Is it wise to mess with the color too?

It probably won't have a big impact and from a flavor perspective it's pretty sweet but if this could present bigger rules complications it might be better to tweak.

I don't think it'll be a big deal but the question is worth asking.

Between this and something you said earlier, you've got me thinking: what if "color/multicolor matters" WAS one of the themes in one of the other sets in this block? This card is able to affect color in a way that is, in THIS set, rich in flavor but mechanically subtle. In a full block where a segment did care about color though, this card has a whole new relevance.

If our grand plot is about how the story changes depending on the perspective you view it from (time, politics, etc.), and we have cards that mirror that throughout the set, isn't it even more "meta" to have cards that secretly do that over the span of the block?

Just thinking out loud here...

Now I'm wondering if ooze is the best creature type for a blue card. I could be easily convinced that it is because I really like the flavor impacts.

I’m going to say the flavor is enough. There have been non-green oozes, and three blue cards reference them. Granted, Voidslime, Experiment Kraj, and The Mimeoplasm all are rare, but I think that the effect merits the color choice.

While Oozes are traditionally green and/or red, the flavor does seem strong enough to support the out-of-color creature type. Though I will point out that since you wouldn't need to produce a token to support this card, you could theoretically choose a more unique creature type if you were so inclined.

However, there is a greater issue in that layer-affecting cards no longer receive common-rarity and seem to be growing increasingly out of favor just because they cause so many rules headaches. Considering the reintroduction of Morph, maybe this slot is better suited as a reverse-Break Open?

The Break Open idea is pretty clever, Houlding especially if the effect only lasted until EOT. Again: I don't have enough objections to the creature type to make a stand, just looking to see the thought process.

Houlding— yeah, you’re absolutely right about the layering issues. I’ve screwed up plays with Turn To Frog myself, so I should have thought of that. I think the crux of the problem lies in the P/T change, since color and creature type are rarely modified by anything external, and are far less problematic in determining combat results.

I’m kind of in love with the flavor of the card though, so I want to give it one more crack before I set it aside to make room for an easier trick.

How does this look?:

Temporary Amnesia —

Instant

Up to two target creatures are 2/2 colorless creatures with no names, creature types, or rules text until end of turn. (Abilities granted by other spells and affects are still applied.)

I think this has a few things going for it. It effectively makes the creatures into anonymous morph-bears, which fits into the set mechanically. It plays with the secrets/rumors/mystery flavor angle. It broadens the uses and purpose for the card. And, I think, by using some pretty basic reminder text, simplifies any confusion about how layering works.

Why would you include a card that pseudo-"unmorphs" a creature in a set with Morph?

And I agree that the original flavor of Go Limp is so strong that I'd be hesitant to excise it from the file, that's why I think you'd be better off just pushing it up to Uncommon or even Rare. Sudden Spoiling is actually a really interesting trick, especially in multiplayer, and there's no reason a similar effect couldn't be put into blue.

But then, for this common slot, I would recommend:

Hide in Plain Sight
­
Instant
Turn target face up nontoken creature face down until end of turn. (Face down cards are 2/2 creatures.)

At a set level, it would be a little odd to have both cards, since they do similar-but-different things, but an effect of this sort offers a lot of interesting interactions while still being narrow enough that it'd probably just be of interest to the dedicated morph-player who intends on abusing it with his own creatures.

Oh, man. Your card suggestion does exactly what I’m looking for, I think. Minor mod, and it’s in.

There are two "meta" things I probably should have made clear early on in the discussion on this card. One, I want it to target up to two creatures in order to complete a cycle of commons. Two, I want blue to be weaker than black and red when it comes to morph tricks in this set. Your card suggestion can easily be adjusted to hit two dudes, and it interacts with morph without having to be played in a morph deck.

I really like that with a two-target build, it can make your 6/6 trade with my 1/1. Still a two-for-one card tradeoff, but when you’re staring down a huge beatstick with just a squirrel, any option is a good one.

M Houlding is a little off, since you can't turn something face down until end of turn. I mean, you can. It would be face down next turn as well. REEDIT: Actually, I'm not sure anymore. Let's just say it's too ambiguous as worded.

I'd be all for an instant that morphed a creature, then demorphed it... but I know that would cost more than . I suppose the spell could say "At the end of turn, if that creature was turned face down, turn it face up."

Looking at the comp rules, the closest thing that seems to address this idea is 707.7:

707.7. The ability or rules that allow a permanent to be face down may also allow the permanent‘s controller to turn it face up. Spells normally can‘t be turned face up.

At face-value (ha-ha!) it would appear that jmgariepy is correct, that the spell would actually have to be written as:

Turn up to two target face up nontoken creatures face down. At the beginning of the next step, turn those creatures face up. (Face down cards are 2/2 creatures.)

Of course, part of me suspects that Matt Tabak and the templating team could probably fudge things and get the shorter form legal, as "until end of turn" should strongly imply that the card should be returned to its original state. Regardless, looking at this more, I still suspect it might be a bit much for common, but wackier things have happened.

"Until end of turn" is indeed rather dubious. I think the delayed trigger is necessary. It's like "Return target creature to its owner's hand until end of turn" or "transform target creature UEOT"; both of those would be problematic too. Effects that make no permanent change to a card can be UEOT, but effects that do something that mucks with the physical card need a trigger to restore them.

Quick tangential survey: If you saw the text "Draw a card until end of turn", what would you interpret it to mean?

-"Draw a card. If it's still in your hand for the cleanup step, put it back on top of the library."
-"Draw a card. If it's still in your hand for the cleanup step, discard it."
-one-third of Ideas Unbound (so that you'd have to discard a card even if you managed to get rid of the card you drew)
-"Draw a card. Has the turn ended yet? Nope, don't think so. Guess I'd better keep drawing a card like the effect tells me to. More cards!"
-Get out my paper and coloring utensils, and go all Steve Argyle in a quick one-turn outburst of art.
-or something else entirely?

Perhaps the best comparison would be "exile target creature until end of turn". I think that's perfectly unambiguous and could be defined in the comp rules, but I think it isn't.

On that basis, if exiling/unmorphing temporarily was a major theme, I'd seriously consider updating the comp rules. But if it's just one card, I'd reluctantly propose accepting the "turn them face up again at..." wording.

I think exiling is simpler than returning to hand, since returning to hand is potentially ambiguous if you have another copy of that in hand, etc. I think "draw a card until end of turn" is even worse than that, since even in the best case, you've messed up your library order and seen another card, and you want to ask things like "when I undraw the card, what if I drew another card first?" etc.

If I saw "Draw a card until end of turn", I'd interpret it to mean "The author of this card is not very good at templating." I'd ask them to clarify what they meant.

I suppose my best guess as to what the author probably meant would be something like SM's second bullet: "Draw a card [and play with that card revealed in your hand]. At the beginning of the next end step, if it's still in your hand, discard it."

Well, it's a bit like saying "For the next hour, the time will be 3:12pm." Sure, my mind can process that, but it's technically impossible. Thinking about things like that makes good science fiction because it forces you to laterally think. It can't be printed on a non-silver card, however, without some sort of errata, and even silver bordered land would require some reminder text so that everyone was on the same page.

But, think like an author and not a Magic designer? Sure. It opens up a time rift that exists within the space of drawing a card. In this space, you may play any number of spells (not including the one you are drawing... that's just silly) and they can't be responded to, except for by other players who are currently drawing a card. When you are done drawing a card, the turn is over, since you are drawing a card until end of turn.