[Deck]RND-Tezzeret

[M.Solymossy]

I'm no rookie when it comes to Vintage dude, I hate to get into these kinda debates, lets just leave it at "I AM A PART OF THE TEAM THAT DESIGNED TERASTODON OATH" and be done with this nitpicking ok? I've faced it numerous times although not with Tezz (mostly European Storm / Watskeburt?! which features the same shell as this Tezz build) and have always been glad to face it. Like I said earlier on in this thread, I haven't tested this Tezz list against Oath a lot (at least not enough to give any realistic kind of feedback) but I feel confident enough in claiming it's not at all as rough a matchup as most make it out to be in this thread, lets also cut the talk about RND Oath AKA Terastodon Oath because Tha Gunslinga's topic is lonely with all of you guys cluttering up this Tezz topic.

I'd just like to point out, publicly.. that conduct like this is what got me demoted from Full Member status.  Seriously, I believe TMD needs to keep their moderators at the same standard as us.   No disrespect meant for Marius.

Back on topic:  There is no way this deck can beat Oath effectively.  I just don't see it.  I've played Bob Tendrils more than anyone on the planet, and I'd even argue that fact since only Duncan could compete, and I've also played Bob Tezzeret a ton, too.  Look it up, actually.  My list was the FIRST successful build after the Thirst restriction.  However, your only engine that is different from theirs is Dark Confidant, which also enables their combo.  It's just not a fair matchup.  That's why I put down my confidant. 

[DuKeLiO]

In my testing with combo-control decks with Repeal and without Bobs the Oath matchups is favorable. This deck plays both, and I think that the Bobs counters the Repeal benfits.
There are too many games when simply you try to take turns simply repealing tokens until you can combo-out. You lose this chance when your draw engine is Dark Confidant. And with my experience with no-Repeal combo-control decks without Bobs it's a hard time beating Oath.
I think that with this deck you can only beat Oath in three types of games:
1) When you are broken with an absurd mix of restricted cards.
2) When you have a hand with a lot of disruption and your opponent can't force the Oath through them.
3) When you don´t draw Bobs and draw some Repeal to play like a no-bob with repeal combo-control deck.

[Marske]

In my testing with combo-control decks with Repeal and without Bobs the Oath matchups is favorable. This deck plays both, and I think that the Bobs counters the Repeal benfits.

I disagree a bit. I do however agree that Repeal helps tilt the Oath matchup.

There are too many games when simply you try to take turns simply repealing tokens until you can combo-out. You lose this chance when your draw engine is Dark Confidant.  And with my experience with no-Repeal combo-control decks without Bobs it's a hard time beating Oath.

How do you lose this? You bounce the Oath (not the creatures) the idea is still the same.. Like Volton00x said in this topic earlier, it sets the Oath player up for a weird choice, deplete your hand fighting for the Oath and see the Tezz player pull out a win because you have no counter or get Time Walked.

1) When you are broken with an absurd mix of restricted cards.

Any deck can beat any other deck with this. All decks in Vintage have these kinda things, so this is a rather obvious statement and it doesn't add a thing to your claim. Oath can also win with Mox, Orchard Oath (with backup) and TPS can win with turn 1 Ritual - Necro (with backup) saying this is one of the only chances this deck has to win is just not true.

2) When you have a hand with a lot of disruption and your opponent can't force the Oath through them.

Yes, keeping Oath away (Countering / Repealing) is the general idea. Just like every other deck has to do two things to beat Oath: A) Win faster B) do what you just suggest. Again, this is true for every deck. This deck is just a well equipped for doing this as any deck in Vintage. It runs a fast combo, 10 disruption (13 after boarding) and a draw engine that outdraws most decks (including Oath)

3) When you don´t draw Bobs and draw some Repeal to play like a no-bob with repeal combo-control deck.

This is indeed a good scenario to be in, but having Bob and drawing into more bounce / tutors to win quicker it's also not impossible to win before Oath does it's thing.

Everybody is making Oath out to be this unstoppable Juggernaut (like dredge or 4x TFK Tezz) which is simply unbeatable, this is far from the truth as else Oath whould be putting up the same percentages as Tezz did before TFK's restriction.

Yes, having Confidant in the deck plays well with their main strategy, Yes, you can lose because of this. Yes, It's a calculated risk and one I'm perfectly willing to take as Confidant is good in just about every other matchup and he's even good against Oath as long as you can keep Oath from resolving (with Confidant, Repeal, Top etc drawing you into your disruption faster then their draw engine it shouldn't be to hard), you can even Repeal your own Bob (in which case it might be better to just hit the Oath though) if you're really worried.

[DuKeLiO]

Repealing Oath is not posible always. And if you are spending U2 on repealing Oath, you can do anymore, but If you spend U on repealing a token, you can assemble your own combo and win with Oath in play some time after.
Also, you don´t know what are playing you opponent, and if it answer your dumb start of Sea+mox+Confidant with the same land(no-orchard)+mox+Oath (that is pretty common)  you will lose the game without care how many Repeal are in your hand.

I think: Bob+Repeal -> Slightly Unfavorable
Repeal only -> Slightly Favorable

This is a general though mainly against Iona-only Oaths. When you are playing against Terastodon Oath, or if your opponent is playing another creatures that only attack you life points like Hellkite or Darksteel Colossus you are stealing some time for free playing.

Also, I have to say that I never played Bob+Repeal+Vault-Key decks, I only speak from my experience with another combo-control decks with Bob+Repeal+Storm and Repeal+Storm and maybe I can't see something that is different with Vault-Key.

[Gekoratel]

Also, you don´t know what are playing you opponent, and if it answer your dumb start of Sea+mox+Confidant with the same land(no-orchard)+mox+Oath (that is pretty common)  you will lose the game without care how many Repeal are in your hand.

I don't really understand this sentence, are you saying that playing a Bob is a bad idea vs. Oath because they could have Oath + no orchard?  If so that is simply not the case as has been pointed out by many people in the past they are ~44% to see Oath by itself so seeing Oath and no Orchard is prob like ~25% and they also need to have a Mox so these percents keep getting lower and lower.  And even if the sub 20% scenario happens your deck has 3x Repeal which is a super Time Walk when Bob is on board, between 3 Repeal, Time Walk, tutors, and counters the Tez player has a very reasonable shot of winning the game.  Not to mention if the Oath player gets to trigger Oath the Tez player can potentially still win through Sphinx/Darksteel or Terastodon.

[Zieby]

I want to react on all the people who think this deck can’t beat Oath.

I think that with this deck you can only beat Oath in three types of games:
1) When you are broken with an absurd mix of restricted cards.
2) When you have a hand with a lot of disruption and your opponent can't force the Oath through them.
3) When you don´t draw Bobs and draw some Repeal to play like a no-bob with repeal combo-control deck.

1) We play Vintage, every viable deck in Vintage has broken plays and otherwise the deck could not compete in Vintage.
2) I make the statement the other way around. Oath can only win if Oath resolves (Yes they have TV+Key and Tezz, but both decks play them) If Oath doesn’t resolve and the Tezz player draws more cards, he is more likely to win the game. This will happen more often because of the draw engine Tezz has when compared to Oath.
3) I play the UBg version of this deck. If I don’t draw Bob’s but Nature’s Claims (instead of Repeals), than I have a solution for a resolved Oath.

Back on topic:  There is no way this deck can beat Oath effectively.  I just don't see it.  I've played Bob Tendrils more than anyone on the planet, and I'd even argue that fact since only Duncan could compete, and I've also played Bob Tezzeret a ton, too.  Look it up, actually.  My list was the FIRST successful build after the Thirst restriction.  However, your only engine that is different from theirs is Dark Confidant, which also enables their combo.  It's just not a fair matchup.  That's why I put down my confidant.

Bob Tendrils or GWSx is way different then this deck. It has no Counters and because of that fact it has a terrible Oath match-up. This I know from the side of playing Timeless Oath (Version of Iona Oath but with Tyrant and Withness) when GWSx was played in 2008/2009.

The big difference is that this Tezz list does have answers to a resolved Oath (UB or UBg). All other Tezz list didn’t run the quantity of solutions to a Resolved Oath. Furthermore the addition of Jace makes it easier to handle creatures after an Oath-activation; the only threat at that point is the big Elephant, the rest can be bounced. This helps allot during the Mid- to late-game.



This deck plays well, I tested allot against Oath and most of the games I lost involved Turn 1 Oath of Orchard and Mox (these are the results I have, further testing is needed, but at this point this is my point of view). In all other games I was able to keep Control until I resolved TV+Key or beat them to death with Bob beats or Tezz ultimate or Tinker Sphinx.

The match-up against Fish is way better then it was with any other Tezz build in the past, this is mainly due to Jace and Sphinx. The addition of Deathmark and Massacre from the board brings this match-up in favor of Tezz. The main board claims also solve the problem of Null Rod when not countered.

This deck has also a better Match-up then most against Workshop. With repeal you can Bounce the CotV and with Claim you can remove the Golem and with that their Clock. Th Flux and extra bounce from the board makes it even better.

The SB cards against Dredge are not set in stone yet. But a minimum of 2x Trap is what I will play due to the senergy with Top and Tutors. 1x Needle will also be played so we can use it to stop Wasteland or random Painter decks or …

I do not have more data to back-up the claims I make, I would strongly advice give this list a run, Jace did have great impact on the way Tezz can be played.

Greetz Arjan

[vroman]

Twister- something vroman oath used, but isn’t seeing much play in current elephant lists. The effect is symmetrical, but allows you to play catch up in a lot of situations, and benefits players with the most permanents. Also does recursion for y will. Compared to regrowth, I’d rather have regrowth for versatility.

The only reason I play Twister is a necessity of running a mill my own library combo. Otherwise the symmetry is too dangerous for non-storm-combo.

[hvndr3d y34r h3x]

I was aware of that vroman, but it did have a few other benefits beyond it's intended use (however small they may be), like catching up after an opponent resolves recall. But like I said, "I'd rather play Regrowth". Yes, I realize your list played that card too, but in this context (tezz) they're more in competition. But yes, you are right. Along with being less versatile twister is dangerous in a lot of game states that don't involve ritual. 

[voltron00x]

I actually like Timetwister in my metagame.  I think in some metas it makes sense to play it.  It feels pretty insane to Twister after you dump your hand of everything except a creature that you want back in your library, and if your meta is full of Dredge / Shops / Fish, it's a solid card.

[Grand Inquisitor]

Bob Tendrils...is way different then this deck. It has no Counters and because of that fact it has a terrible Oath match-up.

Am I mistaken, or is Soly talking about Drain Tendrils (which obviously has counters)?

In general on the deck (now having tested), I think the central issue to its playability is Repeal.  The two color vs. three color isn't too big of a deal and I think it's clear that the sideboard options are superior with green.

The big difference is that this Tezz list does have answers to a resolved Oath (UB or UBg). All other Tezz list didn’t run the quantity of solutions to a Resolved Oath.

Frankly, this is a simplification.  Repeal doesn't "anwer" Oath.  It buys time.  This strategy certainly works, so does running more powerful cards than repeal that still take advantage of the one turn they wait to activate it.  Another alternative is using duress/thoughtseize to disarm them altogether.

There are Repeal supporters, some devout ones even within my playtest group.  There also seems to be a correlation between Repeal popularity and Europe (I think this may have to do with all the MUD, I really don't know).  Probasco has had a lot of success with it.

I've always thought it weak and expensive relative to the opportunity cost of running something else.  I'd be happy to convert with arguments from supporters, but so far I haven't seen stuff here that does that.  I suspect there's a real subtlety to using the card effectively.  Anyone care to hash this out in detail or with game examples?

[Marske]

Frankly, this is a simplification.  Repeal doesn't "anwer" Oath.  It buys time.  This strategy certainly works, so does running more powerful cards than repeal that still take advantage of the one turn they wait to activate it.  Another alternative is using duress/thoughtseize to disarm them altogether.

Repeal just functions as a Time Walk (for people interested in the theory behind this, google "Everything is a Time Walk") and doubles as a filter to draw into your combo pieces / tutors to quickly seal the deal.

There are Repeal supporters, some devout ones even within my playtest group.  There also seems to be a correlation between Repeal popularity and Europe (I think this may have to do with all the MUD, I really don't know).  Probasco has had a lot of success with it.

Repeal is just a card lot of us European players like, I cannot put my finger on it but it just seems to work overhere.

I've always thought it weak and expensive relative to the opportunity cost of running something else.  I'd be happy to convert with arguments from supporters, but so far I haven't seen stuff here that does that.  I suspect there's a real subtlety to using the card effectively.  Anyone care to hash this out in detail or with game examples?

I think this is true, I'll try to write up small detailed report next Tuesday during the event and specifically focus on the use of Repeal and I'm sure Arjan will gladly do the same for the UBg build, maybe we can shed some light on how we play the deck.

That being said, how did the deck turn out for you? What did you play against? How did it go? When was Repeal a problem for you?

Answering these questions might give us an idea what you're doing different as well, maybe we can shed some light on the entire subject.

[pierce]

@ marske: expect some pms then on the topic. I have a research project to finish, but should find some time later today to chat about the deck.

@ soly: i think your critique is well placed. I do contend that Travis Spero and Lou Christopher may have something to say about playing decks with dark confidant and dark ritual in them--they've both been doing that with regularity since 2007. g1 is probably not great for this list vs oath if (and only if) the tezz pilot is unaware that the other player is on oath and leads with a bob.

@ vroman: your claim is less than true--it's a great statement in terms of the philosophy behind timetwister, but as Elias pointed out, there are metagames where a twister would be welcome. This is especially true for Colorado. I always get paired vs some combo deck at least twice in the swiss. Twister would even out the firepower because a race usually develops. Also great for those areas where you expect lots of dredge, as twister gives you a shot at winning g1.

[Marske]

@ marske: expect some pms then on the topic. I have a research project to finish, but should find some time later today to chat about the deck.

I'll answer them all and am looking forward to it.

@ vroman: your claim is less than true--it's a great statement in terms of the philosophy behind timetwister, but as Elias pointed out, there are metagames where a twister would be welcome. This is especially true for Colorado. I always get paired vs some combo deck at least twice in the swiss. Twister would even out the firepower because a race usually develops. Also great for those areas where you expect lots of dredge, as twister gives you a shot at winning g1.

I want to add that if you guys look closely to the TNV events theres always 1-2 Dredge decks and at one point in time there were even 3, in such a small event having twister is just stone cold bonkers at times.

[Grand Inquisitor]

@ vroman: your claim is less than true--it's a great statement in terms of the philosophy behind timetwister, but as Elias pointed out, there are metagames where a twister would be welcome. This is especially true for Colorado. I always get paired vs some combo deck at least twice in the swiss. Twister would even out the firepower because a race usually develops. Also great for those areas where you expect lots of dredge, as twister gives you a shot at winning g1.

Interesting, combo is the last matchup where I'd want timetwister.

[Cyberpunker]

I say we settle this the best way possible. With a match 1v1   . I am available all weekend!!!

[pierce]

@ vroman: your claim is less than true--it's a great statement in terms of the philosophy behind timetwister, but as Elias pointed out, there are metagames where a twister would be welcome. This is especially true for Colorado. I always get paired vs some combo deck at least twice in the swiss. Twister would even out the firepower because a race usually develops. Also great for those areas where you expect lots of dredge, as twister gives you a shot at winning g1.

Interesting, combo is the last matchup where I'd want timetwister.

what's funny about this is that I always cut twister in sbed matches for combo vs combo, just like i always cut necro in tendrils vs tendrils combo matches. You don't want them drawing into a better 7 and just winning. When I made that comment, I was referring to g1's, where tezz is often better off racing than trying to play control. Or at least, thats how I would be playing this list vs something like TPS.

I would side the twister out frequently.

[Tha Gunslinga]

Twister is suicide vs combo; you get equal results, but you're the one investing the mana.

[pierce]

Twister is suicide vs combo; you get equal results, but you're the one investing the mana.

This is true. 100%.

Intuitively, I still feel like I'd rather have the twister over the 4th bob, mainly for the combo decks around here. My last event had 24 people, and roughly 1/3rd of them were on either TPS or dredge. I'd like to twister vs both. Vs dredge to stall and try and time vault win and vs TPS to try and race with a time vault win. I certainly wouldn't be casting the twister unless desperate, or if I needed to shuffle their deck (as if they imperial sealed and I could reasonably conclude they went for a game winning card), or unless I had one half of the combo in play already.

I like the twister in this list. My own list would have -1 sea, +1 swamp, -1 timetwister, +1 imperial seal though.

[TheBrassMan]

This thread is a little awkward for me.  Besides different specific counterspells and robots, my list runs only two cards that Marske's does not - Mystic Remora and Tendrils of Agony.  I am a strong supporter of some of the cards discussed in this thread, but a large part of my reasoning centers around those two cards, so I'm not quite sure how I could/if I would defend it coming from Marske's list. 

Repeal was already flexible.  I've long appreciated the bounce package of Repeal + Hurkyls as opposed to Chain of Vapors and Echoing Truths.  I hated running cards that were dead so often, but Hurkyl's just funtions as such a bomb against workshops, that it's worth the tradeoff, and Repeal handles almost everything Hurkyl's cant, without ever getting stuck in your hand.  This is mostly still true, but less true than it was when I was first running Repeal in Gifts. 

But with Tendrils, (and I'm getting deja vu posting this, but I'll assume the last time I posted this was years ago in a gifts thread), I think people in general underestimate Repeal as an enabler, as gas itself, only looking at it as a reactive spell.  With only two cards in hand total, a Repeal and a Mystical Tutor, and nothing but mana in play, you can cast a Tendrils for 16 damage (Mystical->Will, Repeal, Mox, Will, Mystical->Tendrils, Repeal, Mox, Tendrils).  With nothing in hand but Repeal, Lotus, and Mystical, you can cast a *lethal* Tendrils with only 3 mana on the board (or for that matter, 2 mana and a land in the graveyard).  Those aren't even that complicated, but when you factor in a real game scenario, where you have access to a LOT more cards in your hand and graveyard, it actually gets *easier* to assemble, not harder.  Running it with Empty the Warrens which I like in some environments makes it even more dramatic.

The interaction with Remora looks minor on the surface, but it can be incredibly relevant.  Repeal was always weaker against TPS/combo control decks than fish.  Mystic Remora is *so* huge in those matchups, that Repeal becomes a relevant card, even if it did absolutely nothing but reset Remora.  By adding the multiple Repeals to multiple Remoras, it's not inconceivable at all to play an entire game with the card in play, which is really a huge deal - it's just not possible to wait the card out, which many players will attempt to do.  A TPS opponent in particular, cannot win without letting you draw at *least* 10 cards, which is kind of gigantic.

It's very minor compared to those other two issues, but I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned the Top trick yet, Tap to draw with divining top, Repeal it in response, put top and two new cards in hand (and depending on how much mana you have kicking around rearrange the top 3 before and after the play).  It's not what I *want* to do with Repeals, but it's a totally fine play end of turn in a standoff. 

Timetwister is probably a pet card of mine, and I probably overrate it... but that doesn't mean it's not underrated in general.  The mantra I give friends is always "If you're losing it's awesome, if you're winning it doesn't matter, because you're winning already, just don't cast it."  That's an oversimplification for sure, but there's truth in there, and in general I think players tend to ignore the fact that you don't always have to play every spell you draw, or bring a card you're running in every matchup, for that spell to be worth having access to.  To be fair, yes, I tend to board out Twister against pure combo, though I'm not even 100% sure that's correct.  I think people might be underestimating the explosiveness of Tez itself.  This is another case where running Tendrils makes the card better, but even without it.  Consider if you already have a Key or Vault in play, the sheer volume of seven card combinations that win the game for you immediately.  Add to that the number of seven card combinations that can safely contain whatever the other player draws.  That number is dramatically increased when you're running Remora, which more or less guarantees you get to counter a few tutors or rituals as necessary.  Also consider that combo just tends to mulligan more than Tezzeret, not because it gets terrible cards, but because it asks more out of a hand.  A really early twister, say turn one or two, just has a higher chance of wrecking them than you, especially if you're the one on the play or with the moxes.  If they lead with land, 3 moxes, go, then obviously it's worse for your right away, and you're under no obligation to cast it.  But that's only against the worst-case scenario deck.  How I see the card is just as a play that gets better the worse your situation is in.  When you're totally behind, Twister can do things Will can't, and I value that.  It's also worth noting that it's a non-insignificant maindeck anti-ichorid card that isn't dead in other matches.  (But let's be honest, it's also just really fun to play).

Earlier in the thread there was a discussion on ichorid sideboard, my two cents:  I'm not a fan of Ravenous Trap, beyond more or less directly costing me a lotus, it's just not a strong enough card to build your whole plan around, though it isn't a worthless support player.  Even if you can float it off the top, strong ichorid players are always prepared for a crypt or a trap, whether they see it or not.  They're always factoring in whether they should sandbag dredgers, whether they can afford to sit back and exert pressure with zombies, when it's wrong or right to overextend... and if you're paying one to look at your top every upkeep, they're not exactly going to walk into it.  I definitely support the suggestions of 1 Tormod's Crypt, to turn an otherwise lackluster Tinker and Tezzeret into actual combo cards.  I also like 1 Jailer as a tutorable answer (which was suggested as well I believe), and Leylines, but of course how much hate you run has to be tailored to your metagame etc etc.

[Cyberpunker]

Dredge hate is interesting...

My own view is that Rav Traps slow them down for you to outrace them for the win. If they are slow dredging, they are still vulnerable to Trap...

I don't know but wouldn't Dredge lose the game if they slow down too much in fear of Trap? And regardless, even if they slow dredge you can still Trap and make them start over.

Trap is like a time walk for you that eventually will lead to your victory...I think. :-/

[TheBrassMan]

Well that's the difference between me and a good dredge player.  They have to weigh the benefit of getting more cards vs hedging against hate.  But they're not going to just play slower for no reason, only if they can legitimately apply pressure.  If a dredge player has pressure on the board, or potential pressure like multiple bridges, it might make sense to get zombies in play and put you on a clock that ravenous trap does nothing about.  Even if they have no graveyard, 3 zombies and a narcomoeba is a 3 turn clock, and you've probably already taken damage, and your deck is probably dilluted with ichorid hate (because if it wasn't, you would have lost already.)  And lets not forget, playing slow for ichorid is killing turn 4 or 5 instead of 2 or 3, it's not exactly *slow.*

[Cyberpunker]

Wouldn't a Rav Trap in response to their Bridges' trigger nuke both their libraries and their potential zombies?

[TheBrassMan]

If by library you mean graveyard, yeah, of course it will, which is exactly what I mean when I say the Ichorid player is able to apply pressure by forcing you to play the Trap to kill his bridges, while holding onto dredge cards in hand.  You being in a position where you have to kill Bridges whether or not they can quickly recover is exactly what the Ichorid player wants.  But this is getting a little off topic for a thread about Tezzeret.  I've played with Ravenous Trap, they've cost me hundreds of dollars, I do not personally recommend them as hate over other options.  I'd be happy to post in an "Ichorid Hate" thread if you write one up, but I don't want to hijack this thread any more than I already have!

[Marske]

@Brassman,
Where the heck is TMD going when you are hijacking Dutch threads ?! Isn't that supposed to be our thing?!

@Rav Trap,
I ran the Trap as a compliment to Leyline, but after thinking it through a bit more I'd rather have something else to complement it. Sure, floating it on top is good but like Brassy said It's on there terms that you get to use it and that's not really good at all.

@Repeal, Twister,
I don't think I've played a Vintage deck in the past year that didn't have Twister in it. I absolutely love the card. I think Brassman has explained why repeal is so awesome indepth already so I don't think I'd need to add anything to that.

[vassago]

If by library you mean graveyard,

Wouldn't a Rav Trap in response to their Bridges' trigger nuke both their libraries

I would prefer it be the library. 

[Cruel Ultimatum]

I won a small vintage tournament with this list, with -2 traps +1 jailer +1 misdirection. I faced Watskeburt?!(almost blue), Tezz twice, and Rb Goblins. The twister was very good for me, letting me come back into games where I was behind. Repeal was also very good in the tezz mirror, where I was able to repeal his bob a couple times to keep him from getting ahead, as well as leaving his mana tapped to help me resolve cards like jace or gifts, which was pretty much the end of those games. Also, repeal did play an important role in allowing me to bounce a crypt or bob after getting vault + key assembled. The tops were also very good, letting me stay ahead of my opponent, and a couple times letting me shuffle one away, since I had another. Pierce was also a crucial card, and tutored it up to resolve a bomb where I wouldn't have UU up or an additional blue card to pitch to force of will.

The only thing that I kind of wanted was lotus petal as another way to get UU up on turn 1 or cast a turn 1 bob, however I am not sure what I would cut for it.

[Marske]

@Cruel Ultimatum,
Good job, glad you liked the deck! Those findings are right in line with what I expected to happen

The only thing that I kind of wanted was lotus petal as another way to get UU up on turn 1 or cast a turn 1 bob, however I am not sure what I would cut for it.

Beyond not knowing what to cut in this list, I've always disliked Petal in Control lists because it has upsides (another Mox Sapphire or Jet to get Drain / Confidant ASAP) it's also a one shot deal and not really impressive against mana denial strategies. I'd rather have an extra land or something that's at least a permanent mana source (and isn't called Mana Vault)

[Marske]

Quick update hence the double post, played in Tuesday Night Vintage again tonight, 4-0'd the event got a Jace, The Mindsculptor for my efforts, decks I faced:

Round 1: Dredge 2-1
Round 2: The Deck 2-1 (punted a game so could have been 2-0)
Round 3: RND Tezz 2-1 (Zieby with UB build tight rounds and very fun games)
Round 4: U/W Bomberman 2-1 (punted a game so could have been 2-0)

I played the exact same list as seen in this topic, minus 3 Rav Trap in the SB, I changed those into 1 Tormod's Crypt, 1 Pithing Needle and 1 Old-Man of the Sea. I also swapped the SB Rebuild for a second Old-Man.

[ancestral recall]

@Cruel Ultimatum,
Good job, glad you liked the deck! Those findings are right in line with what I expected to happen

I've always disliked Petal in Control lists

I agree with that, it destabilizes your mana base. Petal isn't a permanent mana source and I think control doesn't like this kind of mana sources.

[Marske]

@Ancestral_Recall,
Well, I think the "one shot deal" effect of Petal is great in combo lists, it's just not all that in control lists. Sure, it helps with getting UU or B (drain or Confidant) earlier / faster but that's not entirely a huge factor at all most of the games.