Tatyova, Benthic Druid: Built in card advantage and life gain in the command zone and access two of the strongest colors in the format. Having access to the ultimate of Nissa, Vital Force plus life gain in the command zone is really powerful. Fetch lands like Misty Rainforest and Verdant Catacomb function as a free Divination with Tatyova, Benthic Druid on the battlefield. Playing extra land effects like Azusa, Lost but Seeking, Oracle of Mul Daya, Exploration and Summer Bloom make it very easy to play multiple lands in a row during each of our turns allowing us to ramp quickly and draw absurd amounts of cards. Plus Boundless Realms does tremendous work. I already have a semi-competitive deck list built around Tatyova and recently acquired all of the cards. I can't wait to test it out!
Multani, Yavimaya's Avatar: He gets absurdly big in a ramp deck and has trample so he'll have no problem dealing damage. Because he also counts lands in your graveyard, it makes sense to run all of the fetch lands with him, even Evolving Wilds and Terramorphic Expanse. He is incredibly resilient due to his activated ability that will allow us to evade the commander tax, and we can use sacrifice outlets like Greater Good and High Market to protect him from potential exile effects. We can also use spells like Life's Legacy and Momentous Fall to gain extraordinary value from him. Of course the usual suspects of ramp spells are wonderful here (Cultivate, Skyshroud Claim, Boundless Realms).
Which Dominaria legendary creatures seem underrated as a commander but still viable? I am referring to the other legendary creatures that have a lot of solid build around potential and are potentially viable as a commander but underrated. It doesn't have to necessarily be from a highly competitive EDH level but I am talking about legendary creatures worthy of being commander rather than a spot in the 99.
Raff Capashen, Ship's Mage1WU
Legendary Creature – Human Wizard [R]
Prowess (Whenever you cast a noncreature spell, this creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn.)
Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell, you gain life equal to its converted mana cost. 2/2
See spoiler below for Raff Capashen, Ship's Mage design notes:
This design is based on the Dominaria character, Raff Capashen, Ship's Mage. I designed the card as WU creature because the character follows in the footsteps of Gerrard Capashen but is also a mage. Additionally the Weatherlight Crew in Dominaria appears to be a cycle of two colored legends that include white with WU being the remaining combination (i.e. Tiana, Ship's Caretaker is WR, Shanna, Sisay's Legacy is WG, Arvad the Cursed is WB).
Mechanically the card is a simple design that rewards you for playing instant and sorcery spells through life gain. This is relatively unexplored design space and also is an ode to Gerrad, a character with multiple life gain cards including in flavor and lore references (i.e. Gerrard's Wisdom, Gerrard's Verdict, Heroes' Reunion, Soul Shepherd). Prowess is included to make the design more special and because it is an evergreen ability we haven't seen for a while on a new card in a Standard set.
In the provided scenario, Casey's library is significantly more likely for the top cards to be lands than Morgan's deck (assume the decks run about the same amount of lands). The odds aren't almost identical. It's turn 7 and the player hasn't drawn lands for 4 turns in a row. Yes, it is possible that the top 4 cards are also nonland cards, but at this point Morgan and Taylor are more likely to draw lands than Casey.
I will acknowledge it's probably not the best example of doing something that a player would want to be spiteful over. I was trying to pick an example of something that wasn't super extreme so people wouldn't come in biased against the harsh player but ironically I have seemed do do the opposite. Maybe a better example would be a player using Decimate targeting all permanents of one player, even though that player isn't in the lead because for some reason it gave them a slight advantage. Or a mono blue player playing a theft deck, always using their Control Magic effects on the creatures of a specific player just because their creatures have a slightly higher toughness even if that player is losing and has fewer creatures.
Edit: Here's a better example. In the original scenario provided, Jamie uses Annex to steal Ancient Tomb from Casey instead of taking a Forest from Morgan. I think that's kind of mean, it could marginally help Jamie, but probably not nearly as much as it will hurt Casey.
In your opinion, is acceptable for a player to take back a gameplay action based on an error? If so, when would it be acceptable? Do you ever request to take back gameplay actions you make?
To help move the discussion, here are some common examples of reasons players want to take back a gameplay action:
Error made based on public information (i.e. Player attacks into a player that has open Maze of Ith, player casts Vampiric Tutor when another player has Psychic Surgery in play)
Error made based on order of gameplay actions (i.e. player plays a land before they cast Rampaging Baloths, player wants to equip Lightning Greaves before combat instead of after combat, player wants to tap mana differently so keep a specific color open)
Here are some other factors that may be worth considering when determining if a player can take back a gameplay action:
How significant are consequences of the mistake? (i.e. missing a Soul’s Attendant trigger compared to missing a Consecrated Sphinx trigger)
Is the player that made the mistake less experienced?
Is the player that made the mistake using a deck that they haven’t played before?
Is it the first mistake of the game the player missed or is it happening multiple times?
Unless the players were playing competitive with 90-100% decks, I believe Jamie's call was pretty brutal and a little mean (even though it was the right decision to make as far as gaining card advantage). I could certainly imagine that if I were in Casey's position, I'd be pretty upset and I'd strongly consider scooping after Oblivion Sower targeted me (although I wouldn't scoop in response, that seems spiteful). I think it was even worse that other the players eliminated Casey from the game very early, especially considering Casey wasn't a threat. Ganging up on the losing player that is the least threatening makes no sense to me. No one wants to be that player that sits out for 30 minutes before the next game starts.
When I play I usually find the best games are close ones or games with multiple shifts in which player is in the lead.
There are certainly things I wouldn't do, even if it was in my best interest for winning the game. I would cast Annex to steal a Forest from a player that is way ahead on lands rather than steal an Ancient Tomb from a player that missed 4 lands drops. I generally won't attack the same player three or more turns in a row with my largest creature unless that player was significantly in the lead. If I play a spell like Return to Dust or Decimate, I almost never single out one player unless that player is incredibly far ahead.
For what it's worth, I identify as a casual-semi competitive player. Most of my decks are in the 60-75% range which I believe is about on par with decks shared on MTG Salvation, although I may be a little more casual.
Do you play to win by any means necessary or are there instances when you hold back? Consider the following scenario:
Morgan, Taylor, Jamie and Casey are playing a four-person game of Commander. During turn 7 of the game there is a significant disparity of mana sources among the players. Morgan and Taylor are both playing green decks with multiple ramp spells and each have about 12 lands in play. Jamie is playing a nongreen deck and has 6 lands along with 3 mana rocks. Casey is also playing a nongreen deck but is severely mana stalled controlling only 3 lands and 1 mana rock along with a limited board position.
Jamie casts Oblivion Sower, targeting Casey stating the logic that Casey’s library will most likely provide lands. Casey begrudgingly reveals the top 4 cards of their library revealing three lands and a Sol Ring. Two turns later, Casey top draws and plays their fourth land of the game. Shortly afterwards Casey is eliminated from the game. 30 minutes later after a close game between the remaining players, Morgan wins the game.
What would you have done if you were Jamie? Would you have targeted Casey with Oblivion Sower or choose another opponent because of how far behind Casey already was? Would you proceed to eliminate Casey from the game early of focus on the other players?
More broadly speaking, are there any instances where you would avoid making a gameplay decision even though that decision would most likely be in your best interest for winning the game? If so, what would be an example of one?
How do you think players should have to represent tokens on the battlefield?
Sometimes I get frustrated when playing against decks that go wide and generate tokens based on how players represent their tokens. I strongly prefer for players to use one token card per creature token. I understand some players may not have individual tokens for each of their deck, but at the bare minimum they should have cards that can represent each individual token.
For me it's annoying to play against a small six sided die that is supposed to represent 6 creatures. How do I know which ones are tapped, which ones are attacking, which ones have +1/+1 counters, which ones have summoning sickness, etc? It also portrays a misleading representation of the create impact on the battlefield.
Similarly I dislike playing against one beast token with a spindown on it telling me there are apparently 10 tokens.
Am I the only one that feels this way? It's not as big of a deal if it's just one or two tokens, but once a player has several tokens out, it can be difficult to keep track of so I think that player needs to do a great job at representing their board state.
While it might break him I would prefer to have him only reduce the generic cost and not require tapping.
I considered making it an activated ability that didn't require tap, but in order to balance it, I figured it would only be able to be activated at sorcery speed and there wasn't enough space on the card to include that text and the flavor text.
It seems rather weird that the abilities cost initially the same, even though their power level is completely different. I would reduce the mana cost of the exiling cards from graveyard ability to 2B.
I considered this but I like the idea of the graveyard ability being second to the destroy ability for flavor reasons and it seemed weird to have the activated ability that costs less be listed second on the card. Also having the abilities with the same mana cost makes it much easier to keep track of the costs of the abilities in relation to the number of experience counters you have.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't reducing the cost by Bonly reduce the cost by B?
Meaning it's a one and done ability?
This is incorrect. See rulings below:
117.7b If a cost is reduced by an amount of colored or colorless mana, but the cost doesn’t require mana of that type, the cost is reduced by that amount of generic mana.
117.7c If a cost is reduced by an amount of colored mana that exceeds its mana component of that color, the cost’s mana component of that color is reduced to nothing and the cost’s generic mana component is reduced by the difference.
117.7d If a cost is reduced by an amount of colorless mana that exceeds its colorless mana component, the cost’s colorless mana component is reduced to nothing and the cost’s generic mana component is reduced by the difference.
Notice how Edgewalker and Ragemonger both include in their rules text "This effect reduces only the amount of colored mana you pay." Another example is if you cast Patron of the Orochi sacrificing Winged Coatl, you have to pay 6GG - 1GU = 4G
Here is a legendary creature. I also have included some design notes.
Radim, Serial KillerB
Legendary Creature – Human [MR]
Deathtouch
Activated abilities of Radim, Serial Killer cost B less to activate for each experience counter you have. 4B, T: Destroy target creature. You get an experience counter. 4B, T: Exile target creature card from a graveyard. You get an experience counter.
"Rule number two is don't get caught." 1/2
See spoiler below for Radim, Serial Killer design notes:
Radim, Serial Killer is a top down creature I designed based on a serial killer. The card is intended for commander and would most likely lead a control deck.
The flavor text explains the second activated ability in case it isn't clear. I considered giving this card a class type of rogue but I thought it just being a human was simple and more flavorful.
Note: Please provide feedback other than "but it's broken with Meren!"
Here is a legendary creature and a planeswalker. Please provide feedback focused on mechanical design and balance before flavor or lore.
Wynston, Scholastic SageU
Legendary Creature – Human Wizard [R]
Prowess (Whenever you cast a noncreature spell, this creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn.)
Whenever you cast a blue spell, put a study counter on Wynston, Scholastic Sage.
Remove three study counters from Wynston, Scholastic Sage: Draw a card.
"There is always more to learn." 1/2
Teferi, Temporal Master2UUU
Planeswalker - Teferi [MR] +1: Until your next turn, each opponent can cast spells only any time they could cast a sorcery. -2: Create a blue enchantment token named Teferi's Retort with "Sacrifice this enchantment: Counter target spell or ability that targets a permanent you control. Draw a card." -8: You take an extra turn after this one. Each opponents skips their next turn. Exile Teferi, Temporal Master.
Loyalty: 4
I think the plus here is a little underwhelming for a 6 mana planeswalker.
The minus ability seems too strong with mana abilities. I'm also not exactly sure I understand what you mean by being able to activate one of its abilities this turn as though none of its abilities have been activated this turn. Does this mean you can activate a tap ability without actually tapping? If so, would that have any rules issues? The minus also feels too similar to the minus of the last Teferi planeswalker.
The emblem seems a little weak. It doesn't help you win the game if you have a limited or underwhelming board presence, it helps you generate additional mana, but by the time you are activating an ultimate ability of a 6 mana planeswalker, you shouldn't be having mana problems. Perhaps the ultimate could let you untap or tap up to X permanents instead.
I really like the name here, very much fits with the flavor of the character.
Ingenuity seems sweet, and is probably fine powerwise, certainly powerful.
Vyana seems absurd to me, due to several cards that break her, as Unbridled Growth or Seals (Seal of Doom). I'd say one per turn is a must. Then, it is still very powerful commander, but it doesn't do broken things with such ease.
I think Vyana, Medium Enchantress is strong but you are downplaying the significance of the converted mana cost restriction. To recur Seal of Doom, you would need Vyana, Medium Enchantress, three other enchantments, mana to recast the spell and you'd have to avoid graveyard hate. I do like the idea of making it once per turn and removing the CMC restriction, but that feels too much like its already been done before (Kess, Karador, Muldrotha).
Ingenuity, otoh, seems rather undercosted to me. I could see it being cmc 4, say. Draw two is very powerful.
If it had a CMC of 4, it would be terrible. When you compare Ingenuity to Sixth Sense the power level feels appropriate (Sixth Sense is an underwhelming card power wise that isn't a rare). Consider that Ingeunity can draw you two cards if you have a creature, and that creature deals combat damage to a player for UU. Divination draws two cards unconditionally for 2U. Auras tend to be very weak because as Hackworth mentioned, if you remove the enchanted creature, it's a 2 for 1. I do agree with Hackworth that in limited the card would be a bomb, but that's the case for a lot of rares.
Honestly, regarding Ingenuity, I strongly considered pushing it just a little more by having it also grant the enchanted creature Prowess.
Here is a Aura spell and a legendary creature. I also have included some design notes. Please provide feedback focused on mechanical design and balance before flavor or lore.
IngenuityUU
Enchantment - Aura [R]
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature has "Whenever this creature deals combat damage to a player or planeswalker, you draw two cards." The basic instinct of a brilliant mind.
See spoiler below for Ingenuity design notes:
My intention here was to create an efficient reusable source for card advantage. The idea of creating an aura that doesn't suck is interesting to me. Keep in mind, auras tend to be one of the weakest card types because they are susceptible to two for ones and require a creature in play to be used. Sixth Sense, Curiosity and Keen Sense are similar cards that generally see no competitive play. Divination unconditionally draws you two cards at common for 2U. This card requires you to control a creature and deal combat damage with it to draw two cards and it is a rare. If you can successfully enable this card's triggered ability just one time, it is worth it's mana investment.
Vyana, Medium EnchantressWBG
Legendary Creature – Spirit [MR]
You may play enchantment cards from your graveyard with converted mana cost less than or equal to the number of enchantments you control.
Whenever you cast an enchantment spell from your graveyard, draw a card. 2/3
See spoiler below for Vyana, Medium Enchantress design notes:
I created Vyana, Medium Enchantress as a bottom up design. The primary intention was to design a legendary creature that has synergy enchantments and the graveyard. The triggered ability is an homage to enchantress cards. The color identity for Vyana, Medium Enchantress is WBG because white and green are the primary enchantment colors while black is the primary graveyard interaction color. The card may be acceptable to print without ruining most constructed formats (i.e. Legacy, Modern) but Vyana, Medium Enchantress was intended for the Commander format likely leading enchantress control decks (she also could fit well into the 99 of some decks).
I considered adding a once per turn clause on the first ability but considering you need to control multiple other enchantments to gain significant value in addition to paying the mana cost of the spell, I believe it is fine as is.
Which Dominaria legendary creatures seem underrated as a commander but still viable? I am referring to the other legendary creatures that have a lot of solid build around potential and are potentially viable as a commander but underrated. It doesn't have to necessarily be from a highly competitive EDH level but I am talking about legendary creatures worthy of being commander rather than a spot in the 99.
Legendary Creature – Human Wizard [R]
Prowess (Whenever you cast a noncreature spell, this creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn.)
Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell, you gain life equal to its converted mana cost.
2/2
See spoiler below for Raff Capashen, Ship's Mage design notes:
This design is based on the Dominaria character, Raff Capashen, Ship's Mage. I designed the card as WU creature because the character follows in the footsteps of Gerrard Capashen but is also a mage. Additionally the Weatherlight Crew in Dominaria appears to be a cycle of two colored legends that include white with WU being the remaining combination (i.e. Tiana, Ship's Caretaker is WR, Shanna, Sisay's Legacy is WG, Arvad the Cursed is WB).
Mechanically the card is a simple design that rewards you for playing instant and sorcery spells through life gain. This is relatively unexplored design space and also is an ode to Gerrad, a character with multiple life gain cards including in flavor and lore references (i.e. Gerrard's Wisdom, Gerrard's Verdict, Heroes' Reunion, Soul Shepherd). Prowess is included to make the design more special and because it is an evergreen ability we haven't seen for a while on a new card in a Standard set.
In the provided scenario, Casey's library is significantly more likely for the top cards to be lands than Morgan's deck (assume the decks run about the same amount of lands). The odds aren't almost identical. It's turn 7 and the player hasn't drawn lands for 4 turns in a row. Yes, it is possible that the top 4 cards are also nonland cards, but at this point Morgan and Taylor are more likely to draw lands than Casey.
I will acknowledge it's probably not the best example of doing something that a player would want to be spiteful over. I was trying to pick an example of something that wasn't super extreme so people wouldn't come in biased against the harsh player but ironically I have seemed do do the opposite. Maybe a better example would be a player using Decimate targeting all permanents of one player, even though that player isn't in the lead because for some reason it gave them a slight advantage. Or a mono blue player playing a theft deck, always using their Control Magic effects on the creatures of a specific player just because their creatures have a slightly higher toughness even if that player is losing and has fewer creatures.
Edit: Here's a better example. In the original scenario provided, Jamie uses Annex to steal Ancient Tomb from Casey instead of taking a Forest from Morgan. I think that's kind of mean, it could marginally help Jamie, but probably not nearly as much as it will hurt Casey.
To help move the discussion, here are some common examples of reasons players want to take back a gameplay action:
Here are some other factors that may be worth considering when determining if a player can take back a gameplay action:
Unless the players were playing competitive with 90-100% decks, I believe Jamie's call was pretty brutal and a little mean (even though it was the right decision to make as far as gaining card advantage). I could certainly imagine that if I were in Casey's position, I'd be pretty upset and I'd strongly consider scooping after Oblivion Sower targeted me (although I wouldn't scoop in response, that seems spiteful). I think it was even worse that other the players eliminated Casey from the game very early, especially considering Casey wasn't a threat. Ganging up on the losing player that is the least threatening makes no sense to me. No one wants to be that player that sits out for 30 minutes before the next game starts.
When I play I usually find the best games are close ones or games with multiple shifts in which player is in the lead.
There are certainly things I wouldn't do, even if it was in my best interest for winning the game. I would cast Annex to steal a Forest from a player that is way ahead on lands rather than steal an Ancient Tomb from a player that missed 4 lands drops. I generally won't attack the same player three or more turns in a row with my largest creature unless that player was significantly in the lead. If I play a spell like Return to Dust or Decimate, I almost never single out one player unless that player is incredibly far ahead.
For what it's worth, I identify as a casual-semi competitive player. Most of my decks are in the 60-75% range which I believe is about on par with decks shared on MTG Salvation, although I may be a little more casual.
Jamie casts Oblivion Sower, targeting Casey stating the logic that Casey’s library will most likely provide lands. Casey begrudgingly reveals the top 4 cards of their library revealing three lands and a Sol Ring. Two turns later, Casey top draws and plays their fourth land of the game. Shortly afterwards Casey is eliminated from the game. 30 minutes later after a close game between the remaining players, Morgan wins the game.
What would you have done if you were Jamie? Would you have targeted Casey with Oblivion Sower or choose another opponent because of how far behind Casey already was? Would you proceed to eliminate Casey from the game early of focus on the other players?
More broadly speaking, are there any instances where you would avoid making a gameplay decision even though that decision would most likely be in your best interest for winning the game? If so, what would be an example of one?
Sometimes I get frustrated when playing against decks that go wide and generate tokens based on how players represent their tokens. I strongly prefer for players to use one token card per creature token. I understand some players may not have individual tokens for each of their deck, but at the bare minimum they should have cards that can represent each individual token.
For me it's annoying to play against a small six sided die that is supposed to represent 6 creatures. How do I know which ones are tapped, which ones are attacking, which ones have +1/+1 counters, which ones have summoning sickness, etc? It also portrays a misleading representation of the create impact on the battlefield.
Similarly I dislike playing against one beast token with a spindown on it telling me there are apparently 10 tokens.
Am I the only one that feels this way? It's not as big of a deal if it's just one or two tokens, but once a player has several tokens out, it can be difficult to keep track of so I think that player needs to do a great job at representing their board state.
I considered making it an activated ability that didn't require tap, but in order to balance it, I figured it would only be able to be activated at sorcery speed and there wasn't enough space on the card to include that text and the flavor text.
I considered this but I like the idea of the graveyard ability being second to the destroy ability for flavor reasons and it seemed weird to have the activated ability that costs less be listed second on the card. Also having the abilities with the same mana cost makes it much easier to keep track of the costs of the abilities in relation to the number of experience counters you have.
This is incorrect. See rulings below:
117.7c If a cost is reduced by an amount of colored mana that exceeds its mana component of that color, the cost’s mana component of that color is reduced to nothing and the cost’s generic mana component is reduced by the difference.
117.7d If a cost is reduced by an amount of colorless mana that exceeds its colorless mana component, the cost’s colorless mana component is reduced to nothing and the cost’s generic mana component is reduced by the difference.
Notice how Edgewalker and Ragemonger both include in their rules text "This effect reduces only the amount of colored mana you pay." Another example is if you cast Patron of the Orochi sacrificing Winged Coatl, you have to pay 6GG - 1GU = 4G
Legendary Creature – Human [MR]
Deathtouch
Activated abilities of Radim, Serial Killer cost B less to activate for each experience counter you have.
4B, T: Destroy target creature. You get an experience counter.
4B, T: Exile target creature card from a graveyard. You get an experience counter.
"Rule number two is don't get caught."
1/2
See spoiler below for Radim, Serial Killer design notes:
Radim, Serial Killer is a top down creature I designed based on a serial killer. The card is intended for commander and would most likely lead a control deck.
The flavor text explains the second activated ability in case it isn't clear. I considered giving this card a class type of rogue but I thought it just being a human was simple and more flavorful.
Note: Please provide feedback other than "but it's broken with Meren!"
Legendary Creature – Human Wizard [R]
Prowess (Whenever you cast a noncreature spell, this creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn.)
Whenever you cast a blue spell, put a study counter on Wynston, Scholastic Sage.
Remove three study counters from Wynston, Scholastic Sage: Draw a card.
"There is always more to learn."
1/2
Planeswalker - Teferi [MR]
+1: Until your next turn, each opponent can cast spells only any time they could cast a sorcery.
-2: Create a blue enchantment token named Teferi's Retort with "Sacrifice this enchantment: Counter target spell or ability that targets a permanent you control. Draw a card."
-8: You take an extra turn after this one. Each opponents skips their next turn. Exile Teferi, Temporal Master.
Loyalty: 4
I think the plus here is a little underwhelming for a 6 mana planeswalker.
The minus ability seems too strong with mana abilities. I'm also not exactly sure I understand what you mean by being able to activate one of its abilities this turn as though none of its abilities have been activated this turn. Does this mean you can activate a tap ability without actually tapping? If so, would that have any rules issues? The minus also feels too similar to the minus of the last Teferi planeswalker.
The emblem seems a little weak. It doesn't help you win the game if you have a limited or underwhelming board presence, it helps you generate additional mana, but by the time you are activating an ultimate ability of a 6 mana planeswalker, you shouldn't be having mana problems. Perhaps the ultimate could let you untap or tap up to X permanents instead.
I really like the name here, very much fits with the flavor of the character.
I think Vyana, Medium Enchantress is strong but you are downplaying the significance of the converted mana cost restriction. To recur Seal of Doom, you would need Vyana, Medium Enchantress, three other enchantments, mana to recast the spell and you'd have to avoid graveyard hate. I do like the idea of making it once per turn and removing the CMC restriction, but that feels too much like its already been done before (Kess, Karador, Muldrotha).
If it had a CMC of 4, it would be terrible. When you compare Ingenuity to Sixth Sense the power level feels appropriate (Sixth Sense is an underwhelming card power wise that isn't a rare). Consider that Ingeunity can draw you two cards if you have a creature, and that creature deals combat damage to a player for UU. Divination draws two cards unconditionally for 2U. Auras tend to be very weak because as Hackworth mentioned, if you remove the enchanted creature, it's a 2 for 1. I do agree with Hackworth that in limited the card would be a bomb, but that's the case for a lot of rares.
Honestly, regarding Ingenuity, I strongly considered pushing it just a little more by having it also grant the enchanted creature Prowess.
Enchantment - Aura [R]
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature has "Whenever this creature deals combat damage to a player or planeswalker, you draw two cards."
The basic instinct of a brilliant mind.
See spoiler below for Ingenuity design notes:
My intention here was to create an efficient reusable source for card advantage. The idea of creating an aura that doesn't suck is interesting to me. Keep in mind, auras tend to be one of the weakest card types because they are susceptible to two for ones and require a creature in play to be used. Sixth Sense, Curiosity and Keen Sense are similar cards that generally see no competitive play. Divination unconditionally draws you two cards at common for 2U. This card requires you to control a creature and deal combat damage with it to draw two cards and it is a rare. If you can successfully enable this card's triggered ability just one time, it is worth it's mana investment.
Legendary Creature – Spirit [MR]
You may play enchantment cards from your graveyard with converted mana cost less than or equal to the number of enchantments you control.
Whenever you cast an enchantment spell from your graveyard, draw a card.
2/3
See spoiler below for Vyana, Medium Enchantress design notes:
I created Vyana, Medium Enchantress as a bottom up design. The primary intention was to design a legendary creature that has synergy enchantments and the graveyard. The triggered ability is an homage to enchantress cards. The color identity for Vyana, Medium Enchantress is WBG because white and green are the primary enchantment colors while black is the primary graveyard interaction color. The card may be acceptable to print without ruining most constructed formats (i.e. Legacy, Modern) but Vyana, Medium Enchantress was intended for the Commander format likely leading enchantress control decks (she also could fit well into the 99 of some decks).
I considered adding a once per turn clause on the first ability but considering you need to control multiple other enchantments to gain significant value in addition to paying the mana cost of the spell, I believe it is fine as is.