I think there are two issues. One is that you need to see the activity, not just the person performing the activity. If we're sitting around a dinner table chatting with each other and I wiggle my toe, you are seeing me and I am wiggling my toe, but you are not seeing me wiggle my toe.
I would be seeing you wiggle your toe. I just might not be aware that is what I am doing.
The second problem is that it's unreasonable for you to have any trigger to react to since you are unaware of what is happening. It is very unlikely for you to instantly jump up and exclaim "hey, you're wiggling your toe!" in this example. Even if me wiggling my toe technically triggers a chance for you to react to that, you just wouldn't, because you didn't see it happen.
This isn't a thing we need to worry about in 5e rules. It doesn't matter why our character gets to use his reaction when it says he can, only that he can.
See silvery barbs for a clear example of reaction to something your character can't possibly be aware of. You character can't see dice results.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The phrasing is slightly different between the two. Counterspell requires you to see the action being performed. Silvery barbs just requires you to see a creature when a certain event occurs -- you don't have to witness that event.
Counterspell: "when you see a creature casting a spell"
Silvery barbs: "when a creature you can see succeeds"
The phrasing is slightly different between the two. Counterspell requires you to see the action being performed. Silvery barbs just requires you to see a creature when a certain event occurs -- you don't have to witness that event.
Counterspell: "when you see a creature casting a spell"
Silvery barbs: "when a creature you can see succeeds"
Sure but you do see them casting the spell. It just happens to look like them standing there. Because that's how they cast spells. Just standing there.
You guys are adding some unspoken requirement that you need to know they're casting a spell to counterspell it. But that isn't part of the trigger. So it is a homebrew requirement you're putting in place.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
There's no meaningful debate here. Using Subtle Spell prevents the spell from being countered. If there was any confusion, Xanathar's cleared it up:
If the need for a spell’s components has been removed by a special ability, such as the sorcerer’s Subtle Spell feature or the Innate Spellcasting trait possessed by many creatures, the casting of the spell is imperceptible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If a sorcerer casts a spell with only verbal or somatic components using Subtle Spell, can an opponent use counterspell against it?
If a spell that’s altered by Subtle Spell has no material component, then it’s impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast. So, since you can’t see the casting, counterspell is of no use.
This isn't a thing we need to worry about in 5e rules. It doesn't matter why our character gets to use his reaction when it says he can, only that he can.
See silvery barbs for a clear example of reaction to something your character can't possibly be aware of. You character can't see dice results.
The Silvery Barbs is a specific rule that allows for something different in its case but that doesn't change the rule for all other cases. Tbh they made a rather poor design choice when they wrote Silvery Barbs as it doesn't match normal rules. My guess is that one of the new writers simply didn't understand the base rules well enough.
If a sorcerer casts a spell with only verbal or somatic components using Subtle Spell, can an opponent use counterspell against it?
If a spell that’s altered by Subtle Spell has no material component, then it’s impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast. So, since you can’t see the casting, counterspell is of no use.
This isn't a thing we need to worry about in 5e rules. It doesn't matter why our character gets to use his reaction when it says he can, only that he can.
See silvery barbs for a clear example of reaction to something your character can't possibly be aware of. You character can't see dice results.
The Silvery Barbs is a specific rule that allows for something different in its case but that doesn't change the rule for all other cases. Tbh they made a rather poor design choice when they wrote Silvery Barbs as it doesn't match normal rules. My guess is that one of the new writers simply didn't understand the base rules well enough.
The other one that skirts the line is soul cage, since the trigger is "when a humanoid you can see within 60 feet of you dies." It wouldn't necessarily be obvious when a creature dies vs being unconscious, etc. The intention of all these reaction spells are clear though -- you can cast it when you see [thing] happen, not when you can see a creature who happens to be [doing thing]
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Silvery barbs is an interesting talking point. I'm glad up2ng quoted the two triggers because it really highlights the differences.
In counterspell, 'you' are the subject and for the requirement to be fulfilled, 'you' must 'see' the triggering event ('a creature casting a spell'). Seeing the event is a requirement for this.
In silvery barbs, 'a creature' is the subject (modified by 'you can see'), and it just has to complete the triggering event ('succeed[ing]'). Here, only seeing the creature is required.
This pair of triggers really highlights how sentence structure can impact the function of a rule. A bunch of the same words end up working differently. It also highlights that while meta knowledge is required for one (silvery barbs) even at the expense of rolling in secret, the other (counterspell) requires meta knowledge be ignored when known.i.e. you know that creature is casting subtly, so you cannot counterspell.
If a sorcerer casts a spell with only verbal or somatic components using Subtle Spell, can an opponent use counterspell against it?
If a spell that’s altered by Subtle Spell has no material component, then it’s impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast. So, since you can’t see the casting, counterspell is of no use.
This isn't a thing we need to worry about in 5e rules. It doesn't matter why our character gets to use his reaction when it says he can, only that he can.
See silvery barbs for a clear example of reaction to something your character can't possibly be aware of. You character can't see dice results.
The Silvery Barbs is a specific rule that allows for something different in its case but that doesn't change the rule for all other cases. Tbh they made a rather poor design choice when they wrote Silvery Barbs as it doesn't match normal rules. My guess is that one of the new writers simply didn't understand the base rules well enough.
Casting a reaction cast time spell is NOT a readied action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This isn't the forum for homebrew. If you think that unreliable eyewitness testimony is relevant, I don't see how you are contributing to this conversation.
There's no meaningful debate here. Using Subtle Spell prevents the spell from being countered. If there was any confusion, Xanathar's cleared it up:
If the need for a spell’s components has been removed by a special ability, such as the sorcerer’s Subtle Spell feature or the Innate Spellcasting trait possessed by many creatures, the casting of the spell is imperceptible.
If a sorcerer casts a spell with only verbal or somatic components using Subtle Spell, can an opponent use counterspell against it?
If a spell that’s altered by Subtle Spell has no material component, then it’s impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast. So, since you can’t see the casting, counterspell is of no use.
Exactly! It was discussed here long ago, but the Sage Advice Compendium is explicitly labeled by WotC as being "Official Rulings", and it has made an unambiguous ruling here.
If a man is in line in front of you at the bank, walks up to the teller and hands her his paperwork. Then she open the drawer and hands him an envelope filled with cash. He promptly leaves.
Did you just witness a robbery? You don't know.
Bet lets assume that was a robbery. The note he handed her was a threat and the cash wasn't his. The police have questions for you about the crime.
Now answer the question again. Did you witness a robbery?
Yeah. You did.
You just didn't realize that's what you were looking at.
The same exact is true for a subtle spell. If you watch the guy casting a subtle spell while he casts it.
Defacto, unquestionably: You watched him cast a spell.
You just didn't know that's what you were watching at the time. But that's what it looks like for him to cast.
Again, yall are adding a homebrew requirement here. That the counterspeller have knowledge that the person is casting. But that's not what the trigger says. It just says see them. Which you can.
How do you stop a robbery in progress that you don’t know is a robbery in progress? The same way you counterspell a spell that you don’t know is a spell being cast: not at all because you are unaware there is any action for you to impede.
If a man is in line in front of you at the bank, walks up to the teller and hands her his paperwork. Then she open the drawer and hands him an envelope filled with cash. He promptly leaves.
Did you just witness a robbery? You don't know.
Bet lets assume that was a robbery. The note he handed her was a threat and the cash wasn't his. The police have questions for you about the crime.
Now answer the question again. Did you witness a robbery?
Yeah. You did.
You just didn't realize that's what you were looking at.
The same exact is true for a subtle spell. If you watch the guy casting a subtle spell while he casts it.
Defacto, unquestionably: You watched him cast a spell.
You just didn't know that's what you were watching at the time. But that's what it looks like for him to cast.
Again, yall are adding a homebrew requirement here. That the counterspeller have knowledge that the person is casting. But that's not what the trigger says. It just says see them. Which you can.
How do you stop a robbery in progress that you don’t know is a robbery in progress? The same way you counterspell a spell that you don’t know is a spell being cast: not at all because you are unaware there is any action for you to impede.
You absolutely "could" stop that guy. Whether you "should" is what you'd be unaware of.
Probably not. But can you? You "can" yes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This isn't the forum for homebrew. If you think that unreliable eyewitness testimony is relevant, I don't see how you are contributing to this conversation.
There's no meaningful debate here. Using Subtle Spell prevents the spell from being countered. If there was any confusion, Xanathar's cleared it up:
If the need for a spell’s components has been removed by a special ability, such as the sorcerer’s Subtle Spell feature or the Innate Spellcasting trait possessed by many creatures, the casting of the spell is imperceptible.
We have direct statements in the rules.
I agree. We're here to talk about the rules, not what yall have homebrewed in as additional requirements to cast the spell.
RAW you don't need to know a spell is being cast. You just need to see the spellcaster casting it. Which, assuming you can see the spellcaster while they're casting it: you can.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If a man is in line in front of you at the bank, walks up to the teller and hands her his paperwork. Then she open the drawer and hands him an envelope filled with cash. He promptly leaves.
Did you just witness a robbery? You don't know.
Bet lets assume that was a robbery. The note he handed her was a threat and the cash wasn't his. The police have questions for you about the crime.
Now answer the question again. Did you witness a robbery?
Yeah. You did.
You just didn't realize that's what you were looking at.
The same exact is true for a subtle spell. If you watch the guy casting a subtle spell while he casts it.
Defacto, unquestionably: You watched him cast a spell.
You just didn't know that's what you were watching at the time. But that's what it looks like for him to cast.
Again, yall are adding a homebrew requirement here. That the counterspeller have knowledge that the person is casting. But that's not what the trigger says. It just says see them. Which you can.
How do you stop a robbery in progress that you don’t know is a robbery in progress? The same way you counterspell a spell that you don’t know is a spell being cast: not at all because you are unaware there is any action for you to impede.
You absolutely "could" stop that guy. Whether you "should" is what you'd be unaware of.
Probably not. But can you? You "can" yes.
*roll eyes* The hope is that characters do things for reasons
If a man is in line in front of you at the bank, walks up to the teller and hands her his paperwork. Then she open the drawer and hands him an envelope filled with cash. He promptly leaves.
Did you just witness a robbery? You don't know.
Bet lets assume that was a robbery. The note he handed her was a threat and the cash wasn't his. The police have questions for you about the crime.
Now answer the question again. Did you witness a robbery?
Yeah. You did.
You just didn't realize that's what you were looking at.
The same exact is true for a subtle spell. If you watch the guy casting a subtle spell while he casts it.
Defacto, unquestionably: You watched him cast a spell.
You just didn't know that's what you were watching at the time. But that's what it looks like for him to cast.
Again, yall are adding a homebrew requirement here. That the counterspeller have knowledge that the person is casting. But that's not what the trigger says. It just says see them. Which you can.
How do you stop a robbery in progress that you don’t know is a robbery in progress? The same way you counterspell a spell that you don’t know is a spell being cast: not at all because you are unaware there is any action for you to impede.
You absolutely "could" stop that guy. Whether you "should" is what you'd be unaware of.
Probably not. But can you? You "can" yes.
*roll eyes* The hope is that characters do things for reasons
The rules have some interesting mechanics, and we need to use narrative to explain those mechanics. Like why exactly does everyone on the battlefield know the exact square anninvisible stalker is in unless he takes a hide action? How do they know that, even. How does the sorcerer know he can cast silvery barbs at the mayor who just suceeded on his deception check??
Your job as a player, or especially as a DM, it to create a narrative the works within this framework of mechanical rules.
But, not having a narrative explanation handed to you by the book doesn't exempt us from acknowledging what the rule actually tells us.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Jeebus Rav, sometimes ya give me such a headache that my brain condition gets jealous of you. 🤣
It's a game. It's not an English essay. A. GAME.
The rules are presented with the expectation you will understand through the context they are conveyed in.
V, S components are what makes spellcasting discernible, along with M components but those are more for balancing purposes.
Counterspell lets you stop the casting if you can discern it.
Subtle spell removes VS components so it isn't discernible. This is the only purpose Subtle spell has: so nobody knows you're casting the spell.
C-mon now ma dude. It's not gonna need intense scrutiny or analysis of every individual word. It's a game kids play. It's plain idiomatic text. Context is key. Including the context it is a game.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Jeebus Rav, sometimes ya give me such a headache that my brain condition gets jealous of you. 🤣
It's a game. It's not an English essay. A. GAME.
The rules are presented with the expectation you will understand through the context they are conveyed in.
V, S components are what makes spellcasting discernible, along with M components but those are more for balancing purposes.
Counterspell lets you stop the casting if you can discern it.
Subtle spell removes VS components so it isn't discernible. This is the only purpose Subtle spell has: so nobody knows you're casting the spell.
C-mon now ma dude. It's not gonna need intense scrutiny or analysis of every individual word. It's a game kids play. It's plain idiomatic text. Context is key. Including the context it is a game.
"If you can discern it" is exactly the homebrew requirement yall are adding here. That's entirely absent from the text of the spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Jeebus Rav, sometimes ya give me such a headache that my brain condition gets jealous of you. 🤣
It's a game. It's not an English essay. A. GAME.
The rules are presented with the expectation you will understand through the context they are conveyed in.
V, S components are what makes spellcasting discernible, along with M components but those are more for balancing purposes.
Counterspell lets you stop the casting if you can discern it.
Subtle spell removes VS components so it isn't discernible. This is the only purpose Subtle spell has: so nobody knows you're casting the spell.
C-mon now ma dude. It's not gonna need intense scrutiny or analysis of every individual word. It's a game kids play. It's plain idiomatic text. Context is key. Including the context it is a game.
"If you can discern it" is exactly the homebrew requirement yall are adding here. That's entirely absent from the text of the spell.
It's not homebrew. It's common sense. The game isn't a mechanical instruction manual, it's presented in an idiomatic way so some things are assumed you would understand - because it's common sense, it's context.
But, the book doesn't convince you, basic reading comprehension doesn't convince you, nobody posting here will convince you and even the devs - the very people who wrote the book - can't convince you.
There is no point discussing this with you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Jeebus Rav, sometimes ya give me such a headache that my brain condition gets jealous of you. 🤣
It's a game. It's not an English essay. A. GAME.
The rules are presented with the expectation you will understand through the context they are conveyed in.
V, S components are what makes spellcasting discernible, along with M components but those are more for balancing purposes.
Counterspell lets you stop the casting if you can discern it.
Subtle spell removes VS components so it isn't discernible. This is the only purpose Subtle spell has: so nobody knows you're casting the spell.
C-mon now ma dude. It's not gonna need intense scrutiny or analysis of every individual word. It's a game kids play. It's plain idiomatic text. Context is key. Including the context it is a game.
"If you can discern it" is exactly the homebrew requirement yall are adding here. That's entirely absent from the text of the spell.
It's already been pointed out that the SAC (which IS official rulings by WotC staff, this isn't disputable) explicitly states that Counterspell doesn't work if Subtle Spell or a similar ability removes all components. This isn't up for debate, it's specifically cleared up by WotC themselves.
That's really where all of this ends. The matter is settled, there's no room for any further debate.
I would be seeing you wiggle your toe. I just might not be aware that is what I am doing.
This isn't a thing we need to worry about in 5e rules. It doesn't matter why our character gets to use his reaction when it says he can, only that he can.
See silvery barbs for a clear example of reaction to something your character can't possibly be aware of. You character can't see dice results.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The phrasing is slightly different between the two. Counterspell requires you to see the action being performed. Silvery barbs just requires you to see a creature when a certain event occurs -- you don't have to witness that event.
Counterspell: "when you see a creature casting a spell"
Silvery barbs: "when a creature you can see succeeds"
Sure but you do see them casting the spell. It just happens to look like them standing there. Because that's how they cast spells. Just standing there.
You guys are adding some unspoken requirement that you need to know they're casting a spell to counterspell it. But that isn't part of the trigger. So it is a homebrew requirement you're putting in place.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
There's no meaningful debate here. Using Subtle Spell prevents the spell from being countered. If there was any confusion, Xanathar's cleared it up:
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
And the SAC has made it explicit that that is also their intention.
By general rule it actually does matter, the Ready action very clearly says that you need to have a perceivable circumstance as your trigger.
The Silvery Barbs is a specific rule that allows for something different in its case but that doesn't change the rule for all other cases. Tbh they made a rather poor design choice when they wrote Silvery Barbs as it doesn't match normal rules. My guess is that one of the new writers simply didn't understand the base rules well enough.
The other one that skirts the line is soul cage, since the trigger is "when a humanoid you can see within 60 feet of you dies." It wouldn't necessarily be obvious when a creature dies vs being unconscious, etc. The intention of all these reaction spells are clear though -- you can cast it when you see [thing] happen, not when you can see a creature who happens to be [doing thing]
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Silvery barbs is an interesting talking point. I'm glad up2ng quoted the two triggers because it really highlights the differences.
In counterspell, 'you' are the subject and for the requirement to be fulfilled, 'you' must 'see' the triggering event ('a creature casting a spell'). Seeing the event is a requirement for this.
In silvery barbs, 'a creature' is the subject (modified by 'you can see'), and it just has to complete the triggering event ('succeed[ing]'). Here, only seeing the creature is required.
This pair of triggers really highlights how sentence structure can impact the function of a rule. A bunch of the same words end up working differently. It also highlights that while meta knowledge is required for one (silvery barbs) even at the expense of rolling in secret, the other (counterspell) requires meta knowledge be ignored when known.i.e. you know that creature is casting subtly, so you cannot counterspell.
Casting a reaction cast time spell is NOT a readied action.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This isn't the forum for homebrew. If you think that unreliable eyewitness testimony is relevant, I don't see how you are contributing to this conversation.
We have direct statements in the rules.
Exactly! It was discussed here long ago, but the Sage Advice Compendium is explicitly labeled by WotC as being "Official Rulings", and it has made an unambiguous ruling here.
How do you stop a robbery in progress that you don’t know is a robbery in progress? The same way you counterspell a spell that you don’t know is a spell being cast: not at all because you are unaware there is any action for you to impede.
You absolutely "could" stop that guy. Whether you "should" is what you'd be unaware of.
Probably not. But can you? You "can" yes.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I agree. We're here to talk about the rules, not what yall have homebrewed in as additional requirements to cast the spell.
RAW you don't need to know a spell is being cast. You just need to see the spellcaster casting it. Which, assuming you can see the spellcaster while they're casting it: you can.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
*roll eyes* The hope is that characters do things for reasons
The rules have some interesting mechanics, and we need to use narrative to explain those mechanics. Like why exactly does everyone on the battlefield know the exact square anninvisible stalker is in unless he takes a hide action? How do they know that, even. How does the sorcerer know he can cast silvery barbs at the mayor who just suceeded on his deception check??
Your job as a player, or especially as a DM, it to create a narrative the works within this framework of mechanical rules.
But, not having a narrative explanation handed to you by the book doesn't exempt us from acknowledging what the rule actually tells us.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Jeebus Rav, sometimes ya give me such a headache that my brain condition gets jealous of you. 🤣
It's a game. It's not an English essay. A. GAME.
The rules are presented with the expectation you will understand through the context they are conveyed in.
V, S components are what makes spellcasting discernible, along with M components but those are more for balancing purposes.
Counterspell lets you stop the casting if you can discern it.
Subtle spell removes VS components so it isn't discernible. This is the only purpose Subtle spell has: so nobody knows you're casting the spell.
C-mon now ma dude. It's not gonna need intense scrutiny or analysis of every individual word. It's a game kids play. It's plain idiomatic text. Context is key. Including the context it is a game.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
"If you can discern it" is exactly the homebrew requirement yall are adding here. That's entirely absent from the text of the spell.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It's not homebrew. It's common sense. The game isn't a mechanical instruction manual, it's presented in an idiomatic way so some things are assumed you would understand - because it's common sense, it's context.
But, the book doesn't convince you, basic reading comprehension doesn't convince you, nobody posting here will convince you and even the devs - the very people who wrote the book - can't convince you.
There is no point discussing this with you.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
It's already been pointed out that the SAC (which IS official rulings by WotC staff, this isn't disputable) explicitly states that Counterspell doesn't work if Subtle Spell or a similar ability removes all components. This isn't up for debate, it's specifically cleared up by WotC themselves.
That's really where all of this ends. The matter is settled, there's no room for any further debate.
It's not just a ruling in SAC. It's actual rules in XgtE. This thread should probably be closed.