Spell Pierce passes Mana Drain on top plays

[zeus-online]

I would agree with GI in that i find that often people are "casually building up their mana bases" - You don't need to counter everything. I play very controllish/reactive aswell though.

Spell pierce is obviously better if your strategy is to simply brute force the opponent.

Mana drain is ALOT better on the play then on the draw though. But the same can be said for spell pierce, although i would most likely rather have a spell pierce on the draw to be honest, and thus i would try to include 3/4 of both if i where to play right now.

[hvndr3d y34r h3x]

Spell Pierce does what Mana Drain does for U instead of UU. 

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.

Bolded the part that agrees with the point I was trying to make. I really don't think the two cards are comparable; they get used for different strategies or fill different roles.

[Shock Wave]

I really don't think the two cards are comparable; they get used for different strategies or fill different roles.

From what I have read in this thread, I agree with this statement the most, but I do not think it is entirely correct. In my opinion, Mana Drain and Spell Pierce are comparable, since they are both permission spells and do serve a common purpose, but that is where the similarities end. Mana Drain fulfills a role that Spell Pierce cannot, and vice versa.

Comparing Mana Drain to Spell Pierce is not unlike comparing, say, Mana Leak to Misdirection. They are totally different spells that have very different applications in different archetypes.

Spell Pierce is better suited for certain decks and metagames, whereas Mana Drain may be better suited for others. It is not true to say that one is unequivocally better or worse than the other.

[Rico Suave]

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.

If you want to insist that they have different functions, then perhaps it's better to say that Drain's function is incredibly poor right now. 

[hvndr3d y34r h3x]

You’re correct that I miss quoted. It was diakonov who said that. I’ve only slept two hours is the past few days
Regardless of which is better,

Spell Pierce does what Mana Drain does for U instead of UU.  

Is still not true, and   

Decks *win* in the mid-game
 

is still a generalization.  Or you really need to clarify what you mean by that.


I’d still argue that the raw power level of drain is higher that pierce. However, players are choosing to build around pierce, which is fine, it’s a good card. It could definitely be a better choice in the current meta, but I've definitely lost games because I couldn't counter bob, goyf, cat wizard, lodestone, or my opponent had access to . I've also lost games because drain costs , but by my count, it’s been less. That’s not to say what someone else’s count is, the rest of your list is the big factor here (One thing I noticed is that the more compulsive research you see, the better pierce is). If you wanted to say that tezz is bad right now, I'd agree with that as well.

If you want to insist that they have different functions, then perhaps it's better to say that Drain's function is incredibly poor right now. 

Personaly, I don't like either in my lists at the moment.

[zeus-online]

Am i the only one thinking that every card that you can put in the your deck is open for comparison? since those 4 mana drains in your deck could be any other four cards and thus we need to compare them to each other to see what effect we need for the deck/metagame.

[Diakonov]

Am i the only one thinking that every card that you can put in the your deck is open for comparison? since those 4 mana drains in your deck could be any other four cards and thus we need to compare them to each other to see what effect we need for the deck/metagame.

That's the important part.  In Oath you can compare Drain to Spell Pierce as playable cards, but Spell Pierce is likely to deserve more slots because the deck is so frequently able to win quickly.  Just openly saying that one is better, with no context, doesn't work.

[nineisnoone]

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.

 

1)  Oh, I definitely agree with that.  It's an aside, but I think true Weissman control is a consequence of improper deck building that is caused by deck building constraints.  The fundamental theory behind it is that every deck has an auto-lose potential, and that if you can extend the game past it's win-potential it essentially must lose.  That's why it's something that is more plausible in Standard environments because they don't have the resources in terms of cards that they can play to avoid this case.

For instance, I've never understood why a control deck is said to have "inevitability" over a burn deck (for example).  Aside form it being fundamentally better, I mean.  But if I burn a control deck to 3 life and I'm just waiting to force that next Lightning Bolt through... why don't I have inevitability rather than the control deck?  It seem that since I'm top-decking to win, I should have inevitability.  However, you can see where the "auto-lose" potential comes into play.  It's fundamentally unsound and breaks apart given certain playing conditions.  But as I see it, that's not a consequence of a control deck's inevitability it's of the opposing deck's improper construction.  

As such rather than there being 3 types of decks, there are really only 2.  Aggro and combo.  Aggro is about attrition and leverage.  Any deck that is playing independent pieces at the first giving opportunity is an aggro deck, so even a Stax deck playing out lock pieces in an "aggro" deck in this sense.  On the other side, you have combo, which is about windows and explosion.  

I think of it as, aggro decks are about optimum card usage whereas combo decks about optimum mana usage.  Flash would win in 2 mana? but you need at least 2 cards in hands, and several inside of your deck.  But each of those cards is weaker than the typical individual card in a Fish deck.  

I think it works this way because of free resources.  Mana is essentially free.  In the context of the fact that once you play your lands, you'll always get that mana whether you need it or not.  And of course, there is the auto-card draw every turn.  So a deck should be geared towards consumption of those resources, because if they don't it's wasted.  

From there you have 2 types of control which run win conditions on either side of the spectrum, the two being the classic Weismann deck predicated on the notions of internal deck failures pressing opponents with the notion of "inevitability and the Deck or just a meta-deck looking to create specific deck failure states.

2) I'm not sure how this fits into the discussion though.  If you win faster than turn 2, then Mana Drain isn't a good card.  But that's independent of Spell Pierce, there were always other options.

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

I don't think I'm disagreeing with you as much as I just see it a bit differently and thought of Mana Drain as being more narrow than most people do.  Mana Drain is the predicate to Tarmogoyf in their respective decks.  I know many times people only run Tarmogoyf because "if I hit an opposing aggro deck and they run it and I don't, I'm going to lose."  It's the same with Mana Drain.  If you are hitting a "control" deck, and they run it and you don't, then you'll likely lose.  It's not a pillar in the sense of it created a dominant archetype, it's a pillar in that it dominates a dominant archetype.  If that pillar became dominant again, and I don't think it's unimaginable scenario, it'll rise up again as well.

[Rico Suave]

I don't think I'm disagreeing with you as much as I just see it a bit differently and thought of Mana Drain as being more narrow than most people do.  Mana Drain is the predicate to Tarmogoyf in their respective decks.  I know many times people only run Tarmogoyf because "if I hit an opposing aggro deck and they run it and I don't, I'm going to lose."  It's the same with Mana Drain.  If you are hitting a "control" deck, and they run it and you don't, then you'll likely lose.  

This is the main part where I disagree.  I feel perfectly comfortable winning a blue control mirror where my opponent has Drains and I do not, even if my opponent is a better player.

This is in large part due to how powerful Spell Pierce is against Mana Drain itself. 

[Grand Inquisitor]

I've never understood why a control deck is said to have "inevitability" over a burn deck

It has to do with card advantage (often through reusable sources) and selection, the presence of powerful mid/late game cards in control decks and the ability to convert resources across mana, cards and sometimes life.

As such...I'm not sure how this fits into the discussion though.

I disagree with this entire line of argument but agree that it isn't really relevant to this thread.

I feel perfectly comfortable winning a blue control mirror where my opponent has Drains and I do not

I'll come over and agree here, but I think you're missing a lot of the upthread points where people are saying it's not really about Spell Pierce vs. Mana Drain.  The Morphling finding is interesting, but it's really a red herring because (1) Spell Pierce's numbers are largely buoyed by non-'control' archetypes and (2) even in tezzeret mirrors or tez vs. oath, you have to look at the entirety of the lists to get an idea of which cards contribute more to victory.  To this last point I return to my experience which shows that duress + mana drain has continually trumpted spell pierce + X.

[Rico Suave]

I'll come over and agree here, but I think you're missing a lot of the upthread points where people are saying it's not really about Spell Pierce vs. Mana Drain.  The Morphling finding is interesting, but it's really a red herring because (1) Spell Pierce's numbers are largely buoyed by non-'control' archetypes and (2) even in tezzeret mirrors or tez vs. oath, you have to look at the entirety of the lists to get an idea of which cards contribute more to victory.  To this last point I return to my experience which shows that duress + mana drain has continually trumpted spell pierce + X.

As you put it, and as I've said before, the entirety of the list must be taken into consideration.  There are so many factors at work here that there can't really be any clear answer.  And this is doubly true as the successful blue decks lately span the entire spectrum of very aggressive combo versions (including Dark Rituals even) all the way to the very passive control versions (The Deck).  They all continue to perform, so who is anybody to say that one or the other is bad? 

Whatever the case may be, I do not like playing Drain in a metagame with Fish, Oath, Workshops, and Dredge.  And while there are a number of situations where Drain is good, and several decks where Drain is very good against them, there are too many situations where Drain is a blank.   

Instead of comparing Pierce to Drain or whatever, I'd like to stress that comparisons aren't really relevant.  The main point I have been supporting here has been that, in my opinion, Drain is very weak at the moment.