@ FFY:  So then MD Hydra/Colossus/Akroma, or MD Hydra/Colossus?

I'm leaning towards the second option.  That way against Welders, you can Oath and hope it hits Hydra, clearing the board of potential problems so that Colossus can show up unapposed.  This slows the Oath engine down a bit, as you don't have hasty angels to end the game quick (though Hydra can be boarded out against decks not packing little men for Akroma/Razia).

@JayC:  What if people just thought he was playing GiftsOath (GOAT)?  Now whether or not that tips any of his hand anyhow (ie; clueing in a fish player to have Meddling Mage chant Oath, etc.) is a different strategy altogether.  Speaking of that, I also like the strategy of going from GiftsOath to straight Gifts to avoid Oath hate.  I've always been partial to GiftsOath though, so I guess I like the idea of having an explosive combo deck to steal wins G1, and let me win G2 with a boarded Gifts deck.  It's my opinion that Gifts is one of the strongest decks in the format though after boarding (correctly boarding I might add), so that might color my decision.

I think what this topic illustrates more is that it might be time to turn more attention to the idea of hybrids and combinations of decks.  It really is the ideal way to throw your opponent off his sideboarding plans.

Congrats on your finish at Rochester... I just have a few quick questions.

First, are there certain matchups that you would bring in the Oath plan everytime, or is the plan designed to just keep your opponent off balance?

Second, in the match against Oath that you describe, wouldn't the correct play be to drop the Orchards?  He may not WANT to play Oath, but then again, that helps your game against him.  It gives you more time to find and hardcast Akroma or Razia, while at the same time building up counters to battle his angels.  Could you go a little bit more in depth about exactly why you decided to wait with the Orchards?  Seemingly it was the right play to make, as you would have been in a favourable position if he had not ripped Time Walk.

@ forcefieldyou:  LoL... I wouldn't take it personally.  Some of the most hilarious matches i've seen have featured Trepanier... he's just cocky since he q'd for the Pro Tour.  In Canada, it seems, it's not a Type 1 match unless you are calling the other guy all sorts of names and generally making fun of him.

Congrats Trep, and Diceman (I figured you'd win it, what happened?)

@ Shockwave:  What did you play (Landstill?  Drainshop? and how did you do?)

I commented about the matchup on the previous page if you haven't seen it, but it pretty much goes that you MUST have a Turn 1 and 2 threat.  If one gets Forced that is fine, but you can't let them have their way free and clear during their first two turns.


@Pyromasta:  If you haven't read it yet, I'd have a look at http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/10203.html.  It's a pretty comprehensive article by Smmenen (who else?) on a variant of Stax that eschews Welders for enchantment lock pieces, called CronStax.

So it gets hosed because modern 5c dropped ITEOC and Chains?  Seems reasonable to me.

Any feedback from anyone on the Suppression Field idea?  When it was first outed in the Spoiler everyone was touting it as the next big Stax lock piece... but that never happened.  Why not?

@Tha Gunslinga:  I was leaning more towards a non-proxy environment... but also realize that every card in Stax is either rare or restricted.  Laying out the cash for Stacks, Spheres, Mines, Cities, etc. is a bit too much for some people...

@Pyromasta:  I haven't tested the Stax/CS matchup explicitly, that is the next phase of my testing gauntlet before Rochester.  I have, however, tested Stax (w/no TFK) against a MD Gifts-ish build (with Scrolls, Colossus and Tendrils as finishers).  With cards like ITEOC and Chains maindeck, you are hugely favored game 1.  Often you can win even without dropping either of these cards, as 2sphere nullifies the Tendrils plan, Chalices prevent them from going too nuts in the first few turns, and a resolved Smokestack with either of those two out basically means game over.  Gifts just doesn't have the permanent base to feed to Smokestack, and losing dual lands often hampers their ability to win off the top with a Gifts.  Rebuild is a BIT of a concern, as is Echoing Truth, but as these are (usually) 1-ofs, I don't feel that they are a HUGE concern... you can often lock-out the game before they can tutor for, or otherwise access these cards (ie, via a resolved Gifts).  After boarding, Stax can bring in Choke and even Null Rod, to really up the possibility of dropping a Turn 1 bomb...  I try to up the amount of 2-drop lock pieces I have, so that I can drop one first turn, have it countered, drop a chalice afterwards, then follow up with another bombs turn 2.  If Gifts CAN counter all of those threats, it usually means that they are playing off the top... and I like Stax's chances when it comes to topdecking.  After Gifts boards, they usually have access to at least 2 Hurk's, and 2 RnR.  This is where the importance of resolving an Enchantment lock piece comes in, as even builds of Gifts that add a Tundra for Sacred Ground rarely have any kind of enchantment removal out of the board.  I tend to mulligan pretty aggressively going into game 2, because of the absolute importance of threatening the Gifts player on turns 1 and 2.

Of course, many Gifts players have no idea how to play the Stax matchup properly, and as such you DEFINATELY have the advantage.  Even in my testing it took at least 6 to 7 games with me on the Gifts side to learn what Stax can be allowed to resolve and what can't, and to figure out what you are looking for in opening hands.  I certainly believe that many players don't test even that much, let alone to learn the intricacies of post-boarded games.

After I'm done testing against CS, I'll post my results.

EDIT:  Thought I'd tack on some food for thought.  Is anyone still considering using Suppression Field?  Better yet, has anyone tested using it?  I bring this up in conjunction with the CS testing I'm going to be doing.  It seems like SF would be a good SB card to bring in... like if you can constrict the CS mana base (by making Fetches cost 2, and using Chalice0) and make Welder and Big artifact activations cost 2 more also, you might be able to slow them down enough turns to establish a lock.  Furthermore, Null Rod seems like a winner here, against Bus/Trike/Slaver.  Are NR and SF the sideboard Turn 1/2 bombs that Stax needs to beat CS?

From my own testing and talking with other Stax players, it seems to me like UbaStax is a more powerful version.  I think one of the reasons is that it doesn't have to rely on an extremely rickety mana-base, as 5c does.  Furthermore, the Uba/Bazaar draw engine is sick and devastating.  Drawing 3 cards a turn with no drawback is an absolute game-winner.  Finally, I think that the possibility for a Welder/Mask lock is too good to ignore.

With all of that being said, I'd also say that the main reason that UbaStax isn't more popular, is that even in a proxy friendly environment, it is basically impossible to build.  4 Bazaars and 4 Workshops, on top of the P9, is often too much for people to lay their hands on.

I'm still committed to refining 5c at this point, and am willing to see how far it can go before totally dismissing it.

If I were going to play any version of Oath, I'd go for the Choke-Oath variants.  A counter-suite never felt quite right to me in Oath, it plays better as straight combo with non-counter disruption.  I don't think that Salvager's Oath can be that good right now.  It just gets hosed by too many cards that are played in Type 1 right now, giving it a horrible matchup against Stax, and to a lesser extent, Fish (with Null Rod and Chalice).

To address the topic first, I would have to say that it certainly depends... on what you think the basic propositions are.  When it comes to ideas relating to deckbuilding and metagaming, I would have to say that we are in a general consensus.  That is to say, we all (and I use the term "we" here loosely, as I am relatively new to Vintage, but please take it with a grain of salt) agree that no deck in Type 1 can be built in a vacuum.  Each deck needs to be tweaked for playstyle and meta considerations or they will likely not succeed.  When Smmenen writes a 15 page article, we understand that his deck looks like it does because he has put in hours of testing and preparation.  This fact proves itself: we know he tests because he writes articles about it.

And here is where I think the general dissolution of consensus begins.  I, for example, can open any thread on this page, look at any given list, and begin to post comments on how certain cards don't seem to fit.  However, I haven't actually put the deck together, haven't played it, and may not even have taken time to understand the subtleties of the deck.  Perhaps people argue against the deck's card choices based on solid playtesting experience with a different version of the deck, but I think that more likely they argue against them based on theoretical situations and not concrete evidence.

There is no doubt in my mind that this is what happens.  People chomp at the bit to get decklists from the latest event so that they might comment on this card choice or that card choice, having never picked up the archetype, or (perhaps) having not ever played a tournament with it or even against it.  This format is defined by theory and results.

Where does this emphasis on theory come from?  I'd point to a few sources.  The first source is undoubtedly those who write articles for SCG and the like.  Smmenen, you yourself have gone out of your way to legitimize the format and kudos on your articles and decks, but I do think that indirectly this has been the cause of this rampant theorizing.  People now read a Smmenen article and 1) think that they are reading the bible on the deck, and 2) feel that this now empowers them to criticize both this deck and others.  Variations on MeanDeck decks, for example, aren't always taken seriously, because "didn't you read Smmenen's article?  Merchant Scroll is OBVIOUSLY the right choice, don't use TFK you n00b!"-esque players would back it no matter what, assuming that a published article finalizes the deck and enshrines every card in it.  As you have admitted yourself Smmenen, MDGifts (and other builds) needs more work, but I fear that the only "real" work (that is, work that will be treated as legitimate) will come from Team MD and another article, simply because it is too difficult to break out of the theory mentality.  I'd also propose that the empashsis on theory comes from the nature of Vintage tournaments.  They don't happen altogether often.  The lull between tourneys, therefore, is spent conjecturing about the results of the latest one.  Sometimes this results in innovation, but I'd say more often the discussions break down into subjective arguments about card choices, that lack any real testing or play experience.

The nature of this format is competitiveness.  Articles about decks are written largely AFTER a large event, when the new deck that debuted at the tourney gets explained.  Netdecking then takes over and threads on the deck largely break down into card vs. card arguments that no one will admit they've lost.  The death of consensus starts here.

What is the best way to fix it?  Knowledge is power in my opinion.  We (as a community) need more players who have taken the time to learn about the WHOLE format, not simply about their pet favourite deck that "[insert either Andy, Steve, Brian, or Robert's name here] T8'd SCG with!".  This would naturally flow from the hosting of more Vintage events, but that is a different issue and one that misses the point of this thread's topic, I feel.

Disclaimer: In the next section I am not tooting my own horn.

When I first started playing Vintage seriously (which I'll admit hasn't been for very long, maybe since May of this year) I read the SCG articles, looked at tourney results, and latched onto a deck that I liked from an article.  I tested, and played the deck in a local tourney.  Having learned from actual play, I found a new deck to test.  The cycle continued.  I've since played about 5 or 6 events, all with different decks.  I don't think I can emphasize the impact this has had on my play style and skill level.

So, Smmenen, to answer your question in a (very, my apologies) roundabout way, consensus will be achieved through new players gaining experience with the WHOLE FORMAT and not simply their favourite deck.  I can't possibly suggest what the best catalyst for this will be, but in my best estimation, time and an open mind will bring a consensus on these propositions back to Vintage, and cause new "paragons" to emerge.

Hi all, I am posting this here because I am a Mana Drain deck player.  Recently I've been testing and refining (at least for my taste/play style) builds of Gifts and Slaver.  However, I've recently been up against several Stax decks, which I seem to just roll to.  I really think it is because I don't have a good rules-based grasp on how the lock components really work together.  With that being said, I'd really appreciate it if someone could explain the interactions between the following cards.  I'll explain how I THINK they work underneath, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Trinisphere + Sphere of Resistance
- Does this make all spells cost at least 4 to play?  ie, Demonic Tutor would cost 2B from the 3Sphere, then 3B from the 2Sphere.

Trinisphere + Chalice of the Void
- If there is a Chalice for 2, and I play Demonic Tutor for 2B (because of the 3Sphere), does it get countered b/c it's converted mana cost is still 2?

Chalice of the Void + Sphere of Resistance
- If I have out a Chalice for 0, and I play a Mox, tapping a land to play it, does it get countered?


Also, I have a strategic question for Stax players... with 5c builds, is it best to ramp a Smokestack or not?

Thanks, Steve.  This is easily the most comprehensive article I've ever read on any deck ever.

Thanks for giving a Mana Drain player insight into GrimLong.

Hey Andrew, this is Mark from round 5, I never got a chance to say congrats on the win.

Nice work on the article for StarCity, you make me sound way better than I am!  Hopefully we will get to play each other again.  I'd never quite seen anything like your deck so it was a blast to play against it.  We both got some lucky draws, and as you noted I was just a turn away from losing in the second and third games.

I am interested in the Stax matchup though... have you been able to test against it at all?

I have to say that I agree with Shock Wave in saying that this deck gets smoked by Fish.  I ran this deck at the same BigB tourney that he was talking about (and if you read this, this is Mark, we ID'd in the last round) and went 4-0-2 in the swiss rounds (I'm pretty sure that is the best any of the 4 GiftsOath decks there did), including playing the GiftsOath mirror.  I lost in the quarter-finals to Fish, however.  The deck simply had too many problems for me to address, and I got owned 2-0.  The problem is, they have answers to the weaknesses of the deck.  They can get rid of Colossus, play around Oath, and generally wreck your manabase with their disruption.

I'm going back to playing regular MD Gifts.

As a sidenote: switching out the 2 MD Duress for a Vampiric Tutor and and Echoing Truth works wonders.

To answer your questions:

1) I hate both... Duress makes you want a first turn Underground Sea too much, Misdirection is pretty useless unless you are playing against control and have counters to protect.
2) Maybe... IMO only if you are using Belcher or Time Vault.
3) Run 4 or none at all.
4) Don't like them, feels like I'm wasting a turn whenever I cast it, after you use the first one to get Ancestral the rest are too big of a tempo loss (to have to play them at Sorcery speed).
5) If you take the Buehler list and cut the Tundra for another basic Island, the manabase is fine, IMO.
6) I like Tendrils; Belcher is outdated anyways, use Vault/Fusillade, it's cheaper and better.

I'll post more about these answers later... I answered all of the questions based on the fact that I run MD GiftsOath.

The manabase to me really isn't that suspect, yes you are vulnerable to decks packing Wasteland, but that is what the SB Sacred Grounds are for.  Even if you cut White altogether (likely turning the MD Tundra into another Forbidden Orchard), I don't see the manabase as being totally inflexible.  I was thinking of cutting the MD Tundra for another Island, but that is weak in my opinion, as you are not likely to ever want to fetch out an Island on your opening turn.  You will likely either have a Duress or Oath to play, and lacking Jet or Emerald respectively (or in Oath's case, further lacking Forbidden Orchard), you will be forced in either case to go for a dual land and attempt to play around the Wasteland(s) that your opponent may present.

Most frequent Gifts targets?  That depends on the matchup and if I have a resolved Oath on the table.  No Oath?  It's likely that I'm going to go for YawgWin/Recoup/Tinker/Time Walk, and try to win on the spot.  This changes slightly, however, when I'm playing a matchup where they have resolved a Goblin Welder.  If I have an Oath resolved (and I haven't Oathed yet, say I just played it and passed the turn), I'll Gifts EOT for YawgWin/Burning Wish/Recoup/Regrowth, then Oath during my upkeep hoping that enough spills into the graveyard, before I hit DSC, to allow me to YawgWin/Burning Wish/Tendrils for the win.  Regrowth in this case is great, because any split of the Gifts allows you to play YawgWin for 5 mana at the most, potentially freeing 1-2 colored mana, which could be crucial.  Note that all I tried to do there was use Gifts to let me access YawgWin and the only other business spell for that path of victory, Burning Wish.  Another case where Regrowth is king is if I have Time Walk in my hand.  In that case an EOT Gifts for YawgWin/Recoup/Tinker/Regrowth lets me win for less mana.

Similar to all Gifts decks, what you go for is entirely dependent on what your opponent can do about it.  I would simply advocate (especially with regards to the Control Slaver matchup) that you ENSURE that what you get from the Gifts will allow you to win on the spot.

I'll now delve into somewhat greater detail about the Control Slaver matchup, as I previously posted that I would.

The CS matchup, simply put, MUST be played with you in the Control role.  This is never more true for Gifts than when it is hybridized with Oath.  Brian Demars' article seems to imply that the CS player expects Gifts to come out aggressively and with both guns blazing.  I would say that this is a risky proposition for Meandeck Gifts, and almost suicide for GiftsOath.  Smmenen did a fantastic job of describing the MDG/CS matchup in an article for StarCity (from which I learned an immense amount), so I will try to focus solely on the GiftsOath/CS match.

There are two important considerations in this matchup, in my opinion, and they are: 1) When and if to play Oath; and 2) What gameplan will ensure you the win.  That is, I am suggesting that to play a naked Oath amounts to suicide, and to play a naked Gifts is an equally suicidal proposition.  This idea is not new and it isn't mine.  Smmenen's article tells you to play against CS conservatively and turn your game on a dime.  I agree.  The problem is, my testing has simply told me that playing Oath of Druids, and Oathing early, is not conducive to turning on a dime at all.  In fact, it is likely to destabilize your board and hand position, and gives a fair edge to the CS player.  The reasoning is obvious, and it is this:  even if you can stop Welder from hitting the board, a resolved and activated Oath for you, and a resolved 'Slaver for them = you lose.  You are potentially likely to expend some countermagic protecting DSC from being bounced, which gives the CS player a window to play/activate Slaver, and Oath during your upkeep to empty your library and draw you dead.  This seems to be common sense again, however, I'll expand simply by saying that a blind 'Slaver activation does not potentially cripple you IF YOU HAVEN'T OATHED YET.  The CS player simply has too many threats that you must deal with (in the Demars article, Shamans, Welders, Thirst, and Slaver catch my eye in this category) for you to Oath without having first resolved a Gifts Ungiven.

To summarize the longwinded paragraph previous:  unless my opening hand is along the lines of Mox, Orchard, Oath, Land, Force, Force, Mana Drain (ie, a good amount of counter backup for DSC), I'm NOT going to Oath UNTIL I can resolve an EOT Gifts for Time Walk/YawgWin/Recoup/Regrowth, or Walk/Burning Wish/Recoup/Regrowth, and win the turn I Oath.

I don't particularly like Randy's plan of Oathing again after DSC is out in this matchup either.  The odds of the CS player being able to stop the KroRec from resolving is too great for me to risk losing the game over it, and the odds of them being able to deal with the DSC that I've already Oathed up are pretty great for me to do it blindly without the Gifts setup first.

Ideally then, the CS matchup plays out with you seizing the control role early, countering their most important threats, and preventing them from reaching 10 mana.  As Smmenen points out, 10 mana allows them to play Slaver, have it get countered, and Weld it back to activate it.  It is unlikely that you will be able to stop them from resolving one of their 4 Welders before they reach 10 mana, and as a result you must play to win the game around the 5th or 6th turn.  If you have been engaging the CS player by counterwarring over the first few turns, it is likely that you can sneak an Oath into play.  However, I must stress that you CANNOT OATH until you have set up your win with Gifts.  To do so otherwise is to ask for the CS player to interfere with the DSC plan.  Especially In this matchup, I view Oath as Tinkers 2-5.  That is, a resolved Oath allows you to leave Tinker out of any Gifts Ungiven you resolve, potentially (but not always) allowing you to sub in Regrowth.  This allows you to Gifts EOT for either Time Walk/YawgWin/Recoup/Regrowth, or Walk/Burning Wish/Recoup/Regrowth, Oath during your upkeep for DSC, and deny the CS player another turn with double TimeWalkery.

Conclusion?  While it may seem appealing to force through an early Oath, and use it to "Tinker up" DSC, to do so is simply too destabilizing to your gameplan in this matchup.  That gameplan, as I see it, is to present countermagic to the CS player for the first 4-5 turns, then, as Smmenen advocates in the MDG/CS matchup, "turn on a dime" and resolve your EOT Gifts for the win.  It would appear that GiftsOath vs. Slaver very much plays out as the MDG vs. Slaver match does, with the important difference of Oath allowing you to have a permanent Tinker on the board.

With all of that being said, I have a few SB strategies for this matchup that turn this entire plan on it's head, but those I'll save for another post.  I hope at least some of this is useful for those looking at what to get for a resolved Gifts, and how to properly play the CS matchup.  If any MeanDeckers or Randy want to criticize what I've said here, feel free.  I'm seeking out the perfect way to play this deck myself, and I always appreciate new approaches and advice.

Mark.

Thought I'd chip in my two cents about the 'Slaver matchup... there is a local touney for power coming up where I live and my playtest partners have been testing the hell out of this matchup.

It it a tough call on how to play the deck.  The CS player will undoubtedly try to be the control deck, which does not bode well for you per se.  Without a very strong starting hand (along the lines of Mox, Orchard, Oath, Land, Force, etc.) I've found it nearly suicide to drop Turn 1 Oath and then Oath up Colossus Turn 2.  This is primarily due to the fact that your Turn 1 Oath will likely get Forced (or worse, if you are going second, Forced with Drain backup), causing you to waste your counters and allow the CS player to go Goblin Welder.

I would advocate (as Smmenen does in his article on how to play Gifts Ungiven) to slow down the CS match 4 or 5 turns, and resolve Gifts Ungiven for the win while they are defenseless.  This may entail drawing out their counters and allowing them to tap out etc.

Playing the CS match aggressively, in my opinion, is too likely to degenerate the game state unfavourably for you.  I have tested sideboarding strategies such as siding out 4 Oath for 2 REB, 2 Pyroblast (which allows you to protect your Gifts).

Also I have tested the surprise plan of siding out 4 Gifts, 1 Colossus, 1 Tinker, and 1 Burning Wish for 2 REB, 2 Pyroblast, 1 Tendrils of Agony, and 2 Pithing Needle (to name Tormod's Crypt, which they will undoubtedly board in; or to answer an early Welder/Shaman).  You force through a Turn 1 or 2 Oath, and if you have one or two counter backup, you dump your library next turn and Tendrils for the win.

More information as I test further.  Thanks Meandeck for my favourite version of Gifts so far.

Just a quick question for Andy...  I notice in the Richmond reports that you sideboard out Mana Severance in several matches... this implies however, that you have moved it to maindeck from the SB.  What did you take out?

Also, are you still splashing white for Sacred Ground in the SB?

Thanks!

If I cast YawgWill, and then play Gifts Ungiven, do the two cards my opponent chooses go into my graveyard, or are they removed from the game?  I think that they are removed from the game, however I would like to make sure.  Thanks for any insight.

Wow I've been testing this deck a lot against other top decks (ie Stax, etc), and I'm continuously surprised by the sheer amount of options I have when I play out the deck.  Any advice, Brassman, on plays to watch out for or plays to make with the deck?  The part that is generally hardest for me is what spells to Mana Drain vs. Force of Will.  I guess learning what to do at what times will come with more practice?  Thanks for any advice!

Hey Brassman, congrats on your finish at Champs.  I've been considering playing this deck at some of the local T1 tourneys in my city, and as such have been practicing with various builds of it.  Perhaps I haven't been following closely enough, but why the evolution from Welders/maindeck Mana Severance, to Burning Wish/maindeck Pithing Needle and Engineered Explosives.  Also, it seems to me that the build just can't answer a Chalice for 0 (though I might be overlooking something?).  Could you (or anyone else) address these issues for me?  Thanks!