Mind Spike

[Ephraim]

There are two possibilities for this card. They are subtly different and I don't really know which I prefer. I suppose I lean toward the first option. I'll post both here and let people discuss the options. One makes the card better in the event that the counter goes through, the other makes your opponent decide how worthwhile the spell is to him.

Mind Spike

Instant

Counter target spell unless its controller pays . If it is countered this way, draw a card.

***

Mind Spike

Instant

Counter target spell unless its controller pays . If it is not countered this way, draw a card.

[Ephraim]

Current Wording:

Mind Spike
{2}{U}
Instant

Counter target spell unless its controller pays {3}. If it is countered this way, its controller may put it on top of its owner's library instead of into that player's graveyard. If he or she does, you may draw a card.

[Fall-Titan]

I always thought that a cool version of a counter spell would be something like this

UU: Counter target spell unless its controller pays 3 or
      Counter target spell unless its controller pays 1, Draw a card

Just another option i guess.

[fattzzach]

I dont really thinkl the first one works. R/D is trying to weaken counters and that is a strictly better force spike. my favorite counter of all.

[Matt]

Force Spike is good enough to see play, so let's not obsolete it.

[Ephraim]

If you don't want me to obsolete Force Spike, would it be okay to blend the two ideas I initially suggested and use...

Mind Spike

Instant

Counter target spell unless its controller pays . If it is countered this way, draw a card

***

In this instance, I am not sure that I really like the tension the second suggestion above puts on the opponent. It's a choice akin to to the red punisher cards -- you either let your spell get countered or your opponent gets a card.  I think that giving an additional bonus to the spell getting countered makes it more difficult to bait counters, but doesn't give an opponent a no-win decision. All that the above suggestion really does is say, "You tried to bait my counter and here it is. You may be willing to let that spell die, but then I get to draw a card." Obviously, it would be really good in a situation where the opponent was unable to pay the , but my experience with Mana Leak tells me that those situations are woefully slim. Once an opponent realizes you're packing conditional countermagic, he's often willing to take a tempo hit to keep that two or three mana open.

[Nefarias]

At first glance, the second clause of the first version looks a lot like a Miscalculation that gives your opponent more options. Then I read your explanation, an I do like the additional tension you described, though. This new version is better than Miscalc, but I don't really see that as a problem. That said, I think I like the second option in the first post the best, even if this card is better/more playable.

@Fall Titan: I believe the card you're looking for is Complicate

[MrZuccinniHead]

maybe

1U Mind Spike
Instant
counter taget spell unless it's controller pays 2.  If it's countered this way, draw a card and lose 1 life.

[Matt]

So uh...it's Dismiss for half the cost? Noooo fucking way. I know you think that I would respond to counter-bait with this but really I would just blow a counterspell on the bait and use this on the REAL threat and get a cantrip off it for free.

[Ephraim]

I don't think it's exactly fair to call this Dismiss.
1. This is conditional. Dismiss is not.
2. This only draws a card if it counters (or, possibly, if it doesn't counter) the spell -- say half the time. Dismiss always draws a card.

"Half" the time this will draw a card and counter a spell. "Half" the time it will do approximately nothing. Maybe you're getting more than half of the functionality, but this absolutely doesn't need to cost any more than . Also, your argument that you'd just use a different counterspell to counter the bait isn't necessarily realistic. You're not always (not even often) going to have two counters in hand with the mana to cast both of them.

[Nazdakka]

Ephraim, I think you underestimate the usefullness of Mana Leak. It's an extremely good counter for the early-mid game, and this thing is simply better most of the time.

[Engage lecture mode]

Let's say you're in a normal aggro vs control matchup, the control player played first, and the aggro player dropped an Elf turn 1. Aggro untaps, drops a land and considers his options. If he/she doesn't drop a threat this turn, he's going to suffer a tempo loss to no useful effect, but if he does, the threat might get countered. Normally you play the threat because if it hits you're in good shape, and if it doesn't, that's one less counter. This is likely to be one of the most crucial turns of the game, as this is the aggro player's best chance to inflict damage before control takes over, so he has to try and resolve some threats. In this situation, the control player's Mana Leaks are hard counters, as the aggro player lacks the mana to effectively play around them, and so in order to inflict damage he must play into them.

If, on the other hand, the aggro player played around Mana Leak by waiting until he could cast with 3 mana left over, then yes, he would made the Leaks dead. However, the control player would then have the mana to get his card advantage engine running, and would be able to handle the aggro player's delayed threats with other answers. That is why Mana Leak is a very good counterspell.

Now, substitute in this card. It puts the aggro player into an impossible bind. He has to run his threats out early, but if he does he's walking into this thing, which in the early-mid game is a 2-mana Dismiss. Losing a turn of attacks AND -1 card advantage is crushing, and so you can either virtually admit defeat by playing around it or play into it and suffer horrible card disadvantage.

[Matt]

As is, I don't think it's an exagerration to say this is better than Counterspell. It would be better than every other counter except FoW and Drain, because almost no deck has sitting around perpetually. I would be fine with it if it only asked you to pay though.

[Fall-Titan]

If you guys are thinking this is too good then what is the happy medium without making it suck?

UU: Counter target spell. The controller of that spell may put the card into his/her graveyard or on top of his/her deck. If he/she places it on top of his/her deck, draw a card.

This allows an choice for your opponet but you get a counter spell either way. Also its power level is right at that of a counterspell seeing as how one of the choices is a basic counter spell.

@TheWalkingSponge: Thanks i didnt even think about the cycling effect as a cantrip in this case.

[Matt]

Like I said, either the Dismiss effect but at Force Spike level or the "counter unless they pay 2, if not countered draw" would be fine

[Ephraim]

Okay, I went with the "Pay /Draw a card if NOT countered" variant. I'm not fond of the idea of a 2cc counter that only demands a payment of .

[Matt]

This is just barely different enough from Miscalculation to see print. If it's gonna draw you a card, your opponent has to tap 2 lands in addition to your 2 lands you used to "cycle" this - but he also gets the choice of what it does.

[Ephraim]

Now you mention it, this is very similar to Miscalculation, now. I'm going to see if I can come up with some other way of doing this that I like. It might result in a wildly different concept, but I'd like to get away from this design space. I'm beginning to feel it's a little bit crowded.

How would something like this be:

Mind Spike

Instant

Counter target spell unless its controller pays . If it is countered this way, its controller may put it on top of its owner's library instead of into that player's graveyard. If he or she does, you may draw a card.

[Matt]

That's kind of neat.

[Fall-Titan]

Thanks for a little recognition lol. I think it should be 2 blue but besides that its cool. The only reason i say UU is because usually with choice cards the mana costs are a little cheaper.

[Ephraim]

Sorry, Fall-Titan. Chalk it up to subliminal influence. I don't recall reading your previous suggestion, but it must've stuck in my head when I glanced at it or something. It's a good idea. I'd rather it cost a little bit more and be splashable and conditional, rather than have it be usable only in a blue-heavy deck, but be cheaper and absolute.

Anyhow, 24 Hour Clock

[Malhavoc]

But with this wording, it's just a bad mana leak. It is exactly like mana leak, but it costs one colorless more, and gives the opponent a choice (a bad thing by definition, so it shouldn't make this cost more).  I liked the previous versions more, where you were drawing a card if the spell wasn't countered.

[Ephraim]

The previous version was a bad version of Miscalculate. Your opponent got to decide whether you got to draw a card or not with that one too. The decision involved a nominal mana payment, I suppose, but I'm not sure that made a big difference. As far as this card goes, it isn't strictly worse than Mana Leak. The fact remains that this can draw a card for you, if your opponent would rather treat it like Memory Lapse -- in other words, if the spell is important to any opponent (and that's valuable information to you!), you get to draw a card. If the spell isn't that important, then you don't.

[Ephraim]

24 Hour Clock

[Matt]

Mana Leak is also pretty good! There's no shame in being worse than the best splashable counter ever.

[Matt]

Closed and added.[/color]