Why are Fish decks not winning tournaments?

[kirdape3]

Fish is only bad because of the printing of Empty the Warrens.  The only reason that this is so is because now you're forced to answer not your opponent's fundamental game plan (that is, a rapid cascade of more and more powerful cards to be cast off the fast mana that those decks aim to deploy - your job is simply to force a deck that functions on a far higher mana threshold to exist with little or no mana), but the win condition he employs.  This is an extremely disabling problem because now Fish is now reactive against decks with vastly superior manipulation and defense.

There doesn't exist any fundamental problem with Fish if you can have a proactive plan against Empty the Warrens.  Most 'broken' Vintage decks are primarily designed to beat each other up with the expectation that Empty the Warrens will defeat the fair decks.

[AmbivalentDuck]

For me, something that is very important in identifying "Fish" is the presence of Null Rod.   In the absence of Null Rod, I have a very difficult time calling something Fish unless it also has Chalice of the Void maindeck.   Null Rod has heavily influenced my view of the Fish deck since it first emerged in Vintage in the big summer of 2004 where Marc Perez won tons of power using his UR Fish list. 

Um...so Fish is just 'the anti-mox deck?'  You're largely responsible for making a 2 CC artifact that comes down on turn 2 irrelevant.  Seriously, why play a card that's going to come down too late or walk directly into a Drain?

If you want to define Fish as an uphill battle against Moxen, feel free to do so.  But since the introduction of the fetchlands, 5 Strips + Null Rod just falls short of its original power.  With the introduction of Confidant, Fish gained the ability to actually use off-color moxen...so I'd argue that it *should*.  They're certainly a huge asset in my experience with SS.

[silvernail]

For me, something that is very important in identifying "Fish" is the presence of Null Rod.   In the absence of Null Rod, I have a very difficult time calling something Fish unless it also has Chalice of the Void maindeck.   Null Rod has heavily influenced my view of the Fish deck since it first emerged in Vintage in the big summer of 2004 where Marc Perez won tons of power using his UR Fish list. 

Steve agrees with me on a point about fish!!! w00ts

Though I more broadly state that fish is about mana denial, in vintage Null Rod is an essential part of that plan.

As for fish being bad against Empty the Warrens - you have options like Echoing Truth, Stifle , Engineered Plague / Explosives, and Sickening Dreams or you could start running red again for global burn or fire/ice.

[hitman]

DicemanX, I haven't had a problem getting a draw engine going.  I've found the disruption pieces I draw into irrelevant for the decks being played recently.  With slight modifications, I think Fish can be as potent as it used to be.  I don't believe Fish has to be broken to win.  It just has to negate the broken plays of other decks.  If it's not doing that, in what ways can Fish properly address the new set of broken plays?  

I said in another thread that every underpowered deck should maindeck Tormod's Crypt because so much of any given field plays out of the graveyard.  Duress is good against, Gifts, Long, Dragon, Slaver, Oath, IT, Drain Tendrils, etc.  Why don't more mainboards support it?  Engineered Explosives can be mana denial or token wrecker.  If Fish needs to attack mana and stop EtW, I think this is a strong option that doesn't get color hosed in a 3-color deck.  Whether or not my numbers are right, I think the cards are and testing can tell which numbers are right.  

I don't think the speed of the format is a problem.  If prison strategies adapt, the faster archetypes will have to trade some speed for resiliency and tournament results should reflect fluctuations in any given deck's performance.

2/1s and 2/2s with no abilities aren't efficient in Vintage.  Stormscape Apprentice is useless when goblin tokens are beating your head in.  Echoing Truth can do most everything Swords can do in Type One.  Stifle and Daze (especially Daze) are situational.  There's plenty of room to make adjustments.  

[wethepeople]

I said in another thread that every underpowered deck should maindeck Tormod's Crypt because so much of any given field plays out of the graveyard.  Duress is good against, Gifts, Long, Dragon, Slaver, Oath, IT, Drain Tendrils, etc.  Why don't more mainboards support it?  Engineered Explosives can be mana denial or token wrecker.  If Fish needs to attack mana and stop EtW, I think this is a strong option that doesn't get color hosed in a 3-color deck.  Whether or not my numbers are right, I think the cards are and testing can tell which numbers are right.  

...

2/1s and 2/2s with no abilities aren't efficient in Vintage.  Stormscape Apprentice is useless when goblin tokens are beating your head in.  Echoing Truth can do most everything Swords can do in Type One.  Stifle and Daze (especially Daze) are situational.  There's plenty of room to make adjustments.  

Actually, that is almost exactly how UWb Fish was built. It splashes black for Duress, and a stronger draw engine; Dark Confidant. Rather than using several Swords to Plowshares, Echoing Truth is used in those slots. In some of my recent lists, Stifle is used, as opposed to Daze, to assure that you aqquire to mana by turn two, whereas with Daze, your turn to becomes a repeat of turn one. This is something I have only been using recently, but it has proven to be an overall strong selection.

The reason I am mentioning this is that once again, I propose that black is splashed to UW Fish. I have had better matchups in just about everything but Stax, which isn't even common in one's metagame, and ETW becomes less of a threat.

[hauntedechos]

I agree that U/W could use the splash black.  And in fact it is for the very fact that I think the addition of x4 Duress makes a Huge difference in the deck.  I don't think that Dark Confidandt is a definate auto include.  Stong as it is and providing the U/W with a draw engine instead of relying on the Brainstorm Handfixer, I feel that I would be hard pressed to give up my 1cc 2/2 2/1 beaters.  I would as well replace Daze with the stronger and more versatile Duress, as it gives a proactive approach to Fish.  As I think we all know U/W provides the most tools to combat and disrupt all decks in the current format, and I'd rather not disrupt that , save for the manabase tweak needed to allow the Duress.  And in that respect, the manabase is not affected that much to allow the use of Duress.  As well it allows for the use of E.Plauges if you feel that x4 Duress and x? E.truth and x4 Meddling Mage isn't enough to combat Empty the Warrens.

I've been talking with Dave Fientsien about this very issue, and I would be very interested to see what kind of results the addition of x4Duress alone would provide.  I'd do this myself, but I don't have a play group and my area is basicly scrub infested and the Toronto shop that used to run monthly Vintage tournies rarely runs them at all, favouring Legacy instead.

cheers

Mike

[madmanmike25]

If you're not able to perform with fish, it comes down to one of the following possibilities: You're a poor player, your opponent is just better than you, you've built your deck poorly, you've metagamed incorrectly, or you're playing in a sealed deck event.

You forgot two more: Your opponent had 7 better cards in his hand than you did, and, you had to mulligan.  The former has to do with the 'brokenness' of other decks vs. the consistency of the Fish deck.  The latter just means it's a card game(read: random), sometimes your opening 7 suck.  Sometimes your next 6 are even worse, it happens.  Bad luck doesn't make you a 'poor' player.

However, it is also a deck that has a decent chance at beating almost any relevant archetype. Now, I don't know about you guys, but a deck that has a roughly 50-50 chance of beating anything is a pretty damn good deck where I come from.

you've metagamed incorrectly

How can you metagame incorrectly if you have a roughly 50/50 shot against anything?  Can you clarify this?

Fish is only bad because of the printing of Empty the Warrens.

Then why hasn't it placed higher in the past?  EtW hasn't been around long enough to have kept Fish down for so long.  I think there are many  other points that have been brought up in this thread about the poor performance of Fish that are more relevant than the printing of EtW.

For me, something that is very important in identifying "Fish" is the presence of Null Rod.

Maybe, but that doesn't mean the 'Fish' deck MUST include Null Rod to be classified as a 'Fish' deck.  That's the problem here, knowing the parameters for 'Fish'.  You see Null Rod whereas I see Blue mana/Force of Will being more important to the 'Fish' label.

Shop Aggro can have Null Rod and Chalice.  But would anyone call Juggernaut a Fish creature?  Hardly.  That just illustrates the point that it is indeed difficult to correctly label a deck.

Who gets to decide what shall be called Fish?  If someone is playing what you consider a Fish deck but calls it 'Mr. Belvedere', would you still call it a Fish deck when scouting for a buddy? 

[kirdape3]

Fish's Top 8 percentage is in the Top 5 of Vintage decks from 2006.  Oh noes, you're not winning a tournament - which means that now you're playing against the three people who had a clue on how to beat your deck.  Most Vintage players don't.

[technogeek5000]

Seeing as how fish took first and second place at myriad with one of the pilots making a previous top 8 at ELD's tournament i think it is safe to say that fish is definately viable and in the right hands (yes this means that alot of fish players are inexperienced) it may be one of the best choices you can make.

[Shock Wave]

You forgot two more: Your opponent had 7 better cards in his hand than you did, and, you had to mulligan.  The former has to do with the 'brokenness' of other decks vs. the consistency of the Fish deck.  The latter just means it's a card game(read: random), sometimes your opening 7 suck.  Sometimes your next 6 are even worse, it happens.  Bad luck doesn't make you a 'poor' player.

Sure, it will happen that the odd time, you get blown out the water. However, it is not going to happen more frequently against Fish than against any other deck. If Long or Gifts has the nuts against you, it doesn't matter whether you're playing Fish or Elves.dec. You're going to lose. Yes, sometimes you have to mulligan. I would argue that it happens less frequently with Fish than decks such as Long, who are less consistent in retaining their opening 7 cards.

How can you metagame incorrectly if you have a roughly 50/50 shot against anything?  Can you clarify this?

Well, by "roughly" I meant that Fish has a decent chance against most of the top decks in the field. Now let's say you plan on playing those decks and walk into a room full of Workshop Aggro, TMWA, Birdshit, and random aggro. That would definitely qualify as an incorrect metagame forecast. This is improbable, but it can happen at a smaller event.

[Godder]

I think the point is not so much that Fish risks getting blown out of the water, but more that Fish doesn't get to blow the opposition out of the water to make up for it.

[Shock Wave]

I think the point is not so much that Fish risks getting blown out of the water, but more that Fish doesn't get to blow the opposition out of the water to make up for it.

Again, the upside of not having broken plays is consistency in performance. You don't see Fish mulling to 5 often, whereas this is very normal for a combo player or a Stax player. Combo and other fully powered archetypes have the potential to win the game very early, but they also have to mulligan more frequently and are far easier to hate.

[LotusHead]

Smemmen wrote

Second, while I agree that Fish can get overpowered, I don’t agree that Fish doesn’t have broken plays.  Null Rod is one of THE most powerful plays in Vintage, period.   Null Rod is, from a certain perspective, broken.   

My introduction to modern Vintage happened during the summer of U/R Fish. (Sanctioned, 0-proxy) I played precursor to Bomberman.

one fish player tried turn 1 Null Rod, which I forced. They tried turn 2 Null Rod, which I forced, but was met with Daze.

I was later told that the 2nd Null Rod was a topdeck and I concluded that all fish players are hella lucky.

My next beating by Fish happened when my opponent won die roll, mulled to five, then played Null Rod, which resolved.

He later told me that his original grip of 7 was definately keepable, his mulligan to 6 was keepable, but his mulligan to 5 had Null Rod.

Null Rod = Fish except when Vroman plays it.

[The Atog Lord]

I've long said that fish is 56 cards wrapped around Null Rod.

[Darkenslight]

I think that the main reasons that Fish isn't winning tournaments are twofold (stop me if I'm regurgitating anything):

1) Fish is one of the most difficult decks to play optimally over what will probably be around 25-30 games of Swiss.  Yes, this does apply to other decks as well, but with Fish (which is almost purely proactive, as far as I can tell,) this problem is amplified.  On TMD alone, I've seen more 'What do you name with Pikula?' threads than on any other topic, excepting perhaps play situations.  It's the same for Reset High Tide in Legacy; there are very few players who can play it optimally through many rounds, as it's a very mentally draining deck to play.

2) Most of the decks Fish was originally designed to hate on have evolved to the point of brokenness with better consistancy.  This is to say that decks such as Gifts and Long have found more win conditions than simply outStorming you.  It's about time Fish began to think about the Erayo-lock, or cards such as Teferi (who is a monster in almost any format, although the cost is very high).  Also, IIRC, SS had the Erayo lock in the main.  That's still quite strong, even in today's era of almost coin-flipping certain match-ups.

[silvernail]

In my opinion a true fish deck is a base blue mana denial deck that uses counters and the mana denial to trip up the opponents development so that measily 2/2s and 1/1s can go the distance.

In vintage , one of the strongest pieces of mana denial is infact Null Rod, which means that a true fish deck is likely going to want / need Null Rod to be successful.

Previous incarnations of Fish have used Winter Orb or Blood Moon to good effect as well, but Null Rod is a must in vintage fish.

Well I think that Sullivan Solution is a solid evolution on the fish archetype, I would not call it a fish deck simply because it has an alternate focus on hand disruption and potential lock with Erayo.

[brianpk80]

I'm seeing a lot of posts that establish the following:

1. Fish originally ran Null Rod as its primary tool of mana denial.
2. Null Rod is one of the strongest cards in Vintage and arguably the strongest in Fish.

However, I don't see this going far enough to advance the idea that "A deck without Null Rod, by definition, is not Fish."  Requiring Null Rod as a prerequisite to a Fish label would omit the Vial Fish sub-archetype entirely from the genre, which would radically defy the current understanding of the term.  It's one thing to say Vial Fish is inferior to Null Rod Fish; it's another thing entirely to say that the former isn't even "Fish."  That's going way too far.

Like the term "$T4KS" has evolved considerably over the past few years, the term "Fish" has mutated and broadened beyond its original understanding (who plays Merfolk these days?).  The most visible characteristics of a Fish deck by contemporary standards, at their simplest, appears to me as being:

1. Small cheap creatures (mostly Utility Creatures)
2. Disruption
3. Lack of a superseding theme (Goblins, Affinity, Workshop Aggro)     

Perhaps there can be a new thread entirely devoted to this topic, as it seems the cardinal questions have been answered definitively here.  Yes, Fish wins tournaments and no, Fish is not "pathetic" but rather an upper-midrange deck choice in today's Vintage metagame that performs respectably well in the hands of a skilled and knowledgeable player. 

-BPK

[dicemanx]

So I suppose Fish will continue to be the deck that the stronger players will not touch (with one obvious exception) and that everyone else will continue to laud as a strong choice that can not only do consistently well in events, but also win. The fact that some fight so hard to try to rationalize Fish's strength likely makes the job that much easier for those that elect to play stronger archetypes. It is even more exciting that any non Null Rod build is absorbed into the fold of what constitutes "Fish" by the staunch refusal to use more precise and *useful* definitions, because it can trick a lot of people into believing that they are playing "Fish" based on a broader definition and hence are playing a viable, competitive archetype. I suppose that is the consequence of focusing on a detail without focusing on the intent behind trying to determine the definition.

I wonder, since quite a few are content to posit that if only we had more strong players piloting Fish it would show better results, what people would think if we had events filled with top level players playing all sorts of archetypes. Would Fish even stand a chance of doing consistently well if the skill factor was thus removed from the equation? 

[kirdape3]

Probably not.  If playskill was removed as an element, everyone would play the broken decks - because decks of lesser power can't take advantage of those mistakes to win the game.  The number of games that I win because my opponent didn't hand them to me is quite small - those few are off the back of Null Rod when I can stick it in a very advantageous position in the game.

The reason that I continue to say that Empty the Warrens invalidates Fish is because even random idiots can stick that card for 4+ copies and functionally win the game on the spot.  Simplifying the kill condition takes away a lot of the wins that I'd get with Fish just because my opponent was so bad at playing his deck that I could stick a disruption element and clean up the game.  It's a lot harder when I both have to deal with (functionally more competent) better kills and a worse deck to answer the broken decks' kills.

[dicemanx]

The reason that I continue to say that Empty the Warrens invalidates Fish is because even random idiots can stick that card for 4+ copies and functionally win the game on the spot.  Simplifying the kill condition takes away a lot of the wins that I'd get with Fish just because my opponent was so bad at playing his deck that I could stick a disruption element and clean up the game.  It's a lot harder when I both have to deal with (functionally more competent) better kills and a worse deck to answer the broken decks' kills.

Not to mention the fact that to compensate you might have to eat up slots with answers like Echoing Truth. A Gifts player has got to be pretty happy that their 1 card is creating the need to waste additional slots in the opposing Fish deck and therefore draw dead in some scenarios. Once Fish starts getting pushed into playing very specific hate cards, it becomes that much more difficult to generate a consistent performance against a varied field; this is in addition to the likelihood that Fish doesn't even have very stellar match-ups against decks that it is designed to hate out, so even in a narrow field its performance is questionable.

Fish used to have this "strategic consistency" when the format was a lot slower (ie the Gifts decks were slow, and almost no one played fast Tendrils decks) - by "strategic consistency" I mean that it was fairly predictable what would happen in the game plan - disrupt a little with just about any disruption piece, and put pressure on the life total to win. Now, the strategy has been altered because the format sped up (control transitioned much closer to combo, and Tendrils archetypes skyrocketed in popularity) - the strategy is more about early game survivial based on precision disruption, which is difficult to accomplish consistently because you need to more precisely match up answers to threats - it won't help very much, for example, if your opponent is going off a massive turn 3 YWill after a Gifts and you have a Savannah Lion in play and a Stifle, Daze, and Echoing Truth in hand. As a consequence, the "strategic consistency" has dropped, and the deck isn't as reliable anymore in terms of its gameplan against the powered archetypes it was designed to have good match-ups against. Once your game plan is about precision answers, it starts going downhill; the saving grace is really Null Rod (and a turn 1 CotV on the play), but with only 4 in the deck and limited card drawing/tutoring in the early game (Bob and Ninja might be too slow to matter, so its basically down to 4 BS and 1 AR for draw/search, not to mention the fact that these crazy rationales of 3 being the appropriate number of Null Rods reduces the chances of seeing one), Fish is not a deck I'd want to be playing in a match-up versus a powered combo deck; I'd rather be on the combo side every time.

[arik124]

These are fine comments you make, and many people feel as you do.  Infact at the last myriad 2 of the best gifts players and one of the stronger combo players in the area did not show up.  Fish ran wild.  Beatdown took 5 of 8 slots.  Having said that, in my games i have found echoing truth to be really really good, in general.  Its great in the mirror for combat tricks and cleans up an accidental colossus.  I would hardly consider dedicating slots to truth as a waste.  ET is also an excellent complement to the rest of the disruption.  Basically if we can keep them from going off for a turn or two via daze, duress, null rod, stifle, force, kataki, grunt, and what have you....then even if the disrupt plan fails we have a post-combo plan to work with as well.  I don't think the state of affairs is quite as bad as you think for us fish players.

[madmanmike25]

the saving grace is really Null Rod

I like Null Rod in Fish, but I would put more faith in a well placed FoW.  Combine the 2 cards, and you have the start of a better Fish deck than most builds without either.

not to mention the fact that these crazy rationales of 3 being the appropriate number of Null Rods reduces the chances of seeing one)

Man, you don't learn do you?  So someone who plays/argues for 3 Null Rods is 'crazy'.....aren't you the one who often says not to use hyperbole as it weakens the argument?  Comments like this are what cause you problems.  You can post better than this, I have seen it.

In U/W Fish, how often is E.Tutor used?  If 4 is the 'SANE' number of Null Rods to use, then how many run E.tutor to act as a 5th Null Rod since it is the be all end all??(more hyperbole)

Also, if Etw is another reason Fish decks 'suck'(not my opinion) as of late, what is the better answer?  E.Truth, or Stifle?  Stifle also can serve as mana denial on fetches, yet is not really seen much in U/W builds(3-4).  Also, Stifle is difficult to Misdirect unless you make a play error with the stack.  Any opinions on maindeck Stifle???

Personally I like B/U fish for Duress, Tutors, Bob, FoW, and Stifle.  I guess I have to make room for the 4th Null Rod or my sanity will be in question.

[dicemanx]

I like Null Rod in Fish, but I would put more faith in a well placed FoW.  Combine the 2 cards, and you have the start of a better Fish deck than most builds without either.

FoW can appear in many U-based archetypes, but Null Rod (and other mana/resource denial cards) contribute to the identity of Fish. Null Rod is the power card and virtual-card advantage generating card, not FoW.

not to mention the fact that these crazy rationales of 3 being the appropriate number of Null Rods reduces the chances of seeing one)

Man, you don't learn do you?  So someone who plays/argues for 3 Null Rods is 'crazy'.....aren't you the one who often says not to use hyperbole as it weakens the argument?  Comments like this are what cause you problems.  You can post better than this, I have seen it.

No, what causes me problems are individuals with poor reasoning skills.

What is hyperbolic in attacking the reasoning behind not playing a full complement of a card that some of the strongest Mana Drain and combo players have identified as extremely potent, and to especially not play it in a deck that lacks effective tutoring and card drawing? It took a while to convince Fish players that Lotus belongs in the deck too, because the reasons for its omission were just as crazy.

There is a difference between hyperbolic statements meant for emphasis in the absence of actual evidence (evidence = explanation or example), and statements that are actually backed by reasoning. I can usually tell when someone is using it as a persuasive tactic rather than earnestly believing the extreme to be true, and I only call people out when the former is true. From my perspective, it is quite unintuitive to omit the 4th Null Rod, even though you can concoct so many reasons why you shouldn't play a 4th. When something is unintuitive it of course doesn't automatically mean that it is wrong, but to establish its correctness we would need ample evidence. Such evidence does not exist.

Also, if Etw is another reason Fish decks 'suck'(not my opinion) as of late, what is the better answer?  E.Truth, or Stifle?  Stifle also can serve as mana denial on fetches, yet is not really seen much in U/W builds(3-4).  Also, Stifle is difficult to Misdirect unless you make a play error with the stack.  Any opinions on maindeck Stifle???

Quite honestly, the best answer might be to play another deck.

But if you really want an answer to this question, you might want to include other options into the mix to be exhaustive, like Extract, Hide/Seek, or Rootwater Thief, or maybe combinations of some of these cards. maybe the question isn't Thuth vs Stifle, but Thruth AND Stifle vs something else. Other interesting options might be stuff like Glowrider (which I faced this past week-end - I don't know if this is tech or if its weak, but it certainly was annoying).

Personally I like B/U fish for Duress, Tutors, Bob, FoW, and Stifle.  I guess I have to make room for the 4th Null Rod or my sanity will be in question.

Not a bad idea .

But on a more serious note, since I didn't see you making any crazy rationales, I could attribute such a decision to just following the norm. It is difficult to effect change when something has been accepted for so long; I think that playing 4 Null Rods wasn't very critical at all in 2005, but things have changed in 2006-7.

[Dxfiler]

This thread seems to have settled down... let's see if I can rile it back up again!

Just kidding :p

There were some recent comments (coincidentally all by diceman :p) that I felt compelled to respond to:

FoW can appear in many U-based archetypes, but Null Rod (and other mana/resource denial cards) contribute to the identity of Fish. Null Rod is the power card and virtual-card advantage generating card, not FoW.

You're not going to hear me disagree on how key null rod is in fish, but I would like to point out that I don't view it as a 'must have' in any version.  You can certainly do well with a non-rod based fish deck, but it will look completely different than a rod-based one because versions with rod are usually built around it... I know mine is.

Of course that brings me to this...

What is hyperbolic in attacking the reasoning behind not playing a full complement of a card that some of the strongest Mana Drain and combo players have identified as extremely potent, and to especially not play it in a deck that lacks effective tutoring and card drawing? It took a while to convince Fish players that Lotus belongs in the deck too, because the reasons for its omission were just as crazy.

I've long said that my main reasoning on not having four null rod main is that I treat them as though they were legendary.  I never want to see more than one in a game, and lately I find not seeing one at all against combo is not horrible.  Obviously against a tendrils based deck I wouldn't mind having null rod, but many of those decks are now either a) much heavier on ritual effects (long-based buids) or b) can just win off dropping moxes and casting empty without having to tap those moxes (gifts-based builds).

For the record, I am not and have never been a fish player who argues for the omission of black lotus from the deck :p

Moving along...

There is a difference between hyperbolic statements meant for emphasis in the absence of actual evidence (evidence = explanation or example), and statements that are actually backed by reasoning. I can usually tell when someone is using it as a persuasive tactic rather than earnestly believing the extreme to be true, and I only call people out when the former is true. From my perspective, it is quite unintuitive to omit the 4th Null Rod, even though you can concoct so many reasons why you shouldn't play a 4th. When something is unintuitive it of course doesn't automatically mean that it is wrong, but to establish its correctness we would need ample evidence. Such evidence does not exist.

Saying no evidence exists is pretty bold.  No one up until now has really outright asked for evidence.  I can tell you personally that playing with four null rods would've certainly cost me some matches.  The first 2-3 months I started to play UW fish I long struggled with whether to go with 4 rod or not.  I felt 4 was pushing it but couldn't really know for sure.  I decided to play a misdirection where the 4th rod would be and made a concious effort to track which one would be overall better.  I realize this was ambitious as the cards served totally different purposes in the deck, but I can tell you after about 3 matches in Misdirection was leagues better than rod #4 would've been.  Many times that misdirection was coupled with another rod, so if it had been rod #4 I would've had 2 rods... I pretty much never wants two rods.

Despite assertions to the contrary, I feel fish has ample draw to consistently get to 3 rods.  No, it doesn't have a ton of actual draw effects outside of ancestral and four brainstorms, but it does have many fetches and sometimes a mystical.  Also, that random misdirection that I personally play with turns into a draw effect an awful lot for me.

Now I'm sure the instant counter argument to mine is- 'There must have been games where if that misdirection were a fourth rod you would've won instead of lost!'  Of course there are some games.  Do I know the exact number?  No.  What I know is that I stopped tracking rod #4 after the first few months because having misdirection in that spot was just so more valuable more often than not.

Of course, the example I just gave was a long time ago but for me personally, not much has changed.  I really don't see the need for 4 null rod in UW fish.  I'm speaking for that version only as that's the one I play and other decks might need four.  I can safely say UW really doesn't NEED four maindeck right now. 

Would it hurt to squeeze a fourth one in?  Probably not.  I just don't want to find the room personally because I'm happy with virtually every other spot in the deck.  I will say that I can see a very good case for having null rod #4 in the sideboard, and may do that myself in the near future.

The following is not directed at anyone in particular...

I could close this post by stating that fish can win tourneys... because I just did it :p  But someone will just point back that my argument is flaws because it was me and all I do is play fish, blah blah blah.  I obviously don't agree with that and wish people would stop equating fish doing well in the format with just me.  If strong players played the deck, it would place better.  Strong players have played it in the past do great finishes, and I had already posted numerous examples.  I'll close with one example in particular... 
if someone like Becker had stuck with his version of fish, there's no doubt in my mind there would've been more good finishes from him with that deck. 

Also, I kind of just caught myself here... I have an issue with people assuming that if they aren't known they must not be strong players.  There are lots of good players who really aren't known on here who do well with many different archtypes.  I know of many players who play pretty much just fish-type builds and do very well.  It's presumptuous and pretentious to assume that if you don't know a person and they do well with fish, they must be random.

- Dave Feinstein

 

[brianpk80]

From my perspective, it is quite unintuitive to omit the 4th Null Rod, even though you can concoct so many reasons why you shouldn't play a 4th. When something is unintuitive it of course doesn't automatically mean that it is wrong, but to establish its correctness we would need ample evidence. Such evidence does not exist.

On page 4 in this thread, I lay out the four main reasons that 3 is the most common number of maindeck Null Rods that Fish players run.  If you disagree with running 3 Null Rods, then perhaps you should address the reasoning in that post point-by-point.  If you then wish to theorize that 4 is the correct number, you will need to submit an argument much stronger than saying you find it counterintuitive and "crazy." 

-BPK

[Purple Hat]

From my perspective, it is quite unintuitive to omit the 4th Null Rod, even though you can concoct so many reasons why you shouldn't play a 4th. When something is unintuitive it of course doesn't automatically mean that it is wrong, but to establish its correctness we would need ample evidence. Such evidence does not exist.

On page 4 in this thread, I lay out the four main reasons that 3 is the most common number of maindeck Null Rods that Fish players run.  If you disagree with running 3 Null Rods, then perhaps you should address the reasoning in that post point-by-point.  If you then wish to theorize that 4 is the correct number, you will need to submit an argument much stronger than saying you find it counterintuitive and "crazy." 

-BPK

null rod is my best card and I want to see it every game as early as possible.  I don't think a point by point refutation is necessary as this is probably the response that the 4 null rod crowd will give to any argument regarding 3 null rods I think.  the concept behind 4 is that null rod is so good for fish that it doesn't matter that the second one is dead as long as you have the first one.

[Shock Wave]

From my perspective, it is quite unintuitive to omit the 4th Null Rod, even though you can concoct so many reasons why you shouldn't play a 4th. When something is unintuitive it of course doesn't automatically mean that it is wrong, but to establish its correctness we would need ample evidence. Such evidence does not exist.

On page 4 in this thread, I lay out the four main reasons that 3 is the most common number of maindeck Null Rods that Fish players run.  If you disagree with running 3 Null Rods, then perhaps you should address the reasoning in that post point-by-point.  If you then wish to theorize that 4 is the correct number, you will need to submit an argument much stronger than saying you find it counterintuitive and "crazy." 

-BPK

null rod is my best card and I want to see it every game as early as possible.  I don't think a point by point refutation is necessary as this is probably the response that the 4 null rod crowd will give to any argument regarding 3 null rods I think.  the concept behind 4 is that null rod is so good for fish that it doesn't matter that the second one is dead as long as you have the first one.

That's basicallly all there is to it. If we can agree that Null Rod is the backbone of the deck, and that it is important to see one as early as possible, then it is pretty hard to argue that running 3 makes more sense than running 4.

[brianpk80]

null rod is my best card and I want to see it every game as early as possible.  I don't think a point by point refutation is necessary as this is probably the response that the 4 null rod crowd will give to any argument regarding 3 null rods I think.  the concept behind 4 is that null rod is so good for fish that it doesn't matter that the second one is dead as long as you have the first one.

Well, at least you offer up some reasoning.  However, that really only gets to compensating for the point that Null Rod is redundant.  The bigger points are more important however.  Full-powered decks aren't the only battles Fish has to face when it goes out into a standard T1 field.  Null Rod is dead weight in about 50% of the matches out there, like Fish mirror (does no one realize how common this is today?), Oath, random aggro, etc.  If you know the field is going to be close to fully powered, there's a stronger argument for 4x Null Rod.  As it is, the 4th Rod turns up in sideboards and given that it's amazing half the time and horrible the other half depending on the field, that seems to me a sound decision.  The other point I made, which Dave echoed still stands; Turn 2 Null Rod isn't the most reliable way to avoid quick Storm kills both because its casting cost makes it the slowest popular non-Workshop disruption piece out there (yes it's insane that Turn 2 is often "too slow" but such is Vintage these days) and a slot often better suited to Orim's Chant (post-sb), Misdirection, Duress, or Stifle. 

For those folks here who prefer to extract conclusions from theorizing on post-tournament results, it bears noting that of the most successful Fish or quasi-Fish archetypes in the past year at major events, not a single one ran 4 maindeck Null Rods.  SS runs 0, the first place WTG from Waterbury ran three... in the sideboard, and Dave runs only three maindeck.  Granted, this isn't the most persuasive evidence in my opinion, because it's quite impossible to frame the inclusion or exclusion of a few cards in a given deck as the exact "proximate" cause of a given victory or defeat, but make of it what you will.

-BPK

[Liam-K]

Null Rod does not swing for 2 or do absolutely anything else useful in multiples.  In addition, Fish (especially U/W) has basically no draw engine.  When you're possibly seeing as few as half as many cards as your opponent, ripping Null Rod off the top when your one already in play is stopping 3 moxes just put your +2 virtual card advantage down to somewhere between +1 and 0.  You almost might as well get your ancestral misdirected.  Obviously this is a worst case scenario, but it is definitely a problem.  You don't always have the luxury of combining a fetchland with a brainstorm to turn it into a good card.

Additionally, the standard UW build runs several Kataki.  These attack the same cards, perhaps not as well, but kataki and null rod give each other diminishing returns.

BPK is also right in that null rod only really shines against drain and sometimes long.

[madmanmike25]

Personally, I think you are ALL crazy.   My hyperbole pwns all.

If we can agree that Null Rod is the backbone of the deck, and that it is important to see one as early as possible, then it is pretty hard to argue that running 3 makes more sense than running 4.

I think that is part of the problem, I'm not sure we are all in agreement.  Null Rod is good, Null Rod is great, but is it the backbone of Fish?

You can certainly do well with a non-rod based fish deck, but it will look completely different than a rod-based one because versions with rod are usually built around it... I know mine is.

That leads me to think that it might not be the backbone.  Maybe more of a collar bone, or even one of the many vertebrae.  But the entire spinal chord?  That is questionable.

I would rather vote for FoW as the 'backbone' of Fish, or any blue based deck for that matter.  Yet many won't agree with me that Fish should be blue-based.  Maybe it shouldn't, but it makes a better Fish deck imo.

As Liam noted, U/W Fish with Kataki AND Null Rod run into some problems.  If they keep both at 3 copies each, that is four dead cards they can draw into.  I really can't imagine the 4th Null Rod along with Kataki having any effect whatsoever.

I think it would be easier to argue 4 Null Rods in Stax, since it can just bazaar extra copies away.

I also think that this thread has gotten a tad stale.  We have answered the question that is the title of the thread.  Shall we argue the 3/4 Null Rod debate for 3 more pages?  I really don't think either side can prove conclusive evidence that 3 Rods will win any less than 4 Rods.  I believe it's just a matter of personal preference.  What is the next point to discuss about Fish?  Anyone care to start a U/B Fish thread?