Interesting. The creature demands more mana as it grows in power. Kind of makes sense. 'Power counter' is not a bad idea.
I don't think it needs to be paired with another mechanic, though; even a simple iteration like yours takes a lot of lines. 6 lines of text is too much for any common, really.
You know, my first instinct was 'this is a drawback mechanic', but now I'm not so sure. I think this is in a very odd space; it's somewhere between exert, untap, and energy counters, if that makes sense. They're all new costs that are interesting in their own way.
Do note if you're using fatigue counters, you can't be granting +1/+1 counters to creatures, and you might even want to avoid +1/+1 counters entirely.
Also, for some reason, 'fatigue' just sounds so much less exciting and engaging to me than 'exert' does (for example). I think energy and exert get away with being 'cost mechanics' because they have strong and exciting flavor. It feels -cool- to get energy, to see your creature exert itself to be stronger. But 'fatigue' feels more... boring, to me? More sad? Something like 'endeavor' or 'push' might be better, but... it's hard to find something as punchy as 'exert' while not feeling more bland like 'fatigue' or 'exhaust'.
I think you're onto something, though. Cool mechanic, with a lot of promising gameplay. I just worry about its potential to excite players who don't realize how 'undercosted' these abilities are.
I think the basic idea here is fine, as an interesting win-condition, but it doesn't quite have the impact I'd expect of a legendary creature in its own right. It feels more like the Burning Vengeance of a set than a Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest, you know? I firmly believe that things with really interesting triggers also warrant really exciting effects to showcase that trigger, and just 2 damage doesn't feel like enough.
It could maybe give +1/+1 to your team, or something else along those lines, so that it affects the board-state and pushes for more than just a deck full of bounce/exile.
You probably want a few more cantrips or other ways to continue drawing into gas, no? This kind of deck really wants continual cards, or at the very least, scry. Uncanny Outlaw is your one instance of replacing itself that I see, though Grifting gets rid of excess lands, which is nice.
I really like Cache, especially flavored as 'ammo' or whatnot. It's really cool! I agree it's not very doable at common as a mechanic, but it could make for a really fun cycle, or even multiple cycles.
Also, perhaps making the cardflow mechanic something not directly related to the concept of shootouts or quickdraw could work. For example, there's that "kicker variant that draws you a card when kicked" that people have been kicking around (harhar) for ages.
This mechanic seems troublesome for a few reasons:
1.) I'll start with my weakest concern. I feel like a mechanic that revolves around cantripping is pretty limited, since you can't print that many cantrips in a set. For example, Theros had five cantrips at common (that Aura cycle) and a healthy amount of scry, and the card flow was not too bad of a thing. It's just a space concern. Still, it might not be bad to print more than five at common... it might just get wonky. (I can't find a set with more than five cantrips at common, yet, in my brief foray. Kaladesh also has five.) It helps they're gold, though, because overlapping cantrips in a deck is less likely.
2.) The balance on these is tough. Not only are they a cantripping creature - which means they have strict comparisons to Elvish Visionary, Shaman of Spring, and Kavu Climber - they also have huge amounts of card advantage possibility. As a creature they can at least trade, and maybe even get you up in card advantage if they can attack or block profitably at any point. In addition, if they have a CA effect - such as Dreaded and Darkfire - that starts making things pretty severe in terms of card advantage. I know it's up to chance, but that's still a lot of potential card advantage at common. I'd strongly suggest tweaking Dreaded and Darkfire to not produce so much CA on their trigger.
3.) If you have too many effects that reveal cards you draw, you're going to make too much information public. As a Wild West themed set, the suspense of the shootout is a big part of the experience of your set. You want to capture that suspense by having your opponent's information be unknown - so you can end up with bluffs, with standoffs, with exciting tension and "Do I still have ammo?" moments. Revealing the card you draw is essential to this mechanic, and undermines that emotion. I agree that, while you're drawing the card to reveal it, this mechanic has a great amount of excitement and suspense. That part is fun. But it's after you reveal it that you begin to undermine the goals for the mechanic, as it reduces the suspense you and your opponent feel, given the information is known.
4.) When I think 'quickdraw', I do not think 'gathering resources and randomly getting certain results'. The name is very cute, but it's not fitting to the flavor. To me, a quickdraw is emphasized by sudden surprise and facing down opponents. For example, sorry to compare you to another custom set, but Piar's Lorado set uses "Reflex", a kicker variant that lets you cast spells as though they had flash. This nicely represents the flavor of surprising your opponent with a sudden spell - it really feels like you're a gunslinger whipping your pistol out of its holster unexpectedly. I don't think you should necessarily do the same thing - especially since you're aiming to create a mechanic to help with card flow - but it's a good approach.
Now, for the good:
It's actually interesting, in that I was talking to Piar today about a "draw and reveal" mechanic! I do think these mechanics have a super fun moment when you're picking up the card, and tensely turning it over, excited to see what it becomes... it also is a very clever way to introduce more smoothing into your set without it being "just" cantrips. Making your smoothing exciting, and almost tricking players into playing with it, is a genius idea.
In addition, linking it to gold cards is super clever, in that it keeps people from just jamming their decks full of Quickdraw. The color requirement is a natural way to limit splashing capabilities. I do think it might be too broad of a condition for the 'fair' decks though. Will it always be 'matching color' based?
Tomb Raid: This doesn't feel super "impulse-y" though, for one reason: there's no chancerisk. "Impulse draw" feels red because you're, essentially, gambling: "Will the card off the top be worth casting? Will I be able to cast it this turn?" Those two questions are what gives the mechanic its red flavor and feel mechanically, because its filled with a lot of tension. You want to draw a cheap red spell - Shock for example - but you might not.
Tomb Raid, on the other hand, doesn't have any element of chance risk at all, so there's no tension. You just wait until you can play this and cast the card from your graveyard on the same turn - it's that simple. There's no fun decisions to be made here. A simple way to fix this is to have it exile a RANDOM card from your graveyard. Then you get some interesting decisions, and some fun in how you decide to 'stack' your graveyard.
I edited it slightly because I feel that 'risk' is a better word to describe red than 'chance'. Things just being random =/= red.
The beetle in Kaladesh bugs me not because it's a random flavor element, but because it's a card that has a very clear mechanical representation of progress (the accumulation of +1/+1 counters), but doesn't utilize that mechanical to emotional connection in any way. It's only the specific 'failure to deliver' on the emotional promise of that mechanic that bugs me. I'm fine with it otherwise.
Except it does have a small cosmetic change. The toughness.
I think the mechanic is okay, it's definitely fine as a guild mechanic. Frenzy is (apparently) developmentally problematic, which I've never understood, but these seem fine. I've always liked it.
It does seem to be more red/black than blue/black, but this is fine.
Absolutely lovely! Injured Alpha probably needs a flavor-change, or at least some explanatory flavor text. It's my favorite of the designs, alongside Wisebark Elm.
Mindculling was in a set themed around black bleeds. As was Frightful Delusion. Dismal Failure is from Planar Chaos, and was showcasing how blue got small discard in that set. None of these are appropriate examples.
Saying it's a break was a bit of an exaggeration on my part, I apologize. It's more like it's a very big bleed.
Blue Transmute is fine... blue can fetch things from the library. Tutoring is well within their color pie, and in many ways, it makes more sense in blue than in black, even. Blue Unearth was an odd case, but it's basically just "I can use this creature again temporarily", which is really a thing any color can do, since all colors get access to creatures. (Persist and Undying, you may note, are also available to any color.) Blue Exploit makes a lot of sense; it just converts creatures into spell-effects, which is a very blue thing. There's nothing in blue's color pie that says it can't sacrifice creatures. Lastly, white Extort is odd in that it deals direct damage, yes, but direct damage in super-small amounts is available to pretty much every color, since the life total is so fundamental to the game, and 99% of decks win through depleting the opponent's life total.
While blue discard doesn't undermine the color's weaknesses at all, it's just a very weird thing to see in any color except black, since it's so emblematic of the color. In addition, it's just not fun in serious quantities. Cantrips make the game more fun as they give people ammo, and make sure interesting things keep happening. Drawing cards means more cards are played which makes games more exciting. Discarding, on the other hand, reduces the number of cards that can be played in a game of Magic, which means less stuff is happening, and people run out of steam faster, and games grow less exciting... you could get stuck with a board stall, or you could end up just oppressing your opponent and steamrolling them. Neither option seems particularly fun, to me!
This is what makes discard a very big bleed, rather than just a bleed. The more unfun a mechanic is, the less you want to bleed it. This is why taxing counterspells, though available in white, are not done very often; why make more of a mechanic that is oppressive and unfun in larger quantities?
I don't think it needs to be paired with another mechanic, though; even a simple iteration like yours takes a lot of lines. 6 lines of text is too much for any common, really.
Do note if you're using fatigue counters, you can't be granting +1/+1 counters to creatures, and you might even want to avoid +1/+1 counters entirely.
Also, for some reason, 'fatigue' just sounds so much less exciting and engaging to me than 'exert' does (for example). I think energy and exert get away with being 'cost mechanics' because they have strong and exciting flavor. It feels -cool- to get energy, to see your creature exert itself to be stronger. But 'fatigue' feels more... boring, to me? More sad? Something like 'endeavor' or 'push' might be better, but... it's hard to find something as punchy as 'exert' while not feeling more bland like 'fatigue' or 'exhaust'.
I think you're onto something, though. Cool mechanic, with a lot of promising gameplay. I just worry about its potential to excite players who don't realize how 'undercosted' these abilities are.
I think the basic idea here is fine, as an interesting win-condition, but it doesn't quite have the impact I'd expect of a legendary creature in its own right. It feels more like the Burning Vengeance of a set than a Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest, you know? I firmly believe that things with really interesting triggers also warrant really exciting effects to showcase that trigger, and just 2 damage doesn't feel like enough.
It could maybe give +1/+1 to your team, or something else along those lines, so that it affects the board-state and pushes for more than just a deck full of bounce/exile.
Also, perhaps making the cardflow mechanic something not directly related to the concept of shootouts or quickdraw could work. For example, there's that "kicker variant that draws you a card when kicked" that people have been kicking around (harhar) for ages.
1.) I'll start with my weakest concern. I feel like a mechanic that revolves around cantripping is pretty limited, since you can't print that many cantrips in a set. For example, Theros had five cantrips at common (that Aura cycle) and a healthy amount of scry, and the card flow was not too bad of a thing. It's just a space concern. Still, it might not be bad to print more than five at common... it might just get wonky. (I can't find a set with more than five cantrips at common, yet, in my brief foray. Kaladesh also has five.) It helps they're gold, though, because overlapping cantrips in a deck is less likely.
2.) The balance on these is tough. Not only are they a cantripping creature - which means they have strict comparisons to Elvish Visionary, Shaman of Spring, and Kavu Climber - they also have huge amounts of card advantage possibility. As a creature they can at least trade, and maybe even get you up in card advantage if they can attack or block profitably at any point. In addition, if they have a CA effect - such as Dreaded and Darkfire - that starts making things pretty severe in terms of card advantage. I know it's up to chance, but that's still a lot of potential card advantage at common. I'd strongly suggest tweaking Dreaded and Darkfire to not produce so much CA on their trigger.
3.) If you have too many effects that reveal cards you draw, you're going to make too much information public. As a Wild West themed set, the suspense of the shootout is a big part of the experience of your set. You want to capture that suspense by having your opponent's information be unknown - so you can end up with bluffs, with standoffs, with exciting tension and "Do I still have ammo?" moments. Revealing the card you draw is essential to this mechanic, and undermines that emotion. I agree that, while you're drawing the card to reveal it, this mechanic has a great amount of excitement and suspense. That part is fun. But it's after you reveal it that you begin to undermine the goals for the mechanic, as it reduces the suspense you and your opponent feel, given the information is known.
4.) When I think 'quickdraw', I do not think 'gathering resources and randomly getting certain results'. The name is very cute, but it's not fitting to the flavor. To me, a quickdraw is emphasized by sudden surprise and facing down opponents. For example, sorry to compare you to another custom set, but Piar's Lorado set uses "Reflex", a kicker variant that lets you cast spells as though they had flash. This nicely represents the flavor of surprising your opponent with a sudden spell - it really feels like you're a gunslinger whipping your pistol out of its holster unexpectedly. I don't think you should necessarily do the same thing - especially since you're aiming to create a mechanic to help with card flow - but it's a good approach.
Now, for the good:
It's actually interesting, in that I was talking to Piar today about a "draw and reveal" mechanic! I do think these mechanics have a super fun moment when you're picking up the card, and tensely turning it over, excited to see what it becomes... it also is a very clever way to introduce more smoothing into your set without it being "just" cantrips. Making your smoothing exciting, and almost tricking players into playing with it, is a genius idea.
In addition, linking it to gold cards is super clever, in that it keeps people from just jamming their decks full of Quickdraw. The color requirement is a natural way to limit splashing capabilities. I do think it might be too broad of a condition for the 'fair' decks though. Will it always be 'matching color' based?
I edited it slightly because I feel that 'risk' is a better word to describe red than 'chance'. Things just being random =/= red.
The beetle in Kaladesh bugs me not because it's a random flavor element, but because it's a card that has a very clear mechanical representation of progress (the accumulation of +1/+1 counters), but doesn't utilize that mechanical to emotional connection in any way. It's only the specific 'failure to deliver' on the emotional promise of that mechanic that bugs me. I'm fine with it otherwise.
I love the mechanic, Legend. It seems perfect for Selesnya.
I think the mechanic is okay, it's definitely fine as a guild mechanic. Frenzy is (apparently) developmentally problematic, which I've never understood, but these seem fine. I've always liked it.
It does seem to be more red/black than blue/black, but this is fine.
Saying it's a break was a bit of an exaggeration on my part, I apologize. It's more like it's a very big bleed.
Blue Transmute is fine... blue can fetch things from the library. Tutoring is well within their color pie, and in many ways, it makes more sense in blue than in black, even. Blue Unearth was an odd case, but it's basically just "I can use this creature again temporarily", which is really a thing any color can do, since all colors get access to creatures. (Persist and Undying, you may note, are also available to any color.) Blue Exploit makes a lot of sense; it just converts creatures into spell-effects, which is a very blue thing. There's nothing in blue's color pie that says it can't sacrifice creatures. Lastly, white Extort is odd in that it deals direct damage, yes, but direct damage in super-small amounts is available to pretty much every color, since the life total is so fundamental to the game, and 99% of decks win through depleting the opponent's life total.
While blue discard doesn't undermine the color's weaknesses at all, it's just a very weird thing to see in any color except black, since it's so emblematic of the color. In addition, it's just not fun in serious quantities. Cantrips make the game more fun as they give people ammo, and make sure interesting things keep happening. Drawing cards means more cards are played which makes games more exciting. Discarding, on the other hand, reduces the number of cards that can be played in a game of Magic, which means less stuff is happening, and people run out of steam faster, and games grow less exciting... you could get stuck with a board stall, or you could end up just oppressing your opponent and steamrolling them. Neither option seems particularly fun, to me!
This is what makes discard a very big bleed, rather than just a bleed. The more unfun a mechanic is, the less you want to bleed it. This is why taxing counterspells, though available in white, are not done very often; why make more of a mechanic that is oppressive and unfun in larger quantities?