Validity of Spell Pierce in Today's Meta

[brokenbacon]

Hey all,
I was just wondering what the community has to say regarding the power/legitimacy of Spell Pierce in today's metagame. Gush has seemingly quieted down, with Shops, Oath, Tezz/Drain, and Fish being all the rage. It seems that Spell Pierce contributes strongly to counter wars, beats Shops preboard, and keeps the opponent on their toes regardless of the deck. Would it be cavalier to say that it is considerably more powerful than Thoughtseize/Duress in the meta today?

[Cyberpunker]

Mixture of both actually. They compliment each other quite well.

[personalbackfire]

Hey all,
I was just wondering what the community has to say regarding the power/legitimacy of Spell Pierce in today's metagame. Gush has seemingly quieted down, with Shops, Oath, Tezz/Drain, and Fish being all the rage. It seems that Spell Pierce contributes strongly to counter wars, beats Shops preboard, and keeps the opponent on their toes regardless of the deck. Would it be cavalier to say that it is considerably more powerful than Thoughtseize/Duress in the meta today?

I may be of the minority but I think the card is junk. I have found that you need to have it in the early game to accomplish anything since that is when its strongest. Well to consistently do that you need to have like 3 or 4 in the deck so that you see it early on. If you have that many spell pierces in your deck they start to turn dead after a while. Not to mention if your opponent knows you are playing Spell Pierce, they can play around it. I think the card is quite overrated and terrible. Whenever I have it in my hand it is always junk. I almost feel like you have to counter anything with it, just to get some value out of it. So like mox emerald, pierce it.

It is only alright against shops, and gets worse the more people play creature heavy builds.

[TheWhiteDragon]

I may be of the minority but I think the card is junk. I have found that you need to have it in the early game to accomplish anything since that is when its strongest. Well to consistently do that you need to have like 3 or 4 in the deck so that you see it early on. If you have that many spell pierces in your deck they start to turn dead after a while. Not to mention if your opponent knows you are playing Spell Pierce, they can play around it. I think the card is quite overrated and terrible. Whenever I have it in my hand it is always junk. I almost feel like you have to counter anything with it, just to get some value out of it. So like mox emerald, pierce it.

This is certainly not the case that it is junk.  When the opponent has an abundance of mana, it is FoW fodder, but by itself it is useful many times.  It is strongest early of course, but it is useful midgame too.  When the opponent wants to cast big spells like jace, tezzeret, gifts, hardcast FoW, etc, it is still useful.  If they play around it, that means they are holding off a turn 1-2 bomb into a turn 3-4 bomb.  The very threat of spell pierce gives you a turn or two extra to hold off your opponent's attack.  In that window, you can often win.  When they play a spell tapping out their mana, you can protect your own threats with it too.  If they pay 4-5 for a threat and then you pay 2 for an oath and can follow with pierce on their FoW, that is a bomb play.  It can be played around, but so can FoW.  I don't see anyone calling that card junk.

Quote tags fixed.
-Godder

[vassago]

Hey all,
I was just wondering what the community has to say regarding the power/legitimacy of Spell Pierce in today's metagame. Gush has seemingly quieted down, with Shops, Oath, Tezz/Drain, and Fish being all the rage. It seems that Spell Pierce contributes strongly to counter wars, beats Shops preboard, and keeps the opponent on their toes regardless of the deck. Would it be cavalier to say that it is considerably more powerful than Thoughtseize/Duress in the meta today?

I may be of the minority but I think the card is junk. I have found that you need to have it in the early game to accomplish anything since that is when its strongest. Well to consistently do that you need to have like 3 or 4 in the deck so that you see it early on. If you have that many spell pierces in your deck they start to turn dead after a while. Not to mention if your opponent knows you are playing Spell Pierce, they can play around it. I think the card is quite overrated and terrible. Whenever I have it in my hand it is always junk. I almost feel like you have to counter anything with it, just to get some value out of it. So like mox emerald, pierce it.

It is only alright against shops, and gets worse the more people play creature heavy builds.

I guess you don't save counter magic for your own spells? 

[Smmenen]

Hey all,
I was just wondering what the community has to say regarding the power/legitimacy of Spell Pierce in today's metagame.

This is kind of a vague question, and a different one than the one posed in the topic line.  

Spell Piece is undeniably powerful.   It's the closest thing to a one mana hard counterspell that exists in Vintage.  In other words, it's arguably the least conditional one mana counterspell in Vintage.  The other counterspells at that casting cost are Spell Snare, Disrupt, Force Spike, Dispel, Abjure, Blue Elemental Blast, Annul, Envelop, Nix, Stifle, and Turn Aside.   When compared with those cards, it's clear to see that Spell Pierce is probably the most powerful 1 mana counterspell ever printed for Vintage use.  

As for it's legitimacy, well, when looking at tournament data aggregator site morphling.de, we see that Spell Pierce is always in the top 10 most played cards in Vintage month to month, and often in the top 5.   If by "legitimate" you mean, recognized by the community as a viable spell, well, there is no doubt there.   It's appeared in the Vintage Champs winning decklist, and that is usually a good gauge of legitimacy, if there were any doubt.

I don't understand why you would doubt either it's legitimacy or power.   By either measure, it holds up.  

[brokenbacon]

@Smmenen:
I'm not necessarily doubting its power. I just wanted to hear the community's thoughts on the card - as I stated earlier, I know its power vs. Shops but its weakness vs. Blue.dec. Thoughtseize and Duress suck against Shops; Spell Pierce is clearly the better card in this case. But are meta analyses showing that Shops are still the deck to beat, what with Oath and Drain decks on the loose?
Admittedly, this is not the question I initially posed. However, it has evolved to this: should Spell Pierce be considered the preeminent one-mana answer to cards? It is not so much a preemptive strike as Thoughtseize and Duress, but as posted by The White Dragon, "The very threat of spell pierce gives you a turn or two extra to hold off your opponent's attack." This is very true, and while it does not have the same absolute stopping power as Thoughtseize/Duress can have, it can bottleneck the opponent very efficiently, either making them be unsure of their plays or having to play around Pierce. (Note: When I say unsure of plays, I mean them playing a bomb that will win the game for them within two turns, e.g. Jace, as opposed to playing a bomb that will win the game for them within one turn or now, e.g. Vamp for Vault/Key piece or Tinker/Yawg Win, etc.)
It seems that Spell Pierce serves as a mental "Time Walk."
Rebuttal: Personalbackfire is right. It feels as though this card gets bad fast. In the late game, it no longer becomes a card to control the opponent, but more a card for the opponent to stop controlling you. For example, in a Trygon Tezz mirror, late game both players will more than likely have many lands and a few Moxen. Spell Pierce, unless the oppponent taps out for FOW, becomes exceedingly terrible. It is a waste of space.
Another question to pose, in this new light, would be this: is Spell Pierce a better card against a larger percentage of the field than Thoughtseize/Duress? For clarification: is Pierce really so good against Shops that one would sacrifice the absolute blowout potential of targeted discard effects against Blue.dec?

[voltron00x]

I think it is a key card against Workshops.  I feel significantly better playing against Shops with that card, than playing against Shops without it.  However, it feels really bad against Gush decks.  I've really disliked the card lately, but I've been testing against Gush a lot.  Damn you, Brad Granberry, DAMN YOU!

[TheBrassMan]

For the record, I'm acutally pretty unimpressed by Spell Pierce against Shops.  It used to be reasonable, when you only had Lodestone Golem to worry about, but consider the popular shop decks today, which could easily open with a Lodestone, Metalworker, or Hellkite, none of which make Spell Pierce pleasant to have.

Particularly with Steel Sabotage coming out, I don't see Spell Pierce as an anti-shop card at all - I'd much rather have it in an Oath/TPS meta.

But that's just it, right?  It's going to be right in some metagames and in some decks and wrong in others - but it's not obsoleted at all.  Spell Pierce is a real, legitimate vintage card.  It's not a flagship card like Force of Will, Tinker, or Lodestone Golem, but neither is Duress.  

Specifically on Duress vs Spell Pierce?  I think you're still going to want Duress or Thoughtseize in a combo deck, particularly one with Swamps.  I like Spell Pierce more than Duress in a more controlling deck like Tez.  In Gush it's kind of a wash, but I prefer Spell Pierce.

But honestly I'm not too thrilled with either card right now

[Smmenen]

For the record, I'm acutally pretty unimpressed by Spell Pierce against Shops.  

*snip*

Particularly with Steel Sabotage coming out, I don't see Spell Pierce as an anti-shop card at all - I'd much rather have it in an Oath/TPS meta.

That's my opinion.  I played the Cobra Vault deck at the Waterbury, and beat Workshops, but in that matchup Spell Pierce was pretty terrible.  In testing Spell Pierce in Gush decks, it's always been somewhat weak against Workshops there as well.  Granted, Spell Pierce is probably better against Expresso Stax, but that archetype is alot less popular than the more aggro MUD lists with Steel Hellkites, etc. 

@Smmenen:
I'm not necessarily doubting its power. I just wanted to hear the community's thoughts on the card - as I stated earlier, I know its power vs. Shops but its weakness vs. Blue.dec. Thoughtseize and Duress suck against Shops; Spell Pierce is clearly the better card in this case. But are meta analyses showing that Shops are still the deck to beat, what with Oath and Drain decks on the loose?
Admittedly, this is not the question I initially posed. However, it has evolved to this: should Spell Pierce be considered the preeminent one-mana answer to cards? It is not so much a preemptive strike as Thoughtseize and Duress, but as posted by The White Dragon, "The very threat of spell pierce gives you a turn or two extra to hold off your opponent's attack." This is very true, and while it does not have the same absolute stopping power as Thoughtseize/Duress can have, it can bottleneck the opponent very efficiently, either making them be unsure of their plays or having to play around Pierce. (Note: When I say unsure of plays, I mean them playing a bomb that will win the game for them within two turns, e.g. Jace, as opposed to playing a bomb that will win the game for them within one turn or now, e.g. Vamp for Vault/Key piece or Tinker/Yawg Win, etc.)
It seems that Spell Pierce serves as a mental "Time Walk."
Rebuttal: Personalbackfire is right. It feels as though this card gets bad fast. In the late game, it no longer becomes a card to control the opponent, but more a card for the opponent to stop controlling you. For example, in a Trygon Tezz mirror, late game both players will more than likely have many lands and a few Moxen. Spell Pierce, unless the oppponent taps out for FOW, becomes exceedingly terrible. It is a waste of space.
Another question to pose, in this new light, would be this: is Spell Pierce a better card against a larger percentage of the field than Thoughtseize/Duress? For clarification: is Pierce really so good against Shops that one would sacrifice the absolute blowout potential of targeted discard effects against Blue.dec?

I still don't feel like your question is any clearer.  You've written alot, but I'm having a hard time parsing it, partly because there seem to be embedded assumptions I don't agree with.  For example, when playing Gush decks, Spell Pierce is often best versus other blue decks, not workshops.  So I'm not sure I agree that Spell Pierce is awful versus blue decks and good versus Workshops.     

[brokenbacon]

@TheBrassMan, voltron00x, and Smmenen: Thank you very much for your awesome comments. They are, as always, much appreciated.
@Smmenen: I'm sorry if my question is unclear, I'm typically kinda schizophrenic when it comes to posting on forums  
My question goes more along these lines: Is Pierce better than Duress/Seize in a control based deck when it comes to today's meta? Or are both incorrect as a preboard line of control vs. most decks?
For the record, I bow down in honor to all of you pros. If I ever question your claims it is in complete humility.

[voltron00x]

"You mustn't always believe what I say. Questions tempt you to tell lies, particularly when there is no answer. "

[TheBrassMan]

My favorite one mana counter right now is Annul... so maybe you're better off questioning those claims

[Rico Suave]

Spell Pierce is a counter that is useful in aggressive decks, so they can play a threat early and protect it.  In short, Spell Pierce is at its best when you're using your other mana to do something already.

The best example of this in Vintage is Oath, where we can tap out for a 2 mana enchantment and as long as its the early game our opponent cannot obtain enough mana to defend himself from the threat due to Pierce. 

We can see this crop up in other formats too.  Look at Brian Kibler's Caw Go deck from Standard Worlds:

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/deck/601

This deck has the maximum 4 Spell Pierce, and they're all in the maindeck.  If you look at all the other counters in the deck, and total up everything between the maindeck and SB, you will not find more than 2 copies of any other counter including the format staple Mana Leak.  This is because the deck is looking to aggressively play its threats as soon as possible. 

But using Spell Pierce as a defensive counter?  It just doesn't work as well.  Spell Pierce is useful primarily for breaking through defensive walls - not forming them.  The Bob/Jace decks are using Spell Pierce more because it's just a good card, and not because it actually fits into the strategy of the deck.  These decks will want to sit back and force their opponent to win before Bob/Jace collapse the game, but of course we know Pierce loses a lot of power past the early stages of the game.  When trying to establish mid to late game dominance, you are better off playing a card other than Spell Pierce.

I think Spell Pierce is a good card, but mostly because it fits well into what I feel are the ideal blue decks (aggressive ones).  To these decks, early game tempo and time and mana management are very important. 

Thoughtseize is entirely different though.  The choice to use Thoughtseize or Spell Pierce depends on the other ~70 cards in your deck, and not so much on which card performs better in certain matches.

[Cyberpunker]

"You mustn't always believe what I say. Questions tempt you to tell lies, particularly when there is no answer. "

I believe there is an answer here. Spell Pierce is very strong but people should compliment it with Thoughtseizes and Mana Drains. The reason it is very strong is because it allows you to have a 1 mana counterspell early game until your Mana Drains get online. Thoughtseize compliments it because it also stops their threats for 1 mana but at a cost of being slower and not blue. So Spell Pierce fits where both Thoughtseize and Drain cannot. And where Spell Pierce is weak, Thoughtseize/Mana Drain are not.

[voltron00x]

"You mustn't always believe what I say. Questions tempt you to tell lies, particularly when there is no answer. "

I believe there is an answer here. Spell Pierce is very strong but people should compliment it with Thoughtseizes and Mana Drains. The reason it is very strong is because it allows you to have a 1 mana counterspell early game until your Mana Drains get online. Thoughtseize compliments it because it also stops their threats for 1 mana but at a cost of being slower and not blue. So Spell Pierce fits where both Thoughtseize and Drain cannot. And where Spell Pierce is weak, Thoughtseize/Mana Drain are not.

There are answers, plural, but not one answer.  The question is hugely contextual.  The value one finds in Spell Pierce depends largely on a) what one's deck is trying to do, and b) what the decks one plays against are trying to do.

[vassago]

Spell Pierce is useful primarily for breaking through defensive walls - not forming them....

...I think Spell Pierce is a good card, but mostly because it fits well into what I feel are the ideal blue decks (aggressive ones).  To these decks, early game tempo and time and mana management are very important. 

I think this pretty much sums it up, right?

I have never viewed Spell Piece as a defensive card. Early game bombs like Oath, Bob, Welder and all the others worth mentioning are easier to protect with this card, leaving your Force of Wills for later game decisions. Sounds very basic, but I guess that's the point. 

[Rico Suave]

Bob is not an aggressive card. 

[brokenbacon]

@Rico Suave - I think Bob is an extremely agressive card. But that is beside the point. I think that Vassago is right: my question was answered. Thank you all very much.

[vassago]

Bob is not an aggressive card.  

True, but I think the point was to illustrate in small detail the very good points you brought up.  

[Smmenen]

Spell Pierce is a counter that is useful in aggressive decks, so they can play a threat early and protect it.  In short, Spell Pierce is at its best when you're using your other mana to do something already.

The best example of this in Vintage is Oath, where we can tap out for a 2 mana enchantment and as long as its the early game our opponent cannot obtain enough mana to defend himself from the threat due to Pierce.  

If that were true as a general matter, then Spell Pierce would see more play in TPS-style decks, since they are even more aggressive than Oath decks.   They simply want to resolve a huge bomb as quickly as possible in most cases.  

But using Spell Pierce as a defensive counter?  It just doesn't work as well.  Spell Pierce is useful primarily for breaking through defensive walls - not forming them.  

The same could theoretically be said about Force of Will, that's it's better breaking through defensive walls than forming them.  

 I don't think either statement is categorically true.  

[Cyberpunker]

TPS lists do use Spell Pierce. If they do not, then they use Duress/Thoughtseize. They are after all more Black than Blue.

[TheWhiteDragon]

TPS also wants to up storm, so a duress (even if it whiffs) is a spell, whereas pierce needs a target (and you won't want to target your own stuff).

I agree that annul is probably one of the most underplayed and strongest 1 mana counters, but pierce helps in a counter battle, which is a huge bonus.  It can also hit what is topdecked, which probably gives it more advantage defensively.  Offensively, duress/seize is probably better, but then you get into the non-blue mana issue and not being able to pitch to FoW (which is pierce's best attribute when the opponent has 6+ mana).

[Smmenen]

TPS lists do use Spell Pierce. If they do not, then they use Duress/Thoughtseize. They are after all more Black than Blue.

The reason TPS decks run Duress over Spell Pierce is not because they are more black than blue.  

That's not even true.  The average TPS deck has about 18-19 blue spells, and about 15-17 black spells in the maindeck.  

I know why TPS decks *tend* (but not always) to run Duress effects over Spell Pierce, which was my point.   Do you?    

[Rico Suave]

If that were true as a general matter, then Spell Pierce would see more play in TPS-style decks, since they are even more aggressive than Oath decks.   They simply want to resolve a huge bomb as quickly as possible in most cases.  

I was expressing that Pierce prefers to be in aggressive decks, not that it should be included in every aggressive deck out there.

Duress/TS fit into aggressive decks too.  The choice of Duress vs. TS vs. Pierce hinges on a lot of other things. 

The same could theoretically be said about Force of Will, that's it's better breaking through defensive walls than forming them.  

 I don't think either statement is categorically true.  

Forming a defensive wall also involves letting the opponent develop his mana, which in turn makes Spell Pierce much weaker.

That same strategy does not make Force of Will weaker. 

[Smmenen]

If that were true as a general matter, then Spell Pierce would see more play in TPS-style decks, since they are even more aggressive than Oath decks.   They simply want to resolve a huge bomb as quickly as possible in most cases.  

I was expressing that Pierce prefers to be in aggressive decks, not that it should be included in every aggressive deck out there.

I understood your point.   I'm not sure that's true though.   It could be true.  It might be true.   But I'm just not convinced that it is.   

My example of TPS was not offered as a strict counter-factual, that is, to disprove your statement so much as to raise doubt about it (and there is a difference between the two).  I think, on the other end of the spectrum, there are very controlling decks that would want to run Spell Pierce.   If I were to design a mono-blue control deck, to take one possible example, it would almost certainly include 4 Spell Pierce.   I might pair it with Wastelands or Back to Basics, to increase it's late game utility, but I would still include Spell Pierce.   It's difficult to for me to conclude that Spell Pierce is somehow "preferable" in a more aggressive deck (meaning more likely to play the beatdown role earlier in the game) than in a deck like that.   

The same could theoretically be said about Force of Will, that's it's better breaking through defensive walls than forming them.  

 I don't think either statement is categorically true.  

Forming a defensive wall also involves letting the opponent develop his mana, which in turn makes Spell Pierce much weaker.

That same strategy does not make Force of Will weaker. 

That is true.  But it's also true that if the opponent is developing an offensive wall and building a mana base, than the opportunity cost of Force of Will goes up vis-a-vis other counterspells, since the tempo advantage of Force of Will becomes less important than  a steep mana cost (to hardcast) or card advantage cost (pitching another card).   In that respect, one could argue that Force of Will is very similar to Spell Pierce.   

[vassago]

I definitely like the direction this discussion has taken. It further expounds upon the versatility of Spell Pierce. From pushing through your spells, to even defensive styles of play, it is a very powerful card, and one of the best to come out in some time.
 
Reading through the past few replies, you can surely see that the role of said card can not necessarily be so easily defined. The idea that the card can be viewed as “adaptable” to all the situational circumstances is what contributes to it’s amorphic quality. While, personally, I prefer to use it in the back up my own spells kind of way, I do think it is important to keep in mind that it is a multifaceted card.

[Cyberpunker]

I know why TPS decks *tend* (but not always) to run Duress effects over Spell Pierce, which was my point.   Do you?    

If that were true as a general matter, then Spell Pierce would see more play in TPS-style decks, since they are even more aggressive than Oath decks.   They simply want to resolve a huge bomb as quickly as possible in most cases. 

Your point is that Duress is more offensive than Spell Pierce I take it. True but not always.

[Grand Inquisitor]

A great point above is that Spell Pierce's power is most contextually based on what your deck is trying to do in general and at different points over the course of a game.  Related to this is what the alternatives are in your list.

For example, in Vault/Key 'control' lists, typically your replacement choice to Spell Pierce is Duress/Thoughtseize (because of funtionality, but also because of cc).  Since a big component of the deck's strategy is knowing when to play more controlling or more aggressively, the information gained from duress/seize gives those cards a large advantage over Spell Pierce, irrespective of the threat that both cards ostensibly answers.

A counterweight is whether having to get a black source costs you against a wasteland deck and what sideboard options you have, etc...

[Cyberpunker]

I'm of the opinion that after a certain number of nonbasics, it does not matter as much; every additional nonbasic you add is insignifigant in terms of opening yourself to Wastelands.