Counterspells and Card Advantage

[Ephraim]

Vex

Instant

Counter target spell. That spell's controller may draw a card.

***

Vex is a bad card. It costs more than Arcane Denial, provides the same net card disadvantage, and doesn't even let you dig into your own deck a little. Furthermore, counterspells are card-disadvantageous, anyhow. However, card advantage should be a feasible "cost" to playing a spell. Arcane Denial demonstrates that is too high a mana cost for a counterspell that lets your opponent draw a card (or one more card than you). Vex is just a step in the wrong direction. However, would a theoretical counterpspell that read:

Cold Shoulder

Instant

Counter target spell. That spell's controller may draw a card.

be any good? Would it be too good? It balances the card disadvantage by providing a hard counter on the first turn. Is there any format in which this is a worthwhile tradeoff?

[FORCE-OF-WILL]

Well in type 2 it would definatly be worth it as there are NO good counters in that format....

I could see it getting played in Combo decks throughout the game...as it only costs one mana to protect your combo...

[Ivantheterrible]

. Furthermore, counterspells are card-disadvantageous, anyhow

How do you get this. Except for Force of Will and Mis-d played counters are 1 for 1 and in mana drains case tempo advantage to boot.

I cant really see your  card being played in t1 except maybe combo, but for control the most important thing (besides winning) is having card advantage (force of will aside) at all times.

[Ephraim]

Okay, counterspells are not iherrantly disadvantageous, if you're countering a permanent. But if I'm countering...Time Walk, that's card disadvantage. The Time Walk would have been spent either way, generating a net +1 for me, if I let it resolve or a +0 if I counter it.

[rvs]

Okay, counterspells are not iherrantly disadvantageous, if you're countering a permanent. But if I'm countering...Time Walk, that's card disadvantage. The Time Walk would have been spent either way, generating a net +1 for me, if I let it resolve or a +0 if I counter it.

While that's true in the world of Rakso, not everything is dependant on this theory, and it is inherently flawed because it doesn't take the game state into consideration. Oh well... i'm just tired of trying to bash it.

edit: Oh, to the actual content: That Cspell would be lovely for combodecks I'd say. a 1-mana hardcounter will never happen, unless you make INSANE drawbacks (like opp getting ancestralled, time walked, and mana untapped or something :p)

[Lunk]

Okay, counterspells are not iherrantly disadvantageous, if you're countering a permanent. But if I'm countering...Time Walk, that's card disadvantage. The Time Walk would have been spent either way, generating a net +1 for me, if I let it resolve or a +0 if I counter it.

Walk was a really bad example there.  Consider the two outcomes:

Walk resolves-
Opponent: Plays walk -1
You: Don't counter +/- 0
Opponent: Takes extra turn, draws an additional one in a draw step they wouldn't have had otherwise +1
Net: 0 cards either way, but a tempo advantage to your opponent

Walk is countered-
Opponent: Plays walk -1
You: Mana Drain -1
Opponent: No extra turn, no extra draw step.
Net: Again, neither player gets card advantage over the other, but now you've not only stopped their tempo advantage, but gained your own.

[firebird365]

Honestly, I think we should keep numbers out of it; you can't quantify card advantage without raising a huge arguement.

To solve the problem about counterspells being disadvantage, we'd essentially have to list every counterable spell in every possible game position, and decide from there. Counterspells, if the player's judgment isn't completely out the window, generally give an advantage to the person who played them, even if the mana costs aren't similar, example:

Player A casts Yawgwill, player B hardcasts FoW (because he has no blue cards) - a good trade-off, in my opinion.

But this example shows how irrational the arguement is, because you can't possibly find a fair example that you can assign values to.

Anyway, that post was a whole lot of nothing, but I hope it discourages more quantitative posts.

Anyway, back to the topic...:

I think the 1 mana counterspell would definately be used. It's hard to say why, specifically; I think the advantages of being able to counter turn 1 with no acceleration is very valuable to most decks. It makes a non-situational counterspell splashable, and drawing a card seems mild to being able to stop the threat that could otherwise dispose of you.

[memoryjarvis07]

personally i think the 1 mana counter might be a little too strong because what about decks that use underworld dreams arcane is already a great card for that and if u can get it off earlier it would just give the guy a better advantage....then again it would only be good for one deck...so who knows...oh well just givin an opinion..kinda new to the site

[Ivantheterrible]

Okay, counterspells are not iherrantly disadvantageous, if you're countering a permanent. But if I'm countering...Time Walk, that's card disadvantage.

This is wrong again it is still 1 for 1. They have 1 card in hand you have 1 they play a walk they have 0 you play counter on walk you have 0. Yes you net 0, no you do not have card disadvantage.

personally i think the 1 mana counter might be a little too strong because what about decks that use underworld dreams arcane is already a great card for that and if u can get it off earlier it would just give the guy a better advantage....then again it would only be good for one deck...so who knows...oh well just givin an opinion..kinda new to the site

and

I think the 1 mana counterspell would definately be used. It's hard to say why, specifically; I think the advantages of being able to counter turn 1 with no acceleration is very valuable to most decks. It makes a non-situational counterspell splashable, and drawing a card seems mild to being able to stop the threat that could otherwise dispose of you.

I cann't agree with this. Arcane Denial is always bad and so is the 1 mana counter spell. THE FIRST RULE OF MAGIC IS NEVER GIVE CARDS TO YOUR OPPONET. THE SECOND RULE OF MAGIC IS NEVER GIVE CARDS TO YOUR OPPONET. (sorry for my horible job on a referance) Now do you understand. k.

Futher on that  Ephraim says
 

Furthermore, counterspells are card-disadvantageous, anyhow.

This has already been proven wrong but after this is said Ephraim goes on to make a counter that actually is card disadvantage. HUH. [/quote]

[rvs]

Okay, counterspells are not iherrantly disadvantageous, if you're countering a permanent. But if I'm countering...Time Walk, that's card disadvantage.

This is wrong again it is still 1 for 1. They have 1 card in hand you have 1 they play a walk they have 0 you play counter on walk you have 0. Yes you net 0, no you do not have card disadvantage.

Yes it is. The theory works that it considers time walk to be going to the grave anyway. So you aren't trading your Cspell for the time walk, but you are trading it for the effect. So basicly, you are at -1 card.

[Matt]

Yes it is. The theory works that it considers time walk to be going to the grave anyway. So you aren't trading your Cspell for the time walk, but you are trading it for the effect. So basicly, you are at -1 card.

No, you're wrong, because you stopped the Time Walk from replacing itself. Time Walk was not about to be card-disadvantageous for your opponent - it was going to at least cycle, and maybe do a lot more. If you Counterspelled an Orim's Chant or a Bolt to the face, your analysis would be correct. But Time Walk replaces itself.

[rvs]

@Matt: It wasn't really something I believed in. I'm just backing up Ephraim since he clearly just copied this from Rakso's articles, which would in fact claim my previous statement to be true.

[Matt]

I don't know, Rakso's usually pretty good about this sort of card-counting.

[Ephraim]

Time Walk was a bad example. I was trying to think of something relatively powerful that didn't obviously generate card advantage for the opponent (and I failed). Yawgmoth's Will, Balance, Ancestral Recall - they all generate some sort of card advantage by resolving. I didn't consider the additional draw that somebody would get from Time Walk. Lightning Bolt would have been a better choice.

And forgive me for agreeing with Rakso on this matter. I happen to think he's right. Card advantage is all about having many options in my hand. By countering my opponent's Lightning Bolt now, I give up the option of using that spell to counter something worse at a later time. My opponent had already made up his mind to give up the possibility of bolting me (or one of my creatures) later. My decision is only whether 3 life is a fair price to keep my options open. If it's not, then I counter now. If it is, I hold onto the counter.

[Machinus]

This issue is somewhat irresolvable, and subject to interpretation and sematics. However, as unpopular as they may be, Rakso's examinations of "card advantage" when specifically analyzing countermagic are worth reading. He doesn't reach any startling conclusions, but they cover a lot of ground. There are quite a few of them so I won't post the links but they are all readily available on StarCity if you wish to read them. It is not sufficient to simply compare counter to spell, as cards have different applications in different matchups, as well as different values depending on board position, cards in hand, life totals, etc. You must use your own intuition and knowledge of the specific game to make the correct decision.

[Edit: Something like "Cold Shoulder" would be a very strong card, and one that I would definitely use. It will never see print though.]

Man, don't dredge up old topics just to say nothing at all. [/color]