/ccg/ Custom Card General /cct/

Light of Mercy 3WW
Creature- Angel
Flying
Whenever a creature with power 2 or less dies, return it to the battlefield at the beginning of the next end step.
4/5

Vile Oppressor 4BB
Creature- Demon
Wither
Other creatures get -1/-1.
Whenever a creature dies, if it had 0 or less toughness, draw a card.
6/4

Magehunter Pack 2GG
Creature- Wolf Beast
Hexproof
Whenever a creature activates an ability, ~ fights that creature.
4/4

Preserver Sphinx 2UU
Creature- Sphinx
Flying
Whenever you would discard a card, exile it instead.
Whenever ~ leaves the battlefield, you may put the cards exiled with it on top of your library in any order.
3/3

Brash Hoardseeker 2RR
Creature- Dragon
Flying, haste
At the beginning of your combat phase, ~ fights target non-Dragon creature you control.
4/4

>>53364099
>Iconic Creatures And Where to Find Them
Fantastic Beasts sucks, by the way. I'm not even a Harry Potter fan, but holy shit. I had no expectations, and was still disappointed.

And you know what else sucks? Internet Explorer. Just from using it today and yesterday, I'm reminded very clearly why I ditched this piece of shit for Chrome five years ago. Guess I'm gonna have to factory reset to run Chrome again. Oh well, been needing to do that for a while anyway.

>>53364122
Maybe it's just me, but the only way I can see playing this is to cast, attack, then just let it die on the next upkeep, but use the last trigger to destroy a land.

>>53364147
Probably busted. Why not discard on your end step?

>>53365418
>Angel
Under whose control?

>Demon
Interesting ability. But I feel like it should either have Wither or the global -1/-1, not both.

>Wolf Beast
For some reason, I find it hilarious that you forgot that Hydras are Green's iconic. Anyway, seems rather dull. And pretty self-destructive. And the wording should be more like
>Whenever a player activates an ability of a creature, ~ fights that creature.

>Sphinx
Seems rather boring. And wording should be
>If you would discard a card, exile it instead.
>When ~ leaves the battlefield, you may put all cards you own exiled with it on top of your library in any order.

>Dragon
Another dull one. Or rather, a third. Just nothing interesting here, sorry man.

OH! It turns out IE is such a piece of shit it can't even get past Captcha. Fucking awesome. Had to use my tablet instead.

>>53366168
>Probably busted. Why not discard on your end step?
If you think it's busted why are you telling him to make it massively better?

>>53366259
Oops, misread it. Yeah, shouldn't change.

>>53366596
Crazy effect, very nice. Though I think I'd rather it start off with a set number of counters on it.

File: iconics.jpg (420KB, 1125x1046px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 1125x1046px

>Iconic Creatures and Where to Find Them
First try at a set of legendaries for my vaguely pirate/ocean themed set.
The set contains Theros-like gods, each of which has a living 'champion' represented by these cards.
They're also iconic in that they each have a unique creature type.

I'm not sure about the formatting on the white one. It's not meant to let you recur him infinitely, but the timing of the trigger seems like it might. Is there any way I could fix it?

>>53366259
I thought he was telling him to also include a discard at your end step as well.

>>53366596
I'm not sure about this card. It seems like it could be massively broken, but then again, so do a lot of other real cards. For now, I'll say it's mechanically a very interesting concept.

>>53366719
>Dawn Evangel
Screams "break me". Also, Phoenix? WTF?

>Enigmatic Champion
Meh.

>Sea Swallower
Why not use the Banisher wording? Why include Black? Why Leviathan?

>Stone's Chosen
Golem? Why? Especially when this would work so much better as a Hydra. Seems OK.

>Thunder Winged
Angel? Pirate? What? Card is... I dunno, I'm so confused.

>Whiteglass Blade
Legendary? Uncommon? For a 4/4 with a shitty Lifelink? Whaaaa? I can't even

>They're also iconic in that they each have a unique creature type.
I don't understand what most of this sentence means. And I don't think you do either.

>>53366719
Dawn Evangel needs to only return small creatures.

2/4 is tiny for a leviathan.

Thunder Winged is too cute, seeing as you can fireball creatures for just XGU.

>>53366863
>Dawn Evangel
Yes, I know, that's why I was asking for help making it less broken.
>Also, Phoenix, WTF?
It's a flavor creature type, mainly. The god in question has a habit of ritually mutating his followers, as he believes the other races, which were created by the other gods, are 'impure'.

>Sea Swallower
You make a good point about the Banisher wording. I included black mainly because of Anguished Unmaking and Utter End, which seem to indicate that exiling things is W/B.

>Stone's Chosen
>Golem? Why?
Golems are the green race of the set, and do a lot of +1/+1 counter shit.


>Thunder Winged
Pirates are obviously a main theme of the set. The Angel comes from the storm god (also the god of slaughter) who blessed her for being especially good at killing things.

>Whiteglass Blade
>Uncommon? Shitty version of Lifelink
Yeah, I was unsure about this, but I really had a hard time finding a decent G/W mechanic involving lifegain that wasn't a shitty version of lifelink. I'm certainly open to suggestions.

>I don't understand what most of this sentence means
They each have at least one creature type that no other creature in the set has. It seems pretty obvious to me.

File: 0 White Commons First Draft.jpg (1MB, 1875x2092px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1875x2092px

Reposting these before I head to bed.

File: iconics2.jpg (491KB, 1125x1046px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 1125x1046px

Here's a second set of iconics. These are meant to convey the main 'themes' of the gods that they serve, and therefore the set as a whole. I'm not particularly good at coming up with new mechanics, so there's nothing particularly innovative here.

>>53366987
Noted. I mostly used Leviathan because I already have a few Whales and Kraken, and there's very few other 'large sea creature' types. I might have to rethink that plan.

>>53367040
Really dumb complaint, here, but these are all commons, yes? They seem awfully verbose. I don't mean to get all neo-WOTC on you, but many of your cards seem like slightly altered versions of already existent cards, and you literally have no vanilla creatures or reprints, as far as I can see.

>>53367151
MtG uses contractions where possible (~ can't be countered.)

I can't say that I care for any of them.

>>53366997
>They each have at least one creature type that no other creature in the set has. It seems pretty obvious to me.
Thanks for the laugh, I needed that. This doesn't make them "iconic" though within the set, I suppose this does make them somewhat unique. Which I didn't consider before because you didn't specify it, which lead me to think that you thought these were unique creature types within all of Magic or something or something. Anyway "iconic" in Magic refers to something very specific. An "iconic" refers to a creature type that best embodies any particular color.

White has Angels.
Blue has Sphinxes.
Black has Demons.
Red has Dragons.
Green has Hydras.

Iconics can exist in other colors, but they're most often found in their respective colors. Sometimes certain types are dropped in sets if Wizards feels they don't make sense, like how Angels were replaced by Archons in Theros.

In addition to the iconics are the characteristic creatures. They don't embody a color as iconics do, but they do tend to follow it closely. However, the characteristics aren't as solidly defined as the iconics.

White has Humans, Knights, and Soldiers.
Blue has Merfolk.
Black has Zombies and Vampires.
Red has Goblins.
Green has Elves.

And same as before, sometimes they get dropped, like how there were no Elves or Merfolk in Innistrad. (Personally I think Merfolk could've worked as Creature from the Black Lagoon-esque creatures, but that's just me.)

>It's a flavor creature type, mainly.
Yeah, not a great justification. Putting flavor above the color pie is something that should be done very sparingly.

>The god in question has a habit of ritually mutating his followers, as he believes the other races, which were created by the other gods, are 'impure'.
Another "WTF?" Why is he White?

1/2

>>53366997
>>53367221
>I included black mainly because of Anguished Unmaking and Utter End, which seem to indicate that exiling things is W/B.
I wasn't entirely sure if you were new to Magic before, but this clinches it. The O-Ring effect of exiling stuff then returning it later is solidly White. WB, on the other hand, exiles stuff without returning it. If you wish to know more about the intricacies of the color pie, please feel free to ask.

>Golems are the green race of the set, and do a lot of +1/+1 counter shit.
You put the race of unliving, magically-animated constructs in the color of life? Eh?

>Pirates are obviously a main theme of the set.
Obviously.

>The Angel comes from the storm god (also the god of slaughter) who blessed her for being especially good at killing things.
But not the god of Pirates? And why is she an Angel?

>Yeah, I was unsure about this, but I really had a hard time finding a decent G/W mechanic involving lifegain that wasn't a shitty version of lifelink. I'm certainly open to suggestions.
Well, what do you want to do with it? It's your set, man, tell me what you want. Do you have an idea for a GW archetype? I can give you random ideas, but having a goal in mind helps a lot.

2/2

>>53367040
Yeah, I think I'm starting to see that criticism that your commons are too complex. Still not liking Enlightenment.

>>53367151
Good god these all look boring. And why the random can't be countered clause?

>neo-WOTC
Most people refer to this as "NWO" aka "New World Order". I believe Maro used the term first, so everyone else picked up on it.

>>53367281
I don't think the upside justifies the downside. Could be me though.

File: iconic cycle.jpg (585KB, 2629x523px) Image search: [Google]

585KB, 2629x523px

>>53364099
>Iconic Creatures And Where to Find Them
I had an idea. I think it's a good idea. How's the execution though?

>>53367541
That firebreathing mana cost is atrocious. Just make it 1R.

I really dislike Warding Angel being able to reset itself. I only mildly dislike it being able to reset other glyphed creatures.

Hydra's Mark is conceptually interesting, but lacking in execution. Also, it doesn't remember X once it has entered the battlefield.

Gut feeling is that Sphinx is one of: too big, too cheap, doesn't need flash.

>>53353493
Yep, it most certainly is. I should have put this in t a colorshifted frame. It's a callback card to Orcish Spy. I tried to make it trigger in a red way at least, but I suppose I shouldn't have been so lazy. I'll see about making it into a real card this time around.

>>53354593
A giant cardwall with well-made cards? You don't hide very well.
>Every deck likes drawing cards
But not holding onto them. That's the problem. I mean I'll wait to see how you handle it as things progress and flesh out before I make a real judgement. Just an initial impression.
>Scout
Yeah, see above.

>>53354827
I copypasted the gustcloak ability and was too lazy to remove it after I added vigilance to turn it into an uncommon.

>>53367541
>wr03
You realize the "cost" on this is a benefit most of the time right? Because although they are harder to remove, enchantments are less useful than creatures that can deal damage and win games.
>br04
"plus 1". The player enchanted by the curse doesn't put counters on it, its controller does. I mean, normally. This feels too fast to me, all told.
>ur01
So, cast this with 5 open mana during your opponent's turn, then swing with that flier and get a bonus card? Hm. I'd have to see how this plays.
>gr02
Hm. If you have the mana this is a lot of value, but I don't think it's too much.
>rr04
Hellkites usually ping, they don't firebreathe. But it's better than Drake. We'll see how it plays. I know that sounds like a copout statement but really with borderline cards it's the best I got.

>>53367297
I feel like this needs to cost 7G or so.

File: Oliver Queen Green Arrow4.jpg (44KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 375x523px

I liked the idea of him using trick arrows for various things. Though I'll change it if it proves to be too boring.

>>53367541
>White
Nice, I like it. Still not a fan of Ascend though, doubt I ever will be. It's mostly the glyph counters.

>Black
Demon side is cool, though I'm not a fan of how the front is executed. I think I'd rather it just have you pay some mana whenever an opponent loses life to put a counter on the enchantment. The fact that it gives you a bonus of making the opponent loses a bit more life that's lost when it transforms is something I don't like.

>Blue
Eh... just seems kinda easy to get out in Blue. I think it would be better if the transform trigger only happened at upkeep. Also, you write out numbers for physical things like cards, you use numerals for nonphysical things like life total or P/T.

>Green
Utterly disappointed. Doesn't come anywhere close to the others. Why even bother making it an enchantment and not a sorcery? I think the main problem with this is trying to fit Evoke onto it.

>Red
Boring. Also seems a bit disconnected. And I really don't understand your bizarre costing for the firebreathing ability. Captive Flame is a thing. Oh, and the only one in this cycle having hybrid mana is strange.

Needs more work. Not a big surprise since it looks like you just made them, that's fine. I think the first step is to change G and R so that they're creatures too. Or at least like B and U that transform into creatures. And I realize your set focuses on enchantments, but don't be afraid to break from that focus for a cycle. Not every card has to be an enchantment, turn into an enchantment, or interact with an enchantment.

File: Orcish Scout.png (295KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 375x523px

>>53367734
I actually love green cards that have activated abilities featuring every other color. I did a green Wizard a long time ago that did something similar. It's a concept that I feel fits green and blue very well; an adaptation/improvement theme. Honestly this works for Ollie.

Made this card actually red this time. I think it still feels like a scout, of the Orcish persuasion.

>>53367710
>you realize the "cost" on this is a benefit most of the time right
That's part of the idea. Would you say upping the cost to 1WW or more would make it more sensible?

I just realized how little extra text it would take for it to say "..plus 1 and YOU put a...".

The sphinx side is probably a bit much and the one I'm most willing to change. I don't want to up the front side's cost any because then it sucks as a draw spell. I have considered upping the hand number requirement but then why would you want more cards?

>>53367734
The glyph counters are something I really like but in the interest of elegant design, should probably drop and just have it be transforming into enchantments, usually with the same abilities or that grant those abilities perhaps.

I feel the front side needs to actually do something, extra life loss seems like a good option. I could make it so you pay B whenever they lose life to have them lose that much life plus 1 instead and you put a counter on it. I also considered how it loses that ability but by giving it an immediate ping and getting bigger when it does, I think it kind of translates. Also, if you want to keep the front side's ability, you don't need to transform it unless you really want the demon.

Upkeep trigger seems like a good start to keeping this thing in line. Requiring you to have 7 cards without having had your draw step is pretty substantial actually.

Initially my hydra for the set had evoke to get across the idea of it transforming between being an instant / sorcery. Now as for this, it's also the one I'm least satisfied with but mostly out of not being able to find the right wording for what I want it to do. I want to have it enter with charge counters, give +X where X is the charge counters, and when it leaves the battlefield it makes an X/X hydra BUT that means the X in the cost and the Xs in the text refer to different things and I have to phrase it in a roundabout way.

File: Seeker of Knowledge.jpg (41KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 375x523px

>>53367151
"Interaction is for chumps!"

Also, why do half of these sacrifice and half of them exile, in seemingly no pattern? For that matter, Fathomdeep doesn't recur itself, but Truesight does?

Also Truesight abuses "exile as a second graveyard" so its pretty not okay. The rest are just sorcery effects that probably don't belong on uncounterable creatures (that can then be sacrificed at instant speed.)

>card
Old card, but I really like it.

>>53367974
>Old card, but I really like it.
And so do I.
>>53367842
If opponents don't control creatures, the entire ability cannot fire.

>>53367969
>angel
Well it's technically recursion, so it should be costs appropriately.
>sphinx
Well Sphinxes shouldn't be too small, so I feel like maybe you might be stuck upcosting the front side.

>>53367974
I have to assume it has some slot in a set concept. Otherwise, it feels like the draw thing is some of the most powerful trinket text I've seen.

>>53368033
I'll slap on an "up to" then. Good catch.

>>53367734
>seems a bit disconnected
I just don't see that, it's an board boosting enchantment that sometimes makes a dude for it to boost. Seems to play into itself well, especially in multiples where you can play one early and another later for the increased cost. You can get an upgraded fervor for a more color intense cost, or two-color aggressive decks gain access to a boosted fervor for 2RR. That all seems reasonable to me. And yeah, costing that fucking firebreathing has only made me hate it more and more. I'm going to make it cost 1R and be done with it. 2/R seems too powerful and 2/R2/R seems too expensive

These are exceptional cases for trying specifically to really get in that enchantment stuff. Partially to see if I can, partially because I love the idea, partially for synergy through the set, and partially for flavor. This cycle is pretty much the only time I would really try to hammer it in and that's partially because they provide limited bombs for decks that aren't enchantment synergy but in some way boost enchantment synergy decks. Honestly, I'd be more worried about the set being too geared toward spell slinging tempo than overflowing with enchantment synergy. Both of which I'm trying to keep in check.

And yeah, they all definitely need a bit of work, but when trying to do something so weird for a cycle that's why I post here to see if what I'm doing is working. Thanks a bunch for the feedback.

File: 156353.jpg (51KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 375x523px

>>53368039
>I have to assume it has some slot in a set concept. Otherwise, it feels like the draw thing is some of the most powerful trinket text I've seen.

No real set skeleton, but designed as a reward for Delving/grave hate/flicker.

>>53368065
Clever. I'm still coming to terms with red tapping things but I like how this comes together. Not sure on the flavor text, though?

>card
It asplodes.

File: Trinket Fence.png (253KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 375x523px

>>53368065
This works for tapdown, but they're still going to get the mana out of them if they can use it. Still, useful against certain decks.

>>53368140
Pretty steep drawback. I'm not sure about this. I have to admit I saw the name and I thought it'd be a 40k card. It kinda frustrates me how some designs just stump me.

>>53368159
Ah, I gotcha. I suppose that works. I guess I'm just whiffing on grasping card concepts tonight.
>Auto-Dragon
Okay, don't take offense at this, but this feels like the sort of shiny mythic they put in a precon. It'd make some Timmies cream their drawers.

File: Dedicated Ranger.jpg (52KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 375x523px

>>53368240
>Okay, don't take offense at this, but this feels like the sort of shiny mythic they put in a precon. It'd make some Timmies cream their drawers.
Excellent. Creamed Timmy drawers is half of what I live for.

That sounded less creepy in my head.

>Trinket Fence
This seems incredibly niche. Its Glintnest Crane intersecting with Trinket Mage, which makes it seem incredibly unlikely it will actually do anything.

>card
Can't remember if I've posted this before.

>>53368354
>Fence
It is. Trinket Mage was originally printed as an Uncommon, so I wanted to take a stab at a common version (the Commander one doesn't count because what the hell does rarity matter in Commander?). How do you think I can improve it? Better body? I considered a straight tutor for 0 cost artifacts and putting them onto the battlefield, but that sounded too good. Maybe I'm wrong?
>Ranger
I dunno how well "favored enemy" translates to MtG, but assuming this is an acceptable level of "game memory", which given some of the things they've printed, it probably is, this'd be one way to do it.

File: Crushing Earth.jpg (40KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 375x523px

Page 8 bump with a semi-Bramblecrush.

>>53369381
The limitations on this card can hardly be called limitations for something that basically says "Destroy target artifact, enchantment, or planeswalker."

>>53369917
Could cost W

>>53368054
I still don't understand why you used hybrid mana for just the Red one. And as for firebreathing, have you thought of making it global like Purphoros? Then you could make ut a DFC where it transforms into a dragon with more efficient global firebreathing.

Also, have you thought of making enchantment creatures?

>>53368159
I've probably mentioned this before, but I think you should have the Dragon look at how much damage it deals instead of its power.

>>53367151
>>53367284
Can you guys give me some specific examples of which cards are too complex? I specifically kept an eye on complexity when making these; every card has a simple effect, each card only does one thing at a time, etc. Parley is naturally wordy, so that might be part of it, but even they have simple, common effects.

>>53370842
https://web.archive.org/web/20150111095646/http://www.mtgsalvation.com:80/forums/creativity/custom-card-creation/578926-primer-nwo-redflagging

>>53371090
Thanks for the primer, grumps, but I was hoping for some specific feedback on this group of cards. Of what people considered overly complex. Perspectives other than my own, you know? I've read the design primers; if I'm still overcomplicating my cards, I need fresh eyes on the issue.

File: Orm Wall of Coalition.jpg (47KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 375x523px

My new general i use for my 5-color Wall-Tribal EDH. Hope you like it!

>>53371156
CO anon here, I'll give it a shot.

>01-04, 06, 07, 09, 14, 16, 18, 19
Red-flagged, four or more lines. Holy shit, that's 50% already.

>05
Think the cost should be WW. Otherwise fine.

I just realized something. None of these have reminder text. You just assume everyone has perfect knowledge of all the keywords.

>08
Seems OK. Though I am a bit thrown-off at this being White. Just seems odd for it to get draw like this.

>10
I think this one is fine, but I could be wrong, as it's similar to a sorcery pump, and doesn't clog the board much.

>11
Seems fine to me.

>12
I'd red-flag this since you're probably going to use it to save something you have from targeted removal and it draws you a card, which means positive card advntage overall. Could be wrong though.

>15
Seems fine to me.

>17
I'd remove Scry. Seems fine otherwise.

So, by my estimate, that's 12 red-flagged cards out of 19 for over 60%.

>>53371462
From the primer:
>My current stance is that they [ability words] act similar for reminder text if they all have the same trigger like battalion
Which includes my cards with Parley and Enlightenment, right?

>>53371509
>Ability words like Battalion on Wojek Halberdiers have currently not been officially declared if they fall under this red flag. My current stance is that they act similar for reminder text if they all have the same trigger like battalion but if they care about something but all do very different things at common like the Domain or Morbid mechanics, I'd be wary of using them as a way of getting around this red flag.
It looks like a gray area. I'll try to see if someone confirmed it one way or the other, but just from your card, I would discount Enlightenment as 03 and 04 have different triggers. I'd have to see more to judge Parley. But if you use it as it was used in Conspiracy, I'd probably discount it too.

Speaking of 04, I just realized how finnicky this can be, since it cn get shut off simply by casting spells. I think this will lead to situations where you are affraid to cast spells since you will lose your Enlightenment bonus.

File: wc09b ascend life gain.png (197KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 375x523px

Okay, Ascend is dead. Long live Ascend.

Card type means enchantment, creature, etc, so does it keep its creature sub types? I'm okay with that.

File: Screenshot_20170522-095941.png (487KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 1024x768px

>>53371509
>>53371632
Oh wait, the page has updated info. I assumed Grumps gave us an archived version because the original page was deleted. What gives, Grumps?

Anyway, it basically jjst repeats what was already said. Ability words with the same trigger get leeway. But not if the same word has different triggers.

>>53371720
Okay, so I can disregard the parts of Enlightenment that mention each player having four cards (as that's the same trigger every time) as well as the parts of Parley that mention the reveal, the draw, etc.
>>53371706
I like this version much better than the version with counters. It's a lot cleaner.

>>53371706
Oh, I figured you'd say something like
>When this creature dies, return it to the battlefield as an enchantment with a glyph counter on it.
But yours works too. Technically the subtypes will only matter if ths card has the corresponding card type, like how Vehicles have P/T but it doesn't mean anything if they aren't creatures.

>>53371720
Ah, can you link me the new version? I did think it was deleted.

>>53372017
No prob.

http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/creativity/custom-card-creation/578926-primer-nwo-redflagging

>>53372017
>>53372039
Decided I might as well archive it too.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170522142948/http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/creativity/custom-card-creation/578926-primer-nwo-redflagging

This is really useful, I think I'll add it to the OP links for future reference.

File: Bear Attack.jpg (43KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 375x523px

An idea I had for a green "direct damage" card.

File: Prism Charm.jpg (29KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 375x523px

>>53371407
I kinda get what you're trying to do, but the main point of the "toughness -> power" effect is that on the cards it's been used, it's global or semi-global. Having it affect only itself just makes me wonder why it's not a straight 12/12.

Also, it doesn't feel like a tribal lord, since it doesn't care at all about what else might be on the battlefield.

>>53372251
Not certain on balance, but the idea is very cool. A few small things though, like how the frame and wording need to be updated. Specifically
>you gain 3 life.
>~ deals 2 damage to up to one target creature.
>create a 1/1 green Saproling creature token.

File: Prism.jpg (28KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 375x523px

>>53372334
Will do.
Here's another card that got inspired by that image :p

File: David Hyde Black Manta.jpg (50KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 375x523px

Urgh... How do I make an asshole with a suit, a harpoon, and heat-vision interesting?

File: Vampiric Armor.jpg (42KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 375x523px

>>53373445
Maybe focus on his defining trait, and then build from there?

Like I did for this asshole, he sucks your blood to make you super-strong.

File: Syndrome Super Inventor.jpg (43KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 375x523px

>>53373445
>>53373856
Side-note about the card colors: they should be dictated by the card's effects, not whatever physical colors your inspiration happens to be. Senketsu was a happy coincidence: compare and constrast this dude.

>>53373856
>Maybe focus on his defining trait, and then build from there?
Being a massive asshole. How does that translate to a card?

>Vampiric Armor
Guh, I absolutely despise basing P/T boosts on P/T modifying counters. The card's kinda sorta interesting, but I just can see myself using it personally.

>>53373900
>they should be dictated by the card's effects, not whatever physical colors your inspiration happens to be.
No shit? I'm sorry, but this is pretty dead obvious advice. I realized this shit a long time ago man.

>Syndrome
I think I'd at least have him boost himself somehow. Though personally, I think a better idea for the character would be something that actively helps you get artifacts onto the battlefield. Also, why Metalcraft?

File: White Commons Complexity Outlined.jpg (2MB, 1875x2092px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1875x2092px

Okay, so I added an extra card at common to balance things out. I also moved or adjusted complex effects onto fewer cards and outlined those that still exceed NWO complexity standards in red. If I'm not mistaken, I should now be down to 20% after discounting lines that just say "enchant creature" and common-trigger ability word text.
>>53372368
Cute.
>>53373445
That double sacrifice trigger is harsh, especially since he can nuke potential blockers.
>>53373856
I too dislike cards that get stronger from -1/-1 counters. It just feels clunky and unintuitive. That said, your card is one of the better attempts I've seen at this sort of thing. I do feel like it's lacking white, though.
>>53373900
Flavor to mechanics on this one is still A+

>>53374119
OK, now justify the remaining red flags. How do they contribute to your set's theme or limited environment?

>>53374259
My set, particularly the UW factions, cares about people having cards in hand.
>Filane Outpost Sentry
Acts as protection in limited and can put a card into your hand at-will.
>Falconer's Companion
The only common creature with flying. Puts counters on other creatures to highlight white's lots-of-smaller-guys focus. I should probably make it a may effect, though, so that player's aren't forced to put a counter on an opponent's creature.
>Fortune Seekers
Again, puts a card into your hand. Focuses on card types that white cares about.
>Isolated Imprisonment
Removal that, again, allows you to get another card into your hand at will.

File: Superman.jpg (44KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 375x523px

>>53374022
>pretty dead obvious advice
I don't know man, I don't know shit about Black Manta beyond googling him just now, and it looked to me like you really want him to be BR because of his suit when he could easily be blue as well because of his use of artifacts and underwater specialty.

>why Metalcraft?
Because it's through mechanical aid that he wanted to give power to everyone. And the point is that he "boosts" himself by pushing everyone "down" in a completely counter-intuitive way.

>>53374119
I just really like the flavor of getting drunk on power ("who cares about the toughness loss, I'm indestructible!") until the armor kills you, or at least leaves you a drained husk. It may be easier to visualize as the armor transforming all -1/-1 counters into +1/-1 counters as long as it's equipped.

In any case, here's another attempt at a (THE, really) super

File: Kal-El Superman.jpg (44KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 375x523px

>>53374460
I did my own take on Supes a while back. I'd nix the flavor text on yours so that the rest of the text doesn't shrink so much.

File: Link Hero of Hyrule.jpg (45KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 375x523px

>>53374460
Fuck it here's more

File: 1495113478742.jpg (366KB, 1875x523px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 1875x523px

>>53374460
>he could easily be blue as well because of his use of artifacts and underwater specialty.
The only thing that comes to mind with "underwater" is Islandwalk, and I'd like to avoid using dead keywords. Might do something with artifacts though, thanks.

>In any case, here's another attempt at a (THE, really) super
Way ahead of you.

File: Super Mario.jpg (43KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 375x523px

>>53374515
>green makes him shit
Clever, but built-in color hate is eh. Any non-monogreen deck is gonna do peanuts with that.

File: Avacyn Compleated.jpg (43KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 375x523px

>>53374541
>Supergirl
Holy shit we had pretty much the exact same idea for the cold breath/heat vision combo

A few nitpicks:
- specifically damaging attacking/blocking creatures is white, not red
- Destroyer, not Destoyer
- what the fuck Doomsday is completely nuts

File: il-Dal Duelist.jpg (37KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 375x523px

>>53374541
Here's an idea for Bizarro: replace his indestructibility with Mossbridge Troll's permanent regeneration. That pushes his color identity as well as his "weird version of Superman" angle.
Only problem is that regeneration taps the creature, and I don't how "Whenever Bizarro attacks or regenerates, untap it." works, rules-wise.

File: Laura Kinney X-23.jpg (48KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 375x523px

>>53374729
>Holy shit we had pretty much the exact same idea for the cold breath/heat vision combo
Convergent design, it happens.

>- specifically damaging attacking/blocking creatures is white, not red
Actually, it is on a few Red cards, thought it's usually done that way to work with White. But the idea was to make the ability as close to things White gets as possible.

>- Destroyer, not Destoyer
Can't believe I missed that, thanks.

>- what the fuck Doomsday is completely nuts
I could easily adjust the mana cost and P/T. Maybe 6GGG to mirror Supes?

>card
Eh, seen this a bunch of times before, never really liked it though, sorry. I think part of me just really dislikes the phi mana and how using it that way makes a nearly worthless creature. It just makes me wonder why it has that stuff in the first place. Plus I'm not a big fan of the different planes crossing over, especially Phyrexia. After the tenth Phyrexian planar invasion idea you see, it gets old. Besides, Avacyn's dead already. In a completely shit storyline, but still.

>>53374860
Sorry, not using Regen. I used it before, but since Wizards changed their stance on it, I've stopped using it. On the cards I used to have it on, I've replaced it with either Indestructible or some sort of graveyard recursion, like with X-23 here.

>card
Eh, seems like it might be interesting. Have to see it in action though. And I feel like it should cost a little more maybe. Could be me though.

File: Victor Stone Cyborg6.jpg (47KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 375x523px

Cyborg. Artifact interaction is the idea of constantly upgrading himself with new tech, ping for arm cannon.

File: Voidmage Network.jpg (199KB, 744x1039px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 744x1039px

>>53373445
Make it all about his insatiable lust for fucking with Aquaman.

File: OrVar Emissary of Stone.png (299KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 375x523px

More diversity for orcs!

>>53376235
You need a comma between {X} and "where".

File: Arthur Curry Aquaman16.jpg (45KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 375x523px

An anon encouraged me to make the token ETB attacking and to give it Vigilance. Not entirely sure of this myself though. Opinions?

>>53376235
I'd really rather not do something narrow and parasitic like "Destroy target creature named Arthur Curry, Aquaman" or "Destroy target Atlantean". And speaking of Aquaman.

>card
Eh, I think I'd rather use Voidmage.

>>53376264
Seems fine. Nothing flashy, pretty solid.

>>53376264
>>53376357
Actually, now that I look at it some more, why does he have Reach? Like, we ever use him to block when you can use his activated ability to ping flyers?

>>53367734
>Oliver Queen
>Quiver
Comics were a mistake

>>53376357
>Eh, I think I'd rather use Voidmage.
>No flash
>Activated ability costs mana
>Dies to bolt and push

Voidmage Prodigy isn't a good card anon. This isn't either but that's entirely because Wizards suck, and it's better in both Wizard decks and non-wizard decks than prodigy. Now if it were Faerie...

>>53376457
I dunno, you can block and then ping for more damage?

>>53372100
I like it, creature you don't control clause is superfluous alongside a may ability, also not sure why a number of creatures is specified. "Create a 2/2 green bear creature token. You may have it fight target creature." Why the extra wording?

File: Cabal Channeler.jpg (227KB, 744x1039px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 744x1039px

>>53376264
Thank you. Posted this yesterday but thread was dead and got no feedback.

>>53377883
I just don't know what to think of this. Is this really worth mythic rarity with all the drawbacks it comes with?

>>53379239
Perhaps not, the reason for mythic status is more because it's a color break and they don't print 1-drop dorks into standard anymore. I could definitely see it being just a rare, though in the right limited format it could be a house. If you're playing black in limited/standard, do you slam this every time? I think most of the time.

>>53379379
>don't print 1-drop dorks
Forgot about that. Damn, just did a check, looks like the last original one-drop dork with no conditions to fulfill is Elvish Mystic from M14.

File: Clayfoot Colossus.jpg (37KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 375x523px

>>53376822
So you can play the card even if there's no other creatures on the board.

>>53380443
>by a single source
How can 1 damage be dealt by multiple sources? Are you playing Unhinged with 1/2 damage?

>>53380443
It's a may ability anon.

File: Clumsy Drake.jpg (34KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 375x523px

>>53380684
Ah, yes, but "you may have it fight target creature" still requires a target, which means you can't cast the spell if there are no viable targets aka no creatures on the board. The reason most abilities are worded that way is because they have no other effects and just fizzle when there are no targets, but since the spell also has the effect of making a token, I want it to be castable even if there's nothing to fight. (See for example Ajani, Valiant Protector's +2 ability, which is worded with an "up to" so that it can be used to buff him even if you have no creatures to buff.)

File: white commons.jpg (1MB, 1875x2092px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1875x2092px

Okay... I'm thinking if I don't score a 7/10 on this batch of commons I may just have to give up.

I know the little transform one is weird, blame the photojoiner, it's still legible and I'll do the necessary adjusting for a color that has more transforming.

>>53382561
I also know that this color has a shit ton to do with enchantments, but the majority of the cards are usable without having stacked your deck with enchantments so it's partial flavor partial ensuring the archetype can work. White is the enchantment color for the set, so it had god damn better have the commons to fuel that strategy.

File: Billy Batson.jpg (99KB, 752x523px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 752x523px

Yeah, I'm not that great at costing things that split up their costs.

Anyway, lore. Ugh, this is gonna be a long one. Billy Batson is granted the powers of various mythological figures by the wizard named Shazam to fight evil!

Solomon grants wisdom.
Hercules grants strength.
Atlas grants stamina.
Zeus grants power.
Achilles grants courage.
Mercury grants speed.

By speaking the name of the wizard Shazam, Billy is transformed into a superpowered alter ego. This is why I have shazam counters, and why you need six of them. Also, he has lightning powers, so yeah.

This is where the annoying stuff comes in. The alter ego was originally named Captain Marvel, completely unrelated to the Marvel Comics of today. Captain Marvel was created and owned by Fawcett Comics until they were killed off by DC. After this, Marvel Comics jumped in and trademarked their own Captain Marvel. Eventually, DC bought all the Fawcett Comics rights, but due to Marvel Comics making their own Captain Marvel, they ran into some trouble when they tried to bring back the Fawcett Comics Captain Marvel. Eventually it was settled that DC could keep the name of the character, but as long as Marvel held the rights to their Captain Marvel, DC couldn't actually use the Captain Marvel name on anything featuring the character. Eventually, DC got sick of this and just changed the name from Captain Marvel to Shazam after Flashpoint. And since DC after Flashpoint is an absolute mutherfucking clusterfuck, nobody's ever gotten around to clarify what the fuck is going on to all the other characters related to Captain Marvel, like Captain Marvel Junior and Mary Marvel. So for now I'm just going to use my own names for them.

File: Igbas Puzzle.png (225KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 375x523px

Could this be costed lower?

>>53382561
>WC08
Red-flagged: Four or more lines of text, effective combat trick that can easily kill multiple creatures at once.

>WC09
Red-flagged: Uncommon terminology (upkeep trigger).

>WC03
Why put them out of order?
Red-flagged: Four or more lines of text.

>WC13
Red-flagged: Four or more lines of text.

>WC14
Red-flagged: Four or more lines of text, uncommon terminology (beginning of each combat).

>WC17
Red-flagged: Four or more lines of text.

>WC18
Red-flagged: Nah, just foolin'. Though I think this body for this cost at least belongs at uncommon in a standard set, or at least a set trying to be a standard set.

>WC19
Seems fine.

>WC06
Red-flagged: Four or more lines of text. Though this one I can easily see keeping since it plays into the enchantment theme. Also, why no Nyx frame?

>WC07
Seems fine.

>WC10
Red-flagged: Four or more lines of text.

>Wc11
Red-flagged: Four or more lines of text. I also don't really like the design of this one. I get you have an enchantment matters theme, but this seems really weak. A virtual vanilla enchantment, really?

>WC12
Another one?

>WC15
Seems OK.

>WC20
Red-flagged: Four or more lines of text.

>WC05
Huh? Just that one tribe? Seems odd.

>WC09B
Didn't I already see this one?

>WC04
Not a huge fan but OK I guess.

>WC01
Wait, what? Conduit sacs enchantments? Why?

>WC02
Red-flagged: Four or more lines of text. Might also count for affecting the board state. I also really don't see the connection to the trigger, why CMC 5 or greater? You been around Time anon's last set too long?

>>53382828
Dunno about cost. Though I think the wording should be changed to
>Discard a card: You may cast a nonland card exiled with ~.

>>53383006
Leaves room for flavor text. Nice.

>>53382959
>You been around Time anon's last set too long?
I would hope that custom cards based on custom cards is too meta, even for us.

>>53383338
the 5 or more cost is the main transformation mechanic of the set, plays into evoke and whatever I settle on conduit doing exactly to reduce costs

>>53383338
I was actually thinking of making a card based on Grumps. It would be a creature that counters spells. The flavor text would talk about how some people dislike him for being incredibly harsh and informal, but they can't find any fault in his criticisms (which, of course, are what counter spells).

>>53383394
>can't find any fault in his criticisms
most of the time, but definitely not always

>>53383394
>/ccg/-based cards
Oh lawdy. What would the other cards be? Co anon, time anon. Pirate anon. Maybe cooldown guy? What would there cards be?

>>53383444
CCG
Land
T: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool. If that mana is used to cast a spell or activate an ability, counter that spell or ability.

>>53383444
Cooldown guy just needs to be something cray powerful with "At the beginning of your next end step, you lose the game." or something. As for me? Thanks to my CO stuff, I've had a lot of people comment on how I seem to never make cheap cards or cards below rare. Probably Boros, since I've resorted to that a lot. Heh, I could make the mana cost RWWW, which is a tasteless joke at my own expense.

>>53383469
I'm fairly certain I've seen something like this before. Oh yeah, it was a land that gave you mana, but you couldn't spend it.

>>53383444
>>53383557
The pirate anon card needs to do something awesome, then exile itself.

File: Captain Omix.jpg (48KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 375x523px

Geddit?

>>53383785
C.Omix. Boros. Slapping double strike and indestructible on everything. Clever! Do the rest now!

File: Nexus of Life.jpg (254KB, 744x1039px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 744x1039px

I'm making a cycle of OP lands for a monocolor / basics matter set. Only have blue and green done.

File: Nexus of Reflections.jpg (229KB, 744x1039px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 744x1039px

Rip away

>>53383890
that certainly is op. I'd expect a white avatar to be based on your life total, and a green one to be based on lands or something like that.

>>53383918
Nah, swinging for a bazillion on turn 6 is par for the course in modern and unplayable in legacy. Dies to fatal push.

>>53383914
This one is scarier, Dark Depths comes to mind which makes it a slightly better version of the green one.

File: Pirate anon.jpg (48KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 375x523px

>>53383852
Just one more for tonight. Going to bed soon.

Not really feeling this. Tired to tie into Plunder from his set. Meh, I'll try again tomorrow.

File: no-name.jpg (39KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 375x523px

Is this drawback possibly too strong?

>>53384463
oh no my graveyard is full & I always have a full hand of protection for my 5/4 flier how terrible whatever will I do...

>>53384463
Yes. In addition to the drawback being a huge upside, you've stapled it to a 2-mana 5/4 flyer.

>>53383890
>>53383914
Blue one could cost one U less, green one is broken. Lose the trample at least or make X the number of lands you control.

>>53371407
Why not:
>Wall creatures you control deal damage equal to their toughness.
?

>>53384537
>>53384531
Is it an upside? I'm sorry for being an idiot, but I imagined never being able to play any non-instant card, including lands, to be a downside.

>>53384549
>I imagined never being able to play any non-instant card, including lands, to be a downside.
boy oh boy I sure wish I could hard cast that Ichorid from my hand at sorcery speed :\

>>53384575
Okay, so it's broken with Ichorid. Anything else you can share with me?

File: hmm.gif (2MB, 460x259px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 460x259px

>>53384597
>Okay, so it's broken with Ichorid.
>with Ichorid

>>53384610
So that's a no, then?

>>53384629
I have to ask, though, was the
>including lands
part a joke?

Because it was pretty hilarious, all things considered.

>>53384652
I guess there's really no point to posting cards here if all you can offer is degrading insults.

I suppose you're also going to tell me to kill myself and call me a cuck, as well.

>>53384842
>I suppose you're also going to tell me to kill myself and call me a cuck, as well.
No, I'm just going to say that your card is atrocious.

File: Nexus of Souls.jpg (168KB, 744x1039px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 744x1039px

>>53383918
>>53384537

File: Nexus of Life (1).jpg (256KB, 744x1039px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 744x1039px

And the fixed green one

>>53385006
>probably only going to be a 6 or 7 or so
Should have made it twice or three times as many

>>53385043
That would just make it more broken than before. The point is the white one is huge but has no evasion, the green one gets trample in exchange for size.

>>53384463
This doesn't quite work. If any triggers go on the stack during the cleanup step the game just sticks another cleanup step in afterwards.

Try "At the beginning of your end step, draw seven cards. You have no maximum hand size." Or just remove the no max hand size if your intention wasn't for this to play nice with other draw effects during your turn.

>>53384463
>>53385199
Also, upkeep comes before draw step, so you can still play whatever you draw from that.

If you want to go for the "can only cast spells during your opponent's turns" thing just slap "During your turn, you can't cast spells." on it. Don't need to fuck with draw/discard. If you also made it 5/3 it would probably be balanced too.

>>53384575
>>53384610
>>53384652
>>53384876
Could you try not being an asshole next time?

ded thred bump

File: download (1).jpg (7MB, 3860x5873px) Image search: [Google]

7MB, 3860x5873px

First draft of the commons.

>>53391186
Try to mark reprints in an obvious way. Time anon's method is good. (Card name followed by (R))
Moving on to the cards:
>Shitty Signets
Signets are better. Just use those. If you're worried about numbers, choose one for each shard (for example the allied pair). This also makes potential future sets easier as you can just included other signets.
>Taplands
Not much to say.
>Off-color cyclelands
Strange, but I can get behind it. With this much fixing at common you won't need any at higher rarities.

I'm going to talk about the other cards in a separate post so the thread doesn't 404 while I'm writing.

>>53391186

>enemy/wedge based set n°164370 with 10+ lands at common
I'm mean it's okay to put about whatever you want but this ""theme""" getting stale

>>53391186
>>53393221
Continued
Black:
Wording:
It's "You gain [amount] life", not "Gain [amount] life." Source needs damage: "Lightning Bolt deals 3 damage to target creature or player."
>CB01
This doesn't need to reveal as the card is put into a public zone.
>CB03
Tappers in black are strange, even when they require white to activate.
>CB05
This strongly encourages a certain kind of deck, and outside of that deck it isn't really playable. For this reason I think it should be uncommon.
>CB07
Vanillas are boring. With BB in the cost at least make it a 5/4.
>All delve cards
These might be legacy playable, see Gurmag Angler. Though you don't need to worry about that if you're designing solely for limited. Unfortunately I never drafted Khans so I can't speak about Delve in limited.
>CB09
This reads awkwardly. With the negative toughness it already discourages blocking so the "can't block" clause can go.

White:
Wording:
The exile wording should be "As long as you own a [type] card in exile, [effect]."
>CW01 CW06
These are basically the same card and will be played in the same decks, although the flier is quite a bit better. One can go.
>CW09 CW10
Again, these are almost identical. Pick one and get rid of the other.
>CW11
"Whenever ~ attacks, if it's renowned, [...]".
>CW13
I think I've seen this exact card before. It happens. And you don't need "the" in the last sentence.

File: World of Purity.jpg (28KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 375x523px

>>53391186
>>53393221
>>53393507
Continued even further

Overall I want to say that this looks like something Wizards might print, and in this case that's not a compliment as to me, this is pretty boring design-wise. It might still play well, but so far I'm not excited.

Also, let's look at
>CZ08
This is just CW09 with bigger numbers. It reminds me of Rhox War Monk, which is a mono white card that's undercosted because Wizards ran out of ideas for multicolor cards. If you're already running out of ideas for multicolor cards at the commons maybe you should do something simpler first, i.e. no multicolor commons.

I will say that I like abilities like CB01 (though black probably doesn't need 1 mana 1/1s), and off-color activated abilities are a good way to include the multicolor-theme on monocolor cards (and thus at common rarity).
I'm kind of tired so maybe I'll do the rest at some other time.

>>53393228
I'm with you there. It's like people know they can't come up with any really interesting mechanics, so they rely on multicolor as a crutch.

>>53393999
I partially agree, but some people have also done some really cool multicolor stuff. It's one of those things that, if you do, you have to do well.

File: Gar Logan Beast Boy7.jpg (53KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 375x523px

Jesus, thread's been near-dead all day long. Wonder what happened. Though honestly, I don't have anything really going on, but I guess I might as well post something. Beast Boy, transforms into things. No real idea how to convey this though. Here's one, another is to do something like Ur-Dragon, another is to exile creature cards from your hand and transform him into one of those. Another is to reveal cards from the top of your library then just become a copy of the first creature card revealed.

>>53393764
No idea how to word this properly, sorry. And I'm not a huge fan of this because of how swingy it is. It's going to absolutely fuck multicolor decks and do absolutely nothing to mono-color or colorless ones. Though I was thinking of changing the mechanic a bit so every player chose a permanent he or she controlled, then sacced each nonland permanent that didn't share a color with it. Still swingy, but wouldn't obliterate multicolor decks as this one does.

>>53395137
Most multicolor decks play plenty of mono color spells (legacy has delver, peezy, true-name, every card in D&T, etc, modern has DS, goyf, snappy, every card in zoo). Khans-Standard is not the norm. What the card does do well is fuck over multicolor value machines, and those probably replaced themselves already, so I think it's fair. And the "shares a color" would have to be "shares all colors" (plus nonland clause), else it wouldn't so anything to multicolor stuff.

>Gar Logan
Ehhh. It's only really good if you copy stuff with Annihilator / Titans, but 1) putting eldrazi in your deck almost certainly makes it a lot worse and 2) if the cards you copy are castable then why not cast those to begin with? I can't imagine a deck that wants to play this. Eldrazi titans really kind of make this impossible to balance for constructed. Actually Through the Breach is 5 mana too so I could be overestimating this, especially since it dies to bolt.
Another angle would be a Morphling-type card that has access to +1/-1, -1/+1 and a (UG) keyword soup via activated abilities (along the lines of "G: ~ gains your choice of [keywords] until EOT"). I don't know how appropriate that is lore-wise but it would at least not make it a bad pseudo-reanimator card.
Well, that's a lot of text about Modern balance. I really think you should tune the ability to be as flexible as it is in the source material (the current card doesn't look like he has much control over the transformation) and then cost it accordingly. If you've already done that (going by the 7) then it's bound to be a kitchen table card as-is, though that's not necessarily a bad thing.

And for future reference, in case you ever want to do something like this without allowing Emrakul abuse, you can always require the naming of a color. Griselbrand is good, but he can already be cheated in for 1B so balance would be less of a concern.

I'm half-asleep right now so I have trouble making a streamlined argument. I apologize.

I think Grumps told me the last version of this was undercosted. I think. I have a hard time understanding what people mean when they start mentioning formats.

>>53395991
>I'm half-asleep right now so I have trouble making a streamlined argument. I apologize.
How can you be half-asleep at this time of day? It's almost 5:00pm where I am. Where are you?

And yeah, I am having a ton of trouble understanding some of the things you say, especially on World of Purity.

As for Beast Boy, yeah, that's always been the problem. His power is that he can turn into any animal. That's it. Crow, gorilla, cheetah, bear, ape, it's all the same to him. Which is why I'm having so much trouble with this. Actually, I think I might just give him a few different "modes" to choose from. It's not what I want, but it would work.

But yeah, the problem mostly boils down to cheating things into play, and making it so there's some sort of advantage over just casting the card.

File: Flashs Costume Ring2.jpg (47KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 375x523px

>>53396467
Shit, forgot about how Equipment works. OK, have this version instead.

>>53391186
I took another look at the multicolor cards. This won't be pretty.
>CZ01
This is a mono white card. A strong one in limited, mind you, but white nonetheless. Technically it fits in both and as such could even be hybrid, but that's without renown. With it, it just screams mono white to me.
>CZ02
Since there's no hellbent theme in UR, this is just "1UR, discard a card: Play a 1 or 2 mana spell from your library", i.e. worthless.
>CZ03
This is the first one that feels mutlicolor (though it would still be fine in either color). But it really is just a 3 mana 2/2. ETB lifegain is good on large creatures since it prevents your opponent from swinging his team and not caring about your monster eating one of his threats. This one does not have the size to stabilize the board. It ends up being mediocre filler even in limited.
>CZ04
This one is okay, but note that it would also be fine as a mono color card.
>CZ05
This one is great. Green covers the cost reduction for creatures and blue for noncreatures, and so it wouldn't work as a mono color card. And of course the ability naturally fits into UG decks as they want to play large things on their turns and counterspells on the opponent's. If you want to make a good multicolor set most cards should be as good as this one.
>CZ06
First of all, you need to list these as "As long as you own a sorcery card, an instant card and a creature card in exile, [...]". This is an alright multicolor card.
>CZ07
This is just Abomination of Gudul, which is (at least in my opinion) a mono blue card that's multicolor solely because it was printed in a multicolor set.
>CZ09
This one is much worse (in terms of color-appropriateness) than the UG drake. How does green not enable creatures and why is it symmetric? Going off Goblin Electromancer and the symmetry I would think it's RWU from the abilities.
>CZ10
Ajani's Pridemate is mono white. Trample justifies green, but there is nothing black about this card.
character limit; to be continued

>>53391186
>>53396789
So tl;dr CZ05 is great, the rest not so much. Keep 3 color cards to uncommon+ if you want to keep going, but I suggest you try to do a normal set before you go for a multicolor set.

>>53396467
>Where are you?
Europoor reporting. I got up at 5 a.m. and it's now 11:25 p.m.
>World of Purity
I'll try again: Multicolor creatures tend to have ETB abilities and other stuff that allows them to generate value, so even getting more than one with one spell won't necessarily result in card advantage. In addition to that, multicolor decks tend to have plenty of stuff that doesn't just die to the card. Thus I don't feel that it is overpowered.
>Beast Boy
>any animal
That sounds kind of UG to me. As in, U/G creatures. So I think an Ur-Dragon ability (restricted to green or blue creature cards) fits nicely. Also gives it plenty of versatility, and makes it difficult to kill once you untap with it (which is fair for a 5 mana creature that can die to bolt).
>Costume Ring
>undercosted
The current version >>53396492 could certainly be one cheaper to cast, and possibly one less to equip as well. I'm assuming grumps was thinking of Eldrazi conscription being cheated in (Eldrazi sure are great!). Again, you could force the search to find something that matches the creature's color to circumvent that. There are still some fairly powerful auras it can fetch, but you do need to spend 5 mana and find a creature to attack with so that's fair. Equipment tends to be bad in constructed so it's difficult to make it OP. Although I guess it should at least be slightly more expensive than the Swords, so 3 to cast / 3 to equip is my suggestion.
>I have a hard time understanding what people mean when they start mentioning formats.
It usually means I'm evaluating the card against popular decks/cards in that format. If the card is very strong in / against one of those decks, chances are decent the card might be busted. Example: Equipment cards need to keep Stoneforge in mind.

File: Brainiacs Possession.jpg (40KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 375x523px

>>53397382
>Europoor reporting. I got up at 5 a.m. and it's now 11:25 p.m.
Ah, I see.

>Beast Boy
Eh, I'm honestly not a big fan of "colors matter" because of how arbitrary it is. Like, what does restricting BB to G/U creatures actually mean? He can still transform into a Vedalken or an Elf, doesn't really make sense. And even then, you have problems with stuff like Inkwell Leviathan. Maybe an X cost ability to tutor a creature card with CMC X? Dunno. Jesus, I remember now why I haven't touched this guy in a while.

>Costume Ring
Looking through the archive, his exact comment was
>Auratouched Mage is constructed playable. Draw your own conclusions.
Which might as well be REEEEE! to me. And that version of the card was cast for 2 and equipped for 2.

>>53397710
>>Auratouched Mage is constructed playable. Draw your own conclusions.
I've never even heard of this being played. Must have been an old standard formant. Still, that one fetches on ETB, while yours can be disrupted with kill spells and artifact removal, so it really should be fine. At 2 and 2 it's pretty much just a strictly better Sword (since that's the baseline for what you will be fetching with it most of the time in constructed), and at 2 to cast 3 to equip it curves nicely with hexproof 1drops, though that's more a problem with hexproof than with your card. At 3 and 3 I'd say it is definitely not busted (but possibly sweet in the right deck).
>Beast Boy
I really don't have any more ideas.
>card
Great fit for the colors.

File: FB_IMG_14955790316866147.jpg (181KB, 720x381px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 720x381px

Trump and Pence card ideas that will allow this infinite combo plz.

>>53397941
>Costume Ring
I think I'll make it 3 and 3 for now then.

>Beast Boy
Thanks for your help. Yeah, it's going to take a while to even get a good mechanic down. I'll experiment with modal stuff later. Maybe an Ur-Dragon for Beasts?

>Possession
Thanks.

>>53398445
Your idea, your cards. Show us what you got.

File: Screen Shot 2017-05-23 at 7.00.52 PM.png (903KB, 648x874px) Image search: [Google]

903KB, 648x874px

Wasn't super sure where to post these as they aren't MTG-related, but I made some mock-ups of cards for SMT demons for an SMT-style DND campaign, just for reference for the players that don't know what the demons in the series look like. Thoughts? I'm not sure what to think, there's something off that I can't figure out.

>>53398708
sorry but I have absolutely no idea how to give feedback.

Could try translating them into MTG. That's fun.

>>53398708
What's the 40 mean? What are the "elements" after force/wind? What does the circle on Trick Shot mean, and how does it affect evasion precisely? Whag does 8% hp mean on Miracle Punch, and how do you determine crits? I think I understand the rest though. Do you have any examples of demons that evolve from other demons?

File: Courtly Informant.png (216KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 375x523px

>>53398708
I unfortunately don't know anything about SMT, assuming it's what I think it is. Maybe someome will stumble along that does though. Are you just asking for layout and design advice? If so we might still be able to help.

>>53397710
Still fine. I like giving feedback when I post cards, but sometimes those cards are reposts, and so I don't have much else constructive to say or add. I know you like to get as many eyes on your cards as you can, so I don't blame you for tossing them up every third thread or so.

>>53396492
I don't see a problem with this. To be fair though, since it's an attack trigger, it might as well just be a tutor card or a non-Equipment you sac for a swap effect, since it's not a very common thing that you'd ever worry about this being on something that can't attack, and even if it happens. you just re-Equip it.

>>53395137
I like the idea here. I feel like he's progressing well, but I also wonder if maybe it's still too random. Have you experimented with "top 5 cards" or similar effects yet? Green gets that kind of effect a lot so I'm sure it'd be fine.

>>53393764
Eh, color hate isn't my bag. It's also not going to end up being very impressive against most decks, though it may see some use against three-color stuff, and less so against two-color. It just reeks of Iona and I'm not a fan of her.

>NWO commons
I wonder how modal stuff rates? I didn't see mention in my gloss-over of the article. I imagine it's "would this be less than 4 lines of text if you compacted it?" because otherwise, they are all red flag cards for the most part. I guess that might be why you don't see more at common. Anyway, have a re-tooled Archaeomancer.

>>53399023
>>53398935
Yeah I only meant layout and design advice; is the text too clustered/is it too overdesigned/hard to read/etc.

>>53399046
It looks fine now, but I can only be sure if I understand more about the game and get answers to my questions.

>>53399046
My first question is: how big will these be in print? If they are the same size as playing cards or MtG cards, then I can say with certainty they will be too cluttered and hard to read. If they will be larger, say index card sized, then they're fine as far as readability goes (maybe the ability subtext needs a slight size increase). I'd make the HP and MP feature more heavily if it were me; you still have some dead area you can fill by increasing those fields by say, 15-20% in size. I'm not a huge fan of the font since block text is always easier to read, but this isn't too bad. It does seem artifacted/blurred somewhat though, so it could use more sharpness. It being a .png makes me wonder how that happened.

>>53398708
>>53399083
Actually, yeah >>53399111 might have a point on the text size. I say drop the ability names to increase the size of the effect text. Besides, it's the effect that's important, the name isn't.

>>53369381
That's extremely powerful for GG. I'd make it GGG, 1GG, Sorcery speed, or "...number of basic lands you control."

File: Image.ashx.png (133KB, 223x311px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 223x311px

>>53367302
For a second, I thought you were talking about the sphinx, not the effect. I couldn't avoid having a chuckle. The cards looks alright, but only as a uncommon rarity, I think. If you cast it for 4 mana, it is like a flying premium Veteran Motorist which is an uncommon card.

File: CSTM-005 R.jpg (163KB, 650x908px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 650x908px

You all should try building your own template. It's pretty sick.

>>53399930
Why is that loli showing off her panties in a card game? Someone get that girl some pants before she catches her death of cold.

>making a template
>implying any of us have actual talent

File: TAI-032 R.jpg (127KB, 650x908px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 650x908px

>>53399970
You'd be surprised how easy it is. The only annoying part is finding art assets.

>>53400046
>>53399930
No idea if you'll ever get feedback for these, sorry. Force of Will isn't something that's discussed here very often. And considering the number of times I've tried to learn the rules, I don't think I'll ever grasp it.

>>53400509
It's Magic with multiple combats where you attack one creature at a time, and can directly attack tapped creatures. And then there's special rules for your Commander.

Literally Magic.

>>53400613
Maybe if I played it I'd understand. But I'm really just not interested enough. Nothing turns me off more than weebshit.

>>53371407
>it is toughness instead of it is power

File: 0 Green Commons First Draft.jpg (1MB, 1875x2092px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1875x2092px

Hey guys, I know what the thread really wants: more commons! Y'all love commons, right? Have some commons.

File: Futures End6.jpg (54KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 375x523px

>>53402157
Of course, cards I don't mention are meh.

>CG10
You shouldn't put target as a cost. If you want it to be a cost, I think you need it to exile a card form your graveyard.

>CG13
Not a fan of exile triggers, but this especially seems ripe for abuse. Imagine this plus any repeating flicker.

>CG17
Oh gross, this is exactly the kind of thing I was worried about seeing with Enlightenment. The first ability is fine, but the option to put some cards on the bottom of your library has only the most fringe of uses, and really comes across as parasitic because of it.

>CG18
Why sorcery?

>CG20
What use does this have over Prey Upon? I could see this having some fringe use in a set using Wither or Infect, since you could chip away at the creature slowly, but not really here.

>>53402442
>CG10
I'll fix that.
>CG13
>Imagine this plus any repeating flicker.
That says to me that there's more of a problem with cheap, repeatable flicker effects (Like Deadeye Navigator), but I'll be sure to watch what flicker effects I make available.
>CG17
>the option to put some cards on the bottom of your library...really comes across as parasitic
Come on, man, it's not parasitic. The card is totally functional outside of my environment, unlike actual parasitic stuff like Splice onto Arcane. It may not have the prettiest templating or the widest array of uses, but the extra effect is just that: extra. Optional.
>CG18
>Why sorcery?
The disadvantages that come with being a token help to balance the card. That was the idea, anyway.
>CG20
>What use does this have over Prey Upon?
You don't have to currently have a creature to use it. You can pop it on a threat and wait for the right time to fight. Or you can hit their creature with a token before attacks to pile on damage and discourage blocking. Other than that, I just thought it was a fun idea.
>Future's End
Should this target the creature cards being returned? I'm not sure, with the timing of the wrath, if you even could target them; I'm sure you looked into it and worded it specifically for that reason, yes? Anyway, it's an awesome card. Flexible and powerful and flavorful (even if I don't know what the hell an OMAC is). I dig it. Double-X in the cost is a good call.

Also >>53384152
You didn't make a card for me? After all we've been through? I'm hurt, COanon. Just kidding. /ccg/ meta cards do sound amusing, though.

File: Mark of Prey.jpg (46KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 375x523px

>>53402767
>CG17
As I said, the main ability of getting creatures and lands I don't have a problem with. It's just the very last clause at the end. Seriously, can you make a case for it having any use outside of being used to screw Enlightenment?

>CG20
Eh, I suppose. ...Huh, just had an idea for a card. No idea on cost for this though.

>Future's End
Target? No, you'd need a valid target before you cast it. It's basically just a a more flexible version of Necromantic Selection.

OMAC has multiple meanings, the oldest being One-Man Army Corps. It was the name of a superhero, a regular man named Buddy Blank who could use technology to transform into the cyborg OMAC, a being with enough strength and stamina to live up to his name.

But this is one of those old concepts that got completely reimagined by DC after a reboot. One of the most popular versions of OMAC is from Infinite Crisis. After the events of Identity Crisis which lead Batman to severely distrust all metahumans, he invented (with the assistance of a new version of Buddy Blank) a system to monitor metahuman activity, called the Observational Metahuman Activity Construct. This was controlled by an artificial AI in a satellite called Brother Eye. But that was later hijacked by the ex-JL member Maxwell Lord in his campaign against metahumans. Max used the Brother Eye to insert nanomachines into various members of the population, which could transform them into beings like the original OMAC, thus making them sleeper agents, who could adapt to the powers of and overcome metahumans.

That was all pre-Flashpoint. Post-Flashpoint, Brother Eye, and OMAC by extension, was the main villain of the event known as Future's End. Basically, Brother Eye goes out to kill all superheroes (and some villains) and turn them into OMACs. To make it easier to kill the rest, basically. Don't even bother reading it, it's the stupidest grimdark bullshit you'll ever see in comics.

File: OMAC Unit.jpg (57KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 375x523px

>>53402767
>>53403201
And here's an example of an OMAC drone I did. Still working on a Brother Eye card, just kinda stumped for now though.

>/ccg/ meta card
I don't think I'm all that great at it. Mine was easy because I know me. Or at least, I know me better than I know others. I'm not even entirely sure what to do with a card representing you. I guess something that's similar to a mechanic you had in your Time sets would be a good place to start.

>>53402157
Wild Channeler & Caller of the Wilds compete for the same common effect slot.

>>53402157
What spells are your spellshapers mimicking?

>>53402157
>CG01
Bloodrage Brawler says this could be 1G, depending on what your removal looks like.
>CG02
I doubt the acceleration is worth it in limited, but there's nothing wrong with having the option.
>CG03
Why not just reprint naturalize? The 1/1 body is not going to matter. I get that it enables Surge, but if it's unplayable on its own I can't bring myself to like it. Why not go with a Caustic Caterpillar variant?
>CG08
Outlast was bad and so is this.
>CG09
I like this, though.
>CG10
Costs can't target.
>CG12
Why not a static "As long as [...]"? As is, I think the "it"
>CG13
Fine in limited. I don't think this would be played in modern/legacy on the basis that it's a 3 mana 1/1 so including it in the deck is a large cost. Could be wrong, though.
>CG15
I don't like cantripping fogs. In limited they're sideboard cards to begin with so whenever you actually play one it's already going to be very good without the extra card.
>CG17
Can't think of a scenario where you would voluntarily pass up cards. Fine otherwise.
>CG20
This is very neat.

>>53403238
No need for the second comma in the second paragraph. Fairly strong card.

>>53404275
I love the idea, but making it a cast trigger and thus mostly uncounterable is stupid. I'd prefer the draw to be an ETB.

>>53404285
Other than the name this looks more like a white card to me. I guess hitting face makes it red. Could be fun with pingers so actually red seems better after all.

File: Eager Recruit.png (225KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 375x523px

>>53404285
This feels RW to me, especially since it grants toughness. Cost is about right though, so I dunno if you'd have to re-jigger it a little to get it to work at RW or not.

>>53404275
Not a big fan of "when you cast this" stuff since it can't be answered, but with how pricey it is and how it functions, it's a necessary evil. I know it's not as clean but I'd prefer if it did the draw on ETB and was 1/1, getting +1/+1 for each card in your hand.

>>53403238
This feels a bit pushed, especially since it's colorless, only 1 more mana than Banisher Priest, and scales.

>>53403201
I feel like they'd print this at 1G myself. Also it's alright, but really just kind of ConvokeFight. Standard Fight spells are just easier to grok. It's fun though.

>>53402442
"I win" At that mana cost you should, of course. 5BB for a single returned creature lines up with things like Phyrexian Rebirth, since yours can get more.

>>53402157
Okay, no. Seriously Timeanon. How is it that you go from concept brainstorm one thread to two common cardwall mockups a thread later? What the fuck man? Do you plan ahead and build ahead like WotC or something? This is just creepy dude. Will just comment on mechanics and whatever sticks out.
>CG01/Imbue
Okay, so it's like Extort and Imprint had a baby? I guess I can dig it but finding a sweet spot where a completely lost card is equal to the Imbue bonus you get in return always feels good is going to be tough.
>CG02
Not a fan of 2/2 dorks. You want to swing with 2/2s, not make mana.
>CG04/Surge
Okay, so how the hell will you manage to make Jund fit in with Enlightenment with Surge as a mechanic? Do something like Dash if you want cheap aggression to help maintain large hand sizes instead, I'd say.
>CG08/09
Are you making this set to force me to like it? Spellshapers? I fucking LOVE Spellshapers. Damn you. I can't even unbiasedly critique this set now. Though I do have to ask what spells they are emulating.

(cont)

>>53404872
>>53402157
Mind you, only MOST Spellshapers emulate existing spells, but it's a trend folks will expect you to follow.
>CG10
Green hating on other graveyards is kinda off to me. That's more a white or black thing.
>CG12
>Enlightenment hate
I am not sure how to react to this. It's not very often you see a card hate on a mechanic, and I don't know if it's the best idea when you're trying to get everyone to roll with it to some degree. Also, I have to note that this made me realize that Spellshaping might not be the best idea either, or Imprint, since they completely dissuade the Jund player from even wanting to keep a full hand ever, since they get incentivized for dumping cards to these mechanics. Enlightenment, at this rate, is going to be a largely do-nothing mechanic I fear.
>CG13
Take care not to oversaturate your tribal scene. While there's no mechanical drawback, your flavor can suffer due to a muddled sense of what's what and who's on what team and what the factions really are. More clearly defined, limited tribes will help convey a better sense of identity to the factions.
>CG17
Weird card. Not sure how to properly gauge this.
>CG18
I feel like this is just another creature, so why bother making it a Sorcery? You're not getting anything like the added efficiency of two bodies for one card you'd expect from a token gen spell. I feel like it needs some caveat that gives it added oomph/reason to be.

>>53402767
Oh and hey, he didn't make a card for me either. Not that he knows who I am. Or anyone does for that matter. Or will. Or should.

>>53404872
>Extort and Imprint
I meant Exploit and Imprint here. I should have been asleep a long time ago. Sorry.
>>53404978
>Imprint
I meant Imbue. Good fucking night.

>>53405000
Who are you?

File: Buddy Blank GPA Soldier.jpg (78KB, 752x523px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 752x523px

Buddy Blank, as mentioned earlier. You'd think after all the DFC's I've done I'd be better at making them.

>>53404275
I like it. Though, as for what the others guys said about changing it to ETB trigger, there are two ways to do this. One would be
>When ~ enters the battlefield, you may pay X. If you do, draw X cards.
The other would be like Quarantine Field.
>~ enters the battlefield with X [type] counters on it.
>When ~ enters the battlefield, draw a card for each [type] counter on it.
And of course, either one would mean you at least need toughness 1 or greater so it can survive to trigger the effect.

>>53404285
I think I'm with the other guys in saying this could be mono-White. Making it Boros I think could work though. Maybe make it cost RW and give the creature +2/+2? Might be too good though.

>>53404788
>No need for the second comma in the second paragraph. Fairly strong card.
Didn't notice the typo. Thanks.

>>53404872
>This feels a bit pushed, especially since it's colorless, only 1 more mana than Banisher Priest, and scales.
I could make it 5 mana then. Though to be honest, I wasn't really thinking of Banisher Priest specifically, I was thinking of a softer Phyrexian Ingester.

>I feel like they'd print this at 1G myself. Also it's alright, but really just kind of ConvokeFight. Standard Fight spells are just easier to grok. It's fun though.
Will change the cost.

>"I win" At that mana cost you should, of course. 5BB for a single returned creature lines up with things like Phyrexian Rebirth, since yours can get more.
I was thinking more about Necromantic Selection, but thanks.

>card
I don't really get the wording, but since it only looks at attackers and blockers, I'm guessing that means the P/T boost only lasts during combat. Which of course means that, even if you activate the boost and it gets to be a 2/2 during combat, if it takes 1 damage, it'll be back to a 1/1 after combat, then die from lethal damage.

File: Black_common_first_draft.jpg (3MB, 2250x1569px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2250x1569px

My first draft of black and black-red commons. I think I might be focusing too much on -1/-1 counters at the common level but I don't know.

Would really like some feedback on Profane.

>>53408095
>CB01
This needs to be 1B at the very least. Also, feels kinda odd that it affects Devils since Devils are mostly Red.

>CB02
Ugh. Your wording on this tells me you're going to need a lot of advice on wording in the future. Anyway, I think a much clearer version of this effect should read something like
>Creature cards in your graveyard can't be put into exile.
Not sure on the cost, but this certainly doesn't strike me as belonging at common. I can already see newbies getting confused by this.

>CB03
Reverse Fabricate? It works, I guess. Nothing exciting though. Actually, I think you can streamline the text slightly.
>When this creature enters the battlefield, you may put up to two -1/-1 counters on it. Create that many 1/1 black and red Devil creature tokens.
I think that works. Again though, questioning why Devils are Black here.

>CB04
Why is this common? Not a fan of the effect either, feels super limited.

>CB05
I think I'd make it maybe 1BB. Also, art in use, Crypt Ripper.

>CB06
Seems OK. Still want to know why Devils are Black here though.

>CB07
Tap costs go before additional costs like putting -1/-1 counters on stuff. I like the effect, unsure of putting it at common though.

>CB08
What the fuck?

>CB09
Huh?

>CB10
You know Persist is a thing, right? Anyway, if you want to word it like this, whose control does it return under? And you don't capitalize card types like creature.

>CB11
Again, you don't capitalize card types. Really unsure about how to balance the upsides versus the downsides.

>CB12
Really not liking how this reads "Destroy most creatures in the game." I guess in your environment it might be fine though. You'll have to get advice from someone more skilled.

>CB13
I like the effect, unsure of it being common though.


1/2

File: Scarab of Teth-Adam3.jpg (92KB, 752x523px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 752x523px

>>53408095
>>53408414
>CB14
I'm not sure if this actually works. Maybe make it something like
>Whenever a creature with a -1/-1 counter on it is put into your graveyard from the battlefield this turn, return it to your hand.
Also, not sure of rarity.

>CB15
Common? This is way too complex for common. Honestly I think it's just way too complex period. Maybe drop the "five or more life" bit.

>CB16
I don't think anyone would ever use this. Horrifying Revelation that mills another card, yet it's BB more expensive? Maybe if it were selected discard.

>CBR17
I think it should just be CM17, so you have all the multicolors together. Anyway, Dragons feels really odd here. And I don't really get the Indie here either.

>CBR18
Prowess seems really off here. Just doesn't strike me as being BR. I guess it's OK otherwise though.

>>53408414
>>53408475
Thanks for the feedback.

I'm making Devils splash into Black because of the setting, but I could understand if the tokens were specifically red since that's how it's been in the past.

>>CB08
>What the fuck?
The idea I had with this card was to give it situational wither, that way it's a "fair" 4/4 for CMC 4, but I do admit it's an odd card.

>>CB09
>Huh?
White/Green/Blue is going to have an underlying "enchantment matters" theme. Black seems to have some trouble when enchantments are around, so I tried to make a creature that got a small boost if the opponent controls and enchantment.

>>CB10
>You know Persist is a thing, right?
Yeah, but I'm not going to use it as a keyword for this.

>>CB12
>Really not liking how this reads "Destroy most creatures in the game." I guess in your environment it might be fine though. You'll have to get advice from someone more skilled.
It seemed like a worse version of Doom Blade to me. Maybe I should put it at common and tweak the cost.

>>CB15
>Common? This is way too complex for common.
I'll bump it to uncommon and make it simpler, or maybe even rare and change it a bit.

>>CBR17
>And I don't really get the Indie here either.
The indie?

>>53403525
Why?
>>53403610
Earthen Arms and Sosuke's Summons. I'm playing a bit fast and loose with the spellshaper thing, though; they aren't direct analogues.
>>53404788
>CG03
I'll adjust the body. No room for naturalize, I'm afraid.
>CG10
Fixed.
>CG12
I put together this wording by combining Deathmask Nezumi and Septic Rats.
>CG17
The Jund cards in this set sometimes want you to have fewer cards in hand. Kind of like a tamer hellbent. They're at odds with the UW cards, which want every player to have cards in hand.
>>53404872
>>53404978
>Okay, no. Seriously Timeanon. How is it that you go from concept brainstorm one thread to two common cardwall mockups a thread later? What the fuck man? Do you plan ahead and build ahead like WotC or something? This is just creepy dude.
Hey man, I just like making cards. I usually ask the thread what I should look into next after finishing a project. When I asked after my Egypt block, monocolor and handsize-matters were both suggested, so I decided to look into a set built around those. That's as much preplanning as I ever do.
>Imbue
Yup, it's Exploit and imprint combined
>Okay, so how the hell will you manage to make Jund fit in with Enlightenment?
The idea is that the two groups are mechanically at odds. UW will try to get cards into everyone's hands (flavorfully, the colonists trying to "enlighten" the natives, who they see as ignorant savages) while Jund will try to blow through cards aggressively. UW's going to have a lot of bounce, tax, and tempo effects, as well as "each player draws" stuff, to put card's back in people's hands and stop them from using them as quickly. Jund will have Surge and Imbue to enable use of its own cards, as well as discard effects, Explore effects, and card advantage in ways that keep cards out of your hand (impulse draw and recurring value from cards in other zones).
>Eager Recruit
The wording seems off, but I like the idea. Kind of a battalion variant, but with more give and take. Cool.

>>53408678
>The indie?
Indie-structible.

>>53408941
>Earthen Arms and Sosuke's Summons. I'm playing a bit fast and loose with the spellshaper thing, though; they aren't direct analogues.
Not him, but in that case, I'd rather you just choose completely different spells then. Like, instead of Earthen Arms, use Elven Rite. Though I'm not sure what to replace Summons with. Oh, and I also did a quick Oracle search, I can't find any Spellshaper with a sorcery speed restriction, even when they're based on sorcery spells.

>>53409293
>Not him, but in that case, I'd rather you just choose completely different spells then.
Nah, the alterations I made are for balance and complexity reasons, including the sorcery speed limitation. If people get upset that I'm not holding 100% to the spellshaper pattern, I'll make them pseudo-spellshapers with different classes.

File: received_1914166668866048.jpg (33KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 375x523px

R8, going for a false god feel

>>53409977
Typo at bottom

>>53409977
But nobody likes False God, not even Wizards.

File: Paul Westfield.jpg (50KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 375x523px

Had an idea. So, this is Paul Westfield, the guy who made Superboy by cloning him from a combination of Superman's and Lex Luthor's DNA. This is him doing that to other heroes. But the clones don't live very long, unfortunately.

File: Junko.jpg (48KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 375x523px

>>53408941
>I put together this wording by combining Deathmask Nezumi and Septic Rats.
If it modified P/T then making it an attack trigger encourages attacking and discourages blocking, so there is a meaningful difference between a trigger and a continuous ability. Trample however is only ever relevant when attacking so in this case not having a trigger just seems cleaner.

>>53407815
You can just add the "3 or more" clause to the first ability (see e.g. Jace, VP).

>>53408095
>02
Creature cards.
>03
1B 3/2 with upside at common is quite the card. Keep an eye on it.
>07
Tap symbol before other costs.
>08
I don't think that wording works. The only fix I can think of is triggering off blocking or being blocked by a thing with -1/-1 counters.
>15
"[...] of cards he or she has [...]". Not sure the wording on the last part is correct and honestly doesn't seem like it would come up often.
>16
Single, untargeted discard costs B. Minor upside make this 1B at most.
>17
Newer wording demands an "another" instead of "a", unless you want it to trigger off itself, which makes the wording even worse and isn't relevant, so don't do that.
>Profane
So it's kind of a reverse Fabricate? It doesn't lead to undercosted bodies like Kaladesh since there's an actual downside to getting tokens, but it still seems very strong, especially since it uses "up to" wording. I'm going to say that I would prefer the keyword to just give the choice of adding -1/-1 counters and then have each card use it differently.
>Overall
You have three spells that cost more than 3. Going for a hellbent theme isn't wrong in and of itself, but this curve might be too much for the other colors to handle. Wither makes stuff like 1/5 blockers mostly worthless and the sheer number of <4 drops is overdoing it.
In addition to that, the color-heavy costs encourage monocolor drafting (at least for black), which I fear may make draft rather boring since most black decks will be the same.

File: index.jpg (603KB, 2625x523px) Image search: [Google]

603KB, 2625x523px

So I want to help keep this thread alive, so I'm going to post something I've been working on.

The idea behind "Worlds" is a mix between Planechase shenanigans, leylines, and old global (World) enchantments, and field cards from YGO. Basically, they can be cast like any other spell and they sit on the battlefield much like an enchantment, affecting the game from then on out. However, as soon as another World Permanent enters the battlefield, the old one is immediately sacrificed as a state-based action. There can only be one World in play at a time. To emulate planechase cards, they (Generally) have an ETB effect that attempts to synergize with the static effect or that is worth casting the World permanent outright.

Anyways, rate, hate, critique. I'm mostly just bumping the thread.

>>53411893
Thanks for the feedback, it's really letting me hammer these cards into something better.

>I'm going to say that I would prefer the keyword to just give the choice of adding -1/-1 counters and then have each card use it differently.

My first iteration of Profane was like this, but I felt like it made cards way too wordy at the common level for very little benefit, but maybe I'll take your advice and rework it somehow.

>You have three spells that cost more than 3. Going for a hellbent theme isn't wrong in and of itself, but this curve might be too much for the other colors to handle. Wither makes stuff like 1/5 blockers mostly worthless and the sheer number of <4 drops is overdoing it.
I don't understand this, are you saying that I have too many low CMC cards, and also too many expensive ones? What would I do to fix that?

>In addition to that, the color-heavy costs encourage monocolor drafting (at least for black), which I fear may make draft rather boring since most black decks will be the same.
I realized that earlier this morning, but I want the set to err towards mono-colors more than multicolor. My plan is to have each color lightly "pair" with an allied color. Black cards with Red costs, Red with green, green with white, etc.

Is there any way that monocolor drafting can be changed up? Should I make individual cards more diverse and focus on a variety of effects? If you have any suggestions I'd be glad to hear them.

>>53412060
Just make them Planes. There's pretty much nothing these can do Planes can't. Also, dealing with these things is going to be a bitch since they have a permanent type that has never been used before, meaning your only resort is to use removal spells that use near-universal removal, like "Destroy target nonland permanent."

I might go through the rest later, maybe, but Earth really caught my eye as a clusterfuck. This would be an absolute nightmare to deal with in-game. It might as well just say "The guy playing colorless wins." Like, really, imagine if you're playing with only basic lands. Not very likely, I know, but still, imagine. How do you deal with this? It would prevent you from casting anything.

>>53412245
>it made cards too wordy
That's a legitimate concern. I guess if you don't overuse it it might be fine, I'm just worried about Trumpet Blast effects when half the cards in a deck make multiple tokens. But then you run into the "if it isn't a theme at common, it isn't a theme at all" problem. Even now you only have 1 instance on commons. My best idea is to try and find a way to allow you to word it as "When you profane ~, [effect]." The keyword would then maybe be profane (or profane [number]), and it would give you a predefined trigger to put counters on the card (e.g. when it deals damage to a player/creature/any combat damage/ETB/upkeep etc.).

Pointing out that you only have 3 cards with cmc4+ out of 18 was meant to highlight the high number of low cost spells. I definitely think you should include non-aggro cards at higher cost at the expense of some of the cheaper things. For example, right now the BBB mana dork is worthless because why would you ever need more than 3 mana? You can't really play it in anything except monoB either, so just can that and replace it with a 4 or 5 cmc card that is playable in control decks.

>My plan is to have each color lightly "pair" with an allied color. Black cards with Red costs, Red with green, green with white, etc.
That sounds like a good idea. Though you may want to allow at least two pairings per color, otherwise it's possible there won't be enough decks for 8 drafters.

>Is there any way that monocolor drafting can be changed up?
The thing is, if you want people to draft actual monocolor decks, draft will suck because there are only 5 colors and generally 8 drafters.
Honestly I think you should approach it like you would a normal set (having in mind archetypes for most 2 color combinations), except make less (or no) multicolor cards and include some payoff cards with heavy color requirements to encourage having only 1 main color. Off-color activated abilities go well with that.

>>53402157
I don't like imbue. it's inherent card disadvantage. I want to cast my spells, not exile them to commons.

01 embodies what I don't like about it. You pay two cards and three mana for a 4/3. Compare this to Bloodrage Brawler. The card feels really bad to cast without it as well.

02 is fine. Again, it's unintuitive how often it's correct to cast it without imbue.

03 feels very uncommon. Also kind-of a weird stat line, don't you think?

04 is pushed for a common, but probably fine.

05 seems okay, I haven't played with Surge enough to evaluate the mechanic properly.

06 smells uncommon-y. I don't understand why it has to be an instant.

07 is great.

08 I have mixed feelings about. Also wordy for a common.

09 is an uncommon for sure. Card itself is probably fine.

10 is really, really strong, even without graveyard matters stuff. Feels uncommon-y. See Creakwood Ghoul, Mardu Foe-Reaper for other repeatable modern gy. exile that gains you life.

11 - don't put deathtouch on 4/4 creatures. Just don't. Just make it a vanilla guy.

12 seems weird. Imbue wants to empty your hand quick and then the trample goes on when they have 4 or more cards? Also turn 6 in limited they will not have 4 cards in hand. Just remove the ability. Add trample or just make it a vanilla creature.

13 Is an uncommon 100%. I'd also probably make it a 2/2 with no ETB trigger.

14 tells me you're pushing for land ETB theme, but there is no payoff at common. If your theme isn't at common, it doesn't exist.

15 is broken beyond belief. There's a reason that version hasn't ever been printed.

16 Dauntless charge is squarely uncommon. It's a 2-for-1 too often.

17 is not a common. Just remove the last sentence, it's very confusing.

18 seems kinda off. Why not just add a 4/4 vanilla? I don't see tokens mattering.

19's great

20 is too clunky. I kinda like it, but it's just way too clunky.

>>53408095
01 should cost 2. Especially because devils tend to be kinda low costed. Also probably an uncommon, but if you're really pushing your tribal it might be fine.

02 is uncommon. That card is just incredibly complex. Can't static effects just shouldn't go on commons.

03 is just a vanilla black 3/2 with a pretty big upside. Black only recently started getting vanilla bears at common.

04 isn't common. It's a hoser, you don't just randomly put hosers on commons.

05 is borderline, but maybe fine at common if you squint enough. 2/1 lifelink for 1B is the baseline lifelink creature. Make it a 2/1 and it's fine probably.

06 is okay. A bit pushed, and I don't think black really gets haste too often at common like that, but sure?

07 is squarely uncommon, if only for complicating combat math. I'd really consider adding a sorcery clause, even if you move it to UNC.

08 Black's 4/4's for 4 come with a downside.

09 is squarely uncommon. Why do your commons randomly hose opponents? Black really doesn't get that statline at vanilla at common, and you just add upside?

10's good.

11 - 's probably okay.

12 is probably too strong of a removal at common. Black doesn't get doom blade anymore. Ultimate Price and co. are uncommon now.

13 is super complex for a common.

14 is the same. Memory issues and stuff. Just why muddle it unnesseceraly?

15 is like at rare-levels. Also the card is UR. Also jesus fucking christ just reprint Sign in Blood.

16 is waaay overcosted. Also BBB at common? For what purpose?

17 and 18 are uncommons.

File: Strike from the Flank.png (234KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 375x523px

Bumping and posting.

>>53411893
>Reanimate Junko
>ping
Not the biggest fan but there are so many busted things to reanimate I can't even really take that sort of critique seriously anymore. I dunno if going full auto-lose is a good idea either way though.

>>53411085
What's granting the Indestructible here? Needs either white or green for that, I think. You could actually make him RUG or possibly even GU if you were so inclined; blue can make temporary tokens too and green gets a fair amount of haste now. I think RUG is better though.

>>53409977
Why would anyone take this? No haste means you can't use it; it just slaps you for 2. You can use it next turn if you want to take 2 more but why would you? Plus the owner can just take it back before you can. So... what is the mission of this card? I like "traitor" cards but this one's awkward.

Okay, so this is what Formation would look like on an Instant/Sorcery. It reads a bit oddly but I don't think it's too bad. Having to add that it needs to be cast during combat adds a bit of complexity, but I think there are other mechanics that alter slightly based on that sort of thing so hopefully it's alright. It should be NWO compliant too, since we apparently really really care about that now. For creatures, I changed it to say
>Formation -- During combat, as long as you control the most attacking or blocking creatures, <effect>.
That should read a little better with the timing out front.

I think I might do an ability word for each color. I kind of like them over keywords to some degree. They tend to project themes well and I wish WotC did more of them. I used to view them as a copout but now I think they might actually be better for set thematics than standard keywords.

>>53414919
>>53411893
Wait a minute, you can't reanimate Junko. I'm a derp. Still, I just don't like cards like this. The mana cost is nuts and again, if you manage to cheat it out, it's just lame to play against.

>>53409977
Sleeper Agent is your card but well designed.
>>53411085
That card is soooo dumb. I like it. Probably restrict it to your creatures.
>>53408475
You know what I would like? Reduce the cost a bit, make it an upkeep trigger (maybe pay, maybe not) and make it flip at 3-ish. I think that would play better. Or make him start out at his good form and then have him recover in a pod when he dies.
>>53407815
Reminds me of Flip-Gideon. I like it, but the numbers feel kinda off. It has to survive a LOT of combat right now.
>>53404872
Humm. I think I like it. I might just be enticed by the cute girl on the picture. A bit swingy. I think I like Batallion more, I think it has more interesting gameplay. I also really dislike how it works with instant speed removal
>>53404285
Probably could be a straight up white card.
>>53404275
That card does NOT need flash.
>>53403238
Look at Phyrexian Ingester and Duplicant for power level comparisons. Duplicant sees extensive Vintage play and is playable-ish in legacy.
>>53403201
1G, that card is house.

File: Strike from the Flank.png (231KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 375x523px

>>53414919
Actually, maybe this is better wording for Instant/Sorcery instances of Formation? It seems to read better and it's shorter too. Sorry about the card spam, but I thought about this after the fact and wanted to toss it up.

>>53414919
>Junko
I just wanted to make a flavour appropriate card because I like the source material. I don't even think it's playable compared to Progenitus/Blightsteel.

>Formation
Is there a reason this isn't just "If you control the most attacking or blocking creatures, [effect]"? That condition can never be fulfilled outside of combat, so the "during combat" is completely unnecessary.
>It should be NWO compliant
Personally I don't give a shit about NWO. It does get some things right (e.g. don't have too many commons that have activated abilities that modify P/T or all limited boards will stall forever), but restricting card advantage in common is stupid. Obviously you shouldn't overdo it, but if there's no CA at common then opening good uncommons and rares becomes more important and so the luck factor increases. (It also makes for less interesting decks in my experience.)

>>53415202
Thanks. I don't really care for Battalion as much because I don't like how static it is. I realize that keeps it simple but I also think things being completely binary is a bit boring. That's just me though. There's also the fact that from a personal standpoint, for flavor reasons, I think it's a bad red mechanic, but that's more that "co-op" spirit of the mechanic that red just doesn't typically show. It works with red's horde mentality, so mechanically it's sound, there's just that fluffy disconnect for me. But a lot of guild mechanics have that issue, so it's whatever. I personally like the way it interacts with instant speed removal, but I can see it being considered a flaw since it can create board state issues at common, and that's a big no-no for the kiddies. I try to design commons to be NWO-compliant but the 4-line rule is a complete buzzkill. A lot of interesting but simplistic stuff takes more words than that to convey, so it meaninglessly cuts off a lot of design space in my mind. Your mileage may vary.

>>53414919
>>53415224
Forgot to talk about the card. First of all, this looks red. White seems like the baseline should be +2/+2 rather than buffing power only.
And what the fuck is the wording on that second instance? It looks like a delayed trigger, but 1) "during combat" is not a triggered ability and 2) there are no attacking nor blocking creatures during the beginning of combat step. I suggest again
>That creature also gains first strike until end of turn if you control the most attacking or blocking creatures.

>>53415224
I would make it +2/+2.
>>53415320
I would like your mechanic more if it was only on creatures and locked in somehow. I have no clue if there is an elegant way to do it. I think it reads fine and intuitive, I just really dont like the blowouts.
Also, consider making it attack only. Or "If you control more creatures than them", but then you lose a huge amount of flavor and still retain the blowout.

>>53415297
>Is there a reason this isn't just "If you control the most attacking or blocking creatures, [effect]"?
I... hmm. good question. "If" is for replacement effects typically, where "as long as" is usually for board state checks, so that's one thing. I suppose it could just be "As long as you control the most attacking or blocking creatures, <effect>." I dunno why I have that "during combat" thing. I also dunno why nobody else pointed that out. Huh.

>Junko
No, it probably isn't. I dunno what the source even is. I'm guessing weebshit, but I dunno. I just judge cards by their merits, not their source. I don't like translating other IPs to MtG, but I don't let that stop me from rating the related cards. And I agree it's pretty unplayable, but it's just that "don't make 'you lose' cards" mentality that I kind of agree with that floats around here.

>>53415388
>>53415394
I had it at +2/+2 when I first made it. I'll go back to that. Funny how that happens to me so often. Also, cleaning the wording up further with the aforementioned suggestions. Also >>53415388, don't be mad bro, I posted the second version before you even posted your initial correction so how could I go back into the past and fix it? I gots it now dude.
>only on creatures
I mostly made Strike from the Flank to see if it worked in any kind of usable manner on an Instant. It'd likely be predominantly creature-based because that makes more sense to me as well.
>attack only
That makes it way less white to me. I like the idea of an army doing army things, which includes defense. Also shh, but it's supposed to fill the void that Banding left behind in a way.
>if you control more creatures than them
I tried this long ago when I was foolish enough to try making sets and it got torn apart. So I figured sticking it to combat only made it more fun and interactive with instant speed tokens and whatnot to represent actual military tactics and surprise maneuvers and such.

>>53415297
>>53415388
Actually double-checked "if" and you're right, it works. I'll get everything squared away.

>>53415527
I mostly can see your PoV on all of those things, except for batallion sucking hard. Goodspeed, good luck with your mechanic.

>>53415590
>Nivix Cyclops on roids
Yeah sure, why not?

File: Screaming Wurm.jpg (42KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 375x523px

Wurms are Iconic...right? Because my set has plenty of them.

File: Parsee Mizuhashi.jpg (42KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 375x523px

>>53415404
>I'm guessing weebshit
You would be right.
>I don't like translating other IPs to MtG, but I don't let that stop me from rating the related cards.
That's perfectly fine. I get a sense of fulfillment when I manage to nicely translate a thing, which is why I do it. If criticism somehow leads to most of these translations becoming well-designed cards everyone wins so by all means keep smacking me for bad design.
Pic related is an example of what I think is good design that originated from a "translation".

>>53415606
I didn't say it "sucked hard" just that I didn't care for it showing up in red that much. It was a good mechanic for how the Boros are fluffed, I just think it, like other guild mechanics, stretched things and warped the colors to conform to a tone or theme. Sometimes I like it, sometimes not. That's just like, my opinion man. But thanks. It's odd to see you acquiesce like that though. You're a pretty opinionated dude. Too bad I suck at sets so it's just a concept and never anything more.

File: Gyorian Knight.jpg (44KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 375x523px

Knight are Iconic...right? Because my set has plenty of them too.

>>53415621
I doubt that the decks that uses Nivix Cyclop would use that Dragon since 4cmc is a little too much for a spellblade deck.

>>53415654
>that flavor text
On par with WotC if you ask me. Jokes aside, seems like an uncommon.

>>53415677
Are you that anon that was doing all the touhou or whatever the fuck it's called stuff way back in the day? I recall a bunch of fairly well-designed cards that were all loli waifu crap art-wise. No offense, I like some anime art and stuff, but all that aside was that you? If so you're almost as old-school as me.
>card
I dunno about this at hybrid. Black being jealous of more life makes sense, but green? Green could, I guess, but it seems a stretch. It cares more about itself rather than others if I recall. Now, the creature bit I could see in both a bit more clearly.

>>53415730
Not a fan of protection in the "modern" design convention, but we're custom card people, we do what we want.
>can't attack
Also, you do realize that that creature is both black and white, right? So... what is that drawback even doing?

>dragon
I was just pointing out the similarities and how I figured it was okay. A bit lazy on my part, sorry about that.

>>53415654
In the strict MTG sense, no, Angels, Sphinxes, Demons, Dragons, and Hydras are iconic. Though you could have Wurms replace one of them, just as Archons replaced Angels in Theros.

>>53415730
~ can't attack unless you control another black creature and can't block unless you control another white creature

Your version is probably better, but I just think it would be cool.

File: Gyomohes Street Guard.jpg (47KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 375x523px

>>53415870
>On par with WotC if you ask me.
I miss the old flavor texts with puns, jokes and weird shit, to be honest. I feel like Magic is too "serious" nowadays.

>Jokes aside, seems like an uncommon.
This is why I hate to design commons, lol. They almost always have to be french vanillas and shit like that.

>Not a fan of protection in the "modern" design convention, but we're custom card people, we do what we want.
IMO, protection didn't do anything wrong and wasn't that complicated, but I also love shit like regeneration so...yeah, don't take my word.

>Also, you do realize that that creature is both black and white, right? So... what is that drawback even doing?
Sorry, it's supposed to be "~ cannot attack unless you control another black or white creature"

>I was just pointing out the similarities and how I figured it was okay. A bit lazy on my part, sorry about that.
It's ok, don't worry.

File: Paper Golem.jpg (38KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 375x523px

Last one before I go.

>>53416055
Damn, my set has almost none of those.


>>53416070
Seems a little confusing, but I can agree that it would be cool. I'll consider it.

File: Bull Saurochs.png (274KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 375x523px

>>53416158
Okay this I can sort of see at BW, but I can see it more in GW.

>flavor text
I do too, to some degree.
>rarity
Good, flavorful, NWO-compliant commons are the hardest cards in MtG to design. Period.
>protection
I was just pointing it out. I usually do all my critiques through the modern design lens.
>drawback
Okay, that's fair. No worries.

Okay, so I had a thought. Well, two thoughts. First, a green ability word. I'm starting to sense a "the most" theme building here. But I think each color, since these are supposed to be monocolor ability words, should be the best at its thing, so I added the "tied for the most" to this and to Formation in white, because I figure green is the best at lands, and the best at getting them and maintaining them, so if there's a tie, it'd default to the "land color". Same with white and creature quantity. It's supposed to be the superior creature count color, but when there's a tie, it's also the best military color, so it wins because tactics. Thoughts on that change? Is it for the better or for the worse?

>>53416289
>Damn, my set has almost none of those.
It's not like you need them. It's just a trend Magic has for big, recurring creatures. BTW, Magic's characteristic creatures, smaller and more numerous than iconics, are

White: Humans, Knights, or Soldiers
Blue: Merfolk
Black: Vampires or Zombies
Red: Goblins
Green: Elves

Again, these types can change from set to set, depending on the flavor and mechanics

File: Wasteland Raider.png (285KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 375x523px

>>53416289
You don't need "~ is" with indestructible anymore. And it's "only an opponent may". Other than that, seems fine. Plays into the notion of white taxing stuff. It'd be more humorous if it took R to remove the indestructible, but I can see that being too good. It's a funny idea for a larger card maybe. Something like 2/R to remove it.

Decided that a "more" theme was boring so I want to try to make R and B have a "less" theme, and maybe somehow make blue do... something. It'd probably honestly want to be "more" but we'll see what I come up with. I probably should have just saved all these and done a collage. Maybe I'll put off posing B and U till I have them done then just staple them all together. And yeah, this is just 'easier to maintain Hellbent" but I always thought Hellbent was too strict. Maybe I'm wrong here.

>>53416895
>And it's "only an opponent may"
Nope, I'm wrong here. Okay, I need to get better at checking Oracle text before I shoot my mouth off. But man if that doesn't read oddly. And now I see that Paper Golem is Clergy of the Holy Nimbus.

>>53416306
>>53416760
>>53416895
Thanks for the feedback, guys. I'm going now, good night!

>>53416966
Peace. Wonder where everyone else went.

>>53416289
>>53416760
Ah, I forgot to give feedback, sorry. But before I do, one last thing about iconics and characteristics: On a flavor level, they are highly connected to their colors. Iconics represent pure forms of their colors. Demons, for example, represent the absolutes of Black's ambition, ruthlessness, and cruelty. An iconic is nearly an incarnation of its color. A characteristic is also strongly tied to its color, but not to the same extent as the iconic. Most Vampires have nothing on Demons when it comes to things like their lust for power. Hope that helps.

>card
Eh, I like the idea, reminds me of that nimbus knight or whatever, but I think I'd make it bigger and uncommon.

>>53417013
CO anon here, not on comp and phone posting is a pain, massive lag on everything. Will upload and respond to feedback later.

>>53417198
No worries; reCaptcha doesn't even work on my phone anymore. Won't load. Legacy doesn't work either, so I'm stuck lurking when I'm in your shoes. No rush, was just curious. It's a weekday and I doubt many of us are 9-5ers.

File: Kek God of Frogs.jpg (53KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 375x523px

>>53411893
>God
Decided to make this. I dunno, I thought it would be fun. As for your card... yeah, super unfun. Sorry.

>>53414919
>Paul Westfield
Yeah, I was struggling with the colors as well. Yeah, might use URG.

>card
Oi that's wordy. I like the effect though. Not entirely sure if it's balanced however.

>>53415202
>Paul Westfield
Cool, thanks. What do you think of the colors?

>Black Adam
Kinda thought I'd have to lower the number of counters sometime. Oh well. And I think making it so he goes form Black Adam to the scarab might be a good idea, thanks for that. Should it still use the counters for Murder?

>Buddy Blank
Yeah, I was thinking that. Maybe make them +1/+1 counters? It would help a little.

>OMAC Unit
I think I'll cost it at 5 since it eventually gives the creature back. Also, I realize you do this a bit, and I appreciate how you're trying to help me, but your comments on what's playable in certain formats is pretty much wasted on me, sorry. I know it's ironic for how many cards I've designed and how invested I am in making cards, but I rarely play Magic at all.

>Mark of Prey
Really? OK, cool.

>>53415224
Better, though as the other anon pointed out, the wording can still be improved.

>>53416070
>~ can't attack unless you control another black creature and can't block unless you control another white creature
I really like the sound of that. Seems like a fun undercosted hybrid W/B card.

File: Maelstrom Demon.jpg (44KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 375x523px

>>53418912
At first I didn't really see the point of this because most iconics are monocolor, then realized how well it works with Maelstrom Archangel. Then was disappointed that it's the only one that works this way. Then I saw a glorious opportunity.

Also, another idea
>Paragon of Characteristics
>T: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool. Spend this mana only to cast Human, Merfolk, Vampire, Goblin, or Elf creature spells.

>>53416895
I like.
>>53416306
I dislike because you have an automatic advantage by going first and only really green can easily get ahead. There are better ways to encourage playing more lands.
>>53415224
This is really messy and not that interesting.

>>53412060
Planes do this so much better. As is, they are way too swingy.

File: Jason Woodrue Seeder8.jpg (48KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 375x523px

I just realized I have very few cards that make mana in my CO "set". Lore isn't very important here, all you really need to know is that this guy can manipulate plantlife.

>>53420155
Eh, guess it's OK, not a big fan.

>>53420166
Hmm, nice design, though I wonder about the costs. Maybe 2N instead?

>>53420176
Eh, I think I'd rather it turn nonbasic lands into Mountains for your turn. Either way, very cool design, I think I'll save this one.

>>53419884
>Wasteland Raider
Thanks.
>Bull Saurochs
Fair. I'm actually not that thrilled with it either now that I've sat on it for a few hours. I'm thinking of "creature with highest power" instead now.
>Strike from the Flank
I've cleaned it up more as per feedback. It's still not the best, but commons aren't that easy when you're trying to make them as not-vanilla as the system allows.

>>53418912
Interesting, but as was stated, really plays much more nicely with some iconics than others, so it ultimately doesn't feel as good as it should.

>>53419755
Not bad. I don't usually go in for 5 color stuff.

>>53419529
>Strike from the Flank
Yeah I've refined it more but there's no point in posting any more of them till I get the rest sorted.

>>53420155
I'm kind of in the same corner as WotC in that the actual untap symbol was a bad idea. I think thinks like Inspired are much better ideas for that kind of thing.

>>53420166
This is pretty alright, actually. I feel like forcing a 2R and 2U cost are better ideas though for playability and balance.

>>53420176
Decent nonbasic land hate, though I disagree with the Haste.

>>53420289
I feel like the wording on the granted ability is off somehow, but I'd have to do some digging to be sure.

File: Crunch.jpg (50KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 375x523px

Reading Man of Steel. Not based on the movie, but it's a limited series from 1986. The first series detailing Superman's origins after the Crisis on Infinite Earths. Some interesting ideas, others not so much. Anyway, I saw this panel, decided to make a card for it. Not really sure about the effect though. Or the name, to be honest. Have to admit, I'm surprised Wizards hasn't used the name already.

>>53420626
>Seeder
Only reference I can find is Opal Palace. As far as I can tell it works fine, but if you find new information, please let me know.

>>53420714
this is really weak

>>53421292
Yeah, figured. I'll just do something else.

File: Savage anon2.jpg (52KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 375x523px

I dunno. Obvious reference to Lovisa aside, wanted the card to give the idea of a guy who supports others, but doesn't do much himself anymore. Will change the name later, obviously, but right now I'd like to get mechanics down first.

File: ability word concepts 01.jpg (405KB, 1875x523px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 1875x523px

>>53420714
I feel like this could do a bit more. It's a fine card, but it's one of those things that just needs a bit more oomph. WotC would probably make it a cantrip.

>>53421610
Cards like this make me wish Lord or something similar was a creature type. It's not very barbaric in an of itself, but that it fits with those cards just makes stuff like it feel odd.
>2
What was the first one?

So here's the set of ability words I came up with. I'm the most happy with red, black, and white, and least happy with green and blue. Green I feel just needs to be re-jiggered somehow to make it more interesting, but I can't for the life of me figure out how. The inspiration was the unkeyworded alpha ability, as well as wondering if green could do alternate "trample lite" stuff penalizing chump blocking. Blue... eh. I always have trouble coming up with new mechanics for blue. I feel like it could have gotten what black got, but I kinda like it in black better. I'm also not sure it's a good idea since new players might get confused about whether it's referring to the last turn in general or their last turn (it's the former).

>>53415870
I've been posting on and off for a while now, but while most of my cards are based on 2hus I only rarely have art on them. So that was probably someone else.
>Lifehate is not green
Fair enough. I'll try to think about it once more.

>>53420289
>[...] on a creature spell, that creature enters the battlefield with an additional +1/+1 counter on it.
Unless you want the counter to go on the plant, in which case you can ignore me.

>>53421738
>I'm the most happy with red, black, and white
I agree that these are good.
>Dominance
Why not check for the greatest power among creatures? You could also go for CMC, but power fits the name better.
>Subversive
This is going to be a pain to remember. My only idea is to care about instants, but then it rarely helps on your turn so that's probably bad, too.

File: Great Ressurection.jpg (41KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 375x523px

I really should be sleeping.

>>53422024
>2hus
Ah. Yeah we had an anon years ago that did a ton of those. Thought you might be him. People come and go through these threads so often that I guess sometimes I get nostalgic when I think I see someone from way back posting again.

Glad you like red, black, and white.
>Dominance as highest power
I actually thought about this, but the issue is, like the first version that cared about land count, green is SO good at it that it's practically a guarantee. And that's no fun.
>Dominance as highest CMC
A bit more interactive, but steps on Timeanon's toes too much. Trying to avoid retreading design space that's been explored by someone else here, even if these'll never be in any kind of set.
>Subversive
I dunno, "last turn" stuff shouldn't be too bad if you can have abilities that go "until your next turn" or things like tapdown that require you to remember that that creature doesn't get to untap. I don't see why looking back to keep track of tapdown is harder than looking back to see if you cast a Cancel or something, but that's just me. I'm actually starting to warm up to blue a bit more.

>>53422183
Grim Return.

File: Image.ashx.jpg (30KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 223x310px

>>53416289
'Member Rhystic?

>>53422255
I liked the Rhystic stuff, but I recall them not being terribly popular.

>>53422297
I remember people complaining about Rishadan Port and fucking Lin Sivvi more than anything else. To be fair, though, it's not a very complicated mechanic and encourages sitting on empty mana and staring at your opponent, daring them to do shit.
I even liked the flavor with it.

>>53422350
Well Rebels were a pretty crazy thing. I mean people still play them don't they? I imagine they're only somewhat degenerate in EDH if at all anymore but at the time, and for some time after, I can recall a lot of butthurt about them.

>>53422362
Pauper, maybe. EDH, not so much. Can't run enough good ones.
Toolbox anything gets out of hand pretty quickly, though. Upward toolbox even more so.