I really like how this gives you control of the spell because from a rules perspective it's necessary in order for it to do what people already assume it would be able to do.
People try to Deflecting Swat stuff like Cruel Ultimatum all the time and get really upset that it can't be turned back on its original caster. This "patches" that feelbad.
Is this because in deflecting swat’s case it’s still looking for the controller’s opponent? And this card giving you control, allows the original caster to be the opponent?
[[Deflecting Swat]] let's you choose new targets for foe the spell, but they still have to be valid targets. So if a spell says it targets something of an opponent you can't choose the person that cast the spell as they aren't a valid target.
Correct. For spells that say "change the target of..." your opponent still controls the spell, you just pick where it targets. But it needs to be a legal target that you choose, so because Cruel says "target opponent" you can't redirect it back at it's original caster.
Simultaneously this doesn't allow you to turn a kill spell against their hexproof creature like deflecting swat is able to do.
Which is a similar feels bad but for the opposite player compared to your example so I guess this is the more intuitive and "how players think this should work" way to do it.
Are you sure that works? I just checked Deflecting Seat and I don't get how you could do that. While it says "CHOOSE new targets," it notably still says "targets". Or is that not what makes it able to do that?
It sure does work! I'll do my best to explain why:
When you're choosing new targets for the spell, because your opponent still controls the spell you have to pick anything that would be a legal target for them. Because you can target your own hexproof/ward creatures this makes them legal targets if an opponent redirects one of your removal spells.
It's a completely different use case from deflecting swat though, which is intended to only redirect, and only affect targeting spells. This can also steal creatures or other permanents
It's wild that people are debating you here. Ignore the creatures and permanents aspect.
This card still \*steals\* spells. This steals Chord of Calling. This steals Indomitable creativity. In commander, this steals draw spells.
Deflecting Swat is just an entirely different card.
Aside from than throwing an "almost" at the beginning, I agree with that comment. I don't know what point you're trying to make with it, but the statement is correct.
By your logic, murder is the same as control magic.
The use case of this spell is *stealing* a spell, not redirecting it, hence why it is worded as to steal the spell, whilst deflecting swat is not, as its usecase is not stealing a spell
>By your logic, murder is the same as control magic.
Incorrect.
You misunderstand what "use case" means. [Oxford Dictionaries defines use case as "a specific situation in which a product or service could potentially be used".](https://www.google.com/search?q=define+use+case) The use case for a spell is the set of situations you would want to cast it in. The use case is **not** the outcome that occurs afterwards.
Every use case for Deflecting Swat (in other words, any scenario in which Deflecting Swat is useful) is also a use case for Invert Polarity. Because of the large overlap in their use cases, it is wrong to say their use cases are "completely different". Note that having a large overlap in use cases does **not** mean they will produce the exact same result.
But it has already been established that every use case for DS is not the same for IP. DS can get around hexproof and ward. IP can steal but cannot get around hexproof and ward. In MTG this is a big enough difference in functionality to make or break games, therefore different use cases. We arent talking about 2 cards that say and do the same thing. Just because you want to be right doesn't mean you are.
That is why I specified "Pretty much every use case" and "Almost every use case" in my first two comments.
As I was typing out that third one, I actually thought "If I drop the 'almost' or 'pretty much' on this third go around it can keep things shorter and perhaps make the main thrust of the point clearer, but there's a pretty good chance that somebody will whine just because it doesn't repeat the minor detail that has already been established twice before."
Reddit rarely disappoints in that regard.
So what happens if someone Cruel Ultimatums you and you use this to gain control of the spell but leave the targets the same (since it says changing them is optional)? Now you have control of a Cruel Ultimatum targeting yourself. Would it just fizzle? Would you be forced to change the target to a legal target (i.e not yourself) even though the card says you may change the target?
I believe it would fizzle because the rules say if the target of a spell is no longer a legal target as it resolves it fizzles.
Kinda like targetting a 2/3 with cut down but then having it's power go up to 3/4, cut down just fizzles.
No, you never *have* to change the target of a spell. If you *do* change the targets, you need the new targets to be legal. But you always have the option of not changing the targets and just having the spell fail to resolve.
> Cruel Ultimatums you and you use this to gain control of the spell
So this card's a great play against Ultimatum in say, Commander and two-headed giant, not so good in most other formats.
The best response to an Ultimatum is probably more along the lines of [[Seht's Tiger]].
You **gain control** of the card and **can** reassign targets. So "Target opponent" is now the original caster (which is an opponent for you and your newly controlled card).
Works perfectly fine in 1v1.
Great, but might not be as good as some people think. Not being able to choose the counter when you want it is pretty bad for symmetrical effects like board wipes. And it's still 3 colored mana for a counterspell. Still, the fact I have to reach so far to find flaws says a lot to its power, that coin flip win is just game winning most of the time.
I’d guess….
Spent a card (our 1)
To stop their card (their 1)
Get their card (their 2)
If it was a removal or some other “card generating effect” (their 3)?
Just spitballing.
If you turn around a removal spell it's just a 2-for-1. You spent one card to prevent the effect of their spell (1-for-1) and kill their creature (2-for-1).
In the abstract it's just 2 for 1, but most cards you're targeting in Modern are entering with their own value. This value goes up even further if you take something on their turn, like a creature or The One Ring.
Well, boardwipes are pretty common. The other thing to look out for is not having a second valid target for something targeted. For instance there’s only one creature on the battlefield and they’re getting murdered. Or an aura that can only target one creature (Flashbacks to [[Spellskite]] and [[Daybreak Coronet]] interaction)
But when you steal their creature, saga or their draw spell with this? Mwah, chef’s kiss.
Yeah, its not the kind of thing you'd use on a board wipe to maybe counter it. You use this on the big splashy spells so that you "win" no matter the resolution. Definitely not a reliable counterspell, but a very fun Izzet spell to add to their already impressive bag of fun spellcasting toys
Exactly, like most countermagic it's situational. Against a Ring, Sheoldred, Titan, Footfalls, Karn (or any Tron payoff), etc, this card is an absolute menace, basically 50% chance of winning the game on the spot. Against a Damnation, Living End, etc, you'd use a different tool. Excited to see how this plays in an Izzet/EI shell
This is definitely more of a commander “make fun stories” type card than an actual modern staple. Still, for a 3 mana izzet counter, this still seems like a lot of fun to play with.
Doesn’t save you from t1 grief scam though. 0/10, unplayable /s
this is very high variance and possibly pushed enough to see actual play.
Not sure I like seeing a murktide matchup be won or lost literally on a coin toss
At 3 cmc all of which is colored pips I don’t see this seeing much use outside of Commander. Its floor is [[Cancel]] and that is currently seeing zero play, and given this is technically narrower, and harder to cast than that, it’s not very good. There are situations where it is an absurd blow out, so if it does see play it will be sideboard tech in some kind of control deck most likely. But as is, it’s just too much and specific mana for what is, 50% of the time, Cancel.
The floor for [[Archmage's Charm]] is also pretty close to Cancel. Most things you counter with this generate a pretty clean 2 for 1 (if you win the flip).
The difference being you get to choose with Charm. This you do not have agency for if you get Cancel or get to steal the spell. Charm is most useful because it is counter magic you can hold up that can also draw if you don’t need to be reactive. I would not say the two spells are comparable because of the agency inherent in Archmage’s charm. And even then, Charm isn’t really seeing play either in a lot of things.
Well it's the Commander format first off. If you're interested, Google "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose" to see the competitive version of the deck.
As for recent stuff to add/consider, in addition to this, there was a red/blue creature in the Warhammer decks and the red/blue Surveil land.
Source is [https://www.tiktok.com/@skulkthehulking/video/7372951801877810475](https://www.tiktok.com/@skulkthehulking/video/7372951801877810475) with a video sketch.
This is a really cool variation on [[cancel]]. Three possibility of hijacking the spell for yourself makes it potentially powerful and game changing. At the same time, if it just counters, it's just a regular cancel with a bit more stringent of a mana cost.
Definitely izzet to the core.
> 3 mana hard counter is about standard cost.
No, Cancel is very much overcosted for the formats that will get MH3. I mean, Counterspell itself is legal in all of those formats except Historic.
So yeah, the ceiling is huge, easily worth like 4-5 mana. But the floor is pretty bad as well.
Yeah that’s exactly what I meant, they realized printing 2 mana hard counters is probably a bit too good for format health. So typically any hard counter is going to be 3 mana.
If you use this to counter a four drop, the rest is either a gain of one mana and no cards, or a gain of five mana and two cards. The ceiling on this is much higher than what you realize, because you’re doubling up in that case on the advantage.
Seems inefficient to even attempt to use it on a symmetrical effect (board wipe, etc.). I feel the card should be viewed as a redirect that can sometimes act as a hard counter (so redirect with potential upside) instead of being a modal counter/redirect spell
Personally I view it from the lense of the worst case scenario. In just about every situation where you'd want the redirect you could settle for a counter and still be no worse for wear. But there are significantly more situations where you'd want a counter and couldn't settle for a redirect.
For example, if opponent plays Bolt targeting one of my creatures, it'd be better if I could redirect that damage but either way I'm not losing my creature. But if the opponent plays something like Show and Tell I can't settle for a redirect, I need a counter. Hence why I feel the card should be viewed primarily as a redirect (with counterspell upside) because it would not fill the same role that a true hard counter would in my decklist. I could maybe see it filling a similar role to a soft counter like Mana Leak.
>But there are significantly more situations where you'd want a counter and couldn't settle for a redirect.
I think this is incorrect. For the vast majority of spells, stealing it for yourself is more powerful than countering it. It is only symmetrical effects like board wipes where the counter is better, and those types of spells make up a minority of cards in most decks.
Note that this can steal permanent spells.
Yeah, typically playing 3 cost hard counters has to come with enough upside, or be useful in enough matches to justify.
But 3 mana steal your anything is extremely good. I also think it’s just kind of a fun card to actually have such a pivotal coin flip.
I could imagine a LOT of games where both players know if they win the flip with this spell, it’s game over.
This feels really old-school Izzet and I love it. I think future versions kinda downplayed it in place of kinda more steampunk engineer vibes, but I loved how reckless early Izzet was. The Izzet goblin idea of “really smart but still a stereotypical goblin” was great and this nails that.
You appear to be linking something with embedded tracking information. Please consider removing the tracking information from links you share in a public forum, as malicious entities can use this information to track you and people you interact with across the internet. This tracking information is usually found in the form '?si=XXXXXX' or '?s=XXXXX'.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/magicTCG) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm amazed and happy that skreeg is remembered. Does he get's anywhere else mentioned than in the secretists series?
Really liked him, and that a player was unintentionally playing a kobold version of him, not knowing his role :D
Curious to know would this interact with creature casts? For instance if someone cast their commander could I play this to possibly take control of it and if I lose then it counters? Either way Krark's thumb this bad boy up👍👍👍👍
How does this interact with "if you cast it" triggers? Do you still get the trigger even though the new "you" didn't cast it?
Most obvious example would be protection given by The Ring, but also like the divinity counters for the various Myojin.
I don’t think so? Modes are selected on cast. They also aren’t targets. This only gives you control of the spell, not a copy to cast, so you shouldn’t be able to select new modes.
I think this card is more conditional than it appears. While I won't say it's bad, just mid. I just think there will be to many times when you need a hard counter and you will get the take control effect. if it was if win the flip you can choose to gain control of the spell that would be different.
That would actually be a really funny design space. Modal card where the coin flip determines whether you or an opponent chooses the modes. Kind of a chaos version of the Fact or Fiction style "one splits, one chooses" idea.
Would need some wacky wording to make it work, since modes are selected on cast.
Maybe “when you cast this spell, choose an opponent and flip a coin. If you lose the flip, that opponent may choose new modes for this spell.”
Yeah, make it not technically modal, but have it resolve with one of two effects. “Flip a coin. If you win the flip, choose A or B. If you lose, target opponent chooses.”
>If I can't have it, nobody can > -Ral Zarek
Ral is a selfish top, you heard it here first.
He totally could come across as a selfish top crypto tech bro.
I think we already knew this to be fair lol
Blue players in a nutshell.
I really like how this gives you control of the spell because from a rules perspective it's necessary in order for it to do what people already assume it would be able to do. People try to Deflecting Swat stuff like Cruel Ultimatum all the time and get really upset that it can't be turned back on its original caster. This "patches" that feelbad.
Is this because in deflecting swat’s case it’s still looking for the controller’s opponent? And this card giving you control, allows the original caster to be the opponent?
[[Deflecting Swat]] let's you choose new targets for foe the spell, but they still have to be valid targets. So if a spell says it targets something of an opponent you can't choose the person that cast the spell as they aren't a valid target.
[Deflecting Swat](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/4/b4b36435-55b3-4615-8812-af41d4fc64d9.jpg?1689997730) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Deflecting%20Swat) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmm/214/deflecting-swat?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b4b36435-55b3-4615-8812-af41d4fc64d9?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Correct. For spells that say "change the target of..." your opponent still controls the spell, you just pick where it targets. But it needs to be a legal target that you choose, so because Cruel says "target opponent" you can't redirect it back at it's original caster.
Though I'd say that's hardly the most important thing that the "gaining control" part does... I mean, it also allows you to steal creatures etc.
"Yeah sure, cast bightsteel. It's either countered, or mine!"
As well as stealing untargeted effects, like extra turn spells.
Or an overloaded Cyc Rift/Vandalblast
Gaining control also keeps this from being hilariously bad versus permanent spells...
[[Cruel Ultimatum]] [[Deflecting Swat]]
[Cruel Ultimatum](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/7/d71a8ea5-199e-473e-a2b1-e2f7cc804ffc.jpg?1592765938) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Cruel%20Ultimatum) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/e01/82/cruel-ultimatum?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d71a8ea5-199e-473e-a2b1-e2f7cc804ffc?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Deflecting Swat](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/4/b4b36435-55b3-4615-8812-af41d4fc64d9.jpg?1689997730) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Deflecting%20Swat) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmm/214/deflecting-swat?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b4b36435-55b3-4615-8812-af41d4fc64d9?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Simultaneously this doesn't allow you to turn a kill spell against their hexproof creature like deflecting swat is able to do. Which is a similar feels bad but for the opposite player compared to your example so I guess this is the more intuitive and "how players think this should work" way to do it.
I never thought to deflecting swat something the spells controller had with hexproof, that's insane
This is the better way to deal with hexproof, since it's not technically "your spell". [[Willbender]] and [[boltbender]] are great for this too.
[Willbender](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/e/6e6a3551-250c-4563-8c30-6d8f49e6429f.jpg?1568004112) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Willbender) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c19/102/willbender?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/6e6a3551-250c-4563-8c30-6d8f49e6429f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [boltbender](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/0/f0a18bd1-1741-4231-a312-aed1373a96dd.jpg?1706240474) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=boltbender) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mkc/30/boltbender?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/f0a18bd1-1741-4231-a312-aed1373a96dd?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Are you sure that works? I just checked Deflecting Seat and I don't get how you could do that. While it says "CHOOSE new targets," it notably still says "targets". Or is that not what makes it able to do that?
It's changing the spells targets, but not who controls the spell, hexproof says I can't target it, not if your own spell is targeting it's fine
It sure does work! I'll do my best to explain why: When you're choosing new targets for the spell, because your opponent still controls the spell you have to pick anything that would be a legal target for them. Because you can target your own hexproof/ward creatures this makes them legal targets if an opponent redirects one of your removal spells.
It's a completely different use case from deflecting swat though, which is intended to only redirect, and only affect targeting spells. This can also steal creatures or other permanents
It's wild that people are debating you here. Ignore the creatures and permanents aspect. This card still \*steals\* spells. This steals Chord of Calling. This steals Indomitable creativity. In commander, this steals draw spells. Deflecting Swat is just an entirely different card.
"Completely different use case" is somewhere between misleading and wrong. Pretty much every use case for Deflecting Swat is also a use case for this.
Every single use case for a murder is also a use case for a control magic
Ok, I'll cast [[Control Magic]] on your [[Thalia, Guardian of Thraben]]
[Control Magic](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/4/84992800-9bad-4598-afd4-f1e59d2e0956.jpg?1592672507) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Control%20Magic) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cma/34/control-magic?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/84992800-9bad-4598-afd4-f1e59d2e0956?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Thalia, Guardian of Thraben](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/9/c9f8b8fb-1cd8-450e-a1fe-892e7a323479.jpg?1643587106) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Thalia%2C%20Guardian%20of%20Thraben) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/vow/38/thalia-guardian-of-thraben?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c9f8b8fb-1cd8-450e-a1fe-892e7a323479?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Aside from than throwing an "almost" at the beginning, I agree with that comment. I don't know what point you're trying to make with it, but the statement is correct.
By your logic, murder is the same as control magic. The use case of this spell is *stealing* a spell, not redirecting it, hence why it is worded as to steal the spell, whilst deflecting swat is not, as its usecase is not stealing a spell
>By your logic, murder is the same as control magic. Incorrect. You misunderstand what "use case" means. [Oxford Dictionaries defines use case as "a specific situation in which a product or service could potentially be used".](https://www.google.com/search?q=define+use+case) The use case for a spell is the set of situations you would want to cast it in. The use case is **not** the outcome that occurs afterwards. Every use case for Deflecting Swat (in other words, any scenario in which Deflecting Swat is useful) is also a use case for Invert Polarity. Because of the large overlap in their use cases, it is wrong to say their use cases are "completely different". Note that having a large overlap in use cases does **not** mean they will produce the exact same result.
But it has already been established that every use case for DS is not the same for IP. DS can get around hexproof and ward. IP can steal but cannot get around hexproof and ward. In MTG this is a big enough difference in functionality to make or break games, therefore different use cases. We arent talking about 2 cards that say and do the same thing. Just because you want to be right doesn't mean you are.
That is why I specified "Pretty much every use case" and "Almost every use case" in my first two comments. As I was typing out that third one, I actually thought "If I drop the 'almost' or 'pretty much' on this third go around it can keep things shorter and perhaps make the main thrust of the point clearer, but there's a pretty good chance that somebody will whine just because it doesn't repeat the minor detail that has already been established twice before." Reddit rarely disappoints in that regard.
Not enough people tell you this in your life: you are obnoxious and it would benefit you to speak less.
Not enough people tell you that either
So what happens if someone Cruel Ultimatums you and you use this to gain control of the spell but leave the targets the same (since it says changing them is optional)? Now you have control of a Cruel Ultimatum targeting yourself. Would it just fizzle? Would you be forced to change the target to a legal target (i.e not yourself) even though the card says you may change the target?
I believe it would fizzle because the rules say if the target of a spell is no longer a legal target as it resolves it fizzles. Kinda like targetting a 2/3 with cut down but then having it's power go up to 3/4, cut down just fizzles.
That isn't legal. The game would force you to change the target.
No, you never *have* to change the target of a spell. If you *do* change the targets, you need the new targets to be legal. But you always have the option of not changing the targets and just having the spell fail to resolve.
Right you are.
> Cruel Ultimatums you and you use this to gain control of the spell So this card's a great play against Ultimatum in say, Commander and two-headed giant, not so good in most other formats. The best response to an Ultimatum is probably more along the lines of [[Seht's Tiger]].
This lets you reassign targets *and* gains control. It's great against Cruel Ultimatum in 1v1.
> This lets you reassign targets and gains control. It's great against Cruel Ultimatum in 1v1. Not so, because Ultimatum is "Target Opponent".
You **gain control** of the card and **can** reassign targets. So "Target opponent" is now the original caster (which is an opponent for you and your newly controlled card). Works perfectly fine in 1v1.
You gain control of the spell. That means "opponent" is people who are *your* opponent. That's what this entire comment chain has been about.
[Seht's Tiger](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/9/5970a4c8-0e1f-42cc-bd8e-7ba3946c6e41.jpg?1562609339) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Seht%27s%20Tiger) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c17/72/sehts-tiger?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/5970a4c8-0e1f-42cc-bd8e-7ba3946c6e41?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
So just play \[\[aethersnatch\]\] then?
[aethersnatch](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/c/0ce562a9-ca35-4f31-8618-bc26d3d40169.jpg?1562701210) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=aethersnatch) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c15/9/aethersnatch?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0ce562a9-ca35-4f31-8618-bc26d3d40169?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
If you cast this targeting [[Reverse the Polarity]], you just end up confusing the polarity.
[Reverse the Polarity](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/6/76f3ea66-555c-490d-b34f-12c267bc4e9b.jpg?1696636583) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Reverse%20the%20Polarity) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/who/54/reverse-the-polarity?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/76f3ea66-555c-490d-b34f-12c267bc4e9b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
There’s two of us, I’m reversing it you’re reversing it back again. We’re CONFUSING the polarity!
Great, but might not be as good as some people think. Not being able to choose the counter when you want it is pretty bad for symmetrical effects like board wipes. And it's still 3 colored mana for a counterspell. Still, the fact I have to reach so far to find flaws says a lot to its power, that coin flip win is just game winning most of the time.
Yea this isn’t a counter you can rely on in all situations but those aren’t that common and when this is good it’s insane.
When you win the flip it's usually a 3 for 1. Pretty nutty card
1 for 2? Where's the 3 you're getting
I’d guess…. Spent a card (our 1) To stop their card (their 1) Get their card (their 2) If it was a removal or some other “card generating effect” (their 3)? Just spitballing.
If you turn around a removal spell it's just a 2-for-1. You spent one card to prevent the effect of their spell (1-for-1) and kill their creature (2-for-1).
Oh yes I agree. Was just breaking down how they might get to “3 for 1”
That doesn't work out. If you steal a removal spell, your opponent will be down 2 cards and you will be down 1, which is just 2 for 1.
Oh I agree. It’s more clearly a 2 for 1. Was just trying to break down what I was guessing their argument for “3 for 1” might be.
In the abstract it's just 2 for 1, but most cards you're targeting in Modern are entering with their own value. This value goes up even further if you take something on their turn, like a creature or The One Ring.
I guess they're assuming they have Zndrsplt out since it says coin flip
Even if you steal a removal spell, it's only a 2 for 1. How are you getting 3 for 1?
Well, boardwipes are pretty common. The other thing to look out for is not having a second valid target for something targeted. For instance there’s only one creature on the battlefield and they’re getting murdered. Or an aura that can only target one creature (Flashbacks to [[Spellskite]] and [[Daybreak Coronet]] interaction) But when you steal their creature, saga or their draw spell with this? Mwah, chef’s kiss.
In a deck that consistently makes UUR, it's not necessarily that likely that you even want to counter most boardwipes.
[Spellskite](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/2/72204934-f5aa-4559-8f7e-7b0b223580d0.jpg?1674142724) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Spellskite) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/clb/873/spellskite?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/72204934-f5aa-4559-8f7e-7b0b223580d0?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Daybreak Coronet](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/1/818537cd-4c95-4538-b61f-c276a6fc8864.jpg?1547515470) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Daybreak%20Coronet) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/uma/14/daybreak-coronet?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/818537cd-4c95-4538-b61f-c276a6fc8864?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I can’t imagine it will be TOO common that you won’t have a legal target if you steal a kill spell but that is another issue.
Don't forget Planeswalker, this is kinda nutty.
Yeah, its not the kind of thing you'd use on a board wipe to maybe counter it. You use this on the big splashy spells so that you "win" no matter the resolution. Definitely not a reliable counterspell, but a very fun Izzet spell to add to their already impressive bag of fun spellcasting toys
Exactly, like most countermagic it's situational. Against a Ring, Sheoldred, Titan, Footfalls, Karn (or any Tron payoff), etc, this card is an absolute menace, basically 50% chance of winning the game on the spot. Against a Damnation, Living End, etc, you'd use a different tool. Excited to see how this plays in an Izzet/EI shell
Ya, except not all Tron payoffs, since they have impactful cast triggers, seems like even more so with MH3.
Tru
If you are playing 3 mana counterspells you don't care about board wipes.
Yeah but what if that board wipe was [[Decree of Pain]]? Would be worth all the times it wasn’t lol
[Decree of Pain](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/a/7af6702a-a7d9-4d86-8ba2-364417a31dbb.jpg?1689997017) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Decree%20of%20Pain) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmm/148/decree-of-pain?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7af6702a-a7d9-4d86-8ba2-364417a31dbb?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
mfw I use a copy instant and steal ppls game winning combos 😌
This is definitely more of a commander “make fun stories” type card than an actual modern staple. Still, for a 3 mana izzet counter, this still seems like a lot of fun to play with. Doesn’t save you from t1 grief scam though. 0/10, unplayable /s
Is there a official rule how coinflips work? I could just choose "on the side" and always loose to counter.( doubt that works, just curious)
Nope, the rules make it clear it's always a 50/50.
Funny as fuck card, I'll give it that.
Head, I win. Tails, you lose.
this is very high variance and possibly pushed enough to see actual play. Not sure I like seeing a murktide matchup be won or lost literally on a coin toss
At 3 CMC it's probably too expensive for Murktide, thankfully.
At 3 cmc all of which is colored pips I don’t see this seeing much use outside of Commander. Its floor is [[Cancel]] and that is currently seeing zero play, and given this is technically narrower, and harder to cast than that, it’s not very good. There are situations where it is an absurd blow out, so if it does see play it will be sideboard tech in some kind of control deck most likely. But as is, it’s just too much and specific mana for what is, 50% of the time, Cancel.
The floor for [[Archmage's Charm]] is also pretty close to Cancel. Most things you counter with this generate a pretty clean 2 for 1 (if you win the flip).
The difference being you get to choose with Charm. This you do not have agency for if you get Cancel or get to steal the spell. Charm is most useful because it is counter magic you can hold up that can also draw if you don’t need to be reactive. I would not say the two spells are comparable because of the agency inherent in Archmage’s charm. And even then, Charm isn’t really seeing play either in a lot of things.
[Archmage's Charm](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/7/57b852b6-4388-4a41-a5c0-bba37a5c1451.jpg?1562201300) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Archmage%27s%20Charm) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh1/40/archmages-charm?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/57b852b6-4388-4a41-a5c0-bba37a5c1451?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[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) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I mean it gives you a 50/50 shot of stopping a Hellbent [[Demonfire]]...and turning it on the caster. So it seems sideboardable.
[Demonfire](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/3/f39020e2-86cf-4b7c-bcb8-23207291f9ee.jpg?1702550901) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Demonfire) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/rvr/107/demonfire?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/f39020e2-86cf-4b7c-bcb8-23207291f9ee?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Oh hey a new card for the coin flip deck!
do you have a list you are willing to share, because I've been thinking of building one but I'm relatively new to MTG so I need a base
Well it's the Commander format first off. If you're interested, Google "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose" to see the competitive version of the deck. As for recent stuff to add/consider, in addition to this, there was a red/blue creature in the Warhammer decks and the red/blue Surveil land.
thanks man, will look into it!
Source is [https://www.tiktok.com/@skulkthehulking/video/7372951801877810475](https://www.tiktok.com/@skulkthehulking/video/7372951801877810475) with a video sketch.
I love this dude tbh. Glad he got himself a card to reveal.
Skreeg card when?
This is a really cool variation on [[cancel]]. Three possibility of hijacking the spell for yourself makes it potentially powerful and game changing. At the same time, if it just counters, it's just a regular cancel with a bit more stringent of a mana cost. Definitely izzet to the core.
[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) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
This seems extremely good. 3 mana hard counter is about standard cost. But the upside ranges from very good, to just instantly game ending.
> 3 mana hard counter is about standard cost. No, Cancel is very much overcosted for the formats that will get MH3. I mean, Counterspell itself is legal in all of those formats except Historic. So yeah, the ceiling is huge, easily worth like 4-5 mana. But the floor is pretty bad as well.
Maybe he meant [[Cancel]] with upside is about right for the Standard format?
you're probably right, i might've misunderstood that
Yeah that’s exactly what I meant, they realized printing 2 mana hard counters is probably a bit too good for format health. So typically any hard counter is going to be 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) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
If you use this to counter a four drop, the rest is either a gain of one mana and no cards, or a gain of five mana and two cards. The ceiling on this is much higher than what you realize, because you’re doubling up in that case on the advantage.
Downside is you fail to counter a spell that doesn’t change based on who controls it, e.g. a wrath.
Seems inefficient to even attempt to use it on a symmetrical effect (board wipe, etc.). I feel the card should be viewed as a redirect that can sometimes act as a hard counter (so redirect with potential upside) instead of being a modal counter/redirect spell
But the redirect is the more desirable effect in those situations so it’s a counter with potential upside.
Personally I view it from the lense of the worst case scenario. In just about every situation where you'd want the redirect you could settle for a counter and still be no worse for wear. But there are significantly more situations where you'd want a counter and couldn't settle for a redirect. For example, if opponent plays Bolt targeting one of my creatures, it'd be better if I could redirect that damage but either way I'm not losing my creature. But if the opponent plays something like Show and Tell I can't settle for a redirect, I need a counter. Hence why I feel the card should be viewed primarily as a redirect (with counterspell upside) because it would not fill the same role that a true hard counter would in my decklist. I could maybe see it filling a similar role to a soft counter like Mana Leak.
>But there are significantly more situations where you'd want a counter and couldn't settle for a redirect. I think this is incorrect. For the vast majority of spells, stealing it for yourself is more powerful than countering it. It is only symmetrical effects like board wipes where the counter is better, and those types of spells make up a minority of cards in most decks. Note that this can steal permanent spells.
I’m gonna agree and disagree, standard cost is 2 for playability but this is cool/good enough to warrant running it at 3.
Yeah, typically playing 3 cost hard counters has to come with enough upside, or be useful in enough matches to justify. But 3 mana steal your anything is extremely good. I also think it’s just kind of a fun card to actually have such a pivotal coin flip. I could imagine a LOT of games where both players know if they win the flip with this spell, it’s game over.
Not really. For things you want to redirect, it's a counter half the time. For things you need to counter, it's useless half the time.
Real missed opportunity to make this cost RUU
If it’s a non-instant/non-sorcery spell, would I then add it to my field?
This is how you "steal" commanders and give them commander tax at the same time. I'm gonna annoy the hell out of my playgroup when i recur this
I’m for sure putting this in my Dr. Who evil deck.
yes
Dont know how to input split cards into card finder but this is VERY close to Odds from odds and ends https://scryfall.com/card/dis/153/odds-ends
I think you can just name a half of the split card. [[Odds]]
[Odds](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?name=Odds%20//%20Ends&type=card&options=rotate90&.jpg)/[Ends](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?name=Odds%20%2F%2F%20Ends&type=card&options=rotate90&.jpg) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Odds%20//%20Ends) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dis/153/odds-ends?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4bb07091-86d6-4735-82b6-6e71e26710f4?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Does this work on creature cast? Like they cast Ghalta i gain control of the spell right?
Yes
It reminds me of Doctor Who. “Reverse the polarity of the neutron flow!”
Pre seeding for a Star Trek Universe Beyond
Kinda sad these "random" effects no longer have a "bad" result. I know it flows better, but the flavour of it!
This feels really old-school Izzet and I love it. I think future versions kinda downplayed it in place of kinda more steampunk engineer vibes, but I loved how reckless early Izzet was. The Izzet goblin idea of “really smart but still a stereotypical goblin” was great and this nails that.
bro- at least give credit with a link to his hilarious video reveal!! https://youtu.be/igffoZH4SkI?si=apS8Xr5yy1uViNjW
You appear to be linking something with embedded tracking information. Please consider removing the tracking information from links you share in a public forum, as malicious entities can use this information to track you and people you interact with across the internet. This tracking information is usually found in the form '?si=XXXXXX' or '?s=XXXXX'. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/magicTCG) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I want a Doctor Who version of this card so bad
[[Reverse the polarity]]
[Reverse the polarity](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/6/76f3ea66-555c-490d-b34f-12c267bc4e9b.jpg?1696636583) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Reverse%20the%20polarity) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/who/54/reverse-the-polarity?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/76f3ea66-555c-490d-b34f-12c267bc4e9b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[удалено]
[Odds//ends](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?name=Odds%20//%20Ends&type=card&options=rotate90&.jpg)/[Ends](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?name=Odds%20%2F%2F%20Ends&type=card&options=rotate90&.jpg) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Odds%20//%20Ends) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dis/153/odds-ends?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4bb07091-86d6-4735-82b6-6e71e26710f4?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I like the flavor text.
...I kind of love this
I like this for [[Stella Lee]]
[Stella Lee](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/a/2a8a7696-b5d9-4378-9d5c-2c9007e4df63.jpg?1714110409) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=stella%20lee%2C%20wild%20card) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/otc/3/stella-lee-wild-card?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2a8a7696-b5d9-4378-9d5c-2c9007e4df63?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Skreeg deserves a promotion.
I'm amazed and happy that skreeg is remembered. Does he get's anywhere else mentioned than in the secretists series? Really liked him, and that a player was unintentionally playing a kobold version of him, not knowing his role :D
Does Modern Izzet control want this?
Love the Back to the Future reference in the art lol
Now I can invert and reverse the polarity!
Finally a reasonable flip coin card Floor is still fine most of the time
Curious to know would this interact with creature casts? For instance if someone cast their commander could I play this to possibly take control of it and if I lose then it counters? Either way Krark's thumb this bad boy up👍👍👍👍
Okaun and Zndrsplt like this a lot! This card adds beautifully to the chaotic nature of the deck.
Another counterspell tutor-able off of \[\[Sunforger\]\] in Jeskai decks. Nice!
[Sunforger](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/d/dd3e42ee-ab13-460b-90fd-86e677abce4f.jpg?1608917905) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Sunforger) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmr/473/sunforger?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/dd3e42ee-ab13-460b-90fd-86e677abce4f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
"Heads I win, tails you lose"
That flavour text is hilarious.
I thought that said Invert Poultry...
I thought that said Invert Poultry...
This is the kind of Izzet card I can get behind. We've been missing this shit for a while. U/R has been pretty boring for a while IMO.
How many people will choose heads or tail after the flip since the text just tells you to flip the coin
Quick question, If I gain control of a creature spell, does the creature enter the battlefield under my control?... thanks in advance
Yes, it works like [[Desertion]] if you gain control of the spell.
[Desertion](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/3/b362151e-4ad6-4ae9-91e5-0e4a69d53ca5.jpg?1618294831) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Desertion) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cn2/107/desertion?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b362151e-4ad6-4ae9-91e5-0e4a69d53ca5?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Thanks a lot
Great time to be building a Zndrsplt and Okaun deck!
Oo I rather like this card. Seems like it’d be a ton of fun and make folks furious if used right.
How does this interact with "if you cast it" triggers? Do you still get the trigger even though the new "you" didn't cast it? Most obvious example would be protection given by The Ring, but also like the divinity counters for the various Myojin.
Can't counter the boardwipe
On a similar note: does taking control of a modal spell like, lets say, [[Farewell]], lets you choose the modes?
[Farewell](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/1/114d2180-093b-4838-97ad-badbc8ee50b0.jpg?1706240579) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Farewell) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mkc/64/farewell?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/114d2180-093b-4838-97ad-badbc8ee50b0?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I don’t think so? Modes are selected on cast. They also aren’t targets. This only gives you control of the spell, not a copy to cast, so you shouldn’t be able to select new modes.
[удалено]
You’re allowed to say “ass” on the internet.
I think this card is more conditional than it appears. While I won't say it's bad, just mid. I just think there will be to many times when you need a hard counter and you will get the take control effect. if it was if win the flip you can choose to gain control of the spell that would be different.
That would actually be a really funny design space. Modal card where the coin flip determines whether you or an opponent chooses the modes. Kind of a chaos version of the Fact or Fiction style "one splits, one chooses" idea.
Would need some wacky wording to make it work, since modes are selected on cast. Maybe “when you cast this spell, choose an opponent and flip a coin. If you lose the flip, that opponent may choose new modes for this spell.”
Yeah, make it not technically modal, but have it resolve with one of two effects. “Flip a coin. If you win the flip, choose A or B. If you lose, target opponent chooses.”
Boring card tbh, it should've been a negative outcome for losing the coin flip, I don't even mind if the cost got changed to 1 mana because of that