Big Changes coming to Block Structure

[KrauserKrauser]

So, after reading through Mark Rosewater's new article it appears there are going to be some big changes coming down the pipeline for Magic.

While it will definitely have the most impact on Standard, we may see some ripples from the shifting seas.

The changes:

• Changes take effect with the Fall 2015 Big Set
• Blocks move from 3 Sets (Big, Little, Little) to 2 Sets (Big, Little)
• 2 Blocks per year instead of 1
• No More Core Sets
• Standard will rotate after 3 Blocks (18 months) instead of the current 2 Blocks (24 months)
• Future products planned for new players, but not Core Set level printings

Overall I'm positive on the change.  Same amount of cards and it should create a more dynamic environment.  I was never too big on Core Sets and am not sad to see them go.

[fsecco]

I like that now Vintage playables (those that are only above their real price because of standard) will become cheaper months earlier.

[MaximumCDawg]

This has been brewing for some time now.  Core sets used to be the place where reprints went, in white border versions.  Thus, you could get an inferior-looking version of a card if you missed it when it was first printed.

Then they went black border because no one liked white border.
Then they started putting in new cards because everyone was bored of reprints.
Then they printed the Masters editions instead of putting reprints into the Core Set because they needed reprints. 
Then they printed some standard-legal cards in a Clash Pack but did not actually include them in the Core set itself because... reasons?
Then they realized the Core set didn't serve a purpose anymore, so they discontinued it.

I mean, really what is happening is that the Core set is now called Masters and gets released every few years instead of every year.  I guess it's also true that new sets will be less new-printing dense because they need to cram the old staples into the expansions instead of relying on the Core set.  From the perspective of us old timers, this doesn't matter too much. 

What is interesting is that we're actually moving closer to what Richard Garfield actually envisioned.  Remember, the original ABU printings were not meant to be a "core" set initially.  They were the first Magic format.  Arabian Nights, Ice Age, were all supposed to stand alone and be their own format.  When you lose the core set, you probably get to more what Richard wanted to do in the first place.

[JarofFortune]

What is interesting is that we're actually moving closer to what Richard Garfield actually envisioned.  Remember, the original ABU printings were not meant to be a "core" set initially.  They were the first Magic format.  Arabian Nights, Ice Age, were all supposed to stand alone and be their own format.  When you lose the core set, you probably get to more what Richard wanted to do in the first place.

I don't think Richard Garfield envisioned the extreme dumbing down of the game and ridiculous secondary market prices(Interestingly, the last set he worked on was Innistrad, which was almost universally beloved). Overall though, I like the changes. This means that if a block has a crappy limited format we don't have to endure it for as long, and I might even play Standard if they go back on some of their noncreature-spell policies.

[MaximumCDawg]

extreme dumbing down of the game

No, no, this is not MTGSalvation.  Let's not start flinging mud.  Reducing complexity and increasing the role of creatures makes the game different in Standard, not "dumber."  The NWO has made Vintage better by making so many different archetypes competitive on the back of powerful dorks.

ridiculous secondary market prices

This is true, I think -- didn't he at some point say that he didn't envision people ever paying more than $20.00 for a single card?

[JarofFortune]

extreme dumbing down of the game

No, no, this is not MTGSalvation.  Let's not start flinging mud.  Reducing complexity and increasing the role of creatures makes the game different in Standard, not "dumber."  The NWO has made Vintage better by making so many different archetypes competitive on the back of powerful dorks.

I am fine with New World Order. I am fine with keeping commons from being overly complex. The game doesn't need more Balduvian Shamans. However, I think that NWO has some faults, particularly Maro's example of Samite Healer being too complex for common. Magic is marketed as a Strategy Game, thus being able to do a little combat math should be a requirement.
   
Forgetting Commons for a moment, Wizards is stifling creative and unique strategies with their constant stream of hate cards, which needs to stop. I"m not saying that Hatebear decks or playing with stuff such as Cavern of Souls and Loxodon Smiter doesn't require skill, but I don't think printing more hate cards that vomit on unique, noncreature strategies like Combo, tempo, and even control. They don't even print cards for Tempo and combo in mainstream sets anymore. They won't print the most mediocre of counterspells and removal at common anymore, and they say that Counterspell is too good to reprint (And yet they chose to print Thoughtseize in Standard, don't you see the hypocrisy?).  The focus on pushed, midrangey creatures dumbs down the game in the form of pushing out other strategies. There is less strategy when you look at the big picture.

Consider the basic strategy of Theros. The idea of Theros was to push auras and the strategy of suiting up a heroic creature. The idea feels very parasitic, and the limited format it proved to be very draw-based and bomb-heavy. This culminated in M15, with the printing of Spectra Ward. Please, tell me that that is an intelligent, interactive card that promotes skill intensive games. Spectra ward is everything wrong with Theros Block, and even Modern Day Magic, especially considering that Wizards has stopped printing reasonable removal at lower rarities.


Finally, look at the decline of cantrips. Wizards has said that they don't like printing good cantrips anymore, because they reward better players. They are literally saying that they want the game to be based on bombs and topdecks. Magic is, in its natural state, a mix of luck and skill, which is good, because otherwise only the best player would win. Lucky top decks can be exciting, especially when they occur in decks without library manipulation. But making the game based on who draws their Planeswalker or Soul of Theros first is bad, because it removes most of the strategic element from the game, while weakening the idea of a learning curve. Being rewarded for tight play is great, because it creates a goal for less skilled players. They can ascend the learning curve, and have motivation to do so because good players are more likely to be successful in Competitive Magic. Wizards needs to take a few steps back in this regard. They can start by printing a solid cantrip in Standard again, and unbanning preordain in Modern.

ridiculous secondary market prices

This is true, I think -- didn't he at some point say that he didn't envision people ever paying more than $20.00 for a single card?

I remember hearing that too. That might be a good vision for Standard, but I don't see it happening.

[evouga]

Finally, look at the decline of cantrips. Wizards has said that they don't like printing good cantrips anymore, because they reward better players.

Citation?

Neo-Magic may not be "dumbed down" but I find it boring, and a very different kind of game than what you find in older sets or in Vintage. Most people like the new gameplay (otherwise WotC would stop doing it) but that doesn't invalidate the complaints of the few who don't.

[Twiedel]

@ main topic:

What I do like about that new structure is that we're **possibly** having less reprints than with the core sets. Let's be honest, even most of the "new printings" were just functional copies of cards we already had. Llanowar Elf v2, Savannah Lion v2, etc. This was not really interesting, it was more distrubing (at least for me). So good to let that go.
Also, a special product line focussing on new players (Portal 4+) should open the way to a little more complex expert level printings overall. If you don't get it yet, play some Portal, then come back - not the worst model. I wonder why it was abolished in the first place though...

What I don't like is that we're having less cards per block, especially less cards per new mechanic. As I play Eternal only, this means there probably won't be enough of a single mechanic that are good enough to spawn a new deck there. It is already very hard as most mechanics are focussed on creatures nowadays, but they'd have to bring back the same mechanics more often to make synergy work even in standard. It could very well be that it will become even more "stick the best value cards together" than it is now. Will make standard even more boring for me personally, as synergy is really what I love in the game. And I'm not alone here.

@ off-topic:

It is really not creatures vs. noncreatures, it is powerful and complex cards vs. good, simple cards. Intuition vs. Baneslayer. Baneslayer being a creature is not the problem, but having a big lifelinker in a context where 99% of the decks try to reduce your life to 0 and 80% do this by attacking with small ceatures, that makes it less interesting. When you can play it, you just lay it down and that is clearly the best decision. In contrast Intuition can be a graveyard-filler, a tutor for a 4-of, a wincondition or counterspell search.
There are interesting cards possible, as seen with Birthing Pod, that are based around creatures. Survival of the Fittest is an early example. It has even been revived as a creature in Fauna Shaman. It's just they don't want such cards to actually be better than the "good, simple" cards as they tend to dominate a standard format. For people like us, that's a pitty, but some millions of players just love to play the midrange vs. midrange trading for a few turns better aparently =)

[evouga]

2) New players generally seem to *LIKE* counterspell.

Where did you see this? I know Mark has said several times that they did market research, and it showed that most players *hate* having their creatures countered (but had no problem with casting the creature and then having it get immediately Doom Blade'd, go fiigure).

[TheWhiteDragon]

Not to get too far off topic here, but I have to chime in about counterspell.  It is too good for Modern. That's the main reason it won't be reprinted.  Pierce and snare are conditional.  All other counters cost a lot (cryptic, disperse, etc) or are temporary (remand).  At UU, people would no longer be able to plop down tarmogoyf or whatnot on the draw against a blue deck.  Decks like blue Tron would have hyperefficient, unconditional counters to stave off early threats to reach its end game..  Non-blue strategies would take a vast hit and everyone would switch to blue.  I play BG because I love the colors and cards, but feel it is safe because I can drop bob or tarm even on the draw before my opponent hits 1UU.  All I have to fear is snare, and that's narrow and not played too much main.  If I had to face 4x UU counterspell, I'd give up all other colors and pick up 4xCS.dec and go to town.

[MaximumCDawg]

Not to get too far off topic here, but I have to chime in about counterspell.  It is too good for Modern. That's the main reason it won't be reprinted.  Pierce and snare are conditional.  All other counters cost a lot (cryptic, disperse, etc) or are temporary (remand).  At UU, people would no longer be able to plop down tarmogoyf or whatnot on the draw against a blue deck.  Decks like blue Tron would have hyperefficient, unconditional counters to stave off early threats to reach its end game..  Non-blue strategies would take a vast hit and everyone would switch to blue.  I play BG because I love the colors and cards, but feel it is safe because I can drop bob or tarm even on the draw before my opponent hits 1UU.  All I have to fear is snare, and that's narrow and not played too much main.  If I had to face 4x UU counterspell, I'd give up all other colors and pick up 4xCS.dec and go to town.

This is probably an overblown fear.  Getting to UU is not a trivial thing for any deck but a dedicated mono-blue control deck.  Either you're playing with lots of shocks and bolting yourself once or twice per game, or you're not dipping much into other colors.  You mention Tron; how often does Tron really want to spend turns 1 and 2 deploying Islands and holding mana open?  Realistically that puts their endgame around turn six or more, and that's a long time to rely on a counterspell.

I agree that a hard counter at 2 mana is more efficient than most threats in Modern, but not every deck could run it, just like in Vintage not every deck wants to pay UU for Mana Drain.

[TheWhiteDragon]

Good point on blue tron, but the argument still holds for anything running blue for counters.  It's an undercosted counterspell for the format.  As far as shocks, almost every deck I face in modern runs shockduals and fetches and rarely basics.  And they almost always take -2 to get immediate mana, even just to sit on a counter.  How good is turn 1 delver, turn 2 hard counterspell, turn 3 dissolve, turn 4 cryptic? Just speeding up blue by a full turn pushes it a bit ahead of everything non-blue IMHO.  Right now, blue is a good color, but not Vintage/Legacy broken in Modern.  All the other colors have a very good place, and there is balance (black might actually be a tad bit in the lead).  UU counter would put Blue at the top, then black, then the rest - and oh look, it's vintage 3.0.

[MaximumCDawg]

and oh look, it's vintage 3.0.

And what would be wrong with that?

[JarofFortune]

Not to get too far off topic here, but I have to chime in about counterspell.  It is too good for Modern. That's the main reason it won't be reprinted.  Pierce and snare are conditional.  All other counters cost a lot (cryptic, disperse, etc) or are temporary (remand).  At UU, people would no longer be able to plop down tarmogoyf or whatnot on the draw against a blue deck.  Decks like blue Tron would have hyperefficient, unconditional counters to stave off early threats to reach its end game..  Non-blue strategies would take a vast hit and everyone would switch to blue.  I play BG because I love the colors and cards, but feel it is safe because I can drop bob or tarm even on the draw before my opponent hits 1UU.  All I have to fear is snare, and that's narrow and not played too much main.  If I had to face 4x UU counterspell, I'd give up all other colors and pick up 4xCS.dec and go to town.

Goyf can already be countered no matter what the die roll is because of spell snare. Wizards is as hypocritical with their policy on counter spell in Modern as they are with standard. Modern already has catch all answers in Thoughtseize and abrupt decay. Why should BG get what is effectively an uncounterable version of counter spell?

Honestly, I can even see modern adjusting to Mana Drain, not that Wizards would ever reprint it in Standard.

[JarofFortune]

Honestly, I can even see modern adjusting to Mana Drain, not that Wizards would ever reprint it in Standard.

No, it couldn't.

Would you care to elaborate?

As for Goyf/Confidant getting countered turn 2. This is where i think Remand is actually better than counterspell. Probably why remand is one of the most played cards in modern. Counterspells strength is that it remains good through out the game, where as mana leak and remand does not necessarily remain good.

Half the time in Modern remand isn't seen as a counter spell so much as a tempo boost, even a pseudo time walk in the early turns. This is why most control decks in Modern don't run Remand, but would run Counterspell. Anything that helps out control in Modern is a good thing.

[portland]

I personally don't play standard any more, but the Lorwyn/Shadowmoor blocks were pretty good tbh - made for variety in drafts at nationals etc.

[TheWhiteDragon]

Anything that helps out control in Modern is a good thing.

Not true.  I think all colors should get proportional boosts.  Even owning FoWs and drains, I never play blue.  I hate holding a grip of counters knowing my opponent is never really in the game and I can stop whatever he throws at me.  I hate being on the other end of that as well.

We already have Vintage and Legacy for players who want blue to be far superior to all else.  No need to make modern blue + 4 other colors too.  I actually really enjoy modern and would hate for it tobecome "blue and friends" all over again like vintage and legacy did. Not everyone is a countermage and there should be formats for people that don't want to play permission or anything inferior to that.

As far as snare being an answer to turn 2 goyf...I already mentioned snare, and it is narrow.  Counterspell does what snare does on turn 2 for ALL CMCs.  It is also great late game unlike remand and leak.  I am fine with counters that can be raced or played around...I just don't like knowing that for UU my turn 2 is essentially dead.  If you're willing to pay 3 (dissolve), 4 (cryptic), or a conditional counter @ 1 or 2 is fine....a hard counter for any spell I can play for 2 mana is too much.

Modern is fun, slower, and you always feel like you're in the game beyond turn 1.  You don't have workshop or waste causing you to be locked out of a game before turn 1.  There's no bazaar making one deck degenerately fast and unbeatable g1.  There's no FoW/mistep meaning your turn 1 spell almost always resolves (and currently turn 2 spell until counterspell gets reprinted and it all turns to blue + 4).  That's FUN knowing that I have a chance to win all the way up to turn 3, and if my opponent taps out, I am free to cast spells, and I won't get locked on 1 land or less due to a slew of wastes and crucible.

There's no need to speed up the format and turn it into legacy.  It should stay fun and not tilt to one dominant color.  I agree decay is one of the best answers in print...but it is 2 colors, reactive, and can't hit ALL spells, permanent or not.  Counterspell is degenerate in a format like modern.  It would be equivelent to printing a one blue cost mana drain in legacy or a free one in vintage (scaling for speed of mana accel).

[MaximumCDawg]

Anything that helps out control in Modern is a good thing.

Not true.  I think all colors should get proportional boosts.  Even owning FoWs and drains, I never play blue.  I hate holding a grip of counters knowing my opponent is never really in the game and I can stop whatever he throws at me.  I hate being on the other end of that as well.

We already have Vintage and Legacy for players who want blue to be far superior to all else.  No need to make modern blue + 4 other colors too.  I actually really enjoy modern and would hate for it tobecome "blue and friends" all over again like vintage and legacy did. Not everyone is a countermage and there should be formats for people that don't want to play permission or anything inferior to that.

As far as snare being an answer to turn 2 goyf...I already mentioned snare, and it is narrow.  Counterspell does what snare does on turn 2 for ALL CMCs.  It is also great late game unlike remand and leak.  I am fine with counters that can be raced or played around...I just don't like knowing that for UU my turn 2 is essentially dead.  If you're willing to pay 3 (dissolve), 4 (cryptic), or a conditional counter @ 1 or 2 is fine....a hard counter for any spell I can play for 2 mana is too much.

Modern is fun, slower, and you always feel like you're in the game beyond turn 1.  You don't have workshop or waste causing you to be locked out of a game before turn 1.  There's no bazaar making one deck degenerately fast and unbeatable g1.  There's no FoW/mistep meaning your turn 1 spell almost always resolves (and currently turn 2 spell until counterspell gets reprinted and it all turns to blue + 4).  That's FUN knowing that I have a chance to win all the way up to turn 3, and if my opponent taps out, I am free to cast spells, and I won't get locked on 1 land or less due to a slew of wastes and crucible.

There's no need to speed up the format and turn it into legacy.  It should stay fun and not tilt to one dominant color.  I agree decay is one of the best answers in print...but it is 2 colors, reactive, and can't hit ALL spells, permanent or not.  Counterspell is degenerate in a format like modern.  It would be equivelent to printing a one blue cost mana drain in legacy or a free one in vintage (scaling for speed of mana accel).

Hyperbole aside, I think that there's a nugget of truth here: a format full of efficient but situational cards is probably more interesting than a format with simple and powerful staples.  Mr. Menedian has gone on at some length about how the diversity of countermagic in Vintage has blossomed since Zendikar, and that's a very good thing.  There are times when I sigh to know that if you are playing a deck with blue spells in Vintage, there's really no good reason to not start from the same core of 30 cards or so and then just tinker around the edges.  Wizards agrees, too; Stoddard had an article last week where he explained how Wizards is no longer going to print 4 mana Wraths, but instead conditional sweepers, for exactly this reason.  And to help aggro.

The thing is, I don't think that Counterspell really matters in this discussion because the card is situational -- it requires two blue mana.  You can argue whether that is situational ENOUGH, but it's not trivial.  If your deck might only have 1U on turn 2, then you better be using Mana Leak because otherwise that Goyf is gonna resolve and you're gonna have a bad time.  It really is analogous to Mana Drain in Vintage.  Sure, you could read the text on the cards and ask why anyone would ever run anything else, but clearly the argument for cheaper, more focused countermagic has won the day in Vintage.

Instead of pooping on Counterspell, you should be looking at cards that truly do destroy diversity among cards that do something similar: Lightning Bolt, Path to Exile (Stp Version 2.0), etc.  Red has hundreds of riffs on Lighting Bolt, but virtually none of them see play because Lightning Bolt.  White has hundreds of good spot removal for creatures, but virtually none of them see play because Path.  If you want to do what these cards do, then you are hard-pressed to justify playing any other card at least until you've maxed out with 4 of the cream of the crop.

Take the example of Preordain and Ponder, for example.  Once these spells were banned, now you have a small army of blue cantrips that vie for attention.  Serum Visions might be the best, but Telling Time, Slight of Hand, etc all make pretty good arguments, too.

So, the bottom line is: your concern has merit, but Counterspell is hardly the poster child for lowering format diversity.

[JarofFortune]

Anything that helps out control in Modern is a good thing.

Not true.  I think all colors should get proportional boosts.  Even owning FoWs and drains, I never play blue.  I hate holding a grip of counters knowing my opponent is never really in the game and I can stop whatever he throws at me.  I hate being on the other end of that as well.

We already have Vintage and Legacy for players who want blue to be far superior to all else.  No need to make modern blue + 4 other colors too.  I actually really enjoy modern and would hate for it tobecome "blue and friends" all over again like vintage and legacy did. Not everyone is a countermage and there should be formats for people that don't want to play permission or anything inferior to that.

As far as snare being an answer to turn 2 goyf...I already mentioned snare, and it is narrow.  Counterspell does what snare does on turn 2 for ALL CMCs.  It is also great late game unlike remand and leak.  I am fine with counters that can be raced or played around...I just don't like knowing that for UU my turn 2 is essentially dead.  If you're willing to pay 3 (dissolve), 4 (cryptic), or a conditional counter @ 1 or 2 is fine....a hard counter for any spell I can play for 2 mana is too much.

Modern is fun, slower, and you always feel like you're in the game beyond turn 1.  You don't have workshop or waste causing you to be locked out of a game before turn 1.  There's no bazaar making one deck degenerately fast and unbeatable g1.  There's no FoW/mistep meaning your turn 1 spell almost always resolves (and currently turn 2 spell until counterspell gets reprinted and it all turns to blue + 4).  That's FUN knowing that I have a chance to win all the way up to turn 3, and if my opponent taps out, I am free to cast spells, and I won't get locked on 1 land or less due to a slew of wastes and crucible.

There's no need to speed up the format and turn it into legacy.  It should stay fun and not tilt to one dominant color.  I agree decay is one of the best answers in print...but it is 2 colors, reactive, and can't hit ALL spells, permanent or not.  Counterspell is degenerate in a format like modern.  It would be equivelent to printing a one blue cost mana drain in legacy or a free one in vintage (scaling for speed of mana accel).

First of all, control as a general archetype is underepresented in Modern, and even Wizards agress that that is a problem. It would be good to get a nonblue control deck, but that would require a slew of new cards, and wizards has shown themselves to be overly cautious recently.

I never said blue should be the dominant color in modern. The strongest color combination in modern is BG, which has catch all disruption cards that are better than counterspell in that deck. Are you one of the people that hates it when your creature os countered but just accepts an immediate removal spell as a fact of life? Its the same thing, not to mention that you can't interact with decay or turn 1 thoughtseize/inquisition.

Snare is not narrow. It hits a massive portion of the cards in Modern, and allows blue to interact turn 1 on yhe draw. If yoy hate the idea that your second turn has the possibility of being negated by a counterspell, Modern is not the format for you anyways, because remand, leak, and snare are widely played cards. Mist decks can remove your turn two play immediately anyways, blue or not.

Counterspell wouldn't speed up the format. If anything, it would make more games slower.

[TheWhiteDragon]

I'm not opposed to blue getting new weapons or control being more represented.  I just don't want blue to become dominant like it is in all other eternal formats.  I do actually accept spot removal while I dislike counterspell (the UU one, not ALL counters).  I have no problem with path or bolt.  They are the best spells at what they do, but they are narrow and limited answers.  Path can remove any critter, but gives me mana tempo.  It, like bolt, is also not killing my Vraska, batterskull, caryatid, SoFI, ghostly prison, or maelstrom pulse.  Counterspell can stop EVERYTHING that doesn't say "land" unconditionally and without drawback.  That's a bit powerful.  Decay is close, but is limited by cc.  I've died many a game to batterskull/wurmcoil with decays in my hand. Pulse is also close, but costs 3 and I'm okay with dissolve. I think 2cc is where I draw my line for unconditional answers because it limits a player's ability to advance their strategy a bit too early imho.  I've lost tarmgoyfs to mana leaks, but I've also played them with 3 extra mana open.  I've had tarms hit by snare, but have also dropped 1 and 3cc beaters to dodge it.  UU counterspell can NOT be played around outside of cavern. It hits any permanent or spell.  It is also good at any point in the game, unlike leak, pierce, or remand, and can't be dodged by topdecking, unlike duress/seize.That's too powerful.  The cc is not a hinderance either as you could run basics or duals and have UU easily with access to any colors you need.  For me, it is just TOO efficient, TOO versatile, for TOO cheap of a cost.  I don't mind spells being cheap, efficient, or versatile, but not all 3 without having SOME kind of limitation (like leak, decay, path, etc.).

[serracollector]

I had this discussion with many standard players when i played and for standard and modern counterspell is not too strong in relation to the other cards that can be played due to its conditions of needin uu and the fact of cards such as decay and caverns and other uncounterbales. also as mentioned duress and seize can still grab a counter long before its online. i for one truly feel mana leak is just as good as counterspell in most situations in formats where you can only drop one mana a turn.

[TheWhiteDragon]

UU is not a drawback.  To be fair, BG for decay isn't a drawback either.  Most modern decks run a slew of duals and fetches and getting two colors of the same or different type is no challenge AT ALL.  It only gets mildly trickier with 3 colors.  I've yet to see a deck running U that cant have island/steam vents or some such as their first 2 lands.

I do think mana leak is very strong.  In some cases it can work better than counterspell (if you run a lot of colorless lands like tron for example), but it can be played around which is why I'm fine with it.  It's not an absolute counter for 2.

Caverns is really only good in a tribal deck.  I'm not sure why an unconditional hard counter for 2 is okay and someone would think it's reasonable for a deck to have to run a colorless mana land that can push out 4-6 of their creatures through said counterspell is okay.  That's a terrible land in anything but tribal.  Decay is an answer to counters, but it needs to be, otherwise BUG goyf or UR delver would just run the format while it played a threat and sat on counters while you resolved 0 removal.

Duress/seize is no answer to counters.  If it pulls your counter, then it basically just let you cast that counter for free.  And discard spells are ALSO narrow or have a drawback.  Both can whiff if you have just land, seize costs you life, and duress can't pull any of the great creatures in the format.  Counterspell can stop all of those things with no drawback - at any time of the game - and as an instant, so your opponent can't even "rip off the top" a great spell through disruption like they can through discard.  If thoughtseize cost no life for its effect, then I'd put it in the same ballpark as counterspell, but alas it has a drawback (that -2 isn't trivial either as many games come down to the wire in modern).

The only card I'd be willing to put on par with counterspell is decay for sheer power level and versatility - but it also has a limitation that counterspell does not (3cc targets and can't hit non-permanent spells).  UU for an unconditional "stop anything non-land at any point in the game" is too good for me.

[serracollector]

You say seize is conditional because that two life matters but using one or two fetches to grab one or two shock lands spending three to possibly six life for a turn two counterspell is not conditional? Doesnt make a damn lick of sense to me. People have played around counterspell and its kin for years and still easily can. If you cant then thats on the player.

[MaximumCDawg]

Serra makes another excellent point.  Cavern of Souls exists, and this card all by itself makes reliance on Counterspell a very risky strategy.

[TheWhiteDragon]

You say seize is conditional because that two life matters but using one or two fetches to grab one or two shock lands spending three to possibly six life for a turn two counterspell is not conditional? Doesnt make a damn lick of sense to me. People have played around counterspell and its kin for years and still easily can. If you cant then thats on the player.

The same fetch you crack and dual you bring in untapped costs life whether you are playing seize or counterspell or frickin' flickerwisp.  That has nothing to do with the card itself, that's just mana.  In fact, you'd bring in the first dual land tapped if you were waiting to hit UU.  Your first land would come in untapped for seize, making it -5 life for that spell.  The MOST you'd pay for counterspell is 4 life. But as I said, the cost of fetches/shock lands shouldn't factor into the spell.  It's a completely separate card. If I crack two fetches and bring in untapped duals to play tarmogoyfs, I wouldn't say the drawback of tarmogoyf is -4 life.  Look at the card by itself and tell me what the drawback is.

Counterspell can't be played around.  It can be discarded, baited, or countered, but it WILL cost you one spell, no matter what, to get rid of it.  Most times it'll be the threat you wanted to resolve.  Pierce and leak CAN be played around - just hold up 2 or 3 more mana when casting a spell.  Snare can be played around by casting non-2cc spells and not walking into it.  Pierce also does nothing vs tarm and snare nothing vs resto angel....Counterspell stops ANYTHING at ANYTIME for UU.  I don't understand why nobody sees how that is on a different power level.

Serra makes another excellent point.  Cavern of Souls exists, and this card all by itself makes reliance on Counterspell a very risky strategy.

Cavern dodges counterspell, but how many modern decks want to be tribal?  I already addressed how running a colorless land to cast your choice of 4 creatures in your deck is a terrible strategy.  For caverns to work, you need to have at least 8 creatures of the same type, and better if ALL creatures (or nearly all) are of the same type.  How good is caverns in tron, pod, rock, etc., etc., etc.?  Cavern is a terrible card for most decks.  Vintage runs all kinds of counters despite caverns existing - because outside of humans, almost nobody plays caverns because it sucks in most decks.

Another way to think of it - actually making my case stronger - is you want to warp the meta to decks running several caverns with varying creature types (killing their mana base) to push through a handful of critters? Or make them become narrower and becoming tribal just because UU counters exist in the format?  By pointing at that ONE card as a reason counterspell is okay in modern, you are basically making that claim.  And since BG is already seen as the most popular/powerful colors in modern and seize/duress/inquisition are the best "answers" to counterspell, you want to push even more players into U and B?  Doesn't seem like it adds much to the format if you ask me.  That's addition by a whole lot of subtraction.

[serracollector]

How do you play around mana leak on turn two in modern dragon? What is your super secret tech that gives you three extra mana on turn two three four or even five that no one else is using? Counterspell is honestly a bad one for one spell and relies on you holding back mana to try and stop your opponent while not progressing your game. There is not a mass multitude of draw in modern like there is in vintage. For a good counterspell deck to work you need lots of mana and card advantage otherwise your losing. Want to counter my creature thats fine i have twenty more. You think it would be format warping and in modern it may be but not just cuz of itself but because of cards like supreme verdict and sphinx revelation and depletion sphere. Cards that create mass card advantage so that your one for one counters dont cost you the game when your opponent gets a threat thru which will happen. I stick to my word counterspell is not too powerful for any format especially ones that have one and two drops such as bob goyf doc shaman and even goblin guide and thats just creatures lets not forget bolt path abrupt decay duress seize and a plethora of cantrip and filter cards. A three mana counter in a format already that fast is a joke in all reality. Counterspell would barely be on par at this point. Saying its too powerful is ludicrus. 

[TheWhiteDragon]

How do you play around mana leak on turn two in modern dragon? What is your super secret tech that gives you three extra mana on turn two three four or even five that no one else is using? Counterspell is honestly a bad one for one spell and relies on you holding back mana to try and stop your opponent while not progressing your game. There is not a mass multitude of draw in modern like there is in vintage. For a good counterspell deck to work you need lots of mana and card advantage otherwise your losing. Want to counter my creature thats fine i have twenty more. You think it would be format warping and in modern it may be but not just cuz of itself but because of cards like supreme verdict and sphinx revelation and depletion sphere. Cards that create mass card advantage so that your one for one counters dont cost you the game when your opponent gets a threat thru which will happen. I stick to my word counterspell is not too powerful for any format especially ones that have one and two drops such as bob goyf doc shaman and even goblin guide and thats just creatures lets not forget bolt path abrupt decay duress seize and a plethora of cantrip and filter cards. A three mana counter in a format already that fast is a joke in all reality. Counterspell would barely be on par at this point. Saying its too powerful is ludicrus. 

You don't get extra mana on turn 2...but if you plan on resolving a certain spell, you have to either bait with something else or wait until turn 3-4 (I play with birds and caryatids).  I usually lead with inquisition or whatnot, and if I see leaks, then i know not to march into it and wait until I get to 5 mana.  Obviously a deck with JUST counters can't win, but the decks you mention with sphinx, verdict, etc are EXACTLY why i think counterspell would be too powerful.  It is too efficient for the mana and would get the control deck to turn 4 easily before it fell too far behind so it can play such bombs.  There are a ton of cheap, efficient critters...but there are also a ton of good sweepers which can just 4-for-1 the opponent.  If you can sweep a horde, fine...but if you can counter them one at a time, saving your sweepers (or counters to sandbag with a sweeper) only when it is advantageous, then control gets the edge.  Aggro can only beat control because it can slip through a critter at a time and not overextend.  If those "one at a times" get countered one at a time, then the aggro player has to overextend a bit more to catch up on tempo loss...then a sweeper hurts even more and whatever the aggro player topdecks can easily be 1-for-1nd.  Adding counterspell not only gives control a great weapon, but it also helps them reach critical mass of really good counters.  Leak isn't too bad, because it's just a 4-of.  That's the closest thing control has to a 2 mana hard counter (for early turns).  With counterspell, it now has 8 and is 200% more likely to have it on turn 2.  Ancestral recall is broken, but tolerable as a 1 of.  Would it be okay as a 4-of?  A strong effect is okay when limited in number.  Too many of that effect, and things start to tilt in favor of the deck running that suite.

Shaman, btw, is banned in modern.

[JarofFortune]

 would get the control deck to turn 4 easily before it fell too far behind so it can play such bombs.  There are a ton of cheap, efficient critters...but there are also a ton of good sweepers which can just 4-for-1 the opponent.  If you can sweep a horde, fine...but if you can counter them one at a time, saving your sweepers (or counters to sandbag with a sweeper) only when it is advantageous, then control gets the edge. 

Again, Wizards agrees with the fact that Control is underrepresented in Modern, because it really is, and therefore anything that helps Control would be welcome.

Aggro can only beat control because it can slip through a critter at a time and not overextend.  If those "one at a times" get countered one at a time, then the aggro player has to overextend a bit more to catch up on tempo loss...then a sweeper hurts even more and whatever the aggro player topdecks can easily be 1-for-1nd.

Aggro, just like control, is underrepresented in the format. Lets look at the best Aggro decks in Modern. The only Aggro Deck at Tier 1 is affinity, which continues to be wildly successful despite the electrolyzes, grudges, and angers that are in every sideboard.  UWR control, the most successful Control deck in Modern, is one of Affinity's less favorable matchups. I play Affinity in Modern(Huh, but I thought the only people who wanted counterspell in Modern played blue), and I can honestly say that UWR getting counterspell would not change anything about the matchup. It's just another efficient answer to my threats in a deck filled with efficient answers to my threats.

A semi-successful Aggro deck is Merfolk. In the impossible event that counterspell actually does warp the format, as you say it would, Merfolk could just start running Cavern of souls. Problem solved.

The final aggro deck that has seen some success is Burn, recently given Eidolon of the Great Revel. Burn has to deal with Lightning Helix out of Blue white red control, which is far better than counter spell in the matchup. And yet, Burn still sees success. How would Counterspell solve any problems against a deck filled with such redundancy? It can't. Its just the same as mana leak.

You seem to think that the format revolves around aggro and Control, when really it is centered on Midrange. Counterspell is almost always a one-for one. Midrange decks, especially Jund and its kin, are centered around one for ones. Midrange has lots of redundancy in that it has plenty of threats and plenty of disruption. Counterspell, which can be taken by their plethora of one mana discard spells on turn one, barely does anything to solve control's problems with Midrange decks.

  Adding counterspell not only gives control a great weapon, but it also helps them reach critical mass of really good counters.  Leak isn't too bad, because it's just a 4-of.  That's the closest thing control has to a 2 mana hard counter (for early turns).  With counterspell, it now has 8 and is 200% more likely to have it on turn 2.  Ancestral recall is broken, but tolerable as a 1 of.  Would it be okay as a 4-of?  A strong effect is okay when limited in number.  Too many of that effect, and things start to tilt in favor of the deck running that suite.

8 playable counter spells that can be played early in the game! That's about how many you see in Standard. So why don't I see the standard metagame being rampaged over by control? Because Counterspells aren't the solution to everything. Counterspell would be a first step in printing better and more varied answers that can be used by Control decks in Modern, but Counterspell alone won't solve its problems, let alone make it oppressive. This looks more like an irrational hatred of blue's portion of the color pie than a reasonable fear when you consider that you aren't clamoring for Abrupt Decay and thoughtseize to be banned.  Give Modern Counterspell. Hell, give it Mana Drain instead. The format will have grown a little in diversity because of it.

[TheWhiteDragon]

As far as best modern aggro decks, I'd argue The Rock type decks is tier 1.  Burn is hardly tier 1 and has a helluva time even taking down small 12-man tourneys.

Not sure what places you're playing, but around me modern tourneys consist of UWR control, tron, occasionally pod, RUG twincast, affinity, burn, and a crapton of various aggro decks (rock, jund, RG zoo, white trash, merfolk, elf alarm combo, etc.)  As far as I see around me, aggro is 75% of the meta.

If the answer to format warping, assuming it does, is simply "everyone run cavern-merfolk, problem solved," I don't see that as a shout to diversity.  I don't want to run cavern merfolk and doubt anyone else wants to have to run that deck.

The reason I'm okay with decay is as follows...which card would you prefer to play?:

2cc
Instant
Counter target artifact, creature, or enchantment with cc 3 or less. This spell can't be countered.

Or

2cc
Instant
Counter target spell.

Pyrodelver is also an excellent deck.  It's usually RUG around me with delver, pyro, tarm.  Right now, it only has leak/remand as "hard counters" for the early turns...some run snare, but then get busted vs 1 and 3cc stuff.  With 4 CS, the deck has then 12 counters...4 being superior in every way to the others.  Imagine the following line.  Fetch, crack for steam vent, delver, pass.  Opponent plays land, something for 1 (or nothing), pass.  Turn 2, delver swings for 3, you drop a land...you counter the next spell.  Turn 3 you swing for 3, cast sleight of hand to dig, land...leak the next spell.  Turn 5, play land, swing 3, cast tarm, remand the next spell...Turn 6, cast telling time (or whatever digger), swing 6, counterspell the remanded spell that gets recast.  Turn 7 win with leak/remand/CS backup.

So your opponent gets to do NOTHING the whole game because you now have access to 12 counters, 8 of which actually stop the spell and not just delay it one turn.  With only remand and leak, the scenario above is not always going to play out...even adding pierce/snare.  With 4 CS added to that counter suite, that scenario becomes 50% more likely.

Right now, games often start that way, but the limited number and conditionality of the current counters usually catches up as you land mana and threats squeak through the counter/bolt wall. Then it usually evens out and becomes a tight fight to the end.  Add in 4 CS, and the leaks in that wall get spackled, and opponents are far less likely to find any window to exploit.

In the above scenario, let's say my best 1cc spell is seize.  Right now I can choose between your leak and remand and force that window to come faster.  Now I have to choose between the leak, remand, and CS in hand and my window may never come.

[JarofFortune]

As far as best modern aggro decks, I'd argue The Rock type decks is tier 1.  Burn is hardly tier 1 and has a helluva time even taking down small 12-man tourneys.

Burn became much better once Eidolon was printed. It won the last modern Gp and put another player in the Top 8. I would say that is much better than a 12 man tourney. Eidolon was actually a good start for improving aggro, but its not enough.

Not sure what places you're playing, but around me modern tourneys consist of UWR control, tron, occasionally pod, RUG twincast, affinity, burn, and a crapton of various aggro decks (rock, jund, RG zoo, white trash, merfolk, elf alarm combo, etc.)  As far as I see around me, aggro is 75% of the meta.

  First of all, I mainly mean at the GP and PTQ level. Both aggro and Control can compete at the FNM/local level. I don't understand your classification of Aggro decks. You don't list Affinity and Burn as Aggro decks, yet you Consider rock, Jund, and Elf combo as aggro. Playing Creatures doesn't make a deck aggro. Elf Alarm is exactly what you called it, Combo. Jund and Rock are Midrange, not Aggro. They want to Devolve games into Attrition based grinds to the finish, where their deck will be favored. The strategy of an aggro deck is enerally to kill the opponent as fast as possible, before they can execute their primary gameplan, very different.

And look, even in your local meta, there is one Control Archetype. That is not enough. Wizards agrees: {http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/567422-i-just-personally-spoke-with-aaron-forsythe-at-pro}

If the answer to format warping, assuming it does, is simply "everyone run cavern-merfolk, problem solved," I don't see that as a shout to diversity.  I don't want to run cavern merfolk and doubt anyone else wants to have to run that deck.

I never said that everyone would run Cavern Merfolk. Twisting my words isn't helping the discussion. I gave examples of how the best three aggro decks in the format could adapt to it/would not be affected by Counterspell.

The reason I'm okay with decay is as follows...which card would you prefer to play?:

2cc
Instant
Counter target artifact, creature, or enchantment with cc 3 or less. This spell can't be countered.

Or

2cc
Instant
Counter target spell.

Your first card is not Decay. Decay is better than Counterspell in Modern because you don't have to lose tempo by holding up Counter mana. You can tap out to play a Goyf or Bob instead.  In the most notable case where you would have to hold up decay, playing around Splinter Twin, If the opponent goes for it they will get 2-for-1'd(This is forgetting the fact that BG/x decks have started running Slaughter Pact, which is very much like a free counterspell). In addition to Decay, the decks that run decay will almost always lead with a discard spell on turn one. This is usually better than Counterspell, because you don't have to suffer the tempo loss of holding up two mana instead of playing a threat.

Control would benefit from Counterspell because Control decks in their current form are generally fine with holding up Mana early on, but do you really think a slightly better mana leak would warp the format when Midrange has much better answers in higher amounts?