Standstill in fish, still the best fit?

[Meddling Mike]

Lately I've been noticing a decline in the number of standstill's run MD in most of the fish builds around(http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16887) and those still playing a number of standstills seem to think that they're no longer the strongest cards to be running (http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16894). Perhaps now that people have learned to play around standstill to some extent and with a steady stream of tog based decks, standstill has dropped in strength? I wanted to start a thread for people to discuss the merits and weaknesses of standstill as well as making fresh suggestions for replacements if they feel that standstill is no longer the optimal choice.

[TheRock]

We started with a deck built to utilize Standstill, but we have created a far bigger monster instead in Curiosity.

I have been siding out Standstills for quite a while and I personally don't really understand why people don't side it out in obviously bad situations.

The only strength that Standstill offers is that it gets you the next 3 cards in your deck.

There is a ton of weaknesses though.  

It costs 1U to play and it needs threats already on the table in order for it to be of any use.  So there is a huge investment involved.  

You are not guaranteed the ability to keep the next 3 cards that you get either since your hand size won't always be small enough.  

It is unsynergistic with Stifle, protecting your manlands, and Oxidize.  That means that not only is it bad with your mana denial plan since you can't attack it with as much force, but it also allows your opponent to use their Wastelands against you without much contention.

I could go on and on with this, but in all reality, you are playing a card that has one use and a huge price tag attached.  In a nutshell, playing Standstill makes your deck a manland and 1-2 1/1 flyer(s) (which is 100% ass) until somebody plays a spell.

Edit:  The grammar in this post was horrible.

[bebe]

In fact your history of the deck is incorrect. The original Fish build was developed on Beyond Dominia by myself and =was called Curious Fish. It used Rods and Orbs instead of the Rods and Standstills. It was, of course, mono blue. It performed fairly well but it was just not quite top echelon. Then Razor e-mailed me and asked me to get in touch with Marc Perez.

This is when the deck really began to evolve as Marc suggested adding the man lands, Cloud of Faeries and Standstill to the deck. We had toyed with Coastal Piracy and man lands ( removing the Orbs ) but had shyed away from Standstill for the reasons given above - it can be played around, it requires committing the deck to it, etc. I resisted the Standstills - in fact the first primer written questioned their usefullness. However, Standstill made the deck a force and Marc proved to be correct in his assessment. I did advocvate the and Suq'atas in the first primers and insuisted Stifles go in the moment the card was out. I also pushed Marc and others to consider splashing red after testing ' one fish, two fish' built by Pernicious.

Why would you ever want to remove a card that is Ancestral 2-5? Your deck is built to abuse it nad your opponent's deck is not. Yes, smart playwers will wait until you have six or seven cards and break it EOT nullifying some of its advantages. This is not enough of a reason to exclude it from the build.

[Diakonov]

Why would you ever want to remove a card that is Ancestral 2-5? Your deck is built to abuse it nad your opponent's deck is not. Yes, smart playwers will wait until you have six or seven cards and break it EOT nullifying some of its advantages. This is not enough of a reason to exclude it from the build.

I agree.  Especially since Fish, unlike Landstill, has far more threats and therefore usually a smaller handsize by the time Standstill is dropped.  Even if your opponent decides to wait it out and play around it, they have probably taken massive damage thereby serving Standstill's alternate purpose.

[Hi-Val]

I've played fish a lot. Standstill is what makes the deck. You hear the big name players calling Standstill trash because it can be played around and you can just wait until they have seven cards and break it in the end step. Okay, guy.

Fish gets early threats all the time. Your opening is almost always Factory, Lavamancer, VANDAL or Cloud. I have sealed too many games by going Cloud, Standstill to give it up. As bebe said, it's your extra Ancestrals. Fish will have a threat out when it drops a Standstill, period. A bad Fish player drops Standstill with no threats, a good one drops it to protect their threats and create a Catch-22. It is singularly powerful in that the effect of Standstill is one of the few in the entire game that cannot be countered or Stifled.

Waiting for your opponent to have seven and then popping it quite likely will make you take 6-8 damage and lose a few lands in the process. Let's not underestimate the card.

However, in the Landstill and the mirror, Standstills ALWAYS come out. Your opponent can make too much use of them as well, and the game comes down to who can strip/stifle more than the opponent.

[xzero]

I don't see how Curiosity can ever be better than Standstill.

Smother and STP are the most common spot removal cards in existance.  The 2 for 1 risk is just too high with STP.

[bebe]

Saying that Standstill is essential in Fish has nothing to with the effectiveness of Curiosity. Curiosity simply rocks in fish as a card drawing engine. Rarely have i lsot 2 for one. I pretty much always manage to draw two or three cards off a Curiosity.
Read the brief history. Fish was predicated upon Curiosities in its original incarnation. The deck just sputters without them.

[Dante]

I don't see how Curiosity can ever be better than Standstill.

Smother and STP are the most common spot removal cards in existance.  The 2 for 1 risk is just too high with STP.

Because Hulk has to wish for creature removal (outside of Deed) and the only competitive deck that runs STP is Keeper.  Since a lot of the creature removal is targeted at welder, tog, and artifact creatures, you see a lot of REB, BEB, artifact destruction, and Fire/Ice and it's usually sideboarded (except for a couple decks that have 2-3 Fire/Ice or 2-3 STP/Fire/Ice), so they have to wish for it to get it, which means you get at least a turn or two of drawing off the curiosity before it goes away.

[Diakonov]

Long ago I was a firm disbeliever in the strength of Curiosity, but I have since been corrected.  Both Standstill and Curiosity are extremely powerful cards.  The difference is that Curiosity can essentially seal a game if not dealt with immediately.

[Jacob Orlove]

The problem I have with Standstill is that their cards are just so much better on a one-for-one basis than yours are. If they break Standstill with a Psychatog or a Triskelion, you're in serious trouble, even if you did draw some cards (roughly half of which will be lands/additional standstills).

[PucktheCat]

Jacob, can you explain what you mean a bit more?  I would see the fact that their cards are stronger 1-1 than yours to be an indication that you need to draw more cards than them so you can trade 2-1 and come out ahead (Force of Will, gang block, etc.).

Leo

[yodoblec]

The Rock:

It is unsynergistic with Stifle, your manlands, and Oxidize

Wait what????? Manlands and Standstill not synergistic?????????? That's one of the main reasons that this deck and Landstill are good.

[TheRock]

Manlands don't activate Standstill (which is what I'm sure you mean), but at the very same time, you can't protect them against strips anymore.  It's not worded properly regardless, sorry for the confusion yodoblec.

I'm not running any less than 4 Standstills in my maindeck, but I don't keep them all in for every matchup.  All I am implying is that you should side them out in certain matchups, such as the mirror.  I'm not naming replacements or bashing the card, I'm just telling it as it is.

Standstill is not Ancestral 2-5.  If it was, we would either all play something with or against Standstill or Standstill would be restricted by now.

[yodoblec]

It was worded wierdly, another match-up to take it out of is Landstill, it's like helping them. I have to say that Standstill is needed in this deck because it just functions so well with it.

[bebe]

The problem I have with Standstill is that their cards are just so much better on a one-for-one basis than yours are. If they break Standstill with a Psychatog or a Triskelion, you're in serious trouble, even if you did draw some cards (roughly half of which will be lands/additional standstills).

Fish as designed by PTW uses a number of cards that would clearly be jank in most decks. That was the beauty of the deck. All the cards work together. If your opponent plays a Trisk or Tog you are in trouble regardless. At least Still affords the opportunity of finding the counter.

Standstill is not Ancestral 2-5. If it was, we would either all play something with or against Standstill or Standstill would be restricted by now.

In Fish it serves a very similar function ( as it does in Landstill). Of course its not an Anceestral. Workshops are not Lotuses but in the right deck they function they same way. They allow explosive starts.

All I am implying is that you should side them out in certain matchups

I don't think that anyone is arguing this point. Of course you would side them out in the mirrors and against Landstill. They serve no purpose there.

[Jacob Orlove]

The problem I have with Standstill is that their cards are just so much better on a one-for-one basis than yours are. If they break Standstill with a Psychatog or a Triskelion, you're in serious trouble, even if you did draw some cards (roughly half of which will be lands/additional standstills).

Fish as designed by PTW uses a number of cards that would clearly be jank in most decks. That was the beauty of the deck. All the cards work together. If your opponent plays a Trisk or Tog you are in trouble regardless. At least Still affords the opportunity of finding the counter.

I know that the deck runs on synergy, but I feel that the cloud/standstill/conclave synergy isn't enough to justify keeping them in the deck. The other cards actually aren't very janky, and have synergy with your real draw engine, Curiosity.

Brainstorm gives you just as much of a chance to find an answer to their problem cards as Standstill, except you can use it when you want to. It also lets you branch out more in terms of what you can run--now I can test a MD Sylvan, for instance, which wouldn't have been very good if I had to try to get it out before dropping the Standstill.

As for the card quality issue, other decks will typically have fewer and better threats than Fish. If you play Standstill, you force yourself to wait until they're ready to deploy a threat like Tog or Titan or Razormane or Trike. Then you have to deal with it. By not running Standstill, you give yourself the opportunity to augment your offense each turn, and turn your early advantage into a dominating lead, instead of limiting yourself to an advantage that they can erase easily with just one card.

[bebe]

I feel that the cloud/standstill/conclave synergy isn't enough to justify keeping them in the deck

That was the point of the deck though. It was modified to make use of the Standstills. The deck that you run - UG Fish - is quite brilliant and Brainstorm does make better sense in it. As I wrote earlier, the original engine I designed the deck around was Curiosity. At the time it was largely overlooked by the Type 1 community. There were no Standstills in the deck. PTW just expanded the theme. His deck takes advantage of the Standstills by denying the opponent the opportunity to play troublesome spells while pinging away at the life totals. I agree that your build runs well without Standstill. In fact in today's meta it might be the best approach as it has more answers to some the better decks out there and some potent threats.

[Ifflejink]

In Mono-U Fish and Gay/r Standstill is huge. In U/g, a.k.a. Worse than Fish.dec, Brainstorm works better. It's a matter of play style. U/g's play style simply is more suited to Brainstorm. In the other builds, cards like Grim Lavamancer and Suq'ata Firewalker create am environment more suited for Standstill. And since I play Mono-U Fish, I'm most definitely an advocate of Standstill.

[Phantom Tape Worm]

This thread confuses me.  Two very large tournaments on the east coast have both just had  10+ standstills in top 8.  Shouldn't the question be "why is standstill so good?"  Or "why haven't other decks abused this card yet?"  Or "what is it about the metagame that is allowing standstill based decks to be so good right now?"

I wouldn't cut standstill from gay/r or mono-u gay fish unless the dreaded type 1 counter rebel deck that we all know is looming on the horizon becomes the next big thing    .  And even then I'd just board them out.

Are there situations where standstill is bad?  Of course.  It's a drawback that you simply have to accept if you are going to play either gay/r or mono-u gay fish.  I can say with 100% certainty that the decks really are just fine as they currently stand.

[Eaglecaste]

Standstill is soooo good, not just because of its obvious, and already mentioned good points, but in that, even if an opponent gets a better start and standstill is rendered useless.....it can always be pitched to a Force of Will, or Misdirection. In tandem with Curiosity, Standstill is a cracking card drawing engine for Gay fish.

[Machinus]

The "arguments" against standstill being a good card center around the belief that since there is a commonly understood method of minimizing the advantage gained by the player who plays it, that it is not good anymore. I disagree with this.

Before I start any discussion, I would like to address one important thing: you have to know how to play standstill right before it can offer you any advantage in a game. If you play it incorrectly, then yes it is a bad card, and makes the game worse for you, but that is your own responsibility. You cannot just put standstill in your deck and expect to benefit from it; I think the restrictions on playing this card keep many people from desiring to use it. There is a certain set of board conditions which must be met before you can profit from using standstill, ie., NO WELDERS on your opponent's side of the board, enough land on yours, etc. Standstill must have acute synergy with the cards it is played with (wasteland, cycling) in order for it to be good.

First, let us examine the WORST CASE scenario. This is the commonly quoted central argument against standstill. At the end of any of your turns in which you have seven cards in hand, your opponent stacks, at which time you can counter or blow up whatever they are doing, and then discard excess cards. Apparently this "sucks" for two mana.

I would like to point out one of the fundamental concepts which which allows control decks to thrive. It is one which is central to prison philsophy also. That is the idea that you want to drop permanents (in this case land), draw cards, and not have to worry about what your opponent is doing. Even if you never get any cards from standstill, the rest of your deck should be designed to function well. If you are trying to get immediate draw power, PLAY BRAINSTORM. Standstill is not for that. It is to give your opponent a choice: whether to risk allowing you to make those drops, build up counters, or to just give you cards now and go on with your plan. Smart players figured out that it is too dangerous to pay attention to the cards you draw, and just play through it and try to execute their game plan normally. That is the job of this card; your opponent should have to pay for withholding your cards.

That being said, the "best case" scenario is the one in which you drop standstill, the opponent breaks it quickly, and you go on with your game. This is not necessarily any more desirable than the other option, against some decks clearly it is, but not all the time. The value of it fluctuates depending on the strategy of the deck you are facing. However, if you know how to compensate and address the weaknesses it possesses - that is, if you know how to play it properly - then yes it is a fine card, and deserves its spot in the T8 data.

[Pern]

First, let us examine the WORST CASE scenario. This is the commonly quoted central argument against standstill. At the end of any of your turns in which you have seven cards in hand, your opponent stacks, at which time you can counter or blow up whatever they are doing, and then discard excess cards. Apparently this "sucks" for two mana.

The worst case scenario is either that your opponent can put a threat on the table before you can play a Standstill,
or that your opponent can operate under Standstill as well or better than you can.

In this deck, Standstill can be a dead card a little too often for my comfort.

This thread confuses me. Two very large tournaments on the east coast have both just had 10+ standstills in top 8. Shouldn't the question be "why is standstill so good?" Or "why haven't other decks abused this card yet?" Or "what is it about the metagame that is allowing standstill based decks to be so good right now?"

Three of those Standstills were mine.
I'd like to know how many were in the decks after game one.
Most of my matches, that would be 0.

[jpmeyer]

I posted this over in the closed Grostill discussion, but here it goes anyway:

Normally, people want to fight over draw spells and in most cases this is the right play (Deep Analysis and Gush usually being the exceptions.)  The problem with Standstill is that they may not even need to fight over it in order to stop it.

[yodoblec]

You will hardly ever break your own Standstill and most people you play against will break it very soon, sometimes later EOT on your turn. Since you have 6 manlands you can lay threats and not ever break standstill.

[Machinus]

Pern:

I thought I made it clear in my post that this is something that you must prevent from happening before you play the card. If an opponent has a threat on the table, standstill is a dead card. This is the situation that control has trouble with in the first place, and the reason why cunning wish, fire ice, and rack and ruin are so good. But you would not play standstill if you are on a clock (I hope). However, you may be correct in stating that in the environment in which you play, standstill is a poor choice. I do not know if this is necessarily true for fully powered tournaments, though, but I did say that it depends a great deal on the deck you are facing. This card is poor against decks similar to those in which it could function properly, and that is something which a deckbuilder must take into account when choosing what to play. I do not intend to advertise this card, I don't think it is being ignored. But I do feel like it is being dismissed unfairly.


JP:

This weakness of standstill, that it is a "soft" investment, means that it is weak against control or prison. I guess the determining factor in this card getting widespread use is whether or not aggressive decks show viability consistently enough in large tournaments.