See No Show.

• Assets are a permanent type. No card with that permanent type is necessarily printed - right now assets are all represented by face-down cards and all have the same characteristics.
• Assets are attackable.
• Assets are damagable.
• Any amount of damage is enough to destroy an asset.
• At the end of your (i. e. its controller's) turn, you put a charge counter on it. (Not an inherent ability of assets)
• You may play an asset from the battlefield (same timing restrictions as playing from hand apply). (Not an inherent ability of assets)
• Charge counters remain on an asset as you play it from deployment and - if playing it involves casting it and the asset turns into a permanent spell - as the spell resolves. (Not an inherent ability of assets)

Reminder text is work in progress.

Gives me a bit of a Netrunner vibe. There might be some rules issues since face-down cards on the battlefield are already defined as 2/2 colorless creatures, however.

The rules can handle permanents changing characteristics indefinitely. Hence the rules can handle a keyword making such an indefinite change.

The characteristics of a face-down have been defaulted to a 2/2 colorless creature, but the default can be overwritten by the rules of e. g. a keyword.

After all the rules can already handle overwriting the characteristics in many other ways e. g. Brine Hag.

The rules can also distinguish between different kinds of ways a card got turned face-down.

But if you really believe in the assertion that there is an actual rules issue, then imagine this was realized using a token and exiling the card face-down. (Except that would have some actual functional problems.)

I kinda like this variation on a planeswalker - you know how big it's getting, you don't know what it's gonna do.

The problem is going to be "Ok, those face down cards are morphs and this face down card is an asset; oh, and those are morphs with +1 counters, while these are assets with charge counters, and... yeah, that's not confusing at all"

So while, yes, the rules can do it, they maybe shouldn't?

This will employ the same solution to distinguish manifested face-down permanents from non-manifested face-down permanents: overlays.

For Limited/Standard any problems like this won't occur if you just don't put this and morph into the same set/environment, so that's fine.

I personally also keep creatures and noncreatures separate from each other, which should really help as well for the situation someone goes out of their way to play morph and deploy together without bringing markers.

It's the same three answers that usually accompany this kind of mechanic.

The concept (in MTG) is ambitious to say the least. Personally, I would have to be sold more on the flavor side of things. As is, I see it as a quirky, interesting, mechanical idea alone that seems a bit too 'remote' to have much practical uses.

A couple of good showcases (flavor homeruns?) with this mechanic and there might be something here worth looking at / exploring. This particular card is kind of 'meh'.

> There might be some rules issues since face-down cards on the battlefield are already defined as 2/2 colorless creatures, however.

UPDATE: (M19 Spoiler Warning) Leaked card text suggests WotC has come around to the fact that the rules can handle face-down permanents not just being generic 2/2s.

This is just confirmation of what I stated above, but I want somewhere to keep this link for every time the topic comes up again in the future. :)

PS: I'm mulling over how to sell this better on flavor - but that will depent on what kind of setting I fit it in.