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.

Smooth Brain: arcane denial counters opponents’ spells Big Brain: arcane denial counters your own spells to draw three cards.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Unconditional counterspell for 2 mana? Perfect! Not many cards that do that on a budget

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.

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.

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

Honey wake up, Trinket Mage video just dropped

if you're worrying about the two cards you give one opponent, than you didn't counter an important-enough spell

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Bro made a 24 minute video to be wrong. Love the content though

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

My assumptionfor why it's so overplayed, before fully watching the video, is budgetary restrictions. Some counter spells are pricy.

I think “Target spell becomes divination, draw a card” is alright

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.

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.

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).

Clearly you have never arcane denialed your own spell

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

I don't know why anyone would play arcade denial when Memory Lapse exists

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

another slept on, artifact-synergistic counterspell is disruption protocol from neon dynasty.

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.

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

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.

Hot take for some but I don't run this. I don't like giving my opponents cards.

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.

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.

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…

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 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?

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Counterlash in a deck with a high mana curve is so fun!

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

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.

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.

You, uh, got a list for that bauble tribal deck?

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 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

I think a lot of people put Reliquary Tower in their decks because someone at their table is running Cyclonic Rift in all their decks.

Arcane Denial is money in my Watcher in the Water deck.

It's easier to cast than counter spell, it should be slightly worse. Also, you don't play arcane denial instead of counterspell, you run both! You could think of it more like remand rather than counterspell, although they have to get a different card instead of the same one.

I'm late, but does this also mean you don't like chaos warp, or is it different because red generally doesn't have much good removal?

1) 4+ color decks will care about the double U pips. For example I have an 5 color deck with all fetchlands and shocks and ABUR duals and even then it’s not the easiest thing to have access to 3-4 pips of a specific color until the lategame, meaning I can frequently have turns where I can’t play any regular blue spells if I want to also hold up UU. And even 3 color budget decks can struggle to keep up double UU pips reliably especially if they lack green (since green has the best color fixing). 2) The main flaw with the argument about “oh your opponent draws 2 cards so that’s negative card advantage over counterspell” is that the 2 cards your opponent draws aren’t always going to be used against you and you only. For example if one of the two cards he draws off arcane denial is a Beast within and then he later blows up another opponent’s thing, that usually won’t affect you negatively and it often can help you (eg he blows up a smothering tithe). The reason why arcane denial sucks in 1v1 is the two cards will always be aimed at you without question. This is not the case in FFA. You even mention the “well if he’s archenemy then you don’t want the archenemy to draw more gas”, but it does save you tempo compared to higher CMC counters. And if it’s a 3v1 then it’s even less likely that the cards he draws will be aimed at you since he’s fending off two other players. 3) Your divine gambit is not a good counter argument because it is double WW pips and is a sorcery. If it were 1W instant it would be more interesting. But also, white has enough budget removal options where you don’t need it anyway. With blue, there are actually not a whole lot of 2 mana unconditional counterspells. Outside of mana drain (huge $$$) and actual Counterspell and delay (which is an underrated card although still has flaws especially in casual), what else is there at the 2 mana slot? Many replacements you suggested are not “2 mana unconditional counter anything” and makes them more like sidegrade or great in certain decks, and not flat out upgrades. Overall, I’m generally fine with arcane denial in most 4+ color decks, especially if you can’t shell out money for the best mana bases where the double UU pips will matter (and will consider it in budget 3 color decks). If I can find synergistic pieces that will give them more upside than arcane denial, I’ll make the swap (eg play Metallic Rebuke in an artifact deck) too. But it’s still a fine card.

Doesnt Rampant growth effectively cantrips?? For a land??

so close to subscribing, another great video. I mostly like videos about single cards, evaluations of cards, underrated cards, different perspectives on the game/strategies etc.

Arcane Denial isn't that good in Force Draw since the draw is a may trigger

I mean I do have the neat og Ice Age print, but I guess you are right with card quality in most decks just generally going up. Though I do need to find a good middle counterspell since in my nomadic ways there’s always somehow A cEDH guy.. Do also wonder how you feel about Tibalt’s Trickery ig. Also, to note on the evacuation in Brass, it is a super janky way to remove the finality counter from all the pirates.

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.

Arcane Denial was great back in the day when the card pool was 95 % grizzly bears and 5 %necropotence

I actually only ever play arcane denial in decks that benefit from large pop off turns that end up winning the game AND have cost reduction for instant and sorceries. Prime example being Magnus the Red, where paying only a single blue to counter a spell that would otherwise ruin my chances of winning from a game ending burn spell is really useful.

Depending on the deck u play and what u face the outcome can change. Considering it can hit anything and many times just stop a turn on its tracks for 2 mana and since the card adv comes next turn, u will get in fact a tempo advantage. Also, one of my cards can be worth more than 2 of other deck (avg mana value and cards played per turn, sometimes it means giving a choice rather than giving more fuel).

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

Dream fracture and Keep Safe stocks must be going up right now ✨ Jokes aside I agree with not wanting to give cards to opponents unless it’s in a predictable political situation and your visuals of the card advantage/disadvantage really made the reasoning clear

One point to bring up is that Arcane Denial is secretly a modal card. If you counter your own throwaway spell, you can draw 3 at the next turn's upkeep.

I have a Veyran, Voice of Duality deck. On EDHrec, it's sad to see that Arcane Denial is in more Veyran decks than Stubborn Denial. In that deck, Stubborn Denial is a 1 mana counter noncreature spell, it's insanely good.

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 quite good in Stella Lee. I use it to counter my own cantrip which draws 3 and impulse draws 2. Or it protects my combo turn.

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

Insidious Will is a really fun card that I used to play in a few decks. I say used to because it’s starting to feel too slow for how fast commander is getting these days so I’ve taken it out of a few decks. Rewind is also pretty cool too and super cheap. Overwhelming Denial is also super underrated in my opinion. I’m glad you mentioned it. The only deck I’ve been using Arcane Denial in is my Jhoira suspend deck. Just because it’s easy to hold two mana up in that deck. There are a lot of counters you mentioned though that I think look really good and haven’t heard of. I might go through and update the decks counters. I don’t know the last time I actually edited that deck but I think it must have been before 2020.

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.

Might try more of the other counter spells, but i just have a denail or 2 laying around it does the job well and in a pod i dont see the draw 2 as complete disadvantage unless the person who draws goes next turn. It can get $5, but if it comes in a pre-con thats $5 they aren think spending and another 1-10 they wont spend replacing the card, so it really depends on how you see it

The way people just copy the 100 cards edhrec gives them, paste it into moxfield or archidekt probably leads to a lot of players slotting this without ever having read it twice. Great video!!

I run arcane denial in any deck that needs a constant stream of cards. The new commander from OTJ Eris is a great example. The draw on it helps to get myself ahead and make sure I am double-spelling as much as possible or getting enough cards in hand to storm off and win. I also mostly use my counterspells in the deck to serve as protection or to counter massive threats. If I use arcane denial to counter a wrath and then swing for lethal next turn, doesn't really matter that they drew two extra cards. And if I use it to counter something like a craterhoof behemoth, they're behind on tempo since they probably lost their whole turn while I just spent 2 mana, and chances are they won't draw an equally big bomb. I do agree with your points for the most part though. I don't really run this card in any of my slower and more-controlly blue decks, nor do I run it in my other fast blue deck (merfolk) since that deck doesn't need cards in hand nor does it struggle to draw when I need it

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).

In casual, more versatile effects are highly sought after, which is why MDFCs are so popular. Arcane Denial is an MDFC counterspell that toys with card advantage. In order to use it to its fullest, a player would need to know when to play its two modes: countering an opponent's threat or countering your own spell for card draw. It's decent at either mode, but having those options is invaluable in a casual commander game. Plus, the ceiling gets higher the more deckbuilding is put into it. Cards like Narset, Parter of Veils and Notion Thief see play and would mitigate or reverse the downside of the counterspell mode. Playing uncounterable spells like Lier, Disciple of the Drowned or Supreme Verdict will make the draw side stronger. Cast triggers like Archmage Emeritus and Vesuvan Duplimancy also make the draw side better, since the spells cast might not be relevant anyway. I agree with Trinket that Arcane Denial is overplayed, and the math is mathing. However, gameplay with Arcane Denial in the hands of competent players is completely different than in a new player's hand. Just tracking players that lose after playing arcane denial will not take their skill or knowledge into consideration, especially with the EDHrec and Precon effects weighing so heavily on the deckbuilding process, since more than likely a newer player will be using it poorly. TLDR: Arcane Denial is good because it is versatile, it is just difficult to play well and so it shouldn't go in every deck for all the reasons Trinket mentions.

Arcane denial in nekusar is goated, arcane denial in a kami draw mill deck after resolving narset is goated. Sure opponents drawing cards is lame but if them drawing cards is not actually beneficial for them. That’s priceless

I would compare it like pact of negation to force of will. Where counterspell and force can be used at any turn, you want to use arcane denial or pact to protect a win con you are trying to execute. You can also use it as a backup draw spell if the need arises. I'm not trying to say it's perfect, but it's not as bad as absorb.

Arcane denial is a card that I am actively trying to put into decks, and the like 3 mana versions of this. Now this is due to me prefering like power 5-7 decks, and they arent the only counterspells im playing, but if I run 5+ counterspells I want some sort of upside for my opponents so I dont get permanently targeted ':) and I dont make people salt out for counterspelling stuff.

Okay so hear my out. Jhoira of the Ghitu deck. I suspend some massive destroy all spell but when the time counters are up, I don't want it to resolve so I arcane denial that spell. I'll get to draw 3 cards which is really important in that deck.