Savannah Lions? In Type One? What the…

[Komatteru]

Rian Litchard explains the proper way to go aggro in this article:

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/11029.html

[Mordred]

I'm interested in knowing how often a guy playing this deck is sitting on dead cards.  (Mainly the extra copies of Legendary cards, as well as Chalices and Rods) Especially if you're playing on the draw, are 4 maindeck Chalices what you want to have?

Another concern when I look at the decklist is there is not a draw engine (save the Recall.)  I understand the creatures are fatter than normal fish decks, but is that good enough to give up some hand replenishing engine? (I know a lot of fish decks ran stuff like Curiosity and Ninja)

This statement is extremely bold, and not very well backed up:

"This deck is a significant upgrade over traditional U/W Fish lists that are prevalent (see Paul Nicolo's deck from SCG: Chicago in October). Meandeck Deck Wins has increases in all categories of performance including offensive firepower, proactive disruption, and mana stability. Now you have the ability to finish the kill before the opponent breaks out of the mana denial that was stunting his development. You have both Chalices and Rods to make it far more likely to see one every game in a relevant amount of time. And you don't clutter up a mana base that reliably has to hit W (W/U) on turn 2 a vast majority of the time with 9 colorless lands just so that you can have Mishra's Factories.
"

Apparently the ability to draw more than one card a turn is not a "category of performance."

To me, the ability to stay on top of the opponent in both board advantage and hand advantage is what made fish a different type of aggro from R/G beats.  It seems like this deck is trying to have the best of both worlds, but ultimately it looks like it suffers from both types of aggro's weaknesses.  The deck is forced to run mulitple cards that are dead in quantities greater than one.  Also, it has nothing to fall back on should something like a Pyroclasm resolve. 

I really felt the deck was presented as an ultimate deck to beat any environment.  It shyed away from telling us about the underlying flaws the deck (at least to me) obviously has.

"Stax? No problem, Kataki your board. Gifts? Nice True Believer, good man. Gifts Oath? You sir, have no mana and then you do nothing relevant before your life total is erased. Grim Long? Chalice, Rod, Believer, Mage. Smash you? Heh. And so on."

It's like the author is handing himself a prize because he's running extra hate cards and Savannah Lions instead of draw power and Flying Men.

[Dozer]

The reason why this deck did well becomes apparent when you look at the number of removal spells being played. Most decks these days in Vintage do not have maindeck removal spells -- they aim at removing the player rather than a merely annoying threat.

Gifts? A Darkblast and maybe two Pyroclasms in the board. Slaver? Triskelion, maybe Darkblast and Pyroclasm. Oath? None (although it has the best matchup). Stax? Smokestack. That's not much! While this U/W deck would straight out lose to 4cC, the current decks are not adequately equipped to handle a steady stream of small men if they don't get enough operational mana to execute their gameplan.

Also, it has nothing to fall back on should something like a Pyroclasm resolve.

Sure it has... the extra legends in its hand. As for the card advantage question, Chalices and Rods create enough virtual CA to push this deck through. Really, the big problem is that the major decks (Oath excluded) cannot deal with early 2/2 creatures. They need their Burning Wish or Thirst + Welder + Trisk, or Smokestack ramping, and all of that is much too slow when you are getting beat down while under Rod or Chalice. I really like this deck more than other U/W Fish builds. It's straigtforward, doesn't try to beat control at its own game (drawing cards), and smashes face. Note that True Believer is a pain for straight up Meandeck Gifts without Thirsts.

What I don't get is the Last Breath in the board. It apparently is for the Fish matchup, but there are better options available. The lifegain your opponent gets might be significant. In the Fish match, Jitte, Reciprocate and even Psychic Purge look better to me (and Purge works against Welders, too). If it is Meddling Mage that is the problem, I can see Last Breath, but then again, Jitte might just be better. You have to switch from Rods to Equipment, but against Fish that shouldn't be a big problem.

Good work, Meandeck! Again.

Dozer

[kirdape3]

I was worried about Old Man of the Sea more than anything, and Last Breath wins that fight by a whole lot.

[dicemanx]

This deck obviously has a lot of strengths form the looks of the list of from Rian's 7 games at the SCG event, but Mordred touched upon two critical elements that's lacking here, which really makes this deck quite different from something like OFM/traditional Fish to the point where comparing the two decks is an exercise in futility. The first is the lack of card drawing, which is linked to another potentially serious problem - the inability to draw the right solutions against the right decks. Now mind you this deck has *everything* in terms of tools against *every* major archetype in the format. That doesn't automatically translate into having even a 50/50 shot against certain archetypes. For instance, having 8 answers (you'll likely see 1-2 of those cards in an average game) but no card drawing is roughly equivalent to having 3-4 answers but running cards like Standstill and Ninja of the Deep Hours. It would be unpleasant for instance to resolve only a single Stormscape Apprentice and have a StP ripped out of your hand by Duress against Oath while you survey your board of Null Rods and 2/2 or 2/1 guys. Or if you argue that you draw more cards to stop Oath, good luck with those StPs and Apprentices against a deck like Gifts.

Again, this is not a criticism, but its a risk that is accepted by the person who runs this archetype - it trades the consistency of a deck like OFM for a much faster clock (and as such it is much better to compare this build to decks like WW, Goblin-hate or Suicide, all of which present very fast clocks backed by some very powerful disruption spells, and have their own unique advantages). How significant that risk is, or how strong the beatdown strategy is, is something that we need to see beyond one event. I for one am very curious if this deck will continue on the pace it started with at Rochester.

the big problem is that the major decks (Oath excluded) cannot deal with early 2/2 creatures

They can, by "removing the opponent as a threat". With every major archetype the best approach is to punch through this deck's mana denial or FoW/Mage and win before they beat you down. This deck already gets choked awfully at the 2cc slot without much acceleration to get around that, nevermind the fact that it might not see enough relevant stoppers to make its strategy work. Again, this doesn't mean that the deck cannot succeed (the article mentions otherwise), but lets not get too concerned without having "answers" to 2/2 or 2/1 "threats".

[Liam-K]

I love savannah lions and think they are probably better than factories, but how many can this deck really support?  I think 7 is probably overkill.  I also feel the lack of a draw engine will be felt... What about fitting in 3 Ninjas over some dogs and cats?  The deck would still have 8 1cc creatures to support him with even though there is no vial, and drawing cards is pretty important.

I would also like to bring up icatian javelineers.  I can see why they got cut (kataki, emphasis on beating for more than 1) but is he even a peripherial consideration to you, or an outright no?

[dicemanx]

Now I remember what this deck reminds me of - TMWA (The Mountains Win Again for those who don't know). That deck centered around massive disruption including lots of mana denial, and could beat down quickly with Genjus and other 1 drops backed by direct damage. How do you think this deck stacks up against TMWA? Very similar strategies, and TMWA enjoyed quite a bit of success.

[LouGodKingofDustBunnys]

In a straight up fight between MDW's and TMWA, I do believe that Mountain would have a serious advantage, but since Ravnica became legal, it's, for the most part, a moot point. Suppression Field and to a lesser extent,Darkblast, eats TMWA alive. It was a major force in the New Hampshire part of the New England Meta for 3-4 months. Then, Ravnica was released, and the deck almost totally disappeared from our Meta. It literally disappeared in one day. Waterbury day one had somewhere between 4-7 copys of the deck. Day two, I didn't see a single TMWA decklist ( and I was helping Ray day 2, and amoungst the things I was helping him with was Sorting decklists. And the major differance between day one and day two? Ravnica was legal.

More to the point, there is alot of similarity's between the two decks, but unlike Mountain, it doesn't get eaten alive by an enchantment. Oh ya, and it's got blue, which naturally makes it sexier. This deck certainly does look like a contender, but i think It suffers from rather major flaw. It doesn't go Broken like Stax, Gifts, Oath and the others, and the best Vintage players like decks that can suddenly blow their opponets out of the water. Using a Chess personality analology, our better players are Tal, and this is a deck for players like Karpov, which we, as a whole, are sadly short off.

[dre4m]

but unlike Mountain, it doesn't get eaten alive by an enchantment.

Actually, it does: Moat

[BurningIce]

True.  But Moat isn't exactly highly played these days.  Back when Keeper was the deck to beat, Abyss and sometimes Moat were common, but can you really see yourself sacrificing a SB slot for a 2WW enchantment for the small chance you might face this deck?  I mean, just the white component of moat alone makes it hard for most decks to run.

[dicemanx]

I find it hard to believe that a white(!) enchantment that you never see played anywhere (at least not in the top half of most events I've seen) would cause the demise of TMWA. Maybe in your local neck of the woods - that I could understand - but you'd figure that the deck would be tried by others in different areas/metas where Suppression Field is completely absent.

Even Darkblast has barely caught on. Its a cool card and all, but it too has some shortcomings, and is also noticeably absent in top finishing decks of late. Perhaps if TMWA experience some sort of resurgence then we might see a rise in the number of these "hosers" but in the meantime the meta is ill-prepared for it apart from trying to out-trump or outrace the hate.

[LouGodKingofDustBunnys]

My point exactly Ice.

Suppression field costs half of what Moat does, and only requires one white, and most importantly it is radially available, unlike the much older, rarer and lest disruptive and currently totally unplayed Moat.

I can count the amount of Moats i have seen in the last five years in tourney Play on one hand, and the amount of Suppression Fields you ask? I would surely have to take off my shoes  :lol:

When you play a deck and make up your sideboard, you take into account the other decks you will probably see, and the cards contain therein. You don't concern yourself with cards that will not see play. You worry about the cards that will.

[LouGodKingofDustBunnys]

I find it hard to believe that a white(!) enchantment that you never see played anywhere (at least not in the top half of most events I've seen) would cause the demise of TMWA. Maybe in your local neck of the woods - that I could understand - but you'd figure that the deck would be tried by others in different areas/metas where Suppression Field is completely absent.

Even Darkblast has barely caught on. Its a cool card and all, but it too has some shortcomings, and is also noticeably absent in top finishing decks of late. Perhaps if TMWA experience some sort of resurgence then we might see a rise in the number of these "hosers" but in the meantime the meta is ill-prepared for it apart from trying to out-trump or outrace the hate.

TMWA for the most part was a rather localized deck type in our 'local' neck of the woods, and facts are facts. Since Ravnica became legal, Mountain totally disappeared. Suppression fields were rather prominent for the first few tourneys after Ravnica, but they have in truth mostly fallen off the map lately, but the threat of that one card has virtually wiped out Mountain in the New England Meta, which is one of (dare I say it) strongest and most supported Meta's in the United States, and is a Meta that would seem, even now, to be perfect for a deck like Mountain. Yet it isn't Played. If Suppression Field isn't the reason, or one of the main reason's at least, then I ask you Sir, what is?

[dicemanx]

If Suppression Field isn't the reason, or one of the main reason's at least, then I ask you Sir, what is?

I think the reason is that the deck is too centered around hate (which many do not enjoy playing - if they do they gravitate towards Fish because its more established), and it admittedly looks like a total pile. Its much the same for other archetypes such as WGD - the deck is touted as one of the top tier archetypes, and yet the hype doesn't match its popularity. Why? I'll tell you that its certainly NOT because of the prevalence of "hate" cards in the environment (which was and still is actually a bogus reason), its because people do not enjoy playing the deck relative to other decks available to them.

[kirdape3]

You don't really sit on dead cards all that much.  Eventually you'll draw a second Isamaru, and that's annoying, but that's about it.  Chalice and Rod come up about once a game, and most of the time you'll be happy to have them tagging along.  Also, if they have an active Gorilla Shaman, you'll really want a second Rod on the board.

It really ended up being a choice between efficiency and card-drawing.  Savannah Lions and Isamaru are tremendously efficient creatures at dealing damage.  I considered that trait more important than drawing cards.  If you run less efficient creatures just to draw cards, you end up HAVING to draw extra cards in order to win the game.  A lot of games of mine ended when I simply tossed down a pair or a trio of 2/x creatures and smashed in.

To be honest, the homogeneity of the draws is the best feature of the deck.  You're extremely likely to draw a 2 power for 1 mana creature, a 2 power for 2 mana creature, a pair or three lands, and a disruption effect in every opening hand.  Sure, if you draw all the Plows against Gifts that's not that great... but you're still liable to have a clock on the board along with something that's annoyed them.  Punching through this disruption is a lot harder that it's in duplicate and the clock is a lot faster since you're playing so many efficient creatures.

Cutting 1 drops for Ninja is really terrible - you need all of them to support Ninja properly.  In order for Ninja to do anything at all, you need to lead with a turn 1 one-drop, then a turn 2 Ninja.  Ninja is less effective currently than is True Believer, Kataki, War's Wage, and certainly Meddling Mage.

Javelineers only really neutralize Welders and Shamans - I'd rather have Pithing Needle, which is a fixture of my sideboard.

As for the lack of broken plays, I thought I presented that this deck's sole purpose was to neutralize their potential for such shenanigans.  Sure, you'll lose games to a stupid turn 1 Trinisphere, turn 2 Crucible/Strip Mine draw, but so will every other deck in the format.  I'd rather win all the non-completely degenerate ones, and I come pretty close to that against everybody but Traditional Oath.

[forests failed you]

This is Paul Nicolo's Fishalos deck that actually top eighted in a SCG power event.  It took third after losing to Robert Vroman.

In my opinion this list is stronger than the Savannah Lion deck objectively in almost every way.


aindeck:

Artifacts
4 Aether Vial
1 Black Lotus
4 Chalice Of The Void
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Sapphire

Creatures
4 Meddling Mage
3 Ninja Of The Deep Hours
3 Stormscape Apprentice
4 Voidmage Prodigy

Enchantments
3 Standstill

Instants
1 Ancestral Recall
4 Force Of Will
3 Swords To Plowshares

Legendary Creatures
3 Kataki, War's Wage

Sorceries
1 Time Walk

Basic Lands
2 Island
1 Plains

Lands
4 Flooded Strand
4 Mishra's Factory
1 Strip Mine
4 Tundra
4 Wasteland

Sideboard:
4 Silver Knight
3 True Believer
3 Energy Flux
3 Annul
2 Disenchant

In my opinion the problem with the Savannah Lion Fish deck is twofold.  Firstly, it plays with cards that are way below the cut off line for being powerful enough to be relevant in Vintage.  Secondly, this Savannah Lion deck has no real way to protect itself from Mana Drain decks.

The bonus of Fisholos is that every card once it comes into play has a relevant in play ability.  For instance, Voidmage Prodigy and Ninja of Deep hours not only put an opponent on a relevant clock with beatdown, but they also do things once they are already in play;  unlike Savannah Lions or Issamaru.  Cards like Deep Hours and Voidmage allow you added disruption against control decks by allowing you to stop their broken Spells, ie Yawg Will, Tinker, TFK (though Deep hours does this indirectly by helping you draw added Force of Wills).  It also seems problematic to me that the Savannah Lion deck doesn't seem to play enough blue cards to support Force of Will properly.  It seems to me that there are many times when one would have a Force of Will in hand but only an extra Issamaru or Kataki in hand with which to pitch...  Sort of a NONbo/

The other reason that I think the Fisholo deck is a more quality deck is that it actually puts control and Stax decks on relatively the same clock as the Lion deck only with better threats.  The tempo advantage given by Aether Vial is amazing.  It allows you to cast uncounterable creature spells, while at the same time playing upkeeps with Kataki, beating down with uncounterable Mishra's Factories, or keeping mana open to activate Voidmage Prodigy, Ninjitsu, or Swords to plowshares.

It is actually a huge problem for control decks when the threats become fast, disruptive, and uncounterable; especially because the control player no longer has access to the bonus of Mana Drain mana, since his or her opponent can essential stop casting spells while keeping the pressure on.

Null Rod in this deck tries to do the same thing as Aether Vial in Fisholo's deck, but fails.  The reason is that it comes down a turn slower, and is much easier to Mana Drain.  All of the good control players already have ways to win around Null Rod as it is, so banking on it to win you the game seems sort of short-sighted at this point.  It isn't three years ago anymore.

Not to mention the fact that Savannah Lions and Issamaru are not good cards!!!! They are by no stretch of the imagination powerful and they have no other relevent abilities to the game aside from attacking for two every turn.  In Vintage paying one mana to cast a two power guy can't possibly be relevant when your oppoonent can pay one mana to Brainstorm, or two to cast Oath of Druids.  If you are going to play with little guys and beatdown tempo style, you'd damn well better make sure that every little guy has relevant abilities that can help you win the game once he comes into play.

Sorry, I've played enough Fish to understand how the deck works; and in my opinion (for the reasons I have already stated)  I think that this list is clearly a step backwards from the ground that has already been treaded in the UW archetype.  I would encourage potential Fish players to take a look at Paul's list if they are seriously interested in pursuing playing this style of aggro control deck.

[Imsomniac101]

Another concern when I look at the decklist is there is not a draw engine (save the Recall.)  I understand the creatures are fatter than normal fish decks, but is that good enough to give up some hand replenishing engine? (I know a lot of fish decks ran stuff like Curiosity and Ninja)

Apparently the ability to draw more than one card a turn is not a "category of performance."

Aggro-control decks do not need a real draw engine. What they need is a consistent way to get their disruption. The real trick is seeing more cards than your opponent and ignoring the irrelevant ones. It is not worth sacrificing slots for ineffiecent card draw. Remember that it has to be mana effiecent and quick. This deck and any other deck would love to play 5x Ancestrals, but the Recall substitutes have to be effiecient. Standstill doesn't count because you have to build your deck around it. Decks should be built optimally, then an appropriate draw engine added to compliment the deck; not the other way around.

"This deck is a significant upgrade over traditional U/W Fish lists that are prevalent (see Paul Nicolo's deck from SCG: Chicago in October). Meandeck Deck Wins has increases in all categories of performance including offensive firepower, proactive disruption, and mana stability.

I agree that this statement is somewhat bold. But I do believe that it is a step in the right direction.

@forcefieldyou:

the problem with Nicolo's Fish is that it is far too slow. While the disruption maybe relevant it is far too slow in hitting the table. Prodigy is too slow. Ninja is too slow. While Vial may help this problem, it in itself is too slow.

Null Rod in this deck tries to do the same thing as Aether Vial in Fisholo's deck, but fails.  The reason is that it comes down a turn slower, and is much easier to Mana Drain.  All of the good control players already have ways to win around Null Rod as it is, so banking on it to win you the game seems sort of short-sighted at this point.  It isn't three years ago anymore.

that point is moot as the same applies to whatever play you make. The real power is using mana denial + other forms of disruption to lock your opponent out of the game.

Comparing Null Rod to Aether Vial + creature is crazy as Aether Vial still requires at least a turn to come online and requires another card to be good. Null Rod disrupts now.

Cards like Deep Hours and Voidmage allow you added disruption against control decks by allowing you to stop their broken Spells, ie Yawg Will, Tinker, TFK (though Deep hours does this indirectly by helping you draw added Force of Wills).

You cannot compete head to head with Drain decks because of their superior card draw. Trading one for one is folly. Paying the same amount of mana as their spells to stop them is folly because they have mana acceleration.

[dre4m]

You claim that Vial fish is too slow, yet your deck simply replaces a turn one vial with a turn one creature.  This does speed up the clock slightly, but I think it is far from able to justify your claim of making Nicolo's deck slow in comparison.  Then, after previously stating that this is an AGGRO-control deck, you speak of "using mana denial to lock your opponent out of the game."  This sounds like Stax, or if not, a control deck.  hmm.
 

You cannot compete head to head with Drain decks because of their superior card draw. Trading one for one is folly. Paying the same amount of mana as their spells to stop them is folly because they have mana acceleration.

This statement makes little sense to me.  Paying the same amound of mana?  This deck plays Aether Vial!  Cannot compete because of card draw?  You play NoTDH and Standstill, in addition to Chalice, which has the ability to neuter their draw spells if desired.  Most of your answers to Brian's claims seem either oversimplified or superfluous, and perhaps you could expand on them to make them seem more complete in responding to his points, as I believe they are extremely valid.

[Vegeta2711]

In my opinion the problem with the Savannah Lion Fish deck is twofold.  Firstly, it plays with cards that are way below the cut off line for being powerful enough to be relevant in Vintage.  Secondly, this Savannah Lion deck has no real way to protect itself from Mana Drain decks.

1. This has to be a complete joke. Your playing Fish obviously your using cards way below the cut line here. Stuff like Isamaru, True Believer, Ninja Of The Deep Hours. Stormscape Apprentice, Voidmage Prodigy and Standstill are all way below the cut line on the whole 'power' theory. The entire deck is. That's the point of playing fair, your valuing consistency over broken.

2. Um everything in the deck costs 2 mana or less (except FoW obv.) and it runs mana disruption out the ass. Drain doesn't even do that much if it resolves.

@dre4m

Then, after previously stating that this is an AGGRO-control deck, you speak of "using mana denial to lock your opponent out of the game."  This sounds like Stax, or if not, a control deck.  hmm.

...

Red Deck Wins. Ever hear of it or play against it? Think of that in the same vein as this deck. Put pressure on the opponent and then lock down his mana in the short-term so he can't fight back until it's too late. That's aggro-control, not even in the same league as Stax.

This statement makes little sense to me.

I'll clarfiy for him. It's incredibly foolish to fight control on a 1 for 1 basis, unless your specfically targeting their only way to beat you. Other decks are designed to basically outdraw you and outbroken you. The idea is to nullify as much of the opponents deck you can at a cheap cost (Hence why mana denial is the common element in many aggro-control decks) and not disrupting your own plan of dropping men and swinging. Draw tends to take up precious time at the cost of tempo in dropping the first few turns of playing men or disruption. This means the draw spells importance is generally based on how much reach your deck has and how fast the format is.

Quote fixed. -Klep

[Imsomniac101]

Thank you Vegeta. I just couldn't seem to find the words. You articulated what I wanted to say perfectly.

Bottom line is: it is folly to play the game on the Drain deck's terms. Therefore, you have to fight him on a different level.

You claim that Vial fish is too slow, yet your deck simply replaces a turn one vial with a turn one creature.

Let's get things straight. This is not my deck. I am in no way affiliated with the author or the deck.

The article itself is a self-glorifying  piece of rubbish. (flame me if you want). It doesn't explain any of the card choices (ie why choose card X over card Y). And doesn't go deep into matchups at all; all it says are which cards are good against certain archetypes(which we already know). Then again, I just dug up Menendian's articles on DeathLong so I might be expecting too much.

[Dozer]

the big problem is that the major decks (Oath excluded) cannot deal with early 2/2 creatures

They can, by "removing the opponent as a threat". With every major archetype the best approach is to punch through this deck's mana denial or FoW/Mage and win before they beat you down. This deck already gets choked awfully at the 2cc slot without much acceleration to get around that, nevermind the fact that it might not see enough relevant stoppers to make its strategy work. Again, this doesn't mean that the deck cannot succeed (the article mentions otherwise), but lets not get too concerned without having "answers" to 2/2 or 2/1 "threats".

The thing is that if you plunk down Lion on turn one, and follow that up with disruption and another 2/x beater, your opponent is already behind. 1st turn 2/x, 2nd turn Wasteland + either Rod or a 2/x, third turn any threat or disruptive element can already win the game. How do the major decks deal with that apart from Oath (and true Storm combo, but that's not the point)? Unless you can stop this early onslaught, you're dead. You will not always be able to stave off four damage a turn -- that's just five hits and you are dead. The combo-control decks have next to nothing to affect the board with unless they Burning Wish for it or get some kind of engine going; and when you are at six and face three 2/x, even Tinkering for Colossus will not help.

I'm not saying this deck is the stone-cold nuts. But I fight against the notion that small creatures are irrelevant threats; they are not, especially not in this deck. FoW'ing a Savannah Lion can be a live-saving play against a deck like this.

Dozer

[dicemanx]

You are of course correct Dozer - if you weren't this deck wouldn't win a single match. However, I merely stated that not having removal is not a "big problem". The ability to handle such an archetype is not automatically a function how many ways you have of dealing with their creatures, and by including removal you might be actually weakening the deck you are playing. Its the old mentality that more hate = better, which sometimes results in dilution of strategy and a weakening of what your deck does best.

That's not to suggest that the creatures can be completely ignored by some archetypes. That's at the other extreme end of the spectrum and can be just as bad.

[Zomar]

The reason for the drop out of the mountains win again has little to do with the meta.

Two cards that are possible problems for the deck.

Suppression Field and Darkblast.

Thankfully nobody really plays suppression field. This card was overhyped. It's good but nobody has found if it has a place in anything or not. If this card becomes popular, TMWA will have a tough time against it.

Darkblast is more popular but still isn't very big. A few decks play darkblast as a 1-2 of after sideboarding (sometimes they play 1 mainboard). They can tutor for it, so that kinda blows. However the decks that do play it use only a low number of underground seas (primarily). These can be wasted to buy you some time. Also all of the decks that play Darkblast are also vunerable to graveyard hate, and TMWA packs 4 tomods crypts, 2 main, 2 side (my version has enlightened mainboard to tutor for it).

Every deck has problem cards. These cards can be serious problems but thankfully they haven't caught on much. If they do.. TMWA is in trouble.

TMWA has a good matchup with all decks other than belcher and storm combo and those two archtypes arent the most popular. So why did people stop playing this deck? I dunno. It has very consistant hands. I'd take it to any tournament and expect to place well. It's funny to beat people with it because they always complain about how you got lucky or how they got screwed over. People don't like losing to a "bad" deck. I enjoy it.

[Fubar]

@kirdape.   I hate to bring it up again, but why has Samurai oTPCurtain been ommited from the side?  This card has shown to be a house in soo many games, hoseing the yard seems like exactly the type of thing fish wants to do.  He's even maindeck material.  I know the 2 slot is right cramped in weenie decks like this, but sometimes he's better than mage.

[Godot]

Fubar:
The only matchup in which SotPC is significantly usefull is Dragon and you already have True Believer (possibly), Meddling Mage, FoW and 3x StoP maindeck to deal with that deck.  The interaction with Welder isnt all that useful since they're still getting the big artifact into play.

Just a few general notes first.

--The whole redundant legends things isnt a huge deal.  Granted I wasnt testing a version w/ Kataki maindeck.  I can see it being a larger issue in that case, but if you're maindecking Kataki then its likely worth the risk.

--Saying the deck has no draw isnt really correct.  Brainstorm is incredibly strong in here especially with the high number of fetches and small amount of land.  The fact that its immediate and only costs 1 mana makes it greatly superior to Standstill in my eyes.  You dont need to be ahead for it to be useful and since its only 1 mana you can easily follow it up with another 2 mana threat in the midgame.

--Having blue cards to pitch to FoW can be an issue.  Unless DSC is actually a threat to come down soon then you'll typically find yourself holding Apprentice purely to pitch to FoW.

--The fact that True Believer stops Hurkyls Recall is HUGE.

Then, after previously stating that this is an AGGRO-control deck, you speak of "using mana denial to lock your opponent out of the game."  This sounds like Stax

DING DING DING!  We have a winner.  This deck is very much like stax except your non-mana denial lock pieces are slightly different.  Where Stax will happily give you bunches of turns to come back by attacking your mana curve this deck flips the script and instead attacks your life total and reduces the time for you to find answers.

In my experience against UW Vial fish decks they were always outclassed by strong Drain decks for one simple reason--they were too damn slow.  The lock was too soft and the clock was too slow to back it up.  This deck addresses both of these issues by strengthening the lock by including Null Rod, and shortening the clock with the Cats and Dogs.

Null Rod in this deck tries to do the same thing as Aether Vial in Fisholo's deck

Really?  How so?  Null Rod does two things in this deck.  First and most obviously Null Rod slows them down, but in addition it stops major threats like Mindslaver and Trisk and reduces the effectiveness of Will.  Vial sits there and does nothing of consequence until turn 3 at which point you can start to regain that lost tempo and dodge Mana Drain.  I dont care what you're Vialing out at that point, you've already given any decent Drain deck more than enough free time to set up their strategy.

That UW fish deck you posted tries to draw cards and use Vial to cheat tempo and  beat the Drain deck at its own game.  This is just a bad strategy since the fish deck is inherently worse at doing both of these than the Drain deck.  Rianfish on the other hand forces the Drain deck to play according to the fish decks rules.  Null Rod forces the Drain deck to slow down, while at the same time compressing the game into fewer turns because of the cats and dogs.  A first turn cat/dog inflicts 4 damage by the time Vial can even put anything into play--stealing a turn from the Drain deck in the long game.

[zeus-online]

.

[forests failed you]

Aether Vial is similar to Null Rod because it is the main method of generating and sustaining tempo advantage.  Fishalos uses Vial to put down uncounterable disruptive threats, and null rod attempts to put your opponent behind on mana.

Both cards progress a specific tempo based game plan, however in a very different manner.

[Liam-K]

The very different manner pretty much makes them incomparable.  Null Rod effectively speeds up your clock by raising the broken threshhold for the other deck.  Vial gives you another way to play around your opponent's cards.  There is a ton of difference between a card that wants you to race and a card that wants you to try to outplay someone.

[dre4m]

There is a ton of difference between a card that wants you to race and a card that wants you to try to outplay someone.

But, when the card that lets you outplay someone also helps you race, it seems to become slightly better.
Aether Vial lets you produce more threats, put the creature you returned for Ninja back into play (especially effective if this was Meddling Mage), make use of an uncounterable counter, produces True Believers at instant speed, and allows you to keep producing threats under a Standstill, which, in turn, forces your opponent to deal with your threats at the cost of giving you card advantage.

[forests failed you]

The very different manner pretty much makes them incomparable.  Null Rod effectively speeds up your clock by raising the broken threshhold for the other deck.  Vial gives you another way to play around your opponent's cards.  There is a ton of difference between a card that wants you to race and a card that wants you to try to outplay someone.

I don't know how to simplify this for you any more.  Both decks are aggro control decks; Fishalos is geared more toward being a controlish version, and the Savannah Lion is geared more toward being more aggro.

Both decks play with creatures that beat down, some of the creatures have abilities.

Also, both decks have artifacts that are not threats that beatdown, but try to swing the tempo in the Fish player's favor.   One deck plays Aether Vial one deck plays Null Rod.  Clearly, they are different cards that do different things.  However, performatively they provide a similar service in both decks.  It is one of ts he primary methods through which both decks objective, of beating down and keeping pressure on, is sustained.  One card optimizes the creatures and their tempo, the other attempts to hinder Mana and brokeness.

They are not incomparable; though they are different.