OK, this is probably a bit too close to (((Mind Shrapnel))) or Perplex, or being basically close to a hard counter, but I was sufficiently amused by the possibility to list it.
Well, this is usually hard enough that it'd need . It's unfortunate that you can't play another instant in response and choose to sacrifice that one.
But it's an awesome enough mechanic that it'd be nice to make it not-worse-than-Cancel. How about , and adding "You gain life equal to that spell's CMC"?
Oh, good question. I was just automatically going by "it's not technically a hard counter", but this is probably one of those rules where wizards don't want to get close to breaking it.
The closest I can think of to a non-UU hard counter are X-spells like Broken Ambitions or Spell Burst which (assuming you have enough mana) can be used as a hard counter on almost anything.
But I agree, both have times when they don't work, (Broken Ambitions, if your opponent is casting lightning bolt on turn 8, Spell Burst if your opponent is casting Emrakul on turn 8.) Whereas I can't think of any time when "target player sacrifices a spell" wouldn't work -- the only time your opponent usually has two spells on the stack at once, which is quite rare, is if he's countering your counterspell, in which case "sacrifice a spell" is still a hard counter.
So on balance, 1UB (or 1WU) are probably the colours most likely to get a counterspell other than UU, but you're right, they still shouldn't.
I thought it was a shame they couldn't play a card in response as well. That'd feel more sacrifice-y. I guess it could be "sacrifice target spell or target creature"
Adding life gain to UUB is a good idea, but a bit similar to Undermine.
Hm, maybe "target player sacrifices an actived or triggered ability"? They're marginally more likely to have two at once, although as a whole the card is massively less likely to be played.
Or it could just be UUB -- it's still marginally better than cancel, because it can counter uncounterable spells.
It's not as good in the situation of "Ok, I cast giant growth here, and I cast giant growth there"
It becomes "Give up one of them, your choice" rather than "My choice"
but I agree, damn rare situation, and especially given the "sac not destroy" nature, probably better at least as often.
Other times opponents have multiple spells on the stack: Storm, where this is basically equivalent to a counterspell (less good if they've split their Grapeshots between multiple targets); Replicate, ditto; Ripple, ditto; and Cascade, where you don't mind the spell with cascade itself but want to counter the thing that gets revealed.
@Vitenka: True, they can play two giant growths at the same time, but I would have thought it's usually correct to play the second after the first resolves. Come to think of it, there must be some situations where responding to your own spell is correct, but I can't think what they are. If they play Fold into Æther on their own spell, for instance, but then this is STILL a hard counter :)
@Alex: Good point, ok, against cascade it does matter (a little) :) Thanks.
For Challenge # 038.
OK, this is probably a bit too close to (((Mind Shrapnel))) or Perplex, or being basically close to a hard counter, but I was sufficiently amused by the possibility to list it.
Well, this is usually hard enough that it'd need
. It's unfortunate that you can't play another instant in response and choose to sacrifice that one.
But it's an awesome enough mechanic that it'd be nice to make it not-worse-than-Cancel. How about
, and adding "You gain life equal to that spell's CMC"?
Oh, good question. I was just automatically going by "it's not technically a hard counter", but this is probably one of those rules where wizards don't want to get close to breaking it.
The closest I can think of to a non-UU hard counter are X-spells like Broken Ambitions or Spell Burst which (assuming you have enough mana) can be used as a hard counter on almost anything.
But I agree, both have times when they don't work, (Broken Ambitions, if your opponent is casting lightning bolt on turn 8, Spell Burst if your opponent is casting Emrakul on turn 8.) Whereas I can't think of any time when "target player sacrifices a spell" wouldn't work -- the only time your opponent usually has two spells on the stack at once, which is quite rare, is if he's countering your counterspell, in which case "sacrifice a spell" is still a hard counter.
So on balance, 1UB (or 1WU) are probably the colours most likely to get a counterspell other than UU, but you're right, they still shouldn't.
I thought it was a shame they couldn't play a card in response as well. That'd feel more sacrifice-y. I guess it could be "sacrifice target spell or target creature"
Adding life gain to UUB is a good idea, but a bit similar to Undermine.
Hm, maybe "target player sacrifices an actived or triggered ability"? They're marginally more likely to have two at once, although as a whole the card is massively less likely to be played.
Or it could just be UUB -- it's still marginally better than cancel, because it can counter uncounterable spells.
It's not as good in the situation of "Ok, I cast giant growth here, and I cast giant growth there" It becomes "Give up one of them, your choice" rather than "My choice"
but I agree, damn rare situation, and especially given the "sac not destroy" nature, probably better at least as often.
Nice idea for a counterspell though.
Other times opponents have multiple spells on the stack: Storm, where this is basically equivalent to a counterspell (less good if they've split their Grapeshots between multiple targets); Replicate, ditto; Ripple, ditto; and Cascade, where you don't mind the spell with cascade itself but want to counter the thing that gets revealed.
@Vitenka: True, they can play two giant growths at the same time, but I would have thought it's usually correct to play the second after the first resolves. Come to think of it, there must be some situations where responding to your own spell is correct, but I can't think what they are. If they play Fold into Æther on their own spell, for instance, but then this is STILL a hard counter :)
@Alex: Good point, ok, against cascade it does matter (a little) :) Thanks.