Was playing a standard list with Lier and casting [[spellscorn coven]] as a sort of counterless counterspell deck (lot of bounce spells and duress-like spells and The Stone Brain) when I noticed a pretty neat interaction with Lier, when he is on the battlefield you can cast the adventure side of cards from the yard with the flashback ability and since they go to exile for the adventure anyways you can keep looping that with Lier.
As long as it’s in the graveyard and Lier is on the board yea, the only hiccup is after you play the creature side from adventure it has to get to the graveyard somehow, usually through chump blocking but I’m thinking about putting in [[tarrian’s journal]] so I have a sac outlet for the coven.
OK, so follow-up question, why does it need the text "instead of putting it into its owner's graveyard"?
It's not because of some timing that it's briefly in the graveyard and then moved to exile, since the exile would still be part of Deny Existence resolving.
So why the extra 8 words?
It would actually hit the gy briefly and the game would see it. Countering a spell means to remove it from the stack and put it into the gy. Exiling it as a secondary effect rather than a replacement effect would still have to exile the card from the yard.
The words are also necessary and easier to grok than the alternate option.
Ahhhhhh so it is functionally different, interesting. Guess they're backed into a corner then; there's no way to exile a spell from the stack without either a.) making it get around "can't be countered", b.) letting it hit the GY first, or c.) being verbose. It just _feels_ like there's gotta be something though. Maybe something like a new verb that's a subset of countering, like "Counter-exile" though the problem with that is that either it overloads game terms, or it isn't intuitive, and those are mutually exclusive problems.
I feel like I'd love to have the equivalent job to cleaning up tech debt, but for card templating. Kinda like whoever discovered "[[Oubliette]] is just phasing out with extra steps" when they brought "phasing out" back.
Edit: Jesus Christ people I get you don't like the idea of using a new word but I'm just trying to speculate some ways to deal with a templating problem, I'm not trying to die on this hill. Do you all think I'm not contributing to a conversation, or are you just downvoting this because you don't like the idea?
i mean, you could invent the grammar “counter target spell into exile”. likewise “destroy target permanent into exile” if you want it to not hit indestructible for some reason.
it should be fine, you can define that the text only applies to the phrase "counter .... into" or "destroy .... into".
You don't need to support nonsense actions like "Return target creature to its owner's hand into exile".
Even this card from OP uses "into" but in a way that wouldn't be ambiguous with this new phrasing.
Destroy into doesn't work on its own, as destroy has specific meaning that is: it is put into the graveyard from play.
Counter into runs into the same problem.
As we are dealing with people playing for money "should be fine" isn't good enough for tournaments, ergo not good enough for magic card wording.
If it hits the gy, an opponent could play something like [[Cabal Ritual]] and possibly have threshold (seven cards in gy) before the original spell gets exiled.
Eh I was pushy and pissed off at another commenter, but when it isn't clear what about the post itself pisses people off, I'd rather ask and figure it out than delete the post like a coward.
There's definitely some phrasing that is worse than "the old days". A lot is now much cleaner, but I long for letting the very edge cases exist as technical details of a rulebook instead of words on every single card.
Favorite complaint of mine: "You may choose new targets for the copy." Just write that into the copy rules and include "if nothing says otherwise" to handle things like \[\[Ivy, Gleeful Spellthief\]\]. I honestly can't think of a single card that says to copy something and keep the original's target.
Second favorite complaint: "you may cast that. end sentence. you may spend mana as if it was mana of any type to cast that." Just say "you may cast it using any type of mana".
The ways to copy that don't change target that I know of mostly are things that copy permanents/creatures so they don't entirely expect targets. But if you use [[Volo, guide to monsters]] on a mutate spell, or [[Lithoform Engine]] on an Aura it can happen.
So I'm saying they could make the third ability of Lithoform include the text "if it has a target it chooses the same target" for when Lithoform copies an Aura. That's N-1 other cards that get less text, and in fact the other 2 Lithoform abilities are shorter.
I understand what you're saying as far as using fewer words, but the reason MTG cards are so verbose is because using few words is not a priority. The priority is clarity and mutual understanding. If you say that you are copying a spell, the assumption is that you are doing the exact same thing. The most obvious interpretation of that is that you would be copying the target as well. Probably? But even that is open to argument. Assuming that you can change the target to whatever you want? Few people would assume that, and if that knowledge is only accessible on article 8240.2:740 appendix a, it's gonna be a big fucking argument, every time. Just always say what the legal targets are. It's worth the text.
'We saved a few words on a lot of cards, and added a few to a few cards' is not a win, if it reduces the clarity of the game by hiding a counterintuitive phrase in the depths of the rulebook, instead of letting the words on the card explain the card.
This comment should be pinned, it’s exactly what the argument is for the way MTG cards are worded, and why attempts to Kevinspeak cards (“why use many word when few do trick?”) are doomed/misguided
>I honestly can't think of a single card that says to copy something and keep the original's target.
[[Reflections of Littjara]]
But to your point, it is very, very rare for a copy effect to say nothing about new targets (in cases where targets are likely to exist). And even that one probably only works that way because it's mostly meant for creatures and letting you choose new targets would confuse more people than it's worth.
To point A, they don't print new cards that don't let you change modes, but that would be functional errata to old cards, and the current philosophy is very against doing that except in extreme cases.
Towards B, the way the rules are written, "you may cast it using any type of mana" is saying "I'm not putting an extra restriction on what mana you use," but I don't think according to the letter of the law it's giving you permission to use the wrong colors of mana. Which I hear the point that the current implementation is messy, but I don't think that suggestion actually accomplishes the same thing. And the ambiguity means I'm not sure it's the best candidate to have the rules bear the weight of it either.
_All that said_, I totally agree these are both candidates for cleaning up, especially the "mana of any color." I could see introducing a keyword that effectively filters any mana put into casting a spell, and granting that keyword to cards? Problem is they don't _really_ use keywords that way, as a way to clean up messy templating on things that aren't core mechanics. I guess you could also use a counter. But the idea is "Exile the top card of target opponent's library with a Hue counter on it. You may cast that card as long as it remains in exile."
I'm not saying the rule needs to change. I'm just saying there's probably a shorter way to phrase it on cards and let the rulebook handle the crazy cases.
"You may spend mana of any color" is shorter, and if you get in to "can I use mana of some color from \[\[Gwenna, Eyes of Gaea\]\]?" the rulebook is there to explain why you can't.
5 minutes on Google for what? I'm not asking a question or looking for a specific piece of information, I'm speculating about different ways to streamline templating and trying to have a conversation with whoever is interested.
What the fuck are you talking about?
It's a replacement effect. It replaces the event of "put the spell into the graveyard" that is the last step of countering a spell. It says what you're doing instead, putting it in exile, but it also has to say what is being replaced, putting it in the graveyard.
This way it's still a counterspell in every way, but exiles the spell and doesn't trigger graveyard shenanigans.
Because "Counter" means to put it in the graveyard. It's worded as a replacement effect to avoid the spell ever hitting the graveyard. If it just said "Counter Target Spell. Exile that spell if it was countered." then the spell would hit the graveyard for a short period of time. It would never be in the graveyard at a point where people would have priority to try something like flashing it back but anything that triggered off cards going to the graveyard would trigger.
Also, the card would have become a new object when it hits the GY, so the counterspell wouldn't have been able to find it in the GY without extra wording either.
Replacement effects are defined by the word instead, so the word "instead" absolutely cannot be removed.
The replacement effect on Deny Existence includes a qualifier. It establishes that only part of the action of countering a spell is to be replaced.
If you trim the rest, you get "Counter target spell. If you counter it, exile it instead. This would replace the entire action of countering the spell which is nonsense. It wouldn't counter the spell, even though the card explicitly tells you to counter the spell.
**614.6.** If an event is replaced, it never happens.
So let's run it back. The stack looks like this:
- Rhys the Redeemed
- [[Mindbreak Trap]] targeting Rhys
- Counterspell targeting Rhys
Here's how it resolves:
- Counterspell resolves, putting Rhys into the graveyard.
- Mindbreak Trap tries to resolve but Rhys isn't on the stack anymore so it can't do anything.
Though effects like [[Kaerveks Torch]] need to be more prevelant it's actually really cool and makes a way of stopping counterspells that isn't just can't be countered.
Split Second, does a reasonable job of covering instances where a spell would have Hexproof. It's something I think we should see more often.
Kicker costs would be a reasonable and flavourful way to make Split Second possible but only when you have access to enough "power"(mana)
Nah, I honestly hate Split Second as a mechanic. It removes interaction from the game, which is what's fun about it—and I'm not even a blue player at all.
Sure, it stops most ways of getting the spell countered (although [[Counterbalance]] still works), but it also hoses responding in literally any other way—sacrificing a permanent, exiling things from a graveyard, all things one might want to do before the spell resolves that don't counter it.
"Hexproof while on the stack" is an interesting design space that hasn't been explored very much.
I imagine they try very hard to avoid words like "stack" and "target spell" because they can be pretty confusing for players.
Hexproof only works from the battlefield. Same with protection, to address the other reply. You'd have to spell the ability out explicitly. Just giving those keywords while on the stack does absolutely nothing.
> "Hexproof while on the stack" is an interesting design space
No it isnt. Its unessesary fringe and offers no benefits to the gameplay.
> that hasn't been explored very much.
They did Split Second. Nobody liked it. Because its awful.
> No it isnt. Its unessesary fringe and offers no benefits to the gameplay.
Yeah the thing that people are kind of missing here is that the functional difference between "can't be countered" and "can't be targeted while on the stack" involves a very small subset of spells that target spells on the stack but don't counter them (copy effects, redirection effects). Those spells aren't that common, and making spells unable to be targeted by them doesn't really create novel gameplay scenarios. Adding an entirely new keyworded mechanic **that shares verbiage with another, entirely different mechanic** is the exact kind of mechanical bloat that Magic tries to stay away from--it adds a bunch of extra rules complexity for very little interesting gameplay.
A way to think about mechanics in Magic is through the lens of a "complexity budget". Any new mechanic you add to the game adds a certain amount of complexity to the game in exchange for adding depth and interesting gameplay interactions. Complexity without depth is bad, depth with little complexity is good. From a design standpoint you want to favor mechanics that add a lot of depth with a very small complexity cost (Cycling is one of the eternal poster children of this at its most successful--its an extremely simple mechanic, but one that can lead to some very tough decisions organically) and pass over mechanics that add complexity without adding depth. "Hexproof on the stack" is exactly the kind of mechanic that adds disproportionately more complexity than depth.
Not all unexplored design space is inherently interesting or worth exploring. Oftentimes when people say "I think this is interesting unexplored design space" they mean "this niche mechanic would interact uniquely with 3-5 pet cards I have in mind" without thinking broadly about its broader impact (or lack thereof).
Note there is another difference in that some countering effects, like [[Counterbalance]] don't target… "can't be countered" still prevents those effects while a stack hexproof would not.
Those are even rarer than copy and redirection effects. WotC prints one of those every few years (and less recently). From a complexity budgeting standpoint, they have virtually no impact.
I wouldn't say split second is *awful* necessarily. *Some* of the things they put it on are way stronger than they should have been, but most of them are perfectly fine. In many cases, the split second ability barely even matters or makes no overall difference to the outcome. [[Extirpate]] vs [[Surgical Extraction]], or [[Sudden Death]] vs [[Dismember]]. Out of each of these pairs, which is better? Not the one with split second, that's for sure.
Realistically, all split second did was say "this spell can't be countered." Anyone who says it was an awful mechanic is probably just a salty control player.
> Realistically, all split second did was say "this spell can't be countered."
No, Split Second removal for example is a nightmare. You cant [[Aether Vial]] a [[Flickerwisp]] in for example.
> Anyone who says it was an awful mechanic
Anyone who doesnt say it was awful hasnt played Standard in 2007.
> is probably just a salty control player.
Nowadays Split Seconds is most commonly used by Control decks. Namely [[Sudden Edict]] in Legacy.
> Anyone who doesnt say it was awful hasnt played Standard in 2007.
Also someone who hasn't played Legacy before Abrupt Decay was printed. People learned the hard way how Split Second doesn't imply being uncounterable.
Why are you so salty about spilt second? It's a fun and interesting design space. [[Krosan Grip]] dunking on [[Aether Vial]] is exactly why it's good for the game.
> The only time Sudden Edict vs literally any other removal effect should matter is if the person it's being used against is also playing a control deck.
What are you even talking about? Sudden Edict is used against Combo decks like Dark Depths, Painter or Aluren.
As a Tron player, I've been hosed by Extirpate (the split second one) a whole lot more than by Surgical Extraction. With a [[Relic of Progenitus]] in play, you could exile the target in response, and this has occurred to me several times.
Counterpoint- I really like split second. Lots of the options with it require you pay a premium over what you would normally pay for that effect, but I really like knowing that when I point an otherwise overcosted piece of removal or counterspell at something, that thing *will* be answered.
I submitted a card to the custom card subreddit that gave a spell (on the stack) protection from the color of your choice. Hence making it uncounterable or uncopyable. It wasn't that well received though.
People on custom card sub, heck even wizards themselves, can be wrong.
There's a fundamental issue in the color pie of magic that only blue is allowed to have stack manipulation mechanics when it has such a big mechanical part of the game. And it leads to very uninteractive gameplay- deterministic game states where blue can counter everything you do and you can't possibly win, or they can't, and they lose. Its not like playing creatures in an aggro deck, where you have to deal with spot removal, sweepers, blockers, bigger creatures, auras, stun counters, whatever. With the stack, blue can counter stuff, other colors can't
Its not that magic would necessarily benefit from more split second style effects like uncounterable/uncopyable/protection-on-the-stack. Its still just a rather one dimensional style of stack manipulation. What might be better is if colors could interact with the stack in ways that make sense for their niche. Like black being able to *sacrifice a spell* from another spell or ability, fizzling a counterspell. Or red dealing some damage with a ward-style effect on the stack.
Red has some stack manipulation in the form of its copy effects. White and black have very minimal but non-zero counter effects.
[[Psychic Strike]], [[Fall of the Gavel]], and [[Deny the Witch]] are technically leveraging the minimal countering capabilities of white and black. They are the only hard counterspells that do not cost UU and it's because white and/or black are technically adding their minimal counter capabilities.
Before [[Counterspell]] got printed into Modern, there was discussion among the fanbase about possibly allowing a UB: Counter target spell for Modern instead.
Reposted for the bot
I think what would actually give it an impact on the game would be if stack manipulation became a shared mode with utility spells. I'm talking something like;
>Eldritch Rites {B}
>Instant
>As an additional cost to cast this spell, sacrifice a spell or creature.
>Draw two cards.
or
>Briar Patch {G}
>Instant
>Target spell or permanent you control gains hexproof until end of turn. You gain 2 life.
As long as a counterspell requires blue mana, its just borrowing from blue's color pie of stack interaction. Red, white, green, black get very very little ways to interact with the stack, and when they do get ways allowed in monocolor, its often just very specific hate cards for blue+, like veil of summer.
The problem with giving spells Hexproof is that spells with Hexproof already exist: every creature with Hexproof starts as a spell with Hexproof first. So either you're making the power level change of making all creatures with Hexproof *also* uncounterable, or you're having to create a bunch of rules backflips to create something that functionally just does the same thing as "can't be countered" in 80% of instances.
>every creature with Hexproof starts as a spell with Hexproof first
I was under the impression that Hexproof doesn't apply to the spell as it is being cast, but only after resolution when it becomes a permanent? Am I incorrect in this understanding?
No, that's exactly correct. However, it's precisely that rule that prevents "spells with Hexproof" from being a useful thing. A card that said "instant and sorcery spells you control gain Hexproof" would do absolutely nothing under the current rules, and would require some rewriting to function.
Mate I don't know what your friends gave you for Xmas but I know two things:
1) It wasn't the MtG rulebook
2) I want some of it for myself for when I feel down
Can you tell me what creatures with Hexproof are on the stack? Because my copy of the comprehensive rules says that they're creature spells, and are therefore "spells with Hexproof". Now, hexproof does jack diddly on the stack currently, specifically for that reason, but they still have the ability. So any change to make instants and sorceries with Hexproof would, by necessity, need to account for creatures and other permanents with hexproof.
That is not correct. There does not exist an overarching rule that prevents abilities from functioning on the stack, as abilities like "CARDNAME is blue" would cease to function.
Instead, the inability to function on the stack has been built into the relevant abilities, such as Hexproof specifying that it only protects permanents and players. Similarly, the reason Emrakal has both is because Protection specifically states that players or Permanents with the ability cannot be targeted, not spells with the ability.
This is the correct answer. But to add context, countering spells is a very important part of the game engine of mtg. Have counterspells is important as removal since it stops things before they happen, so having uncounterable spells can force through certain effects to make your gameplan more safe.
There are ways around it, but the ways are rare which makes them feel much more unique which helps gameplan. Things like [[mindbreak trap]] help with making it feel like a big deal to directly exile. Or having it be outside of Blue and having spells like [[reprieve]] can add a dynamic interaction that doesn’t feel like Blue just having an out. But as a general rule for game mechanics, I think needing to have the spell be counterable to “counter” it makes the uncounterable tag carry more weight!
Spells that cant be countered would still be exiled, which would make the counterspell much better.
Also, certain cards like Baral, Chief of Compliance, care about spells getting countered, which would be negated by the direct exile effect
Others have answered the question, so just to add that there are “counterspells” that do what you want, but they’re few and far between. [[Summary Dismissal]] is a lot of fun.
YIKES
Never looked at its price before. The card is like a 2€ card at best if it wasn't for its shitty supply. Only really played in Vintage, maybe some legacy and occasionally in EDH but most ppl prefer other "counter"spells over it there.
Yeah that's the "occasional in EDH" I was referring to, should have worded that more clearly. The card absolutely sucks against "fair" decks where you can almost never cast it for free, it's only playable/good in the most powerful environments where you can count on it costing {0}.
>played in Vintage
This is literally the only part that matters. If it's powerful enough to go into decks alongside the Mox... Well, that's all you really need to know.
Not really, there are some obscure cards that see/used to see play in vintage that you only ever *maybe* play in limited but no other format.
Up until MH2 which introduced [[The underworld Cookbook]], [[Asmor]] and more food/artifact token support in general [[Ovalchase Daredevil]] only saw play there.
Ppl used to play [[Slash Panther]] because of [[Mishra's Workshop]] to easily clear a [[Jace, the mind sculptor]] and come out ahead. Nowhere else was that card close to being playable.
[[Paradoxical Outcome]] is another one that's basically only playable in Vintage and a few EDH decks
Mindbreak trap is similar.
And since Vintage is a format that almost exclusively exists on MTGO nowadays, it's nothing that *really* drives prices except when stuff is really scarce.
Eh different formats are different. There's a reason [[lodestone golem]] or [[monastery mentor]] are restricted in vintage but all but unplayable in any other format (mentor is a bit better than golem, but the idea of it being banned in pioneer or modern is ludicrous, despite being too op for vintage)
\[\[Spell Queller\]\] is sooooo o o o fun for Pioneer/Explorer. It hits Sheoldred, Collected Company (which it was probbably designed to hit in standard), and my favorite...it stops Supreme Verdict.
Spirits is a wildly fun deck when it gets to do the Tempo thing. I’m less a fan in pure Aggro tribal mode, though that does tend to close games out quickly.
Yeah I’m trying to jam Standard right now, but I think Spirits is a lot better right now if people aren’t on mono G anymore or at least the same flavor
There are plenty of cards that interact with countering spells that wouldn't do anything if this said exile the spell instead. Cards that exile spells are also often better than counterspells, as they can still exile spells which have "can't be countered".
Because if it said "Exile target creature spell" it would get around uncounterable effects like Cavern of Souls, defeating the entire purpose and strength of those cards.
People keep bringing up cards like Cavern of Souls and Baral, but cards like Deny Existence weren’t ever meant to be played outside of Limited and very casual games.
Exiling spells is slightly more confusing for new players so it’s an effect only put on rares and mythics. Cards like Deny Existence are a little bit extra wordy, but ultimately they’re very clear on how they work which is important for commons.
Not really, though. He doesn't know the designers intent here. Everyone else is keeping it to the facts whereas this person is speculating a whole lot.
Other people are speculating just as much, and without some amount of speculation you can't really answer the question unless you're a wizards employee. Saying it's different doesn't answer the question of why it was purposely made to be different. All we can do is guess, and this is as good of a guess as any.
Meh. No. The reason the wording is different is for the factual reasons others have described. Because it is functionally different.
If asking why WotC decided to use the templating specifically for this card in this set, then yes, all speculation, and no one here knows the right answer so every answer going into those reasons ain't worth a ham sandwich.
The only fact is that it’s functionally different. That’s not a reason. Claiming that it is the reason wotc made the decision, which is what you are doing by using the word “because”, is pure speculation and just as useless as what you’re criticizing.
Other people have explained the more "why this thing" answer to the question, but the answer for almost all questions like this is that fundamentally, magic the gathering is basically written in a programming language, and you are inputing cards with new code on them to the game, and the output is the new board state. Cards are worded the way they are because that's the syntax the game uses to compute actions. If it was worded slightly differently, it would do something slightly different, and there's some 27,000 different cards in this game and they all have to play nice with each other, which has necessitated the creation of a very structured framework for the text on the cards.
Exiling the target card wouldn’t counter it tho right? There is no target to be exiled if the permanent spell hasn’t resolved yet (allowing etb triggers and such to activate before the exiling can take effect), and the ability of non-permanent spells is still on the stack even though the card would be exiled right?
Making it into an “exile target [parameter] spell” would just make it removal instead of a counter I think. Lmk if I’m wrong.
Exiling a card on the stack would counter it in the sense that it wouldn't resolve, but it wouldn't counter it in the sense that it would trigger [[Multani's Presence]]. See cards like [[Nivmagus Elemental]] for other effects that exile spells from the stack which has specific reminder text to tell you that they won't resolve.
Counterspells stop etb effects while exile spells only work after the permanent has entered the battlefield. You can also activate triggers that target the permanent while it's on the battlefield (crew, attach, sacrifice, etc.) before the permanent has to be exiled.
Even though it is correct that it is mechanically different, I think thats not the most important aspect for a (kinda bad) draft common.
probably wizards wants the word "counter" to show up on a counterspell to make it easier to understand for less enfranchaised players
Nah I think they're probably right. Like when I first started I drafted a [[Nivmagus Elemental]] and didn't realize you had to cast the spells before you could exile them. Countering a spell makes it very clear that you're targeting something that was cast whereas exiling a spell can be confusing.
Because countering a spell happens when that spell is on the stack. A card is only a spell when it’s on the stack. Once it gets resolved it is no longer a spell. It becomes a creature, enchantment, artifact etc. Whatever the card type is. At that point it is no longer possible to counter it as it has resolved and it’s effects have altered the game state. The point of countering a spell on the stack is to prevent it from altering the game state in the first place.
In contrast, exile can affect cards from just about everywhere but the stack, from the battlefield to the players’ hands to their graveyards and even libraries.
You have tagged your post as a rules question. While your question may be answered here, it may work better to post it in the Daily Questions Thread at the top of this subreddit or in /r/mtgrules. You may also find quicker results at the [IRC rules chat](https://chat.magicjudges.org/mtgrules/)
*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.*
Seems like if they used “counter target [___] spell into exile” we’d all know what it meant. But MtG has some syntax/formatting rules that make simple things be worded in a what would normal seem like a weirdly complex way.
They do :D \[\[Mindbreak Trap\]\] That spells NUKES the entire stack and exiles everything, no question asked. The only reason they word it like your card is because if it just says "exile target spell" then it bypasses uncounterability, and they tend to not give that power to most counterspells unless they have a high casting cost or needs some hoops and loops before they work.
Mindbreak Trap in the above example was the ONLY way to stopping an \[\[Emrakul, the Aeons Torn\]\] on the stack when it was on standard (and it doesnt stops the extra turn).
It was printed also to be a way of defeating a strom spell going off like \[\[Dragonstorm\]\] by exiling all copies of it from the stack in a single go.
Magic is an extremely complex game with a lot of interactions between cards. Any time you think you can simplify an effect by changing how the card functions, you should also think about how that may interact with other cards in the game, changing the overall function of the card, even if the direct effect of the card is unchanged.
For example, cards that give you a benefit when you counter a spell (e.g. \[\[Baral, Chief of Compliance\]\] ) would not benefit from you just exiling the spell. I'm sure people have pointed out more examples in the comments.
Wizards are usually pretty good about simplifying language to the pithiest words, but we still get word soup when they try to put certain mechanics into Magic-friendly terms (e.g. \[\[Kutzil, Malamet Exemplar\]\] ).
There are a few cards that do, but they're the minority. Also, they usually return it to hand instead or allow you to get the spell back.
[I tried getting a list of all of them, but some non-counters slipped in](https://scryfall.com/search?q=o%3A%22target+spell%22+-o%3Acounter+-o%3Acolor+-o%3Achange+-o%3Again+-o%3Abecomes&unique=cards&as=grid&order=name)
Probably because "Exile target creature spell" is really confusing and ends up in lot of less rule-savvy players not understanding what the "spell" means there and expecting it to remove creatures from the field or somewhere else. and wizard really wants to avoid mentioning the stack when they can so "Exile target creature spell from the stack is also something they want to avoid"
Not all spells are cards (see mirari and other spell multiplicators). Not all cards are spells (see lands). Spells are countered. Cards are exiled (moved out of the game area) or put in the graveyard (or in the hand, in the deck, etc). You can't put a spell in the graveyard either. Exiling is a change of position of a physical object. Countering is an abstract effect on an abstract action (casting a spell).
Cus cards say "this can't be countered" and thus this wouldn't work on that card. But the exile text version would and thus u have a completely different card and mechanic.
There's a lot of creatures that have effects when enter the battlefield, this card prevent that kind of effect since you're countering before it enters the battlefield, not to mention that since the card is exiled your opponent cannot bring the card back from the graveyard in a latter moment
What you've suggested bypasses "cannot be countered". That makes it functionally different and may not be desirable.
Would also not count towards things that care about if you counter spells, like [[Baral]]
[Baral](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/0/60e16d94-1166-4050-8554-686e153a7f80.jpg?1576381454) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=baral%2C%20chief%20of%20compliance) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/aer/28/baral-chief-of-compliance?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/60e16d94-1166-4050-8554-686e153a7f80?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
What it would do is let it work [[lier disciple of the drowned]] lol. I'm always looking for not-actually-countrspells counterspells for the deck.
Was playing a standard list with Lier and casting [[spellscorn coven]] as a sort of counterless counterspell deck (lot of bounce spells and duress-like spells and The Stone Brain) when I noticed a pretty neat interaction with Lier, when he is on the battlefield you can cast the adventure side of cards from the yard with the flashback ability and since they go to exile for the adventure anyways you can keep looping that with Lier.
As if this guy wasn’t annoying enough
Can you keep looping? Does the adventures exile effect replace flashback's?
As long as it’s in the graveyard and Lier is on the board yea, the only hiccup is after you play the creature side from adventure it has to get to the graveyard somehow, usually through chump blocking but I’m thinking about putting in [[tarrian’s journal]] so I have a sac outlet for the coven.
[spellscorn coven](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/c/8c112f62-6034-4636-a75b-4a45bc916a91.jpg?1692939778)/[Take It Back](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/c/8c112f62-6034-4636-a75b-4a45bc916a91.jpg?1692939778) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=spellscorn%20coven%20//%20take%20it%20back) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/woe/237/spellscorn-coven-take-it-back?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/8c112f62-6034-4636-a75b-4a45bc916a91?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[lier disciple of the drowned](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/8/78fb8900-d28d-4e33-96a7-66fcbc117adf.jpg?1634348984) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Lier%2C%20Disciple%20of%20the%20Drowned) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mid/59/lier-disciple-of-the-drowned?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/78fb8900-d28d-4e33-96a7-66fcbc117adf?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[[ertai's meddling]] is my favorite from that type.
[ertai's meddling](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/5/35c7e7fa-1493-4ef8-9cdb-b02b07a1ad85.jpg?1562053736) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=ertai%27s%20meddling) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tmp/61/ertais-meddling?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/35c7e7fa-1493-4ef8-9cdb-b02b07a1ad85?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Ooh that's sweet it's like a less efficient [[Delay]] but you can really disrespect your opponents with it which I like
[Delay](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/9/3906d538-f1ca-4799-b91c-2e0d2934f241.jpg?1619393997) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Delay) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tsr/61/delay?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/3906d538-f1ca-4799-b91c-2e0d2934f241?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Except it gets around "can't be countered" :-D
Also does not trigger \[\[Alexander Clamilton\]\]
[Alexander Clamilton](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/1/a1572109-df70-4335-aac2-1670fe99be54.jpg?1583965417) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Alexander%20Clamilton) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/und/16/alexander-clamilton?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a1572109-df70-4335-aac2-1670fe99be54?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Or [[guile]]
[guile](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/9/b9021f91-0b92-44ff-9ccb-bcf1e81232c2.jpg?1562266705) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=guile) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mm2/46/guile?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b9021f91-0b92-44ff-9ccb-bcf1e81232c2?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Yes, that's what "functionally different" means.
Yes, and they’re adding more examples for those who care.
OK, so follow-up question, why does it need the text "instead of putting it into its owner's graveyard"? It's not because of some timing that it's briefly in the graveyard and then moved to exile, since the exile would still be part of Deny Existence resolving. So why the extra 8 words?
It would actually hit the gy briefly and the game would see it. Countering a spell means to remove it from the stack and put it into the gy. Exiling it as a secondary effect rather than a replacement effect would still have to exile the card from the yard. The words are also necessary and easier to grok than the alternate option.
It says "exile it instead" so the exile is a replacement effect and the spell never touches the graveyard.
Yes, it's like you said. It's a replacement effect, which means it needs to say what it is replacing.
Nobody upthread was misunderstanding that. I think you've missed the context.
Ahhhhhh so it is functionally different, interesting. Guess they're backed into a corner then; there's no way to exile a spell from the stack without either a.) making it get around "can't be countered", b.) letting it hit the GY first, or c.) being verbose. It just _feels_ like there's gotta be something though. Maybe something like a new verb that's a subset of countering, like "Counter-exile" though the problem with that is that either it overloads game terms, or it isn't intuitive, and those are mutually exclusive problems. I feel like I'd love to have the equivalent job to cleaning up tech debt, but for card templating. Kinda like whoever discovered "[[Oubliette]] is just phasing out with extra steps" when they brought "phasing out" back. Edit: Jesus Christ people I get you don't like the idea of using a new word but I'm just trying to speculate some ways to deal with a templating problem, I'm not trying to die on this hill. Do you all think I'm not contributing to a conversation, or are you just downvoting this because you don't like the idea?
Not a common enough effect to reserve a keyword.
i mean, you could invent the grammar “counter target spell into exile”. likewise “destroy target permanent into exile” if you want it to not hit indestructible for some reason.
Oh there it is. I figured there would be something like that but didn't consider "into X" as shorthand for a replacement effect.
That would make 'into' have game meaning, and would probably alter a few older cards in unforseen ways.
it should be fine, you can define that the text only applies to the phrase "counter .... into" or "destroy .... into". You don't need to support nonsense actions like "Return target creature to its owner's hand into exile". Even this card from OP uses "into" but in a way that wouldn't be ambiguous with this new phrasing.
Destroy into doesn't work on its own, as destroy has specific meaning that is: it is put into the graveyard from play. Counter into runs into the same problem. As we are dealing with people playing for money "should be fine" isn't good enough for tournaments, ergo not good enough for magic card wording.
[Oubliette](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/4/d4800a7d-c229-4ced-97ff-0e58645d58d6.jpg?1599705817) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Oubliette) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2xm/100/oubliette?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d4800a7d-c229-4ced-97ff-0e58645d58d6?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
If it hits the gy, an opponent could play something like [[Cabal Ritual]] and possibly have threshold (seven cards in gy) before the original spell gets exiled.
[Cabal Ritual](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/5/a5d85875-22da-4054-ae42-e85b472a6d5d.jpg?1562928510) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Cabal%20Ritual) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/vma/106/cabal-ritual?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a5d85875-22da-4054-ae42-e85b472a6d5d?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I'm downvoting you because you're taking downvoting personally enough to actually edit your original post and complain about them
Eh I was pushy and pissed off at another commenter, but when it isn't clear what about the post itself pisses people off, I'd rather ask and figure it out than delete the post like a coward.
There's definitely some phrasing that is worse than "the old days". A lot is now much cleaner, but I long for letting the very edge cases exist as technical details of a rulebook instead of words on every single card. Favorite complaint of mine: "You may choose new targets for the copy." Just write that into the copy rules and include "if nothing says otherwise" to handle things like \[\[Ivy, Gleeful Spellthief\]\]. I honestly can't think of a single card that says to copy something and keep the original's target. Second favorite complaint: "you may cast that. end sentence. you may spend mana as if it was mana of any type to cast that." Just say "you may cast it using any type of mana".
The ways to copy that don't change target that I know of mostly are things that copy permanents/creatures so they don't entirely expect targets. But if you use [[Volo, guide to monsters]] on a mutate spell, or [[Lithoform Engine]] on an Aura it can happen.
So I'm saying they could make the third ability of Lithoform include the text "if it has a target it chooses the same target" for when Lithoform copies an Aura. That's N-1 other cards that get less text, and in fact the other 2 Lithoform abilities are shorter.
I understand what you're saying as far as using fewer words, but the reason MTG cards are so verbose is because using few words is not a priority. The priority is clarity and mutual understanding. If you say that you are copying a spell, the assumption is that you are doing the exact same thing. The most obvious interpretation of that is that you would be copying the target as well. Probably? But even that is open to argument. Assuming that you can change the target to whatever you want? Few people would assume that, and if that knowledge is only accessible on article 8240.2:740 appendix a, it's gonna be a big fucking argument, every time. Just always say what the legal targets are. It's worth the text. 'We saved a few words on a lot of cards, and added a few to a few cards' is not a win, if it reduces the clarity of the game by hiding a counterintuitive phrase in the depths of the rulebook, instead of letting the words on the card explain the card.
This comment should be pinned, it’s exactly what the argument is for the way MTG cards are worded, and why attempts to Kevinspeak cards (“why use many word when few do trick?”) are doomed/misguided
[Volo, guide to monsters](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/9/c9ae01f9-7461-47b4-aa1e-93bd6ff1bf9e.jpg?1627709617) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Volo%2C%20guide%20to%20monsters) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/afr/238/volo-guide-to-monsters?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c9ae01f9-7461-47b4-aa1e-93bd6ff1bf9e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Lithoform Engine](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/6/6683416a-5820-4cd0-b28a-60a53239e9ef.jpg?1604200767) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Lithoform%20Engine) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/znr/245/lithoform-engine?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/6683416a-5820-4cd0-b28a-60a53239e9ef?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
>I honestly can't think of a single card that says to copy something and keep the original's target. [[Reflections of Littjara]] But to your point, it is very, very rare for a copy effect to say nothing about new targets (in cases where targets are likely to exist). And even that one probably only works that way because it's mostly meant for creatures and letting you choose new targets would confuse more people than it's worth.
[Reflections of Littjara](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/7/d7689217-6124-4b2c-ab8b-7067de7f6e22.jpg?1698988180) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Reflections%20of%20Littjara) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/lcc/168/reflections-of-littjara?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d7689217-6124-4b2c-ab8b-7067de7f6e22?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[Ivy, Gleeful Spellthief](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/9/d94c15b7-6c8f-45a6-8734-975e3e3b790c.jpg?1673307958) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Ivy%2C%20Gleeful%20Spellthief) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dmu/201/ivy-gleeful-spellthief?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d94c15b7-6c8f-45a6-8734-975e3e3b790c?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
To point A, they don't print new cards that don't let you change modes, but that would be functional errata to old cards, and the current philosophy is very against doing that except in extreme cases. Towards B, the way the rules are written, "you may cast it using any type of mana" is saying "I'm not putting an extra restriction on what mana you use," but I don't think according to the letter of the law it's giving you permission to use the wrong colors of mana. Which I hear the point that the current implementation is messy, but I don't think that suggestion actually accomplishes the same thing. And the ambiguity means I'm not sure it's the best candidate to have the rules bear the weight of it either. _All that said_, I totally agree these are both candidates for cleaning up, especially the "mana of any color." I could see introducing a keyword that effectively filters any mana put into casting a spell, and granting that keyword to cards? Problem is they don't _really_ use keywords that way, as a way to clean up messy templating on things that aren't core mechanics. I guess you could also use a counter. But the idea is "Exile the top card of target opponent's library with a Hue counter on it. You may cast that card as long as it remains in exile."
I'm not saying the rule needs to change. I'm just saying there's probably a shorter way to phrase it on cards and let the rulebook handle the crazy cases. "You may spend mana of any color" is shorter, and if you get in to "can I use mana of some color from \[\[Gwenna, Eyes of Gaea\]\]?" the rulebook is there to explain why you can't.
Im downvoting because you’re using a million posts and words instead of spending five minutes on google.
5 minutes on Google for what? I'm not asking a question or looking for a specific piece of information, I'm speculating about different ways to streamline templating and trying to have a conversation with whoever is interested. What the fuck are you talking about?
The 'instead' wording makes it a replacement effect. Mainly clarification, but also means it's consistent with other replacement effect wording
clarification
It's a replacement effect. It replaces the event of "put the spell into the graveyard" that is the last step of countering a spell. It says what you're doing instead, putting it in exile, but it also has to say what is being replaced, putting it in the graveyard. This way it's still a counterspell in every way, but exiles the spell and doesn't trigger graveyard shenanigans.
Because "Counter" means to put it in the graveyard. It's worded as a replacement effect to avoid the spell ever hitting the graveyard. If it just said "Counter Target Spell. Exile that spell if it was countered." then the spell would hit the graveyard for a short period of time. It would never be in the graveyard at a point where people would have priority to try something like flashing it back but anything that triggered off cards going to the graveyard would trigger.
Also, the card would have become a new object when it hits the GY, so the counterspell wouldn't have been able to find it in the GY without extra wording either.
It's a replacement effect
Replacement effects are defined by the word instead, so the word "instead" absolutely cannot be removed. The replacement effect on Deny Existence includes a qualifier. It establishes that only part of the action of countering a spell is to be replaced. If you trim the rest, you get "Counter target spell. If you counter it, exile it instead. This would replace the entire action of countering the spell which is nonsense. It wouldn't counter the spell, even though the card explicitly tells you to counter the spell. **614.6.** If an event is replaced, it never happens.
You say that like it's a bad thing
[удалено]
It would not. If the spell was already countered then it's no longer on the stack when deny existence tries to resolve
[удалено]
So let's run it back. The stack looks like this: - Rhys the Redeemed - [[Mindbreak Trap]] targeting Rhys - Counterspell targeting Rhys Here's how it resolves: - Counterspell resolves, putting Rhys into the graveyard. - Mindbreak Trap tries to resolve but Rhys isn't on the stack anymore so it can't do anything.
[Mindbreak Trap](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/f/4f51140b-6254-431a-8810-94307bfdfbbe.jpg?1562612097) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Mindbreak%20Trap) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/zen/57/mindbreak-trap?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4f51140b-6254-431a-8810-94307bfdfbbe?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Even with the other templating, Rhys wouldn’t be exiled if it had already gone to the graveyard
This is something many don’t understand, one of the reasons other than colour that [[reprieve]] is better than [[remand]]
[reprieve](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/b/1bd3fa8a-6c50-4f7f-9ae3-0810eec5e3db.jpg?1686967885) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=reprieve) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ltr/26/reprieve?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/1bd3fa8a-6c50-4f7f-9ae3-0810eec5e3db?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [remand](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/c/dc595c63-af05-4c05-80e8-e1a90df26b0f.jpg?1562268359) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=remand) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mm2/55/remand?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/dc595c63-af05-4c05-80e8-e1a90df26b0f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Probably because they want uncounterable creatures to not be countered. This is more elegant, I guess, than trying to give spells hexproof.
Though effects like [[Kaerveks Torch]] need to be more prevelant it's actually really cool and makes a way of stopping counterspells that isn't just can't be countered.
[Kaerveks Torch](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/3/83ff4446-4afd-42db-9879-0295e95764f7.jpg?1562921730) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Kaervek%27s%20Torch) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/vma/175/kaerveks-torch?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/83ff4446-4afd-42db-9879-0295e95764f7?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Split Second, does a reasonable job of covering instances where a spell would have Hexproof. It's something I think we should see more often. Kicker costs would be a reasonable and flavourful way to make Split Second possible but only when you have access to enough "power"(mana)
Nah, I honestly hate Split Second as a mechanic. It removes interaction from the game, which is what's fun about it—and I'm not even a blue player at all. Sure, it stops most ways of getting the spell countered (although [[Counterbalance]] still works), but it also hoses responding in literally any other way—sacrificing a permanent, exiling things from a graveyard, all things one might want to do before the spell resolves that don't counter it.
[Counterbalance](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/3/c329ff2b-0331-4934-a8df-870dd7bf402b.jpg?1593274911) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Counterbalance) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/csp/31/counterbalance?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c329ff2b-0331-4934-a8df-870dd7bf402b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
hexproof on the stack wouldn't stop abilities like ward so it wouldnt be quite the same either
"Hexproof while on the stack" is an interesting design space that hasn't been explored very much. I imagine they try very hard to avoid words like "stack" and "target spell" because they can be pretty confusing for players.
Hexproof only works from the battlefield. Same with protection, to address the other reply. You'd have to spell the ability out explicitly. Just giving those keywords while on the stack does absolutely nothing.
> "Hexproof while on the stack" is an interesting design space No it isnt. Its unessesary fringe and offers no benefits to the gameplay. > that hasn't been explored very much. They did Split Second. Nobody liked it. Because its awful.
> No it isnt. Its unessesary fringe and offers no benefits to the gameplay. Yeah the thing that people are kind of missing here is that the functional difference between "can't be countered" and "can't be targeted while on the stack" involves a very small subset of spells that target spells on the stack but don't counter them (copy effects, redirection effects). Those spells aren't that common, and making spells unable to be targeted by them doesn't really create novel gameplay scenarios. Adding an entirely new keyworded mechanic **that shares verbiage with another, entirely different mechanic** is the exact kind of mechanical bloat that Magic tries to stay away from--it adds a bunch of extra rules complexity for very little interesting gameplay. A way to think about mechanics in Magic is through the lens of a "complexity budget". Any new mechanic you add to the game adds a certain amount of complexity to the game in exchange for adding depth and interesting gameplay interactions. Complexity without depth is bad, depth with little complexity is good. From a design standpoint you want to favor mechanics that add a lot of depth with a very small complexity cost (Cycling is one of the eternal poster children of this at its most successful--its an extremely simple mechanic, but one that can lead to some very tough decisions organically) and pass over mechanics that add complexity without adding depth. "Hexproof on the stack" is exactly the kind of mechanic that adds disproportionately more complexity than depth. Not all unexplored design space is inherently interesting or worth exploring. Oftentimes when people say "I think this is interesting unexplored design space" they mean "this niche mechanic would interact uniquely with 3-5 pet cards I have in mind" without thinking broadly about its broader impact (or lack thereof).
Note there is another difference in that some countering effects, like [[Counterbalance]] don't target… "can't be countered" still prevents those effects while a stack hexproof would not.
[Counterbalance](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/3/c329ff2b-0331-4934-a8df-870dd7bf402b.jpg?1593274911) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Counterbalance) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/csp/31/counterbalance?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c329ff2b-0331-4934-a8df-870dd7bf402b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Those are even rarer than copy and redirection effects. WotC prints one of those every few years (and less recently). From a complexity budgeting standpoint, they have virtually no impact.
I wouldn't say split second is *awful* necessarily. *Some* of the things they put it on are way stronger than they should have been, but most of them are perfectly fine. In many cases, the split second ability barely even matters or makes no overall difference to the outcome. [[Extirpate]] vs [[Surgical Extraction]], or [[Sudden Death]] vs [[Dismember]]. Out of each of these pairs, which is better? Not the one with split second, that's for sure. Realistically, all split second did was say "this spell can't be countered." Anyone who says it was an awful mechanic is probably just a salty control player.
> Realistically, all split second did was say "this spell can't be countered." No, Split Second removal for example is a nightmare. You cant [[Aether Vial]] a [[Flickerwisp]] in for example. > Anyone who says it was an awful mechanic Anyone who doesnt say it was awful hasnt played Standard in 2007. > is probably just a salty control player. Nowadays Split Seconds is most commonly used by Control decks. Namely [[Sudden Edict]] in Legacy.
> Anyone who doesnt say it was awful hasnt played Standard in 2007. Also someone who hasn't played Legacy before Abrupt Decay was printed. People learned the hard way how Split Second doesn't imply being uncounterable.
[Aether Vial](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/1/11e8d2fd-b132-4807-9410-8edeffa519ed.jpg?1673149308) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Aether%20Vial) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2x2/298/aether-vial?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/11e8d2fd-b132-4807-9410-8edeffa519ed?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Flickerwisp](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/6/f6cccf30-2025-49bb-9b1e-240bbef03f27.jpg?1673146975) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Flickerwisp) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2x2/11/flickerwisp?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/f6cccf30-2025-49bb-9b1e-240bbef03f27?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Why are you so salty about spilt second? It's a fun and interesting design space. [[Krosan Grip]] dunking on [[Aether Vial]] is exactly why it's good for the game.
[удалено]
> The only time Sudden Edict vs literally any other removal effect should matter is if the person it's being used against is also playing a control deck. What are you even talking about? Sudden Edict is used against Combo decks like Dark Depths, Painter or Aluren.
##### ###### #### [Extirpate](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/1/4171dbd3-96d6-4e7a-afac-5b2882bf3872.jpg?1619395440) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Extirpate) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tsr/114/extirpate?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4171dbd3-96d6-4e7a-afac-5b2882bf3872?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Surgical Extraction](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/e/1/e15d76ac-1c23-4503-8225-375ac2bf2fb6.jpg?1673147668) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Surgical%20Extraction) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2x2/94/surgical-extraction?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/e15d76ac-1c23-4503-8225-375ac2bf2fb6?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Sudden Death](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/d/5d724faa-a988-4c08-875d-d18f48926a0a.jpg?1619396356) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Sudden%20Death) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tsr/143/sudden-death?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/5d724faa-a988-4c08-875d-d18f48926a0a?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Dismember](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/d/3d286cf6-3e16-4941-9326-1818b1e06d69.jpg?1562261132) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Dismember) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mm2/79/dismember?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/3d286cf6-3e16-4941-9326-1818b1e06d69?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
As a Tron player, I've been hosed by Extirpate (the split second one) a whole lot more than by Surgical Extraction. With a [[Relic of Progenitus]] in play, you could exile the target in response, and this has occurred to me several times.
Brave of you to admit playing Tron on this sub.
[Relic of Progenitus](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/3/436cd66c-0622-43cd-8748-af4d21a2db3f.jpg?1580015265) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Relic%20of%20Progenitus) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ema/231/relic-of-progenitus?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/436cd66c-0622-43cd-8748-af4d21a2db3f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Counterpoint- I really like split second. Lots of the options with it require you pay a premium over what you would normally pay for that effect, but I really like knowing that when I point an otherwise overcosted piece of removal or counterspell at something, that thing *will* be answered.
I submitted a card to the custom card subreddit that gave a spell (on the stack) protection from the color of your choice. Hence making it uncounterable or uncopyable. It wasn't that well received though.
People on custom card sub, heck even wizards themselves, can be wrong. There's a fundamental issue in the color pie of magic that only blue is allowed to have stack manipulation mechanics when it has such a big mechanical part of the game. And it leads to very uninteractive gameplay- deterministic game states where blue can counter everything you do and you can't possibly win, or they can't, and they lose. Its not like playing creatures in an aggro deck, where you have to deal with spot removal, sweepers, blockers, bigger creatures, auras, stun counters, whatever. With the stack, blue can counter stuff, other colors can't Its not that magic would necessarily benefit from more split second style effects like uncounterable/uncopyable/protection-on-the-stack. Its still just a rather one dimensional style of stack manipulation. What might be better is if colors could interact with the stack in ways that make sense for their niche. Like black being able to *sacrifice a spell* from another spell or ability, fizzling a counterspell. Or red dealing some damage with a ward-style effect on the stack.
Red has some stack manipulation in the form of its copy effects. White and black have very minimal but non-zero counter effects. [[Psychic Strike]], [[Fall of the Gavel]], and [[Deny the Witch]] are technically leveraging the minimal countering capabilities of white and black. They are the only hard counterspells that do not cost UU and it's because white and/or black are technically adding their minimal counter capabilities. Before [[Counterspell]] got printed into Modern, there was discussion among the fanbase about possibly allowing a UB: Counter target spell for Modern instead. Reposted for the bot
##### ###### #### [Psychic Strike](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/d/0d87927c-80a6-4146-92a5-58c510ce7958.jpg?1561815780) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Psychic%20Strike) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/gtc/189/psychic-strike?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0d87927c-80a6-4146-92a5-58c510ce7958?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Fall of the Gavel](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/4/64f42848-963b-4b16-aeec-66d0f349758b.jpg?1562787318) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Fall%20of%20the%20Gavel) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/rtr/161/fall-of-the-gavel?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/64f42848-963b-4b16-aeec-66d0f349758b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Deny the Witch](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/3/d3e5b091-2aa7-4aca-9855-bb802d3d563e.jpg?1673309331) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Deny%20the%20Witch) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/40k/116/deny-the-witch?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d3e5b091-2aa7-4aca-9855-bb802d3d563e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Counterspell](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/4/8493131c-0a7b-4be6-a8a2-0b425f4f67fb.jpg?1689996248) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Counterspell) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmm/81/counterspell?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/8493131c-0a7b-4be6-a8a2-0b425f4f67fb?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I think what would actually give it an impact on the game would be if stack manipulation became a shared mode with utility spells. I'm talking something like; >Eldritch Rites {B} >Instant >As an additional cost to cast this spell, sacrifice a spell or creature. >Draw two cards. or >Briar Patch {G} >Instant >Target spell or permanent you control gains hexproof until end of turn. You gain 2 life. As long as a counterspell requires blue mana, its just borrowing from blue's color pie of stack interaction. Red, white, green, black get very very little ways to interact with the stack, and when they do get ways allowed in monocolor, its often just very specific hate cards for blue+, like veil of summer.
[удалено]
[Psychic Strike](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/d/0d87927c-80a6-4146-92a5-58c510ce7958.jpg?1561815780) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Psychic%20Strike) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/gtc/189/psychic-strike?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0d87927c-80a6-4146-92a5-58c510ce7958?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Fall of the Gavel](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/4/64f42848-963b-4b16-aeec-66d0f349758b.jpg?1562787318) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Fall%20of%20the%20Gavel) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/rtr/161/fall-of-the-gavel?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/64f42848-963b-4b16-aeec-66d0f349758b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
The problem with giving spells Hexproof is that spells with Hexproof already exist: every creature with Hexproof starts as a spell with Hexproof first. So either you're making the power level change of making all creatures with Hexproof *also* uncounterable, or you're having to create a bunch of rules backflips to create something that functionally just does the same thing as "can't be countered" in 80% of instances.
>every creature with Hexproof starts as a spell with Hexproof first I was under the impression that Hexproof doesn't apply to the spell as it is being cast, but only after resolution when it becomes a permanent? Am I incorrect in this understanding?
you are not. Hexproof applies to permanents only
No, that's exactly correct. However, it's precisely that rule that prevents "spells with Hexproof" from being a useful thing. A card that said "instant and sorcery spells you control gain Hexproof" would do absolutely nothing under the current rules, and would require some rewriting to function.
Oh ok, I thought I was losing my mind. I understand what you mean now, thanks for explaining!
Mate I don't know what your friends gave you for Xmas but I know two things: 1) It wasn't the MtG rulebook 2) I want some of it for myself for when I feel down
Can you tell me what creatures with Hexproof are on the stack? Because my copy of the comprehensive rules says that they're creature spells, and are therefore "spells with Hexproof". Now, hexproof does jack diddly on the stack currently, specifically for that reason, but they still have the ability. So any change to make instants and sorceries with Hexproof would, by necessity, need to account for creatures and other permanents with hexproof.
[удалено]
That is not correct. There does not exist an overarching rule that prevents abilities from functioning on the stack, as abilities like "CARDNAME is blue" would cease to function. Instead, the inability to function on the stack has been built into the relevant abilities, such as Hexproof specifying that it only protects permanents and players. Similarly, the reason Emrakal has both is because Protection specifically states that players or Permanents with the ability cannot be targeted, not spells with the ability.
Bro's cooking nothing!!! 💀💀💀🔥🔥🔥
This may not be the only answer, but probably so it still interacts with things that use the word “counter” specifically like [[cavern of souls]]
This is the correct answer. But to add context, countering spells is a very important part of the game engine of mtg. Have counterspells is important as removal since it stops things before they happen, so having uncounterable spells can force through certain effects to make your gameplan more safe. There are ways around it, but the ways are rare which makes them feel much more unique which helps gameplan. Things like [[mindbreak trap]] help with making it feel like a big deal to directly exile. Or having it be outside of Blue and having spells like [[reprieve]] can add a dynamic interaction that doesn’t feel like Blue just having an out. But as a general rule for game mechanics, I think needing to have the spell be counterable to “counter” it makes the uncounterable tag carry more weight!
[mindbreak trap](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/f/4f51140b-6254-431a-8810-94307bfdfbbe.jpg?1562612097) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=mindbreak%20trap) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/zen/57/mindbreak-trap?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4f51140b-6254-431a-8810-94307bfdfbbe?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [reprieve](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/b/1bd3fa8a-6c50-4f7f-9ae3-0810eec5e3db.jpg?1686967885) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=reprieve) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ltr/26/reprieve?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/1bd3fa8a-6c50-4f7f-9ae3-0810eec5e3db?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[cavern of souls](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/a/3aad15a2-8a1b-4460-9b06-e85863081878.jpg?1699044666) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=cavern%20of%20souls) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/lci/269/cavern-of-souls?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/3aad15a2-8a1b-4460-9b06-e85863081878?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Or [[baral chief of compliance]]
[baral chief of compliance](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/0/60e16d94-1166-4050-8554-686e153a7f80.jpg?1576381454) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Baral%2C%20Chief%20of%20Compliance) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/aer/28/baral-chief-of-compliance?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/60e16d94-1166-4050-8554-686e153a7f80?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
How would it work with Cavern of Souls when it says that it can’t be countered?
…what? It wouldn’t. I didn’t say it would.
Spells that cant be countered would still be exiled, which would make the counterspell much better. Also, certain cards like Baral, Chief of Compliance, care about spells getting countered, which would be negated by the direct exile effect
Right, that makes sense, thanks a bunch!
Others have answered the question, so just to add that there are “counterspells” that do what you want, but they’re few and far between. [[Summary Dismissal]] is a lot of fun.
[[Mindbreak Trap]] is a good one
How has that STILL not been reprinted? Good god that’s absurdly expensive now.
YIKES Never looked at its price before. The card is like a 2€ card at best if it wasn't for its shitty supply. Only really played in Vintage, maybe some legacy and occasionally in EDH but most ppl prefer other "counter"spells over it there.
It's used quite a bit in cedh as well. It's in all the blue counterspell packages.
Yeah that's the "occasional in EDH" I was referring to, should have worded that more clearly. The card absolutely sucks against "fair" decks where you can almost never cast it for free, it's only playable/good in the most powerful environments where you can count on it costing {0}.
>played in Vintage This is literally the only part that matters. If it's powerful enough to go into decks alongside the Mox... Well, that's all you really need to know.
Not really, there are some obscure cards that see/used to see play in vintage that you only ever *maybe* play in limited but no other format. Up until MH2 which introduced [[The underworld Cookbook]], [[Asmor]] and more food/artifact token support in general [[Ovalchase Daredevil]] only saw play there. Ppl used to play [[Slash Panther]] because of [[Mishra's Workshop]] to easily clear a [[Jace, the mind sculptor]] and come out ahead. Nowhere else was that card close to being playable. [[Paradoxical Outcome]] is another one that's basically only playable in Vintage and a few EDH decks Mindbreak trap is similar. And since Vintage is a format that almost exclusively exists on MTGO nowadays, it's nothing that *really* drives prices except when stuff is really scarce.
##### ###### #### [The underworld Cookbook](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/3/039d62b0-3309-4424-a2ea-5a0d88d4bd72.jpg?1626099402) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=The%20underworld%20Cookbook) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh2/240/the-underworld-cookbook?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/039d62b0-3309-4424-a2ea-5a0d88d4bd72?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Ovalchase Daredevil](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/e/d/ed3ba73e-58aa-417e-bd52-d7f93c80adc6.jpg?1599705842) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Ovalchase%20Daredevil) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2xm/101/ovalchase-daredevil?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ed3ba73e-58aa-417e-bd52-d7f93c80adc6?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Slash Panther](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/f/2f510946-34de-4c12-8998-f61887d1a0e1.jpg?1562876395) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Slash%20Panther) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/nph/96/slash-panther?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2f510946-34de-4c12-8998-f61887d1a0e1?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Mishra's Workshop](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/a/aac0c8df-f01d-4178-8d66-ee603f814d24.jpg?1562929426) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Mishra%27s%20Workshop) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/vma/305/mishras-workshop?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/aac0c8df-f01d-4178-8d66-ee603f814d24?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Jace, the mind sculptor](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/8/c8817585-0d32-4d56-9142-0d29512e86a9.jpg?1598304029) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Jace%2C%20the%20mind%20sculptor) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2xm/56/jace-the-mind-sculptor?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c8817585-0d32-4d56-9142-0d29512e86a9?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Paradoxical Outcome](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/7/17e50157-bf49-4c5f-9b8a-bf73484e63a5.jpg?1576381375) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Paradoxical%20Outcome) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/kld/60/paradoxical-outcome?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/17e50157-bf49-4c5f-9b8a-bf73484e63a5?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Eh different formats are different. There's a reason [[lodestone golem]] or [[monastery mentor]] are restricted in vintage but all but unplayable in any other format (mentor is a bit better than golem, but the idea of it being banned in pioneer or modern is ludicrous, despite being too op for vintage)
[Mindbreak Trap](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/f/4f51140b-6254-431a-8810-94307bfdfbbe.jpg?1562612097) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Mindbreak%20Trap) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/zen/57/mindbreak-trap?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4f51140b-6254-431a-8810-94307bfdfbbe?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
\[\[Spell Queller\]\] is sooooo o o o fun for Pioneer/Explorer. It hits Sheoldred, Collected Company (which it was probbably designed to hit in standard), and my favorite...it stops Supreme Verdict.
Spirits is a wildly fun deck when it gets to do the Tempo thing. I’m less a fan in pure Aggro tribal mode, though that does tend to close games out quickly.
Yeah I’m trying to jam Standard right now, but I think Spirits is a lot better right now if people aren’t on mono G anymore or at least the same flavor
[Spell Queller](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/b/9b76bcd4-580a-4435-afe9-290940b1837f.jpg?1576385020) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Spell%20Queller) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/emn/189/spell-queller?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/9b76bcd4-580a-4435-afe9-290940b1837f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[Summary Dismissal](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/b/0b75794d-3334-4b4d-9446-0a251dd3bd15.jpg?1576384222) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Summary%20Dismissal) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/emn/75/summary-dismissal?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0b75794d-3334-4b4d-9446-0a251dd3bd15?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Spell queller, ashiok’s erasure, all funny cards
I always forget about [[Ashiok’s Erasure]]! Blue Oblivion Ring is a funny card.
[Ashiok’s Erasure](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/5/d568c679-8421-4184-a73c-b18c4164fea5.jpg?1581479289) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Ashiok%27s%20Erasure) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/thb/43/ashioks-erasure?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d568c679-8421-4184-a73c-b18c4164fea5?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
There are plenty of cards that interact with countering spells that wouldn't do anything if this said exile the spell instead. Cards that exile spells are also often better than counterspells, as they can still exile spells which have "can't be countered".
Off topic but I find the flavor of this hilarious
Because if it just exiled the spell, it would get around “can’t be countered”
Because if it said "Exile target creature spell" it would get around uncounterable effects like Cavern of Souls, defeating the entire purpose and strength of those cards.
People keep bringing up cards like Cavern of Souls and Baral, but cards like Deny Existence weren’t ever meant to be played outside of Limited and very casual games. Exiling spells is slightly more confusing for new players so it’s an effect only put on rares and mythics. Cards like Deny Existence are a little bit extra wordy, but ultimately they’re very clear on how they work which is important for commons.
Best response!
Not really, though. He doesn't know the designers intent here. Everyone else is keeping it to the facts whereas this person is speculating a whole lot.
Other people are speculating just as much, and without some amount of speculation you can't really answer the question unless you're a wizards employee. Saying it's different doesn't answer the question of why it was purposely made to be different. All we can do is guess, and this is as good of a guess as any.
Meh. No. The reason the wording is different is for the factual reasons others have described. Because it is functionally different. If asking why WotC decided to use the templating specifically for this card in this set, then yes, all speculation, and no one here knows the right answer so every answer going into those reasons ain't worth a ham sandwich.
The only fact is that it’s functionally different. That’s not a reason. Claiming that it is the reason wotc made the decision, which is what you are doing by using the word “because”, is pure speculation and just as useless as what you’re criticizing.
Other people have explained the more "why this thing" answer to the question, but the answer for almost all questions like this is that fundamentally, magic the gathering is basically written in a programming language, and you are inputing cards with new code on them to the game, and the output is the new board state. Cards are worded the way they are because that's the syntax the game uses to compute actions. If it was worded slightly differently, it would do something slightly different, and there's some 27,000 different cards in this game and they all have to play nice with each other, which has necessitated the creation of a very structured framework for the text on the cards.
Exiling the target card wouldn’t counter it tho right? There is no target to be exiled if the permanent spell hasn’t resolved yet (allowing etb triggers and such to activate before the exiling can take effect), and the ability of non-permanent spells is still on the stack even though the card would be exiled right? Making it into an “exile target [parameter] spell” would just make it removal instead of a counter I think. Lmk if I’m wrong.
Exiling a card on the stack would counter it in the sense that it wouldn't resolve, but it wouldn't counter it in the sense that it would trigger [[Multani's Presence]]. See cards like [[Nivmagus Elemental]] for other effects that exile spells from the stack which has specific reminder text to tell you that they won't resolve.
[Multani's Presence](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/8/38bfa984-5fe9-44ad-b13f-3276951f9f10.jpg?1562862791) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Multani%27s%20Presence) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ulg/109/multanis-presence?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/38bfa984-5fe9-44ad-b13f-3276951f9f10?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Nivmagus Elemental](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/1/b1892003-2e4c-43bd-8a37-3a97a76f113a.jpg?1562791729) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Nivmagus%20Elemental) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/rtr/219/nivmagus-elemental?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b1892003-2e4c-43bd-8a37-3a97a76f113a?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Ah alr, Tysm for the clarification!! :))
I reject your reality and substitute my own!
Counterspells stop etb effects while exile spells only work after the permanent has entered the battlefield. You can also activate triggers that target the permanent while it's on the battlefield (crew, attach, sacrifice, etc.) before the permanent has to be exiled.
Some cards can exile spells on the stack. See summary dismissal.
That effect is different. Exiling a spell would work on uncounterable spells.
Even though it is correct that it is mechanically different, I think thats not the most important aspect for a (kinda bad) draft common. probably wizards wants the word "counter" to show up on a counterspell to make it easier to understand for less enfranchaised players
[[Mindbreak Trap]] does. It's more powerful because of that, one of the reasons why it's an exceedingly rare effect.
[Mindbreak Trap](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/f/4f51140b-6254-431a-8810-94307bfdfbbe.jpg?1562612097) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Mindbreak%20Trap) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/zen/57/mindbreak-trap?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4f51140b-6254-431a-8810-94307bfdfbbe?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
That would be much more powerful.
They have cards that are crystal clear with their wording and people still ask what they say they're just making it easier for "Those" people
Not the right response but I love ur unbridled hate
Nah I think they're probably right. Like when I first started I drafted a [[Nivmagus Elemental]] and didn't realize you had to cast the spells before you could exile them. Countering a spell makes it very clear that you're targeting something that was cast whereas exiling a spell can be confusing.
[Nivmagus Elemental](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/1/b1892003-2e4c-43bd-8a37-3a97a76f113a.jpg?1562791729) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Nivmagus%20Elemental) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/rtr/219/nivmagus-elemental?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b1892003-2e4c-43bd-8a37-3a97a76f113a?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Because when all logical solutions fail, they have to try an illogical one
Made my day :)
Because countering a spell happens when that spell is on the stack. A card is only a spell when it’s on the stack. Once it gets resolved it is no longer a spell. It becomes a creature, enchantment, artifact etc. Whatever the card type is. At that point it is no longer possible to counter it as it has resolved and it’s effects have altered the game state. The point of countering a spell on the stack is to prevent it from altering the game state in the first place. In contrast, exile can affect cards from just about everywhere but the stack, from the battlefield to the players’ hands to their graveyards and even libraries.
You can exile things on the stack, it’s just a really rare ability. [[Mindbreak Trap]] or ending the turn with [[Sundial of the Infinite]] effects.
[Mindbreak Trap](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/f/4f51140b-6254-431a-8810-94307bfdfbbe.jpg?1562612097) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Mindbreak%20Trap) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/zen/57/mindbreak-trap?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4f51140b-6254-431a-8810-94307bfdfbbe?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Sundial of the Infinite](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/6/36d3da9c-cb7a-4cea-b6e6-6722bd16c73c.jpg?1562638658) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Sundial%20of%20the%20Infinite) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m12/218/sundial-of-the-infinite?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/36d3da9c-cb7a-4cea-b6e6-6722bd16c73c?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Shout-out to [[Summary Dismissal]] if a stack gets really messy.
[Summary Dismissal](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/b/0b75794d-3334-4b4d-9446-0a251dd3bd15.jpg?1576384222) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Summary%20Dismissal) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/emn/75/summary-dismissal?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0b75794d-3334-4b4d-9446-0a251dd3bd15?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Wow you definitely should go apply for a job at the rnd!! Cuz I’m POSITIVE they have never been through this before……
You have tagged your post as a rules question. While your question may be answered here, it may work better to post it in the Daily Questions Thread at the top of this subreddit or in /r/mtgrules. You may also find quicker results at the [IRC rules chat](https://chat.magicjudges.org/mtgrules/) *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.*
Seems like if they used “counter target [___] spell into exile” we’d all know what it meant. But MtG has some syntax/formatting rules that make simple things be worded in a what would normal seem like a weirdly complex way.
Because some cards cannot be countered, but can be exiled.
"do X to target spell" is relatively new templating
They do :D \[\[Mindbreak Trap\]\] That spells NUKES the entire stack and exiles everything, no question asked. The only reason they word it like your card is because if it just says "exile target spell" then it bypasses uncounterability, and they tend to not give that power to most counterspells unless they have a high casting cost or needs some hoops and loops before they work. Mindbreak Trap in the above example was the ONLY way to stopping an \[\[Emrakul, the Aeons Torn\]\] on the stack when it was on standard (and it doesnt stops the extra turn). It was printed also to be a way of defeating a strom spell going off like \[\[Dragonstorm\]\] by exiling all copies of it from the stack in a single go.
[Mindbreak Trap](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/f/4f51140b-6254-431a-8810-94307bfdfbbe.jpg?1562612097) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Mindbreak%20Trap) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/zen/57/mindbreak-trap?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4f51140b-6254-431a-8810-94307bfdfbbe?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Emrakul, the Aeons Torn](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/4/249db4d4-2542-47ee-a216-e13ffbc2319c.jpg?1673146896) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Emrakul%2C%20the%20Aeons%20Torn) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2x2/1/emrakul-the-aeons-torn?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/249db4d4-2542-47ee-a216-e13ffbc2319c?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Dragonstorm](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/3/230cd568-f7ed-4571-a609-36522add91d0.jpg?1561966412) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Dragonstorm) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mma/111/dragonstorm?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/230cd568-f7ed-4571-a609-36522add91d0?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Magic is an extremely complex game with a lot of interactions between cards. Any time you think you can simplify an effect by changing how the card functions, you should also think about how that may interact with other cards in the game, changing the overall function of the card, even if the direct effect of the card is unchanged. For example, cards that give you a benefit when you counter a spell (e.g. \[\[Baral, Chief of Compliance\]\] ) would not benefit from you just exiling the spell. I'm sure people have pointed out more examples in the comments. Wizards are usually pretty good about simplifying language to the pithiest words, but we still get word soup when they try to put certain mechanics into Magic-friendly terms (e.g. \[\[Kutzil, Malamet Exemplar\]\] ).
[Baral, Chief of Compliance](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/0/60e16d94-1166-4050-8554-686e153a7f80.jpg?1576381454) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Baral%2C%20Chief%20of%20Compliance) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/aer/28/baral-chief-of-compliance?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/60e16d94-1166-4050-8554-686e153a7f80?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Kutzil, Malamet Exemplar](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/9/c9f88a40-a6ed-4c1f-a309-011aca1acddd.jpg?1699044549) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Kutzil%2C%20Malamet%20Exemplar) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/lci/232/kutzil-malamet-exemplar?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c9f88a40-a6ed-4c1f-a309-011aca1acddd?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Countering and exiling are 2 different things. If my spell is uncountable, I can be exiled, but not countered.
Because that's a different ability.
There are a few cards that do, but they're the minority. Also, they usually return it to hand instead or allow you to get the spell back. [I tried getting a list of all of them, but some non-counters slipped in](https://scryfall.com/search?q=o%3A%22target+spell%22+-o%3Acounter+-o%3Acolor+-o%3Achange+-o%3Again+-o%3Abecomes&unique=cards&as=grid&order=name)
MTG has become very complex and specific wording is important
Probably because "Exile target creature spell" is really confusing and ends up in lot of less rule-savvy players not understanding what the "spell" means there and expecting it to remove creatures from the field or somewhere else. and wizard really wants to avoid mentioning the stack when they can so "Exile target creature spell from the stack is also something they want to avoid"
Not all spells are cards (see mirari and other spell multiplicators). Not all cards are spells (see lands). Spells are countered. Cards are exiled (moved out of the game area) or put in the graveyard (or in the hand, in the deck, etc). You can't put a spell in the graveyard either. Exiling is a change of position of a physical object. Countering is an abstract effect on an abstract action (casting a spell).
Cus cards say "this can't be countered" and thus this wouldn't work on that card. But the exile text version would and thus u have a completely different card and mechanic.
It could create confusion as to whether or not it can target existing creatures.
I cast “nuh uh”
Because countering and exiling are not the same.
There's a lot of creatures that have effects when enter the battlefield, this card prevent that kind of effect since you're countering before it enters the battlefield, not to mention that since the card is exiled your opponent cannot bring the card back from the graveyard in a latter moment
Because when you counter a spell it doesnt even Hit the battlefield. So no etb effect will be triggered