Yeah, I agree with that. I know MSE is able to automatically parse whether it's supposed to be "a land" or "two lands," but that's probably more complicated than we want Alex to have to deal with

You're definitely right, and I should probably get into the habit of making my mechanics like that.

I don't know exactly what it is I dislike about having to do it that way, but my best guess is that it just seems inefficient (though, necessary). Also, harder to keep track of what cards are using it.

I was gonna say, the typical approach is to make one mechanic for overload 1 and another mechanic for overload 2+. The reminder text would be > Choose [a land/N lands] you control. [It/They] don't untap etc

The reason for the long text is that it could work as a mechanic on multiverse.

For example, Overload 2 would read; "Choose two lands you control. Each land chosen this way does not untap during your next untap step" and Overload 3 would also read similarly. It makes Overload 1 read weirdly, but I generally do things this way to avoid having to make two variants of a mechanic.

Also, I've done a similar thing with MTG's overload mechanic as I did with this reminder text. See Baloth Stampede and The Final Rite.

The only actual grammatical error with this is the 's' after 'land' when only (1) land is being chosen. It's minor, but I definitely think it could get on some people's nerves.

If I were aiming for perfection, I would just concede to my laziness and make two mechanics. But, considering this set doesn't have any mechanics, I figured it would be a bit overstepping to make two for just one card.

Thus, I'm using this wording as a sort of proof-of-concept, though it might be equally sensible to just use a simpler variant, since I've explained my reasoning now.

Could be more literal.

> Choose a land you control. It doesn't untap during your next untap step.

Also, you forgot the stats on this

This is the best parallel to overload I could think of. It's got a few problems, but I didn't really know how else to limit a player's mana...

At the very least, even if it's not identical, it actually works, and is pretty interesting.

It is indeed imitating its original rarity.

Also: fixed. Thanks for the spot!

I was originally going to go with, "[...] you may reveal a dragon from your hand. If you do, [...]" like it would be done in MTG, but in order to be more authentic to the actual card, I didn't make it optional.

This doesn't trigger if you don't reveal any dragons.

(of course in HS you don't reveal the card, but Magic cannot confirm things exist in hidden zones)

should say 'three seed counters' instead of '3'.

This doesn't do the same thing as Witchwood Apple does in HS, but that makes sense, considering how Magic rules work due to it's not-purely-digital nature.

Hm... I actually like what you decided to do with this. My only issue with this card is that this can get killed by Naturalize, when a more literal (but rules-impossible) interpretation would require an opponent to make you discard three cards or have a counterspell.

That's not a fault of your design though, just something I'd keep in mind when deciding whether or not to play this in an actual game.

I don't know if I'm correct about this, but the 'r' in remove might want to be a capital letter. Also, this looks like an uncommon (but perhaps you're copying it's HS rarity, in which case NVM)

Neat interpretation, it's definitely better than I could come up with!

This set is neat.

The battlegrounds cards not having mana costs makes it a lot easier to adjust them for Magic.

Though apparently it's a troll on this card rather than an Orc... but MtG's trolls don't really fit a 2/1.