Nightmare SeekerUBR Creature — Nightmare
Creatures lose all "can't block" and "can't be blocked" effects from their abilities.
Sacrifice a creature: Exile Nightmare Seeker, then return it to the battlefield at anytime before end of turn. You gain 3 life. "Among morbid tales of nightmare creatures exists one that is enthralled in the act of watching people do themselves in."
5/3
Another concept for this design involved using ":Regenerate:" instead, with the same life boosting effect. The amount of life inspiration draws from Elixir of Immortality. It could easily be reduced by one, and draw inspiration from Elixir of Vitality instead. I fear it really only wants to feign being different and more balanced then though. I had originally envisioned this as an enigmatic enveloping spirit from the darkness; something of a 0/6 Banding creature that seeks to indulge itself in the nightmare of combat. And thus behind people, instill's dark confidence within them, and propels them forward. It still has that connotation, just with more offensive power of its own. I like the unique bit about being able to return it at any time before end of turn, but with the life boosting effect, would be compelled to restrict it to 'at the end of turn' so that it can only be used once a turn.
I also originally wanted to compose the first text with the term "abilities", but then foresaw red tape in that this doesn't want to remove entire abilities of 'flying' and 'protection' but only wants to remove the 'can't be blocked' effects from them. Thus, I decided to just word it this way instead to spare any need for bend of the imagination rulings that crossing terms and context.
From a design intent point of view (i.e. What you want the card to do) this seems mostly fine. The gaining 5 off the "regeneration" is probably too strong for the cost of the creature and ability, especially since there is no mana payment involved meaning your opponent can only fully remove the creature if you have no creatures in play. It probably needs to cost 1-2 mana more and have a mana cost associated with the activation so that your opponent can interact with it if you tap out.
The first line of text probably needs to be reworded. I don't feel like argueing about the templating, but suffice to say that what you wrote "makes sense" but for an actual card to have the effect you want would require significantly more text.
The second line flickering doesn't really fit for a BR card (flickering is Blue/White) and the common convention to represent regeneration is either temporary indestructibility or returning from graveyard if killed this turn. The flickering, combined with the lifegain and making things lose "can't block" makes this a better fit in Black/White or W/U/B or W/B/R.
The returning at any time thing creates a lot of issues as written, both from a timing/priority/ability interaction standpoint and from the fact that bringing this guy back before the end of turn means you could potentially activate the ability many times in the same turn for the 5 life per creature sacced. If you want to stick with flickering, end of turn is needed to make this not broken.
Looking at what you want to accomplish. You probably want to go with "Ignore can't...." instead of your current abilities lose. In fact I think it can be cleaned up to a simple. "Ignore all blocking restrictions". As with most of your designs it would require an explanation in the comp rules but it seems to more succinctly convey the intent.
The return it at anytime text is nonsensical. Its using duration words when its giving a permission for an action.
Sacrifice a creature : Exile ~. Gain 5 life. Until end of turn you may put ~ onto the battlefield.
Looking at the actual design of the card. I question why BUR is encouraging the ability to block. They neither seem like a combination that wants to be blocked or that wants to block. The sacrifice ability is fine on a black card though it is very powerful. So much so that it definitely needs to cost mana: possibly a lot of mana or require tapping so it can't so easily be used to gain absurd amounts of life.
I dreaded the thought of how monotone the deck structure around this card would be though if it were simply allowed to only incorporate those two colors, and becomes some off-shoot of the Death's Shadow/Tarmogoyf deck. I splashed the in there to help create some more aspect of challenge, and give the design a little more style, and flare, and fantasy.
Additionally, consider using the Exile function over Regeneration (when it's restricted to the end of turn), helps to further balance the design abroad, as it puts a dampener on the combat phase for the player controlling Nightmare Seeker. This aspect of balance helps make the design more respectable and sophisticated in my opinion.
I dreaded the thought of how monotone the deck structure around this card would be though if it were simply allowed to only incorporate those two colors, and becomes some off-shoot of the Death's Shadow/Tarmogoyf deck. I splashed the in there to help create some more aspect of challenge, and give the design a little more style, and flare, and fantasy.
You do realize that the gain life here is anti-synergy with Death's Shadow, right?
I dreaded the thought of how monotone the deck structure around this card would be though if it were simply allowed to only incorporate those two colors,
This is understandable as how you made your leap but looking at your card that is the least important part. Yes, its there and does things but no one is going to make a "can't block" tribal deck just to use this so they can block. Unfortunately because of the colors you chose for this the most interesting part of your card is the least valuable. Though that is also the fualt of the secondary ability being down right oppressive.
For what it's worth, I am pretty sure that user_938036 is correct in saying that the primary ability would simply state "Ignore all blocking restrictons" or "All blocking restrictions re ignored". I think that still sounds a bit silver-bordered as newer players would read that and think that restrictions like only being able to block one creature or only being able to block if untapped are ignored (or not realize that menace or flying ARE affected) but the language is present in the appropriate rules. Maybe something like "All blocking restrictions and requirements are ignored" if you want to be thorough.
Quote from The Comprehensive Rules »
509.1b The defending player checks each creature they control to see whether it’s affected by any restrictions (effects that say a creature can’t block, or that it can’t block unless some condition is met). If any restrictions are being disobeyed, the declaration of blockers is illegal.
A restriction may be created by an evasion ability (a static ability an attacking creature has that restricts what can block it). If an attacking creature gains or loses an evasion ability after a legal block has been declared, it doesn’t affect that block. Different evasion abilities are cumulative.
Example: An attacking creature with flying and shadow can’t be blocked by a creature with flying but without shadow.
509.1c The defending player checks each creature they control to see whether it’s affected by any requirements (effects that say a creature must block, or that it must block if some condition is met). If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of blockers is illegal. If a creature can’t block unless a player pays a cost, that player is not required to pay that cost, even if blocking with that creature would increase the number of requirements being obeyed. If a requirement that says a creature blocks if able during a certain turn refers to a turn with multiple combat phases, the creature blocks if able during each declare blockers step in that turn.
Example: A player controls one creature that “blocks if able” and another creature with no abilities. If a creature with menace attacks that player, the player must block with both creatures. Having only the first creature block violates the restriction created by menace (the attacking creature can’t be blocked except by two or more creatures). Having only the second creature block violates both the menace restriction and the first creature’s blocking requirement. Having neither creature block fulfills the restriction but not the requirement.
Also, yeah, the free sacrifice outlet to gain 5 life which makes the creature basically unkillable by any means would be the main selling point of the card, not the blocking ability. It's literally the best rate that you can get when it comes to sacrificing for life. It sometimes seems like you design cards to complete very niche functions and then get caught up by "What if my card dies and the deck built around it flounders?" or "What if there's a game when I don't need this particular effect" and you end up adding some protection/card advantage ability to make sure that it is always useful or definitely won't be removed... which almost always overshadows the supposedly "primary" ability.
Like, seriously. It's okay to make a card for a new archetype and allow it to die.
Also, yeah, the free sacrifice outlet to gain 5 life which makes the creature basically unkillable by any means would be the main selling point of the card, not the blocking ability.
That's not entirely true.
Having to sacrifice a creature is counter-intuitive against heavy removal. You would need to run something like Bitterblossom, and now were getting into complex webs of cards. So which other Zombie are you running to enable Gravecrawler—probably Risen Executioner—Shambling Remains? But also note this enables Unleash—has synergy with Scavenge. But once again, now we're getting into complex webs of cards.
Also, yeah, the free sacrifice outlet to gain 5 life which makes the creature basically unkillable by any means would be the main selling point of the card, not the blocking ability.
That's not entirely true.
Having to sacrifice a creature is counter-intuitive against heavy removal. You would need to run something like Bitterblossom, and now were getting into complex webs of cards. So which other Zombie are you running to enable Gravecrawler—probably Risen Executioner—Shambling Remains? But also note this enables Unleash—has synergy with Scavenge. But once again, now we're getting into complex webs of cards.
And your point is?
MTG is a complex game with over 10,000 game pieces. Anything you make is being introduced to a complex web of existing cards, especially as it would theoretically be legal in eternal formats.
The gain 5 life part of your ability pushes that ability into greater relevance because a rich web of cards (and a well-known archetype called aristocrats) thrives on free sac outlets like this one. Because the complex network of cards exists.
The blocking restrictions being removed, meanwhile... that is almost entirely useless trinket text.
The reverse (allowing creatures with defender to attack) is useful as:
1) It moves the game toward victory as attacking will be lowering your opponents life.
2) many cards with defender have big offensive bodies relative to their cost, having effectively used defender as a balancing factor to buff their stats.
3) Allowing defenders to attack typically isn’t enough on its own. Note that most decks with attacking defenders need them to deal damage with their toughness in order for them to be worthwhile.
For your ability, meanwhile:
1) creatures that can’t block typically don’t get crazy high stats that would make them work blocking with. Even if you use a Zilortha style defense (lethal damage based on power), you are talking about getting a virtual 2/2 for 1 mana while a wall deck with “butt-fighting” gets a virtual 4/4s for 1 mana.
2) Giving the ability to block doesn’t move the game toward conclusion and giving. Your attackers a way to block doesn’t really give you a way to win. Even if you create some sort of “blocking trample”, the opponent could simply choose not to attack, leading to a stalemate.
If you could assemble a quick and dirty deck list to show what sort of deck would want this sort of blocking enabled, feel free to show us.
Also, yeah, the free sacrifice outlet to gain 5 life which makes the creature basically unkillable by any means would be the main selling point of the card, not the blocking ability.
That's not entirely true.
Having to sacrifice a creature is counter-intuitive against heavy removal. You would need to run something like Bitterblossom, and now were getting into complex webs of cards. So which other Zombie are you running to enable Gravecrawler—probably Risen Executioner—Shambling Remains? But also note this enables Unleash—has synergy with Scavenge. But once again, now we're getting into complex webs of cards.
There is no complex web of cards. You don't need token producers or immortal cards. Literally, any other creatures are a fine include for this card. And with its aggressive cost and body it fits right into an aggressive deck that runs creatures.
You know what is a perfect pair with this creature. Any one drop with 2 power in red or black. Is this web of cards too complex for you to imagine them being used together? You know what else goes great with it, anything that makes tokens and costs 3 or less. Certainly, we're imagining this card being played with other magic cards so these synergies are outside your design purview. You design cards to be played in exactly one way and that way is never oppressive or unfun yet is also unrestricted so players can find the best way to play in a not oppressive or unfun method.
As a final point. If you design a card for a purpose and the player base finds a complex web of cards that make your card broken then you have messed up. Especially if in the design process this is pointed out to you and your response is no one will do that, it's a complex web of cards.
Edit: One last thing. Thank you for once again showing you have no idea how this game is played in one of your very first sentences. "Having to sacrifice a creature is counter-intuitive against heavy removal." Do you know what is the best answer to heavy removal? The ability to sacrifice your creatures for value.
Doesn't matter the environment they're being brought into.
This isn't one of those cards. The potential is being overstated, and only exists alongside complex webs of cards, not in the card by itself.
I've finalized the design. I think this is much more functional for what it wants to do, and what it needs to do, given the complex web of cards it would use to function.
For a moment, I had considered adding "can't attack" to the list of effects it removes from abilities. However, I don't think that's intuitive to the design, as it would push it over, and that effect really would want/need to be composed as: "Non-wall creatures lose all "can't attack" effects from their abilities."
Doesn't matter the environment they're being brought into.
This isn't one of those cards. The potential is being overstated, and only exists alongside complex webs of cards, not in the card by itself.
This is something that I don't think you are getting.
If a card is created, barring silver borders or ante, it goes into eternal formats.
If you imagine this card being printed into a set where this card functions appropriately, that's okay. If it actually existed, however, It would simultaneously exist in the commander format, where it would definitely not function as intended because of the "complex web of cards". That is not okay. Asking us to imagine what a card would do in the "right" setting (curated card pool) is an utterly meaningless thought exercise as the card would simultaneously be introduced to the "wrong" settings (full card pool). No amount of "It would play well in a draft with cards A, B, and C" magically cancels out "It would warp the game in commander with cards X, Y, and Z".
If a card is created, barring silver borders or ante, it goes into eternal formats.
Period. End of story. Full Stop.
If you do not have a basic awareness of what exists in the modern card pool and how the game is actually played, you are doomed to produce bad designs. If you do not listen to basic feedback from people who know the modern card pool and how the game is actually played, you are doomed to produce bad finished products.
Edit: Before you go for the obvious out and say "I could ban this card from formats if it doesn't work" or "I can ban the others cards that keeps this card from working in all formats"... Any card that gets itself banned or that forces other cards to get banned... isn't a good card. If you have followed any degree of discourse regarding the game, you should know that making cards that have to be banned has been a major criticism of WotC.
I think what you're suggesting would be true if it were legendary, which I am surprised I didn't see here, and that is exactly the defense explanation I had prepared if that argument did come up.
This was considered, especially with the unique ability.
However, it's simply not as healthy or intuitive has a legendary creature.
This becomes a case where two entities think of themselves in the light, then would meet head-to-head to end in a death by degrees between them.
I think what you're suggesting would be true if it were legendary, which I am surprised I didn't see here, and that is exactly the defense explanation I had prepared if that argument did come up.
This was considered, especially with the unique ability.
However, it's simply not as healthy or intuitive has a legendary creature.
This becomes a case where two entities think of themselves in the light, then would meet head-to-head to end in a death by degrees between them.
...So you seem to be trying to say that being unlikely to draw a card in a 99 card singleton format makes its high power level (and the fact that it would be used as a sac outlet and not a blocking enabler) irrelevant.
Remember that part where I said: If a card is created, barring silver borders or ante, it goes into eternal formats.
The point I'm trying to make is that your card is going into the exact same format as all of the tutors that anyone would need to all but guarantee access to this card if they want it. If you don't like tutors in MTG, that is irrelevant. Again:
If a card is created, barring silver borders or ante, it goes into eternal formats.
Whatever the fantasy setting you imagine these cards being released into, they would also be released into a setting with the London Mulligan and enough tutors that "low probability" can no longer be used to somehow make "corner cases" acceptable design. If you think that the card pool available in eternal formats should be changed to make probability more meaningful and that the prevalence of tutors makes the game "sloppy" or "non-interactive", repeat the mantra:
If a card is created, barring silver borders or ante, it goes into eternal formats.
It is too late. The other cards exist. They have priority over your card by virtue of actually existing already. Anything new that gets added into the game is added into the game where the previous game pieces already exist. If the choice is kicking several existing cards out of existence or simply not printing your card... nobody is going to print you card in this game.
This is why we ask you to design around what already exists.
If a card was created, barring silver borders or ante, it is already in eternal formats.
We judge your cards based on the knowledge we have about what exists and how people play. It appears that this is knowledge that you severely lack if you are still referring to exalted angel as an example of a self-sufficient card or feel that sacrificing a creature is bad against hard removal.
We are not grading on a curve. We are not grading according to Magic according to Reap.
You're basically trying to build a case that would alienate all creative content.
The bottom line is that a card with synergy based on complex webs of cards is far more balanced and creative than one that exists as its own.
Sadly, among creators many thing the opposite is true, but it's not either.
That is why I like posting in communities and welcoming the creative feedback. It's just unfortunate that not all feedback is honest or reliable.
We're not about to begin alienating Johnny cards before Timmy cards.
You are being very disingenuous here. Valid critique was brought against your card. You responded by making the argument a hyperbole and then dismiss it out of hand.
Some cards require a complex web of other cards to become broken. This card doesn't. It needs other creatures to be broken. If you personally feel that combing with any creatures is an unreasonable expectation to design around then there is nothing more to discuss.
Creature — Nightmare
Creatures lose all "can't block" and "can't be blocked" effects from their abilities.
Sacrifice a creature: Exile Nightmare Seeker, then return it to the battlefield at anytime before end of turn. You gain 3 life.
"Among morbid tales of nightmare creatures exists one that is enthralled in the act of watching people do themselves in."
5/3
Another concept for this design involved using ":Regenerate:" instead, with the same life boosting effect. The amount of life inspiration draws from Elixir of Immortality. It could easily be reduced by one, and draw inspiration from Elixir of Vitality instead. I fear it really only wants to feign being different and more balanced then though. I had originally envisioned this as an enigmatic enveloping spirit from the darkness; something of a 0/6 Banding creature that seeks to indulge itself in the nightmare of combat. And thus behind people, instill's dark confidence within them, and propels them forward. It still has that connotation, just with more offensive power of its own. I like the unique bit about being able to return it at any time before end of turn, but with the life boosting effect, would be compelled to restrict it to 'at the end of turn' so that it can only be used once a turn.
I also originally wanted to compose the first text with the term "abilities", but then foresaw red tape in that this doesn't want to remove entire abilities of 'flying' and 'protection' but only wants to remove the 'can't be blocked' effects from them. Thus, I decided to just word it this way instead to spare any need for bend of the imagination rulings that crossing terms and context.
The first line of text probably needs to be reworded. I don't feel like argueing about the templating, but suffice to say that what you wrote "makes sense" but for an actual card to have the effect you want would require significantly more text.
The second line flickering doesn't really fit for a BR card (flickering is Blue/White) and the common convention to represent regeneration is either temporary indestructibility or returning from graveyard if killed this turn. The flickering, combined with the lifegain and making things lose "can't block" makes this a better fit in Black/White or W/U/B or W/B/R.
The returning at any time thing creates a lot of issues as written, both from a timing/priority/ability interaction standpoint and from the fact that bringing this guy back before the end of turn means you could potentially activate the ability many times in the same turn for the 5 life per creature sacced. If you want to stick with flickering, end of turn is needed to make this not broken.
The return it at anytime text is nonsensical. Its using duration words when its giving a permission for an action.
Sacrifice a creature : Exile ~. Gain 5 life. Until end of turn you may put ~ onto the battlefield.
Looking at the actual design of the card. I question why BUR is encouraging the ability to block. They neither seem like a combination that wants to be blocked or that wants to block. The sacrifice ability is fine on a black card though it is very powerful. So much so that it definitely needs to cost mana: possibly a lot of mana or require tapping so it can't so easily be used to gain absurd amounts of life.
Ashenmoor Gouger Branded Brawlers Ember Beast Spineless Thug Goblin Goon
I dreaded the thought of how monotone the deck structure around this card would be though if it were simply allowed to only incorporate those two colors, and becomes some off-shoot of the Death's Shadow/Tarmogoyf deck. I splashed the in there to help create some more aspect of challenge, and give the design a little more style, and flare, and fantasy.
Additionally, consider using the Exile function over Regeneration (when it's restricted to the end of turn), helps to further balance the design abroad, as it puts a dampener on the combat phase for the player controlling Nightmare Seeker. This aspect of balance helps make the design more respectable and sophisticated in my opinion.
You do realize that the gain life here is anti-synergy with Death's Shadow, right?
Also, yeah, the free sacrifice outlet to gain 5 life which makes the creature basically unkillable by any means would be the main selling point of the card, not the blocking ability. It's literally the best rate that you can get when it comes to sacrificing for life. It sometimes seems like you design cards to complete very niche functions and then get caught up by "What if my card dies and the deck built around it flounders?" or "What if there's a game when I don't need this particular effect" and you end up adding some protection/card advantage ability to make sure that it is always useful or definitely won't be removed... which almost always overshadows the supposedly "primary" ability.
Like, seriously. It's okay to make a card for a new archetype and allow it to die.
That's not entirely true.
Having to sacrifice a creature is counter-intuitive against heavy removal. You would need to run something like Bitterblossom, and now were getting into complex webs of cards. So which other Zombie are you running to enable Gravecrawler—probably Risen Executioner—Shambling Remains? But also note this enables Unleash—has synergy with Scavenge. But once again, now we're getting into complex webs of cards.
And your point is?
MTG is a complex game with over 10,000 game pieces. Anything you make is being introduced to a complex web of existing cards, especially as it would theoretically be legal in eternal formats.
bitterblossom, dreadhorde invasion, Tendershoot Dryad, Ranar the Ever-Watchful, and plenty more recursive token makers exist. Cards like Pawn of Ulamog, Sifter of Skulls, nightmare shepherd, and Luminous Broodmoth allow for sacrificed creatures to effectively be sacrificed a second time.
The gain 5 life part of your ability pushes that ability into greater relevance because a rich web of cards (and a well-known archetype called aristocrats) thrives on free sac outlets like this one. Because the complex network of cards exists.
The blocking restrictions being removed, meanwhile... that is almost entirely useless trinket text.
The reverse (allowing creatures with defender to attack) is useful as:
1) It moves the game toward victory as attacking will be lowering your opponents life.
2) many cards with defender have big offensive bodies relative to their cost, having effectively used defender as a balancing factor to buff their stats.
3) Allowing defenders to attack typically isn’t enough on its own. Note that most decks with attacking defenders need them to deal damage with their toughness in order for them to be worthwhile.
For your ability, meanwhile:
1) creatures that can’t block typically don’t get crazy high stats that would make them work blocking with. Even if you use a Zilortha style defense (lethal damage based on power), you are talking about getting a virtual 2/2 for 1 mana while a wall deck with “butt-fighting” gets a virtual 4/4s for 1 mana.
2) Giving the ability to block doesn’t move the game toward conclusion and giving. Your attackers a way to block doesn’t really give you a way to win. Even if you create some sort of “blocking trample”, the opponent could simply choose not to attack, leading to a stalemate.
If you could assemble a quick and dirty deck list to show what sort of deck would want this sort of blocking enabled, feel free to show us.
You know what is a perfect pair with this creature. Any one drop with 2 power in red or black. Is this web of cards too complex for you to imagine them being used together? You know what else goes great with it, anything that makes tokens and costs 3 or less. Certainly, we're imagining this card being played with other magic cards so these synergies are outside your design purview. You design cards to be played in exactly one way and that way is never oppressive or unfun yet is also unrestricted so players can find the best way to play in a not oppressive or unfun method.
As a final point. If you design a card for a purpose and the player base finds a complex web of cards that make your card broken then you have messed up. Especially if in the design process this is pointed out to you and your response is no one will do that, it's a complex web of cards.
Edit: One last thing. Thank you for once again showing you have no idea how this game is played in one of your very first sentences. "Having to sacrifice a creature is counter-intuitive against heavy removal." Do you know what is the best answer to heavy removal? The ability to sacrifice your creatures for value.
Doesn't matter the environment they're being brought into.
This isn't one of those cards. The potential is being overstated, and only exists alongside complex webs of cards, not in the card by itself.
I've finalized the design. I think this is much more functional for what it wants to do, and what it needs to do, given the complex web of cards it would use to function.
For a moment, I had considered adding "can't attack" to the list of effects it removes from abilities. However, I don't think that's intuitive to the design, as it would push it over, and that effect really would want/need to be composed as: "Non-wall creatures lose all "can't attack" effects from their abilities."
This is something that I don't think you are getting.
If a card is created, barring silver borders or ante, it goes into eternal formats.
If you imagine this card being printed into a set where this card functions appropriately, that's okay. If it actually existed, however, It would simultaneously exist in the commander format, where it would definitely not function as intended because of the "complex web of cards". That is not okay. Asking us to imagine what a card would do in the "right" setting (curated card pool) is an utterly meaningless thought exercise as the card would simultaneously be introduced to the "wrong" settings (full card pool). No amount of "It would play well in a draft with cards A, B, and C" magically cancels out "It would warp the game in commander with cards X, Y, and Z".
If a card is created, barring silver borders or ante, it goes into eternal formats.
Period. End of story. Full Stop.
If you do not have a basic awareness of what exists in the modern card pool and how the game is actually played, you are doomed to produce bad designs. If you do not listen to basic feedback from people who know the modern card pool and how the game is actually played, you are doomed to produce bad finished products.
Edit: Before you go for the obvious out and say "I could ban this card from formats if it doesn't work" or "I can ban the others cards that keeps this card from working in all formats"... Any card that gets itself banned or that forces other cards to get banned... isn't a good card. If you have followed any degree of discourse regarding the game, you should know that making cards that have to be banned has been a major criticism of WotC.
This was considered, especially with the unique ability.
However, it's simply not as healthy or intuitive has a legendary creature.
This becomes a case where two entities think of themselves in the light, then would meet head-to-head to end in a death by degrees between them.
...So you seem to be trying to say that being unlikely to draw a card in a 99 card singleton format makes its high power level (and the fact that it would be used as a sac outlet and not a blocking enabler) irrelevant.
You know, it's a good thing that vampiric tutor, demonic tutor, diabolic intent, Cruel Tutor, Grim Tutor, imperial seal, entomb, buried alive, Necropotence, Gamble, Drift of Phantasms, Dimir Mechanations, Long-term Plans, and similar cards don't exist, huh?
Remember that part where I said:
If a card is created, barring silver borders or ante, it goes into eternal formats.
The point I'm trying to make is that your card is going into the exact same format as all of the tutors that anyone would need to all but guarantee access to this card if they want it. If you don't like tutors in MTG, that is irrelevant. Again:
If a card is created, barring silver borders or ante, it goes into eternal formats.
Whatever the fantasy setting you imagine these cards being released into, they would also be released into a setting with the London Mulligan and enough tutors that "low probability" can no longer be used to somehow make "corner cases" acceptable design. If you think that the card pool available in eternal formats should be changed to make probability more meaningful and that the prevalence of tutors makes the game "sloppy" or "non-interactive", repeat the mantra:
If a card is created, barring silver borders or ante, it goes into eternal formats.
It is too late. The other cards exist. They have priority over your card by virtue of actually existing already. Anything new that gets added into the game is added into the game where the previous game pieces already exist. If the choice is kicking several existing cards out of existence or simply not printing your card... nobody is going to print you card in this game.
This is why we ask you to design around what already exists.
If a card was created, barring silver borders or ante, it is already in eternal formats.
We judge your cards based on the knowledge we have about what exists and how people play. It appears that this is knowledge that you severely lack if you are still referring to exalted angel as an example of a self-sufficient card or feel that sacrificing a creature is bad against hard removal.
We are not grading on a curve. We are not grading according to Magic according to Reap.
The bottom line is that a card with synergy based on complex webs of cards is far more balanced and creative than one that exists as its own.
Sadly, among creators many thing the opposite is true, but it's not either.
That is why I like posting in communities and welcoming the creative feedback. It's just unfortunate that not all feedback is honest or reliable.
We're not about to begin alienating Johnny cards before Timmy cards.
Some cards require a complex web of other cards to become broken. This card doesn't. It needs other creatures to be broken. If you personally feel that combing with any creatures is an unreasonable expectation to design around then there is nothing more to discuss.
By your logic, you need to go back and ban every two-card three-card combo that generates infinite tokens, mana, etc.
How did those ever make it into the world? Care to explain?
I certainly don't think that makes them bad cards by themselves either—if I might add.