­Constant Philosopher was too big, and probably rare. This devil turncoat has a kinder drawback (though, admittedly, still a problem in block.) and smaller stats. Got to be honest, though. I have no idea what's fair for casting cost when a drawback like this is added nowadays. We see so few of them...

cf. Herald of Torment 3/3 for 1bb. this should be fine

Ah, so it is! Thank you amuseum.

although first strike may be too much

Mmm. Don't know. One extra power for a lack of a great bestow ability/cost seems legit. First Strike for the possibility of everything going totally wrong when your opponent plays Font of Mythos, or targets you with a Opportunity to win the game? That, and how much weight does being two colors actually add? Oh, and it wouldn't be wise to play this in the same deck as Sign in Blood or Burning Inquiry. That's got to count for something.

I do know that cards like this need to be strong, or they fall flat. But printing broken cards isn't healthy, either.

against font or opportunity, first strike is moot. you just race and see who gets there first.

so when does first strike matter? it seems to make it a better defender than attacker. so maybe replace first strike with intimidate. it may seem redundant, but in fact the best chump blockers are white spirits (in real Magic) and other flyers (in this set). sure intimidate on multicolor is very rare, but could be interesting in this set.

Mmm, there's really not very many flying 3/4 creatures that the first strike would matter against.

And it does make it seem exciting, which it needs to be or having a disadvantage players will discard it without consideration.

Maybe fair? Maybe underpriced a tiny bit? It's hard to tell without testing. My guess is this is too cheap, but is too expensive; but that's pure guess - and would be a silly cost.

3/4 first striker may not be an intuitive choice, but it would help balance the creature if it's officially too good. I suggest tabling this until people get a chance to playtest and prove it's too good (which is better than undercosting it, and not knowing if it could have been pushed)... assuming it even gets selected for the skeleton.

I don't understand your desire for a negative Enlighten trigger at all. Why would we want to turn Aer's main mechanic into a drawback? It's extremely counterintuitive. Is there a drawback Landfall card that I'm forgetting?

Why wouldn't you? It's only one card, and not on a common. That's like asking "Why would Wizards want to print a Sliver that hurt you for each sliver you control?" Well, because it's interesting, and makes you think. That's why they printed Plague Sliver.

Not only that, but a negative ability helps define the set. It's part of the reason why Terror was included in Mirrodin - to help players realize how many artifact creatures were kicking around, and how, what was normally considered good, may not be so good in this set. By adding a card that does bad things when you draw cards, it really hammers into players just how many cards in this set draw a card. Some players may not quite notice that a card like Spin with the Attack was an intentional choice to give a nudge to Enlighten. They'll notice, however, when the same card negatively impacts them, though.

­Plague Sliver is more of a Sliver hose than something you'd include in an all-sliver deck.

i like it. it's what does. they don't follow the norms. this card tells you that power comes with a price.