Possible better wording for Erode,

Erode (Whenever this creature deals damage to a player, that player puts the top card of their library into their graveyard.)

Follows the standard wording of magic a bit better.

I think the point is that Drake would mill 3 on contact, not just 1.

Yeah, and if it was hit by Giant Growth, it'd mill for 6. This is a damage-modification effect like wither and infect, and so its reminder text resembles the reminder text for wither as on Boggart Ram-Gang etc.

Tricky thing about the mechanic is that it's so much better in limited (Players have roughly 30 'life'. Questionable creatures can provide glue for decks. Creatures that deal damage can be run anlongside creatures with alternative victory conditions) than constructed (the opposite of all that). It makes it very tough to balance right. I suppose that also makes it rewarding when the effect is balanced right as well.

All I do know is that the set should have very few graveyard interactions. Talk about a way to nerf a good ability...

So I just thought of this: would it be possible to make it modular? Something like: "When this would deal damage to a player, you may have that player mill that many instead." kinda like Ophidian and friends.

Possible? Totally. If you do, it gives the player the choice of win cons, which addresses jmg's issues; however, it also creates a tension, which may be bad. BTW, you should probably have a less generic name for this card.

That's an interesting question (assuming we're talking about should you, and not can you). I, um, don't know. Instead, let me ask you a question in response to that question. Do you think Scars of Mirrodin would have been a better block if Infect creature had the option of dealing normal damage, if their controller wanted to do that instead?

Mmm, their fix there was Wither; which made it be ALWAYS infect, even when fighting creatures.

I don't know what the equivalent of that is when fighting creatures (Put them on owners library? Very harsh. Put them in hand?) but it might be worth considering as a direction to go.

As it is, in most decks, this is an efficient blocker with "Cannot usefully attack"; with the side option of there maybe being possible a deck with an alternative win condition; but it being very risky to allow such a deck to be built because it might completely dominate limited.

If the creatures are more useful when blocking or blocked; it would (counterintuitively) be safer to have them also be dangerous when unblocked - because then they're just a "This creature is good!" and easy to cost appropriately, rather than "This creature is usually terrible! But sometimes good! Argh!"

Also, of course, poison had been around for quite a while; they have a fair idea of whow powerful it is. Of course; that's also true of mill - and neither poison nor mill we see much of, in most sets.

Another possibility would be to do both, "whenever this deals damage to a player, put that many cards from the top of their library into their graveyard". I'm not sure that's a good idea, but it would be interesting.

I'm not sure which combination would balance best. Poison seemed to work surprisingly well. The difference is that poison is a secondary life total that starts at 10, but milling is a secondary life total that starts at 25-40. In theory poison creatures should be smaller, and mill-only creatures (though not mill twice times creatures) should be larger. (Eg. Drake is 3/2 rather than 2/2.) But I don't know how that affects the balancing.

I think Jack's option would be basically useless. If I'm going to have to deal you 30 damage to mill you out, odds are I'll have won already by then. (Modulo a large amount of playable lifegain such as in Extort decks.)

V's right that good-in-combat creatures are safer to make good-out-of-combat too and cost them appropriately, but making safe cards isn't how you excite players...