Good point. The goal of the card was to create tension around revealing it or holding it up, so I'll up the reveal cost to reflect that. Thanks for the input.

There's a cycle of uncommon Planeswalkers in this set, so I felt it important that an answer exist at common.

The life loss attached is due to the kind of limited environment I'm trying to craft. I want to reward players for drafting grindier strategies, but I also don't want every game to end in a mill-out. Hence, a larger amount of incidental burn -- my goal is to create a tense "ticking clock" element for both players. The numbers on the damage might be excessive, but that's the kind of thing to adjust after testing, IMO.

A fine point. The sort of nuance I was going for with this card is probably best left in 90's Magic; I'll make both abilities permanent.

I've been bothered by that last ability ever since I first glimpsed the card. Today I took the time and had a close look. You forgot the second "cast".

It's weird that this hinders further copies of itself as well as setting a temporary rule and a permanent rule.

This is a lot for a common.

­Vraska's Contempt is a rare, so you could remove both the triggered and activated ability and still be at "a lot for a common".

Why "Whenever"? It's expected to happen only once, right?

Why would you ever cast this without the cost reduction (mana cost: ) if it's always cheaper to reveal it first (activation cost + reduced casting cost: + )?

This is basically strictly better than Negate in two ways: You can reveal it early to make your opponent play around it while keeping one mana open, and you have a chance to cast the next copy cheaper.

thanks! i'm really trying to push slower, grindier strategies for this set's limited environment, but it's important to give aggressive decks reasonable counters in order to keep things tense.

oh, that’s a cool ability

It's all good, haha. I never thought such an innocuous-seeming card would spark such a discussion.

Honestly, I just forgot red didn't have access to this effect; I figured that it'd be okay because Ride Down was already a card. I'll update it accordingly, but I'm glad that the current iteration caused so much buzz.

I meant what I said. I can support a color pie break, like I could support anything really, if you give me a good enough reason for it. Even if the point was to not add anything, but to take things away, deliberately, because you had a very interesting story in mind. Cool. I'm just not into doing it for the sake of making a card look spicy.

Show me a world where Blue gets Lightning Bolt and Red is the king of Counterspell and I'm down. But not just for the sake of saying "Isn't this cool?" No, actually, it isn't. You need one heck of a reason to do that. I personally couldn't imagine what that reason would even be. But I'd be willing to listen.

And before you counter, dude, by saying that it would destroy 25+ years of Magic... yes I'm aware of that. We aren't printing Magic cards, though. I don't hold card designers to Wizards' standards unless they want to be held that way. What we're all writing is fan fiction. Fan fiction can be fun. And one of the reasons why its fun is because we get to explore places that the owner of the franchise would never be able to go.

We can go back and forth like this, so I'm just going to stop at this and not say more in this thread. But I think your opinion is always valuable, dude. I just know that I could argue this point for a very long time and not get anywhere, so I'm applying the breaks to myself. Sorry HijackAttack! I didn't mean to turn your card into a forum post about design philosophy!