Part of Buckshot cycle.

I have a suggestion that I think is more grockable.

Target creature gets +2/+2 until end of turn. If WW was spent to cast ~, prevent all damage that would be dealt to that creature this turn.

I strongly disagree. The current iteration has brilliant lenticular design.

Most people won't see that you can spend on the card and will think "ok, I can splash indestructible in an off color deck or playing it in a white deck as a +1/+1 buff" but more experinced players will realize that you can pay extra for an extra +1/+1.

The current version (along with it's siblings) is(are) basically a triple split card, something that can't be matched by your version.

@Raptor - You said: "Most people won't see that you can spend on the card and will think "ok, I can splash indestructible in an off color deck or playing it in a white deck as a +1/+1 buff" but more experinced players will realize that you can pay extra for an extra +1/+1."

This statement is exactly why I made the suggestion I did. The current version(s) is a common that "most people" won't get - i.e., it isn't grockable.

My version puts the WW right there on the card so that people will understand the full potential of the card. Imo, indestructible is not something every color should be getting at common, and giving every color the pump effect while keeping the protection in its proper color is the better call.

@Legend - The card is very grokkable at it's base level. The option adds depth and play value for more experimented players, but beginners will be able to read, understand and play this card just fine as well.

However, I agree that indestructible may not be the best keyword to put on a instant. I would, however, wait until some playtests to decide to keep it or not. It may be fine as is. I will not know until I play and draft with it.

I agree with Grim and Raptor. A card doesn't need to have all its functionality immediately obvious to be grokkable - that's pretty much the definition of lenticular design. The new player just needs to be able to see a useful function for the card.

Compare with Shambling Goblin. New players treat it as a 1/1 that, when it dies, gives you a nice bonus some of the time. Experienced players realise it can trade with an X/2. But the new player doesn't feel confused, or feel like they're missing out; they feel satisfied with their understanding, and then get a nice moment of discovery later.

As for indestructible in colourless at common - I think it's fine. Apostle's Blessing was occasionally useful in off-white decks but didn't cause many upsets.

Planar Chaos and Phyrxian mana are, more often than not, poor precedents for any design. This (and the entire cycle) is FAR more complicated than Shambling Goblin. This is a very designery cycle that appeals to designers rather than players. At best it has uncommon written all over it due to complexity, but the power level isn't there, so where does that leave them?

Some complexity isn't necessarily a bad thing. Some of the most interesting draft formats have been ones with complexity and depth, innistrad for example.

Hell, I started in Morningtide and the majority of my cards were from Time Spiral's block. I think sometimes the need to be hyper-simplistic is over-stated, especially with the ubiquitousness of the internet these days. If someone doesn't understand a card, they're literally a google search away from learning more than they ever wanted to know about it.

My point is, we shouldn't fear complexity when it gets us to where we want to go, we just have to be conscious of it.

As for precedents, Apostle's Blessing isn't the only one and it'd not necessarily a bad one either. Indestructible has been a thing with colorless since the original Mirrodin and instant speed indestructiblity has been common for a while too, just in . is inherently more balanced than , and it's not much of a stretch to go from permanent indestrucibilty to temporary indestructibilty in colors that already have access to the former. I think it's fine.