Multiple Choice Magic Design Question of the Day 13, 14, & 15

13) What color would Holy Light be if remade today? Assume we can change "non-white" to another color exclusion.
 a) white
 b) blue
 c) black
 d) red
 e) green
 f) more than one of the above

14) Which rarity would Holy Light be if remade today?
 a) common
 b) uncommon
 c) rare
 d) mythic rare

15) Which of these changes would be most appropriate if Holy Light were remade today?
 a) Make it a sorcery.
 b) Increase its effect to -2/-2.
 c) Remove the "non-[color]" restriction.
 d) Limit its effect to creatures you don't control.
 e) Increase its colored mana requirement (from 2M to 1MM, for instance).

Click through to see the answer and my rationale.

The only good answer to 13, is C. -N/-N is almost exclusively black. You might have been tempted to choose F because it covers your bases, or because you think the "non-[color]" clause evokes a second color, but this effect really wants to be mono-black.

B is the best answer to 14. A is a weak answer, but better than C or D. Because this can kill multiple creatures (and is likey to do so when cast mid-combat), it's too swingy for common, but the effect is too small to be rare at any reasonable cost. Festergloom is Holy Light remade and it's common, but it's also a sorcery and that drastically reduces its impact on combat.

15 is much harder.

As we've just mentioned, making this a sorcery would allow it to cheaper and/or more common, but none of that is required to modernize the card.

Increasing its effect doubles its impact, making it more "worth the card" and something players might build around, but incremental effects—especially those that affect a lot of permanents—are plenty fun and interesting to work with.

Remove the color exclusion and you've got an instant Nausea, which removes the color loophole (you've still got the creatures-with-toughness-2+ loophole) that creates variance in the card's value depending on match-up. That's a small win.

As it becomes the default for lords to boost only your own team, we also see global reduction effects replaced more and more with one-sided reduction effects. It's not a rule that "everything -1/-1" can't be symmetrical anymore, but we're seeing more Cower in Fears as we move to making fewer cards that turn players off because they can hurt you too. This change would be a small win too.

Increasing the colored mana requirement is important if the card is a significant force (as it would be at -2/-2). Cower in Fear shows this is at least a possible and warranted choice at this scale, though I imagine it depends how many X/1s are in the set (and whether you card is symmetrical or not). This might be called for if we make other changes, but it's not necessary as the card stands.

The best answers to 15 are C and D. D if the remake is uncommon as #14 suggests, C if it remains common (where you interpret #15 to mean we're not changing the remake's rarity). As the difference between those choices tests only your interpretation of the test and not any Design skills, it would be counter-productive for me to treat one as better than the other (especially since the test is ambiguous).

This was an easy color pie question, a pretty easy rarity question, and a harder Design question. For the last, it's important to remember the question is asking you to make just one change, and not several. It was also important to be able to prioritize the choices by understanding their purpose.