Its because there just not very fun to play against they're uninteractive and make it so you can't play a very interesting game of magic, but I still love to play them.
These things are the very definition of interactive; what they're doing interacts with what you're doing.
It's one-sided "interactive"; you get to interact with them while they sit there and watch you play with both your deck and their deck.
Good games of Magic feel interactive on both sides of the table; both you and your opponent are able to make meaningful strategic choices. If a player's only choice is "Do I cast a spell and watch it get countered, or should I just sit here instead?", it's not going to be a fun game, no matter how "interactive" the other player feels it is.
An emblem that reads "0: Counter target spell" is also interactive, but no one's going to argue that leads to a fun game.
It's important to remember that good games of Magic involve both players feeling like they're able to meaningfully operate during the game. Lots of Control advocates dismiss other players as "whiners", but try to put yourself in their shoes. I'm not saying you can't play Control, or that you shouldn't play Control; I'm saying that you have to understand the reality that locking a player out of the game while you whittle them down with a 3/2 flyer over seven turns just isn't going to strike your opponents as a good time, even if they did get to cast seven kill spells that got countered in the meantime.
The question is: WHO has the responsibility to interact? All decks want to minimize the effect of the other deck while pushing through their own strategy. Yes, counters/discard do this by preventing their opponents from resolving key spells. However, let's not pretend that control decks are the only guilty party. Combo decks attempt to make their opponents cards not matter by going off before other decks can win with their own plan. Aggro decks try to outspeed the other decks by dropping threats before they can gain control of the game. Midrange decks attempt to invalidate weaker creatures in other decks.
Yes, counterspells and discard DO attempt to stop other decks from functioning as normal. However, let's not just blindly pretend that players playing creature decks are eagerly encouraging their opponents to execute their strategies exactly as planned.
The problem is that people think that creature on creature matchups should be the norm. Why? WHY do creatures bashing against each other have to be the norm? There are MANY strategies in mtg, but the stereotypical discard/counterspell hater does not accept that. Unlike any other "type" of player who acknowledges various other types of decks, they believe that THEIR strategy is how magic should work. The funny part is that those creature based decks traditionally have a GOOD matchup against control based strategies.
The problem is that excessively counterspell-heavy decks don't have a counter-strategy in most formats. Card power is too low, or effective answers (like Cavern of Souls) rotate out.
And frankly, based on the complaining about Cavern of Souls, I'm pretty sure Control players ALSO feel like "THEIR strategy is how Magic should work". The honest consensus was that anything that prevented a counterspell from working was inherently bad for the game. It seems a little odd to argue that and simultaneously complain that aggro players are the only uncreative thinkers in the game.
No one ever said counterspells shouldn't exist. What shouldn't exist is critical mass counterspells, where it's plausible that any relevant spell your opponent casts gets countered starting on turn two, while you beat them to death with a 3/2 or a 1/1 or simply let them deck themselves. That's what players hate, and that's what Wizards refuses to enable. The problem is that Control players can't seem to understand the difference between hating critical mass counterspells, and hating counterspells in general. (Again, based on Cavern of Souls, they also seem to hate anti-counter cards, but let's just leave that aside and charitably assume that Control players are okay with counterspells being prevented from resolving to some effect).
If a deck doesn't have an effective counter-strategy in some format, it ISN'T because of the card types in that deck. It is because the specific cards in that deck are too strong and/or the other available cards in that format are too weak. A counterspell isn't inherently stronger just because it is a counterspell. Mana cost, other cards in the deck, etc all matter. All of this is to say that if you think that a counterspell-heavy deck doesn't have an effective counter-strategy, it has nothing to do specifically with counterspells. You could replace it with anything else that happens to dominate a format.
As for the Cavern of Souls complaint, I don't think it had anything to do with it being good against counterspells. It had more to do with the overall power level of it. People just thought that it was extremely pushed. I'm sure you would have seen just as much complaining had it been a one mana 4/4 vanilla or a one mana Mana Drain. They didn't complain because they thought it was too strong against counterspells. They complained because they thought it was too strong.
There was another thing they didn't like about Cavern of Souls, and it was the official article that spoiled it. Have you read it? https://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/191
This is the article where they said that Mana Leak, the card that could be printed in Stronghold, 8th, 9th, and M11 suddenly was too powerful when it was in M12. Yes, Mana Leak which managed to not ravage the previous standards was suddenly the problem. It had nothing to do with also giving blue access to a 3/2 flyer for one mana, rebuy Snapcaster Mage, and Geist of Saint Traft when white was added. Let me give you a quote from the article:
But the reality (beyond the fact that you can prove mathematically that creatures were too weak for most of Magic's history, based on the number of turns it takes to resolve an average "goldfish" game state) is simply that spells are much more inherently powerful than creatures. Spells have haste, whereas creatures have "Suspend 1." Spells can only be interacted with for the moment they are on the stack, whereas creatures can be interacted with at sorcery speed.
Look, I know you don't actually believe the wild claims in most of the article (at least I hope you don't). I'm just bringing it up to show another reason for the Cavern of Souls hate. It wasn't about people disliking answers for counterspells. It was about the facepalm worthy reason for it.
True, except for one point: I do believe that counterspells are a very inherently strong card type, and they gain power exponentially the more you can stuff into your deck. (8 Counterspells are more than twice as strong as 4 counterspells), more so than other card types you can stack.
Remember that Stronghold-era Magic was just a stronger Standard than modern Magic. As you pointed out, card power varies depending on environment. I don't see how you can quite reasonably point out that card power matters based on environment, then act amazed that Mana Leak might also have variable card power.
Cavern of Souls was worthwhile and necessary in the environment it was dropped into. I might even argue that a Cavern of Souls type card is needed in any Standard that you want more than two playable Counterspells in.
Its because there just not very fun to play against they're uninteractive and make it so you can't play a very interesting game of magic, but I still love to play them.
These things are the very definition of interactive; what they're doing interacts with what you're doing.
It's one-sided "interactive"; you get to interact with them while they sit there and watch you play with both your deck and their deck.
Good games of Magic feel interactive on both sides of the table; both you and your opponent are able to make meaningful strategic choices. If a player's only choice is "Do I cast a spell and watch it get countered, or should I just sit here instead?", it's not going to be a fun game, no matter how "interactive" the other player feels it is.
An emblem that reads "0: Counter target spell" is also interactive, but no one's going to argue that leads to a fun game.
It's important to remember that good games of Magic involve both players feeling like they're able to meaningfully operate during the game. Lots of Control advocates dismiss other players as "whiners", but try to put yourself in their shoes. I'm not saying you can't play Control, or that you shouldn't play Control; I'm saying that you have to understand the reality that locking a player out of the game while you whittle them down with a 3/2 flyer over seven turns just isn't going to strike your opponents as a good time, even if they did get to cast seven kill spells that got countered in the meantime.
The question is: WHO has the responsibility to interact? All decks want to minimize the effect of the other deck while pushing through their own strategy. Yes, counters/discard do this by preventing their opponents from resolving key spells. However, let's not pretend that control decks are the only guilty party. Combo decks attempt to make their opponents cards not matter by going off before other decks can win with their own plan. Aggro decks try to outspeed the other decks by dropping threats before they can gain control of the game. Midrange decks attempt to invalidate weaker creatures in other decks.
Yes, counterspells and discard DO attempt to stop other decks from functioning as normal. However, let's not just blindly pretend that players playing creature decks are eagerly encouraging their opponents to execute their strategies exactly as planned.
The problem is that people think that creature on creature matchups should be the norm. Why? WHY do creatures bashing against each other have to be the norm? There are MANY strategies in mtg, but the stereotypical discard/counterspell hater does not accept that. Unlike any other "type" of player who acknowledges various other types of decks, they believe that THEIR strategy is how magic should work. The funny part is that those creature based decks traditionally have a GOOD matchup against control based strategies.
The problem is that excessively counterspell-heavy decks don't have a counter-strategy in most formats. Card power is too low, or effective answers (like Cavern of Souls) rotate out.
And frankly, based on the complaining about Cavern of Souls, I'm pretty sure Control players ALSO feel like "THEIR strategy is how Magic should work". The honest consensus was that anything that prevented a counterspell from working was inherently bad for the game. It seems a little odd to argue that and simultaneously complain that aggro players are the only uncreative thinkers in the game.
No one ever said counterspells shouldn't exist. What shouldn't exist is critical mass counterspells, where it's plausible that any relevant spell your opponent casts gets countered starting on turn two, while you beat them to death with a 3/2 or a 1/1 or simply let them deck themselves. That's what players hate, and that's what Wizards refuses to enable. The problem is that Control players can't seem to understand the difference between hating critical mass counterspells, and hating counterspells in general. (Again, based on Cavern of Souls, they also seem to hate anti-counter cards, but let's just leave that aside and charitably assume that Control players are okay with counterspells being prevented from resolving to some effect).
Its because there just not very fun to play against they're uninteractive and make it so you can't play a very interesting game of magic, but I still love to play them.
These things are the very definition of interactive; what they're doing interacts with what you're doing.
It's one-sided "interactive"; you get to interact with them while they sit there and watch you play with both your deck and their deck.
Good games of Magic feel interactive on both sides of the table; both you and your opponent are able to make meaningful strategic choices. If a player's only choice is "Do I cast a spell and watch it get countered, or should I just sit here instead?", it's not going to be a fun game, no matter how "interactive" the other player feels it is.
An emblem that reads "0: Counter target spell" is also interactive, but no one's going to argue that leads to a fun game.
It's important to remember that good games of Magic involve both players feeling like they're able to meaningfully operate during the game. Lots of Control advocates dismiss other players as "whiners", but try to put yourself in their shoes. I'm not saying you can't play Control, or that you shouldn't play Control; I'm saying that you have to understand the reality that locking a player out of the game while you whittle them down with a 3/2 flyer over seven turns just isn't going to strike your opponents as a good time, even if they did get to cast seven kill spells that got countered in the meantime.
That is a good guide. I have read it a few times.
That could certainly be the reason. Self-imposed rules about what is fun and what is not even though the "unfun" part is still fine and meant to be a part of the game.
I don't believe "Hey, I don't feel that games I'm literally unable to play are fun" is a self-imposed rule. That's victim-blaming. It's totally possible for a strategy to be inherently too strong and dominate. From the article itself, they point out that if throwing endlessly was the best way to win, everyone would be doing it - and they're right - but no self-respecting game programmer would work to preserve gameplay that amounts to "Only throw, ever".
Similarly, from the article, they rightly point out that tournament players have strategies and counterstrategies that exist in flux - but that's how the game is designed. Fully-powered Draw-Go is simply too inherently strong to be a part of the game. Even Aggro-Control strategies like Delver or Caw-Go are a little outside of the normal flux. Remember, Caw-Go Control was so strong it took over tournament Magic and nearly killed Standard - it was the equivalent to a fighting game where the only worthwhile move is throwing, and there's no counter-strategy to it.
Think about the uproar from Control players when Cavern of Souls was spoiled; was it that people couldn't believe that Wizards would break their "self-imposed rule" about counterspells always being able to function, or that they could recognize that the anti-counter strategy was too strong?
Control can exist in the game, but Control decks that cast nothing but counterspells and bounce spells, while presenting no threat that the opponent can attempt to nullify until it's too late, just can't be a part of the Standard game, and no amount of calling people "scrubs" is going to change that. You're arguing with a fundamental rule of game design.
Focused counter or discard strategies generally need hate cards to fight against them effectively. Only very recently have effective anti-counter cards been printed, and even now, the best strategy is still to overwhelm their control answers with threats, rather than play cards that are individually merely hard-to-answer.
Discard strategies are a little different, because most environments don't enable the graveyard as a resource, so most environments where discard is extremely powerful lack any real way to combat it. So, when a fully powered discard or control deck goes up against a poorly prepared opponent, the result can only be loosely described as a game. Most players don't enjoy being slowly toyed with, unable to win but not actually losing.
Discard and counter can be matched at the highest levels of environmental card power, such as in Vintage or Legacy; however, that level of card power doesn't leave much room for the game to grow or experiment with new mechanics, so the game can't be sustained at that point. As a result, focused, optimized discard or counter strategies aren't designed into the game any longer.
However, some good examples of the genre do get printed, and they're balanced so long as they're fairly rare; however, since their rarity means their hate cards are fairly rare as well, players can feel unprepared for them. It's a fine line to walk.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
True, except for one point: I do believe that counterspells are a very inherently strong card type, and they gain power exponentially the more you can stuff into your deck. (8 Counterspells are more than twice as strong as 4 counterspells), more so than other card types you can stack.
Remember that Stronghold-era Magic was just a stronger Standard than modern Magic. As you pointed out, card power varies depending on environment. I don't see how you can quite reasonably point out that card power matters based on environment, then act amazed that Mana Leak might also have variable card power.
Cavern of Souls was worthwhile and necessary in the environment it was dropped into. I might even argue that a Cavern of Souls type card is needed in any Standard that you want more than two playable Counterspells in.
The problem is that excessively counterspell-heavy decks don't have a counter-strategy in most formats. Card power is too low, or effective answers (like Cavern of Souls) rotate out.
And frankly, based on the complaining about Cavern of Souls, I'm pretty sure Control players ALSO feel like "THEIR strategy is how Magic should work". The honest consensus was that anything that prevented a counterspell from working was inherently bad for the game. It seems a little odd to argue that and simultaneously complain that aggro players are the only uncreative thinkers in the game.
No one ever said counterspells shouldn't exist. What shouldn't exist is critical mass counterspells, where it's plausible that any relevant spell your opponent casts gets countered starting on turn two, while you beat them to death with a 3/2 or a 1/1 or simply let them deck themselves. That's what players hate, and that's what Wizards refuses to enable. The problem is that Control players can't seem to understand the difference between hating critical mass counterspells, and hating counterspells in general. (Again, based on Cavern of Souls, they also seem to hate anti-counter cards, but let's just leave that aside and charitably assume that Control players are okay with counterspells being prevented from resolving to some effect).
It's one-sided "interactive"; you get to interact with them while they sit there and watch you play with both your deck and their deck.
Good games of Magic feel interactive on both sides of the table; both you and your opponent are able to make meaningful strategic choices. If a player's only choice is "Do I cast a spell and watch it get countered, or should I just sit here instead?", it's not going to be a fun game, no matter how "interactive" the other player feels it is.
An emblem that reads "0: Counter target spell" is also interactive, but no one's going to argue that leads to a fun game.
It's important to remember that good games of Magic involve both players feeling like they're able to meaningfully operate during the game. Lots of Control advocates dismiss other players as "whiners", but try to put yourself in their shoes. I'm not saying you can't play Control, or that you shouldn't play Control; I'm saying that you have to understand the reality that locking a player out of the game while you whittle them down with a 3/2 flyer over seven turns just isn't going to strike your opponents as a good time, even if they did get to cast seven kill spells that got countered in the meantime.
I don't believe "Hey, I don't feel that games I'm literally unable to play are fun" is a self-imposed rule. That's victim-blaming. It's totally possible for a strategy to be inherently too strong and dominate. From the article itself, they point out that if throwing endlessly was the best way to win, everyone would be doing it - and they're right - but no self-respecting game programmer would work to preserve gameplay that amounts to "Only throw, ever".
Similarly, from the article, they rightly point out that tournament players have strategies and counterstrategies that exist in flux - but that's how the game is designed. Fully-powered Draw-Go is simply too inherently strong to be a part of the game. Even Aggro-Control strategies like Delver or Caw-Go are a little outside of the normal flux. Remember, Caw-Go Control was so strong it took over tournament Magic and nearly killed Standard - it was the equivalent to a fighting game where the only worthwhile move is throwing, and there's no counter-strategy to it.
Think about the uproar from Control players when Cavern of Souls was spoiled; was it that people couldn't believe that Wizards would break their "self-imposed rule" about counterspells always being able to function, or that they could recognize that the anti-counter strategy was too strong?
Control can exist in the game, but Control decks that cast nothing but counterspells and bounce spells, while presenting no threat that the opponent can attempt to nullify until it's too late, just can't be a part of the Standard game, and no amount of calling people "scrubs" is going to change that. You're arguing with a fundamental rule of game design.
Discard strategies are a little different, because most environments don't enable the graveyard as a resource, so most environments where discard is extremely powerful lack any real way to combat it. So, when a fully powered discard or control deck goes up against a poorly prepared opponent, the result can only be loosely described as a game. Most players don't enjoy being slowly toyed with, unable to win but not actually losing.
Discard and counter can be matched at the highest levels of environmental card power, such as in Vintage or Legacy; however, that level of card power doesn't leave much room for the game to grow or experiment with new mechanics, so the game can't be sustained at that point. As a result, focused, optimized discard or counter strategies aren't designed into the game any longer.
However, some good examples of the genre do get printed, and they're balanced so long as they're fairly rare; however, since their rarity means their hate cards are fairly rare as well, players can feel unprepared for them. It's a fine line to walk.