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

[Evenpence]

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

Pithing Needle is good against:
Fish game 1
Ichorid
Dragon

Are Gifts and Stax even played much anymore? 
The numbers in Grimlong have always been down, and decks like IT have been pretty much designed to get around Null Rod.

I view Ichorid and Dragon as threats to the deck more than Fast Combo or Slaver. 
Granted, Needle is not as good against Slaver as Null Rod is, it does more against other matchups in most cases.  You can still Needle things in Slaver like Mindslaver.  Pithing Needle can even take out Welder if you need it to.

[AngryPheldagrif]

Pithing Needle on Bazaar is a lot weaker than people assume. It gets bounced or removed and they are free to go nuts. Wasteland makes it redundant and removing the land is a lot more efficient than trying to cut it off.

Rod over Needle helps the fundamental balance of proactive vs reactive control. I don't care if I sound like I'm spouting bullshit, it works. Put in Needle and you will screw up far more matches and mulligan (or keep subpar) far more hands than you should. It isn't like it hasn't been tested. Hell, I tried Needle last tournament on the basis that hate-Fish was everywhere. You know what happened? Fish lost to Massacre anyways and Gifts wiped the floor with me. This is nine months of testing and carefully following metagame trends talking. I have no idea why 13NoVa has decided to advocate for the Needle since he doesn't play the deck and, well, hates it last I heard.

[Grand Inquisitor]

The one thing needle has over wasteland vs. Bazaar is that it's proactive.  The result is that if it's not removed they have to find some other discard outlet, which is significant difference compared with wasteland vs dragon and ichorid.

It's entirely possible that either the builds or player skill are different enough between metagames so that I have a skewed view of the matchup, but I find Gifts has an extremely favorable Oath matchup regardless of the hate selected by the Oath player.

Summarizing Dicemanx

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...you might certainly be forced into a protracted battle, which you might very well lose

[AngryPheldagrif]

Gifts was even to unfavorable in the past, but really, Gifts has 2 kills and I have one. Mine is a nice easy 2 mana enchantment that they can do nothing worse than bounce. Theirs is either a creature which is slower than me or a storm setup that has to fight through every piece of disruption in my entire deck. I don't need to hate you, because my deck naturally does it. You have to hate me.

Gifts is another great reason to run Null Rod over Needle main.

[Grand Inquisitor]

Your response doesn't answer the central shortcoming of Oath in this matchup: it only has 4 threats and it must play the aggressive role in the matchup.  Yes, it has effective disruption, and ways to force through an oath, but these tools are most effective in the early part of the game.  If the oath player doesn't establish it's win early it has to compete with the gifts engine, which has any number of cards which, if resolved, could start momentum that will end with a game ending yawgmoth's will, regardless of what disruption you have (with the exception of crypt, leyline, etc).

[AngryPheldagrif]

I only have 4 threats? You only have 1. I can play the aggressive role because my threat is most likely to resolve. Also, I have the rare capability to make Yawg Will dead. How good is it if you have no artifact mana? Oath doesn't want to get into lategame situations against pretty much anything, but Chalice, Rod, and Waste/Strip let the deck artificially prolong the 'early game' for as long as it needs. It isn't foolproof by any means, but it is extremely solid and quite frustrating for the Gifts player, something I can attest to having played from both sides many times.

[dicemanx]

Your response doesn't answer the central shortcoming of Oath in this matchup: it only has 4 threats and it must play the aggressive role in the matchup.

On top of what GI mentions, its not even precisely 4 threats, because the Oaths need to be coupled to Orchard to have any effect. Even with a little tutoring its not that easy to consistently pull off 2 card combos early enough. There's another factor - a midgame Oath only threatens to end the game in either 3 or 4 turns, which gives Gifts some additional time to break parity and start an avalanche of draw culminating in a Will.

The Oath match-up is scariest in the opening turns, but the longer the game goes the better chances Gifts has. As a consequence i think Gifts has a slight pull, but nothing too major edgewise.

I only have 4 threats? You only have 1

This isn't necessarily a disadvantage. For example, in the Gifts mirror, I'd rather be playing the side with the fewer threats and more draw/disruption.

[AngryPheldagrif]

How do you plan on gaining a sufficient advantage fast enough through my mana disruption? Null Rod singlehandedly turns the 2 turns you get to live into a whole 2 mana.

[Evenpence]

We've found the Gifts vs. ICBM Oath (with Null Rods) matchup to be heavily in Oath's favor when on the play (primarily because of Chalice and Duress), and ever-so-slightly in Gifts favor when Oath is on the draw (Duress doesn't do as much when the Gifts player brainstorms).

After sideboarding, I've found the match to be even.  Angry, are these your testing results as well?

[AngryPheldagrif]

What does Gifts board in that hurts me that badly?

[dicemanx]

How do you plan on gaining a sufficient advantage fast enough through my mana disruption? Null Rod singlehandedly turns the 2 turns you get to live into a whole 2 mana.

By the simple fact that you can't draw everything that you want all at once.

Also, lets not expound the virtues of a 2 of in a deck with scant tutoring. CotV barely counts, unless you're on the play. Its also not like Gifts is so defenseless - they match you in reactive disruption and often run bounce.

[AngryPheldagrif]

Chalice of the Void prevents you from casting Gifts for artifact mana, prevents the artifact mana that you will likely draw, and prevents you from replaying infinite Lotuses off Will, how doesn't that matter? The average number of Moxen in opening hands is about 1, give or take a fraction, and the odds you will try to run some more past in the following turns is usually a lot higher. Chalice is what matters more than Rod even in a lot of situations. It doesn't have to win the game, it just has to give me those extra 2 turns to let my deck do its thing.

[Shock Wave]

It's really difficult to provide criticism to the author of a deck that starts a thread with the name "12 easy steps to win Rochester". It doesn't seem as though there's much to discuss, considering the end results have already been determined.

[AngryPheldagrif]

It's really difficult to provide criticism to the author of a deck that starts a thread with the name "12 easy steps to win Rochester". It doesn't seem as though there's much to discuss, considering the end results have already been determined.

I've replied fairly and honestly to every criticism brought up in this thread. If you notice a flaw or inconsistency, feel free to post it and I'll be happy to answer.

[Shock Wave]

It's really difficult to provide criticism to the author of a deck that starts a thread with the name "12 easy steps to win Rochester". It doesn't seem as though there's much to discuss, considering the end results have already been determined.

I've replied fairly and honestly to every criticism brought up in this thread. If you notice a flaw or inconsistency, feel free to post it and I'll be happy to answer.

I'm not disputing that you've replied fairly or honestly. You have. The problem is that this is a battle of opinions, and your opinion is a rather strong one: You feel there are 12 easy steps to follow to winning a major event with a deck you've created. That's great and all, but why don't you or one of your teammates just go and win the event with your deck, seeing as how you're deflecting all the criticism you're receiving? Wouldn't your victory ultimately serve as the most concrete proof to your naysayers?

Whether or not you've been "fair" in your responses, there comes a point where your defence, or your refuting of other's criticism, needs to be backed by solid results. You can create an entire thread and battle opinions all day if you like, but if you feel so strongly about your deck, put the plan into action. Prove it.

Trust me, I know a little about building decks and posting threads about them. You are going to have critics, and there is nothing you'll be able to say to silence them. You have to perform, otherwise your deck will never have any credibility.

[AngryPheldagrif]

Um, I've won 2 pieces of power with it in the last 2 tournaments and I have another tomorrow. On top of that my brother has won 3 in the past with it and I split a Lotus last summer when I debuted the list. I can't prove the deck at Rochester since I will not be attending. 11 hour drive is not a problem. Concurrent graduation ceremony is. I posted the list because I had been asked repeatedly and I figured that giving it to those who wanted it can only help the chances of it succeeding at Rochester.

[Grand Inquisitor]

I'm certainly not attacking the validity and success of your build in general; I'm well aware of it's performance in other metagames.  I'm speaking specifically about the matchup against Gifts.  Although, given the density of strong gifts players in NE, I'm also paying service to Dicemanx's earlier comment:

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

In my experience with this matchup there are games where the Oath executes the combo within the first three turns and then there are games they usually lose.  I tried to explain why I think this is, but it seems it's still not clear.

I only have 4 threats? You only have 1

This isn't accurate, exactly because the Gifts player is playing the control roll.  Therefore, every Gifts, Thirst, Intuition, restricted.card that gets played is a threat since it brings them closer to casting rebuild and then winning with yawgwill.  Every part of their engine (hell, even brainstorm) is a threat to the Oath player in that it gets them closer to what is sort of an infinite state where the Gifts player will have enough card advantage and mana to overcome whatever the oath player currently has on the table, will, and win with tendrils in a single turn.  Not only does Oath not have the structure to build to this sort of advantage, but even once it 'wins', it still have to thwart the opponent for three more turns, and to a lesser degree, protect its win condition.

[Smmenen]

I'm too lazy to write an article, too busy to actually drive or fly up to Rochester, and promised a bunch of people an Oath thread, so here it is. For background, since the last thread, the deck has won/split at least 4 pieces of power between me and my brother as well as numerous T8s between us and the couple of our teammates who tried it out. I honestly do think this is the best deck you could bring to Rochester but I'll just make this quick list for your reference.

<stuff>

I'm honestly not picking on you, but I have to say that my article on skill really applies to alot of this primer.   Alot of the matchups you have an intimate knowledge of how to beat that other players won't have - even if they haven't just picked up the deck.  Your decisions to mulligan, your decisions regarding even land drops, when to play disruption v. Oath, all those other timing decisions make the difference in various matchups. 

I think your matchup analysis is VERY much straw manned for reasons I talkeda bout in my article. 

How can anyone actually and accurately test against Grim Long?  How many players play grim long at a level competent enough to know whether their testing is valid?  Likewise, if you test against Control Slaver all day and all night, how can you  be sure that you are getting in testing that will properly predict your match against Rich Shay? 

I am increasingly convinced that the disconnect you sense between your decks performance and everyone else performance with it and the disconnect you guys have with how you think about Control Slaver is the inverse of the same problem: people have different levels of expertise.  That expertise determines who wins.

Vintage is at a state where the objective form of a deck matters much less than expertise - than knowing what to do in each matchup to maximize your chances of winning.

For that reason, I think you boys will continue to perform well with this deck at the local level, but no one else will do well with it at Rochester (maybe one exception or two).  I also think that you boys will and have run into trouble at the bigger SCG events because of it. 

GrimLong: They can beat you with a very nice draw, otherwise you will destroy them 99% of the time where you see a turn. Every control piece in your deck absolutely devastates them.

Two sentences that I find highly spurrious.  Seriously, 99% of the time where you see a turn?  Every control piece absolutely devastates them?  That implies that a single counterspell ends the game.  If you think that Null Rod, Chalice, etc beat Grim Long on their own, you are in for some pain.

Ichorid: I really hate this matchup and refuse to test it extensively on the sole basis of its asininity, but if you really need to know it ranges from even to hugely in Oath player's favor depending on what kind of answers they run. Chalice for 1 is your friend here because Chain of Vapor is their default way of not losing to an on-board Oath and Cabal Therapy is their default way of preventing it from resolving. Wastelands help hugely in this match. Keep Bazaar off the board and you're probably going to win. Sideboarded Rays of Revelation do not really shift the match worth anything, it's still mostly a question of preventing them from getting the engine running since Akroma has this wonderful thing about blocking and attacking at the same time.

I've actually tested this matchup and it is not even remotely hugely in Oaths favor.  Cabal Therapy slows the Oath engine down by a turn and Ichorid can goldfish by turn 3 and 4 with stunning regularity.  It is invulnerable to your mana disruption aside form a well timed Wasteland.  Chain of Vaporing on Oath is way too slow - Chaining a creature may be a good play though.   I definately would not sb in Ray of Revelation. 

The Ichorid player should feel comfortable that they can win.  It's really a matter of strategy.  Ichorid isn't vunlerable to your control elements or your artifact mana disruption.  The only thing that matters is the race and the therapies.  Can Oath win before Ichorid kills it?  That's the only relevant question. 

If nothing else, discuss. You know you want to. Tell me why I'm wrong and my deck is bad and loses to CS.

Like I said, I believe that you can beat Control Slaver.

But that really isn't the relevant question.  Control Slaver exists on a huge sliding scale.  What matters is the (A)SL of the Slaver player you face.  Same with many of these other decks.

I think that even discussing matchups is almost an entire waste of time in modern Vintage.  Everything is so skill dependent.  Its much more valuabe to talk about how the game plays out, which components are more or less valuable, and what to watch out for. 

[Tha Gunslinga]

Ichorid is not a good matchup; however, virtually no one is playing it, so atm that's irrelevant.

[AngryPheldagrif]

I'm actually pretty certain that you are 100% correct Steve, but people ask and I must deliver. Plus we all know how much I like making contentious statements. I stopped extensively testing things because I realized that facing CS piloted by anyone less than Rich Shay is useless.

Someone should arrange a tournament of champions at GenCon where the marquee player from each archetype pilots it in the ultimate face-off where the winner has his deck bronzed and sits on his throne to preside over the rest of the games. Make players in the championship compete naked, better for tradition. Maybe we can even get Vroman his cigarette girls and vodka/tonic.

[dicemanx]

Um, I've won 2 pieces of power with it in the last 2 tournaments and I have another tomorrow. On top of that my brother has won 3 in the past with it and I split a Lotus last summer when I debuted the list.

I think Rich meant proving it at a larger event where you're likely to see more diversity and strong players that specialize in a wider variety of archetypes (what Steve refers to as players with high (A)SL values). We all have stories of winning/splitting events locally (Rich and I included - we play in the same meta), but what we accomplish on the local scale must be taken with a grain of salt. This isn't to suggest that a deck like ICBM Oath isn't powerful - it certainly looks like it. But as Rich said, we can wax theoretical all we want, and we won't make much headway. It's still appreciated that you've written this piece and hopefully it will inspire people to try this Oath build at Rochester. We would like to see how it performs.

[Shock Wave]

Um, I've won 2 pieces of power with it in the last 2 tournaments and I have another tomorrow. On top of that my brother has won 3 in the past with it and I split a Lotus last summer when I debuted the list. I can't prove the deck at Rochester since I will not be attending. 11 hour drive is not a problem. Concurrent graduation ceremony is. I posted the list because I had been asked repeatedly and I figured that giving it to those who wanted it can only help the chances of it succeeding at Rochester.

That's great, kudos to you. However, you're really putting a huge burden on yourself with the title of this thread. You're essentially implying that if you or one of your teammates were to go to Rochester, you would at least T8 with your deck. Am I correct? If not, then the title of this thread is not an accurate reflection of how you truly feel the deck is capable of performing. If so, then why not do it, instead of deliberating about why/how you would  be able win? If you can't go for whatever reason, that's fine, but to suggest that other people follow 12 easy steps to success is a real cop out.

People asked, and you're answering. That's fine. My beef is that you're making really bold statements just for the sake of being contentious. Truth be told, there is no "1" deck that is best for any event.

Vintage is at a state where the objective form of a deck matters much less than expertise - than knowing what to do in each matchup to maximize your chances of winning.

I couldn't agree any more with that statement.

[Tha Gunslinga]

but to suggest that other people follow 12 easy steps to success is a real cop out.

I think the whole "12 steps" thing was a joke, seeing as he, you know, didn't LIST any steps or anything.

[Shock Wave]

but to suggest that other people follow 12 easy steps to success is a real cop out.

I think the whole "12 steps" thing was a joke, seeing as he, you know, didn't LIST any steps or anything.

I'm not referring to the actual steps, it was very clear to me that they don't exist anywhere in the posts. I was referring to the implication that there is a best deck and an accompanying process to winning with it.

[Tin_Mox5831]

Don't get your feathers too ruffled. I understand where you're coming from to an extent, but that's just how Dan rolls. Granted, that style certainly isn't for everyone, but there are times where I like some banter.

On topic, I agree that it is obviously a very solid choice given the expected metagame, but I am not too certain that the metagame will be quite what we expect.

[Hydra]

Dan's not able to attend, but there ARE ICBMers who are attending the event, at least 3, possibly even 4.  One of us WILL be playing the deck at least one day. 

As far as proving itself, Ben Carp (Gunslinga) did top 8 at the last Chicago SCG with the original list, so the deck has had major tournament use in the past.  Dan's confidance in the deck ties in a lot with the fact that the metagame has shifted to one where the deck doesn't have much in the way of unfavorable matchups.  Certainly the deck is no unstoppable monster, but it has been very good to the team as of late. 

Dan's matchup analysis is pretty vague, but with Rochester coming up and the possibility of the deck seeing play from us, it's in the team's best interest to keep details to a minimum.  Post-Rochester could see a much more detailed analysis from the team, depending on Dan's feelings on the subject and whether or not Ben and/or I are motivated enough to push compiling the information into a readable source.

[Shock Wave]

Don't get your feathers too ruffled. I understand where you're coming from to an extent, but that's just how Dan rolls. Granted, that style certainly isn't for everyone, but there are times where I like some banter.

On topic, I agree that it is obviously a very solid choice given the expected metagame, but I am not too certain that the metagame will be quite what we expect.

It's all good dude, my feathers aren't ruffled. I know what it's like to build a deck and have success with it and all that jazz, but I think we're crossing the line into bullshit when we start using statements like "It's the best deck". There is no such thing, for several reasons, which Steve has highlighted.

[yespuhyren]

I don't get it though.  According to him, there aren't any bad matchups for the deck.  It beats everything handily.  Why wouldn't every ICBM'er be running it then, if it is as good as you claim?

[Hydra]

I don't get it though.  According to him, there aren't any bad matchups for the deck.  It beats everything handily.  Why wouldn't every ICBM'er be running it then, if it is as good as you claim?

Play style differences and other pet projects.  ICBM Oath is merely our big "public" project, we have other decks that are being worked on for Rochester.  As a team, we're not "forcing" anyone to play something they're not comfortable with, and there are members that are attending that just aren't comfortable with playing Drains.  You could have the best deck ever for a metagame and still lose because you're awkward and uncomfortable with the deck, so why force it?

[chrissss]

this is/was truly a very very interesting read, I learned alot.

just a few questions why the following shouldnt be in the sideboard?

morphling? it can only do 5 a turn, but if your opponent has 20 life, 6/6 (sky swallower) or 5/1 each take 4 turns to kill. I suppose its mana related that you need to use too much for morphling?

crater hellion? good against fish, and recycles with blessing, although the echo is too much I suppose.

thats about it.

thanks