[SCD] Spell Pierce in the current metagame

[wcm8]

Spell Pierce
U
Instant
Counter target non-creature spell unless its controller pays 2.

I don't see why this card is not seeing more maindeck inclusion, especially over narrower cards like Spell Snare.

If we look at the current Legacy metagame and decks to beat, many of these decks have anywhere from 15-30 targets for the spell in game 1 (with an average of around 20~ depending on which decks you are looking at). Even decks that aren't 'spell heavy' and rely more on creatures (such as Maverick, Zoo, and Nic Fit) have multiple targets.

It is true that the card becomes less useful in the late game. However, decks that would want to run Spell Pierce either:
a) want to prevent the game going late in the first place (Team America, Canadian Thresh, etc.) These decks also utilize stuff like Stifle and Wasteland to keep cards in Pierce-range. Also, they would like to keep their first threat on the table and ride it to victory.
b) want to make it to the late game themselves so they can start dropping bombs (UW Stoneblade, BUG Control). Spell Pierce also helps ensure that those bombs land.

I don't think I need to insult anyone's intelligence over how the card works, but I do want to point out that piercing a Force of Will, a removal spell, a t2 Hymn to Tourach, a Jace, a Green Sun's Zenith, Brainstorm, or a Snapcaster target can be utterly devastating. And if the opponent is "playing around" Spell Pierce, well that's pretty awesome for you, kind of like how an opponent playing around Daze or Stifle is almost serving the same purpose even if you aren't actually holding the cards.

Honestly, I think it makes much more sense for a blue deck to be running Spell Pierce in the main instead of overloading on removal. In an unknown metagame, you are likely to run into a variety of combo decks or some sort of random deck that runs Enchantments or Artifacts. You are blue, you should be making it into the top 8, not letting crap like Belcher or MUD or Stax luck sac their way there.

Is it an auto 4-of? Probably not, save for some decks. But I think many blue decks should be running at least 2-3 if they aren't already. I don't know about your local metagame, but Aether Vial decks seems to be on the decline.

[wcm8]

Also here are some decklists:

UW Stoneforge
Creatures [10]
2 Vendilion Clique
4 Snapcaster Mage
4 Stoneforge Mystic

Instants [21]
1 Path to Exile
4 Brainstorm
4 Force of Will
4 Spell Pierce
4 Spell Snare
4 Swords to Plowshares

Planeswalkers [4]
4 Jace, the Mind Sculptor

Artifacts [2]
1 Batterskull
1 Sword of Body and Mind

Lands [23]
1 Arid Mesa
1 Mountain
1 Plains
2 Volcanic Island
2 Wasteland
3 Scalding Tarn
4 Flooded Strand
4 Tundra
5 Island

This list isn't trying to be cute with random one-ofs (PtE is more like StP #5). The Spell Pierces help this list resolve and protect a Stoneforge and a Jace. So many Stoneforge lists I see seem to be really soft to combo decks g1, and I'm not sure why anyone who wants to win a tournament would play a blue deck that folds to that sort of strategy g1.

UGR Aggro

Creatures [15]
3 Grim Lavamancer
4 Delver of Secrets
4 Kird Ape
4 Tarmogoyf

Instants [23]
3 Spell Pierce
4 Brainstorm
4 Daze
4 Fire // Ice
4 Force of Will
4 Lightning Bolt

Sorceries [3]
1 Ponder
2 Chain Lightning

Lands [19]
1 Taiga
2 Tropical Island
2 Wasteland
3 Scalding Tarn
3 Volcanic Island
4 Misty Rainforest
4 Wooded Foothills

Here is a straightforward aggressive deck that is basically blue Zoo. Spell Pierce is used aggressively to keep threats on the board or prevent bombs from landing while the deck wittles their life total down.

[Skeggi]

I don't see why this card is not seeing more maindeck inclusion, especially over narrower cards like Spell Snare.

Are you sure Spell Snare is more narrow than Spell Pierce?

Narrowness of Spell Snare: only cmc2.
Narrowness of Spell Pierce: only noncreature and ~(opponent must have < 2 free mana).

You need to know of all relevant spells how many are cmc2 and how many are creatures. You must also know how often you get into mid-endgame with your deck (presuming your opponent might have <2 free mana then).

So based on what data is Spell Snare more narrow than Spell Pierce? (I'm not saying it is or it's not, I'm just wondering on what measurable facts you are basing this statement) Also: how much maindeck inclusion does Spell Snare see, and how much does Spell Pierce see?

[wcm8]

Are you sure Spell Snare is more narrow than Spell Pierce?

Narrowness of Spell Snare: only cmc2.
Narrowness of Spell Pierce: only noncreature and ~(opponent must have < 2 free mana).

So based on what data is Spell Snare more narrow than Spell Pierce?

Ok so Spell Snare hits any CMC 2 spell at any point of the game on the stack. Many strong -creature- cards are CMC 2: Snapcaster Mage, Stoneforge Mystic, Tarmogoyf, Dark Confidant... The list begins to drop off in quality at this point, though I'm sure I am missing some. There also plenty of strong spells at CMC 2 that Spell Snare hits -- Hymn to Tourach, Burning Wish, but of course these can get answered with Pierce.

But the thing is, many decks run less CMC=2 spells in comparison to the overall composition that can be hit by Spell Pierce. Look for example at the Stoneforge list I posted. Spell Snare would hit 8 cards total (the Snapcaster and the Mystic). Spell Pierce in comparison could potentially answer 27 targets, (25 if you don't count the equipment, 31 if you count the Snapcaster targets). If you are playing an aggressive deck, the SFM list will be unlikely to afford the 2 for Spell Pierce until the point in the game you are winning.

However, as I mentioned, Spell Pierce should be played in a deck that either doesn't allow the game progress to the late game (when the cost could be payed), or itself wants to make it to the late game to resolve bombs (at which point Spell Pierce doesn't matter as much because your cards are better than theirs, or you are using Spell Pierce to help resolve them).

[Mr. Safety]

I have gone back and forth with Snare/Pierce in my budget faeries deck. Both have applications, and you can make a case for either given your metagame. I would say that in a blue-heavy meta-game, Pierce is a freakin' all-star for helping you win the counter-war. In an aggro dominated format, Snare can replace removal when problematic 2cc dudes get dropped (add Qasali Pridemage, Gaddock Teeg, and Scavenging Ooze to the list of worthy targets for it.)

Another card that I'm surprised sees little play is Dispel. It seems pretty narrow...but it's another cheap way to win the counterspell war, and one that doesn't require a blue card to pitch.

[wcm8]

I would say that in a blue-heavy meta-game, Pierce is a freakin' all-star for helping you win the counter-war.

Exactly, which is what Legacy has naturally progressed to.

Decks where Spell Pierce is not as useful, the card can easily be sideboarded out as needed for more specific hate cards.

However, Spell Pierce is extremely versatile and often WON'T get sided out. I mean, so many decks run at least 4 maindeck removal spells, is it that ridiculous to run 4 maindeck non-creature counterspells? In Legacy it is usually a hard-counter, since most decks can't just sit back and ramp up to 3/4 lands without doing anything. There are some matchups where you would even consider siding out Force of Will over Spell Pierce.

[Dark Ritual]

Spell pierce not being able to hit snapcaster mage and co. is a huge problem with the card/the only problem with the card really. However, spell pierce can counter brainstorm, jace, and countermagic like a champion in the early game and potentially the lategame if you're a stifle+wasteland deck.

[wcm8]

It might not hit Snapcaster itself, but it can very likely counter the spell that's being flashbacked. Most decks can handle a 2/1 creature.

[kiblast]

Snare is better and should be played as a 4of before even considering any other non-Fow counter (this including Counterspell and Spell Pierce obviously). You might want some number of Pierces maindeck only in a very combo/control warped meta.

[Skeggi]

The point is that when Snapcaster does his flashback, or SFM tutors the equip, they've already done 75% of their value. With these cards so dominant in the meta, the choice for Spell Snare seems obvious. Why not question 8 Spell Pierce/Snare vs. 8 Force of Will/Pierce/Snare. In all the scenario's you mention, Force of Will seems the worst counterspell and yet it seems to be an auto-include. Force of Will doesn't even seem to be Snapcastable.

[kiblast]

The point is that when Snapcaster does his flashback, or SFM tutors the equip, they've already done 75% of their value. With these cards so dominant in the meta, the choice for Spell Snare seems obvious. Why not question 8 Spell Pierce/Snare vs. 8 Force of Will/Pierce/Snare. In all the scenario's you mention, Force of Will seems the worst counterspell and yet it seems to be an auto-include. Force of Will doesn't even seem to be Snapcastable.

Fow is needed anyway for those awkward moments when you need to stop a turn 2 AdNauseam, turn 2 Snt, turn 3 NO,or a turn 3 Tezzeret,AoB (etc,..). Obviously you might face a meta where those strong unexpected plays (even if you expected them you still want to develop your gameplan therefore ending the first turns tapped out) don't happen, therefore you don't need a Fow.deck. But otherwise you might want to play Fow.

[Mr. Safety]

Snare is better and should be played as a 4of before even considering any other non-Fow counter (this including Counterspell and Spell Pierce obviously). You might want some number of Pierces maindeck only in a very combo/control warped meta.

This...I disagree with slightly. I would play 4 Spell Pierce over 4 Spell Snare right now...it just has more overall targets that I face. I would consider a 2/2 split (I've done it in the past) but more often than not I end up with no more than 2 Spell Snares in my decks. Of course, I also play the obviously *bad* Counterspell x4 because I don't have Force of Will.

[kiblast]

This...I disagree with slightly. I would play 4 Spell Pierce over 4 Spell Snare right now...it just has more overall targets that I face. I would consider a 2/2 split (I've done it in the past) but more often than not I end up with no more than 2 Spell Snares in my decks. Of course, I also play the obviously *bad* Counterspell x4 because I don't have Force of Will.

Well it depends on what kind of deck you are building and what kind of spells you are most afraid of. Let's say that in a UW control deck, you should fear turn2 2cc spells more than 3-4 cc noncreature spells, because for the latter you may have Counterspell ready (therefore you *need* an active counter turn 1. One that doesn't give card disadvantage a la Fow.). In a Bant aggro deck (probably, I don't have experience with this deck) you may want to prefer stopping Stp, WoG and Liliana and things like that (therefore some maindeck Spell Pierce *might* be useful).

[Dark Ritual]

Kiblast all those cards you listed can be stopped with spell pierce on their respective turns sans when ad nauseam is cast with 2 or more mana floating (usually this doesn't happen unless you have the nut draw.) It is an interesting thought though. Cutting FoW for spell pierce is an intriguing thought because FoW is a 2 for 1 99.99% of the time and gets targeted with snapcaster almost never.

If you pierce the spell they flashback with snapcaster they still get a 2/1 and 2 for 1 you in the process. I'm usually way fine if someone pierces the card I targeted with snapcaster. And spell piercing equipment tutored for with SFM doesn't work unless you have the creature removal spell for SFM and they walk into the pierce unless they tutored for batterskull, which they generally have to walk into a pierce with since it costs 5 when it doesn't get cheated.

[Koby]

I think a more balanced approach is a suite that includes 3 Spell Snare and 2 Spell Pierce. This is clearly inferior to aggro metagames where 4x Spell Snare would shine. SB should fix the number of Spell Pierce against the decks where Force of Will or Spell Snare is ineffective.

Hell, I've even ran a heavy counter suite of 3 Spell Snare 2 Counterspell 1 Spell Pierce, with additional Pierces in the SB for the blue or combo matchups.

[ImpinAintEasy]

I think a more balanced approach is a suite that includes 3 Spell Snare and 2 Spell Pierce. This is clearly inferior to aggro metagames where 4x Spell Snare would shine. SB should fix the number of Spell Pierce against the decks where Force of Will or Spell Snare is ineffective.

Hell, I've even ran a heavy counter suite of 3 Spell Snare 2 Counterspell 1 Spell Pierce, with additional Pierces in the SB for the blue or combo matchups.

Agreed with this post. I'd say splitting the two is best depending on what the meta holds.

As far as RUG goes, I've been playing that deck forever and I've never used Spell Pierce MD or in the sideboard. I don't see a reason to play it over REB in the board and I'd never replace my snares md for pierces. Pierce may be better suited for Bant style decks or other blue based control decks but not RUG imo.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

I run 3 Pierces in my NO BUG list ever since Misstep was banned, and I've found them to be fantastic. They help exactly where the deck wanted help--against Planeswalkers and to protect NO--rather than in an area where it's already pretty strong (vs. creatures), which is where Snare fit in. It's the closest replacement to Misstep that I could find. It's even useful in the late-game, since late-game spells and plays tend to be fairly mana-intensive, and it complements my three Dazes nicely in the late game, where they're (the Dazes, that is) far less useful. I tried Snare in its place, but found myself holding it like a chump far too often for my liking.

I might end up cutting Daze for Snare at some point (although I doubt it), but Pierce is staying for the foreseeable future.

[Final Fortune]

You can't really compare Spell Snare and Spell Pierce to each other in a vacuum because they serve entirely different purposes in different decks, in aggro-control or control Spell Snare's main purpose is to prevent the opponent's creatures from resolving where Spell Pierce is better suited to protecting your own threats. For instance Merfolk pretty much always wants Spell Snare to keep Tarmogoyf and Stoneforge Mystic off the table but Dreadstalker wants Spell Pierce to keep its Dreadnought on the board etc. You have to get past the petty arguments of Spell Snare is better than Spell Pierce or vice versa and ask yourself what roll your counters specifically need to play in your deck, because you'll never see Spell Snare in Spiral Tide over Spell Pierce for a damn good reason.

[Skeggi]

You can't really compare Spell Snare and Spell Pierce to each other in a vacuum because they serve entirely different purposes in different decks, in aggro-control or control Spell Snare's main purpose is to prevent the opponent's creatures from resolving where Spell Pierce is better suited to protecting your own threats.

Not really. If you play against Storm Combo for instance, both Infernal Tutor and Burning Wish are pretty good targets. Against Sneaky Show or Hive Mind, Spell Snare is pretty much worthless. It's a meta call primarily, the type of deck you play should be secondary. Makes sense to me since they're reactive spells instead of proactive.

[kiblast]

Kiblast all those cards you listed can be stopped with spell pierce on their respective turns sans when ad nauseam is cast with 2 or more mana floating (usually this doesn't happen unless you have the nut draw.) It is an interesting thought though. Cutting FoW for spell pierce is an intriguing thought because FoW is a 2 for 1 99.99% of the time and gets targeted with snapcaster almost never.

I know, but in the first 3 turns it's hard to develop your game ( almost always you will end your turns tapped out unless you are playing some kind of draw-go deck) while keeping one mana open for Pierce. It's like playing with opponent having an active Rishadan Port on your lands.Therefore Fow is still needed.