That said, I think there definitely is room for countering in white. This is pretty similar to Rebuff the Wicked, and I think that's very much within white's pie; it's similar to Gilded Light.
It's rather got the same problem as Self Sacrifice: it needs to look forward in time to see what would happen when the spell resolves. E.g. if I have a Pariah on a creature, would a Lava Spike deal damage to me? No, it wouldn't, because the damage is going to be redirected. If I have a planeswalker that my opponent is trying to kill, would a Lava Spike deal damage to me? The opponent doesn't choose until Lava Spike's resolution whether it would deal damage to me... If an opponent casts Mind Bomb, would that spell deal damage to me? Depends what I do on resolution...
All these kind of cards that want to do something to a spell or ability before it resolves but based on what it will do when it resolves have this kind of problem, which is why Wizards avoid printing them.
For an example of this problem, see Unyaro Griffin. In its Mirage printing, it said "Counter target red spell that assigns damage to you or a creature you control". The problem was, the game doesn't know where the damage is going to be assigned when the spell resolves. There could be any number of replacement effects applicable, with any number of players to make choices during resolution... When the card was reprinted in Sixth Edition, they changed it to say "Counter target red instant or sorcery spell" because it's just not possible to restrict targeting based on what might or might not happen when the spell resolves.
A lot of the time, I'd rather pack a Reverse Damage. Seems to do a better job than Cancelling it. I admit, though, there are a few times when the problem isn't the damage, but what's riding with it.
I don't know about that, if you don't have the option of countering it to begin with then there is really no problem is there? As to the mentioned cards, none of them force you to sacrifice a creature (small wording change on card) so they couldn't be countered as you choose what permanent to sac. Work?
The problem with annihilator is the "sacrifices [a] permanent", so that isn't solved by dodging the triggeredness of it. The same problem applies to Crack the Earth, Misguided Rage, Fade Away (extra complications there), etc.
What was the original wording? Tajuru Preserver makes it sound like we have to decide what happens if you have a choice to sacrifice a creature or something else: whether you have to choose something else (like Preserver) or if you can choose to sacrifice but pay the life instead.
Possible rules texts might be:
"if a spell or an effect an opponent controls would cause you to sacrifice a creature, you may pay 2 life instead" (does that work?)
"Pay 2 life: target spell or ability an opponent controls can't force you to sacrfice creatures" (does that work?)
OK fixed that particular problem up by making it spell or activated ability. Annihilator is a triggered ability therefore it would be unable to be countered. Work better?
Nice. Cleaner, although it may still have problems. Suppose I attack you with Ulamog's Crusher: will its Annihilator ability cause you to sacrifice a creature? It'll make you sac two permanents, but will either of them be a creature? What if you only have one noncreature permanent? I have a feeling the game doesn't know whether any given ability will cause you to sac a creature, for this kind of reason.
Oh, duh. Yeah, I missed that fillup. That does fix most of the problems. Though it'd be VERY irritating to have one enchantment mess up most of black's removal.
Fortunately most of V's combos don't work because this says "an opponent controls". To that extent, there's even something approximating precedent with Tajuru Preserver. But nonetheless, I don't think this is a good idea, for similar reasons to what V said.
Animal Boneyard as an obvious example of its two problems - you now don't have a creature to get details from; and I can now pay life to gain more life than I paid.
Augur il-Vec is now infinite life; as is Bottle Gnomes. I can't immediately find a "This and one other card" actual win combo. Bile Urchin and similar makes for a 3-card win though.
"Sacrifice" means "This creature HAS to be gone" is just too ingrained in the game to throw away this lightly; I fear.
Honourable mention to being able to use it to get around "When this ETBs pay extra or lose it", but that needs a hugeass critter and another way to cheat it into play.
Had this lovely idea for a land version of Fellwar Stone only to find that WotC had already done it with Exotic Orchard BUGGER! Decided to post it anyway for the nostalgia nod.
White can prevent damage to creatures to; so "Target spell that causes damage" seems not unreasonable.
That said, I think there definitely is room for countering in white. This is pretty similar to Rebuff the Wicked, and I think that's very much within white's pie; it's similar to Gilded Light.
It's rather got the same problem as Self Sacrifice: it needs to look forward in time to see what would happen when the spell resolves. E.g. if I have a Pariah on a creature, would a Lava Spike deal damage to me? No, it wouldn't, because the damage is going to be redirected. If I have a planeswalker that my opponent is trying to kill, would a Lava Spike deal damage to me? The opponent doesn't choose until Lava Spike's resolution whether it would deal damage to me... If an opponent casts Mind Bomb, would that spell deal damage to me? Depends what I do on resolution...
All these kind of cards that want to do something to a spell or ability before it resolves but based on what it will do when it resolves have this kind of problem, which is why Wizards avoid printing them.
For an example of this problem, see Unyaro Griffin. In its Mirage printing, it said "Counter target red spell that assigns damage to you or a creature you control". The problem was, the game doesn't know where the damage is going to be assigned when the spell resolves. There could be any number of replacement effects applicable, with any number of players to make choices during resolution... When the card was reprinted in Sixth Edition, they changed it to say "Counter target red instant or sorcery spell" because it's just not possible to restrict targeting based on what might or might not happen when the spell resolves.
A lot of the time, I'd rather pack a Reverse Damage. Seems to do a better job than Cancelling it. I admit, though, there are a few times when the problem isn't the damage, but what's riding with it.
Playing around with countering in white. This is meant to counter stuff like Fireball, Shock, Drain Life, a Sign in Blood targeted at you, etc.
I don't know about that, if you don't have the option of countering it to begin with then there is really no problem is there?
As to the mentioned cards, none of them force you to sacrifice a creature (small wording change on card) so they couldn't be countered as you choose what permanent to sac. Work?
The problem with annihilator is the "sacrifices [a] permanent", so that isn't solved by dodging the triggeredness of it. The same problem applies to Crack the Earth, Misguided Rage, Fade Away (extra complications there), etc.
original wording was basically your first option
What was the original wording? Tajuru Preserver makes it sound like we have to decide what happens if you have a choice to sacrifice a creature or something else: whether you have to choose something else (like Preserver) or if you can choose to sacrifice but pay the life instead.
Possible rules texts might be:
"if a spell or an effect an opponent controls would cause you to sacrifice a creature, you may pay 2 life instead" (does that work?)
"Pay 2 life: target spell or ability an opponent controls can't force you to sacrfice creatures" (does that work?)
At least the original flavour/concept of "I give of myself so that others may live" is still intact
All the remaining lovliness is lost :(
It's always a shame when such a clean idea has to become uglified to satisfy templating.
OK fixed that particular problem up by making it spell or activated ability. Annihilator is a triggered ability therefore it would be unable to be countered.
Work better?
Nice. Cleaner, although it may still have problems. Suppose I attack you with Ulamog's Crusher: will its Annihilator ability cause you to sacrifice a creature? It'll make you sac two permanents, but will either of them be a creature? What if you only have one noncreature permanent? I have a feeling the game doesn't know whether any given ability will cause you to sac a creature, for this kind of reason.
well it prevents sacrificing but not destroying so there are only some black removal spells affected.
It was just a random idea that I had that I decided to explore.
I reworked it slightly so how does the new version look?
Oh, duh. Yeah, I missed that fillup. That does fix most of the problems. Though it'd be VERY irritating to have one enchantment mess up most of black's removal.
Fortunately most of V's combos don't work because this says "an opponent controls". To that extent, there's even something approximating precedent with Tajuru Preserver. But nonetheless, I don't think this is a good idea, for similar reasons to what V said.
It should, but it really shouldn't exist.
Animal Boneyard as an obvious example of its two problems - you now don't have a creature to get details from; and I can now pay life to gain more life than I paid.
Augur il-Vec is now infinite life; as is Bottle Gnomes. I can't immediately find a "This and one other card" actual win combo. Bile Urchin and similar makes for a 3-card win though.
"Sacrifice" means "This creature HAS to be gone" is just too ingrained in the game to throw away this lightly; I fear.
Honourable mention to being able to use it to get around "When this ETBs pay extra or lose it", but that needs a hugeass critter and another way to cheat it into play.
Had this lovely idea for a land version of Fellwar Stone only to find that WotC had already done it with Exotic Orchard BUGGER!
Decided to post it anyway for the nostalgia nod.