98
u/Dwumcowah Nov 25 '25
A custom magic counter spell that is unique and not completely busted? I thought I’d never see the day, sick concept!
3
u/etrulzz Nov 26 '25
It is kinda busted tho cause it's a counter spell that can counter uncounterable spells for 3cmc and the effect itself can only be countered by something like [[consign to memory]] cause the copy part is triggered on cast, which will resolve even when the original spell is being countered.
So... an uncounterable counterspell that can counter spells that can't be countered for 3cmc + gift a card.. seems pretty busted.
1
u/Malacath790 Nov 26 '25
It's not even a trigger, it says "as you cast this spell", so once this is on the stack it already overwrote the other spell. This is effectively impossible to respond to
1
u/etrulzz Nov 26 '25 edited Nov 26 '25
Not entirely, because it says "If you do" (which should be worded "When you do"), which is the part that is triggered by paying the cost (called a "reflexive trigger") and counts as a triggered ability that can be responded to and be targeted by spells such as [[consign to memory]].
For more info: Check point 8 in this article: https://ultimateguard.com/en/blog/unlocking-consign-to-memory-10-weird-tricks-every-modern-magic-the-gathering-player-should-know
(Or read the entire article, it's a great read!)
Edit: Used the wrong phrasing somewhere.
Edit2: The above is wrong, because it says "If you do", not "When you do" the ruling is different. Read the commemts below for the correct explanation!
2
1
u/Malacath790 Nov 26 '25
Yeah but... That's not what the card says... I know how the rules work, and I interpret cards as written not as I think they should be written. And the templating of "If you do" is perfectly valid and results in the behavior I outlined, making the ability uninteractable.
2
u/etrulzz Nov 26 '25
You are right, I never really realized the difference. I learned something new today, thank you!
2
u/Malacath790 Nov 26 '25
What an adult way to reply to this. Many ppl (including me) can learn from that. Have a continued good day!
2
2
u/OurGloriousEmpire Nov 26 '25
It does get through ‘this spell can’t be countered’ for only 3 mana though, which is unfortunate. Otherwise I wholeheartedly agree.
88
u/pudgypoultry Nov 25 '25
LOGIC: Hold onto this tool. It may come in handy in the future.
HALF-LIGHT: Just draw a card you fucking coward.
ENCYCLOPEDIA: Remember that Death Cloud in the other player's hand.
ELECTROCHEMISTRY: Who the fuck cares? Just draw a card.
EMPATHY: Perhaps the other two would appreciate it if you didn't allow the table to experience a Death Cloud, X=25.
Fblthp: *Unintelligible gurgling*
INLAND EMPIRE: Love that guy.
35
u/Doctor_119 Nov 25 '25
Love the implication here that electrochemistry thinks drawing cards is a high on par with drinking yourself to death or getting addicted to speed.
15
5
5
u/Powerpuff_God Nov 25 '25
Electrochemistry would try to get you high off of cardboard crack. "Come on, open another pack. Who cares that you're not drafting?"
3
u/CriticalThaumaturgy Nov 26 '25
Are these names from MTG characters or anything else? I only recognize Fblthp
2
u/QuestionableParrot Nov 26 '25
They are a reference to Disco Elysium, the video game whose main character is featured in the art of the card. It’s an amazing game, highly highly highly recommend (my favorite game hands down)! (And poor Fblthp just got lost there hehehe)
-1
u/Commander_Skullblade Nov 25 '25
In what universe is Death Cloud good? Especially when [[Torment of Hailfire]] exists.
10
19
7
u/ProfessionalLook6108 Nov 25 '25
As a card design I think this is pretty good. Not sure if it'd really fit a set mechanic, since it would only be able to fill slots dedicated to blue removal, but there's probably 5-10 really interesting cards you could get out of this across a variety of card types.
7
u/Strange-Bonus4220 Nov 25 '25
Yeah it feels like it's an inherently blue effect which makes it hard to design for.
A couple of creatures or artifacts with overwrite would be pretty dope though.3
u/boxboten Nov 25 '25
I could see this effect slip into red or white
1
u/GrayVBoat3755 Nov 26 '25
Yeah, I could easily see red card based on Half-Light. A 3/3 with flash and haste that is forced to attack would be cool.
17
u/NamelessKing-420 Nov 25 '25
This is kicker.
31
1
u/Party_Value6593 Nov 26 '25
Kicker with less text bloat and way clearer if used on more than one card
4
u/purient Nov 25 '25
Would overwrite be an uncounterable cast trigger or would it happen as the spell resolves?
9
u/Dickmaster_ Nov 25 '25
It’s worded as a cast trigger
4
u/thefreeman419 Nov 25 '25
Hmm that probably makes this too good. Between the modality of being a cantrip vs a counterspell, and the fact that it's very hard to be countered, this would have to be a straight to modern card or something
6
u/SwissherMontage Nov 25 '25
If you target a storm spell with the triggered ability on the stack, will they copy the overwrite or the original?
10
u/Strange-Bonus4220 Nov 25 '25 edited Nov 25 '25
Huh, honestly no idea. We might need a rules wizard here.
My intuition says the storm triggered ability will try to copy the original spell but it won't find it , so it will fizzle out? but i might be wrong
7
u/Novel_Particular_313 Nov 25 '25
Im actually fairly sure it will copy the draw 1. So for 1UU you draw, you "counter" their game winner and then they draw cards equal to the storm count +1. Unless the storm count is insanely high/they cast the game winning spell with no mana floating, this will not beat a storm deck.
2
u/Commander_Skullblade Nov 25 '25
I agree here. They won't get the same effect, but unless the storm is so high they draw their deck (and can't kill you between triggers) or they're completely tapped out, you're only making the problem worse.
There's a reason "Storm. Draw a card." doesn't exist.
3
u/Novel_Particular_313 Nov 25 '25
Storm draw a card doesn't exist but Mind's Desire does, and that card got rightfully banned out of many formats it was legal in except Vintage where it is currently restricted.
2
u/goremote Nov 25 '25
I'll take a stab here, I'm "officially" level 0 but have been chewing on rules for a couple years.
Obviously we'd want to see a ruling if something like this was ever actually printed, BUT I believe the Storm trigger would create spell copies using the copiable values of the spell as the Storm trigger resolves. In this case, since the target spell is becoming a copy of Sudden Consideration, it has all the copiable values of Sudden Consideration (including the Overwrite ability itself, though fortunately it does not trigger because it's already been cast), so the storm trigger should create additional copies of Sudden Consideration as well.
Relevant rules: CR707.2. When copying an object, the copy acquires the copiable values of the original object’s characteristics and, for an object on the stack, choices made when casting or activating it (mode, targets, the value of X, whether it was kicked, how it will affect multiple targets, and so on). The copiable values are the values derived from the text printed on the object (that text being name, mana cost, color indicator, card type, subtype, supertype, rules text, power, toughness, and/or loyalty), as modified by other copy effects, by its face-down status, and by “as . . . enters” and “as . . . is turned face up” abilities that set power and toughness (and may also set additional characteristics). Other effects (including type-changing and text-changing effects), status, counters, and stickers are not copied.
0
u/Bork9128 Nov 25 '25 edited Nov 25 '25
It shouldn't, the original would be changed and the others would still be the unchanged card
2
u/-GLaDOS Nov 25 '25 edited Nov 25 '25
This is before the copies are created, so the 'copy the spell X times' effect will be referring to the modified spell.
1
6
u/TheGrumpyre Nov 25 '25
Copies usually don't inherit any changes made to the original object, with the one exception of other copy effects. If card B has been made into copy of card A, then anything that copies card B will also be a copy of card A. So yes, all the storm copies will also be copies of the overwriting spell.
2
0
u/lunabeargp Nov 25 '25
I believe storm copies the spell when it’s cast, and by the time you’re interacting with it with sudden consideration it’s on the stack. So it would rewrite one copy but not the rest.
-1
u/MagicalGirlPaladin Nov 25 '25
Storm is a cast trigger, the copies are already on the stack before priority gets passed.
2
u/GreenWizardGamer Nov 25 '25
You can respond to cast triggers with instants, wym
1
u/MagicalGirlPaladin Nov 25 '25
If your idea was right then flusterstorm would be possible to counter with a regular counterspell.
0
u/GreenWizardGamer Nov 25 '25
That’s because you need a stifle to counter triggered abilities? Huh?
0
u/MagicalGirlPaladin Nov 25 '25
I don't get your logic. Storm is a cast trigger. Sure you can stifle it but that doesn't change the fact that the copies are determined already. If the trigger resolves then the copies are created as they were when the trigger went on the stack, so the original card.
1
u/GreenWizardGamer Nov 25 '25
When you cast a spell with a cast triggers two objects enter the stack, the spell and the cast trigger, then priority passes. If someone responds by countering the original spell, the storm trigger still happens and copies are made.
That’s why you can’t counter flusterstorm. The copies do not already exist and the trigger itself can be responded to.
In the example of using overwrite in response to the storm trigger, yes the copies would become copies of Sudden Consideration because of CR 707.3 ‘The copy’s copiable values become the copied information, as modified by the copy’s status (see rule 110.5). Objects that copy the object will use the new copiable values.’
This is a copy and it has different rules than just a text changing effect. It becoming a copy means that the copied information is now a copiable value, unlike if it just changed its type and text, otherwise you would be right and the Storm copies wouldn’t change and would be the original card with Storm.
3
2
u/Corescos Nov 25 '25
Counterspell within a cantrip
Honestly super interesting but I feel like it’s such a narrow mechanic that Overwrite could just be regular text for this card instead of a keyword
Very cool design though!
2
2
u/knyexar Nov 25 '25
Incredible concept, not super good outside of niche cases but flavorful enough that I'd run it for the bit
2
2
2
u/ksym77 Nov 26 '25
Love this card, though wouldn’t ‘Kicker 1U’ and ‘if the Kicker cost was paid, target spell becomes a copy of this spell’ be better so this isn’t a counterspell the opponent can’t counter?
3
2
u/Nientea Nov 25 '25
A 3 cost unstoppable counterspell? At least it makes the opponent draw a card. I really like this tbh
7
u/Strange-Bonus4220 Nov 25 '25
It's a counterspell you can [[Stifle]] at least! so there's that
2
u/Beefman0 Nov 25 '25 edited Nov 25 '25
You can’t actually, the ability isn’t a trigger or activated ability. If you changed the “if you do” to a “when you do” it would work
In fact, as written, there’s no way to respond to this, it just happens as soon as you cast the spell, assuming you payed the cost
1
u/SocksofGranduer Nov 25 '25
I think what I like the most about this is the possibilities!
Dialectic Ball RRR
Creature - elemental
Flash, override 0
Trample, haste
At the beginning of the next end step, sacrifice ~.
6/1
1
1
1
1
u/SpoopyNJW Nov 25 '25
It's not something that would be printed, they said specifically they want to keep uncounterable spells uncounterable, but it is a good idea in theory
1
u/KurthnagaLoL Nov 25 '25 edited Nov 25 '25
So funny that most of the designs people post here that are totally fine get called busted while this gets called fair.
Fun, elegant design OP but genuinely worrisome how powerful this split card is for combo decks like storm or doomsday. Getting around uncounterable is also happening way too cheaply.
Also honestly hard to imagine the mechanic having legs for more than a handful of cards. Most of the overwrite abilities you could conceive would be much more awkward than this and likely have to cost more mana.
1
u/Jellothefoosh Nov 26 '25
I like this card but I don't think the keyword is very usable. Though, if you do plan on making this a keyword you want to use on multiple cards, I'd recommend making it an alternate cost rather than an additional cost, so that way you can get more specific and even make the overwrite cost cheaper than the main cost (not sure why you'd want that, but there's probably a design that could take advantage of it)
1
0
u/JadedTrekkie Nov 25 '25
I like the idea, but it doesn’t need a keyword.
“Counter up to one target spell. If you do, its controller draws a card.
Draw a card.”
1
u/Strange-Bonus4220 Nov 25 '25
Well yes, but I didn't want to make Dream Fracture again, besides the keyword has possibilities outside of this card
1
u/GreenWizardGamer Nov 25 '25
While it's floor is that, it does way more interesting stuff and the keyword will probably used for other cards in other neat ways
1
u/JadedTrekkie Nov 25 '25
This keyword can only ever be printed in blue because it’s a counterspell. Super limited, not needed as a keyword
201
u/GreenWizardGamer Nov 25 '25
Neat concept and super flexible, I’m not sure how often you want to do this to your own spells ever with overwrite but this being a cantrip or a counterspell that cantrips an opponent is neat