Pointed Discussion

simple to cycle

Interesting choice of pose.

ALMOST strictly better than Runeboggle.

Alright Literais, I'll bite. How is this not strictly better than Runeboggle?

strictly better than mana leak

If only my farts were blue, spherical and had spikes in it, I could counter spells.

@Kryptnyt, this is uncounterable when cycled. It's a trade-off, but in this case you got an additional option (the card's main effect) that makes it better, IMO.

@UNBAN_SHAHRAZAD: Suppression Field.
@DespisedIcon: He was asking why it isnt "strictly better," which means "better in any scenario." You would want Runeboggle if Suppression Field is in play and you only have three mana and not five to work with. I know why this card is stronger overall, but I reinforce the fact that it is not "strictly" better.

It can cycle as a counterspell, cycling doesn't use the stack, which means it's a uncounterable spell that is also invalid for redirection, control or bounce effects.

one of the only cards in the game that can counter split second.

@Azrael1911: Cycling is a triggered ability. Activated abilities use the stack. When a split second card is on the stack, no other spells or abilities can be played. Therefore, it can't counter split-second.

@leomistico: "Strictly better" means that a card does everything another card does and either does it better, does it cheaper, or does other things. This is why Goblin Chieftain is not strictly better than Goblin King despite being a superior card.

"Strictly better" has a very specific meaning. It's not "more useful." There's already a term for that. It's "better."

@ Kryptnyt: Actually "Strictly better" doesn't means "better in any scenario". It means that comparing two cards, a card has better values than another, given the rest unchanged. For examples Lightning Bolt is better than Shock, because, for the same price and the same "speed" (i.e. "instant") you can deal 3 damages instead of 2... Given your definition, the same isn't true anymore because against Brace for Impact or Temper or Test of Faith you could put an addictional counter on the creature, so Lightining Bolt would be worse than Shock...

With Complicate you could counter something forcing the opponent to spend more, or you could cycle it to draw a card, or to draw a card AND counter a spell forcing the opponent to spend more.
In this case, Complicate isn't tecnically strictly better than Runeboggle because the ability to counter AND draw is not exactly an insant, like Runeblogger, but it's almost equivalent, and being an activated ability you can usually bypass counter. Evenmore, Complicate has 2 more options... Overall, I think that it could means "Strictly better"...

I would play this instead of Runeblogger anytime... I'm very sad that WotC put such an unplayable counter in Pact, instead of something more interesting like this...

EDIT
@Azrael1911:
one of the only cards in the game that can counter split second.
No... Cycling is an activated ability, that you can't play with a split-second spell already on the stack. Maybe you're talking about Willbender

@Lyoncet: You're right! In fact I said "Complicate isn't tecnically strictly better than Runeboggle"... At the end I said "Overall, I think that it could means "Strictly better"...", and you're right in that my last sentence is wrong. My entire point was to correct the Kryptnyt's statement, but I lost the track... My bad!

Cycling this is like playing a Runeboggle that's harder to counter, though that is irrelevant because if they had mana to counter a Runeboggle, they'd just pay the {1} to render it a harmless cyling effect. Casting this is like playing an overpriced Mana Leak. Eh. If I wanted to counter something and draw a card, I'd tear up any copy of Runebooger I could find, and then put Remand in an Isochron Scepter.

@Lyoncet : Cycling is an activated ability. It says so right at the start in the rules explanation for cycling.

I haven't seen a decent answer. Why is this not strictly better than Runeboggle? In what situation would you rather have a RUNEBOGGLE?! This is the definition of Strictly Better.

@ Shadoflaam

Stifle can counter Complicate's cycling, if you opponent's ally has a Stifle they can counter this for their teammate, who may be tapped out if you tried to cycle it, with the intention of him not having mana (and countering it) and to draw a card.

If you have 5 mana, and cast a Bloodbraid Elf who cascades into this, you can't use Complicate for any good purpose (only to counter your Bloodbraid Elf), while Runeboggle could be used to draw a card for 1 mana. Any effect similar is the same way. If you can cast it, without paying its mana cost, and if it would counter the target spell (such as if your opponent taps out for a spell, and you may cast it for free) Runeboggle is better.

You cannot copy "target instant or sorcery" with a cycled Complicate. With something like Echo Mage you can make it something like UUU2, counter target spell unless its controller pays 3, draw 3 cards (or counter 3 spells for 1 etc).

Well this card makes them sad to tap out.

Often times you'd rather want Sage's Dousing. However, I use this next to Illusory Demon and then rely on activated abliities for most of my mid game handiwork. Being able to counter something without casting a spell is very very advantageous. Decree of Silence is awesome for the same reason.

Side note: I uprated Lemoistico for doing all the typing I would've done and for being correct.

There is an important reason this isn't strictly better than Runeboggle: countering as an activated ability is USUALLY superior, but there are many cards (Suppression Field, Azorius Guildmage, Bind, Rimewind Cryomancer, Voidmage Husher, etc) that will hose the cycle mode on this and not the cycle mode on Runeboggle. (Note that while many of these options are more expensive than paying {1}, they also deny you your card)

Not to mention all the cards that interact directly with cycling. It's not a niche thing where "being better is actually worse", some cards specifically hose this without hosing Runeboggle and in some situations you will prefer a Runeboggle in hand because Complicate doesn't let you get the card advantage because your opponent's activated ability hoser makes the cycling worthless.

So in summary @leomistico, this card does NOT do everything Runeboggle does. It does not allow you to cast a spell that counters unless {1} is paid and draws you a card. It lets you activate an ability to do that, which is not the same thing or a value tweak improvement as you outlined.

"Alright Literais, I'll bite. How is this not strictly better than Runeboggle?" --UNBAN_SHAHRAZAD

There are a few situations when Runeboggle is better since a cycled Complicate has to get countered differently.
E.g. if your opponent only has Quelch in hand, he will be able to counter the cycled Complicate, but not Runeboggle.

That's a very rare situation and usually the fact that a cycled Complicate can't be stopped by regular counters makes it even better. But simply just not strictly better.

@Mode
Ok, so your opponent has two lands untapped for the Quelch, why in the world would you try to counter a spell cycling complicate when he can just pay 1 (unless you just want to cycle it)? You would cast complicate normally and counter that spell, and quelch can't do anything.

It's ok, you may say it's not strictly better than Runeboggle, but that's definitely not the reason why.


P.S.: Strictly better than Runeboggle :D:D:D