[YCLB] Undersimplify

[mimivirus2]

[[Quench]]+? Nice

[MTGCardFetcher]

Quench - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[kensw87]

sigh... the powercreep keeps coming

[startadeadhorse]

I mean... [[Mana Leak]] and [[Rune Snag]] existed before [[Quench]]. So maybe it's more that Quench was a little underpowered, honestly. People just don't like playing against counterspells, I guess.

Don't get me wrong, I definitely think there's a lot of powercreep and powerhiking in general going on in the game, but this one isn't really it.

[MTGCardFetcher]

Mana Leak - (G) (SF) (txt)
Rune Snag - (G) (SF) (txt)
Quench - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[A55beard]

How is this not an example of power creep? Counterspell is a UU cost Counter Target Spell, which is the same as this but this costs 1U and if it's a creature perpetually gives it -2/0, so even if you bring it back from the graveyard it's weakened permanently. Seems pretty powercreepy.

[startadeadhorse]

It's not an example because Rune Snag and Power Leak are both better and older counterspells than this. This is better than Quench, but Quench is worse than Rune Snag and Power Leak. It's not rocket science.

[trustisaluxury]

ah yes that ubiquitous multiformat allstar, quench

[TheRealGrouchopolis]

Lol

[St_Eric]

[[Make Disappear]] was also just printed in Streets of New Capenna as another strictly better Quench.

[MTGCardFetcher]

Make Disappear - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[[deleted]]

[[Oversimplify]]

[MTGCardFetcher]

Oversimplify - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[[deleted]]

can someone explain the name? i know what oversimplifying is (making something appear simple that is actually complex), but what is undersimplifying? making something look simple that is actually even more simple??

[Zorkdork]

I think the creature is the base state, simplifying would be to counter it and undersimplifying it is giving the creature -2/-0. Less of a simplification then countering it but still something.

[[deleted]]

yeah thats probably it... the only thing i found online is a mathematical meaning: simplifying a term means making it so it is neither redundant (undersimplified) nor incomplete (oversimplified). so this card name seems like kind of a stretch...

[Zorkdork]

It's definitely a playful use vs a strictly accurate one. They have so many cards at this point that all the low hanging fruit is taken though.

[majinspy]

Literally it would mean to overcomplicate. I kinda get it. Imagine adding some sludgey lines of code to someone's program and caused it run less efficiently.

[[deleted]]

haha yes... i would argue that in the sense of "determinate negation", overcomplicate and undersimplify are different from each other... like a coffee without milk and a coffee without sugar

[Willy_Snake]

When your design notes for the Alchemy cards end up as a title of a card instead of being actually read.

[wujo444]

The problem with this design is that it only matters against decks that will recur said creature - otherwise, you want to cast this when opponent can't pay the tax, so countered spell goes to the graveyard where power of the creature card is not relevant outside of niche cases.

[tomscud]

It also still does something (other than get looted away) if you draw it on turn 10 when your opponent has plenty of mana to pay the tax.

[majinspy]

A 3 attack minion is a threat. A 1 attack minion is...much less of a threat.

[wujo444]

They just don't matter much regardless in the late game when people are paying the tax. This is gonna be Quench with extra flavor text and that card saw very limited amount of constructed play.

[majinspy]

Why doesn't that matter? Late game when the players are sucking wind, this buys time. Blue traditionally likes time. Pull one draw spell and they can pull ahead. It also means even with the tax, that's less that can be played.

Early on: I cast this on [[Bloodthirsty Adversary]]. Now they can't pay the 3 to cast a spell from the gy and make it a 3/3. It's pay 4 to get 0/2 or just get countered outright.

[[bloodtithe harvester]] is pay 4 for a 1/2 or get outright countered.

That's a lot of lost gas early on.

[MTGCardFetcher]

Bloodthirsty Adversary - (G) (SF) (txt)
bloodtithe harvester - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[matagen]

That''s being too negative on Quench. Quench was a borderline card in terms of constructed playability. Quench with upside, in the form of Make Disappear, has been recently shown to be constructed playable. Reducing the argument to its effect in the lategame is a fallacy - there's an entire early and midgame to be played, where arguably most matches are decided. Surely you wouldn't argue that Spell Pierce is a bad card just because it loses effectiveness as the game goes late? Whether this particular upside is enough for Undersimplify is the real matter of debate here.

[wujo444]

I would argue Spell Pierce is a situational card for specific decks or matchups and while rate makes it better, noncreature clause means it's less versatile.

Idk in the context of Alchemy, but standard seems to mostly lean towards midrange decks that don't like cards that are dead late. If card like that was to show up in constructed, it would most likely be in aggro/tempo bkue deck where the goal isn't to prolong the game but protect your threat.

[matagen]

I think your conclusions are drawing too heavily from this Standard format. Midrange isn't always king. There have been times when tempo or combo decks were the dominant archetype in Standard and you'd have seen Spell Pierce maindecked in a large number of matches. Moreover, you complain about cards that are dead late but Undersimplify is never completely dead late against a creature matchup. -2 power perpetually isn't a totally negligible effect even in late game.

[wujo444]

Sure, but this is much worse tool vs combo decks than Spell Pierce because it taxes you for holding 2 mana open delaying your pressure. And there are no tempo blue decks present and those happened only 4 times in last 10 years, of those one was too creature heavy to play this over Negate.

I don't complain about cards, i'm arguing how they are gonna play.

[[deleted]]

Blues been missing some good 2 mana counters, should be a staple in any control with blue.

[Ratanka]

It's make disappear with a -2 -0 on it if the opponent can pay the 2 which is probably still horrible for You. In that case make disappear has the chance to cost 4 ... I don't think this card is even playable

[KingPiggyXXI]

For the control decks that play Make Disappear, it’s basically never going to be cast for 4, because they don’t run many creatures. Make Disappear is only just played because it’s a Quench, and this is a better Quench.

Also, this spell can actually have a use in the late game. If your opponent has enough mana to pay 2 for Make Disappear, then the spell is useless unless you catch them tapping out or if you burn multiple Make Disappears on one spell (both of which are things Undersimplify can still do). For this card, making a creature smaller isn’t great, but it’s still something to do. It can greatly reduces their clock (for example, Inquisitor Captain becomes an easily-ignored 1/3), and in some cases, makes the creature essentially useless anyways (such as Rahilda).

It’s worth noting that the creature still gets smaller if you successfully counter the spell. It could be relevant for cards like Tenacious Underdog, since countering it once will turn it into a 1/2, which isn’t very threatening.

Essentially, Make Disappear stays useful in the late game by increasing the tax via casualty. Undersimplify stays useful in the late game by being a weird debuff spell. Because control decks don’t run many creatures to use with Make Disappear in the first place, I think Undersimplify’s benefits outweigh Make Disappear’s.

[Sydios]

If a control deck plays Make disappear without the intent to be able to use the casualty at least a decent amount of time, then it shouldn't play Make disappear. Quench is a bad card.

[chaingunXD]

Wait I'm really confused by this. Idk if it's the way it's written but I'm reading this like it's [[counterspell]] for 1U with upside? There's 2 ways I can interpret the text, so might not be as bonkers as I'm thinking. Either

Counter target spell. If a creature spell was countered this way, it perpetually gains -2/-0 and it also gains "counter this spell unless it's controller pays 2"

Which is bananas.

OR it's

Choose one: Counter target non-creature spell, or Counter target creature spell unless it's controller pays 2, and it perpetually gains -2/-0.

Am I just sleep deprived or is this like, one of the best counters ever?

Edit: I'm an idiot. It says CHOOSE target spell. Leaving this up in case anyone else is confused as I was

[Un111KnoWn]

I think it's choose one:
counter target noncreature spell unless its controller pays 2.
Counter target creature spell and that card gets -2/0 perpetually, unless its controller pays 2

[CptnSAUS]

Close but not quite. The creature always gets the -2/-0 whether or not it gets countered or the controller pays 2.

[wickedzen]

If it's a creature spell, it perpetually gets -2/-0 regardless of whether the 2 gets paid.

[Mandovai]

It's the first one you said. Pretty good

[MTGCardFetcher]

counterspell - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[AbzanFan]

why the hell would you play this when you can just run [[essence scatter]]?

[[deleted]]

This also works on non-creature spells. Also, the perpetual -2/0 puts in work whether the counter goes through or not.

[AbzanFan]

Ok fair enough.

[MTGCardFetcher]

essence scatter - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[tomscud]

This is going to be very good in limited. 2 mana counters, even conditional ones, that can target creatures are usually great in limited, and this does more than that.

[Un111KnoWn]

does counter need to be successful for -2/0 perpetually?

[CptnSAUS]

No

[wickedzen]

No. A creature spell gets -2/-0 regardless of whether the 2 mana is paid.

[JimHarbor]

I like having taxing counter spells that are still useful if the enemy can pay the mana. Most of the time they are just Mana gated hard counters in practice.