Carnal Virus1(B/G) Enchantment — Aura
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature has infect. 1(B/G) : Enchanted creature fights another target creature. "I wish your sister would just eat me alive."
—Doraeon, last words
Here's another take on the Protozoa Parasite, but is based on rabies instead of protozoa. I had fantasized in the world of Magic that protozoa could be more deft even, and like operate on higher levels of functionality somehow; so that they have the ability to control their host in ways that makes the host thrive, rather than just a downward spiral. This could never be said for rabies though. I had pondered over the fight mechanic for the protozoan design; alongside the damage to itself, it seemed like the obvious cold pair; but I told myself I could do better with that and it would be mostly redundant to the damage ability anyways.
Photomastery Instant
Create a tapped Replica artifact token with all activated abilities of target creature, except each ability has, " , Sacrifice this artifact" in addition to its other activation costs if it doesn't have them. You may replace any names in the text of those abilities' effects with "target creature".
Rebound (If this spell was cast from your hand, instead of putting it into your graveyard as it resolves, exile it and, at the beginning of your next upkeep, you may cast this card from exile without paying its mana cost.)
Here's a retake on the last ability from the Protozoa Parasite. This one seeks to update the functionality to full form, with the text changing ability that would be essential in cases like Morphling. As a hydraulic like spell that doesn't directly promote net gain or domain influence in any way, I feel like the rebound ability is the only way to really make it pop. I wanted to do this one in but these colors, originally to be a worship for Jhoira of the Ghitu, reflect the concept perfectly.
EDIT: Other names for the token included Gift, or Megalo something; Meglio something; Ita something; Fallo.
That is incredibly dense that you think in product development a redundancy like that wouldn't be adjusted to explain that tap costs do not stack, but receed to one another. Hence, rulings would state that a tap cost is only added if it doesn't already exist in the activation cost.
Another actual issue I have been pondering over is the damage one. I think that it should be softened further, in the form of "2 damage instances". This also bring more realism to the damage that infected creatures do to themselves when under the influence of such parasites.
What makes you think it won't work? What are Treasure tokens then?
One thing that gets me about the design is that the first ability was to only work when attacking or blocking. It should probably go back to that simply to preserve some aspect of challenge for what it's doing in mono green.It would be way cooler if we could do one-sided counters, then it could be only when attacking, and preserve the controlling player has a chance to block with the enhanced power creature (if say you need to pump it before it can deal enough damage to itself). That would just be too out of the way though, I think.
Protozoa ParasiteG Enchantment — Aura
Enchant creature G : Enchanted creature deals 2 damage to itself. G : Put a +1/+1 counter on enchanted creature. Activate this ability only once each turn and only as a sorcery. G : Create a tapped artifact token with all activated abilities of enchanted creature, except each ability has, " , Sacrifice this artifact" in addition to its other activation costs if it doesn't have them. Activate this ability only once each turn.
Only quads can stop protozoa!!!!
Protozoa ParasiteG Enchantment — Aura
Enchant creature G : Enchanted creature deals damage to itself equal to its power. Activate this ability only once each turn and only if enchanted creature is attacking or blocking. G : Put a +1/+1 counter on enchanted creature. Activate this ability only once each turn and only if enchanted creature is untapped. G : Create a tapped artifact token with all activated abilities of enchanted creature, except each ability has, " , Sacrifice this artifact" in addition to its other activation costs. Activate this ability only once each turn.
Black legendarily has Yawgmoth's Will and white legendarily has CMC range limited access across the board (including the graveyard); Serra Paragon // Sun Titan. This effect would completely fall into those colors.
Reminder that it would cost you 3 mana to untap 2 lands. That's not intuitive to ramp in any of the Detonate colors, with the exception of Urza's set (non-colored) and Serra's Sanctum. In blue, there's just Tolarian Academy; which isn't really doing anything Twiddle or Deserted Temple doesn't already do until you include Urza's set with it; but that would take into the mid-game scene to realize. To preserve the balance, it has to retain this open source effect, so that an opponent may untap these lands if they have them, and get this effect. Also because basic lands are too narrow abroad, and limited it to that would limit the application of the design terribly; restricting play options in a very undesirable way.
If you discard a card with converted mana cost 3 or less from the first effect, can you not then cast it with the second effect?
That's synergy.
Additionally, F Around would open up ground to run Crack the Earth in a split with it. While serving as a brackish version of the former, by first giving the opponent an option to discard instead, and second only effecting nonland permanents for sacrifice. Each opponent discarding a card at random is not overcosted at one mana. If you are suggesting it should cost 2, that would be appropriately costed for the bulk bin. Even if it was [Target player discards a card at random] for one mana, it would just be a softened version of Hymn to Tourach; where losing the volume hardly justifies the card's place in the deck over selective/targetable removal.
For the general utility of the two effects, and the intuitive hybrid color combinations, there's a myriad of decks that could find utility for either or face of the card. One of the adaptations I am seeing though, that would likely be necessary to this, is that the second effect needs to allow the casting player to choose the effect they want and then give each opponent the other. The double-faced nature of this effect wants to dare players to challenge themselves for what they're doing. I love that about it most, and it couldn't exist without that element.
Detonate might be re-workable as: (You may cast both faces of this card for its Detonate cost. If you do, stack the front face overtop the back face.)
I think another adaption moving forward for this will be to switch up the colors for the Detonate cost. I originally wanted red at the center, and I think it really needs that; despite the current meaning was supposed to symbolize that it's good for someone no matter what the outcome.
F AroundR Sorcery
Each player discards a card at random or sacrifices a nonland permanent.
// Detonate 1(B/R)(R/W)(You may cast both faces of this card for its Detonate cost. If you do, stack the front face overtop the back face.)
Find OutU Instant
Choose one and each opponent gets the other—
• You may cast an instant or sorcery card with converted mana cost 3 or less from your graveyard without paying its mana cost. Exile that card when it resolves.
• Untap up to two target lands you control.
EDIT: Had to concede on the hybrid colors. There's no way to get everything onto the canvas like that. Compromise is legendarily the only absolute thing in life; and it proves itself king once again. I retained the hybrid cost in the Detonate ability because I think it's incredibly dynamic. You can cast this as a regular multicolor spell in black and white, granting it versatility across another entire plane.
Here's a take on double-sided cards for double-faced cards instead. I gave it a new keyword since we're working with a new template, this was supposed to be a take on Fuse, but I suppose Fuse could also take place on this as the new double-sided cards? I do feel it's going to genuinely better to have its own cost though, since it prevents having to overcost the original spells to make up the difference, which is something I've always loathed about double-sided cards.
As for Find Out, I had conceived a functionality that simply allow you to choose one, and then target opponent (or even each opponent) gets the other effect. This way is just a little more suspenseful.
If we wanted to be more true to the original meme, I think that F Around would probably want to be an X spell. It would then have to become [Each player draws X cards, then discards X cards at random and/or sacrifices X permanents]. Find Out would be anti-climatic to be an X spell, so it would just want to stay as it is. That would make a neat rebound for the massive F Around; as it already was intended to be.
We could also give Find Out no mana cost for extra suspense, so that the only way to get it is through Detonate. That might be overzealous though in how it limits interactivity.
F Around Sorcery
Each player discards a card at random or sacrifices a nonland permanent.
// Detonate 1(You may cast this spell for its Detonate cost. If you do, copy the back face and cast it without paying its mana cost. Place that spell under this one on the stack.)
Find Out Instant
Flip a coin and have an opponent call it. The player that wins may cast an instant or sorcery card with converted mana cost 3 or less from his or her graveyard without paying its mana cost. The other player may untap up to two lands he or she controls.
Hello there, it appears as though you're doing the same thing; fueling the graveyard by milling cards. In both, you're forced the ditch two cards, but the selection of which being forced is mostly aesthetic (creatures are still a very prominent and powerful resource). Costing Corpse Churn by one less doesn't actually create a new design; and it has nothing to do with the original design. The scam deck you posted looks to be powered by Grief and Orcish Bowmasters; Reanimate and Force of Will; making it no different from any other blue black control deck. Blood Letter would probably end up hurting that deck before helping it, because in the 99% scenario without Reanimate; it doesn't want to have to ditch any of its precious removal spells. The Brainstorm/Ponder combo will still reign supreme, invalidating the argument that Blood Letter would be superior to them.
Furthermore, I'd like to note, if this card were simply:
Blood LetterB
Sorcery
Each opponent loses 1 life and you gain 1 life.
Draw a card. This has to be the devil's work. I can't make any sense of it in all the time I've spent—and it looks as though our time is nearly out.
This version would be even more proficient in a vacuum, because it nets you a straight draw (helping to power through the stack); and doesn't force you to ditch any potentially useful resources. Further proving that less is more, and that this form creates the restrictions that it does to actually make the design more challenging and balanced; and not to overclock it.
I understand this argument, based on the fear that it will obsolete multicolor utility. However, if you think of this conversely, where I would run blue in a black deck for Ponder and Brainstorm, now I have something to splash black into a blue deck for Blood Letter; or splashing white for Sign of the Cross?
Exactly.
It's not only about existence; and not just about functionality and proficiency; but also about proportion. I think it's the general consensus that Magic is a game that suffers many for the inability to access of play; having no one to play with and span their horizons with various combinations. The more you play, the better you may get. But in product development, one must also dare to improvise and reach for ingenuity. You have to question your own conventions to reinvent your product, so that it becomes more dynamic and new again. Each color needs some self-sufficiency for core-essential game mechanics; and wants to be able to care for themselves; and pair with others without needing any adulterating wheel to botch the proficiency of the pair.
Let me ask, how would changing this to Surveil 3 be any different, and not out of color, when the essence of what it's doing is the same? To me, this is only the illusion of difference. Is this the type of people we want to be? Who connivingly use sleights of hand and smoke & mirrors tricks to defraud people that we are not going against our own precepts? Rather than being straightforward with what we're doing, and explaining it as inventing those precepts to breathe new life into the product and its physics? Yes, this is the big picture. What kind of people do we want to be seen as? I've always been straightforward with my adaptations of MTG policies, flavor, and game logic; but only now might that be appreciable? It's the person I want to be seen as; honest, true, and pure.
This is why it throws a yellow flag for me to reface the design as something like Surveil.
And now if not that, suggesting there is a way to "put this into color", what does one suggest? Say you had to redesign it.
The only argument was that it's "out of color", but the intention of the design was to extend utility to the color, by doing what it does in a unique way, by limiting the immediate resource draw from it. And guess what, not really that out of color for the resource it's working with.
Compared to March of Reckless Joy, as previously stated, there's no reason it couldn't exist and become an extension of utility to the color.
That is the essence of extending utilities to colors, boundaries and uniqueness, opposed to straightforwardness.
It would be nice if someone had a legitimate argument towards the functionality for once, instead of condemning creativity and pioneering; ingenuity and improvisation. These are the very essence of talent.
Does anyone have that to contribute for this design?
Being able to Scry or Surveil is definitely not worth an additional mana. It would barely be worth its place in the deck; and if you've ever tried using Mystic Speculation, you know this has been proven.
You're thinking about Grave Tutor, I believe. And you were very outspoken how you didn't like that one. As combo material, it's really only what you would hope for it to be. Furthermore, I'd like to point out how much closer this design is to Sign of the Cross, which no one would bat an eye at if printed.
It's not Ponder either, because Ponder doesn't force you to ditch two potentially good resources for one. It gives you an even greater option than 1 life in that you can totally reset the stack of your deck. Even Brainstorm is still a two-of in most deck concepts I've built, and hardly sees more copies than this. The reason for this is because it's redundant to itself. This effect would be somewhat of the middle ground between them. So it's alike Ponder, sure. Black has predominantly had draw effects. It would have made far more sense if it was suggested, "Why doesn't each player just lose 1 life?" That I can understand, because black is very akin to having to pay life for extra cards; Sign in Blood. I wasn't against an effect like that. But I felt like it's feel-bad to force restrictions like that all the time, and not provide some diversity for a change with an upper-hand effect.
Blood LetterB Sorcery
Look at the top three cards of your library. You may put one of those cards into your hand, then put the others into your graveyard. Each opponent loses 1 life and you gain 1 life. "I want you to realize you spend a lot of time thinking you're the best—but not a lot of time being the best."
Squeezing the most value you can get into a draw one card for one; worth its slot in the deck; plus an aesthetic utility design.
Considering everything in your deck is supposed to be useful, you have to pitch two useful cards; or maybe it helps less fortune individuals un-mana screw themselves.
EDIT: If this was red, it would probably be [deals 1 damage to each player], so just each player losing 1 life would be reasonable to bring the clock down a bit here for the value. However, I honestly believe true overclocked element here is the choice to put the other cards into your graveyard or on the bottom of your library. This was intended to be useful with Maralen of the Mornsong, in that you can tutor a card from among them you need next with her ability. However, I don't think it creates enough challenge for the using player this way, and should force players to have to build around the challenge with extra consistency; so that's the edit I've chosen to make moving forward.
Blood LetterB Sorcery
Look at the top three cards of your library. You may put one of those cards into your hand, then put the others into your graveyard or on the bottom of your library in any order. Each opponent loses 1 life and you gain 1 life. "I want you to realize you spend a lot of time thinking you're the best—but not a lot of time being the best."
Return target permanent card from your graveyard to your hand if its mana value is lower than the greatest mana value among permanent cards put into your graveyard this turn.
silly brush up, but there you go
It has special applications I'm sure, but typically would be under-influential I think. An easy brush up on the functionality would include allowing return so long as any other permanent card was put into your graveyard this turn. Still not that much better than Noxious Revival, but it's trying harder. Full expansion on this would include, [so long as another permanent was put into a graveyard this turn]. This would cover creature loss, battle, board sweep; the whole 9 yards; yet still be somewhat restrictive on the application.
Rain of Denial will be hard to pull off more than once, I don't think it will be what you desire of it. Your opponent will be able to play around the restriction by postponing their additional draws.
Ectoplasmic Power Enchantment — Aura
Enchant creature
Vanishing 1
Enchanted creature is indestructible.
Whenever a creature dies, you may put a time counter on Ectoplasmic Power. What a terrifying revelation; that as a ghost, you would feed off death. So poetic—the pen suddenly runs dry, and refuses to write another word.
Here's a design that I came up with pondering the physics of ectoplasm. In that as a ghost, you live off the electricity freshly emanating from the dead, and absorb it into your sentient body as ectoplasm. Otherwise, you supernova like the sun. Kinda crazy way to live or go. A tortured existence for the types of bottom feeding one might have to do to get that ecto. The tiny little lifeforms. Like a giant game of snake or worm. Miss me with that sir. As for the design, you know I hate indestructible, so this is an outstanding piece for me to release. It wants to give you one fair swing with indestrutible if/when you can't sustain the effect (because say you get disrupted). The effect is considerably inferior to undying on a few fronts, except that you can catch your opponent off-guard with this while they're tapped out; instead of being at their mercy waiting for the opportunity to use something like Undying Evil.
Enchantment — Aura
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature has infect.
1(B/G) : Enchanted creature fights another target creature.
"I wish your sister would just eat me alive."
—Doraeon, last words
Here's another take on the Protozoa Parasite, but is based on rabies instead of protozoa. I had fantasized in the world of Magic that protozoa could be more deft even, and like operate on higher levels of functionality somehow; so that they have the ability to control their host in ways that makes the host thrive, rather than just a downward spiral. This could never be said for rabies though. I had pondered over the fight mechanic for the protozoan design; alongside the damage to itself, it seemed like the obvious cold pair; but I told myself I could do better with that and it would be mostly redundant to the damage ability anyways.
Photomastery
Instant
Create a tapped Replica artifact token with all activated abilities of target creature, except each ability has, "
Rebound (If this spell was cast from your hand, instead of putting it into your graveyard as it resolves, exile it and, at the beginning of your next upkeep, you may cast this card from exile without paying its mana cost.)
Here's a retake on the last ability from the Protozoa Parasite. This one seeks to update the functionality to full form, with the text changing ability that would be essential in cases like Morphling. As a hydraulic like spell that doesn't directly promote net gain or domain influence in any way, I feel like the rebound ability is the only way to really make it pop. I wanted to do this one in
EDIT: Other names for the token included Gift, or Megalo something; Meglio something; Ita something; Fallo.
Another actual issue I have been pondering over is the damage one. I think that it should be softened further, in the form of "2 damage instances". This also bring more realism to the damage that infected creatures do to themselves when under the influence of such parasites.
One thing that gets me about the design is that the first ability was to only work when attacking or blocking. It should probably go back to that simply to preserve some aspect of challenge for what it's doing in mono green.It would be way cooler if we could do one-sided counters, then it could be only when attacking, and preserve the controlling player has a chance to block with the enhanced power creature (if say you need to pump it before it can deal enough damage to itself). That would just be too out of the way though, I think.
Enchantment — Aura
Enchant creature
G : Enchanted creature deals 2 damage to itself.
G : Put a +1/+1 counter on enchanted creature. Activate this ability only once each turn and only as a sorcery.
G : Create a tapped artifact token with all activated abilities of enchanted creature, except each ability has, "
Only quads can stop protozoa!!!!
Enchantment — Aura
Enchant creature
G : Enchanted creature deals damage to itself equal to its power. Activate this ability only once each turn and only if enchanted creature is attacking or blocking.
G : Put a +1/+1 counter on enchanted creature. Activate this ability only once each turn and only if enchanted creature is untapped.
G : Create a tapped artifact token with all activated abilities of enchanted creature, except each ability has, "
New levels achieved daily.
Magus of the Will suggests the domain still exists today by the way.
I don't think there's anything to be added from here. I'll let you both get back to Arena to F Around and catch up.
Black legendarily has Yawgmoth's Will and white legendarily has CMC range limited access across the board (including the graveyard); Serra Paragon // Sun Titan. This effect would completely fall into those colors.
Reminder that it would cost you 3 mana to untap 2 lands. That's not intuitive to ramp in any of the Detonate colors, with the exception of Urza's set (non-colored) and Serra's Sanctum. In blue, there's just Tolarian Academy; which isn't really doing anything Twiddle or Deserted Temple doesn't already do until you include Urza's set with it; but that would take into the mid-game scene to realize. To preserve the balance, it has to retain this open source effect, so that an opponent may untap these lands if they have them, and get this effect. Also because basic lands are too narrow abroad, and limited it to that would limit the application of the design terribly; restricting play options in a very undesirable way.
That's synergy.
Additionally, F Around would open up ground to run Crack the Earth in a split with it. While serving as a brackish version of the former, by first giving the opponent an option to discard instead, and second only effecting nonland permanents for sacrifice. Each opponent discarding a card at random is not overcosted at one mana. If you are suggesting it should cost 2, that would be appropriately costed for the bulk bin. Even if it was [Target player discards a card at random] for one mana, it would just be a softened version of Hymn to Tourach; where losing the volume hardly justifies the card's place in the deck over selective/targetable removal.
For the general utility of the two effects, and the intuitive hybrid color combinations, there's a myriad of decks that could find utility for either or face of the card. One of the adaptations I am seeing though, that would likely be necessary to this, is that the second effect needs to allow the casting player to choose the effect they want and then give each opponent the other. The double-faced nature of this effect wants to dare players to challenge themselves for what they're doing. I love that about it most, and it couldn't exist without that element.
Detonate might be re-workable as: (You may cast both faces of this card for its Detonate cost. If you do, stack the front face overtop the back face.)
I think another adaption moving forward for this will be to switch up the colors for the Detonate cost. I originally wanted red at the center, and I think it really needs that; despite the current meaning was supposed to symbolize that it's good for someone no matter what the outcome.
EDIT: I'm not sure you understand the source meme, where the application of has become an idiom.
Source: https://youtube.com/shorts/WntjAM2wqF8?si=6oBEwlpdmXlcFK25
Sorcery
Each player discards a card at random or sacrifices a nonland permanent.
// Detonate 1(B/R)(R/W) (You may cast both faces of this card for its Detonate cost. If you do, stack the front face overtop the back face.)
Find Out U
Instant
Choose one and each opponent gets the other—
• You may cast an instant or sorcery card with converted mana cost 3 or less from your graveyard without paying its mana cost. Exile that card when it resolves.
• Untap up to two target lands you control.
EDIT: Had to concede on the hybrid colors. There's no way to get everything onto the canvas like that. Compromise is legendarily the only absolute thing in life; and it proves itself king once again. I retained the hybrid cost in the Detonate ability because I think it's incredibly dynamic. You can cast this as a regular multicolor spell in black and white, granting it versatility across another entire plane.
Here's a take on double-sided cards for double-faced cards instead. I gave it a new keyword since we're working with a new template, this was supposed to be a take on Fuse, but I suppose Fuse could also take place on this as the new double-sided cards? I do feel it's going to genuinely better to have its own cost though, since it prevents having to overcost the original spells to make up the difference, which is something I've always loathed about double-sided cards.
As for Find Out, I had conceived a functionality that simply allow you to choose one, and then target opponent (or even each opponent) gets the other effect. This way is just a little more suspenseful.
If we wanted to be more true to the original meme, I think that F Around would probably want to be an X spell. It would then have to become [Each player draws X cards, then discards X cards at random and/or sacrifices X permanents]. Find Out would be anti-climatic to be an X spell, so it would just want to stay as it is. That would make a neat rebound for the massive F Around; as it already was intended to be.
We could also give Find Out no mana cost for extra suspense, so that the only way to get it is through Detonate. That might be overzealous though in how it limits interactivity.
Sorcery
Each player discards a card at random or sacrifices a nonland permanent.
// Detonate 1
Find Out
Instant
Flip a coin and have an opponent call it. The player that wins may cast an instant or sorcery card with converted mana cost 3 or less from his or her graveyard without paying its mana cost. The other player may untap up to two lands he or she controls.
Hello there, it appears as though you're doing the same thing; fueling the graveyard by milling cards. In both, you're forced the ditch two cards, but the selection of which being forced is mostly aesthetic (creatures are still a very prominent and powerful resource). Costing Corpse Churn by one less doesn't actually create a new design; and it has nothing to do with the original design. The scam deck you posted looks to be powered by Grief and Orcish Bowmasters; Reanimate and Force of Will; making it no different from any other blue black control deck. Blood Letter would probably end up hurting that deck before helping it, because in the 99% scenario without Reanimate; it doesn't want to have to ditch any of its precious removal spells. The Brainstorm/Ponder combo will still reign supreme, invalidating the argument that Blood Letter would be superior to them.
Furthermore, I'd like to note, if this card were simply:
Blood Letter B
Sorcery
Each opponent loses 1 life and you gain 1 life.
Draw a card.
This has to be the devil's work. I can't make any sense of it in all the time I've spent—and it looks as though our time is nearly out.
This version would be even more proficient in a vacuum, because it nets you a straight draw (helping to power through the stack); and doesn't force you to ditch any potentially useful resources. Further proving that less is more, and that this form creates the restrictions that it does to actually make the design more challenging and balanced; and not to overclock it.
Exactly.
It's not only about existence; and not just about functionality and proficiency; but also about proportion. I think it's the general consensus that Magic is a game that suffers many for the inability to access of play; having no one to play with and span their horizons with various combinations. The more you play, the better you may get. But in product development, one must also dare to improvise and reach for ingenuity. You have to question your own conventions to reinvent your product, so that it becomes more dynamic and new again. Each color needs some self-sufficiency for core-essential game mechanics; and wants to be able to care for themselves; and pair with others without needing any adulterating wheel to botch the proficiency of the pair.
Let me ask, how would changing this to Surveil 3 be any different, and not out of color, when the essence of what it's doing is the same? To me, this is only the illusion of difference. Is this the type of people we want to be? Who connivingly use sleights of hand and smoke & mirrors tricks to defraud people that we are not going against our own precepts? Rather than being straightforward with what we're doing, and explaining it as inventing those precepts to breathe new life into the product and its physics? Yes, this is the big picture. What kind of people do we want to be seen as? I've always been straightforward with my adaptations of MTG policies, flavor, and game logic; but only now might that be appreciable? It's the person I want to be seen as; honest, true, and pure.
This is why it throws a yellow flag for me to reface the design as something like Surveil.
And now if not that, suggesting there is a way to "put this into color", what does one suggest? Say you had to redesign it.
Compared to March of Reckless Joy, as previously stated, there's no reason it couldn't exist and become an extension of utility to the color.
That is the essence of extending utilities to colors, boundaries and uniqueness, opposed to straightforwardness.
It would be nice if someone had a legitimate argument towards the functionality for once, instead of condemning creativity and pioneering; ingenuity and improvisation. These are the very essence of talent.
Does anyone have that to contribute for this design?
You're thinking about Grave Tutor, I believe. And you were very outspoken how you didn't like that one. As combo material, it's really only what you would hope for it to be. Furthermore, I'd like to point out how much closer this design is to Sign of the Cross, which no one would bat an eye at if printed.
It's not Ponder either, because Ponder doesn't force you to ditch two potentially good resources for one. It gives you an even greater option than 1 life in that you can totally reset the stack of your deck. Even Brainstorm is still a two-of in most deck concepts I've built, and hardly sees more copies than this. The reason for this is because it's redundant to itself. This effect would be somewhat of the middle ground between them. So it's alike Ponder, sure. Black has predominantly had draw effects. It would have made far more sense if it was suggested, "Why doesn't each player just lose 1 life?" That I can understand, because black is very akin to having to pay life for extra cards; Sign in Blood. I wasn't against an effect like that. But I felt like it's feel-bad to force restrictions like that all the time, and not provide some diversity for a change with an upper-hand effect.
Sorcery
Look at the top three cards of your library. You may put one of those cards into your hand, then put the others into your graveyard. Each opponent loses 1 life and you gain 1 life.
"I want you to realize you spend a lot of time thinking you're the best—but not a lot of time being the best."
Squeezing the most value you can get into a draw one card for one; worth its slot in the deck; plus an aesthetic utility design.
Considering everything in your deck is supposed to be useful, you have to pitch two useful cards; or maybe it helps less fortune individuals un-mana screw themselves.
EDIT: If this was red, it would probably be [deals 1 damage to each player], so just each player losing 1 life would be reasonable to bring the clock down a bit here for the value. However, I honestly believe true overclocked element here is the choice to put the other cards into your graveyard or on the bottom of your library. This was intended to be useful with Maralen of the Mornsong, in that you can tutor a card from among them you need next with her ability. However, I don't think it creates enough challenge for the using player this way, and should force players to have to build around the challenge with extra consistency; so that's the edit I've chosen to make moving forward.
Sorcery
Look at the top three cards of your library. You may put one of those cards into your hand, then put the others into your graveyard or on the bottom of your library in any order. Each opponent loses 1 life and you gain 1 life.
"I want you to realize you spend a lot of time thinking you're the best—but not a lot of time being the best."
silly brush up, but there you go
It has special applications I'm sure, but typically would be under-influential I think. An easy brush up on the functionality would include allowing return so long as any other permanent card was put into your graveyard this turn. Still not that much better than Noxious Revival, but it's trying harder. Full expansion on this would include, [so long as another permanent was put into a graveyard this turn]. This would cover creature loss, battle, board sweep; the whole 9 yards; yet still be somewhat restrictive on the application.
Rain of Denial will be hard to pull off more than once, I don't think it will be what you desire of it. Your opponent will be able to play around the restriction by postponing their additional draws.
Enchantment — Aura
Enchant creature
Vanishing 1
Enchanted creature is indestructible.
Whenever a creature dies, you may put a time counter on Ectoplasmic Power.
What a terrifying revelation; that as a ghost, you would feed off death. So poetic—the pen suddenly runs dry, and refuses to write another word.
Here's a design that I came up with pondering the physics of ectoplasm. In that as a ghost, you live off the electricity freshly emanating from the dead, and absorb it into your sentient body as ectoplasm. Otherwise, you supernova like the sun. Kinda crazy way to live or go. A tortured existence for the types of bottom feeding one might have to do to get that ecto. The tiny little lifeforms. Like a giant game of snake or worm. Miss me with that sir. As for the design, you know I hate indestructible, so this is an outstanding piece for me to release. It wants to give you one fair swing with indestrutible if/when you can't sustain the effect (because say you get disrupted). The effect is considerably inferior to undying on a few fronts, except that you can catch your opponent off-guard with this while they're tapped out; instead of being at their mercy waiting for the opportunity to use something like Undying Evil.