This is dumbed down magic and its the way it is. Play Legacy and save yourself.
Really. Was that last sentence necessary AT ALL? Could you think of literally no other comparison? Also, I like how you string "Reading" "taking some courses" and "playing blue based control" together as if these are all equally intellectual pursuits. I can't tell if you've beaten everyone to worst post of the year intentionally as a superb troll, or if you're just one poor delusional soul.
But thanks for perpetuating the stereotype that magic is not friendly to female players by disregarding their issues in a COMPLETELY unrelated forum.
I have been following this thread and I am just wondering, how does that comment have anything to do with disregarding issues of female players?
I won't claim to be a psychologist. I've read a lot of literature and taken some courses. I've also been playing blue based control for 7 years now. The psychology of a counterspell is exactly that; psychological. When an opponent slams their dude on the board then the spell has resolved. There. I cast it. It felt good. They cast a Doom blade killing it. Okay, well, whatever, we traded 1-for 1. If the creature was answered with a counter spell it's a completely different feeling to the player. It didn't hit the board, i basically discarded it, why does this guy get two turns when I get one, why is his hand always full when I'm top decking, how can I possibly win? You can't when you're put into that situation. You already failed because your deck was not fast and resilient enough to deal with a deck that is literally 100% reactive. So you lose to that deck, then another like it, and another, and suddenly you start sighing when you see t1 island, go, because you know how this game will turn out if you don't see the right draws. Completely ignoring that your opponent is literally struggling to find answers all game and playing a plethora of redundant draw spells just to dig into answers. His deck is entirely different than your own, but you don't care, because he is preventing you from playing your deck. His deck could be mono black removal with Corrupt as a win con and it wouldn't bother you as much simply because you get to land your creatures with ETB abilities that at least do something. Counterspells don't even let your Siege Rhino have an impact. So, you become psychologically conditioned to hate counterspells and blue as a color because you're, to put it bluntly, ignorant of what the roll of counterspells play.
WotC has removed the dynamic that makes counter magic important in standard. You don't have to worry about ***** like Dragonstorm or even Reveillark because they have literally made it so you never have to face that, thus completely removing an important part of magic from your 'resume'. You will never understand why counterspells are important because you never have to face them. So, you're psychologically conditioned to think they're broken because you've never seen a blue deck dismantle a combo deck. Never saw that blue deck lose to RDW nearly 90% of the time because blue gets weakened to the point that RDW preying on the deck every standard has become a non-issue. You're learning the pre school version of magic and because of this you will groan in EDH games when someone casts a Stasis. Scoop up when someone counters your gigantic-ridiculous-overpowered-dude yet ignore how that one dude at the table was stopping the Dralnu EDH from going infinite with planar portal. You don't know any better bc' WotC is not giving you a reason to know better. And you'll never get better. You'll hate control like social justice warriors hate the patriarchy without giving any actual thought as to WHY.
This is dumbed down magic and its the way it is. Play Legacy and save yourself.
Really. Was that last sentence necessary AT ALL? Could you think of literally no other comparison? Also, I like how you string "Reading" "taking some courses" and "playing blue based control" together as if these are all equally intellectual pursuits. I can't tell if you've beaten everyone to worst post of the year intentionally as a superb troll, or if you're just one poor delusional soul.
But thanks for perpetuating the stereotype that magic is not friendly to female players by disregarding their issues in a COMPLETELY unrelated forum.
To be completely serious I actually didn't even think of the relevance of that last sentence from the perspective of a female player and in no way did I mean it to be anything other than metaphorical hyperbole to get my point across. I'm sure you realize men can hate the patriarchy too so hopefully you see I wasn't intentionally being sexist. I clearly could have used a better example and I apologize if I offended you or anyone else with that sentence. I'll edit it out of my post. Also, I was using the psychological course and blue control correlation to try and piece my thoughts together. Mtgsalvation has strict moderation so I can't clearly speak my mind in my own words (I cuss like a sailor) so sometimes I come off really offensive. >_>
Oh sorry. I saw patriarchy and sjw together and just flipped. Clearly too much time dealing with actual terrible people on reddit haha. I shouldn't have been so quick to assume.
I won't claim to be a psychologist. I've read a lot of literature and taken some courses. I've also been playing blue based control for 7 years now. The psychology of a counterspell is exactly that; psychological. When an opponent slams their dude on the board then the spell has resolved. There. I cast it. It felt good. They cast a Doom blade killing it. Okay, well, whatever, we traded 1-for 1. If the creature was answered with a counter spell it's a completely different feeling to the player. It didn't hit the board, i basically discarded it, why does this guy get two turns when I get one, why is his hand always full when I'm top decking, how can I possibly win? You can't when you're put into that situation. You already failed because your deck was not fast and resilient enough to deal with a deck that is literally 100% reactive. So you lose to that deck, then another like it, and another, and suddenly you start sighing when you see t1 island, go, because you know how this game will turn out if you don't see the right draws. Completely ignoring that your opponent is literally struggling to find answers all game and playing a plethora of redundant draw spells just to dig into answers. His deck is entirely different than your own, but you don't care, because he is preventing you from playing your deck. His deck could be mono black removal with Corrupt as a win con and it wouldn't bother you as much simply because you get to land your creatures with ETB abilities that at least do something. Counterspells don't even let your Siege Rhino have an impact. So, you become psychologically conditioned to hate counterspells and blue as a color because you're, to put it bluntly, ignorant of what the roll of counterspells play.
WotC has removed the dynamic that makes counter magic important in standard. You don't have to worry about ***** like Dragonstorm or even Reveillark because they have literally made it so you never have to face that, thus completely removing an important part of magic from your 'resume'. You will never understand why counterspells are important because you never have to face them. So, you're psychologically conditioned to think they're broken because you've never seen a blue deck dismantle a combo deck. Never saw that blue deck lose to RDW nearly 90% of the time because blue gets weakened to the point that RDW preying on the deck every standard has become a non-issue. You're learning the pre school version of magic and because of this you will groan in EDH games when someone casts a Stasis. Scoop up when someone counters your gigantic-ridiculous-overpowered-dude yet ignore how that one dude at the table was stopping the Dralnu EDH from going infinite with planar portal. You don't know any better bc' WotC is not giving you a reason to know better. And you'll never get better. You'll hate control like social justice warriors hate the patriarchy without giving any actual thought as to WHY.
This is dumbed down magic and its the way it is. Play Legacy and save yourself.
Really. Was that last sentence necessary AT ALL? Could you think of literally no other comparison? Also, I like how you string "Reading" "taking some courses" and "playing blue based control" together as if these are all equally intellectual pursuits. I can't tell if you've beaten everyone to worst post of the year intentionally as a superb troll, or if you're just one poor delusional soul.
But thanks for perpetuating the stereotype that magic is not friendly to female players by disregarding their issues in a COMPLETELY unrelated forum.
To be completely serious I actually didn't even think of the relevance of that last sentence from the perspective of a female player and in no way did I mean it to be anything other than metaphorical hyperbole to get my point across. I'm sure you realize men can hate the patriarchy too so hopefully you see I wasn't intentionally being sexist. I clearly could have used a better example and I apologize if I offended you or anyone else with that sentence. I'll edit it out of my post. Also, I was using the psychological course and blue control correlation to try and piece my thoughts together. Mtgsalvation has strict moderation so I can't clearly speak my mind in my own words (I cuss like a sailor) so sometimes I come off really offensive. >_>
Oh sorry. I saw patriarchy and sjw together and just flipped. Clearly too much time dealing with actual terrible people on reddit haha. I shouldn't have been so quick to assume.
It's fine I saw my error as soon as you pointed it out. I would have thought the same thing. Pro tip btw; stay out of the default subreddits. You run into a lot less ignorance.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
I won't claim to be a psychologist. I've read a lot of literature and taken some courses. I've also been playing blue based control for 7 years now. The psychology of a counterspell is exactly that; psychological. When an opponent slams their dude on the board then the spell has resolved. There. I cast it. It felt good. They cast a Doom blade killing it. Okay, well, whatever, we traded 1-for 1. If the creature was answered with a counter spell it's a completely different feeling to the player. It didn't hit the board, i basically discarded it, why does this guy get two turns when I get one, why is his hand always full when I'm top decking, how can I possibly win? You can't when you're put into that situation. You already failed because your deck was not fast and resilient enough to deal with a deck that is literally 100% reactive. So you lose to that deck, then another like it, and another, and suddenly you start sighing when you see t1 island, go, because you know how this game will turn out if you don't see the right draws. Completely ignoring that your opponent is literally struggling to find answers all game and playing a plethora of redundant draw spells just to dig into answers. His deck is entirely different than your own, but you don't care, because he is preventing you from playing your deck. His deck could be mono black removal with Corrupt as a win con and it wouldn't bother you as much simply because you get to land your creatures with ETB abilities that at least do something. Counterspells don't even let your Siege Rhino have an impact. So, you become psychologically conditioned to hate counterspells and blue as a color because you're, to put it bluntly, ignorant of what the roll of counterspells play.
WotC has removed the dynamic that makes counter magic important in standard. You don't have to worry about ***** like Dragonstorm or even Reveillark because they have literally made it so you never have to face that, thus completely removing an important part of magic from your 'resume'. You will never understand why counterspells are important because you never have to face them. So, you're psychologically conditioned to think they're broken because you've never seen a blue deck dismantle a combo deck. Never saw that blue deck lose to RDW nearly 90% of the time because blue gets weakened to the point that RDW preying on the deck every standard has become a non-issue. You're learning the pre school version of magic and because of this you will groan in EDH games when someone casts a Stasis. Scoop up when someone counters your gigantic-ridiculous-overpowered-dude yet ignore how that one dude at the table was stopping the Dralnu EDH from going infinite with planar portal. You don't know any better bc' WotC is not giving you a reason to know better. And you'll never get better. You'll hate control like social justice warriors hate the patriarchy without giving any actual thought as to WHY.
This is dumbed down magic and its the way it is. Play Legacy and save yourself.
Really. Was that last sentence necessary AT ALL? Could you think of literally no other comparison? Also, I like how you string "Reading" "taking some courses" and "playing blue based control" together as if these are all equally intellectual pursuits. I can't tell if you've beaten everyone to worst post of the year intentionally as a superb troll, or if you're just one poor delusional soul.
But thanks for perpetuating the stereotype that magic is not friendly to female players by disregarding their issues in a COMPLETELY unrelated forum.
To be completely serious I actually didn't even think of the relevance of that last sentence from the perspective of a female player and in no way did I mean it to be anything other than metaphorical hyperbole to get my point across. I'm sure you realize men can hate the patriarchy too so hopefully you see I wasn't intentionally being sexist. I clearly could have used a better example and I apologize if I offended you or anyone else with that sentence. I'll edit it out of my post. Also, I was using the psychological course and blue control correlation to try and piece my thoughts together. Mtgsalvation has strict moderation so I can't clearly speak my mind in my own words (I cuss like a sailor) so sometimes I come off really offensive. >_>
Oh sorry. I saw patriarchy and sjw together and just flipped. Clearly too much time dealing with actual terrible people on reddit haha. I shouldn't have been so quick to assume.
It's fine I saw my error as soon as you pointed it out. I would have thought the same thing. Pro tip btw; stay out of the default subreddits. You run into a lot less ignorance.
Oh i know better but I just can't help myself sometimes haha.
This is dumbed down magic and its the way it is. Play Legacy and save yourself.
Really. Was that last sentence necessary AT ALL? Could you think of literally no other comparison? Also, I like how you string "Reading" "taking some courses" and "playing blue based control" together as if these are all equally intellectual pursuits. I can't tell if you've beaten everyone to worst post of the year intentionally as a superb troll, or if you're just one poor delusional soul.
But thanks for perpetuating the stereotype that magic is not friendly to female players by disregarding their issues in a COMPLETELY unrelated forum.
I have been following this thread and I am just wondering, how does that comment have anything to do with disregarding issues of female players?
I misconstrued this line "You'll hate control like social justice warriors hate the patriarchy without giving any actual thought as to WHY." as an anti feminist line.
Is it fair to make the same argument regarding this discussion toward Tribal Decks and Combo aside from Counterspells? This topic could very well come off as asking, "Why are certain ways of playing MTG unfun to play against?" Counter Magic was meant to keep Combo in check which is now replaced by specific Sideboard options against said Combo while Tribal Decks have gotten to a point where it's become a popularity contest to see who can make the most variants out of said Tribal Deck while neglecting the Tribes that don't see as much play to where it gets stale and boring over time. Sometimes it's not so much about certain Tribal Decks becoming redundant but rather how broken they can be like Elves and Slivers for example.
If Combo isn't welcome in your playgroup then build something that's less broken which doesn't involve you playing a game of Solitaire while your opponents gang up on you before getting your combo off like you would running Arcum Dagsson as your General in EDH. Combo is one of the main reasons why I enjoy playing MTG but If you're playing it at the expense of your opponent not being able to react to it by having to Sideboard against it then they aren't having as much fun playing MTG as you are. I learned that the hard way when I used to run Landfall Razer back when Zendikar was Standard legal, the lockdown I had with Ghostly Prison, Realm Razer, Lotus Cobra, and Rampaging Baloths was so broken that my opponent got really pissed at me for playing it and shortly after I tore the deck apart.
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
Mono blue devotion in Theros/Ravnica was a top deck in standard not so long ago. I don't know what you're talking about with blue not being relevant in standard. To say that blue is the worst color in Modern is just. . . No good combo deck worth their salt will not be running blue. Even with all the bannings to the format via ponder, preordain, treasure cruise, and dig through time, blue is still the color of A) topdeck manipulation, to help you piece together your engine, and B) countermagic, to help you lock an opponent out from interacting with your combo.
In standard, Dissolve is the defacto counterspell. That's pretty pathetic. In modern you have Cryptic Command and it does have raw power, but its intensive mana cost renders it prohibitive.
I wouldn't bring up Pearl Lake Ancient to exemplify blue's evolving creature base, but I would bring up Snapcaster Mage, Delver of Secrets, and Deceiver Exarch. Master of Waves and Thassa, God of the Sea were bombs due to hybrid mana in standard, but they were bombs none the less. Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest is pretty aggressively costed for the color negating his triggered ability and is a beast in U/W heroic builds. Creatures aside, there are almost no mono colored lists out there. Everyone splashes to offset weaknesses.
Snapcaster Mage's usefulesness in modern is decreasing as time goes on. He's no longer the automatic 4x inclusion if you're running blue. He's quickly becoming irrelevant. Delver of Secrets is obviously good, but the decks that use him have been rendered irrelevant with the Dig/Cruise bannings. Master of Waves and Thassa were bombs during the Theros standard, but why is no one using them right now? They're still standard legal and yet they're going on unplayed. Its because there's better options in regards to creatures. Why play Master of Waves when you can play Siege Rhino instead? Can you obviously give a good answer as to why you would choose him over the best creature in the format? Not to mention, to make Master of Waves actually work you have to play a deck that's pretty much just mono blue, which eliminates the possibility to play both in the same deck.
In regards to U/W Heroic, I'm not convinced Shu Yun is the answer that Heroic wants. But I also think R/W heroic is 1000000x beter than U/W Heroic is, so yeah.
Back to the original topic of the thread- Countermagic. No one is saying that it doesn't have its merits. Countermagic can be used to stop some of the most degenerate strategies in the game. It can also be used to protect some of the most degenerate strategies. Heavy permission decks are about as fun to play against for most people as Land Destruction, in that it is less playing and more hoping that you get to play something.
I personally hate turn 2 kill combo decks (especially players who take 30 minutes to actually do that combo kill), but I still have to deal with their existence. Why can't these players deal with the existence of relevant countermagic?
***When I see replies like this, I feel like I'm hijacking this thread from it's original topic. If you want to talk with me over blue's impact in standard/modern, staple cards, and the evolution/nerfing of a color or strategy, feel free to shoot me a PM.
I think the op's question has been answered about 10+ times already- people don't like being told that they aren't allowed to do something. Couple that with the attitude of some control players, and you're in for a truckload of resentment. I get that most people playing control do so as a way showcase their intelligence/skill (it does take skill); however, the other problem most have with countermagic can be the attitude of some of the aforementioned players. When control players start looking down on those who play burn/aggro as stupid, or get visually and vocally upset when they get out aggroed by those stupid Rhinos, it tends to rub people the wrong way.
There's a tradeoff here. Most of blue's creatures are historically pathetic, especially in the context of every other color in the game. Outside of playing Fish, you really can't play an aggressive, proactive type of game with the color blue, it just doesn't have the tools to do it. If you want to play with just blue, you have to play with counters and draw spells and a really durdly and slow, but reliable finisher.
This is pretty much why blue is the worst color in magic right now, at least in standard/modern and why there's very little reason to ever use it. Countermagic is bad, card drawing all its good at and blue doesn't have a single creature worth having on its own (No, before you say anything, Pearl Lake Ancient is NOT a good creature) and it has no way to disrupt anyone else's gameplan. The only blue "creatures" that get used are multi-colored ones like Sidisi or Knuckleblade, but those guys are hardly "blue" creatures in any sense.
At this point I just kind of feel like blue should be scrapped from the color pie entirely. Outside of eternal formats, the color hasn't been relevant for a while and I don't see it becoming relevant anytime soon since the game is so creature focused now and blue sure as hell isn't going to get value creatures because that's not what blue does.
Pretty much every point you've made here is the exact opposite of reality.
A burn match is mercifully quick. They either do their thing or fail horribly. Regardless, its over in 10 minutes and you can move on to something else.
While I disagree with this I am still curious what this is (supposed to be) an argument for if the statement was true. ... ?
There has also been a big shift to creatures who achieve immediate value such as ETB / Leaves Play / Sacrifice to do X effects on the more popular creatures across a lot of formats. When you counter a creature you stop that creature from generating that value that would otherwise be an option against a straight kill spell. I believe that increasing what creatures do beyond creature combat is in a lot of ways wizards attempt to make removing target creature less relivant and their more recent history of hating on counterspells has been happening for years. With less counters in the formats + immediate value creatures it makes a higher emphasis on the creatures and a lower emphasis on what simply killing them accomplishes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
You need to leave enough to mana available to start countering. But once you do, you get all that back next turn. You don't have to wait for another turn to resolve to try to answer a threat. Removal/destruction generally isn't played the same way. It takes up your turn more or less, thus meaning you have to wait a turn to untap.
That's the simplest way I can put it from my own perspective. The idea that your foe answers you and then can freely do whatever on their next turn while you sit there and wait as opposed to letting your foe expend effort to destroy or try to play their own thing.
Has there been a counter that lets the opponent choose a new card to cast? Basically...
Counter That! xU
Instant
Counter target spell. Owner untaps all mana sources used to pay for countered spell.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wanted -Zombie Foils and older expensive Zombie stuff. High Priority- Beta Z Master/ Int. Collector's Edition.
...
Has there been a counter that lets the opponent choose a new card to cast?
...
Yes, its called every counterspell.
They just didnt feel the need to write out the text: "Your opponent should bait this card instead of just tapping out to slam down their next on curve threat every turn."
...
Has there been a counter that lets the opponent choose a new card to cast?
...
Yes, its called every counterspell.
They just didnt feel the need to write out the text: "Your opponent should bait this card instead of just tapping out to slam down their next on curve threat every turn."
Hah! Fact! Hate playing against counters? Learn to play better and bluff friends!
I think the biggest reason why counterspells "feel" worse than removal is that you were prevented from doing what you planned. You didn't do something that was then defeated. You got to do nothing. That is, the expectation is that I will do things, and my opponent will do things to try overcome what I have done. With a counterspell, my opponent denied my opportunity to do anything at all, except waste mana.
I think the biggest reason why counterspells "feel" worse than removal is that you were prevented from doing what you planned. You didn't do something that was then defeated. You got to do nothing. That is, the expectation is that I will do things, and my opponent will do things to try overcome what I have done. With a counterspell, my opponent denied my opportunity to do anything at all, except waste mana.
You most certainly did do something. No matter what their counterspell of choice was, they were never in a position to prevent you from putting your spell on the stack, choosing modes and/or targets for it if applicable, paying its costs, and generally completing the entire sequence of events that causes a spell to become "cast". Their countering of your spell was exactly "defeating" it, overcoming the threat that your spell represented.
I think the biggest reason why counterspells "feel" worse than removal is that you were prevented from doing what you planned. You didn't do something that was then defeated. You got to do nothing. That is, the expectation is that I will do things, and my opponent will do things to try overcome what I have done. With a counterspell, my opponent denied my opportunity to do anything at all, except waste mana.
You most certainly did do something. No matter what their counterspell of choice was, they were never in a position to prevent you from putting your spell on the stack, choosing modes and/or targets for it if applicable, paying its costs, and generally completing the entire sequence of events that causes a spell to become "cast". Their countering of your spell was exactly "defeating" it, overcoming the threat that your spell represented.
Oh, I understand that the game sees something happen, but I was attempting to address the topic of the OP: how it *feels*, which is all about perception rather than fact. Because my spell never resolved, I don't *feel* like I accomplished anything.
Many players ignore the stack most of the time, until a question of priority comes up, smoothly passing through the casting of the spell. Putting a spell on the stack does not *feel* like doing anything. Resolving a spell does.
Removal is you having to deal with my success (as in the casting of my spell). Countermagic is you ensuring my failure (as in the spell never gets to happen).
It's the difference, to borrow AD&D examples, between casting Dispel Magic on a mage's victim (removal) and hitting the mage over the head in the middle of the casting (countermagic).
In both cases, your warrior, say, ends up free of any spell effects, but in the first case the mage succeeded at something whereas in the second case, he failed. And failure never "feels good".
I think the biggest issue with counter spells is that the only way to interact with them, in most formats, is to counter them. Since only blue typically gets counter spells, that means that only blue can deal with them.
Compare to more typical removal:
Damage based removal can be trumped with increased toughness, regeneration, or granting by hexproof, protection or indestructible either or even by bouncing your own creature. These answers, combined, appear in every color except for red. Even red, on occasion, gets retaliatory cards like Arcbond and Ashcloud Phoenix from time to time. Straight destruction can be answered a lot of the same ways.
Plenty of creatures also have enter the battlefield abilities, activated abilities, and death triggers, all of which counter spells get around, but regular removal doesn't.
In order to print more and/or better counterspells, Wizards would need to print more non-blue answers to them and more cards that get around them. Cards like Genesis Hydra and Vexing Shusher. The problem there is that they risk going too far in the other direction by pushing those cards to make them more exciting than the last one (some might argue that Bloodbraid Elf is an example of such a card). It's easier, and more sustainable to just make counter spells more narrow at lower costs, so that's what they've done.
*Akki_Akki ponders of a situation where the crew of Star Trek plays MTG*
Spock to Kirk:"To feel a strong negative emotion as a response to that of your spell being countered is incorrect; I simply dealt with a potential threat. Your perception of my counterspell beingunfunorunfairis simply a product of an illogical and clouded perception and is no different than if I had given one of my creatures shroud to counter your removal in response or had cast a removal spell to deal with one of your permanents."
There's a tradeoff here. Most of blue's creatures are historically pathetic, especially in the context of every other color in the game. Outside of playing Fish, you really can't play an aggressive, proactive type of game with the color blue, it just doesn't have the tools to do it. If you want to play with just blue, you have to play with counters and draw spells and a really durdly and slow, but reliable finisher.
This is pretty much why blue is the worst color in magic right now, at least in standard/modern and why there's very little reason to ever use it. Countermagic is bad, card drawing all its good at and blue doesn't have a single creature worth having on its own (No, before you say anything, Pearl Lake Ancient is NOT a good creature) and it has no way to disrupt anyone else's gameplan. The only blue "creatures" that get used are multi-colored ones like Sidisi or Knuckleblade, but those guys are hardly "blue" creatures in any sense.
At this point I just kind of feel like blue should be scrapped from the color pie entirely. Outside of eternal formats, the color hasn't been relevant for a while and I don't see it becoming relevant anytime soon since the game is so creature focused now and blue sure as hell isn't going to get value creatures because that's not what blue does.
Pretty much every point you've made here is the exact opposite of reality.
Not really. Get back to me when blue starts getting value mid-range creatures like other colors do.
If Blue were to get value midrange creatures, they would need to lose the ability to protect them from anything the opponent can do (i.e.: counterspells.) Is that really what you want? Blue fields credible threats early and late game, but their creatures are more fragile BECAUSE they have such value spells to protect them.
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.
Agreed. Failure and loss feel bad. I propose that WotC and all magic players stop supporting tournaments as they exist only to separate "winners" from "losers" and that distinction is inherently unfun.
Or, people can get over their cognitive faults. But that's way more difficult so nevermind.
Oh sorry. I saw patriarchy and sjw together and just flipped. Clearly too much time dealing with actual terrible people on reddit haha. I shouldn't have been so quick to assume.
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Oh i know better but I just can't help myself sometimes haha.
I misconstrued this line "You'll hate control like social justice warriors hate the patriarchy without giving any actual thought as to WHY." as an anti feminist line.
If Combo isn't welcome in your playgroup then build something that's less broken which doesn't involve you playing a game of Solitaire while your opponents gang up on you before getting your combo off like you would running Arcum Dagsson as your General in EDH. Combo is one of the main reasons why I enjoy playing MTG but If you're playing it at the expense of your opponent not being able to react to it by having to Sideboard against it then they aren't having as much fun playing MTG as you are. I learned that the hard way when I used to run Landfall Razer back when Zendikar was Standard legal, the lockdown I had with Ghostly Prison, Realm Razer, Lotus Cobra, and Rampaging Baloths was so broken that my opponent got really pissed at me for playing it and shortly after I tore the deck apart.
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
In standard, Dissolve is the defacto counterspell. That's pretty pathetic. In modern you have Cryptic Command and it does have raw power, but its intensive mana cost renders it prohibitive.
Snapcaster Mage's usefulesness in modern is decreasing as time goes on. He's no longer the automatic 4x inclusion if you're running blue. He's quickly becoming irrelevant. Delver of Secrets is obviously good, but the decks that use him have been rendered irrelevant with the Dig/Cruise bannings. Master of Waves and Thassa were bombs during the Theros standard, but why is no one using them right now? They're still standard legal and yet they're going on unplayed. Its because there's better options in regards to creatures. Why play Master of Waves when you can play Siege Rhino instead? Can you obviously give a good answer as to why you would choose him over the best creature in the format? Not to mention, to make Master of Waves actually work you have to play a deck that's pretty much just mono blue, which eliminates the possibility to play both in the same deck.
In regards to U/W Heroic, I'm not convinced Shu Yun is the answer that Heroic wants. But I also think R/W heroic is 1000000x beter than U/W Heroic is, so yeah.
I personally hate turn 2 kill combo decks (especially players who take 30 minutes to actually do that combo kill), but I still have to deal with their existence. Why can't these players deal with the existence of relevant countermagic?
I think the op's question has been answered about 10+ times already- people don't like being told that they aren't allowed to do something. Couple that with the attitude of some control players, and you're in for a truckload of resentment. I get that most people playing control do so as a way showcase their intelligence/skill (it does take skill); however, the other problem most have with countermagic can be the attitude of some of the aforementioned players. When control players start looking down on those who play burn/aggro as stupid, or get visually and vocally upset when they get out aggroed by those stupid Rhinos, it tends to rub people the wrong way.
Having spells countered is like never getting to play at all, while when something is removed you've at least been in the race.
There is a reason that strategies which use counterspells are called "control". It's really not fun to be controlled in real life or in a game.
Pretty much every point you've made here is the exact opposite of reality.
I think some people are taking the flavor of this game too far thoughtwise.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
That's the simplest way I can put it from my own perspective. The idea that your foe answers you and then can freely do whatever on their next turn while you sit there and wait as opposed to letting your foe expend effort to destroy or try to play their own thing.
Has there been a counter that lets the opponent choose a new card to cast? Basically...
Counter That! xU
Instant
Counter target spell. Owner untaps all mana sources used to pay for countered spell.
Selling some cards I don't want.
Generally less than tcg mid.
Yes, its called every counterspell.
They just didnt feel the need to write out the text: "Your opponent should bait this card instead of just tapping out to slam down their next on curve threat every turn."
Hah! Fact! Hate playing against counters? Learn to play better and bluff friends!
You most certainly did do something. No matter what their counterspell of choice was, they were never in a position to prevent you from putting your spell on the stack, choosing modes and/or targets for it if applicable, paying its costs, and generally completing the entire sequence of events that causes a spell to become "cast". Their countering of your spell was exactly "defeating" it, overcoming the threat that your spell represented.
Oh, I understand that the game sees something happen, but I was attempting to address the topic of the OP: how it *feels*, which is all about perception rather than fact. Because my spell never resolved, I don't *feel* like I accomplished anything.
Many players ignore the stack most of the time, until a question of priority comes up, smoothly passing through the casting of the spell. Putting a spell on the stack does not *feel* like doing anything. Resolving a spell does.
Removal is you having to deal with my success (as in the casting of my spell). Countermagic is you ensuring my failure (as in the spell never gets to happen).
It's the difference, to borrow AD&D examples, between casting Dispel Magic on a mage's victim (removal) and hitting the mage over the head in the middle of the casting (countermagic).
In both cases, your warrior, say, ends up free of any spell effects, but in the first case the mage succeeded at something whereas in the second case, he failed. And failure never "feels good".
Compare to more typical removal:
Damage based removal can be trumped with increased toughness, regeneration, or granting by hexproof, protection or indestructible either or even by bouncing your own creature. These answers, combined, appear in every color except for red. Even red, on occasion, gets retaliatory cards like Arcbond and Ashcloud Phoenix from time to time. Straight destruction can be answered a lot of the same ways.
Plenty of creatures also have enter the battlefield abilities, activated abilities, and death triggers, all of which counter spells get around, but regular removal doesn't.
In order to print more and/or better counterspells, Wizards would need to print more non-blue answers to them and more cards that get around them. Cards like Genesis Hydra and Vexing Shusher. The problem there is that they risk going too far in the other direction by pushing those cards to make them more exciting than the last one (some might argue that Bloodbraid Elf is an example of such a card). It's easier, and more sustainable to just make counter spells more narrow at lower costs, so that's what they've done.
Spock to Kirk: "To feel a strong negative emotion as a response to that of your spell being countered is incorrect; I simply dealt with a potential threat. Your perception of my counterspell being unfun or unfair is simply a product of an illogical and clouded perception and is no different than if I had given one of my creatures shroud to counter your removal in response or had cast a removal spell to deal with one of your permanents."
Not really. Get back to me when blue starts getting value mid-range creatures like other colors do.
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.
Agreed. Failure and loss feel bad. I propose that WotC and all magic players stop supporting tournaments as they exist only to separate "winners" from "losers" and that distinction is inherently unfun.
Or, people can get over their cognitive faults. But that's way more difficult so nevermind.