2/21/2011 - Every day, I design a new card and discuss it briefly. Sometimes I will examine new possibilities for colors or mechanics, sometimes I'll re-examine existing executions and sometimes I'll just design something I think is neat.[1/10/12—Note that this is the first CCDD posted on Goblin Artisans. Everything before it has been added for historical reference.]
Heidenberg's Wurm could be the low-rarity poster child for the gamecycling mechanic within its set. There wouldn't be many gamecycling cards, as abilities that are only relevant in your opening hand are not something you want everywhere. I'm fairly certain you wouldn't want to put gamecyling at common because it's so different from what players are used to.Like cycling itself, gamecycling makes the most sense on larger spells or spells that require a high mana commitment since those are the kinds of spells you might least want in your starting hand. Unlike cycling, you wouldn't see gamecycling on narrow spells very often and you'd never see it on an early game spell.
You couldn't put a mana cost on Gamecycling since players will—Simian Spirit Guides excepted—never have mana before their first turn, but you could put life payments on it, or perhaps something more bizarre, like giving up the play.
CCDDs prior to 2/21/11 are archived on the Wizards Wiki.
I support this mechanic, though I'd actually rather just put the card on the bottom of the library to avoid shuffling in a scenario that doesn't really need it. I'm not sure I see the argument for not being able to put it at common, as I think the concept of mulliganing is one of the earlier strategic lessons new players learn, and this ability would work as a nice component within a lesson on the value of the mulligan.
ReplyDeleteAs to the card itself, I think you may have gone overboard trying to place the ability on a card where it makes the most sense. That is to say, you put it on a bad card.