BUG Fish VS GWU vs BUW Fish

[Stormanimagus]

urweak, actually I would put forth the argument that SelkieStrike isn't a fish deck either, regardless of its inexpensive blue creature structure.  Fish, in my mind, is a control deck through and through.  

BUG fish fits this standard because it is playing entirely disruptive cards, the exceptions being Confidant which it plays to not get behind in card advantage and to find solutions to specific problems, and Goyf to end the game before the opponent can break through the mana and discard based hold that the fish decks is constantly building.

SelkieStrike is a deck with a real definable synergistic attack that it is trying to put together with which to dominate the game.  As Tezzeret wants to assemble artifact combo's or develop massive advantage with restricted card advantage and fast mana so does SelkieStrike try to assemble exalted creatures with Selkie to put its opponent on a short clock behind a big cluster of cards.  Both of these decks play elements to keep their opponent from doing degenerate things in the mean time, mana drain and duress effects from tez compared to the mana denial and pridemages of selkie.

If we are painting with a wide enough brush to consider both UWb fish which plays 4 cards which do not produce normal speed mana, ie lands, or act to directly stop the opponent from winning, and UGW which has been known to play jitte, goyf, selkie, and hierarch as aggressive spells I don't see why we cannot include the heavily disruptive and cheap creature based GWb as well.

This is a very good point and I never thought of putting it this way. Selkie-Strike as a non-fish deck? I suppose that is kinda true. Again I refer to a statement I made earlier:

I find Selkie-Strike Vs. Traditional Fish to kinda be like 5-Color Stax Vs. Mono-Red or MUD Stax. 5-Color runs the raw power and disruptive elements at the top of the food chain for that Archetype, but has some inconsistencies and can often be caught "in between roles" in the hands of a less than stellar pilot. Mono-Red and MUD Stax lists are about 1 thing and 1 thing only: Consistency. Many of the best builds are not particularly powerful, but they are gonna get their solid disruption suite every game in the opening 7 (lots of 4-ofs assure such consistency) and dare the opponent to find the goods to stop them.

I like this style of play and so I think I prefer Selkie over BUG. I think Selkie does risk SOME things that BUG does not (Ichorid, for example), but it is a deck with powerful synergies and cards that are rarely completely dead. Even a late-game Hierarch can be useful in mana-production or Exalted Stacking and an early game Hierarch obviously does a lot. Hierarch is just a very misunderstood card I think. On its own it is true that it does nothing to stop degenerate plays, but it dramatically increases the consistency of you deck as a whole in combating broken plays because it gives resilience to mana-denial and actually significantly increases the power of your own Wastelands and Rods. It is the heart and soul of the deck and I think people who bash it don't really understand how the deck works.

-Storm

EDIT: As per request here are what I'd consider the 2 optimal lists for comparison:

Selkie-Slam

Land (17):
4 Misty Rainforest
1 Flooded Strand
3 Tropical Island
2 Tundra
1 Island
1 Forest
4 Wasteland
1 Strip Mine

Artifacts (8):
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Pearl
4 Null Rod

Creatures (19):
4 Noble Hierarch
3 Meddling Mage
4 Qasali Pridemage
3 Tarmogoyf
4 Cold-Eyed Selkie
1 Trygon Predator

Instants (15):
4 Force Of Will
4 Daze
3 Spell Pierce
3 Stifle
1 Ancestral Recall

Sorceries (1):
1 Time Walk

SB
4 Ravenous Trap
2 Pithing Needle
2 Trygon Predator
3 Arcane Laboratory
4 Swords To Plowshares


BUG Fish

Land (19):
4 Polluted Delta
2 Flooded Strand
4 Underground Sea
2 Tropical Island
1 Island
4 Wasteland
1 Strip Mine
1 Bayou

Artifacts (8):
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Emerald
4 Null Rod

Creatures (13):
4 Dark Confidant
4 Tarmogoyf
3 Trygon Predator
2 Vendilion Clique

Instants (13):
4 Force Of Will
4 Daze
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Brainstorm
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Diabolic Edict

Sorceries (7):
1 Time Walk
1 Life From The Loam
1 Demonic Tutor
4 Duress

SB
4 Energy Flux
3 Sower Of Temptation
3 Yixlid Jailer
1 Darkblast
3 Tormod's Crypt
1 Extirpate

Obviously there'd be updates to the BUG list as I havn't been testing it with Zendikar cards, but much of it would probably be the same as that list.

[SoulStealer]

its better if we have decklist for comparison...

[Vegeta2711]

and I think people who bash it don't really understand how the deck works.

You vastly overrate the amount of knowledge it takes to understand a Fish deck. Dudes + Counters has never been a particularly difficult strategy to figure out. Neither has a simple mana accelerant.

Actually the quoted feels ironic in light of what you wrote earlier.

The whole point of Fish is card advantage and Duress is NOT card advantage.

No definition of Fish ever had this as the main point and in fact I can't remember a single aggro-control deck in the history of the game, with possibly the sole exception of older Necropotence decks, where this was true. The only recent deck I can think where this might be true is Standard Faeries w/ Ancestral Visions when it was legal, but even that focused more on tempo than CA. I remember plenty of control decks that had this as their philosophy though.

[zeus-online]

and I think people who bash it don't really understand how the deck works.

You vastly overrate the amount of knowledge it takes to understand a Fish deck. Dudes + Counters has never been a particularly difficult strategy to figure out. Neither has a simple mana accelerant.

Actually the quoted feels ironic in light of what you wrote earlier.

The whole point of Fish is card advantage and Duress is NOT card advantage.

No definition of Fish ever had this as the main point and in fact I can't remember a single aggro-control deck in the history of the game, with possibly the sole exception of older Necropotence decks, where this was true. The only recent deck I can think where this might be true is Standard Faeries w/ Ancestral Visions when it was legal, but even that focused more on tempo than CA. I remember plenty of control decks that had this as their philosophy though.

The old U/R fish decks did have a huge draw engine though...Landstill's, curiosity and even library. Not saying that was the primary strategy, just pointing out that fish did indeed start out with alot of draw-power (atleast in T1)

All this about UWB fish being suboptimal....If combo ever becomes good/popular again, i'm certainly going to be playing with canonist and mindcensor.

The main problem is that fish without Goyf looses to fish with Goyf. There's not much else to it.

[merfolkOTPT]

As opposed to Canonist against combo, how do you feel about playing True Believer, dodges some of the hate (in this case artifact hate which is everywhere), and gains some side benefit in preventing oath players from oathing (new oracle text).

[Guli]

As opposed to Canonist against combo, how do you feel about playing True Believer, dodges some of the hate (in this case artifact hate which is everywhere), and gains some side benefit in preventing oath players from oathing (new oracle text).

I didn't check the new wording. Assuming you are right and true believer would do splash damage to Oath when it is in play it just jumped to my top 5 in utility bears. I might even get back to my vial list and reform it.

[Stormanimagus]

As opposed to Canonist against combo, how do you feel about playing True Believer, dodges some of the hate (in this case artifact hate which is everywhere), and gains some side benefit in preventing oath players from oathing (new oracle text).

I don't see any new oracle text that would suggest this. Mind explaining?

-Storm

[Guli]

So Ivory Mask/True Believer shut off Oath now. Yay for stupid irrelevant changes with no official (or widely disseminated) announcement.

...other than the article on the WOTC Website by the MTG rules manager, which he writes every time a new set comes out and they make Oracle changes.  You know, that unofficial, hard-to-find announcement. 

Drawing attention to Vintage and it's environs is what LordHomerCat was complaining about.

Oath now Targets.  Oath is a played Vintage deck, and has been for years.  Illusionary Mask has been played for years.  WOTC doesn't draw attention to that specifically, and we feel blighted.

(well I don't)

Vintage players still get upset when their meta/dreams get steamrolled over.

Searched the forum, found this.

True Believer stops a lot of important cards that see play. Some are engines, some are win conditions of certain archetypes. But it never was useful against oath.

I always found True Believer/Sylvan Safekeeper strong. You can't be targeted and your creatures can survive targeted removal which leaves only Rebuild or things like Pyroclasm as an answer. With True Believer and Qasali Pridemage on the board, i don't see the oath match as unfavorable anymore.

[JudasKilled]

Oracle wording on oath is now target player, so true believe does shut it down, it also shuts down tendrils, however I still think meddlng mage is better and thats still often not good enough to play main deck

[Wagner]

Oracle wording on oath is now target player, so true believe does shut it down, it also shuts down tendrils, however I still think meddlng mage is better and thats still often not good enough to play main deck

Oracle from gatherer:

At the beginning of each player's upkeep, if that player controls fewer creatures than any of his or her opponents, the player may reveal cards from the top of his or her library until he or she reveals a creature card. The player puts that card onto the battlefield and all other cards revealed this way into his or her graveyard.

Doesn't seem to have target anywhere, as far as I know, it never targeted, even on the original text.

[DubDub]

Doesn't seem to have target anywhere, as far as I know, it never targeted, even on the original text.

What?  Direct quote from the card:
"During each players upkeep, if that player controls fewer creatures than target opponent..."

Here again is the relevant page from the update bulletin:
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/58a&page=3

And another quote:
"New Oath of Druids wording
At the beginning of each player's upkeep, that player chooses target player who controls more creatures than he or she does and is his or her opponent. The first player may reveal cards from his or her library until he or she reveals a creature card. If he or she does, that player puts that card onto the battlefield and puts all other cards revealed this way into his or her graveyard."

[zeus-online]

I'd much rather have the canonist, it limits their ability to search for answers, which true believer dosn't. Also it costs which is very important as it allows for land, mox, canonist.

[Guli]

I'd much rather have the canonist, it limits their ability to search for answers, which true believer dosn't. Also it costs which is very important as it allows for land, mox, canonist.

It was never the single power of a creature that won games. It is the combination of bears like Canonist (disables the synergy between the cards they holding, Believer(stops them from killing you directly and also stops disruption and some of their fuel that needs a target player/opponent, Mindcensor (cut them of their deck and leaves/narrows them with only the resources they are holding and maybe top 4 deck) that wins games.

A single piece will never work against combo, unless you can successfully protect it or are holding it in your hand and are able to instantly vial it in. Gaddock theme applies.
But I wouldn't add teeg to the team yet. Meddling Mage doesn't seem strong anymore these days according to some players. I agree to some extent. It is harder to name something effective. But those decks usually don't run a lot powerful bears with an effect. Those decks put the mage at the front. Wizzards can be strong behind the lines as well, closing the gabs in the formation while the rest puts a more global pressure the mage implements targeted (tactical) denial.

If you can't be duressed, you can safely rely on whatever counter or reactionary spell you are holding. This can be stifle, force of will, orim's chant, spell pierce, Mindbreak trap, ....

WG with either black or blue as a splash (both are strong) seem the way to go if you aren't opting for mana denial (null rod) strategies. BUG does what it does better than the rest, and for now i think BUG Rod is the most solid pick. But this isn't primarily due to the colors or choice, I think it is also a lack of exploration and investment in a certain archetype. I am sure an accomplished pilot with a well designed Wub fish can get in top 8 just like GW(u) and BUG do.

How about True Believer in Parfait?

// Lands
    10  Plains
    1  Strip Mine
    4  Wasteland

// Creatures
    4  True Believer
    4  Ethersworn Canonist
    4  Aven Mindcensor

// Spells
    1  Mox Pearl
    1  Black Lotus
    4  Land Tax
    4  Scroll Rack
    4  Mox Diamond
    1  Tormod's Crypt
    3  Swords to Plowshares
    1 [ARE] Enlightened Tutor
    1  Mox Emerald
    1  Mox Sapphire
    1  Mox Jet
    1 [JGC] Sol Ring
    4  Aura of Silence
    1  Balance
    1  Trinisphere
    1  Zuran Orb
    3  Argivian Find

// Sideboard
SB: 3  Tormod's Crypt
SB: 2  Pithing Needle
SB: 2  Rule of Law
SB: 2  Moat
SB: 1  Swords to Plowshares
SB: 1  Jester's Cap
SB: 1  Wheel of Sun and Moon
SB: 2  Orim's Chant
SB: 2 Silence

[Wagner]

Doesn't seem to have target anywhere, as far as I know, it never targeted, even on the original text.

What?  Direct quote from the card:
"During each players upkeep, if that player controls fewer creatures than target opponent..."

Here again is the relevant page from the update bulletin:
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/58a&page=3

And another quote:
"New Oath of Druids wording
At the beginning of each player's upkeep, that player chooses target player who controls more creatures than he or she does and is his or her opponent. The first player may reveal cards from his or her library until he or she reveals a creature card. If he or she does, that player puts that card onto the battlefield and puts all other cards revealed this way into his or her graveyard."

Oh well, I can't read apparently...

Still pretty weak of them make an update on the rules text and not change gatherer at the same time.

Also, why not simply "that player chooses target opponent who controls more creatures than he or she does", that last part of the sentence seems superfluous.

Anyway, glad to see another tool to battle Oath, even though it's still not very played and will inevitably become an argument with the Oath player that will not be aware of this change.

[zeus-online]

I'd much rather have the canonist, it limits their ability to search for answers, which true believer dosn't. Also it costs which is very important as it allows for land, mox, canonist.

It was never the single power of a creature that won games. It is the combination of bears like Canonist (disables the synergy between the cards they holding, Believer(stops them from killing you directly and also stops disruption and some of their fuel that needs a target player/opponent, Mindcensor (cut them of their deck and leaves/narrows them with only the resources they are holding and maybe top 4 deck) that wins games.

A single piece will never work against combo, unless you can successfully protect it or are holding it in your hand and are able to instantly vial it in. Gaddock theme applies.
But I wouldn't add teeg to the team yet. Meddling Mage doesn't seem strong anymore these days according to some players. I agree to some extent. It is harder to name something effective. But those decks usually don't run a lot powerful bears with an effect. Those decks put the mage at the front. Wizzards can be strong behind the lines as well, closing the gabs in the formation while the rest puts a more global pressure the mage implements targeted (tactical) denial.

Actually a single protected canonist wins the game against combo, you cannot say the same against meddling...Canonist even helps defend it self since it does not allow for much digging. The only combo deck that bypasses the canonist somewhat is dragon, which is not seeing play at the moment.

[JudasKilled]

somewhat true, i dislike cannonist for 1 reason its an artifact, it can be hurklyd and rebuilded, I dont wanna run null rod and cannonist and have all my storm hate get washed out by one fell swoop, meddling tendrils + null rod means they need 2 bounces ( granted they could have empty whatever)

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

meddling tendrils + null rod means they need 2 bounces

Mage on Tendrils is a pretty weak play against combo, especially post-board, since it lets them do whatever they want to go broken and find bounce.  Mage on Ritual is almost always better, especially in combination with Null Rod, to stop them from going crazy in the first place.

Despite being an artifact, Canonist is way better than Mage against combo, once again because it actually stops them from doing stuff.  The problem is that Mage is better than Canonist against almost every other deck.

[zeus-online]

meddling tendrils + null rod means they need 2 bounces

Mage on Tendrils is a pretty weak play against combo, especially post-board, since it lets them do whatever they want to go broken and find bounce.  Mage on Ritual is almost always better, especially in combination with Null Rod, to stop them from going crazy in the first place.

Despite being an artifact, Canonist is way better than Mage against combo, once again because it actually stops them from doing stuff.  The problem is that Mage is better than Canonist against almost every other deck.

Well against tez id still much rather have canonist, but against shops, fish, oath etc. i would prefer the mage. (As i said earlier, canonist is great against control and combo)
Imo nothing beats combo harder then the canonist. Unfortunetly combo sucks right now, so the discussion is somewhat irrelevant.

[Stormanimagus]

meddling tendrils + null rod means they need 2 bounces

Mage on Tendrils is a pretty weak play against combo, especially post-board, since it lets them do whatever they want to go broken and find bounce.  Mage on Ritual is almost always better, especially in combination with Null Rod, to stop them from going crazy in the first place.

Despite being an artifact, Canonist is way better than Mage against combo, once again because it actually stops them from doing stuff.  The problem is that Mage is better than Canonist against almost every other deck.

Well against tez id still much rather have canonist, but against shops, fish, oath etc. i would prefer the mage. (As i said earlier, canonist is great against control and combo)
Imo nothing beats combo harder then the canonist. Unfortunetly combo sucks right now, so the discussion is somewhat irrelevant.

I disagree a bit. I still think Arcane Lab is better than Canonist because they only have 1 out in their MD to it: Chain Of Vapor. I think Canonist might be the more solid choice against Tezz because it applies some pressure to boot and they are going to have Artifact Kill up the wazoo + a win condition that gets around Arcane Lab pretty easily. However, against TPS I'd say that Lab is better. The 3 CMC vs. 2 isn't that big a deal for Noble Fish either and that is mainly BECAUSE of Noble Hierarch. Turn 2 Lab is pretty common in such a deck.

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

Well against tez id still much rather have canonist

Can you explain why?  I understand that Canonist stops them from chaining draw spells or using Will, but so does Null Rod, while Mage prevents Tinker-->Inkwell ftw, which is their main out to your mana denial.

[zeus-online]

Arcane lab is worse simply because it costs 3 mana instead of 2.

Well against tez id still much rather have canonist

Can you explain why?  I understand that Canonist stops them from chaining draw spells or using Will, but so does Null Rod, while Mage prevents Tinker-->Inkwell ftw, which is their main out to your mana denial.

Canonist prevents them from digging after tinker, makes sure that your counter-magic stops tinker (they can't possibly have back-up for it with canonist in play) stops will completely, and just in general keeps the deck "fair".
It also allows you to bounce the inkwell with hurkyl's the turn he used tinker without fear of counterspells.
There are obviously some situations where it's not optimal....If they have the combo in hand canonist does very little as they can even play it with counter-backup. 
If they have tinker in hand you still only need 1 Force/negate/whatever to stop the tinker since they can't force back.
My favorit part of Canonist is probably that it protects itself, it's alot harder to find a bounce spell and resolve it when canonist is on the board, and since it shuts down any attempt at spell-chaining the opponent will most likely want to get rid of it.
You can also still play your own null rod with counter back up while the canonist is in play.
When using the canonist you should be a little careful about what you play afterwards, you don't really want to play something largely irrelevant if that means that the opponent gets to bounce the canonist or resolve something nasty while you're locked by your own canonist.

Canonist gets further enhanced if you're playing mindcensor, since mindcensor negates tinker and stops them from getting vault/key pieces (or bounce spells) (By stopping tutors, and canonist pretty much negates card-draw)
The little tag-team of canonist and mindcensor negates most cards in a standard Tez list, their countermagic gets alot worse when they cannot use them to defend their own spells, the tutors are shut down by mindcensor...canonist prevents them from chaining spells, and when combined they also negates the opponents ability to answer them, since it's very difficult to find and resolve anything in that situation.

My main gripe with meddling mage against something like tez is that it dosn't really slow them down, merely shuts down 1 card in a deck thats something like 30 1-offs. It's really not that hard to set bounce+tinker up. It's much harder to do when you're only allowed 1 spell per turn.

Canonist is much like null rod just the anti-thesis of vintage, null rod stops the insane acceleration while canonist makes the acceleration somewhat useless by negating the ability to use the card draw for any real benefit (How does a full hand help you if you can only play 1 spell each turn?).

Try playing a few games against the little bugger....Meddling mage is pretty innocent, i usually let it resolve and deal with it later(If it's even necessary to do so)..While the canonist eats a counterspell everytime! (if i got one)

Sorry if i rambled too much, pretty tired

[CowWithHat]

Zues, with the advent of spell pierce I have found canonist to occasionally be lack luster, due to a lack of synergy. 

It doesn't play the antithesis of vintage nearly as well as actual mana denial elements, in my experience.  And even when it does, the card has inherent lack of synergy with daze and spell pierce.  Meddling mage, however, can often play fantastically with those cards.  He can shut off mana drain or dark ritual or duress (duress is a stretch) which often allows the "unless they pay X" counters to do their thing better.  Also, the mage is blue which can be important (you can get down below 17 blue cards with force of will if you run too many non blue critters).

[vroman]

we built a bant deck to stress test my oath build, w 4 meddling 4 qasali 4 believer 4 pierce main. pretty rough. this led to some more development in our fish strategy in general
1. qasali is vital. trigun is too slow. 3 drop who only kills things sorcery speed is poor answer to a combo that can be assembled in one turn for 4. in the oath match, its 3 drop, vs 2 drop, and whoever gets it down first wins in the short run. "neither" is also not an option, or vault decks will win the race every time
2. blue cards are vital. we tried a few different GW and GWB builds. the early game is always fighting over recall. so you need a recall in your deck to step up to the plate. also topdecking opportunities have never been better w the proliferation of dconf, sdtop, etc, so duress effects should be considered not much more than a T1 opportunity, certainly not a long game control strategy. thus counterspells need to fill the gap.
3. tutors are vital. as mentioned, the early game is fighting over recall. so you need to get your recall. also need to retrieve specific hate when needed, or push advantage via time walk. UGW suffered by limited access to recall, vault combo and timely hate.
4. null rod is not good enough to stop time vault.

so my conclusion is that all 4 of UGBW are necessary for best possible fish deck right now. I am currently trying cutting force will for snare+pierce.

[the boogie man]

I think that pushing the deck to 4 colors puts too much stress on the mana base, if you want to include wasteland. I would not really call it a fish build without force or wasteland. And I'm not sure pridemage is totally necessary. In BUG, trigon works if you have a stifle or a bounce, and force of will seems to be really important in the oath matchup. You also have duress and pierce, and you could side spell snare or something to really put the hurt on. also, if you can duress or counter one, extirpate is more or less game.

[quentin]

just a heads up for the list which posted #1 here :

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=39094.0

It discards tarmogoyfs and meddlings to include ninjas and cursecatechers, and for and having seen the deck in action I must say it is really well worth consideration. The amount of draw realized by the deck is just plainly insane, allowing it to be even more disruptive and with 8* exalted the clock is still pretty decent even without tarmogoyfs (which can be boarded in in aggro mirrors).

[vroman]

if you can duress or counter oath, extirpate is more or less game.

this is certainly not true. I would be happy to have enemy spend 2 cards to exile my oaths, making it easier to just get vaultvolt

the other observation I wanted to relate is my total disatisfaction w the heirarch+selkie engine. heirarch is just fucking lanowar elf every time you draw it after t1. selkie is a 3drop who slow trips, and is bullseyed. yes, when your hand is land land heirarch selkie w protection, you live the dream and draw 2 cards on t3. every other combination of heirarch and selkie at any other time is really unexciting. I am aware ppl win w this, I just find it cumbersome compared to running offcolor moxen and dconf in those slots.

w enemy fetches, the mana base for 4c is really quite managable, even w wastes. true it is more vulnerable to nonbasic hate, but the mirror is lower priority than besting the drain/oath decks.

[Phele]

www.pickitisbn:1256004847[/url]'><img style='border: 0px none' src='https://www.citavi.com/softlink?linkid=findit' title='Titel anhand dieser ISBN in Citavi-Projekt übernehmen'/></A>]
if you can duress or counter oath, extirpate is more or less game.

this is certainly not true. I would be happy to have enemy spend 2 cards to exile my oaths, making it easier to just get vaultvolt.

This is exaggerated, you can't be happy to see these cards exiled which distinguish your deck from being just a worse Tez build. Yes, you can still bring together Vault-Key, but while trying to do so without proper draw engine and tokens nibbling away your life, your opponent is in the favorable position.

[brianpk80]

w enemy fetches, the mana base for 4c is really quite managable, even w wastes. true it is more vulnerable to nonbasic hate, but the mirror is lower priority than besting the drain/oath decks.

There's nothing wrong with running City of Brass in this type of 4C or 5C Fish either.  I've been really liking the Cities. 

[CowWithHat]

vroman, could we please see a list of this 4 color fish.  It is hard, at least for me personally, to wrap my head around a concept like this without seeing your actual plan. 

If you would like to keep team tech a secret, would you mind answering some of these questions that arise when you put a 4th color in the deck?
Do you still run a full waste, strip contingency?  Is your mana base 14 blue sources and 10 of each other color?  Do you have a basic of each type to challenge mirror and Stax?  How tough are you against stifle?  How is your blue count?  Do you have redundancy in mana denial aspects?  Have any maindeck answers to Chalice at 2?  Have any maindeck answers to sphinx?  Leviathan?

w enemy fetches, the mana base for 4c is really quite managable, even w wastes. true it is more vulnerable to nonbasic hate, but the mirror is lower priority than besting the drain/oath decks.

In my metagame Tez, mirror, and stax are much higher priority then oath at the moment.  Tez is already a strong matchup based on the strategies of the two decks.  Mirror and stax are matchups where a strong manabase are vital.  I think this is a metagame call and I would argue that in most metagames the three color mana base is going to lead to better tournament results.

@brianpk80
City of Brass is pretty weak in fish in my opinion because you don't want any more cards that potentially kill you in your own list.  Confidant, vamp, force, and fetches are already a pretty big hindrance.

[brianpk80]

@brianpk80
City of Brass is pretty weak in fish in my opinion because you don't want any more cards that potentially kill you in your own list.  Confidant, vamp, force, and fetches are already a pretty big hindrance.

While the damage issue you raise is a fair point, a 5C list probably shouldn't be running Force of Will, probably doesn't need Vampiric tutor, and should be wrapping the game up quickly enough that -2 or -3 life from a City of Brass wouldn't be determinative.