Indian Casino Plane edition!
>To make cards, download MSE for free from here
http://magicseteditor.sourceforge.net/
>Formatting Guide
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jn1J1Mj-EvxMxca8aSRBDj766rSN8oSQgLMOXs10BUM
>Mechanics doc (For the making of color pie appropriate cards)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgaKCOzyqM48dFdKRXpxTDRJelRGWVZabFhUU0RMcEE
>Q: Can there be a sixth color?
A: http://pastebin.com/kNAgwj7i
>Q: What's the difference between multicolor and hybrid?
A: http://pastebin.com/yBnGki1C
>Q: What is precedence?
A: http://pastebin.com/pGxMLwc7
>Art sources.
http://digital-art-gallery.com/
http://www.artstation.com/
http://drawcrowd.com/
http://fantasygallery.net/
http://grognard.booru.org/
http://fantasy-art-engine.tumblr.com/
>Stitch cards together with
http://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: >>47299390
Repost from old.
What's worse than a crab? A crab with a WEAPON.
>>47358680
I would have changed "mountain" for "red card"
>>47358780
kek, it's actually good.
>>47358680
Is this going to be a cycle or is this a one of? I like the discard clause on it. You might want to make it only loot when it attacks. Otherwise it doesn't feel that red and feels more white.
>>47358780
U doesn't do reach but I guess it is the middle ground for GU. I'd like it more flavorwise if it was a crab spider mutant.
>>47359023
>RWG
>MAKING artifacts
>Not cracking them open
Feels really wrong. If this guy was RBG I'd be more open as DT is very BG. The only thing about this guy that feels white is the indestructible and that honestly seems wrong on him. It comes off as randomly tacked on.
In what case are the mines going to be able to actually attack? Also, I think just making him a RB with, "2, t: Put a 0/1 colorless mine artifact creature with defender and "whenever this creature blocks, it and all creatures it is blocking are destroyed." or something along those lines. It has a bunch of little details that seem wrong or just not needed.
>>47359049
That art is taken, anon. Ordrunn Veteran, I believe.Incarnate: [Cost], Exile this card from your graveyard: Put a token that’s a copy of it onto the battlefield. Incarnate only as a sorcery.
>>47359526
Got a bit of a card idea in my head, but not sure what mana cost to give it. For colours itself I'm thinking towards RB or WB for the first strike/death touch?
"first strike, death touch, defender. This creature can block any number of creatures each turn"
1/1
>>47359680
1WB 1/1 with those effects doesn't sound bonkers.
But be warned, if it is a 1/1 the ability to block any amount isn't that potent as you only have 1 power to asign thus, meaning you can only death touch 1 thing. If it was, "~ can block an additional creature for each point of power it has."
Probably be an uncommon.
>>47359640
Isn't W a bit cheap as initial cost? I know it's not a very powerful card per se, but the incarnate cost gets you 2 2/1's for 3 mana and deck thinning, which seems a tad on the strong side.
I like the incarnate idea though, and mechanics working around it could be a lot of fun since it also triggers on graveyard hate.
>>47359738
I think you have a bit of a mistake in your card there: "deals 2 damage to target creature or player an additional target creature or player for each..."
Also, would that be able to target the same target twice or not? The "additional" makes me think not but I though better to ask and be sure.
Thanks for the feedback too.
>>47358604
>>47359738
If you want to make cards like this, then you need to read the comprehensive on what happens when spells are cast.
>Attune
Targets are chosen before costs are paid. You should reword it like Strive or Replicate depending on the specifics you want, with the additional costs being revealed cards.
>Array
I'm not quite certain what exactly you want here. How Many for One works is by giving one target creature +2/+1 and another target creature +X/+X, where X is the number of creatures you control that don't share a creature type with the first target.If that was your intention then great, though the flavor is weird in that it's more like Many for Two. If you want to select an additional target for each creature that doesn't share a creature type, then you need a different template.
>>47359759
W for a 2/1 is about the safest way I could think of to cost it. If I lower the impact of the body, the ability to fetch it becomes pointless. If I raise the cost, it doesn't feel worth the investment. On the other hand, raising the impact of the body (even with applicable mana cost increases) makes the ability to tutor another one up much better. I figured that a Savannah Lions that can make more Savannah Lions was good enough for a rare without being too good. But I'm always open to changing my stuff if that turns out not to be the case.
>>47359640
"When" rather than whenever. I wonder if you could use "when you incarnate ~" or "when ~ etb, if it's a token" to make the trigger more explicit. I had to parse it a couple times to figure out what was going on.
>>47359526
>The only thing about this guy that feels white is the indestructible and that honestly seems wrong on him. It comes off as randomly tacked on.
I concur, I added indestructible because he seemed kinda lame for a legendary.
>In what case are the mines going to be able to actually attack?
It's a flavor/failsafe thing.
>>47359957
My opinion is probably not worth all that much desu, I've only been playing magic fairly recently, and EDH primarily, so my knowledge isn't too deep yet. It was mostly my first impression. I mostly had the "create 2 1/1 token" cards in my head, which I thought cost 3 mana but it seems I was mistaken to begin with. Both Raise the Alarm and Goblin Ambush only cost 2, and have the tribal aspect too. I guess it's fine where it is.
Really liking the "trigger on exiling of something" stuff, keep em coming!
>>47358604
Mechanic, not sure. Card is boring, janky, and somewhat broken.
>>47358680
HMMM. That's kinda cool. c: Make a cycle, betch. <3
>>47359957
I think this card is deceptively underwhelming. Can you post that art?
>>47360148
>It's a flavor/failsafe thing.
Maybe just make it if it takes or deals combat damage? That way fogs still don't destroy them and it's a more general clause without need of a "failsafe".
>>47359680
>>47359738
Also, god damn it. I have a very specific image in my head for this card, but I can't find anything with a warrior sitting down in lotus position with his sword on his lap.
>>47360206
>I think this card is deceptively underwhelming.
Seeing how the previous card the anon posted was one with self-exile and more exile interaction, I think it's meant to go into a set that makes use of the effect.
>>47360206
With the self mill and free cast, this feels way more like a blue card than red.
>>47360062
>"When rather than whenever
Thanks, anon. An old draft triggered from other cards, Rakshasa Vizier style. I always forget to update the wording when I change stuff like that.
>"when you incarnate ~" or "when ~ etb, if it's a token"
I do have incarnate cards that care about whether or not they are tokens, but this one was designed to work with other stuff that exiles from graveyards. If there's anything else I can do to clear up the wording, though, I'm all ears.Really unsure of the "token creature" wording here. Basically just knocked the "non" from a standard nontoken creature clause, but there weren't any solid examples to draw from.
>>47360150
Hey man, I appreciate all feedback, and feedback from newer players is probably the most helpful when trying to make a whole working set. So, thank you!
>>47360266
Chandra pyromaster does the same on a larger scale, though with her it's exile, not put into graveyard.
>>47360150
>Goblin Ambush
I have no idea why I called it that. I meant krenko's command...
>>47360302
A subtle difference, since with Chandra you can only cast what's in the top of your library, rather than the top of your library and your entire graveyard.
>>47360206
Sure thing, here you go.
>>47360252
A block, actually. First set is done in rough, but I still want to go back and edit it. Time counters are the primary focus, but with a strong "exile matters" theme in both sets.
>>47360148
If all you can do to make a lego seem lego is tack on really powerful keywords you aren't making a very good lego.
>>47359941
>attune issues
Oh good point, thanks for that. What if, "For each creature you control that doesn't share a creature type with another creature you control, do a thing" and in the context of S. Blast, it would be "... choose an additional target." Or would, "~ deals 2 damage to upto X target creatures or players, where X is the number of creatures you control" This way the number of targets is already defined. Maybe, "~ deals 2 damage to a number of target creatures and/or players equal to the number of creatures you control that don't share a creature type with another creature you control."
The only down side of this Attune wording is if you have a goblin shaman and a goblin it only counts as 1 (I think).
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
2,T or G, T: Until end of turn, target land becomes a 2/2 creature that's still a land.
>>47360621
Mostly will be used to kill opponent lands by turning them into creatures.
Land
As ~ enters the battlefield, you may reveal a Human or Soldier card from your hand. If you don't, ~ enters the battlefield tapped.
T: Add W to your mana pool.
1W, T: Put a 1/1 white Human Soldier creature token onto the battlefield.
>>47360714
ok
>>47360793
So, pretty much Kjeldoran Outpost?
>>47360826
>>47360793
Better than Kjeldoran, since the Outpost costs you a full land, rather than maybe enters tapped. The other token makers cost much more to activate or require additional non-mana costs.
Dump of old cards. Suprisingly, most work/are good.
>>47360938
I like the as-enters choice one the Lighthouse as another way to do utility lands. The Inlet seems rather costly for how slight a benefit you get from it.
Laplace has an intriguing set of abilities, but needs some tuning. Ikora doesn't need the P/T ability, since it will mostly be a copy of other creatures.
Erasure Titan's etb doesn't remember what X was. I have no idea what Summoned Husk is supposed to do.
>>47361259
>Erasure Titan's etb doesn't remember what X was.
Hm. You're right. I remember posting that one many times and noone brought it up, and I didn't notice it either.
It's because it's not the same object, right?
>>47361259
>I have no idea what Summoned Husk is supposed to do.
>Summoned Husk
>Prince of Thralls, Griselbrand, Bloodgift Demon, Archfiend of Depravity, Defiler of Souls, Kothophed, Necropolis Fiend.
It's pretty op.
>>47361533
And as an enchantment, so it's harder to remove.
>>47361533
>Summoned Husk
Then why even make it an enchantment creature and not just an enchantment
>>47361600
I'm guessing for flavor reasons. It's definitely busted, banworthily broken, but it has cool flavor.
I have thinking of the following keyword which is basically flanking, so I want some feedback on the wording.
Subjugate X (Whenever this creature blocks or becomes blocked, all creatures blocking or being blocked by it get -X/-X until end of turn.)
>>47362126
Even flanking for -2/-2 is very powerful, because it lets you kill a lot of creatures before combat damage without having to trade.
>>47362263
It is really powerful but if I make the card cost accordingly it will be, mostly, acceptable.
>>47362603
I feel like this should have White in it. Wait, isn't this nearly the same as the "you choose what blocks and how they block" ability?
>>47362603
Should cost at least 4, or not untap unblocked attackers.
>>47360206
Kazy, this card needs Blue. Either that, or get rid of the mill.
>>47360938
>Suprisingly
Kazy, you are pretty good at making cards. Mostly you just slip up on minor wording issues, but your core concept is usually solid.
>Bladesurge
Yikes, tricky wording. Hmm... I think I have it though. Let's try
>Whenever ~ deals damage to a player [should this be opponent?], you may cast an instant or sorcery card with converted mana cost X or less from your hand without paying its mana cost, where X is the amount of damage dealt to that player by ~ this turn.
You might want to consider looking at Steel Hellkite and doing something similar.
>Erasure Titan
Feels odd that not both options use X. Also, you do realize that the first option will kill him too, right? Hmm... I think if it were me, I would consider playing around with a mass O-Ring ability.
>Everoo
You need to include a clause about how the cost ability only affects colored mana. Not entirely sure about the weird lord ability, it just feels kinda random almost.
>Globetrotter
I can't believe it. You made Landwalk even more swingy! Yeah, not a fan, though I'm not a fan of Landwalk either. Hmm, I think... I think if I had to make a card on the name, and the general idea of "you and an opponent have the same land" I'd do something like
>During each opponent's untap step, untap all lands you control with the same name as a land that player controls.
I guess.
>Goblin Mover
Mechanics: WTF?!
Wording: Remember, if it's not from a graveyard or library, things are returned "to its owner's hand" because you can gain control of things you don't own.
>Guardian
Costs shouldn't target.
>UBR, T, Exile a card from a graveyard, the top card of your library, and a card from your hand.
Remember, it's always [mana], T, [other]: [effect]
>Laplace
>gimmickwalker
...Yeah, gonna skip this one. Sorry.
>Hizuko
You already have my feedback for this.
1/?
>>47360938
>>47363181
>Houdini
Equipment is a subtype and should be capitalized to reflect that. Also, Affinity? Hmm, not sure about this. You'll definitely have to playtest this to see how powerful it is.
>Ikora
Broken as fuck, trash immediately. Kazy, it is very easy to exile stuff to power up things like this. And frankly, I'd expect you to realize just how powerful this thing could get in Commander.
>Ionic
Already got feedback. Still, really think this needs Blue with self-mill.
>Ironcast Dragon.
Oh cool, it's like that Bane of Progress thing. Hmm, though it's more color intensive and doesn't hit as much. But it does have Flying. Hmm... maybe have it exile instead? Wait... maybe give the player a choice for each artifact destroyed, to put a counter on the dragon, or to get a gold token. Dragons love gold. No, the free mana would probably be a problem. Maybe have it do something with charge counters? I really love the concept, I just think it needs a little more. Though I might be wrong, IDK.
>The-Hulk
Yeah, I don't think that second ability flies. I guess you could make it get a counter on the draw, and it could become a copy of the creature, that would fix your problems. Though that also wouldn't be very Red. Actually, I don't see any Red in this now.
>Lighthouse
Not sure how I feel about this one. I think it has too much going on right now.
>Consonant Cur
So... a Red version of that BFZ elf, right? Meh. Not sure why it's a legend.
>Pledge
WTF is going on with that first ability?
>Tieflings, Polish based on the inscrutable names
I wish the Black ability did something on its own. It's absolutely a slave to the Red ability. Not sure what to replace it with though. I guess you could have Red grant D-Strike, and Black give +1/+1.
>Shallow Grave
Seems easy to abuse. Also, not a fan of Threshold.
>Husk
Kazy, just copy Scion of the Ur-Dragon. Again, don't think that last ability flies, I think it just needs to copy.
2/3
>>47360938
>>47363181
>>47363493
>Inlet
Don't know about this one.
>Vigor
Doesn't Detain work until your next turn?
>nonstatic
No. No, no, no.
>Yuri of the exclamation point
Why the exclamation point? Whatevs. Not a big fan of "colors matter" but I guess it works. I kinda guess I wish this thing did more. Seems kinda dull for a legendary mythic. I guess you could make other creatures samurai, but we already have a card that does that. Of course, you could play with the idea and make a cool variant on it.
3/3
>>47362653
>>47362718
>>47363767
I guess that works.
>>47360938
I guess I should post something of my own after going through your cards.
>>47363886
>Wildcat
Fuck yes, one of my favorite B-listers. Or is he a D-lister? I dunno. But I do know I enjoyed every second of him being voiced by R. Lee Ermey in BtBatB.
That said, he actually seems pretty crazy strong. I suppose he compares somewhat to Master of the Wild Hunt, but that only lets you dogpile (heh) one creature per turn. This is basically that Strive fight spell every turn, and a hard to kill body, and gives counters. I think it fits him very well, but I am concerned about the cost here, especially since he affects the board as soon as he drops. I also think he shouldn't have red fight, but be limited to fighting stuff you don't control, so you can't abuse him as easily.
But of course, as always, I'm not 100% certain on the power level commentary, so take it for a grain of salt.
I guess I can toss out a card, though I don't have much new since I stopped working on this set, and making cards in general, a while back.
>>47364414
"Unearth abilities cost 2 more to activate."
Not like it really matters, since players are unlikely to unearth their creatures at all when they can't get haste.
>>47364414
>think he shouldn't have red fight
I don't know what you mean by this. What, the "deals damage equal to its power to target creature" ability?
>be limited to fighting stuff you don't control
Aw, I really liked the idea of having your creatures fight each other to power up. I thought it was a clever way of referencing how he's the JSA coach.
>he actually seems pretty crazy strong
OK, second time I've had this comment, as far as I remember. I'll definitely have to sort this out. Hmm, I guess I'll have to change the ability to
>T: Target creature you control fights another target creature.
Didn't really want to do that, but oh well.
Oh, and I'm here's another JSA card. I will admit that I'm not entirely sure why I added the first ability.
>>47364443
>Unearth abilities cost 2 more to activate.
Ah, thank you. And yeah, it's trinket text, but at least it prevents sac fodder and whatnot.
>>47364526
>red fight
Being able to fight anything. Green typically forces you to target opponents' stuff.
>JSA coach
Ohh, you were taking the sparring angle? Hm. Well, I dunno if you can manage it since it's so abusable, but maybe after recosting/rebalancing it'll work out?
>Hourman
I imagine you gave him the first ability because evasion is always tempting to give to every creature, but yeah, with what his core ability does, it's sorta meaningless.
>>47364655
>Wildcat
Eh, I'll think of something.
>Hourman
Yeah. I don't know what I'd replace it with though. I mean, not that the card needs two abilities, I just have a complexity addiction that's telling me this card needs something else. Please tell me if I'm wrong.
And here's one last JSA hero for tonight.
>>47360416
I meant her big minus ability. Exiles top 10 cards and you can cast a sorcery or instant from amongst those for free and copy it 2 times. But I do agree there's still a subtle difference
Finally, finally working my way through rares.
>>47363181
>Bladesurge
>where X is the amount of damage dealt to that player by ~ this turn.
Not this turn, because then it would increase with the double strike. First strike and you can cast one of 1, and on the normal damage it'd count the first strike portion as well and allow you to cast a 2-cost spell, instead of just another 1-coster.
>>47362653
>>47363767
I do agree, it feels more white than red.
Also, not a hundred percent sure what the original approach was, but stuff like a second combat phase matters a LOT for on-attack effects like sword of the animist or annihilator etc.
Not something to take lightly.
>>47365007
Ah wait, never mind, I misread what you said. I see now.
>>47365920
Really good, I liked it a lot.
>>47366367
>Also, not a hundred percent sure what the original approach was,
It was based around Aggravated Assault.
>>47366554
Interesting. What rarity is this gonna get? I kinda see uncommon being fine as it is 4 mana for an artifact that might not even draw anything.
Trying this again.
>>47363181
>>47363181
>>47363493
>>47363655
<3
They're all oldy cards, plenty of various issues as you pointed out. And even the symbol is heartbreaking. Thanks for the review <33
>>47363181
>Erasure Titan
Says each other D;
>Globetrotter
I remember making it as a colorshifted Invisible Stalker.
>Consonant Cur
>Mfw I made this about 18 months ago.
>Tieflings, Polish based on the inscrutable names
Eh, can destroy things after combat. But you're kinda right.
>Yuri of the exclamation point
Uh, again a slight problem. I use ! on obsolete card versions. Used to put them at the end, until I realized it was much better to put them at the beginning, since they all clump up that way.
>>47363886
I like the card, but a little tip. Change the % of card zoom until the text of the first ability doesn't look like crap, and import it that way.
>>47366554
That's a really cool card.
>>47368899
I like the other better D;
>>47370386
>Erasure Titan
Whoops.
>Globetrotter
Complete evasion just doesn't seem Green to me.
>Cur
Nice job.
>Yuri
Obsolete? How so? And if it's obsolete, why post it?
>Change the % of card zoom until the text of the first ability doesn't look like crap, and import it that way.
?????
>I like the other better D;
Me too, but I'm having balance problems with that version. I'll figure something out eventually.
>>47372048
That flavor text is borderline incomprehensible, anon. Also, "than," not "then."
How's the costing/power on this guy?
Too powerful for modern?
>>47372554
why white?
jep to powerful.
>>47372048
>untaped
>>47372314
I think you could reduce it by at least 1, since the guy is easy to remove. Maybe up the toughness if you want to keep the mana cost.
I just realized I have absolutely no idea how to justify White having Lifelink fluffwise. It just never made any sense to me, it just seems completely parasitic to me. Any advice?
Just waiting on the art to finish the cycle. Poor Sandara, she tries so hard for that delicious WOTC money.
>>47372554
Definitely. Maybe "noninstant, nonsorcery spell"?
>>47372314
>timeanon
Yay! I never thought of your frog shamans as being white. Times change, I guess? As for powerlevel... it's a slightly worse Intangible Virtue stapled to a seven mana 9/9 (sort of) that drops to a a 4/4 when it gets hit with any burn. Perhaps give it protection from red? Fits with the W/U thing.
>>47373551
I just think of it as creatures having some kind of healing power that just happens to trigger as they attack. Perhaps they reinvigorate their allies as they charge into battle?
>>47373551
>If damage would . . .
Isn't that just absorb ?
>>47367062
I don't know, I think much about rarity when making a card, but your probably correct.
>>47360274
I think you just say "token" instead of "creature token". There's not much precedent, so I could be wrong.
A Flying/Hexproof at uncommon seems like a pain in Limited, but then again, I don't play a lot of sealed.
>>47373884
One of the problems with hires cards is that its a pain to add P/T to them. Sigh. Probably a 4/4, a 5/5, and a 5/5.
>>47373946
>Isn't that just absorb ?
Yes.
>Then just-
No. Not using non-evergreen keywords.
>>47372784
I'm certainly not opposed to lowering the cost, it just depends on where the rest of the rares end up.
>Ace
Seems pretty stacked at 3cmc, even for a legend. But I think 2 toughness keeps it in line.
>>47373884
>Yay!
Thanks, anon! I'm happy to have some time to make cards again.
>I never thought of your frog shamans as being white
Across the whole block, they're Bant-colored. This set, they're G/W.
>RGU Heartcycle
Moltenheart seems much worse than its companions, even with wither making its damage more permanent. I really dig the aesthetics, though.
>>47374000
I couldn't find any precedent, so I just kinda winged it on the wording.
>Angel of the North Wind
I love that it destroys itself. Really cool design.
>>47372721
well, do YOU want tape stuck to your wizards? Do you?
>>47373934
Huh. That's a weird effect. When she persists she instantly kills herself as well, but it still counts as a creature entering the battlefield for various effects. Is that an oversight or intended effect?
>>47372554
just barely too powerful
i think if it was counter target non-instant spell it would be balanced
the other people who replied are not taking into account how much of a drawback dual color is
>>47374762
This is a nifty way of making niche hate playable beyond just making it cantrip.
>>47374000
I'd rather this just sacced itself rather than tap. You're not going to get a chance to untap it in response.
>>47376238
>This is a nifty way of making niche hate playable beyond just making it cantrip.
Thanks! With incarnate as a major set mechanic, I'm trying to sneak in plenty of playable grave hate.
Thoughts on mechanic/keyword?
It's going in my Proliferate set for some context to what is around.
>>47376575
I wouldn't bother with a keyword if the counter doesn't have any inherent ability.
>>47376635
Making things into key words isn't just a matter of it doing something. Death touch used to not be a key word, same with reach but it was made one for simplification.
>>47376719
Are charge counters worth being an evergreen keyword though?
>>47376747
If enough cards have the effect, and with the current president of things with with the same effect already, I'd say yes.
>>47376747
Just because something's a keyword doesn't make it evergreen anon.
Kinda a "squares are rectangles but rectangles aren't squares" situation.
>>47376785
That's not what I'm saying. They keyword isn't interesting enough to be a set keyword as it doesn't do anything by itself and isn't common enough to be codified as an evergreen.
>>47376719
Isn't discard then draw red ?
>>47376719
what >>47376820 said
Draw then discard is U, discard then draw is R.
>>47376435
I like the way you use time counters to mark things that people might forget.
>>47377110
Kinda powerful, I would make it 2/1 at least.
>>47376820
would it really be that overpowered at 1R?
>>47360206
exile the top instead
>>47376575
I would prefer it if it had a bit more depth. Maybe an alternate casting cost to make it enter "charged," as well as differing charge amounts. So, something like: Charge X--[COST] (You may cast this card for its Charge cost. If you do, it ETBs with X charge counters on it.)
>>47376983
Thanks, anon. Time counters are important in the limited environment, and I've tried to include them in interesting ways.
>>47377681
How about the middle ground of RR, but it being a 1/2 instead ?
Thoughts?
>>47378018
That was a common, anon. I'm not going to throw all the complexity and mechanical stuff into it, it was an example of how the keyword will work and what is meant to do, but I appreciate your feed back.
>>47365920
Timeanon! How goes your studies? I assume you're on summer break at the moment.
>RW01
Gross with token gen, and an excellent defender. Not too bomby I don't think, but might require some playtesting to be sure.
>>47366554
This is a neat idea, but I worry about how well it might work with pitch outlets. Still, it's four mana, so it's not like it's hitting the board that early, and there are stronger plays at that cost. I'd prefer it at rare just given how funky it is, personally. I like the concept.
>>47368899
I'm much more comfortable with this version of him. Red fits Wildcat just fine; he's a very gung-ho dude.
>>47371912
I understand why Krypto has flash, given his ability, but it just feels strange. The whole card feels strange. He's really just a Kryptonian dog, isn't he?
>>47372048
I suppose this is balanced, but I really can't see why he'd exist outside of set themes. He might be a bit anemic; I think he could be 2/2.
>>47372314
I'd rather instead of giving an anthem he did something when token creatures you control die/leave the battlefield. Given the themes you have around frogs and sealing things in them, it'd make more sense/be more flavorful I think.
>>47372784
Correct me if I am wrong (I likely am) but isn't Ace like, Bruce Wayne's guardian? Shouldn't he be a defender creature that can lose defender under certain circumstances or something? I dunno.
>>47373551
I see white lifelink as "tithing" or maybe "grace"; it's meant to represent that white is the lifegiver, but only to those it deems worthy. Think of it perhaps as a re-appropriation of resources based on that notion. Black does it out of selfishness, white does it out of judgementalness.
>>47379764
The emblem should be -5 instead of -7.
Other than that, it's fine.
>>47381153
"CARDNAME can't be countered." is how that's worded.
Why does this destroy enchantments????
Also the first two effects shouldn't hurt you as well. This card costs 7 mana of specific colors, compare it to the other ultimatums for how powerful it should be.
What does everyone think of this mechanic?
I wanted it to be morph for instants and sorceries, but I found that it works with just about any nonland card.
>>47382940
You can't redefine what a face down card is. It's a 2/2 creature.
>>47382991
707.2 Face-down spells and face-down permanents have no characteristics other than those listed by the ability or rules that allowed the spell or permanent to be face down. Any listed characteristics are the copiable values of that object’s characteristics. (See rule 613, "Interaction of Continuous Effects," and rule 706, "Copying Objects.")
707.2a If a face-up permanent is turned face down by a spell or ability, it becomes a 2/2 face-down creature with no text, no name, no subtypes, and no mana cost. A permanent that enters the battlefield face down that wasn’t cast as a face-down spell also has these characteristics. These values are the copiable values of that object’s characteristics.
You're wrong. Now what do you think about the mechanic?
>>47383031
I think it's a bad idea to have a face down permanent represent two different things.
>>47373884
Rimeheart untapping is technically blue, but it plays a bit like Vigilance so a tweak to make it not seem such might be a step in the right direction. Moltenheart would be better if it had Unearth as well. Groveheart should fight I think, instead of dealing damage equal to toughness, which is more red or even black.
>>47373934
I'm with the other anon, though less confused overall since I see suicide as quite black and red. Especially in a fit of passion, which seems to be the flavor of this card. I think the big issue is it being hybrid; red doesn't typically destroy things outright except artifacts. It'd be a fine gold card though.
>>47373946
I kinda like this. Awesome Madness enabler. I might actually borrow the concept for my set if you don't mind.
>>47374000
I kinda like this, though I think it should be rare, not mythic. It should show up in draft at least a little.
>>47374074
Interesting. Sort of a spellshaper regeneration thing going on. Kinda. I like it but I dunno that you need the discard AND the 3WW. Serra Ange isn't that good anymore and the discarded card is a pretty big resource outside of Madness or Flashback being a thing.
>>47374762
I think this might be too cheap, even though it is an interesting card overall. Looking at similar effects it should probably be 2W but WW would also might be okay.
>>47376435
Flavory. I like it.
>>47376575
I think it's okay, but might be a touch too broad overall. I mean you can basically do anything with it.
>>47377110
>not making it a white version of True Name Nemesis
For shaaaame.
>>47378018
Nice limited bomb. This is a for sure draft-around.
>>47382160
I never really liked Level Up as a mechanic; it was slow, and never really felt that good since I could just play a more expensive spell and not worry if my creature would live long enough to
"evolve". Fine as it is though, I think.
>card
Unsure if this is a fair casting cost or not, given how it synergizes with Madness.
>>47383052
???
It doesn't. It represents whatever the spell/rule/ability tells it to be unless it's already a permanent on the battlefield. Did you not read the rules I just sent you?
Do you have any real critiques?
>>47377236
Flavor text
>"The end is coming!" -Doomsayer
>>47383076
And what happens if someone puts it in a deck with morph cards? Now you have to keep track of which face down cards are creatures and which ones are runes.
As for the idea itself, it doesn't really seem all that interesting. I guess it triggers constellation?
>>47382940
>>47383076
Not him, but it plays like Trap cards or enchantments you sac to emulate the effects of instant spells. If that's what you are looking for, more power to you. I like stuff like that but doing it as a face-down thing removes most of the interactability and I dunno how fun that would be.
Time to split some cards.
>>47383094
I mean, you can literally look at the face down card to remember which ones are runes or morphs (or have your opponent do that if they control it).
>As for the idea itself, it doesn't really seem all that interesting. I guess it triggers constellation?
Fair enough. I was thinking it might be too powerful with enchantress type cards because of that. Do you think it should be artifacts instead or does it not matter?
>>47383116
Hm. I hadn't thought about that. Isn't that the same as it being in your hand though?
>>47382934
>Wildcat
Well, that's good to know. Still have to play around with him though.
>Krypto
I was having a hard time coming up with abilities, so I looked at Infinite Crisis (video game, which is where I got the art from) for inspiration. In that game, Krypto had a super-powerful bark which could knock people back, which is what I'm trying to implement here.
>Ace
Eh, kinda. I'm kinda in an odd position here because Ace isn't really from the comics, he's from Batman Beyond. Well, this version anyway. I suppose I could justify it by saying the card is modeled after the mainstream comics version of Ace, but just happens to use the Batman Beyond version of the image. But as far as Defender creatures for Batman go, I have this.
>Bathe in Flames
Always remember that when a spell has a target, or when the ability is being applied to an unknown spell, it's "can't be countered by spells or abilities" because you must still allow for the spell to be countered by the game itself if the targets disappear. The only exception to this rule is Gilded Drake, though only for its ability, and it's used to ensure that its downside still works. And as for the exact wording, I'd use
>If ~ was magnified, it has wither, can't be countered by spells or abilities, and the damage can't be prevented.
>>47382940
God this seems overcomplicated as fuck. Seriously, 1W and this whole "Morph but not morph" thing just to give it Flash?
>>47383153
>overcomplicated as fuck
And that's exactly what I was worried about. I had reasoned that it wasn't much more complicated than morph, but then maybe having both in the game is too much?
It's not really to give it flash, just to make non-permanent spells and auras able to pseudo-morph.
Is the rules text for it fine at least? I based it off madness and morph.
>>47383211
I guess the rules text is OK. But I still just don't understand the need to turn non-permanents into permanents with pseudo-Morph. It just strikes me as Frontier Fellow-esque "different for the sake of different" philosophy that defends needless, and sometimes just plain bad, design. And hell, why make them static enchantments that don't do anything anyway, why not make them creatures?
>>47383245
The point was kind of that they don't do anything until you flip them. They were designed so that you could pay for the spell in multiple parts, you could play mind games with your opponents, and you could cast them if they were manifested or something. If they're creatures then you would have to use a mechanic that's even more "morph but not morph" since they couldn't be cast while facedown unless the ability or rule that allowed them to be cast says so, which morph doesn't.
Something silly I did. The point is to turn your graveyard into your library (Complete with a deck out loss condition). You'd only play it in a deck where you'd have a larger graveyard (To prevent the deck out loss condition), and, as such, there's likely cards that you'd prefer to draw over others, so you're given a way to opt-out of cards you don't want.
I'm not entirely sure of mana prices here at all. I didn't think 5 was too prohibitive or too cheap for the effect. I'd probably be more worried about the 1 in the last effect. But this might be super all-powerful/super terrible and I'm simply an idiot.
The reason why its an artifact is because, as I understand it, enchantments aren't supposed to tap, and I was already way too wordy to add "Activate this ability only once per turn" type shenanigans. Its an enchantment because I plain don't like the flavor of colored artifacts by themself.
>>47383150
Sort of, aside from some interactions it has due to type. It is going to encounter the same sort of "why not just make it an Instant" or "why not just make it one of those enchantments you sac" comments so if you don't mind, then that's a feather in your cap as far as keeping it. But I have to ask: why? Is there a point to the mechanic? Does it have a home in a set? I read the original post but I feel like things like this need a reason for being.
>>47383153
Thanks for the updated wording on Bathe in Flames. Fix incoming.
Re: Krypto, I really kinda want to see him as your set's version of the 2/2 legendary dog from Kamigawa. His "power" is he's cheap for what he is, which is a 3/3 indestructible flyer. Maybe be can't attack or block alone? I get the bark thing but sometimes you just have to make cards that are simple, cute, and stand on the merit of the character concept, I feel. At least, for something like you're doing.
I've seen the dinobot; not really into it but I'm not really familiar with the "character" either. It's also ponderously slow, even if it's a decent value as a defender.
>>47383211
Yeah, see stuff like this would be better off just having flash. All the surprise, all of the Enchantment "tribal", none of the hoops.
>>47383211
I'm actually pretty sure that all face-down cards are 2/2 creatures, with no elasticity in the rules.
>>47383278
I mean it can be on instants too. that was part of the reason I made it originally.
>none of the hoops
I really don't feel like the ability is that complicated. Do you feel this way about morph too?
>>47383383
Woops. That's not supposed to have P/T.
>>47383383
>do you feel that way about morph?
Not really because morph at least tells you part of what the object is, for the most part, which gives some clue as to what you, as the opponent, can expect/do with it. But hey, honestly, do what you want man. People don't have to like it, and as long as you have the wording correct, you don't have to care. Just making something that works and you like puts you in a position to make cards and have fun with it, but don't get discouraged if you don't get much positive feedback; people are gonna tell you what they think about what you make.
>>47383448
Huh, that became surprisingly uplifting. Thanks.
I'm going to try and make some more cards and see if the mechanic is worth it. Do you think that it's fine to play a rune card for 1 or should it be 2? 2 would make more of an initial investment but allow rune costs to be cheaper, while 1 lets you print smaller effects. Thoughts?
>>47383485
>>47383448
Actually, I kind of like it at 1. I think that's fair since they don't really do anything until you cast them.
>>47383541
There's very little reason not to just cast this normally. Also scrying for 2 twice on a 1 mana cantrip is strong.
>>47358595
>>47383069
Um. You can't really do this. Putting cards you don't own into your hand is a just a really bad idea in a physical card game.
>>47383582
:P
>>47383576
My reasoning was that if you cast it for it's rune cost it would draw you 2 instead of 1, so it's essentially draw 2 over two turns.
>>47383600
rebound only works if you cast it from the hand.
Donut-eater 2W
Creature - Beast
T: Detain target nonwhite attacking or blocking creature. If it's black, destroy it instead.
1/3
>>47383599
I don't think that yugioh is the shining example of what a card game should be.
>>47383625
Thanks and fixed.
>>47383576
>>47383660
How about scry 1?
>>47383582
You're returning Reality Lapse to your hand if you magnify it. I guess it needs to be rephrased in that case if it is not clear.
>>47383670
>>47383660
>>47383625
Oh jesus, did I misunderstand you. I'm too tired and I already posted this card like three times, but I'll fix it.
>>47383670
Well it's a slightly less effective preordain or a better divination.
>>47383697
Players can gain control of spells.
>>47383805
This text hurts me.
I realized this should be uncommon and changed the rune cost to be more reasonable.
>>47383814
Rune is feeling a lot like kicker here. If it always makes an equip enter attached, roll that into the keyword.
>>47383834
I don't think it should always make it enter attached. I'm only going to use it sparingly on permanent spells, because at that point it is just a case of "why not use flash?".
>>47383834
>>47383814
Oh and the trick to feeding blade was that it can be attached to opponents creatures when cast that way, as well as your own.
>>47383870
>>47383878
Well at this point, you have a carbon copy of kicker.
>>47382160
>That was a common, anon. I'm not going to throw all the complexity and mechanical stuff into it, it was an example of how the keyword will work and what is meant to do
I think you misunderstand me, anon. As is, the keyword is simply Charged N. The only variable is the number, similar to absorb or poisonous. I was suggesting changing the way the keyword is structured entirely, building it more like suspend or reinforce. Charge N--[Cost].
>>47382934
>Timeanon! How goes your studies? I assume you're on summer break at the moment.
Graduated, actually! Got my bachelor's, and I have a bit of a break before grad school starts up in June. How have you been?
>I'd rather instead of giving an anthem he did something when token creatures you control die/leave the battlefield.
That is a great idea, but I think I might save it for the green half of the tokens matter rares. I'm definitely going to do something with it, though.
>Bathe in Flames
Does Magnify never have a cost associated with it, other than the discard? That could get a bit scary. I do like the concept, though. Are you doing discard-matters stuff now?
>>47383069
>I think this might be too cheap
I can bump it up if necessary. I'll see how it ends up fitting into things.
>Reality Lapse
Repeatable bounce like that would be pretty backbreaking to get around in limited. Again, I worry if just discarding a card is enough of a cost, especially if you are doing discard matters stuff (which will sometimes turn that "cost" into a bonus).
>>47385688
Buff retired captains stats or lower his cost, he's too much investment atm.
>>47385662
>>47385688
I'm genuinely concerned to how you managed to double post.
>Making it Charge N--Cost
I really don't think that would be a good idea for the set. It already has Levelers in it, and I think having even more cards that need some extra mana pumped into them to be good is not a smart idea.
>RW06
This card is really bad. I don't even think I'd play a 3 mana suspend 3 for the Hero Returned, let alone want to risk it getting pinged before it flips.
Either make the Captain have something like, "prevent all damage delt by and to this creature" it is a junk rare that will get passed around the table till pick 3 in a draft.
>>47385809
>Either make the Captain have something like, "prevent all damage delt by and to this creature"
That really limits interaction. It's fun to play a powerful creature, but it's also fun to stop your opponent from getting his powerful creature out. I have to keep design open to both eventualities, for both players.
>It already has Levelers in it, and I think having even more cards that need some extra mana pumped into them to be good is not a smart idea.
Fair enough, but [cost] is flexible. Mana, cards, life, creatures; it opens up a lot of design space for you to work with. I also caution you against mixing counter types, which is generally a bad idea.
>>47385777
>>47385809
I can see your points. I designed him with limited and Shift in mind, but I can certainly bump him up to a bear, at least.
>>47386131
I can still have creatures that you put mana into to get more charge counters on. One example is simply by proliferating. Another would be having an ability on the creature to make more, or to take them from other creatures. Keeping the keyword this simple doesn't limit the design space, it just cuts down on text on it. If I want it to be more complex in one instant, I can make it.
>Don't mix and match counters
I'll make sure not to have anything that has level up also have to care about charge counters. The mere card art will help keep this difference clear. I'll probably make a charge counter token or something incase +1/+1 counters become common.
How would I give a creature "protection from board wipes?" I'm trying to make some GR creature that gives everything - yours and your opponent's - protection from wraths and hexproof, to make sure they only interact by actual fighting.
>>47386279
maybe, "protection from spells without single targets"? Keep in mind, this would still let them get destroyed by things like wrath of god or damnation as protection only prevents damage.
>>47386393
No, the way protection works it only protects against things that target. I don't need it to be literally protection, but just to actually protect things.
>>47386279
Maybe something like "spells and abilities cannot cause X to be destroyed"?
>>47386238
Why isn't this just a planeswalker?
>>47385688
>~ enters the battlefield tapped with three time counters on it.
>At the beginning of your upkeep, remove a time counter from ~.
>When the last time counter is removed from ~, transform it.
>>47387284
It is an example of how the charged keyword can be used complexly without the keyword inherently being complex. Also, by beeing a creature it is more susceptible to removal then a planeswalker. It loses and gains some different function.
>>47386666
>them quads
spooky
Besides that it seems alright. Making it a 3/3 doesn't feel like a problem, as right now it feels like just a 4 mana bolt target. Unless you can get a T: ping onto it I dunno if this would be amazing.
No need for buffs, to be clear. Just saying this isn't some bonkers card.
>>47387328
>how the charged keyword can be used complexly without the keyword inherently being complex.
Take note anons, this is what your keywords should aspire to.
Any wording changes to suggest? I want this to be simpler to read out but I'm struggling to put something together. Also, feeling I might want to restrict the permanent you can use to nonland.
>>47387536
You probably don't even need to use X. Also I don't really know why you'd need a land restriction, it's not like there's an abundance of storage lands these days.
>Counter target spell unless its controller pays [1] for each counter on target permanent you control.
>>47387608
Alright thanks.
Working on a multicolor-heavy block right now. How do you guys feel about these?
>>47383769
Indeed, which is why i said it needed a rephrasing. Sometimes i forget that stuff.
>>47387310
Yeah, I just copied the Vanishing wording verbatim. I'll separate the ability into multiple clauses. Thanks, anon.
>>47388169
The cycle seems fine but I really dislike how they are almost all copies of each other. I'd consider giving a few some keywords or stat changes. Besides that, I dislike the size. A set with 10 tri color pairings will be really messy to build a mana base for in drafts and will result in a massive amount of multi colored cards.
>>47388253
Man I really love all these 1/1s for 3. Really makes it easy to remove em.
>>47388559
>Man I really love all these 1/1s for 3. Really makes it easy to remove em.
It represents a small investment, with a chance for a big payoff. Time is a major theme in the block, anon. I'm trying to represent that.
>Negate plus keyword
Standard but boring.
Should I do an enemy colored cycle of these or allied colored? I'll probably put in tapped duel lands of the other for the sake of options in draft.
>>47388667
Still a 3 mana rare that dies to any damage for a while, and still dies to a lot of removal the turn after. And still just removes it self eventually. If you made it an uncommon I doubt it would be that bonkers. Unless your set has almost no damage based removal spells, it won't be a challenge to deal with it.
>>47388169
>[mana], Remove X devotion counters from ~ and sacrifice it: Search your library for a [color 1], [color 2], or [color 3] card with converted mana cost X or less, reveal it, and put it into your hand. Then shuffle your library.
Cards in exile, libraries, graveyards, or hands are called "cards." Only cards on the stack are called "spells."
>>47388989
>it won't be a challenge to deal with it.
It doesn't NEED to be a challenge to deal with. In limited, it represents a substantial amount of damage. It's a threat that has to be dealt with; making big threats also harder to remove just makes the limited environment more swingy. Plus, it lets you do fun things with cards that add or remove counters.
>Welcoming Office
That's actually a pretty cool design, anon. I like it.
>>47389216
How easily removed something is is still important in a design perspective. Yes, you can potentially swing for 3 after playing with it, then 5, then 7 which would sure be a lot of damage, but if the opponent has pretty much ANY way to deal with a 1/1 you are wasting your time. If you want to make the game slow enough that it can work then your set can do that, but from a general perspective, 1/1s for 3 usually do something on the spot to avoid this issue.
>stoic
Is this for vanishing? Even if so, that kind of second effect has only ever been shown in white.
>>47389504
"Dies to removal" is a valid critique of a card in my mind only if that card represents a significant enough investment that losing it to removal is a significant loss of tempo. At 3cmc, it's on par or cheaper than a lot of the removal commonly available, and so that loss of tempo just isn't there.
>Even if so, that kind of second effect has only ever been shown in white.
Sigarda and Tajuru Preserver both have anti-sacrifice effects in green. It's such an infrequently-occurring ability that I don't think it's color-locked.
>Bog Stalker
Deathtouch always feels weird on creatures with higher power than toughness. Nothing technically wrong with it, though.
>>47389768
Are you saying investing 3 mana into a 1/1 is fine with you?
>Barbarian
ah I didn't know about the elf, good counter points. I guess it is fine. Though as a compassion, you are putting a rare effect on an uncommon. You might want to limit it to like, only creatures with vanishing.
>Rat dude
I was thinking of flipping the stats but I was worried he'd be too thicc.
>>47390104
>Are you saying investing 3 mana into a 1/1 is fine with you?
If that 1/1 does stuff worth 3 mana, then absolutely. Even just using it to bait out removal so you can play more expensive bombs is worth three mana in my opinion.
>Bog Stalker
Putting it's toughness too high is a valid worry, especially at common, but you also have to consider how much of an investment level up is, and balance accordingly.
Is there any way to abuse this?
>>47383278
>Bathe in Flames
Glad I could help.
>Krypto
Yeah, sounds good. I acknowledge that I have a bad case of complexity addiction. I think I will keep the idea of a super-bark though, just because I find the idea interesting. Maybe tapping a creature.
>Dinobot
There's really not much too it. It's just a giant robot statue most of the time, and turns into a rampaging robot when the Batcave is being invaded. Do you have any advice on speeding it up? Maybe change the trigger for the counter somehow, like triggering off a creature entering the battlefield under an opponent's control? Creatures attacking you? See, this is exactly the kind of problem that plagues me. I'll have one card to do and come up with ten different designs (Power Girl and Damian Wayne are the current victims of this, sitting at 18 and 17 iterations respectively). Thankfully it doesn't happen so often, but it is frustrating when it does. My best cards, as far as I can tell, seem to be made when I have a very clear idea as to what I want to make, like pic related. I saw the picture, asked myself how to make a card out of it, and had it finished in just a few minutes. The few times I've changed it, it was to modify the wording and maybe the mana cost, but the core concept always remained the same.
>>47383805
>Your maximum hand size is reduced by three.
>At the beginning of your draw step, draw two additional cards.
>>47390700
That plus this.
>>47384301
How exactly?
>>47391682
"~ can't have -1/-1 counters placed on it."
>>47388559
>Man I really love all these 1/1s for 3. Really makes it easy to remove em.
In a lot of formats (if not most), 1 toughness is the same as 2 in terms of removal.
What's the best way to word this effect?
>>47391951
>Strictly worse Crumbling Vestige
i'm curious
first off, what kind of cost would you put this card at, and secondly what kind of wording do you think its last ability should use?
as it is, the wording is pretty bad.
the idea is a defender that can't be shut down by things like sleep paralysis or pacifism, but can't do damage in exchange
>>47391330
Rune is just an additional cost just like kicker.
>>47394417
It's an alternate cost, not additional.Think of it like flashback or madness if you can't wrap your head around that..
It's
Rune (cost) (You may cast this card face down as an enchantment for 1. At any time, you may exile this face down card. When you do, cast it for it’s rune cost or put it into your graveyard.)
>>47394332
aren't all face-down cards 2/2 creatures?
these rune cards should probably just be 1 mana enchantments you can sacrifice and pay mana for to do effects
there's probably some elegeant way to make the ability cost more if you activate them after the turn they came in, too
maybe
>rune x - when this card enters the battlefield, you may sacrifice it to pay its rune cost. otherwise, you may sacrifice it and then pay its rune cost at any time.
>when ~'s rune cost is paid, [effect]
idk though, that's a little messy and could do with refinement but it's a start
>>47394417
not quite - kicker is just 'pay whatever and the card gives you an additional effect', this rune thing seems to be more along the lines of 'this can be cast as a sorcery or kept around for later to cast as an instant for an additional cost'
it's just got really weird wording and doesn't quite work
>>47394496
You need to put the reminder text on then.
>>47394540
I'd put the text on several of them.
Do I need to put it in my post like >>47359640?
I can do that.
>>47394538
I've said it before and I'll say it again. See this post >>47383031
>>47394589
You don't have a set symbol so its hard to tell what cards belong together, I thought you were a different anon.
>>47394618
Fair. I'll either make a set symbol or link my cards or something.
Set symbol seems the way to do it.
>>47394022
>defender
>Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt by ~
>if a spell or ability would cause ~ to be unable to block, it can still block instead.
The last one is really rough. Personally I would just give him hexproof.
>cost
For this version I would make it WW. With the hexproof alternative 2W, GW, WU or G/UW.
>>47394874
i'd rather it not get hexproof so that it can still be taken down by other forms of removal
i'll wait for some more feedback but this is a really good start, thanks!
>>47394332
Fixed rune cost to better reflect the effect.
>>47394538
Is there any particular reason why rune doesn't work? I'd really like to know if there actually is one, because so far I haven't heard one.
>>47395377
Not sure how to cost this one.
>>47358780
https://youtu.be/0QaAKi0NFkA
>>47394022
hexproof/protection from blue/protection from blue and white
>>47391951
not sure it can be worded easily unless you keyword all that "the highest devotion color" stuff
also probably too wordy/weird for common
>>47395377
Probably too cheap on the rune effect, 2 for 1's are strong.
>>47396759
I'm going to bump it up to 1RG then. Paying 4 is fine right?
>>47396785
Ehh, maybe? The original effect is a 6 mana sorcery although it doesn't have to rely on ETB.
>>47396844
Part of what I'm trying to go for with runes is being able to cast them at opportune moments for better effect and/or cost, but yeah I'm not the best at costing cards.
How's the cost on this?
>>47397344
Should be fine, although a bit nasty in limited.
>>47397396
Hopefully being at rare will help curtail that.
>>47397414
The shift trigger is also not that useful as you should be closing out games pretty quickly with it, but that's not a problem so much as it might be more interesting on a different card.
>>47397510
It's more gravy than anything, but the double strike helps to make attacking and triggering shift easier.
>>47360417
I think I've taken a look on that previous set, seemed pretty cool, although it would need more cards if it's going to be the first of a block.
Also, where do you get all that awesome art?
>>47397058
>>47397580
Whoa, thanks! And yeah, I have plans to expand it. It was my first project, so I made it a small set to make it more manageable.
>art
Sometimes it feels like I spend more time searching for art than designing cards! The resources in the OP are great. I also do a lot of googling.
>>47397580
Playable, balanced, fair. Only suggested improvement would be upgrading it to a 3/4.
Griffin/10
>>47360775
you could make it optional
>>47397655
It's fine at 2 power, flash gives it functional haste.
>>47397655
Thanks! I'll consider bumping it up when I go back and expand the set, as this isn't the first time I've heard that suggestion.
Last white rare, is the ability to pump here too self-contained?
>>47363767
I think you need to use "blocking creatures" instead of "defending creatures".
Also would not say "after blockers are declared" as it is pretty redundant, it does nothing otherwise.
>>47391951
I like using devotion, but making a worse crumbling vestige isn't so cool. I guess if you are trying to discourage multi-colored decks in draft this will work, but other wise I dislike it. Maybe make it, "~ enters the battlefield tapped."
"T: Add C (colorless) to your mana pool"
"T: Add 1 mana of any color you have devotion to."
Tbhonest you might not even need the enters tapped clause as devotion usually means you already have the way to produce that color of mana anyway.
>>47391732
There are a lot more cards that ping, deal 1 to board, or can split their damage up the you think. Most are in red, sure, but they are still prevalent in drafts.
I do agree though, in a single target removal situation, 2 toughness is almost as bad as 1. At least bears can't get picked off by most 1 drops though.
>>47394022
I'd go with:
"Defender"
"Prevent all damage dealt by ~"
"At the begging of the declare blocker step, tap ~ then it blocks target attacking creature."
>>47395377
I agree with the other anon, this is too cheap. Even making it 3 mana is too cheap. I'd either make it restrict where it can't fight a creature owned by the same player as it, or the controller of the creature choses what creature it fights, possibly have it you chose which player that creature must be controlled by.
Like, right now the only card we have that allows you to make 2 creatures you don't control fight each other I can think of is that red battle trick in Shadows over Inistrad that costs like 4 or 5 mana and requires both creatures chosen to be blocking.
>>47396523
Infinite damage is dangerous, even if the rate is terrible. I'm sure someone would create some jank combo around this for 1TKs. Maybe have it be a bolt instead if you runed it?
>>47397344
Great in limited, might see standard play. A perfect rare.
>>47397580
Maybe make it: Flash
flying, vigilance
Whenever ~ attacks put a 2/2 flying birb into play
whenever ~ blocks put a 2/2 elemental with vig into play
1/4
>>47398117
This is a hard one to gauge without playtesting. It feels like it should have vigilance to make full use of its ability.
>>47397643
I'll look forward to it!
>>47397610
Is okay. The ability to prep it makes up for how weak it is.
>>47398117
Nice synergy with itself and aggro white.
I am disgruntled at the creature type though. Hyenas aren't a breed of dog, so the hound sub-type doesn't fit. They are genetically closer to cats then dogs, but aren't really either.
>>47398416
Unless the set is a super wide board strategy it at most will be a deterrence for your opponent to attack you with a bunch of little things. Like, in a lot of situations this feels like it would just be a 3/3 that taps when it attacks in white. You'd need to kinda build around it for it be really powerful.
Just came up with this. My other idea is enchant a creature, mill 1 at upkeep, then enchanted creature gets -X/-X where X is the card's CMC.
>>47398596
This feels pretty over costed, also I'm pretty sure all things that enchant players are curses, but don't quote me on this.
If it was 5 mana I think it would be fine. Maybe make it trigger on your upkeep instead? If you did that I could see it being 4 mana, just all B.
>>47398703
>begging
>>47372314
intro pack rare /10
>>47398703
>>47398732
Actually I take back my sarcastic comment, this card is retarded powerful and makes Bitterblossom look like a joke
>>47398732
God this is such an awful habit of mine...
>>47398754
Is it the fact it triggers each upkeep or the fact it makes sera angels? Because with how many levels it takes I dunno if I can agree on the latter point. I was about to change it to only trigger on your upkeep, if that is the problem.
>>47374762
totally love the flavor
>>47398328
>3 mana
4 mana, you're forgetting about the rune cost. Also this requires the creature to have come into play that turn, which I think restricts it enough, but I've been wrong before.
>some jank combo around this for 1TK
Just like they did with Searing Touch?
>>47398532
Perfect. That's exactly what I was going for with the rune effect. Do you think it should be common though?
>>47398961
I think the first thing is definitely the problem they were talking about. Make it only during your upkeep or only during your opponents upkeep, but not both. I'm not sure that players will ever level this up more than once, is what I'm worried about.
>>47399350
>>47398328
Oh you didn't see this post >>47396785. I'd already bumped it up to 1RG.
>>47359957
>>47376435
>>47378018
I don't think using a type of counter that already exists (and in the same block, at that) for something totally different is a good idea, unless you have a good reason for that.
And every card I've seen that checks for counters doesn't specify, so I think they really cold have another name.
>>47378018
What's "Temporal" about?
Also, I'm not sure if the wording is correct, I suggest something like "When ~ etb, exile up to one target creature for each permanent you control with [...]".
As it is right now:
- Targeting happens as the ability is put on the stack, not as it resolves. My wording cannot fix this, but I think the card may lead to confusion; people could be choosing targets based on the number when it resolves instead of the number when it triggers.
- I think the ability won't be put into the stack if there aren't enough legal targets.
- "may" effects are decided upon resolution. I think you put it because of the number-of-targets problem, but with "up to" I find it cleaner and every target gets exiled.
I'm sure this one is unbalanced somehow.
>>47399437
>>47399350
I don't consider it fair to put a prep cost in with the activation. Yes it is there, but in most situations you prep something like this when you have free mana, much like when you'd play a sorcery spell that doesn't effect the board. I'm sure in desperation someone might play the whole thing, but those are only some of the cases.
>Searing counter point
alright you got me there, but there is a jank combo 1tk based around pyrite spell bomb so there are times where it happens.
>>47399386
If you are talking about the Devption, then I disagree. I could see many situations where they'd pump it to 6. Getting a free sera angel a turn makes a great difference in game. Sure, they get like 18 health but you get a bunch of 5 drops.
Health difference doesn't matter as long as you'll kill them before they kill you.
If you are talking about Passion, they have no choice to level it unless it is at level 4. I am considering to make it, "level 0-3+" just so the exile effect never turns off.
>>47383141
Minds is broken.
>>47385688
>Does Magnify never have a cost associated with it
No it doesn't; it's a set-focused kicker meant to play nice with Madness and Unearth.
>Are you doing discard-matters stuff now?
Yeah, I put the second set of the Savage block on hold for a complete rework because I wasn't happy with it mechanically or thematically. So this is my current project, and I'm taking my time with it.
>Reality Lapse
Try this on for size. I think I like it better anyway.
>RW06
He feels kinda weak to me, honestly. The frontside doesn't need to ETB tapped, and I think the cost is too high. The thing about this kind of card is it doesn't have the protection from interaction that Suspended cards do, so it'd need a boost to make it worth it. I think he'd be fine as a 1/2 for 1W personally, ETBing normally. Could give him defender if you wanted to, but he'd have to have a better statline.
>>47390920
I know how it feels to go through several designs for card, or to get stuck on a card. I am currently stuck on one myself, but I'm not sweating it too much. I had a deadline for myself last time I did a set; I am not making the same mistake twice. It'll happen or it won't, either way. It's all supposed to be for fun anyway.
I do like Suit Up; it mechanically translates well to what it's meant to me, and it "feels" like its concept. We call that a "win".
>>47399799
Yeah, especially if it's 1 then they can just cast it with whatever extra mana they have left. I'll probably change it then. Do you think it's fine as RRG or should it be 2RG?
>>47383277
Not bad. I would change the wording of the fourth ability to something like "Cards can't leave your library.". It is too weird as it is now.
Also, way way too much text.
>>47383277
That's 11 lines of text.
11
Count that out with your fingers, oh wait you can't, jesus christ.
>>47383277
Look into yawgmoths agenda and Immortal coil, they should give a better way of doing what you want.
>>47399875
Make the fight thing 4 mana or more restricted on use.
>>47399869
>discard a card to T/UnT something
that sounds really bad. Though having it does make it a better boomerang so I guess it's fine.
>>47399783
Megamorph was already one of the least liked mechanics, and at least the cards face-down were the same as morph. I really do think what you're doing is not a good idea.
>this card
what are you doing now? why would you make the card a 2/2 morph? is it your objective to confuse the players?
I understand what you want the card to do, but it's not intuitive at all, and it's not even that__fun__.
Also "flip" is the keyword action for the Kamigawa flipcards.
>>47399869
Thanks. Yeah, I just need to roll with it and give these concepts time to figure out.
>card
OK, I know this might seem kinda odd to say about a Kicker knockoff, but I feel like the Magnify ability feels out of place. I mean, it definitely doesn't benefit the other ability very well. Though I'm not quite sure what would work for this, so maybe it's just me.
>>47400196
>Megamorph was already one of the least liked mechanics, and at least the cards face-down were the same as morph. I really do think what you're doing is not a good idea.
Megamorph was disliked because it was morph with a +1/+1 counter. I'm ignoring the second sentence until you offer constructive criticism.
>objective to confuse the players
No it's not. Mythics and rares are allowed a certain degree of complexity that commons and uncommons are not.
>why would you make the card a 2/2 morph
Permanents on the battlefield turned face down are 2/2 creatures by default.
>Also "flip" is the keyword action for the Kamigawa flipcards.
Fixed to be "turned face down"
Do you have any criticisms for the balance of the card itself? You really haven't said anything useful at all besides the flip comment, and I really am trying to be reasonable with you. The least you could do is try to give me that much as well.
>>47400118
Keep in mind it's in a set where discarding can be good due to Madness/Unearth.
>Warpath
Hm. You'd have to do some serious building around this card, but if you manged it, it's a blowout every time you cast it. Situationally better than most board wipes, and at uncommon.
>>47400118
Done. Thanks for the feedback.
>>47400198
>Magnify feels out of place
The idea behind the tap/untap is you can use it either for utility or to clear a path to swing. It's also a cheap Madness enabler and each color needs at least one. As long as it's mechanically sound and not too good I'm not as worried about it not being readily apparent what the uses of the card are given the added utility.
>Rogue
Was wondering when you'd do her. And this is pretty close to what I thought you'd do with her too. Well, one of the things I thought of. The other one was UB and had wither and lifelink, and copied things it dealt combat damage to until the beginning of your next upkeep. This one is fine too. It is pretty much how you'd translate her to mono-U.
