It's actually not that hard to come up with a first-turn trinisphere. Workshops have a compounding effect with the artifact mana and ancient tombs. Combined with aggressive mulliganing, my anecdotal evidence suggests it can happen in a majority of games. Nothing force of will can't fix of course, but there's not much else that can be done about it. Wastelands can be huge, but workshop decks can often recover faster than you. Unless you play workshops too, that is
Then again, maybe first-turn trinisphere is not bad enought to warrant a restriction. There's certainly some merit to either position as far as I'm concerned.

I never said that. I'm merely acknowledging the possibility of discussion and I have explained twice already why workshops can't possibly meet the unrealistic standards you people have put forward in order to prove that. I wish someone would take me up on that, because we're talking around each other here. I don't know, maybe I'm on crack, but my objections still stand until someone actually tries to address them. I'm not holding my breath though...

Truisms like "type 1 is the broken format" are designed to avoid the question. It certainly doesn't mean that anything goes. We want a level playing field and if the combination of workshop and trinisphere (or crucible) proves too strong, the rational thing to do would be to contemplate the restriction of either card. I'm not saying we're quite there yet, but my limited experience has me worried. Let's not have anymore of that "go play type 2" nonsense please.

It has been pointed out that workshop decks have gained a lot from the mirrodin block and that they are unlikely to do so again in the near future. This is why now is a good time to have this debate. If it turns out that trinisphere and crucible are not enough to push workshop over the edge, so be it, but comments like Ric's can be very stifling. I can't believe the fact that mishra's workshop is one of the strongest unrestricted cards is even contentious and a careful examination of its impact is certainly warranted. People who entertain the possibility of a restriction may be wrong, but they're hardly crazy.

I have voiced my concern that the wait-and-see approach, although usually sound, does not work in this case. Limited availability skews the "popularity as a measure of power" argument. I am worried that the deck which is propably the most expensive to build (or requires at least 10 proxies to function properly) is not fair game for discussion until it starts to show up everywhere in large numbers. That simply can't happen unless 10 proxy tournaments become the norm, but that's a whole other can of worms. I think the question is one of deck quality and not quantity.

Now, is anyone going to address my concerns or will I be ignored, ridiculed and then forced to silence? I'm not even arguing for workshop's restriction, just pointing out that some arguments against it are fallacious. I think the question should be wether the field is being unduly influenced by the presence of workshops (however underplayed) and, if so, whether its overall effect is beneficial or detrimental. Let's try and keep the knee-jerk rethoric to a minimum please. Thank you.

Why is it that workshop decks are fine because they're not the most consistent, but then we should be really worried about belcher? That kind of argument is what's really inconsistent...

The gush standard for restriction is seriously flawed. Workshop decks will never make 50% of the field because there's simply not enough workshops to go around and you need 10 proxies to make the deck if you don't own any power. You're in serious denial if you're waiting for that to happen before even considering restriction. I'm prepared to be convinced either way, really I am, but this kind of dismissal is really no argument at all. And could we please stop with the slippery slope nonsense? Just because workshop gets the boot doesn't mean we have to restrict ESG or dark ritual or whatever.
Alright, I'm done. Carry on.

I'm entertaining the idea of putting the mox ruby and emerald in the sideboard, so they don't clash with null rod. Is it worth the sideboard space just to get some acceleration in the mirror or against something like madness? I don't know. I'm terrible with sideboards though, so someone like Jacob should probably chime in about the off-color moxes. There's just not enough room to play them in the main deck as far as I'm concerned, although I think the lotus deserves some consideration (I know this is contentious).

Regarding misdirection, it feels narrower than daze to me, even though I haven't tested all that much. It can be randomly fantastic, but I dislike inconsistency and so I choose the card that is more useful on average even though it is weaker in the ideal scenario (misdirecting ancestral). It's not clear-cut however, so please let us know how your testing turns out.

Isn't the question of wether moxes or wastelands are better in the absence of null rod purely academic? I don't think anyone is suggesting the removal of either wastelands or null rods from fish. Are you? I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to prove here, but I don't see how your experiment is going to tell you wether you should add a single mox to your original list, say, or even a lotus.

As for the question of daze vs. misdirection vs. stifle, I've pretty much settled in favor of daze. I don't even play the lone stifle so I can accommodate a full set of cloud of faeries. I think playing any less than four is a mistake, and so is cutting the fourth dryad. I've found the threat of stifle to be more important than the actual card and, as long as everyone else continues to use it, I won't have to

Also, I'm curious why you removed the mox sapphire which even u/r fish is playing. It just doesn't make sense to me, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise because I could use some extra room to fit the gorilla shaman back in. I've gone as far as to try the lotus recently and it works surprisingly well. First turn dryads are really nice.

I've actually been playing with dryads for a few weeks since someone suggested it on this forum a while ago. I'm far from an expert, but I figured I would chime in with my limited experience. I like dryads because they don't require a tropical island to stay on the board in order to remain effective. Between the boas and lavamancers, I think WTF places to much strain on its mana base. I'm not sure the third color is even worth splashing but, if it is, I feel confident in the choice of dryads over boas. The apparent tension between standstills and dyads is really just a myth for reasons Zelyon articulated so well.

My mana base was identical to Zelyon's except for a basic island replacing the seventh fetch land. I also played with the sapphire and so I have to question its absence as I feel it should be in there as a 24th mana source. I do agree however that the faerie conclaves are unnecessary for stanstill to function properly.

I like where this deck is going, but I have to wonder wether any three-color variant is worth the unstable mana base. I think this deck is better than WTF though, so for me the question is wether it's better than the red/blue version. I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that one.

I like the deck very much, but have a few questions. Is it fair to say that the mirage tutors make the cut because of tinker ? In other words, would you still play the mystical and vampiric tutors if you had to lose the colossus or cut down on the number of utility creatures for some reason ? I'm trying to find some room for experimentation, so I figured I'd ask before removing what could be a major component of the deck. Also, how important is burning wish in the grand scheme of things, do you find yourself tutoring for it often ? I guess what I'm wondering is how instrumental the toolbox component of the deck was to its success in the tournament. It would explain some of the unconventional card choices and singletons.

Out of curiosity, have you tried crop rotation in the deck before ? It's just a thought, but it seems to me like it would fit right in, fetching strip mine under CoW or providing acceleration in the form of tolarian academy or a workshop. I'm afraid I have little to contribute at this point, so I'll just offer my congratulations on your success with a deck of your own creation

Just to make sure, can you choose to mill yourself even if you have cards in hand or does that only kick in when your hand is empty ?
Also, what happens when there are two chains in play ? I'm guessing you have to discard twice if you want to draw, but do you have to mill two cards if your hand is empty ? What if you only have one card in your hand, do you discard then mill ?
Thanks in advance for your help.

I'm glad this thread was reopened, thank you Jacob. I've been playing around with this deck since it was first posted and I have to agree that the mana base isn't as bad as it looks. A typical opening hand will contain a red or a green card, but rarely both although it does happen. You can get by with two colors early on, so the deck isn't much more unstable than the red/blue version. I'm not denying that it is more likely to be color-screwed, but it's a trade-off that is worth considering if it makes for an otherwise better deck.

Regarding the choice of boa or dryad, I'm leaning towards the latter as I don't like how the snake ties up your mana. I would very much like to hear from Master as soon as he decides to settle the matter either way. Perhaps Jacob could shed some light on this since WTF/r is a pretty similar deck. Why did you decide on boas rather than dryads ?

I hope this discussion can remain civil because I think this deck takes fish in an interesting direction.

I think any definition of a "healthy format" is really just confessional speech, meaning that it's more about the author's personal vision for an ideal format than an objective definition. As more of a casual player, I happen to fall into the camp of maximal diversity, but I can see how a more competitive player would want the format to be predictable and the number of playable decks to be small. There is a tension between players who are hoping for continued renewal of the format (aka innovation) and those who seek a total understanding of the format in order to get a competitive advantage. I suspect your definition of a healthy format as a lot to do with which of those groups you identify with.

Regarding mana drain, do you get much use out of the mana part ? Are you playing with skeletal scrying ?
I've been using mana leak for some time now and I think they're worth considering as a raplacement for drains. They can come online turn one if you have a mox, which can make a huge difference against combo decks, and it's also much easier to cast a cantrip or duress and leave 1U open if you have said mox on turn two. I can only suggest you try them out as the deck has fewer outlets for drain mana than its previous incarnations.

Like searching for WTF is going to turn up anything useful...
You might have better luck with 'Worse Than Fish'.

So you're in field full of aggro and want to make tog more comboish ? Why you look like the perfect guinea p... err candidate for the silly oathatog plan I posted about here. Would you pass on this unique opportunity to show the world the power of Defy Gravity ?

Yes, I hear there are chess programs out there that are very hard to beat (I don't play myself). It should be noted that they use heuristics much like you and I, so they are only approximations of an optimal solution. There will always be some distance between the programs we have and a perfect solution. This is what I meant when I said that chess or magic can't be solved, but maybe "close enough" would be a more useful metric, if a little fuzzy.

Looks like we have a winner  
It turns out that you have to riffle shuffle a poker deck seven times for a perfect shuffle. I don't know the details, but lots of maths were involved and this is a definitive answer. Any less than seven and the deck isn't completely random. Any more than that is pointless but not harmful, as there is no such thing as overshuffling. Since a typical magic deck is larger than a poker deck, maybe an 8th shuffle is required, but I have no idea where the threshold is in terms of deck size.

Every other method (pile shuffling, mana weaving, etc.) is really an attempt to decrease randomness in order to avoid the occasional "wild hand". Many players do this to some degree, so maybe they don't realize that mana clumps are to be expected every now and then. You might want to think about this before complaining that shuffling in apprentice is "broken" (a pet peeve of mine, sorry).

I can assure you we don't have the "vast, vast, vast resources and computing power" necessary for this. As combo_dude pointed out, there are more possibilities to consider than there are atoms in the universe. I have a program that can crack RSA encryption too given enough time (say, a billion years), but the existence of these solutions is purely academic. If you add the constraint that your chess program has to fit in this universe, then chess can no longer be solved in such a naive way. Wether there is a better way to go about this is an open problem (settle this and get rich!). As it stands, a final solution to chess or magic is not only unknown, it is unknowable.

I'd like to suggest that even if the metagame wasn't a factor, I don't believe an optimal deck could be found. The fact that such a deck might exist doesn't imply that we can ever identify it. Consider the amount of playtesting required to choose between two decks with a single card difference. Contemplate the number of such decisions involved in making a deck. Repeat for any number of decks. All this testing should be carried out by perfect players to eliminate playing skill as a factor. If this is reality we're talking about, there's no way we can come close to achieving this. You know, given a computer with infinite memory, you could write a program that plays chess perfectly, so you might want to consider why no one is proposing to solve chess anytime soon...

Analyzing tournament results and testing decks to the best of our ability is all well and good, but let's not pretend that we know what the best decks are in any objective sense. Looking back, it's easy to find a time when a dominant deck existed in the card pool but had yet to be found (like necropotence and pre-errata mirror universe). This trend suggests that there are still better decks out there that we aren't aware of.

And it's awful when there's a trinisphere around. Still, none of this is relevant when it is discarded to thirst. Maybe it's just me, but I've seen a lot of ideas get shot down over some trivia without considering the trade-offs involved, kinda like how people were dismissing serum visions because of brainstorm even though no one was suggesting cutting said brainstorms. Yes, urza's bauble is far from perfect, but the question is wether the potential free card when playing thirst is enough to overcome its defects. Compromises like these are hard to quantify (for me anyway), so I can only suggest looking at both sides of the coin before settling the matter either way.

Oh, and I certainly didn't mean this as an attack against Dr. Sylvan, only as a reflection on the level of discourse of these fora in general. Please forgive me if I offended anyone.

Given the consensus around thirst for knowledge, would urza's bauble make sense in this deck ? As long as we're looking at cantrips again, maybe it's worth considering since it works so well with thirst and is otherwise almost transparent. Has anyone tried playing around with this idea ?

I would just like to point out that Ultima is no longer using thirst for knowledge in his latest GAT incarnation (see this thread).
What that says about thirst in hulk, I'm not exaclty sure...

My point was that merchant scroll and then gush actually cost less than the scroll alone. If you only end up paying one mana, the fact that it's a sorcery shouldn't be much of a problem imho.

I agree that there's nothing ground-breaking about serum vision, but I would be willing to settle for that if a better alternative doesn't emerge by then. It's quite possible of course that a better alternative already exists and that I'm just not seeing it, which is why I was asking for your help in the first place.

I can't offer a definitive answer, but I'm pretty confident the first step is to include a second merchant scroll. Consider that if you have no land to play during a given turn, scroll->gush really costs one mana for 2 cards and 2 dryad counters. I've found myself fetching gush over ancestral recall surprinsingly often. Between those two cards, I think the inclusion of a second scroll is warranted, considering the lack of satysfying alternatives when it comes to card drawing in GAT. I've even started playing with regrowth again for similar reasons, but that's a story for another day.

Also, I hate to spread rumors, but if serum vision turns out to be for real (and actually is an instant), I think it could be the missing piece of the puzzle. Ever since the restriction of gush, I haven't been able to come up with a decent replacement. Ultima's suggestion of pulse of the grid is interesting, but is this really the best we can do ? I've been playing around with other options, even stuff like sylvan library and meditate, and I admit I can't come up with anything better. Still, pulse doesn't strike me as an ideal solution, so what am I missing ?

Anyway, kudos to Ultima and others for sharing their work with people like me  

You are quite right that oath isn't any good against hulk or slavery. I guess it's more of a (possibly terrible) idea in search of a purpose at this point. It might be good against aggro, but that would be solving the wrong problem. Thank you for putting things in perspective, I need to do some more thinking about this.

I'm not giving up on the mana leaks just yet however. I have some experience playing this card and I don't think you should be concerned about anyone playing around it early on. Workshops can't be used for this by the way. Your opponent is going to use that lotus or mana vault to cast spells in the first place anyway, and in the unlikely event that he doesn't, then I guess you just countered a lotus or a vault Seriously though, I have found that mana leak only becomes a liability if the game starts to drag on. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that hulk can play around mana leak, but if you mean holding back spells until you have more mana, be my guest ! You know how daze can mess with your mind ? Don't let me slow you down without even using any cards...

Oh, and I think I've come to my senses about demonic consultation. Anyway, thanks a lot for your help and I can't wait to read the GAT primer you've been working on

Oh well, serves me right for thinking I had a clever idea
Sorry about wasting everyone's time...

Call me crazy, but if you want to go further down the combo route while improving the slavery matchup, I think meditate could be worth a shot.
Hmmm, unless mindslaver and meditate don't interact the way I think they do  

Could you please give me the benefit of the doubt ? I'm familiar with current GAT builds and I like to think I have some idea how they operate. Please excuse me if you're only trying to help, but the tone of your posts strikes me as dismissive.

I guess I have have failed to provide compelling reasons for any of my proposed changes, but this is because I'm not sold on any of those ideas yet. Nevertheless, here's my best attempt to breathe new life into this discussion.

Regarding oath of druids, you might want to think of it as the combo route. If you're reasonably certain you will be facing early creatures, there is a very real possibility that the oath will get a lethal atog into play right away. This is hard to quantify of course, but in an ideal scenario you get a flying atog and lots of food. I'm not smart enough to figure out the odds though, so this is where you guys come in to explain why this is a terrible idea.

About the mana leak thing, I guess the objection is that it doesn't give any mana. I have noticed that some GAT builds have grown to accomodate the mana part of mana drain, so that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that mana drain is the prefered counter. The flip side of this argument is that the mana curve of your deck won't be ideal unless you manage to resolve a mana drain. This is a trade-off and I think a deck built around mana leak could prove a little more consistent, but I'm still working on that too  

I'm adamant about demonic consultation though. I mean, it's either a dryad, an atog, a counter, a duress, a wish or a land, for one mana, at instant speed. And if you're losing anyway, you can even fetch a one-of most of the time. I've met a few people who loathed (playing with) this card, so maybe it's more of a personal preference. I would argue that it's perfect if you want to play GAT aggressively.

edit : I just realized how much demonic consultation would suck against mindslaver. Mea culpa.

But the oath in my hand is a dryad. The oaths are in the sideboard to be brought in during matches in which they are superior. It may very well be that the oaths are never better than the dryads, but that's a quite a different proposition from what you're saying here.


I was suggesting mana leak as a replacement for mana drain and definitely not duress, of which I play four. I think this can only make for a more aggressive deck, so I'm afraid I don't understand where you're going with this.

As a side note, if GAT should play aggressively, how do you feel about demonic consultation ? It wasn't on any list I've seen and I have a feeling it ought to be. I'd like to hear an argument against it if anyone were so inclined (and yes, I do side it out when going for oath).