True Strike, Innate Sorcery, and magic items.

Quote from VerilyRaze >>

If Haste is countered, no attack is made either.

 Your analogy remains weak. If you can't see why, mechanically, there might be a differentiation between "you cast a spell, and then you have an action in future turns that you might use for an attack" and "you cast a spell, which causes you to immediately make an attack with special conditions and bonuses", then I don't think there's a productive discussion to be had.

Quote from jl8e >>

Quote from VerilyRaze >>

If Haste is countered, no attack is made either.

 Your analogy remains weak. If you can't see why, mechanically, there might be a differentiation between "you cast a spell, and then you have an action in future turns that you might use for an attack" and "you cast a spell, which causes you to immediately make an attack with special conditions and bonuses", then I don't think there's a productive discussion to be had.

You're trying to draw a distinction between two methods of gaining a weapon attack from a spell effect. Yet there is no reason within the game mechanics to draw this distinction. Couple this with the fact that there are numerous points in the rules where weapon and spell attacks are defined as inherently distinct from one another and I've yet to see any basis for your position.

Quote from VerilyRaze >>

Quote from jl8e >>

Quote from VerilyRaze >>

If Haste is countered, no attack is made either.

 Your analogy remains weak. If you can't see why, mechanically, there might be a differentiation between "you cast a spell, and then you have an action in future turns that you might use for an attack" and "you cast a spell, which causes you to immediately make an attack with special conditions and bonuses", then I don't think there's a productive discussion to be had.

You're trying to draw a distinction between two methods of gaining a weapon attack from a spell effect. Yet there is no reason within the game mechanics to draw this distinction. Couple this with the fact that there are numerous points in the rules where weapon and spell attacks are defined as inherently distinct from one another and I've yet to see any basis for your position.

 Then I'm afraid I must insist in the opposite direction!  x-D 

Quote from jl8e >>

Quote from sdyvn >>

I wonder what is the consensus on what counter spell would do? 
For example, i use innate sorcery to get advantage on the attack (roll 11 and 13) with my crossbow and it is a hit (AC 18) because my Spell casting modifier (SCM) is +5.  If it is counter spelled, then innate sorcery does not apply and neither does my SCM bonus so we use Dex which makes +3 to hit and is now a miss.  But lets say my Dex is +3 so a +5 to hit...oh wait...which was my first roll?...so 11+5<18...miss.  right?

 If the spell is countered, no attack happens. True strike isn't separate from the attack.

Do you have references saying that the weapon used in delivering the spell does not strike if the spell is countered?
If my fighter crits with a warhammer embued with true strike but it is counterspelled, then it just...misses?  I need to see the write up on this.

[Edit]
i found this (emphasis is mine):

You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. The creature makes a Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, the spell dissipates with no effect, and the action, Bonus Action, or Reaction used to cast it is wasted. If that spell was cast with a spell slot, the slot isn’t expended.

Well shit.

Quote from sdyvn >>

Quote from jl8e >>

Quote from sdyvn >>

I wonder what is the consensus on what counter spell would do? 
For example, i use innate sorcery to get advantage on the attack (roll 11 and 13) with my crossbow and it is a hit (AC 18) because my Spell casting modifier (SCM) is +5.  If it is counter spelled, then innate sorcery does not apply and neither does my SCM bonus so we use Dex which makes +3 to hit and is now a miss.  But lets say my Dex is +3 so a +5 to hit...oh wait...which was my first roll?...so 11+5<18...miss.  right?

 If the spell is countered, no attack happens. True strike isn't separate from the attack.

Do you have references saying that the weapon used in delivering the spell does not strike if the spell is countered?
If my fighter crits with a warhammer embued with true strike but it is counterspelled, then it just...misses?  I need to see the write up on this.

[Edit]
i found this (emphasis is mine):

You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. The creature makes a Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, the spell dissipates with no effect, and the action, Bonus Action, or Reaction used to cast it is wasted. If that spell was cast with a spell slot, the slot isn’t expended.

Well shit.

 More generally, if a spell is countered, then you don't do anything it tells you to do in the spell's description. True Strike is not like Divine Smite -- it doesn't enhance an attack you already made. Instead, you cast the spell, taking the Magic action instead of the Attack action, and, as part of that spell, you make a weapon attack.

This is also relevant: "... the spell dissipates with no effect ..."

Since there's no spell's effect, no attack happens, as jl8e said.

EDIT: ninja'd by jl8e. I left (again) the tab open without sending the message for a long time...

Quote from jl8e >>

Quote from sdyvn >>

Quote from jl8e >>

Quote from sdyvn >>

I wonder what is the consensus on what counter spell would do? 
For example, i use innate sorcery to get advantage on the attack (roll 11 and 13) with my crossbow and it is a hit (AC 18) because my Spell casting modifier (SCM) is +5.  If it is counter spelled, then innate sorcery does not apply and neither does my SCM bonus so we use Dex which makes +3 to hit and is now a miss.  But lets say my Dex is +3 so a +5 to hit...oh wait...which was my first roll?...so 11+5<18...miss.  right?

 If the spell is countered, no attack happens. True strike isn't separate from the attack.

Do you have references saying that the weapon used in delivering the spell does not strike if the spell is countered?
If my fighter crits with a warhammer embued with true strike but it is counterspelled, then it just...misses?  I need to see the write up on this.

[Edit]
i found this (emphasis is mine):

You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. The creature makes a Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, the spell dissipates with no effect, and the action, Bonus Action, or Reaction used to cast it is wasted. If that spell was cast with a spell slot, the slot isn’t expended.

Well shit.

 More generally, if a spell is countered, then you don't do anything it tells you to do in the spell's description. True Strike is not like Divine Smite -- it doesn't enhance an attack you already made. Instead, you cast the spell, taking the Magic action instead of the Attack action, and, as part of that spell, you make a weapon attack.

thanks. i see that now, though i do not like it :(  

As you said, i noticed true strike is worded differently than others like Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade which involve spell components but clearly state take the normal attack. 

As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails. On a hit, the target suffers the attack's normal effects,

It seems like an oversight on the True Strike spell wording.

Quote from sdyvn>>

thanks. i see that now, though i do not like it :(  

As you said, i noticed true strike is worded differently than others like Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade which involve spell components but clearly state take the normal attack. 

As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails. On a hit, the target suffers the attack's normal effects,

It seems like an oversight on the True Strike spell wording.