Player A swings a Weapon Strike Doom, hitting Player B’s shield. Player B: Bane! (Source of bane is irrelevant) Player A: Bane! Player B: Counteract! This seems legal to me, since Bane doesn’t change that Player B met the requirements to counteract, and Bane has never transformed any aspect of an attack before. That being said, in this scenario, could Player A have used Counteract instead of Bane? I want to say yes, because the attack would have been otherwise validly blocked, but Counteract specifies that “they otherwise validly block.” Player B blocked, Player A did not. This would have another implication with Intercept. Player A gets struck with a Weapon Strike Shatter Spirit on their shield, and Player B Intercepts it. If the intent is that Counteract can be used on an attack that is validly blocked, then it applies in both these scenarios. If the intent is that it can only be used by the player who validly blocked it, then it cannot.