I'm mostly wondering about the rarity. Also in a fantasy cardgame the "Dead" reads like a noun. That is, it seems, not the intention.

The rarity is something I've been pondering myself as well. While it reads out as a fairly simple card, it asks a lot of decisions on when and why to cast it. This is probably the kind of hidden strategic depth that is acceptable at common. However, it might also have not-so-desirable comprehension complexity if the players misunderstand the functionality in that they won't accept that you can cast this even if you control no creatures and/or don't have any other cards in your hand.

Whether "Dead" reads out like a noun or not doesn't bother me. Heck, maybe it is used as a noun here. The targeted creature could be the one now called "Crowned Dead" and this is possible depicted in the art (think of it as an Aura). Ambiguity can be an advantage when it comes to flavor.

I posted this on reddit/r/custommagic as well btw.

If "Crowned" is read as a past-tense verb then "Dead" should be become the adjective. I did read "Crowned" as the adjective at first.

Yeah; this reads (and looks) like adjective-noun to me. It's a dead, it has a crown; it is the crowned dead.

Play-wise; this feels dangerous. It's allowing it to be 1-mana and no-sacrifice early on. It does make you discard as well; so maybe it's OK, since it's 2-for-1 at that riskiest time. Later on, it can potentially be 1-for-1 but meh, later on you could have more mana, and the opportunity cost probably covers it.

Rarity-wise: Rare. Too much downside to be a mythic; and way too much complexity for common. Maybe uncommon? But seems both too splashy and also not something you want loads of. Some decks want 4, most decks want none.

"Some decks want 4. Most decks want none." That sounds a lot more like a description of uncommon to me...

Oh, also, this is good in limited because all cheap removal is good in limited, even if it comes with drawbacks. So another check mark for uncommon.