My guess is that this one of those "Looks really weak but turns out to actually be really useful for smoothing out a deck" cards. Assuming you cast it in opponents end-step it's effectively a cost free way to ensure you draw a creature. And also unfrobbles the top of your deck if you needed that.
I probably wouldn't run this; as you say, it DOES cost a card. But I can see it existing.
I have a feeling the flavor text would greatly improve if it didn't double down on the word "broadcast"... "what had just been shown"?
I'm not entirely certain who that "they" refers to either; security or people? Or are "their people" security personel and there is some kind of third interpretation of that text?
IO gues that works. Targeting the creature to be sac'd looks weird, but I guess that's just a wording bug. I did briefly consider saying "Choose an opponent, that opponent sacs" but idk if that would have had issues or not, but was intended to at least sound less ambiguous.
Now it's ambiguous which opponent needs to sac a creature. Maybe
> At the beginning of each end step, target opponent sacrifices a creature. If ~ is a Maestro, that player sacrifices a creature of your choice instead.
Keeps the end step part, and is marginally upside to get around indestructible, hexproof, etc
I tried to take some cues from dude1818. I still am determined to keep the ability at the endstep though. An opponent shouldn't have targeting restrictions. Does that create issues for the instead portion?
Having the ability target is weird. You always need to choose both targets, whether or not it's a maestro. It infringes on Sheoldred a bit, but maybe rewrite it as
> At the beginning of each opponent's upkeep, that player sacrifices a creature. If ~ is a maestro, you may destroy up to one target creature an opponent controls instead.
"your endstep" to each. I was thinking of Sheoldred, and as a mythic black legendary, this just didn't compare as it previously was. On each endstep, the ability is much more threatening, even when Silvio isn't a Maestro.
Should be:
> "The next instant or sorcery spell you cast this turn"
Applying to a single spell certainly is interesting, but this is basically Channel, so does this set have a Fireball?
I kinda want collaborate be a multiplayer-friendly mechanic.
That flavor text is a mess. :)
"double strike"
Reminiscent of Goldnight Castigator, though (effective) 8/5 seems more intimidating than 4/9. Well, at least this doesn't have haste.
Reminiscent of Sylvan Tutor/Worldly Tutor in that regard, but you have less control.
So it scries down to your next creature?
My guess is that this one of those "Looks really weak but turns out to actually be really useful for smoothing out a deck" cards. Assuming you cast it in opponents end-step it's effectively a cost free way to ensure you draw a creature. And also unfrobbles the top of your deck if you needed that.
I probably wouldn't run this; as you say, it DOES cost a card. But I can see it existing.
Does this effect seem like it is worth less than
and a card?
edited flavor text
I have a feeling the flavor text would greatly improve if it didn't double down on the word "broadcast"... "what had just been shown"?
I'm not entirely certain who that "they" refers to either; security or people? Or are "their people" security personel and there is some kind of third interpretation of that text?
Cool in concept, terrible [at] existing.
Used dude1818's wording
IO gues that works. Targeting the creature to be sac'd looks weird, but I guess that's just a wording bug. I did briefly consider saying "Choose an opponent, that opponent sacs" but idk if that would have had issues or not, but was intended to at least sound less ambiguous.
fixed typo
Now it's ambiguous which opponent needs to sac a creature. Maybe
> At the beginning of each end step, target opponent sacrifices a creature. If ~ is a Maestro, that player sacrifices a creature of your choice instead.
Keeps the end step part, and is marginally upside to get around indestructible, hexproof, etc
I tried to take some cues from dude1818. I still am determined to keep the ability at the endstep though. An opponent shouldn't have targeting restrictions. Does that create issues for the instead portion?
Having the ability target is weird. You always need to choose both targets, whether or not it's a maestro. It infringes on Sheoldred a bit, but maybe rewrite it as
> At the beginning of each opponent's upkeep, that player sacrifices a creature. If ~ is a maestro, you may destroy up to one target creature an opponent controls instead.
"your endstep" to each. I was thinking of Sheoldred, and as a mythic black legendary, this just didn't compare as it previously was. On each endstep, the ability is much more threatening, even when Silvio isn't a Maestro.
See above comment
to 
. With its drawback, could this potentially be 
or even 
?
Cheesy Lestat card.
changed to instant