What's with the sudden surge in "protection from color"? There is a reason protection has all but retired and returns only in color agnostic ways e. g. protection from instants.
You've seen the Horse cycle printed recently? Deliberately don't use protection from color, but only one of the four (but really mostly three) subeffects of protection.
dominaria just had another white vs black knight mirror pair, so maybe not as much as we think. yes that was a sort of more-grounded time spiral, but that argument is really not paying much attention to the set. This does feel like it should target white however. Also i could restrict to nonenchantment or maybe just creatures? which is quite whites mo so black would just love to screw that up.
the flavor seems sensical. it destroys good things. black nuff
Hence, "another of those... variants" - it has been done before. Many times in custom cards the life loss is tied to power to add another asymmetrical twist along with "you lose life instead of them gaining."
IMO saying to "equal to its CMC" instead "that creature's" in the second sentence is preferable here since there is nothing else that could possibly refer to.
In Vendetta and Devour the "can't be regenerated" sentence messes this up - we don't want to repeating the word "its" all the time so cards tend to switch back and forth between "that creature" and "its" whenever a new phrase comes along. Ie. note that the "It can't be regenerated" refers to "it" instead of "that creature".
I think is a fine cost for this as the effect in most circumstances does nothing. There are decks like burn that just fold to it - especially if it represented in an enchantment form as decks would have a much easier time removing an artifact. In my recent set, I thought of even doing this at common, which admittedly is a bit much: Imperial Magus. The card doesn't explicitly say hexproof since I've also though of removing evergreen status from that keyword, but that's another topic.
It's far more efficient when you can choose how combat pairs are assigned - which is what the defending player does when declaring blockers.
It's a little like deathtouch in this way except with a built-in promise to survive combat if the opponent is taken out. This at times disincentivises attacking and leads to board stalls.
Just flat-out making any trade one-sided tturns out to be strong.
Rsstricting it to attacking creatures conversely is better at breaking board stalls, hence Jousting Lance.
Do you mean "all other Rebels and Rogues"? The ability easily fits into green or white, maybe even blue. Black is not known for untapping like this. Maybe even less than red (which also shouldn't get this ability).
Yeah, it'd be a better card if non-rebels got at least some use out of it.
Is this a good use of tribal? Is this the best color represntation.
Could be Trumpet Blast, but Rebels get a small extra bonus. This would make the card less insular.
Nice one. Brutal flavor text.
What's with the sudden surge in "protection from color"? There is a reason protection has all but retired and returns only in color agnostic ways e. g. protection from instants.
You've seen the Horse cycle printed recently? Deliberately don't use protection from color, but only one of the four (but really mostly three) subeffects of protection.
I'd go with just creatures. Why did this switch from hating green to hating write? I assumed hating green in the original was a purposeful choice.
dominaria just had another white vs black knight mirror pair, so maybe not as much as we think. yes that was a sort of more-grounded time spiral, but that argument is really not paying much attention to the set. This does feel like it should target white however. Also i could restrict to nonenchantment or maybe just creatures? which is quite whites mo so black would just love to screw that up.
the flavor seems sensical. it destroys good things. black nuff
Mm, this kind of enemy-colour-hate is kinda old-school.
shouldn't be able to destroy enchantments this way.
Flavor seems off.
I prefer not playing the pronoun game. Both are valid.
Hence, "another of those... variants" - it has been done before. Many times in custom cards the life loss is tied to power to add another asymmetrical twist along with "you lose life instead of them gaining."
IMO saying to "equal to its CMC" instead "that creature's" in the second sentence is preferable here since there is nothing else that could possibly refer to.
In Vendetta and Devour the "can't be regenerated" sentence messes this up - we don't want to repeating the word "its" all the time so cards tend to switch back and forth between "that creature" and "its" whenever a new phrase comes along. Ie. note that the "It can't be regenerated" refers to "it" instead of "that creature".
> "Swords to Plowshares, but in
"
Wasn't Vendetta supposed to be that? And then later Devour in Shadow?
Wording:
> Destroy target creature. You lose life equal to that creature's converted mana cost.
Very old-school in wording; I agree.
I'd advise at least making this a sorcery. And probably not making it at all.
Another of those "Swords to Plowshares, but in
" variants it looks like. Assassinate is already a card btw.
What's with the old school 'reminder text' regarding lifeloss?
Will edit
This seems too strong to me + it's in the same set as Proactive Rebel which is kind of nonsensical.
Okay
it should say "you have hexproof"
By stable I just meant safer, or more appropriate.
Don't forget Shalai, Voice of Plenty :)
Yeah this ability at common might be just too useful too often. I could see it at uncommon though.
I'm not sure what you mean by "more stable".
I think Ivory Mask was the 'original' concept. Since then we have gotten Leyline of Sanctity, Imperial Mask, and Orbs of Warding.
On the creature department we have True Believer, Aegis of the Gods, and Spirit of the Hearth.
I think
is a fine cost for this as the effect in most circumstances does nothing. There are decks like burn that just fold to it - especially if it represented in an enchantment form as 
decks would have a much easier time removing an artifact. In my recent set, I thought of even doing this at common, which admittedly is a bit much: Imperial Magus. The card doesn't explicitly say hexproof since I've also though of removing evergreen status from that keyword, but that's another topic.
Ah yes, that makes sense. Always wanna know what players wanna do. Ty
It's far more efficient when you can choose how combat pairs are assigned - which is what the defending player does when declaring blockers.
It's a little like deathtouch in this way except with a built-in promise to survive combat if the opponent is taken out. This at times disincentivises attacking and leads to board stalls.
Just flat-out making any trade one-sided tturns out to be strong.
Rsstricting it to attacking creatures conversely is better at breaking board stalls, hence Jousting Lance.
How so?
It's also nice that this grants first strike upon attacking since first strike is an ability that can be problematic on the defensive.
Do you mean "all other Rebels and Rogues"? The ability easily fits into green or white, maybe even blue. Black is not known for untapping like this. Maybe even less than red (which also shouldn't get this ability).