A common 3/3 for 3 is one of the best rates you can get in limited. The option of cycling this would make it at least a mid pick in a multicolor set. The extra bonus of cheaper later in the game and random synergy with cost mattering cards makes it an interesting card with potential in less powerful cubes. Honestly to make it not such an enticing card I would push the cost, toughness and cycling cost up all by 1.
Obscenely overpowered as a common. At the very _least_, it's an appropriately sized creature for its cost, and it just gets cheaper from that point on. Then you tack on a low cost landcycling, which means evem iof you draw multiples of it early, it just gets turned to land. There's absolutely no reason NOT to pick it in limited.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
By "a good card for limited" I should have elaborated by stating that I believe this card would make limited more enjoyable by helping ameliorate the inconsistency imposed by playing with so many basic lands.
With regard to power level, I am fine with this card being among the best commons in a set, if not the best. It is better than most, but not all, uncommons and rares in Dominaria. Not because it is gamebreaking, but because it helps patch what determines the outcome of about 1/3 of limited games: mana that deviates substantially from the norm. A 3/3 creature for 3 mana on the draw is very good, but not unfair. Even an occasional 3/3 for 0 mana on turn 6 on the draw isn't unfair.
But a problem I now perceive is that everyone will be picking this card within the first three picks, and just a single common card isn't enough to make much of a difference. So I expanded to a series of 4 golems. Picking the right golems can also help smooth out your mana curve. I cut out the mana cost reduction for an opponent having lands in play; I previously included this mana cost reduction to favor the player on the draw, but it seems playing first in Dominaria limited isn't a profoundly substantial advantage, so this isn't necessary.
Just for Dominaria, I should add the text "This isn't historic".
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Dunes of Zairo
SHANDALAR
Innistrad - The Darkest Night
~THE RAVNICAN CONSORTIUM~
A Community Set
Commander: Allies & Adversaries
With regard to power level, I am fine with this card being among the best commons in a set, if not the best. It is better than most, but not all, uncommons and rares in Dominaria. Not because it is gamebreaking, but because it helps patch what determines the outcome of about 1/3 of limited games: mana that deviates substantially from the norm. A 3/3 creature for 3 mana on the draw is very good, but not unfair. Even an occasional 3/3 for 0 mana on turn 6 on the draw isn't unfair.
But a problem I now perceive is that everyone will be picking this card within the first three picks, and just a single common card isn't enough to make much of a difference. So I expanded to a series of 4 golems. Picking the right golems can also help smooth out your mana curve. I cut out the mana cost reduction for an opponent having lands in play; I previously included this mana cost reduction to favor the player on the draw, but it seems playing first in Dominaria limited isn't a profoundly substantial advantage, so this isn't necessary.
Just for Dominaria, I should add the text "This isn't historic".