Counterspells?

[Tokimo]

They're annoying, they require a stack to resolve (which IMO does the correct thing for counter spells but the wrong thing for lightning bolt). Most games of magic I play have no counter spells cast in them, the games which I play that have counter spells cast against me are usually unfun.

I'm curious about people's thoughts on counters in other games besides magic. Of course, if you have thoughts on counters in magic that'd be interesting as well.

[Trevor]

Counterspells feel pretty much the same in any game. In wow, for example, they work exactly the same.

People don't like counterspells played against them really because it hurts them in the game. Really, it's pretty much the same as anything else that negates your things, like Terrors or Lightning Bolts. What people don't like is repeated counterspells back-to-back. The same goes for anything else that hurts you that goes back-to-back.

Counterspells, like any card of negation, must be well balanced and must cost accordingly.

Here are examples of counterspell cards that aren't likely to repeatedly lock an opponent out:

Counter target noncreature spell.

Counter target spell. As an additional cost, discard a card.

Counter target spell if its not the first spell played this turn.

Counter target spell and you lose 3 life.

Counter target spell. Skip your next untap step.

Counter target spell with a cost of 3 or less.

Counter target spell with an odd converted mana cost.

[Tokimo]

Interesting.

Lightning bolts have never really bothered me. "Aw man, you smoked by muscle sliver and then punked half my team because I wasn't ready". I've always found that to be kinda amusing. I've never played a deck that chained burn spells on my creatures though.

I now remember playing against a diabolic edict deck. That was unfun too. Not because I lost, but because I couldn't keep any creatures in play long enough to attack more than once at best (including my poor crystalline sliver falling prey to the diabolic edict). And I imagine if I pulled out my white deck against a deck full of naturalize and kin and not much else I'd not have much fun.

[Trevor]

Playing against Braids, Cabal Minion or any land destruction deck is worse than a counterspell deck. At least against a counterspell deck there is always that hope when you cast a spell that they will finally have run out of them.

Again, the issue is repeated annoyances. Its a good fix to have things not easily repeated, or not completely lock you out and at least you do something.

[Cyrus]

I do sort of prefer games without "hard" counterspells. Anything that just straight up cancels anything else. As much as I enjoy playing lock down/counter/control decks in magic, I realize they are not much fun to play against unless you really know what you are doing. They almost seem impossible to beat, actually, I remember thinking that when I first started playing.

I prefer games with really targeted type counters, that counter 5 or so different specific cards. Its obviously for a different type of game, but if you have a sideboard or if you just know certain cards are really big in your area, then you include some of those and they are really devastating. They don't seem like they would be, they are just a really specific counterspell, but in a game where there is no one-answer counter card, they are really powerful when they work out.

[Alastair]

I prefer games with really targeted type counters, that counter 5 or so different specific cards.

At present this is one of the biggest problems with the Doctor Who CCG. The game only has a single win condition (you must complete a goal and oppose a goal in addition to scoring 10 points). However 90% of the cards in the 3000 card game only work in relation to -specific- other cards. I spend an hour to build a super cool Dalek Timelord Killer deck and it's utterly useless if my opponent doesnt play a very specific batch of Timelords.

A good example would be one of the plot cards 'The Shakespeare Code'. In order for it to come into play both of the following condiitons must be met: #1 One player's William Shakespear at a Renaissance Spacetime card. #2 A different player's 3 Carrionites at the same Spacetime card. Utterly useless in the plot pool if my opponent isnt playing Shakespear or Carrionites.

Now on the subject of counterspells in magic, they have been a part of the game since Alpha. They are a valid tactic to use against your opponent. Sure, they might not be a whole lot of fun in a casual game for them to be played against you but if you're in a tournement or other competative setting there should be no complaints about a player using any valid means of winning they can.

[Trevor]

I prefer games with really targeted type counters, that counter 5 or so different specific cards.

I think that is a terrible idea. You don't want to print cards that are useless most of the time. They become even more useless as more and more cards are printed.

In my opinion, cards which target other specific cards are only acceptable if they have other uses.

For example:

Choose one ? Destroy a card named Smurf or put 2 damage counters on target character.

If there is a card which is a core of the game, like the basic lands of magic, it is fine. Otherwise, you should try to design cards that can counter specific cards without referring to those cards by name. Anything else is bad design.

In an extremely rare case, its ok to make one card in your deck refer to another card in your deck. Like a creature card could say "Sacrifice this creature and 1 other creature to search your deck for a card named "Gargamel" and put that card in your hand. This type of card should be avoided if possible.

But you definately don't want to make cards in your deck specific to cards your opponent might have in their deck. That is bad design.

Consider the Magic card Rishadan Port that quickly dominated the standard format at the time. An answer was needed to this card's overuse so they printed Tsabo's Web in the next set. Tsabo's Web is still a pretty narrow card, but it is still useful against lots of other cards, such as Maze of Ith.

[Qunify]

Yea, I hate it when I really get into a character and draw a card that makes my mouth water.  I get so excited, and stand up and cast my hand upon my enemy, throw the card down, and shout its name loudly... only to have him reply "Counterspell"

I hate it when that happens.

[Tokimo]

Yea, I hate it when I really get into a character and draw a card that makes my mouth water.  I get so excited, and stand up and cast my hand upon my enemy, throw the card down, and shout its name loudly... only to have him reply "Counterspell"

I hate it when that happens.

I personally find reversals in game power to be amazing. It can be kinda boring when playing this card wins you the game all the time. If playing this card usually wins but you've had people do a reversal, it makes it more exciting next time you play the same card.

I also find playing a well placed reversal to be pretty exciting. I currently have a WGR Ally deck I've been playing and as an experiment I threw in a few utility spells, Lightning Bolt, Pacifism, and Naturalize. The deck has been absolutely amazing to play. I was playing a game where one player used a Hypergenisis to drop Thraximundar. The amount of fun I had dropping a pacifism on a big threat like that was massive. Meanwhile, I still didn't lock down my opponent entirely.

[Qunify]

I personally find reversals in game power to be amazing. It can be kinda boring when playing this card wins you the game all the time. If playing this card usually wins but you've had people do a reversal, it makes it more exciting next time you play the same card.

Reversals are great.  Buy Pacify is an enchantment played on your turn, not an instant that counters your card. I was referring to the instances in which you cannot play your card because of a counter. If I at least got to play it, and then someone destroyed it on their turn, I'm ok with that.

[Cyrus]

Well their Sorcery allowed him to play the enchantment on their turn, but still.

off topic, but, if you want your deck to have some really great creature hold back power, I'd drop the pacifisms for Path to Exile, and maybe the Naturalize for Burst Lightning (move Naturalize to sideboard if you have one)

[Tokimo]

The Naturalize is a lot of fun too though. I might swap the pacify out for path to exile though, that'll let me take care of painful creatures that are acting like enchants.

[Trevor]

I personally find reversals in game power to be amazing. It can be kinda boring when playing this card wins you the game all the time. If playing this card usually wins but you've had people do a reversal, it makes it more exciting next time you play the same card.

Reversals are great.  Buy Pacify is an enchantment played on your turn, not an instant that counters your card. I was referring to the instances in which you cannot play your card because of a counter. If I at least got to play it, and then someone destroyed it on their turn, I'm ok with that.

But conversely, counterspells can counter spells ONLY when they are cast. Pacifism can be used any time later on in the game.

[xchokeholdx]

the problem with Counterspell is that is can counter almost all spells. This means the player holding the counterspell can wait the perfect moment to twart your plans. Esp. in Magic, where it is important to get a good Curve drop each turn, a good timed counterspell can win you the game right there. 

not my type of card.. not my type of game..

[Alastair]

the problem with Counterspell is that is can counter almost all spells. This means the player holding the counterspell can wait the perfect moment to twart your plans.

That is the purpose of the counterspells and other instants (and their versions that were once known as interrupts). If you can only do stuff during your turn, which includes countering spells and destroying enchantments and the like, then you might as well be playing a single player game.