Well they do work consistently. It's just not to your personal taste or OCDness.

Do you really have a reason to your argument? Do all flashback cards work 'identically'? Do all mana work identically?

"they are different cards. why should they all work identically?" Because that's the point of using a keyword

Eh, worth a try. It just feels like fiddly words where a much simpler card will fill the same niche.

1. they are different cards. why should they all work identically? that's like saying big creatures should all cost a lot of mana; and you would disallow any big and cheap creatures at all. i.e. limit the variation of a mechanic or characteristic.

most importantly, that's the nature of the mechanic that removes text. that is, the original effect must have the word included before it can be removed.

1. thematically the words are supposed to feel discriminatory based on card characteristics.

FYI WotC still makes cards that care about coloredness.

Can censor ever be truly interesting? Yes? Maybe? e.g. tapped-ness; removing keyword; duration.

Mmm, the "Oh hey, we can have the special cost be the bad mode" is reserved for the second-run of a mechanic, where they're stretching it. It's certainly a thing, though.

I'd personally have thought:
"Creatures you control get +1/+1 UEOT. Censor 'you control'"
But it's a pretty similar point.

It feels fiddly for a space that is already played in by other mechanics. I don't want to mention kicker (because everything is kicker); but this is a classic "kick for better effect" card.

Can you ever censor anything other than a restraining clause? Can censor ever be truly interesting?

The issues with censor right now:

• It doesn't work the same way on all cards - sometimes the censored version is preferable, sometimes it's the noncensored version.
• Currently all cards I have seen censor phrases that you don't even want to use that often to begin with i. e. caring about colors.
• It apparently encourages designs like this where you have a symmetrical pump color hoser that is already uncomfortably complex before censor due to the possibility to pump your opponents' creatures.

The last point could be fixed here by e. g. going:

> "White creatures you control get +1/+1 until end of turn.
Censor "white" - "

But that still addresses only one-and-a-half of the points.

Finally this can be a french vanilla... since Baneblade Knight already shows menace is a part of this set.

Two-card cycle?

Yeah, the problem here is that the rules are unintuitive. You create a new land type that is the name and land type of a new basic land and you want that land type not to be a basic land type despite doing everything in your power to create the impression that it is.

Creating this card without making Vacuum a basic land type outright removes any intuitive implicit way for players to define what a basic land type is.

As a custom card designer it's better to bite the bullet and create a basic land type and rely on the fact that you don't interact with the full card pool than creating a solution that realistically cannot be chosen. Either way you are going down a path WotC is avoiding and at least just creating a new basic land type is something they might do by simply abandoning the old cards towards a wording of "Choose a basic land type other than Vaccum" etc.

For reference on how confusing Vacuum actually will be: I still regularlymeet people who think Waste is a basic land type despite Waste not even being a land type.

Honestly it would be better to create a new wording and rules for effects like Convincing Image than the other way around - and the interaction with a sixth basic land type is not necessarily a problem even on most cards that let you make a choice.