[Free Article] Oath 2: Electric Boogaloo

[voltron00x]

It should be no secret at this point that Oath is my favorite Vintage deck.  I played it at this year's first Blue Bell back on 1/3, but haven't played it since.  I just couldn't get the deck to post results I was comfortable with during playtesting.  This article takes a look at why I couldn't get the deck to work, and how Rich Shay, Brad Granberry, and others were able to push the deck back to the forefront of Vintage.  I take a look at my version of Terastadon Oath and explain how I took Rich & Brad's list and added a few personal touches, for better or worse... you decide:

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/19282_The_Long_Winding_Road_Oath_2_Electric_Boogaloo.html

[BruiZar]

"Jace is another example in a long line of cards that players, even great ones, underestimated upon release. Typically in Vintage we expect our four-mana cards to win us the game. What no one appreciated at the time is that in Vintage, with this deck, almost every time you resolve Jace, you will win."

This trend really shows the fallacy in people's understanding of the game. Even without a full understanding of the game, there are too many theorists and too little actual testers like Meadbert (hats off to you). Sometimes you just need to see a card in practice, but often vintage players overvalue their level of understanding of the game and undervalue actual play testing resulting in writing off cards too quickly. This is why I am very fond of Monte Carlo simulation. It cuts away theory and just gives you the results.

[chrissss]

nice article, I liked it a lot, especially since I love oath and its the only deck I play in vintage.

[KingSquee]

(cross-posted from your column's thread at the SCG forums)

As nutty as your Round 3 Game 1 start was against me, I may have been able to slow it down a bit by Forcing your Black Lotus. It wouldn't stop it entirely, obviously, as you still had Mox Jet, Will, Vamp and Demonic Tutors. In the future against Oath maybe I'll consider countering an early Lotus if I don't see any other sources of green mana in play... er, on the battlefield...

(end cross-post)

I added a Jace to the Noble Fish build I ran at that tournament. I was able to get him into play twice, and easily won both of those games. Jace is that good in Vintage. Unless Inkwell Leviathan is your opponent's robot of choice, he completely nullifies Tinker strategies, something I seem to have trouble with despite all my maindeck outs to it. Not to mention he bounces anything you can Oath up...

Also, what are your thoughts on Emrakul in Oath? I know Josh was running him in his build. I don't think he's any better than what's already out there.

[voltron00x]

Emrakul is cool... it's basically a better Progenitus, that I think is still just shy of being good enough to play MD.  I'd probably SB it if I really wanted a creature like that.  Unlike Sphinx, Terastodon, and Iona, you're probably not hard-casting Emrakul.  That might sound silly, but it does matter.  I also have won games with both Iona and Terastodon, b/c of their immediate effect, that I would not have won with Emrakul.  This is why I struggled last summer playing Tinker/Robot + Progenitus.  It slows down the deck too much in some match-ups.

[Cyberpunker]

I really recommend running Emrakul + Show and Tell. He is great vs every deck out there. And if you get him out with an Orchard already in play, you can prevent your opponent from Oathing in his/her upkeep. The only disadvantage is that if you do not have an Orchard out, your opponent can potentially Oath into a Duplicant or a Sower of Temptation. And that is just terrible. That is why Emrakul should go out game 2 vs Tezzeret, versus MUD you just have to gamble...

Nice article. 

[Suicideking]

For the record I definitely thought Jace was going to be great in Vintage.  I was called an Idiot by a lot of Adepts but the card is awesome.

This article was a good read.  I enjoy reading about oath decks.

[M.Solymossy]

I really recommend running Emrakul + Show and Tell.
Nice article. 

I woudn't bother with freakin' Show and Tell. 

Lets do some math:

Oath + Bant Fish + Mud + Dredge = Metagame. 


So I DO agree with running Big Spaghetti Monster, but I think we can honestly cut IONA, SHIELD OF EMERIA.  We no longer do the Vroman-Combo, so why run Iona?   The standard Oath build runs Mana Drain on top of Spell Pierce and Force of will, so you should be able to control the game a turn after you oath.  And then you swing with Emrakul, and ANHIALATE FACE!

[voltron00x]

I really recommend running Emrakul + Show and Tell.
Nice article. 

I woudn't bother with freakin' Show and Tell. 

Lets do some math:

Oath + Bant Fish + Mud + Dredge = Metagame. 


So I DO agree with running Big Spaghetti Monster, but I think we can honestly cut IONA, SHIELD OF EMERIA.  We no longer do the Vroman-Combo, so why run Iona?   The standard Oath build runs Mana Drain on top of Spell Pierce and Force of will, so you should be able to control the game a turn after you oath.  And then you swing with Emrakul, and ANHIALATE FACE!

Yeah, gotta disagree with you, but again its a metagame thing.  At blue bell, the top 8 was:

Oath
Oath
Oath
Fish
Dredge
Bob Tendrils
Drain Tendrils
Stax

Of those, Iona is awesome against Oath x3, Fish, Bob Tendrils, and Drain Tendrils, so 6 / 8.  It's decent against Dredge, and poor against Stax.  The previous Blue Bell was won by Bob Tendrils.  Before that, JaceStorm was a finalist.  If you want to actually win in my metagame, playing Iona is a good idea.

[Tha Gunslinga]

What color do you name with Iona in the mirror?  I usually just board her out.

[voltron00x]

What color do you name with Iona in the mirror?  I usually just board her out.

Blue. Blanking 40% of your opponents deck is pretty nuts.

[M.Solymossy]

Blue. Blanking 40% of your opponents deck is pretty nuts.

I think the 1/3 chance of hitting it when you need it makes it a liability.  I'd rather Oath in Emrakul and blank 100% of their permanents.

[Tha Gunslinga]

What color do you name with Iona in the mirror?  I usually just board her out.

Blue. Blanking 40% of your opponents deck is pretty nuts.

I guess.  Green is Oath of Druids, which lets them find their own Iona to kill yours.  Black has the Tutors and Will.  Blue does have Jace/Tezzeret/Tinker, but it's still a tossup for me, which is why I cut it.

[Will]

I guess.  Green is Oath of Druids, which lets them find their own Iona to kill yours.  Black has the Tutors and Will.  Blue does have Jace/Tezzeret/Tinker, but it's still a tossup for me, which is why I cut it.

Wouldn't you never ever name Green because they could just use your Oath rather than having to play their own so they could get Iona?  It seems like unless they have a situation where they could reasonably win off Yawgmoth's Will Blue is the right call because it slows your opponent down enough that you should be able to capitalize and win with your active Oath.

[mistervader]

I remember running Shay's Oath with Jace in a tournament before actual lists popped up. Considering that my list was obviously unoptimized, I was very impressed with Jace's showing in that version of the deck. Ultimately, this led me to advocate for Jace in the deck, and I haven't regretted it since then.

[Cyberpunker]

Iona names Blue in mirror and makes them helpless against your counterspells. It names White against Selkie to make their removal and 1/3 of their creatures uncastable. It absolutely owns Tezzeret. It names black against TPS and ANT to prevent them from going off.

Show and Tell is there in case you draw your creatures.

[BruiZar]

For the record I definitely thought Jace was going to be great in Vintage.  I was called an Idiot by a lot of Adepts but the card is awesome.

This article was a good read.  I enjoy reading about oath decks.

Not to say you didn't think Jace was going to be great in Vintage, but after the war everybody is a partisan.

[voltron00x]

Firstly, let me say this:  Rich, Brad, whoever else originated Iona + Terastodon + Tinker Target... well done.  I really, strongly believe THAT is the mix you want.  It is highly flexible, and most importantly, TWO of your three targets have an immediate and disruptive impact on your opponent, making it unlikely that you'll Oath twice and not win the game.  With Drains, I've manage to hard-cast all of these targets, although Iona is kind of difficult without a Lotus.

So, Emrakul....

I don't understand how some of the same people that hated on Hellkite can advocate for a configuration of Emrakul, Sphinx, Terastodon.  That makes no sense to me.

Hellkite:  Opponent is taking 8+ damage
Sphinx:  Opponent is taking 0 damage, but may not be able to attack into you on their next turn
Emrakul:  Opponent is taking 0 damage, will be able to block 1 creature; probably loses if you untap and attack
Terastodon:  Opponent is taking 0 damage, out up to 3 permanents, highly disruptive OR creatures army of attackers / blockers
Iona:  Opponent is taking 0 damage, but is locked out of one color

So, if I'm on Emrakul / Sphinx / Dumbo, and I Oath into Emrakul or Sphinx first, my opponent definitely gets one turn to untap and do their thing unmolested.  If I Oath into Sphinx first, and then Emrakul second, my opponent gets TWO turns to untap and do their thing.

When I used to play Hellkite / Hellkite / Karrthus, my opponent was almost always going to be dead after two Oaths.  This configuration can't guarantee that the opponent is out more than SIX DAMAGE after two Oaths.  That doesn't seem acceptable at all. 

Furthermore, what if I Oath into Emrakul and my opponent has Duplicant?  Or Sower of Temptation?  Or Jace, the Mind Sculptor?  All of these things blank Emrakul, or worse.  Hellkite and Karrthus ignore ALL of those cards, more or less.

I just can't understand how 23+ damage after 2 Oaths, which was "not good enough" or "not fast enough" for all those months (despite the fact that, in reality, it was perfectly good at winning games for plenty of people around the world), is now replacable with a plan that might result in you needing to Oath THREE times before you do anything relevant.

[Cyberpunker]

Firstly, let me say this:  Rich, Brad, whoever else originated Iona + Terastodon + Tinker Target... well done.  I really, strongly believe THAT is the mix you want.  It is highly flexible, and most importantly, TWO of your three targets have an immediate and disruptive impact on your opponent, making it unlikely that you'll Oath twice and not win the game.  With Drains, I've manage to hard-cast all of these targets, although Iona is kind of difficult without a Lotus.

So, Emrakul....

I don't understand how some of the same people that hated on Hellkite can advocate for a configuration of Emrakul, Sphinx, Terastodon.  That makes no sense to me.

Hellkite:  Opponent is taking 8+ damage
Sphinx:  Opponent is taking 0 damage, but may not be able to attack into you on their next turn
Emrakul:  Opponent is taking 0 damage, will be able to block 1 creature; probably loses if you untap and attack
Terastodon:  Opponent is taking 0 damage, out up to 3 permanents, highly disruptive OR creatures army of attackers / blockers
Iona:  Opponent is taking 0 damage, but is locked out of one color

So, if I'm on Emrakul / Sphinx / Dumbo, and I Oath into Emrakul or Sphinx first, my opponent definitely gets one turn to untap and do their thing unmolested.  If I Oath into Sphinx first, and then Emrakul second, my opponent gets TWO turns to untap and do their thing.

When I used to play Hellkite / Hellkite / Karrthus, my opponent was almost always going to be dead after two Oaths.  This configuration can't guarantee that the opponent is out more than SIX DAMAGE after two Oaths.  That doesn't seem acceptable at all.  

Furthermore, what if I Oath into Emrakul and my opponent has Duplicant?  Or Sower of Temptation?  Or Jace, the Mind Sculptor?  All of these things blank Emrakul, or worse.  Hellkite and Karrthus ignore ALL of those cards, more or less.

I just can't understand how 23+ damage after 2 Oaths, which was "not good enough" or "not fast enough" for all those months (despite the fact that, in reality, it was perfectly good at winning games for plenty of people around the world), is now replacable with a plan that might result in you needing to Oath THREE times before you do anything relevant.

You are forgetting the one thing that make Hellkite Oath vulnerable, Hellkite could easily be bounced and taken care of.

Emrakul isn't good just because he is a 15/15 flying, protection from colored spells. He is good because one attack can win you the game. It is true that you do not get to do anything the turn he hits. But one turn later, you win. The combination of Annihilate, Flying, Semi Shroud, and 15/15 is just too good not to run. Plus I run Emrakul in combination with Iona, Inkwell, Terastodan. So I really have all the effects I need once Oath starts runnning.

All the things you said Emrakul is vulnerable to, Hellkite is also. And Jace is devastating versus Terastodan, Iona, and Sphinx as well. What if you Oath into Iona and your opponent has Duplicant? What if you Oath into Terastodan and your opponent has Duplicant? You get wrecked all the same.

Personally I like Inkwell, but that is off topic. The fact remains that running 4 creatures Iona, Terastodan, Inkwell, Emrakul has been working great for me. Emrakul is very scary game 1 versus Workshop or Selkie or Dredge or Tez. And it is still very scary game 2.

[Marske]

Firstly, let me say this:  Rich, Brad, whoever else originated Iona + Terastodon + Tinker Target... well done.  I really, strongly believe THAT is the mix you want.  It is highly flexible, and most importantly, TWO of your three targets have an immediate and disruptive impact on your opponent, making it unlikely that you'll Oath twice and not win the game.  With Drains, I've manage to hard-cast all of these targets, although Iona is kind of difficult without a Lotus.

Brought to you by the good folks at RND we aim to please very good to see so much love for this deck floating around, although I dislike running it myself.

Emrakul isn't good just because he is a 15/15 flying, protection from colored spells. He is good because one attack can win you the game. It is true that you do not get to do anything the turn he hits. But one turn later, you win. The combination of Annihilate, Flying, Semi Shroud, and 15/15 is just too good not to run. Plus I run Emrakul in combination with Iona, Inkwell, Terastodan. So I really have all the effects I need once Oath starts runnning.

So what ? You're Oathing at least twice, more probably 3 times? (Imagines staring at an opposing Jace and you oathing into Sphinx, then Emrakul, then Iona) good god son, you'll be eaten for breakfast if you Oath into 2 "attack step" dorks without doing anything relevant in disrupting them, the odds of you hitting Sphinx then Emrakul are there and it absolutely sucks... I'd want to Oath no more then 2 times ALL the time and maximize the chances of hitting the most disruptable piece I can hit. Having 4 creatures pre-board is definitely not correct imho.

All the things you said Emrakul is vulnerable to, Hellkite is also. And Jace is devastating versus Terastodan, Iona, and Sphinx as well. What if you Oath into Iona and your opponent has Duplicant? What if you Oath into Terastodan and your opponent has Duplicant? You get wrecked all the same.

Terastodon isn't vulnerable to Jace or Duplicant in any way, you just kill Jace or their lands on the spot and give them an elephant(s) in return. Iona and Sphinx do indeed suffer the same problem but are arguably just plain better then Emrakul in just about ANY situation imho.

Personally I like Inkwell, but that is off topic. The fact remains that running 4 creatures Iona, Terastodan, Inkwell, Emrakul has been working great for me. Emrakul is very scary game 1 versus Workshop or Selkie or Dredge or Tez. And it is still very scary game 2.

I fail to see how it's scary against Tezz or Dredge, the fact that Shop and Selkie throw a fit seeing a 15/15 "shroud" dork isn't surprising at all, you could be Oathing into Progenitus and it's still awesome vs them..

[Cyberpunker]

If we assume that a Jace already on the board, then yes Terastodan would be the best creature and we should run 2-3 Terastodans. But Jace needs to be casted and he costs 4 while Oath is 2. You will most likely Oath before Jace can come into play. You are right that Jace is an answer, but he is an answer that costs 4 mana to play, which is very heavy for a deck running the same mana acceleration you are running.

Terastodan does kill lands for you, you are right sorry did not consider that. But that still doesn't change the fact that Emrakul is very effective versus workshops. Versus Dredge, Sphinx is actually the scariest creature to Oath out, then Emrakul because you will kill them before they can kill you. Oathing 2 or 3 times isn't bad if you are going to win the game for certain anyway. The idea behind running 4 creatures is that you won't deck if you draw 1 of them and you get all the effects you need.

Finally, in Emrakul is better than Iona or Sphinx versus Workshops. It is also very good versus Selkie, far better than Iona or Sphinx(again I run Inkwell)

[Marske]

If we assume that a Jace already on the board, then yes Terastodan would be the best creature and we should run 2-3 Terastodans. But Jace needs to be casted and he costs 4 while Oath is 2. You will most likely Oath before Jace can come into play. You are right that Jace is an answer, but he is an answer that costs 4 mana to play, which is very heavy for a deck running the same mana acceleration you are running.

All the things you said Emrakul is vulnerable to, Hellkite is also. And Jace is devastating versus Terastodan, Iona, and Sphinx as well. What if you Oath into Iona and your opponent has Duplicant? What if you Oath into Terastodan and your opponent has Duplicant? You get wrecked all the same.

So if you assume Jace is in play for your scenario (as you definitely do here) to justify your claim it's perfectly fine, if I do it I get an answer about how jace needs to be cast etc.... alrighty... It's not as far fetched to have a Jace in play, as I often get up to 5-6 mana against Oath with Tezz... You don't always have Oath on turn 2 with Backup + Orchard you know.

Terastodan does kill lands for you, you are right sorry did not consider that. But that still doesn't change the fact that Emrakul is very effective versus workshops. Versus Dredge, Sphinx is actually the scariest creature to Oath out, then Emrakul because you will kill them before they can kill you. Oathing 2 or 3 times isn't bad if you are going to win the game for certain anyway. The idea behind running 4 creatures is that you won't deck if you draw 1 of them and you get all the effects you need.

My entire point is that ANY CREATURE with shroud and P/T above 5 IS very effective vs Shops.... How Emrakul is good vs Dredge still evades me as they just create an Army of the Undead and swarm you before you get to turn 3 (aka your attack step) if they aren't able to do that you were already winning and Oathing into Hellkite was just as good, Emrakul didn't change anything.

Oathing 2-3 times when you're already sure you can't lose isn't too bad, true, Attacking 5-6 times with Morphling isn't bad if you know you cannot lose any more isn't to bad either....point is, most likely you aren't sure you're not still losing the game, Oathing into Sphinx can do nothing to stop Tezz, TPS, ANT, Mirror, Whatever, Oathing into Emrakul AFTER that is even worse (yay 3 turns for me to assemble <insert wicked combo here> when you try to attack me down to 0) Heck, even Oathing into Emrakul AND attacking could do nothing against certain decks depending on board state.

[voltron00x]

Kooaznboi1088:

I’m not sure you’ve actually tested the Dragon plan, and would guess you definitely haven’t played it as extensively as I did.  2x Hellkite and 1x Karrthus isn’t something I came upon randomly.  Well, ok, maybe I came upon Karrthus randomly, but he serves a specific set of purposes.  IF you are on my old Dragon plan:

1 – Sower is a generally a blank against dragons.  If I Oath up Hellkite and smash you for 9 damage, putting you at, say, 9 life, and then you Sower my tapped Hellkite, I will either:  a) Oath into Karrthus, stealing back my Dragon, who untaps and murders you, or b) Oath into another Hellkite, who attacks in for lethal unless you block with Sower… which means I get my Hellkite back.

2 – Jace is a blank if your whole deck is haste dragons.  You can either a) Attack into Jace, killing it, or b) attack in for damage, let them bounce, then Oath again and attack in for damage.

3 – Duplicant is really weak against Dragons.  I Oath into Hellkite and smash for 9.  You play Duplicant and get an 8/8 that doesn’t fly, but is still a Dragon.  Now, I either a) Get another Hellkite and attack for 9 again, or b) Get Karrthus, who steals your duplicant dragon back and gives it Haste, and attack for lethal with Karrthus + Duplicant.

4 – Bounce spells ARE a problem, however, the use of Inkwell went a long way towards solving that problem because people moved away from Echoing Truth / Chain of Vapor towards Hurks and Rebuild.  Now, the popularity of Shops helps keep Hurks popular instead of E. Truth.

5 – Against Shop decks, your Emrakul is vulnerable to being tapped down by Tangle Wire; Dragons don’t have this problem because they always come out AFTER the Tangle Wire trigger resolves.  If you hit a Hellkite first and then a Karrthus, you go lethal after two Oath activations even if Tangle Wire taps down your first Hellkite.

So, again, all the things I mentioned – Sower, Jace, Duplicant, Tangle Wire – Dragons are resistant to, while Emrakul is not.  Triple Dragons pretty much guarantees that you play Oath, your opponent then gets a turn.  You then smash for minimum 7 damage, they get one more turn, then you go lethal.

Non-haste Robot + Emrakul + Terastodon can result in the following sequence:  you play Oath.  Opponent gets a turn.  You Oath into Sphinx.  Opponent gets a turn.  You Oath into Emrakul.  Opponent gets a turn.  

That’s just waaaay too many turns.  Again, my point is that people say Dragons are too slow because they “just” win the game in two activations.  I’d say clearly the sequence above is a lot worse.

Don’t misunderstand, I’m not advocating going back to trip dragons (although I think most people would find their win % against much of the field as a whole is almost the same) b/c I think you need a Tinker target main and Iona / Terastodon has proven itself to me as a terrifc combo.  I’m just saying you DON’T want Robot + Emrakul for the same reason people ripped me (correctly, in hindsight) for trying to play Robot + Progenitus last summer.  While Emrakul is probably better than Progenitus – he’s more vulnerable but just wins the game if he attacks – I still think the # of games you’ll lose by giving your opponent two full turns unmolested isn’t worth the risk.

[BruiZar]

Firstly, let me say this:  Rich, Brad, whoever else originated Iona + Terastodon + Tinker Target... well done.  I really, strongly believe THAT is the mix you want.  It is highly flexible, and most importantly, TWO of your three targets have an immediate and disruptive impact on your opponent, making it unlikely that you'll Oath twice and not win the game.  With Drains, I've manage to hard-cast all of these targets, although Iona is kind of difficult without a Lotus.

So, Emrakul....

I don't understand how some of the same people that hated on Hellkite can advocate for a configuration of Emrakul, Sphinx, Terastodon.  That makes no sense to me.

Hellkite:  Opponent is taking 8+ damage
Sphinx:  Opponent is taking 0 damage, but may not be able to attack into you on their next turn
Emrakul:  Opponent is taking 0 damage, will be able to block 1 creature; probably loses if you untap and attack
Terastodon:  Opponent is taking 0 damage, out up to 3 permanents, highly disruptive OR creatures army of attackers / blockers
Iona:  Opponent is taking 0 damage, but is locked out of one color

So, if I'm on Emrakul / Sphinx / Dumbo, and I Oath into Emrakul or Sphinx first, my opponent definitely gets one turn to untap and do their thing unmolested.  If I Oath into Sphinx first, and then Emrakul second, my opponent gets TWO turns to untap and do their thing.

When I used to play Hellkite / Hellkite / Karrthus, my opponent was almost always going to be dead after two Oaths.  This configuration can't guarantee that the opponent is out more than SIX DAMAGE after two Oaths.  That doesn't seem acceptable at all.  

Furthermore, what if I Oath into Emrakul and my opponent has Duplicant?  Or Sower of Temptation?  Or Jace, the Mind Sculptor?  All of these things blank Emrakul, or worse.  Hellkite and Karrthus ignore ALL of those cards, more or less.

I just can't understand how 23+ damage after 2 Oaths, which was "not good enough" or "not fast enough" for all those months (despite the fact that, in reality, it was perfectly good at winning games for plenty of people around the world), is now replacable with a plan that might result in you needing to Oath THREE times before you do anything relevant.

Why not run Sundering Titan as the tinker target? This way you can use Emrakul and Iona. Iona and Sundering Titan have an immediate impact on the game. Iona has evasion. This way, you can still get a board sweeper like Emrakul into play. May be worth a try? Also, I think with Scars of Mirrodin, a new tinker target will be introduced that will probably replace our current options.

EDIT: Sundering Titan also has synergy with Iona because you can color screw all the non-blue lands (Besides gemstone mine/city of brass/forbidden orchards).

EDIT 2: Terastodon looks like a bad choice when facing Dread Returns with Sharuum Sharuum + Altar. Running Emrakul not only prevents you from giving 3 creatures for a free dread return, it also shuffle the graveyard into the library making you immune to Altar of Dementia shenanigans.

[Mindstab_Thrull]

OK, let's throw some handy numbers into this conversation..

For any given set of four cards in your deck (whether Force of Will, one of each blue-based fetch, or whatever)
In a hand of 7 cards, you have a 33.6% chance of having one, 5.9% of having two, 0.4% of three, and less than 0.001% of having all four.
This nets roughly a 39.95% chance of having at least one.

If you have a set of *three* you're looking for - Oath creatures, or Power Blue, for example
28.2% for 1, 3.3% for 2, 0.001% for all three, total about 31.5%

In case you're wondering where these numbers come from, I used a function in Excel:

Code:

=HYPGEOMDIST(NumberInHand,HandSize,NumberInDeck,DeckSize)

Where:

NumberInHand is the exact number to appear in your hand (eg exactly 1 copy or exactly 3)
HandSize is the number of cards in your hand (usually assumed to be 7, ie your opening hand not counting mulligans)
NumberInDeck is how many cards in your deck fit the criteria you need: Force of Will, Oathable creatures, mana artifacts, etc
DeckSize is how many cards in your deck: generally 60 for constructed, 40 for limited

So, if you have, say, four Tarmogoyfs in your list and you want to know the odds of seeing exactly 3 in your opening 7 of your Eva Green deck:

Code:

=HYPGEOMDIST(3,7,4,60)

"At least 1" is simply 1-of + 2-of + 3-of + 4-of, or alternatively 100% minus how many fail (plug in 0 for NumberInHand and subtract the difference).

What does this mean?

A typical Oath deck these days runs 3 creatures. For three completely different creatures, the suggestion has been put forth (I won't argue either side at this point) that the best mix is Iona, Terastodon, and something Tinkerable. Having three Oathable creatures means that you'll see at least one in your opening grip roughly 31.5% of the time; roughly two games in 7 you'll see one, and one in 30 games (for simplicity's sake, assume half your matches go 2 games and half go to 3) or 12 rounds - or about a tournament and a half - you'll see two. A fourth creature suddenly swings those numbers up this way: One in three games you'll have one, and one in fifteen - about one in six matches - you'll have 2. Your odds of having one have gone up about 5 percentage points (+19%), and you've now seen an almost 79% upswing in the number of times you'll see two. Here's the thing: Oath does *not* want to see creatures in it's starting hand. With Brainstorm restricted, you're then looking at cards like Jace the Mind Sculptor (four mana, twice as much as Oath) or See Beyond (same cost as Oath) to fix your hand more often than you do with three - and Jace still needs either a shuffle effect or a self-fatesealing.

I had started writing an article about reviewing cards from new sets for another site, hopefully due this week, and the question of Emrakul in Oath came up. This is what I see with Emrakul with respect to Oath:

1. You deal 15 damage, but have to wait until next turn.
2. Annihilator 6 means they sacrifice six permanents of their own choice, also next turn.

Compare this to Terastodon:

1. It deals 9 damage, but it has to wait until next turn.
2. It destroys three *noncreature* permanents of *your* choice - now.

Oath has been tested for years with varying numbers of creatures. One seems rather light, as a single Swords to Plowshares kills the deck. From what I have seen, 2-3 seem optimal; four is bad because you have a 40% chance of having one in your starting hand. A 40% chance of having Oath in your grip is good; 40% of having an Oath *creature* is bad because they're outside reasonable casting range. Emrakul's best fit in my opinion is either as a replacement for Terastodon - and I feel the Terastodon is better - or for Gaea's Blessing.. but you have no way to ditch it. Perhaps in a more aggressive form that runs Bazaar of Baghdad, but that's a completely different style, and I don't think it would turn out as well.

Hope this is useful!

Mindstab Thrull
Sanity eater extraordinaire

[i_set_fire]

Iona names Blue in mirror and makes them helpless against your counterspells. It names White against Selkie to make their removal and 1/3 of their creatures uncastable. It absolutely owns Tezzeret. It names black against TPS and ANT to prevent them from going off.

Show and Tell is there in case you draw your creatures.

when i play TPS against oath and Iona comes up, i dont mind black being named.  that way i can still mystical/merchant for chain and bounce Iona while building up storm and having the ability to use FoW.  after the tutor->bounce->counterwar, i only need a couple more storm (few rits and tutors for tendrils) to drop tendrils.  also, after iona is bounced, i dont have to worry about damage if i still need a turn to set up. 

[Troy_Costisick]

People should just have Edicts and Bounce in their SB if they're playing TPS.  This way, no matter what color is named, there is an answer. 

[mr.grim]

Sorry about that.

[Demonic Attorney]

So, if I'm on Emrakul / Sphinx / Dumbo, and I Oath into Emrakul or Sphinx first, my opponent definitely gets one turn to untap and do their thing unmolested.  If I Oath into Sphinx first, and then Emrakul second, my opponent gets TWO turns to untap and do their thing.

Just for the record, this is exactly why I don't run Emrakul.  The Vault/Key combo finish is so fast, cheap, and easy to assemble that you can't count on even a 2-turn clock getting there anymore, and Sphinx/Emrkaul/X isn't even a 2-turn clock all the time.  

I dropped Oath back when Akroma/Hellkite was the creature package du jour because I would be outraced after getting Oath online in a significant portion of my games.  In my experience, the thing that makes Oath of Druids work now is not the ability to produce non-disruptive threats.  Oath of Druids works because it's now capable of disrupting the opponent much faster than before Zendikar.  I think you need that disruption in order to keep pace with fast, efficient combo finishes.

[voltron00x]

So, if I'm on Emrakul / Sphinx / Dumbo, and I Oath into Emrakul or Sphinx first, my opponent definitely gets one turn to untap and do their thing unmolested.  If I Oath into Sphinx first, and then Emrakul second, my opponent gets TWO turns to untap and do their thing.

Just for the record, this is exactly why I don't run Emrakul.  The Vault/Key combo finish is so fast, cheap, and easy to assemble that you can't count on even a 2-turn clock getting there anymore, and Sphinx/Emrkaul/X isn't even a 2-turn clock all the time.  

I dropped Oath back when Akroma/Hellkite was the creature package du jour because I would be outraced after getting Oath online in a significant portion of my games.  In my experience, the thing that makes Oath of Druids work now is not the ability to produce non-disruptive threats.  Oath of Druids works because it's now capable of disrupting the opponent much faster than before Zendikar.  I think you need that disruption in order to keep pace with fast, efficient combo finishes.

I found the key to beating Tezz with Double Dragon Oath to be as easy as having access to 2x Ancient Grudge in post-SB games... but that was just me, I guess.  Most people I know cut Grudge from their versions of my deck almost immediately.