Oath of Druids Post-Zendikar

[Scyther]

I split in the finals of the 53-person NYSE III tournament last Saturday:

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=39106.new;boardseen#new

I'll post a report in my article on SCG on Monday.

I was tempted to run something similar to Vroman's list, but just updated my Gamecore finalist list to include Zendikar instead.  It worked out pretty well.  Zen has really pushed Oath into the first tier of Vintage, IMO.

Can't wait to read it. =)

Especially your thoughts on the Dragon/ Iona main configuration...

[voltron00x]

I'm pretty happy running the 3 creatures, although I'm not sure it makes the most sense when I try to look at it rationally.  Its just what I'm comfortable with.  I side out 1 Hellkite vs Tezz / TPS / Dragon, and swap Iona for Karrthus in the mirror and vs Shops.

Briefly:

Rd 1 - Draw with Vroman Oath (I stole G2 with Krosan Grip, and G3 went to time but I would have lost had time not been a factor)
Rd 2 - Win 2-0 vs Dark Depths / Fastbond Combo
Rd 3 - Win 2-0 vs Hellkite Oath
Rd 4 - Win 2-0 vs Tezz
Rd 5 - Win 2-0 vs Tezz (Jeff Folinus scooped so that he could eat lunch; he was 4-0 and already a lock for T8)
Rd 6 - ID
T8 - Win 2-1 vs Transform Dragon
T4 - Win 2-0 vs Hellkite Oath
Finals - ID with Tezz

Jeff and I tested pre-board Tezz vs Oath during Rd 6, and I won 3 of 5 games.  He had to mull much more than I did... this list is far more consistent than lists I've played in the past.  I also tested the match-up the week before the tournament vs Nick Coss and won 5 of 9 (3-3 pre board, 2-1 post-board)... but I punted one game preboard by being too aggressive, and was unlucky to lose another when Hellkite was my 2nd to last card (and he had Sphinx in play, so I needed more turns to attack through it while holding Iona back).

The second game in the T4, I won on the draw, on a mull to four... after my opponent resolved a turn-one Ancestral Recall. 

[Killane]

I'm pretty happy running the 3 creatures, although I'm not sure it makes the most sense when I try to look at it rationally.  Its just what I'm comfortable with.  I side out 1 Hellkite vs Tezz / TPS / Dragon, and swap Iona for Karrthus in the mirror and vs Shops.

Briefly:

Rd 1 - Draw with Vroman Oath (I stole G2 with Krosan Grip, and G3 went to time but I would have lost had time not been a factor)
Rd 2 - Win 2-0 vs Dark Depths / Fastbond Combo
Rd 3 - Win 2-0 vs Hellkite Oath
Rd 4 - Win 2-0 vs Tezz
Rd 5 - Win 2-0 vs Tezz (Jeff Folinus scooped so that he could eat lunch; he was 4-0 and already a lock for T8)
Rd 6 - ID
T8 - Win 2-1 vs Transform Dragon
T4 - Win 2-0 vs Hellkite Oath
Finals - ID with Tezz

Jeff and I tested pre-board Tezz vs Oath during Rd 6, and I won 3 of 5 games.  He had to mull much more than I did... this list is far more consistent than lists I've played in the past.  I also tested the match-up the week before the tournament vs Nick Coss and won 5 of 9 (3-3 pre board, 2-1 post-board)... but I punted one game preboard by being too aggressive, and was unlucky to lose another when Hellkite was my 2nd to last card (and he had Sphinx in play, so I needed more turns to attack through it while holding Iona back).

The second game in the T4, I won on the draw, on a mull to four... after my opponent resolved a turn-one Ancestral Recall. 

What the heck did you draw that won you on the draw with a four card hand post opposing Ancestral???

[voltron00x]

My 4-card hand was REB, Orchard, Mox Jet, Duress.  I drew Impulse for the turn, and played Duress, seeing a hand full of counterspells, Impulses, and a Lim-Dul's Vault. I took the LDV.  I got duressed back, and lost the Impulse.  I drew an Underground Sea, and then a Brainstorm, seeing another REB, a Trop, and a Krosan Grip.  I kept the REB.  Scott played a second Vault, and I countered with REB.  Scotts only Black source, for his Duress and LDV, was an Orchard, and he liked to attack tokens into my tokens, so there were no tokens on the board.  I drew Trop, then drew Grip, then Black Lotus.  In the meantime, Scott had impulsed a few times and played a Brainstorm of his own.  When I have Lotus, Mox, Trop, and Orchard in play, with Grip in hand, he played a 2nd Orchard, then played Oath.  Obviously it resolved.  He thought for a while, then tapped the 2nd Orchard to play Null Rod.  In Response, I broke the Lotus for GGG and Gripped the Oath.  8 or 9 turns later, I'd won with the tokens.  Scott couldnt find another Oath - he lost with a grip full of counterspells.  Had he drawn another Oath at almost any point, or had I not drawn the single Grip, I'd have lost.

[Killane]

My 4-card hand was REB, Orchard, Mox Jet, Duress.  I drew Impulse for the turn, and played Duress, seeing a hand full of counterspells, Impulses, and a Lim-Dul's Vault. I took the LDV.  I got duressed back, and lost the Impulse.  I drew an Underground Sea, and then a Brainstorm, seeing another REB, a Trop, and a Krosan Grip.  I kept the REB.  Scott played a second Vault, and I countered with REB.  Scotts only Black source, for his Duress and LDV, was an Orchard, and he liked to attack tokens into my tokens, so there were no tokens on the board.  I drew Trop, then drew Grip, then Black Lotus.  In the meantime, Scott had impulsed a few times and played a Brainstorm of his own.  When I have Lotus, Mox, Trop, and Orchard in play, with Grip in hand, he played a 2nd Orchard, then played Oath.  Obviously it resolved.  He thought for a while, then tapped the 2nd Orchard to play Null Rod.  In Response, I broke the Lotus for GGG and Gripped the Oath.  8 or 9 turns later, I'd won with the tokens.  Scott couldnt find another Oath - he lost with a grip full of counterspells.  Had he drawn another Oath at almost any point, or had I not drawn the single Grip, I'd have lost.

wow. just.... wow.

if the grip had been a Seal of Primordium, did he have the counterspells for it?

[voltron00x]

Yes absolutely, anything other than Grip and I was done.  Even if he'd hit a Duress and stolen it from me, I was done.

This is a game I'd have lost six months ago, by mentally throwing in the towel from taking the mulligan to 4. 

[MirariKnight]

I've won with Oath on a mulligan to three once, and he resolved Ancestral first turn. My hand was Mox, Orchard, Oath and somehow it got there. That game sounds rather stupid and is definitely representative of the ridiculousness that is the Oath mirror.

[Red Irish]

The reason is that it makes you incredibly vulnerable. Iona herself is a 4 turn clock. It's nice that Iona is 7/7, but I think giving 4 turns is too much. I don't think you can rely on her to kill alone. If she does get removed, you're totally dead in the water. Hellkite reduces her clock and also wins on his own if you get him first. I think he's the best option although Tidespout seems good too.

Krosan reclamation + yawgmoth's will + tendrils and you can win on the turn after you activate the Oath, as you yourself stated in a previous post: after all, with Iona in play, your opponent is probably in no position to prevent the combo.

Oath has become dangerously powerful as a result of Iona.

[vroman]

tendrils is bad bc theres almost no chance you can win w it, wo oathing. twister atleast can help you reload midgame, or negate advantage if enemy resolves recall.

[Nehptis]

Oath has become dangerously powerful as a result of Iona.

Is Iona the element that is making Oath so competitive or is it the addition of the Time Vault win condition?

Cutting off an opponent from a color (especially Blue) is powerful.  But, I question if Aggro beats with Iona would perform as well if Time Vault wasn't part of the equation.

[MirariKnight]

It's definitely Time Vault that makes the deck so powerful. Iona has definite synergy with the Yawg Will + Twister + Vault win (protecting it from anything relevant) and provides the actual win once you take extra turns. Iona Oath by itself is decent but certainly not the powerhouse it is with Time Vault. Iona is simply (one of?) the best way(s) to win with Time Vault right now.

[Killane]

Oath has become dangerously powerful as a result of Iona.

Is Iona the element that is making Oath so competitive or is it the addition of the Time Vault win condition?

Cutting off an opponent from a color (especially Blue) is powerful.  But, I question if Aggro beats with Iona would perform as well if Time Vault wasn't part of the equation.

I think this is essentially correct. It's the ability to add a single turn, combo based finish post Iona, with iona making every spell you castr after her uncounterable, that gives strength to the deck.

tendrils is bad bc theres almost no chance you can win w it, wo oathing. twister atleast can help you reload midgame, or negate advantage if enemy resolves recall.

I'm not sure I agree that Tendrils is "bad". I've had some success (though not any any events yet because I haven't made it to any) with the Tendrils list, but as I stated previously in this thread I agree that the Key/Vault win is far superior. I'm not playing it because i don;t own a vault and i woudl need more than 10 proxies to run that list at the moment, but as soon as I can I'll swtich to it.

however, should soemthing happen to Vault (as more and more peopel seem to think it will), I think the tendrils kill post Iona is the next best thing.

note that the Tendrils list does and should run Twister as well, and should also be running a reclaim (which is missing from the list above, I've tweaked it). that way, you reclaim the Twister if they stop your Will, and hope that a hand full of countermagic and disruption plus a 7/7 flyer that shuts down most of your oppoenent deck can get there.

[Valorale]

The problem with Tendrils is that you need a successful oath with your library in the GY and a successful yawg cast. If all those peices have fallen in place, I dont know how you havnt won already with an abundance of mana and the entire library at your disposal. Its just seems like a winmore card to me.

[vroman]

if time vault is killed, the entire metagame undergoes paradigm shift, so there is no telling whether Iona oath, or anything will be good. I would default to stax, and see how it goes from there.

[xerxes]

Wizards should just make a cheap narrow hatecard like...


VaultHate  W or U
Enchantment

When VaultHate enters play - you may name an artifact card with CC of two, and draw one card.
0: Remove target card with the chosen name from the game and destroy VaultHate at end of turn.
W: VaultHate gains shroud until end of turn.

[vroman]

ok, so then reverent silence or simplify becomes played alongside rebuild. it doesnt really matter. theres no remotely plausible hate card that could be printed that can keep up w power of vaultvolt

[SiegeX]

Time Trap | Instant -- Trap | Time Trap is Blue. / Split Second. / If an opponent has taken two or more consecutive turns, you may pay 0 rather than pay Time Trap's mana cost. / End the turn. / You may take up to two consecutive turns after the current turn.

[Killane]

even time trap won't help that much. Your opponent is already two turns ahead. You then have to kill them in your two, despite being two behind, or kill the combo pieces, or they're back to infinite turns.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Edited to make it playable:

Narrow Hate, U
Instant
Split Second.
Play ~this~ only during an opponent's end step.
At the beginning of the next turn's upkeep, the active player loses the game.

Or even better,

Narrower Hate Trap, G
Instant - Trap
Split second
If an opponent would search their library, you may put Narrower Hate Trap into your graveyard from your hand and search their library for a card named Time Vault.  If you find it, that opponent loses the game.

Counter target activated ability of a card named Time Vault.  You win the game.

[SiegeX]

even time trap won't help that much. Your opponent is already two turns ahead.

My intent was to be able to cast Time Trap on their 2nd consecutive turn (or beyond), that means you can do it as early as when they pass you priority on their upkeep step on their 1st extra turn.  This would incidentally make it work against timewalk as well.  One ability I think would be quite interesting in hindsight is getting X consecutive turns where X is the number of consecutive turns your opponent has had before you played Time Trap.  This would allow you to hold off Time Trap to the very last second, including a lethal swing (see rule 711 on Ending the Turn) to squeeze out as many extra turns for yourself as possible.

You then have to kill them in your two, despite being two behind, or kill the combo pieces, or they're back to infinite turns.

Or find another Time Trap whilst advancing your strategy.  I think these are all very doable in vintage with 2+ consecutive turns.

Edited to make it playable:

I would say it's very playable as is (or with my minor alteration above.)  The cards mere existence would have an immediate effect on the meta as Time Vault decks without a Duress-like effect would have to cut slots to include it; thus weakening their strategy.  Those decks that already have slots for Duress must stall until they have one, perhaps with backup.

I purposely did not include a 'wins the game' ability because I think it would be much more likely that WotC would rather bring time vault decks back down to Earth rather than eradicate them from the meta universe altogether.

In any case, my main point was to show that it is very possible to put Time Vault in check within the confines of the rules that exist today.

[vroman]

Edited to make it playable:

Narrow Hate, U
Instant
Split Second.
Play ~this~ only during an opponent's end step.
At the beginning of the next turn's upkeep, the active player loses the game.

Interesting idea, but duress exists. also at worst, could cause angels grace to become played.

Narrower Hate Trap, G
Instant - Trap
Split second
If an opponent would search their library, you may put Narrower Hate Trap into your graveyard from your hand and search their library for a card named Time Vault.  If you find it, that opponent loses the game.

Counter target activated ability of a card named Time Vault.  You win the game.

they will not, and should not, print anything that names a specific card from outside its own block. that just feels desperate.


probably the best single-minded answer to time vault is still Extract. so if they made

Extract-est UU
instant
split second
search target players library for a card and exile it. they shuffle.
draw a card

that might do it

[MirariKnight]

The card that kills the active player is actually made better by Time Vault, since you just skip your turn.

[SiegeX]

The card that kills the active player is actually made better by Time Vault, since you just skip your turn.

Unless you also have Chronatog out, I don't see how you can do this as the extra turn granted by time vault is mandatory.

Interesting idea, but duress exists. also at worst, could cause angels grace to become played.

Sans making the hate card a land, 'duress/thoughtseize exists' can be said for any card out there.  However, the mere fact that that your opp needs a duress effect essentially makes this a 3 card combo; bringing TV down a notch to where it needs to be.  Also, my bet would be on Stifle/Trickbind vice Angel's Grace.

I personally would be disappointed if WotC created such a narrow hate card that it completely eradicated TV combo as an archetype; I think that would be an overreaction.  The Time Trap card on the contrary has quite a considerable effect on a much broader spectrum as it affects decks that run Timewalk too and It does all this without ostracizing a complete archetype. It's essentially a MisD for timewalk-like effects.  Of course no surprise that I prefer the card I made up.

[MirariKnight]

If you have a Vault out, you cast the "active player loses next upkeep" card on their end step and then skip your turn. It makes Vault be able to kill w/o Key. I guess it also hoses infinite turns but it's definitely not a solution.

[SiegeX]

My bad, I'm so used to abusing Time Vault that I forgot how it functioned by itself.  Yep that would do it since time vault untapping replaces the entire turn; making the next possible time for the card to trigger on your opp's upkeep. Nice catch.

[Red Irish]

Oath has become dangerously powerful as a result of Iona.

Is Iona the element that is making Oath so competitive or is it the addition of the Time Vault win condition?

Cutting off an opponent from a color (especially Blue) is powerful.  But, I question if Aggro beats with Iona would perform as well if Time Vault wasn't part of the equation.

When Iona comes into play, it's basically game over: I activate Oath, you lose. A friend of mine runs Iona Oath with Tendrils and without Time Vault and I don't think Vault is necessary. Why do I need infinite turns if I can simply kill you in a single turn? In any event, it doesn't really matter whether you use the Vault combo or Tendrils post Iona - Iona wins. We can argue back and forth on the merits and disadvantages of each win condition, but the important thing to my mind is the opponent's inability to play spells of a given colour: it's like a Meddling Mage that names half the cards in your opponent's deck and I believe that it is primarily this that has given Oath a new lease of life.

[Red Irish]

The problem with Tendrils is that you need a successful oath with your library in the GY and a successful yawg cast. If all those peices have fallen in place, I dont know how you havnt won already with an abundance of mana and the entire library at your disposal. Its just seems like a winmore card to me.

I don't see the problem, with a single Iona and Krosan Reclamation you can ensure that all the pieces are where they need to be. Whilst you are right to point out that you need to successfully cast and activate Oath, I would still forego the Vault combo in favour of Tendrils/Krosan.

[AmbivalentDuck]

I personally would be disappointed if WotC created such a narrow hate card that it completely eradicated TV combo as an archetype

*shrug* It'd be no different than the Ichorid matchup.  The only difference is that we have sufficiently powerful grave hate and the deck has to jump through hoops (like running a nerfed manabase), while Vault gets to run the restricted list.

I'm strongly in favor of something like this instead:

Goblin Curator 1R
Creature -- Goblin, 2/2
Sac: Destroy all artifacts.  Each artifact destroyed this way deals damage to you equal to its converted mana cost.

Goblins is edging on tier 1 right now...printing another must-counter Goblin to bolster the Earwig Squad deck forces Tez to run more (real) answers to creatures and weakens it against other restricted-list based decks.  This thing would also be extremely splashable as an answer to both Tinker and Vault.

[voltron00x]

This thread seems to have gotten seriously derailed...

In case anyone's interested, here's a recap of how I've done with Oath in '09.  This isn't really meant to be about me - I'm an extremely average player, in my opinion - but rather to show the viability of Oath as a strategy throughout 2009.

March Blue Bell - 4-2, 9th place (40+ players)
GP Chicago Side event - 4-2 (80+ players; Swiss + 1 style, I dropped at 4-2 to eat at Morton's)
April Blue Bell - 7-1-1, 1st place (40+ players)
April Princeton NJ - 3-1-2, T8 (26 players)
Philly Open 3 in May - 2-2 (55 players)
May Blue Bell - 5-2, T4 (32 players - deck was played by Chas Hinkle)
Dan Herd Memorial in June - 3-3 (64 players)
June Blue Bell - 4-2 (50+ players)
NYSE II - 4-2-1, T8 (39 players)
Sept Blue Bell - 2-4 (40+ players)
Sept Oaks - 5-1-2, Split in finals (32 players)
NYSE III - 6-1-2, Split in finals (53 players)

Total record:  52-23-1 in finished matches (1 unintentional draw at the NYSE III), or 68.4% match win % across 12 events
Accomplishments:  6 total T8s with 3 finals appearances (2 splits and 1 win)

In March, I basically played the King James list, but added 2 Lim-Dul's Vault in place of 2 Negates.  I was all-in on the Oath plan.  At the GP: Chicago side event, I had Null Rod in the SB.

In April, May, and June, I added Tinker and Inkwell to have an alternate plan of attack, and ran Progenitus to have an "unsolvable" threat.  The May list played by Chas Hinkle that made T4 had Regrowth and Crucible of Worlds main in place of Negates, with 6 Duress / Thoughtseize and a Loam and 3rd Wasteland in the SB.  

At the June Blue Bell, I played an all-Hellkite list without Chalice of the Void and with the Vault/Key combo.

At the NYSE II, I played a more traditional King James list, still including Chalices and with Null Rod, but with only triple Dragons (including Karrthus), and cut Key/Vault.  I ran the same thing at the September Blue bell.

At the Oaks event, I cut all the Chalices and Null Rods for Key/Vault and more restricted cards (Thirst, Yawgmoth's Will), and added a Red splash for SB REBs and Ancient Grudge.

At the NYSE III, I ran a similar list but added Spell Pierce, Iona, and Ravenous Trap from Zendikar.

Right now, I definitely think some version of Oath with Iona is the best Oath strategy.  I'm a big fan of the red splash and back-up Dragon plan in my list, but the Vroman list has its own advantages, especially in an unprepared meta.

EDIT:  Just a few more thoughts here.  I'm pretty sure running Tinker + Big Man in Oath is a wrong choice in most metas.  I lost way too many games b/c I had 2 non-haste creatures.  Progenitus was very good for me in a few tournaments, where I was battling Fish repeatedly, and Progenitus was great b/c he was a threat they couldn't handle; I wouldnt' expect to see much of big P in the future, though, now that Iona exists.  I originally moved to the hasty plan b/c there wasn't much Fish left in my local meta and Shops had become much more popular, so the all-haste plan was better for me.  Your mileage may vary - I don't think Oath creature choices are as cut and dry as most, and there are small %s you can gain by treating this choice as a metagame decision.  My new list seems to win every time Oath gets active (regardless of whether or not I hit Iona), because of Ancient Grudge adding extra protection against Key/Vault and the fact that Yawg Will may come into play.  REBs are also just huge in the Tezz match-up.  The list I'm running is probably softest against TPS - playing it at Oaks was far different than what I'm used to, as I always had Chalice and sometimes also had Null Rod.  I'm still hesistant to sideboard for it specifically though, because only a handful of people play it at any given tournament (despite the fact that it seems like a strong deck choice to me).  Finally, the Vroman list seems like a poor choice in a meta where you expect Shops to make up a decent % of the field, because winning game one is much more difficult, and the match-up is relatively close in my experience.

I'd expect the meta to begin to adapt to Iona Oath if it keeps doing well - for example, Tezz might want access to Diabolic Edict(s), and the % of Shop decks running MD Chalice will probably increase.  I would consider Shop decks with Seals for Oath and MD Chalice as a tough challenge for Iona Oath.

[Bibendum]

Back to oath being awesome...

I stopped playing oath after tyrant oath died because none of the lists struck me as my style, this isn't to say they were not T1 decks just nothing i wanted to play, that being said this deck looks solid and im glad someone found a way to use iona right and not in some painters servant combo