Multiverse: Pipe Leak

Mockup
Plain

CardName: Pipe Leak Cost: u Type: Instant Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: Counter target noncreature spell unless its controller pays {c}. Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: Archester Revival Common

Pipe Leak

Instant

Counter target noncreature spell unless its controller pays {c}

Updated on 28 Jan 2016 by MOON-E

Code: CU12

Active?: true

History: [-]

2016-01-26 09:00:29: MOON-E created the card Pipe Leak

by Volvary:

This is the kind of cards wizard would never allow to exist as it causes {c} to become parasitic. Simply because this exists and could be played, you suddenly have to play some colorless generating lands or run the risk of getting 1 mana counterspelled to which you can't do anything.

It's a hard no for me as it stands, as much as I want to love it. (yes, I know I said something opposite on a similar card concept but I've realized how damaging it could be to some formats.)

by grimGrendel:

I was not sold either on the specific card, although I loved the design concept. Indeed, Wizard would never print a counter spell that read "Counter something unless its controller pays {u} " We should not either. We could try though to keep it as a 1-mana conditional negate, just change the design a bit. Can it be a simple Force spike for non-creature spells? A weaker Spell pierce?

by Circeus:

The problem is not the parasiticness. Like OGW, the set will almost certainly have by design a high amount of colorless mana production.

The problem is that the card warps formats by being better than Counterspell if one is not planning for it. Cost it at {1} {u} and the problem solves itself because the card becomes strictly worse than Negate. You can even make it require {c} {c} if you want.

by Jack V:

I like the flavour! And likewise, I like the idea but agree with the other comments.

by jmgariepy:

For what it's worth, I think Wizards would print a card like this if there was a work around. For example, "Counter target non-creature spell unless its controller pays {c} or {3} " seems more reasonable.

An aside to an aside: Spell Pierce has a rating of 4.537 with 191 voters on Gatherer. I still see the value in reprinting it. But it's worth remembering that with a score like that, that the Magic community considers it to be one of the most powerful spells in the game.

by MOON-E:

Strongly disagree here. First of all yes we're comparing this to Spell Pierce, not counterspell. Second of all, I think we can agree that since our high profile dual land cycle for this set makes {c} , we're only really worried about Modern.

Now if you'd like to convince me this card is too good to print in modern, I'm all ears. I have no qualms what-so-ever about printing a modern playable counterspell. I'm sure this card would make a splash, but modern is such a creature dense format I'm not sure this would break blue in any way.

by grimGrendel:

I am not a modern player, but I can look at MTGGlodfish for the metagame. In Modern, this is dead against Affinity, Tron, and Abzan company. It is a great hit against Liliana, Abzan and Jund, Scapeshift and Burn. Menfolk and Infect play 2-off spell pierce, which this could replace.

I believe it could be fine in modern. My problem lies elsewhere.

I am a legacy player. Ignoring wasteland since that land very rarely stays in play more than a single turn, this card would hit every deck except the fridge 12-post and MUD. It would replace Spell pierce in every delver deck, in Sneak and show, in Esper mentor, Esper stone blade, and so on. Currently, about 2/3 of every deck that plays blue plays 2 spell pierce, and a lot of decks play blue. The impact would be hard to gauge, but it would still make it so every blue decks have a better late game. Since Legacy is such a spell based format, this would be the equivalent of printing a 1 mana Counterspell that hits 3/4 of the metagame. Be aware also that the format is powerful enough that Counterspell is usually played as a 1-off.

I believe this is too strong to print in Legacy. Even if players shift their Wastelands tactics to try to dodge it.

by Raptor1210_.:

I'm not sure how big of a problem shaking up the format would be. I mean, I play Fish and would love to see the card as it is get printed to radically shake up Legacy's mana bases. (I may be bias as the shake up could only help my deck :P)

by grimGrendel:

I am also biased since I am played the aforementioned fringe 12-post and could care less about facing down that card. Still, I try to stay objective here. I may also be overselling its impact; it is a bit hard to anticipate all the repercussions in a format as diverse as Legacy.

by Raptor1210_:

I think we should consider the fact that Wotc doesn't design with Legacy in mind. They throw minnows out into the waters of legacy and only step in to kill it once one of them becomes a shark and eats everything.

If we're following Wotc's footsteps then I say we just toss it out there and see how big of waves it makes in the enteral formats.

by MOON-E:

I agree with raptor, I have no problems with shaking up legacy (hell they printed Mental Misstep!) and if this got out of hand it can easily be banned. At very least, banning cards in legacy is seen as less of a "mistake" than doing so in modern (and even there people have grown to accept it).

Add your comments: