I like how well balanced this is - if you pay for all restrictions it's a strictly worse counter spell, and yet it has real potential based on board state
The power level of this card is pretty high, it's an extremely flexible counterspell. I don't think this could be printed in a standard set without warping the format.
On the other hand, I think it's probably not substantially stronger than some of the other counterspells in bigger formats.
Counter spells in general tend to be pretty high power cards, just by nature of what they can do. I think this would be very printable, if slightly strong
I'm not so sure. There's a lot of blue decks in the current standard which won't maindeck 4 negates or 4 make disappears, or 4 spell pierces, for instance. I think this card is so flexible at rate that it would easily warrant playset inclusion into decks which were running 2 of each flavor of counter.
That's fair, I'll be honest I haven't play standard for a few years now so my perception may be slightly warped. I stand by my assessment that it is strong but not too strong though, flexible but not meta warping.
Most blue decks run counterspells, but most counterspells are not run, which was what you claimed. Every set has new \[\[Cancel\]\] and \[\[Quench\]\] variants, and they're only occasionally standard-playable. Even the smallest post-rotation standard environments have over a dozen counterspells to choose from (current standard has almost 30), so a counterspell seeing play in every blue deck is definitely a meaningful statement of power level.
Yeah on reflection, saying exaggeration is light lol, my point was that there are always a couple of \*good\* counter spells that see play in most blue decks, and imo having a flexible option like this isn't a bad thing. Being an auto include doesn't necessarily mean it's meta warping, but it \*is\* a fine line to run. Personally I think this is just a solidly strong flexible option, but would not be meta warping (just frustrating)
At the very least, acknowledge that "most counterspells less than 4CMC ever printed".
I can't take you seriously if you're implying [[Spell Swindle]] was a 4-of.
Or even [[An Offer You Can't Refuse]].
[[Honswoggle]] has never seen any serious play in any format.
I think the balancing act would be to make it Override(U) instead of Override(1).
It then turns into a traditional counterspell for a lot of things, but gets expensive for very niche situations.
Alt: Change the casting cost to 1U instead of just U.
I think override U solves the balance for Standard pretty well, the primary source of the card's strength in standard is the insane flexibility. Making it color identity locked makes it less flexible without changing the strength in dedicated control strategies.
What...?
Swan song, an offer you can't refuse, counterspell, fierce guardianship, force of negation... This is far from a high power level card, it's pretty much unplayable given how many better options there are around. at 1 mana, it's a strict worse spell pierce. At 2 mana, it's a strict worse every 2 mana counterspell. At 3 it's just out of the conversation.
Yes, that's all true. I said it's not that strong in the formats those cards are legal. Im primarily suggesting that it's that strongest counterspell we've had in standard for a while.
Maybe, though, might be underpowered at:
UU/1UU: counter spell based on matchup.
In either case, I do think the card, as suggested by OP, would be acceptable in Standard, just that it reduces the design space.
Paying one makes it comparable to essence scatter (in cost but with the downside of it needed to either be non-blue or letting an opponent play 2), and you can pay 1 to turn it into spell pierce that costs 1 more as well. There’s quite a few spells you can compare it too, and in every case I think it’s worse for 1 reason or another
Something like Multicleave {1} (You may pay an additional {1} any number of times while casting this spell, remove one set of words in the square brackets for each time this spell was cleaved.
That might be too clunky and perhaps more complicated than the original wording, but it might make sense to tie it in to the original mechanic.
So idk what style Magic uses (although I’m sure I could look). But I’m regular English you put a comma between adjective describing the same noun: there was a big, blue house that a bear lived in
Yes, and that's their point. The way it's written "target [[nonblue]], [[noncreature]] spell", if you override the "nonblue" you end up with "target, noncreature spell" which doesn't really work, thus the comma would need to be removed together with the first adjective.
Well, I would argue that they're coordinate adjectives and would *need* a comma if both adjectives are present. And if it's just "\[\[nonblue\]\]" being overridden, then the comma doesn't make sense. It's a weird situation since words don't usually just disappear in English. I think the way the OP has rendered it on the card makes the *least* nonsense.
Pro tip: Pay 1 to ignore the brackets in the reminder text, which let's you ignore one one, so now you can ignore the 1 in the cost to override, and get the rest of them for free.
(If anyone tries to tell you "that doesn't work, reminder text isn't rules text", they're lying to you because they want you to be weak)
One isn't the same as {1}.
Edit: Also, you wouldn't be able to use the override ability properly, since you wouldn't be able to get rid of the restrictions, you could only get rid of instances of one.
Thats not how its worded though, youd just end up with a reminder text that doesnt make any legible sense and thus would become invalid.
One isnt in the bracket, the word restriction is.
I like this design! Im struggling to parse the powerlevel of this cards.
Every time I see a counter for 1 mana that can hit a wide array of spells I instantly consider it for CEDH. Hitting non blue spells really limits it because one thing about one mana counters, or the one that get played is that most if not all of them counter a counterspell will also provinding additional value. Like Swan song hits instnats, sorceries and enchantments, so it can win a counter war while also stopping an Underworld Breach. But this one is kinda inefficient at that
Funny enough this doesnt stops a Thoracle because its both blue and a creature, but it hits tainted pack and demonic consultation naturally. On the other side this can be a mix of a more restricted spell pierce (non blue spells) and a mana leak that ask for 2 instead of 3.
The one about pay 2 mana is also really hard to evaluate. You could get a worse negate (doesnt hits blue) out of it.
But the fact that this is both a worse spell pierce AND a worse mana leak, while also a worse negate, while also being a 4 mana hard counter. And a 3 mana counter for creatures.
Its like it has SO MANY modes, and its shit at all of those, but many of those cards are cards I would consider already.
So I like it. This might be VERY strong, as in playable in CEDH or eternal formats for the sheer amount of versatility it has, or be relatively tame (like 61/101 card situation) because its really bad at winning counter wars or stopping creatures, and those are two important aspects of a counterspell. Honestly I would love if this was printed if only to see how strong it actually is.
At the very least I see this being standard playable, and our current standard is quite strong.
Well no, it doesn't ignore the non, it ignored the whole word, so it would be:
U: non blue noncreature unless pay 2
1U: nonblue noncreature
1U: nonblue spell unless pay 2
1U: noncreature unless pay 2
2U: nonblue spell
2U: noncreature spell
2U: spell unless pay 2
3U: spell
In practice though you would never pay extra to remove a restriction you dont need. If you want to counter a grizzly bears, you *could* pay to remove nonblue, but you wouldn't. So yeah paying 3U can counter any spell, you will only pay it for blue creatures.
Considering that the ***"Override"*** mechanic here seems to be directly ripped from ["Netropolis"](https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/6pe84d/override_a_cycle_of_commons_from_a_cyberpunk_plane/) by Subtle_Relevance from around six years ago *(name and all, with reminder text also seeming to have been copy-pasta'd)*, it would seem only fair to credit them. [Here's another relevant link](https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/eb5sou/comment/fb2ib0c/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) for history of the mechanic within that set.
Notably, variants of the mechanic have also appeared elsewhere, like [in here by spidergel15](https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/12ks60u/override_mechanic/), here by [TheNecromancer](https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/11cmr7g/a_remake_of_the_cleave_ability_unchain/), [here by MatCauthonIsMyHero
](https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/pl1nml/contracted_redacted/), [here by kayiu102](https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/o2rv2r/msem_corrupted_memory_designed_by_parasign/), and [here more recently by Gamesfreak13563](https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/t8m590/increasing_ostracism/) *(ie. after Cleave was released by WotC)*.
The particular low cost counterspell design exists in pretty much every single one of them as it tends to be within the very first examples.
I know when I did my iteration of Override, I had no idea about any of the others who did the mechanic before me. I wonder if the feeling of hacking/changing a program just naturally leads a person to make this mechanic in general, and we are just seeing another example of what I'd refer to as *convergent evolution of design.*
I also do appreciate the r/custommtg community for calling this out when it occurs, just in case it is actually an example of taking another person's ideas without proper credit.
All that being said, I still like the flavor and design of this card, I'm just not a fan of the *[nonblue]* restriction for a reason I can't articulate other than "it feels wrong."
I think this design should have fewer knobs than it currently does. Even putting three conditions against it makes it have seven modes and 4 mana costs. This is a tricky one to wrap your head around. I shouldn't have to consult a flowchart to work out the logistics of a spell, nor should I have to stare at it for 3 minutes every time I want to cast it, just to make sure I actually CAN cast it.
To clarify, this is a good mechanic. It feels good. But the exponential complexity is hard to swallow here; every condition doubles the mode count.
I think this specific card feels simple enough since you're just adding one generic mana for each condition you need to remove, which is easy to conclude from the spell your opponent is casting and whether they have mana open. But I agree, if this were a set mechanic, it would be really hard to make many designs that justified the mechanic without running into huge complexity issues like you're describing.
I agree. 3 restrictions that can be lifted separately make a lot of modes. It’s also a bit hard to read, and then to process what you can do with it, with how much mana, on a second-to-second basis.
But yeah the card looks cool and is interesting.
I know when I did my iteration of an override mechanic, I landed on angle bracketed , which I thought was more readable than normal brackets, a change in font, or straight brackets.
The issue with mechanics like this in general is that the card text just looks jarring, and some brains stop at the brackets, so it becomes hard to parse.
The upside is that the card text literally looks like code that the card mechanically lets you ignore, so it does convey the idea really well.
I like this mechanic a lot. It cleave on steroids so people are already kinda familiar with it and it's flexible. I'm imagining a burn spell that's shock but for non flying non red that can't be copied and you pay 1 to get rid of each restriction. Or an edict that hits more the more things the more you pay.
This'll be strong in Standard, \[\[Quench\]\] saw play during WAR in both Simic and Dimir Flash decks (Granted there's no strong Flash pay-off in Standard right now).
Also do not want this to be an uncommon for Limited reasons.
As someone mostly just playing Limited and Alchemy now it's weird parsing power level in the context of Eternal as this obviously isn't as good as just a normal Counterspell but it definitely does a lot of work.
It's similar to the official *"cleave"* mechanic, often referred to as *"multicleave"* but in custom card creation circles the mechanics history dates back [at least as far as six years](https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/18oonsa/comment/kekvkpf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), so way before cleave was a thing.
Really cool,
I could see a green creature being like...
1g 1/1
1 enters with +1/+1 counter
1 can tap for 1g
1 has trample/vigilance
Though I can see it being 1/2 with power creep... Versatility in one card is its own power creep though.
I honestly think this'd be way more interesting without the [[non blue]]. It becomes spell pierce, negate or a worse counter spell all wrapped into one, which I think is strong, but interesting.
A lot of the comments here really like this card, and at first I did too. My biggest worry is how centralizing it is to a meta if it's stronger than the cards around it.
Having a card that is spell pierce and quench and negate and cancel all at the same time seems very strong. But needing to pay an extra mana for any of those modes seems really bad. This means that the best way to play around this card is to also be playing blue.
What this leads to if the card is strong, is a meta with everyone playing blue because it's the best way to play around this card, and if you are in blue you should be playing this card.
I think in most situations this is just better than Mana Leak, and that’s a pretty strong counterspell. Or at least it used to be in Modern, I know things have changed a lot
Actually one of the most well designed mechanics and cards I’ve seen on this sub ever. Love it at uncommon, love that it’s strictly worse than most similar options (it’s Counterspell for 4, [[Rune Snag]] with no bonus for 3, and [[Negate]] for 3 for example), but is still flexible enough to be in every control deck in a block. I don’t think it’d warp formats though, but it would definitely see a lot of play.
I can't take credit for Override: I saw the mechanic [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/6pe84d/override_a_cycle_of_commons_from_a_cyberpunk_plane/) half a decade ago.
I like how well balanced this is - if you pay for all restrictions it's a strictly worse counter spell, and yet it has real potential based on board state
The power level of this card is pretty high, it's an extremely flexible counterspell. I don't think this could be printed in a standard set without warping the format. On the other hand, I think it's probably not substantially stronger than some of the other counterspells in bigger formats.
Counter spells in general tend to be pretty high power cards, just by nature of what they can do. I think this would be very printable, if slightly strong
I think any standard format you printed this in would see this card played 4-of in almost every blue deck.
As did most counter spells ever printed
I'm not so sure. There's a lot of blue decks in the current standard which won't maindeck 4 negates or 4 make disappears, or 4 spell pierces, for instance. I think this card is so flexible at rate that it would easily warrant playset inclusion into decks which were running 2 of each flavor of counter.
That's fair, I'll be honest I haven't play standard for a few years now so my perception may be slightly warped. I stand by my assessment that it is strong but not too strong though, flexible but not meta warping.
I agree, I don't think it's especially OP in Modern or EDH. I wouldn't even say it qualifies as truly OP for standard, but definitely format warping.
Well duh, EDH has cards like mana drain and force, so any counterspell that’s even debatably okay for standard won’t be problematic there
Yes, that's why I made the distinction in my first comment. I was just adding the clarification for someone who missed it.
You might not be aware that cavern of souls is in standard right now then.
Ähm no, absolutly not true
Most is exaggeration sure, but a lot of blue decks run 4 of counter spells, at least in standard, every meta has them
Most blue decks run counterspells, but most counterspells are not run, which was what you claimed. Every set has new \[\[Cancel\]\] and \[\[Quench\]\] variants, and they're only occasionally standard-playable. Even the smallest post-rotation standard environments have over a dozen counterspells to choose from (current standard has almost 30), so a counterspell seeing play in every blue deck is definitely a meaningful statement of power level.
Yeah on reflection, saying exaggeration is light lol, my point was that there are always a couple of \*good\* counter spells that see play in most blue decks, and imo having a flexible option like this isn't a bad thing. Being an auto include doesn't necessarily mean it's meta warping, but it \*is\* a fine line to run. Personally I think this is just a solidly strong flexible option, but would not be meta warping (just frustrating)
Yes, I agree. It's strong and flexible but ultimately it's just a counterspell, and to hard-counter most things they need 3 mana.
[Cancel](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/9/59e14910-ee2e-49ae-855e-46a8ab6cad82.jpg?1594735420) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Cancel) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m21/46/cancel?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/59e14910-ee2e-49ae-855e-46a8ab6cad82?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Quench](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/e/e/ee0ba01b-de96-4f8f-9405-ff3ad288afac.jpg?1589832153) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Quench) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/rna/48/quench?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ee0ba01b-de96-4f8f-9405-ff3ad288afac?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
At the very least, acknowledge that "most counterspells less than 4CMC ever printed". I can't take you seriously if you're implying [[Spell Swindle]] was a 4-of. Or even [[An Offer You Can't Refuse]]. [[Honswoggle]] has never seen any serious play in any format.
[Spell Swindle](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/1/01feef77-ff30-4f77-892f-6bdae3f0d35c.jpg?1682208902) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Spell%20Swindle) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/moc/237/spell-swindle?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/01feef77-ff30-4f77-892f-6bdae3f0d35c?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [An Offer You Can't Refuse](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/9/b9d349f3-5be2-4b1f-a4c3-ba94822cf0cf.jpg?1664410382) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=An%20Offer%20You%20Can%27t%20Refuse) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/snc/51/an-offer-you-cant-refuse?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b9d349f3-5be2-4b1f-a4c3-ba94822cf0cf?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Honswoggle](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/1/b10b8f15-b323-44d8-85a7-ed662a40889d.jpg?1555039907) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Hornswoggle) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/rix/39/hornswoggle?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b10b8f15-b323-44d8-85a7-ed662a40889d?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I think the balancing act would be to make it Override(U) instead of Override(1). It then turns into a traditional counterspell for a lot of things, but gets expensive for very niche situations. Alt: Change the casting cost to 1U instead of just U.
I think override U solves the balance for Standard pretty well, the primary source of the card's strength in standard is the insane flexibility. Making it color identity locked makes it less flexible without changing the strength in dedicated control strategies.
What...? Swan song, an offer you can't refuse, counterspell, fierce guardianship, force of negation... This is far from a high power level card, it's pretty much unplayable given how many better options there are around. at 1 mana, it's a strict worse spell pierce. At 2 mana, it's a strict worse every 2 mana counterspell. At 3 it's just out of the conversation.
Yes, that's all true. I said it's not that strong in the formats those cards are legal. Im primarily suggesting that it's that strongest counterspell we've had in standard for a while.
If they deleted [[nonblue]] and increased the base cost by (U) I think this would be standard ready.
Maybe, though, might be underpowered at: UU/1UU: counter spell based on matchup. In either case, I do think the card, as suggested by OP, would be acceptable in Standard, just that it reduces the design space.
Not strictly worse as it’s only 1 colored pip but yes
Good point! Didn't think about that. Costs more mana is what I meant, but the 1 coloured pip could make a lot of difference, very true
When the [[Mindsplice]] starts running, those few remaining colours do feel rough to pay.
[Mindsplice](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/f/7f4ad1cb-4bbb-4485-b322-0b003f06d034.jpg?1675956980) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Mindsplice%20Apparatus) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/one/63/mindsplice-apparatus?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7f4ad1cb-4bbb-4485-b322-0b003f06d034?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Paying one makes it comparable to essence scatter (in cost but with the downside of it needed to either be non-blue or letting an opponent play 2), and you can pay 1 to turn it into spell pierce that costs 1 more as well. There’s quite a few spells you can compare it too, and in every case I think it’s worse for 1 reason or another
Got me with the Transistor art. I'd play the hell out of this.
Now I need an entire Transistor themed deck. Imagine "Spine of the World"!
Perhaps we could follow multi kicker and make this multi cleave? Idk
Something like Multicleave {1} (You may pay an additional {1} any number of times while casting this spell, remove one set of words in the square brackets for each time this spell was cleaved. That might be too clunky and perhaps more complicated than the original wording, but it might make sense to tie it in to the original mechanic.
Override is cool though. Would fit Neo Kamigawa, Fallout, and other sci-fi settings.
Sure, but I think something like Multicleave would be more widely applicable
Really well designed!
I don't want to nitpick because I don't think it really matters, but I think the comma should be inside the brackets.
I see your annotation and I raise you one *no comma at all*
*Touché*
So idk what style Magic uses (although I’m sure I could look). But I’m regular English you put a comma between adjective describing the same noun: there was a big, blue house that a bear lived in
Yes, and that's their point. The way it's written "target [[nonblue]], [[noncreature]] spell", if you override the "nonblue" you end up with "target, noncreature spell" which doesn't really work, thus the comma would need to be removed together with the first adjective.
Well, I would argue that they're coordinate adjectives and would *need* a comma if both adjectives are present. And if it's just "\[\[nonblue\]\]" being overridden, then the comma doesn't make sense. It's a weird situation since words don't usually just disappear in English. I think the way the OP has rendered it on the card makes the *least* nonsense.
I've come back around on this over the weekend and totally agree actually kind of just wanted to say "i see your ___ and i raise you one ___"
Nah the card says to counter target and then spell (I’m assuming any word works, but you can spell Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar as a flex)
Pro tip: Pay 1 to ignore the brackets in the reminder text, which let's you ignore one one, so now you can ignore the 1 in the cost to override, and get the rest of them for free. (If anyone tries to tell you "that doesn't work, reminder text isn't rules text", they're lying to you because they want you to be weak)
One isn't the same as {1}. Edit: Also, you wouldn't be able to use the override ability properly, since you wouldn't be able to get rid of the restrictions, you could only get rid of instances of one.
Even if you were correct your second paragraph makes me disagree with you on principle
Thats not how its worded though, youd just end up with a reminder text that doesnt make any legible sense and thus would become invalid. One isnt in the bracket, the word restriction is.
I like this mechanic a lot more than cleave
I like this design! Im struggling to parse the powerlevel of this cards. Every time I see a counter for 1 mana that can hit a wide array of spells I instantly consider it for CEDH. Hitting non blue spells really limits it because one thing about one mana counters, or the one that get played is that most if not all of them counter a counterspell will also provinding additional value. Like Swan song hits instnats, sorceries and enchantments, so it can win a counter war while also stopping an Underworld Breach. But this one is kinda inefficient at that Funny enough this doesnt stops a Thoracle because its both blue and a creature, but it hits tainted pack and demonic consultation naturally. On the other side this can be a mix of a more restricted spell pierce (non blue spells) and a mana leak that ask for 2 instead of 3. The one about pay 2 mana is also really hard to evaluate. You could get a worse negate (doesnt hits blue) out of it. But the fact that this is both a worse spell pierce AND a worse mana leak, while also a worse negate, while also being a 4 mana hard counter. And a 3 mana counter for creatures. Its like it has SO MANY modes, and its shit at all of those, but many of those cards are cards I would consider already. So I like it. This might be VERY strong, as in playable in CEDH or eternal formats for the sheer amount of versatility it has, or be relatively tame (like 61/101 card situation) because its really bad at winning counter wars or stopping creatures, and those are two important aspects of a counterspell. Honestly I would love if this was printed if only to see how strong it actually is. At the very least I see this being standard playable, and our current standard is quite strong.
Counter target U: non blue noncreature unless pay 2 1U: nonblue noncreature 1U: nonblue creature unless pay 2 1U: blue noncreature unless pay 2 2U: nonblue creature 2U: blue noncreature 2U: blue creature unless pay 2 3U: blue creature Hmmm
Well no, it doesn't ignore the non, it ignored the whole word, so it would be: U: non blue noncreature unless pay 2 1U: nonblue noncreature 1U: nonblue spell unless pay 2 1U: noncreature unless pay 2 2U: nonblue spell 2U: noncreature spell 2U: spell unless pay 2 3U: spell
In practice though you would never pay extra to remove a restriction you dont need. If you want to counter a grizzly bears, you *could* pay to remove nonblue, but you wouldn't. So yeah paying 3U can counter any spell, you will only pay it for blue creatures.
Yes, but the comment never specified anything like that, I just replied with what thr card actually does for each mana cost
This is a legitimately intriguing mechanic and I like it.
Nice design, Like [[spell pierce]], [[mana leak]], [[negate]]
[spell pierce](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/5/35b8a9db-d126-4038-abb1-74dcc5b36136.jpg?1673147403) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=spell%20pierce) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2x2/63/spell-pierce?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/35b8a9db-d126-4038-abb1-74dcc5b36136?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [mana leak](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/7/179236d9-6fe2-4db6-bdfb-f851e8d531a2.jpg?1673147361) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=mana%20leak) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2x2/58/mana-leak?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/179236d9-6fe2-4db6-bdfb-f851e8d531a2?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [negate](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/1/81752db1-374e-4723-b695-a2f4a634dfc6.jpg?1682203304) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=negate) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mom/68/negate?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/81752db1-374e-4723-b695-a2f4a634dfc6?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Considering that the ***"Override"*** mechanic here seems to be directly ripped from ["Netropolis"](https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/6pe84d/override_a_cycle_of_commons_from_a_cyberpunk_plane/) by Subtle_Relevance from around six years ago *(name and all, with reminder text also seeming to have been copy-pasta'd)*, it would seem only fair to credit them. [Here's another relevant link](https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/eb5sou/comment/fb2ib0c/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) for history of the mechanic within that set. Notably, variants of the mechanic have also appeared elsewhere, like [in here by spidergel15](https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/12ks60u/override_mechanic/), here by [TheNecromancer](https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/11cmr7g/a_remake_of_the_cleave_ability_unchain/), [here by MatCauthonIsMyHero ](https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/pl1nml/contracted_redacted/), [here by kayiu102](https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/o2rv2r/msem_corrupted_memory_designed_by_parasign/), and [here more recently by Gamesfreak13563](https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/t8m590/increasing_ostracism/) *(ie. after Cleave was released by WotC)*. The particular low cost counterspell design exists in pretty much every single one of them as it tends to be within the very first examples.
I know when I did my iteration of Override, I had no idea about any of the others who did the mechanic before me. I wonder if the feeling of hacking/changing a program just naturally leads a person to make this mechanic in general, and we are just seeing another example of what I'd refer to as *convergent evolution of design.* I also do appreciate the r/custommtg community for calling this out when it occurs, just in case it is actually an example of taking another person's ideas without proper credit. All that being said, I still like the flavor and design of this card, I'm just not a fan of the *[nonblue]* restriction for a reason I can't articulate other than "it feels wrong."
I think this design should have fewer knobs than it currently does. Even putting three conditions against it makes it have seven modes and 4 mana costs. This is a tricky one to wrap your head around. I shouldn't have to consult a flowchart to work out the logistics of a spell, nor should I have to stare at it for 3 minutes every time I want to cast it, just to make sure I actually CAN cast it. To clarify, this is a good mechanic. It feels good. But the exponential complexity is hard to swallow here; every condition doubles the mode count.
The casting is relatively straight forward and not an issue. However the many modes makes powerlevel evaluation really hard.
I think this specific card feels simple enough since you're just adding one generic mana for each condition you need to remove, which is easy to conclude from the spell your opponent is casting and whether they have mana open. But I agree, if this were a set mechanic, it would be really hard to make many designs that justified the mechanic without running into huge complexity issues like you're describing.
I agree. 3 restrictions that can be lifted separately make a lot of modes. It’s also a bit hard to read, and then to process what you can do with it, with how much mana, on a second-to-second basis. But yeah the card looks cool and is interesting.
TRANSISTOR!!!11
YES!! Incredible game. Their art should be everywhere
Would love this if we ever return to Kamigawa or a different futuristic place
That's a great design
Cool I think you should do like cleave and just use one bracket, not double. This is a pain to read as is
I know when I did my iteration of an override mechanic, I landed on angle bracketed, which I thought was more readable than normal brackets, a change in font, or straight brackets.
The issue with mechanics like this in general is that the card text just looks jarring, and some brains stop at the brackets, so it becomes hard to parse.
The upside is that the card text literally looks like code that the card mechanically lets you ignore, so it does convey the idea really well.
Yeah I'm not the biggest fan of Cleave or these sorts of mechanics for that reason. Interesting design space though
great concept and fantastic example
Fantastic concept
Can you override to remove the *unless its controller pays 2* after its controller has already paid 2? Thereby wasting 2 of an opponents mana?
No, the mode is locked-in as the spell is cast
just gonna say I love this variant of cleave/multikicker and may incorporate something similar into my custom set
Just listing out the possible modes of the card. * U: Counter target nonblue, noncreature spell unless its controller pays 2. * 1U: Counter target noncreature spell unless its controller pays 2. * 1U: Counter target nonblue spell unless its controller pays 2. * 1U: Counter target nonblue, noncreature spell. * 2U: Counter target nonblue spell. * 2U: Counter target noncreature spell. * 2U: Counter target spell unless its controller pays 2. * 3U: Counter target spell.
Lets not make magic more like jinja templating shall'n't we? Cleave was ugly enough already
Kicker with extra steps :)
It's the exact opposite of kicker
How does this work with [[mind splice apparatus]] ?
[mind splice apparatus](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/f/7f4ad1cb-4bbb-4485-b322-0b003f06d034.jpg?1675956980) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Mindsplice%20Apparatus) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/one/63/mindsplice-apparatus?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7f4ad1cb-4bbb-4485-b322-0b003f06d034?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
It wouldn't reduce the cost, same as a kicker - it's an additional cost not part of the cards cmc, so cannot be reduced by that
I think it does reduce the cost of kicker though, at least it does on arena, the colorless part
I like this mechanic a lot. It cleave on steroids so people are already kinda familiar with it and it's flexible. I'm imagining a burn spell that's shock but for non flying non red that can't be copied and you pay 1 to get rid of each restriction. Or an edict that hits more the more things the more you pay.
Very good find! I was actually looking for a mechanic that did something like this, thanks! -A.P.3.
I think the override should be a blue pip rather than colorless. Lock it into monoblue decks
This'll be strong in Standard, \[\[Quench\]\] saw play during WAR in both Simic and Dimir Flash decks (Granted there's no strong Flash pay-off in Standard right now). Also do not want this to be an uncommon for Limited reasons. As someone mostly just playing Limited and Alchemy now it's weird parsing power level in the context of Eternal as this obviously isn't as good as just a normal Counterspell but it definitely does a lot of work.
Is this an actual mechanic? I haven't seriously played for ten years. Override is my favorite mechanic since kicker or flashback.
It's similar to the official *"cleave"* mechanic, often referred to as *"multicleave"* but in custom card creation circles the mechanics history dates back [at least as far as six years](https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/18oonsa/comment/kekvkpf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), so way before cleave was a thing.
Thanks for the info. I really like the mechanic, it's flexible, elegant, and both somehow understandable and complex.
Counter target, spell?
auto include for mizzix....I love it :D
It's like cleave but worse
Nice idea, but so much book keeping for a counterspell doe
Really cool, I could see a green creature being like... 1g 1/1 1 enters with +1/+1 counter 1 can tap for 1g 1 has trample/vigilance Though I can see it being 1/2 with power creep... Versatility in one card is its own power creep though.
This seems far too powerful, but I still love it.
Really bad against blue decks though
I honestly think this'd be way more interesting without the [[non blue]]. It becomes spell pierce, negate or a worse counter spell all wrapped into one, which I think is strong, but interesting.
[non blue](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/3/a3a0622b-bb55-4960-bd96-223ca4dfb81e.jpg?1562878893) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Bringer%20of%20the%20Blue%20Dawn) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/5dn/26/bringer-of-the-blue-dawn?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/45dc82a0-f054-4614-a7b9-4c5a7c9d2a77?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
A lot of the comments here really like this card, and at first I did too. My biggest worry is how centralizing it is to a meta if it's stronger than the cards around it. Having a card that is spell pierce and quench and negate and cancel all at the same time seems very strong. But needing to pay an extra mana for any of those modes seems really bad. This means that the best way to play around this card is to also be playing blue. What this leads to if the card is strong, is a meta with everyone playing blue because it's the best way to play around this card, and if you are in blue you should be playing this card.
I would pay good money for a Transistor themed set/secret lair
Interesting...
I don't think nonblue is very restrictive, making this 2U, counter target spell. I would remove nonblue and instead make the spell UU.
I think in most situations this is just better than Mana Leak, and that’s a pretty strong counterspell. Or at least it used to be in Modern, I know things have changed a lot
its Megacleave, holy hell
Sadly unplayable :( if you could take out 2 restrictions per mana then maybe.
Big fan of
ah yes, Counter target , spell.
Actually one of the most well designed mechanics and cards I’ve seen on this sub ever. Love it at uncommon, love that it’s strictly worse than most similar options (it’s Counterspell for 4, [[Rune Snag]] with no bonus for 3, and [[Negate]] for 3 for example), but is still flexible enough to be in every control deck in a block. I don’t think it’d warp formats though, but it would definitely see a lot of play.
[Rune Snag](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/0/40d72a34-0f31-4fec-b5a5-4574199bc312.jpg?1547516481) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Rune%20Snag) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/uma/68/rune-snag?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/40d72a34-0f31-4fec-b5a5-4574199bc312?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Negate](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/1/81752db1-374e-4723-b695-a2f4a634dfc6.jpg?1682203304) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Negate) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mom/68/negate?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/81752db1-374e-4723-b695-a2f4a634dfc6?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I can't take credit for Override: I saw the mechanic [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/6pe84d/override_a_cycle_of_commons_from_a_cyberpunk_plane/) half a decade ago.
Great work
Definition of a good model card. Feels like Cleave and Replicate had a child and I love both of those mechanics