Although this article is primarily intended as a direct counter (pun definitely intended) to Michael Clauss' recent"When Lead Developers Attack" columns, it is also meant to convey my personal stance on issues surrounding control decks and themes.

First and foremost, I'm not a control player. Never have been, probably never will be. I've tried; I doubt there's anyone who hasn't tried a mono-blue counter deck or a red/black land destruction deck. I've even done fairly well with a couple of my attempts - but there was something about the whole style that didn't sit right with me. What was it?

Oh, right - I wanted to play with another person.

I wanted to see if my deck was better than his deck, if my play style would help me come out on top, if the interactions I could discover between my cards would give me the edge over my opponent's. None of that comes out if my opponent can't play a spell, be it due to counters or due to lack of mana.

I don't have a problem with denying an opponent resources; it's part of the game. Do I counter an early threat and hope to do him in before he gets a big one on the table, or do I wait for something that's really worth countering? Should I let his creatures attack, or should I kill a couple now? Should I take out one of his two forests, or does he have a splash colour that would hurt him more to lose later on? Those are strategic questions, interesting questions - the things that make the game enjoyable.

Even the flip side of the argument can be interesting - do I play something nasty looking to draw the counter, or do I wait? Do I go for an all-out assault, or do I keep forces in reserve? Should I play my one mountain, or wait until I have something in hand that needs it? Again, all questions that make the game enjoyable. The fact that my opponent may be able to do something to disrupt my plans is added spice to the game.

Of course, it's the word"may" that makes the spice palatable - if my opponent has already disrupted my game to the point where it's unplayable, the meal has already been ruined.

This is my problem with heavy control decks. When I play against a heavy-control deck, I'm basically an observer in my own game - and that's not why I play Magic. If I have my Bird of Paradise Force Spiked, my Quirion Elf Syncopated, my Llanowar Dead Counterspelled, my Kavu Titan Liquified (pretend that people actually play Liquify), and my Spiritmonger Undermined, in all likelihood I've lost both the game and my interest in playing you again.

If I get to two land and then get Stone Rained, then Pillaged, then Stone Rained again, then Dwarven Landslided (Landslid?), then Imploded, I'm probably scooping before you finish chortling. Why? Because I like to play a two-player game - and if your games are just watched solitaire, I'm sure that I can find someone who would like to play against another player, not just his own draws.

In his May 17th article When Lead Developers Attack, Michael Clauss says,"R&D's ultimate goal is to strike a balance within the game, not cripple a theme or mechanic because it has the potential to get out of hand." There is a distinct difference between"crippling" and"reining in."

What would happen if LD became a tournament-powered main game? What sort of state would the game be in if Force Spike was a hard counter, and Absorb and Undermine only cost UW or UB, respectively?

The answer lies in two more questions: How many themes work without mana? How many mechanics can operate past a counter? (Okay, maybe"Cannot be countered," but that's fairly rare...) Land Destruction is crippling, no ifs, ands, buts, or ors. Counters are paralyzing in the same way. (There will be plenty of people who will say that LD is only crippling in the first couple of turns, or that you can play around counters - and both statements are true. However, a well-constructed LD will be crippling in the first couple of turns, and you can only play around counters if your opponent runs out of them before you run out of threats.) These two mechanics, more than any others, could single-handedly destroy the game of Magic - and I'll elaborate on how.

There are always decks to beat. At any given time, there are a handful of decks that are considered the best, and other decks striving to take that title need to be designed to beat those decks. If the deck to beat is a land destruction deck, then how do you beat it? Is there any alternative to blue counterspells?

(I think that's a rhetorical question; if not, please let me know the answer.)

Suddenly, there's only one way to beat"the deck." There are strategies for beating Psychatog; there are strategies for beating R/G Beats; there are strategies for beating mono-black control; there are strategies for beating any top deck you care to name. All of these strategies involve mana. Without land, there's no strategy worth a hill of beans.

As such, counters become the only way to beat dedicated LD.

In order to beat it regularly, the anti-LD deck needs to be a dedicated counter deck. The advantage of that deck is that a dedicated counter deck can probably also beat just about anything else, seeing as - just like strategies involve mana - they also involve resolving spells.

Once the dedicated counter deck becomes"the deck," I have trouble seeing how anything other than another counter deck can beat it. In the same article, Michael Clauss gives a sample LD deck whose self-proclaimed weak point is that"there is a lot of disruption which is just as fast or faster" than his proposed deck.

His next comment is the most telling, however, when he says,"I realize most of the answers are in blue, but since most standard decks have blue in them, this shouldn't be a problem." Why do so many of the top decks run blue? Because the top decks need answers that come in the form of counters and card-drawing. Then the rest of the top decks need answers for the counters and card-drawing - more counters and card-drawing. LD needs to be kept in check to avoid the necessary rise of dedicated counter decks. Counters need to be kept in check to avoid the otherwise inevitable ride of dedicated counter decks.

Lastly, but certainly not least, Magic is a game. Games are intended to be enjoyed, whether at the highest level of pro competition or in your backyard while you're barbecuing. Dedicated LD and dedicated counter decks are, quite simply, not fun to play against. They may be fun to play - I know I enjoyed my first couple of games with both - but Magic isn't a one-person game. If you're the player in your group who continues to make the annoying landKiller.dec or the 36-counter monstrosity, I hope you like playing alone... Because I would guess that very shortly the people you play with will stop wanting to play you. Beautifully crafted, meticulously thought-out, painstakingly acquired or not, those decks will get you plenty of time alone waiting for an opponent - simply because they aren't fun.

I think more than anything, R&D wants to keep the game fun.

It may sound like I'm whining, and maybe I am, but it's certainly not a case of"If I can't win, I don't wanna play." It's exactly the opposite - I do want to play. I want to see my Spiritmonger hit the table... Because that's fun. I want to see you put your Shade's Form on my Spiritmonger and then Terminate it. Because that's fun, too. If you clobber me because I can't handle your vicious Chamber of Manipulation/Animal Boneyard combo, so be it. Maybe my turn 6 Elephant Guided Giant Warthog trampled you into the ground (not that it happened to me at the Judgement pre-release, or anything...), and that's okay. Whatever happens, it means that I got to play my game, and you got to play your game, and we both got a chance to enjoy it. For me, that is the important part of Magic; that's why I play.

Winning is nice, but it certainly doesn't beat playing.

Ted Coldwell
ted3@hotmail.com