Counterspell for lands

[Marco]

OK, so we know that lands are not spells and do not use the stack and therefore cannot be countered in the traditional sense (for more on this topic read this article). However, that has not stopped me from haboring a desire to create a card that counters lands. And I don't mean like Solfatara or Turf Wound, although I do envision this as a red card.

When brainstorming this card, I first thought of the Portal card Mystic Denial (a card that is designed to work like an instant in a set with no instants) and came up with this:

Card Name
1R
Instant
Play ~this~ only in response to another player playing a land. That card is put into it's owners graveyard instead of into play.

Then, I thought about the errata on Lotus Vale, and figured this might work:

Card Name
1R
Instant
Until end of turn, if a land would come into play, put it into its owner’s graveyard instead.

The goal is to effectively counter the land. Therefore, it does not come into play and it cannot be tapped for mana before it is put into the graveyard. I do not want to make an instant-speed Stone Rain. What do you think? Can it be done?

[Marco]

Current Wording:

Volcanic Upheaval
1R
Instant
Counter target activated ability from a land source and destroy that land if it's in play. (Mana abilities can't be targeted.)

[Jacob Orlove]

Playing a land does not pass priority, so if you want to stop it, you either have to cast the spell before they decide to play a land, or you have to deal with the land once it's in play. Neither of these cards can counter a land.

[Marco]

Thanks. I guess that's why this hasn't been done before. I will now quash any hope of creating a card that counters lands. I'll have this thread closed too, although I'll give some others a chance to tell me that this can't be done.

After reading your response I checked the Comprehensive Rules (one might ask why I didn't check them before I posted this) and found the following:

212.6a A player may play a land card from his or her hand only during a main phase of his or her turn, and only when he or she has priority and the stack is empty. A land card isn’t a spell card, and at no time is it a spell. When a player plays a land card, it’s simply put into play. The land card doesn’t go on the stack, so players can’t respond to it with instants or activated abilities.

[leviat]

Why not go with something a little less powerful?

Rototiller
Instant
Destroy all lands put into play this turn.

[TheWellknownBrownie]

Actually, it is possible, because cards have precedence over the comprehensive rules. But it would need to read something like;


1R
Instant
You may play *this* whenever an opponent plays a land. If you do, put both the land and *this* on the stack.
Until end of turn, whenever a land would be put into play, put it into it's owner's graveyard instead.


Such a card seems like it would work, albeit by opening a rift in Space-Time that would eventually consume us all.

[Jacob Orlove]

If you really want to counter lands, the only way of doing it that I can see would be something like this:

Landstill
1R
Enchantment
If a player would put a land into play, you may sacrifice landstill. If you do, that player puts the land into his or her graveyard instead.

I'm not 100% sure that works, though.

[Machinus]

Cards can respond to lands being put into play, but they can be tapped for mana in response to whatever effect is triggered. However, the current wording of the card prevents this problem.

[Nova442]

Is it just me or is the current wording about as close as possibly imaginable to turf wound (which the creator explicity said he doesn't want) without actually being it

The way it is at the moment there is no reason for your opponent to play a land, which has the same effect as saying your opponent can't play a land this turn.  If you go with Jacob's wording though, I think that would work.  As a spell there's just no way I can imagine inside the rules because lands go down and can be tapped with priority for playing spells never changed.  Even if the portal-esque wording could work I'm not sure I would want it because it seems like it disrupts the very solid priority system we have.

"Landstill" seems a little strong to me though.  Denying your opponent their 2nd land when playing first (1st land in T1!) makes me worry   Maybe that concept could be powered down by making the sacrifice non-optional, thus your opponent could refuse to play a land and it could be a strange mana limiter for both sides.

[Marco]

I do think an enchantment is the way to go if I/we decide to make this card. If "Landstill" is too strong (as Nova442 suggests), I could see this being non-optional and thus affect both (all) players. Not unlike Hesitation or Standstill.

Alternatively, leviat's suggestion would work. Although, it's not what I was aiming for.

[Machinus]

How about this:

Landstill
1R
Sorcery
The next time a land would come into play, remove it from the game instead.

They can make cards like this since stuff like drain exists. Can the rules be modified to allow replacement effects for lands? This card is a lot more balanced, by the way, since neither player will want to play lands. The name is cute.

[Nova442]

I don't think that's a good idea because of memory issues.  You could play this and then many turns later when someone draws a land just forget about it.  This is very different from drain which gives you mana on the turn after (and even that type of effect, I think, hasn't been done in some time).

[Godder]

What if it were an instant, and only lasted till end of turn?

[LordHomerCat]

If it was an instant (as it is now), then its a bad, non-cantrip, turf wound.  Even pardic miner is better than this (and thats reeeeeaaaaaaally sad, as thats a terrible card).  I dont think theres a way to effectively counter the land drop without doing something very outside the rules (since making lands use the stack would be a pretty big change).  Cool idea, but doesnt seem possible =/

[Marco]

Change made to current wording post.

I'm going to let you guys discuss this one further. I'm not sure if I want to pursue it or not.

[Nova442]

Does anyone else have a problem with 1C land destruction?  Obviously it can't cost 3, but maybe RR to make it less splashable and harder to use as a time walk (especially in limited).

[Matt]

So, uh, you mean Sinkhole? Yes, I have a problem with Sinkhole. I don't, however, have a problem with Lava Blister or Uncontrolled Infestation. Or Blight. Because the opponent still retains the choice.

[Nova442]

Hardly a fair comparison.  You know as well as I do that this makes a joke of Lava Blister and is also much stronger than Blight (which is CC by the way, not 1C).

Lava Blister: Doesn't destroy land at all if the controller needs mana.
Blight:  Land gets at least 2 uses before it is destroyed.

[Matt]

My point is that two mana is too low for guaranteed land destruction.

[leviat]

My point is that two mana is too low for guaranteed land destruction.

Even if it could hit your own land? Standstill is 2cc for a guaranteed drawing of three cards and Wizards was okay with that. I kind of like the enchantment idea. You might even make a little more powerful with...

Shaky Ground
1R
Enchantment
Whenever a land comes into play sacrifice ~this~, if you do, that land's controller must sacrifice two lands.

This doesn't prevent them from getting the mana but does hit two lands and I still don't see it as overpowering.

[Jacob Orlove]

Hitting two lands is way too good, because it basically reads "players cannot play lands". The current version is probably fair, but I think I'd like to see it at RR rather than 1R. If it was an optional sacrifice, it'd have to be no less than 3 mana.

[Nova442]

Hitting two lands is way too good, because it basically reads "players cannot play lands". The current version is probably fair, but I think I'd like to see it at RR rather than 1R. If it was an optional sacrifice, it'd have to be no less than 3 mana.

Exactly.  The card gives an option, but the option is on one hand an effect that can be better than land destruction and on the other hand playing the game down a land (as low as 1 land) but up a card.  I think RR is the appropriate cost for this effect.  It'll still be more than playable at that cost, I'd think.

[Toad]

The current version is still insane. 2R Stone Rain and 1RR Molten Rain are extremely strong cards in the current T2. Blowing lands on turn 2 is strong.

Turn 1 Land,
Turn 2 Land, Enchantment
Turn 3 Land, Stone Rain

Game?

It's extremely different without the Enchantment, because you have Condescend or Mana Leak on line for the turn 3 Stone Rain.

[dandan]

As I see it the main problem with the initial idea is that playing a land cannot be responded to, this allows the person playing the land to use the mana.

However, we can get around this by changing the effect so that it takes place in an allowable way but with (nearly) the same net effect. What would a 'land counterspell' do?

1. Put a land played this turn into the graveyard.
Clearly destroying a land is a reasonable approximation and the odd time that a land is indestructable or can regenerate could be resolved if we so desired. For elegance, a simple 'destroy' effect looks like it is a good enough approximation.

2. Prevents an opponent from getting mana from that land
We can't really prevent this but we can make it so that the net effect is the same by increasing the effective cost of the spell/ability that the mana is used for. It may be more elegant to make spells/abilities cost 1 more as few lands give you more mana than this and the necessary text to define mana colour/quantity would be quite long and complex.
This secondary ability would not always be necessary as an opponent might not use the land immediately.

As the first ability is always required but the secondary ability is not always required, we could use kicker to grant the second ability.

Red Sinkhole version 1
RR
Instant
Destroy target land that was played this turn
Kicker 0
Counter spell or ability that is paid for using mana from this land unless that spell or ability's countroller pays 1

IMHO the power level of this card is way way too high, you are getting Sinkhole and Force Spike (including Force Spoking abilities) for RR.

Raising the CC to 1RR probably solves this.

Red Sinkhole version 2
1RR
Instant
Destroy target land that was played this turn
Kicker 0
Counter spell or ability that is paid for using mana from this land unless that spell or ability's countroller pays 1
If you want to keep it at 2CC, I think you need to allow your opponent to get the mana if they so desire

Red Sinkhole version 3
RR
Instant
Destroy target land that was played this turn

I quite like version 3, it would still be too strong even though it allows a player going second access to 2 mana on their second turn in a similar way to conventional LD, the RR CC makes it very hard for multicolour decks to cast reliably early and it is very poor in the late game. It would make monored LD a beast in some formats though as you can kill land on turns 2 and 3, so this is a concern (As Matt has pointed out). 3cc is too much, 2 is too little.

The only 'tweak' could be flavour-related. What happens to the land? Presumably a chasm opens up and swallows it. Perhaps Mountains are unaffected (target non-mountain land that was played this turn?). Perhaps only Plains and Islands suffer (as enemies of Red). Perhaps only non-basics are affected (BloodMoonHole). There are optiona available. Where do you want to take this card?




 

[Nova442]

The effect on the card is difficult to cost correctly, as has been noted.  It cannot cost 2R or 1RR because then it is horrible and strictly worse than any of a large number of land-d spells.  Next lowest is RR for giving the opponent a choice.  And we did survive the turn 2 land destruction of ponza back when mecadian masques was released (oh and NetherVoid :/ )  As worried as I am about the right scenario happening (on the play with mountains and ~this~, stone rain, and lay waste in hand) that isn't going to happen every game.  By forcing double red early to play it this isn't going to go in heavily multicolor aggro control decks.  Playing this will require a heavy red commitment, probably mono-red, and mono-color is a drawback nowadays too.

I think while the card is objectively powerful as it stands, it could be let go in the right format.  Especially one without a critical mass of supplemental land destruction.  It could easily fit in a very fast format with quality 1 cost spells or a slower format where you are expected to go land-go for a few turns.  If more people disagree, I'm not adament.  Change the card in some fundamental way to allow for proper costing.  Because tacking on 1 isn't going to fix this card!

[leviat]

It cannot cost 2R or 1RR because then it is horrible and strictly worse than any of a large number of land-d spells.

No, because you forget that's an instant. Instant speed Land-D is somewhat nutty.

After looking over the thread and reading the comments, I'll put my (useless) vote behind:

Red Sinkhole version 3
2R
Instant
Destroy target land that was played this turn

But that's off-flavor from the original card which means a mod should either delete all our off-topic messages or lock the thread.

[Marco]

No, don't lock this thread yet. dandan gave me some great ideas...

First, I'm not too happy with an RR casting cost, I'm not entirely sure why. I'd rather make a 1RR spell than an RR spell. I understand that 1R is splashable.

Initially, I really liked dandan's idea of making spells and abilities cost 1 more (effectively neutralizing the mana my opponent would receive from tapping the land), and I still do, but I believe I've thought of something better. But first, this idea:

Card Name
1RR
Instant
Destroy target land that was played this turn.
If mana from that land is spent on a spell or ability, counter that spell or ability unless its controller pays 1.

I'm not 100% sure of the wording, but I think it's pretty close. I tried to use similar wording to Boseiju, Who Shelters All.

I don't have a problem with the Kicker mechanic, but I don't like using block mechanics on my cards. (The exception being Cycling, which is one of my favourite mechanics, and has appeared in two blocks).

The drawbacks proposed by dandan were also interesting:

Destroy target non-Mountain land that was played this turn.

Destroy target island or plains that was played this turn.

Destroy target nonbasic land that was played this turn.

Of course, nonbasic hate is common to red. And I realized that I didn't really make this card to fill out a land destruction deck and cause opponents to be mana screwed. I created it, somewhat subconsciously, to hose powerful nonbasic lands (Bazaar of Baghdad, Library of Alexandria, Mishra's Factory, etc.). To that end, I present:

Card Name
1R
Instant
Counter target activated ability from a land source and destroy that land if it's in play. (Mana abilities can't be targeted.)

This doesn't stop land from coming into play, and it doesn't stop land from being tapped for mana like I originally proposed; however, this does stop lands like Bazaar of Baghdad, Library of Alexandria, and Mishra's Factory from being used even once and destroys them at the same time.

Wording is based on Ouphe Vandals.

The "if it's in play" is necessary because some lands have Cycling (Forgotten Cave, for example), and Cycling is considered to be an activated ability, even if it can't be used in play. Also, some lands sacrifice themselves as part of their ability. So you can still counter the ability, but you don't need to destroy the land because it is already in the graveyard.

Current Wording changed from:

Card Name
1R
Enchantment
If a player would put a land into play, sacrifice ~this~. If you do, that player puts the land into his or her graveyard instead.

(Which is interesting in its own right.)

To:

Card Name
1R
Instant
Counter target activated ability from a land source and destroy that land if it's in play. (Mana abilities can't be targeted.)

(Which I really, really like.)

[Jacob Orlove]

That new wording is hot, amazing, hot, video games, and real, real hot.

[Matt]

So...did we just remake Teferi's Response?

[Jacob Orlove]

So...did we just remake Teferi's Response?

Not at all. [card]Teferis Response[/card] stops anything that targets your lands, kind of like Sacred Ground, while this is more like a one-shot Tsabo's Web.