Uba Stax - pseudo primer

[heiner]

And no, 3sphere is *NOT* just a better version of SOR, they are in fact compleatly different beasts that play different functions in the deck. It's not my fault that you can't tell the difference.

Irrelevant. It does not matter how similar two cards are. The only requirement is to evaluate the two cards against each other and decide which one is better. In the last part of your posting you give some good examples (no new ideas though) why sphere can be better then 3sphere. Nevertheless this is exactly the way to go. If there are enough arguments in favor of  sphere, the 4th sphere can substitute the 3sphere. Your consistency argument hence is flawed as I explained earlier.

And, your consistancy argument is absurd. By your logic, Mono-red ubastax shouldn't even exist because it is a deck that thrives on 4-of's, and consistant hands at the expense of really broken plays. You run no tutors, no Tinker, no will, no recall, timwalk, fastbond, or crop rotation, all of which seem like useful additions a prison deck. You try and get around that by qualifiying your statement with the idea of "FIT", which is about as subjective as you can get. Why does SOR "fit", but not tinker. Why does the 4th Crucible "fit", but not Will in a deck with Bazaar and fast mana?

The argument is not absurd. UBA Stax doesn't run the broken restricted cards because of their disadvantages and not for the sake of being more consistent. Again, consistency is the result of good deck building and not the way to build good decs. For an example have a look at Grubastax. The reason why green has been abandoned was because the additional brokeness was too weak compared to the disadvantages brought by adding green (mana base + loosing a ring). This is what i mean with FIT. I aggree with you that defining the term FIT is not easy, nevertheless one main reason is mana support. A dec that plays enough mana to support a certain color should generally play the restricted cards of this color. This is obviously true with Ancestral Recal, Trinisphere (IMHO) and Time Walk but not with Timetwister for example. Here the definition of FIT becomes more tricky and often it can only be decided by play testing whether a card fits or not.

My argument is not that Trini isn't broke when played first turn, but rather that after the second turn, Trini is actualy often times *worse* then SOR. How often do you expect to play Trini w/in the first 3 turns with zero tutors, no tinker, and no draw besides Bazaar. Sure, Trini is better against artifact mana, but mono-red UbaStax runs 4 Chliace of the Void and 3 Null Rods. Trini is also better against 1cc cards, but SOR is at least as good vs. 2cc cards, and better against at anything above that. Being really good on the first turn is *not* enough for auto-inclusion if the card you are talking about is restricted.

And btw, the really good first turn play that everyone talks about w/ WS-> Trini turn one is pwnd by about 2/3's of the played decks right now when they go wasteland your WS, -> pass. 

The best argument for Trini is that it affects your game plan the least because most your your stuff costs more then 3 mana, i.e, really good synergy with workshop. Puck and Even at least understand that, and I'm glad they brought it up. Other then that, the only thing ridiculous is you, and your understanding of SOR and Trini.   

It really seems that you dont understand the point of this discusion. I never talked about SOR and Trini itself, hence you shouldn't make any statements regarding my understanding of these cards. Take my example and exchange the two cards with a six sided dice. Then you might see that we are not talking about the cards itself but of a much more abstract issue: The understanding of consistency.

[Evenpence]

This discussion is getting ridiculous in a way. Basically people are suggesting to cut 3sphere in favor of the 4th sphere. This is just plain bad as 3sphere is simply a better version of sphere (therefore restricted).

I think Nataz is the only one who is suggesting cutting trinisphere, and he's not ridiculous in doing so.  Consistency does win tournaments, but ResistOrb is generally better mid-late game.  Trinisphere does basically nothing late game, and I myself find myself just letting it get RFGed off Bazaar when searching for a Duplicant or Welder.

A dec should always contain the most broken (restricted) cards that FIT into a dec and then be filled up with the next best non restricted 4ofs.

I think always statements are tricky.  For the most part, this is right.  Although, Wheel fits into this deck just fine, and it was cut.  It fit into Grubastax just fine as well, but we cut that as well.

In Grubastax, for example, we had more bomb singletons than in any other version of the deck, but it proved to actually be inferior to the more consistent version w/spheres (with 3 spheres, in my own opinion).  We also cut Wheel of Fortune in Grubastax not because the deck couldn't run it (that version was actually more capable of powering out an insane wheel than any other version of Ubastax), but because the 4th crucible, 4th stax, 4th crucible, 3rd uba mask, etc were all more important and needed.

That's the argument Nataz is using when it comes to Trinisphere.  Sure, Fastbond, Crop Rotation are great when you have them right off the bat.  In fact, they're game-breaking.  A first turn fastbond can sometimes just spell game.  However, while green provides brokenness, w/the downside of off-color mana dyssynergy, and 1cc chalice dyssynergy and the spheres provide consistency at the price of quantity-mana dyssynergy, and 2cc chalice dyssynergy, the spheres essentially win out.  Plus we get basic mountains.

Cutting brokeness for consistency is like erasing the six on a six-sided dice replacing it with a five. Sure you have increased the chance to roll a five, but i rather have the chance to roll a six which is even higher.

If it were that easy, I don't think there'd be discussion about Trinisphere.  The problem is, Trinisphere is a 10 on the first-turn play scale, while sphere is somewhere around a 5-8, depending on what deck you're playing.  Trinsphere late game is like, 0-4, while sphere is something like 4-8.

I.E. sphere is more consistent, Trinisphere is more dependant on getting out early.  Nataz is using the Grubastax consistency argument in favor of testing Trinisphere out for a little bit.  He might actually be right, but I doubt it.  I personally believe that the ability to just win the game first turn is so much more important when it provides no dyssynergy (like the green cards) to the deck than late-game consistency.

@JuggernautGo: I dont see why your list should trump UBAstax. Tangle wire is just plain inferior compared to CotV (they suck especially agains stax and against pretty much everything else too). Chalice hoses your card manipulation/draw/search engine (tutors) while not affecting UBA's (bazaars). You play one less crucible which means the chance is actually higher for the UBA player to draw into smoky/crucible.  MWS testing results should be generally taken with caution as the overall player level is incredibly bad.

I really like Tangle Wire.  It makes going second good.  It makes drawing cards you don't really want good.  It makes Welder good.  It's amazing against control.  It's amazing against Combo.  Heck, it's good.  Really good.

Now, it was HORRIBLE in our game, but he only got one out (I believe,) so the point is moot to start with.  A heretic killed it two turns after it came out anyway, and he was just putting it down to a) lock me out for a turn, giving him an essential time walk (but I stripped one of his lands, so tangle wire actually didn't give him all that much of a time walk), and then another one came out late in another of our games, that he was just using it as a stax target (I had a ramped stax, he didn't, I had more permanents, he needed to race, etc).

I think Travis's build is really good, just not against Ubastax.  I completely believe him, however, when he says that he only (previous to our matches) lost only 1 game to Ubastax.  The guy made ZERO mistakes in our matches and played perfectly.

EDIT:

Also, just out of curiosity, has anyone ever tried out a single ancient tomb in any of then non-mono red versions of the deck?

Yeah, I have actually.  I think it's amazing, I just can't make room for it.  Vroman and I tried to make a different kind of Stax deck about a month ago or so, and my intial version had Ancient Tombs in it, which I loved.  I tried fitting them into the Ubastax skeleton (I just took out some of the lesser locks for 4 ancient tombs, just to see how they'd go, then I actually tried to fit them in).

They worked really, really well.  However, they're not worth cutting anything.

DOUBLE EDIT:

The argument is not absurd. UBA Stax doesn't run the broken restricted cards because of their disadvantages and not for the sake of being more consistent. Again, consistency is the result of good deck building and not the way to build good decs. For an example have a look at Grubastax. The reason why green has been abandoned was because the additional brokeness was too weak compared to the disadvantages brought by adding green (mana base + loosing a ring). This is what i mean with FIT. I aggree with you that defining the term FIT is not easy, nevertheless one main reason is mana support. A dec that plays enough mana to support a certain color should generally play the restricted cards of this color. This is obviously true with Ancestral Recal, Trinisphere (IMHO) and Time Walk but not with Timetwister for example. Here the definition of FIT becomes more tricky and often it can only be decided by play testing whether a card fits or not.

Actually, I think the problem centered around Chalice more than it did the mana base.  I, for one, never had a problem casting Fastbond/Crop Rotation due to green mana.  Occasionally they would have to wait a turn, (very occasionally), but I never had to wait more than a turn.  Chalice at 1 made us have 10 cards MD that were 1cc (Ring/Vault/Shamans/Welders/Crop/Fbond).  The Ring/Vaults aren't really a problem, and Shaman can be excused if we have Chalice at 1 out, but it hurts drawing Welders you can't cast, and it really hurt drawing Crop or Bond when you had Chalice at 1 out.  It felt even worse than Welder with Crop or Bond because the reason they were in the deck was to make it better, but they were just dead, so it felt like they were even more useless than they really were.  Other times, I would be absolutely raptured with green in the deck.

Like I said before, I'm considering going back to Grubastax for a short time.  I might actually get rid of crop rotatation, and just have fastbond in the deck.

Fastbond is better than Trinisphere, period.  Fastbond wins games like no other card can for Ubastax.  You can be down a TON, topdeck a fastbond and seriously just randomly win.  I've done it before.  It's absurd how much Fastbond makes up for in the deck.  However, the card has dyssynergy with Chalice at 1, and to a lesser extent, the manabase not supporting green very well.

Fastbond is amazing in your opening hand if you can cast it (same with Trinisphere - if you don't have the mana to cast it, it's dead too in your opening hand), but unlike Trinisphere, Fastbond is unbelievably good late-game.  It's better late game than it is early game.

Oh wait, no it's not, because you have Chalice at 1 out by late game.

I don't understand why 5c lists don't run Fastbond, though.  I mean, the card should at LEAST be run in the sideboard for the mirror match.

[nataz]

I.E. sphere is more consistent, Trinisphere is more dependant on getting out early.  Nataz is using the Grubastax consistency argument in favor of testing Trinisphere out for a little bit.  He might actually be right, but I doubt it.  I personally believe that the ability to just win the game first turn is so much more important when it provides no dyssynergy (like the green cards) to the deck than late-game consistency.

Keereto-mundo to the nth power.

If feel like if I'm going to play the mono-red version, I really want the deck to be as redundant as possible. For me, mono-red UbaStax is akin to playing Red Deck Winz. Turn 1, I generally have X mana, to be played on X threat. Turn 2, X mana, into X threat, and therefore curve my threat density and mana base accordingly. For the same reason that sligh played 4 jackle pup and then x goblin cadets, I want to play 4 SOR, and X Null Rod (in this case 3)  Want a type 1 example? UbaStax is like the Fish of Stax Decks in general. The benefit of this of course is that I can pre-think my gameplan against the field with known decision trees, and then be confidant in applying that plan during a real life setting.

Example, Critical Plays v. Gifts: Assuming that I have 2 mana first turn (fairly safe), 4 SOR maindeck allows me to count on being able to throw down either a Null Rod or a SOR against drain.dec turn 1 before they get a mana drain online. Conversely, a Trini is the same slot require 3 Mana on turn 1, which is only reliably done with a WS, making me more dependant on drawing an ever smaller subset of cards.     

On the other hand, you have a deck like 5 color(Uba, or not) Stax. Here, you lose the consistant game-plan, and your turns are much more sculpted by what you Draw. i.e., did you draw a WS or a 5 Color land, or did you Draw a Tinker or the Trini? This deck has a consistently higher power level, which it can achieve by playing bombish singletons, however it comes at the expense of inconsistent hands due to restricted colored cards v. a Workshop mana base.

While it is true that Trini is easier to cast then most colored spells, I would argue that many of the colored spells are actually better then Trini (Would you rather have 4 Tinkers/Fastbond in Stax, or would you rather have 4 Trini?). If we follow the line of logic that Bombs are better at the expense of hand consistency, then why not just play GR or even 5-color UbaStax? It's not like the mana base/consistency issues make the decks completely inviable, but rather people right now seem to prefer the more redundant Mono-Red version.

I don't mind if people don't agree on the Trini issue, but bringing an argument of "brokenness" into a discussion about a mono-red deck in vintage is silly.

P.S.
/off topic?
As much fun as the GRUbaStax/chasm deck was, I really strongly believe right now that if you take that path, its better to go all out and hit the golden ring of the 5 Color version. I'm pretty sure you need to cut down on the Bazaars and Null rods, but Fastbond, Cropper, Demonic, Tinker, Time Walk, Will, and Balance are just down right amazing. The loss of B-ring does hurt, but if you really can't figure out how to deal with a deck that run welders AND doesn't threaten your manabase, haha. It's a completely different deck, though, so yea, just pretend I'm Dutch or something.
/end 

[Mantis]

The whole SoR > Trinisphere argument sounds like playing 4 TfK and 0 ARecall instead of 3 TfK/1 Recall because you reliable want to draw into your TfK's. Recall is just better, so play it in favor of the TfK's!

The explanations sound nice and all, but seriously, but fact is; Trinisphere is a house. Trinisphere just belongs in Stax. It's almost a one sided card in your favour, while SoR and Null Rod affect both sides of the board. Seriously not running Trinisphere seems like a major error to me, but he what do I know? I am just one of those players who got beaten up by turn 1 WS, Trinisphere go's. No matter what number of Trinispheres in Stax I am allowed to run, I would run the maximum (up till a certain number obv.)

[Evenpence]

I've been experimenting with a 5-color Uba list for some time, and I've actually come to the conclusion that dropping the Barbarian Rings/Mountains (mountains are obvious) are necessity to getting at least 7 rainbow lands (4 cities, 3 gemstone).

The problem with this, is Null Rod.  Where does Null Rod function in all this?  Well, we can drop it in favor of bombs, or we can try to make it work.

I've come to the conclusion that we also have to drop Null Rod.  This frees up some slots for balance, fastbond, and time walk (the three most bomby spells).  I'll post a decklist later on and tell you all how it's faring me.  I haven't done much testing with it, just theorizing.

The problem is that Null Rod is such an insane hoser.  Uba Mask might have to go as well, and then we're moving more to blurring the lines between 5c and Uba Mask.

Generally, I don't think 5c Ubastax can really benefit in alot of ways from Mono-Red Ubastax, or Grubastax.  The ability to consistently get cards is what wins for Ubastax, which is what got Vroman 2 huge victories.

Plus, it makes the deck a ton more defensive, and that's not what Ubastax wants to do.  But who knows, it might be really good.

[zaltman]

The whole SoR > Trinisphere argument sounds like playing 4 TfK and 0 ARecall instead of 3 TfK/1 Recall because you reliable want to draw into your TfK's. Recall is just better, so play it in favor of the TfK's!

I completely agree with Nataz on this argument. I think that Mantis' analogy is flawed in that Ancestral Recall is good no matter what turn of the game you draw it and subsequently play it. On this forum there was recently a debate over the merits of Diabolic Tutoring a Recall late in the game and it was decided that it was a good play. I in no way mean to flame, as I see where your side of this argument is coming from but when you are settling into the midgame with UbaStax, say turn 4 or 5 what do you want to rip off the top? That lone 3sphere, or a SoR. I think that the chances of having Shop + 3Sphere in your opening hand do not justify the amount of times you will rip 3Sphere and find that it is a dead draw.

I also agree that the chances of having shop + SoR OR Mox + Land + SoR are much better than having 3Sphere + Shop. By that I mean that sometimes you will draw a 3Sphere in your opening hand but you will be unable to play it in its most devastating way, the first turn. I for one would much rather be assured of a constant lock piece rather than an admittedly broken one that comes much more rarely and is most of the time un-castable or not beneficial.
-Zach

[KrA0nS]

While that list is nice I'm sort of looking for something a little bit more 10 Proxyish for my poor self to afford.  Evenpence said that it loses to chalice for 1 and it looks like he proved it.  Even would you happen to have a list for 5C St4KZ or something else that doesent run 4 friggen Bazaar in it?

I just chastised you about decklist requests in this thread yesterday! Warning!
-Klep

[Evenpence]

www.starcitygames.com

They have a 'vintage' section on the front page.  On the right hand side of the page, there are a ton of different blocks of different Magic formats.  Scroll down to "Vintage."

They'll have decklists for various huge tournaments.  For instance:

Waterbury is here:  http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/deckshow.php?&t%5BC1%5D=vin&start_date=2005-11-20&end_date=2006-02-12&event_type=WAT

And this is Rochester:
http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/deckshow.php?&t%5BC1%5D=vin&start_date=2005-12-04&end_date=2005-12-25&event_type=P9

You can find good decklists there.  Just click on the links.

[nataz]

The explanations sound nice and all, but seriously, but fact is; Trinisphere is a house. Trinisphere just belongs in Stax...It's almost a one sided card in your favour, while SoR and Null Rod affect both sides of the board. Seriously not running Trinisphere seems like a major error to me

OMG-zor, you're right! Why didnt I see this before.

thxkbye

btw: Kevin Cron ran only 3 @ SCG in the last list that 4 trini was actualy legal.

On another note:
Most of my 5 color versions ended with zero basics, 1 b-ring, 1 Null Rod, 2 bazaar.
If you wanna really stretch the boundries, check out the GWS/ICBM lists, I really like some of their ideas.

[Evenpence]

Travis and I played again today, splitting the matches 3-2 in my favor.  (I 2-0'ed the first match, and he won the second match 2-1).  Aggregate game total is 7-3.

This is relevant because of the discussion about Trinisphere going on.  I wish I would have saved the game log, but Travis absolutely dominated the two games that he won in large part (and in one of the games complete part) because of Trinisphere.

Travis (I believe) won the die roll both matches, although I might have won the die roll the second match, but I don't think so.

Travis, in our second match, game one, goes:

Ruby, Sapphire, Mana Crypt, Workshop, Pithing Needle (Bazaar), Crucible.

Right now, I'm sitting pretty, because I'm holding:  Ruby, Sapphire, Mana Vault or Mana Crypt (I forget which), Black Lotus, GORILLA SHAMAN, mountain, wasteland.

Then he goes:  Trinisphere.

I lose.

If he would have dropped a Resist Orb, I could have played mountain, lotus, sac lotus, play all my artifact mana + Shaman and eat face.

He gets a wasteland and I can't rip a workshop, not like it would have really mattered if I could have.   The point is, Trinisphere DEFINITELY won him that game, and perhaps the match, because a similiar thing happened when he was on the play in our third game.   I got absolutely dominated in both of those games because of 1st or 2nd turn Trinisphere that I wouldn't have if it was Sphere of Resistance.

Moreover, the argument about Trinisphere being a dead draw mid-late game is really fruitless in Ubastax, because by mid-late game you should be drawing more than one card a turn via Ubazaar.  You can always pitch dead cards to Bazaar if you don't have Uba out.

// I'm not saying that Nataz is a dummy for provoking to cut Trinisphere.  What I am saying, though, is I believe it's a mistake to do so, even in the wise idea of building consistency.  I don't even like the 4th Sphere, and even if decks were suddenly bumped to a 64 card minimum, I would probably not include a 4th sphere.  It's primarily for the same reason that I don't have a 4th Null Rod in, and Null Rod is so much more important than Sphere of Resistance.  (Yes, SOR builds on itself while Null Rod does not, I understand this, but my argument is different than that:  I don't REALLY want to see more than 2 Null Rods in a game, and the same holds true with Sphere.)

On the side note:
I'll have to check out those lists, thanks Nataz for the heads up.

[nataz]

Travis, in our second match, game one, goes:
Ruby, Sapphire, Mana Crypt, Workshop, Pithing Needle (Bazaar), Crucible.
...
Then he goes: Trinisphere.
....
[turn 2]He gets a wasteland

Turn 1 Trini (moreso with crucible+wasteland+Pithing Needle) pre-anyones second turn is brutal. I'll rarely argue otherwise. And, to be fair, I could be wrong in droping it. But I'll still contest that "OMG-zor, t1 trini is the BOMBz yo", is not a vaild argument.

Still, OMG dood, that opening that Travis had was totaly bomb. 

[Evenpence]

It really was.  Travis got absolute bomb hands this time around, and my deck was donkey when it came to drawing.

This time, the roles were inverted:  He got SICK openers, and I had bad draws, but I still managed to get a 2-0 in the first match.

We actually played 4 games in the second match.

It was pretty funny, actually, because he wins the flip for the second match (actually, I'm positive now he won both flips), and goes first turn LOA.  I'm like, 'seriously?  That's it?', and then I draw a card (which is lotus) drop a million artifact mana, crucible, and either trinisphere or two spheres of resistances (I forget which), and draw a wasteland next turn.

Actually, no.

I went lotus, mana crypt, mana vault, mox something, crucible, trinisphere or two resistorbs, WASTE HIS LOA ON THE SPOT.

I remember, because he never got a chance to use it, and I dropped my hand.

The game ended so quickly, we did another one pre-sideboard which was a 'redo' game.  He won that one, although I kept an absolutely atrocious hand which absolutely depended on him having artifact mana, which he didn't.

+++++++++++++

To clarify my position on the Trinisphere argument, btw, Nataz:  I don't think it's necessarily WRONG to drop Trinisphere for the 4th Sphere of Resistance, but I do think that it's weaker.  I think they're both great cards, and I prefer the element of being able to win right off the bat with this deck (with pretty much happens with resolved 1st turn trinisphere on the play).

Actually, thinking about it, I don't think I've ever lost a game going 1st turn trinisphere on the play.

However, even though I'm in favor of Trini (and I believe Vroman to be too, as he'd consider cutting Smokestack before Trini for Sphere #4), I don't think it's stupid to do so.  I'm going to start looking at my trinisphere as a 4th resistorb when I get it and I'll tell you the results.

[nataz]

Have people been playing around with shattering spree at all? Like I mentioned earlier, I've been testing with 2 spree in the place of 2 shaman, but I'm still not comfortable giving a final opinion. Obvious downsides are its less good under uba (not a perm), and it doesn't attack.

On the plus side it can take out monster artifacts for the same price as shaman hits a mox, so it can be a house in the mirror. Just checking, but from what I assume resistor isnt really a factor when you play it b/c the replicate copies are just put on the stack, keerect?

I really feel like spree can be a house in the right deck, and with 4 mountains + 4 brings + artifact mana, mono-red Uba seems like an obvious choice, at least for the SB. 

[Evenpence]

With the testing that I have done, I'm pretty solid on Shaman, simply because he mops up artifact mana.

Spree would be huge in the Ubastax Mirror, however, killing Crucible.  Replicate avoids Resist Orbs, (although I'm not a judge, so I wouldn't know exactly, but I believe it does), and so it's decent for taking out opposing moxes if you have multiple R sources.

It's also probably better than monkey in the 5c Mirror, because Chalice at 1 is real estate in that matchup.  Being able to play a welderless game with 5c and have spree is huge (killing crucible for RR is HUGE).

However, Spree is worse than Shaman in every other matchup.  I'm confident going against Ubastax with Ubastax because I've playtested it a ton, and against 5c is almost a bye.  //exaggeration

I'm sticking with the monkeys, but having a singleton spree in the sideboard isn't necessarily bad.  It's amazing for the Uba Mirror.

[heiner]

I think Nataz is the only one who is suggesting cutting trinisphere, and he's not ridiculous in doing so.

I said that the argument he was using to justify the cut was ridiculous. With saying the discussion is getting ridiculous I meant that I feel that the overall quality of discussion is declining rapidely. Nataz's bad argument was just the final piece. I think that the mono red version is almost perfect as it is right now and therefore people start to throw in random arguments to explain their further modifications of the dec, without argumenting in a rational way just because they feel the need to change something. Have a look at vroman. He hasn't posted on this thread for a good while and I think I know why. Before posting his ideas he tests his changes thoroughly until he is concerned that they have merit and he has understood the theory behind it. This is definitely the right way.

Consistency does win tournaments,

No, it doesn't. The only advantage that consistency offers is that you can preanticipate the cards you will draw a little better. Does this win you games? No it doesn't. Its the good cards that win you games. Ok, there is another advantage with a consistent dec, it offers fewer possibilities and is therefore easier to play. But I think playskill should not make any relevance in desiging the best dec. A dec with many 2ofs is bad but not because of that it lacks consistency but because it  leaves room for improvements, therefore it is not optimal.

Again, there is a priori no advantage in playing a 4/0 configuration in favor of 3/1. 

Cutting brokeness for consistency is like erasing the six on a six-sided dice replacing it with a five. Sure you have increased the chance to roll a five, but i rather have the chance to roll a six which is even higher.

If it were that easy, I don't think there'd be discussion about Trinisphere.  The problem is, Trinisphere is a 10 on the first-turn play scale, while sphere is somewhere around a 5-8, depending on what deck you're playing.  Trinsphere late game is like, 0-4, while sphere is something like 4-8.

My example only works if we can define a strong ordering on the two cards. Natural numbers have a strong ordering like 5 is regarded to have a lower value than 6. If someone had proven that Trinisphere had a higher value than sphere of resistance, a 3/1 configuration IS better than a 4/0 config. However, Nataz argumented that even if trinisphere is proven to be better it still could be better to use the 4/0 configuration because it would increase consistency. This argument is flawed. Consistency itself does not provide advantages. Its only the cards.

Now, as nobody has PROVEN that Trinisphere >> SoR (and nobody ever will), arguments that evaluate the two cards against each other are totally legitimate. If SoR ends up to be better, it would be the right decission to substitute 3sphere for another SoR. 

I really like Tangle Wire.  It makes going second good.  It makes drawing cards you don't really want good.  It makes Welder good.  It's amazing against control.  It's amazing against Combo.  Heck, it's good.  Really good.

Tangle Wire is an ok card, i just thought it was agreed on that it competes with SoR for MD spots and that chalice is a must include like smoky and crucible.

Actually, I think the problem centered around Chalice more than it did the mana base. 

You are absolutely right. I should have mentioned this.

[Mantis]

A Trinisphere late game doesn't have to be bad. It makes FoW's, Lotus, Moxen and Y. Will lose a lot of their power. First turn Trinisphere or first turn Chalice, second turn Trinisphere are just great plays. I think Sphere probably belongs in the deck, but I'm pretty sure Trinisphere also belongs here.

Kevin Cron probably didn't ran 4 because he tried to avoid drawing 2 of them. Running one should be fine since you never get to draw into 2 anyway.

And Nataz, please don't talk like that, I'm just trying to add something to the development of your deck. Take those comments to PM if you wish to make them about me.

[Vale_psionic]

The difference between 3-sphere and Ancestral is huge!! While 3-sphere is strong quite only on 1st or 2nd turn,Ancestral is good in every moment of the game. The goal of most of the decks right now is to search and cast Recall asap to get advantage.
In a deck like UBA,where you can't control the quality of your draws but only your quantity thanks to Bazaars,you have to concentrate on consistency and not on brokeness. If you run a "bomb" in your UBA deck,this bomb must be useful in every moment and not only on first turn.
Probably if you run 3-sphere you have to side it out when your opponent starts,because a hand with a land and a mox just make 3-sphere so ridiculous and useless.

[yespuhyren]

Lets not forget though, making all of your opponenets 3cc+ spells cost 1 more is great, yes, but I would rather play the 3sphere, affect a bunch, though not all of their cards as much, and not have it impact my spells.  As much as you want to hurt them, you don't want to hurt yourself so badly that you can't cast your own lock pieces.

[Evenpence]

I think that the mono red version is almost perfect as it is right now

Well, I'm glad you think so, but others don't.  They're entitled to their opinions as well.  They can cut Trinisphere if they wish.  Heck, they can cut Bazaar if they want.  You can say they're ridiculous and flame them as much as you want, but that won't change the way they view the deck.  When Kamigawa came out, people told Vroman he was ridiculous for putting Uba Mask in a deck.

Have a look at vroman. He hasn't posted on this thread for a good while and I think I know why. Before posting his ideas he tests his changes thoroughly until he is concerned that they have merit and he has understood the theory behind it. This is definitely the right way.

This couldn't be farther from the truth.  Although Vroman does more testing than any human alive, he posts tons of stuff without testing it thorougly, or even at all.

the one off color card that has exceptionally broken synergy which Ive long pondered splashing for, is fastbond. for the same 1 mana thatd buy me 3 cards w ancestral, will probably draw me infinite cards w fastbond, or run over opp w turbo waste, or flat out kill them w bring machine gun to the face. once Ive got green available in the deck, theres no reason not to also include the best land search in the game, crop rotation, which is superb here w so many widely functional lands. Im beginning to test -3 mtn, -1 solemn, -1 [uba/dup/crucible/TBD], and +3 taiga, +1 fastbond, +1 cropper. colby here on tmd has already reported very exciting results dropping fbonds, and I hope to confirm. this opens sideboard options like Artifact mutation, drop of honey, choke, tranquil grove (expensive, but recurring enchant kill). other possible synergistic maindeck cards from the green card pool include, life from the loam, xantid, sylvan library, regrowth, rancor (recurring soot fodder), carpet of flowers, survival of the fittest and root maze. clearly, most of these are strictly worse than any locks they might replace, and for the same reasons mentioned above against 5c, I am in no hurry to add many off color cards to the deck. I list them just as brainstorming.

The reason Vroman hasn't posted on this thread lately is because he's not a huge poster.  The posts he makes on this thread are at least 10 to 50 times bigger than his normal one-liner posts he makes on other threads, and the guy only has 253 total posts.  He's been posting for how many years?  I've been posting for a month, and I nearly have that many.  Vroman has better things to do than to explain why "Puzzle Box is ass," although he does occasionally.

Consistency does win tournaments,

No, it doesn't. The only advantage that consistency offers is that you can preanticipate the cards you will draw a little better. Does this win you games? No it doesn't. Its the good cards that win you games. Ok, there is another advantage with a consistent dec, it offers fewer possibilities and is therefore easier to play. But I think playskill should not make any relevance in desiging the best dec. A dec with many 2ofs is bad but not because of that it lacks consistency but because it  leaves room for improvements, therefore it is not optimal.

The first quote was by me, the second quote is by you (heiner).

This quote is by Vroman, on the seventh page of this very thread:

as for my build, yes Im happily back to mono R. theres a lot of subtleties to ubastax and vintage in general, and not any very scientific way to determine superiority among decks. nonetheless, lots of detailed testing and my instincts say in the long run, that adding a second color and a pair of 1-drops, hurts the consistency, more than the new bombs helps the explosiveness. Ive had my eye on Sphere of Resistance for a long time, and have been listening to a lot of ubastax veterans constantly questioning jens and wheel. Im loath to drop either, as they have proven themselves both dependable and abusable. Im running this list now:

In another place, although I can't find it right now, Vroman flat out said "Consistency wins tournaments."  It actually might have been in a PM to me, and I don't know if I can quote that.  It's not coming up under search, so I actually assume it was a PM.  Then again, Vroman might have spelled consistency wrong, so who knows?   

Because you seem to be such a big fan of Vroman, heiner, and apparently believe he always makes the right decisions, why not take a few looks at a few of his recent posts:

@smennen

green spash is excellent, Ive played in 2 small tournaments so far w RG and never been sorry. crop rotation is basicaly d-tutor in this deck since theres so many special utility lands. one time I used it w 5 cards in the yard, and no other way to fill the yard. I fetched b-ring and had exactly threshold to kill a welder that was the only thing stopping me from going broken. other times I cropped for bazaar and exploded thanks to active welder or uba mask. most the time though, enemy really wish they could counter cropper, simply bc I begin strip recursion.
if Im at near 20 life, fastbond can be an auto win. fbond + crucible = yawgmoths will for land, and as stated, lands are unusually powerful in ubastax. late game, this can be unstoppable card advantage. fbond + crucible + bazaar + waste = yawgmoth's bargain. fastbond also fuels explosive openings that drop all 7 cards on the board.

@btings
I played w resistors briefly, and did notice the cost increase was prone to backfire, as it makes the deck extremely dependent on keeping a shop in play. wheel becomes quickly unplayable w more than one resistor on board.

Now Vroman has left Gruba and has been in favor of mono-red with spheres.  Why?

ve had my eye on Sphere of Resistance for a long time, and have been listening to a lot of ubastax veterans constantly questioning jens and wheel. Im loath to drop either, as they have proven themselves both dependable and abusable.

He, unlike you, listens to the community.  Vroman never even said Grubastax was bad.  Let me repeat that:  Vroman has NEVER SAID that Grubastax is bad, at all.  He is at spheres right now because he likes consistency better than brokenness, and I know that for a fact.

When you talk about Vroman, and how he's a godsend to the Vintage community, you need to realize that Vroman got to where he is not only by his amazing inventiveness or skill (that's not sarcastic in the slightest, ) but by actually listening to people and what they have to say.  Vroman has only been playing competitive Magic now for a year or two.  Luckily, he's still listening to people, even with the oceans of praise he's getting for making this deck up.  If Vroman were to drop Trinisphere, you can bet your money that everyone is going to drop Trinisphere, even if it's just to playtest it, even though Vroman will never cut 3ball.

My point is that you need to listen more to the community instead of only Vroman.  Although I disagree with Nataz, I'm willing to listen, and I agree with his theory, although I don't agree with his point.  Nataz added in the INSANE tech of Glacial Chasm to Grubastax which was absurdly good at the time.

My example only works if we can define a strong ordering on the two cards. Natural numbers have a strong ordering like 5 is regarded to have a lower value than 6. If someone had proven that Trinisphere had a higher value than sphere of resistance, a 3/1 configuration IS better than a 4/0 config. However, Nataz argumented that even if trinisphere is proven to be better it still could be better to use the 4/0 configuration because it would increase consistency. This argument is flawed. Consistency itself does not provide advantages. Its only the cards.

Now, as nobody has PROVEN that Trinisphere >> SoR (and nobody ever will), arguments that evaluate the two cards against each other are totally legitimate. If SoR ends up to be better, it would be the right decission to substitute 3sphere for another SoR.

For someone that talks alot about the logical fallicies of other people's arguments, you're doing the same thing.

Point of paragraph A)  The cards are different.  You can't compare Trinisphere and Sphere of Resistance.
Point of paragraph B)  If Sphere of Resistance is better than Trinisphere, we'll cut Trinisphere for Resist Orb.  Thereby making a comparison.

Seriously, what?

I like paragraph A alot more than paragraph B.  Paragraph B completely nullifies your point.  Okay, because no one has proven that Trinisphere is better than SoR, why should we hesitate in a 4/0 configuration?

That post makes absolutely no sense.

Actually, I think the problem centered around Chalice more than it did the mana base. 

You are absolutely right. I should have mentioned this.

My point was that there were dyssynergies with the green cards that were greater than the dyssynergies with spheres.  Trinisphere, as far as I'm concerned, has absolutely no dyssynergies with the deck.  This was an argument in your favor, which is why I'm not surprised you agree with it.

Trinisphere provides virtually no dyssynergy, and an amazing brokenness factor.  If Fastbond was 2cc, or 4cc, and an artifact, I think we would already be running 3-4.  (probably 3 at 4cc, 4 at 2cc).

It seems to me like you have just been argumentative in this entire thread, and have provided no actual discussion or constructive critism.  While I agree with you that Trinisphere should not be cut (and I think that is by far and large the majority's consensus), it isn't wrong to listen to an argument from the other side (nataz).

I disagree with Vroman in cutting a Smokestack, and I will always run 4, because I think the possibility of turn 1 Smokestack is so much more important than the probability of turn 1 Resist Orb.

Disagreements are good, and yes, we can even disagree with Vroman.  Yespuhyren has been running a Sundering Titan forever now (has it been like a month or two now?) and while I disagree with the idea of a fatty in the deck, it's the right fatty for the job (by far), and does solve some issues.  I think it creates more than it solves, however, and I don't think Yespuhyren has ever been offended at my critism.  I don't know if we can say the same thing about this Trinisphere argument.

[vroman]

cutting trisphere is not an option. turn 1 trisphere is good on the play or draw. if they just drop a fetchland and pass for their first turn, then playing trisphere still buys you at least one turn of uncounterability.

I am certain that I want to play 4xresistor. the key reason is resistor is cumulative. playing resistor turn 1 is solid, but following it up w another, and another, puts enemy in an unrecoverable hole. nether void is a game wrecker. cheaply replicating that effect is worth the slots.

cutting smoky#4 for resistor is probably a mistake. if mana curve is the issue, then Id cut dup#2. instead Im going down to 2 null rods main and then putting 2 nrods side. its not worth it to board nrod#4 w 3 main, but 2 and 2 makes some sense, and in that case Id have 4 nrods in matchups where it really helps.

[yespuhyren]

Yespuhyren has been running a Sundering Titan forever now (has it been like a month or two now?) and while I disagree with the idea of a fatty in the deck, it's the right fatty for the job (by far), and does solve some issues.  I think it creates more than it solves, however, and I don't think Yespuhyren has ever been offended at my critism.

1)  I had two versions going, both based on Vroman's MonoR list from his 2nd SCG win.  The first version had

-1 Solemn
-1 Wheel
+2 Titan

The second version had

+3 Resistor
-1 Wheel
-1 Solemn
-1 Duplicant

This was before it was posted on the site, and personally, the resistors were really good sometimes, and really bad other times.  At that point I was undecided in what to play.  Since then, I have abandoned the Titan version, though I still wish I could work him in somehow.

2) I NEVER have and NEVER will be offended at your, or anyone else criticizing my decks.  Every metagame is different, and I'll listen to what everyone else has to say.  Whether or not I agree or take your advice is my business of course, but the fact that I have other opinions has always helped to strenghted my deckbuilding and my playstyle.

3) DO NOT cut trinisphere in my opinion.  It is extremely powerful, no doubt about it, and I'd much rather cut a duplicant than 3sphere if you want to play another resistor

[vroman]

if I was going to play a fatty, it would be trike, before titan. enemy welder is a worse blind spot than enemy dual/basic lands. but if Im going to ignore my own null rod, than Id rather play granite shard than trike, since shard is actually castable. I remember playing an early ubastax version w 3xgranite shard main, long before I was aware of barbarian ring.

[yespuhyren]

The main issue, though, IS the rod.  If I didn't have a rod in play, then I would much rather be running trikes or karn.  The issue, however, is that in the long run, I'd like to have a fatty and not worry about having to hold back or weld out rods.  This is why I decided on Titan.  I can use him to full efficiency with rod in play.

[heiner]

Well, I'm glad you think so, but others don't.  They're entitled to their opinions as well.  They can cut Trinisphere if they wish.  Heck, they can cut Bazaar if they want.  You can say they're ridiculous and flame them as much as you want, but that won't change the way they view the deck.

OMG !! Do you actually read my postings? I NEVER said that cutting anything is ridiculous. I said that the arguments used to justify the decisions were ridiculous. I never said it is bad to cut 3sphere (apart from that I think its bad) but I was lamenting about the arguments used.

In another place, although I can't find it right now, Vroman flat out said "Consistency wins tournaments."  It actually might have been in a PM to me, and I don't know if I can quote that.  It's not coming up under search, so I actually assume it was a PM.  Then again, Vroman might have spelled consistency wrong, so who knows?   

Consistency itself does not win tournaments. Consistentency is the RESULT of good dec building. Good decs win tournaments. Lets try it this way:

G: good decs
C: Consistency
W: Winning tournaments
-> implication

A priori we can define the following:

G -> C and G -> W.

Even if it may seem conclusive for you to deduce C -> W there is no way you can do it.  You can maybe say consistenty goes along with winning tournaments but this isnt very scientific and for sure it does not allow you to conclude C -> W. I dont't know what vroman said exactly, in what context and how he meant it, so I can't say anything about it.

Because you seem to be such a big fan of Vroman, heiner, and apparently believe he always makes the right decisions, why not take a few looks at a few of his recent posts:

Actually I don't even know vroman personally, I just think that he uses valid arguments to back up his theory.

Now Vroman has left Gruba and has been in favor of mono-red with spheres.  Why?

Because gruba is slighty inferior to mono red stax. This doesn't mean its a bad dec.

He, unlike you, listens to the community.  Vroman never even said Grubastax was bad.  Let me repeat that:  Vroman has NEVER SAID that Grubastax is bad, at all.  He is at spheres right now because he likes consistency better than brokenness, and I know that for a fact.

I never ever said that gruba is bad nor did I say vroman said that gruba is bad. Its just slighty inferior.

My example only works if we can define a strong ordering on the two cards. Natural numbers have a strong ordering like 5 is regarded to have a lower value than 6. If someone had proven that Trinisphere had a higher value than sphere of resistance, a 3/1 configuration IS better than a 4/0 config. However, Nataz argumented that even if trinisphere is proven to be better it still could be better to use the 4/0 configuration because it would increase consistency. This argument is flawed. Consistency itself does not provide advantages. Its only the cards.

Now, as nobody has PROVEN that Trinisphere >> SoR (and nobody ever will), arguments that evaluate the two cards against each other are totally legitimate. If SoR ends up to be better, it would be the right decission to substitute 3sphere for another SoR.

For someone that talks alot about the logical fallicies of other people's arguments, you're doing the same thing.

Point of paragraph A)  The cards are different.  You can't compare Trinisphere and Sphere of Resistance.

Wrong! Point of paragraph A) If we have proven that one restricted card is better than another we should use it and not dismiss it because it "hurts consistency".

Point of paragraph B)  If Sphere of Resistance is better than Trinisphere, we'll cut Trinisphere for Resist Orb.  Thereby making a comparison.

Almost! Point of paragraph B) As we dont have omniscient knowledge we should evaluate cards against each other again and again until we have strong arguments that favor one card over another.

I like paragraph A alot more than paragraph B.  Paragraph B completely nullifies your point.  Okay, because no one has proven that Trinisphere is better than SoR, why should we hesitate in a 4/0 configuration?

Once more: I do not say that that 3/1 is better than 4/0 or vice versa. The thing I m trying to communicate is that a card should only be aproved because of its play value in a specific deck and not because of any mysterious arguments. This may be either a broken restricted card or a non restricted card that has better synergies with the rest of the dec and is better supported by the mana base.


Now something ontopic:

I really think the 4th SoR is needed. SoR is the card the looses the most if it is played as a 3of instead of a 4of. Having one sphere in play is good but having 2 is a VERY strong softlock. Most decks really get in trouble with 2 of them as for example it is almost impossible for control to simply play a mox with still UU2 up.

For fitting in SoR the weakest lock piece should be cutted. Smokestack is one of the strongest cards as we all know and its only disadvantage is its high casting cost. Nevertheless I still think that it is too good to cut one.
The weakest lock piece IMHO is Nullrod and therefore one should be cut. Null Rod is brutal against many strong decs but it has one big disadvantage: It is situational.
All other lock pieces are at least decent against every type of dec but Null Rod sucks against a good part of the field.
Secondly If your board contains no MWS and mostly moxes it may be bad too. Thirdly: Two Null Rods suck.

Still there is another disadvantage with cutting Null Rod: SoR and Null Rod like each other. They are both cheap and can be played first turn together. Now, the best play versus SoR is Land, Mox, Mox as this almost completely nullifies the SoR without even loosing much tempo. Null Rod assures that this doesn't happen. But then again you still have chalicex4 and what smart player keeps a hand with 2+ moxes vs. UBAstax on the draw anyway?

[Evenpence]

Okay, maybe I'll reply to the other stuff later, but for now:

1)  Null Rod is quite possibly the strongest lock by itself in the entire deck.  The card is format-defining.  Aside Bazaar, Null Rod is the card that Ubastax brought to the limelight, not Uba Mask.

Null Rod wrecks every kind of combo, period.  Null Rod is a monster on the draw, etc.

2)  Sphere of Resistance and Null Rod do NOT like each other.  At all.  How are you going to play both first turn without having a mox anyway?  If you do play both first turn with a mox, you're killing yourself with Null Rod.  What if they wasteland your workshop then?  What if you play both locks with only artifact mana?  Then you're just neutering yourself.

Sphere of Resistance makes enemies not want to play moxes.  Null Rod has them not play moxes.

They're doing the same effect, that, to start with, is dyssynergistic.  If you have two cards doing the same thing, they probably don't work with each other for the better.

Let me explain why the two cards don't like each other:

Sphere makes everything cost more.  Null Rod makes it so you can't use your moxes to cast more.

IMPORTANT:  The cards usually hurt your enemy more than they hurt you (especially Resist Orb), however, that is far different from the cards actually liking to be played by each other.

If I have multiple spheres down, alongside multiple moxes, and no other locks, I'm going to hesistate to play Null Rod, even if my opponent has just as much artifact mana out as I do.

Cutting one Null Rod is the right thing to do (for a 4th sphere), because the spheres are cumulative while the null rods are not.  I personally don't like the 4th sphere, and won't be cutting a null rod anytime soon either.  I might change my mind, but I really don't like drawing that 3rd Sphere most often than not.

Also, it's not that sphere is the good guy, null rod is the bad guy in the relationship.  Null Rod neuters mana, and when that happens, I hate getting spheres in my hands instead of crucible or stax because it just delays threats, it doesn't actually take care of them.  I waste a whole turn playing a sphere when I could have played a smokestack in my hand.  Now that I have the sphere out, I have to wait another turn in addition to the one I was already waiting for, for smokestack mana.

However, for the dyssynergy the provide, the ability to neuter your opponent's ability to play things in multiple ways is always a huge plus.  It's also the reason I haven't cut Shaman from the sideboard in my UbaWire list.  It's also the reason I like Tangle Wire.

The huge selling point (for me) is the ability to side out spheres on the draw for better things, like Wires or Monkies.

Side by side, I think Null Rod is the strongest lock in the deck aside Trinisphere and Smokestack.  Gorilla Shaman is by far the weakest in Ubastax.  However, I wouldn't cut a lock if I were still playing Ubastax, I would cut a Duplicant.

I'll argue with you about your semantics (your whole post) later.

EDIT:  Why do two null rods suck, but three null rods don't?  They contribute absolutely nothing to one another, making the amount of them in the deck irrelevant.  Perhaps you're talking about consistency now?

Maybe you should say, "The consistency of two null rods suck as compared to the consistency of three null rods," so we don't have to have a stupid semantics battle about what you meant, as opposed to how everyone took it.

For instance, you saying that Nataz's argument was ridiculous WAS saying that cutting Trinisphere is ridiculous.  It's absurd what lengths people (like you) will go to so they can weasel out of appearing wrong.

Vroman is now testing a list with 2 Null Rod MD, 2 Null Rod SB.

I might go with 2 Null Rod MD, 4 Sphere MD, 0 Null Rod SB, 2 Shaman SB.  I don't think I will, but I might.  I like 3/3 rod/sphere.

[heiner]

2)  Sphere of Resistance and Null Rod do NOT like each other.  At all.  How are you going to play both first turn without having a mox anyway?  If you do play both first turn with a mox, you're killing yourself with Null Rod.

What? Do you want to say that you will never play a Null Rod just because of shutting off one of your moxes? I dont care shutting of my own moxes with Null Rod if I have to.

Sphere of Resistance makes enemies not want to play moxes.  Null Rod has them not play moxes.

What? Moxes are the perfect play vs. SoR as it nullifies its effect. SoR hates opponents moxes. Null Rod loves them.

They're doing the same effect, that, to start with, is dyssynergistic.

Just plain wrong. See above.

Cutting one Null Rod is the right thing to do (for a 4th sphere), because the spheres are cumulative while the null rods are not.

WTF? This is exactly what I am suggesting. You even repeated my arguments.

Also, it's not that sphere is the good guy, null rod is the bad guy in the relationship.  Null Rod neuters mana, and when that happens, I hate getting spheres in my hands instead of crucible or stax because it just delays threats, it doesn't actually take care of them.  I waste a whole turn playing a sphere when I could have played a smokestack in my hand.  Now that I have the sphere out, I have to wait another turn in addition to the one I was already waiting for, for smokestack mana.

Yes but you re also soft locking your opponent. Null Rod + SoR is hard to overcome without MWS.

Side by side, I think Null Rod is the strongest lock in the deck aside Trinisphere and Smokestack.

Again, as I already said Null Rod is situational. It can be REALLY, REALLY strong but then again it is plain bad against some decs and sometimes it could be good but you cannot use it because of having solely artifact mana. 3spher+smoky is always good.

Gorilla Shaman is by far the weakest in Ubastax.  However, I wouldn't cut a lock if I were still playing Ubastax, I would cut a Duplicant.

I still think that shaman (yes, he is weak) is still needed for beeing on the draw. The possibility of cutting a dupe really depends on your metagame.

EDIT:  Why do two null rods suck, but three null rods don't?  They contribute absolutely nothing to one another, making the amount of them in the deck irrelevant.  Perhaps you're talking about consistency now?

Two Null Rods in play suck because they are not cumulative in any way. Of course also three or four Null Rods in play/hand suck. Basically if you resolved a Null Rod you really dont want to draw into another one therefore I suggested running only 2.

Maybe you should say, "The consistency of two null rods suck as compared to the consistency of three null rods," so we don't have to have a stupid semantics battle about what you meant, as opposed to how everyone took it.

For instance, you saying that Nataz's argument was ridiculous WAS saying that cutting Trinisphere is ridiculous.  It's absurd what lengths people (like you) will go to so they can weasel out of appearing wrong.

I think you completely misunderstood the thing with "Two Null Rods suck" maybe I wasn't clear enough in what I wanted to say. I think we meant the same thing: Null Rods are not cumulative. I have no glue what you are taking about, with me beeing wrong at some point. Where exactly? Actually, you are following all my points and in the end you even come to the conclusion that my suggestion to cut a Null Rod is good or at least OK.

Vroman is now testing a list with 2 Null Rod MD, 2 Null Rod SB.

Thats exactly how I am doing it.

I might go with 2 Null Rod MD, 4 Sphere MD, 0 Null Rod SB, 2 Shaman SB.  I don't think I will, but I might.  I like 3/3 rod/sphere.

Perfect, so why getting loud if we have the same opinion?

[Vegeta2711]

No, it doesn't. The only advantage that consistency offers is that you can preanticipate the cards you will draw a little better. Does this win you games? No it doesn't. Its the good cards that win you games.

No. Wrong. Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars and do not spout more falsehoods and crap. Let me explain a little bit about why a the majority of decks in Magic run draw, (and/or) tutors and 4-of's in decks. It's because redunancy and consistency win games. Do you know why every deck isn't highlander and 5-color? Because people enjoy being able to consistently find and play the 'good cards' and cards which work with the strategy even if they are less powerful than others. Otherwise everyone would run B/R list.dec and be done with it.

Consistency is the focal point of many strategies, in fact fundementally less powerful decks constantly apply this philosophy to win games in every format. The idea is that you see the same 7-card hand nearly every game. You seem to have a fundemental misconception of game mechanics to suggest otherwise.

Consistency itself does not win tournaments. Consistentency is the RESULT of good dec building.

Soooo fundementally inaccurate. Have you ever played Red Deck Wins, Fish from any time period or even your average T2 deck? All our built on the principle of consistently seeing roughly the same hand and cards every game.

A) If we have proven that one restricted card is better than another we should use it and not dismiss it because it "hurts consistency".

To run with this. Why not use Fastbond? It's clearly better than at least a few cards in the deck. Oh wait, that's right, because consistency matters.

[Anusien]

You have to view the worth of a card IN A DECK.  This is why you'd don't randomly splash White for Balance, or Blue for Desire in here, and why Gifts doesn't run Trinisphere.

Also, this is just BS.

In another place, although I can't find it right now, Vroman flat out said "Consistency wins tournaments."  It actually might have been in a PM to me, and I don't know if I can quote that.  It's not coming up under search, so I actually assume it was a PM.  Then again, Vroman might have spelled consistency wrong, so who knows?   

Consistency itself does not win tournaments. Consistentency is the RESULT of good dec building. Good decs win tournaments. Lets try it this way:

G: good decs
C: Consistency
W: Winning tournaments
-> implication

A priori we can define the following:

A priori means before experience (wikipedia.org)
It's fallacious to claim that a priori; if you don't have tournament evidence or at least playtesting to back it up, your logic is inherently flawed.

G -> C and G -> W.

Even if it may seem conclusive for you to deduce C -> W there is no way you can do it.  You can maybe say consistenty goes along with winning tournaments but this isnt very scientific and for sure it does not allow you to conclude C -> W. I dont't know what vroman said exactly, in what context and how he meant it, so I can't say anything about it.

[05:53pm] [[Klep]] consistency is a necessary condition for a good deck, but not a sufficient one
[05:53pm] [[Klep]] thus, every good deck is consistent, but not every consistent deck is a good deck

Consistency is a necessary precondition for being a good deck, you're right.  You seem to believe that all good decks are consistent by virture of being a good deck, rather than people building their decks to be consistent.  This is why UbaStax runs Bazaar.

For fitting in SoR the weakest lock piece should be cutted. Smokestack is one of the strongest cards as we all know and its only disadvantage is its high casting cost. Nevertheless I still think that it is too good to cut one.

I don't think I actually need to respond here.

[PucktheCat]

I can already see that this argument is not headed for any kind of resolution, but I will do my best.

It's fallacious to claim that a priori; if you don't have tournament evidence or at least playtesting to back it up, your logic is inherently flawed.

Let's look at what you are claiming can't be said a priori:

First claim:

G -> C

Are you really saying that we can't establish, as a matter of definitions, that good decks win tournaments?  You can take that position if you like, but it would seem to do more to advance an argument deconstructing language than any argument you are making.

Second claim:

G -> C

Do you disagree with this claim?  If you do, I would be surprised.  Seems like establishing it as a premise is a perfectly reasonable idea, since it appears everyone in this thread agrees with it.

You're logical quibbling is particularly effective considering your two substantive arguments are quoting an apparent authority and no argument at all.

Other than that, I can't really make much of this thread without some attempt by someone to define "consistency."  There are possible definitions of consistency that make both of the positions taken in this thread absurd.

If we define "consistency" having the fewest different cards possible it is obvious that consistency has nothing to do with winning games (Island.dec is the most consistent deck in magic history).
If we define "consistency" as "consistently winning games" it is trivial that consistent decks are good decks.

I realize neither of these definitions are what you guys have in mind, but without some attempt to define your terms you aren't going to get anywhere.

[Evenpence]

The following quote is from Heiner.

Two Null Rods in play suck because they are not cumulative in any way. Of course also three or four Null Rods in play/hand suck. Basically if you resolved a Null Rod you really dont want to draw into another one therefore I suggested running only 2.

?  So you suggested something which you think sucks?

Heiner, I disagree with you on some things, and agree with you on others.  Cutting a Null Rod for the 4th Sphere (if you were going to add in the 4th Sphere) is something I agree with you (and Vroman) on, and that's why I posted it.

The two are dyssynergistic for you, regardless if they're harmful to your opponent.  Like I said, yes, Null Rod does hurt the enemy (usually) more than it hurts you.  And yes, Sphere of Resistance hurts the enemy (usually) more than it hurts you.  However, it hurts you having both of them in play, making them dyssynergestic with one another.

Karn would be a great addition to the deck, IF he didn't have dyssynergy with Null Rod.  Karn is ALWAYS worse for the opponent than he is for you.  He's the best fatty around, in my opinion.  He kills manabases and puts the opponent on a two or three turn clock in most cases.  He's great.  So is Null Rod.  They hate each other.  We like Null Rod more.  If I ran the UbaWire list in the other thread, and wanted to cut Null Rods, I would put in a Karn and Trisk.

Null Rod is Vroman's baby, and I doubt he will ever cut Null Rod from the list.  (I won't probably won't either, because I can't imagine what would be better.)  Vroman goes so far (see the UbaWire discussion thread) as to add in an additional 2 in the sideboard instead of the monkies.

Basically, what I'm getting around to is:  Two Null Rods does not suck, and I honestly think this is you trying to weasel out of appearing wrong once again.  Stop it.

I've said that I've hated the 4th Sphere before, and I stick by it until I think I'm wrong (which I very well might be).  I want to see one or two of them in a game, and no more.  I don't want to see 3 or 4 Spheres in a game, for the same reason I don't want to see 3-4 Null Rods.

I think 3 is a great number for seeing 2 over the course of a game.  Although I might eventually go up to 4, I don't want to cut a Null Rod, as I feel Null Rod is stronger than SoR.  I would have to cut a Null Rod to go up to 4 Resist Orbs, and that's against what I feel is best right now.  Vroman doesn't, and that's fine.  I respect his decisions on the deck (as well as most people do), and think it's fine to do that.  I'm boarderline doing it myself, actually, but don't think I will.

I also want Gorilla Shaman in the board.  I love Tangle Wire and Gorilla Shaman so much because they're amazing on the draw, and I want my Ubastax deck to be good all-around, not just a monster on the play.  (Adding in Tangle Wires for monkies makes it a little worse on the play, but amazingly better on the draw, IMO).

To Vegeta about Fastbond:  Consistency isn't really the problem when it comes to Fastbond.  Fastbond's dyssynergies (1cc chalice, the lack of abundant green, taking basics out of the deck, etc) are more dyssynergistic with the deck than Sphere of Resistance's adding mana on to your spells.  I think the whole community figured this out around the same time (Vroman actually being one of the last of us *chuckles*).

I believe Grubastax to be better than Vroman's SCG Chicago list, however, because it can just randomly win.  I don't think it's better than Mega Lock Ubastax (I don't know who that was coined by, but that's the name of the deck with Spheres now).  I personally like my UbaWire better than Ubastax right now (Shamans out, Wires in).

For recaps sake (you'll notice I do this from time to time for the community, heiner), we have many different versions of Ubastax.  Here are all the versions in (I believe) chronological order:

5 Mountain Ubastax w/double jens (solemn simulacrum), karn, trisk, or titan, and 1 B-ring.  (SCG Chicago, 7/31).
3 Mountain Ubastax w/single jens (solemn simulacrum), 4 B-ring, and alot of consistency.  (SCG Chicago, 10/30).
Grubastax w/Fastbond and Crop Rotation, 3-4 Taiga, 3-4 B-ring.  (Grubastax)
Mega Lock Ubastax (or MLU) w/3-4 Sphere of Resistance, no Solemn, no Wheel.  Most consistency.  (MLU)
UbaWire (my brand new version) w/3 Tangle Wires, no Shamans, and alot of variations.  (UbaWire)

These five are important to know, because I still see people playing with the 7/30 version.  (Vroman, what tournament did you win again with that list?)

The most popular versions right now are SCG Chicago, and MLU, although UbaWire (I believe) will pick up in the near future, once Vroman gives it the O.K. (if he does).  Grubastax, while everyone played it for about a month, has died off the face of the earth, primarily due to problems with 1cc Chalice and (to a lesser extent) the lack of green mana in the deck.

I believe, for one, that the deck has been getting progressively better.  The 10/30 list is better than the first one, Grubastax was better than that, and MLU is king right now.  I expect the version with Wires to trump all, and interesting additions can also be made to the UbaWire list (like cutting Null Rods altogether), although I doubt anyone will cut Null Rods.