Custom Card Thread

File: Simulacrums.jpg (199KB, 1125x523px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1125x523px

I realize that solemn is already a pretty value heavy card, but do you think the three of them together are about the same power level?

>>51594922
>using the old primer again
Y u do dis

File: gatherin.jpg (253KB, 1164x527px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1164x527px

A while ago I used these threads to complete my custom china-lore themed set. I have it complete but just now realized I forgot to share them here, how would I go about sharing it?

>>51594971
I'm personally of the belief that since BfZ, colorless creatures have been way too efficient for their cost so I naturally dislike all three of those cards. Yes, even the one which is an actual card.

Additionally, land destruction (even of the opponent's choice) is more costly than ramping. I'd bump it up to 5 for that reason, although I understand if others disagree with me.

>>51595282
where's the new one

File: Cole Cash Grifter.jpg (58KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 375x523px

Got no feedback in the last thread for this guy. Oh shit, I have to ask about Midnighter again too.

>>51594922
Well, waking up to find the last thread dead was very disheartening.

>>51594971
Wandering's first ability is pretty similar, even a little worse in most cases, but it's second ability, in my opinion, blows the cantrip out of the water. Just to put it into perspective, if you build your deck correctly, the second ability may as well be a tutor. Don't get me wrong, I love the card, but I do think it might be too good as-is.

Fallen strikes me as being just straight-up too good.

File: Pieter Cross Dr. Mid-Nite4.jpg (52KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 375x523px

>>51595439
http://archive.4plebs.org/tg/search/subject/ccg/

Not hard to find at all.

>>51595309
Enlightenment's Grasp looks like a cool Silkwrap upgrade.

Eroded Edifice... Unsure about this one. Why doesn't it just reference the color of the creature? Devoid?

Infusion of the Draconic seems like a complete junk mythic. Firebreathing already has issues, so giving it a bonus is good, but then making the bonus only apply at such high levels is really weird.

>>51595467 I was thinking that having the first ability be a little weaker would allow the second to be stronger. I personally don't love fallen as much myself, do you think that there is another combo of abilities for him that would work better? sac a creature perhaps?

>>51595564
I tried my best to design it like a real set so some cards are junky, the set is mostly meant for sealed and draft.
I actually uploaded the old version of the dual land, its supposed to be if you control a PERMANENT with R or U in its mana cost. I wanted it to be more similar to devotion since there is no color related mechanics in the set.

File: Fallen Simulacrum2.jpg (41KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 375x523px

Would this version be more balanced?

File: Jace Guild Arbiter.jpg (41KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 375x523px

I need a better idea for an ult. Any ideas? Original idea was to essentially allow you to play with your opponents' hands.

>>51595653
I think an Edict effect on entry is just too good by itself. Maybe do the Dimir-style mill, where they mill until they mill a land card. And for Wandering, maybe I'm just overstating it, dunno. Though I do find it odd that the land it nabs on entry doesn't ETB tapped, why is that?

>>51595693
For Infusion, I'd say at least make it interesting on a flavor level. I dunno about this or the cost, just spitballing, maybe
>Enchanted creature gets +4/+4, has flying, and is a Dragon in addition to its other types.
>R: Enchanted creature gets +1/+0 until end of turn
>When enchanted creature dies, create a 4/4 red Dragon creature token with flying and "R: This creature gets +1/+0 until end of turn."
Oh, and for the land, maybe just reference Devotion?

>>51595915
Hmm, thinking about Jace, what about restricting the number of creatures that can attack you? Maybe replace the draw restriction with the attack restriction?

File: Tower of Miseries.png (256KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 375x523px

>>51594971
Why is the middle one a construct while the other two are golems?

I love the idea of Fallen, it makes me want to compleat more OG Mirrodin favorites. But not in a strictly-better, Blightsteel Colossus kind of way.

>>51595915
I think a cool jace emblem would be a ghostly prison or ensnaring bridge effect.

File: 6ca151ae286810c6dc77cf09bdcd7183.png (580KB, 468x648px) Image search: [Google]

580KB, 468x648px

>>51595915
what do you make of this? for only two mana in a sealed environment it is still a very powerful effect.

>>51596399
>flavor text on a card with that much fucking rules text

File: Untitled.png (2MB, 1490x1050px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1490x1050px

Here's a cycle from the gathering swarms set

File: Kranna Gohma2.jpg (35KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 375x523px

Already doing one planeswalker, why not another? Undecided on a first ability, that's why it's question marks. Really, I just want to be sure that this is actually a good direction to go in.

>>51596309
Like, a one-sided Ensnaring Bridge? Maybe. Actually it does feel kinda odd now that this Jace doesn't draw at all. Should I fix that? Maybe add a draw to the +1?

>>51596308
Yeah, it is an interesting idea. I tried compleating the Ravager once, but I didn't do too well.

>Tower of Miseries
Ooh, you were able to follow the numbers of the other towers! Nice. Not the greatest card, but I don't think any of the towers were, so it's probably fine.

>>51596399
Yeesh, I'm with >>51596449

>>51596612
...This hurts.

>>51596879
What hurts about it?

Also for the planeswalker's a +2 maybe in GB it could be Sacrifice a creature you control, then put a number of +1/+1 counters equal to that creature's CMC onto another target creature.

File: Hellbound Ravager.png (241KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 375x523px

This is perhaps a terrible idea.

File: Phyrexian Hull-Piercer.jpg (39KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 375x523px

This thread will now be compleated

>>51597164
>What hurts about it?
"It"? Singular? No, pretty much every cards artifact one has problems. No wait, that does have a small problem.

OK, first, most keywords go on the same line. For all of the colored dragons except the blue one, just put their keywords on the same line.

I have no idea why you bother naming the tokens, just give them a type.

Are you sure you want the White one to trigger even when the creature doesn't enter the battlefield under your control?

I have no idea where you were going with the Blue one.

Black's wording should be
>When ~ enters the battlefield or dies, target player reveals his or her hand. Choose a nonland card from it. That player discards that card.

For Red, just repeat what I said about the tokens for White. Oh, and lowercase "create" why did you capitalize it in the first place?

For Green, wording should probably be
>If one or more +1/+1 counters would be placed on ~, that many plus one +1/+1 counters are placed on it instead.

Artifact one is mostly fine, but it should be "three" instead of "3" and lowercase Indestructible (yes, I capitalize in my posts, not in my cards).

Anyway, on the whole, I don't like how disparate they are. I'd make their effects more similar, like having them all get an ETB ability, or a cast ability, etc. Look at the Gearhulks for a good idea of what I mean. Also, feel free to mix up the P/T's and mana costs. And please either use one secondary subtype or don't use any. It's so weird too how some get another race type, and others get a class type.

>>51597310
>Mixing +1/+1 counters and -1/-1 counters
[autistic screeching]

File: All Suns Fall.jpg (27KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 375x523px

barf

>>51596399
This has problems with layers.

File: mixing counters absolutely haram.png (566KB, 624x445px) Image search: [Google]

566KB, 624x445px

>>51597527
Call the cops, I don't give a fuck.

>121.3. If a permanent has both a +1/+1 counter and a -1/-1 counter on it, N +1/+1 and N -1/-1 counters are removed from it as a state-based action, where N is the smaller of the number of +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters on it.
There's rules to handle it. +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters annihilate like matter and antimatter.

>>51597634
I really don't enjoy being talked down to. I know about that rule, I know how the counters interact with each other. Pretty much every person in these threads knows about these things. My issue is that they're on the same card. If I recall correctly, there's only one card that mixes the counters, Misfortune.

>>51597725
>I really don't enjoy being talked down to.
Boy oh boy, are you ever in the wrong part of the internet.

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

37KB, 375x523px

Mostly a joke card. Mostly.

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

43KB, 375x523px

Yes, I'm shit at names.

>>51597839
What's the joke?

File: Untitled2.png (2MB, 1490x1050px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1490x1050px

>>51597456
thanks for the criticism, I made quite a few changes to bring them onto a more simplified level that works better. Let me know what you think.

>>51597879
That the Jacetice League is going to fuck everything up in Amonkhet while trying to stop Bolas and let loose swarms of oil dripping Phyrexians to spread themselves across the stars.

File: Breach the Boundaries.jpg (47KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 375x523px

I'm wondering if the wording on this is correct.

File: Ageing Entity.jpg (39KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 375x523px

>>51597882
I said "except the blue one". Keywords like Flying, Lifelink, and Haste all function on the battlefield. But Flash doesn't it instead determines when a spell can be cast, so it goes above things like Flying.

I don't know about balance, but your wording is still lacking. Read more Oracle text, look at more Magic cards.

>>51598118
I think the wording is fine. No idea on balance.

>>51598118
i think this is a bit too powerful and also a bit too complicated.

make it the top four cards of your library instead of five. make it a creature instead of a permanent, remove the etb tapped. make it only draw one card if you decline.

>>51598118
>>51598339
If you do make it only one card, make it one of the cards you look at.

File: Breach the Boundaries.2jpg.jpg (45KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 375x523px

Something like this?

Re post from last thread:

So, for Midnighter (>>51579017) I thought of a few potential abilities, but rather than make a card for each one of them and go through them one-by-one, I figure I might as well just list the abilities and see if any of you guys think they're good. These are working under the presumption that the body that they're on is a 3/3 with Prowess and nothing more.

>Prevent all damage that would be dealt to ~ by creatures with power less than ~'s power.

>~ has protection from creatures your opponents control with power less than ~'s power.

>Whenever ~ blocks or becomes blocked by a creature with power less than ~'s power, destroy that creature.

All the abilities are supposed to tie into his precognition power, where he basically sees all the attacks coming so he can dodge all of them and counterattack. But it doesn't make him invincible, and he can still get curbstomped be people bigger and stronger (because it doesn't matter how smart you are, people who can juggle planets can still rip you in half without breaking a sweat).

>>51598725
Question. Do you have a gaggle of non-legendary creatures and non-creatures that you're not posting, or is this not intended to be a set?
I'm trying to wrap my head around how you'd play a set where basically everything was a legendary creature with midrange CMC and drawing a blank.

File: Clockwork Monstrosity.png (288KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 375x523px

Alright fine, this one doesn't mix counters.

>>51598517
I like this, but I'm not sure how black it is.

>>51598771
Not a real set, just a collection of cards. I've tried making real sets before, and found it dull and tedious. It's just not in me, which is why I greatly respect people who do make complete, good sets, like Time anon and Pirate anon.

I do have non-legendary, non-creature cards though. Even some commons! And if you have anything you'd like for me to try and adapt, please let me know.

>>51598774
Not bad. 7/7 maybe?

File: Mal Duncan Herald3.jpg (36KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 375x523px

New version of Herald. Last version was the one that could force a player to draw one card forever. Hope this is better.

File: download.jpg (164KB, 750x523px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 750x523px

...Anyone else here? Anyway, here's Starfire and Blackfire. Made to be obvious foils to each other. I want them to both be balanced but still at least somewhat similar to each other. And yes, their names are puns on "coriander" and "commander". COMICS!

File: Fools.jpg (628KB, 1500x1569px) Image search: [Google]

628KB, 1500x1569px

So I'm working on a Fool tribe in a set based on redirecting spells and taking control of things, with a few cards added in for humor. What do you guys think? Do these all seem like decent effects?

File: Aethersnatch (2015, Commander 2015) by Aaron Miller.jpg (64KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 312x445px

>>51602231
>Fool's Fiddling
>U
What the fuck?

>>51602231
>>51602265
Oh, it can't change targets. Yeah, but it still means you can take anything that doesn't have a target and it'll work fine, like one-sided wipes, creatures, draw spells, etc.

>>51602265
Gaining control of the spell doesn't actually do anything, as far as I know. You don't get to choose new targets for it, you just control the spell until it resolves.

>>51602291
If you control the spell, you control the permanent it becomes as well as anything that would benefit you.

>>51602291
It says right there in the reminder text that it basically allows you to steal any permanent spell. And as I already stated, it can still work on things like one-sided wipes. I don't think you really get how gaining control of a spell works.

>>51602277
>>51602313
>>51602311
Hmm. That's complex, then. I was looking to have a card to combo with Pratfall, to make it actually viable in any context. I suppose it'd just have to be a lot more expensive, then.

File: barrelsoflaughs.jpg (164KB, 1125x523px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1125x523px

>>51602318
How about this? Is this less obscenely overpowered?

>>51602231
>Fool's Mirror
Oh my fucking lord. No, no, no. Go to Gatherer or MagicCards, and find out for yourself how to properly word an Equipment that gives an ability to the equipped creature.

>Fool's Declaration
Yeah, everyone who does this think's nobody's ever thought of it before.

>>51602361
I can't begin to describe how painful it is to look at these things. Or how disappointed I am that you actually thought these things were a good idea.

>>51601381
I think a lot of people view these threads as having become an "exclusive club" where a few symbolfags call the shots and decide who belongs and who doesn't.

It's one thing to critique a card and it's another to deride the creator, especially when one makes mistakes themselves. The "read more Oracle text" thing really doesn't hold water when you create erroneous cards as well, since when do you say it regarding yourself? I feel like people forget what the primer says more often than not. Don't be a dick, especially when you're not impeccable yourself, in general, with regards to all posters. We all started someplace, and it, by your own admission, took ages for you to get good at cards. I was there when you first came around. I was here when most of you first started posting, and I do not like what I see. And I am sure I am not alone.

So if you think you're alright with exclusionary tendencies ruling these threads, carry on as you are. They will never be what they were because this is not HOW they were.

>>51602385
Alright. I guess I'll leave, then. Sorry for disturbing you, oh grand arbiters of what can and cannot be on a Magic card.

>>51602409
You're free to stay, we just expect you to listen to feedback, that's all.

>>51602389
>I think a lot of people view these threads as having become an "exclusive club" where a few symbolfags call the shots and decide who belongs and who doesn't.
Well, that's pretty stupid considering it's 4chan.

>It's one thing to critique a card and it's another to deride the creator, especially when one makes mistakes themselves.
So, we should just never deride any creator? Even if they never learn, keep posting obviously bad designs, and generally just behave like complete assholes? And the thing you say about mistakes is a complete non-starter.

>The "read more Oracle text" thing really doesn't hold water when you create erroneous cards as well, since when do you say it regarding yourself?
How does it not hold water? Yes, sometimes I mess up on cards, I actually messed up on Blackfire by omitting an apostrophe. But does the fact that I, a single person, occasionally mess up wording mean that what I say regarding Oracle text is completely invalid? So, what, you think people who've read tons of Oracle text aren't any better when it comes to wording than people brand new to Magic? And all of this because I'm not perfect? This reasoning is incredibly flawed.

>I feel like people forget what the primer says more often than not. Don't be a dick, especially when you're not impeccable yourself, in general, with regards to all posters.
Actually, the primer says many things. It takes about vanilla keywords and how they work in the different colors, the difference between gold and hybrid, the difference between triggered abilities and replacement abilities, and the differences between cards, spells, and permanents. Which makes it pretty frustrating when people just outright ignore it and make simple mistakes. And again, making mistakes is not a reason that one can't point out the mistakes of others. If it were, nobody could point out mistakes, because nobody's perfect.

1/2

>>51602389
>>51602661
>We all started someplace, and it, by your own admission, took ages for you to get good at cards.
Yes, perfectly true. Agreed. And even people who have a lot of experience aren't going to get every card right on the first try. Even Maro has said this.

>I was there when you first came around. I was here when most of you first started posting, and I do not like what I see. And I am sure I am not alone.
Look, I do have issues, I admit that. And I guess you're right, I could be better, people could always be better. But I refuse to subscribe to your fallacious view on feedback. Also, this is neither here nor there, but why did you make this post to my post with Starfire and Blackfire on it? Just seems kinda odd, but whatever.

>So if you think you're alright with exclusionary tendencies ruling these threads, carry on as you are. They will never be what they were because this is not HOW they were.
You make it sound like I'm some iron-fisted dictator. I try to make OP's because I feel that otherwise there's a good chance the next OP will be bad or outdated. Such as this one, though the majority of it is fine, it's just the image that's wrong. I've made a few PasteBin articles, or whatever you want to call them, trying to explain some concepts to people that can be easily referred back to. And I make cards and give feedback. So why is it you talk about all this like I'm personally responsible for killing /ccg/?

Uh, and if you've been around this long, who are you? Do I know you? Kinda hard to tell who you are without trips or a card.

2/2

File: Artemis of Bana-Mighdall3.jpg (47KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 375x523px

Should this ping players and creatures or just creatures?

>>51602231
OK, appologies for the way I reacted before, but seeing spell control at U really triggered me. I mean, imagine seeing an instant for R that bolts for 10 or something.

>Bored Jester
Well, kinda hard to judge without precedence, at least I couldn't find anything like this in mono-Blue, but I think it's OK. It would probably be safer to make it 2/3 instead though.

>Clown Car
Tribal seems really odd, but that might just be me, never been a fan of it. As for the card... I dunno. It's cheap, sure, but it has two restrictions to animate it, it's hard to tell if it's fine or not. Oh, but you do need to specify that you're creating creature tokens.

>Court of Jesters
Eh, maybe move to uncommon.

>Fool's Declaration
Yeah, what I said before. It's kinda funny as a one-off, but it just doesn't really work as a legit card. Oh, and rather than say that the card is Blue, just use the color indicator. Though the text you used wouldn't actually mean anything because you used reminder text instead of rules text.

>Fool's Mirror
OK, it should say
>Equipped creature has "2UU, T: Change the target of target spell or ability."
Idea could be interesting, but I wouldn't make it common. Also, you have to specify if it targets just any spell or ability, a spell or ability with only a single target, or a spell or ability with multiple targets and you just change one of them.

>Fool's Misdirection
Another where you have to specify creature token. This is another one I wouldn't place at common due to complexity. And I think I'd word it so you chose the spell or ability first, then made the token, then changed the target. And just like the last one, you need to specify what's going on with the spell. Most of the time Wizards likes to say
>target spell or ability with a single target

>Pratfall
Hmm. Change "control" to "own" and it would be at least somewhat interesting, even if it wouldn't be realistically playable.

1/2

File: Big Barda3.jpg (50KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 375x523px

Still trying to get this to the right cost.

>>51603109
>>51602231
>Vikar
Could be interesting, but you'd have to jack up the mana cost like crazy. Maybe instead make it something like a Fool tribal lord and cross with Perplexing Chimera, gain control of a spell in exchange for a Fool you control.

>>51602361
The only way you can make this mechanic work is by having multiple methods to mark spells with counters, especially by making it repeatable. Otherwise you have this incredibly forced, awkward mechanic that's almost always a 2-for-1.

On the whole, I'm not much of a fan of Fools. It doesn't seem like a core mechanic other than spells manipulation, which I guess could be interesting, but I feel like it's so mechanically complex, not to mention dangerous if not balanced well, the idea of a whole archetype being made around these guys doesn't really appeal to me. But that's just me, maybe other people have different opinions.

2/2

>>51602661
>Well, that's pretty stupid considering it's 4chan.
Attitude goes a long way. Thick skin is a must, but if people feel they are not welcome, most will leave, even those who have genuine interest but aren't as adept as you'd like.

>So, we should just never deride any creator? Even if they never learn, keep posting obviously bad designs, and generally just behave like complete assholes?
This does not preclude what I said. You're inventing a scenario that makes you sound right when most of the time it is simply untrue. I know you want to believe every person that doesn't immediately improve is Cooldown Guy, but let's be realistic.

>How does it not hold water?
It makes you look unwilling to focus the lens on yourself, and makes you look harsher on others than you are on your own errors. Which is not constructive. You should only ever be as critical of others as you are of yourself.

>Actually, the primer says many things.
The most important one is "Don't be a dick." The rest will fall into place with time. And I never said you could not correct errors, I implied you needed to rethink how critical you are when you yourself are not up to your own standards sometimes.

>Yes, perfectly true. Agreed. And even people who have a lot of experience aren't going to get every card right on the first try. Even Maro has said this.
So why do you behave like above?

>But I refuse to subscribe to your fallacious view on feedback.
Then you will have to learn to enjoy threads that last for 5-4 days before filling up if they don't die first. That's just how it is if you don't understand what you're doing wrong.

>You make it sound like I'm some iron-fisted dictator.
You act like it often enough.

>So why is it you talk about all this like I'm personally responsible for killing /ccg/?
Nobody is personally responsible for killing /ccg/. But you seem to admit there is a problem, without being willing to examine your part in it.

>>51603109
This is a good post. It's not hard.

File: Darksteel Acolyte.jpg (39KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 375x523px

We spellshaper now

>>51603591
>Planeswalkers displaced Spellshapers
Only a few of us were sad about it, but man it hurt. This being in Green but flavored Darksteel feels weird to me. I feel like something Darksteel should be saccing Artifacts to make people indestructible, not reshaping spells. Feels a bit more white to me overall.

File: Leon Carver Frostbite.jpg (47KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 375x523px

>>51603502
>This does not preclude what I said.
What? You were implying it is simply wrong deride a creator of a card. You didn't specify who you were talking about, so I took that to mean any creator of any card. So yes, I created a hypothetical scenario featuring an incredibly odious individual to try and demonstrate a person who deserves derision. But I didn't say this was happening most of the time, or any amount of time, it just had to happen once. Because to disprove what I thought was a universal statement on your part, I would only need to find on exception, thus the hypothetical one asshole anon.

>I know you want to believe every person that doesn't immediately improve is Cooldown Guy, but let's be realistic.
You're not a mind-reader. Saying this is absolutely ridiculous, Cooldown Guy was a clear-cut troll. Anons can post cards without knowing much about Magic and refuse to listen to feedback without being trolls, because trolling requires intent.

>It makes you look unwilling to focus the lens on yourself, and makes you look harsher on others than you are on your own errors. Which is not constructive. You should only ever be as critical of others as you are of yourself.
If I'm wrong about something, I'll accept that and change the card. Unless I'm just winging it on a quick card, or the text I'm writing is very simple, almost every single time I look up Oracle text ahead of time to make sure I'm right. And yeah, sometimes I mess up because I misread or misunderstand something, and when someone points that out, I change it.

>The most important one is "Don't be a dick."
No, making good cards is the most important part of these threads. Politeness is a courtesy that I do give most of the time, but there are times where I drop it, yes.

1/3

>>51603502
>>51603897
>The rest will fall into place with time.
Through feedback, sure. But what if someone thinks telling them that they're wrong is being a dick? Because being a dick is so subjective. I really think it's more important to place objectivity over subjectivity.

>And I never said you could not correct errors, I implied you needed to rethink how critical you are when you yourself are not up to your own standards sometimes.
What standards are you talking about? I say "Read more Oracle text." It's not even really a standard, it's a guidline, a tip basically. Because through reading Oracle text, people will learn more about the wording of Magic, and thus be more likely to create correct wording on their first try. I mean, if I had to write down standards, I mean, the only one I'd have written in stone is not making overpowered cards. A close second is keeping things in the color pie, but I'm not always rigid with that one anyway. Once again, you are not a mind reader.

>So why do you behave like above?
Because I'm a human and sometimes I react emotionally, especially when I see something OP as fuck. ...Yeah, not making OP cards I think is my primary standard/principle.

2/3

>>51603502
>>51603897
>>51603915
>Then you will have to learn to enjoy threads that last for 5-4 days before filling up if they don't die first. That's just how it is if you don't understand what you're doing wrong.
Uh, yeah, you haven't proven that your reasoning is correct, you're just asserting that it is. And I'm not going to follow reasoning that appears deeply flawed just on your say-so that it will help these threads. I mean, I'm just one guy, and so are you. If you think I can ruin /ccg/ by myself, doesn't it stand that you could attempt to work to improve it? I mean, you could be a feedback anon, giving people accurate feedback when others, including myself, react harshly. If anything, we could really use someone focused on just giving feedback to cards that get overlooked. And I'm not just referring to my cards, I'm talking about everyone's cards.

>You act like it often enough.
By not always being polite as possible 100% of the time? Oh yeah, move over Stalin, there's a new kid in town!

>Nobody is personally responsible for killing /ccg/. But you seem to admit there is a problem, without being willing to examine your part in it.
Yes, obviously the threads aren't as good as they once were. And there is a possibility that I'm contributing to that. But I'm not seeing it, and your deeply flawed logic isn't convincing me of anything. I mean, if you had some hard evidence of how I contribute negatively to the threads, I'd be really interested in seeing that. But all you have is "I think" or "I feel". Well, I'm sorry, but I'm gonna need more than that.

>This is a good post. It's not hard.
OK, thanks. But if you're so focused on improving these threads, why didn't you do it? I mean, you take issue with how I reacted, but rather than reassure that anon, or explaining why I was reacting that way, you decided to address me and not him. Why?

3/4

>>51603502
>>51603897
>>51603915
>>51603934
Whoops, I must've overlooked your first response.
>Attitude goes a long way. Thick skin is a must, but if people feel they are not welcome, most will leave, even those who have genuine interest but aren't as adept as you'd like.
Do you have any evidence? Have you spoken to people who posted a few cards here and left? Did they say it was because people here had bad attitudes? You're just asserting what you're saying as true without providing any real evidence. Just more "I think" and "I feel". Again, I need more than that.

4/4

>>51603591
Wow, you really lucked out on the art. Seems fine.

>>51603645
I've never really seen planeswalkers as displacing Spellshapers. They're entirely different animals. Though it has been a while since we've seen Spellshapers. Maybe Wizards doesn't like having cards whose entire purpose is to reference older cards?

>>51603897
>>51603915
>>51603934
>>51603960
All I have to say is simply this, then I'll leave you be. Between those threads you admit were better, and now, what are the constants? What changed? What stayed the same? I don't need to provide screen shots or such, because that in itself is an appeal from ignorance. If you would like to go back through the archives yourself and count the number of times you think, honestly, your derision of another anon was warranted when all was said and done, and they had indeed sufficiently spammed enough terrible cards and ignored enough feedback to warrant it, be my guest. If you would like to continue to believe that I am just attacking you for no good reason, or attacking you at all for that matter, and it's somehow personal or something, feel free.

I've said what I've said, and you can do with it what you will. But the proof is in the pudding; these threads are dying, and there must be a reason for it when they were a thriving community not but a shy over a year ago. What happened? Maybe you yourself can explain it to me.

>why didn't you improve these threads?
I used to try. I posted feedback on every ignored card in a thread when I posted a card myself, even if my card got ignored. I posted like I wanted others to post, but it didn't work. It's pretty obvious these threads will be as they are unless more than simply one anon makes an effort.

Have a good night, /CO/anon. I do still enjoy your cards off and on. I just don't know most of the characters.

>>51603995
Planeswalkers often emulate spells themselves, and are more flexible. Jaya Ballard is pretty infamous for being the "proto-Planeswalker". They are very different in that one is a creature and one is an attackable enchantment not!player thing, but as for what they do on the field, they are similar enough that we haven't seen one in lieu of the other.

Or I'm biased because I don't really care for PWs. I preferred when the only PWs at the table were the players.

File: withstand.jpg (33KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 223x310px

>>51603645
he's specifically shaping this spell

>>51604245
I know, but I was speaking about the general feel of the card as I saw it. It mechanically works fine in green, since green is, well actually isn't it primary in Indestructible now?

>>51604074
>Between those threads you admit were better, and now, what are the constants? What changed? What stayed the same? I don't need to provide screen shots or such, because that in itself is an appeal from ignorance.
Wrong fallacy. The fallacy you invoke here is post hoc ergo propter hoc. That is, after this, therefore because of this. You say that between then and now, I became a regular here, it must be because of me these thread have gone downhill, but correlation doesn't mean causation. And I'm not using an appeal to ignorance, I'm not saying something is true due to lack of evidence. I'm open to the things you are saying, but I need evidence in order to believe them.

>If you would like to go back through the archives yourself and count the number of times you think, honestly, your derision of another anon was warranted when all was said and done, and they had indeed sufficiently spammed enough terrible cards and ignored enough feedback to warrant it, be my guest.
It's your argument. If you found a bunch of times where I'm nasty to someone and then that someone never shows up again, or says they give up or something, show me. It's your argument, you provide the evidence. You know, evidence, that thing you keep lacking that I keep asking you for. Give me evidence that this is what has happened and I will change. Or just stop posting altogether. But until you do, whenever you bring up this argument, I'm just going to ask you for evidence to back up anything you're saying.

>If you would like to continue to believe that I am just attacking you for no good reason, or attacking you at all for that matter, and it's somehow personal or something, feel free.
Ugh, you're mindreading again. No, honestly I think in your head you do believe in the things you're saying to me. But again, I won't, because you're not providing any evidence of anything.

1/2

>>51604074
>>51604328
>there must be a reason for it when they were a thriving community not but a shy over a year ago. What happened? Maybe you yourself can explain it to me.
Wait, less than a year ago? That's when you think the threads were doing well? Personally, I've felt like the threads have been going downhill for a while. But that could just be faulty memory, I dunno. But no, there doesn't have to be a single reason that explains why the threads are dying. It's probably a contribution of numerous factors. Just for one example, Time anon has a teaching job now and less time on his hands. Why do anons leave the threads? Maybe because, like Time anon, it's personal stuff. Maybe they get tired of making cards. Or maybe it's like you say, and they don't like the attitude here. The point is, we don't know. I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows.

>It's pretty obvious these threads will be as they are unless more than simply one anon makes an effort.
I still don't understand this attitude that one anon can ruin a thread, but one anon can't improve it. It just seems... I dunno, defeatist?

>Have a good night, /CO/anon. I do still enjoy your cards off and on. I just don't know most of the characters.
Well, thanks. I realize a lot of people probably aren't going to recognize the characters because they're not comic fans, especially when I get to the more obscure ones, but I hope I at least do well enough explaining how I used the fluff to make certain mechanical decisions. And good night to you as well.

2/2

>>51604326
It gets a lot of temp indestructible, but I feel that's more because of the phase out of regen.

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

29KB, 375x523px

>>51604074
>>51604348
I was thinking about this part I wrote
>The point is, we don't know. I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows.
And this is actually a reason I can take to try to be nicer and more understanding. Because I don't know that I'm not contributing to the problem, it could be that I am. And one way to help ensure that I don't is by being better. Look, cards on the table, I have issues, which I've mentioned a few times. But specifically, I have problems with emotional control. And that is why sometimes I snap and act nasty. I'm not saying this as an excuse or justification, I am simply saying this to explain that while I do try to be calm and polite, there are times when it is very difficult for me. This is a personal failing that I hope one day to be rid of completely, but I'm afraid it's something I will have to live with for the foreseeable future. And I am sorry to those people whom I sometimes snap at, trust me, I don't like it when I do it either.

>>51604348
>Wait, less than a year ago? That's when you think the threads were doing well?
A shy over is over, anon. That certainly wasn't the height of them, no. But it was working. It's not working now.

I figured I'd clarify and assure you I read your posts in one fell swoop.

If you assert I should be the change I seek in these threads, then I can try again. It's only fair. But you cannot dismiss something out of hand because you cannot see past your own personal bias. I didn't accuse you specifically of causing these threads to fail. I will assert the attitude you and a few other anons share sometimes is a contributing factor. Anons wandering off because of boredom or real life doesn't typically lead to a decline of this magnitude. I say typically because it certainly could be the reason, and simply be a strange and unfortuitous happenstance. Eitehr way, I've seen plenty of set symbols come and go in the last year.

Also, in fairness, I'm no saint; I've lost my temper here a few times, to my shame. It's one reason I don't really post anymore and just lurk. But maybe that's not doing anybody any good, as you say. Either way, it'd be nice to see these threads thrive again. It'll take a group effort though.

>>51604483
Well, let me say I should have refreshed before posting, because a lot of what you say here responds to what I've said here >>51604555.

In the end, people can't help but be people. Apologies exist for a reason though. I've apologized each time I've gone too far, and I think it might be that we could all stand to either curb it a little or take steps to realize when we trip. On the flip side to that though, to address an earlier concern you had with derision, there's a line. It's blurry, but it's there. It's a balance between people realizing where they are (4chan), and people not using that as an excuse to pile on the negativity unless it's the last straw. It'll never be perfect, but it shouldn't be too hard to leave it at blunt critique and not cross over to calling people stupid and the like.

For what it's worth, you're not the only one with a temper, and with personal issues that they sometimes bring to the thread. Keeping your own shortcomings in mind can help you empathize with others. Doesn't mean you have to let others walk all over you or turn the other cheek as it were, but still.

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

48KB, 375x523px

I've been distracted by other games, apologies.

>>51604639
You do have legitimate concerns, namely the health of /ccg/, which I do agree with. Neither of us want to see these threads die. Honestly, if there were a way to track down all the anons who left and ask them why they left, I would jump on that immediately. And I would do almost anything in my power to address the problems with /ccg/ that caused those people to leave. But that's probably never going to happen. I mean, what could we do? Go on various platforms and ask random people if they've ever been to /ccg/? I mean, it's not like our community has ever been huge. From what I can tell, people who make custom Magic cards just post them on whatever platform is most convenient for them. Tumblr, Deviantart, MTGSalvation, etc. And the other thing too is, what if this is the norm? Like, what if what's happening right now is how /ccg/ usually is, not just from when the two of us have been here, but for as long as /tg/ has been around, what if this is what /ccg/ has been like for most of its history? So that means we just happened to go through an unusually good period. And if that were true, it's not so much about what got them to leave, it's about what got them to come in the first place.

This is the thing, it could be any number of things, and we don't know for sure any of it. But we do have control over what happens here. So you're right, we should try to be better, all of us, because that's just about the only thing we can do to help /ccg/.

Man, I need to learn more about Stoicism.

So anyway... who are you again? You mentioned you'd been around for a while, but I don't think you said who you are. I just feel kinda bad if I should recognize you but can't.

>>51604903
I just ran out of inspiration for cards. It didn't have anything to do with /ccg/ itself.

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

45KB, 375x523px

Not sure if this should be changed to differentiate it more from Domri, as the first two abilities I feel are very similar. Let me know if I'm overthinking it.

>>51604688
Hard to say without precedence, but it definitely looks cool. I kinda want to make it BR because of Showstopper, but that's just me, and the connection to Black is kinda tenuous anyway.

>>51604938
OK, but who are you? Like, if I wouldn't know who you are, just tell me that.

>>51604995
Ringanon.

File: Curse of Fallow Fields.jpg (48KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 375x523px

>>51604938
Weebanon here, this is the number one problem I face. I have tremendous respect for the professional designers who do this day in and day out, because man, does the creativity wax and wane really hard. There are days where I'll have a solid dozen ideas, or a really good one that's workshoppable and gets the thread involved and generates a bunch of posts. And then there are days where I've got bupkis and not really feeling the urge to even comment on cards.

/co/anon seems to be here every day like clockwork, and I respect him for that, but there are days where its just not in the cards, pardon the pun.

>>51604995
>Electrostatic Pulse
Showstopper is black because of the possible sac shenanigans, if you ask me. Pulse is more Searing Blood writ large.

>Korro
Yeah, I'm not feeling the first and second. They're fine abilities, but it does feel very Domri.

>card
Save me from this train wreck of an idea. Wording from Mystic Barrier meets Contamination/Hall of Gemstone type effects. Not sure is 100% correct.

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

38KB, 375x523px

>>51605035
Ah! Well, it's good to see you again. So, how have you been? Do you just lurk on the threads regularly?

And yeah, I know precisely what you mean about running of of inspiration. I wouldn't be posting on these threads anywhere near as much as I do now if I didn't have my CO set to preoccupy me.

>>51605060
Card art is a big one for me as well. I don't like posting cards without it and finding good ones is a bit of a slog.

>Card
Feels a bit complex for what it wants to do for my tastes, I feel like it should just pick a color instead. I also think it would be too oppressive unless you had the right cards to counteract it.

>>51604995
I think Korro is in a good place. Simple and straight forward.

>>51604688
Should be fine in the right environment, but it's pretty hard hate against token decks. You might consider lowering the feedback damage.

>>51605140
Yeah I usually lurk most days. I've been brainstorming a card game that lacks any random elements and that takes up a significant portion of my attention.

>>51604688

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

49KB, 375x523px

>>51605060
>Korro
Ugh, crap. Well, thanks for the feedback, at least now I know for sure that I have to change those abilities. For reference, here's her first card. And in case you're curious, art on both cards is from Golden Axe: Beast Rider.

>Curse of Fallow Fields
Honestly, I'd just up the cost and have it affect all the enchanted player's nonbasics, like a more contained Blood Moon.

>>51605221
You're making a card game? Sounds interesting. Business or pleasure? So, you plan any getting rid of all randomness? Including drawing?

>>51605276
At this stage its more of a thought experiment than anything. You'd still have a limited hand and deck, but you can basically fetch what you need at will and the game would almost wholly be resource manangement, planning and bluffing.

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

47KB, 375x523px

>>51605221
>Pulse
Swapped the numbers (2 damage, 1 feedback) and upped the cost. Oddly enough, a one-sided Pyroclasm doesn't exist.

>>51605227
>Curse
Yeah, its really complex. Honestly the name came first and then it was "ooh! lets make a curse!" and then BR mana denial.

Curse of Blood Moon, Wastes Edition seems so bland, though. Back to the drawing board with that idea, then.

>Korro
I really really like the Giant Adephage-style ult, so definitely keep that. +3/+3 and trample on a creature is probably fine. Its a little Arlinn, a little Elspeth, but sufficiently fresh.

>card
Its mini-Blightning.

>>51602231
>Pratfall
This gave me a stupid idea, sort of an Altar's Reap dealio

Timeskitter (u/b)
Instant
Kicker (2)
Counter target spell you control.
Draw two cards.
If the kicker cost was paid, return that spell to it's owner's hand.

>>51604903
>who are you?
I'm anon. I would rather start fresh, if at all, than lean on my previous "incarnations". Cards should stand on their own merits, regardless of who posts them.

>>51604938
>>51605035
Glad you're still around, Ringanon.

>>51604995
Have you considered Manifest, flavoring it like the creature cards she's Manifesting are acting like unseen stalkers, waiting to pounce? Then maybe you could reflavor her ult to flip all Manifested creature cards you control face up, representing the final attack? Tool it to be as useful as possible, obviously. I hadn't given it too much thought.

>>51605060
I suffer from idea droughts too, but I used to try to post comments as much as I could regardless. Not condemning you, just saying I found that sometimes comments cause inspiration.

>>51605140
This is really cool. A revolving door spell O-Ring feels fairly balanced at that cost, albeit dangerous and strong.

>>51605342
Probably the aggro implications is why we don't see a one sided pyro.

File: Giovanni Zataras Hat4.jpg (39KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 375x523px

>>51605325
That does sound interesting. If anything happens, let us know.

>>51605342
>Korro
Uh, these aren't different versions of one card, they're two different cards of the same walker. Like how Jace and Lili have different cards.

>card
Seems cool, though I do wonder why it doesn't ping the player.

>>51605377
>I'm anon
Fair enough.

>Korro
I usually try to avoid non-evergreen stuff, but that might be interesting. Maybe not for Korro though, or at least that version of her.

>Spelltrap
Er, you realize it's an old Ring anon card, right? I saved it because I always like it, and decided to post it since he announced himself. Actually, might as well post this card, since it's somewhat similar.

>>51605478
Yes, I saw the set symbol. I don't see how that changes my commentary; it's not like I credited it to you by accident.

I do recall the hat though. Reminds me a bit of Dovescape.

>>51605478
So far I have:
Each player has a 3 row by 7 column board in which to place cards.

Each player gets their allotment of cards at the beginning of each game turn and uses an alternating turn structure.

The 'land' analog are holdings, which provide resources but can be attacked, damaged, repaired and destroyed.

Units attack directionally down columns and are defended by creatures they encounter.

You lose once all your holdings are destroyed and a creature can bypass your units directly to the player.

File: untitled3.png (3MB, 1490x1050px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1490x1050px

China-non here, thought I'd post some random mutlicoloreds from the set.

>>51605567
Sounds a lot like the L5R card game, actually.

>>51605570
Seems balanced. Flawed clones are something WotC needs to play with more often.

>>51605543
Just wanted to make sure you knew. And thanks for the feedback, think I'll move it to the finished folder.

>>51605567
So, I guess there can be a holding at the bottom of each column?

>>51605626
You can place them freely as you choose, but you obviously trade out the ability to defend them.

>>51605642
Can you explain how cards are placed on the board? I don't think I get what you're saying. Like, the only "permanents" are creatures and holdings?

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

43KB, 375x523px

>>51605574
I had a big long post typed out and then I accidentally hit escape and killed it. There's a bunch of minor things that are wrong with the first six.

>Ai'She
"into your graveyard. If that card is a..."
>From Whence It Came
Magic's syntax is weird in that things have Trample and not Trampling, but Flying and not Flight. I'd prefer "disease" here.
>Maiden
This is a "When" trigger.
>Loxodon
No capital on creatures or ancestry here. Fix your reminder text.
>Guardians
Capitalize Human. "~ has indestructible as long as..."
>Repelling
This is surprisingly strong. Also, "Whenever a creature deals combat damage to a player, ~ deals that much damage to that creature's controller."

>card
Repost from a previous thread.

>>51605667
That's correct. Any enchantment or artifact type card would fall outside of the board.
Positioning matters more than most card games do.

>>51605570
You'd really have your work cut out to make it copy something good, but at 1U, I think that's fair.

>>51605574
Yikes, I really don't like Ritualism. It's so insanely swingy, a creature could ETB as a 1/1 or an 11/11. I mean, just how would you balance it?

>>51605574
Art for the Loxodon is taken. I think it's called Riot Gear. Also, what's "diseased"?

>>51605717
So, is it like Android? You attack down a column with a creature, fighting other creatures in the way until you damage/destroy the holding?

>>51605806
Yup, that's essentially it, although there's also flanking opportunities from adjacent columns.

File: Corsair Diplomat.png (244KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 375x523px

>>51605706
Pair with Scornful Egoist for best results.

>>51605574
I recall this set symbol from a while back. Guess you didn't disappear after all. That's good. Let's see what you have.

>Ai'She
Token seems a bit much, especially since it basically covers you while she swings as a replacement blocker. A milled card can easily be a boon in a BG deck, so this really isn't a drawback as far as I can tell. Overall seems too good.

>From
I'm not too sure about this in RW. White does get narrow creature destruction, but I'm not sure if this reaches too far or not. I can't find precedent for it with a quick search.

>Maiden
"When" for ETB effects. Needs a bit of other wording work as well. Fair Meddling Mage variant.

>Tinkerer
Ancestry is alright. It's only really good on commons though. An uncommon anthem should be okay, though I'm seeing a lot of toughnesses higher than powers here. That can cause slow draft play, and people tend not to like long games. Just keep that in mind as you finalize things. Trample also seems a bit odd on something with P/T like that as well.

>Guardians
Hm. Seems alright, aside from Human needing to be capitalized. I'd also do "As long as" for the second ability myself.

>Repelling
Strikeback/revenge effects are BW, if I recall.

>War-Priest
Pretty sure you can just say "target Zombie" here. The "you control" limiter isn't really necessary. I'd make the body 2/2 as well, to mirror other Guoldmage-type creatures.

>siphoner
I agree that Ritualism is pretty pushed and easy to exploit. You could make it like this instead:
>Ritualism (When this creature enters the battlefield, reveal the top card of your library. If you reveal a creature card this way, put a +1/+1 counter on this creature for each color it shares with the revealed card, then exile it.)

Or something like that. Easier to keep in line, makes it strong on gold cards, still decent on monocards, and tones the power level down.

Have a cheeky card that just popped into my head.

File: Elder Dragons Folly.jpg (38KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 375x523px

thoughts on this version?

>>51606387
I feel like it should have a drawback to reflect the name and flavor.

>>51606397
such as? a less restrictive cost but what, give yourself poison counters? your opponent gets to do it too?

>>51606311
er, sorry, strikeback effects are RBW, not just BW. Actually, probably more RW than anything.

I used to go on these threads a decent bit.
I think I should I remind you that you'll never make anything good unless you acknowledge that magic is a deeply flawed game and current design trends are absolutely terrible.
I know the majority of the people here don't care about making anything good, but if anyone actually does you people need to have your own vision of how you want the game to be played (and should probably read actual game design principles).

>>51607000
Sounds quite a bit like something Kazy or Frontier Fellow would say.

Either way, I kind of share your viewpoint. They've slowed the game down in many regards over the last several years, and creatures make up at least 50% of all cards, even for blue, which could be good or bad depending on when you started playing and what you like about the game. But it's also pretty obvious when they decide to release a card or cards that will be played in tournaments, and when they pander to the secondary market. It's a business, so it makes sense, but it's gone from "we know you're doing this but the game is in decent shape so it's okay" to "these cards stick out like a sore thumb every time you do it so you're not even hiding your shame anymore".

I like following design trends because I enjoy the perceived challenge, but to each their own. Bucking too many of the trends/too much of the pie/etc leads to not even designing cards for Magic anymore though, so it's something to be wary of.

>>51605325
Imo games without variance usually work better with a fairly simple mathematical structure because otherwise planning becomes so complex that the game becomes enveloped by its obtuseness.
My ideal for a competitive card game would be variance that doesn't give a tendency for the player who played better to lose.

>>51607000
>>51607144
Most of the problems can be directed at development instead of design.

>>51607256
It might not go anywhere, but I'm going to give it a go. If nothing else, it wouldn't be that difficult to stick some variance into at a later date.

>>51607316
>Most of the problems can be directed at development instead of design.
Fair enough. I'm guilty of not being specific with my ire when I bellyache about the game all too often, and just default to design as my pinata.

>>51607379
I think it's a consequence of Maro being the mouthpiece of magic.

>>51607316
>Most of the problems can be directed at development instead of design.
Imo this a completely arbitrary distinction which many systems of game creation lacks. The question of what effects are pushed is the same question of how the general set is designed.

>>51607461
Well the people who design the cool cards don't actually get to decide what ends up in the final product. For most games it's the same people doing both.

>>51607477
...exactly? I think that that system is arbitrary and broken. The system that I usually see (which I think makes more sense) is designer and play-testers (although the designers also playtest some).

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

45KB, 375x523px

I'm thinking this is a little too strong, but maybe not. I liked the feeling of destroying tapped creatures that "let their guard down", but I wasn't sure what else I could use to get that feeling. So I went with the untap trigger.

>>51607567
whoops, meant to be "a creature an opponent controls" sorry, wording changed during a different version of the card and I forgot to change it

>>51607567
That's fine royal assassin is 1 less mana. That card would be stupid in limited but w/e.

>>51607560
I can only postulate, but I imagine it has to do with the amount of content they produce.

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

34KB, 375x523px

Help me come up with good flavor text for this pls.

>>51607688
"Death is a certainty; the resources it grants are not." -- Some Personality in Your Set

File: poll44[1].jpg (212KB, 744x1039px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 744x1039px

took the advice from last time and made it purely WB with -X/-X

>>51607000
>Hello fellow /ccg/ anons! I've come to inform you that Magic is absolutely terrible! Please ignore the fact that it's one of the first collectable card games ever and has managed to survive for decades when countless other games that tried to copy Magic's success have failed. Please ignore that what I'm saying is completely subjective, and I don't provide a single example of what I'm referring to, even though if what I'm saying is true, there should be countless examples. Please just don't think for a second and agree with me. Also, would you like to have your thetan levels measured?

>>51607000
>>51610616
Actually, you would've thought the first CCG would be some terrible system with a handful of half-baked ideas that many other games copied and improved, but the fact that not only is Magic one of the first CCG's, but also one of the best, speaks volumes about Richard Garfield. Granted, he wasn't perfect and made plenty of bad/OP designs, and there are so many things that Magic could change to be better, which even Maro admits. But still, the system at its very core is pretty brilliant.

>>51606311
>card
Eh, nothing wrong per se, just not a fan of putting pingstrike onto DStrike.

File: Repower.png (5MB, 2256x2092px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 2256x2092px

I essentially went down the legacy and vintage ban lists and tried to fix things to where they retained some of the capabilities and were situationally better than the cards on there, but avoided some of the reasons they were so degenerate in the first place.

Obviously many of them are too powerful for standard, but how would they be in eternal formats?

File: Alex Luthor of Earth-3.1.jpg (53KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 375x523px

Trying to make a Commander.

>>51611160
>White Lotus
Hmm, reminds me of Lion's Eye Diamond. One one hand, Lion's Eye has you chuck all the cards in your hand, and this has you chuck only two cards, but two specific cards. And it can't fill your graveyard like Lion's Eye can. This is something I think you'll have to test to see how it performs.

>Aether Vault
Since you can't manipulate it like Mana Vault. I do think it's crazy how the early Wizards designs seemed to be built under the assumption that the players would never be able to untap an artifact using a spell or ability or something. Oh yeah, and why is the cost of removal C and not 1?

>Artificer's Academy
Honestly, I'd rather have this on an artifact or enchantment, and limit how the mana can be used, though in that case I'd also allow it to make mana of any color. Worse than the Academy, which is good, but if built around could still be quite strong.

>Blood Channel
Art in use, Searing Blood. I'm not sure about the creature bit. I can easily see someone using this to get out their win-con in the mid-game.

>Death's Insight
Limiting how much it can draw you is a good idea. Sorry, but I don't know too much about the eternal formats, so I won't be able to predict how well they'll do in them.

>Equality
The only difference is that it doesn't hit lands? Eh, not sure about the cost, but this looks better than Balance.

>Wheel of Chance
Yeesh, not liking this one at all. Not a big fan of flips, sorry. Though honestly, at this point, I'm thinking that maybe you should try doing what Wizards did by making Magus cards.

>Instant Summons
I think I'd rather use Savage Summoning.

>Luna Ring
I'd rather it be 2. Untapping seems kinda interesting, but you'd probably need multiples to really get anything out of it.

>Mana Tomb
Uh, going from land to artifact strikes me as a very bad choice, since if you get lucky you can get multiples on the board on the same turn at 0 cost. Discard seems like a good cost though.

1/?

>>51611160
>>51611589
>Oppose
I feel like this would only have a home in decks designed to craft your hand.

>Overthink
No idea.

>Yawgmoth's Revenge
Dunno, sorry.

>Priest's Benediction
Cheaper and most restrictive Idyllic Tutor? I think I can get behind that.

>Quickbond
I'd rather it be worded in a way that had lands other than the first ETB tapped, but that is a good way to cut down on abuse. Oh wait, actually, maybe
>0: You may put a land card from your hand onto the battlefield tapped.

>Satyr's Pipes
What card is this based on?

>Smithy's Fire
Ditto.

>Temporal Typhoon
I don't really get this one at all. Also, I never like cost changes based on hand size, because I can never remember if that takes into account the spell you cast or not.

>Time in a Bottle
Actually, Wizards pretty much already made a fixed Time Vault in Magosi, the Waterveil. Which I discovered when I tried to make a fixed Time Vault.

>Time Skip
Dunno. Probably still useful to abuse upkeep triggers.

>Tutor's Lesson
Don't konw about this one either.

>Dusty Relic
Or this one. Though I will point out that if you have multiple in hand, you really only need to pay for one, then you can get them to pay for each other.

2/2

>>51611160
all right, first of all, loving the general idea. but there are some cards that I could see being problematic in one way or the other.

> White Lotus
harder to abuse, really hard to go infinite with, in the worst case its a 0 mana artifact that doesnt do anything. in the best case its a black lotus.
id say its fine and would see some play.

> aether vault
hard to abuse, maybe even too hard. As i see it you always net -1 mana, but some decks may still be able to utilise it.
> artificers academy
love it! probably still a really strong card but in no way as infinitely broken as the original. Theres also the risk of it not tapping for mana itself, limiting its use further which is great.

> blood channel
honestly, i cant see this being played in eternal formats, you have to pay 6 life to net 1 mana and its heavy on black. sacing creatures for this needs a real play arround (which is good) but i dont think this card is good enough.

>wheel of chance
2cmc everybody discards their hand is already really powerful, in some cases drawing a low amount of cards on both ends is favourable so i think this card is stronger in some strategies. may need some testing and you may up the cmc to 3.

> yawgmoths revenge
busted. you play dark ritual once, then this and gg. infinite triggers into tendrils or some shit. theres a reason yawghs will exiles the cards.

>quickbond
just stopping by to say that is beautiful design if maybe a little too powerful still.

>>51610787
This seems to be the sort of feedback I always get. Oh well.

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

44KB, 375x523px

>>51606311
Reminds me of this one

File: Sower of Sickness.jpg (38KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 375x523px

>>51605706
Diseased is a mechanic that is similar to infect, however it doesn't use poison counters on players, instead whenever a creature takes damage from a diseased creature it gains the diseased keyword.

>>51613690
For memory purposes Diseased should function more like Haunt mechanically, I think.

File: Terra-Cotta Golem.jpg (36KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 375x523px

>>51606311
Thanks for the feedback, but with tinkerer, artifact creatures have ancestry, not the tinkerer himself. There's a few common artifact creatures to be drafted easily.

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

48KB, 375x523px

>>51613501
Eh, sorry man.

>>51613531
Maybe 2/2?

>>51613690
If Diseased makes other creatures diseased, why bother with an effect that does it too? Anyway, your wording can be improved greatly, you really should've looked up the wording to Wither, which if Infect minus poison counters, in case you didn't know that already. Let's try something like
>This deals damage to creatures in the form of -1/-1 counters, and those creatures become diseased.
But really, having this as a keyword is going to cause so many memory issues. The only way it wouldn't is if the absolute only way to get -1/-1 counters in this set is because of Diseased, which isn't a terribly great decision for your set as a whole.

>>51603960
Hi. Fool anon here. Yeah, I was put off by the intensely negative reactions in the thread. Telling me to read more Oracle text is fine.
>>51602385
is not. That is not constructive in any way.

>>51613820
Didn't claim it had ancestry. Said an uncommon anthem was probably fine, which is what that card is.

File: snek.png (2MB, 1490x1050px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1490x1050px

Snek subtheme in GB as well

>>51613919
Sorry for what? The fact that I design boring cards nobody likes?

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

44KB, 375x523px

>>51614022
Sorry that I can't put into words something tangible about the card. Look, it's probably fine, balance-wise, it's just not something that I would do, personally. Well, technically I did do something like that once.

File: Gu-Wens Mount.jpg (44KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 375x523px

>>51613919
I was toying with the idea of possibly a "Disease counter" for the mechanic. And "Creatures have -1/-1 equal to the number of disease counters on them." But I don't know the proper way to word that.

File: Themyscira4.jpg (45KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 375x523px

Amazons are creature cards I'm making. They're a tribe that likes Auras and Equipment. Just want to know if this is balanced.

>>51614087
Ugh, but then you'd be mixing counters. There's nothing wrong with it, but still. Honestly, I just don't see much merit in Diseased as a keyword. Maybe as a recurring mechanic or something.

File: Yawgmoths Revenge 2.jpg (40KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 375x523px

>>51611589
>Oh yeah, and why is the cost of removal C and not 1?
Whoops, my bad, will be corrected.

>Uh, going from land to artifact strikes me as a very bad choice, since if you get lucky you can get multiples on the board on the same turn at 0 cost. Discard seems like a good cost though.
The card was based on Mana Crypt, not Ancient Tomb, though I can see how you'd get that impression.

>I'd rather it be 2. Untapping seems kinda interesting, but you'd probably need multiples to really get anything out of it.
One of my big objectives here was to keep the costs as similar to the original as possible where I could or provide some alternative benefit for a higher cost. That said, Sol Ring is a very hard card to design around because you can't take much away from it before it's not recognizable as the "more than one recurring mana for one mana" card that made it so special in the first place and you absolutely have to take something away because as it is it's completely busted.

>>51612682
>busted. you play dark ritual once, then this and gg. infinite triggers into tendrils or some shit. theres a reason yawghs will exiles the cards.
Yup, I forgot about ritual cards when I made it. Just slipped my mind. I'd really like to come up with a 2B that lets you cast stuff from your grave that is somehow in some way possibly in magical christmas land more effective than Will but 99% of the time of an acceptable power level. Maybe like pic related?

>>51614014
>Human Snake
Er, the Naga type exists.

>>51614124
I see your point, I just wanted it to be fundamentally different than wither or infect in some meaningful way.

>>51597839
Even jokes can avoid targeting cards in people's hands.

>>51614014
>Ai'she
Probably should just make her a Naga.
Serpents have only ever been printed in blue also, so I feel like just making the tokens either Horrors or Zombie Snakes would be the best move.
>Siren's song
Feels fine. It would be difficult to get real value out of this but it's not that difficult. Again, snakes feel a lot better as a creature type.
>Grim
It's fine, if a bit underwhelming.
>Shun'ka
Needs to be,
"Whenever a nontoken creature dies, ..."
or else he'll make board states lock. Also too strong at 3 mana. Should be at least 4.
>Curse
Feels fine. Kind of in UW's domain of effects, but i think it's themed well enough to be fine.
>Raise
Really feel this should be XXBB. The fact it's an X spell that goes from being sub par (the standard for X spells) to worth casting by only 2 mana seems rather strong. It's also an uncommon.

File: Follower of the Fallen2.jpg (53KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 375x523px

One of the "retro" cards I started a while ago.

>>51616730
Jesus, they have to be attached to the same creature too? I think it would be hard enough just getting all twelve on the field at once. I mean, in a 60 card deck, you're talking about an entire fifth of your deck.

File: fools.jpg (943KB, 1875x2092px) Image search: [Google]

943KB, 1875x2092px

>>51603109
>>51603241
I reworked Fools, removing the "gain control of spells" and adding in the Laugh Counters mechanic, keeping most of the redirection. Hopefully this is less abjectly terrible.
>Clown Car
I mostly used Tribal in this case as an organizational tool, but I did end up adding in couple cards that care about fool permanents/spells rather than just creatures.
>Fool's Declaration
Fair enough. Removed.
>Fool's Mirror, Misdirection
Fixed, I believe.

>>51616845
I think you'll win the game before you get 12 on the field on the same creature.

1 kimono = 1/1
2 kimono = 4/4
3 = 9/9
So on and so forth, up to 11. At 12 you win.

>>51614087
This is going to make keeping track of changes really difficult and hap hazard. I really think just using Wither would be a much better move.

>>51607567
Consideration: If the other guy swings with three creatures, it'll create three triggers and you can nuke all three if you have enough mana.

File: Flesh Is Theory.png (262KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 375x523px

been a while but I fiddle around still

cost this plz

should it be rare? It should probably be rare.

>>51617775
This card confuses me. You're unlikely to trade up in creature quality, unless you're returning 1/1s and putting down 2/2s. They're not technically manifested, so you can't turn them up. So I guess this goes in a Morph deck?

File: Phlogiston Burst.png (314KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 375x523px

>>51617868
>this goes in a Morph deck?
The block is weird, but effectively yes.

File: succ.png (303KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 375x523px

Been ages since I fucked about with this, so I made a thing: Not sure if it's anywhere near balanced, but I'm already thinking of alternate ways of approaching the concept of the card.
possibly sacking for the effect, or maybe turning the counter generation into a keyword if I decide to make a bunch of succubi as Enrapture X (for X lust counters and -X/-X to the creature), possibly with a mana cost

also wanted to try basing cards around tasteful nudes after I browsed the grogbooru for a while

File: CM04 Parting Blow.jpg (42KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 375x523px

>>51604903
I'm still here. I only lurk occasionally right now, but I'm definitely still around. I'm working on my master's degree and I'm in the crux of my student teaching, so my nonparticipation is due to outside business rather than any problem with the threads. I love these threads, and I plan on jumping back in as soon as I have the time on my hands.

File: The Forgetting Maw.png (289KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 375x523px

Speaking of weird block. I don't know if players will get confused that you can't actually activate most abilities unless it is on the battlefield. This is for misthollow griffon/Faerie Macabre type interactions.

It's meant to be broken, effectively, but in a fun way. Hmm...

>>51618547
>This is for misthollow griffon/Faerie Macabre type interactions.
Doesn't work with Misthollow. You're probably thinking of Torrent Elemental. Card does seem pretty cool though, good choice for a mythic.

File: Future Guy6.jpg (39KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 375x523px

Flavor: Guy who tries to manipulate time, not so much in the extra turn sense, more in manipulating fate, future, destiny. First two ability alter the future, last ability sends things back into the "past". Mechanically: I want it to be more of a control thing, though admittedly, I'm not that great at designing control cards. Will add art and real name (as well as subtype) in the future.

>>51617775
Well, you forgot to incorporate the X cost into the rules text of the card. I'm just going to assume you want to word it something like
>As an additional cost to cast ~, return X creatures you control to their owners' hands.
>You may put up to X cards from your hand onto the battlefield face down. (They become 2/2 creatures.)
Last part is reminder text since face-down cards are by default 2/2 creatures. Anyway, there are some issues with this, mostly in that without Morph or Manifest, you won't be able to flip anything face up. I couldn't find any precedence for it, but I think you could get away with saying
>You may manifest up to X cards

>>51618001
Seen this idea a few times before. I've never been a big fan of casting spells from the battlefield, but I don't know if it just can't work.

>>51618006
Last ability should be modal. Not a fan, seems needlessly complex.

>>51618080
Don't have anything to say about this one that I haven't already said. Good luck with your master's and your teaching job.

File: eyy.jpg (412KB, 1125x1045px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 1125x1045px

>>51620053
Okay, some fucking about later I think I know what you meant by modal. And yeah, I wasn't satisfied with that card specifically; still rapid-prototyping some shit to play around with the concept (here's a WIP). In theory, Enrapture gives you two types of counters to play with and balances itself out by weakening/killing your creatures-- still need to look at some ways to shuffle the counters around between permanents and use counters on existing permanents.

Is it the mechanic itself that's too complex? Obviously, I want to make fun cards, and it seemed like a potentially fun mechanic.

>>51621110
>>51620053
Fuck, forgot to mention: Future Guy's ultimate affects lands as well, since you specified 'all permanents', doesn't it? Not sure if that's intentional, but I thought I'd check, since boardwipes I've seen usually spare lands.

>>51621142
It is supposed to be all permanents, though I think I'll tone it down to just screw one opponent instead of all of them. Though now that you suggest it, I will look more into nonland bounce versus permanent bounce. But does it feel like something that would work well for control?

>>51621110
Yeah, I don't get this at all. Putting -1/-1 counters on your own stuff is pretty weird. I mean, what is it supposed to be, bondage? Honestly, I feel like you should just do what Wizards did with energy counters. But obviously use lust counters in their place. Though to be perfectly honest... I'm not sure if people are going to take these seriously. I mean, it's like you're trying to make Monster Girl Quest into a card game. I mean, that's fine if you want to do that, I'm just saying that's how I expect people to look at it.

And let me add this: I think this is the reason why charge counters are almost entirely exclusive to noncreatures, Wizards doesn't want to run into the situation where there are a bunch of different counters going around and players have to keep track of all of them. I mean, just look at how Sunburst worked differently depending on whether or not the card it was on was a creature or not. It's just speculation, but I think it makes a lot of sense.

>>51617000
Whoops, got caught up designing a planeswalker and I forgot all about this! Sorry about that.

>Barrel of Laughs
Whoops. Should've told you before that the names of counters aren't capitalized. As for this, it would probably be better to tap to put a laugh counter on it, so it can at least function in a vacuum.

>Cold Reception
I think the wording should be
>As long as enchanted creature has a laugh counter on it, it doesn't untap during its controller's untap step.
And maybe not for this card, but I think an Aura that gives a -N/-0 effect that scales with laugh counters could be interesting. But have it so it places a few counters on the creature when the Aura ETB.

>Court of Jesters
I would be a lot more comfortable with this if it could only place laugh counters on itself. I'm not a fan of a land being able to give things the counters.

>Curtain Call
Wording should probably be
>Return each permanent with a laugh counter on it to its owner's hand.
Though I think it should be nonland rather than all permanents. I'm OK with placing laugh counters anywhere, but being able to affect anything with a laugh counter on it, I'm not sure about. Could be overreacting though.

Actually, I could give you wording advice all day, what you need is mechanical help I'm not confident in giving. I just don't think I'm knowledgable enough to help you with mechanics beyond what I've already told you. You need others to weigh in on the mechanic and say what's good, what's bad, and what needs to change. However, I will point out one more thing

>Vikar
Because of how changing targets works, you can't actually change the target to Vikar since he has Hexproof, which makes him an illegal target for stuff your opponents control. But perhaps instead say
>Whenever ~ becomes the target of a spell an ability controls, counter that spell or ability.
Hell, if you're feeling ballsy, maybe make it a tribal Kira.

>>51618547
Neat. I'd love Experiment Kraj/Necrotic Ooze to actually be viable.

File: Basra the Godslayer.png (273KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 375x523px

>>51621110
If you're gonna do this, I would make lust counters the only thing, and have different cards do different things with them, like how lust ca drive people to different ends in real life. It tightens up the theme a bit. I'd also make it, if you want it to have a drawback, affect the board, not just opponents' creatures. So you could them make "suicide" cards that give themselves lust counters to their own detriment, creating a need for careful, thoughtful play. Or you could do what >>51621326 says and make them not!energy counters or something similar. I just agree that mixing counter types on creatures is a bad idea in a limited environment, and I suspect that's why energy counters work the way they do instead of going on creatures. We might see more of that in the future if it was popular (I have no idea, I didn't draft Kaladesh).

>>51620053
Future manipulation, to me, would be setting your draws, so Scry for the + ability. The - ability being a tutor to the top of your library a la Liliana would work for the future as well. The last works for me as the "past" but I feel like it's a little bit cooler if they get to choose a permanent and then bounce the rest. Also, I'd make it nonland, since I think that's typically what bounce affects these days. But that's just me.

>>51618080
Good to see you, Timeanon.

>>51618006
I hope everyone remains good sports about this kind of art. I don't mind it myself so long as it doesn't cross the line into wank territory (inb4 "do you know where we are?")

See my comments above about lust counters and the mechanics you're working with here.

>>51618001
>noncreature Morph
I am honestly not sure this works, but the wording in the reminder text is pretty concise, so I don't see why not.

Have a simple EDH/Commander card.

>>51623610
Oops, artist is Alejandro M. G., by the way.

File: Wrath of the Olympians3.jpg (46KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 375x523px

Only change is cost. Again, this is supposed to be a Wrath on the part of the Amazon tribal, which focuses on having creatures and pumping them with auras and equipment. Honestly wish I had better art, something more dynamic, but this art has kinda grown on me, kinda looks like the gods are judging someone, which I guess fits.

>>51623610
>Future guy
Eh, I don't think I really explained my thought process very well, but I'll consider the changes.

>card
Oh, I get it, it's a political tool, right? Let the opponents have big creatures to beat each other, but if they turn against you, down they go. Seems cool.

What are some good Un-cards you've thought of?

Here's mine.

>Time Lock
1U, Instant
Exile target creature. The next time a game would start between you and your current opponent, place the exiled creature on the battlefield tapped under its owner's control.

File: Gorthog Devourer of the Deep.jpg (48KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 375x523px

Have any of you ever played with a custom set? Seems like they'd be tough to balance, but it sounds pretty fun

>>51623861
About that second ability: does he tap AFTER he starts attacking?

>>51624336
You can't respond to an attack until after it's already tapped if that's what you're asking.

>>51624374
So basically, here's the timeline I'm forming in my head:

>Begin attack step
>Call him in for attack
>He taps
>He gains hexproof and trample
>Begin block step

>>51624374
Isn't tapping technically a "cost" of a creature attacking? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I recall it working this way.

>>51624394
You get to respond after attackers are declared but before blockers, but otherwise correct.

>>51624413
You can think of it like that, but you can't respond to costs either.

File: Tatsu Yamashiro Katana5.jpg (48KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 375x523px

Re-post, nothing's changed, except the art, just trying to get more feedback before marking it as finished.

>>51623861
ETB works, but it would be simpler as
>When ~ enters the battlefield, sacrifice two creatures.
As for the HProof and Trample ability, I'm thinking they should be split up. Like, leave Trample, but add
>~ has hexproof as long as it's untapped.
So it would create a more interesting choice. Unless I'm missing something.

>>51623800
>political tool
Yeah, and a bit of a double-edged sword as well. Just something fun I wanted to try. I recalled Naya and Intrepid Hero and wanted to fiddle with a fusion of the two on a legendary body.

>Wrath
While I know this is a build around, and the tribal supports it heavily, it still feels really weighty in the cost. Was did it cost previously?

>>51623861
Kinda neat. Dunno that it needs the green though.

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

45KB, 375x523px

>>51624492
>Was did it cost previously?
2 less. For the record, this is precisely why I make new iterations while keeping the old ones.

>>51624482
Good call on the ETB. The idea with the abilites while tapped is that he untaps every turn, so you need to use his ability to avoid instant speed removal, which uses a lot of resources. And the turn he comes out, to avoid sorcery speed removal. And if you want him to block, it takes even more.

>>51624604
Are you aware that you can choose overlapping targets between modes?

File: Shielded Passage.1.jpg (47KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 375x523px

Honestly haven't done much at all with CO today, mostly been working on planeswalkers. So have a reprint. I just thought the art was kinda funny, Bats taking cover behind Supes. Composition is a bit wonky because I couldn't find a decent version without text, so I had to go lower in the image so that wouldn't show up.

>>51624605
True. I was just thinking of the cards Wizards has made that have some conditional protection that turns off when it attacks, like the elder Ojutai, Tromokratis, and Pristine Angel.

>>51624693
Yes. Too good?

>>51624722
I just wanted to make sure. A lot of people don't get how targeting works with multiple instances of multiple targets.

Personally, I think that it's fine as CMC 5 removal. Generally I'd expect to be getting two kills when I cast it, which is what I'd expect from CMC5 removal.

>>51610616
Shut the fuck up you fucking faggot, you could already list the obvious amount of criticisms I have with the game because you've already heard them before. Making an argument would just be wasting time, especially since you obviously view Magic's supremety as a religous truth. It should be obvious that you can't possibly view all of magic's current design philosophies as correct because current magic is regarded as the best of magic by almost no one.
>it lasts long as a ccg
Lasting long doesn't mean anything and it is a worse competitive game than dominion or chess or brood war and a worse social game than taboo or sharades
>t-those aren't ccgs so they don't count
You people are fucking retarded.
>>51610754
>Magic one of the first CCG's, but also one of the best
I don't know that that is the case and neither do you, ccgs by their very nature form a natural monopoly and have an economy of scale. If Magic was only alpha it would have died long ago. Most of the criticisms of competing ccgs have *generally* not been their core mechanics, but rather their power creep, lack of players, and poor individual card design.

>>51625665
Eh, don't see the appeal, I feel like it's just going to mill you. I guess it might possibly be useful to avoid getting mana screwed, maybe.

>>51626881
>Shut the fuck up you fucking faggot,
Well, since you asked so nicely.

>you could already list the obvious amount of criticisms I have with the game because you've already heard them before.
Well, yes, I COULD list YOUR complaints, but why would I when they're YOUR complaints? YOU should give an actual list of criticism beyond "magic is a deeply flawed game and current design trends are absolutely terrible." And you're not a mindreader, you don't know that I've heard them before.

>Making an argument would just be wasting time,
Yes, it would be a waste of time for me to argue with you, your beliefs are so solid and unshakable that not only did you not list any evidence to support them, but you also decided to react harshly when I pointed that out, because I don't buy into your beliefs without evidence, I don't buy into any beliefs without evidence.

>especially since you obviously view Magic's supremety as a religous truth.
Making this a simple case of projection. If you want to find someone acting religious, look into a mirror.

>It should be obvious that you can't possibly view all of magic's current design philosophies as correct
Just in the same way that it's obvious to Creationists that a God created the universe and that the Earth is only 6000 years old, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Seriously, even supposedly obvious claims should be backed up by evidence. Otherwise it just creates a circlejerk of people talking about things that are "obviously" true, but don't actually have any evidence to show that they are true. This is precisely how indoctrination works. Set up a belief system based around claims that are simply taken as true and never questioned.

1/?

>>51626881
>>51628318
>because current magic is regarded as the best of magic by almost no one.
I have a fever, and the only prescription is more evidence. In other words, [citation needed].

>Lasting long doesn't mean anything
Other than its success. Wow, this reminds me of someone getting pissy about people shitting on Mark Waid's run on Daredevil when they pointed to the sales, and he decided to say that sales are not a measure of popularity, even though that's one of the only things they can be used to measure, or at least approximate. If MTG were just a completely shit game, the only way it would last this long is if Richard Garfield were a multi-billionaire on the level of Bill Gates and had a fetish for wasting money. Magic isn't just something handed down from on-high, a gift from the gods, it's created by people and costs money to make. Money that is earned by selling. Which is achieved by success. I realize success (and/or popularity) isn't an indication of actual quality, but quality isn't objective, so I will be referring to the former rather than the latter. Which, incidentally, is probably why you only refer to quality, which is completely subjective.

> it is a worse competitive game than dominion or chess or brood war and a worse social game than taboo or sharades
Those aren't CCG's, they aren't even comparable. Why did you even bring them up? This is a nonsense argument. This is like a bunch of people having a conversation about cars, then suddenly one person walks in talking about how cars can't fly like airplanes or float like boats. Obviously cars can't do that, but everyone was talking exclusively about cars before, there's no reason to bring up airplanes or boats.

2/?

>>51626881
>>51628318
>>51628329
>You people are fucking retarded.
So, the people baffled at your nonsensical argument, and your loose grasp of logic in general, are the retarded ones? I think that maybe, just maybe, this is more projection. I mean, I feel like an immature Christian would react this way when confronted by people who question his circular logic about the truth of the Bible, when they point out how the Bible could be book of lies and simply say it were true. Both of these situations boil down to, essentially "Oh, you just don't get it."

>I don't know that that is the case and neither do you,
You're actually completely right here, I shouldn't have said "best", I should have said "most successful", for reasons I mentioned above, namely for being an objective measurement versus a subjective one.

>ccgs by their very nature form a natural monopoly and have an economy of scale.
OK, but even if this statement is true, it doesn't mean that MTG can't be successful and good at the same time.

>If Magic was only alpha it would have died long ago.
...Yes, if Magic only had one set, it wouldn't have lasted very long. Honestly, I don't even know what else to say to that.

>Most of the criticisms of competing ccgs have *generally* not been their core mechanics, but rather their power creep, lack of players, and poor individual card design.
OK, but if that's true, when didn't you bring up any of those things? You simply say Magic is terrible and assert it to be true.

3/3

fucking hell someone's mad

File: Soultaker Sword4.jpg (40KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 375x523px

>>51628463
Really? Who?

File: mancestly.png (3MB, 1490x1050px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1490x1050px

Some more Gathering Swarms cards. These display the ancestry mechanic, let me know if there's any that are too weak or powerful compared to the others.

File: lands1.png (2MB, 1490x1050px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1490x1050px

>>51630975
Also some basic land art since I always think it's cool to see.

>>51630975
>Immediate concerns
uncommons with 8 or more lines of text are effectively never acceptable. It's a bad idea even at rare.

>Noncreature mechanic, as long as ~ is in yard it has name changeling
Deathpact Angel is very confused.

>Ancestry
Seems meh. Just an endgame scaling mechanic with little interactivity. I'd remove the number from it and just make it +1/+1 default.

Also is extremely concerning in terms of having to track every single card in your yard at all times. Will be a clumsy mechanic to play.

>>51628318
You know I was going to write a response, but I don't think I could make a better argument against you than the one you made against yourself.

>>51630975
For Ancestry, never been a fan of keywords that are pretty much pointless in singleton, though that might be due to my liking of EDH.

>Ancestral
Oh, fuck me. No, this is just trying to force your Ancestry mechanic. I think you just need to go back to the drawing board for Ancestry entirely.

>Xi'Wang
Proper wording is
>T: Add C to your mana pool.
You will probably need to update MSE to get C mana.
>Human creatures you control have ancestry 1.

>Shan-Mu
Art in use, Loxodon Wayfarer.

>>51631172
Oh look, a religious believer who's afraid of debate, what a surprise.

>>51631218
OK you took my argument about how good the game was, said "this argument is subjective" and then discussed something completely irrelevent (success) for 3 posts while you double spaced...
yeah, I don't need to say anything else.

>>51631293
>>51631218
Wait, sorry you took my lack of argument, because I assumed that everyone would agree with me, because I hoped there weren't either retards, trolls, or paid shills here.

>>51631318
>paid shills
>tfw Soros is trying to destroy MTG
;_;

>>51631368
Truly he is so much worse than hitler that we need to create another hitler just to defeat him.

>>51631409
>Trump will build a Wall (walls can't attack) that will defend MTG from casuals.

I'dunno it might not be all bad.

File: Jace Guild Arbiter7.jpg (42KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 375x523px

New ult, changed middle ability to bounce to library instead of hand, +1 draws as well now. Eh, honestly not sure about any of the changes, mostly just need to figure out a good ult.

>>51631293
>OK you took my argument about how good the game was, said "this argument is subjective"
Yes, I did. And I also said "Hey, you're not backing up anything you're saying, can you at least provide solid examples of what you're saying?" Because evidence is what separates learning the truth from becoming delusional.

>yeah, I don't need to say anything else.
OK, even if my individual breakdown was poor or wrong, that still doesn't mean that you can just state something as fact without backing it up.

>Wait, sorry you took my lack of argument, because I assumed that everyone would agree with me, because I hoped there weren't either retards, trolls, or paid shills here.
This is why I said arguing with you would be pretty pointless for me, because in your head, you already have everything solved, everyone who agrees with you is in touch with reality and knows the truth, everyone else is just stupid or lying. I will take any future response from you that doesn't include anything to back up your claims to simply be you admitting that you can't back them up.

>>51631293
>>51631531
>that still doesn't mean that you can just state something as fact without backing it up.
Sorry, let me restate this.
>that still doesn't mean you should simply present a claim without anything to back it up and just expect everyone to believe it.

>>51631531
>that still doesn't mean that you can just state something as fact without backing it up
You just stated that as a fact without backing it up.
Communication requires assuming things you take to be true and not justifying extensively every position you make. As I said from the beginning, I was not making an argument. As I said from the beginning, (and you agreed with) you probably knew many of the points I would make if I were to make an argument.
>everyone who agrees with you is in touch with reality and knows the truth, everyone else is just stupid or lying
Yeah, pretty much.
>I will take any future response from you that doesn't include anything to back up your claims to simply be you admitting that you can't back them up.
Why?
I mean I know why you're actually doing it (to try to rope me in a conversation where you will continuously bound the discussion to make it seem like I'm being intellectually unethical or to claim victory if I refuse to battle), but why do you think that that is in any way justifiable? I actually want to see your mental gymnastics in that respect.

>>51631634
>As I said from the beginning, I was not making an argument.
True, I should've said "claim" rather than "argument".

>As I said from the beginning, (and you agreed with) you probably knew many of the points I would make if I were to make an argument.
When did I agree with this? No, you decided to pull the mindreader trick of "I know that you know what I'm talking about." Why do you think I keep asking for evidence? Because I don't know what you're talking about, I don't know where any part of your argument is coming from.

>>51631634
>>51631701
>I mean I know why you're actually doing it
Oh, another mindreading trick, brilliant. You really have to teach me to do this, it seems like a really useful trick. You don't know me, you don't know what I'm thinking.

>>51631701
>True, I should've said "claim" rather than "argument"
You didn't say argument?
>When did I agree with this?
>"I COULD list YOUR complaints, but why would I when they're YOUR complaints"

>>51631731
Oh. I was speaking more in that I have the physical ability to. In hindsight, I shouldn't have said that, but the point of it was that I was asking you to provide the evidence, instead of making me find your evidence.

>>51631719
It's called basic empathy, prediction, and intuition, you're actually doing it right now! they're the fundamental bases for communication and reasoning.

>>51631750
I wasn't asking you to find my evidence I had just assumed you had heard the arguments before, just like it is reasonable to assume you've heard of gravity. Thus I don't need to explain it again.

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

44KB, 375x523px

>>51631782
It's reasonable to assume that because I post in /ccg/, I know the arguments you are talking about?

>>51631836
Reasonable, perhaps incorrect, but reasonable, yes.

>>51631836
Takklemaggot was such a bad card but was endearing for some reason. This is pretty decent as a life cycle representation.

File: Mahamoti Lamp.png (229KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 375x523px

>>51632041
Thanks. It's part of a number of "retro" cards I'm making, basically things you might see in Time Spiral or Coldsnap, all referencing older cards. Though not exactly, because a lot of older cards use weird syntax.

Pic attached isn't my card, but it inspired these retro cards. I just think the design is brilliant.

File: Island Homesick.jpg (36KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 375x523px

>>51632041
>>51632119
Another retro card, this time representing an obsolete keyword. Hmm, I should make something to hint at Substance...

>>51632119
I do like this card. It's not strong in a power level sense, but it's extremely pleasing to my inner Vorthos.

>>51632232
I don't think this needs to be so pricey. 2U is probably fine; I mean look at cards like Arrest. I'd also change the name to something like "Reefbound" though I get that you're lampooning Islandhome.

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

41KB, 375x523px

Bleh. This was inspired by a card an anon made that was Red, destroyed a land, and turned lands into Mountains until the end of the turn. So this is Blue, bounces, and turns lands into, basically Wastes. Also inspired by Imprisoned in the Moon, Moonlace, and Pale Moon. Oh, and the anon card was named Moonfall.

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

37KB, 375x523px

Guess what this is based on. I try to keep as much of the original card as possible on the first draft (though I am not putting a Blue mana restriction on this), so if the costs need to change, let me know.

>>51633942
>I do like this card. It's not strong in a power level sense, but it's extremely pleasing to my inner Vorthos.
Exactly.

>I don't think this needs to be so pricey. 2U is probably fine; I mean look at cards like Arrest. I'd also change the name to something like "Reefbound" though I get that you're lampooning Islandhome.
The only thing it's good for is killing creatures, which is why it's 2UU. Since it's Blue, it's highly likely that whatever this goes on will still be able to attack you no problem, and if the creature's controller also has an Island, nothing really changes. I mean, I guess there are some fringe cases where it could be used as a political tool to stop an enemy from attacking an ally, but I didn't really make it with that in mind. I might just drop the concept and go about it some other way. Some of these older cards... yeah, there's a reason why they only got printed once.

>>51633948
>cacklingaffinity.dec

>>51634018
Help it's 1996 and I can't find my way back to... well, the real question is, do I really want to?

I did some throwback stuff long ago, when we had a thread themed around it. All those cards are now gone though, so I can't post them, sorry. Maybe I'll try something if I get inspired.

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

38KB, 375x523px

Probably absolutely disgusting. Based on one of Black's only ways to kill artifacts (not counting colorless cards, obv). I wish I could come up with some good Sheoldred flavor text, hopefully something that mentions the word "tribute".

>>51634162
>cacklingaffinity.dec
You'll have to explain this to someone who barely plays Magic. Should I change the cost?

>Help it's 1996 and I can't find my way back to... well, the real question is, do I really want to?
I got into Magic during Theros, so it's always kinda odd for me to hear complaints about the current trends, because most of the time they're absolutely normal to me and I don't get the complaint.

>All those cards are now gone though, so I can't post them, sorry.
Well, do you remember any of the names? I might be able to find them on the archives.

Here's a jojoke card.

>Joseph Joestar
>3WR
>Legendary Creature - Human Stand-User (3/3)
>Tap: Name a card. Your opponent reveals the next card he draws. If it's the card you named, Joseph Joestar deals 3 damage to that player. Otherwise, Joseph Joestar doesn't untap during your next untap step.

>3R, Tap: Search your library for an Aura card named Hermit Purple and place it on the battlefield enchanting Joseph Joestar. Then shuffle your library.

(Your next post will be "Hermit Purple's card"!)

...And here's Hermit Purple!

>Hermit Purple
>Undefined cost (can't be played!)
>Enchantment - Aura
>Hermit Purple is red.
>Enchant creature
>Enchanted creature gets +3/0 and has "Tap, sacrifice an artifact: Draw cards equal to the sacrificed card's converted mana cost."

>>51635037
I should probably reword that first part:

"Target opponent reveals the next card he draws."

File: 50353.jpg (60KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 375x523px

>>51635037
>>51635081
>>51635132
Helping others with cards is a gentleman's jojob. The (conceptual) problem is that under many circumstances, your untap step may come before your opponent draws his or her next card. They should just reveal the top card of their library. And in any case, that's an incredibly weak effect, because its just so high variance.

Have another Jojo.

>>51635363
"Can't" beats "can".

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

49KB, 375x523px

>>51635363
>>51635529
Wait, I misread it. Anyway, just say
>As long as a spell you control is on the stack, other players can’t cast spells or activate abilities that aren’t mana abilities.
I think that works.

File: 315353.jpg (45KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 375x523px

>>51635571
Its an old card, but this is much cleaner wording. Thanks.

>Wombat Umbra
Strictly better Auramancer's Guise?

>>51635737
Forgot about that, was just trying to base a card on Rabid Wombat.

>card
Eh, sorry, I can never remember why this card is made this way.

File: 171353.jpg (44KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 375x523px

>>51635810
>Eh, sorry, I can never remember why this card is made this way.
Shitty 5/5/5 parallelism?

>>51634800
For the record, I don't hate current Magic. I like creatures, and there are still plenty of spells, so I don't really get the issues most people have. I do miss pre-NWO commons though.

>cards
No, I really don't, and I don't really care to. Not that they were bad, but I never usually went back to look at old cards so I don't miss having deleted all of it.

>Moonrise
Well, it's gonna be super hard to cast, so there's that. Affinity is a deck that uses the Affinity keyword from Mirrodin to make its spells cheaper. LOTS cheaper, and most of them are colorless or have large generic requirements, so they can be made really really cheap. Moonrise here would not harm affinity in the least. Not saying it's overpowered; frankly I think it's too hard to use, but since Affinity uses Islands more often than not it's something it might be able to make use of.

File: Virgil Hawkins Static5.jpg (63KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 375x523px

Bleh. Static has electric and magnetic powers. Was trying to due magnetism before with artifact interaction, but I decided to drop that to just focus on electricity and lightning stuff now.

>>51636591
>Affinity
I know what Affinity is, I just didn't understand what you meant by that comment. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't your trying to tell me it was over/under powered.

>>51637303
Whoops, sorry then, carry on. Didn't mean to be so obtuse with my original comment. I suppose I should just shoot straight instead of trying to be funny from now on.

>Static
Well, somehow you've managed to actually make a card that literally static shocks stuff by building up a charge and zapping everything. Making the damage trigger on your upkeep is an interesting choice; I would have figured end of combat or beginning of end step or something that same turn. Allowing damage to be removed before the shock actually does a fair bit to balance it out.

>>51636240
Green liking nonbasic lands feels off to me, but I'm likely missing something important.

>>51635737
Oh hey, more 5 power hate. Nice. Giantkiller/godkiller cards are always fun, and feel very Timmy.

>>51635571
>Totem Armor
I wish they'd bring this back or evergreen it or something. It made Auras so much better.

File: Zeta-Beams.jpg (43KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 375x523px

Haven't posted this in a while, pretty sure I could call it done. TL;DR: Every turn, you get a random creature from your deck and it gains Haste, then you lose a creature at random. Which incidentally, is why the first basically guarantees getting a creature, to avoid situations where you just keep losing creatures. Hmm, I should probably make this legendary, now that I think about it.

>>51637373
Well, I think it's just my being paranoid. I really didn't think you'd meant to say it was OP, I just wanted to make sure.

>Static
Thanks! And yeah, that's why I tied the damage to the upkeep instead of end step. Lightning Reaver is a pretty cool card, but I knew making the ping more flexible would mean it would have to work differently. Hmm, Lightning Reaver is a much better version of Dreg Reaver, a common creature. I think I'll try to make a Lightning Reaver analog for things like Storm Crow and Chimney Imp.

>static shocks
Despite knowing that his super name is just Static, I admit that I always think "Static Shock" in my head. I honestly think DC should just change the name at this point.

>Totem Armor
Hmm, since Regen is dead (haha), I feel like Totem Armor might be able to fill that niche of protection that isn't quite Indie. But as for Auras, considering how much better the Gatherer ranking for Dragon Mantle is over Firebreathing, they could just upgrades Auras by making them all cantrips. Er, not saying they should do that, mind you.

Prismatic Flare
X
Instant
Prismatic Flare is every color of mana used to cast it.
You gain X life, where X is the amount of white mana spent to cast PF.
Draw X cards, where X is the amount of blue mana spent to cast PF.
Target player discards X cards, where X is the amount of black mana spent to cast PF.
PF deals X damage to target creature or player, where X is equal to the amount of red mana spent to cast PF.
Support X, where X is equal to the amount of green mana spent to cast PF.

>>51639152
>U: Draw a card
>Replicate
No.

>>51639175
Well, how would you make it better?

File: Last Stand (2001, Apocalypse) by Ron Spencer.jpg (90KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 312x445px

>>51639185
Not him, but draw then discard.

>>51639152
You messed up how the X works. You have an X in the mana cost, but then you go and define X differently for each ability. You'd have to reword each ability without X, like
>You gain life equal to the amount of white mana spent to cast ~.

Remember when these threads were good? I don't

File: 198353.jpg (46KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 375x523px

>>51640376
Your contribution to the thread is noted and appreciated.

File: Mana-Cathode Technician.png (260KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 375x523px

>>51640438
Hm. Comparing this to things like Beguiler of Wills makes me think the effect is okay, but the body might be too good. 2/2 perhaps? I know it's not that big a change but most creatures like this tend to be fragile.

So I had a thought: would anyone play a multicolored set where there were no dual lands or land-based mana fixing at all? If you could only fix mana through artifacts and creatures? I wouldn't likely keyword this, but I thought it might be alright to see pop up a few times in such a set, assuming the creature is costed correctly since it's usually a 1-2 mana artifact that does stuff like this.

File: Wurmfang.png (265KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 375x523px

This card literally came to me in a dream, name and all (which is probably why the name isn't Wyrmfang which would make more sense). Most likely because I watched Commander VS just before going to bed.
I just thought it was neat enough to jot down, because the deck you'd build around it would be sweet.

>>51641048
...huh. Enchantment synergy feels out of place to me in BR. As does granting Indestructibility. This really mechanically feels GW, honestly. Aside from the Dragon tribal stuff, that is. Something like, Griffins instead.

>>51641048
The flavor is terrible, BR doesn't do enchantments, and it should be a Wurm Dragon with that name, but I'd be lying if I said that card wouldn't get me to play Rakdos. Aura spam is my shit.

File: Lace With Roots.jpg (43KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 375x523px

>>51641048
This should be GW.

>>51640976
3 mana for a 1/2 that helps you filter feels a little weak. Also, this feels more U or R sense it's creating an artifact, instead of doing the filtering itself.
It doesn't need to be UR, but unless there is a large theme of artifacts synergies in the set I think this card would fit there a lot better.
>No land based fixing in a multicolor set
It comes down to how strong the fixing is, and how many colors can do it. If it's only in G, then no it would be a really weak design sense you either play 2 color, or you play G + 3 things sucking of G's dick for devotion to be cast.

>>51640438
Seems fair. Feeling a bit strong at 4 mana, but it isn't that insane.

>>51636240
G hates nonbasics. This affinity wouldn't fit there well.

>>51641568
>>51637373
Is there a color that actually likes nonbasic lands? Red and Green love to hate on them (and sometimes Blue), but I put it in Green because Green likes lands in general. Wave of Vitriol exists, yes, as do many cards that check for opponents playing nonbasics, but Green often finds ways to synergize with nonbasics, like unrestricted land search (Sylvan Scrying), land recursion that plays better with nonbasics (Life from the Loam), and fetchland synergy (Titania, Protector of Argoth).

>>51597527
It's not even mixing them. "Sacrifice a creature: draw a penis on ~. ~ comes into play with 1 penis drawn on it. ~'s power and toughness are equal to the number of penises drawn on it. When ~ dies, put a number of -1/-1 counters on target nonartifact creature equal to the number of penises drawn on ~."

>>51641642
AFAIK, no color really supports nonbasics. Just say it's like Red, which gets artifact hate and artifact love.

>>51644830
red supports destroying nonbasics. That's all I can say in that regard.

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

49KB, 375x523px

Because why not.

>>51644979
I wasn't commenting on how Red interacts with nonbasics.

File: custom card challenge.png (336KB, 1600x1000px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1600x1000px

Rolled 5, 5, 1, 8, 6 = 25 (5d10)

Bleh. Everything but archetype.

File: 5 5 1 8 6.jpg (43KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 375x523px

>>51646642
>Green, creature, card advantage, CMC 5, uncommon
Meh.

Rolled 6, 7, 8, 3, 2 = 26 (5d10)

>>51646878
Eh, one more.

>>51646927
>Colorless, enchantment, tax/control, CMC 2, common
Nevermind.

>>51646958
MAN UP

BlueIsColorlessNow (t. maro)
1C
Enchantment
Whenever a player casts a spell from anywhere but their hand, counter that spell unless its controller pays C.

>>51595309
upload the .mse file somewhere and share the link.

File: Join the Ranks.1.jpg (43KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 375x523px

Grr, I hate watermarks.

>>51595309
Oh wow, I saw your cards but I didn't even read your comment, I'm sorry about that. We share /ccg/ sets through one of the PasteBin articles in the OP. Just upload the MSE file somewhere and give me the link if you want me to add it.

>>51618547
holy shit that art is cool. its like corpsejack menace had a creepy brother

Rolled 6, 8, 5, 2, 2 = 23 (5d10)

>>51646642
let see.

File: Elder Dragons Folly3.jpg (40KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 375x523px

How do you guys feel about this as a drawback? I understand its functionally a very different card now, I'm just wondering if this is balanced, broken, or useless.

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

40KB, 375x523px

Rolled 7, 4, 10, 2, 6 = 29 (5d10)

>>51647881
So, not sure if it's an uncommon.

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

47KB, 375x523px

>>51641642
I think if a color were to specifically like nonbasic lands it would be a UB theme. B likes power at any cost, and making lands unnatural would fit there, and U like doing things efficiently so I think it fit there as well sense basics are usually worse then nonbasics.

>>51647020
That is way too strong, but to be honest there isn't really any way to make this balanced with those conditions besides making the tax effect to useless it never triggers. It would need to be like:
>2/1 eldrazi for 1C
>While ~ enters the battlefield, name a card. Cards with the chosen name cost 1 more.

>>51647993
The effect being symmetrical makes this feel fine. I really like the art, it fits the idea of cheesing things well, but the portal's design doesn't make me think, "Elder Dragon".

File: David Wilkes Prophet3.jpg (48KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 375x523px

>>51647993
I don't get having any player activate the ability. Why not just trigger at upkeep? I think it would make it fairer too, by making it more difficult to abuse.

Eye of Ilval-anon here. I was trying to add art to cards and when I tried to save my mse file it threw me a weird error. I didn't think much of it, but now whenever I load into the editor, it gives me a "no handler found for image type" error that persistently and continuously keeps popping up. Anybody have any ideas on how to fix this?

File: Prince of Darkness.jpg (47KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 375x523px

>>51648753
Eh, while I like these two abilities independently, I don't like seeing them together. See enchantment love on top of enchantment love just seems weird. And for the record, the only thing I could find that was close to this sort of thing was Puresteel Paladin.

File: Korro Tribal Hunter2.jpg (43KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 375x523px

New version of Korro, trying to make it a bit different from Domri. And hopefully it's not too similar to Sarkhan.

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

48KB, 375x523px

>>51648895
Getting buffed by enchantments owned has been in G a few times (Yavimaya Enchantress) and in W (Kor Spiritdancer, Blessed Spirits).
I could change the noble to be a 3/4 that gets lifelink and vigilance once you get Worship.

File: Alan Scott Green Lantern.jpg (54KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 375x523px

>>51649228
>Getting buffed by enchantments owned has been in G a few times (Yavimaya Enchantress) and in W (Kor Spiritdancer, Blessed Spirits).
Yes, I know.

>I could change the noble to be a 3/4 that gets lifelink and vigilance once you get Worship.
Sounds pretty good to me.

>card
I'd make it GU. G for enchantments, U for the Future Sight ability. And I think that ability works well for G as well.

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

40KB, 375x523px

>>51648895
oh woops.
>Prince
A really slow, inconsistent "win the game" trigger? Seems fine I guess. I'd rather just beat in my opponents face and kill them in 3 combats, instead of trying to kill them in 7 by having them block.
If you splash him into red and give him a "T: fight a thing" he might be worth 7 mana and a mythic rarity.

>>51649362
G only does Magus of the Future effects for lands, and worship is a mostly WB keyword.
I think with how MotFuture effects have been in most colors at this point, it isn't a color bound effect as long as the right hoops are getting jumped through. I could slap, "Whenever you cast a spell from your library you lose 1 life." to make it more like a phyrexian arena effect.

>>51648753
it's a little meta, the running idea is that bolas is going to release new phyrexia with his portal planar bridge amonkhet fuckery either intentionally or unintentionally.