This may be too conditional, I'm not sure, but it's definitely wanted in this set. We may well tweak the number of flooding cards. This may either becomes 2UU, "costs 2 less if...", or come down to cost 1U, since it's conditional, I don't know.

I know I suggested it as is, but perhaps it could cost 1UU (or 2UU) and cost less if the player controls an island, and it could also flood, so that it preps future castings.

Lets try that version and see how it feels.

I think it would be interesting to add "Flood target land," but that's probably too much for common, and some people would probably get confused and think that the cost reduction applied to this card.

I'd probably also have it cost less rather than

As would I. Also, the wording should be "if THAT spell's controller." Also, does the cost reduction need to go before the action, or is it fine where it is?

I'm not sure it matters, though I would put it first so new players don't get mixed up.

There's this strange problem wheedling its way through the set. I'm a bit miffed at the fact that it is unwise for Blue to play basic lands in this set. While I do think this sort of spell is appropriate, and should be made, we may want to push the focus of this mechanic on having a lot of islands in play, rather than penalizing players who happen to have an Island in play.

I know... that's kind of strange thing to say, especially since I like this mechanic. But, when envisioning the mechanic, I saw huge Sea Serpents attacking, not silver bullet sideboard options against blue. I'm just putting out a warning that we want to keep this mechanic fun, not constraining, so we need to be careful with the numbers. ­

You could change the reduction to care about whether a player controls a flooded land rather than an island, would make it less of a blue silver-bullet card as it would no longer care about basic lands.

Maybe wherever possible, replace references to Islands to Flooded Lands instead. Islandwalk could either stay as is or, for this set a variation could be created that makes the creature unblockable if opponent controls a flooded land ???

Just ideas to lessen the impact on blue.
Could we limit flooding to non-island lands ? These would make the blue on blue mirror match more of a slugfest and not just my unblockables attack you, then your unblockables attack me.

I really don't like the idea of changing island references to "flooded land," because it makes flood incredibly parasitic. Also, while "Flooded land" makes logical sense, there's no way to unflood a land. The flood counter is just a reminder, like on Sensei Golden-Tail. I don't have a problem with removing this card. It's really the only "silver bullet" card, so I don't have a problem with it staying, either. One of the original ideas for blue was a sort of creepy sea creature vibe, but that isn't really coming through right now.

Fair enough, I probably haven't kept up with the discussions on this set as well as I should - just too much going on right now.

Avoiding making things too parasitic is good.

jmg, camruth: good points imho

One possibility would be to find a good wording for "a land that's become an island" or something and use that, then it works with other basic-land-changing spells, but doesn't work with people who just play islands. Another would be to make all of these cards even heavier blue, so they can't be splashed as answers, only played by other blue decks.

"when envisioning the mechanic, I saw huge Sea Serpents attacking"

Yeah, I agree that's what's fun, but I think the problem arose because it's hard to make the flooding relevant without penalising spells, and I'm not sure what conception of the mechanic is best.

Can we make this more like Stoic Rebuttal, a conditional Counterspell that's usually Cancel?

I'm cool with a little blue v. blue, I just didn't want this descend into "the best thing about this set is all the sideboard options blue has to fight blue decks".

Personally, I'm cool with an anti-blue counterspell, but, in my mind, it needs to be costed so that it is barely better than Cancel in the blue v. blue match up, and obviously worse when you can't get it to work. So if we costed this , and reduces by when your opponent has an island for a splashable counterspell costing , I'd be cool with that. Although... the more I think about it, the more this sounds cool...

Doesn't Hate Blue Anymore
­
Instant
Counter target non-blue spell.
~ costs less to play if your opponent controls an Island.

Huh? Huh? Now it's never better than a Counterspell, and seems best against players who aren't playing blue, but you're giving them islands. There will also be very few mono-blue decks where this is completely useless, since it still counters artifacts for .

I still like the current effect, but at the Stoic Rebuttal cost reduction.

On balance, I think 2UU, less for each island is probably the right place. That both makes it UU sometimes, and makes it care about the number of floods. (With or without the "non-blue spell" restriction.)

Moved to uncommon to give this card a second chance. Besides, this looks like chase DCI promo material to me.