Ritual Oath

[brianpk80]

Show and tell seems fine. You have 4 oaths, necro, bargain, and the two dudes you can potentially show and tell in. That's 8 things. Show and telling with only an oath to put on the board can be equivilant to "winging an oath out there" except you still have the oath if things meet counter magic. If things go alright, you have an oath of Druids out in an oath deck, seems fine. Anything else and you draw a ton of cards.

I didn't take issue with the inclusion of 1 Show and Tell.  Playing 3 or 4 of them is where things get clumsy.  If you have a lot of experience running multiples in Oath, then surely you've seen hands like:

Orchard, Dual, Mox, Force, Drain, Show and Tell, Show and Tell.

It's not a card one wants to see in multiples or without the other half of the "combo."   

[cvarosky80]

Show and tell seems fine. You have 4 oaths, necro, bargain, and the two dudes you can potentially show and tell in. That's 8 things. Show and telling with only an oath to put on the board can be equivilant to "winging an oath out there" except you still have the oath if things meet counter magic. If things go alright, you have an oath of Druids out in an oath deck, seems fine. Anything else and you draw a ton of cards.

I didn't take issue with the inclusion of 1 Show and Tell.  Playing 3 or 4 of them is where things get clumsy.  If you have a lot of experience running multiples in Oath, then surely you've seen hands like:

Orchard, Dual, Mox, Force, Drain, Show and Tell, Show and Tell.

It's not a card one wants to see in multiples or without the other half of the "combo."   

Agreed. I have been testing with this deck all day and can say that it pretty much is fine as is. In fact, the Mind's Desire essentially acts as the 2nd Show and Tell in a manner of speaking. It doesn't do anything about the Griselbrand in your hand if he's stuck there, but often will find you either the 2nd one, or plenty off other goodies to just go nuts with. This deck is just fantastic.

[Samoht]

Rich I don't think that oathing/s&t a BSC should be considered "bad". Tinker is like oath a One-Card combo to get a giant creature into play and another option if oath is not available/castable/etc. so basically a s&t without the requirement to actually have the creature in hand as a plan B/C beside oath and s&t.

My harsh statement towards the skill required to win after resolve a griz is adequat. I don't consider it real skill to ride a 7/7 Flying lifelinker that instantly draws you 14 (+7 every Round) to a victory in an average magic game. So discussing how good the Deck works AFTER griz hits the board adds nothing of Value unless you raise the topic of "oathing griz with a lethal boardstate".

BSC is rapidly becoming a trap for the U pilot. It is not a good plan to be on, and can cost you more games than it wins.

Additionally, winning after resolving Griselbrand is not inherent. If you manage to do so at 15+ life and have mana available afterwards, you are very well positioned. In order to do that however, you are resolving a VERY early Oath of Druids/Show and Tell/Ritual chain. If they can't stop that action, then it doesn't really matter what you put into play, because they are likely crushed. Again, the key is that even if they can remove Griselbrand from play, his pseudo-Bargain capability sufficiently allows him to be a threat that isn't a 7/7 Flying,Lifelink creature. I think that this is the point that you are missing here.

Edit: I believe I found a way to play the second copy of Show and Tell, but I want to talk it over with Rich/Jimmy before getting into it, as it is contrary to generally accepted magical theory.

[LotusHead]

I actually played against a Storm Oath Grislebrand deck last month, and it played Grislbrand and Runescarred Demon together.

I only beat it by being super lucky and a jedi master.

If you oath of Runescarred Demon, you can get the right card to Oath of Grislebrand next turn, yes? maybe tutoring up a force of will might be good enough

[forcethewill]

Tom and myself Top 8'd with this deck yesterday at the NEV in NJ with 0 pratice games and had just finished building it as the event began.  The deck is very solid and very explosive.  My only loss in the swiss was to Tom in a game 3 where numerous tendrils were launched at each other and he was able to cast a demon before I was. 

[Lemnear]

Again, the key is that even if they can remove Griselbrand from play, his pseudo-Bargain capability sufficiently allows him to be a threat that isn't a 7/7 Flying,Lifelink creature. I think that this is the point that you are missing here.

I don't miss it. Riding griz is a easy Way to victory but i don't see why drawing Time Walk, y.will, Time-key, massive protection, removal alongside fastmana isn't as good as a Storm package but doesn't use 1/5 of your decks space.

I neither have any idea Why the proven-Most-successful-Win-condition of all time is a "trap".

[The Atog Lord]

Tom and myself Top 8'd with this deck yesterday at the NEV in NJ with 0 pratice games and had just finished building it as the event began.  The deck is very solid and very explosive.  My only loss in the swiss was to Tom in a game 3 where numerous tendrils were launched at each other and he was able to cast a demon before I was. 

Great to hear. Congratulations!

[Samoht]

Again, the key is that even if they can remove Griselbrand from play, his pseudo-Bargain capability sufficiently allows him to be a threat that isn't a 7/7 Flying,Lifelink creature. I think that this is the point that you are missing here.

I don't miss it. Riding griz is a easy Way to victory but i don't see why drawing Time Walk, y.will, Time-key, massive protection, removal alongside fastmana isn't as good as a Storm package but doesn't use 1/5 of your decks space.

I neither have any idea Why the proven-Most-successful-Win-condition of all time is a "trap".

Because, it doesnt take up 12 slots. Most of the cards you mentioned are in the list. Massive protection is the only thing the list forgoes. Instead of focusing on protecting Griselbrand it focuses on throwing more bombs at the opponent. Essentially, there is only so much protection you can have, much of which currently is target specific. You can't Misstep an Echoing Truth. Instead of trying to find specific answers for what our opponents might have, instead the list asks more questions of the opponent. Can you deal with Griselbrand and Tendrils of Agony right now? Often times the answer to one of  them is yes. Seldom is it yes to both, and that is the strength of this list. Also, by having the Tendrils plan we can win through Grafdigger's Cage. This is quite relevant as many players are currently running 3-4 between their MD and SB. Having a strong alternative to Oath of Druids is what sets this apart from Grisel-Oath, and any other Oath list currently in existence.

The moniker "proven-most-successful-win-condition of all time" is certainly not BSC. I will agree it has proven to be the best Tinker -> Robot of all time, and assume that is what you mean. Throughout the history of the format, the power of Tinker > Robot has ebbed and flowed. I contend now that the current power level of it is much lower than before the printing of BSC. This is due to the large influx of cards being played to combat the speed that BSC has brought. In essence, BSC is so strong it has forced the meta to adjust so drastically that now every deck is running several answers for it. Being all in on an early BSC is not a good place to be against quality opponents. Sure, you'll win some games off T1 Tinker with counter back up. I'd argue you'd lose a lot more games after Tinkering because of how many resources you give up to put a BSC in your hand or getting a basic land into play or gaining 11 life. Shop players are running Maze of Ith's and Phyrexian Metamorph. Might not be the best plan against them either, especially considering the power of Tangle Wire. Sower of Temptation has been cropping up time and again. By committing oneself to Tinker, you are enabling lines of play that will lead you to losing - much more so than ever before with a Tinker -> Robot plan. That is what I mean by it being a trap.

[TheWhiteDragon]

I neither have any idea Why the proven-Most-successful-Win-condition of all time is a "trap".

Because, it doesnt take up 12 slots. Most of the cards you mentioned are in the list. Massive protection is the only thing the list forgoes. Instead of focusing on protecting Griselbrand it focuses on throwing more bombs at the opponent. Essentially, there is only so much protection you can have, much of which currently is target specific. You can't Misstep an Echoing Truth. Instead of trying to find specific answers for what our opponents might have, instead the list asks more questions of the opponent. Can you deal with Griselbrand and Tendrils of Agony right now? Often times the answer to one of  them is yes. Seldom is it yes to both, and that is the strength of this list. Also, by having the Tendrils plan we can win through Grafdigger's Cage. This is quite relevant as many players are currently running 3-4 between their MD and SB. Having a strong alternative to Oath of Druids is what sets this apart from Grisel-Oath, and any other Oath list currently in existence.

First, I'll say I like the deck and it's an interesting concept.  With that said:

I don't think this logic is completely sound.  You say tendrils gets around cage - but without grisel drawing you a ton of cards, how reliable is that tendrils when you fight through counters/hate and can't rely on your oath?  You would rightfully reply "show and tell" or destroy the cage - in which case other oath builds have the same response. 
When you do oath, you might just mill your tendrils and then you can't go off with that either.  You also say "do you have an answer to grisel AND tendrils?" with many times being an answer to one, but not the other.  What about something like King James oath?  That version doesn't allow CoV, e-truth, or plow effects to be an answer, which grisel is susceptible to.  Also, with dragon breath, you are often winning that turn anyway (whether you breath BSC or Emakrul).  You may say dragon breath is dead, but I'd consider it no more dead than a grip of rituals with no big black spell, or a bargain in hand with no rituals.  You can actually cast breath on a BSC the turn you cast tinker/S&T/oath him up for just 2 mana as well.

I see that the deck tries to change "dead" spots for a different win con and a 1 turn kill....but emakrul/BSC is already a hasty one turn kill, and it doesn't give you hands with no disruption and multiple rituals and an oath.

[Samoht]

I don't think this logic is completely sound.  You say tendrils gets around cage - but without grisel drawing you a ton of cards, how reliable is that tendrils when you fight through counters/hate and can't rely on your oath?  You would rightfully reply "show and tell" or destroy the cage - in which case other oath builds have the same response. 
When you do oath, you might just mill your tendrils and then you can't go off with that either.  You also say "do you have an answer to grisel AND tendrils?" with many times being an answer to one, but not the other.  What about something like King James oath?  That version doesn't allow CoV, e-truth, or plow effects to be an answer, which grisel is susceptible to.  Also, with dragon breath, you are often winning that turn anyway (whether you breath BSC or Emakrul).  You may say dragon breath is dead, but I'd consider it no more dead than a grip of rituals with no big black spell, or a bargain in hand with no rituals.  You can actually cast breath on a BSC the turn you cast tinker/S&T/oath him up for just 2 mana as well.

I see that the deck tries to change "dead" spots for a different win con and a 1 turn kill....but emakrul/BSC is already a hasty one turn kill, and it doesn't give you hands with no disruption and multiple rituals and an oath.

I won several games yesterday in the tournament without ever triggering Oath of Druids or having Griselbrand in play. I won all of the games that those things happened in, but that doesn't mean the deck is reliant on them happening. My main goal isn't to rush out a Tendrils, but it can be done as needed - and more reliably than you intimate in your post. I fully accept and agree with the claim that any Oath deck can run Show and Tell or cards that remove Grafdigger's Cage. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. My claim was, and still is, that this deck isn't reliant on Griselbrand. He is the main win condition certainly, but it is still quite potent without him.

By King James Oath I assume you mean what is called Golden Gun Oath around here (BSC/Emrakul w/ Dragon's Breath)? That deck is quite susceptible to the cards I named if it hits BSC. Emrakul dodges some of them certainly, but is also far from a guaranteed win. A gem for you - Curfew. This effectively answers either of the targets if KJ/GG Oath is that big in your meta. I've won more games after being attacked by a hasted Jellyfish than I've lost because I ran Sower of Temptation(running Remora Gush) for the express purpose of taking their targets. As far as "dead" cards, GG/KJ Oath has more than Ritual. If I have a hand full of Rituals and draw Mind's Desire or Yawgmoth's Bargain or Yawgmoth's Will I have action. Rituals can be used to disguise the ability to pay for Flusterstorm. You can easily hard cast any of the cards in the engine through the course of the game. If I have Dragon's Breath and draw the aforementioned cards, it doesn't add anything. The creatures in the deck are difficult to cast. Griselbrand is actually quite easy to cast, as I did it two or three times. Additionally, GG/KJ  can only effectively win by putting the creature into play (barring a TV/Key list) or through Jace. Ritual allows for the same things to be true, while adding the dimension of being able to win through a Tendrils of Agony.

I'm not saying that the deck is unbeatable or that it is even the best deck to play, but I do claim it to be the best Oath list out there. It's ability to not have to rely on its creature to win the game gives it an added advantage that can not be ignored.

[TheWhiteDragon]

I think it does have better side-plans than other oath decks, but I think the ability to have tinker as a 5th oath and emakrul's evasion to common hate spells make that version a better creature package than grisel oath.  Grisel is not bad by any means, but I think other critter options have merit.  The ability to turn 1 tinker is not to be overlooked.  Also, having more counters to back up the critters adds to their protection.  Emakrul is especially good because the hate needed to fight him typically costs 4 (sower, jace) as opposed to 1 or 2 (plow/chain/etruth/sabotage/hurkyls).  Also, it is easier to get through a tinker vs MUD than it is to get through a chain of rituals for tendrils.  I suppose both decks have their strengths, but I'd think it would be even stronger as a dedicated tendrils deck that sb in 4 oath + 2 grisel or something as a transform plan when oath is the good call.

[oshkoshhaitsyosh]

I believe 2 or more of this deck just top 8'd or top 4'd yesterday at Top Deck Games (easily the most competitive vintage science on the east coast or even the entire USA for that matter), and this deck is for real and it is good, and the ritual storm kill does work with oath. I rest my case.

[TheWhiteDragon]

I believe 2 or more of this deck just top 8'd or top 4'd yesterday at Top Deck Games (easily the most competitive vintage science on the east coast or even the entire USA for that matter), and this deck is for real and it is good, and the ritual storm kill does work with oath. I rest my case.

Again, I'm not saying this deck is no good...

But I think your evidence is flawed.  Grisel oath had a couple top 8 showings.  But could ANY oath build have done just as well or better?  There are also many versions of many decks top 8ing all the time, that does not necessarily mean that THAT build is superior to all other builds of the deck.  Now if there were 2 grisel builds and 2 golden gun builds, and the grisels made top 8 while the gun builds sucked wind, then that's good evidence.  But if all oath builds are of the same variety (grisel), their success does not show them superior to other builds moreso than that strategy (oath) as strong in that meta.

If my buddies and I bring a fish deck with porcelain legionaries main, and we happen to face a bunch of MUD and make top 8...does that mean that legionnaire fish is the BEST fish build around?  No, it just makes it the best in that tournament...and if the ONLY fish builds happen to be the legionnaire build, then it is very poor evidence other than "fish was good to play in tourney X".

I am not knocking the power of the deck, but I am doubting that it is superior to all other oath builds.  Golden gun oath, esp with vault/key side-plan, seems really solid to me.  Tyrant/gush oath ALSO had a storm kill that didn't need to oath up tyrant, but it also had removal to all kinds of threats like ensnaring bridge when it did hit play.  Tyrant oath was probably my favorite build of all time and often I won games where my opponent had 0 perms on the board.  I have won tourneys (twice 1st place in two attempts) with that deck, but does that make it the "best" oath build?  Not likely.

[A.-1.]

Let me first preface by saying that I have not thoroughly tested with either GG Oath nor Ritual Oath.

Tom and Jimmy lost in top 8 piloting Ritual Oath. Tom lost to some nuts Landstill hands. Jimmy lost to me. It didn't help that I was on Shops, the higher seed, and he had to mulligan a lot. The next highest placing Oath player was Ali, who I believe was on Emrakul Oath without Breath (Can someone else confirm/deny this?). He came in 9th and missed on breakers. Beyond that, I only know of one other Oath player in attendance. I don't think that proves one way or another which build is superior. All it shows is that Oath is probably a good meta call right now, and skilled players do well. Once the TO report is up, we'll be able to see the actual numbers.

Maybe Tom and Jimmy would have made top 8 with some other Oath variant, maybe not. But they both won several games with this list where other Oath decks would have fallen short. Again though, I don't think this proves with absolute certainty that Ritual Oath is superior.

GG Oath with Vault/Key seems solid to you. Other people feel that Ritual Oath is solid. Just like proponents of Ritual Oath can't say that build is better with such a small sample size, I don't think you can say GG Oath is better either.

What's the point of bringing up a Tyrant Oath deck that had 4x Brainstorm, Scroll, and Gush available? A lot of people won many times with that broken deck, but it has nothing to do with current Oath lists beyond the secondary kill of storm.

[Eastman]

So I have been meaning to do a longer post but haven't had time.  Here is the short version.

Rich the deck looks very interesting. I am not surprised you have been taken by griselbrand, I have been testing it for awhile and am really extremely impressed with the card.  

I haven't tested the Ritual version (although I tried a version with one ritual and a tendrils kill, as well as a gush tendrils version), so it is possible it is better than a controlling build.  I have found that the easiest way to win with a griselbrand on the board is to have a ton of control cards in your deck that allow you to protect him. Of course in some circumstances you also see the lotus or what have you and go off that turn, but a lot can be said for just drawing a fist full of counters when you have a dominant board position.  Again, not sure which is best as I haven't tried with rituals. I had a bad experience with TPS earlier this year and am not convinced rituals are the answer in the modern shop matchup, but I could be wrong.  I did notice that tendrils was a great complement to grizzly in my limited testing.

On Mental Misstep, I think you want at least 2. It isn't just a phenomenal counter in general and against dredge, but it is plan A against the Cage games 2 and 3. That latter point puts it into the forefront for core cards in an oath list I think.  Granted a ritual version has more of a secondary route of casting him than my controlling build, but food for thought.  

[TheWhiteDragon]

Let me first preface by saying that I have not thoroughly tested with either GG Oath nor Ritual Oath.

Tom and Jimmy lost in top 8 piloting Ritual Oath. Tom lost to some nuts Landstill hands. Jimmy lost to me. It didn't help that I was on Shops, the higher seed, and he had to mulligan a lot. The next highest placing Oath player was Ali, who I believe was on Emrakul Oath without Breath (Can someone else confirm/deny this?). He came in 9th and missed on breakers. Beyond that, I only know of one other Oath player in attendance. I don't think that proves one way or another which build is superior. All it shows is that Oath is probably a good meta call right now, and skilled players do well. Once the TO report is up, we'll be able to see the actual numbers.

Maybe Tom and Jimmy would have made top 8 with some other Oath variant, maybe not. But they both won several games with this list where other Oath decks would have fallen short. Again though, I don't think this proves with absolute certainty that Ritual Oath is superior.

GG Oath with Vault/Key seems solid to you. Other people feel that Ritual Oath is solid. Just like proponents of Ritual Oath can't say that build is better with such a small sample size, I don't think you can say GG Oath is better either.

What's the point of bringing up a Tyrant Oath deck that had 4x Brainstorm, Scroll, and Gush available? A lot of people won many times with that broken deck, but it has nothing to do with current Oath lists beyond the secondary kill of storm.

I'm not saying GG was better...I'm saying I don't think Griseloath is better.  There's a difference.  I'm not toting the superiority of one deck over the other, I was just refuting the claim that Griseloath was "the best build" based on one tourney.  If the 9th place deck was running GG but without dragon breath, then that seems like oath overall was solid - and a nuetered version of GG is a terrible idea.  Adding 1 card to speed up your kill by a full turn is terrible NOT to do.

I brought up Tyrant oath (btw, this was after gush came back but BS was gone) just to say that different builds all have their strengths and are viable.  Some more than others in a given meta.  I don't think any one is superior, but I will say that Griseloath is NOT superior to other versions.  Placing T8 in a tourney does not show it is better than others, especially when a GG build came in 9th despite forgetting to put the bullet in the gun.  (GG with no breath...smh )

[Samoht]

I think it does have better side-plans than other oath decks, but I think the ability to have tinker as a 5th oath and emakrul's evasion to common hate spells make that version a better creature package than grisel oath.  Grisel is not bad by any means, but I think other critter options have merit.  The ability to turn 1 tinker is not to be overlooked.  

I disagree heavily. As I stated earlier, Tinker -> BSC has become a trap for blue pilots. At an alarming rate, players are beginning to lose more games in which they work for the play of Tinker. I accept that Emrakul is more effective at remaining in play. However, as we've discussed, it has some drawbacks as well. Griselbrand serves two functions. First, and foremost, he is a draw engine. That is his primary function. The fact that he can also function as a creature that is hyper-effective in the meta game is what makes him absurd. Neither BSC or Emrakul can compare with the utility that Griselbrand presents.

Also, having more counters to back up the critters adds to their protection.  Emakrul is especially good because the hate needed to fight him typically costs 4 (sower, jace) as opposed to 1 or 2 (plow/chain/etruth/sabotage/hurkyls).

Sower costs 0 effectively as you can simply Oath it up after sacrificing all of your permanents to the Annihilator trigger. I accept that Emrakul is easier to maintain on the battlefield and is even more effective at attacking an opponent to death. I don't think that can be questioned. However, what I'm trying to explain is that Griselbrand, and the Ritual version of the deck, are a)not reliant on the Oath creature to win and b)nearly as efficient at attacking the opponent as the other versions. Sometimes, it is even ideal to have the Lifelink in order to race or the cards in order to control the game. (By control I don't inherently mean countering things, but dictating the terms of the game).

Also, it is easier to get through a tinker vs MUD than it is to get through a chain of rituals for tendrils.  

As far as Tinker vs Shops, that is a unlikely line of play. First and foremost, they are bringing in Grafdigger's Cage to stop your Oath. Tinker works bad there. Secondly, they are running Maze of Ith's and Phyrexian Metamorph/Duplicant. You will expend several resources and a permanent to not win the game. Even if they are missing those cards, they can Tangle Wire you out of the ability to attack with it.

I suppose both decks have their strengths, but I'd think it would be even stronger as a dedicated tendrils deck that sb in 4 oath + 2 grisel or something as a transform plan when oath is the good call.

I definitely don't like a dedicated TPS deck boarding into Oath. Orchards are a must, and having either 10 SB slots dedicated to a transform that isn't ideal or MD'ing Orchard doesn't seem sound to me. I agree that GG Oath or RSD Oath can be good decks that can win games. That doesn't mean that they are better than Ritual Oath or that they should be played.

But I think your evidence is flawed.  Grisel oath had a couple top 8 showings.  But could ANY oath build have done just as well or better?  There are also many versions of many decks top 8ing all the time, that does not necessarily mean that THAT build is superior to all other builds of the deck.  Now if there were 2 grisel builds and 2 golden gun builds, and the grisels made top 8 while the gun builds sucked wind, then that's good evidence.  But if all oath builds are of the same variety (grisel), their success does not show them superior to other builds moreso than that strategy (oath) as strong in that meta.

Agreed on this in theory for the most part. My only caveat would have to be the variance of the format not allowing for one tournament with proven decks to dictate quality for anything outside of that event. Once Ritual Oath becomes more established I believe we can do a much more in-depth results oriented comparison.

If my buddies and I bring a fish deck with porcelain legionaries main, and we happen to face a bunch of MUD and make top 8...does that mean that legionnaire fish is the BEST fish build around?  No, it just makes it the best in that tournament...and if the ONLY fish builds happen to be the legionnaire build, then it is very poor evidence other than "fish was good to play in tourney X".

I accept this is true. My only concern is that this was the first tournament in which this deck was ever played, and it put 2/3 players into the top 8. If this continues to happen, then the statistical anomaly angle will fade away. I accept that the converse is true as well.

I am not knocking the power of the deck, but I am doubting that it is superior to all other oath builds.  Golden gun oath, esp with vault/key side-plan, seems really solid to me.  Tyrant/gush oath ALSO had a storm kill that didn't need to oath up tyrant, but it also had removal to all kinds of threats like ensnaring bridge when it did hit play.  Tyrant oath was probably my favorite build of all time and often I won games where my opponent had 0 perms on the board.  I have won tourneys (twice 1st place in two attempts) with that deck, but does that make it the "best" oath build?  Not likely.

I accept that GG w/ TV/K is a solid deck. I don't think anyone has said it wasn't. The point that I am trying to make is that this list is more powerful. The threat density in comparison is almost 2 to 1. One deck is reliant on winning through it's creatures, while the other has several avenues of attack. Could you explain to me why you feel GG or Tyrant or RSD are better versions to play? I understand some of it was the resiliency of Emrakul in the face of targeted spells. Do you feel that alone makes it a stronger deck to play than Ritual?

I'm not saying GG was better...I'm saying I don't think Griseloath is better.  There's a difference.  I'm not toting the superiority of one deck over the other, I was just refuting the claim that Griseloath was "the best build" based on one tourney.  If the 9th place deck was running GG but without dragon breath, then that seems like oath overall was solid - and a nuetered version of GG is a terrible idea.  Adding 1 card to speed up your kill by a full turn is terrible NOT to do.

First, this deck is Ritual Oath. There is a seperate version that runs Griselbrand with more permission and none of the Tendrils/Ritual type cards. It has been played in the few events between Griselbrand's printing and now. It has had some success but not much. I can accept that one tournament is not statistically significant to crown the deck as the best version with empirical evidence. However, Magic theory allows us to discuss the value of cards and their relative value/power in a deck. This is the vein we are attempting to course through in order to make the claim. Agreed on playing GG w/o DB as being terrible.

....but I will say that Griseloath is NOT superior to other versions.  Placing T8 in a tourney does not show it is better than others, especially when a GG build came in 9th despite forgetting to put the bullet in the gun.  (GG with no breath...smh Sad )

Again, you make the claim but fail to provide any rational behind it other than a lack of empirical evidence. The deck was played in one event and fielded 25% of the top 8 despite having less than 10% representation. I'm sure more results will come in and the amount of statistics will give us a better picture of it's power level. Do you have anything to add other than the fact that a brand new deck doesn't have a long track record?

[TheWhiteDragon]

I don't understand that if you can admit a short track record isn't enough, how you can claim that ritual oath is undeniably THE BEST version.  Theory alone doesn't cut it.

If we're going with theory, I'd theorize that GG oath is better cause it can simply deal with the hate in terms of counters and nature's claims/show and tell.  While I cast mistep on my opponent's cage, you go ahead and cast dark ritual in response.  Tinker -> BSC might open me up to get pwned with hate, but that is the SIDE-PLAN, not the main plan.  Cage stops both, but it doesn't stop S&T or vault/key. 

In theory, I will say that an oath plan with counters and vault/key is MUCH better poised to beat MUD - which is a big part of the field.  To say you can oath up sower is just ridiculous.  Obviously I'd swing, blow up your board, then give you a lonely spirit token after the attack.  If your opponent doesn't use emakrul that way, then he deserves to lose.  Also, if you have multiple critters, oathing up sower is fairly random.  But in either case, you should never be able to oath after emakrul swings.

Now if ritual oath puts up a ton of results where other oath versions in the same tournay can't, then that's solid evidence.  If 3 of 4 oath decks made top 9 (one being a bastardized version of GG), then I don't think that is enough to claim "this is the best version out there".  I'm not saying it won't turn out to be or that any other version is better...I'm saying it's too early to have a unanimous jury on it as you seem to believe.

[Samoht]

I don't understand that if you can admit a short track record isn't enough, how you can claim that ritual oath is undeniably THE BEST version.  Theory alone doesn't cut it.

If we're going with theory, I'd theorize that GG oath is better cause it can simply deal with the hate in terms of counters and nature's claims/show and tell.  While I cast mistep on my opponent's cage, you go ahead and cast dark ritual in response.  Tinker -> BSC might open me up to get pwned with hate, but that is the SIDE-PLAN, not the main plan.  Cage stops both, but it doesn't stop S&T or vault/key. 

In theory, I will say that an oath plan with counters and vault/key is MUCH better poised to beat MUD - which is a big part of the field.  To say you can oath up sower is just ridiculous.  Obviously I'd swing, blow up your board, then give you a lonely spirit token after the attack.  If your opponent doesn't use emakrul that way, then he deserves to lose.  Also, if you have multiple critters, oathing up sower is fairly random.  But in either case, you should never be able to oath after emakrul swings.

Now if ritual oath puts up a ton of results where other oath versions in the same tournay can't, then that's solid evidence.  If 3 of 4 oath decks made top 9 (one being a bastardized version of GG), then I don't think that is enough to claim "this is the best version out there".  I'm not saying it won't turn out to be or that any other version is better...I'm saying it's too early to have a unanimous jury on it as you seem to believe.

I can't be held responsible for the fact that their has only been one tournament since the deck was unveiled. You seem to think that this deck wasn't thoroughly tested and was thrown together and managed to take some spots in a t8. One of the best deck architects on the planet spent hours honing this list in and presented it to us. It has solid theory and results behind it. Just because those results haven't come in many tournaments yet doesn't discount their value.

As far as your theory, nothing you said aside from TV/K is missing from the Ritual Oath list. Show and Tell, Nature's Claim, and counterspells are all in attendance.

Oath doesn't always follow with Orchard, and I can tell you from experience that I have repeatedly been in a position to activate Oath of Druids after being attacked by an Emrakul.

You're statistical analysis is off. Even if GG Oath bombs at a tournament and Ritual Oath wins the event with 3-5 players in the top 8, it won't even be real mathematical evidence. It would be a strong showing and would make the point a lot easier, but it could all be variance. What if the Ritual players feast on the Gush and Dredge pilots while the GG players get to play Workshops all day? What if the Shop player has to mull to oblivion for Ritual to win the event? You need to increase your sample size significantly before having definitive evidence through math. What can be accounted for is the testing and practice done with the deck by its designer and his teammates. That is done repeatedly with the purpose of weeding out the variance and optimizing builds. I'll take Rich Shay's word about things like match ups and card selection, he's not one to shy away from hard work or use hyperbole when expressing his results.

I will admit that the deck is in its infancy as a tournament contender. That doesn't mean I can't recognize its potential or understand its implications. I am quite sold on it obviously. I am in the process of gauging whether it is merely the best version of Oath that can be played right now or the best deck in the format that can be played right now. I definitely believe that GG Oath is not the best deck in the format that can be played right now, and as such have extrapolated that to my current position and made the claim that Ritual Oath is better than it.

[TheWhiteDragon]

Well, if we are simply going by belief and empirical evidence is not required - then yes, ritual oath is the best oath deck out there.  You got it.

[Samoht]

Well, if we are simply going by belief and empirical evidence is not required - then yes, ritual oath is the best oath deck out there.  You got it.

I don't think you could have missed my point any more. You are either ignoring or discounting the hundreds of games Rich and his team grinded to build this deck into what was presented to us. That is the definition of empirical evidence. Tournaments are subject to variance to a much higher degree and as such need large quantities of a sample size to give us any definitive answers.

[TheWhiteDragon]

I've tested my own decks to the Nth degree with great success in many builds.  As I said, I had 2 first places with oath in local tourneys.  On a side note, if 2 ritual oath builds were 10 percent of the field, I have to assume there were under 24 people in attendance.  To me, that's hardly a tournament.  I consider 80+ a decent field.  I wouldn't consider ANY of them "the best build out there" with my testing as my main evidence.  The deck seems good, I'm not knocking it.  But I'm not crowning it the king of oath based on testing and one tourney either.  I also have a feeling that since this is "the next big thing" with oath, we won't even see GG or other oath builds competing to take the spot of best oath.  Did you see how Iona disappeared as soon as elephant came out?  and how elephant disappeared when emakrul came out?  Now that grisel is here, I doubt you find many people playing GG, even if it were better.  I can't crown any deck king at this moment, though it seems you already have on testing alone and are considering it for best deck in the universe.

[hvndr3d y34r h3x]

Show and tell seems fine. You have 4 oaths, necro, bargain, and the two dudes you can potentially show and tell in. That's 8 things. Show and telling with only an oath to put on the board can be equivilant to "winging an oath out there" except you still have the oath if things meet counter magic. If things go alright, you have an oath of Druids out in an oath deck, seems fine. Anything else and you draw a ton of cards.

I didn't take issue with the inclusion of 1 Show and Tell.  Playing 3 or 4 of them is where things get clumsy.  If you have a lot of experience running multiples in Oath, then surely you've seen hands like:

Orchard, Dual, Mox, Force, Drain, Show and Tell, Show and Tell.

It's not a card one wants to see in multiples or without the other half of the "combo." 

Obviously you don't run 4. 2 would probably be fine, you shouldn't see openers like what you illustratated with 2 very often.

Either way my issues wasnt really with the number, but to point out that it's not nearly as useless as three voltaic keys (btw, Ive totally built top 8 lists with multiple keys and transmutes) considering the context of the respective deck list. If voltaic key enabled 8 targets, 4 of which I'd put in the "imidiate blow out" category I'd look into running more if I could fit it. It seems like a fine post board plan with this list. Reading your response,  we seem to be in agreance about show and tell, I guess I just felt your comparison to key was poor/misleading.
I've got issue with the "you don't want to see it in multiples without the other half of the combo" argument as well. Running a 4 of theoretically to enable 8 targets is completely fine. The issue in this particular list is the library manipulation being cut to make room for the rituals, another enabler. Again, I agree with your conclusion. I just think you came to it incorrectly, which at this point is mostly irrelevant I guess, and if it wasn't 2am with me desperately trying to keep my mind off this mind blowing heat, I probably wouldn't have mentioned it.

However, it wasn't a total loss. The lack of preordains, and the like, brings me to a concern I have: can this deck reliably support FoW? 16  blue cards is right on the edge there. Most players I've conversed with say 18 is the minimum, the vast majority. A couple have ansewered as low as 16, litteraly like 2 in my whole mtg life span. My experiences agrees with the 18. Rich, has casting fow been an issue? Have you been up to hilarious stuff like rit+ tap two lands for hard cast fow? If you were going to add 2 blue cards, how would you do it? In game play, are you just chucking everything to the wall and seeing what sticks, be it another threat or a blue card for this FOW rip after rip?

[brianpk80]

Good morning.

Obviously you don't run 4.

Well, it wasn't obvious that you shared the view until you stated it just now.     

Either way my issues wasnt really with the number, but to point out that it's not nearly as useless as three voltaic keys (btw, Ive totally built top 8 lists with multiple keys and transmutes) considering the context of the respective deck list.

Hmmm...

Reading your response,  we seem to be in agreance about show and tell, I guess I just felt your comparison to key was poor/misleading.

It wasn't poor or misleading.  I said they were analogous, not identical.  It was a fair analogy.  By vouching for the fact that running multiple Keys can be a successful strategy but that running 1 is generally regarded as sufficient, you have helped to prove that point.  So I agree that we do not disagree.

---

The discussion above regarding the "best" version of Oath is interesting.  It would take mountains of data to "prove" anything remotely significant and even then there's no feasible way to account for variations in pilot skill & play-style, opponents' skill and deck, variance, luck, distractions, an error, whether such error was unreasonable or a prospectively good call that was only bad in retrospect, and so forth.  This is true whether in a competitive or exploratory setting.  There are many variations of popular decks that are capable of performing well.  It's not possible to ordain one as "best" in an absolute sense as they all have pros and cons that are both contextual and difficult to quantify.  If I understand correctly, the designer's objective here was to offer something new and of the same caliber as other well-performing decks today, and the objective appears to have been met.   

[The Atog Lord]

Samoht and White Dragon,

The concept of a best deck is a difficult one. Sometimes, rarely, there is an obvious best deck. Delver is the best deck in Standard right now, I think. Not infrequently, best decks generate calls for bannings/restrictions.

But most of the time, there is no overall best deck. There may be a best deck for this week or that week. There is often a best deck for a given tournament. And this is especially true in a format like Vintage, which has so many answers. As long as things are healthy in a metagame, and a single card or strategy is not so oppressive that playing anything else would be flat-out wrong, then metagames can adjust and adapt. Most strategies in Vintage can be hated out. If a deck or strategy starts to become oppressive, the metagame will often adjust. So, I am very hesitant to call any deck the ``best deck'' in a format. Instead of thinking about which deck is best in a format, I consider a related but different question: Which deck do I want to play?

And on being the best Oath deck. I can say that I think this is the best Oath list among the ideas that I've tested. I can say that no other variant of Oath I've tried has been as good, at least with me playing it, since Brainstorm was restricted. Yes, I did test Golden Gun Oath, and I do believe that this is a stronger deck. Of course, it is also possible that I was missing some key element of playing Golden Gun Oath, and if I had understood that better, I'd have had better testing results. Moreover, it is very possible that a more clever person will construct a brilliant Oath list tomorrow featuring some monster which none of us have thought of.

HHH: Yes, I would like to see a bit more blue in the deck. Many decks of this sort can buffer their blue count by including cantrips. They're blue cards when you need blue cards, and become something else when you don't. However, as I've discussed above, I am not entirely happy with cantrips right now, and would not want to include more than the ones already in the deck. This raises the question of what to run, and the answers that immediately spring to mind are Mystical, another Show and Tell, and Mental Misstep. But it is not clear which card to cut, if any. Thoughtseize performs the important task of clearing away Flusterstorm, and if you're considering another Show and Tell you really can't skimp on the discard. Cutting mana might be alright if the entire metagame were devoid of Workshop and Wasteland-Creature decks, but I doubt that is the case for most people at this point. You could make Nature's Claim into a blue spell, but if it is Hurkyl's, you can't answer Chalice@2 well, and if it is Chain of Vapor, it becomes a much worse card in several situations.

[Lemnear]

I disagree heavily. As I stated earlier, Tinker -> BSC has become a trap for blue pilots. At an alarming rate, players are beginning to lose more games in which they work for the play of Tinker.

What? Where you take those kind of claims from? Just personal feelings again?

[mmcgeach]

I'm a little surprised Golden Gun oath is the main competitor to the storm-griselbrand oath build being discussed here.  Sure, 50% of the time you can oath into a fatty with dragon breath; but the other 50% of the time you oath into something that does nothing to stop your opponent's vault-key or yawg will.  Or duplicant/metamorph in the shop matchup.  In my experience oathing into griselbrand just has the highest win percent outside of a chain of oaths into multiple rune-scarred demons - and I wouldn't do that anymore since it requires multiple activations and is therefore not a feasible show-and-tell target.

this is what you want from an ideal oath target:

1) prevent opponent from assembling vault-key or having some crazy yawg-will turn
2) prevent opponent from swinging with an army of fish
3) not lose to opponent's jace
4) not lose to opponent's duplicant/metamorph
5) not lose to opponent's bounce spell
6) be just as effective off show-and-tell or a hard-cast as off oath of druids
7) not be dead in your hand
8) require as few as possible otherwise-dead cards in your deck

Winning immediately is a good answer to questions #1 through #5, which seems to be the case with a griselbrand-ritual-storm combo, a tyrant-storm combo, or a golden-gun combo in the 50% of cases you hit dragons breath.  Another good answer for #1, #3, #4, #5, is to draw 7 or 14 counter spells, like you can with griselbrand ritual-less oath.  If golden-gun oath misses a dragon's breath it's doing a bad job at #1,#3, #4, #5.  I think the great thing about griselbrand is he does all of #1-#5 while also meeting #6.  Most of all, I think the important thing to discuss with the current griselbrand ritual oath build is how it does with #7 and #8.  Are all those rituals really dead cards?  Does the deck effectively merge the storm and oath strategies?  Or does it sometimes play like and oath deck with 15 dead cards and sometimes play like a storm deck with 8 dead cards? 

[Samoht]

I disagree heavily. As I stated earlier, Tinker -> BSC has become a trap for blue pilots. At an alarming rate, players are beginning to lose more games in which they work for the play of Tinker.

What? Where you take those kind of claims from? Just personal feelings again?

The moniker "proven-most-successful-win-condition of all time" is certainly not BSC. I will agree it has proven to be the best Tinker -> Robot of all time, and assume that is what you mean. Throughout the history of the format, the power of Tinker > Robot has ebbed and flowed. I contend now that the current power level of it is much lower than before the printing of BSC. This is due to the large influx of cards being played to combat the speed that BSC has brought. In essence, BSC is so strong it has forced the meta to adjust so drastically that now every deck is running several answers for it. Being all in on an early BSC is not a good place to be against quality opponents. Sure, you'll win some games off T1 Tinker with counter back up. I'd argue you'd lose a lot more games after Tinkering because of how many resources you give up to put a BSC in your hand or getting a basic land into play or gaining 11 life. Shop players are running Maze of Ith's and Phyrexian Metamorph. Might not be the best plan against them either, especially considering the power of Tangle Wire. Sower of Temptation has been cropping up time and again. By committing oneself to Tinker, you are enabling lines of play that will lead you to losing - much more so than ever before with a Tinker -> Robot plan. That is what I mean by it being a trap.

No, that is through testing and tournament play. Against Workshops, you should be boarding out your Tinker plan if you are on it. They are running 10-13 cards that are just waiting for you to get BSC so that they can punish you for it after they board. The odds of them not having one are very small. Most of them will be effectively uncounterable because of Spheres or the fact that they are lands. Again, If you're on the play and run out Tinker -> BSC with 1-2 counters as protection I accept you will win the game. However, that is not as common as you'd think, seeing as Tinker is a 1 of and doesn't always have an artifact friend in your hand and sometimes you have BSC in your hand as well. So many decks are running MD answers like Steel Sabotage, Hurkyl's Recall, Jace, Chain of Vapor, Path to Exile, Phyrexian Metamorph, Duplicant, and others at such high rates that you will end up putting forth a lot of resources to get the robot down only to find that they have an answer with counter back up. This gets even more severe after sideboarding as the numbers go from 1-2 to 4, and new cards like Maze of Ith are coming in as well. BSC is the best Tinker target, but it's power has shifted the metagame so much that Tinker -> Robot is weak now.

[median]

Could you cut the second tendrils for a Mystical Tutor? you can use it to get Yawgmoth's will after a mini tendrils so it would serve the same purpose.

[hvndr3d y34r h3x]

Good morning.

Obviously you don't run 4.

Well, it wasn't obvious that you shared the view until you stated it just now.    

Either way my issues wasnt really with the number, but to point out that it's not nearly as useless as three voltaic keys (btw, Ive totally built top 8 lists with multiple keys and transmutes) considering the context of the respective deck list.

Hmmm...

Reading your response,  we seem to be in agreance about show and tell, I guess I just felt your comparison to key was poor/misleading.

It wasn't poor or misleading.  I said they were analogous, not identical.  It was a fair analogy.  By vouching for the fact that running multiple Keys can be a successful strategy but that running 1 is generally regarded as sufficient, you have helped to prove that point.  So I agree that we do not disagree.

---

The discussion above regarding the "best" version of Oath is interesting.  It would take mountains of data to "prove" anything remotely significant and even then there's no feasible way to account for variations in pilot skill & play-style, opponents' skill and deck, variance, luck, distractions, an error, whether such error was unreasonable or a prospectively good call that was only bad in retrospect, and so forth.  This is true whether in a competitive or exploratory setting.  There are many variations of popular decks that are capable of performing well.  It's not possible to ordain one as "best" in an absolute sense as they all have pros and cons that are both contextual and difficult to quantify.  If I understand correctly, the designer's objective here was to offer something new and of the same caliber as other well-performing decks today, and the objective appears to have been met.  

1. Well I certainly wouldn't jump to the maximum amount with a amiguously numbered subject technically left in the singular.  
2. Hmmm? Hmmm. Quality meets quality
3. Comparing the general use of a wildly useless combo piece to one with 8 valid targets is inaccurate they function with different potentiality.
4. sure, if you want to add more qualifiers to agree and disagree, or switch the aspect, you can change the answers. It's true for just about anything. Just note that I see what you did there, and I am not willing to get into explaining it if you want denigh it happened in an attempt to save face. I'd rather discuss the list than attempt to bring clarity, how this started, to an issue that is, at this point, mostly irrelevant and leading to the two of us childishly bickering with out productivity and ending with emote icons .
I don't plan to respond to anymore responses in our particular back and forth about show and tell and key. But if you want to be a big man and have the last word be my guest.


On to things that matter
Rich, I noticed you cantrip comment that's why I asked instead of cramming in preordains. Thanks for the responce. Is the list clutch enough to replace that claim with a steel sabotage? You don't gain the 4 like in a Gbrand pinch, but you beat chalice at 2 and random BSC. However I can see timing issues really kicking you in the nuts here, but I haven't been deep into the shop matchup yet.