Because those people dont actually want to play Magic. They want to play some other simpler game that only involves creatures fighting each other.
Interesting. I always thought that draw-go players would be happier playing Solitaire than magic: they want to make sure their opponent is unable to play anything at all, rendering them unimportant to the game.
Editing in...
I like the Sirlin article, but in that series, he specifically makes the distinction that playing to WIN is a narrow focus. It's doing only what gives you the best chance to win, not playing for enjoyment or to experiment. While I advocate playing to win in tournaments, the "play to win" mentality isn't any fun to play, and it isn't fun to play against. It comes down to what you want out of a game. If you're sitting at the kitchen table, annihilating all comers with a dedicated Legacy deck that wins T0 every time, your playgroup isn't having fun. When playtesting, when playing in tournaments, play to win. When playing casual, "playing to win" (as Sirlin defined it) results in less fun and enjoyment for everyone involved.
As for those specific strategies? They're unfun to play against because, as I mentioned above, they eliminate the other player. Threat-light decks that are packed with disruption are meant to remove options from the other player, leaving them with no meaningful choices. It cuts them out of the game, and people play because they enjoy playing, not sitting there and deciding which meaningless land drop they're going to put down while they wait for the inevitable. People don't like this style of play being called "uninteractive," but there's no other word that describes a game where one person has all their choices stripped away and sits, unable to do anything meaningful.
Here's a question for you and others who have the view that control is not interactive, how is a deck that just ignores what the other deck does via burn or highly efficient creatures any more interactive than someone who counters or plays removal? How is that fun for the other person 'not being able to play' because you basically killed them turn 3 or 4?
You can always kill creatures on the battlefield, even efficient beaters. how do you deal with a counterspell on the stack?
To answer your question, though, there really isn't much of a difference. Decks designed to ignore the opponent and their board, do their own thing, and win regardless of the opponent's decisions are in the same boat. I actually consider 3 forms of cards "disruption" and consider them all to be dangerous territory: they remove options from the opponent, limit their choices, and in sufficient quantity, remove them from the game in all but physical presence. land destruction, countermagic, and discard effects all have this as an end goal. All of them should be watched carefully by R&D, and so far, they have done a good job. The only real problem over the last few years was Mana Leak, which got so good they (felt they) had to print the abomination that was Cavern of Souls to keep it in check.
The only strategy I really, really hate is "steal all your good stuff." One of my favorite decks of all time was U/B control, killing people with nothing but 4 Psychic Venom as my wincons. Currently, I have a (terrible) Grixis Control I'm trying to make into something playable. I'll give one thing to the diehard Control players out there: everyone should have to play control before being able to comment on how strong it is. And yes, Grixis gets blown up by fast aggro just as easily as every other control deck does. I don't hate Control, but I do understand why people hate playing against it. And the reasons are the same whether you say "control," "land destruction," or "prison." People hate being locked out of the game and unable to play their decks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cards are game pieces, and should be treated as such, easily replaceable.
Cards are not money, investments, or a retirement fund, and should never have been treated as such.
Wizards made a mistake caving to speculators once, and we still pay for that mistake 2 decades later.
"Entitled:" the entire ad hominem fallacy condensed into a single word. It doesn't strengthen your argument to attack motivations, it just makes you look like you don't understand the argument.
This deck is special to be honest.
Of course, as on older player, I am used to discard, counter magic and removal. Eternal formats are my formats of choice and prison archetypes are my passion (Mulfatto Workshop, Lands etc). I get bored when formats degenerate into creature smash fests. Usually what keeps players out of older formats aside from cost is the idea that the gameplay is too abrupt.
A bit special, but not the only time a deck like that popped up, and not even the worst. Back when standard was 7th Edition/Invasion/Planeshift/Apocalypse/Odyssey this is the deck I played:
It started out as a fairly standard mill deck with three Millstone. I refined until it went from three, to two, to one copy, and finally what you see above. Here was the win condition: mill my opponent to death one draw at a time. And it was amazingly effective. While it was standard legal, I only ever lost three matches.
1. My opponent got mana-screwed with his opening hand and ended up mulliganing down to one card out of frustration. Because I was playing first, I had to mulligan to no cards so I wouldn't draw on an empty library first. He ended up with better draws than me.
2. A new guy with a 78 card deck that was literally almost nothing but the contents of six random booster packs.
3. Someone with almost the exact same idea as me. After that, I sideboarded for not just W/G weenie decks, but my own as well.
Wind of Endless Plains 2WWWWW
Legendary Creature - Avatar
Flying, Vigilance, Lifelink
Madness 3WWWWW
If Wind of the Endless Plains' madness cost was paid, destroy all lands and creatures. They can't be regenerated. Wind of Endless Plains gains Defender.
7/7
Waves of the Endless Island 2UUUUU
Legendary Creature - Avatar
Split-second, Non-basic Landwalk, Shroud
Madness 3UUUUU
If Waves of the Endless Island's madness cost was paid, return all permanents to their owner's hands. Waves of the Endless Island gains Defender.
7/7
Confusion of Endless Possibilities 5WUBRG
Legendary Creature - Avatar
When Confusion of Endless Possibilities enters the battlefield, target player skips his or her next turn and your life total becomes 1.
Hexproof, Haunt, Amplify 7
Madness 7WUBRG
If Confusion of Endless Possibilities' madness cost was paid, target player skips his or her next turn. Confusion of Endless Possibilities gains Defender.
7/7
The things with newer players is that they tend to be less experienced than older players. Obvious, yes, but people keep expecting them to act like older players as if older players were somehow more correct. The new player mind set consists of a few things:
1 - New players expect the game to be fun for both the winner and loser. This is completely true and accurate, a game is supposed to be fun. If it isn't, then the game has failed. I sometimes hear older players say 'I enjoy playing decks that frustrate and anger other players, and I should be able to keep playing them because I like them.' Enjoying other people's pain is a horrible thing.
2 - New players deal with problems by looking for cards to add to their deck. If you find fliers a problem, you add blockers with reach. If Oblivion Ring gets you down, add in enchantment removal. Hate reanimator decks? Hello, Rest in Peace. And if you hate counterspells, you...do what? I started playing during Innistrad, and if Grand Abolisher hadn't existed, I would have stopped playing the game. I didn't have the ability to deal with counterspells, and everyone was playing them. To this day, there is still very little effective hate against counterspells, mostly because if there were, combo would take over the format. No one likes to feel powerless, and telling a noob that they have to learn the game before they can start even enjoying it is insane. You learn a game in order to win, not in order to even enjoy it.
3 - No one loves Tarmogoyf. Sure, a lot of people play him, but no one ever saw him and said 'cool card, I should learn to play Magic'. No, people look at Goyf and say 'what an effective beat-stick'. The cards that made me love magic were cards like Avacyn, and Elesh Norn. Pretty soon, I learn to take those cards out and put in Oblivion Ring. The difference between a noob and an experienced player is the noob plays the cards they love, the experienced player has learned to play the same boring, cost-effective cards as everyone else.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Things WotC cares about:
-making certain Standard cards can be played in Modern, therefore increasing their value and increasing WotC's profit margin
Things WotC does not care about:
-keeping the ban list as short as possible
-taking chances with an entire format for the benefit of a single card
-catering to play styles that newer players generally don't like and will lose them more players than it will gain
-keeping the meta balanced between archetypes/colors/whatever
-keeping cards on the secondary market cheap (available yes, but not cheap)
-keeping the meta diverse (as long as a single deck doesn't threaten the popularity of the format)
The things with newer players is that they tend to be less experienced than older players. Obvious, yes, but people keep expecting them to act like older players as if older players were somehow more correct. The new player mind set consists of a few things:
1 - New players expect the game to be fun for both the winner and loser. This is completely true and accurate, a game is supposed to be fun. If it isn't, then the game has failed. I sometimes hear older players say 'I enjoy playing decks that frustrate and anger other players, and I should be able to keep playing them because I like them.' Enjoying other people's pain is a horrible thing.
2 - New players deal with problems by looking for cards to add to their deck. If you find fliers a problem, you add blockers with reach. If Oblivion Ring gets you down, add in enchantment removal. Hate reanimator decks? Hello, Rest in Peace. And if you hate counterspells, you...do what? I started playing during Innistrad, and if Grand Abolisher hadn't existed, I would have stopped playing the game. I didn't have the ability to deal with counterspells, and everyone was playing them. To this day, there is still very little effective hate against counterspells, mostly because if there were, combo would take over the format. No one likes to feel powerless, and telling a noob that they have to learn the game before they can start even enjoying it is insane. You learn a game in order to win, not in order to even enjoy it.
3 - No one loves Tarmogoyf. Sure, a lot of people play him, but no one ever saw him and said 'cool card, I should learn to play Magic'. No, people look at Goyf and say 'what an effective beat-stick'. The cards that made me love magic were cards like Avacyn, and Elesh Norn. Pretty soon, I learn to take those cards out and put in Oblivion Ring. The difference between a noob and an experienced player is the noob plays the cards they love, the experienced player has learned to play the same boring, cost-effective cards as everyone else.
1) Its not that they enjoy their pain, its that they enjoy provoking thought! it takes brains to play around a prison deck or a good control deck or even a good combo deck, they want you to THINK about how you play your cards. Where you see a sadistic player i see an informed teacher trying to uplift and make you a better player.
2) you say this but under that logic Land destruction should have seen a reemergence when Crucible of worlds was printed, it did not. Many things interact with counterspells Flash creatures you play on their turn perhaps? Have you ever played Chess or Bridge ? they are NOT fun games to learn but VERY fun games to play after you have.
3) That depends I know people who Love Tarmogoyf because of the art and the time shifted card frame, I have seen people love it because of its value on the secondary market, I have seen people love it because it brings them wins, People love things for different reasons, to say no one loves something is a very broad statement that can VERY easily be proven wrong.
Its because there just not very fun to play against they're uninteractive and make it so you can't play a very interesting game of magic, but I still love to play them.
These things are the very definition of interactive; what they're doing interacts with what you're doing.
It's one-sided "interactive"; you get to interact with them while they sit there and watch you play with both your deck and their deck.
Good games of Magic feel interactive on both sides of the table; both you and your opponent are able to make meaningful strategic choices. If a player's only choice is "Do I cast a spell and watch it get countered, or should I just sit here instead?", it's not going to be a fun game, no matter how "interactive" the other player feels it is.
An emblem that reads "0: Counter target spell" is also interactive, but no one's going to argue that leads to a fun game.
It's important to remember that good games of Magic involve both players feeling like they're able to meaningfully operate during the game. Lots of Control advocates dismiss other players as "whiners", but try to put yourself in their shoes. I'm not saying you can't play Control, or that you shouldn't play Control; I'm saying that you have to understand the reality that locking a player out of the game while you whittle them down with a 3/2 flyer over seven turns just isn't going to strike your opponents as a good time, even if they did get to cast seven kill spells that got countered in the meantime.
The question is: WHO has the responsibility to interact? All decks want to minimize the effect of the other deck while pushing through their own strategy. Yes, counters/discard do this by preventing their opponents from resolving key spells. However, let's not pretend that control decks are the only guilty party. Combo decks attempt to make their opponents cards not matter by going off before other decks can win with their own plan. Aggro decks try to outspeed the other decks by dropping threats before they can gain control of the game. Midrange decks attempt to invalidate weaker creatures in other decks.
Yes, counterspells and discard DO attempt to stop other decks from functioning as normal. However, let's not just blindly pretend that players playing creature decks are eagerly encouraging their opponents to execute their strategies exactly as planned.
The problem is that people think that creature on creature matchups should be the norm. Why? WHY do creatures bashing against each other have to be the norm? There are MANY strategies in mtg, but the stereotypical discard/counterspell hater does not accept that. Unlike any other "type" of player who acknowledges various other types of decks, they believe that THEIR strategy is how magic should work. The funny part is that those creature based decks traditionally have a GOOD matchup against control based strategies.
The problem is that excessively counterspell-heavy decks don't have a counter-strategy in most formats. Card power is too low, or effective answers (like Cavern of Souls) rotate out.
And frankly, based on the complaining about Cavern of Souls, I'm pretty sure Control players ALSO feel like "THEIR strategy is how Magic should work". The honest consensus was that anything that prevented a counterspell from working was inherently bad for the game. It seems a little odd to argue that and simultaneously complain that aggro players are the only uncreative thinkers in the game.
No one ever said counterspells shouldn't exist. What shouldn't exist is critical mass counterspells, where it's plausible that any relevant spell your opponent casts gets countered starting on turn two, while you beat them to death with a 3/2 or a 1/1 or simply let them deck themselves. That's what players hate, and that's what Wizards refuses to enable. The problem is that Control players can't seem to understand the difference between hating critical mass counterspells, and hating counterspells in general. (Again, based on Cavern of Souls, they also seem to hate anti-counter cards, but let's just leave that aside and charitably assume that Control players are okay with counterspells being prevented from resolving to some effect).
Its because there just not very fun to play against they're uninteractive and make it so you can't play a very interesting game of magic, but I still love to play them.
These things are the very definition of interactive; what they're doing interacts with what you're doing.
It's one-sided "interactive"; you get to interact with them while they sit there and watch you play with both your deck and their deck.
Good games of Magic feel interactive on both sides of the table; both you and your opponent are able to make meaningful strategic choices. If a player's only choice is "Do I cast a spell and watch it get countered, or should I just sit here instead?", it's not going to be a fun game, no matter how "interactive" the other player feels it is.
An emblem that reads "0: Counter target spell" is also interactive, but no one's going to argue that leads to a fun game.
It's important to remember that good games of Magic involve both players feeling like they're able to meaningfully operate during the game. Lots of Control advocates dismiss other players as "whiners", but try to put yourself in their shoes. I'm not saying you can't play Control, or that you shouldn't play Control; I'm saying that you have to understand the reality that locking a player out of the game while you whittle them down with a 3/2 flyer over seven turns just isn't going to strike your opponents as a good time, even if they did get to cast seven kill spells that got countered in the meantime.
The question is: WHO has the responsibility to interact? All decks want to minimize the effect of the other deck while pushing through their own strategy. Yes, counters/discard do this by preventing their opponents from resolving key spells. However, let's not pretend that control decks are the only guilty party. Combo decks attempt to make their opponents cards not matter by going off before other decks can win with their own plan. Aggro decks try to outspeed the other decks by dropping threats before they can gain control of the game. Midrange decks attempt to invalidate weaker creatures in other decks.
Yes, counterspells and discard DO attempt to stop other decks from functioning as normal. However, let's not just blindly pretend that players playing creature decks are eagerly encouraging their opponents to execute their strategies exactly as planned.
The problem is that people think that creature on creature matchups should be the norm. Why? WHY do creatures bashing against each other have to be the norm? There are MANY strategies in mtg, but the stereotypical discard/counterspell hater does not accept that. Unlike any other "type" of player who acknowledges various other types of decks, they believe that THEIR strategy is how magic should work. The funny part is that those creature based decks traditionally have a GOOD matchup against control based strategies.
The problem is that excessively counterspell-heavy decks don't have a counter-strategy in most formats. Card power is too low, or effective answers (like Cavern of Souls) rotate out.
And frankly, based on the complaining about Cavern of Souls, I'm pretty sure Control players ALSO feel like "THEIR strategy is how Magic should work". The honest consensus was that anything that prevented a counterspell from working was inherently bad for the game. It seems a little odd to argue that and simultaneously complain that aggro players are the only uncreative thinkers in the game.
No one ever said counterspells shouldn't exist. What shouldn't exist is critical mass counterspells, where it's plausible that any relevant spell your opponent casts gets countered starting on turn two, while you beat them to death with a 3/2 or a 1/1 or simply let them deck themselves. That's what players hate, and that's what Wizards refuses to enable. The problem is that Control players can't seem to understand the difference between hating critical mass counterspells, and hating counterspells in general. (Again, based on Cavern of Souls, they also seem to hate anti-counter cards, but let's just leave that aside and charitably assume that Control players are okay with counterspells being prevented from resolving to some effect).
To be fair the is a ton of difference between Cavern of Souls enabling you to resolve basically any creature no matter what it is and uncounterable creatures like Loxodon Smiter, Mistcutter Hydra, Terra Stomper etc.
The latter is completely fair and good. You have to expect those cards and find ways to deal with them.
The former was not good and shouldn't be repeated in my opinion. Cavern of Souls set to Demon, drop Sire of Insanity, GG?
It was like all creatures having hexproof, invalidating all spot removal spells.
Discard, removal and counters are a big and important part of what makes Blue and Black tick. If you take those away you hurt the colors as whole and make them less viable.
Blue/Black cannot match Green in terms of creature efficiency so when you also take away the tools that lets them fight back against them, why even play those colors?
This deck is special to be honest.
Of course, as on older player, I am used to discard, counter magic and removal. Eternal formats are my formats of choice and prison archetypes are my passion (Mulfatto Workshop, Lands etc). I get bored when formats degenerate into creature smash fests. Usually what keeps players out of older formats aside from cost is the idea that the gameplay is too abrupt.
A bit special, but not the only time a deck like that popped up, and not even the worst. Back when standard was 7th Edition/Invasion/Planeshift/Apocalypse/Odyssey this is the deck I played:
It started out as a fairly standard mill deck with three Millstone. I refined until it went from three, to two, to one copy, and finally what you see above. Here was the win condition: mill my opponent to death one draw at a time. And it was amazingly effective. While it was standard legal, I only ever lost three matches.
1. My opponent got mana-screwed with his opening hand and ended up mulliganing down to one card out of frustration. Because I was playing first, I had to mulligan to no cards so I wouldn't draw on an empty library first. He ended up with better draws than me.
2. A new guy with a 78 card deck that was literally almost nothing but the contents of six random booster packs.
3. Someone with almost the exact same idea as me. After that, I sideboarded for not just W/G weenie decks, but my own as well.
Um, unless I'm blind, your list has 59 cards. Shouldn't it have ~61?
If Cavern of Souls is bad, then Hero's Downfall and Counterspell are just as bad. All of these effects should have some sort of limit which most decks can play around.
But the cards aren't analogous. A comparable card to Cavern of Souls for control archetypes would be a land that said:
As ~ enters the battlefield, choose a creature type. T: Add 1 to your mana pool. If this mana was spent to cast an instant or sorcery, destroy target creature of the chosen type.
Counterspells and kill spells are single-use answers. Cavern of Souls shuts down a large swath of cards - for free.
Its because there just not very fun to play against they're uninteractive and make it so you can't play a very interesting game of magic, but I still love to play them.
These things are the very definition of interactive; what they're doing interacts with what you're doing.
It's one-sided "interactive"; you get to interact with them while they sit there and watch you play with both your deck and their deck.
Good games of Magic feel interactive on both sides of the table; both you and your opponent are able to make meaningful strategic choices. If a player's only choice is "Do I cast a spell and watch it get countered, or should I just sit here instead?", it's not going to be a fun game, no matter how "interactive" the other player feels it is.
An emblem that reads "0: Counter target spell" is also interactive, but no one's going to argue that leads to a fun game.
It's important to remember that good games of Magic involve both players feeling like they're able to meaningfully operate during the game. Lots of Control advocates dismiss other players as "whiners", but try to put yourself in their shoes. I'm not saying you can't play Control, or that you shouldn't play Control; I'm saying that you have to understand the reality that locking a player out of the game while you whittle them down with a 3/2 flyer over seven turns just isn't going to strike your opponents as a good time, even if they did get to cast seven kill spells that got countered in the meantime.
The question is: WHO has the responsibility to interact? All decks want to minimize the effect of the other deck while pushing through their own strategy. Yes, counters/discard do this by preventing their opponents from resolving key spells. However, let's not pretend that control decks are the only guilty party. Combo decks attempt to make their opponents cards not matter by going off before other decks can win with their own plan. Aggro decks try to outspeed the other decks by dropping threats before they can gain control of the game. Midrange decks attempt to invalidate weaker creatures in other decks.
Yes, counterspells and discard DO attempt to stop other decks from functioning as normal. However, let's not just blindly pretend that players playing creature decks are eagerly encouraging their opponents to execute their strategies exactly as planned.
The problem is that people think that creature on creature matchups should be the norm. Why? WHY do creatures bashing against each other have to be the norm? There are MANY strategies in mtg, but the stereotypical discard/counterspell hater does not accept that. Unlike any other "type" of player who acknowledges various other types of decks, they believe that THEIR strategy is how magic should work. The funny part is that those creature based decks traditionally have a GOOD matchup against control based strategies.
The problem is that excessively counterspell-heavy decks don't have a counter-strategy in most formats. Card power is too low, or effective answers (like Cavern of Souls) rotate out.
And frankly, based on the complaining about Cavern of Souls, I'm pretty sure Control players ALSO feel like "THEIR strategy is how Magic should work". The honest consensus was that anything that prevented a counterspell from working was inherently bad for the game. It seems a little odd to argue that and simultaneously complain that aggro players are the only uncreative thinkers in the game.
No one ever said counterspells shouldn't exist. What shouldn't exist is critical mass counterspells, where it's plausible that any relevant spell your opponent casts gets countered starting on turn two, while you beat them to death with a 3/2 or a 1/1 or simply let them deck themselves. That's what players hate, and that's what Wizards refuses to enable. The problem is that Control players can't seem to understand the difference between hating critical mass counterspells, and hating counterspells in general. (Again, based on Cavern of Souls, they also seem to hate anti-counter cards, but let's just leave that aside and charitably assume that Control players are okay with counterspells being prevented from resolving to some effect).
If a deck doesn't have an effective counter-strategy in some format, it ISN'T because of the card types in that deck. It is because the specific cards in that deck are too strong and/or the other available cards in that format are too weak. A counterspell isn't inherently stronger just because it is a counterspell. Mana cost, other cards in the deck, etc all matter. All of this is to say that if you think that a counterspell-heavy deck doesn't have an effective counter-strategy, it has nothing to do specifically with counterspells. You could replace it with anything else that happens to dominate a format.
As for the Cavern of Souls complaint, I don't think it had anything to do with it being good against counterspells. It had more to do with the overall power level of it. People just thought that it was extremely pushed. I'm sure you would have seen just as much complaining had it been a one mana 4/4 vanilla or a one mana Mana Drain. They didn't complain because they thought it was too strong against counterspells. They complained because they thought it was too strong.
There was another thing they didn't like about Cavern of Souls, and it was the official article that spoiled it. Have you read it? https://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/191
This is the article where they said that Mana Leak, the card that could be printed in Stronghold, 8th, 9th, and M11 suddenly was too powerful when it was in M12. Yes, Mana Leak which managed to not ravage the previous standards was suddenly the problem. It had nothing to do with also giving blue access to a 3/2 flyer for one mana, rebuy Snapcaster Mage, and Geist of Saint Traft when white was added. Let me give you a quote from the article:
But the reality (beyond the fact that you can prove mathematically that creatures were too weak for most of Magic's history, based on the number of turns it takes to resolve an average "goldfish" game state) is simply that spells are much more inherently powerful than creatures. Spells have haste, whereas creatures have "Suspend 1." Spells can only be interacted with for the moment they are on the stack, whereas creatures can be interacted with at sorcery speed.
Look, I know you don't actually believe the wild claims in most of the article (at least I hope you don't). I'm just bringing it up to show another reason for the Cavern of Souls hate. It wasn't about people disliking answers for counterspells. It was about the facepalm worthy reason for it.
Um, unless I'm blind, your list has 59 cards. Shouldn't it have ~61?
There are 61.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wind of Endless Plains 2WWWWW
Legendary Creature - Avatar
Flying, Vigilance, Lifelink
Madness 3WWWWW
If Wind of the Endless Plains' madness cost was paid, destroy all lands and creatures. They can't be regenerated. Wind of Endless Plains gains Defender.
7/7
Waves of the Endless Island 2UUUUU
Legendary Creature - Avatar
Split-second, Non-basic Landwalk, Shroud
Madness 3UUUUU
If Waves of the Endless Island's madness cost was paid, return all permanents to their owner's hands. Waves of the Endless Island gains Defender.
7/7
Confusion of Endless Possibilities 5WUBRG
Legendary Creature - Avatar
When Confusion of Endless Possibilities enters the battlefield, target player skips his or her next turn and your life total becomes 1.
Hexproof, Haunt, Amplify 7
Madness 7WUBRG
If Confusion of Endless Possibilities' madness cost was paid, target player skips his or her next turn. Confusion of Endless Possibilities gains Defender.
7/7
Guess I'm blind. I counted it three times and came up with 59 each time but now I'm getting 61.
Nah, happened to me one year doing taxes. It took me three days to find 7 cents.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wind of Endless Plains 2WWWWW
Legendary Creature - Avatar
Flying, Vigilance, Lifelink
Madness 3WWWWW
If Wind of the Endless Plains' madness cost was paid, destroy all lands and creatures. They can't be regenerated. Wind of Endless Plains gains Defender.
7/7
Waves of the Endless Island 2UUUUU
Legendary Creature - Avatar
Split-second, Non-basic Landwalk, Shroud
Madness 3UUUUU
If Waves of the Endless Island's madness cost was paid, return all permanents to their owner's hands. Waves of the Endless Island gains Defender.
7/7
Confusion of Endless Possibilities 5WUBRG
Legendary Creature - Avatar
When Confusion of Endless Possibilities enters the battlefield, target player skips his or her next turn and your life total becomes 1.
Hexproof, Haunt, Amplify 7
Madness 7WUBRG
If Confusion of Endless Possibilities' madness cost was paid, target player skips his or her next turn. Confusion of Endless Possibilities gains Defender.
7/7
Rainbow Efreet is a 3/1 flier with phasing for UU. Stalking Stones is a land that becomes a 3/3. Not much different from Aetherling and Mutavault.
The deck list I provided is the card for card list from 1998. Played by Randy Buehler, no less.
Place your cards there, and I'll place mine here.
Countered. 3.
Countered. 6.
Drawing. Countered. 9.
Countered. 12.
Countered. 15
Countered. Buyback. 18
Countered. 21 -- I won! Again?
Countered. 3.
Whoops. Not countered. 6.
Drawing. Countered. 6 to 3.
Disk. Countered. 9 to 3.
Countered. 12 to 3. I destroy your creature.
Countered. 15
Countered. 18. Giving up already?
Counterspells: Counterspell, itself, hits:
-All Planeswalkers in existence
-All Sorceries in existence bar a handful that are uncounterable
-All Enchantments in existence, bar a handful that are uncounterable
-All Creatures in existence, bar a handful that are uncounterable
-All Instants in existence, bar a handful that are uncounterable
-All Artifacts in existence, bar a handful that are uncounterable
Counterspell is a hard counter to over 10 000 spells.
I don't like the fact that the users of those 10 000 other cards ALL HAVE TO worry about the 10 001th.
It's just a sign of a sore loser or general immaturity,...
Wait, are you seriously suggesting that disliking playing against a strategy in of itself makes you a sore loser or immature?
You... sure those words mean what you think they do?
Not exactly.
Disliking is fine. I, for example, generally dislike playing or playing against fast combo like storm, belcher, dredge, and sneak & show. But, Legacy is a format where those things are possible, so I'm going to face them if I want to play legacy. So, when I get paired against the storm guy, I play, and sometimes I win and sometimes I lose. Then I move on.
What's immature is when you face something you don't like, that's perfectly legal in the format you're playing, and you complain about it or talk about how it shouldn't be allowed or people shouldn't play it, or XXX should be banned, or whatever. Being a sore loser is when you face something that's either a bad matchup or just better than your deck (but again, perfectly legal in the format), and complain, ect.
If someone goes to a tournament, they have zero right to complain about anything legal.
Its because there just not very fun to play against they're uninteractive and make it so you can't play a very interesting game of magic, but I still love to play them.
These things are the very definition of interactive; what they're doing interacts with what you're doing.
It's one-sided "interactive"; you get to interact with them while they sit there and watch you play with both your deck and their deck.
Good games of Magic feel interactive on both sides of the table; both you and your opponent are able to make meaningful strategic choices. If a player's only choice is "Do I cast a spell and watch it get countered, or should I just sit here instead?", it's not going to be a fun game, no matter how "interactive" the other player feels it is.
An emblem that reads "0: Counter target spell" is also interactive, but no one's going to argue that leads to a fun game.
It's important to remember that good games of Magic involve both players feeling like they're able to meaningfully operate during the game. Lots of Control advocates dismiss other players as "whiners", but try to put yourself in their shoes. I'm not saying you can't play Control, or that you shouldn't play Control; I'm saying that you have to understand the reality that locking a player out of the game while you whittle them down with a 3/2 flyer over seven turns just isn't going to strike your opponents as a good time, even if they did get to cast seven kill spells that got countered in the meantime.
The question is: WHO has the responsibility to interact? All decks want to minimize the effect of the other deck while pushing through their own strategy. Yes, counters/discard do this by preventing their opponents from resolving key spells. However, let's not pretend that control decks are the only guilty party. Combo decks attempt to make their opponents cards not matter by going off before other decks can win with their own plan. Aggro decks try to outspeed the other decks by dropping threats before they can gain control of the game. Midrange decks attempt to invalidate weaker creatures in other decks.
Yes, counterspells and discard DO attempt to stop other decks from functioning as normal. However, let's not just blindly pretend that players playing creature decks are eagerly encouraging their opponents to execute their strategies exactly as planned.
The problem is that people think that creature on creature matchups should be the norm. Why? WHY do creatures bashing against each other have to be the norm? There are MANY strategies in mtg, but the stereotypical discard/counterspell hater does not accept that. Unlike any other "type" of player who acknowledges various other types of decks, they believe that THEIR strategy is how magic should work. The funny part is that those creature based decks traditionally have a GOOD matchup against control based strategies.
The problem is that excessively counterspell-heavy decks don't have a counter-strategy in most formats. Card power is too low, or effective answers (like Cavern of Souls) rotate out.
And frankly, based on the complaining about Cavern of Souls, I'm pretty sure Control players ALSO feel like "THEIR strategy is how Magic should work". The honest consensus was that anything that prevented a counterspell from working was inherently bad for the game. It seems a little odd to argue that and simultaneously complain that aggro players are the only uncreative thinkers in the game.
No one ever said counterspells shouldn't exist. What shouldn't exist is critical mass counterspells, where it's plausible that any relevant spell your opponent casts gets countered starting on turn two, while you beat them to death with a 3/2 or a 1/1 or simply let them deck themselves. That's what players hate, and that's what Wizards refuses to enable. The problem is that Control players can't seem to understand the difference between hating critical mass counterspells, and hating counterspells in general. (Again, based on Cavern of Souls, they also seem to hate anti-counter cards, but let's just leave that aside and charitably assume that Control players are okay with counterspells being prevented from resolving to some effect).
If a deck doesn't have an effective counter-strategy in some format, it ISN'T because of the card types in that deck. It is because the specific cards in that deck are too strong and/or the other available cards in that format are too weak. A counterspell isn't inherently stronger just because it is a counterspell. Mana cost, other cards in the deck, etc all matter. All of this is to say that if you think that a counterspell-heavy deck doesn't have an effective counter-strategy, it has nothing to do specifically with counterspells. You could replace it with anything else that happens to dominate a format.
As for the Cavern of Souls complaint, I don't think it had anything to do with it being good against counterspells. It had more to do with the overall power level of it. People just thought that it was extremely pushed. I'm sure you would have seen just as much complaining had it been a one mana 4/4 vanilla or a one mana Mana Drain. They didn't complain because they thought it was too strong against counterspells. They complained because they thought it was too strong.
There was another thing they didn't like about Cavern of Souls, and it was the official article that spoiled it. Have you read it? https://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/191
This is the article where they said that Mana Leak, the card that could be printed in Stronghold, 8th, 9th, and M11 suddenly was too powerful when it was in M12. Yes, Mana Leak which managed to not ravage the previous standards was suddenly the problem. It had nothing to do with also giving blue access to a 3/2 flyer for one mana, rebuy Snapcaster Mage, and Geist of Saint Traft when white was added. Let me give you a quote from the article:
But the reality (beyond the fact that you can prove mathematically that creatures were too weak for most of Magic's history, based on the number of turns it takes to resolve an average "goldfish" game state) is simply that spells are much more inherently powerful than creatures. Spells have haste, whereas creatures have "Suspend 1." Spells can only be interacted with for the moment they are on the stack, whereas creatures can be interacted with at sorcery speed.
Look, I know you don't actually believe the wild claims in most of the article (at least I hope you don't). I'm just bringing it up to show another reason for the Cavern of Souls hate. It wasn't about people disliking answers for counterspells. It was about the facepalm worthy reason for it.
True, except for one point: I do believe that counterspells are a very inherently strong card type, and they gain power exponentially the more you can stuff into your deck. (8 Counterspells are more than twice as strong as 4 counterspells), more so than other card types you can stack.
Remember that Stronghold-era Magic was just a stronger Standard than modern Magic. As you pointed out, card power varies depending on environment. I don't see how you can quite reasonably point out that card power matters based on environment, then act amazed that Mana Leak might also have variable card power.
Cavern of Souls was worthwhile and necessary in the environment it was dropped into. I might even argue that a Cavern of Souls type card is needed in any Standard that you want more than two playable Counterspells in.
I feel like immature players just hate disruption of any kind, and like to complain and want the game of Magic to be they way they want it to be,instead of everyone being able to play the style they enjoy. It's healthy that Magic has disruption, of all kinds. I'm sorry but if your deck loses to a Permission deck, Combo deck or whatever non creature based deck you happen to not like, why don't you learn to play better? Years ago when I played combo and mostly Draw-Go, bad players just refused to change and learn within their preferred archtype, and I don't understand why. They complain about etc, but what they really mean is they can't do what they want to do when they want to do it uninhibited. And this isn't about fun or unfun, thats subjective. This is about learning to play the game, and not giving into childish rants, whining and quitting.
I feel like immature players just hate disruption of any kind, and like to complain and want the game of Magic to be they way they want it to be,instead of everyone being able to play the style they enjoy. It's healthy that Magic has disruption, of all kinds. I'm sorry but if your deck loses to a Permission deck, Combo deck or whatever non creature based deck you happen to not like, why don't you learn to play better? Years ago when I played combo and mostly Draw-Go, bad players just refused to change and learn within their preferred archtype, and I don't understand why. They complain about etc, but what they really mean is they can't do what they want to do when they want to do it uninhibited. And this isn't about fun or unfun, thats subjective. This is about learning to play the game, and not giving into childish rants, whining and quitting.
New players do complain about these things. Consistently.
CONSISTENTLY.
When so many different people complain about the same thing, is it not logical to assume that maybe that have a point? I can't think of too many games where all the new players complain about the same thing as consistently as they do about the over-use of attrition-based tactics in magic. And I'm certain wizards has noticed this as well, and it's impact on their bottom line. After all, they are in the business of selling fun, and if their product doesn't deliver, then they are the ones who have failed, not their players. Their biggest fear is that their player base will, as you mentioned, quit.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Things WotC cares about:
-making certain Standard cards can be played in Modern, therefore increasing their value and increasing WotC's profit margin
Things WotC does not care about:
-keeping the ban list as short as possible
-taking chances with an entire format for the benefit of a single card
-catering to play styles that newer players generally don't like and will lose them more players than it will gain
-keeping the meta balanced between archetypes/colors/whatever
-keeping cards on the secondary market cheap (available yes, but not cheap)
-keeping the meta diverse (as long as a single deck doesn't threaten the popularity of the format)
Fun is subjective. Not everyone likes the same thing. Complaining incessantly about something doesn't mean its logical or correct, it simply means the complainer(s) don't like it. Disruption is the unique aspect of Magic, as well as attrition. In Magic, competitive decks are created with that in mind.
I don't know if a mass amount of people will quit because disruptive/attrition elements stay staple. I mean, why would players like that choose Magic over other card games that don't have disruption? Why not go and play those games instead of complaining that Magic is unfun for them because they can't do whatever they want to do without being impeded?
No offense, but I don't see how any players like the aforementioned will have fun playing anything but solitaire honestly. I mean, these might be the same players that cry when they jump at Ryu players in Street Fighter and complain they got Dragon Punched because, "I want to jump at you." I'm not stopping them from jumping at me, I'm just going to Dragon Punch you. Learn to play better.
I don't have a problem with going against a Control deck. It encourages patience, ingenuity, and creativity use of resources.
Patience- You have the choice of either throwing everything against the unbreakable wall and getting frustrated, or waiting for an insignificant card to bait out their counters.
Ingenuity/creativity- You have to find a way to get your wincons out. So you need to come up with a strategy on the fly that will allow that.
Maybe it's just cuz my mtg teacher played control at first and I had to learn ways to get around it.
Removal and counters are definately the most interactive cards in the game. New players just like executing their plan unhindered and do not understand that threats can just get there while an answer can sometimes be the wrong answer. They do do understand the concepts of mana efficiency, time advantage, and tempo advantage which can be used to fight these attrition decks.
The problem is that people think that creature on creature matchups should be the norm. Why? WHY do creatures bashing against each other have to be the norm?
MtG sells itself as a duel between two planeswalkers summoning fantastic creatures to fight for them in exciting battles. Look at the packaging. Look at the trailers. It's all dragons and demons. Angels and planeswalkers. Knights and elves. Goblins and vampires. Heroes fighting monsters and endless waves of zombies going up against knights defending a village. This is how MtG presents itself to prospective customers. Play this game and you get to be in control of a Thundermaw Hellkite! Command your own horde of goblins. Lead an army of elves to victory! When a game doesn't play out like that a newer player might feel like he was hit by the ol' bait-and-switch.
While that is TRUE their are conditions, you make it seem like counterspell was worded like this
UU
Instant
Counter target spell or exile target permanent you may ignore the mana cost of Counterspell and you may search you deck for counterspell anytime you could play an instant and put it in your hand. you may have any number of counterspells in your deck.
a) you have to have it in hand,
b) you have to have open man on your opponents turn
c) you have to stop the threat RIGHT THEN AND THEIR when it is cast, this timing condition is the largest factor. It takes time skill and evaluation to know what to counter and when.
It is quite likely you have more threats in your deck than I have counterspells this is why control is weak VS agro... in time you WILL win given similar card advantage, and if I have card advanage I have spent mana that is your opening to cast your spells!
Playing against a control deck is like the advanced level of magic.
A new player just doesn't know how to handle it. "I am playing my creatures and they just keep dying or getting countered" nothing is happening in this game... oh now I am top decking how does he have an answer to everything??"
then they play a bit more and realise that they have to put doom blades in their decks because other creature decks are sometimes bigger than theirs... then they play against control and all they have in hand is doom blades with no targets.
They get frustrated "what? how? I can't deal with this I am not actually playing anything?, you are just countering all my stuff how am I meant to play?".
Playing against control requires unintuitive play and deck building. Creature battles are obvious, it doesn't take too long for a new player to realise how to deal with flying or deathtouch or opponents just having bigger creatures. "Oh you used a giant growth! nice play you got me"
They feel completely stifled not being able to get their creatures into play, their whole deck relies on getting their creatures into play.
There is a problem here though, in order for them to get better at magic they need to learn to deal with it, it is really hard to get through stubboness ("I refuse to play against that deck"). Its really hard to get them to understand to play against control you don't need to play every creature in your hand because they will boardwipe you, you should play your worst creatures first to make them play their counters on them. That you can't ignore control just because they don't seem to be doing anything in multiplayer. That this battle can be enjoyable and not just a source of rage.
I am not a "control player for Life" I have played all types of decks. But my current standard deck is a hard control deck aetherling my way to victory. new players play standard it makes it really hard for me to play with new players. My best friend is constantly frustrated playing against my deck... I seriously win every game but I can't go easy on him because that is worse, pitying him. And his only legal in legacy mono green beast deck just can't handle a deck filled with counterspells and kill spells and planeswalkers etc.
In my opinion they need to learn to play against the decks they can't just say no, never, stop playing that. I think the best soultion is play one or two games with the control deck then switch to something nicer. I understand why they are frustrated but they need to learn or perhaps magic is not the game for them... they should try Hearthstone.
I'm glad they're printing "can't be countered" and "pro blue" on a lot more cards. There's no way to interact with counterspells, but counterspells can interact with everything save lands. So having blue-hate creatures once in a while is nice.
Here's a question for you and others who have the view that control is not interactive, how is a deck that just ignores what the other deck does via burn or highly efficient creatures any more interactive than someone who counters or plays removal? How is that fun for the other person 'not being able to play' because you basically killed them turn 3 or 4?
To answer your question, though, there really isn't much of a difference. Decks designed to ignore the opponent and their board, do their own thing, and win regardless of the opponent's decisions are in the same boat. I actually consider 3 forms of cards "disruption" and consider them all to be dangerous territory: they remove options from the opponent, limit their choices, and in sufficient quantity, remove them from the game in all but physical presence. land destruction, countermagic, and discard effects all have this as an end goal. All of them should be watched carefully by R&D, and so far, they have done a good job. The only real problem over the last few years was Mana Leak, which got so good they (felt they) had to print the abomination that was Cavern of Souls to keep it in check.
The only strategy I really, really hate is "steal all your good stuff." One of my favorite decks of all time was U/B control, killing people with nothing but 4 Psychic Venom as my wincons. Currently, I have a (terrible) Grixis Control I'm trying to make into something playable. I'll give one thing to the diehard Control players out there: everyone should have to play control before being able to comment on how strong it is. And yes, Grixis gets blown up by fast aggro just as easily as every other control deck does. I don't hate Control, but I do understand why people hate playing against it. And the reasons are the same whether you say "control," "land destruction," or "prison." People hate being locked out of the game and unable to play their decks.
Cards are not money, investments, or a retirement fund, and should never have been treated as such.
Wizards made a mistake caving to speculators once, and we still pay for that mistake 2 decades later.
"Entitled:" the entire ad hominem fallacy condensed into a single word. It doesn't strengthen your argument to attack motivations, it just makes you look like you don't understand the argument.
A bit special, but not the only time a deck like that popped up, and not even the worst. Back when standard was 7th Edition/Invasion/Planeshift/Apocalypse/Odyssey this is the deck I played:
1 Plains
1 Swamp
4 Underground River
2 Adarkar Wastes
1 Caves of Koilos
2 City of Brass
1 Dromar's Cavern
1 Darkwater Catacombs
1 Skycloud Expanse
4 Remove Soul
4 Dromar's Charm
2 Prohibit
4 Absorb
4 Counterspell
4 Undermine
2 Rites of Refusal
4 Vindicate
4 Ostracize
4 Force Spike
2 Rites of Refusal
2 Fervent Denial
3 Wrath of God
4 Addle
It started out as a fairly standard mill deck with three Millstone. I refined until it went from three, to two, to one copy, and finally what you see above. Here was the win condition: mill my opponent to death one draw at a time. And it was amazingly effective. While it was standard legal, I only ever lost three matches.
1. My opponent got mana-screwed with his opening hand and ended up mulliganing down to one card out of frustration. Because I was playing first, I had to mulligan to no cards so I wouldn't draw on an empty library first. He ended up with better draws than me.
2. A new guy with a 78 card deck that was literally almost nothing but the contents of six random booster packs.
3. Someone with almost the exact same idea as me. After that, I sideboarded for not just W/G weenie decks, but my own as well.
Legendary Creature - Avatar
Flying, Vigilance, Lifelink
Madness 3WWWWW
If Wind of the Endless Plains' madness cost was paid, destroy all lands and creatures. They can't be regenerated. Wind of Endless Plains gains Defender.
7/7
Legendary Creature - Avatar
Split-second, Non-basic Landwalk, Shroud
Madness 3UUUUU
If Waves of the Endless Island's madness cost was paid, return all permanents to their owner's hands. Waves of the Endless Island gains Defender.
7/7
Legendary Creature - Avatar
When Confusion of Endless Possibilities enters the battlefield, target player skips his or her next turn and your life total becomes 1.
Hexproof, Haunt, Amplify 7
Madness 7WUBRG
If Confusion of Endless Possibilities' madness cost was paid, target player skips his or her next turn. Confusion of Endless Possibilities gains Defender.
7/7
1 - New players expect the game to be fun for both the winner and loser. This is completely true and accurate, a game is supposed to be fun. If it isn't, then the game has failed. I sometimes hear older players say 'I enjoy playing decks that frustrate and anger other players, and I should be able to keep playing them because I like them.' Enjoying other people's pain is a horrible thing.
2 - New players deal with problems by looking for cards to add to their deck. If you find fliers a problem, you add blockers with reach. If Oblivion Ring gets you down, add in enchantment removal. Hate reanimator decks? Hello, Rest in Peace. And if you hate counterspells, you...do what? I started playing during Innistrad, and if Grand Abolisher hadn't existed, I would have stopped playing the game. I didn't have the ability to deal with counterspells, and everyone was playing them. To this day, there is still very little effective hate against counterspells, mostly because if there were, combo would take over the format. No one likes to feel powerless, and telling a noob that they have to learn the game before they can start even enjoying it is insane. You learn a game in order to win, not in order to even enjoy it.
3 - No one loves Tarmogoyf. Sure, a lot of people play him, but no one ever saw him and said 'cool card, I should learn to play Magic'. No, people look at Goyf and say 'what an effective beat-stick'. The cards that made me love magic were cards like Avacyn, and Elesh Norn. Pretty soon, I learn to take those cards out and put in Oblivion Ring. The difference between a noob and an experienced player is the noob plays the cards they love, the experienced player has learned to play the same boring, cost-effective cards as everyone else.
-making certain Standard cards can be played in Modern, therefore increasing their value and increasing WotC's profit margin
Things WotC does not care about:
-keeping the ban list as short as possible
-taking chances with an entire format for the benefit of a single card
-catering to play styles that newer players generally don't like and will lose them more players than it will gain
-keeping the meta balanced between archetypes/colors/whatever
-keeping cards on the secondary market cheap (available yes, but not cheap)
-keeping the meta diverse (as long as a single deck doesn't threaten the popularity of the format)
1) Its not that they enjoy their pain, its that they enjoy provoking thought! it takes brains to play around a prison deck or a good control deck or even a good combo deck, they want you to THINK about how you play your cards. Where you see a sadistic player i see an informed teacher trying to uplift and make you a better player.
2) you say this but under that logic Land destruction should have seen a reemergence when Crucible of worlds was printed, it did not. Many things interact with counterspells Flash creatures you play on their turn perhaps? Have you ever played Chess or Bridge ? they are NOT fun games to learn but VERY fun games to play after you have.
3) That depends I know people who Love Tarmogoyf because of the art and the time shifted card frame, I have seen people love it because of its value on the secondary market, I have seen people love it because it brings them wins, People love things for different reasons, to say no one loves something is a very broad statement that can VERY easily be proven wrong.
The problem is that excessively counterspell-heavy decks don't have a counter-strategy in most formats. Card power is too low, or effective answers (like Cavern of Souls) rotate out.
And frankly, based on the complaining about Cavern of Souls, I'm pretty sure Control players ALSO feel like "THEIR strategy is how Magic should work". The honest consensus was that anything that prevented a counterspell from working was inherently bad for the game. It seems a little odd to argue that and simultaneously complain that aggro players are the only uncreative thinkers in the game.
No one ever said counterspells shouldn't exist. What shouldn't exist is critical mass counterspells, where it's plausible that any relevant spell your opponent casts gets countered starting on turn two, while you beat them to death with a 3/2 or a 1/1 or simply let them deck themselves. That's what players hate, and that's what Wizards refuses to enable. The problem is that Control players can't seem to understand the difference between hating critical mass counterspells, and hating counterspells in general. (Again, based on Cavern of Souls, they also seem to hate anti-counter cards, but let's just leave that aside and charitably assume that Control players are okay with counterspells being prevented from resolving to some effect).
To be fair the is a ton of difference between Cavern of Souls enabling you to resolve basically any creature no matter what it is and uncounterable creatures like Loxodon Smiter, Mistcutter Hydra, Terra Stomper etc.
The latter is completely fair and good. You have to expect those cards and find ways to deal with them.
The former was not good and shouldn't be repeated in my opinion. Cavern of Souls set to Demon, drop Sire of Insanity, GG?
It was like all creatures having hexproof, invalidating all spot removal spells.
Discard, removal and counters are a big and important part of what makes Blue and Black tick. If you take those away you hurt the colors as whole and make them less viable.
Blue/Black cannot match Green in terms of creature efficiency so when you also take away the tools that lets them fight back against them, why even play those colors?
Um, unless I'm blind, your list has 59 cards. Shouldn't it have ~61?
But the cards aren't analogous. A comparable card to Cavern of Souls for control archetypes would be a land that said:
As ~ enters the battlefield, choose a creature type.
T: Add 1 to your mana pool. If this mana was spent to cast an instant or sorcery, destroy target creature of the chosen type.
Counterspells and kill spells are single-use answers. Cavern of Souls shuts down a large swath of cards - for free.
If a deck doesn't have an effective counter-strategy in some format, it ISN'T because of the card types in that deck. It is because the specific cards in that deck are too strong and/or the other available cards in that format are too weak. A counterspell isn't inherently stronger just because it is a counterspell. Mana cost, other cards in the deck, etc all matter. All of this is to say that if you think that a counterspell-heavy deck doesn't have an effective counter-strategy, it has nothing to do specifically with counterspells. You could replace it with anything else that happens to dominate a format.
As for the Cavern of Souls complaint, I don't think it had anything to do with it being good against counterspells. It had more to do with the overall power level of it. People just thought that it was extremely pushed. I'm sure you would have seen just as much complaining had it been a one mana 4/4 vanilla or a one mana Mana Drain. They didn't complain because they thought it was too strong against counterspells. They complained because they thought it was too strong.
There was another thing they didn't like about Cavern of Souls, and it was the official article that spoiled it. Have you read it? https://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/191
This is the article where they said that Mana Leak, the card that could be printed in Stronghold, 8th, 9th, and M11 suddenly was too powerful when it was in M12. Yes, Mana Leak which managed to not ravage the previous standards was suddenly the problem. It had nothing to do with also giving blue access to a 3/2 flyer for one mana, rebuy Snapcaster Mage, and Geist of Saint Traft when white was added. Let me give you a quote from the article: Look, I know you don't actually believe the wild claims in most of the article (at least I hope you don't). I'm just bringing it up to show another reason for the Cavern of Souls hate. It wasn't about people disliking answers for counterspells. It was about the facepalm worthy reason for it.
There are 61.
Legendary Creature - Avatar
Flying, Vigilance, Lifelink
Madness 3WWWWW
If Wind of the Endless Plains' madness cost was paid, destroy all lands and creatures. They can't be regenerated. Wind of Endless Plains gains Defender.
7/7
Legendary Creature - Avatar
Split-second, Non-basic Landwalk, Shroud
Madness 3UUUUU
If Waves of the Endless Island's madness cost was paid, return all permanents to their owner's hands. Waves of the Endless Island gains Defender.
7/7
Legendary Creature - Avatar
When Confusion of Endless Possibilities enters the battlefield, target player skips his or her next turn and your life total becomes 1.
Hexproof, Haunt, Amplify 7
Madness 7WUBRG
If Confusion of Endless Possibilities' madness cost was paid, target player skips his or her next turn. Confusion of Endless Possibilities gains Defender.
7/7
Guess I'm blind. I counted it three times and came up with 59 each time but now I'm getting 61.
Nah, happened to me one year doing taxes. It took me three days to find 7 cents.
Legendary Creature - Avatar
Flying, Vigilance, Lifelink
Madness 3WWWWW
If Wind of the Endless Plains' madness cost was paid, destroy all lands and creatures. They can't be regenerated. Wind of Endless Plains gains Defender.
7/7
Legendary Creature - Avatar
Split-second, Non-basic Landwalk, Shroud
Madness 3UUUUU
If Waves of the Endless Island's madness cost was paid, return all permanents to their owner's hands. Waves of the Endless Island gains Defender.
7/7
Legendary Creature - Avatar
When Confusion of Endless Possibilities enters the battlefield, target player skips his or her next turn and your life total becomes 1.
Hexproof, Haunt, Amplify 7
Madness 7WUBRG
If Confusion of Endless Possibilities' madness cost was paid, target player skips his or her next turn. Confusion of Endless Possibilities gains Defender.
7/7
Rainbow Efreet is a 3/1 flier with phasing for UU. Stalking Stones is a land that becomes a 3/3. Not much different from Aetherling and Mutavault.
The deck list I provided is the card for card list from 1998. Played by Randy Buehler, no less.
Big Thanks to Xeno for sig art <3.
Place your cards there, and I'll place mine here.
Countered. 3.
Countered. 6.
Drawing. Countered. 9.
Countered. 12.
Countered. 15
Countered. Buyback. 18
Countered. 21 -- I won! Again?
Countered. 3.
Whoops. Not countered. 6.
Drawing. Countered. 6 to 3.
Disk. Countered. 9 to 3.
Countered. 12 to 3. I destroy your creature.
Countered. 15
Countered. 18. Giving up already?
Counterspells:
Counterspell, itself, hits:
-All Planeswalkers in existence
-All Sorceries in existence bar a handful that are uncounterable
-All Enchantments in existence, bar a handful that are uncounterable
-All Creatures in existence, bar a handful that are uncounterable
-All Instants in existence, bar a handful that are uncounterable
-All Artifacts in existence, bar a handful that are uncounterable
Counterspell is a hard counter to over 10 000 spells.
I don't like the fact that the users of those 10 000 other cards ALL HAVE TO worry about the 10 001th.
Not exactly.
Disliking is fine. I, for example, generally dislike playing or playing against fast combo like storm, belcher, dredge, and sneak & show. But, Legacy is a format where those things are possible, so I'm going to face them if I want to play legacy. So, when I get paired against the storm guy, I play, and sometimes I win and sometimes I lose. Then I move on.
What's immature is when you face something you don't like, that's perfectly legal in the format you're playing, and you complain about it or talk about how it shouldn't be allowed or people shouldn't play it, or XXX should be banned, or whatever. Being a sore loser is when you face something that's either a bad matchup or just better than your deck (but again, perfectly legal in the format), and complain, ect.
If someone goes to a tournament, they have zero right to complain about anything legal.
True, except for one point: I do believe that counterspells are a very inherently strong card type, and they gain power exponentially the more you can stuff into your deck. (8 Counterspells are more than twice as strong as 4 counterspells), more so than other card types you can stack.
Remember that Stronghold-era Magic was just a stronger Standard than modern Magic. As you pointed out, card power varies depending on environment. I don't see how you can quite reasonably point out that card power matters based on environment, then act amazed that Mana Leak might also have variable card power.
Cavern of Souls was worthwhile and necessary in the environment it was dropped into. I might even argue that a Cavern of Souls type card is needed in any Standard that you want more than two playable Counterspells in.
New players do complain about these things. Consistently.
CONSISTENTLY.
When so many different people complain about the same thing, is it not logical to assume that maybe that have a point? I can't think of too many games where all the new players complain about the same thing as consistently as they do about the over-use of attrition-based tactics in magic. And I'm certain wizards has noticed this as well, and it's impact on their bottom line. After all, they are in the business of selling fun, and if their product doesn't deliver, then they are the ones who have failed, not their players. Their biggest fear is that their player base will, as you mentioned, quit.
-making certain Standard cards can be played in Modern, therefore increasing their value and increasing WotC's profit margin
Things WotC does not care about:
-keeping the ban list as short as possible
-taking chances with an entire format for the benefit of a single card
-catering to play styles that newer players generally don't like and will lose them more players than it will gain
-keeping the meta balanced between archetypes/colors/whatever
-keeping cards on the secondary market cheap (available yes, but not cheap)
-keeping the meta diverse (as long as a single deck doesn't threaten the popularity of the format)
I don't know if a mass amount of people will quit because disruptive/attrition elements stay staple. I mean, why would players like that choose Magic over other card games that don't have disruption? Why not go and play those games instead of complaining that Magic is unfun for them because they can't do whatever they want to do without being impeded?
No offense, but I don't see how any players like the aforementioned will have fun playing anything but solitaire honestly. I mean, these might be the same players that cry when they jump at Ryu players in Street Fighter and complain they got Dragon Punched because, "I want to jump at you." I'm not stopping them from jumping at me, I'm just going to Dragon Punch you. Learn to play better.
Patience- You have the choice of either throwing everything against the unbreakable wall and getting frustrated, or waiting for an insignificant card to bait out their counters.
Ingenuity/creativity- You have to find a way to get your wincons out. So you need to come up with a strategy on the fly that will allow that.
Maybe it's just cuz my mtg teacher played control at first and I had to learn ways to get around it.
When asking for if something was stolen on Kamigawa:
Have some irony:
MtG sells itself as a duel between two planeswalkers summoning fantastic creatures to fight for them in exciting battles. Look at the packaging. Look at the trailers. It's all dragons and demons. Angels and planeswalkers. Knights and elves. Goblins and vampires. Heroes fighting monsters and endless waves of zombies going up against knights defending a village. This is how MtG presents itself to prospective customers. Play this game and you get to be in control of a Thundermaw Hellkite! Command your own horde of goblins. Lead an army of elves to victory! When a game doesn't play out like that a newer player might feel like he was hit by the ol' bait-and-switch.
UU
Instant
Counter target spell or exile target permanent you may ignore the mana cost of Counterspell and you may search you deck for counterspell anytime you could play an instant and put it in your hand. you may have any number of counterspells in your deck.
a) you have to have it in hand,
b) you have to have open man on your opponents turn
c) you have to stop the threat RIGHT THEN AND THEIR when it is cast, this timing condition is the largest factor. It takes time skill and evaluation to know what to counter and when.
It is quite likely you have more threats in your deck than I have counterspells this is why control is weak VS agro... in time you WILL win given similar card advantage, and if I have card advanage I have spent mana that is your opening to cast your spells!
A new player just doesn't know how to handle it. "I am playing my creatures and they just keep dying or getting countered" nothing is happening in this game... oh now I am top decking how does he have an answer to everything??"
then they play a bit more and realise that they have to put doom blades in their decks because other creature decks are sometimes bigger than theirs... then they play against control and all they have in hand is doom blades with no targets.
They get frustrated "what? how? I can't deal with this I am not actually playing anything?, you are just countering all my stuff how am I meant to play?".
Playing against control requires unintuitive play and deck building. Creature battles are obvious, it doesn't take too long for a new player to realise how to deal with flying or deathtouch or opponents just having bigger creatures. "Oh you used a giant growth! nice play you got me"
They feel completely stifled not being able to get their creatures into play, their whole deck relies on getting their creatures into play.
There is a problem here though, in order for them to get better at magic they need to learn to deal with it, it is really hard to get through stubboness ("I refuse to play against that deck"). Its really hard to get them to understand to play against control you don't need to play every creature in your hand because they will boardwipe you, you should play your worst creatures first to make them play their counters on them. That you can't ignore control just because they don't seem to be doing anything in multiplayer. That this battle can be enjoyable and not just a source of rage.
I am not a "control player for Life" I have played all types of decks. But my current standard deck is a hard control deck aetherling my way to victory. new players play standard it makes it really hard for me to play with new players. My best friend is constantly frustrated playing against my deck... I seriously win every game but I can't go easy on him because that is worse, pitying him. And his only legal in legacy mono green beast deck just can't handle a deck filled with counterspells and kill spells and planeswalkers etc.
In my opinion they need to learn to play against the decks they can't just say no, never, stop playing that. I think the best soultion is play one or two games with the control deck then switch to something nicer. I understand why they are frustrated but they need to learn or perhaps magic is not the game for them... they should try Hearthstone.
Pioneer:UR Pheonix
Modern:U Mono U Tron
EDH
GB Glissa, the traitor: Army of Cans
UW Dragonlord Ojutai: Dragonlord NOjutai
UWGDerevi, Empyrial Tactician "you cannot fight the storm"
R Zirilan of the claw. The solution to every problem is dragons
UB Etrata, the Silencer Cloning assassination
Peasant cube: Cards I own