Yeah... that was a bit too good. It compared too favorably to Punishing Fire.
To be honest, I'd probably say that the recursion cost is dangerously good at ... but it would need to be played to be proven one way or the other. I do know, however, that this is one of the best 'buyback' cards I've ever seen. Compare to... Shattering Pulse perhaps?
Interestingly, this has ended up quite close to Krovikan Rot now. You have to pay the buyback cost at the moment the creature dies rather than when something else hits the yard, but it's nonetheless rather reminiscent.
Wow, yeah. This is indeed spicy, but every colour has ways round it (even if red's are usually "burn/sac my creature in response so your spell fizzles").
I read a convincing argument that instead of giving splashy creatures hexproof and/or lots of card advantage, it would be better if removal were narrower and unconditional removal were more expensive. I think that might work better.
But it's impossible to design cards like that in isolation, the only sensible way is to stick to wizards current guidelines (or design a whole set with explicitly different assumptions).
FWIW, I suppose Wrath of God is the minimum, not the average, cost for mass removal. But OTOH, it's always possible that "destroy target creature" and "destroy all creatures" cost the same :)
For the most part, I agree. I like the game better when creatures are more powerful, and removal is plentiful. I just didn't have a problem with as the baseline to destroy any creature. But, I guess, if is supposed to be "Destroy all the creatures", then it doesn't make sense for Murder to cost 4, eh?
Hmm. I don't know. With cheap removal, there's no real reason to play 6 cost creatures, unless those creatures have a form of protection from cheap removal. After a while we ended up with a full stable of good 5-7 cost cards with a solid defense from being removed... but maybe it would have been better to let the big creatures to be splashier, and less defensive, and make the baseline creature kill be a touch more expensive. But it isn't. So la-de-da.
I think removal is just right where it is. For a long time, black's unconditional removal cost a million mana, and that hurt a bit the color definition. Now, they embrace the "it's the best removal color" very well. But, of course, there's not a lot of room to play with removal inside the best removal color.
Well, I thought it was fine until you mentioned Dead Weight. How weird. I guess when Murder costs 3, and Doom Blade costs 2, there isn't much wiggle room for situational removal. I kind of liked it better when flat removal cost 4. I'm not really sure why we dropped the scale down... it only seems to remove Wizards design options.
Combat abilities stopped being in vogue because of the pileup they caused in Lorwyn-Shadowmoor block. It doesn't mean you can't have them in common, though. A good designer just needs to make sure the set only has a peppering of them, and none that are automatic first picks in draft. Otherwise, you lose a lot of casual players.
Of course, some rogue designers response to that has been "Ef the casual player! My set is expert level only." That seems like a legitimate choice, too. We aren't burdened by Wizards restraints after all, and few people will say "I don't like this card because it has a tap symbol for combat".
One alone kills any X/1 that's threatening you, while "gaining you 1 life" from another attacker. It can also block and kill X/2's if there's another unblocked attacker. At the very least it prevents 1 damage from nonhexproof guys.
the red cost is a flavour holdover from early in the set, there was a cycle of cards that cost one colour and had activated abilities that cost another colour. When I changed the R/W race from Minotaurs (Tren) to cats (Leonar) this survived.
Yeah... that was a bit too good. It compared too favorably to Punishing Fire.
To be honest, I'd probably say that the recursion cost is dangerously good at
... but it would need to be played to be proven one way or the other. I do know, however, that this is one of the best 'buyback' cards I've ever seen. Compare to... Shattering Pulse perhaps?
Interestingly, this has ended up quite close to Krovikan Rot now. You have to pay the buyback cost at the moment the creature dies rather than when something else hits the yard, but it's nonetheless rather reminiscent.
Mmmm... I'm more often going to be willing to forgo the bounce cost now. I like that. I suspect most people won't though.
changed the cost to return to match the casting cost so it's a little less spicy :-)
changed return cost to
Wow, yeah. This is indeed spicy, but every colour has ways round it (even if red's are usually "burn/sac my creature in response so your spell fizzles").
pretty much what I wanted it to be, somewhere between Seal of Hatred and Symbol of Hatred
Sure; but it's still going to very often be "
, Reveal this card from your hand: Kill target creature."
But, the times where it's "
: Enchanted creature stomps you down to only -2 life rather than -4" probably make up for that.
it is limited to the creature dying - returning to hand, flickering, etc get around the return ability.
Ooooh, that repeatability makes it a LOT stronger. Probably not unreasonable though.
added a rider for when the enchanted creature dies.
Well, it does have the downside of removing all YOUR stuff; which isn't that helpful when there's only one threat you want to take care of.
And the emblematic Terror suggests "Having some limits" is the best way to go.
I read a convincing argument that instead of giving splashy creatures hexproof and/or lots of card advantage, it would be better if removal were narrower and unconditional removal were more expensive. I think that might work better.
But it's impossible to design cards like that in isolation, the only sensible way is to stick to wizards current guidelines (or design a whole set with explicitly different assumptions).
FWIW, I suppose Wrath of God is the minimum, not the average, cost for mass removal. But OTOH, it's always possible that "destroy target creature" and "destroy all creatures" cost the same :)
For the most part, I agree. I like the game better when creatures are more powerful, and removal is plentiful. I just didn't have a problem with
as the baseline to destroy any creature. But, I guess, if 
is supposed to be "Destroy all the creatures", then it doesn't make sense for Murder to cost 4, eh?
Hmm. I don't know. With cheap removal, there's no real reason to play 6 cost creatures, unless those creatures have a form of protection from cheap removal. After a while we ended up with a full stable of good 5-7 cost cards with a solid defense from being removed... but maybe it would have been better to let the big creatures to be splashier, and less defensive, and make the baseline creature kill be a touch more expensive. But it isn't. So la-de-da.
I think removal is just right where it is. For a long time, black's unconditional removal cost a million mana, and that hurt a bit the color definition. Now, they embrace the "it's the best removal color" very well. But, of course, there's not a lot of room to play with removal inside the best removal color.
It's like thinking Hornet Sting numbers in red.
Well, I thought it was fine until you mentioned Dead Weight. How weird. I guess when Murder costs 3, and Doom Blade costs 2, there isn't much wiggle room for situational removal. I kind of liked it better when flat removal cost 4. I'm not really sure why we dropped the scale down... it only seems to remove Wizards design options.
Alex: Maybe you forgot Dead Weight already exists, so this isn't groundbreaking. :P
I second the "why is this uncommon?" comment.
It seems a pity to see this at uncommon when it's such a common-suitable effect. It's not even overpowered removal for bombs.
This effect is still fine in blue: it's a variation on Forbidden Alchemy or Tracker's Instincts.
Combat
abilities stopped being in vogue because of the pileup they caused in Lorwyn-Shadowmoor block. It doesn't mean you can't have them in common, though. A good designer just needs to make sure the set only has a peppering of them, and none that are automatic first picks in draft. Otherwise, you lose a lot of casual players.
Of course, some rogue designers response to that has been "Ef the casual player! My set is expert level only." That seems like a legitimate choice, too. We aren't burdened by Wizards restraints after all, and few people will say "I don't like this card because it has a tap symbol for combat".
One alone kills any X/1 that's threatening you, while "gaining you 1 life" from another attacker. It can also block and kill X/2's if there's another unblocked attacker. At the very least it prevents 1 damage from nonhexproof guys.
But in multiples it's all just very silly.
Wow. Cool. I mean, it's a do nothing card, and you could still lower the cost, but casual griefers and mean beginners will absolutely love this.
changed it a little which makes it kinda stray into black a little...
the red cost is a flavour holdover from early in the set, there was a cycle of cards that cost one colour and had activated abilities that cost another colour. When I changed the R/W race from Minotaurs (Tren) to cats (Leonar) this survived.
changed the ability a bit, will look at rarity but you are probably right.