What are everyone's thoughts and opinions on pinpoint discard like Thoughtseize?
From a bit of googling the prevailing opinion seems to be that they're bad because they're card disadvantage relative to the other players in the pod, but that's a flawed and incomplete argument. It's a drawback, yes, but counterspells and spot removal suffer from the same problem and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who thinks those are bad. No, I think the reason I'm skeptical about them is because they're very situational. My thinking is that they shine best in non-blue decks that need to protect their win conditions because they don't run many and non-blue decks that need to interact with non-permanent win conditions.
I ran Thoughtseize in Erebos for about a week and played a whole bunch of games with it. When I was able to cast it on the blue player to remove their counterspell before I cast a game winning Torment of Hailfire it felt great, but the other times it sat in my hand rotting. As a result, I ended up cutting it.
However, after talking with a friend I'm reconsidering my position. I don't think I tested it long enough to see how it really performed. My deck's biggest weaknesses are combo and blue-based control decks, and Thoughtseize and Duress are both excellent against those archetypes. They're also not completely dead cards against other decks, though they certainly lose their potency.
Anyone have direct experience running them outside of cEDH?
Proactive answers are bad, reactive answers are good.
From most proactive, to most reactive, I'd say the order goes:
remove from deck
remove from hand (discard)
remove from stack (counters)
remove from play (removal)
The most proactive answer would be something that removes from deck, like jester's cap. This is usually a bad idea because (1) a single player may have many threats, and (2) there are multiple opponents. You're spending actual resources (a card and mana) to remove something that may not even get drawn.
Second most proactive is discard like thoughtseize. At this point they've drawn it, but besides being a card in their hand they haven't expended any mana on it, so you're down in tempo, plus you have other opponents who it doesn't effect. You're spending resources on a card that might not be cast and might not be your problem.
Counterspells are 3rd most proactive. They've cast it, and depending on the spell type you may know if it's your problem or not (i.e. cruel ultimatum is your problem if it's pointed at you, otherwise it's probably fine, whereas kozilek the butcher might be your problem if it attacks you, but you don't know that yet, whereas consecrated sphinx is sort of vaguely everyone's problem). At this point you're not losing big tempo, but you're still trading card for card with a single opponent. But, some things kinda necessitate counters because removal isn't effective against them, so they're generally necessary to have all your bases covered.
Removal is the 4th most proactive, and most reactive. You can wait until the creature is actually attacking you before using removal, which gives you the greatest chance of avoiding needing to deal with it - someone else might counter it, or remove it, or it might attack someone else and not be your problem.
Threats gotta get dealt with often 1:1, but playing targeted removal (and to a lesser extent counters) gives you the most room to avoid that trade, by seeing if it gets dealt with some other way first.
Targeted single-card discard is fine in 1v1 (you lose tempo but not much) but in multiplayer it's usually a very bad idea.
What are everyone's thoughts and opinions on pinpoint discard like Thoughtseize?
From a bit of googling the prevailing opinion seems to be that they're bad because they're card disadvantage relative to the other players in the pod, but that's a flawed and incomplete argument. It's a drawback, yes, but counterspells and spot removal suffer from the same problem and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who thinks those are bad.
Counterspells and spot removal can be bad, depending on the speed of your meta. Reusable removal ends up being better most of the time in slow metas.
For a faster meta, reactive spells end up being silver bullets. You don't bolt the bird, but you kill the bomb before it kills you.
If you are in a top tier meta, it is all about speed and tempo - recursion and reusable removal barely matters unless it is part of a combo.
I would imagine that targeted discard will be best in metas where you need a lot of spot removal and countermagic = the tier one meta.
In a relatively fast meta, it becomes a case where they are good to make sure you can get rid of countermagic or other interaction. So, some decks may benefit more than others. I don't see myself wanting it if my deck is playing control or aggro, only combo.
In a slow meta, I feel like you'd be happier with bigger discard spells that affect multiple people.
I think that the card Thoughtseize, assuming an unknown meta, is typically going to be a poor card that can end up hurting you both politically and card advantage-wise in a typical game of multiplayer EDH. It's a card meant for 1v1 and highly competitive environments.
However Thoughtseize is not the only form of pinpoint discard, and I think with certain strategies and cards these discard effects can really shine in a fair amount of metas, casual and semi-casual alike.
In my experience, both Tidehollow Sculler and his younger brother Mesmeric Fiend are political and information-gathering tools that, when paired with sac outlets and recursion, can give you a big advantage. The political aspect comes in the fact that playing these cards reveals someone's hand to the table, and if you choose the right person (aka the one most likely to be holding on to powerful cards), you can bring the whole table against them due to them seeing their strong hand (plus you get information on what they're holding too). What's more, because the effects of both Sculler and Fiend are temporary in that their death results in your opponent getting their card back, taking a powerful card (Genesis Wave, Torment of Hailfire, Tooth and Nail etc.) from their hand doesn't stop them from being a threat. Unlike with Thoughtseize where taking away their one good card both leaves them with nothing (they now may target you out of spite) and the table doesn't have to worry as much about the cards they have (and thus won't target that opponent more), the card being temporarily exiled still means the opponent who owns it is a permanent problem.
That by itself isn't enough however, as you can end up whiffing on hitting a good card (one of the issues with Thoughtseize) and the opponent can of course kill your creature to get their card back, effectively costing you a card for no real gain. That's where the sac outlets come in, as you can respond to the exile trigger by saccing Fiend or Sculler, thereby permanently exiling the card you take. And if the sac outlet you use is something like Vampiric Rites or Evolutionary Leap, then you are simultaneously disrupting your opponent's gameplan while advancing your own, gaining information and potentially diverting attention away from you. If you also pair them with ways to recur creatures, like Phyrexian Reclamation or Sun Titan, as well as ways to get value from creatures in general, like Skullclamp or Harvester of Souls, Tidehollow Sculler and Mesmeric Fiend can be useful tools that you can recur when their effects are needed (opponent drawing many cards or tutoring excessively) that enable non-blue decks to interact with cards they normally can't. I've played them both to good effect on in an Athreos, God of Passage deck where there are additional political implications via opponents letting me get them back to help tear apart a threatening player's hand with the use of a sac outlet. Additionally that deck was fairly combo-heavy, so being able to check if the player with mana up can interact with me for the low cost of 2 mana is very useful.
Outside of those two, there are a couple others pinpoint discard cards that seem playable though I haven't played them myself. Corpse Traders and Mind Slash maybe fall outside the line of "pinpoint", but they do allow a similar effect to Sculler and Fiend in that if you pair them with tokens or creatures you want to sac, you can generate advantages for yourself while also gaining information and disrupting opponents. Corpse Traders seems too mana inefficient while Mind Slash seems so efficient it might end up getting you targeted yourself if your deck can really abuse it, but they both seem like they could have a place in the right deck.
Conversely, Entomber Exarch is a broad utility card that seems like it can fit in any creature-heavy deck yet always ends up getting cut from early drafts of decks I initially include him in. The split card aspect of him is strong in that if the Duress effect is unlikely to have a good target at the moment (empty hands, heavy creature strategies), he's still a Gravedigger, so any deck interested in that effect for that cost can use him, but my decks are usually playing at a higher power level than Gravedigger. Outside of something a bit janky like Cleric tribal, he seems like a card that can fit in lower powerlevel decks or in decks where both creature recursion and hand disruption, no matter the cost, are things the deck is in strong need of, potentially as a flexible if costly silver bullet.
TLDR: Most pinpoint discard effects in multiplayer are bad because they are situational 1-for-1s, but when stapled to a permanent your deck is set up to abuse, and when used to create political advantages and gain information, they can be strong tools for non-blue decks to disrupt enemy win conditions while protecting their own.
Off the top of my head, the only form of direct targeted discard I run across multiple decks is Doomsday Specter in my Yuriko deck. In terms of importance its targeted discard is a distant third to the fact that it bounces one of my creatures and has a form of evasion. It occasionally nabs something valuable, but usually it's just there to connect and then replace itself with the ninja I bounced to cast it in the first place.
From most proactive, to most reactive, I'd say the order goes:
remove from deck
remove from hand (discard)
remove from stack (counters)
remove from play (removal)
i agree with this analysis. removals get played because they are good, counterspells get played even if they are less good because they are the only way to stop instant/sorceries
I largely agree with Dirk's analysis too. To add to it though, removal spells tend to be better than counterspells, discard, etc only because they allow players to wait until the last moment possible to deal with a potential threat at hand.
If an opponent controls something scary, say, a Ghalta, it's in your best interest to leave that Ghalta in play unless it's attacking you (since if it's attacking someone else, it's to your benefit). In the event that said Ghalta does attack you though, it isn't too late to deal with the problem at hand; you can still use a removal spell. That's awesome because you were able to wait until the last moment possible before addressing the problem, eking out every advantage you could from a card you didn't even play.
Removal doesn't work when the last opportunity to interact with a card before it hurts you is while it's on the stack though. This is why counterspells are so valuable. Aside from the obvious fact that it's impossible to use a removal spell on an instant or sorcery, some cards can effect you adversely the moment they come into play. (Think powerful come into play effects like Bane of Progress or annoying static abilities like Rest in Peace or Stony Silence.) When these cards resolve, it could be too late for removal, and that makes countermagic valuable.
Similarly, there are some cards that removal AND countermagic can't adaquetly prevent before they cause you harm since the last opportunity you have to deal with them is while they're in your opponent's hand/deck. (Once these cards are on the stack, it's too late.) Cards like Obliterate and Tendrils of Agony come to mind. They can't be removed, and they can't be countered (usually), but they can be proactively dealt with.
The reason why targeted discard sucks is because the space is occupies that doesn't intersect with removal or countermagic is incredibly tiny. In other words, N(discard) - N(discard ∩ removal) - N(discard ∩ countermagic) + N(discard ∩ removal ∩ countermagic) is such a small space that you're better off using removal or countermagic to address your woes because they're just as inexpensive mana-wise.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Proactive answers are bad, reactive answers are good.
From most proactive, to most reactive, I'd say the order goes:
remove from deck
remove from hand (discard)
remove from stack (counters)
remove from play (removal)
I disagree. Stax effects are proactive, as are board wipes. Those are both very powerful effects for the average 'serious casual' meta. Sure, in a vacuum, being able to answer everything reactively at instant speed is best, but we're talking hypotheticals at that point because most cards and colors can't do that. Indeed, I think analyzing cards in a vacuum is fundamentally flawed and inherently incomplete, because you can only properly evaluate cards in the context of gameplay. For example, sticking strictly to your hierarchy, Mind Twist isn't as good in EDH as Unholy Hunger, which is obviously untrue. Twist is backbreaking, and the crappy spot removal spell just costs way too much. The viability of a given card is too contextual to adhere to a strict guideline, so while I agree in theory with the hierarchy I disagree in practice. It's merely one metric among many.
In this particular case I think you're misunderstanding my intended use of pinpoint discard. You don't cast it blindly as a value disruption spell like you would in competitive 1v1. I think you have to have the savvy to know when to cast them and who to cast them at. As Taleran suggests, they require a high degree of predictability to be used correctly, which can be difficult in an open, unknown meta. However, it doesn't take a genius to know that the blue player is probably packing a degree of countermagic or that someone tapping out for Diabolic Revelation is no good for anyone.
In other words, I think they have low floors and high ceilings. High risk since they could be dead draws in a lot of pods and have the potential to be misplayed, but high reward because they can be de facto game winners for only 1cmc.
I think it depends on how well you know the people you are playing with, the more foreknowledge you have the better that stuff becomes
I tend to agree. I also suspect they're the type of cards that get better as your meta gets better. Thoughtseize on random generic battlecruiser fatty is a much worse effect than Duress on Mana Drain that is preventing you from winning.
TLDR: Most pinpoint discard effects in multiplayer are bad because they are situational 1-for-1s, but when stapled to a permanent your deck is set up to abuse, and when used to create political advantages and gain information, they can be strong tools for non-blue decks to disrupt enemy win conditions while protecting their own.
Interesting analysis. Some of it is flawed (Thoughtseize et al. also cause the player to reveal their hand, so while they're not quite as political as Mesmeric Fiend since the card doesn't come back they can still gain political points against a target that reveals a hand full of bombs), but some of it is spot on. When Torment came out I abused the hell out of Mesmeric Fiend with Malevolent Awakening and Faceless Butcher in one of my earliest multiplayer mono-black decks, so I'm well aware of the power of recursive disruption. However, it was glacially slow and mana intensive. At that point I would rather play something like the aforementioned Mind Twist, Mind Sludge, or even our girl Myojin of Night's Reach and just be done with it. No, I think pinpoint discard occupies an entirely different category in EDH: the proactive black counterspell. Clearly inferior to actual countermagic, but one takes what one can get. As I said in my reply to Dirk, it seems to me that they require a lot of savvy to use properly as well as only being useful in certain contexts which is why I'm concerned that they're too situational to be useful.
The reason why targeted discard sucks is because the space is occupies that doesn't intersect with removal or countermagic is incredibly tiny.
I agree in theory, but what if you're in colors that can't use countermagic or remove every type of permanent? I don't believe that to be an uncommon situation and in light of that I think the space is larger than you think. Maybe not by much, though, which is my concern.
Frankly, I'm tired of having to play the "Do they have the counter for Torment of Hailfire?" game against blue with my Erebos list and outside of the tech-y and terrible recent addition of Imp's Mischief and the potent mass discard spells I don't have ways to interact with countermagic. I've all but given up hope on dealing with fast combo, but blue-based control is something I think the pinpoint discard spells can help me with. The cost benefit analysis is difficult. Is it worth playing potentially weak draws to shore up weak matchups, particularly in a hybrid midrange/control strategy? What if I can draw an absurd amount of cards to offset both the card disadvantage relative to other players in the pod and the virtual card disadvantage from weak draws?
I play Despise, Harsh Scrutiny, and a few others in my Lazav, Dimir Mastermind deck. But that only works because of synergy with the commander. It sounds like illakunsaa's Kess deck takes a similar approach. I think that's probably the best way to make pinpoint discard a viable strategy.
I disagree. Stax effects are proactive, as are board wipes. Those are both very powerful effects for the average 'serious casual' meta. Sure, in a vacuum, being able to answer everything reactively at instant speed is best, but we're talking hypotheticals at that point because most cards and colors can't do that. Indeed, I think analyzing cards in a vacuum is fundamentally flawed and inherently incomplete, because you can only properly evaluate cards in the context of gameplay. For example, sticking strictly to your hierarchy, Mind Twist isn't as good in EDH as Unholy Hunger, which is obviously untrue. Twist is backbreaking, and the crappy spot removal spell just costs way too much. The viability of a given card is too contextual to adhere to a strict guideline, so while I agree in theory with the hierarchy I disagree in practice. It's merely one metric among many.
In this particular case I think you're misunderstanding my intended use of pinpoint discard. You don't cast it blindly as a value disruption spell like you would in competitive 1v1. I think you have to have the savvy to know when to cast them and who to cast them at. As Taleran suggests, they require a high degree of predictability to be used correctly, which can be difficult in an open, unknown meta. However, it doesn't take a genius to know that the blue player is probably packing a degree of countermagic or that someone tapping out for Diabolic Revelation is no good for anyone.
In other words, I think they have low floors and high ceilings. High risk since they could be dead draws in a lot of pods and have the potential to be misplayed, but high reward because they can be de facto game winners for only 1cmc.
My analysis didn't cover stax, but yes I'd agree those tend towards the proactive side of the spectrum.
This analysis is only covering one aspect - the proactiveness and reactiveness of a card, and that generally-speaking more reactive cards are better - but that's only one aspect of those cards' effectiveness. Winter orb may be proactive but it's also incredibly powerful, far far more powerful than any spot removal I can think of. While conceptually more reactive answers are better, a bludgeon can be plenty effective if it's strong enough. The fact that winter orb is proactive is a point against it, but its insanely high power level easily overcomes this disadvantage (in the right deck/position).
Same deal for board wipes. Although they're significantly more reactive than winter orb is, even those at sorcery speed. Your opponent has already invested the cards and the mana into playing their creatures, even if they haven't attacked you yet. And that's assuming sorcery-speed, but ofc instant-speed wipes also exist.
Things aren't either "proactive" or "reactive" but somewhere on the scale between the two. Board wipes are closer to the reactive side than the proactive one, imo.
Most of my meta is value decks which, if they run a combo, is not their core game plan and doesn't telegraph when it's about to happen. In that circumstance I think my evaluation is pretty spot-on, and I think that's also a very common type of meta for EDH. If you're playing a meta where most people are running fast combos, then sure, maybe at that point CA is much less important than disrupting one key card, and effects like thoughtseize make sense, but personally I wouldn't have much interest in playing in that kind of meta.
They can be good if you understand the dynamics. Aside from the inflexibility to you, the fact of not being able to wait until the last moment that others have mentioned, there is also the fact that multiplayer is a game of primarily tempo. With removal, the opponent(s) have spent mana on the thing getting removed. With discard, they didn’t. That is an issue for discard generally, not just the one-shot pinpoint kind.
There is also the tempo cost to you. The more impact, the more mana you pay, but generally you will still have zero tempo impact with discard. Even with Mindslicer and Sire of Insanity, you have to wait until the next turn and hope the lack of cards causes your opponents to start wasting mana. If that doesn’t happen, you often will not make any headway in that game.
Thoughtseize et al can be situationally the best of the options, for that reason. You cost your opponent zero tempo, but at least it only costs you one mana. If you have enough card flowing to support it, that can be great.
Of course, it takes very good judgment to use these, and so many wheels showing up in this format make it a challenge. But, I have used it in decks like Skittles, Kalitas, Skullbriar, and other such non-Blue, non-Red decks that try to shake disruption.
From a bit of googling the prevailing opinion seems to be that they're bad because they're card disadvantage relative to the other players in the pod, but that's a flawed and incomplete argument. It's a drawback, yes, but counterspells and spot removal suffer from the same problem and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who thinks those are bad.
The difference however is perfect information on the target, and perfect timing on when to use it.
Discard is often done in the dark, so you don't even know what you're trying to get. That is the biggest problem.
But I do think it's an under-utilized tool to push through your own spells. You can use it as blacks method to counter disruption.
If you already have a deck that has the ability to look at opponents hands, or you're really good at figuring out what opponents might have, which I personally pride myself on reading opponents intentions, then discard can be better.
On a final note, I think Cabal Therapy is an overlooked card, as there are a lot of creature sacrifice centered decks. It works so well with Grave Pact and any other self sacrifice decks.
Yeah, I was going to say, Rule of Law stops storm far better than any counterspell ever could.
I see discard as having four basic types:
"Look at an opponent's hand and make him discard something." This is how Thoughtseize and Duress work. These are good when
"An opponent discards two or more cards." Again, good, not as good in multiplayer, but this still does gain card advantage. Think of these as political cards.
"All opponents discard." Again, more useful, but generally requires two or more to maintain card advantage.
Repeatable discard. These are actually what can become a Stax thing.
If it's not one of those four types, and ideally if it's 2 or 3, it should be both 2 and 3, there's no point to it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
From a bit of googling the prevailing opinion seems to be that they're bad because they're card disadvantage relative to the other players in the pod, but that's a flawed and incomplete argument. It's a drawback, yes, but counterspells and spot removal suffer from the same problem and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who thinks those are bad. No, I think the reason I'm skeptical about them is because they're very situational. My thinking is that they shine best in non-blue decks that need to protect their win conditions because they don't run many and non-blue decks that need to interact with non-permanent win conditions.
I ran Thoughtseize in Erebos for about a week and played a whole bunch of games with it. When I was able to cast it on the blue player to remove their counterspell before I cast a game winning Torment of Hailfire it felt great, but the other times it sat in my hand rotting. As a result, I ended up cutting it.
However, after talking with a friend I'm reconsidering my position. I don't think I tested it long enough to see how it really performed. My deck's biggest weaknesses are combo and blue-based control decks, and Thoughtseize and Duress are both excellent against those archetypes. They're also not completely dead cards against other decks, though they certainly lose their potency.
Anyone have direct experience running them outside of cEDH?
[Primer] Erebos, God of the Dead
HONK HONK
From most proactive, to most reactive, I'd say the order goes:
remove from deck
remove from hand (discard)
remove from stack (counters)
remove from play (removal)
The most proactive answer would be something that removes from deck, like jester's cap. This is usually a bad idea because (1) a single player may have many threats, and (2) there are multiple opponents. You're spending actual resources (a card and mana) to remove something that may not even get drawn.
Second most proactive is discard like thoughtseize. At this point they've drawn it, but besides being a card in their hand they haven't expended any mana on it, so you're down in tempo, plus you have other opponents who it doesn't effect. You're spending resources on a card that might not be cast and might not be your problem.
Counterspells are 3rd most proactive. They've cast it, and depending on the spell type you may know if it's your problem or not (i.e. cruel ultimatum is your problem if it's pointed at you, otherwise it's probably fine, whereas kozilek the butcher might be your problem if it attacks you, but you don't know that yet, whereas consecrated sphinx is sort of vaguely everyone's problem). At this point you're not losing big tempo, but you're still trading card for card with a single opponent. But, some things kinda necessitate counters because removal isn't effective against them, so they're generally necessary to have all your bases covered.
Removal is the 4th most proactive, and most reactive. You can wait until the creature is actually attacking you before using removal, which gives you the greatest chance of avoiding needing to deal with it - someone else might counter it, or remove it, or it might attack someone else and not be your problem.
Threats gotta get dealt with often 1:1, but playing targeted removal (and to a lesser extent counters) gives you the most room to avoid that trade, by seeing if it gets dealt with some other way first.
Targeted single-card discard is fine in 1v1 (you lose tempo but not much) but in multiplayer it's usually a very bad idea.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Counterspells and spot removal can be bad, depending on the speed of your meta. Reusable removal ends up being better most of the time in slow metas.
For a faster meta, reactive spells end up being silver bullets. You don't bolt the bird, but you kill the bomb before it kills you.
If you are in a top tier meta, it is all about speed and tempo - recursion and reusable removal barely matters unless it is part of a combo.
I would imagine that targeted discard will be best in metas where you need a lot of spot removal and countermagic = the tier one meta.
In a relatively fast meta, it becomes a case where they are good to make sure you can get rid of countermagic or other interaction. So, some decks may benefit more than others. I don't see myself wanting it if my deck is playing control or aggro, only combo.
In a slow meta, I feel like you'd be happier with bigger discard spells that affect multiple people.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
I once used encroach on a mono green player and took them out of the game.
Duress gets a lot better when you can use it twice.
However Thoughtseize is not the only form of pinpoint discard, and I think with certain strategies and cards these discard effects can really shine in a fair amount of metas, casual and semi-casual alike.
In my experience, both Tidehollow Sculler and his younger brother Mesmeric Fiend are political and information-gathering tools that, when paired with sac outlets and recursion, can give you a big advantage. The political aspect comes in the fact that playing these cards reveals someone's hand to the table, and if you choose the right person (aka the one most likely to be holding on to powerful cards), you can bring the whole table against them due to them seeing their strong hand (plus you get information on what they're holding too). What's more, because the effects of both Sculler and Fiend are temporary in that their death results in your opponent getting their card back, taking a powerful card (Genesis Wave, Torment of Hailfire, Tooth and Nail etc.) from their hand doesn't stop them from being a threat. Unlike with Thoughtseize where taking away their one good card both leaves them with nothing (they now may target you out of spite) and the table doesn't have to worry as much about the cards they have (and thus won't target that opponent more), the card being temporarily exiled still means the opponent who owns it is a permanent problem.
That by itself isn't enough however, as you can end up whiffing on hitting a good card (one of the issues with Thoughtseize) and the opponent can of course kill your creature to get their card back, effectively costing you a card for no real gain. That's where the sac outlets come in, as you can respond to the exile trigger by saccing Fiend or Sculler, thereby permanently exiling the card you take. And if the sac outlet you use is something like Vampiric Rites or Evolutionary Leap, then you are simultaneously disrupting your opponent's gameplan while advancing your own, gaining information and potentially diverting attention away from you. If you also pair them with ways to recur creatures, like Phyrexian Reclamation or Sun Titan, as well as ways to get value from creatures in general, like Skullclamp or Harvester of Souls, Tidehollow Sculler and Mesmeric Fiend can be useful tools that you can recur when their effects are needed (opponent drawing many cards or tutoring excessively) that enable non-blue decks to interact with cards they normally can't. I've played them both to good effect on in an Athreos, God of Passage deck where there are additional political implications via opponents letting me get them back to help tear apart a threatening player's hand with the use of a sac outlet. Additionally that deck was fairly combo-heavy, so being able to check if the player with mana up can interact with me for the low cost of 2 mana is very useful.
Outside of those two, there are a couple others pinpoint discard cards that seem playable though I haven't played them myself. Corpse Traders and Mind Slash maybe fall outside the line of "pinpoint", but they do allow a similar effect to Sculler and Fiend in that if you pair them with tokens or creatures you want to sac, you can generate advantages for yourself while also gaining information and disrupting opponents. Corpse Traders seems too mana inefficient while Mind Slash seems so efficient it might end up getting you targeted yourself if your deck can really abuse it, but they both seem like they could have a place in the right deck.
Conversely, Entomber Exarch is a broad utility card that seems like it can fit in any creature-heavy deck yet always ends up getting cut from early drafts of decks I initially include him in. The split card aspect of him is strong in that if the Duress effect is unlikely to have a good target at the moment (empty hands, heavy creature strategies), he's still a Gravedigger, so any deck interested in that effect for that cost can use him, but my decks are usually playing at a higher power level than Gravedigger. Outside of something a bit janky like Cleric tribal, he seems like a card that can fit in lower powerlevel decks or in decks where both creature recursion and hand disruption, no matter the cost, are things the deck is in strong need of, potentially as a flexible if costly silver bullet.
TLDR: Most pinpoint discard effects in multiplayer are bad because they are situational 1-for-1s, but when stapled to a permanent your deck is set up to abuse, and when used to create political advantages and gain information, they can be strong tools for non-blue decks to disrupt enemy win conditions while protecting their own.
If an opponent controls something scary, say, a Ghalta, it's in your best interest to leave that Ghalta in play unless it's attacking you (since if it's attacking someone else, it's to your benefit). In the event that said Ghalta does attack you though, it isn't too late to deal with the problem at hand; you can still use a removal spell. That's awesome because you were able to wait until the last moment possible before addressing the problem, eking out every advantage you could from a card you didn't even play.
Removal doesn't work when the last opportunity to interact with a card before it hurts you is while it's on the stack though. This is why counterspells are so valuable. Aside from the obvious fact that it's impossible to use a removal spell on an instant or sorcery, some cards can effect you adversely the moment they come into play. (Think powerful come into play effects like Bane of Progress or annoying static abilities like Rest in Peace or Stony Silence.) When these cards resolve, it could be too late for removal, and that makes countermagic valuable.
Similarly, there are some cards that removal AND countermagic can't adaquetly prevent before they cause you harm since the last opportunity you have to deal with them is while they're in your opponent's hand/deck. (Once these cards are on the stack, it's too late.) Cards like Obliterate and Tendrils of Agony come to mind. They can't be removed, and they can't be countered (usually), but they can be proactively dealt with.
The reason why targeted discard sucks is because the space is occupies that doesn't intersect with removal or countermagic is incredibly tiny. In other words, N(discard) - N(discard ∩ removal) - N(discard ∩ countermagic) + N(discard ∩ removal ∩ countermagic) is such a small space that you're better off using removal or countermagic to address your woes because they're just as inexpensive mana-wise.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I disagree. Stax effects are proactive, as are board wipes. Those are both very powerful effects for the average 'serious casual' meta. Sure, in a vacuum, being able to answer everything reactively at instant speed is best, but we're talking hypotheticals at that point because most cards and colors can't do that. Indeed, I think analyzing cards in a vacuum is fundamentally flawed and inherently incomplete, because you can only properly evaluate cards in the context of gameplay. For example, sticking strictly to your hierarchy, Mind Twist isn't as good in EDH as Unholy Hunger, which is obviously untrue. Twist is backbreaking, and the crappy spot removal spell just costs way too much. The viability of a given card is too contextual to adhere to a strict guideline, so while I agree in theory with the hierarchy I disagree in practice. It's merely one metric among many.
In this particular case I think you're misunderstanding my intended use of pinpoint discard. You don't cast it blindly as a value disruption spell like you would in competitive 1v1. I think you have to have the savvy to know when to cast them and who to cast them at. As Taleran suggests, they require a high degree of predictability to be used correctly, which can be difficult in an open, unknown meta. However, it doesn't take a genius to know that the blue player is probably packing a degree of countermagic or that someone tapping out for Diabolic Revelation is no good for anyone.
In other words, I think they have low floors and high ceilings. High risk since they could be dead draws in a lot of pods and have the potential to be misplayed, but high reward because they can be de facto game winners for only 1cmc.
I tend to agree. I also suspect they're the type of cards that get better as your meta gets better. Thoughtseize on random generic battlecruiser fatty is a much worse effect than Duress on Mana Drain that is preventing you from winning.
Interesting analysis. Some of it is flawed (Thoughtseize et al. also cause the player to reveal their hand, so while they're not quite as political as Mesmeric Fiend since the card doesn't come back they can still gain political points against a target that reveals a hand full of bombs), but some of it is spot on. When Torment came out I abused the hell out of Mesmeric Fiend with Malevolent Awakening and Faceless Butcher in one of my earliest multiplayer mono-black decks, so I'm well aware of the power of recursive disruption. However, it was glacially slow and mana intensive. At that point I would rather play something like the aforementioned Mind Twist, Mind Sludge, or even our girl Myojin of Night's Reach and just be done with it. No, I think pinpoint discard occupies an entirely different category in EDH: the proactive black counterspell. Clearly inferior to actual countermagic, but one takes what one can get. As I said in my reply to Dirk, it seems to me that they require a lot of savvy to use properly as well as only being useful in certain contexts which is why I'm concerned that they're too situational to be useful.
I agree in theory, but what if you're in colors that can't use countermagic or remove every type of permanent? I don't believe that to be an uncommon situation and in light of that I think the space is larger than you think. Maybe not by much, though, which is my concern.
Frankly, I'm tired of having to play the "Do they have the counter for Torment of Hailfire?" game against blue with my Erebos list and outside of the tech-y and terrible recent addition of Imp's Mischief and the potent mass discard spells I don't have ways to interact with countermagic. I've all but given up hope on dealing with fast combo, but blue-based control is something I think the pinpoint discard spells can help me with. The cost benefit analysis is difficult. Is it worth playing potentially weak draws to shore up weak matchups, particularly in a hybrid midrange/control strategy? What if I can draw an absurd amount of cards to offset both the card disadvantage relative to other players in the pod and the virtual card disadvantage from weak draws?
[Primer] Erebos, God of the Dead
HONK HONK
- Rabid Wombat
This analysis is only covering one aspect - the proactiveness and reactiveness of a card, and that generally-speaking more reactive cards are better - but that's only one aspect of those cards' effectiveness. Winter orb may be proactive but it's also incredibly powerful, far far more powerful than any spot removal I can think of. While conceptually more reactive answers are better, a bludgeon can be plenty effective if it's strong enough. The fact that winter orb is proactive is a point against it, but its insanely high power level easily overcomes this disadvantage (in the right deck/position).
Same deal for board wipes. Although they're significantly more reactive than winter orb is, even those at sorcery speed. Your opponent has already invested the cards and the mana into playing their creatures, even if they haven't attacked you yet. And that's assuming sorcery-speed, but ofc instant-speed wipes also exist.
Things aren't either "proactive" or "reactive" but somewhere on the scale between the two. Board wipes are closer to the reactive side than the proactive one, imo.
Most of my meta is value decks which, if they run a combo, is not their core game plan and doesn't telegraph when it's about to happen. In that circumstance I think my evaluation is pretty spot-on, and I think that's also a very common type of meta for EDH. If you're playing a meta where most people are running fast combos, then sure, maybe at that point CA is much less important than disrupting one key card, and effects like thoughtseize make sense, but personally I wouldn't have much interest in playing in that kind of meta.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
There is also the tempo cost to you. The more impact, the more mana you pay, but generally you will still have zero tempo impact with discard. Even with Mindslicer and Sire of Insanity, you have to wait until the next turn and hope the lack of cards causes your opponents to start wasting mana. If that doesn’t happen, you often will not make any headway in that game.
Thoughtseize et al can be situationally the best of the options, for that reason. You cost your opponent zero tempo, but at least it only costs you one mana. If you have enough card flowing to support it, that can be great.
Of course, it takes very good judgment to use these, and so many wheels showing up in this format make it a challenge. But, I have used it in decks like Skittles, Kalitas, Skullbriar, and other such non-Blue, non-Red decks that try to shake disruption.
Discard is often done in the dark, so you don't even know what you're trying to get. That is the biggest problem.
But I do think it's an under-utilized tool to push through your own spells. You can use it as blacks method to counter disruption.
If you already have a deck that has the ability to look at opponents hands, or you're really good at figuring out what opponents might have, which I personally pride myself on reading opponents intentions, then discard can be better.
Gitaxian Probe, Telepathy are the type of cards that can make discard excellent.
On a final note, I think Cabal Therapy is an overlooked card, as there are a lot of creature sacrifice centered decks. It works so well with Grave Pact and any other self sacrifice decks.
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
I see discard as having four basic types:
"Look at an opponent's hand and make him discard something." This is how Thoughtseize and Duress work. These are good when
"An opponent discards two or more cards." Again, good, not as good in multiplayer, but this still does gain card advantage. Think of these as political cards.
"All opponents discard." Again, more useful, but generally requires two or more to maintain card advantage.
Repeatable discard. These are actually what can become a Stax thing.
If it's not one of those four types, and ideally if it's 2 or 3, it should be both 2 and 3, there's no point to it.
On phasing: