Arcane Denial vs Counterspell

[The Golgari Guy]

What are your thoughts on Arcane Denial vs Counterspell?

I've seen many people saying that Arcane Denial is unplayable since it gives 2 cards to your opponent.
However, I think that Arcane Denial is better than Counterspell, even in mono blue decks.

Let's start by considering the evident pros and cons of both spells:

Counterspell

• Con:Harder to cast

Arcane Denial

• Pro: Easier to cast
• Pro: Gives you 1 card
• Con: Gives opponent 2 cards

I'd argue however that the resource imbalance generated by Counterspell is greater than the one generated by Arcane Denial.

There are several ways to look at this, but let's go with the following reasoning:

If you play Counterspell, you'll do a 1-for-1 exchange with one of your opponents, meaning that the other 2 opponents will be up 1 card each: You will therefore have generated a resource imbalance of +2 in favor of your opponents (by the way, this is the reason why 1-for-1s are generally bad in EDH).

If you play Arcane Denial, on the other hand, you will lose 0 cards, and only one of your opponents will gain one (since one of the 2 cards drawn is compensated by the one lost by being countered), so that the resource imbalance generated is only +1 in favor of your opponents.

The same argument was brought forward by the Nitpicking Nerds on their Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r9bGaxMeag.

It may a bit counterintuitive, but I think that this is the correct way to evaluate this exchange. Therefore, Arcane Denial would be better.

In addition to this, it can be paired with cards such as Narset and Hullbreacher to negate the card advantage given to your opponent, and in a pinch it can be used to counter your own spell to draw 3 cards.

For all these reasons, I think that Arcane Denial is better than Counterspell.

What are your thoughts?

[ApothecaryGeist]

I usually prefer Counterspell in a deck with one (mono-blue) or two-color deck.  This is mainly because I am stingy with letting my opponents draw cards.  That's just my style.  Even when the tradeoffs are worth it [see below].


Decks with more colors, it can be harder to hold up two blue mana.  Arcane Denial becomes a better choice.


I don't find the opponent card draw to be a huge drawback.  Since it cantrips me as well.  You don't just counter anything with Arcane Denial.  You counter an opponent's game altering spell with it.  Well worth giving them two cards.

[Valmias]

It does feel contrary to lessons learned in other formats, but I agree that Arcane Denial is better in EDH than Counterspell.

I think that it's largely to do with the card advantage argument, but also the fact that multiplayer games are much less zero-sum in their interactions. If I cast Arcane Denial in a two player game, there is a 100% chance that those two drawn cards are going to be used on me, but that drops to 1-in-3 with four players (barring the hate I just drew from countering...). The shifting threat-assessment of a multiplayer game also means that there's a possibility (that does't exist with Counterspell) that those extra cards are going to be used to protect my own state by giving the other player resources to deal with mutual threats like wipes or stax pieces. Unless I'm ahead, I'd prefer everyone be on deck to deal with whoever is.

I know it's dumb to evaluate a card based on expected politics, but even the salt mitigation of giving the countered player two cards is something in a context where players have to choose who to beat on. Maybe it's the Canadian in me, but I can sort of see the value of the "counter-but-sorry" cards like Arcane Denial or Vex. There's just a lot less malice conveyed by leaving the countered player at card parity, and it's a lot easier to claim the counter was strategic when you're not just control-ing them out of playing the game. I mean, I'd personally play Counterspell over Arcane Denial, because if I'm playing counterspells then I'm in the mood to be a bit of a jerk today, but I would agree that Arcane Denial was the smarter cast.

My rule of thumb in jank-friendly formats is "more words equals more power", and I think Arcane Denial is a good example.

[CleanBelwas]

Interesting question!

Personally I like them both and will often run both of them in the same deck, but if I had to pick one, it would depend on what else the deck was doing.

I would be more inclined to pick Arcane Denial if I was in a heavy control deck. The idea of giving my opponents cards is less scary to me when I am anticipating being able to deal with whatever those cards are too. If I know I am packing a lot of interaction in the deck, then the two cards my opponent gets don't matter to me as much. This is especially true if the deck isn't heavily in blue. In my experience, the deck where Arcane Denial has shone most for me is in my Breya artifact combo deck. 4 colours, so keeping up double blue can sometimes be a bit of an issue (especially as a lot of the coloured cards are blue anyway as it is artifact based), but that deck packs a lot of removal and interaction, so whatever my opponent draws, I'm more inclined to believe I'll be able to deal with it anyway.

I tend to prefer Counterspell for decks that are looking to protect my things rather than mess with my opponents things. For example, I run counterspell in my Locust God deck. That deck is quite aggressive and looks to kill people with nibblers and/or impact tremors effects. It can do that of its own volition so my counter magic is mostly their to protect my key pieces. Also, being two colour means keeping open double blue is significantly easier.

On balance though, if I could only ever run one of them in EDH again, I think I'd probably pick Arcane Denial, and this is entirely down to the fact that we are talking about EDH. I play at the casual, janky level. Arcane Denial is great here because it's much less of a feel bad. Getting your stuff countered is rubbish, but that's a much easier pill to swallow if you are getting two cards out of it, and I don't play in a cutthroat meta. Also, as Valmias says, if they happen to draw two more bombs from those cards, at least there are other players who are just as incentivised as me to deal with those bombs.

[The Golgari Guy]

Interesting answers!

I especially like Valmias's point about Arcane Denial being less of a feel-bad and thus the better "political" choice.

Also CleanBelwas's argument about Arcane Denial's drawback being lessened in decks that run tons of removal / other counters feels quite convincing.

All in all, I'm happy to see that other people think that Arcane Denial is a good cards, and better than Counterspell in many situations.

Personally, I only have two blue decks: Araumi and Braids. In Araumi I play only Arcane Denial, and as a second counter I have [[Delay]]. Both are easier to cast than Counterspell in a 2-colors deck. In Braids, I run 8 counters (yeah, it's that kind of deck...), among which Arcane Denial and Counterspell. However, at some points I'd like to replace Counterspell with Mana Drain (duh!).

[pizzacat]

Drawing an opponenet two cards sounds very bad. Counterspells are often used defensively so giving an opponenet two more looks at threats is worse than just removing their threat by a lot. The uu vs 1u is sort of relevant but in a more competitive meta arcane denial gets exponentially worse.

[robort]

Not to mention that Arcane Denial also replaces itself by allowing you to draw a card to.

[The Golgari Guy]

Not to mention that Arcane Denial also replaces itself by allowing you to draw a card to.

Yes, I considered this when evaluating the resource imbalance generated by the two spells!

Also in a pinch you can use it on your own spell to draw 3.

[Valmias]

I think mbaccari99 makes a good point about the strict evaluation. If the job is to make someone's spell stop happening, Counterspell just has fewer things to worry about. That's why Counterspell is the card of choice if you need to protect your own state, like CleanBelwas said. It's in the gray area of wanting to stymie your opponents but also wanting to be more active where Arcane Denial becomes appealing.

The impression I'm getting is that people who prefer Arcane Denial (or the places they prefer it) are all about situational advantages. If you've built a deck to be able to easily deal with threats, or if you are considering a political multiplayer environment, or if you've got something mean planned with Hullbreacher (or Notion Thief, or Fate Unraveler, or Nekusar, the Mindrazer, or Xyris, the Writhing Storm, etc.), then Arcane Denial's drawback can range from "no big deal" to "actually an upside". And like The Golgari Guy said, in a Talrand, Sky Summoner or Noyan Dar, Roil Shaper deck that just wants cast triggers and card draw, countering your own do-nothing cantrip to refuel can be a pretty decent play.

I guess what I'm seeing is that the praise for Arcane Denial isn't because it's a better counter then Counterspell, but because it's a toolbox that activates on countering a spell. If I'm already on the ropes, Arcane Denial is probably just going to put off losing, which might be enough but isn't ideal. But if I'm in a more dominant position, Arcane Denial can be used to advance my own state if I'm smart. Maybe even comparing it to Counterspell isn't as apt as it seems, and it may be more like Overwhelming Intellect, which should probably not be evaluated as a counter but as a draw spell with a counter condition. If we compare it to something like Vision Skeins (which is terrible on it's face but exactly what you want in the proper context), it's easy to image that the best home for Arcane Denial is in those decks that punish players for cards in hands or for drawing, or that have some other asymmetrical effect to exploit. That doesn't mean it's bad everywhere else, but I would say that it shows that Arcane Denial is probably different from Counterspell rather than a better or worse version. Luckily, we're allowed to play both

[Aetherium Slinky]

I play Arcane Denial a lot. The draw is delayed so if you win on the turn you cast it it doesn't matter whether people draw cards in their upkeep or not. Double blue is tough without infinite mana so I actually prefer Arcane Denial to Counterspell. I often need blue mana to win so to me it matters a lot in a multicoloured deck. Obviously monocoloured decks are a different beast but I still might play both in a deck because two mana for a counter is just too good value to pass up.

[The Golgari Guy]

The draw is delayed so if you win on the turn you cast it it doesn't matter whether people draw cards in their upkeep or not.

This is actually a very good point. It happened to me at least twice now that I think about it to use AD to protect my wincon and then win the game. If you use it to protect your "big turn" and succeed, there's no downside!

[The Golgari Guy]

The impression I'm getting is that people who prefer Arcane Denial (or the places they prefer it) are all about situational advantages. If you've built a deck to be able to easily deal with threats, or if you are considering a political multiplayer environment, or if you've got something mean planned with Hullbreacher (or Notion Thief, or Fate Unraveler, or Nekusar, the Mindrazer, or Xyris, the Writhing Storm, etc.), then Arcane Denial's drawback can range from "no big deal" to "actually an upside". And like The Golgari Guy said, in a Talrand, Sky Summoner or Noyan Dar, Roil Shaper deck that just wants cast triggers and card draw, countering your own do-nothing cantrip to refuel can be a pretty decent play.

I guess what I'm seeing is that the praise for Arcane Denial isn't because it's a better counter then Counterspell, but because it's a toolbox that activates on countering a spell. If I'm already on the ropes, Arcane Denial is probably just going to put off losing, which might be enough but isn't ideal. But if I'm in a more dominant position, Arcane Denial can be used to advance my own state if I'm smart. Maybe even comparing it to Counterspell isn't as apt as it seems, and it may be more like Overwhelming Intellect, which should probably not be evaluated as a counter but as a draw spell with a counter condition. If we compare it to something like Vision Skeins (which is terrible on it's face but exactly what you want in the proper context), it's easy to image that the best home for Arcane Denial is in those decks that punish players for cards in hands or for drawing, or that have some other asymmetrical effect to exploit. That doesn't mean it's bad everywhere else, but I would say that it shows that Arcane Denial is probably different from Counterspell rather than a better or worse version. Luckily, we're allowed to play both

This is some great analysis, Valmias. I agree with most of what you wrote.

However, I still think that if there are four players at the table, AD is better than Counterspell when just evaluating the resource imbalance that the two cards generate, as explained in the original post.

I think that other cards, when evaluated in the same way (i.e., strictly from the point of view of resource imbalance generated), could seem much more (or less) appealing than what previously thought.

Maybe one day I'll be "brave" enough to propose the following discussion: which one is better, Secret Rendezvous or Wheel of Fortune...? And I can assure you, the answer may be much less obvious than what you'd think 

[Valmias]

Yeah, all this talk is really making me fall for Arcane Denial.

Oooh, that's a hard comparison! Should you go for the one with the big effects without much control, or take the lesser draw with control over the consequences? (Assuming the preciousness of mono-white draw isn't a factor...) A person is probably not going to just run both like with Arcane Denial and Counterspell, though if they are for some reason building a WR draw tricks deck then I am sympathetic/intrigued.

I'll look forward to that question.

[terminalgeek]

I would say Arcane Denial. I prefer the artwork more but also not being double blue is useful. I agree that it can feel less bad because of the card draw but the downside can be managed if you're playing a bit meaner with Notion Thief, Hullbreacher, Narset, etc. effects out. Since the card draw is not immediate, I don't think it is that bad. People are always neglecting to pay for Rhystic Study triggers.

[anjinsan]

The resource imbalance argument, whilst only a heuristic, is quite compelling. The point is that it's not so much that drawing someone cards isn't bad, it's that cantripping is good, especially for the same mana cost.

The problem with it as a value play is when someone is the arch enemy and it's only really their stuff that you want to counter; you don't want to give them cards at all, and unlike with Baleful Mastery or even Secret Rendezvous, you don't have that choice. Having this effect stapled to something that wasn't a counterspell or removal would probably be a better place for it, actually.

All that said, the floor is not that low as it still counters; worst case scenario, you've probably bought some time.