So, how long is Deny gonna stay at 3 mana?

Win or lose, I'm already tired of this card. I shouldn't be forced to not use any spells over 5 mana when I face a deck with Ionian cards.... Idk if it needs to be hard nerfed, but something needs to be done about this card solo winning certain matchups.

Probably gonna get hit with the next nerf patch.

Either that or the rest of Ionia.

Deny should be 4-5 mana at least. It's ridiculous that you can basically cancel an entire turn for your enemy while only using your spell mana.

The developers will look at statistics first, then if it's on the borderline, they may factor in player sentiment.

There are plenty of other denial cards and tactics in the game (represented in every faction) that are just as strong, but because they are not worded as straightforwardly ("stop certain effects"), players tend not to think of them as unfair.

Playing around cards like Deny is simply part of the game. Watch some streamers if you need to see how it's done. If you're just too impatient to wait for an opening, I don't know what to tell you, but I don't think that's a good reason to change a reasonable card.

As for "solo winning certain match-ups," that is actually OK, too. Every deck and strategy has bad match-ups. If Deny is your deck's only weak point, that is all the more reason to keep it as it is.

omg yeah you have 1 card thar can cancel spells and people crying about it after a week already --_--

My personal take: I do like that it can be used to counter combat tricks, but I agree that cost of needing to bank 3 spell mana for the reward of canceling almost any spell or effect is probably too much.  Even with MtG control decks, they were at least limited in what they could put on board if they needed to reserve mana for counterspells.  Maybe if they limited its effect on spells to those that cost 3 or less?  Or if it they made it so it only works on Fast spells--right now Slow spells aren't especially popular, but I could see that potentially changing if they didn't need to worry about Deny.

Quote From FortyDust

The developers will look at statistics first, then if it's on the borderline, they may factor in player sentiment.

There are plenty of other denial cards and tactics in the game (represented in every faction) that are just as strong, but because they are not worded as straightforwardly ("stop certain effects"), players tend not to think of them as unfair.

Playing around cards like Deny is simply part of the game. Watch some streamers if you need to see how it's done. If you're just too impatient to wait for an opening, I don't know what to tell you, but I don't think that's a good reason to change a reasonable card.

As for "solo winning certain match-ups," that is actually OK, too. Every deck and strategy has bad match-ups. If Deny is your deck's only weak point, that is all the more reason to keep it as it is.

I have played Magic for quite a while, I have no problem with playing around a counter spell. Deny is not a problem because it is overpowered, I dont care about it when I'm using an aggro or midrange deck. The problem with the card is that it makes playing control or combo decks somewhat suboptimal. I use two Denies in my Jinx deck, and the card is too strong vs certain decks. It needs to be changed unless you want to see only aggro or high tempo decks every single game. I have noticed my opponents on ladder almost always using Ionia as a secondary just for this card. It's already getting old in a game that's brand new.

Quote From OldManSanns

My personal take: I do like that it can be used to counter combat tricks, but I agree that cost of needing to bank 3 spell mana for the reward of canceling almost any spell or effect is probably too much.  Even with MtG control decks, they were at least limited in what they could put on board if they needed to reserve mana for counterspells.  Maybe if they limited its effect on spells to those that cost 3 or less?  Or if it they made it so it only works on Fast spells--right now Slow spells aren't especially popular, but I could see that potentially changing if they didn't need to worry about Deny.

I like the idea of them being useable on everything besides slow spells. Or maybe it only works on your turn? Idk if I want the card to be nerfed mana wise, I think 3 mana is fine.

Maybe Deny should only be able to counter spells that cost 5 or less Mana? That way it wouldn't cause huge swings based on whether or not the opposing player had a Deny. Deny could also have "If the spell costs 6 or more, refill your opponent's Spell Mana"

Counters already exist in different shape or form outside of Deny sometimes with lower cost and usage outside of spell play.

It doesn't counter burst.

It does have a niche to counter unit skills and untargeted + unconditional spells which usually are greed, and counters to greed are healthy.

But sure if you fill your deck with burst and only 1 greedy slow/fast spell guess which one will get denied (whichever the cost of Deny)

Deny is fine as it is. 

How about Deny is cast by selected friendly minion?

If you eliminate the minion with another burst/fast spell the deny is denied.

Some interesting ideas in this thread. I'll share my 2 cents:

Limiting it to only countering spells which cost 3 or less would ruin the card in my opinion; at that point, you may as well not bother. 5 or less sounds more reasonable.

Only allowing Deny to be used against Fast spells is a neat idea, although I'd estimate that would reduce its usability too much. Add skills to that, however, and it might be a happy middle ground. I could see this being a decent way to balance it.

Tying it to an allied unit at the time of cast seems rather inconsequential. Most of the time, it's easy enough to retain at least a minimum board presence. It'd be a minor nerf at most.

I'm in the camp of players advocating an increase to 4 mana cost for Deny. You always need to remember that it can turn into a dead card if the opponent's deck simply doesn't use any super expensive spells; in that case, the Deny player feels pressured to always set a portion of their mana pool aside without getting anything out of it (or having to make a sub-par trade by cancelling a cheap spell).

Maybe if there were a Burst spell that turns your next spell into a Burst? (Or turns Slow into Fast, and Fast into Burst?)

Then you could get undeniable spells, but at a mana and card premium.

Quote From sydderal

Counters already exist in different shape or form outside of Deny sometimes with lower cost and usage outside of spell play.

It doesn't counter burst.

It does have a niche to counter unit skills and untargeted + unconditional spells which usually are greed, and counters to greed are healthy.

But sure if you fill your deck with burst and only 1 greedy slow/fast spell guess which one will get denied (whichever the cost of Deny)

Deny is fine as it is. 

So greed= any half decent spell over 4 mana? Still doesn't seem fine to me. The problem is trying to figure out a way to fix it so that we don't have 3 different aggro/midrange decks running around dominating the meta, while not making the card totally useless.

Quote From FortyDust

The developers will look at statistics first, then if it's on the borderline, they may factor in player sentiment.

There are plenty of other denial cards and tactics in the game (represented in every faction) that are just as strong, but because they are not worded as straightforwardly ("stop certain effects"), players tend not to think of them as unfair.

Playing around cards like Deny is simply part of the game. Watch some streamers if you need to see how it's done. If you're just too impatient to wait for an opening, I don't know what to tell you, but I don't think that's a good reason to change a reasonable card.

As for "solo winning certain match-ups," that is actually OK, too. Every deck and strategy has bad match-ups. If Deny is your deck's only weak point, that is all the more reason to keep it as it is.

Quote From sydderal

Counters already exist in different shape or form outside of Deny sometimes with lower cost and usage outside of spell play.

It doesn't counter burst.

It does have a niche to counter unit skills and untargeted + unconditional spells which usually are greed, and counters to greed are healthy.

But sure if you fill your deck with burst and only 1 greedy slow/fast spell guess which one will get denied (whichever the cost of Deny)

Deny is fine as it is. 

Totally agree.

I guess ppl aren't used to Magic the Gathering for example. I remember in Magic ppl using a lot of counter spells in a deck.

Just take this in consideration:
Decks in Magic are 60 cards with 20+ being lands, that leaves less than 40 actual cards.
Decks would include Counterspell (2 mana and it counterd EVERYTHING including summoning creatures, not just fast or slow spells like here)
On the same deck you could see Undermine or Absorb (3 mana, counter anything and deal 3 dmg or gain 3 health)
On same deck Daze (2 mana - counter anything unless player pays one more)
On same deck Forbid (3 mana with buyback [means the counterspell could return to your hand] - counter anything)
And the list goes one.
And we're talking about 4 copies of each in a deck, so 4x Counterspell, 4x daze, 4x undermine/absorb, 4x forbid = 16 counters in less than 40 actual cards.... 16 freaking counters!!!
And guess what, ppl played against it and around it.

And here, bitching about a Deny that costs 3 and NOT EVEN counters creatures, and you can use ONLY 3 copies in a deck of 40 actual cards (no lands).... I mean, just play around it....
You can't use your combo the turn you wanted!? Guess what, that was the rule in Magic the Gathering Counterspell decks, you would have to gather cards in your hand, powerfull enough so the opponent would be obligated to counter, until his mana was gone or no cards in hand, and just than you would do your combo.

just my 2 cents :)

The general idea of deny is fine. It forces decks to play early followers instead of only relying on boardclears.

However, I agree that 3 mana is problematic. It contributes to the current elusive problem that the elusive player can always save his 3 spell mana to counter removal without having to sacrifice anything for it. Deny being 4 mana would solve this as the deny player would always lose 1 mana each turn and thus fall behind.

It think it would be healthy for the meta as well because Deny being 4 mana would also make boardclears a little better which would make aggro decks less prevalent. IMO I face a bit too much aggro on the ladder right now.

For the record, I've always thought that Counterspell (and most of its derivatives) in Magic is a horribly balanced card. Using that as the measuring bar for cards in other games like Runeterra is a terrible approach in my opinion.

Of course, your mileage may differ - plenty of people enjoy magic, possibly including counterspell cards. But I say Riot shouldn't hold back on making Deny more expensive if it's proving to sap the fun out of this game for so many players and contributing to a lopsided metagame.

The main issues with Deny are:

• Its cost - 3 mana can easily be saved up as spell ones since almost the beginning of a match, threatening the opponent to have a counter with basically no downside in each turn.
• Its from Ionia - being on the same Region as the most powerfull Elusive minions make both of them a pretty nasty combination to deal with.

The easy way to "fix" it will probably be to increase its cost so that keeping open mana for it will require an actual drawback. Other solutions such as limiting what spells can be countered or "gifting" the opponent with something in exchange (refund mana, draw card and so on) seems too much.

Counterspell is something that has always existed in MtG and per se it's an ok mechanic so nothing really broken.

Honestly, I don't think deny needs to have it's cost increased. A better change would be to make it so that it cannot counter anything that costs more than 4. This way it works more like a combat trick, and it won't be able to counter those huge spells you are devoting your entire turn to.

For the sake of provoking more discussion, I'm curious what people think of alternative balancing measures, such as:

- Giving the opponent a card draw

- Refunding some or all of the opponent's mana expenditure in casting the countered spell

- Locking you (the Deny player) out of playing any other spells that round

- Stopping you (the Deny player) from banking any spell mana that round

- Can't cast it if you have any non-Ionian allies in play

I could go on. I'm not suggesting any of these are a good idea - just spitballing.

I haven't found it to be oppressive, and it's often a dead card in my hand. I'd be curious to hear about its stats before taking action. I do like someone's point that it bends the meta away from control. I think one thing that would help is clarification on which kinds of ally abilities show up in the spell queue and can be countered. Some "Play" effects go in the queue and others don't. I think a nice way to balance the card would be to give it "refill your opponent's spell mana." That way it punishes big ally "Play" effects (but they still get the big ally), but isn't as devastating when they got nothing off their big spell.

Quote From Bystekhilcar

- Giving the opponent a card draw

How about giving the opponent a card draw if the countered spell costs more than 3 mana? Although this wouldn't work with skills (I believe they all have a cost of 0, right?). I generally like the idea, but it would make countering lower-cost spells rather awkward, if not outright disadvantageous.

I guess giving the opponent back some mana would be a decent-ish trade-off, too.

I have only been playing for 10 days very casually and only since yesterday more actively so my experience is limited. But coming with a 10-year background in MtG, I can't say I am surprised that a card like Deny exists in the game.

Each faction has its own strengths and weaknesses, and "Counter" is a signature spell of Ionia, so denying only spells of cost 3 or less, as some suggest, is a little ridiculous. On the other hand, a cost of 4 for the same effect will again feel too cheap when it cancels 8-9 cost spells so people will still complain. I've had Deny cancel a Warmother's Call (I don't even know how I got it in my hand) and even a cost of 5 would seem too cheap at that moment.

Since there are some units that play with 6-cost spells, that creates a nice threshold and having Deny cancel spells that cost 5 or less seems logical. The enemy has their plans thwarted and in most cases you spend 1-2 less than your opponent. It's either that or Deny could have a variable cost that is equal to the cost of the ability it wants to cancel.

Quote From Bystekhilcar

For the sake of provoking more discussion, I'm curious what people think of alternative balancing measures, such as:

- Giving the opponent a card draw

- Refunding some or all of the opponent's mana expenditure in casting the countered spell

- Locking you (the Deny player) out of playing any other spells that round

- Stopping you (the Deny player) from banking any spell mana that round

- Can't cast it if you have any non-Ionian allies in play

 

I could go on. I'm not suggesting any of these are a good idea - just spitballing.

I think I would rather have these type of alternatives than a hard nerf to deny, too. I actually dont think the card is overpowered, it just hard limits the type of spells you can put in your deck, which is annoying. It's also annoying to see everyone use Ionia as a secondary class on the ladder adding the same 9 cards.

Quote From Firenza

I haven't found it to be oppressive, and it's often a dead card in my hand. I'd be curious to hear about its stats before taking action. I do like someone's point that it bends the meta away from control. I think one thing that would help is clarification on which kinds of ally abilities show up in the spell queue and can be countered. Some "Play" effects go in the queue and others don't. I think a nice way to balance the card would be to give it "refill your opponent's spell mana." That way it punishes big ally "Play" effects (but they still get the big ally), but isn't as devastating when they got nothing off their big spell.

It's "often" a dead card in your hand???? I find that extremely hard to believe. The stats might make it not seem that bad, since everyone has started to avoid running any non-burst spells over 5 mana because of it already. The card needs a change if the devs don't want to make the meta super stale, along with 1/4th of the library being a liability to use in your deck, in the genesis of the game.

Deny is ok and it should keep its "spell mana range".

If you simply are playing The Ruination before you fake your opponent or before make them use their deny, You simply are noob. That's not about card's balance. It is about how you are playing the game.

Quote From QuestingBeast

Since there are some units that play with 6-cost spells, that creates a nice threshold and having Deny cancel spells that cost 5 or less seems logical. The enemy has their plans thwarted and in most cases you spend 1-2 less than your opponent. It's either that or Deny could have a variable cost that is equal to the cost of the ability it wants to cancel.

Both of these seem like decent options to me, too.

Playing big, powerful spells MUST have an opportunity cost beyond just the mana expenditure. There MUST be an inherent risk.

Deny is that risk. Any change that obviates that risk is a non-starter. Making it so Deny works only on cheap spells is out of the question.

Quote From FortyDust

Playing big, powerful spells MUST have an opportunity cost beyond just the mana expenditure. There MUST be an inherent risk.

Following your line of reasoning, that opportunity cost only exists when playing against an Ionia deck. I think that's a problem as it's not "inherent".

Quote From FortyDust

Playing big, powerful spells MUST have an opportunity cost beyond just the mana expenditure. There MUST be an inherent risk.

Deny is that risk. Any change that obviates that risk is a non-starter. Making it so Deny works only on cheap spells is out of the question.

They do have inherent risk. There's always inherent risk in playing any high-cost card, which is that they have a high probability of being dead draws on any given turn. Even when you've got the mana to play them, there's often other demands on your mana expenditure which can effectively lock them off as options. And that's the only risk they need to have - look at HS as a comparator here. Since Counterspell is pretty telegraphed (and rare), there's no other opportunity cost on high cost spells - and it's not like they're exactly flooding the meta.

Quote From Bystekhilcar

Quote From FortyDust

Playing big, powerful spells MUST have an opportunity cost beyond just the mana expenditure. There MUST be an inherent risk.

Deny is that risk. Any change that obviates that risk is a non-starter. Making it so Deny works only on cheap spells is out of the question.

They do have inherent risk. There's always inherent risk in playing any high-cost card, which is that they have a high probability of being dead draws on any given turn. Even when you've got the mana to play them, there's often other demands on your mana expenditure which can effectively lock them off as options. And that's the only risk they need to have - look at HS as a comparator here. Since Counterspell is pretty telegraphed (and rare), there's no other opportunity cost on high cost spells - and it's not like they're exactly flooding the meta.

Yes. Considering a 7+ mana spell is dead most of the game, might not even really swing the game in your favor when played AND is basically auto-lose when countered by 3 mana deny - there's just no reason to have any such spell in your deck right now. The odds are so much against it.

The deck that plays Deny has similar costs, though.

- Dead most of the game: Deny is absolutely dead until the opponent plays a deniable effect.

- Might not swing the game: Deny absolutely will not swing the game unless it hits a key effect and sticks.

- Autolose: OK, not really applicable to Deny; however, keeping mana open for Deny is often problematic and can lead to game-losing situations.

Deny can be played around, baited out, and -- yes -- countered with Deny.

You know when Deny is easiest to play? When you don't give the Deny player enough reasons to waste it early. Also when you don't apply enough pressure to make it hard to reserve spell mana.

Quote From BlueSpark

Quote From FortyDust

Playing big, powerful spells MUST have an opportunity cost beyond just the mana expenditure. There MUST be an inherent risk.

Following your line of reasoning, that opportunity cost only exists when playing against an Ionia deck. I think that's a problem as it's not "inherent".

No, because you build a deck against the entire meta, not just against one opponent. The existence of Deny is important to the entire meta, not just individual games, because it forces control players to be less greedy in their deckbuilding.

If someone is building greedily, without regard for the threat of Deny, I'm not surprised if that person gets tilted when it beats them.

This doesn't mean you can't use big spells at all. It means you have to support your big spells correctly, both in deckbuilding and gameplay.

Also, I see Vengeance all the time, so it's simply not true that "big spells aren't worth playing."

What about having it always cost half(rounded down) the cost of the countered spell?

Or you can make it only be playable with spell mana but not with normal mana?

I just played a Magic game where my opponent countered every single thing I did for 5-6 turns, but I still managed to beat him. I'm not convinced that Deny needs nerfed after facing MtG Counterspells for years. However, I do think players will start to expect their opponent to have one and play around it better. You should keep in mind that Deny is on Riot's watchlist and they are considering increasing the cost or using another tweak to balance it. In the meantime, just assume your opponent has a Deny in hand and you'll be a lot less frustrated.

Just a heads up about how riot feels on Deny from the preview patches.

Quote From neonangel

I just played a Magic game where my opponent countered every single thing I did for 5-6 turns, but I still managed to beat him. I'm not convinced that Deny needs nerfed after facing MtG Counterspells for years. However, I do think players will start to expect their opponent to have one and play around it better. You should keep in mind that Deny is on Riot's watchlist and they are considering increasing the cost or using another tweak to balance it. In the meantime, just assume your opponent has a Deny in hand and you'll be a lot less frustrated.

This This This!!

God damn, ppl are just not used to play against counters. Ppl are very used to Hearthstone, where you do what you want on your turn, for all you HS players who never played Magic before, go give magic a frickin try for some time, and see what it is to play against counterspells, and how to play against and around them. And I'm not talking about 3 counterspells in one deck (like in Deny of Legends of Runeterra, where you can ONLY use 3 in an entire deck of 40 cards), I'm talking about a bunch of counters.

And one more thing for all you Deny haters.... have you actually looked into the decklists that contain Deny? Many if not most, ONLY contain 2 frickin denys..... 2 frickin cards!!! And you all are complaining because you couldn't play your pretty spell the turn you wanted....

Funny thing is, no one is talking about other spells, that are really impactfull, and are Burst spells, which can't be denied...

just because magic has a lot of counters  and you play around it doesn't mean it is the right thing, the game is already back and forth attacking and blocking  is doesn't need a counterspell for one region  that is wraping the meta around itself sometimes you need to vegenance  your OP counter,you lose,

you use avalanche against agro he counter, you lose, it isnt possible to bait deny every single time, it isnt about power alone is about the feeling of hopeleness, you try to play the game but your OP counter your key moves for 3 spell mana, and can develop  a board afterwards  if every region had a counterspell it would be fine but right now it isnt fair that ionia is the splash into your deck for deny region. i am salty so take my opinion with a grain of salt XD.

The problem with Deny is that top tier agro decks are build around either Fearsome or Elusive units.
So you can't just play minions since they won't be able to trade at all.
The only TRUE way to punish those decks is by playing AOE spells, and thats exatcly the reason why they run Deny.

A very easy solution to balance Deny is to Refund all mana from the targeted spell.

Quote From MisterGuedes

Just a heads up about how riot feels on Deny from the preview patches.

Some decks specifically only play ionia to get access to deny.  The tier1 deck with mistwraith uses it for shadow assassin and deny. The rest is SI.  That might qualify what Riot thought as a reason to change things 

Quote From Marega

Some decks specifically only play ionia to get access to deny.  The tier1 deck with mistwraith uses it for shadow assassin and deny. The rest is SI.  That might qualify what Riot thought as a reason to change things 

Indeed