Oh man... I should back out of this but, I seem to be a glutton for punishment.

[QUOTE=paladin3056;680228]It seems that it would be hard to dissuade you but it would be so much better to playtest with it, that's how I got into to liking the shaman. [/quote]

Um... I have tested it.

[QUOTE=damionblackgear;679963]I've been [B][U]VERY[/U][/B] happy with testing and would recommend it to anyone who's using a bird as a Zenith target (singleton). [/QUOTE]

That's from the same page. I have tested shaman as a 1 of (Birds replacement). That's why I feel I can have some input on the subject. I try not to comment heavily on cards I have no idea of how they interact with the deck. The weird thing is how I normally test things, at tournament, which I have not had access to due to parenting responsibilities (weird, I don't have a kid but I'm playing daddy... I guess that's life).

[quote]If that doesn't convince you then nothing would but that's ok :cool:[/quote]
I skipped adding the rest of the stuff because there's a limit to the number of characters and I'm long winded so I'll just sum this up. The rest of your arguements are mine from my post. We agree, shaman is good. I merely mention some downsides (consistency) as well.

You did mention that 6-8 fetches would be enough though and I have to say, "I disagree." (Claymore, you're up :wink:)

[QUOTE=Claymore;680330] I was testing with 7 and still had a few games where neither myself nor the opponent (RUG Delver) had burned a fetch turn 2.[/quote]

If you want this card to be as consistent as possible, you should be adjusting to a maximum number of fetches without disrupting your manabase too much. There is no real argument against that. If you want a better shot at this being a mana source on turn 2, increase the number of lands you can put into the graveyard by turn 2 (fetches, wastes, etc). The issue with that is that you do "bite" into the Knights already laid claim (land base of the deck and the utility lands in it) when you start doing that. @Hanni I'm adding you to this about this point.

[QUOTE=Hanni;680400]...it's not that hard to fit in a few more fetches instead of extra duels/basics to accommodate them.[/QUOTE]

Change a Duel into a fetch --> Knight has 1 less fetch available to her.
Change a utility land --> Knight has 1 less "trick" to abuse.

When you start making those tweaks, you change other things as well. It's not as easy as just changing some things in for others. Every card in a list is chosen for a reason. We just have a case where, Card A may be able to be flat out replaced with Card B.

The some things are missing some very important understandings when comparing cards:
1) When making comparisons, you have to use things that would be in the comparable realm.
2) Comparing outside abilities (the abilities not directly comparable) is fine as long as you compare their outside abilities with respect to the current state of a general meta.
3) You can compare cards against the cards they'll be replacing for the overall functionality of the deck (this allows you to skip 1 and 2).

1 - The point of comparing Bird, Noble, and every other mana-dork to Shaman is because that's what you're replacing, a Mana Dork. You're replacing a card that is directly responsible for one thing, and one thing only. If you're playing a Hierarch, the comparison is that your Hierarch is allowing you to swing for 1 more damage. With Bird, it's that you're able to produce all colors (and fly... I guess). With shaman you have extra abilities (eat graveyard and change life totals) as well as an extra +1/+1. You are however losing the 100% consistency of being able to produce that extra mana. Each has risks and rewards.

2 - You can't give locked advice (100% correct) for a local meta unless you're part of that meta. Player A may have 15 burn decks in his meta of 20. For Player A [cards] worship[/cards] + [cards]Troll Acetic[/cards] may be one the best combo's ever printed. They may swear by that day and night while the rest of us are confused as to why they're playing that. My best example is (Mirrislegend, I need your list for a moment, might as well get in this as well) -

[QUOTE=Mirrislegend;679864]SB:
3 Timely Reinforcements
3 Engineered Explosives
3 Thalia
1 Teeg
4 Surgical Extraction
1 Choke[/quote]

Look at the sideboard. 3 Timely, 4 Extraction? I'd assume Mirrislegend's meta is Goblins, Burn, Dredge, traditional storm combo, and/or Reanimator... with a random blue deck. I wouldn't think he ever see's much Canadian Thresh or Maverick from his board. In his meta, this may be exactly what he needs to power past the field, but for my meta, it's too focused on specific answers to certain archetypes for me to use. So comparing Mirri's sideboard to my current sideboard -

[cards]
1 Duress
3 Surgical Extraction
1 Ulvenwald Tracker
3 Thalia, Gaudian of Threban
1 Abrupt Decay
2 Golgari Charm
3 Choke
1 Timely Reinforcements[/cards]

- isn't practical or really possible when you look at our local metagames. They are very different. So, you have to generalize the metagame. The SCG circuit is probably the best example of an overall metagame right now as they are really the only thing that's showing EVERYONE legacy on a regular basis and people like to imitate.

So, when you look at it that way, you can't compare Vial to Shaman (I know it wasn't done. I'm just keeping to the cards people have brought up so far. Don't everyone get their panties in a bunch). Those are two very different cards that do very different things. You can, however, compare Shaman to the current mana-dorks (Birds and Hierarch) as that's not only what he'll be replacing but they're also directly relate-able in terms of ability (mana-dorks).

Now we start getting into numbers for replacements. To do that, you have to look at what you're replacing, how many you currently have, and what you're wanting from both cards. In my case, I have 1 Birds to replace. Now, to be fair, you're requesting I test more than one shaman, not taking this into consideration.

[QUOTE=paladin3056;680228]But trust me test her as maybe a 3-4 of, then tell me if she doesn't work for you.[/QUOTE]

I'd say I'd test this but it really requires me to drastically change [URL="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ajlcb05L1-_idFNmS0l1bW5QSl83NnpyMXdPaVp6NXc"]my list[/URL]. There's [URL="http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?19432-Deck-The-Rock&p=680179&viewfull=1#post680179"]a reason[/URL] I don't run 4 Birds (Hanni, you noted that as well, there's the clearification). Even though I've already explained why I don't play more birds, I'll sum it up, "They're fixing, not ramp, and worst topdecks the later the game gets"

Now, that doesn't mean that everyone should be running only one. Some people have adapted the Maverick approach of [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiMHTK15Pik"]9,001[/URL] creatures and 8-11 spells and [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1iV24hL8Rk"]those people[/URL] may be able to successfully play 1-4 Hierarch/Birds now. They may even be able to include some number of Shaman as a replacement but, I would not advise 4 for as i believe you'll be decreasing consistency.

I'd go over again how 4-ofs are cards that you want to see asap and how I don't feel shaman is in that boat yet but, I feel like I did a semi-OK job of that [URL="http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?19432-Deck-The-Rock&p=680179&viewfull=1#post680179"]last time[/URL] and am not willing to do it again. 1-2 I'm fine with. 3 is pushing it but, I'll bite if you're able to [B][URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O7iUiftbKU"]prove it[/URL][/B]. I pretty much am in this boat until then.
[QUOTE=Mirrislegend;680380]I doubt I'll ever play more than 2 in Legacy[/QUOTE]