Counterspells become problematic when you have a large number of affordable, unconditional ones. In Modern, most of the playable counters are conditional with the exception of Cryptic Command, which is balanced by its hefty 1UUU mana cost.
Blue's creatures and cantrips, on the other hand, are pretty bad in that format. Snapcaster requires much more thought and planning to use well than Bob or Goyf, and he's the best blue creature.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
These days, some wizards are finding they have a little too much deck left at the end of their $$$.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
Counterspells become problematic when you have a large number of affordable, unconditional ones. In Modern, most of the playable counters are conditional with the exception of Cryptic Command, which is balanced by its hefty 1UUU mana cost.
Blue's creatures and cantrips, on the other hand, are pretty bad in that format. Snapcaster requires much more thought and planning to use well than Bob or Goyf, and he's the best blue creature.
Delver might contest that, and it's very easy to T1 Delver, T2 flip...
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.
First, control/permission decks are flawed from a game design point of view. In game design a match should end when the probability of one player winning is too low - which is precisely the opposite of what control do. What I mean is, control decks win when they start to out CA you but the game only actually ends when they draw his 1-of win con and attack with it several times. There's too much time between when control takes control of the game and when it manages to finish the game.
The result is someone being forced to play over ten or so turns with very little chance of winning. And worst, if the chance of winning was actually zero the draw-go opponent could at least concede the match - which is not ideal, games that people feels the need to concede before actually loosing has been shuddered by game designers for good reasons. But it's worse then that, people will always fear the moment they concede and his opponent reveal his bluff (bunch of lands in his hand), so they never concede and keep playing a game there's very little chance of winning.
The second problem is that counter spells are just huge catch-all cards. Creature removal only answers creatures. Not even Vindicate catch all kind of cards as it doesn't answers instants and sorcery spells. And most counters are cheaper then that ! Counters are suppose to be balanced by the fact you need to use then right when your opponent play his/her cards however if you have access to a certain critical mass of counter spells this disadvantage is all but all negated because you can consistently only play cards at your opponent turn.
The very fact that the more counter spells you play, more of it's downside you negate is already enough reason for WotC to avoid printing too many of it. The more counter spells in the card pool, more it's original design is defeated.
First, control/permission decks are flawed from a game design point of view. In game design a match should end when the probability of one player winning is too low - which is precisely the opposite of what control do. What I mean is, control decks win when they start to out CA you but the game only actually ends when they draw his 1-of win con and attack with it several times. There's too much time between when control takes control of the game and when it manages to finish the game.
The result is someone being forced to play over ten or so turns with very little chance of winning. And worst, if the chance of winning was actually zero the draw-go opponent could at least concede the match - which is not ideal, games that people feels the need to concede before actually loosing has been shuddered by game designers for good reasons. But it's worse then that, people will always fear the moment they concede and his opponent reveal his bluff (bunch of lands in his hand), so they never concede and keep playing a game there's very little chance of winning.
The mythical draw/go deck that literally counters everything is such a white whale. In casual it probably happens more, but it has not been a real issue in Modern or Standard for a long time. Using a hyperbolic deck that many players will never face as an example of why counters can create games that are not fun for one person is absurd. I will grant you that a long game when one player has little to do can suck, but lots of play styles can create that game state. A couple of Standard seasons ago there was a successful hard control deck that won by way of stupidly slow mill, but it did not just lean on counters. It had more permanent removal if I recall correctly than it did counters, though I have not checked in a while.
The second problem is that counter spells are just huge catch-all cards. Creature removal only answers creatures. Not even Vindicate catch all kind of cards as it doesn't answers instants and sorcery spells. And most counters are cheaper then that ! Counters are suppose to be balanced by the fact you need to use then right when your opponent play his/her cards however if you have access to a certain critical mass of counter spells this disadvantage is all but all negated because you can consistently only play cards at your opponent turn.
Counters are FAR from a catch all. They only effect cards that are on the stack, and of all the game zones in the game spells spend the least time on the stack. It is a very brief window, even if you are using a hard counter like Counterspell. If you cast a creature and I can't counter it in that moment then I can draw all the counters I want for the rest of the game and still not be able to deal with the permanent you resolved. The removal player, on the other hand, gets the luxury of being able to wait for the next turn (or longer) when they might draw removal to deal with a permanent that needs to be answered. Removal and Counters are very well balanced against each other.
The three reasons counters feel worse for some people are:
The illusion of having an effect on the game state. I say illusion because MaRo has stated that some players feel good about an interaction wherein Player A casts Giant Warthog, it resolves, and then before it can have any effect on the game it is destroyed by Player B. There is absolutely no net difference in the game state, but there is the illusion that it is preferable because players will think about all the stuff they could have done, even if it was never a reality. Call it Schrodinger's permanent.
Wizards has been trying to push creatures for some years in order to get them to a more level footing with non-permanent spells. Some people think they have gone too far one way now, but regardless one of the mechanics that they have used most effectively are "comes into play" abilities. The player who gets their Seige Rhino destroyed at least got a large life swing, where as if they get it countered no tempo is gained. The thing is that Wizards has created this problem by using the "comes into play" mechanic as much as it does. It is nothing that counters have done. Now, I would contend that blue's only efficient removal (not counting polymorphy) is bounce, and "comes into play" absolutely adores it when they get bounced.
People's pride gets bruised when they have to ask permission from a peer. Frankly that's just silly.
Other colors affect the stack in different ways, and admittedly they are more subtle (like black's instant sacrifice of a targeted permanent for value) and maybe less frequently used, but these kinds of dynamics are what makes MTG such a better game (IMO) than Hearthstone.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Counterspells are both a fine and necessary part of the game, and as you mentioned, not even something like Vindicate can stop a random game-ending instant or sorcery.
I could run a deck with 20 counterspells in it, but I would lose. A lot. That type of deck is not nearly as good as you think it is. All you have to do is resolve 1 single threat and beat me to death with it and I will be powerless to stop it. How do you accomplish this? Easy:
2 - Play more than 1 creature per turn. It doesn't actually matter if your opponent has 6 counterps in hand; they only has a limited amount of mana to counter your spells with, so if they only have enough mana for 1 Counterspell, all you have to do is play 2 Goblin Guides and proceed to wreck face.
3 - Play more threats than your opponent has counterspells in the deck. Simple math dictates if I'm playing 30 creatures in my deck, and you only have 20 counterspells in your deck (which is insane btw, most people only use 4-8 at most), you are going to run out of counters before I run out of creatures to play.
To be fair all of the can't be countered creatures you listed were made in the past few years. I think they thought stuff like thrun and gss didn't cut it. I remember Scars-INN standard vividly and basically the top two decks were WRR (creature spam) and delver tempo where you could mana leak every single card and then FB it. this was followed by cavern http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/191, the RTR can't be countered cycle, skylasher, etc.
in standard, counters aren't an issue. in modern they're pretty powered down. in EDH they can be a nuisance but the power level of certain individual cards is also pretty dumb as well. in legacy they're a must for most decks.
Hi, I'm new to the forum and I enjoyed all your opinions through this topic.
I just want to say that I don't understand how you can compare Counterspell with Doom Blade. When Doom Blade can break only a creature (a non black-creature), that can be regenerated, that can trigger, that can be bounced and so on, Counterspell can break every single card (creature, instant, sorcery, artifact, enchantment, Planeswalker), and that card can't trigger.
The only downside in Counterspell is that you must play it in resp, but this is a minor downside.
No, it is a MAJOR downside. Think about about how many opportunities a player may have to destroy a permanent even if it is in play only two turns. I am not going to count up all the potential phases you can play it, but it is likely well over 20, especially if you are counting your turns - which is rarely a time when the opponent is playing permanents and therefor not a time when you can counter them. A person who needs to remove a permanent not only has the luxury to wait to draw a removal spell not in hand, and has more time to decide what the best play is, but can wait until the most valuable moment to remove it. That is so strong.
In that same period of time there is exactly one very brief moment in which you have a chance to counter that permanent, and when that moment is passed your counter card can do absolutely nothing to that permanent. If you have no counter in hand that can counter a permanent spell when it is played, you can draw counterspells all day long and never be able to deal with that permanent. If that permanent is a clock, even a slow one like Honden of Infinite Rage, then you are hosed. Where as if your deck is focused more on permanent removal you probably don't care a whit if it stays in play for two of their upkeep phases while you find opportunities to remove it.
If a removal spell said "destroy target non-land permanent that has not been in play for more than one phase" it would be utter garbage, and it can even target most of the same things that a counter can. The fact that a counter that can target all spell types has the smallest window of play of any answer in the game is balanced just fine by the fact that it can target two other spells types on the stack.
Also, there is literally no permanent in the game that cannot be removed by another spell or ability, where as even though there are very few spells that "cannot be countered by spells or abilities" it is still a class of spell that a counter can never touch (by itself at least).
Blue's creatures and cantrips, on the other hand, are pretty bad in that format. Snapcaster requires much more thought and planning to use well than Bob or Goyf, and he's the best blue creature.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
Delver might contest that, and it's very easy to T1 Delver, T2 flip...
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.
The result is someone being forced to play over ten or so turns with very little chance of winning. And worst, if the chance of winning was actually zero the draw-go opponent could at least concede the match - which is not ideal, games that people feels the need to concede before actually loosing has been shuddered by game designers for good reasons. But it's worse then that, people will always fear the moment they concede and his opponent reveal his bluff (bunch of lands in his hand), so they never concede and keep playing a game there's very little chance of winning.
The second problem is that counter spells are just huge catch-all cards. Creature removal only answers creatures. Not even Vindicate catch all kind of cards as it doesn't answers instants and sorcery spells. And most counters are cheaper then that ! Counters are suppose to be balanced by the fact you need to use then right when your opponent play his/her cards however if you have access to a certain critical mass of counter spells this disadvantage is all but all negated because you can consistently only play cards at your opponent turn.
The very fact that the more counter spells you play, more of it's downside you negate is already enough reason for WotC to avoid printing too many of it. The more counter spells in the card pool, more it's original design is defeated.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
The mythical draw/go deck that literally counters everything is such a white whale. In casual it probably happens more, but it has not been a real issue in Modern or Standard for a long time. Using a hyperbolic deck that many players will never face as an example of why counters can create games that are not fun for one person is absurd. I will grant you that a long game when one player has little to do can suck, but lots of play styles can create that game state. A couple of Standard seasons ago there was a successful hard control deck that won by way of stupidly slow mill, but it did not just lean on counters. It had more permanent removal if I recall correctly than it did counters, though I have not checked in a while.
Counters are FAR from a catch all. They only effect cards that are on the stack, and of all the game zones in the game spells spend the least time on the stack. It is a very brief window, even if you are using a hard counter like Counterspell. If you cast a creature and I can't counter it in that moment then I can draw all the counters I want for the rest of the game and still not be able to deal with the permanent you resolved. The removal player, on the other hand, gets the luxury of being able to wait for the next turn (or longer) when they might draw removal to deal with a permanent that needs to be answered. Removal and Counters are very well balanced against each other.
The three reasons counters feel worse for some people are:
Other colors affect the stack in different ways, and admittedly they are more subtle (like black's instant sacrifice of a targeted permanent for value) and maybe less frequently used, but these kinds of dynamics are what makes MTG such a better game (IMO) than Hearthstone.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
Nobody is talking about Remove Soul type counters. It's the "counter anything" cards that are troublesome.
To be fair all of the can't be countered creatures you listed were made in the past few years. I think they thought stuff like thrun and gss didn't cut it. I remember Scars-INN standard vividly and basically the top two decks were WRR (creature spam) and delver tempo where you could mana leak every single card and then FB it. this was followed by cavern http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/191, the RTR can't be countered cycle, skylasher, etc.
in standard, counters aren't an issue. in modern they're pretty powered down. in EDH they can be a nuisance but the power level of certain individual cards is also pretty dumb as well. in legacy they're a must for most decks.
No, it is a MAJOR downside. Think about about how many opportunities a player may have to destroy a permanent even if it is in play only two turns. I am not going to count up all the potential phases you can play it, but it is likely well over 20, especially if you are counting your turns - which is rarely a time when the opponent is playing permanents and therefor not a time when you can counter them. A person who needs to remove a permanent not only has the luxury to wait to draw a removal spell not in hand, and has more time to decide what the best play is, but can wait until the most valuable moment to remove it. That is so strong.
In that same period of time there is exactly one very brief moment in which you have a chance to counter that permanent, and when that moment is passed your counter card can do absolutely nothing to that permanent. If you have no counter in hand that can counter a permanent spell when it is played, you can draw counterspells all day long and never be able to deal with that permanent. If that permanent is a clock, even a slow one like Honden of Infinite Rage, then you are hosed. Where as if your deck is focused more on permanent removal you probably don't care a whit if it stays in play for two of their upkeep phases while you find opportunities to remove it.
If a removal spell said "destroy target non-land permanent that has not been in play for more than one phase" it would be utter garbage, and it can even target most of the same things that a counter can. The fact that a counter that can target all spell types has the smallest window of play of any answer in the game is balanced just fine by the fact that it can target two other spells types on the stack.
Also, there is literally no permanent in the game that cannot be removed by another spell or ability, where as even though there are very few spells that "cannot be countered by spells or abilities" it is still a class of spell that a counter can never touch (by itself at least).
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!