Black Lotus not good enough for MUD?

[Meddling Mike]

I made the same thread in the Advanced Forum, but wanted a chance to include others in the discussion.

I've been following the evolution of MUD builds ever since the printing of Lodestone Golem gave new life to the archetype by replacing a Vintage staple with a card that was superior in every way (Save a Mindslaver/Walls). The most recent NYSE Tournament showed two nearly identical MUD builds in the finals of the 47 man tournament and I took a minute to compare it to my own build and upon further inspection noticed that it was missing Black Lotus. I assumed there must be some sort of mistake, but after counting the 60 cards in the decklist and hearing from a witness it was confirmed, in the deckbuilder's opinion, Black Lotus wasn't good enough to make the cut for this MUD build.

They really did not play Black Lotus; the logic was that the deck needs multiple turns out of any mana source in the deck, and that explosiveness (aka lotus) won't win the game, because stax/mud will stall out if only given the opportunity to play 1 spell.  Nick, Raf, anyone else, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, this was my understanding of why there's no lotus in the list.

-Nick

That and the fact that lotus is only good on turn 1 because of all of the spheres/chalice 0

I've played this deck in more events than any of the other players. I have never once missed or needed lotus. The deck just doesn't need lotus

If these decks hadn't had such an overwhelmingly strong showing at one of the larger recent events I could dismiss this as ridiculous and move on. It's just one of the assumptions in vintage...if your deck casts spells with mana, then it should have Black Lotus. I guess it's true, there is never a time where you NEED Black Lotus, I've ripped one off the top with three Workshops on the table or a chalice for zero out and cursed my luck, but so often it turns a hand from being ok to being amazing. Black Lotus often means the difference between a turn 1 Sphere of Resistance and a turn 1 Lodestone Golem AND Sphere of Resistance. Burying an opponent before they can set up their board position properly is a vital function of the deck and that early explosiveness can absolutely win games.

In your decks where you have even less spheres and chalices to reduce the effectiveness of Lotus and Serum Powder which allows you to be pickier about having only the most potent opening hands to not include it makes even less sense to me.

[Smmenen]

I made the same thread in the Advanced Forum, but wanted a chance to include others in the discussion.

I've been following the evolution of MUD builds ever since the printing of Lodestone Golem gave new life to the archetype by replacing a Vintage staple with a card that was superior in every way (Save a Mindslaver/Walls). The most recent NYSE Tournament showed two nearly identical MUD builds in the finals of the 47 man tournament and I took a minute to compare it to my own build and upon further inspection noticed that it was missing Black Lotus. I assumed there must be some sort of mistake, but after counting the 60 cards in the decklist and hearing from a witness it was confirmed, in the deckbuilder's opinion, Black Lotus wasn't good enough to make the cut for this MUD build.

They really did not play Black Lotus; the logic was that the deck needs multiple turns out of any mana source in the deck, and that explosiveness (aka lotus) won't win the game, because stax/mud will stall out if only given the opportunity to play 1 spell.  Nick, Raf, anyone else, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, this was my understanding of why there's no lotus in the list.

-Nick

That and the fact that lotus is only good on turn 1 because of all of the spheres/chalice 0

The problem with this logic is that these lists ran Mana Vault.   Mana Vault is no more 'reusable for multiple turns' than Black Lotus.   While you can untap it, that doesn't change the basic point here, since to untap it costs more mana than it does to use it.   In addition, Mana Vault is actually more expensive under Spheres than Lotus.  

If these decks didn't run Mana Vault, then I'd be tempted to credit that logic.   Since they do, it makes little sense.  

So far in my count of MUD lists, about 55% of MUD lists run Mana Vault (75% run mana crypt) and virtually every list runs Black Lotus, although there was a European list I saw that didn't.    

More MUD lists actually don't run Trinisphere than don't run Black Lotus.   

[voltron00x]

Key difference in a deck with Smokestack is that Mana Vault stays in play after use.  Key difference in a deck with Chalice, Vault is not countered by Chalice 0.  I guess it isn't beyond the realm of the logical for a deck running Serum Powder to not use either.

[Smmenen]

Key difference in a deck with Smokestack is that Mana Vault stays in play after use.  Secondary difference, not countered by Chalice 0.

Yes, those are advantages of Mana Vault over Black Lotus.  In addition, Mana Vault powers Academy, even when used.  I was critiquing the logic presented, not all arguments.  

In any case, while there are reasons to support the omission of Black Lotus that are not inconsistent with the inclusion of Mana Vault, I don't think any of the ones I've seen thus far are persuasive.  

The advantages of Black Lotus over Mana Vault are seemingly far greater, if we had to balance such a ledger, such as the fact that Lotus is free, is cheaper under Spheres, doesn't deal you damage when used, and can be used to cast their SB Leylines.  

Bottom line: if Lotus isn't good enough, how Mana Vault good enough?  Yes, there are advantages of Mana Vault over Lotus, but the opposite is also true.   

Their reasoning makes little sense. 

[TheShop]

They are going to agressively mulligan into leyline anyway...so that reason seems marginal.

On the play, there are few cards that lotus powers you into that can't be achieved with vault.

Lasty, at the risk of provoking some heat:  Why nitpick this 1/60.  This is less than a 2% difference in te deck and mana vault is such a close comparison?  None of the tournament wins or losses will be attributed to one card or the other.  Outside of some extremely subjective theory, this is an even more unresolvable an argument than usual. 

[Meddling Mike]

Lasty, at the risk of provoking some heat:  Why nitpick this 1/60.  This is less than a 2% difference in te deck and mana vault is such a close comparison?  None of the tournament wins or losses will be attributed to one card or the other.  Outside of some extremely subjective theory, this is an even more unresolvable an argument than usual. 

The reason why I think it's an interesting discussion, and worth having, is that this 1/60 has been considered an auto-include in every stax list since the archetype was created and now the argument is being made that it's not only no longer an auto-include, it's no longer good enough to make the cut. Such a different perception from the conventional wisdom regarding this card warrants discussion IMO.

[hvndr3d y34r h3x]

Saying that black lotus doesn’t belong in mud because of a lack of permanence is kind of ridiculous. Lotus lets you make multiple threats turn one, or turn two where you couldn't otherwise. It’s a permanent to sac to stax, or tap down to wire, and helps you cast larger threats mid-late game. I have yet to hear an actual good reason to cut lotus.

I’ve heard some pretty weak excuses from people against lotus like “I dropped lotus, played a lock piece and it got countered, and I sat there for the rest of the game and lost.” Obviously these hands should have been tossed back, and poor plays can make even the best cards look awful.  It’s right up there with “he resolved oath so I played tarmogoyf and lost.”

I’ve also heard slight variations like “I went shop->lotus> chalice @ 0 -> played a couple more lock pieces and couldn’t play anything due to lack of permanence on lotus' part.” The issues these players had was not ripping land in a deck that runs lots of land, not that lotus let you have an explosive start. Sometimes you get unlucky, or didn’t bother considering lines of play like “maybe I should drop this crucible first in case something bad happens.”
There’s also the “It’s really bad with chalice @0 and rod” argument.   Even with a dead lotus somewhere your virtual CA is probably way better than you opponents, and you have plays like sacing rod or cotv to stax and going nuts off lotus.

I’m also pretty sure the “no lotus shops” guy at gencon admitted he would have played lotus if he had been able to find one.
Shop decks need to have a strong start, there is no argument there. Shops moxen and lotus are all tools to make that happen consistently I wouldn’t cut them. I’m pretty sure lotus is still an auto include in shop decks and the percentage of players who honestly think otherwise is next to zero. Or the percent of people can’t find one for a sanctioned event /doesn’t have enough proxies for the local mox event has gone up dramatically.

Edit: Just because some dudes do alright with no lotus, sure but that doesn’t mean it’s correct. War mammoth managed to win a lot of games in a row, and just because something can have a + or – impact it doesn’t mean it will, especially in a deck with no tutors or draw engine like shop.

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

Saying that black lotus doesn’t belong in mud because of a lack of permanence is kind of ridiculous. Lotus lets you make multiple threats turn one, or turn two where you couldn't otherwise. It’s a permanent to sac to stax, or tap down to wire, and helps you cast larger threats mid-late game. I have yet to hear an actual good reason to cut lotus.

I’ve heard some pretty weak excuses from people against lotus like “I dropped lotus, played a lock piece and it got countered, and I sat there for the rest of the game and lost.” Obviously these hands should have been tossed back, and poor plays can make even the best cards look awful.  It’s right up there with “he resolved oath so I played tarmogoyf and lost.”

I’ve also heard slight variations like “I went shop->lotus> chalice @ 0 -> played a couple more lock pieces and couldn’t play anything due to lack of permanence on lotus' part.” The issues these players had was not ripping land in a deck that runs lots of land, not that lotus let you have an explosive start. Sometimes you get unlucky, or didn’t bother considering lines of play like “maybe I should drop this crucible first in case something bad happens.”
There’s also the “It’s really bad with chalice @0 and rod” argument.   Even with a dead lotus somewhere your virtual CA is probably way better than you opponents, and you have plays like sacing rod or cotv to stax and going nuts off lotus.

I’m also pretty sure the “no lotus shops” guy at gencon admitted he would have played lotus if he had been able to find one.
Shop decks need to have a strong start, there is no argument there. Shops moxen and lotus are all tools to make that happen consistently I wouldn’t cut them. I’m pretty sure lotus is still an auto include in shop decks and the percentage of players who honestly think otherwise is next to zero. Or the percent of people can’t find one for a sanctioned event /doesn’t have enough proxies for the local mox event has gone up dramatically.

Edit: Just because some dudes do alright with no lotus, sure but that doesn’t mean it’s correct. War mammoth managed to win a lot of games in a row, and just because something can have a + or – impact it doesn’t mean it will, especially in a deck with no tutors or draw engine like shop.

This. If you're locking yourself out more often than your opponent every time you draw Lotus in a deck with the highest amount of mana sources in Vintage you're doing it wrong.

[Smmenen]

If this were the Control Slaver era, I could actually see a good argument for not running Lotus.   But Welder isn't really running around anymore.

Edit: Just because some dudes do alright with no lotus, sure but that doesn’t mean it’s correct. War mammoth managed to win a lot of games in a row, and just because something can have a + or – impact it doesn’t mean it will, especially in a deck with no tutors or draw engine like shop.

This is a really good point.   I remember when Eric Miller ran all kind of crazy cards in his Trinisphere Workshop Aggro decks, The Riddler.    Didn't stop him from winning a ton of SCG P9 tournaments.   

[chrispikula]

They are going to agressively mulligan into leyline anyway...so that reason seems marginal.

On the play, there are few cards that lotus powers you into that can't be achieved with vault.

Lasty, at the risk of provoking some heat:  Why nitpick this 1/60.  This is less than a 2% difference in te deck and mana vault is such a close comparison?  None of the tournament wins or losses will be attributed to one card or the other.  Outside of some extremely subjective theory, this is an even more unresolvable an argument than usual. 

This is an absurd argument. Of course decisions like these determine wins and losses in tourneys.

If you really want to argue against Lotus in this deck, you have to show that there are very few opening hand configurations where Lotus gains you significant advantage.  It certainly seems that the burden of proof is on the anti-Lotus contingent here.

[BruiZar]

There is no burden of proof. The only thing that matters is winning. Instead of trying to convince the theorists on themanadrain, win tournaments with a no-lotus deck.

Personally, I can fully understand the reasoning for not including Lotus. If I agree or not is really not the point. What it boils down to is that there are no hard rules in magic. It's just, whatever works man.

[tezzajw]

What it boils down to is that there are no hard rules in magic. It's just, whatever works man.

Exactly, dude.

Whatever works, however strange it might be!

[Neonico]

Mana Vault isn't countered by chalice at 0
Mana vault is a permanent for smokestack
Mana vault isn't sacrified, meaning you won't get the artefact you use the mana for welded out like you will with black lotus....

Those are the 3 main reasons to run mana vault over lotus in MUD.

[madmanmike25]

Black Lotus isn't countered by Chalice at 1.
Black Lotus gives 3 net mana.  Mana Vault gives 2 net mana.
Black Lotus won't reduce your life total.

That last one may or may not be really weak depending on how many times you have to use Tomb and/or Mana Crypt.  You laugh, but sometimes that 1 extra point really matters. 

I like having Black Lotus in my MUD decks.  I find it very helpful to get 4cc artifacts into play when multiple Spheres are out as well as making more disruptive turn 1 plays.  In my book Mana Vault most certainly comes 2nd to Black Lotus in terms of one-use acceleration.

There have been some rare games for me where Lotus was the only artifact mana in my hand and I had no Shops but Tolarian Academy was the best land in my grip.  I'm all about casting Smokestack on turn 1 and Vault wouldn't have let me do that.  I know thats a few and far between scenario but coming down for free and coming down for 1 mana aren't in the same ballpark.

Of course I have won games in tournaments where I didn't even draw Black Lotus.  That proves nothing.  You only get 60 cards and you should use the best cards you have.  Saying 3 turns of mana in one card just doesn't cut it EVEN FOR ONE USE is absurd to me.  If you are using Vault (+2 mana) then logically you should run Lotus (+3 mana).  It's really that simple.

But thats just my opinion as a long time MUD player.  I personally don't care (and maybe even prefer) if others don't run Black Lotus in their decks.

[Neonico]

What it boils down to is that there are no hard rules in magic. It's just, whatever works man.

Exactly, dude.

Whatever works, however strange it might be!

I remember that someone on this forum stated a rule that when you have black lotus, you have to play it in any deck....
It was a long time ago, about pre future sight ichorid....

@Madmanmike : I think that all those arguments aren't that revelant.
Chalice for 1 is alot less revelant than it was back in 2006 before brainstorm/ponder restriction.
It's really not the chalice i want to have the most, compared to 0 or 2.

The critical amount of mana you need on turn 1 is 2 or 4. Vault is okay to get 2 by itself, whatever the mana source you have with it.... Considering how much mox, crypt, and lands which give you 2 mana you play, there are very few situations where you won't be able to cast a 4 mana spell on turn 1.

Life can matter, but alot less since manaburn aren't a huge problem for MUD anymore.

But playing something like land/lotus golem, when your opponent goes land Goblin welder... I prefer not to, personally, but it's my choices.

[Meddling Mike]

I keep on seeing this Chalice at zero argument being put down, I would say the number of times I cast chalice at 1 is really close to the number of times I cast chalice at zero. Opening hand on the play or if I have drawn alot of my 0cc spells and my opponent still has a good number of theirs in the deck and is struggling for mana I'll drop it for zero, but I find that often I drop it at 1 if the mana is available. I really only have 2-3 1cc spells in the deck, my opponents almost always have more 1cc spells than I do. Even postboard with Nature's Claim becoming more popular.

But playing something like land/lotus golem, when your opponent goes land Goblin welder... I prefer not to, personally, but it's my choices.

If an opponent does that tell him to take his welder back, because he needs to pay  for it...

Regardless, if you expect your metagame to be heavy on Goblin Welders that changes the argument somewhat, but I think part of the point that has been made on here a few times is that Goblin Welder is not as commonplace as he had been in the past.

[Neonico]

And how is it a problem to pay 1 ?
YOu just need a mox/crypt to do it.

[mikekilljoy]

I've seen the deck with no Lotus in action, actually had to face it in the finals of our NYSE Lite tournament a few weeks ago. Believe me, it didn't miss Lotus much.

Now, I'm a Fish player and I have been pretty much for the entire year when I can show up to any event. The only logical argument I could see to where Lotus would have been better than Mana Vault against me would be any instance involving Null Rod or Pithing Needle. Mana Vault or Lotus being stuck in play with a Null Rod around has no difference other than the one life a turn deal. Pithing Needle, meanwhile, does nothing to Lotus, but can stop the untap of Vault for more mana on the next turn. And yes, I have tried it in order to slow down the MUD player.

In the end, I think it is just a matter of preference. I don't think anyone here can honestly say one concept is better than the other and be 100% right. But then again, I can also just let the results speak for themselves.

[meadbert]

Black Lotus is obviously amazing.  It allows multiple threats on turn 1, which is important.
Basically you have starts like Shop, Lotus, Thorn, Golem where your opponent would need 2 Forces to stop Golem hitting play.
The issue is tempo and Lotus provides a ton of it.

There are narrow cases where Lotus may not make sense.  Vroman is known for boarding out Black Lotus in the Stax mirror because of the loss of a permanent and vulnerability to Welder.  It is worth noting that Tangle Wire suffers from the same two drawbacks and Smokestack suffers from one of them.  Also, given that Welder frequency is at an all time low since I have been playing Type 1 (2004ish) it seems like a strange time to suddenly drop Black Lotus for fear of Welder now.

Any hypothetical opponent packing Welder might also be playing Gorilla Shaman, Karn, their own Smokestacks, Triskelion, Tinker, Force of Will, Mana Drain and a host of other cards that can put artifacts in your graveyard.  Stax's plan for Welder should not be to hope to never have an artifact in its graveyard.
None of this is relevant as almost no one is playing Welder right now.

The addition of Golem into the metagame cannot be justification for the sudden dropping of Lotus from Mud lists.  Golem does not impact Lotus and Lotus is actually crucial for pumping out turn 1 Golems or for playing Golem + some other lock piece as mentioned above.

At least when we had this debate out Recall in Stax it made sense in the light of the fact that Misdirection usage was at an all time high.

The other issues are Null Rod and Chalice.
Black Lotus being bad with Rod is a fine point, but it applies to all the Moxen and Metalworkers as well.  At least Lotus can power out a turn 1 Rod, while Worker cannot.
Chalice is only a problem when set to 0, and I would argue that most of the time it should be set to 1 instead given that Mud runs 1 or 2 1cc spells while most decks run around 10.  The problem with setting it to 0 is Mud runs 6-7 0cc spells compared to maybe 7 on average so it is mostly a wash.  If you consider that Chalice@0 makes Null Rod mostly redundant, then it is worse than a wash.  I would argue that since Chalice should be set to 1, Chalice is actually an argument against Mana Vault rather than an argument against Lotus.

[Neonico]

Black Lotus is obviously amazing.  It allows multiple threats on turn 1, which is important.
Basically you have starts like Shop, Lotus, Thorn, Golem where your opponent would need 2 Forces to stop Golem hitting play.
The issue is tempo and Lotus provides a ton of it.

There are narrow cases where Lotus may not make sense.  Vroman is known for boarding out Black Lotus in the Stax mirror because of the loss of a permanent and vulnerability to Welder.  It is worth noting that Tangle Wire suffers from the same two drawbacks and Smokestack suffers from one of them.  Also, given that Welder frequency is at an all time low since I have been playing Type 1 (2004ish) it seems like a strange time to suddenly drop Black Lotus for fear of Welder now.

Any hypothetical opponent packing Welder might also be playing Gorilla Shaman, Karn, their own Smokestacks, Triskelion, Tinker, Force of Will, Mana Drain and a host of other cards that can put artifacts in your graveyard.  Stax's plan for Welder should not be to hope to never have an artifact in its graveyard.
None of this is relevant as almost no one is playing Welder right now.

The addition of Golem into the metagame cannot be justification for the sudden dropping of Lotus from Mud lists.  Golem does not impact Lotus and Lotus is actually crucial for pumping out turn 1 Golems or for playing Golem + some other lock piece as mentioned above.

At least when we had this debate out Recall in Stax it made sense in the light of the fact that Misdirection usage was at an all time high.

The other issues are Null Rod and Chalice.
Black Lotus being bad with Rod is a fine point, but it applies to all the Moxen and Metalworkers as well.  At least Lotus can power out a turn 1 Rod, while Worker cannot.
Chalice is only a problem when set to 0, and I would argue that most of the time it should be set to 1 instead given that Mud runs 1 or 2 1cc spells while most decks run around 10.  The problem with setting it to 0 is Mud runs 6-7 0cc spells compared to maybe 7 on average so it is mostly a wash.  If you consider that Chalice@0 makes Null Rod mostly redundant, then it is worse than a wash.  I would argue that since Chalice should be set to 1, Chalice is actually an argument against Mana Vault rather than an argument against Lotus.

In France, Paris aera, lotus has been cutt from most of the mud lists like 4 years agao. It's not something that comes just beacause of lodestone golem and/or welder.

[Delha]

In France, Paris aera, lotus has been cutt from most of the mud lists like 4 years agao. It's not something that comes just beacause of lodestone golem and/or welder.

In Paris, I'd assume the number of people running MUD sans Lotus is at least partially due to lack of availability. That said, have you seen any specific comments from people as to why they cut it? Are they the same reasons being voiced above?

[Neonico]

In France, Paris aera, lotus has been cutt from most of the mud lists like 4 years agao. It's not something that comes just beacause of lodestone golem and/or welder.

In Paris, I'd assume the number of people running MUD sans Lotus is at least partially due to lack of availability. That said, have you seen any specific comments from people as to why they cut it? Are they the same reasons being voiced above?

No, all of the players who cutt lotus from their list are full powered....
We noticed that our hands with lotus were not that good, and even often lead to bad mulligan decisions. I_ can even tell you that some players have posted some really impressive results (multiple top8s in 90+ players tournaments) with unpowered MUD lists.

I also wanted to notice that the more fish you have in your meta, the less you should play lotus (same for mana vault in this case) and lotus is also really bad in MUD mirror, playing and facing aggro or prison version of MUD. That's also those metagame considerations that lead some of the MUD spanish players to cutt trinisphere from their lists (which seems as bad as cutting lotus for many american players, but makes alot of sense for me)

@madbeart : as a long time MUD player, i would be really interested to know why you would set chalice à 1 instead or 0 or 2 in the current metagame. For me, 1 is actually the worst you can do against allmost all decks in the feild (only exception could possibly be to cutt noble hierarch from fish)

[Smmenen]

In France, Paris aera, lotus has been cutt from most of the mud lists like 4 years agao. It's not something that comes just beacause of lodestone golem and/or welder.

In Paris, I'd assume the number of people running MUD sans Lotus is at least partially due to lack of availability. That said, have you seen any specific comments from people as to why they cut it? Are they the same reasons being voiced above?

No, all of the players who cutt lotus from their list are full powered....
We noticed that our hands with lotus were not that good, and even often lead to bad mulligan decisions

That same logic applies to mana Vault.   

[Neonico]

In France, Paris aera, lotus has been cutt from most of the mud lists like 4 years agao. It's not something that comes just beacause of lodestone golem and/or welder.

In Paris, I'd assume the number of people running MUD sans Lotus is at least partially due to lack of availability. That said, have you seen any specific comments from people as to why they cut it? Are they the same reasons being voiced above?

No, all of the players who cutt lotus from their list are full powered....
We noticed that our hands with lotus were not that good, and even often lead to bad mulligan decisions

That same logic applies to mana Vault.  

Really depend of what you play on turn 1....
I would say no if it's smokestack.... But that's not even the main argument anyway, so no need to speack about that.

[meadbert]

@madbeart : as a long time MUD player, i would be really interested to know why you would set chalice à 1 instead or 0 or 2 in the current metagame. For me, 1 is actually the worst you can do against allmost all decks in the feild (only exception could possibly be to cutt noble hierarch from fish)

So looking at Bridgeport.

The number of (0, 1, 2) cc spells were as follows:
Noble Fish (4, 14, 10)
Tezish (7, 13, 11)
Oath (7, 10, 12)
Mud (7, 3, 8)

So the average non Mud deck packed (6, 12, 11)
Mud had(7, 3, 8)

So the differential is (-1, +9, +3)

This does not even include TPS which I am pretty sure would show Chalice@1 ahead.

As I see it Chalice@1 is the sweet spot right now.  Certainly if I knew I was playing Oath I would go for Chalice@2.
This is all reliant on your list though.  If I were running my Uba Stax list that has 0 spells that cost 2 (other than Chalice@1) then I would certainly open with Chalice@2 every chance I get, but for lists packing Thorn and Resistor you end up hurting yourself almost as much as you hurt them and your filter is no better since they have Brainstorm and Thirst while you have nothing.

[Neonico]

@madbeart : as a long time MUD player, i would be really interested to know why you would set chalice à 1 instead or 0 or 2 in the current metagame. For me, 1 is actually the worst you can do against allmost all decks in the feild (only exception could possibly be to cutt noble hierarch from fish)

So looking at Bridgeport.

The number of (0, 1, 2) cc spells were as follows:
Noble Fish (4, 14, 10)
Tezish (7, 13, 11)
Oath (7, 10, 12)
Mud (7, 3, 8)

So the average non Mud deck packed (6, 12, 11)
Mud had(7, 3, 8)

So the differential is (-1, +9, +3)

This does not even include TPS which I am pretty sure would show Chalice@1 ahead.

As I see it Chalice@1 is the sweet spot right now.  Certainly if I knew I was playing Oath I would go for Chalice@2.
This is all reliant on your list though.  If I were running my Uba Stax list that has 0 spells that cost 2 (other than Chalice@1) then I would certainly open with Chalice@2 every chance I get, but for lists packing Thorn and Resistor you end up hurting yourself almost as much as you hurt them and your filter is no better since they have Brainstorm and Thirst while you have nothing.

i think that it's a bad way to consider the choice. IMO it's not just how much spells you cutt in their deck and in yours. The most important thing to consider IMO is how important the spells you will cutt are. I mainly target engine cards with my chalices. And of course mana developpement, so a blind turn 1 chalice would allmost allways be set @ 0 for me, especially in a proxy tournament.

i would play it for 2 against drain, oath, certainly fish too (Qasali and tarmogoyfs is more of a threat for you than hierarch if you don't play maindeck crucible) and i think that's really more important than having 2nd or 3rd sphere online, and cutting 2 manas spells is more important than any 1 mana spell in tezz or oath imo. Avoiding your opponent to gain mana, hurkyl you and most importantly takes his faster road to victory is alot more important than cutting a small part of your deck, even if it's spheres ans thorns.

the only exception is of course ritual decks, but it's mainly because their main engine card cost one.

[meadbert]

What I do not understand is how cutting of access to your opponent's Moxen and Black Lotus is so important, yet you eagerly cut off your own access to Black Lotus by not running it.  If Black Lotus is bad, then it is hard to justify dropping Chalice@0.  Fish plays around it.  Dredge plays around it.  Tez easily tutors up Vault/Key or drops Bob without Moxen.  Oath can tutor up Vault/Key or drop Oath easily without Moxen.  Cutting of Moxen and Lotus is not as important as it once was.

I agree with all of your examples about Chalice@2 being a strong play, but Black Lotus allows an early Chalice@2 and is not shut off by Chalice@2.

[Smmenen]

In France, Paris aera, lotus has been cutt from most of the mud lists like 4 years agao. It's not something that comes just beacause of lodestone golem and/or welder.

In Paris, I'd assume the number of people running MUD sans Lotus is at least partially due to lack of availability. That said, have you seen any specific comments from people as to why they cut it? Are they the same reasons being voiced above?

No, all of the players who cutt lotus from their list are full powered....
We noticed that our hands with lotus were not that good, and even often lead to bad mulligan decisions

That same logic applies to mana Vault.  

Really depend of what you play on turn 1....
I would say no if it's smokestack.... But that's not even the main argument anyway, so no need to speack about that.

Any player who doesn't run Black Lotus needs to explain why they run Mana Vault, if they do.    It's incongruous to omit Lotus, but include Mana Vault, particularly if your rationale is the one just articulated. 

[thecman]

We noticed that our hands with lotus were not that good, and even often lead to bad mulligan decisions.

Is it just me or is this really bad argument?  Having Lotus in your deck didn't force you to make a bad decision, you just made a bad decision.  I'm not an expert by any means but I'm pretty sure that making good mulligan decisions will win you more games than adding/removing any one mana source.

[Adan]

This thread blows like non other, I mean, come on, the logic that some people have in here is just plain and stupid. From that reasoning, you might as well cut the 3 Moxen and the Lotus from Noble Fish because they suck hard with Null Rod. Really, it would be exactly the same reasoning.

Vintage decks play Moxen and Lotus to archieve broken starts because that is what defines the format and in conclusion gives you a good chance do win a game because you can power out big threats or multiple threats in one turn as meadbert mentioned before.

A start like Land, Mox, Mox, Trygon by Noble rapes MUD, as well as Land, Lotus, Hierarch, Trygon/Qasali. Although you will lose 2 sources when you drop Null Rod, there's a good reason why you should still stick to artifact mana.

And that's basically why Shops should always play Black Lotus, because starts like 1st Turn Thorn/Sphere, Golem definitely seals games and the net mana of Black Lotus is also a important aspect to consider in a 12-sphere deck. Lotus and Mana Vault function as Workshop No. 5-6 and that's what you always want to have in your opening hand, thus people who don't run Lotus either have no Black Lotus available or their sanity is to question.

Statistically (and rationally, see smennenen's Mana Vault compairison) it's a sin not to run it. And "don't care as long as it wins" and "personal preference" is also irrational and basically banalizes your usage of themanadrain.com . Really.

edit: On a sidenote, Rolf once won a tournament in Dillingen with MUD/Stax. He played without Lotus. His reasoning was plain simple: "Didn't had one, couldn't get one. Otherwise..."