/ccg/ Custom Card General

File: 9k=.jpg (857KB, 1875x1569px) Image search: [Google]

857KB, 1875x1569px

repasting white commons

>>47706878
you don't have to make bad cards with no abilities, it's not like you need to fill booster packs with useless chaff like Wizards does.

Also shadow is a really boring mechanic unless you plan on doing something with it

File: animated-congratulation-image-0092.gif (30KB, 287x276px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 287x276px

>>47706910
You managed to post something 100% devoid of useful information.

File: Goblin Thief.jpg (47KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 375x523px

also reposting, would like to see advice on costs and rarity

>>47706929
you too
you too

>>47706929
fine then

most of these cards are really bad and boring, shadow is shit and there's no point in doing pure vanilla creatures

Insight and guide seem ok but pride looks really meh

>>47706962
>gettin' pissy
:'^)

>most of these cards are really bad and boring,
Yep, that sounds like literally a list of common cards to me. Good to know you have eyes m8.

>Insight and guide seem ok but pride looks really meh
"Meh" and "OK" are like exactly the same thing. I guess the difference between "Neutral" and "Really neutral" is big enough to be considered...

>>47706957
This effect almost certainly needs to be a rare.

"When a creature you control dies" is usually black's domain.

I think the cost is okay on a rare. The investment to get it to work is a bit high so the low CMC should be fine.

>>47706985
>implying common = bad/boring

oh I see, you don't know what you're talking about.

This is a CUSTOM set, you don't have to make shitty boring cards that no-one cares about

And where the fuck do you come from where OK has the same meaning as meh?

>>47707006
>oh I see, you don't know what you're talking about.
:'^) This nukka rite here this guy is real hxc.

>This is a CUSTOM set, you don't have to make shitty boring cards that no-one cares about
I guess having your set be playable isn't important. Good to know : )

>And where the fuck do you come from where OK has the same meaning as meh?
I said LIKE exactly the same thing. Similar to exactly, boi. Step your language comprehension skillz up.

>>47706962
but anon, if we stick spells into creatures, what's left for the noncreature cards?

>>47706878
>Bog Iron Idol
I feel like this is a card Wizards could have printed in the past, but now they probably save it for a set with DFCs because it's more elegant.

>Aveza's Enthralled
Pride seems cool, will it reach all colors like Delirium did? in which colors will it be deeper?

>>47707033
how does having unplayable cards make your set more playable?

>>47707042
>Pride seems cool, will it reach all colors like Delirium did? in which colors will it be deeper?
It is the WBR keyword for this set. It might be seen on one blue or green card for flavor reasons, but other than that it is exclusively WBR.

It's those colors because they are the colors most concerned with life total. W/B siphons, R burns, W lifegains etc.

>>47707042
there's plenty of design space for things that creatures can do that instant and sorceries can't do

>>47707047
>this human being is in a MTG thread and has literally never played a single game of any limited format in MTG
w o w

>>47707066
Like?

Other than attacking and blocking, of course.

>>47707070
Yeah I have, shitty vanilla cards are the worse part of limited, that's why you never see those cards in cubes. The only reason wizards makes those cards is because 'muh new players' and because they're lazy as fuck

>>47707070
You don't actually need bad cards to have good limited, cube drafts are a thing.

>>47707081
well attacking and blocking are obviously a big part of it, but there's stuff like anthem effects, firebreathing effects, discard effects like wild mongrel or waterfront bouncer (these are similar but different to instants and sorceries since creatures are much easier to remove)

Even just french vanilla abilities do a lot to make a card more interesting

>>47707092
>Yeah I have, shitty vanilla cards are the worse part of limited
Maintaining simplicity through some means in a set that is relatively complex in general is valuable.

>that's why you never see those cards in cubes.
Not many cubes are more engaging draft formats than the top formats that Wizards has put together in the past.

>>47707093
RGD draft. Try it sometimes if you can (Online probably, for price reasons), it is at the very worst in the top 3 best draft formats.

File: Yevons Mark.jpg (240KB, 900x1255px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 900x1255px

>>47706957
The card's good, the name not so much.

>This works, right? The attaching can work just fine if built into the replacement effect.

Also, finished FFX for the first time. Those giggles mang.

>>47707204
>The card's good, the name not so much.
It's not even the real name, I just "isolated" it from the flavor of the setting to get it to you without noise. Which rarity do you think it should be?

>Yevon's Mark
I think you could reduce it to just "Enchant creature" (maybe without quotes?), you're telling the player to attach it to that anyways.

I think it works and that you can find similar cards, let me do a search.

Noticed your set symbol before but never a FFX theme, is it there?
>Those giggles mang
:^)

>>47707275
>Card
I'd set it at common. WotC would probably do uncommon though.

>Yevon's
Mines uses a replacement effect instead of jumping loops with triggers (which is what WotC has used so far). I'm not quite sure if the wording of a replacement effect can attach the object its replacing, although it should.

>Symbol
Uh-oh. Does the symbol resemble anything from the FF universe?
And probably not, but might aswell just do a few cards while I've got the rush.

>>47707204
>>47707275
I see the problem now, it's a replacement effect. Do you really need it to be that way?
I also see where you got the template.
The biggest issue is that a static ability can't target things. I suggest you make it a triggered ability.
As for the second and third abilities, I'd try to change it because I'm not sure if you can use "unattached" that way.
>Whenever a creature dies, you may return it to the battlefield under your control and exile enchanted creature. If you do, attach ~ to the returned creature.
I really don't like this "returned" part

>>47707358
>>Symbol
I meant if you've posted more cards which reference it.

>>47707427
The template? I made it myself; I don't want people responding to triggers the card makes.
"Returned" is used in Animate Dead and the like; and even if it wasn't, it's self referencing, just like Dissipate, and self-replacing effects.

File: download.jpg (655KB, 2697x627px) Image search: [Google]

655KB, 2697x627px

Here ya go.
And no, just made the few, won the game about 4 hours ago.

File: John Constantine Hellblazer.jpg (49KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 375x523px

>>47707732
I really don't like how Rikku can cheat mana costs.

In currently in the process of designing a set base on Morrowind, with the intent of eventually printing it out and putting it in a cube to draft. Any advice on set design? L post some cards later, I'm on mobile rn

>>47706878
Shadow bores, same as Intimidate, Fear, etc. Guide feels like a half-baked Enchantment creature.

>>47708086
>Shadow bores
Everybody says that, but literally the only response I ever get when talking about my custom set with people irl is "I love Shadow!" so yeah.

>>47708003
Use the "Nuts and Bolts" articles Wizards has put out to get a template and some pointers for set design.

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

50KB, 375x523px

>>47708003
Don't think "How do I make X as a magic card" think "what would be a good magic card based on X". Don't be afraid to sacrifice some concept to make a better card, but don't sacrifice card quality for your concept. Resist the temptation to include every element of a given character into the card, instead focus on one or two important elements to keep the card from becoming a complicated, wordy mess.

I have always been vexed by how Instants are not just Sorceries with Flash. In this "starting over" article MaRo has said that they are aware of this, but won't change it.
Which got me thinking: What would you change (rules/templating/graphics/whatever) about MtG as a whole?

File: Batmans Utility Belt.jpg (40KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 375x523px

>>47708003
Yes, listen to everything >>47709062 says. Trust me, you will find that not all of your cards do everything you want them to do, but you have to remember that your first priority is making good cards. If you let the lore take over, you're likely going to end up with overcomplicated, uninteresting cards.

>>47709211
I'd add "categorical" supertypes, similar to Snow. For example, Vampires and Zombies would have the supertype Undead, so that each would be an Undead Creature. Things like Krakens or Leviathans would be Aquatic Creatures.

>>47709211
More subtypes, and less of a strict division between creature types and other types. For example, a Fire Elemental could be "Creature - Fire" while a fireball could be "Sorcery - Fire" Then if they wanted to make a card thematically "fireproof" they could give it "protection from fire" instead of "protection from red" You could have "fire tribal" or "lightning tribal" effects which effect both permanent and non-permanent cards, like "fire cards in your hand cost R less to cast" or "whenever you would take damage from a fire source, increase that damage by 2" or something.

File: Brother Eye2.jpg (45KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 375x523px

Not sure on this one. The main theme of the character is "I want to control it all," though I want him to work well with having a large amount of creatures as well.

>>47709309
>More subtypes, and less of a strict division between creature types and other types. For example, a Fire Elemental could be "Creature - Fire" while a fireball could be "Sorcery - Fire"
Just use supertypes, as I suggested here >>47709274

>>47709274
>>47709309
I could see those being kinda cool as I loved the tribal supertype. Has there been an explanation as to why it was discontinued? With the grand creature type update it could've been supported more easily...

>>47709487
There's really no purpose to Tribal outside of an environment explicitly designed for tribal strategies. There is so little difference, for example, between something like
>You gain 2 life for each Elf you control.
and
>You gain 2 life for each Elf creature you control.
That the bonus of having a Tribal Enchantment - Elf is really minimal. Frankly, Tribal doesn't do enough to justify its own existence.

File: Scroll of Icarian Flight.jpg (107KB, 750x1046px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 750x1046px

>>47708003
Shoot for 165 cards. Can't stress this enough. A bigger set takes ages, and ages, and ages, and patience. Keep cards simple, and only do what feels right.

>>47708360
This helps, but only as a guideline. Things as as-fan and how the distribution of set mechanics work are pretty good. I find the design skeleton and some other bits to be not only bad, but time consuming and inefficient.

Follow a card type distribution acording to color rather than a checklist of what you want included.

>>47709062
This.

>>47709062
>Lord
>Myfeminism
>... If that card isn't a land, cast that card without paying its mana cost.

Play doesn't apply since you can't cast lands.

>>47709211
I actually like having Sorceries and Instants.
There's this one thing Maro said that was actually good.unbelievable How cards should be written as 'discard from your library' rather than 'put the top...'

>Most versatile U aggro card ever.

>>47709533
Well with expanded subtypes as suggested by >>47709309 there would be no reason for the tribal supertype at all. If "fire" can be a sorcery type and a creature type, why can't "elf" or "goblin"?

More to the point, is there a good reason why the different supertypes have to have their own, distinct subtypes? Is there a good reason an Enchantment can't be a Goblin Enchantment without the tribal supertype?

>>47709423
>Just use supertypes, as I suggested here
Well, we're talking about a "from scratch" approach to MTG. IMO supertypes should be reserved for shit with its own rules baggage, that inherently behave really differently. Subtype interaction should be entirely within card text. That was the whole reason the "defender" ability was created (remove rules baggage from the "wall" subtype) and why "Legendary" was made into a supertype. If rules baggage belongs only in supetypes, it stands to reason that the opposite is also true, that words without rules baggage should only be subtypes.

While we're talking about it, I dislike the word "Legendary" simply because it's long, and takes up too much space on the type line. Starting from scratch I'd propose using a shorter word. "Hero" or "Epic" are the shortest I can think of that would fit. "Unique" is longer, but is also more obviously linked to the actual effect of the rule.

I'd also like "At the end of turn sacrifice this/that/it" become a keyword if only to save space in abilities meant to summon temporary tokens. You could even build "haste" right into the word. The keyword could be "Temporary" or "Ephemeral" or "Fleeting" or any other synonym you felt like.

File: Blasterbeast.png (261KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 375x523px

update to U/R gold common over the 4/4 selfsaccer

>>47710294
>There's this one thing Maro said that was actually good.unbelievable How cards should be written as 'discard from your library' rather than 'put the top...'

I'll agree with that. The more we can shave words off of common effects the better. There should also be a general rule that whenever you search your library, you always shuffle it after, that way you can get rid of "Then shuffle your library."

>>47710299
Well, you're free to have you opinion. I think having subtypes belong to more than one card type is just a bad move, though. I agree with you on "Legendary" but I also agree with Maro that the rules baggage associated with that particular should either be gotten rid of or redesigned. He's right, why does something like "Legendary," that sounds good, actually have a downside? Of course, the problem with just dropping all the baggage is that it loses a lot of distinction. Yeah, I'm kinda glad I'm not the one who actually has to make these decisions.

I have to say though, I'm kinda with Maro when it comes to not keywording downsides, just because it would result in so many keywords that all see play at once. I don't want this to become Keyword: The Remembering.

>>47710370
>shadow
I really hate this keyword. I hate horsemanship too, for similar reasons. "Flying with different flavor" is just annoying.

>But flying can still block non-flying, shadow can't block non-shadow

Yes, I understand there is a difference, but not enough of one to overcome my objection.

>>47710446
>I really hate this keyword. I hate horsemanship too.
>Yes, I understand there is a difference, but not enough of one to overcome my objection.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

44KB, 375x523px

>>47710446
Same here. "Flying by a different name" is kinda annoying. Though I will say that I do occasionally enjoy the "Can't be blocked except by creatures with flying or reach" ability, I still don't want it keyworded, and I only want it used sparingly.

>>47710510
Have you ever considered that it might be in your best interest not to look quite so smug? I mean, he has a point, Shadow inhabits a space that Flying pretty much has covered.

>>47710551
>I mean, he has a point, Shadow inhabits a space that Flying pretty much has covered.
If you find a card with flying in my set, I'll get back to you on that.

File: RB06 Forbidden Sealing Ritual.jpg (43KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 375x523px

>>47710370
This is to replace Oilflesh Thing? That's too bad, I liked Oilflesh Thing. This is a solid card too, however.
>>47710446
>>47710515
>Objections to Shadow
If I remember correctly, it straight replaces flying in his set, so there aren't multiple types of common evasion floating around. I could be wrong, though.

I think I have this one in a better place now. Designing is easier not at 4am.

>>47710558
So, in order to make Shadow work in your set, you had to get rid of an evergreen keyword that's been around is nearly every set in Magic's history, that also already has a bunch of cards that interact with it in meaningful ways.

...

Do you seriously not see the issue here?

File: Clashmaster Blasterbeast.png (259KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 375x523px

>>47710591
>This is to replace Oilflesh Thing? That's too bad, I liked Oilflesh Thing. This is a solid card too, however.
o no, it was replacing this guy

>>47710591
What if the creature you return has Vanishing already?

>>47710427
>I agree with you on "Legendary" but I also agree with Maro that the rules baggage associated with that particular should either be gotten rid of or redesigned. He's right, why does something like "Legendary," that sounds good, actually have a downside?
Which is why "Unique" makes more sense. Different implications.

>I have to say though, I'm kinda with Maro when it comes to not keywording downsides, just because it would result in so many keywords that all see play at once. I don't want this to become Keyword: The Remembering.
The advent of reminder text helps with that, and making sure your keywords are actually descriptive (and not just cool sounding) is important too.

You see "Defender" and you've got a pretty good idea what it does. I think "Unique" would be a fine alternative to "Legendary" in the same vein. It also doesn't have to be a supertype: it could be an ability instead.

>>47710603
To my knowledge, each instance of Vanishing triggers separately.

>>47710594
>an evergreen keyword that's been around is nearly every set in Magic's history
How exceptionally boring.

> that also already has a bunch of cards that interact with it in meaningful ways.
Yeah but none of those cards are in the set so they don't matter at all in this conversation.

>Do you seriously not see the issue here?
Not at all. I'm exploring the mechanics + themes of the set.
Blah blah blah offense is never given only taken blah blah yer bein' pissy over nothing.

>>47710601
Oh! In that case, I like the new version much better.

>>47710697
Ye me too. It's definitely more interesting and fits the gold border better (imo).

>>47710558
So what is Shadow supposed to be simulating, on a lore-level, in your set? Could whatever it is you're tying to accomplish happen in a way that isn't so mechanically derivative? IIRC, shadow was originally invented for creatures that were trapped between planes or something, and so could only interact with each other.

>>47710739
>So what is Shadow supposed to be simulating, on a lore-level, in your set?
Pretty much dead-on exactly the same thing that it embodied every other time it showed up.

>creatures that were trapped between planes or something, and so could only interact with each other.
Yep that about sums it up.

>>47710757
So if they can only interact with each other, how are they able to harm a planeswalker?

>>47710829
Planeswalkers move between planes. It's not too much of a leap to assume they might cross paths.

>>47710829
>How do things trapped between planes interact with a planeswalker
I mean they say there's no such thing as a stupid question...

>>47710648
Well the official reasoning behind it being benched is
>Shadow leads to non-interactive games where neither side’s creatures can interact with the other. Fliers, in contrast, have evasion but can still block when necessary.
Which makes perfect sense. Shadow leads to situations where there are no decisions to be made: one guy's creatures have shadow and the other guy's doesn't, so the combat phase just becomes subtraction. MTG's combat phase should be about making tactical decisions and sacrifices: if I attack with this guy he can't block next turn, or if I block with this guy he'll die but I won't take damage this turn is that a good choice? Does he have a creature with flash in hand? Vigilance? Defender? None of that matters if you've got one guy with shadow and another guy without.

Removing combat decisions removes arguably the most interesting element of MTG, and that's poor design. Many keywords remove SOME combat decisions but shadow simply removes too many.

>>47710838
>>47710847
I've generally assumed that a planeswalker duel takes place on a single plane. It's why you don't have to resummon your creatures every turn: if you were jumping from plane to plane your creatures couldn't follow.

Planeswalkers aren't Eldrazi: they aren't extra-planar entities. They can freely move between planes, but they don't exist on two planes at once.

>>47711024
MaRo isn't always right. His opinions are just opinions like everyone else's. He hates Banding and Storm too, but I think people should feel free to include those mechanics on their cards if they feel like it.

File: Alephs Servant.png (256KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 375x523px

>>47711024
Shadow makes combat decisions considerably more interesting. By dividing the battlefield in two, and having ~40% of creatures either have or directly engage with shadow (pic related), the situation is created where you fight on two fronts rather than one.

Do you trade creature X and leave your shadow battlefield open? Do you sac your shadowy Ancient Apparition for a non-shadow creature to bolster your regular battlefield? etc.

The intent is to create a unique style of gameplay to differentiate the feel of playing the set from other sets before it. You are looking at shadow, the keyword, as an evasion ability. It isn't, it is a keyword that in the set divides the battlefield into two fronts.

This is also an active choice to create a deckbuilding challenge in limited, which is the primary focus of the set (3x draft). The draft format is intended to be higher skill, which is also why it is a tricolor set.

I have reasons for the decisions made. I'm not just hammering my face into shadow and hoping it works.

>>47710648
>How exceptionally boring.
>Translation: Why should cards be good when they could be UNIQUE?
Oh great, you're just another Frontier Fellow. Good luck, for your set that you'll have trouble getting good feedback for. Goodbye, for when you leave after realizing most people here aren't going to praise you for being different. And good riddance, for when that finally happens.

>>47711241
>People gettin' angry
have a snickers boi. Everything'll be okay.

for real though, what I said actually translates to "How exceptionally boring."

I don't know how you translated english to english and fucked it up so bad but maybe you used Yahoo Translate...

For the record, I'm not this guy >>47711241 I'm the guy being civil.

>>47711207
Okay, let's compare two games.

In your set, the attacker and defender each have 5 creatures, 3 without shadow, 2 with shadow.

In another set, the attacker and defender have 5 creatures, none of which have shadow.

Attacker attacks with all 5 creatures. In which game does the defender have more options?

Now, you appear to be arguing that the set MOVES the decision making away from combat but doesn't eliminate it: you choose which creatures to spend mana summoning. That's not entirely invalid, but I'll remind you that in most situations you only get to draw one card each turn, inherently limiting your choices at this stage. If I'm misinterpreting your argument let me know.

File: cip_cip__green_giant____by_tommasorenieri-d73f4kg.jpg (229KB, 920x869px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 920x869px

At any rate, all this haterade actually sort of inspired a card design. So let's get back to not bein' insufferable donglet supremes : )

File: The Beast That Sleeps.png (270KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 375x523px

>>47711721
that's not what I posted but there's the art if you want it :|

>>47711718
>That's not entirely invalid, but I'll remind you that in most situations you only get to draw one card each turn, inherently limiting your choices at this stage
This is covered in the overarching design of the set. There is relatively high amount of card draw compared to other sets. At least, that is the intent and will be worked on. White will probably get some form of card draw within the common slot when I get working on a second draft.

File: Z.jpg (145KB, 750x523px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 750x523px

>>47711766
>>47711718
Pic related for a few examples of what I'd consider "Core" cards of the set's design ideas. They may change, but the ideas are somewhat expressed in them.

>>47711718
>Attacker attacks with all 5 creatures. In which game does the defender have more options?
This is a situation I'm aware of. It is exactly the same thing with flying. The only difference is flying gives the defender options.

Comparatively, the amount of cards with "Reach" in my set is extremely high.

I don't like passive games so I'm not entirely put off by this, also. A small sub-focus of design is steering the set away from stalemate games, which are some of my least favorite experiences in mtg.

>>47711207
but anon. have you playtested it?

>>47712060
I haven't finished a first draft yet.

I've playtested what scraps I had to get up to this point which gave me a lot of what I talked about there, design wise. I have to wait for a full set to be done to playtest it in full though.

>>47707204
Reword the first ability like Lightform, but instead of manifest a card, you're returning target card from a graveyard. You don't need the "enchant creature" restriction - if someone manages to move your Aura around then good for them.

Remove the "may" from the second ability, and it becomes an actual downside that can justify the low cost. You may want it to only trigger for nontokens.

The third ability works.

File: Tornado Primarch.png (296KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 375x523px

>>47711735
have shadow

>>47712696
Why is that green? And don't give me the Syndrome 'when everyone's super' answer, either, why is that shit green?

>>47712757
Because it's actually flying hate, everyone on the same level.

>>47713940
>All creatures lose flying

Which type of -1/-1 counter mechanic would you like to see based off of old +1/+1 mechanics:

-1/-1 Unleash
You may have this creature enter the battlefield with a -1/-1 counter on it. It can't be blocked as long as it has a -1/-1 counter on it.

-1/-1 Evolve
Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under an opponents control, if that creature has greater power or toughness than this creature, put a -1/-1 counter on that creature.

-1/-1 Graft
This permanent enters the battlefield with N -1/-1 counters on it. Whenever another creature enters the battlefield, if this permanent has a -1/-1 counter on it, you may move a -1/-1 counter from this permanent onto that creature

-1/-1 Modular
This enters the battlefield with N -1/-1 counters on it. When it dies, you may put its -1/-1 counters onto target creature

-1/-1 Reinforce
(cost) (Discard this card: Put N -1/-1 counters onto target creature.)

-1/-1 Scavenge
Exile this card from your graveyard: Put a number of -1/-1 counters equal to this card's power on target creature. Do this only as a sorcery.

-1/-1 Bolster
Choose a creature an opponent controls with the highest toughness or tied for the highest toughness among creatures they control. Put N -1/-1 counters on that creature.

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

45KB, 375x523px

>>47714090
>Unleash
Reverse-Unleash seems fine, particularly if there's more design space than just making them unblockable.
>Evolve
I dislike Reverse-Evolve because regular Evolve becomes successively harder to trigger while Reverse-Evolve always remains easy to trigger. The solution is to put it only on big beefy creatures, but that limits design space.
>Graft
Somewhere in the middle. On the one hand, its not infinitely easy to trigger. On the other hand, it discourages your opponent from playing creatures when they know they're just going to get Reverse-Grafted onto, particularly if you have more than one Reverse-Graft creatures out. Yes, I'll blank your next X creatures, thank you. And because it's optional, they can't even necessarily bait it out with chump targets.
>Modular
Seems fine. Makes for a weird card space though, where you have a bunch of 3/3s that are functionally 1/1s because they enter with 2 -1/-1 counters with no way to remove them.
>Reinforce
Turns too many cards into removal. Dislike.
>Scavenge
Turns your dead cards into removal. Dislike.
>Bolster
Seems fine, as long as it's not too repeatable.

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

50KB, 375x523px

Thoughts on this /tg/?

>>47714956
wut

>>47714983
>Vigilance in black
nope.jpg

>>47714956
The first big concern is what happens when it has two conflicting characteristic defining abilities.

The other is that it's a mess to track. Just have it exile two Hyenas from your graveyard and refer to the exiled cards.

File: Jurrma Hordebreaker.jpg (46KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 375x523px

>>47714987
Naturally the set would include more hyenas.

>>47714983

Maybe use an effect similar to Cairn Wanderer or Soulflayer?

>>47715042
>The first big concern is what happens when it has two conflicting characteristic defining abilities.
Such as?

>The other is that it's a mess to track. Just have it exile two Hyenas from your graveyard and refer to the exiled cards.
You're probably right.

File: Legacy of Yeenoghu.jpg (49KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 375x523px

>>47715042
>>47715070
Better?

Thoughts on the ability to receive stacking effects from earlier castings of the same card?

>>47715070
>Such as?
Anything that defines P/T.

File: Gnoll Skeptic.jpg (45KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 375x523px

>>47715124
Oh, like "This Creature's power and toughness are each equal to number of X in your Y" combined with "This creatures power and toughness is equal to the number of A in your B"? That would present a problem, true. Thankfully there aren't any hyena cards with those abilities. In fact there's only one hyena card ever printed IIRC, so I pretty much have a clean slate to work with here.

File: Lurkers.jpg (2MB, 752x3661px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 752x3661px

>>47706856
>Common lands edition!
A few of these could technically count

File: Akromav2.png (1MB, 744x1039px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 744x1039px

>>47714983
>>47715056
Changed a few things. Got rid of the flavor text.

>>47715006
Thanks.

>>47715387
No period after the protection ability. It should at least have flying by default, and you could cut some of the obsoleted keywords.

>>47715387
I thought fear was replaced with menace now. Or am I thinking of something else?

>>47715849
Fear was replaced with intimidate. Intimidate was replaced with menace.

File: Blessing of Zendikar.png (288KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 375x523px

How OP / shit is it?

>>47716549
kinda dumb, cant I pay 3 and do the put X 1/1 into play twice to get 9 1/1 for 5 mana?

>>47716627
*three times

>>47716627
>>47716643
You can't choose the same mode more than once unless the spell itself specifies you can ala the Confluences from Commander2015.

>>47716627
You can't choose a mode more than once unless the card allows you to.

>>47716549
Way too much text. Too many options just make it look cluttered rather than cool. Definitely scrap the fight mode, and perhaps the lure mode. The other options that target should all have "up to X target".

File: Akromas.png (793KB, 1125x523px) Image search: [Google]

793KB, 1125x523px

>>47716701
I was thinking of removing the lifegain mode and the lure mode, and then I think I know a way I can make the fight mode a bit shorter. The absence of the "up to" was meant to be a restriction for pumping X too high, but I guess I don't need that on a mythic sorcery anyway.

Unrelated, but here's my takes on the other 3 colors of Akroma.
The flying, trample, and protections are things both normal Akromas have.
The flash, madness, and convoke are from the red one's can't be countered for casting abilities.
The prowess and dethrone, menace and undying, and hexproof and tornado elemental abilities are there for parallels to combat abilities like WAkroma's first strike and vigilance, or RAkroma's firebreathing and morph.

File: Terra.jpg (148KB, 650x908px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 650x908px

How do you guys feel about Force of Will cards made using MSE?

>>47717085
Feel free, but you won't get a lot of feedback here.

>>47717085
Well, I don't feel one way or another about it. Though I'd probably feel better about it if I were a fan of the game. And you'll have a hard time getting feedback due to the lack of players in these threads familiar with the game. Same reason we don't host custom Netrunner or Yu-Gi-Oh cards, nobody here is interested in those games.

I mean, if you want to explain it and see if any of us are interested, I'll listen.

>>47715250
I really like the concept, but I'm like 900% sure that something like this wouldn't get printed. If they were morph creatures without a mana cost, meaning they can only be morphed I could see it being a thing, but the way this works mean that you essentially have 6 different cards with the same name, and that isn't kosher.

>>47715250
Yeah, I'm with >>47717425 these cards seem like they would just be better as regular Morph creatures. Just say, ah, the plane the action takes place on is an aquatic world, and Morph is represented by shapes in the water, or something.

>>47717355
Well, since you've expressed some interest, Force of Will is a card game very similar to MTG. The core difference is that there's only 1 main phase, you attack with one creature at a time and get dumped back to main phase, you can choose to attack tapped creatures directly, and most importantly, you have a secondary deck that houses all of your lands.

It works like Commander where you have a card called a "Ruler". They have abilities, but the most commonly used ability is the "Call Stone" function where you tap it and put the top of your secondary deck into the field. Your main deck has no lands in it mind you, so you can never be flooded or starved.

Depending on the deck, your Ruler (Commander) can then flip and do some other things.

Other than those core differences, it's very similar to MTG. The numbers are also a bit bigger, but you have 4000 health (40 technically) so there's that.

>>47717465
Oh and you draw before untap, which means you can use unused mana during your turn and then untap them and use again.

That's also one of the big critical differences.

>>47713940
>And don't give me the Syndrome 'when everyone's super' answer, either
See >>47713961

>>47717465
>The core difference is that there's only 1 main phase, you attack with one creature at a time and get dumped back to main phase
So, it's like Hearthstone where your creatures have "T: This creature fights target creature or deals damage equal to its power to target player."

>secondary deck
I'd like to hear a bit more about how lands work in this game. This sounds like an interesting variant of the mana system, which itself is brilliant.

>4000 health (40 technically)
I'll never understand the Japanese use of numbers with an arbitrary number of zeroes at the end. It doesn't make your dick any bigger, and it doesn't make your game any better, why do it?

>>47717567
Well you got your basic lands.
Dual Lands enter the field and have no strings attached.
Then you have the special stones. http://db.fowtcg.us/?do=search&exact=yes&orderby=setnum&format=New+Frontiers&cardtype%5B%5D=Special+Magic+Stone&cardtype%5B%5D=Special+Magic+Stone%2FTrue+Magic+Stone

They range from having abilities tailored for specific rulers to producing every color with strings attached.

Moon Shade is a pain stone that hurts you by 200 Life each time you try to use a color

Ruler's Memoria is a stone that produces any color but you need to have a "Regalia" on the field, which are mostly cost 0... enchantments that do busted things if they existed in MTG.

>>47717567
100 yen is about 1.00 dollar. They're used to their numbers being two orders of magnitude higher.

File: NT-084 C.jpg (102KB, 650x908px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 650x908px

>>47717714
Straying off topic but I really like Hymnal's Memoria. The "Ruler" it works with has the ability to let you look at the top of your deck at any point in time, so whenever you have the fortune of calling that land, you get a free draw.

Gotta stay on topic though, so here's another FoW card I made

>>47717714
That is interesting how their dual-lands are much more prevalent. Is multicolor much bigger on FOW than MTG?

I think you could've just said "Moon Shade is City of Brass."

So, the ability to get cards from your second deck, that's free and can be used every turn? And the card you get is random?

>>47717784
Oh right, I guess that kinda makes sense.

File: NT-085 R.jpg (105KB, 650x908px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 650x908px

>>47717789
Multicolor is much much bigger in this game due to the ease of access. Just recently, rotation was sprung early in the tournament scene, so a card that punished you for using non-basic lands was removed from play. Now we can be greedy again.

The secondary deck otherwise known as your stone deck is a hidden zone. You shuffle it at the start of the game. Once per turn you can either flip your Ruler (Judgment) or Tap your Ruler to "Call a Stone". You take the top of your stone deck and put it into play.

File: NT-086 R.jpg (118KB, 650x908px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 650x908px

>>47717816
And this is the flip side of a Ruler. The J-Ruler. It can attack, block, use it's abilities, and even call stones.

>>47717816
So, mana or "Judgment." I imagine that's something advantageous, yes? Hmm... let me guess, it turns the Ruler into a creature.

Also, why is that girl wearing a Vive?

>>47717833
Whoops, spoke too late.

Wait, if it can get you mana as a creature, why ever not flip it?

>>47717850
It turns your Ruler into a J-Ruler. In this game, there is a clear distinction between a creature (resonator) and a J-Ruler.

If you have a spell that can only target creatures, it cannot target a J-Ruler. However, in >>47717787 it says J/resonator. That "J/" allows it to target a J-Ruler.

I should mention that Ruler's are untargetable. They don't have ATK or DEF, so you can't like -500 DEF them or something.

When a J-Ruler dies, they go back to the "Ruler Zone" (much like in Commander) and they become what the game considers "Astral". At that point they can't use their abilities, and can only call stones

>>47717861
Calling a stone and flipping your ruler are exclusive actions. You cannot do both on one turn. So essentially you'd be putting yourself behind by 1 mana if your opponent doesn't flip on their next turn. Plus you're at risk of having your ruler killed by the plethora of kill spells that black and red have to offer.

>>47717895
>>47717886
Huh. OK, that is kinda interesting. I have to ask though, what the fuck does the last ability on >>47717833 mean?

File: NT-089 R.jpg (170KB, 650x908px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 650x908px

>>47718049
In this latest block (I'm trying my best to convert words from FoW to MTG), we were introduced to jrulers with God's Arts. They are just fancy activate abilities that can only be activated once per game.

What that ability does is simply "Activate me for free before you proceed to damage calculation: Prevent any damage that would be dealt to this card, and then put a ton of counters onto the card in this post"

Here's an aforementioned regalia. This one has the potential to become 20/20 with Trample. Only except having all excess damage get routed to the player, it goes to the original target. As in if I choose to attack a creature on your field and you block with another creature, I kill the blocker and then the excess damage goes to the creature I initially attacked.

So do any of you nerds know how to get the paint brush to work in MSE? I'd rather not fuck around for hours trying to draw my set emblem using blocks and an awkward snap grid.

File: huh.png (22KB, 653x614px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 653x614px

>>47718967
This thingy

>>47718967
You can also make your symbol outside of MSE and import the image through the symbol creator. As long as it's black and white, fits in a squareish space, and crisp-edged, it should work fine.

>>47719438
Oh hey that's fucking rad
Thanks anon

File: UR04 Passionate Pair.jpg (95KB, 752x523px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 752x523px

Dead thread.

I'm taking a break from rares to do some much needed pruning, tuning, and editing. So, here's a new red uncommon.

>>47720112
I get the flavor, but does this really need to be a flip card?

It could really just be "Put two +1/+1 counters on ~."

KISS or something like that

>>47720781
DFCs are a major set mechanic, and there are no +1/+1 counters in the set at all.

>>47720794
>DFCs are a major set mechanic, and there are no +1/+1 counters in the set at all.
That kind of makes sense then, but it still feels a bit over-complicated for what it does.

>>47720112
there needs to be two artworks were the woman flips if the guy dies.

File: UR01 Seismantis Matriarch.jpg (51KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 375x523px

>>47720800
By their nature, DFCs have a higher level of complexity than the usual card. I don't think this is too complex at uncommon.
>>47720809
I actually left the flavortext genderless until I found acceptable art. The only reason the girl dies and the guy flips is because I found good "sad warrior guy" art first. You find me some art, I'll make alternating versions, no problem.

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

42KB, 375x523px

Challenge /tg/

Design a card that gives an opponent a choice.

>>47720855
>By their nature, DFCs have a higher level of complexity than the usual card. I don't think this is too complex at uncommon.
No I mean, it's not a card that needs to be a DFC. The effect could fit on a non-flip card,making it a flip card makes it more complex than it needs to be.

Not really a huge thing though.

File: UB09 Price of Avarice.jpg (47KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 375x523px

>>47720889

File: Remember or Forget.png (250KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 375x523px

>>47720889

File: whatever.jpg (59KB, 736x509px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 736x509px

>>47720112
here?

>>47720896
How would you go about fitting the effect on one card, anon?

>>47720980
read the thread

File: Alternate Versions.jpg (307KB, 752x1046px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 752x1046px

>>47720974
Here you go!
>>47720985
The only suggestion was +1/+1 counters. I'm not using those in this set, man.

>>47721021
>The only suggestion was +1/+1 counters. I'm not using those in this set, man.
Ye, if it doesn't work in your set it doesn't.

>>47720112
Lose the shift ability. It already has enough going on and adds nothing to the flavor.

>>47721032
Shift is important to the RG draft archetype in the set, it's arguably the most important part of the card.

>>47721048
If it's so important then you'd want it upfront, rather than as an extra bonus that requires you to draft multiple uncommons to even be able to use.

>>47721040
cheaper Extinction with a downside?

>>47721061
It's upfront plenty, anon. I need it to be well-distributed without completely inundating draft pools. Putting this instance of it on the backside of a DFC adds more shift to the set, but in a more controlled increment.

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

44KB, 375x523px

>>47720889
I've always loved Hall of Gemstones, in all its stupid glory.

>>47721099
I like this. I feel like it doesn't need to be symmetrical, which would clean up the wording, but it should be fine as is.

>>47721086
I'd argue it's not. But I'm not going to fight you on it.

>>47721149
The riff was on Hall of Gemstone, which was symmetrical. Made me think about a cycle of Halls, which based around choosing colors on upkeep, but found that red and black were difficult. Green exists (lands tap for the chosen color), and white was just there (tax on the chosen color), and blue was either going to be "spells and permanents are the chosen color" or "spells of the chosen color have flash, spells not of the chosen color must be cast as sorceries". Was considering black to be either a creature hate on the chosen color or "counter spells of the chosen color unless its controller pays life". Couldn't figure out red at all.

File: Z.jpg (855KB, 1875x1569px) Image search: [Google]

855KB, 1875x1569px

I'm just trying to really get a full list of commons done so these mostly probably suck because I threw them together pretty quick. Red's all I have left to finish in the common slot, then I'll move on to uncommons & refining & then rares & actual for real playtesting.

Oh boy!

>>47721430
Flash abilities above enchant abilities.

Prideful Disdain is pushed with the cantrip.

Grace of Aveza is interesting but should have a different trigger than Pride (if you can't pride, it makes it harder to achieve. if you can, it makes it easier).

File: Urza, Master Artificer.png (399KB, 374x522px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 374x522px

How do we make an Urza planeswalker?

>>47721502
you don't

>>47721512
This

File: Z.jpg (1022KB, 1875x1569px) Image search: [Google]

1022KB, 1875x1569px

>>47721430
and red coms. Again many probably suck as done fast but EYYY.

Officially filled every common slot for the set!

I may post a full imgur album later if I get around to it.

File: Truth or Dare.png (325KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 375x523px

>>47720889

File: W 18 Searing Blast.jpg (34KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 375x523px

>>47714351
Hmm, I might just play it save and stick with persist and wither.

Is this fine in mono white?

>>47712081
whats blue in that, besides hexprof ?

File: 139.jpg (63KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 312x445px

>>47724044
More like, what about that is red?

File: U 10 Fading Phantasm.jpg (39KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 375x523px

>>47723987

>>47723987
White doesnt get -1/-1 counters.

>>47724475
http://magiccards.info/query?q=o%3A%22-1%2F-1+counter%22+c%21w+f%3Amodern&v=card&s=cname

>>47724589
Yea, only on Mirrodin by the White Phyrexians or by having Persist on Lorwynn.
Other than Norn's Domain, White never puts -1/-1 counters on other creatures.

If you really want it to stay the same, make it deal 3 damage and give it Wither, ala Puncture Blast, and maybe try to find some good Lorwynn-esque art to go on it.

>>47724589
Scars block doesnt count. And lorywn block doesnt have cards that put them on opponents cards.

There is no precedence for placing -1/-1 counters on opponents creatures in white.

>>47724630
>>47724640
Why would Scars not count?

>>47724663
That set is about as bad a precident for anything at all as it gets.

>>47724663
Think vapor snag and phyrexian mana.
And a hundred more color pie violations.

>>47724714
>>47724727
No, Scars was just following specific themes that deviate from the norm of most sets. It's only bad for precedent when compared to the average set. If the guy is making a set with the same mechanical themes (-1/-1 counters matter, black colorbleed, etc.), then it's the best source of precedent available.

>>47724757
Still waiting on a green, white, blue or red color bleed set.

>>47724757
the only reason Scars was able to do such bold things with color is because of the fact it is motherfucking Phyrexia.

I guarantee you a rando set in this thread hasn't even remotely earned such significant color bleeding.

>>47724893
>Design mechanics have to be "earned"
Hahaha holy shit, anon. This is a custom card thread, get off your fucking high horse

>>47724826
How would a blue bleed world even work?

>>47724640
What if it only worked non-white attcking or blocking creatures? White breaks the pile all the time in favour of 'racist' cards. Se Sunlance and Crovax

>>47725080
Every colour gets.. card draw?
No no, every colour gets counterspells

>>47724961
-1/-1 counters in white is a shit idea.

That's all there is to it.

>>47725241
You're free to think that. But don't tell another dude clearly pretty new to card design that he isn't allowed to do so. Scars did it, there's design space there; your personal dislike for that fact has no bearing on the situation.

>>47725322
>You're free to think that.
>your personal dislike
yeah nothing to do with me. -1/-1 counters in white are a bad idea full stop.

>>47725386
You can say it has nothing to do with you all you want, but it's still just your opinion. It's subjective by its very nature.

>>47725494
>It's subjective by its very nature.
>The basic core design principles of MTG are subjective
yeah I guess if you want to go down that road...

but I'd rather just go down the road of saying the basic design principles of MTG exist, .'. -1/-1 counters in white is a shit idea.

>>47725528
Again, you're correct only when speaking in terms of the average set. However, if every set followed identical design principles with zero deviation, the game would quickly become stale. Which is why Wizards tweaks and bends its own rules in different ways with each new set. Colored artifacts, colorshifted cards, artifacts matter, enchantments matter, dragons matter, exile matters; each tweaked the standard to play into a set's major themes. Black colorbleed (including -1/-1 counters in all colors) is just another example in a long line of examples. Saying that change or deviation from the norm is bad "full stop" is patently ridiculous. It just has to be constructed carefully and handled properly.

>>47725722
>It just has to be constructed carefully and handled properly.
AKA
Earned.

Moving on.

>>47725745
>It just has to be constructed carefully and handled properly.
>AKA earned
The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The only justification you have to make for a deviation is "it's the theme of the set." How well or how poorly you translate that theme into individual cards determines whether or not your deviation works, but the same holds true for the design of any card.

>>47725822
>The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
wut

>>47725842
"Earn" implies that someone has to win the right to even propose a particular idea, which is a ridiculous notion. A given design idea isn't good or bad inherently; rather, its quality depends upon its execution. "Enchantments matter" was an interesting theme, but mediocre handling of that idea within the Theros block made it a pretty poor deviation. Additionally, the further an idea deviates from standard design principles, the harder it becomes to execute properly, which is why outlandish ideas rarely work. But "colorbleed" is far from that end of the spectrum.

File: UR10 Blazing Bludgeon.jpg (52KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 375x523px

>>47726093
I like primal a lot in theory, but in practice it just pushes each card with it back to 5cmc, which is going to be rough to balance. Maybe go the converge route, where you get a bonus if the card was cast with mana only from basic lands?

>>47726159
It doesn't feel like the trample is doing a whole lot since you can just burn away the blockers.

>>47726259
Trample keeps the aura relevant even when you don't dump mana into it.

>>47726296
>5-cost aura
>relevant because of trample
nope

>>47726429
Evasion is huge in limited, man. And how would removing trample make the card more relevant?

>>47721512
I didn't get what this refers to

>>47726478
>And how would removing trample make the card more relevant?
I never said it would.

>>47724069
UB is mainly reanimating creatures and makin zombies. UR is the pair of instants and sorceries. URB, together, can reanimate any card from graveyards.

just like B, destroy living; G, destroy nonliving; BG, destroy anything logic

>>47726613
The other guy suggested removing it, then. Sorry, man. It's hard to keep track of who says what sometimes.

File: W 15 Resuscitate.jpg (40KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 375x523px

>>47724475
>>47724589
>>47724630
>>47724640
>>47724663
>>47724714
>>47724727
>>47724757
>>47724961
>>47725082
>>47725241
>>47724893
>>47725322
>>47725386
>>47725494
>>47725528
>>47725722
>>47725745
>>47725822
>>47725842
>>47725948

well that blew out of proportion, thanks for the feedback though, I'll stray away from white putting -1/-1 counters on opponent's creatures

I'm planning on keeping persist in WBGr and Wither in BGRu (Small caps colors at higher rarities only).

File: Jubilitic Headliner.png (283KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 375x523px

finished commons so working on some rares now for fun faction common next one the done sorta thing here it is.

File: Jubilitic Headliner.png (284KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 375x523px

>>47727169
alternate version fits faction themes better

>>47727236
This one I like a lot better than the first. The other you could shave a keyword and have a decent enough two color card.

File: RR04 Riftborne Simulacrum.jpg (51KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 375x523px

>>47727169
>>47727236
I really dig both designs, but the second one is better. You should find room for the first one somewhere, though, it's really solid.

File: 2Q==.jpg (319KB, 1875x523px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 1875x523px

Heyyy though one thing I haven't posted yet from the common slot is the good ol' lands!

They've gone through a lot of revamps but these ones are sticking pretty nicely. They work super well in the set, where card draw is pretty vital design-wise.

File: 9k=.jpg (342KB, 1875x523px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1875x523px

>>47727441
also the uncommon lands are overpowered but I feel like having lands that people would have wet dreams about in the set is kind of nice.

Obvious Ravnica homage is obvious.

>>47727511
I think they're good, but they're not overpowered. They don't really ramp you, nor do they increase your mana density in the same way that Karoos do. They fix like crazy, sure, but get absolutely blown out by any sort of land hate.

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

274KB, 375x523px

also after some quick initial tests by myself I found a few commons that I didn't like and am looking into replacements. How does pic related look to you?

File: RR01 Battlefield Architect.jpg (50KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 375x523px

>>47727699
Seems a little undercosted since it triggers twice, but otherwise looks fine.

>>47727843
This card made me realize with all that shadow stuff my set is almost literally MTG: Raging River Edition.

so thanks for that I guess...

File: UR07 Selifs Maneuver.jpg (54KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 375x523px

>>47727863
Happy to help, man! Assuming that revelation helped you in some way, of course.

>>47727699
The more I think about this, the more I think it's ok. But I still feel like it should be GU since it does just draw you cards and doesn't really care about the creature (you can even stick it on an opponent's creature).

File: Ego Dig.png (266KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 375x523px

>>47728119
I like it

File: Trailblaze.png (706KB, 750x1046px) Image search: [Google]

706KB, 750x1046px

>>47727319
This is neat as balls. I'm continually impressed by how well you're using Vanishing.

File: Dawnheart.png (859KB, 750x1046px) Image search: [Google]

859KB, 750x1046px

>>47721567
Underrated card. I love the shit out of this, well done.

>>47727511
I'd like to see these lands in SOI limited actually. They are a great way to put lands in your gy and they mimic Ravnica's karoo power level in a nice way.

File: UB12 Utilitarianism.jpg (42KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 375x523px

>>47728322
Thanks, anon! I really appreciate that.
>Trailblaze
Generator Servant ritual? I like it.

>>47728720
I would not, SOI really is a not-multicolor set

>>47730727
SOI is not, (although it has dual color tribal theme) but the standard environment is.

>>47730012
I would expect this sort of sacrifice hate in white, not black.

>>47706856
Finished the first cycle of my New Age of Kamigawa set, Legendary Samurais.

All are Mythic Rare, all have Bushido X and they all play a significant part in the fluff, being leaders of factions or famed heroes.

>Takeno, Kami of Bushido (1)(W)(W)(W)
>Legendary Creature – Spirit Samurai (MR)
>Morale – Untap all Samurai you control, those creatures get +1/+1 until the end of turn.
>Takeno, Kami of Bushido has Bushido X, where X is the amount of Samurai you control.
>You may cast Legendary spells as though they had flash.
>3/3

>Junpei, Champion of the People (W)(U)(G)
>Legendary Creature – Human Samurai (MR)
>Vigilance, Hexproof.
>Champion three Creatures.
>Junpei, Champion of the People has all activated abilities being championed by it, has Bushido X, where X is the highest toughness among those creatures and can block an additional X creatures
>6/6

>Hideyoshi, Great Unifier (3)(W)(R)(G)
>Legendary Creature – Human Samurai (MR)
>Trample, Indestructible.
>Morale – Target creature you control must be blocked this turn if able.
>Hideyoshi, Great Unifier has Bushido X, where X is the ammount of +1/+1 counters on it.
>(R/G): Target Samurai you control fights target creature you don't control. Put a +1/+1 counter on that creature at the end of combat.
>4/4

>Akira, Ronin Avenger (3)(W)(B)(R)
>Legendary Creature – Human Samurai (MR)
>Double Strike, Menace.
>Morale – If it's your turn, untap all creatures that attacked this turn, after this phase there's an additional combat phase.
>Akira, Ronin Avenger has Bushido X, where X is the number of Legendary creatures you control.
>5/4

>Gamagori, Ninja Outcast (2)(W)(U)(B)
>Legendary Creature – Ninja Samurai (MR)
>Skulk, Deathtouch.
>Gamagori, Ninja outcast has Bushido X, where X is the number of cards exiled with it.
>Ninjutsu (W)(U)(B).
>Whenever a ninja you control deals damage to an opponent, that opponent exiles a card from his hand.
>2/4

>>47732819
It's not really hate, although it can function as such, as black makes other players sac.

>>47732938
Quick reminder: Morale = Rally but with Legendary permanents.

>>47717816
I kinda like this effect, but it feels a bit like Yggsdrasil. Although it's probably fine, I'm just used to burning players for well over 1000 at a time. White-Red Little Red tends to do that, though.

As for the flip side, two-mana counters for Void (Void does not work like Moon, any stone can produce that) feels pretty bad- try to kill it, counterspell; try to kill it again, Yamato gets massive, and only succeed on the third or fourth try. Although I shouldn't complain, unchaseable BB killspell exists.

As someone who plays FoW as well as MtG, I may be slightly conservative about proper power levels in FoW.

>>47732938
>>Champion three Creatures.
I'm pretty sure this doesn't actually work. Champion was only made to handle one permanent at a time.

>>47732819
In the set, it functions as a combination of Vanishing hate and card advantage. Black seemed like the best place for it.

>>47733598
As the rules are written, yes, but the modifications needed would be minor and wouldn't change existing cards.

>>47733793
>the modifications needed would be minor and wouldn't change existing cards.
...Then why make them?

>>47733386
"Gee Bill, How Come Your Mom Lets You Play TWO Games" anon here.

I'm fucking around with a ton of things at once- trying to make a similar effect to a card in FoW while also giving EDH the wolf waifu we've always deserved.

How would I make an ETB effect for when a creature transforms? If it's ever been done before, or if it's even possible, that is- an effect that triggers immediately after the DFC flips.

Unless an ETB trigger actually works for that, which I can't imagine is right.

Also, the way she's set up, transforming is a bomb, she won't stay transformed for any length of time, you can only transform as a sorc, and I'm debating making it a choice between transforming or dropping a land that turn. When it's closer to done, you'll see why.

>>47734039
Maybe because it opens up design space for relatively little effort? Maybe he just likes Champion and wants to work with it?

File: 57633_200w[1].jpg (26KB, 200x285px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 200x285px

>>47734039
Because it would make "Champion N [objects]" work, where the current rules only support "Champion a/an [object]". It requires going from
>702.71a Champion represents two triggered abilities. “Champion an [object]” means “When this permanent enters the battlefield, sacrifice it unless you exile another [object] you control” and “When this permanent leaves the battlefield, return the exiled card to the battlefield under its owner’s control.”
to
>702.71a Champion represents two triggered abilities. “Champion N [objects]” means “When this permanent enters the battlefield, sacrifice it unless you exile another N [objects] you control” and “When this permanent leaves the battlefield, return the exiled cards to the battlefield under their owner’s control.”

Which doesn't change existing cards (N is always 1 on them) and opens design space for "Champion three creatures" or, if the rules change is more comprehensive than the one I just gave, "Champion an enchantment and a creature."

>>47734081
>How would I make an ETB effect for when a creature transforms? If it's ever been done before, or if it's even possible, that is- an effect that triggers immediately after the DFC flips.
"When this creature (enters the battlefield or) transforms into ~..."

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

50KB, 375x523px

>>47733545
I always like it when Green cares about what the other colors do. This seems like it would be bonkers with dual lands. Also inspired me to do this.

>>47734154
...OK, not going to argue this any further, but I personally don't accept either of those reasons, which is why I kinda have a problem with it.

>>47734158
>and opens design space
While true, I somehow doubt that if Wizards actually did these things, Champion would see a resurgence in popularity.

>>47734251
You have a problem with people using and expanding upon existing mechanics? Why?

File: Aytas Lone Prophet.jpg (95KB, 752x523px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 752x523px

>>47734158
Thanks muchly. Also, why not create a new keyword? At least within the span of a custom set, you can make it work however you wish. If you absolutely positively need preexisting Champion cards to work with your custom set though, I can't be as helpful.

All right, here's the end result. It's probably broken as fuck, and that's fine, this was more to test an idea. The original version of the card misses land drops in order to transform into what is essentially a 6/1 that hits something for 4 on entry, before becoming an untouchable noncreature at the end step. It starts as that untouchable noncreature, as well.

I may wind up rebalancing her for a set, but she might just be a fantasy commander for now.

>>47707732
Isn't Rikku a thief from like a group of thieves?

I don't think she's very W/U

Tidus with Vanishing is 10/10 though

>>47734360
>You have a problem with people using
No.
>expanding
Yes.
>Why?
Because rather than work within the rules, they decide to rewrite the rules. It's lazy. And understand, I have absolutely no problem with keywords or actions that are NEW (if they work within the rules currently, that is), just when existing ones are changed.

>>47734371
All of your wording that has to do with lands is wrong.
>Wolf Werewolf
Come on. This is just silly.

>>47734447
Okay, fair enough. I can get where you're coming from.

>>47734447
For some stupid reason, I thought SOI werewolves had Human/Werewolf on one side and Wolf/Werewolf on the other, for tribal reasons.
I'm actually just an idiot.

Pondering only letting her transform by sacrificing nonbasic lands, or giving her more interesting transformed mechanics. Blood Moon on an angry stick only during your turn? Maybe. Maybe.

>>47734371
Because then you have Champion for single permanent replacing and Multichampion for multi-permanent replacing, which only serves to confuse people who are familiar with the original Champion (few as they may be). I'd rather redesign old keywords to be more flexible than introduce more keywords that do almost the exact same thing (i.e. Megamorph).

I'll admit that there's space for general mechanics and space for specific ones. Otherwise we end up with no room for spell mechanics because Kicker has consumed them all in its generality. Speaking of Kicker, "Multichampion" would be an interesting variant a la Multikicker that lets you Champion any number of creatures and its abilities scale with the number Championed.

Oh wait, we've made XYZ Creatures. Kill me now.

>>47734447
So what would the non-lazy solution be? Make a new mechanic that does everything Champion does but more, call it Multichampion, and duplicate a ton of rules text? Word the entire ability explicitly on the card?

File: Return from the Pit.jpg (48KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 375x523px

Here's this again. I thought I could really simplify it, but all I really did was remove the weird bit where it enchants a card in a graveyard. And you really need everything else to make it work the way it's intended.

>>47734592
Oh god that's hilarious.

OK, so for the land thing, can you please explain why exactly you're doing this? This will allow me to help you with potential solutions.

>>47734616
All I know is XYZ was a thing Yu Gi Oh did. As an FoW player, I risk hypocrisy whenever I call a game faster than Magic too crazy, but YGO is crazy as fuck.

Although, design space is design space... I can also see how having specific clauses on the card about being able to champion multiple permanents would be way too clunky.

>>47734616
Ah, I will admit that, as far as changing rules goes, what you've done is really not that bad. The first is, yeah, obviously, spell out the whole thing. Or you could make a new ability. Or you could have multiple instances of Champion on the same card. As far as I can tell, they'll all work independently of one another. Thinking on it now, I probably did overreact a little the first time. Your solution is pretty elegant. I have to ask though, how often do you plan on using this sort of... Multichampion? Because if it's literally just this one card, then yeah, I really don't see the point of it.

>>47734685
Honestly, I don't have a good reason behind the land thing, I'm starting off with a semi-direct clone of a favorite FoW card.

Essentially, transforming a Ruler in FoW means missing a land drop, and Little Red is the one of the few who do it repeatedly. Essentially, the card I'm basing this on:
1. Transforms only when a certain card type is played, and forces the player to miss a land drop.
2. Drops a lightning bolt on something when it flips and is then a massive glass cannon attacker after the entry effect.
3. Transforms back at the end of the turn.

Now, in all actuality, my criteria for this card SHOULD be:
1. Sorcery-speed transform condition
2. Transforms into a massive beatstick with an "ETB" effect
3. Transforms back on the controller's end step as long as it hasn't been killed or removed.

In other words, the only parts that need to stay constant are a high cost to transform, a time-limited transformation rather than a conditional one, and a flip side with very high power and no change in/low toughness.

Oh, and the weeb art really isn't mandatory, I'm only using it because I dug it up for FoW but I'm still learning that template.

>>47734685
Is the enchanted creature able to know what "Return from the Pit" is? Animate Dead uses itself to track the "returned creature" and force the sacrifice. Otherwise, I'd say "When ~ leaves the battlefield, enchanted creature's controller sacrifices it." a la Grafted Wargear.

>>47734734
Well, the whole ability would be
>When ~ enters the battlefield, sacrifice it unless you exile three other creatures you control.
>When ~ leaves the battlefield, return all cards exiled with ~ to the battlefield under their owner's control"

As to using it, I'm not even the guy who made the card. And yes, for one card, there's not a lot of point, but I also think rules should be general rather than specific, and that carving out design space is an activity we can engage in just as much as R&D.

I also thought it would be interesting (and horrifying) to have a creature that has something like
>Champion any number of creatures.
>~ gets +2/+2 for each creature championed with it, and has all activated abilities, creature types, and colors of all creatures championed with it.
>Return a card exiled with ~ to the battlefield under its owner's control: Regenerate ~.

>>47734685
>Return
Just use Lightform's wording.

>>47734906
>Is the enchanted creature able to know what "Return from the Pit" is? Animate Dead uses itself to track the "returned creature" and force the sacrifice. Otherwise, I'd say "When ~ leaves the battlefield, enchanted creature's controller sacrifices it." a la Grafted Wargear.
Never mind, I'm dumb. It does know (Razor Boomerang) and Wargear's wording isn't quite that and would be odd to see on an enchantment.

File: Talia al Ghul Demons Heir3.jpg (49KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 375x523px

Another go on Talia. Removed First Strike and Lifelink, and changed the recursion to return to the battlefield instead of hand. Also changed creature type to Assassin, as that is more or less supposed to be the justification for her Karmic Justice ability.

>>47734906
>I also thought it would be interesting (and horrifying) to have a creature that has something like
Your wording should specify that it deals in creature cards.

>>47734926
Lightform doesn't do what I want Return to do. First, if Return if flickered, I don't want the player to get the creature with no string attached, thus the intervening "if it's on the battlefield" clause. Second, I don't want Return to be attached to anything else, thus the "enchant creature put onto the battlefield with ~" ability. Third, if Return leaves the battlefield, the creature it's enchanting should die again, thus the last ability.

File: Gutter Grime (2011, Innistrad) by Erica Yang.jpg (151KB, 618x445px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 618x445px

>>47734994
Yeah, cards can give abilities to other permanents that directly reference the original card. Note that it refers only to the original card, and not to any other cards with the same name. If you have multiple Gutter Grimes on the battlefield, for example, each token will refer back to the specific Gutter Grime that spawned it.

>>47735095
>Return
And in doing so have made a very boring but also very convoluted card. You've stripped away what makes MTG great (the depth of interactions) for something that's only allowed to play out exactly the way you want it to. And all those extra interactions aren't even broken. Reanimation is a strategy that already has hoops to jump through. Why belabor a player that wants to jump through even more hoops?

>>47734371
All right, taking a more reasonable crack at this because I'm actually considering some kind of small set.

Won't post another image until some actual large progress has been made. Currently,
>pondering if I should change the Super-Fight transform trigger to be a lightning bolt instead of huge creature-targeting damage,
>pondering giving transformed Aytas "this creature attacks each combat if able",
>pondering changing the transform trigger to involve sacrificing lands,
>pondering changing the transform trigger to be free if certain conditions are met ala Delirium, Threshold, or Fateful Hour,
>pondering changing a-side's second ability to be more tribal, such as giving Werewolves an effect, buff, or similar,
>pondering giving b-side an ability that transforms all human werewolves on your side of the board when she transforms into Raging Wolf Queen, and lastly,
>pondering giving her a-side innate evasion that her b-side lacks, making her difficult to kill outside of board wipes or nailing her with an instant during her transformation.

Oh, and the very slight possibility of making her Temur and branching out a bit on what's possible in the set/plane/whatever, and using semi-relevant triggers there. Possibly a Formidable that looks specifically at Werewolves...

>>47735273
>And in doing so have made a very boring but also very convoluted card.
Animate Dead is convoluted, sure, but actually quite grokkable, if you ask me, and anything but boring. Lightform-style slapping the creature on the battlefield actually removes interaction, as Animate Dead/Return from the Pit is vulnerable to enchantment removal.

>>47735407
sure keep the "sac if unattached" clause, but you don't need all the baggage in the first ability. And it's boring because an ordinary reanimation spell that's vulnerable to enchantment removal only because it's slightly cheaper than usual.

File: Boston Brand Deadman.jpg (56KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 375x523px

Yeah, this is one that's frustrated me since the beginning. The idea is that he's a Spirit that possesses a person. I'm trying to make it work as a creature, but I keep coming to the conclusion that it's just better as another Control Magic-style Aura.

>>47735273
Well, this ability isn't really done much because of how complex it is, I just wanted to see if I could do it. And really, a lot of it is just for flavor anyway. Though now that I keep thinking about it, I'm thinking that it should be changed to be more in line with how the Lazrus Pit actually works. Which means it's basically going to be another simple "creature from graveyard to battlefield" card, but I can take it. Also,
>Reanimation is a strategy that already has hoops to jump through.
Yeah, wanting to get back the creature that your opponent killed/you sacced to use its ability is a difficult hoop to jump through.

>>47735466
>sure keep the "sac if unattached" clause
What is the point of having the clause if it's never going to be used if Return gets flickered? But again, probably just going to change it soon.

>>47735532
A control magic with Bestow and no regular cost?

File: RR02 Loricks Riders.jpg (46KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 375x523px

>>47735335
If you branch out into the set, are you going to use this frame to design an original character? From my understanding, she is an adaptation of a character from another game, correct? Or will this be a set based around the lore of said other game?

>>47735532
Why not go the DFC Soul Seizer route?

File: Batarang.jpg (35KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 375x523px

>>47735551
Eh... nah, doesn't really work for me. Thanks for the suggestion though.

>>47735570
...Huh. Yeah, this could probably work. Thanks, anon. Why didn't I think of this before? Well, this is part of why I come to these threads.

And here's what I was hoping Throwing Knife would be. Though I'm starting to wonder if the "can't block" ability is maybe just a bit too good.

>>47735553
Oh, no, god no I'm not trying to translate FoW into MtG cards.

It would be a more custom thing, it's just that being a player between games, it's fun to imagine cards in each other system.

File: CM02 Advantageous View.jpg (43KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 375x523px

>>47735636
No problem, man. Always happy to help.
>Batarang
I think you've managed to capture the flavor of a batarang pretty well. If you're worried that the can't block ability is too good, I'd raise the cost before nixing it. Without it, I feel like the card would be dull.

>>47735532
Flicker wouldn't prevent it from being sac'd, returning and attaching it to the creature are all part of the same ability.

>>47735725
The anon said Return doesn't need the baggage of the first ability, which I'm assuming means cutting out the "if it's on the battlefield" part of the first ability. Which means that if Return is flickered while the first ability is on the stack, the ability will still resolve, except the creature will return to the battlefield, gain the ability, but Return won't be attached to it. In fact, if Return goes back to the battlefield, it will pull another creature out of the graveyard.

>>47735717
Oh yeah, I'll always play with mana costs before just outright nixing something if my only worry is power. And yes, that is kinda why I added the ability.

>Advantageous View
This is interesting. Could be decent on its own, but really needs support to shine. Very nice.

>>47735805
>if Return goes back to the battlefield, it will pull another creature out of the graveyard.
for which the sac clause would still be relevant

>>47735827
Yes, on the second creature, but not the first, which is what I was pointing out.

>>47735867
so the clause is still going to have a point and use

>>47735805
I wonder if you could use 'until ~ leaves the battlefield' so, "When ~ enters the battlefield, it becomes an Aura with enchant creature. Return a creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield and attach ~ to it until ~ leaves the battlefield.

>>47735969
I think it needs to specify HOW it leaves the battlefield (sacrifice, destroy, exile), so the "until" clause doesn't work.

File: Boston Brand Deadman2.jpg (93KB, 752x523px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 752x523px

OK, first go at the new Deadman. Actually, I think I do know why I didn't do a DFC before: I was so adamant to not use them outside special cases I didn't even think about it. Well, here we are. And yes, it also works a bit like Bestow, like another anon suggested.

>>47735969
All the other times I've seen Wizards do it, they use a variation of "When ~ leaves the battlefield, that creature's controller sacrifices it." I don't think it works because of the wording used. To exile something is to move it from a zone to exile. So it's easy to reverse the process. But between the battlefield and graveyard, it's not that simple.

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

42KB, 375x523px

I had a few ideas recently and I want to put them on fake cards before I forget them. I think I already forgot one, but here's the other.

What do you guys think?

>>47736052
Oh, so it's like that one girl, but with lands instead of artifacts, right? Well, I think you could change it to "You may put a land card from your hand onto the battlefield."

>>47736052
Reminds me of Ruin Ghost, only this can ramp you.

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

44KB, 375x523px

>>47736087
A bit. I was thinking of it as more of a weird Ruin Ghost, but yeah.

I guess that makes sense. I don't know why I went with the explore wording. There's not a lot that cares if a land ETBed or was "played".

Man, I wish I could remember the other idea I had. It was a decent one too.

File: RR05 Primal Practitioner.jpg (49KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 375x523px

>>47736052
Double-dipping on landfall triggers and also ramp on the sly. It's actually a really clever design. I like it.

>>47736126
Should say "copies" at the end, my bad, ignore that.

File: Dread Return.jpg (47KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 375x523px

Getting addicted to reprints. I just love seeing /co/ art on Magic cards.

>>47736126
>copy target instant or sorcery spell you control
Chain Link anon, you forgot a very important, five-letter word on this card. Think very carefully.

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

44KB, 375x523px

>>47736126
Most of my best ideas come from those I think of while doing random other shit, rather than those when I actually try to make MTG cards.

I don't know what Incarnate does, so. But Dualcaster Mage just for you at Sorcery speed seems neat. Less restrictive. You probably want to specify "for the copies".

>>47736183
>Forgot the flash
Wow, I can't believe I forgot the most important part of the card. My apologies. In my defense, it's 2am here, so I'm going to go ahead and blame that.

>>47736184
Interesting how the last ability is a big downside. Though when I did something similar, I also had it slow down things that had Flash.

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

43KB, 375x523px

>>47736268
It is neat, yeah. I dunno. Fucking with flash cards seemed a bit too niche and I like how clean the final card ended up being. It is a huge downside, which is why I gave him too many stats, but people still think he's a bit busted with haste. I dunno. Building a deck full of sorceries and relying on this guy to stay on the field to be properly reactive seems suspect, but fun.

File: RR05 Primal Practitioner.jpg (50KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 375x523px

>>47736226
>>47736183
Instead of just adding flash, I tried to go a different route.
>>47736184
That looks fun enough to build a deck around. Hard to protect, since it shuts down all of your counterspells, but that might be a good thing, balance-wise. Either way, I like it.

>>47736353
Simply elegant

>>47736374
Simply broken

>>47736268
It's a big downside but there are so many sorceries that if their cost and effect remained the same but they could be cast at instant speed would be broken as hell.

>>47736409
Yeah, now that it has more flexible timing, I should definitely up the costs.

>>47736374
Yikes. Wow, I can't even begin to think about how costly this should be. Really, the original design was much better, just add Flash.

>>47736438
For comparison Sins Past costs 4BB, doesn't also give you a 2/2, and doesn't let you do it again twice later on.

File: Visionary of the Lost.jpg (38KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 375x523px

I remembered my other idea. It was something like this. I kind of like it a lot.

Fucking hell, I kind of fucked myself by trying to make my actual set have no gold cards. The only good cards I design are two.

>>47736486
Seems incredibly niche.

>>47736374
>>47736470
OK, just to point something out, the only cards I can find that have a similar effect of casting a non-permanent card from your graveyard without paying its mana cost (ignoring Dark Dwellers because of CMC restriction) that don't also exile themselves are Spellweaver Helix and Spellweaver Volute. This ability is stupid broken.

>>47736486
Meh. I mean... I'd be hard-pressed to name a card where this might actually be useful.

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

42KB, 375x523px

>>47736518
It is. But it is a 2/2 for two, so eh. Plus, I could always print like thirty hide-aways or other stupid stuff if I were to put it in a real set.

I dunno, I'm just brainstorming with hidden zones.

>>47736532
Spelltwine does as well, netting two cards for six mana. But I see your point.

>>47736566
Ooh, I always liked this one.

>>47736570
Whoops, missed that one because of the "opponent's graveyard" bit.

>>47736570
>>47736585
Oh wait, it also exiles itself. That must've been why I didn't count it.

File: Coiling Lightning.jpg (49KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 375x523px

>>47736552
>>47736518
I only looked afterwards, But yeah, either it can be used if your opponent uses a Hideaway or something.

It also combos with Pyxis, Necropotence (haha) and Suppress. Sort of.

Anyway, niche cards are fun and it is a 2 mana 2/2 at worst, so eh.

>>47736486
>>47736566
You could probably get away with an artifact creature like Lens Keeper. It only marginally hates on a niche strategy, and the gold cost just limits it further.

File: Dren of the Night Soil.jpg (45KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 375x523px

Haha, fuck, I just realized that Gitrog kind of blew out my only legendary mythic I've ever designed. Man, fuck you Wizards and you beating me to the punch.

File: RB04 Vengeful Riftsweeper.jpg (46KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 375x523px

>>47736629
Peddled Away all over again, eh?

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

41KB, 375x523px

>>47736618
True. I guess I just picked those two colors because U gets to peek at hidden zones and W has the most "exile matters" cards.

Anyway, still kind of mad WOTC literally printed a card with Estate. Like, what are the chances. It is such a bad mechanic.

File: Goblin Electromancer (2015, Commander 2015) by Svetlin Velinov.jpg (72KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 312x445px

>>47736605
>Anyway, niche cards are fun and it is a 2 mana 2/2 at worst, so eh.
Yeah, it's 2 mana, but it's 2 mana of different colors. Even at common, those cards generally have a bit more going for them than just CMC=P=T

>>47736629
That is kinda funny. As far as this one goes, saccing three lands is pretty steep. Though I guess I could see it as a late-game card used to get your beaters before going for an alpha strike.