A look at the hysteria surrounding Mental Misstep.
http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/l..._Hysteria.html
Printable View
A look at the hysteria surrounding Mental Misstep.
http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/l..._Hysteria.html
Thank you. It's a good read, and, IMO, an accurate one.
He still covered himself by saying it was good in blue decks...which are the vast majority of legacy. The card is still an amazing source of tempo and ruling it out of play in zoo, goblins, and junk already seems hasty to me. Especially zoo...the card is great vs. their worst matchup (combo) and still good vs. everything else except decks running chalice. The card can also be sided out...force of will is bad vs. zoo but it's still a md 4 off in every deck that can play it.
Edit: He also discussed why it wouldn't see play in dredge/tendrils...which no one is contesting.
Reading it yet, but you denied MM in goblins, and I'm seing some good movement around it in its thread. Can't deny it yet; Maybe it end up not making the cut, but still.
Ended up reading - pretty good article, pretty good analysis, agree with most, if not all, of it. Well done. ^^
Just let us know about the gobbos part. I mean, you explained it, but there are still testings being done... well, I dunno whether I'm making any sense anymore.
Thanks. I got the same thoughts on the card pretty much. Huge hype right now, lets re-evaluate in a couple of months, I got my money on CB decks, tempo decks and Merfolk as well. The rest.. I seriously doubt it.
edit: I want to add something to the discussion that you didn't touch upon
Above I was talking about tribal Elves; but the same can be applied to Goblins.Quote:
Originally Posted by me, other forum
Are you counting zoo/goblins as tempo decks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessaja
Sorry, blue based tempo I meant, temp thresh, new horizons, team america all that stuff (also counting Eva Green)
Few things are as vague, nondescript, and frustrating as when people talk about tempo on a MTG website.
That being said, there's a very clear reason in the article why Misstep is a poor fit into Goblins, and if it isn't clear enough to you then I can explain why in a very short amount of space: it's not a Goblin.
Fixed that..Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico Suave
It's not entirely out of the blue though. In the past Goblin builds have played 4* Lightning Bolt when Zoo was dominant. This isn't very different. Note; I'm not saying it's good, just that it has been done with success before.
Swords has been played to good success in the past too (though I may be biased here). Also, the entire goblins sb is non goblins...and yes the sideboard is used. Misstep is also an easy card to side out in goblins for more specific hate.
My views have already been stated by Infamous Bear Assassin on this subject:
In addition to this point, I will cover all the bases and say that this card may actually push for the inclusion of blue in some archetypes that can't normally beat combo. This is a stretch, however "It pitches to FoW" actually means something here in my opinion. Bumping the number of blue cards in your deck with freebies with a package like so:Quote:
Mental Misstep offers a much smaller jump in power over the alternative cheap/free counters available to blue than to any other color, the sum list of which breaks down to awful shit like Mindbreak Trap and Illumination. Whilte Mental Misstep is limited in range, it's far more powerful than the alternative counterspells in other colors, and certainly a great dodge to combo/removal, if nothing else.
It's therefore inaccurate to describe Mental Misstep as a great blue card. It's a middling blue card and a fucking amazing green, red, white and black card.
4 MM
4 FoW
1 Wonder (if you're a graveyard based deck)
1 Progenitus (NO-Pro/screwing painter)
4 Fire/Ice (for fire)
And any number of blue alternate cost cards (idk what to call them) such as the Noggles.
My point being that decks that can pay blue mana have this role filled already. They can daze and spell-pierce etc whatever comes in their way anyways. It's not actually about synergy here. If merfolk were all about synergy with mermen, why would it run FOW? or if elves were all about synergy with elves, why would it run NO-pro in some builds? This is a card that is really useful in anything that can run mana-denial or that is hated easily by one drops or is weak against decks with strong one drops.
To me this means that decks that have trouble against decks running Dark Ritual don't see this card as a good MD unless they also have trouble with one of the MUs this card really hoses (like dredge, elves, Tempo Threshold).
That is my view on Mental Misstep.
PS: This goes really well in Pox (especially mana-denial centric pox)
I agree, I agree, this makes plenty of sense. But nevertheless, some of the best players @ goblins thread are testing it. I mean, I would say it won't see play there, but they got far more experience with the deck then I do, and I tend to think that it's still possible that MM will see play there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico Suave
Sound reasoning IMO. Good read as always. Keep up the good work :)Quote:
Originally Posted by voltron00x
- Vilik
This article was a breath of fresh air. Thank you! I think I agreed with everything you said. Nice work.
Summed it up fairly well. Still going to be a pain for a bit to get foils until the dumb people get done with it.
And Yes, I remember Bonkers. I used to love those things.
hm in the end hes saying almost every deck that sees lots of play will run it exept goblins (ill run it there) and TES/ANT
Very good read!
This is just depressing at this point. The author gives no coherent reason why the card would be great in blue decks but not in other. This seems like sheer laziness of thinking; well, it's a blue card, so you want to play it in blue, right? I mean it's not like Wizards would print a counterspell that was good in non-blue decks.
To say that Goblins doesn't want to ever run non-Goblins cards is to be ignorant of the archetype's history, and the reasoning for Zoo is specious. Of course Zoo wants to deploy threats faster than everyone else. You have a slight funnel of death problem there where your lands still only tap for one mana though. A card that's free that disrupts their early game and protects yours, enabling you to quickly assume an advantageous board position seems perfect. In fact, the author seems to think that disrupting turn 1 Aether Vials and Ponders and Tops and blanking removal is great in "Tempo" decks, but blithely tosses this all aside for Zoo, which I guess doesn't care about tempo now?
This article strikes me as more rationalizing than rational.
I'll agree to this, though;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico Suave
Zoo is one of the few things I'm up in the air about concerning MM. It could happen, but then again, I don't see how it really improves combo MU's. They'll use the protection they naturally pack, but you wouldn't have the redundancy of multiple counterspells to deal with their protection.
maybe the same i plan to do in gobs. play 4mm main because its always useful and put 4 mindbreak trap in the sb. this should improve the combomatchup.
Also, the card doesn't necessarily have to make combo favorable; just making it salvageable would improve the deck's standing in the metagame.
There's also combo decks against which Misstep is stronger than ANT, like Spring Tide and Elves.
But again, my point comes down to 4 conditional counters (though they may be awesome) cannot by themselves salvage a MU. If the combo player blunders into something, sure, but otherwise I don't see it bringing that MU to "salvageable." However, I do think it's a decent card for Zoo, in general. Is it dead in the combo MU? Certainly not. But it's not going to fundamentally change the dynamic.
This isn't necessarily directed just at you, but to everyone in this thread who wants to pounce at the opportunity to talk about how non-Goblin cards can fit into a Goblins deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessaja
I'm going to blow your mind: a basic Mountain isn't a Goblin either!
Some non-Goblin cards can make their way into Goblins, but they have to be really good. Aether Vial is a very powerful card, being able to produce as much as 6 effective mana by the 4th turn by itself. Food Chain can end the game immediately in combination with Goblin Recruiter (yeah I know it's banned). Skullclamp is another banned card that would get an instant home in Goblins due to it being really good.
Mental Misstep is not nearly on the same power level as any of these. It's not going to make your deck faster. It's not going to make your deck more powerful. It's not going to make your deck more consistent. And it's certainly not required for the deck to work like a basic Mountain is.
And if you were to write out all of the strategies that a Goblin deck would want to pursue, you won't see Misstep helping complete any of them while any random Goblin will help achieve some of them. "Trip my opponent" in a foot race does not move you closer to the goal line - in fact you might just end up falling down yourself.
Tell me, why would Zoo want to Misstep Vial, Ponder, or Top when it means cutting a card that is important for the deck's normal functions? This is doubly true with the cards you mention, since Zoo tends to work very well against the strategies that normally include cards like Vial or Top or Ponder (sometimes Ponder shows up in combo, admittedly, but you'd never want to Misstep the Ponder in those matches anyway).Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
The reason Zoo beats a deck like Merfolk consistently is because it ignores the Vial and instead focuses on casting a burn spell to the dome. If you start replacing burn with Misstep, you'll also start losing games because you can't execute your strategy anymore. Your deck won't function properly anymore.
The biggest misunderstanding here is that a lot of people don't seem to be asking themselves "what does this deck do?" Either that or they have come to suspect conclusions.
What a deck wants to do, at its heart, is win the game. If synergies help get the deck there, that's great; if cards have tension but are good enough to make you win more anyway, you run those. Tarmogoyf has tension with cards like Grim Lavamancer and Tombstalker, but it still gets played next to them.
I go back to the Tour de Force question. Do you or do you not agree that every deck would play a card that cost nothing and said, "Counter target spell"? Because if you don't agree, your judgment is suspect, to say the least. If you do agree than we've established the principle and it's just a matter of counting advantages. I agree that not every deck wants a free niche counter; but a deck that cares about the early game in particular and would additionally love to have some kind of game against combo should be very interested in this spell.
<3Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico Suave
I've been saying this for a while, IBA: not every deck values a counter to the same extent. Yes, counters are counters, and countering spells is nice, but not every deck can utilize counters effectively. To say, "Well, some decks have never had access to counters before, so you're not being creative enough because these cards do so much for those decks," is to willfully ignore the fact that those decks exist in the first place because people concluded that there were better things to be doing than countering spells. Seriously, if having some counters was all that and a bag of chips, why isn't the format full of Counterbalance mirror matches?
People build strategies without counters because they conclude that they can make decks that are more consistent and powerful without them. Countering things for the sake of countering things is not a good strategy unless you're able to do it all the time, like Counterbalance decks.
Additionally, the number of one-drop cards that actually matter to any given deck in Legacy is quite small. If your deck gets hosed by [insert giant list of things Misstep can counter], adding 4 Mental Misstep is not going to solve that issue. As the number of useful Misstep targets decreases, your deck's game plan, its internal synergies, and matchup, metagame, and space considerations all need to be weighed more carefully against Misstep and what you expect it to realistically do for you.
I expect Providence to have a ton of Missteps while people are still trapped in hype-rspace, and then for the number to settle down after that. It really does help blue decks more than nonblue decks; if you can't see that, you need to think about how the value of counters changes depending on the context and supporting architecture in which they find themselves.
Tour de Force is a card that you created that is so powerful, that it makes no sense not to run it in any deck, the same way there is NO REASON at all to not run Black Lotus in Vintage in 99% of decks that can afford Lotu$. It is not a useful model to compare your arguments for MM at all. Let's not even talk about Tour de Force. Take Vintage the format by itself. Ancestral Recall, other easily splashable Power 9 cards don't get played in every deck (aside from Lotus). Why? Now go figure it out yourself the connection with MM with decks in Legacy that don't find space for it. Mental Misstep is FAR from being a free FoW, or the so-called Tour de Force called that you're imagining here.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
I mean Merfolks could use Brainstorm because it's actually really good in UB Merfolk with fetches. Why would you not play Brainstorm when you're already playing blue with fetches? It's because Merfolks doesn't need Brainstorm (when it comes to what the deck needs). The same way, Zoo could really use MM because MM is actually quite good in Zoo, but what would you replace to play MM? If you can find cards to cut that won't sacrifice your other matchups or the overall gameplay of Zoo, then yes MM will make it in, but something tells me that this is going to be hard, at least list down 4 cards you'll cut to make room for MM (which really is just marginally good in Zoo, if you don't draw it early game, it's a terrible card to draw in the mid-late game where a burn/creature/library could have finished the job much easier)
UhhhQuote:
Originally Posted by Aggro_zombies
Because all of those counters required you to play blue.
We don't know what the format would be like if Force let you pitch any card.
Are you saying you wouldn't play Tour de Force in everything?
People build strategies without any given card because they conclude that the marginal benefit over cost of running that card is greater than the next available alternative, in conjunction with the other cards in their deck.Quote:
People build strategies without counters because they conclude that they can make decks that are more consistent and powerful without them. Countering things for the sake of countering things is not a good strategy unless you're able to do it all the time, like Counterbalance decks.
Mental Misstep has a very different cost from traditional counters so your argument here is irreelvant.
Fundamentally, the format can't exist without a fairly large number of one drops.Quote:
Additionally, the number of one-drop cards that actually matter to any given deck in Legacy is quite small. If your deck gets hosed by [insert giant list of things Misstep can counter], adding 4 Mental Misstep is not going to solve that issue. As the number of useful Misstep targets decreases, your deck's game plan, its internal synergies, and matchup, metagame, and space considerations all need to be weighed more carefully against Misstep and what you expect it to realistically do for you.
See again: decks do not care about consistency in and of itself. Decks care about quality. Lightning Bolt isn't always the best card to run in Goblins, but it's pretty much always a better card to run than Raging Goblin, despite having less consistency with the deck.Quote:
I expect Providence to have a ton of Missteps while people are still trapped in hype-rspace, and then for the number to settle down after that. It really does help blue decks more than nonblue decks; if you can't see that, you need to think about how the value of counters changes depending on the context and supporting architecture in which they find themselves.
So you admit that Zoo would play it. Well, then, Zoo would play counters if sufficient conditions were met. What are those conditions? It has to be more powerful in Zoo's strategy than another burn spell or creature would be. Does Mental Misstep meet those conditions? I think so; others think so. It counters some powerful early game spells and removal, and gives the deck added versatility against combo; and it does this at a large gain in tempo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metalwalker
You may argue differently, but hopefully you will not argue so on the grounds that Zoo "doesn't want counters", since we've already dismissed that argument.
Also, I believe Dredge doesn't run Black Lotus.
lolwutQuote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
You didn't even address my argument, and in fact fell into the exact trap I laid for you. Nice jorb.
Yes, becuase Kird Ape has the same value as Aether Vial has the same value as Swords to Plowshares has the same value as Dark Ritual against every deck. Of course you would always want to counter every single one of those no matter what deck you're playing or what deck your opponent is playing. Silly me. I guess I'll go add 4 Mental Misstep to the main of Belcher because I'll need to counter Grim Lavamancers.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
So wait, consistency isn't a form of quality? GoodStuff.deck is therefore inherently better than TribalSynergies.deck because it has higher-quality cards, then? That's why Goblins and Merfolk aren't even remotely playable in this format, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
It's customary, if you think someone has contradicted themselves, to point out where you think the contradiction lies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggro_zombies
Otherwise I'm not sure what you mean here.
Sarcasm isn't an argument.Quote:
Yes, becuase Kird Ape has the same value as Aether Vial has the same value as Swords to Plowshares has the same value as Dark Ritual against every deck. Of course you would always want to counter every single one of those no matter what deck you're playing or what deck your opponent is playing. Silly me. I guess I'll go add 4 Mental Misstep to the main of Belcher because I'll need to counter Grim Lavamancers.
To say that A does not imply B is not to say that B implies not A.Quote:
So wait, consistency isn't a form of quality? GoodStuff.deck is therefore inherently better than TribalSynergies.deck because it has higher-quality cards, then? That's why Goblins and Merfolk aren't even remotely playable in this format, right?
The cards that are best in your deck may or may not be consistent with the rest of your deck; consistent cards can be good, or inconsistent cards can be good. Some cards may have redundancy or synergy with other cards but not with others.
Qasali Pridemage, for instance, isn't played because of his consistency with the rest of the deck. There are much better two mana beaters available to Zoo. Watchwolf is better in combat the large majority of the time. The reason Pridemage is played is because he can be a Naturalize. He would not be played otherwise.
And yet, what the Hell else in Zoo removes artifacts and enchantments? Nothing. Then why run a card that you don't have redundant effects for? Because it's the best card for that slot.
I am probably incorrect here, as I don't think anyone has pointed it out in the massive SCD thread ( not that I've read through it all ), but I don't think Mental Misstep can counter another Mental Misstep played using it's alternate ( 2 life ) casting cost, can it? Has there been some sort of FAQ thing that's come out for Phyrexian mana already?
Regarding the article itself, I certainly think it'll make waves. I think it's a great anti-combo card, and that's definitely it's best use. Otherwise it's just another tool to slow down the opponent. Basically reiterating what has been stated many times - decks that thrive on early game disruption are going to LOVE this card.
It most certainly can be countered by another MM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncoordinated
@Topic: decent article, card's way overhyped right now, not that it won't be good, but anyway. Summed it all up very nicely.
Imagine, if you will, a world where Brainstorm was never printed. Shocking, I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
Into this world, in a spoiler for New Phyrexia, comes the card Brainstorm, just as we know it today, no changes to cost or anything.
How would people react?
Some would probably dramatically underestimate the power of the card in terms of its interaction with fetches, and the way it powers up combo decks and interacts with Counterbalance, digs for free counters like Force of Will and Daze, among all the other great things we know that Brainstorm does.
Some would correctly peg it as a powerful and versatile card that is perfect for a number of decks and strategies.
Some, probably most, would dramatically overestimate how good the card was. How would they do this? They would jam it into decks where the effect, no matter how powerful, doesn’t really add to the way that deck functions. They would put it into Merfolk (duh, it’s blue!), they would jam it into existing decks (Burn, Elves, Dredge – we’ve seen this happen as recently has the last six months) and claim, look at all the great things Brainstorm does! It digs for mana! It hides cards from Thoughtseize and Duress! It keeps your hand full of gas, so aggro decks can shuffle away extra lands, or cards like Path to Exile when playing against Control or combo! It increases your chance of finding sideboard cards! Splash a little blue in Zoo, or play it in Goblins! People would say, “I’ve played with Brainstorm, and let me tell you, it is literally amazing, every single time!” or “Brainstorm’s effect is so powerful that it should see play in every single deck, because when you play without it, your deck is significantly worse than a similar deck with Brainstorm!”
Obviously Mental Misstep isn’t the same card as Brainstorm, but the reaction has been much the same as I’ve described. I’m absolutely not saying Mental Misstep is a bad card. It is a very, very good card. However, not every deck wants a conditional hard counter that costs U or 2 life. Just because every deck would play a card that read, “Pay U or 2 life: counter any card” does not mean that every deck wants Mental Misstep. Those two cards are unbelievably different in power level. The made up card is never dead; it is always a live draw if you are ahead or at parity on the board. Having multiples in your hand is fine against most opponents. This isn’t true of Mental Misstep.
Regardless of whether you actually read or understood my logic in the article, I did explain why I don’t think the card is worth playing in Zoo. Much of the same logic applies for Goblins, with the added caveat that Goblins is a highly synergistic Tribal deck. Could you cut 4 cards to make room? Sure. Are Goblins hands with 2 Mental Misstep going to be any good? What about games where you draw it on turn 3? Flip it with Ringleader? Are you going to wait to play your one-drops until you have Misstep back-up?
There is a cost to playing any card in your deck; you are not able to play another card. In Tribal decks, or hyperlinear decks like Affinity, this cost is amplified. When you understand how freaking incredible Brainstorm is, and then understand why, despite this fact, there are blue decks that don’t play it even when they play a color splash and fetchlands, you can start to comprehend why there are decks, both blue and otherwise, that could play Mental Misstep, but shouldn’t, and over time, probably won’t.
Why wouldn't Zoo play Tour de Force? It's clearly better than a Black Lotus. It's clearly better than MM, than Force of Will. Of course I would play a counter that is better than Force and MM, because that counter hits ANY bomb (MM only hits 1cmc cards) played by an opponent. Is MM Tour de Force? No, is Black Lotus Tour de Force? No. Your example entirely misses the point because as much as you would like to use the example of Tour de Force to draw the analagous case that there exists cards that are powerful options for most decks to explore and improve matchups, the very fact is MM is not such a card, neither is Lotus. Would all Vintage decks pack Tour de Force? Yes, and not all Vintage decks pack Black Lotus or Ancestral Recall given that the card is so powerful and easily splashable in any deck in Vintage.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
What are the conditions for Zoo to run MM or benefit from running MM? voltron has listed it specifically in the article despite your intentions to put him in a bracket of being rationalizing rather than rational. Voltron asked a simple question: "What do you cut in Zoo for MM?" Does combo really give a shit about Zoo with MM? Or do combo fear Merfolks with MM?
Exactly my point. Dredge doesn't need Black Lotus. Black Lotus can clearly be busted in Dredge, and actually would aid in strong sideboard options if you ever drew one. I believe 3 years back, there were Dredge lists that did play A.Recall, Lotus, with a higher land count. The Vintage players can address this, otherwise I can always dig up articles/decklists on TMD to support this. Did Lotus work out in the end? No. Was Lotus good in dredge? Yes it was, the list did win tournaments, was Lotus ideal in Dredge? Nope, it didn't provide what was most lacking in Dredge, which was fighting hate and racing combo decks.Quote:
Also, I believe Dredge doesn't run Black Lotus.
Similarly, there are people on the camp that think MM is good in goblins/Zoo. I respect their opinions, but I think that MM is fundamentally a blue card, despite the fact that it is at the same time 'colorless'. Why do I say it's a blue card? Because it strengthens blue decks pairing up MM with FoW + Pierce etc much more than non-blue decks simply packing MM in the MD/SB to answer what-you-would-so-called-a-diversity-of-1cmc-spells-that-legacy-is-defined-with. Truth is, if you've played enough games, MM will only truly impact the game on turn 1-2 if you're JUST running MMs and no other counters. If you're running more than MMs with other blue counters, the value of MM throughout the game isn't diminished. It's the combination of blue decks packing MM + FoW + Daze/other counters that really define this card as a 'blue' card.
(I sense an attack on my last paragraph, but you know what I can't really explain my thoughts in words but I'm not going to bother and waste time doing so if you still don't get the gist of the last paragraph).
I think everyone is reading way too much into this as it is.
Remember, the card is brand new, and it will see a great deal of play in just about every major archetype for the first few weeks. Subsequently, people will take those builds sporting a play-set to large events (a la the Open Series) and they will wind up learning the hard way that the card's use is actually a bit more restricted than they first thought and will wind up doing mediocre. Then the card will "Plinko" its way into several archetypes that will produce successful results, where it will ultimately find a home.
And then people will start arguing again why it doesn't work in those archetypes, and the never-ending cyclic argument surrounding a card too stupidly good for its own sake will continue over and over again.
This is a far cry from your previous post, where you commented that the author had "laziness of thinking" for wanting to avoid Misstep in non-blue decks.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
Ultimately yes we're going to have to judge Mental Misstep on its power level, because it certainly doesn't fit into decks like Zoo or Goblins naturally, but trying to put this overpowered made-up counterspell in the same context as Misstep is a grave disservice to the argument at hand. Countering a 1 drop, even if it is for free, is a rather mediocre effect in the grand scheme of Legacy whereas countering any spell is a much more powerful effect.
You may think that this card is powerful enough to be worth playing in every deck possible, but others will disagree with you. And just because others don't think it's on the power level of a card like Skullclamp or Aether Vial does not mean their thought process is without merit, they are ignorant of the subject, they have no coherent reasoning, or any of the other eloquent descriptions you have kindly bestowed upon us.
Great article Matt, thanks for posting. I think your predictions for its use are spot-on, and after a month or two we'll all have good laugh at the expense of the "every legacy deck is now 56 cards, we need misstep to counter opposing missteps in Goblins, etc" crowd.
I honestly don't care any more about whether or not mm is good in zoo, goblins, or aggro period. I am just going to go out on a limb here and ask you guys:
How many of you are with me on the idea that mm will power up non-blue decks?
My reasoning is simple. The thing holding mm back from being "Tour de Force" or whatever this made up counter is being called is that mm only counters 1cmc spells. However, if 1cmc spells are the only options available to your opponents mm = "Tour de Force". The enabling strategies for this line of play aren't actually only available to blue. The ones I can think of right now are:
1. LD (wasteland, sinkhole, port, etc)
The weakness of these cards is that like mm, if they aren't in the right shell they just won't fit. They get worse as the game goes on in an undeniable fashion, although utility lands give them SOME worth endgame. They work best with either a plan to "lock" the opponent out of mana w/ wasteland recursion, with redundant LD, or with discard.
Basically any deck that ran LD before gets a huge boost.
2. "The Tempo Suite" (daze, spell pierce, etc)
This is the classic suite of cards that people are saying really get complimented by mm. The difference for me here is that they too are just itsy bitsy counters leading to a larger end game. Unity of focus also means a more "gung-ho" style, as if the opponent can cope with one of these spells they can cope with all of them.
3. Armageddon (Armageddon, Ravages of War)
Oh yes. These 8 cards deserve a class of their own as they are perhaps whites best shell with mm (it's debatable between this and wastelock)
4. Winter Orb (winter orb, static orb, tsabo's web, etc)
These guys I'm so-so on, but any deck that runs them immediately loves mm.
Note that mm fights with chalice, so although geddon stax might seem like a natural fit, chalice needs to be cut and I think that geddon stax benefits more from chalice.
I wouldn't play Tour de Force in Dredge. I wouldn't play it in SI. I may or may not play it in Rock. But in a general sense, Tour de Force would be insanely good, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
But let's take this hypothetical a little further. Tour de Force is so insanely good that (basically) any deck is going to run 4. Why 4? Because 4 is all you can run and it's too good not to run 4! In fact, if you could run 8, you would. But what if there were no 4-of rule? How many would you run? Because it's easily the best card in the format, and the more you have early, the better you are. Do you run 58 Tour de Force, 1 Mountain and 1 Mountain Goat? Do you fit room in your deck for Fact or Fiction, so that you can see more Tour de Forces in a game than you'd get from just drawing them? Do you run Thrun or maybe a Mishra's Factory or four to deal with other Tour de Force decks?
There comes a point where other cards that are weaker than it in a vaccuum are stronger in a deck. If you had to say which is more powerful, Tour de Force or some power-creep induced Scragnoth wanna-be, it would take you about 1/2 a second to conclude that TdF is about a million times stronger. But in a TdF-laced format, Thrun is as nuts as it gets. It's not inconceivable for the correct number of Tour de Forces in a deck, as broken as the card is, to be 0. Of course, with a card that powerful, it's unlikely. But take Dredge as an example. Dredge's only maindeck "disruption" spell (Cabal Therapy) is really nothing more than a way to trigger Bridge from Below out of your graveyard. The casting cost is why it's in there; the effect is usually completely irrelevant. There is not a single slot in that deck that could be improved by throwing TdF into it. You wouldn't even want it to defend against decks with TdF because the DDD plan will beat them out every time.
So just because a card is strong doesn't mean that it belongs in everything. Or anything for that matter. Street Wraith is a free card. So is Manamorphose, for that matter, and more than just drawing a card for free, it filters mana too! It's better than a free card. In a vaccuum, both of those cards are very strong. In fact, when Street Wraith came out, it generated just as much hype in Legacy as MM is now. Every deck is going to start with 4xStreet Wraith and 56 other cards. No bullshit, that was the popular train of thought at the time. Because the less cards you run, the more likely you are to see your best cards and thus a deck that's effectively 56 cards HAS to be better than one that's 60. Except people found that in practice, it wasn't very good at all.
And IBA, you're badly confusing consistent with synergistic. Saying an effect is consistent in a deck means that there are a lot of copies of that effect in a deck. 2 Duress on top of 4 Thoughtseize means that the Duress effects are there for consistency. 4 Tombstalkers on top of those is synergy. You're trading 1-for-1 out of hand in the idea of generating a low power stalemate where neither player has a lot of resources on board. You then break that parity with a card that you can pay for utilizing the very cards you used to create that low powered board state.
Of course, some cards can fill both roles, as a card that synergizes and as a force for consistency. Sensei's Divining Top can synergize with Dark Confidant or fetch lands allowing you to increase your consistency as well as your flexibility. This is powerful because generally, the more consistent you are, the less flexible you are. Zoo, for instance, is very consistent but not particularly flexible (by Legacy standards).
Cards that fill both roles are often worse in either rule (as a flex card or as a consistent card) but offer decks something they wouldn't otherwise have while still doing some part to contribute to consistency. A great example of this is the Qasali Pridemage that you mentioned. It gives Zoo some flexibility in its gameplan, allowing it to answer a class of permanents that can't be answered with creatures or burn. As you mentioned, it's generally worse than other beaters in it's class (Jotun Grunt, Serra Avenger, Tarmogoyf, Talara's Battalion) and it's also generally worse than other Disenchant effects like Krosan Grip or even Hull Breach or Disenchant itself because it has to sit on the board and it's vulnerable to all kinds of removal. But because it fills both roles, it's more valuable than any card that only serves a single function. The aggregate of it's usefulness is greater than the usefulness of a card that has a single function that is stronger than QPM.
In fact, burn is a great example of such a card. It's a flex card (removal or direct damage) but allows for consistency as well. Lightning Bolt is not as good an offensive weapon as Wild Nacatl (which has the effect turn after turn) or as good a defensive weapon as Swords to Plowshares (which kills creatures Bolt can't, and there are a lot of them). But its flexibility to be flexible or consistent means there are situations where it's a better card than either of the other options. It also synergizes well with the theme of the deck, which is minimize mana expenditure for high damage spells (and thus maximize speed). Qasali Pridemage serves a function of answering bombs, but it also serves as a relatively effective beater. Note that prior to QPM, there was no analagous creature in Zoo. Zoo did not run Viridian Zealot, despite it having the same "flex" effect that QPM does because Zealot was not good enough in the consistency role.
I realize that the terminology I'm using here probably isn't the best. I'm just trying to get a rough sketch of the idea across. It's difficult to describe the theory behind this because it's just the way I think about deck construction; I've never tried putting it into words before. But the long and short of it is that a non-goblin card like lightning bolt works in Goblins because it's more than just an answer spell, it's a threat as well, in a deck that wants the capability to be threatening at any point. Goblins actually runs a lot of control elements, if you really think about it. It packs a ton of removal beteween SGC, Stingscourger, Warren Weirding, Gempalm Incinerator, Goblin Sharpshooter. And everone has been, at some point or another, locked out by Vial or Lackey followed with Wastes or Ports.
To touch on the final quoted point, Mental Misstep has no aggressive function. It's value in Zoo is predicated entirely on its abilities as a flex card. In other words, it's like running Krosan Grip main. It is a very strong answer to a class of spells Zoo has issues with (artifact/enchantments in one case, 1cc spells like StP on the other). But it's also going to spend a *lot* of time in your hand dead. Lightning Bolt is never dead. You can always peel a bolt off the top and get an effect out of it. That's not the case with MM.