[Free Article] The Cards (and Decks) you should be Playing

[voltron00x]

Nothing too deep this time, just five cards I think you should consider testing with / against (in no order: Flusterstorm, Mental Misstep, Dismember, Gaddock Teeg, Rune-Scarred Demon) plus an updated gauntlet for your testing purposes.

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/22699_The_Long_And_Winding_Road_The_Vintage_Cards_and_Decks_You_Should_Be_Playing.html

[Note: There was an error in the article where Chris Pikula's deck got cut, I expect they'll correct it shortly but in the interim, this is what's missing (from right after Paul's deck):


"I prefer Paul’s build to Menendian’s and think it is the more popular version.  You might also want to get some games in against Chris Pikula’s version of this deck, which won the 82-player Grudge Match III tournament in Cherry Hill right after Champs:

1st Place: Chris Pikula playing "4-3-2" (Bob Gush Control) at Grudge Match III on 8/13

Maindeck:
1 Black Lotus
1 Sol Ring
1 Mana Crypt
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Sapphire
4 Force of Will
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Time Walk
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Brainstorm
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Yawgmoth’s Will
1 Tinker
1 Voltaic Key
1 Time Vault
1 Blightsteel Colossus
1 Fastbond
4 Gush
3 Scalding Tarn
3 Misty Rainforest
3 Underground Sea
3 Tropical Island
3 Dark Confidant
1 Sensei’s Divining Top
2 Jace, the Mind Sculptor
3 Preordain
2 Mental Misstep
2 Spell Pierce
2 Mana Drain
1 Hurkyl’s Recall
1 Nature’s Claim
2 Island
1 Tolarian Academy

Sideboard:
4 Leyline of the Void
2 Sower of Temptation
2 Mental Misstep
2 Nihil Spellbomb
1 Hurkyl’s Recall
1 Nature’s Claim
2 Trygon Predator
1 Pithing Needle

Both of these lists are great starting points when you want to test against Gush Control.

The primary Workshop deck seeing play right now is Cat Stax Fever:

Indianapolis (GenCon) 05.08.2011
- 140 players
4. Ryan Glackin"

etc.]

[voltron00x]

Also just noticed the SB for that Oath deck is shuffled into the 75 or some other nonsense, will correct that also.

EDIT: They may all be off for the Pro Tour, so here's the list. It may have one too many Flusterstorm but I'm enjoying testing them.


Rune-Scarred Demon Oath

4 Oath of Druids
1 Time Vault
1 Voltaic Key
4 Force of Will
1 Brainstorm
1 Ponder
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Hurkyl's Recall
1 Merchant Scroll
1 Gifts Ungiven
1 Time Walk
1 Yawgmoth's Will
1 Thoughtseize
1 Mana Crypt
1 Sol Ring
1 Black Lotus
4 Forbidden Orchard
2 Underground Sea
2 Tropical Island
2 Island
4 Misty Rainforest
2 Polluted Delta
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Pearl
2 Jace, the Mind Sculptor
1 Regrowth
1 Preordain
3 Rune-Scarred Demon
1 Noxious Revival
3 Mana Drain
3 Flusterstorm


Sideboard
3 Nature's Claim
3 Dismember
1 Flusterstorm
2 Nihil Spellbomb
4 Leyline of the Void
1 Forest
1 Hurkyl's Recall

[dicemanx]

Thanks for that informative article Matt! I'm looking to get back into Vintage (and Legacy and Modern) this fall and I'm interested in people's insights into 4 cards:

Flusterstorm
Mental Misstep
Dismember
Vendilion Clique

In your article you elaborated on some of the benefits of Flusterstorm against blue decks. You also advised testing with it and against it. I'm just curious if you have any hard data from your testing regarding that card. Is it something you'd consider running maindeck or strictly out of the SB? How would you evaluate the opportunity cost of running this card? I must admit I'm suspicious of its power because it's a conditional counter against certain instants and sorceries - I'm not sure if it's ability to counter a storm card is a significant positive (as opposed to, say, using a "hard" counter to meddle with the opponent's set-up cards). Furthermore, it seems that the control archetypes these days pack too many alternate ways to win/build significant card advantage that doesn't involve chaining multiple spells in a turn (using Bob, casting a Tinker, beating down with small beaters).

I'm also wondering whether you can expand on your opinion of Vendilion Clique. You made a brief comment in your article that you felt Paul's version of Bob-Gush was better than Steve's version. I see very little discussion of this card in the forums, and I also see that it is relatively sparsely used in tourneys as well (although perhaps that is just my misconception).


I also have a question for you and anyone else that would like to comment: if you're running Mental Missteps, would you automatically counter Preordain/Brainstorm/Ponder on the first turn, irrespective of what your opponent's deck happens to be (whether it has many of few one-drops)? If used in such a way, Misstep becomes something close to a Time Walk, and since at times players have a penchant for keeping risky hands hoping their cantrips/cheap search will "bail" them out, it seems that the correct play might indeed be to alawys counter.

[Smmenen]

welcome back Peter    Missed you this year at Gencon.  Are you surprised to see me still at it?

[dicemanx]

welcome back Peter    Missed you this year at Gencon.  Are you surprised to see me still at it?

Hi Steve, and thanks! I'm not surprised that you're still at it - I never truly left either (I've been observing from the background, following the format, but work prevented me from playing). I think when it comes to magic one never really leaves - one only takes a break  . That break might be a month or a year or a decade, but what ultimately draws one back is the incredible depth of this game, and the fact that it constantly morphs into new and interesting things. I'm especially excited at Modern and even Legacy (in fact, I'm quite eager to work on 12post...if only I can get some Vesuvas). Vintage is actually looking exciting as well from my perspective!

[AmbivalentDuck]

I'm interested in people's insights into 4 cards:

Flusterstorm

I can't comment on Flusterstorm in the standard "blue" shell, but I can say that it's been tremendously effective for me in aggro-control decks.  "Fish" style decks tend to fear Tinker , Yawg Will, and answers to Vault-Key answers (ie. Hurkyl's Recall to bounce Null Rod).  Since these decks have considerably less draw fixing than Tinker decks, they rely on more on getting utility out of the relatively few cards they see.  A countermag against all of the things Fish truly fears that can't itself be countered allows a dramatic transformation.  This is more accented due to the printing of Steel Sabotage: an answer to Tinker and Workshops that can be reasonably run in multiples maindeck.  In other words, Flusterstorm transformed the control package in aggro-control by letting them answer key threats without having to concern themselves with winning counter wars.   I've said it elsewhere, but the disruption available in a Bant shell is getting so generic due to Flusterstorm and Steel Sabotage that it's barely a metagame deck.

Since Flusterstorm is only effectively answered by a second Flusterstorm, I'd run them in proportion to the number of non-Workshop aggro-control decks I expected to encounter in my meta.

Also, while you're the sort to be dismissive of it, I'm slowly gaining confidence in a Flusterstorm and Steel Sabotage heavy gobs list.  Flusterstorm has the dual purpose of stopping early attempts at explosion or helping to force through Earwig Squad.  Post-board you end up running a grip of REBs, Flusterstorms, and Steel Sabotages giving you a legitimate control game.

[XxtSundaybxX]

I dont typically auto counter preordain or ponder with Misstep. If I have a bomb like jace or tinker in my hand and I think my opponent could have spell pierce I save it for that. I also feel there are just so many powerful 1 drops to counter with misstep like recall, top, tutors, fastbond, to just auto counter preordain or ponder.

[MaximumCDawg]

I'm interested in people's insights into 4 cards:

Flusterstorm

I can't comment on Flusterstorm in the standard "blue" shell, but I can say that it's been tremendously effective for me in aggro-control decks.  "Fish" style decks tend to fear Tinker , Yawg Will, and answers to Vault-Key answers (ie. Hurkyl's Recall to bounce Null Rod).  Since these decks have considerably less draw fixing than Tinker decks, they rely on more on getting utility out of the relatively few cards they see.  A countermag against all of the things Fish truly fears that can't itself be countered allows a dramatic transformation.  This is more accented due to the printing of Steel Sabotage: an answer to Tinker and Workshops that can be reasonably run in multiples maindeck.  In other words, Flusterstorm transformed the control package in aggro-control by letting them answer key threats without having to concern themselves with winning counter wars.   I've said it elsewhere, but the disruption available in a Bant shell is getting so generic due to Flusterstorm and Steel Sabotage that it's barely a metagame deck.

Since Flusterstorm is only effectively answered by a second Flusterstorm, I'd run them in proportion to the number of non-Workshop aggro-control decks I expected to encounter in my meta.

Also, while you're the sort to be dismissive of it, I'm slowly gaining confidence in a Flusterstorm and Steel Sabotage heavy gobs list.  Flusterstorm has the dual purpose of stopping early attempts at explosion or helping to force through Earwig Squad.  Post-board you end up running a grip of REBs, Flusterstorms, and Steel Sabotages giving you a legitimate control game.

Seconded.  I'm not as competitive as Duck here; I tend to run strange aggro builds.  But I've stopped using Spell Pierce long ago and use Flusterstorm instead, exactly for the reasons Duck says here: it stops all of the things Fish/aggro is terrified to see happen out of an opposing blue deck.

[dicemanx]

Since these decks have considerably less draw fixing than Tinker decks, they rely on more on getting utility out of the relatively few cards they see.

Isn't this rather a strike against Flusterstorm?

A countermag against all of the things Fish truly fears that can't itself be countered allows a dramatic transformation.

You mean conditional counter. A bomb against Fish isn't necessarily going to be preceded by a flurry of spells or be an Instant/Sorcery (Tinker, Oath, and Vault/Key pieces being prime examples). Even if a few spells are played, it doesn't even guarantee that Flusterstorm will do it's job, or that it will be effectively "uncounterable" because of storm.

When I posted my questions, I wasn't really looking for a list of why the card is good - such lists can be generated for any card by anyone, and usually have little relative value unless the list includes a use that many didn't think of. I was looking more for a discussion of opportunity cost (how the cards stack oup against cards that would be used in its place) and performance in testing (beyond the claim that "it has been effective in testing", because that is unclear). Keep in mind that I am not against the card, nor do I feel it's bad based on theoretical considerations - it might be a godsend in vintage for all I know. It's just that someone has to play devil's advocate.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Since these decks have considerably less draw fixing than Tinker decks, they rely on more on getting utility out of the relatively few cards they see.

Isn't this rather a strike against Flusterstorm?

A Spell Pierce that in turn gets FoWed or Mental Misstepped has no utility.

A countermag against all of the things Fish truly fears that can't itself be countered allows a dramatic transformation.

You mean conditional counter. A bomb against Fish isn't necessarily going to be preceded by a flurry of spells or be an Instant/Sorcery (Tinker, Oath, and Vault/Key pieces being prime examples). Even if a few spells are played, it doesn't even guarantee that Flusterstorm will do it's job, or that it will be effectively "uncounterable" because of storm.

When I posted my questions, I wasn't really looking for a list of why the card is good - such lists can be generated for any card by anyone, and usually have little relative value unless the list includes a use that many didn't think of. I was looking more for a discussion of opportunity cost (how the cards stack oup against cards that would be used in its place) and performance in testing (beyond the claim that "it has been effective in testing", because that is unclear). Keep in mind that I am not against the card, nor do I feel it's bad based on theoretical considerations - it might be a godsend in vintage for all I know. It's just that someone has to play devil's advocate.

Not to insult you, but I seriously doubt you considered Flusterstorm in the context of transforming the way non-Workshop aggro control is built and played.  I truly believe that Fish is no longer a metagame deck because the disruption is now sufficiently general.  Guli and I have tens of hours into testing Bant; I have about ten hours into testing goblins since I've become busier at work recently.

In particular, derailing an opposing strategy long enough to resolve Earwig Squad was difficult.  Past tense.  Not needing to worry about counter wars is considerably more valuable when you need to resolve one spell or one answer without taking the time (or having the opportunity) to hand-sculpt.  Lowering the slots that need to be devoted to that purpose is truly transformational.  I'm not claiming that I know how to build aggro-control correctly to take advantage of it, but I can say that compressing the game (such as with Earwig Squad, Tinker, etc) makes storm-based countermagic dramatically more valuable.

[dicemanx]

Not to insult you, but I seriously doubt you considered Flusterstorm in the context of transforming the way non-Workshop aggro control is built and played.

It's not so much that I haven't considered it, it just that I have no data to support any of my hypotheses. Ergo my questions in this thread. I'm here as a student wishing to learn, so please don't interpret my questions as accusations that the card isn't really as good as some claimed it is.

A Spell Pierce that in turn gets FoWed or Mental Misstepped has no utility.

Ah, I think we have a different conception of the term utility. You're emphasizing the importance of uncounterability after a few spells have been cast to ramp Flusterstorm's storm count. I was thinking more in terms of flexibility that a card such as Spell Pierce had to offer. So would it be fair to say that in the context of your many hours of testing, more often then not you were happy that Flusterstorm was Flusterstorm instead of Spell Pierce (or any other card that Flusterstorm is possibly replacing, such as perhaps Mental Misstep)?

[voltron00x]

Thanks for that informative article Matt! I'm looking to get back into Vintage (and Legacy and Modern) this fall and I'm interested in people's insights into 4 cards:

Flusterstorm
Mental Misstep
Dismember
Vendilion Clique

In your article you elaborated on some of the benefits of Flusterstorm against blue decks. You also advised testing with it and against it. I'm just curious if you have any hard data from your testing regarding that card. Is it something you'd consider running maindeck or strictly out of the SB? How would you evaluate the opportunity cost of running this card? I must admit I'm suspicious of its power because it's a conditional counter against certain instants and sorceries - I'm not sure if it's ability to counter a storm card is a significant positive (as opposed to, say, using a "hard" counter to meddle with the opponent's set-up cards). Furthermore, it seems that the control archetypes these days pack too many alternate ways to win/build significant card advantage that doesn't involve chaining multiple spells in a turn (using Bob, casting a Tinker, beating down with small beaters).

I'm also wondering whether you can expand on your opinion of Vendilion Clique. You made a brief comment in your article that you felt Paul's version of Bob-Gush was better than Steve's version. I see very little discussion of this card in the forums, and I also see that it is relatively sparsely used in tourneys as well (although perhaps that is just my misconception).


I also have a question for you and anyone else that would like to comment: if you're running Mental Missteps, would you automatically counter Preordain/Brainstorm/Ponder on the first turn, irrespective of what your opponent's deck happens to be (whether it has many of few one-drops)? If used in such a way, Misstep becomes something close to a Time Walk, and since at times players have a penchant for keeping risky hands hoping their cantrips/cheap search will "bail" them out, it seems that the correct play might indeed be to alawys counter.

Hey, took a while for me to get to this (busy weekend), but great questions. Let me work through backwards.

I wouldn't automatically counter Preordain or Ponder, but would definitely consider countering Brainstorm as it is the most powerful of the three.  However, the answer is contextual... for example, if my hand is likely to do something explosive on turn one and my opponent plays one of those cards main phase (suggesting I may not have to push past a Duress/Thoughtseize/Spell Pierce), I may counter it to prevent them from digging into a Force of Will (since there isn't anything I'm likely to need to Misstep on my turn) - unless, of course, I'm worried about my opponent having a Misstep of their own.  Generally, though, I would tend to let those cards resolve, on turn one.

I actually like V. Clique quite a bit, I just would rather have Time Vault in my deck    I think Clique is actually an excellent 1x or 2x in a lot of Vintage decks.  I put it in my top 10 underplayed Legacy cards back in May, after playing it in U/W/r Counter/Top for a few months, and winning an absurd number of games because of it.  Given the power level of the cards in Vintage, plus the fact that so many decks are a) injuring themselves and, b) playing Jace, Clique seems pretty solid.  I  just don't think I'd omit Key/Vault to play Clique.

I have tested Flusterstorm against Gush decks with Dark Ritual decks and Oath decks, and found it to be pretty impressive.  I'm comfortable playing 1-3 Flusterstorm in a maindeck, because so many of the best players are on Gush decks.  You can always side them out against Shops and they're often slotting in for cards that were marginal (Spell Pierce) or weak (Duress / TS) against Shops anyway.

[AmbivalentDuck]

So would it be fair to say that in the context of your many hours of testing, more often then not you were happy that Flusterstorm was Flusterstorm instead of Spell Pierce (or any other card that Flusterstorm is possibly replacing, such as perhaps Mental Misstep)?

In a "blue" shell, that's a fair comparison.  In a Fish shell, that's like comparing Mana Drain to Lodestone Golem (though admittedly less extreme): to use either one correctly, you've made a large number of deckbuilding choices around them.

[Guli]

Matt,

You talk about how Gaddock Teeg and that you would love to design a Fish with the card but time is an issue. You say the deck should follow a meta approach. In other words it should have a target to pray on. Some would say Fish evolved from being a metadeck into a more universal deck with flexibility as a key word. I say it is something in between. You could still design a Fish deck that would have a lot of consistency and hate in it and do well, but you could also follow a more universal strategy with highly flexible cards like Meddling Mage, Revoker and Phantasmal Image (With or without Gaddock Teeg). My latest design follows both these courses. The Bant-Rod (you can find the list and paper in the Null Rod section) approach with a general heavy mana denial strategy that works versus anything and is consistent packed with lots of answers to Tinker main deck in the process. On top, it also has a hate plan for Workshop and G2 and G3 against both Shop and Dredge are pretty comfortable.

So these axes of Consistency, Flexibility, Universality and Specific hate are most of the times present in Fish decks but the meta defines which one will be more dominant. The problem with Gaddock Teeg for me is that I want to cast him turn 1. If I don't have him I want to cast something else that effects the board in a similar way, for example a Glowrider or a Thorn. Noble variants can get away with turn 1 Noble Hierarch because they pack FoW, Daze and maybe others like Misstep/Pierce/Fluster. There is the possibility of running Flusterstorm, Spell Pierce, Steel Sabotage and Mental Misstep with Gaddock Teeg. But that still leaves you wide open and vulnerable early on because you can't cast teeg and leave mana open. So I designed decks that could power out a turn 1 Gaddock or Grand Abolisher with mox diamonds and ESG's. The problem is that the effort does not seem worth it. You invest all these cards in the slots to get out a turn 1 Teeg or Abolisher to do 3 things:
+ Start a clock
+ To make your next threats counter proof
+ To deny the opponent the freedom of casting whatever they want, whenever they want

The issues:
- They can FoW your turn 1 bomb and then you have lost 3 cards out of 7 and most importantly you have lost a lot TEMPO. They can just tutor for recall and have an important lead. Against mana drain decks the problem is even bigger because your second or third threat could get countered as well. Epic fail.
- Acceleration can be destroyed or hosed (Null Rod and Revoker). Personally I am not worried that much about this because you are running a lot creatures and not all your acceleration is artifact, see ESG. But I am not going to ignore this downside, it is relevant.
- Lightning Bolt, Dismember, Clasm are all seeing play one way or another. So you are dedicating a deck to power out Teeg. They fetch for Volcanic and Bolt it. You could Misstep the Bolt but you need more to counter Dismember.
- You lose  a lot of cards in your hand, so you need some kind of draw engine. I used Bazaar/Loam since I was on Diamonds but this is slow and wants even more slots.
- Gaddock is Legendary

So what if you don't get out Gaddock Teeg turn 1? Is this such a big deal? Instead, you could go more slowly and steadily and have more threat density. Every threat you cast is priceless and you want it to resolve. So then Aether Vial comes up again. But Vial is too slow right now with Gush/Bond around. Hence, my dilemma.

Right now, I am working on the revision of my old Gaddock deck where every bear has an instant effect. But there are not THAT many and they usually don't really hurt Workshop with the exception of Kataki. Kataki is mana denial and I already have a deck that goes for heavy mana denial and I don't want Kataki there I want Trygon to fight shop decks. Glowrider is much better against Gush decks than Kataki. I also believe that when designing a deck with Gaddock Teeg, it should not necessarily be a mana denial deck. The tempo could also be present in direct spell denial and clock. Another problem in this theme is that there are very few 1 drops that deny spells or disrupt spells. So it is most likely wise to play full acceleration and try to get down a 2 drop (but without things like Diamond or Chrome, just good old moxes). Canonist seems like your best bet right now to slow down Blue/X (it only needs  and any mox). The acceleration will naturally help out versus Workshop. You would like Kataki as another easy cast-able 2 drop but the sad part is that it will effect your acceleration too. Magus of the Unseen seems like an interesting option here AND it is also good vs Tinker and TV. The only problem is that it's 'effect' is not instant but maybe that is 'ok' in her case.

Canonist, Gaddock and Magus of the Unseen with full acceleration is what I am thinking these days. That would be the place to start for me.

[desolutionist]

I wouldn't automatically counter Preordain or Ponder, but would definitely consider countering Brainstorm as it is the most powerful of the three.  However, the answer is contextual... for example, if my hand is likely to do something explosive on turn one and my opponent plays one of those cards main phase (suggesting I may not have to push past a Duress/Thoughtseize/Spell Pierce), I may counter it to prevent them from digging into a Force of Will (since there isn't anything I'm likely to need to Misstep on my turn) - unless, of course, I'm worried about my opponent having a Misstep of their own.  Generally, though, I would tend to let those cards resolve, on turn one.

I don't think you're wrong, but I have started to play Mental Misstep more aggressively.  If you counter the turn 1 Preordain they may not be getting the 2nd land and Force of Will.  They instead will be drawing Mox Pearl and passing the turn.  You said in the article that you like to counter Vampiric, Mystical, and Seal which is absolutely correct unless you think they're going for Ancestral.  Isn't Preordain sort of like the tutors?  It gets them what they need.  By letting Preordain resolve, you're going to give your opponent many opportunities to see more cards.  (which could be fine or not fine depending on the type of hand you have/they have)

[voltron00x]

I think the problem is that the answer is really contextual; what does your hand look like? how many missteps are in your deck? do you know what your opponent is playing, and if so, what does their 1-drop count look like? Etc.  There are plenty of times where I have blind-countered Preordain, Sol Ring, and a number of other cards because I thought my hand on six cards (my opener minus Misstep) was stronger than my opponents hand - but I think today you also have to be cognizant that an opponent may also have Misstep, and so you may want to hold it if you have your own one-drop you need to resolve.

[AmbivalentDuck]

I wouldn't automatically counter Preordain or Ponder, but would definitely consider countering Brainstorm as it is the most powerful of the three.  However, the answer is contextual... for example, if my hand is likely to do something explosive on turn one and my opponent plays one of those cards main phase (suggesting I may not have to push past a Duress/Thoughtseize/Spell Pierce), I may counter it to prevent them from digging into a Force of Will (since there isn't anything I'm likely to need to Misstep on my turn) - unless, of course, I'm worried about my opponent having a Misstep of their own.  Generally, though, I would tend to let those cards resolve, on turn one.

I don't think you're wrong, but I have started to play Mental Misstep more aggressively.  If you counter the turn 1 Preordain they may not be getting the 2nd land and Force of Will.  They instead will be drawing Mox Pearl and passing the turn.  You said in the article that you like to counter Vampiric, Mystical, and Seal which is absolutely correct unless you think they're going for Ancestral.  Isn't Preordain sort of like the tutors?  It gets them what they need.  By letting Preordain resolve, you're going to give your opponent many opportunities to see more cards.  (which could be fine or not fine depending on the type of hand you have/they have)

I know I'll get myself into trouble by saying this, but that particular use of Mental Misstep is clearly better served by Surgical Extraction.

[voltron00x]

I wouldn't automatically counter Preordain or Ponder, but would definitely consider countering Brainstorm as it is the most powerful of the three.  However, the answer is contextual... for example, if my hand is likely to do something explosive on turn one and my opponent plays one of those cards main phase (suggesting I may not have to push past a Duress/Thoughtseize/Spell Pierce), I may counter it to prevent them from digging into a Force of Will (since there isn't anything I'm likely to need to Misstep on my turn) - unless, of course, I'm worried about my opponent having a Misstep of their own.  Generally, though, I would tend to let those cards resolve, on turn one.

I don't think you're wrong, but I have started to play Mental Misstep more aggressively.  If you counter the turn 1 Preordain they may not be getting the 2nd land and Force of Will.  They instead will be drawing Mox Pearl and passing the turn.  You said in the article that you like to counter Vampiric, Mystical, and Seal which is absolutely correct unless you think they're going for Ancestral.  Isn't Preordain sort of like the tutors?  It gets them what they need.  By letting Preordain resolve, you're going to give your opponent many opportunities to see more cards.  (which could be fine or not fine depending on the type of hand you have/they have)

I know I'll get myself into trouble by saying this, but that particular use of Mental Misstep is clearly better served by Surgical Extraction.

Can you explain how?  I'm not following.

[hitman]

I know I'll get myself into trouble by saying this, but that particular use of Mental Misstep is clearly better served by Surgical Extraction.

I agree with Desolutionist.  I've been using it aggressively and been very happy.  The point he's making is that Preordain is filling in gaps in the caster's hand so if you counter it, you're leaving gaps in their hands and it hasn't cost you any time or mana.  I've found it strong to counter cantrips.  The problem is when they catch on and lead with an inconsequential one-drop and then play something like Recall or a topdeck tutor after you Misstep the cantrip.  Most of the time, countering Preordain and the like will be strong but sometimes, when they can follow it up with Recall, tutor, etc. it's less than amazing. 

[Cruel Ultimatum]

Most of the time, I find it correct to play very aggressively with mental misstep. In the case of countering a preordian or a ponder, if you think your hand is better, you wouldnt want them to catch up. If your hand is worse, then you would want to counter it so that they can't get too much ahead of you. Not even considering the times where your opponents keep those hands that are all in on turn1 preordian or ponder. Yeah, misstep is great when you get their recall, top, etc but your opponent isn't always going to have those cards and your missteps will just sit dead in your hand. In a format that is so fast and tempo based, you need to get your value in while you still can.

The way I look at misstep is the same way as spell pierce, you have to use it early, because as the game goes on it gets progressively worse. Another card this reminds me of is spell snare when it was in standard. Yeah you may want to counter their jitte, but you would be a fool to not slam it on their signet/sakura tribe elder/etc in a format that was so tempo oriented and just trying to get to turn 5/6 to play meloku/keiga/bomb.

[XxtSundaybxX]

Most of the time, I find it correct to play very aggressively with mental misstep. In the case of countering a preordian or a ponder, if you think your hand is better, you wouldnt want them to catch up. If your hand is worse, then you would want to counter it so that they can't get too much ahead of you. Not even considering the times where your opponents keep those hands that are all in on turn1 preordian or ponder. Yeah, misstep is great when you get their recall, top, etc but your opponent isn't always going to have those cards and your missteps will just sit dead in your hand. In a format that is so fast and tempo based, you need to get your value in while you still can.

The way I look at misstep is the same way as spell pierce, you have to use it early, because as the game goes on it gets progressively worse. Another card this reminds me of is spell snare when it was in standard. Yeah you may want to counter their jitte, but you would be a fool to not slam it on their signet/sakura tribe elder/etc in a format that was so tempo oriented and just trying to get to turn 5/6 to play meloku/keiga/bomb.

Misstepping turn 1 preordain or ponder is a fine play, but to say that it should be automatic because they might get too far ahead? I think it's very situational. Just like Matt pointed out I think it depends on what your hand looks like and if you know what your opponent is on. Maybe you have a bomb in hand you want to protect from pierce or from a misstep itself. Also postboard it counters reb. I also can't think of any time misstep was a "dead" card in my hand. I'm never dissapointed to draw misstep. There are so many cards affected by mm other than just tutors, recall, and top.

[AmbivalentDuck]

I know I'll get myself into trouble by saying this, but that particular use of Mental Misstep is clearly better served by Surgical Extraction.

I agree with Desolutionist.  I've been using it aggressively and been very happy.  The point he's making is that Preordain is filling in gaps in the caster's hand so if you counter it, you're leaving gaps in their hands and it hasn't cost you any time or mana.  I've found it strong to counter cantrips.  The problem is when they catch on and lead with an inconsequential one-drop and then play something like Recall or a topdeck tutor after you Misstep the cantrip.  Most of the time, countering Preordain and the like will be strong but sometimes, when they can follow it up with Recall, tutor, etc. it's less than amazing. 

While Surgical Extraction also counters the topdeck tutors (and lets you know their hand and what they were tutoring for!), it has a different strategic interaction with hand fixing.  By having the option of stripping an opponent's deck of Gush/FoW/Bloodghast, you can reduce their future ability to act and/or interact.  By comparison, countering Preordain lets you interact on potentially more favorable terms but certainly does not rob them of ability to interact.