[Deck] Affinity

[Shawon]

@Shawon I feel your list is more midrange, also how is Karakas working out for you? Seems very "techy" for me.. Is it for the Show and Tell match-up?

Karakas is good against Show and Tell, as you may already know. It's also good against Reanimator alongside Relic seeing as how Reanimator tends to go the Show and Tell route as a means to bypass graveyard hate. Against Reanimator, I look at Karakas as Relic #4-5.

Those are my main uses. Karakas isn't intentionally used against Maverick or Death and Taxes, but it does happen to help that I can Wasteland their Karakas or bounce one of their Legends (Teeg, Thalia).

[Mr. Froggy]

I'm gonna try Jitte in my SB, because its almost an auto-lose when I face it. Maybe if I run them myself, it's gonna help a bit...

[Shawon]

i'm gonna try jitte in my sb, because its almost an auto-lose when i face it. Maybe if i run them myself, it's gonna help a lot

ftfy

[Mr. Froggy]

Wasn't able to test much... School got in the way... -_- Will test soon!

EDIT #1: I'm trying out Vault Skirge right now on MTGO (along with full Orni and 3 Enforcers)

EDIT #2: I'm sold on Skirge :O damn!!!

[Shawon]

I've gone and contradicted what I said about painlands vs. Sol lands and have come crawling back to running Ancient Tombs. Aside from the fact that I would have hands with 1 River as my only land and no way to activate Mox Opal on turn 1, running Phyrexian Revoker instead of Cabal Therapy has reduced the urgency of having specific mana and increased the urgency to simply have more mana. Despite what I said about Cities vs. Tomb, I'm running 2 Tombs this time because as long as I'm not running 3 Sol lands, I feel that I won't have too many scenarios where I would allow double Tombs to screw me over, and if I'm going to see on average 1 Sol land per game, it might as well be Ancient Tomb.

Phyrexian Revoker has been growing on me. Until recently, I had never been a fan of the guy in Affinity and that was because I would compare it to Pithing Needle all the time and evaluate Phyrexian Revoker's card type as a creature as a liability. After playing with it, I've come to realize that in a vacuum, it's definitely less failsafe as a solution compared to Pithing Needle, but realistically, it doesn't matter. Even if your opponent can inevitably remove Phyrexian Revoker, depending on what you named, Phyrexian Revoker can buy you valuable time that you can use to come up ahead and do what matters more than just stopping a certain card, which is winning the game. I completely owned an Affinity mirror match with Revoker by naming cards I ran myself! If I was ahead in board position, all I needed to do with Revoker was name Cranial Plating because I didn't need one myself to win the game if I was already winning and because I could then freely attack with my bigger creatures without my mirror trying to surprise me with a topdecked Plating. Another strategy I used with Revoker against the mirror was naming whatever mana source they had that they were depending on. I had a Mox Opal and lands, and I named Springleaf Drum with my Revoker and my opponent's Drum was his only source of blue mana. I'm mentioning this mirror match anecdote because it says what I have come to learn about Phyrexian Revoker being able to manipulate certain board positions to buy me enough time that I need to get in more damage or build my board position.

I still have yet to fully evaluate Phyrexian Revoker's merit, but I definitely don't miss Frogmite in the deck anymore. BTW, running 4 Myr Enforcer is really really boss.

[Mr. Safety]

Well Shawon, you decimated my mid-range Rock deck last night pretty handily...and took apart my U/b faeries deck, too. I would have to agree with you about Ancient Tomb...the explosive starts, along with the ability to get Tezz down fast, are worth paying the 2 life. I didn't realize how good the new breed of Affinity was until I saw you piloting it with such class. Nice work, and I guess I'll have to remember Affinity when sideboarding...it seemed that Pernicious Deed was a good answer, but not really fast enough, not even with Deathrite Shaman x4.

I would agree that Myr Enforcer x4 seems right...converted cost matters a lot when folks are using PDeed and Engineered Explosives as their wiper. Getting them for 0-2 mana seems pretty good, too.

[Mr. Froggy]

Sometimes MTGO shuffling can be so frustrating -_- (when I can't go to my LGS'S, I test on MTGO)

Hands with 3 MoEs, 2 Tezz, 1 Pest, 1 Memnite

Mull into 2 MoEs, 2 Tezz, 2 Pest -_-

I have yet to even draw a damn Enforcer... But I found myself missing my Galvanic Blasts...

[Shawon]

Well Shawon, you decimated my mid-range Rock deck last night pretty handily...and took apart my U/b faeries deck, too. I would have to agree with you about Ancient Tomb...the explosive starts, along with the ability to get Tezz down fast, are worth paying the 2 life. I didn't realize how good the new breed of Affinity was until I saw you piloting it with such class. Nice work, and I guess I'll have to remember Affinity when sideboarding...it seemed that Pernicious Deed was a good answer, but not really fast enough, not even with Deathrite Shaman x4.

I would agree that Myr Enforcer x4 seems right...converted cost matters a lot when folks are using PDeed and Engineered Explosives as their wiper. Getting them for 0-2 mana seems pretty good, too.

I appreciate the props, man. I'm sure next time you'll always pop Deed immediately after resolving it against me! I still would've lost that game had you done that. Deed is a good answer to Affinity but you definitely need to complement it rather than rely solely on it. Abrupt Decay helps a lot in this regard, which I know you already run. I honestly don't think you need to add anything specific like Serenity (maybe that, so you can also beat RiP) or Kataki. But if you want to add anything, perhaps versatile answers such as Krosan Grip would help in addition to your removal and discard.

[Mr. Froggy]

I love this deck, period.

I'm gonna get myself some Vault Skirges because insane their power, and I can't pass it up.

[Shawon]

This is my latest abberration of Tezzeret Affinity. This one's kinda ugly:

12 Artifact Lands
2 Tomb
1 Karakas

4 Opal
2 Drum
2 Lotus Petal

4 Thopter
2 Memnite
4 Vault Skirge
4 Champ
3 MoE
1 Ravager
4 Enforcer
2 Phyrexian Revoker

4 Thoughtcast
4 Plating
2 Tezz

SB:

2 Tezz
3 O-Ring
1 Karakas
3 Umezawa's Jitte
3 Relic
3 Cursed Totem

Notes:

I've cut 2 Memnite, because like with Frogmite and Signal Pest, the trade-off between raw explosiveness and reliable efficiency is well worth it. It's still decent with Drum, though. Speaking of Drum, with less and less cheap creatures, I find myself never needing more than 2 Drums on the field ever. I'm trying out 2 Lotus Petal because it's completely free and it doesn't require me to rely on tapping creatures for mana.

With 2 Memnite gone, I had to replace it with something that will keep my creature count where it is. I didn't want to just add more Revokers. Then I realized that I could just add Tezzeret back into the MD. It still keeps my threat count where it is, and it's a hundred times better in the late game than Memnite. It feels great to have Tezzeret back in the MD.

After all the space I made, I decided to fill the extra 3 SB slots I created with my favorite SB tech against Maverick, Cursed Totem. I thought of adding Cabal Therapies again, but I don't think I would be able to board them and everything else I would bring against control or combo without taking out important cards.

Let me know what you think!

[Mr. Froggy]

How are the Petals working out for you? Does the one-shot clause bother you at all?

[Shawon]

How are the Petals working out for you? Does the one-shot clause bother you at all?

Not really so far. The explosiveness so far has been worth the risk I would take by the temporary use of Lotus Petal, and despite that I have other acceleration such as Tomb or Opal to make up for any subsequent tempo loss I would take from using Petal. Also, if I am using Lotus to cast Tezzeret, I can always make ensure a land drop that turn or the next if I am trying to accumulate some mana.

I've been thinking about trying Lotus Petal for a while, but it made no sense to run it over Drum if I was running 12 'free' creatures. Now I just run 6, so Lotus Petal is way more appealing now as an option.

EDIT: New changes

MD
-2 Phyrexian Revoker
+2 Baleful Strix

SB
-3 Cursed Totem
+3 Phyrexian Revoker

I feel the Baleful Strixes are better MD as naming whatever with Phyrexian Revoker is pretty irrelevant in g1 if you have limited information on what the opponent is playing. My list is less hyper-aggressive (I'm still an aggro deck!) now than it was in the past, so I am open to trying out Baleful Strix despite what I've said about it in the past since it has some post-early game 'value' (ugh, I hate applying that word to anything Magic: The Gathering related).

[Mr. Froggy]

Not really so far. The explosiveness so far has been worth the risk I would take by the temporary use of Lotus Petal, and despite that I have other acceleration such as Tomb or Opal to make up for any subsequent tempo loss I would take from using Petal. Also, if I am using Lotus to cast Tezzeret, I can always make ensure a land drop that turn or the next if I am trying to accumulate some mana.

I've been thinking about trying Lotus Petal for a while, but it made no sense to run it over Drum if I was running 12 'free' creatures. Now I just run 6, so Lotus Petal is way more appealing now as an option.

EDIT: New changes

MD
-2 Phyrexian Revoker
+2 Baleful Strix

SB
-3 Cursed Totem
+3 Phyrexian Revoker

I feel the Baleful Strixes are better MD as naming whatever with Phyrexian Revoker is pretty irrelevant in g1 if you have limited information on what the opponent is playing. My list is less hyper-aggressive (I'm still an aggro deck!) now than it was in the past, so I am open to trying out Baleful Strix despite what I've said about it in the past since it has some post-early game 'value' (ugh, I hate applying that word to anything Magic: The Gathering related).

I used to have Revoker in my MTGO list, but it would always die so I took them out. Sure, they can hold a plating but no evasion or anything made me hate them.

[anakyn]

There was some debate about Baleful strix on another forum recently, and I'd like to write my opinions on this card also here.

I simply don't understand at all how it can be considered viable in Affinity.

What is Balefux strix?
It's like a flying wall than cantrips, and can be used as a pseudo-removal thanks to deathtouch.
The drawbacks are:
- it is slow for our strategy
- it requires 2 colored mana, and we could have issues producing it early game

The cantrip is NOT something with a value in itself because it's not drawing but merely replacing the Strix you've drawn; we can consider it a bonus but the value of the card must be somewhere else to be considered viable.

Now:
- do we need a wall? --> no, because we are an aggro deck and our creatures are generally bigger than opponent's
- do we need creature removal? --> yes, sometimes. But we already have Dispatch which is cheaper and more reliable (for example, it doesn't need opponent's creature to attack), probably the best spot creature removal in Legacy. Strix's removal utility can be nullified by a single bolt, and it's more expensive. Dispatch > Strix by far
- do we need evasion for our Cranial? Yes, of course, but we already have 8 flying creatures that are cheaper (Ornithopter) and both cheaper & better (Vault skirge, which can gain us life). Ornithopter & Skirge > Strix by far

So every Strix's utility is greatly surpassed by other cheaper & better alternatives we already use. So greatly that the cantrip it provides can't be enough to consider Strix even with the alternatives.

My question is very simple: why should we use it?
Or, in other terms: what does Strix offers that we don't already have from other better and/or cheaper cards?

[Shawon]

The drawbacks are:
- it is slow
- it requires 2 colored mana, and we could have issues producing it early game

These two drawbacks are the same drawbacks I thought about when I argued against using Baleful Strix in Tezzeret Affinity. I think those drawbacks are still valid if you are staying within the aggressive lane of Tezzeret Affinity, because if you're running 12 'freebies' and fast fliers (Pest and/or Skirge) you don't really have room for a defensive card that doesn't aggressively change the board position or life total of your opponent.

Now:
- do we need a wall? --> no, because we are an aggro deck and our creatures are generally bigger than opponent's
- do we need creature removal? --> yes, sometimes. But we already have Dispatch which is cheaper and more reliable, probably the best spot creature removal in Legacy. Strix's removal utility can be nullified by a single bolt, and it's more expensive. Dispatch > Strix by far (Except Dispatch is terrible in Affinity because it's not a creature. Baleful Strix is, and it also doesn't require splashing . Besides that, no one is primarily using Baleful Strix as removal. It's a value card, not a removal card.)
- do we need evasion for our Cranial? Yes, of course, but we already have 8 flying creatures that are cheaper (Ornithopter) and both cheaper & better (Vault skirge, which can gain us life). Ornithopter & Skirge > Strix by far (Not a really valid counterpoint, because you can never have too many evasive creatures in any Affinity build. But yes, both Ornithopter and Skirge are better than Strix.)

My question is very simple: why should we use it?
Or, in other terms: what does Strix offers that we don't already have from other better and/or cheaper cards?

Like I said before and in the past when I argued against Baleful Strix, it's not a good card in explosive Affinity lists that are primarily focused on ejecting as many artifacts as it can on turns 1-2. However, Baleful Strix is worth considering if you are taking Tezzeret Affinity into a less explosive but more resilient direction. I had two slots in my build for Phrexian Revoker in my MD, but I decided to make them Baleful Strix because I felt they didn't depend on what little information I had about my opponent's deck in g1.

So far, I haven't been totally impressed with Baleful Strix, but it's not as bad I as I used to think it was on paper, because it buys me some time for me to assemble my offense in games and it can draw me into my SB hate post-board. However, I might just cut the two Strix for my leftover Tezzerets in the SB so that I will always have 4 Tezzeret in all my games against relevant matchups (Miracles et al).

[anakyn]

However, Baleful Strix is worth considering if you are taking Tezzeret Affinity into a less explosive but more resilient direction.

I've tried that road before, and imho it doesn't work when compared to "explosive" affinity.

With an explosive build sometimes we can simply be too fast for our opponent (luck is involved here...); with a "resilient" build we are not that fast, but often we haven't neither enough control to overcame opponent.

But even if we choose the resilient build, I think Strix doesn't offer enough utility to be used.
I guess you want to see him when you face some strong creature: why not picking directly Dispatch? Just because it doesn't cantrip?
The Strix has 2 bonus (evasion & removal) in 1 package, but both bonus imho are too weak when compared with our alternatives.

If I chose the resilient way and I had 2 slots free, I would go with Dispatch or, in your case, the 3rd Tezzeret. Even the 3rd Revoker would be better imho. Or 1-2 Chalice MB.


I admit I never tested Strix, and maybe I should try even if it seems terrible to me, but I wanna ask you: every time you see a Strix in your hand, wouldn't you be happier to see Dispatch / Revoker / Chalice or simply something faster?

[Shawon]

I've tried that road before, and imho it doesn't work when compared to "explosive" affinity.

With an explosive build sometimes we can simply be too fast for our opponent (luck is involved here...); with a "resilient" build we are not that fast, but often we haven't neither enough control to overcame opponent.

I agree and that's what I've always felt about the 'resilient' builds posted in this thread. Perhaps I'm using the term 'resilient' too loosely and broadly when I'm speaking on my build and others. When I apply the word 'resilient' to my build of Affinity, my deck is still leaning on the aggressive side, but its design is specifically built in consideration to certain interactions with problematic cards (e.g. running Myr Enforcer instead of Signal Pest to build a resistance to Grim Lavamancer, Pernicious Deed, etc., while still being aggressive). I don't try to play control too much (I do run Spell Pierce, after all) but any control approach I apply to my deck is done so that I can maintain my aggro approach (this is what Spell Pierce does, e.g. playing aggressively and cautiously holding back Spell Pierce for Terminus, Pernicious Deed, etc). To be honest, I don't really consider 'resilient' builds posted by other people in this thread to be that resilient anyway.

But even if we choose the resilient build, I think Strix doesn't offer enough utility to be used.
I guess you want to see him when you face some strong creature: why not picking directly Dispatch? Just because it doesn't cantrip?
The Strix has 2 bonus (evasion & removal) in 1 package, but both bonus imho are too weak when compared with our alternatives.

If I chose the resilient way and I had 2 slots free, I would go with Dispatch or, in your case, the 3rd Tezzeret. Even the 3rd Revoker would be better imho. Or 1-2 Chalice MB.

I already run the other alternatives. 4 Ornithopter and 4 Vault Skirge. I'm not going back to Signal Pest as it's too easy to kill. I don't need Dispatch because it's in white and like I said before, it's not a creature so it can't kill the opponent or planeswalkers.

I admit I never tested Strix, and maybe I should try even if it seems terrible to me, but I wanna ask you: every time you see a Strix in your hand, wouldn't you be happier to see Dispatch / Revoker / Chalice or simply something faster?

Not Dispatch because creature removal is useless against control or combo, not Revoker MD because you have too little information to make a significant call during game 1, and not Chalice because I run Spell Pierce which is miles better (yet I'm probably the only person ON EARTH who's even bothered to test it).

[anakyn]

[...] and not Chalice because I run Spell Pierce which is miles better (yet I'm probably the only person ON EARTH who's even bothered to test it).

I think both Chalices and Pierces have been long tested by many Affinity players in the last months, or maybe even years.
I've saw many Pierces and Chalices in the SB of many competitive Affinity lists.
So they are probably both good choices.


Can I ask why do you consider Pierce > Chalice?

Imho they are simply different, you play them for different purposes.

I'm on the Chalice side because it can completely shut down certain decks, with a one-time investment of 2 or even 0 mana.
For example casting it early vs RUG means match over like 90% of the time. Hard part here is resolving it, but if they can't counter then it's over for them, unless they already had a couple of Delvers beating us or they find an Ancient grudge.
Same with many other decks, fair and unfair ones: Burn and Storm are other good examples, along with others. In those cases landing a Chalice is almost like having an active Countertop, without the necessity to activate it.
I like the fact it's NOT a win-more card, because it helps us a lot against decks we have much trouble with.
I play 4 of them SB cause I feel you should play the full playset or don't play them at all.
So Chalice can be considered a permanent solution, but limited to specific match-ups.

Pierce, on the other side, has more versatility and can be an answer for more threats, but it's a one-shot trick.
It's a matter of preference to choose between the 2 alternatives (I don't think you can pick both... not enough space in SB), and I tend to prefer the more specific but also more permanent solution.
What I don't like the most about Pierce is the fact you have to keep 1 mana open. I mean, being fast for Affinity is key and imho we should never save our mana if we can land some more threats during our turn, or if we can equip some creature. There are exception, like playing vs a deck full of mass removals so that we wanna keep something in hand, but generally speaking our gameplan is land everything as fast as possibile, so that single mana I should keep open can hurt.

[Shawon]

I think both Chalices and Pierces have been long tested by many Affinity players in the last months, or maybe even years.
I've saw many Pierces and Chalices in the SB of many competitive Affinity lists.
So they are probably both good choices.

At least not in this thread besides me. Can you show me some others lists that run Pierce? EDIT: Come to think of it, I came across the idea of using Spell Pierce from a top 8 list I saw running 3 SB Pierce. I guess when you advocate a card that's been amazing in testing for so long and no one seems to bother trying it out themselves you think you invented the idea yourself.

Can I ask why do you consider Pierce > Chalice?

Imho they are simply different, you play them for different purposes.

True, except Pierce's applications are much more relevant to Affinity.

I'm on the Chalice side because it can completely shut down certain decks, with a one-time investment of 2 or even 0 mana.
For example casting it early vs RUG means match over like 90% of the time. Hard part here is resolving it, but if they can't counter then it's over for them, unless they already had a couple of Delvers beating us or they find an Ancient grudge.
Same with many other decks, fair and unfair ones: Burn and Storm are other good examples, along with others. In those cases landing a Chalice is almost like having an active Countertop, without the necessity to activate it.
I like the fact it's NOT a win-more card, because it helps us a lot against decks we have much trouble with.
I play 4 of them SB cause I feel you should play the full playset or don't play them at all.
So Chalice can be considered a permanent solution, but limited to specific match-ups.

Here's what I don't like about Chalice:

- It's much worse when it's not in your opening hand
- It's dependent on you going first
- Outside of RUG and certain combo decks, it only stops a small subset of cards

I think Spell Pierce is way better than Chalice of the Void because it can stop critical spells the opponent can cast that can stop you from winning or allow them to win (Terminus, EtA, Pernicious Deed, Time Spiral, Helm of Obedience, Show and Tell, planeswalkers). Chalice of the Void can't stop any of those cards. Also, Pierce is less dependent on the game circumstances unlike Chalice which depends on: whether you're playing first or not, whether your opponent manages to Brainstorm in response to your Chalice, whether your opponent has an answer to your Chalice, and whether your Chalice is still relevant by the time you cast it. From my experience, Spell Pierce has always been relevant in my games. Being an aggro deck, I apply too much pressure to allow my opponent the luxury of waiting to have two leftover mana to pay for my Pierce.

Chalice is pretty good against RUG, despite all the 'ifs' you mentioned. But, it's not a good selling point for Chalice when you're talking about a matchup that I consider to be good anyway. I only bring in 3 Relics against RUG, and that's only to replace Spell Pierce as it's the better card in that matchup.

Pierce, on the other side, has more versatility and can be an answer for more threats, but it's a one-shot trick.
It's a matter of preference to choose between the 2 alternatives (I don't think you can pick both... not enough space in SB), and I tend to prefer the more specific but also more permanent solution.
What I don't like the most about Pierce is the fact you have to keep 1 mana open. I mean, being fast for Affinity is key and imho we should never save our mana if we can land some more threats during our turn, or if we can equip some creature. There are exception, like playing vs a deck full of mass removals so that we wanna keep something in hand, but generally speaking our gameplan is land everything as fast as possibile, so that single mana I should keep open can hurt.

Why does being a one-shot trick have to do with anything? Dispatch is a one-shot trick too, yet you're advocating it. If I can counter a critical game-changing spell with Pierce, then that's all I usually need to win. Here's are two examples of this: I faced two UW Miracles last night on MWS. I resolved a Tezzeret against the first guy, made him cast two Terminus in a row, and after he bought some time with Energy Field + Rest in Peace, he E-tutored for an Helm of Obedience. He cast his Helm of Obedience with one mana leftover, and I countered with Pierce. Helm was the only way that card could win. Even if he had two leftover mana, he would have had none to activate Helm. And obviously, next turn, I assembled enough artifacts to be able to one-shot kill with Tezz. Against the other guy, he had Energy Field with no RiP. This bought him some time, except he was mana screwed at three mana the whole time. The game-ending play occurred when he cast a Rest in Peace, I Pierced it, and he FoW'd, as a result his Energy Field was sacrificed before RiP entered. I won next turn with my Cranial Plating-assisted army the next turn.

Hoarding U mana isn't as bad as you're making it out to be. If I have a surplus of mana in the midgame, then I'm not really holding myself back by keeping a land or Opal for Pierce. Sometimes I do have to make the call of not developing my board because I need to hold U open. But I have plenty of experiences of tapping out instead of holding mana for Pierce only to be SnT'd next turn or my opponent dropping something else that I didn't want to see resolve early like Energy Field.

Normally, I would agree about running permanent solutions as opposed to disposable ones (e.g. running your own Jitte instead of Grudge against opp's Jitte), but Spell Pierce is so good that it completely overshadows Chalice as a solution card.

[anakyn]

At least not in this thread besides me. Can you show me some others lists that run Pierce?

When I'm searching for competitive lists I usually surf TC Decks site, probably the bigger and best database for tournament decklists: http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/index.php

You should find many Affinity lists running Pierce in the last year.

Hope it will help you.

I think Spell Pierce is way better than Chalice of the Void because it can stop critical spells the opponent can cast that can stop you from winning or allow them to win (Terminus, EtA, Pernicious Deed, Time Spiral, Helm of Obedience, Show and Tell, planeswalkers). Chalice of the Void can't stop any of those cards. Also, Pierce is less dependent on the game circumstances unlike Chalice which depends on: whether you're playing first or not, whether your opponent manages to Brainstorm in response to your Chalice, whether your opponent has an answer to your Chalice, and whether your Chalice is still relevant by the time you cast it. From my experience, Spell Pierce has always been relevant in my games. Being an aggro deck, I apply too much pressure to allow my opponent the luxury of waiting to have two leftover mana to pay for my Pierce.

Our opinions about Pierce and Chalice are very different, or maybe we play in very different metas.

You can probably agree with me when I say Chalice is better vs RUG and many combo decks like Storm, Dredge, Reanimator and Elves (against combo Spell pierce won't save you unless you find at least 2 of them, since they usually have either lots of discard or counterspells, and sometimes both, so they will start their combo when they are sure your Pierce will be useless or discarded; while Chalice can literally make you win alone if not countered), which right now are respectively:
- the most played (and probably stronger) deck in the format
- probably our worst match-ups

Chalice is far better than Pierce also against Burn, another matchup not so favorable to us (usually Burn can deal 20 dmg faster than us, and kill our Skirges easily if we land them).


On the other hand, I would say Pierce is absolutely better vs Control because it can interact with their removal and planeswalkers.

But I don't think it would save you very often from Terminus, since they rarely play it with less then 3 total mana in play.
And against Show & tell, which is so full of counterspells that your Pierce will rarely resolve, I think Phyrexian Metamorph should definitely be more useful.
Also against Spiral tide your Pierce shouldn't resolve very often, since they play both FoW and Pact (and Pierces sometimes).

Pierce > Chalice vs planeswalkers, Pernicious deed, other forms of mass removal and generally speaking control stuff, that's for sure.

But against Control our best card probably remains Tezzeret.


Against Combo I would also play Cabal therapy (I don't remember if they are in your list) in addition to Chalice: I'm pretty sure both Chalice and Therapy are better than Pierce in combo matchups.
Of course Pierce would be very strong against combo if only we could follow a permission gameplan together with our traditional aggro plan (like Merfolks for example), but since we are Affinity we can rarely play more than 2-3 Pierces from SB... and 2-3 counters total are too few to fight current combos.


So we can come to this general conclusion, tell me if you agree with me:
- Chalice is best against many combo decks, RUG, Burn
- Pierce is best against control
- Cabal therapy is best against generic combo

So everything depends from your meta.
In my meta, the amount of RUG + Burn + Combo is bigger than Control, and that's probably why I prefer Chalice over Pierce.
Probably your meta is the opposite, since you consider Pierce the best solution.

Metas are fluid and with the recent addition of Abrupt decay there's a chance BUG control or tempo decks will find a nice spot: in that case Pierce would be very sweet against Pernicious deeds (but BUG usually plays 4x FoW and at least 4 more counterspells between Dazes and Pierces, so they could counter your Pierce) but useless against Decays.

Here's are two examples of this: I faced two UW Miracles last night on MWS. I resolved a Tezzeret against the first guy, made him cast two Terminus in a row, and after he bought some time with Energy Field + Rest in Peace, he E-tutored for an Helm of Obedience. He cast his Helm of Obedience with one mana leftover, and I countered with Pierce. Helm was the only way that card could win. Even if he had two leftover mana, he would have had none to activate Helm. And obviously, next turn, I assembled enough artifacts to be able to one-shot kill with Tezz. Against the other guy, he had Energy Field with no RiP. This bought him some time, except he was mana screwed at three mana the whole time. The game-ending play occurred when he cast a Rest in Peace, I Pierced it, and he FoW'd, as a result his Energy Field was sacrificed before RiP entered. I won next turn with my Cranial Plating-assisted army the next turn.

Hoarding U mana isn't as bad as you're making it out to be. If I have a surplus of mana in the midgame, then I'm not really holding myself back by keeping a land or Opal for Pierce. Sometimes I do have to make the call of not developing my board because I need to hold U open. But I have plenty of experiences of tapping out instead of holding mana for Pierce only to be SnT'd next turn or my opponent dropping something else that I didn't want to see resolve early like Energy Field.

Your examples are surely correct.

Yet they describe exactly the kind of situations I was referring before when pointing out the decks against which Pierce is better: Control.

U/W is control; also reaching mid-game to keep U open without bothering too much is a typical situation we meet against Control, since combo usually kills us (or fizzles) before mid-game, while against aggro Pierce is usually dead.

So here you are stating that Pierce is a house vs control, and I couldn't agree more as I said earlier.
But the examples you brought don't concern other kind of decks.

Normally, I would agree about running permanent solutions as opposed to disposable ones (e.g. running your own Jitte instead of Grudge against opp's Jitte), but Spell Pierce is so good that it completely overshadows Chalice as a solution card.

Of course you can keep your opinion about Pierce being generally better ("overshadowing") than Chalice.

But imho, the thoughts and reasoning I've followed in the last posts shows that Pierce shouldn't be considered "generally better" than Chalice.

We can say it's better in certain matchups, and at the same time we should say Chalice is better in others.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Anyways, very nice and stimulating discussion :)