Fish or Oath? Can you help me to decide?

[Grap_Ton]

Hi,
Until now I was only T2 and Extended player. But because Vintage is more and more popular in my area I decided to build a T1 decks and play more Vintage magic than classic constructed. I got any T1 cards, which are needed for most of decks like Forces of Will, fetchlands, some duals, wastelands, swords etc. I don't want to buy cards like Drains, Workshops etc. now so I looked for some deck which don't use these cards and which isn't so hard to play like combos. I found UW Fish and Oath, but I can't choose one of them. I like both decks. My question is which one of these decks you recommend to me and why? And of course it's for 5/10-proxy tournaments. I now that topic like this was here before any time but I didn't found it. So I'm sorry if this topic is useless.

[Disburden]

Hello,

I would like to first say it's good to have you join our great format. It is addictive to say the least!

 To Suggest either Oath or UW Fish to you would be tough without any kind of explanation of the decks you see in your area. You said there was a lot of Vintage, so now you want to try the format, but what you see in these tournaments can affect what deck you want to play. Oath does really well against crap aggro decks. If you see a lot of unknown aggro, Suicide Black, RG beats, etc I would recommend the deck. If you see a lot more Control/Mana Drain decks I would suggest fish in that case. A lot of decks people choose to play in Vintage is based on what kind of enviornment they see and decks they face. I personally am a huge fan of UW Fish and think that the newer versions with Jotun Grunt are going to be brutal against decks that use Yawgmoth's Will.

Like I said though, it's a huge decision based on the metagame. Do you know what to expect when you go to a tournament?


Nick

[vartemis]

As Disburden said, without an understanding of your metagame, it is difficult to tell you what deck to play.  Since you are an already established T2 and Ext player, you probably have a buttload of commons kicking around, and I would reccomend using them to proxy out both decks you're interested in, and if you have the time, proxy out some other decks (even if you're proxying everything but the basic lands).  This will give you a chance to try out both decks, along with other decks.   You will get a feel for the strengths and weaknesses of the decks available right now.

wecome to the mana drain.

j

[MonoE]

I agree with the previous two posters as regards your metagame. However, on the offchance that you asked which to play based not on win percentage but on gameplay--

Oath, as you probably know, is a combo deck based around resolving an Oath of Druids. Forbidden Orchard in the manabase ensures its activation upon your next upkeep, and the deck usually packs 1x Razia, Boros Archangel and 1x Akroma, Angel of Wrath as its creature-base. A single Gaea's Blessing prevents decking should you Oath with no creatures in library, facilitating the ultra-low creature count which, incidentally, guarantees that you get a whopper. The entire rest of the deck is devoted to making sure that

(a) Oath resolves.
(b) Oath stays in play.
(c) You don't end up with your two creatures in your hand.

One of Oath's best cards is Brainstorm, which lets you dig for countermagic and Oath, and provides (along with fetchlands, especially) a convenient way to re-stash accidentally drawn creatures.

The fun of playing Oath is that you can play with the creatures which are best when mana-cost is not considered, because you don't have to pay their manacost! Oath's very small set of combo parts allows for much manipulation and countermagic in the mainboard, keeping you ready for pretty much anything. The sideboard features a few silver-bullet creatures as well as some more utility answers (like Chain of Vapor) to hate that Oath faces. It's the typical budget deck in Vintage, and has gotten a reputation for being mindlessly easy to play. As with many rumors, not true, of course. There are many nuances, especially around mulliganing intelligently and using Brainstorm to its fullest.

I don't know as much about U/W Fish. But the Fish archetype in general revolves around controlling the game from the onset with lots of countermagic in the form of both spells and creatures. The reason it works is that it's just one big slushpile of synergy and subtle card advantage that grinds many decks down, eventually winning by attacking with 2/2s and 1/1s! It is a fantastic deck playing with individually terrible cards-- know what I mean? It relies on generically useful cards like Stifle to answer pretty much any roadblock. I think its learning curve starts considerably higher than Oath's, but when you get down to it any deck can become better in the hands of a superb player.

Sorry if some of that was a little basic. Or if that's not even what you are thinking about when deciding between the two. But gameplay-wise, that's my summary.

Eric

[Grap_Ton]

First, thanks a lot for your advices.

Because many tournaments here are 10-proxy, people are playing combo decks without grim tutor, Oath decks, some Fish and agrro - mainly goblins. However I have never seen here any kind of Workshop decks. I'm a little bit afraid of the matchup with combos. Because what I can see it's a really strong deck...

[chrissss]

Dont forget that oath is difficult to play with. Knowing what and when to play is very difficult.

Appart from that, oath rocks

Then again, fish also

[sundering jerk]

Welcome to the greatest format and in the game.

Oath is an easy deck to learn and it's a better investment if you don't want to spend cash in the long run. Once you have the core not much changes about the deck only a few slots. Fish on the other hand is constantly changing, and changes with the meta game. Meaning you will always be looking for new adaptation cards for the current meta. For example you'll need three $12 Orim's Chant if you go with fish now that pitch long is Tier1 where as the duress in Oath might serfice. Also new good creatures are always comming out and phasing out. For example cards like Dark Confident and Oriyu (I think that's how you spell the flipping creature). Might go down in price when they phase and then you'll lose value.

Just one Finance major's opinion.


By the way you hardly ever see sideboard cards for Oath in good decks at major Tourneys.

[Harlequin]

Generally Speaking, Oath's worst match-up is Combo.  The simplified reason why that is true, is becuase even after you get your 2 card combo in place.. you need 2 turns to win.  So lets assume you drop oath on turn 2, that gives combo the chance to get rolling, and then gives them 2 extra turns to win (by thier turn 3-4).  In that example your 6/x hasted creatures are actually too slow. 

Fish has its problems:  #1 Budget.  As stated above, a WU fish deck is really about 100 cards... 50 cards you maindeck all the time, and 60 cards that you use to finish your 10 maindeck cards and a 15 card sideboard.  Each individual card is not very expensive, but they are often obscure one-print-run cards that are in that $2-$15 range.  Stuff like Extracts, Old man of the Sea, Null Rod, Meddling Mage, etc... If you don't have alot of players around you with good binders, or a well stocked store... sometimes putting together playsets of these one-prints can be a challenge.
#2 - Pairings.  Fish is a deck that is highly at the mercy of its pairings.  In an unpredictable metagame, WU fish is definately a risky deck to play.  Everything is Give and take with WU fish, you can build a deck that absolutely crushes shop-aggro if you build it one way, or is almost an auto-loose to shop aggro if you build it another.  Which brings me to my last point..
#3 - Deck building.  Fish gains its power through its deck construction.  Its a great deck if you like to rebuild your deck for each tournement.  If you just want to have your 75 cards in a box and focus on play skill rather than deck building skill then WU fish is not your style of deck.  If you have good insight for deck construction (and find it fun), then WU fish is a great choice. 

Over the years, between me and my team mates, we have always been contructing and reconstructing fish decks.  We now have several pages in our "not for trade" binder devoted to WU fish cards.  Supposing you decide to not run Vial-fish and go with Null Rod fish (which is what we always do) here is a solid list of cards to have:

4 Flooded Strands
1 Polluted Delta
4 Tundra
4 Mishrah's Factory
4 Wasteland
1 Stripmine
4 Force of Will
4 Stifle
4 Swords to Plow
3 Daze
1-2 Misdirrection
4 Meddling Mages
3-4 Kataki, Wars Wadge
3-4 Ninja of Deep Hours
3-4 Joten Grunt
3-4 Stormscape Apprentice
3-4 Merfolk Looter
(4 Flying Men)
(4 Icatian Javalineers)
(4 Savana Lions)
(3 Issamaru)
3 Curiosity
4 Null Rods
(4 Chalice of the void)
(4 Stand still)
(3-4 Pithing Needles)
3 Orim's Chant
3 Sacred Ground
3 Energy Flux
3 Disenchant
3-4 Extract
2-3 Arcane Lab / Rule of Law
(2-3 old man of the sea)
(2-3 Jitte)
(3 Serenity)
2-3 Waterfront Bouncer
3 Silver Knight
2-3 Echoing Truth
(2-3 Curfew)
3 Annul
---
So about 100 to 120 cards give or take...

But with that you can custom fit your fish deck to beat almost anything.  Onto that you can always tack 4 Aether vial, and the slew of cards that go in Vial-fish (Voidmage, Equipment, etc...) 
------------------------------
Once you've decided not to run drain, Oath has only a few paths to take, becuase it generally has the same plan against every deck: Resolve Oath, give you a creature, win the game.  The rest of the "meat" in the deck depends on how many duel lands your have/get.  If you go for a heavy duel land splash you go with duresses and stuff.  Or you can stick to a more blue sollution with Chalices and Null Rods in the main deck.  Or you could to supercrazy 100% 5 color lands and run choke in the main.  the benefit of oath, is that your deck isn't meta dependant.  What ever deck you choose to build you can play in almost any meta.

[Implacable]

Generally Speaking, Oath's worst match-up is Combo.  The simplified reason why that is true, is becuase even after you get your 2 card combo in place.. you need 2 turns to win.  So lets assume you drop oath on turn 2, that gives combo the chance to get rolling, and then gives them 2 extra turns to win (by thier turn 3-4).  In that example your 6/x hasted creatures are actually too slow. 

Umm, may I point out to you that ICBM Oath is actually a pretty bad matchup for modern combo?  Chalice+Null Rod+Mana Drain+Force of Will+Mana Drain is absurd.  On the other hand, GWS Oath is much, much easier, at least Game 1.

[oneofchaos]

Generally Speaking, Oath's worst match-up is Combo.  The simplified reason why that is true, is becuase even after you get your 2 card combo in place.. you need 2 turns to win.  So lets assume you drop oath on turn 2, that gives combo the chance to get rolling, and then gives them 2 extra turns to win (by thier turn 3-4).  In that example your 6/x hasted creatures are actually too slow. 

Umm, may I point out to you that ICBM Oath is actually a pretty bad matchup for modern combo?  Chalice+Null Rod+Mana Drain+Force of Will+Mana Drain is absurd.  On the other hand, GWS Oath is much, much easier, at least Game 1.

Throw in 2-3 maindecked duress, and we'll call it a deal

[Harlequin]

On a bit of a rant:

#1 - I was speaking in General terms.  I know it was subtle but I'll point it out for you:

Generally Speaking, Oath's worst match-up is Combo.

#2 - I was speaking relatively.  Every deck has to have a Worst matchup... reguardless of if its good or not.  For MOST oath decks (see point#1) that match up is combo, but any deck can be tailored to improve it's matchup over any other deck.... and in doing so, weakens its other match ups.  So given the original posters account of the metagame... playing an oath deck with Rods, Chalice, and duress means it will probably loose to elves.dec. 

#3 - I was trying to simplify oath and combo down to core concepts ... oh and incase you missed that one, the incredibly elusive terminology I used to bring that concept to light was

The simplified reason why that is true, is ...

I'm sorry if this is a flame, and I am probably getting a warning for it.. but seriously, every time there is a critical analysis of Oath as a deck in general - not any spesific build, but as a conceptual deck - the ICBM Oath ppl have to jump in, whip out thier epeen, and claim that Oath has a great match up against X, or Y, or Z.... according to ICBM it seems like oath is the only deck with 110% chance of beating any deck with a -10% chace of loosing a single match.  It just gets me heated.

[Implacable]

On a bit of a rant:

#1 - I was speaking in General terms.  I know it was subtle but I'll point it out for you:

Generally Speaking, Oath's worst match-up is Combo.

#2 - I was speaking relatively.  Every deck has to have a Worst matchup... reguardless of if its good or not.  For MOST oath decks (see point#1) that match up is combo, but any deck can be tailored to improve it's matchup over any other deck.... and in doing so, weakens its other match ups.  So given the original posters account of the metagame... playing an oath deck with Rods, Chalice, and duress means it will probably loose to elves.dec. 

#3 - I was trying to simplify oath and combo down to core concepts ... oh and incase you missed that one, the incredibly elusive terminology I used to bring that concept to light was

The simplified reason why that is true, is ...

I'm sorry if this is a flame, and I am probably getting a warning for it.. but seriously, every time there is a critical analysis of Oath as a deck in general - not any spesific build, but as a conceptual deck - the ICBM Oath ppl have to jump in, whip out thier epeen, and claim that Oath has a great match up against X, or Y, or Z.... according to ICBM it seems like oath is the only deck with 110% chance of beating any deck with a -10% chace of loosing a single match.  It just gets me heated.

I have nothing to do with ICBM.  I live at least a thousand miles away from them.  I have played with Oath less than 10 games total in my entire 6-year Magic career.  However, I recognize that, at the moment, there are two competitive  versions of Oath: GWS and ICBM.  Furthermore, GWS is clearly an inferior deck, at least if you base it off recent tournament results.  I have tested a good deal against it, and I feel that I can say authoritatively that any Long Deck will get raped like Michael Jackson's lovechild.  With the addition of Duress, which I completely forgot about, ICBM Oath has over 20 cards that own Long variants.  Please, Harlequin, get off your high horse.

[kirdape3]

Obviously those ten games were against an inferior opponent, because every time I see either variant of Long taking on Oath of Druids, the match lasts about eight turns.  That's generally not good for the Oath player.

[oneofchaos]

Havn't you noticed those are some of the most intense matchups in magic?

Tendrills vs. 2 null rod, 4 challice, 8 counters, 2-3 duress, and a turn 4ish clock.  Postboard add in another duress going up to 3, and arcane labs (2-3).

[Tha Gunslinga]

- the ICBM Oath ppl have to jump in, whip out thier epeen

What up?

Obviously those ten games were against an inferior opponent, because every time I see either variant of Long taking on Oath of Druids, the match lasts about eight turns.  That's generally not good for the Oath player.

I went 4-0 in MATCHES at Gencon playing ICBM Oath vs 2 PitchLong and 2 GrimLong decks; it's actually quite a bad matchup for the Long player, seeing as I have, gee, I don't know, massive fucking amounts of hate and all:

4 FoW
4 Drain
3 Duress
2 Null Rod
4 Chalice

plus sb:
1 Duress
2 Tormod's Crypt

Basically, it's like playing Stax with counters.  Long tends to curl up and die.

[Harlequin]

Basically, it's like playing Stax with counters.  Long tends to curl up and die.

It looks more like Fish without a draw engine.

If oath totally schools combo, then I why don't combo players identify Oath as a bad match up?  Also, If you choose to pack rods, duress, chalice... your not going to have a good match-up against other decks.  Going 4-0 against combo means you played against 4 players with combo.  So building a deck that beats combo (reguardless of the win condition) is a testiment to your well refined meta-gameing skills not nessisarily a testiment to Oath vrs Combo.  You predicted combo and you got combo. 

For those of you who are "showing me" how easy it is for oath to beat combo... would you bring that decklist with all your chalices, duresses, forces (no drains - because the orginal poster said he didnt have drains), and null rods to a meta-game where "people are playing combo decks without grim tutor, Oath decks, some Fish and agrro - mainly goblins" ?? If not then what is your goal?

[Tha Gunslinga]

Of course I wouldn't.  It's called METAGAMING; it's what separates decent players from noobs.  Null Rod, Chalice, and Duress happen to wreak havoc against most Vintage decks, if you haven't noticed, which is why they're in there.