This looks like a very bad mechanic. You target a creature, then have to get that creature to die. It has the weaknesses of a pump spell without the benefit of being a pump spell. Ideally you'll only use Reap when you know the creature is going to die(mid-combat, or in-response to a removal spell), but this just exemplifies its weakness. Its an overly reactive ability that doesn't interact with the thing it is reactive to. This could theoretically be used proactively to discourage lethal blocking, but the effect would have to be exceptionally detrimental to your opponent and it only discourages lethal blocking so it can still be blocked. I might be wrong and this plays way better than it looks but I can't see past the ugly first impression.
I can't stand the gatewatch, not because they are all superman, but rather because they are the weatherlight crew, only on steroids, and not nearly as intresting. Gerrard was probably the least intresting member of the weatherlight, had very few cards that were directly related to him, but I still know more about him then I care to know about his Planeswalker counterpart, Giddeon.
I'm going to ignore the rest of what you said because I kind of agree. But this, what do you mean directly related to him? Do you mean have his name in the card's name? Mention him in flavor text? Depict him in art?
Because while he only have a measly 6 cards with his name in the title he shows up on far more cards than any member of the gatewatch. Gerrard is mentioned in flavor text 94 times, while the highest gatewatch count is Jace at 45, not even half. Gerrard appears in 53 different cards art, while jace only gets 38. Gerrard's story only lasted for 3ish years and he got that many appearances and references,the gatewatch has only had over a year but each member had several previous appearances. The level of characters being pushed has dropped so much you can't help but know less about the newer characters. You know more about Gerrard because you have interacted with his name more.
Long answer. When you attack with Champion of Rhonas its ability triggers and your opponent can respond. If they allow it to resolve you are given the option of exerting it. They can't respond to this choice. The creature you choose is Thought-Knot Seer. Its ETB triggers and goes on the stack as you target your opponent. Both players get the option to respond to this trigger.
V1.1 Ashiok would feel more like them if it exiled instead of simple discard and mill(it is still discard and mill but to exile). The exile flavor helps separate them from Liliana which was a major concern with your first version.
V2.0 is in a strange place, they don't really want to use their ultimate because their - is so strong it will be used unless your opponent doesn't have cards in hand. On that note they would feel better if their ult was easier to hit but not faster. Up its cost and up the + and you have a more threatening walker who is harder to deal with. Maybe +2, -3 , -9?
Ignoring the + and 0 this is a 5 mana walker, an underwhelming one. If you make it 5 mana get rid of the 0 make its current ult -4 with a starting loyalty of 4 and give it a Pox ultimate of some reasonable number 6-7 you have a more interesting, balanced walker. The + could be changed to each player discards a card, gain 2 life for each creature or land discarded this way or something like that.
Isn't Jace's story in BfZ-block basically summed up as rejecting Ugin's advice and acting recklessly instead?
More along the lines of following his advise and then that all goes to heck and he goes with the reckless untested theory that could kill them all. So not really reject.
Even on Kaladesh they didn't get involved until the extra-planar threat (Tezzeret) made himself known. Jace and Gideon were going to do their own thing (paperwork and weights?) while the girls were out but Tezz is apparently a major threat.
Your reminder text will want (Mana cost includes color) it makes it longer but when you need the space you can just leave off the reminder text. Non specific Offering without the instant speed seems like cool mechanic for Rakdos.
Is this not supposed to copy if you have no other creatures?
The intention is that if there is no legal target you can't copy the spell, just like you can't cast a spell without a legal target. I'm not sure that it would matter even if you can copy it just to have it fizzle, except perhaps in extreme corner cases.
This is where the problems are. Because when you make a copy of a spell it is by default targeting the same target as the original. The new targeting restriction of 'that hasn’t communed this turn' is on the retargeting so without any other creatures the spell won't fizzle and will stay targeting the original communal creature. If this isn't a significant problem and you don't mind making double targeting possible in general then you can change it to just copying the first spell they become the target of, that you control.
Whenever this creature becomes the target of a spell you control for the first time each turn copy that spell. You may choose new targets for the copy.
If you don't want this functionality at all you will need a lot more words.
Whenever this creature becomes the target of a spell you control with a single target you may have it commune. If you do choose a creature you control that hasn't communed this turn and could be a target of that spell. Copy that spell, the copy targets the chosen creature.
Its a lot more words but pulls off all of the intended functionality.
You are correct that none of those things target so you are safe on that front. The only evident problem I see is lots of enchantment tokens and bestow creatures being copied as just a creature.
Asking for clarity of intent. Is it the intent that the copy can't target the original creature? Is this not supposed to copy if you have no other creatures? Are you sold on the 'this communes' wording? Is this supposed to only copy the first spell? Is it only supposed to share with other creatures with communal?
To clarify me questions. Your wording makes it copy every spell that targets it, and can share that spell with any creature except itself. This chains with communal creatures, however only on the first spell a turn. Subsequent copied spells can't target creatures with communal, so it won't chain.
These are all amazing, the destroy ones are less versatile than actual destroy spells so they fall on a nice place for power.
The only troubling one is Path to Home, which can hit lands with ETBS and could ruin the game on turn two. Those and fetch lands, two mana land denial is a no go, though you might be able to keep the anti-fetch, just make it bounce nonlands.
Potentially untouchable 'you can't lose' probably isn't safe at any reasonable(<7) cost. This setting you to 0 life doesn't make it more balanced, it makes it a complete gamble, and gambling doesn't mean balanced. Its not a simple 'I can't lose' its a complex "If you can't deal with an artifact token I can't lose, but if you can, I lose the moment you deal with it". How many decks would scoop to "Turn 1 discard Darksteel Citadel. Turn 2 This, GG?"
Honestly it would just make its own stupid combo of reanimating some broken artifact and no one else would bother.
Current wording allows you to cast the creature when the ability resolves. Timing restrictions are ignored because normally you can't cast any spell during the resolution of a spell or ability.
Because while he only have a measly 6 cards with his name in the title he shows up on far more cards than any member of the gatewatch. Gerrard is mentioned in flavor text 94 times, while the highest gatewatch count is Jace at 45, not even half. Gerrard appears in 53 different cards art, while jace only gets 38. Gerrard's story only lasted for 3ish years and he got that many appearances and references,the gatewatch has only had over a year but each member had several previous appearances. The level of characters being pushed has dropped so much you can't help but know less about the newer characters. You know more about Gerrard because you have interacted with his name more.
Long answer. When you attack with Champion of Rhonas its ability triggers and your opponent can respond. If they allow it to resolve you are given the option of exerting it. They can't respond to this choice. The creature you choose is Thought-Knot Seer. Its ETB triggers and goes on the stack as you target your opponent. Both players get the option to respond to this trigger.
V2.0 is in a strange place, they don't really want to use their ultimate because their - is so strong it will be used unless your opponent doesn't have cards in hand. On that note they would feel better if their ult was easier to hit but not faster. Up its cost and up the + and you have a more threatening walker who is harder to deal with. Maybe +2, -3 , -9?
This is where the problems are. Because when you make a copy of a spell it is by default targeting the same target as the original. The new targeting restriction of 'that hasn’t communed this turn' is on the retargeting so without any other creatures the spell won't fizzle and will stay targeting the original communal creature. If this isn't a significant problem and you don't mind making double targeting possible in general then you can change it to just copying the first spell they become the target of, that you control.
If you don't want this functionality at all you will need a lot more words.
Its a lot more words but pulls off all of the intended functionality.
Asking for clarity of intent. Is it the intent that the copy can't target the original creature? Is this not supposed to copy if you have no other creatures? Are you sold on the 'this communes' wording? Is this supposed to only copy the first spell? Is it only supposed to share with other creatures with communal?
To clarify me questions. Your wording makes it copy every spell that targets it, and can share that spell with any creature except itself. This chains with communal creatures, however only on the first spell a turn. Subsequent copied spells can't target creatures with communal, so it won't chain.
These are all amazing, the destroy ones are less versatile than actual destroy spells so they fall on a nice place for power.
The only troubling one is Path to Home, which can hit lands with ETBS and could ruin the game on turn two. Those and fetch lands, two mana land denial is a no go, though you might be able to keep the anti-fetch, just make it bounce nonlands.
Honestly it would just make its own stupid combo of reanimating some broken artifact and no one else would bother.