I think Wizards has done all they can to not make spells a relevant option, especially for new players. This causes them to be distraught when they lose to a deck that they didn't even believe was possible to create, and that they can't interact with using the tools that creatures give them. This creates a cycle where Wizards has to continually reduce counterspells each time new players get upset, but will just upset them even more in the future by making the issue of counterspells even less comprehensible to a new player.
This applies not just to counterspells, but to the philosophy behind card design altogether. Creatures are subsuming spells by just having spell effects tacked on to them when summoned. Removal of all kinds, including kill spells, board wipes, damage spells, discard, targeted hate, as well as counterspells, have all been reduced in scope and power. Some of the most prevalent spells now are combat tricks or enchantments to buff your creatures, or draw spells which will essentially be used to draw more creatures. All this does is create an environment where players are just not aware of the potential power of non-creature spells, only to feel betrayed when they finally do encounter them.
"So in this game you just play your creatures and attack or block? Ok. And there are cards you can play that help your creatures? Ok."
"Now the creatures have those effects attached to them? That's great, now I don't even have to play those spells anymore."
"Wait, how are you doing that? You're not letting me cast my creature? You're killing them all when they hit the field? How am I supposed to win when creatures can't stop spells? This game makes no sense."
You have to realize, that article which laid out their thoughts on Blue was from over 5 years ago. This isn't a recent development, regardless of how many people want to complain that it's a new thing. As for why counterspells are hated? Nobody knows. He even calls that out specifically in the article: people, even pros who know better, simply dislike having a creature countered more than if it died to removal.
Any deck that prevents your opponent from making decisions is meant to operate a certain way, and part of that is deliberately getting under your opponent's skin, forcing them to change their pacing while they wait for your approval of every little thing. Nothing wrong with that, especially in a competitive format where you have to expect opponents to use every advantage, but when playing casually, it's just not fun to play against. People play Magic for different reasons, but NOBODY plays Magic so they can sit there while their opponent dictates the entire game. Counterspells are important to have in any given meta, but they watch them closely in Standard to make sure that you CAN play around them, or through them,and part of that is making them less powerful overall than "2 mana answer to every possible threat."
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.
There are a few reasons for this. A lot of people today are netdeckers, they win because they googled "Winning PTQ decK' and copied it. Playing against Counterspells means you have to know how to play Magic, you cannot just drop cards in the manner in which some website described and win. You have to strategize and force the Counter deck into making bad choices. You have to sacrifice card A to draw the counterspell and let card B through, even though card A is "Really good". Many people have no idea how to strategize in Magic and so Counterspells are "Unfun" because they can't just memorize and regurgitate some internet strategy.
Then there's the Timmys, who put together this grand strategy hinging around getting these 6 cards on the board in order to have some infinite combo go off. He doesn't like it because he's already banking his win on a statistical improbability and one Counterspell tanks the whole thing.
It's the aggregate effect of the netdecker. As you have an increase in the number of players who play by regurgitating some strategy they read on the internet you have a corresponding increase in the number of players who don't know how to handle a non-standard deck. If you never learned how to handle adapting your play to disruption then disrupting feels like "Cheating" and you feel like you "Never had a chance" because you don't recognize your own bad play. "This is the way this deck wins" without any idea of how to play the deck differently.
There's a reason why the prevelance of netdecking corresponds to the diminishing presence of disruption, to the point where today almost all of the games are netdecks and almost none of the cards are disruption.
Akki_Akki agree with most of what your saying except one tiny point. Timmy loves Big Splashy Creatures. Johnny loves the mutliple card combo. Akki_Akki thought to just point it out. Otherwise solid.
There might be an expectations of where things should be occurring that lead to discontent toward counterspells. In general, we have expectations and schemas about the world around us. When they are questioned or outright shattered, it can be stressful. For example, if you expect to take route A to work, but there's an accident and you have to take route B, you're less satisfied, because you expectations were not met. However, if you knew ahead of time that route A was not going to work and expected to take route B, then your expectations would be met and it wouldn't be as big of an issue.
In the same way, if you expect everything to happen on the battlefield and that winning means dropping your opponent's life to zero, then when this expectation is challenged (either on the stack, or through the graveyard) it creates a lot of stress and can be very frustrating. Some people find it less stressful to have their creature destroyed by a Doom Blade than Mana Leakbecause they expect their creature to perish on the battlefield, not on the stack. If you play Legacy, you expect counterspells, so having your Show and Tell countered fits within your expectations.
I think reacting with hostility toward your opponent because they countered your Siege Rhino is unacceptable behavior as an individual and hurts the game as a whole. It just reinforces ignorance about aspects in the game ("I don't want to work around counterspells, so I'm going to complain about it"). If something within the game surprises you or doesn't fit within your expectations, then take the time to understand it and use it to make yourself a better player.
So, why do they feel unfun to play against? I rewatched the extra credits episode on agency, and one thing struck me: a choice can be meaningful or not based on the player. Typically, new players have to make decisions arbitrarily while more enfranchised players see deeper lines of play. A more experienced player knows how to bait countermagic, how to gauge the odds, and when to simply try to bull through them. A less experienced player knows none of this, and basically gets to make a choice which, to them, feels like it doesn't matter. How many of us have heard (or even said) "It doesn't matter what i play, it's just going to be countered anyway."
The players here tend to be more experienced, and might not think along those lines. This is similar to the "lenticular design" idea, where more experienced players get more out of a design just because their experience lets them think about it in new ways, while less experienced players take it only at face value. Neither mindset is "right" exactly, just different perspectives. Learning to play against countermagic is an essential skill for players who are invested in becoming better. Learning to play against countermagic is a frustrating, unfun experience for those who are just looking to play and have fun.
A certain level of countermagic is definitely a good thing for the game and any given format. Disruption helps keep linear, uninteractive strategies in check. The issue is when disruption becomes strong enough to not have to make choices, when it realyl IS stong enough to just counter every threat offhand. I haven't seen any posts here recomending bringing back "draw-go" permission, but because that particular archetype was both powerful and horribly boring to play against, Wizards watches countermagic vey closely. I think Dissolve and Dissipate are great as all-purpose answers, with more specialized countermagic taking the cheaper spots. I dislike Mana Leak, but think Force Spike is perfectly fine, somehow. Actually, i'm a bit surprised Stubborn Denial doesn't see more play in sideboards.
Regardless, countermagic is one of those mechanics that has depth that isn't obvious at first glance. For that reason, it isn't fun until you reach a certain mindset as a player, and that is one that most players simply aren't that interested in reaching. They're playing for fun, not to improve their own gameplay, and they aren't playing at any type of competitive level. More enfranchised players might find it challenging and fun, but those are a minority.
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.
I don't know for sure, but I think the nerfing of counterspells has something to do with new players negative experiences in playing against them. Everyone knows new players tend to gravitate towards either creature-heavy aggro or janky wombo-combo decks, while at the same time heavy disruption/draw go/controllish decks tend to be more popular among older, more experienced players (who are favoured to win anyways simply due to their experience)
From the perspective of a new player with a aggro deck, these types of matchups tend to be quite demoralizing. Most of these older players are pretty chill in accommodating new players even though the matchups be pretty one-sided at first. But then again, at your LGS there is usually That_One_Guy who practically lives there and only plays draw go styled control and has to be dick all the time and a sore winner to boot. I felt the same when i first started playing Magic, but I kept playing and eventually figured out how to beat them. From Wotc's perspective: decent counterpells= Dominating U/x/x control decks = unfun for new players.
I think a lot of people have this reaction when it comes to any sort of denial strategy that stops them from playing their cards, whether it be counterspells, land denial or even stax. Personally, I enjoy playing against all three.
This just begs the question- why do counterspells feel bad?
No one has a problem with counterspells existing. People have a problem with counterspells being so powerful that it becomes viable to just build a deck with tons of them, which never plans to actually let anything relevant resolve. This encourages "draw-go" gameplay, which is considered by many to be the most boring form the game of MtG could possibly take.
First off, we should acknowledge that it isn't just new players that dislike counterspells. As the OP's link states, even experienced players often think having their stuff countered is more unfun than having their stuff destroyed by removal. There's an undercurrent of the idea "Well, once you've been playing as long as I have, you'll get over your silly distaste for counterspells" which I think is pure, ugly elitism.
I've been playing since Revised. I used to play UW Control all the time. I loooved controlling the game, telling my opponent "no." But eventually I realized (after being called a jerk enough times) that that style of play wasn't good for the game. Since that moment of realization, I've basically hated blue (although I'm a spike at heart, so sometimes I bite the bullet and play blue...sometimes I ever run counterspells!).
Overall, I agree with ukyo_rulz. No one's saying that counterspells shouldn't exist; that should be obvious. They serve an important role in the game's design and make up a unique part of blue's portion of the color pie. Even though I hate them, I wouldn't want to live in a Magic world where they didn't exist. But I think Magic is much more fun now that it was when I first started playing, because I feel the counterspells are designed much better. You can't just jam 21 uncondictional counters into a deck, so you can counter everything. You have to design a deck by thoughtfully choosing which counterspells to use and what other colors to back them up with. That's good for the game, IMO.
This just begs the question- why do counterspells feel bad?
No one has a problem with counterspells existing. People have a problem with counterspells being so powerful that it becomes viable to just build a deck with tons of them, which never plans to actually let anything relevant resolve. This encourages "draw-go" gameplay, which is considered by many to be the most boring form the game of MtG could possibly take.
Who are these "many people" and when was the last time there was a draw-go deck anywhere for them to complain about?
Quite frankly "draw-go" has become this mythical boogeyman to scare new players and make control strategies sound boring because "youre not doing anything". Which is just a huge misunderstanding of how the control archetype works.
I think it's a volume thing. Many decks (for this argument, I'm talking about Standard) run spot removal, but not as many run counters. The ones that do though are chock full of them (as well as spot removal). As someone said earlier, it's span. You're running a mixed deck. After you finally break through the one for one on your creatures, you try to lay down an enchantment/artifact/Planeswalker to help whatever your game plan is. You just walked into the other set of counterspells the person had in their hand that couldn't hit creatures. Well, maybe I'll do a cutesy combat trick. Countered!
It also feels more like an endurance battle, honestly. Compare to say D&T. That deck asks for a lot of "permission" as well and asks you to jump through hurdles, but it seems more like a puzzle than a "I hope I draw cards to be countered faster than he can draw counters".
The first deck I built was a discard/counter deck, because I opened a bunch of packs and that looks like it fit in with what my better cards wanted. I faced so much hatred at my first FNM, haha. Now, I don't mind playing that type of deck, but I can understand why people would. Maybe it's the image of the smug "Oh you can't play that. Now let me scry 1!"
Although, tbh, I project the same sort of smugness on the other end of the spectrum, so maybe it's a moot point.
I just had another idea about counterspells. Perhaps we are living in an era of Magic where it is less important to have strong counterspells because they are less needed in today's more creature focused environment.
That over the course of Magic's history creatures have gotten better relative to spells is unarguable. Creates, however, are the most answerable type of Magic card. These days, every color (even Green) has ways to answer creatures.
In the old days, many of the most powerful spells were instants and sorceries. The only way to answer an instant or sorcery is to counter it. (or discard it- could someone from the early days of Magic tell me how effective discard was at disruption?). In fact, Blue's dominance of in early Magic and in older formats is likely due as much to it being able to answer overpowered instants and sorceries (along with everything else).
So another reason I think counterspells fell by the wayside is that they are no longer needed to police magic against threats that cannot be answered without them.
Countering is part of blue
as damage is part of red
as gaining life is part of green
as protection is part of white
as curses is part of black
every decks and styles have their places;
they all have their strength and weaknesses
they are all fun to play with or against
One of the most fun game i could remember is when i've played against a power 9 deck with infinite turns.
Played about 4-5 times against him, and every time i would bring him down to less than 5 life points with my 250$ white/blue deck but would eventually lose, but it got so close. We both had counter spell and it did bring some strategy and bluff to the game.
To be honest, I just think its WOTC's way of keeping as much design space as possible. Clearly, they could reprint say, counterspell and be just about fine, because a single good counterspell in standard is hardly oppresing. There is no question about it, that they would be not able to catter their baby format so it will be OK with his, but it wont happen because than people would laugh at junk we get nowdays such as cancel even more than they do at the moment should they reprint it the next set afterwards. I do not think that players would be mad about a single counter in the format. And ye, I do believe that a player tapping out for his flashy 3 color siege rhino should be punished if he doesnt bother stripping his opponents for possible disruption beforehand and taps out.
I typically only play control casually; rarely at any type of event--just not my thing. Still, I don't especially mind playing against counterspell-based control decks. Once you have some experience playing against them, it can actually be kind of fun trying to bluff your threat onto the table--basically, making the control player wonder if what you are casting is the bait or the actual threat and trying to overwhelm their ability to counter everything. That was extremely difficult in the RTR-THS standard with the UW color-by-numbers control deck with all of the UW gold cards--Sphinx's Revelation just allowed for so much card advantage when paired with an uncounterable 4-mana sweeper that it was clear WOTC had screwed up. The cards and strategies available to beat UW control were very narrow and typically involved either you getting the nut draw (and being on the play) or them not being able to find Verdict in time. It was extremely unfun to play against with most decks. Control with countermagic in the current standard seems more fair to me--it still punishes the one threat per turn, removal-heavy midrange decks, has put up reasonable tournament results, and can still be a powerful strategy, but it isn't so oppressive that it completely hates out a bunch of archetypes like the Rev decks did. Imagine if the RTR-THS U/W decks had to run Dig Through Time and Jace's Ingenuity instead of Rev. Those decks still would have been powerful, but I believe the aggro and midrange metagame would have been more diverse like it is now.
Regarding counterspells specifically, I think a lot of newer players get frustrated not because they just want to bash in with creatures, but because that's kind of your main option when you are starting and have either a limited card pool or just don't know the cards yet. You can build a creature-based deck with substitute parts and just build with what you have until you can upgrade each piece. With control, it's pretty important to have all the pieces--not just the counterspells; it typically just doesn't work well to build a control deck a little at a time, upgrading individual cards as you go. So if you don't have all of the parts necessary and can't just go buy them, you kind of feel locked out of playing the archetype.unless you make the investment. That probably contributes to making it less fun for some players to play against decks with a lot of counters that they probably couldn't build themselves very easily.
Who are these "many people" and when was the last time there was a draw-go deck anywhere for them to complain about?
The thread itself is called "Why do counterspells feel unfun to play against?". The reason we are able to discuss this topic at all is because everyone knows that "unfun counterspells" is a commonly held belief. If many people did not believe it, the thread would be full of confusion and not discussion.
As for the last time there was a draw-go deck to complain about, I can't say because I took an extended hiatus from MtG. When I left blue control was dominant and people endlessly complained about it, and when I came back it was pretty much gone and it was the blue players' turn to complain endlessly.
@taldier Esper control in standard was pretty draw go for as long as RTR was in standard, so yea it's pretty fresh in many players memories. Especially with drownyards esper.
Counterspells are seem as unfun, probably because they can deal with virtually ANYTHING given you cast them at a specific timing...
Get, for example, the most versatile removal spell ever... Vindicate it can deal with anything that's sitting in the other side of the table for 1WB, but it won't ever deal with Lightning Bolt or any other spells.
Counterspell in the other hand will deal with anything that Vindicate deals (except lands and corner cases such as uncounterable stuff) + deals with stuff that would have protection and all spells...
The timing restriction is all that's there's to it.
That single spell and UU may deal with almost anything you can play regardless of type, size or cost.
There's something else...
you simply can't make a 30 vindicate deck because there are not enough versatile removal to do it...
but you can make a 30 counterspell deck that will counter everything that comes in it's way.
counter magic will, at the same time, prevent your opponent from playing AND protect your own menaces from opposing removal.
It's a very powerful concept... specially because people can build around it in "draw go" style decks that will do nothing until you do something, and then they will answer it with a cheap spell for a nice 1 for 1 that will most likely than not result in the countering guy having the upper hand in mana after the first spell is played.
Vindicate is a 1 for 1 spell that answers any permanent in play regardless of when it's played, but doesn't deal with spells and won't do a thing against combo decks that are spell based, and will not protect your cards from removal. Counterspell is a 1 for 1 spell that answers a much bigger number of cards than vindicate does, for less mana and a easier casting cost but only does it with the correct timing, it also has the upside of protecting your cards from removal.
Anyway... counterspell is the blue removal, as blue has a REAL HARD TIME taking stuff away from the battlefield once stuff gets there, sure you can bounce stuff, but that's not nearly as powerful as destroying or exiling something.
Even if I think counterspell is a very powerful concept and the high number of redundant versatile counterspells printed can make for a really frustrating deck to play against, I still think that counterspells are a really cool concept.... I think Mana Leak and Counterspell wouldn't ruin standard or any format for that matter....
sure you could ruin standard if you printed like Counterspell, Mana Leak, Spell Pierce and Remand in the same standard... don't do that and you're just giving blue a nice "removal" spell....
About the concepts that have been "removed" from the game for this reason of being "unfun", like counterspell, discarding and land destruction, the only one I actually agree being really unfun is land destruction....
I mean, there are no close matches against a land destruction deck, it will destroy or get destroyed... 99% of time time a LD deck is being played, one of the players will get frustrated....
that's not true for Countering.
My $0.02 on the matter; people don't like being told no. Combine that with the fact that the only effective "counter" to countermagic is your own countermagic and you may see a dilemma. Psychologically, people don't like having to ask another player whether they're allowed to play the game. Countermagic has its place, but it can be abused to make very unfun situations. Most complaints you hear about countermagic come from people playing in a kitchen table environment where the main goal is playing for "fun". Competitive control decks are all about stopping other players from playing magic. Extra turns, board wipes, massive permission, etc. tend to grind most players down- especially when there is no accompanying win condition on the battlefield. Counters are versatile. They can both prevent someone from winning the game and prevent you from losing if you have a winning board position. Both are going to draw some ire.
Comparing countermagic to removal... is a bad analogy IMO. Counters can hit permanents and spells, are typically cheap, and the only usable countermagic is in one color. One. Color. Sure, Red has it's Pyroblast and Fork/Shunt effects, White has Mana Tithe and Lapse of Certainty, Black has Dash hopes and Withering Boon, while Green has... can't be countered effects? What to all these options have in common? They're all considerably worse when compared to Blue's permission arsenal. The only spells that can really hold a candle to Blue in the countermagic department might be Red, and that's kind of like cheering for the one armed boxer. No other effect in this game is solely dominated by one color as much as blue's grip on countermagic. Ok, maybe direct damage in red is the other dominated effect, but that is literally red's only saving grace.
So, removal spells are essentially the same thing as countermagic, right? Right?! Well, yes and no. They both put cards into the graveyard, but is good removal exclusive to one color? No. Can you use removal to stop a non-permanent spell from resolving? Nope. Removal can be "countered" through multiple methods; blink, protection, shroud/hexproof, indestructibility, etc. You're going to run up against removal in virtually all matchups, but countermagic is only played in those pesky blue decks. Casual matchups that don't use sideboards may have no answers other than trying to cycle through someone's counterspells.
It's frustrating because typically the spell you cast cost 4+, and the counter costs 2. Doom Blade does the same thing, but people play around Doom Blade by playing CITP effects, and creatures that cost 3 or less mana. The only way to get past the crushing mana advantage that counterspells give is to play cheap creatures or uncounterable ones.
1) Constantly asking your opponent if your spells resolve is annoying. Especially because they have to sit there and think about it every time even if they don't have a counter just to make sure you don't know that.
2) The only answer to counterspells is more counterspells. W, G, B, and U have ways to grant indestructible, hexproof, or regeneration to get around removal, but only blue has a way to deal with counterspells.
Even a wrath effect can be dealt with using a planeswalker or enchantment, and Thoughtseize doesn't stop topdecks.
But if I have a Counterspell and 2 blue open, you must trade 1-for-1 with me before you can do anything.
Theres simply not enough mechanics that work without "casting" cards.
And the tiny amount of "cant be countered" are mostly printed exactly to hate on counterspells in a metagame (and pretty much guaranteed to be rare).
Magic overall feels better if each player can work around some form of cards. If you have more "catch-all" answers, magic loses this appeal and it becomes more one-sided, as its also much easier to complete your task if you can think "i do this and that, and i have 2 more counterspells, next game ?"
Conditional counterspells at least allow a series of plays to work around that.
This applies not just to counterspells, but to the philosophy behind card design altogether. Creatures are subsuming spells by just having spell effects tacked on to them when summoned. Removal of all kinds, including kill spells, board wipes, damage spells, discard, targeted hate, as well as counterspells, have all been reduced in scope and power. Some of the most prevalent spells now are combat tricks or enchantments to buff your creatures, or draw spells which will essentially be used to draw more creatures. All this does is create an environment where players are just not aware of the potential power of non-creature spells, only to feel betrayed when they finally do encounter them.
"So in this game you just play your creatures and attack or block? Ok. And there are cards you can play that help your creatures? Ok."
"Now the creatures have those effects attached to them? That's great, now I don't even have to play those spells anymore."
"Wait, how are you doing that? You're not letting me cast my creature? You're killing them all when they hit the field? How am I supposed to win when creatures can't stop spells? This game makes no sense."
Any deck that prevents your opponent from making decisions is meant to operate a certain way, and part of that is deliberately getting under your opponent's skin, forcing them to change their pacing while they wait for your approval of every little thing. Nothing wrong with that, especially in a competitive format where you have to expect opponents to use every advantage, but when playing casually, it's just not fun to play against. People play Magic for different reasons, but NOBODY plays Magic so they can sit there while their opponent dictates the entire game. Counterspells are important to have in any given meta, but they watch them closely in Standard to make sure that you CAN play around them, or through them,and part of that is making them less powerful overall than "2 mana answer to every possible threat."
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.
Akki_Akki agree with most of what your saying except one tiny point. Timmy loves Big Splashy Creatures. Johnny loves the mutliple card combo. Akki_Akki thought to just point it out. Otherwise solid.
In the same way, if you expect everything to happen on the battlefield and that winning means dropping your opponent's life to zero, then when this expectation is challenged (either on the stack, or through the graveyard) it creates a lot of stress and can be very frustrating. Some people find it less stressful to have their creature destroyed by a Doom Blade than Mana Leakbecause they expect their creature to perish on the battlefield, not on the stack. If you play Legacy, you expect counterspells, so having your Show and Tell countered fits within your expectations.
I think reacting with hostility toward your opponent because they countered your Siege Rhino is unacceptable behavior as an individual and hurts the game as a whole. It just reinforces ignorance about aspects in the game ("I don't want to work around counterspells, so I'm going to complain about it"). If something within the game surprises you or doesn't fit within your expectations, then take the time to understand it and use it to make yourself a better player.
The players here tend to be more experienced, and might not think along those lines. This is similar to the "lenticular design" idea, where more experienced players get more out of a design just because their experience lets them think about it in new ways, while less experienced players take it only at face value. Neither mindset is "right" exactly, just different perspectives. Learning to play against countermagic is an essential skill for players who are invested in becoming better. Learning to play against countermagic is a frustrating, unfun experience for those who are just looking to play and have fun.
A certain level of countermagic is definitely a good thing for the game and any given format. Disruption helps keep linear, uninteractive strategies in check. The issue is when disruption becomes strong enough to not have to make choices, when it realyl IS stong enough to just counter every threat offhand. I haven't seen any posts here recomending bringing back "draw-go" permission, but because that particular archetype was both powerful and horribly boring to play against, Wizards watches countermagic vey closely. I think Dissolve and Dissipate are great as all-purpose answers, with more specialized countermagic taking the cheaper spots. I dislike Mana Leak, but think Force Spike is perfectly fine, somehow. Actually, i'm a bit surprised Stubborn Denial doesn't see more play in sideboards.
Regardless, countermagic is one of those mechanics that has depth that isn't obvious at first glance. For that reason, it isn't fun until you reach a certain mindset as a player, and that is one that most players simply aren't that interested in reaching. They're playing for fun, not to improve their own gameplay, and they aren't playing at any type of competitive level. More enfranchised players might find it challenging and fun, but those are a minority.
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.
From the perspective of a new player with a aggro deck, these types of matchups tend to be quite demoralizing. Most of these older players are pretty chill in accommodating new players even though the matchups be pretty one-sided at first. But then again, at your LGS there is usually That_One_Guy who practically lives there and only plays draw go styled control and has to be dick all the time and a sore winner to boot. I felt the same when i first started playing Magic, but I kept playing and eventually figured out how to beat them. From Wotc's perspective: decent counterpells= Dominating U/x/x control decks = unfun for new players.
No one has a problem with counterspells existing. People have a problem with counterspells being so powerful that it becomes viable to just build a deck with tons of them, which never plans to actually let anything relevant resolve. This encourages "draw-go" gameplay, which is considered by many to be the most boring form the game of MtG could possibly take.
Just Say No
UB
As an additional cost to play Just Say No, pay 2 life or sacrifice target creature
Counter Target Spell
I only learned one thing in kindergarten: The bigger you were, the less you had to share!
My Trade Link
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=9689206#post9689206
I've been playing since Revised. I used to play UW Control all the time. I loooved controlling the game, telling my opponent "no." But eventually I realized (after being called a jerk enough times) that that style of play wasn't good for the game. Since that moment of realization, I've basically hated blue (although I'm a spike at heart, so sometimes I bite the bullet and play blue...sometimes I ever run counterspells!).
Overall, I agree with ukyo_rulz. No one's saying that counterspells shouldn't exist; that should be obvious. They serve an important role in the game's design and make up a unique part of blue's portion of the color pie. Even though I hate them, I wouldn't want to live in a Magic world where they didn't exist. But I think Magic is much more fun now that it was when I first started playing, because I feel the counterspells are designed much better. You can't just jam 21 uncondictional counters into a deck, so you can counter everything. You have to design a deck by thoughtfully choosing which counterspells to use and what other colors to back them up with. That's good for the game, IMO.
Modern: GW Hatebears/midrange, WGU Knightfall/evolution midrange stuff
Standard: nope
Legacy: W Death & Taxes
EDH (not Commander!): W Avacyn, Angel of Hope, GR Ruric Thar, the Unbowed, WGB Anafenza, the Foremost, WU Hanna, Ship's Navigator
Who are these "many people" and when was the last time there was a draw-go deck anywhere for them to complain about?
Quite frankly "draw-go" has become this mythical boogeyman to scare new players and make control strategies sound boring because "youre not doing anything". Which is just a huge misunderstanding of how the control archetype works.
It also feels more like an endurance battle, honestly. Compare to say D&T. That deck asks for a lot of "permission" as well and asks you to jump through hurdles, but it seems more like a puzzle than a "I hope I draw cards to be countered faster than he can draw counters".
The first deck I built was a discard/counter deck, because I opened a bunch of packs and that looks like it fit in with what my better cards wanted. I faced so much hatred at my first FNM, haha. Now, I don't mind playing that type of deck, but I can understand why people would. Maybe it's the image of the smug "Oh you can't play that. Now let me scry 1!"
Although, tbh, I project the same sort of smugness on the other end of the spectrum, so maybe it's a moot point.
That over the course of Magic's history creatures have gotten better relative to spells is unarguable. Creates, however, are the most answerable type of Magic card. These days, every color (even Green) has ways to answer creatures.
In the old days, many of the most powerful spells were instants and sorceries. The only way to answer an instant or sorcery is to counter it. (or discard it- could someone from the early days of Magic tell me how effective discard was at disruption?). In fact, Blue's dominance of in early Magic and in older formats is likely due as much to it being able to answer overpowered instants and sorceries (along with everything else).
So another reason I think counterspells fell by the wayside is that they are no longer needed to police magic against threats that cannot be answered without them.
I'd rather my spell be countered than I would someone go off on some infinite combo that can't be interacted with on turn 3.
as damage is part of red
as gaining life is part of green
as protection is part of white
as curses is part of black
every decks and styles have their places;
they all have their strength and weaknesses
they are all fun to play with or against
One of the most fun game i could remember is when i've played against a power 9 deck with infinite turns.
Played about 4-5 times against him, and every time i would bring him down to less than 5 life points with my 250$ white/blue deck but would eventually lose, but it got so close. We both had counter spell and it did bring some strategy and bluff to the game.
Regarding counterspells specifically, I think a lot of newer players get frustrated not because they just want to bash in with creatures, but because that's kind of your main option when you are starting and have either a limited card pool or just don't know the cards yet. You can build a creature-based deck with substitute parts and just build with what you have until you can upgrade each piece. With control, it's pretty important to have all the pieces--not just the counterspells; it typically just doesn't work well to build a control deck a little at a time, upgrading individual cards as you go. So if you don't have all of the parts necessary and can't just go buy them, you kind of feel locked out of playing the archetype.unless you make the investment. That probably contributes to making it less fun for some players to play against decks with a lot of counters that they probably couldn't build themselves very easily.
The thread itself is called "Why do counterspells feel unfun to play against?". The reason we are able to discuss this topic at all is because everyone knows that "unfun counterspells" is a commonly held belief. If many people did not believe it, the thread would be full of confusion and not discussion.
As for the last time there was a draw-go deck to complain about, I can't say because I took an extended hiatus from MtG. When I left blue control was dominant and people endlessly complained about it, and when I came back it was pretty much gone and it was the blue players' turn to complain endlessly.
Get, for example, the most versatile removal spell ever... Vindicate it can deal with anything that's sitting in the other side of the table for 1WB, but it won't ever deal with Lightning Bolt or any other spells.
Counterspell in the other hand will deal with anything that Vindicate deals (except lands and corner cases such as uncounterable stuff) + deals with stuff that would have protection and all spells...
The timing restriction is all that's there's to it.
That single spell and UU may deal with almost anything you can play regardless of type, size or cost.
There's something else...
you simply can't make a 30 vindicate deck because there are not enough versatile removal to do it...
but you can make a 30 counterspell deck that will counter everything that comes in it's way.
counter magic will, at the same time, prevent your opponent from playing AND protect your own menaces from opposing removal.
It's a very powerful concept... specially because people can build around it in "draw go" style decks that will do nothing until you do something, and then they will answer it with a cheap spell for a nice 1 for 1 that will most likely than not result in the countering guy having the upper hand in mana after the first spell is played.
Vindicate is a 1 for 1 spell that answers any permanent in play regardless of when it's played, but doesn't deal with spells and won't do a thing against combo decks that are spell based, and will not protect your cards from removal.
Counterspell is a 1 for 1 spell that answers a much bigger number of cards than vindicate does, for less mana and a easier casting cost but only does it with the correct timing, it also has the upside of protecting your cards from removal.
Anyway... counterspell is the blue removal, as blue has a REAL HARD TIME taking stuff away from the battlefield once stuff gets there, sure you can bounce stuff, but that's not nearly as powerful as destroying or exiling something.
Even if I think counterspell is a very powerful concept and the high number of redundant versatile counterspells printed can make for a really frustrating deck to play against, I still think that counterspells are a really cool concept.... I think Mana Leak and Counterspell wouldn't ruin standard or any format for that matter....
sure you could ruin standard if you printed like Counterspell, Mana Leak, Spell Pierce and Remand in the same standard... don't do that and you're just giving blue a nice "removal" spell....
About the concepts that have been "removed" from the game for this reason of being "unfun", like counterspell, discarding and land destruction, the only one I actually agree being really unfun is land destruction....
I mean, there are no close matches against a land destruction deck, it will destroy or get destroyed... 99% of time time a LD deck is being played, one of the players will get frustrated....
that's not true for Countering.
Comparing countermagic to removal... is a bad analogy IMO. Counters can hit permanents and spells, are typically cheap, and the only usable countermagic is in one color. One. Color. Sure, Red has it's Pyroblast and Fork/Shunt effects, White has Mana Tithe and Lapse of Certainty, Black has Dash hopes and Withering Boon, while Green has... can't be countered effects? What to all these options have in common? They're all considerably worse when compared to Blue's permission arsenal. The only spells that can really hold a candle to Blue in the countermagic department might be Red, and that's kind of like cheering for the one armed boxer. No other effect in this game is solely dominated by one color as much as blue's grip on countermagic. Ok, maybe direct damage in red is the other dominated effect, but that is literally red's only saving grace.
So, removal spells are essentially the same thing as countermagic, right? Right?! Well, yes and no. They both put cards into the graveyard, but is good removal exclusive to one color? No. Can you use removal to stop a non-permanent spell from resolving? Nope. Removal can be "countered" through multiple methods; blink, protection, shroud/hexproof, indestructibility, etc. You're going to run up against removal in virtually all matchups, but countermagic is only played in those pesky blue decks. Casual matchups that don't use sideboards may have no answers other than trying to cycle through someone's counterspells.
1) Constantly asking your opponent if your spells resolve is annoying. Especially because they have to sit there and think about it every time even if they don't have a counter just to make sure you don't know that.
2) The only answer to counterspells is more counterspells. W, G, B, and U have ways to grant indestructible, hexproof, or regeneration to get around removal, but only blue has a way to deal with counterspells.
If I have a doom blade, you can play a black creature. If I have an Essence Scatter, you can play a Hordeling Outburst.
Even a wrath effect can be dealt with using a planeswalker or enchantment, and Thoughtseize doesn't stop topdecks.
But if I have a Counterspell and 2 blue open, you must trade 1-for-1 with me before you can do anything.
Theres simply not enough mechanics that work without "casting" cards.
And the tiny amount of "cant be countered" are mostly printed exactly to hate on counterspells in a metagame (and pretty much guaranteed to be rare).
Magic overall feels better if each player can work around some form of cards. If you have more "catch-all" answers, magic loses this appeal and it becomes more one-sided, as its also much easier to complete your task if you can think "i do this and that, and i have 2 more counterspells, next game ?"
Conditional counterspells at least allow a series of plays to work around that.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮