Gain Control Edition! (permanently and until end of turn)
>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://old.photojoiner.net/
http://photojoiner.net/
http://www.fotor.com/features/photo-stitch.html
>/ccg/ sets (completed and in development)
http://pastebin.com/hsVAbnMj
OT: >>46390195
>>46462043
>>46462043
>Gain Control Edition!
This is a mechanic I came up with for my spider/drow faction. They also use alot of sacrifice effects, so the capture mechanic helps to fuel that.
>>46462043
Should I make it so that it can only block that creature? Hypothetically Hook-Nosed Shrieker could kill the attacking creature that it dealt 2 damage to and then block something else. Maybe instead I should have it "When ~ enters the battlefield, it gets +2/+0 until end of turn"
Or maybe the way it currently is works best?
>>46462581
Nice card. The only thing I see with it is that it should say "can't attack or block" instead of "cannot"
What does /tg/ think about this? Should it be 1U instead?
kek
>>46462816
Lol, wut
Hmm, seems OK to me, but yea, probably 1U would be more balanced.
>>46462816
It is like Silence.
I'd rather it stay White.
>>46462931
Mostly I wanted a counterspell usable by this guy for flavor reasons (beholders usually have some form of anti-magic) but the way he allows for spell casting requires targeting something he deals combat damage to. Its honestly not a card I would expect to see much play.
Changing the name to Spell Stifle and changing the mana cost to 1U
>>46462694
I think it currently works fine. No real reason to stop it from blocking something else if the main target dies.
>>46464258
Haha, I know a colorless ritual isn't much of a ritual at all, but like Priest of Urabrask is a perfectly fair card and didn't need to be outclassed in 3 different ways.
Reposting 'cause why not.
>>46464544
Really squishy, very dependent on your opponents having artifacts in order for it to be really good.
>>46462043
>Gain Control Edition! (permanently and until end of turn)
Nice edition, anon. Wish I thought of it a while ago.
Oh, and to anyone who likes Enslave and wants to copy it: Black *technically* gets to steal things permanently like Blue, it's just that the stolen thing typically isn't on the battlefield when it gets taken. Stealing from the hand, graveyard, library, etc. So please consider that before literally just making a Black card with a mono-Blue effect.
>>46462080
For some reason, I read this as "Betrayal by Dragons" for a moment. Does give me an interesting idea for a card though.
>>46464272
>>46464258
These are fuckin neato. Great art, too
I am unsure about this one. Mental image is a crab with a bulging backpack and an abacus strapped to one claw.
>>46465291
Hmm... maybe...
>Exile a card from your hand face down. Until your next upkeep, you may look at and play that card.
Though I don't see much point in this besides discard protection.
>>46465291
What.
>>46465401
I think it lets you be a bit sneaky against counterspells and the like but that's fairly niche.
>>46465277
Enslave exists because black can have basically anything as long as there's a downside: something is sacrificed or the player takes some damage/loses life or something.
I don' really consider capture to be infringing on blue's territory though. The fact that captured creatures can't do anything (except be sacrificed and some specialized cards like pic related) make it a very different sort of thing.
>>46465714
>Enslave exists because black can have basically anything as long as there's a downside: something is sacrificed or the player takes some damage/loses life or something.
Well, I needed a good laugh. I hate to break it to you, but you don't have a clue what Enslave does or why it exists. Enslave exists because it was made during the Planar Chaos set, which saw a lot of color pie-warping with cards (for example, pic related), as it was what the entire set was about. Second, Enslave specifies that the damage is dealt to the enchanted creature's OWNER, which in most cases, will be the guy you stole it from. The situations where Enslave causes the creature to damage you are few and far between.
>>46465880
Interesting.
>>46465880
Only downside I can see is there's not a good way to attack with it, even if they decide to flash it in at a weird time.
Still a pretty neat concept though.
>>46465714
You do realise the enslave doesn't have a downside right?
>>46465947
Not him, but you only lose control of it at the beginning of YOUR next end step. In all likelihood, you'll even get an upkeep trigger if it has one.
>>46462043
>>46465880
>>46465996
Ah, I misread it. I assumed it was until end of Turn.
That works very well then. It's basically a counterspell version of the typical betrayal effect. You have to have mana open for it to work, but if you do you're sure to get all of the card's best effects.
>>46466037
This gave me an idea.
>>46466273
I'll repost the image so people arent confused.
>>46467799
Enchanted creature should also get +7/+1, though that would really up the Bestow cost. Might also want to untap the enchanted creature too.
>>46462581
Maybe trap capture with a cocoon token or something? Could be hard to remember if the Orbweaver gets removed
>>46462043
>Gain Control Edition!
Can we please just go back to Shadowmoor?
>>46462080
I don't know if I like this way of red jumping through hoops to "earn" permanent control.
>>46467423
Seems a little too good. Maybe make it cost 2UB instead of 2 U/B U/B
>>46468181
>3/1 first strike and Wither for 2
wew lad. Why don't you give it haste and infect?
>>46468206
Make it red black then?
>>46462581
Honestly, I'd rather this mechanic just make a 0/1 Captive creature token that can't attack or block. It's not as ~flavorful~ but less ugly mechanically and easier to play with. And the flavor would still get across, it just wouldn't be as direct in play.
>>46468206
>Gain control of target instant or sorcery spell. You may choose new targets for it. Put it into its owner's hand instead of his or her graveyard after resolving.
Had this one for a while. I'm set on the first ability, but I'm still not sure on the second. Any suggestions?
>>46468181Only if we go back to Lorwyn after.
>>46468304
Always a fan of this one. I believe I helped you word this one actually.
>>46468249
Because infect is a shit mechanic that never should have replaced wither
>>46464258
Yeah, I'd like this better as a 2/1 or 1/3 that costs 2(<>)
>>46464272
The first choice is different from the processor eldrazi in the ways that made processing okay. This is too much exile recursion.
>>46465291
>>46468378
Not him, but still.
>>46464544
Make him cheaper to cast and make the ability more expensive, by about 1 I'd say.
>>46465250
+1/+0 for each artifact you control is enough to make a pretty good card in the right deck.
>>46465277
Dude do you know what happened to the thread regulars? Do people still exist?
>>46468477
I like this one.
>>46468477
Very nice!
>>46468477
I really like that design. I think that's a neat way to give Red more permanent control. It could also be done in a neat way with cumulative upkeep.
>>46465291
This is so narrow, it could be a lot more efficient.
It also points out a reason I dislike counterspells, which is that they are referenced incredibly disproportionately to anything else that only one color has such a monopoly on. "Can't be countered" is an ability that shows up a lot for a tool that only one color gets.
>>46468513
Kazy's still around, and it looks like AVP guy is too. Unfortunately, I'm actually kinda bad at remembering people. Uh... haven't seen Time anon in a while, Frontier Fellow bailed a long time ago, Pirate anon seemed to show up a few times after he finished his set and then left. And as for me, I've actually kind been distracted by either stuff, and don't post as much as I used to. Sorry, man. Times change, not always for the better.
>Your Cheating Heart
I think I'd prefer a Mark of Mutiny effect in order to justify putting a loyalty counter on the walker.
>>46468477
Yeah, but for example, this card is really shitty and it costs roughly the same. Maybe make Cassim's toughness 2 or maybe make him cost RRR instead of 2RR?
>>46465880
>Its owner gains control of that creature at the beginning of your next end step.
I think this is what it should be. Spells already refer to creatures in a mix of "spell" "card" or just plain "creature" for the same card as it moves zones with the card's abilities. No need for "it becomes" I don't think.
>>46465894
This is a fun card. I could see it costing 1RW too.
Pls no bully
>>46468758
That's really cheap for land destruction on those second and third cards.
If you go first, Teachings on any 1 drop will kill your opponent's only land, and you can easily do that every turn until you win. unless they have a lot of good one drops, it'll basically win you the game.
Projected Inferno is slightly harder to trigger, but even that can easily be done very early and swing things in your favor, and it isn't even a bad effect outside of the LD.
>>46468758
you should reverse the abilities on that planeswalker
i'd say something like:
+1 target permanent becomes a land in addition to it's other types
-2 destroy target land
-7 destroy all lands, target opponent takes X damage where X is the number of lands destroyed this way
the enchantment is too good also. the sorcery is also too good. simmer down son.
>>46468590
Yeah I've been gone for, like, months, and thinking maybe I shoulda hung around more. Ah well.
And, the thing with justifying putting a loyalty counter on the planeswalker, is that you can just as well activate a - or ultimate ability with them. So it already doesn't do much with the flavor of loyalty counters.
>>46467799
There is so much fun stuff to be done with bestow that they never dared touch.
I feel like this falls off as soon as it takes effect, but I'm not positive. Is there a better way I could word it?
>>46469029
See Dream Leash
>>46469078
So would this work better?
>>46468317
Thanks
>>46468373
Cool. I'd believe it.
Robin seems pretty good, and I'm sure there are some equipment out there that make him go nuts by being cheap but with high equips. Kazuul's Toll Collector kinda stole a lot of his thunder though.
>>46468252
If you don't want to edit the card a whole lot, that'd be one way to do it. I like the idea of taking a step back and reworking it though.
So, perhaps some permanent with a way to gain control of things, and a line like "Whenever you gain control of a permanent you don't own, you may pay B. If you do, put a treachery counter on that permanent." And then having the line. Means it works as a fun build around card too, if you pack your deck with other steal effects. Might be too wordy though. Things to think about besides just adding another color to the activated ability or cost, though.
>>46468871
>>46468936
Thanks for the feedback guys. I'll keep working on it. Gotta hit the hay for now, but I'll post tomorrow with less broken updates.
>>46468310
I can't help but feel that a lot of the time this card is going to make the creature weaker.
>>46469122
It might be easier to just have it take control of an artifact and make it replace its abilities with tapping for G. Changing it into a land is tricky.
>>46469122
Sorry, Song of the Dryads already exists.
>>46469128
Well, I also made this. Honestly, I've just been going nuts for a while on a card for Robin. Unfortunately his power is "being good at fighting" without really having much of an identity that could translate well to Magic. Or maybe I'm just dumb and missing something, who knows.
>>46468322
For the first ability, consider having it do its thing at the beginning of combat. Then you can gain control of your own creature you played in main phase one to give it haste.
Second ability seems fine to me though.
>>46469249
Oh wow, I totally forgot that card. Thanks.
Digging up my old meme tribal set which is about 60% "done"
>>46462080
My brother keeps saying this is over powered. Really? Compare it to Zealous Conscripts. Really? It's over powered?
>>46469265
Cool, thanks.
>>46469414
>>46469519
>>46469558
>>46469558
>Areb
Oh, I've heard of his tribes. I believe they're in competition with the Khristians and the Gews.
>>46469519
Should have "pay 1 life" as part of the cost instead (Mana Confluence vs City of Brass). Cleaner and saves text. I'd omit the "The" from the name. The second ability should at least cost 2 mana, so that the land is not so much better than Kher Keep.
>>46469414
Call forth is incredibly dangerous as a mechanic, and I don't think it should be as omnipresent as a keyword needs to be.
>>46469618
kek
>>46469611
>>46469637
You know this keyword exists, right?
>>46469625
Noted
>>46469698
Not entirely what I'm going for.
>>46469637
The haste makes this card break the color pie super fucking hard
>>46469460
The enchantment is really slow, but in slow formats the repeatability is key.
>>46469726
I feel like this would be a million times easier to do if it were just a sorcery that said
>Gain control of target Aura. You may attach it to target permanent you control.
>>46469747
It only has haste since you sacrifice the creature at the end of turn.
>>46469865
That makes it break the color pie even more
>>46468590
I'm still here. Sort of. Just not into making sets or anything at the moment, if ever again. I just do stuff for the thread edition if the edition is fun. Which this one seems to be. So, I suppose I'll make some cards tonight.Not that you recognize or associate this set symbol with anything meaningful; I dunno why I even have one for one-offs. I should probably drop it.
Have an off-color "gain control" spell. I should probably make it WU honestly but the "tax" makes it feel at least kinda white enough.
>>46469726
Pretty much what >>46469835 said, though as an enchant enchantment it at least has zero memory issues.
>>46469611
A fine common, though Graft in black is a bit off, since black tends to be selfish.
>>46469558
>GW
>doesn't care about tokens
Are you specifically bucking design trends with this? Just curious.
>>46469519
Yeah, I agree that the token gen needs to be more expensive.
>>46469475
I was gonna say this is very very dangerous but it's 4 mana for a 2/2, it can be good. I think it works like you want it to.
>>46469463
Neat. It's 6 mana so it can probably be this good, but I would shrink the body a touch, since it's likely just gonna sit there anyway. Maybe 3/4, as a callback to Soul Collector?
>>46470311
*Should* be blue, but in addition to the tax, it also still doesn't allow for attacking. So, it's about as white as something like this can get.
>>46470610
Name's taken.
>>46470695
And here I thought I was being clever.
>>46470677
Cool way of doing artifact hate in black.
>>46470311
>>46469475
Yeah, and remember that if it's dealt 3 damage, it does die as a state based action while the second ability is on stack.
>>46469519
I think this is fine. Compared to Kher Keep that is.
>>46470311
GW caring about tokens mostly comes from a specific block.
>>46470677
Wizards actually did a few cards like this a long time ago, but now use this really anal wording that also covers activated abilities that don't cause the artifact to tap.
>>46470509
Yeah, that was what I figured. Works for me. I woudn't have minded making it WU, but I prefer it W if I can have it that way.
I like yours, by the way. Good way to do a "traitor then screwed" sort of Aura. And as an Aura, you can't use it as a combat trick on the opponent's turn, so it's reined in that way.
>>46470610
As has been stated, name is taken, and I'm pretty sure this thing is degenerate as all hell. Can also create a super-confusing stack, which, while not inherently bad, can make things really awkward.
>>46470677
This is cool, but not common at all. Uncommon maybe, rare probably. Also perhaps slightly more expensive, but only like 2B or something most likely.
Naya traitor effect on a stick. Using red being able to copy and GW getting permanent tokens, as well as the 5 power thing as a all-in-one drawbackflavor thing. I feel like I'm kinda pushing it with my cards tonight so far. Feels odd; I don't normally do that. Maybe this should be spendier? I don't think so because there are some decks it literally does nothing against, but who knows? I'm the definition of a mediocre designer.
>>46470677
I like the concept. Great way of doing anti-artifact stuff while keeping in Black's pie by basically tacking a downside onto one.
Probably would need to be a higher rarity in an actual set, but that's minor.
>>46470802
Going opposite of that just feels strange though, since even without the Selesnya the GW color combo shares a ton of design space in token generation.
>>46470836
My first thought with this card would be to either give your own creatures haste, or give them vigilance, and that was before I read that it made token copies of them.
It's a really interesting card, but I think it actually works really well. If I had to change it in any way, I'd make it a 1/2 just so it's a bit more durable.
I could be off-base with that though. It's a tricky effect to judge, but I love the concept.
>>46470836
When you said traitor effect, for some reason I was thinking of this.
>>46470836
It works on your own creatures, so it doesn't matter what your opponent plays.
>>46470802
I think White and Green typically care the most about tokens. White loves making soldier tokens in large numbers, and green does the same with saprolings, though also the occasional bear or wolf.
The main colors that would compete would be Red with goblins and Black with zombies, but G/W are the creature colors, which extends to Tokens rather naturally.
>>46470960
They care about creatures more than specifically tokens, it just happens that tokens are a good way of providing them. Encouraging nontoken creature play is a perfectly fine avenue for GW to go down.
>>46470941
This is really cool though. I like it a lot as another take on that sort of thing.
>>46470928
Thanks. Yeah, it's really odd to judge that way.
>>46470945
That's true. Does it need a "you don't control" clause? Fine with putting one in, since that's more the intent than using on your own stuff.
>>46470988
It doesn't need one necessarily, a five mana 1/1 synergy piece is fine.
>>46467423
Put them... where?
>>46470677
>>46470836
>>46470864
I do not think it is really that powerful. Your opponent is not forced to tap the artifact, and it is effectively a Shatter that your opponent can ignore if he has sacrifice fodder lying around. Plus it does not affect artifacts that do not need to tap.
>>46470988
I think having it affect your own creatures adds an interesting dynamic. If you're running it in that Naya style deck, then at best you're going to be doubling your creature drops, but to do so it's also taking the place of one.
It'll get out of hand fast if they don't deal with it, but being such a small body makes that easy. It's in the same vein as a lot of those types of finishers, which is why I think it works just fine as is.
>>46470610
qt art
>>46471114
It doesn't really need to be that powerful. If they don't tap it, then they aren't going to be using any tap effects. If they have sacrifice fodder, then they're putting it towards that instead of something else.
While it doesn't affect all artifacts, it does hit a fair amount of them. Plus there's always the option of running it alongside Blue and tapping the artifacts manually.
It's an interesting little piece that gives Black some new tricks. It's not supposed to shut down all artifacts forever or anything.
>>46468758
>>46468936
>>46468871
Really cheap land destruction, yeah, but the PW fix isn't very good.
The +1 is nigh useless, especially on a T7+ card. Also keep in mind that a +1'ing PW on T7+ is (or should be) really easy to get rid of.
On high cmc PW's you can afford to have 'broken' abilities. I'd do something like this.
LYL:4
+2: Destroy target artifact or land.
0: Add R to your mana pool for each artifact, land, instant, or sorcery card in target player's graveyard.
-10: Destroy all lands target player controls. Watch him scoop. Then add R to your mana pool for each land destroyed this way.
>>46468647
I want it to cost {1} less, but hybrid D;
>>46469265
Hmmmmmmmmm. I also want this to cost {1} less. Sad day. Really good card though, I could see it in SOI.
>>46468304
There are a number of cards in the set that reference certain aspects of the sacrificed creatures, such as their CMC, their power or toughness, and in some cases the fact that they are non-tokens is relevant.
I kind of want to make a Warcraft themed set. How bad an idea is this?
>>46471261
About a 7/10. It could be done well, though you'll need to go about it carefully. Translating things over to Magic is tricky, since mechanics, philosophy, and color are all tied together, while in other settings they're usually more fluid.
>>46471261
Let me give you some advice:
Put mechanics ahead of flavor. Focus on making a fun card, not an accurate representation of a character or something.
Speaking of, color pie. Choose colors based on the mechanics. Period. Don't choose them based on the philosophy of the characters themselves, it just doesn't work.
Don't be afraid to cut corners. You don't have to represent every single little aspect of something, just enough to get a good, interesting card.
>>46471239
spiders usually have reach.
>>46471044
>>46471121
Alrighty then. Feels odd that I kinda just lucked into making a better card than was really originally intended. Not gonna complain though.
>>46471239
Hm. This seems okay. I recall some spider doing something like this anyway. Maybe it was a spell, I should probably look it up at any rate.
>>46471457
I've commented on this before, so no need to again (not to take credit or anything but I was the one, or one of, the people that suggested giving her an artifact focus to separate her from Supes and Supergirl) but I just want to say maybe some new art? Gotta use some Connors art; that shit is the quintessential Peej.
>>46471261
Also, I'll sign most of what COanon said, and add that even if you see WotC stretching the pie, don't be tempted to do it too much yourself. They have way more practice at it than you'll ever have, so resist the urge unless it really, REALLY fits with the set theme.
>card
Backlash adjusted for what colors it would probably be in, with the benefit of a body but the drawback of sorcery speed.
>>46471457
Thanks, I try to keep all that in mind when creating top down cards. Sometimes I try to fudge the mechanics to fit the color I think best fits the character, but that never goes well. Also, I'll be careful not to just make a bunch of legendaries with spells thrown in as an afterthought. A lot of top down sets do that and I don't want to make that mistake.
>>46471370
Yeah, if I have to choose between good mechanics and accurately representing the setting I'll choose mechanics. But I think Warcraft's setting fits more cleanly into the colors than most.
>>46471621
A fine card, though the flavor, while I get it, is a bit odd, since it implies the thing grew large due to a large meal, but that meal would be long digested by the time it died if it had... aw fuck it I'm being pedantic. Solid card.
>>46471621
Kinda seems like it should be white somehow
>>46471665
White/WB would probably put the creature on the battlefield. WG? No idea.
>>46471552
This I like.
>>46471457
This feels too cheap for unconditional flying and indestructible.
>>46471239
Make them 1/2 Spiders with reach and adjust the cost, or just do 1/1 green Insect tokens. Spiders have a very strong identity that players would expect.
>>46471707
I just feel like that giant python should be white. Don't know why, just feels like it. Maybe the flavor?
>>46471552
How do you suggest incorporating artifacts into her card? And yeah, I was actually just looking through the art I have to see if I have something better.
>Irestroke
This effect is solidly BR.
>>46469161
I'm still getting a lot of people calling it OP. I don't understand how it is. How often is it going to be able to get a 3rd activation on the same permanent? In most cases they're probably going to play something better that you want to gain control of.
>>46472203
>suggested
Past tense, man. I suggested it a long time ago. I know she already has an artifact-related ability; I was just saying that's why no "new" comment is all.
>Irestoke
Backlash is from Invasion. Traitor's Roar is from Lorwyn. One is too old to matter, the other is notoriously pie-bent, and also almost too old to matter. I couldn't find any other instance of this in a more modern card, and blue taps, red does traitor damage. Not sure how it's a miss.
>>46471985
I use alot of spiders in the set, many of which break the "higher toughness than power with reach" concept. Any given creature type can be very different from one plane to the next. In the core MTG world yes, spiders are mono-green with reach. On this plane they are green and/or black and reach isn't as common.
Along with drow, the spiders make up the green/black faction. It would seem silly to lock myself into a situation where every spider had to have reach. In most other sets there's only one or two spiders, but here I have alot more design space to fill with them.
>>46472134
>Someone posts a giant black python
>"WHY CAN'T THE GIANT PYTHON BE WHITE?"
/pol/ is just trolling us with its cuck memes, I don't think this is meant to be taken seriously.
>>46472392
I was more making a penis joke since it's a GIANT PYTHON and the flavor text mentions swallowing something large.
>>46472364
Feels more white than black, black would much prefer the creatures hanging around in the grave.
>>46472342
I like this card, but it feels slow to me. 6BBBRRR to steal a permanent is awful, even if it's repeatable. I dunno what you'd need to do to adjust it though... make it cost less initially probably? I mean I guess if treachery counters are a thing besides this, then maybe it needs to be so spendy? I feel like I don't have all the story maybe.
It did inspire me to make a card though.
>>46472524
Hm. This doesn't strike me as offensive in any way but it's also tripping my "this might be broken" alarm. Probably because I am wary of "free" spells.
>>46472468
Wouldn't this make the creature never hit an untap step?
>>46472468
Ooh, I like that card.
The reason folks think >>46472342 is overpowered is because it's an Act of Treason every turn for only 4 mana. And you can gain control of your opponent's best permanent every turn, even a planeswalker. In the case of a creature it gives you an extra attacker and reduces their potential blockers by 1. And abilities like Dominus of Fealty are attached to a body that is much easier to remove than an Enchantment.
>>46472564
Yes, you are right. Should say:
"At the beginning of each player's upkeep, he or she gains control of enchanted creature and untaps it."
>>46472595
>>46472564
>>46472575
Oh, good catch, you're right, lemme fix that. Glad you like it though.
>>46472342
It might work better if you stuck it on a creature as a Spellshaper style effect.
Then you can have it do a treason effect for 3 and a discarded card, stick a counter on it, and then just add the control clause at the end. That helps the issue of being able to use it repeatedly, and being a creature means they can more easily remove it to get their creature back.
>>46472630
Untap is before upkeep.
>>46472342
>>46472668
Pic related, as a quick example.
>>46472694
It's a pity no one will control the enchanted creature during his or her untap step.
>>46472743
Seems similar to this. But yeah, bigger body, can target any permanent, and a final effect that's pretty cool warrants the extra cost.
>>46472743
If it doesnt have the survivability of an enchantment, no real reason to keep the treachery thing around.
>>46472743
Yeah I dig this.
>>46472904
I'm pretty sure this can be monoblack, but part of me would rather see it in BG.
>>46472915
The life loss/gain feels kinda odd; am I reading it right that it punishes them for running one-ofs more than playsets? I guess a lot of netdecks do that so it makes some sense.
>>46473129
This is probably fine, though I would be more comfortable with it at rare myself. Losing the ability to gain the thing permanently does remove quite a bit of the flavor of the original though.
>>46473210
With regard to Ingestigation, I believe the point might be that if it's only a one-of, you still get the bonus of the lifeswing, but if they have 4 the fact that you've extracted the cards is enough on its own.
>>46462043
>>46473431
10/10. Love this. Seeing it in a draft would be really neat.
>>46473443
I think you want 'Instant or sorcery spells'. As creatures are spells. And 2 for a 3/3 haste that prevents you doing anything but playing land while it's out is kinda crippling.
>>46472915
I feel like when you have this much rules text you should just make peace with having no flavor text.
Also relevant to the edition
Can we talk about how awkward some of the SOI card names are?
"Gain control of target permanent until end of turn. Untap it. It gains haste until end of turn."
"Gain control of target creature until end of turn. Untap that creature. It gains haste until end of turn."
"Untap target creature and gain control of it until end of turn. That creature gains haste until end of turn."
Why are there so many ways this kind of effect is worded in oracle text?
>>46473680
I figured that it's part of the charm, like Shards of Broken Glass or From Under the Floorboards.
>>46473820
Newer templating likely reads better in their test groups, and it's not a big concern that they need to errata old cards.
>>46473680
is demonic vessel really better then demon possessed witch?
>>46473849
>referencing awful flavor text
You're a bad person.
>>46473917
Bogles 1-4?
I have to rethink all my fight spells, now that green gets Rabid Bite.
>>46468449
should read
Reveal the card if it would change zones (When a spell resolves, it changes zone.)
for you, /ccg/.
>>46474047
Good point.
Bump
>>46475364
Should be "If you do, put a +1/+1 counter on Daring Lion."
>>46475364
Unless the counter matters, I'd rather this just be a 2/2 that always gave target opponent 3 life. Or buff the stats and mana cost such that the base isn't a miserable vanilla 1/1.
I challenge you fags to come up with a Vanguard ability based on gold, bribery, salary, bidding, that sort of thing.
>On each player's untap phase, that player may choose not to untap a land. If they do, put a coin counter on that land.
>On each player's end phase, that player may move any number of coin counters on lands they control to target permanents. Players gain control of permanents if they control the most coin counters on that permanent.
Ignore the nonsensical wording for now, I want a cool concept and I can make it make sense later.
>>46476437
>>46476437
If you already have a concept, why don't you just make the card?
>>46476470
My concept is pretty shitty. Think of it more like a sample of the theme so you can propose something infinitely better.
>>46476498
Oh wow, you're right, it is shitty. Well, I honestly have no idea what to do other than just make a Vanguard version of this guy.
Wanted to try something a bit odd with Red's tendency towards very brief mind control and white's protective nature.
Would:
"Target spell’s controller manifests it."
works as a counterspell with a downside? Or will I need to remove it from the stack or the game first?
>{X}: Target player gains control of target creature with converted mana cost X. Any player may activate this ability.
Thoughts?
>>46476596
Tip: Use shift+enter for a line break when you're quoting someone. It should look like pic related.
>>46476714
Cool idea, great art choice. The name could use some work, though - it needs to imply something more coercive, I think.
>>46476770
I think - I think - you can manifest from anywhere. I think. You'd be better off exiling it first, though, just to be sure.
>>46476976
I like the potential for chain reactions. Provoke doesn't get enough love.
>>46473986
Love it. It's as green as they come.
>>46473998
Does this work? As in, does it still kill things?
>>46474013
Red and green are getting a lot of overlap lately. Cool card, too.
>>46473465
Contested Outskirts, nowadays, would be formatted T: Add {C}{C} to your mana pool.
>>46473875
I did something similar with Red investigate. This is a much simpler way of doing it, though. Good common.
>>46473849
Something about this feels very old-school. Probably the combination of "Elder" and the upkeep cost.
Amusingly enough, that works pretty well with the flavor.
>>46473465
One thing that might be interesting with Hired Guns is to make the ability cost [2/R][2/R], which makes it easier for it's owner to snag it back. You'd have to rebalance it, though.
>>46477075
>Cool idea, great art choice. The name could use some work, though - it needs to imply something more coercive, I think.
Yeah, I had a few alternate names but most of them ran into 'Too many damn words' so I went with the less of a mouthful one. Here is the other short name one I had.
>>46473431
A really cool take on the thread theme. The whole design really clicks together.
>>46472675
Even with the flying-only restriction, gaining control of any creature for 1U seems too much.
>>46472524
Seconding that this is probably going to break something horribly in legacy or whatever. Still, it's a neat card. I might do a version of it for lands.
>>46472364
Could be white or hybrid W/B, or WB. You need to zoom in the art a little - the black border is showing. Might be better if you sacrificed Voidwalkers instead of exiling it, while still exiling the target.
>>46472419
Black does get "exile target creature". It fits, just about.
>>46472356
Spider Tribal? Yes please. If it were me, I'd make it a legend for EDH purposes. One more thing - your set symbol looks a lot like Dissension's. Not a big deal, just something I noticed.
>>46477075
As I'm trying to use manifest/morph, I was also wondering if morph cards without morph cost was possible. As in "Morph (reminder text)" instead of "Morph <cost> (reminder text)".
Tough I guess I could just say "“You may cast this card as a 2/2 face-down creature.”
Okay, /ccg/, I need some help. I'm trying to make a block based around Australian mythology. So far, my plot is "Jace walks in, fucks up everything by trying to use mind-magic on a shaman who is currently in a collective consciousness "spirit world," and then a bunch of people have to clean up his mess." So far, my theme is "cards in hand matter," and it's supposed to have a nice tribal theme. My creature types thus far are:
>Spirits in WUG
>Pirates in UBR
>Humans in WUB
>Elementals in R
>Bears in G
I feel I should note that the bears are, strictly speaking, called "dureburs." They've got a gimmick of being incredibly powerful, bar one overwhelming, crushing disadvantage. For example, one of them's a 4/1 for 1...with Defender and blocks each turn if able. The best ones all have some way to remove their disadvantages.
>>46474480
Thanks.
>>46477394
Oh, and I was also wondering if tokens could be put face down or not. I see nothing preventing it right now.
>>46477518
Maybe it could have vigilance?
>>46477519
I don't believe they can, actually - the reason face down cards are treated as 2/2 colorless, nameless creatures is a rules thing. I don't believe tokens can be put "Face down", and even if they can, I don't think you can flip them without removing them from existence.
>>46477531
Not a bad idea.
I was playing with the idea that well, provoke isn't just for hunting down the back line. That and that provoke is a white keyword as much as red.
The much sillier, legendary idea I also had for it.
>>46477548
Well, reading token rules, tokens aren't cards rulewise, so I guess they can't be turned face down.
But I'm not sure it would remove them either. Token are removed as soon as they change zone, turning them face down keep them on the battlefield all along.
It may be a case like when you try to put a manifested instant or ritual face up: you reveal it and put it back face down (701.31e).
>>46477672
Funnily enough, in practice it plays kinda like as "target creature can't block (anything that matter) this turn", which is very red.
As for the legendary, some Ogre Enforcer (look it up) type of protection would make it really cool.
Orrampage. In other colours of course, like red and green "I'm taking you all" style.
>>46477948
Isn't it green?
Also, "at random" what? Shuffle at random? That's kinda the point of shuffling, isn't it?
Or is it the card which is chosen at random? Then is should read: "Shuffle a card chosen at random among your graveyard into your library." Not sure to see the point of such a card though.
>>46477925
Yeah. Would need new art for a rampage version.
Maybe this for the legendary. No innate Provoke but it's W per guy you wanna yank so she's a lovely place to shove excess mana. Also dropped the toughness to make her actually able to, you know, be killed (Even if it's hard as balls)
Ogre Enforcer was a Red card but I don't think that such a defensive ability would be out of place in white.
>>46478228
>Ogre Enforcer was a Red
It's also a card from visions, the set before 5th edition, so colour identity may have been off.
>>46478318
Yeah, that was part of my logic for going 'Eh, I'm not going to say it's exclusively a red thing'. All the way back in Visions and a single instance of it in the game makes it hard to lock down in the pie.
>>46478356
I could see it in green too, with the "I'm the pack alpha, you ain't ganging up on me you little shits" flavour.
>>46478432
Yeah. W/G/R
W because it's a heavily defencive/shielding ability.
G due to it's love of big stompy creatures
R due to general berseker lack of shits about pain (And because there is already a card with it in Red)
...I'm almost tempted to make this a keyword in the set I tinker with on and off. Maybe 'Inviolate' or something. Would be a bit disgusting with the 'Dueling' theme it already has though and the Fight cards.
>>46473582
This feels so much like a real card.
>>46472356
If it doesn't "feel" like spiders over any other generic insect I can't be excited about it.
>>46470311
>Just not into making sets or anything at the moment, if ever again.
What makes you uninterested in doing it again?
>>46477948
Neat flavor, but the lack of targetting meaning you can cast it with an empty grave, and the incredibly minor effect due to being random, makes me question when this is ever going to do ANYTHING but cycle for R.
>>46477109
The tap ability being on the big burly 4/4 instead of, say, the elf lady in that picture, is a bit odd.
>>46477705
I like this one the most, actually.
>>46479375
A worse desertion? Not that there is anything wrong with that...
Would anyone here want to play a deck using this card?
>>46479458
I actually hadn't known about desertion. Guess I'll scrap it or make it 2UU.
Could someone help me with the wording for this?
>Human creatures you control have Mercy. (If this creature would deal lethal damage to another creature, you may choose not to deal that damage. If you do, put a mercy counter on this creature.)
>Sacrifice a human: Search your sideboard for an angel with CMC equal to or less than the amount of mercy counters on that creature and put it on the battlefield.
>>46479494
Seems pretty neat. Might not be the most useful, but its 1 mana and can be built around easily.
>>46479804
"Not to deal" could be "prevent" I guess.
I think I would write the second line like this:
>Sacrifice a human: Search your sideboard for an angel with a CMC of X or less and put it on the battlefield, where X is the amount of mercy counters on the sacrificed creature.
Or:
>Sacrifice a human with X mercy counters on it: Search your sideboard for an angel with a CMC of X or less and put it on the battlefield.
Maybe it should be "human creature"?
>>46479851
I like this guy. The hybrid colorless is fun to play around with as a costing exercise.
>>46479950
{2}{U/R}{U/R}
{2/U}, Sac art: Return instant.
{2/R}, Sac art: Return Sorcery.
The card feels messy as is :{
>>46479804
Mercy wouldn't be capitalized. You also wouldn't use the "this creature" wording in the reminder text because its about other creatures you control. Reminder text isn't set in stone like rules text and changes based on context like that.
>>46480045
I'm not going to artificially reinforce the outdated "red is sorceries, blue is instants" thing that isn't even true anymore.
>>46480145
>If a human you control would deal lethal damage to another creature, you may choose to prevent that damage. If you do, put a mercy counter on that human.
>Sacrifice a human: Search your sideboard for an angel with a converted mana cost of X or less and put it on the battlefield, where X is the amount of mercy counters on the sacrificed creature.
How's that?
>>46480161
I would avoid the word "or" in costs, to be honest.
>>46479950
Thanks. Yeah, I had a few things here and there. Though that cyclops is honestly just an Ashenmoor Gourger. I do like how fair it feels for each cost.
>>46480207
"Sideboard" would be "Search for an angel card you own outside the game with converted mana cost..."
The first ability is way better if it isn't making a keyword for it. However, referencing dealing lethal damage is actually very funky and might not work. Damage is dealt simultaneously in combat, so if your 3 power beast and 2 power human both block a creature with 5 toughness, it can't be said which dealt lethal damage. Lethal damage was dealt, is all. Blocking order doesn't affect that kinda thing.
>>46480288
I'd avoid the "or" if I could, but as is that's the only way to do it. Rest assured, if it actually mattered, I could just make it only blue or only red in a "for realsies" situation.
>>46480335
5 mana, cast everything in your deck.
>>46480410
>hit a 2 mana card
>that hits a 1 mana card
You're exaggerating a liiiiittle bit there.
Although, the card definitely was going with "let's get fucking nuts"
What would people want to see out of a tribal set? Which real block do you think did tribal best?
>>46480516
Tribal is done best when it's a subtheme, to be honest.
Tribal cards that are more interesting than "creatures you control get +1/+1 and have ability" or "something is equal to the number of creatures you control"
It's good if you do, but better if you don't.
