This feels way too powerful for uncommon. Uncommon gets repeatable dealing 2 damage; repeatable 3 damage or more has always been rare, and this is pretty close to turning anything into Visara the Dreadful.

I still use Heartseeker in my Isamaru commander deck. In fact, when I drop Heartseeker on the board, that's when players have a tendency to drop everything and try to kill me. Considering that Isamaru is a quick Commander deck (I know, it's an oxymoron, but just let that slide for now) based on getting in early hits then sealing the game later, and that card costs the first time I drop it, and every turn after that... well I think it goes a long way to show how much a repeatable kill spell in colorless really costs.

Oh, I also pack Altar of Shadows. The effect on the game is roughly the same.

­Altar of Shadows in your Isamaru deck? I think you're doing it wrong. :P

Uh yeah; I don't think that's a legal card in format.

An, um, yes - this card here is either way too cheap, or way too powerful.

Oddly, adding some trivial restriction (target tapped creature, say) would probably be enough.

Shh!! It's a secret.

My group never bothered with the official "You can't play something if it includes mana symbols of the wrong type somewhere in the card" rule. It really harshed on a few players that didn't have many cards and the cards they did have came from Shadowmoor/Eventide. If you can't produce , why bother making it so that player can't play their Inside Out?

The deck doesn't have Altar of Shadows in it any more for that reason. I just forgot when I was writing the above paragraph. ­

I think I ranted about this before, but yeah, I always thought that the "colour identity must be a subset of colour" rule was overly restrictive. I understand the "should be in spirit of the commander's colour", but isn't the whole point of hybrid that it IS red in spirit AS WELL as blue?

Now I think the rules have gone much too far the other way: a commander with an off-colour activated ability should be legal, and let you have other cards with the same colour of off-colour abilities, and maybe even let you have lands that produce that colour. And I want five-colour decks to be viable. But when I look at an artifact with a five-colour activated ability, I expect artifacts with coloured abilities, not gold creatures...

Colour identity does include activated abilities. So Memnarch decks can be blue, and Thelon of Havenwood and Rhys the Exiled are blue and black.

Alex: What are you responding to? I agree that's what it IS, but I think the way its used it wrong.

As I understood it "colour" means "colour of card as determined by mana cost" and "colour identity" means "union of mana cost and activated abilities". And the rule used to be "cards in a commander deck including the commander needed to have their colour identity be a subset of the commander's colour". Then they changed it to be "cards in a commander deck need to have their colour identity be a subset of the commander's colour identity".

But I think this is wrong, and the rule which would actually be in the spirit of the format would be "cards in a commander deck need to have their colour be a subset of their commander's colour and their colour identity be a subset of their commander's identity".

Am I missing something?

Ah, I see. I was misunderstanding your "X should Y"s at the start of your "Now I think the rules have gone much too far the other way" paragraph as saying you thought that X didn't Y, but I guess in fact you meant it as a leadin saying "X does currently Y, and that's good - BUT - I think it's gone too far BECAUSE Z also Ws".

Ah, I see! Well, mostly, but I see why it was confusing, I think maybe I should use fewer subclauses in my life... :)