Why are Fish decks not winning tournaments?

[Sean Ryan]

Enough speculation, here it is from the SCG database: All major T8s since 2006.

Gro-a-tog   1st place   Josh Meckes   Waterbury   2006-01-29   Waterbury, Connecticut, United States
Control Slaver   1st place   Rich Shay   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-03-19   Richmond, Virginia, United States
Control Slaver   1st place   Brian Fisher   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-03-26   Richmond, Virginia, United States
Sullivan Solution   1st place   Tommy Kolowith   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-06-11   Rochester, New York, United States
Stax   1st place   Jeremy Seroogy   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-06-18   Rochester, New York, United States
Gifts   1st place   Nate Pease   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-07-02   Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
Sullivan Solution   1st place   Chris Woltereck   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-07-09   Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
Worse than Gro   1st place   Rich Meyst   Waterbury   2006-07-30   Waterbury, Connecticut, United States
PitchLong   1st place   Tommy Kolowith   Waterbury   2006-08-06   Waterbury, Connecticut, United States
Meandeck Gifts   1st place   Travis Spero   World Championships   2006-08-13   Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
Bazaar Stax   1st place   Jeff Greene   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-09-17   Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Gifts   1st place   Mike Pise   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-09-24   Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Pitch Long   1st place   Jeff Folinus   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-11-19   Roanoke, Virginia, United States
Drain Tendrils   1st place   Cody Vinci   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-11-26   Roanoke, Virginia, United States
Gifts   1st place   Andy Probasco   Waterbury   2007-01-14   Stratford, Connecticut, United States
Control Slaver   1st place   Brian Demars   Waterbury   2007-01-21   Stratford, Connecticut
Pyschatog   2nd place   Jon Smithers   Waterbury   2006-01-29   Waterbury, Connecticut, United States
Burning Slaver   2nd place   Jeff Anand   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-03-19   Richmond, Virginia, United States
Gifts Control   2nd place   Ben Kowal   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-03-26   Richmond, Virginia, United States
Grim Long   2nd place   Jimmy McCarthy   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-06-11   Rochester, New York, United States
Gifts   2nd place   Eli Kassis   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-06-18   Rochester, New York, United States
Izzet Control   2nd place   Brandon Todaro   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-07-02   Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
Oath of Druids   2nd place   Dan Carp   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-07-09   Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
Stax   2nd place   Joel Brauer   Waterbury   2006-07-30   Waterbury, Connecticut, United States
Control Slaver   2nd place   Ben Kowal   Waterbury   2006-08-06   Waterbury, Connecticut, United States
Pitch Long   2nd place   Tommy Kolowith   World Championships   2006-08-13   Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
Bob-Bomberman   2nd place   Simon MacRae   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-09-17   Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Pitch Long   2nd place   Mike Herbig   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-09-24   Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Gifts   2nd place   Michael Hetherington   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-11-19   Roanoke, Virginia, United States
Bomberman   2nd place   Chris Manchand   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-11-26   Roanoke, Virginia, United States
7/10   2nd place   Davide Faramia Cohen   Waterbury   2007-01-14   Stratford, Connecticut, United States
TPS   2nd place   Justin Timoney   Waterbury   2007-01-21   Stratford, Connecticut
TPS   3rd place   Seth Levy   Waterbury   2006-01-29   Waterbury, Connecticut, United States
Burning Slaver   3rd place   Brian Demars   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-03-19   Richmond, Virginia, United States
Intuition Tendrils   3rd place   Eric Becker   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-03-26   Richmond, Virginia, United States
Control Slaver   3rd place   Ian Sauvé   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-06-11   Rochester, New York, United States
Dragon   3rd place   Peter Olszweski   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-06-18   Rochester, New York, United States
Gifts   3rd place   Noah Barnett   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-07-02   Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
Pitch Long   3rd place   Eric Becker   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-07-09   Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
U/W Fish   3rd place   Dave Feinstein   Waterbury   2006-07-30   Waterbury, Connecticut, United States
Oath of Druids   3rd place   Ben Carp   Waterbury   2006-08-06   Waterbury, Connecticut, United States
Uba Stax   3rd place   Robert Vroman   World Championships   2006-08-13   Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
U/W Fish   3rd place   Matthew Bailey   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-09-17   Boston, Massachusetts, United States
U/W Fish   3rd place   Dave Feinstein   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-09-24   Boston, Massachusetts, United States
URBana Fish   3rd place   Eric Becker   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-11-19   Roanoke, Virginia, United States
U/W Fish   3rd place   Dave Feinstein   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-11-26   Roanoke, Virginia, United States
GAT   3rd place   Tariq Zahzam   Waterbury   2007-01-14   Stratford, Connecticut, United States
Bob-Bomberman   3rd place   Erik Williams   Waterbury   2007-01-21   Stratford, Connecticut
Flame Vault   4th place   Kent Kolbig   Waterbury   2006-01-29   Waterbury, Connecticut, United States
Intuition Tendrils   4th place   Eric Becker   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-03-19   Richmond, Virginia, United States
Control Slaver   4th place   Andy Farias   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-03-26   Richmond, Virginia, United States
Bomberman   4th place   Eli Tommarello   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-06-11   Rochester, New York, United States
Grim Long   4th place   Stephen Menendian   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-06-18   Rochester, New York, United States
Oath of Druids   4th place   Benjamin Carp   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-07-02   Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
Sullivan Solution   4th place   Tommy Kolowith   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-07-09   Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
Control Slaver   4th place   Ben Kowal   Waterbury   2006-07-30   Waterbury, Connecticut, United States
Stax   4th place   Joel Brauer   Waterbury   2006-08-06   Waterbury, Connecticut, United States
Confidant Tendrils   4th place   Vincent Forino   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-09-17   Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Goblins   4th place   Ashok Chitturi   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-09-24   Boston, Massachusetts, United States
7/10   4th place   Van Sears   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-11-19   Roanoke, Virginia, United States
Gifts   4th place   Michael Hetherington   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-11-26   Roanoke, Virginia, United States
Dry Slaver   4th place   Jeremiah Rudolph   Waterbury   2007-01-14   Stratford, Connecticut, United States
Gifts   4th place   Michael Hetherington   Waterbury   2007-01-21   Stratford, Connecticut
Bazaar Stax   5th place   Caleb Rozwig   Waterbury   2006-01-29   Waterbury, Connecticut, United States
Gifts Control   5th place   Justin Timoney   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-03-19   Richmond, Virginia, United States
Bazaar Stax   5th place   Colby Evenpence   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-03-26   Richmond, Virginia, United States
Dragon   5th place   Peter Olszewski   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-06-11   Rochester, New York, United States
U/R Control Slaver   5th place   Jerry Yang   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-06-18   Rochester, New York, United States
Ravager   5th place   Simon Cooper   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-07-02   Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
Friggorid   5th place   Jonathon Custer   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-07-09   Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
Stax   5th place   roland chang   Waterbury   2006-07-30   Waterbury, Connecticut, United States
Masknought Tendrils   5th place   Nate Pease   Waterbury   2006-08-06   Waterbury, Connecticut, United States
BHWC Tendrils   5th place   Nick Trudeau   World Championships   2006-08-13   Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
Gifts   5th place   Nate Pease   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-09-17   Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Gifts   5th place   Mike Hetherington   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-09-24   Boston, Massachusetts, United States
U/W Fish   5th place   Nathan Harrison   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-11-19   Roanoke, Virginia, United States
Stax   5th place   Jeremy Seroogy   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-11-26   Roanoke, Virginia, United States
Oath of Druids   5th place   Dan Carp   Waterbury   2007-01-14   Stratford, Connecticut, United States
TPS   5th place   Crossman Wilkins   Waterbury   2007-01-21   Stratford, Connecticut
Goblins   6th place   Corey Mann   Waterbury   2006-01-29   Waterbury, Connecticut, United States
Intuition Tendrils   6th place   Mat Endress   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-03-19   Richmond, Virginia, United States
Grim Long   6th place   Stephen Menendian   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-03-26   Richmond, Virginia, United States
Dragon   6th place   Noah Long   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-06-11   Rochester, New York, United States
Bomberman   6th place   Lany Laterreur   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-06-18   Rochester, New York, United States
Sullivan Solution   6th place   Adam Bowles   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-07-02   Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
Gifts   6th place   Nate Pease   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-07-09   Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
EBA   6th place   Roger Sorino   Waterbury   2006-07-30   Waterbury, Connecticut, United States
Shop Aggro   6th place   Dan Carp   Waterbury   2006-08-06   Waterbury, Connecticut, United States
Pitch Long   6th place   Paul Mastriano   World Championships   2006-08-13   Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
U/R Slaver   6th place   Jeff Tussi   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-09-17   Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Bomberman   6th place   Elias Vaisberg   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-09-24   Boston, Massachusetts, United States
U/W Fish   6th place   Dave Feinstein   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-11-19   Roanoke, Virginia, United States
Pitch Long   6th place   Paul Mastriano   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-11-26   Roanoke, Virginia, United States
Gifts   6th place   Demonic Attorney   Waterbury   2007-01-14   Stratford, Connecticut, United States
Drain TPS   6th place   Seth Levy   Waterbury   2007-01-21   Stratford, Connecticut
Gifts Control   7th place   Michael Hetherington   Waterbury   2006-01-29   Waterbury, Connecticut, United States
Bazaar Stax   7th place   Colby Evenpence   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-03-19   Richmond, Virginia, United States
Stax   7th place   Jason Gaudard   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-03-26   Richmond, Virginia, United States
Grim Long   7th place   Mike Herbig   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-06-11   Rochester, New York, United States
Bomberman   7th place   Martin Bonneville   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-06-18   Rochester, New York, United States
U/R Control Slaver   7th place   Jerry Yang   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-07-02   Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
Burning Slaver   7th place   Joey Dial   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-07-09   Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
Gifts Control   7th place   Justin Timoney   Waterbury   2006-07-30   Waterbury, Connecticut, United States
Control Slaver   7th place   Jeremiah Rudolph   Waterbury   2006-08-06   Waterbury, Connecticut, United States
U/w/b Fish   7th place   Paul Nicolo   World Championships   2006-08-13   Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
Control Slaver   7th place   Tommy Kolowith   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-09-17   Boston, Massachusetts, United States
SSB   7th place   Nathan Warshauer   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-09-24   Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Bomberman   7th place   Elias Vaisberg   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-11-19   Roanoke, Virginia, United States
EBA   7th place   Jesse Pinchot   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-11-26   Roanoke, Virginia, United States
EBA   7th place   Kevin Sigman   Waterbury   2007-01-14   Stratford, Connecticut, United States
Dry Slaver   7th place   Jeremiah Rudolph   Waterbury   2007-01-21   Stratford, Connecticut
Gifts Control   8th place   Brendan Ward   Waterbury   2006-01-29   Waterbury, Connecticut, United States
Friggorid   8th place   Stephen Menendian   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-03-19   Richmond, Virginia, United States
Control Slaver   8th place   Michael Jones   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-03-26   Richmond, Virginia, United States
Control Slaver   8th place   Ben Kowal   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-06-11   Rochester, New York, United States
Control Slaver   8th place   Ugo Rivard   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-06-18   Rochester, New York, United States
Intuition Tendrils   8th place   Jesse Pinchot   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-07-02   Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
Aggro Stax   8th place   Andrew Probasco   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-07-09   Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
EBA   8th place   Rob Castanza   Waterbury   2006-07-30   Waterbury, Connecticut, United States
Oath of Druids   8th place   Jessica Fico   Waterbury   2006-08-06   Waterbury, Connecticut, United States
Dark Gifts   8th place   Davide Cohen   World Championships   2006-08-13   Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
Gifts   8th place   Stefan Ellsworth   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-09-17   Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Gifts   8th place   Joe Davis   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-09-24   Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Oath of Druids   8th place   Ben Carp   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-11-19   Roanoke, Virginia, United States
Stax   8th place   Marty Koestner   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-11-26   Roanoke, Virginia, United States
U/W Fish   8th place   Dave Feinstein   Waterbury   2007-01-14   Stratford, Connecticut, United States
Counberbalance   8th place   Ross Merriam   Waterbury   2007-01-21   Stratford, Connecticut
Dragon   9th place   Douglas Menger   Waterbury   2006-01-29   Waterbury, Connecticut, United States

********************************

Fish has been a good choice to get you into a T8 at the major events over the past year, the data attests to this, especially at Waterbury.  However, it is generally stronger at the local scene where hating the metagaming is easier.  I made top 2 at numerous events in the Seattle area in a 6-9month period with a EBA style Fish.

I echo Feinstein in that Fish simply needs to be constantly evolving in order to be competetive.

Thanks
Sean

[Dxfiler]

Furthermore, you did not look at grow decks, which to me are glorified fish decks.

OK, because you can't be bothered to post it yourself:

Gro
total=8 top8s=0

   
GAT
A Vintage deck, by Tariq Zahzam
3rd place at a Waterbury tournament in Stratford, Connecticut, United States on 2007-01-14
Maindeck:

Artifacts
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Sensei's Divining Top
1 Sol Ring

Creatures
2 Psychatog
4 Quirion Dryad

Enchantments
1 Pernicious Deed

Instants
1 Ancestral Recall
4 Brainstorm
2 Cunning Wish
1 Darkblast
4 Force Of Will
2 Gifts Ungiven
4 Mana Drain
1 Misdirection
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor

Sorceries
1 Demonic Tutor
3 Duress
1 Merchant Scroll
1 Regrowth
1 Time Walk
1 Yawgmoth's Will

Basic Lands
2 Island

Lands
2 Flooded Strand
1 Library Of Alexandria
2 Polluted Delta
1 Strip Mine
4 Tropical Island
4 Underground Sea
2 Wasteland

Sideboard:
2 Tormod's Crypt
3 Energy Flux
1 Pernicious Deed
1 Berserk
1 Coffin Purge
1 Darkblast
1 Echoing Truth
1 Hurkyl's Recall
1 Misdirection
1 Naturalize
1 Smother
1 Stifle

To anyone else that has a problem with the dataset: If you don't trust the data or feel that there are omissions, GENERATE DATA YOURSELF and make yourself actually useful around here instead of attacking my credibility or slandering me by saying that that I willfully ommitted SS and WTG or any other archetype.   

Dice, I think you are taking things too personally. You seem to think that every criticism is a personal attack on you.  You just lumped my earlier comments in with other people's and seem to have very hostile responses towards anyone who critiques the data you compiled.

Before I go any further, let me state that I respect the data you compiled.  It surely took a decent amount of time.  What you did is essentially a thankless task, as there are so many fish variants that you will undoubtedly miss some.  The problem is, when you compile data to make a point, there shouldn't be alot of obvious holes.  I feel there are alot of holes in your data, other people have pointed that out as well.  This isn't a personal attack on you, but there was a decent amount of data omitted.  Again, I don't know if you did it on purpose and I'm not at all suggesting you did, but you shouldn't go apeshit when people point things out. 

Not included in your data thus far (some of this already being pointed out and you gave responses):

1) SS not included- You feel it's not necessarily considered to be part of the 'fish' banner.  Fair enough.

2) UBW decks not included- They were under the 'EBA' banner and you simply missed them.  Fine.

3) GAT not included- You say it had 0 top 8's in the past year.  I already posted evidence to the contrary, but in addition, you also left out Worse than Gro, which won 2 waterbury's ago and was piloted by Rich Meyst.  He'll freely call it a fish variant.

4) "Keep in mind also that Feinstein plays Null Rod Fish, while Vial Fish is nowhere to be seen in t8s."

Paul Nicolo went on a complete tear locally (I understand those results aren't included in your data) with his vial fish deck early to mid last year, capping off with a top 8 at vintage worlds (this should've been included).


This was just stuff off the top of my head.  Now I know you aren't out to purposely mislead people, but when you make bold statements and back them up with data, that data simply shouldn't have holes like this.

Now about your statements, I call them bold because they imply (sometimes outright state) that I'm the only person on the planet who can consistently do well with fish.  That simply isn't true.  Known good players have picked up fish variants and done well over the past year in major tourneys.  Nicolo, Becker, Kolowith off the top of my head.  Plenty of lesser known good players have had fine results as well.  Now my definition of 'fine' results is clearly different than yours.       

No matter what you do or what little tidbits you add, Gifts, CS, and Tendrils have still put up overwhelming numbers in terms of top 8s, tourneys won, and ratios of total:top8s. They outshine Fish in every category, so you are still left with addressing a key question: if you want to maximize your chances of making top 8, why play Fish over a Drain or Tendrils archetype?

Again, those decks have put up more numbers.  I know that, you know that, everyone reading this thread knows that.  Does that mean that fish shouldn't be piloted in major tourneys anymore?  Should good players just shy away from it?  Am I going to start playing drain tendrils?

The answer to all of those questions is a giant NO. 

People are going to play their style of decks when given the chance.  Sometimes their style isn't the most powerful deck.  Sometimes it isn't the most immediately reward yielding deck.  That's fine.  I'm a firm believer that if you take even a vaguely competitive deck and work on it relentlessly, it will eventually yield results.  Note that it has to be somewhat competitive.  I tried making RG beats work multiple times and I finally just gave up :p 

I don't plan to respond anymore in this thread because I don't like where it's headed, but I have to say that alot of people in the vintage community (I am NOT pointing fingers, no one get 'uppity') like to just discredit decks that are blatantly less powerful whenever they possibly can get the chance.  They always pull the 'why bother' question out of the muck.  This question almost always gets attributed with fish, because it's currently the most obvious underpowered deck-type that consistently puts up results.  It seems like some people just don't like to see less powerful decks win alot.  That bothers me.  No, fish is never the most powerful deck to play.  It probably never will be.  I personally think that's fine, and I wish people would get off the 'why don't people just play the most powerful deck' pedestal.

People like variety.  Many different decks can thrive if enough work can be put into them, even in a format as degenerate as this one.

 I wish people would just simply accept that. 

- Dave Feinstein

P.S. To Rian- I'm aware that your friend had a deck with similar cards before I posted mine.  I'm not out to re-invent the wheel and never claimed to.  I like to take decks and do the best I can possibly do with them.  I am not the first person to propose a trinket mage deck and Largent is not the first to do well with a deck like that.  I get the sense you think I'm trying to take credit for something, and I certainly am not.  I'm working on my own build of trinket-fish and I acknowledge that there were other doing it before me, just like I acknowledge that UW fish was around and doing well before I focused on it.  I'll let people in on a secret- I don't like UW fish being refered to as 'Feinstein fish.'  I've never once refered to it as that but I noticed alot of other people have.  It's flattering, but I simply don't deserve that kind of credit... no one does.  I take issue with people trying to always credit themselves with an archtype or deck and it's one of the reasons I'm currently on hiatus in type one.  There's alot of ego around and everyone thinks they are 'innovators.'  There are no true 'innovators' in this format.  Anything anyone can come up with can be traced back to something earlier.  When people start realizing that, the format will become much more enjoyable for all. 

[Moxlotus]

3. Most fish is based around a medicore semi-coherent non-linear strategy in a format full of linear strategies

I'd hesitate to call "non-linear strategy" a disadvantage.  It is because decks like Gifts and Long are so linear and single minded that they have glaring weaknesses and are easily disruptable.  On the contrary, fish is a really hard deck to disrupt--its just a matter of it can get itself going.

[yespuhyren]

SSB   7th place   Nathan Warshauer   StarCityGames Power 9 Tournament   2006-09-24   Boston, Massachusetts, United States

You are confusing SSB with SS. SS = Sullivan Solution, the fish style deck.  SSB = Shortbus Severence Belcher.  Completely different.

Well, now that we have numbers

16 T8's.  16x8=128

So out of 128 T8 slots there were 19 fish-ish decks.  15ish percent.  I guess that isn't bad, though its not great. 

It is interesting to note, I filtered with the following results:

Meddling Mage: 16/128
Dark Ritual: 27/128
Mana Drain:65/128
Mishra's Workshop: 17/128
Null Rod: 26/128
Bazaar of Baghdad: 20/128
Gifts Ungiven: 35/128

The biggest things for me here were the following:

Workshops have a very hard time making T8's because of all the hate from Drains having Rebuild/Hurkyl's and Fish-Style decks having Energy Flux.  Therefore fewer people play Shops than Drains.  Yet STILL more shop decks T8'ed than the Meddling Mages.

Gifts had more than double the T8 slots that Pikula had.  Drains were just over quadruple

[Godder]

On the contrary, fish is a really hard deck to disrupt--its just a matter of it can get itself going.

I remember when, back in the good ol' days, Fish lost badly to anything with more/bigger men (MWS aggro especially). Is that still the case, or is that not an issue any more thanks to Jitte or the non-existence of such decks?

[Sean Ryan]

Fish is a niche deck.  It exists precisley because Drains and Rituals dominate the format.  It would not be viable without this minority status.  So, please keep telling everyone that Fish sucks so they won't prepare for it...and then get humilated.

Also, don't forget history, I remember back when Meandeck hailed Psychatog as the deck to beat and then it was killed by PTW's classic U/r Fish.

Looking to the future, Empty challenges the current viabilty of both Stax and Fish as we know it, and will require serious inovation to be competitive. 

@ Yespuhryen,

I count 19 Fish style decks after I removed SSB.  Saying more Shops made T8 than Meddling Mage is a fellacious argument as not all Fish decks run Mage/White.  However, Shops are objectivley more powerful than anything Fish weilds and therefore should make up a higher, or similair % of the metagame.

The more focused and hence narrow the strategy of the leading Vintage decks will ensure that Fish archetypes maintain a presence in the metagame, albit as a reactionary niche.

Sean

[brianpk80]

I remember when, back in the good ol' days, Fish lost badly to anything with more/bigger men (MWS aggro especially). Is that still the case, or is that not an issue any more thanks to Jitte or the non-existence of such decks?

Yes, by and large, big creatures are a huge hassle for Fish.  I sideboarded Serendib Efreets and Serra Avengers for the mirror and found they were amazing to cut through the combat standstill and just beat down.  But on the defensive end, in other matches, Workshop Mox Juggernaut is a nightmare, and even things like Nimble Mongoose and Wild Mongrel get out of hand pretty quickly.  Come to think of it, Hypnotic Specter is really annoying too.  And Triskelion was the card I hated most last year.  I hated it more than Yawgmoth's Will half the time.  

Most Fish decks are prepared to deal efficiently with one or maybe two enormous creatures (Colossus, Angels, Dragon).  Anything beyond that is a big nuisance.  Jitte is a nonissue because it's usually not ran maindeck and is often too slow to stop double Juggernauts or Werebears.  

-BPK

[dicemanx]

Dice, I think you are taking things too personally. You seem to think that every criticism is a personal attack on you.  You just lumped my earlier comments in with other people's and seem to have very hostile responses towards anyone who critiques the data you compiled.

My "hostile" response is stemming from the fact that when people make contentions at this site, they make little effort in using any sort of evidence, and end up stating untrue things or distort the truth. This could be solved fairly straightforwardly, in this thread at least, by using the SCG database to provide evidence for any (counter)arguments. Is it not a fair statement that if someone does work to compile data, and some members feel that the data is incomplete, then they should work in making the data more complete? You are yourself guilty of this. Furthermore, people are just not addressing relevant questions or arguments - I keep asking questions that go unanswered. I address your points - why don't you address mine? You accuse me of taking things personally, but it is actually the other way around - Fish supporters seem to take some sort of offense that someone could suggest that their pet deck is really not that good. The criticism of Fish is as if I punched them in the stomach and slapped their sister.

Is it also not a fair statement that if someone is going to bicker with me about the inclusion of a wide variety of archetypes that they deem to be "Fish", they should precede that with a definition so that we can at least challenge or accept it? There is no need for some individuals to take on derisive tones in pointing out what I've ommitted from inclusion. Furthermore, if we're going to examine this from the perspective of an individual that is trying to decide if, for example, UW Fish is a good choice to maximize chances for a top8, do you think that they will look at SS data or GAT data and feel more confident in their deck choice? That is an unfair and dishonest approach in assessing archetype strength. I don't lump Gifts and CS with every single Drain deck that I can find, because how a deck like Drain Tendrils performs for instance isn't going to tell me how CS will perform at an event. Why should the examination of one very distinct approach to what you lump under the definition of "Fish" dictate your assessment on a very different approach? This is exaclty why I fragmented my Fish data into smaller subsets instead of giving you some grand total, because there are considerable differences between UW Fish, BUW Fish, TMWA, Gro/GAT/WTF/WTG, Sullivan Solution etc. 

Incidentally, i've already poined this out previously, and it remains unaddressed. Why don't you address this pooint? Don't you think it is rather important?

So if you want to present any (counter)arguments, tell me that SS is a top tier deck choice because of the numbers. Don't tell me that "Fish" is top tier choice because SS, a very distinct build that is arguably not Fish at all, has generated high numbers and it immediately raises the viability of Fish as an entire set of smaller subsets.

1) SS not included- You feel it's not necessarily considered to be part of the 'fish' banner.  Fair enough.

This isn't my conception. This is coming from the mouths of the creators. Otherwise, you can literally start adding any deck that has any creatures and disruption to the list including Shop Aggro and ICBM Oath (I am not trying to be funny here - I have classified these as part of a subset of "Fish" archetype accoring to a very specific definition in previous threads when discussing a particular dichotomy in vintage deck construction). No one is even going to bother to outline the definition of Fish for me in this thread it seems, because it will apparently inconvenience the Fish suppoters in their handpicking of which data they want to include to "make their point". This goes for GAT and Gro as well (incidentally, there is a *difference* between the two - don't assume that I "missed" the GAT list, because it is not Gro. If you start including GAT as a Fish deck, then I give up, because you're honestly veering too far away from what we're trying to establish here)

3) GAT not included- You say it had 0 top 8's in the past year.  I already posted evidence to the contrary, but in addition, you also left out Worse than Gro, which won 2 waterbury's ago and was piloted by Rich Meyst.  He'll freely call it a fish variant.

As I said, there is a difference between Gro and GAT so your evidence is off the mark. I missed and added the WTG deck, although I suspect that it is an outlier. It was criticized when it did win the event, and the question is if Fish supporters feel that this is honestly a viable deck option. Miracles happen, but not consistently.

4) "Keep in mind also that Feinstein plays Null Rod Fish, while Vial Fish is nowhere to be seen in t8s."

Paul Nicolo went on a complete tear locally (I understand those results aren't included in your data) with his vial fish deck early to mid last year, capping off with a top 8 at vintage worlds (this should've been included).

And your point is? This is included in a list of things I "missed", apparently to pad the numbers and show me how many things I omitted, and yet this wasn't an omission by your own admission. I am not including local events, because this would open an entirely different can of worms.

So in actuality I missed 3 decks total. Did my omission change any of the arguments? Because if it didn't, then you are being petty, are you not? I am assuming that you pointing out my omissions has some sort of greater purpose in working towards constructing some sort of counter-argument. Am I wrong?

The bottom line is, it seems that the "Fish supporters" are trying via underhanded tactics or exaggerations (for example, focusing on the criticism of missing lists, which don't actually affect the arguments) to make a point that is just not there. They are also trying to manipulate the data (through combination and incorporation of select datasets) to make their case stronger. I mentioned previously, I don't really care what guides others to make their deck choices. So long as people trick themselves into the conclusion that a particular deck is stronger than it actually is because they are loyal to a particular archetype, they will remain as speed bumps or mere obstacles at major events instead of being legitimate contenders for t8s or winning events. I don't select my decks for major events based on likes or dislikes or any faithful adherence to any one archetype - I am only interested in what the best decks are to play based on both my investigations and based on tourney successes. I apporach this thread in the same way. I have a lot of disdain for Long and for MDG, but the numbers don't lie - these are top tier choices, and playing Fish means most likely not playing a deck that maximizes your chances of winning. That I have mostly stuck to WGD and Gifts isn't any personal preference or faithfulness to an archetype, it is because of my belief that they were among some of the best decks in the format. If Fish was genuinely a top tier deck, then I would likewise consider it for play. Unfortunately, it is NOT, based on both the data from large events, which only corroberates my personal play experience and observation of Fish decks both on a local scale and at large events.

[madmanmike25]

Personally, I absolutely fail to see how a deck like SS could NOT be labeled Fish.

As I mentioned previously, I will concede that SS is a Fish deck since whether it is or isn't doesn't change any previous arguments, but I will leave you with this question. If Tommy K and Ian DeGraff were to make the claim that SS is not Fish, would you reverse your opinion that SS is a Fish deck? Kindly answer that question for me.

Not one bit.  If it looks like a Fish, swims like a Fish, and plays like a Fish deck, then I shall call it Fish.

It's just another version of Fish.  If you want to be original and call it a funny name, that doesn't change what it is or how it wins.  Did adding EtW change the names of any Gifts decks?

How do you know how it plays? have you played SS before? Or do you think the actual inventors of the archetype are mistaken when they say it doesnt play like a Fish deck?

Yes, have YOU played it before?  Where does this line of questioning take us?  Shall we ask each other if we have any knowledge about the subject at hand concerning every issue?  Was this meant as an insult, or do you assume I speak about decks I have never played?

I don't care if the inventors of the deck rename it "Bill and Ted's Excellent deck"(hey, that's catchy), I HAVE tested it, and it DOES play like a Fish deck.  I'm sorry, but that's my opinion, deal with it.

Is Aggro Stax a Fish deck? It too has cheap creatures (since you have Workshop) and Wastelands, and disruption like CotV, Sphere, and Null Rod. Is Ichorid a Fish deck? It has 0-cc creatures and plays disruption.

Ok, why do you ask me the this(bolded)when I wrote this in a previous post??

One could argue(with supporting evidence) that Ichorid is 'efficient', and should be classified as a 'Fish' deck (not I).-madmanmike25

Why would you ask me if I think Ichorid is a Fish deck?  Why the redundancy?  Why did you feel you needed to write that?

Is Bomberman a Fish deck? It's just as much Fish as is SS since it too it has the little men and a disruption package. Is ravager a Fish deck? What about aggro-burn? How about ICBM Oath? It too plays a similar disruption suite as a Fish deck, and has "cheap" men (2cc oaths are the "men"). Should that be called Fish too? As you see, you might be working with an overbroad definition.

Here we go.  Maybe Gifts is a Fish deck then?  I mean, aren't EtW tokens pretty 'Efficient'?  Don't FoW and Mana Drain count as disruption??  Where does it end?  I concede that Fish can be used to broadly(and no, not just by me).  You have to admit then, that your definition of 'Fish' might be too narrow.

It seems the problem is the term 'Fish' is too vague.  Fine.  Why don't we all agree that if the deck doesn't run any MERFOLK, then it's not a real Fish deck?  I also think that if you start respecting peoples OPINIONS then they might respect your OPINIONS.  Nothing has really been proven here has it?  And if you don't feel people are answering your questions(as you stated) then here is a suggestion;  Why don't you retype them and arrange them numerically?  No offense, but your questions tend to get lost in your lengthy posts.

Summary:  I think it is difficult to correctly label ALL decks(disagree?).  Arguing OPINIONS to the breaking point gets this thread nowhere.  Oh yeah and everyone, just chill out.  Try to be respectful and keep the discussions civil/relevent.  Don't get all worked up over Fish for gods sake.

[dicemanx]

No offense, but your questions tend to get lost in your lengthy posts.

There are four questions:

1) What is the definition of Fish - what archetypes should the term encompass. The concept of Fish *can* encompass decks like Shop Aggro, ICBM Oath, Ichorid, SS, Bomberman, GAT. As I said before, there is a range of possible definitions, some are broad enough to encompass a wide variety of achetypes. However, note that, for example, I would consider ICBM Oath to be slightly closer to a Fish archetype compared to SS in terms of its strategic game-plan. Of course, the knee-jerk reaction might be that classifying ICBM Oath as a Fish deck is preposterous, and yet to some it seemed equally preposterous that I failed to classify SS as a Fish deck.

2) Is it meaningful for the term to encompass what are essentially radical approaches to the archetype in deciding question #3? For instance, does insight into the performance of SS in tourneys give validity to the idea that another "Fish" approach is top tier? Does SS performance support the idea that UW Fish is an archetype on par with Gifts, CS, and Tendrils? As I said before, I don't mix Gifts top8/top2 performances with the performances of decks like MUC and Drain-AK/Tendrils. I don't think that looking at Codi Vinci's amazing victory with Drain tendrils will give me insight into the strength of MDG. Why should that work then when looking at Fish variants and looking as the performances of SS in the past 15 months?

3) Is Fish a top tier choice in today's meta? The evidence presented thus far indicates that Gifts, CS, and Tendrils are far ahead of the pack. Is playing Fish essentially playing with an (unnecessary) handicap? Fish archetypes are viable - they can compete and they can win. Is that enough?

The evidence that I cited puts to question the idea of the viability of "Fish" (hence question #3). It thus becomes necessary to define what Fish encompasses in the process, hence the need to answer questions #1 and #2.

There is one additional question. Try not to chew my head off people, just answer the question.

4) Is it fair to point out that the best stats for a Fish deck, UW Rod Fish, are the doing of one person in the format? Feinstein is obviously a very strong player that has performed consistently. However, there is a possibility that he does well in spite of, not because of, his selection of archetype. This is certainly NOT a knock against him; this rather has to do with the perspective of a player deciding on what to play in a high-level vintage event - is it not fair to say that seeing that only a single person has demonstrated consistent success with the deck is troubling? If other strong players had equally consistent performances it would lend further credence to the idea that Fish is a top tier choice. We don't have that evidence on a large scale. Please don't cite Paul Nicolo for me, because that is a different scale (smaller scale events). We can formulate side arguments regarding local scenes, but the focus here is major events where there are very likely different motivating factors concerning deck selection and construction.

Just to show the haters that this isn't some personal crusade against Fish: I feel similarly about decks like UbaStax, WGD, and Oath. It is very possible that these decks are not objectively good choices, but the fact is that they are piloted by players very well versed in their function and their match-ups, and that they are not very prevalent so there is little time given for the meta to adapt and deal with such players and such decks. For instance, I am pretty sure that if WGD was played more frequently, it would be much more difficult to win (both small and large events), and it would stop being a consistent performer (for me at least).

[Jank Golem]

Here is one more thing to consider when looking at Fish performance. The people that play Fish tend to be budget players, but players who still know the format and are experienced with Fish. Budget players often have difficulty getting to larger events which may contribute to the lowish number of T8's fish gets. I know this is true for me as a Fish player; I have performed well at local competitive events with Fish but it is difficult for me to get out to big events like Waterbury and SCG. The same thing can happen to people who play other archtypes but I think it tends to happen to Fish players more.

[brianpk80]

Alright these are pretty fair questions and having been lost in the fray, they haven't been adequately answered.  

There are four questions:

1) What is the definition of Fish - what archetypes should the term encompass.

This is the definition I'd submit because I think it puts into words what many of us believe intuitively about Fish these days.

Fish is:

A deck whose primary avenue of victory is to deliver lethal combat damage through several small, cheap creatures* that typically serve an additional utility purpose, while the remainder of the deck limits the opponent's ability to win either by mana denial, hand destruction, or some other targeted form of disruption.  

*Small cheap creatures: usually 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, or 2/2 and with a mana cost usually no greater than 2.  Common exceptions: Phyrexian Negator, Trygon Predator, Old Man of the Sea, Dimir Cutpurse.  

Factors to consider:

Consistent v. Broken; consistent/redudant favors a Fish label.
Presence of Null Rod or AEther Vial favors a Fish label.
Presence of Stifle favors a Fish label.
A blue base favors a Fish label, though is not necessary.
Presence of Wasteland favors a Fish label.  
Low mana curve favors a Fish label.
Excepting AEther Vial, small creatures should be hardcast directly and not cheated via Bazaar, Welder, Oath of Druids, Tinker, etc.
Presence of Mishra's Workshop strongly disfavors a Fish label.
Presence of Mana Drain slightly disfavors a Fish label.
Presence of Dark Ritual disfavors a Fish label.
Common red flags that the deck is probably Fish: Meddling Mage, True Believer, Stormscape Apprentice, Dark Confidant, Jotun Grunt, Waterfront Bouncer, Ninja of the Deep Hours, Savannah Lions, Isamaru, Hound of Konda, Rootwater Thief, Azorius Guildmage.  

Important: A unique superseding "theme" of the deck strongly disfavors the Fish label. (Suicide Black, Goblins, Affinity, Workshop Aggro, others)

However, note that, for example, I would consider ICBM Oath to be slightly closer to a Fish archetype compared to SS in terms of its strategic game-plan. Of course, the knee-jerk reaction might be that classifying ICBM Oath as a Fish deck is preposterous, and yet to some it seemed equally preposterous that I failed to classify SS as a Fish deck.

This isn't actually that preposterous because Fish and ICBM Oath are very similar on a raw conceptual level: lethal combat damage coupled with strong mana denial.  The connection you make there is legitimate.  But the reason ICBM doesn't actually qualify as Fish however is because it lacks the small utility beaters that are the most conspicuous hallmark of Fish these days and because the Oath of Druids ensemble supersedes "Fish" as its overall theme.  Further, cheating creatures into play with means aside from Vial is uncharacteristic of Fish and helps explain another factor why Ichorid isn't encompassed.  

It's hard to move forward without consensus on the definition so your remaining questions will have to wait for now.  The definition above may be unrefined, but at least it's a starting point.

-BPK

[zeus-online]

In my honest opinion a fish deck must be blue-based to be considered fish.

I think people are confusing things...Fish is an Aggro/Control deck by definition....but an Aggro/Control deck is not necessarily fish...in a sence even sligh* decks are Aggro/Control, they use wastelands (and i might add...Null rod, stone rains etc. etc.) to slow the opponent while chipping away with beaters & burn spells (Which also can disrupt the opponent further by removing key creatures or blockers)

When i use the term "Fish" i'm talking about a deck containing weenies, usually utility creatures or efficient creatures, backed up by low-cost efficient disruption and a mana denial package.

I do not consider the following decks to be "Fish":
GAT, Oath, Ichorid, Suicide black, TMWA, EBA, Workshop Aggro. (I don't know enough about the SS to include it in either camp)

One of the main reasons for not including those decks in the "Fish" category is that i cannot prepare for these decks in the same way as fish deck - For example, old man of the sea is usually a pretty good card against fish, but i would never consider sideboarding it in against any of the above mentioned decks.

/Zeus

*Using sligh as an example, although it is not really relevant to Vintage

[wethepeople]

When i use the term "Fish" i'm talking about a deck containing weenies, usually utility creatures or efficient creatures, backed up by low-cost efficient disruption and a mana denial package.

I do not consider the following decks to be "Fish":
GAT, Oath, Ichorid, Suicide black, TMWA, EBA, Workshop Aggro. (I don't know enough about the SS to include it in either camp)

I agree with everything in that list, besides TMWA, and some* builds of EBA. I personally don't think Fish must have blue to be considered Fish. TMWA uses similar disruption, just no Force of Will, or any other kind of countermagic, however, Red Elemental Blast commonly manages to appear in the sideboard, as well as the occasional MD slot.

EBA is a more control build, yes, but some of the more-recent lists use Jotun Grunt, Meddling Mage, and Dark Confidant, as opposed to the original Negators, or Exalted Angels, and rely less and less on Mana Drain. This particular creature base is in no way different than many UWb Fish decks. However, the lists more-so take advantage Mana Drain, do display more control characteristics than the average Fish deck.

[dicemanx]

I would suggest that those trying to answer question 1 attempt to simultaneously answer question 2. This thread's focus isn't about definitions; it is trying to establish whether the evidence is indicating that Fish just doesn't cut it anymore, and that if you're not playing Gifts, CS, or Tendrils variants, or some secret homebrew deck that will net you some free points, you are effectively playing with a handicap. This is of course only applicable to those not limited by budget constraints or those that aren't playing Fish for the sake of playing something new and different.

I agree with everything in that list, besides TMWA, and some* builds of EBA.

Those builds must have been mislabeled - they should have fallen under the BUW Fish category.

[o]

dicemanx, you appear oblivious to the title of this thread.  In case you missed it, it says "Why are Fish decks not winning tournaments?".  You claim that it is because they are underpowered.... and then go on to provide "evidence" which proves only that "Fish" (a vague term at best) decks have not done well in the recent past.  The originally poster already knows that Fish decks aren't doing well!  What he wants to know is why.  Don't you see the disconnect between your claim and the data you used to support this claim?

[Vegeta2711]

What he wants to know is why.  Don't you see the disconnect between your claim and the data you used to support this claim?

Dude that's already been answered like ten times over. See my post, Feinstein's,  Rian's or even just the basic answer of 'the deck is underpowered, dur dur.'

[wethepeople]

I agree with everything in that list, besides TMWA, and some* builds of EBA.

Those builds must have been mislabeled - they should have fallen under the BUW Fish category.

Yes, I commonly see SCG doing that, but never understood why. Although, the lists still do use Mana Drain, so it is understandable when labling it as "EBA"

I am begining to feel like people are thinking of all Fish lists as decks that use bad creatures, and irrelevant disruption. When really, metagaming a list properly can be very effective in multiple matchups. The 75 cards used in Fish are no where near set in stone, and they change frequently, following the metagame accordingly. Taking a basic UW Fish list with just the regular disruption package will be unlikely to get you too far, because the disruption is too vague to always win you games, because those lists try to be good in all matchups, even though some of these decks are unexistent in your metagame.

However, in order for you to garuntee wins in the matchups you want to win, which can't be all of them, you need to design your deck around it, and in return, the remaining matchups are likely to become worse. So you now have a list designed to beat a few different archetypes, and leaving the sideboard for the remaining. In tournaments, there is diversity, and you are going to face the other decks, besides the ones you originally intended to beat, and these other decks generally are the reason that you don't win each round, and finish the tournament in first. This is probably the most simple of a reason that I can think of to demonstrate why Fish doesn't win tournaments.

[o]

What he wants to know is why.  Don't you see the disconnect between your claim and the data you used to support this claim?

Dude that's already been answered like ten times over. See my post, Feinstein's,  Rian's or even just the basic answer of 'the deck is underpowered, dur dur.'

So you're supporting the claim that fish decks lose because they are underpowered with the answer "they are underpowered"?  Since when did "underpowered" automatically entail losing?

Fish decks typically don't win tournaments for three reasons.
1. You don't get any free wins
2. The value of the hands you have are based almost entirely on what the opponent's hand consists of
3. Most fish is based around a medicore semi-coherent non-linear strategy in a format full of linear strategies

If you wanted to maximize the number of free wins of a deck (I assume you mean turn 1 wins) you could play a much more inconsistent deck than Gifts.  It's obviously a continuum of brokenness vs. consistency here, and there is no reason to assume that a deck which is incapable of a turn one win is immediately at a disadvantage to one which is.

2 + 3 are very much related in that they assume that they assume that interactive decks are inherently worse than noninteractive ones.  I see no reason to believe this as a general rule.

The real problem in determining what is causing Fish to lose is that Fish hardly means anything more than blue-based aggro control and it might not even mean all of that.

[Implacable]

If you wanted to maximize the number of free wins of a deck (I assume you mean turn 1 wins) you could play a much more inconsistent deck than Gifts.  It's obviously a continuum of brokenness vs. consistency here, and there is no reason to assume that a deck which is incapable of a turn one win is immediately at a disadvantage to one which is.

To address this specific point:  a free win is not a turn 1 kill.  Rather, it is the drawing of a hand so broken that it not only plays itself but also beats almost any opponent.  Slaver, Gifts, Long, and all other fully powered decks have these kind of hands; most Fish decks do not.

[Vegeta2711]

Since when did "underpowered" automatically entail losing?

Since playing a more powerful deck helps eliminate the chances of you losing to mulligans / randomness / significant skill differential.

If you wanted to maximize the number of free wins of a deck (I assume you mean turn 1 wins) you could play a much more inconsistent deck than Gifts.  It's obviously a continuum of brokenness vs. consistency here, and there is no reason to assume that a deck which is incapable of a turn one win is immediately at a disadvantage to one which is.

You're assuming what I'm saying means a turn 1 win and then your saying I shouldn't assume that a deck that can't turn 1 win is at a disadvantage with a deck that can? That's.... interesting logic? Next time though you could just ask me to clarify instead of putting words in my mouth.

First off, by free wins I don't mean a turn 1 win. I mean hands that are simply so strong, unless the opponent has his own insane hand is on the play or something, you'll more than likely win the game in a short frame regardless of what the opponent actually does.

EDIT: Implacable got it.

Secondly if you can't see why a deck that gets free wins is at an advantage over one that doesn't over the course of a tourney, I can't really help you.

2 + 3 are very much related in that they assume that they assume that interactive decks are inherently worse than noninteractive ones.  I see no reason to believe this as a general rule.

Against I never actually said anything about that. For example, Maher Oath was interactive (Certainly to a degree moreso than any of the Vintage models) and non-linear and one of, it not the best, deck at it's time. It didn't need Oath, or necessarily even want it, in a number of it's matches.

The reason why I pointed out it's non-linearity as a weakness, was because the linear or hybrid strategies are so much stronger in this format. You have to devote at least two-thirds of the deck just to try to keep other decks in long line enough for you to win. Also #2 isn't actually the same as #3, but whatever, it's a subtle distinction so I don't care that much if they're lumped together.

[dicemanx]

dicemanx, you appear oblivious to the title of this thread.  In case you missed it, it says "Why are Fish decks not winning tournaments?".  You claim that it is because they are underpowered.... and then go on to provide "evidence" which proves only that "Fish" (a vague term at best) decks have not done well in the recent past.  The originally poster already knows that Fish decks aren't doing well!  What he wants to know is why.  Don't you see the disconnect between your claim and the data you used to support this claim?

When you read the title and hitman's opening paragraph, he is asking why Fish decks are not winning. The problem is that the statement in the title isn't accurate (if you equate "winning" to winning a prize, which is usually associated with making t8 or t4 depending on the scale of the event). Therefore, the question has since been altered - Fish decks DO win, but are they a strong choice in T1 right now if you want to maximize your chances to win? The data was introduced to assist in answering this question, along with the supporting rationale (Fish is incapable of stealing wins, and if its game plan is working in the early game, it is just "containing" the opponent - it isn't "winning" the game).

That hitman was supposedly "aware" of Fish's inability to generate results doesn't cause any disconnect, because there is no consensus yet that there IS a problem with the archetype! We're basically taking a step back and asking - is there really a problem with Fish? Is hitman not seeing results because he's still working on being proficient, and if he keeps at it, he will succeed as others have succeeded with the archetype? Or are his efforts not worthwhile if he is interested in maximizing his chances at a prize since there are far better options?

Threads might start with specific questions but it is often worthwhile to expand the scope of the discussions. Don't you agree?

[brianpk80]

In my honest opinion a fish deck must be blue-based to be considered fish.

While a blue base may help to support a finding of "Fish," it's not 100% necessary.  The best example that comes to mind is last year's offsprings of Eudemonia Fish which were frequently WBR, using many key Fish players like Dark Confidant, True Believer, Duress, Wasteland, Null Rod, and Hide/Seek.  This fits both my definition and your definition of basically a weenie ensemble with focused cheap disruption. 

Stone Rain is pretty pricy for a disrupt spell and would characterize a deck as more of an old-school land destruction build, IMO.  The old Sligh decks have a famous theme to them (burn, red, and mana curve, aka Sligh-ness) that would supersede a Fish identity.

Since we're now finally acknowledging that it's a good thing (TM) to let topics branch out into related arcs, I think we can safely discuss the definition of Fish without going beyond what's acceptable and relevant. 

-BPK

[zeus-online]

While a blue base may help to support a finding of "Fish," it's not 100% necessary.  The best example that comes to mind is last year's offsprings of Eudemonia Fish which were frequently WBR, using many key Fish players like Dark Confidant, True Believer, Duress, Wasteland, Null Rod, and Hide/Seek.  This fits both my definition and your definition of basically a weenie ensemble with focused cheap disruption. 

Stone Rain is pretty pricy for a disrupt spell and would characterize a deck as more of an old-school land destruction build, IMO.  The old Sligh decks have a famous theme to them (burn, red, and mana curve, aka Sligh-ness) that would supersede a Fish identity.

Red Deck Wins was basicly a sligh base with extra mana denial - often including something like pillage, the deck IS an aggro/control deck.*

Although some forms of sligh was straight-aggro.

That WBR deck you describe sounds more like a white/black weenie deck....never forget that White weenie is actually a aggro/control deck, although it tends to fail horribly at controlling anything these days. (Oh, and it sucks at beating aswell )

Anyway, its up to you what you consider fish - What i wrote is my definition.

/Zeus

*Do you really consider anything with 4x stone rain to be a land destruction deck? The goal of sligh is to reduce the opponents life from 20 to 0 before he is able to recover, the goal of a land destruction deck is to lock the opponent out of the game by removing his mana base...The purpose of the stone rain varies greatly, in sligh it merely buys time - In LD it acts as lock piece so to speak.

[brianpk80]

Red Deck Wins was basicly a sligh base with extra mana denial - often including something like pillage, the deck IS an aggro/control deck.*

That deck may have been popular during years when I did not play MtG so I can't elaborate on it much. 

That WBR deck you describe sounds more like a white/black weenie deck....never forget that White weenie is actually a aggro/control deck, although it tends to fail horribly at controlling anything these days. (Oh, and it sucks at beating aswell )

Well, the starting point was Eudemonia 4 Color Fish, which had blue in it.  But then there were some offshoots of it that omitted the blue.  It didn't change the essence or identity of the deck IMO so I would say yes, it had Fish-factor.  I had a WBR deck that was also very Fish-like and descended from Oath of Ghouls Fish.  I see that most Fish decks have a blue base, but it's possible to replicate a Fish identity even without blue. 

*Do you really consider anything with 4x stone rain to be a land destruction deck?

No, I didn't say anything that strict.  I said that Stone Rain calls to mind old-school land destruction for me, aka "Bring out the Nether Voids."  I am aware that it has other uses (back in time at least) outside of those decks.

-BPK

[o]

You're assuming what I'm saying means a turn 1 win and then your saying I shouldn't assume that a deck that can't turn 1 win is at a disadvantage with a deck that can? That's.... interesting logic? Next time though you could just ask me to clarify instead of putting words in my mouth.

First off, by free wins I don't mean a turn 1 win. I mean hands that are simply so strong, unless the opponent has his own insane hand is on the play or something, you'll more than likely win the game in a short frame regardless of what the opponent actually does.

EDIT: Implacable got it.

Secondly if you can't see why a deck that gets free wins is at an advantage over one that doesn't over the course of a tourney, I can't really help you.

It does not matter what turn you actually win on, if these "free wins" (which apparently means something completely subjective) were so prevelent and certain decks had more of them and others didn't then why wouldn't everyone try to maximize them?

If you get 15% "free win" hands but 85% "cannot possibly win" hands then there is a problem, no?

Look at what you're saying:  Fish would be better off if it added a Channel and a Kaervek's Torch because then it could mise free wins.

I can't really help you if you can't see why there is an obvious tradeoff between consistancy and brokenness (hint: this favors "Happy Medium" decks like Gifts)

Against I never actually said anything about that. For example, Maher Oath was interactive (Certainly to a degree moreso than any of the Vintage models) and non-linear and one of, it not the best, deck at it's time. It didn't need Oath, or necessarily even want it, in a number of it's matches.

The reason why I pointed out it's non-linearity as a weakness, was because the linear or hybrid strategies are so much stronger in this format. You have to devote at least two-thirds of the deck just to try to keep other decks in long line enough for you to win. Also #2 isn't actually the same as #3, but whatever, it's a subtle distinction so I don't care that much if they're lumped together.

I really think you're discrediting the power of answers too much.  DSC fell out of favor and was replaced by ETW in many decks because of the prevelance of bounce like Wipe Away etc... Or look at how hard Ichorid has to fight against cards like Leyline and Crypt. I'm not sure that putting all your eggs in one basket is really that good of an idea.

EDIT: But hybrid strategies do seem powerful; I have to admit that.

[o]

dicemanx, you appear oblivious to the title of this thread.  In case you missed it, it says "Why are Fish decks not winning tournaments?".  You claim that it is because they are underpowered.... and then go on to provide "evidence" which proves only that "Fish" (a vague term at best) decks have not done well in the recent past.  The originally poster already knows that Fish decks aren't doing well!  What he wants to know is why.  Don't you see the disconnect between your claim and the data you used to support this claim?

When you read the title and hitman's opening paragraph, he is asking why Fish decks are not winning. The problem is that the statement in the title isn't accurate (if you equate "winning" to winning a prize, which is usually associated with making t8 or t4 depending on the scale of the event). Therefore, the question has since been altered - Fish decks DO win, but are they a strong choice in T1 right now if you want to maximize your chances to win? The data was introduced to assist in answering this question, along with the supporting rationale (Fish is incapable of stealing wins, and if its game plan is working in the early game, it is just "containing" the opponent - it isn't "winning" the game).

That hitman was supposedly "aware" of Fish's inability to generate results doesn't cause any disconnect, because there is no consensus yet that there IS a problem with the archetype! We're basically taking a step back and asking - is there really a problem with Fish? Is hitman not seeing results because he's still working on being proficient, and if he keeps at it, he will succeed as others have succeeded with the archetype? Or are his efforts not worthwhile if he is interested in maximizing his chances at a prize since there are far better options?

Threads might start with specific questions but it is often worthwhile to expand the scope of the discussions. Don't you agree?

Well first off, as you yourself have seemed to have stressed so heavily, Fish decks have not actually won any tournaments in a while and have been doing "pathetically".  So it seems pretty clear that you do think fish decks are not doing well.

Then you would say that it is a problem endemic to the archetype which has no real solution.  But I don't see why one couldn't have a higher expectancy with a well built and well played fish deck than say Gifts.  You think otherwise?  This seems like the question that is really interesting.

[dicemanx]

Well first off, as you yourself have seemed to have stressed so heavily, Fish decks have not actually won any tournaments in a while and have been doing "pathetically".  So it seems pretty clear that you do think fish decks are not doing well.

Yes, my interpretation is not a positive one, but people are in disagreement.

Then you would say that it is a problem endemic to the archetype which has no real solution.  But I don't see why one couldn't have a higher expectancy with a well built and well played fish deck than say Gifts.  You think otherwise?  This seems like the question that is really interesting.

This to me is consistent with why decks like Keeper, MUC, Landstill, Goblins, or any other mid range control or aggro deck are not performing as well as other archetypes more focused on winning the early game while retaining enough firepower to win mid and late games. Perhaps it can be generalized as the difficulty in adopting primarily a control role in the format - it might be successful in some games, but in the long run it isn't a very successful approach. What is interesting is that even by Smmenen's admission in some of his Gifts articles, playing a more controlling game instead of playing for the beatdown might have been the reason for his lack of success in certain individual games. It has become quite difficult to contain the faster archetypes, and even the archetypal Drain based control has morphed into a tightly focused beatdown (ie combo) deck whose first priority is to end games immediately given the opportunity.

This does not mean that games are ending on turns 1-3 consistently; instead, the faster archetypes are simply more successful in outmuscling the control archetypes (of which Fish is a part) and have the ability to end games quickly on occasion (essentially "stealing" free wins). If we look at decks other than Fish or CS/Gifts/Tendrils, even Stax qualifies more as a "combo" deck in the sense that it aims to win the game early via lock pieces. For instance, a start of Mox, CotV for 0, Shop, Smokestack might essentially be a game ending play. Ichorid attempts to exert some control in the early game, but it eschews Fish's large disruption count in favor of ending the game quickly itself; WGDX is another archetype that does this, albeit more successfully. Oath, on the other hand, is lagging behind like Fish, with the sole exception of the Carp brothers - just like Feinstein, it is specific individuals that somehow make the slower control decks work but others are not seeing the success.

[Implacable]

It does not matter what turn you actually win on, if these "free wins" (which apparently means something completely subjective) were so prevelent and certain decks had more of them and others didn't then why wouldn't everyone try to maximize them?

If you get 15% "free win" hands but 85% "cannot possibly win" hands then there is a problem, no?

Look at what you're saying:  Fish would be better off if it added a Channel and a Kaervek's Torch because then it could mise free wins.

I can't really help you if you can't see why there is an obvious tradeoff between consistancy and brokenness (hint: this favors "Happy Medium" decks like Gifts)

Again, addressing this specific point:

First, there's no need to 'talk down' to anyone in this thread.  Everyone posting in it evidently spends a lot of time thinking about and writing about cardboard, so there's no need to give anyone a 'hint' or say that you just 'can't really help' someone.

Secondly, a free win is a byproduct of a way of designing decks, not the goal of it.  Free wins occur when a Slaver player gets a hand like this:

Ancestral, Yawgmoth's Will, Black Lotus, Force of Will, Thirst for Knowledge, Mana Crypt, Tolarian Academy

Getting a hand like this is absurd, and it happens because of the power level of decks that abuse Yawgmoth's Will and other restricted cards.  While it is certainly possible to get a hand like this, and it is hypothetically possible that one could lose.  However, the probability of one winning is drastically increased; this is what is meant when players speak of a 'God Hand'.  Decks like Fish, because they run cards that are, on the whole, less powerful than those in most other Type 1 decks, cannot get 'God Hands'; they have to work for every win.  Getting a 'God Hand' is merely incidental; if the cards in one's deck are powerful enough, then an unusually powerful assortment will be drawn in a certain number of games.  Because all decks (except for creature-based ones) can get 'God Hands', the goal of deckbuilding in Type 1 is not to maximize them; it is to maximize the hands that are not broken.

[o]

It does not matter what turn you actually win on, if these "free wins" (which apparently means something completely subjective) were so prevelent and certain decks had more of them and others didn't then why wouldn't everyone try to maximize them?

If you get 15% "free win" hands but 85% "cannot possibly win" hands then there is a problem, no?

Look at what you're saying:  Fish would be better off if it added a Channel and a Kaervek's Torch because then it could mise free wins.

I can't really help you if you can't see why there is an obvious tradeoff between consistancy and brokenness (hint: this favors "Happy Medium" decks like Gifts)

Again, addressing this specific point:

First, there's no need to 'talk down' to anyone in this thread.  Everyone posting in it evidently spends a lot of time thinking about and writing about cardboard, so there's no need to give anyone a 'hint' or say that you just 'can't really help' someone.

yeah, I know, he was just attacking me as much (of course this is no excuse).

Secondly, a free win is a byproduct of a way of designing decks, not the goal of it.  Free wins occur when a Slaver player gets a hand like this:

Ancestral, Yawgmoth's Will, Black Lotus, Force of Will, Thirst for Knowledge, Mana Crypt, Tolarian Academy

Getting a hand like this is absurd, and it happens because of the power level of decks that abuse Yawgmoth's Will and other restricted cards.  While it is certainly possible to get a hand like this, and it is hypothetically possible that one could lose.  However, the probability of one winning is drastically increased; this is what is meant when players speak of a 'God Hand'.  Decks like Fish, because they run cards that are, on the whole, less powerful than those in most other Type 1 decks, cannot get 'God Hands'; they have to work for every win.  Getting a 'God Hand' is merely incidental; if the cards in one's deck are powerful enough, then an unusually powerful assortment will be drawn in a certain number of games.  Because all decks (except for creature-based ones) can get 'God Hands', the goal of deckbuilding in Type 1 is not to maximize them; it is to maximize the hands that are not broken.

Excuse me if my use of "maximize" was ambiguous.  I meant by that to attain the greatest percentage of "free win" hands to other hands possilbe.  So what I really mean is if these 'God Hands' are so killer, why is it worth it to bother playing cards like Mana Drain...?  If 'God Hands' are a byproduct of deck-design, then what could you possibly be aiming for in deck design?