1) That's alot of negate! I think essence scatter has a place in standard. All of the creatures we care bout have etb effects that replace themselves, so fighting creatures with point removal is not a winning proposition. I'd suggest a minimum of 3, perhaps even 6 essence scatter (yes, I know we can;t play 6, but a 3-3 or 4-2 split with horribly awry might do the trick, depending also on how popular embalm becomes). I do like magma spray vs scrounger and embalm dudes though, and I forgot about that one.
2) I'm not so high on commit. 4 mana for a 1-1 trade is not where I want to be, and this only becomes a 2-1 if you want to play memory. My doubt is: do we really want to draw them 7, and shuffle all their threats back into the deck?
3) I know you have 8 cycling cards, but isn't 24 land a bit low? I would suggest 25 as a bare minimum, probably 26.
4) Hub without any other energy sources seems risky.
One amendment I'd like to make to my previous deck: I forgot about Geier reach sanitarium. This card, with Archfiend and perhaps some other things from the board seems like a reliable way to trigger our archfiend. Perhaps we can also include a 1-of faith of the devoted and have an endgame where we just drain them...
On a budget, I only see chances winning vs them by either being faster (hence my Red Deck Wins) or getting them away from playing that tide-turner (for instance, my B/R Vampire Madness basically lost vs Skysovereign and V Gearhulk once it hit, so I had to play Pick the Brain without Delirium because I didn't have Transgress the Mind)
Wondering if the/my issue is mostly too strong individual cards than archetypes.
Well, WotC is in the business of making money, and so they "price discriminate", meaning that they print different subsets of cards for different intended audiences with different budgets. That way they can have a finger in every pie. As far as constructed formats go, they print cards that are intended for competitive play, and these will always be pushed (therefore sought after and expensive), they print some wonky cards that are clearly intended for EDH (thus, non competitive and cheaper, unless you want a foil, and then you pay more... price discrimination, again). So, what I'm trying to say with this, is that it will always be hard for a budget deck to be competitive (not impossible, but extremely hard), and that's not because of a "slip up", or a mistake in design, it's rather intentional I'd say.
With that in mind, I think that pushing a small set of individual cards hurt them alot. I made the analogy a few posts up: they are in ice-cream store whose market research said chocolate (i.e. midrange) was the favorite flavor. So, they pushed away all other flavors and sold only chocolate (i.e. they really pushed planeswalker and resilient creature-based midrange decks). Problem is, when all you have is chocolate, the previously "best flavor" quickly becomes boring and bland.
Wotc stated that starting with Hour of Devastation (AKH was already in print when they started getting negative feedback about standard) they'll make the answer cards better. hopefully this means "battlecruiser midrange" gets pushed out by slower control decks. And slower control deck always open the door for "going under" with sligh-style hyper aggro (which, circling back to your point, is generally the cheapest archetype)
It could be that UW is the way to go, but I'm not sure UW has such a lategame like Liliana offers. Splashing W in UB for single white cards could also be a possibility, but I'm not sure if the mana will be good. Do you have an esper manabase you like?
another benefit of Esper is that we open up to lifegain, which is something UB draw-go does not support very well (I toyed with playing noxious gearhulk) as a reanimation target for lily, but I don't want to over-push the liliana synergies: control needs all it's cards to stand on their own, rather than on synergies.
PS: my current plan vs walkers is to counter them (or to attack them with zombies, but this is hard vs gideon). The SB could have more counterspells for walkers, and maybe some never in there too.
I feel like a Cancel-like 3cmc unconditional counterspell would be much better received if we had one that was 2U instead of 1UU.
I really don't feel like the extra flexibility of only having a single blue in the casting cost would break anything but I think it would make the card feel a lot better and be generally more useful.
I'm advocating WOTC cut blue players some slack and at least do a 2UCancel.
For a number of years, the rule was that any hard, unconditional counterspell effect had to have double blue in the cost, because they wanted to avoid decks splashing that effect, resulting in costs like Absorb (There are some exceptions, of course, but not many). More recently, they've expanded it to say that any hard counterspell needs at least two colored mana, as of Return to Ravnica Block, but to cost Cancel at 2U would be a huge departure in philosophy for counterspells.
I don't really think I'm alone in saying that a change in the design philosophy for counterspells is in order.
1) I agree they need to change their counterspell philosophy
2) I disagree moving from 1UU cancel to 2U cancel is the way to go. The problem is not the color requirement but the cmc. Why? The reason counterpells are powerful is because they provide a tempo gain (you counter their cmc X spell with a cmc Y counterspel, and gain X-Y mana in the process). That tempo gain is what you use to cast removal spells on their board or, if they have no dangerous permanents in play, cast a card draw spell. That's how control stabilizes: tempo gain into cleaning up the board or reloading their hand.
3) In a world with powerful ETB effects, 1-for-1 removal is terrible. On top of that, playable 2-for-1 removal (or better) is practically non-existent nowadays. So control decks are left needing counterspells in order to compete. But since most powerful threats start at cmc=3, then (by virtue of the tempo argument I gave before) counterspells need to cost 2.
4) I don't advocate for counterspell coming back (edit: actually I do, but for the sake of argument, let's say I don't). But I think UUcounterspell with a mild drawback are a template WotC should start considering. Example: instead of dissolve, give us counterspell and let the opponent scry.
5) Control is important (mainly in standard), to avoid midrange vs midrange standards. As a rule of thumb, hyper aggro beats control, control beats midrange, midrange beats hyper aggro. W/out a viable true control deck, aggro's "prey" is pushed off the format, and midrange flourishes, so we get these formats that are all about midrange mirrors.
6) The "fun" argument (i.e. the argument that market research shows that midrange is the preferred archetype) is flawed. Of course, within a healthy format, I am not surprised midrange is the preferred archetype of players. But this is precisely because they get to battle other variety of decks. This does not mean that midrange will continue being the preferred archetype if all games end up being midrange mirrors. Its like an ice cream store saying "chocolate is the flavor I sell the most, so I'll eliminate all other flavors and just sell chocolate". It would be silly: people would be fed up of it pretty soon, and the the "favorite" flavor ends up being bland and boring.
Hi all, just a thread where we can toss ideas as to how AKH control could look like. This is not so much "Esper control" or "Jeskai control", or "X-control", just control in general. The idea is to find the optimal colors through the collective hive mind. Here are my initial thoughts.
1) Card draw is the glue that holds the control deck together So what card draw spells are playable?
Herald of Anguish could be playable with Liliana's reanimation and the discard outlets. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there are many cheap control playable artifacts so as to cast him on the cheap.
Liliana, death's majesty is a good inevitability engine. Pumping out 2/2s, wiping the board, and reanimating cycled creatures seems right up control's alley.
Gideon of the Trials is hidden card advantage. His +1 is a 1-for-0 and once he has enough loyalty and/or you have means to defend him, his emblem negates all win-cons of the opponent.
After analyzing the pool of playables, I think that Liliana is the best way to drown our opponents in card advantage, and I'd like to keep it 2 colors for manabase consistency, so here is a potential UB list. (note: essence scatter might turn into horribly awry, but in an unknown meta I'd rather have a more versatile counterspell than one that can exile; the 4 fatal push in theory would interact well with liliana: early game you kill 2 mana dudes, and late game you chump with a zombie and that turn on revolt). (note 2: I put cyclers in the "card draw" section since their primary mode will be to cycle). The idea is straightforward: play draw-go control tapping out only for liliana and Ob-Nixilis. Eventually you can win with zombie beatdown, archfiend beatdowns, or Ob Nixilis ultimate. I would love to fit a Herald of Anguish but I don't think he can make the cut.
Anyway, this is a very rough draft that could probably use lots of improvement, so let's hear it!
Here's my speculation.
1) "Gift" hints that the card would benefit you rather than hurt the opponent.
2) Bolas is Grixis.
3) Therefore, this is a permanent card that will give you benefits in the Grixis colors. U benefits you by drawing cards, B can benefit you by reanimating cards (which has synergies with 6 creatures in your yard), and R will give your reanimated creatures some evasion like menace, maybe +x/+0 or haste (or some combination of the above)?
Alternative, the U part can be something else that synergizes with the reanimated creatures, like "creatures you control have hexproof" or "whenever a spell or ability targets a creature you control, counter that spell or ability".
Move away from Esper Charm? What heresy is this!! Blasphemy!!!! Bur this person at the stake!!! (nah, just kidding ) But yeah, charm has got to be THE pull towards esper. The moment I give up charm I move to UW, no black. Push is all fine and good, but charm is the name of the game.
I mentioned cutting the baral's because for about a month or so I played alot of grixis with Baral and dark intimations and liliana, the last hope. The idea was that if baral died it didn't matter because it was easy to resurrect him. But he ate too much removal, and while his ceiling was high, his flor was pretty low too.
If you got your heart on Baral you might want ways to rebuy him to make him more consistent. Might I suggest Dusk//Dawn? I guess if you go that route you might want to include some more 2 power dudes to buy back as well. Perhaps Spell Queller, and yo could have a core of 8 creatures that play well with counterspells and Dusk//Dawn?
I was thinking of draw-go decks based on cycling. I like your build but I'd suggest a couple changes: I would like 25 or even 26 land rather than 24... 24, even with cycling, seems too low for a control deck. Also, Baral and Oketra's attendant trigger removal too much. I think that maybe you culd go -4 Baral, -1 attendant, and play 2 more lands and some more early removal.
I was actually thinking of going esper and use shadow of the grave as a finisher. End of turn, with 6+ mana you can cast SotG and cycle 2 to 4 cards to get +2 to +4 card advantage. This should help you reload enough to stabilize and win from there (specially if one of those cycled cards is renewed faith.)
I was thinking the same, but wandering what we'd take out for it... My only idea is to replace Think Twice with this, but I'm not sure that will work out. As a late draw this might be better than TT, since it is 4 vs 5 mana for the same CA. In the early game it is tricky. Cycling for 1 is better than cycling for 2, but if you cycle this early you loose the option of an extra card late game, and that extra card down the line is sometimes important. And if you don't want to take out TT to make room for this, then what? Seems like a decent card but not sure that we can fit it...
I like the design. Unlike whip of erebos (or other such effects) you pay a cost that is linked to the creature's cmc, so there is little "cheating on mana" potential. In exchange, you get a tiny bit of card advantage in the form of the zombie. I'd make it a spirit though... flavorfully, the thing that remains behind should be the spirit, right? Also, I;m not sure if this was on purpose or not, but you might consider a clause that says "activate this ability only when you could cast a sorcery". It is a clause that gets added to these effects quite alot.
the next card is a mechanic that a couple of us made up yesterday. The idea is to close the gap between being on the play and on the draw by allowing you to cast a "free" spell if you are on your first or second turn on the draw (although second turn might be too much). Example
Expedited destruction 1BB
Instant.
Destroy target creature
Expedite. (If it is the first or second turn of the game, and you did not play first, you may pay 0 rather than pay this card's mana cost.)
The fact that you can't play Cryptic Serpent on turn 2 really hurts his viability. That's why Goyf is so good, you can play him on turn 2 and be swinging with 4-6 power on turn 3. I don't think he's unplayable though.
I think Enigma Drake is even better, though. People have always said that Spellheart Chimera could be Modern playable if it had 4 toughness, so they printed that card. Unfortunately, it comes right as Bolt has been supplanted in the format by Push, so I'm not sure if that 4th toughness matters as much anymore. Either way, I think there could be a UR spells deck with this guy, Cryptic Serpent, Bedlam Reveler, and maybe TitI.
That aside, it's frustrating as a blue player to see them actively trying to push blue creatures. Not that it's a bad thing, but it feels like they're thinking, "Oh, blue isn't good enough? Here's some better blue creatures!" That's not what we want. We want better blue spells. I'm not playing blue for their creatures, I would just play green decks if I wanted that. As Foretold looks like it has some promise, but there were once again (so far) no good counterspells, card draw, or cantrips.
Lets wait and see with Hour of Devastation, where they supposedly start to really "correct" things.
I don't envision better counters or draw spells or cantrips coming back as part of making U great again. Cards like Cryptic Serpent are actually what I expect, aggressively costed threats that are far better in older formats that have better cantrips and counterspells. They have already produced 3 2c.c. counters and none of them seem modern playable. maybe we will get a unsummon with a reflector mage type of affect attached.
I think part of the problem with having expectations for a "better" counterspell or card draw, etc... is that those affects perform well enough in standard to not warrant a boost. It is also very difficult to balance out power of such a pushed card with intents for play in Modern, look at the last pushed draw spells printed Treasure Cruise and DDT "broke" the format by making BGx decks generally bad. I think the days of good permission, draw spells, and cantrips are firmly in the past which to me signals that the design space left for WotC to print pushed modern playable U cards is in Creature types, answers(not permission but answers very different things) and enchantments. As foretold is a example of a "pushed" enchantment that could potentially be busted at some time in the future. Or TiTi as a example of a powerful creature etc....These might not be the things that we want as blue mages but I think they will be the things we will get.
This is certainly sad.
I disagree with this (specially the part in bold). There is ample design space for U permission spells that is not broken. The problem is that WOTC does not want to print them because it is "unfun" for "new players" accrding to their "market research". Thats why their good permission (as in Universal & Hard) is "cancel w/ upside". But if they moved to a "counterpsell with downside" template, this would help U alot without being oppresive. Example: "Reversed Dissolve: UU counter target spell, that spell's controler may scry 1" (or scry 2, or scry some number. There is a number that makes this spell balanced. Or "exhausting denial: UU Counter target spell, then it's controller chooses a land you control. That land does not untap during your next untap phase". Or "looting denial: UU counter target spell, that spell's controller may loot". Basically, you can pick a positive effect X worth 1/2 a mana to 1 mana and template your counterspells as "UU: counter target spell, the spell's controller gets effect X." This would be modern playable and not oppresive.
The reason none of the 2 c.c. counters see play is that (a) they are soft counters (a-la mana leak) that loose value when the games go long (and games going long is precisely what control wants, so these spells just hamstring you) or (b) they cost you too much tempo (like deprive, that sets you back 1 land permanently. That effect is worth way more than 1 mana; i.e. the downside is way too "down"). Except for deprive, there are no 2 mana hard counters that are also universal, and this is what modern needs in its counterspells. A 1/2 to 1 mana downside is a cost most control players would gladly pay.
This is hard to evaluate. The effect is undeniably powerful: in the right deck, you are basically casting an impulse every turn for 0 mana. That is extremely powerful. Also, at 4 power it dodges bolt and at 5 mana dodges fatal push... this card could be busted in modern (in standard it would depend on the cards that share a set with it, and how pushed is a single one of the types you mention). The thing is that the decks that want it are probably the decks that get hurt by the life loss the most (slower control/combo decks, no aggro deck is going to pay 5 por a 2 power dude), so maybe it does work out, it really would require ample testing.
I mentioned in other posts that in order to balance standard, and keep pushing planeswalker power level, wotc should move form "cancel with upside" to "counterpsell with downside" in their design of counterspells. Here is one such suggestion:
Exhausting denial UU
Instant
Counter target spell, then that spell's controller chooses a permanent under your control. That permanent does not untap during your next untap phase.
This is a mediocre control finisher. A control deck wants to bury the opponent in card advantage (CA), basically maneuvering to a position where it has more answers in hand than the opponent has threats. How does this card contribute to that plan? Two ways, both mediocre (not bad, but nothing to get excited about)
1) it gains CA by forcing the opponent to play 2 removal spells on the sphinx.
2) it gains CA by embalming, so it is a 4-for-1.
Seems good? think again:
1) the arguments above assume targeted removal ii the only way to deal with this thing. Here is where the 3 toughness really hurts: its easy to kill in combat (embalm means it's still is a 2-for-1, since it will generally trade rather than chump), and there are some effects that can "deal 3 to all creatures". Also, the original cost and the embalm cost (5 and 7 respectively) are pretty high for a sorcery-speed card.
2) If you play no creatures then you get to blank all of their removal w/out investing the mana this card asks you to (and w/out using a card slot in your deck). Between creatures that accrue value when they etb (gearhulk), "creatureless" win-cons (planeswalkers, drake haven) and indestructible "creatures" (the gods), I think this is pretty low in the picking order for control finishers.
Good enough. Rubble is kind of gross early-game. Good support makes it even worse.
Wouldn't the printing of a "good" modern counterspell force it to be in a standard-legal set, thus warping the format badly around it for two years unless they banhammered it, by the way?
If only the splits in cards weren't always stand-ins for words! But that would be hilarious.
I don't think so. There are plenty of creatures with good ETB effects in standard. Trying to fight creatures with spells is a loosing proposition, since all the "1-1 removal" actually trades at a worse rate than 1-to-1. This is why you need to fight creatures with permanents, and then std converges to a "midrange-only" format. To give standard variety in game styles you need to be able to fight creatures with spells, and (if wotc insists on giving their creatures etb effects) they will have to start printing good countermagic. Alternatively, they'll have to print cheap removal w/upside.
1) That's alot of negate! I think essence scatter has a place in standard. All of the creatures we care bout have etb effects that replace themselves, so fighting creatures with point removal is not a winning proposition. I'd suggest a minimum of 3, perhaps even 6 essence scatter (yes, I know we can;t play 6, but a 3-3 or 4-2 split with horribly awry might do the trick, depending also on how popular embalm becomes). I do like magma spray vs scrounger and embalm dudes though, and I forgot about that one.
2) I'm not so high on commit. 4 mana for a 1-1 trade is not where I want to be, and this only becomes a 2-1 if you want to play memory. My doubt is: do we really want to draw them 7, and shuffle all their threats back into the deck?
3) I know you have 8 cycling cards, but isn't 24 land a bit low? I would suggest 25 as a bare minimum, probably 26.
4) Hub without any other energy sources seems risky.
One amendment I'd like to make to my previous deck: I forgot about Geier reach sanitarium. This card, with Archfiend and perhaps some other things from the board seems like a reliable way to trigger our archfiend. Perhaps we can also include a 1-of faith of the devoted and have an endgame where we just drain them...
Well, WotC is in the business of making money, and so they "price discriminate", meaning that they print different subsets of cards for different intended audiences with different budgets. That way they can have a finger in every pie. As far as constructed formats go, they print cards that are intended for competitive play, and these will always be pushed (therefore sought after and expensive), they print some wonky cards that are clearly intended for EDH (thus, non competitive and cheaper, unless you want a foil, and then you pay more... price discrimination, again). So, what I'm trying to say with this, is that it will always be hard for a budget deck to be competitive (not impossible, but extremely hard), and that's not because of a "slip up", or a mistake in design, it's rather intentional I'd say.
With that in mind, I think that pushing a small set of individual cards hurt them alot. I made the analogy a few posts up: they are in ice-cream store whose market research said chocolate (i.e. midrange) was the favorite flavor. So, they pushed away all other flavors and sold only chocolate (i.e. they really pushed planeswalker and resilient creature-based midrange decks). Problem is, when all you have is chocolate, the previously "best flavor" quickly becomes boring and bland.
Wotc stated that starting with Hour of Devastation (AKH was already in print when they started getting negative feedback about standard) they'll make the answer cards better. hopefully this means "battlecruiser midrange" gets pushed out by slower control decks. And slower control deck always open the door for "going under" with sligh-style hyper aggro (which, circling back to your point, is generally the cheapest archetype)
another benefit of Esper is that we open up to lifegain, which is something UB draw-go does not support very well (I toyed with playing noxious gearhulk) as a reanimation target for lily, but I don't want to over-push the liliana synergies: control needs all it's cards to stand on their own, rather than on synergies.
PS: my current plan vs walkers is to counter them (or to attack them with zombies, but this is hard vs gideon). The SB could have more counterspells for walkers, and maybe some never in there too.
1) I agree they need to change their counterspell philosophy
2) I disagree moving from 1UU cancel to 2U cancel is the way to go. The problem is not the color requirement but the cmc. Why? The reason counterpells are powerful is because they provide a tempo gain (you counter their cmc X spell with a cmc Y counterspel, and gain X-Y mana in the process). That tempo gain is what you use to cast removal spells on their board or, if they have no dangerous permanents in play, cast a card draw spell. That's how control stabilizes: tempo gain into cleaning up the board or reloading their hand.
3) In a world with powerful ETB effects, 1-for-1 removal is terrible. On top of that, playable 2-for-1 removal (or better) is practically non-existent nowadays. So control decks are left needing counterspells in order to compete. But since most powerful threats start at cmc=3, then (by virtue of the tempo argument I gave before) counterspells need to cost 2.
4) I don't advocate for counterspell coming back (edit: actually I do, but for the sake of argument, let's say I don't). But I think UU counterspell with a mild drawback are a template WotC should start considering. Example: instead of dissolve, give us counterspell and let the opponent scry.
5) Control is important (mainly in standard), to avoid midrange vs midrange standards. As a rule of thumb, hyper aggro beats control, control beats midrange, midrange beats hyper aggro. W/out a viable true control deck, aggro's "prey" is pushed off the format, and midrange flourishes, so we get these formats that are all about midrange mirrors.
6) The "fun" argument (i.e. the argument that market research shows that midrange is the preferred archetype) is flawed. Of course, within a healthy format, I am not surprised midrange is the preferred archetype of players. But this is precisely because they get to battle other variety of decks. This does not mean that midrange will continue being the preferred archetype if all games end up being midrange mirrors. Its like an ice cream store saying "chocolate is the flavor I sell the most, so I'll eliminate all other flavors and just sell chocolate". It would be silly: people would be fed up of it pretty soon, and the the "favorite" flavor ends up being bland and boring.
1) Card draw is the glue that holds the control deck together So what card draw spells are playable?
2) Card advantage that affects the board (and can win the game):
3) Other cards to consider
After analyzing the pool of playables, I think that Liliana is the best way to drown our opponents in card advantage, and I'd like to keep it 2 colors for manabase consistency, so here is a potential UB list. (note: essence scatter might turn into horribly awry, but in an unknown meta I'd rather have a more versatile counterspell than one that can exile; the 4 fatal push in theory would interact well with liliana: early game you kill 2 mana dudes, and late game you chump with a zombie and that turn on revolt). (note 2: I put cyclers in the "card draw" section since their primary mode will be to cycle). The idea is straightforward: play draw-go control tapping out only for liliana and Ob-Nixilis. Eventually you can win with zombie beatdown, archfiend beatdowns, or Ob Nixilis ultimate. I would love to fit a Herald of Anguish but I don't think he can make the cut.
Anyway, this is a very rough draft that could probably use lots of improvement, so let's hear it!
4 fatal push
3 essence scatter
2 negate
2 void shatter
X-for-one interaction (9)
3 liliana, death's majesty
2 Ob Nixilis, Reignited
4 Torrential Gearhulk
4 Censor
4 Hieroglyphic Illumination
2 Archfiend of Ifnir
2 Scour the laboratory
2 Pull from tomorrow
Land (26)
4 Fetid Pools
4 sunken hollow
4 Choked Estuary
4 Evolving wilds
5 Island
5 Swamp
1) "Gift" hints that the card would benefit you rather than hurt the opponent.
2) Bolas is Grixis.
3) Therefore, this is a permanent card that will give you benefits in the Grixis colors. U benefits you by drawing cards, B can benefit you by reanimating cards (which has synergies with 6 creatures in your yard), and R will give your reanimated creatures some evasion like menace, maybe +x/+0 or haste (or some combination of the above)?
Alternative, the U part can be something else that synergizes with the reanimated creatures, like "creatures you control have hexproof" or "whenever a spell or ability targets a creature you control, counter that spell or ability".
If you got your heart on Baral you might want ways to rebuy him to make him more consistent. Might I suggest Dusk//Dawn? I guess if you go that route you might want to include some more 2 power dudes to buy back as well. Perhaps Spell Queller, and yo could have a core of 8 creatures that play well with counterspells and Dusk//Dawn?
I was actually thinking of going esper and use shadow of the grave as a finisher. End of turn, with 6+ mana you can cast SotG and cycle 2 to 4 cards to get +2 to +4 card advantage. This should help you reload enough to stabilize and win from there (specially if one of those cycled cards is renewed faith.)
the next card is a mechanic that a couple of us made up yesterday. The idea is to close the gap between being on the play and on the draw by allowing you to cast a "free" spell if you are on your first or second turn on the draw (although second turn might be too much). Example
Expedited destruction 1BB
Instant.
Destroy target creature
Expedite. (If it is the first or second turn of the game, and you did not play first, you may pay 0 rather than pay this card's mana cost.)
I disagree with this (specially the part in bold). There is ample design space for U permission spells that is not broken. The problem is that WOTC does not want to print them because it is "unfun" for "new players" accrding to their "market research". Thats why their good permission (as in Universal & Hard) is "cancel w/ upside". But if they moved to a "counterpsell with downside" template, this would help U alot without being oppresive. Example: "Reversed Dissolve: UU counter target spell, that spell's controler may scry 1" (or scry 2, or scry some number. There is a number that makes this spell balanced. Or "exhausting denial: UU Counter target spell, then it's controller chooses a land you control. That land does not untap during your next untap phase". Or "looting denial: UU counter target spell, that spell's controller may loot". Basically, you can pick a positive effect X worth 1/2 a mana to 1 mana and template your counterspells as "UU: counter target spell, the spell's controller gets effect X." This would be modern playable and not oppresive.
The reason none of the 2 c.c. counters see play is that (a) they are soft counters (a-la mana leak) that loose value when the games go long (and games going long is precisely what control wants, so these spells just hamstring you) or (b) they cost you too much tempo (like deprive, that sets you back 1 land permanently. That effect is worth way more than 1 mana; i.e. the downside is way too "down"). Except for deprive, there are no 2 mana hard counters that are also universal, and this is what modern needs in its counterspells. A 1/2 to 1 mana downside is a cost most control players would gladly pay.
I mentioned in other posts that in order to balance standard, and keep pushing planeswalker power level, wotc should move form "cancel with upside" to "counterpsell with downside" in their design of counterspells. Here is one such suggestion:
Exhausting denial UU
Instant
Counter target spell, then that spell's controller chooses a permanent under your control. That permanent does not untap during your next untap phase.
1) it gains CA by forcing the opponent to play 2 removal spells on the sphinx.
2) it gains CA by embalming, so it is a 4-for-1.
Seems good? think again:
1) the arguments above assume targeted removal ii the only way to deal with this thing. Here is where the 3 toughness really hurts: its easy to kill in combat (embalm means it's still is a 2-for-1, since it will generally trade rather than chump), and there are some effects that can "deal 3 to all creatures". Also, the original cost and the embalm cost (5 and 7 respectively) are pretty high for a sorcery-speed card.
2) If you play no creatures then you get to blank all of their removal w/out investing the mana this card asks you to (and w/out using a card slot in your deck). Between creatures that accrue value when they etb (gearhulk), "creatureless" win-cons (planeswalkers, drake haven) and indestructible "creatures" (the gods), I think this is pretty low in the picking order for control finishers.
I don't think so. There are plenty of creatures with good ETB effects in standard. Trying to fight creatures with spells is a loosing proposition, since all the "1-1 removal" actually trades at a worse rate than 1-to-1. This is why you need to fight creatures with permanents, and then std converges to a "midrange-only" format. To give standard variety in game styles you need to be able to fight creatures with spells, and (if wotc insists on giving their creatures etb effects) they will have to start printing good countermagic. Alternatively, they'll have to print cheap removal w/upside.