid-game with a null rod or standstill out.  It's just as worthless as Lotus, probably moreso, because when that standstill breaks, and you get 3 cards in your hand, what if all 3 are spells?  What if one is another standstill?  Does Fish have the capability to empty it's hand and then play another standstill with a mox sapphire?  Probably not.  But with a Lotus?  Yeah.  Lotus wins again.

Umm...

Dragon can goldfish on turn 1...

Whatever that guy was talking about was weird...

Umm...have you ever seen:

Lotus, for black, blue producing land, mox anything, thirst for knowledge to put dragon/laquatus in the graveyard, then animate dead?

Dragon can kill on first turn.

Definitely need a Black Summer deck.

Probably the best multiplayer deck of all time is just that.
 
7 Artifact
3 Darksteel Colossus
4 Nevinyrral's Disk  (in case people play ensnaring bridge/meekstone)
 
6 Green
4 Oath of Druids
2 Gaea's Blessing
 
5 White
1 Enlightened Tutor
4 Armageddon
 
18 Black
4 Duress
4 Dark Ritual
4 Syphon Soul
4 Syphon Mind
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor
 
24 Mana
4 Scrubland
4 Bayou
2 Savannah
2 Swamp
4 Polluted Delta
4 Mishra's Factory
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Pearl
1 Black Lotus

Yeah, that deck right there will win you nearly every multiplayer game.

That, or play Dragon.