So... With this you can abort the things that have been inseminated... This is pretty loaded language right here.
Since this is so very narrow (animated lands, tokens, ..?) I would suggest making it an instant at least so you can shoot down those manlands (Mutavault) when they are activated to attack you.
I hope you knowI hope you know the actual definition of the word “inseminate….” The mechanic right now has some rather unfortunate flavor implications.
I'm all for using the mechanic in such a fashion. In fact I have been using "exhaust" privately to that effect. I am not certain yet whether the rules for exert are what I want to replace "exhaust" which works quite literally like "double-tapped".
I also don't like the term "exert", though it can be used this way if you apply the appropriate definition.
That said laughing at and insulting your fellow card creators is extremely low. You made a good call that a lot of other people did and you made another call that goes beyond that that a lot of other people are alright with.
Whatever gratification you get from belittling others about that hopefully outweighs the consequential way you are remembered by those you insulted - and still insult every time someone new comes to this site and reads that stuff.
I wouldn't use it, but if amuseum wants to treat it as evergreen for this block, I think that's ok. It's sometimes confusing when you can't tell how designers are departing from orthodoxy, and it's too easy to throw in one random clever wording without regard to the block as a whole, but "I think mechanic X should be evergreen" seems like a reasonable design choice to make (like I usually template with "they" instead of "he or she").
OTOH, I agree that this works melvin-ly, but I think flavourwise "exert" is something a creature does itself. "Tap and doesn't tap" offensively is more like detain.
This expansion of exert is rather unexpected considering how over-indulgent (in a "Melvin" way) it can be seen as. It's certainly something I would do but coming from WotC...
The question comes up again though: Is it evergreen now? We obviously are aware that "(tap and) doesn't untap next time" has the flexibility for it, but the flavor of "exerting" might not be considered encompassing enough.
If it's not evergreen then the convention is that it shouldn't be used in one-ofs.
lmao all you short-sighted fools that think exerted only works during an attack trigger.
as anticipated, the second set in the block where exert was introduced, they used exert in activation costs of activated abilities. which i expected when i made Overflowing Paddies, two months before they spoiled a cycle of exert-activators ala Hope Tender.
"Past colour pie still fall under crust" - Sometimes, yes. There's a bit of a spectrum, from a colour's primary or secondary abilities that are always OK, to tertiary abilities that will be used occasionally, to colour pie crust that's legitimate but unusual, to "acceptable bends" like Form of the Dragon, to more dubious bends like Decimate(1), to outright breaks like Beast Within and Phyrexian Tribute(2). And it's not always clear where along that spectrum something falls. Precedent is obviously not always sufficient, though it's clearly evidence to some extent.
Hmm, removing counters being black and blue? I can see that. Black wants it to clear out its -1 counters it took to cheapen things; and blue just likes messing with mechanics; and already mostlt got it via flickering. Yeah; that works.
The stubbornness comes from not accepting facts and going by feel.
@Tahazzar: "I'm not feeling the black here. Looks like a mono-blue card to me."
While we have no less than two official hybrid cards that directly provide this ability: Merrow Grimeblotter, Torpor Dust
So the evidence is there to support my argument. But for you designers to ignore that and pretend it as "regressive" and inconceivable is poor judgment and poor vision for the color pie and this color pair in particular.
So if you want to refute me, please provide solid and convincing arguments.
For that matter, past color pie still fall under crust--just less used, but still legitimate. Black has many forms of removal and debuffs. Power debuff being its weakest form is understandably going to be underused unless necessary. Such as debuff auras that want the creature to stick around. per your example Cast into Darkness. Now that's good use of design space, to be flexible rather than stubborn.
There are a multitude of problems with this color pair. Flavorfully they seem to have a unique vast area to share, but mechanically they do things very differently. However reality is their commonality is actual tiny. Even tinier is the subset of abilities that affect creatures, in particular debuffs or negative effects--ironic for a color pair known for control archetype. (Another problem is already occupies many control effects. Unless one is willing to move them to .)
Actually I just found a unique ability for Dimir: (re)move counters and/or auras.
ex.
Hybridize — If blue mana and black mana were spent to cast this spell, remove all counters from that creature.
Much more befitting a spell that debuffs a creature. This would naturally remove +1/+1 counters.
I'm somewhat confused about your stance now, amuseum. On the one hand, you acknowledge that the modern colour pie has a "major flaw" that makes it hard to "bring the colours together", specifically because blue-black are the allied colour pair with the least mechanical overlap and the hardest to design valid hybrid cards for. That's all clearly true and Mark Rosewater has acknowledged it. (They were trying skulk, as on Farbog Revenant/Fogwalker/etc, as a possible new U/B ability, but it didn't work out.)
But then you say that Downsize effects are "obviously within black" and for anyone who doesn't "see" that that's their problem? I don't follow.
The default implicit assumption for all custom card creators is that we're trying to do things similar to what Wizards would do. Most of the time that includes implicitly following the current modern colour pie. (Which is why we get frustrated by the kind of colour pie flaws you've mentioned, and why they're a frequent topic on Maro's blog.) That's not "stubbornness", that's just sticking to the default. But each creator will also have their own areas where they prefer to deviate from Wizards' current standards. Common ones are templating tweaks like "he or she"->"they", allowing higher average complexity because we're mostly not designing for newer players, and certain mechanics that the custom community adopted before Wizards did.
So, amuseum, when you say colour pie concerns are "irrelevant" and "that's your problem", are you saying people should recognise that -N/-0 is within black's current colour pie? Or are you saying it "should" be?
Hmm. Currently share flying, and indeed each have another evasion form, card draw (albeit at a cost for black), both get card filtering, both get back stuff from the grave (black creatures; blue spells) and both share 'control' though by very different mechanical means. There's really surprisingly little mechanical overlap for an ally pair, isn't there.
I'm not completely averse to colour stretching, but a card like this kinda wants to play up the "Hey look, this is both". Or at least have a "This half is more blue, that half is more black" kind of selection.
So you wnt an effect that is but not really . Agony Warp suggests one obvious way to go. -Power in ther either mode, hybridize to -Toughness too?
uncommom split cards
rare split cards
And as you can see, it was unproductive.
So... With this you can abort the things that have been inseminated... This is pretty loaded language right here.
Since this is so very narrow (animated lands, tokens, ..?) I would suggest making it an instant at least so you can shoot down those manlands (Mutavault) when they are activated to attack you.
That discussion was had on Elf Inseminator.
But in modern English, it is read as "to put semen into." It's a very sexual word, semantically.
To sow, place seeds in or on (the ground). From Latin seminare: to sow
I do seem to recall that.
We've tried having that conversation before
I hope you knowI hope you know the actual definition of the word “inseminate….” The mechanic right now has some rather unfortunate flavor implications.
I'm all for using the mechanic in such a fashion. In fact I have been using "exhaust" privately to that effect. I am not certain yet whether the rules for exert are what I want to replace "exhaust" which works quite literally like "double-tapped".
I also don't like the term "exert", though it can be used this way if you apply the appropriate definition.
That said laughing at and insulting your fellow card creators is extremely low. You made a good call that a lot of other people did and you made another call that goes beyond that that a lot of other people are alright with.
Whatever gratification you get from belittling others about that hopefully outweighs the consequential way you are remembered by those you insulted - and still insult every time someone new comes to this site and reads that stuff.
I wouldn't use it, but if amuseum wants to treat it as evergreen for this block, I think that's ok. It's sometimes confusing when you can't tell how designers are departing from orthodoxy, and it's too easy to throw in one random clever wording without regard to the block as a whole, but "I think mechanic X should be evergreen" seems like a reasonable design choice to make (like I usually template with "they" instead of "he or she").
OTOH, I agree that this works melvin-ly, but I think flavourwise "exert" is something a creature does itself. "Tap and doesn't tap" offensively is more like detain.
Good for you.
This expansion of exert is rather unexpected considering how over-indulgent (in a "Melvin" way) it can be seen as. It's certainly something I would do but coming from WotC...
The question comes up again though: Is it evergreen now? We obviously are aware that "(tap and) doesn't untap next time" has the flexibility for it, but the flavor of "exerting" might not be considered encompassing enough.
If it's not evergreen then the convention is that it shouldn't be used in one-ofs.
lmao all you short-sighted fools that think exerted only works during an attack trigger.
as anticipated, the second set in the block where exert was introduced, they used exert in activation costs of activated abilities. which i expected when i made Overflowing Paddies, two months before they spoiled a cycle of exert-activators ala Hope Tender.
"Past colour pie still fall under crust" - Sometimes, yes. There's a bit of a spectrum, from a colour's primary or secondary abilities that are always OK, to tertiary abilities that will be used occasionally, to colour pie crust that's legitimate but unusual, to "acceptable bends" like Form of the Dragon, to more dubious bends like Decimate(1), to outright breaks like Beast Within and Phyrexian Tribute(2). And it's not always clear where along that spectrum something falls. Precedent is obviously not always sufficient, though it's clearly evidence to some extent.
But back on topic, yes, removing counters is an excellent mechanic for U/B. Evokes Fate Transfer, and Leech Bonder, and Vampire Hexmage and Aether Snap.
Hmm, removing counters being black and blue? I can see that. Black wants it to clear out its -1 counters it took to cheapen things; and blue just likes messing with mechanics; and already mostlt got it via flickering. Yeah; that works.
The stubbornness comes from not accepting facts and going by feel.
@Tahazzar: "I'm not feeling the black here. Looks like a mono-blue card to me."
While we have no less than two official hybrid cards that directly provide this ability: Merrow Grimeblotter, Torpor Dust
So the evidence is there to support my argument. But for you designers to ignore that and pretend it as "regressive" and inconceivable is poor judgment and poor vision for the color pie and this color pair in particular.
So if you want to refute me, please provide solid and convincing arguments.
For that matter, past color pie still fall under crust--just less used, but still legitimate. Black has many forms of removal and debuffs. Power debuff being its weakest form is understandably going to be underused unless necessary. Such as debuff auras that want the creature to stick around. per your example Cast into Darkness. Now that's good use of design space, to be flexible rather than stubborn.
There are a multitude of problems with this color pair. Flavorfully they seem to have a unique vast area to share, but mechanically they do things very differently. However reality is their commonality is actual tiny. Even tinier is the subset of abilities that affect creatures, in particular debuffs or negative effects--ironic for a color pair known for control archetype. (Another problem is
already occupies many control effects. Unless one is willing to move them to 
.)
Actually I just found a unique ability for Dimir: (re)move counters and/or auras.
ex.
Hybridize — If blue mana and black mana were spent to cast this spell, remove all counters from that creature.
Much more befitting a spell that debuffs a creature. This would naturally remove +1/+1 counters.
I'm somewhat confused about your stance now, amuseum. On the one hand, you acknowledge that the modern colour pie has a "major flaw" that makes it hard to "bring the colours together", specifically because blue-black are the allied colour pair with the least mechanical overlap and the hardest to design valid hybrid cards for. That's all clearly true and Mark Rosewater has acknowledged it. (They were trying skulk, as on Farbog Revenant/Fogwalker/etc, as a possible new U/B ability, but it didn't work out.)
But then you say that Downsize effects are "obviously within black" and for anyone who doesn't "see" that that's their problem? I don't follow.
The default implicit assumption for all custom card creators is that we're trying to do things similar to what Wizards would do. Most of the time that includes implicitly following the current modern colour pie. (Which is why we get frustrated by the kind of colour pie flaws you've mentioned, and why they're a frequent topic on Maro's blog.) That's not "stubbornness", that's just sticking to the default. But each creator will also have their own areas where they prefer to deviate from Wizards' current standards. Common ones are templating tweaks like "he or she"->"they", allowing higher average complexity because we're mostly not designing for newer players, and certain mechanics that the custom community adopted before Wizards did.
So, amuseum, when you say colour pie concerns are "irrelevant" and "that's your problem", are you saying people should recognise that -N/-0 is within black's current colour pie? Or are you saying it "should" be?
Hmm. Currently
share flying, and indeed each have another evasion form, card draw (albeit at a cost for black), both get card filtering, both get back stuff from the grave (black creatures; blue spells) and both share 'control' though by very different mechanical means. There's really surprisingly little mechanical overlap for an ally pair, isn't there.
I'm not completely averse to colour stretching, but a card like this kinda wants to play up the "Hey look, this is both". Or at least have a "This half is more blue, that half is more black" kind of selection.
So you wnt an effect that is
but not really 
. Agony Warp suggests one obvious way to go. -Power in ther either mode, hybridize to -Toughness too?
Brainbite/Consult the Necrosages/Dimir Guildmage as a different inspiration - always draw a card and discard one; hybrid everyone discards?
Cemetery Puca suggests both colours can get clone. So make a creature copy P/T and then hybrid give it -3/-3? (Main is more blue, hybrid more black)
Oooh, howabout -n/-0 and hybrid gains flying?