Elephant Oath 2011

[honestabe]

Oath of Druids is not the primary win for the deck.
It is not the main victory route for the deck.

Wait, what?

Why not just take out the oaths for Confidants or Remoras then?

[DubDub]

@DubDub
Its not that Oath is the best way to win as much as it is the fastest. But if it does not work out, it is okay. In fact, it is often the case that I cast Oath as a bait in order to resolve a Jace. I run 4 because it is fast.

 But that doesn't mean it holds a position of importance that is greater than all the other routes.

The answer to your question is that the 7th card should usually be a Duress.

There are other bait cards that don't require the dead slots of Iona, Terastodon x2, Forbidden Orchard x4 (versus less painful lands) etc..  Also, can I just say that I would love to draw as well as you, if you consistently have excess Oaths to bait counters before resolving your singleton Jace.  I mean, you're four times as likely to have a fatty in hand as your singleton Jace, with only two ways of getting rid of dead cards (Brainstorm and Jace himself), and with five cards to avoid drawing dead cards in the first place (Ponder, two topdeck tutors if they count, preemptive Brainstorm and again Jace himself).  If anything, Nature's Claim is particularly good against your brand of Oath, because it's unlikely given the dearth of library manipulation that you'll have another threat once the first Oath has been dealt with.

I don't feel that the 'position of importance' is something that one chooses in the abstract when building or piloting a deck.  The 'position of importance' is conditional on the gamestate and on the synergies in your deck.  When you say that Oath is 'fast' but not necessarily foremost among 'equals' I feel like you're making that decision without evaluating reality.  There's nothing wrong with prioritizing a line of play that ends the game quickly over one that ends the game gradually.

Oath + Forbidden Orchard (or opponents playing creatures that aren't Trygon/Pridemage etc) is a very efficient combo, that as Steve said generates as much or more mana and card advantage as nearly all plays in Vintage.  However, if you've resolved Time Vault, are holding Demonic Tutor, have four mana of any color available (with Forbidden Orchard) and face an opponent with an empty hand, your best option is to tutor up, play, and activate Voltaic Key, not to grab Oath, play that and ship the turn.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you're trying to make a claim about the need to play flexibly, which I totally agree is of paramount import, but that does not mean that all strategic options are equally viable.  Not even before the game starts.

[Eastman]

Let me just reiterate that the Nature's Claim/"whether Oath relies on Oath" discussion is closed.  This isn't directed at anyone in particular but I think everyone got all of their points in.  Let's get this useful thread back on the rails.  -Eastman

[Rico Suave]

There is a looming question for Oath right now.  You might even say there is an elephant in the room. 

How do we approach the current metagame?  Workshops are monsters, Dredge is still scary, and even the blue players are packing more incidental hate than ever. 

I'm not going to speak for other people, but when I play Oath I try to treat it very proactively.  Some people might feel comfortable with their Oath and a wall of counters, but I don't.

Consider for a moment a few inherent weaknesses of the Oath archetype:

1) Forbidden Orchard
Dying to spirit token beatdown is awful.  It easily ranks in the top 10 most embarrassing ways to lose a game.  Then we get to Forbidden Orchard, where the spirit tokens we die to were actually given to our opponent by....our own card.

In short, Orchard as a card is not conducive to playing a long drawn out game.  I could point to a game per tournament where I would die precisely because my own spirit tokens either killed me straight up or helped enough in combination with other creatures. 

2) Oath is a 2 mana sorcery. 
Protecting it with a 2 mana counterspell is awkward.  I can understand that Drain is powerful at times, but if we're trying to force an Oath through...do we really want to wait for 4 mana?  Doesn't that defeat the purpose of playing a really cheap threat?

To me, it seems better to take one of 3 options:
a) Discard + Oath; T1 Thoughtseize T2 Oath is very smooth
b) Oath + Recursion; T2 Oath (countered), T3 Argivian Find -> Oath ? 
c) Oath + Threat; T2 Oath, T3 Show and Tell

To me, the protecting of Oath of Druids is important but I feel there are better ways to overcome an enemy counterwall other than simply running our own copies of Drains.  The problem is if we run Drain, we get into these stalemates where we really want to play our Oath...but we also walk right into our opponent's Drain.  And if we play Oath plus our own Drain, now we don't have mana to play around Spell Pierce.  And even if we manage to miraculously get Oath to resolve, we've waited so long that our opponent's game plan is in full gear and we might just lose anyway.

3) Giant fatties
The problem is that if we draw even one fattie, that is a blank.  And if we are running more blanks than the average blue deck, we are going to run out of steam before they do.  And if we run out of steam, we're probably not going to make it up to 8 mana before our opponent's not-blanks have won the game.  Basically, the onus is on us to kill them before we run out of steam.  All they have to do really is just not die.  The longer the game goes, the more likely we're just going to draw a card that doesn't do anything, then we'll stumble, and then our opponent will kick us while we're down.

So we have to attack.  And if we're going to attack, we may as well attack early, attack often, and never let go of the initiative or our opponent might grab it and then we're boned.

------------------------

So that was a long way of saying I think it's better to play aggressively with Oath, rather than passively. 

It's not difficult to win with Oath.  We've all seen the Orchard/Mox/Oath openers with Force back-up, and then oh look a pretty Angel on turn 2. 

The real trick is winning when we don't have Oath.  One possibility is Vault/Key.  Another is using a series of broken spells fueled by Yawgmoth's Will to just go nuts.  We can play Planeswalkers like Jace or Tezz.  I have enjoyed the Show and Tell approach in the past and to good success, particularly against Fish.  We could play Helm/Leyline.  Hell I've even used Bribery maindeck before.  We could even investigate splashing white for a combination of Enlightened Tutor and Argivian Find. 

But whatever it is, I think it needs to be a serious effort at establishing a plan B.  I'm not sure sitting behind a wall of counters and randomly winning with lucksack Oaths is going to get very far nowadays...unless you're just really good at the lucksacking part.  And I don't think a miser's copy of Show and Tell or Jace is going to cut it either.  Maybe it's just me, but I think the best thing to do is load up on threats that our opponent cannot ignore until one slips through the cracks.  The disruption to back this up should probably be very minimal because we're not trying to stop our opponents - they are the ones trying to stop Oath. 

[Tha Gunslinga]

As an Oath player, Nature's Claim is a pain in the ass.  It's not game over, unless you get suckered into expending everything just to land an Oath or set up Key/Vault, but it's definitely a pain in the ass.  The way to beat Nature's Claim is just to grind your opponent down.  They will only have so much removal, and you can just play the long game and set up either Yawgmoth's Will, hardcasting a creature (possibly via Drain), Jace, Tezzeret (ultimate or not), Oath+Time Walk, or just Key/Vault plus protection.

As far as MUD goes, you have to play the aggressive game or you'll lose.  I'm not really sure how to deal with MUD, to be honest.  I gave up playing Oath after losing to Shops one too many times, and as a MUD player currently I don't see Oath as a bad matchup.

[Smmenen]

I know for me, the reason why I gave up on Elephant Oath was the overloading of Trygon and Nature's Claim  in Trygon Tezz decks, which were hugely popular in August and September. Yet, that deck seems to have receded to a large extent.  I'm not sure why, since Shops are doing as good as ever - but that's neither here nor there.  

This was the last version of Elephant Oath I tested, which I really liked; I just felt it was too much of an uphill battle against Trygon Tezz when that deck spiked in popularity.

Matt,

I think you answered your own question.   Workshop decks are popular, but so are control decks.  

I think it's easier to see why this is a deterrent if we think about Oath more functionally.  Oath of Druids is actually alot like Tinker.  (Both Tinker and Oath of Druids generate mana advantage by 'cheating' far more expensive spells (finishers) into play.   Both cards also create a form of virtual card advantage by the ways in which they manipulate the library.   Tinker is a direct tutor.  Oath is not, but by shifting so many cards from one zone to another, it creates secondary benefits that matter with whole classes of cards (Dredge, flashback, retrace).   Of course, another difference is the fact that Oath is reusable, and therefore can generate real card advantage as well.)

If we think about how unexciting Tinker is against control decks, than it becomes clear why Oath is generally weak to blue control decks.   You are playing a deck with five Tinkers. The main reason that both Oath and Tinker are weak in control matches is that you sacrifice immediate game  advantages for longer term advantages, and thus reduce your ability to stop your opponent on the stack and thwart their strategic objectives.   Now, Oath of Druids can be disruptive, just like Tinker, especially if you oath up Iona (or Terastodon), but that takes some time, and does nothing on the stack or board until then.  

The problems with Oath run deeper than the fact that you sacrifice game advantage and reduce your ability to thwart opposing strategic objectives in deploying and protecting Oath.   The other problem is that you lack more conventional ways to generate card advantage.  The most popular efficient card drawing engine for blue decks since the restriction of Thirst has been Dark Confidant.  Obviously, Dark Confidant can't be used in Oath decks.  

The blue control decks can use all of the available blue card drawing to generate real card advantage, pick off your Oaths (with say Nature's Claim) to generate virtual card advantage (making your topdecks worse over time), and then overwhelm you during the course of the game with both.   That's why I advocate for Gush-based Oath lists, like the ones I designed for my Gush book (and revised in the December newsletter and forthcoming second edition), which I think are an excellent metagame choice.  Gushbond offers a synergistic draw engine, a backup plan, and is great with Jace, which is awesome in Oath.  
  

[znoyes]

Hmm,

I'm thinking that the cards that oath fears most are challice on 2, trygon predator, and nature's claim.
It seems that show and tell or tinker are the best answers to those cards. As long as you can abuse those cards, do you need utility spells like hurkyl's, claim, and lightning bolt?

[voltron00x]

Stephen, I think you misread the section you quoted.  The reasons Oath receded are pretty clear.

My question was, why has Trygon Tezz receded compared to August / Sept?  

I believe Trygon Tezz has receded b/c many people wanted to try Gush.  It certainly isn't because of a decrease in Shops.

EDIT - just to expand on that thought, Trygon Tezz it not well-suited for a Gush metagame.  It just seems that, from the numbers in the US, there's more of an illusion of a Gush metagame, than a reality of one.  But thats probably a conversation for another thread.

Here's another Elelphant Oath list that I kind of like:

http://morphling.de/printview.php?c=1362&d=2

2. Alexis Dumay

Maindeck (60):
Spells (43):
1 Black Lotus
1 Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
1 Mana Crypt
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Sol Ring
1 Time Vault
1 Voltaic Key
1 Demonic Tutor
2 Thoughtseize
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Yawgmoth's Will
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Brainstorm
4 Force of Will
3 Jace, the Mind Sculptor
3 Mana Drain
1 Merchant Scroll
1 Ponder
4 Spell Pierce
1 Thirst for Knowledge
1 Tinker
4 Oath of Druids
1 Sphinx of the Steel Wind
1 Nature's Claim
1 Terastodon

Lands (17):
4 Forbidden Orchard
1 Island
1 Library of Alexandria
3 Misty Rainforest
2 Polluted Delta
1 Tolarian Academy
2 Tropical Island
3 Underground Sea


Sideboard (15):
2 Dispel
2 Duress
1 Iona, Shield of Emeria
3 Nature's Claim
3 Ravenous Trap
2 Thoughtseize
2 Yixlid Jailer

[Cyberpunker]

@ Rico Suave

It is my experience that the only way for Oath to go would be towards counterspells because counterspells are simply just stronger than black disruption. I know it seems that Oath just blanks way too often in the end in terms of topdecks. But the inclusion of Show and Tell really makes up for more than it seems. If you look at the latest control decks, you will find that they have just as many blanks in their draws as Oath does, only less obvious ones. Jace for instance. It is good. But running more than one would mean that it can be a blank card early one in the same way a creature is. That means Oath would have an equal game early to mid. The disadvantages late game can be offset by loading up with more protection spells. And in the endgame, if your counters and threats have been played accordingly, both of you would be trying to "lucksack" the opponent. It then depends on how you built your deck. Build it well and you will end up drawing threats and counters instead of cards that don't do much (Gorilla Shaman for instance). I don't like the concept of "lucksacking" because everything can be prevented or changed and you/your opponent are subject to the same "luck"

@Gungslinga

Oath isn't at a disadvantage versus MUD, its more like 50/50. Who gets the jump on the other guy first. The strength of Oath as a deck is that it runs enough threats as to overwhelm the opponent in the same way MUD does, except it also has counterspells. That is why your friend Mike Solymossy accused me of "drawing" like a champ when in reality I was just overwhelming him with threats off the topdeck (an essential part of what makes this deck the best deck is that it overpowers others)

@Smmenen

Oath doesn't need a Draw Engine. It replaces it with threats. Basically casting a Dark Confidant and casting an Oath you always start off with -1 card advantage. The next turn Confidant gets you a card and Oath gets you a creature on the board.

In the sense it is not like Tinker because its creatures are just way better and lock the opponent down. Resolving an Iona and a Sphinx versus Control is an easy way to see how they are different.

That is why Gush is inferior to Oath. One wins you the game, the other gets you the threats that win you the game. So you choose between having a Draw spell in your hand and having a Win spell in your hand. Easy choice imo.

@Znoyes

Not really. But I am not supposed to discuss why anymore

There are different playstyles that I adopt when facing different opponents. TPS/Control means I play slower. MUD/Dredge means I go aggressive. Same for Selkie.

[The Atog Lord]

This is an interesting discussion. I believe that Oath can function like a Tinker against MUD and Fish decks. However, it can be far more threatening than Tinker against blue-based control decks. The reason for this is that most blue decks today are not afraid of whatever might be on the other end of a Tinker. They can race or bounce most of the potential Tinker targets, especially now that Sundering Titan has been away from any card sleeves for quite a while. On the other hand, Oath resolution often signifies the advent of an immediately effective monster such as Iona or the Elephant. If Tinker could retrieve either of those cards, it would be a much more legitimate threat against blue decks.

As for MUD decks. I lost two matches at Worlds this year, one being to Kevin Cron playing MUD. He used Leyline of Sanctity to tremendous effect -- despite a very fast Oath resolving on my side of the table, I was unable to remove that enchantment before Golems beat me to death. I suspect that if Oath were to become a popular deck again, MUD would fine itself a very powerful hate card in the Leyline. And the Leyline would be quite solid in several other matchups as well.

Finally, there is Owen's deck. In my experience, this deck is a nightmare for Oath. Owen's deck combines a solid draw engine with a powerful set of counters. It includes four maindeck ways to remove a resolved Oath of Druids. And it also includes Jace, who can make many cards that arrive off Oath not matter. This is a terrible match for Oath, though perhaps Owen's deck is becoming less popular at the moment.

[Delha]

Oath doesn't need a Draw Engine. It replaces it with threats. Basically casting a Dark Confidant and casting an Oath you always start off with -1 card advantage. The next turn Confidant gets you a card and Oath gets you a creature on the board.

I don't think that's a very good comparison, since Oath needs an Orchard or opposing dude.

[Cyberpunker]

Oath doesn't need a Draw Engine. It replaces it with threats. Basically casting a Dark Confidant and casting an Oath you always start off with -1 card advantage. The next turn Confidant gets you a card and Oath gets you a creature on the board.

I don't think that's a very good comparison, since Oath needs an Orchard or opposing dude.

Very true. I think of it in terms of always ending up giving me a creature though. But there are cases where Oath sits there unactivated for a while until Orchard comes.

[Smmenen]

@Smmenen

Oath doesn't need a Draw Engine. It replaces it with threats. Basically casting a Dark Confidant and casting an Oath you always start off with -1 card advantage. The next turn Confidant gets you a card and Oath gets you a creature on the board.

In the sense it is not like Tinker because its creatures are just way better and lock the opponent down. Resolving an Iona and a Sphinx versus Control is an easy way to see how they are different.

Oath doesn't *need* a draw engine, but that doesn't mean it's not better with one.   Traditionally, Oath has used draw engines like Thirst For Knowledge or, even back further, Accumulated Knowledge.  

The idea that you don't need a draw engine because you just play threats is kinda silly.   By drawing more cards you are better able to find, resolve, and protect your threats.   It's simple to illustrate this with math.   The other complaint, that James King made in the Tyrant Oath thread, that he doesn't like Gush or other draw spells in Oath, is that he doesn't like drawing Oath creatures.   That's a natural consequence of playing with draw spells.  If you play with draw spells, you will draw cards in proportion to their frequency in your deck over time.   That argument cuts against any draw spell whatsoever in Oath, and I think can be disregarded on that ground alone.   After all, we aren't going to cut Ancestral Recall in an Oath deck, so the idea that drawing cards isn't good is silly.  Drawing cards gives you more resources to find, resolve, and protect key strategic objectives like Oath.  

That is why Gush is inferior to Oath. One wins you the game, the other gets you the threats that win you the game. So you choose between having a Draw spell in your hand and having a Win spell in your hand. Easy choice imo.

By that logic, Yawgmoth's Will is inferior to Tinker, since Tinker wins the game, and other gets you threats to win the game by generating card advantage.   Your argument amounts to the position that card advantage is inferior to win conditions.   Not only is that a false dichotomy, by suggesting that these are mutually exclusive options, but that's one of the silly's arguments I've seen here in some time.  My impression is that you are just posting stream of consciousness thoughts here like this was twitter without really thinking through your positions or the implications of your positions. 

[Cyberpunker]

@Smmenen

You theorize a lot and you get it all wrong. Yawgmoth's Will is not inferior to Tinker; it wins the game by itself. Oath doesn't need a draw engine because in place of the draw engine, it has threats. The older incarnations of Oath needed a draw engine in the form of Gush, TFK, and AK because there was less gamestopping threats available to them.

The idea that you don't need a draw engine because you just play threats is kinda silly.

I guess all the Workshop decks need a draw engine then.
If Oath should cut threats right now, then it could have a draw engine. But that is just silly because the whole purpose of a draw engine is to hurry up and get you the game winning threats.

You are implying that I support cutting Ancestral Recall, which has no grounds considering that I include it always as a must. It is included because it itself is a threat in that it wins you the game.

TFK, AK, and Gush are not strong enough like Ancestral Recall/Yawg Will to be included over other cards that are simply better.
That is why Oath does not need a draw engine.

So yes, Oath is better without one right now because it has to cut its threats in order to include an engine. You are comparing Elephant Oath to traditional Oath. Why not compare MUD to traditional Workshop? Why not compare Selkie to traditional Fish? Why not compare Storm to traditional combo? Tezzeret to traditional Keeper/BBS? I believe your logic is very unsound or you are not really thinking what you are saying through. My impression is that you seem to be trying to expose what you perceive as "flaws in logic" but do not really even know what is good for the deck.

[Phele]

If Oath should cut threats right now, then it could have a draw engine. But that is just silly because the whole purpose of a draw engine is to hurry up and get you the game winning threats.

So why don't you both compare the actual Oath variants more in detail (Gush-Tyrant and Elefant-Oath), instead of so much theory. That would be nice 

The ups and downs imo: Tyrant has a draw engine, Elefant has more disruption. Both have alternative win conditions (Gush-Freeze, Vault-Key, Tinker-Sphinx, and Jace in both cases). Both have two alternative win routes, that are not vulernable to Natures Claim. Both have the same amount of dead win condition draws (3 dudes, Vault + Key in Elefant, 2 dudes, Krosan, Freeze and Flash of Insight in Tyrant).

So in my eyes it is much about having a better early game (Elefant) by being able to easier protect your oath or to hinder oposing threats better (4 to 6 one mana disruption spells), or to have a better midgame (Tyrant) by easier filling up your hand with a broken draw engine, even though Gush is not totally synergistic with Orchards.

What are your reasons for chosing one variant over the other?

[Cyberpunker]

If Oath should cut threats right now, then it could have a draw engine. But that is just silly because the whole purpose of a draw engine is to hurry up and get you the game winning threats.

So why don't you both compare the actual Oath variants more in detail (Gush-Tyrant and Elefant-Oath), instead of so much theory. That would be nice  

The ups and downs imo: Tyrant has a draw engine, Elefant has more disruption. Both have alternative win conditions (Gush-Freeze, Vault-Key, Tinker-Sphinx, and Jace in both cases). Both have two alternative win routes, that are not vulernable to Natures Claim. Both have the same amount of dead win condition draws (3 dudes, Vault + Key in Elefant, 2 dudes, Krosan, Freeze and Flash of Insight in Tyrant).

So in my eyes it is much about having a better early game (Elefant) by being able to easier protect your oath or to hinder oposing threats better (4 to 6 one mana disruption spells), or to have a better midgame (Tyrant) by easier filling up your hand with a broken draw engine, even though Gush is not totally synergistic with Orchards.

What are your reasons for chosing one variant over the other?

I'm sorry, I didn't know you demanded so much of me  

Questions about your theory : Why do you think Tyrant Oath has a better midgame because of Gush? Do you find casting Gush easy versus MUD/Dredge? Is it really as broken as you think it is? Have you considered the drawbacks of Gush? And why do you think Tyrant would be a better choice versus Terastodan?

I choose Elephant Oath because I think it outshines Tyrant Oath in all of the above. It disrupts the opponent better. It controls the opponent through its countermagic. It has less dead draws. It's creature's have more impact. Everything that is topdecked is either a threat, countermagic, brokeness, a tutor, or something that gets the creature into play. Gush just seems too weak when compared to alternatives (more countermagic, hard to cast Gush with spheres on the table)

[brokenbacon]

Tyrant Oath is good because it leaves the opponent with no window of opportunity to win. Most of the time, you Oath, play a spell, and bounce a Mox to win on the spot. Elephant Oath, after laying down a threat, sometimes exhausts it's resources to protect or resolve that threat. Thus, you can have a Tyrant Oath player with only one or two threats in hand win the moment they Oath, but an Elephant Oath player in the same scenario, if, say, they hit a Sphinx, will not be able to provide a decent game against another Blue player with tricks up their sleeve. However, in saying this, I believe that Elephant Oath has a lot of resiliency. I have tested PMas' Tyrant Oath build, and it's pretty consistent but I can see it's shortcomings (the most easily observed being Gush vs. Orchards ). I have also tested Elephant Oath, and it is very consistent. It's just a question of how good a player you are and what your meta looks like.

@ Cyberpunker, Menendian is right about your argument on Oath vs. Gush.  I quote:

"That is why Gush is inferior to Oath. One wins you the game, the other gets you the threats that win you the game. So you choose between having a Draw spell in your hand and having a Win spell in your hand. Easy choice imo.

By that logic, Yawgmoth's Will is inferior to Tinker, since Tinker wins the game, and other gets you threats to win the game by generating card advantage.

Yawgmoth's Will is not inferior to Tinker; it wins the game by itself."

It is true that Oath wins games. It is also true that Gush finds stuff that wins games, which makes it sounds inferior to Oath. You simply can't have a deck full of win cons though. You have to have substance. Gush, or draw spells, are substance. If you have a deck full of win conditions, when the opponent counters them and you're in topdeck mode you are left up shit's creek. Gush lets you keep running - so does Jace, Top, A Call, etc.
Yawgmoth's Will does not win the game on it's own. I know this WAY too well, as in my last tourney I was spacing out and Willed into an active Tormod's Crypt. I wanted to slit my wrists with the opponent's cards right then and there. Point being that Will revolves around other THREATS being in your graveyard. Tinker does not. Menendian is right, in that your logic states that you want cards that simply win. You also need substance - Jace, Top, etc., even if only to bait the opponent's counter and threats to resolve your own. A deck that is all about winning is good, but it can be easily stopped by a deck with more finesse.

Now, in saying this I am, by no means, calling Tinker better than Will. Under the right circumstances, Will is easily the best card in the game. However, that is because it powers out other cards that are just backbreaking. In a way, Will is a figurehead - it represents every good card flying at the opponent's face in one crazyass turn. It is all of the cards before it: A Call, Lotus, Moxes, Oath, Academy, TV + Key, etc. Thus, it revolves around threats. Tinker doesn't, but it does not win the game the moment you play it either (unless Key or Vault are on the field of course ).

My point being that draw engines are essential to every blue deck in Magic, including Oath. They power out threats.  A deck chock full of threats is going to be useless, because after it is exhausted it is completely out of the running, and threats trip over each other (drawing Vault when you need Orchard for Oath, or vice versa).

On a closing note, @Cyberpunker, you should know that Menendian does not simply "theorize a lot and get it all wrong."
He may theorize a lot, but he does NOT get it all wrong. He knows what the hell he's talking about.

[Phele]

It's just a question ... what your meta looks like.

So this is probably the main difference of both builds and goes conform with my further statement of early and mid game. Elefant seem to be the better choice against Shops as it is more focussed on playing out threats instead of searching for them (Vault-Key, Show and Tell, Tinker beside the Oathes), while Tyrant Oath has a better blue matchup as it has a similar powerful draw engine as they do, so it can keep on track with them in the midgame in form of card advantage, while all these filtering and draw spells are more less hindering in the Shops matchup. I  am not sure what this means for the other relevant matchups. Against quicker combo decks, I would feel better with more disruption on my side. Against Fish powering out early threats can be the right way. But digging for mana sources as well. And against dredge ... well, against dredge I am happy to get the Leylines out of my board and before that bet on maybe a maindeck Twister  

[brokenbacon]

@Phele - remember though, it's also about how good a player you are. For example, Paul Mastriano absolutely crushes people with his Tyrant Oath build, because he's a really good player and he was playing against people who were not as good as him. However, when he played against Steve Nowakowski, Steve won, because Steve is a really good blue player. Just keep that in mind. Like, IMO good players can do well with bad decks. I am not saying Tyrant Oath is bad, I'm just saying that a good player like Paul can make any deck powerful. Basically I'm trying to say that skill plays into the choice of Elephant Oath vs. Tyrant Oath. For example, I would probably choose Elephant Oath personally because I am not a really good player. Then again, I'm on Bob Tendrils so

[Smmenen]

@Smmenen

You theorize a lot and you get it all wrong.

Well half of what you say doesn't actually make sense.  It's like you sit down in front of the computer and type stream-of-consciousness; you post like a 12-year old AOLer.

My" theory" is  simple, based on a very fundamental concept: The idea of card advantage.  I suggest you start with the basics and read this introductory article on card advantage: http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/academy/11

The purpose of card advantage is to generate the resources to be able to find more threats, resolve and then protect them.    In addition, card advantage helps you generate resources to stop your opponent from achieving their strategic objectives.

You said:

Oath doesn't need a Draw Engine. It replaces it with threats.

My response -- my "theory" -- was an attempt to show you how card advantage allows you to find, resolve and protect more threats.   Decks run card drawing spells for that reason, including yours.  

You said:

That is why Gush is inferior to Oath. One wins you the game, the other gets you the threats that win you the game. So you choose between having a Draw spell in your hand and having a Win spell in your hand. Easy choice imo.

In the second sentence of that quote you described the difference between finishers and card advantage.  Tarmogoyf wins the game, but Ancestral Recall can draw more Tarmogoyfs.  

 Yawgmoth's Will is not inferior to Tinker; it wins the game by itself.

No it doesn't, not in the sense that you were distinguishing between threats and sources of card advantage.  Yawgmoth's Will generates card advantage, just as Necropotence, Mind's Desire, and Thirst For Knowledge do.   Oath of Druids, like Tinker, actually puts win conditions into play that win the game.   None of the cards listed above do that.    This isn't semantics: it's a very important distinction between win conditions and card advantage.  

You are implying that I support cutting Ancestral Recall, which has no grounds considering that I include it always as a must. It is included because it itself is a threat in that it wins you the game.

I'm not implying.  That's exactly what your logic suggests:

That is why Gush is inferior to Oath. One wins you the game, the other gets you the threats that win you the game. So you choose between having a Draw spell in your hand and having a Win spell in your hand. Easy choice imo.

Ancestral Recall is a draw spell, not a win condition (unless your opponent has less than 3 cards in their library).   The distinction you made between Gush and Oath applies to Ancestral and Oath just as easily.   Substitute Ancestral Recall for Gush in the above quote and the same logic applies:  

That is why Ancestral Recall is inferior to Oath. One wins you the game, the other gets you the threats that win you the game. So you choose between having a Draw spell in your hand and having a Win spell in your hand. Easy choice imo.

Ancestral Recall does not win the game, it gets you threats that win the game.    It's a draw spell.   According to your logic, you'd rather have a "threat" than a draw spell, so why not cut Ancestral?   The same is true of Yawgmoth's Will.  Yawgmoth's Will doesn't win the game; it generates card advantage that you leverage to win the game.  

[The Atog Lord]

This is a good, interesting discussion. Please refrain from insulting each other and keep things civil.

[hvndr3d y34r h3x]

@Smmenen

You theorize a lot and you get it all wrong. Yawgmoth's Will is not inferior to Tinker; it wins the game by itself. Oath doesn't need a draw engine because in place of the draw engine, it has threats. The older incarnations of Oath needed a draw engine in the form of Gush, TFK, and AK because there was less gamestopping threats available to them.

The idea that you don't need a draw engine because you just play threats is kinda silly.

I guess all the Workshop decks need a draw engine then.
If Oath should cut threats right now, then it could have a draw engine. But that is just silly because the whole purpose of a draw engine is to hurry up and get you the game winning threats.

You are implying that I support cutting Ancestral Recall, which has no grounds considering that I include it always as a must. It is included because it itself is a threat in that it wins you the game.

TFK, AK, and Gush are not strong enough like Ancestral Recall/Yawg Will to be included over other cards that are simply better.
That is why Oath does not need a draw engine.

So yes, Oath is better without one right now because it has to cut its threats in order to include an engine. You are comparing Elephant Oath to traditional Oath. Why not compare MUD to traditional Workshop? Why not compare Selkie to traditional Fish? Why not compare Storm to traditional combo? Tezzeret to traditional Keeper/BBS? I believe your logic is very unsound or you are not really thinking what you are saying through. My impression is that you seem to be trying to expose what you perceive as "flaws in logic" but do not really even know what is good for the deck.

Steve, does theorize a lot. He also makes a lot of observations based on extensive testing real life observation and years of experience. He really understands the mechanics of the game better than most of us. Does that mean he’s always right? No, but he often is. It’s not like Steve just sat back in his chair and was like “hmmmm I bet oath would be better with a draw engine cuz that’s cool.” He played the game a lot, tried a lot of things, and finds things to be consistently true. Obviously you’re probably thinking well, I tested a lot and found otherwise. Steven and you are not the only ones who test things and currently zero people are voicing that they agree with you.
The tinker y-will thing was an exaggerated example. You missed the point.  Not to mention Y-will either wins that game by accessing another card or generates overwhelming CA.
You’ve also completely missed the math behind what Steve is saying. Simply put, although I fear you might miss this in its simplicity, I’d rather draw some cards to have my threats AND protection or more threats. Modern oath isn’t always sitting in a position where you naturally draw threats. The deck does have lands/mana, control (12-11), and dudes in it (typically 3, but from what I’ve seen in your builds, you like to run 4). So it can’t possibly be that saturated with threats.  Certainly not to the point where your never like, “well I sure could use some draw/sculpting here to manage the distribution of lands protection and threats”. I’ve been playing or testing oath variants constantly in the past 5 years, and older oath builds have been all over the place. They’ve, at points, run all the same tutors, even tinker. The only real new addition to threat density is a two card combo and its pieces have next have no use separated from each other (yes there are corner case scenarios but nothing consistent enough to call them “good on their own”). You can make an argument about jace, it does win games, but it is primarily used be players as draw engine. I’d really argue the 4x brainstorms available were much better.

This is a little off topic, but you brought it up and it might be helpful to demonstrate the fundamental difference between shop and oath, since you seem to think shops current engineless shell is a justification for advocating against draw spells in oath.
Shop is a different animal that generates CA in a different way than blue decks with cards like cotv and its balls. The deck has a much higher amount of redundancy than any blue deck. It starts with 13 spheres! Then you add the wires, an amount of stax, and 4 cotv. You’re left with a number typically in the 20+’s. a number way higher that blue decks as far as threat density. Last winning list I looked at had lands, then literally 4 cards that didn’t proactively impede/disrupt the opponent in some way (duplicant and crucible, which I’m being generous with because it needs another piece but can be used to immediately nail some lands.  Especialy in the 7 strip build with stax in there too). This is very different from blue decks. Now for the kicker… are you ready for it…… here it comes….  Even with this shop players are always looking for library manipulation or draw, like bazaar, jar shenanigans, people have even run bottled cloister. What does that tell you?


Edit: I got ninja'd by steve

[Cyberpunker]

@Brokenbacon &Hundred Year Hex
I understand fully what Steve and you are saying and I think there is one thing we are seriously confused about. So let me clear things up:

1. I define Draw Engine as something that is put in the deck simply for drawing cards. BUT I consider Ancestral Recall/Y Will/Jace threats in that they generate so much Card Advantage for either relatively little cost or (in the case of Jace) have such a huge impact on the gamestate within the next turn (digging 5 cards deep) that they are threats in themselves. So when I say that Gush weakens the deck, I believe that it only draws cards but does not generate enough Card Advantage at an expedient cost for it to be considered a threat.

In that respect, I think I agree with you that we need substance/draw to really make the deck work. The engine in the deck is actually the deck itself not its individual cards, if that makes sense.

And Hundred Year Hex, in that respect I think I've explained why I believe Oath has just as high of a threat density (if we include protection spells) as MUD.

Bacon, if we are in topdeck mode. So is the opponent ideally (I say ideally because I don't know if I will misplay and give the board to them). And in response to your Yawgmoth's Will play, I'm sorry you made that misplay; I do it too.

@Smmenen

I'm not responding to you until you apologize and stop your tantrum. I've only been telling you what I think and you respond by attacking me personally (although you do tell me what you think, I'll give you that much).

[dangerlinto]

To steal a quip from Star Trek IV

"I'd trust Steve's guesses more than most people's facts"

Steve is the Spock of Vintage.  He theorizes a lot, and wins tournaments.

[DubDub]

So when I say that Gush weakens the deck, I believe that it only draws cards but does not generate enough Card Advantage at an expedient cost for it to be considered a threat.

Gush is actually well suited to Oath, because Oath itself is so cheap.  The drawback (when without Fastbond) of returning two islands is lessened in Oath in comparison to some other Gush decks because you only need a mox and a floating , or better yet a Forbidden Orchard with which to cast the Oath you dig into.  Compare that to trying to Gush into Jace for instance.

Gush has stronger synergies with Tidespout Tyrant than the creatures typically appearing in Elephant Oath (Terastodon, Iona, Sphinx, Emrakul), but that's only a bonus for once you've started Oathing, at which point one is generally winning anyway.

The key to Oath's success (as an archetype) has almost always been finding, resolving, and protecting Oath of Druids itself; an area in which a small Gushbond package should at least be considered.  And besides Gush there are a number of other draw-engine options which would in my opinion improve the consistency of your build.  I don't feel that having:

1 Ancestral Recall
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Brainstorm
1 Ponder
1 Merchant’s Scroll
1 Jace, the Mind Sculptor

To find:

Win:
4 Oath of Druids
1 Tinker
1 Yawgmoth’s Will
1 Show and Tell
1 Jace, the Mind Sculptor

Is optimal.

Edit: Furthermore, this is one reason why Jace is soooo good.  It not only is worth finding and fighting over in its own right, but it finds additional 'threats' for you.  He's a one-card engine.  The closest thing to JaceTMS in Vintage, from a strategic standpoint is Lodestone Golem, because Golem similarly advances your gameplan on multiple fronts simultaneously (pressuring the opponent while adding a sphere effect).

[Rico Suave]

And Hundred Year Hex, in that respect I think I've explained why I believe Oath has just as high of a threat density (if we include protection spells) as MUD.

Protection spells are not threats.  Not by a long shot. 

And this is the problem with the decklist you have presented.  Outside of the "go nuts" plan which is available to every blue deck, that list is very, very light on threats. 

The problem with Oath decks has always been what to do if you don't have the Oath itself.  1 Show and Tell, 1 Jace, and 1 Tinker is not exactly a significant improvement for this problem.

[brokenbacon]

@Dangerlinto: awesome quote.

1 Show and Tell, 1 Jace, and 1 Tinker is not exactly a significant improvement for this problem.

I agree. 2 - 3 Jace is probably right.

[Smmenen]

Just to be clear: I am not arguing that Oath -- in this thread -- should run Gush.  I *personally* advocate Tyrant Oath as my deck of choice, and have been since the publication of my Oath book.  However, I think Elephant Oath is a legitimate Oath choice, and would not say that one choice is strictly better than another.   Tyrant Oath decks are very difficult to play, as are all Gush decks, correctly.  

My point is simply to criticize the many spurious claims advanced by Cyberpunker, initially that Nature's Claim "sucks" against Oath, and most recently the ridiculous assertion that Oath decks shouldn't draw spells because they run threats instead (as if these were mutually exclusive options) because it's better to play cards that "win the game" than cards that draw cards that win the game, and then the supporting claim that Ancestral Recall, Yawgmoth's Will, etc aren't draw spells or generate card advantage because they "win the game."  Now we have a new one that cards that protect threats are also win conditions.  LOL

[Voxplayer]

Tyrant Oath decks are very difficult to play, as are all Gush decks, correctly.  

Best thing ever.  I have been playing Elephant Oath for a few weeks (extensively) and am just getting the hang of smarter plays and how to hoodwink the opponent (some of them have made me giddy, won't lie).  I decided to give the Tyrant Oath version a try with Gush and it is a pain to switch gears. 

[The Atog Lord]

I believe that the question of which Oath deck is better -- with or without Gush -- is not simple to answer. In the previous era of Gush, I would argue without question that the use of Gush was certainly correct. In Tyrant Oath decks of old, you were able to leverage the Gush engine to go off very reliably, using Merchant Scroll and Brainstorm to perpetuate your combo while using those same cards to mitigate drawing non-combo pieces like creatures and Oath itself.

However, the modern incarnations of Gush-based decks no longer have nearly as much digging or filtering. Therefore, drawing a Tyrant or an Oath or an Orchard while attempting to combo out is worse than drawing those same cards was in the prior era. No longer can you rely on Brainstorm to convert dead draws into live cards. And so the fact that Oath uses so many non-combo cards has started to catch up with it. In testing, I find myself fizzling far more often than in times past. The sequence of resolving Fastbond with two Gushes in hand is much, much less likely to lead to victory now than before.

So, Gush Oath is not as goo as it once was. Nor can Gush Oath use the Gush engine as well as before. But it isn't fair to compare Gush Oath today to Gush Oath in the past. Instead, it is more worthwhile to compare Gush Oath to Elephant Oath. Of course, you could always just put some Gushes into your deck along with an Elephant -- but here for shorthand I refer to Elephant Oath as the more traditional non-Gush build.

The problem with Elephant Oath is that it has a weak matchup against blue decks. You can sometimes open with a broken play -- but short of that, facing an opponent with Force of Will and Duress (and Nature's Claim out of the board) can be an uphill battle. Elephant Oath in particular has a terrible matchup against Owen's deck from Worlds.

I think that Nature's Claim is a problem for the Elephant Oath decks. If you are able to use draw spells to maintain parity with an opponent, then his using a spell to one-for-one you is really not bad. But if the opponent has a better draw engine than you, and you are on the receiving end of a one-for-one spell, then you begin to fall behind. And Elephant Oath often can't draw as many cards as other Vintage decks these days. And so Nature's Claim, by serving as a one-for-one, lets the opponent better leverage his draw engine.

Another problem is that Nature's Claim being a one-for-one doesn't really take into account the opportunity cost of establishing the permanent the opponent is removing. Did you give the opponent a token to cast Oath? Then the opponent has gained a Token. Did the opponent hit your Time Vault in response to your untapping it with Key? Then the opponent has made two of your cards useless with just one of his (Key isn't so great on its own). And when you factor in scenarios such as using Vampiric Tutor to find Oath or using Force of Will to push it past an opponent's Mana Drain, you find that Nature's Claim often ends up being card advantage for the opponent. And since he's spending one mana to hit a card that you spent at least two mana on, you've lost tempo too.

The last thing that I want to mention is that whichever build of Oath one plays, Jace is excellent. Say what you will about draw spells not being threats -- Jace is an actual, legitimate draw engine and also a very reasonable way to end the game. I'd go so far as to say that Jace is stronger in Oath decks than in traditional blue decks. While opponents board in all of their REBs again blue, they're more likely to have Claims against Oath, which of course do nothing to Jace. Jace doesn't care about an opponent having a Spawning Pit or High Market. And given that Oath decks have so many cards they would rather not keep in hand, Jace's perpetual Brainstorm engine is at its best. And given that opponents will be weary to run out creatures like Confidant against an Oath deck, Jace may stick around longer than against other decks. At Vintage Worlds, I ran the full four Jaces. I think he's that good in Oath.