And now we have clarification for so much. You're basing your designs on a combination decade old gameplay experience and math theory without updating your knowledge of the game, rules, strategies or power levels.
Also, go play actual magic. Arena is free, so there's no excuse not to update your play experience.
No, I think it's just moreso in the fact missing that I never recall a time when MTG wasn't a steaming pile of **** in some way, I could never unsee. And ever since have sought to devise solutions and schematics on how to fix all the major malfunctions/improficiencies/counter-productivities.
Go play actual Magic. That's a big negative. I honestly could only begin to explain my great disappointment in the current product; and can just sum up the fact that I wouldn't begin to invest my time or attention into it in this state. MTG needs a major rollback, something the truly narrow-minded "blind pioneers" would never consider (or admit) is necessary for doing. But stripping the product of coherence, and force majeure; while making it a tacky mess; though additions that impede on characteurs, identities, and dignities; should be expected to produce this result. What was available to be salvaged and recovered has nothing left anymore. Rollback and total overhaul would be the only option.
So... you don't play (or necessarily understand) modern magic, have no intention of learning more about modern magic, and are only willing to design cards to fit into your imagined halcyon golden age of MTG card design?
Edit: misread your post. I now see that there was never a time when you liked this game. You aren’t designing for this game in any period. You are using the basic framework of MTG for an “MTG that should have been” that has no obligations to the actual rules or cards of MTG in any sense... which isn’t better.
With all do respect, it sounds like you are creating cards for an audience that does not exist outside of yourself on this forum. Why are you even here when virtually nobody else seems to understands your methods or goals (As can be objectively verified by looking at 95% of your threads)?
Umm what? When does Death's Shadow hit the board late game? What format do you play? Death's Shadow likes to be played turn 2 or 3 whenever possible. Decks with it don't want you expending your removal on other threats. They usually try to hit you with a Thoughtseize and next turn play it. Or play it and have counter back up. I've never heard anything you are talking out my good sir or madam.
I'm just unfamiliar with that card's strategies to be honest. Aware me? Not sure where/why/how a person is reducing their life safely below 13 so soon. Or are they removing the abilities? If you have exactly 1 life, via such as Worship, it's a 12/12. I could never see this surviving in a hostile game. How was it so good?
I haven't played since Mirrodin personally. I'm an OG Mid Schooler from Odyssey block/7th Edition. I picked the game back up and Lorwyn/Time Spiral, then left again at Scars of Mirrodin. I haven't played though since High School. I just know some tricks from back then, and I've picked up deck-building via mathematical proportion, which I didn't fully understand back then, but do now.
Even if you don't play the game yourself or look into Arena as Rowanalpha recommends, you may want some additional data. Look at deck lists for popular archetypes (or watch some videos if they don't make sense. It took me an embarrassingly long time to get how dredge or "Oops, all spells" decks work) before you comment on how (or whether) they work.
Here is some information regarding the possibility of using this mechanic in a bogles-style deck.
1. You report that Bogles would be answered by innocent blood... even though discussions of the archetype normally happens relation to the Modern format, where innocent blood is not legal. In fact, let's go further than that. This is a list of the 50 most played spells in modern. Take a look at the list and take note that very few of those cards would actually take out the bogle. The most salient sacrifice spell within the past decade, Liliana of the Veil, is no longer in even 8% of the meta. If your deck requires a more efficient version of innocent blood to be introduced into the meta or would require slippery bogle to also be banned... along Gladecover Scout, invisible stalker, and silhana ledgewalker... that is a bad sign.
2. The fact that you don't see Inquisition of Kozilek or Thoughtseize as answers to "Dies to Removal" when those cards have allowed vanilla beaters like tarmogoyf to exist in a format where path to exile exists for years, that seems to go against available evidence at this time. Likewise, the lack of any mana cost involved in attaching these things to a creature would mean increased mana available for counterspells.
3. Even with Faithless Looting banned in modern, the presence of cathartic reunion, lightning axe, and collective brutality (among other cards) would allow for easy discard outlets and have already seen play in some versions of other archeytpes that require putting cards in graveyards quickly (like Grishoalbrand). However difficult or unlikely you feel discarding these cards would be in the early game, history shows that is simply not the case.
4. You do not need to reach a "critical mass" of a mechanic in order for it to be problematic. The aura swap keyword appears on only one card (arcanum wings) but the potential of throwing down big bonuses for relatively little cost made that card a notable part of certain bogle builds at one point (actually learned about that build on this very site back in the day). Printing out cards over a long period of time only prevents problems in standard/brawl. Also, while you've made your distaste for the current mulligan rules clear in the past, the current rules do greatly increase the chance of being able to "force" a card into your opening hand.
5. Along similar lines, remember that cards like Street Wraith, Manamorphose, Mishra's Bauble, and fetchlands are hyperefficient at thinning decks and effectively reducing the number of cards in your library to get a best-case scenario (offsetting the normal math), even if not all of those cards see too much use these days.
Even this—and it becomes too wordy, and you mine as well not bother with it anymore.
It seems that you have located a real problem there.
If a keyword's actual functioning would require more text than could neatly fit onto a magic card, I will happily admit that there is a problem with that situation. Your response to this practical limitation appears to be shoving the "overflow text" into the comprehensive rules, however, which 1) does not really have any precedent and 2) virtually every other poster here keeps saying is a bad idea.
Rather than finding a way to MAKE the ability work as you intend, I would think that the natural conclusion is that the ability DOES NOT WORK as you want it to. If a new ability requires so much wording and caveats to make it work "just so" and none of the simpler alternatives work, the simple truth may be that the ability is ill-fitted for the medium.
While I applaud your creativity, I feel that the space available on the actual cardboard is a practical limitation that should ultimately be adhered to. In fact, I have a recent video link reporting why using keywords as "short-hand" for long text held in a comprehensive rulebook (AKA without reminder text on the card) can be deleterious to the long-term health of a collectable card game.
I would suggest reserving the keyword for very special releases now and again, to preserve the force majure.
This is the sort of communication problem that I have run into on these threads now and again. You post something that is intended to go against certain norms (EX: creating a mechanic that is meant to be used very sparingly) and do not specifically state that you are doing so until midway through the thread, leading everyone who sees the thread sooner to assume that you are following the established norms (EX: creating a mechanic designed to have similar quantity and rarity distribution to other mechanics) and we end up speaking past one another until you finally reveal the disconnect.
So... haven't posted in one of these threads for a while so let me elaborate.
While I see and somewhat understand your argument about "probability", that argument is shut down by Anticipated Volume in this case.
The Bestow ability appears on 35 different creatures
The Mutate ability appears on 34 different creatures
The Scavenge ability appears on 11 different creatures
The Haunt ability appears on 10 different cards
This one card, in a vacuum, is "exciting" but might not be entirely broken. The odds of getting several copies of this one card in your opening hand are relatively low. Most posters on this board, however, aren't looking at this card in the context of only one reincarnating creature existing. Instead, we see that this is a keyword ability and extrapolate the presence of 10+ creatures with this keyword if it were ever to be printed in a set. If there were 10 or more cards with reincarnation, creating a deck filled with free or cheap discard outlets (faithless looting, Noose Constrictor, Putrid Imp, etc.) and a whole lot of reincarnating creatures would GREATLY increase the chance of that line of play.
As far as other considerations:
1. The comprehensive rules has never been used (at least to my knowledge) to contain unwritten rules for a keyword as large as a change in zone. If you want a reincarnated card to exile itself upon leaving the battlefield, you should add that to the reminder text.
2. Going into the realm of anticipated volume once more, I would argue that it is very odd, flavorwise, that multiple cards with reincarnation can all be "reincarnated" as a single creature (which also causes power concerns). You may want to add ",if no other creatures are attached to it," as an intervening clause in the ability so each creature can only be the reincarnated form of one other creature.