[Discussion] Blue Fork -- will it see play?

[Outlaw]

Them : I'll cast Meddling Mage on your key card.
You (holding Fork) : Bastard.

Okay so their goes your key card, but you dont look at how you prevent that card from being played, Meddling Mage is typically in fish decks today and you have the ability to fork one of their counters.

Them : I'll cast Rootwater Thief to wreck your business.
You : Bastard.

Given fish example as before.

Them : I'll cast Chains of Mephistopheles and Smokestack
You : Bastard.

6 mana, I imagine you can definitely counter that unless its over two turns, Stax would be a matchup where Rack and Ruin > Twincast.

Them : I'll cast Goblin Welder with Mindslaver in the graveyard.
You : Bastard.

I believe your forgetting that you can fight to counter this with Twincast?

Them : I'll cast Tinker (for Mindslaver) with 4 mana floating.
You : Bastard.

Deck dependent you respond with a Twincats on the tinker for Mindslaver, yeah thats legendary.

Them : I'll cast Future Sight.
You : Bastard.

Yet again their paying 5 mana I imagine you can fight to counter it.

Them : I'll cast Crucible of Worlds.
You : Bastard.

Unless that CoW is fueled by a darksteel citadel in the yard along with an active welder and mindslaver it doesnt win the game alone.  All of the other instances you have written down can win the game alone.

[forests failed you]

Granted it can be situationally terrible, this card is busted and it will see play.  I will love having this card in my sideboard to Cunning Wish for.

[Toad]

To be fair, this card does not rely on your opponent doing stuff.  In fact, it's very possible to Fork one's own spells.

Then...

Playing more good cards > Playing less good cards and Forks to copy them.

What about timewalk+fork->+2 extra turns

For 4 mana, you could play, say, Gifts Ungiven instead and just *win the game*?

OK, I'll admit for a while this card is *awesome* and *obviously* deserves restriction because it's like *insane*... It's a pure (Aggro)-Control card due to the UU casting cost. That means the only decks that could support it are Gifts, Slaver, Tog, 3/4CC and Fish. And Fork is far worse than every single card in these decks.

[Khahan]

OK, I'll admit for a while this card is *awesome* and *obviously* deserves restriction because it's like *insane*... It's a pure (Aggro)-Control card due to the UU casting cost. That means the only decks that could support it are Gifts, Slaver, Tog, 3/4CC and Fish. And Fork is far worse than every single card in these decks.

Ok, so Fish has a lot of cards that this doesn't help against and Gifts has better things to do with 4 mana than Timewalk/fork.
That's 2 decks.  There are a multitude of other decks that can make use of this and this thread has given tons of examples of how those uses are accomplished.
Plus, there is the side chance that a new deck type may come out which abuses this to no end.

Given, the UU casting cost could conceivably be seen as a drawback. Now you have to make a decision on turn 1/2 (depending on dropping the mox sapphire or lotus) to fork a recall or hold for a mana drain.  But I think that is a decision most people wouldn't mind having.

[Outlaw]

To be fair, this card does not rely on your opponent doing stuff.  In fact, it's very possible to Fork one's own spells.

Then...

Playing more good cards > Playing less good cards and Forks to copy them.

What about timewalk+fork->+2 extra turns

For 4 mana, you could play, say, Gifts Ungiven instead and just *win the game*?

OK, I'll admit for a while this card is *awesome* and *obviously* deserves restriction because it's like *insane*... It's a pure (Aggro)-Control card due to the UU casting cost. That means the only decks that could support it are Gifts, Slaver, Tog, 3/4CC and Fish. And Fork is far worse than every single card in these decks.

Mono-U or Oath?

[Toad]

Mono-U or Oath?

Yeah, these decks would *obviously* abuse a Forked Tinker or Yawgmoth's Will. I would love Mono-U Fork a Yawgmoth's Will just to replay a counter out of his graveyard and stop the Will. Yay at UUUU counters! Just play Dismiss, It's like, better.

Mono-U also tend to like countering Goblin Welders and Juggernauts.

And there is nothing worth cutting in Mono-U to fit in Fork anyways. You are far better suited to deal with the metagame with the 12 standard counters, the 8 draw spells and the Chalice of the Void.

[Machinus]

This card isn't going to be restricted because the only place it is going to be in top8s is sideboards.

[Nefarias]

Also, Forking your own spell is just begging to lead to card disadvantage (counterspells go two for one).

Yes, this is a good card, and it will see play (even if it is undeserving), but I definitely don't see this as restriction-worthy. I can't imagine this being more than an SB card or two-of. It reminds me of Stifle a lot, even though the effect is more broken - "It can do this, and that, and that over there, oooh and that, too!" - but ultimately just not worth the space.

The "cons" for its two applications, which are plentiful:
1) Forking your own spell: Will often be card disadvantageous and is always mana intensive. As Toad said, why not play more business instead? Would potentially lead to adding sub-optimal cards just to abuse the Fork. Most cards you'd like to Fork are either restricted or expensive. Others, such as Yawgmoth's Will are useless or close to it (many decks wouldn't want to Tinker twice, for example).

2)Forking opponent's things: Though the targets can be plentiful, it's still very situational. Will be close to dead against many decks. Many have mentioned its ability to win counterwars, but Misdirection and Counterspell do too, and those are constantly sitting on the sidelines. Unless you Fork then counter, your opponent will still get their spell. You're relying on the opponent to cast spells that you want to have.

That said, I still <3 this card. I love the goofy plays it will lead to, and it'll be great to have two Forks in Type 4. I just think it's a bit too Johnny and not enough Spike.

[Zeylon]

It's good, extremely good, against control decks.

Against aggro, it's worthless. Against Workshop it's worthless. Against combo, it's probably worthless (unless you copy a duress or something).

How is it's interaction with storm spells? I know the copy would resolve first, but do you get storm copies too.

Atleast with Fork, you could copy your own burn spells if you're not playing against control. There aren't many instants/sorceries of your own worth copying in a control deck, , counterspells, ancestral recall and skeletal scrying. And in all three situations, I would rather have a MisD which I wouldn't need to leave mana open to be able to cast.

Anyways, I could see it being playable in control heavy metas, but that's about it.

[forests failed you]

It is a really, really, really good sideboard card against decks that play with Mana Drains and Draw Spells. 

[serracollector]

That is a good point, do you get the storm counts when you fork a storm spell?

Them:  tendrils for 80 billion
You:  Twincast, tendrils for 80 billion and 2?

Also, the only deck I honestly coudl see this being used in is Tog, and even then only as a Wish target.  But, I doubt MisDirection would be cut, so I am not sure what would be cut from a Tog's player sb for this.  Today decks are tight, and no matter how "broken" a situational card is, it's still situational.

SC

[forests failed you]

It actually seems like it could fit really well into gifts decks.

[Machinus]

Them:  tendrils for 80 billion
You:  Twincast, tendrils for 80 billion and 2?

Storm (When you play this spell, copy it for each spell played before it this turn. You may choose new targets for the copies.)

[Khahan]

Also, Forking your own spell is just begging to lead to card disadvantage (counterspells go two for one).

The "cons" for its two applications, which are plentiful:
1) Forking your own spell: Will often be card disadvantageous and is always mana intensive. As Toad said, why not play more business instead? Would potentially lead to adding sub-optimal cards just to abuse the Fork. Most cards you'd like to Fork are either restricted or expensive. Others, such as Yawgmoth's Will are useless or close to it (many decks wouldn't want to Tinker twice, for example).

How is this any more card disadvantage than throwing out 2 counters to stop a spell?  If your opponent casts Yawg's will, you drain it. Your opponent forces the drain. Guess what...you need to use a second card here, whether it be a force (which means you are using 3 cards) or another mana drain.  If you have a fork, you use that, fork your original counter (or theirs) and you've used 2 cards to stop their will. If you don't have a fork, you use a second counter and have used 2 cards (or 3 if you used a force) to stop their will.  Its an even break. But in this case, the fork gave you the flexibility to hold it for a counter war, or fork a card draw.
Let's say your hand is mana drain, fork, intuition and your opponent Yawg wills. You drain it. They drain that. You fork the will, pitch an intuition to play a force of your own from the gy.  Again, the same amount of cards are used whether you forked a counter or just cast a counter. But you had some flexibility.

[Nefarias]

How is this any more card disadvantage than throwing out 2 counters to stop a spell? 

Player A: I cast my own Ancestral, and in response Fork it.
Player B: Counter Ancestral. Fork is has no target on resolution. You lose both spells, I only used one. Hence, a two for one card disadvantage.

That's what I was referring to, a situation I'd imagine that would come up often.

[Revvik]

I don't think it works that way...

[Jacob Orlove]

I don't think it works that way...

A spell is countered on resolution if it has no legal targets.
Here's a quick excerpt from the comp rules:

Counter
Counter has two meanings in the Magic game.
     1. To counter a spell or ability is to cancel it, removing it from the stack. It doesn't resolve and none of its effects occur. A countered spell is put into its owner's graveyard. See rule 414, "Countering Spells and Abilities."
     2. A counter is a marker placed on an object, either modifying its characteristics or interacting with an effect. A +X/+Y counter on a permanent, where X and Y are numbers, adds X to that permanent's power and Y to that permanent's toughness. These bonuses are added after permanent-type changing effects and before other power and toughness changing effects. Similarly, -X/-Y counters subtract from power and toughness. Counters with the same name or description are interchangeable. Counters may also be given to players. For information about poison counters, see rule 102.8.

As you can see, a countered spell is removed from the stack, which would make Twincast (what an awful name) countered on resolution.

[Revvik]

Here's the way I was thinking...

Me: Cast Ancestral Recall.
You: Drain
Me: Response, cast Twincast on Ancestral.

But I guess there are better ways to do it.

By the way:
Thanks, Jacob

[Nefarias]

Here's the way I was thinking...

Me: Cast Ancestral Recall.
You: Drain
Me: Response, cast Twincast on Ancestral.

While that does work, if you pass priority to your opponent without "twincasting," and s/he passes back w/o countering, you've lost your chance to "twincast," as Ancestral will resolve right then.

In the situation you mentioned, it might be better to just "twincast" the Drain, because unless you draw into a counter and counter the Drain, both situations will leave you with one resolved Ancestral, but "twincasting" the Drain will also make you 2 mana richer.

[Luiggi]

While that does work, if you pass priority to your opponent without "twincasting," and s/he passes back w/o countering, you've lost your chance to "twincast," as Ancestral will resolve right then.

Is that so bad, though, ? You still managed to succesfully resolve your Ancestral Recall and now have 3 new cards in hand, providing you with more Twincast-targets...

Luiggi

[ReAnimator]

A spell is countered on resolution if it has no legal targets.

Doesnt the Forkcopy resolve first anyway??

Me: Ancestral
You: Drain
Me: Fork
no more effects resolve the stack LIFO

Fork resolves draw 3, drain resolves, ancestral is countered? 

Am I missing something or does this not use the stack like every other spell.

[Kowal]

They're talking about this scenerio.

Player A casts Ancestral Recall.
Player A receives priority before player B, and as such chooses to Fork Ancestral Recall.
Player A receives priority again, and passes it.
Player B receives priority, and casts Mana Drain targetting Ancestral Recall.

Mana Drain resolves.  Ancestral Recall is nullified and removed from the stack.
Fork no longer has a legal target, and is countered on resolution.

[ReAnimator]

right *smacks head*  i was missing the obvious

 even so in that sort of match up (blue on blue) why would you aggressivly fork as opposed to just forking their draw and counterspells and in response to their counters???   
I dont think any one in their right mind would walk into that senario unless they are dead next turn. 

The  only time you should ever aggresivly fork is against decks without counters or if you have back up or if you know they have nothing. 

arguing that a card is bad because you would play incorrectly and make poor plays with it is assinine. 

I can see this being run in a UW landstill or UR quite easily, and it would deffinitly make a strong wish target. 

I think this is way stronger and versitile than stifle, and stifle does see a decent amount of play considdering its limitations.

[Slay]

Why is everyone talking about how bad this card is simply because it doesn't fit into major archetypes nice and neatly? We did the same thing with Gifts Ungiven when it came out, and said that it wouldn't fit into CS and let it go. It was around 5 months before Gifts was deemed strong enough to spawn its own archetype.

Likewise I see this card creating its own archetype. I'm thinking a ultra-reactive 10-12 counterspell deck designed specifically to abuse the fuck out of the card and force other players to play around it. Meanwhile, win with Severance/Belcher.
-Slay

[Lord of the Goats]

Why is everyone talking about how bad this card is simply because it doesn't fit into major archetypes nice and neatly? We did the same thing with Gifts Ungiven when it came out, and said that it wouldn't fit into CS and let it go. It was around 5 months before Gifts was deemed strong enough to spawn its own archetype.

Likewise I see this card creating its own archetype. I'm thinking a ultra-reactive 10-12 counterspell deck designed specifically to abuse the fuck out of the card and force other players to play around it. Meanwhile, win with Severance/Belcher.
-Slay

gifts is a tutor and card advantage. that's the kind of card that should be expected to create some sort of engine. plus when you cast gifts you have a set play and a goal.

this blue fork thing is not an engine card, and it doesn't have a specific goal when casting it. you're not going to have control over exactly what you fork so you can't rely on getting a specific effect from it.

 the best thing you can *reasonably* do with it is to fork ancestral. really i see this as a misdirection that costs uu... which makes it completely loose the suprise factor.  out of all the things it can do, most of them only create an even situation...  so who cares. the fact that it doesn't actually stop your opponent's brokeness makes it iffy... and the fact that if you're forking you're own spell you either can't protect it, or you've already won makes it fairly dead. the card is situational, fundamentally worse than a counterspell, and doesn't actually do anything you can depend on because you're dependant on your opponent.

putting it with reactive spells just makes it worse because it will be dead more often. in order to spawn a new archtype it will need to:
1) have a consistant effect than can be reproducedwhen goldfishing
2) tutor or draw
3) do these in a reasonable length of time given the metagame

[Slay]

It may not be an engine card, but it's broken off its ass. It wins counterwars, it copies Facts, Ancestrals, Gushes, Frantic Searches, Gifts, Tinkers, YawgWins, Duresses, Tutors of all shapes and sizes, AKs, Deep Anals, Time Walks, and Thirst for Knowledges. How is that not a good card? This card isn't an engine just like Goblin Charbelcher isn't an engine. Doesn't mean that it doesn't win the game when it hits. And you get to use your bomb before they do. Which gives you time to find countermagic. I'm building a deck around this and whipping your ass in the mirror match.
-Slay

[Lord of the Goats]

It may not be an engine card, but it's broken off its ass. It wins counterwars, it copies Facts, Ancestrals, Gushes, Frantic Searches, Gifts, Tinkers, YawgWins, Duresses, Tutors of all shapes and sizes, AKs, Deep Anals, Time Walks, and Thirst for Knowledges. How is that not a good card? This card isn't an engine just like Goblin Charbelcher isn't an engine. Doesn't mean that it doesn't win the game when it hits. And you get to use your bomb before they do. Which gives you time to find countermagic. I'm building a deck around this and whipping your ass in the mirror match.
-Slay

and if your opponent doesn't play blue it's awful. seriously, think about how this card works

turn 3
opp: flash back deep anal
you: fork it.
opp: ok... we both draw 2

who cares? your opponent is perfectly happy because you didn't counter it. same with any other card on your list (with the possible excetion of duress). forking time walk is awful.

look at that list you just made. the bombs on that list are going to have protection. who casts will without backup unless they're loosing? anything that's actually worth forking is worth protecting... in such a situation you will need to out counter your opponent and cast the fork.

the remaining spells (the ones that aren't bombs) aren't really worth forking to begin with. fork frantic search.... time walk.... have fun.

duress is the only spell on that list that that will be worth forking and will not be protected... unfortunately it's 1 mana  cheaper than fork.

also, whipping  my ass in the mirror implies that i would build a deck revolving around this card... which i find silly. or that you're going to throw it into the existing framework of a deck (which you assume i would play)... which you already said you "see this card creating it's own archtype".
.

[atwa2002]

Here's the way I was thinking...

Me: Cast Ancestral Recall.
You: Drain
Me: Response, cast Twincast on Ancestral.

But I guess there are better ways to do it.

By the way:
Thanks, Jacob

Why not just forking the drain?

It gives you the 3 cards from ancestral, and 2 extra mana.

[Malhavoc]

Here's the way I was thinking...

Me: Cast Ancestral Recall.
You: Drain
Me: Response, cast Twincast on Ancestral.

But I guess there are better ways to do it.

By the way:
Thanks, Jacob

Why not just forking the drain?

It gives you the 3 cards from ancestral, and 2 extra mana.

It depends on your luck. If you decide to fork the ancestral and end up drawing another counterspell, you can counter the drain and draw other 3 cards. If you really have no mana problems it's probably the best move.

[Toad]

It was around 5 months before Gifts was deemed strong enough to spawn its own archetype.

It actually took 2 weeks to spawn an archetype.
And 5 monthes for that archetype to cross the ocean