Don't worry, there will be more questions in columns to come. The problem this time was that since the column hadn't gone public yet, we had to come up with the questions ourselves, and there's only so far that can go. In the future the readers will be supplying the questions, and there will hopefully be enough to fill up plenty of columns.
Given the choice between the two, I think Plow works better, though I do run Slaver in my board. You can plow on turn 4 with only one piece of acceleration in the first three turns. Slaver at best you can play turn 4 and activate turn 5, and you have to have more acceleration. Slaver is often more of a beating when it resolves, but on more than one occasion I've done nothing but write down my opponent's hand and tap them down. At the moment Plow seems more versatile.
Despite my previous posts, I'm starting to agree with Cyan on Top... nobody's changing their position based on the posts in this thread. I've been a fairly vocal supporter of the Top, but I am trying my deck without it for a couple of weeks to see how it works out for me. (I discovered I traded away the fourth O-stone, so I made the move to Plows for Tops instead.) Let's concentrate on the other parts of the deck and let Top be a personal decision, but I heartily recommend you test your deck fairly extensively both ways before actually coming to that decision.
The bottom line in my book when I'm the head judge of a tournament is this: Does the modification to the card obscure the artwork to the point of making it unrecognizable, or obscure critical rules text (mana cost, text box, power/toughness, etc) so as to make the card unplayable to someone who does not know what it does? If the answer is yes to either of those, then the card is illegal for the tournament. For example, blacking out an entire picture but leaving one element un-blacked (like the elephant on Echoing Calm) is generally illegal.
This isn't to say that you can't modify your cards. One guy at our shop colored in all his Wrath of Gods with different colored markers. The shapes in the pictures are still the same, they're just vibrantly orange and green and such. That's fine, because in my opinion the picture is still recognizable. Another guy took all his cards and had all his friends sign them (I think I signed his Vedalken Shackles, he had another person sign his Hinders, and so forth.) Also fine. The rule isn't trying to revoke your freedom to do with your cards what you will, it's just trying to avoid confusion at tournaments.
Ok, I think we're debating different things here. Everyone's statements here are in fact correct.
What Cyan is saying is that for the top item on the stack to resolve, both players must pass priority in succession and that using a mana ability in between the two passes will break the succession so both players must pass again. He's not saying that mana abilities themselves can be responded to (because they can't), he's saying that the other player will get a second chance to respond to the spell on the stack already.
For example, this would allow the spell already on the stack to resolve: Player A, "Pass." Player B, "Pass."
What Cyan's referring to is this: Player A, "Pass." Player B, "Tap this land for mana, pass." Player A now gets a chance to resolve to the spell already on the stack because B broke the succession, he's not responding to the mana ability itself. You're both correct that mana abilities can't be responded to, but that's not what Cyan was talking about.
I did try running with 12 tron and 12 green sources for awhile and found I was manaflooded way too much. 12 tron and 11 green found me short on green sources, but 11 tron and 12 green has been working extremely well for me. Frankly I haven't heard a convincing argument yet as to why NOT to run 11 tron. Does it lessen your chances of topdecking that particular piece? Yes, but that's why the deck runs four copies each of Sylvan Scrying and Reap and Sow, and the 3-of is always the first piece I search for.
That's a good point. If you don't have Reap and Sow or Sylvan Scrying to find the Boseiju there's really no point in it being there. You should either run three (which would clog up your mana base) or none.
Wrong. Piracy is not Opposition, Piracy actually allows you to use mana abilities of lands you don't control. In that case you are using mana abilities and your opponent cannot respond. If we're talking about Oppo, then you're right, but Piracy is different.
Cutting the 12th Tron piece isn't to get another deck slot, it's to add another green mana and help with consistency. There's enough search effects in the deck that I never have any trouble searching up that piece. (It's always the first piece I search for anyway, unless I have it in hand.) I'd be running 23 lands regardless of whether it was 12 tron/11 green or 11 tron/12 green.
I'm going to go more in-depth with your deck and basically rebuild it the way I'd play it, given the restrictions you gave. I won't get into the advantages and disadvantages of Top, you left it out so I won't bother with it.
First off, landbase: 23 is generally accepted as the number of lands Tooth needs to run, so you could probably stand to straight-up lose a land. Double MD Boseiju is way over the top. It's a dead card in every matchup except blue, plus (as you've noticed) it clogs up your mana base. If you're running in a heavy blue environment I'd consider two in the board or if it's extremely heavy possibly one main one board, but in general one in the board is enough. I'd also recommend switching out either a Mine or a Power Plant for a green source. 11-tron has been working out well for a lot of people, since you can simply search up the piece you're short on, and it gives you an extra green source. I'd recommend for your manabase:
11x Urzatron
11x Forest
1x Okina, Temple to the Grandfathers
Now, for the rest of the deck... You already want to drop the Oxidizes and Shamans, so that frees up six slots, plus the spare land slot is seven. Creeping Mold is a questionable choice for me, especially as a two-of. It's extremely versatile but also extremely expensive and serves no purpose other than removal. (Reap and Sow also costs four but also searches. Naturalize and Oxidize can't do anything but destroy, but they're far cheaper.) I would drop that out. IMO there's better mirror tech and Naturalize does the same thing against enchantment-heavy decks. That opens up nine slots.
I can also understand the argument about versatility for including all possible Tooth targets (can you hear the but coming?), but the deck can't really afford to devote space to every possible Tooth target. Plus, you run four tooth targets that are unplayable without drawing a Tooth. Hoverguard Sweeper is interesting, and I'm interested to hear what other people thing of that card in Tooth, but since you say it's staying, I won't argue. T/V and A/A overlap each other in many situations. Generally one is better than the other in a given situation but in most cases either team will work just fine. I'd cut one team or the other out of the main and put it into the board, which also serves the purpose of dropping your uncastable cards down to three. It's really a metagame decision, and the A-team is the more versatile of the two, so I'll leave them in the main for the purposes of this.
So, that frees up a total of 11 slots (1 land, 3 Oxidize, 3 Shaman, 2 Creeping Mold, 2 tooth targets). You absolutely need more land search/acceleration effects, as it stands now you only run 9 and the vast majority of Tooth builds run at least 14 in some form or another. I would put in the fourth Elder, Sylvan Scrying, and Reap and Sow as well as three or four copies of either Vine Trellis or Solemn Simulacrum. Figuring three copies, that leaves 5 slots left. I would bump the Plow Unders to three, possibly a Duplicant as a Tooth target, and then either three copies of Naturalize or Oblivion Stone, whichever you feel works better for you (and I'd probably put the other in the board).
As for the sideboard, I'm guessing Rootrunner is in to combat Sowing Salt. It's not all that good, since it costs six mana (four of it green) to use, which is far to slow to combat anything mono-red would do, even if you do curve out perfectly. Plus you can only do it once. Joyous Respite might work situationally, but it kinda goes against what Tooth does. Tooth's goal is to win, not stall (even the card that says "you can't lose" swings for 4). Molder Slug probably should go now that all the artifacts are gone. A single Uproot on top of four Plows seems too much, especially since Uproot is pretty expensive for its effect. (Why let them have it back when you can Reap it off for the same cost?) Any Oxidizes you have anywhere should become Naturalizes.
What you put into the sideboard is up to you, that's completely a metagame thing. Some things to consider: Troll Ascetic against mono-blue, extra green and colorless win conditions against black with cranial extraction, possibly run Cranial Extraction of your own against the mirror or anything else that you think it's useful for.
Wow, way long, but I was bored here at work, so I hope this helps you out.
Ok, I'll stop talking about Top now. Rereading what I've been writing, I've been making assumptions without adequately testing the deck minus top. The next change I'm going to make is adding the fourth o-stone, once I see whether that works I'll swap the Tops out, probably for Plows.
Anyway, what I'd do with that framework: I'd run 11-tron and add another green source. For the 8 spare slots I'll be running Duplicant, four o-stones, and either three plow under or three top. Four o-stone may be too many, but I'll see how it works out.
I leave four Reaps in the main especially since I'm running 11-tron and may need to search up the 3-of piece. Plus maindeck LD never sucks. I also wouldn't cut out a Jens or Trellis to free up a slot. The deck's goal is to accelerate into Tooth, and every searcher you pull makes the deck just that little bit slower and that much less focused. More answers are good, but the goal is still to win the game, not just not lose. I'm definitely keeping the four Witnesses, they're just too good in too many situations not to.
I understand the argument to take T/V/A/A out of the main, but I don't think that's a good idea either. Every once in awhile your opponent is actually going to deal with what you Tooth up. If the only things you run to actually win the game are Kiki/Titan and Kiki/Colossus, you're rather screwed if your opponent plays Final Judgment, and you need backup answers. Even if they aren't your go-to guys in every matchup, I keep them there so I can still win game one if my primary tooth targets have been nullified.
Essentially what Scythe does is this: Whenever a creature goes to the graveyard, it asks "Did the creature I'm currently on (equipped creature) deal damage to that thing this turn? If yes, bring it back and I'll equip it." It doesn't look back in time and see if any creature the Scythe equipped this turn damaged it, just the current one. The ability isn't an ability of the damage that was dealt, it's an ability of the Scythe.
I'll agree that "people at BB use it" isn't necessarily a good point, but something to keep in mind is that you aren't required to use the second ability of the top to draw the card. The majority of the time I use it for deck stacking. The only times I use it to actually draw the card is if a) the top is going to be destroyed, b) I see a Tooth and can play it this turn, c) I'm hideously manascrewed and need to draw and play land now, or d) I'm on the defensive and see an answer. Even when you do draw a card you aren't skipping a draw step, you're just moving it up a bit on the schedule and then drawing the top again (in most cases) which you then have to play again for one extra mana. Nothing changed, all you did was effectively bounce your top back to your hand and replay it for a total of one mana. If you can toss a shuffle effect in between drawing the card and your actual draw step (and it's not like Tooth suffers from a lack of shuffle effects), you've effectively turned your Top into a Raven Familiar. It's indestructible, repetitive deckstacking, it's versatile, and while I probably will test a couple weeks without the Top, I'm guessing it'll stay in my deck.
For those of you against the Top, have you tried it? Or are you just against it on principle? If you haven't tried it, I'd suggest putting it in and testing it out. You may be surprised.
Edit: MaRo: The people on this thread that like the Top (like me, for example) aren't exactly disappointed with the results.
The goal of the deck is to cast Tooth to win, yes. However, you have to survive to get to that point, and I've found that for me, the best way to do that and still accelerate into Tooth is the robot. It doesn't accelerate you by mana so much as by card advantage, and through months of play experience with the deck, unless you happen to be playing against a mono-blue deck, he always searches the land and either draws the card or sits there and dares the opponent to swing into him (which is even better). It's not wishful thinking to believe Jens is three-for-one advantage, it's play experience. I could never get turn 4 Tooth with my deck anyway, Trellis or no Trellis, and with the robot I find myself going off far more consistently on turn 5 or 6 than I ever did with the Trellis. (Plus I still get the turn 4 every once in awhile even without the added acceleration.) I usually find myself sitting back in more of a controlling role, blocking with my utility creatures or dropping the O-Stone, until I can Tooth for the win.
Please don't misunderstand me: I'm not basing any of this on guesses. I've tested the deck with Trellises and it just didn't work out for me. I'm playing with Simulacrums because they do and because I've been consistently putting up money finishes at the local store for the past month with this build. I even tried it without Tops for a couple of weeks, but that was back when I first picked up the deck so that doesn't really count. At some point I'll probably try pulling out the Tops again and putting in... well... something, simply because a lot of people seem to think it's unnecessary. I don't believe in making unfounded arguments that aren't based in playtest results.
This isn't to say that you can't modify your cards. One guy at our shop colored in all his Wrath of Gods with different colored markers. The shapes in the pictures are still the same, they're just vibrantly orange and green and such. That's fine, because in my opinion the picture is still recognizable. Another guy took all his cards and had all his friends sign them (I think I signed his Vedalken Shackles, he had another person sign his Hinders, and so forth.) Also fine. The rule isn't trying to revoke your freedom to do with your cards what you will, it's just trying to avoid confusion at tournaments.
What Cyan is saying is that for the top item on the stack to resolve, both players must pass priority in succession and that using a mana ability in between the two passes will break the succession so both players must pass again. He's not saying that mana abilities themselves can be responded to (because they can't), he's saying that the other player will get a second chance to respond to the spell on the stack already.
For example, this would allow the spell already on the stack to resolve: Player A, "Pass." Player B, "Pass."
What Cyan's referring to is this: Player A, "Pass." Player B, "Tap this land for mana, pass." Player A now gets a chance to resolve to the spell already on the stack because B broke the succession, he's not responding to the mana ability itself. You're both correct that mana abilities can't be responded to, but that's not what Cyan was talking about.
First off, landbase: 23 is generally accepted as the number of lands Tooth needs to run, so you could probably stand to straight-up lose a land. Double MD Boseiju is way over the top. It's a dead card in every matchup except blue, plus (as you've noticed) it clogs up your mana base. If you're running in a heavy blue environment I'd consider two in the board or if it's extremely heavy possibly one main one board, but in general one in the board is enough. I'd also recommend switching out either a Mine or a Power Plant for a green source. 11-tron has been working out well for a lot of people, since you can simply search up the piece you're short on, and it gives you an extra green source. I'd recommend for your manabase:
11x Urzatron
11x Forest
1x Okina, Temple to the Grandfathers
Now, for the rest of the deck... You already want to drop the Oxidizes and Shamans, so that frees up six slots, plus the spare land slot is seven. Creeping Mold is a questionable choice for me, especially as a two-of. It's extremely versatile but also extremely expensive and serves no purpose other than removal. (Reap and Sow also costs four but also searches. Naturalize and Oxidize can't do anything but destroy, but they're far cheaper.) I would drop that out. IMO there's better mirror tech and Naturalize does the same thing against enchantment-heavy decks. That opens up nine slots.
I can also understand the argument about versatility for including all possible Tooth targets (can you hear the but coming?), but the deck can't really afford to devote space to every possible Tooth target. Plus, you run four tooth targets that are unplayable without drawing a Tooth. Hoverguard Sweeper is interesting, and I'm interested to hear what other people thing of that card in Tooth, but since you say it's staying, I won't argue. T/V and A/A overlap each other in many situations. Generally one is better than the other in a given situation but in most cases either team will work just fine. I'd cut one team or the other out of the main and put it into the board, which also serves the purpose of dropping your uncastable cards down to three. It's really a metagame decision, and the A-team is the more versatile of the two, so I'll leave them in the main for the purposes of this.
So, that frees up a total of 11 slots (1 land, 3 Oxidize, 3 Shaman, 2 Creeping Mold, 2 tooth targets). You absolutely need more land search/acceleration effects, as it stands now you only run 9 and the vast majority of Tooth builds run at least 14 in some form or another. I would put in the fourth Elder, Sylvan Scrying, and Reap and Sow as well as three or four copies of either Vine Trellis or Solemn Simulacrum. Figuring three copies, that leaves 5 slots left. I would bump the Plow Unders to three, possibly a Duplicant as a Tooth target, and then either three copies of Naturalize or Oblivion Stone, whichever you feel works better for you (and I'd probably put the other in the board).
So here's what I have for your maindeck:
11x Urzatron
11x Forest
1x Okina, Temple to the Grandfathers
Utility
4x Sylvan Scrying
4x Reap and Sow
4x Sakura-Tribe Elder
3x Solemn Simulacrum/Vine Trellis
3x Plow Under
4x Eternal Witness
3x Naturalize/Oblivion Stone
4x Tooth and Nail
1x Hoverguard Sweepers
1x Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker
1x Leonin Abunas
1x Platinum Angel
2x Sundering Titan
1x Darksteel Colossus
1x Duplicant
As for the sideboard, I'm guessing Rootrunner is in to combat Sowing Salt. It's not all that good, since it costs six mana (four of it green) to use, which is far to slow to combat anything mono-red would do, even if you do curve out perfectly. Plus you can only do it once. Joyous Respite might work situationally, but it kinda goes against what Tooth does. Tooth's goal is to win, not stall (even the card that says "you can't lose" swings for 4). Molder Slug probably should go now that all the artifacts are gone. A single Uproot on top of four Plows seems too much, especially since Uproot is pretty expensive for its effect. (Why let them have it back when you can Reap it off for the same cost?) Any Oxidizes you have anywhere should become Naturalizes.
What you put into the sideboard is up to you, that's completely a metagame thing. Some things to consider: Troll Ascetic against mono-blue, extra green and colorless win conditions against black with cranial extraction, possibly run Cranial Extraction of your own against the mirror or anything else that you think it's useful for.
Wow, way long, but I was bored here at work, so I hope this helps you out.
Anyway, what I'd do with that framework: I'd run 11-tron and add another green source. For the 8 spare slots I'll be running Duplicant, four o-stones, and either three plow under or three top. Four o-stone may be too many, but I'll see how it works out.
I leave four Reaps in the main especially since I'm running 11-tron and may need to search up the 3-of piece. Plus maindeck LD never sucks. I also wouldn't cut out a Jens or Trellis to free up a slot. The deck's goal is to accelerate into Tooth, and every searcher you pull makes the deck just that little bit slower and that much less focused. More answers are good, but the goal is still to win the game, not just not lose. I'm definitely keeping the four Witnesses, they're just too good in too many situations not to.
I understand the argument to take T/V/A/A out of the main, but I don't think that's a good idea either. Every once in awhile your opponent is actually going to deal with what you Tooth up. If the only things you run to actually win the game are Kiki/Titan and Kiki/Colossus, you're rather screwed if your opponent plays Final Judgment, and you need backup answers. Even if they aren't your go-to guys in every matchup, I keep them there so I can still win game one if my primary tooth targets have been nullified.
For those of you against the Top, have you tried it? Or are you just against it on principle? If you haven't tried it, I'd suggest putting it in and testing it out. You may be surprised.
Edit: MaRo: The people on this thread that like the Top (like me, for example) aren't exactly disappointed with the results.
Please don't misunderstand me: I'm not basing any of this on guesses. I've tested the deck with Trellises and it just didn't work out for me. I'm playing with Simulacrums because they do and because I've been consistently putting up money finishes at the local store for the past month with this build. I even tried it without Tops for a couple of weeks, but that was back when I first picked up the deck so that doesn't really count. At some point I'll probably try pulling out the Tops again and putting in... well... something, simply because a lot of people seem to think it's unnecessary. I don't believe in making unfounded arguments that aren't based in playtest results.