Huh; ok, so the nechanic's intent is to be useful early game and fodder later game; with a possibility of using "Exile from your graveyard" type cards to keep it going later? Nice.
And a pretty good example card; it's probably efficient, but might turn off. Downside is - it's never really going to be relevant late-game when it might get turned off, even if it didn't.
But it's a good simple illustration of the mechanic, and so perfect for a common.
Hold on, your wording doesn't make sense. What you're suggesting is that when a Monk is in the yard WITHOUT Ancestry, you can still return it. But then whats the cost of Ancestry if it doesn't have Ancestry on the card?
Your wording would turn creatures with Ancestry into like... Ancestry beacons, which can get any creature back if it shared a type. Not that it exists in this set but a changeling with Ancestry could theoretically revive any creature for a turn?
As your actual wording stands, it's exactly the same except that it's more restrictive as any Ancestry card that doesn't share a type with others will become useless.
If you're wondering about why I included the Remnant subtext it's because then it's an easy way to have other cards reference reanimated things.
I suggest making the Ancestry cards care about sharing creature types. So if you have a Monk in your yard you can still return it tapped and attacking.
Ancestry 2W - When a creature you control with Ancestry attacks, you may pay . If you do, return this creature from the graveyard to the battlefield tapped and attacking if it shares a creature type with the attacking creature. Sacrifice it at the end of turn.
The not common part has more to do with NWO considerations than power-level ones. Even if this was a 3/3, it would discourage new players from attacking into it because a set full of cards like this would make combat too complex. Wizards tends to build sets using imaginary 'complexity points', however. So if the rest of your set isn't that complex, than one card like this shouldn't upset the entire cart.
This could also just replace the tap symbol with a mana cost. would do fine here. Or even or if you wanted to avoid players activating the card too many times in a turn.
You've made a massive beater, but you need to hold it back for blocking if you want it to be most useful? That'll lead to boring stalemates and encourages bad gameplay.
The old version of this card felt like a blue card. This goes against the policy of these hybrid cards. Since white is the colour you NEED, this should feel like a white card that happens to have the simic mechanic.
Huh; ok, so the nechanic's intent is to be useful early game and fodder later game; with a possibility of using "Exile from your graveyard" type cards to keep it going later? Nice.
And a pretty good example card; it's probably efficient, but might turn off. Downside is - it's never really going to be relevant late-game when it might get turned off, even if it didn't.
But it's a good simple illustration of the mechanic, and so perfect for a common.
Well it does cost 1 more, comes with 1 extra toughness and costs 1 less to activate.
Have a look at a different card then. http://www.magicmultiverse.net/cards/70693
This is basically Trolls of Tel-Jilad, which also wasn't common. For good reason: that thing dominates battlefields in limited.
I've no idea, since you've hidden the reminder text for Guard.
Hold on, your wording doesn't make sense. What you're suggesting is that when a Monk is in the yard WITHOUT Ancestry, you can still return it. But then whats the cost of Ancestry if it doesn't have Ancestry on the card?
Your wording would turn creatures with Ancestry into like... Ancestry beacons, which can get any creature back if it shared a type. Not that it exists in this set but a changeling with Ancestry could theoretically revive any creature for a turn?
As your actual wording stands, it's exactly the same except that it's more restrictive as any Ancestry card that doesn't share a type with others will become useless.
If you're wondering about why I included the Remnant subtext it's because then it's an easy way to have other cards reference reanimated things.
Weakened his stats, lowered his cost and added a mana cost to the ability
I suggest making the Ancestry cards care about sharing creature types. So if you have a Monk in your yard you can still return it tapped and attacking.
Ancestry 2W - When a creature you control with Ancestry attacks, you may pay
. If you do, return this creature from the graveyard to the battlefield tapped and attacking if it shares a creature type with the attacking creature. Sacrifice it at the end of turn.
The not common part has more to do with NWO considerations than power-level ones. Even if this was a 3/3, it would discourage new players from attacking into it because a set full of cards like this would make combat too complex. Wizards tends to build sets using imaginary 'complexity points', however. So if the rest of your set isn't that complex, than one card like this shouldn't upset the entire cart.
This could also just replace the tap symbol with a mana cost.
would do fine here. Or even 
or 
if you wanted to avoid players activating the card too many times in a turn.
Well, the flavour is very much "Doesn't attack much" so spot on hit there.
But yeah, for 7 mana you want something that'll actively win the game, not force you towards a stalemate.
The obvious solution? Give it vigilance, or something vigilance-alike. "
: Untap ~" would be stupendous!
Also... not common. Not at all.
You've made a massive beater, but you need to hold it back for blocking if you want it to be most useful? That'll lead to boring stalemates and encourages bad gameplay.
Still feel this card is super strong. I mean would you attack into this thing?
The old version of this card felt like a blue card. This goes against the policy of these hybrid cards. Since white is the colour you NEED, this should feel like a white card that happens to have the simic mechanic.