Last week, John Liu wrote an excellent article about Counterspells in Multiplayer. It dispelled prejudice, it defined quality; it honored the good and it warned of the bad. As someone who has been trying to tap the power of blue in four- or five-player Chaos to varying degrees of success, it really helped me structure my thinking as to what Islands can and can't do for you in that format - and more importantly, why.

But the longer I engaged in the thinking process, the more I realized I felt queasy about something: I, too, am a control player. Always have been. And in my early days, I made the very mistake Liu speaks of: Overvaluing the power of UU when facing two opponents or more.

See, at that time in my gunslinging development, I considered Foils, Counterspells, and others of their kin no-brainers in any deck that could support them. How could anything beat a clear, simple, all-purpose, no-exceptions"No," after all? Two mana to thwart a board-clearing, utterly-devastating Wrath of God? Two mana to stop Verdeloth, the Ancient dead in his tracks? Two mana to prevent a twenty-point Blaze aimed at my pretty little head? "Hell, I'll take that," I thought.

But the more kitchen tables I spread my Islands on, the more I realized they weren't quite as spectacular as I thought they were. In terms of what I had come to expect from my experiences in one-on-one combat, my Thwarts and Remove Souls appeared to be constantly underperforming. It had me bedazzled, befuddled and bewitched, and I racked my brains for answers.

Churning gray matter into overtime, I eventually came to a lot of the same conclusions that John did. Most importantly, I realized that in every turn of Multiplayer Magic, three or four questions are going to be asked - and I'm liable to be drawing only a single answer. All in all, I don't like the conclusion of that math very much.

'Cuz here's the thing: Assume I'm playing Dick, and Dick has an Arrogant Wurm just waitin' for some lovin', and I'm feeling rather protective of my life total. Broadly speaking, a Counterspell will protect me from the Wurm's forthcoming desire to demolish as well as a Glacial Wall ever will.

However, when I'm playing not just Dick, but his girlfriend Jane and his evil brother Harry as well, the situation changes. While my Counterspell will still deal with Dick's nasty 4/4 in short order, it can only lie in my graveyard and weep as Jane brazenly kicks a Phyrexian Scuta and Harry taunts the fates with Balduvian Horde... While, you guessed it, Glacial Wall could have held off all three for turns on end all by its icy self.

While this example is clearly way oversimplified (there are still many, many things a Counterspell can do that a mere Glacial Wall can never hope to achieve), a glint of meaning should be shining through nonetheless: As the number of potential threats increases faster than the control player can draw counters, their efficiency decreases significantly.

As stated, this isn't new to anyone: In fact, John Liu lists it as the Number One reason why Counterspells aren't as good in Multiplayer as in other formats. I won't argue with that. But I believe there is a very important number two reason - and as far as I can tell, Liu doesn't mention it in his article (or at the very least he doesn't give it the coverage it deserves).

Let me show you what I mean: Imagine you're playing Chloe in a duel, and Chloe has announced she wishes to cast Visara the Dreadful. Now, you know at this point, with an absolute degree of certainty, that if Chloe is in her right mind, Visara the Dreadful is going to spell trouble for you the second she comes off the stack.

She might just sit around and block your guys. She might only be after five of your juicy lifepoints. And she might only have been hired as the Demolitionist for your Merfolk Looter. But whatever Chloe's employment plans are for Visara the Dreadful, she's definitely going to make life difficult for you. She is undisputedly, absolutely positively, Your Problem.

You know this from the moment the spell is announced. And fortunately for us blue mages, an Absorb is a perfectly good solution in this case - more than able to stand on equal footing with, say, a Terminate in this situation. As is a Mystic Snake, or a Syncopate, or an Undermine... Or any other members of the countering tribe, for that matter.

How different things are when you are facing not only Chloe, but all of the Seven Dwarves too! Now, that Visara the Dreadful might still be heading your way... But maybe not. Maybe she's really just trying to dissuade Happy from sending his Seraph in her direction. Or only aiming to take out Grumpy, who is controlling a rather troublesome enchantment. And in fact, all things considered, she could equally likely be trying to blow up Doc's Rorix, Bladewing which you have absolutely no way of dealing with. But what if it is your throat she's after? How do you deal with it then?

Oh, but for a Terminate now! Then you could wait and see, and save the resources which might only be protecting your opponents until the moment they are actually needed. Instead, you're stuck with lousy old Absorb and a very difficult decision to make far too early on.

This example should illustrate what I consider the second most problematic aspect of counters in multiplayer: The Threat Assessment Dilemma.

Sure, when it's just two mages duking it out, risk judgements can cause headaches, too."Is this Ravenous Baloth as bad as it's going to get, or do I have to worry about Krosan Cloudscraper next turn? Do I spend my Undermine now, or save it for the bigger threat?"

But here's the thing: In multiplayer, you have to wonder if a spell is a threat at all. And counters are the only answers that make you decide if something is a question before it even has been asked. You can hold a Swords to Plowshares for five turns while your neighbor's Mahamoti Djinn is attending to someone else, patiently waiting till it incurs your wrath - but a Circular Logic you need to use right now.

When counters are your forte in the multiplayer arena, you have to deal with things before you even know if they're going to be your problem. And in the long term, that will cost you. Dearly.

Think about it. Let's simplify a bit: You're playing blue, and you're relying on Exclude for defense. Your opponents are Superman, who's got Lightning Bolts for the same purpose, and Godzilla, who has Terrors. You've all got five life left. Nothing's happening. And then...

Superman casts a Hill Giant. Now, this guy is pretty hefty, at 3/3. If it was just you and the Caped Crusader, this would be a non-decision: You Don't Have Time For It Right Now!

But now, maybe it's not even your party he's trying to crash. Maybe Godzilla needs to waste one of his Terrors instead. Alas, you cannot afford the risk, you cast the Exclude... And now you will never know.

And now it's Godzilla's turn. Up the stakes a little: He's got a Thrashing Wumpus. Whoa! You know that the S-Man needs to deal with this thing if you don't. You know he does. He's at five! He has to...

...But what if?

What if he's got that one kinky red lifegain spell you don't know about? Does he even have the Bolt? Can you be sure? Then what? Do you chance it? You fear not... Another Exclude drown the drain.

Well, I could go on, but you see what's happening: While everybody else gets to keep their creature destruction until the creature in question becomes an issue, you're forced to act like some sort of Global Police Force. Multiply that effect over every turn of the duration of a casual game, and you're at a serious disadvantage.

However, in my experience, the problem is worse than simple card disadvantage; there are political issues involved as well. First off, nobody loves the blue mage. As John Liu puts it,"After all, Magic is more fun when your spells resolve." And when you counter something that was never going to come your way, in that player's experience, you're committing an act far worse than simple spell denial: You're stealing.

"Man! What was that for? I've left you alone all game! I wasn't going to attack you anyway. Total lameness."

Generally, they're not sympathetic to the idea that you couldn't help it: You were at seven, and that was a big creature, and no bounce in sight, and what else were you supposed to do? Somebody had a really cool play, and it wasn't even going to affect you, and you stopped it. You stole that experience from them. For no reason.

For no reason.

Like an Insurrection. Bob has an Insurrection. Bob is seething with anger - in fact, Bob wants to send Kirk's fifty-five squirrels, McCoy's pair of Kilnmouth Dragons, Spock's army of assorted black knights, and hell, your own lone Echo Tracer straight at his little sister's dome to punish her for hitting on his girlfriend, which will no doubt provide him with no end of satisfaction. But oblivious as you are to all this sexual tension, you worry that that the two points of damage you did to this Bob character last turn might in fact cause all those Sexy Beasts to head your way... And, chicken that you are, you Arcane Denial it.

Now, the two cards he'll get to draw next turn are going to go a very, very short way towards pacifying Bob. That was his very coolest trick, aimed at his most sordid enemy, and you stopped it. Just to be cute. Not so cute, says Bob. Take my twenty-four point Firecat Blitz instead, says Bob.

Ach! If only you'd been holding Fog instead!

See? Counterspells have twin extra problems in Multiplayer: Not only are you likely to be countering other people's threats, you're also likely to be making enemies in all the wrong places. Waking up sleeping dogs, if you will.

You could argue that by saving Lizzy in the above example, you've also made a friend, but this is not as good as it sounds for two reasons: First off, you probably want your friends to be the people who are"dishing it" rather than"receiving it" anyway. But second of all, Lizzy is far less aware of the favor you did her than Bob is aware of the injustice: Bob knew it wasn't coming your way, but Lizzy doesn't know it was necessarily her you saved the anguish from.

(In this particular example, I suppose a case could be made that Lizzy shoulda seen it coming, but let's think generally here...)

To sum up: The fact that Counterspells are decisively preemptive, makes them less than ideally suited to the Multiplayer format. Of course, I am seriously overdramatizing here: Counterspells can still do many, many things no other card in the game can do, and still have plenty of uses. But I sweated through many a multiplayer game frustrated with my first loves, and I wondered why. Maybe you were wondering why, too. Maybe this has helped. At the very least, it should give you something to think about.

Elske van der Vaart
elskevdv@*NOSPAM*zonnet.nl