What has been your guy's experience with this? Does that colorless mana feel as restrictive to the opponent as it feels to me.

Should it be just instead?

Or maybe should it cost instead and keep the ?

­ makes it strictly worse cancel.

I haven't tested a lot with this card but I think would be far too weak, especially with the planned 2 "tap for colorless" land cycles.

A weaker version of Mana Leak that only charged would probably be fair. This is a very strong two-mana counter outside the context of this set.

I guess outside the context of this set, casual/Vintage/Legacy already have Counterspell, which this is obviously still worse than. If this were being printed in a real set then it'd be a format-defining card for Standard; I could see monocolour aggro decks playing colourless lands just to be able to work around this. But "format-defining" isn't necessarily bad, of course.

Well we're trying to push mono-color/two-color decks with an emphasis on colorless mana so having a format defining card that's emphasizing colorless mana's importance seems right up our alley.

Mmm.. this feels like a trap card for inexperienced players.

It's existence suggests "You should have colourless mana!" but actually, almost always, you're not gonna have any mana available to pay it anyway; so why bother diluting your deck?

I don't think that it's necessarily a "trap", we've tried to give people incentives to play as many colorless producers as possible to the point that in our early playtest, we were getting reports that players were grabbing every colorless producer they saw in draft regardless of whether it was in thier "colors" or not.

I don't think it's going to be much of an issue in limited and that's what I'm most concerned with at the moment.

The dual land cycle from this set produces colorless mana, and so will an additional set of special lands in the next two sets (like the innistrad cycle) so I think it's fine for constructed