[SCD] Mental Misstep

[Koby]

Geez, I play a T1 Kitty and mess up your T1 play for free? I am waaayyy ahead in board position and am going to kick your teeth in. Fact.

Wait... I thought this was the MM thread, not the UW Tempo thread.

j/k :D

[Nelis]

Really people, saying Zoo and Combo would run MM is ridiculous, but every single blue deck in the format will probably be playing 3.

Tempo Thresh, Team America, and Merfolk all just go a monstrous boost.

Its not that ridiculous Goblins and Zoo will have to play it just to counter the opponent's one. Goblins also likes to protect their turn one Lackey, or their x turn warchief from removal.

[Forbiddian]

Its not that ridiculous Goblins and Zoo will have to play it just to counter the opponent's one. Goblins also likes to protect their turn one Lackey, or their x turn warchief from removal.

Lackey, Misstep enemy Swords.

Say: Problem?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Equals

No? To say that a card is good in an early game is not to say that you need redundant effects for it. Like, look at this deck. To give two very comparable examples, Wasteland is Alex Bertoncini's only way of attacking the opponent's mana base. Aether Vial is his only way of accelerating creature drops. Silvergill Adept is his only way of drawing cards.

And yet these are all four ofs and he's happy to run them. He doesn't feel compelled to run Rishadan Port just to double down on LD, or Standstill to draw more cards, or Chrome Mox to accelerate his fish out.

Why? Because he decided that Aether Vial was stronger than the next best option, and Chrome Mox wasn't. It's that simple. Redundancy doesn't factor into it. You want to to run the strongest group of cards possible. Synergy matters, but redundancy in and of itself is completely irrelevant.

Other than that I agree with Forbiddian's post and will leave it at that.

[Forbiddian]

I hope I didn't imply that I think redundancy means shit.

I was the guy running 3 daze and 2 aether vials.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

You didn't, I meant more along the lines of, "Everything else Forbiddian seems to have covered."

@IBA: Not to be off topic, but what does Knight + Karakas have to do with tendrils of agony?

As far as I know, Doomsday lists all run Emrakul as their kill now.

[Koby]

...Merfolk example...

The point I was making, specifically for non-blue aggro decks, is that they are built to not interact with reactive cards by playing redundant and fungible threats. Burn is another example of such strategy, and by utilizing such threats minimizes the impact on a marginal draw. In your example you stated winning by turn 4-5. Without running Brainstorm/Ponder (and other manipulators), these decks are left to topdeck. Those topdecks had better be consistent and similar, else the deck is hailed as inconsistent.

Mental Misstep adds a detrimental effect to such a game plan, particularly when not paired with filtering. Moreover, it's a explicit reactive spell whereas the non-blue Aggro decks seek proactive spells such as burn. Perhaps even GSZ can fit the bill, as it finds a threat.

A better example for Bertoncini's list would be the odd inclusion of the solo Mishra's Factory in a deck built without Standstill. This is rather the redundant threat in the deck, all the while being dys-synergistic with Merfolk. It's only synergy is with other Mutavaults, only marginal at best.

The case of redundancy in an aggro deck can be visualized with Burn:
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
= 16 spells that cost R to deal 3 damage. Does it matter which are drawn? Not very likely. I remember there was discussion in the "Do you board out FoW?" thread about when removing FoW against Zoo was probably the right call, as each of Zoo's threats are redundant. There is no single creature to counter that will turn the tide to control's favor because they are all effectively equivalent - turn sideways to deal damage; finish off with burn. It's usually just the first creature that is important, in an effort to maintain Tempo. Does Zoo care about Tempo? Sure it does. But it does so using threats rather than answers. Mental Misstep is more of an answer (= reactive). It does nothing to advance Zoo's board state.

Mental Misstep is counterproductive in that aspect when applied to the Aggro strategy.

FWIW, I also agree with Forbiddian's assessment. However, I think maindeck inclusion of MM in non-blue aggro is a futile effort. The points still remain overly positive for Tempo based Aggro-Control.

[catmint]

Really people, saying Zoo and Combo would run MM is ridiculous, but every single blue deck in the format will probably be playing 3.

Tempo Thresh, Team America, and Merfolk all just go a monstrous boost.

I guess Drew Levin SCG Author is also ridiculous.

From his Article abou MM:
...
Mental Misstep gives decks with a fast clock but without counterspells the ability to meaningfully disrupt combo decks. The biggest problem with green decks, red decks, and white decks in Legacy has been their weakness to combo decks. Cat Sligh is a perfectly reasonable deck but for the fact that it'll always be a turn and a half behind Tendrils and half a turn behind High Tide.

If the best “disruption” that a given deck can present to a dedicated combo deck is a turn 4 kill, it stands to reason that they'll be behind in the matchup. So what does Mental Misstep do to a Zoo vs. High Tide matchup?

It makes the High Tide deck have to have either two High Tides or a High Tide and a Force of Will. If the Zoo deck has two Mental Missteps backing its turn-four-to-five clock, though, combo players will start respecting a turn 1 Arid Mesa into Savannah and Cat.

Mental Misstep's prevalence need not stop at aggressive decks. I've always been a huge fan of Force of Will in combo decks, and Mental Misstep doesn't even ask you to throw away your cantrip!
...

[SlopeeJ]

I don't know if Drew is a legacy player, but if combo players can beat merfolk with force,daze, cursecatcher, spell pierce, wasteland I'm pretty sure they could give 2 shits about a wild nacatl with misstep back up.

Sure I'll give you that, zoo with 2 mental missteps in your hand in probably okay, except for the fact that you are cutting bolts and cats. Also I'm pretty sure most combo decks run up to 6-8 discard/chant effects and/or force of will with tutors, which is a little better than that 4 misstep in zoo. Zoo with 2 mindbreak traps in hand seems a lot better. As other people have said 4 missteps does nothing when you have nothing else to go with it.

I am hoping zoo runs this card and goblins. Can't wait for zoo to rip that misstep vs me or ringleader to flip over the missteps.....

The biggest problem with green decks, red decks, and white decks in Legacy has been that they don't run enough combo hate

Fixed

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

The point I was making, specifically for non-blue aggro decks, is that they are built to not interact with reactive cards by playing redundant and fungible threats. Burn is another example of such strategy, and by utilizing such threats minimizes the impact on a marginal draw. In your example you stated winning by turn 4-5. Without running Brainstorm/Ponder (and other manipulators), these decks are left to topdeck. Those topdecks had better be consistent and similar, else the deck is hailed as inconsistent.

Mental Misstep adds a detrimental effect to such a game plan, particularly when not paired with filtering. Moreover, it's a explicit reactive spell whereas the non-blue Aggro decks seek proactive spells such as burn. Perhaps even GSZ can fit the bill, as it finds a threat.

A better example for Bertoncini's list would be the odd inclusion of the solo Mishra's Factory in a deck built without Standstill. This is rather the redundant threat in the deck, all the while being dys-synergistic with Merfolk. It's only synergy is with other Mutavaults, only marginal at best.

The case of redundancy in an aggro deck can be visualized with Burn:
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
= 16 spells that cost R to deal 3 damage. Does it matter which are drawn? Not very likely. I remember there was discussion in the "Do you board out FoW?" thread about when removing FoW against Zoo was probably the right call, as each of Zoo's threats are redundant. There is no single creature to counter that will turn the tide to control's favor because they are all effectively equivalent - turn sideways to deal damage; finish off with burn. It's usually just the first creature that is important, in an effort to maintain Tempo. Does Zoo care about Tempo? Sure it does. But it does so using threats rather than answers. Mental Misstep is more of an answer (= reactive). It does nothing to advance Zoo's board state.

Mental Misstep is counterproductive in that aspect when applied to the Aggro strategy.

FWIW, I also agree with Forbidden's assessment. However, I think maindeck inclusion of MM in non-blue aggro is a futile effort. The points still remain overly positive for Tempo based Aggro-Control.

Again, Bertocini's list only ran one card draw spell, if you want to describe Silvergill Adept, which doesn't filter, as a card draw spell.

There's simply no basis to say that a deck needs filtering or for every card in the deck to do much the same thing. Merfolk is a perfect example of a deck that is half synergies, and half disparate but powerful effects. It's fine without filtering; it lives on the averages. It's not like filtering is or ever will be perfect, anyway, you just have to rely on your deck having a good mix of the right threats and answers anyway.

Again; redundancy does not matter. There's no basis for saying so. All that matters is win percentages. If 4 Mental Misstep in Zoo is better than the 4 weakest non-Misstep cards in any given list- and I think it definitely is- then it should absolutely be run. You can keep saying "reactive" and "redundancy" as if these words meant anything in a vacuum, but disrupting the opponent's early game and establishing dominance at that crucial choke point is exactly what Zoo should like to do.

eta:

Just as a quick check, if Wizards printed the following card:

Tour de Force
0
Instant
Counter target spell.

Does anyone think that there's a deck that wouldn't want to run it? Because they'd be wrong. Such a card would clearly be an auto-include in every serious deck, and I do mean every single one. It would be incorrect not to play it, it doesn't matter whether or not a deck would want Daze. It doesn't matter what your gameplan is. What matters is that whatever your gameplan is, Tour de Force would make it better.

Mental Misstep is more narrow than that, but not that much more narrow. It's still an incredibly versatile free counterspell. Whether it works for a deck depends largely on whether it counters the cards that deck tends to worry about. Zoo, which is focused strongly on the early game, worries disproportionately about one drops and removal, so yes, Zoo should absolutely play the card.

[a-slice-of-cake]

I'm sorry, Assassin -- I usually agree with your points while I lurk, but I have to speak for the opposition here. Mental Misstep is great against Mental Misstep, sure, and it helps Zoo not be auto-dead to combo. Sometimes you'll save yourself from Stifle, Swords, or even Spell Snare and feel like a boss. The problem is that it doesn't further the deck's game plan: Beat your opponent to death as quickly as possible. Every time you have a Misstep in hand, that misstep could have been another threat or burn spell. It's not a matter of "redundancy" or proactive vs. reactive when it comes to scholarly assessment. It's a matter of what the friggin' deck does, and for a deck like Zoo that wants to get maximum value out of every card they have, a card that does absolutely nothing on its own and simply serves to protect the rest of the deck conditionally doesn't fit the bill.

[marax]

First of all people discrediting MM as a maindeck card need to realize this card will not be maindecked to shore up combo matchups. It will be run for very different reasons. I also propose you guys simply test the card instead of making up some artificial theories what is good and what is not. These are my results so far (sample is still small; I still might change my mind of course):

I have not tested enough right now, but so far I like my BUG Deedstill build using MM to improve early game vs. Vial decks and T2 standstills against anybody on the play as well. (I have cut Spell snare/Spell pierce/pinpojnt removal Nr. 6 slots). I like it so far in my Big Zoo list to gain tempo advantage in the very diceroll dependant Mirror match or against traditional Fast Zoo/Cat sligh Lists where the guy on the play is one beat ahead in the race and cheap removal canl blow me out on the draw. I can also use it to protect a Teeg found by a Green Sun in other matchups like NO Bant. (I cut Sword/Path number 6, 2 Goyf (worst creature in deck , singleton Jitte for now). While Tribal is a strong matchup close games usually revolve around Vial's and the tempo associated with them. All of these improvements also have come hand in hand with improving my Storm and Dredge matchups by quite a bit. This is why I am pretty confident I will play MM in my Big Zoo list one NPH goes live. I also fiddled around with my B/R goblin build and combo lists. I did not find space for the card there.

[trivial_matters]

Zoo, which is focused strongly on the early game, worries disproportionately about one drops and removal, so yes, Zoo should absolutely play the card.

In my experience, the opposite is the case. All your opponent's one-drops will probably be weaker than yours. Alll the burn you're running takes care of them as well.
Assuming you're refering to Swords to Plowshares as removal, that card is not so bad for the Zoo player. Mass removal like Firespout is way worse, against which Mental Misstep does nothing.

[TsumiBand]

Using a Burn list as an argument for redundancy is pretty much the exception that proves the rule; the fact that it runs a billion spells which deal 3 damage for R is really just a way for the deck to say "resolve 6 - 7 spells without actually interacting with target opponent, win the game". It's like Storm combo only spread out over the first 3 - 4 turns. It is also a strange metagame deck which will probably start feeling a lot less 'metagamey' with Mental Misstep coming out.

As for Mental Misstep itself; I think there's definitely a critical mass of built-in life loss which a given deck has that MM may find itself on the 'tipping point' side of. Like, any deck that tends to lead with turn 1 fetchland, Thoughtseize. Do I seriously go down to 15 to counter the one-drop that I didn't Seize away? Suddenly the opponent's Storm count is like, lethal at 4. Awesome? So no, I don't think that Mental Misstep just magically ends up somewhere in everyone's 75.

I think there's something to be said for a strong disruption package that targets the opponent's first couple of turns. But, does Mental Misstep get played in a counter package that necessarily does more than an active Counter-Top?

[Mr. Safety]

I look at Mental Misstep a little bit like playing Pyroblast/Red Elemental Blast in a burn sideboard against blue decks...it's decieving. It seems like the obvious choice, but they are Lightning Bolts that do 0 damage. That's bad for a burn deck that needs to be cleaning up turn 3, not trying to halt a blue deck. Sulfuric Vortex does so much more for the burn deck against blue decks that Pyroblast shouldn't even really be a consideration.

As far as Mental Misstep in zoo...ugh, same deal. It's a spell that protects your spells...it's really not smart. The reason aggro is typically favored against control is because the number of threats it uses. You counter one, I've got 3 more in hand. If Mental Misstep stopped CounterBalance, I'd say it would be worth it...in the sideboard maybe. The idea that decks just became 56 cards, IMHO, is a little off the mark. CERTAIN decks just became 56 cards, but not all. I see Tempo decks running this, I even see it in some sideboards (possibly) but you'll have to sell it to me a little harder for maindeck inclusion for aggro decks like zoo. I still feel Traps and Canonists are just so much stronger in the board vs. combo. You need layered hate that furthers your game plan. Mindbreak Trap is a neccessity, Canonist is the backup that also beats for 2.

[Mr. Safety]

The point I was making, specifically for non-blue aggro decks, is that they are built to not interact with reactive cards by playing redundant and fungible threats. Burn is another example of such strategy, and by utilizing such threats minimizes the impact on a marginal draw. In your example you stated winning by turn 4-5. Without running Brainstorm/Ponder (and other manipulators), these decks are left to topdeck. Those topdecks had better be consistent and similar, else the deck is hailed as inconsistent.

Mental Misstep adds a detrimental effect to such a game plan, particularly when not paired with filtering. Moreover, it's a explicit reactive spell whereas the non-blue Aggro decks seek proactive spells such as burn. Perhaps even GSZ can fit the bill, as it finds a threat.

A better example for Bertoncini's list would be the odd inclusion of the solo Mishra's Factory in a deck built without Standstill. This is rather the redundant threat in the deck, all the while being dys-synergistic with Merfolk. It's only synergy is with other Mutavaults, only marginal at best.

The case of redundancy in an aggro deck can be visualized with Burn:
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
= 16 spells that cost R to deal 3 damage. Does it matter which are drawn? Not very likely. I remember there was discussion in the "Do you board out FoW?" thread about when removing FoW against Zoo was probably the right call, as each of Zoo's threats are redundant. There is no single creature to counter that will turn the tide to control's favor because they are all effectively equivalent - turn sideways to deal damage; finish off with burn. It's usually just the first creature that is important, in an effort to maintain Tempo. Does Zoo care about Tempo? Sure it does. But it does so using threats rather than answers. Mental Misstep is more of an answer (= reactive). It does nothing to advance Zoo's board state.

Mental Misstep is counterproductive in that aspect when applied to the Aggro strategy.

FWIW, I also agree with Forbiddian's assessment. However, I think maindeck inclusion of MM in non-blue aggro is a futile effort. The points still remain overly positive for Tempo based Aggro-Control.

Oops, missed this. What he said, lol. ^^^^

[Skeggi]

If Mental Misstep stopped CounterBalance, I'd say it would be worth it...in the sideboard maybe.

It could counter Sensei's Divining Top. Would that be worth it?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

My God, it's like I'm dealing with an alternate universe.

Path to Exile is a "reactive card". For that matter, so are Qasali Pridemage and Grim Lavamancer; these aren't the most aggressive creatures in the world by themselves, they're played for their ability to interact with the opponent.

This idea that aggressive decks don't try to interact with the opponent is pure stuff and nonsense, faerie dust, drawn from thin air and fanciful delusions of how the game works.

Evey deck strives to play the cards that best help it to win the game. That is all. Fidelity to some theme or concept of redundancy/consistency is strictly casual player territory.

[Zlatzman]

I've been playing White Weenie for a couple of events now, and I think I want MM in my 75 somewhere to shore up some weak matchups. Ethersworn Canonist, Mental Misstep and Phyrexian Revoker together should make the combo matchup somewhat playable. As a bonus both MM and Revoker are also good against many aggro-control lists, and decent against control-lists. The way I see it Mental Misstep complements my other "hate cards" nicely, and does so against a variety of archetypes.

[GGoober]

The point I was making, specifically for non-blue aggro decks, is that they are built to not interact with reactive cards by playing redundant and fungible threats. Burn is another example of such strategy, and by utilizing such threats minimizes the impact on a marginal draw. In your example you stated winning by turn 4-5. Without running Brainstorm/Ponder (and other manipulators), these decks are left to topdeck. Those topdecks had better be consistent and similar, else the deck is hailed as inconsistent.

Mental Misstep adds a detrimental effect to such a game plan, particularly when not paired with filtering. Moreover, it's a explicit reactive spell whereas the non-blue Aggro decks seek proactive spells such as burn. Perhaps even GSZ can fit the bill, as it finds a threat.

A better example for Bertoncini's list would be the odd inclusion of the solo Mishra's Factory in a deck built without Standstill. This is rather the redundant threat in the deck, all the while being dys-synergistic with Merfolk. It's only synergy is with other Mutavaults, only marginal at best.

The case of redundancy in an aggro deck can be visualized with Burn:
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lava Spike
4 Rift Bolt
= 16 spells that cost R to deal 3 damage. Does it matter which are drawn? Not very likely. I remember there was discussion in the "Do you board out FoW?" thread about when removing FoW against Zoo was probably the right call, as each of Zoo's threats are redundant. There is no single creature to counter that will turn the tide to control's favor because they are all effectively equivalent - turn sideways to deal damage; finish off with burn. It's usually just the first creature that is important, in an effort to maintain Tempo. Does Zoo care about Tempo? Sure it does. But it does so using threats rather than answers. Mental Misstep is more of an answer (= reactive). It does nothing to advance Zoo's board state.

Mental Misstep is counterproductive in that aspect when applied to the Aggro strategy.

FWIW, I also agree with Forbiddian's assessment. However, I think maindeck inclusion of MM in non-blue aggro is a futile effort. The points still remain overly positive for Tempo based Aggro-Control.

Before this gets buried, thanks Rukcus because this addresses the point on why MM doesn't find itself in some decks. Burn is an example. You can run MM to counter a spell that targets your game winning spell, but at the same time, that MM slot could well be another game-winning burn spell that fulfills the same function, except that you don't end up drawing a dead card when you're trying to kill an opponent instead on drawing a spell that is now sitting in your hand trynig to counter another counter when you could have easily killed them.

I stand by confidently that Zoo lists won't be packing MM after they had some fun losing more often with the card than winning with it. It does nothing for Zoo to solve the problems it faces. You think StP is the card stopping Zoo from beating control? You think combo really gives a shit about Zoo with 4 MM? You think drawing that MM on turn 3 is going to do anything to decks that already have played out their Tops/vials/StP? If you feel Zoo does better with MM for a general meta, sure go ahead and play it. I would love Zoo to play MM since this gives me an easier time with control. Well, if you cut Path, maybe it'll be tougher for control since you now have less dead cards, but good luck on the other matchups where Path is more critical in actually hitting Goyfs/Knights/Tombstalkers (non 1-cmc spells). Again, the question is: what do you cut? How MUCH do you gain? You guys probably know more than I do, but I know I probably don't know enough becase I have yet to actually play with the card in Zoo, and this card hasn't even been in the format yet, and here we have people saying it goes in every deck...

Don't forget that MM in an aggressive deck like Zoo, filled with redundancy doesn't offer much past turn 3. Sure an MM/stP on a nacatl is quite sad for Zoo, but outside of that scenario, MM/stp on your creature is something you can't avoid, and I would rather have other cards e.g. Library/Path in the slot of that 4 MM to actually win games rather than wait around in the mid-late game to counter useless stuff. Now, the scenario is reveresed for a deck like Team America, where MM is both good early and late game. Early game, you're using MM to support your OTHER tempo strategies, late-game, that MM is gonig to protect a Tombstalker, because you know Team America only runs 8 creatures unlike Zoo that plays over 16 creatures??