Pensate

[Norm4eva]

Well sure but... this is probably the closest to "Lose target game" I've seen in a long time.  I mean, crap rares still have an application, and even the old punisher cards don't give an opponent this kind of foothold.  Haha I dunno, maybe we need some crap rares in the back of our imaginary boosters, but... really?  This one?  lol

[zeus-online]

Its better then one with nothing...oh man it could be hilarios to counter one with nothing with this card!  :lol:

/Zeus

[chrissss]

how about:

Target opponent chooses; This spells does nothing, and it  resolves without having any effect, or counter target spell an opponent controls, and that player draws 4 cards.
''If you know you are going to lose, why not help your opponent speed up the process

lets face it, this is the worst card I have ever seen. Why make it netherspirit? I mean, why would anyone play this card? in no format would anyone touch this.

[netherspirit]

As I've said, I can alter the draw back to make it a better card, I mean, how about if they only had the option of drawing 2 cards or maybe even 1 card?

[zeus-online]

Why do you want to give THEM options?

How about making them choose between giving you 2 cards or letting you counter the spell?

Counter target spell unless its controller lets you draw 2 cards. (wording sux, but you get the idea)

/Zeus

[netherspirit]

Oooh, I like!!!

[parallax]

Oh, thank god.

For the record, changing the number of cards drawn for your original spell wouldn't have helped much. The problem is that card was literally strictly worse than:

Nothing

Instant

Normally, I expect a spell to do actually have an effect. -- Academy Professor, to a student

[Mindstab_Thrull]

Wording question: Comparing to the punisher cards from Odyssey block, you have:

Blazing Salvo deals 3 damage to target creature unless that creature's controller has Blazing Salvo deal 5 damage to him or her.
Target player discards two cards at random unless that player has Skullscorch deal 4 damage to him or her.
Any player may have Browbeat deal 5 damage to him or her. If no one does, target player draws three cards.

Your wording currently says: Unless target spell's controller has you draw 2 cards, counter that spell.

Seems a lil off, IMO; I feel like the phrase should read "counter target spell". Maybe more like:
Counter target spell unless its controller has you draw two cards.

It seems a little less cumbersome that way, a little cleaner. Same idea isn't it? Of course, this card also gets into the "Counter my own Ornithopter to draw two cards" situation, a la Fold into AEther (2UU Instant; Counter target spell. If that spell is countered this way, its controller may put a creature card from his or her hand into play. Uncommon from Fifth Dawn). Similar to Mental Note, in a sense, in that case - two cards in the graveyard, no net hand size change, vs three cards in the grave, no net hand size change, but two cards cycled through your hand instead of one.

[netherspirit]

Oooh, good call on the wording!

[dandan]

Counter target spell controlled by an opponent. Its controller draws 4 cards.

That looks like a cheap 1cc version of Arcane Denial so do-able.

'Counter target spell unless its controller has you draw two cards.' is a bit too good as an emergency counterspell and a card drawer/storm enabler when used on one of your spells (counter my own Ritual, no instead I'll draw 2 cards, +1Storm, +1 card for U!)

[chrissss]

 for , drawing 2 cards is too powerfull, and countering is too powerfull also.

maybe make it cost UU, or one card or something. this card went from being shit, to a card thats to broken.

also change the wording to: counter target spell opponent controls

[netherspirit]

Added the opponent bit, I don't think the card draw could come down any more, otherwise this is just crap.