Meant to fill a land destruction slot in a more swingy way, loosely inspired by the card Crackling Doom. This is kind of most meaningful in multiplayer, and maybe a touch weak as a rare otherwise. Something like this plus one or two monored common or uncommon land destruction cards would do it.

This is very multiplayer oriented, seems a bit much.

Yea that multiplayer orientation may be off. What if it was changed to a Rhystic card for BR that does something like "Destroy target land unless its controller pays ? life"?

Why does it need to be more complicated by adding Rhystic to it? The sacrifice is a nice way around indestructible, but not sure the multiplayer aspect is worth it though.

I mean, it could be changed to just have target player sac a land and then lose a small amount of life, but that changes the feel of the card and doesn't appeal to me very much. The life loss would feel tacked on to me, much like our "Counter target spell. Gain 2 life" card is decent but doesn't feel as elegant or good to me as "Counter target spell with CMC 3 or less, then gain life equal to that spell's converted mana cost".

The feel here is supposed to be that the meteor creates a more global effect, that's why it ends up being a multiplayer card. But I totally understand that making a multiplayer card like this creates a power imbalance for when the card is not in a multiplayer environment. But part of the appeal to me is the numeric variability determining the 2nd effect.

The idea of making it Rhystic is more just a suggestion for replacing this card idea entirely with a 2 mana BR land destruction card that doesn't depend on multiplayer in order to function as intended.

There is a big different between being elegant and being good. "Counter target spell. Gain 2 life." is the archetype card for uncommon and demonstrating the archetype simply is what makes it elegant. The rares are where find the splashy effects, like "Counter target spell with CMC 3 or less, then gain life equal to that spell's converted mana cost." The commons are going to have a higher than average complexity, the same can probably be said of the uncommons. Keeping them simple when we can is something we should be aiming for.

On another note, I would rather keep the land destruction at about 4 CMC, lower than that can be too punishing. Especially in a set where we're trying to encourage people to player more lands.

The uncommon should be cycling related, and I don't see why we should have more than one multicolor cycle at uncommon.

I agree, although there are dual color factions in the set its not a multicolor set. If we do a second set after this then that could be more of an emphasis there, but in this set sticking to the archetype uncommons and then having the one slot at rare to do more interesting things is defiantly the correct way to do things.