Should Ancient tomb be put in stax or is just to tight?

[kill doug]

Ancient tomb I believe is an great card in stax. Letting you pump out  1st turn trini with a mox in hand leads to better consistancyoverall. Although do people consider the mana base to be to thin of color, disruption, or whatever.

I find that Ancient tomb is a better first drop than shop with a mox in hand. I settle with 2 damage rather then let my shop get wasted the turn after i drop trini.

For people who find that color is a problem I have to say this. Every thing in the deck is 1 colorerd mana...  I would gladly take out a gemstone or 2 for 2 tombs.

Not only this, but it also optmizing draw whether your using Meditate or Thirst. EX 1st turn tangle wire(Yeah i know its bad) second turn tomb, mox, meditate or wheel. Making a normally bad play into a great one. (I know its out there but it could happen)

Anyway what are your idea's about  Ancient tomb should it be included, how many, what should be taken out, how it will affect concistancy in draw, mulliganing, speed, whatever?

[Sauron]

Ancient Tomb is fantastic in Stax, this is my last list (haven't worked on the deck in a while):

// Mana:
    1 [UG] Island
    4  Volcanic Island
    4  Mishra's Workshop
    1  Strip Mine
    4  Wasteland
    1  Tolarian Academy
    2  Polluted Delta
    2  ANCIENT TOMB

    1  Sol Ring
    1  Mox Sapphire
    1  Mox Emerald
    1  Mox Jet
    1  Mox Pearl
    1  Mox Ruby
    1  Black Lotus
    1  Mana Crypt
    1  Mana Vault

// Creatures
    4  Goblin Welder
    2  Sundering Titan
    1  Karn, Silver Golem

// Draw
    4  Thirst for Knowledge
    1  Memory Jar
    1  Ancestral Recall
 
// Lock
    4  Smokestack
    4  Trinisphere
    4  Tangle Wire
    3  Crucible of Worlds
    1  Mindslaver

// Stuffs that finds stuffs
    1  Tinker
    2  Intuition

The only change that springs immediately to mind is the possibility of playing a single Artifact land of some description to open another lock (Slaver, Crucible) that is fetchable with Intuition.

I've played in one tournament to date (horribly random field unfortunately,  it was a no top 8 - top 2 playoff for the final which essentially made it 5 rounds of single elim and all the other powered decks got beat in the first three rounds) and in that tournament and playtesting the Tombs were golden.

[PacmanXSA]

I like Ancient Tomb, but I find that I'm lacking the colored mana for the deck to excel.  I cut them awhile back.  My mana base is as follows:

4x City Of Brass
4x Gemstone Mine
1x Strip Mine
4x Wasteland
1x Glimmervoid
4x Workshop
1x Tolarian Academy

Pac

[Clown of Tresserhorn]

Ancient tomb is HAWT in Stax. Seriously, the pain does catch up, but having 2 mana to play ANYTHING out of your deck (wheel, thirst/meditate, balance, welder under 3sphere) is pretty good. I'm still plaing the old school UR stax, and I haven't found any inconsistencies with the manabase. For reference it's:

4 Workshop
4 Waste
1 Strip
1 Academy
8 MC SoLoMoxen
1 Mana Vault
4 Volcanic
3 Shican Reef
2 Ancient Tomb

If I could, I think I would play 4 ancient tomb like most MUD decks. The colored mana is impotant, but with 8 permanent red sources and 9 permanent blue sources, The deck should be fine.

-Bob

[kill doug]

4x City Of Brass
4x Gemstone Mine
1x Glimmervoid

so thats 9 of any color that you want. Plus moxen and lotus makes 11 of possible cards to get the right color. With academy its makes 12 for blue.

I run 3 colors in stax B,U,R and i almost always find that I have a wide color variety but not as much aceleration as i want.

My mana base looked like this  before
4x City Of Brass
4x Gemstone Mine
1x Glimmervoid
1x Strip Mine
4x Wasteland
4x Workshop
1x Tolarian Academy
5x Moxen
1x Lotus
1x Crypt
1x Vault
1x Grim Monolith
1x Sol ring

The first change i made was adding an extra glimmervoid taking out 1 gemstone mine for It wouldn't die turn 3. Next I deducted 1 more gemstone for a tomb. Now i'm testing taking out the monolith for an additional tomb. Which worries me a little but i see how it pans out later.

[Sauron]

I see your mana base is essentially the same as mine Clown, except where you have 3 Shivan Reef I have 2x Fetch and a basic Island. I'm sure Reef is fine, but I'm greedy and like to have some Thawing Glaciers with my Crucible when Waste/Strip hasn't shown up.

Is there any particular reason you favour Reefs?

[Smmenen]

I think the answer is no.

But it's not becuase its too tight.  I've played Stax quite a bit.  Two of my teammates are among its formost promoters and designers and I'm not exactly unused to tuning stax builds.  

I think the impulse to put Tomb in is a good one, but ultimately, you'll find that after extensive testing, it's just not needed - even against heavy Wasteland decks.

[Sauron]

If the reason isn't that its too tight (which I happen to agree with, the mana bases that Clown and I have are rock solid) then the real question is why not play Tomb?

First, a caveat: the following discussion refers only to UR Stax which is where my experience lies and may not be valid for the 4/5 colour builds.

In my testing with Stax, which also happens to be extensive, I found Tomb was a perfect fit. One of the biggest cited problems with 'Shop decks has been that they are inconsistent, being overly reliant on 'Shop and also on occasion being screwed by the 'Shop on a non-Artifact heavy draw. For some time this was true. Crucible has gone a long way to addressing this, and 2x Tomb further smooths consistency issues.

With 6 mana accelerating lands (and Tolarian) the deck runs silky smooth and is generally perfectly happy even when it doesn't see a 'Shop. As Clown mentioned the ability to use Tomb for casting Welder under Sphere, Meditate/Thirst and so on is not to be underestimated. I've found its ability to increase the redundancy with which you can cast a first/second turn lock component and its boost to casting non-Artifact spells are additive in terms of smoothing consistency, rather than being simply the sum of their parts.

While I recognise your experience with Stax and other 'Shop based decks, I do wonder whether you have actual arguments/examples to back your comments, rather than just alluding to your own testing experience whose results differ from my own (evidently Clowns also). I note that Kron has largely been playing the CoB and Gemstone type builds - is your testing with Tomb more applicable to those builds?

[Clown of Tresserhorn]

hmmm....I have to echo what Sauron has said about tomb. I really like it, although, I'm playing the UR list. In the 4/5 color list, I don't think i'd run tomb simply because you NEED colored mana so badly. Last time I checked, Stax was a prison deck, and ancient tomb lets you cast shit more reliably on turn 1. My biggest concern for stax was the fact that if you didn't hit 3-4 mana by turn 2, you lost the game. When everybody and their mothers are running artifact hate, that turn 1 trinisphere/stack followed by another threat (tangle wire) has become more important than ever. Stax, unlike workshop aggro, can't win the game if the opponent breaks out of the lock. For this reason, I believe that you NEED a strong turn 1 play. Ancient tomb compliments this perfectly.

Personally, I really dislike the 4/5 color builds, simply because the deck is diluted by colored spells. Yes, tutors are nice. Yes, balance can be the hotness. But lets face it, they're all pretty much useless if your opponent breaks the lock. It's this reason why I play the 2 color version. It runs the bare minimum of colored spells (welder, thirst, wheel, tinker, recall), so seeing 1 colored mana source is sufficient for the game. This is partly why I can fit tombs in my list so easily.

As far as reefs over fetches/islands: Reefs give you more permanent red sources. I basically jacked the hell out of Zhalfirin's mana base and used it for myself. So far, it's treating me very well. That, and nobody here plays back to basics. If i were to go to a P9 tourney, I'd probably run an island and a couple of fetches.

-Bob

P.S. - Steve, I'm also curious as to why you think Tomb isn't a fit into stax. I remember when MUD was big, you were one of the biggest supporters for the card. What has changed your mind?

[Smmenen]

Experience.  Go look at my Feb. article on Trinipshere.  I proposed a Trinistax list with Tombs.  

Lots and lots of test games with teammates has shown that they just aren't needed on a high enough frequency to justify thier spot.  I can't really describe it in more concrete ways than that.  It may also have to do with how risky you play.  I am not going to play Workshop, Trinisphere if there is an extremely high chance its just going to get Wasted unless I can recover.  

The Tombs (I had a pair for a while) were infrequent and came up when I didn't need them.  I eventualy cut one and then the other.  Kevin's list doesn't use it but it would be a mistake to say that Kevin's 5 color mana base makes a difference in that regard.  It doesn't.  Kevin's list also uses 4 Crucibles (as I beleive all stax lists should).  

I tried to understand why the Tomb is unnecessary and I pretty much understand why.   Here is why: most of the time, in order to play any non Stax card you only need two non workshop lands becuase you'll likely have a mox or some sort of accellerant.  Maybe Kevin will chime in and be able to explain it more than me.  

I think the only real justification for Tomb is if you are using lots of Chalices.  But if your lock base is this:

4 Crucible
4 Trinisphere
4 Tangle Wire
4 3Sphere

I think that the tomb is not optimal.  As for tournament experience, I've played Stax at Origins and I almost always keep it together becuase we test with it all the time.  I also co-wrote the original primer on stax here: http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=5273  My most recent experience with stax is playing it against our DDay, Oath and in the mirror.  I also played a whole bunch of Stax and Meandeath matches in the past three months.  After Gencon we were very pleased with Stax and played a bunch with it.  

I think you are missing the boat if you aren't going to try the 5 color builds.  Seal of Cleaning is soooo good right now and you get add Aura Fracture to the SB if you want to stop B2B, Oath, whatever.  Swords to Plowshares is a card I'd like to experiment with in Stax right now, if I had time to test Stax given that I have a full plate with other new decks at the moment.  

Actually, beyond Balance, I think one of the strongest arguments for 5color is how INSANE Vampiric Tutor and Demonic are.  Vampiric Tutor for Strip Mine is far mroe powerful than I can possibly describe.

[dromar]

But if your lock base is this:

4 Crucible
4 Trinisphere
4 Tangle Wire
4 3Sphere

I think that the tomb is not optimal.

I assume you meant the fourth slot to be Smokestack?

Actually, beyond Balance, I think one of the strongest arguments for 5color is how INSANE Vampiric Tutor and Demonic are. Vampiric Tutor for Strip Mine is far mroe powerful than I can possibly describe.

I saw a 5-color style deck once that had
4 Welder
4 Thirst
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Balance
1 Tinker
1 Ancestral
1 Time Walk

and possibly a Wheel of Fortune, and that was all the colored cards(that I noticed at least). I noticed that at least one poster on this thread didn't have Time Walk. Is there any special reason for that?

[Fominian]

One of the individuals in my area runs a stax where he opted for Ancient Tomb over MWS (note: it was not because he does not have access to MWS, he does).

The reason he opted for this was for the added synergy it has with TfK and Intuition (both of which he runs in his deck).  Though it is mildly slower - a single tomb has nothing on, so without back up its lacking somewhat.  I have found it to be far more consistent.

As for the five-color issue:

The list I saw was pretty much what dromar listed, however it ran seal MD as well as that list.

[Sauron]

@ Smmenen: Your reason for why Tomb is unneccessary seems very unsound to me. You say you only need two non-Workshop lands in order to cast any non-Stax card? This would be fine if first turn Trinisphere wasn't far and away the decks most powerful play, two non-Workshop lands simply doesn't cut the mustard if it means delaying your Trini a turn. The extra 2 'Shop analogues really help here.

Your comment "The Tombs (I had a pair for a while) were infrequent and came up when I didn't need them." makes me suspicious about exactly how much testing they actually saw. The addition of two cards typically requires a significant ammount of testing to accurately gauge their effect on a deck, the fact that you refer to them coming up "when you didn't need them" suggests your sample size was perhaps too small.

It seems like you're struggling to convey exactly what you want in terms of Tomb, hopefully Kron can drop a line with his thoughts and explain it further as you suggest.

On the 4/5 colour builds: I like 'em. You're right about Seal of Cleansing, its hot right now. However, the Intuition in my build can fetch Strip on demand without requiring the addition of a colour and with Welder/Crucible on the table can be more powerful on occasion.

As an aside: I did acknowledge your considerable experience with the deck, your list of your experience with the deck, while impressive, is superfluous. Despite all that experience you have drawn wrong conclusions about Stax in the past, there was a thread a while ago when Fish was uber-dominant where you talked about how devastating Null Rod was to Stax. Both Wollbad and I argued against that comment, which was misinformed, as I believe subsequent tournament results attest.

EDIT: Going back through some older threads there was also a thread where you made comments about Tog Vs Stax that suggested a lack of up to date testing and again Wollbad argued you were wrong, again I agreed with Wollbad.

[Smmenen]

I think the burden is on you to suggest why it needs to be played.  

Look at this:

Gencon
T8:
Kevin Cron
Stax
2 Sundering Titan (1 is now Trike)
4 Goblin Welder

4 Smokestack
4 Tangle Wire
4 Trinisphere
4 Crucible of Worlds

1 Ancestral Recall
3 Meditate
1 Tinker
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Wheel of Fortune
1 Balance
1 Hurkyl's Recall (since has become Vamp)

1 Black Lotus
1 Mana Crypt
1 Mana Vault
1 Grim Monolith
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Sol Ring
1 Lotus Petal
1 Darksteel Ingot

3 Gemstone Mine
4 City of Brass
4 Mishra's Workshop
1 Strip Mine
1 Tolarian Academy
4 Wasteland

Sideboard
3 Tsabo's Web
2 Fire / Ice
1 Hurkyl's Recall
1 Triskelion
1 Mindslaver
3 Red Elemental Blast
2 Blue Elemental Blast
2 Tormod's Crypt

SCG Chicago:
4th Place - Roland Chang
1 Black Lotus
1 Mana Crypt
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Sol Ring
1 Memory Jar
1 Duplicant
1 Triskelion
1 Platinum Angel
1 Sundering Titan
2 Crucible of Worlds
4 Smokestack
4 Tanglewire
4 Trinisphere
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Ancestral Recall
3 Thirst for Knowledge
1 Tinker
4 Goblin Welder
1 Wheel of Fortune
2 Seal of Cleansing
1 Strip Mine
1 Tolarian Academy
1 Glimmervoid
4 Gemstone Mine
4 City of Brass
4 Mishra's Workshop
4 Wasteland

Sideboard
3 Chalice of the Void
1 Mindslaver
3 Rack and Ruin
3 Red Elemental Blast
2 Spawning Pit
2 Tormod's Crypt
1 Triskelion

Neither of these lists runs Ancient Tomb yet they have done remarkably well.  Given the success of these lists to the exclusion of all other Stax decks in the US metagame, I think the burden is on your to explain why they are needed.  Instead of explaining why they are needed, you try to poke holes in my arguments that they aren't.  Explain why you think they are so necessary given the tournament results which reflects that they are not.

[Fominian]

This is just my side of the argument - as I do not have the voice to speak for others.

With that said, history has shown us that Tombs are simply not needed within stax.  The deck will run without them and will pilot to impressive finishes.

What Tomb adds to the deck is a synergy with support cards that MWS can never hope to match.

For illustration purposes you have a volcanic island and a tomb as your only lands in play.  (Under normal circumstances it would ideally be a MWS for first turn trickery and what not, but for the sack of the argument, I re-illustrate the scenario).

Now, with those two lands you are now able to cast Timetwister (seen it ran), Wheel of Fortune, Meditate, Thirst for Knowledge, Rack and Ruin, and Intuition - not to mention many other support cards.

Now another bonus, once again for illustration I removed MWS and replaced it with Tombs.  So under said situation, you manage to cast a turn 1 3sphere - with MWS this would mean a wait to use your support cards like the tutors and what not, however with tomb you can cast them the next turn (assuming you have the given mana of course).

Finally, Tomb has the added bonus that its mana can be used to pay for activation costs of things that require it.

So in short, is Tomb really needed in stax?  Simply put, no.  However, it does add an undeniable synergy with the deck that cannot be denied.

EDIT: Under CoW, City of Traitors is another viable solution if you do not like the pain from Tomb.

[PacmanXSA]

I think that the main problem here is that everyone is probably playing a different variant of Stax.  I mentioned above what my land base was but didn't mention that I play with cards like Demonic Tutor, Balance, Seals, etc.  I've even been testing md StPs with a great deal of success as well.  I have a huge need for the on colored mana and that's the reason I do not opt for the tombs.  

As for Clown, what are you using as a kill mechanism in your classic UR version?  Trike, Karn?  Do you use S.Titan at all with the md Volcanics?

Just a quick sidenote, I'm in a very high CoW meta as well which affects the mana base as well.

Just my findings thus far.

Pac

[Sauron]

I'm at work so I will post a longer reply later this is just a quick note in regard to MD Volcanics and S.Titan: MD Volcanics are no impediment to playing Titan. You get one land tops (target a Volcanic twice) which is generally acceptable Vs the losses inflicted on the opponent, if you have CoW then the loss is negated in any case.

@ Smmenen: I will pose some positive arguments for inclusion of Tomb later. For now I will just say that I can produce european top eight decklists that do play Tomb. Suggesting that those two decklists sans Tomb in any way suggests that Tomb is not required is hardly compelling, it wouldn't be the first time that an archetype has put up very good results without neccessarily being optimal. It is a very cute way of not addressing the issues I raised with your arguments though.

@ Fominian: Your comment "With that said, history has shown us that Tombs are simply not needed within stax. The deck will run without them and will pilot to impressive finishes" runs in a similar vein to Smmenens citing those two decklists. More accurately history has not shown us that Tombs are not needed, but merely that they haven't been played.

[Smmenen]

@ Smmenen: I will pose some positive arguments for inclusion of Tomb later. For now I will just say that I can produce european top eight decklists that do play Tomb. Suggesting that those two decklists sans Tomb in any way suggests that Tomb is not required is hardly compelling, it wouldn't be the first time that an archetype has put up very good results without neccessarily being optimal. It is a very cute way of not addressing the issues I raised with your arguments though.

You didn't raise any issue beyond the claim that my testing is antiquated or misguided.  Such a debate can only boil down to assertions back and forth.   For example, I strongly disagree with the claim that Tog can't beat Stax.  Tog certainly can, but it requires a great build of Tog and a great understanding of the matchup.  You probably don't beleive that Tog has a shot in hell against Stax.  Again, this boils down to differences that can't be resolved unless we sit down and play against each other for hours.  

In ancitipation of your positive argument:
There are two reasons to run Ancient Tomb, in my view"
1) Mana Stability against Wasteland

This goes to the opening post in the thread about the play Ancient Tomb, Mox, Trinisphere.

2) mana stability in terms of being able to cast non-artifact spells under Trinisphere, or at all.

I think neither of these is compelling enough.  I think almost all of number 1 can be addressed by proper play.   I think that playing Stax really well can get around that in many ways.  The quesiton comes down to: can stax win without the uber risky play?  Generally the answer is yes.  You can make an informed decision too given what your opponent is playing, what you are reading from them, if they have mulligan, etc.  I don't agree with people who say that Trinisphere is only good on turn one.  Trinisphere can be good on turn 4 after Tangel Wire and Smokestack has shut them down a bit.  It can seal the deal.  

As for the second, there is really no need to play Thirst or Meditate immediately - it can usually wait a turn or two.  Most of the cards that are run in Kevin's list now are Vamp, DT, seal of Cleansing, Balance, etc.  So that isn't an issue.

Additionally, I am well aware of the European Stax lists, and I think that the claim that Stax in Europe making top 8 runs them is hardly compelling to justify the claim that those lists are optimal.  Kevin made top 8 at a tournamnet of 150 players with most of the best North American type one players.  Roland made top 8 at a 142 player tournament with many of the best north american players.  I didn't bring up this point to say that those lists were optimal, but to suggest that they at least raised a presumption of optimality - however compelling or not it may be, which should be rebutted.  You tried to shift that burden to me.

[onelovemachine]

First I would like to say that the correlation between the success of a deck and its lack of using any card regardless of other deck builds isn't a good indicator of the strength of the suggested card.  Secondly stax is so inherently and amazingly broken as far as its first turn plays without tombs that there is no reason to play it.  Stax runs between 28-30 mana sources and can power out first turn brokenness plays without the use of its four shops half the time.  Stax does however go through periods where it can't play its welder, tinker, vamp if you play it etc.  Colored sources are some good.

[Sauron]

@ Smmenen: Several things to mention here really.

You're misreading, or misprepresenting, my intent in some instances.

You state : "Instead of explaining why they (Tomb) are needed. . . " I did actually make the following statements in regards to why to play Tomb:

"In my testing with Stax, which also happens to be extensive, I found Tomb was a perfect fit. One of the biggest cited problems with 'Shop decks has been that they are inconsistent, being overly reliant on 'Shop and also on occasion being screwed by the 'Shop on a non-Artifact heavy draw. For some time this was true. Crucible has gone a long way to addressing this, and 2x Tomb further smooths consistency issues.

With 6 mana accelerating lands (and Tolarian) the deck runs silky smooth and is generally perfectly happy even when it doesn't see a 'Shop. As Clown mentioned the ability to use Tomb for casting Welder under Sphere, Meditate/Thirst and so on is not to be underestimated. I've found its ability to increase the redundancy with which you can cast a first/second turn lock component and its boost to casting non-Artifact spells are additive in terms of smoothing consistency, rather than being simply the sum of their parts."

You state: "you try to poke holes in my arguments that they (Tomb) aren't (neccessary)" If I'm not dreadfully mistaken I was under the impression that part of discussing a topic meant critically examining others points of views and defending your own.  The part about defending your own ideas seems as important as critiquing others, which is in large part why I take issue with your notion that there is a burden of proof on me that you back with decklists which really seems like a way of opting out of dialogue.

You state: "You didn't raise any issue beyond the claim that my testing is antiquated or misguided." I did actually take issue with your central claim against Tomb:

"Your reason for why Tomb is unneccessary seems very unsound to me. You say you only need two non-Workshop lands in order to cast any non-Stax card? This would be fine if first turn Trinisphere wasn't far and away the decks most powerful play, two non-Workshop lands simply doesn't cut the mustard if it means delaying your Trini a turn. The extra 2 'Shop analogues really help here. "

You appear to be rebutting this when you say: "I don't agree with people who say that Trinisphere is only good on turn one. Trinisphere can be good on turn 4 after Tangel Wire and Smokestack has shut them down a bit. It can seal the deal. " I fully agree with this, however, it doesn't change the fact that you always want to be able to cast it on turn one which is where Tomb helps.

You state: "Additionally, I am well aware of the European Stax lists, and I think that the claim that Stax in Europe making top 8 runs them is hardly compelling to justify the claim that those lists are optimal. " My intention here was simply to state that throwing down some successful decklist sans Tomb is insufficient, the more so because I can also do the same for lists inclusive of Tomb. Secondly, I never actually claimed that the European lists were optimal as you seem to imply.

The fact that you find lists with Tomb insufficient to justify claims that they are optimal is interesting in that it is the same "proof" you appear to offer for why lists with it are optimal or should be presumed as such. If my production of lists is insufficient to produce a burden on you, then your own use of the same device seems tenuous to me also, even despite the disparity in tournament quality field that you implicate.

When you state: "You probably don't beleive that Tog has a shot in hell against Stax." you're making an assumption here. Obviously Tog has "a shot in hell", I found that depending on build and player the matchup did fluctuate a lot, a great build piloted very well can indeed beat Stax. But overall I would rate Stax in this matchup, as you would appear to also given your comment about builds and matchup knowledge. In the comment I was referring to in a different thread you rated the matchup heavily in Togs favour, so I mentioned this merely to illustrate that your opinions on Stax are not neccesarily sacrosanct.

I do have to agree with this however: "Such a debate can only boil down to assertions back and forth." Indeed this is a fruitless avenue to continue down.

So at this point you think my arguments are insufficient, and I find yours equally unpersuasive. Agreeing to disagree seems to be the point we've come to.

[Smmenen]

@ Smmenen: Several things to mention here really.

You're misreading, or misprepresenting, my intent in some instances.

You state : "Instead of explaining why they (Tomb) are needed. . . " I did actually make the following statements in regards to why to play Tomb:

"In my testing with Stax, which also happens to be extensive, I found Tomb was a perfect fit. One of the biggest cited problems with 'Shop decks has been that they are inconsistent, being overly reliant on 'Shop and also on occasion being screwed by the 'Shop on a non-Artifact heavy draw. For some time this was true. Crucible has gone a long way to addressing this, and 2x Tomb further smooths consistency issues.

With 6 mana accelerating lands (and Tolarian) the deck runs silky smooth and is generally perfectly happy even when it doesn't see a 'Shop. As Clown mentioned the ability to use Tomb for casting Welder under Sphere, Meditate/Thirst and so on is not to be underestimated. I've found its ability to increase the redundancy with which you can cast a first/second turn lock component and its boost to casting non-Artifact spells are additive in terms of smoothing consistency, rather than being simply the sum of their parts."

I think the primary difference between us is that I no longer see consistency issues at all as a result of Crucible and the power of the deck.  The old Workshop consistency problems weren't just that it relied on Workshop, but that you had expensive lock components like Chalice in addition to Smokestack.  Old Stax, before the printing of Chalice, had issues becuase its support was nothing like the stax of today - which is much less comboey and far more actual pure prison.  

The fact that your lock parts all cost 3 except for Smokestack means that Workshop is simply not as important as it once was.  There are lots of combinations of cards in the maindeck that permit broken turn ones without actually needed a workshop - the least of which includes balance or something with Mana Crypt.  Kevin also runs Grim Monolith and Lotus Petal to help these plays.  Which I agree with.  Add to this the printing of Crucible and you have stability with dramatically lower mana requirements.  This is why I think Stax is so powerful right now - becuase its consistency issues have been dramatically ameolorated naturally.  

You state: "you try to poke holes in my arguments that they (Tomb) aren't (neccessary)" If I'm not dreadfully mistaken I was under the impression that part of discussing a topic meant critically examining others points of views and defending your own.  The part about defending your own ideas seems as important as critiquing others, which is in large part why I take issue with your notion that there is a burden of proof on me that you back with decklists which really seems like a way of opting out of dialogue.

You conflated two different respones and then misapplied them to suggest I am making a different point than I really am.  I asserted, on the one hand, that I wanted to see some positive arguments for Tomb, which you have provided.  On the other hand, I said that the the the success off several decklists raised a presumptive that the optimal decklist doesn't run Tomb - that doesnt' mean I'm absolved from making the necessary points, but it suggests that you needed to make some positive arguments - which you have since done.  Nothing more, nothing less.  

You state: "You didn't raise any issue beyond the claim that my testing is antiquated or misguided." I did actually take issue with your central claim against Tomb:

"Your reason for why Tomb is unneccessary seems very unsound to me. You say you only need two non-Workshop lands in order to cast any non-Stax card? This would be fine if first turn Trinisphere wasn't far and away the decks most powerful play, two non-Workshop lands simply doesn't cut the mustard if it means delaying your Trini a turn. The extra 2 'Shop analogues really help here. "

You appear to be rebutting this when you say: "I don't agree with people who say that Trinisphere is only good on turn one. Trinisphere can be good on turn 4 after Tangel Wire and Smokestack has shut them down a bit. It can seal the deal. " I fully agree with this, however, it doesn't change the fact that you always want to be able to cast it on turn one which is where Tomb helps.

While you certainly want to have a good chance of being able to play Trinisphere on turn one, we need to be careful about suggesting that doing so has no cost.  Taking your statement to the extreme, it would suggest that we should play with 4 Tombs becuase that increases your chance of turn one trinisphere.  You have arbitrarily or not so arbitrarily drawn the line at 2.  I draw that line at none, based upon not unsubstantial testing/experience.  

You state: "Additionally, I am well aware of the European Stax lists, and I think that the claim that Stax in Europe making top 8 runs them is hardly compelling to justify the claim that those lists are optimal. " My intention here was simply to state that throwing down some successful decklist sans Tomb is insufficient, the more so because I can also do the same for lists inclusive of Tomb. Secondly, I never actually claimed that the European lists were optimal as you seem to imply.

The fact that you find lists with Tomb insufficient to justify claims that they are optimal is interesting in that it is the same "proof" you appear to offer for why lists with it are optimal or should be presumed as such. If my production of lists is insufficient to produce a burden on you, then your own use of the same device seems tenuous to me also, even despite the disparity in tournament quality field that you implicate.

 I didn't say that the lack of use of Tomb in American Stax lists makes it optimal - I said it shifts the burden of persuasion.  You didn't pick up this nuance.  I never said that they were optimal lists, but I think it requires someone to explain convincingly why they are not rather than simply assert that they are not optimal - and specifically that their success shifts the burden of persuasion on to you to show that they are necessary.

When you state: "You probably don't beleive that Tog has a shot in hell against Stax." you're making an assumption here. Obviously Tog has "a shot in hell", I found that depending on build and player the matchup did fluctuate a lot, a great build piloted very well can indeed beat Stax. But overall I would rate Stax in this matchup, as you would appear to also given your comment about builds and matchup knowledge. In the comment I was referring to in a different thread you rated the matchup heavily in Togs favour, so I mentioned this merely to illustrate that your opinions on Stax are not neccesarily sacrosanct.

When i said that I thought you woudln't think Tog had a shot in hell, I should have said "had a decent game" becuase I think Tog is the favorite, if properly built/played.  And I'm not exactly sure where the quote from the different thread you are referring is from or even when it was made (which is of critical importance).  

I do have to agree with this however: "Such a debate can only boil down to assertions back and forth." Indeed this is a fruitless avenue to continue down.

So at this point you think my arguments are insufficient, and I find yours equally unpersuasive. Agreeing to disagree seems to be the point we've come to.

I think what has made this debate fruitless is that you pursue and attempt to score useless rhetorical points, while they may appear to be of worth, actually have no bearing on anything relevant or advance the debate.  If you want to keep this debate on the substance of the issue at hand, i'll be glad to do so with you.  However, if you want to continue this rhetorical war - I relish that too, even if there is no purpose.

[Sauron]

Sigh.

You state:  "but it suggests that you needed to make some positive arguments - which you have since done. Nothing more, nothing less. " Again you missed the fact that the positive arguments in question had in fact already been made (I was quoting an earlier post), which undercuts several of the comments you have made since.

You also state: "I think what has made this debate fruitless is that you pursue and attempt to score useless rhetorical points, while they may appear to be of worth, actually have no bearing on anything relevant or advance the debate. If you want to keep this debate on the substance of the issue at hand, i'll be glad to do so with you. However, if you want to continue this rhetorical war - I relish that too, even if there is no purpose."

That whole part of the discussion could have been circumvented had you addressed the points I had already made that you seem to want to continually assert I had not yet made. I have no desire to 'score points' whatsoever, but when you misrepresent and do not read my posts carefully I'd rather raise that than have your take on the my posts going uncontested.

Now if we can get back to discussing the matter at hand that would good (I'm sure as heck the original poster would appreciate it). Again, the same caveat: my comments are more specifically geared towards U/R Stax builds.

You state: "I think the primary difference between us is that I no longer see consistency issues at all as a result of Crucible and the power of the deck. The old Workshop consistency problems weren't just that it relied on Workshop, but that you had expensive lock components like Chalice in addition to Smokestack. Old Stax, before the printing of Chalice, had issues becuase its support was nothing like the stax of today - which is much less comboey and far more actual pure prison.

The fact that your lock parts all cost 3 except for Smokestack means that Workshop is simply not as important as it once was. There are lots of combinations of cards in the maindeck that permit broken turn ones without actually needed a workshop - the least of which includes balance or something with Mana Crypt. Kevin also runs Grim Monolith and Lotus Petal to help these plays. Which I agree with. Add to this the printing of Crucible and you have stability with dramatically lower mana requirements. This is why I think Stax is so powerful right now - becuase its consistency issues have been dramatically ameolorated naturally. "

Now this is good point, CoW has certainly ameliorated many of the historical consistency issues. You say you agree with running Grim and Petal  - they increase the number of permutations of opening draws that allow broken turn ones. For the 4/5c builds I'd be perfectly fine with going this route as Petal is a 5c mana source. I see Tomb simply as another route to solving the same problem, with some advantages and disadvantages.

The advantage is a lowering of the decks vulnerability to Null Rod, although Null Rod is not the concern it once was, and that Tombs damage  drawback is lesser to my way of thinking compared against Grim and Petal, which in the first several turns of the game are typically one-shot deals. Also you need only draw Tomb + Mox rather than the three card requirement of Mox/Land/Grim or Petal (this is disregarding draws that include Crypt/Vault and so on, cards shared by both decks).

Obviously not being an Artifact it cannot be Welded, which is probably the larger of its disadvantages although there are several smaller cons you could draw on (doesn't enhance Tolarian Vs Grim/Petal, requires another card to be pitched to Thirst, no coloured mana Vs Petal which is a non-issue in the U/R versions which as stated is where my comments are geared).

You say: "While you certainly want to have a good chance of being able to play Trinisphere on turn one, we need to be careful about suggesting that doing so has no cost. Taking your statement to the extreme, it would suggest that we should play with 4 Tombs becuase that increases your chance of turn one trinisphere. You have arbitrarily or not so arbitrarily drawn the line at 2. I draw that line at none, based upon not unsubstantial testing/experience." I'm not and have not for a second suggested there is no cost involved here but if I could find the room for 4 Tombs in all likelyhood I would play 4. Playing 2 isn't an arbitrary decision, but based on my own testing and lack of space, I really don't want more than 28 mana sources and  don't want to cut any of the business spells in the deck.

[CHA1N5]

The anecdotal evidence of testing and tournament results will not support one position or the other in this case, because the answer to the question is a solid "maybe".

The problem with adding Tomb to $T4KS is manyfold:

- Drift:  I've had several $T4KS lists with Tombs and in each case you either want to add more or remove them.  

Back when the deck ran all spells that cost X2, Tomb was much better and could be used without hassle.  Today, however, $T4KS has become much more efficient and has many spells that do not require the presence of Tomb.  This is more true for the 5 Color builds, of course.  The UR builds can utilize Tomb much more and still retain most of their primary bombs.

- Consistency: Tomb definitely has synergy with many of the spells in $T4KS, but consistency is the single greatest enemy to $T4KS and Tomb introduces another layer of complexity to the deck.

- Wasteland and Colors:  Tombs do allow for certain artifact plays involving Tomb + Mox which a Gemstone Mine simply will not.  Unfortunately, Tombs simply must come at the expense of colored mana.  This means that your opponent will be able to cut you off from colored mana with their Wastelands more often.  Basically, you allow your opponent to cut you off in a new and exciting way.

- Reliance/Efficiency: Simply put: if you build the colored spells in the deck to abuse Tomb, what happens when you don't draw it?  Efficiency is a much more reliable approach to the deck, in general.  5 Color $T4KS can play entire games off Workshop/City/Pearl, Tomb$T4KS cannot play games off Shop/Tomb/Perl or Shop/City/Pearl.  By building around Tomb, you are basically relying on Shop/Tomb/ColoredLand draws.


If you can mitigate these and other risks, you can effectively use Tomb.

[Sauron]

I agree with pretty much the entirety of Chains post, which succinctly restates some of what I had mentioned that got lost in the, ahem, 'side-discussion'.

In regards to "If you can mitigate these and other risks, you can effectively use Tomb." I'd suggest that my mana base does so adequately, the pair of fetches and singleton Island in particular reducing the chance of Wasteland cutting off coloured mana. Noticeably Clowns mana base is almost exactly the same with Shivan Reef in place of fetch/Island. That we independently converged on essentially the same mana base probably gives a nod to how stable it is.

[Toad]

Ancient Tomb is strong for game 1 because you rely on artifacts to win the pre sideboard games. Post board, you'll often want to bring in stuff like Rack and Ruin, Red Elemental Blast, Blue Elemental Blast ... and then having more lands that produce colourless mana is bad.

Mishra's Workshop drawback is already extremely important post board (even if a lot of players don't seem to realize it), I don't feel like running more lands that produce colourless mana, especially when facing Wastelands. I've already lost too many games I would have won if my Mishra's Workshop was a Volcanic Island or a City of Brass.

[Clown of Tresserhorn]

As for Clown, what are you using as a kill mechanism in your classic UR version? Trike, Karn? Do you use S.Titan at all with the md Volcanics?

MD: 1 Trike, 1 Titan
Board: 1 Platz, 1 Karn

Noticeably Clowns mana base is almost exactly the same with Shivan Reef in place of fetch/Island. That we independently converged on essentially the same mana base probably gives a nod to how stable it is.

Actually, I jacked that manabase from Zhalfirin (in one his tourney report threads). I thought it looked MAD solid, and when I played it, it ran really smooth. I DEFINITELY prefer it over the 5c manabases.

Back when the deck ran all spells that cost X2, Tomb was much better and could be used without hassle. Today, however, $T4KS has become much more efficient and has many spells that do not require the presence of Tomb. This is more true for the 5 Color builds, of course. The UR builds can utilize Tomb much more and still retain most of their primary bombs.

I agree whole-heartedly with this. I'm running UR stax, which can support the tomb much easier (as I stated in previous posts, I'm running the bare minimum of colored spells: 4 Welder, 4 Thirst, 1 Wheel, 1 Tinker).

As far as different builds of stax goes, I still prefer UR over the 5c builds. While the 5c Builds are much more broken, I find them to be less consistent than the traditional UR builds. Yes, balance is "the nutz" and tutoring for strip mine is huge, but most of the time, I'd just rather play turn 1 trinisphere or lock them out via stax/wire. As far as board goes, you still have access to REB (which takes care of B2B and flux) and rack and ruin. You do lose seal, but you should be 50/50 vs. Oath anyways. If you're that paranoid of oath, then you could always play claws of gix or spawning pit.

The fact that your lock parts all cost 3 except for Smokestack means that Workshop is simply not as important as it once was. There are lots of combinations of cards in the maindeck that permit broken turn ones without actually needed a workshop - the least of which includes balance or something with Mana Crypt. Kevin also runs Grim Monolith and Lotus Petal to help these plays. Which I agree with. Add to this the printing of Crucible and you have stability with dramatically lower mana requirements. This is why I think Stax is so powerful right now - becuase its consistency issues have been dramatically ameolorated naturally.

Hmmm...I have some issues with this. Stax wants to apply pressure and lock the opponent out ASAP. looking at your lock pieces, you'd realistically only want to play sphere, stax, and crucible turn 1. Without tombs, you'd have to draw land, and a combination of 2 moxes, crypt, mox + sol ring, Lotus, Mana Vault (which would suck if you had land, vault sphere). If you ran Tomb and saw it in your opening draw, you'd only need ONE other piece of acceleration to play a lock component.

I think this argument is pretty pointless until we can settle on a single build of stax. 5c Stax is more broken and can do stupid shit on turn 1 without locking out the opponent (Balance, set up something with tutors, or play FASTBOND and wreck house). The fact that it runs more colored spells also means that tomb is unneeded. UR Stax can't support the brokenness, so it has to rely on getting out a lock piece on turn 1. It's for this reason, why I think Tomb is a nice fit into UR stax.

-Bob

[Smmenen]

I think this argument is pretty pointless until we can settle on a single build of stax. 5c Stax is more broken and can do stupid shit on turn 1 without locking out the opponent (Balance, set up something with tutors, or play FASTBOND and wreck house). The fact that it runs more colored spells also means that tomb is unneeded. UR Stax can't support the brokenness, so it has to rely on getting out a lock piece on turn 1. It's for this reason, why I think Tomb is a nice fit into UR stax.

-Bob

Something I've been alluding to the entirety of this thread, but haven't said directly is this:

There is a big difference between "need" and "want."  Certainly, Stax wants to lock down the opponent on turn one with Trinisphere and keep them there.  That isn't the relevant question.

The question is: what do you need to win.  Trinisphere, in my view, fluctuates in terms of its power.  Against most slow control decks, Trinisphere is not ony a liability, but it can be weaker than any of the other three lock components at any given time - even Tangle Wire.  Against many control decks, I'd rather just play Crucible than Trinisphere and then use inf. Wasteland recursion to lock them out and follow that up with Trinisphere eventually.  

If you are approaching every match identically, i.e. I need to execute game plan X - being Step 1: Trinisphere, Step 2: Smokestack, Step 3: Welder lock.  Then I think you are missing the boat with Stax.  Stax doesn't require such a uniform plan.  Trinisphere, while winning the game against Combo, can cost you the game against Control.  Making the optimal play with Stax almost always begins with thoughtful consideration of risk/benefit in terms of what is needed to acheive a single goal: winning the game.  Winning the game doesn't require, in most instances, that you lock up the game immediately.  I often prefer the longer, more attrition based games with stax in which you win very small and slowly over the course of the game.