Wheel of Fish?

JonPatton · Joined: 11 Dec 2005 Posts: 157

This isn't a decklist or anything . . .

At some point, Wheel of Fish in t1 turned into a deck that runs 0 Merfolk, 0 Flying Creatures, and, most often now, 0 blue creatures. In fact, many of the very sucessful lists run about 16-18 creatures with 2/2 stats, that perform moderate utility functions while beating down. This is backed up with a VERY light countermagic suit, Brainstoms and Ancestral, and some Good White Cards (tm).

You know, back in the day, that was a White Weenie deck. Honestly. In fact, I can't see any genesis where someone took a Merfolk (or Wheel of Fish) deck, and said, "All these white guys are better, let's run them . . ." They actually LOOK like WWu decks around Masks-era 1.5. So what about these decks makes people want to continue to call them fish, and not White Weenie?

Please don't give me the spiel about "oh, fish is just a weenie deck with disruption and counters . . ." Thresh would have to be lumped under Fish, as would Madness. I think Aeon Blue Apocalypse is closer to "Fish" than what's usually called Fish. Rolling Eyes

I know this sounds whiney, but I wonder if there's just some sort of stigma attached to certain deck styles in Vintage, which makes people not want to consider them as an option. People might take and evolve a "Fish" deck (adding Black, for instance, cutting white, etc.), but I wonder if they'd be taken less seriously if they took WW as a starting point.

Von_Douche · Joined: 20 Jul 2005 Posts: 3

kfcman · Joined: 16 Sep 2006 Posts: 665

Von_Douche · Joined: 20 Jul 2005 Posts: 3

kfcman,try and make sense next time kthx.

Bushviper · Joined: 07 Aug 2006 Posts: 119

I understood him fine. Razz