So, it's been a couple of months. How's the data on 'mandatory top 3'? Are we happy with the results so far? I'm posting as though we are continuing to run a trial of that rule, but I feel like we are close to the point where we can make a decision about whether or not to keep it.
The second ability suffers from the fact that it looks like it want to synergize with the first or ultimate, but in actuality, unless you can do it at instant speed, you will draw the creature before you mill it. Aside from that failed synergy, it does not otherwise connect to the flavor or mechanics of the card. The ult is kind of interesting, however the fact that it pulls from the library instead of the graveyard puts it at odds with what the card is about. Portost seems like he wants you to take time crafting your GY, only to use your deck instead where it counts.
The 2nd ability works if more than one of your creatures dies, as you can stack your deck with multiple for his first ability and ultimate.
Good beastmaster flavor, and the ult setting the power of all of your creatures to 5 is a great callback to Naya. The second abilityis my favorite, it makes me envision Shalin just lassoeing some monster. The exert is used well here, to add a controlling white element to a classic red effect, as well as the green buff. However, the first ability is a tad clunky for basically an emergent growth
Thanks - she more fancies herself a rider, but that's neat flavor as well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A mere ten days after the Mending, a young knight of Valeron and a young ranger of Eos made a discovery that would change Alara forever.
Yes, then you need to run sac outlets in your presumably mill/counters based deck, sac two non-token creatures on your turn, be okay with having one of them bounced to your hand and effectively losing your draw to set up nissa, voice of zendikar's -2. I am not trying to be sarcastic, and the card has some interesting ideas, especially with flavor, but the abilities seem to be pulling in four opposing directions at once. Setting up the Ult I can kind of see, however the only thing you really get out of that is repeating ETBs, at the cost of reducing your graveyard size (for the ult) and board presence (for the first).
Yes, then you need to run sac outlets in your presumably mill/counters based deck, sac two non-token creatures on your turn, be okay with having one of them bounced to your hand and effectively losing your draw to set up nissa, voice of zendikar's -2. I am not trying to be sarcastic, and the card has some interesting ideas, especially with flavor, but the abilities seem to be pulling in four opposing directions at once. Setting up the Ult I can kind of see, however the only thing you really get out of that is repeating ETBs, at the cost of reducing your graveyard size (for the ult) and board presence (for the first).
Consider decks that go: First turn play a creature. Second turn play a creature. Third turn play Portost. Fourth turn Wrath of God, Barter in Blood, etc...
Point being your initial critique was incorrect, and your current evaluation in rebuttal is overly narrow.
That is still an excessive amount of set up and probably card disadvantage, as well as costing you the board presence you need to y'know, actually get value out of his first. Not to mention that that was one of many problems I had with this card, such as why he is abzan. All of his mechanics are G/B.
Point being your initial critique was incorrect, and your current evaluation in rebuttal is overly narrow.
Daaamn dude, you get awfully up in arms about what’s supposed to be a fun creative exercise. It’s not like people you deeply care about are being held hostage and will only be set free if you win enough of these.
...Unless they are, in which case a) Do you have an address so I can call in a SWAT team? b) You might improve your win rate, and thus get them set free sooner, if you were more receptive to the feedback of others.
Point being your initial critique was incorrect, and your current evaluation in rebuttal is overly narrow.
Daaamn dude, you get awfully up in arms about what’s supposed to be a fun creative exercise. It’s not like people you deeply care about are being held hostage and will only be set free if you win enough of these.
...Unless they are, in which case a) Do you have an address so I can call in a SWAT team? b) You might improve your win rate, and thus get them set free sooner, if you were more receptive to the feedback of others.
I don't like it when people can't admit they made a mistake. Hence I was harsh. It's important to recognize relevant critique and non relevant critique. And while parts of Sheoldred's subsequent comments has good points, the part I initially highlighted was just objectively incorrect. It's important to point that out so he can improve too.
Also, My win rate is quite fine. More than fine, really.
It's important to point that out so he can improve too.
Also agreed, but your tone is so often unfriendly that it can be hard to hear the good advice through the bad attitude. Which may just be to our detriment, but I've always enjoyed the adage "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar".
Also, My win rate is quite fine. More than fine, really.
*sigh* I know it is dude, but that wasn't the point and I think you know that. You are an excellent designer, but everyone has room to improve, and the way you come across sometimes seems that you think you're above improvement.
Agreed, except your definition of mistake sometimes feels like "didn't agree in lockstep with my opinion on the matter".
Sometimes? Maybe. This time? Saying my planeswalkers second ability didn't work with his other two was objectively false. That was not an opinion. Now, if he had started by saying "having to have two or more creatures die to stack your library is too much effort" or something to that effect, then sure, that would of been a reasonable evaluation of the card since we are all just mentally playtesting here. But that wasn't what was said in the initial critique.
Also agreed, but your tone is so often unfriendly that it can be hard to hear the good advice through the bad attitude. Which may just be to our detriment, but I've always enjoyed the adage "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar".
Yup. As often noted on these forums I'm harsh. I'm the early American Idol season's Simon Cowell. I'm the Snape to the potions class. While I don't disagree that being nicer would probably make people more receptive, it doesn't make my points wrong either.
*sigh* I know it is dude, but that wasn't the point and I think you know that. You are an excellent designer, but everyone has room to improve, and the way you come across sometimes seems that you think you're above improvement.
I don't think the sarcasm was needed.
If anything I think people misinterpret my harshness. It's not because I think I'm above improvement. It's because I want more people to improve, and I'm tired of the kiddy gloves.
Before this year my participation in these contest was more sporadic, and while I won occasionally I did't feel people held my opinion as highly as others just because I participated less. This year I wanted to make a point: If I consistently entered and put in some level of effort into these contest, I could consistently win. That I knew what I'm talking about. That's not to say I think everything I design is perfect or even good, but now that I've gotten this far into the year, that I feel I've proven that I'm one of the front runners here, my opinion are still easily dismissed even when I'm not expressing an opinion but objective fact. Particularly by newer folks. It's frustrating.
So when I point out that there was an error in a critique and it's ignored? That bothers me. While I have plenty to learn and there are certainly other points of view I respect hearing and touch on things I miss, maybe the lesson here is this; while I certainly could learn to be nicer, there is a pretty good chance I know what I'm talking about and it shouldn't be so casually dismissed. It's not like I call out every post that doesn't list my card in their top 3. Just ones that I see that say something that shows they objectively miss-evaluated that card in some way.
Yup. As often noted on these forums I'm harsh. I'm the early American Idol season's Simon Cowell. I'm the Snape to the potions class. While I don't disagree that being nicer would probably make people more receptive, it doesn't make my points wrong either.
I mean... por que no los dos? And if being less harsh might unobfuscate your points, why avoid the spoonful of sugar?
My opinions are still easily dismissed even when I'm not expressing an opinion but objective fact.
This is obviously a first impression, and maybe my take will change as I get more exposure to your method of delivery, but I really think the issue isn't what you're saying, it's how you're saying it.
The numbers might be different as they were obtained studying oral communication and not written, but studies have shown that only about ten percent of your conversational payload is the message itself. The other ninety percent is things like tone, word choice, body language (not applicable online of course--there's probably something analogous but I can't think of it right now), and other sub- and supertextual cues. So even if the ten percent is spot on, if the ninety percent isn't working the message isn't going to land. It sucks and it seems silly--the message is what really matters, right?--but trying to go against this is fighting human nature, and as MaRo so often says, if you're fighting against human nature, you are going to lose.
sorry for the confusion. My initial critique was incorrect, as I was trying to finish those off quickly, and did not want to explain myself as much as I ought to. My response in this thread was less a contradiction than an explanation. I quite like your designs over the course of this project, and I was not trying to delegitize your design style. I am, as you said, a noob, and still trying to figure out the etiquette of critiques.
And well after the end of the voting period, we've got a tie! IcariiFA and Sheoldred are co-winners for October.
That poll was closed late and votes were changed/added after the deadline.
You want to call it a co win, fine. But that's not what happened.
Do not take this attitude. Please.
Tie results have happened before in the CCL and that's what just happened. Issue's closed. Result's in the record books. You still won. Why be so sore about it? And I mean it when I say the issue's closed.
Sheoldred: ...This is a two-card combo with any card that allows you to pay life 1 at a time. This is probably fine for big formats, but would be heavily restrict what could be printed in smaller constructed formats.
Just FYI, as I checked for combos before making this card, there are only three combo cards(which I see as cards that allow you to repeatably pay 1 life without also paying mana) for this in modern: Kuro, Pitlord, carrion howler and Wall of Blood. Given that I don't exactly see players falling over themselves to play any of those in modern, I think that the risks of degeneracy are fairly low. Given that the most recent of those three was printed in Ravnica, I feel that this card's existence would not impinge too much on design space in whatever hypothetical standard it shows up in.
EDIT: Forgot to add Carrion Howler.
Can it be existing planeswalker who still didn't get a card?
I'm very happy with it as an organizer.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
The 2nd ability works if more than one of your creatures dies, as you can stack your deck with multiple for his first ability and ultimate.
Thanks - she more fancies herself a rider, but that's neat flavor as well.
Emille, Seven-Sting Dancer Shalin Nariya
WBGGhave Sisters
BUG Sidisi, Brood Tyrant Reanimator
BBBSheoldred, Whispering One Swamps-matter ramp
Standard
UR Drake
Pauper
GW Bogle
Consider decks that go: First turn play a creature. Second turn play a creature. Third turn play Portost. Fourth turn Wrath of God, Barter in Blood, etc...
Point being your initial critique was incorrect, and your current evaluation in rebuttal is overly narrow.
WBGGhave Sisters
BUG Sidisi, Brood Tyrant Reanimator
BBBSheoldred, Whispering One Swamps-matter ramp
Standard
UR Drake
Pauper
GW Bogle
Daaamn dude, you get awfully up in arms about what’s supposed to be a fun creative exercise. It’s not like people you deeply care about are being held hostage and will only be set free if you win enough of these.
...Unless they are, in which case a) Do you have an address so I can call in a SWAT team? b) You might improve your win rate, and thus get them set free sooner, if you were more receptive to the feedback of others.
Also, My win rate is quite fine. More than fine, really.
Agreed, except your definition of mistake sometimes feels like "didn't agree in lockstep with my opinion on the matter".
Also agreed, but your tone is so often unfriendly that it can be hard to hear the good advice through the bad attitude. Which may just be to our detriment, but I've always enjoyed the adage "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar".
*sigh* I know it is dude, but that wasn't the point and I think you know that. You are an excellent designer, but everyone has room to improve, and the way you come across sometimes seems that you think you're above improvement.
Yup. As often noted on these forums I'm harsh. I'm the early American Idol season's Simon Cowell. I'm the Snape to the potions class. While I don't disagree that being nicer would probably make people more receptive, it doesn't make my points wrong either.
I don't think the sarcasm was needed.
If anything I think people misinterpret my harshness. It's not because I think I'm above improvement. It's because I want more people to improve, and I'm tired of the kiddy gloves.
Before this year my participation in these contest was more sporadic, and while I won occasionally I did't feel people held my opinion as highly as others just because I participated less. This year I wanted to make a point: If I consistently entered and put in some level of effort into these contest, I could consistently win. That I knew what I'm talking about. That's not to say I think everything I design is perfect or even good, but now that I've gotten this far into the year, that I feel I've proven that I'm one of the front runners here, my opinion are still easily dismissed even when I'm not expressing an opinion but objective fact. Particularly by newer folks. It's frustrating.
So when I point out that there was an error in a critique and it's ignored? That bothers me. While I have plenty to learn and there are certainly other points of view I respect hearing and touch on things I miss, maybe the lesson here is this; while I certainly could learn to be nicer, there is a pretty good chance I know what I'm talking about and it shouldn't be so casually dismissed. It's not like I call out every post that doesn't list my card in their top 3. Just ones that I see that say something that shows they objectively miss-evaluated that card in some way.
I promise you, there was no sarcasm there. What part did you think was sarcastic?
This is obviously a first impression, and maybe my take will change as I get more exposure to your method of delivery, but I really think the issue isn't what you're saying, it's how you're saying it.
The numbers might be different as they were obtained studying oral communication and not written, but studies have shown that only about ten percent of your conversational payload is the message itself. The other ninety percent is things like tone, word choice, body language (not applicable online of course--there's probably something analogous but I can't think of it right now), and other sub- and supertextual cues. So even if the ten percent is spot on, if the ninety percent isn't working the message isn't going to land. It sucks and it seems silly--the message is what really matters, right?--but trying to go against this is fighting human nature, and as MaRo so often says, if you're fighting against human nature, you are going to lose.
WBGGhave Sisters
BUG Sidisi, Brood Tyrant Reanimator
BBBSheoldred, Whispering One Swamps-matter ramp
Standard
UR Drake
Pauper
GW Bogle
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
You want to call it a co win, fine. But that's not what happened.
WBGGhave Sisters
BUG Sidisi, Brood Tyrant Reanimator
BBBSheoldred, Whispering One Swamps-matter ramp
Standard
UR Drake
Pauper
GW Bogle
Do not take this attitude. Please.
Tie results have happened before in the CCL and that's what just happened. Issue's closed. Result's in the record books. You still won. Why be so sore about it? And I mean it when I say the issue's closed.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Just FYI, as I checked for combos before making this card, there are only three combo cards(which I see as cards that allow you to repeatably pay 1 life without also paying mana) for this in modern: Kuro, Pitlord, carrion howler and Wall of Blood. Given that I don't exactly see players falling over themselves to play any of those in modern, I think that the risks of degeneracy are fairly low. Given that the most recent of those three was printed in Ravnica, I feel that this card's existence would not impinge too much on design space in whatever hypothetical standard it shows up in.
EDIT: Forgot to add Carrion Howler.
WBGGhave Sisters
BUG Sidisi, Brood Tyrant Reanimator
BBBSheoldred, Whispering One Swamps-matter ramp
Standard
UR Drake
Pauper
GW Bogle
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝