Grand Abolisher

[Worldslayer]

I fully understand that sweepers are particularly trump vs. Fish decks and are a better option than counterspells that are unreliable vs. Aether Vial and Teeg anyway. The trump card is less scary thanks to Fish's ability to remove the bigger guys played in Vintage (NonInkwell Tinkerbots, or robots of any variety) or disrupt the "I'm winning anyway" trumps (Vault-Key, Gush Engine, Yawgmoth's Will). Arbiter isn't important because he's "another hate bears oh my god" but a specific hatebear that combines nicely with another Hatebear already fine in the Vintage format (Ethersworn Cannonist) to create an incredibly narrow window for your opponent to do anything - one Nonartifact spell on his/her turn.

It gives fish a lockable gameplan, something other than "disrupt *enough* and maybe kill them". Before, if G/W went for GTeeg, you could always just play cheap tutors and Will into a Vault-Key. If they have a hand stockpiled to the ceiling with antiTinker technology, you could usually Gush them out or find Tendrils, or both. A lot of times sweepers resolved because Fish had to struggle finding the right mix of aggressive disruption bears and often cut blue in the process. Abolisher is probably a less amazing hatebears than most on it's own, yes. However it allows Fish to leverage the game AWAY from your cards just "being better" than theirs into "it doesn't matter HOW good your cards are, or WHAT they are, I only have to stop one a turn". This is why Abolisher is unsuited for G/W, but a HOUSE in a U/W list, a Teegless UWg list, or a UWb list.

Are you mainphasing Gifts Ungiven anyway? Sure. Now how about if that's ALL you could do that turn. That's it. And you didn't get another go around until your next turn. You're Planeswalker - Player now with about a million -2/4s but 20 starting loyalty and no ultimate. Can you cast Time Vault on one turn and Voltaic key on your second and win? Sure. How likely do you think it is that time vault will survive the time between turns when you have no counter backup, though? How often will that sweeper you find and play over two consecutive turns (three, if you Duress/Thoughtseize first since counterspells are "off") resolve against another deck running any amount of permission more than 4 Force of Will?

Abolisher/Cannonist in a correct shell laser-focuses Fish's disruption game in a way that no other hate bear has before. It's not exactly Lodestone Golem since it has significantly less powerful backing, but it IS a game changer for the archetype. It's a possibility Null Rod may even be the wrong card for the new lists, since the combination doesn't care how much ridiculous mana they have as long as you have a single effective counter in hand.

His ability alone is ignorable in much the same way a single Sphere of Resistance is. It's kind of annoying, but vulnerable to sweepers (Hurkyll's Recall) and nothing really special in the meantime, much the same way a single Sphere of Resistance is. However, he's an excellent lock piece to compliment other lockpieces....you get it by now.

The card will be nuts when used correctly (i.e. in conjunction with Cannonist and counters) and pretty much awful everywhere else. I plan to see a lot of failed lists using him as a throwaway random-jam hatebear when that is probably when he is at his worst.

[Guli]

Sweeping the board doesn't always win you the game. Not to mention that Perish and Virtue are very narrow cards. Will you commit SB slots for them and how much. You need space for dredge and some for the control mirror and then there is Workshop.

I run Magus of the Moon in my 'close to 30 creature fish deck' and that card doesn't kid around. You will need additional removal to get rid of him. I also run Aven Mindcensor, and this means you better have Virtue in your opening hand, chances are you will never see your solution cards.

I also think that Aven is harder to play around than Teeg. I don't like Leonin Arbiter, I hardly ever use that card, I don't consider that card as a hoser, he is just mana denial. That is why I suggested him alongside Kataki in a mana denial strategy in my previous posts.


I also want to state that Meddling Mage is a card I like alongside the cards I mentioned. A little splash of Blue and like Worldslayer mentioned canonist/some counterspells. I would still keep my approach of getting down turn 1 Teeg or turn 1 Abolisher and not play with Vial. Both teeg and Abolisher offer that counter-proof effect. I would play acceleration instead of vial obviously (since both get hosed by null rod anyway...) . Also you don't need as much counters if you run a cards like Teeg/Meddling Mage. I noticed the most powerfull mass removal spells are black and red, and most have cmc  . Would Spell Pierce be sufficient to stop these threats under Canonist? Or is Flusterstorm an interesting cheap way to single handily deal with the threats? The safest way is to play with Voidmage Prodigy. It does not even ask the opponent if it is ok, it just counters and says: "thanks but, no thanks!"

Grand Abolisher/Teeg 8 slots
Meddling Mage/Ethersworn Canonist 6 slots
Qasali PrideMage/Leonin Relic Warder 7 slots
Spell Pierce/Flusterstorm/Mental Misstep 8 slots
Ancestral/Walk 2 slots

31 slots

29 slots to create a smooth mana base and strengthen some key match ups.

[Worldslayer]

The problem with UWg is that Teeg doesn't play well with the fatal funnel effect Cannonist and Abolisher create - you want hard counters. soft counters like Pierce allow them to leverage their excess mana into moving forward, while a hard counter leaves their broken acceleration in this window useless as there's no soft counter to pay for and they are unable to cast additional spells. Flusterstorm and cannonist seems like it will be a worse spell pierce 90% of the time. As such, force of will is one of the top cards I would consider in such a decklist, and exactly the reason I wouldn't run Teeg in that 75. Voidmage prodigy definately has potential depending on your wizard count, and may be best in a uwb version with confidants or a uwr list running lavamancers. Running abolisher and teeg and cannonist together is exactly the kind of mishmash I was talking about above - you're narrowing options but with no real endgame or strategy in mind aside from "hope I disrupt enough", which is exactly the plan fish has been on and exactly the strategy everyone combats when playing against them. They all lock individual plays down but with no real coherence in mind, and several redundancies but even larger gaps. When you're playing a list like Fish what you're going for is the prison effect, where their meaningful plays and options are narrowed every turn until they're dead. Teeg abolisher and cannonist are like a prison, except there's seven feet between each bar on the south end of the cage. Abolisher cannonist and hard counters, meanwhile, are a solid cell all the way around.

I do hope that makes sense like I think it does.

[TheWhiteDragon]

To add to those 29 slots, I typically run 4 noble heirarch (mana + exalted).  A pair of Elric spymaters, a pair of trygons, and a pair of true believers are options too.  I run less than 4 teegs...typically 2 or 3, because true believer has a similar effect vs tendrils, with the addition of shutting off oath.  Trygons are a shop house.  Elric is like selkie on crack.  Typically, I land one and am ancestraling every combat while dealing 6+ damage.  I also run lighter on counters (like 6) to add in 2 more hosers.

[TheBrassMan]

I was not trying to imply that there is no conceivable situation in which Grand Abolisher could be relevant.  Grand Abolisher simply breaks the fundamental rule of magic strategy, Jon Finkel's maxim: "focus only on what matters."  Abolisher can defend your lock pieces against counters, but it doesn't do that job as well as just running another lock piece instead of Abolisher.

Gone are the days where fish decks ran Cloud of Faeries and would be thrilled to have any playable 2 mana creature printed.  There are well more than enough options now to have a deck of 40 disruptive bears and 20 lands - this means adding Abolisher comes at the real cost of losing some other threat. 

Abolisher + Ethersworn Canonist means your Canonist will resolve through a single counter (though not two, because they can just counter the Abolisher).  Ethersworn Canonist + Ethersworn Canonist does the same thing, except if the DONT have a counter you end up with a better lock, faster, and if you only draw one it's guaranteed to be relevant, unlike the times you draw Abolisher with no follow-up.

I'm not saying that in the fish vs blue-restricted-cards matchup that counter wars and end-of turn instants never happen.  Obviously those things happen - but that's not what the matchup is *about*.  If you want to win more games, you need to focus on what matters, and run the cards that are good when you actually need them to be good. 

Sometimes a dredge player catches a bad mulligan and is forced to play for a win involving hardcast Narcomoebas and Bloodghasts.  That definitely happens in tournament play - but it doesn't mean the best sideboard card against dredge is Plumeveil.  You still bring in graveyard hate because that's what the matchup is about. 

In my experience with the matchup, which admittedly comes mostly from the "blue deck" side of the table - you don't beat fish with counterspells and instants... and fish doesn't beat you by stopping you from playing counterspells and instants.  There is no doubt that you could generate some kind of advantage by playing a Grand Abolisher - but not all advantage is created equal.  Naming Blightsteel Colossus with Meddling Mage also generates an advantage - it stops them from making a play they had access to - but most games that play isn't particularly important.

I just think for a card and two mana, you can do better.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Since I don't see this mentioned anywhere, why not put this into something like mono-white Vault-Key combo?

You'd run 4x Chant, 4x Abolisher, 4x Silence, 4x Enlightened Tutor, 4x Voltaic Key, 1x Time Vault.

[serracollector]

@ADUCK: Me and Guli have actually been talking about that.  Throw in Isochron Scepter, which also works with Voltaic Key, and noxious revival (which can recur infinite time walks for 2 mana a turn),
Once Orims Chant, Ancestral, Silence, and Noxious Revival all came up, along with a possible 3-4 E. Tutor, Isochron was like an auto include.

[Guli]

I don't know if I would run Scepter and TV in the same deck. I would also not run all those chant effects because you have G/A for that.

G/A, Enlightened Tutor, 4 Key and TV would be the place to start but I would not auto fill in the deck with other cards. I would add black for Vampiric and Demonic tutor. I would consider red for Gamble with the Noxious Revivals. You could also back up G/A with duress effects and REB. Gitaxian Probe would support the topdeck tutors and revivals. Y will should be strong too in such a deck.

[Lurker101]

What about a deck that used Grand Abolisher combined with Ethersworn Canonist and Stronghold Machinist? That seems like it would be a pretty good lock.

[Stormanimagus]

@Brassman — What universe do you live in where Fish is so strong in the format that it warrants 4 + slots in the SB? Usually I'm used to devoting 2-3 slots in my SB to fish in the form of board sweepers and/or REBs. If I have 2-3 hate cards (Perish, Massacre, Pyroclasm etc.,) in my board for Fish then what I am usually siding out are things like Hurkyl's Recall, Steel Sabotage and Spell Pierce vs. Fish, but not FoW ever. Siding out FoW like ever is a real no-no IMO. I think you only have the strategic advantage over Fish in that you can match them on COUNTERS 1-for-1 and then employ different avenues to victory that are hard for the Fish player to answer simultaneously. I.E, if they have cards that stop a storm kill then you have the Tinker-Bot ready. If they have stuff that stops both storm and bot you have TV/Key ready. The fundamental edge you have as the blue pilot is the ability to tutor for any strategy in your deck. A Fish pilot has to hope that the density of hate is sufficient for him to find the right hate card soon enough to answer the threat.

Fish's strength lies in cards that overlap hating on various strategies in Vintage coupled with role-players and threats that help employ a solid enough clock. Fish is a well-oiled machine that needs to be designed with great care. Practically every card choice is up in the air when designing Fish whereas there are some pretty well agreed upon cards for blue (Yawg. Will, DT,VT, Tinker, Moxen, Walk, A. Call, etc.,).

I'm not sure how you've faired in tournaments against Fish Brassman, but I doubt that you'd beat a competent Noble Fish pilot with siding out all of your FoWs games 2 and 3. They should have a solid counter package themselves (FoWs, Pierces and/or Dazes, and some number of Steel Sabotage) coupled 4 Null Rod and 4 Wasteland. If you have sided out FoWs then you have very few ways to now protect your Perish and that is only IF you have 2B up to play it which is no guarantee vs. Wastelands + Null Rod + Pierce/Daze. Once you start throwing Tarmogoyf in the mix with Pridemage beats you have a clock that is going to put you in a tight spot fast. I have been a Noble Fish player since its inception into the Vintage scene and I know that it is probably a poor choice in today's meta-game, but not because it is poor vs. blue. It is weak because it does not have a good answer to turn 1 Lodestone other than FoW. Turn 1 Lodestone followed by turn 2 lock-piece is usually GG for Noble Fish on the draw. That is why Noble Fish is not viable. Just my thoughts,

-Storm

[Guli]

@Brassman — What universe do you live in where Fish is so strong in the format that it warrants 4 + slots in the SB? Usually I'm used to devoting 2-3 slots in my SB to fish in the form of board sweepers and/or REBs. If I have 2-3 hate cards (Perish, Massacre, Pyroclasm etc.,) in my board for Fish then what I am usually siding out are things like Hurkyl's Recall, Steel Sabotage and Spell Pierce vs. Fish, but not FoW ever. Siding out FoW like ever is a real no-no IMO. I think you only have the strategic advantage over Fish in that you can match them on COUNTERS 1-for-1 and then employ different avenues to victory that are hard for the Fish player to answer simultaneously. I.E, if they have cards that stop a storm kill then you have the Tinker-Bot ready. If they have stuff that stops both storm and bot you have TV/Key ready. The fundamental edge you have as the blue pilot is the ability to tutor for any strategy in your deck. A Fish pilot has to hope that the density of hate is sufficient for him to find the right hate card soon enough to answer the threat.

Fish's strength lies in cards that overlap hating on various strategies in Vintage coupled with role-players and threats that help employ a solid enough clock. Fish is a well-oiled machine that needs to be designed with great care. Practically every card choice is up in the air when designing Fish whereas there are some pretty well agreed upon cards for blue (Yawg. Will, DT,VT, Tinker, Moxen, Walk, A. Call, etc.,).

I'm not sure how you've faired in tournaments against Fish Brassman, but I doubt that you'd beat a competent Noble Fish pilot with siding out all of your FoWs games 2 and 3. They should have a solid counter package themselves (FoWs, Pierces and/or Dazes, and some number of Steel Sabotage) coupled 4 Null Rod and 4 Wasteland. If you have sided out FoWs then you have very few ways to now protect your Perish and that is only IF you have 2B up to play it which is no guarantee vs. Wastelands + Null Rod + Pierce/Daze. Once you start throwing Tarmogoyf in the mix with Pridemage beats you have a clock that is going to put you in a tight spot fast. I have been a Noble Fish player since its inception into the Vintage scene and I know that it is probably a poor choice in today's meta-game, but not because it is poor vs. blue. It is weak because it does not have a good answer to turn 1 Lodestone other than FoW. Turn 1 Lodestone followed by turn 2 lock-piece is usually GG for Noble Fish on the draw. That is why Noble Fish is not viable. Just my thoughts,

-Storm

Agreed.

The problem is that both Fish/Null Rod and Fish/Vial have the same problem. They are good against 1 dominant archetype while rather slow and in that sence weak against the other. Concretely: Vial is good against Shop but it is slow against Turbo Tezz. Null Rod, and I refer to Noble fish here, is good against blue but suffers against Workshop.

Does Grand Abolisher, to get back on topic, offer a third route maybe? A more combo approach? Hard to say, but I do know that playing with null rod doesn't cut it anymore. To play around sphere effects it would be good to play acceleration yourself since they do two things: ignore golem and help all your other cards in the deck resolve. My reasoning is that you would like to play a Grand Abolisher or Teeg on turn 1 when facing force of will/mana drain/mental misstep/etc... Especially if you are going for artifact acceleration. I believe Mox Diamond is a decent card to try out and work with a number of bazaar/LftL to have a solid mid game plan B. Ancient grude might fit well in this context. I find cards like Frantic Search and Bazaar very interesting when playing Gaddock Teeg. It allows you to play 4 copies because you will be able to recycle second copies (legendary).

[Blue Lotus]

@Brassman — What universe do you live in where Fish is so strong in the format that it warrants 4 + slots in the SB? Usually I'm used to devoting 2-3 slots in my SB to fish in the form of board sweepers and/or REBs. If I have 2-3 hate cards (Perish, Massacre, Pyroclasm etc.,) in my board for Fish then what I am usually siding out are things like Hurkyl's Recall, Steel Sabotage and Spell Pierce vs. Fish, but not FoW ever. Siding out FoW like ever is a real no-no IMO. I think you only have the strategic advantage over Fish in that you can match them on COUNTERS 1-for-1 and then employ different avenues to victory that are hard for the Fish player to answer simultaneously. I.E, if they have cards that stop a storm kill then you have the Tinker-Bot ready. If they have stuff that stops both storm and bot you have TV/Key ready. The fundamental edge you have as the blue pilot is the ability to tutor for any strategy in your deck. A Fish pilot has to hope that the density of hate is sufficient for him to find the right hate card soon enough to answer the threat.

Fish's strength lies in cards that overlap hating on various strategies in Vintage coupled with role-players and threats that help employ a solid enough clock. Fish is a well-oiled machine that needs to be designed with great care. Practically every card choice is up in the air when designing Fish whereas there are some pretty well agreed upon cards for blue (Yawg. Will, DT,VT, Tinker, Moxen, Walk, A. Call, etc.,).

I'm not sure how you've faired in tournaments against Fish Brassman, but I doubt that you'd beat a competent Noble Fish pilot with siding out all of your FoWs games 2 and 3. They should have a solid counter package themselves (FoWs, Pierces and/or Dazes, and some number of Steel Sabotage) coupled 4 Null Rod and 4 Wasteland. If you have sided out FoWs then you have very few ways to now protect your Perish and that is only IF you have 2B up to play it which is no guarantee vs. Wastelands + Null Rod + Pierce/Daze. Once you start throwing Tarmogoyf in the mix with Pridemage beats you have a clock that is going to put you in a tight spot fast. I have been a Noble Fish player since its inception into the Vintage scene and I know that it is probably a poor choice in today's meta-game, but not because it is poor vs. blue. It is weak because it does not have a good answer to turn 1 Lodestone other than FoW. Turn 1 Lodestone followed by turn 2 lock-piece is usually GG for Noble Fish on the draw. That is why Noble Fish is not viable. Just my thoughts,

-Storm

The fish deck Guli was describing had no counters just creatures. It would make perfect sense to take out counterspells for sweepers in that match.

I don't see what this guy does to warrant a main deck slot. Dead vs shop, ichorid (though to be fair most cards are dead vs ichorid) and combo; just a body against other fish decks.

Furthermore this isn't back breaking against big blue. Play this turn two and your opponent has two unfettered turns on the draw, three on the play. WW is too slow of a casting cost IMHO.

[Guli]

@Brassman — What universe do you live in where Fish is so strong in the format that it warrants 4 + slots in the SB? Usually I'm used to devoting 2-3 slots in my SB to fish in the form of board sweepers and/or REBs. If I have 2-3 hate cards (Perish, Massacre, Pyroclasm etc.,) in my board for Fish then what I am usually siding out are things like Hurkyl's Recall, Steel Sabotage and Spell Pierce vs. Fish, but not FoW ever. Siding out FoW like ever is a real no-no IMO. I think you only have the strategic advantage over Fish in that you can match them on COUNTERS 1-for-1 and then employ different avenues to victory that are hard for the Fish player to answer simultaneously. I.E, if they have cards that stop a storm kill then you have the Tinker-Bot ready. If they have stuff that stops both storm and bot you have TV/Key ready. The fundamental edge you have as the blue pilot is the ability to tutor for any strategy in your deck. A Fish pilot has to hope that the density of hate is sufficient for him to find the right hate card soon enough to answer the threat.

Fish's strength lies in cards that overlap hating on various strategies in Vintage coupled with role-players and threats that help employ a solid enough clock. Fish is a well-oiled machine that needs to be designed with great care. Practically every card choice is up in the air when designing Fish whereas there are some pretty well agreed upon cards for blue (Yawg. Will, DT,VT, Tinker, Moxen, Walk, A. Call, etc.,).

I'm not sure how you've faired in tournaments against Fish Brassman, but I doubt that you'd beat a competent Noble Fish pilot with siding out all of your FoWs games 2 and 3. They should have a solid counter package themselves (FoWs, Pierces and/or Dazes, and some number of Steel Sabotage) coupled 4 Null Rod and 4 Wasteland. If you have sided out FoWs then you have very few ways to now protect your Perish and that is only IF you have 2B up to play it which is no guarantee vs. Wastelands + Null Rod + Pierce/Daze. Once you start throwing Tarmogoyf in the mix with Pridemage beats you have a clock that is going to put you in a tight spot fast. I have been a Noble Fish player since its inception into the Vintage scene and I know that it is probably a poor choice in today's meta-game, but not because it is poor vs. blue. It is weak because it does not have a good answer to turn 1 Lodestone other than FoW. Turn 1 Lodestone followed by turn 2 lock-piece is usually GG for Noble Fish on the draw. That is why Noble Fish is not viable. Just my thoughts,

-Storm

The fish deck Guli was describing had no counters just creatures. It would make perfect sense to take out counterspells for sweepers in that match.

I don't see what this guy does to warrant a main deck slot. Dead vs shop, ichorid (though to be fair most cards are dead vs ichorid) and combo; just a body against other fish decks.

Furthermore this isn't back breaking against big blue. Play this turn two and your opponent has two unfettered turns on the draw, three on the play. WW is too slow of a casting cost IMHO.

No it would not make perfect sense. Board sweepers are narrow and will not get rid of all the creatures or threats. Also, you can not afford to warrant a lot SB slots for sweepers because they are bad against the meta. I also want to point out that in a deck with a lot of creatures you can hold back and wait for that sweeper. In fact that is what you suppose to do with cards like Warder and/or Metamorph(Tinker). Qasali/Teeg will most likely be the cards that will die because they are both green and white. I actually think that sweepers can be counterproductive. You are spending your resources to find these cards and meanwhile cards like Null Rod and Thorn hit the board. What will you do if a new Teeg hits the board next turn?

[AmbivalentDuck]

The fish deck Guli was describing had no counters just creatures. It would make perfect sense to take out counterspells for sweepers in that match.

I don't see what this guy does to warrant a main deck slot. Dead vs shop, ichorid (though to be fair most cards are dead vs ichorid) and combo; just a body against other fish decks.

Furthermore this isn't back breaking against big blue. Play this turn two and your opponent has two unfettered turns on the draw, three on the play. WW is too slow of a casting cost IMHO.

No it would not make perfect sense. Board sweepers are narrow and will not get rid of all the creatures or threats. Also, you can not afford to warrant a lot SB slots for sweepers because they are bad against the meta. I also want to point out that in a deck with a lot of creatures you can hold back and wait for that sweeper. In fact that is what you suppose to do with cards like Warder and/or Metamorph(Tinker). Qasali/Teeg will most likely be the cards that will die because they are both green and white. I actually think that sweepers can be counterproductive. You are spending your resources to find these cards and meanwhile cards like Null Rod and Thorn hit the board. What will you do if a new Teeg hits the board next turn?

This sounds like a testable hypothesis.  Why not take it to some public matches on Cockatrice?  If one of you is too lazy, I'm happy to playtest either side of this.

Also, Andy's been straw-manned.  He's talking hypotheticals and you guys are mostly talking specifics.  There's no debate going on here, just a massive misunderstanding.  Unless you guys actually want to get all Steve vs Brianpk about this with all the page long posts and lawyer-speak that entails...I'd drop it.

[Blue Lotus]

Whether or not sweepers belong in the board due to metagame concerns is not a counterpoint to the idea of boarding the sweepers in if you choose to include them in your sideboard.

If you are holding back lock pieces and threats to play around perish then the card is doing its job without any resource cost. It is buying times and generating card advantage (by keeping cards in your hand AKA dead).

I honestly don't know how you can argue boarding in a bona fide bomb is counterproductive. No follow up creature will instantly get you back in the game, you are way behind in tempo and resources.

[Guli]

The fish deck Guli was describing had no counters just creatures. It would make perfect sense to take out counterspells for sweepers in that match.

I don't see what this guy does to warrant a main deck slot. Dead vs shop, ichorid (though to be fair most cards are dead vs ichorid) and combo; just a body against other fish decks.

Furthermore this isn't back breaking against big blue. Play this turn two and your opponent has two unfettered turns on the draw, three on the play. WW is too slow of a casting cost IMHO.

No it would not make perfect sense. Board sweepers are narrow and will not get rid of all the creatures or threats. Also, you can not afford to warrant a lot SB slots for sweepers because they are bad against the meta. I also want to point out that in a deck with a lot of creatures you can hold back and wait for that sweeper. In fact that is what you suppose to do with cards like Warder and/or Metamorph(Tinker). Qasali/Teeg will most likely be the cards that will die because they are both green and white. I actually think that sweepers can be counterproductive. You are spending your resources to find these cards and meanwhile cards like Null Rod and Thorn hit the board. What will you do if a new Teeg hits the board next turn?

This sounds like a testable hypothesis.  Why not take it to some public matches on Cockatrice?  If one of you is too lazy, I'm happy to playtest either side of this.

Also, Andy's been straw-manned.  He's talking hypotheticals and you guys are mostly talking specifics.  There's no debate going on here, just a massive misunderstanding.  Unless you guys actually want to get all Steve vs Brianpk about this with all the page long posts and lawyer-speak that entails...I'd drop it.

LOL
You are right, I would be happy to do a good amount of online test games.

I just don't think Fish should fear cards like Perish and Virtue and actually act on that fear by dismissing an entire idea or strategy. Some games the sweeper will work and seal the deal and some games it will be too late or not do enough damage.

[Daenyth]

I've had good success with my sideboard strategy against fish. I have 2 Doom Blade for bigger threats, 1 Echoing Decay that gets smaller ones and does double duty vs Warrens / Dredge, A Perish to tutor for and a Darkblast to take care of fish's enablers (Hierarch & Selkie). It's been working great for me so far. The only fish-specific card in that set is Perish, which is only 1 card. All others serve a purpose in other matchups. I board out what dead cards I have and a few of the slower ones, and I'm usually fine. I don't need to kill everything, but if I slow them to the point of doing only 1-2 damage a turn while not pressuring my mana/spells, I can just tutor for Tinker/Vault/Jace them out.

[LSD25]

i have to disagree with storm about fish not being viable against mud.  thorn is pretty dead against fish, and there are typically 7 creatures that have built in artifact hate, and nobles help evade the land destruction, mana denial strategy of shops.  the biggest problem i see in fish vs. shops nowadays is steel hellkite, but there are sometimes up to 7 answers for that, depending on the number of swords/steel sabatoge maindeck.  i agree that daze and pierce, and if they play mental mistep, are all dead in the matchup, but a turn two trygon on the play is just as devestating to shops as storm's example.  i can understand your view in that fish has something like 7-11 dead cards against mud (null rod is pretty dead), while mud only has 4 dead cards against fish.  but fish is better at evading shop lock than mud is at evading fish lock, imo.  

in regards to the topic of this thread.  i dont think this dude will see play.  at best its assurance to a turn 3 combo, but i dont think this is copacetic with a noble plan.  think its more along the lines of a sub for xantid or chant.

[LotusHead]

I'm very curious about this blue deck that takes out FoW against Fish.  I understand the lack of fear over 2/2's but when some of those 2/2's can RFG your Tinkerbot or destroy your Vault combo I find it odd that they wouldn't be deemed counter-worthy.

I regularily sided out FoW and Drains to side in my own dudes while playing Bomberman vs Fish.

Then I would have more dudes than them. (and some bigger!)

[Wagner]

I'm very curious about this blue deck that takes out FoW against Fish.  I understand the lack of fear over 2/2's but when some of those 2/2's can RFG your Tinkerbot or destroy your Vault combo I find it odd that they wouldn't be deemed counter-worthy.

I regularily sided out FoW and Drains to side in my own dudes while playing Bomberman vs Fish.

Then I would have more dudes than them. (and some bigger!)

Agreed, against very aggro matchup (goblins and such) I usually side in Canonist and even Jailer because they can usually trade 1 for 1 against very annoying dudes, such as Piledriver, Meddlign Mage and the such.

This is especially true for Bomberman where Fish will usually try to side in a lot of anticontrol-combo cards.

[nineisnoone]

@Brassman — What universe do you live in where Fish is so strong in the format that it warrants 4 + slots in the SB? Usually I'm used to devoting 2-3 slots in my SB to fish in the form of board sweepers and/or REBs. If I have 2-3 hate cards (Perish, Massacre, Pyroclasm etc.,) in my board for Fish then what I am usually siding out are things like Hurkyl's Recall, Steel Sabotage and Spell Pierce vs. Fish, but not FoW ever. Siding out FoW like ever is a real no-no IMO. I think you only have the strategic advantage over Fish in that you can match them on COUNTERS 1-for-1 and then employ different avenues to victory that are hard for the Fish player to answer simultaneously. I.E, if they have cards that stop a storm kill then you have the Tinker-Bot ready. If they have stuff that stops both storm and bot you have TV/Key ready. The fundamental edge you have as the blue pilot is the ability to tutor for any strategy in your deck. A Fish pilot has to hope that the density of hate is sufficient for him to find the right hate card soon enough to answer the threat.

Fish's strength lies in cards that overlap hating on various strategies in Vintage coupled with role-players and threats that help employ a solid enough clock. Fish is a well-oiled machine that needs to be designed with great care. Practically every card choice is up in the air when designing Fish whereas there are some pretty well agreed upon cards for blue (Yawg. Will, DT,VT, Tinker, Moxen, Walk, A. Call, etc.,).

I'm not sure how you've faired in tournaments against Fish Brassman, but I doubt that you'd beat a competent Noble Fish pilot with siding out all of your FoWs games 2 and 3. They should have a solid counter package themselves (FoWs, Pierces and/or Dazes, and some number of Steel Sabotage) coupled 4 Null Rod and 4 Wasteland. If you have sided out FoWs then you have very few ways to now protect your Perish and that is only IF you have 2B up to play it which is no guarantee vs. Wastelands + Null Rod + Pierce/Daze. Once you start throwing Tarmogoyf in the mix with Pridemage beats you have a clock that is going to put you in a tight spot fast. I have been a Noble Fish player since its inception into the Vintage scene and I know that it is probably a poor choice in today's meta-game, but not because it is poor vs. blue. It is weak because it does not have a good answer to turn 1 Lodestone other than FoW. Turn 1 Lodestone followed by turn 2 lock-piece is usually GG for Noble Fish on the draw. That is why Noble Fish is not viable. Just my thoughts,

-Storm

The only strategic advantage that blue has is what?

[Guli]

Let's just all agree that G/A is a bad card and will not help Fish archetypes to rise in the current meta. There I said it... happy now?

We need better bears wizzards!

[brianpk80]

Let's just all agree that G/A is a bad card and will not help Fish archetypes to rise in the current meta. There I said it... happy now?

We need better bears wizzards!

It's not really a bad card per se; it just isn't as effective in a reactive/defensive deck like Fish as it would be to protect an offensive combo.  It looks pretty savage in an Enlightened Tutor/Time Vault shell.  I had a R/W Welder list that used Vault/Key as the win condition last year.  I stopped playing it because its path to victory was so simplistic it made a joke of the game.   

To work in Fish, Grand Abolisher would have to be uncounterable and do something relevant other than shielding more poignant bears like Ethersworn and Qasali from being countered.  It would be nice to see some better creatures printed, but I don't think Wizards cares at all about Vintage anymore.  Case in point: they made a set that has no threat of impacting Standard and they included a strict anti-tutor that hoses the exact mechanic of Time Vault... sounds good so far.  But then they decided it would work best as a 4-CC red enchantment.  At this point, the next hoser may as well read "An opponent may pay or to destroy this creature." 

[Guli]

Let's just all agree that G/A is a bad card and will not help Fish archetypes to rise in the current meta. There I said it... happy now?

We need better bears wizzards!

It's not really a bad card per se; it just isn't as effective in a reactive/defensive deck like Fish as it would be to protect an offensive combo.  It looks pretty savage in an Enlightened Tutor/Time Vault shell.  I had a R/W Welder list that used Vault/Key as the win condition last year.  I stopped playing it because its path to victory was so simplistic it made a joke of the game.   

To work in Fish, Grand Abolisher would have to be uncounterable and do something relevant other than shielding more poignant bears like Ethersworn and Qasali from being countered.  It would be nice to see some better creatures printed, but I don't think Wizards cares at all about Vintage anymore.  Case in point: they made a set that has no threat of impacting Standard and they included a strict anti-tutor that hoses the exact mechanic of Time Vault... sounds good so far.  But then they decided it would work best as a 4-CC red enchantment.  At this point, the next hoser may as well read "An opponent may pay or to destroy this creature." 

At least give it regenerate. But make sure the regenerate ability can also be ignored by paying    or  .

[honestabe]

This guy seems super strong with a Standstill.

They can only break it during their turn, and if for some reason, you need to break your own standstill, they can't counter whatever you choose to break it with.

He also seems good with Ethersword Cannonist