[Deck] ICBM Oath, or 12 easy steps to win Rochester

[AngryPheldagrif]

I sideboard out the Angels for the Swallowers against Fish. If hypothetically they go ahead and bring in all the creature hate and I have Akroma lying around to get Drake'd, things can get ugly. Ben probably prefers adding Tinker+Colossus to supplement them, though I would not advise this.

Really the only time you want to sideboard in extra creatures is if they have large quantities of Jester's Cap available.

[yespuhyren]

Really the only time you want to sideboard in extra creatures is if they have large quantities of Jester's Cap available.

God damnit man, although you seem like a nice, guy, all I'm going to say is STOP HATING ME!

EDIT:  Can't fish just start hating Oath instead of its creatures?

[policehq]

Hmm, then I can't say this would be the best idea at Rochester, if a black deck can play Duress/X X X Void card and black creature removal that is only non-targeted. Especially after, you know, touting it so much.

I mean, yes, the deck is great, and yes, it's stupid to say that B/x would beat it and thus it is not viable. I'm just saying posting the thread gives more people to think about as to... beating you...

-hq

[Tha Gunslinga]

EDIT:  Can't fish just start hating Oath instead of its creatures?

Yeah, but ultimately you can just Massacre through most of what they have, and unless they have 4 Disenchant, 4 Meddling Mage, and 4 Seal, you have a fairly solid chance.  Heck, even through those you do.  You can also just use Massacre and Balance to keep the board clear and just hardcast a Simic, the Sky Swallower and win.

[AngryPheldagrif]

Powerful card advantage engines are more important than raw disruption counts. Its not how many are in the deck, its how many you can draw in the course of a game. Furthermore, the CotVs look necessary to let you survive against combo, but are a little sketchy after turn 1. If your opponent goes first and plays land, Mox go, what do you do with that CotV in hand? Play it for 0? For 1? Don't play it at all?

Both this and the next quote were out of context, I was replying to his questioning the viability of the deck in general. That said, let me clarify. Card advantage engines will inevitably win out, but in the short term game raw card count matters. Drawing cards requires mana and time to accumulate it, things that I will not give them. Chalice is a very powerful card because even on the draw it severely damages their ability to get their card engine running. They may play their opening Mox, but the Chalice for 0 will still prevent them from playing the ones they find off their Brainstorms, Thirsts, etc, and will limit them to a single honest land drop per turn. Very few decks can operate on a curve as streamlined as Oath's, breaking the symetry of the card.

And if nothing else, don't underestimate the deck's ability to accumulate cards. It still has Recall, 4 Brainstorm, 4 Thirst, and the tutors. Slaver rarely has more than 1-2 more than that.

I don't believe this for a second. You don't just find and resolve Oaths so easily, and in control match-ups, you might certainly be forced into a protracted battle, which you might very well lose. If this was Oath running Impulse and Mana Leaks, that would be an example of an Oath deck that "wins" in the short game moreconsistently. And again, your disruption card count won't factor in that heavily, especially since you're possibly drawing some dead disruption (CotV) and you might very well be getting outdrawn and outcountered. I'm not saying that you have bad match-ups, but they shouldn't be so ridiculously in your favor as you seem to believe. I dunno - there seems to be a significant disparity between what you can accomplish with the deck in your local neck of the woods, and what people can muster everywhere else. This is why I asked you - what are people doing wrong? How are they misplaying the deck? What are some common mistakes with the deck that prevent people from replicating your results and generating such one sided match-ups? This deck does look simple to play. There is nothing particularly wrong with that, but if there's some big secret to playing it that we're all missing, that's what we would like to discuss.

I have no good answer as to why the deck has not caught on more in other locales. Perhaps there is some fundamental strategy that we have produced that others lack. As to why some matchups are so lopsided, it often just comes down to a very simplistic answer: All we have to do is achieve card parity and trade counter for counter, because our win condition is simpler, less resource intensive, harder to disrupt, and faster than that of most opponents. We win with a better hand, we win with roughly equal hands. This leaves other decks precious little room to work with.

Fish can focus on what it does best, and thats attack weak mana bases. In needs to focus on exploiting its strength, including enjoying a much better game 1 compared to games 2 and 3 where it will try to "hold the fort" so to speak. It was Fish that previously gave Oath a hard time because of the creature control cards and the game plan (attack on the mana base and pressuring with fast clocks while using some key disrpution spells/creatures like FoW, Daze, and Meddling Mage). Now that SSS will significantly bolster post SB games, Fish might have no choice but to try and attack the oath itself, either through Meddling mage or Seals of Cleansing. It's a losing battle in the long run since you have creature removal and you'll eventually draw into enough Oaths. The question for them will be whether they can kill you before the eventuality sets in and you win. Perhaps now the match has swung in Oath's favor, but I wouldn't be counting out their resilience just yet.

Fish remains a nuisance, but honestly, SSS isn't even the backbreaker. The backbreaker is Massacre. Between Massacre and Oath (to get SSS) you have two spells that are incredibly cheap and easy to cast, rendering the mana attack moot, and each absolutely devastates the Fish plan. This one-two punch breaks the deck apart like very little else I've seen in my T1 career.

[AngryPheldagrif]

Hmm, then I can't say this would be the best idea at Rochester, if a black deck can play Duress/X X X Void card and black creature removal that is only non-targeted. Especially after, you know, touting it so much.

I mean, yes, the deck is great, and yes, it's stupid to say that B/x would beat it and thus it is not viable. I'm just saying posting the thread gives more people to think about as to... beating you...

-hq

? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. You cast Diabolic Edict and I will just shuffle it back into the deck and Oath it out again while the other one beats you to death anyways. Besides, I don't need it versus Suicide. Akroma already has pro-black. This deck crushes that kind of randomness. Black cannot remove enchantments. Black plays creatures. Thus does black lose.

[policehq]

? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. You cast Diabolic Edict and I will just shuffle it back into the deck and Oath it out again while the other one beats you to death anyways. Besides, I don't need it versus Suicide. Akroma already has pro-black. This deck crushes that kind of randomness. Black cannot remove enchantments. Black plays creatures. Thus does black lose.

Ok, first, let me say this. The deck is great. This thread can hardly be about how to make the deck better. I'm personally using the thread as "ok, what can the rest of us do other than play this deck?"

Akroma's protection from black has nothing to say about Diabolic Edict. I was talking about Planar Void, Leyline of the Void, and/or Withered Wretch to prevent the re-shuffle plan.

Black has 4-8 answers to Oath that are somewhat dependant on the dice-roll (Duress, Cabal Therapy), a good game against combo, and a good game against Slaver.

So, this being a thread in part about Rochester, I mention Diabolic Edict as a possible solution. We can argue that it's bad or good or accept it as possible. I mean, really, what else am I supposed to do here? Just play ICBM Oath?

No, I'm saying at Rochester, if I were playing Fish:
I would have graveyard hate and untargeted removal such as Diabolic Edict or worse Innocent Blood and Chainer's Edict (which, against Simic Sky Swallower, aren't that bad, since he does not have haste).
I would not be playing Plains.

But I'm not going to be at Rochester, and if I were, I probably wouldn't play Fish.

Summation:
Diabolic Edict answers all four of your creatures and accompanies a color that prevents re-shuffling. It is not Chaliced out of the game early like Swords to Plowshares and other bounce.

Even Ichorid can play Diabolic Edict and Leyline of the Void (since opening hands matter very little) to hate the deck out if needed.

EDIT: Have you considered maindeck Burning Wish for anti-hate game 1?

-hq

[dicemanx]

I have no good answer as to why the deck has not caught on more in other locales. Perhaps there is some fundamental strategy that we have produced that others lack. As to why some matchups are so lopsided, it often just comes down to a very simplistic answer: All we have to do is achieve card parity and trade counter for counter, because our win condition is simpler, less resource intensive, harder to disrupt, and faster than that of most opponents.

Yes, this is a major advantage that Oath brings to the table. However, but the same token, one cannot underestimate control deck's ability to break parity and pull ahead in the card advantage count and overwhelm Oath even if oath manages to hit the table. Oath is a relatively slow win condition, winning in 3 turns, maybe 4 (I'm including the turn that oath resolves). That is an eternity in vintage. You have to hope you can maintain that parity long enough, and while that strategy can be quite successful, I don't think its so overwhelming. I'd call this fight between strategies about even. Maybe I'll be proven wrong.

I believe a deck like GWS Oath is stronger against control archetypes precisely because of what you are claiming here - GWS Oath focuses on card parity but has powerful tutoring capacity and spells that ensure that Oath is found quickly and that it resolves. However, ICBM Oath from my vantage point is much superior to GWS when it comes to any combo matches, because your disruption package is superior in quality (CotV and Null rod are quite devestating when backed by counters and an efficient win condition). 


Regarding Control Slaver:

I believe you when you say you have an overwhelming match-up vs this deck on average. But I also believe that CS can even the odds quite drastically. A leading example of the resources available to CS was already demonstrated by Ugo Rivard (running cards like Mana Leak, Platinum Angel,and Blood Moon), and by interesting tech cards that other Canadians have come up with (like Helm of Possession, which has been a fairly potent weapon in a few instances). It's not perfect, and probably makes the match-up 50/50 at best if the CS player feels optimistic.

Regarding Fish:

Mass removal cards were always available to Oath, and yet it always seemed to struggle against Fish. Fish doesn't always concern itself with getting stuff wiped out, and can play around mass removal. I think that SSS is the card that will have a huge impact in that match-up way ahead of everything else. I guess timewill tell,because its still unclear what Fish decks will emerge, and whether they will even concern themselves with an underplayed archetype like Oath.

[AngryPheldagrif]

Ugo had some very interesting choices, but most of those were geared towards beating a GWS-style Oath list. I do not deny that GWS Oath was even better geared to beat control. However I believe the deck failed because it was too narrow. Paradoxically, it actually became worse against control when it failed to resolve an Oath within the first 3 turns. That it was torn apart by the emerging combo decks was the nail in the coffin for the archetype, a problem I solved rather methodically.

It isn't that Oath is fast in comparison to, say, GrimLong, but that it is fact because Orchard, Mox, Oath means they effectively have two to three turns to stabilize and remove Oath and any stray Angels, because failing on any one of these means automatic death. Racing is their other option, but the artifact pieces and control setup in general make that nearly impossible since Colossus is too slow and Burning Wish - Tendrils is one hell of an uphill battle.

Did people really try using Helm of Possession? It seems horrible. An artifact that costs the same as Jester's Cap, does less, and is still vulnerable to Null Rod or Pithing Needle.

[edit]: A bit further on the subject of CS weapons versus Oath, I have faced all three of those that Ugo ran and hardly find them impressive singley or cumulatively. Platinum Angel is simply too slow, requiring either 7 mana, Tinker, or active Welder and Thirst, all of which Oath should be able to prevent with ease. Also the problem of being at zero life versus a deck with bounce spells, etc. I felt really bad when I saw that the Oath list he beat didn't even have a single maindeck answer. Post-board introduces Oxidize, etc. Blood Moon is really annoying, but is expensive and Duressable, not to mention doing nothing to Oath once it hits. Mana Leak isn't really Oath hate per se, and isn't even as good as the Duresses I usually see. Duress is itself decent, but rarely tips the balance that drastically. To be honest, I cannot see Slaver making the match an honest 50/50 without making itself horribly vulnerable to half of the other decks in the field.

[Nehptis]

With so many modern decks moving towards a Wasteland proof Mana base it seems like this deck is on the other end of the spectrum.  Isn't this version of Oath very susceptible to non-basic land hate?  Especially from the Fish and Stax matches.

[AngryPheldagrif]

With so many modern decks moving towards a Wasteland proof Mana base it seems like this deck is on the other end of the spectrum.  Isn't this version of Oath very susceptible to non-basic land hate?  Especially from the Fish and Stax matches.

Define non-basic hate. If you mean Wasteland, it's largely irrelevant for a deck whose win condition costs 2 and whose curve absolutely tops out at 3. Orchard gives them a token before it dies anyways, which is usually all that matters.

[dicemanx]

Did people really try using Helm of Possession? It seems horrible. An artifact that costs the same as Jester's Cap, does less, and is still vulnerable to Null Rod or Pithing Needle.

There are situations where Helm succeeds where Cap fails. For instance, if a Helm is in the grave (via TfK for example, or if its countered/duressed), you can actually cast a Welder if an Oath is on the table. The vulnerability to Null Rod can also be addressed in part due to Welder, although I'm sure that CS would be siding in some Sprees/RnRs.

Just out of curiosity, why isn't the Null Rod count higher? Rod seems to be an ideal fit in Oath, and can have such a devestating impact on control/combo. Why not run 3 to increase the chances of seeing one early?

[AngryPheldagrif]

It's not a card you want to see that often, honestly. The fact that it devastates CS is as much incidental as anything else. It is a very powerful card that comes out usually when the first Oath fails since it is a must-remove for a good number of decks. They waste their resources trying to get rid of it while you set up another win. You win anyways.

The other reason it is a 2-of is that it is largely redundant with Chalice against most things and can clog up your opening hand. It's also one of the few cards that can be pretty much dead against some decks, something I tried to minimize in building it.

[yespuhyren]

Helm of Possession was another wicked card against Oath, but I just didn't find it as good as Goblin Bomardment when the mana base afforded it.  Then again, the last time I sided in a helm against oath was over a year ago (I started using it when Meandeck Oath became played) and am not looking to returning any time soon.

[dicemanx]

Helm of Possession was another wicked card against Oath, but I just didn't find it as good as Goblin Bomardment when the mana base afforded it.  Then again, the last time I sided in a helm against oath was over a year ago (I started using it when Meandeck Oath became played) and am not looking to returning any time soon.

If you mean Bombardment over Helm in CS, thats a tough call since you pretty much have to SB out your Welders. You then become a worse version of Gifts, so I'm not sure if that's necessarily the best option.

The other reason it is a 2-of is that it is largely redundant with Chalice against most things and can clog up your opening hand. It's also one of the few cards that can be pretty much dead against some decks, something I tried to minimize in building it.

Could this reasoning not apply to CotV as well? For instance, if you are facing Fish, would you risk early CotVs for 1? What about control or combo? Would you consider CotV for 1 against them if you miss an early chance at CotV for 0 to be meaningful? Would you play CotV for 0 anyways to limit the strength of a future YawGwill? It seems like its a bit of a gamble since you run so many 1cc spells yourself,and you might desperately need that Brainstorm in some situations.

[AngryPheldagrif]

The difference is that Chalice is something you want to see in your opening hand in almost any matchup. Null Rod wavers a bit. And yes, I would play Chalice for zero on the sole basis that they probably encounter zero mana artifacts at some later point in time to a statistically higher degree than I will. Chalice for one against Fish is entirely based around prior knowledge. I will gladly sacrifice my Brainstorms in order to shut down visible quantities of Stormscape Apprentice and Swords to Plowshares, otherwise it mostly gets pitched to Thirst versus Fish. Game 2 neither of those are a problem, so Chalice usually rests in the sideboard.

@Goblin Bombardment: The card is really annoying, but luckily is far too narrow to see widespread play. It gets Needled, however, and still makes the decks try to win without creatures so it isn't the biggest concern. Null Rod is fun because it makes winning without creatures all but impossible.

[The Atog Lord]

Oath is not Control Slaver's best matchup. Oath has not killed Control Slaver as some people might have you believe, but it isn't a wonderful match for CS either. Game one often involves CS trying to extend its life into the midgame. Oath, on the other hand, tries to get through its win before CS has established itself. But post-board, I've been really happy with Brassman's brilliant tech of Ensnaring Bridge. Bridge costs three mana, Oath can't win while it is on the table, and Bridge laughs at Null Rod. Moreover, removing Bridge becomes pretty tricky when Goblin Welders are standing by to rebuild it should oxidization set in.

Then the match comes down to Oath trying to assemble and protect its combo pieces, while CS tries to find its single card answer. And of course Slaver retains its usual win-from-nowhere ability too. Bridge isn't designed to stall the game forever of course; oftentimes all CS needs to do in this match is buy itself a couple of turns, and win from there. Bridge gives CS those few turns it needs.

[BreathWeapon]

While I agree that Oath is indeed an excellent metagame choice for Vintage at this moment, I have to question the deck list posted. It seems it is a strange combination of the Mono-U/Oath and ICBM builds, and I think that the card choices interact with each other rather poorly in a number of instances. My key concern with the list is how Chalice of the Void interaction with Brainstorm and Duress. Wouldn't Impulse and Mana Leak be superior to both of these choices given Chalice @ 1 is the default when the opponent wins the coin flip? As sacred of a cow as Brainstorm is in control decks, in Oath I find it to be sub-par with the minimal number of shuffling effects and the redundancy of the deck. If an Angel is found in hand, Thirst for Knowledge can still make it go away. Mana Leak and Duress are functionally the same in this deck on the appropriate turns, and Mana Leak doesn't expose your manabase or conflict with Chalice @1. As far as the deck being too mana light to support 2GU, i have to disagree. I think this is a product of your manabase, as I prefer to use 5 Islands and an additional 3 mana sources (1 Crypt, 2 Wasteland).

The MD aside, I'd like to discuss the SB.

Simic Sky Swallower is an obvious SB choice to replace the angels, and the Tinker DSC plan should be included to help side step hate for Oath along with a Mystical Tutor. Next Oxidizes are included to SB in for Chalice against the Stax match up. After that, what would you include? Ground Seal seems incredibly useful against CS and Ichorid, and Extract with a Swamp is a possibility (if you don't MD a B source that is)

[RThomas]

Ground Seal seems incredibly useful against CS and Ichorid, and Extract with a Swamp is a possibility (if you don't MD a B source that is)

Just a heads-up, Ground Seal does absolutely nothing against Ichorid.dec.  There are exactly 0 cards that are affected by it.

[Tha Gunslinga]

It seems it is a strange combination of the Mono-U/Oath and ICBM builds, and I think that the card choices interact with each other rather poorly in a number of instances.

This actually is ICBM Oath.  Duress/Brainstorm do interact rather poorly with Chalice at 1, but you only play Chalice at 1 if it will hurt your opponent more than you or if it's needed to lock off Plowshares while you win.

What I love about Helm of Awakening is that I can just give you a couple guys EOT, then EOT Rushing River the Helm, get my Angel back, then Oath up the other one and win.  Bridge is just as bad because I can Oath up my Angels and just wait until I get the bounce spell.  You can counter it, sure, assuming I haven't wrecked your hand or Chalice-locked you.  You know what?  I can NEVER run out of relevant spells, because I can just Oath and reshuffle my yard into my deck.  My one Rushing River will recur infinitely.

[AngryPheldagrif]

While I agree that Oath is indeed an excellent metagame choice for Vintage at this moment, I have to question the deck list posted. It seems it is a strange combination of the Mono-U/Oath and ICBM builds

Uh, this is the ICBM Oath build. I should know, I'm the designer and creator.

My key concern with the list is how Chalice of the Void interaction with Brainstorm and Duress. Wouldn't Impulse and Mana Leak be superior to both of these choices given Chalice @ 1 is the default when the opponent wins the coin flip?

Chalice for 1 is not the default. Chalice for 1 is used versus Slaver and Storm Combo where I will happily surrender a few of my support spells in exchange for their ability to effectively do anything versus me. Also, you do not, under any circumstances, remove Brainstorm. The card is what makes the deck work. Brainstorm puts the Angels/Blessing back in the deck and for most intents and purposes is Ancestral Recall with an added benefit. Mana Leak is significantly different than Duress in this deck, since I need an effective balance of proactive and reactive control pieces. Mana Leak clashes with Mana Drain not Duress, and that argument was one settled months ago in the list.

As far as the deck being too mana light to support 2GU, i have to disagree.

In a fairly manalight deck with Null Rod and Chalice, is 1GUU that much harder to get than 2GU? And isn't 1GB easier than either of those? I find the answer to be a resounding yes.

After that, what would you include? Ground Seal seems incredibly useful against CS and Ichorid, and Extract with a Swamp is a possibility (if you don't MD a B source that is)

Personal choices of mine include Energy Flux if Stax is actually present, Massacres for the ever-annoying Meddlng Mage, Balance as a cure-all, and possibly some graveyard removal, though I tend to avoid Ground Seal since it doesn't affect Ichorid and is usually drastic overkill versus Slaver.

Then the match comes down to Oath trying to assemble and protect its combo pieces, while CS tries to find its single card answer. And of course Slaver retains its usual win-from-nowhere ability too. Bridge isn't designed to stall the game forever of course; oftentimes all CS needs to do in this match is buy itself a couple of turns, and win from there. Bridge gives CS those few turns it needs.

Bridge is indeed a very efficient answer, to the point where we have been testing several rather ridiculous trumps that my brother would prefer I not share until at least they have been tried out in a relevant setting. Otherwise it does complicate things, but shutting down Welder and then bouncing or Oxidizing it isn't all that impossible since the first is generally part of the gameplan anyways.

[Moxlotus]

After a bunch of testing this week I can confirm that GWS has not been able to find a deck that has a favorable match against ICBM Oath that doesn't get destroyed by most of the rest of the metagame or isn't fish.

If anybody is interested in playing Oath, I would highly suggest playing ICBM Oath in this type of metagame that could be heavy combo with very little Shops.  GWS Oath has a better control and Stax match I'd say, but ICBM Oath clearly has a better combo match.  If I were going to Rochester this would be one of the two decks I'd be deciding on in the car (the other being a pet deck under construction).

@Ensnaring Bridge.  That is outdated tech (although it was damn good while it lasted) that is completely worthless against any competent deckbuilder now.

[Evenpence]

After a bunch of testing this week I can confirm that GWS has not been able to find a deck that has a favorable match against ICBM Oath that doesn't get destroyed by most of the rest of the metagame or isn't fish.

I've been saying this to my team for a couple of weeks now.  It is by far the best deck in Vintage Magic right now, and will emerge as the deck to beat at Rochester.  Again, even with me, and you, and others saying this, hate will NOT be present for ICBM Oath.

[Juggernaut GO]

ensnaring bridge clearly did not stop ink eyes.

the good news is that less people are running pithing needle, and that puts goblin welder back on the map.
I would say this oath deck is good against a great amout of the field, but I still wouldn't mind being paired against it.

[Tha Gunslinga]

Then the match comes down to Oath trying to assemble and protect its combo pieces, while CS tries to find its single card answer.

You make Oath sound like some ridiculously complicated 5-piece casual combo or something.  All I have to do is resolve a 2-mana spell and find a land.  And gee, I play 4 of each, plus plenty of draw and tutors.  Half the time I have both in play by turn 3 or 4.  And once Oath resolves, you have like ONE way to remove it, and zero ways to stop Orchard from hitting play.  And an awful lot of Slaver builds run an Echoing Truth as their "answer."  That ain't gonna cut it.


As far as SB goes, Ground Seal if you expect Welders and Recoup action, and Energy Flux if you expect artifacts.  Stax in general rolls over to Flux, as does Shop Aggro.  Uba Stax is especially bad against it.  The trick to Flux is to let them overextend into a Chalice at 2, maybe a Crucible, and then just play it and watch their entire board crumble.  Uba Stax players will keep hands that are Shop- and Bazaar-heavy, not hands that are basic-land-heavy, and gee, Shop and Bazaar can't pay for Flux very well.  Generally their entire board will evaporate in one turn.

[Evenpence]

As far as SB goes, Ground Seal if you expect Welders and Recoup action, and Energy Flux if you expect artifacts.  Stax in general rolls over to Flux, as does Shop Aggro.  Uba Stax is especially bad against it.  The trick to Flux is to let them overextend into a Chalice at 2, maybe a Crucible, and then just play it and watch their entire board crumble.  Uba Stax players will keep hands that are Shop- and Bazaar-heavy, not hands that are basic-land-heavy, and gee, Shop and Bazaar can't pay for Flux very well.  Generally their entire board will evaporate in one turn.

While much of this is true, I can win through singleton Flux and have done in at least three matches.  Double Flux, however, without red-blasts in my SB, is 100% game over.  I concede at double-flux religiously.

Is anyone really expecting alot of Stax at Rochester though?  If I play Stax, I'll probably side six-eight red-blasts and very little Stax hate.

[M.Solymossy]

My whole team disagrees, but I would rather play Pithing Needle main versus Null Rod.   Null Rod itself does very little to any deck besides gifts and slaver.  Chalice slows down storm combo enough to the point where you can resolve an enchantment and flip The Winged Ones into play.  Sure, versus storm combo and gifts (now), Needle is useless, but Against so many matchups I'd rather see a Pithing needle.
Examples:
5C stax (wasteland)
UBaStax (Bazaar/welder)
Slaver (Welder)
ichorid (Bazaar)
Dragon (Bazaar)
U/W Fish (Waterfront Bouncer)

You can name stupid things like Necro, Bargain, or Jar game 1 versus combo as well.

Regardless, however.  Practice with ICBM Oath and you will not be dissapointed.  Dan did a remarkable job building the deck.  No matter how much I did to Dan two weeks ago when I played him with Slaver, he still won in 3.  Game 1 I had welder + duplicant going, AND he drew one of his angels.  Game 2 and game 3 he destroyed me.  Slaver CANNOT BEAT ICBM OATH.

[Evenpence]

Wow.  That is a strikingly good argument for Pithing Needle over Null Rod, Nova.

I think I will definitely have to test those MD over Null Rod.

[M.Solymossy]

We originally played Pithing Needles when we played our first version of ICBM Oath back in October of 2005.   The list as changed a lot since then, but I still personally believe that Pithing Needle Deserves a spot in the main.

Back when I played hte deck (late 05), I played 3 Thirst For Knowledge and one Sensei's Divining Top.  It was a very good 1of to have on the table, allowing you to resolve a Chalice @ 1 without fearing the sexy ladies @ your drawstep.

[AngryPheldagrif]

Null Rod is good against:
Slaver
Gifts
Combo, the faster the better
Stax

Pithing Needle is good against:
Fish game 1
Ichorid
Dragon


If any of those last 3 saw extensive play it would be worth reconsidering, but otherwise there is no point. Additional points for Null Rod: no splash damage from Chalice for 1, and a much larger impact on the game state. The card singlehandedly shuts off entire strategies. Pithing Needle also helps more in matches we are already ahead in. Null Rod is one of the primary reasons the deck can beat Gifts.

Pithing Needle is also fundamentally flawed as a maindeck card because it is reactive but is in a proactive slot. As any Fish player can tell you, dropping a Null Rod is a collective kick in the 'nads to the overwhelming majority of the format. Pithing Needle is not.

Testing can at times show either as superior, but in an objective guantlet there is no reason Null Rod should not be vastly more powerful. Otherwise you're probably playing the deck wrong.

We originally played Pithing Needles when we played our first version of ICBM Oath back in October of 2005.   The list as changed a lot since then, but I still personally believe that Pithing Needle Deserves a spot in the main.

This is simply incorrect because 9 months ago I added Needle for a specific metagame. Even then it was a close call between that, Rod, and a couple other choices. The metagame has shifted very far in Rod's favor. There is absolutely no reason at this point in time where Pithing Needle would be the better call unless Bazaar re-enters multiple widely played archetypes.