Repudiation

[AceOfJacks]

Repudiation
{ 1 } { U } { U } { U }
Instant

You may play <THIS> only if there are three or more spells or abilites on the stack.
While <THIS> is on the stack, no other spells or abilities may be put onto the stack.
Remove all spells and abilites on the stack from the game. (This effect inculdes this card.)

Card inspired by: Time Stop + Last Word

Emphasis:  I'm testing a new form of uncounterability.  If the idea works, and if I can make enough cards with this mechanic ... I'll give it a keyword.

According to the wording, you can cast a spell, and in response I can tap my Samite Healer, and in response you can cast another spell (or ability) ... and then I cast Repudiation ... and then everything stops ...

Questions?  Comments?  Suggestions?

[AceOfJacks]

Current wording:

Repudiation
{ 1 } { U } { U }
Instant

You may play Repudiation only if there are two or more spells or abilites on the stack.
While Repudiation is on the stack, no other spells or abilities may be put onto the stack.
Remove all spells and abilites on the stack from the game.

[Matt]

Would it be better to word it as "~this~ can't be responded to"?

[Jacob Orlove]

Would it be totally impossible to say something like "this card resolves on announcement"?

[MrZuccinniHead]

this seems very situational.

[AceOfJacks]

@ Matt:  It's incorrect grammar to end a phrase with a proposition ... thus I doubt WotC would word it that way.

@ Jacob Orlove:  Is that even legal?  Sorry, but I have no idea if that can even be done with the current rules ...

@MrZuccinniHead:  I wanted to make it like Counterspell / Stifle ... and I also wanted to protect against two specific cards.  Misdirection (and it's variants) and Ertai's Meddling.  Ertai's Meddling is very good card (at least in my opinion it is) and I have used it to screw over many a player in the past.

In any event, the ability to counter ANYTHING (except a mana ability of course) needs to have a drawback.  4 mana is steep enough ... 6 mana counterspells don't usually see play, so I figured I'd add another requirement as opposed to a higher mana cost.

[TheWellknownBrownie]

99 times out of a 100 Last Word does the same thing, but it's also good the rest of the time as a counter. This should either cost a single Blue or be a Cantrip for such a narrow use.

Your avatar is awesome, though.

[AceOfJacks]

99 times out of a 100 Last Word does the same thing, but it's also good the rest of the time as a counter. This should either cost a single Blue or be a Cantrip for such a narrow use.

Your avatar is awesome, though.

1-  Last Word cannot counter spells such as Urza's Rage, Blurred Mongoose and Scragnoth.

2-  Last Word cannot counter the sacrificing of Pernicious Deed, Engineered Explosives, and the like.

3-  If you remove all spells and abilites on the stack from the game, would you not remove the cantrip from the game as well?  Unless you say Draw a card, then remove all spells and abilites from the game ... but that just sounds wierd.

4-  An uncounterable Stifle with the same mana cost ...that is ALSO a counterspell ... doesn't that seem a little too strong?

[Nazdakka]

4-  An uncounterable Stifle with the same mana cost ...that is ALSO a counterspell ... doesn't that seem a little too strong?

As far as I can tell, this card is not too tough to play around and is spectacularly situational - how often does it happen in a typcial game that 3 or more abilities are on the stack? These would appear to fundamentally be Time Stop for 1UUU with none of the flexibility and a heavy restriction on its use - not worth it IMO. While this can indeed counter any spell and activated/triggered ability, I think the situations when the casting condition is met will be so rare that this won't be any use at all.

I guess I agree with TheWelkinBrownie - this is a lot more situational than you seem to think, and would need to be made quite a lot better to see more than the most marginal of play.

[AceOfJacks]

If you were planning on playing a defensive deck, wouldn't you plan on using cards that protect yourself, such as (and I these example from Type 2) Samite Healer, Master Decoy, Puppeteer and the like?  You could put one or two of these abilities on the stack and then play Repudiation ... filling the stack isn't that hard ... just play defensively ...

This seems like the type of card that you would have to play around ... so you would have to supplement it with other effects ...

If you all really think the problem lies in the three spell / ability cost ... what would you change that to?  Would you remove it completely? Would you just lower it?  I'm open to suggestions ...

[stolen]

But consider that you're countering any spell/effect that you use to fill the stack.  In order for this to act like an uncounterable counterspell/effect (which is very powerful), you have to be able to cast two additional spells (whatever mana plus two cards), two abilities (which could cost mana and oftentimes will be that ability's use for the turn), or some combination, which effectively adds to the casting cost.  Of course, there's always the en-Kor guys with the cost abilities, but that automatically means playing two colors and having that ability out to cast a spell with {U}{U} in its mana cost.

This is clearly a defensive/support card, so you can't build a deck around it, and, as my example of the en-Kor above, all your examples of supplementary abilies except Puppeteer require playing two colors, which this card does not encourage.  So consider that too.

[AceOfJacks]

So what would you change the mana cost to?

If triple U is not viable, and the high spell requirement isnt either ... then what should it change to?

[TheWellknownBrownie]

If you were planning on playing a defensive deck, wouldn't you plan on using cards that protect yourself, such as (and I these example from Type 2) Samite Healer, Master Decoy, Puppeteer and the like?

No, you wouldn't. None of those cards are played in Type 2 at all. Ever.

Okay, I apologize. I let the awesomness of your avatar make me think that you were more experienced at the game. The Samite Healer thing makes me think that that's not the correct assumption. I don't want to be an ass about it, but you clearly don't really understand how the game is played competitively; the number of times per game that you have three abilities or spells on the stack (and remember that mana abilities don't use the stack) is very small. It's also not that often that in these situations, you need a counter or want it; and it's almost never that you're then willing to pay four mana to fix the issue. The examples you sited will come up in real games once for every forty times Last Word would've been better. If you build a deck specifically to put lots of abilities on the stack, you have a problem of building a deck around a card that at best can counter a couple of spells or abilities. That's not strong; decks are generally built around win conditions, not control elements. The only exeptions to this, ever really, have been Mana Drain and Forbid. Even then you couldn't afford to run cards in the deck unless they were good without those two cards; Mana Drain let you use Nevinyrral's Disk or Mindslaver or Exalted Angel more effectively, but it didn't justify running something like Decree of Silence that would be dead without a successful and large Mana Drain; certainly good decks never ran Forbid with Squee with no other way to abuse the Goblin Nabob.


Also, Cantrip would work on the spell. The order in which the text is phrased doesn't matter; the spell is no longer on the stack when it resolves, which is when the card drawing takes place.

I stand by my previous statement. There are two possible costings for this spell as it stands; either U, or 1UU and make it a Cantrip. Not only would neither of those be overpowered, they wouldn't be playable.

[AceOfJacks]

Okay, I apologize. I let the awesomness of your avatar make me think that you were more experienced at the game. The Samite Healer thing makes me think that that's not the correct assumption. I don't want to be an ass about it, but you clearly don't really understand how the game is played competitively; [...]

Why must every card be "uber leet competitive must-restrict-in-all-formats"?  Why must every card played in any deck be teir one?  Why can't I play a deck that is not the standard netdeck?  Why can't a card or a deck be casual?  Am I the only casual player at TMD now?  If so, then I'll completely stop coming here ... because clearly casual is not the way to go for TMD.

[...] The examples you sited will come up in real games once for every forty times Last Word would've been better. If you build a deck specifically to put lots of abilities on the stack, you have a problem of building a deck around a card that at best can counter a couple of spells or abilities. That's not strong; decks are generally built around win conditions, not control elements. The only exeptions to this, ever really, have been Mana Drain and Forbid. Even then you couldn't afford to run cards in the deck unless they were good without those two cards; Mana Drain let you use Nevinyrral's Disk or Mindslaver or Exalted Angel more effectively, but it didn't justify running something like Decree of Silence that would be dead without a successful and large Mana Drain; certainly good decks never ran Forbid with Squee with no other way to abuse the Goblin Nabob. [...]

Noted.  Thank you for the enlightenment, oh master sensei of the yellow leaf.

Also, Cantrip would work on the spell. The order in which the text is phrased doesn't matter; the spell is no longer on the stack when it resolves, which is when the card drawing takes place.

I stand by my previous statement. There are two possible costings for this spell as it stands; either U, or 1UU and make it a Cantrip. Not only would neither of those be overpowered, they wouldn't be playable.

The card has been edited.  Reduced the mana cost to 1UU, and lowered the stack cost to 2.  I did not put the cantrip, because I do not think it is needed.


As an additional thought ... this card will NOT be placed into the Masterlist, since it is not required according to the Set in Progress.  Apparently you only want the best cards in existance, not casual cards that simple untrained human minds like mine can think up.

[TheWellknownBrownie]

Wow, bruised ego much? The truth is that I like casual cards just fine, and cards that work in Draft. The card you submitted isn't a casual card; it's a waste of cardboard. It's not Grizzly Bear; it's a Chimney Imp. It would never be useful to anyone suicidal enough to put it in their deck. It's not a matter of being casual; it's a matter of being playable.