
# Forgetful Fish and Battlebox

Forgetful Fish didn't "invent" the shared library and graveyard format.

Forgetful Fish and its variants follow a format.

And that's ok.

## The Facts

### Battlebox

**Battlebox** was there before Dandan. Yes, Forgetful Fish might have been created before but it wasn't public. And that's all the difference.

The subreddit r/mtgBattleBox was created the 18th of September 2016, 10 days after FF was released. But new ideas rarely pop up straight into a subreddit, so obviously battlebox is even older. And indeed it is, proved by these articles:

> _"Tracking the origin of Battle Box is a little tricky — it definitely has a precursor in another oddball format called Danger Room, invented by Brian Demars and formalized in an article on [Quiet Speculation](https://www.quietspeculation.com/2012/08/introducing-a-new-format-called-the-danger-room/) written by Douglas Linn in 2012. Dave Williams is the earliest writer to talk specifically about Battle Box, and that's as good a place as any to land."_
> — [Card Kingdom Blog](https://blog.cardkingdom.com/fringe-format-battle-box/)

> _"Danger Room was the name Brian DeMars gave to his own Battle Box [...] [it] is considered the 'starting point' for battle boxes ever since he wrote about it for [Starcity Games](https://articles.starcitygames.com/articles/the-danger-room/) in 2014."_
> — [Draftsim](https://draftsim.com/battle-box-mtg/)

As for the format rules:

- "A box **doesn't need** to be a particular size."
- "Battle Boxes are self contained so they **don't need** to follow any structure strictly. These rule sets and suggestions are a solid baseline, but designers have full freedom to experiment."
- "Lists are **almost** always singleton, including only a single copy of any one card."
- "**Usually** between 100-200 cards, carefully selected to build a balanced environment, much like Cube. It's mostly a singleton format."

_— All from [Lucky Paper's Guide to Battle Box](https://luckypaper.co/articles/a-guide-to-battle-box/)_

Note the "almost" freedom of size and number of cards: the main point is the shared library and graveyard. Moreover, in DeMars and Linn's article, there is no mention of the number of each card. And they advocate for way larger pool of cards (at the cost of the easiest portability).

The emphasis is on the experience of the player and the power of each card for a balanced game, heavily influenced by Cube. Which is super interesting and personal and as many such things, feels good to share what you've been working on, hoping others would enjoy.

### Cubelet

There is also **Cubelet**, smaller and with a different land rule than Battlebox. Here is [the creation video](https://youtu.be/t4V9kO8MIx4?si=WsvsmcHdD-6GHkjv&t=1010) from the 04th of April 2014, uploaded on the 12th.

It quickly went onto the radars and was mentioned in an article from G. Verhey in [December 2014](https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/feature/five-fun-formats-youve-probably-never-heard-2014-12-09).

Again sharing library but not always graveyards: "4.) Separate graveyards (unless you like shenanigans)." — usually singleton, and around 100 cards, but with some leeway too. The main difference with Battlebox being the mana system and the smaller size.

### Forgetful Fish

Nick Floyd tells us that FF was created in 1996 and kept in his pocket for [20 years](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3ElXGnlB_E).

FF was first published online on Reddit and The Source the 08th of September 2016, and the list on tappedout.net is from 2017. And it wasn't as famous as it is today. It started to be, at best, niche around 2020 and popularized with the [Rhystic Studies video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otdgj8fBQxc) in 2023.

Of course, you might be a statistical error and be one of the rarest people having played the OG FF with Floyd himself, and, obviously loving it, spread it around in your circle. But let's face it, it's nowhere near 100 people. Let alone be known by MTG/WotC employees.

Anyone could have invented a similar way to play MTG, and I'm certain there are, at this very moment, many new formats which would blow the community's mind by how amazing they are. Nonetheless they remain hidden treasures as long as they're not published, accessible by anyone.

And that's all the difference.

On the other hand, when you publicly post about it, you can claim it as your own, you can spread it etc. That's what happened for FF once it was online. Starting slowly but with enough time, and luck, 7 years later, someone famous makes a video about it.

## Ok But What Now?

So FF did not "invent" nor popularize the shared deck format. It was there before. It was already done, that's exactly what Battlebox is.

Hence Battlebox is the reference as it is the oldest published shared library/graveyard format, with articles written about it by other people than the creators.

Now we know that FF/Dandan is UNDER the umbrella term of "shared deck" or "Battlebox" BUT is NOT the umbrella itself (as believed by many players).

Thus any shared deck is NOT a Dandan variant.

To be a Dandan variant it needs to follow some building rules, otherwise it's, by default, a Battlebox.

All cats are felines but not all felines are cats. Cats have their own characteristics.

### But Floyd Called FF a Variant, Not a Format

Yes, it's not wrong in itself, but any format of MTG is a variant from the comprehensive rules, from the game itself. And any variant has a format.

Some examples to illustrate and understand:

**EDH/Commander** started as a variant because it uses special rules: the commander's, and has a format: 1 of, 99 cards + 1 commander. With time and being played a lot by the community, plus with the specially designed cards and sets for it, it stopped being a variant, it stopped being a different way to play and became a classic game mode, even THE main way to play, apparently. Yet, still having a format to follow. Nowadays Canadian Highlander is a variant from Commander: same basic rules, slightly different formatting. Same goes for Tiny Leaders and plenty of others.

**Pioneer** is not a variant, as it uses the regular OG 60 cards, 4 of rules, and the standard rules, but it is a format as it has some specific restrictions (its banlist and its sets selection list). It has a format to follow.

If we abstract even further, a MTG variant could be defined as "playing with MTG cards in a whatever manner" or "playing MTG in a different manner than the usual ones".

A format is the inherent rules to build said variant or classic version of the game. You can't say: "I play standard but I have 8 <BlogCardLink cardId="MTG-2ED-162" title="Lightning Bolts" /> in this deck." It doesn't follow the format.

If we go back to FF, the difference between it and Battlebox is its formatting, as both share the shared library and graveyard. FF has 10-8-4-2s, only one creature and 80 cards total. Battlebox has any number of the same card and any number of total cards. Thus FF is more narrow.

It means that FF is a variant of BB, because BB is the oldest and broadest variant of MTG. It's not because the players or Floyd didn't know about BB that it makes it less true.

## But My Freedom of Building, My Freedom of Creativity!

As always, you're not hurting anybody, do what you want.

But then something happens: the feeling of play is not the same. It can be sought after, but usually it is unintentional.

**And thus we enter the realm of game design.**

Floyd struck gold with his idea, it's not for nothing that it is as popular as it is today. It is great. Not only the format itself, but the small optional rules that go with it: **In the Mind's Island** (each player starts with 2 islands in play, speeding up the game and forgoing the awkward first few turns of "land, go") and **Remember the Fish** (instead of decking out, shuffle graveyard and library for a fresh library to continue the game, everything else stays in place \*).

> This optional rule was present in the Classic list primer. Floyd already had the issue of the opponent trying to deck you out and adjusted accordingly with this rule. So the people claiming to have "broken Dandan" by using the strategy of decking out (forget the fish) are not original nor really knew about the game.

He explains his creative process in his [danecdote 1 video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3ElXGnlB_E) and the choice of <BlogCardLink cardId="MTG-CHR-18" title="Dandân" /> in [danecdote 2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQrVs3Rcf0Y).

And there you have it, **the core game loop**: draw a spell countered by <BlogCardLink cardId="MTG-DDM-24" title="Memory Lapse" />.

<BlogCards cardIds="MTG-CHR-18,MTG-DDM-24" />

Then the creature, the win con, and its choice to fit with the parameters of Memory Lapse, with the core: blue and, to an extent, low cost. And most importantly, a cool interaction. Blue might/does (?) not have hard removal the way other colors have, so playing with the drawback ability of the Dandân is brilliant.

The rest of the deck is to cater to these cards, this core, this loop. All these elements contribute to making the game we love today.

But that's not all. The balance of it all is important. Otherwise it's just a more complicated way of playing rock, paper, scissors with randomness of draw. Imagine the following deck:

- 30 Island
- 20 <BlogCardLink cardId="MTG-CHR-18" title="Dandân" />
- 10 <BlogCardLink cardId="MTG-DDM-24" title="Memory Lapse" />
- 10 <BlogCardLink cardId="MTG-5ED-110" title="Magical Hack" />
- 10 <BlogCardLink cardId="MTG-DOM-52" title="Divination" />

Super boring. But, that's a subjective statement.

Super poor versatility, poor variations, limited strategies. That's an objective statement.

That's what's usually missing when we see lists online, wherever it may be: a good core and balance. Building around a pet card is cool and feels good (as much as playing said card), but rarely makes for a good variant by itself, it needs a careful building to make it actually good.

### So Now We Enter the Realm of What Is Fun and What Is Good

People confuse good with fun.

Anything can be fun, but not anything can be good from a game design point of view. Again, you do you.

Some people think [slapping other people's face is fun](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=346TqIwy8vQ), others think that running after a ball for 90 min is fun. Whatever, to each their own. **You think it's fun? Therefore it is** (as long as it's consensual). We're putting rectangles of cardboard on a table, moving them around frowning, and after some time, there is a winner, after all.

[The Campaign for North Africa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Campaign_for_North_Africa) boardgame is a good example. Is it a good game? No. Is it fun? Probably, at least for the sheer setting up and just thinking about it.

Imagine a MTG variant as such: 2 players with each a different deck, one with 60 cards, the other with 8. Regular rules apply. Is it balanced? No. Is it good? No. Is it fun? Some people might like it. Some might even set up some strategies (like <BlogCardLink cardId="MTG-MB2-175" title="Thassa's Oracle" /> for the deck of 8 cards).

Yes, what defines "good" may vary a bit, and it goes beyond the breadth of this article, but it's always based on factual elements such as: symmetry (some great games are asymmetrical), opportunities of play, replayability, interactions between players, etc. and balance. Both players must have equal chances/opportunities to play to win.

That's why there are no 1 of, nor should there be, in FF. Otherwise once the first player gets the 1 of, the other player has 0 chances to have it. Yes, a player might draw the 2 of a card, but at least the other one would have had a chance.

Balance is also the reason why tutors are bad in FF, they give the player tutoring perfect information as they can deduce what the opponent has in hand. When one player has perfect information and not the other, then it's unfair, totally unbalanced.

Back to our FF variants and BB. You'll often see lists going crazy with 5 different creatures and many 4 of and 6 of, barely interacting with other cards, claiming to be Dandan lists. When suggestions are made to them, they answer with: "My friends and I think it's fun". Which is true, but that's not the point. It won't play nor feel like FF. It has nothing in common with FF except for the shared library and graveyard: **it is a BB**.

But who cares? Own it and go to the BB subreddit or websites, where their creativity will be celebrated to its fair value.

And no, it's not gatekeeping, please enjoy the hobby, be creative. Sit next to someone new and show them your newest creation.

Do I like your super light, ecological car with only two wheels and no motor? Yes! But it's a bike.

## But Then What Is a Dandan Variant?

Let's define terms.

If you use the Forgetful Fish Classic or 2025 list and swap some cards, you're still playing **Forgetful Fish**. You're playing your list. As personal as you want, as long as it follows the format. There are plenty of ways to make it your own and reflect your likings.

If you follow the format but use <BlogCardLink cardId="MTG-6ED-101" title="Storm Crow" /> instead of <BlogCardLink cardId="MTG-CHR-18" title="Dandân" />, you're **playing a variant**. If you go with Red instead of Blue, and <BlogCardLink cardId="MTG-6ED-200" title="Raging Goblin" /> as the creature, as long as you follow the format, you're also **playing a variant**.

<BlogCards cardIds="MTG-6ED-101,MTG-CHR-18,MTG-6ED-200" />

If you slightly and knowingly bend the rules, like playing 90 cards, or have 14 of a creature, but otherwise follow the format, then your list is **unorthodox**.

But if you play a shared deck of 100 cards, with 3 different creatures, several 4 of and some 6 of, then **it's no longer a Dandan variant, it's a battlebox**.

We must define the parameters for FF/Dandan to give it a proper identity. Inventing nothing, simply following the simple (yet great) formatting of either the Classic or 2025 list and you get:

- **10 of 1 creature**
- **8 of a spell**
- **4 of a spell**
- **13 slots of 2 of a spell**
- **32 lands**
- **80 cards total**

Is it more difficult than to simply "build away"? Yes, but it makes for a way better play experience, the recipe is proven to work.

There are countless variations upon the 2025 FF list, there are like 30k cards in MTG. You can still be creative within those boundaries, don't sell yourself short.

The format can be twisted for our enjoyment too: one can imagine having 4 of a creature, 10 of a spell and 8 of another. Or having more or less lands. Or having the 8 of as a land.

BB has more leeway thus is more suited to create vibe and feels of something, it has more room to play around. FF will tend to give FF feel and vibe, obviously. But tend to only, you can still make things that feel very differently. Creativity is limitless.

Limericks and Haiku have different rules, yet are both forms of poetry. Romanesque and Gothic are different forms of architecture. Some artistic movements had a manifesto, some had not, yet you can't declare that you're a Fauvist painter if you use only black and grey and small hyper controlled brush work.

You get the idea.

It's ok not to build good Dandan variants, there's no harm, it's a game after all. Nonetheless **let's give credit where credit is due, the creators of BB and Cubelet deserve to be remembered too. We ought to know the history of our hobby.**


Forgetful Fish and Battlebox

Comments (0)