Spell countering Permanent

[Jyiber]

I was thinking of a card that you play that goes into your permanent zone. The next spell your opponent plays is negated. Unless it's a spell to destroy it. Doesn't stop Creature or Permanant effects (which could be used to counter it).
-Not sure about a name.
-Not sure what element this would work for.
-Not sure about the play cost.
-Haven't begun to tie a theme to it yet.

I do have one idea though. A  card called Newton's 3rd Law. You know, "every action has an equal or opposite reaction". But, I might change that if someone suggests a better element (maybe one that really, really needs spell defense).

[EmeraldTiger]

So, a perm or shield that negates Spells? how about for Aether any time spell is cast absorbs | = to spells cost?

[TheManuz]

I like this idea!
But the mechanic makes me think to a sigil, or an amulet or a charm.
All of those are magical devices that protect the bearer, so i find them appropriate.
The element could be anyone you find appropriate. I think it much depends on the name/theme you choose.
You could choose a Nazar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazar_(amulet)), an Hamsa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamsa), Dzi beads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzi_bead) or a Thokcha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thokcha).
I found those. Anyway, looking at those links, it seems that at least Dzi beads and Thokcha are related to .

[moomoose]

this idea has been posted before, the only one i remember off the top of my head is http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37365.0.html , which is still very recent.

[TheManuz]

this idea has been posted before, the only one i remember off the top of my head is http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37365.0.html , which is still very recent.

But that's a spell.
Jyiber is proposing a permanent that cancels only 1 spell, not a creature, not a permanent.
It can be countered, for example by a creature with butterfly effect, or by a Pulverizer, or by a mutant with steal or destroy.

I saw the spell you linked, and didn't like it very much.
However i find this version of the idea simple but interesting.

[Anarook]

I tried this once before, it didnt go to far, mayhaps i revive it?

Trap (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,24600.msg335492#msg335492)

[moomoose]

But that's a spell.
Jyiber is proposing a permanent that cancels only 1 spell, not a creature, not a permanent.
It can be countered, for example by a creature with butterfly effect, or by a Pulverizer, or by a mutant with steal or destroy.

I saw the spell you linked, and didn't like it very much.
However i find this version of the idea simple but interesting.

the difference between perm/creature/spell is about as significant as the element, when its not your original idea, its completely insignificant.  it would be like me looking at spell ideas and then turning them into creatures which can use the spell as a skill.  it doesnt bring anything new to the table if its simply taking an already proposed mechanic and then changing the form in which it is delivered.

[Jyiber]

My bad moomoose, didn't realize that the idea had been proposed already. I'm kind of new here, so I didn't look around hard enough to see if it had come up before, though I did do some skimming. You make me sound like a thief though... I can guarantee that was 100% my original idea.

TheManuz, thanks for the ideas. You made me think of a few things myself, one of them being a dream-catcher.

EmeraldTiger, I like the idea to make it drain quantum equivalent to the spell cost. If it needs more balancing then I might incorporate that, but I don't know about making it last as long as a shield. My idea was more of a one time cancellation.

I did go look at the other card with the similar mechanic... I think mine's different enough that I might go ahead and try to submit it. If an idea is only allowed to be had once then next time I have one I'll make sure to go ask everyone individually if this idea has ever, even momentarily, crossed their mind.

[moomoose]

wasnt directing the second post towards you, was just explaining that minor differences do not constitute novelty.  everybody has at some point had an idea that has already been posted, the important part is how you react to it being pointed out, either dramatic changes or scrapping the idea are basically the two acceptable paths to take.  that said, i dont think in any way that your idea is sufficiently distinct from cards already suggested.

[Anarook]

siiigh, it amazes me how im constantly passed by without a look, w/e
have fun arguing about rather your idea is "distict" or not.

[TheManuz]

But that's a spell.
Jyiber is proposing a permanent that cancels only 1 spell, not a creature, not a permanent.
It can be countered, for example by a creature with butterfly effect, or by a Pulverizer, or by a mutant with steal or destroy.

I saw the spell you linked, and didn't like it very much.
However i find this version of the idea simple but interesting.

the difference between perm/creature/spell is about as significant as the element, when its not your original idea, its completely insignificant.  it would be like me looking at spell ideas and then turning them into creatures which can use the spell as a skill.  it doesnt bring anything new to the table if its simply taking an already proposed mechanic and then changing the form in which it is delivered.

I understand your point, but the form and the element are relevant for the success of a card.
For example, consider Shard of Patience:
Spell form: not good. Permanent form: good card.
Or try to think if Dissipation Shield was or . Those elements can produce very high quantities of quanta (Devourers and RoLs), and the card would be perceived in a different way.

Anarook's Trap!, in my opinion, doesn't work because it's Other, i think it would be more appropriate giving it a specific element. Of course this is only my opinion.

I support giving credit when required. I also think that the better implementation of a common idea (counter is a VERY common idea) should win.
I also think that claiming "MINE!" has sense for original mechanics. It makes sense for your Totems, for example. Or for OldTrees' Soul Pillar. Or many other cards.
It doesn't make sense for mechanics like "use target creature skill" or "all spells must target this permanent/creature", because these are common mechanics, and the CIA is spammed with many implementations of them.

[Mathematistic]

My suggestion:

50% chance to negate spells. Last (balanced number) turns.