Spell Pierce passes Mana Drain on top plays

[Eastman]

The problem with Drain is not in the perceived lack of mana sinks.  If blue based control wanted to, it could easily run a good chunk of viable mana sinks.  

The problem is simply casting Drain when it is needed most.  Its primary purpose is not to fuel broken plays, its primary purpose is to disrupt and Pierce is simply better at this job.

I'd disagree here.  No, Drain isn't about "broken plays" per se, but it is about resources.  You blank one of their spell AND get mana for it?  It doesn't just cancel out an opponent's attack, it inherently puts you in position to retaliate.  
Mana Drain has always been more than just disruption.    

It's about tempo.

I agree that it isn't merely about disrupting.  I've long thought that the blue counters (drain and force of will) were good plays because they are among the most powerful tempo generators in the game.  This may be part of what you are getting at by saying "it inherently puts you in position to retaliate" but in any event I think it is best described as a matter of tempo.

Force of Will costs you 0 mana but costs your opponent the cost of his spell, so let's say on average 3 mana.  That is input: -0, output +3 tempo.  Net: 3 tempo.  That's the exact tempo equivalent of black lotus.  No wonder it is the most popular card in a format that is tempo dominated.

On the other hand Mana Drain is much harder to get off, it costs 2, but it both costs and gives the cost of an opponents spell.  So input: -2, output (on average) +5 tempo (assuming you burn for 1).  On the whole, you are getting the same net, 3, from drain that you are from FoW, but as we all know it is much more situational/difficult to get off.

A simplistic analysis of Spell Pierce would tell you that it gives net tempo, but isn't as good at it as Mana Drain.  If you spell pierce something and they have 2 to pay, then it is input: -1, output +2 tempo.  Still a net 1.  And when you actually counter  something it is input: -1, output: +2.5 (guessing average countered spell), so you are still netting 1.5, which is less than drain.  Pierce is both more and less situational than drain: at U it is easier to get off, but it doesn't work well late game or counter creatures.

I think the thing that pushes pierce past drain as a tempo card requires a bit more advanced analysis.  The concept of opportunity cost imposed on opponent pushes it past drain.  In a great many situations the optimal play for your opponent will be to delay casting important spells until it can pay for spell pierce.  Often that will involve leaving mana untapped for an entire turn and losing the opportunity to use lands.  That lost opportunity cost should be factored into the tempo analysis, and adds significantly to the tempo benefits generated by spell pierce.

Your own opportunity costs are also an important consideration.  Mana Drain requires leaving open UU, even sometimes in cases where you don't actually have Drain, in order to have it available to cast or to so signal to your opponent.  Sometimes that will force you to forego useful uses of that mana and impose an opportunity cost of UU for each such event.  While Spell Pierce also requires you to hold mana open, you only have to hold the 1, and so the overall opportunity cost imposed on you is greatly reduced.    (importantly note that the opportunity cost to you for force of will is 0)

The net result of a sophisticated tempo analysis of spell pierce, I think, pushes it ahead of Mana Drain.  This is due to both the increased opportunity costs imposed on an opponent who plays around it, and to the decreased opportunity cost penalty of running the card.   As I said at the beginning, I've long believed that an important strength of the counterspells in vintage is their tempo benefits, and with that in mind Spell Pierce's popularity, and success, is not surprising.

[Rico Suave]

I'd disagree here.  No, Drain isn't about "broken plays" per se, but it is about resources.  You blank one of their spell AND get mana for it?  It doesn't just cancel out an opponent's attack, it inherently puts you in position to retaliate.  

First, you have to cast and resolve Drain on a meaningful target in order to get anything useful out of it.  That is the problem.  

Workshops don't let you cast Drain.  Dredge can ignore Drain.  Control mirrors can put down a Remora or Bob before you get Drain up.  Oath is frequently on the board before UU is up.  Fish decks with their Dazes will just blank the Drain.  

And most importantly, any other deck with Spell Pierce will turn your Drain into a tempo loss.

Sure Drain excels when you are given time to establish your mana base and nothing scary has hit the board yet.  But this is T1, that doesn't happen much at all.  And even if you do have time and enter the mid-late game without much pressure, you need to realize that you are playing blue based control and you are already in a winning position even without the Drain.  

[hvndr3d y34r h3x]

I'd disagree here.  No, Drain isn't about "broken plays" per se, but it is about resources.  You blank one of their spell AND get mana for it?  It doesn't just cancel out an opponent's attack, it inherently puts you in position to retaliate.  

First, you have to cast and resolve Drain on a meaningful target in order to get anything useful out of it.  That is the problem.  

Workshops don't let you cast Drain.  Dredge can ignore Drain.  Control mirrors can put down a Remora or Bob before you get Drain up.  Oath is frequently on the board before UU is up.  Fish decks with their Dazes will just blank the Drain.  

And most importantly, any other deck with Spell Pierce will turn your Drain into a tempo loss.

Sure Drain excels when you are given time to establish your mana base and nothing scary has hit the board yet.  But this is T1, that doesn't happen much at all.  And even if you do have time and enter the mid-late game without much pressure, you need to realize that you are playing blue based control and you are already in a winning position even without the Drain.  

I think you are really showing us a lack of understanding about mana drain on your part. What you call “a meaningful target” is a little tricky. I’ve definitely seen a lot of good players sit with mana drain up and thinking “oh man, I’m going to drain w/e you do because even if I end up mana draining duress, that one mana is doing to free up all this junk I can do.  Draining for one extra mana can be game swinging. If be “meaningful” you mean “something that costs a lot”, nearly every blue deck will play 4x fow. You’re also assuming that everyone taps out to make every play; this is just not the cause, especially if you make it to mid-late game.
If spell pierce is just better than mana drain, mana leak is also a better mana drain. It’s easier to cast than drain and you have to pay THREE MORE, AND IT HITS DUDES!
^we all know this is not the case.

[bluemage55]

Sure Drain excels when you are given time to establish your mana base and nothing scary has hit the board yet.  But this is T1, that doesn't happen much at all.  And even if you do have time and enter the mid-late game without much pressure, you need to realize that you are playing blue based control and you are already in a winning position even without the Drain.  

That's probably a bit of an exaggeration.  Drain is often up by your second turn, and accordingly is used to make the transition from the early-mid game straight to the end game.  By Draining your opponent's turn 2/3 threat and using the mana to cast a bomb, you're often improving from an even position to a winning position.

Yes, Drain's weakness lies in the fact that its inability to be used in the early game means that you might not be in the even position to use it.  But that doesn't make it "inferior" to Spell Pierce; rather, it means they occupy different roles.  Spell Pierce is much better compared to Duress or Thoughtseize than Mana Drain.  The advantages we're talking about here have applied to Duress long before Spell Pierce existed.

If the current meta and cardpool means that your combo-control deck has a tough time in the early game, then of course you're going to want to add Spell Pierce/Duress/Thoughtseize.  And if the midgame to endgame transition is sufficiently easy given the circumstances, then Mana Drain might warrant cutting.  But it's not an either/or proposition; should your deck require help controlling both the early game and the midgame, then you're going to want both (e.g. during the Gush/Flash era turn 1 disruption was necessary, but you also needed Drains for the midgame).

[nineisnoone]

A simplistic analysis of Spell Pierce would tell you that it gives net tempo, but isn't as good at it as Mana Drain.  If you spell pierce something and they have 2 to pay, then it is input: -1, output +2 tempo.  Still a net 1.  And when you actually counter  something it is input: -1, output: +2.5 (guessing average countered spell), so you are still netting 1.5, which is less than drain.  Pierce is both more and less situational than drain: at U it is easier to get off, but it doesn't work well late game or counter creatures.

That's wrong.  You're assuming that you are still countering it.  You go down 1 mana, they go down 2 mana, but you lose a card and they don't.  So essentially you are duressing yourself. 

You fail to accommodate the notion of diminishing returns.  Yes, you say "it doesn't work well late game (as italicized) but you create it's benefit of "being easier to get off" into a larger notion of opportunity costs, but fail to do so with this element.

As the game goes longer, Pierce has diminishing returns because eventually all it becomes is a self-Duress.  Mana Drain on the other hand has increasing returns as the longer the game goes the more cards you see and thus the better means you'll have of taking advantage of the additional mana.

Because of it's diminishing return nature, I refer to Pierce as a disruption piece.  In the sense of, it's creating a vulnerable zone whereupon the deck can capitalize, be it through aggro or combo.

Because of it's productive nature, I think of Drain as a resource piece.  In this sense, we are capitalizing on available resources to increase potentials.

So does Pierce replace Drain?  No, they have different purposes.  As I go into in the next comment...

I'd disagree here.  No, Drain isn't about "broken plays" per se, but it is about resources.  You blank one of their spell AND get mana for it?  It doesn't just cancel out an opponent's attack, it inherently puts you in position to retaliate. 

First, you have to cast and resolve Drain on a meaningful target in order to get anything useful out of it.  That is the problem. 

Workshops don't let you cast Drain.  Dredge can ignore Drain.  Control mirrors can put down a Remora or Bob before you get Drain up.  Oath is frequently on the board before UU is up.  Fish decks with their Dazes will just blank the Drain. 

And most importantly, any other deck with Spell Pierce will turn your Drain into a tempo loss.

Sure Drain excels when you are given time to establish your mana base and nothing scary has hit the board yet.  But this is T1, that doesn't happen much at all.  And even if you do have time and enter the mid-late game without much pressure, you need to realize that you are playing blue based control and you are already in a winning position even without the Drain. 

That's not a unique problem though.  Drains were never ubiquitous to all match-ups.  If the only "meaningful" target is on turn one, you would never run Mana Drain.  Ever.  In fact, if that is the standard in your eyes, then I don't understand why you would ever ran Mana Drain when you could run Negate for  .  Sure, it doesn't hit creatures but neither does Spell Pierce. 

And to me, that just shows your analysis is missing something.  And to my eyes, it's the fact that is about resources. 

When I run Mana Drain, I'm not running it because I need X pieces of disruption.  Sure, it does disrupt.  But that's not why I'm running it.  I'm entering it because once I enter that phase of the game, I have access to the strongest resource tool in the game.  And that is including the restricted list (more or less).

Black Lotus?  -1 card +3 mana.  Big whoop.  If I Drain a 2 mana spell, they go down 2 mana, I go down 2 mana, but I gain 2 mana and we are neutral in terms of cards.  That's -0 cards +2 mana.  And that's not even considering what that card actually did.  That's just they played a blank piece of paper for 2.

And that's my point.  If you needed more disruption during the turn 1 phase, obviously you would run something else.  And there have been plenty of times in the past where that was the need, but that never meant that those cards replaced Mana Drain.

[Rico Suave]

I don't understand why people feel it is necessary to run Mana Drain to control the mid-game.  Decks *win* in the mid-game.  Why would I want to bother sitting on a Drain when I could just cast an awesome spell and win instead? 

We're not talking about Weissman control here. 

[nineisnoone]

That's changing the topic though.  We weren't discussing whether we should run a win condition over Mana Drain.  I would definitely agree that a true win condition is preferable over Mana Drain. 

[zeus-online]

The primary reason that pierce should not see more play then drain is obv. since we don't want this site to be named "TheSpellPierce"....We don't want to suffer the same fate as Morphling.de people!

[Diakonov]

Spell Pierce and Mana Drain are very different cards.  I think that a direct compare/contrast is a mistake.  It also depends very much on what the rest of your deck looks like, as well as your metagame.

Drain clearly has a more powerful effect, but it's twice the cost.  That's a lot more.

The question comes down to how important it is in your deck that you have early permission cards, and also the configuration of permission in your deck in general.  For example, I would be comparing Spell Pierce to Duress long before Drain.  They both will probably be used on turn one or two, and neither one hits creatures.

For a deck like Tezz, I think that it's important to have a smooth transition from early temperamental permission cards to midgame stalwarts like Drain.  When your main strategy is to overpower the opponent with midgame ("long term") card advantage via something like Confidant, it can only work reliably if you have actual denial spells.  It's what makes strategies like Confidant/control tick.  For a deck like Oath, the win is much faster and superior card advantage is not part of the strategy, which allows Spell Pierce to fit more nicely.

[hvndr3d y34r h3x]

I don't understand why people feel it is necessary to run Mana Drain to control the mid-game.  Decks *win* in the mid-game.  Why would I want to bother sitting on a Drain when I could just cast an awesome spell and win instead? 

We're not talking about Weissman control here. 

I played a small even yesterday piloting elephant oath. Using spell pierce, because I like the card and think its good. But literally, the card was dead all day either my opponents played some early bobs, or it was turn three (or an opponent resolved a time walk) and he literally had 2 open the rest of the game. Literally every scenario I had the hard drain would have been better. Granted this is an odd occurrence but it highlights something you seem to be missing. THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT CARDS. They do different things; have different weaknesses and different perks. I really wouldn’t say one is better than the other at any point. It’s interesting it’s seeing more play than drain, but that doesn’t necessarily mean its better (I’m sure price tag has something to do with this occurrence). You also seem to not understand that simply saying drain isn’t not “awesome” and that spell pierce is, is not a really argument, nor does it provide us with any real information to back up your claims. If it did I would counter point with “well drain is more awesome.” Not to mention casting drain wins games in more ways than spell pierce, being an enabler and permission spell, opposed to just a clutch permission spell.

Also saying that decks win midgame is an untrue generalization.

[pierce]

i made a deck recently. well, was inspired by one and then tweaked it to awesomeness. I started with 4 drains and ended with 4 pierces, despite having colorless draw and lots to sink drain mana into. too many early oaths and early spheres for me to consider otherwise.

[Rico Suave]

That's changing the topic though.  We weren't discussing whether we should run a win condition over Mana Drain.  I would definitely agree that a true win condition is preferable over Mana Drain. 

A number of people feel that running a combination of Pierce and Drain is optimal. 

When I look at my control list and see this:

4 Pierce
4 Force

And other people talk about running this:

3 Pierce
3 Drain
4 Force

This leads to a whole MESS of bad theorycraft. 

Thus, I find quotes like this humorous:

Running some amount of mana drain almost automaticly means that your deck will be able to take control during the mid-late game. Spell pierce does not do that.

Most drain decks i've played has had Drain + FoW and then some additional cheap disruption to stall until drain can take over. This is where i think i'd use pierce.

This just boggles my mind.  I'm confused about how Drain allows blue control to automatically take control during the mid game.  Does Drain do something about the Bob/Remora sitting on the board?  Does it somehow stop the Golem from beating your face?  Does it do....anything against Dredge?  Counters are frequently a terrible top deck in the mid game, because they don't actually do anything about what your opponent has already done, nor do they advance your own game plan.  I will cover this in more detail later in the post.

I see people talking about how Pierce is for the early game and Drain is for the mid game.  What?  I didn't know I could stack my deck to draw exactly what I want when I want it.  Guess what, you're just as likely to draw a Spell Pierce during the mid game as a Drain, and just as likely to have a Drain early when you need Pierce. 

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

There are two main areas I want to cover.  One is about Vintage control, and the other is about Vintage in general.  To many people, this will seem completely wrong and to others it will be old news. 

1) The traditional idea of control is dead in Vintage.  Ever since the days of Tog and Control Slaver, Vintage "control" decks are not real control decks.  They are control-combo decks.  Their entire purpose is to halt the opponent juuuuuust long enough to win the game.  Unlike the traditional Weissman theory of an impenetrable fortress, control-combo is a much, much better approach to the game.  This is readily apparent in Vintage, but can even be seen in other formats.

Look at Legacy.  Dreadstill, with its control-combo approach, completely outclassed Landstill. 

Look at Extended.  The U/W control heavy version of Thopter/Foundry was out classed by the combo version with Hexmage/Depths.

Why?  Because combo wins allow a deck to leverage card advantage into a tempo efficient win.  Vault/Key is the best example of this idea. 

Now, there are many situations where you can run your opponent dry on cards, draw a bunch, and lock him/her out with a full grip of counters.  But the good decks also have a way to race the opponent's cards, because sometimes you just can't rely on reactive control cards to handle everything. 

2) There is a critical article, written by Zvi, on the concept called the fundamental turn.  It can be found here: http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=3688

Drain does not come online until turn 2.  But the fundamental turn is before that point.

That is why Drain is weaker than Spell Pierce right now. 

[Grand Inquisitor]

That is why Drain is weaker than Spell Pierce right now.

This may be true.  But the real point was made above by Diakanov, Spell Pierce is functionally more similar to duress/seize than it is to mana drain.  That's why this comment makes no sense:

This leads to a whole MESS of bad theorycraft...Guess what, you're just as likely to draw a Spell Pierce during the mid game as a Drain, and just as likely to have a Drain early when you need Pierce.

The point isn't that you'll draw X in the midgame (this red herring is a complete cock-up of logic itself).  Duress or Spell Pierce are designed to move past the fundamental turn.  However, most T1 games are won after the fundamental turn.  This critical turn just means that your deck isn't viable if it can't interact this early.  Once you've figured that out, and you're stabilizing midgame with your opponent, things like mana drain become terribly relevant.

[2nd_lawl]

In general, the whole concept of mana drain being a rescource engine is largely irrelevant,  nearly every deck in vintage is built around resolving, protecting, and utilizing a single game winning card or combination of cards, the idea of a protracted resource war usually only happens in mirrors, and even then most games still end quickly with one player leveraging a temporary advantage to instantly win the game.  Just look at any random Tezz deck: 1 tinker, 1 tez, 1 vault, 1 key, every other card in the deck finds you them(either through tutors or card drawing), Accelerates you into them, or protects them.  You dont play counterspells so that you can counter all of your opponents threats(and 8 counterspells isn't nearly enough for every threat in a deck like noble fish for example) you play counterspells to protect your OWN game winning threats, and to stop those that would instantly win for your opponent.  Those are the roles of your counterspells, and I would argue that spell pierce is better in both:

1) Protecting your threats(both on the stack and in play): Spell Pierce is the clear winner, its obviously superior to drain in forcing your threat through your opponent's countermagic. In play it is better also, since there are very few answers to your threats once they are already in play that are creatures(your tinker target should be pridemage-immune)

2) Stopping your opponent's game winning threats:  In general key cards you need to stop would be things like Necro, Tinker, Oath of Druids etc.  They all have the potential to end the game themselves, and they all are in decks that are capable to playing them on turn 1 or 2.  Indeed one could make a strong argument that 2U is "cheaper" then UU in vintage, Where on your first turn you will likely have access to U + 0-2 colorless or off-color mana, but where having UU is far less likely.  Fundamentally this is a huge strike against Drain, and probably the single biggest one.  We vintage players like to say that our format has all the interaction and complexity of "normal" magic squeezed into the first few turns, well drain usually doesn't interact on turn 1, where spell pierce does.  Indeed, if the whole point of playing a deck like tezz is that it is a monster in the midgame, then your countermagic suite should be set up so that you can survive to the midgame.  In general most of the decks you fight against are not going to want to go toe-to-toe with you in the midgame, but prevent you from getting there either by killing you (Dredge, TPS, Oath where oathing up iona is tantamount to killing you), or by Locking you in "stage 1," where you are constrained by your mana, either Indefinitely(Stax) or long enough to kill you with dudes (Noble Fish, Shop Aggro).

To those people who are still unconvinced:  The next time you play in a large vintage tournament with tezz, make a note of how many of your games are protracted resource wars, versus how many are decisive and quick(and yes being locked under 3-sphere + smokestack on turn 2 is a quick loss even if it technically takes 20 turns) victories or defeats.  Or even more to the point, if you ARE playing pierce, make note of how many games where you had the luxury of leaving UU open that you lost.  I bet it is very very few.

[Grand Inquisitor]

I'm only chiming in again because of an exterior request:

nearly every deck in vintage is built around resolving, protecting, and utilizing a single game winning card or combination of cards, the idea of a protracted resource war usually only happens in mirrors,

This is a limited and therefore dangerous logic to apply to winning in T1.

I think the best example for me was when I finally started testing post-board games against dredge.  Here's one of the most binary decks you can find (this was the 2008 versions) and it was still almost exclusively about resource management.  People who try to sell you short on the idea that T1 is all about the early fight are entirely missing the point.  Better players will beat you.  Read that again.  There will be counterpoints, but it's all situational.  If I were to summarize based on existing theory, I'd say that "who's the beat down" is much more important than "fundamental turn".

[zeus-online]

Thus, I find quotes like this humorous:

Running some amount of mana drain almost automaticly means that your deck will be able to take control during the mid-late game. Spell pierce does not do that.

Most drain decks i've played has had Drain + FoW and then some additional cheap disruption to stall until drain can take over. This is where i think i'd use pierce.

This just boggles my mind.  I'm confused about how Drain allows blue control to automatically take control during the mid game.  Does Drain do something about the Bob/Remora sitting on the board?  Does it somehow stop the Golem from beating your face?  Does it do....anything against Dredge?  Counters are frequently a terrible top deck in the mid game, because they don't actually do anything about what your opponent has already done, nor do they advance your own game plan.  I will cover this in more detail later in the post.

I see people talking about how Pierce is for the early game and Drain is for the mid game.  What?  I didn't know I could stack my deck to draw exactly what I want when I want it.  Guess what, you're just as likely to draw a Spell Pierce during the mid game as a Drain, and just as likely to have a Drain early when you need Pierce. 

I find it very strange that people have all of the sudden forgotten how good mana drain is.

My point about it basicly giving you the mid-late game is thus:
If you can survive until the mid game, and you are playing drain and the opponent isn't playing drain, you should win. I have played mana drains for several years now and i've found this to be true.
Sure if your opponent has been able to resolves bobs, golems, smokestacks, trinispheres, bargains or whatever then it might not matter....But i wonder, what would matter? If the opponent got me dead on the board then it doesn't matter what i am drawing.

I think alot of people are playing more aggresively these days, and thus mana drain gets alot worse. Spell pierce is much better for a brute force attack since it only costs 1 mana, and if your permission package is 4 fow and 4 pierce, you definetly do not want the game to drag on.

[Rico Suave]

Duress or Spell Pierce are designed to move past the fundamental turn.  However, most T1 games are won after the fundamental turn.  This critical turn just means that your deck isn't viable if it can't interact this early.  Once you've figured that out, and you're stabilizing midgame with your opponent, things like mana drain become terribly relevant.

I feel that if a blue based control deck is stabilizing midgame, it is already winning.  With or without Drain.  Why run Drain, if it only helps when the deck is in a position of advantage?

My point about it basicly giving you the mid-late game is thus:
If you can survive until the mid game, and you are playing drain and the opponent isn't playing drain, you should win. I have played mana drains for several years now and i've found this to be true.

Sure, if both sides casually develop their mana bases and enter draw-go mode, then Drain is good.  Now ask yourself how often this happens. 

Also, it's worth noting that even in control mirrors, Spell Pierce makes Drain a tempo loss. 

[bluemage55]

I feel that if a blue based control deck is stabilizing midgame, it is already winning.  With or without Drain.  Why run Drain, if it only helps when the deck is in a position of advantage?

Mana Drain is at times instrumental to the stabilizing process.

Spell Pierce/Duress/Thoughtseize are defensive measures that help you to keep from falling behind.  When you cast one of these spells, you are typically negating some attempt to gain tempo or card advantage, but usually in a manner that maintains the parity of the situation.

Mana Drain helps you pull ahead when you are even once it comes online.  Not only does it defuse a threat, it also delivers you a sizable tempo advantage that you can leverage to solidify your position.

[LotusHead]

Team Vacaville does not own actual Mana Drains, so Spell Pierce is an easy substitution in a 10 proxy meta.

I would run both Drains and Spell Pierce in the same deck if I had proxy room.

[Grand Inquisitor]

I feel that if a blue based control deck is stabilizing midgame, it is already winning.  With or without Drain.  Why run Drain, if it only helps when the deck is in a position of advantage?

This is really matchup dependent exactly because, as you said, there's no traditional control anymore.  Because many decks can win from almost any position, midgame stabilization isn't evidence of winning in the same way it used to be.  Resolving mana drain in the midgame, however, has strong correlations with winning.

Sure, if both sides casually develop their mana bases and enter draw-go mode, then Drain is good.  Now ask yourself how often this happens. 

This is an interesting debate.  My experiences are that this happens plenty.  In fact, the primary reason I don't use Spell Pierce is because it risks being useless in the mid/late game.  But I wanted to see what else was going on in T8's, so just now I browsed through recent T8's.

There's a ton of spell pierce being played.

So what's going on here?  (1) People in my metagame aren't using Spell Pierce correctly, (2) My approach to playing around Spell Pierce isn't used elsewhere, (3) My experiences are just anomolous/lucky?

Also, it's worth noting that even in control mirrors, Spell Pierce makes Drain a tempo loss. 

Only if mana drain doesn't resolve and/or Spell Pierce is relevant to the gamestate.

[Cyberpunker]

Mana Drain is still very good people...instead of looking at Mana Drain vs Spell Pierce, you guys should look at Spell Pierce + Mana Drain. Spell Pierce and Mana Drain both act as protection/disruption. Mana Drain gets you the extra mana but costs   more. Spell Pierce stops their threats for   less. They both fill the same function that Vintage combo-control decks need, that is   protection that pitches to Force of Will and so is synergetic with the whole deck.

Thoughtseize/Duress can be responded to, and that is a big danger and why I do not run it over Spell Pierce or Mana Drain. (Thoughtseize you, you respond with mystical/ancestral/brainstorm/vampiric)
You guys ever wonder why Tezzeret never ran Thoughtseize over Mana Drain? Because Mana Drain stops the threats and leaves their lands tapped. If you Thoughtseize something, they still have mana to cast something else in their turn.

You want to resolve your win condition right? Well then Mana Drain and Spell Pierce and Force of Will are all there to help you do so.

Opponent playing that scary Golem/Pridemage? Mana Drain it.

Opponent tapping out for an EOT Vamp? Spell Pierce it.

Game 2 and 3 vs MUD/Selkie, you can sideboard out 2-3 Spell Pierce for your hate.

With the right build, you often do not even reach end game. Though Spell Pierce is weaker towards the end, you can still use it in the fashion that people used to use Force Spike in counter wars and your opponent always has to play around your Spell Pierce regardless of whether its early, mid, or late game.

my 2 cents.

[Diakonov]

There's a ton of spell pierce being played.

So what's going on here?  (1) People in my metagame aren't using Spell Pierce correctly, (2) My approach to playing around Spell Pierce isn't used elsewhere, (3) My experiences are just anomolous/lucky?

Worth noting though, there is only a single Tezz performance in all of March that runs Spell Pierce exclusively without Drains (ELD's list).

[Evenpence]

There's a ton of spell pierce being played.

So what's going on here?  (1) People in my metagame aren't using Spell Pierce correctly, (2) My approach to playing around Spell Pierce isn't used elsewhere, (3) My experiences are just anomolous/lucky?

Worth noting though, there is only a single Tezz performance in all of March that runs Spell Pierce exclusively without Drains (ELD's list).

What about Probasco's Philly Open list?

EDIT:

Andy Probasco

Main Deck:
1 Inkwell Leviathan
1 Yawgmoth’s Will
1 Tinker
1 Tendrils of Agony
1 Time Walk
1 Brainstorm
2 Sensei’s Divining Top
1 Misdirection
3 Repeal
1 Mindbreak Trap
3 Spell Pierce
4 Force of Will
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Sol Ring
1 Black Lotus
1 Mana Crypt
3 Island
1 Tolarian Academy
3 Underground Sea
4 Scalding Tarn
2 Volcanic Island
1 Snow-Covered Island
1 Lotus Petal
1 Polluted Delta
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Pearl
1 Tezzeret, the Seeker
1 Timetwister
1 Voltaic Key
1 Time Vault
1 Merchant Scroll
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Empty the Warrens
1 Gifts Ungiven
1 Thirst for Knowledge
1 Ancestral Recall
3 Mystic Remora
1 Hurkyl’s Recall

Sideboard:
1 Mountain
3 Leyline of the Void
2 Ravenous Trap
1 Mindbreak Trap
1 Trapmaker’s Snare
1 Pyroclasm
1 Ingot Chewer
2 Empty the Warrens
2 Hurkyl’s Recall
1 Rebuild

[GrandpaBelcher]

There's a ton of spell pierce being played.

So what's going on here?  (1) People in my metagame aren't using Spell Pierce correctly, (2) My approach to playing around Spell Pierce isn't used elsewhere, (3) My experiences are just anomolous/lucky?

Worth noting though, there is only a single Tezz performance in all of March that runs Spell Pierce exclusively without Drains (ELD's list).

Not quite.  Doug has had a few T8 performances without Mana Drains recently.  This list is from the recent NSC Baltimore Tournament  I think he played a similar list in Harrisburg and Richmond.  It's probably worth noting that the last build he was testing with (as of last night) had Drains in it, though.

4th Doug Azzano - Tez

1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Ruby
1 Black Lotus
1 Sol Ring
1 Mana Vault
1 Tolarian Academy
4 Flooded Strand
4 Polluted Delta
2 Tundra
1 Island
1 Tropical Island
3 Underground Sea
1 Grim Monolith
1 Library Of Alexandria
1 Gifts Ungiven
1 Balance
1 Tendrils Of Agony
3 Enlightened Tutor
1 Time Vault
3 Voltaic Key
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Time Walk
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Yawgmoth's Will
4 Spell Pierce
1 Tinker
1 Imperial Seal
1 Sphinx Of The Steel Wind
1 Rebuild
1 Ponder
1 Brainstorm
1 Oblivion Ring
1 Planar Void
1 Tezzeret, The Seeker
4 Force Of Will
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Regrowth

SB:

1 Scroll Rack
1 Sword To Plowshares
1 Tezzeret, The Seeker
4 Leyline Of The Void
1 Spell Snare
2 Hurkyl's Recall
1 Pithing Needle
1 Volcanic Island
3 Greater Gargadon

[Rico Suave]

So what's going on here?  (1) People in my metagame aren't using Spell Pierce correctly, (2) My approach to playing around Spell Pierce isn't used elsewhere, (3) My experiences are just anomolous/lucky?

I believe a large amount of context which is important to this discussion is being left out.  Specifically, the shell of the deck must be taken into account to determine what best supports it.  I did not want this thread to devolve or derail into an off-topic tangent about the other aspects of the deck, but it's worth mentioning that the rest of the deck does in fact have an influence.

When using a card like Dark Confidant, it is quite obvious that Mana Drain works well with it.  First turn land mox Bob, 2nd turn land keep Drain up and stall as long as possible.  Eventually Bob provides an insurmountable card advantage.  This is pretty obvious.

Look at the Tezz decks (and by Tezz I mean Vault/Key based decks) that have been doing well without Drain and with just Pierce.  Do any of them run Bob?  No.  

In fact, the only Tezz deck that has made top 8 in the last 3 events I have attended has been Probasco's list doing it at the Philly Open and the tournament the next day.  I have not seen a single copy of Bob in any top 8 since...the beginning of February?  When Lodestone Golem was just printed?  And this is in spite of the fact Bob/Drain Tezz decks have by far the largest amount of representation at mid-Atlantic tournaments of any other deck in the field.  

Once again I don't want this to become a discussion of Bob vs. not Bob, but it is worth pointing out that a lot of people will continue to play Bob/Drain so long as they believe Bob is still good.  

[Diakonov]

What about Probasco's Philly Open list?

I only was looking at the Top 8's from March.

Not quite.  Doug has had a few T8 performances without Mana Drains recently.  This list is from the recent NSC Baltimore Tournament  I think he played a similar list in Harrisburg and Richmond.  It's probably worth noting that the last build he was testing with (as of last night) had Drains in it, though.

My bad, I somehow missed that one.  It was buried under all those Fish lists with Pierce  
That's a sexy list that Azzano has, BTW.

So what's going on here?  (1) People in my metagame aren't using Spell Pierce correctly, (2) My approach to playing around Spell Pierce isn't used elsewhere, (3) My experiences are just anomolous/lucky?

I believe a large amount of context which is important to this discussion is being left out.  Specifically, the shell of the deck must be taken into account to determine what best supports it.  I did not want this thread to devolve or derail into an off-topic tangent about the other aspects of the deck, but it's worth mentioning that the rest of the deck does in fact have an influence.

When using a card like Dark Confidant, it is quite obvious that Mana Drain works well with it.  First turn land mox Bob, 2nd turn land keep Drain up and stall as long as possible.  Eventually Bob provides an insurmountable card advantage.  This is pretty obvious.

Look at the Tezz decks (and by Tezz I mean Vault/Key based decks) that have been doing well without Drain and with just Pierce.  Do any of them run Bob?  No.  

In fact, the only Tezz deck that has made top 8 in the last 3 events I have attended has been Probasco's list doing it at the Philly Open and the tournament the next day.  I have not seen a single copy of Bob in any top 8 since...the beginning of February?  When Lodestone Golem was just printed?  And this is in spite of the fact Bob/Drain Tezz decks have by far the largest amount of representation at mid-Atlantic tournaments of any other deck in the field.  

Once again I don't want this to become a discussion of Bob vs. not Bob, but it is worth pointing out that a lot of people will continue to play Bob/Drain so long as they believe Bob is still good.  

I think the tournaments you attended have been skewed, because there were 12 appearances of Bob/Drains in March.  As much as we may not want to talk about Bobs, the truth is that they function alongside Drains, so in order to discuss Drains, Bob will inevitably be involved.  If we are beginning the discussion by saying, "First of all, Bob is banned.  Spell Pierce is better than Mana Drain," then yes, I would probably agree.  But Bob is not banned.  It is very relevant to the power of Drain.

EDIT: I just want to reiterate, my main point is not that Spell Pierce is a worse option than Mana Drain.  My point is that they are both good cards, and I see no reason why you can't run both of them.  They have different functionalities.  I don't think it's fair to say that Spell Pierce is just "better" than Drain.

[vassago]

This thread is some of the best discussion lately.    

[Eastman]

Duress or Spell Pierce are designed to move past the fundamental turn.  However, most T1 games are won after the fundamental turn.  This critical turn just means that your deck isn't viable if it can't interact this early.  Once you've figured that out, and you're stabilizing midgame with your opponent, things like mana drain become terribly relevant.

I feel that if a blue based control deck is stabilizing midgame, it is already winning.  With or without Drain.  Why run Drain, if it only helps when the deck is in a position of advantage?

You know I would side with Rico here if I didn't know GI as well as I do.  He plays an exceptionally conservative control game and has tremendous success with it.  It might just be that there is still a place for the weissman style (at least in his game), and drain is obviously a key card in pulling that off.  I think you guys might be talking past each other a bit because of different playstyles.  

With regard to the "fundamental turn," I think it is one of several useful items in the vintage theoretical toolkit.  Among those items however, I think it is the most over-blown.  The difference between good and bad vintage players, and decks, is often found in the ability to manage the mid and late game.  


As for duress and thoughtseize, it has to be noted that they perform very different functions from drain/pierce, permission aside.  Whereas drain and pierce complement the virtual card advantage gained by permission with tempo, duress/seize are always a net loss on tempo but complement permission with information.  Information is valuable in a format where decks have very disparate lines of play that will often be determined by which restricted cards they draw: it tells you which of many lines of play your opponent is following, and in turn which of many you should choose.  But it is valuable in such a different way from the tempo that drain/pierce give you that the comparison is a lot more theoretically difficult.  

[Diakonov]

As for duress and thoughtseize, it has to be noted that they perform very different functions from drain/pierce, permission aside.  Whereas drain and pierce complement the virtual card advantage gained by permission with tempo, duress/seize are always a net loss on tempo but complement permission with information.  Information is valuable in a format where decks have very disparate lines of play that will often be determined by which restricted cards they draw: it tells you which of many lines of play your opponent is following, and in turn which of many you should choose.  But it is valuable in such a different way from the tempo that drain/pierce give you that the comparison is a lot more theoretically difficult.  

This is all very true.  Pierce has similarities to both, but likely deserves to stand on its own as an independent effect. 

Given all the comparisons, if I were forced to put it closer to Drain or Duress, I would still pick Duress.  While Pierce and Duress differ on information vs. tempo, their costs (both filling the one slot) and the fact that they are both temperamental past the early game bring them closer together.  In the control mirror, or against combo, information is a big deal, but in most other matchups your opponent has a relatively narrow path to victory.

The more we analyze it, the more I feel inclined to test all three together.  An ideal opening hand would have one of each.

In Bob/Tezz, for the New England metagame, I might try:

2 Duress
1 Thoughtseize
2 Spell Pierce
3 Mana Drain

[Eastman]

Mmm the thing about running a few spell pierce is your opponent is likely to play around 2 as hard as he is to play around 4.  Once he sees one in the first game he will most likely put you on 3 or 4 as most of the decks run that many.