top of page
Search
Writer's pictureEmiki Ichimaru

MTG Concept: Red Counterspell

So I'm completely hooked on MTG at the moment, and I was talking to my friends about how it would be cool if Red had a counterspell.


Naturally, the idea was met with opposition, as counterspells aren't in Red's wheelhouse nor is it in their nature to be calculative or reactive. It was originally meant to be a joke, but the more I thought about it the more I felt like it was possible, so within a night, I came up with what I think is a good iteration of a Red Counterspell.


I'll show you the card first, then let you know how it came about.


Fire God’s Fury [XXXRRRR]


You may sacrifice any number of Mountains when casting this spell. Each Mountain sacrificed this way pays for [3].


Counter target spell of mana value X.


Flavour text (important): YOU THINK I CANNOT COUNTERSPELL YOU HUH



So the largest problem was definitely in flavour, because it makes little sense at first for red to have any counterspells at all. Then I remembered all the times counterspells made me angry, and I suddenly realised anger is primary in red. So we were talking about red being so angry, it could counter a spell.


There definitely needed to be some divine intervention for this to happen, because we dont expect goblins and dwarves to be proficient at magic. So that was how the name came to be.


The next problem was the casting cost. Now traditionally in blue, a counterspell would cost 1UU and usually bring another small benefit. Neutralize has cycling, Saw It Coming has foretell, etc.


Obviously, changing the colours to 1RR and calling it a day isnt it, so I drew a comparison from the casting costs of enchantment destruction. Green has variety of spells which destroy at enchantments at an average mana value of 2, (and light of hope goes brrrr but i'll pretend that doesnt exist in the meantime) and black does the job at a bad rate.


But when it does, as in Feed the Swarm, it came at a life cost. So I liked the idea of having a 'coloured cost', and red happens to have self land destruction as a 'coloured cost', which I knew I had to implement.


Self land destruction is something which applies particularly well for this counterspell, because it really hampers red's growth in future turns. This also means that even if you run 4 of this counterspell, you couldnt realistically cast it more than once, unless you were playing ramp.


And that is the point of red after all, right? You're paying an unreasonable price for power now. I'd like to envision Fire God's Fury as a 'finisher card' in an aggro deck.


Imagine RDW vs UW Control. It is turn 5 for UW on the draw, and RDW has lethal in one turn, so the UW player whips out Doomskar, attempting to wipe the board and stabilize. It is then the RDW player plays Fire God's Fury, paying RRRR and sacrificing all 5 of his mountains, and counters the Doomskar. RDW then untaps on turn 6 and swings for lethal.


There are many details which need to be covered. Let us assume, that on RDW's turn 5, RDW attacked with 4 mana up, and UW has 2 mana and a Negate in hand.


At this point, the RDW player knows that an Embercleave can be met with a counterspell. His options are 1) Don't play around Negate, playing Embercleave for lethal on this turn. 2) Play around Negate but potentially losing his board to a Doomskar next turn.


Now, we know what happens in this example because I created an ideal scenario for my card to shine. But, I want to bring your attention to what it means for both players.


For RDW, he now has the option of gaining a mana advantage. Because RDW only can play one threat until his next turn, while UW potentially has 2 answers on each turn, by simply passing the turn, RDW has effectively dealt with one of UW's answers (this is basically the whole point of flash, but anyways).


Now what about the UW player? He can look even further back to when he chose to answer a threat with 2 mana than foretell his Doomskar. What is the UW player playing around? Foretelling a Doomskar instead of answering a threat would play around Fire God's Fury (being able to play negate and doomskar on turn 5 together), but leave him at and even lower life total as a result of the unanswered threat (and a potentially earlier Embercleave).


So, if UW went for this line, he would survive on turn 5 with a Doomskar into Fire God's Fury into Negate play. Now RDW is in omega big trouble, like, even more than RDW would normally be after a board wipe. Man's got no lands, and his last hope is essentially topdecking 1 mana instant speed lethal plus he needs a land in his hand. That's not a nice situation to be in, but UW did cut corners early to bet on this line.


There is this case of aggro vs. control, but in some late game scenarios, I wouldnt mind counterspelling an Ugin with a bunch of Mountains if it means I protect my board. It's a huge price, but it still can be worth it.


This is the extra layer of mind games which I think a Red counterspell should being to the field. Unlike a certain red legendary artifact with flash and cost reduction, I think having choices for both players is a much healthier way to introduce power into red, and I think Fire God's Fury fits the bill.


Conclusion


Its a long post for a shitty card, but I think this helps to clarify what I saw in a Red Counterspell. And yes, the flavor text is super important.


- Emiki






17 views

Recent Posts

See All

Night of Oblivion Patch 1.38

no way two patches in a year download here: Night of Oblivion v1.38 Human AI Macro Update for the uninitiated, the warcraft 3 melee ai...

Comments


bottom of page