Glowing Ranks #1: Counterspells

G'day Zoners!

Today we're kicking off a new TGZ segment to celebrate my favorite cards with specific functions int the typical Commander deck. Much like Oprah, I have favorite things, and while there's a laundry list of literature about them here on TGZ, Glowing Ranks will be where I'll grind out a concrete top 5. 

We'll be kicking off the series today with one of EDH's most controversial card archetypes- the counterspell. Here we go.

Honorable Mention- Cryptic Command

Duh. I felt really bad about not mentioning this in the list, but it's worth explaining why. 

Cryptic Command is more than just a counterspell. It does basically everything you'd want a card to do as a blue player, and so it's really impossible for me to justify putting it in a list where most of these cards don't do half the things Cryptic does.

I think it goes without saying that Lost in the Mist and Dismiss are two possible functions that this card can be, and neither of them could crack my Top 5, so I felt weird about putting this here, even if it is an excellent card. 

5. Negate

Playing enough removal to answer creatures has been, for a long time, a sufficient answer. Although I may have to change that with the Gods out now, I'm still much more inclined to sit back and let people have creatures, but not relevant game-ender spells. 

Negate is great, and though it sounds lyrical, it's doesn't make it less true. The power that this card has is miles above the silly, more specific counters like Annul or Swan Song. Hitting P-dubs is a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, and Negate has the ability to cover all the cards you really don't want to see in EDH. Creatures can be dealt with. G-Waves and Exsanguinates have to be stopped on the stack. 

It's not pure counterspell, but I'm okay with that. I mentioned a while back on The Stack that Island-Island is can be played into or played around. This is one of the advantages of Negate, especially in most of my double-colored decks. The mana cost allows me the flexibility to have other cards in my hand, and if all I have to give up is a creature, I'm not worried. 

4. Memory Lapse

Memory Lapse is a house. Against decks that can draw out of it, it still costs them resources. Against decks that can't, it stops their tempo "instantly." As I'm so often on the play due to my die-rolling deficiency, Memory Lapse is often the way I keep my opponent(s) from getting too far ahead. Used properly near the end of the game, it can even give you a whole turn before your opponent goes off.

Like Negate, the converted mana cost provides an insane flexibility for such a powerful card. However, unlike Memory Lapse, the better cards to counter are creatures in the late, and silly mana rocks like Sol Ring and Darksteel Ingot, or Cultivate, in the early game. 

In Daxos, I also play this when I decide that what my opponent's casting is something I really want. 

3. Lapse of Certainty

Lapse of Certainty has the same function as Memory Lapse, but it they are completely different. 

I won't argue that ML is better than LoC. In fact, I had a game last week where both were in my hand, and I ran into a mana situation because this is more expensive. Still, I'll be honest- it's ahead on this list because it's not blue.

That's not meant to be color-discriminatory, because I don't dislike blue as a color at all- it just goes along with what I was saying about broadcasting Island-Island earlier. This spell is surely going to catch people off their guard, and the element of surprise is great, even if you know I play this, and could expect it. 

I also like the art way better. It's kind of a weird thing to be from Conflux, especially because it doesn't look like anything from any of the Shards, but I'll take it. Some cards are just too playable to pass up.

2. Trickbind

This is a piece of tech I feel people know little about. 

For those who don't know GG, or have never played against him in a game of Magic, there's almost always going to be an Oblivion Stone, a Nevinyrral's Disk, or both in the context of a given game. 

Frustrated with having to force the Wraths, I decided it was time to find more answers than K-Grip. A Gatherer search following a particularly unpleasant game against Glissa T's proved to be well worth my while. I found this and another little spell called Interdict, which I immediately slammed into my decks the following week and proceeded to shutting down his silly slow-rolling. 

What I've discovered further about this card is that it breaks more than just Disks and Stones. Creatures with ETB effects are a vast majority of the meta, and Trickbind stops them too. The fact that this also adds triggered abilities gives this insane value. Terastodon and Tricking Purphoros with a huge Goblin Offensive on the stack are my best accomplishments to date when it comes to triggered abilities. Hitting Fetchlands and Strip Mines is also pretty tech too. 

1. Voidslime

I love everything about Voidslime. To me, this is the primo counterspell. It covers everything I'd want to stop, the art is sweet, and its converted mana cost makes it uniquely fitted for UG, which is a color combination I love to play. 

This card is one of the few special answers for infinite combo decks like Saffi or Black Mike, which thrive on triggered abilities. 

Like I said- I love everything about it. Even the bad flavor text. 

Well, that wraps up our first Glowing Ranks.

Do you have five favorite counterspells? Be sure to share yours in the comments below. Your thoughts are always appreciated. 

Thanks again! Pass Turn.

-UL

In General: Counter Examples Part 2

Well hello again! Welcome back to the conclusion of my discussion about the stygma against using counterspells in casual Magic. If you missed it, make sure to check out the first part. We left off on the topic of: why does a game that is played to win have a culture full of people who don't play to win? In the first half I discussed certain key aspects of game design that are present in Magic. I'd like to begin with some short comparisons to another game that has similar characteristics: chess.

Magic matches chess in its strategic and intellectual complexity. It is extremely difficult to play optimally. The strategy evolves as the game goes on. There are different pieces, each with their own rules and their own strategy, that you must use economically and efficiently in order to be victorious. There are contingent decisions to be made. Decisions which, can't be fully understood until much later in the game, if even then. You have to read subtle cues from your opponent. You must know them to know how to beat them. Chess has very few scrubs. People who don't have the gumption to play competitively usually just don't play at all. The skill deficit of a beginner makes it impossible for them to defeat a more skilled player. This is intimidating. Intimidation usually sucks the fun right out of a game. The regularity with which a beginner will lose is so high that it pushes people out of the game. Magic adds three key elements that encourage scrub behavior. Behavior like ostracizing certain strategies that are considered cheap or unfun.

1. Hidden Information: things you and/or your opponent(s) don't know and can't discover.

Hidden information plays on the human fear of the unknown. People don't want to know that they don't know something. They are uncomfortable with confronting the unknown. They don't know how to deal with it, particularly when there is an inequality in how this hidden information is distributed. It is easy to rationalize this as being unfair or even impossible to overcome. Scrubs don't want to make decisions without full information. They feel cheated, or they feel the results are invalid because 'they couldn't have known' some key fact. Information acquisition and exchange are a very important strategic element in Magic.

2. Inequality of Material: your chess pieces come in different shapes, sizes, and quantities. You and your opponent rarely have the same resources.

This is troublesome for many of the same reasons as above. It feels very unfair when you walk into a match and instantly have a disadvantage because of your deck construction. Scrubs will rationalize it as simple bad luck or otherwise externalize the failure. Magic contains many puzzles of optimization. Choices that require compromise. Sometimes compromise leaves you exposed to externalities. Scrubs don't take responsibility for these decisions. Their locus of control has shifted off of themselves, but is internally biased. When the scrub wins, he thinks it is because of his skill. When the scrubs loses, he blames it on factors stemming from this inequality.

3. Variance: Randomness, unpredictability. A different experience in each game.

Many people believe that randomness adds fun. Unpredictability in complex systems inherently creates intrigue. If it is impossible to know how an event will unfold, you have to experience the event to find out. This draws many people into games and creates an equalizing factor during play. 'On any given Sunday' the worst player can take down the best player. In most games that include variance as a factor, the variance is so large that it borders on incalculable for un-aided humans. Otherwise an experienced player would continue to dominate because of their superior knowledge of these odds. E.g. counting cards in Blackjack. Bloody difficult, but the advantage gained from doing it properly is insurmountable.

Note that the concept of a metagame also influences cultural factors greatly, but chess has a metagame, although it is not usually as complex as Magic's it is much more diverse. Ergo, it is not a difference between the two games. There is not sufficient time or space in this piece to discuss metagames in more detail, but they are extremely influential to this topic. I will return to this idea later, so it is important that you have a good understanding of what a metagame is and what Magic's metagame is.

So we know the features of the game that breed scrub behavior. Let's now shift our focus to the players themselves. Wizards performs rigorous internal marketing studies to help gather information about the player base as both customers and audience members. They have developed the concept of the psychograph. An archetypal personality that represents one facet of a player. Mark Rosewater, the game's head designer, has gone into very fine detail explaining these psychgraphs and how they affect designing and playing the game. Again, I will not explain them here, but you must understand them explicitly to comprehend the underlying argument that I am building (and will soon reveal).

There are three psychographs which I will oversimplify for demonstration purposes:
Spike. Spike plays to win.
Johnny. Johnny plays to learn.
Timmy. Timmy plays to feel.

Every player is a combination of these three sub-personalities. The degree to which they are present in an individual determines their character within the game. Their attitudes, approach, development, enjoyment. The very essence of a player defined.

Now who among them is the culprit? Who is the big offender of mutilating strategy games into scrubby games?

It's not Spike. Spike absolutely wants to win. He is the predator species. His self-gratification is innately tied to victory. Skill is his weapon and the instrument of his satisfaction. He will instinctively pursue the best strategies and ignore inferior ones.

It's not Johnny. Johnny is a scientist. A thinker. Where Spike is Sun Tzu, Johnny is Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer. He wants to win, but he knows he must develop new technology in order to do so. Johnny isn't consumed by winning THIS game. He wants to learn how to win THE game. All games. He is experimenting. Developing. Discovery drives Johnny's enjoyment.

So, by process of elimination we know that Timmy is the culprit. The worlds shortest game of Clue has come to an end. It was Timmy, at the casual tables, with the theme deck.

See Timmy cares about something other than execution or development of winning strategy. He is exhibiting sub-goal behavior. He is making his own game within the game. He doesn't want to win, he wants to build an army of elves or gain infinite life. He has sidestepped traditional strategic thinking. He is now optimizing his play for a goal other than winning. Taking his eye off the ball as it were. What he wants is to feel. And his feelings have gotten in the way.

Now to bring it home. Commander. EDH is one of the most outlandish formats Magic has to offer. Absurd board states, lengthy gameplay, unusual card and player interactions. EDH is where you want to be if you want to see and feel something different than normal Magic. It is no surprise that EDH attracts a ton of Timmy style players and therefore a higher concentration of scrubs. Timmy was bothered by the fact that Spike would always stomp on his fun. Spikes overly-developed medulla oblongata forces him to aggressively pursue competitive scenarios. EDH is of lower interest to Spike than Standard, Draft, or Legacy would be. EDH is something of a safe haven for Timmy to do whatever he likes and not worry about the consequences.

So now we see why Timmy hates Spike, loves EDH, and doesn't want Spike to ruin it for him. So all the Timmy's get together and decide, by implicit committee, that playing to win is not accepted in EDH. You must play for fun, community enrichment, experiential growth, or pure escapism.

Now the only question that remains is: why hate on Blue? Blue is out of balance. It is overpowered. It has a grip on the format that is strangling it to death. To Timmy, there is no honor and no fun to be had in utilizing the established strategies. If all you want to do is stifle other peoples fun (which Counterspell is quite good at) then you automatically stand in opposition to Timmy's alliance of 'fun'.

There you have it. Put simply: Timmy got beat up on the playground so much he took his toys and went home. Now he plays in the backyard with other Timmys. That is the cultural metagame of EDH personalities in a nutshell.

I will conclude with a short anecdote: I was recently debating the merits of Ruric Thar, the Unbowed. I saw him as underpowered and not worthy of much consideration. Uncle Landdrops was convinced that Ruric was the second coming of fun and that typical control decks are soon to be unplayable. I thought this was laughable. There is no Ruric Thar decklist that could ever beat a tournament level tier-one deck. Think of the good old days: what does Ruric do about Erayo? It loses. That is about it.

But what is that you say? Erayo is a banned general? Sure, but only scrubs would ever devise such a concept that so grotesquely mutilates proper strategy as a banned list. It is in response to this idea that I insisted Ruric Thar isn't really 'good', it is only good inside the non-game parameters UL was working with. In my purist Spike league, Ruric doesn't even register. But what UL said next threw me on tilt.

He said there is no competitive metagame to EDH. Only the scrub league.

The percentage of Timmy-style scrubs is so high, that the competitive aspect has been completely flushed from the game. (Ignoring for the moment the small contingents of 1v1 EDH tournaments that occur in France and the Pacific Islands, which are so small as to be negligible)

Is this true? Is there no place in the EDH community for people like me? People who want to play every  game to win; who refuse to compromise strategy in the name of fun. It could be true. It seems that way at least.

You tell me. Am I so far outside the zeitgeist of Commander that I no longer exist beyond my own insignificant margins?

Let us know what you think.

In General: Counter Examples: Part 1

A short time ago Uncle Landdrops approached me about doing an In General about counterspells. Specifically, the stygma that they bear in casual formats like Commander. Naturally, he felt that I was the right man for the job on this one. You have to nag me pretty hard to play a deck without counters. In fact, I specifically build sub-optimal decks (read: non-blue) in order to just have the option of playing a deck that doesn't have counterspells. Mostly, those decks are played by other people; borrowed when I want to battle, but they came unprepared. I am not going to waste any more of our time playing up my credentials as a counterspell aficionado. I'm not here to talk about me. I am here to talk about you.

For the purpose of this discussion, I am going to assume you are a scrub. Don't take it personally, this is getting posted on the internet after all. Strangely, Magic has a very high percentage of scrubs in its player base. Especially for a casual-competitive game. Especially for an adversarial, zero-sum game design. Scrubs are somewhat poorly defined, so allow me to offer a definition from author David Sirlin: "A scrub is a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about. A scrub does not play to win." He has a book about this topic called Playing to Win. I encourage you to read it, irrespective of your level of interest in game theory, game design, psychology, or books. You are interested in Magic. This will improve your game. Dramatically. If you don't care about improving your game you are, by definition, a scrub. So, welcome. You're in the right place.

Before I go any further I must disclose that I have a robust knowledge of game design concepts and the psychology discipline of game theory. I am going to be talking about these ideas and more related to them. I will do my best to explain terminology or concepts that would be unfamiliar to people who have not studied them. However, these ideas are ares of study unto themselves. If you want to learn, to understand, it will take more than reading this article.

To begin, what is a game? Not so simple as you might think. This video by Youtuber Vsauce, explains it quite well, if not for its lack of brevity.

To clarify an earlier point, Magic is a game that is played to win, by design. Even at the casual level, the goal of the game is to win. It is adversarial because the game is designed to have two parties, you and your opponent(s). This is even true in multiplayer because of the zero-sum victory mechanic. You win? Your opponents lost. You can't win together, there is no 'tie'. There is a draw, but a draw in the rules of Magic states that no player wins. This is closer to a 'push' in gambling than a tie in certain sports.

Now we have successfully made it back to the beginning. A rhetorical question: Why do scrubs play Magic? Why would people, who don't play to win, play a game that was made to be played to win. Sound silly? I think so as well. They might say that they play for fun. Maslow might say they play for self-actualization. I am still looking for the answer. I can tell you this though: they are doing it wrong. They might be enjoying it, but that isn't the point. Shocking and dramatic documentaries aren't necessarily fun. They weren't designed to be. They make you feel something else. If you want to laugh watch Anchorman.

The point I am making, is that scrubs really don't have a place in Magic. I am not saying quit Magic, I am saying quit being a scrub. Learn to play. Play to win. Have fun doing it. What does all of this have to do with counterspells and the social stygma against playing Blue in EDH? Stay tuned to the exciting conclusion in Part 2!