You do seem to grasp the broad purpose of Misdirection. But what you seemed to be contradicting was your first comment that you would rather have Duress in the Chalice 0 game state than Misdirection becuase you can hold the Duress to clear the way in the late game or just remove the CHalice from their hand on turn one.
No Steve, you are wrong in this precise game situation.
IF your opponent would play against you a first turn CotV for zero, your game plan usually il so slowed down that the best thing you can do is to Drain something during Turn 2 ( opponent's turn 3 ) maybe with FoW and/or Mis-D backup. OTOH, while this protections' setting is really good, it leaves you totally undefended during the opponent's turn 2, the ones after which he resolved the CotV for 0. Another thing to add could be that the may follow up ANOTHER threat during the CotV's turn.
SO, being more specific, IF I was holding my own Mis-Ds in my hand AFTER is resolved CotV AND IF my hand was supposed to be good because of FAST GIFTS and a lot of accelerations, all those things backupped by those situationals Mis-Ds, NOW they showed all their sub-par nature.
In the SAME SITUATION, Duresses, would have dealt with AT LEAST one of the opponent's Turn 2 threats ( a thing that usually Mis_D cannot do ) and it would have paired the TEMPO regression that a single CotV have done to your deck.
In the SAME SITUATION, try to focus that a turn 1 Duress, turn 2 Drain and maybe a turn 3 FoW+Gifts are really game breaking, even if your opponent would have played that damn CotV for 0, while a turn 1 Nothing-More-Than-A-Brainstorm, turn 2 Drain and maybe turn 3 FoW+Gifts could have exposed you to many more risks, because ONE of the threats that Duress would have discarded is in the opponent's hand yet.
But the point I was making is that Misdirection is actually much better in that match than Duress. The value of Duress is the value of the card you take. Frequently agaisnt Fish, the card you take will be much lower than the opportunity cost of that slot. Think of a deck as a 56 card deck with 4 slots left. The decision to add Duress in those four slots should be made based upon the decision that the value of the cards you take with Duress will be more valuable than any other card you can fit into those four slots.
Against Fish, Mis-D is better than Duress only because it auto-prevent you the possible error of fetching for Non-Basic lands.
I played against Fishs all the day long and I have to fear a lot from them.
I used to keep slow hand, but with a lot of mana ( more lands, rather than artifact's mana ) and especially because if you are going to went around the Dazes, they have only 4 FoWs to protect them.
Their clock is so slow, that I usually fetch for basic, even if I'm holding a couple of Duresses. I have more fetches and a lot of Undergrounds. Holding in my hand an useless Mis-D against Fish in my opinion and regarding my playstile is really worst than waiting a couple of turns to develop a solid mana base AND THEN try to use the Non-Blue Bombs.
Even a single Duress during turn 3 or turn 4 can open you the path to an easier victory.
In the current metagame, the value of the card you take will often be quite low and sometimes zero. If you Duress them and see all creatures on turn one and a Wasteland, the value of that Duress is not only zero (save the marginal benefit of seeing their hand), it is actually negative becuase you lost that land. It was as if you were playing Lord of the Pit in that slot (or think any other number of completely worthless cards). Against Fish, it is much better to have Rebuild or Echoing Truth becuase they frequently will have played a Multiple Chalice or Multiple Rod.
I bolded the words that I consider true.
OTOH, I don't think that they automatically exclude the presence of Duresses from your maindeck.
I'm playing at now with a Cunning and a single Rebuild maindeck. I have three discard effects too.
Rarely I play so aggressively to fetch for Underground without thinnking about the possible opponent's Wastelands and rarely I have found a deck that FORCED me to Both fetch an Underground AND play a first turn Duress EVEN if I'm aware of his Strips.
Duress costs one black - which you will have to pay for the late game plan to protect your bounce spell. You have to pay that whether or not you discover they have a counter for your bounce spell. If they DO have a counter, then the value of the Duress was pretty high. If they don't, it was basically zero. But you have to pay that one black anyway. With Misdirection, if they don't have the counter, then you don't have to pitch the card. If they do have the counter, they you have to pitch the card, but it was worth it becuase the value of those two cards (Misdirection and the pitched card) is now going to be equal to you basically winning the game. What I meant by "amortizing" Misdirection is that you will only have to pitch a card (the cost) every so often in that position - so you aren't actually paying for it the full time. But the times you DO use the misdirection, it will more than make up for the cost of pitching a blue spell becuase by bouncing the spell, you untap and win.
It is really funny to read this lines, not because they are stupid, but because they showed at least two things:
1) You would play the deck exactly as it is supposed to work, both while goldfishing or while playing against a real opponent.
2) You are so fall in love with the "turn 3-4-winning plan" that can you usually are going to apply with thhis deck that you are not considering the inevitability of not being able to do so. Calm down. Massage your rectum for some sweet relief. You would realize that real opponents would gain SO MUCH advantage from knowing about your game plan that you could be smashed down during the mid-game.
OMG! I say mid-game! OMG"
...Exactly....
Try to pull your self into this "strange world", a world not dominated by goldfishing against an unpleasantly rigid and static opponent, but caractherized by decks that would gain advantage after your first turn Scroll for Ancestral ( maybe Duressing it away while you are holding your Mis-D... ) or after letting you resolve anyone of yours One-For-One tutors, concentrating themselves on countering your 3-5 Bombs.
If the opponent's deck can survive to your initial rush with proactive or reactive spells or with a good combination of both of them, you could find that your deck have a little if not way to deal with them during the mid-game.
Why do I say all of this? Becuase in your second to last post you suggested that Misdirection versus Duress is a debate about card parity versus efficiency. And it's really not. You expend the Duress every time even if you get nothing for it. That is not card parity. But you don't have to actually use the Misdirection - but it is there in the situations where you would have wanted the Duress and then you just pay the blue spell as its cost. Both cards lose parity and Misdirection is more mana efficient.
While your words are true in these lines, they answered different asks. You are trying not to focus to a primarily thing: The debate is about the possibility of having DEAD cards into your hand. While Mis-D is often a dead card, Duress, properly used, would not be inserted in that category. You can hold into your hand both of them. A card that you decide not to play is not a Dead card. It is only a non-played card. OTOH, you could have ALWAYS played Duress to produce some effects while the same could not be said for Mis-D.
I also don't have any idea where you got the notion that Misdirection is better in the Fish/Shop metagame. The use of Misdirection primarily grew from my testing against my teammate Joe Bushman who was playing Gifts and Tog against me. That was where I first thought of the idea. Then I tested it agaisnt a wider range of matchups and it proved to be quite suitable.
I found that Tog have a lot of problems with multiple Mis-Ds. You can kill all their Deeps, Ancestrals, Mindtwists and so on.
I found that the unprepared player would not win a single game against your deck.
The same could not be said for the smart and the good player. Tog would Duress you first and then carefully think about the correct plan to apply in order to win.
You negate to yourself the same forsighting wisdom. You can't check is hand. He can plan while you can only suppose.
You matchup is good when people play in a flast way.
As soon as they know what they are going to face, your Mis_Ds would often be clunked into your hand useless.
On the other hand, I can't argue against the general porpouse of your entire phrase: "Tog's matchup is better"
I found that the Workshop.dec's matchup is better especially because of Merchants not because of Mis-Ds. They let you fetch the needed bouncers. The sad thing is that they can lock you down with Chalices and Rods and Spheres so much that you could play them when they are useless or not in time.
I played a lot yesterday against Welders.dec and they are not a threat exactly as you said. If they manage to fetch for Sundering or for Mindslaver via Intuition, you could have your face smashed regardless the number of things that your deck can produce. Your deck not have quick and fast ways to escape from those situations.
Remember, when I was testing agaisnt Joe (piloting Tog and Gifts), I started out with 4 Duress, then I used 2 Duress and 2 Misdirections, and then I moved to 3 Misdirections - in that order. When I tested against Fish, the Misdirections were as good as Duress if not better. And agaisnt Shops, the distinction is irrellevant since they are both hideous. At least I could pitch the Misds to FOW and then SB them out.
You are sintetic but correct for the other brief matchup analysis, but, how are you productively and consistently using Mis_Ds against Fish, if not pitching them to FoW?
But again, I must challenge the notion that this deck can't be a late game deck. By having Misidrections, I always feel strong. I can power through my early plays and ride my advantage to a late game victory. Gifts is such a powerful card that I can just continue to Gifts and Gifts into a relatively secure win (even though I might have to work for it in the final battle, I'm the one who is gonig to win). The point is that if you win the first counter war, you will probably win the game. If you win the second, you definately win the game. If you lose the second, it is still anyone's game. But don't assume that this deck can't play a late game - it has a reallly savage late game.
Oh! Man!
Now I recognize you!
OK!I'm happy! Now that we are talking about the same thing.
It is a strong but compressed deck.
It is so compressed that it can be played well only if piloted aggressively.
If played aggressibely it can win a lot, but it should follow his best winning plan.
His best winning plan cost you a lot of mana and it is really predictable even if powerful.
It is as much flat as Oath but stronger because based on Istant Speed Bombs instead of Slow Enchantment.
Why play a so predictable deck? Stop the Gifts and you would lose.
The risk can balance the candle?
Basically what happens in the control matches is that my first gifts gets one or two of the key combo parts into my GY - like Tinker or Will and then I can jsut build my GY and use gifts to force them to give me the cards I want until I finally go for the gold. Again, I can explain in more detail (but I'd rather not).
This is true.
And these are the "basis" about resolving good Gifts.
Anyone is aware of it.
Anyway you are starting from a strange point of view... The one from which you are going to resolve all the Gifts that you decide to play against the oppoent
MaxxMatt
PS. I played against TPS and against C-S.
I found myself LOST without Duresses against those two specific matchups.
-TPS golfish exaggerately faster than you because of the usual bombs that he packs and because of Rituals. You rely only on FoW. He have quicker Duresses for your FoWs and Mis-Ds are useless. Playing with Duressses would let you win a bit more. Playing without them against a good deck with a good build would produce you too many losses.
-C-Slavery can play Turn 1 Welder and Turn 2 TFK or Intuition, locking you quickly. While both of you had the FoWs to protect each others bombs, his engine would come online quickly. A single Duress during you first turn of play could have discarded that TFK or that Intuition that usually would cost you the game.
