These swords are made for stabbing 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
Scrubs: >>46462043
Designing sphinxes is fun but difficult.
>>46487748
This should have the triple draw be conditional on the opponent choosing a card.
New version. Now with more inspiration from Clues.
>>46487888
Not sure what you mean, trips. The draw three does occur after you put the chosen card on the bottom of your library. Am I missing something?
Of course I made the full cycle.
>>46488060
If you're hellbent and can't put a card on the bottom, you still draw three.
>>46488271
Doesn't need the and/or, just or will do and is missing card on the discard part
I can't think in a good name for this qt3.14.
>>46488336
I fixed it. Thanks!
>>46488320
Huh, I figured it was still stored with the choosing of a card. Would it require another "if" in there? That might be really awkward to word.
>>46488172
Keywords are not automatically capitalized edition.
>>46488044
Everything interesting about the card is on the downside, and the upside is just a spiky 2 mana counterspell.
>>46488269
Neither are card types edition. (Though Subtypes are always capitalized.)
>>46488342
Exile what from your graveyard?
>>46488433
Exile >>46488172
apparently...
He's going for a "Spirit of the Night" flavour I guess!
>>46488381
>Activate this ability only if you own three or more cards in exile.
>>46487748
I really like this. The opponent should be able to choose whether or not they discard, and it should probably be a 4/4 but yeah other than that it is very well done.
>>46488426
>Everything interesting about the card is on the downside, and the upside is just a spiky 2 mana counterspell.
So...? It's a low mana counter, after all.
>Keywords are not automatically capitalized edition.
Be clear if you want me to fix it, anon.
>>46488433
>>46488469
I just fucked up the wording. Calm your tits.
I should stop forgetting the damn ~.
>>46488503
Thanks. Fix'd.
>>46488381
You should pick either exiling from grave or battlefield for ritualism.
>>46488563
Should just be Muraganda Valley Griffin.
>>46487753
forgot to add a cost to trigger the effect. It might be a little OP to just be (0), since that's essentially a much better version of Relic of Progenitus for creatures.
Also Skulk isn't evergreen so I would leave it off unless you intend this card to be part of the SOI block.
As for flavour, I'm guessing a stone from the grave that grants the wearer affinity with the spirits of the dead. Not bad.
>>46488570
Oops.
>>46488597
Yes, it should.
>>46488172
Interesting. Seems more like it would be a changeling than a treefolk, but the design makes sense. I also love abilities that reward the player for running multiple legendaries. Since it is dependent on the field, I could see a buff to 2/2 or even 3/3 depending on the synergies within the hypothetical set.
>>46488513
You got me at the pinger effect.I love pingers.
>>46488692
Well, I'm planning a lots of Simic creatures with activated abilities, but I can't think in any game breaking interactions right now.
I wanted to play safe with the P/T, but it could be a 2/2.
>>46488793Me too. My first magic deck was full of them.
>>46488513
Haste?
love the copy effect though.
>>46488513
>Be clear if you want me to fix it, anon.
He means its "Hexproof, indestructible" not "Hexproof, Indestructible". Sequential keywords aren't capitalized.
>>46488874
I fear that Haste would make it pretty irritating since the copies would have it too. Also, you can make the copy at the end of your opponent turn anyway.
>>46488898
Oh, ok. Fix'd.
>>46488854I made a blue/green deck around the prodigal sorcerer as a joke back in middle school.It wasn't a joke.I made it into a blue/red/green EDH now. Though I should probably drop the green now the prophet is banned.
Alright guise, rip this cycle to shreds.
>>46489108
Considering sudden inspiration is a sorcery, getting flash on the card you get with sudden Inspiration is a little limited I think.
>>46488513
This guy could just be red to cast, since the activated ability is already supplying the blue requirement.
>>46489497
Done. I'm thinking about buffing him a little now.
>>46489596
I'd be wary about buffing it, it's expensive to get going but once it does it's very difficult to get rid of. The only thing I can think of would be lowering its base cost and increasing the activated.
>>46489060
Since we're talking about pinger, here's a poorly thought pinger commander voltron that need a name.
Guess what I've been playing.
>>46488956
If kiki/twin is a thing, I don't think 3 mana for a 1/1 with haste after turn 4 is that unreasonable. Reminds me a bit of pack rat, but probably a lot more balanced.
>>46489885
Uschlar, Temur Gladiator
>>46490707
Gundead
lost
does anyone know a good place to get high-quality fake cards printed?
>>46490912
I don't know what that means, but it's Enter the Gungeon.
>>46490918
>high-quality fake cards
China.
>>46489596
> Art of pic related wasn't a pinger.
>>46491000
Perhaps I wasn't specific enough. A webpage that performs such services?
>>46491000
Topkek
>>46491073
No idea. I was just fucking with you.
>>46491073
Google card game printing and have a look through what services pop up.
>>46491205
I'm talking about card counterfeiters, sir
>>46491401
No idea then, it's unlikely you'll find a nice easy webpage for it.
>>46491038
Shit, now I want a cycle of them.
WU: Flash? (W already has flying)
UB: Skulk
BR: Menace?
RG: ? (G already has trample)
GW: Vigilance?
WB: Lifelink?
UR: Prowess?
BG: Deathtouch?
RW: First strike?
GU: Hexproof?
>>46491359
the problem with a card like this is that the cycling ability so overshadows the actual printed card, it's like the super cycling decrees
>>46491477
Mostly correct, though Flash isn't really White, it's more of a Blue/Green thing. The problem is that some of the keywords, like Flying, which is the WU keyword, have already been taken by other Sliths.
>>46491477
UG is more flash than WU. Not sure
BR is menace or haste
RG is trampe or it gets 2 counters instead of one
GW is vigilance
WB is obviously lifelink
UR is prowess
BG is deathtouch or regen
RW is first strike or double strike if it's a rare
GU is hexpoof or flash
Why do people keep saying flash isn't white
>>46491723
Flash is five color but it's more GU than WU
>>46491723
Because it's a lot easier to say than "Flash is mainly Blue and Green, but shows up in lower numbers in the other colors as well, mostly as a sort of bug-fix," and we assume that people who actually pay attention to what's going on know this without us saying that. But obviously, we sometimes get people like you who don't know this. But now you do, so don't ask again.
>>46491723
This >>46491783
Flash can show up in any color, but W/R/B typically get it more sparingly, usually when there's another effect on the card that would be an Instant spell otherwise.
White is probably third in Flash behind Blue and Green, and that's mainly because it has a defensive playstyle.
>>46491693
Should be one generic mana. As of now it has psuedo hexproof against certain decks
>>46492040
>As of now it has psuedo hexproof against certain decks
I think that was the point.
>>46492099
You could just use (You may have this enter the battlefield attached to a creature you control.)
>>46491803
I think it would be nice if you could remove a counter to attach the card at instant speed.
I'm thinking about pack wars.
What would be good (existing) mechanics for a pack wars cube/custom set?
I feel like a lot of the original zendikar mechanics would work very well for it.
Kicker, landfall, rebound. All get you extra value out of your limited cards and excess lands.
I was also thinking morph could help offset the issue of mana screw when you have such a wonky and irrelevant mana base. And just making cards in the set have a high CMC but low color intensity.
Would Domain be a good thing to include in pack wars or would it just be too automatic/easy?
I'm also thinking flashback would work well. May not want both flashback and rebound in the same set though?
I was originally thinking retrace might work well in a pack wars set but I think I'd rather reward the player for playing lands and bigger spells than discarding lands and casting the same spell over and over.
>>46487736
This only functions to counter a single effect, as any additional ones would be done in response to the activation, and it can't per-emptively be used either.
>>46494879
Things that key off of lands or otherwise let you sink excess mana would be nice. Hybrid might actually shine there, as it increases the likelihood that you'll be able to play a card.
Domain seems a bit bland, since everyone is going to be running 5 lands regardless, so that's just relying too much on luck.
Flashback would be a nice inclusion, especially Innistrad style with different colors. Helps keep the game moving forward and lets you use spells multiple times.
You could also make it so different colors have a different focus for how to use lands. Green would be good with landfall to pump themselves up and build a board presence, while Blue might work better with Retrace in order to be casting spells more often.
>>46489885
>attack
>no blockers
>ping this guy
>ability triggers on taking damage, gets +1/+1, deals 1 damage
>target himself
>ability triggers again
>etc
>infinite damage: The card
at work so no MSE but
3GG
Creature - Elemental
At the beginning of combat on your turn, you may put 2 +1/+1 counters on target land you control. If you do, it becomes a 0/0 Elemental creature with haste until end of turn and must attack this turn if able. It's still a land.
3/3
This is surely a rules nightmare. Could it be made to work? I want to let red bolt other people's spells.
>>46496944
Enchantment
Whenever a red instant or sorcery spell you control would deal damage to a player, you may prevent that damage. If you do, counter target spell that player controls with converted mana cost less than or equal to the damage prevented this way.
>>46496973
Replacement effects can't target like that.
>>46496973
*... equal to the amount of damage...
sorry
The P/T is likely a tad high.
>>46496994
The targetting is done by a triggered effect, triggered by you preventing your own damage
>>46497009
Except you can't trigger to prevent damage, as the damage will have already happened
>>46497021
Cast a spell that would deal damage
Enchantment triggers, asking if you want to prevent damage
You prevent damage
Enchantment triggers, asking you to target a spell to counter
Counter trigger resolves
Original spell resolves, dealing no damage
>>46497033
Yeah that's not how magic works.
>>46497035
Okay, thanks Wizards and your 6 word post with no back-up
>>46497048
R: Prevent all damage target spell or ability you control would deal this turn. Counter target spell if its converted mana cost is equal to or less than the damage prevented this way.
Would be how you'd word something like that. Triggers work off something that actually happens not the potential for it.
>>46488172
It doesn't need the 'as long as ~ is on the battlefield' clause, since unless otherwise specified, the abilities of permanents only function on the battlefield anyhow.
>>46497081
...I did not spell Familiar correctly.
>>46497081
See pyromancer's swath for the wording.
>>46497113
Thanks. I'd found a lot of 'Double damage' ones but I'd missed Pyromancer's Swath so the wording wasn't perfect.
>>46497140
Replace creature with permanent if you want it to hit planeswalkers and source with spell if you only want it working from the stack.
>>46495410
> Addition of "another" somewhere
I knew I missed the obvious somehow.
>>46497357
I'd have it so the tutored land was put onto the battlefield tapped.
>>46496449
I can dig it
>>46488692
>>46488854
It has hexproof and indestructible, that thing needs to be a 1/1. Or, even better, lose one of those abilities.
>>46487888
Does this fix it? I do want to avoid it working especially well with hellbent.
>>46488505
Thanks. I'm keeping the initial choice in the hand of the player because otherwise it seems less like a clever card and more like a card that's going to own you most of the time. As is, you can choose if what you think your opponent perceives as your best card is worth three cards. I could see lowering the p/t though. Although, these days, things like serra angel are uncommon, so I'm not sure it could justify 4/4 at six mana and one combat keyword.
>>46489596
I agree with the person who said to make it cheaper to cast but more expensive to activate. I could seem them as a 1RR 1/1 whose ability costs 3U to activate.
Honestly, mana isn't the issue here. I think the true power in this card is that the ability can activate as normal, rather than being restricted to sorcery speed. That sends this card waaaaay up in power level. I might even suggest making it rare, as it is the kinda thing that'd dominate a draft match.
>>46491038
I adore this design.
>>46496411
There's no reason for this not adding mana.
>>46497270
Isn't this ability really fucked up with combat? Since, say, if it gets double blocked, it receives damage twice but simultaneously. "Second time" is throwing me off in what that means. Second source or second instance?
>>46497357
Four mana and only one green requirement is too little.
>>46501113
This ain't blue.
>>46501162
what color would it be?
>>46501169
It's a very white effect.
>>46501243
Well do you think the card would work if U was changed to W? I'm not sure about the price for something that gives this effect.
>>46501301
I'm not sure either, it's really weird. Why don't you make it an instant with "until the beginning of your next end step" ?
>>46501320
Because I'm not sure how instants would interact with future turns desu.
>>46500827
Show me another two cost creature that converts one generic mana into three colored.
Still working on this one. And because I'm retarded, I just recently realized that, as Robin, Damian should do something to support other creatures. Trying for a legendary theme with this one.
>>46501828
New keyword
Sidekick (Whenever a legendary creature you control attacks, you may put this card from your hand onto the battlefield tapped and attacking)
>>46502051
How many cards would I even be able to use that on? Sidekicks aren't exactly popular now. But thanks for trying.
>>46496411
>>46500827
Rewarding you for playing multicolored creatures and not being a ridiculously OP 3-color, 2-profit dork. I'd say those are good reasons.
>>46496449
Traditionally, Treefolk G/B/W, not G/B/U, but if the flavor calls for it it can work. I also like the idea of conditional mana fixing; when you need creatures you get green, when you need instants you get blue and black. Cool stuff.
>>46500886
I like this.
>>46497003
Oh hey, this looks familiar. I wasn't quite sure how to word it, either.
>>46502924
That's actually really cool. By giving all creatures flying, it's more akin to giving all of your creatures reach.
Plus it has the neat bonus of making all those Green flying-hate spells universal.
>>46502924
that's blue
>>46502924
This is clever, though I'm now imagining the under costed fatty with "creatures you opponents control have flying."
>>46503041
Seems like something a Djinn would do.
What rarity should multi-color lands typically be at? Is there a big difference between having them be Rare and Uncommon? Are common duals a bad move?
>>46505016
Dual-Color lands at common is acceptable for a heavily multicolor set.
>>46506463
Base p/t is for setting a creatures p/t its not equivalent to its printed p/t.
Parasitic AF, but hopefully more balanced than cascade.
>>46506774
I don't see why it doesn't work as written, though. Continuous effects based off of power or toughness are prone to wacky shenanigans in general, so referring to base P/T is a nice way to get around it. The base P/T is determined in Layer 7b, and the modification is applied in Layer 7c.
Although because of dependency rules, a 1/1, a Glorious Anthem, and Jacqueline would always end up as a 2/2, because Jacqueline's continuous effect is dependent on all other P/T modifiers. Counters come after, so a green 1/1 with a +1/+1 counter on it would be a 4/4, not a 2/2.
>>46507446
Because base p/t only applies if a p/t is being set, its not something inherent to a card.
>>46488044
Its, not it's
>>46507538
I'd argue that the P/T printed on the card is its "base power and toughness" and that the term "base" is only needed where there's otherwise ambiguity, but the rules are unclear on that aspect.
>>46507549
Wouldn't "As an additional cost to play ~, sacrifice six untapped lands." be a lot more straightforward and do the exact same thing?
>>46507802
The only mention of base p/t is when setting it as a value.
>>46507825
He's basing it off the template of Lotus Vale
>>46507825
Lands don't have costs.
>>46507836
Because there's never been an effect that cares about non-modified P/T. You can't apply non-layer 7 effects off of regular P/T because its not calculated until then (that includes type, color, control, and abilities), and layer 7c (anthems) and 7e (flips) effects are confusing to players because timestamps and dependencies.
That's why you need a reference to "base" P/T to make it grok. It may be a rules bend, to define a property that a creature honestly should have at all times (after all, what is its base P/T when its not being Turned to Frog?), but I don't think its an egregious one, particularly when these threads are full of new keywords that require their own rules baggage.
>>46507549
Interesting concept but too powerful and too slow. Have it sacrifice four lands and generate five mana of any combination of colors. Also, make it a mythic rare.
>>46507197
Powerful as hell. But probably balanced if Elesh Norn is anything to base power level off. Adds dual color and a less universal buff for your team in exchange for -3/-3 to everything else and 1 cheaper? I like it.
>>46508483
Would be fine at 2 if it either didn't tap for mana or didn't make a fine bruiser.
>>46508899
Should I lower his stats or drop trample?
>>46507990
Well fuck me, stupid, you're right. Why didn't I think of that.
>>46510582
I understand that seal of RB is in color pie kinda but it feels so... Un-RB, flavor wise. I feel like you should swap RB and RG, and maybe make the new BR +3/+0 and some other more relevant bonuses. Seal of UW should be "up to two". Other than that, I see no problem with these (but I'm not very good at balance, just color pie stuff)
>>46488486
Kinda I like it
Can some of you anons make cards for me? I can't use MSE, and in return I'll help you on your ideas.
Is this any good by itself? It's meant to combo with another card, but I want to make sure it at least has some purpose when used separately.
>>46512279
I'm feeling bored and generous, hit me. Though I have to ask why you can't use MSE. Mac?
>>46512279
Shouldn't be too much trouble, depending on how many cards you want. Is there any particular reason you can't get it to work on your end?
On a side-note, does this seem alright for a common? I'm worried it might be a bit too much.
>>46512381
And of course I forgot the pic.
>>46512380
Seems like it's fine. I'm sure there's some crazy combo that could be pulled off with it, but otherwise it seems like a decent way to circumvent discard costs and get more value out of looting effects.
>>46512404
>>46512381
Ah, I wanted to fuck with you and say your card was totally OP.
>card
Eh... Really unsure of this one. Maybe drop the cantrip and make it G cheaper. Or just up the rarity to uncommon, I guess? Again, really unsure.
>>46512503
Ah, thanks. Well, here's another one. I'm unsure of how to cost this, for obvious reasons, and I'm wondering now if I should just go back to the drawing board. I'm looking for something RB that benefits a creature that can ping, basically.
>>46512613
I think an RB card that benefits a ping effect works better with Lifelink. Pinging with Lifelink is much easier to cost and balance than pinging with deathtouch, since pinging with deathtouch just gives you destroy effects.
First strike and Deathtouch alone are a fairly nasty combo, especially since that's an equipment that can easily be re-used. I'd probably suggest bumping up the equip cost, possibly dropping the CMC a bit to compensate. That helps limit its re-usability somewhat.
>>46512613
Yeah, I had a feeling it had a bit too much going on. I think I'll probably end up dropping the cantrip and the casting cost.
I usually get a bit carried away when designing commons and end up making them more complex than they probably should be.
>>46512380
>>46512381
No, PC actually, but it's too heavy. So far, I only want a few cards. I try not to push generosity.
>Bloodthirsty Champion 1RB
Whenever this creature attacks, the creature with the highest power must block it.
Sacrifice a creature, Regenerate Bloodthirsty Champion
4/1
>Sword Breaker 2
Whenever equipped creature deals combat damage to a creature with an attached equipment, you may pay 3 and sacrifice Sword Breaker. That equipment is destroyed.
Equip 1
I know that the wording is clunky, but how can I make it more elegant?
>>46512404
Art in use, Borderlands Ranger.
>>46512613
Feels a little too underwhelming with its effects. Maybe "When this deals combat damage to a creature, destroy it."
>>46512772
>I think an RB card that benefits a ping effect works better with Lifelink.
Lifelink...? Hadn't really thought of that. I mean, it's not exactly a BR effect, is it? But they do have that dog, so we can't really say that the effect simply can't exist in BR. I'll think on it.
>pinging with deathtouch just gives you destroy effects.
Well yeah, that was my train of thought.
>I'd probably suggest bumping up the equip cost, possibly dropping the CMC a bit to compensate.
Not sure if I'll stick with this design, but that sounds like a good idea.
>>46512850
Don't sweat it, good commons and uncommons are actually more difficult that one would think.
>>46512887
>but it's too heavy.
Could you please elucidate me as to what exactly you mean by this?
>Bloodthirsty Champion
Creature types? Rarity? (I'm assuming uncommon or rare.)
Text should be more like
>Whenever ~ attacks, defending player chooses a creature he or she controls with the greatest power among creatures he or she controls. That creature blocks ~ this turn if able.
At least, that's what I think. It's a bit tricky.
>Sacrifice a creature: Regenerate ~.
>Sword Breaker
Again, no rarity. Uncommon?
>Whenever equipped creature deals combat damage to a creature, you may pay 3 life. If you do, destroy target Equipment attached to that creature.
Feels super weak. I'd give it a P/T boost and change the payments to just mana. Granted, you'll probably have to increase the mana and equip costs, but I think it'll be a much better card.
>>46513035
Did you not read what I said? I want it to work with a creature that can ping, ie. deal noncombat damage, like Prodigal Pyromancer. Tying the effect to combat damage completely defeats the purpose.
>>46513162
Lifelink is Black. There's no reason it couldn't be on a BR card. The main reason it doesn't is because they love sticking it on WB cards instead.
>>46512887
>>46513162
Wait, let me explain why Sword Breaker feels weak in more detail. The problem with the card is that it does literally nothing besides destroy equipment. Well, what if your opponent isn't running equipment? Adding at least a P/T boost would make sure that the card isn't just dead in your hand because your opponent isn't playing equipment.
>>46513162
I'd assume he's posting from his phone
>>46513162
>Don't sweat it, good commons and uncommons are actually more difficult that one would think.
Yeah, I hear that. I've basically finished all the commons, but now I'm just looking over it to make sure there isn't anything that would be better as uncommon. I've already found quite a few that are too wordy or otherwise feel a bit too strong at common.
>>46513162
Well, I guess I already have a lot of games, so MSE doesn't work properly at all. Sometimes it crashes, don't know why. I've tried making more space for it, but same results.
Bloodthirsty Champion - Uncommon, Orc Warrior
Sword Breaker - Uncommon
I think that Sword Breaker should have a different trigger, really. But at least we've nailed the effect.
>>46513214
Well, it's also a philosophical thing. BR is a very aggressive combination that doesn't really think ahead, and just throws everything at the opponent at once. Look at Unleash for just one example of this. One of the things with color combinations is that they do restrict more of what can be done with the colors. While, for example, White has double strike, it doesn't really come up all that much in White multicolor cards that don't also have Red in them. The same is true for Green with Deathtouch and without Black. But yeah, Lifelink is still a viable option here. Not common, but I'm only going to do it for one card, max.
>>46513243
Oh, that's what he meant. How did I not see that?
>>46513334
Huh, weird. Sorry to hear that.
Again, the problem with Sword Breaker is that the effect is very situational. I mean, I like the idea... but, yeah. It's just not very useful most of the time. Honestly, I recommend designing it so that it's a decent P/T boosting equipment by itself, then treating the equipment destruction as trinket text. Maybe something like a 1 mana 1 equip for +1/+0? Eh, I'll leave that up to you for now.
>>46513334
Have you tried not installing in in Program Files?
>>46513457
I understand, but equipment destruction doesn't come cheap. I will add +1/+0 to it, but its main shtick is destroying equipment, and doing it well. Here's some ideas I've thought out.
>Whenever equipped creature is blocked or blocks a creature, you may remove it from combat. If you do, destroy target Equipment on that creature.
>>46513520
Not yet. Why?
What are some good alternatives to MSE?
>>46513634
>Not yet. Why?
MSE has known issues when installed in Program Files. Install it your My Documents or something.
>>46513520
>>46513539
Chinese menu, but very fun nonetheless. Good job.
>>46513634
>equipment destruction doesn't come cheap.
I'm going to sound like a dick, but you don't know what you're talking about. Have you actually looked at cards that remove only equipment? They are lackluster at best. And of the equipment that can destroy other equipment, both are costed at 2, one with equip 2, the other with equip 1. And they both have P/T boosts, and don't need to actually come into contact with an equipped creature to destroy an equipment.
Also, your proposed idea is good, but for a different reason than you think. Your proposed idea is the gustcloak ability, and would be used without equipment destruction about 99% of the time.
>>46513634
Equipment destruction, especially equipment destruction that keys only off of combat, is extremely cheap.
Consider you're looking at 1 Red mana to destroy any artifact, so only destroying equipment is even narrower than that.
Then consider that rather than that as an easily usable spell, you have to cast this equipment, make sure you have something to equip it to, somehow get it to either block you or attack to let you block it, and then deal combat damage despite whatever abilities it might have.
Even being able to use it repeatedly is a small upside, but it's such a specific effect that I can't see it being very expensive at all.
>>46513718
>>46513718
I understand.
>>46513718
Gustcloak ability? What?
>>46513848
This.
Opinions? I'm getting back into Magic and don't know if this works.
>>46514436
Mostly fine. Name and art suck, and creatures "gain" keywords and "get" P/T boosts.
>>46514505
Yeah, I'm terrible at drawing and using cards to practice.
There we go.
>>46502958
>>46503041
I saw a card quite a while ago that was something like
Syndrome- UR and some colorless
All creatures have flying and first strike
"and when everybody's special... no one will be"
>>46515843
It's not really worth countering a shock in the first place.
>>46496411
Why does the reminder text have black mana in it?
>>46516123
To emphasize that it won't reduce U or B costs
>>46492202
Should read "You may have this enter the battlefield attached to target creature you control." otherwise it inappropriately gets around shroud.
>>46516231
Shroud is defunct so it's not like it matters.
>>46494906
Sounds fine to me, wouldn't want it to be overpowered.
>>46516340
Should probably be "with the greatest power or tied for the greatest power." The case where there's no tie is obvious logically, but the card as written doesn't tell me what to do if I don't tie for the highest.
See Abzan Beastmaster for a related case.
>>46516340
Gave me an idea for a card, too.
>Balancing Enchantment - ?WB
>At the beginning of your upkeep, each player with the most cards in hand or tied for the most cards in hand discards a card. Then, each player with the least cards in hand or tied for the least card in hand draws a card and loses 1 life.
Black for discard/Phyrexian Arena draw, white for balance effects.
>>46516340
Not bad at all, anon. Try to shorten the text if at all possible, though.
Playing around with a mechanic, 2 commons, 2 uncommons, 2 rares and a mythic
>>46517985
I would have made the flavour text about how being passionate help you to go through tedious works.
Or maybe the opposite, you need to "discard" your impulsiveness to focus on your work.
>>46517998
Art in use. Also, the effect feels far more WU than GU, though that would require a name change.
>>46517998
>>46518874
Technically, target-changing is in the red slice of color pie these days, while protecting your own permanents is a white thing. I'd go with RW instead.
![maxresdefault[3].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/7iVN4T5.jpg "maxresdefault[3].jpg")
>>46517998
>magical maladies
>>46518986
>think "You know, a wizard version of this would be better."
>google "wizard fedora"
>find this
>>46519040
>Enchantment
>Whenever a female opponent casts an instant or sorcery spell, if you control a white Knight creature, you may tip it. If you do, copy that spell and you may choose new targets for the copy.
>>46517990
I love it
Bump.
>>46521314
That last ability should target, anon. "Any number of target creatures." It also feels really disconnected; the first strike + haste make it seem aggressive, but the slow growth of aim counters and the piddly 3/2 body isn't going to have much of an impact on turn five. However, it has to have that heavy mana cost and slow build, or the aim counter ability becomes ridiculous. My advice: Drop the cost, remove first strike and haste, add evasion (menace, probably), make him add a +1/+1 counter to himself on player damage, and finally give him an activated ability to remove counters to shoot stuff. Faster, more aggressive, builds up more organically, and still does most of what I think you were going for there.
Because why not? Though now that I'm thinking about it, maybe something like Hideaway?
>>46522739
Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately, that's not what I'm looking for at all. I'm going to just scrap the card and try again.
>card
I think it's too cheap. A quick look through MagicCards makes me think that this should be 3 CMC at least.
This 'walker was less about unique design and more about trying to come up with a whole package. I'm sure some people out there would have a lot of fun with them.
>>46516340
I love this effect, though I'm not sure if it wants to be on a grey ogre.
>>46513718
>Chinese menu
I really hate this being used as a point when it's TWO things on a gold card. Let alone when they form a coherent whole.
Can't we leave that cliche criticism for when it's a bunch of keywords that don't work together especially well or two unrelated abilities that might as well be on two different cards?
>>46523531
So, just when it's done poorly? I can get behind that.
>>46523456
Good lord this one is boring. All you did was look at various cards and take different effects from them, except you changed "Fact or Fiction" to seven cards instead of five. I say go back and try to come up with something that can represent the character. And I think having at least one ability to modify the board is always a good idea.
>>46523672
>All you did was look at various cards and take different effects from them
Yeah, because unless I don't care about what kinda card I produce, I don't make designing itself into a game. I was thinking about the more important part of, y'know, actually playing with the card. Though you have a good point about not being able to do anything to the board being awkward.
>>46523782
It just seems lazy is what I'm saying. It just seems like you barely even care about making a good card.
>Dancing Lights
Interesting. I think the costs and low toughness prevent it from getting out of hand.
Looking at Chittering Rats and wondering if this can be 1B or BB.
>>46523870
>It just seems like you barely even care about making a good card.
A while ago, I learned that novel doesn't immediately equal good. And things that are fun in design don't translate to being fun in play. Hell, a lot of the time the cards that are most fun to design that other designers will love looking at are the ones that would be miserable to bother with in actual play. Might not be explaining it the best, but I hope that kinda gets the idea across.
Putting these effects all onto one walker seemed like a way to make something that'd be pretty cerebral to play with, and fun for the people who like that.
From a design standpoint, I can get being bored by it though.
Dancing Lights used to be a common that couldn't block, and the activated ability was the green lure that forces someone to block. While I liked that design, someone suggested this way and the flavor was so much more fitting. So, made it uncommon and attached a mana to the cost. I think being an uncommon and, like you said, dying to everything that does any damage puts it in a fine place.
>>46507420
Why not just make it any exiled nonland... Oh, right, duh. Power level.
I'm convinced that formidable is a perfect green and white mechanic. Here's a card meant to highlight the white part of it.
Eight 1/1s are just as formidable as two 4/4s.
>>46517990
Now all we need is a mountain that cares about doing damage to things.
>>46517985
I like this. Even though it wants to be in a UR deck, it still manages to feel like blue shitting on red, again.
>>46524012
True on all points, but I think the abilities could be changed to be more interesting and still be playable. Or at least more different. I mean, the first two are basically both "Don't let your opponent have good cards."
>card
I'm not sure if the opponent would discard a card just to skip a bad draw, especially when the next draw could still be bad.
>>46522857
>3cmc
Limiting it to attacking creatures is enough to justify the 2cmc cost, I feel. Immolating glare is comparable, if almost strictly worse. It's pushed, certainly by the power level of the current standard environment, but I don't believe that it's too pushed.
>>46524154
Yeah, I'm gunna work on her some more. As for grasping at sand, that depends on if they have any cards in hand worth pitching for card quality. Extra land, something too expensive for how long the game seems to be going, etc.
On the subject, here's a worse but more interactive Time Ebb that I like. Probably wants to exist in a limited format where mill exists to be more threatening.
>>46524022
This card reminds me that I had a silver border card that was a (1)(2/G) 2/2, with flavor text about green doing creatures better.RIP grey ogre
>>46524318
Not that card, but your post reminds me of it.
>>46524249
Why would you ever choose to mill yourself?
If the creature is worth putting on top of the library you won't want to mill it, and if it isn't keeping around an opponent wouldn't likely cast that spell on it.
Is the idea that you can cast it on a really shitty creature and your opponent then has the choice of either keeping that on top, knowing they will draw a shitty card next turn, or get rid of it but have to mill themselves in the process?
>>46487672
This hasn't gotten any comments but I really like it. Syntax fixes
>Enchant creature
>...look at the top four cards of your library. You may reveal an instant or sorcery card from among them and put it into your hand...
>>46487696
Just use charge counters dude.
>>46487717
I hate these kinds of artifacts that are just equipment because people forget that you are a person with hands who can do things. Just make it a straight up artifact that you tap. You don't need some minion to use the shovel FOR you.
>>46524481
>I hate these kinds of artifacts that are just equipment because people forget that you are a person with hands who can do things.
Man, I've been guilty of this. But I think I'm doing better now.
>>46524409
Sometimes you use common removal on a dude, and the opponent would rather draw something that isn't a generic dude.
In actual play it's not as extreme as "I use this on your 1/1" and "I use this on your indestructible 6/6 trampler."
>>46524553
I'm not him, but if you use the card to remove a big threat, why would the opponent put the big threat into the graveyard instead of drawing it again? And on the other hand, why would you use the card to remove a small thing? It seems like it's made for use against Voltron, or something else with a bunch of auras.
>>46524592
Because there can be medium things that can be bad enough for you while still not being what your opponent thinks they need to draw to win the game.
It's only a minor option on a generic common removal spell though, I'm not going for something huge. It just seems more interesting to play with.
>>46524404
I think this would make a lot more sense if the creature got +X/+X for each nonland permanent from a NEWER expansion on the battlefield. That way, you are casting Power Creep on your craw wurm to turn them into a power creep'd 9/7 or whatever. It'd also be more fun as revenge for the forgotten old creatures you use it on.
>>46524409
You've clearly never played against a time ebb.
>>46524249
Also, this is a worse Time Ebb. Don't be silly.
>>46524318
I still design fucktons of grey ogres.
>>46525092
>Also, this is a worse Time Ebb.
Ye, I said that in the post. If it's really a huge deal that it's worse, I could make it instant or something maybe.
>>46525532
It is just pointless. It is more interactive the same way Blazing Salvo is more interactive than Bolt, but without the rock and a hard place feeling. It really needs to mill more if you want it to be a proper Browbeat style card.
>>46526211
... From where? If you want it to be a token, make it a token, but right now, it is nonsense.
>>46524739
Deep sixed? What?
>>46526875
Probably something in his lore, like Angel of Flight Alabaster. Doesn't make sense unless you know the fluff.
>>46526875
The body drowned before being reanimated. To "deep-six" something is an idiom meaning you got rid of something. It comes from nautical slang since anything dropped overboard in waters six fathoms deep was usually unrecoverable.
>>46526875
>>46527003
Not that guy, but "deep six" means to dispose of something. It originates from tossing things off ships, I believe. So the flavor I get is that the corpse was disposed of, then reanimated later. Water zombie, essentially.
>Leeches
Seems fine, though could be irritating in large numbers in Limited. I think we don't see many cards like this anymore for that reason, but I don't think it's really a big deal.
>>46526821
Seems fine, though new players will be confused by the Delve/Entwine interaction, I think. Delve cost might need to be a touch higher though, like 8.
>>46526536
I remember this guy. It used to be odd to see red cards that cared about being played in the second main phase, but Raid changed that for me. Uncommon purely for Limited reasons I'd imagine, since that kind of effect would be oppressive at common.
Honestly, anymore I think this card can be BB or even 1B, since black gets 2/2s for 1B now. If you keep it as a Grey Ogre, it could be common easily enough, since I'm pretty sure you can give a 2/2 lifelink permanently at 2B nowadays if you wanted to.
>>46526211
As was said, needs to make an Aura token. Otherwise, seems fine to me. Auras need more love like this to make them stand out from Equipment. Taking advantage of the fact that they are so fragile is some seriously under-tapped design space.
>>46525092
>green artifact creature
I don't hate it or anything, but it always feels weird to make them or see them. Not an ability you see every day, and the kind of color hate you like to see more of.
Don't mind me, just not making a card for the thread edition for a change, I guess. Compares okay to Blightning I think. More damage, less utility.
>>46527448
oops, this
>Honestly, anymore I think this card can be BB or even 1B, since black gets 2/2s for 1B now. If you keep it as a Grey Ogre, it could be common easily enough, since I'm pretty sure you can give a 2/2 lifelink permanently at 2B nowadays if you wanted to.
was meant for >>46526514. I linkfailed.
>>46527448
Both sides feel at odds with each other. It only mills for milling sake, but cares about player damage. I think it needs some other scalable benefit from milling.
>>46527448
Neat, but a little wonky, since you know damage+mill only work in very wonky decks. Jace's Phantasm can at least block, ya know?
And yeah, all my P/Ts are too low now that they keep jacking them up each set. I had a vanilla 4/5 for 6 in red once. Whoooops. It felt like a reasonable common seeing as it had less color requirements and Earth Elemental had been an uncommon.
I will probably make the hag CMC 2. The whole cycle are uncommons, though it might not need to be any more... The only issue is that now I don't have the stupid cute thing of it going {U}, {1}{R}, {2}{B}, {3}{W}, {4}{G}.
As for green artifacts, I know I know, but it is a cycle and there's only gonna be one of them in my set. Phyrexia and Alara did it.
>>46527704
No more at odds with each other than Blightning's effects. Sometimes a gravy card is just a gravy card. Not everything needs to have interesting synergy with itself. It would be a more interesting card in a set where that milling matters for other reasons, perhaps. That kind of thing. I know it's hard to judge on its own merits that way, but like I said, not everything needs to be a symphony of cleverness.
Curious though, what kind of other benefit would you want to see on it? It can't do much more than it does at that CMC/rarity to begin with.
So talking about making Auras that do something when they die made me think they could be fun to design, so I made a basic one. I courted the idea of making it a keyword/ability word or something but eh, nah. And I took it one step further and gave them some additional utility that punishes discard (or rewards it, in the case of Madness and Spellshapers), as well as mill. It also gives me some ideas for a set... which is dangerous, because I know I won't finish the damn thing.
