OP cannot into archives edition
>To make cards, download MSE for free from here
http://magicseteditor.sourceforge.net/
>Formatting Guide
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jn1J1Mj-EvxMxca8aSRBDj766rSN8oSQgLMOXs10BUM
>Mechanics doc (For the making of color pie appropriate cards)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgaKCOzyqM48dFdKRXpxTDRJelRGWVZabFhUU0RMcEE
>Q: Can there be a sixth color?
A: http://pastebin.com/kNAgwj7i
>Q: What's the difference between multicolor and hybrid?
A: http://pastebin.com/yBnGki1C
>Q: What is precedence?
A: http://pastebin.com/pGxMLwc7
>Art sources.
http://digital-art-gallery.com/
http://www.artstation.com/
http://drawcrowd.com/
http://fantasygallery.net/
http://grognard.booru.org/
http://fantasy-art-engine.tumblr.com/
>Stitch cards together with
http://www.photojoiner.net/
>/ccg/ sets (completed and in development)
http://pastebin.com/hsVAbnMj
>Seriously it's not hard
>>44259175
Put /ccg/ and /cct/ in the title.
SO
IS THERE ENOUGH DESIGN SPACE AVAILABLE TO MAKE REVERSE-OVERLOAD A THING?
>>44333860
I don't get it, why not just have it literally be overload and reverse the costs?
And yes, symmetrical effects have a lot of 'design space'.
>>44333978
I don't know what you hope to happen by showing this, they're pretty obviously too powerful for standard printing, but I have a feeling like you know that already, so I don't know what I'm supposed to comment on.
>>44333978
2stronk. The onslaught lands that did this with only one color were pretty good. What about having the cycle be one of each of its colors? It'd be a neat little way to say "cycle this if you already have the colors you want."
>>44335790
im not the guy who designed the card, but one problem with overload cards is that they nonbo with "cast without paying its mana cost" effects
whereas these cards are versatile enough to be single target value while remaining huge targets for free-cast effects
>>44336525
im not the guy who designed those lands but why are they too stronk?
they are better than the mono-colored cycling lands, but the ravnica bounce-lands were equally superior to the original Karoo
im not opposed to your change but do you really think the 1 mana cycling is too strong? the original cycling lands didnt dominate their meta by any means, they were just a fun and versatile addition to the cardpool
>>44333860
Was Innocent Blood not good enough Anon?
Currently working on a project with some buddies. What do you think of this card back?
>>44338559
Not bad, actually. Is the game gonna have a cartoony feel to it, like Munchkin? I hope so.
Samarecarm!
>>44338265
Needs to cost more unless you make it so that the given ability can be activated as an instant and not all the other abilities
>>44338287
Karametra could probably just cost 3 to cycle
Hey if this stays up for a bit I'll post the commons for my set.
Right so here is white commons. Yes I know the names are boring and there is no art. I think some of the enchantments that should have enchant creature don't so if you can point that out thanks but other than that rip into me. Also I am sorta okay with this set being a little more complex as its just a draft set for me and my friends. Thanks again.
>>44341777
also I don't explain it on cards but bluff basically lets you cast stuff as thought it had flash for the bluff cost and then you do effect.
>>44341806
I just realized the wording on Bluff should more or less be, If you played x for its Bluff cost.
>>44341806
>>44341849
I feel like I have way to much hexproof.
>>44341877
>>44341912
Last that I have done.CA02 should only have fire breathing not +1/+1. I'll be checking back since I see the threads dead.
>>44335790
You've got a point about "why not just make it overload and reverse the costs". The only case it would ever matter is with CMC-matters cards.
Ah well, back to the idea pot.
>>44341777
>>44341806
>>44341849
>>44341877
>>44341912
>>44341957
This is a lot of stuff to sift through and without any art I feel absolutely no drive to spare much more than a cursory glance.
>Valor
Boring sligh ability, barely noteworthy of a keyword.
>Threshold
Do you have anything in the set that plays with graveyard interaction? Threshold is kind of an awkward semi-retired mechanic in the first place.
>Splice onto Arcane.
Splice is nice, but Arcane is not. A lot of people have talked about Splice onto Instant or Splice onto Sorcery before, it just requires some modifications to the comprehensive rules. I don't like Arcane and many other people feel the same.
>Bluff
Is this an alternate cost? Spell Eater Mage is absolutely unplayable with its cost, unless it also has flash.
Gonna be honest, a lot of this stuff seems really unappealing anon, even as a first draft.
>>44342311
Understandable. Yes bluff is an alternative cost that does give it flash. As for splice basically a lot of things are going to get the arcane subtype but I didn't want anything but instants to have it at common.
>>44342362
Again, Arcane is already making me wary. I don't understand the flavor of Bluff, either. If Bluff is giving it flash AND an extra effect every time, that's kinda... ehhhh, I just really don't like it. Also, sorceries getting flash as an alternate cost is just weird. Those are just instants. There's 6 cards in the game that are sorceries that can be cast as though they had flash -- one is swift reckoning and it gets a pass, the other 5 are the invasion rare cycle.
>>44342435
Yeah probably a lot of those should have their rarity bumped up or effects taken.
>>44342464
I don't think it's as simple as "bump the rarity up because it's too complex". I think it's more "take a good look at this mechanic, decide if it's trying to do too much, and figure out how you can make it more versatile, intuitive, and fun to play with".
I can't find any art to fit this card.
>>44342610
Okay will do. Thank you
>>44342665
No problem.
>>44338245
>keywording mill
Ew. No.
>>44338572
Essentially. (It'll be run in Tabletop Simulator.)
I darkened the cards a bit so that they show up a little better in TTS.
Essentially, the game will play like a really watered down combo of YuGiOh, Magic, and Duel Masters.
Cards will be really lighthearted and moderately silly. Playtime in playtesting ends up being about fifteen-twenty minutes. Pretty fun, actually.
>>44341777
I'm gonna review your stuff, buddy. Partly because of your trips, and partly because I'm wasting time until my downloads finish.
>CW01
Vanilla 1/1s for 1 are pretty bad. Especially in white. You could make him a 1/2, or give him some conditional ability, and this would be much better
>CW02
Pretty much as above. Consider Stone Haven Medic This card is almost always worse.
>CW03
"shield", firstly. And this card's okay. Not great, but fine.
>CW04
The only real complaint I have is that the flavor text feels much more red.
>CW05
Fine.
>CW06
"Priest", and it needs to specify "beginning of YOUR upkeep"
I also think you could make Valor more interesting. Maybe something as simple as Valor X giving X counters. Also, from a fluff standpoint, hitting the other player isn't really brave. I'd assume that Valor was something to do with creature combat. Maybe Glory? Just a nit-pick.
>CW07
Acceptable. Name has a typo.
>CW08
Your formatting of the ability needs work it would be "Burial Master gets +0/+2 and has "T: Exile up to three target cards in a graveyard."
Also, HOLY SHIT THIS IS TOO EXPENSIVE. At MOST this is a 4 cost. Probably fine at 3.
>CW09
Human what? It needs a second creature type. You already have scouts, why not that one?
Beyond that, he feels...wrong. Maybe 1 more toughness, or make him 2WW and give him First Strike, but right now, he's just off.
>CW10
Champion. And he's a little underpowered. I would make him Valor 2, and then he'd be interesting. As it stands, between his name and cost, I'm unimpressed.
>CW11
This card needs a fair bit of tweaking. First, the name isn't great, as you acknowledge. Second, that is NOT a common cost. Commons do not need 4 mana symbols. On the other hand, it's a fair cost. Maybe cheat, and say "Spend only white mana to pay for ~"
He's probably just too much for the common bracket.
>CW12
I don't like this one. He's big and carries an O-Ring at common. I think he may just need a cost shift to work. 3WW may be fine.
(cont)
>>44344870
>CW13
As the other guy notes, Splice onto Arcane is a hard sell. It'll be even harder with only 2 common Arcanes in color. Think about other things you could splice.
Otherwise, this is fine.
>CW14
I think this could cost 1W. It could probably cost 1W and give an extra benefit like first strike or haste and still be fine.
>CW15
This needs a name change, or a tweak. "Chants" are not instant speed. I also don't super like the idea of white having instant exile at common. Maybe if it were a sorcery.
>CW16
Fine, though the flavor text could use some work. Also, this card made me realize that you have very little in the way of type differentiation in this set. So far, everything's a human, with a single wall, bird and angel. Try switching up a couple.
>CW17
"Endurance" and "until"
Also, what the hell is this card? It gives your creatures a huge surge in toughness as a sorcery. Your creatures already have solid toughness. I'd recommend making it an instant, and dropping it to +1/+3.
>CW18
"Eternal"
This name doesn't match this card. There's nothing impressively eternal about it.
So that's white. Onto Blue!
>CB01
Remember when I said "vanilla 1/1s for 1 are bad"? That is still accurate.
>CB02
"Crystal". and it's "T: Scry 2" And this card is...pretty good. I don't know if it's too good, but it's pretty damn good.
>CB03
"Trout"
And hideously overcosted. a 1U would be unimpressive. Maybe make him 1/2 for 1U
>CU04
This is the single most impressive card you've posted so far. It's got a neat mechanic with a solid cost.
>CU05
Bluff should be on a different line than the "if you paid the bluff cost,"
He should also have something to make him palatable without the bluff cost.
>CU06
Some people insist Serpents must be 5/5 or larger. I only insist you put a comma after hand, and an apostrophe in "opponent's"
(you should also specify 'any' opponent, to make it clear in multiplayer games)
(cont)
>>44345209
>CU07
This feels a little light, but I honestly can't figure out how. So I guess it's fine.
>CU08
Now this is podracing! Here's a card I would actually like to pull.
>CU09
This is either overcosted, or needs reminder text/ a type change. If it's supposed to be "until end of turn", this is way too much. If it's permanent, it needs to remind players of that.
I would actually like this as "Enchantment - Arcane Aura".
>CU10
"until", but otherwise fine. a slightly better version of Jump.
>CU11
I feel like it could be cheaper, but I'm fine with it. No need to push counterspells.
>CU12
This effect costs U. Either make it a cantrip as well, or add something.
>CU13
"Confounding"
Also, I think it's fine, but notably because it requires a number of targets equal to your hand to cast.
>CU14
Tolerable. I'd add something.
>CU15
I think you meant "hydro".
Secondly, this card notes a problem with your bluff usage so far: there's no incentive to NOT bluff it. This card is junk without the bluff option. Why not make at least one where the non-bluff is stronger than the Bluff?
>CU16
I think it could drop at least 1 in cost.
>CU17
"enslaved", otherwise fine.
>CU18
"Thoughts". Also, a little sad it doesn't count your hand, but it's fine.
My internet is starting to act up, so I'm going to grab some food, and maybe hit the rest when I get back.
I also second a point >>44344870 made about CW12. Not only is it way too bomby for common, it's also got the old formatting of two different triggered abilities making it way too abusable with instant-speed flicker effects.
Also, dear god, you just don't know how to cost blue cards, do you? Most of these are either way overcosted or extremely abusable
>>44341806
>>44345424
>This feels a little light, but I honestly can't figure out how. So I guess it's fine.
That's because it's already a card.
>>44345690
I suppose it's the lack of flavor that makes it unimpressive in his set.
Or the fact that Kamigawa in general was fairly weak,
>>44344870
>>44345209
>>44345424
Popped back because I remembered I had an errand, and had a thought while making lunch. Scanning the rest of your commons, you almost avoid what I was going to complain about:
Too much of your set is playing different games.
When I read through your Blue and White commons, it was like two separate sets. One with a "Counters matter" theme, and another with a "Hand size matters" theme. The cards aren't connected, until black shows up.
Black is where your set starts to make sense. It's where Bluff cards are varied enough to be interesting, it's playing the hand-size game, it's throwing a lot of minus effects, so the counters became relevant. AND it added its own mechanics. The only game it's NOT playing is threshold (and that's pretty weird for black)
I think you could trim down some of the mechanics you're working with, and see about spreading them out. Every color could have Valor cards, because every color likes hitting the other player. Every color could have hand size cards, because they all have hands to work with (maybe Red likes small hand sizes). It's especially glaring when you have so many vanilla and french vanilla cards just sitting around, not adding to the conversation.
For instance, you could give Big Cat "Threshold: Big Cat gets +X/+X where X is the number of cards in your hand minus 3"
Swap Ichor Skeleton and Multi-Limbed Skeleton's names, and have the new one have Valor and "Remove a +1/+1 counter from MultiLimbed Skeleton: Regenerate Multilimbed Skeleton."
You openly said you weren't afraid of complexity. So make your set less simple.
I'll come back for a more detailed look through your other commons, but that's my overbearing note: Let them play together. As is, it looks like you made all your white commons, then the blue, then realized you had mechanics to play with.
Here's a generic template card for an ability that was bouncing around in my head. I got the idea after thinking of a way to do Bravely Default style battle mechanics in a card game, where you can take your turns in advance at the cost of skipping them later, like getting a foward loan on turns or something... so I thought "What if in this game, cards didn't untap per se but just rotated 90° each time and you could tap up to 270°?" or something like that. Either way, this is what I've come up with for now. Looking for feedback, criticism and thoughts. You know, the usual shit.
>>44346002
Hey thanks man. Sorry I'm completely fucking illiterate
>>44344520
Lol! This looks like shit.
Who wants to play a childish looking card game?
>>44346339
gr8 b8 m8 i give 8/8
>>44342435
>1 mana tutor with no card disadvantage and upside for a type of card which is practically every modern/legacy/pauper deck.
I'm all for tutors and a 1 cmc transmute could handle being only 2 mana for the effect but 1 mana is more questionable and adding madness to that seems insane.
>>44348707
>>44348532
Legendary creatures?
postan in ded thread
>>44346289
No worries.
NOW, THE BLACKS. CARDS. BLACK CARDS. THAT GOT WEIRD.
As I said, this is where I actually start feeling like these cards are a set, with black caring about things Blue cared about. Already a step up.
>CB01
My note about vanilla 1/1s will never go away. Skip.
>CB02
There's nothing particularly wrong with this card. It's a spiritual successor to Highborn Ghoul.
>CB03
I alluded to it before, but the word is "paid". This card's Bluff is a touch overboard, and the creature deserves something for being a 1/2 for 3.
>CB04
Here's that connection. And it's pretty sweet. 3/2 for 4 is a little much, but with a potential single mana regen, it's impressive. You might be able to push it to 4/2.
>CB05
Nothing wrong here in my mind. I've always felt vampires should dabble more in lifelink. The pure black cost is a little much, but it fits in a weird way.
>CB06
I just now realized you've been spelling "Ichor" wrong, unless that's a faction name. BUt otherwise, this card excited me. Finally something where the bluff cost was less, and came with a downside! As a note, however, 3/3 for 5 isn't good, so you may want an extra keyword. Maybe make "Ichor" a continuing theme meaning "this card has Menace".
Also, the ability should read "If Ichor Knight's Bluff cost was paid, it enters the battlefield tapped, and does not untap during your next untap step." You don't "Play" costs, nor do you untap during upkeep.
>CB07
This card is the first card that I really didn't like in the black camp, for a variety of reasons: First, I remembered your formatting for keywords is a little off (only capitalize the first keyword, and put commas between them). Second, the power-toughness ratio is off. I know Rotting Fensnake did the same one, but it's too weird for a Vampire, and especially a cleric. It screams "Lightning Ball" to me. It doesn't scream "triple black" to me. I think I'd bump it to a 3/2 lifelink for 2BB, with "Threshold: ~ gets +2/+0 and menace. "
(cont)
>>44350734
>CB08
I like this card. I like how it's a secret tech against the walls of white. I like the use of its bluff cost. I think it's too powerful with the bluff cost, but could be wrong.
>CB09
I saved a comment on CB08 for here: Creatures have to have "When this enters the battlefield, X" instead of just having targeted abilities. This is due to rules about targeting and spell types.
Beyond that, this could afford to drop 1 mana, I believe.
>CB10
Colon, not comma here. Other than that, fine.
>CB11.
I really like this one.
>CB12
Fine
>CB13
Fine.
>CB14
This one has two problems: first, fear has been mostly phased out as a keyword, and second, that there's very little reason to play this as an instant. Menace and Fear are both attack-centric keywords. I get its use as a combat trick in the declare attackers phase, but that's a fairly narrow niche, and 5 mana is too much to pay for it. I'd consider having the bluff add deathtouch, and dropping the cost of the entire card by 1 or 2.
Also, "visage".
>CB15
This card doesn't make a ton of sense, except as a bluff-repeater. It's sorcery, so it's not going to save your creatures from effects, and it returns to your hand from play which isn't a very black effect. I think it'd make more sense returning a creature card from your graveyard to your hand, and costing 1 less.
>CB16
I like how most of your hand affecting cards use thoughts. "Target player". And...whew. This is an efficient discard spell. I don't think it's too much, since they pick, but you may want to playtest it.
>CB17
This is fine, though the name is awkward.
>CB18
"poison". Other than that, fine.
I'm a little burnt out, so I'll wait to handle the next 3 batches.
>>44350597
Should have devoid.
>>44346143
This is a swank card. Nice flavor justification for blue Raid.
>>44351234
>Should have devoid
FUCK. I meant it to have that, given the card frame and I thought I put it on there.
>>44351294
The frame's what made me assume it needed it.
Heh. Nothing like forgetting an important keyword to fuck a card right up.
>>44351327
Just imagine it does have devoid then. What do you think?
>>44345086
Fractured Unity feels more like a punishment than anything else.
>>44344361
Nigga literally everyone I know uses "mill X" with no problems.
Just started up a custom set based around red mercenary elementals, black/green cares about permanents faction and a white/blue cares about noncreature spells faction. Here's an example of a blue/white faction common highlighting the faction mechanic. Considering removing the ETB from Magecraft.
Not sure if I worded this properly, it's supposed to only prevent draws when you (or your opponent) has cards in the graveyard.
>>44352920
Stack manipulation is complicated and somewhat unintuitive, if you ask me. Why not just make it a sorcery instead?
Also, turning Brainstorm into a triple Regrowth seems a little crazy.
>>44352598
>around red mercenary elementals, black/green cares about permanents faction and a white/blue cares about noncreature spells faction
So what does red care about?
I also question the design of building a set around two linear synergies, I feel like a tribal set (which every linear set basically is) needs at least 5 or so tribes to be well designed.
Moreover if your set's tribe composes 2 colors then aren't you heavily incentivising that they play those two colors together? Effectively choosing what colors people play together is rarely good design (the original ravnica did it well but it encouraged all 10 combinations).
>>44353349
Stack manipulation is complicated and somewhat unintuitive, if you ask me. Why not just make it a sorcery instead?
My issue with the wording wasn't the stack manipulation (I don't think there are issues with that at least) it was combination of a replacement effect with 'if able'.
I want it to be an instant because I want to increase the amount of green cards which interact with non-permanents as I'm trying to make a block that encourages (among other things) combo and control, and having one of the colors having little interaction against a fair portion of the decks sounds fairly unfun.
>Also, turning Brainstorm into a triple Regrowth seems a little crazy.
Any format where brainstorm is an issue does not particurally want a mediocre 5 mana combo. There are signifigantly more broken things to do in the average pauper deck.
>>44352598
Pretty sure that wording is all sorts of wrong.
Try adding a dual type, like Sorcery Creature (see Theros "Bestow" mechanic for alternate cost templates on creatures).
Also use Magic Set Editor, not whatever shitty online tool you used.
>>44345086
Why not make it beginning of combat on your turn? For the WBR one.
Very few things actually reference specific steps other than beginning of end step. And mechanically, there's not much difference at all. A lot of cards already reference beginning of combat, but almost nothing references declare attackers.
And I don't get the point of the WUBRG one other than to synergize with the WBG one.
I don't see any red in the American one.
I don't see any black in the WBR one.
>>44341777
>white
>common, unconditional exile with no drawbacks
>happening ever
Literally what.
>>44354164
That has happened several times, what the fuck are you talking about?
For fuck's sake unmake is a common.
I could use some help getting this card to work on Magic 2014. I'm pretty new to the card creator and I can't wrap my head around how undying is coded or something. Can I ask anyone here to make this one card for me?
>>44351526
I think it's a neat little trick.
I like that if you abuse the Scions for it, you leave yourself open to a wash with something that deals 2 damage to all creatures or so.
>>44354488
Don't forget Angelic Edict and Iona's Judgement, two cards which imply that the custom one is a touch overcosted.
Welp, back to my endless toil
GREENS
>>44341877
>CG01
Still underpowered, despite the +1 toughness.
>CG02
This card is similarly unimpressive. Archers without reach upsets me.
>CG03
This card is the reason no one will play CG02. More power and a keyword for 1/2 a mana, and this card is still moderately underwhelming. It's acceptable, but barely.
>CG04
It's useless unless you have threshold. And its lack of protection means you will get to tap it maybe once before it dies. 5 mana is too much. Hell, just make it a 4/5. That's at least moderately acceptable for 5 mana, with the threshold being an awesome bonus.
>CG05
This is acceptable.
>CG06
Perfectly adequate.
>CG07
Nothing wrong with this other than the commas and capitals.
However, after that string of merely adequate cards, I'm wondering where the other mechanics are. No hand size matters, no bluff, just threshold, reach, and hexproof. This is what I'm talking about. I was EXCITED about some of the Black commons. These are barely mediocre. They're certainly tepid.
>CG08
Gah! Alright, this guy isn't tepid. But I don't think he's priced right either. Little too much bang for your buck. 4/3 would be fine, I think.
>CG09
Hey, a wall! That's something that looks like a callback to the walls of the White faction.
And it...scrys. Which is a mostly blue mechanic.
,,,And it uses the Name Mirror Leaf, which, in every other usage marks a Hexproof card, but this isn't hexproof.
I understand your concern about hexproof creatures. But if you start a trend, don't ignore it. I'd say make this a 1/5 Defender Hexproof for 4, with "Threshold - ~ gains "T: Scry 2" "
(cont)
>>44355417
wait, does Magic 2014 have a custom card creator?
I'd help, but this is news to me.
Logically, the coding should look like
If [Card dies], check card for [+1/+1] counter.
If [counter] found, [card dies]
if [Counter] not found, add [+1/+1] counter instead.
With whatever language the system uses.
>>44355430
>CG10
Adequate, if weird. 5/5 is typically out of non-legendary humanoid range.
>CG11
A neat pay off for the "mirror leaf" cycle, if a touch unimpressive
>CG12
Underpowered, and weird for being the only Arcane card in Green. I'd have it give a counter.
You know, thinking about it, making all the mirror leaf cards Arcane would be interesting.
>CG13
Fine, though direct life gain in Green is a touch weird, and 2 mana for gain 2 life is trash.
>CG14
This could afford to be arcane, and/or give +1/+1 as well.
>CG15
I...Don't understand what this card does. If it bounces the forest from your battlefield, it's trash. if it searches your library for a Forest and puts THAT in your hand, that's not as bad.
>CG16
Overpriced and unimpressive.
>CG17
I guess it's fine. It compares unfavorably to Alpha Authority, but that's an uncommon.
>CG18
Workable, but a baseline bonus would be nice.
>>44355417
Undying doesn't need to be capitalized. If you are trying to get the reminder text, just right click undying and click "add reminder text"
>>44355644
It doesn't have a card creator. I'm using that MSE card maker thing at the top of the thread. I want to make this one card work when I mod it in to magic 2014.
>>44355652
The thing is, the MSE creator doesn't have Undying in its keywords section so I'm getting the vibe that I have to code it in to work or something. Or is MSE not the right card creator to use for videogame mods?
>>44355752
You can add keywords to MSE, undying doesn't take much as its reminder text is always the same.
>>44355752
If you want any functionality other than the image, MSE isn't what you want.
>>44355752
Yeah, you can add it but it should have Undying in there; it's certainly old enough of a keyword. I have it in my version and I am running an older one, 2.0.0. But, if not for some reason, you can just add it under the proper tab. If you can't figure it out, I'll do my best to type out instructions for you.
>>44355752
>>44355810
I looked back at the modding pages for Magic 2014 and found out MSE indeed isn't what I was looking for. Guess I assumed this was one of the card makers for the video games.
>>44355863
Most of us don't bother with coding into an engine and just use something like cockatrice or tabletop simulator
>>44355863
Ohhh... I see what you wanted now. Yeah what >>44355973 said.
>>44350597
No reason for the +1 toughness in my mind, he counts himself so his toughness is always at least 1
>>44354122
>I don't see any (insert color) in your multicolor card
This meme is stupid and displays an ignorance of the history of multicolored cards, sometimes the color is only in the casting cost, but it adds a flavor dimension to the card
Seriously 90% of all multicolor cards ever made, especially legendary creatures, have only vague connections to their colors, they don't need to have a distinct mechanic for each of their colors
>>44356699
Color combinations do have some defined features though, and failing to consider them when doing multicolored cards is going to make the cards come off as rough or unfitting. Typically it's only when you get to 4 colors that you need to basically ignore one of the colors, or at the very least just don't violate what it could theoretically do when combined with the other colors, and then it just becomes "making the card harder to cast", with some flavor thrown in.
>90% of all multicolor cards only have vague connections to their colors
Asspull is 100% asspull. Sets like Alara and Lorywn, where this is often true, are also considered mistakes by WotC. So... no, you're patently wrong.
>>44356747
>alara is considered a mistake by wotc
Speaking of asspulling
You're the one who is patently wrong. For every triicolored card you show me that has 3 different mechanics, 1 for each color, I'll show you 8 that are mostly 1 color mechanically, but are 3 flavorwise
>>44356747
Holy fuck the amount of wrong in this post
Why is ccg so fucking retarded? Like how did you all become so misinformed, but also so arrogant and sure of your regarded opinions!?
>>44356773
>>44356784
From the mouth of the man.
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/77099833798/what-was-you-biggest-mistake-since-shards-of
Since he didn't deny that Shards was a mistake, well, I think you can extrapolate what that means for yourself.
It's okay to be wrong, know-it-all-Anons. It's really okay.
>>44356773
Oh, and just for you: that is not what I said. I said
>Color combinations do have some defined features though
But it was inconvenient for you to consider it so you just blew it off. So fuck you, kindly. RW is not always the same as R and W, numbnuts.
>>44356699
There is literally nothing red in your RWU card. Not a single thing other than the casting cost.
It doesn't tie into the flavor if there is literally no flavor.
Stop trying to justify your shitty card design. You're just shitty.
>>44356699
>>44356938
After re-reading your post, I realized you're completely misinterpreting my post. Because you're retarded.
I never said you needed to have three distinct mechanics for each of your three colors.
I said "this card is not red. It doesn't do a goddamn thing that is anywhere near red's color philosophy, so stop shoehorning it in there."
>>44355430
Angelic Edict and Iona's Judgement are both sorceries.
>>44353386
Yeah, that's a good point. Decided to make an ally colour set instead. Just need to work on the other colour combinations flavour and mechanics now. My plan is to push ally colour, but allow mono or more than two colour decks.
>>44354025
Thanks for the criticism. This is probably my tenth version of Spellshift trying to get the wording right, had a feeling it was still wrong. Also, I'm not sure what sort of stupid mistakes I'm making to make it appear like I'm using an online tool, but I'm definitely using MSE.
>>44357471
You're using the wrong fonts for the m15 template which is why it looks weird. Also keep in mind that you can't have it be a sorcery while its on the battlefield which makes double typing ticky, bestow can get away with it as enchantments are permanents.
>>44348468
>Adding madness seems insane
I mean it's a 0/3. I don't know what you're expecting. I was just fucking around with planar chaos-esque effects on cards that seem to synergize with themselves.
>>44356831
You can't be serious? Your link must be broken because the one I got doesn't say a damn thing about alara
>>44356938
It's not my card you fucking faggot
You guys are both beyond retarded, all it takes is a cursory look through the multicolored cards on gatherer to know that I'm right, most multicolored cards are not mechanically different from single color cards
>>44356972
They're also 4W and target creatures OR enchantments, while this is 3WW and targets only creatures. The loss of a group of potential targets AND the conversion of one of the mana is worth a tiny bit more than the sorcery-to-instant bump. Only slightly, which is why I said "a touch". I wouldn't even recommend lowering the cost, as I'd prefer common removal to be 1/2 a mana over rather than 1/2 a mana under.
Sigh. Now that I'm awake, I guess I'll handle the red cards and artifacts.
>CR01
See every other 01 response.
>CR02
Raging Goblin isn't a great card, but I do like that you gave Red two 1-drops.
>CR03
Honestly feels a touch overpriced. I think it would work as a 2 drop with "This creature cannot block alone." or "~ must attack each turn if able." But then again, I don't encounter Menace all that much. If we're really concerned, I'd make it a 2/1 for 1R with must attack and menace.
>CR04
You forgot the n in the card name. Other than that, looks fine.
>CR05
This one is interesting as well as being acceptable.
>CR06
I'd prefer it at a 3/2, or maybe even a 4/2. 4 Mana is a lot to pay for 1 toughness and no evasion.
>CR07
Fine, though big for a goblin.
>CR08
"Herring". And I like this one. A bit of direct color hate is fine in my book.
>CR09
Fine, though I'd say make it cost 4RR. And you gave so many cards firebreathing, and not the dragon?
>CR10
"Discard two cards, then draw three cards, then discard a card." I like it, it feels like the player is thinking rapidly, and while not the best draw engine, is passable.
>CR11
Fine.
(cont)
>>44360645
>What was your biggest mistake SINCE shards of alara?
It's in the question itself, with the implication being that since he doesn't argue it, he accepts that. I also assume the fan asked the question that way because of previous statements made.
Irritatingly, while I can honestly remember wizards talking about how they messed up multicolor in Alara in the run-up to Tarkir, I can't find any links about it.
Waffling between 1 or 2 color weight for the casting cost. At 2, I feel like I can play with non-uniform P/T.
>>44360848
>CR12
"Ripping". And I just noticed: Both burst bolt and this card need to say "~ deals X damage..." You can't have damage without a source. Don't worry about it messing with splice, splice's rules already fix that.
The preferred wording is "each creature".
Other than those points, seems fine.
>CR13
"Strength".
And I'm going to take a minor step away from a policy I've been continually endorsing. I think this works better as +3/+1 than +3/+2. It's a touch too close to Giant growth. On the other hand, Titan's Strength says +3/+1 needs another benefit. Shrug.
>CR14
"inspiration"
And THIS is a nice draw engine for red. Perhaps too good, but honestly, red's need for card draw makes me want to see it hit print.
>CR15
Fine. Solid removal option.
>CR16
Fine. Could probably be a cantrip and it wouldn't provoke a response.
>CR17
"Burning thoughts deals 1 damage"
I like this as well, but I think it could be 1 less, since it also hits your creatures when you draw.
>CR18
Way too expensive. This is a 2 cost card, tops.
I'll get to the artifacts in a minute.
>>44360680
First off, I'm certain you're wrong. Multicolor has a series of explanations for how it functions differently than mono-color cards. I'm willing to bet that, before early 2000s, the multicolor cards were less likely to perfectly follow these rules, but let's look at a GOOD example of a multicolor card, from the same post that started this whole argument. >>44345086
Nature's culling is a GOOD multicolor card. It has three colors to it, and you can see all of them.
First, it boosts creatures you control conditionally based on other creatures you control. Both Green and White do that.
It cares when your creatures die, something Black and Green do, and uses those deaths to recycle other cards. White, Black, and Green are all known to recycle cards from their graveyard.
You can print this at 3 because the colors allow you to be more efficient, like watchwolf.
>>44361069
Ink-treader should be a 1/3. then the cycle is combined p/t of 4. I like them as is, but you could probably drop the colorless mana.
>>44361073
>continuing the multicolored discussion
Let's look at Bellic Management for comparison.
If you DIDN'T ATTACK (huge anti-red quality), detain two permanents (UW ability)
During combat, (red perks his ear up, but White has space here as well) you may play sorceries (This is the only part of this card red likes. And EVERY color likes it.) and enchantments (This is a U/W thing) as though they had flash.
So out of that card, it has an initial point that red hates, and a single point that red likes. It counters out its own red-ness. Honestly, I think it would work better if it played a swap
"If you didn't attack, detain" and "If you did attack, put tokens onto the battlefield." Or, even better, reverse the benefits.
"At the end of each of your turns, if you attacked with any creatures, detain two nonland permanents. If you did not, put 2 1/1 blue and white Bird creature tokens with flying into play."
This way, if you attack (red), you get to detain (UW), building momentum (RW). If you didn't (UW) you get tokens (RWU) to defend or potentially attack next turn.
>>44341957
Welp, guess it's time to finish this.
>CA01
Dull, but acceptable.
>CA02
"Prowess". This one is weird, because Prowess isn't an evergreen mechanic, and this is the first appearance of it in the set. I'd just write out Prowess's text, and leave it.
>CA03
This is a 6 cost.
>CA04
EIther "Valor's" or "Valorous".
It can also pretty safely be a 2 drop.
Note on the flavor text: "yet born" means "already born". So either you mean this sword has a hero it's meant for, or you meant "Not yet born."
>CA05
Wizards has essentially phased out shroud. Ignoring that, I like it.
>CA06
Colon after the first creature. "Altar". Other than that, fine, I suppose. Solid for a late game finisher. I think it could be 4.
>CA07
Cards that do nothing without threshold make me sad. Also, I assume the intent is to return them from your graveyard to your hand, right now it can only bounce creatures on the field. Further, it's too cheap.
>CA08
14 mana for 7 life is a bad trade. One X should be fine, and even then it's a weak card.
>CA09
This is too cheap. Hell, I'd say this can't be a common. This shits on so many things it's insane. Consider how it hurts Black's Lifelink, red's direct damage. Consider that Urza's Armor only protected you, and was a rare for 6.
"Creatures you control get +0/+1" would be better.
>CA10
This one is closer to right. 4 mana to draw two? 10 mana for 5? These are alright trades. It might be too good for common, but leave it until you test.
>CA11
Typo in the Name
Falls into a similar pit to CA02. NOTHING in the set before this has given a shit about spell color. What does this add? It's alright card, it just doesn't belong in this set.
I gotta run and make some stuff for christmas dinner, so let me quickly wrap up:
>Lands
The fact that these are commons that tap for a mana, have an effect, and don't enter tapped makes them all too strong. These favorably compare to basics in most situations. That's a problem.
(cont)
>>44363511
>Empty field
Useless because you can only play lands on your turn.
>Flood River
Has a use for some decks, but not an effect that the set has cared about.
>Mana Bog
Presumably meant to target a card in a graveyard, otherwise doesn't work because you can't play lands as instants or during other players' turns.
>Lava Pits
Fine other than general land note.
>Canopy
As Lava Pits.
BOOM.
>>44363511
Prowess is an evergreen mechanic going forward, much like scry is.
How about a big pile of black commons?
>>44363880
Oh, good to know.
Bit of a weird choice, but okay.
>>44364899
It gives blue and red more combat options other than evasion
>>44365475
See Karametra's Acolyte
...add an amount of [R] to your mana pool equal to...
dead thread
>>44367496
It's christmas, not that surprising that no one's around.
>>44367539
It isn't Christmas yet here. Also, I work on Christmas, so I didn't consider that.
Never done this before, but found this thread while I was bored so I made this card.
>>44368115
The creature mode on the first choice is narrow to the point of pointlessness, as the second mode will almost always be superior for hitting creatures.
>>44368288
I set it up that way so that you could activate a "when this creature takes damage" effect on something with 3 toughness without killing it, which I think could have some interesting applications.I'm real rusty on my Magic though so who knows.
>>44368343
Yeah, that's why I specified that it was narrow, but not completely pointless. I figured that you had something like that in mind.
>>44336620
If your dual land is good enough that you'll play it almost 100% of the time in any deck that uses either (not both) of its colors, then it's probably too strong
>>44367496
way too blue
>>44370152
What exactly is too blue about that?
Dunno if this should be 3 or 4 mana.
>>44339702
Not really; compare Cultivate, which is roughly the same effect at sorcery speed for 3 mana. Ramping *and* cantripping *and* it's instant-speed and uncounterable *and* it's the second mode of a spell with another powerful mode means it should probably cost more than 3.
>>44341777
>>44341806
>>44341823
>>44341849
>>44341877
>>44341912
>>44341957
You seem to have a serious problem with templating, Anon. You're also inconsistent with your names (W'idts and W'itds), and your spelling leaving much to desire.
Some words on your templating:
Threshold is an ability word. That is, it has no actual rules meaning. Look up the oracle text of any card with threshold, and you'll see. Also, for ability words and the like, Magic *always* uses an em-dash, that is, —. For example, CW03 should read "Threshold(in italics)—CW03 has +0/+1 and vigilance as long as seven or more cards are in your graveyard."
Valor's reminder text should use "whenever". The action is expected to occur more than once.
Small Mercy, for example, doesn't specify who gains the life; it should say "You gain 2 life."
"Until", not "in till".
Costs are always followed by a colon. CU02, for example, should read "[T]: Scry 2", and Mana Bog, for example, should read "[T]: Add [B] to your mana pool." You did it right on CG06.
Keywords and additional rules text go in separate paragraphs. CU05 should have "Bluff [3][U][U]" and "If you..." on two separate lines.
You probably mean for effects like CU09 to be until end of turn.
Auras like CB18 should read "Enchant [permanent type]".
You probably want to have the player search his or her library for a forest for CG15.
If a creature has multiple keywords without reminder text, (e.g. CB07), they're separated by a comma. Keywords with reminder text (CR04) should go on separate lines.
Damage always needs a source. E.g., CR11 should read "CR11 deals 2 damage to target creature or player." Also, amounts of damage are always written as numbers, not as words. I.e., CR12 should read "CR12 deals 1 damage to each creature."
Remember to spell all your words correctly and to be consistent. Whenever you make a card, think of whether you've actually ever seen an actual Magic card use the exact same wording you're using.
>>44344520
The card back looks neat, but why did you nameyour CCG after a famous composer/a keyboard layout?
>>44360142
"Bull" instead of "Ox" would make more flavor sense IMO; oxen are slow and tough
Merry Christmas, /cct/. And here's to the new year too.
Moved it from white to Azorius and changed it from voting on the target to voting on whether to bounce or arrest.
It's almost certainly too wordy, but I really don't know how to cut it down.So this set has its first gold card now.
>>44372222
I'm ordinarily not a huge fan of 1-drop 1/1s, but I fuck with this. She only survives via combat tricks or some other external force, which gives double meaning to her flavor text. Nice idea.
>>44372325
I'm sure you know the issues with the font. As far as I can tell with wording, it should be a "when ~ enters the battlefield" trigger, not a cast trigger, but I guess it could be either? Other than that seems fine. I think with the right font it wouldn't look so verbose, or at least read better.
>>44372346
Thanks, it's one of my favorite cards from that set. I just need to work on artist credits and I think it'll be ready for playtest... it's only been six months in the works or so, no biggie, right? The irony is I've been working on other things off and on but nothing is sticking... so I might end up doing the next set in that block. What can I say, savage settings call to me.
>>44372362
As far as I could find on Gatherer, there are no extant Will of the Council enchantments, so I wasn't certain on how to word the trigger. You're right, though, ETB makes more sense because it would come after any potential counters/attaching it to the creature. I'll change that.
Sup guys. Lately I've been obsessing over the four-color problem again. I'm trying to move away from creatures to hopefully find some unexplored design space. I came up with two similar approaches for a four-colored instant or sorcery. This is the split card version...
>>44372940
And here's a similar effect done with Flashback. Mana cost is an approximation of course. I'm not sure what these cards would represent in flavor.
>>44372955
lowercase trample, haste, flying, and lifelink.
>>44346246
I'm not 100% sure I understand your mechanic, Anon, so apologies if I'm less than totally helpful.
Firstly if you aren't ware, there already was a mechanic that involves tapping/untapping multiple "degrees," that got cut from future sight. I think your approach is different but you should still be aware of this. http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Double-tap
From the templating on your card, it looks like you pay mana (and don't tap the card) to get some effect, and then the card doesn't untap. But... you didn't have to tap it to activate it, so what purpose does the "doesn't untap" part serve?
>>44372940
For 1 black mana at common you can get Cruel Feeding that gives +1/+0 and lifelink with an upside(Strive). 2 mana for each side is more than enough.
>>44350597
I like an eldrazi with P/T equal to the number of spawn you control. Affinity for some you can sac for mana seems wrong somehow. Also,
>>44356654
is correct.
>>44352198
I feel like Tiamat should be a lot bigger than a 5/5, but the gods on Theros were modest sized creatures so who knows. Also, I don't understand the flavor for the creatures that become dragons also becoming indestructible.
>>44355417
Are you running windows 98? Also, I used that exact same art as a recurring NPC in one of my longer running tabletop campaigns. YOU BITCH OF A NECROMANCER STOP GETTING OTHER PEOPLE KILLED!
>>44360248
Should have the Illusion subtype. First Strike is also not normally seen in blue/red and you almost exclusively see it on soldiers/warriors/barbarians/berzerkers etc, not on Elementals. It's a novel card though!
>>44360285
I'd have this enter the battlefield tapped or cost a bunch more.
>>44360338
You might need to make it cost more to balance it, but I would have it attach any number of equipment on the battlefield to it, regardless of controller. Compare it to Vulshock Battlemaster, for example.
>>44360358
I have no idea if this card is broken or not but it feels like a neat way to re-purpose a Storm-like mechanic in a less runaway cascadey way that breaks everything.
>>44370244
Anything with the potential to allow a bunch of extra card draw without paying mana for it needs to cost more. My gut says it should cost 4, or possibly cost more and make something happen when it's sacrificed.
>>44372222
This is an awesome name.
>>44373036
>Activate this ability only once each turn and ONLY IF ~ IS TAPPED.
While the overtap ability itself doesn't tap it, it does need to BE tapped to activate it. Also, unlike the unused double-tap mechanic, it's not just limited to using a tap ability twice. You could attack with said creature as well.
>>44332021
When was the last time the graphic in the OP was updated? It feels slightly dated. It also lists Menace as primary in Black, when it should be primary in Red. Does anyone object to me updating it?
there are some good custom extort cards? want to make some aditions to an existing extort deck but dont have the time to make up ideas
>>44374829
No one?
>>44374120
It IS primary in black. It replaces intimidate.
>>44376380
Yo, how are you getting the new colorless symbol? Do I need to update MSE?
>>44376415
>Yo, how are you getting the new colorless symbol
http://magicseteditor.sourceforge.net/node/10949
>>44364045
>vanishing
Why bother?
>>44378988
Interesting. And pretty too.
>>44375470
It's because Menace, before it was keyworded, was primary Red. I can't wait for Wizards to start making more Black Menace cards so people stop bitching about it so much.
>>44373321
The idea of Tiamat's ability was to make other creatures copies of her. But because she's legendary, that didn't work out so well. I think I'll take off the Indestuctible from the ability, and give her a P/T boost. Not even remotely familiar with the character to be honest, just saw the art and thought of MTG.
>>44341777 >>44342311
>Splice is nice, but Arcane is not.
This.
And Arcane was nixed for Tribal.
>>44374120
>this guy again
Here's your sign.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/evergreen-eggs-ham-2015-06-08
>>44381420
It still is primary red.
>>44381484
>That username
lol
>>44381498
>http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/evergreen-eggs-ham-2015-06-08
For something primary black they really aren't doing a very good job of showing it
Like at all
>>44381502
>>44381516
This is exactly why I said
>I can't wait for Wizards to start making more Black Menace cards so people stop bitching about it so much.
>>44381536
But what if they don't? To me it seems like wizards is having second thoughts about menace being primary black
>>44381562
>But what if they don't?
Then in about 3 or 4 years, you'll see me agreeing with you.
>To me it seems like wizards is having second thoughts about menace being primary black
Well, let's see what happens in 3 or 4 years.
>>44381634
The time being though it's definitely more red than black
>>44381662
>The time being
It was literally just keyworded. Give them time to print some cards, jesus.
>>44381696
I can't even tell what this is supposed to do.
>>44381683
I think Wild Blast needs to have different wording because spells need legal targets before you can cast them. Could be wrong though. Also, the kicker effect doesn't feel Black at all.
>>44381797
The intention was:
while on the stack -> pitch any number of mountains, then draw a card and gain (R)(R) for each one
after resolving -> each draw mills you 20 cards first (w/out benefiting graveyard huggers)
I was aware that my wording was shitty, but I hadn't realized it was illegible.
>>44381797
>>44381905
I tried rewording it, but it lost a little bit of functionality.
>>44381905
Try
>As long as ~ is on the stack, Mountain cards in your hand have "Discard this card: Draw a card and add RR to your mana pool."
Or perhaps.
>As an additional cost to cast ~, you may discard any number of Mountain cards. Draw a card and add RR to your mana pool for each card discarded this way.
>>44382000
Neither trigger cycling based triggered abilities (Invigorating Boon, Lightning Rift, etc) and the second doesn't let you discard mountains you drew off of it.
>>44382000
How's this?
>>44382470
The main problem you have is that Cycling wasn't built for additional effects. That's why cards with effects that trigger on Cycling have an entire extra ability dedicated to just that.
>>44382470
>>44382531
Oh wait. Let's just combine Street Wraith and Braid of Fire. They're kinda odd, but I think this should work.
>Mountain cards in your hand have "Cycling—Add RR to your mana pool."
Which turns adding RR into a cost for Cycling.
>>44382531
>>44382803
Oh my fuck. I fucking know that Cycling interacts with shit. But cards with Cycling always need an extra ability besides Cycling in order to trigger off Cycling.
>>44382573
I like it.
>>44378988 Extra Helping should cost (W)(R), costs go in WUBRG order.
And I don't have the deepest understanding of Fuse, but can I copy Extra Hurting with Extra Helping?
(effectively getting two copies with deathtouch instead of a copy with lifelink and a copy with deathtouch)
>>44383952
>Extra Helping should cost (W)(R), costs go in WUBRG order.
Wrong. When it comes to two colors, you choose the order that skips the fewest colors. For White and Red, RW skips only Green, whereas WR skips Blue and Black. It should also be noted that MSE automatically orders the colors for you according to what Wizards has already done.
>>44384060
>When it comes to two colors, you choose the order that skips the fewest colors.
Huh... learn something every day.
How does it work with 3 or 4 colors?
>>44383952
A fused spell is still just a single spell (and spells can't target themselves).
>>44384092
With 3, it generally begins with the enemy color, skips a color, then goes to the ally colors. However, this was changed during the Khans of Tarkir set, where one of the ally colors came first, due to that set having the 3-color factions focus on one of the ally color instead of the enemy color, which is normally the focus. (For example: Lightning Angel is ordered RWU, but Jeskai Charm is ordered URW; Jeskai focused on Blue), 4-color is typically a non-issue, due to how rare those cards are. Pictured: The only 4-color cards in all of Magic.
>>44384092
They changed it from your version to the new one during first Ravnica. 3 or 4 follows the same basic idea: jump as few colors as you can.
>>44382888
>>44382844
>>44382470
>>44382304
>>44381963
>>44381905
As a point of order, Wizards has made a card with an activated ability on the stack.
I'd phrase your card like this:
Reckless Ritual 5R
Enchantment
If you would draw a card, instead exile the top twenty cards of your library, then draw a card.
While Reckless Ritual is on the stack, Mountain cards you own have cycling 0, and whenever you cycle a Mountain, add RR to your mana pool.
But >>44382888 is pretty fine. You can say "you own" rather than "in your hand", because cycling only occurs in the hand.
>>44384174
>You can say "you own" rather than "in your hand", because cycling only occurs in the hand.
Then what's the point of applying it to cards that aren't in your hand? It would only serve to confuse people.
>>44384194
Two reasons: one, it saves 5 spaces in the text box. Further, it's technically the more correct form.
But "in your hand" is fine for avoiding confusion, you're right. I've been playing a long time, I tend to forget how new players can mess up.
>>44370020
It's not though, it's a tapland which are barely playable outside of limited
>>44384244
>Further, it's technically the more correct form.
Look at this. Though I do realize this means >>44382888 needs to be fixed now. To the guy who made >>44382888 remove the quotation marks and make cycling lowercase.
>>44384274
Sorry, my phrasing was unclear. From a TECHNICAL standpoint, the other one is more correct, because "in your hand" wastes space for clarity that should be assumed. From an ACTUAL standpoint, you're totally right, and he should keep "in your hand".
Wizards used the latter for that exact reason: The lost space is negligible on a card with a focus on the mechanic, which desires perfect clarity.
>>44384401
Uh...
G, T, Exile up to five cards from your graveyard: [...] This ability costs X more to activate, where X is five minus the number of cards exiled to activate this ability.
That's my best shot.
>>44384473
He's using delve wording for it
Still working on this guy. Unsure about the counters thing, though I'm really liking giving Hexproof to all your other creatures.
>>44384174 >>44384274
So both of these cards are worded correctly, but the card of the left is worded better?Is there any way to hide a filename without hiding the file?
>>44384174 "While" only seems to be used in place of "As long as" in reminder text or when discussing suspended cards.
>As a point of order, Wizards has made a card with an activated ability on the stack.
Lightning Storm, it also has charge counters while on the stack, I'm familiar with it.
I meant to base the wording of >>44381963 on it.
>>44384757
Seems easier to use long form instead of cycling, unless you're really tied to using cycling for set synergy.
>>44332021
what is the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary colors?
>>44384799
Primary and secondary are mostly just different in the numbers and synergy present in the color. Tertiary only gets it rarely and mostly for making the card function better mechanically. I also can't share the keyword to colors that don't get it.
>>44341777
>valor
you mean Renown?
>>44341806
>>44341823
>bluff
you mean kicker?
>>44384401
Italicized text (reminder text, flavor text, etc.) has no actual effect, so it gets to take liberties with wording that rules text doesn't get to.
The effect of Delve, as with all keywords, is inherent in the rules.
You'll need some different wording to get your Hooting Mandrills Spellshaper to work.
And as much as I like Spellshapers (and the creature spellshaper cycle)(and your card), I should warn you that creature spellshaping was Future Sight exclusive; therefor, it doesn't have a very good source for precedent.
Not saying you should scrap it or anything, but FYI.
>>44341957
>poweress?
>>44384898 It's not quite kicker; you can kick if you cast it without paying it's cost, but you can't bluff.
>>44341957
how does mana bog work?
how do you know what's in your opponent's hands in order to choose it to be out on the bottom of your opponents library?
or is it somehow a land that can be played as an instant?
>>44384917
But it is using the comp rules wording for delve, rather than the reminder text.
>>44342311
neat.
>>44384988sorry
In other news, I'm tired.
It could probably be "ability's cost" instead of "ability's total cost"
But I would still recommend something like >>44384473 to be more intuitive, maybe:
XG, T, Discard a card, Exile up to five cards from your graveyard: X is five minus the number of cards exiled. Put a 4/4 green Ape creature token with trample onto the battlefield.
>>44385080
I think if you use just cost instead of total cost you can't exile cards to pay for any cost taxes.
>>44384757
As the guy who proposed the one on the left, (>>44384174) I have to say, the one on the right looks cleaner.
>>44384799
"Primary" means "This is the number 1 color to have this ability." Example: Green and Trample. There is no color CLOSE to matching the number of green cards with trample.
"Secondary" means "I definitely get this ability, but not as often." Example: Black and Flying. Demons, Vampires, Bats, Imps, all can fly. But when you think fliers, you think Blue over black. (Personally, I say Red is secondary flier as well.)
"Tertiary" means "I get this ability, but it's uncommon enough to be noticeable, or because of a thematic choice." Black and First Strike are my favorite example here. Black gets First Strike mostly on Fallen Knight/Antipaladin characters or Assassin types.
>>44384877
Valor can trigger multiple times, unlike Renown.
>>44384898
Kicker is actually, in a sad way, a bad mechanic to bring up in discussion of other card threads. Because, when you come down to it, kicker is "pay ADDITIONAL COST when playing this for EFFECT", which is a more generalized form of a TON of rules.
Bluff is specifically, by the guy's explanation:
(You may cast this card for its bluff cost at any time you could play an instant.)
It's Flash-Kicker.
>>44385104
>Tourach Legendary.
You're a monster.
Beyond that, my only complaint is that his p/t seems a little excessive. Tourach was mostly a mind mage and commander of darkness, not a terrifying warlord.
Maybe drop his cost by B, and drop his p/t by 2/1?
>>44384799
Primary means you need no special reason to include it on a card of that color, every set that includes that mechanic should have multiple cards in the primary color with the mechanic
Secondary and tertiary are hard to distinguish, I would just say that they can appear but you need a pretty solid reason specific to the card for it to have that ability
I.e. In order for craterhoof behemoth to function properly he needed haste, which is secondary or tertiary in green
In the case of akroma, she got haste probably before it was determined that white will never have haste, but even so, you could argue her very unique design (all the keywords all the time, because she was designed as the perfect agent of wrath) justifies the haste
>>44346246
I played bravely default, and I believe I know what you're talking about let's see if I can do it for you.
so on a burn it would be
[T]: target player takes 1 damage
(X): target player takes 1 damage and [CARDNAME] does not untap for the next (X) untap steps. Use this ability only if [CARDNAME] is tapped.
The problem with this though, is that unless it has some other benefit to being untapped, you can just leav it tapped forever and not care, because its abilities are still available, unlike bravely default, where it then is forced to sit out that many turns.
So perhaps something like:
>At the beginning of your upkeep, remove 1 recharge counter on [CARDNAME]. Detain [CARDNAME] if it has 1 or more recharge counters on it.
>(0): Target player takes 1 damage. Place 1 recharge counter on [CARDNAME] at the beginning of your next end step.
if you want it still compatible with tap stuff like Mind over Matter, perhaps add an additional
>[T]: remove 1 recharge counter from [CARDNAME]
>>44385230
>Tourach Legendary.
>You're a monster.
That's not monstrous.
Tourach of the Ebon Hand (B)(B)(B)
Legendary Creature - Human Cleric (2/1) (Mythic)
Menace
Whenever you sacrifice a Thrull, Skeleton, or Zombie, untap Tourach of the Ebon Hand and target creature gets -1/-1 until end of turn.
(1)(B)(B), T, Discard a card or sacrifice another creature: Target opponent discards a card at random.
>>44384274
>posting a custom card from some other game
How is this relevent? Also, who the fuck stole classic Slivers from us? Is this why they changed the slivers in Theros?
>>44386040
In case you're not joking around: That's a Magic card. In the Time Spiral Block, which was all about time shenanigans and alternate dimensions and so on, the third set, Future Sight introduced a new card frame to represent 'cards from the future.' They often included new mechanics or references to creature/card types that did not exist.
This specific one was just part of a cycle of futureshifted slivers.
Time Spiral block in general is a super-interesting one, and has some notable examples, warnings, and strengths for custom card designers to look at.
For instance, the second set, Planar Chaos, reprinted multiple older cards in a different color, to represent how, in a different universe, those mechanics/philosophies could have been in that color. For instance, Red had Brute Force, a color-changed Giant Growth. Because Red could have had a premium on power/toughness boosting/altering effects, based on their love of combat and their divided focus on creatures and spells. Bog Serpent shows how black could have had Land-dependent powerful creatures, representing its 'power at a cost' theme. Etc, etc.
>>44386905
"whenever a spell is countered" needs to be more specific. It should be something like "...is countered by a spell or ability you control..."
The reason is that sometimes the game itself will counter a spell. For example, if a spell or ability tries to resolve and has no legal targets, the spell is countered.
Also - your card triggers both when you counter an opponent's shit and when an opponent counters your shit, which is kind of crazy. Repeated bouncing is also kind of really powerful too.
>>44387050
>sometimes the game itself will counter a spell. For example, if a spell or ability tries to resolve and has no legal targets, the spell is countered.
I wasn't aware that this counted as the spell 'being countered'.
>>44387081
Weird but true.
http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Counter_(keyword_action)
I think there are other situations where the game will counter a spell or ability but I can't think of any.
>>44385230yes.
This better?
>>44387530
needs to cost more
>>44387568
>Flight
Kill me. The keyword is "Flying". Also, please look at the image in the OP and learn the difference between replacement abilities and triggered abilities. It should be
>If you would draw a card, you may detain target creature instead.
>>44387427
Target player sacrifices a creature unless he or she pays 2 life.
Invoke is enchantments-as-creatures, but not as stupidly expensive as bestow because you don't get a creature back when the enchantment target dies.
Essence is Enchantments-as-temporary spells.
>>44391132
I don't like invoke, as unlike living weapon you need a target for the aura to be on the battlefield already.
>>44391132
First, >>44391174 is right. You'd have to reword it so it puts the tojen onto the field, then the enchantment ETB attached to it, instead of casting it.
Second, Essence needs to change from the END step to the CLEANUP step, due to how damage works. Pic for comparison. If you want to go more in-depth, look up "Substance" on the MTGSalvation wiki.
>>44391132
I'd like the idea of invoke, but I'd change it to Invoke <subtype(s)> <cost>, and put a 1/1 token of the listed <subtype(s)> instead of a 0/0 Elemental.
The subtyping is just there to help flavor, but the token change lets you put Invoke on Auras that don't strengthen creatures.
Invoke <number> <cost>, and having the token enter with <number> +1/+1 counters would also be good, but that seems somewhat cluttered.
Mind you, either would require you to rethink costing.
How could I make this card less verbose?
>>44391132
For invoke, just take bestow and axe the remaining-as-a-creature part. Trying to mess around with targeting requirements and 0/0 tokens is likely not worth it.
>>44392863
You can't. In fact, in order to make it work properly, you'll have to ADD words.
>R, Remove all spite counters from ~: ~ deals damage to target creature or player equal to the number of spite counters removed this way.
I do think the card is cool though.
>>44392863
>>44393019
Very niche I know, but I love the flavor of it
>>44394132
lose life so you can't redirect to the walkers to match the flavor
>>44394166
Good Point, thanks man
Is the wording on this correct? I'm not sure if "and creatures they control" is acceptable
Still trying to get this guy done.
>>44394166
Due to Defender tribal effects, I'd change the emblem to say
>Creatures you control can't attack.
Though I have to say, the second ability doesn't strike me as being very Ajani. I could see it on Elspeth (she'll come back one day I'm sure) or perhaps even Sorin. But not Ajani.
>>44394337
Wouldn't it be easier to just use a straight fog effect?
