Elephant Oath 2011

[voltron00x]

A lot of the focus on Oath lately has been Tyrant Oath and Titan Oath... yet I find myself often wishing, when playing those decks, that I was just playing some version of Elephant Oath.

Rather than necro the old thread, with a new year, it makes sense to start a new thread, and to think about why we would even need a new thread - what happened to knock this deck out of tier one?

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.  If that deck isn't popular, I see a lot of incentive to play something like Elephant Oath again.  This deck retains plenty of strength against the format if Nature's Claim isn't as popular as it was; consider, specifically, the use of Ingot Chewer against Shops (often in Gush decks) instead of Nature's Claim, which has gotten really popular in some areas.  Such a strategy plays into the hands of Oath.

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.  I'm strongly considering dusting off this deck and giving it another shot.

4 Oath of Druids
1 Sphinx of the Steel Wind
1 Iona, Shield of Emeria
1 Terastodon
1 Time Vault
1 Voltaic Key 
3 Jace, the Mind Seeker

4 Force of Will
3 Spell Pierce
2 Mana Drain   

1 Brainstorm
1 Ponder
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Tinker
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Hurkyl's Recall 
1 Merchant Scroll
1 Gifts Ungiven
1 Time Walk
1 Nature's Claim
1 Yawgmoth's Will
1 Thoughtseize

1 Mana Crypt
1 Sol Ring
1 Black Lotus
5 Mox

4 Forbidden Orchard
2 Underground Sea
2 Tropical Island
1 Volcanic Island
2 Island
3 Misty Rainforest
2 Polluted Delta
1 Strip Mine

Sideboard:
2 Mindbreak Trap
2 Red Elemental Blast
1 Nature's Claim
1 Firespout
1 Massacre   
1 Relic of Progenitus
1 Tormod's Crypt
2 Pithing Needle
4 Leyline of the Void



Looking at this deck's sideboard, it has 2 slots devoted to beating Fish, which may not be necessary in some areas; it also really loads up on Dredge hate, with 8 cards, which may be one too many.  Worth considering are the use of Lightning Bolt in the SB or main, which Brian Carey has used to some success.  Using both REB and Bolt makes it pretty easy to fight through Trygons, leaving just Nature's Claim as the major annoyance.   

Perhaps the biggest question looking at this deck is, what 3 creatures do we want to play?  Is Iona still the right choice?  What about the Tinker target, is Sphinx still the right robot for the job?

[znoyes]

Some thoughts:
Tinker target should either be sphinx (vs aggro/dredge), inkwell (vs jace), or battlesphere (if you consider being able to cast your target a priority). If you consider oathing to iona or don a priority, skip the tinkerbot package.
 Iona and Don are a very good duo, as they answer you're opponent's hand and board position when in tandem.

Have you considered adding another threat besides the big creatures and jace? It's hard for me to think of what might work (seeing as such a threat cannot be a creature), but I find sometimes that the decks that only want to "win big" lose out on some of the incremental/incidental win ability that cards like confidant/trygon yield. Those types of cards provide hedges against cards like bitter ordeal or the right sequence of creature removal and I find that they boost the power of cards like Jace, as he can be used as a support card to an onboard threat rather than just a dig card. The only such card I can think of is something like vedalken shackles (although that is pretty bad in vintage). I noticed that the modern oath list has a lot of one of "answers" like hurkyl's, bolt, claim, and I just want to put something in their place that the opponent has to deal with or lose.

[voltron00x]

I'm putting together a metagame review for Q4, and there appears to be plenty of life left in Elephant Oath, although the creatures used appear to be changing.  Emrakul pops up a lot, for example.  Sphinx remains the main Tinker target.

[Phele]

Your probably don't want to use Battlesphere as producing lots of creature tokens on your side seems not be the best idea in an Oath deck.

[silvernail]

The sphere is an answer to smokestack and tangle wire. I occasionally use Woodripper and Sun Titan, but sphere is probably better than Titan.

[Cyberpunker]

Hey my 2 cents,

1. The deck was never out of Tier 1 and Trygon Tezz was never a threat to Elephant Oath if Elephant Oath was properly built/piloted. I've said this many times before and will say it again. 2 mana is faster than 3 mana in general. If Oath hits the board first, Trygon and Dark Confidant are useless (unless you have Time Walk but then that is just 2 cards versus 1 which is unfair). If Trygon hits the board, Oath is useless. It's a race to who gets first and Oath has the lead.

2. Nature's Claim sucks versus Oath because they cannot Nature's Claim your counterspells, Y Will, Ancestral Recall, Jace, etc  . (They either cut threats or counterspells for additional nature's claims)

3. 3 Jace is way too much. Jace is a 4cc spell that is going to be very hard to cast in a field with Shops and Fish. It's often too slow versus TPS/ANT/Dredge. 1 Jace is enough.

4. 4 Creatures minimum + Show and Tell. I even took the time to write http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=41204.0

Edit:
5. Don't include a maindeck H Recall. Its way too dead too often.

6. Emrakul is very strong but very weak at the same time and here is why. If it attacks, its almost always GG unless they Oath into Duplicant or Sower or something. But the problem is that Emrakul gives the opponent way too much time. 3 turns to be exact. 1 turn to cast Oath, 1 turn for Emrakul, then 1 more turn before it attacks. Against decks like Dredge, Ant, TPS that is fatal. Even against a control deck it is bad. And as mentioned, even when it is good it is vulnerable.

7. Sphinx is still the best robot and I've explained why I think so.

8. Iona and Terastodan are basically the best tag team combo out there. If Iona wasn't Legendary then we would have 2 Iona and 1 Terastodan. Because we always need to get rid of stuff.

9. Don't do Pithing Needle. It is way too reactive for the kind of deck you are playing. Be aggressive, who cares if they resolve Gargadon or Spawning Pit? KeyVault their butts or Show and Tell your guys. Side in Thoughtseize to screw their plans over while you dig for your win.

10. Don't use Tormod's Crypt. That is like .5 of a card versus Dredge. It is way too easy to play around and they force you to crack it early. Chalice for 0 hits your hate and your moxen now. And Leyline of Sanctity still stops it.

11. I am not a fan of REB over Thoughtseize because you cannot REB a Dark Ritual, Time Vault, Oath, Charbelcher, etc.

12. Firesprout is too expensive to rely on. You will not be able to consistently cast it against a properly piloted and built Selkie/Fish deck.

13. Duress/Thoughtseize are more versatile than Mindbreak Trap (and often better). People use Mindbreak Trap in Legacy because they don't run black ^_^.

14. Terastodan and counterspells are enough of a maindeck answer to Smokestack. Tangle Wires don't need to be blown up, they need to be either waited out or countered. Mostly countered though.

[Cyberpunker]

Win:
4 Oath of Druids
1 Iona, Shield of Emeria
2 Terastodan
1 Sphinx of the Steel Wind
1 Voltaic Key
1 Time Vault
1 Tinker

Awesomeness:
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Time Walk
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Yawgmoth’s Will

Protection:
4 Mana Drain
4 Force of Will
4 Spell Pierce
1 Thoughtseize

Plan B Packet:
1 Show and Tell

So So but still necessary:
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Brainstorm
1 Ponder
1 Merchant’s Scroll

The Universal Vintage Blue Deck Bomb:
1 Jace, the Mind Sculptor

Mana:
4 Polluted Delta
3 Island
2 Underground Sea
2 Tropical Island
4 Forbidden Orchard
5 Mox
1 Black Lotus
1 Mana Crypt
1 Sol Ring
1 Library of Alexandria
1 Tolarian Academy

Sideboard:
 
Dredge
4 Planar Void
2 Relic of Progenitus

Workshop
3 Nature’s Claim
1 Hurkyl’s Recall

Control Mirror/Combo:
2 Thoughtseize

Selkie
2 Massacre
1 Deathmark

[vassago]

Hey my 2 cents...

This was a good post. I am sure we can put these two cents in the bank, lol 

[Cyberpunker]

Hey my 2 cents...

This was a good post. I am sure we can put these two cents in the bank, lol 

Thanks! I try to do my best 

[Smmenen]

2. Nature's Claim sucks versus Oath because they cannot Nature's Claim your counterspells, Y Will, Ancestral Recall, Jace, etc  . (They either cut threats or counterspells for additional nature's claims)

This argument is terrible.   

Oath decks use oath for a reason -- it's a major strategic objective.   Nature's Claim effectively answers this threat.  That's like saying that Red Elemental Blast sucks against Time Vault control decks because it can't stop Yawgmoth's Will or the Time Vault combo.   The fact that it doesn't do *everything* is not evidence that it sucks.  It does something important at an efficient cost, and that's why it doesn't suck.

[voltron00x]

Hey my 2 cents,

1. The deck was never out of Tier 1 and Trygon Tezz was never a threat to Elephant Oath if Elephant Oath was properly built/piloted. I've said this many times before and will say it again. 2 mana is faster than 3 mana in general. If Oath hits the board first, Trygon and Dark Confidant are useless (unless you have Time Walk but then that is just 2 cards versus 1 which is unfair). If Trygon hits the board, Oath is useless. It's a race to who gets first and Oath has the lead.  

Well, I think Rich Shay, myself, and others would disagree with your assessment as far as the threat of Trygon Tezz.  Reviewing data from Morphling does show a big drop in Oath's popularity after August.  You'll see in the Q4 Metagame report that goes up on SCG how the deck has certainly fallen out of tier one in popularity.  

2. Nature's Claim sucks versus Oath because they cannot Nature's Claim your counterspells, Y Will, Ancestral Recall, Jace, etc  . (They either cut threats or counterspells for additional nature's claims)

This argument can basically be used against every card that exists; it isn't logically sound.  A one-mana answer to your key win conditions of Oath and Time Vault is clearly a problem.

3. 3 Jace is way too much. Jace is a 4cc spell that is going to be very hard to cast in a field with Shops and Fish. It's often too slow versus TPS/ANT/Dredge. 1 Jace is enough.

One of the main ways that you lose in current vintage in blue vs. blue is your opponent resolves a Jace and you have no answer; your own Jace is an answer to Jace, albeit not the best one (unless resolved preemptively...).  Where I used to play 2 Jace, 1 Tezz, I now absolutely would play 3 Jace.  Jace is better against MUD, and I've won twice against Dredge in game 1 situations by resolving a first-turn Jace.  

4. 4 Creatures minimum + Show and Tell. I even took the time to write http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=41204.0

 Most people max out at 3.  A lot of people consider that to be too many.  I'm ok with playing 3 because I play 3 Jace.  I don't think I'd want to play 4.

Edit:
5. Don't include a maindeck H Recall. Its way too dead too often.

I know that Brad used to play without Hurks, but that was before MUD went totally nutso.  When Shop decks are 30% of the metagame, and Tinker is part of the format, I think it makes a lot of sense to play 1 Hurks in your maindeck.

6. Emrakul is very strong but very weak at the same time and here is why. If it attacks, its almost always GG unless they Oath into Duplicant or Sower or something. But the problem is that Emrakul gives the opponent way too much time. 3 turns to be exact. 1 turn to cast Oath, 1 turn for Emrakul, then 1 more turn before it attacks. Against decks like Dredge, Ant, TPS that is fatal. Even against a control deck it is bad. And as mentioned, even when it is good it is vulnerable.

This is true of most creatures you can Oath into, though; its one of the problems with Elephant Oath.  Oath into Sphinx, then Iona, gives them just as many turns, especially if they're on something like MUD.  Espresso Stax might not even care about that sequence of Oath targets if they have Wire and Smokestack going.

7. Sphinx is still the best robot and I've explained why I think so.

Its the one I would play, but I think it is at least worth discussing other options.

8. Iona and Terastodan are basically the best tag team combo out there. If Iona wasn't Legendary then we would have 2 Iona and 1 Terastodan. Because we always need to get rid of stuff.

I like Iona just fine, but again, its the 30% Shop metagame that gets me thinking about putting her in the board and playing Emrakul.  That, and a lot of successful lists seem to be doing exactly that move.

9. Don't do Pithing Needle. It is way too reactive for the kind of deck you are playing. Be aggressive, who cares if they resolve Gargadon or Spawning Pit? KeyVault their butts or Show and Tell your guys. Side in Thoughtseize to screw their plans over while you dig for your win.

Elephant Oath is a Mana Drain control deck.  Pithing needle is a fantastic card in this deck.  Not only does it attack Bazaar, and most available sideboard hate, it also takes care of random stuff like combo Workshop pieces (Prototype Portal, Staff of Domination, Helm of Obedience), Hexmage, etc.  

10. Don't use Tormod's Crypt. That is like .5 of a card versus Dredge. It is way too easy to play around and they force you to crack it early. Chalice for 0 hits your hate and your moxen now. And Leyline of Sanctity still stops it.

Leyline of Sanctity isn't that popular locally to me, b/c too many people are playing MUD and so we want Serenity to blow up the world.  I always like to play a Tormods, because I feel weird w/out having a few ways to sweep a graveyard if they break through my first line of defense (leyline, needle), and further, I like the single Tormod's against combo decks.  Its won me at least 2 or 3 games against non-Dredge.

11. I am not a fan of REB over Thoughtseize because you cannot REB a Dark Ritual, Time Vault, Oath, Charbelcher, etc.

You also can't Thoughtseize a resolved Jace, Trygon, or Meddling Mage, nor can you counter a top-decked Tinker or Gush with it.  REB is a flexible answer against a number of decks and I wouldn't ever want to play Oath without it as long as Gush and Jace are unrestricted and people are playing Trygons.

12. Firesprout is too expensive to rely on. You will not be able to consistently cast it against a properly piloted and built Selkie/Fish deck.

The thing is, I don't have to rely on it - I have REB!  Firespout is also nice against random creatures, especially Bobs / Hexmages.

13. Duress/Thoughtseize are more versatile than Mindbreak Trap (and often better). People use Mindbreak Trap in Legacy because they don't run black ^_^.  

I wasn't a believer in MB Trap until I played with it.  

It is really good.

14. Terastodan and counterspells are enough of a maindeck answer to Smokestack. Tangle Wires don't need to be blown up, they need to be either waited out or countered. Mostly countered though.

Man, if only this were true!

I think a lot of the difference in your approach compared to mine is you are analyzing each card on its merits against one strategy:  what does REB do against this deck, what does needle do, what does Firespout do?  Whereas, I have tried to approach the Oath sideboard by building something that has multiple, flexible answers against the field as a whole.

[voltron00x]

FWIW, I would consider playing Iona in the SB over 1 MB Trap and just playing the miser's Trap.  There's something appealing in that set-up.

[Cyberpunker]

@Mr. Menendian
Your understanding of Elephant Oath is flawed and lacking.
Stop thinking about Elephant Oath as a deck revolving around Oath of Druids and you will see why Elephant Oath is not afraid of maindeck Nature's Claim. Your logic would have me maindecking Disfigure in order to kill 2009 Era Dark Confidant Tezzeret (Darkblast is different because it can be reused, if Nature's Claim can be reused then I would not argue against maindecking Nature's Claim but still would not do it)

@Voltron00x
1. You (assuming you don't speak for Rich Shay) may also want to take into consideration the fact that just because fewer people play Oath doesn't mean the deck has gone weaker. It is rather a statement about the players themselves. No one here plays much TPS, does that mean it sucks? No, it just means that there are fewer TPS players around! BTW California Metagame has been gushing with Elephant Oath (check the West Coast reports because I know you haven't been doing so)

2. I don't understand why you would say my logic is not sound. If the opponent has Nature's Claim they will lose the counter wars over important spells that set me up for the win. Like Jace, Will, Ancestral, Tinker etc. (I can turn around and say the same for your argument as not being logically sound). It is not the Oath or Time Vault that alone wins me the game. It is the rest of the supporting spells behind them that win me the game. In short, it is the engine that wins the game. Not the threat cards themselves.

3. Yes, I recommend running 1 Jace. You can kill an opponent's Jace with 1 Jace maindeck. Will you sacrifice slots for more Jace just to kill the opponents? Wouldn't you rather just Mana Drain their extra Jaces instead of paying for your own?

4. I've explained why I think 4 is right number.

5. Oath has never needed maindeck hate versus MUD.

6. Just because Sphinx gives them 2 extra turns doesn't mean all your creatures need to give them 2 extra turns. Terastodan and Iona do something right away.

7. If you feel okay with Crypt then by all means. I would recommend Ravenous Trap according to your train of thought then. Leyline of Sanctity is always going to be a threat in larger events, keep that in mind.

8. Shops are afraid of a 7/7 flying Angel too. And you won't feel the need for more power once you start Oathing against Shops.

9. REB blanks way too much, but I'm saying that from experience. Thoughtseize is slower yes, but covers more cards than REB does. And why would you want to splash another color if you can get the same protection from just Black? You are opening yourself to color screw and making Wastelands even more devastating than they already are.

10. You weaken your deck with suboptimal cards like Needle, Mindbreak Trap, etc. You can fend off every deck just as well with more Counters. Needle versus Bazaar is way too weak. Dredge players like you putting Needle instead of better hate like Planar Void.

[Rico Suave]

I know that Brad used to play without Hurks, but that was before MUD went totally nutso.  When Shop decks are 30% of the metagame, and Tinker is part of the format, I think it makes a lot of sense to play 1 Hurks in your maindeck.

I didn't play Hurks because I felt the most dangerous card a Workshop deck could put on the board was Chalice at 2, and I didn't feel comfortable playing an answer that...well, didn't answer that play.  When MUD really started to take off I did include Nature's Claim in the maindeck though, which I feel is generally better than Hurks as a maindeck card in this style of deck.

Anyway, my personal approach to this deck started out with Drains, but I very much avoided them later on.  I don't feel that Drain is good against Workshops or Dredge, and I don't feel that Oath is better equipped to win a Mana Drain battle against other decks that are simply more dedicated to winning those sort of battles.  But that's just me.

[voltron00x]

Well, I would be willing to wager that there is actually no one with a clearer picture of Vintage's metagame, globally, over the past 3 months, than me, having spent 8 hours working on it on Monday.  You'll see what I mean when my next SCG article goes live.

In any case, you're clearly quite set on your opinions, and that's fine - you're more than welcome to take or leave my comments.  I've been known to sling the old Oath deck around now and again myself, that's all I'm saying.  I haven't come to these conclusions in a vacuum.

[voltron00x]

For what its worth, I am also a Dredge player, and I will tell you that I definitely do NOT want Needle on my Bazaar.  I can't dig for answers that way. Planar Void leaves my Bazaar alone so I can dig for answers to Planar Void.

[vassago]

As much as can be debated over certain opinions or choices, I do like the amount of readable content from this site lately. Matt(voltron) you have made a significant contribution lately!  

[Cyberpunker]

I'm not knocking you or any of your work. It is just my personal opinion that analyzing the metagame by looking at all the decks is not the right approach to Vintage. Maybe all the players around the world play "suboptimal" versions of their decks (I said maybe, this is just a supposition)

I analyze the metagame by taking a look at the current state of the format and trying to figure out what the most powerful cards and thus the most powerful decks are. I then play what I feel is the most powerful deck. I then sideboard versus decks that are powerful but not as powerful as mine. Right now, they are: Dark Depths, Selkie, TPS, ANT, Dredge, Gush, Trygon, Workshop, and non Elephant Oath Oath decks.

It doesn't matter what players are playing globally because if I know what is the most powerful deck with the most powerful effects in the game, I can feel confident to march into any situation and come out on top.

Bottom line: Find the powerful effects and build accordingly.

For what its worth, I am also a Dredge player, and I will tell you that I definitely do NOT want Needle on my Bazaar.  I can't dig for answers that way. Planar Void leaves my Bazaar alone so I can dig for answers to Planar Void.

Why are you sideboarding 4 Leylines then instead of 4 Pithing Needles?

Also, I know you are afraid of Needle on Bazaar. But I know you are more afraid of Planar Void. You may dig for answers for Void but then you run smack into the counterspells and the card disadvantage that Bazaar gives you when Void is on the table.

[voltron00x]

Leyline is the best possible hate to have on the draw, since it is the only permanent hate option that can be preemptively deployed before you take a turn.  It is also awesome on the play, since you can play it out and protect it with mana available.  It is better in multiples in your opening hand than Needle or Planar Void, since you can play them all for free. 

[Smmenen]

@Mr. Menendian
Your understanding of Elephant Oath is flawed and lacking.
Stop thinking about Elephant Oath as a deck revolving around Oath of Druids and you will see why Elephant Oath is not afraid of maindeck Nature's Claim. Your logic would have me maindecking Disfigure in order to kill 2009 Era Dark Confidant Tezzeret (Darkblast is different because it can be reused, if Nature's Claim can be reused then I would not argue against maindecking Nature's Claim but still would not do it)

As a metaphor for centrality, the idea of 'revolving around' seems apt to characterize the role of Oath of Druids in Elephant Oath.   

The purpose of Oath of Druids is to summon creatures that will win the game, directly by dealing damage, and indirectly by disrupting the opponent such that these creatures have time and space to accomplish that ultimate end.   In that respect, Oath of Druids is an important strategic objective.   The resolution and triggering of Oath of Druids is one of your deck's primary avenues to victory.   If there were any doubt about this, a review of the amount of deck space and resources dedicated to the Oath strategy should dispel any notions to the contrary, and the fact that, in your deck listing, you characterize/label other routes to victory (such as Show and Tell) as "Plan B" illustrates that you even recognize this fact. 

Does that mean that Oath of Druids is the *only* route to victory, the only way to satisfy Rule 104 (the rules that governs winning game) conditions?    No.   Of course not.  Just as a TPS deck can win without playing or resolving a Tendrils of Agony or other storm win condition, Oath decks, including yours, are certaintly capable of winning the game through other means.   Tinker for Sphinx, Show and Tell, Jace's ultimate, going infinite with Time Vault, or generating overwhelming card advantage with Yawgmoth's Will and marshalling it to win with any one of these other win conditions are all strategic ends, or hard casting Iona, etc., and are alternative paths to victory.   

But none of that in any way undermines the claim that Oath of Druids is, as I have said twice now, "an important strategic objective."  Your deck is designed, in large measure, to resolve and activate Oath in order to win the game.   The fact that a card is not *necessary* to victory does not mean that it is not important or even central.   That's the critical flaw in your logic, and your understanding.   

You are conflating the concept of necessary with the concept of important.     Even Dredge can win without Bazaar of Baghdad. It's not necessary to victory.  But that doesn't mean it's not important.  Likewise, Oath of Druids is not necessary to win, but it is important.  It's strategically important.   And the extent of it's strategic importance can be appropriately, although inartfully and imprecisely, described as "central."   Thus, your metaphor of 'revolution,' or 'revolving around,' is a fitting one.

Your claim is that Nature's Claim "sucks against Oath".

2. Nature's Claim sucks versus Oath

Your rationale is that it doesn't stop other routes to victory, like Yawgmoth's Will or Tinker.   

Your conclusion is clearly wrong, and your reasoning is terrible.

Nature's Claim may not be the most effective solution to your deck, but to say that it sucks is simply gross hyperbole, at best, and grievously wrong, at worst.   

First, your deck's major strategic objective is to resolve and trigger Oath.   Nature's Claim is arguably the most efficient way to stop your deck from doing that for one card.   It costs as much as Spell PIerce, but unlike Spell Pierce, it can't be evaded with two additional mana.   If your deck can trigger Oath, the opponent will likely lose.   Nature's Claim is one of the most efficient answers to prevent that.   It's a one mana disenchant, an extraordinary printing and an extraordinary card.   

Second, the fact that it doesn't stop many alternative win conditions does not mean that it sucks.   That just means that it won't prevent you from winning the game by itself.   I tried to demonstrate this with the analogy to Red Elemental Blast.   Red Elemental Blast is great against blue control decks because of its incredibly efficiency.  It's a one mana counterspell for blue spells, and can even kill cards like Jace.   It stops a huge range of spells: Jace, Tinker, Force, Drain, Ancestral, Etc.    It can't stop the opponent from assembling the Time Vault combo or resolving Yawgmoth's Will (at least, not directly).  But that doesn't mean that Red Elemental Blast sucks. 

That's what your argument amounts to.  You have a deck, as with most Vintage decks, capable of winning the game many different ways.   Nature's Claim stops two of your deck's major strategies: Oath and Time Vault combo.  The fact that it doesn't stop Yawgmoth's Will, Jace, Tinker (for Sphinx) or Show and Tell does not mean that it sucks.   Not even close.   It still clearly does not suck, since it plays an important role in stopping important strategic objectives.   

You attempt to draw an analogy to Dark Confidant and Disfigure.  That analogy fails for several reasons. First of all, Disfigure is not as versatile as Nature's Claim.   Nature's Claim not only stops Oath of Druids, but breaks up your Time Vault combo, can be used to take out Moxen or mana acceleration, and can even provide the opponent with life in a critical juncture.    Secondly, many people *do* include one mana answers to Dark Confidant that aren't replayable, but have more versatility than Disfigure: Lightning Bolt is a good example.   Third, Dark Confidant is strategically important, but it's not nearly as strategically important to Bob decks as Oath is to Oath decks.   Dark Confidant is primarily just a source of card advantage.   Oath is both a source or card advantage and mana advantage (by cheating on mana), but it's also a way to disrupt the opponent and inflict substantial amounts of damage.   

Nature's Claim does not suck against Oath decks, and your reasoning for arguing that it does is not only unpersuasive, it's without basis in logic or reason. 

[meadbert]

Also, I know you are afraid of Needle on Bazaar. But I know you are more afraid of Planar Void. You may dig for answers for Void but then you run smack into the counterspells and the card disadvantage that Bazaar gives you when Void is on the table.

I happen to think that Planar Void is really good so I am not taking a side regarding Needle vs Planar Void.
What I will say is the "Protect Planar Void" plan is generally a losing plan.
Basically the Dredge player will run 9ish Planar Void removal spells.  They will draw 3 cards a turn from Bazaar.  3*9 = 27 so almost a 50% chance of drawing one per turn.
Meanwhile the control player runs maybe 5-10 counter spells and gets 1 card a turn.

This is not to say that Planar Void + Counter is not great.  It is great, but it is best used as a delaying tactic while you win.

Also the "card disadvantage" that Bazaar causes is not that big of a deal.  A Dredge player draws 3 cards and discards 3 a turn.  The only way their hand decreases is when they play removal or if they drop additional lands.
The need no more than one land to play their removal.
Basically if they start with 7 cards, use a Bazaar and a City then you must plan on countering 5 removal spells to actually run them out of spells so they only see 4 cards every 2 turns instead of 3 every turn.
This is impractical.  Do not think in terms of card advantage in this situation.  Rather than counting the cards in the Dredge players hand you should be trying to win quickly before they find another of the few cards they need.

[Cyberpunker]

@Menendian

Play Oath. Your entire post is again showing that you think of Elephant Oath as a deck revolving around Oath of Druids. That is not true. If you take that as true, then I can see why you would think my "reasoning is without basis of logic (review your logic class, you will find that I am in fact following logic)"

The fact that you have never even played Elephant Oath in a tournament (so you cannot have done well with it) further diminishes your position of authority that you like to take when arguing for ideas that you never put into practice in real life.

@meadbert

I agree that Planar Void is a delaying tactic, but I personally think so are all other cards against Dredge.

[Smmenen]

@Menendian

Play Oath. Your entire post is again showing that you think of Elephant Oath as a deck revolving around Oath of Druids. That is not true.

It is quite true:

"Revolving" is a metaphor, and not literally descriptive.  Quite literally, decks of Magic cards don't "revolve" around anything.   As a metaphor, the idea of "revolving" implies centrality as a way of describing strategic importance in spatial terms.   Of course Oath is "central" to Elephant Oath in the sense that it's a primary route to victory, and a major strategic objective.

Asserting that this is not true does not make untrue. I explained, in painstaking detail, why this is true, which you did not address or refute.   As I said:

The purpose of Oath of Druids is to summon creatures that will win the game, directly by dealing damage, and indirectly by disrupting the opponent such that these creatures have time and space to accomplish that ultimate end.   In that respect, Oath of Druids is an important strategic objective.   The resolution and triggering of Oath of Druids is one of your deck's primary avenues to victory.   If there were any doubt about this, a review of the amount of deck space and resources dedicated to the Oath strategy should dispel any notions to the contrary, and the fact that, in your deck listing, you characterize/label other routes to victory (such as Show and Tell) as "Plan B" illustrates that you even recognize this fact.

As a metaphor for centrality, the idea of 'revolving around' seems apt to characterize the role of Oath of Druids in Elephant Oath.

*Snip*

And the extent of it's strategic importance can be appropriately, although inartfully and imprecisely, described as "central."   Thus, your metaphor of 'revolution,' or 'revolving around,' is a fitting one.

 

The fact that Oath of Druids is not *necessary* to win the game does not mean that Oath of Druids is in some sense not "central" to Elephant Oath's game plan.  As I said:

Your deck is designed, in large measure, to resolve and activate Oath in order to win the game.   The fact that a card is not *necessary* to victory does not mean that it is not important or even central.   That's the critical flaw in your logic, and your understanding.    

You are conflating the concept of necessary with the concept of important.     Even Dredge can win without Bazaar of Baghdad. It's not necessary to victory.  But that doesn't mean it's not important.  Likewise, Oath of Druids is not necessary to win, but it is important.  It's strategically important.  

Everyone with a lick of common sense can see that Oath of Druids is strategically important in your deck, and that Nature's Claim, as the most efficient and arguably versatile/flexible answer to it, does not "Suck" as you believe it does.   It may not be the best answer to Oath ever, but it's a helluva lot better than "sucks."  

[Cyberpunker]

You are really nitpicking at my words but okay. I will actually take my time to explain to you why you are wrong as you have demanded.
Let me rephrase it:

Oath of Druids is not the primary win for the deck.
It is not the main victory route for the deck.
The deck has KeyVault, Show and Tell, Jace, Hardcast, Tinker, and Oath. They are all equal paths to victory.
I label Show and Tell as plan B because I was meaning that it was the route to go once all options are exhausted. But that does not make it less equal than Oath because it wins you the game in the same way. Oath is not better but rather just the win condition that occurs first usually (because you have 4 copies of it)

When I say that Nature's Claim sucks against Oath. I mean that it sucks against the deck. It is obviously great versus the card Oath. But that is not important. What is important is who is actually winning at the time. The deck wants to fight for more than just Oath of Druids. It fights for all the threat spells that it is trying to overwhelm the opponent with.

So please, play Oath. Like not casual games but take it to a tournament and do well. You will see what I mean.

[Smmenen]

You are really nitpicking at my words but okay. I will actually take my time to explain to you why you are wrong as you have demanded.
Let me rephrase it:

Oath of Druids is not the primary win for the deck.
It is not the main victory route for the deck.
The deck has KeyVault, Show and Tell, Jace, Hardcast, Tinker, and Oath. They are all equal paths to victory.
I label Show and Tell as plan B because I was meaning that it was the route to go once all options are exhausted. But that does not make it less equal than Oath because it wins you the game in the same way. Oath is not better but rather just the win condition that occurs first usually (because you have 4 copies of it)

  Look carefully at what I said.  I never said that Oath was the ONLY or even THE PRIMARY route to victory.  I said it was a ONE OF THE PRIMARY routes to victory.   THE PRIMARY is a very different statement than ONE OF THE PRIMARY.  

As I said:

The resolution and triggering of Oath of Druids is one of your deck's primary avenues to victory.  

I didn't say "THE primary," I said "ONE OF."  

Then, in the post immediate above, I said:

Of course Oath is "central" to Elephant Oath in the sense that it's a primary route to victory, and a major strategic objective.

Again, I said "A" Primary route to victory, not THE primary route to victory.

I'm somewhat astonished that you can claim that this is my position, or now assert that I'm wrong in my assessment that Oath is not strategically important because there are other routes to victory.  Read what I said:

Does that mean that Oath of Druids is the *only* route to victory, the only way to satisfy Rule 104 (the rules that governs winning game) conditions?    No.   Of course not.  Just as a TPS deck can win without playing or resolving a Tendrils of Agony or other storm win condition, Oath decks, including yours, are certaintly capable of winning the game through other means.   Tinker for Sphinx, Show and Tell, Jace's ultimate, going infinite with Time Vault, or generating overwhelming card advantage with Yawgmoth's Will and marshalling it to win with any one of these other win conditions are all strategic ends, or hard casting Iona, etc., and are alternative paths to victory.  

But none of that in any way undermines the claim that Oath of Druids is, as I have said twice now, "an important strategic objective."  Your deck is designed, in large measure, to resolve and activate Oath in order to win the game.   The fact that a card is not *necessary* to victory does not mean that it is not important or even central.   That's the critical flaw in your logic, and your understanding.    

What would be the point of all of that text if my claim was that Oath was the only or the primary route to victory?   I am specifically acknowledging, by naming each of the possible strategic objectives and finishers, that your Oath deck has many routes to victory.   However, my point is that Oath remains an important strategic objective.

And since Oath is an important strategic objective, it may justifiably be described as 'central' in terms of your metaphor of a 'revolution' to characterize it's importance in spatial terms.  

Oath is an important strategic objective for your deck.  There is no doubt about it.   It's strategic importance is obvious to anyone, but is underscored in many ways.  

All  of this goes to show that Nature's Claim does not "Suck" against your deck.  Not only does it deal with a very important strategic objective in a highly efficient and flexible way that has a low slot opportunity cost across matchups, but it also deals with another one of your strategic objectives: Vault/Key.  

When I say that Nature's Claim sucks against Oath. I mean that it sucks against the deck. It is obviously great versus the card Oath. But that is not important.

There isn't a monopoly on what's important.   Red Elemental Blast is good against blue decks even though it doesn't stop arguably the most important card directly: Yawgmoth's Will, nor Time Vault/Key.   Red Elemental Blast is still good despite the fact that it doesn't stop *everything.* As I wrote above:

Second, the fact that it doesn't stop many alternative win conditions does not mean that it sucks.   That just means that it won't prevent you from winning the game by itself.   I tried to demonstrate this with the analogy to Red Elemental Blast.   Red Elemental Blast is great against blue control decks because of its incredibly efficiency.  It's a one mana counterspell for blue spells, and can even kill cards like Jace.   It stops a huge range of spells: Jace, Tinker, Force, Drain, Ancestral, Etc.    It can't stop the opponent from assembling the Time Vault combo or resolving Yawgmoth's Will (at least, not directly).  But that doesn't mean that Red Elemental Blast sucks. 

 It stops enough important things to justify its inclusion.   The same is true of Nature's Claim.  If we were to describe cards that fail to stop all strategic objectives as 'sucking," then almost everything would suck and there would be no good answers.   

Oath of Druids is strategically important in your deck.  Nature's Claim is one of the best answers for it in a broad sense because it's so generally useful and highly efficient.    When an opponent is attempting to achieve strategic objectives, using cards that thwart those objectives is a good thing, and without question may be described as important.   That doesn't mean that all of your strategic objectives are answered, as they most clearly aren't, but the fact that a card doesn't do everything doesn't mean it sucks.   That's a critical flaw in your reasoning, and why the analogy to REB is so helpful.

 What is important is who is actually winning at the time.

I'm going to assume that by this you mean who actually has the board/game advantage at that moment, which is a very difficult thing to evaluate.   Yes, this is important, I agree, but that is partly determined by the give and take of players attempting to achieve strategic objectives and opponent's thwarting those ambitions.  In that degree, Nature's Claim is very helpful in helping thwart your attempt to achieve several important strategic objectives.  

The deck wants to fight for more than just Oath of Druids. It fights for all the threat spells that it is trying to overwhelm the opponent with.

Again, I admitted as much.    Most Vintage decks have several routes to victory.  That doesn't mean that Nature's Claim sucks nor that Oath isn't strategically important.   If an opponent resolves Arcane Laboratory against a TPS deck, that is very good and will thwart many strategic objectives.  That doesn't mean that the TPS deck can't win, it just makes it harder, which is a critical element to winning games: thwarting an opponent's strategic objectives.

So please, play Oath. Like not casual games but take it to a tournament and do well. You will see what I mean.

I just played Oath at an RIW tournament and made top 8.   I would cite my article archive as evidence of my vast experience with Oath, having won many pieces of power and other prizes with Oath over the years, but you can find that quite easily.  I have almost a decade of experience with Oath decks of all stripes and varieties, and I would easily wager, far more than you.  

[DubDub]

Oath of Druids is not the primary win for the deck.
It is not the main victory route for the deck.
The deck has KeyVault, Show and Tell, Jace, Hardcast, Tinker, and Oath. They are all equal paths to victory.
I label Show and Tell as plan B because I was meaning that it was the route to go once all options are exhausted. But that does not make it less equal than Oath because it wins you the game in the same way. Oath is not better but rather just the win condition that occurs first usually (because you have 4 copies of it)

This is nonsensical.  It's not like Show and Tell (or Jace, for that matter) are restricted.  You (and by extension, Oath pilots) play 4x Oath and 1x S&T because Oath IS better as a central component to a deck.

When I say that Nature's Claim sucks against Oath. I mean that it sucks against the deck. It is obviously great versus the card Oath. But that is not important. What is important is who is actually winning at the time. The deck wants to fight for more than just Oath of Druids. It fights for all the threat spells that it is trying to overwhelm the opponent with.

Let's suppose one is going to face an opponent playing Oath (Elephant Oath, if the specifics matter); instead of drawing a normal 7 card hand to begin the game you get to draw 6 cards as normal, and choose what your seventh card is going to be.  Assume that whatever you're playing supports the seventh card you choose (in terms of manabase, # of blue cards etc).  What's your choice?  Is it different if you're on the play versus draw?  The list of cards I'd expect to be viable choices in this situation is not long.  I would say arguments for Force of Will, Nature's Claim and Black Lotus are most compelling, with Spell Pierce and Duress getting consideration if you're on the play.  Nature's Claim is efficient and versatile, which together make it very 'good'.

[Rico Suave]

There are a number of blue decks that have a much stronger mid to late game than an Oath does, provided they can survive the first couple turns without an Oath trigger on the other side of the board. 

Nature's Claim isn't going to shut down the Oath deck.  It will, however, give one of the aforementioned blue decks a means to survive the early game, wherein the other 56 cards in their deck will naturally have an advantage over the other 56 cards in the Oath deck.

[Smmenen]

There are a number of blue decks that have a much stronger mid to late game than an Oath does, provided they can survive the first couple turns without an Oath trigger on the other side of the board. 

Nature's Claim isn't going to shut down the Oath deck.  It will, however, give one of the aforementioned blue decks a means to survive the early game, wherein the other 56 cards in their deck will naturally have an advantage over the other 56 cards in the Oath deck.

Exactly.   

The idea that Nature's Claim 'sucks' because it doesn't stop every possible strategic objective is just silly.   It stops enough to justify its inclusion, and it stops one of the most efficient and deadly ones.   For a mere two mana Oath can generate more card and mana advantage than almost any other card in the format, and is highly disruptive (if Iona or Terastodon are revealed).   Time Vault and Key generate more mana and card advantage, but unlike those cards, Oath isn't restricted, and is sometimes just a one card combo.  A one mana answer to that kind of threat is valuable indeed.    Playing Nature's Claim on an Oath of Druids doesn't prevent the Oath player from ever winning the game, but it thwarts an important strategic objective, and in doing so, gives the opponent more time to set up and execute its own strategic objectives.   

[Eastman]

Yah not to pile on here, but if the card Oath is neutralized, then the deck Oath, while still good, is going to be behind most control decks that have a higher threat concentration (since no combo pieces to draw) and a higher mana curve (more powerful threats in the late game).  Nature's claim does that in a card advantage neutral way that also generates tempo (since claim costs 1 less than oath).  

I mean I take the cyberpunker point--oath is a versatile deck and nature's claim doesn't shut it down in the same way that a leyline shuts down an ichorid.  But it is still a very useful addition for other blue decks against oath for the reasons that have now been repeated several times.  

I think we can call the nature's claim discussion to a close.  This was a discussion about Terastadon Oath at some point wasn't it?  Comments on that subject welcomed. 

[Cyberpunker]

@Smmenen

I apologize in that I seem to have misread you as saying Oath is THE primary way of victory. But I stand by my point that you are wrong that it is the "central" route of victory. If this is about your own personal internet ego as opposed to why Nature's Claim is not the card Oath players should fear, then I concede that you win and are a better player and let's move on to actually discussing the point.  

Nature's Claim can be used against Oath (the deck). You will find that Thoughtseize works way better though. Feel free to maindeck the card. And I don't think you have more experience than I do when playing Elephant Oath. (In fact you don't, I would wager that)

@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.

Borderline content there.  -Eastman