[Deck]RND-Tezzeret

[Grand Inquisitor]

Petal

It's also antithetical to a deck trying to be a series of time walks (ending of course with infinite time walks).

Timetwister...underrated in general

It's true that blue decks are increasingly explosive.  The card also has special synergies with remora.  Still, it's never been close to my 60th slot.  There are too many other things that I feel would add flexibility or consistency: repeal, fire/ice, thoughtseize, sensei's top #2, maybe even FoF (which I loathe) all come before twister.

Timetwister adds power and the opportunity to 'come back', but the cost of drawing it may have put you behind in the first place or it may just as easily allow your opponent back in or to just win.  The card is much too random, and relatively unbroken at 3 mana, for my tastes.

[ancestral recall]

Petal

It's also antithetical to a deck trying to be a series of time walks (ending of course with infinite time walks).

Timetwister...underrated in general

It's true that blue decks are increasingly explosive.  The card also has special synergies with remora.  Still, it's never been close to my 60th slot.  There are too many other things that I feel would add flexibility or consistency: repeal, fire/ice, thoughtseize, sensei's top #2, maybe even FoF (which I loathe) all come before twister.

Timetwister adds power and the opportunity to 'come back', but the cost of drawing it may have put you behind in the first place or it may just as easily allow your opponent back in or to just win.  The card is much too random, and relatively unbroken at 3 mana, for my tastes.

I disagree with it. I think more tops is not necessary because you have also enough draw potential. Cards like BoB, repeal, tfk, brainstorm ect. With twister you can comeback into the game and also good with cards like remora ect. When you are winning you don't play twister. It's a back up card in your deck.

[Grand Inquisitor]

It's a back up card in your deck.

But what if you draw it? 

[Marske]

Petal

It's also antithetical to a deck trying to be a series of time walks (ending of course with infinite time walks).

Agreed, which is one of the main reasons I dislike it, well put good sir.

Timetwister...underrated in general

It's true that blue decks are increasingly explosive.  The card also has special synergies with remora.  Still, it's never been close to my 60th slot.  There are too many other things that I feel would add flexibility or consistency: repeal, fire/ice, thoughtseize, sensei's top #2, maybe even FoF (which I loathe) all come before twister.

Timetwister adds power and the opportunity to 'come back', but the cost of drawing it may have put you behind in the first place or it may just as easily allow your opponent back in or to just win.  The card is much too random, and relatively unbroken at 3 mana, for my tastes.

I've never been disappointed because I drew Time Twister, there are situations when twister is just totally awesome in getting you back or re balancing hands after somebody got a small spurt of card advantage. Not to mention it plays well with the Tendrils in the SB. In other cases it just pitches (also not to be overlooked)

[Zieby]

When you are winning you don't play twister.

I've never been disappointed because I drew Time Twister, there are situations when twister is just totally awesome in getting you back or re balancing hands after somebody got a small spurt of card advantage. Not to mention it plays well with the Tendrils in the SB. In other cases it just pitches (also not to be overlooked)

I think this explains why it needs to be excluded Imho.
If a card is only good when you are behind, it needs to be reevaluted, because there is probely a card that can serve that spot better and that is not only good when you are behind (Regrowth, seccond Jace or even Ponder). I played with twister last TNV and never ever casted it in the 10 games I played, although I had it in hand for at least 4 games, the only use it had was pitching to Fow (and that is not why I play a blue card).

Regarding Petal,
This card is only good when you want to win in the first 3 Turns, otherwise you want permanent mana. For me it is that easy. I rather play a extra land.

For me the Basic shell is.

Spells: 31
4x Fow
3x Drain
3x Pierce

1x H-Recall / Rebuild

3x Bob
1x Sphinx

2x Top
1x Recal
1x BS
1x Walk
1x Thirst
1x Jace

3x Tezz + Key + Vault

1x Scroll
1x Tinker
1x Gifts
1x Vamp
1x Demonic
1x Y-Will

Manabase: 22
8x Solomoxcrypt
6x Fetch
3x Basics
3x Underground Sea
1x Loa
1x Tolarian

This leaves us with 4/5 cards for the Spells and 2/3 cards for the manabase. I left M-Tutor out of this list, because I know that some people don't see it as an auto include. The difference between H-Recall and Rebuild is already discussed in various topics and is a personel preference Imo.

** The things that can be learned in this topic as well as the topic of G.I. is that 3x Bob with 2x Top gives allot of cards.

** The effect Jace has on Vintage, it gives control a tool to fight Fish and other aggro control lists together with the aspect of being a very strong card in the Control Mirror.

** The way the 4x3x3 split of the counters works very well and compliment each other. This with the increased draw ability results in a verry strong core. The other cardslots are meta and personal related.

What you take in mind for the open slots is that you use them to fight against you harder match-ups.
If you use 3x Repeal you have a card that draws you cards and stall the oponent by bouncing their cards. But it is not a sollution, Nature's Claim is a sollution against most problematic threads (Oath, Golem, Vault and Null Rod) but it is limmeted with it's use. As I started the Post regarding Twister, I do not think that you need to use cards in the Maindeck that have limmeted use or it needs to solve a overall weakness of the deck.

[Rico Suave]

Regarding Timetwister, I'm personally a fan of the card.  Instead of stating the obvious, I'm going to add a few subtle reasons why I like Timetwister here.  

One of the concepts I've held for a while is that decks enjoy operating at a certain resource level.  Resources come in two main forms; there are permanents on the board and cards in hand.  Some decks prefer to play in a high resource environment, even if their opponent has a lot of resources, while some decks prefer to maintain a low resource environment.  Let me explain.

The easiest example is comparing a Tendrils combo deck, a deck that thrives with lots of resources, to a Fish deck, one that thrives with low resources.  

If a Tendrils deck is facing a Fish deck, and both players have 5-6 mana with 7 cards in hand and are operating at a high resource level, the Fish deck can drop 2-3 creatures on the board but the Tendrils player will just win in one turn.  On the opposite end, if both players have 2 mana and 2 cards in hand, the Fish player will be able to play his one creature and beat the Tendrils player to death before he's able to go off.

A deck like Fish is a prime example of a deck that enjoys operating when the game state is at a low resource level.  If both Fish and its opponent are short on mana, then Fish's cards like Spell Pierce and Daze and Null Rod become much more effective.  What use is Spell Pierce and Null Rod if the opponent has tons of mana to cast anything they want?  What use are a bunch of creatures in hand if the opponent also has a bunch of spells in hand that are going to out-race them?  

Ultimately, there are few decks that work better at a higher resource level than Tezz.  Combo is the only one.  This makes Timetwister a tactical advantage against everything from Fish to Workshops to Dredge to Oath.  

This brings value to Timetwister.  Against a deck like Fish, I want to cast Timetwister.  Going from 3 lands and 2-3 cards in hand to a fresh set of 7 means that the game is warping to a state that favors the Tezz player.  There are more resources available to each player, but when both players are working with higher resources the Tezz player is a favorite over anything that doesn't have Tendrils.  

However this raises another point.  Tendrils itself is in Marske's SB, but in my case I run Tendrils main deck which is something Brassman does as well.  The ability to enable Tendrils with Timetwister means that Tezz can be explosive on the level of a combo deck.  

I also want to touch on the idea of bounce.  Repeal, and to a lesser extent H.Recall, both bring additional value to Timetwister.  Repeal on a dangerous permanent followed up by a Timetwister can be a strong play.  If your hand has no answer to, say, Oath of Druids then it can be a serious problem for the Oath player if you Repeal Oath and cast Timetwister.  This concept also applies to cards like Bob or Null Rod.  Sure they might draw another Oath, but they might not.  And you might just happen to have an answer for their Oath with a fresh grip of 7.  And even if they draw an Oath and you don't have an answer, they still have to wait a turn for the Oath to do anything while you have a whole lot of options to just win.  Repealing a Sol Ring into a Timetwister is surprisingly effective.  And last but not least, H.Recall against a Workshop player followed by a Timetwister is devastating and will put you so far ahead it's difficult to lose.

Another factor is Mana Drain.  A lot of modern Tezz decks don't run too many Drain sinks, but Timetwister sure is a nice one.  

Lastly, Timetwister gets better in a deck with a number of permanents like Top, Bob, and Jace.  It allows the deck to pull ahead and cement an advantage.  It turns Timetwister from a card that only works while behind into a card that turns your board position into an insurmountable lead.

[matt_sperling]

Petal

It's also antithetical to a deck trying to be a series of time walks (ending of course with infinite time walks).

Agreed, which is one of the main reasons I dislike it, well put good sir.

How is it antithetical?  Is Black Lotus antithetical to the goal of taking all the turns?  Look, I dislike Petal too, since the deck isn't fast enough to want that kind of trade-off in this weak a form, but this argument is nonsense.  Steel City Vault wants to take all the turns, and Lotus Petal is very good in that deck.  Again, the real argument is that in any deck Petal is a trade-off between present mana and future mana, and Tezz isn't fast enough to want to trade 1 mana now for 1 mana every subsequent turn.  Time Walk is one reason why we care about "subsequent turns" but Petal isn't "antithetical" to our goals, it just isn't quite good enough, otherwise Black Lotus wouldn't be in our deck. 

I'm new to TMD, so I apologize if any of this looks absurd to those here.  I have played over a hundred games within a few cards of the following list, and I'm prepared to defend my choices and change those aspects that turn out not to be optimal:

Spells: 36
4x Fow
4x Drain
2x Thoughtsieze (the 4 drain 2 tseize is obviously less popular than 3drain 3pierce, I understand that).

1x Hurkyl's Recall
1x Echoing Truth
2x Repeal
1x Fire/Ice

2x Bob
1x Thada Adel
1x Inkwell

1x Top
1x Ponder
1x A.Recall
1x BStorm
1x Walk
1x Thirst
1x Jace

3x Tezz + Key + Vault

1x Scroll
1x Tinker
1x Gifts
1x Vamp
1x Mystical
1x Demonic
1x Y-Will

Manabase: 24
8x Solomoxcrypt
6x Fetch
3x Basics
3x Underground Sea
2x Volcanic Island
1x Loa
1x Tolarian

The most controversial choices are likely 4drain2Tseize over 3drain3pierce and Thada over 3rd Bob.  I guess the second Top and my bounce suite are also likely controversial. 

I agree with earlier posts about bounce being preferable to hard solutions such as nature’s claim maindeck, since you sometimes have to get rid of bob/goyf, and other times Oath/NullRod.  Well, given the hedge towards bounce, thoughtseize becomes more attractive to me than Spell Pierce.  On the first couple turns of the game I find that they are close enough (pierce has an edge, but it isn’t a massive edge) and later in the game I like a sieze with my bounce more than a pierce with my bounce.  Sometimes I don’t have enough black, and sometimes they have 2x threat and a spell pierce would have been better, but such is life. 

Thada Adel has been good for me as a 1-of.  It does some things that Bob can’t, but is better only in certain matchups.  Those matchups are pretty numerous though (Oath, Mirror, Stax (sometimes better, sometimes worse, which I suppose is always the case with a 2c vs 3c mana card), Tendrils (being a blue card is relevant and it’s also better when in play), etc.).  Its harder to cast, often being a turn slower than Bob, and this is the main problem.  I’m by no means married to the 1 Thada, and I totally understand others’ reluctance to play it.  I do recommend trying it if you haven’t yet.

1 Top is a personal preference and also stems from playing only 2 Bob.  The bounce suite works for me, even though you have vulnerability to Chalice 1 plus Chalice 2.  If they get Chalice 1 and Chalice 2, AND I can’t find and cast Tezz or Tinker, ok they got me.  I play vs. 5cStax with 4 Chalice a ton and it doesn’t come up that often. 

Let me know what you think, and I hope if nothing else I can challenge some “accepted” numbers and get people thinking.  Having to defend your built is never useless, and we both may learn something.

[the boogie man]

You could potentially play clique in the adel slot, same mana, instant speed, and works well with the thoughtseize. It also swings for 1 more, which definitely could matter. Plus, I definitely think there would a time where that bounce or robot in your hand is just waiting to be shuffled away.

[matt_sperling]

You could potentially play clique in the adel slot, same mana, instant speed, and works well with the thoughtseize. It also swings for 1 more, which definitely could matter. Plus, I definitely think there would a time where that bounce or robot in your hand is just waiting to be shuffled away.

Clique is disruption or cantrip, plus a small clock, but Thada and Bob are card advantage engines if not dealt with.  I don't think these cards occupy the same deck space, though they are somewhat similar.  Bob and Thada tell most opponents: "deal with me or kill my owner, or I'm taking over this game."  Clique doesn't do this.

[The Atog Lord]

I think, Matt, that your build is not very controversial. You're not cutting Ancestral Recall, and not playing something like Tarpan. While Spell Pierce is more popular than Thoughtseize, Thoughtseize is generally accepted as a strong card. Acquisitor, while not played heavily, is a card that I've been thinking would see play for some time; I'm glad to see that you've had good results with it. And both Acquisitor and Bob fulfill similar roles, as you've described, by being threats that need to be answered.

The question of Spell Pierce against Thoughtseize is likely to depend on your metagame, and how proactively you want to play the deck. In something like Oath, which demands proactive play, Spell Pierce is excellent because it dominates the stack in the first few turns. And it is within that time frame that Oath wants to push out threats. In a deck like this, however, Spell Pierce is still potent. Of course, if you have a draw which does involve pushing forward an offense early, Spell Pierce will help with that. But it will also help to get you past those first few turns, when opponents are more likely to win, and help keep you alive going into the turns where you are more likely to win. Specifically, against a Workshop deck, Spell Pierce is generally better because it lets you fetch up a Basic Island and defend against their early lock pieces.

[Demonic Attorney]

I'll add to The Atog Lord's post that Spell Pierce offers better support for Force of Will than Thoughtseize.  This obviously isn't an issue for your deck since you're at around 25 blue cards.  However, for other decks that are forced to include a large number of nonblue cards, such as Oath, Spell Pierce provides for better access to blue cards to pitch to Force of Will.  So, it might be controversial to run Thoughtseize over Spell Pierce in an Oath deck where that change means you're running fewer than 20 blue cards.  But for a heavier blue-based control deck, Thoughtseize makes sense.

[matt_sperling]

I had observed that thoughtseize has fallen out of favor in most lists i come across, but I'm glad to hear everyone is still open minded about possibly going back to it. 

[Grand Inquisitor]

How is it antithetical?

In situations where you're casting repeal.  The idea is that you repeal a threat and then untap in the same position with your opponent undone.  If you need to invest temporary resources to accomplish this, you're not time walking anymore.  Nothing more complicated than that.

Petal is a trade-off between present mana and future mana

Only if you have a land and no land drop.  It's only as good as what you invest the mana in and I like Zieby's take that it's a bad ROI unless you're planning on winning turn 3 or earlier.  Sure it's functionally similar to Black Lotus, but equating the two for arguments sake is pretty unreasonable IMO.

The most controversial choices are likely 4drain2Tseize

Not to me.  I started with 3x duress/thoughtseize at GenCon and have progressively increased to 4x and now 5x.  I think they're really powerful.

The LoA actually sticks out (in addition to Theda).  Is it a slot that's on the border or is it always good?

decks enjoy operating at a certain resource level

I really like this explanation, but I still disagree with the application.  Workshop lists, especially those with Metalworker, salivate at the prospect of a fresh 7 cards.  I'd agree that a midgame reset favors Tez over Oath, but not to a degree where I want this randomness over something that may neutralize Oath or get me the win directly.  Fish, though, I'm completely on board with as a good example of this principle.

cement an advantage

See, I just don't understand this language.  Sure, you'll have more cards in play (and equal hands), but it doesn't do anything if your new hand is relatively worse than your old hand and there's a non-trivial risk of this happening whenever you give your opponent 7 cards.

[ancestral recall]

When you are winning you don't play twister.

I've never been disappointed because I drew Time Twister, there are situations when twister is just totally awesome in getting you back or re balancing hands after somebody got a small spurt of card advantage. Not to mention it plays well with the Tendrils in the SB. In other cases it just pitches (also not to be overlooked)

I think this explains why it needs to be excluded Imho.
If a card is only good when you are behind, it needs to be reevaluted, because there is probely a card that can serve that spot better and that is not only good when you are behind (Regrowth, seccond Jace or even Ponder). I played with twister last TNV and never ever casted it in the 10 games I played, although I had it in hand for at least 4 games, the only use it had was pitching to Fow (and that is not why I play a blue card).

Consider that twister is still an out for game 1 against ichorid. I see this deck a lot in Europe and I think this is also very important.

[matt_sperling]

The LoA actually sticks out (in addition to Theda).  Is it a slot that's on the border or is it always good?

Definitely on the border.  I didn't have it at first but added it to get some edge in the mirror.  It hasn't performed incredibly well but it also hasn't cost me that many games compared to say a 7th fetch.  On balance it is really close to break-even and should be cut or played based on how much mirror you expect. 

[Cruel Ultimatum]

If I was to cut twister, it would be for either a second jace or a fact or fiction. Both can help you get back in the game with much less risk then twister, however when you are ahead they are still good/ help you end the game much quicker. Someone said earlier that twister is very good when you have permanents on board such as jace or bob, however if you have an active jace/bob and your opponent doesn't, then your twister is probobly win more.

[Marske]

Woah, don't pay attention to TMD for a couple of hours and get this much response, awesome guys... ok where do I start with all this.... ok, first things first:

@matt_sperling,

I'm new to TMD, so I apologize if any of this looks absurd to those here.  I have played over a hundred games within a few cards of the following list, and I'm prepared to defend my choices and change those aspects that turn out not to be optimal:

Welcome to TMD I really hope you stick around as your views and points raised are both refreshing and solid. I really like your stance and think it's a way of presenting something we all could learn from, even myself as a I've demonstrated ealier in this thread that it's easy to dismiss stuff because it isn't what you thought up. I can safely claim however that Zieby and myself (and others of Team RND) have been playing with this "Shell" for well over a Year now, I can elaborate on "shell" if you want. So we've definitely got enough data to also backup our claims.

How is it antithetical?  Is Black Lotus antithetical to the goal of taking all the turns?  Look, I dislike Petal too, since the deck isn't fast enough to want that kind of trade-off in this weak a form, but this argument is nonsense.  Steel City Vault wants to take all the turns, and Lotus Petal is very good in that deck.  Again, the real argument is that in any deck Petal is a trade-off between present mana and future mana, and Tezz isn't fast enough to want to trade 1 mana now for 1 mana every subsequent turn.  Time Walk is one reason why we care about "subsequent turns" but Petal isn't "antithetical" to our goals, it just isn't quite good enough, otherwise Black Lotus wouldn't be in our deck.  

I was gonna respond to this but GI explained exactly what I wanted to say.

The most controversial choices are likely 4drain2Tseize over 3drain3pierce and Thada over 3rd Bob.  I guess the second Top and my bounce suite are also likely controversial.  

I think Thoughtseize is perfectly fine choice, just not maindeck material for reasons The Atog Lord explained, Spell Pierce lets you fetch a basic (very important) and still keep something up against decks running Wasteland (Shops, Fish, The Deck) The biggest problem I've got with Thada is that it's dead way to often for my taste, I really like the "oops I win" factor it has in the mirror but to say I'd consider it main deckable over the 3rd Confidant (possibly depending on Meta game) I think not.

1x Hurkyl's Recall
1x Echoing Truth
2x Repeal
1x Fire/Ice

Despite thinking that Fire/Ice isn't correct (I'd rather have Repeal #3) I really like the rest, Echoing Truth can be really good, but isn't something like Chain of Vapor going to be better overall? What's the reason behind playing Echoing Truth or is it simply a metagame thing?

I agree with earlier posts about bounce being preferable to hard solutions such as nature’s claim maindeck, since you sometimes have to get rid of bob/goyf, and other times Oath/NullRod.  Well, given the hedge towards bounce, thoughtseize becomes more attractive to me than Spell Pierce.  On the first couple turns of the game I find that they are close enough (pierce has an edge, but it isn’t a massive edge) and later in the game I like a sieze with my bounce more than a pierce with my bounce.  Sometimes I don’t have enough black, and sometimes they have 2x threat and a spell pierce would have been better, but such is life.  

Later in the game I prefer Mana Drain over Seize or Spell Pierce (that's why I run it) to complement my bounce. The biggest problem I've got with Seize (over duress) is that the life loss from Confidant can bring you within easy Tendrils range already (which is the reason why I run Tendrils in the board for the mirror) having Thoughtseize + Bob losing you life it becomes quite easy for opponents to just hide tendrils on the top (with top obv) to stay clear of your seizes and kill you because you inflicted that much damage on yourself. It's not like you cannot handle creatures so Seize adds to little imho.

Thada Adel has been good for me as a 1-of.  It does some things that Bob can’t, but is better only in certain matchups.  Those matchups are pretty numerous though (Oath, Mirror, Stax (sometimes better, sometimes worse, which I suppose is always the case with a 2c vs 3c mana card), Tendrils (being a blue card is relevant and it’s also better when in play), etc.).  Its harder to cast, often being a turn slower than Bob, and this is the main problem.  I’m by no means married to the 1 Thada, and I totally understand others’ reluctance to play it.  I do recommend trying it if you haven’t yet.

Depending on your meta game this may be correct, What Thada does against Stax (beyond Chumping a Golem) is beyond me as they have no islands to walk over and you're playing a 1UU 2/2 with a non-relevant ability into their Golem, Tangles, at least Confidant lets you grab more cards / permanents and digs faster. I have tried Thada (was in my SB last event) and liked what it does in the matchups you want it (Mirror, Oath) but to call it main deck material is highly dependent of what your meta looks like.

1 Top is a personal preference and also stems from playing only 2 Bob.  The bounce suite works for me, even though you have vulnerability to Chalice 1 plus Chalice 2.  If they get Chalice 1 and Chalice 2, AND I can’t find and cast Tezz or Tinker, ok they got me.  I play vs. 5cStax with 4 Chalice a ton and it doesn’t come up that often.  

2 Top isn't tied into playing the 3rd Bob, it's tied with 2 things, namely you're gonna see Top more often when there's 2 rather then there's 1, it interacts with Repeal, Voltaic Key, Hurkyl's etc. Also in all our games with this shell it became rather clear that when you're playing Control vs Control the player spinning tops is more likely to win.

Let me know what you think, and I hope if nothing else I can challenge some “accepted” numbers and get people thinking.  Having to defend your built is never useless, and we both may learn something.

Great attitude, I love it, keep this up, it's humbling to see somebody with your history (far as I could google GP / PT's etc) take such a stance... I'm impressed..

The LoA actually sticks out (in addition to Theda).  Is it a slot that's on the border or is it always good?

Definitely on the border.  I didn't have it at first but added it to get some edge in the mirror.  It hasn't performed incredibly well but it also hasn't cost me that many games compared to say a 7th fetch.  On balance it is really close to break-even and should be cut or played based on how much mirror you expect.  

LoA has been OFF the chart for Zieby and Myself, often times we find it being very key against other control decks (Tezz, Oath, The Deck, Painter which all see play here) combined with Confidant, Jace and the restricted Blue it gets pretty nutty. Not to mention it has the potential to still break the control mirror in half.

If I was to cut twister, it would be for either a second jace or a fact or fiction. Both can help you get back in the game with much less risk then twister, however when you are ahead they are still good/ help you end the game much quicker. Someone said earlier that twister is very good when you have permanents on board such as jace or bob, however if you have an active jace/bob and your opponent doesn't, then your twister is probobly win more.

I'd add the second Jace before looking at FoF though Jace is definitely bonkers.

[matt_sperling]

1x Hurkyl's Recall
1x Echoing Truth
2x Repeal
1x Fire/Ice

Despite thinking that Fire/Ice isn't correct (I'd rather have Repeal #3) I really like the rest, Echoing Truth can be really good, but isn't something like Chain of Vapor going to be better overall? What's the reason behind playing Echoing Truth or is it simply a metagame thing?

The thing about 3x Repeal 1x Chain of Vapor and no fire/ice or echoing truth is that your deck has so many tutors for a blue instant, I think it becomes worth playing a sometimes worse card like echoing truth when that card gets you out of situations you otherwise couldn't get out of.  The Fire/Ice is especially good at killing Welder and Bob, which are easy to replay if all you do is bounce them.  Dealing with the creature is significantly, not just marginally, better than bouncing it most of the time.  I use Ice every so often to force a kill or big spell like Jace through a Drain, or to virtual time walk vs a land light opponent.  I'm more attached to the Fire/Ice than the Echoing Truth, since Repeal #3 or Chain of Vapor #1 is a very similar effect to ET, while losing access to Fire would suck.  Also, ET is one more out to Chalice for 1 (in addition to the Hurkyl's) when you've got those killer 1 mana spells (ancestral, bstorm, tutors, etc) waiting to fire.  Having more outs to Chalice for 1 is also nice since Mystical and Vamp cost 1 and can't hellp you find the Hurkyl's.  Not better than Chain or Repeal by any wide margin, but just enough perhaps. 

re: Thada.
Against Stax, sure they have Lodestone, but if the Lodestone resolves and isn't attacking, that's usually fine with me.  If they don't have an untapped Golem, taking their lotus or sol ring can be huge in spots.  Even if they have a Null Rod out, and you grab their lotus, it sometimes lets you Hurkyl's and then do something really important before they replay everything.  Bob is better than Thada in the Stax matchup, since cost is so important there, but she is definitely valuable when she resolves.  When the opponent DOES have islands and vault/key, she kicks ass obviously.  My affection for her is admittedly 80% rational and 20% me just loving the card.  =] 

re: 2 tops. 
Valid points, maybe I'll try 2nd top over Ponder or Mystical, the obviously candidates for replacement.

[Marske]

1x Hurkyl's Recall
1x Echoing Truth
2x Repeal
1x Fire/Ice

Despite thinking that Fire/Ice isn't correct (I'd rather have Repeal #3) I really like the rest, Echoing Truth can be really good, but isn't something like Chain of Vapor going to be better overall? What's the reason behind playing Echoing Truth or is it simply a metagame thing?

The thing about 3x Repeal 1x Chain of Vapor and no fire/ice or echoing truth is that your deck has so many tutors for a blue instant, I think it becomes worth playing a sometimes worse card like echoing truth when that card gets you out of situations you otherwise couldn't get out of.  The Fire/Ice is especially good at killing Welder and Bob, which are easy to replay if all you do is bounce them.  Dealing with the creature is significantly, not just marginally, better than bouncing it most of the time.  I use Ice every so often to force a kill or big spell like Jace through a Drain, or to virtual time walk vs a land light opponent.  I'm more attached to the Fire/Ice than the Echoing Truth, since Repeal #3 or Chain of Vapor #1 is a very similar effect to ET, while losing access to Fire would suck.  Also, ET is one more out to Chalice for 1 (in addition to the Hurkyl's) when you've got those killer 1 mana spells (ancestral, bstorm, tutors, etc) waiting to fire.  Having more outs to Chalice for 1 is also nice since Mystical and Vamp cost 1 and can't hellp you find the Hurkyl's.  Not better than Chain or Repeal by any wide margin, but just enough perhaps.  

It all depends on what you want your cards to do, for me Fire isn't worth the Red splash maindeck, I cannot think of Sideboard cards I'd really really want in that color either except maybe Ingot Chewer. If the idea is to only Time Walk and I'm talking resources I view Repeal as very valuable, not only am I investing 2U (or 1U in case of welder) I'm also doubling the investment my opponent has to do (another 1B or R making the cards cost 2BB or RR) AND another turn (upkeep trigger, Summoning sickness) and I'm not losing a card (Repeal replaces itself) and gaining a turn. Which seems way better then just trading 1-1 (well actually 2-1 since Ice might be relevant later on but you've just lost the ability to cast it barring recursion)

re: Thada.
Against Stax, sure they have Lodestone, but if the Lodestone resolves and isn't attacking, that's usually fine with me.  If they don't have an untapped Golem, taking their lotus or sol ring can be huge in spots.  Even if they have a Null Rod out, and you grab their lotus, it sometimes lets you Hurkyl's and then do something really important before they replay everything.  Bob is better than Thada in the Stax matchup, since cost is so important there, but she is definitely valuable when she resolves.  When the opponent DOES have islands and vault/key, she kicks ass obviously.  My affection for her is admittedly 80% rational and 20% me just loving the card.  =]  

I just don't think she tops having Confidant #3, simple math indicates that having a 3 off makes it show up more often (once each game with the amount of draw spells and turns taken but not necessarily in your opener) I'd rather have Confidant even IF my opponent has Islands an vault/ key in the deck, not to say Thada isn't a good card, nor that you shouldn't run it maindeck or sideboard, I just don't think it replaces Dark Confidant. Confidant, (again resources) plays a different role as to Thada which just acts like a Kill condition most of the time. Also, getting Thada into play against a Golem requires a 2UU investment which probably means you've either A) Already reached 4 mana without being locked out by multiple spheres, tangles, golems or B) you cast her using Lotus turn 1 on the play.

In scenario A) you're already winning, in Scenario B) I can think of more broken things to cast if I have lotus also, having turn 1 Thada face their turn 1 Golem isn't going to win you anything, they're ahead in the race even because they have a threat (Sphere) and you have a 2/2 that cannot attack. At least if it's a Confidant it starts drawing you ever closer to your solutions.

Sure, it's cute taking their lotus / mana source but you still have Golem to deal with, not to mention possible other sphere's and or Chalice @ zero.

re: 2 tops.  
Valid points, maybe I'll try 2nd top over Ponder or Mystical, the obviously candidates for replacement.

To me ponder seems the most obvious of those two (as you can see from my list I don't run it) as Top does what Ponder does except it does it every turn (with Jace, 6 Fetches, all the tutors as shuffle effects)

[matt_sperling]

I cannot think of Sideboard cards I'd really really want in that color either except maybe Ingot Chewer.

I board Chewers and Greater Gargadons.  Don't know of a better card vs Oath than the Gargadon.  an uncounterable 5 Turns of keeping them off oath for just 1 mana, and when they do finally oath they sometimes have to chump it with Iona or you have time to find a second Gargadon and sack the first one. 

[Marske]

I board Chewers and Greater Gargadons.  Don't know of a better card vs Oath than the Gargadon.  an uncounterable 5 Turns of keeping them off oath for just 1 mana, and when they do finally oath they sometimes have to chump it with Iona or you have time to find a second Gargadon and sack the first one.

Chewers are definitely very solid and I've enjoyed playing them I do however feel that they (along with Fire) still don't warrant running Red enough for me to switch away from UB. (Zieby however would agree with you a bit more I  think) Your argument regarding Gargadon is very true, but, against RND Oath (Terastodon Oath whatever you call it) They'll just bribery your Gargadon or Show and Tell Terastodon or just needle your Gargadon... What I'm trying to say is Oath has definitely evolved to beat Gargadon and for me (seeing as I mostly face RND Oath) it's not as good as it use to be. I'd prefer Claim over it if I felt I really needed an answer beyond having a superior draw engine (Remora as Oath is basically the same deck as Tezz they just kill differently and cannot run the same draw power as we can) or just getting Oath out of their hand (Duress).

[Cruel Ultimatum]

Regarding thada, even against a vault key deck, you are walking on thin ice in that situation. if they have a large bounce spell(hurkyls recall/rebuild/rushing river) or 2 smaller bounce spells like repeals or chains, you may have just handed your opponent the win without them having to work to achieve vault key.

[matt_sperling]

Regarding thada, even against a vault key deck, you are walking on thin ice in that situation. if they have a large bounce spell(hurkyls recall/rebuild/rushing river) or 2 smaller bounce spells like repeals or chains, you may have just handed your opponent the win without them having to work to achieve vault key.

Sure, if you don't look through their deck to see what restricted cards or keys are in their hand and whether their hurk/rebuild is in their hand.  Sometimes you're far enough ahead that you just exile their Vault forever and say go.  I wouldnt call hitting a vault/key deck with Thada being "on thin ice."

[Rico Suave]

I board Chewers and Greater Gargadons.  Don't know of a better card vs Oath than the Gargadon.  an uncounterable 5 Turns of keeping them off oath for just 1 mana, and when they do finally oath they sometimes have to chump it with Iona or you have time to find a second Gargadon and sack the first one. 

I've been playing Oath pretty consistently for a while now, and I can't recall losing to a Gargadon at any point in tournament play despite facing it numerous times.

There are several reasons why.  The primary reason is because Oath has several ways to work around the Gargadon.  Tinker -> Robot ignores Gargadon.  I've used Bribery to beat it at least twice.  And most importantly, Vault/Key still wins.

The secondary reason is because Gargadon doesn't actually beat Oath.  Sure you get 5 turns if they have an Orchard, but less time if they have more Orchards or Time Walk.  And even if you buy 5 turns, then what?  You get to attack with a 9/7, but then they get to Oath (barring a 2nd Gargadon).  Sure Iona isn't too impressive against Gargadon, but Sphinx and Terastodon beat it straight up. 

In short, Gargadon seems to only buy time.  It's uncounterable which is nice, but I'm not sold.  Now of course there are cool tricks to be had, like attacking with Gargadon the turn it comes into play and Repealing the Oath.  But there are other drawbacks like Pithing Needle.

Let's not forget, Oath is still a fearsome beast at winning w/o the Oath.  It is for this reason I think Nature's Claim is better than Gargadon against Oath.  The ability to hit Oath while simultaneously having a card that stops their alternate Vault/Key plan is invaluable.  Using Claim also means that you can remove the Oath and safely play Bob, which lets you go on to play the game you'd really like to play by out drawing them. 

Even more reason to support the Claims is that they double as artifact removal, allowing you to have cards that are great across several matches.  You don't have to run a slew of Ingot Chewers and Gargadons that eat up tons of SB space, but you can instead consolidate and open up room for more options.  I think this is important if one is to be prepared for Dredge, which seems to take up an inordinate amount of SB space. 

I really like this explanation, but I still disagree with the application.  Workshop lists, especially those with Metalworker, salivate at the prospect of a fresh 7 cards.  I'd agree that a midgame reset favors Tez over Oath, but not to a degree where I want this randomness over something that may neutralize Oath or get me the win directly.  Fish, though, I'm completely on board with as a good example of this principle.

In regards to Workshops, I don't mind if each of us draws 7.  Think of it this way.  If the Workshop player's hand is empty, it is likely because he/she has enough mana to cast whatever topdeck would arise.  Once the Workshop player has sufficient mana, any more mana sources beyond that are essentially blanks except for being random permanents to sac/tap.  Thus a new hand of 7 for the Workshop player may contain 3-4 mana sources that just aren't going to do anything relevant. 

The flip side is that a Tezz player can never have enough mana in this match.  Drawing 3-4 "extra" mana sources off a Timetwister is a great thing, and that isn't even counting the spells that come with it. 

The randomness is something I can understand.  But really, if I felt my opponent had a better chance of winning with a Timetwister hand I would strongly reconsider why I'm not playing their deck. 

See, I just don't understand this language.  Sure, you'll have more cards in play (and equal hands), but it doesn't do anything if your new hand is relatively worse than your old hand and there's a non-trivial risk of this happening whenever you give your opponent 7 cards.

If your old hand was terrible and your new hand is even worse, what would have saved you? 

[Grand Inquisitor]

<derail worry>

Since this started off as a two-color RND list, should we couch discussion of more traditional 3c Tez?

</derail worry>

nature's claim

What Rico said.  I really liked red for a while, but now it's gotta be green, this card is too good.  My SB conversion went something like this:

-2 REB/Pyroblast
-3 Ingot Chewer
-2 Pyroclasm

+4 Nature's Claim
+1 Krosan Grip
+2 Perish

...and it's been so good.

3-4 mana sources that just aren't going to do anything relevant

Sure, but they may have spheres, have wastelanded your colored source or have chalice on <your draws> to make your hand just as suspect.  It's clearly good with hurkyl's/bounce, it's just that I lump workshop as a deck that I try to winnow their hand down.  Then again, as a player, I tend to struggle against workshops.  Maybe this is because I try to play too defensively against them.

If your old hand was terrible and your new hand is even worse, what would have saved you? 

No, I was describing a situation where the board is stable, my old hand was fine and instead of drawing a decisive play, I topdeck this 3cc roll of the dice.

[voltron00x]

I know I may be the only person on the planet earth that feels this way, but if you’re worried about beating Oath, play at least one Krosan Grip if you’re in green and have the ability to tutor.  The card is a complete and total blowout against most Oath decks, as most Oath players no longer use Duress / Thoughtseize.  This is also true of many Tezz players, so the card is decent there as well.  Grip used to be my key weapon in mirror match games with Oath, and I also used it in Noble Fish.

Nature’s Claim is good, but it can be countered.  Krosan Grip just gets there.  Using Grip on a Will turn is an especially nice feeling.

[matt_sperling]

I know I may be the only person on the planet earth that feels this way, but if you’re worried about beating Oath, play at least one Krosan Grip if you’re in green and have the ability to tutor.  The card is a complete and total blowout against most Oath decks, as most Oath players no longer use Duress / Thoughtseize.  This is also true of many Tezz players, so the card is decent there as well.  Grip used to be my key weapon in mirror match games with Oath, and I also used it in Noble Fish.

Nature’s Claim is good, but it can be countered.  Krosan Grip just gets there.  Using Grip on a Will turn is an especially nice feeling.

This makes intuitive sense to me.  2-3 Nature's Claim and a Krosan Grip seems like a fine green package.  You have to be concerned about Chalice 1 when your Stax hate costs 1, but there are ways to work around that like making sure you have Rebuild and Hurkyls after board etc. 

re: "the oath deck doesn't care that much about Gargadon.

As for "the rest of their deck is really good too", this is irrelevant I think.  If they can kill you without Oathing, then Nature's Claiming the Oath isn't winning the game either.  Also, your deck is at least as good as theirs (probably better) at putting together VaultKey, so you saying they have 5 turns to assemble it is true, but besides the point.  If I nature's claim the oath, they have infinite turns to assemble VaultKey assuming I do nothing else.  In other words, my deck is going to have to beat their deck whether I kill the Oath or just suspend a 9/7. 

Regarding Gargadon not being a permanent solution to the Oath, this is its biggest flaw.  Needle stops it, and over time the Oath just beats it anyway.  I always hope to find a bounce or another gargadon in those 5 turns, but you won't always be able to.  Then again, sometimes they spell pierce/FoW the nature's claim and that's all she wrote (since presumably if you can protect your claim you can counter the Oath).  I haven't played enough vs Oath post board to have definitive answers on the cost/benefit of Gargadon v. Claim, so I'll need to get that additional practice and also try some other ideas out.  Cutting Fire/Ice from the maindeck has to factor into the equation also.

re: Perish

Hadn't considered this, how do people besides GI feel about Perish against fish?

[Marske]

I know I may be the only person on the planet earth that feels this way, but if you’re worried about beating Oath, play at least one Krosan Grip if you’re in green and have the ability to tutor.  The card is a complete and total blowout against most Oath decks, as most Oath players no longer use Duress / Thoughtseize.  This is also true of many Tezz players, so the card is decent there as well.  Grip used to be my key weapon in mirror match games with Oath, and I also used it in Noble Fish.

Nature’s Claim is good, but it can be countered.  Krosan Grip just gets there.  Using Grip on a Will turn is an especially nice feeling.

This makes intuitive sense to me.  2-3 Nature's Claim and a Krosan Grip seems like a fine green package.  You have to be concerned about Chalice 1 when your Stax hate costs 1, but there are ways to work around that like making sure you have Rebuild and Hurkyls after board etc.  

Krosan grip is definitely very good, It's just not the most effective answer vs shops since Golem got printed, that being said, if I'd run the green splash I'd at least include one copy.

re: "the oath deck doesn't care that much about Gargadon.

As for "the rest of their deck is really good too", this is irrelevant I think.  If they can kill you without Oathing, then Nature's Claiming the Oath isn't winning the game either.  Also, your deck is at least as good as theirs (probably better) at putting together VaultKey, so you saying they have 5 turns to assemble it is true, but besides the point.  If I nature's claim the oath, they have infinite turns to assemble VaultKey assuming I do nothing else.  In other words, my deck is going to have to beat their deck whether I kill the Oath or just suspend a 9/7.

What Rico Suave is trying to say (and what I've been trying to say) is that Oath will not simply sit back and "give" you 5 turns because you supend Gargadon. Rico has multiple top 8 finishes with Oath so he definitely knows what he's talking about, RND Oath especially is adept at getting around stuff like Gargadon and finding other ways to kill you.

Regarding Gargadon not being a permanent solution to the Oath, this is its biggest flaw.  Needle stops it, and over time the Oath just beats it anyway.  I always hope to find a bounce or another gargadon in those 5 turns, but you won't always be able to.  Then again, sometimes they spell pierce/FoW the nature's claim and that's all she wrote (since presumably if you can protect your claim you can counter the Oath).  I haven't played enough vs Oath post board to have definitive answers on the cost/benefit of Gargadon v. Claim, so I'll need to get that additional practice and also try some other ideas out.  Cutting Fire/Ice from the maindeck has to factor into the equation also.

What does Fire / Ice do ? (assuming you cut it for repeal #3).... Regarding protecting Nature's Claim vs Stopping Oath, sometimes you tap all your mana (for example to play a Confidant if you don't know what you're up against) and you don't have Pierce / Drain mana and no FoW so they get to resolve Oath, now, you get to untap and claim it with backup, it's not as cut and dry as saying if you can protect the claim you can stop the Oath, Claim just solves the problem of a Oath that got through your counters, also, with Gargadon in the deck I assume you're boaring out Confidant making you have less chance of outdrawing them (looking at your list that you posted earlier not RND Tezz)

re: Perish

Hadn't considered this, how do people besides GI feel about Perish against fish?

Perish has been totally awesome for Zieby and myself, I would run it if I was going to a bigger event, I didn't in my original list because I could easily predict the meta game and just didn't expect Selkie to show up. It takes care of all the relevant creatures.

[goober]

When you are winning you don't play twister.

I've never been disappointed because I drew Time Twister, there are situations when twister is just totally awesome in getting you back or re balancing hands after somebody got a small spurt of card advantage. Not to mention it plays well with the Tendrils in the SB. In other cases it just pitches (also not to be overlooked)

I think this explains why it needs to be excluded Imho.
If a card is only good when you are behind, it needs to be reevaluted, because there is probely a card that can serve that spot better and that is not only good when you are behind (Regrowth, seccond Jace or even Ponder). I played with twister last TNV and never ever casted it in the 10 games I played, although I had it in hand for at least 4 games, the only use it had was pitching to Fow (and that is not why I play a blue card).

Just curious, how many of those 4 games did you lose?  I'm ok with having a card that makes winning games a little harder to win, and turns losing games into wins.

[matt_sperling]

What Rico Suave is trying to say (and what I've been trying to say) is that Oath will not simply sit back and "give" you 5 turns because you supend Gargadon. Rico has multiple top 8 finishes with Oath so he definitely knows what he's talking about, RND Oath especially is adept at getting around stuff like Gargadon and finding other ways to kill you.

I'm separating "Getting around Gargadon" and "finding other ways to kill you" into two distinct things.  It is safe to say that if the oath mage can "find other ways to kill you," nature's claim on the Oath instead of suspend Gargadon leaves you just as dead.  While Nature's Claim is certainly more versatile than Gargadon (and this weighs in its favor), the scenario Rico describes, where you have a Gargadon for their Oath but they kill you with something else, does not weigh in Claim's favor.  It heightens this conversation if we exclude irrelevant categories of "Gargadon wasn't good enough" and talk only about its relevant shortcomings.  Gargadon also stops multiple Oaths (or YawgWill/Regrowth on an Oath) for the same price as stopping 1 Oath, something that wasn't mentioned earlier even though "multiple Orchards" was mentioned. 

re: What does Fire/Ice do? 
A lot, see my above post for examples.  Vs Welder, Bob, Selkie, Mindcensor it is a world of difference over Repeal.  Ice is often handy, e.g. force your first artifact, next turn ice your Shop upkeep or Ice EOT putting you off Drain mana.

GARGADON VS. NATURE'S CLAIM PROS AND CONS.

PROS:
Can't be countered (or Misdirected).
Other than Nature's Claim, red is better than green.
Number of Oath's doesn't matter.
Gives you a clock even though you boarded out Bobs.
They don't gain 4 life (just kidding).

CONS:
Much narrower (doesn't kill other artifacts like Vault or Moxen when in vs. Oath, can't be brought in vs. Stax)
Oath player still has the Oath 4-5 turns later.
Can be Needled.
Multiple Orchards reduce the time it buys you.

("they can just find Vault/Key, Show and Tell or Tinker in the 5 turns" doesn't appear on my list, since their Oath being in the GY instead of in play doesn't alter the result).