Wow, quite the nerf on Echoing Truth. I mean, Echoing Truth was pretty good, probably the best of its cycle, but still.

My original idea was creature and any creature that shares a type but I felt that would play out like Overloaded Cyclonic Rift far too often.

On an unrelated note, the fuck did you end up being User Number 1 on the Multiverse? See the URL of your profile page.

Here we go. If you have Initiative late enough in the game for this to be an Overloaded Cyclonic Rift then it's ok. Unless this is still uncommon level of power.

How did I get user account number 1 on Multiverse?

Oh, just by, y'know, writing the site :) One of the perks that comes with creating a webapp: getting the first user account on it! ;)

Well why the interest in my little card set?

Sometimes I think Alex built this site just to see what other people would create. He's not only the first user, but number one cheerleader around here. ;)

On a separate side note: I was going to mention that since common removal has been nerfed, that maybe some common bounce might get some nerfing. But I didn't follow through because it's too tough an argument to prove. Clearly, Drag Under is no Repulse. But the rest of the stock seem like reasonable variations on Unsummon (albeit, few of them are as flexible as that one cost spell.)

­Unsubstatiate is the bomb... but it's an uncommon... so I'm not sure if it counts? Probably.

Are you saying that this is too strong? I mean you made the comparison to Drag Under and this doesn't draw a card but can have an upside of bouncing multiple things.

Well, the aspirational board sweep at cmc3 is stong. Wiping out a token deck. (Also, I suspect you meant "creature type"? Marine Restriction :)

But it does require you to keep a clean graveyard; which is a relatively tough ask.

As for interest; well; I got here by seeing it in the recent changes page - http://www.magicmultiverse.net/cardsets

"Why the interest?" Because just as jmgariepy said, I love to see what people are creating. That's what Multiverse is for: putting your card designs up to get hopefully-constructive critique. As Vitenka said, there are several of us who just watch Recent Changes to see what people are doing, and if something looks interesting, we'll come and take a look.

If you don't want that to happen, that's what Private cardsets are for. Private cardsets can only be seen by the cardset owner (and me since I have super admin privileges; but I generally leave people alone in their private cardsets.) Plenty of people use private cardsets to just collect their own designs and plans. You can make a cardset private in the "Cardset options": "Allow to view" -> "Admins only".

I wasn't saying this is too strong. Mostly, I was saying that I didn't know if the card this originally was was too strong (it's a delayed comment that should have been made before the change) though, I suppose it applies here too.

Is this too strong? Well, it's murder on a tribal deck, that's for sure. While it isn't as powerful as Hibernation, this card is more flexible, so it can be main decked. But I can't get a real read on power level. The only thing I can say is that it's explosive. Situations like this, I generally encourage testing.

Alright, I'll leave it as it is until we can finish commons and then we will be running a playtest before designing further.

@Alex, but isn't everyone admins? The only way I could find that allowed my friends to work on the set is if I opened the set wide open, making everyone admins and allowing anyone to do everything. If I could assign certain usernames as admins then I might be able to work some proper permissions. As it stands now, you can only set admins to be: Myself (useless if I want others to help), Everyone (Scary because anyone could mess up our designs) or signed in users (so... pretty much everyone?). Why can't I select specific people to be admins?

This is a good question. I'm copying this comment and pasting it in a new card in the 'Multiverse Feedback' set, under the card name Granting Admin Status to Specific Users.

Short answer: because when writing the site I forgot about designers working in teams.

For the moment, if you want multiple people to be able to edit your set, then yes, you need it to be publicly editable. (Unless you and your friends all use a single user account, like the Wilds of Muraganda team.)

Changed the card. Still bounces but now has a restriction. Initiative removes the restriction.

­Unsummon doesn't need to be powered down to this extent.

Woops. Forgot to change the cost

I deleted my comment because I didn't see Link's.

That said, I'm not sure which way around this should be. Should the restriction say lots of cards in hand or not a lot?

Initiative is more common in the early game when your opponent is more likely to have cards in hand. Thus if you lose initiative later in the game, this card will be useless as your opponent will be near empty handed right?

But if you make it that they need low cards in hand then it may lead to counterplay wherein you hold cards in hand to ensure you can't be Disperal Coup'd. Do you think that'd be better?

I like the idea behind the mechanics here - a card that's explicitly good in the early game.

But in the late game, this is a dead card. Why, therefore, would I put it in my deck? Especially when it's flat out just an Unsummon that you sometimes cannot use.

So yeah; problem here is that both mechanics on the card are coming across as a negative.

How about phrasing it as an upside, instead: Return target card to owners hand. If they have 6 or more cards in their hand, exile it instead.

Or, less powerful and more blue: UEOT, target creature cannot attack or block. Initiative - return it to owners hand.