Mental Misstep in non-permission decks

[Koby]

Suppose you're playing a non-permission strategy such as Zoo. You decide to run Mental Misstep because of a healthy paranoia of losing to combo. You enter a tournament and start round 1, losing the coin flip to decide to go first. Your opponent starts with Tundra, and says go.

You have a Wild Nacatl and a Mental Misstep in your hand. You chose to cast the creature, and face a Mental Misstep paid with it's alternate cost (2 life).

Do you counter the Mental Misstep?
What if you were on the play?

In general, when are appropriate times to hold back Mental Misstep? Should you use the counter aggressively in strategies that do not run additional counters (Daze, FoW, Counterspell, Pierce, or Snare)?

[2Rach]

As far as Zoo goes, you Misstep the Misstep. He could be bluffing another counter, but since turn 1 Nacatl is so strong for your game plan you want it resolving. If he does have the counter, like a Daze or something, it doesn't matter, because that's a counter for your next dude-and you won't be able to counter it with Misstep.

That said, don't ever, ever, Misstep a spell of mine. ;) Kthxbai.

[conboy31]

I suppose you have to ask yourself, would someone think that a Nacatl deck runs daze? Does't seem so. So then, what type of deck can afford the luxury to willingly pay 2 life against an obvious zoo opponent with the purpose of keeping up a tundra.

I guess I could *maybe* see a thopter deck doing it to set up a t3 sword combo with the tundra casting etutor? I am not familiar about what other deck would make this line of play t1. The other potential option could be if storm somehow decided to integrate misstep to their list. If that was true, the option for a U instant would be brainstorm.

[Kich867]

Inherently misstep their misstep. Look at it this way right:

You play nacatl, they misstep, you misstep, they misstep/daze it. Your misstep did it's job by forcing them to waste another counter / get a dude through, your nacatl effectively ate 2 counters.

Now what's left in their hand? Land, misstep, daze, leaves them with 4 cards. What's the likelihood they kept a one land hand? Unlikely, let's throw a land in that hand, 3 cards. Odds are one of those cards was some form of draw or business. Realistically, the last 2 cards will either be another land, a business spell, or dig of some sort.

The likelihood of them having another counter is actually quite small, however they do get to draw 1 and use their dig spell, which will probably throw another one in there, but that's one, you're playing Zoo.

If you didn't misstep that misstep, two of your creatures would be countered and you may not get another opportunity to misstep something.

In regards to when to hold it back? Not until you know exactly what they're playing and plan your missteps. Otherwise, game 1, I'd be inclined to do exactly what zoo does: go nuts and try to kill them, do everything you can in the moment, take the information you get and adjust accordingly..

[DrJones]

Mental Misstep is like FoW in a tempo deck, they do not play it against combo, but as a free timewalk. The misstep they cast against you is not to protect themselves, but to make you lose your first turn. If it was a good first turn play, of course you counter their counter, duh. :P

[Gui]

I would. You are not willing to win a match against combo with only 4 MMs anyways. Besides, chances are that the description you gave points to a controlish deck, not a combo, and his MM will be trying to slow you down.

Actually, I use MM so agressively in decks with zero permission, that I counter Brainstorms looking forward screwing cheated manabases.

[Mr. Safety]

I feel that countering an early Brainstorm is really smart, too. If they are blowing Brainstorm turn 1-2, they are probably trying to cheat a 1 land hand...or they want answers to your threats. Counter the Brainstorm and force them into playing fair by only looking at one card that turn rather than potentially 4 (Brainstorm, fetchland, shuffle, new card on top...)

Of course I do this with Faeries, not zoo...

Kich867 said what I wanted to...but much better than I could.

[Koby]

Perhaps I was too rushed to post in the opener. I merely spelled out an example of MM being used in non-blue decks.

At what point do your MM countering your opponent's MM become overkill? When should you be holding back a singular MM for possible removal (Bolt, StP, PtE, etc) rather than attempting to resolve the creature? Is it better to hold the MM to counter StP on your Goyfs rather than try to resolve Nacatl/Kird Ape?

Are these events too situational to have a prescribed method?

[gottfrid]

The case you mention is a classic one of do you "trust" your opponent to be good.

If you do, you should let the misstep resolve since your opponent willingly paid the 2 life and thus has a better play coming eot. In this case it is crucial to act like you don't have it.

If you think your opponent is bad and is likely to a) not know how to brainstorm correctly or b) undervalue the importance of your 1-drop in the matchup, you should counter it.

Generally in those types of decks, I think it should be played as a tempo card which usually means countering one of the two first spells it could target.

[conboy31]

The case you mention is a classic one of do you "trust" your opponent to be good.

If you do, you should let the misstep resolve since your opponent willingly paid the 2 life and thus has a better play coming eot. In this case it is crucial to act like you don't have it.

If you think your opponent is bad and is likely to a) not know how to brainstorm correctly or b) undervalue the importance of your 1-drop in the matchup, you should counter it.

I agree with holding back MM in the exact situation described by the OP. However, I think in virtually all other situations it would be right to force through the Nacatl. But they clearly seem to be indicating that they are going to race you via somehow and wanted mana for advancing their own game plan.

[troopatroop]

I agree with holding back MM in the exact situation described by the OP. However, I think in virtually all other situations it would be right to force through the Nacatl. But they clearly seem to be indicating that they are going to race you via somehow and wanted mana for advancing their own game plan.

They aren't clearly indicating anything. You have no information at all, they're simply paying 2 life to counter Wild Nacatl. I will always force through my Nacatl in this situation. Misstep is not Force of Will, in that you can't wait for the perfect time. They could not play more 1 drops, or relevant ones, and theres few cards more relevant that turn 1 Nacatl. Misstep waits for any good opportunity, imo, and this is a great one.

You can infer that they have a Brainstorm coming, but I would rather have the threat on the board. It could also be a mind game.

[conboy31]

What deck exists in legacy that would open Tundra, willingly pay 2 life vs. zoo and not have any more relevant 1 drops? Why would it be a mind game? Zoo doesn't really run misstep to begin with.

[Mr. Safety]

Perhaps I was too rushed to post in the opener. I merely spelled out an example of MM being used in non-blue decks.

At what point do your MM countering your opponent's MM become overkill? When should you be holding back a singular MM for possible removal (Bolt, StP, PtE, etc) rather than attempting to resolve the creature? Is it better to hold the MM to counter StP on your Goyfs rather than try to resolve Nacatl/Kird Ape?

Are these events too situational to have a prescribed method?

My 'rule of thumb' is this: Mental Misstep gets played in decks that have alternative ways of dealing with creatures. All but the dedicated combo decks have ways to deal with creatures. So my thinking is this: if they are playing Mental Misstep on a CREATURE and not a relivant spell like Path/Swords, then they most likely DO NOT HAVE a removal spell. I Misstep the Misstep in hopes of getting that potentially 'safe' creature onto the battlefield, especially early. If it's late game (using the zoo example) playing 1 mana dudes are a good way of 'fishing out' countermagic so the opponent can't counter your Chains/Bolts. If they counter the dude, great! Burn them. If they let the dude through, attack them.

That may not be the response you were looking for, but I sometimes assume that if a creature is getting countered, they don't have alternative means to handle said creature. Try to win the stack. If they let the creature resolve and THEN try to remove it with Swords, then you have Misstep handy (although they may be sandbagging their missteps to protect their removal...this is the mind game I think TroopaTroop was alluding to)

Lets take an example of using Mental Misstep vs. another deck that DOESN'T use Misstep (like Junk.) NOW you have the opportunity to protect your threats from 1-mana removal, and the decision is all too easy. If JUNK starts playing Misstep...well, that's the mind game.

Good luck! Hopefully i've contributed something, other than a way for you to say 'oh that poor mentally challenged person...I hope he quiets down for his own sake. This is embarassing...'