I'll let Marodescribe NWO. http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/ar ... 2013-11-14
Mostly it involves pushing complicated stuff out of common and reducing overall complexity.

I think we should rename Engrave. "Engrave" sounds like you're adding an effect onto something (like engraving an artifact with a new design). You're not really doing that though. The way the mechanic works, you're not altering anything, you're creating something new.
The best alternative I have is Embody, but I'm open to other suggestions.

Corporealize?

I dunno, I think engrave is probably more evocative than either of those names.

So I know I came up with Engrave, but the more I think about it, the less I like it. We already have Relics for artifacts. The Engrave mechanic should use enchantment creatures. Plus, the wording is too long.

Essence (You may cast this spell for its essence cost as a 2/2 Incarnation enchantment creature with "When this creature dies," followed by its other abilities.)

Does that even work?

Heeeey, then it turns spells into a variant of seals.

I love it.

I don't think that wording works though

As for a name, manifest

The great thing about Engrave though is that it DID suggest you were enscribing the spell onto a surface rather than just making it material. Could we capture a similar flavor here? Something more than just making the spell material, but doing something that has some deeper relevance to the world?

Maybe something returning to Parad's earlier idea about relics vs myths--relics are the material world, but enchantments are more like fables and stories?

Sudden Insight –
Instant (C)
Draw a card.
Manifest (, Exile this card from your hand: Put a 2/2 Incarnation enchantment creature token with this spell's colors onto the battlefield. When it dies, you may cast this spell without paying its mana cost. Manifest only as a sorcery.)

What do people think about this? I think it has better flavor than Engrave ever did.

What's wrong with including extra love for the least common card type we're supporting? We can design as many enchantments as we like, but if we print that many real artifacts the set is just colorless. They need the help.

The other thing is that spells seems to be solidly , while enchantments is currently . I doubt enchantments wants to splash random off colors just for a few enablers.

And engrave is hella flavorful!

Ok, that's a great point, but I still like where I was going with this. Just spitballing ideas now:

Beacon of Light –
Enchantment (R)
When Beacon of Light enters the battlefield or at the beginning of your upkeep, put a 1/1 white Spirit creature token with flying onto the battlefield.
Evoke

Beacon of Knowledge –
Enchantment (R)
When Beacon of Knowledge enters the battlefield or at the beginning of your upkeep, draw a card.
Evoke

I don't care to finish the cycle, but you understand where I'm going with this.

Yeah, that's what I love about it the whole mechanic. I thought of calling it "enseal" to get the idea across, but that's not how people actually use the word.
Manifest is a good name.

Good point. Although I'm a little unsure of whether we'll end up with more enchantments or artifacts in this set. It still fights for space with relics though. If this stays, then relics will need to be cut back; not necessarily cut out, but they'll only be needed for mass artifact generation.

Flavourfully enchantments work a lot better, but mechanically I see artifacts being a better fit. Determining enchantment colour also seems an obstacle. Even if we solve it, it'll probably add complexity we don't want.

OK, I've changed my mind about how we're going to do this. Hear me out.

The spell mechanic isn't finalized until a card featuring it wins a vote.

I don't want to lock us into engrave exactly how it is just because it squeaked out a victory against rebound. If someone designs a rebound card good enough to win the vote, that'll be the spell mechanic. But if a card featuring engrave or one of its variants wins, that will be the version we go with.

Sound cool?

I don't want people like Ulcaster to be submitting a Rebound card and have someone tell them "Nope, that's not what we're doing." That wasn't the point of this thread, I'm realizing. I want the cards to speak for themselves instead of us voting mechanically in the abstract.

So it's splice?

Parad, I think you may be sacrificing the big picture for the sake of the minutiae. The saying "kill your darlings" seems to apply here. Just because an individual card is good doesn't mean that the ability on that card is a good fit for the set as a whole, and some things are going to have to change in development anyway, unless you just want the set to go undeveloped. Expecting the ability to win on a first-card-past-the-post basis just seems more likely to result in a disjointed set than a unified one. I'm not really sure what the logic behind the decision is, to be honest.

OK, fair enough. New plan aborted.

Well... that was easy. o_o

The easiness of convincing me otherwise to something is inversely proportional to the amount of enthusiasm I have about the idea when I have it.