Leylines and Chancellors edition! (Cards that do something if they show up in your opening hand.)
>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: >>47030179
I'm looking for ways to have white interact with artifacts, and was wondering if you lot think this card is white?
>>47079196
Good lord that card frame is fugly.
I think blue does artifact creatures more. White tutors Equipment though.
>>47079196
No. White's always been a bit weird about artifacts that aren't equipment. But right now, it looks like White can fetch artifacts from the yard no problem.
>>47079302
I agree with you about blue and artifact creatures. Maybe he could make the card UR; it could be mono U but red has been getting more artifacts lately and this feels like the reckless type stuff red would do.
Speaking of artifacts, still trying to get this to work in RW.
>>47080216
>13 Peejs
I can't believe you've been through 13 iterations of this card. That would drive me nuts. You're a more patient man than I, COanon. That said, I feel like you're going for that STARR Labs feel, so I'd suggest noncreature artifacts here. I wanted to suggest something with the "grey goo" but I think you tried that once before and the only things I can think of are too wordy to be practical with clones and stuff. Messy.
>>47080368
>I can't believe you've been through 13 iterations of this card. That would drive me nuts.
I brainstorm a LOT. There are times I'll look at a card for a few minutes and come up with five ideas. Actually, something similar to that happened here >>47060366
>That said, I feel like you're going for that STARR Labs feel, so I'd suggest noncreature artifacts here.
Yeah, sounds fine. I'll have to play around with that. Maybe combine graveyard recursion (probably to hand) with damage.
>"grey goo"
Well, I can always make another card for that.
>think you tried that once before
Yeah. An older version made token copies of artifacts.
Now for your cards.
>CW02
Hmm, I'm kinda afraid that this could really slow down a game. Though on the other hand, you need cards, and White isn't the greatest at draw. Actually, it's the worst!
>CW04
Perhaps too much value at the cost, but I'd have to double-check to make sure. Maybe make it 3W and 2/3.
>CW05
Ah, off-color casting. Cool.
>CW06
Don't really get this one.
>CW07
Personally, I think Bushido is an OK keyword, and I wouldn't mind seeing it evergreen, or "deciduous" as Maro calls it. But it certainly needs a better name.
>CW08
I really like this one. Good job.
>CW09
Huh. Very odd effect, but I can't find anything wrong with it. That is, giving the enchanted creature something but only for a turn. Interesting. I really want to see what you do with this.
>CW10
>CW11
Nice. Though I have the sneaking suspicion that they might be too good. This might just be me though. Again, have to double-check.
Ones I don't comment on seem fine.
>CW12
Huh. OK.
>>47080602
>>47080368
>That would drive me nuts.
I will admit though that sometimes it is disheartening to go through a card so many times and still not see anything good. I'm currently going through that with Damian Wayne. Good lord, he's on version 14 now. But thankfully, most of the cards I do have a pretty clear concept and just need some tweaking.
>>47080059
Problem is U/R already is occupied with spell slinging in this set
>>47080713
Good lord those frames are gross. Also, have you ever considered Replicate? And it's not like you actually need a keyword for this card, it's pretty easy to word.
>Leylines and Chancellors edition!
Whipped these up real quick. Leylines are traditionally souper sideboard tech (barring Meek in dedicated token decks and Anticipation in certain decks) so I tried to keep that theme, but this was just quick brainstorming so meh.
>>47080602
>brainstorm
It's feast or famine with me, which is why I am so irregular with card posting, and quality in general. Sometimes I'm on, sometimes I'm off.
>artifacts
I dunno about grabbing cards from the yard; as I recall most of her stuff was original, if not volatile, so recursion might not be the ticket. THOUGH... what if she gave your creatures the ability to Convoke artifacts into existence? I know you don't like non-evergreens but Convoke has been in core sets at least, so it's considered "beginner-friendly". It'd be a good way to have her not only synergize with artifacts but make it seem like she's the one who runs STARR Labs as well?
>CW02
Keep in mind the set has Madness access, so you may be able to get additional value from it. Though White will have next to no Madness in it; you'll have to draft two colors to get it (which is the idea anyway, as it's a multicolor set). I was a touch worried about the body being cheap, though the effect is a common spell itself. I might have to jostle some things around if I have to recost the creature, but that's just a part of setbuilding.
>04
I made it a bit better than Seller of Songbirds because you don't get the token till after, so I figured it could be a bit beefier up front. It's possible that it'd need to be recosted as I may have aimed high.
>06
I forgot to change the flavor text. The bird is a familiar; in order to get full effect, it needs a "master". I was thinking of Loyal Pegasus when I made it. Needs a flavor text update; the flavor confusion is real.
>07
I agree, though since it's not a recurring keyword in the set I avoided it for this likely one-off. I always though "Aptitude" or "Bravado" or something would be a good generic replacement for the name.
>08
Thanks.
>09
It's for Madness enabling, basically. And to buff Auras a bit. There will be cycles.
>10&11
Will keep an eye on them.
>>47080659
I recall your issues with Damian. I'm around 60 cards into a 217 card set and already feeling the burden of creative blocks myself. Sometimes cards just happen though, and that part's nice. I've never minded tweaking; it's why I appreciate these threads. No bones feedback is a nice community feature to be a part of.
>Damage
I dunno if that last "it" needs to be "~" for clarity or not. I hope not because WORDS. I like what he does but it's a shame it's such a verbose ability.
>>47080713
This >>47080807 basically, but without the frames thing. I don't like them either but that's an aesthetic thing and up to you.
>>47080842
The WU one is nuts, I think. Very strong. Makes white weenie bonkers; all those value priced little dudes are now flyers and ace blockers too? Prosperity is very good as well; I feel like it should only reward lands and creatures, and maybe enchantments. Wrath is fine, I think. Too situational to be a big deal. Ferocity is also crazy good; RG has access to a lot of early big beaters, and this turns them into burn spells for free. Conspiracy seems tame compared to a lot of these, but it still feels like a very strong effect to be getting for free. Most of these are okay-ish if you had to cast them, except Wrath seems underpowered, which is kinda the target for Leylines I think. So I dunno about them myself.
So I'm making this set and one of the subthemes is taking control of creatures from your opponent. Would something like this work? There would be a cycle of enchantments like this.
>>47081122
>I dunno if that last "it" needs to be "~" for clarity or not. I hope not because WORDS. I like what he does but it's a shame it's such a verbose ability.
Nope. Because you can't put counters on players. And there's a bunch of precedence for it.
>>47081278
True, players "get" counters. Well that's good, anyway.
>>47081238
>subtheme of taking control of creatures you don't own
I wonder how you will do this outside red and blue, and possibly black? Or by subtheme you mean it'll only be in those colors and supported there? Cause cycle makes me think five colors, which is why I ask.
>>47081320
Red blue and black would have the most ways to steal a creature. White has Preacher as a template on how they do it.
Green would get an enchantment but no real way to steal creatures. The enchantment would be there to support the other color.
>>47081419
Preacher's a bit old to template modern cards off of due to how the pie has changed over the years. If you can find a more modern version of it to base your white effects on though then that'd be fine.
The idea of supporting "turncoats" more than your own creatures comes off as mechanically dissonant to me. On one hand, it makes game sense because you might not have that creature for long, so you'd want to get the most out of it. On the other, your creatures are yours, why do you favor this other asshole? I'm also not sure how much design space this whole concept can fill, but I'm more than willing to sit back and see what you do with it.
Since COanon wanted to see what else I was doing with Magnify, enchantments, and temporary effects...
I love this little thing.
>>47081535
There are no other steal effects in white apart from preacher. I suppose I could restrict white stealing to a single legend and have green and white play support to blue, black and red stealing.
The idea for the set is Italy between late middle ages and the renaissance, when city states and Papal Italy would wage war against each other mostly via mercenaries, but those mercenaries often changed sides and even arranged how battles would go so they would extract the maximum amount of money from their employers.
>>47081580
That does look pretty neat.
>>47081580
I like that too. I wonder about the power level a little but it's too clever not to like.
>>47081636
>white stealing creatures as a one-off legend
Maybe. It depends on how you do it. You might be able to get away with a trade or something since white does balance effects, so if you did it in a "balanced" way it might fly.
The banners so far have been interesting, but again, I worry about how much design space and mileage you can get out of this subtheme.
>>47081636
>There are no other steal effects in white apart from preacher.
There are a few more, but they're all off-color. Well, at least now they are.
http://magiccards.info/query?q=c%21w+o%3A%22gain+control%22&v=card&s=issue
Blue commons for a ded thred.
>>47083678
The 1 mana loot seems a bit too pushed for a set with Madness at common.
I like it. Just ally color cycle madness? Or just WBU madness?
>>47078497
New idea for a card, don't got access to the computer right now, but tell me what you think about it anyways.
>Tasigur's Pride (X)(X)(U)(B)(G)
>Creature – Zombie Hydra (MR)
>Delve, Trample, Deathtouch.
>Tasigur's Pride enters the battlefield with X +1/+1 counters on it.
>When Tasigur's Pride dies, manifest X Creature cards from exile.
>0/0
>>47083750
Madness shows up in all colors, but it's most rare in white, since white is the "last bastion" of civilization on the plane: the towns and cities. The flavor of the set so far is that basically the entire plane is starting to go "weird" with all kinds of odd shit happening. Some of it is subtle, like fae influences on people, turning them into Elves. Some is not so subtle, like merfolk and flying eels. It's also loosely based on Russian/Slavic folklore, for more flavor.
As for Crippling Doubt, there's a "cycle" of cards that have allied costs attached to them. UB does a lot with discard and madness, so it gets a common that plays along.
>one drop
Yeah, I figured that maybe I could get away with it since you can get a 1/2 that does the same for 1U. I guess it's just the fact that it drops so early that's the potential problem. Red gets a 1/1 haste one drop that forces a discard as part of casting it, then you get to draw when it dies. I wonder how well received that will be.
Glad you like them though. Feels good to be on the right track.
>>47083678
Magnify: Literally kicker.
>>47083837
This could potentially pretty nuts. Exile four creatures cards for a 2/2 deathtoucher, block with it, it dies and removes a creature, you get four 2/2s that you can then flip face up for their mana costs. All that for three mana. It's a pretty neat idea though, don't get me wrong.
>>47083879
Yep. We've discussed that before though; even WotC thinks Kicker is too broad, so they tend to use it in different skins with different themes for set-specific stuff now, which is basically what I did because Madness and Unearth are things in my set as well, so it fits well.
I feel obligated to post a card, so... here.
>>47083678
>CU02
I like the flavor. Hmm, actually, after looking through come cards, it looks like Wizards really doesn't like Blue creatures having this ability. If I had to venture a guess, it looks like they don't like having Blue creatures draw on entry, even when it's looting.
>CU03
Strongly recommend bumping to uncommon and increasing the activated ability cost. You know you're almost never going to attack with this, right? It's a superb blocker. Pretty much anything without Trample is fucked.
>CU04
It's ironic that the ability is actually on a lot of Green creatures. Seems fine.
>CU05
I recommend changing "Umysul" to something else. It's just so weird, I have a hard time saying it, and I keep thinking "Unusual" instead. Otherwise I think it's fine.
>CU08
Nice job.
>CU09
Meh. Though I kinda like how it messes with Equipment-based Voltron strats.
>CU10
Eh, Flying and unblockable? Seems like overkill. If it were me, I'd change the magnify effect. Not very keen on giving Blue a P/T boost and outright unblockable.
>CU11
>Counter target spell. Look at its controller's hand.
So, a strictly better Lay Bare.
>CU13
Interesting. Though I'm not a fan of how easy it is for your opponent to deal with. Meh, tradeoffs.
>>47083960
Oh wow, probably should've changed this to "Target opponent." Or... oh, I'm not sure now.
>>47083983
Nah, it's so spendy and hard to cast that it's probably fine this way. Or you could make it "each player"; Johnnies might like that.
Repost from the old thread. I can't really find help in existing cards for this kind of thing, and i want to know if the wording is correct.
>>47083960
I think it would fit better in what sultai does if it mills each player like the top 5 or 6, or maybe exiling all graveyards.
>>47084493
"Each opponent loses X life and you gain X life, where X is the number of permanents with Extort that you control.
Draw a card."
Barring Pontiff of Blight shenanigans, this works just as well and reads cleaner.
>>47083960
>02
Yeah there were some older cheapies that blue got that did this, and blue still does it, but not on creatures too much anymore. I figured 1/1s were basically considered worth less than one colored mana these days, given that even blue gets them with keywords now at U, so I thought I'd go for it. I can tweak as needed, but I am tempted to take it to playtesting anyway as-is, just to see what happens.
>03
You're right, needs more gustcloakage. I'll add something to it that only lets you activate it when if it's blocked. That should help maybe? Or do we want to keep it as a Fog Bank sort of thing? I can mess with it a little if so.
>04
Ah, good. Glad to hear.
>05
Part of that Russian flavor. I actually liked it because it starts with U, and now that you mentioned it sounds like or reminds you of the word "unusual" I like it even more, because of the set themes.
>08
Thanks. A lot of people seem to like that card.
>09
Yeah I figured reactions on this one would be mixed. It's an odd card.
>10
I can futz around with the ETB Magnify. I'll see what I come up with.
>11
Yeah, Lay Bare kinda sucks. Telepathy effects aren't really that great so it feels like they way overcosted the card, especially since they themselves admit Cancel should cost UU and half a generic mana.
>13
Yeah, I wanted it to be situationally crappy while also being situationally annoying. I think I got it but we'll see.
Thanks for the feedback. This >>47084067 was me by the way, I had to go do something so only had time to reply to your card beforehand. Now that I'm back I'm replying to your feedback. Don't want you thinking I was ignoring your card.
>>47083837
You should only be able to manifest the cards exiled with 'CARDNAME'.
>>47084581
But that's not what he wants it to do.
>>47084493
Make it an instant. "You may pay 0 to pay extort costs this turn."
>>47084790
>Make it an instant. "You may pay 0 to pay extort costs this turn."
That won't do it either, because Extort triggers on cast, so you'd have to cast another spell to Extort.
>>47084824
But they go on the stack, you cum drinker.
>>47083913
I think Deathtouch might be pushing it, but I wanted it to feel blacker. The idea was to have it be a good fattie in a self-mill deck
>>47084679
The original idea was to have the ability be...
>When Tasigur's Pride dies manifest all creature cards exiled with it, then distribute X +1/+1 counters among them.
But I thought that'd be OP. Still, no deathtouch + new ability would be fine maybe?
>>47084882
Yes, but the spell "You may pay 0 to pay extort costs this turn" will only resolve AFTER it's own extort opportunities.
Meaning you need to either cast a spell, hold priority, cast this, or cast this, extort as normal, and then cast another to extort for free.
>>47084882
>>47084824
As long as CARDNAME is on the stack and until end of turn, extort costs 0 to pay, instead of W/B.
Or something like it.
Or just "X costs Y less to pay as long as CARDNAME is on the stack.
Draw a card for each extort cost paid this turn. Then discard Z cards"
>>47083913
Exiling 4 cards would only net you 2 manifested creatures, since X=2. That seems still good, a 2/2 trampler / deathtouch that turns into 2 3/3s for 3 mana.
>>47084965
The main issue is how many 2/2s you get after the fact, not the creature itself. One card giving you four 2/2, for example, and trading 1 for 1 with an opponent, is massive card advantage. And, all that is three mana. I just think the concept needs a bit of tweaking. Maybe you can choose one creature card exiled with it to manifest? That might be more in line.
>>47085198
Ah yeah, point taken. Ignore that part of >>47085221 then, but yeah, even getting half the creature cards is still crazy good.
Does this seem like a terrible idea?
>>47085430
I have to ask "why?"
The only thing I can think of is some kind of Enchantment "tribal" EDH deck but Zur already exists so what do you need this for?
>>47085430
>>47085465
Because this should have always been a valid leader choice.
Mind you, Theros kind of fixed that.
>>47085465
I mean, we've already seen non-creature commanders (walkers).
Do you think this could extend outwards towards other permanents?
Repostin' cause why not.
>>47085530
>>47085547
Technically PWs are against the rules as far as the official ruleset is concerned, which means one of two things:
Putting "this can be your commader" on a permanent invalidates/overrides that rule.
or
The official rules need to be updated, and if they are, likely they will be updated to include any "unique" permanent that you may only control one of at any one time, which would include any Legendary permanent.
If #1 is true, sorry Genju fans. I agree with you but WotC doesn't. Houserules are your friend. If #2 is what happens, then you'll get to do it anyway.
>>47085567
Oh yeah, this. I had a chuckle the first time I saw it.
>>47085465
>>47085547
WHY STOP AT PERMANENTS?!
>>47085530
>Mind you, Theros kind of fixed that.
Did it?
>>47085666
>3 damage for r is great
>3 damage for 2R is... okay
>3 damage for 4R is garbage
>and so on
>>47085666
>trips
Of course Satan would suggest something like this
>>47085754
>>47085760
Indeed.
>>47085773
Well now it's just silly.
>>47085650
I wanna make more hybrid/crab cards but I'm short on ideas.
>http://www.mariowiki.com/Rex
>(R/G)(R/G) dinosaur
>2/2
>persist
>http://www.mariowiki.com/Wiggler
>(4)(R/G) horror (1 mana per body segment, lol)
>???
No fucking idea on wiggler.
>>47086075
>wiggler
Well their thing is getting mad so... I dunno man. There are a few things you could use.
Here it is!
>>47086075
>Wiggler
>Creature - Insect
>~ enters the battlefield with four +1/+1 counters on it.
>If damage would be dealt to ~, prevent that damage and put two +1/+1 counters on it.
>Whenever one or more +1/+1 counter are placed on ~, remove three +1/+1 counters from it at the beginning of the next end step.
If we're using the idea that each hit breaks off a segment, but makes him angry.
Hm.
>>47079196
I'd say its neither red nor white. Red loves sacrificing artifacts not the opposite (non artifacts) and white usually tutors for enchantments, auras or equipment.
>>47080368
Two common vanillas is core-set tier. And at they're at the same cmc to boot.
Orzel Familiar is fine, but feels weird. Like there's a flavor disconnect or it's jumping through extra hoops. Perhaps "~ gets +1/+0 as long as you control another creature."
I suppose the U ability on Mollify is to stop spellshapers, but it feels like a negligible part of the card compared to the humility effect.
>>47086075
>>47086544
Man, you make me want to do cards for the Paper Mario party members! I'll have to remember this Probably going to try Lady Bow first...
>>47080842
WU is nuts. Flying anthem is already a 4 mana enchantment that's always relevant, and you're getting it for free with bonus vigilance.
GW is very strong. I agree it should only trigger on certain types, or only trigger on your own stuff. It shouldn't trigger on all lands and all creatures.
RG can get out of hand, but it can also backfire on you so it might be fine.
UB and BR are alright (fuck fetches)
Not really sure with this one. I wanna make the wiggler rage a thing.
>>47081419
I wouldn't do stealing in all colors. It's not supported in white or green (and barely in black) so you're have to do a lot of stretching and bending for honestly not a lot of gain. There are only so many ways you can steal creatures, and you're going to need a lot of cards that do that if you want "creatures you don't own" to matter.
>>47081535
This looks weak (a whole card for just one turn of trample?) but is deceptively powerful.
>>47081580
This is cool. Art displays a really big creature for a 1/2 though.
>>47086918
Second ability is weird, and the templating is wrong anyways. Not that the proper templating is much better. Something like:
"Prevent all damage that would be dealt to ~ this turn. Wiggler gets +1/+0 and can't block until end of turn. Activate this ability only before blockers are declared."
Remove the last clause if you want to be able to juke the downside, which always bugs me, but some people like cards that allow that sort of "technically correct" play.
>>47083678
Rambling Lush is pushed. Reprint Hapless Researcher if you want something in that slot, or have it be a death trigger like Salvage Drone.
I'm not sure if Banisher needs the extra toughness, but it should be fine.
Crippling Doubt is great. Delirious Revelation is really strong.
>>47083837
The creature permanent doesn't remember what X was when casting it. Either use wording from Venarian Gold, or have it check +1/+1 counters on itself. There's also way too much value.
>>47083960
I'd let the green effect untap a land, rather than add mana.
>>47086578
Dimir is boring because there's no play or counterplay. You cast it and hope you live long enough till they deck themselves. At least with the mono black one, you can surgically extract threats, and the mono red one lets you switch between burning creatures or burning face.
Golgari is alright. Selesnya is going to be hard to track because of all the varying tokens. Boros is too similar to the green snake one, and also really weak because you whiff on lands. The fact that three of them make tokens feels uninspired.
>>47086629
I'll try to do something with the hound. I agree with you on that though.
Familiar could work your way too, but I like that my way puts a card in the yard too for a few set-based reasons.
Mollify's U ability is actually meant to let you prevent blocking, but you can also force spellshaper abilities with it too, so that was a nice addition, yeah.
>>47086923
Okay good, I'm glad. I wanted it to look like it wasn't that great at first but actually be solid, especially paired with Unearth and Madness.
>>47087129
I'll look into swapping the Lush even though I'm not convinced he'd break anything. I'll check out the drone and the researcher.
Banisher has extra toughness because blue needed another slightly bigger butt.
Glad you like Doubt. And hopefully Revelation doesn't prove to be too good.
>>47087461
>Mollify's U ability is actually meant to let you prevent blocking
The fact that all it can do is chump should dis-incentivize blocking enough.
>Familiar
I think my problem with it is that it's trying to do too much. It's an aggressively costed flyer, it cares about having lots of creatures, and there's graveyard shenanigans?
>>47087573
I can change the Familiar if it feels like it has too many levels to it. I mean after all it's a common, so it should feel like one.
>>47087030
Thanks for the advice!
>>47087129
Alright, how's this:
>Tasigur's Pride (X)(X)(U)(B)(G)
>Creature – Zombie Hydra
>Delve, Trample.
>Tasigur's pride enters the battlefield with X +1/+1 counters.
>When Tasigur's pride dies, manifest the top X cards of target player's graveyard, where X is the amount of +1/+1 counters on it. Each of those creatures is a zombie in addition to the rest of its types.
I put that last clause in because I'm a sucker for tribals and its pretty flavorful, since the concept is an hydra made of the corpses of the dead put together with necromantic arts. Still, I'll remove it if its too wordy
I'd like it to be something like a cross between Empty the Pits and pic related (which is one of my favorite janky EDH cards), since I figured that if I put together two shitty but cool mythics I could make an actually neat one.
Anyways, is it fine now?, or still too much value?Tell me how you'd abuse it, lets see if its absurdly broken.
>>47088974
Man I wish there was more done with Manifest.
Fucking Dragons of Tarkir block just pissed me off at every turn.
Also unless a lot of stuff has been dying or you have a player with a lot of graveyard stuff, Delve is kind of counteractive to getting a bunch of 2/2 stuff.
Since you're in UBG, what if it milled/manifested when it blew up?
>>47088974
A delve hydra is a good card. A hydra that dies into a bunch of creatures is also a good card. One that does both is insane. There's also the tension between wanting to empty your graveyard to delve a big creature and wanting to leave it full to manifest a bucnh - it's interesting to design but doesn't always lead to fun gameplay. Graveyard-order matters is also archaic.
>>47089208
There's no need to keep your graveyard stocked, since the card's ability allows you to target any player's graveyard. That way you have a reason to play it with will mill/selfmill strategies, draw/discard, creature destruction, +1/+1 counters. All very Sultai in flavour and makes it an awesome build-around card.
Just to be clear, from Siege Rhino to Jace the Wallet Sculptor how broken is this?, I might let it pass (after some rewording) if its not too bad.
Thoughts?
>>47085773
10/10
>>47090123
That blue is so much better than the red it's almost like you're working for WotC
>>47090123
"Catalyze" sounds pretty weird for a keyword, as in, it doesn't really seem to be anything other than a random word attached to an uninspired mechanic, like Outlast.
Thats fine and all, not all mechanics can be masterstrokes, but maybe you should consider trying to make it more flavorful. How is up to you.
>>47084500
Direwood Shambler and Snapwing Drake are terrible, I'm pretty sure. The mechanic is a downside mechanic and that's not very good.
>>47090420
It's not much of a downside, reverse graft is strong.
2 More
>>47090558
>Rak Ugar
>If a creature dealt damage by ~ this turn would die, exile it instead. Search its controller's graveyard, hand, and library for any number of cards with the same name as that creature and exile them. That that player shuffles his or her library.
>>47090636
It works just fine as a triggered ability.
>>47090686
>>47090764
>>47090764
And that refutes him how?
>>47090764
Yes? That prevents any death triggers from working but it doesn't make a trigger invalid.
>>47090807
Useless in this conversation because it's a different effect.
>>47090809
See, this exiles the CARD from the graveyard, not the CREATURE from the battlefield. I thought I was giving proper wording for what he wanted. Either way, he needs to change his wording to either fit Kumano's or Unscythe.
>>47090820
See above.
>>47090900
Help me with this one guy
>>47091248
Cheaper if it comes with a loss condition
>>47091314
So like what, 3BR or 4BR?
>>47091248
>>47091314
>>47091334
Making it cheaper is a big risk, it'd be better to lose the loss condition.
>>47091373
>it'd be better to lose the loss condition.
But thats what makes itfun.
>>47091248
Hmm... Let's try...
>Return all creature cards from your graveyard to the battlefield. [I think I might even go so far as to pull out all creature cards from all graveyards] They gain haste. Exile them at the beginning of the next end step. If a creature put onto the battlefield this way would leave the battlefield, exile it instead of putting it anywhere else. [this last bit is easily the hardest to word]
The last ability is tricky because I don't really know when you want it to trigger. Why not? Well, because you can have multiple opponents. And if loss after the spell resolves is pretty much guaranteed (there are only a few very tricky ways out of it), I'm not sure if it needs to talk about creatures getting exiled. Though I think I'd make it so the card exiles itself on resolution simply as a matter of course.
>>47080216
>>47091403
So maybe just a basic full res with the lose condition and make it exile after it resolves? Hows this?
>>47091490
>>47091406
Interesting, though I'm not entirely sure of how to cost this, or even how good it is, due to the two effects fighting each other. The last ability is basically the spell to end all counterspells. But that's reactionary. When you use it for that purpose, when you get the extra turn, sure it's nice, but you might not be set up to really take advantage of it. Or maybe I'm just over-analyzing it. Who knows.
Oh, and speaking of reactionary: There was this broken mechanic in the Urza block that essentially gave you "free" spells by untapping lands as part of the spell. However, Maro noted that the reactionary spells that used it, like Rewind, a counterspell, weren't as easily abused because of the reason, it was much harder to take full advantage of them due to really depending on your opponent to do something.
Oh, and I guess I should give you a card. Um... here. Something I cooked up in five minutes and I'm tired. What could possibly go wrogn?
>>47091523
Again, last bit doesn't work due to multiple opponents. And frankly, why not just die at the next end step?
>>47091607
>Again, last bit doesn't work due to multiple opponents. And frankly, why not just die at the next end step?
Well hows this now? By the way thanks for all the feedback.
>>47091697
Seems fine now. In case you're wondering why I still have the card exiled itself, it's to prevent using it again on the off-chance the player has something to get rid of the second effect. You really just need something that can counter a triggered ability. Or an "End the turn" effect like with Sundial of the Infinite.
>>47091770
>In case you're wondering why I still have the card exiled itself, it's to prevent using it again on the off-chance the player has something to get rid of the second effect. You really just need something that can counter a triggered ability. Or an "End the turn" effect like with Sundial of the Infinite.
Yeah I figured it would prevent abuse, especially with cards like Platinum Angel that can nullify the lose effect.
Heres another bullshit card I could use some feedback on. This thread is so dead right now.
>>47091887
Too strong. Gets around indestructible, hex proof, shroud, regeneration, whatever. Really powerful for mono black control.
>>47091992
What about making it legendary and 7-8-9 cmc? That way it comes in later
>>47092090
You could make it cheaper and have a cumulative upkeep.
That would also make it easier to do bookkeeping for since you could say "for each age counter", instead of "ash counter"
>>47092090
>>47092487
Alternatively, you could make it come in with a certain amount of ash counters, and the upkeep could be to remove an ash counter.
Or the upkeep could be a payment of life rather than mana, which is very black.
Maybe you could keep the add a counter during each upkeep thing, along with a cumulative upkeep of removing a counter.
That idea is interesting because it would scale in power the more players in a game, or if your turn/upkeep was skipped somehow, such as with pic related.
There really is a lot of fun ideas with this card, but I dislike balancing a card by increasing its cost. If the effect is strong enough that it needs to be 9 cost, then players are going to just find a way to cheat it into play. At least, that's my thoughts on it.
>>47092647
I know I'm rambling, but maybe it could be costed like XBBB, and it comes in with X ash counters on it? Maybe at that point it could just be that you remove a counter once per your turn, or it could keep the cumulative upkeep if it had X times 2 counters when it came in?
I have no idea which of these ideas is best, or even balanced, so I'll let you do the rest.
>>47092678
Ooooh. Maybe when it loses the last ash counter, it gets sacrificed, then puts a -1/-1 counter on each creature. That would be a fun time, and it would give the card a bit of versatility.
So maybe like this:
XBBB
Enchantment
~ comes into play with X ash counters on it.
Creatures get -X/-X for each ash counter on ~.
At the beginning of your upkeep, remove an ash counter from ~ or sacrifice it.
When ~ leaves play, put a -1/-1 counter on each creature.
>>47091887
I realized that my ideas led to a card that functioned opposite to how yours was supposed to, losing power rather than gaining it.
I've decided to make it it's own card, because I really like what this led to.
>>47093650
Easily goes infinite if they only have CMC > 4 cards in hand. Needs a use restriction or not on a permanent, if you ask me.
>>47093650
If the opponent only has cards with a converted mana cost of 4 or more in hand, and at least one with 5 mana or more, this function as a one piece infinite mana source.
>>47093665
Might be on theme for colorless if it exiled the selected card, but they could still cast it?
>>47093758
>>47093665
An infinite combo that depends on your opponent not sandbagging lands is perhaps not the most reliable of engines.
>>47093792
It'd have to be sorcery speed, because instant-speed hand disruption is taboo. And also probably once per turn or far higher cost, because again, repeated hand disruption is difficult to come by and hard to balance.
Why not just make it a sorcery that's either:
>Target player reveals a card at random from his or her hand and exiles it. Put X... where X is that card's converted mana cost.
>Target player reveals his or her hand. Exile a card with the greatest converted mana cost or tied for the greatest converted mana cost. Put X... where X is that card's converted mana cost.
>>47093840
It may not be reliable, but I'd expect it to happen often enough. At least in formats where every card isn't 3 CMC or lower.
>>47094149
Oh my.
>>47093792
This gave me a silly idea.
Scatter the Board 1RB
Sorcery
Target player reveals their hand. Choose up to two cards from it and exile them. Until end of turn, that player may play those cards.
>>47094239
Derp. Need sleep. Instant, not sorcery.
>>47094326
Definitely shouldn't be instant, its strong enough as a sorcery.
>>47094338
The drawback doesn't work as intended if it's a sorcery, though. The trick is forcing them to play some cards or lose them. Hmm. There's not really a good way to force playing it on their turn either, though.
Probably easier to scale it down a little.
Hellish Caress (r/b)
Instant
Look at target player's hand and exile a card from it. Until the end of their next turn, they may play that card.
>>47094385
Its pretty easy to just exile a card they can't play. Anything that isn't instant speed is fair game.
Trying to find a balance between flavor and mechanics.
>>47094239
>>47094385
When your opponent taps out, you cast this and it's straight up discard. You can also hit lands that they never get to play. You want an effect similar to Elkin Lair that occurs during their upkeep, when it's an actual decision whether to use it or lose it.
>>47094427
Warden is intriguing. I like that it also gives your opponents the scry ability, so they can dig for an answer but they'll be powering up the Warden.
Drifter is unnecessarily complicated. "Tap three other untapped creatures you control:". You probably shouldn't have two big hexproof blue bombs in your set.
>attack or black
>>47094616
>>47094427
>Warden is intriguing. I like that it also gives your opponents the scry ability, so they can dig for an answer but they'll be powering up the Warden.
Realistically they won't be unless he added an "Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery" clause, as they would only ever bother to scry at end step, with the exception of before sorcery speed draw spells.
Also, "can't black".
>>47094149
I'm going to saddle my tasigur, like I've always dreamed of doing.
>>47094427
Drifter is sorta out of flavour for blue, there's a very limited number of blue cards that have more power than cmc, and almost all of them have serious drawbacks as a result.
>>47096809
I direct you to http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=+[leviathan]
>>47097360
Not him, but on that list, only Leviathan has more power than CMC, and it has numerous drawbacks. Let's look at a more comprehensive list.
http://magiccards.info/query?q=t%3Acreature+c%21u+pow%3Ecmc&v=card&s=issue
Now, let's look at the cards that don't have any drawback or restriction (this includes flipped and transformed creatures, so I'll be skipping them here).
>Tromokratis
>Goliath Sphinx
Not exactly a great precedence. However, I personally don't think Drifter breaks the pie or anything. It could probably be worded a bit better, but I think it's fine otherwise.
Is this even possible?
I think the only way to format it is to have it as a permanent (probably enchantment) that triggers when a card is revealed. I'm pretty sure you can't respond to something getting revealed.
Thoughts?
(I think 2B is probably more fairly costed but it's fairly narrow too.)
>>47098055
This doesn't work how it's currently worded just because cards are revealed as part of effect resolutions, so by the time you could respond the card wouldn't be revealed anymore. The way I would try to do it would be somehow revealing the card again maybe? I'm not sure how well I'm getting my point across or even if that works, but yeah
>>47098573
Yeah I figured I'd have to either re-reveal or do it as a trigger on a permanent.
But neither is likely to turn out nice.
Panglacial wurm has a similar kind of intervention but unfortunately it's done when the player wants to, not as a black 'steal ur shit' effect.
Hmm.
>>47098826
How about something like
The next time an opponent reveals a card, exile it instead of putting it anywhere else.
That would make it hit selective tutors as well, such as musical tutor.
If you only want it to hit cards in the hand you can just add from their hand or something.
>>47099993
I forgot to mention that with this they reveal after they know you're going to take it, so they can play around it. I think that might just make it fair enough to be 2 cmc.
>>47100049
Actually that's definitely fair enough since, if the revealing is optional, they can just not reveal a card and have theirs fizzle.
So it basically counters spells like enlightened or mystical tutor, and if they have to reveal then you get a free card.
Bump.
>>47102689
Got a moon knight or that one X man with like a billion eyes?
>>47103136
>Moon Knight
Eh, not yet, sorry. Still not entirely sure hoe to do him. Hmm, well, there was a run where he had the personalities of other heroes in his head. I guess I could pkay around with Clone effects. I'll try to get at least one card of him out tonight.
>eyes
Ugh, Eye-Boy? Unless he gained an actual power, I doubt I'll do anything for him. God, I'm so sick of X-Men with no actual super powers. "Covered in eyes" isn't a fucking power.
>>47103136
>>47103468
>Moon Knight
OK, here's a rough draft. Only going over abilities right now
>Whenever ~ attacks, draw a card, then discard a card. If you discarded a creature card, ~ becomes a copy of that card except its name is still ~, it's le
Oh fuck, I'm just making Lazav. AGAIN.
>>47103808
>sacrifice ~ and then scry 2.
>>47103853
That's a different ability, because it lets you chain triggers for multiple scries.
>>47103886
I'm talking about the "If you do" bit.
>>47103941
So am I. You use an en-Kor to put a 100 triggers on the stack, and they'll all resolve letting you scry 2 100 times.
Some uncommon scrubs with a gimmicky mechanic. Are any of these blatantly stronger or weaker than the rest?
>>47106376
yes.
>>47106376
Forgot pic.
>>47106384
lol thanks for the feedback
>>47106389
It's fine mechanically, but it's pointless as a keyword.
Time to die.
>>47106456
>>47106623
neither are hybrid designs
>>47106456
The other anon is right and stop posting fetish shit here.
>>47106342
>6 mana
Well it is a common so I guess. Still feels super over priced.
>>47106389
I agree with the other anon, feels odd to be a keyword. As for ballance:
>White
Feels really low impact. If the 1/1 was a spirit maybe I'd like it more.
>Blue
Bonkers powerful, needs nerf. Tapping something and bouncing something for 3 mana on a 2/2 is super strong. This would see play in every control and agro deck that can run blue.
>Black
Fine, stronger then the W one but not nearly as potentate as the U one. The second effect of milling feels not that black, as mill in mono black is usually targeted. Maybe have it be, "opponent discards + exile their graveyard".
>Red
A 3 mana 2/3 that pings face and bolts a creature is too good. A 2/3 for 3 that shocked would already be really strong. Tone this down.
>Green
Way too strong for the mana. It is a 3/3 for 3 which is already really fine, and on top of that it giant growths something + trample. Make it a 2/2 and the buff be +2/+2 and trample.
>>47108923
>elemental advisor
>Art is clearly a naga
>no advising is being done
besides that it's a fine red control/burn card. Not as good as edilon of revel but still good.
>>47105939
Balgarve seems Ok
Fallen Champion seems fine
Vile Ambusher feels too expensive
I know technically Wilgrehm Noble's abilities are in color, but it doesn't feel right.
>>47108923
I LOVE this, it's chaotic, it hurts, it's control for red, and the advisor type is cool. Flavor wise I give it a A.
>>47109392
Affinity for spirits is cool, but a 3cmc 2/2 with lifelink and vigilance is already pretty OP. Ideally you'll be dropping it turn 2 most games and pumping it with auras. Not broken, but very strong.
>>47106456
This is crazy stupid and breaks the pie hard, nice job.
>>47106623
This is a green card, nothing blue or red about it.
Hey, remember when I spoke about Ma Hunkel, the original Red Tornado who wore a bucket (I incorrectly said it was a pot) on her head? Well, this is her granddaughter.
>>47109392
Yeah, I'm with >>47110108 this seems really strong. Make it 3W at the very least.
>>47081580
Can I steal this design, aside from the name?
>>47090454
Note that it can only go on your creatures, not your opponents'.
>>47110276
Oh, then yeah its shit.
>>47110276
Wow, I liked the keyword before I realized that. Yeah, shit/10. Now it's basically just a variant of Evolve. More flexible, but you have to make other creatures weaker.
>>47106342
I dont think cantripping a lightning helix is worth an extra 4 mana, even if you put it at common, particularly when one is colored. It would be strong in a limited format that supported 3 color at 3cmc, probably a decent common at 4.
>>47110121
Red often has the drawback, thats about it.
Also, >>47106750
is correct, neither are hybrid cards. Hybrid cards need to be in BOTH colors, because they are EASIER to cast.
>>47110400
>>47110296
It could see some interesting design space on cards with strong abilities restricted to when they don't have a -1/-1.
Persist on a card with that ability for example can be a good way to make strong low cmc creatures for a set.
>>47110501
It's not enough space for a keyword.
>>47110501
>>47110400
>>47110296
>>47110276
I know of one little orphan girl from New Phyrexia that might like them
>>47110811
Melira doesn't fix the issues they have.
>>47110816
Im not saying she does, design wise it has some problems that need to be fixed. What I'm saying is she breaks this entire hypothetical mechanic. Something to think about when designing around them
>>47110838
She breaks persist as well, melira is basically a non entity when it comes to considering mechanics.
>>47103786
feels like a spectre, not a drake.
also its reaaaaaally good
>>47106389
Looks nice. But what does Catalyze do, exactly?
>>47103587
Think you could make this interesting? Maybe X: effect instead of ETB?
>>47111291
I think it just give you something to do with a used up sorcery/instant that would otherwise just be sitting in your graveyard. Its not a very exciting mechanic otherwise, doesn't really need a keyword if that's all its gonna do
>>47111508
Yeah. It just doesn't feel fun. But I digress.
Thinking of lowering the entry pain to 1. The point of this card is to have a cheese card that works with renew.
How does this sound?
>Whenever a card is revealed from an opponent's hand, you may discard a card that shares a type with it. If you do, that player discards that card.
>>47113061
Has some timing issues, as reveal effects can often end before that ability would resolve.
>>47078497
I'm trying to make a Urza Planeswalker card to use with my playgroup. I know trying to represent the might of an oldwalker as powerful as Urza is a nigh impossible advice, but I do have some ideas. Maybe you guys could give me some advice?
So this is what I've come up with.
>Urza Planeswalker (3)(W)(U)(B)(R)
>Planeswalker – Urza
>+2 Target player draws a card for each Planeswalker he or she controls.
>-3 Search your library for a Planeswalker card, then put it on the battlefield
>-12 All players discard their hand, then each loose life equal to the mana cost of each card discarded this way.
>6 Loyalty
The first ability is meant to represent Urza as the master of the Tolarian Academy, and is the blue part of the card.
The -3 represents Urza assembling the Nine Titans to invade Phyrexia and is the white aspect. Lastly the ultimate is meant to represent Urza's final treason and is inspired by pic related
I'll be honest, I'm a bit at a loss for the ultimate.
>>47113704
Drop at least one of the colors. If it were me, I'd make Urza either mono-U or WU. And I'd have him focus mostly on artifacts.
>>47113803
Urza was said to be every colour but green though. But I may add something regarding artifacts, something redish to represent Urza as an artificer. Maybe a second + ability?
>>47113704
>play this
>-3, find another urza
>-3, find another urza
>-3, find another urza
>+2, draw 4 cards
>fog
>+2 all of them
>draw 16 cards
>repeat step 8 every turn
>>47114055
Whoops I'm an idiot.
>>47098055
Why not just using "Name a nonland card. Target player reveals his or her hand. Do whatever"? Yeah I add non-land.
Seems less narrow to me, even if cost have to be adjusted.
>>47113803
Urza colours certainly shifted along his life though I agree a WU artefact themed Urza would be the most general Urza to make.
>>47114027
You don't just keep all your colors though. The colors of a planeswalker change. Sarkhan went from RG to BR to mR to URG. Ajani has mW, WG, and RW cards.
>>47114099
Actually, now that I'm thinking of it, perhaps an Urza that does things with creatures as well, considering how often he was training people to stop Phyrexia, breeding programs and academies and that stuff.
>>47114055
>>-3, find another urza
Planeswalkers are like legends, you can't have two with the same name under your control at the same time.
>>47078497
This one's just for fun.
>>47114155
That's not how it works either, you can't have two planeswalkers with the same type. That's why planeswalkers have the character's name as their type.
>>47114139
You will need several Urza. I can see at least:
> Artificer Urza, building the Legacy UW, maybe RUW?
> Preptime Urza more U than you.
> A broken, vengeful and assholish Urza, when B kick in.
>>47110124
I love it. Is her granddaughter still a character?
>>47112389
I like putting it to 1.
>>47114427
As far as I can tell, she hasn't been seen since Flaspoint. But you should consider that a mercy.
>>47090123
Make the Vortex Shaman a manowar instead of a Hoverguard sweepers and it's fine.
>>47089475
Cute throwback.
>>47089905
Better than siege rhino, worse than Sculptor. Its probably fine if you make it so the death effect onto works on your graveyard, that way you need a lot of cards to make it get full value.
>>47117137
Does it return?
>>47117137
I get that it's made for Commander, but I'm not a fan of how you NEED to use the Zone to bring it back.
Though it did get me to make this.
>>47117460
I think I'd honestly have it just work like Sin Prodder, but with lifeloss.
>>47117502
The problem is that sin prodder will just do nothing more than 1/3 of the time in most decks (lands have zero CMC), so I wanted there always to be a bit of thought involved in the choice, which is the current theme of the set I'm working on.
>>47117439
without a "until end of turn" rider on this card this is a permanent effect
>>47117552
I think that was their goal.
>>47117439
I don't play commander, but anyway, the idea is that should not come back that's why it gets exiled instead of just destroyed.
>>47117552
...No? I'm pretty certain by looking at other cards that the window of opportunity for the cast is only on the resolution of the original spell.
Take a look at this guy. Here's part of his rulings:
>2/1/2014: If you want to cast a card this way, you cast it as part of the resolution of the triggered ability. Timing restrictions based on the card’s type (such as sorcery) are ignored. Other casting restrictions (such as “Cast [this card] only before attackers are declared”) are not.
The last time I posted this, people wanted something to represent the Infinite Mass Punch. How's this?
>>47119627
There's got to be a more elegant way to word this. Maybe just:
>CARDNAME enters the battlefield with 1 speed counter.
>When CARDNAME attacks, double the number of speed counters on it.
>While attacking, CARDNAME gets +1/+0 for each speed counter on it.
It's a little easier to understand that way. Feels less mathy.
>>47119853
I love this one.
>>47120435
Or roll the second two abilities onto one:
>>When CARDNAME attacks, it gets +1/+0 for each speed counter on it until the end of turn, then double the number of speed counters on it.
Looking for opinions on the power level here. Not sure how much precedent there is for "give your enemy your land" as a balance feature.
Its also worth noting there are some other cards available in this set to this faction which help mitigate (and subvert) the enemy getting your lands.
>>47121236
Example of a way this can be turned to your benefit.
>>47121236
And an example of how the lands can come back into your control.
>>47121298
R and a land for two damage seems very powerful, particularly for closing out a game or if you have Exploration-type effects that let you replay those lands easily.
Also, not sure if >>47121236 works at all. I can't think of another effect that tracks the land that paid for it.
>>47121476
Maybe something like "A number of tapped lands you control equal to the amount of mana spent on ~"?
>>47121633
Unless you're going to use phyrexian mana for other things I wouldn't use it.
>>47121708
>>47121768
I like it. Also, it gave me an idea.
>>47121298
This is just a better Gruul Guildmage. Second ability is fine, first ability needs to drop to 1 damage IMO.
>>47121236
Blaze*3 is not balanced, no. The downside of 'giving players lands' should at least be put on a spell that would ever be wanted to be cast before killing the opponent.
>>47122125
Second ability can be compared to Dwarven Armory easily enough: seems okay by that comparison. There are a few cards that do repeatable +1/+1 counters for ~4 mana (gruul guildmage is the obvious one) but once you add in the self land-bounce I think it evens out.
>>47121476
First ability does look like it needs rethinking. There's a Mirrodin card that does repeatable 2 damage for R and self mill 10 (forget the name... "arc something") but IIRC it also has a higher casting cost, but also a higher p/t so hard to say exactly how equivalent it is. Either way it shows up later in the game.
>>47122547
Arc Slogger is 5 cmc. Exile ten is also much more limiting than lands are.
>>47121706
I assumed he wanted the ability such that you could spend creature or artifact mana and get around the penalty.
>>47123186
Rules question, does this shut down flash?
>>47123242
As far as I understand, it does. You never get the chance to put it onto the stack (where it regains its abilities.)
>>47123242
It would, unless another source gave flash after the warden entered the battlefield.
>>47123242
Yes. Flash is an ability word.
>>47123242
Duh
Basically all cards in hands have blank textboxes. Once they hit the stack, they'll have words on them.
>>47123323
Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir is the only card that grants flash. Lots let you cast "as though they had flash" though, which won't be disrupted by Xerex Warden.
>>47123333
Right I wasn't sure if flash was somehow the spells ability rather than the card, like for uncounterable
