Sum of its parts: Optimal Tezzeret

[voltron00x]

Running Oath does more than just blank Dark Confidant.  It really makes it difficult for Tezzeret to move ahead in the game.  Tezzeret needs some cards that just advance it through the game indiscriminately.  It needs ways to just get more cards in its hand.  Playing without Bob is a huge liability if your deck is built around it.  I think Dark Confidant should be on the way out in a reasonable metagame.

What are you basing this on?

Saying Tezz is "built on" Dark Confidant is making a bit of a leap.  Its a 3-of.  Meddling Mage naming Thirst for Knowledge would hardly have shut down Tezz pre-restriction.  Having an Oath out with no Orchard is more or less putting Tezz in a similar situation.  While Vroman Oath has some concessions to CA (such as Gifts and Recall), the majority of its cards are still a one-for-one.  Tezzeret is still able to better exploit Yawgmoth's Will in the early to mid game and is still more likely to find and resolve Key/Vault. 

[Anusien]

It's part of an idea I'm working on.  The premise is that all the Vintage blue decks have these incremental advantage cards to get ahead just to move the game along.  This is the role of Impulse or Night's Whisper or Dark Confidant.  It is the role previously filled by Brainstorm, Ponder and Thirst for Knowledge.  I think the blue decks need these to make the game flow smoothly, and cutting these off has a bigger detriment than just blanking a few cards.

[Grand Inquisitor]

idea I'm working on

I like this.  And having played tons of these decks, I know exactly what you're talking about.  I'd add this:

-The point the blue deck is working towards is basically the critical mass of draw/mana/tutors needed to execute the win condition.  In contemporary combo-control this execution is easier than it's ever been.  This is also why the disappearance of decent unrestricted draw/search hasn't slowed it down much.

-While the 'cantripy' strategy does rely on Dark Confidant and the like to an extent, there are other strategies.  The early turn gambit (going for vault/key without protection), the tinker gambit and also trying to play hard control until the deck draws to critical without the cantrips.  Obviously the blue deck works better when it has its toys, but it's perfectly capable (and mine is especially designed for this) to play the waiting game.


I'll also say that this angle is what I'm thinking of when I add Oath as a caveat to Tez's dominance.  The opportunity for meta arbitrage is exactly at this kind of pressure point, although I don't see anyone doing it yet and I don't really know what it would look like.

2) You aren't wasting draw steps with MT, if you exclude Tezz.dec forced to topdeck without a board/hand. In a lot different game situations, almost any of you business spells will help you to nullify pratical cards disadvantage producted by MT: Rebuild can cicle, DConfidant give you a double draw step, Repeal will bounce & cicle, F/I can tap & cicle, SDTop will exchange the top card of the deck for you if needed, BS & Ponder simply put the MysticallyTutored card directly in your hand.

Going way back, I do agree with this to a point.  My Tez list wasn't as cantripy as it is now when I was running Mystical.  I plan to test it again in light of everyone's advocacy.  Still, I feel a lot can happen between when you cast Mystical and when you get to play your recouping spell.  I don't agree, however, that the deck needs more tutors.  I'm pretty comfortable with my ability to find what I need and this is a big reason why I don't run MT, Imperial Seal or Transmute, etc.

[Anusien]

Part of it is that when you have Gifts on turn 1, you can't always win with it.  And you need to draw some cards to get some more mana and counters and extra cards in hand.  The problem with Tezzeret is that it's really easy to get lands like:

Land, Land, Mox, Force of Will, Mystical Tutor, Duress, Fire/Ice.

Those hands don't really get anywhere, except where they can go get Ancestral or Fact or Fiction or Gifts.  If that single draw spell gets countered, or even if you don't draw the nuts out of it, you're in a lot of trouble.  Heck, even Gifts Ungiven in that hand takes a few turns to get active.  That's why I think having the incremental spells like Repeal and Dark Confidant are important.  You need some action that isn't just tutoring.

[LennoxLewis86]

-While the 'cantripy' strategy does rely on Dark Confidant and the like to an extent, there are other strategies.  The early turn gambit (going for vault/key without protection), the tinker gambit and also trying to play hard control until the deck draws to critical without the cantrips.  Obviously the blue deck works better when it has its toys, but it's perfectly capable (and mine is especially designed for this) to play the waiting game.

I love the way you put this. As an avid chessplayer I like the use of the word gambit and it works very well in this context.

It's posts like these that makes me open MWS and play a couple of games, I love this game so much!

At the moment I have nothing specific to add to the discussion but just wanted to share my enthusiasm.

[zeus-online]

So....your theory is that blue/black T1 control decks rely on their engines? 

It's true, but kinda obvious if you ask me. The question is usually which engine serves the purpose best.

There's still a few engines left, although the best have been cut off by restrictions.

Afterall we could easily identify the main differences between past control decks by engine:
3cc/4cc - Skeletal scrying/brainstorm decks
Psychatog - Intu/AK - With brainstorm/Scroll
Slaver - Thirst/Brainstorm deck
MDG - Scroll/Brainstorm/Gifts deck

All of the decks designed around the draw engine, or simply the draw engine which fits the theme best:
Exalted angel to keep skeletal scrying active against aggro.
Intu/AK for 'Tog, since it grows the 'Tog.
Thirst to better feed the welders.
Gifts and scroll to setup a quick, protected, tinker or will -> Tendrils.

All of these decks basicly do the same, build up mana and cards (Good ol' Resource war) until the opponent is unable to stop your win-condition.

Tez is a little different since it either seems to go for the quick kill or the slow controlish confidant engine to eventually overpower the opponents defences....But many of these old control decks could do the same, what was in the past referred to as the "Angel Gambit" or later the "Morphling Gambit". Tezzeret is just better at that gambit then the old decks.

[Anusien]

My point is that Drain decks need cards that get them ahead without being focused on just winning.  I think there's a reason the Tezzeret lists that ran Lim-Dul's Vault instead of Dark Confidant or Impulse didn't catch.  They're arguably more powerful and have a great ability to set up the Time Vault/Voltaic Key combo.  But I don't think they fit the need the deck has.  The modern Tezzeret list has tons of cards to tutor up what it needs:
Mystical Tutor, Vampiric Tutor, Demonic Tutor, Gifts Ungiven, Merchant Scroll, Tezzeret the Seeker
My point is that it doesn't have nearly enough cards that it needs to just get a little advantage.  These are the cards that put you ahead of your opponent by drawing extra counters and giving you the mana to function:
Ancestral Recall, Brainstorm, Ponder, Thirst for Knowledge, Fact or Fiction

Look at what happened with modern Tezzeret lists.  We replaced 3 slots of card draw, in most cases, with utility cards.  Consequently, the deck is more inconsistent.  I think you'll find the lists with Repeal or Dark Confidant will perform better simply because they flow better.


Edit: It's worth noting that around the same time you did this analysis, I went and looked at every reasonable Tez list I could find.  I found Mystical Tutor, Echoing Truth, Ponder and Fact or Fiction were almost unanimous inclusions in addition to the shell you posted, and they showed up more often in the lists run by good players.  From that shell, the unanimous choices include Bob or Impulse or Night's Whisper (strongly weighted to Bob), but do not include Fire/Ice.  So from your GenCon list, up for "dispute" is:
2 Fire/Ice
1 Misdirection
1 Mystic Remora

[zeus-online]

Which is exactly why people are starting to use Sensei's top, dark confidant etc.
And why i chose to test intu/DA, Telling time, Impulse, Night's whispers, Skeletal scrying and a host of other cards.

I'm not disagreeing with you, i'm merely saying that i find it obvious.
Thus by restricting Ponder, Brainstorm and merchant scroll they DID weaken the blue shell by removing the best options for the effects you describe.

If i where to play Tez right now i'd play some number of confidants, tops and repeals.

It's just like all the other (Old) drain decks, they need someway to build up mana and cards until they can resolve whatever they need and then win.

[Diakonov]

Steve, nice work on this thread.  I think it's a great summation of all the testing we've done dating back to pre-Gen Con until now.

On the issue of Confidant becoming weaker due to Oath.  Personally, I think that this change is miniscule.  The real issue with beating Oath in game 1 is countering the Oath.  Maybe I haven't done enough testing, but games where Oath resolves and A. they do not already have an Orchard, or B. they are unable to find one in the next 1 to 2 turns, are few and far between.  I don't see it as a match-up where incremental drawing would necessarily be as important anyway, since your opponent is almost entirely concerned with the early game.  In other words, something like Int/AK is so bulky and slow that most of the time it would be nearly as ineffective as Confidant in game 1 against Oath.

I'd like to elaborate on what MaxxMatt was talking about in reference to MT.  It's just as important to discuss the tempo of the card as it is the card disadvantage.  When you are running lots of cantrips, it is worth noting that nothing at all has changed when we talk about it making up for the fact that Mystical has "lost" you a card.  What it is doing is making up for the tempo loss.  The reason MT can be subpar by itself has just as much to do with the fact that you have to wait for what you want as it does the loss of a card.

Currently, I am still 50/50 on whether or not it is worth including.  This was upon recently realizing (immediately after Philly) that the deck is overflowing with cantrips (I run an additional Repeal in my list as well), and the resulting tempo kick might just make it good enough.  If it weren't for this, I'd be solidly in the camp of not running MT for the current metagame.

It's part of an idea I'm working on.  The premise is that all the Vintage blue decks have these incremental advantage cards to get ahead just to move the game along.  This is the role of Impulse or Night's Whisper or Dark Confidant.  It is the role previously filled by Brainstorm, Ponder and Thirst for Knowledge.  I think the blue decks need these to make the game flow smoothly, and cutting these off has a bigger detriment than just blanking a few cards.

I agree with your theory here.  In addition to incremental advantage being a major game plan for drain decks, I think having control over card quality is equally important and indicative of that type of strategy.  Someone in this thread mentioned how the need for tutors and the like has seemed less crucial than it used to be, but I don't think that the metagame is the only--or possibly even the most major--factor at work here.  Sensei's Top, while obviously valued as a great card, still doesn't get the recognition it deserves, I think.  If you consider the fact that you have a minimum of 10 shuffle effects present in your deck, card quality on your draw step has never been so hot.  When it comes to finding specific tools or bombs, I think it is actually better than Brainstorm.  Brainstorm was great in that it would improve the overall card quality of your hand, but Top can really dig.  This reduces some of your reliance on tutors to be able to piece together whichever strategic path you've taken.

[Smmenen]

I had a few comments, and I don't think much, if anything, has changed to make the original notions in this thread obsolete. 

The reason why I chose the title I did is because as the core of blue based combo control becomes more and more dependent on the restricted list, it becomes more and more about cards that search or tutor (as opposed to draw).  The consequence of this is that single cards instead of 2, 3 and 4 ofs are more desirable and are more impactful.  Magic is already a complicated game and trying to make sense of cards and how they’ll play is the most important skill in making these choices.  The list below is the byproduct of careful observations about these emergent characteristics.

You make a good point.    Despite the fact that the restricted list is shorter than ever, the ‘big blue deck’ is built with more restricted cards than ever.    This means that singletons and other unique cards play a greater role than ever, and that means that there are more interactions to account for than ever. Understanding these interactions and building a deck to maximize synergies based on ‘careful observation about these emergent characteristics’ is more vital to both card selection and in-game decision-making than ever before. 

All of that is true.    But that’s only half the story.   And just telling half of the story can leave the wrong impression.

The title, and the explanation for the title, suggests to the reader that an optimal Tezzeret list is built either exclusively or primarily upon internal synergies, the positive interaction of the cards in your deck with each other.   That, if you could just find the right mix of cards and resulting interactions, you could built the optimal Tezzeret deck.    Thus, the title of the post: "Sum of its parts: Optimal Tezzeret."   

I am very skeptical of claims of ‘optimality.’   This is because winning in Vintage is not something that is done in the abstract.  The most critical factor that should shape deck design is external to the deck itself: the expected metagame.   My methodology for deck constructed puts the metagame at the center of the deck design process.   It does not begin with the typical assumptions, too common, that there are ‘objectively’ (meaning in the abstract) best lists, and objectively optimal cards that produce ‘optimal’ lists.   

Optimality is not a function of how strong a card’s internal parts are.   Rather, it is a function of how the deck operates in the metagame, and how those parts contribute or detract from its ability to win in the metagame.    There is no such thing as an ‘optimal’ list in some abstract sense.   A card’s parts are important, but those parts should be selected based upon a consideration of not just their internal synergies, but their outward effects, keeping metagame considerations central.   

It is so important to keep the metagame front and center in your card selection process.   The idea of an objectively optimal list is an attractive illusion, a dangerous mirage that seduces too many Magic players.   

Case in point:

Answer Suite

The printing of spell pierce complicates this section.  However, at the time, it became obvious that duress and thoughtseize were the best option to supplement mana drain and force of will.  The reasons are uncomplicated.  They’re cheap, on-color, hit most of the crucial spells in the game and allow you to dictate the role.  Relatedly, in a large, mostly unknown metagame like GenCon (or the Philly Open), these allow you to much better steer your future plays.  There were contenders that didn't work out.  Spell Snare while good, was just too narrow and hits neither Ancestral Recall nor Yawgmoth's Will.  Counterbalance was too slow and inconsistent.  Trinket Mage complicated the overall design and required playing weaker cards.  Misdirection wasn't sustainable in multiples.  Negate, etc didn't fit the curve.  All of them are decent choices, but none as strong as duress/thoughtseize.

There isn't one mention here of 'problem' cards you are trying to answer, your expected field, OR decks you expect to face.   

An Answer Suite, by definition, refers to Problems.    An Answer is not an Answer without a defined Problem.   How can you "Answer" a Problem without identifying the problem? You say that duress and Thoughseize are cheap and hit crucial spells, dictate role and steer future plays.   That's all true, but that doesn't mean anything as an 'answer.'   I can't understand how you can fill out an answer suite without a single reference to what it is that you are answering. 

3 Dark Confidant – running two makes it inconsistent enough to be pointless, four may be too many as they’re not particularly good in multiples and they’re lousy topdecks.  This seems to be the sweet spot.

Here is where I really become puzzled.   Dark Confidant isn't good in multiples?  Why?   If Dark Confidant is good as a singleton, why wouldn't it be good in multiples?   I can't think of very many cards where one copy is great, but a second copy is lousy.   The only thing better than one Ancestral Recall is two.   The main exception seems to be  very unique specialized cards like Darksteel Colossus and Tendrils of Agony or cards where a second copy is completely useless, like Tolarian Academy.   

If Dark Confidant is good enough to run 3, you are saying you want to see it a good deal of the time.   Well, if you run 4, you'll see it even more of the time.   

Also, since you think that Dark Confidant is a lousy topdeck, but you still want at least 3, that logically means that you prefer to see it in your opening hand.  Running four increases the odds that you will. 

The only reason I can't think of why you don't think that Dark Confidant is 'good in multiples' is because you are concerned about the life loss.   Tezzeret lists like Hiromichi Itou's have dealt with this problem by simply dramatically reducing mana costs.  He has cut Fact or Fiction and Gifts to reduce the chances of 4+cc flips, and runs 2 Tops to help mana life totals.

Tinker – I know, how could you not like Tinker?  Actually, it’s one of my least favorite ‘untouchable’ cards.  It’s slow at three mana, it’s a sorcery and it costs you an artifact.  These are all serious liabilities in the control and combo matchups.  Time Vault makes this card much better, but its value is still largely dependent on the impact of getting a large robot into play.  Right now I think this value is very low.  This elaboration requires addressing the robot slot as well.

When I hear people say Inkwell Leviathan or Darksteel Colossus or Sphinx of the Steel Wind are good in matchup X, where X is not fish, I immediately tune it out.  While the Tinker>robot play is acceptable in the Stax matchup (and admittedly good in the rare workshop aggro matchup), it is terrible against dredge, oath, ritual combo and certainly tezzeret. 

I strongly disagree.    Tinker for Sundering Titan is very powerful in the Control mirror, and can easily lead to game and match wins.

Also, in my experience playing TPS, one of the strongest lines of play against control decks is Tinker for Inkwell Leviathan.   Even if they answer it, they will have spent considerable resources doing so and will likely have taken 1-2 hits.   From there, it is often relatively simple to finish them off with a Tendrils.   

The very same idea applies to the control mirror with a turn one or two Tinker.   The difference is that you use Dark Confidant instead of Tendrils.

Finally, a third point, Tinker's power is certainly greater with Time Vault combo, and is a tutor that can quickly help you assemble the combo.

If you’re playing this list and losing to Tinker>robot, you’re either unlucky or you’re doing it wrong. 

There is nothing you are doing wrong when your opponent Tinkers for Sundering Titan on turn two or three, and outcounters you to protect it.   And, there is little that you can do to win from that position.   Also, turn one Tinker for DSC with Force protection gives you, at best, two turns to do something about it.   There is no shame in losing that game either.

Mystical Tutor - I find this card hugely overrated.  Then again, I may be guilty of overvaluing card parity.  Still, I hate wasting a draw step regardless of the card this is getting.  Part of this probably has to do with my distaste for Tinker, but much of it has to do with an understanding I've developed.  Certainly Ancestral Recall is important to the early game and one of the most consistent ways to achieve an advantage that will lead to victory.  However, I've learned that there are important circumstances where allowing Ancestral Recall to resolve is the right play.  These occasions are increased when the net effect of the play delivers one less card of advantage.

First of all, I think you are analyzing this card too abstractly, as you concede may be a possibility.   

If I go turn one: Island, go.
You go: Island, Go.
I go: on your endstep, Mystical Tutor for Ancestral Recall.
Turn two: Ancestral Recall.   

If my Ancestral resolves, I will be ahead of you in terms of card selection, even if not that far ahead in terms of card advantage.    I will have had more spells cycle through my hand more quickly and have more resources.   

Secondly, I think that there is one big reason you don't like this card: you undervalue Tinker.   The more a player values Tinker, it follows that the more they will value this card.   

I personally can't imagine not running Mystical Tutor in this environment.   

My 2 cents.

[Grand Inquisitor]

winning in the abstract...expected metagame

I guess you're right that I don't talk much about specific card interactions.  I'm making some tacit assumptions on the knowledge of my audience.  If you have specific questions about cards or matchups, please ask.

As for optimality it was intentionally a big claim to make.  Remember too that my goal here is recommending the best Tez deck for a large, mostly unknown/diverse metagame.  I expect people can look up the last couple months of TMD reports and morphling lists and figure out what that means.  I also believe that the metagame estimation should only go so far because we're working from such little information.  Going into any given tournament a player trying to prepare faces these uncertainties:

(1) accurate picture of the past
(2) variations in players expecting to attend
(3) variations in decks those players will play
(4) variations within decklists of specific cards
(5) pairings

Prediction is a loose art.  In fact a lot of my card choices are based on and explained as general solutions.

Dark Confidant isn't good in multiples?

A point I don't make, but is a good one is not only just about life loss, but about the relationship between life loss, card advantage and mana.  I've found that with one Dark Confidant out, I can build a growing advantage over opponents with the right pace to both control the game and execute a win condition.  Sometimes (especially in the midgame) maintaining two confidants works fine.  However, I've found that if you drop two Confidants early that you can run into trouble effectively using all the cards you draw before your confidants put you in a precarious situation with life total.  Many of the other reasons for running three (usefulness across matchups, topdeckability, competition with other slots) have already been mentioned.

Tezzeret lists like Hiromichi Itou's have dealt with this problem by simply dramatically reducing mana costs.  He has cut Fact or Fiction and Gifts to reduce the chances of 4+cc flips, and runs 2 Tops to help mana life totals.

This type of logic is exactly what I try to avoid in deckbuilding.  If Dark Confidant were a robust card like Merchant Scroll or Brainstorm or other great cards of the past, then I could see rationalizing many other choices around it in order to run four.  However, Dark Confidant has more draw backs and vulnerabilities.  I don't know if that's why Itou dropped Gifts, but if so, I'd argue that was a bad compromise to support a mediocre card.  I saw all sorts of bad arguments like this during the TFK era with crappy artifacts.

Sundering Titan is very powerful in the Control mirror

I LOVE Sundering Titan.  I really think he's powerful.  I wouldn't play him right now.  He's not effective enough against Vault/Key and Oath and he doesn't pitch to FoW.  The first issue makes the second issue more important.  He's also not good enough early against control or combo.

experience playing TPS...you use Dark Confidant instead of Tendrils

There's actually a sizable difference in these two applications.  With TPS the Tinker plan works because Tez is naturally taking a defensive posture.  In the Tez mirror it's just as likely that they're aggressively setting up the combo against you (instead of sinking resources into finding double/tripple counter backup).  Also, finishing off someone with Dark Confidant is much more difficult than tendrils because (1) he's counterable, (2) he's blockable by other confidants and (3) they can see him coming so can plan more effectively.

There is nothing you are doing wrong when your opponent Tinkers for Sundering Titan on turn two or three, and outcounters you to protect it.   And, there is little that you can do to win from that position.   Also, turn one Tinker for DSC with Force protection gives you, at best, two turns to do something about it.   There is no shame in losing that game either.

You're ignoring a lot of discussion in this post, other posts and upthread, but...The key reason to run a robot to tinker for is to combat hate decks.  Sundering Titan is good here, but Sphinx is much better.  In each of the last three tournaments I played in I came back from less than 5 life to beat these types of decks; none of the other robots can do this.  Losing to an opposing Sundering Titan may happen, but I've only seen it in a small fraction of Tez lists and Keeper lists.

I for one, am not part of the born agains who think Keeper is a strong competitor in this metagame.  I've tested with it some and it feels even more awkward than previous incarnations (which, importantly, had access to brainstorm).  I do think it points to important things people are missing though.  The Helm/Leyline play is very interesting.  Gorilla Shaman is a house right now.  Just before GenCon ELD was playing a 4-color Tez list that prominently featured Gorilla Shaman and Ethersworn Cannonist which was built on some interesting synergies.  As for DSC, if you plan to beat Tez with that card, all I can say is good luck.

If my Ancestral resolves, I will be ahead of you in terms of card selection, even if not that far ahead in terms of card advantage.    I will have had more spells cycle through my hand more quickly and have more resources.   

The only logic where I'd rather have Ancestral Recall in my graveyard instead of my deck is if I'm playing Yawgmoth's Will soon (this is also discussed upthread).  Basically I think the functionality of Yawgmoth's Will has moved more towards executing Vault/Key and less towards gaining marginal advantage for a later win.  It's never bad to Ancestral off a YWill, just increasingly less important.

Secondly, I think that there is one big reason you don't like this [mystical tutor]: you undervalue Tinker.   The more a player values Tinker, it follows that the more they will value this card.

Wierd, but I was just discussing this with a teamate.  I think you and he may be right that I don't utilize Tinker to its fullest.  It's always hard to change behavior, but in my next testing sessions and at RI I'm giong to try to change the lense through which I view Tinker.  I've since tested more with Mystical Tutor and it sucked, but again, I'll give it yet another try.

[Smmenen]

winning in the abstract...expected metagame

I guess you're right that I don't talk much about specific card interactions. 

Is that the essence of what you thought I was saying? Or was it something broader, deeper and more significant?

Dark Confidant isn't good in multiples?

A point I don't make,

You wrote on the first page:

four may be too many as they’re not particularly good in multiples

 but is a good one is not only just about life loss, but about the relationship between life loss, card advantage and mana.  I've found that with one Dark Confidant out, I can build a growing advantage over opponents with the right pace to both control the game and execute a win condition.  Sometimes (especially in the midgame) maintaining two confidants works fine.  However, I've found that if you drop two Confidants early that you can run into trouble effectively using all the cards you draw before your confidants put you in a precarious situation with life total. 

 Many of the other reasons for running three (usefulness across matchups, topdeckability, competition with other slots) have already been mentioned.

I tried to parse out all of the reasons you gave in the first post for running 3 Bob instead of four, or, more specifically, each of the reasons you gave for not running four, and in my previous post I tried to demonstrate how your logic actually contradicts your conclusion.   I'll do so more explicitly in a moment.

Tezzeret lists like Hiromichi Itou's have dealt with this problem by simply dramatically reducing mana costs.  He has cut Fact or Fiction and Gifts to reduce the chances of 4+cc flips, and runs 2 Tops to help mana life totals.

This type of logic is exactly what I try to avoid in deckbuilding.  If Dark Confidant were a robust card like Merchant Scroll or Brainstorm or other great cards of the past, then I could see rationalizing many other choices around it in order to run four.  However, Dark Confidant has more draw backs and vulnerabilities.  I don't know if that's why Itou dropped Gifts, but if so, I'd argue that was a bad compromise to support a mediocre card.  I saw all sorts of bad arguments like this during the TFK era with crappy artifacts.

Itou never ran Gifts, but he did drop Fact or Fiction, post Vintage Champs.   Perhaps he made the opposite conclusion: that Bob was so strong that it was worth utilizing the maximum Bob draw engine, and making it as potent as possible, than run a singleton, even if that singleton was powerful that would compromise his commitment to his engine?   You seem to begin with an assumption that Bob is a mediocre card, instead of reason toward it.   If it really were that mediocre, then why run any in the first place?   

Your argument that 3 is the' sweet spot' is (in my view) unpersuasive and lacking in specific reasoning.  Variously:

1) You say that it's a lousy topdeck, yet that would imply you prefer it in your opening hand (since that's the only way you can draw it without topdecking it).  Yet, if that were true, you would presumably be incentivized to run 4 since that increases your chances of having it in the opening hand.   

2) You say that bob is lousy in multiples, yet if it were good as a singleton, I can't understand why it would be lousy in multiples.  Your answer is that you have trouble converting the cards into action.   That is very difficult to believe.  I rarely have trouble converting the cards I draw with confidant into action.   

3) Also, I think part of the reason they are lousy in multiples is because you have too many high cc spells, and the risk of you hitting a second high cc spell is too high if you hit one already, making your life precarious.   

4) Also, in your original post, you spent much time building the deck from the bottom up.   Yet, there isn't a single instance in that post of where you say that you don't want the 4th bob because of some other card need.    Yet, you just claim that your decision to play 3 instead of 4 is partly explained by need to fit in other cards.  Yet, this was never expalined or mentioned in your original post.

5) You say metagame consideration plays a role in running 3 instead of 4.  Yet, in your original post, you never mention any reference to metagame considerations that explain why you run 3 instead of 4. 

Then, there is alot to cut in favor of running four.   You say that your key realization was that Bob was good in the first part of your essay.   You go on and on about why you misjudged the card, etc. 

Sundering Titan is very powerful in the Control mirror

I LOVE Sundering Titan.  I really think he's powerful.  I wouldn't play him right now.  He's not effective enough against Vault/Key and Oath and he doesn't pitch to FoW.  The first issue makes the second issue more important.  He's also not good enough early against control or combo.

Wait a second... there is a middle step.

I wasn't questioning whether you would play him or not -- I'd already surmised that you wouldn't play him by the fact, that, well you don't feature him in your decklist.   I was specifically addressing these two claims:

it is terrible against dredge, oath, ritual combo and certainly tezzeret.  If you’re playing this list and losing to Tinker>robot, you’re either unlucky or you’re doing it wrong.

So, first you were saying that Tinker for Robot is "terrible" against Tezzeret.    And, secondly, you were saying that if a Tezzeret pilot loses to Tinker Robot they are 'either unlucky' or 'playing it wrong.'

My point was to contest both claims.   First, Tinker for Sundering Titan is not terrible against Tezzeret. It's actually very powerful.    Secondly, a Tezzeret pilot can lose to Sundering Titan and not be unlucky or playing it wrong.

Now, just because I think that Titan is not terrible agaisnt Tezzeret or that a Tezzeret pilot can lose to it without being unlucky or misplaying, that doesn't mean I'd run Titan either.  I was just criticizing those two assertions, because I don't think they are true.   

experience playing TPS...you use Dark Confidant instead of Tendrils

There's actually a sizable difference in these two applications.  With TPS the Tinker plan works because Tez is naturally taking a defensive posture.  In the Tez mirror it's just as likely that they're aggressively setting up the combo against you (instead of sinking resources into finding double/tripple counter backup).  Also, finishing off someone with Dark Confidant is much more difficult than tendrils because (1) he's counterable, (2) he's blockable by other confidants and (3) they can see him coming so can plan more effectively.

Let me be more specific: how many games do you think turn one Tinker with Force of Will protection will win against any 'normal' Tezzeret list?   Or, conversely, what % of the time will a Tezzeret opponent be able to survive and eventually win agaisnt a turn one Tinker?   

My answer: not very much of the time.     That's one key reason Tinker is so good.  It's not just there for Fish. It's also there because of the random 'oops, I win.'

Also, you didn't address my point that TInker is useful in helping assemble Time vault combo.

The only logic where I'd rather have Ancestral Recall in my graveyard instead of my deck is if I'm playing Yawgmoth's Will soon (this is also discussed upthread). 

I can't think of a single time where I would prefer to have Ancestral Recall in my library to having successfully resolved it, and consequently sent it into my graveyard.  I'm surprised you think differently.

[Grand Inquisitor]

the opposite conclusion: that Bob was so strong that it was worth utilizing the maximum Bob draw engine

This, I think, is the crux of our disagreement.  Bob is like democracy, not very good, but better than all the other options.  I also seem to remember you being a proponent of the 4x or 1x or not all deck building school of thought.  I firmly believe that sometimes you want 2 or 3 of something in a list.  The strength of Tez is its win condition, not its draw engine.

I rarely have trouble converting the cards I draw with confidant into action.

Really?  I guess a lot of it depends on variations in lists or something.  While I find contemporary Tez strong in its own metagame, I find it distinctly clunky compared with past blue decks that have access to brainstorm, merchant scroll, etc.  Someone posting earlier in this thread hits it pretty close talking about how this version of big blue has to sort of cantrip its way into critical mass, whereas other decks had tools to generate serious card advantage and/or tempo.  A big part of this is my view that the returns on running stuff like lotus petal and mana vault aren't good enough relative to their risk.

you have too many high cc spells

This is entirely unlikely since my list has a lower CC than Itou's.

1) You say that it's a lousy topdeck, yet that would imply you prefer it in your opening hand (since that's the only way you can draw it without topdecking it).  Yet, if that were true, you would presumably be incentivized to run 4 since that increases your chances of having it in the opening hand.  

Part of this is semantic, I'm really talking about 'topdeck mode' where you have nothing good in hand and are drawing off the top.  There's actually a lot of scenario space between opening hand and topdeck mode.

how many games do you think turn one Tinker with Force of Will protection will win against any 'normal' Tezzeret list?

My guess would be in the 67% range, but that's not important.  Of course Tinker, three mana, FoW and a blue card is a great opening against any deck.  That's not a common enough situation for me to say that Tinker>Robot is a reliable strategy for the matchup as a whole.  It seems you're taking pretty extreme cases to prove your points here.  You also go from discussing Tinker>Robot to Tinker>Titan.  Titan is stronger where the plan is inherently weak and weaker where you need the plan most.

TInker is useful in helping assemble Time vault combo

I'm not disputing this, I think it's the strongest reason for inclusion.

I can't think of a single time where I would prefer to have Ancestral Recall in my library to having successfully resolved it, and consequently sent it into my graveyard.  I'm surprised you think differently.

Maybe you misunderstood, I'm just saying, all things being equal, I'd rather have Ancestral in my deck instead of my grave, unless I'm going to cast Yawgwill.  Further, I've made the argument that often I'd rather have my opponent resolve Ancestral via Mystical tutor than to still have that threat lurking in his library or hand.

[Smmenen]

the opposite conclusion: that Bob was so strong that it was worth utilizing the maximum Bob draw engine

This, I think, is the crux of our disagreement.  Bob is like democracy, not very good, but better than all the other options.  

How can something be 'not very good,' but 'better than all of the other options.'  How is that sensical?

I find Bob to be fantastic.   It's fast (in the sense that it is an easy turn one play) and efficient, it's difficult to quickly address, it's resilient since it is so potent when your deck is under attack (such as Wasteland attack or Sad Sac, etc), and it can win games all by itself by inflicting lethal damage.  

 The strength of Tez is its win condition, not its draw engine.

I'm don't believe they are separable.   A deck's strategic plan does not exist in the abstract, but requires implementation.  The strength of that implementation comes to shape and define how strong we understand the strategy to be.    A strategy is only as strong as its potential implementation.    Otherwise, there is no way to evaluate how strong that strategy even is.   Dream Halls is a potentially powerful strategy, but it's implementation is awful, no matter how you figure it.  

It seems you're taking pretty extreme cases to prove your points here.

The efficacy of early tinker is an extreme point to suggest that Tinker is not "terrible" against Tezzeret?   Raise your hand in the room if you think that early Tinker is an rare play in Vintage.  

Moreover, I took issue with your extreme claim that Tinker for Robot is "terrible" against Tezzeret, as the counter-example of Sundering Titan amply demonstrates.  The reason, in the final anslysis, you don't run Titan is not because it's bad against Tezzeret, but because it isn't good enough in enough matchups.  It's still excellent against Tezzeret.  

you have too many high cc spells

This is entirely unlikely since my list has a lower CC than Itou's.

You are confusing ACMC and having too many high cc spells, just as Jaco is here: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=39634.0

A simple illustration will explain:

If your deck had 11 seven cc spells, 20 one cc spells, and 29 zero cc spells, you're average mana cost would be 97/60= 1.61, just about the same as my Tezzeret list.   Yet, the chances of dying to Bob are much greater if you've flipped just one of those high casting costs so far.  

As Jacob wrote:

The difference in your average CMC between a deck that has Gifts + Fact and one that runs two 0cc cards in those slots (Crypt and LoA I guess?) is 0.13333etc. That's an average of one extra damage from Bob every 8 turns, less if you replace them with 1-2 CMC cards.


I don't think average CMC is the best metric to evaulate Bob damage here. It's more that you shift from ~7 high CMC cards to ~9. That's both an increased chance to get hit once, and a much higher chance to hit two high CMC cards in the same game.

If you start with 6 high CMC cards and add two, then once you've drawn one, the extra two make you almost 40% more likely than before to hit a second. That's a significant increase, even if your average CMC only goes up by about 0.1

You may have a lower overall ACMC, but you have more higher cc spells, and that can make Bob riskier, and lead to game losses, even if it all 'evens' out in average.  

EDIT: although, Jaco has a different take than Jacob and myself.  

I can't think of a single time where I would prefer to have Ancestral Recall in my library to having successfully resolved it, and consequently sent it into my graveyard.  I'm surprised you think differently.

Maybe you misunderstood, I'm just saying, all things being equal, I'd rather have Ancestral in my deck instead of my grave, unless I'm going to cast Yawgwill.  Further, I've made the argument that often I'd rather have my opponent resolve Ancestral via Mystical tutor than to still have that threat lurking in his library or hand.

If my quote reflects misunderstanding, than how does your first sentence have any bearing on whether Mystical Tutor is weak?  


EDIT: Also, although I raised some critical points, I did want to commend your post Steve, for bringing with clarity and experience your views to the Vintage community.  Undoubtedly, the community is better off having heard your thoughts on the archetype.   Well done.  

[Diakonov]

the opposite conclusion: that Bob was so strong that it was worth utilizing the maximum Bob draw engine

This, I think, is the crux of our disagreement.  Bob is like democracy, not very good, but better than all the other options.  

How can something be 'not very good,' but 'better than all of the other options.'  How is that sensical?

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” - Winston Churchill

I'm don't believe they are separable.   A deck's strategic plan does not exist in the abstract, but requires implementation.  The strength of that implementation comes to shape and define how strong we understand the strategy to be.    A strategy is only as strong as its potential implementation.    Otherwise, there is no way to evaluate how strong that strategy even is.   Dream Halls is a potentially powerful strategy, but it's implementation is awful, no matter how you figure it.  

I agree, but with Vault/Key?  More like, "simplementation!"    (I want to kill myself)  All you need to do is play two cheap artifacts and activate.  The low cost of this win condition is a larger factor in the successful strategic implementation than the draw engine.  Both are required, but the fact that Tezz has succeeded for so long despite multiple permutations in the primary draw engine supports this idea.

The efficacy of early tinker is an extreme point to suggest that Tinker is not "terrible" against Tezzeret?   Raise your hand in the room if you think that early Tinker is an rare play in Vintage.  

Moreover, I took issue with your extreme claim that Tinker for Robot is "terrible" against Tezzeret, as the counter-example of Sundering Titan amply demonstrates.  The reason, in the final anslysis, you don't run Titan is not because it's bad against Tezzeret, but because it isn't good enough in enough matchups.  It's still excellent against Tezzeret.  

Although, if it isn't good enough against other matchups to warrant inclusion, it's probably safe to assume that Tinker>Titan wasn't being considered as a play against Tezz in the first place.  Yes, the word "robot" was used, but no one has mentioned Titan in quite a long time.

You are confusing ACMC and having too many high cc spells, just as Jaco is here: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=39634.0

A simple illustration will explain:

If your deck had 11 seven cc spells, 20 one cc spells, and 29 zero cc spells, you're average mana cost would be 97/60= 1.61, just about the same as my Tezzeret list.   Yet, the chances of dying to Bob are much greater if you've flipped just one of those high casting costs so far.  

As Jacob wrote:

The difference in your average CMC between a deck that has Gifts + Fact and one that runs two 0cc cards in those slots (Crypt and LoA I guess?) is 0.13333etc. That's an average of one extra damage from Bob every 8 turns, less if you replace them with 1-2 CMC cards.


I don't think average CMC is the best metric to evaulate Bob damage here. It's more that you shift from ~7 high CMC cards to ~9. That's both an increased chance to get hit once, and a much higher chance to hit two high CMC cards in the same game.

If you start with 6 high CMC cards and add two, then once you've drawn one, the extra two make you almost 40% more likely than before to hit a second. That's a significant increase, even if your average CMC only goes up by about 0.1

You may have a lower overall ACMC, but you have more higher cc spells, and that can make Bob riskier, and lead to game losses, even if it all 'evens' out in average.  

EDIT: although, Jaco has a different take than Jacob and myself.  

I understand the basis for this theory and I agree that it makes sense, but I would be willing to bet that this "variance factor" ultimately amounts to very little in terms of game losses when compared to the ACMC.  We can't forget the converse scenario of having that lucky game where you flip all zeros, something which can be game-breaking in a positive way in many matchups.  If someone wanted to, a comparison of the importance of these two variables is something that could be mathematically determined if we decided on a set starting life total and the number of cards needed to be safely drawn to assume victory.

[Grand Inquisitor]

Tinker for Robot is "terrible" against Tezzeret, as the counter-example of Sundering Titan amply demonstrates

Tinker>Titan wasn't being considered

Right.  Steve, it's tough to have a fruitful conversation when you keep moving the goal posts.  We've already been over the fact that the large majority of lists are not running Sundering Titan.  Also, "early Tinker" is different than the original scenario you set up, which was first turn tinker with FoW.  They're entirely different, especially now because of spell pierce.  Maybe an interesting point for going forward here is, this situation:

-You're in a tez mirror (opponent is known to play spell pierce) with your list running DSC, Inkwell Leviathan or Sphinx.
-You're on the draw taking your first turn with this hand: mox pearl, mox ruby, underground sea, fetch, Tinker, Gifts, FoW, Sensei's Divining Top
-Opponent is showing mox pearl, fetch and a five card hand

Do you push tinker here?

[Grand Inquisitor]

A quick update after another iteration of playtesting and tournament:

1) Playing around Spell Pierce works!...when you can afford to.  I found in a number of my matches that using duress fx to neuter the early game and then building up mana to play around spell pierce is highly effective.  In the tournament this was against Remora Tez variants and Oath.

2) Tinker>Robot is still almost an auto-lose against control.  We did a significant amount of playtesting trying to adjust my approach to this tactic.  I'd always get blown out or had my guy bounced and had to start over.  It's possible Titan would have changed these results, but he's much too vulnerable to fish.  I do, however, like the idea of boarding a helm of obedience for matches where I bring in Leyline (probably stax and ichorid).  Unfortunately, I don't think I'd bring in this play against Oath or Tezzeret as these are effectively 3 for 1's against decks with heavy permission.

3) We also tried using Predict as a supplemental draw engine and a way to answer topdeck tutors.  It would shine occasionally when you have early SDTops, but overall was more cute than effective.  The deck definitely wants another 2cc draw spell.

Since Confidant was so solid Saturday, I may even go against my better judgment and try testing with 4x again.  Like with Tinker, I'm not expecting much, but you can never test enough in this format.  Small shifts can really tilt the way certain slots perform.  Oath and maybe now Stax getting a bump may be enough to make it worthwhile.

My SB on Saturday made another hedge, this time I played dedicated Ichorid hate, but cut back drastically on the Stax hate and a MD Red Blast (which never showed up).  However, I don't expect metagames to be as control-centric after the pre-release.  I'd play something like this in the post-lodestone metagame:

4x Leyline of the Void
4x Annul
3x Ingot Chewer
2x Mystic Remora
2x Pyroclasm

[M.Solymossy]

You're running red, why not run Greater Gargadon?  I understand you were trying to double on Oath/Shop hate with the annul x4, but it's extremely narrow since chalice@1 is a relavent play.  Oh, and Oath.

[Grand Inquisitor]

You're running red, why not run Greater Gargadon?

I actually was going to mention an option of going 3/1 with annul/gargadon.  I like Gargadon ok, but it's narrow and I've found stopping early Oaths to be pretty viable with FoW, Drain, Duress/Seize and some combination of Spell Pierce/Spell Snare/Annul.  Right now, if Aggro-Shops does make a comeback, I think I'll like annul the most with an 'oh shit' button of 1x gargadon to tutor for.

chalice@1 is a relavent play.  Oh, and Oath

I don't fully understand what you're saying here, can you elaborate?

[M.Solymossy]

I don't fully understand what you're saying here, can you elaborate?

  Yeah I was going to elaborate more earlier but my college's network is awful.   


I meant to say if they resolve a chalice @ 1 or stick an Oath and you're not sitting on annul, you're gunna look pretty stupid when you draw 3 annuls as those decks are pounding you.   I really like ways to handle permanents while they're in play, because you can be reactive instead of needing to always be proactive.

[Grand Inquisitor]

chalice @ 1

The oath builds around don't run chalice for the most part.  This is definitely an issue in the shops matchups, but that's why annul is bolstered by ingot chewer.

ways to handle permanents while they're in play

I'm definitely with you here, but it's about tensions between slots and color requirements.  Here's my logic:

- Four colors makes you more vulnerable to wastes and complicates your fetching
- Nothing in red hits both Oath and artifacts once in play
- Green or white means I don't get to run F/I and Pyroclasm which are very solid

Because I'm more worried about my artifact matchups than my oath matchups (and since early they need a two card combo, which usually takes longer) I go with annul.

If Oath became a serious problem, I could see going with green over red, but this would require a serious rethinking of the main and SB.

It would probably end up looking something like this:

4x Leyline of the Void
4x Annul
3x Krosan Grip
2x Pernicious Deed
1x Yixlid Jailer
1x Pithing Needle

Once you go this route, you really don't have room in the board for combo/mirror considerations.  This means you lose a lot of flexibility in the MD as well, maybe having to resort to something like E.Explosives or Echoing Truth in the F/I spot.  The point is, it's really a different conversation.  Of course, in a perfect world, I don't have to worry about any of this and I can run 5c Intuition control featuring Ray of Revelation and Ancient Grudge.

[yukizora]

Hi!
I have a few concerns about the 55-card list that seemed to be there in any tezz in the thread's poster opinion, for reference, here it is:

1 Time Vault
1 Voltaic Key
1 Tezzeret the Seeker
1 Sphinx of the Steel Wind

4 Force of Will
4 Mana Drain
2 Duress
1 Thoughtseize
1 Rebuild
1 Fire/Ice

3 Dark Confidant
1 Sensei’s Divining Top

1 Ancestral Recall
1 Time Walk
1 Brainstorm
1 Merchant Scroll
1 Tinker
1 Gifts Ungiven
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Yawgmoth’s Will

8 Solomoxcrypt
6 Blue Fetches
3 Underground Sea
3 Volcanic Island
2 Island
1 Snow-covered Island
1 Tolarian Academy

I don't know why there's no library of alexandria here. It's for me a strong, strong card in any matchup, even if you sometimes won't be able to cast drain, leaving a dark confidant and a LoA on the board will surely make you win if not handeled very quickly.
Also, I don't understand why you splash for Fire/Ice and only this one. For me one of this deck's strengths is to be able to fight against the mana denial from fish decks, and I'll surely change the manabase to this:

8 Solomoxcrypt
6 Blue Fetches
4 Underground Sea
2 Island
2 Snow-covered Island
1 Library of Alexandria
1 Tolarian Academy

And also, remove Fire/Ice for darkblast. Which can also kill a 2/2 creature if you cast it in your upkeep (With some card disadvantage, I must admit), and you're 100% sure to have access to it if you gift / Fact or Fiction on it.

And for the 5 other cards in the current metagame, I'd go with:
1 Fact or Fiction, I love it, and even prefer it sometimes to Gifts, since you choose what you put in your hand, even if there's not always the piece of combo you needed.
1 Misdirection, still hesitating on this one, maybe it's more for the fun that grants misdirecting Recall.
1 Repeal, lets you bounce without card disadvantage, but I'm not sure if I prefer Hurkyl's recall, knowing that we often get to bounce artifacts with Null Rod or Stax matchups. It doesn't bounce Iona, but no other card can if you consider that your opponent will name blue. For iona I'd rather search for something black.
2 Daze, I think this one helps with Noble Fish all around, especially because it plays only 3 moxens as mana artifacts and also often includes 3-4 Daze.

I'd also remove the Thoughtseize and add in another Daze, probably, I think this deck requires more free counters, feel free to discuss on this, since I'm testing for it at the moment.

[Grand Inquisitor]

I've spent some time recently trying to update Tez for the new metagame.  It takes so much design space to make the MUD matchup bearable (not even good) that I don't have a configuration I'd currently recommend.

To your specific points:

LoA

I've got back and tried this recently before the release of WW.  Unless your metagame is really inbred with Tezzeret and Oath, it's still too slow.

Fire/Ice for Darkblast

The initial post still holds in general.  F/I is more flexible, kills pridemage and is blue.  All important pluses.  Darkblast isn't a bad card and I think it's fine to run.  However, it's strictly worse and if you're running the red for artifact and oath hate already.  If you like the two color manabase, go for it.

Fact or Fiction, I love it, and even prefer it sometimes to Gifts, since you choose what you put in your hand

Actually, my experience is that Gifts, when played correctly, is much better at putting the cards you want in your hand.  Fundamentally FoF is a draw spell and Gifts is a tutor, there's the difference in power.

Misdirection

Again, a metagame call.  This card is fine for control heavy metagames and decent against Fish and Combo.  This is not where I see things heading.  Also, for control heavy metagames, I prefer duress (and was up to 5x duress/seize at the point right before WW).

Repeal

A fine card, but weak.  Certainly not good against sphere effects.

2 Daze

A very weak card, especially since there's no mana denial in Tez and I try to play the long game (some lists don't).  There are lots of cards that are good against fish, I wouldn't put this among them.

[zeus-online]

Just a couple of suggestions.....

Have you tried remand? I tried it a while back (I've been working on a pet project, it's in the casual forum) it was pretty good against shops....Often the equivelant of a time walk.

My intention with it was to use it to help setup mana drain (remand turn 1, drain turn 2, do something unfair turn 3)

I would imagine that the new jace wouldn't be too bad with his unsummon and brainstorm abilities...Unsummon being particularly interesting against lodestone.deck.

[Hagrid]

Here is my current list I would like some input on what you guy's think. Thank you 

1 tolarian
3 usea
2 flooded strand
1 snow-cov island
2 island
4 delta
3 trop
1 swamp

4 bob
1 sphinx
7 solo crypt moxen
1 black lotus
1 yawg will
1 recall
1 timevault
1 key
4 fow
1 dt
1 vt
1 mt
1 brainstorm
1 gifts
2 top
1 tinker
1 time walk
1 tez
1 thoughtsieze
2 duress
4 mana drain
1 tfk.
1 hurkyl's
1 regrowth
1 echoing truth

SB
4 leyline of the void
3 nature's claim
2 remora
2 jailer
3 krosan grip
1 pithing needle

[Grand Inquisitor]

my current list I would like some input

I'd diversify your bounce so that they're not both 2cc.  I've tried even 1x Nature's Claim in the main and it's pretty good (and saves SB space).

My thoughts on Mystical Tutor and Bob #4 are spelled out above.  Everything else looks pretty tight.  I've tried configurations with Misty Rainforests and 1x Forest in the SB that work pretty well, but I'm still in the early phases with finding what I like.

Your board looks really good, although I might switch 1x Krosan Grip for something cheaper against spheres.  Naturalize, E.E., or moving the Hurkyl's to the SB (with Rebuild MD) may work.  I'd also find room for 1x creature removal.  Massacre, Snuff Out, Abyss, E.E., Putrefy are things I've liked.

[honestabe]

17 lands seems like a lot, especially if one of them isn't Library of Alexandria

[Phele]

No Darkblast, no Tarmogoyf, no other creature removal of any kind, just Tinker as solution .... the list doesnt seem to be that good prepared against Noble Fish.

[yukizora]

@ Grand Inquisitor: Thanks for the input, knowing that I expect MUD, Noble Fish, Tezz and Oath to be the Decks to Beat during the 4th Bazaar of Moxen (I might be wrong, but Zendikar and WWK gave a lot to these decks, excepted Tezz).
I think I'll go like that, leaving the 55 I listed above like they are, and then, for the 5 other ones:
1 Misdirection (Good excepted for MUD).
2 Thoughtseize (Good for Everything if you land it Turn 1)
1 Hurkyl's Recall (To deal with MUD, and also Null Rod)
1 Fact or Fiction

I didn't choose to play any Echoing Truth, because what we'll usually bounce will be Qasali Pridemage, Null rod or some Spheres. Playing Hurkyl's Recall and Thoughtseize lets you deal with these guys.
Also, I think I should play LoA in the deck, since Oath and Tezz are in the format, and it can help with long term control anywhere.

[Grand Inquisitor]

Just a quick update after T4'n Dave's event.

I wasn't very comfortable with the list after WW with Lodestone making MUD the real deal and (evidently) Thada making fish even more of a pest.  Relatively speaking I feel Oath has gained on recent metagame changes, so I feel like most of the margins this deck had in matchups were starting to slip.  That said, I usually play something until it's proven not to work, so I switched red for green and on a complete whim, found room for 2x Jace.  I didn't test the card at all, but since it was a $10 event, I though it might be fun.  The list looked something like this:

-1 Tezzeret
-1 Fire/Ice
-1 Repeal
-1 Ponder

+1 Mystic Remora
+2 Jace
+1 Hurkyl's Recall

SB:
4 Leyline of the Void
3 Nature's Claim
2 Mystic Remora
1 Krosan Grip
1 Yixlid Jailer
1 Engineered Explosives
1 Massacre
1 Pithing Needle
*1 Trygon Predator (I think)


The list was fine.  It continued to roll over the mirror and storm and to snatch wins from fish and workshops (even almost got there through 4x sphere, if not for a play mistake).  Oath should be a good matchup, but I lost in three to two solid hands when I drew into Jace where Tezzeret would have won it.

Jace I'm entirely unsure about.  It was mediocre.  It's possible it's fine as a one of, since it's a creature bounce and win condition that brainstorms.  However, my sense is that if I did my home work and had more strict expectations of the metagame, I'd play something else.

2c