Single Card Discussion, Balance in Fish (knocked off topic...*sigh*)

[AmbivalentDuck]

Stop trying to knock this off topic.  If you don't think a specific card is ever good in any meta, you're an idiot.  The fact is that Hurloon Minotaur OWNS in a Chimney Imp meta.  And Chimney Imp owns in a Sorrow's Path meta.  The goal isn't to argue specific cards' usefulness.  The goal is to rank them by meta, if they're last in every meta, so be it.  The idea being a "modular" fish.  In terms of why you should need help metagaming, you don't.  But good luck testing all four color combinations in every meta out there.  I wish you the best of luck with that.  Especially since you need maybe 20 trials per deck/deck configuration against every opposing archetype...  So... at ten minutes per game (you speed play like none other...)  10*20*4*10=8000 minutes...  Wow, you sure have a lot of free time.  I'd like to break that up, if you don't want to, then go post on another topic.


Rather than beating on decklists, lets break Fish into modules. To avoid argument about the "right" colors, I'm just listing them all.  Let's try to make this a complete list and then rank cards within a module by metagame.  Then the list itself will tell us what colors to play in what metas.  Also, as a point of theory, we should try to figure out exactly how many slots should go to what based off prior winning lists.

The "I can play stuff, but you can't unless you give me card advantage" module.
Standstill
Chalice
Aether Vial

The two viable(?) creature-based draw modules:
Dark Confidant (+top?)
Ninja of the Deep Hours

"Fat" beats:
Jitte (we all know exactly what it does)
Wild Mongrel
Basking Rootwalla
Serendib Efreet
Mishra's Factory

Denial effects (proactive):
Chalice of the Void
Null Rod
Meddling Mage
Mesmeric Fiend
Kataki
Energy Flux
Duress
Cabal Therapy
Rootwater Thief
Root Maze

Denial effects (reactive):
Null Rod (I know it's also on the other list)
Force of Will
Daze
Spiketail Hatchling
Voidmage Prodigy
Gorilla Shaman
Swords to Plowshares
Balance
Strip Effects (+Crucible)
Stifle
Shadow of Doubt

Hate:
Samurai of the Pale Curtain
Magus of the Unseen
Withered Wretch

Search:
Demonic Consultation

Look at more cards:
Time Walk
Ancestral Recall
Brainstorm
Demonic Consultation
Demonic Tutor

[Xyre]

1) I've never seen Demonic Consultation in a Fish list. Ever.
2) Shadow of a Doubt, in my opinion, is too limited for Fish.
3) Couldn't this be posted in an already existant Fish thread?

[AmbivalentDuck]

1.  It should be in every U/B Fish list.  They run four ofs and black.  It'd be like not running Ancestral in a deck with blue mana.

2.  Yes and no.  People have been tossing it around.  If you feel it should be at the bottom of the list in all metas, that's your call.  I think it's sexy in vial fish.

3.They tend to (very rightly) focus on specific color combinations.  In general terms, splashing extra colors is a bad.  The idea here is that keeper wasn't defined by its flexible slots and neither should Fish be.  It's a deck that needs to be metagamed and sometimes that metagaming might involve swapping out a whole color.  Ie.  U/G (WTF) instead of U/W (standard Fish with Meddling Mages).

[Methuselahn]

Hmmm, ok, by going by your module hypothesis, when do you -not- play fish?  Where's the line in the sand?

[J J P]

Root Maze
Balance

Who would ever put these cards into a fish deck?

I am still not getting why one should play blue and black. Blue provides card draw, disruption and utility creatures. What does black offer besides more disruption and card draw? Like blue it is missing answers to artifacts, enchantments and creatures.

[karlake]

Have anyone tested Nezumi Graverobber as a Withered Wretch with easy casting cost?

[AmbivalentDuck]

Hmmm, ok, by going by your module hypothesis, when do you -not- play fish?  Where's the line in the sand?

When you're likely to see 3/3's or larger before turn 4, DO NOT play Fish.  The line in the sand: Oath heavy metas and Workshop Aggro heavy metas based on currently relevent archetypes.

Root Maze
Balance

Who would ever put these cards into a fish deck?

I am still not getting why one should play blue and black. Blue provides card draw, disruption and utility creatures. What does black offer besides more disruption and card draw? Like blue it is missing answers to artifacts, enchantments and creatures.

Balance has been called the best card ever printed without the word ante.  If white mana is available and you're not running a Balance, it's because you've arrogantly assumed that your deck will never be losing.

Root Maze would be an interesting card to playtest in WTF.  I get the impression they'd play it if they had extra green mana floating around on turn 1.  Mainly, it's just here so the R/G people don't make irrelevent noise in this topic.

*shrug*  Then only play black in environments requiring heavy disruption and draw.  That's the point.

Have anyone tested Nezumi Graverobber as a Withered Wretch with easy casting cost?

I've personally tested it.  It sucks. The problem is the black mana in its ability and that flipping it isn't a choice.  The fact is that a 4/2 for 2BB is nothing special in this format.  A 2/2 for BB with a solid ability is.

[J J P]

Balance has been called the best card ever printed without the word ante.  If white mana is available and you're not running a Balance, it's because you've arrogantly assumed that your deck will never be losing.

You state that control and combo are what fish should be facing to be a good choice. Isn't it true that usually a fish deck will have more lands and creatures in play than it's opponent? Maybe I should be less arrogant and stop putting creatures and lands into play because Balance has been called the best card ever.

Permanents like Null Rod, Chalice of the Void, AEther Vial, Umezawa's Jitte and most creatures don't loose potential when played under Root Maze. So it isn't that bad but I can't find a reason to put it into fish or wtf because there is IMHO no need for additional disruption.

[AmbivalentDuck]

You state that control and combo are what fish should be facing to be a good choice. Isn't it true that usually a fish deck will have more lands and creatures in play than it's opponent? Maybe I should be less arrogant and stop putting creatures and lands into play because Balance has been called the best card ever.

If you're losing, Balance is good.  When you're winning, it isn't.  That's the point. Instead of helping you to win more, it lets you to stop losing.  Losing lands isn't a big deal. And yes, overcommitting your creatures is arrogant.

[Lunar]

Balance + Fish = ?????

all of this is utterly redundant, and if you dont know/cant figure out what cards work in your meta then perhaps this should be moved to the newbie forum....

This seems out of place to me, either it goes into a current fish thread where people are arguing over viability of color, or it goes as its own in the n00b forum...

A mod can correct me if im wrong though.

[J J P]

If you're losing, Balance is good.  When you're winning, it isn't.  That's the point. Instead of helping you to win more, it lets you to stop losing.  Losing lands isn't a big deal. And yes, overcommitting your creatures is arrogant.

I should have less creatures in play than a combo or control deck? Because that is what you are saying here. Assuming you are playing man lands and strip effects, how the holy cow can the sacrifice of lands not be a big deal?

IMHO the fact that including Balance in this deck type is discussed here warrants moving the thread to the newbie forum.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Has anyone here other than myself actually playtested Balance in Fish?

Sure, if you face nothing but Belcher, Dragon and Meandeck Tendrils all day it sucks. I'll give you that.  But Dragon's the only thing on that list you see and you're running StP and Stifle against it.

Against other Fish builds, Stax, and the 4cc that popped up a lot in the Detroit meta, Balance was a solid choice.  If it isn't appropriate for your meta...fine.  It's huge in a fish heavy meta because you won't always be winning.

[Lunar]

where is this fish heavy meta?  Why isnt swords to plowshares better or umezawas jitte for taking care of stuff...when do you have fewer lands and fewer cards in hand than say anything else in the format? The only time I can think of is against control where you are probably well up in the creature count...balance doesnt make sense in fish...its like splashing white to run it in food chain goblins...

[AmbivalentDuck]

Because they also have Jittes.  Remember, it's legendary...  STP doesn't do everything it needs to versus Bird Shit, WTF (Kira, remember), and is useless as a rebuttal to Smokestack.

Fish isn't splashing white.  It's already committed for Meddling Mages, StP, etc.  Don't forget that "control" has been running Welder and Gorilla Shaman in recent times.

[BruiZar]

Balance is SO worth it . It really depends on your decklist wether or not to play it but in my build it is like my last sneak that will flip the game in my favor.

I don´t run that many lands so I wont have many lands on the table which allows balance to really kill the opponent. I thought of removing balance at first because it can be a dead card, but every time its a dead card im winning so it doesnt matter, Every time im NOT winning I get to use my balance and screw my opponent up so hard. Who gives a #&% if you lose some creatures in a fish build, you should draw plenty of them anyway.

The combinations that I deem viable today are:
Black + White (Im sure the new ravnica expansion will bring really good BW cards and i'd love to see vindicate in T1 play) Dark Confidant, Suppression Field, Swords to Plowshares, Hunted Horror, Engineered Explosives, No Chalices or Vials, Null Rods

Black + Blue, Confidant, Horror, Bouncer, Echoing Truth, Duress and FoW, Darkblast

Green + White, Mongrel, Plowshares, Root Maze, Suppression Field, Watch Wolf and Werebear, OR Vinelasher Kudzu, Weathered Wayfarer, Strips and Crucibles

Red + Green, Artifact Mutation, Rack and Ruin, Grim Lavamancer

Blue + White, Meddling Mage, Chalice of the Void, Pithing Needle

In other words, the combinations are endless, yet i have only seen a few versions hit play, people have to be alot more creative imo or they will never truly innovate and bring vintage deckbuilding to another level.

My own list I have not stated yet cause im keeping it secret for now

[Lunar]

This isnt an argument about Balance being good...we all know that...the problem is that Balance is the exact opposite of what Fish is trying to do....Its like you are just being ignorant of the fact that balance is anti-synergy for your ENTIRE deck....you want more lands, more creatures, more cards in hand than any other deck...that is your goal...I cant think of any time where balance wont at least hurt you just as much as the opponent...its not tempo for a deck built around tempo.

Against Fish, you are resetting and possibly could come back for a win, but they have the same likelyhood of coming back.

Against Aggro, you are desimating your hand and land size to deal with their creatures, they should be able to get their threats back into play more efficiently than you could ever hope to.

Against Control you are either never ever using this card or you are killing your own creatures.....

Against Stax you are either just ming twisting or wrathing yourself and probably not harming their mana since they run crucible of worlds....

The card is bad against everything and is even only half good against the mirror...

balance is simply out of place here and doesnt belong.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Against Stax, you Balance during an otherwise terminal Smokestack.

Against control, it's dead UNLESS they play Decree of Justice.  That was a part of the metagame I put Balance in for.

Against aggro, you won't be drawing cards because neither your Ninjas or your Standstills will be useful.

Against Fish, it lets you stop losing.  Fish on Fish has a lot to do with momentum.

To be honest, I'd cut it from both main deck and sideboard in the current "global" meta.  But it can serve a purpose.  Which is why it's on the list.

[Lunar]

what exactly does balance do against a "terminal" stax, which generally means you have no way to cast anything and killing their lands is a joke since they have crucible of worlds...they also probably have only 2 or 3 cards in hand compared to your 6 or 7 since you cant cast anything really....the odds of stax having more creatures than you is miniscule...

The fish mirror is going to come down to more than 1 card, the whole build is going to matter, and the sideboard doubly so....balance is iffy here at best...

Against control that runs decree then you are going to be slamming that balance up against 3 or 4 counters if they have already played decree (assuming its a good player that is holding back and playing keeper correctly)

Against Aggro they are still emptying their hand faster than you are, regardless of if ninja is swinging for cards....they ill also recover their board position faster more often than not against you, since that is what they do against a counter light deck like fish (if you were running more control it might be another story...)

Even in some wacky meta balance has no place in fish...if the meta is that wacky then you probably shouldnt be playing fish in the first place (since fish is a pure meta deck and is awful going into an untested meta, especially one with a lot of random "bad" decks like sligh and sui black and that kind of crap...)

[AmbivalentDuck]

Where does this assumption keep coming from that you'll so many cards in hand?  You can't play Standstill when you're losing (in terms of board position).  Similarly, chances are slim that you'll have an active Ninja of the Deep Hours.  Fish stopped winning tournaments when those methods of drawing cards stopped working as often as they need to.

What makes you think that they'll have a Crucible in play?  That's like saying that like saying that Chalice for 0 doesn't effect Belcher because they can pitch two Elvish Spirit Guids to play Channel.

3/4 counters?  You mean after they've already Mana Drained something to pay for the Decree, they'll have half the counters in their deck remaining AND in their hand?  If they're "holding back" that much, there will be a Meddling Mage in play naming Mana Drain.

In terms of Aggro, when they start truly winning you have one attack's worth of life left, no creatures, and you haven't been drawing cards because Ninja of the Deep Hours and Standstill are useless in this situation.  It's a 1W Wrath of God to buy time to find Jitte or play Standstill.  It's not like you'll have to play it before turn 5-6.  Remember, you'll have FEWER land because they'll likely aim for your Factories.

Obviously it's a dead card when you're winning.  When you're losing, it's not because you have card advantage and board control. 

[jpmeyer]

Commonly misunderstood point: the decks that play Balance play Balance not "in case they're losing", but because they have ways to aggresively use Balance.

[Anusien]

Clearly, Fish's goal of getting creatures onto the board has good synergy with Balance's "Wrath of God" effect.
I mean come on people, if you were thinking you'd talk about how you're almost always going to be at less cards in hand than a dedicated control player, and probably less lands because you have less draw, so you can sacrifice some worthless creatures to do some damage to control, and still have Jitte, Vial, Factories and Wastes around.  Then if you were thinking, you'd realize that losing creatures == bad because of how much effort you spend to put them out in the first place, or that tempo decks can't afford to give up tempo.

Now, you know how you win the control mirror?  UB Fish with Rituals and Necro/Bargain.

[Lunar]

Commonly misunderstood point: the decks that play Balance play Balance not "in case they're losing", but because they have ways to aggresively use Balance.

quoted for truthery!

@ Duck

If you are in a "TERMINAL" stax situation it means they do have crucible out...otherwise it is probably not terminal yet....anyways your blatently misreading what im saying because for some reason you so badly want people to use balance in fish...even if you can balance Stax somehow and it hurts them (which it probably wont at all anyways...) they can come back faster in most cases since they are A: Built to play with Balance in their deck, B: Have better mana accelerants C: Play with Crucible of the Worlds.

You still completely miss the point that balance does nothing to get rid of the lock pieces in play.....


My "assumption" that you will have cards in hand comes from the fact that more often than not you will have more cards in hand than either aggro or stax, simply because more than 90% of the time you will, even without all your draw working for you...Control matches you might have less, but even in that case they will generally stabilize faster since they probably didnt lose any creatures and maybe no lands and they have a better draw engine than you in many cases.

In the keeper example you assume that just because they mana drained into a decree they dont have more counters to stop yours...they run more control elements than you by a long shot and WILL have a way to stop you that late in the game.  Maybe 3 or 4 was a bit high, but commonly they are holding at least another drain or a leak + a force of will which is probably going to trump you on counters...

YOU are assuming that fish can stabilize as good or better than the other actual high level decks in the format, this is simply not the case...if fish loses tempo it loses...balance is anti-tempo at its max, and is a card commonly used to stop fish from winning....

Like ive said, it MIGHT possibly be half decent in the mirror, but there are simply better ways of going about winning the mirror than a random balance in the deck...

[AmbivalentDuck]

This isn't a topic worth debating so extensively.  I'll continue to waste (if you chose to call it that) a slot in my UW Fish sideboard for Balance when I'm in Fish heavy environments.  I've never indicated that it's a maindeck card, a great choice in the current meta, or that it's terribly synergistic with Fish on the whole.

Is there any reason not to delete this thread?  It's gone completely off topic over a very clearly acknowledged niche sideboard option.

[jpmeyer]

We don't delete, we lock.[/color]