Bye Bye Brainstorm

[Implacable]

The thread on unrestrictions is more or less a stream of consciousness dialogue, so I figured I'd start a new thread here to discuss one particular aspect of last night's restrictions: Brainstorm.

Throughout the immediate response to the restrictions, there seems to be very little debate about the 'first three' moves.  It seems like just 'bout e'rybody agrees that Scroll, Flash, and Gush were all busted, and that they deserved to go.  The severity of restricting all three was surprising, but not a complete shock.

Brainstorm, on the other hand, was shocking to find restricted - at least at first glance.  But it was actually the best card that the DCI restricted.  You will NEVER find a format - not in the whole history of Magic - where a single card so dominated the metagame.  Tolarian Academy in Tempest/Urza Standard might compete, but even then, as Fish showed, there were viable counterstrategies.  Brainstorm, on the other hand, was so ludicrously powerful that it consistently and in the face of enormous hate defined a format.

On Day 1 of Richmond, there were 24 Brainstorms in the Top 8 (there were also 24 on Day 2, but I'll just look at Day 1 for now).  That and Force of Will (which cannot be unrestricted, for format balance) were the most popular spells in the entire Top 8.  But that's not all.  The blue decks in the Top 8 ran a little over 21 sources of mana on average.  That's less than there are in a Standard aggro deck!  The remarkable lack of mana sources in blue decks can be attributed to cards like Brainstorm, which in the early game smoothed mana and throughout the game enabled the blue player to have access to only his most powerful spells.

The format has been shaped around this terrifying capacity.  The Sphere-based Stax deck is tailored to destroy, either with multiple Spheres or a Chalice at 1, any cantrip-based strategy (Hello, Brainstorm (and Ponder)!)  The Fish archetype sprung up as a way to fight against Brainstorm-fueled blue combo-control - it fought back with either a wide array of Blasts or with bad cards (Null Rod, for example) that could fight the powerful effects dug into by Brainstorm preemptively, and that could punish the land-light Brainstorm concoctions of 2006 and 2007.

Is Brainstorm broken?  Well, it is ubiquitous, undeniably powerful, and format-shaping.  The unfun req certainly isn't fulfilled - I don't know hardly a Type 1 player who doesn't love resolving and negotiating a difficult Brainstorm - but Brainstorm was just too powerful to keep in the format.  After some thought, I fully support its restriction, and look forward to raw-dogging it as a 1-of.

Addendum: The restriction of Ponder was overkill - maybe.  Likely, folks would have just slotted 'em into their Brainstorm slots.  WotC is trying to permanently reintroduce the other colors into Vintage, not as bit players but as viable counterparts to blue.  By restricting Ponder, they may actually have neutered blue sufficiently to do so.

[bluemage55]

You're applying your criteria inconsistently to Brainstorm and Force of Will.

Force of Will appears more often that Brainstorm, ubiquitous, undeniably powerful, and format-shaping, and yet you would not vouch for its restriciton.  Why?  Because of format balance.

What you have failed to address is why Brainstorm is not format balancing, when it also serves an important function in enabling the consistency of the blue decks that wield Force of Will.

If you cut out the good blue spells that support Force of Will, isn't that every bit as damning as restricting Force of Will?

If no one plays blue decks because they suck, who will throw Force of Will at combo decks?

I do not support Brainstorm's restriction, because it ultimately undermines blue decks which serve both to maintain format balance and encourage skill in Vintage.   It would have been sufficient to shut down Merchant Scroll (an unrestricted tutor that is essentially a blue Demonic Tutor), and possibly Gush as well (although an alternative to restricting Gush would have been restricting Scroll and unrestricting Fact or Fiction and Gifts Ungiven).

[Implacable]

If no one plays blue decks because they suck, who will throw Force of Will at combo decks?

Good Lord: did I say that blue decks suck?

[Reads post]

No.  Phew...

Brainstorm, as my entire post pointed out, wasn't format-balancing, because it raised one color above the rest.  Force doesn't raise one color above the rest (i.e., make that color strictly better than the rest) - what it does is maintain an equilibrium between archetypes (i.e., combo and the rest of the world).

[bluemage55]

Good Lord: did I say that blue decks suck?

Just because you didn't say it doesn't mean that it isn't the case.  I'm advancing the argument that the new restrictions will serve to severely weaken blue, and leave other decks intact.  In a format where blue has a tenuous hold (remember the calls to restrict Bazaar, Shop, and Ritual?), weakening blue will reduce the number of Force of Wills out there.

Brainstorm, as my entire post pointed out, wasn't format-balancing, because it raised one color above the rest.  Force doesn't raise one color above the rest (i.e., make that color strictly better than the rest) - what it does is maintain an equilibrium between archetypes (i.e., combo and the rest of the world).

Brainstorm is just one component of blue, just as Dark Ritual is just one component of black combo and Sphere of Resistance is one component of Stax.    There are a number of cards that can be hit to weaken blue (chief of which are Scroll).

Force of Will does raise blue above the rest, because it allows blue to stop combo decks.  No other color can make this claim.  But that's just Vintage.  Unless we give every color effects comparable to Force of Will, Duress, and Sphere of Resistance, certain colors will always stand out.

However, if you understand that FoW is the glue that holds Vintage together, then can you not understand that hurting blue weakens FoW and thus weakens the glue that holds together the format?

[Implacable]

Good Lord: did I say that blue decks suck?

Just because you didn't say it doesn't mean that it isn't the case.  I'm advancing the argument that the new restrictions will serve to severely weaken blue, and leave other decks intact.  In a format where blue has a tenuous hold (remember the calls to restrict Bazaar, Shop, and Ritual?), weakening blue will reduce the number of Force of Wills out there.

See below.

Brainstorm, as my entire post pointed out, wasn't format-balancing, because it raised one color above the rest.  Force doesn't raise one color above the rest (i.e., make that color strictly better than the rest) - what it does is maintain an equilibrium between archetypes (i.e., combo and the rest of the world).

Brainstorm is just one component of blue, just as Dark Ritual is just one component of black combo and Sphere of Resistance is one component of Stax.    There are a number of cards that can be hit to weaken blue (chief of which are Scroll).

Force of Will does raise blue above the rest, because it allows blue to stop combo decks.  No other color can make this claim.  But that's just Vintage.  Unless we give every color effects comparable to Force of Will, Duress, and Sphere of Resistance, certain colors will always stand out.

However, if you understand that FoW is the glue that holds Vintage together, then can you not understand that hurting blue weakens FoW and thus weakens the glue that holds together the format?

Hurting blue (Brainstorm) also weakened all of the things that FoW holds in check: combo decks.  So if combo decks and the things that countered combo decks are both weakened, then archetypical parity is maintained while color parity is attained (pardon the pedantry).  It's a balance.

[Ufactor]

Does anyone have a link for the official announcement?

...Thanks for posting the link!!!

[Implacable]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dci/announce/dci20080602a

[bluemage55]

Hurting blue (Brainstorm) also weakened all of the things that FoW holds in check: combo decks.  So if combo decks and the things that countered combo decks are both weakened, then archetypical parity is maintained while color parity is attained (pardon the pedantry).  It's a balance.

Some combo decks are weakened.  Others are not even touched.  Grim Long, Ichorid, and Belcher have not been touched in the slightest.

[Nehptis]

When I saw Flash, MS and Gush I thought, thank you, thank you, thank you.  You listened and made an informed decision.  There were some rumors floating around last week that Brainstorm might get hit.  At first I thought, no way it is a pillar of Vintage.  But, after considering its effect on the format it made sense to axe it if the intent is to balance out the format away from Blue based Combo-Control / Blue based Combo / Blue based Comb-Aggro / Blue based Control.  Furthermore, hitting Ponder at the same time shows a true intent to move in this direction.  They could have left Ponder.  But, I think they wouldn't have seen the changes they wanted.

With the absence of 4 x BS, other than the obvious changes to deck lists, the most noticeable change will be to play styles.  A 1 land hand with Brainstorm was usually a keeper.  Now with less chances of a BS or Ponder in the opening hand mulliganing becomes more critical. Also, mana bases will most likely have to adjust, as well.  Since, BS effectively allowed a more aggressive land base to exist.  Lastly, Duress effects become more powerful since there are less opportunities to BS away your key card to the top of your deck when getting Duressed or Seized.

It's going to be a very interesting summer season.  My prediction is that we will see a migration of mid-range experienced players away from Blue based combo style decks and towards aggro style decks like Goblins and R/G Beats.  Primarily because Brainstorm was very good at make opening hands and some play scenarios better or less worse than they actually were.  

I wonder if matches will take less time since there should now be less time spent on BS and Ponder pile decisions…?

[Sextiger]

I wonder if matches will take less time since there should now be less time spent on BS and Ponder pile decisions…?

I truly doubt it, this change just forces all of the blue decks to run every tutor now, which always take time. 

[Wagner]

I wonder if matches will take less time since there should now be less time spent on BS and Ponder pile decisions…?

I truly doubt it, this change just forces all of the blue decks to run every tutor now, which always take time. 

What tutors? Exept the black ones, will blue decks run Personnal Tutor, Muddle the Mixture? At any rate it will be slower and give other decks the chance to emerge.

[Purple Hat]

I wonder if matches will take less time since there should now be less time spent on BS and Ponder pile decisions…?

I truly doubt it, this change just forces all of the blue decks to run every tutor now, which always take time. 

or Lim-dul's Vault....cus that's not time consuming at all.

[bluemage55]

What tutors? Exept the black ones, will blue decks run Personnal Tutor, Muddle the Mixture? At any rate it will be slower and give other decks the chance to emerge.

You totally missed deck types lessons.  Notice how the unrestriction of Gush slowed down the format? 

It's because control > combo > aggro > control.  If you weaken blue, you strengthen combo, which results in a faster format that shuts down rogue decks since they are slower than the Tier 1 combo decks and don't have FoW.

[Shock Wave]

What tutors? Exept the black ones, will blue decks run Personnal Tutor, Muddle the Mixture? At any rate it will be slower and give other decks the chance to emerge.

You totally missed deck types lessons.  Notice how the unrestriction of Gush slowed down the format? 

It's because control > combo > aggro > control.  If you weaken blue, you strengthen combo, which results in a faster format that shuts down rogue decks since they are slower than the Tier 1 combo decks and don't have FoW.

I've been reading your posts in several threads and they largely consist of speculation. I don't think there's anything wrong with making predictions, but to imply that there are problems before a metagame even develops screams of fanaticism. Maybe you should wait for the sky to fall before implying that it already has? Moreover, your efforts would be better directed at Wizards than at anyone on this site, since nobody is capable of undoing any of the changes to accommodate your concerns. Perhaps you should wait a few months to accumulate evidence that there is a problem and then take it from there.

[OwenTheEnchanter]

Thank you Shockwave, bluemage55 has been trolling all day just telling people they are wrong.

[Moxlotus]

Hurting blue (Brainstorm) also weakened all of the things that FoW holds in check: combo decks.  So if combo decks and the things that countered combo decks are both weakened, then archetypical parity is maintained while color parity is attained (pardon the pedantry).  It's a balance.

Some combo decks are weakened.  Others are not even touched.  Grim Long, Ichorid, and Belcher have not been touched in the slightest.

If you don't think Grim Long is weakend by the restriction of Brainstorm then you have never played the deck before.  You also think that Shop decks can draw Shop consistently for turn 1 nuttyness, but that blue decks that still can run library manipulation can't find their force.  You are being inconsistent with your logic.

It's because control > combo > aggro > control.

Once again, epic fail.  This paradigm does not work in Vintage.  Storm combo would have rather faced control than Shop decks.  Shop aggro decks would get smashed by monoblue control decks.

Bluemage, you are a new user on TMD and I wonder how much Vintage you have played.  You make repeated claims about things that are pretty much false.

[bluemage55]

I've been reading your posts in several threads and they largely consist of speculation. I don't think there's anything wrong with making predictions, but to imply that there are problems before a metagame even develops screams of fanaticism. Maybe you should wait for the sky to fall before implying that it already has? Moreover, your efforts would be better directed at Wizards than at anyone on this site, since nobody is capable of undoing any of the changes to accommodate your concerns. Perhaps you should wait a few months to accumulate evidence that there is a problem and then take it from there.

Virtually all posts consist largely of speculation.  Very few bring with them a significant amount of mathetmatical analysis, and in the case of predictions, none do.

Regardless, I am suggesting that the restrictions are a mistake based on theories that have been refined and developed here on the TMD, at Starcity's forums, mtgsalvation, and elsewhere.

In the end, though, your post does not address the substantive issues behind my arguments.  In this thread, I have criticized the OP for the following:

1. The OP argues that never in the history of Vintage has a single card so dominated the metagame.  I beg to differ, holding up Force of Will as an example.
2. The OP argues that Brainstorm is so ludicrously powerful it has defined a format.  I would argue that Force of Will fufills the same criteria.
3. The OP argues that Force of Will is excepted from these criteria because it is format balancing.  I argue that Brainstorms is also a key to this format balancing.

If you would like to address my arguments, then go ahead.  I am posting my thoughts on the matter so that others can indeed criticize them, and in such a way provide insight as to why and how I may be correct or incorrect.  Telling me the equivalent of "stop whining", however, is not constructive criticism, and I will not engage in a pissing match.

[bluemage55]

Thank you Shockwave, bluemage55 has been trolling all day just telling people they are wrong.

Thank you Owen, for a one-liner with absolutely no substance to it.  While this may surprise you, argumentum ad hominems are fallacious.  Calling me a troll because I advance opposing views does not address my arguments.

To the contrary of your assertion, I have not been telling people they are wrong.  I have been presenting supported arguments as to why they are wrong.  I believe you are the one who has made such substantive arguments as "bluemage55 thank you for the reminder of why I stopped posting, I failed to flawlessly articulate my point and you felt the need to complain about it." 

I note also that you did not respond in such a way to Smemmen's post on the other thread, which also disagreed with you.  Are you merely being rude to me because I'm new to the forums?

Further, aren't there rules requiring all posts to have a minimum amount of relevant content?

[Implacable]

I'm sorry if anyone has offended you, Blue.  Here's the problem that I (and maybe others) are having.  Here are some of the things you've said here:

"It's because control > combo > aggro > control.  If you weaken blue, you strengthen combo, which results in a faster format that shuts down rogue decks since they are slower than the Tier 1 combo decks and don't have FoW."

This is false, as I and MoxLotus outlined.

"Some combo decks are weakened.  Others are not even touched.  Grim Long, Ichorid, and Belcher have not been touched in the slightest."

This is also false.

"Brainstorm is just one component of blue, just as Dark Ritual is just one component of black combo and Sphere of Resistance is one component of Stax.    There are a number of cards that can be hit to weaken blue (chief of which are Scroll)."

This is a specious comparison.  Dark Ritual performs a limited function, as does Sphere, while Brainstorm has been since about 2004 the best unrestricted card in Vintage.  Stephen Menendian's articles demonstrate this pretty clearly, and he outlines this point well.

"3. The OP argues that Force of Will is excepted from these criteria because it is format balancing.  I argue that Brainstorms is also a key to this format balancing."

If Brainstorm encourages the use of one color and encourages one archetype (combo or combo/control) over others, then it is actually essential to format imbalance.

Demonstrably false claims are annoying, and the way in which you write them is stuffy and standoffish.  I don't mean to be harsh, but this is what I think - your style is offputting, and in conjunction with your claims has provoked anger or frustration.  Thanks!

Also, don't italicize the argument in the phrase 'arguments ad hominem.  Thanks again!

[Moxlotus]

If you would like to address my arguments, then go ahead.  

In addition to Implacable,

This is about the third time I'm posting this.  

Force is a purely reactive card.  

Brainstorm can be reactive.  Brainstorm also lets you build awful manabases and have control decks run fewer mana than type 2 aggro decks.  Brainstorm lets you shuffle away the crap and find good stuff.  Brainstorm lets you cantrip away until you find your singleton bomb.  Brainstorm is not needed for balancing even in blue decks--and I cite Steve making top 8 in 2004 gencon.

If you can't see the difference between force and BS then I don't know what else to say.

[bluemage55]

If you don't think Grim Long is weakend by the restriction of Brainstorm then you have never played the deck before.

Grim Long can deal with the loss of Brainstorm far better than most.  With an already low reliance on Turn 1 Brainstorm/Ponder due to the higher concentration of turn 1 options due to black (Duress, Dark Ritual), Grim Long can simply replace Brainstorm x4 with Brainstorm x1, Ponder x1, Thoughtseize x2.

You also think that Shop decks can draw Shop consistently for turn 1 nuttyness, but that blue decks that still can run library manipulation can't find their force.  You are being inconsistent with your logic.

Shop decks can consistently do something on turn 1 that poses a threat to blue, whether it is Wasteland, or Shop/Ancient Tomb and/or artifact mana -> Disruption

You cannot deny that Shop already had an advantageous matchup against blue, and that will only increase now that's blue's ability to Brainstorm/Ponder for land has been shafted.

Once again, epic fail.  This paradigm does not work in Vintage.  Storm combo would have rather faced control than Shop decks.  Shop aggro decks would get smashed by monoblue control decks.

These are general guidelines, not absolutes.  

Bluemage, you are a new user on TMD and I wonder how much Vintage you have played.  You make repeated claims about things that are pretty much false.

Neither the fact that I am a new user nor the number of games I have played have any relevance towards whether my points are correct or incorrect.  But if you do care I have been playing Vintage since 2002 (the Control Player's Bible got me into Vintage).  While that is certainly not as long as some players here, including likely yourself, that does not preclude me from raising valid arguments.

[Moxlotus]

You cannot deny that Shop already had an advantageous matchup against blue, and that will only increase now that's blue's ability to Brainstorm/Ponder for land has been shafted.

I will deny that to high heaven.  I will take mono blue over shop any day of the week.  And Steve Menendian playing mono blue to a top 8 at gencon BECAUSE of the shop field supports my argument.

These are general guidelines, not absolutes.

And you had your general guidelines completely backward.  In type 1, combo>control>shops>combo.

While that is certainly not as long as some players here, including likely yourself, that does not preclude me from raising valid arguments.

I disagree that your arguments are valid, as I'm finding ways to disprove almost every one of them.  Experience and knowledge of Vintage history are helping my points.  You are speculating with no solid reasoning behind it (shops>drains LOLZ).  I am speculating with history on my side.

[Shock Wave]

Virtually all posts consist largely of speculation.  Very few bring with them a significant amount of mathetmatical analysis, and in the case of predictions, none do.

That is actually not true, because when talking about changes to the B&R list, people often use evidence derived from an existing metagame to support their arguments. Since no metagame currently exists, your claims that the metagame is unbalanced and that Vintage has been ruined are entirely based on speculation. You have ideas about why this may happen, which I disagree with, but that is besides the point. Your ideas may not come to fruition once the metagame develops. Also, mathematical analysis is not required as evidence for an argument.

Regardless, I am suggesting that the restrictions are a mistake based on theories that have been refined and developed here on the TMD, at Starcity's forums, mtgsalvation, and elsewhere.

That's great and all, but does it not occur to you that you could be very wrong and that the theories will likely not dictate the development of the new environment? I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove. Why not just wait and see what happens?

In the end, though, your post does not address the substantive issues behind my arguments.  In this thread, I have criticized the OP for the following

I think you're misunderstanding. I actually have no intention of addressing your argument since any outcome would have absolutely no immediate significance or relevance. What exactly is your objective? To dissect the decision of the DCI using your idea of what the requisite criteria for B&R changes are, and then lobby for the changes to be undone before the environment represents some form of a metagame?

I am posting my thoughts on the matter so that others can indeed criticize them, and in such a way provide insight as to why and how I may be correct or incorrect.  Telling me the equivalent of "stop whining", however, is not constructive criticism, and I will not engage in a pissing match.

I've chosen not to address the finer points of your argument, but I instead challenge the purpose of your argument altogether. People like to engage in arguments where the outcome may actually have a benefit or serve some purpose, and I cannot see what purpose your repeated diatribes serve. I have not told you to "stop whining", but rather I've suggested that you take your concerns somewhere they have an actual chance of serving your objective. You do not agree with the changes that have been made, which has been duly noted, but your objective of "making noise" is really a storm in a teacup and the governing bodies of this format really couldn't care less. Perhaps write an article or a letter and submit it to them instead?

[Metman]

I'll take a crack at getting this thread back on topic; after, of course, I pose the question that has been swimming around in my head since people started accepting that Brainstorm was restricted for good reason.  Who was talking about Brainstorm being a card that could and should get the axe?  I may be a bit naive but I post occasionally and always get my daily dose of vintage discussion on these threads.  But I digress.

The loss of Brainstorm will have a few fundamental changes on the format as a whole.  The first and most prominent in my opinion is that control and combo/control no longer get away with running atrocious mana bases.  The second change is the slight (yes slight) weaken of Force of Will.  Blue based control gets more time and energy in vintage than anything other archetype.  The combonation of losing Merchant Scroll increases this factor but Brainstorm will be replaced, probably not with anything quite as good but Impulse, Night's Whisper, Sensei's Divining Top, and/or some of the cheap cantrips will fill it's role.  I think this may also be a time to bring up Street Wraith as a card that may see the play that so many predicted it might. 

I really thought that Brainstorm was a card that held the format together as much as Force of Will does.  After more thought I have to take back that assumption.  The card is crazy good and an autoinclude in most decks but there are many replacements that aren't quite as format dependent.  I think that's a good idea. 

[JACO]

Virtually all posts consist largely of speculation.  Very few bring with them a significant amount of mathetmatical analysis, and in the case of predictions, none do.

That is actually not true, because when talking about changes to the B&R list, people often use evidence derived from an existing metagame to support their arguments. Since no metagame currently exists, your claims that the metagame is unbalanced and that Vintage has been ruined are entirely based on speculation.

Rich, if this was the case, and evidence derived from an existing metagame was largely used to support an argument of restriction, then how could you argue for the restriction of Flash and Crucible of Worlds in the past? Your arguments were more theoretical, and less based on practical results in actual Vintage tournaments played around the globe. There was never any demonstrated dominance of either card over the course of an extended time period to support your argument for the restriction of those.

[Shock Wave]

Rich, if this was the case, and evidence derived from an existing metagame was largely used to support an argument of restriction, then how could you argue for the restriction of Flash and Crucible of Worlds in the past? Your arguments were more theoretical, and less based on practical results in actual Vintage tournaments played around the globe. There was never any demonstrated dominance of either card over the course of an extended time period to support your argument for the restriction of those.

My arguments for Flash were based upon data collected throughout a year of events in which Flash was prevalent. The data was not based on theoretical opinion about what Flash could possibly do, but rather about what Flash actually did. I'm not really sure how you can compare these two scenarios:

(A) A deck that is established wreaks havoc over the course of a year and carries proven potential to kill their opponent on the first turn with startling consistency. A call is made for its restriction at the next B&R announcement, based largely on facts pertaining to the player impact and functionality of the deck.

(B) A B&R announcement is made. Without any data about any deck, and without any deck even existing in the current metagame, a call is made to change the B&R list based on theory about what the metagame might consist of.

Ummmm .... what!? Furthermore, I never once argued that Flash should be restricted based on data pertaining to format dominance. The arguments and reasoning were based on evidence of the impact Flash had on the player base.

As for Crucible of Worlds, it was wrong to call for its restriction, but I quickly changed my stance once it became clear that Trinisphere, not Crucible, was the culprit. I felt there was a problem with the metagame, but pointed the finger a little prematurely. You could disagree with my arguments for the restriction of Trinisphere and Flash, but I'm not trying to convince you. In both cases, the objective was to get the attention of the DCI, and it seems they agreed with me in both cases (whether or not I had any influence in the decision is irrelevant). This is exactly what I recommended bluemage to do: Construct an argument based on events from an established metagame and send it to the DCI. It is far more likely that they will consider an argument based on what has actually happened than a theoretical rant about the future.

[Ufactor]

You cannot deny that Shop already had an advantageous match up against blue, and that will only increase now that's blue's ability to Brainstorm/Ponder for land has been shafted.

I will deny that to high heaven.  I will take mono blue over shop any day of the week.  And Steve Menendian playing mono blue to a top 8 at gencon BECAUSE of the shop field supports my argument.

These are general guidelines, not absolutes.

And you had your general guidelines completely backward.  In type 1, combo>control>shops>combo.

While that is certainly not as long as some players here, including likely yourself, that does not preclude me from raising valid arguments.

I disagree that your arguments are valid, as I'm finding ways to disprove almost every one of them.  Experience and knowledge of Vintage history are helping my points.  You are speculating with no solid reasoning behind it (shops>drains LOLZ).  I am speculating with history on my side.

I pm'ed you about this largely because I disagree with this logic... or rather you are leaving out a ton of information.  Yes, the deck beats Stax, but wins game one less than a third of the time.  The reason is that Stax poops out lock pieces faster than you can counter them.  You fall behind on tempo and permanents very quickly.. and then you're off to game two.  This is where the deck really shines - siding in Energy Flux, Pithing Needle and (the extra) Back to Basics is key.  Simply saying, "I play my basics and counter your stuff" is just plain wrong.  You have access to the best artifact hate in the game and that's why you beat Stax.

I piloted MUC at a couple of Waterbury's (yes, back when they were still at the Marriott), and even got some last minute input from Emperor Palpatine himself about the deck.  He stated that the worst thing that can happen is letting one huge bomb slip past the counterspells.  This implies combo, but what he was actually referring to is Oath.  Letting that card resolve on turn one or two is game.  Not only is Oath of Druids the kiss of death, but Tinker, and even Show and Tell is bad times.

For that reason, and that reason alone, I would not play MUC.  I would expect tons of Oath at the top tables of any tournament for the next two months.  Perhaps by Gencon we'll have this mess figured out, but until then my money is on Oath.

[Moxlotus]

For that reason, and that reason alone, I would not play MUC.  I would expect tons of Oath at the top tables of any tournament for the next two months.  Perhaps by Gencon we'll have this mess figured out, but until then my money is on Oath.

Regardless, Oath can be built as a monoblue deck with 4 green cards and it is essentially the same deck different kill.  The main point of my bringing up monoblue is to give an example to people that blue decks can and have had great games against workshops without playing brainstorm.  It is more of a history lesson than a deckbuilding lesson.

[Ufactor]

For that reason, and that reason alone, I would not play MUC.  I would expect tons of Oath at the top tables of any tournament for the next two months.  Perhaps by Gencon we'll have this mess figured out, but until then my money is on Oath.

Regardless, Oath can be built as a monoblue deck with 4 green cards and it is essentially the same deck different kill.  The main point of my bringing up monoblue is to give an example to people that blue decks can and have had great games against workshops without playing brainstorm.  It is more of a history lesson than a deckbuilding lesson.

Oath and MUC are both good against Stax, but for completely different reasons.  MUC has 6-9 cards that it can side in to demolish artifacts.  Oath on the other hand usually can't side anything in against Stax, but doesn't need to.  Stax usually can't answer a flying 6/6 creature with protection from everything.  So again, you're correct, but with shaky reasoning.

[Moxlotus]

Oath on the other hand usually can't side anything in against Stax, but doesn't need to.  Stax usually can't answer a flying 6/6 creature with protection from everything.  So again, you're correct, but with shaky reasoning.

Depends on which Oath deck you are talking about.  Original Meandeck Oath is essentially monoblue and sure it could randomly drop oath on turn 1 or it could sit there and play mono blue and play islands and mana drain stuff.  As someone who played exclusively Oath for about 1.5 years, that turn 1 orchard, mox Oath doesn't happen nearly as often as the person on the receiving end believes.

Oh, and MDOath played with 3 Energy Flux in the board.  Most Oath decks ran those or Oxidizes. 

or rather you are leaving out a ton of information.

This.