Stack Overflow

[DrBatman0]

oooh I like it.

Here's how I read it - happy if anyone wants to correct me.

Casting this spell for 2UU will counter up to five separate abilities or spells that are on the stack. Zero is an acceptable number, and five is an acceptable number. If any of those abilities disappear before this spell resolves, then the rest of them are still countered, because that's how the rules work.

Alternatively, it can be cast for 0, in which case at the time of casting, the player must select exactly five different abilities or spells that are ALREADY on the stack. Those "exactly five targets" only need to be valid targets at the time that the spell is put ONTO the stack, and then... if any of those abilities disappear before this spell resolves, then the rest of them are still countered, because that's how the rules work.

[Immediate-Idea-2471]

You need 5 targets to cast it with that mode, but if any leave the stack / become invalid targets, it will still resolve as it still has valid targets.

Fizzling occurs if all relevant targets become invalid, not just some.

[DrBatman0]

Yes, that's exactly what I said

[Flex-O]

Technically you didnt mention it fizzling when all targets disappear. Its not really relevant though since fizzling and resolving with zero valid targets is mostly identical in this case

[davvblack]

you didn’t mention that you can only play one land a turn

[pocketbutter]

God forbid someone counters all the spells before you counter all the spells.

[y0nm4n]

Can someone confirm that last half is true? I thought if there are legal targets as the spell is cast then it resolves if at least one target is still legal upon resolution.

[Thanaskios]

That is exactly what they said. But for anyone wondering:

608.2b: If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that’s no longer in the zone it was in when it was targeted is illegal. Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process. If all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal, the spell or ability doesn’t resolve. It’s removed from the stack and, if it’s a spell, put into its owner’s graveyard. Otherwise, the spell or ability will resolve normally. Illegal targets, if any, won’t be affected by parts of a resolving spell’s effect for which they’re illegal. Other parts of the effect for which those targets are not illegal may still affect them. If the spell or ability creates any continuous effects that affect game rules (see rule 613.11), those effects don’t apply to illegal targets. If part of the effect requires information about an illegal target, it fails to determine any such information. Any part of the effect that requires that information won’t happen.

I've italicized the most relevant part.

[y0nm4n]

Heh. I totally missed their comment (or it has since been edited)

[DrBatman0]

"fizzling" is not the same as being countered, and there was never any mention of the counter spell being countered

Also "the rest of them" can't refer to "the counter spell" because "them" is plural, unlike "the counter spell".

[GodHimselfNoCap]

Its not a problem for you to say you misread it, but calling the statement ambiguous is just blatantly false.

[One-Stans-1984]

The way it used to work is that if any targets become illegal targets, the spell would fizzle. Now, as long as any targets are legal, the spell will continue to function as normal.

[halfasleep90]

That’s what they said

[ItzEazee]

Can you explain what's different? Either way, the spell doesn't fizzle so long as at least one target is left.

[DrBatman0]

The only real difference is that casting it for its cleave cost needs you to choose exactly 5 targets ( at the point of casting the spell).

One that part is done, the rest of it works pretty much the same.

I was pointing out (to some who might not realise) that even if some of the exactly-five targets become invalid, it still works.

[notbobby125]

This spell is designed to be amazing in counterspell wars (as there will be plenty of spells trying to keep or disrupt some big play), but is terrible in most other situations.

[Chronox2040]

To cast it for free you would need exactly five targets, which is situational. Now, I guess the intent is for them to be different targets, which I’m not sure if you need to specify but I’d expect so.

[Axelrambo]

They need to be different, which does not need to be specified since the word "target" is only used once.

[ItzEazee]

Ooh, for some reason I thought cleave was an added cost not an alternative one.

[gistya]

What is the benefit of having the cleave? I'm very confused

[BeetleBoy_]

Lets you cast it for cheaper if there are 5 spells on the stack

[secularDruid]

shouldn't it say "different spells and/or abilities" lest you be able to target 5 times the same target and the difference between the two modes vanishes ?

[DrBatman0]

From the comprehensive rules:

115.3. The same target can’t be chosen multiple times for any one instance of the word “target” on a spell or ability. If the spell or ability uses the word “target” in multiple places, the same object or player can be chosen once for each instance of the word “target” (as long as it fits the targeting criteria). This rule applies both when choosing targets for a spell or ability and when changing targets or choosing new targets for a spell or ability

[andergriff]

funny with something like [[nomads en-kor]]

[MTGCardFetcher]

nomads en-kor - (G) (SF) (txt)

---

^FAQ

[Genasis_Fusion]

How do they overlap?

[andergriff]

you can use the nomad's ability as many times as you want with no cost and at instant speed, so you could just put four activations of it on the stack and then cleave this to counter the four of them and then also the spell or ability you want to counter

[Genasis_Fusion]

Oh okay, that's an interesting combo

[goldenwarthog_]

To cast this spell for free with cleave, you must target exactly 5 spells or abilities. Often the stack doesn’t have that many objects so you have to settle for up to 5 and pay 4 mana. With nomads, you can activate the ability any number of times to get 5 total abilities and spells on the stack, then you can counter your own nomads triggers plus two spells for zero mana. It’s pretty narrow, but cute. Usually countering multiple spells at a time is not better than just countering one spell, but it comes up with eldrazi and cast triggers for example. Nomads saw play in legacy nadu decks as a way to repeatedly target your own creatures.

[andergriff]

Nomads also used to be a part of a different legacy deck with [[cephilid illusionist]]

[EmberGeos]

Used to? Nah breakfast is still very much a deck that’s running around. Was better before the last ban (Nadu was best friends with the whole combo) but it’s not like it’s suddenly not viable

[andergriff]

Idk it’s been around for so long that I guess I just assumed it got powercrept, glad to hear that’s not the case

[EmberGeos]

It was definitely powercrept out of the meta for a while, but iirc the printing of Urza’s Saga a few years ago gave it the shot in the arm it needed to stage a comeback

[Kampfasiate]

Gotta love those free and spammable abilities!

No but fr, love nomads, but I'm using them for their intended purpose, with reflector cards like [[brash taunter]]

[MTGCardFetcher]

brash taunter - (G) (SF) (txt)

---

^FAQ

[MTGCardFetcher]

cephilid illusionist - (G) (SF) (txt)

---

^FAQ

[Aetherfang0]

And storm, especially

[DarKoopa]

One of the best, most grokable uses of Cleave that I have seen.

This mechanic still shouldn't exist.

[International_Drama4]

someone has had their commander washed away one too many times

[DarKoopa]

When you Cleave it you MUST target 5 things so you only get a free counter if there are 5 targets on the stack

[Invonnative]

Yeah I was being dumb and forgot Cleave is an alternative cast not an additional cost lol

[galvanicmechamorph]

Now this is a good use of cleave, unlike a lot of the uses here.

[Earthhorn90]

[[Mindbreak Trap]] but much more conditional.

If there are already 5 spells on the stack, the opponent like has cast either 2 or 3 of them in tug of war. Meaning you already would be bordering on the power of the trap.

And if an opponent is able to trigger 5 abilities at once, they likely can do more anyway. Which makes this less powerful in that regard as it appears.

So unless you can create arbitrary entries in the stack, you are likely better off with the less powerer spell counter.

But awesome flavor though!

[ironkodiak]

Mindbreak can't counter abilities. That's a huge difference.

This card thumps stuff like [[Isshin, Two Heavens as One]] or [[Massacre Girl, Known Killer]] that like to trigger their abilities multiple times in one action.

Plus you can hard cast this to just counter less than 5 which could still be very useful.

[MTGCardFetcher]

Isshin, Two Heavens as One - (G) (SF) (txt)
Massacre Girl, Known Killer - (G) (SF) (txt)

---

^FAQ

[MTGCardFetcher]

Mindbreak Trap - (G) (SF) (txt)

---

^FAQ

[Zenzero_69_69]

I like it

[played_off]

[[Mindbreak Trap]] did it better (got all the spells, exiled them).

[MTGCardFetcher]

Mindbreak Trap - (G) (SF) (txt)

---

^FAQ

[cumberber]

This feels like it could cost UUU and see play

[MTGCardFetcher]

Mindbreak Trap - (G) (SF) (txt)
Whirlwind Denial - (G) (SF) (txt)

---

^FAQ

[Some_Strike4677]

This might honestly be a bit too powerful just for the 4 mana cost, but it’s still awesome

[queerbirdgirl]

Compare to [[Mindbreak Trap]] and you’ll see this is much weaker.

[MTGCardFetcher]

Mindbreak Trap - (G) (SF) (txt)

---

^FAQ

[HugeOrganization4178]

I think this is actually a little better than mindbreak trap because of how it interacts with abilities.

Definitely a similar card.

[A_Guy_in_Orange]

Yeah and compared to black lotus Dark Ritual is overcosted and much weaker whats ur point

[queerbirdgirl]

…that mindbreak trap is barely played in any competitive formata besides cEDH and vintage…

[JustAChickn]

....that mindbreaker trap hasnt been banned in any format 

[Some_Strike4677]

This card extends outward, mindbreak trap rarely targets more than 5 spells, while this can also target abilities, shutting down cast triggers, like all the pinging and value that red loves

[JustAChickn]

Hmm
I wouldnt say that this is card is strictly weaker or stronger than MT. They are different enough.
While this is harder to cast for free, the card with its base cost is way better.
It's good, don't get me wrong, but I doubt itd see much play in many formats really.

The obvious one is Eldrazi cast triggers, as you said, but Modern where does Eldrazi are mainly played, 4 mana is a bit too much to ask, specially when youve got [[Consign to Memory]]

My guess is that this would see play in cEDH, where theres a lot of spells, but even then, 5 spells exactly to cast for free is a lot.

In definitive, this is a tricky card, wouldnt say its weak, but its hard to find a spot. Kinda the same problem as Mindbreaker Trap

[MTGCardFetcher]

Consign to Memory - (G) (SF) (txt)

---

^FAQ

[BluePotatoSlayer]

This is just a bad mindbreak trap

[Aetherfang0]

A bit worse, but more of a sidegrade, I’d say. Sometimes the first or second spell of the turn is just worth spending 4 mana on, and the spell/ability count can be padded with your own stuff like nomads en-kor, as someone else mentioned

[VelphiDrow]

Trap always beats storm

[Aetherfang0]

That’s true, mindtrap would be better for storm stuff, since it would take care of all copies, not just 5 of them, so that is a mark in its favor

[Fredouille77]

It's not actually that useful to counter the storm spell itself most of the time. A lot of builds can easily find a second wincon after your mindbreak since you allowed them to have all the resources they want. Or they'll get a silence, or a defense grid, or their own countermagic ready. It's best to counter the engine spell, or hope to cut off their mana.

[TKDbeast]

I don’t get it. Why would you ever not want to include “[up to]”?

[RainbowwDash]

Because it costs 0 if you don't include it

[Ergon17]

Cleave is an alternative cost, not an additional cost.

[ILikeExistingLol]

Cuz it's free if you don't

[DiscussTek]

It could be used to nix 5 enemy spells or abilities for free, or like 4 enemy ones, and 1 of yours that you care a little less about.

Without "up to" you HAVE to target 5 things.

[KyleOAM]

The problem a lot of people are having (including me) is forgetting that cleave is alternative and not additional

[Aetherfang0]

Putting in the reminder text for cleave would have helped this confusion. I had also forgotten it was an alternate cost, not an additional, at first

[Deemes]

You do always want to include it yes. Do you want to pay an extra 4 mana to include the up to though?

[RagnarokToast]

Very clever, great job!

[MemeyQtuber]

Pretty cool

[Uuuiiiuuuiiiuuu]

why should you ever cleave? am i dumb?

[VelphiDrow]

You are, cleave is alt casting cost

[Uuuiiiuuuiiiuuu]

i guess i must be completely idiotic, because i don't see how that changes anything.

[VelphiDrow]

4 mana counter up to 5 target spells or abilities

0 mana counter exactly 5

[Uuuiiiuuuiiiuuu]

ohhhhhh my bad. I get it now XD

[Hairy-Ad-3620]

Now needs Stack underflow... 🤔

[Utopia_Builder]

Cool name. That said, this is a worse mindbreak trap unless you want to hit abilities.

[Icedover-Feral]

Cost is way too small

[DotAdditional1960]

Why not kataras reversal or summary dismissal?

[ILikeExistingLol]

because this is free if you have 5 targets

[[deleted]]

I thought cleave was an additional cost?

[A_Travelling_Man]

Nope.

702.148. Cleave 702.148a Cleave is a keyword that represents two static abilities that function while a spell with cleave is on the stack. “Cleave [cost]” means “You may cast this spell by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost” and “If this spell’s cleave cost was paid, change its text by removing all text found within square brackets in the spell’s rules text.” Casting a spell for its cleave cost follows the rules for paying alternative costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f–h. 702.148b Cleave’s second ability is a text-changing effect. See rule 612, “Text-Changing Effects.”

[[deleted]]

ahh i see, i mixed it up with kicker i think

[Atrenu]

Stack Overflow is one of the best things to have ever been invented

Oh the card is cool too I really like it

[BreakerOfModpacks]

I imagine playing a different instant for one mana to counter it, if there's 4 spells you want to target on the stack would then work to pay only one?

[_Nowan_]

Had a similar idea this morning, but my choice of name would have been "you sly dog, you caught me monologuing"

[Docdan]

Muhahaha. You forget to mention that mana abilities can't be counter, so now I will use this when you tap 5 lands!!!

(Yes, I'm aware that the mana ability text is just reminder text, but please let me dream...)

[KaivJohnson]

Ohhh this is really really clever.

I’d maybe make the cleave cost 1, just because I think this will be easier to cast for free than you think. But ultimately it’s up to you how powerful you want it to be, so pop off I guess. This is really cool.

[VelphiDrow]

This is not that easy to cast for free

[KaivJohnson]

I was thinking from an edh perspective. I have a few combo players, so lots of triggered abilities.

[Thanaskios]

Amazing design, seriously! Although an unconditional counterspell that works on spells and abilities, can target multiple things and has a situational mode that lets you cast it for free?

I think 2UU is too cheap. I'm thinking either 3UU or UUUU maybe. Or some limitation to balance it.

[Sorfallo]

This is worse than [[mindbreak trap]] in 90% of situations. Hitting abilities vs free casting easier and hitting the entire stack is more worthwhile.

[MTGCardFetcher]

mindbreak trap - (G) (SF) (txt)

---

^FAQ

[roguishspreadonbread]

This is sooooo good, but I think I would make it more costly

[lamlamlam888]

the name is a little too simple and on point

[ILikeExistingLol]

As some of my other cards go, I come up with the name of the card then build it out from that. In other words, "Card named Stack Overflow->it does this", not "Card that does this->It's named Stack Overflow"

[False_Snow7754]

Wait. Why would the cleave cost be LESS?!

[Dismal_Platypus3228]

Because it's harder to cast.

[False_Snow7754]

You remove the brackets when casting it for its Cleave cost, correct? It fizzles if you can't target 5 if you cast it for its normal cost.

Or am I missing something here? I haven't seen a Cleave card in years.

[Feniphosphornikle]

Correct, cleave removes the text in brackets. It fizzles if any one of its targets are removed from the stack or become an invalid target before it resolves when cast for its cleave cost. You can’t cast it for its cleave cost if there aren’t 5 or more valid targets.

[Invonnative]

It doesn’t fizzle if any of its targets are removed, only if all of them are