Reignition

[Moothemighty]

Reignition
1R
Enchantment
If a spell that would deal damage to a creature or player is countered, you may choose to have it deal half that damage, rounded down, to that creature or player.

A little fun for burn decks against counter, which i have always been annoyed at  :lol: .  With a cost of 1R decks can get it out before counterspell if they go first.

[corncob]

Wouldn't work as written, since the spell is still countered.  Gotta have the damage dealt by Reignition itself, or make it a replacement effect:

"Whenever a spell that would deal damage to a creature or player is countered, Reignition deals half that spell's damage to that creature or player, rounded down."

"If a spell that would deal damage to a creature or player would be countered, instead it isn't. Prevent half the damage that would be dealt by that spell, rounded up."

(interesting note: the first wording is cumulative; with three out, you'd end up dealing 150% of the original spell's damage)


As for the ability itself, it looks nifty on paper, as well as having some nice flavor, but it's just too weak. You'd be better off running Scald.

[Moothemighty]

Well....If it needs a bit of a power boost.

Reignition
1R
Enchantment
Reignition cannot be countered.
If a spell that would deal damage to a creature or player is countered, reignition deals half that spell's damage to target creature or player, and you draw a card.

Any better?

[Alfred]

How about just removing the half part and adding 1 to the CC?

[Nefarias]

Red probably shouldn't draw cards so well. I'm also not sure if the rules know whether or not a spell would have done damage. If a more rules-savvy person could state otherwise, then fine, but otherwise I suggest this for simplicity's sake.

1R
Reignition cannot be countered.
Whenever a red spell you control that targets a creature or player is countered by a spell or ability, Reignition deals two damage to that spell or ability's controller.

The bolded stuff can be omitted depending on how powerful you want it.

[Ephraim]

Current Wording:

Reignition
{R}
Enchantment

Whenever a spell you control is countered by a spell or ability, Reignition deals 3 damage to that spell or ability's controller.

Note that it costs one less and covers all of your spells. This puts it right next to [card]Multani's Presence[/card], except for red. Since both green and red are enemies of blue, I'd say this is fine. In fact, you might even be able to push it up to 3 damage and have it still be fair, since drawing a card (ala Multani's Presence) is really quite good. 2 damage is definitely safe.

[Ephraim]

Moothemighty may have abandoned this card. At any rate, I'm bumping it back to the top. If he doesn't take it back in four days (a month since he last posted), I'd like to have this one.

[Ephraim]

If there are no objections, I'm taking over this card. Look in my post above for the current wording.

[Jacob Orlove]

Looks good.

[Nefarias]

I agree with your statement that it could probably be pushed up to three damage. I think countering spells is a small enough occurence that you should really make them pay for it. In most circumstances, I would rather my opponent have this out than Multani's Presence. Hosers are meant to be a serious kick in the teeth.

[Ephraim]

I think that 3 damage is the right number, too. 2 is a little bit too anemic to make this playable. I'll change it to 3 and then start the 24 Hour Clock.

[Puschkin]

Sorry for interrupting late but you know, I just came back.
I just wanted to add the usual comment about cards like these: Hate-cards against dominat concepts like counterspells (and especially counterspells!) should be treated very carefully. They are just too blatant, "anti" type, narrow in and by itself, and they always have this cheap kiddie-feeling (you know, that kind of cards kiddies would make after they lost to a good control deck). Keep in mind that the days of efficient hardcounters are things of the past.

[Malhavoc]

It makes chalice of the void a lot less dangerous. Calice for 1? Who cares, my lightning bolt still does 3 damages...

Cool, I like it, it is quite balanced IMHO. Good without being overpowered, and at least at first glance it does not seems to be easily abusable.

[Ephraim]

Sorry for interrupting late but you know, I just came back.
I just wanted to add the usual comment about cards like these: Hate-cards against dominat concepts like counterspells (and especially counterspells!) should be treated very carefully. They are just too blatant, "anti" type, narrow in and by itself, and they always have this cheap kiddie-feeling (you know, that kind of cards kiddies would make after they lost to a good control deck). Keep in mind that the days of efficient hardcounters are things of the past.

Not a problem -- that's what the clock is for -- to give an opportunity for last minute discussion. I can see the point you're making, but on the other hand, some hate cards need to exist. If this one's a little bit simplistic in execution, I think that's okay. Not only is it a good reflection of Multani's Presence, but it also performs its function elegantly. Sometimes, I think it's important for a card not to beat around the bush. For example, [card]Deep Analysis[/card] is a fine card, but it doesn't have the same elegance as [card]Counsel of the Soratami[/card]. I like Malhavoc's observation that Multani's Presence and this would both have an interesting interaction with Chalice of the Void.

[Puschkin]

I know what the 24 clock is for ... after all I was the one who introduced that rule iirc

But I can't follow you there. Why is Counsel elegant!? Its a plain "vanilla" card drawer ... while Deep Analysis circumvents counters by having them to counter it twice - and yet DA is not uncounterable per se. Regarding our topic, I find DA way more elegant than the Counsel.

But this a question of taste I guess. I just don't like the feeling of this card. I just fear that if this comes through, we will get an influx of all kinds of cards that have this "cannot be countered" phrase attached to it, if you know what I mean. Maybe the crowd here has developed to such an extent in my absence that this wont happen.

[Malhavoc]

Well, this is a sideboard card after all, and  monoU control decks (which are the only ones which can really fear this) have certainly packed in 4 BEB, which can easily take this card out. It does not seem overpowered or gamebreaking IMO. MonoU still has less problems with this that with Multani's Presence.

[Ephraim]

My judgement of elegance stems from the value I place on economy of design. Deep Analysis is cluttered. You have to read it a couple of times to get exactly what it does. It plays differently in different styles of decks (some decks never bother to hardcast it, for example). It is a complex card. That doesn't mean it's bad -- it's a better card than Counsel of the Soratami -- but it does mean that it isn't elegant. It lacks the economy of design that a simple, focused card like Counsel of the Soratami has. When I look at Counsel, I see the distilled essence of blue card-drawing. Likewise, I see the distilled essence of black card-drawing in [card]Night's Whisper[/card] or green's essential philosophy in [card]Elvish Warrior[/card]. They're not necessarily exciting, flashy cards, but they evoke the flavour of the game without sacrificing mechanical effectiveness.

[Matt]

But this a question of taste I guess. I just don't like the feeling of this card. I just fear that if this comes through, we will get an influx of all kinds of cards that have this "cannot be countered" phrase attached to it, if you know what I mean. Maybe the crowd here has developed to such an extent in my absence that this wont happen.

Oh it happens, but it happens as soon as the idea is suggested, regardless of whether it makes it to the list. And anyway, the master list isn't supposed to be well-rounded, it's just the pool from which we draw a well-rounded assortment of cards to make sets from. That's our general plan, currently.

[Ephraim]

24 Hour Clock

[Matt]

Closed and added.[/color]