You're missing it. You even write it down and then miss it. For what, to say counterspell can't counter uncounterable things? Ugh. Counterspell plus mana leak is eight spells that don't get through. Turns 1-5 you leak. After that CS. For two mana. How is that not scary? And that isn't including the various other blue spells with narrower application. Run a deck of nothing but countermagic and celestial colonnade and SCM, because that is exactly what modern is missing. I think the format needs a better counterspell but it doesn't need Counterspell.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
Yeah let's not have efficient, cheap LD and countermagic, and then complain about 3+ color aggro decks that drop 1-mana 3/3 (and bigger) creatures, backed up by the most efficient and cheap discard/removal/pump effects.
They are efficient because of the downsides
Best Discard? Pay 2 life
Best Removal? Opponents get a free land
Best Pump? Pay 2 life or delve 5
You want a universal counterspell for UU? Deprive: Return a land to your hand Logic Knot: Delve X (which apparently is free right? or is become immense not free?)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"What's your plan?" Gideon asked.
"Are you serious?" Chandra replied.
First of all, TS shouldn't be banned. That is stupid.
Yeah. That's the point. It's stupid to suggest banning it so it's stupid to try to claim Counterspell is somehow "too universal" when what do you know, Thoughtseize is just as universal.
The one thing I forgot to mention with the differences between CS and TS is TS can miss. CS never misses.
Counterspell misses cast triggers and "can't be countered" spells pretty hard.
Further, TS is usually not that great late game. CS is always good. A better card to compare CS to would DRS. It's always a nagging threat, early and late game. If you were willing to authorize the unbanning of DRS, then we could talk me thinks.
This comparison is nonsensical. The thing about Deathrite Shaman is that it's a 1/2 rainbow mana dork that can be cast off Black or Green. Let's remember that a turn 1 mana dork is actually an incredibly powerful play, the problem is that it's generally a pretty bad play on any later turn which is why you only see them played in decks that can get some kind of extra usage out of them like Infect (pump), Company (Gavony Township can turn them into attackers), or Elves (combines well with tribal Elf cards). Deathrite Shaman maintains that strength of being one of the best things to do on the first turn that stays good. Counterspell is hardly one of the best things to do on the first turn because you can't, you know, cast it on the first turn.
Not only that, you expose the problem right there in your verbiage. You say Deathrite Shaman is a nagging threat. You know what Counterspell isn't? A threat! It's an answer. It's more comparable to Path to Exile, which what do you know, is able to take out a creature in the early or late game. That doesn't make Path to Exile too good.
You're missing it. You even write it down and then miss it. For what, to say counterspell can't counter uncounterable things? Ugh. Counterspell plus mana leak is eight spells that don't get through. Turns 1-5 you leak. After that CS. For two mana. How is that not scary?
Well it's not scary because it's actually impossible. How the heck can you cast Mana Leak on turns 1-5 when it's a two mana spell? I guess there's Simian Spirit Guide, but that just makes you 2-for-1 yourself. If something can't happen, it's not particularly scary. I might as well get scared of a turn 2 Karn Liberated.
But maybe you meant to say turns 2-5. This still isn't particularly scary for a number of reasons. First, it means your opponent is able to cast things on the first turn (and second if you're on the draw) unmolested; that Goblin Guide you didn't counter on the first turn can still get in for a lot of damage. But furthermore, there's a rather low probability of being able to draw all those Mana Leaks. Even if you're counting both Mana Leak and Counterspell, you're still statistically improbable to be able to pull them off on each of those turns even when you add Snapcaster Mage to the mix. But let's suppose that everything happens to work out perfectly and you can pull it off and your opponent isn't running any kind of anti-countermagic like Cavern of Souls or Abrupt Decay or even discard (to take out your counterspells). You're still likely to lose simply because you can only do one counterspell a turn until your fourth, but they can cast multiple spells. Sure, maybe you Mana Leak a Lightning Bolt from a Burn player, but then they just cast Lava Spike while still hitting you for damage with the Goblin Guide you weren't able to counter on the first turn. Or Affinity's ability to drop a bunch of stuff on the first turn.
But that part is more relevant on aggro decks. A midrange deck has a higher mana curve and thus wouldn't be able to quite sneak things like that... but it doesn't get instantly defeated by having everything countered that because a midrange deck like Jund is built to trade cards. If you're up against Jund and go in for this "counter everything" plan then Jund wins because its general strategy is to one-for-one in the first place and win through better topdecks (and threats are better topdecks than answers), plus good luck countering its manlands.
And remember, all of this is assuming best case scenario, that you're drawing all the counterspells you want and the opponent isn't playing anything that thwarts them. What happens far more frequently is you counter a few cards, then run out of counterspells and your opponent starts resolving threats.
And that isn't including the various other blue spells with narrower application. Run a deck of nothing but countermagic and celestial colonnade and SCM, because that is exactly what modern is missing.
I'd love it if people were to do that because I'd be able to beat them pretty easily. These kinds of "all answer" decks inevitably just run out of answers before you run out of threats and so you win. And this is before you even start looking at the shortcomings, like how bad your all-counterspell hand suddenly becomes as soon as the opponent plays something like a Cavern of Souls.
I always remember Lord_Seth yelling about how thoughtseize is so good and if you re running black there is no excuse in not running that. Well, guess what. There are some black decks that are not running CS(as is Grixis Control /w Ancestral Vision).
Citation needed.
Well, life loss if huge those days. I can get behind TS being a universal answer and I have writter a lot about it being one of the best spells in Modern, but in topdeck modes it's as bad as one can get, meaning it has its own disadvantages. That's why it's gettting sided out in Jund mirrors. Counterspell being used on a topdeckedPrimeval Titan is huge imo. This (topdeck moder) difference is DARN HUGE. I would prefer Counterspell any given day because it's just a lot better for the reasons stated.
Now, I can get one spell costs B and the other UU, so you have to take that into account, and if you do CS comes out only by a bit on top. You have to take into account Snapcaster Mage + Counterspell as well though. And this play is darn huge.
Not really any more huge than Cryptic Command, quite honestly. It's "better" in that Snapcaster Mage can do other things but getting a 2/1 doesn't seem particularly better (and in fact seems a little weaker) than having your choice of draw, bounce, or tap. And while Cryptic Command is decent, it's not like Cryptic Command is particularly overpowered or anything.
If the most worrisome thing is Snapcaster Mage+Counterspell I don't think it's a particularly problematic card. It's a strong interaction, but that's what the format is about.
1. Snapcaster Mage means you can do other things with him as well, so you judge and do the best play. Being so versatily means you can bolt/path/terminate or counter for the win.
2. Counterspell can be played on turn 2(or realistically, because I do like being objective) at turn 3 if you have the mana and THEN AGAIN at turn 4 on. Or at turn X and then again turn X+Y. Meaning twice in the game, meaning potentially 8 times in a pretty long/endless hypothetical game. Having 4 Cryptic Commands mainboard means your deck is so high up the ground and with the format being fast, I doubt its the way to go.
My point is that this super powerful play is already possible and is not seen as problematic. Sure, Snapcaster Mage can be used for other things, but you're appealing to this in particular.
But there's a bigger issue I forgot to mention. You're acting like Snapcaster Mage is actually really good right now. It isn't. In all three of those Top 8's--a total of 24 decks--want to know how many Snapcaster Mages there were, in total? Six. And to be clear, that's the total number of that card being played, not the number of decks playing it. It's not like Snapcaster Mage is exactly tearing up the format right now to begin with. If anything it seems the card could use a boost.
About the citation I am 100% certain you said it but with the search not working for me properly for some days now, I am not sure I can find it. I will try that but it's a bit out of the point. I will try and find it though.
If you're going to claim someone said something, you had better darn be able to back it up. I'm going to consider this claim of yours to be made up until you can demonstrate actual proof.
Lord Seth: " Force of Will and Counterspell are in fact catchall answers, but it's odd to say they aren't happening when we do have such a card: Thoughtseize. The problem is that Thoughtseize is basically the only good catchall answer card in the format, and nuts to you if you don't want to play a Black deck. "
This and my: "I always remember Lord_Seth yelling about how thoughtseize is so good and if you re running black there is no excuse in not running that"
are the same thing, no?
Uh... no. Those aren't the same thing at all. What I said was that if you want to play Thoughtseize then you have to play Black. You're somehow turning that into claiming I said that if you're playing Black then you have to play Thoughtseize. That's outright reversing what I said.
How can a spell miss something it cannot target, here's a hint, it can't! I mean hey if you want to have AD shoot up to 20- 30 bucks a card great, won't hurt my feelings. As to how to cast leak turn one, SSG!LMAO!!!!!!!! The DRS comparison isn't any more ridiculous than your TS one. ANd yeah you fight through the hate and its miserable. I don't think people wanna play that kind of magic. I don't think that is the kind of magic WotC wants modern to be. You forget that one of the reasons Modern starts where it does set wise was to avoid counterspell. They didn't want it in at Moderns inception and I'm pretty sure they don't want it now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
These days I typically avoid getting involved in the *****storm that is discussing Counterspell on this site. However no such consideration was used for the start point of modern, they suggested a lot of different starting points but decided that starting with 8th Ed gave players a visual guide was to was legal in the format, nothing more, nothing less (a guide that was muddied by an influx of supplemental product). I would suggest checking out some the podcasts that Tom Lapille has been on, they give some really interesting insight in the creation of the Modern format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In play: Jund Death Shadow, Grixis Control, Eldrazi Stompy, Ponza
In the yard: RUG Delver, Kiki-Chord, Grixis Twin, Mardu Control, Smallpox, Jeskai Control, Jeskai Delver, Assault Loam, Elves, Deathcloud, Eggs, Storm
You are saying that Thoughtseize is the only good catchall answer in the format. So, basically you are urging people to play TS if their deck supports it. Unless if you think people should not play the best catchall answer if their deck can support it.
So in other words, I didn't actually say what you claimed I said, so you have to try to search for hidden meanings to try to back yourself up?
Your apparent argument was that some Black decks don't run Thoughtseize, so this goes against the claim I made in your imagination. But what I was actually saying--and again, we're talking what I actually said--was that if you wanted a good catch-all answer, you had to play Black to get Thoughtseize because there wasn't really anything else that could do that. Obviously not every Black deck is interested in such a thing because not every deck even cares that much about the opponent having answers. Living End is hardly interested in such a thing because the only things it needs to answer are the cards that interfere with its specific strategy and it can ignore the rest. Similarly, the Burn decks that go into Black for Bump in the Night obviously have no interest in such a card. The point was, and this is especially clear in context you left out, that this was hindering non-Black interactive decks because they didn't have access to anything like that, so Counterspell would better enable interactive decks not running Black and provide better diversity among the interactive decks than them almost always being Black, Jund/Junk in particular. Jeskai Nahiri looked to be avoiding that trend, but then it turned out to be flavor of the month.
I'm just feeling very flabbergasted at this. I didn't say what you claim I said. You're trying to invent secret meanings to what I said in order to try to say I said something I didn't.
The funny thing is, even if I did say what you imagine I said, your counterpoint of pointing to Grixis Control as a Black deck that often doesn't play Thoughtseize is somewhat weakened by the fact the deck hasn't even made it into the Tier 2 forum. If anything that's proof of the argument you imagine I made.
Essentially, the point I was making(and you seem to miss out people's real point a lot and hide behind random quotes-I am not the first who is pointing that out to you, but unfortunately it is true IMO)]/quote]This is really really funny for you to say immediately after the earlier part of your message where you pulled out a quote from me from months ago to try to claim I said something I didn't even say in that quote.
So, the point of this is that IMO(I stated the reasons) CS is a better card than TS overall)
Problem is, it's ignoring the various ways Thoughtseize is better. Sure, Counterspell is better in the later game, but for Thoughtseize, there's no tempo loss from holding it off, you see the opponent's hand, it takes out a number of cards Counterspell doesn't, and costs 1 less mana. There's also more anti-counterspell stuff than anti-discard in general.
[quote]But there's a bigger issue I forgot to mention. You're acting like Snapcaster Mage is actually really good right now. It isn't. In all three of those Top 8's--a total of 24 decks--want to know how many Snapcaster Mages there were, in total? Six. And to be clear, that's the total number of that card being played, not the number of decks playing it. It's not like Snapcaster Mage is exactly tearing up the format right now to begin with. If anything it seems the card could use a boost.
Snapcaster Mage is a card that with a new addition can get from mediocre to a super card. All it takes is one new print/card on 2 mana or more. Kolaghan's Command was great, but 3 mana are a lot in modern to flashback. And we are telling ourselves that Snap is a bad card right now. Meta can shift, and Snap decks could become powerhouses very easily. In addition, if CS was to be introduced we have no clue if it is a NO GO with a possible Splinter Twin unban in Wizards eyes(not my opinion here)
Counterspell actually would almost certainly hurt Twin a lot more than it helps it. Twin's worst matchups are generally other URx decks and what do you know, those are the decks that would run Counterspell (and get more usage out of it than Twin, in which Remand is actually better in a number of ways). If anything a Counterspell reprint could help Twin come off the banlist because it would empower the decks that beat Twin as well as giving a reason to drop Twin (part of the reason for the combo was that it worked as a catch-all answer, but with Counterspell that's less necessary).
In regards to the larger issue of Snapcaster Mage, the point remains that the decks that would run Snapcaster Mage+Counterspell are the decks that could use the most help. And even ignoring that, the interaction, while good, does not seem overpowered in the context of the format.
How can a spell miss something it cannot target, here's a hint, it can't!
Actually, counterspells can target uncounterable spells, it just doesn't counter them. Though that bit of semantics aside, I'm not sure what your argument is supposed to be. That people wouldn't use a counterspell on a can't be countered card? Well, yeah, but the point is it misses in that it can't do anything to it, whereas a discard spell would have (unless it was Loxodon Smiter).
I mean hey if you want to have AD shoot up to 20- 30 bucks a card great, won't hurt my feelings. As to how to cast leak turn one, SSG!LMAO!!!!!!!!
I can't tell. Are you mentioning SSG in order to try to prove my claim wrong about the inability to cast Mana Leak on turn 1? If so, it's silly because I pointed that out. Or are you trying to make fun of my mention of Simian Spirit Guide, which is silly because I obviously noted how that wasn't a very good strategy, and only mentioned it to qualify my statement of the impossibility of casting it on turn 1? Of course, either way it's silly on your part.
The DRS comparison isn't any more ridiculous than your TS one.
Deathrite Shaman is a threat that gets better. Counterspell is an answer that doesn't get better, it just does the same thing. It's way more ridiculous because it serves a similar function to Thoughtseize (a catch-all answer) whereas Deathrite Shaman is an active threat.
ANd yeah you fight through the hate and its miserable. I don't think people wanna play that kind of magic. I don't think that is the kind of magic WotC wants modern to be.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the power level. If someone wants to play a bad deck that's still a bit annoying to play against, go ahead. I won't object to the fairly easy wins it'll provide. How about we ban something else from Eggs? That's not a good deck but it's still annoying to play against.
You forget that one of the reasons Modern starts where it does set wise was to avoid counterspell. They didn't want it in at Moderns inception and I'm pretty sure they don't want it now.
Uh, no, the reason it started where it starts was the modern frame. That's it. They had trouble picking a starting point because anything felt arbitrary, so they figured that the modern frame point was actually the least arbitrary of the lot in that they wouldn't have to spend a lot of time figuring out what cards to include or exclude. Tom LaPille says all this in the Masters of Modern podcast episode he was in. In other words, Counterspell was incidental. Unless you have a specific source saying that Counterspell was a strong consideration rather than rampant speculation on your part?
Ok I'll use a number for each one of your responses. Ugh. 1) What is silly is asking for a card that has been ruled out for this format. You want counterspell, play legacy, vintage , commander etc. 2) THe SSG remark was just being silly. 3) Counterspell does get better, you're missing that. It is as good as the spell it negates. The better the spell, the better the counterspell. 4) It has everything to do with power level. Modern is a carefully enclosed ecosystem. It could be annoying or it could be game breaking. Its not worth the risk. 5) So it's just convenient that Counterspell has never seen a standard printing since seventh edition. Which on its face doesn't mean much except that Counterspell had seen a printing in every core set up to that point. I don't buy that it was coincidental. How much draw go magic did you play against? You joined up a little before me so how active were you in when draw go was in its hay day? It's not fun to play against but is quite fun to play as. Which amounts to a miserable combination since people both love it and hate it when WotC decided to gear the game towards creatures, rather than spells, I believe they saw Counterspell as a problem card. Its conjecture I know but to me it seems like a bit more than coincidence. Why would Lapille or WotC say it was coincidental? Well it's not the kind of blame they would like to face so, which has always been how they do things. No it totally feels like a NOW thing, perhaps one of earlier experiments before pushing mtg to where it is today.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
I'm getting kinda tired at the comparison between Counterspell and Thoughtseize. We all understand why they're compared, but CS is so vastly superior to any discard spell that it's not funny. To understand that, one need look only as far as the next hellbent top deck.
Ok I'll use a number for each one of your responses. Ugh. 1) What is silly is asking for a card that has been ruled out for this format. You want counterspell, play legacy, vintage , commander etc.
How has it been "ruled out"? Because it predates 8th Edition? Goblin Piledriver got a reprint. I see no reason why anything before 8th Edition is somehow off limits. Even if Wizards of the Coast does insist that it won't be brought back--which as far as I know they haven't--that doesn't mean they can't change their minds. They've certainly done so before.
And "go play another format" is a bit of a weak comeback. The point is that Counterspell would go a long way to fixing up some of the problems people have with the format, and I don't think it would be in any way overpowered.
3) Counterspell does get better, you're missing that. It is as good as the spell it negates. The better the spell, the better the counterspell.
Okay, then Path to Exile gets better as the game goes on because the bigger and better the creature, the better it is. I mean, heck, we can even pull this on Deprive. Sure, it's worse than Counterspell, but it still gets better and better as the game goes on, not only in countering more expensive spells but also in its drawback mattering less.
4) It has everything to do with power level. Modern is a carefully enclosed ecosystem. It could be annoying or it could be game breaking. Its not worth the risk.
By this logic, let's not print anything ever! Anything could break the format!
Though exactly how anyone would consider it likely to break anything is odd considering it never did that in any format previously. Granted, that doesn't inherently mean it's fine, but it was really nothing better than a good card in any format it's been in.
5) So it's just convenient that Counterspell has never seen a standard printing since seventh edition. Which on its face doesn't mean much except that Counterspell had seen a printing in every core set up to that point. I don't buy that it was coincidental.
It seems pretty obvious to be coincidental. Because if the goal was just to avoid Counterspell, why not start with Odyssey? It skips 7th Edition and is a reasonable place to start the format, being the start of a block. But they went further than that.
But maybe the argument is that Odyssey/Onslaught block, while not having Counterspell, had other cards they didn't want around due to not encouraging their style of play or whatever. But that applies also to 8th, 9th, Mirrodin, and Kamigawa, which were included. If Counterspell was such a problem they wanted to skip over its set, it's hard to imagine they would have intentionally kept Blood Moon in. They could have easily dodged Blood Moon along with a number of other cards they probably didn't like (Boil/Choke, Stone Rain, Ensnaring Bridge) by setting the starting point at Ravnica. It was a popular set, it supposedly started a new state of design (Rosewater classified it as such long before Modern was a format) and it would've actually cut the banlist in half (both the original banlist for the Pro Tour and the current banlist would have indeed been cut approximately in half if the format started with Ravnica). It wouldn't have been a hard sell. So if the goal was to excise "problematic" cards then 8th Edition as the starting point doesn't make that much sense, whether we're limiting ourselves to Counterspell or are including other cards.
What does make sense is they picked 8th Edition because the card frame was basically the simplest thing to go by. Because it doesn't make sense as a starting point if Counterspell was the problem, and it also doesn't make sense as a starting point if cards like Counterspell were the problem.
How much draw go magic did you play against? You joined up a little before me so how active were you in when draw go was in its hay day? It's not fun to play against but is quite fun to play as.
I started playing Magic when 4th Edition was out, though I was fairly off and on with it.
Though actually, Draw-Go was relevant quite recently: The control decks in the RTR Standards were very close to Draw-Go. They weren't quite as extreme as the older ones, but they played very similarly, complete with the Morphling substitute in the form of Aetherling. I was perfectly fine with them for the most part. The only real problem I had was Supreme Verdict's "can't be countered" clause which made it very difficult to interact with.
Which amounts to a miserable combination since people both love it and hate it when WotC decided to gear the game towards creatures, rather than spells, I believe they saw Counterspell as a problem card. Its conjecture I know but to me it seems like a bit more than coincidence. Why would Lapille or WotC say it was coincidental? Well it's not the kind of blame they would like to face so, which has always been how they do things. No it totally feels like a NOW thing, perhaps one of earlier experiments before pushing mtg to where it is today.
When LaPille did the Masters of Modern podcast, he wasn't working for Wizards of the Coast anymore, so it's not like he had some great incentive to avoid admitting some kind of blame. In fact, he was rather blunt on a number of points, straight up admitting that some of the initially banned cards they thought were probably fine but they banned because they were afraid of the off chance it could make a previously disliked deck dominate the Pro Tour (Bitterblossom) and that a major factor in Modern bannings was the Pro Tour being the Modern format. So I don't think he had much of a reason to not admit Counterspell (or other cards) was a major consideration if it was. And similarly, I see no reason to not believe him when he said that they picked 8th Edition just because of the card face. Heck, the point of starting with the card face was to not have to engage in these sort of "well if we start it with this set we have to include this card"/"Well if we start it here it means we don't get this card" discussions that you claim were the reason for 8th Edition as the starting point.
So there is reasonable evidence that Counterspell was not a primary or even secondary consideration in the format's starting point. That's a whole lot more than your sheer speculation, and even the speculation is countermanded by what I noted, that if that was the goal the starting point doesn't make sense.
I want to point out, seth, that path DOES get better as the game goes on. Ramping someone to a 3 mana spell on turn 2 is different than giving someone their seventh land. Same actually with deprive, since the tempo loss is significant enough early on to not be run, but later in the game it doesn't really matter. I think this is markedly different than counterspell, which is good on turn 2+. I think wizards has been pushing conditional two mana counterspells, like stoic rebuttal and deprive, as a way to signal that they feel counterspell is too strong. I don't think counterspell is the reason we start with eighth edition, but I don't think wizards wants it to be part of modern.
On the one hand, I respect a healthy dose of uncertainty and hesitation regarding Counterspell. It's a powerful card and could make a big impact, perhaps too big, on the format. On the other hand, the alarmism around the card is nuts. So are suggestions that Modern was deliberately designed around CS or that pre-8th cards are necessarily too strong for the format. It's the exact same anti-blue and anti-control hyperbole we saw with BB, AV, and Sword unban opponents; look how that turned out for the doomsayers.
I don't know if CS is the card Modern actually needs, but I'm relatively confident it wouldn't be nearly as broken as people here are claiming.
The truth is that blue decks put some very decent results in the past and it just won one of the GP's as well so saying that blue or control decks don't do good in Modern makes no sense at all.
The fact that the blue deck that won one of the GP's was NOT a control deck, makes your statement nonsense at all.
Have you ever thought that maybe, blue-control-players (not just "blue-players") are not happy because the % of control decks with Tier status that you can choose for a competitive tournament are always smaller then the % of the others strategies?
Well Delver is tempo aka aggro-control. Often a game vs Grixis Delver can be incorrectly interpreted as Grixis Control.
On the one hand, I respect a healthy dose of uncertainty and hesitation regarding Counterspell. It's a powerful card and could make a big impact, perhaps too big, on the format. On the other hand, the alarmism around the card is nuts. So are suggestions that Modern was deliberately designed around CS or that pre-8th cards are necessarily too strong for the format. It's the exact same anti-blue and anti-control hyperbole we saw with BB, AV, and Sword unban opponents; look how that turned out for the doomsayers.
I don't know if CS is the card Modern actually needs, but I'm relatively confident it wouldn't be nearly as broken as people here are claiming.
It's not that it's broken.
It's that it's unfun to be on the receiving end of it all.
And hell, it's actually kinda boring just twiddling two sources of Blue mana to threaten a counterspell.
Also I really don't want to reward people for playing Cavern of Souls. That card only gets stronger with each maindeckable counterspell that sees play.
I play UB Faeries, counterspells are my bread and butter, I live to ruin the opponent's plan at any step of the game. So when I say Counterspell the card is nothing but an invitation for attendance drops, excessive feelbads and disturbing metagame developments, at the very least I don't want people to accuse me of being some privileged linear aggro deck in an attempt to dismiss my opinions.
I play UB Faeries, counterspells are my bread and butter, I live to ruin the opponent's plan at any step of the game. So when I say Counterspell the card is nothing but an invitation for attendance drops, excessive feelbads and disturbing metagame developments, at the very least I don't want people to accuse me of being some privileged linear aggro deck in an attempt to dismiss my opinions.
Is it really hyperbolic though? The dislike of countspell stems back eons before BB,AV or Sword. That's not to say it would break anything, it likely wouldn't. It is however one of the reasons blue has been considered the most powerful color in magic and it is also one of the reasons blue is despised by so many players. If you're missing that there is little hope for you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
Is it really hyperbolic though? The dislike of countspell stems back eons before BB,AV or Sword. That's not to say it would break anything, it likely wouldn't. It is however one of the reasons blue has been considered the most powerful color in magic and it is also one of the reasons blue is despised by so many players. If you're missing that there is little hope for you.
To start, I suggest you rein in your tone. Comments like "If you're missing that there is little hope for you" border on trolling. I'm confident we can have a civil conversation about this without anyone (you or someone else) getting a warning/infraction, so let's just keep it respectful.
As far as Counterspell's dislike, I do not believe dislike of individual cards should have any bearing on format policy. That is to say, the dislike alone is not a reason to do something or not do something. I dislike losing to Infect as Ad Nauseam and RG Tron. I dislike playing Affinity and losing to Stony Silence. I disliked Bitterblossom for years. None of those dislikes, mine or others', should have any bearing on policy decisions.
That said, policy decisions should absolutely be grounded in their effect on the format. If people dislike something because it's breaking the T4 rule or warping format diversity, then Wizards should act around that. On the flipside, if people dislike something but Wizards can find (through testing) that it wouldn't break that rule or warp the metagame, then it needs a second look. On this topic, if pro-Counterspell people can submit evidence to suggest it's okay in the format, then its barrier to entry should be lowered a bit.
I'm not trying to dismiss the anti-CS folks out of hand. I'm simply encouraging us to use evidence, examples, citations, and a generally more measured approach when viewing these questions.
I want to point out, seth, that path DOES get better as the game goes on. Ramping someone to a 3 mana spell on turn 2 is different than giving someone their seventh land. Same actually with deprive, since the tempo loss is significant enough early on to not be run, but later in the game it doesn't really matter. I think this is markedly different than counterspell, which is good on turn 2+. I think wizards has been pushing conditional two mana counterspells, like stoic rebuttal and deprive, as a way to signal that they feel counterspell is too strong. I don't think counterspell is the reason we start with eighth edition, but I don't think wizards wants it to be part of modern.
Well the funny thing is, this correction that Path to Exile gets stronger as the game goes on actually supports my point even better.
Again, you lose the important meaning focusing on the wrong words. Some times, you have to read "a little" behind the words and clearly you are too focused on some things you prefer and you quote those and only those.
You don't need to try to read behind the words. I said what I said in that comment from months ago on Thoughtseize and you keep claiming that I somehow said something other than what I actually said. This kind of claim that someone has to read "a little" behind the words to get to the secret message behind what I said is silly.
I made a claim only to say you clearly overreact about the card Thoughtseize and IMO this is an overreaction for the 2nd time.
Me pointing out that I didn't say what you claimed I said is overreacting?
Its my opinion and this is it. But it's not that main point. And you claim Grixis Control is a tier 3 deck because the charts say so. Have you had actually any experience with the deck? Because I have A TON and I can confirm that the deck is A LOT STRONGER than the people think just because it's "on tier 3 on charts". So, yes, this can be a good deck without playing Thoughtseize.
Well, congratulations, you have successfully refuted a claim that I never actually made. Good job!
Some words of mine that went straight into the bin for the 5th time and did not notice at all apparently
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Did you accidentally misformat something?
My point still remains the same. Snapcaster Mage would be a powerhouse with Counterspell and I would fear for its banning, as LSV pointed out as well(well I had my opinion, this just got to confirm that)
Let's suppose this correct. That Countrespell totally overcharges Snapcaster Mage and this synergy is somehow so absolutely amazing that it leads to a banning on Snapcaster Mage. So what? Why is this something to worry about? If Snapcaster Mage gets banned then you still have Counterspell in the format so the net result from the gain and loss is the decks running them staying roughly the same in terms of power, sorta like how Eggs, after the Second Sunrise ban, ended up being about as powerful as it was before Faith's Reward. You gain something, you lose something, and it evens out.
People seem to forget Counterspell costs UU
So it only fits well into blue heavy decks. And even there UU on the second turn isnt automatic. So the only gainers imo are Blue Moon and UW Control. both of these decks are far from dominance and Counterspell is not what they really want. They would split Counterspell/Mana Leak 2/2 and thats it, Modern broken. And im not sure if Blue Moon even wants it, it's not in great position to snapcaster-counterspell
People seem to forget Counterspell costs UU
So it only fits well into blue heavy decks. And even there UU on the second turn isnt automatic. So the only gainers imo are Blue Moon and UW Control. both of these decks are far from dominance and Counterspell is not what they really want. They would split Counterspell/Mana Leak 2/2 and thats it, Modern broken. And im not sure if Blue Moon even wants it, it's not in great position to snapcaster-counterspell
Cryptic costs 1UUU. Snappy->counterspell would also cost 1UUU.
People would probably play it just fine.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: G Tron, Vannifar, Jund, Druid/Vizier combo, Humans, Eldrazi Stompy (Serum Powder), Amulet, Grishoalbrand, Breach Titan, Turns, Eternal Command, As Foretold Living End, Elves, Cheerios, RUG Scapeshift
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
They are efficient because of the downsides
Best Discard? Pay 2 life
Best Removal? Opponents get a free land
Best Pump? Pay 2 life or delve 5
You want a universal counterspell for UU?
Deprive: Return a land to your hand
Logic Knot: Delve X (which apparently is free right? or is become immense not free?)
"Are you serious?" Chandra replied.
Counterspell misses cast triggers and "can't be countered" spells pretty hard.
This comparison is nonsensical. The thing about Deathrite Shaman is that it's a 1/2 rainbow mana dork that can be cast off Black or Green. Let's remember that a turn 1 mana dork is actually an incredibly powerful play, the problem is that it's generally a pretty bad play on any later turn which is why you only see them played in decks that can get some kind of extra usage out of them like Infect (pump), Company (Gavony Township can turn them into attackers), or Elves (combines well with tribal Elf cards). Deathrite Shaman maintains that strength of being one of the best things to do on the first turn that stays good. Counterspell is hardly one of the best things to do on the first turn because you can't, you know, cast it on the first turn.
Not only that, you expose the problem right there in your verbiage. You say Deathrite Shaman is a nagging threat. You know what Counterspell isn't? A threat! It's an answer. It's more comparable to Path to Exile, which what do you know, is able to take out a creature in the early or late game. That doesn't make Path to Exile too good.
Now, onto your next message:
Well it's not scary because it's actually impossible. How the heck can you cast Mana Leak on turns 1-5 when it's a two mana spell? I guess there's Simian Spirit Guide, but that just makes you 2-for-1 yourself. If something can't happen, it's not particularly scary. I might as well get scared of a turn 2 Karn Liberated.
But maybe you meant to say turns 2-5. This still isn't particularly scary for a number of reasons. First, it means your opponent is able to cast things on the first turn (and second if you're on the draw) unmolested; that Goblin Guide you didn't counter on the first turn can still get in for a lot of damage. But furthermore, there's a rather low probability of being able to draw all those Mana Leaks. Even if you're counting both Mana Leak and Counterspell, you're still statistically improbable to be able to pull them off on each of those turns even when you add Snapcaster Mage to the mix. But let's suppose that everything happens to work out perfectly and you can pull it off and your opponent isn't running any kind of anti-countermagic like Cavern of Souls or Abrupt Decay or even discard (to take out your counterspells). You're still likely to lose simply because you can only do one counterspell a turn until your fourth, but they can cast multiple spells. Sure, maybe you Mana Leak a Lightning Bolt from a Burn player, but then they just cast Lava Spike while still hitting you for damage with the Goblin Guide you weren't able to counter on the first turn. Or Affinity's ability to drop a bunch of stuff on the first turn.
But that part is more relevant on aggro decks. A midrange deck has a higher mana curve and thus wouldn't be able to quite sneak things like that... but it doesn't get instantly defeated by having everything countered that because a midrange deck like Jund is built to trade cards. If you're up against Jund and go in for this "counter everything" plan then Jund wins because its general strategy is to one-for-one in the first place and win through better topdecks (and threats are better topdecks than answers), plus good luck countering its manlands.
And remember, all of this is assuming best case scenario, that you're drawing all the counterspells you want and the opponent isn't playing anything that thwarts them. What happens far more frequently is you counter a few cards, then run out of counterspells and your opponent starts resolving threats.
I'd love it if people were to do that because I'd be able to beat them pretty easily. These kinds of "all answer" decks inevitably just run out of answers before you run out of threats and so you win. And this is before you even start looking at the shortcomings, like how bad your all-counterspell hand suddenly becomes as soon as the opponent plays something like a Cavern of Souls.
Not really any more huge than Cryptic Command, quite honestly. It's "better" in that Snapcaster Mage can do other things but getting a 2/1 doesn't seem particularly better (and in fact seems a little weaker) than having your choice of draw, bounce, or tap. And while Cryptic Command is decent, it's not like Cryptic Command is particularly overpowered or anything.
If the most worrisome thing is Snapcaster Mage+Counterspell I don't think it's a particularly problematic card. It's a strong interaction, but that's what the format is about.
But there's a bigger issue I forgot to mention. You're acting like Snapcaster Mage is actually really good right now. It isn't. In all three of those Top 8's--a total of 24 decks--want to know how many Snapcaster Mages there were, in total? Six. And to be clear, that's the total number of that card being played, not the number of decks playing it. It's not like Snapcaster Mage is exactly tearing up the format right now to begin with. If anything it seems the card could use a boost.
If you're going to claim someone said something, you had better darn be able to back it up. I'm going to consider this claim of yours to be made up until you can demonstrate actual proof.
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
In the yard: RUG Delver, Kiki-Chord, Grixis Twin, Mardu Control, Smallpox, Jeskai Control, Jeskai Delver, Assault Loam, Elves, Deathcloud, Eggs, Storm
Your apparent argument was that some Black decks don't run Thoughtseize, so this goes against the claim I made in your imagination. But what I was actually saying--and again, we're talking what I actually said--was that if you wanted a good catch-all answer, you had to play Black to get Thoughtseize because there wasn't really anything else that could do that. Obviously not every Black deck is interested in such a thing because not every deck even cares that much about the opponent having answers. Living End is hardly interested in such a thing because the only things it needs to answer are the cards that interfere with its specific strategy and it can ignore the rest. Similarly, the Burn decks that go into Black for Bump in the Night obviously have no interest in such a card. The point was, and this is especially clear in context you left out, that this was hindering non-Black interactive decks because they didn't have access to anything like that, so Counterspell would better enable interactive decks not running Black and provide better diversity among the interactive decks than them almost always being Black, Jund/Junk in particular. Jeskai Nahiri looked to be avoiding that trend, but then it turned out to be flavor of the month.
I'm just feeling very flabbergasted at this. I didn't say what you claim I said. You're trying to invent secret meanings to what I said in order to try to say I said something I didn't.
The funny thing is, even if I did say what you imagine I said, your counterpoint of pointing to Grixis Control as a Black deck that often doesn't play Thoughtseize is somewhat weakened by the fact the deck hasn't even made it into the Tier 2 forum. If anything that's proof of the argument you imagine I made.
Counterspell actually would almost certainly hurt Twin a lot more than it helps it. Twin's worst matchups are generally other URx decks and what do you know, those are the decks that would run Counterspell (and get more usage out of it than Twin, in which Remand is actually better in a number of ways). If anything a Counterspell reprint could help Twin come off the banlist because it would empower the decks that beat Twin as well as giving a reason to drop Twin (part of the reason for the combo was that it worked as a catch-all answer, but with Counterspell that's less necessary).
In regards to the larger issue of Snapcaster Mage, the point remains that the decks that would run Snapcaster Mage+Counterspell are the decks that could use the most help. And even ignoring that, the interaction, while good, does not seem overpowered in the context of the format.
I can't tell. Are you mentioning SSG in order to try to prove my claim wrong about the inability to cast Mana Leak on turn 1? If so, it's silly because I pointed that out. Or are you trying to make fun of my mention of Simian Spirit Guide, which is silly because I obviously noted how that wasn't a very good strategy, and only mentioned it to qualify my statement of the impossibility of casting it on turn 1? Of course, either way it's silly on your part.
Deathrite Shaman is a threat that gets better. Counterspell is an answer that doesn't get better, it just does the same thing. It's way more ridiculous because it serves a similar function to Thoughtseize (a catch-all answer) whereas Deathrite Shaman is an active threat.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the power level. If someone wants to play a bad deck that's still a bit annoying to play against, go ahead. I won't object to the fairly easy wins it'll provide. How about we ban something else from Eggs? That's not a good deck but it's still annoying to play against.
Uh, no, the reason it started where it starts was the modern frame. That's it. They had trouble picking a starting point because anything felt arbitrary, so they figured that the modern frame point was actually the least arbitrary of the lot in that they wouldn't have to spend a lot of time figuring out what cards to include or exclude. Tom LaPille says all this in the Masters of Modern podcast episode he was in. In other words, Counterspell was incidental. Unless you have a specific source saying that Counterspell was a strong consideration rather than rampant speculation on your part?
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
And "go play another format" is a bit of a weak comeback. The point is that Counterspell would go a long way to fixing up some of the problems people have with the format, and I don't think it would be in any way overpowered.
Okay, then Path to Exile gets better as the game goes on because the bigger and better the creature, the better it is. I mean, heck, we can even pull this on Deprive. Sure, it's worse than Counterspell, but it still gets better and better as the game goes on, not only in countering more expensive spells but also in its drawback mattering less.
By this logic, let's not print anything ever! Anything could break the format!
Though exactly how anyone would consider it likely to break anything is odd considering it never did that in any format previously. Granted, that doesn't inherently mean it's fine, but it was really nothing better than a good card in any format it's been in.
It seems pretty obvious to be coincidental. Because if the goal was just to avoid Counterspell, why not start with Odyssey? It skips 7th Edition and is a reasonable place to start the format, being the start of a block. But they went further than that.
But maybe the argument is that Odyssey/Onslaught block, while not having Counterspell, had other cards they didn't want around due to not encouraging their style of play or whatever. But that applies also to 8th, 9th, Mirrodin, and Kamigawa, which were included. If Counterspell was such a problem they wanted to skip over its set, it's hard to imagine they would have intentionally kept Blood Moon in. They could have easily dodged Blood Moon along with a number of other cards they probably didn't like (Boil/Choke, Stone Rain, Ensnaring Bridge) by setting the starting point at Ravnica. It was a popular set, it supposedly started a new state of design (Rosewater classified it as such long before Modern was a format) and it would've actually cut the banlist in half (both the original banlist for the Pro Tour and the current banlist would have indeed been cut approximately in half if the format started with Ravnica). It wouldn't have been a hard sell. So if the goal was to excise "problematic" cards then 8th Edition as the starting point doesn't make that much sense, whether we're limiting ourselves to Counterspell or are including other cards.
What does make sense is they picked 8th Edition because the card frame was basically the simplest thing to go by. Because it doesn't make sense as a starting point if Counterspell was the problem, and it also doesn't make sense as a starting point if cards like Counterspell were the problem.
I started playing Magic when 4th Edition was out, though I was fairly off and on with it.
Though actually, Draw-Go was relevant quite recently: The control decks in the RTR Standards were very close to Draw-Go. They weren't quite as extreme as the older ones, but they played very similarly, complete with the Morphling substitute in the form of Aetherling. I was perfectly fine with them for the most part. The only real problem I had was Supreme Verdict's "can't be countered" clause which made it very difficult to interact with.
When LaPille did the Masters of Modern podcast, he wasn't working for Wizards of the Coast anymore, so it's not like he had some great incentive to avoid admitting some kind of blame. In fact, he was rather blunt on a number of points, straight up admitting that some of the initially banned cards they thought were probably fine but they banned because they were afraid of the off chance it could make a previously disliked deck dominate the Pro Tour (Bitterblossom) and that a major factor in Modern bannings was the Pro Tour being the Modern format. So I don't think he had much of a reason to not admit Counterspell (or other cards) was a major consideration if it was. And similarly, I see no reason to not believe him when he said that they picked 8th Edition just because of the card face. Heck, the point of starting with the card face was to not have to engage in these sort of "well if we start it with this set we have to include this card"/"Well if we start it here it means we don't get this card" discussions that you claim were the reason for 8th Edition as the starting point.
So there is reasonable evidence that Counterspell was not a primary or even secondary consideration in the format's starting point. That's a whole lot more than your sheer speculation, and even the speculation is countermanded by what I noted, that if that was the goal the starting point doesn't make sense.
My H/W list
I don't know if CS is the card Modern actually needs, but I'm relatively confident it wouldn't be nearly as broken as people here are claiming.
G Green Stompy
RG Shamans
UB Mill
UG Infect
WUBRG Slivers!
It's not that it's broken.
It's that it's unfun to be on the receiving end of it all.
And hell, it's actually kinda boring just twiddling two sources of Blue mana to threaten a counterspell.
Also I really don't want to reward people for playing Cavern of Souls. That card only gets stronger with each maindeckable counterspell that sees play.
I play UB Faeries, counterspells are my bread and butter, I live to ruin the opponent's plan at any step of the game. So when I say Counterspell the card is nothing but an invitation for attendance drops, excessive feelbads and disturbing metagame developments, at the very least I don't want people to accuse me of being some privileged linear aggro deck in an attempt to dismiss my opinions.
You, sir, are a linear aggro deck.
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
To start, I suggest you rein in your tone. Comments like "If you're missing that there is little hope for you" border on trolling. I'm confident we can have a civil conversation about this without anyone (you or someone else) getting a warning/infraction, so let's just keep it respectful.
As far as Counterspell's dislike, I do not believe dislike of individual cards should have any bearing on format policy. That is to say, the dislike alone is not a reason to do something or not do something. I dislike losing to Infect as Ad Nauseam and RG Tron. I dislike playing Affinity and losing to Stony Silence. I disliked Bitterblossom for years. None of those dislikes, mine or others', should have any bearing on policy decisions.
That said, policy decisions should absolutely be grounded in their effect on the format. If people dislike something because it's breaking the T4 rule or warping format diversity, then Wizards should act around that. On the flipside, if people dislike something but Wizards can find (through testing) that it wouldn't break that rule or warp the metagame, then it needs a second look. On this topic, if pro-Counterspell people can submit evidence to suggest it's okay in the format, then its barrier to entry should be lowered a bit.
I'm not trying to dismiss the anti-CS folks out of hand. I'm simply encouraging us to use evidence, examples, citations, and a generally more measured approach when viewing these questions.
never had any problems with mana leak
Me pointing out that I didn't say what you claimed I said is overreacting?
Well, congratulations, you have successfully refuted a claim that I never actually made. Good job!
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Did you accidentally misformat something?
Let's suppose this correct. That Countrespell totally overcharges Snapcaster Mage and this synergy is somehow so absolutely amazing that it leads to a banning on Snapcaster Mage. So what? Why is this something to worry about? If Snapcaster Mage gets banned then you still have Counterspell in the format so the net result from the gain and loss is the decks running them staying roughly the same in terms of power, sorta like how Eggs, after the Second Sunrise ban, ended up being about as powerful as it was before Faith's Reward. You gain something, you lose something, and it evens out.
So it only fits well into blue heavy decks. And even there UU on the second turn isnt automatic. So the only gainers imo are Blue Moon and UW Control. both of these decks are far from dominance and Counterspell is not what they really want. They would split Counterspell/Mana Leak 2/2 and thats it, Modern broken. And im not sure if Blue Moon even wants it, it's not in great position to snapcaster-counterspell
G Green Stompy
RG Shamans
UB Mill
UG Infect
WUBRG Slivers!
Cryptic costs 1UUU. Snappy->counterspell would also cost 1UUU.
People would probably play it just fine.