Have you tried testing viashino heretic in place of the maindeck R&Rs and random curiosity??  As a 3 of, it shouldn't be too bad.  It won't die to a turn 1 darkblast, allowing you to go turn 2 ninja.  It has the same functional purpose as R&R, but seems to be great against DSC, stax (a weaker matchup possibly?), stupid platinum angels that buzz around, and random artifact decks/cards you may come across (see ubastax, ubacap, metalworker, etc.)  Just a thought.

How is your aggro matchup??  Planar void seems good for graveyard things (ichorid, madness, etc) but is it better than crypt when you're not running null rods?

Lastly, has lavamancer been tested thoroughly??  He is bomb in the aggro/fish matchups, which I'm not sure how well you do in anyhow...??  Your creature base is decent, the bouncer has always been what lets fish play with the fatness of type one, but as mentioned before, a swamp is probably your worst enemy as it allows tons of blasting all day long.

Well, there sort of is.  You can stop the CS player by playing 1 of 4 chalices, or 1 of 4 pithing needles.  Also, it's kinda shortchanging therapies and strip mine, crop rotation, and chain of vapor to imply that they won't dramatically impact the CS players game plan of finding these answers in one turn.  If they are building resources, all the better, that gives you more time to effectively utilize therapy.  I hear what you're saying, that you can't respond by countering a crypt, but it really isn't necessary after game 1 I dont think.

If I were to play the polskalad version, I'd definatly have to cut some of the randomness, but that's not to say other variants wouldn't work.  I could see the polska doing well if it ran something like hermit druid, and say a legacy weapon/DSC so that you activate once, dump your library to the yard, and swing.  This may require you to play less optimal graveyard creatures, however, such as the nether spirit dude so that you can inflict an easy 20 damage in one swing.

Another card that polska seems to be missing, which is glaringly obvious, is wonder.  Why bother with islands if you dont play wonder??

A little while ago when this deck was getting all the hype, I tested it fairly steadily and was going to take it to a local tourney, however I could get all the stupid trolls in time and I hadn't been playing it for months on end, so I decided it was a safer bet to play oath.  My bad.

When I did play it, I found careful study was okay, but breakthrough did a world of difference for me.  A single breakthrough would always net around 15-24 cards for me into my graveyard, and it got around chalice at 1 if need be.  I found that I didn't care about keeping the 2 cards a study would give me, and I'd rather have them in the yard anyways.  So IMHO, breakthrough > study.

Also, in regards to the tutors, often times they were quite useless unless fetching a bazaar.  I know that this is there primary purpose, so that said, I guess they need to be in the deck because they are bazaar number 5 and 6.  They had terrible synergy with the dredge affects, but were worth it simply because bazaar is too broken, and can't be countered when you throw it on the top, then drop it.

Time walk was game ending in most cases.  Aggro decks like to be able to attack twice.

I'd do something like:

-1 thug
-1 study
+1 time walk
+1 breakthrough

In regards to the sb, it looks sick.  I used to play root maze in a RG deck years ago, and it was often a bomb.  Slowing down your opponent only makes this deck seem suprisingly faster, as the deck isn't really affected whatsoever by the maze.

Good point man.  Some obvious things to add:

E) Karn works nicer with obselete caps that could sit idle, 2/2 vs a 4/4 is a big difference in clock speed.
F) Karn can get RID of chalice at 1, allowing you to bring the goblin in.


So definatly, IMHO, Karn > shaman for the purpose of this deck.  I do believe that smokestack is an integral part of any 'stax' deck, as it should be evident in the name.  It clears permanents, enough said.  Welder makes this retarded obviously.  Too good not to include.

As for the rod/cap debate, I used to play cap often in slaver.  Many times, it was easier to just rip out their win conditions, and leave them stranded, than it was to try to establish a nice CA/welder lock. However, there is such a multitude of decks that rod affects, and its very hard to deny the asbolute power of the rod that does nothing.  IMHO, you play rod, or you dont play rod (meaning if you CAN play it, utilize it efficiently, if you cannot, stay away from it and have a solution to it).

So, depending on your playstyle, and of course the meta you expect (if it is even logical anymore to base a decision on, as your guesstimate could result in a poorly designed deck with dead draw, as opposed to universal disruption ie. null rod and needle) cap may be the right card for you, or it may not be. 

As Peter said, in short, cap is quite circumstancial.  Null rod is not.  Cap can win games, so can null rod.  I think the question this deck has to look at is: does this deck benefit from disabling manabases, which prevents further spell casting, or does it benefit moreso from an aggro/suicide type strategy of ripping things apart, and delivering fast damage.  Play the deck as you will, they are two very different and separate decks.

[skip italicized font to read relevant info pertaining to confidant combo control; beginning info describes ideas expressed and reasoning behind deck building]

I've been following this deck since it was first posted on TMD, as I had previously been working on it the day I heard dark confidant was coming out.  I made 2 variations of the deck, one leaning towards aggro/control (fish) and one towards combo/control (this deck).  I chose to work on fish first, as I saw it to be very unpredicatble (I know that many people play fish, but not the same style whatsoever) and I saw the format spinning like a little top around tinker and yawgwill.  Hence, I decided to respond and create a sick prison-style control fish deck, which would annihilate the likes of tinker and will.  To do this, I used cards that cost 2 mana, and had ridiculous synergy with eachother, while all working together for one main goal; lock the opponent, and win.

This was accomplished quite easily, and conveniently, with the synergies of cards like waterfront bouncer, gilded drake, mesmeric fiend, withered wretch, rootwater thief, standstill, and most importantly, chalice of the void.  The idea being I will drake your creature win condition, and kill you with your own shit.  If you didn't use a creature to win, you likely used will.  If this is the case, the backup provided by wretch, theif, and challice was more than enough to make most decks topple over hopelessly.  This theory and deck worked wonderfully.  I took it to SCG rochester, and managed to scrub out at 16th, winning a couple legends boosters.  The vital mistake I made when building this deck was creating the sideboard for the tournament; I made the crucial error of using energy flux in place of null rod.  In the one game that it mattered (I was playing against metalworker+staff+MWS+stax type deck), I went first turn land, lotus, flux.  I figured I was set.  As my opponent laid a MWS and cast metal worker, I utterly realized how terrible flux actually is (atleast in this matchup).  Had the card been null rod, I would have been in top 8 contention, and likely done fabulously, as my deck was geared to beat CS, gifts, stax, and most of the prevalent archetypes.  Remember; the idea being disable yawgmoth's will and tinker.

After fishing around for a few months, I decided to play something with expensive cards, simply because $2 cards were making it take a long time to win, whereas with drains, power, and tons of options made it so much simpler to just roll people over.  Also, I was tired of playing the same deck for 3-4 months.  Without further adieu, I want to talk about confideath (as I call it) or TT confidant as some call it.

The idea of the deck being more combo-esq seems appropriate, not to say control isn't, but the deck likes to simply win with the card advantage gained from a confidant, and it's easier to 'just win' then to prolong the game and win with the wizardman himself, or a really late tendrils.  That said, up for discussion is the inclusion of dark ritual.

Ritual only makes all the sense in the world to me to run.  As many people have mentioned, it's essentially a lotus in your deck, which is fetchable by different cards.  More cards than a lotus; which is key.  I was previously testing with LED, as it served as my extra mana when willing or twisting (read on).  I cut this for ritual, as ritual can be used ANY time, LED had to sit on the board and wait for a will or twist, or sometimes I'd do neat tricks, but the majority of the time, LED sat there, doing very little (similar to mana vault).  Ritual has allowed me to win otherwise unwinnable games.  It has allowed me to get retarded broken starts, as well as powering out 2 confidants first turn on separate occasions.  Currently, I'm running ritual in my build.  This helps greatly with higher mana costing cards like minds desire, fow, memory jar, and is great with storm generation/will recursion.

It's debateable whether or not the generation of storm through artifacts and cards like hurkyl's and rebuild are better or work in conjunction with ritual, but I've seen very little drawbacks from my testing when running both.  Clearly anything that's an artifact (vault/LED)
works wonders with storm building, but again, I'd be inclined to say that LED/vault are more of a dead card than a ritual, and ritual is much more easily accessible.

As for twister, has anyone else tested it?  I've tested it and had decent results.  It gets my will back if need be, and often works just like a jar and allows me to combo off.

The other consideration, and card I've tested with positive results, is darkblast.  I know it doesn't theoretically make sense to include this card in a combo deck, however, since the format is based on will and tinker, welder is always going to be around, as will confidant, many fish archtypes running 1/2 toughness critters, gorilla shaman, and the likes of various other small idiots.  Hence, running a single darkblast allows you to deal with these problems as they arise.  Blast also has some cool synergy, and use with oath tokens, shutting of your own confidant (in case of near fatality), and dredging to set up a huge will.

Thoughts and suggestions are encouraged and welcome.

One of the very first decks I built with a tendrils win was running intuition/AK engine, with 4 scrolls.  It was a great deck, and essentially is the same thing as running a gifts deck.  Recoup/will/lotus was usually my winning intuition search, and if that plan was somewhat negated, it was recoup/tinker/time walk.  So in this respect, I can't really say that it's fair to give credit to anyone for inventing the idea (sorry Steve), but moreover that people are beginning to realize the power of merchant scroll.

At the time, when I was testing a similar deck to this, I tried it with psychatog, and then tendrils.  I also experimented with gifts and tog.  I found at the time, the optimal card choice was gifts, simply because no one knew how broken it was.  Granted, it didn't work with tog, so I kept the tendrils kill mainboard, and played it as gifts for awhile, then soonafter switched back to intuition.  Intuition has always cost 1 less, and has been much easier to pull off than an early gifts.  At the same time, I wanted to run gifts, so I swapped out a card and ran gifts as a one-of, simply because if I needed the gifts win, I could fetch it out with  a scroll/tutor.  More often than not, I'd rather be holding the intuition though.

back on topic...

the card in discussion likely won't get played in t1.  It could possibly see play as a sb card for decks like doomsday, where running 4 mainboard unmask is key.  This way, atleast the card ditches to unmask...

still, quite crappy.. cool idea, but too high of a CC to ever be played.  you can win for 3 mana, and disrupt graveyards for 0 mana.  why pay 4 to disrupt a grave?  if you are lucky enough to draw into it, who cares.  you can just as easily draw into a tormods crypt, and force the FoW.

Granted, information has a value.  However, the internet has negated this to an extremity unheard of; the free sharing of literally any form of data has become popular.


I never claimed anything of the sort, nor is it logical to infer that I did.


The point I'm trying to make is that it is senseless to pay for information that is available free elsewhere. There may exist a "market" or select group of people whom choose to pay for this service, but the fact of the matter remains; large spread information is freely available.  This falls into the category of information, since it is data, and as others have mentioned, some people don't mind waiting months for it to be released.  The very idea of information being owned/possessed/privatized in general is silly, but it does exist, and as such, SCG is a good example of this.  They are a productive company with a great following and great articles.


Understandable, I do realize they must make money in order to perform their day to day operations.


I hope you do now see why it is different when the form of the media is electronic, rather than written or published.  The point I'm trying to make is that it is quite arrogant, and ignorant to simply assume people are "too cheap" not to pay for this service, when they may have valid reasons beyond your comprehension as to why they choose not to pay.

Obviously your paid to write for SCG, so you can't say anything bad about it.

The fact of the matter is that the internet exists solely due to, and for the purpose of, sharing information.  This sharing of information is on a large scale, free, and publicly available.

Why then, would you pay to read information??  Not only does it seem retarded to do so, arguing that it is better to pay for information than not to pay is redundant.

Sure this is one way of looking at it, but at the same time, if you could follow with orchard, wouldn't this be better?

Turn 1: Mox, orchard, Oath

You'd simply win THAT much faster. 

Yes rod is good, and I understand you're trying to get discussion flowing on synergistic plays with rod.

However, I don't see rod as a staple in type one.  It's good against decks that cannot play around it.  For instance, combo.  Combo has answers likely, but this puts a serious dampening on their overall grand scheme.  The real problem is Chalice.  Chalice is the best proactive disruption the game has to offer, simply based on the number of cards affected by one card.

In comparison to other proactive disruption...

Chalice - can be cast for 0 (negates moxen if dropped early), c@1 stops a good portion of every deck in the format, c@2 stops answers and most any control based deck (involving blue), TRADES 1 card for MORE THAN 1 card at ALL times

Rod - hurts activated abilities of artifacts only

Suppression field - slows all activated abilities

Duress - one for one tradeoff, sometimes resulting in a 2-1 (fow pitch)

Thus, alot of rods power relies on chalice, or some kind of accelerant to justify playing the rod in the first place.

I understand that rod stops moxen better than chalice after turn one, but we're discussing optimal plays, plus chalice is much more versatile mid-late game

Thus, running chalice alongside rod is great, and why I've run it in my fish build for the last little while.  I played at rochester and went 5-2 with my nUBfish.  Unfortunatly, due to some late night crazy thinking which usually comes before big tournies, I took rod out of my sb expecting there to be more fish than originally predicted.  There was.  However, the 1 game that cost me making top 8 was decided on game 3 of a silly mistake on my part.

I was playing against worker/shop/staff thing, and I kept a hand consisting of a lotus, energy flux, a land, and a few 2 cc critters that fuck things up.  I went land, lotus, flux, thinking I had won the game.  He followed up with MWS, metalworker. From that point forward, I've deemed energy flux a piece of shit.  Sure it's good in some cases, but its so easy to play around, especially given the situation.  Damn you metalworker.

As for the card variations and thicknesses per set, it's pretty much useless to discuss.  The average human to greater than average human cannot detect minimal differences in thickness on such low levels.  People, we're talking tenths of a millimeter here.  I don't care how much you think you are a ninja, or have super powers, but no, you cannot tell a difference in thickness on these fine levels.  If you believe you are a ninja/can tell this difference, take this simple test.   Take 5 cards, all from different sets.  Flip them upside down, so you don't know which is which, and mix them up.  Now, without looking at the face of the card, feel the relative thicknesses of the cards and rank them in order of least thick to most thick.  Flip them over, and see if your theories about the new sets being thinner comes true, and how accurately you depicted this.

Now, do this with 60, every time, and without error.  See how this has no significant impact on the game itself?  There is no way you could possibly know which cards are which, by feeling them.  Furthermore, put the cards in sleeves and try this.  And yet still further, you must be able to do this while shuffling, and setting the deck, which must also make it through an opponents cut; hence, your shuffle must align the set cards to draw in  a specific order, and you must use a forced cut to make the opponent give you the set of cards which you desire.

When viewed logically, and in all real instances, this is not feasible.  I'm not saying you cannot feel the difference between a card in a sleeve, and a card in a sleeve with paper on it.  Depending on the thickness of the papper, and even moreso if glue is used, this can lead to slightly thicker/definatly heavier cards.  Again though, this requires great luck and skill when trying to use it to your advantage.

IMHO, paper slips cannot be used as they alter the weight of the card, and as mentioned, the paper may slip out.  What happens then?  You shuffle a lotus to the top, out flies a piece of paper with "lotus roxxors" scribbled on it, and draw a forest (meanwhile playing stax).   Hmm, maybe they should bring back chaos orb again so we can rip it and throw it everywhere.  In fact, we could even fold up an 8x10 paper and shove it in the sleeve, then when we draw it, take out the largely printed 8x10 image of the angry orb, rip it, and scatter all of the playing field. 

First, I'm going to say that I didn't really follow your logic to clearly in your deduction of the argument of W1, W2, S1, S2.  That said, you came up with what seems to be a rational inference as to getting a 5% "better chance" or whatever of winning.  However, my argument is that this is arbitrary information.

Certain decks work towards certain goals, and depending on how the deck is built, and the way it plays its spells, turn one (as in, winning the coin flip) can prove most crucial.  It often proves the difference between a match win or loss in many given matchups.

Since certain decks function fundamentally different from other decks, this affects their ability to "go broken" or perform on the first turn.  Since all decks are not the same, and function fundamentally different on the first turn, it seems quite irrational to apply a mathmatical approximation equally to these unequal decks.

Hence, the coinflip is relevant dependant on matchups; which is a random factor.  Since this random factor is random, and not controlled, the coinflip percentile win rate seems quite arbitrary.

I'll try to keep this short, as I find long drawn out posts boring to read, and I don't want that happening with my post


Completely dependent on an individuals mental capacity/capability.  It is required that you are knowledgeable atleast somewhat of the environment, yet pay attention to fine detail and always understand innovative "tech".


Understanding the foundational structure behind decks allows for easier matchups.  Relevant to probability and psychological impact....read on.


If you learn a single deck very well, you will understand probabilities and know the capabilities of your deck.


Drawbacks of generalist: not aware of fundamental specifics which compromise game making plays.
(ie. If playing vs gifts, the stress being put on the odds of them having said card in hand.  In traditional gifts, you'd expect 3-4/60 to be gifts.  However, in recent builds players have used 2 gifts more often.  This knowledge is detrimental, as it allows you to properly estimate probabilities of said card draws/plays.)

Drawbacks of specialist: Over analyzation and tunnel vision.  Similarly to a detective, who develop tunnel vision as they try only to find evidence that will fit their case, players make crucial mistakes in embarking on critical deck analysis when in fact, the deck in question isn't the deck that you should play at all.  Maybe it's strictly inferior to another deck, or simply out of date.  Too much work on your own deck will make your eyes go buggy and you'll forget that tinker is all about magic and yawgmoths will...I mean...magic is all about those...you get it

**note: on the psychological implication mentioned above, this relates to bluffing, understanding a bluff, and realizing when to bluff.  Yes, magic is like any other game of chance.

Or let them beat you with nimble mongooses! Haha...on a more serious note...

I believe dozer said it well when he made points about solid deck construction.  Obviously there's a combination of foundational knowledge in magic, and knowing how to seemingly make your opponent play cards you want them to play, but it does come down very much to probability and "luck of the draw."

I recently made a topic post about tinker and will, which was shutdown right away.  I tried to look at the fundamentals of why these cards are shaping and defining our format, but the idea was nuked by a mod with a trigger-happy-clicking finger.  A little too much clicking?

In all seriousness, the format is fine.  Yes, things are confusing, people remain confused, and sure decks will be built that are garbage.  The problem is many people DO NOT understand the fundamentals behind decklists, and attempt to play them and miss very important play strategies, as they may figure every deck plays the same.  If you don't understand the deck you're playing, don't play it. 

Creation of new ideas/decks is great, as it only leads to further development.  Yes some cards are strictly better than others at accomplishing a similar goal, however, with the large number of severly powerful cards to play with, there are many possibilities to go many different routes.  Optimization on goal orientation is very important, which may not be preached enough.

Even better, if it is strictly gifts (not oathgifts) we're speaking, they WILL simply cast tinker.  They will get it, and cast it.  First, they will likely build up their hand for the counter war/CA, and search it out, then cast it.  Any gifts player that sees furnace on the field and gifts' for tinker is retarded.  That's like playing Ancestral with a chalice at 1 on the board.

Aside from all of this, you have only 4 counterspells. 4.  This is absolutely terrible.  Sure, it's good if you make it up in other forms of disruption, but there are very few present here.  All together, your "fish" build has 11 disruption cards; only 4 of which are instants that actually guarentee disruption, the other 7 are lame examples of selective disruption.  I'm not saying needle/furnace is bad, I'm simply saying that is insufficient disruption.  Also, stifle is too conditional to warrant a spot in this deck.  It should be something like cunning wish.

Just some food for thought; my fish runs 20-22 disruption cards, and 8-10 cards that constitute a draw engine.  Comparitively, you have 11 disruption and 13 to draw. 

Playing creatures that interact nicely with the graveyard hardly warrants the deck to be called fish.  It also has awful tempo.

True enough, and I don't think anyone was particularly rude..??


I strongly disagree.  Yes, wretch is great.  He is good against many decks, he does everything you said pretty much.  However, I still believe he is not necessarily the only choice, nor the most optimal choice in all situations, hence, right now he is sitting in my sideboard.

Of the decks listed, he is weakest in the gifts and dragon matchup I'd say.  Think about his casting cost; 2 black mana, which is a very difficult thing for this deck to produce (unless you're going the monoB or ritual route).  This deck wants to drop early fetches, RESOLVE the fetch ability, get a basic (so that it cannot be wasted) and drop a lock component/threat.  I believe the most optimal builds revolve around 2 mana   I'm not putting my list up, but there is a very distinct reason for this, and if you've played the deck long enough you should understand the logic behind the card advantage gained by cards like fiend, daze, standstill, etc etc etc....back on topic; the wretch.

He costs 2 black, harsh.  Not only that, but against a good dragon player, you better have mana open to eat their dragon right away.  In this matchup, they go off faster, thus, you must disrupt faster.  For 2 mana, and a creature (easily disrupted), you present an option to remove a dragon, given you have enough mana.  I'll argue that in many situations, tormods crypt is significantly better.  If it isnt, then why not just run phyrexian furnace??  It has a lower mana cost, comes online faster, can replace itself with a card draw, and doesn't cost mana to remove cards** (yes, the sac ability costs 1).

Also, against a good gifts player, they'll simply ignore the wretch, gift for more cards (ie. brainstorm, fact or fiction, mana drain, force of will, etc) until they have card advantage, then wish away your idiot somehow.  OR they could simply get the tinker in their hand, and cast it.  Wretch does nothing to stop the tinker.

So yes, I believe he is strictly a meta card.  I didn't go into your worst matchups (aggro decks), and in these, he proves quite vanilla as well.  I'm not saying wretch is bad, just not ALWAYS optimal, hence he warrants to be a sideboard card/metagame call.

The main reason fiend is any good is simply because of vial.  Without vial, he is an early drain target.  During the opponents draw step after they've drawn one, you vial him in and take something before they react (yes, they can play instants.  90% of the time, however, they will not have a brainstorm).

Withered wretch is obviously a metacall (as is most of the critters in this deck), but I believe WhateverWorks was correct when he said thief is godly.  Thief takes your opponents win conditions better than wretch does, plain and simple.  He also avoids darkblast, and has flying if needed.

I'm going to have to second what Imsomniac101 said in regards to fish not being able to afford the 2 mana delay.  I believe that much of fishes power is in the crucial low mana permanents that it drops, and specifically chalice of the void.  Chalice at 0/1 is fishes strongest play; it accomplishes the most of what this deck is trying to do.  For 1 card, you often can trade for 8-9 mana sources, or on average 8-12 cards (set at 1).  This is a far more reasonable game plan than to sit back and hope to disrupt 1 card with one of your cards, IMHO.

I do understand the argument of the psychoanalytic approach; which would be that game 1 you could convince your opponent that you are plaing a mana drain style deck simply through the way you play your cards, and how you manipulate their gameplan on the first few turns.  This is a valid argument if the case were that you were not running chalice.  Chalice calls for an entirely different approach, because probability says that 1 card for 8 is better than 1 for 1 in any case.  In this case, that is to run no chalice, you could get away playing brainstorm, SoD, and another cheap 1 mana cantrip for end of turn effects.  Atleast this way, you are negating the loss of tempo from potentially unused lands.  If this were the build of the fish deck, then yes, SoD seems perfectly reasonable.  At the same though, wouldn't stifle/misD/gush/mystical/vampiric/possibly mana leak all be needed?  Or atleast considered, which drastically changes the way your deck is setup.

As the topic says, this discussion is meant to be about the cards Tinker and Yawgmoths will.  As we all know, both of these cards have been around for ages, and have always been played in control decks everywhere.  Not only do these cards see play in control, they see play in anything that can run black, or blue.  With the unrestriction of portal, and the therefore unbanning of the tutors, my belief that the format is about casting one of these two cards is greatly supported.

Although the new tutors may/may not see play in control or combo-esq type decks, they do raise the relevant topic for discussion about the undenyable power of these two cards in question.  Sure, I love both of these cards.  Don't get me wrong, I think they are great and quite amazing in every single aspect; the cards power, the artwork, the playability factors, its all there.  However, the point I'd like to raise is that these two cards define the format and therefore influence the way type 1 is played entirely.  Not that influencing is a bad thing, but these cards do show negative side effects, maybe not so visible at first glance.

Tinker - > Colossus.  Enough said.  It can happen in any deck, to any deck, and at any time.  It has some basic and obvious advantages:
-adds extreme power to random top decks
-is playable by any deck with a blue source and an artifact

The problem here is that you either a) need to run this card to compete or b) need to have maindeck solutions to deal with this card, because everyone is running it* **I know not everyone, but the point here is the majority.

Second, the same applies with yawgmoths will.  You need to run it if you run black, and even if you're playing monoU, you need to run it as a splash.  Often times people splash black for DT and will.
The obvious advantages:
-adds extreme power to random top decks
-is playable by any deck with a black source


Obvious advantages aside, we begin to gather knowledge about the power of these two cards and realize that YES they are defining the format due to the simple fact that they must be played if you are competing on a tier 1 level (tournament play).

Why is this bad?  Well, for starters it turns a lot of people off the format.  If they know that the format revolves around casting these spells and peoples abilities to cast them, new players will tend to lean towards other formats such as legacy where the cards required to utilize will and tinker to their maximum extent don't cost ridiculous amounts of money.  Yes, vintage is a format for "elite" players if you want to call them that.  That doesn't mean that since A has more money than B, A should win.  I'm not suggesting magic is a game based on money either; I'm quite happy with the recent allowments of proxies in most major events.  It's great to get new people into the game.  However, this is not the issue at hand.

I'd like to hear peoples thoughts and opinions on this topic, as I know it's probably been in some peoples minds forever and I haven't seen any discussions about it on the boards.

So then...

What are the requirements to ban a card?
Do either of these two cards meet that requirement?
Is the format okay with every deck designed to fulfill one purpose and cast a will/tinker?**


Thoughts are greatly welcome and appreciated.


**Note:  I know there are tons of decks out there.  The majority of the decks that do well run these 2 cards

Did you read what you posted before you clicked submit??  If so, then I'm quite lost...first, you say that you'd never counter a tutor.  It's a terrible idea to do so.  THEN, you go on to use the good old counterspells stop everything argument,

Does this even make sense?   I mean sure, its quite obvious that if it resolves, then you are wrecked, so you must mean you counter the tutor right?  But you said you never counter tutors....so its kind of a paradox for you to win, correct?  If gifts resolves, you lose, and it resolves if it isn't countered; hence, you must counter gifts, or you must lose.  The idea here is called card advantage; by turning 1 spell into essentially 4 cards that will each be played twice.  Hence, isn't it better to counter 1 spell than 8 spells? Or do you always keep a mit full of counterspells, rewinds, and manadrains

Ahaha, this is great.  Where have you been for the last 6 months?? (or more?) Have you heard of a card called gifts ungiven? You should check it out before they restrict it

All kidding aside, it's a hard call whether or not shadow of doubt could be played in UB fish.  I've been playing it steady for the last 2-3 months and I'm still tinkering the ideal build.  Yes, I do like to tap out early on, and 2 mana is alot to keep open.  Especially if I use factories, as they require constant mana.  The draw a card is great; its what makes this card even considerable.  Tinker and will are by far the most defining cards this format has to offer, and shadow stops tinker and somewhat stops will.  Other than get huge CA, what else will a yawgwin pull them?? Definatly not a tinker/DT, maybe a burning wish tendrils but that should be hard enough without using mystical/merchant/vampiric/DT/tinker/new portal tutors (I doubt they'll see play in gifts, maybe combo)...


I don't have much to contribute; except that I play alot of fish and I don't see the card sticking in the deck too long   I'm testing, and I believe that the concept of UB fish should be much different than the concept of other fish builds, which therefore screams out a completely different card setup which unfortunatly doesnt like to keep 2 mana open very often.

For clarification....


This isn't true; if you single click the draw step it simply enters the draw step.  If you double click the draw step (or alt-click) THEN you will draw a card because you are telling the program that priority is yours/has passed by the double clicking action.

As far as I'm concerned, this card is a silver bullet to decks like CS.  It mills the library, sets up will, and removes other welders and is almost un-counterable (you MUST counter it many times to keep that welder alive).

Excellent card, yes it could replace dart.

@ambivalentduck & Das Boot:


I think you missed the point.  The uncounterable is quite relevant, as it applies to chalice.  Read the card, and you'll see that it COUNTERS spells played with CMC equal to the number of counters on it.  Hence, you are able to drop 1cc, 2cc, 3cc critters under it with a vial.  This IS the synergy between chalice and vial.  It stops your opponents from playing 1/2/3 mana spells, while you in essense, still can play them (with a vial).

Now, to set things straight, on the deck being built more Ub or more Bu, it depends which direction you want to take the deck.  YES, FoW is necessary in ANY competitive type one deck running blue.  How else do you beat turn 1 plays?  Most of you should know that turn 1 is THE most important turn in the game.  Often times, it strictly comes down to "I win if I go first, but most likely not if I go second."  I'm not saying this is the particular deck in case that demonstrates that point (the Win on the first turn), but this deck GREATLY is influenced by that simple theory.

IE.  I go first; drop delta, fetch a sea, cast duress and take a relevant card.  I then assess the situational chalice in my hand, and see that at 0, I would impede my opponents game plan severly, as he is playing let's say some sort of combo (tendrils, belcher, whatever).  Had I gone second, the chalice for 0 may have been useless (by that time his 0cc's may have already been played, so a chalice@0 only impedes MY gameplan) and my duress may not have a target anymore.  The obvious example shows turn one is important.  What may be even more glaringly obvious, and important, is the fact that 30-35% of most decks manabase is constituated of 0cc artifact mana!  So let me ask you this, if there was a card called "Erasedland", and happened to be an artifact land, but its text read "artifacts with converted manacost equal to 0 cannot be played", most decks, especially fish, would love this card.  Chalice is just that, and much more.  It allows you to decide what portion of the opponents deck can, and can not be played.

Based on this concept, the deck can go in two directions; both of which MUST have an efficient way of abusing turn 1.

With my current version, I'm running chalice and vial.  They both abuse turn 1 to some degree.
With the moreso black version, aka Bu, you'd likely want to run rituals that shoot out threats/disruption.  However, this version simply shouldn't support the control mechanisms that are prevalent in the Ub version.  Again, chalice @ 1 ruins many decks, especially those running multiple rituals.  The same applies if you ran the off-colored artifact mana, and chaliced for 0.

Null rod is a great card. However, it certainly does not belong in a deck running multiple moxen/jittes.  That should be fairly basic knowledge.  For 2 mana, and not at instant speed, you can afford to run more effective cards; ie. edict, stifle, brainstorm, daze (which is extremely useful in most any matchups), tutors (demonic, mystical, consultation, merchant), etc.

Chalice allows you to gain tempo and card advantage because you are effectively "countering" 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, even 12 cards in your opponents deck by playing it at a targetted range.

The shortcomings of this deck, atleast in my experience with the Ub version, is its inability to cope with other aggro.  This is obviously only relevant to specific metas, but here, StP seems much stronger than anything Ub can offer.  StP is a defining card in most any metas; if you have no use for StP, Ub looks great!  If StP is very useful, Ub seems less optimal.

Hmm, if you cut vial, you are obviously going to cut chalice, correct??

It doesn't seem logical to run 4 rituals, all the artifact mana, and challice together...as they counteract eachother, and also, without vials to play un-counterable threats, what is the point?

By adding black, we would speed the deck up immensly and give us options like Will, and quicker creature drops, but is this addition better than the disruption provided through chalice?

I was just going to comment on the exact same point, but Necro got to it first 

Anyhow, to reitterate I guess, the loss of life is very insignificant.  This deck, does have problems with aggro.  We can effectively demolish control, most combo, and most MWS decks.  However, MWSaggro can be a very difficult matchup.  A good reminder to fish players is that you MUST use each card to its maximum efficiency.  I played against a MWSaggro deck the other day, and my opponent managed a turn 2 razormane under a Sphere of Resistance.  I ended up killing the razormane with a simple duress.

On the large scale, this deck will lose to almost every aggro deck that is out there.  That is to say, that it will lose to any tier 1/2/3 aggror deck.  Yes, waterfront bouncer+ gilded drake have nice synergy.  No, this is not sufficient for the aggro matchup.

My build is quite different than what most people have listed, as I believe it is necessary to run the 2 most powerful cards in the format (Tinker->DSC and Yawgwin).  It only makes sense.  Sure, you may not have a whole heck of alot to do with Will if you don't have a shitload of mana, but depending on how you setup your manabase, you can use it quite effectively at any point in the game, past turn 2/3.  I would never say will is a dead card. On the same note, it is true for tinker.  If you get DSC in your hand, you may have to rely on discarding it.  However, you may also use tinker for a jitte, and that will get you out of MANY sticky situations.

In my unfinished build, I'm currently running factories, wastes, FoWs, duresses, and chalices.  I believe chalice is a necessity in this deck, as it allows you to run aether vial.  Vial is quite useless without chalice, and might as well be replaced for card advantage (a la nights whisper/brainstorm/etc etc..).

So, it boils down to us having 60 cards, while running FoW (because you HAVE to if it's blue), challice, a good complement of critters, along with sufficient creature removal; dependent on the meta.

In my meta, there are tons of creatures....yippy.  I'll continue work on this deck and post relevant information as it comes available.

Discard may not stop brainstorm + topdeck, but it does reduce its efficiency drastically.  Also, daze is very nice backup for duress effects in most matchups.

The first thing I thought of when I saw the new set is UBfish, and I do think Dark Confidant has the power to put this deck into high placings and tier 1 play.

Basically, it's a beater that offers a LOA effect every single turn; with the obvious loss of life.  Umezawa's Jitte not only fixes this problem, as it gains you life, but is the most obvious choice for a mana outlet, and creature control, that it makes the two a must-have in this style of deck.  You are gaining card advantage through a silly 2 mana creature, and board control through a Jitte.  What else do you need?  Tempo is an obvious conclusion, and this deck can warrant just that.

Dependant on your creature setup, I believe this deck can thrive on its effective creatures, and gain ridiculous card advantage in the forms of Ninja, Dark Confidant, and possibly the hippy-mage known as dimir cutpurse.  The cutpurse allows you to gain card advantage and set them back in handsize, which reduces the chances of their disruption towards your main goal: board control and tempo.

UB fish looks quite good at first glance with the new card additions.  I don't really have much more insight to the matter, as I'm still working out my own decklist.  I believe most of the cards mentioned can play a signifigant role in the production of this deck, and I think the cabal/duress/confidant idea is great for disruption, coupled with wasteland/strip and of course FoW.  Challice looks decent here also, which gives you multiple ways of disrupting your opponents gameplan while setting up board control and winning with a few neat little creatures.

Madmike and 49cent both have legitimate points.  Unfortunatly, when we assess a deck in type one, if it appears exquisitly close to another deck, or another deck running multiple of the same cards has shown past performance, we tend to lean towards a "tried and true" deck I guess you could say.  For example, I probably wouldn't have to convince you that playing a monoU deck, you'd want to run FoW over daze, correct?  And probably manadrain over counterspell, correct??  The same applies here but on a larger scale; we're replacing an entire deck with another deck so to speak.

I'm not dismissing your point, mike, about running a new, innovative type deck.  The problem here is that functionally, these decks do very similar things, and "archetypes" are just that; and for a reason.  They tend to be the more progressive of the builds, and tend to show alot of results in top 8s worldwide.  You do raise a solid point about playing an unexpected deck however, which should be in the back of every magic players mind.  Not necessarily a "new" deck, but usually you'll notice good players will play say, CS or Tog with revisions to the standard build.  This constitutes as the improvements/changes to the deck, for the specific meta.  Maybe these additional cards don't fall into the category of cards that everyone usually sideboards for.  Just a thought.