1: See hybrid cost reasonings on wurm

2: There are no white lizards in mtg. While there is only 49 of them in the game, they mostly remain in green and red with a few in black. Keep them in mind for the second set as a gruul tribe?

3: Piety is pretty cool. I like the name and how it functions. Strange interactions though. It encourages going wide and then being defensive..? I feel the payoff needs to be higher perhaps. Cause when you have 3 creatures, you get a nice blocker. In order to attack with your 3/2, you'd need to have 3 piety-fodder creatures. Maybe if we make them a token heavy tribe.

4: Where could we take this mechanic? If you put it on a spell, then they'd almost always have piety because they cast it before combat. I like it but I'm worry about it's design space.

Excuse me for butting in, Trains. I really like Piety. I'm guessing that if you playtested it, you'd really want two untapped creatures, though. Four creatures on the battlefield is a lot for any environment except multiplayer... even in a draft it only would start happening later in the game. So unless the ability tied to it is explosive, it wouldn't seem worth the wait.

That said, while I think it makes for an excellent white mechanic, it makes for a confusing red mechanic. I can imagine environments where it could theoretically make sense. But I'd obviously be stretching to make the environment fit the mechanic, as opposed to making a mechanic that fits the environment.

Thanks for the feedback guys. jmgariepy, you are probably right about reducing the number of creatures. I am thinking too much about constructed and how an effect like this could be broken with lots of vigilance or tokens. Keep in mind this is a 2cc common so the pay off associated with this card is very low in comparison to the other cards I have in mind. I'll cover the instants near the end. You both make valid points about the colour and its place with both the mechanic and creature type. That probably kills this card right there. Piety is definitely a white effect so if it has to be paired with another color I figured the creature requirement was enough for red but perhaps not. As for where this mechanic could go, I figured a red/white could be very creature based and if you look at battalion this isn't too different of an effect. That being said, unlike battalion you could put a lot of extra power on an instant if it gains benefit from piety. Since its a trade off of do i use this for a combat trick vs gaining full benefit. That kind of thing is why I'm concerned about decreasing it to two creatures. It's a nice little thought experiment regardless. *maybe more of a white black mechanic?

Perhaps we could have it as untapped creatures instead. It would mean the effect activates when you attack. Instants would mean you can use them but only after you've committed to an attack. It's kinda like Raid but harder to activate.

Alternatively you could run them both. Have Piety and Zealotry. One measures tapped and the other untapped.

For what it's worth, my first thought was that this mechanic really wants to be in Selesnya. Going wide with lots of creatures has always been those two color's goals. Leaving defensive reach creatures untapped while swinging with a single big creature is a common green tactic, and vigilance is second in green... so a big GW vigilance creature to walk alongside your Piety creatures makes sense.

Thanks for the input, I will have a rethink and update it before Wednesday.

NEW CARD, let me know what you think.

Well. Seems really strong and yet unreliable. Having 2 cards with the same name is rare (meaning that this won't happen a lot of the time, especially in draft). Now I have to ask, can you cast the spell or do you cast it for free?

Casting it for free is overpowered. It's a free spell, and you get a benefit. The "cost" of having the card in exile for a turn is negligible.

The ability to cast it while still paying the cost is still pretty powerful. It either locks you into using your next turn to cast the card or losing it(from not casting it).

I like the gumption on making the next big mechanic but it would need changing. Not to mention that this effect seems kinda blue to me. I realise that Abbot of Keral Keep did a similar thing but Abbot is mostly run in Blue/Red decks.

It doesn't say for free, so it isn't for free. I feel that exile has always been within whites comfort zone and yes manipulation of spells in this manor could be seen as a blue effect. Regardless I feel that it fits red/white well enough to be justified within a tribe. This card should probably be an uncommon but its still just a prototype. Could make the effect stronger and take away the re-castability of the exiled spell. That would make wording it easier and cleaner as well. Things to consider I suppose.

Issac if you can, delete this card please. I think I need to take a step back and start over with my idea for the red/white mechanic.

Changed the text and name of reiterate. I wish the text could be cut down. Is there a way we can have "When you cast this spell, you may exile a card from your hand which shares a colour with this spell." as reminder text (and thus can be hidden) because it never changes.

You could do it like exploit. I hated how exploit was done.

"Reinforce (When you cast this spell, you may exile a card from your hand that shares a color with it. At the beginning of your next upkeep, you may cast that card.)

When ~ enters the battlefield, if it was reinforced, put a +1/+1 counter on it and it gains haste until end of turn."