More random cards that interact with the mechanic:

2GG
Creature --
2/2
~This~ gets +1/+1 for each untapped land you control.

2B
Creature --
4/4
Whenever a land becomes tapped, ~this~ gets -1/-1 until end of turn.

Permafrost Infusion
2U
Enchantment -- Aura
Enchant tapped land
Enchanted land doesn't untap during its controller's untap phase.

3wW
Creature --
3/3
w, T: Tap target creature or land.

2R
Creature --
3/3
Whenever ~this~ attacks, tap each land you control.

Land
T: ~This~ becomes the basic land type of your choice. (This effect doesn't end at end of turn.)

Land
1: ~This~ becomes the basic land type of your choice until end of turn.

Land - Forest
1: Flip ~this~.
Land - Island
1: Flip ~this~.

Land - Mountain
Plainscycling R

G
Creature -- Druid
1/1
T: Untap target basic land.

3WWW
Creature -- Angel
5/5
Flying
Plainsdweller 3 - Tap each nonwhite creatures.
3, Sacrifice a creature: Remove ~this~ from the game, then return it to play under its owner's control.

Land Creature -- Mountain Elemental
0/0
Mountaindweller 2 - Put a +1/+1 counter on ~this~.
(As this comes into play, if you control another untapped mountain, put a +1/+1 counter on ~this~.)

2UU
2/2
Creature --
0/0
Islanddweller 2 - As ~this~ comes into play, if you control 2 or more untapped islands, it becomes the copy of target creature.

I'm really unsure of the borne keyword, it doesn't seem natural. I was hoping with repeated use that the word would feel comfortable, but it doesn't. Swampdweller has a cool ring to it, plus it ties the creature to the land type in a logical way, but it precludes the keyword from being used on card types besides creature. I think the trade-off is worth it though, and it opens up additional room for interacting top-down keywords and mechanics in the same set. The problem with the current template is that Forestdweller (or any of the others, especially Islanddweller) is not a proper word. That doesn't solely prevent it's use, because words in the Magic dictionary take on different meanings from their real world use, but people's prior conception of the word 'dweller' may be resistant to the change.

Forestdweller
Swampdweller
Plainsdweller
Mountaindweller
Islanddweller

I like how a green creature is created from green mana, but it can reside in a mountainous environment, and gain benefit if it's controller has access to a land of that type. One of the problems with that, which the -dweller suffix fails to communicate, is that the keyword currently only effects the card and the game when the creature comes into play. Any thoughts on this?

So, I came up with a mechanic, but I'm having trouble creating a keyword that is flavourful, has little reminder text, and is expandable. Currently, it looks something like this:

Sample Bear One
G
Creature -- Bear
Forestborne 1 - Put a +1/+1 counter on ~this~.
(As this comes into play, if you control one or more untapped forests, put a +1/+1 counter on it.)
1/1

Sample Bear Two
1G
Creature -- Bear
Mountainborne 1 - ~This~ gains haste until end of turn.
(As this comes into play, if you control one or more untapped mountains, it gains haste until end of turn.)
2/2

It can also allow Artifactborne, Wizardborne, etc., but those are a stretch for the current 'borne' keyword flavour. The reason behind having the keyword suffix, like cycling, is to allow expandability such as Enchantmentborne, Elfborne, etc. The difference between cycling and this is that cycling has a base mode, whereas this could, but doesn't at the moment.

One of the other issues is that, currently, the mechanic only works on permanents. To include it on instants and sorceries would require template changes. An example:

U
Instant
Counter target spell unless its controller pays 1.
Swampmelody 1 - If you control one or more untapped swamps, counter that spell unless its controller pays an additional 1 life.

W
Instant
Target creature gets +0/+2 until end of turn.
Mountaintuned 2 - If you control two or more untapped mountains, that creature gets an additional +2/+0 until end of turn.

A problem with the suffix keyword is that, in order to work with all potential prefixes (types, subtypes) the first letter of the keyword can't be the same as the last letter of the prefixes (Foresttuned doesn't look good.) Note how Artifact, Land, Instant, Sorcery, Forest, Island, Swamp, Mountain, Plains and most creature types don't end with C, which allows cycling to be very expandable. It's just an additional constraint.

Another concern is the end effect being arbitrary. The keyword could be tied to a particular mechanic, like +1/+1 counters, or it could be made open ended, like the previous examples. The number value is also arbitrary, unless the keyword is attached to a particular mechanic, which justifies but limits its usefulness. Another example:

1R
Creature -- Goblin
Forestattuned 2 (As this comes into play, if you control two or more untapped forests, put 2 +1/+1 counters on ~this~.)
1/1

The issue then becomes that modular nature of the keyword being unnecessary, as well as power-level inflexibility. Another option is removing the number and going with a base value of 1:

3W
Creature -- Elephant
Artifact Resonance - As this comes into play, if you control an untapped artifact, tap ~this~.
3/4

The last two examples reduce the mind space required for each card to a comfortable level, but also reduce the potential uses for the keyword, which is not necessarily bad.

Let me know if you like or dislike what the basic mechanic is trying to accomplish, or what it 'feels' like to you. Do any of these particular implementations pop out at you? Is there something I'm overlooking? Is the mechanic too open ended, ala kicker? I really like how the Landtype-keyword variety forces players to consider which lands they use, when to use them, what lands their opponents use, and the potential impact on the curve of decks for deck building. Does that get too confusing? Is the ever-present possibility of bluffing too overbearing? Would that complicate or shoehorn draft games down certain, predictable, repeated paths?

I hope that fresh minds can set me on the right track with this mechanic, because my perspective has been lost from too much tinkering.

I think the  problem with mana acceleration of this type is that you're enabling combo decks, primarily, while helping opposing aggro decks achieve their primary goal, but not aiding control decks in stabilizing. The rule about resource exchanging could be generalized for all deck match ups, but that's a sliding scale in reality, so things get bogged down real quick. I'll stop typing before I get excessively pedantic...

You could make it into a bluff card, but it does get a bit wordy.

Deceitful Tutor   
Sorcery
As an additional cost to play ~this~, pay X life.
Search your library for a card. Then an opponent may pay 2 life. If a player does, reveal that card. If that cards converted mana cost is not equal to X, shuffle that card into your library and you lose 6 life. Otherwise, put that card into your hand.

I don't think that template works, but the general idea is there.

"217.1b The order of objects in a library, in a graveyard, or on the stack can't be changed except when effects or rules allow it. Objects in other zones can be arranged however their owners wish, although who controls those objects, whether they're tapped or flipped, and what other objects are attached to them must remain clear to all players."

"413.1. Each time all players pass in succession, the object (a spell, an ability, or combat damage) on top of the stack resolves. (See rule 416, "Effects.")"

So you definitely can rearrange the order of the stack with an effect, it's just a bit odd, like rearranging graveyard order would be. Based on these rules, the actual way that this card would be programmed into Magic Online would be to move the target spell to the top of the stack and force all players to pass priority. I have no idea if that functionality is possible in Magic Online, but the design of split second suggests that it isn't possible or ideal to override player priority.

All cards are abstract representations to some degree, and there are cards with text that doesn't reflect the actual way the card is programmed in Magic Online, so appearance not matching function is not an issue. That statement seems painfully obvious after writing it. The issue that's still bothering me is forcing all players to pass priority, but that's really a question of how priority was implemented. That makes me wonder how they coded Mindslaver, but that's too much work to figure out.

In the end, I think the initial card is worded perfectly, I'm just not sure if it's possible at the moment.

Nice card, it suits red perfectly. I could see this being viable in quite a few Standard environments, because it isn't overly restricted like Overmaster.

There are technical issues that would make actually printing this card difficult, but I think it could be done with fewer rules changes than Mindslaver required, for instance. I'd like to see this card added to the Master List, so don't misconstrue the following analysis as disparaging, it's just an assessment of the card's interaction with the rules.

Objects on the stack resolve in a linear, immutable direction. As the Reader (the thing at the 'top' of the stack) descends, it passes effects to the Rules structure. The Reader can't change positions on the stack without resolving whatever is next on the stack. Objects can't exist on the back end of the Reader. So the other option is to reorder the stack, and that is where things get bloated. At the moment there are no effects that simply move an effect within the stack without changing zones. I don't know why, but it seems like a fundamental property of the stack, so I don't think it would be wise to mess with it directly. You could, alternatively, use effects which functionally rearrange the stack so that the target spell is next to resolve. To retain functionality similar to your original card, the spell would need to gain split second as well, or have "~This~ can't be countered..."

So, the nuts and bolts version would look something like:

Copy target spell, then counter that spell. You may play that copy.

However, the line "You may choose new targets for the copy" is absent because it needs to retain functionality similar to your original. That line isn't necessary for the card to function within the rules, but there should be reminder text showing how this card differs from normal copy cards. Also, the countering and copying are probably unnecessary, don't work with Last Word and others, and could cause unwanted coincidental triggered abilities to, well, trigger.

So, after some refinement:

Remove target spell you control from the game. You may play that spell without paying its mana cost. If you do, that spell gains split second.

The problem here is that there is still a necessary pass of priority after the spell is put back on top of the stack where players can respond with morphs, etc. The fundamental issue is how it is currently impossible to feed the first bit of information into the Reader without players passing priority. That's the reason why split second works the way it does. This card is roughly analogous to split second in that light; the portrayal of the effect to the player needs to be painted with flavour to cover the mechanical guts of the Magic Rules. The disparity between the player's perception of how the rules work, or should work, and the reality of the machine need to be smoothed over. So, as mentioned above, with the addition of a few rules or even keywords this card could be a reality.

Definitely, and the ACC needs to be brought closer to the realistic mana cost. Playing a deck without black and blue and revealing your hand is not equivalent to, say, 3GG. This card should be predictable to an extent, because it would hurt to walk into this, especially against an aggro deck. So, for example, the casting cost of GWU, or some other odd mana cost that allows the opponent to infer that you're holding ~this~, would bring it slightly closer to fair. If you want to stick on an ACC, it should be at least -1 CA, probably -2 CA, something like the double pitch cards from Coldsnap that the opponent can use to infer your plans as well. That's double-edged in that it allows you to bluff, but the tempo advantage is there with the ACC that makes it worth bluffing. Having to hold back mana, on the other hand, is hard to justify for an aggro deck. You're walking a few very thin lines with this card.

That reminds me of the Dragon <thing> auras from Scourge. There were actually quite a few cards in Onslaught block that dealt with cmc, but they all seemed clunky. Which, to me, means that there's a good opportunity to refine the mechanic, maybe keyword it, and open up some interesting design space.

Graft 1
Whenever you play a spell with converted mana cost equal to the number of +1/+1 counters on ~this~, put a +1/+1 counter on this.
0/0

Not to totally hijack your thread, sorry, but there's a certain lack of elegance when it comes to using converted mana cost as an identifier. Compared to colour, type, subtype or rules text, the phrase "converted mana cost X" is umm, gross. It's unfortunate that one of the primary identifiers of a card is limited in it's usability because of that. Well, I'm sure the problem runs deeper. Anyways, this post comes down to this question: can a triggered ability be keyworded in such a way that the 'intervening "if" clause', as well as the effect, functions within the rules and is obvious to the player? I suppose the difficulty in using that keyword is compounded by the open-ended nature of the ability, a lot like kicker.

Anyways, this post is bloated, sorry. I'd like to see a Heartwood Storyteller version of this that symmetrically punishes for playing cheap spells, though.

The cost associated with putting counters on the artifact is cumbersome. I'd suggest a change to a functionally similar yet cleaner mechanism, for instance: "3, T: Target opponent gains 3 life. Put a hug counter on ~this~."

The other two abilities are also cumbersome, because replacement effects can be easy to forget about, especially when they don't state "until EOT" like these. Even changing the second ability to "Target permanent doesn't untap during its controller's next untap phase.", like the Kamigawa snakes, annoys me. Additionally, the two abilities seem powerful alone, let alone on the same card, especially without requiring tap.

The costs of the second and third abilities rely largely on the cost of the first ability, but the interesting interaction is in which of the three abilities tapping is part of the cost. It boils down to a card that exchanges different resources, which is a very general statement, but the specific type and value of those resources will define the cards niche as well as the relative worth of the resources in the cards environment. There's room to cue the player in on the importance or relative worth of the resources within the environment the card was developed, so if you want to communicate that this card is intended for a Type 1 set, this is a good chance to say something more general about the set and Type 1 in general... but that doesn't seem like your particular goal with this card.

Just some ideas to chew.

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=29575.0

Always felt there was room for good flavor text on this ability, but nothing ever jumped out at me.

The problem is with the 'intervening "if" clause' rule. I think it would work if you added something else to the trigger, but I'm not 100% sure on this, didn't spend much time looking for precedents.

So, to clarify, at the beginning of your upkeep the game checks for triggered abilities, then it checks each of their 'if' clauses, in this case "if you control ten or more permanents you do not own", and if that returns true, then the ability triggers. It checks again on resolution, but that's not such a problem. If you changed that initial 'if' clause to anything (hopefully related, can be something abstract like "tap each creature you control", whatever), you can tack on the "Then, if you control ten or more permanents you do not own, you win the game."

Pretty clumsy, but you could play around with that false 'if' clause to see if anything interesting falls out. The EOT trigger seems like the more natural decision though.

Keen Sense, Curiosity, Shadow Lance, Porphyry Nodes, Seal of Fire, Utopia Sprawl are all enchantments with cmc 1 in standard at the moment. This card is weaker in an environment less defined by creatures and combat though, such as Type 1, because there aren't many powerful or worthwhile non-aura enchantments out there with cmc 1. It could get real interesting with flash, but then the power level becomes harder to determine. I'd love to respond to Stone Rain with this into a Consecrate Land.

You're on a forum, take the 10 seconds to come up with a less offensive derogatory adjective. It also forces you to realize what it is you're trying to say.

You only get 1, maybe 2 "Win the game" effects in a block, excepting Odyssey block, because they are always rare and only appeal to a subset of Johnny's. The conditions are usually bordering on the absurd, so they remain out of competitive play. That's an important characteristic, because it clearly shows that these cards are designed purely for Johnny, and made so that Spike doesn't use them.

My big complaint with this card is that it doesn't force creative deck design like Barren Glory or Battle of Wits  does. You either load up on Annex and Confiscate effects or Donate a Varchild's War-Riders, which is to say that you're limited to a very particular range of cards in the environment.

(p.s. Reins of Power doesn't work with the current triggered ability wording order.)

Putting it into play would be perfect, in my opinion, since the power level of the enchantment is limited by the cmc anyways. Then you also remain parallel to Trinket Mage while differentiating it slightly. You could make putting the enchantment into play optional too, but that makes the ability clunkier.

Still, the first strike feels grafted on to a card that has so much going on. Oh, also, "Then shuffle your library." is missing.

No rules problems with ownership, no. I like this card, although it does reward what some player's consider to be a very annoying strategy. Finally a reason to Donate a Varchild's War-Riders... I wonder how that even works.

This could make a real cool megacycle in one of them new 4-set blocks. Your versions don't knock me over though, and that's something that a Four Horsemen cycle definitely should do. I'd seriously encourage you to take these back to the beginning and find out what you want to do, what fits in flavour, and any place those two cross, see where it goes.

A mana-less draw trigger should have the clause "if you do" in there, to prevent shenanigans, especially if you change the zone to "from anywhere". (e.g. When ~this~ is put into a graveyard from anywhere, remove it from the game. If you do, draw a card.) It's not as pretty, but it's necessary to maintain that functionality. Have you considered changing the activation cost of the regeneration ability? Right now this card is undercosted, and a really high pick for a creature enchantment in draft, which means something should probably be changed. I really like the execution, it just needs refining.

I really like this card, but I think it isn't doing enough for a creature enchantment. If it granted a static ability, such as vanishing or first strike, it would add more tension to the card. Also, I think you could cheapen this by at least 1 mana in it's current form, without flash.

It still needs to gain suspend. The simple solution is just to give it suspend in the first place. Because suspend also grants haste, you could remove that too. Suspend 1 - RRR, which puts it roughly into the Ball Lightning family. But then a 2/2 double striker that avoids opponent's sorceries (WoG, etc.) for RRR is pretty damn strong. Additionally, and this is upto interpretation, I think Warrior Spirit should be switched to Spirit Warrior, as Spirit is the race and Warrior is the job in this case.

As for the "End of combat" versus "End of turn" wording, is it worth introducing a potentially confusing ability on this creature? Does it create any interesting gameplay or is it purely for flavour? There has got to be a great reason to include a mechanic that could lead to procedural errors in tournament play. You could try altering the flavour to direct the player's focus or altering the exact trigger. For example, if you change "At the end of your combat phase" to "Whenever ~this~ deals combat damage to a player" it would allow the opponent to not block and take 2 double strike damage, which triggers the Suspend, and avoid the other 2 damage, or block it where it is fully effective. That requires knowledge of timing, and novice players might not know the combat interaction of double strike, but this would be a rare anyways. Just some thoughts to think about.

Yeah, it should be templated similarly to the Pulses from Darksteel. (i.e. "Return ~this~ to it's owner's hand.")

Nice card, although a bit too narrow, in my opinion. This card is awesome for limited because it encourages combat planning and mind games, but it's so restricted that it will be dead much of the time and so discourage players from drafting it. There is a limited amount of cost-effect possibilities for Shock variants, and I think this is an interesting area to explore, but it shouldn't be this conditional. Emotional impulsiveness is one of Red's strengths, which translates into fewer play restrictions, especially at common, contrasting against White's rangestrike ability or Black's Assassinate.

I like the current version ("Counter target spell you own.")  It's perfect 'bad rare' material, like One with Nothing, Obstinate Familiar or Mudhole, although it's simplicity is more reminiscent of the former two. Adding card draw to this does detract from it's absurdity, and I think the normal gut reaction is to make this less terrible but, in my opinion, this card is perfect as is. I'd even say this is a real design gem; creating 'bad rares' that are simple and intuitive that fill unexplored design space is difficult. Good job.

"If the chosen player is dealt damage..." should read "If the chosen player would be dealt damage..." and same idea for the next line.

I can't help thinking of a shiny, big artifactic Captain America. Have you considered adding in W? It's the colour of avatar's and it nicely completes my Captain America imagery.

It does bug me somewhat that it's possibly a 20/20 that extends your life considerably for 7 mana. Defender makes it less frightening, but there aren't many balanced drawbacks that make a 10+ P/T creature that costs <10 mana printable (Leveller being one.) "As Reflector comes into play, choose an opponent." works and simplifies the card. Flavour is still tricky.

This is a difficult card to balance without using some part of Pacifism.

[Edit]: I just noticed your name! You make organic candles too? Quite the exhilerating hobby it is.

I hope they bring echo back. MaRo is like the Justin Timberlake of MtG, so it's not entirely impossible.

"Counter target spell an opponent controls unless its controller draws 4 cards." basically reads "the controller of target spell you don't control draws 4 cards." which is almost "target opponent draws 4 cards." Just putting a "doesn't" after "controller" won't quite fix it, you need something more drastic. Maybe "The controller of target spell you don't control may draw up to 4 cards. If he or she draws 1 or more cards this way, counter that spell." Which is still messy, but it works.

Edit: Or, uh, more simple would be "Counter target spell an opponent controls. That spell's controller may draw up to 4 cards." But it loses the Mana Leak functionality.

Spent some time thinking about the "exactly" mechanic (I'm not even sure that word is necessary) and came up with some neat stuff... I think.

Land
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
T: Add 1 mana of any color to your mana pool. Play this ability only if you control exactly 1 land.

Puppy Dog
Creature -- Dog
2/2
Pack 3: All Dogs get +1/+0.
Pack 4: Sacrifice ~this~.

I'm sure there's a good mix between flavour and functionality somewhere around here.

Sorcery
WUBRG
If you control exactly 5 lands, have exactly 5 cards in your hand and exactly 5 cards in your graveyard, you win the game.

The wording on this is terrible but I'm tired.

2
If each player has exactly 6 cards in his or her hand, ~this~ costs 1 less to play.
~This~ CIPT.
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.

Almost half a Sol Ring...

Oram
3GG
Creature -- Latnemele
*/*
Oram's power and toughness are each equal to 7 minus the number of cards in your hand.
When Oram's power is exactly 7, sacrifice Oram.

2BB
The Greatest
Creature -- Ninja Pie-writ Zombie Mutant Wizard
1/1
Ninjutsu 1UU
Whenever The Greatest deals damage to a player, that player sacrifices a permanent unless he or she pays 1.
T, Remove a creature card in your graveyard from the game: The Greatest deals 1 damage to target player, then return The Greatest to it's owner's hand.

This card is completely unrelated to the topic.

UU
Instant
If you are exactly 6 feet tall, you are 2 inches too tall.

And now I'm just being silly.

Engineering Conundrum
1UU
Sorcery
Reveal your hand. If the combined converted mana cost of all the cards in your hand is exactly 9, draw 3 cards. Otherwise, draw a card.

I could see a cycle of these. Makes me wish transmute wasn't so specific.

That artwork makes me think it's something like "Buyback - Target opponent gains an extra turn after this one." but that obviously doesn't work. I'll be seriously disappointed if it is just "Buyback - Sacrifice 3 islands."

Edit: What it really makes me think of is a Time Vault that switches control.

CIPT would really only be a drawback if it was played normally. Assuming that the alternate route of putting the land into play is only used during your opponent's EoT, you won't be punished by the CIPT. Unless you're mana-screwed or in an explosive start where you need the mana and can't afford to spend the  .

Not that I'm against making it CIPT, but is it enough of a drawback? If no, then it's going up to 3 and no CIPT, which really seems like the best of all worlds at the moment, because it doesn't punish as much during mana screw.

Warning!: Leaked card from Time Spiral ahead.
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e264/orcslayer912/bd238_caverns.jpg
This is barely related, but the wording on that card makes me sick.

And, even less related, they should have printed a land with forecast in Dissension to enable the other forecast cards a little more. The flavour possibilities between "forecasting" the weather and a watch tower boggles my mind.
Azorius Land
Land
Forecast - 0, Reveal Azorius Land from your hand: Add W or U to your mana pool.
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.

Edit: Considering the oddness of the card, should the CIPT go below the alternate put into play ability? CIPT is classically always the top ability in a text box, but it seems more logical to put it below the other ability.

Because breaking rules is fun! I agree with what you're saying though. The idea's lost it's initial novelty factor, but it still has merits.

I think Matt's template makes the most sense, but I'm not familiar with activated abilities played from the hand (minus forecast.) Changed.

Time to sleep on it.

That could only have been an elaborate joke. No one really likes Tek.