Not sure about the costs.

Or the wording.

I think the wording can be "Counter target spell unless... Shuffle ~ into its owner's library unless..." in parallel to Blue Sun's Zenith.

I'm not sure about the cost; I'm not sure how much the last ability should cost -- it's not very useful (may even be a disadvantage) but will slowly increase deck quality. My biggest worry is that it simply won't matter often so it'll seem superfluous to make opponents make a decision, but OTOH, I like the pleasing symmetry of the two effects.

And I'm not sure where the mana cost should be: I feel if I'm paying 1UU I'd normally prefer to have cancel, and "pay " is notably less good than mana leak. OTOH, mana leak can be really annoying, so I'm not sure I want to advocate for another 2-cost contingent counterspell...

I didn't want to make it a hard counter, since it is potentially reusable. Perhaps I could drop the casting cost to , I'm not sure. I wanted the numbers to line up, which is why I had them both at . I thought a total of might be too much, but maybe not.
I was worried that "Shuffle ~ into its owner's library unless..." wouldn't work, for some reason. I was worried about whether it needed to specify where it would go.

You could easily change this to . It's a soft counter. Soft counters are usually splashable ala Mana Leak and Convolute. That would seem like a good first step to me, since this card is clearly worse than Cancel. I got to admit, it would be a rare deck that I would be playing against where I would activate that second ability. One that constantly tapped out at every stage of the game... there just aren't too many decks that do that. Most of the time, to me at least, this would be a very expensive Mana Leak with a drawback that makes it even worse in multiplayer.

I also think (2)(U) is fine, as is "Counter target spell unless... Shuffle ~ into its owner's library unless...".

I don't think the card would be particularly bad at . I do think however that it's a lot of rules text for something that won't be relevant very often. With the Zeniths and Beacons it's a big splashy spell that the opponent will dread seeing you draw again.

Mmm. Seems like this wants to be a counterspell that's okay early on, but spectacular later. Trying to make one that isn't convoluted is kind of tricky. I keep wanting to send it off to Veredictum's set "Evolution". Make it a hard counter, cost it at and give it "Curve 4 — (If you cast this spell on a player’s fourth turn, it gains this effect.) Shuffle ~ into your library." Of course, that's straying a bit far from the original design...

What if it went to the hand instead? That was my original idea, but I feared it would be too good. What if I made it cost , reduced the payments to , and made it return to the hand unless?

Hmm... tricky. I suppose that depends on whether you think this card is fair...

Example card for purposes of determing fairness
­
Enchantment
­: Counter target spell, unless that spells controller pays .

­

It's not quite the same, since could be gotten rid of by all of the colors, and spells are much easier to deal with than abilities. I think that enchantment might be fair, though. That's a big mana investment that basically amounts to "some of your opponents spells cost more."

I was going to comment on my enchantment, and claim it fair, but I didn't want to warp an honest first appraisal from other people. It seems worse than Stone Rain, for what it's worth, and only gets better when it's controller has access to ... at which point, the opponent probably has ...

But, yet, you're right. In fact, now that I look at it again, I notice that it is missing the line "Do not announce that you have cast ~. When this is on the battlefield, it hides in your hand."

Yeah - pay one extra is an awesome trick; it's a lot less good if your opponent knows it is coming. (And even as a trick, it's not that often you get to use it to best advantage)

Back to hand, rather than shuffling into deck would make the card better - but the second casting your opponent knows it is coming, and it's still not as good as flat out "Counter target spell"

Mind you, it DOES have the built in trick of "Ah, you paid 4 to be rid of it forever, smart. Ok, I cast my second one now you don't have 2 untapped...."

So I think I could get behind that version.

The discussion reminds me of Disruptive Pitmage.

I like Vitenka's point.

That would be the gotcha I happen own, yeah ;) (Unlike the pitmage though, you're still looking at spending 3 or 6 at activation time - which means you've forgone casting your own win the game spell...)

Does this version seem better, or worse? Should it cost ?

Well, coming back to hand makes it quite a lot better better than Force Spike, but it costs more so that's probably ok.

It usually makes your opponent have to pay 2 - which is pretty darn good for u1, but then, they can choose to pay only one. Hmmm.

I think that's where I'd cost it.

At 2u I'd want it back to being per again.

I don't think "making" them pay is bad, since they have the choice not to, at least at that time. Also, for the same mana cost, Mana Leak forces more mana. So... perhaps it's okay. I guess I would need to test it.

This new version seems like a fun tweak on Mana Leak/Force Spike. I like it.

Yeah, I like this version too. The opponent has a genuine choice, between the two payments if they have mana. I hope it's not too annoying if it keeps coming back, but then your opponent has a decent chance to play round it.

I got Jon to play a few games with me. His general opinion of my cards is that they are too strong. He's of the opinion that this is stronger than Mana Leak.

I could see that argument. If you squint, this card is a lot like Force Void. The card advantage isn't as guaranteed... but if the blue player plays it right, it sure can feel that way.

Hmm...

• When the opponent has 3+ mana spare: neither achieves anything.
• When the opponent has 2 mana spare: Mana Leak counters the spell, this does nothing.
• When the opponent has 1 mana spare: Mana Leak counters the spell. This either counters the spell or goes back to your hand, but the opponent chooses which.
• When the opponent has no mana spare: Mana Leak counters the spell. This counters the spell and goes back to hand for free.

So Mana Leak is significantly better when they have or available, but this is much, much better when they're completely tapped out. Interesting.

In a weird way I think this would actually play like Disruptive Pitmage. It'll counter one spell out of nowhere by surprise, and from then on it'll force the opponent to have 1 extra mana available before they even try to cast something.

I can see an argument that overall it's better than Mana Leak, but it's far from clear-cut, and overall I think it's printable at the same cost.

18 months later, Jay Treat from Goblin Artisans posted Many Leaks, which strongly reminded me of this card.

Jay's version is stronger, I think, and personally, I find it less interesting.