In a set with a very small number of commons, I expect this is a lot more powerful than usual. Chaining two at 6 mana seems pretty broken as a game ender.

That does sound rather dangerous. I felt like the 4 life was rather lousy since you can usually get away with "Target player loses 3 life" and it also felt like "bad Flame Rift".

Along with Rebels, there seems to have formed this symmetrical lifeloss archetype in . Child of Melkor especially is drawing in neat bombastic interactions with cards like Let Them Burn and Fire-Ridden End.

This is a rare in every sense.

5 damage for 3 mana? Rare.

Prevents you from dying? Rare.

You do know that power level isn't really related to rarity, right? Like I remember hearing this phrase: "A common could be the most powerful card of the set" (paraphrased).

http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/51367886978/is-lightning-bolt-still-at-a-common-level-because

It only prevents you from killing yourself with the card, which hardly amounts to 'prevent you from dying'.

So far it hasn't shown to be problematic in limited though I could see it being a power player in certain archetype. Depending on what the purpose of the set is intended to be, I might need to do some constructed testing.

I think this might be an uncommon since it can be problematic in multiples - though that would be more of an issue if it was an instant and you could drop two of these on an opponent at 10 life "Oops, you're dead"-style.

Maybe. Up until the very end, if you spend time casting these while the opponent is dropping threats (ie. damage), you're going to dig yourself into a hole.

It wouldn't be unreasonable to switch this with, say, (((Price of Pride))), but it would feel less exciting IMO. Partly because (((Price of Pride))) is pretty bad.

I didn't even think about what SecretInfiltrator brought up - casting this card successively.

This isn't a common, man. Not by a long shot.

Also, he MaRo may say commonality isn't "about" power level, but actions speak louder than words. Lightning Strike is an uncommon now. Power level and commonality are absolutely related; but they aren't determinant.

A 3CMC "each player loses 5 life" spell could maybe be at common (and as 1BB Sorcery) in a set with a suicide-black theme. But there's no way it would have your second clause, which is restricted to Rares.

And here's where I flip the tables: it's not restricted to Rares for power level. It's restricted to Rares so that it's an effect that feels like it makes a Rare rare.

IF you're absolutely insistent on this spell, here's the most liberal version I could possibly entertain:

Feed the Emptiness Sorcery C You and target player each lose 5 life.

I still say that's too strong. 5 life for 3 mana just shouldn't happen. Red has to pay 3 mana just to get 4 damage in at uncommon (with the odd 2-mana exception of Boros Charm). And Red is the primary color for direct damage!

I don't think this in the realm of impossibility. "Deals 5 damage to player" has been frequently showing up at common: Brimstone Volley, Artillerize, Font of Ire, Sarkhan's Rage, etc... It hasn't yet shown to be problematic in playtesting either.