I've been playing magic for around 15 years, some competitively, but mostly casually. As I've gravitated more toward the casual side of things I can't help but see how poorly designed counters are.
First of all, counters stall the game. They basically prevent people from playing. That's not fun. People want to be able to make plans and execute those plans. They want to be able to play cards. You might say kill spells are the same thing but they aren't because counters just stop people from even playing at all. A kill spell isn't the same because a creature could have protection from the color or playing that creature could trigger effects when it enters the battlefield, or when the creature dies it could have a triggered effect.
Another problem I have with counters is that they don't make sense cost wise. For example, if I cast a 7 mana costing spell, why can you counter it with a 2 mana costing spell? If we both have 7 lands, that means you just nullified my ENTIRE turn with 2 mana, while on the same turn you actually got to play because you could use 5 of your 7 mana for stuff, then hold 2 back to counter ANYTHING I played. That doesn't make sense.
IMO, it would make more sense if a counter spell cost the same amount of mana as the spell you're countering. If you want to counter something that costs 7, you need to spend 7, or at the very least 1 fewer than the spell so 6 to counter a 7.
Counters should be cheap. To hold up a counter, you are stunting your own development in order to have a chance of stunting an opponent's development to a greater degree. There's an inherent risk in that your opponent may play 1-2 mana spells, may have their own instant-speed effects to cast once you've tapped out, or may bait your counter with something efficient like a Thoughtseize. Being cheaper than counter targets doesn't make countermagic broken; it makes it playable.
I've been playing magic for around 15 years, some competitively, but mostly casually. As I've gravitated more toward the casual side of things I can't help but see how poorly designed counters are.
First of all, counters stall the game. They basically prevent people from playing. That's not fun. People want to be able to make plans and execute those plans. They want to be able to play cards. You might say kill spells are the same thing but they aren't because counters just stop people from even playing at all. A kill spell isn't the same because a creature could have protection from the color or playing that creature could trigger effects when it enters the battlefield, or when the creature dies it could have a triggered effect.
Another problem I have with counters is that they don't make sense cost wise. For example, if I cast a 7 mana costing spell, why can you counter it with a 2 mana costing spell? If we both have 7 lands, that means you just nullified my ENTIRE turn with 2 mana, while on the same turn you actually got to play because you could use 5 of your 7 mana for stuff, then hold 2 back to counter ANYTHING I played. That doesn't make sense.
IMO, it would make more sense if a counter spell cost the same amount of mana as the spell you're countering. If you want to counter something that costs 7, you need to spend 7, or at the very least 1 fewer than the spell so 6 to counter a 7.
I agree that the comparisons between counterspells and kill spells are flawed for the reasons you stated above. However, that doesn't make counterspells any worse for the game than Doom Blade (for example).
Counterspells are an important part of the game. You mention kill spells. How do you propose that a player stop another player when they are not playing creatures (thus kill spells are useless). What happens when a Storm player starts going off? What happens on turns 1-5 when an Amulet Bloom player finally has done everything they can without interruption to get their combo setup for Hive Mind? What happens when Ad Nauseum starts to go off?
Counterspells cost what they do for necessity. If counterspells worked the way you wanted, Amulet Bloom would have that much less to worry about. Tron would fear nothing but Path to Exile because you will never get to the same amount of mana that Tron can generate.
Ideally, your suggestions would allow for more creatures to hit and attack. However, in reality, what you would really do is leave every format wide open to broken combos.
Removing counterspells (or making them overcosted) also does not increase interactivity as counterspells are already a form of interaction.
If your idea of making counter spells cost the same you're going to kill any counter spells. Making the person trying to counter something hold up their entire turn for only a chance at catching something you're doing is just bad. Although it would make them crushing the early game a breeze. Counter spells are healthy design, and if you're running blindly into every counter spell then maybe you should evaluate how you're playing. There's lots of times you can worm through the counters, or just test spell them out. There's plenty of answers to counter spells out there, especially in older formats.
Also, for those who think that all counterspells are less expensive than the spells they counter, Spell Blast. You were saying?
But a bit more on topic, the counterspells aren't what's broken. By your definition, what's broken are the flash creatures that allow you to not have actually stunted your development by holding up counter mana.
Counterspells are an important part of the game. You mention kill spells. How do you propose that a player stop another player when they are not playing creatures (thus kill spells are useless). What happens when a Storm player starts going off? What happens on turns 1-5 when an Amulet Bloom player finally has done everything they can without interruption to get their combo setup for Hive Mind? What happens when Ad Nauseum starts to go off?
Counterspells cost what they do for necessity. If counterspells worked the way you wanted, Amulet Bloom would have that much less to worry about. Tron would fear nothing but Path to Exile because you will never get to the same amount of mana that Tron can generate.
Ideally, your suggestions would allow for more creatures to hit and attack. However, in reality, what you would really do is leave every format wide open to broken combos.
Removing counterspells (or making them overcosted) also does not increase interactivity as counterspells are already a form of interaction.
I think the quintessential example to also point out is the great safety valve of Vintage, which is Force of Will.
I think it is fair to argue that early in Magic's history counterspells were undercosted, and that created some of the poor game play that the OP mentioned. That was part of a larger trend in design at that point, wherein creatures were overcosted and non-creatures were undercosted, making playing most creatures a poor choice.
But WOTC recognized that problem a LONG time ago and has taken major steps to correct it, weakening answers across the board (including counters) while strengthening creatures. I think we are in a pretty good spot wrt counters now, where they are playable but not so prevalent or abundant that we get many of the "draw go" games.
To the OP: Try playing casual standard, or casual Modern, as opposed to casual with everything legal, and I think you'll be happy with the result as it pertains to counters.
To the OP: Try playing casual standard, or casual Modern, as opposed to casual with everything legal, and I think you'll be happy with the result as it pertains to counters.
Or how about just Standard? Standard counters are awful by the standards of the history of the game, and non-counter decks have a billion ways to push past them. Gaea's Revenge slaughters many control strategies, Den Protector makes one-for-one answers as losing strategy, and any number of powerful 1-drop and 2-drop creatures laugh at the control player waiting for land drops.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Angrypossum over at the now-defunct WotC forums.
To the OP: Try playing casual standard, or casual Modern, as opposed to casual with everything legal, and I think you'll be happy with the result as it pertains to counters.
Or how about just Standard? Standard counters are awful by the standards of the history of the game, and non-counter decks have a billion ways to push past them. Gaea's Revenge slaughters many control strategies, Den Protector makes one-for-one answers as losing strategy, and any number of powerful 1-drop and 2-drop creatures laugh at the control player waiting for land drops.
IDK, I think the counters are pretty close to the mark right now in Standard. We have a bunch that are good, but none great, and they play big roles in some matchups. Picking the right counter for the right deck and the right match up can be difficult, but is important.
IMO the mistake a lot of older players make is in expecting them to be powerful/ubiquitous enough to be the primary plan of your deck (i.e. either play a threat then counter everything, or vice versa) because that is how they used to be at times. If you hold them up to that kind of standard then yeah, they look awful. But if you just look at them as another form of removal/disruption, another tool in the belt, then they look fine.
I think that the level of counters in Standard is fine where it has been (maybe slightly too slow now, but only a bit) as long as Standard is not too fast. Holding up 3 mana for a base level counter is a huge deal no matter what the meta, but as long as it is slow enough that games do not take a big turn by turn 4 they are still playable. It's not how I like to play counters, but it is far from unhealthy. Slow counters work in control decks as long as there are other ways to control the pace of the game (bounce, tap, prison, theft, removal, polymorph, mana tempo control) that are playable. That has been the case for a long time. The 12 counter main deck that people like to hold up as the control boogyman just doesn't happen, and hasn't for some time. Maybe in unlimited card pool casual, but not in Modern or Standard. The so called Grixis "Control" deck in Modern only runs around 8-9 in the 75, though the deck rarely has more than 6 or so in the MD. Of those 6 are significantly limited.
Of course the real complaint that us Modern players have is that due to having to be okay in Standard, Modern will never get any counters that allow for counter heavy control. Not much to be done about it.
I'll grant that it is frustrating to play against countermagic, but that same frustration can be felt playing against other forms of control, most notably discard and land destruction. Happily, playing multiplayer games instead of dueling limits what countermagic can do, so perhaps more of that can change your years-long opinion.
Counters are an important part of what makes Magic such a deep and strategic gaming experience; the ability for maximal interaction between players. Most turn-based games don't really allow for the depth of interactions that are possible in Magic because players typically are highly limited in what they can do when it isn't their turn. Instant-speed abilities, including counters, really open up numerous lines of play.
The one problem with countermagic is that it is pigeonholed into only one color, Blue, making it seem unfair. Every color can interact with the Battlefield in their own ways, but interaction with The Stack is mostly Blue, with infrequent bleedout to other colors. I'm not saying every color needs Counterspell, but there's certainly room to give each color their own means of interacting on The Stack while maintaining the integrity of the color pie (e.g. the existent White counters that only work to "protect" players or their permanents; Red counters that can only interact with Instants/Sorceries). And this would go a long way towards lessening the bad feels of having a creature/spell countered, because it becomes something every deck could potentially do, not just Blue Draw-Go.
Red does have a way to interact with the stack, it just does so without regard for it's own health. Reiterate and spells like it reflect red's tendency to recklessly exploit it's resources in order to harm their opponent(s). Blue says "No!" Red says "I can take it, can you?"
The annoying thing is that Red has traditionally shared this mechanic with blue pretty equally, so it does not come off as explicitly red. I think Blue should get Redirect effects, but not efficient Twincast like effects. Then again, Twincast has not been reprinted in 5 years, and Redirect has been more recently reprinted, so perhaps that is what Wizards is doing.
Of course the real complaint that us Modern players have is that due to having to be okay in Standard, Modern will never get any counters that allow for counter heavy control. Not much to be done about it.
Yeah, it would be nice if they could introduce new Modern cards that didn't have to be Standard-safe, like they can with Legacy and supplemental products like the Commander precons.
Yeah, it would be nice if they could introduce new Modern cards that didn't have to be Standard-safe, like they can with Legacy and supplemental products like the Commander precons.
Sure, but they can't, and I don't think they see a card having to survive the Standard gauntlet as a bad thing. Legacy, Vintage, and Commander get these cards because they are eternal formats, and as a result have such a large card pool that is is much safer to release cards not tested in the formats because there is almost always going to be some answer for problems that card might create.
Also, for those who think that all counterspells are less expensive than the spells they counter, Spell Blast. You were saying?
But a bit more on topic, the counterspells aren't what's broken. By your definition, what's broken are the flash creatures that allow you to not have actually stunted your development by holding up counter mana.
The same is true in reverse. At the end of the turn of the player using counters, play a flash creature, then untap into another creature. You'll make them tap out and you get to resolve something.
"They basically prevent people from playing. That's not fun. People want to be able to make plans and execute those plans. They want to be able to play cards. "
First, the definition of "fun" is subjective; what you think is a "fun" game of magic may be different than the next guy. Second, what if I enjoy trying my best to interrupt your plans? Should I just let you execute your plan and stomp all over me? That doesn't seem very fun either. Control is a fundamental play-style that a lot of people enjoy. This is not to say that any play-style is wrong, but to point out that counters are NOT inherent flaws in game design. Like others have said, counters give the game depth, and in my opinion they create a style that appeals to people who don't just want to combo off or smash with creatures all day.
I'm going to reply again and this time in a different way, your problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of the game. It's not your fault either because it's how the game is marketed. The game is marketed as having infinite possibilities, you can make a deck you like, go play, and thanks to variance you will win at least some of the time.
As is typical for games however, what they claim and what they're like are often very different things. In Magic's case Magic is all about what can't be done, not what can be done.
You can't hold big creatures in your hand all game threatening to come down because Thoughtseize, Despise, Liliana of the Veil will take it and make you find another.
You can't start the game at turn 3 or 4 when your opponent plans to hit you for several damage on turn 1.
At any competitive or even casual competitive level 90% of all cards are unplayable, and in some formats that approaches 99%.
If you play a creature and it's not resilient in some form, it's only function is to die and get a card out of the opponents hand. You're not being aided by loyal minions... you're sending them on suicide missions over and over until they all die.
Lastly. Cards are supposed to trade and do nothing. My counter for your creature, now we're both down a card. My kill spell for your next creature, we're each down a card again. Next time maybe it's my creature for your removal spell, another trade. The whole point of Magic for most decks it to make 1:1 trades to wear down the opponents resources. You generate value by trading something worth less than what your opponent is making in the trade. Once the resources are gone, you generate card advantage (probably incrementally over several turns through those trades) and win with something that doesn't eat a trade.
Playing 7 drops in a format with real answers doesn't play into that strategy unless you're on Tron.
That is what Magic is, it's not a game with infinite possibilities. It's a game with very few possible outcomes because 1% of the cards invalidate the other 99%. Your problem isn't with counterspells, it's that you're playing part of that 99% of cards that doesn't give you any way to deal with them, and all colors can deal with them.
Counterspells are awesome and an integral part of magic. Without counter spells, combo would run wild and curb smash everything.
Aggro would not be able to exist in an environment where every one is playing fast instakill combo decks. Counterspells are what's keeping Magic from becoming "Broken Combo-the gathering"
As for Counterspells being oppressive, I totally disagree. Counters are the only way to stop Instants and Sorceries, and without that minimal interaction the fundamentals of the game fall apart.
I will say that older counterspells were undercosted, but its mostly due to the rules restrictions of the time. Back when counterspells were Interrupts, you only had a small 'Interrupt Window' during which you could counter a spell that was placed in the Batch. The elimination of Interrupts and subsequent errata making them Instants made counterspells as a class of cards even more powerful than before. I think this rules/game change has more to do with Counterspell being an aberration mana cost-wise than anthing else when viewed through a modern card design point of view.
First of all, counters stall the game. They basically prevent people from playing. That's not fun. People want to be able to make plans and execute those plans. They want to be able to play cards. You might say kill spells are the same thing but they aren't because counters just stop people from even playing at all. A kill spell isn't the same because a creature could have protection from the color or playing that creature could trigger effects when it enters the battlefield, or when the creature dies it could have a triggered effect.
Another problem I have with counters is that they don't make sense cost wise. For example, if I cast a 7 mana costing spell, why can you counter it with a 2 mana costing spell? If we both have 7 lands, that means you just nullified my ENTIRE turn with 2 mana, while on the same turn you actually got to play because you could use 5 of your 7 mana for stuff, then hold 2 back to counter ANYTHING I played. That doesn't make sense.
IMO, it would make more sense if a counter spell cost the same amount of mana as the spell you're countering. If you want to counter something that costs 7, you need to spend 7, or at the very least 1 fewer than the spell so 6 to counter a 7.
I agree that the comparisons between counterspells and kill spells are flawed for the reasons you stated above. However, that doesn't make counterspells any worse for the game than Doom Blade (for example).
Counterspells are an important part of the game. You mention kill spells. How do you propose that a player stop another player when they are not playing creatures (thus kill spells are useless). What happens when a Storm player starts going off? What happens on turns 1-5 when an Amulet Bloom player finally has done everything they can without interruption to get their combo setup for Hive Mind? What happens when Ad Nauseum starts to go off?
Counterspells cost what they do for necessity. If counterspells worked the way you wanted, Amulet Bloom would have that much less to worry about. Tron would fear nothing but Path to Exile because you will never get to the same amount of mana that Tron can generate.
Ideally, your suggestions would allow for more creatures to hit and attack. However, in reality, what you would really do is leave every format wide open to broken combos.
Removing counterspells (or making them overcosted) also does not increase interactivity as counterspells are already a form of interaction.
But a bit more on topic, the counterspells aren't what's broken. By your definition, what's broken are the flash creatures that allow you to not have actually stunted your development by holding up counter mana.
Spirits
I think the quintessential example to also point out is the great safety valve of Vintage, which is Force of Will.
pls read, tks
That article contains everything that has been said here and more.
|
|
Big Johnny.
But WOTC recognized that problem a LONG time ago and has taken major steps to correct it, weakening answers across the board (including counters) while strengthening creatures. I think we are in a pretty good spot wrt counters now, where they are playable but not so prevalent or abundant that we get many of the "draw go" games.
To the OP: Try playing casual standard, or casual Modern, as opposed to casual with everything legal, and I think you'll be happy with the result as it pertains to counters.
Or how about just Standard? Standard counters are awful by the standards of the history of the game, and non-counter decks have a billion ways to push past them. Gaea's Revenge slaughters many control strategies, Den Protector makes one-for-one answers as losing strategy, and any number of powerful 1-drop and 2-drop creatures laugh at the control player waiting for land drops.
IDK, I think the counters are pretty close to the mark right now in Standard. We have a bunch that are good, but none great, and they play big roles in some matchups. Picking the right counter for the right deck and the right match up can be difficult, but is important.
IMO the mistake a lot of older players make is in expecting them to be powerful/ubiquitous enough to be the primary plan of your deck (i.e. either play a threat then counter everything, or vice versa) because that is how they used to be at times. If you hold them up to that kind of standard then yeah, they look awful. But if you just look at them as another form of removal/disruption, another tool in the belt, then they look fine.
Of course the real complaint that us Modern players have is that due to having to be okay in Standard, Modern will never get any counters that allow for counter heavy control. Not much to be done about it.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
As for casting cost, there are counterspells that cost a bit: Cryptic Command, Counterbore, Desertion, Counterlash, Draining Whelk, Gather Specimens, and Overwhelming Intellect. Most of these are not so great in a duel, but most casual multiplayer circles can get some (or much) use from these.
Cheers!
Krichaiushii on PucaTrade.
Counters are an incredible part of magic and make it fun.
The one problem with countermagic is that it is pigeonholed into only one color, Blue, making it seem unfair. Every color can interact with the Battlefield in their own ways, but interaction with The Stack is mostly Blue, with infrequent bleedout to other colors. I'm not saying every color needs Counterspell, but there's certainly room to give each color their own means of interacting on The Stack while maintaining the integrity of the color pie (e.g. the existent White counters that only work to "protect" players or their permanents; Red counters that can only interact with Instants/Sorceries). And this would go a long way towards lessening the bad feels of having a creature/spell countered, because it becomes something every deck could potentially do, not just Blue Draw-Go.
The annoying thing is that Red has traditionally shared this mechanic with blue pretty equally, so it does not come off as explicitly red. I think Blue should get Redirect effects, but not efficient Twincast like effects. Then again, Twincast has not been reprinted in 5 years, and Redirect has been more recently reprinted, so perhaps that is what Wizards is doing.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
Yeah, it would be nice if they could introduce new Modern cards that didn't have to be Standard-safe, like they can with Legacy and supplemental products like the Commander precons.
Sure, but they can't, and I don't think they see a card having to survive the Standard gauntlet as a bad thing. Legacy, Vintage, and Commander get these cards because they are eternal formats, and as a result have such a large card pool that is is much safer to release cards not tested in the formats because there is almost always going to be some answer for problems that card might create.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
Modern Masters doesn't have to be 100% reprints, does it?
Yes it does. Modern legal cards can only come from Expert expansion sets (blocks) from whatever set forward they chose.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
The same is true in reverse. At the end of the turn of the player using counters, play a flash creature, then untap into another creature. You'll make them tap out and you get to resolve something.
First, the definition of "fun" is subjective; what you think is a "fun" game of magic may be different than the next guy. Second, what if I enjoy trying my best to interrupt your plans? Should I just let you execute your plan and stomp all over me? That doesn't seem very fun either. Control is a fundamental play-style that a lot of people enjoy. This is not to say that any play-style is wrong, but to point out that counters are NOT inherent flaws in game design. Like others have said, counters give the game depth, and in my opinion they create a style that appeals to people who don't just want to combo off or smash with creatures all day.
As is typical for games however, what they claim and what they're like are often very different things. In Magic's case Magic is all about what can't be done, not what can be done.
You can't cast 8 mana unprotected creatures into cheap interaction Doom Blade, Swords to Plowshares, Mana Leak, Counterspell, Control Magic, Into the Roil, or Act of Treason.
You can't hold big creatures in your hand all game threatening to come down because Thoughtseize, Despise, Liliana of the Veil will take it and make you find another.
You can't start the game at turn 3 or 4 when your opponent plans to hit you for several damage on turn 1.
At any competitive or even casual competitive level 90% of all cards are unplayable, and in some formats that approaches 99%.
If you play a creature and it's not resilient in some form, it's only function is to die and get a card out of the opponents hand. You're not being aided by loyal minions... you're sending them on suicide missions over and over until they all die.
Lastly. Cards are supposed to trade and do nothing. My counter for your creature, now we're both down a card. My kill spell for your next creature, we're each down a card again. Next time maybe it's my creature for your removal spell, another trade. The whole point of Magic for most decks it to make 1:1 trades to wear down the opponents resources. You generate value by trading something worth less than what your opponent is making in the trade. Once the resources are gone, you generate card advantage (probably incrementally over several turns through those trades) and win with something that doesn't eat a trade.
Playing 7 drops in a format with real answers doesn't play into that strategy unless you're on Tron.
That is what Magic is, it's not a game with infinite possibilities. It's a game with very few possible outcomes because 1% of the cards invalidate the other 99%. Your problem isn't with counterspells, it's that you're playing part of that 99% of cards that doesn't give you any way to deal with them, and all colors can deal with them.
Aggro would not be able to exist in an environment where every one is playing fast instakill combo decks. Counterspells are what's keeping Magic from becoming "Broken Combo-the gathering"
I will say that older counterspells were undercosted, but its mostly due to the rules restrictions of the time. Back when counterspells were Interrupts, you only had a small 'Interrupt Window' during which you could counter a spell that was placed in the Batch. The elimination of Interrupts and subsequent errata making them Instants made counterspells as a class of cards even more powerful than before. I think this rules/game change has more to do with Counterspell being an aberration mana cost-wise than anthing else when viewed through a modern card design point of view.