Counterspells: A Suggestion

Magic: The Gathering - Puzzle Quest MtGPQ General Discussion
1

I think the community will be in agreement that the lack of counterspell functionality is one of the few major mechanics that are missing from PQ compared to the paper game. While I appreciate that the development team is trying to address this in different ways, the latest being Denial gems - it’s also fair to say that they are missing the mark. All that said, I actually think Denial is probably a decent (but also complex) mechanic that will bring a strong flavor to PQ of “slowing down the game” - which lovers of blue in paper will appreciate.

So the big question: Why are the developers ignoring Insidious Will as a basis for counterspells?

iWill was a beloved card, that was powerful, but not over-powered. Pact of negation and Jace’s Defeat are other examples of this flavor. All were great cards that functioned a bit different to counter the opponent.

Suggested Solution: Develop a token enchantment support (based on iWill) called “Countercast” with 4 different types.

The thought is that any creature, spell or support card could also produce a token support that does some flavor of countering based on rarity.

“Minor Countercast”: A common card would produce a token that returned the first creature or support card cast that turn to the player’s hand with X mana without it triggering enter battle effects, then the countercast token exiles itself. Note that it only effects cast cards, not “summoned” cards to help limit power level.

“Countercast”: An uncommon card could be: “When your opponent casts a “X” card, it is destroyed, and it’s effects do not trigger. Exile this support”. X would be randomly assigned when the token is created with “support”, “creature”, or “spell”. Each time you create a new countercast token, one of the other 2 card types would be added to the token support (like the dungeon master emblem function) so that the counter ability would become stronger.

“Improved Countercast”: A rare card would take out the randomness of the uncommon and simply counter anything cast - exactly how Insidious Will works.

“Major Countercast”: A mythic or MP card would counter everything, but also introduce a kicker effect, where you could drain X mana to prevent it from being exiled. This version in particular would really bring the most paper-like feel of countering, as you would need to use mana in your hand on your opponent’s turn.

In the event all multiple types are generated on the board, they would all be destroyed by the first cast card, and trigger in the order they were created on the board.

As an alternate application, the token support could lose the self-destruct feature, and only deploy the kicker feature. You would then have the option to drain mana from your hand each time the opponent casts a card in order to counter it. And you could still use a version the rarity based differences described above so that there would be different power levels of counterspells in the game, or make the only difference between each rarity type be the amount of mana that is drained from kicker is lower for higher rarity cards.

2

As someone who’s tried to get them to move on this before (most recently the August Q&A), thanks for starting a topic on this.

I’m not sure if it’s a failure to communicate, or a deliberate misinterpretation, but statements like this from the Release Notes are frustrating:

“Deny is the new Blue improved gem mechanic that drains and deny resources from the opponent, working similarly to a counterspell”

Now, I’m all in favor of Deny. I’m looking forward to playing with the effect and will probably invest in the blue PMA packs.

However, if Greg is able to resolve his card, even if it takes him a couple of extra turns, that is not a counterspell. This is particularly true in a game where Greg can regularly cascade for 40+ mana a turn and bypass whatever drain/suppression effect you place on him.

Mana drain is not a counterspell. Mana suppression is not a counterspell. Pact of Negation and Insidious Will are counterspells because They Stop Cards From Being Cast. Counters are strong, but just like paper magic, they can be played around strategically, by baiting out the counter with another card.

As shown in Boopers’ post, there are numerous ways that counters could be implemented. Counter and draw a card, counter by bouncing and refunding some mana, counter and gain a copy of the card countered. You could have counterspells just for creatures, spells, or supports. You could have counters that target cards of a specific mana cost or below (similar to some PW removal abilities).

What confuses me, therefore, is the seeming unwillingness to consider true countering instead of mana drain/suppression. There’s room for all.

3

I would love to see counterspells like Insidious Will again.

Denial is a pseudo counterspell because Denial gems can create Time Bubble gems that when matched during Greg’s turn will discard Greg’s first card with mana doing something similar to what Insidious Will does.

Time Bubble
Support - Enchantment - Blue - Shield 1
When this support is destroyed or loses shield: If it’s your turn - Drain 3 mana from your opponent’s hand. Otherwise: Your opponent discards the first card with mana from their hand.

It is really tricky and situational because you first create the Denial gems turning Greg into a denied player. If the denied player (Greg) matches it then he is now Restrined and the only outcome is that you get to decrease his non-blue mana bonus by -1 until end of turn, but if the non denied player (you) matches the Denial gem you create the Time Bubble support.

And then, if that wasn’t confusing enough, if the player that created the Time Bubble (you) matches the Time Bubble gem you only get to drain 3 mana from Greg. It is only if the player that didn’t created the Time Bubble (Greg) is the one who actually matches the Time Bubble when you get to activate the pseudo counterspell effect making Greg discard the first card with mana from his hand.

The countercast supports suggested by Boopers would be a way less complicated way of implementing counterspells in Magic: PQ

4

Agree with these suggestions, but I also want to thank Oktagon for adding Discard to Geistlight Snare and Counterlash and I hope this trend will continue alongside other paper-to-PQ conversion options.

Blue draws, it should discard; they are complimentary. Black Kill spells take the card, the mana; everything. So did Counterspells. So the blue player can take the card and not even be as powerful as the black. And it would be complimentary with Milling, too, filling the opponent’s graveyard with discarded cards.

Drain has been the standard, but it is by far inferior. It is also complimentary to mana creation, and could be for this reason be given to Green. Or red, I suppose; “burning” the opponent’s mana. Don’t as much care about where Drain ends up.

5

Ugh. *Complementary.
I didn’t mean I want the game mechanics to be chatty with each other.

6

If Drain disabled the card for a turn if it reduced the mana stored in card to below zero, or made the card cost more, that could be cool too. Cards like Sphinx’s Tutelage and Jaces Sanctum could be great, but not explored enough, I think.

7

We just need to fix flash.
Flash counters that could read.

When this card is drawn it is disabled ( turned off)

When your opponent makes their first swap drain all mana that was gained after that swap.

Or
When this card is drawn it is disabled (turned off)

When the opponent cast their next card, destroy that card and its effects do not trigger.

Honestly they could do so much with flash if it wasn’t “cast before attack” and they were drawn pre disabled to be cast with the intent of a true instant on your opponents turn.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk

8

With insidious will up for vote… I am resurfacing this thread. Please please please bring an idea like this to the game.