I don't know the wording to clarify that on the card, and i think i meant other than the equipee although i dont remember why i thought that was necessar

I will add an activate cost to the ability

i guess your right about the inferred use, i dont really remember what i was implying or intending for it...

i could just give equipped creatures vigilance... or i could add a reason you would want to untap it...

maybe get a +1/+1 cntr? that seems okay.

I don't know the wording to clarify that on the card, and i think i meant other than the equipee although i dont remember why i thought that was necessar

I will add an activate cost to the ability

i guess your right about the inferred use, i dont really remember what i was implying or intending for it...

i could just give equipped creatures vigilance... or i could add a reason you would want to untap it...

maybe get a +1/+1 cntr? that seems okay.

Other than that which was equipped? Or other than this card?

Apart from that, and being surprisingly aggressively large for a utility creature; feels like a fairly legit thing. I'd suggest adding some minor activation cost; because otherwise I'm sure people will find some horrible infinite loophole. (e.g. Lightning Greaves + Prodigal Pyromancer)

Oh; also - the obviously intended use of this (pseudo vigilance) is really weird; because it means attacking with things equipped the wrong way, then equipping them to untap them.

Two abilities, easy to fluctuate, put at rare. Feels better for more rarity sprawl and also the two other cards i made in response to Esteemed Wizard a nice pair :)

I've read all the comments, but they all suggest different card changes and fixes..

Here's my all inclusive plan:

Make this an enabler, and remove the prowess, because like vitenka said it makes more sense for the card.

I'm also going to go with the "put into hand thing" because it feels more blue than anything.

That exile draw UEOT thing is super neat but feels red, and I have this archtype in that color so I will make anothher card for that.

Tahazzar's idea removes repetition, but is kind of an entirely other card, but I wanna make that one too...

Having 3 enabler uncommons seems a bit condensed but also that's kind of my favorite thing to do at uncommon, that I am allowed to.

The way I'm reading it, these spells get exiled by a trigger before they can even resolve, so that replaying them isn't actually good for anything except prowess and similar triggers.

Maybe move the card to exile to be cast UEOT instead of hand if you want to only be use-it-lose-it with the spell?

Well, it looks like maybe it's intended to enable its own prowess. (But that's silly, you'd never risk this enabler getting into combat).

I dunno. I suspect the huge cost means this isn't actually gonna cause many problems. Once you're in a place you can get this going every turn, you could be doing better with almost anything else instead.

This is turning up into a mess. Why do you even want to go with recursion? That tends lead to repetitive gameplay patterns.

Maybe you just want something like:

> Whenever you cast a noncreature spell, you may . If you do, draw a card.

That doesn't actually work. Once it's in your hand, the game loses track of it and doesn't know when you cast it again. The simplest way to avoid just getting the same spell over and over again is to make it a triggered ability, so it can't get back itself.

"Whenever you cast your first noncreature spell each turn, you may pay . If you do, return target noncreature card from your graveyard to your hand."