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

[sa17dk]

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?

Why the heck would you want Morphling when you have Sky Swallower

[policehq]

One very moot point that comes to mind would be the hard-castability.

Beyond that, though, Morphling ties up mana that is intended for Mana Drains to buy you the 2-3 turns you need to win after assembling your combo.

-hq

[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?

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?

As much as I understand that, your team claims this deck has no bad matchups.  Therefore, with posting this, you are saying there is no reason to play other decks because it has a bad matchup against this one.  Therefore, if you believe this deck is as good as you claim it is, then I'd be surprised that you don't want to test it enough to be comfortable.  I respect you, but honestly do not believe it has a good matchup against everything.  I don't believe any deck has a good matchup against everything.

[AJFirst]

He's not saying it has a good match-up against everything, he's just saying that it has solid match-ups against a lot of the top tier decks, and everything else is winnable, which is very true.

Like it or not, this is THE deck to beat in the format today.

I'm not going to run down the deck again because if you don't know why it's good yet, then you never will. All I'm going to say is that out of the 5 people playing it today in the 23ish (?) man Pastimes tournement, two were put in the top eight including Ben Carp, and our very own Josh Rayden going all the way to the finals. My other friend, Jon Knapp, who JUST picked up the deck TODAY, and didn't understand its insanity when I showed him the list on paper built it up and playtested after I gave him a few basic pointers (sit on brainstorms, chalice at 0 80% of the time, sky swallower's the nut-high), and he quickly changed his mind, so here's my test to you out there: proxy it up, and playtest against competent players with competent decks and tell me it's not insane. If it's not, then you must just be terrible at it, so learn to be less terrible somehow.

ICBM Oath today at Pastimes:

Josh - 2nd (slightly different build we put together to include all 4 wastes, leaks over drains, and impulses over thirsts)
Ben - 5th-8th
Bryan (also with little practice with the deck) - 3-2 (one of which was to me, and I had nuts draws/plays)
Jon (with very little experiance, but an overall very good player) - 2-2-1

and Dan had some of the worst draws I've ever seen. It's the deck to beat wether you like it or not, and it's here to stay, so get used to it.

Personally, I got raped out of the top eight with tiebreakers at 3-1-1 after IDing "into" the top eight. It's all because Becker didn't have his action figure there....damn boxes.
-AJ

[dicemanx]

He's not saying it has a good match-up against everything, he's just saying that it has solid match-ups against a lot of the top tier decks, and everything else is winnable, which is very true.

Like it or not, this is THE deck to beat in the format today.

What makes it THE deck to beat in the format exactly? There are a number of decks with "solid match-ups against a lot of top tier decks" as it is. In fact, I'd contend that Gifts is THE true deck to beat in the format - how about that?

[LordHomerCat]

Not CS diceman?  It seems like it has been putting up some of the most consistent results of late.  Also, the fact that any event with Rich Shay is GUARANTEED to have at least one good CS player there means that it WILL show up a lot and will be at the top tables a lot.  Even Gifts nowadays isn't as certain (witness the recent results from Myriad i think where even Brassman tried something else).  It seems like if you don't know anything else about what will show up, CS is almost certainly a safe bet.

[Shock Wave]

He's not saying it has a good match-up against everything, he's just saying that it has solid match-ups against a lot of the top tier decks, and everything else is winnable, which is very true.

Like it or not, this is THE deck to beat in the format today.

I'm not going to run down the deck again because if you don't know why it's good yet, then you never will. All I'm going to say is that out of the 5 people playing it today in the 23ish (?) man Pastimes tournement, two were put in the top eight including Ben Carp, and our very own Josh Rayden going all the way to the finals. My other friend, Jon Knapp, who JUST picked up the deck TODAY, and didn't understand its insanity when I showed him the list on paper built it up and playtested after I gave him a few basic pointers (sit on brainstorms, chalice at 0 80% of the time, sky swallower's the nut-high), and he quickly changed his mind, so here's my test to you out there: proxy it up, and playtest against competent players with competent decks and tell me it's not insane. If it's not, then you must just be terrible at it, so learn to be less terrible somehow.

Well, it seems we have another player who has discovered the secret formula to winning in the current environment. I'm sure you'll be at Rochester where you'll showcase your deck and demonstrate to the unwashed masses how it has always been meant to be played. Since we're having difficulty repeating your results, we'd appreciate a tutorial on how it is done.

[sa17dk]

Josh - 2nd (slightly different build we put together to include all 4 wastes, leaks over drains, and impulses over thirsts)

That would make it basically a completely different type of Oath deck. With all 4 Wastes, Leaks, and Impulses, that basically makes it a GWS Oath deck which is completely different from ICBM's version.

[chrissss]

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?

Why the heck would you want Morphling when you have Sky Swallower

pros of morphling:

- hard casting if oath goes wrong. morphling is an easy hardcast, especially with mana drain.
- 5 damage or 6 doesnt matter, it still takes 4 turns to do 20 damage (except when opponent uses fetch lands, and necro obviously)
- untapping morphling can be very good agaisnt haste creatures, or just any creature attacking.

cons: uses heavy many to funtion properly. 3 to attack ( 2 for 5/1, and 1 for flying )
blocking a 5/5 would cost 7 mana ( 2 mana for 5/1, then 5 to make it a 0/6.

I wasnt saying that morphling is the best creature for this deck, I was just asking why it wasnt in there, but I gave possible reasons myself for it not beeing in there.

[AngryPheldagrif]

Josh - 2nd (slightly different build we put together to include all 4 wastes, leaks over drains, and impulses over thirsts)

That would make it basically a completely different type of Oath deck. With all 4 Wastes, Leaks, and Impulses, that basically makes it a GWS Oath deck which is completely different from ICBM's version.

Wastes are irrelevant because our version is interchangeable up to 4 for various metagames. It was a very good call. I wouldn't exactly qualify his version as ICBM either, it's basically GWS swapped into an ICBM structure.

I did scrub out 1-2. I had draws versus Fish that would not have beaten Izzetron. I am not exaggerating in the least bit.

Oh, and additionally, one of my teammates with ICBM Oath won the Milwaukee tournament for I believe a Twister.

[dicemanx]

Not CS diceman?  It seems like it has been putting up some of the most consistent results of late.  Also, the fact that any event with Rich Shay is GUARANTEED to have at least one good CS player there means that it WILL show up a lot and will be at the top tables a lot.  Even Gifts nowadays isn't as certain (witness the recent results from Myriad i think where even Brassman tried something else).  It seems like if you don't know anything else about what will show up, CS is almost certainly a safe bet.

I'm a little confused by this paragraph - do you feel that CS will be the deck to beat because many might show up to play it, or because Rich Shay will be piloting it "at the top tables"? I also don't consider other people's avoidance of Gifts in specific recent events as a measure of how strong Gifts is - the deck is in fact one of the most misbuilt and misplayed decks in my estimation. I make the claim about Gifts based on my personal experience with the deck, and additionally based on the fact that we just had a solitary Gifts player rip his way through the strongest local 41 man tournament in recent history all the way to the finals, while the two ICBM Oath decks weren't even on the radar (I guess if the deck doesn't do well, the pilot of the deck MUST suck, right?). Gifts is simply savage, and has plenty of game against combo, CS, and Oath.

[Hydra]

Not CS diceman?  It seems like it has been putting up some of the most consistent results of late.  Also, the fact that any event with Rich Shay is GUARANTEED to have at least one good CS player there means that it WILL show up a lot and will be at the top tables a lot.  Even Gifts nowadays isn't as certain (witness the recent results from Myriad i think where even Brassman tried something else).  It seems like if you don't know anything else about what will show up, CS is almost certainly a safe bet.

I'm a little confused by this paragraph - do you feel that CS will be the deck to beat because many might show up to play it, or because Rich Shay will be piloting it "at the top tables"? I also don't consider other people's avoidance of Gifts in specific recent events as a measure of how strong Gifts is - the deck is in fact one of the most misbuilt and misplayed decks in my estimation. I make the claim about Gifts based on my personal experience with the deck, and additionally based on the fact that we just had a solitary Gifts player rip his way through the strongest local 41 man tournament in recent history all the way to the finals, while the two ICBM Oath decks weren't even on the radar (I guess if the deck doesn't do well, the pilot of the deck MUST suck, right?). Gifts is simply savage, and has plenty of game against combo, CS, and Oath.

I concur 100% that Gifts is generally highly misbuilt/misplayed (at a tournament yesterday I sat down and went over the finer points of the deck with some people due to it).  I've always felt that the deck was one of the strongest in the environment in that it rewards playskill better in my opinion than any other deck in the format.

That, however, is a story for another thread. 

Back on topic, poor showings doesn't mean a bad player, it generally means unfamiliarity with the deck.  The best of us all have off days, but I've personally seen a lot of people pick up the ICBM Oath list, try playing it like GWS Oath, lose because of it and then say the deck is "bad" and never touch it again.  It's a mid-range control deck, where ou weather the opponent's opening and once they've run out of their initial steam, THEN you go for it.  The deck has one of the cheapest win conditions in the format, and can race most decks due to it.  It doesn't play like Fish, or GWS Oath, or anything else.  THAT's where most people falter it seems.  Play it like it's meant to be played, as a control deck.

[Mantis]

I think the best way to not dismiss it on first hand is godlfish a dozen hands first to see if it packs a punch. If you find the deck to perform really poor in your goldfishing then dismiss it. I mean actual games are not only determined by your own deck but also by the opponents. Your deck might look very good if you play an inferior player with an inferior deck getting mana screwed opposed to an opponent who draws the nuts. This might seem like an odd logic, but if you have limited time for your testing it's probably better to goldfish 20 hands than play 2 games.

In my testing this deck seems to perform very well, but I really have to agree with the creators that it's not as easy to play as it looks. The deck presents you with a lot of choices, as it's pretty high on 2cc slots, making the wrong choice between keeping Drain mana up or playing your Oath can easily be devastating. For this exact reason Duress should not leave the deck, it smooths out your curve and you really don't want even more 2cc spells. I can really see having a good insight in the format and experience with this deck would make it a lot stronger. It's not hard to play but very hard to master.

Anyway, good job on this deck I really look forward to see how it performs at Richmond.

[Moxlotus]

All I can say about this deck is that it is the Deck To Beat...in the Midwest at least.  If people play it, and have practiced with it, I see no reason why a few Oath decks won't make it into the top 8 at Rochester.  Simply put, the deck is dominating (and I don't use that word too lightly) the midwest at the moment and I don't really see any metagame differences between the midwest and the NE that would prevent it from doing the same there.  Of course, its all for nothing if people show up with unoptimal sideboards.  An Oath board can be hard to develop because of the variety of hate cards people can use and some can just kick the shit out of you (Bridge) if you are not prepared.

[M.Solymossy]

That's strange, coming from a GWSer.  The deck IS dominating the midwest, however.

@ Green Bay, our teammate Chris Niebor split with our other teammate, one playing oath, and one playing stax. 
@ South Milwaukee, I@n DeGraff and Ben Lucksack-extrodinare (who topdecks FIVE answers in a row... that was the most pissed i've ever been over a game of magic) split a shop and a drain, both playing ICBM oath. (Ben however, was terrible and shouldn't have won.  Who DOESNT board in Sky Swallower versus Duplicant, or bring in all 4 creatures when they know their opponent has cap?)

[AngryPheldagrif]

(Ben however, was terrible and shouldn't have won.  Who DOESNT board in Sky Swallower versus Duplicant, or bring in all 4 creatures when they know their opponent has cap?)

I don't. He made the correct call on both accounts (against Slaver).

Duplicant is too slow and only hits one Angel. If they can get active Welder plus active Duplicant in the yard and enough turns to use it, you're losing anyways. Similarly, if they are activating Cap before you are activating Oath then you are losing regardless. Sideboarding versus Slaver for the game 2 plan is very simple. You play to win before they can possibly force through their hate cards. The contingency plans set in place via standard sideboarding (Oxidize mainly) are more than enough to deal with the majority of the commonly used responses.

[M.Solymossy]

Yes, randomly losing if I cap or duplicant his men iis a GREAT play.

[AngryPheldagrif]

If you are in a position to accomplish either, he is probably going to lose regardless. Oath is not a deck that wants to be playing defensively.

[dicemanx]

ut I've personally seen a lot of people pick up the ICBM Oath list, try playing it like GWS Oath, lose because of it and then say the deck is "bad" and never touch it again.

This is an interesting comment, and actually something I wanted to see discussed in this thread.

What are some examples of people playing ICBM Oath like GWS Oath, and hence doing it "incorrectly"?

Back on topic, poor showings doesn't mean a bad player, it generally means unfamiliarity with the deck.

This describes every competitive deck in the format, and isn't exclusive to ICBM Oath. The question really is then, if everyone mastered their respective archetypes and had intimate knowledge of the format and experience playing vs all other decks (ie the technical playskill would be removed as a variable), then what woulkd come out on top?

moxlotus and others have cited evidence of the supposed "domination" in the Midwest; however, how do you compare, for instance, an event where 5 Oath decks out of 20 show up and two t8/t4/split, versus having 1-2 Gifts in fields of 20-30 decks almost always making t8 in other areas when they are played? Isn't that better evidence of superiority? maybe if more people decided to try to actually master Gifts it would be the absolute terror of the format way ahead of mid range control like ICBM Oath or a weaker control deck like CS? I'm making a contentious statement here, based on my speculation. This is what's happening in this thread as well - nothing more than speculation and generalizations that are not exclusive to ICBM Oath.

I think a far better way to look at it is not what decks are "dominating", but WHO is dominating. Rich Shay and Demars dominate, not CS; JuggGO dominates, not his absolutely disastrous looking Shop builds. Maybe AngryPhel dominates, not ICBM Oath? Maybe IT and URBana Fish are second rate decks, but they are piloted by strong players like Becker who has strong technical skill and a good understanding of the format, or Steve Menendian who can make any pile look good?

Duplicant is too slow and only hits one Angel. If they can get active Welder plus active Duplicant in the yard and enough turns to use it, you're losing anyways. Similarly, if they are activating Cap before you are activating Oath then you are losing regardless.

There are rather bizarre statements to make. Activating Cap or getting a Welder with a Dupe in the yard aren't really that uncommon, so why would you choose to lose in such scenarios if you don't have to? I can understand if you feel that increasing the "useless card count" by 2 does not offset the possibility of those scenarios coming up enough for it to be worth it, but you're implying that if CS reaches those points its just "winning". That's an extreme statement.

[AngryPheldagrif]

ut I've personally seen a lot of people pick up the ICBM Oath list, try playing it like GWS Oath, lose because of it and then say the deck is "bad" and never touch it again.

This is an interesting comment, and actually something I wanted to see discussed in this thread.

What are some examples of people playing ICBM Oath like GWS Oath, and hence doing it "incorrectly"?

Too much unbridled aggression. Orchard, Mox, Oath isn't so complicated to win with, but knowing when to try to go ball-to-the-wall with the Oath and when to drop a Rod/Chalice/Duress to buy yourself a couple turns to setup a better Oath can be. Examples of incorrect play would be, uh, not doing this.

moxlotus and others have cited evidence of the supposed "domination" in the Midwest; however, how do you compare, for instance, an event where 5 Oath decks out of 20 show up and two t8/t4/split, versus having 1-2 Gifts in fields of 20-30 decks almost always making t8 in other areas when they are played? Isn't that better evidence of superiority? maybe if more people decided to try to actually master Gifts it would be the absolute terror of the format way ahead of mid range control like ICBM Oath or a weaker control deck like CS? I'm making a contentious statement here, based on my speculation. This is what's happening in this thread as well - nothing more than speculation and generalizations that are not exclusive to ICBM Oath.

I think a far better way to look at it is not what decks are "dominating", but WHO is dominating. Rich Shay and Demars dominate, not CS; JuggGO dominates, not his absolutely disastrous looking Shop builds. Maybe AngryPhel dominates, not ICBM Oath? Maybe IT and URBana Fish are second rate decks, but they are piloted by strong players like Becker who has strong technical skill and a good understanding of the format, or Steve Menendian who can make any pile look good?

ICBM Oath has won power in the hands of at least half a dozen players, including several unaffilliated with the team. I myself can hardly claim the glory. It is my brother who T8ed the SCG, won several additional pieces of power, and generally kept the deck as a contender while Stax was so prevalent and the metagame was rather unfriendly. I've seen people succeed with the deck at a variety of experience levels and to a lesser extent skill levels.

[edit]: That a deck piloted by 1 or 2 people usually T8s indicates very little, unless you want to argue that my 9 straight T8s with Gilded Claw indicated any sort of domination by that outdated pile. Being a consistent quarter of the metagame while winning a heavy majority of the tournaments themselves would probably qualify it as something more.

Duplicant is too slow and only hits one Angel. If they can get active Welder plus active Duplicant in the yard and enough turns to use it, you're losing anyways. Similarly, if they are activating Cap before you are activating Oath then you are losing regardless.

There are rather bizarre statements to make. Activating Cap or getting a Welder with a Dupe in the yard aren't really that uncommon, so why would you choose to lose in such scenarios if you don't have to? I can understand if you feel that increasing the "useless card count" by 2 does not offset the possibility of those scenarios coming up enough for it to be worth it, but you're implying that if CS reaches those points its just "winning". That's an extreme statement.

It is an extreme statement. Is it incorrect?

[M.Solymossy]

yes.

[Moxlotus]

I say dominating the midwest because it has split for first at the past 7 or so tournaments of different sizes (between 20-36 usually).  The second deck always varies, but one of the decks that split has been ICBM Oath for a long time.  The only other times I have seen this is Becker with IT and a long time ago when Fisher and Endress played 7/10 when that deck first came out.  When it was a teammate who was doing all the winning, we knew if people played a certain deck it would stop.  Currently, we do not know exactly what deck that needs to be now.

@ the pilot rather than the deck.  That's certainly possible too.  But even when someone is doing that, it is best for people to look at what deck they are using too.  When something is repeated over and over, it isn't only the player.

What are some examples of people playing ICBM Oath like GWS Oath, and hence doing it "incorrectly"?

While I can't give any specifics I can make a few generalizations.  GWS Oath is an aggro-control deck more like fish.  ICBM Oath is a control deck.  GWS Oath uses the "everything is a time walk" to try to put your opponent behind a card or mana each turn until you find your Oath and win.  Play your search and counters aggressively to not let them catch up.  ICBM Oath is a control deck that doesn't seek tempo, but rather actual control over the game.  

The best analogy (and its bad) that I can come up with is Cron Stax and MUD.  Both use lots of the same cards, have the same or similar kill, even have a somewhat similar game  plan.  But the key difference is how they play out.  Cron Stax seeks to "play anaconda" and slowly squeeze the opponent by building slight advantages until they cannot keep up then finally drop a Stack/win condition for the win.  Mud wants to drop MetalWorker, then throw its entire hand on the table and say "good luck beating that".  Each plan has its own strengths and weaknesses.

[dicemanx]

Too much unbridled aggression. Orchard, Mox, Oath isn't so complicated to win with, but knowing when to try to go ball-to-the-wall with the Oath and when to drop a Rod/Chalice/Duress to buy yourself a couple turns to setup a better Oath can be. Examples of incorrect play would be, uh, not doing this.

OK, I guess if you won't mention specifics, then I guess I will . I'll give some hypotheticals in a short while.

ICBM Oath has won power in the hands of at least half a dozen players, including several unaffilliated with the team. I myself can hardly claim the glory. It is my brother who T8ed the SCG, won several additional pieces of power, and generally kept the deck as a contender while Stax was so prevalent and the metagame was rather unfriendly. I've seen people succeed with the deck at a variety of experience levels and to a lesser extent skill levels.

Yes, but remember that this applies to other archetypes as well. For instance, Demars and Shay haven't exclusively won with Slaver, while Outlaw, Kowal, or Brassman weren't the only ones to succeed with Gifts etc.

I think there's a chance we're seeing a different phenomenon here. I think your deck has local popularity (calling the Midwest "local"), and is relatively easier to master than many other top tier archetypes. (This isn't a knock against the deck btw - in fact, minimization of the decision trees will lead to fewer errors, and much of the skill comes from deck construction rather than playing the deck itself). This relative ease of mastery, and the fact that Oath has a decent chance of stupidly good openings, has lead to the perception that the deck is so dominant. However, my experience would lead me to put forth my own contentious statement - all things being equal (mastery being achieved regardless of archetype), then Gifts would be by far the dominant force in the format. I'm also very glad that this is very unlikely to happen, because few decks can really hope to have good matchups against Gifts and survive against the rest of the field. Gifts to me is like Goblins and Threshhold in legacy.

It is an extreme statement. Is it incorrect?

Since it is an extreme statement, it is by definition incorrect because it doesn't always (or nearly always) apply.

What isn't necessarily incorrect is your contention that you shouldn't be SBing specifically to beat Cap or the Welder+Duplicant scenario. But that requires a scary large n value where you control for numerous variables (opponent playskill, exact build of CS etc) to offer anything conclusive. You might intuitively feel that its the wrong decision, but you cannot present your intuition based judgements as if they were the stone cold facts.  On top of that, your teammate disagrees with you vehemently.

While I can't give any specifics I can make a few generalizations.  GWS Oath is an aggro-control deck more like fish.  ICBM Oath is a control deck.  GWS Oath uses the "everything is a time walk" to try to put your opponent behind a card or mana each turn until you find your Oath and win.  Play your search and counters aggressively to not let them catch up.  ICBM Oath is a control deck that doesn't seek tempo, but rather actual control over the game. 

I can totally appreciate this. But it doesn't answer the question . The thing is, you've outlined a constructional difference, not a play difference. From my perspective, you might have extreme difficulty in playing ICBM Oath like GWS Oath because the deck simply has limitations that prevent you from pursing a particular plan due to construction.

Like I said, I'll give hypotheticals shortly.

[yespuhyren]

(Ben however, was terrible and shouldn't have won.  Who DOESNT board in Sky Swallower versus Duplicant, or bring in all 4 creatures when they know their opponent has cap?)

I don't. He made the correct call on both accounts (against Slaver).

Similarly, if they are activating Cap before you are activating Oath then you are losing regardless. Sideboarding versus Slaver for the game 2 plan is very simple.

I can't honestly believe you make this claim.

Workshop/Mox/Cap
Orchard/Mox/Oath

By that analogy, you have the same percent chance at getting oath with orchard as I do a first turn cap.  I also have several other ways to cast cap, and you only have 4 orchards.  Therefore, you saying that you will have an active Oath before I cast and use Cap is a ridiculous statement.  You make it seem like if your opponent can play a cap, you are either already going to win, or already losing.  Why not just put in the 4 creatures in case they do cap you? 

Why not plan just in case they do use the cap?

[AngryPheldagrif]

This is versus Slaver, not Stax. I board 4 creatures against Stax.

Anyways, I'm dropping this argument on the advice of teammates. I have and will always play the deck just a little differently than everyone else. In this case it is me taking the aggro role over the control role. Basically, leaving in the Angels alone is correct from the very aggressive standpoint from which I personally prefer to play the deck against Slaver. Many others, perhaps most others, prefer to play a more controlling game, in which case boarding in the Sky Swallowers is very much the correct play for the protection it gives you from their more permanent answers. From what I know of Ben, he plays the deck very aggressively (having adapted from a build closer to the GWS style) and though I cannot speak for him it would seem that that drove his decision. Oath is a very strong deck in that it can suit itself to such diverse playstyles proves it stronger rather than weaker, and I have no wish to turn this into a lengthy debate over which role is the better one. One of my teammates who won power with it yesterday will have a report up shortly for you to enjoy.

[policehq]

I made the mistake early on in the thread about discussing the "12 easy steps to win Rochester" comment, which seems very obviously tongue-in-cheek, and whether or not it was the best deck in the format, but I want to change the course of discussion, at least coming from me, to this:

To AngryPhel:

What do you personally think about the change of Thirst for Knowledge to Impulse, considering its ability to:
-Find Oath better, digging for more cards, and
-Not take as much mana if you're trying to find a Mana Drain?
There may be other factors as well.

Also, what of note would be the match-up where you're anticipating the need for 4 Wastelands? Does 4 Wastelands necessitate the need for Mana Leaks instead of Mana Drain? Did the Wastelands replace UU stability?

Thanks for your answers.

EDIT: I do want to include these points:

Mishra's Workshop + Mox + Cap does not activate Cap. There is another piece required, even if it is one of 3-4 Mountains or one of several Moxen. In addition, Goblin Welders and Gorilla Shamans do not make Forbidden Orchard necessary.

Turn 1 ICBM:
Island.
Turn 1 Uba:
Mountain, Goblin Welder.
Turn 2 ICBM:
Tropical Island/Forbidden Orchard/Mox Emerald/Whatever, Oath.

I do not play Uba and thus do not have the experience to know that turn 1 Welder/Shaman is a very bad play, especially knowing that you're playing against Oath (do you hold back on your Welders and Shamans?), but I think the point is valid at least for certain opening hands of game 1.

-hq

[AngryPheldagrif]

What do you personally think about the change of Thirst for Knowledge to Impulse, considering its ability to:

Thirst is heavily superior due to its ability to generate actual card advantage and pitch Angels. As the game draws on, Thirst basically reads 'draw 3 cards' whereas Impulse is never more than card parity. The fact that Impulse digs one deeper is irrelevant. You don't use it to dig for Oath as much as for raw card advantage. Mana cost also becomes irrelevant since you will have Moxen and Drain mana especially. Running Thirst over Impulse was one of the primary innovations that allowed the deck to function as a competent control deck.

Also, what of note would be the match-up where you're anticipating the need for 4 Wastelands? Does 4 Wastelands necessitate the need for Mana Leaks instead of Mana Drain? Did the Wastelands replace UU stability?

Actually, boarding the extra Wastes is very rare nowadays and usually unnecessary. Wasteland fit better into GWS Oath's 'everything is a Time Walk' strategy, but isn't conducive to long-term control. Strip Mine, 2 Wasteland, and Crop Rotation form a nice package of landkill without tilting your manabase. Drain mana is rarely an issue.

As for Mana Leak versus Drain, Drain is equally integral to the build with Thirst. Hard counters for the extended game are a requirement for playing control. UU stability is fine. If they want to waste their resources attempting to attack my manabase, I am less than concerned. My relevant spells cap at 2 mana.

[policehq]

What do you personally think about the change of Thirst for Knowledge to Impulse, considering its ability to:

Thirst is heavily superior due to its ability to generate actual card advantage and pitch Angels. As the game draws on, Thirst basically reads 'draw 3 cards' whereas Impulse is never more than card parity. The fact that Impulse digs one deeper is irrelevant. You don't use it to dig for Oath as much as for raw card advantage. Mana cost also becomes irrelevant since you will have Moxen and Drain mana especially. Running Thirst over Impulse was one of the primary innovations that allowed the deck to function as a competent control deck.

I thought the cost would be a significant drawback for Thirst, and I find the Moxen argument a little inconsistent with your game-plan of using Null Rod to buy you the extra 2-3 turns to win after playing your combo.

I do not see Impulse as a means only to find Oath of Druids, but also to find Mana Drain (in which circumstance, you would pay less mana for Thirst for Knowledge and thus have more potential to generate UU) or sideboard cards needed to answer your opponent. However, since you are playing Force of Wills, I would understand the need for card quantity regardless of digging deeper or costing less. Is that a more accurate reason for you choosing to continue playing Thirst for Knowledge (if you are choosing to do so) rather than make the switch to Impulse after it showing good results?

Also, what of note would be the match-up where you're anticipating the need for 4 Wastelands? Does 4 Wastelands necessitate the need for Mana Leaks instead of Mana Drain? Did the Wastelands replace UU stability?

Actually, boarding the extra Wastes is very rare nowadays and usually unnecessary. Wasteland fit better into GWS Oath's 'everything is a Time Walk' strategy, but isn't conducive to long-term control. Strip Mine, 2 Wasteland, and Crop Rotation form a nice package of landkill without tilting your manabase. Drain mana is rarely an issue.

However, a teammate, or at least someone who performed well with the deck using Mana Leaks, Wastelands, and Impulses did well at a particular tournament. What was it about the meta-game of that tournament that allowed this build to produce better results? Did the 4 Wastelands come in post-board or in the maindeck?

As for Mana Leak versus Drain, Drain is equally integral to the build with Thirst. Hard counters for the extended game are a requirement for playing control. UU stability is fine. If they want to waste their resources attempting to attack my manabase, I am less than concerned. My relevant spells cap at 2 mana.

I wasn't arguing for Mana Leak versus Mana Drain except in builds that played 4 Wasteland. Have you run 4 Wasteland in ICBM Oath, at least in testing, and when you did, did you find Mana Drain inferior to Mana Leak because of your maindeck mana-base, since Wastelands do not produce the necessary U?

My questions were completely in response to the deck that performed well with Mana Leaks, Impulses, and Wastelands, for the record. I simply wanted to know what made those changes superior for that tournament, if anyone believes those changes would be superior at a large event such as Rochester (though I am still not relegating my comments and questions to the title of the thread), and if playing 4 Wasteland meant that you had to play 4 Mana Leak because Mana Drain would not be an option due to your mana-base.

Thanks again.

EDIT: I'll try and put this discussion into easy to answer questions-
1) If you play 4 Wastelands, are 4 Mana Drains not an option?
2) In the instance that you are in answer-mode and not find-combo mode, and you need Force of Will or Mana Drain, Thirst for Knowledge seems superior to Impulse for Force of Will but not for Mana Drain. Since you are running a complement of Chalice and Null Rod, is Force of Will the better option. If you have Force of Will and Thirst for Knowledge in hand, do you pitch the Thirst instead of trying to find a Drain or another blue card and have more cards in hand? If you have set up a Chalice @ 0 and still found a need for Null Rod (Sensei's Divining Top, Granite Shard, etc.), would Impulse prove to be optimal to give you the option of Force of Will OR Mana Drain since it costs one mana less?

-hq

[Moxlotus]

While we were building the deck we noticed it only had 23 sources, while our version always ran 25 (an extra 2 wastes).  We were really confused on how the deck performed so well with Thirsts with that light mana base along with Chalices and Rods.  Endress figured it out with a quote of something like "I figured it out, you waste yourself out, you Rod &Chalice yourself out, then you drain their shitter for your mana."

I can totally appreciate this. But it doesn't answer the question . The thing is, you've outlined a constructional difference, not a play difference. From my perspective, you might have extreme difficulty in playing ICBM Oath like GWS Oath because the deck simply has limitations that prevent you from pursing a particular plan due to construction.

Like I said, I'll give hypotheticals shortly. 

Sorry, I did the best I could from my limited experience with ICBM Oath .  I'm usually playing the other deck being tested 

[M.Solymossy]

the deck can easily function on 2 mana's.