In EDH, control decks rely less on counter-spells than on permanent sweepers and staxes (humility, solidification ball, etc.) and counter-spells are essentially for spells that complete the game when solved. The 2 cards the player receives are probably less relevant than the 1 spell you stopped. The fact that obscure denial replaces itself is the icing on the cake. In a 4-player game, you actually lose more card advantage when you use regular counter-spells on obscure denial. If you beat a single opponent with a 1-for-1 counter, you and that player are both one card compared to the other two players below, so you`ve basically lost two cards to your opponents together. With obscure denial, you are on an equal footing with your other opponents and the player whose spells you have countered has increased one card compared to you, so you are only one less card away from your opponents. And if it`s in your graveyard to have 3 mana open, you could always say, “I`m throwing a mysterious denial with flashback targets (big catchy spell) and in response [[Unsummon]] my liar 🙂 Now let`s look at the mysterious denial. The opponent you countered can draw two cards so that he withdraws the one he lost, plus one, you can draw a card to replace the counter. The opponent you countered is a higher card, but you stay at the same level as the other two players. The political aspect is a good point. I`ll definitely test Arcane Denial and see if it works. It`s also good on less capable metas because of the way the counters work on the commander.
Each counter puts you 1 card behind 2 opponents. The obscure refusal puts you 1 card behind 1 opponent. That. The net loss of the card is lower with an obscure refusal. And the counter-spells, which are cantrips, are better than average in edh because you don`t lose gas as quickly if you need to be able to interact with 2-3 players. In a 4-player game, it is sometimes more advantageous to go one for one with the problem. If someone is ahead or you, it is better to counter their fate with a regular counter against an obscure denial. I play counters in all decks that are blue, so I`d say I`m pretty experienced. I don`t have a single copy of obscure denial, I play it in my deck [[Link]] to counter my opponent`s powerplay or to “counter” one of my own spells to draw three cards when I have Lier out.
Cons: Gives your opponent 2 cards. Overall, you give your opponent a single card (net). Oh of course, you can get 2 out of it in the next interview. Come on. I dare you`re a buddy. The disadvantage seems quite big to me (losing the advantage of the card), but maybe I`m not looking at it properly. What do you think? How do you rate this card? When I look through the deck lists, I see a lot of people who include [[Arcane Denial]] as one of their counter-throws, and I wonder if I should include it more. The advantage of the map is different in multiplayer magic, the counter-spells are strictly speaking disadvantages of the map. First of all, let`s say you`re just playing a counter-spell – now you and one of your opponents you`ve countered are a card at the bottom. In general, when I`m in control, it`s not about excluding people from the game or stopping every potential winning scam that happens (5-hour games stop being fun fast), but rather about being the fun police (as in don`t be a bastard ruining someone [Iona naming red with a red mono player at the table as an extreme example]), Taking the nap that definitely distorts my vision.
Let`s say for a second that it`s a group of four men. Let`s say you`re fighting something big like a tangled tooth and claw. It`s a hard counter for virtually everything at 1U. Counter-spells can be difficult in UU if you are not mono blue. Pros: Low mana cost, even easier to work with than [[counter-spells]]. Counter each spell. Replaces it by allowing you to draw a card. This is exactly the right mathematics.
Fortunately you don`t eat negative votes like I did when I wanted to explain it at the time. The advantage of the map not only takes into account the guy you counter, but counts the whole table 👌 In general, it is considered so good because it is a multiplayer format and not a 1v1 format. In multiplayer formats, control decks are played very differently. You will usually control the board with sweepers and not with counter-spells and save your counters for the few key cards that will make you lose the game when they are solved. Since 2 random cards are almost always worse than card 1 that makes you lose, that`s why the card is so good. You don`t get the cards right away, it`s easier to splash than many other hard counters at 1U it replaces, etc. TLDR: It`s better than losing, just throwing, replacing yourself. In my playgroup, I try to launch Arcane Denial because it hurts less. For this reason, I also think dream Fracture is good. However, in a ruthless or more competitive meta, the benefits are as stated above (and I wouldn`t recommend Dream Fracture in these cases). Liar – (G) (SF) (txt) (ER)[[card name]] or [[card name| SET]], to call it a guaranteed counter for U1. This means that it is easier to launch than the counter-spell and also replaces itself.
I know it`s a “can” skill that honestly makes it funnier if they decide not to draw those cards. In addition to all the other reasons given here, [[Nekusar, the Mindrazer]] in general – you have to be very conservative with your counter-spells and only counter what is necessary when you do this against something big, it is usually against a player who is in the lead. They stay at the top with a certain card advantage. You make friends with your other players and decrease them slightly on the balance of the cards and keep your eyes on the target you want them to focus on, which can be much more important than countering the spell. Countering a winning scam or combo figure is also worth giving a player a few cards. Sure, they could shoot in a decent card, but they just lost their “I Win” card. In EDH, disadvantages can be converted into advantages. If the person who was countered is upset that they were countered, point out that, while this is true, you replaced their card, then some, and explain why you replicated.
Oddly enough, most casual gamers will let you get by at this point. I see a lot of people recommending [[Arcane Denial]] in control strategies. Why is it good? I don`t see how great it is to let your opponent draw 2 cards. Besides the fact that it is easy to inject, it can be refined as a political tool. The advantage of the map also works completely differently in multiplayer. If you draw two cards to an opponent and you draw one is much less bad compared to an entire table than the comparison with only that opponent in the number of cards. In addition, in multiplayer, the counters are not 1 to 1, they are usually already a map disadvantage. The cards given to the target spell controller are more relevant than those of the other two players. Target distances and individual counters should be used sparingly due to their naturally poor map advantage.
This means that counter-magic usually targets a grueling or end-of-game spell. Giving the player 2 more cards in a dominant position often only replaces one problem spell with another. Of course, it can act as a meter, but if there are so many other better meters, use them instead. If you use it to protect your decisive combo on this turn, the fact that they can draw two cards in the next round is irrelevant. You can`t evaluate it by simply counting the cards. If you master your opponent`s power over a powerful meta, the extra cards shouldn`t be as large as those that have already been wasted, and being flexible to avoid big combos or a big spell like ad nauseam takes precedence over that. This answer is wrong. You would never use a counter-spell with two mana to protect your combo when there are such good ways to do it for one mana (Dispel, Swan Song, Swell Pierce, Flusterstorm, REB). The reason it`s good is that it`s the cheapest counter-spell that also replaces itself, which is essential in a four-player game.