Why are Fish decks not winning tournaments?

[arik124]

Fish finished 1-2 at the last Myriad where some of the best combo/gifts players did not show up.  Do we still need to continue with this question?

[Dxfiler]

Fish finished 1-2 at the last Myriad where some of the best combo/gifts players did not show up.  Do we still need to continue with this question?

I'm not sure what you're implying here.

At first it seems like you mean to say that fish can certainly win tournaments, but then you add the line about some of 'the best' combo players not showing...

Are you implying that you felt like you didn't deserve to be in finals because some good players didn't show?

I sure as hell know that I was happy to be there and felt like I earned it.  PLENTY of good to great players showed up to this, and there were good combo players in attendance.  No, the full onslaught of New England's rogues gallery was not in attendance, but there are always people missing.  This tourney was 30 people with about 20 being regulars and another 5-6 being not well known but still good to great players.  I'm not sure what more you can ask for as far as a benchmark to test yourself.

Now to a general response...

This thread is pretty much a lost cause at this point.  Fish could win the next 10 tourneys in a row and people would still point fingers and knock it for being less powerful than other decks.  People already have their opinions set in stone and it's clear by now that no amount of examples or sound cases from either side is really going to do much.

You know which camp I'm in :p  I think fish is pretty strong right now.  You just have to put the time in and over the long haul it will reward you.

- Dave Feinstein

[arik124]

1. Some of the best players were not there.  (in fact only 1 of the top 4 of ELD made it to myriad)

2. These players run combo/gifts/stax

3. The meta was gifts-combo light.

4. I think combo and gifts are good matchups

5a. Good matchups for us did not show making it harder

5b. Some of the best players were not there making it easier

5c. Its very complicated to draw conclusions.  Im trying to present the complexity here...

not everything black and white, good or bad, and so forth


Also:  Whether or not people think fish is good actually makes very little difference.  I like it, you like it, someone else likes it...so we play it.  I see no need to justify to others how good/bad it is.  Its what I like and enjoy and for me thats more than sufficient.

[hitman]

I believe the problem with Fish is that it's a control deck and doesn't have a focused win condition or the mana to execute one.  I wonder if there are such things as archetypes anymore.  I don't believe control is feasible and that's why Fish isn't feasible in a varied field.  I believe the diversity of the format makes it impossible to control everything or most things, anyway.  Aren't all decks the beatdown at some point?  Is combo just another name for "a lot of synergy"?  Type One has to be the format of robust win conditions with enough time for an adequate level of interaction. 

Maybe players need to abandon archetypal strategies such as control, aggro, and combo.  Decks in type one should be hybrids.  The mana and tutoring allow for any deck to be powerful and resilient.  Fish refuses to be so.  It is control.  Even its win conditions are control.  Is the reason Bomberman has been successful that it can change roles on a whim?  It can be control, aggro, or combo at any given time.  Isn't this the ideal?  Same with Slaver.  These decks have no glaring weaknesses but have versatile strategies and powerful win conditions.  I don't think we need to limit decks to control, aggro, or combo anymore and the decks that try to are the weaker for it.

[Hanni]

Last time I checked, Fish was a hybrid of aggro and control...

I also don't understand how the win conditions are terrible. Vintage isn't really an aggro format so guys like Grunt become a 5 turn clocks, etc. This isn't so bad when you consider most of the deck is disruption or utility of some kind. I also believe Fish has alot of synergy just like every other good deck. It's not even lacking in power... it has 2 Moxes, Lotus, Recall, and Time Walk... so what's so lacking? Most of the disruption is pretty vague in that it hits alot of decks so I'm not quite sure why it would suck against a varied field. I do agree that it's not going to be favorable against everything but I think the deck can do very well with a competent pilot.

However, I'm not a guru on Vintage so take my opinion for what it's worth. I do tend to agree and side with Feinstein on this one though... I love me some Fish, mmm mmm.

[LotusHead]

I believe the problem with Fish is that it's a control deck and doesn't have a focused win condition or the mana to execute one.    Aren't all decks the beatdown at some point? 

  Is the reason Bomberman has been successful that it can change roles on a whim? 

Welcome to Salvagers!

It's a fish deck with a potential combo finish and a control shell...

I was once criticized for using Trinket Beats and Salvager Beats as a legitimate win condition, when my deck was clearly Worse Than Tog (I barely knew what Tog was at the time.)

It's just a Fish deck that doesn't hate on everything (except for an opponent underestemating the power of Duress Proof Trinket Mages and combo pieces.

Side note: Null Rod = Fish unless played by Vroman.

But stull, getting beat by weenies that aren't Gobbos is pretty fishy.

Tactile Misdirection. (once displayed in an MST3K episode where an evil overlord waved his hands and said something or other, and acid spray spouted out into the S.O.L.'s  crew's eyes.  AUUUUUGH!

Do you wanna die getting kicked in the nuts by TMages? or do you wanna die by Explosives/Spellbomb/Salvagers/Lotus?

Most T1 decks pray that they don't die to a  combo finish, only to be eaten alive by Trinket Mages, Savagers, and an occassional Bob.

My point: at one time, T1 was Control Combo Aggro, and now is almost entirely Hybrids.

Bomberman can go Aggro, Combo or Control, given the playstate, openning hand and die roll/riskfactor.

Fish decks just try to ride Null Rod to victory, and lack any power plays other than lucky openning 7 "brokeness".

On full disclosure, I have died many a time to Fish Brokeness, but they just got lucky.  

[hitman]

@ Hanni, when I say hybrid, I mean a deck that can fulfill multiple functions well.  2/2s and 2/1s are easily handled with commonly played cards and there's really nothing Fish can do to stop it.  Will you focus on stopping my gameplan or stop me from killing all your creatures?  Fish punishes linear gameplans because they're so singular in purpose.  When playing a well-rounded deck, the many options available to the opponent leaves Fish lacking.  If you Mage my Thirsts, I tutor for Tinker.  You counter my Tinker and I Fire/Ice your Mage and go on with my original gameplan.  Because Fish doesn't play an aggro game well, it can't outrace me.  Fish's lack of tutoring will leave it helpless when it holds the wrong answers in its hand to my threats.  It has no way to end the game upon the resolution of a single bomb.  My conclusion is that Fish does none of the three (combo, aggro, or control) well.  Its strength lies in the weaknesses of streamlined, broken decks and their commonly played status.

[Vegeta2711]

Sort of like how a deck with Welders and Tinker can actually beat a 6-stifle + counters control deck and Gifts just gets reamed terribly. 

[Purple Hat]

Last time I checked, Fish was a hybrid of aggro and control...

I also don't understand how the win conditions are terrible. Vintage isn't really an aggro format so guys like Grunt become a 5 turn clocks, etc. This isn't so bad when you consider most of the deck is disruption or utility of some kind. I also believe Fish has alot of synergy just like every other good deck. It's not even lacking in power... it has 2 Moxes, Lotus, Recall, and Time Walk... so what's so lacking? Most of the disruption is pretty vague in that it hits alot of decks so I'm not quite sure why it would suck against a varied field. I do agree that it's not going to be favorable against everything but I think the deck can do very well with a competent pilot.

However, I'm not a guru on Vintage so take my opinion for what it's worth. I do tend to agree and side with Feinstein on this one though... I love me some Fish, mmm mmm.

a 5 turn clock is great....unless your opponent is highly likely to win the game on turn 2-4 in which case a 5 turn clock is 1-3 turns too slow.  This is the problem with fish's "aggro" strategy and aggro strategies in general in vintage.  the combo decks are faster than you, the control decks are faster than you, the old guy on the rascal is faster than you....

[AmbivalentDuck]

Then why isn't Meandeck Tendrils the deck of choice?

I don't get why this is still being argued: Null Rod Fish stopped winning tournaments for the same reason Keeper stopped winning tournaments.  It's simply outdated.  Look at its stronger successors:

Bomberman (w/Salvagers) can use Lotus and Spellbombs to kill
SS uses Moxen to flip Erayo/power out early Confidants
PMITA doesn't rely on Moxen, but uses Sphere of Resistance (x4) over Null Rod

Rebuild and Hurkyl's Recall are simply too prevalent in the meta to rely on a card that comes down far too late and does too little (unless you 'waste' your own Mox casting it).  Ritual, Mox, Rebuild, EtW is likely lethal against Null Rod Fish.  Every other build I mentioned is likely to survive that play or easily disrupt it.

[Purple Hat]

Then why isn't Meandeck Tendrils the deck of choice?

I don't get why this is still being argued: Null Rod Fish stopped winning tournaments for the same reason Keeper stopped winning tournaments.  It's simply outdated.  Look at its stronger successors:

Bomberman (w/Salvagers) can use Lotus and Spellbombs to kill
SS uses Moxen to flip Erayo/power out early Confidants
PMITA doesn't rely on Moxen, but uses Sphere of Resistance (x4) over Null Rod

Rebuild and Hurkyl's Recall are simply too prevalent in the meta to rely on a card that comes down far too late and does too little (unless you 'waste' your own Mox casting it).  Ritual, Mox, Rebuild, EtW is likely lethal against Null Rod Fish.  Every other build I mentioned is likely to survive that play or easily disrupt it.

"highly likely to WIN the game"  Tendrils is highly likely to goldfish, but stop it's turn 1 play and there was a pretty good chance it collapsed on itself.  it also just loses to some pretty commonly played disruption.  more robust strategies are actually likely to win rather than try to win. 

[AmbivalentDuck]

it also just loses to some pretty commonly played disruption.  more robust strategies are actually likely to win rather than try to win. 

Exactly.  That's why I play a Fish variant rather than Gifts or Long: resilience to disruption, robustness, and consistency.

Besides, I wouldn't call SS or the Bomberman variants slow.  They're certainly no slower than Slaver.

[Purple Hat]

neither of those decks attempts to win through the use of a 5 turn clock which was my original point.  someone said "a 5 turn clock is pretty good" and I said "no, it's not"

I wouldn't really call bomberman fish unless we are going with the broad definition "fish is anything that isn't an artifact deck or oath and plays creatures that aren't goblins" by this standard virtually anything can be called fish and we end up with such a broad class of decks that any statement at all can be made about them and it will almost certainly be true by necesity.  Since we've included everything except drains, workshops, rituals and bazaars....well...actually we do include drains but only if accompanied by non-artifact creatures other than goblin welder as they are in bomberman....any statement about such a deck is true.  I could say "goblin charbelcher is the most important card in fish" and it could be true because my build of fish plays tinker, 3 mana severance and 2 belchers.  it also plays dark confidant and some trinket mages and some other creatures though so it's clearly fish....even though it's main plan is to win with belcher in the mid-late game.

With the SS the line is more blurred but I think it's clear that the SS does not stem from the traditional bloodlines of fish and does not really attempt the same things as most fish builds (it's full powered, it creatures are largely concerned with it's own cards rather than it's opponents).  While it wins the game in a very fishy way, small creatures beating for the win, the creatures in the SS serve more to further the tactical goal of the deck (drawing cards and setting up and erayo lock) than to disrupt the strategy of the opponent.  Where the line becomes blurred is that the SS has the same goal as fish "contain the opponent til I can win the game" but it goes about it in a decidedly less interactive way than a traditional fish build.  look at your description of the SS.  you say that it "uses moxen to flip erayo/power out early confidants"  this is definately not a fishy strategy.

calling ss a fish variant is like calling gifts a control slaver variant.  Calling bomberman a fish variant is like calling gifts a tendrils variant and lumping it in with long.  to be quite honest most builds of bomberman have more in common with hightide than they do with fish.

[AmbivalentDuck]

I'm really not a fan of debating the meaning of "Fish", but anything that beats down with cost efficient creatures with relevant entries in the text box as at least one main kill condition fits my definition of Fish.  So, yes, by my definition some Workshop Aggro decks are Fish.  Similarly, Slaver would be Fish if someone decided that Welder beats were a main kill condition.  And I'm perfectly willing to classify Gifts as a storm combo variant.

That aside, I think the relevant decks that most clearly embody the Fishy gameplan are PMITA, SS, TMWA, and UWb Fish variants.  Right now, I'd argue that the common thread linking those decks is Dark Confidant, not Null Rod or a Null Rod stand in.  My argument is that Fish's heirs should be fully powered to abuse Dark Confidant, not underpowered to abuse Null Rod.  The 'should' coming from the observation that Dark Confidant's quality decreases the later into the game he's played.

Obviously, this wasn't even a consideration in the original Fish decks, but it's fairly true of modern decks that sometimes get called Fish.  I mean, a first turn Dimir Cutpurse  or flipped Erayo is pretty much broken.  The closest thing the original Fish decks had was Lotus -> Null Rod + dork.

[arik124]

Is there some way to take a poll of who has actually used a Fish deck in a vintage tourney to try and win prize?

[hiryu]

Is there some way to take a poll of who has actually used a Fish deck in a vintage tourney to try and win prize?

Here's the outcome of the all the times I tried attacking for 2 in Type One in the past year:

June 2006: Sullivan Solution - split a Sapphire in the finals
August 2006: UW fish - won a Lotus
April 2007: UWB fish - top 8

So yeah, I'd say the deck gets there.  Now I'm wondering why I played other decks...

[Purple Hat]

I'm really not a fan of debating the meaning of "Fish", but anything that beats down with cost efficient creatures with relevant entries in the text box as at least one main kill condition fits my definition of Fish.  So, yes, by my definition some Workshop Aggro decks are Fish.  Similarly, Slaver would be Fish if someone decided that Welder beats were a main kill condition.  And I'm perfectly willing to classify Gifts as a storm combo variant.

so....fish is anything that isn't long....by that logic fish wins tons of tournaments.  8-12 goblins for 3R is pretty damn cost efficient if you ask me, as is 11/11 trample indestructable for 2U.  I can't really debate the fact that things that aren't long win tournaments sometimes.  it's clearly true.

[jeffthefob]

I really didn't want to post in this topic that much because I think people have their mind set already regarding this topic, I don't want to get into much argument with all the cool people here.  But I am a firm believer of the fish 'can' win tourney ^^|||

Is there some way to take a poll of who has actually used a Fish deck in a vintage tourney to try and win prize?

I play in the west coast, mainly the Eudemonia's type 1 tourneys.  I played a similar u/w fish twice in Eudo's Pearl and Emerald Tourney.  Split in the top 4 in the Pearl and won the Emerald.  I haven't dropped one match so far in these tourneys.

I am currently writing a report, but school and work hinders the progress.  Fish (u/w & u/w/b & SS) is a fine deck choice but I rather discuss components of fish at the other threads.  I was still the only u/w fish in the Emerald Tourney, a lot of people opt for u/w/b at the Emerald Tourney; Hiryu and Zhalfirin both played the u/w/b version, they top 8 and top 4 respectively.  

[AmbivalentDuck]

I'm really not a fan of debating the meaning of "Fish", but anything that beats down with cost efficient creatures with relevant entries in the text box as at least one main kill condition fits my definition of Fish.  So, yes, by my definition some Workshop Aggro decks are Fish.  Similarly, Slaver would be Fish if someone decided that Welder beats were a main kill condition.  And I'm perfectly willing to classify Gifts as a storm combo variant.

so....fish is anything that isn't long....by that logic fish wins tons of tournaments.  8-12 goblins for 3R is pretty damn cost efficient if you ask me, as is 11/11 trample indestructable for 2U.  I can't really debate the fact that things that aren't long win tournaments sometimes.  it's clearly true.

Trample and Indestructible are pretty irrelevant in Fishy terms.  I would argue that *all* of Gifts' win conditions are purely aggressive in the sense that they stop you from winning by winning first.  For comparison, a Slaver lock via Welder wins by stopping you from doing ANYTHING undesirable while turning another creature sideways.  Even Karn and Trike in Stax have utility as disruption pieces.   Gifts and other storm combo variants don't use their few creatures for disruption: they use them to either draw cards, deal damage, or both.  I mean, when was the last time you heard "I'll block your Krosan Cloudscraper with my Darksteel Colossus" in a sanctioned T1 tournament?

If you look at how often kills come about and by what means, I think you can effectively lump currently relevant decks as follows:

Pure-ish Aggro:
Ichorid

Combo Aggro:
Oath

Aggro Control:
"Normal" Fish
PMITA
TMWA

Control:
Stax
SS (you attack for card advantage, with damage as an afterthought)

Combo Control:
Slaver
Bomberman (semi-aggro)

Combo:
Gifts (barely control)
Direct storm combo variants

Of these decks, I'd argue that traditional Fish builds, SS, PMITA, TWMA, Bomberman, *Tyrant* Oath, and some Slaver builds are the only 'Fish' decks in the format.  Angel Oath, Stax, and Ichorid clearly don't fall into either the Fish or storm combo categories.

[nataz]

Not to nitpick, but ichorid runs

4x chalice of the void
1x strip mine
4x unmask
4x cabal therp

and sometimes 4x leyline of the void

Thats 14-17 cards focused on disruption either via hand control or resource denial. Why would you lump it under pure aggro? I'd say of pure aggro varients you could go traditional goblins, maybe affinity, but not much else. Pure aggro and pure control aren't all that relevent in Type I.

Plus, stax as control? Perhaps better called board control though resouce denial, but then you would have to lump fish in there too. I'll certainly give you SS, but I think a better control example would be some of the UW versions of bomberman, with the UWB confidant versions being aggro-combo (with some control elements =p).

Also, Oath as combo-aggro? Looking at ICBM (/meandeck) oath you have a clear classic control shell; the Oaths are simply a finnisher. Looking at the older GWS you have a classic fish shell, with better creatures. If you want aggro-combo I'd suggest something like Food Chain goblins, or something werid like the old Mad Draggon builds. I suppose it wouldn't be too hard to lump affinity in there either if you are runing clamp and discp.

I have no idea where you are getting your definitions from.

/end Dutch

[zeus-online]

It seems like all aggro-control in Type1 is simply refered to as "Fish"...and everything that wins with a creature which is not a token or a 11/11 trampler is considered "Aggro/Control"....That's a really loose term if you ask me.

Bomberman is not a fish deck, its a drain control which either wins with utility creatures which gain CA, while also giving a potential combo finish. (BTW. I've heard people refer to bomberman as both Control, Combo and Aggro/Control....I suppose its the most misunderstood deck in the format)

/Zeus

Edit: Oh yeah, when i prepare for a fish match-up i think of the following cards in no particular order:
Null rod, Force of will, Meddling mage, Wasteland. (And stifle)

[nataz]

/Start Dutch

Edit: Oh yeah, when i prepare for a fish match-up i think of the following cards in no particular order:
Null rod, Force of will, Meddling mage, Wasteland. (And stifle)

Wawawawa?

Do you mean to say that PTW never played a fish deck?! Meddling Mage was never used in either MonoU or GayRed.

/end Dutch

[zeus-online]

Urh, i hardly see how that is relevant since neither mono blue or UR fish are heavily played these days - Why would i prepare for grim lavamancers and cloud faeries when no one plays them?

/Zeus

[AmbivalentDuck]

Not to nitpick, but ichorid runs

4x chalice of the void
1x strip mine
4x unmask
4x cabal therp

and sometimes 4x leyline of the void

Thats 14-17 cards focused on disruption either via hand control or resource denial. Why would you lump it under pure aggro? I'd say of pure aggro varients you could go traditional goblins, maybe affinity, but not much else. Pure aggro and pure control aren't all that relevent in Type I.

Plus, stax as control? Perhaps better called board control though resouce denial, but then you would have to lump fish in there too. I'll certainly give you SS, but I think a better control example would be some of the UW versions of bomberman, with the UWB confidant versions being aggro-combo (with some control elements =p).

Also, Oath as combo-aggro? Looking at ICBM (/meandeck) oath you have a clear classic control shell; the Oaths are simply a finnisher. Looking at the older GWS you have a classic fish shell, with better creatures. If you want aggro-combo I'd suggest something like Food Chain goblins, or something werid like the old Mad Draggon builds. I suppose it wouldn't be too hard to lump affinity in there either if you are runing clamp and discp.

I have no idea where you are getting your definitions from.

/end Dutch

I'd call Ichorid's disruption more of a speed bump than any effort to actually control or lock up the game state.

Stax and SS are pretty much the closest things we have to pure control.  I mean...Smokestack, Tangle Wire, 3Sphere, Uba Mask?  UW(b) Fish goes into aggro control instead of pure-ish control because its creatures are about disruption and damage.

On the subject of Angel Oath, the Leaks and FoWs are there to protect Akroma and Oath, *not* control the opponent.  Oath simply lacks the bombs to play a control game against Gifts or Slaver.  Regardless of what the deck looks like, it's usually the aggressor against everything but combo.

[nataz]

I'd call Ichorid's disruption more of a speed bump than any effort to actually control or lock up the game state.

Oh, speed bump disruption as opposed to lock down disruption. Gee, my bad, I thought we were talking about tangible ideas.

Stax and SS are pretty much the closest things we have to pure control.  I mean...Smokestack, Tangle Wire, 3Sphere, Uba Mask?  UW(b) Fish goes into aggro control instead of pure-ish control because its creatures are about disruption and damage.

I never claimed it was "control", I claimed it was a prison style deck. I think lumping board control and Blue Based control into one category is a fallacy.

On the subject of Angel Oath, the Leaks and FoWs are there to protect Akroma and Oath, *not* control the opponent.  Oath simply lacks the bombs to play a control game against Gifts or Slaver.  Regardless of what the deck looks like, it's usually the aggressor against everything but

Here’s the last public Oath list from the Carps
Waterbury top 8, Day 1

Artifacts
1 Black Lotus
4 Chalice Of The Void
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
2 Null Rod

Enchantments
4 Oath Of Druids

Instants
1 Ancestral Recall
4 Brainstorm
1 Crop Rotation
4 Force Of Will
4 Mana Drain
2 Misdirection
3 Thirst For Knowledge
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Wipe Away

Legendary Creatures
1 Akroma, Angel Of Wrath
1 Razia, Boros Archangel

Sorceries
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Gaea's Blessing
1 Time Walk

Lands
2 Flooded Strand
4 Forbidden Orchard
2 Mishra's Factory
2 Polluted Delta
1 Strip Mine
3 Tropical Island
2 Underground Sea
2 Wasteland


If you don't think this is a control list, you are sadly mistaken. For cripes sake, it can often beat down with 4x factories as it's win condition post board. The ICBM oath list is one of the most control based decks in the format right now, calling it combo-aggro is mind boggling. I'm not sure where your "aggressor" comment even comes from besides the fish (and arguably depending on who you ask the CS) match-up. You yourself listed gifts as combo, how is Oath supposed to race that? Ditto on any of the pure tendrils combo lists, and belcher. Heck, it's obviously the control deck in the Stax match-up with it's four drains. Ditto on trying to beat Ichorid. You can't race Ichorid because of Cabal therp and tokens, therefore you HAVE to assume a control role or else cede the game entirely.       


/dutch

[the boogie man]

Rather than jump into the classifications of fish and junk, I just have a question: Now that fish runs (more than two) brainstorm, and an appreciable amount of fetchlands, is tinker-collossus a viable inclusion? I run a vampiric tutor as well, and may run a mystical tutor, which may prove enough to find tinker/get rid of collossus in a timely manner. What do you guys think?

[hitman]

If you want to speed up the time it takes to beat your opponent, your faster win condition should have control elements built in like Sundering Titan.  I'm not suggesting you use Titan.  I'm only using it as an example.  You'll never hardcast the Collosus so you have to have Tinker.  If you're depending on Brainstorms to find it, I don't think it's a good idea.  Imagine Gifts is going to win because they've just cast a Gifts and their graveyard looks lethal.  You cast Brainstorm in response and draw Tinker.  My point is that you can't get it reliably and if you do get it, it could be at a time when it's not relevant to the game.

[the boogie man]

I am also running the two tutors as well, though, as they have their own implications. I am simply wondering if it would fit.

Also, Gifts relies on casting gifts, fish would not be reliant on casting tinker, it would just be a very viable option a lot of the time. Running brainstorms and tutors just make it better.

[hitman]

My point is that it's not synergistic with the rest of the deck.  You'd be running a dead card, Colossus, and a situational card, Tinker.  In a deck that struggles to keep control of the game, is a shaky win condition optimal?

[brianpk80]

Having run Tinker, DSC, + Mystical Tutor in my sideboard in the past, I've found it's only strong against decks with slow clocks and limited countermagic.  Best use for it was v. Goblins, sad as that sounds.  Occasionally it worked in the Fish mirror or v. Ichorid.  It never resolved v. control.  It was like "Sacrifice and artifact... and do nothing."  Too often I drew Tinker without enough mana to cast it quickly or without an artifact to sac.  Eventually, I dedicated the three sideboard slots to something else entirely. 

Also, be very cautious running Tinker/DSC in a Dark Confidant based build.  As you could imagine, I've seen games lost straight up from a sudden 11 point shocker to the life total.

-BPK