Unnamed Splice Counter

[Ephraim]

~This~
{U}
Instant

Counter target spell that has another spell spliced onto it. If that spell is countered this way, its controller discards all spells that are spliced onto it.

***

Hisoka's Defense targets arcane spells in general, but it leaves spliced spells in the opponent's hand. This is designed to really make an opponent think before using the splice mechanic. It's kind of techy and I don't know if we're ever going to take advantage of splice ourselves, but I liked the idea of this card so I figure I'd propose it.

I'm pretty sure the wording is wrong, but I wanted to get the general idea out there for discussion, first. Cleaning up the templating is relatively easy.

[Ephraim]

Current Wording:

~This~
{U}{U}
Instant

Counter target spell that has another spell spliced onto it. If that spell is countered this way, its controller discards all spells that are spliced onto it.

[Mixing Mike]

Schism would be a soild name for it.  Cutting off the spliced spell and all...

Disagreements anyone?

[Jacob Orlove]

This seems really narrow and not even all that good when it works. Can't we come up with a cooler way to hose splice?

[Nefarias]

Perhaps if the spell is countered in this way, it's controller reveals his or her hand and discards all cards with Splice?

Also, limited counters such as this do not often cost double blue--look at Flash Counter, Remove Soul, Ertai's Trickery, Laquatus's Disdain (or whatever the FlashBack counter was), as well as nearly all the "taxing" counters (Daze, Mana Leak, etc.) 1U would probably suffice, maybe even cantrip.

[Ephraim]

I costed it at double blue because in any situation where it is usable, it will result in the opponent losing no fewer than two cards.

[Nibble]

I'm pretty sure the wording is wrong, but I wanted to get the general idea out there for discussion, first. Cleaning up the templating is relatively easy.

The thing that worries me most is, I don't think the game actually remembers whether a spell has been spliced or not, and definitely don't think it would remember which exact spell it got the splice from. My attempt:

Counter target spell if any cards with Splice were revealed as that spell was cast. That spell's controller reveals his or her hand and discards those cards.

The reveal is there for a bit of a quirky situation I thought of - say you have a Blessed Breath and two Kodama's Might in hand. You cast Breath, splicing a Might onto it. Your opponent casts this spell to counter the Breath. In response, you cast a Kodama's Might. Now, when this spell resolves, without a reveal required, you can weasel out of discarding a Might, even though you should, because your opponent has no way to know you have a second copy.

As for my opinion on the card, I actually like that it doesn't refer strictly to Arcane. When looking at the comp rules, I noticed Splice is a general mechanic that Wizards left open to possibly use other subtypes, so this might become more generally useful if and when other Splice cards are printed.

[Matt]

You could make this be:

Name
UB
Enchantment
Whenever a player splices a card, that player discards a card.

[Upinthe]

This card looks really lame and underpowered. Also, whats the point? You just can't use it most of the time[card] Ertai's Trickery[/card] and [card]Grip of Amnesia[/card] where never used used to a great extent because they relied to heavily on the blocks they were printed in. This won't even have block support.

Counter target spell. If that spell is countered this way, its controller discards all spells that are spliced onto it.

Even if the CC was higher, that would definitely be better. At least then you could use it regularly.

[Ephraim]

I like that idea, Upinthe - a hard counter that additionally hoses Splice.

Schism
{U}
Instant

Counter target spell. If it is countered this way, its controller discards all cards that are spliced onto it.

***

Although this wording is intuitive, I'm not sure that it actually works (obviously, the same holds for the original wording.) Technically, there is no such thing as a card that is spliced onto another card. Splice is simply a static ability that allows the text of one card to be added to the text of another card.

From the Comprehensive Rules:
502.40a Splice is a static ability that functions while a card is in your hand. “Splice onto [type or subtype] [cost]” means “You may reveal this card from your hand as you play a [type or subtype] spell. If you do, copy this card’s text box onto that spell and pay [cost] as an additional cost to play that spell.”

Is the intuitive wording sufficient or is there no clean way to make this card work? If the card is as uninteresting and/or weak as Jacob Orlove and Upinthe have suggested, is it worth the effort of cleaning up the rules text?

[Jacob Orlove]

The new version is hardly boring and weak, because it's not narrow any more.

[Upinthe]

Another problem is that you can't force an opponent to discard specific cards that you can't see yourself, even if they were revealed earlier. How about this instead:


Counter target spell.  Look at the hand of target spell's controller. If that player has any cards that have any splice costs that where paid this turn, that player discards those cards.

[rvs]

Another problem is that you can't force an opponent to discard specific cards that you can't see yourself, even if they were revealed earlier. How about this instead:


Counter target spell.  Look at the hand of target spell's controller. If that player has any cards that have any splice costs that where paid this turn, that player discards those cards.

God no, let's try to keep it simple guys!

[Ephraim]

Close this thread, please. It's a vaguely interesting card, but it doesn't work. It's not going to work without some godawful rules text. The rules simply don't support memory of what was spliced.