Turn 3 Fish Kills

[Roxas]

BEST SIG QUOTE EVAR

[jpmeyer]

You don't want to "set them back a turn".  You don't want them to do anything.

[wraith985]

I notice that you have edited Ancestral Recall back into your list without admitting that you're just flat out wrong. Care to explain?

[Lunar]

are you trying to say that because your idea is unconventional we are dismissing it out of hand? what we are doing is analyzing your idea, realizing it is bad and that your deck theory is flawed, and telling you about it. If you dont want to take critisism from some of the most knowledgeable T1 players in the world, then dont post here...or better yet, take this list to a real tournament with a realistic meta and real players and PROVE it to us....the mistake that most players make when introducing a new idea is that they expect us to take them at face value for it...the balance issue we had came when you were flatly stating that balance was good in fish, especially in the fish mirror, I gave you a list of reasons why it was not and you got pissy about it then eventually dropped it and asked for the thread to be deleted cause you couldnt handle the critisism, even given valid points of argument about why balance was terrible in the deck..

The fact that you opened this thread with a statement about Ancestral Recall being terrible, was just a sign of the apocolypse for this thread. How can you expect most players to take your ideas at face value when you open with an EXTREEM statement and then fail to back it up with any cold hard facts.  

Ill take a deck that I have a keen interest in as a basis for what im trying to convey to you. Cerebral Assasin was a pretty unconventional idea. Pairing welders with big artifacts and NOT running workshops just simply hadnt been done up to that point, tossing in Possessed Portal didnt do much to make it seem more realistic either...however, the boys from Hadley played this deck against some amazing players, put up amazing results with it, and started a legitimate thread fully analyzing all of the decks features, what its full matchups were like, what its tourney results were and WHY. You post a pretty outrageous idea on here, state you tested it about 15 times against yourself (or maybe a buddy) against only 1 or 2 different deck types, and then throw in some random tourney info from 20 person events with no meta description and no clue as to whether your always top 10 out of 20 players was even with THIS deck. Yet you expect us to follow everything you are saying and hoist you up on our shoulders in congratulations and say you are an amazing deck builder and that this deck is the be all end all Gifts/Oath/CS meta killer. Thats not going to happen, especially here where the most brutally truthful T1 players in the world like to post.

Hell Stephen Tichdou (sorry if I spelled the last name wrong there) from france recently posted about Dragon and why he feels his UB version that has won him some amazing results (including the french championships) and a chunk of HIS ideas got somewhat blasted here...

We are just being honost.  Take it for what it is worth, and if you chose not to take our advice then perhaps this is not the best place in the world for you to post your ideas.

You really remind me of the guy that posts as Centroles on here and SCG though...

Oh and Noble Panther pwns FTK!

[Moxlotus]

So are you accepting autolosses to MWS Aggro and whenever they draw their win condition?  Or when they counter your Thief/Extract.  Or if you don't draw both Extract and Thief by turn 2?

I don't see how you can realistically consistantly remove 2 win conditions before they have any, or the capability to have any in their hand, by turn 3.    If you don't get double extract, or turn 1 Thef, turn 2 attack and play Extract-you can't win.

[AmbivalentDuck]

When someone sleeves this up, please comment.  I'm going to request a moratorium until then.  I don't need to defend my results against your dogma.

Mods, if someone does post without citing results, please lock this thread.  I have no interest in maintaining my results against ad hominem attacks, poisoning the well, appeals to ridicule, appeals to tradition, bandwagoning, misplaced burden of proof, and appeals to common practice.  These are well accepted as logically fallacious.  Those who've used them, please delete or edit your posts.

[Jacob Orlove]

When someone sleeves this up, please comment.  I'm going to request a moratorium until then.  I don't need to defend my results against your dogma.

Mods, if someone does post without citing results, please lock this thread.  I have no interest in maintaining my results against ad hominem attacks, poisoning the well, appeals to ridicule, appeals to tradition, bandwagoning, misplaced burden of proof, and appeals to common practice.  These are well accepted as logically fallacious.  Those who've used them, please delete or edit your posts.

Perhaps you're familiar with the common logical fallacy of "being wrong." It involves a firm belief in or defense of a position that is simply incorrect.

Furthermore, expecting us to playtest your deck for you, simply because you can use both a keyboard AND internet explorer, is outrageous. The burden of proof for your ideas is on you, not us. This may sound strange, but it's often possible to tell that a deck idea is bad without actually playing it, by simply by comparing that deck's gameplan and average draws against those of other decks. If a deck passes this obvious filter, then we'll consider playing it ourselves. When it doesn't, no amount of grandstanding will spontaneously make it good.

In conclusion, thread closed.