Evaluating Black Vise

[Puschkin]

Black Vise. Everybody knows this card and has either feared it or played with it once. Black Vise was a staple card of most aggressive decks, a known hoser of control strategies and a favorite kill method of mana denial decks of all sorts, be it land destruction, Nether Void or Stasis. The slower the format, the more devastating the Vise. When Type II was created and the Vise still legal, the so called Vise Age forced players to use janky cards like Urza´s Bauble just to reduce the amount of possible Vise damage. In Type I, Olle Rade piloted a very successful artifact based combodeck which killed with four Vises after building hands up with Prosperities and other carddrawers (to be fair, other overdue restrictions and the old and buggy mulligan rule are also responsible for this deck´s success). Then the Vise got restricted and all of a sudden, Black Vise disappeared from the tournament scene.

This discussion is not about whether Black Vise should be unrestricted or not although we have to have a look at this, too. The question that I have is this:

Why does almost nobody use the one Black Vise that is allowed !??

Probably an answer pops up in your mind immediately but let me explain further.
Whenever the question arises whether Black Vise should be unrestricted or not, a very hefty discussion breaks out.  Such a thread usually attracts 20 people within a day and minds can occasionally get heated fast. Opinions can be roughly divided into to groups:
One group says, an unrestricted Black Vise would give aggro enough punch to be viable enough against the various control decks that rule supreme and to a less extend vs. combo, too. They say it would reintroduce the natural balance between aggro, control and combo and thus open up the field.
The other group basically says that it would be a great mistake to unrestrict it because you replace one lopsided thing with another, they think this would summon up a second Vise Age where any deck that can´t dump it´s hand in 1-2 turns would be unplayable.
To be fair there is a third group which says everything would be fine as it is if WotC would errata Black Vise to be Legendary but this is something they would never do so I leave this out of my thoughts.
It is not the purpose of this article to determine who is right, if any. Just note that in either way, Black Vise is deemed a very powerful card that can be called format defining if it is unrestricted: Either it is too powerful to such an extend that the metagame becomes degenerate or it has at least enough power to raise one third of all decktypes by one tier. Nobody in these discussions ever claimed that Black Vise could be safely unrestricted because it would have few to no impact on the tournament scene because it´s too weak.
It is true that the Vise is restricted for too long to judge if it would still be that powerful today but everybody seems to have a lot of respect.

Now, let´s have a closer look at the card and discuss the possible reasons why people don´t run the one allowed Vise.

PROS:
Black Vise provides a colourless damage source that does at least 3 damage if played first turn going first. It does punish players for holding many cards, that means it punishes opponents for having much options and resources. It costs only one mana which makes it easy to slip past counters, which is important because it is mainly used against control. The one mana is also colourless which means if it´s in your starting hand, you can cast it. It does have synergy with draw-7-effects, cards that are common in aggressive strategies such as Zoo, R/G Beats or Sligh.

CONS:
Black Vise may be dead midgame to lategame. It does not affect boardposition (although sometimes it forces opponents to be more active). It is easily hit by Powder Keg which is useful anyways against most aggressive decks.


Possible Reason to not run the single allowed Black Vise in aggro #1
IT HAS TOO LESS OF AN EFFECT AS A ONE-OF.
I do not know if you can follow this logic, it doesn´t appear to me logic at all but I just try to find reasons and this is what I hear repeatedly. Players with this mindset often refer to Berzerk: “I don´t play Black Vise for the same reason I do not play Berzerk, it does not have enough punch restricted as it is”. The main flaw here is that Berzerk doubles it´s effect in multiples, Black Vise not. If a Black Vise is deemed powerful in multiples it should be as powerful as a one-of. I do not know what I can say else, as I said the argument wasn´t logical for me to begin with.

Possible Reason to not run the single allowed Black Vise in aggro #2
I CANNOT RELY ON HAVING A RESTRICTED SPELL IN MY OPENING HAND.
This sounds more logical on first glance. But only on the first. It is true that chances are slim that you have the Vise in the opening hand. It is also true that the Vise has the most devastating effect during the first few turns. But that is like saying “I do not play with Moxes because they are useless later in the game”. We are talking about redundant aggro decks here. If you don´t draw it in your opening hand, then you haven´t drawn it – that´s life and the same with every other card. You are not playing a combo deck here, your strategy does not revolve around having a Vise on the table by turn one. See it like a kind of colourless Lightning Bolt that sometimes does more than three damage and sometimes less. If you don´t draw it, it makes no difference because you drew something else instead like a real Bolt. Black Vise is not your single Doomsday in your Doomsday deck, it´s only one damage source out of probably 40 in your deck.

Possible Reason to not run the single allowed Black Vise in aggro #3
IT IS USELESS MIDGAME AND LATEGAME.
Sure. You can´t have everything. But two things to keep in mind: First there is the old wisdom that there is not always a mid- or lategame but there is always an early game. And secondly don´t forget that you play aggro. If you reached mid- or even lategame it´s probably already too late and Vise is as useless as almost everything else you have left in your deck. In such a situation you are bound to topdecking something like Wheel of Fortune. The good part about this is that Black Vise works will with these comeback cards, you can drop it right out of the Wheel-hand and your opponent holds seven cards.

Possible Reason to not run the single allowed Black Vise in aggro #4
IT IS ALMOST USELESS VS. AGGRO.
As is maindeck Price of Progress. Or StP vs. control. You will always have some cards that are not that effective in certain matchups. The question is if the times when it IS useful makes up for this. And again, if you would play with it if it was unrestricted you should also play with it when it´s not. The Vise can still hit a aggro player for 3-4 if played first turn. Dare I say that it won´t be worse than your Dwarven Miner?


And here I run out of ideas. There are of course obvious issues that have something to to do with your deck, for example Black Vise is no hitter in most black decks because of all the discard involved. But despite of these obvious exceptions it is my strong belief that Black Vise has it´s place in most forms of aggro, from Zoo (the classic to feature Black Vise) to Sligh (colourless damage source is welcome) and from Stompy (better anti-Moat tech than Lyrist) to Gro (can´t hurt to diversify it´s threats and rushes opponent to run into Gro´s Misdirections). I would be pleased to hear your comments on this topic and I would even be happy if someone is able to point out where the flaw in my line of thought is.

Puschkin

[spin13]

Black Vise is playable, but sometimes there are simply better options.  Decks like anti-control Sligh have been seen running a Vise instead of Fireblast #4, on account of Vise being the better of two conditional cards.  However, looking at decks like R/G you have to consider that they are playing two colors to expand options, and they aren't running conditional cards like Fireblast.  In a case like that, I'd be hard pressed to remove a fully functional card for a conditional card.

Essentially, Vise is one of the better conditional aggro cards, and should be played as such.  However, many decks not forced to run conditional cards through diversification or sheer print power, don't really call for Vise.

 -Eric

[Puschkin]

So if it was unrestricted, would you still no use it in, say, R/G Beats?

[j_orlove]

I know Kaplan was ecstatic about his one vise in sligh, since he plays in neutral ground, and he would probably run a few more if he could, but most environments are a bit lower on control, making vise weaker.

There is also the consistency issue. Most aggro decks would rather run 4 of their worst card (incinerate , for example) than 1 vise, 1 miner, 1 incinerate, and 1 ball lightning, even though, in the right matchups, each of these is stronger  than incinerate. The potential to draw the wrong cards is too high, and the cards are not so strong that they overcome that risk. Aggro would rather draw the same hand every game than run a bunch of one-ofs and be inconsistent (look at sligh: 12 creatures, a bunch of burn, and some mana. Every game, they get a hand of creatures, burn, and mana--which is what they need to win. Mulligans are rare, and you can count on your topdecks. Inconsistency takes away these advantages)

[Rico Suave]

Another main reason Vise was good back in the day was because of the presence of Necropotence, not just control.  Necro is restricted now, and so Black Vise is not as powerful as it could be.

Personally, I love Vise because it is quite powerful.  I don't mind the inconsistency.  In fact, I like the inconsistency of running varied threats that my opponent may not be prepared for, and it might catch them off-guard.  It's certainly better than Fireblast #4, IMO.

If playing R/G, there probably are more threats out there which are solid and unrestricted.  However, as soon as more than one draw7 is put into the deck, I think Black Vise deserves a slot.

[Puschkin]

But this is exactly my point. You think it´s powerful but it´s restricted. The fact that you only can use one Vise does not decrease the power of the one Vise you are allowed to use.

What you guys are basically saying is that the Vise isn´t that powerful by itself anymore. But this would mean it could get unrestricted safely.

[spin13]

I'm saying Vise is conditional, whether in multiple copies or one.  If you draw it late, there is a chance it will do jack shit.  If you draw it early, there is a chance you can do 3 or more damage.  However, with the increasing card pool, most decks that run more than one color have enough options so that running such conditional cards are unneccessary; their options are broad and flexible enough that running a steady stream of sure-fire cards will allow a better average than running a mix of conditional cards..  However, certain decks, namely Sligh, don't have enough options and have been seen running 1 Vise.  Besides mono-colored aggro (and I can't say for sure all of them) there doesn't really seem to be a need for Vise, although that is always up for change.

 -Eric

[Gothmog]

I still play Vice fairly regularly in Zoo decks with multiple Draw 7's, but my big problem with it isn't unreliability; its fast, cheap, and with Draw 7's going to get its licks in, my major issue is Gorilla Shamen.  I love it and Cursed Scroll, but they both are very easily dealt with by a very heavily played card.

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

I look at it this way: Vise is an conditional card, that is damn powerfull (dealing an average of 3 to 7 damage for a measly 1) if you get it during your first 2 turns. In the mid/lategame it's nearly useless, as your oponent won't have 7 cards and die anyways if you resolve a Draw7 and he doesn't get broken stuff.
That said, there's exactly one point why you shouldn't play restricted Vise but unrestricted Vise would be broken: If you can play four of them, you'll get them in your starting hand fairly often. And because of their power you won't reach mid/lategame at least half the time, so it's ok that they suck there. In the end they'll virtually loose there drawback of being conditional!
For one Vise this is not true. More often than not, you won't draw it in your opening hand. Therefore it's a lot more possible for your opponent to get to Midgame. And there is nothing more useless than drawing the Vise instead of that Fireblast, if your opponent just managed to stabilize.

That's my point for not playing only one, because Sligh/Zoo looks for consistency, not brokenness.

[Rico Suave]

Yea, but when Vice was unrestricted it's not like everybody got them in their opening hand.

Then you have 4 dead cards to draw in the late game, not just 1.

[j_orlove]

Hmm. My post here disappeared. Let's review.

Odds of getting vise in opening 7 (4 vise): ~45%

That means you will see it first turn roughly every other game. That is huge against control and even non-stompy aggro.

Odds of getting vise in opening 7 (1 vise): ~11%

That means you will see it first turn roughly once every third match (not game, match). If you're doing well, once every fifth match. That will have a very small impact unless you play exclusively vs control (like Kaplan). 1 vise just isn't worth the space.

So, to review: 4 vises=> 1 first turn per 2 games
1 vise => 1 first turn per 9 games

So it's not very good in aggro now, but unrestricted it would 0wn  

[dandan]

I play Black Vise in my control Sligh. Dave Kaplan plays it in his aggro Sligh now. If you play 5 strips, Shamens, Wheel and possibly Miners and Vandals you should run it.

This whole 'if you can only run one it is not worth it' argument is complete BS. It only applies if you have to rework the whole deck to use it.
Do you use YawgWill? What only one? Of course because it wins the game by itself. Try a game vs anything that isn't Stompy or Academy with a starting hand with a Vise and 2 strips.

'Vise is conditional'
So is Balance, Jackal Pup, Cadets, Shamen, Wheel, Fork, Misdirection, Negator, Duress, Mind Twist, Keg, etc, etc
The trick is evaluating how likely the conditions are.
Conditions for useful Vise
1. You plan on disrupting their mana supply
2. A card that can deal 1-20 points of colourless damage for 1 mana but only to your opponent is useful to you
3. You cannot usually prevent (counter) your opponents card drawing
4. You do nothing to attack your opponents hand
5. You run one or more draw 7s (not very important but still a factor)
6. You favour cards that are more useful in the early game over cards that are better in the late game
7. You want damage sources that require no mana to maintain as you often use all your mana.

Going back to Sligh, note that Vise encourages your opponent to drop Moxen where your Shamen can kill them rather than hiding them in their hand until they need to cast that Abyss, Morphling, etc and also tends to encourage 'active' countering rather than optimal countering.

I think the same argument applies to Necro in a new Suicide deck without the pain creatures. Would you run 1 of a card that says you win if it resolves?

Coming soon
Library of Alexandria - why run a card that is only good if you have 7 cards and you can only have one per deck?
Ancestral Recall - Why run 1 Time Walk, Ancestral, FoF and Merchant Scroll when you can be more consistent with 4 Impulse? (not meant as a snub to Freddie, however much it looks like one!)
Sol Ring - surely another land is more consistant, only good in the early game
Black Lotus - complete shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit when you don't draw it, just like a Vise but more expensive.

Sorry, I'm ranting. I'll change to a bit of a ramble.

Does anyone remember where the "specialist subject: Stating the bleedin obvious" quote comes from? Fawlty Towers? The next line would surely qualify me for it.

Cards should be assessed on their impact when drawn (or found) not on their lack of impact when not drawn.

Back to slightly impolite rant mode.

If I get an Invitational slot (just after the power reprint!) I'll submit

Power of doubtful probability
1
Win the game - only use this ability if you draw this card in your opening hand and not after a Mulligan
2: Ankh gains Millstone ability allowing you to change the probability of opponent getting anything
Reminder text: Walls cannot attack

Note that this card is complete rubbish in the 89% of games you don't draw it. A card that is bad 89% of the time. That my friends is the Power of doubtful probability.\n\n

[j_orlove]

Dandan, since I had already explained why vise was still good in some deck, I didn't feel it was necessary to repeat that point. Yes, 1 vise can be good in sligh. But I was responding to Puschkin's more general question about why most aggro decks don't run it. That's where the probabilities come in.

Quote
'Vise is conditional'
So is Balance, Jackal Pup, Cadets, Shamen, Wheel, Fork, Misdirection, Negator, Duress, Mind Twist, Keg, etc, etc

Not in the same way. Those are cards that are useless against certain decks, but generally useful against the right opponent.
However, vise is often suboptimal ever against the "correct" opponent.

[ctthespian]

Quote Yea, but when Vice was unrestricted it's not like everybody got them in their opening hand.

Then you have 4 dead cards to draw in the late game, not just 1.

Not really, if your running 4 Vises you know that they'll do more damage than your creatures can sometimes.  If the vise was unrestricted you wouldn't just pop 4 in your aggro deck for better effect, you'd build a deck around it.  A deck with chants, abeyance, dreams and draw acceleration for both players would make a killer deck.

However, back to the issue at hand.  I'd have to agree with Eric mostly on his point.  Vise is a conditional card and isn't that good late game unless your opponent is holding cards in their hand.  I can see sligh running 1 in lieu of a fireblast and maybe even parfait could run one to keep better control by forcing their opponents to ditch options or take damage.

-Keith

[Puschkin]

Damn, there are posts missing, including one of mine and another post I would like to respond to. Let´s sum up some things.

First, as my initial post states, the argument that one Vise is too conditional and has too less impact, is indeed not that smart, at least with this explanation. Look, the impact may be be reduced by the factor 4 but that´s why you have only a fourth of them in the deck. Think about it, if running Vises at fours is good it would be nonsense to not include the one you are allowed to. For the reasons Dandan named (cutting out the rant). I think Sol Ring is the best comparison here, Sol Ring isn´t more or less powerful by itself just because it´s restricted. It´s just that you can´t raise the probabability to draw it first turn. But if you don´t draw it first turn, so what? You draw something else. And the probability to draw it later is as much (for each single Vise) as for the one restricted Vise. Remember that you play a deck whose success mainly depends on the outcome of the early game anyway. This exactly the faulty logic I exspected when I came up with  that issue.

However, there were two posts that came up with something. The first one was like this:
If you play with four Vises and thus have a high probability to draw one first turn, you reduced the probability to enter mid- or lategame. This is the only reason against Vise so far that sounds logic and that I can accept.
Then there was another post (forget again who it was) who said something about relationships about the probabilities to draw first turn and during midgame and that the number of Vises shifts the ratio between them. To me it didn´t sound logical but it was of mathematical nature and I suck at math, so it at least caught my attention. Whoever it was, please post again and with explanation,  I am interested in this thery since it would affect other card choices and even decktypes, too!

Basically, most who do not favour the Vise sound more like Vise not being so powerful at all anymore, but this I can´t believe since me thinks, a unrestricted Black Vise would wreck havoc.

Okay, thanx for the comments so far.

[Sylvester]

I think I was the one who posted aboutt he differing ratios.

let's see if my memory was right

Unrestricted Vise:

Odds of drawing 1+ Vise in first 9 cards(i think it's still useful when the opponent ahs only taken _1_ turn   : 48.8%
Odds of drawing 1+ vise up to T5: 60.1%
Odds of ONLY drawing vise T3-5: 11.3%


Restricted:
Odds of drawing 1 Vise in firts 9 cards : 15%
Odds of drawing it up to T5: 20%
Odds of ONLY drawing it T3-5: 5%

Basically, 4 vises have 11% chances of being dead, while 1 only has 5%. However, 4 vise have 48% chances of being useful, and unrestricted vise only 15%.

11%/48% = 23.2%
5%/15% = 33.3%

I think it is obvious that restricted vise means the ratio of dead vise VS useful vise is greater than with urnestricted ones

HTH

[dandan]

I'll try to cut the rant too.

The above had bad logic. You can draw a 'dead' Vise on turns 3-5 with 1 in the deck or four in the deck. However why do you restrict bad Vises on turns 3-5 to only bad when you haven't previously drawn one? When you add the chance of drawing a second or possibly third Vise on turns 3-5 you increase the 'dead' Vise % for 4 Vise decks.

Personally I would stick to the first 7 cards as it is possible that a 9th card Vise would be bad. Few would argue with a turn 1 Vise being strong.

I think people are missing the point. This is what I believe Puschkin's question was:
Given that 4 Vise is strong (indeed too strong) why don't people run 1 Vise in many decks?

There are 2 answers, one is cute and cuddly and everyone will like it, the other is like my pet iguana, hard and unappealling to what seems like the majority but still real enough:
1. 4 Vise are strong because you can easily build a deck around them or even slightly modify many decks to make use of them. It is harder to build a deck around 1 card and less advantageous to modify your strategy because of that 1 card.
2. People SHOULD use vise in some decks but don't because of the strange and mysterious power of the number 1 which makes them think 4 is good and 1 is bad. IF it fits your deck use it. I made a number of points regarding which deck strategies are enhanced by Vise, there is content amongst the ramble and rant!

I think Puschkin summarised my post quite well
4 Sol Ring = broken
1 Sol Ring = very good and should be in decks that can use colourless mana\n\n

[Sylvester]

dandan:Your math is wrong... Everytime you draw a card, your deck becomes 1 card smaller  

So, it's not "59/60*58/60*57/60*56/60*55/60*54/60*53/60*52/60*51/60" It's 59/60*58/59*57/58..., which simplifies into (59!/50!)/(60!/51!).

EDIT: Maybe because you have all but won after a T1-2 vise, so it does not matter that much what you draw afterwards.\n\n

[Redman]

In terms of my experience playing with the vise, a creature is usually a much more consistent damage source, and aggro decks are all about the consistency. With multiple vises, it was still not that consistent, but a non consistent source of 4-12 damage can compete with a consistent source of 2 damage (ie, 1cc creature). A non consistent source of 1-3 damage can't.

Besisdes, I'll never forget my game against Mike Pustilink, which I lost, despite having a Vise out, while he was at one life with 4 cards in hand and Cities as his only mana sources.

[Puschkin]

Same flawed logic here, if 4-12 inconsistent damage (4 cards) can compeat with consistent 2 damage, then 1-3 inconsistent damage (1 card) can also, the ratio hasn´t changed.

Also, although creatures are considered consistent damage, haveing only creatures and burn can result into consistent but useless damage (Moat, CoP), diversified damage sources can make the overall damage more consistent, even though you added one inconsistent part.

[dandan]

I think the key is that Black Vise doesn't fit in every deck. Whether you have 1 or 4 is not important. With 4 you can build a deck around it, 1 is not worth drastically changing your deck.

Thinking of Sligh, I run 5 strips, 4 Shamen, 3 Vandal, 2-3 Miners, Wheel of Fortune and I have Blood Moon in the sideboard. Should I run Vise? Duh

I wouldn't pack it in a Zoo deck that didn't run 5 strips and the draw7s for example.

The whole 1<4 argument is IMHO BS

[Redman]

I don't think my logic is as flawed as my explanation is though.
Diversificed damage is important, yes. I was just trying to say something about the potential of having 3 damage at maximum effeciency versus having 6, 9, or 12 damage at maximum effiencency. The first case is not worth building a deck around (which would be neccesary to gain that maximum effeciency) while the second is, which is of course dandan's point, though he has put it much better than I have.

Of course the real reason 4 Vises aren't allowed anymore is it's too easy to abuse...there was of course a time in standard when you could play 4 Strip Mines and 4 Vises...Vise Age was born...I think the DCI feels a need to repent for that somehow.

[Puschkin]

But I am not talking about building a deck around a single Vise, rather adding the single Vise to an existing aggro deck.
Anybody ever tried to put a Vise in stompy for example? With Stompy, the game ends basically turn 4. This means, if you haven´t drawn the Vise until then, it doesn´t matter anyway. But if you drew it in your first turns, it will have done much damage. (only suggestion, I never played stompy besides once in extended). I can imagine some reasons why this could not work but I am so astonished that nobody seems to try or even think about it.

[dandan]

I think it is not strong enough in most aggro decks. I wouldn't put 4 Vises in most aggro decks so I don't put in 1. You need a reason to put a Vise in a deck other than incidental damage.

In Stompy it would be terrible because although you might get 3 damage a round, you would lose an early creature that will do 2 or 3 a round.

The only aggro decks apart from Sligh where I can see some sense in adding Vise are Workshop decks (easy to cast, Welder tricks and not a total waste late on), old school zoo with draw 7s and old school WW with geddons.

In Type I you face aggro, combo and control. Aggro doesn't care about the Vise, combo doesn't die early enough to make Vise an issue and control usually runs pitch counters that can lower their hand size very quickly if necessary. Vise on its own=bad card, Vise in a suitable deck=good card, unrestricted Vise=serious problem (anyone remember those land-Sol Ring-Black Vise starts?)

[Deletehead]

UNRESTRICT THE VISE...  I really love Black Vise. It was
the only card other than Necro that really kicked control
in the teeth. But nowadays it's just not worth the extra
slot. Late game in R/G beats I would much rather draw
a Cursed Scroll or Lightning Bolt or anything for that matter.
But Olle Rade's invitational deck was far and away the coolest
I've ever seen....

How does your post add to the conversation in this forum? Read the rules.

[MolotDET]

I think this is easy to explain.  Black Vise is a seriously powerful card but, due to it's restriction no longer gives aggro decks the consistancy that they want and need.

In Stompy:
     What would you replace with the 1 Vise?  A 1cc creature? surely not.  A pump spell? I dont think so.  Because the synergy with Stompys creatures is greater than what ever Vise has to offer it.  Even in the early game (turn one for instance) a Stompy player would rather drop an elephant than the Vise.  Even though Vise has better damage potential at this point, it cannot attack and be Giant Growthed on the next turn.  So Vise is out of flavor for the deck and would cause it to lose early game tempo, and that is all Stompy really has.
     During the late game a Vise might be less dead than a pump (if there are no creatures on board and the opponent has lots of cards in hand), but if you reach this point with Stompy, you have probably lost already.

     So in short, since Vise is an early game card and Stompy would rather see a card that is more in flavor with it's ends at that point, and since it is mostly dead in the late game, the one Vise is not a good card in Stompy.

------------------------------------------------

In Sligh:
     There are several reasons that Vise is not as bad a card in Sligh, here are a few:

     1) Cards in Sligh have no real synergy.  When you think about the cards in the deck: Jackel Pup has negative synergy with any targeted direct damage spell, Cursed Scroll has negative synergy with Fire Blast as do Wastelands and Stripmine, the deck's mana does not support the mana to hard cast Fireblast.  So, the third and fourth Blasts are more often than not wasted cards.  At this point there is room in the deck for a 1of.  But it must further Slighs goals (deal damage quickly, afford some kind of synergy).  The deck already has three cards that don't do that (ie. Wheel of Fortune, Fork and the third Fireblast), so it cannot afford another.
     2) Sligh likes cheap Threats.  With few exceptions, the cards in a Sligh deck are 1cc (fork, wheel, fire blast and incinerate are not).  Though Sligh could just put a creature in this spot it would be a 1of, and all the 2/1's for one mana that are worth being played, already are.  Cards in Sligh should be cheaply cast so that this can be done, even after Scroll has been used with it.  So, this card needs to be 1cc with the potential to do three or more damage.
     3) Sligh needs Renewable Colorless Damage Sources.  The main reason for running Cursed Scroll in the deck is, so that Sligh doesn't roll over and die at the first sign of COP:red.  Sligh needs more cards like this.  And a 1cc permanent with high damage potential, that deals colorless damage with no cost to upkeep, can be worthwhile even as a one of.
 
     These things in addition to the fact that, on turn 5 or 6 when Sligh is looking for one or two more points of damage, and Vise can logistically give to them, makes Vise a reasonable choice here.

     All this being said, all the decks permanents are 1cc and so are easily disrupted by Powder Keg, which is why many choose not to run Vise.

-------------------------------

     In the case of decks like R/G beats and Zoo there are just better options than Vise.  Sure in the early game nothing slaps around an opponent like vise does.  But multi-colored aggro decks are less worried about winning in the early game.  They can survive to the mid and late game and still win.  And as it has been said many times before, Vise is a dead draw in the mid/late game.
     Decks like TnT and such won't run Vise (as much as the welder trick would be cool) because they are hoping for another big fat creature to pound on you with, and so don't need Vise.

     Control decks have been doing fine with only two or three damage sources and don't need a Vise to acomplish their goals.

Hope this clears some stuff up for you,

[Raven]

Wow, unrestricted Black Vise? Can anyone say turbo stasis?

Nothing like running 14+ Counters, 4 Black Vises, 4 Howling Mines, 4 Copy Artifacts, and 4 Stasis and Xx random junk of your choseing...

I get shivers down my spine just thinking about it.