Arcane Denial is Garbage, and Here's Why
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 05. 2024
- #mtg #thetrinketmage #trinketmage
Patreon:
/ thetrinketmage
Let me know if this changed your mind about arcane denial!
Channel Art by Beevuu:
Insta: / beevuu
Twitter: / beevuu
All the Music is by Chillpeach:
/ @chillpeach - Hry
I see a lot of comments talking about the situation where you count the 2 extra players as +0. Saying -1 and -1 is then worse than +0 and +1 because you are "behind" less players. I feel like that ignores the fact that counterspell brings an opponent -1 card. So as an example would you say mind twist is bad? let's say X is 5. That is -1 for you and -5 for the player you mind twist. Is there no value in bringing an opponent down in cards? Mind twist will bring you down in cards compared to 2 of your opponents. And if you have ever been hit with a mind twist you know the power of loss of cards and I feel like people are not valuing that for the counterspell side. Curious what you think.
Would you run a counterspell where both players draw ONE card? To me, this would be kind of bonkers? If I made everyone discard 1 card, everyone would be at -1. If I played this made up counterspell, everyone would be at +0. . but I would've removed the best threat in their hand and then back to square one, instead of the worst card in 3 players hands with discard. Its basically the same situation in terms of raw card advantage, but what cards were exchanged matters.
Arcane Denial is not garbage, but it does have a drawback, giving 1 player an extra card. You are 2 for 1ing yourself. . but you're also removing a 'win the game' card. And the draw being delayed to next upkeep is EXTREMELY relevant, they can't use those cards for a bit.
bringing opponents down in cards is significant, but if you’re thinking in terms of raw card advantage the calculations are all relative to you. with counterspell, the -1 on an opponent evens out because you’re also -1, and then you being -1 makes the other opponents both +1 relative to you.
with mind twist, the card advantage would still be positive for you in the case of x=5. your opponents would be -4, +1, and +1 relative to you, which would still be total +2 advantage in your favor.
that being said, i don’t think raw card advantage calculations matter as much in commander because of its multiplayer nature. x=5 mind twist could really bone one person and be positive in advantage, but if you use it on the wrong person then it’d be pointless (a factor which isn’t present in 1v1). similarly, i don’t think either counterspell or arcane denial is bad, they’re both just different options. in either case countering a valuable spell is worth, it just depends how you prefer the specific card advantage to go. arcane denial can be worse if the opponent who’s spell your countering is the main threat and you really don’t want them to get any cards, but it can also be better if you’re the threat and care about it replacing itself so you can potentially draw into more options and be at no disadvantage vs the other two players. i prefer denial because it cantripping feels nice, but they’re effectively sidegrades imo.
I will refer you to my comment further down the comment section for an elaborate explanation of my mathematical take on this.
"Saying -1 and -1... ignores the fact that counterspell brings an opponent -1 card." So you think saying the sky is blue ignores the fact that the sky is blue? You can view it several different ways but definitely not the way you did in the video (-1,-1,+1,+1 vs. 0,+1,+1,+1). That makes no sense at all. Where do the +1 come from? The other players didn't draw any cards. If you count the card you (and the countered player) lost as +1 for the other players and as -1 for you then you are counting it twice.
Scenario 1: Player A uses Counterspell against player B. Player A is afterwards on par with Player B. He is one card behind compared to Player C and compared to Player D. So on par vs. one opponent and one behind vs. two opponents.
Scenario 2: Player are uses Arcane Denial against player B. Player A is afterwards one card behind compared to Player B. He is on par compared to Player C and compared to Player D. So on par vs. two opponents and one behind vs. one opponent.
Therefore Scenario B is superior to scenario 1 for player A.
First of all, no one plays mind twist in either or casual or CEDH because, to answer your question, yes, it’s bad. Second, comparing a counterspell to a mind twist for FIVE is a wild comparison.
Smooth Brain: arcane denial counters opponents’ spells
Big Brain: arcane denial counters your own spells to draw three cards.
"Lightning bolt, to my own face, arcane denial" lmao
I actually won a game like that lmao. Had to dig for Cyclonic Rift and I found it.
@NoTengoIdeaGuey I have a new play for my Niv-Mizzet now
It's true, this is a surprising thing you can do, but it does give a niche case that helps Arcane Denial a little bit
I really want to do this with an uncounterable spell
Arcane denial costs 2 mana and replaces itself, that’s really the only reason it’s played. In most tables having someone draw 2 isn’t going to win the game. Especially if you use Arcane Denial to stop a game winning spell.
It's also a easy way to end a counter war over a thousas oracle trigger
If you know they're out of counter magic just use your arcane denial to make them draw their no card
It says may draw
Yeah exactly, many decks are greedy and rely on 1-3 cards to steal the game, you can have them draw 30 but they don't play a resource management style so it doesn't matter
that is exactly why arcane denial is good in edh. counterspells are so much worse in edh because you counter something from ONE player and are down a card that way, while helping the other players because you dealt with a potential problem for them too. when you arcane denial them, you atleast get your card back and the card upside for the opponent is not that bad if your playing casual because you can use it for politics and not every card can be a missinh combo piece
obviously there are better counterspells but in casual its basically the best budget one for decks that splash blue
I still play it to this day because:
- there aren't many 2 mana "hard" counterspells (that don't have additional costs)
- RKF is an amazing artist
- sometimes giving your opponent 2 cards makes them feel less bad
It's by no means great but it's better than most. 👍
Arcane Denial is actually great in multi-player (trash in 1v1).
Counterspell has you and one opponent each go down 1 card, meaning each other opponent has 1 more card than you. (probably 2 other players)
Arcane Denial does put one opponent up 1 card, but it does so letting you be at parity with the other two players.
The table is 2 cards ahead of you with Counterspell.
The table is 1 card ahead of you with Arcane Denial.
Thank you. I’ve found an ally.
Bad logic, bad player
Counter point 4d chess move: After countering a potentially game ending spell with Arcane Denial, you and the countered player have 3 new cards to deal with problems the other two players may produce and with the opponent drawing two, they can't be too salty that you've stopped a powerful piece as there are two other players with other problem pieces.
Can't be salty? LOL
I don't really agree with the mathematics you propose in terms of CA. I agree with the -1, -1 and the 0, +1 for 1v1. But in 1v1v1v1, you can't say that the threat you remove from your opponent should be counted positively by your other opponents. So we're in a case of -1 for you -1, 0, 0 for the others, respectively 0 for you and 0, 0, +1 for the others. And -1 for you and -1, 0, 0 is worse than 0, 0, 0, +1.
In fact it's the same reason why you can't count the theoretical "+1" of removing a menance, it's because you don't count it for yourself (counterspell it's a -1, not a -1 - (-1) = 0 for you) if you know what I mean.
What's more, if you want to count this theoretical +1, you also have to count the +1 from the fact that you yourself lost a card, which means that the figures are -1, -1, +2, +2 (so -1 for 3) and 0, +1, +1, +1 (so 0 for 3
That doesn't mean that Arcane denial is better, and it's true that there's still the question of tempo, but the CA calculation seems rather incorrect to me.
Why is that worse? In the 0, 0, 0, +1 example your opponent has benefited. Isn’t the goal of removal to do the opposite. You will now have more things to deal with rather than less threats
you can't say that its +3 for your opponents though. that's just flatly incorrect
@@thetrinketmage Because in the end, in -1, -1, 0, 0, you have two players with one more card than you, and one player with as many cards as you. In 0, 0, 0, + 1, you have just one player with one more card than you.
And yes, you can count like that by calculating the minus menance, but for the two players not involved, you also have a minus threat on hand, depending on your system you have to take that into account too. So you're in a situation of -1, -1, + 2, +2, or 0, +1, +1, +1.
Then you can argue that having two players with 3 more cards than you and one with the same number is better than having all your opponents with one more card than you. But it's not self-evident.
I have to disagree here. You’re saying the other two opponents get card advantage in the interaction. This is not true. Denial replaces itself. This means the only player that gets card advantage is the owner of the target. Everyone has net +0 cards while the owner of the target is net +1. It’s not any better or worse than counterspell in my opinion. Also, counterspell isn’t played in CEDH, so that argument is invalid. There are too many free counterspells in CEDH. No one runs counterspell or arcane denial.
Hi, Arcane Denial lover and casual degenerate blue player here.
Good vid! You were really thorough. For me at the end of the day though, there just isn’t that many non-conditional 2 mana counterspells that hit all card types on the stack. After Counterspell, the list of accessible ones drops off FAST, and the different between 2 mana and 3 mana is substantially.
I’m also found your card advantage equation in the multiplier situation to be really muddled? It makes all sorts of generalizations about how the card draw will be used, which just doesn’t match play experiences in a game as swingy as casual EDH.
You’re absolutely right about Arcane Denial not being a GOAT Counterspell in 1v1, but in casual EDH with good threat assessment it’s unlikely 2 cards drawn with Arcane Denial is better then the spell countered.
Agreed I tend to use a lot of the doc who blue suspend cards as removal for that reason, one mana to suspend target permanent with 4 time counter can really mess with Someones combo plus gives you four more turns so figure something out. Wanna make someone steam? 2 blue to turn target creature face down it’s a 2/2 cyberman. I absolutely love that card even more since it’s 2 blue
if you're worrying about the two cards you give one opponent, than you didn't counter an important-enough spell
100%
why not play 4 mana counterspells then? who cares about 2 extra mana right?
Other of his vids are good, this one is a big bad miss
Or you could just, I don't know, counter the important spell and NOT have them draw anything.
@@JammonstraldSome decks can't afford the UU
I think the best way to describe Arcane Denial to someone is to say that it's not really a counterspell. It polymorphs any spell into a slow Divination, and draws you a card. You're cycling your card for 2 and your opponent's Consecrated Sphinx just so happens to have become a worse Divination at the same time. Your opponent is still advancing their gameplan, just not in the intended way.
Consider Beast Within; it removes your opponent's threat, replaces it with a creature that is often still worth a card, and draws you no card. Beast Within is CA -1. People still play it in commander because it's a flexible disruption spell, and it doesn't make it into CEDH lists because it costs three mana and targets one permanent that one opponent controls.
There's a lot of decks where you shouldn't run Arcane Denial, or Ghost Quarter, or Path to Exile, because resource grind is a real thing.
Thank you. Putting one man up a card is better than you down a card. That's just multi-player games
So you're saying CEDH needs "Questing Beast Within" for a single Green mana? (I think what it does is self explanatory)
@@williamdrum9899 Nah, they need Torpor Orb Within though. Can't really run cards that don't interact with Thassa's when all three of your opponents are gonna try to win that way 90% of the time
Additional players definitely does change the equation.
Adding up all of the cards gained or lost is the wrong way to look at it. You need to view the problem as one of how much equity you have relative to the other players, where this equity is measure in cards, or in other words, what percentage of all the cards belong to you.
For example, lets say you are in a 4 player game where every player has 10 cards total in hand/play. In this scenario your equity is 10/40 = 0.25 or a quarter of the cards. If you cast a counterspell then your equity becomes 9/38 = 0.237, a small loss of equity. If you cast arcane denial, your equity becomes 10/41 = 0.244, which has you losing about half as much equity as you lost casting the counterspell.
Counterspells become weaker the more players are involved, but arcane denial mitigates this weakness as players increase. The breakeven point where counterspell and arcane denial are about equal is at 3 players where they have relative equities of 0.321 for counterspell and 0.322 for arcane denial assuming 10 initial cards per player. Any additional players past 3 definitiely favours arcane denial.
A friend of mine mentioned an even simpler way to think about is, which is that you give an average of 1 card per opponent in 3-player games and 2/3 of a card per opponent in a 4-player game.
With this way of thinking, we see cards given per opponent decreases with each additional player and would eventually approach zero
This, 100%
@Trinket Mage This math checks out. Would you agree with this??
Unconditional counterspell for 2 mana? Perfect! Not many cards that do that on a budget
Deprive! 2 cmc, many lands have good etb effects, and later on that cost is moot anyway. Underplayed for sure in EDH.
It is conditional; the condition is that you let the spell's controller draw 2 cards.
@@Jammonstrald To be fair, typically what conditional means concerning counterspells is that the countering itself only happens if certain conditions are met.
For example, counterspell is unconditional, it counters any spell without restriction, whereas Mana Leak is conditional as it only counters the spell if they can't pay the 3.
Delay for example, is an unconditional counter in this sense, despite having has an effect after countering said spell. Arcane Denail falls into this boat also.
@@Usernameneverseen well if that's the case, then there are lots of two-mana unconditional counterspells, and Arcane Denial being three dollars is on the more expensive side.
(edit) I just looked it up. The only two mana hard counterspells that are more expensive than Arcane Denial are Pact, Mana Drain, and Tibalt's trickery. All the others are cheaper than Arcane Denial.
@@Jammonstrald I agree, I like Deprive myself ^^
You are missing the point. This is not a lesson in pure mathematics, it is a lesson in game theory. You should be asking which card puts me in a better position to win the game.
Arcane Denial better maintains your position at a table as #1.
A game of magic is not won by card advantage, it is won by winning and there is no prize for second place.
MATH
Counterspell is -1 card for you and -1 for the player you are stopping. The other two players are unaffected, at 0 and 0.
-1 vs -1 +0+0. You are on even footing with one player and disadvantaged vs two.
Arcane denial is 0 for you and +1 for the player you are stopping. The other two are still unaffected, at 0 and 0.
0 vs +1 +0 +0, You are on even footing with two players and disadvantaged vs one.
REASONING
With counterspell, you are DOWN a card vs two of your opponents who are also both threatening to beat you. Your position as the player who wants to be #1 is affected.
With Arcane Denial, while you are giving the player you targeted card advantage, you are personally not weakening your position. you are net zero against the other two players on the field, potentially even drawing closer to your win conditions. Also, theoretically, you used Arcane Denial on your opponents “best spell”. The replacement cards are almost certainly less important than the one you took away.
It all depends on whether the spell Arcane Denial countered would have been just as bad for the other two opponents or if they wouldn't care much about it. If they would be hurt by the countered spell just as much as player who countered it then the video's math makes a bit more sense. But which is true will vary a lot between situations. It's important when using point removal just how much using it helps other opponents compared with how much it helps you.
Honey wake up, Trinket Mage video just dropped
Arcane denial is easily one of the best counterspells in the format when you factor in pip requirement, cost($), cmc, and the fact it hits creatures and non creatures. Letting your opponent draw 2 seems bad at first, but consider the “expected value” of the 2 cards they are drawing versus what is being countered. Decks are primarily made of lands/ramp/setup, so countering a payoff means you are usually coming out ahead (not even factoring in mana tempo, them getting the cards on another turn, etc). If you go deeper than surface level of “three-for-two” card disadvantage and factor in the average quality of what is actually being countered versus drawn to replace it, you’ll see how valuable of a counter it really is. Sure counter spell is better (assuming pips aren’t an issue), but these are the only 2 2-mana counters that hit everything. Free counters are expensive and have drawbacks and 1-cmc counters almost never hit creatures so unless you want to cast cancel (and we all know that card is bad), this is the second best you got for cheap blanket counterspells.
Even mana drain is going out of favor because holding up 2 blue pips is a lot. But the argument works both ways. I can draw into gas myself if I'm drawing a card to replace arcane denial. I'm going down 1 less card to the table because I have to worry about 3 others.
But I'd gladly cut arcane denial for free interaction, mana is tight even with fast mana lol.
@@price69420 yeah the real selling point of arcane denial is how budget friendly it is at $1. Pretty much every great counter is >$20 except offer you can’t refuse and maybe pact of negation (which has fallen off too). Also most free counters come with a non creature restriction. It is definitely a card who’s textbox is misleading from its actual impact in 100 card singleton multiplayer
Arcane denial makes more sense when you think about it as a generous gift, except instead of turning a jin gitaxias into a hill giant, it turns it into an 8 mana divination. You use a 2 mana cantrip to polymorph 5+ mana (usually) into an expensive delayed divination. The reason it is better than divine gambit is because your opponent still has to spend mana on their bomb instead of cheating it into play, which is huge. Other counterspells can be better, but it is still actively good.
but then again: a counterspell polymorphed a 5+ mana spell into "do nothing".
@@happybrain2674 But a counterspell also doesn't cantrip.
That’s actually a good way to think about it.
The reason why math works out differently in a multiplayer format is because +2 is not always +2
In a 1v1 when an opponent draws 2 they will always use those 2 cards against you. In a multiplayer format an opponent may use their cards against other players, living you with need to counter onle threats that are dangerous for you in particular. Yes, AD is worse that counterspell, but in commander it's not an unplayable garbage as some people picture it to be, it climbs to a spot near of counterspell
Bro made a 24 minute video to be wrong. Love the content though
hold on hear me out...
This video was 1 minute old at the time that you wrote this. You said this without watching the video. You're a silly guy
@@johncogdill6951 they can argue TM is wrong based of the main argument of the video-ARCANE DENIAL BAD. AD has been proven to be a good card over classic Counterspell over the years. No need for a 24 min video to try to convince me otherwise. Agreed with the OP tho. Love the content regardless.
Hey man that's just like.... Your opinion, okay?
You're wrong. Arcane denial is garbage.
Now I've convinced myself to play arcane denial in every blue deck
To anyone who thinks Arcane Denial is bad because of the card disadvantage, I have a hypothetical for you. You're playing a game of commander and you have the game-winning card in your hand-a Craterhoof, the final combo piece, whatever. Then the rules committee breaks a window, crawls into your house, and officially gives you the option to discard that card and draw two cards in its place. Do you take it? Of course not. You'd never take that trade. The game-winning play is always a better bet than two random topdecks. If the Arcane Denial player's threat assessment is good, the card disadvantage just doesn't matter. It's a great card.
I don't get the logic behind this argument because that would mean literally any counterspell is more than playable. A fucking 10 mana counterspell is worth it. But the issue is that unless you are super familiar with your opponent's deck and win cons, you have no idea if you just countered their only power play or just let them draw into something worse. It's also ignoring the use cases for counterspells where you use them to protect yourself or your board, which is at least 50% of the time I'd say. Obviously any interaction that takes out your opponent's game winning combo is good, duh.
@@underscore_5450
Come on, don’t be obtuse. The opportunity cost of leaving up ten mana every turn is very different than that of leaving up two mana and you know it. That’s not the same thing at all.
Obviously the hypothetical isn’t a response to every possible objection to the card - it’s using a reasonable, common best case scenario as an intuition pump for whether or not the card disadvantage is a dealbreaker on its face, and it’s not. And with regard to the example of protecting your board rather than countering a wincon, using the same hypothetical here makes the answer pretty obvious. If I’m using spot removal on a creature or I’m casting a wrath, it’s because I’ve decided that specific creature or boardstate is a big problem for my gameplan. If I were given the choice of discarding the removal I’m about to play in favor of two random cards, I would never take it except in very rare, desperate circumstances in which I’m playing to my outs-but when you’re playing to your outs, a board wipe or removal spell is usually what you’re hoping to draw anyway! I just don’t think there are many scenarios in which a casual deck that needs two-mana one-blue-pip counterspells is going to be worse off for running Arcane Denial.
@@rf9914 the logic applies to bad counterspells that nobody runs. 3, 4 mana counterspells are imo better than this because giving your opponent 2 cards is more bad than paying 1-2 extra mana.
@@underscore_5450The draw is delayed
Two wincons next turn is a looot slower than one wincon now
@@Cerebrosum Unless the opponent deck have a way to win on another person's turn, it is very safe to say that when one player pops off, someone else is planning to do so as well and the turn rarely goes back to the poor sod who got countered.
Also, it is good pitch fodder.
Ok after watching the video, I want to address some of the points. (Second point will be its own comment)
1. Arcane Denial is bad in cEDH for 2 reasons:
The first is that 2 mana Counterspells in general are bad in cEDH. OG Counterspell sees no play and good spells like Dovin's Veto are waning in popularity. Most efficient counterspells cost 1 or free and even those cards are fighting each other for their spot in the counterspell package. Cards like Mana Drain offer too much advantage that it does warrant includes.
The second reason is that the threat density of cEDH is much more different than in regular Commander. You can counter the biggest threat and the 2 cards they draw is a dud. In cEDH, 2 free cards is so much different especially for the more resilient cEDH decks.
Where's the second point?
@@feliperodrigues5437 It's its own comment.
TLDR: You can make a math formula that shows that Arcane Denial is card advantage i you treat all your opponents as a collective opponent
I also commented this. Free counterspells are the clear choice for CEDH.
Arcane Denial changes what would be a game winning spell into a Divination. Something nobody usually plays in edh. And it doesn't cost you a card. Counterspell turns it into nothing but it does cost you a card (and it costs UU instead of 1U and feels 'saltier' to the other player).
I disagree with you on a couple points here. Leaving up UU for counterspell isn't hard because I can't find two blue mana. It's hard because I generally want to cast something in addition to leaving up counterspell mana. If I want to cast a blue spell and leave up Counterspell that means I need at least UUU or UUUU.
As for your math on card advantage, you say using counterspell leaves the two involved players at -1 AND the two uninvolved players at +1. This is incorrect. The situation can either be viewed as the two involved players being at -1 OR the two uninvolved players being at +1 but not both. The correct models for card advantage in a 4-player game look like this:
Counterspell player: +0
Player who gets counterspelled: +0
Uninvolved player A: +1
Uninvolved player B: +1
Arcane Denial player: +0
Player who gets Arcane Denied: +1
Uninvolved player A: +0
Uninvolved player B: +0
Counterspell leaves two opponents at +1 while Arcane denial only leaves one. This is why many people (including myself) prefer arcane denial in 4-player games.
I hope that all made sense.
The colored pips are important, if you want to cast a spell with two blue pips and also hold mana for a Counterspell you need your mana sources to produce 4 blue in total, that could be hard for a 3 color deck on the first 6 turns.
You can run both AD a CS in a deck, AD is cheapen that Mana Drain and can counter creatures unlike Negate.
My assumptionfor why it's so overplayed, before fully watching the video, is budgetary restrictions.
Some counter spells are pricy.
True this is why we don’t see as much mana drain but denial is usually like $5
At the end of day it is price. Free counterspells are far superior. However, it is not a worse card than “Counterspell” and it certainly isn’t garbage.
Unconditional counterspell for 2 mana that doesnt cost double blue? Its not even close to being a bad card, and is good in the majority of decks that can run it
The problem with the math in this video is that your taking the total sum of your opponents cards drawn from the exchange, in that context your right that it is bad and that’s why it’s bad in 1v1, however the mistake there is that your opponents are also all against each other when you cast an arcane denial one of them draws two cards but the other two get nothing, relative to counterspell you’ve given the table an average of 2/3 cards, but you also drew a card yourself giving you 1 card, another way of looking at it is relative to where you were before casting counterspell you and one opponent have each gone down 1 card, leaving the other two opponents at +1 cards relative to you, whereas even though the total table has more cards in the arcane denial example, you are left at parity with the two uninvolved opponents and the player you countered has +1 cards against you, so would you rather have one opponent be +1 against you from arcane denial or have two opponents be +1 against you from counterspell
All that said, love your content, math in this video is just judging based off the wrong criteria because a card in your hand is more valuable than a card in an opponent’s had since your card will always be used to help you while a card in an opponents hand will only help 1/3 of your opposition
Yeah you are doing the math correctly! I believe arcane denial is a sort of test to see how long someone has been playing magic and did they start with commander.
@@pinkstarburst99 just curious what how does it come off as a test?
@@pinkstarburst99just curious, what about it makes it a test?
Rampant growth does not put you down a card, because you “draw” a land and put it into play. A land is still a card. Rampant growth replaces itself. It’s card neutral.
Ah see this is the trouble I see in commander.
You are absolutely correct.
The card advantage to board presence conundrum. Is board presence a form of card advantage? Sometimes yeah absolutely. And I think commander players lack the knowledge on how deep the card advantage thesis goes.
I fear that EDH players will never understand the importance of card draw. Most of them don't even think removal is important so I'm not holding out hope.
Evacuation in the new pirate tribal can knock the finality counters of pirates letting you cast them again instead of lose them. Damnation ends up exiling your board with finality counters on it.
Clearly you have never arcane denialed your own spell
Probably the best use for it tbh
@underscore_5450 no it's not. You have to spend 3 mana minimum to play a blue Cathartic Reunion.
I've been saying this for years, they just don't listen. The only deck I play it in has a ton of cards like. Narrset, spirit of the labyrinth, alms collector, chains, sapphire medal, and helm of awakening. Any deck that isn't built to abuse it shouldn't try to run it.
Why do we not calculate the card advantage relative to yourself? So if I cast arcane denial on your spell:
1. I stay even with the other players (yes I’m assuming they don’t gain card advantage from me countering your spell, tho it works in every other way explained in the video as well)
2. I go down one card compared to you
3. so the overall card advantage of myself in contrast to the individual opponents is only a -1
With counter spell:
1. I go down a card relative to the both other players, so I’m -2
2. you and i are even on cards
3. resulting in me being down -2 cards relative to my opponents
Does that make sense or is there a reason why this should not be looked at in this way?
How is rampant growth card disadvantage? You spend a card you get a card. Seems like a +0, not a -1. It just has the added benifit of putting it into play.
It's card disadvantage because you started the turn with 5 cards in hand and ended up with 4. You should think of rampant growth as a land that you must play for 2 mana instead of using your land drop, not an explore.
By your logic storm crow is not card disadvantage either, you spend a card and get a card in play.
Anything you play from your hand is card disadvantage. You played rampant growth and got a land, just like playing a land from your hand. You're down a card in hand therefore: card disadvantage.
It’s just card disadvantage in pure number of cards in hand. Mana crypt is card disadvantage but still a good card because of what you get in terms of mana
@@thetrinketmage is Explore considered card disadvantage? Or at least the same +0 that ponder is?
@@Trefalgr explore is a cantrip, its a -0 like ponder.
I disagree with the point made at 8:40, I think the math actually does change, because the resources your opponents have in commander don’t always keep you further away from winning, think a stax piece or creature that doesn’t affect you enough to be a problem for you (but still might be a good card against your opponents) but on the other hand every card you draw will get you closer to winning, even if it’s a dead draw, it’s better to draw it so you can get a better card sooner.
So, in my opinion, a +0 for you and a +3 for your opponents is better than a -1 for you and a +2 for your opponents, due to the multiplayer nature of the format.
Normal Counterspell math should be (-1, -1, 0, 0) or (0, 0, +1, +1), but it can't be (-1, -1, +1, +1). The opponents are only "up" a card because you and one opponent are down a card. Their actual cards in hand haven't changed, it's just that two other players have one fewer. I think that (-1, -1, 0, 0) works best here. The tempo problem can be considered here as well, as the mana resources spent by the two players would also factor into the equation, but that will be the case for both Arcane Denial and any other similarly mana-costed counterspell. In Arcane Denial's case, the math should be (0, +1, 0, 0). Again, two players are left entirely unaffected. Their hand size hasn't changed, and if we account for the loss in resources of the first two players, we shouldn't double count that as also being a gain for the unaffected players. In Arcane Denial's case, I'm only behind one opponent, whereas I'm behind two opponents in Counterspell's case.
Also, the reason Arcane Denial doesn't see play in cEDH is likely due to its mana cost, rather than its effect. Regular counterspell sees basically no play as well, and mana drain as the (arguably?) best two mana counterspell sees fringe play.
If you look at old cEDH decks from years ago none of them are playing arcane denial. Even before offer, before fierce. They played delay and people still use negate. Also low color decks still commonly play normal counterspell like urza or jhoira. And I addressed the +0 or +1 for the other two players in the video the math still doesn’t add up
@@thetrinketmage All cards not played in cEDH are bad? that doesn't add up to me
@@Teedo_ no, I specifically say in the video that cedh is not a great argument and then move onto focusing in casual edh
@@thetrinketmage My error then, sorry. Maybe I will start tracking arcane denial in my stats to see it affecting winrate.
The error im your calculation was misunderstanding why the two other players were +1. They were +1 as you have gone -1. The correct math doesnt include the player in the math. In counter spell case you at net -2 as you go down 1 card relative to two opponnents. In denials case its net -1 as you down 1 card relative to only the person you countered
With this flawed kind of logic you should never play any interaction ever because you go down a card. Your other opponents don't go up a card when playing Arcane Denial, you and them are net zero and the player whose spell got countered is up 1 card but you countered something important that was (potentially) game winning.
Yeah, originally, for 1v1 60-card formats Arcane Denial was basically a tempo-card. Imagine playing Unsummon on your opponents 2-drop: They still have the card and you're down a card. -> Card disadvantage. But you get tempo advantage. These kinds of tempo-cards saw plenty of play over the years. Arcane Denial basically does the same. You stop a threat and draw into the next card. Your opponent loses the threat (tempo, if you countered their 4-drop) but they get 2 more cards. So they're up 1 card. Just like unsommon.
But in EDH the card changes signifitcantly. It's not really about tempo anymore. And EDH being mostly a 4-player game, suddenly arcane denial is one of the few counterspells that don't produce card disadvantage relative to two other players: At four players you're not strictly "down a card" as you would be, if you had used, say, negate. You simply stopped a game-ending threat with a 2-mana cantrip.
So in my mind, since it's a 2 mana-spell and there are a bunch of free and 1-mana counterspells, this card is probably best in "big-mana"-decks that want to keep the card advantage rolling, so simic+.
Politics-wise, it's one of the nicest counterspells to get your stuff countered by. Sure, Mana Drain is more powerful, but now you're the arch enemy. Arcane Denial someone's attempt at winning the game? Sure it didn't happen but they get two new cards, the other two are happy that the game is still going and they didn't have to do anything about it, and you got your card back.
Are you missing the point on purpose? He says several times that interaction is good because it leaves you and your opponent on equal footing and gives you the opportunity to take over the tempo of the game. You traded one card in hand for one card either in their hand or on the board. That's a fair trade and since you just wiped a potential threat, you now have the opportunity to advance your own threats.
If you want to tryhard there's the strategy of bluffing not having removal so your opponents deal with threats while you save your removal spells for later. with Arcane Denial ultimately it's about who's getting the card (dis)advantage and it's usually better to keep your opponents options lower than break even on a counterspell.
@@ender_lord1202Bluffing that you don't have removal can be a very risky game to play, and ends up being a very un-fun game of chicken unless you're the last to get priority since it's always possible whomever is after you has no response, in which case you just let the problem card resolve for the sake of pulling one over on everyone.
This makes you come across as a tool, to speak bluntly.
@@Carwinley It's mainly used in CEDH, AKA taking any inch you can get. Who would've guessed that a CEDH technique was unfun. There's also a technique to set another round of priority by tapping a single land.
I don't know why anyone would play arcade denial when Memory Lapse exists
Because memory lapse is bad?
@@luken4133 L
Memory Lapse is better in fair interactions, arcane denial is better against broken, high mana effects
One thing not discussed intensively is the idea of card velocity. Using a counterspell means that my next draw won't be until my draw step. Arcane denial keeps the deck moving, this is especially important in super tight decks at the 4+ color range which are likely to be more tuned.
First bullshit opinion on this channel, but I still appreciate the effort.
1) 2 blue mana is difficult for a 3 colour deck. It is a fact. In 2 colours u still can struggle, when u play Moon effects. So, ur point is groundless there. And if u compare AD with other 2-mana counters (budget), turns out it way better, then all of them, excluding CS.
2) In CEDH even swansong is fallen out of favor, because the competition there is insane. Also, Force of Will is actually bad in Casual, and it is the ultimate staple in cEDH. cEDH is entirely another format, and should not be addressed, when u evaluate cards 4 Edh.
Doubling season, 4 example has no home in cEDH. So, is it now bad?
3) Games in EDH are not only about value, and trades. In many situations counter some OP finisher is priceless.
His math is entirely wrong in this video. For counterspell, you would be at you'd have two opponents with more cards than you. With arcane denial, you'd only have one opponent with an advantage over you. This video was a rough watch for me.
So in the counterspell argument you are 100% ignoring the fact that one opponent is down a card. If I caused a player to discard a card that means nothing in terms of card advantage? Bringing a player to -1 card is relevant to the game and I feel like a lot of people are just assuming there is no value.
First BS opinion? That’s generous. I feel like I addressed the cEDH point in the video? Did I not specifically say “just cause a card is not good in cEDH does not mean it’s bad in causal”? I’ll say if your 2 color deck is struggling with UU that is for sure a problem with your mana base
@@thetrinketmage now ur just simplify my point.
Counterspell is just superior. And arcane denial gives card back to u, and that is very important. Many decks archtypes struggle without enough card draw, so including arcane denial is a valid option.
I played mtg about 10 years, mostly modern, and Im confident to say, that in EDH card count is not THAT crucial. To prevent opponent from casting BIG thing, to prevent him from winning can worth giving someone +1 card.
Also, i want to underline again, that argument about manabase and dobleblue problem for a 3 color deck is very solid. If blue in your deck is supplemental, having 2 untapped all the time is a big issue.
@@thetrinketmage The thing is that you will need UU plus U for the other spells you also want to cast, plus maybe you want to tap your U/W land for W, you end up with a very greddy mana base that will cry against a blood moon.
10:40
I think you're wrong:
As you said, the other 2 players don't matter in the equation. They don't go +1 in the equation, why would they? If their opponent loses a card, that opponent goes -1, but the other players don't gain anything. They are up a card, but the way you said it is that both the opponent loses a card and the other players gain a card, implying that the other players are now +2 in terms of card advantage, which is not true
Counterspell: You and one opponent are now -1, giving the other two players the advantage
Arcane Denial: One opponent is +1, everyone else is at +0, so only one opponent has the advantage.
Would you rather have 2 or 1 opponents have the advantage?
Also Wash Away, Disallow and some of the other cards you mentioned are hilariously bad in commander, the card quality even on a budget is just way too high for those to even be close to playable. Paying 3 for a Counterspell is way too much, and for Wash Away you're going to counter Commanders only about 10% of the time
Most decks don't want more than 5 Counterspells (and that is already on the high end) anyways, so why would you play the tenth best?
People who like cards like Disalllow or other 3 mana Counterspell I think are biased because of the times where the slight upside has been relevant in the game, not thinking about the majority of the time where the card is literally just 3 mana Counterspell
How often do you counter an ability with Disallow? Probably not that often.
But how often does costing a whole mana less matter? Very often.
There is one thing i will agree with tough, EDHrec is definitely inflating the number of bad and unsynergistic cards people put into their decks, as well as making people not play enough interaction
In your scenario where you say only one opponent has advantage you ignore the value of counterspell giving a play disadvantage which is also powerful. And the disadvantage is massive too cause you countered a relevant spell and they got nothing in return. You bring down an opponent a lot and that has value
I think the reason Arcane Denial is popular is not that it's strong, but because it's relatively cheap and flexible. Not a lot of counterspells counter anything and still retain the cheap mana cost of 2. It's a bad counterspell but it is pretty easy to splash in without thinking.
That’s true! And there are a lot of cards like that!
I think the evaluation of Arcane Denial is a lot less straightforward than trinketmage makes it seem in this video; I don't think you can just arithmetic your way to judging a card's quality. Counterspells at 2 mana that replace themselves are really rare, the only other one I can think of is Remand? It's a unique effect with a unique downside and contrary to what he says in the video, it's likely to be tempo positive, it's a 2 mana counterspell after all. It's cute that he lists all the alternatives that he likes, but none of them draw you a card. The question is, do you gain more win percentage drawing your one card than you lose letting one of your three opponents draw 2 cards? It's unclear to me.
Even more important than the above argument, though, is that, at least for me, casting Arcane Denial feels better. Drawing that card feels good. Games you play where your cards draw you cards feel better than ones where they don't.
A few more:
If you're running counters mainly as a method of protection...
Turn Aside gets it done for just U, and Meddle 2-for-1s your opponent for 1U.
But it won't protect your creatures from a boardwipe or an edict, and only protects one of them, won't protect them from chupacabras either.
I remember playing an oops all bad cards in on arena brawl my opponent cast his commander and I cast divine gambit on my turn his hand had no permanents. He conceded out of spite.
Arcane denial is counterspell plus the following effect: you draw one, one opponent draws two. The effect gives the table 3 cards, you get 1. The average number of cards gained by each player is 3/4, and you gained 1, which is more than average. Therefore arcane denial is better than counterspell in 4 or more players, at least from the perspective of maximising ones relative card advantage.
Crucially, *your opponents cards aren't worth as much as your own* - each one of your opponents cards is actually only worth 1/3 of your own card, since everyone drawing 1 card is net neutral for all players. Alternatively you can think of each one of your opponents cards as having to "split its effect" over the three opponents, so on average you only face the brunt of 1/3 of the card (this is shaky for big value cards like wipes but roll with it), but you get the full advantage of each of your own cards.
As for your "more players don't matter logic", would you rather be in joint last with one other person, or with two others? And since adding more players doesn't matter let's say there are a billion of them. You want to be joint last with one other player, or with 999,999,998 of them?
The flaw in your logic:
The math is incorrect.
-The only opponent who goes up in card count is the player being countered with AD. The other two opponents either get the same draw they were going to get OR you countered the player before your turn, and now you're drawing two cards as well.
The color pips.
-It is objectively easier to use a counterspell that doesn't require two colored pips over one that does. Calling into question a decks manabase literally ignores the natural and potential flow of a game.
The tempo hit to mana.
-When a counterspell is used correctly, then the cards drawn by your opponent don't matter. You either defended your board/game actions or stopped a big game play. In either case, your opponent shouldn't have the mana to use the two cards until their next turn anyway (which ideally should be after yours or they never make it to that turn).
Reloading the your hand.
- The biggest issue with counterspells in commander is that the player loses out on possible interaction for future turns. This is atleast mitigated by the future draw. This plays into the thought process "did they draw more interaction".
AD is also more flexible than counterspell in gameplay.
-There are a host of cards that trigger . Cards like Notion Thief, Consecrated Sphinx, Narset Parter of Veils, Spirit of the Labyrinth, Maralen of the Morning Song, and Alms Collector exist to either remove the downside or benefit from it.
In short, AD isn't garbage
I typically play control and I am over the moon when someone casts Arcane Denial on me. My whole list is about card advantage. Not only are you giving me draw for free, but you're spending your own mana to do it? It must be Christmas.
Oh yea once you play a control deck you feel how nice those 2 cards are
I respect you for putting up a video thats such a hot take.
However, I'm going to disagree and here's why.
1. The argument that it doesn't see play in cedh. This is actually a great point. However, literal counterspell doesn't even see play as far as I know. Even Mana drain is way less popular than other counters like mental mystep, and obviously mana drain is good. Just the meta of cedh doesn't have much room for counterspells that you have to pay 2+ mana for.
About the card advantage point, I simply don't see how you arrive at the conclusion that your extra opponents don't matter. I watched the math section and I just don't understand what you're saying. Maybe I'm missing something but the point isn't that arcane denial is more card advantage than counterspell. It's that YOU break even on cards in your hand. And an opponent drawing cards can be upside.
Say me and all my opponents have 1 card and someone casts a game winning spell.
If I have counterspell and counter it, now I have 0, player A has 0, and players B and C have 1. It is highly likely that on player B's turn, they cast a game winning spell and player C doesn't have interaction to stop them
In the same scenario with Denial,
Im left with 1
A is left with 2.
If B tries to cast a spell, there is a WAY higher chance that it can't go through to win the game on the spot
So as for cEDH mana drain and counterspell still see play in low color decks like Urza and Kinan which are both still meta. And the game winning spell argument is interesting but I think wrong. In casual you are not countering big game winning cards over and over again like in cEDH. You are countering value engines and synergy cards to slow them down. And you want your opponent to have less cards overall
How often do you see 2 opponents each cast a game winning spell in one turn rotation? Personally I’ve almost never seen that happen, and if it does, oh well? You can’t stop every big scary spell from happening, so why are you letting an opponent dig for another one for free? Also, if the thing from player A you countered really is going to end the game right there, players B and C are usually gonna cut you some slack on their turns, since you saved their chance at winning themselves. Commander is a casual low-power format for 99% of its player base after all. In casual, most games are won by someone just getting more value than anyone else, so why are you casting a spell that actively helps them get said value?
Had the same opinion for 10 years, but it has changed recently.
First and foremost:
Arcane denial is a 2 mana cantrip that turns opponent's best spell into a slow divination.
It also teaches players to not counter everything, but rather wait for the important play.
It is also the only low mana hard counterspell cantrip.
Or you can counter anything just to draw a card (or three) if stuck - in edh we love when our cards are versatile.
We also need to calculate that our cards are more valuable than our opponent's cards in theory. Us being able to cantrip our counterspell allows us to utilize the card we drew to forward our gameplan, which is less likely to be valuable for our opponent who already tapped mana to cast a spell who's drawing extra cards.
You can’t say that counterspell/single target removal puts the two players not in the exchange up one card, because that is accounted for already by the fact that the two players in the exchange are down a card. It’s not two people are +1 and two people are -1. It’s two people +1 and two people at 0, or, the way I think about it two people at 0 (the ones that don’t play/lose/draw cards) and two people at -1 (the ones that played a card).
Now totaling it up: counterspell is two players at 0 and two players at -1 (us being one of those players. That means on I am even with one player and behind by one card to the other two players. On average I am behind the table by 2/3 of a card in absolute table average card advantage.
For arcane denial: two opponents are at 0 (because they didn’t gain or lose cards), one opponent is +1 (because they lost one card and drew two), and I am neutral (I lost one card and gained a card). I am behind 1 player and tied with two, and overall absolute table average I am behind by 1/3 of a card.
Arcane denial is absolutely better than counterspell from a sheer card advantage standpoint, in terms of both number of players ahead and total value behind. The flaw in the logic in this video is that the other players go up in card advantage because I took care of something for them. But they don’t, that would need to involve factoring in whether they need the spell countered also, whether they would kind of want it countered but wouldn’t counter it with their own mana, ect…
I think “Target spell becomes divination, draw a card” is alright
Wash Away gets better and better with Cascade and a flashback being relevant, plus foretell and plot and cast from exile with all the impulse draw.
Tempo is an axis relative to mana spent in Magic. Arcane Denial countering a spell is tempo positive as long as A) you are countering a spell that costs more mana than it or B) it extends the game allowing you to spend more mana in the game.
How do you evaluate the free counterspells if you think arcane denial is bad? Wouldnt pact of negation be awful because you ruin your tempo for next turn because of the upkeep cost? Or having to spend 2 threats to deal with 1?
The other 2 opponents don't literally go +1 when you use counterspell. They are +1 compared to YOU because you went down a card. Counterspell is -1,-1,0,0.
Arcane denial is 0,+1,0,0. In this scenario only the opponent you countered is +1 compared to you. So arcane denial does have less card disadvantage than counterspell.
That said, I agree with all your non-math points. There are plenty of gameplay situations where counterspell is better. Enough that I think counterspell is on average a better card. Imo arcane denial is still good enough to be in the top 5 non-free non-synergistic counterspells.
Interesting argument. I only play this card in two decks, both of which are 4-color. One uses it politically, and the other as a panic button.
Notably, I don't play it in any U/X deck where I would vastly prefer a 3-or-4 MV counter with a bonus rider (Rewind, Hinder, Cryptic Command, etc.)
Arcane denial is also the cheapest good counterspell. In a budget no counterspell comes close. Counterspells that cost more than 2 are just not realistic.
"it sees no play in competitive 1v1 formats"
*pauper enters the chat*
Unironically arcane denial is the linch pin in UG turbo fog in the format because of its interaction with wether the storm. You counter one of your own copies of wether and draw 3 off of it or use it as a counter spell and helps further your own game plan i.e. milling the opponent out.
Arcane Denial was great back in the day when the card pool was 95 % grizzly bears and 5 %necropotence
I don't buy the cEDH and Legacy/Vintage arguments since those formats have counterspells that are free -- when budget isn't an issue. Most counter spells struggle because two mana too many compared to zero.
I also think looking at absolute card advantage is the wrong way to look at parity. You want to look at relative card advantage. Commander is not a 1v1 format it's a 4 player free-for-all. For example, on turn one each player starts with a minimum of 9 cards (the opening seven, draw on turn one, and the Commander). Winning is hard because you don't start out at parity since you have 9 cards compared to your opponents' collective 27 cards. You will spend the entire game at a disadvantage on the parity front and you will usually always be down on absolute card advantage no matter what you do when playing interaction. The upside of Arcane Denial is that the relative parity shift breaks in your favor compared to most other counter spells.
Arcane can be cast in substantially more situations than counterspell in multi-color decks, especially in decks with no-fetch/shock budget manabases and 3+ color decks.
That's because having UU untapped won't happen some of the time when you want to cast counterspell.
But having 1U untapped is going to available a substantial portion of the time that UU would not, which makes Arcane Denial more flexible.
Kind of like how some players will try to only play point removal that works against multiple type of cards: so they'll play stuff that gives an opponent something back (Generous Gift-type cards) or gives them the option to undo the removal with removal of their own (Imprisoned in the Moon, Song of the Dryads). Low-power decks where Arcane Denial also have a smaller percentage of really strong cards, so for 1U making an opponent swap a card (and the mana to cast it) for two random cards next turn could be a good trade. I think your counterexample of two bolts and two dauthi voidwalkers being drawn after Arcane Denial resolves felt kind of artificial.
Let's put aside (the better) Delay for a moment and look at the other single U in casting cost non-type restricted counterspells one might consider in a low-power deck. I might want Arcane Denial or Unsubstantiate over the more efficient but more situational Swan Song or An Offer You Can't Refuse because when you play a small number of counterspells they need to be good in as many situations as possible. Counterspells need to be able to break up combos/engines that use any type of cards. All other the other counters you mentioned are even more type-restricted, have sac/bounce added costs, or have UU in their cost.
A lot of the examples you gave as negative card advantage are actually card neutral. Steelshaper’s gift lets you go down a card in hand to get an equipment in hand. The gift is a card, and the equipment is a card. That’s a net zero on card advantage. It’s a one for one trade like Ponder. The same is true for Rampant Growth. A land is a card and doesn’t stop being a card because you search it out of your library. One for one removal is only card disadvantage when you factor in the other two players at the table, because they lose nothing.
Oh oops I put the wrong card on screen. Yea steelshapers is card neutral. Rampant growth is card disadvantage though. Card advantage is only cards in hand not board presence
@@thetrinketmagewhat counts as card advantage sounds like semantics. The land is still there adding value.
another slept on, artifact-synergistic counterspell is disruption protocol from neon dynasty.
I’ve been meaning to try that one out!
I think the easiest way to clear it up is to repeat the effect a few times. If everyone currently has 4 cards in hand what situation would you rather be in at the end?
Counter spell x4: you and 1 opponent have 0 cards in hand, 2 opponents still have 4 cards.
Arcane denial x4: you and two opponents have 4 cards, one of them has 8 cards.
I'm sure we can think of cases where you would still prefer the first case but without context the second situation is more recoverable.
It is an extreme example but the 1x is not any different in form, only in severity.
In a simplified case of card advantage arcane denial is clearly better. In the case where you are winning there is an argument against giving an opponent two more chances to draw another answer. In case you use it against the arch enemy there is an argument giving them two more cards isn't helpful either. Arcane denial shines best on even board states, where in my experience, counterspells are least likely to be used.
Xyris the Writhing Storm is probably the best example of a good use for Arcane Denial. I built my deck focused on pump spells/commander protection, ramp spells, and lots and lots of counter magic. Which brings me to the topic of tempo, something this video failed to mention about tempo is mana spent for spells. If someone taps out for a big winning spell and you arcane denial it, sure they're up 2 cards, but they're down a turn AND that spell. In Xyris you get the added bonus of making 2 snakes at next upkeep and drawing a card, but still counter magic is a super powerful tempo disruptor as it often can lead to straight up taking out whole turns for some people. Many a time have I had 100 snakes ready to attack the last player alive just for them to cast farewell as a last resort before getting sent to a slithery oblivion. And what little savior was right there in my hand, my trusty Arcane Denial.
If you really want your counterspell to draw a card and be unconditional, you can play "Dream Fracture" or "Bane's Contingency" (doesn't always draw but is an unconditional counter)
Both are 3 mana and double blue. That's a big ask.
I think an aspect of arcane denial you're missing is card value. In a 1v1 any individual card can be a finisher. In commander you typically have card designated as a win con, and decks usually don't have a ton of those. Just like a deck doesn't have a ton of removal, just enough to knock off an opponent while not slowing your own game plan down.
Arcane denial fits into this scope a lot better. You take away one of their few win con cards while not actually losing a card in the process. In 1v1 it's all about simplifying the game state so a trade like arcane denial is just bad since it doesn't simplify anything. But in a commander game where everyone is an enemy and an ally at different times, you stop them from being an enemy and attend to turn them into an ally for the next enemy to arise.
Your math assumes if you don't use removal someone else will. There's enough situations where that's not the case, and in those cases it is card advantage. It can also be used as a very bad draw spell in a pinch.
I don’t think assuming other will use removal is necessarily. It’s just assuming they also benefit from a shared opponent losing a card. Which in 99% of the games that will be the case
@@thetrinketmageyes but you also benefit from your opponent losing a card so by that logic you must count yourself as being +1 also.
Honestly, haven't watched the vid yet. But for math sake, it's more card advantage than counterspell. A 1 for 1 sets 2 players ahead one card. Arcane denial only sets 1 player up a card, and you just countered the game winning bomb. Denial is gas and I love it.
Its a bad counter spell or a flexible draw spell?
I think the big thing I learnt with Arcane Denial is that the draw 2 is a may ability. So in big long turns, people miss the trigger, but also it is kinda scummy to do that, but I've seen it be played that way.
Letting people miss triggers isn't scummy. Its how you win. If the other person plays perfectly, they'll always win. Dont forget that its also a game of skill
@@vitaminstorm9429 " If the other person plays perfectly, they'll always win" That's not actually true.
Actually, because it is a triggered ability from a effect you control, if you don't remind them to draw the cards you are cheating. Just like if you cast a Path to Exile and you forget to mention that the person gets to search for a land you are cheating. It is your responsibility to remember triggers that you create. If you need to be scummy and/or cheat to win, you don't deserve to win.
@@Trefalgrthank you this is important to point out.
I mainly run arcane denial for one specific reason: It's an unconditional counterspell for 2 mana that doesn't break the bank (or rather, I had so many copies flying around before people decided that it was worth something that I consider it a free include). It also replaces itself, which is a nice bonus. The second part is that I have a bajillion copies of AD flying around. I don't necessarily have copies of the latest Cancel With Upside or Conditional 2 Mana Counterspell or Cancel That Occasionally Costs 2 Mana
Hot take for some but I don't run this. I don't like giving my opponents cards.
As a control player I love when I get hit with denial the free cards are awesome!
@@thetrinketmage haha yes
@@thetrinketmage this is the best argument I can think of against Arcane Denial. If I'm playing, and someone counters my spell, would I rather they counter my spell and let me draw 2? Or would I rather they counter my spell and let me draw 0? It's INSANE that this video even needs to be made. I feel like I'm getting punk'd by the whole conversation around this card.
People be playing Arcane Denial because it hits any target, and you can counter other counters with your other blue mana.
Playing 2 blue for counterspell makes you wide open to get blown out
I love the video, but the math is… well, pretty atrocious. The whole video is built on the false premise that when one of your opponents draws a card, that is -1 card disadvantage, when that’s completely untrue. In reality, each card one of your 3 opponents draws is only -1/3 in relation to you, because in an open game state, you are not playing a 1v3, you are playing a 1v1v1v1! The free for all nature of the game DRASTICALLY changed the math, and once I illustrate why, people who thought otherwise might feel silly: if every player draws exactly 1 card, then no player has gained an advantage over any other player, thus there is no relative change in card advantage for any given player. That means each card you draw, relative to you, is a +1, but each card your opponents draw is only a -1/3, because each of your opponents is ALSO an opponent of each other.
In context of the video, that means that, at worst, if you Arcane Denial a 0 mana spell, mathematically you are only going -1/3 in card advantage relative to the table, because you regain the card you lost (net 0 and 2 mana) and one opponent nets 1 card (-1/3), which your opponents ALSO equally need to deal with. Counterspell, on the other hand, puts you at -2/3s relative to the table, because you are losing 1 whole card (-1) and your opponent is losing 1 card (-1/3) that your opponents DO NOT need to deal with.
TL:DR; Commander is NOT THE SAME AS 1v1 FORMATS, please stop trying to evaluate them the same.
That was my problem with the logic here and it's generally why incredibly good magic players run AD in decks for commander. The math is different in a commander game...but you still need to do the math correctly. Card advantage for an opponent does not mean card disadvantage to you. I believe commander players have a fundamental misunderstanding of how card advantage is evaluated at a game level.
I didn't know anyone thought arcane denial was better. I thought we all just played it because EDH was singleton.
This card is good in my Kalamax deck:
I can copy it twice, counter an opponent's spell, then counter one of the copies of my own arcane denial. Sure my opponent draws two at the next upkeep, but I draw *four* .
Curious how you see cards like secret rendezvous and hunted horror. A lot of these cards that give advantage to opponents are considered “bad” in the 1v1 mindset, but in my experience those cards have saved so many games for me.
So for secret rendezvous I think that card is also really bad. But better than denial. Cause at least you can just say, I have a rendezvous who wants to make a deal. So it’s easier to politics with. The hunted cycle is very different! Cards in your opponent’s hand are way more dangerous than a few 3/3s that the hunter creatures give. And tokens are pretty easy to politics with. You can just find a player willing to attack an opponent. So the hunted cards are much better as politics cards
Valuable essay, but I think you're overstimating the effects of arcane on the other two players. They don't get +1, they stay at 0, unless you place the 0 for you. I think the difference that makes arcane a bad option for cEDH is the probability of your opponent drawing a big card, and that can be incorporated in the analysis for EDH. If your deck is the powerful one, you win more with 1 card than they with 2, if you are the weakest... You need counterspell
arcane denial can be good in multiplayer because sometimes giving one opponent more of an advantage is more feasible than gaining an advantage yourself in order to stall for time. In my personal experience, sometimes the best way to stall the biggest threat is to create another threat to distract them from you. Not always, but sometimes.
i think the part of the video where you recommend other counterspells is very good. wash away seems incredibly rude against expensive commanders or decks that rely on their commander too much
A lot of people dismiss 3 mana counters but a lot of them are still strong!
While you’re correct, I’d imagine of the decks running Arcane Denial are probably also running Counterspell to counteract the singleton nature. If I could swap the Negate, Arcane Denial and Make Disappear in my decks with Counterspell with a different name I would in a heartbeat.
For a default counterspell, if player A counters player B's kiki jiki, and both counterspell and kiki jiki are not the property of players C and D, then wouldnt that mean C and D really went +2 because 2 of not-their cards have been disposed of? If one accepts this idea, then look at arcane denial, A goes +0, B goes +1, but C and D both had the set of not-their cards stay higher in total. Supposing players C and D are responsible enough to participate in playing removal, then the cards B draws may become their problem. Obviously, this does not make arcane denial universally good, but in environments where everyone plays cautiously, it can be profitable.
The value of Arcane denial is its an inexpensive counter that keep cards in your hand. You gotta think Dream fracture roughly does the same thing but doesn't put your opponent up a card but is only in 1% of decks by comparison.
Rampant Growth is not a -1 in card advantage, it puts a permanent on the table, lose rampant, gain a land. It's like saying that playing a creature or an enchantment is a -1, it's not, the value is still there. That's also why spot removal like Murder isn't a -1 either, you lose a card, but you make your opponent lose one of his in the process.
Most players when talking about card advantage try to stick to cards in hand. Which is why it’s -1 card advantage because you have 1 less card in hand. If we try to evaluate everything on board as also cards in hand it becomes a lot harder to determine what’s going on. An example is when I cast a creature I am -1 in hand. We don’t then have to calculate that -1 when the creature dies. It’s just makes things simpler
I used a path to exile on a friends commander to force them to sac their boromir for protection. I then countered my path with an arcane denial.
I am late here. But you end up net 0 cards, minus 2 mana. The opponent ends up net 1, minus [card cost] mana. This essentially means that they paid X to draw 2, where X is the cost of the card that was countered. If you counter a relatively big drop, they may have just paid 5 or 6 to draw 2. I think that is worth it.
But not as worth it as the price would indicate, so I've never run it. 😅
Counterlash in a deck with a high mana curve is so fun!
Arcane denial gets worse as your opponents’ decks get better. When you counter a craterhoof and they get a dreadmaw and a forest, it’s not a big deal. When you counter an ad naus and they pull a dockside and a breach, it feels a lot worse
On the top of reliquary tower, I have a Brago deck that's consistently discarding to hand size every turn after turn five or six or so. I don't run a reliquary tower.
I wouldn't run it in my Azami deck, but I put it in a few months ago to see if it would work and I'm too lazy to take it
I think in a game where any player is powerfull enough to win then this is broadly correct.
Whilst with traditional counterspell you go -2/3 (00-1 where you are -1) down against the "average" player at the table and with denial you are -1/3(00+1 where you are 0), you have to consider that in one scenario you are putting one player up to +1 against the table and in the other you are creating two +2/3 players and onw who is also -2/3. In that context you are spreading out the impact reducing the chances that anyone gets to a win ahead of everyone else, whearas with denial you are creating one player with a clear edge over the field.
This is all wholely theoretical ofc!
Arcane Denial was somehow on my mind for years.
I think people are just slow to adapt. Back then the extra cards didn‘t hurt that much, removed the salt from a counterspell, easier to pay for in multicolored decks.
Today‘s decks are much more efficient and effective, so the extra cards hurt a lot more.
Doesnt Rampant growth effectively cantrips?? For a land??
As far as card advantage goes. No cause less cards in hand. But it still does something and is powerful
Arcane Denial isn't played in cEDH because it's 2 mana. Outside of cEDH though, I don't really get the discussion of tempo or card advantage past a certain point in casual settings, because it often ignores if not completely omits context.
What? Card advantage is still relevant in casual edh. Most mid power decks still want card advantage it’s not like casual players just throw the idea of drawing cards away
@@thetrinketmage Never said card advantage wasn't relevant in casual. I guess my point didn't come across, so that's on me for not being more detailed. My point was that once the discussion hits a certain point, it starts to ignore or omit the context in order to better serve the discussion, which is a can of worms in and of itself that I feel ruins the fun of the conversation in the long run. In a vacuum, Arcane Denial is in most situations a worse Counterspell, but we don't play in a vacuum. The high variance of the format is the context that discussions will often overlook or dismiss for the sake of argument, which isn't inherently bad when you're just talking about the numbers, but becomes bad when you get into the "Well yeah, but" part of that scenario where someone acknowledges the thing but doesn't really give it the credit that it's due. Essentially, it's perfectly fine to say "I think giving opponents cards is bad, therefore I think Arcane Denial is bad.", however there are a lot of times when the discussion quickly turns it into "I think giving opponents cards is bad, therefore anyone playing Arcane Denial is a bad player." which is often the direct result of either bias or the dismissal/omission of the surrounding context. Hence why I said in my first comment that outside of the competitive environment that is cEDH, I don't get the discussion of such things past a certain point, since it feels reductive. It's not even necessarily anything to do with your video specifically. A lot of other content creators get caught up these kinds of things too, and I don't think that part of the conversation is being addressed nearly as much as it should.
@@drakko95 ok I see! Thank you for clarifying! And I do get what your saying though me ranting about magic cards is fun for me. This isn’t a content creator must evaluate things type video. It’s my real opinion and I enjoy arguing in the comments. I do agree we don’t play in a vacuum but problem is we need to evaluate in that way because there are so many other factors it would be impossible to cover them all
The card is really good in very specific decks like Krark + Sakashima for example. The funny thing is even there, it's not good as a counter, it's good as a draw spell countering your own thing.
My two cents on an already saturated discussion is that I will keep my arcane denial in my spellslinger type decks because I often run cost reducers for my instants and/or sorceries that make arcane denial a lot more attractive. one blue pip for counter-magic is more appealing than two blue pips for counter-magic. At that rate it's closer to An Offer You Can't Refuse (which is still a better card).
You are missing the point of Arcane Denial. Yes it does suck but it's 1U costed counterspell that hits everything. Your alternatives (on budget) are pretty much just memory lapse and mana leak and both have their own big issues.
The 1U cost is much more important that you give credit.
Let's assume that on turn 6 you want to play a 4-drop and protect it with the UU counterspell. If the 4 drop requires at least one blue pip you need to have access to THREE blue pips by turn 6. If you want to avoid taplands and don't have budget for fetches + duals it's hard even for 2 color deck to do that consistently - for 3 color deck it's almost impossible
I get what you're saying, but Arcane Denial's draw has actively won me two games.
One time I the forced draw finished out the 1v1 by making my opponent draw from an empty deck.
The other time an opponent had a big board with lethal against everyone once they could untap. Everyone was scrambling for answers. I told the player next in turn order to cast something so I could counter with AD, they did and draw. It was a Boardwipe. They cast it and blow everything up. I have Minn out and get some decent triggers and am the only one with any Board presence after and close out shortly after.
I know this is anecdotal, but both were very memorable moments that couldn't have happened without AD (or a similar spell).
Uh, I'd hate to burst your bubble but Arcane's draw is a "may" ability. Your opponent didn't have to draw the extra cards, they could've decided not to unless you were controlling them that turn via a Mindslaver effect.