You need a 6cc or less creature based Goblin Bombardment or a 6cc or less CIP/LP creature that takes advantage of the number of creatures on the board to win the game at instant speed, and I'm afraid that neither of those creatures exist at the moment.

On a side note, Chrome Mox is a must in the manabase.

And here's the reason I made it so bloody obvious in my rebuttal. Give me a reason why you'd rather play a deck over the course of a tourney that you have to fight to win every game versus something that would give you a couple of gimmies. Don't come back with the consistency argument, unless you want to try and tell me that every non-fish deck in Vintage is somehow inconsistent now.

Again, addressing this specific point:

First, there's no need to 'talk down' to anyone in this thread.  Everyone posting in it evidently spends a lot of time thinking about and writing about cardboard, so there's no need to give anyone a 'hint' or say that you just 'can't really help' someone.

Secondly, a free win is a byproduct of a way of designing decks, not the goal of it.  Free wins occur when a Slaver player gets a hand like this:

Ancestral, Yawgmoth's Will, Black Lotus, Force of Will, Thirst for Knowledge, Mana Crypt, Tolarian Academy

Getting a hand like this is absurd, and it happens because of the power level of decks that abuse Yawgmoth's Will and other restricted cards.  While it is certainly possible to get a hand like this, and it is hypothetically possible that one could lose.  However, the probability of one winning is drastically increased; this is what is meant when players speak of a 'God Hand'.  Decks like Fish, because they run cards that are, on the whole, less powerful than those in most other Type 1 decks, cannot get 'God Hands'; they have to work for every win.  Getting a 'God Hand' is merely incidental; if the cards in one's deck are powerful enough, then an unusually powerful assortment will be drawn in a certain number of games.  Because all decks (except for creature-based ones) can get 'God Hands', the goal of deckbuilding in Type 1 is not to maximize them; it is to maximize the hands that are not broken.

When you read the title and hitman's opening paragraph, he is asking why Fish decks are not winning. The problem is that the statement in the title isn't accurate (if you equate "winning" to winning a prize, which is usually associated with making t8 or t4 depending on the scale of the event). Therefore, the question has since been altered - Fish decks DO win, but are they a strong choice in T1 right now if you want to maximize your chances to win? The data was introduced to assist in answering this question, along with the supporting rationale (Fish is incapable of stealing wins, and if its game plan is working in the early game, it is just "containing" the opponent - it isn't "winning" the game).

That hitman was supposedly "aware" of Fish's inability to generate results doesn't cause any disconnect, because there is no consensus yet that there IS a problem with the archetype! We're basically taking a step back and asking - is there really a problem with Fish? Is hitman not seeing results because he's still working on being proficient, and if he keeps at it, he will succeed as others have succeeded with the archetype? Or are his efforts not worthwhile if he is interested in maximizing his chances at a prize since there are far better options?

Threads might start with specific questions but it is often worthwhile to expand the scope of the discussions. Don't you agree?

You're assuming what I'm saying means a turn 1 win and then your saying I shouldn't assume that a deck that can't turn 1 win is at a disadvantage with a deck that can? That's.... interesting logic? Next time though you could just ask me to clarify instead of putting words in my mouth.

First off, by free wins I don't mean a turn 1 win. I mean hands that are simply so strong, unless the opponent has his own insane hand is on the play or something, you'll more than likely win the game in a short frame regardless of what the opponent actually does.

EDIT: Implacable got it.

Secondly if you can't see why a deck that gets free wins is at an advantage over one that doesn't over the course of a tourney, I can't really help you.

Against I never actually said anything about that. For example, Maher Oath was interactive (Certainly to a degree moreso than any of the Vintage models) and non-linear and one of, it not the best, deck at it's time. It didn't need Oath, or necessarily even want it, in a number of it's matches.

The reason why I pointed out it's non-linearity as a weakness, was because the linear or hybrid strategies are so much stronger in this format. You have to devote at least two-thirds of the deck just to try to keep other decks in long line enough for you to win. Also #2 isn't actually the same as #3, but whatever, it's a subtle distinction so I don't care that much if they're lumped together.

Dude that's already been answered like ten times over. See my post, Feinstein's,  Rian's or even just the basic answer of 'the deck is underpowered, dur dur.'

Fish decks typically don't win tournaments for three reasons.
1. You don't get any free wins
2. The value of the hands you have are based almost entirely on what the opponent's hand consists of
3. Most fish is based around a medicore semi-coherent non-linear strategy in a format full of linear strategies

Is it  or ? The orginal post has it at , but I know it isn't officially spoiled yet. There is quite a big difference in that mana cost...

this card is brutal, it's a real beating vs the format imo.  the only thing it doesn't hit hard is turn 1 combo and fish.  but stealing fow from the fishes could be problematic.

Oh really now. Nothing? Not even, say, most of your hand?

You can say the same for Twincast.  Too bad no one plays THAT.

Having one card to pitch to FoW is hard enough sometimes; having TWO cards to pitch to this shitter is nigh-impossible.  Also, is trading THREE cards for one going to be worth it very often?

Already been looked at. It's horrible. Absolutely horrible. Worthless beyond all hope of redemption.

Examples:

Remove 2 cards, Requisition your Oath O WAI---

Remove 2 cards, Requisition your Welder O WAI---

Remove 2 cards, Requisition your Wheel of Fortune O WAI---

etc.

3 cards or 7 mana is far too steep a price for a conditional non-creature counter that can't even 'counter' a lot of things.

We actually just use Wizards' own statements to show this. They indicate that they no longer use power level errata to fix power levels on cards and instead just use the B+R list. We just ask why that same logic isn't applied to cards already given power-level errata.

The deck goes infinite with a pair of Tops and Helm of Awakening, and it has consistent turn 1-3 kills with protection.
[EDIT: This deck has consistent turn 3 kills with protection, but I meant to add that turn 1 and 2 kills are possible. Turn 1 kills at all, and Turn 2 kills with protection are unlikely, but have happened during the testing of this deck.]

If you don't think that shit turns players away from T1, and from Magic in general, you need to "get real."  The turn-off effect was the reason they stopped power-level errata in the first place.

If you read the card itself, it seems perfectly clear that Twiddle should result in a timewalk when the card is in play. The card itself mentions nothing about a time counter. And someone just reading the card before seeing any errata would assume Twiddle would work to give you a free turn.

In other words, Randy, it does not feel like you are actually reverting to how the card per se is worded. Rather, it feels like you are changing the wording to be something which is neither the current errata nor what the text of the card would lead its reader to believe.

2) What decks should use Pithing Needle and in what quantities?

Bone Shredder does not off a mongrel, as they just discard a card and change the mongrel's color to black. Slay would be an option in this matchup but fails for the same reason. Faceless Butcher is almost definately too slow. Duplicant is WAY too slow, Nekrataal is too slow AND can't kill a mongrel. Those are the CIP destroy creatures. Only faceless butcher seems even remotely playable, as he removes anything and can even get creatures like Darksteel Colossus. It would be funny to beat an unsuspecting gifts.dec player with a vial on 4 when he tried to double Time Walk and beat.

The answer seems to be either Smother or Devour In Shadow. Either will kill a mongrel or a welder; smother is easier to cast and doesnt hurt you, while devour in shadow is more flexible with the ability to kill cards like platinum angel. Obviously against a mongrel the devour in shadow could end up costing you a significant amount of life, but the increased flexibility leads me to suspect that it is better than smother.

Oddly, Pithing Needle also seems to be a decent and flexible answer to the mongrel. It isn't so scary as a pure grizzly bear.