Progenitor's Promise

[thorme]

Progenitor's Promise
1U
Sorcery
When you play Progenitor's Promise, if you have previously played a spell called Progenitor's Promise this game, you lose the game.
Draw 2 cards.
insert flavor text here

I'm sure this has been done before, but here's my attempt at bringing the restricted list to Standard.  This allows you push the envelope for card power a bit, since you get to cast the spell once, and, assuming you play 4, you are left with 3 dead cards in deck (not to mention that you can't replay the card through a regrowth-effect).

Thoughts?


Current Wording:

Progenitor's Promise
1U
Instant
When you play Progenitor's Promise, if a card named Progenitor's Promise is in your graveyard, you lose the game.
Draw 2 cards.

[Matt]

Woo Stifle!

You could also do the restricted thing by letting an opponent do a Jester's Cap effect on your library for the remaining copies.

I think this would honestly be a lot more interesting as "When you play Progenitor's Promise, if a card named Progenitor's Promise is in your graveyard, you lose the game." That makes it a lot more interesting, since it interacts with mill effects, and you could use Withered Wretch or Junktroller effects to reuse the card. It lets people be creative with the card instead of imposing a flat ban.

Also, with any kind of Timetwister-style "shuffleback" effect, keeping track of what you played (and more important, what your opponent has played) this game is probably more of a hassle than it's worth.

[Illissius]

I've been thinking on and off about a similar idea, except mine was like this:

Legendary Instant/Sorcery
(You can't play this card if a card with the same name is on the stack or in any graveyard.)

or, to better mesh with the new Legend rule:

(If a card with the same name as this card is on the stack or in any graveyard, counter it.)

Which would be a state based effect, so if someone responded to a legendary instant with a copy of it, both would be countered.

Regarding Progenitor's Promise: Given the existence of Night's Whisper, and that blue is the actual color of card drawing, I think it could be made an instant.

[thorme]

Updated with the graveyard wording - definitely like the idea of not having to keep track of spells played. 

For the instant vs. sorcery, I wasn't sure.  I agree with the recent direction of making blue card draw typically sorcery speed - seems a bit strong as an instant, but I could go either way.

[netherspirit]

WOO!!! At last a use for Reito Lantern!! Lol, in all seriousness though, I think you could get away with making this an instant, the drawback will often mean only using one copy of this per game, a one-off draw 2 probably could be an instant. It's obvious that this card is meant to be pretty OTT without the lose game clause, so why make it a slightly better Counsel of the Sorotami when it can be instant? Ooh, Storm would have so much fun with this and Yawg Will.

[thorme]

Ok - Instant it is.

[parallax]

I don't believe the drawback on this card is as strong as everyone thinks. It does make the card worse in blue-based control strategies, but in combo, you're not likely to see the card more than once anyway. If you do, it can always be imprinted on a Mox or shuffled away with Brainstorm. Also, with the graveyard-based wording, this card can be replayed with Yawgmoth's Will. Blue draw-two's for two generally have significant drawbacks: opponents draw a card, opponents draw two cards, sacrifice a permanent, cost an additional . This card has no drawback until you see a second one.

[Illissius]

Blue draw-two's for two generally have significant drawbacks: opponents draw a card, opponents draw two cards, sacrifice a permanent, cost an additional . This card has no drawback until you see a second one.

That's always puzzled me. Why does black get to have it better (Night's Whisper) than blue does?
Don't say it's because blue already has plenty of card drawing, or I'll reprint Lightning Bolt as a white card.

[thorme]

I'm starting to think the "lose the game" clause is too final.  What would folks think about instead just making it so that if another copy is in the graveyard, the spell is countered?  Almost always the same effect - but allows for the spell to be cast if some game situation warrants it.

[netherspirit]

Possibly, but then I feel it would be far too powerful, cards like Overmaster would make it sick, but then that would be like playing Counsel of the Sorotami for  , so it might be ok, I think the lose the game ability is OK though.

[Harlequin]

I like Matts suggestion of:

Draw 2 cards.
Target opponent may search your library for any number of cards named ~this~ and remove them from the game.

[zeus-online]

The graveyard version is pretty damn good! But i tend to agree with Matt...except that if you got 2 of these bad-boys in the opening grip, you can still get to play two of them.

/Zeus

[Anusien]

You could just add rules text that said "You can only play with one copy of this card in your deck." if you wanted, similar to how Relentless Rats has its text.

[thorme]

The reason I don't want to change it to having opponent Cap you or to have text on there saying you can play only 1 is that I want the deck designer to have to think about how many copies of the card to play and how to minimize it's drawback once the first is played.

[thorme]

Clocking...