Adversary is a new, custom format for Magic: The Gathering intended to be played over Cockatrice.
>How is it played?
In Adversary, players select an Adversary card from an existing archive, or create their own. These Adversaries enter play from turn one, and possess abilities that change the way the game is played. If you've ever tried out Vanguard, you'll feel right at home. Adversary uses 61-card decks (including the Adversary card), with no more than one copy of any given card being allowed in a single deck.
>How are Adversaries balanced?
Each Adversary is assigned three values: a life total, a starting hand size, and a level. The life total and starting hand size are used to balance Adversaries based on the power of their abilities. In the event that they cannot be effectively balanced this way, Adversaries are also assigned a level, indicating that they are only suited for play against Adversaries of a similar level.
>What is Cockatrice and where do I download it?
http://www.woogerworks.com/
>How do I find people to play with?
http://pastebin.com/m05wzSJF
>How do I add Adversary cards to Cockatrice?
http://pastebin.com/TCGtFAXF
>What do Adversary levels mean, exactly?
http://pastebin.com/4fV7y17f
>How can I make my own Adversary?
Post your desired rules text, color identity, illustration and artist-to-credit in this thread and I might make it for you! Alternatively, make it yourself in Photoshop or an MTG card creation program. I will then add it to the .xml file and it will become available to everyone.
>Previous Thread
What previous thread?
>>44337927
Oh hey
It's like that... What's it called, vanguard magic?
>>44337954
Yep. Vanguard where you create your own Vanguard card, pretty much. It's a shame it died off.
>>44338869
Hot damn. This one does not look like a level 2.
>>44338999
Also, what banlist do you use?
>>44338999
I was considering nerfing her a bit, possibly by reducing her starting hand even further - but someone suggested that she be put through some testing first, so that's the plan.
>>44339029
I'd peg her at like, level 4 or something as-is, desu. The 16 milled cards are good delve/flashback fuel. Brainstorm is +3 card advantage (6 cards drawn, 2 put back, 1 brainstorm leaving hand), and there are plenty of other cantrips to ensure the hand gets filled fast for a combo finish.
>Turn 1 treasure cruise
>>44339014
Whoops. That's something I should have mentioned. The format is Modern, and the banlist is the official Wizards banlist for Modern, which you can find here.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/gameinfo/gameplay/formats/bannedrestricted
I'll add this to the OP next time, provided there is a next time. Thanks for asking.
>>44339053
Darn. I already had SDT, Brainstorm/Ponder/Preordain, and Ruse Cruise going in my list. Ah, well.
>>44339062
Haha. Sorry about that.
Feel free to add me on Cockatrice if you're interested, by the way. I can discuss things more actively that way.
>>44337927
whats stopping people from making OP cards
>>44339095
Nothing, but the cards are automatically balanced.
First through hand and life totals, and secondly through level thresholds. If a card is ridiculously OP, it will be sorted into level 5, which basically says: don't bother playing against this card unless you're using a level 5 too, or you have a level 4 and some serious balls.
>>44339114
what decides what level it will be?
>>44339146
Since I'm the one adding cards to the .xml file, I'll make a judgement based on how powerful I consider the ability to be.
However, as with >>44339051 I will take other people's input into account and may change levels around in the future.
>>44339160
couldnt anyone else add OP cards to a xml file that way?
>>44339174
They could add them to a .xml file, but not this .xml file. Even if they had their own .xml file, nobody else is going to be able to see their cards, so it becomes meaningless.
>>44339214
what do you mean by nobody else is going to see their cards? how are people going to see your cards then?
>>44339227
Because you download the .xml file linked in the OP, which adds all of the currently existing Adversaries to your card database. Everyone will be on the same page.
If anyone were to 'go rogue' and create their own .xml file, nobody would be able to see their custom additions.
>>44339244
but what if they got other people to download their .xml file?
>>44337927
I really like the idea. If you keep making these threads in the future I might give it a try. However please make the OP picture more easy to read, those blue boxes make it a mess.
>>44339265
Then that would work fine. But at that point it's likely they just have an agreement to play with eachother's OP cards. It would be very hard to trick someone into downloading an .xml file filled with OP Adversaries, if that's what you're worried about.
If you're thinking about creating your own .xml file with OP Adversaries, you might as well just post the OP Adversaries and I'll add them to the 'official' .xml file as level 5's. Other level 5 wielders will still want to play against you.
>>44339270
I'll be honest, I whipped that image up in about 5 minutes because I was feeling impatient after making the 10 vanilla Adversaries. I fully intend to make a prettier version soon, and I apologize for the eyesore.
>>44339301
No need to apologize in the internet. Just pointing that out. By the way I just opened the xml in cockatrice and I think Vyndiis and Velan are unbalanced.
>>44339362
You're most likely correct, and they will probably have their abilities nerfed or their levels raised in the near future. I intend to perform at least some rudimentary testing before I make any significant changes, though. I've yet to actually play a match with either of those cards so far.
>>44337927
This sounds kind of neat but then I think of how reliant it is on players to not make garbage cards and lose interest. That the card you posted literally doesn't even function within the current rules for the games isn't a good sign, creatures cannot be attached to creatures so you'd need to rework it to have the Human lose that type as part of the ability.
is the color type included in the level of the card? I just wanted to know before making an anti green artifacer adversary
>>44339416
hey i got a question, do adversaries count as a permanent? and if so can they be targeted? also, can they be tapped if they have a tap ability in your first turn?
>>44339416
The concept was for the creature to be attached as an Aura, I just failed to word it properly. Wording in Magic is always tricky territory. The slightest thing could make a card completely non-functional, but most of the time players will be so accustomed to how things are 'generally done' that they will make the connection. For example, even though I messed up with Fina's rules text somewhat, the people that I've played with so far have made the connection between that ability and something like Bestow, and so it operates safely under an established MTG guideline.
It's true that it relies on players making interesting cards, but think of it this way: You have complete control over who you're playing with, and which Adversaries you're willing to face. Provided even one person makes a good, balanced Adversary, it can still be quite a lot of fun. And it goes without saying that I'm going to make an effort to balance cards as things progress.
>>44339450
>>44339416
i guess i quoted the wrong post
>>44339450
Adversaries do not count as permanents, no. They will be untargetable for 99.99% of existing MTG effects.
Yes, they can be tapped in the first turn. In the event that you want to specify that an Adversary can't do this, you could add a token at each of your end phases, which is then consumed by the tap ability. The effect is virtually unchanged except for the fact that you can't tap on the first turn.
>>44339422
Sort of. It really depends on the color combination and the number of colors involved, but color identity can be responsible for both increases and decreases to an Adversary's level.
>>44339453
It does sound cool, don't get me wrong. I really hope you get a nice little community built around this format. I'm just offering a possible reason you might have a hard time drawing new members, for me it just sounds like too much to download and learn a new program to even try out a format that is dependent upon strangers not making it unfun.
If you ever need help filling out the roster of cards you should consider dropping a line in the custom card threads, some of them might yell you out of the room but it's an intriguing enough project that you could get a few nibbles from the less ornery posters.
>>44337927
Do you have an MSE template for the Adversary cards, or will I need to hack the color identity onto the type line in GIMP/Photoshop.
>>44339565
I don't use MSE, unfortunately, so no templates for that.
I could upload my Photoshop template, though, which has the level, color identity, hand size and life total bits laid out. Would you like that?
>>44339495
Fair enough. I would suggest that you try out Cockatrice regardless, if only because it has general utility as an MTG client.
It has occured to me that some people would probably like the .PSD template for creating these cards, so here you go:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/i8t4s4xkigvhzpi/Shared%20Adversary%20Template.psd?dl=0
I'll put this in the OP from now on.
>>44339876
give this guy the ability to pay 3 life and bounce target permanant with a black color identity, just sayin.
>>44337927
Creatures can't be attached to creatures. You need to turn the human into a not creature first.
>>44339985
Already mentioned and addressed.
>>44339416
>>44339453
>>44340003
That doesn't seem like addressing it so much as ignoring it. You're gonna want to fix it in future iterations, because you're not always going to play with understanding people.
Also, my first thought was equipment, and I'd be fairly annoyed with you if I was playing a game, tried to destroy some artifacts, and thus your dragon riders, and got told that "designer intent" was for it to be an aura.
>>44340069
Oh, then I misspoke: I'm going to fix it. I'd fix it right now if I knew how to word it properly, but I'm going to need to spend a half hour or so studying existing cards to stitch together the correct rules text.
>>44340003
>>44340069
maybe exile it and add the stats then return it to the battlefield once the dragon leaves? that seems like the simplest at least
>>44340091
I'd actually prefer the Human to die if the Dragon dies, personally. I like the idea of the rider being inseperable from the Dragon once 'mounted', for pure flavor reasons.
>>44340089
Maybe
>Dragons you control gain Champion a Human (When this enters the battlefield, sacrifice it unless you exile another Human creature you control. When this leaves the battlefield, that card returns to the battlefield.)
>Dragons you control gain "If this card Championed a human, it gains power/toughness equal to the power/toughness of the human it Championed.
That second clause is god fucking awful, though, and I'm not sure it actually even works.
>>44340091
you should hit up the /ccg/, they have the rules list and grammar nazis to ensure the wording on cards makes sense and doesnt break the game. You gotta utilize all the existing mechanics before making new ones.
>>44340132
It does sound good, but it makes attaching the Human to the Dragon free rather than costing 5 mana.
And if it does cost 5 mana, you'd have to spend that 5 mana immediately after casting the Dragon, which would be very difficult.
>>44340176
Oh, right. I forgot about the mana cost.
>>44340176
I think the wording you want is something along the lines of "Target human creature becomes an aura with "-snip-" enchanting target dragon." Or perhaps something like bestow, in which you cast the human from hand for the adversaries activation cost?
'Exile target Human creature you control. Target Dragon creature you control gains all the abilities of that card and gets +X/+Y, where X is the exiled creature's power and Y is its toughness.'
I think this sort of works? The only problem is that the Human is no longer attached, which makes seeing which abilities have carried over much harder. When it was attached, you could just mouseover it. Now you'd have to dig through the exile pile.
>>44340255
Not really. When you play effects like Oblivion Ring, you generally stick the exiled card under the ring. Although it messes with the number count for the exile pile in Cockatrice, you can still do that. Or even just make a copy of the card before sending it to exile.
Also, a clause that makes the exiled human go to graveyard when the dragon leaves the battlefield should be considered to accomodate decks that care about it.
>>44338869
This is so broken, it's not even fun. Hell, probably even allows turn 1 shenanigans. Free dredge + insane card draw in same stick with +1 upgrade.
>>44339051
You can literally back all combopieces and since this doesn't require much of filtering. Turn 1 cruise +6 cards into storm, holy fuck.
>>44340288
Well, as someone who put a deck together for her, it's not quite as easy as that, for a few reasons:
1. Singleton format
2. Mono-U restriction due to colour identity
3. Modern cardpool, Cruise/Dig aren't legal
That said, I built and played a flavour of combo with her and I think Hawk agrees, she needs to be bumped up some levels and nerfed a bit further in handsize as well.
>>44340288
I played a few matches against someone using Calico an hour or two ago. She definitely has game-breaking potential, although reducing her initial hand size seems to cripple that potential significantly.
I was able to beat her with Fina at an initial hand size of 2, and Fina is only a level 1, although I did have quite a good hand.
I think bringing her hand size to 3 might put her on a level playing field with other level 2 Adversaries. If she continues to be broken even then, I'll bump her up to level 3.
>>44340255
oring and hedron ring work just fine.
Also when you exile the human under the dragon the human is visable over the dragon, so it kinda looks like its riding it. the flavor matches the mechanic this way.
>>44340358
>Also when you exile the human under the dragon the human is visable over the dragon, so it kinda looks like its riding it. the flavor matches the mechanic this way.
This is why Fina is my favorite.
>>44340306
>>44340306
Singleton isn't much of an issue when every cantrip is a divination, it's probably pretty easy to find what you need even if you cut the hand size down. Shit, Gitaxian Probe is just 2 life for two cards, that's completely insane.
The main weakness of the card seems to be that your starting hand will be so small that sometimes you just won't have any lands and then you lose. If have an Island, then you probably win. It basically just amplifies all of the worst aspects of randomness in Magic.
>>44340374
Thus making it a blue card
>>44340374
Yeah. That was my finding. My deck was composed of mostly cantrips/extra draw effects, with a few wincons such as Pili-pala combo into Blue Sun's Zenith, extra turns, Mindslaver/Ruins lock, and a Wurmcoil Engine. You do need to dedicate a good number of slots to win-cons, because milling a quarter of your deck actually can kinda hurt if you lost too many of your win-cons.
To that end, I ran Elixir of Immortality, which Academy Ruins also nicely hits. Also, Temporal Trespass was an all-star.
>>44339029
>I was considering nerfing her a bit, possibly by reducing her starting hand even further
Reduce it to 0 and it's still a strong card.
it's an interesting idea, but in no way do i trust you (or /tg/) to balance an entire format.
the only reason i would play would be to try and break the format over and over again and force you to change your fuckups, but then again, that would require me to play casual magic against /tg/ on cockatrice.
>>44340445
I actually did consider 0, but >>44340306 pointed out that it would make for an incredibly boring first few turns for whoever is playing Calico.
The alternative is to nerf the ability itself - for example, restricting the double draw to the draw phase, or perhaps adding a {U} mana cost to activate the extra draw, but that could turn her into an uninteresting Adversary.
>>44340447
I'm sorry to hear that.
>>44340447
Considering that in the past /tg/ has failed even to organize a tournament, I kind of agree. It's a cool idea though, so I think it's worth trying to make work.
>>44340459
No offense to you, I mean you seem like a decent MTG player, but your comments on Calico show that this is clearly too great a task for someone like you.
>>44340474
>being this butthurt over how someone else does their own project
Holy fuck nigga, you salty
>>44340364
Usually when you have a rider, the creature type of the thing being mounted is ignored, so how about:
5: exile target human and target dragon and put into play a X/Y Human Knight token with the abilities of both cards where X is the sum of exiled creatures power and Y the sum of those creatures toughness.
Just a guess, though, I'm more of a flavor geek than a rules guru
>>44340649
I love new formats. I love, however new formats that build a base set of rules and let the current Magic card pool do the rest of the work.
Custom card threads are cancer on /tg/ and this is Custom Card Threads: The Format with the onus of somehow making sure everything works being placed on a single person, or if that fails (which it inevitably will), being placed on the shoulders of one of the worst places to discuss Magic on the internet.
They can try and make it work, and it might be kinda fun, but the concept is inherently flawed and is going to be a total headache for anyone involved.
It's going to be a scrambled mess.
>>44340699
Well, it's not entirely down to me. I'm going to make changes based on feedback and playtesting. I've been a bit reluctant to make sweeping changes based on things that have been said in this thread: that is primarily because the format is less than one day old, and I have very little playtesting to base the validity of these suggestions off of. I would also like to prioritize the opinions of people actively playing Adversary, which there obviously aren't many of just yet.
It could very well be destined to fail, but I've had a lot of fun with what few matches I've played so far.
I think it's important to be able to derive what joy you can from something, before fixating on how doomed it may be.
>>44340660
I think Fina would actually become a lot less powerful if the merged creatures became Human Knights instead of remaining Dragons. My Fina deck would, at least.
>>44340749
That's fair. I can respect that.
Sorry for being a total dick. It's just a whole different beast to other kinds of formats. Even Vanguard was at least somewhat balanced with a restricted pool options, in ancient Magic's own little way.
I just compare it to "established" formats and I feel like there's no way to take it seriously. If you want to be competitive, even a little, there's nothing for you here. And that just makes me antsy.
>>44340749
Do you welcome a Spike approach to your format? Or should decks be built with casual play in mind, toning them down?
>>44340781
I would personally suggest building them with casual play in mind.
Competitive play is always going to be frustrating in a format that is innately imbalanced, no matter how hard we try to fix that. You're welcome to try it, and I've already encountered people making very competitive Adversary decks, but if you're asking for my personal recommendation? Go casual.
>>44340774
That's okay. I'm not expecting anyone to take me particularly seriously. I'm just hoping at least a few people will have fun and possibly make some interesting Adversaries for me to play against.
>>44340834
Oh.
I thought you were trying to make this the next Tiny Leaders. I didn't realize you had realistic and humble aspirations.
Does anyone know the number for a good boot store? I need some high quality footwear to FILL MY ENTIRE GAPING MAW.
>>44340834
Expanding on this: I think part of the appeal of Adversary is being able to create heavily themed decks. Decks that wouldn't even be close to viable in official MTG, but which can suddenly hold their own with the aid of an Adversary. I could have put Dragonlord's Servant in my Fina deck, and that one card might have won me a few matches; but I didn't put him in, because he's a Goblin. Why would there be a single Goblin amidst a tribe of dragon-riding Humans?
Maybe it's just me. There are other reasons to try Adversary, certainly; being able to use cards that YOU have designed in actual online matches can be gratifying, and the Vanguard format was always an interesting way to play to begin with. But for me, the theming is a big plus too.
>>44338869
I know nothing about this format and I know this is busted as hell
>>44340749
I thought about this baddass here. I know it would hurt tribal dragon decks, but how would you type such a creature? Human Dragon Knight sounds to me a half dragon in plate armor lol
Not disagreeing with you, just brainstorming
>>44341262
Even now there is hope for my boner.
If I had an MSE template, I'd be popping out ideas. As it is, I'm no good at making templates so I'm reduced to text.
- - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - -
Nixien, Brineshaper
http://i.imgur.com/QLJ8max.jpg
(artist credit to Jason Nguyen)
Adversary - Some Dingus (U)
(1), (T): Target land becomes an Island in addition to its other types. (This effect lasts indefinitely.)
(10), (T): Scry 3. This ability costs (1) less to activate for each Island on the battlefield.
{18} {7}
Uhm OP, what is the level of rules fluency you you have in your variant? Because
1) You can't attach creatures to things, they become unattached as a sba action if this happens. Perhaps use the formatting of those old equipments ("Tap, you may choose not to untap, as long as untapped")
2)Giving "all abilities" is iffy, because this would also give characteristic defining abilities (e.g. "This creatures power and toughness is equal to the number of creature cards in your graveyard"). Usually its something like "It gains all activated abilities of that creature" (like Experiment Kraj) or listing the static abilities ("It has flying as long as that creature has flying, the same is true for trample, menace) like cairn's wanderer.
though I guess its fine if your variant is more "hand-wavey".
>>44341437
Here you go.
Doesn't seem like I can actually fit 10 mana into a single cost. There may be some obscure key for this but I'll have to look it up and get back to you.
Rated at level 1 for now, but I'm convinced you've pinpointed some horrifying exploit for land types which will bump it up to level 3 once I fully understand it.
>>44341508
Just noticed that 'this ability costs 1' part should be 'this ability costs {1}'. I'll fix that in a moment.
>>44341481
>1) You can't attach creatures to things
This has been brought up a couple of times in the thread. It'll be fixed shortly.
>2)Giving "all abilities" is iffy
Good point. 'all activated abilities' it is. I'd like to include that addendum for things like flying and trample, but I'd have to make the text really tiny to fit that in, and I despise how cards look with tiny rules text.
>>44341561
Isn't it kind of weird to credit the designer in the typeline? As it has no mechanical relavance at all. Perhaps its cleaner to put it next to the artist credit, and leave only give it a subtype if you want to play with that design space.
Also I take it the adverserys start the game in the command zone and we are handwaving the fact that cards that aren't permanents can't tap? Or do they start the game on the battlefield and have a "If this permanent would leave the battlefield, instead it doesn't"?
>>44341668
>Isn't it kind of weird to credit the designer in the typeline? As it has no mechanical relavance at all.
It's actually not so much a credit as a 'this card belongs to X'. There may be people who don't want others using their custom Adversaries. Having it act as a subtype makes it easy for people to tell when a card has been designed as part of the 'base set', or when it's been designed as someone's personal card. Similar to Planeswalkers having the subtype of their name (although I'm aware that has more mechanical relevance than this).
>Also I take it the adverserys start the game in the command zone and we are handwaving the fact that cards that aren't permanents can't tap?
Pretty much, yes. Optimizing functionality takes priority in this case. Adversaries would be broken if they weren't permanents, and their functionality would be severely limited if they couldn't tap.
>>44341725
>Adversaries would be broken if they weren't permanents
Ahem. If they WERE permanents. Excuse me.
>>44341730
>Having it act as a subtype makes it easy for people to tell when a card has been designed as part of the 'base set', or when it's been designed as someone's personal card.
So why not just use an expansion symbol?
>Adverseries more broken as permanents.
Perhaps you could playtest once with them as permanents and " Can't leave the battlefield" (which also implies that you can't sac to pay a cost), as it is neater in the rules?
Also, is there a reason why you use a mana symbol as color identifier rather than just a color identifier?
>>44341508
Looks nice, may as well make another.
- - -- - - - - --- -- -- - - - - - - - - -- - -
Teren of Benalia
http://i.imgur.com/uGAsniw.jpg
(Credit: Alex Stone)
Adversary - Some Dingus (W)
Whenever one or more creatures attack you, you may pay {X}. If you do, put X 1/1 white Soldier creature tokens on the battlefield.
Soldier creatures you control have Vigilance
{23} {5}
>>44341809
>>44341730
>>44341725
A possible solution is to remove the tapping, but give them "Activate this ability only once each turn" instead
>>44341809
>So why not just use an expansion symbol?
Because the availability of the Adversary will likely vary from person to person. One person might be okay with their Adversaries being used by everyone, another person might want to keep them to themselves. That same person might later decide to start sharing them. If I were using expansion symbols, I'd have to edit the card to reflect that. By using subtype for creators, it's easier to infer which cards are available for what. I may even add something like that to the next OP, if anyone specifically requests that their Adversary remains off-limits.
>Perhaps you could playtest once with them as permanents and " Can't leave the battlefield" (which also implies that you can't sac to pay a cost), as it is neater in the rules?
I don't think it is neater in the rules, to be honest. Even if they can't leave the battlefield, there are so many effects in MTG that target permanents which would be gamebreaking if Adversaries were valid targets. Even 'untap target permanent' would be catastrophic.
It's much easier to just say, 'these are adversary cards. they are their own thing. your other cards can't interact with them and they can tap'
>Also, is there a reason why you use a mana symbol as color identifier rather than just a color identifier?
I wasn't aware there were any official color identifiers. If there were something like that included in the .psd template I was using, I probably would have used that instead.
>>44341851
I suppose, but that eats up precious text space. I honestly don't see why we should ignore a perfectly good shorthand when it goes without saying that these cards operate under different rules.
>>44341839
That's going to be a level 3, just so you're aware. Possibly 4. May I ask if you'll be using these in matches?
>>44341893
Not yet, I'm so far making em to be making em. As for >>44341866, don't really care if others are using my things. I'd even prefer it desu.
I don't see Teren being overly powerful because she both requires input from your opponent (who can just choose not to attack when you leave mana up) and requires you to leave up substantial mana to build up that you can't use on your own turn. It might be powerful in some kind of weird mono-white control deck that keeps mana up and punishes attackers, but I don't see a deck like that existing. It's just a semicasual tribal card.
>>44341939
I see. That's fine; however, this may be the last one I can do for you, since I do have other Adversaries to work on that are more likely to see play. I posted the .psd template I'm using a little earlier in the thread, so you could have a crack at making any others you have in mind on your own.
Fixed version of Nixien.
Have you ever seen this board's /ccg/? This is not a good idea.
>>44341851
Not exactly because
1) This would allow you to activate it during each turn, thus 2 activations in a duel match, and more even in a multiplayer.
2) Cards with multiple abilities could activate each of those
3) Becomes wordier.
Perhaps we could just say (in the rules, not on the card) the tap symbol means for adverseries in command zone: "Activate this ability only if you did not activate any abilities of this adversery with the {T} symbol since your last untap step.", (though i'd really prefer them to be permanents)
>>44341866
Color identifiers look like this
And a fixed version of Teren as well. I had her level written as 'X' for some inexplicable reason. Getting tired, I guess.
>>44342024
Ah, I'm familiar with those but they weren't available in the template I'm using.
>>44339876
Mull until leyline of the void
>>44342036
Is level 3 supposed to be broken tier?
>>44342051
Leyline of the Void affects the opponent's graveyard, not your own.
>>44342069
Level 3 is the point where you have to start fighting fire with fire, or OP with OP. It's not as insane as it could be, but it's getting there. Teren could easily get bumped up to level 4, but I'd need to do some playtesting to be sure.
>>44337927
Not final, pardon for its bare-bones-ness
Working it all out before making it look good.
How op am i? what should the level be? life?
>>44342086
I wouldn't consider Teren Level 4-tier, but I guess you're the judge. We need some more multicolored Adversaries.
-- - - -- - - - - - -- - --- -- - - - - - -
Gladyn, Nettle Queen
http://i.imgur.com/wWReHkJ.jpg
(Credit: Xavier Collette)
Adversary - Some Dingus (GB)
{3}, sacrifice a creature: Search your library for a basic land card and put it on the battlefield tapped. Shuffle your library.
{15} {7}
>>44342178
Wow this is uncannily OP. It subverts what ought to be the most unassailable forms of removal (for spells, creatures and cards alike), as well as giving you life for it. And that's not even including the cost reduction that makes every 1-mana spell *free* to cast. Even at 10 starting life and 3 starting hand, he's still very strong.
>>44342210
This, I'm afraid. He would be a Level 4 at the very least.
>>44342074
Hey, could you playtest a match with someone and give them a deck that includes a tapping adversary and seedborn muse (it untaps all permanents you control during each untap step), and just have them do their thing, and report back to whether or not they untap their adversary?
Because i think the intuitive thing to do is to actually untap them with it, you go like "Untap all my things, ok." and just grab all your stuff and put it upright.
I think exactly the reason why there is no tapping vanguard, is to prevent this.
So i think in order to prevent this confusion you have to either
1) Make them permanents, which you object to, even though they feel like those with tapping.
2) Not make tapping adverseries. (Boring)
3) Instead of tapping, come up with a mechanic that says "Activate this only once since your last untap step".
In case three you could make something like
the first ability of Nixien be
1, {DEPLETE}: Target land becomes an islan in addition to its other types
and then have the rules be:
Activate depletion abilities only if there are no depletion counters on that adversery. To deplete, put a depletion counter on that adversery.
At the beginning of your untap step, remove all depletion counters from all adverseries you control.
Or you could turn the adverseries 180 degrees (like detain) in order to prevent confusion with untapping permanents.Sorry for sperging out, I think it s something cool you have here, and thats exactly why i want this to work.
>>44337927
So what this is special snowflake commander?
>>44342272
60-card singleton with a "commander" and Modern cardlist. So, almost.
>>44338260
I don't get one thing: why do you win the game by defending? It's boring opponent to death? Making him lose hope? Waiting for him to die of age?
>>44338260
I don't get one thing: why do you win the game by defending? It's boring opponent to death? Making him lose hope? Waiting for him to die of an old age?
>>44342210
>>44342243
Playing without non-land perma's arnt as op as you think.
Fix'd regardless?
OP are you aware your card doesn't work in the rules as creatures can't be attached to things?
>>44342272
If you want to look at it that way, sure.
It differs in that your starting hand and life totals vary based on your choice of 'Commander', and also in that it would be on the field from turn 0, meaning effects can be more game-changing than with EDH since they take effect as soon as the match starts.
And of course, you can also create your own card to play with, and are then matched against other Adversaries of a similar power level.
>>44342307
Maybe Luxos buys time for his liege lord to escape, or holds the enemy off long enough for reinforcements to arrive.
>>44342263
If I can design an intuitive way to use the {DEPLETE} approach, I'll use that.
>>44342307
>YOU HAVE TO FIT ME 1 ON ONE NOT HIDE BEHIND A WALL >:( UNFAIR WIZARDS PLZ NERF
>>44342357
all you have to do is this about attrition in war.
>>44342345
Yes, this is the fourth time it has been brought up. It has been changed to reflect the fact that the Humans were never intended to continue being considered creatures.
>>44342333
I think I see what you're trying to establish here, but why not simplify it to something like 'you cannot cast creatures, enchantments or artifacts' and 'instants cost (2) less'? The shuffle-into-deck and life gain feel like clutter rather than depth.
>>44342263
>Non tapping adversaries are boring.
First of all, non-permanents don't tap. Or shouldn't tap. If Adversaries were permanents, cards like Abrupt Decay would be an absolute must.
Second, because a dozen or so rules need to be written for these cards/format, instead of tapping, add a rule based off the Planeswalker Loyalty Ability rules?
>Activated abilities of Adversaries may be activated any time a player can cast a Sorcery, and only once each turn.
The rules for this stuff is already there.
>>44342400
Disallowing reanimator (glimpse > dread return ect.) and creatures that return from the graveyard (that is very common in black, bloodghast, ect.)
The idea for the third effect is in the name, he channels the void, and as such cannot lose cards to it, and gains life by feeding it.
It's a card ment for insta/sorc, as he is the only one fighting.
>>44341262
you can put an anus mana symbol as color identity here bud
>thanks, WotC
>>44342400
I'd happily play this format if you help me get my idea to a place you are happy with.
>>44342431
>Non tapping adversaries are boring.
was what OP said, i was just paraphrasing him.
>non-permanents don't tap
This was exactly what i've been arguing, and why i've been advocating something instead of tapping (or making them permanents).
>10.6d Only
permanents have status. Cards not on the battlefield do not.[..]. Similarly,
cards not on the battlefield are neither tapped nor untapped, regardless of t
heir physical state.
>Planeswalker loyalty abilityies:
This is something to consider, but the added complexity of instant speed is interesting, and perhaps this might force a lot of sameness adversaries abilities, as there are abilities you'd rather activate multiple times, over spread periods.
Also might give to much the feel of "These guys are just 0 mana planeswalkers for people who want to play edh".
>>44342552
I'm thinking it over now, trying to get a good grasp on the Adversary's identity so I know what kind of changes I should encourage. It might be helpful if you were to create a deck in Cockatrice that would synergize with this Adversary, then I can take a look at it and get a better idea of where to take it.
>>44342481
I wonder if they've added that to the MagicSymbols font yet...?
>>44342613
on it, gimme a while
>>44342340
That's flavorful though, you won via politics/legalese, which also fits what Azorius was.
Winning because your opponent chose not to smack you in the face is just confusing.
>>44342716
>Maybe Luxos buys time for his liege lord to escape, or holds the enemy off long enough for reinforcements to arrive.
It's not that the opponent is choosing not to attack, it's that the attacks are being blocked. 'If you took no damage', not 'if no creatures took damage'.
If you want an example of an Adversary who wins by people choosing not to attack...
>>44342574
Sure, the complexity of instant speed activations is interesting, and more interactive. However, abilities at Sorcery speed would be more familiar with players. Games wouldn't be bogged down with, "Wait, can I do X?" because most players are pretty intimate with Planeswalkers. It could also make balancing Adversaries much easier, because we have tons of precedents to look at.
>>44342761
In a situation where it's Luxos fights a player with a creature based strategy, especially one with many small creatures, it almost works, but that's not going to be the case where he wins, instead it's going to be control mirrors that he wins games in.
>>44337927
>Putting your name in the center of the card instead of next to the artist.
You're a special kind of autist aren't you?
>>44342613
1 Suffer the Past
1 Mystical Teachings
1 Consume the Meek
1 Undermine
1 Hero's Downfall
1 All Is Dust
1 Scour from Existence
1 Psychic Strike
1 Cryptic Command
1 Silumgar's Command
1 Damnation
1 Creeping Tar Pit
1 Watery Grave
1 Reflecting Pool
1 Dismiss
1 Disrupting Shoal
1 Force of Will
1 Logic Knot
1 Forbidden Alchemy
1 Spite // Malice
1 Far // Away
1 Blue Sun's Zenith
1 Dig Through Time
1 Treasure Cruise
1 Fervent Denial
1 Duskmantle, House of Shadow
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Think Twice
1 Deep Analysis
1 Underground Sea
1 Sunken Hollow
1 Sunken Ruins
1 Dimir Aqueduct
1 Darkslick Shores
1 Drowned Catacomb
1 Bojuka Bog
1 Cephalid Coliseum
1 Dakmor Salvage
1 Tolaria West
1 Darkblast
1 Thought Scour
1 Increasing Confusion
8 Island
4 Swamp
1 Cunning Wish
1 Death Wish
1 Glimpse the Unthinkable
1 Nephalia Drownyard
1 Mind Grind
1 Reap Intellect
>>44342833
>Original character do not steal.
Still an autistic fuck.
>>44342864
I already explained the purpose of the designer names, so I'm not sure what the problem is.
>>44342836
Looking through now.
>>44342938
Fair point. I'll edit Chroma so that she gets a Peace token every upkeep or something, and once she has 5, she wins.
There's no MSE template for Adversary cards?
>>44342761
>Play a 5 man game with this.
>Be starting player.
>Nobody is playing aggro because multiplayer.
>Win the game on my second turn.
Okay.
>>44342762
Good point about not bogging dwn.
There is also indeed less added choice in making it sorcery speed compared to creatures because of course they can't block or attack.
Balancing wise comparing to planeswalker, i don't think that applies though, because planewswalkers are balanced to (usually) hit the board by turn four.
Another argument for making it sorcery speed, is that instant speed is most effective for a surprise factor, and given that its open since turn 1, doesn't really surprise as much "Gee, he's gonna shock me with his adversery at the end of turn, what a surprise".
Also, perhaps sorcery speed is more interesting choice, compare these:
I have two mana up and my adversary has 2, deplete: Draw a card, and I have a counterspell in hand
>in case of "pseudo planeswalker":
I have to choose do I draw a card now, and risk that my opponent casts something good,
or
keep that mana up for a counterspell, risking doing nothing if my opponent does nothing.
>in case of instant speed activation of adversaries:
I just keep mana up, counter if my opponent casts something dangerous, and if he doesn't, i just draw a card.
The pseudo-planeswalker situation is strategically more interesting.
>>44342986
No, sorry. I don't use MSE myself, so I wouldn't know how to go about creating one either. I find using Photoshop tends to produce better looking cards.
However, provided you intend to use them, you can post the details of your Adversary card and I'll make it for you.
>>44342836
What's your Cockatrice username?
>>44337927
Shiva, Lost Machination
Adversary - Machination
X
>Whenever a nonland colorless permanent would be sent to the graveyard by a source you don't control you may exile it instead. If you do you may search your library for a colorless card and put it into your hand. Then put a creation counter on Shiva, Lost Machination.
Colorless spells cost X less to cast where X is the number of creation counters on Shiva, Lost Machination.
What about that? I'm pulling it out of my ass since this is a new format to me but why not. How would you go about balancing this? I'm aiming for a level 2.
>>44343032
BuddaRoger
>>44337927
>posts "format" that's just vanguard with custom cards
>example card is both useless and doesn't follow the rules
please kill yourself. MtGO already has this with more vanguard cards and is slightly less horrible than cockatrice.
Also go back to your containment thread
>>44342178
>Cantrips for free
>literally recycles your doomsday combo for you
Jesus christ please end this thread. Send these monstrosities back to the custom card containment thread
>>44343096
Sorry for the delay, I'm getting a bit swamped. If you already have a Cockatrice account, post it here or add mine, it's easier to get back to you that way.
>>44343096
If you want Shiva to be a Level 2 Adversary, I think the ability would have to change from:
>You may search your library for a colorless card and put it into your hand. Then put a creation counter on Shiva, Lost Machination.
To:
>You may search your library for a colorless card and put it into your hand, OR put a creation counter on Shiva, Lost Machination.
>>44343543
>>44344051
I'm still waiting for the conformation token.
That's fine what kind of starting life/hand size do you think it will have?
>>44344079
Provided you're agreeing to the OR substitution, I would go for a life total of 22 and a hand total of 6. Although I can see the hand total possibly being reduced to 5 after some playtesting since you have a built-in tutor.
>>44344119
I am. I think with 22 life the hand size should be 5 starting off and then can be bumped up later if need be. I would rather it be on the restrictive side to start with.
>>44344161
Haha, alright then. If you can find a good image, I can make this for you right now. Make sure to include the author's name.
How high does the power scale go?
Do you think this would be balanced?
Elania, Warrior-Priest
Level 2
Adversary - Cody
RW
If a source would deal damage to an opponent or a permanent an opponent controls, it deals that much damage plus 1 instead.
If a source would deal damage to you or a permanent you control, prevent 1 of that damage.
Life: 25
Hand: 6
>>44337927
My attempt:
Groth of the Stone Hammer(3) ?
Artist: jubjubjedi
Adversary - Handsomest (BRG)
Sacrifice a creature: Untap CARDNAME
(B), (T): Each player discards a card at random.
(R), (T): Players can't gain life this turn. Damage can't be prevented this turn. CARDNAME deals 3 damage to each player.
(G), (T): Whenever a creature you control deals combat damage to an opponent this turn, it deals that much damage to each other opponent.
{22} {7}
It's safe to assume that Adversaries are permanents since they enter play on turn 1 indefinitely. Since Adversaries can't be countered, will removal spells with "destroy/exile target permanent" destroy/exile Adversaries?
>>44344182
Well I know the powers of tutors in a singleton format. I was thinking 4 or 5 starting hand size with 20 life. Its just I don't know the format so I wanted to ask first.
Artist - m1923
I cant find their real name.
http://m1923.deviantart.com/art/a-female-robot-on-the-tree-340794953
Oh hey /tg/ is back.
>>44346658
I realise how similar this name is to Koth. Woops. I'm not too fussed, I'll come up with something else. Any criticisms on the abilities? This seems like a fun idea.
>>44342481
The anus is for Eldrazi, not artifacts.
>>44341725
>There may be people who don't want others using their custom Adversaries.
Then they shouldn't post them publicly on the internet.
>>44342900
The "purpose" not only doesn't justify it, though, but it is arguably more of a reason to NOT do it that way.
Goblin-Tossin' Jim
R
Goblins cost 1 less to play.
Sacrifice a goblin: Deal 1 damage to target creature or player.
>>44337927
The major issue I am noticing is the lack of a base line for each color at each level... which is kinda a lot. Honestly it would be better if you split the vanguards into 3 levels. low, middle, and high are much easier to get a handle on then low, middle low, middle, middle high, and high.
so 15 mono colored vanguard, 30 dual colored vanguard, 30 three colored vanguard, 15 four colored vanguard, and 3 five colored vanguard. 93 shouldn't take that long
Remember that vanguard with more colors should be otherwise worse, as colors mean a bigger card pool.
This does sound interesting though.
>>44346762
Hawk said Adversaries, although they can tap and whatnot, are not permanents.
>>44337927
You can't attach creatures to other creatures, they fall off. When you turn equipment into a creature, it falls off. It's also why Bestow specifies that "It becomes a creature again."
>>44338531
The nonstandard counter type makes me cringe.
>>44341991
>>44342036
Isn't this art from an actual card?
It's also really strong.
>>44342761
Do you mean "If you control one or more five-color creatures"? I don't think the wording has precedent.
Cool thread op.
Home brew mtg format that seems to have at least 5 minutes of thought put in?
Slap my ass and call me sally. I'm in, will make something up when I get home. Are you using some sort of template I can port over to Gimp?
I would read the thread to find out if you've already mentioned that, but I'm on my shiyty phone and it's really not worth the effort, sorry.
>>44348875
After looking at some older cards, I think you want "one or more creatures of each color"
Maybe.
There's really only 'multicolor' or specific color combinations. You could also specify 'one or more white, blue, black, red and green creatures'
>>44348424
You forgot colorless.
Giving this a shot.
Nemosyn, Goddess of Conversation
Artist: Si Woo-Kim
Adversary - Anon (U)
Whenever a spell or ability is countered, draw a card.
At the beginning of the end step, if you drew three or more cards this turn, gain control of target nonland permanent.
21/6
>>44349609
Oh good god.
Think I'll give it a try.
Reeve, Dimir Thought-Thief (2)
Artist: Nixell
Adversary - Anon (U / B)
Whenever a creature you control deals combat damage to an opponent, that opponent reveals cards from the top of his or her library until he or she reveals a land card, then puts all cards revealed this way into his or her graveyard.
15 / 7
How do Adversaries interact with certain keywords?
Kypris, of Stone Circles (3)
Artist: Andromeda MJ
Adversary - Anonymous (GB)
[4][G][B]: Monstrosity X.
When Kypris becomes monstrous, put X +1/+1 counters on target Snake, Gorgon, or Naga creature you control, where X is your devotion to green and black.
When Kypris or a permanent you control becomes monstrous, put a petrification counter on target creature. It gains defender and becomes a colorless artifact in addition to its other types. Its activated abilities can't be activated.
14 / 7
>>44350751
To have certain keywords you need certain typings on a card. If adversaries arent permenants then they cant interact with abilities that would only affect monsters on the battlefield. Shu yun doesnt get his prowess trigger in exile, you wouldnt be able to monstrous that guy.
>>44349609
fun
>>44337927
I'm sure people have mentioned this before'cause I just finished reading most of the threadbut this is pretty much Vanguard with custom cards, except for a couple other rules like color identity added. I'm not saying there's anything necessarily wrong with that, but I think you're putting yourself in an awkward position. People that dislike Vanguard will write it off because it's so similar to something they dislike, and people that do like Vanguard will dismiss it because they already have Vanguard.
With that in mind, do you think it's worth considering changing Adversary's rules in some manner to make it stand out from Vanguard more? I'm assuming not, or else you already would have, but either way I'd still like to hear a reply and some reasoning.
Relida, Leader of Exiles (X)
Artist: Jean Grey
Adversary - Human (W)
Whenever a creature card would be sent to a graveyard from anywhere exile it instead.
(WWW) : Relida, Leader of Exiles becomes an X/X creature with all ability's of all creatures in exile until end of turn.
20 / 7
What do you guys think about this? Yay? Nay?
>>44351940
Would say nay personally, or at least put it at a high level. It's a hard counter to anything that relies on creatures in the graveyard, which would possibly be okay if it wasn't also on the board from turn one and impossible to remove. Besides that, turning your Vanguard into a creature seems like sketchy territory, since you would now have to handle what happens when they die, or if they cease being a creature when enchanted, or get bounced to your hand, or other stuff like that.
>>44352112
Well the enchantments are already covered. Enchantments go to the graveyard if what they are enchanting loses its type and becomes invalid.
"If an adversary would move to any other zone other than the battlefield it is put into the command zone instead."
That would fix any problems with bouncing and the like.
I also expect a lot of adversary's to be hard counters no mater what because its the nature of the game. Key cards fuck up some things as part of the design.
>>44348005
>The anus is for Eldrazi, not artifacts.
Anus is literally just colorless mana, that's all we know. Wait until the set actually releases before making big claims like this.
>>44352719
>>44348005
All the information has already been released, there is no speculation, you're both idiots who shouldn't be discussing recently spoilers on /tg/.
>>44352772
Show me where WotC stated that {C} is going to be an Eldrazi only thing.
>>44352827
I did not imply that.
First anon is wrong for implying it Eldrazi-only. YOU'RE wrong for saying "that's all we know".
>>44352848
That is all we know, <> stands for colorless mana, that's it. We know literally nothing about how often it will be used or the flavor that will build around it.
>>44352772
>shouldn't be discussing recently spoilers on /tg/
WHy the fuck not? This is exactly the right kind of place to discuss spoilers.
>>44351940
Adversaries are in the command zone, right? They aren't permanents so have no reason to be on the battlefield, pretty sure the second ability doesn't work at all since a creature in the command zone can't actually do anything a creature would do. You could maybe move it to the battlefield but you should really check on what the guy in charge says about that, it can open a fairly large can of worms.
>>44352903
There is no flavor around it, it's just colorless mana. Every single land that taps for colorless (which they have in basically every set) going forward will tap for anus, presumably forever since they have no reason to change the symbol a second time. That's why they called you dumb.
Just woke up. Sorry if I kept anyone waiting.
>>44345252
The highest possible level is 5, at which point all balance is thrown out of the window and you're essentially playing out the finale of Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann.
>>44345388
I think that's close to being on par with other level 2 Adversaries, but I would probably adjust the life total. Maybe even set it right back down to 20.
>>44346658
If we were to adjust that second ability so that it deals 2 damage rather than 3, I think that Adversary might be more suited for level 2 play than level 3.
>>44346762
We cannot afford to consider Adversaries permanents because of the sheer number of effects that could then target them and break the format. All I can say is that they operate 'under Adversary rules', which means that they're in play from turn one, they can tap, and they can't be targeted by non-Adversary effects.
>>44347186
I will make this for you in just a moment.
>>44348005
>Then they shouldn't post them publicly on the internet.
They need to do this in order for me to add their Adversary to the .xml file. Even if they didn't post it in the thread, all of the Adversaries can be found in Cockatrice once uploaded.
>>44348367
Oh jesus. This is probably a joke but I'll make it anyway if you post an image and whatnot.
>>44348424
Good point. I will consider switching from 5 levels to 3, although I think another solution would be for me to create a resource that illustrates the power thresholds of each Adversary level.
>>44348875
>You can't attach creatures to other creatures, they fall off.
I know, this has been brought up multiple times. The wording is being changed.
>The nonstandard counter type makes me cringe.
-0/-1 counters already exist in MTG, if that's what you're referring to.
>Do you mean "If you control one or more five-color creatures"?
Yeah, I noticed that Chroma's wording is a bit off before I went to sleep. I'll change it to 'one or more creatures of each color'.
>>44354133
>-0/-1 counters already exist in MTG, if that's what you're referring to.
Those don't count any more, counters have been standardized.
They did exist, but that was a very long time ago and they will never show up again.
>>44354246
>>44354133
As an additional point, it's a very black effect.
Just have him deal damage to each non red creature.
>>44354246
Nonstandard counters are annoying from a gameplay perspective, but as long is it doesn't devolve into commander teir shit with them, it really doesn't bother me.
>>44349609
This is actually a much more powerful version of a joke card I made a few years ago.
I'll make it for you, but it'll start off at level 4 and could easily end up at level 5.
If you would like a version of this Adversary that could fit into level 3 or 2, I would suggest this:
'Whenever a spell or abaility is countered, put an Insight counter on [name]
At the beginning of the end step, if there are three or more Insight counters on [name], draw a card.'
>>44350080
Again, I can make this for you but it would be a level 4 right off the bat.
If you changed it to 'top two cards of library' rather than 'until a land card is revealed', it would fit as a level 2 easily. Having a mill engine in place from turn 1 at no mana cost is a big deal.
>>44350751
I would change it to 'creatures you control have [monstrous text]', followed by the rest of the ability.
I find this one pretty interesting, actually. Level 3 seems about right. Let me know if you're comfortable with the change I just mentioned and I'll make it for you.
>>44351878
Oh, I myself compared it to Vanguard in the OP. I'm fully aware how similar it is. I never had a chance to actually play Vanguard myself, and Adversary was essentially an attempt to create a continuation of that format so I could have a chance to play it.
>do you think it's worth considering changing Adversary's rules in some manner to make it stand out from Vanguard more?
I do. However, The similarity to Vanguard is sort of like a safety harness for Adversary, ensuring it can't be broken on a conceptual level. If I were to change the rules to be more unique, it would come after a lot of brainstorming, playtesting and feedback.
>>44351940
Change it from 'Relida becomes an X/X creature' to 'put an X/X creature token on the field' and you would be in business. You'd also have to change 'all abilities of exiled creatures' to 'all activated abilities of exiled creatures'. Also, there's nothing explaining what the X values are based on.
>>44354246
>>44354320
>>44354416
I could easily reword the effect so that it doesn't use counters anymore, but is it really worth it? Sometimes being intuitive about what effects mean is more important than being 100% in-line with how Wizards does it, especially in cases where Wizards USED to do it in the exact same way. If the nonstandard counters could cause potential gameplay complications, that's another matter entirely.
Here is a rough version of how Ignis' effect would read without the nonstandard counters:
'At the beginning of your upkeep, deal X damage to all creatures, where X is the number of Burn counters on them'
At your end phase, but a Burn counter on all nonred creatures on the battlfield.'
>>44354427
Okaying the change to Kypris!
>>44354538
Eh, honestly dude the -0/-1 is just not working, don't get me wrong I love the theme. Maybe change it to do damage to all nonflying creatures? Rather than just non-red.
I don't think red boardwipes or board damage have ever just skimmed over red creatures. For a good reason too, a one sided boardwipe in red is pretty strong.
>>44354427
>I never had a chance to actually play Vanguard myself, and Adversary was essentially an attempt to create a continuation of that format so I could have a chance to play it.
I can relate to that, having never had the chance to play Vanguard myself either. I've thought it seemed neat, but no one ever seemed interested in it. I always figured some people somewhere still play it though, but maybe I was wrong if you feel like it's dead enough to require a successor.
>If I were to change the rules to be more unique, it would come after a lot of brainstorming, playtesting and feedback.
That's fair enough I think, although I'd advertise that fact a bit more because it's good to let your playtesters know they're playtesting something subject to change. It also may affect how eagerly people make new Adversaries.
>>44354538
For what it's worth, I don't think something like -0/-1 counters are that confusing to deal with, but if you want to simplify is I think it would be better to put burn counters on Ignis and then have him deal X damage where X is the number of burn counters. The difference from your second version being that now no one can fuck around with the counters by adding, removing, or rearranging them. Although... I suppose leaving the opening for people to do that with the counters has its own merits.
If I could figure out how MSE templates work I'd whip something up.
Mihails of the Unopened Tomes (1)
Artist: Sus22222
Adversary - Rando (UG)
At the beginning of the end step, you may pay [2]. If you do, put target card from your graveyard on top of your library.
22 / 7
>>44354666
>but if you want to simplify is I think it would be better to put burn counters on Ignis and then have him deal X damage where X is the number of burn counters.
That would make Ignis significantly more powerful. He would always be dealing 5 damage to all creatures on turn 5, whereas he was intended to be doing 1 damage to a creature on their first turn after entering the battlefield, 2 damage on their second turn, etc.
>>44354647
Good, good. I'm working on Shiva right now, but I'll get to all of you.
>>44354658
>Maybe change it to do damage to all nonflying creatures? Rather than just non-red.
I think I might change it to 'all creatures', actually. Now that I think about it, the nonred part is a bit much. That will have to come after I've created all these new cards, though.
Incidentally, does anyone have suggestions on how to streamline Shiva's rules text? It's unruly. This is what I have so far:
'Colorless spells cost X lest to cast, where X is the number of Creation counters on Shiva, Lost Machination.
Whenever a nonland colorless permanent would be sent to the graveyard by a source you don’t control, you may exile it instead. If you do, choose one-
Search your library for a colorless card and put it into your hand.
Put a Creation counter on Shiva, Lost Machination.'
>>44354837
Fairly straightforward. I don't see any problems with this, personally. If the ability cost less or the card went into your hand instead of the top of your library, then it might be iffy, but as it stands that seems like a valid level 1. Will make it for you soon.
>>44354837
>of the Unopened Tomes
>holding an opened tome
Dropped.
>>44354837
How is this blue?
>>44354966
Blue gets return effects occasionally, ie Call to Mind and Academy Ruins.
>>44354860
Honestly you can't really trim that without changing the effect. You've done well with the wording, it's the amount of shit shiva does that's the problem.
>>44355023
Green and black get them more often, and for more types.
Red gets those same effects, for those same types, and more recently too.
>>44354133
>under Adversary rules
It may do us well to have the Adversary affect the game from the Command Zone, or create an "unofficial" Zone on the battlefield in which the Adversary resides.
I like the second option, it could be called the Adverse Zone, and would be a Zone such that spells and abilities cannot affect. Adversary rules in this sense can still apply.
This is of course just an idea for continuity efforts, and wouldn't significantly alter the format if you chose to use this idea.
Moved on to Kypris while I'm puzzling over Shiva.
It's a squeeze to get all the text in there, but I think it looks alright. Here you go.
Hawk, did you create this format? If so, you may want to consider using a tripcode for future generals.
>>44355227
I really like this one.
This is honestly as compact as I can make Shiva. Her text size disgusts me, and it's far too close to the right side of the textbox, but it's the best I can do without altering the ability. Here you go.
>>44355255
I can't really say I 'created it', since I'm just trying to revive Vanguard, but yes, I made Adversary. I'll consider a trip in the future, thank you.
>>44355220
We could run with that, yes. I could even concede that Adversaries are permanents, but that they reside in the Adverse zone which cannot be targeted by non-Adversary abilities, thus the tapping.
Does anyone foresee any problems with that?
>>44354837
I was about to start making this, but the image size is actually far too tiny. Barely takes up half of the needed space. Do you have any larger ones?
>>44354133
>They need to do this in order for me to add their Adversary to the .xml file.
In order to add it to your xml. If they don't want people using it, they should make their own private xml.
>>44355379
Seems reasonable. It even leaves open the window for making cards specifically meant to interact with Adversaries or the Adversary Zone, if this ever gets far enough along that that seems like the next thing to do.
>>44355332
Nobody saw that.
>>44355502
I don't think you understand how this works. In order for people to play the Adversary format, BOTH of their Adversaries need to be contained in BOTH of the players' .xml files. Thus, the subtype is necessary.
>>44355561
No, I don't think you understand how it works. If a card is in the xml, it's available to everyone. Putting a name as a subtype does literally nothing to counter this. The only way to prevent people you don't know from using your adversary is to have a fork of the xml and only share it with people you trust to humor your stupidity. This is obviously a retarded and untenable solution, but it's better than your retarded and ineffective solution, in that at least it only effects those people so utterly asininely autistic to give a fuck in the first place.
>>44355633
You were the one suggesting that having your own offshoot .xml file would somehow fix the problem. I was never attempting to prevent people from using 'off-limits' Adversaries - I was attempting to provide a way for people who wish to make their Adversaries off-limits to indicate such, which I have done.
It's very unlikely that anyone is even going to want to restrict their Adversaries to personal use, but in the event that anyone does, this is the best and least intrusive way of accomodating that.
>>44355693
>It's very unlikely that anyone is even going to want to restrict their Adversaries to personal use
So, you acknowledge that your stupid solution is fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Use some fucking cost/benefit analysis skills, man. If there's no benefit, why is the cost worth it?
>>44355514
m8 I think you mean "Colorless spells cost 1 less to cast for each Creation counter on Shiva, Lost Machination"
or "Colorless spells cost X less to cast, where X is the number of Creation counters on Shiva, Lost Machination"
Because the way you have it worded now doesn't make sense.
>>44354133
>This is probably a joke
Why would it be a joke? That's pretty similar to typical goblin card flavor, and it's useful in that your horde of goblins turns into removal and a strong game ender when you need it.
Unfortunately it's harder than one might think to find an image of a cheerful troll or ogre tossing goblins about.
>>44355514
Have you tried making custom normal Magic cards before?
>>44355731
Because this dreaded 'cost' is putting the name of the designer where the subtype would ordinarily be.
Who cares?
The subtype space is never going to be used for Adversaries in the first place.
Also, if I put the designer's name at the bottom of the card alongside the artist's name, it would not show up when browsing through the Adversaries in Cockatrice. Subtype, however, does.
>>44355796
Sorry, brain fart. It was originally "Colorless spells cost X less to cast, where X is the number of Creation counters on Shiva, Lost Machination", but I shortened it in an attempt to make the rules text fit in the box, thus the mistake.
>>44355816
I have, yes. I like making custom cards in general.
Fixed version of Shiva.
>>44355839
>Who cares?
People who like quality.
>>44355899
Alright then. I apologize for any emotional trauma brought on by moderately improper use of the subtype space.
But I'm not going to change it. It serves a purpose which I have already explained multiple times.
In fact, if we ever accumulate an excessive number of Adversaries over the course of these threads, they would begin to serve an even greater purpose - allowing people to search in Cockatrice for Adversaries from a specific creator, whether that be themselves or someone else whose Adversaries they typically enjoy.
>>44355808
Understandable. I would look for an image myself, but I'm a bit busy with other Adversary-related things.
>>44355896
>Shiva, Lost achination
oh for FUCK
>>44355938
Use ~, it automatically becomes the card's name. Use @ if you just want whatever comes before the comma.
>>44356018
He's using photoshop.
I made time. Is this alright?
>>44354427
I would disagree as to the difficulty there, when cards like mind funeral exist, doing the same with but until fourth land, or monsters like Balustrade spy / Mirko vosk doing similar jobs. Mill isn't even that powerful, especially when tacked onto conditions like combat damage.
I could see it being difficulty 3 maybe, but further than that I'd have to disagree. Though if it is preferable, what about going from till land to mill 4 or 5? Tome scour is 1-mana cost card after all.
>>44356060
There's a weird color change in the text box, It might just be the picture ending.
Hopefully this is the last time I need to edit Shiva.
>>44356096
Yeah, I just noticed this myself. There is a very small degree of transparency in the text box. I've fixed it in the template, and I'll go back at some point and edit all of the existing Adversaries to remove it.
>>44356089
Alright, we'll start it off at level 3; just don't be surprised if it gets bumped up to 4 in the first round of balancing. I'll go make it now.
>>44354966
its actually a green effect, the new green confluence has it except with your hand even
>>44356168
Does the "Search your library for a colourless card" restriction matter when you're forced to build a deck with only colourless cards to begin with?
>>44356089
Here you go.
In case anyone's wondering, all of these new cards will be added to the .xml set in one big update once I have all of them (or at least most of them) finished; or when the second thread is posted, whichever comes first. This will include the changes to Calico, Chroma and Fina as well.
>Elania
Awaiting approval of proposed changes.
>Groth
Awaiting approval of proposed changes.
>Nemosyn
Awaiting approval of proposed changes.
>Relida
Awaiting approval of proposed changes.
>Mihalis
Awaiting larger image.
>>44356241
according to the established rules of magic, yes
>>44356278
What did you settle on for the Calico changes?
>>44356168
Kinds of counters aren't capitalised, i.e., you should be using creation counters, not Creation counters.
>>44356292
Why's that? Why can't she read "search your library for any card"?
>>44356278
Hey hawk, this is a flavor question. Do you want all the adversaries to be new characters or can there be "timeshifted" established characters?
>>44356278
>Elania
Yeah, feel free to bump it back down to 20 life.
>>44356294
I'm going to bring her initial hand size down to 3. It's a fairly cautious nerf for now. It's likely her level will be increased to 3 in the next update, depending on how much of an effect the hand size adjustment seems to have.
Her first effect is also going to be adjusted so that the cards are put into the graveyard before the match begins, which will prevent effects like Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre's from activating.
I forgot to mention that Ignis will also be adjusted.
>>44356304
I want off this ride. Fixed.
>>44356336
I believe there have already been two Adversaries which are alternate versions of established MTG creatures, so yeah, that's fine. I would personally prefer it if you went for new characters, but it's not particularly important.
>>44356338
Oh, I forgot to mention that you also need to post an image for Elania. Sorry about that.
>>44356305
Its a future proofing measure and also technically a weaker tutor effect. It would allow the format to grow without being undercut by a poor wording on a card or a rules change down the road.
>>44356371
I see. Not too sure what change would let her put non-colourless cards into her deck, but it's not a big deal anyway.
>>44356351
Also, these days, choosing options is templated as in pic related.
>>44356351
K cool, im the giy from earlier who wanted to make an ant green artifacer and I wanted it to be a power 5 adversary. A time shifted mishra seemed to be the perfect choice for it instead of making an oc that would make venser and tezzeret look like bitches
>>44356366
Okey dokey. This one looked nice. No idea about the artist, though, since I can't read moonrunes.
Elania's done.
>>44356390
I originally had it formatted this way, as you can see here: >>44355514
But it was impossible to fit the text in. You can see that the full stop at the very end is going over the boundary, and there isn't room for another line. That's also the smallest text size I can use before it starts to look really off.
>>44356431
Minor thing: Any chance you could change Priest to Priestess? I totally derped on that one. Thanks a bunch :3
>>44356442
But it's a trap
>>44356442
>>44356460
Anon >>44356450 has a point, I'll leave it as is.
>>44356381
wishes are the reason for this change, they dont want cards with wording like outside of the game before there are rules to define what outside of the game meant
Hey there Hawk!
Could you please share the Magic Set Editor file with me?
>>44356060
It is amazing. Time to build a deck.
Uh, what cards are allowed in this format?
>>44356498
The format is modern. You can find information about the banlist and such earlier in the thread.
>>44356497
I'm not using MSE, I'm afraid. I'm using Photoshop. The .psd template has already been posted earlier in the thread.
>>44356060
>Anon
For fuck's sake, just omit the credit if it's anonymous.
>>44356504
Do you reckon you'll move over to MSE when you get the chance? This looks absolutely awesome, I am going to try and think of some cards and post them soon. <3
>>44356507
I like things to be uniform. 'Adversary - Anon' essentially sends the same message as 'Adversary - Hawk', which is 'public domain Adversary'.
>>44356518
Except in the literal legal meaning of the term, all of these are public domain anyway.
>>44356517
>Do you reckon you'll move over to MSE when you get the chance?
Probably not. I care more about quality than ease of creation, and Photoshop seems to have MSE beat on the quality side of things.
That said, if someone who is more familiar with MSE than me makes a template for Adversary cards, I'll definitely try it out and I'm sure many others will find it useful.
>>44356527
Obviously, that goes without saying. You are fully aware of what I mean when I say 'public domain'.
>>44356535
>You are fully aware of what I mean when I say 'public domain'.
I'm pretty sure you mean in the sense that all of these are public domain anyway, which makes it a meaningless feature.
I'm considering further changing Calico's effect so that the 16 cards are put into exile rather than the graveyard.
Is this too crippling a change or would she still have merit as a playable Adversary?
![5[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/I8ZbK0y.jpg "5[1].jpg")
