I don't mind passionate discussion, it's a sign of personal investment
Anyway, my OP contains two of the three pieces of an infinite combo this deck would be built around:
1U
Creature - Wizard Converge - When ~ enters the battlefield, you may exile an instant or sorcery card with converted mana cost X or less from your hand, where X is the number of colors of mana spent to cast ~. 2, T: Copy the exiled card. You may cast the copy without paying its mana cost.
1/1
This, in a vaccuum, is just a more fragile, more restrictive Isochron Scepter, with the only upside being that it includes sorceries too. This card does double-duty, being an early drop that can take advantage of any 1 or 2 mana spell (like a soft counter or a burn spell) to help control the game if needed.
5
Legendary Artifact
Each spell that would cost less than five mana to cast costs five mana to cast. Converge - Whenever you cast a spell, draw a card for each color of mana spent to cast it.
This card breaks the last one, letting you exile a spell of cmc up to 5 rather than 2. This card also contributes to the controlly nature of the deck, slowing down decks by upping mana costs to at least 5. As someone mentioned before, the draw bonus might be a bit too much, so I'll probably tone ot down to something like lifegain.
2RGU
Sorcery
~ can't be countered by spells or abilities.
Take an extra turn after this one. Exile ~.
And this is the crux of the combo. With the legendary artifact out, I can cast the wizard for WUBRG and exile this, getting me the Isochron ScepterTime Walk combo.
The rest of the deck is filled with fixing helpers and control cards (counterspells, burn, etc.) As well as the green 2-brid creature for an alternative beatdown plan.
The lands consist of simple tapped duals (with basic types) and checklands for a flexible, but not quite over-the-top manabase.
I'm not gonna lie, I don't see the big deal here. What you guys are arguing is what exactly qualifies as a mechanic and whether it's a good mechanic.
The thing is that it's subjective. Whether or not an ability word should be restricted to a specific use of a certain effect, like casting a spell vs activating an ability, isn't relevant to my set or my cards, and here's why:
I used Converge because, falvorfully, it fits perfectly, and it's in the same mechanical theme too. The reason I expanded it to affect other spells on certain cards is to get value out of the naturally multicolor cards in the set that don't come with Converge. It seems like a bit of a waste to only use Converge on 'monocolor' spells when the set has such a high volume of two and three color cards.
Personally, as long as it's easy to connect the effect to Converge by using the "for each color spent" wording, I don't care if it's not as concise as something like Landfall.
And, for the record, I have a set of card designs using Converge in place to form a competitive deck that's got a much more clearly-defined strategy than "5c goodstuff", so I'm not worried about that.
I agree with rowanalpha here. Cool mechanic, but much easier to execute with counters than token copies. If there was a mechanic that copied auras onto DIFFERENT permanents/players, that would be a different story though.
Overcome is a safer card that fills the same role as Overrun that they can now use in basically any set without causing problems in any format.
Overrun is harder to cast, limiting how it can be printed, and is riskier to include, especially in any GX deck that produces a lot of creatures.
Sure, the power difference is almost negligible, but the fact of the matter is that Overcome can be used more easily and more often than Overrun could. I see no problem with them increasing the chances of seeing this sort of effect in sets, even if it isn't quite as splashy. And anyway, it's not like it will make much difference in any given game, so why bother being upset. There is more advantage to Overcome's existence than just printing Overrun in its place.
I think you're assuming I mean something about "cringe-worthy" that I don't mean. It's true, though, that I have a negative opinion of MLP fandom, and it has nothing to do with feminine vs. masculine. The nature of that fandom or what kind of sleeves cause discomfort among players is a pretty big derail though, so let’s not go there. Suffice to say that cross-brand product placement seems bad to me, but I’m glad for those who enjoy this kind of thing getting what they want.
Yes, actually. The baseline of being inclusive is just a simple rule – “don’t be a jerk” – and derailing this thread might qualify!
I apologize I broached the topic and I’ll stop now.
I'm curious. If we aren't supposed to discuss inclusiveness in Magic in the threads where the topic naturally arises, where are we supposed to do it? Isn't discussing the lack of typically feminine brands present in these promos pretty relevant to this post? It affects the way some people feel about the cards, doesn't it? How is bringing up this specific topic "derailing" discussion when it clearly surrounds the spoiled cards in question?
Oh, and mods, feel free to ban me if I'm being too "SJW." I don't mind making another account.
So, it's cringe-worthy because it's feminine? Maybe you should try being a little less judgmental of things that aren't robots, dragons, or soldiers with guns.
Uh oh, careful there. This might turn into a discussion about equal representation in Magic and that sort of thing usually gets shut down by mods pretty quick. Wouldn't wanna upset the status quo with actual meaningful talk about being inclusive.
Working on a multicolor set (probably set on Alara) and decided that Converge would be a good mechanic to include. Just want a bit of feedback on the designs I have so far:
Maelstrom Monument5
Legendary Artifact (M)
Each spell that would cost less than five mana to cast costs five mana to cast. Converge - Whenever you cast a spell, draw a card for each color of mana spent to cast it.
Bant AmbassadorW
Creature - Human Knight (R)
First strike, vigilance Converge - When ~ or another creature enters the battlefield, if it was cast from your hand, you gain 1 life for each color of mana spent to cast it.
2/2
Naya AmbassadorG
Creature - Cat Warrior (R)
Vigilance, trample Converge - ~ and each other creature you control enters the battlefield with an additional +1/+1 counter on it for each color of mana spent to cast it.
2/2
Conduit of the Maelstrom1U
Artifact Creature - Human Wizard (M) Converge - When ~ enters the battlefield, you may exile an instant or sorcery card with converted mana cost X or less from your hand, where X is the number of colors of mana spent to cast ~. 2, T: Copy the exiled card. You may cast the copy without paying its mana cost.
1/1
Maelstrom's Malice1BB
Sorcery (R) Converge - Destroy up to one target creature or planeswalker for each color of mana spent to cast ~.
Prismatic Dissolution1U
Instant (C) Converge - Counter target spell unless its controller pays 1 for each color of mana spent to cast ~.
Maelstrom WalkerX
Artifact Creature - Construct Converge - ~ enters the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it for each color of mana spent to cast it.
0/0
Sure.
1. Generally speaking, "cantrip" costs 2. You might argue that expendable doesn't draw you a card normally, but sacrifice outlets exist, so you can't discount "draw a card" on demand. You could argue it should cost 1 in blue or black.... and given the precedents I discuss next, that might not be unfair.
So what you want to do is print a functionally better Oculus, reducing the cost by 1. So the question is this: Is flying and/or Prowess worth 1 on a blue creature, or is it the "draw a card when it does" that's adding the 2.
Flying Men was, sadly, outdated around the time they started power creeping creatures; so the 1/1 flying costs less than U for Palace Familiar and Surveilling Sprite, leaving 1 to cover the card draw upon death.
There is no 1/1 (or 1/2) prowess for U; maybe you think this is an oversight. But I'd ask you to compare Jeskai Sage with Jeskai Elder; 1/3s with the latter ability often cost 2U, so I can only assume that prowess costs next to nothing on Jeskai Elder. So if Jeskai Elder is a fair card; I think a 1/2 for U prowess is more than fair; and thus - again - we're talking over +1 for "When this dies, draw a card."
In light of this, I see two avenues of response:
1. Existing cards are not representative of what is "fair" for the mechanic at present; they're limited filler cards not meant to represent what the color can get in constructed; perhaps in limited for that environment it would have been too powerful... or perhaps someone said "Let's stop testing and have a beer; at 2 mana these are safe."
2. Existing cards represent what WOTC thinks is fair for the mechanic at present; but (A) with some minor changes to the environment, it's fair to cost this less, or (B) it's fair to cost this less now, Wizards is just wrong on this.
And two responses to these potential criticisms:
1R. Elvish Visionary is a pretty great creature. Oculus is not. Perhaps Blue should get a colorshifted Elvish Visionary.... but I don't know. Green is good at creatures and 2nd best at card draw. Blue is worst at creatures and best at card draw. A blue Elvish Visionary is far better than a green one. I could see an argument that the blue one could be printed minus a good creature type... fair enough.
But what we're talking about is not that; we're talking about taking flying away from Palace Familiar and removing 1 from the cost. Let's be clear here - this is blue getting a 1 drop that can trade with upwards of 50% of the 1 and 2 drops ever printed, and then draw you a card. This strikes me as clearly overpowered.
Maybe we should be talking a 0/1. Is that okay? I'm inclined to say "no" for combo reasons; but I don't want to look up the combo pieces that would break this. This reply is too long as is; but I suspect making the "draw a card when dies" guys cost 2 is not an accident of design.
2AR. I can't think of small changes that would allow you to print a 1/1 morbid cantrip. You'd need to negate the harm of giving the worst creature color a way to trade with ~50% of the 1+2 drops in any given format - AND THEN DRAWING A CARD. The only change I could see is a proliferation of Incinerate-variants that would stifle the card draw.
2BR. I just come back to the thought that this trade with so many creatures. But who cares? You don't care when you wrath it away, you pretty much are happy to just block any old fattie, let alone something you can actually trade with, just to get the card. And in a deck that get bonuses for sacrificing creatures? Yikes!
I think that you're relying on the difference between "when this ETB, draw" and "when this dies, draw" to explain why you can cost it so little. I urge you to think of them as the same mechanic (let's not even talk about your anti-counter draw... that's adding power to power that I can't deal with right now) and judge how much you'd cost that ability. Precedent says adding "Draw a card" adds 2 to the cost. GU get a discount on this, but not that much of a discount.
Final thought: I'm not saying all mechanics have to cost the same. But my suggestion would be to make Expendable keyword the Urza's Legacy "In play cycling" activated ability, and treat it like cycling - something people want to come back, and something you can play with every few years. But not evergreen.
So does this all also apply to my second version of Expendable?
Expendable 2.0 (When this is countered or destroyed, you may draw a card.)
The counter clause isn't relevant on a 1-mana 1/1, and the destroy clause prevents abuse by sac outlets. Does this help to bring the cost down for you?
By the way, this could also apply to react: When this [creature/spell] becomes the target of a spell or ability an opponent controls, draw a card.
Of course, phrased like that makes it a candidate for R/U, although "if this is targeted" effects have been used more recently in G.
One could argue that Hexproof could work the same way if it was worded just a bit differently, but I don't think it would ne worth the extra text.
You might as well just say:
Expendable V3 (When this is countered, discarded or destroyed, you may draw a card.)
Again, this simply costs too much for the ability.
If your card is countered or destroyed, most of the time you've already put mana into it and most of the time your opponent is the one countering or destroying it. That means it isn't abusable and isn't free card advantage, like it would be with discard. This keyword is designed to get value out of any carf you put resources into.
And I still see no reason that warrents a higher mana cost. Can you explain why a 1-drop Expendable 1/1 would be too cheap?
I don't agree with some of your thoughts on trample. Trample isn't too complex or too powerful for common. Trample just isn't actually interesting on cards unless they have high power, which usually means high cost, and do to the needs of limited, there aren't going to be a ton of high cost common creatures. One way around this is to combine effects that increase power with Trample which is what we have seen WotC do in recent years with many commons.
This is an interesting keyword. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised I haven't seen it before. It has some issues though. First, common expendable creatures (with >1 power) will usually need to be red flagged for their ability to routinely generate card advantage. Second, I'm not convinced there is much interesting design space with the keyword. You can kind of throw it on anything but it's only particularly interesting on small fodder creatures. You can try to combine it with creatures who have sac abilities, but that feels a lot more clever than I actually think it is. Is there anything else that can be done with it?
If Trample is going to be pulled back at common, it should be removed from evergreen completely. If we are going to go through the trouble of teaching every new player how Trample works, let's just use trample. If we aren't going to use trample frequently, why go through the trouble of teaching every new player how Trample works?
If we were looking for a replacement, I actually think a re-flavored Afflict fits best. Afflict is interesting on a wider range of designs than trample and has similar gameplay. It lets your attacking creatures deal damage through chump blocks or while trading with opponents creatures. You even point out this design space as being useful.
Ravage K (Whenever this becomes blocked, this deals K damage to defending player.)
How is this functionally different from the far more simple...
Survive {COST} ({COST} : This creature gains indestructible until end of turn.)
...Survive isn't how regenerate was ever used either. Regenerate was used in much the same way indestructible is now.
Trample is definitely not as problematic as the more problematic keywords like Prowess, but I still think that pulling back on it a little on permanents can make the game a little more accessible to players learning. Small optimizations, remember?
And yes, Afflict is definitely the kind of effect I would use in its place, but I don't think I would use it as a keyword ability.
As for Survive, mine is different from yours in that mine is strictly reactionary, the same way that counterspells are reactionary. This restricts the timing in which a player is allowed to use the ability and keeps it from becoming a "shield ability," like I mentioned. I believe that the slight difference this will make will allow for more compelling gameplay.
Notably, here's a list of keywords we talked about adding:
As for your UB options:
Expendable (When this creature dies, draw a card.) - This is going to need to cost base 2. That makes it cost far more than every other existing evergreen keywords. I've seen variants where it's an activated ability that costs 2 (IE, Keywording Urza's Destiny's in-play-cycling/Brass Secretary-ability), but that works so different from existing keywords it's not going to click.
Re: Stealth (This creature can't be blocked unless all other attacking creatures you control are also blocked.)
Interesting. It doesn't feel like "Stealth" though. It encourages you to attack with all your creatures, so it feels RW.
Re: Misdirect (Whenever this creature attacks, target other attacking creature must be blocked this turn if able.)
Cool name. But this feels G (and the name doesn't fit what you want).
Here's what I'd suggest along these lines:
[b]Mislead[/b] v 1 (Whenever this creature attacks, another target attacking creature cannot be blocked this turn[b] unless this creature has been blocked.[/b])
[b]Mislead[/b] v 2 (Whenever this creature attacks, another target attacking creature cannot be blocked this turn.[/b])
Either of these would be interesting, but I think they'd play differently from other keywords. So... maybe?
On the topic of Expendable, I took another look at it and realized there is something that can be added to it to make it scale a little better with larger things:
Expendable (When this is countered or destroyed, you may draw a card.)
This adds another dimension to the ability, allowing players go get value from it even around a coutnerspell, which allows the ability to be much more useful on bigger/higher-rarity cards than the previous version. I did change the "dies" to "is destroyed," as that will keep it from being abused by sacrifice effects. This should hopefully bring the cost down a bit. Although, even in my previous suggestion, I think it would be perfectly fine on a 1-mana 1/1. I mean, if a 2-mana 1/1 with a little extra can have this ability (Jeskai Sage, Palace Familiar, Surveilling Sprite, Feral Prowler), I see no reason a Fugitive Wizard couldn't.
Also, just to add a little support to the idea that this ability can easily be moved to black, I just found out that Infernal Scarring exists. Just in case there was any doubt.
There's been a lot of discussion about evergreen keywords, particularly finding a good keyword for UB and other pairs that haven't had them. However, what not many people seem to be thinking about is refining the existing list of keywords. The main reason is that, for the most part, the currently employed keywords serve their purposes well and don't really need fixing. My argument against that is that, while that is correct, I think there are better options that could serve those purposes even better. As any competitively-minded gamer or game designer will know, the little optimizations one can make to a gaming experience contribute a huge deal in the long run.
Anyway, what I'd like to discuss is the current list of keywords, organized by the color pairs that use them, and how each keyword can possibly be improved upon. There are a few things I'd like to get out of the way before hand, though: Firstly, there are a number of keywords that simply don't need improvement. Things like Flying and Haste are functionally perfect. Second, there are a few keywords that don't fall into the category of keywords that I want to analyze. Those are things like Indestructible, which are either only used at higher rarities or are equally available to all colors. I would like to focus only on keywords that are centered around specific color pairs and can be used at common. Third, there are a keywords like Hexproof, which is considered to be GU's keyword the same way Menace is BR's, which I think should be used differently and removed from the category I want to analyze. Fourth, I want to focus only on combat-oriented creature keywords. This means I won't be discussing action words like Scry or anything like that. And finally, Fifth, I will be offering suggestions for new keywords to fill certain voids.
So here is a list, organized by color pair, of the currently employed keywords:
WU: Flash (infrequent G), Flying (infrequent B) (Both are technically accessible by all colors, but at common they appear in this pair most frequently.) UB: Nothing so far. BR: Menace (formally G) RG: Haste, Reach (formally W), Trample (also technically available to all colors, but infrequently) GW: Vigilance WB: Lifelink UR: Prowess BG: Deathtouch RW: First Strike, Double Strike GU: Hexproof
So, obviously, the most glaring issue is that UB has nothing here, but I see a few other issues. First, though, let's point out the keywords that are perfect:
These are all pretty much fine. The only thing that bugs me here is Lifelink. Something about gaining life from dealing damage just doesn't seem very W. That, however, is a conversation for another day. For now, Lifelink plays its role well enough.
Okay, I would also change the names if I could (Flying -> Flight, Lifelink -> Syphon, Deathtouch -> Deadly), but that's just nit-picking.
Now let's look at the problematic ones one-by-one:
UB: Nothing
We'll come back to this.
RG: Trample
Trample is an interesting keyword because, while it is one of the easiest to grokk, it's also probably the most complex. Trample's rules text has gone through a few different iterations because of how complicated it is to explain in in-game terms.
It hasn't really been brought up as problematic, though, because once it is explained, players catch on pretty quickly. If its complexity were the only problem, its name would keep me from worrying about it.
The other issue is its power level. Since BFZ, Trample has been used more often on effects that grant it than on creatures that naturally have it at common. This tells me that Trample belongs in the same group as Indestructible, being used at common mostly on temporary effects and coming naturally on creatures only at higher rarities.
It does, however, serve an important function to the game, which is why moving it up in rarity would leave a void that needs to be filled. I have some ideas of ways to fill those voids that I'll talk about later.
UR: Prowess
Izzet's waited a long while for an evergreen keyword, and Prowess does a pretty good impression. However, it's not perfect. Prowess has a number of big problems that keep me from being satisfied with it:
1. Prowess is a triggered ability, where as all the others are static. This means it uses the stack, which we want to avoid if possible. It also makes MTGO a little slower and limits how cards with it can be designed for the same reason (that's why you'll never see a card grant Prowess).
2. Prowess contradicts WotC's policy on "can't be blocked." The reason that wasn't keyworded is that there are simply too many variations they want to be able to use instead (like Flying and Menace). Prowess goes against that sentiment by keywording something that has infinitely more variations available to it (Wee Dragonauts, Elusive Spellfist, Soulblade Djinn, etc...)
3. "Prowess" isn't a great name. It doesn't easily translate to getting a bonus from noncreature spells. An important aspect of an evergreen keyword is grokkability, or the ability to stick easily in a new player's mind, and I don't think Prowess has that.
4. Finally, Prowess is way more narrow than any other keyword. Whereas other keywords are pretty modular (any single card with another keyword can be slotted into any deck to pretty good effect), Prowess is very linear (the nature of the mechanic makes it hard to get enough value out of it unless you build the deck specifically to take as much advantage of it as possible). This really reduces the usefulness of the ability.
RW: First Strike, Double Strike
First Strike and Double Strike have a lot going for them. They avoid all the pitfalls that Prowess has. They are easy to grokk; they serve a clear, singular, and unique purpose in ways that no other effect can; and they are versatile enough to be used frequently. They also have the added bonus of playing off of each other as tiered versions of the same ability, one making the other look much more attractive and exciting.
The problem with these abilities is with the rules. First Strike and Double Strike set a dangerous precedent. By requiring an entire step be added to the game's combat system, they increase complexity. It's all too easy to think that, just because First Strike does it so effectively, it's okay to do similar things with other new abilities, which will end up hurting the game in the long run.
I don't think at this point these keywords should be changed, as they have and continue to add a lot to the game. I just want to make it clear that they have already pushed the game's rules farther than I'm comfortable with.
GU: Hexproof
Not a lot of people really think about Hexproof being problematic, but I think that's because of how it's used. Hexproof is a very powerful ability, which means designers have to be very careful about where it's used. Since BFZ, it's been used on exactly three cards at common, one of which was an instant (Woodcutter's Grit), and two of which were expensive creatures (Bastion Inventor, Striped Riverwinder). What this tells me is that the ability is too powerful, because it either needs a really high mana cost, or can only be used on defensive one-time effects.
The other problem with Hexproof is that it's inherently non-interactive. This takes away from the game rather than adds to it. While it does increase a player's confidence in playing the creature that has it, doing so essentially takes away decision-making in the game.
The best way I've seen Hexproof used in recent sets is an activated ability on a creature that grants it until end of turn (Bristling Hydra, Prognostic Sphinx, etc.) which seems to me like it could be turned into its own ability and used at higher frequency. It increases a player's confidence the same way natural Hexproof does, but the player still needs to be careful to leave themselves enough resources to activate it if they need to. In a game where resources are tight, this can involve some serious budgeting, increasing the amount of interesting decision-making. Because of this, I believe it would be best to keep using Hexproof, but in the same way Indestructible is used. That is, only at higher rarities or in until-end-of-turn effects.
Now, let's take a look at some solutions:
UB: Expendable, Stealth, Misdirect
Dimir has been sorely missing an evergreen creature keyword (and nearly any mechanical overlap, for that matter). So I, like pretty much everyone else here, have put a lot of thought into what should go here. My favorite candidate so far is this:
Expendable (When this creature dies, draw a card.)
This ability has showed up on a number of blue creatures throughout Magic's history, and as recently as Eldritch Moon (Exultant Cultist), solidifying it in blue's toolbox. As for black, while it has a number of cards that have similar effects (usually benefiting from other creatures dying, like Harvester of Souls), it actually hasn't had a single card (outside of artifact creatures, like Filigree Familiar) that has this exact ability. That said, Menace used to be in green rather than black, so I see no reason this can't also be shifted to fill a void. Interestingly, this would be the second time an ability would be stolenfromgreen this way by black.
I like this because it encourages interaction by lessening the loss of a creature, especially in combat. It negates card disadvantage the same way that Haste negates summoning sickness and Vigilance negates the inability to block after attacking, so I also like that aspect a lot.
I've also messed around with abilities like:
Stealth (This creature can't be blocked unless all other attacking creatures you control are also blocked.)
and
Misdirect (Whenever this creature attacks, target other attacking creature must be blocked this turn if able.)
Both of those mess around with the flavor that the creature is selling out its allies to get ahead in a sneaky way, a very UB mentality. However, each of these has their own problems. Of the two, I am partial to Misdirect, but both encourage more aggressive strategies in a way that is pretty UB way.
Still, the UB keyword debate has been talked about to death, so I'll leave this one here.
RG Daunt & Pseudo-Trample
So lets say Trample is pulled back at common, used only on one-time effects like Larger Than Life. What takes its place? Well, we have a couple of options:
Daunt (This creature can't be blocked by creatures with power 2 or less.)
This is actually an ability they were trying out in Kaladesh on a few cards (Demolition Stomper, Elegant Edgecrafters, Ghirapur Guide, Outland Boar). It is a much simpler version of Trample that fills a similar role, getting around chump blockers (especially in a set filled with 1/1 tokens).
I'm not sold, though. It is pretty specific at 2 power or less, so I'm not really comfortable devoting an entire keyword to it when there can be variations on the number. Given that, another option is to use the Wandering Wolf ability:
Daunt 2.0 (Creatures with less power than this creature's power can't block it.)
This has more flexible language indeed, but it actually ends up having much less flexible design space, essentially making large creatures just unblockable by nearly everything rather than just some things. The other thing I don't like about this kind of ability in general is that it removes decision-making. Menace is a keyword that dodges this problem by giving the opponent a choice to let the attacker through, or double-block. I would rather have an ability like "super trample" (Pride of Lions), because that at least involves more critical thinking rather than attacking with the biggest creature simply because it's the best move.
Honestly, though, I would rather go with something other than a keyword. Imagine a set that has cards like this:
Red Pseudo-Trampler3R
Creature - Warrior
Whenever ~ becomes blocked, it deals 2 damage to defending player.
4/2
Green Pseudo-Trampler5G
Creature - Elephant
~ can't be blocked by creatures with power 3 or less.
5/5
My point is that, while I think it's fine to have one-time effects at common, I could see individual, unkeyworded effects, take the place of tramplers at common, filling the same role and reducing complexity. This way, we don't really have to worry about having an additional keyword.
UR: Taunt
Speaking of stealing things from green, I found another ability that typically shows up in green that I believe will end up fitting much better in another color, in this case being blue:
Taunt (This creature must be blocked if able.)
Doing some research, this effect has showed up most in green, but mostly on cards that grant the effect (Enlarge, Satyr Piper). In reality, red has more creatures that naturally have the ability without having to gain it (Goblin Fire Fiend, Hinterland Scourge, Inescapable Brute). That means that the effect already belongs in one half of this color pair. Blue has also been known to pull creatures into combat in the past (Courtly Provocateur, Bident of Thassa). I don't think it's too far of a stretch to let that evolve into the Irresistible Prey ability. This plays directly into blue's desire to control combat by pulling the opponent's blockers' attention to one creature while the other can get in for damage.
I should note that this is a slight variation on Misdirect, which I talked a bit about for UB, as it has very similar flavor of being sneaky and manipulative.
And as for the void left by the absence of Prowess? We can just continue to see cards like Kiln Fiend that basically have different variations of Prowess anyway. I see no reason Prowess needs to be keyworded given the existence of those cards.
Side-Note About Green
Given how much I've talked about taking things away from green, it occurs to me that I do have a suggestion that could balance that out. I mentioned before how I'm not exactly sold on Lifelink being white. The most altruistic color benefiting from another's pain just seems wrong to me. However, green is a color that also enjoys lifegain. Oddly enough, despite green's policy of wanting to do almost everything through its creatures (like direct damage in the form of fighting and card draw in the form of etb or death triggers and so forth), it's the only color that does lifegain primarily through noncreature spells.
My suggestion here would be to move lifelink into BGW (not taking it out of white, as that would leave WB without a keyword) and move lifegain from noncreature spells primarily into white. It just makes more sense to me that way.
Anywho...
GU: React, Elude, Salvage
Assuming Hexproof gets the same treatment we're giving to Trample (using it only on one-time effects at common and on permanents at higher rarities), we'll need something to fill the void. Once again, we have a couple of options:
React (Whenever this creature becomes the target of a spell or ability you don't control, draw a card.)
Elude (Counter the first spell or ability you don't control that targets this creature each turn.)
Salvage (When this creature dies, draw a card.)
First off, yes, Salvage is just a renamed version of Expendable from my UB suggestion. Assuming we don't use it for UB, it fits perfectly in GU, given that a number of cards in the colors already have the ability. The problem is that it doesn't fill exactly the same role. While it does save you from card disadvantage if your creature gets removed, it doesn't stop it from being removed if your opponent cares less about giving you a card than it does about getting rid of your creature.
Elude was my favorite idea until a little while ago. I like that it encourages more interaction than Hexproof by still allowing your opponent to target the creature if they put enough extra resources into it. It does have some problems though. Mainly, it's likely still too punishing to the opponent to have to use two targeting spells on it, and many of the people I've shown this to have suggested I just change it to forcing the opponent to discard an extra card, like on Reality Smasher.
Other people have pointed out that this specific wording could cause confusion as to the timing of the ability. I didn't want to spell it out fully, because that takes up a few more lines of text than I'd like.
The other problem most people point out is that I can't grant a creature Elude to save it from spot removal that's already on the stack, although my answer to that is just to change cards like Ranger's Guile to "counter each other spell that targets target creature you control." And besides, if we keep Hexproof around the same way Indestructible is used, we can still just use that instead.
Still, Elude is problematic. Given that, React is my favorite candidate among these. It's flavorful, simple, and strikes a good balance between the benefits of the other two. My only concern is that it may be a little too weak, but only playtesting will tell. I really like the idea of React giving me the chance to find an answer to my opponent's spot removal before it resolves (testing the creature's reaction time ).
I do have one more suggestion for this, though, which involves ditching Hexproof entirely:
Elude 2.0 (cost) ((cost): This creature can't be the target of spells or abilities your opponents control this turn.)
I used Elude because it also works really well on this ability. It plays off the idea that the most balanced use of Hexproof is via activated abilities, like on Bristling Hydra. While this saves space on vocabulary, I'm not sure I like the idea of losing Hexproof entirely.
Other Ideas
Talking about all of this has reminded me of things like Regenerate, which aren't around any more but still have a place in Magic sets. Regenerate is currently being filled in by Indestructible, but that loses out on a bit of flavor. Obviously, we can't reuse the word Regenerate to mean something else, but we can at least find a new word for the effect that Regenerate should've been:
Survive (cost) (If this creature would be destroyed, you may pay (cost). If you do, it gains indestructible until end of turn.)
This does two things: it brings flavor back to the ability, and it keywords an ability already in use while keeping it reactionary. Regenerate's biggest problems were that it was too complex (removing damage, removing from combat, and tapping it? huh?) and it could be used proactively as a "shield" ability, which counteracted the flavor of retroactively surviving a would-be fatal blow. Survive fixes both of those problems.
Survive does, however, do something that's considered taboo right now, and that's nested keywords. Flying and First Strike are okay with it because they reference themselves. Double Strike is okay with it because it's really intuitive with First Strike. Survive is more risky because it does neither of those things, but then again, so is Reach. The other thing is that the gains from Survive may not outweigh the cost of adding another keyword to learn. We could just stick with unkeyworded designs that do similar things, but I think it's worth exploring.
Anyway, that's my thing. What do you guys all think?
The biggest issue with this design is that there is no such thing as "infinite" in Magic. Every combo that goes "infinite" requires that a number actually be chosen and the amount of mana/life/damage is set to that number. As such, the infinity symbol will have no place in a Black Bordered set since Infinity can't be a thing in Black Bordered.
And rules changes most likely will not occur to make it a thing. There is a reason things can't go infinite and I don't see them throwing away that rule just to make something like this work. The best you would see (though it is just as slim) is an activated ability that can only be activated "if you have 1000 or more mana in your mana pool" (or something like that).
You have a point. So then what if the mana cost on the draw-seven ability was just absurdly high? Like 100 or something? Do you think that might see print one day?
Anyway, my OP contains two of the three pieces of an infinite combo this deck would be built around:
1U
Creature - Wizard
Converge - When ~ enters the battlefield, you may exile an instant or sorcery card with converted mana cost X or less from your hand, where X is the number of colors of mana spent to cast ~.
2, T: Copy the exiled card. You may cast the copy without paying its mana cost.
1/1
This, in a vaccuum, is just a more fragile, more restrictive Isochron Scepter, with the only upside being that it includes sorceries too. This card does double-duty, being an early drop that can take advantage of any 1 or 2 mana spell (like a soft counter or a burn spell) to help control the game if needed.
5
Legendary Artifact
Each spell that would cost less than five mana to cast costs five mana to cast.
Converge - Whenever you cast a spell, draw a card for each color of mana spent to cast it.
This card breaks the last one, letting you exile a spell of cmc up to 5 rather than 2. This card also contributes to the controlly nature of the deck, slowing down decks by upping mana costs to at least 5. As someone mentioned before, the draw bonus might be a bit too much, so I'll probably tone ot down to something like lifegain.
2RGU
Sorcery
~ can't be countered by spells or abilities.
Take an extra turn after this one. Exile ~.
And this is the crux of the combo. With the legendary artifact out, I can cast the wizard for WUBRG and exile this, getting me the Isochron Scepter Time Walk combo.
The rest of the deck is filled with fixing helpers and control cards (counterspells, burn, etc.) As well as the green 2-brid creature for an alternative beatdown plan.
The lands consist of simple tapped duals (with basic types) and checklands for a flexible, but not quite over-the-top manabase.
The thing is that it's subjective. Whether or not an ability word should be restricted to a specific use of a certain effect, like casting a spell vs activating an ability, isn't relevant to my set or my cards, and here's why:
I used Converge because, falvorfully, it fits perfectly, and it's in the same mechanical theme too. The reason I expanded it to affect other spells on certain cards is to get value out of the naturally multicolor cards in the set that don't come with Converge. It seems like a bit of a waste to only use Converge on 'monocolor' spells when the set has such a high volume of two and three color cards.
Personally, as long as it's easy to connect the effect to Converge by using the "for each color spent" wording, I don't care if it's not as concise as something like Landfall.
And, for the record, I have a set of card designs using Converge in place to form a competitive deck that's got a much more clearly-defined strategy than "5c goodstuff", so I'm not worried about that.
Overrun is harder to cast, limiting how it can be printed, and is riskier to include, especially in any GX deck that produces a lot of creatures.
Sure, the power difference is almost negligible, but the fact of the matter is that Overcome can be used more easily and more often than Overrun could. I see no problem with them increasing the chances of seeing this sort of effect in sets, even if it isn't quite as splashy. And anyway, it's not like it will make much difference in any given game, so why bother being upset. There is more advantage to Overcome's existence than just printing Overrun in its place.
Oh, and mods, feel free to ban me if I'm being too "SJW." I don't mind making another account.
Maelstrom Monument 5
Legendary Artifact (M)
Each spell that would cost less than five mana to cast costs five mana to cast.
Converge - Whenever you cast a spell, draw a card for each color of mana spent to cast it.
Bant Ambassador W
Creature - Human Knight (R)
First strike, vigilance
Converge - When ~ or another creature enters the battlefield, if it was cast from your hand, you gain 1 life for each color of mana spent to cast it.
2/2
Naya Ambassador G
Creature - Cat Warrior (R)
Vigilance, trample
Converge - ~ and each other creature you control enters the battlefield with an additional +1/+1 counter on it for each color of mana spent to cast it.
2/2
Conduit of the Maelstrom 1U
Artifact Creature - Human Wizard (M)
Converge - When ~ enters the battlefield, you may exile an instant or sorcery card with converted mana cost X or less from your hand, where X is the number of colors of mana spent to cast ~.
2, T: Copy the exiled card. You may cast the copy without paying its mana cost.
1/1
Maelstrom's Malice 1BB
Sorcery (R)
Converge - Destroy up to one target creature or planeswalker for each color of mana spent to cast ~.
Prismatic Dissolution 1U
Instant (C)
Converge - Counter target spell unless its controller pays 1 for each color of mana spent to cast ~.
Maelstrom Walker X
Artifact Creature - Construct
Converge - ~ enters the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it for each color of mana spent to cast it.
0/0
And that's what I have so far.
Expendable 2.0 (When this is countered or destroyed, you may draw a card.)
The counter clause isn't relevant on a 1-mana 1/1, and the destroy clause prevents abuse by sac outlets. Does this help to bring the cost down for you?
And I still see no reason that warrents a higher mana cost. Can you explain why a 1-drop Expendable 1/1 would be too cheap?
And yes, Afflict is definitely the kind of effect I would use in its place, but I don't think I would use it as a keyword ability.
As for Survive, mine is different from yours in that mine is strictly reactionary, the same way that counterspells are reactionary. This restricts the timing in which a player is allowed to use the ability and keeps it from becoming a "shield ability," like I mentioned. I believe that the slight difference this will make will allow for more compelling gameplay.On the topic of Expendable, I took another look at it and realized there is something that can be added to it to make it scale a little better with larger things:
Expendable (When this is countered or destroyed, you may draw a card.)
This adds another dimension to the ability, allowing players go get value from it even around a coutnerspell, which allows the ability to be much more useful on bigger/higher-rarity cards than the previous version. I did change the "dies" to "is destroyed," as that will keep it from being abused by sacrifice effects. This should hopefully bring the cost down a bit. Although, even in my previous suggestion, I think it would be perfectly fine on a 1-mana 1/1. I mean, if a 2-mana 1/1 with a little extra can have this ability (Jeskai Sage, Palace Familiar, Surveilling Sprite, Feral Prowler), I see no reason a Fugitive Wizard couldn't.
Also, just to add a little support to the idea that this ability can easily be moved to black, I just found out that Infernal Scarring exists. Just in case there was any doubt.
Anyway, what I'd like to discuss is the current list of keywords, organized by the color pairs that use them, and how each keyword can possibly be improved upon. There are a few things I'd like to get out of the way before hand, though: Firstly, there are a number of keywords that simply don't need improvement. Things like Flying and Haste are functionally perfect. Second, there are a few keywords that don't fall into the category of keywords that I want to analyze. Those are things like Indestructible, which are either only used at higher rarities or are equally available to all colors. I would like to focus only on keywords that are centered around specific color pairs and can be used at common. Third, there are a keywords like Hexproof, which is considered to be GU's keyword the same way Menace is BR's, which I think should be used differently and removed from the category I want to analyze. Fourth, I want to focus only on combat-oriented creature keywords. This means I won't be discussing action words like Scry or anything like that. And finally, Fifth, I will be offering suggestions for new keywords to fill certain voids.
So here is a list, organized by color pair, of the currently employed keywords:
WU: Flash (infrequent G), Flying (infrequent B) (Both are technically accessible by all colors, but at common they appear in this pair most frequently.)
UB: Nothing so far.
BR: Menace (formally G)
RG: Haste, Reach (formally W), Trample (also technically available to all colors, but infrequently)
GW: Vigilance
WB: Lifelink
UR: Prowess
BG: Deathtouch
RW: First Strike, Double Strike
GU: Hexproof
So, obviously, the most glaring issue is that UB has nothing here, but I see a few other issues. First, though, let's point out the keywords that are perfect:
WU: Flash, Flying
BR: Menace
RG: Haste, Reach
GW: Vigilance
WB: Lifelink
BG: Deathtouch
These are all pretty much fine. The only thing that bugs me here is Lifelink. Something about gaining life from dealing damage just doesn't seem very W. That, however, is a conversation for another day. For now, Lifelink plays its role well enough.
Okay, I would also change the names if I could (Flying -> Flight, Lifelink -> Syphon, Deathtouch -> Deadly), but that's just nit-picking.
Now let's look at the problematic ones one-by-one:
UB: Nothing
We'll come back to this.
RG: Trample
Trample is an interesting keyword because, while it is one of the easiest to grokk, it's also probably the most complex. Trample's rules text has gone through a few different iterations because of how complicated it is to explain in in-game terms.
It hasn't really been brought up as problematic, though, because once it is explained, players catch on pretty quickly. If its complexity were the only problem, its name would keep me from worrying about it.
The other issue is its power level. Since BFZ, Trample has been used more often on effects that grant it than on creatures that naturally have it at common. This tells me that Trample belongs in the same group as Indestructible, being used at common mostly on temporary effects and coming naturally on creatures only at higher rarities.
It does, however, serve an important function to the game, which is why moving it up in rarity would leave a void that needs to be filled. I have some ideas of ways to fill those voids that I'll talk about later.
UR: Prowess
Izzet's waited a long while for an evergreen keyword, and Prowess does a pretty good impression. However, it's not perfect. Prowess has a number of big problems that keep me from being satisfied with it:
1. Prowess is a triggered ability, where as all the others are static. This means it uses the stack, which we want to avoid if possible. It also makes MTGO a little slower and limits how cards with it can be designed for the same reason (that's why you'll never see a card grant Prowess).
2. Prowess contradicts WotC's policy on "can't be blocked." The reason that wasn't keyworded is that there are simply too many variations they want to be able to use instead (like Flying and Menace). Prowess goes against that sentiment by keywording something that has infinitely more variations available to it (Wee Dragonauts, Elusive Spellfist, Soulblade Djinn, etc...)
3. "Prowess" isn't a great name. It doesn't easily translate to getting a bonus from noncreature spells. An important aspect of an evergreen keyword is grokkability, or the ability to stick easily in a new player's mind, and I don't think Prowess has that.
4. Finally, Prowess is way more narrow than any other keyword. Whereas other keywords are pretty modular (any single card with another keyword can be slotted into any deck to pretty good effect), Prowess is very linear (the nature of the mechanic makes it hard to get enough value out of it unless you build the deck specifically to take as much advantage of it as possible). This really reduces the usefulness of the ability.
RW: First Strike, Double Strike
First Strike and Double Strike have a lot going for them. They avoid all the pitfalls that Prowess has. They are easy to grokk; they serve a clear, singular, and unique purpose in ways that no other effect can; and they are versatile enough to be used frequently. They also have the added bonus of playing off of each other as tiered versions of the same ability, one making the other look much more attractive and exciting.
The problem with these abilities is with the rules. First Strike and Double Strike set a dangerous precedent. By requiring an entire step be added to the game's combat system, they increase complexity. It's all too easy to think that, just because First Strike does it so effectively, it's okay to do similar things with other new abilities, which will end up hurting the game in the long run.
I don't think at this point these keywords should be changed, as they have and continue to add a lot to the game. I just want to make it clear that they have already pushed the game's rules farther than I'm comfortable with.
GU: Hexproof
Not a lot of people really think about Hexproof being problematic, but I think that's because of how it's used. Hexproof is a very powerful ability, which means designers have to be very careful about where it's used. Since BFZ, it's been used on exactly three cards at common, one of which was an instant (Woodcutter's Grit), and two of which were expensive creatures (Bastion Inventor, Striped Riverwinder). What this tells me is that the ability is too powerful, because it either needs a really high mana cost, or can only be used on defensive one-time effects.
The other problem with Hexproof is that it's inherently non-interactive. This takes away from the game rather than adds to it. While it does increase a player's confidence in playing the creature that has it, doing so essentially takes away decision-making in the game.
The best way I've seen Hexproof used in recent sets is an activated ability on a creature that grants it until end of turn (Bristling Hydra, Prognostic Sphinx, etc.) which seems to me like it could be turned into its own ability and used at higher frequency. It increases a player's confidence the same way natural Hexproof does, but the player still needs to be careful to leave themselves enough resources to activate it if they need to. In a game where resources are tight, this can involve some serious budgeting, increasing the amount of interesting decision-making. Because of this, I believe it would be best to keep using Hexproof, but in the same way Indestructible is used. That is, only at higher rarities or in until-end-of-turn effects.
Now, let's take a look at some solutions:
UB: Expendable, Stealth, Misdirect
Dimir has been sorely missing an evergreen creature keyword (and nearly any mechanical overlap, for that matter). So I, like pretty much everyone else here, have put a lot of thought into what should go here. My favorite candidate so far is this:
Expendable (When this creature dies, draw a card.)
This ability has showed up on a number of blue creatures throughout Magic's history, and as recently as Eldritch Moon (Exultant Cultist), solidifying it in blue's toolbox. As for black, while it has a number of cards that have similar effects (usually benefiting from other creatures dying, like Harvester of Souls), it actually hasn't had a single card (outside of artifact creatures, like Filigree Familiar) that has this exact ability. That said, Menace used to be in green rather than black, so I see no reason this can't also be shifted to fill a void. Interestingly, this would be the second time an ability would be stolen from green this way by black.
I like this because it encourages interaction by lessening the loss of a creature, especially in combat. It negates card disadvantage the same way that Haste negates summoning sickness and Vigilance negates the inability to block after attacking, so I also like that aspect a lot.
I've also messed around with abilities like:
Stealth (This creature can't be blocked unless all other attacking creatures you control are also blocked.)
and
Misdirect (Whenever this creature attacks, target other attacking creature must be blocked this turn if able.)
Both of those mess around with the flavor that the creature is selling out its allies to get ahead in a sneaky way, a very UB mentality. However, each of these has their own problems. Of the two, I am partial to Misdirect, but both encourage more aggressive strategies in a way that is pretty UB way.
Still, the UB keyword debate has been talked about to death, so I'll leave this one here.
RG Daunt & Pseudo-Trample
So lets say Trample is pulled back at common, used only on one-time effects like Larger Than Life. What takes its place? Well, we have a couple of options:
Daunt (This creature can't be blocked by creatures with power 2 or less.)
This is actually an ability they were trying out in Kaladesh on a few cards (Demolition Stomper, Elegant Edgecrafters, Ghirapur Guide, Outland Boar). It is a much simpler version of Trample that fills a similar role, getting around chump blockers (especially in a set filled with 1/1 tokens).
I'm not sold, though. It is pretty specific at 2 power or less, so I'm not really comfortable devoting an entire keyword to it when there can be variations on the number. Given that, another option is to use the Wandering Wolf ability:
Daunt 2.0 (Creatures with less power than this creature's power can't block it.)
This has more flexible language indeed, but it actually ends up having much less flexible design space, essentially making large creatures just unblockable by nearly everything rather than just some things. The other thing I don't like about this kind of ability in general is that it removes decision-making. Menace is a keyword that dodges this problem by giving the opponent a choice to let the attacker through, or double-block. I would rather have an ability like "super trample" (Pride of Lions), because that at least involves more critical thinking rather than attacking with the biggest creature simply because it's the best move.
Honestly, though, I would rather go with something other than a keyword. Imagine a set that has cards like this:
Red Pseudo-Trampler 3R
Creature - Warrior
Whenever ~ becomes blocked, it deals 2 damage to defending player.
4/2
Green Pseudo-Trampler 5G
Creature - Elephant
~ can't be blocked by creatures with power 3 or less.
5/5
My point is that, while I think it's fine to have one-time effects at common, I could see individual, unkeyworded effects, take the place of tramplers at common, filling the same role and reducing complexity. This way, we don't really have to worry about having an additional keyword.
UR: Taunt
Speaking of stealing things from green, I found another ability that typically shows up in green that I believe will end up fitting much better in another color, in this case being blue:
Taunt (This creature must be blocked if able.)
Doing some research, this effect has showed up most in green, but mostly on cards that grant the effect (Enlarge, Satyr Piper). In reality, red has more creatures that naturally have the ability without having to gain it (Goblin Fire Fiend, Hinterland Scourge, Inescapable Brute). That means that the effect already belongs in one half of this color pair. Blue has also been known to pull creatures into combat in the past (Courtly Provocateur, Bident of Thassa). I don't think it's too far of a stretch to let that evolve into the Irresistible Prey ability. This plays directly into blue's desire to control combat by pulling the opponent's blockers' attention to one creature while the other can get in for damage.
I should note that this is a slight variation on Misdirect, which I talked a bit about for UB, as it has very similar flavor of being sneaky and manipulative.
And as for the void left by the absence of Prowess? We can just continue to see cards like Kiln Fiend that basically have different variations of Prowess anyway. I see no reason Prowess needs to be keyworded given the existence of those cards.
Side-Note About Green
Given how much I've talked about taking things away from green, it occurs to me that I do have a suggestion that could balance that out. I mentioned before how I'm not exactly sold on Lifelink being white. The most altruistic color benefiting from another's pain just seems wrong to me. However, green is a color that also enjoys lifegain. Oddly enough, despite green's policy of wanting to do almost everything through its creatures (like direct damage in the form of fighting and card draw in the form of etb or death triggers and so forth), it's the only color that does lifegain primarily through noncreature spells.
My suggestion here would be to move lifelink into BGW (not taking it out of white, as that would leave WB without a keyword) and move lifegain from noncreature spells primarily into white. It just makes more sense to me that way.
Anywho...
GU: React, Elude, Salvage
Assuming Hexproof gets the same treatment we're giving to Trample (using it only on one-time effects at common and on permanents at higher rarities), we'll need something to fill the void. Once again, we have a couple of options:
React (Whenever this creature becomes the target of a spell or ability you don't control, draw a card.)
Elude (Counter the first spell or ability you don't control that targets this creature each turn.)
Salvage (When this creature dies, draw a card.)
First off, yes, Salvage is just a renamed version of Expendable from my UB suggestion. Assuming we don't use it for UB, it fits perfectly in GU, given that a number of cards in the colors already have the ability. The problem is that it doesn't fill exactly the same role. While it does save you from card disadvantage if your creature gets removed, it doesn't stop it from being removed if your opponent cares less about giving you a card than it does about getting rid of your creature.
Elude was my favorite idea until a little while ago. I like that it encourages more interaction than Hexproof by still allowing your opponent to target the creature if they put enough extra resources into it. It does have some problems though. Mainly, it's likely still too punishing to the opponent to have to use two targeting spells on it, and many of the people I've shown this to have suggested I just change it to forcing the opponent to discard an extra card, like on Reality Smasher.
Other people have pointed out that this specific wording could cause confusion as to the timing of the ability. I didn't want to spell it out fully, because that takes up a few more lines of text than I'd like.
The other problem most people point out is that I can't grant a creature Elude to save it from spot removal that's already on the stack, although my answer to that is just to change cards like Ranger's Guile to "counter each other spell that targets target creature you control." And besides, if we keep Hexproof around the same way Indestructible is used, we can still just use that instead.
Still, Elude is problematic. Given that, React is my favorite candidate among these. It's flavorful, simple, and strikes a good balance between the benefits of the other two. My only concern is that it may be a little too weak, but only playtesting will tell. I really like the idea of React giving me the chance to find an answer to my opponent's spot removal before it resolves (testing the creature's reaction time
I do have one more suggestion for this, though, which involves ditching Hexproof entirely:
Elude 2.0 (cost) ((cost): This creature can't be the target of spells or abilities your opponents control this turn.)
I used Elude because it also works really well on this ability. It plays off the idea that the most balanced use of Hexproof is via activated abilities, like on Bristling Hydra. While this saves space on vocabulary, I'm not sure I like the idea of losing Hexproof entirely.
Other Ideas
Talking about all of this has reminded me of things like Regenerate, which aren't around any more but still have a place in Magic sets. Regenerate is currently being filled in by Indestructible, but that loses out on a bit of flavor. Obviously, we can't reuse the word Regenerate to mean something else, but we can at least find a new word for the effect that Regenerate should've been:
Survive (cost) (If this creature would be destroyed, you may pay (cost). If you do, it gains indestructible until end of turn.)
This does two things: it brings flavor back to the ability, and it keywords an ability already in use while keeping it reactionary. Regenerate's biggest problems were that it was too complex (removing damage, removing from combat, and tapping it? huh?) and it could be used proactively as a "shield" ability, which counteracted the flavor of retroactively surviving a would-be fatal blow. Survive fixes both of those problems.
Survive does, however, do something that's considered taboo right now, and that's nested keywords. Flying and First Strike are okay with it because they reference themselves. Double Strike is okay with it because it's really intuitive with First Strike. Survive is more risky because it does neither of those things, but then again, so is Reach. The other thing is that the gains from Survive may not outweigh the cost of adding another keyword to learn. We could just stick with unkeyworded designs that do similar things, but I think it's worth exploring.
Anyway, that's my thing. What do you guys all think?