/ccg/ Custom Card General /cct/

File: 2 White Rares Second Draft.jpg (484KB, 2625x523px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 2625x523px

I'll kick things off with some revised white rares for my set.

File: command cycle v 2.jpg (440KB, 1875x523px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 1875x523px

Revamped the enemy commands. A bit happier with them but still definitely feel they need some refinement.

>>53027474
>Al Bahet
damn that's powerful, making combat always go in your favor. I don't know what to tell you to do but I just feel it's a little much.

>pontif
Pretty cool, seems to be a solid power level tough it would never see constructed play. Limited bomb for sure.

>RW03
Again, pretty solid.

>rw04
I think the thread is right and this is about the powerlevel this should be. It's definitely potent but not busted.

>assault
One hell of a combat trick to be sure, slightly pushed perhaps but seems fairly costed to me though.

>charge
Perhaps a modicum over costed, I'd make it 4 unless, due to the synergy your set has with highest CMC, there are things that have highest CMCs than what you actually pay for them. Even then, as is, it's a potential 5 mana do nothing. Compares very very poorly to secure the wastes otherwise. sure, STW is a somewhat OP but the comparison still needs to be made to give some idea of acceptable power level.

>RW07
I can dig it, good old overcosted O ring with upside. Hard to go wrong with such design.

bumping thread

>>53027696
Thanks for the feedback, friend. Sorry I'm being slow on the response; I'm working on a project for class.

File: Altan Street Magician.jpg (39KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 375x523px

Still busy, but I'll bump until the thread gets moving. Old card, haven't updated the wording.

>>53032444
Not a lot of self-synergy. Just seems like random goodstuff.

Maybe you could link the +x/+0 ability to the second thing?

Also I would switch the text blocks. Activated abilities below errata.

>>53032542
>Random goodstuff
Ah, it's just a fun flavor card, man. She does magic tricks and attracts a crowd. She breathes fire. That sort of thing.

>>53032736
Honestly didn't pick up on the flavor, even though the word "Magician" was in the title. Maybe the tokens could be Bird tokens?

>>53032444
Also, "put a _ token onto the battlefield" has been replaced with "create a _ token".

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

52KB, 375x523px

I have a concern about this card, I don't know if it's red. I like red's "impulse" effects its been getting recently, but the way this card works feels more blue. I'd like to know what you guys think.

File: gr03u Wildmana Elemental.png (292KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 375x523px

I feel that my UG faction is a bit cluttered.

The idea for them is that they live in a giant forest where the mana of the world is decaying and going wild. This causes everything living there to be mutated and entwined with that mana resulting in them fluctuating between being and elemental and being pure mana like an instant / sorcery.

Now the mechanic I want for them is evoke because it's a graveyard heavy set so getting dudes into the grave while also getting an effect is great for that and the flavor is a perfect match. However, I feel like you can't really make that the focus of a faction so main thing of the faction should be tribal synergy. The issue is, many of the creatures in it are things like Mutant Beast Elemental.

So the question becomes, where I do place the focus? Do I tone down the tribal synergy and just make evoke a bit more common? If I focus on a tribe I'd need to make it either elementals or mutants because splitting it between the two makes it unruly. Do I utilize the keyword I devised called "embody" which is evoke except in reverse meaning you have an expensive alternative cost on an instant/sorcery that creates a token. Upon reflection though that's just awaken but without the animating of lands. Or am I being too worried and should stick to my current path of making mutant [some type] elementals, giving some evoke and some mutant tribal synergy?

This guys is kind of a microcosm of what I'm on about, split between mutants, graveyard, evoke, elementals, tribal. I think he's a good design but he abandons the mutant aspect of the faction and might as well just be an elemental.

>>53033014
While I agree with you about it feeling kind of blue, the difference I feel between a card in blue that lets you decide between cards and gain card advantage is that it does it slowly, it costs more, is more permanent. While this card is letting you go deep into your deck and gain access to a card, it's doing it quickly and temporarily.

The flavor and mechanics I feel are solidly red. As for this card in particular, I feel like it needs something else to make it worthwhile. Give the creature something outside of just that tap ability. Have the tap ability do 1 damage to something or give the enchanted creature prowess, that fits the flavor of the card.

Wait, shit, your wording on the tap ability is ambiguous. Does it mean "until end of turn, you may play a card exiled by the aura this turn", or until end of turn you may play a card exiled by the aura?

>>53033345
Eh, sorry about the ambiguous wording. It's supposed to be "Until end of turn, you may play a card exiled with Knowledge Expansion." That's why I'm not sure how red the card is, because you get the cards for more than one turn.

>>53033187
It's kind of weird for a monogreen card to be reanimating imo. I don't see the problem for Evoke being the focus of a tribe. Just make cards in that tribe care about evoke in some way.

>>53033443
In that case then yeah, I'd say it's red.

Red access cards cheap and quickly, this has the cheap (2 mana for 3 cards is really powerful) but the tapping of creatures, getting them eventually, deliberate play of them isn't exactly red. Sure, it being tired to a creature at all is weird for blue but not unheard of.

I think chaning the tap ability to allow you access to one of the three exiled cards (you do need to specificy that the card has to be face up in order to cast it) that turn and having the enchantment give something to the creature is more in line with what red wants to do.

>>53033501
I'd say it's NOT* red

>>53033501
>You need to specify that the card has to be face up in order to cast it
Not unless it allows you to pick any arbitrary exiled card. Because it's a card exiled by Knowledge Expansion, it will be face up.

So you're suggesting the tap ability just allow you to cast one thing for the first turn you play the card? And then those cards would be inaccessible, and the only reason to have the enchantment around would be some kind of creature bonus?

File: Umbungo of the Land.png (922KB, 750x1046px) Image search: [Google]

922KB, 750x1046px

I have no idea what an Umbungo is.

>>53033673
Even cards that deal with cards they exile they still specify "while that card remains exiled face up" to prevent any future design from completely breaking them.

>>53034038
No, they don't.

File: Hedonist's Trove (2015, Dragons of Tarkir) by Peter Mohrbacher.jpg (71KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 312x445px

>>53034038
You can't pay nonexistent mana costs, you can't cast face-down cards.

>>53033761
>>53033918
>>53033986
These are all insanely powerful and easily broken.

>>53034487
I can dig it, though I'm nervous about it costing 2, just feels ever so slightly undercosted but that may just be me.

File: Impulsive Charge.png (287KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 375x523px

>>53034754
Cloudshift is only one mana, and the two color requirement is probably enough to offset two cards being spliced into one.

>>53034954
Alrighty then.

Charge seems pretty alrighty.

File: revision2.jpg (708KB, 1500x1046px) Image search: [Google]

708KB, 1500x1046px

!notKaladesh guy here again.

I have a lot of revisions as presented here.

So far, 4 mechanics seem to bode well with me.

>Weld
As most of you guys said, it was pretty unique and could see different usages. I provided another sample of Weld on the black card.

>Upgrade
Such a vanilla name, but descriptive. So far this works as "If a creature has X number of one type of counter, effect". I decided that it shouldn't have to be +1/+1 counters to allow for unique strategies with other forms of counters. +1/+1 counters are just the most typical and prevalent type.

>Fabricate
I decided that if I was going to bring in Counter Threshold/Upgrade and Weld, I might as well get the mechanic which either produces artifacts or counters for a creature. Makes sense and fits the flavor.

>Kicker
Though it might seem random, I thought kicker would actually be a neat mechanic to add to the set. Kicker, in a flavor sense, is representative of taking ones' time to make/become something of a higher quality. Kicker, in the mechanical sense, lets me fit in lots of different artifact stuff and make spells with "basic" and "advanced" effects.

>>53036235
Also, quick clarification on the black card. It should say "Smuggling Crew" in the rules text of the card. I was toying with some names but forgot to edit that part out.

>>53036259
You know you can insert a card's name into the rules text with ~, right?

>>53036619
Huh, I didn't know that was an actual hotkey.

Thanks for the pointer.

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

47KB, 375x523px

...I don't think I can defend this, but I felt the need to make it anyway.

>>53036235
Welding Shop keeps dudes tapped forever with its current wording. Doesn't seem intentional based on the "next untap" bit.

>>53036691
You're absolutely right, you can't defend this. Might as well be a red Armageddon.

>>53036712
The goal was that when they become tapped, they don't untap until their controller's next untap step.

I tried to make the wording work as best I could.

>>53036691
Good lord

>>53036734
You want a delayed trigger then, my nigga. "When a dude or welded artifact an opponent controls becomes tapped, <thing>"

>>53036788
I just swapped the wording on that. Thanks for that b.

>>53032736
"at the beginning of your next end step gain x 1/1 human counters where x is Altan street magician's power"

"the bigger the fire, the bigger the crowd"

>>53036691
>all lands gain
>all lands
>all
Kek 10/10

File: Sanctifier of Steel.png (176KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 375x523px

>>53036691
This is so weird. I'm trying to wrap my head around when you'd actually use it. It's awesome though.

>>53036235
Fabricate is an alright choice to add, but with Kaladesh so fresh, do you want to callback like this? It does fit well with Upgrade though, as you say. Kicker seems to fit the theme you want to go for of "make it bigger/better", so that's a welcome addition too. I'd change the Experimentalist to sac artifacts to make tokens instead of requiring mana. It seems to fit better, all told, and it's way more red. Repurpose the Past is cool now, actually. Smuggling Crew feels more UB since black draw doesn't usually call for discard, just life loss. Iron Liege could read "Whenever another creature enters the battlefield under your control with one or more counters on it, you may put another counter on it of a kind already there" as per Proliferate. Machine Shop's wording could be "Whenever a creature or welded artifact an opponent controls becomes tapped, it doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step." I don't think Glowform Artist needs to be rare.

All in all, I'm interested to see how this set shapes up.

>>53034487
This is muy bueno.

>>53038363
>make tokens
I meant make counters, sorry.

>>53038363
Last ability breaks with any 0 cost equip abilities, which are going to be easy to find since the card reduces the equip cost.

File: Madame Mirage6.jpg (54KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 375x523px

Madame Mirage again. Since the flavor is Illusion, I wonder if I should make the tokens into Illusions as well. But then I feel like I'd need to give them the Illusion downside. Besides, I already have a card for that. Eh, I think I'll just make them Illusions but not use the downside.

>>53040460
I like the design a lot, but I worry it's kind of complicated and doesn't feel very red. What about an 3/1 illusion with haste that gets sacrificed at the end of the turn? And keep the redirect ability, but make it so that the "X" is the CMC of the spell being redirected?

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

35KB, 375x523px

I'm playing around with designing a Return to Lorwyn set with some powerful tribal synergies, how'd I do for my first planeswaker? I wanter her to be playable in GBx creature decks as well as elf decks, so her -3 gives you something, but gives a bit more if you have elves. I know the wording it a little off but i was running out of space.

>>53041656
Patriarch? Isn't that matriarch?

...or is Nissa a tranny?

>>53042034
If so, he hasn't gotten the top surgery yet. Look at those honkers.

>>53041656
Seems pretty fair, definitely in line with the Planeswalkers WotC has been printing lately. I like the design. The emblem should either be "At the beginning of combat on each player's turn" or "At the beginning of combat on each of your turns" to reduce confusion, I feel like. But that's nitpicky.

>>53042034
Right, I just picked something that sounded good. I'll fix that.
>>53042167
yeah, I wanted to be more specific but I was running out space without having text clip behind the loyalty counters.

>>53041656
I'd probably bump the loyalty of the ult up to -6 to keep it in line with all the other 4 drop PWs.

File: Nissa Darkwood Matriarch.jpg (37KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 375x523px

>>53042563
Alright, now with 100% less male pronouns and proper wording. I had to jam a bunch of spaces in the +1 to force the text to resize but if I end up doing the whole set I can just remove the +1 and add it centered properly in PS or Paint. Is the hardest part of making a set always coming up with commons that aren't just Grey Ogres? I'm thinking Mono-R elementals with a land-sac scorched earth theme. Make a new Ashling card that interacts with mountains and stuff.

>>53039433
Maybe I'll just have it reduce casting cost in that case. An otherwise unremarkable card fixed and forgotten then.

>>53042719
So it's uncastable if your opponent doesn't control at least 2 creatures. Maybe have it give opponents tokens on cast/etb instead. You could also have some kinda of reward mechanic for him killing things, like: "whenever a creature dealt damage by "name" this turn dies, put a trophy counter on "name"
"Name" gets +1/+1 for each trophy counter on in.

>>53042704
Look at some of the completed /ccg/ sets for ideas on how to approach custom commons. Or just scope out commons on gatherer.

>>53027495
A bump

>>53042704
>create a 1/1 black and green Elf creature token.

>Up to one target elf creature you control fights target creature you don't control.

I think the emblem is a touch underpowered but not by much, it's probably about fine.

>>53043686
actually, I think it would be "...fights UP TO ONE target creature..." Otherwise you would still have to have any creature to target.

>>53043715
Real men fight permanents. Show that motherfuckin' top who's boss.

If I wanted something to choose a creature or player at random, how would that be worded?

For instance, if there are 6 valid targets for this ability, I want to be able to roll a d6 with results that look something like this:
1: target you
2: target your opponent
4-6: target a creature

Rather than:
Choose "a random player" -> flip a coin
or
Choose "a random creature" -> roll d4

Currently I have:
>At the beginning of your upkeep, choose a creature or player at random. Equipped creature fights the chosen creature or deals damage equal to its power to the chosen player.

That still reads to me like "choose 'players' or 'creatures', then choose targets at random from there."

>>53043325
But then the downside is almost completely nullified. What if you are on the play and your opponent doesn't play a 1-drop? You'd drop that guy turn 2 and wreck face.

>>53044597
It could give tokens then distribute counters, so that you have to find a way to buff him to swing in for profit.

I'm thinking for my Elemental support I'm gonna make a mechanic that lets players sac lands when creatures enter to put +1/+1 counters on them, and if Mountains are sacced it'll give haste. Should it be "Ability X":you may sac x lands and put x +1/+1 counters" or "Ability: you may sac any number of lands put that many +1/+1 counters"?

>>53047024
I think it should be an arbitrary number of lands. I think it should be "Ability: When ~ enters the battlefield, you may sacrifice any number of lands. Put X +1/+1 counters on ~, where X is the number of lands sacrificed this way." I like the mountain clause, but it seems like the ability is already getting pretty wordy.

Bump to save thread

File: Image.ashx.jpg (32KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 223x310px

Is the design space of "Can't be cheated in" fully explored? Or I guess the better question is whether or not it's worth exploring more.

>>53051027
Unless your thing is stronger then an Emmy eon's torn there is 0 reason to include "can't be cheated in" mechanics. If anything, the design of rewarding you cheating things in is very unexplored.
Try making a creature that is mediocre and blow average when cast and far better when cheated in.

File: bu09w Exonerated Imp.png (242KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 375x523px

>>53051261
I've explored such design.

>>53051316
>that clipping
>that extra comma
Clean that shit up senpai card itself is cool

>>53051316
It bothers me fractionally that the way you formatted the enter clause is correct because casted things touch the stack and forget about their previous zone. It feels so clunky.

>>53051446
I had it fixed in my set editor but didn't have it in this version of it.

And yeah, the clipping over the p/t box is because of the modern border being a fuster cluck

>>53051511
Add spacing at the end of the flavor text to shrink it and fix the clipping.

File: Sanctifier of Steel.png (177KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 375x523px

>>53040460
I'm with >>53041340 here; this honestly sounds good and falls into UR a bit more, though redirecting is technically both colors.

>>53042719
I'd change it so you can distribute the counters onto between one and three creatures.That way, even if they have a 1/1, his 4/4 first strike wins over the 1/1 with three counters on it most times, so it's still an upside. Or, give the opponent control of where the counters go?

>>53042704
The ult choosing two of the keywords for your creatures to gain wouldn't be too out of line, with a small adjustment to the loyalty cost. As it is, it is a bit redundant with her -3, which I would honestly use more over the -6 as it is.

Decided to not be a bitch and give up on this card, new version along with the bump.

File: RM07 Deific Beacon.jpg (48KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 375x523px

Hell, guys, I graduate in two days! Seems crazy to me. Sorry for the off topic bit; here's a rare to make up for it.
>>53052693
Shit+enter to get rid of that extra line you've got going on there. The card itself is a bit boring. "Do white thing number one, or do completely unrelated white thing number two." I think I'd like it more if the flavor translated better; Sanctifier of Steel sounds like someone who would remove spirits and magical influence from weapons, not someone who makes every sword and spear you have shit ghosts.

>>53053333
Nifty on graduating and the card

>>53053333
Well congrats on your graduation. Sorry to waste space with a boring card. Dunno why I tried again.

I'm not sure what to think about your card. I'm actually not sure I'm qualified to give feedback anymore. So, grats again, and cheers.

>>53053434
For what it's worth, I think you're card's fine.

>>53053388
>>53053434
Thanks, y'all.
>>53053434
>Sorry to waste space
You aren't wasting space, man. The card is perfectly functional and servicable, even powerful. It just doesn't necessarily grab me. Besides, cards posted here are works in progress by definition. Refine and repost until you're happy with the design; if you already are, then keep it!

>>53053456
>>53053523
I'd have rather made a cool card than a "fine" one; "fine" wasn't the aim. So I failed. Happens basically every time I make a card, so it's not really surprising. You'd never know I've been making cards for like 6 years off and on. It's kind of pathetic.

>>53053644
Design isn't a binary between "great" and "failure," man. Cool is subjective. Ease up on yourself. Think of all of the cards Wizards makes, and how rarely they make one universally considered "cool." And they've been at this for a lot longer than any of us.

>>53053644
Now don't be like that. You're blowing it out of proportion. The card is designed well. Perhaps does a little too much, I'd personally remove the cost reduction or the indestructible clause. But that's me. You're not fucking anything up or wasting anything. Just have fun with it man.

File: RR01 Warrior of Whirling Sands.jpg (54KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 375x523px

I have nothing else new at the moment.

File: Adoration of the Masses.jpg (45KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 375x523px

I'll bump with old stuff.

>>53054257
That is extremely powerful

Maybe nerf it a little bit?

File: Disciple of Divergent Paths.jpg (46KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 375x523px

>>53054286
I can make it more expensive.

>>53054894
This feels like it should cost 1 and just cost 3-4 to put a counter on it. Too much investment required to play it as it is now even if it is easier to beef up.

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

38KB, 375x523px

>>53054983
That's fair.

>>53055189
That flavor

>>53054618
I really like this card.

>>53054618
This card is neat but you need 2 activations (at 6 mana no less) to even Legendary rule a pair of enemies off the field and there's not a whole lot of support for straight legendary things.

>>53052693
He reads "two or three" rather than "one, two, or three" for three reasons. One because it makes him a bit more difficult to cast. Two it feeds into his flavor that he wants a real challenge since 1v1 just doesn't do it for him. And three I wanted to avoid the player being able to dump all counters on one creature and then removing it.

>>53058012
>>53052693
Also, making an opponent decide how they distribute the counters is a good idea but difficult to word I think. How would you word that?

>>53055774
if it's a pair of the same creature, you only need one to be Legendary because then there exists two creatures with the same name as a Legendary creature and their controller would have to choose one to keep

File: Guardian of the Valley.jpg (48KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 375x523px

Why is the thread so barren today?

>>53060312
You jinxed it

Also many people (like me) are in the middle of Finals season.

File: received_1904586889824026.jpg (45KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 375x523px

R8, friend wanted to combine undead alchemist with a spider

>>53060906
Just a few more days my dude

>>53060906
>>53061277
Ah, that's fair. I finished up the last of my academic obligations yesterday, but I guess my classes end sooner than most. Good luck!
>>53061266
That is indeed Undead Alchemist plus a spider. Not sure what else to say about it.

>>53061266
It's actually a spidery Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet, but otherwise it looks pretty good.

File: received_1904586719824043.jpg (30KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 375x523px

I'll bump with spiders

File: received_1904587109824004.jpg (33KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 375x523px

.

File: received_1904586709824044.jpg (35KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 375x523px

Dudes making a spider edh

>>53062398
>>53062432
>>53062469
I think the cards are pretty fine but you need the appropriate font. Google up "beleren" otherwise you're cards are gonna look weird.

File: evoke examples.jpg (850KB, 1125x1569px) Image search: [Google]

850KB, 1125x1569px

UG faction examples coming through.

And can a brother get some feedback on these as well? >>53027495

>>53066110
Damn it, tempest crow and wildmana have their type sequence off.

It's supposed to be elemental [type] mutant [class] isn't it?

>>53066110
I love em. Sequence breaker feels undercosted though.

>>53066371
Thanks mate.

Where would you up his cost? I think making it 2UU makes his ability somewhat comparable to commit and his body and main cost put him a bit below torrential gearhulk. Granted, I will definitely admit he's pretty damn strong but I feel adding an extra number anywhere would make him bad because his body is too small to really be a lategame win con and making his evoke cost more makes it unusable as early-ish tempo. Maybe make him a 4/4 but then he'd also be a pretty meh blocker as well.

>>53036691
Would be more on flavor if for each land sacced or destroyed players got gold tokens.

>>53066110
Choose elemental or mutant. Those type lines are too cluttered.

>>53068428
They've done 3 types before with mutants before to be fair. I've been worried about it myself but I feel there's enough precedent and justification with tribal synergies and flavor. Your criticism is definitely valid and I'd usually agree but I'm going to hold onto this for now and if it becomes an issue I'll definitely clear it up.

>>53054618
>Green
This is a U effect. You should also consider putting reminder text on it to explain what the downside of being legendary is.

>>53055189
Very flavorful, but this is a R or B effect, not W.
You can easily shift this to R and still fit the flavor of a cocky duelist trying to show off.

>>53054368
Always liked this one.

>>53054618
Blue effect. Also, is that art from TNotW? Yikes.

>>53066110
Please use some LTB or death triggers, if for nothing more than just to mix things up. Especially Woodman's, which wouldn't be too hard to change by changing the ability to always recur to the battlefield and changing the trigger to death.

>>53071727
I had considered leave the battlefield but I was kind of worried about it causing things to get mixed up. After all, the original evoke cards had the enter and leave versions split between sets. Granted that was probably for flavor so I can probably safely add in some leave.

File: random ideas 3.jpg (530KB, 1125x1046px) Image search: [Google]

530KB, 1125x1046px

Some assorted stuff. Looking back on it, the smith should either have his cost upped by a good bit or reduce the damage he deals to 1.

File: Darkseid of Apokolips4.jpg (54KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 375x523px

Darkseid again. Switched exile from nonland permanents to any permanents. Nonland seemed like a kinda useless distinction to me. Changed the Parademon from two 2/2's to one 4/4. Felt like Parademons should be a bit more powerful.

>>53053333
>Hell, guys, I graduate in two days! Seems crazy to me. Sorry for the off topic bit; here's a rare to make up for it.
Congrats man, you earned it. Still struggling through college, and life in general, myself. Can't wait for the day I graduate.

>card
Interesting how the two abilities work with each other. Hard to balance it though. I guess it's alright where it is, but i feel like this is something you'll have to playtest to really get a feel for how powerful it is.

>>53072707
>am01
"Rule" should be included in those quotes. I'd rather simplify the second ability to just giving a loyalty counter to each planeswalker you control at your upkeep.

>gu04
The tap ability should be in quotes. Unsure on cost. It's probably fine where it is though.

>gu01
Meh.

>rc13u
What exactly do all these prefixes mean? What's the u stand for? Anyway, I'm not a big fan of Salvage because I think it's going to lead to a lot of games that play similarly because people just recur the same artifacts over and over again. Could be wrong though.

>uc07r
Seems OK.

>bu04
Eh, seems a bit cheap to me.

>>53072862
You're right, and I specifically have the second part the way it is so planeswalkers don't kill themselves with their ults meaning the potential doubling up is even more valuable AND so I don't have to include a "they enter with an extra loyalty counter" clause to be functionally the same.

You're right again.

Yeah, it's meh, but hey, it's a variant on sylvan scrying, simple utility.

The prefixes are there to keep the set organized. so for rc13u it's Red Common #13 Blue (because it's got the UR faction's mechanic I include the u in its prefix.) You bring a good point but the set is meant to be graveyard synergistic while this also allows for using the scrap tokens as a resource sort of like kaladesh's energy. If you have a recommendation on what the scrap tokens could say instead I'll consider it. However, recursion is something I enjoy, this may just be a matter of different strokes yeah?

K.

I specifically want this guy to be a 1 drop to help with the graveyard synergies this set has. Where do you think his power level should be? Only milling one dude? Maybe upping the cost or requiring a tap for the second ability? He's meant to be a one drop that's a good draw later on so making him tap for the second ability makes him a lot worse because it's more likely he'll die before you can get value.

Thanks for the corrections and feedback.

File: Jay Garrick the Flash5.jpg (41KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 375x523px

No huge changes here, just a minor wording change, hopefully so it's easier to understand the intent of the mechanics.

>>53073054
>so planeswalkers don't kill themselves with their ults
0 loyalty kills the planeswalker as a state-based action before the counter ability resolves.

>scrap
Possibly. To be honest, I just keep thinking back to Wizards' stories about the Mirrodin block. Plus a bit of Retrace. As for a replacement? Hmm... sac for mana, spend only on artifacts?

>I specifically want this guy to be a 1 drop to help with the graveyard synergies this set has.
I'd add a tap to the second ability, yeah. Also, probably a restriction, maybe something like looking at how many creature cards are in your graveyard. Kinda like Pit Keeper. Basically to be sure it's only useful later on as intended. And looking at it some more, I'm not sure on it milling others if the point is to recur your own stuff. Oh wait, actually, I was just concerned about the recur cost before, but the mill is a problem too. the closest card I can find is Merfolk Mesmerist, which is 1U and takes U to tap and activate the ability. Granted that one's common though.

>>53073237
that's what I was worried about, guess it's going to have to be the much clunkier "as an additional cost to" version.

I was going to make them add C but that felt to derivative of gold tokens. Artifact specific is something to consider but I'd also want to include activated abilities of artifacts and that makes the text pretty huge. Also, I'm uncomfortable making a ramping ability for the UR guys. I could remove the artifact part from the creatures themselves to mitigate it but then it loses a lot of identity. It's definitely a path to consider though.

so now it only mills one (I think the added utility of messing with enemy scrying is nifty) and it requires a tap and 2b to activate the second ability. I considered 1BB for the second ability but if this thing is meant to help the grave synergies then probably should make it more splashable. Probably consider making it common for limited but then I feel I'd have to hamper it more.

>card
pretty neato. Easily killable but powerful if left unanswered and has immediate impact. I can dig it.

File: Phantom Zone5.jpg (55KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 375x523px

Changed to work like a one-sided Tragic Arrogance. Since it's just a big O-Ring, I thought I might as well give the player the choice instead of letting the opponents choose what to keep. Tell me if it's too strong though.

>>53073363
>that's what I was worried about, guess it's going to have to be the much clunkier "as an additional cost to" version.
Jesus, I wouldn't even know how to get around the SBA here. I still think it should just hand out loyalty counters on upkeep. Or maybe postcombat main phase, I guess, but that seems really anal to me. No offense.

>Artifact specific is something to consider but I'd also want to include activated abilities of artifacts and that makes the text pretty huge.
It's reminder text. It doesn't have to be exact, it just has to give the reader a good idea of what it does. Granted, it's a bit different for granting abilities to tokens like this, but I could see
>Create a colorless Scrap artifact token with "Sacrifice this artifact: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool and spend this mana only on artifact spells or abilities."
But that could just be me.

Still not entirely sure on the Black one. Just keep an eye on it and continue asking for feedback. And playtesting always helps.

>Jay Garrick
Thanks.

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

51KB, 375x523px

Last one for tonight: Ward of Bones as a creature, and symmetrical. Really concerned about the mana cost of this one, since it's based on a 6-cost artifact.

File: Sanctifier of Steel.png (179KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 375x523px

>>53073555
Honestly seems fine to me. 4WW is where the "board wipe that benefits the caster" cards live. If they have say a single PW that's about to ult, this isn't going to save you from that, for example. It does however give you the ability to set the board more or less how you'd like to see it, so it probably can't be cheaper.

>>53073625
Well, Ward of Bones is generic mana, so that's going to increase the cost, and it comes from before they started costing artifacts more aggressively, so I'd say this dude could probably cost 2WW. Thing is, in a control shell, as your only creature, he keeps anyone from casting creature spells if they have more than one creature, and if you have no other nonland permanents, it's even more of a big deal of a lockdown till you're ready to win. It may be symmetrical but you can build around it to your advantage easily. So yeah, probably too cheap.

>>53072711
You know, part of me would like to see him function a bit like a Theros god and not be a creature until a condition is met, to represent him not showing up till his minions have subdued the surroundings. It just feels like it's something he'd do. Maybe have him generate a single Parademon each turn, and when you control X number of them, he becomes a creature and can do the Annihilator+ thing when he swings? Just a thought. Could make him cheaper that way too.

>>53053697
>>53053779
Here. I figure the Expertise spells from Kaladesh let me get away with this, but I can increase the cost of the activated ability if need be. Hopefully it's more interesting this way. At the very least it's a survival bump.

>>53075070
>card
Nice. I really like seeing Equipment matters cards, especially in R and W. Only suggestions are to change from casting the card for free to just putting it on to the battlefield, unless you have an idea for the cast to trigger something else. And maybe decrease the cost on the ability since it's a bit conditional, but I could be wrong.

Actually, yeah, maybe see what you can do with a Red counterpart to this. Same triggered ability, different activated ability? DStrike maybe?

>>53073555
As an additional cost to activate loyalty abilities of planeswalkers you control, put a loyalty counter on that planeswalker. The wording may be slightly off but that's how to do it.

And I just thought of something, maybe scrap tokens add C and include a clause that allows you to spend that mana to cast artifacts from the grave. Of course, this creates the issue of having to add the long clause of "Spend this mana only to cast artifact spells." Meaning the reminder text is 6 lines long. I guess I'd have to sacrifice something to keep the mechanic manageable which is where I was before I got to where they currently are.

>>53075070
I think it's neato, a less batshit broken stoneforge

>>53075070
>>53077163
Jeez, forgot to respond to your feedback, sorry about that.

>Phantom Zone
Cool, thanks. Glad to know I hit the power balance just right. I think I'll move this to the finished folder then.

>Libra
I actually didn't think about using it that way. Thanks for the nea perspective. But since you have to build around it to really abuse it, I'm guessing that the concept itself isn't broken. Let me know if I'm wrong. Will change the mana cost in the meantime.

>Darkseid
Hadn't really considered that. Not entirely sure I wanf to go that route, but I will play with it a bit, see what others think. Also, with the Theros Gods, not being a creature was easy because they were enchantments as well, which gave them a permanent type to fall back on. Typeless permanents are rules legal, but I'd rather avoid them. so instead I'll use the Amonkhet Gods restriction, where they can't attack or block unless you fulfill a condition, which their activated abilities help with.

Also, I had a few people comment on Darkseid's "Annihilator+", but you guys realize it's from Bane of Bala Ged, right?

>>53077280
>And I just thought of something, maybe scrap tokens add C and include a clause that allows you to spend that mana to cast artifacts from the grave.
If you don't mind being able to fetch colored artifacts, just reference CMC X, X equal to the amount of Scrap sacced.
>Create a colorless Scrap artifact token with "Sacrifice X Scrap: Return an artifact card with converted mana cost X from your graveyard to tthe battlefield."
A bit odd, but the best idea I have right now.

>>53078762
Convergent design at its finest.

>>53078582
>X, T, Sacrifice three artifacts. Put an artifact card with converted mana cost X from your hand or graveyard onto the battlefield.

Perhaps this? The mana cost keeps it from being cheating, it can't go infinite with 0 cost artifacts, and allows extra synergy by permitting artifacts to enter at instant speed if your artifact deck doesn't want to play from the grave that much.

However, the instant speed could be a problem so may be the first thing to go if I go with this version.

Not sure if I like this version more or less than my previous one. I'm concerned about putting directly into play but if you're paying the cost again... though I'm also concerned that this results in way too much recursion.

>>53078762
I've seen a card with pretty much the exact same rules text before. Are you the same guy?

>>53078986
Good point. Didn't even think about 0-cost artifacts. As for mana, again, reminder text. Maybe something like
>Create a colorless Scrap artifact token with "Sacrifice this artifact: Add C to your mana pool. You can only use this mana to cast artifacts from your graveyard."
Maybe? Eh, it's a nightmare, frankly. Sorry, can't really come up with anything else.

File: Darkseid of Apokolips5.jpg (53KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 375x523px

>>53075070
>>53078516
Here's my take on Amonkhet-style Darkseid. Have to say, I'm just not really liking this as much as the previous design. then again, the previous design had been refined a few times, so maybe this needs more time. But even then, I'm just not a huge fan making Darkseid a pacifist until you fulfill a condition.

>>53066110
Manawilds guide is a functional reprint of Briarhorn.

>>53079587
Considering you have to pump 10 mana into his ability to be able to attack and block, I think lowering his CMC by a few would be okay.

>>53079598
I realized that after the fact but it's a pretty great uncommon card for limited and has neat flavor. Wizards has done it before... though not with a mechanic as rare as evoke. I'd be willing to swap it up a bit and change a couple numbers but that feels kind of artificial you know?

>>53079633
>Considering you have to pump 10 mana into his ability to be able to attack and block, I think lowering his CMC by a few would be okay.
The requirement should probably be altered so the card isn't required to enable itself. Maybe it requires the opponent to lose life and an activated ability to drain? Still though, I'm just not sold on this take on him. I might use this style somewhere else, but I don't think I'm going to use it here.

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

51KB, 375x523px

Started reading some Green Lantern stuff a few days ago. Still not confident in doing any of the actual Corps members though. Anyway, The Third Army. Basically a space zombie apocalypse. Pretty self-explanatory. Hopefully this isn't too degenerate. Inspired by Permeating Mass.

File: Glorious Awakening.jpg (53KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 375x523px

More crazy mythic ideas.
>>53080039
Giving your opponents 2/4 fliers sounds like a bad deal for you, man. Mechanically sound, though.

That's the point.

File: valmeni and gate.png (810KB, 1127x523px) Image search: [Google]

810KB, 1127x523px

I know a set without other flip cards would never include just a single one but I'm not limited by physical reality. So how's the mechanics / flavor? Cliffnotes of that flavor being that he's a half crazed scrap engineer who augmented the fuck out of himself to the point where his latent spark was almost ruined. When he created and went through a planar portal type dealie his spark ignited. In order to walk he needs to weaken the barriers between worlds by creating quick miniature one time versions of planar gates. Also, he's an arrogant prick.


>>53080376
They may still be lands but since they're copies of the dude you chose they lose all their abilities. Even the ones with basic land types lose their mana abilities because you don't specify they keep those subtypes.

Also, what's stopping it from just untapping them and making them into a copy? Wanting to utilize ETB effects? In which case, fair enough.

File: Retroactive Continuity6.jpg (62KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 375x523px

>>53080376
>More crazy mythic ideas.
Here, I'll join you.

>TTA
Hmm, might make it one-way, something more like Aven Mimieomancer then. Or maybe that one Zombie, Dread Slaver. Makes sense for the space zombies to be inspired by fantasy zombies.

>card
Pretty cool. Not totally sold on converting your lands though. Wait, doesn't this mean they'll lose mana abilities? Hmm, not so sure about this now.

>>53081615
Jesus shit damn that's certainly a card.

File: Erayo, Soratami Ascendant - Erayo's Essence (2005) by Matt Cavotta.jpg (168KB, 618x445px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 618x445px

>>53081558
>flip cards
This is a flip card. That's a double-faced card. Bonus trivia: This is the only card Two-Headed Giant has an exclusive ban against.

>Valmeni Creature
It's
>[mana cost], T, [additional costs]: [effect]
Transform trigger seems... lazy? It's just "play this way to use this thing." Anyway, I'd really rather it have a UR casting cost instead of being Blue with a Red cost. Especially when the ability could easily be mono-Blue.

>Valmeni PW
First ability seems OK. Second strikes me as odd, since artifact recursion seems to be far more common in White than in any other color. But Blue has gotten it before, so I guess it works. Ult seems OK.

>>53081783
What do you mean by "it's"? The other DFC walkers use gender pronouns, it's weird but they do.

>play this way to use this thing.
I mean, all the origins DFCwalkers have an effect that requires you to play to a certain style (though lili's is definitely the most lenient). And Valmeni is a goblin welder effect which can be super powerful and synergistic even if you aren't trying to flip him. Though I'm not fully sure what you mean, could you elaborate? And yeah, the costing is a bit awkward because he's technically supposed to take a blue mythic slot and the RU mythic is already filled in my set but there's no hard and fast rule to force the slot allocation. I'll change up his cost.

>>53081917
>"it's"
I should've explained. I was trying to say "The proper template for activated abilities is".

>Though I'm not fully sure what you mean, could you elaborate?
Certainly. It's that your card details a specific card that is more narrow than any of the others. Jace wants cards, Nissa wants lands, Lili and Kytheon/Gideon want creatures. Things you are pretty much guaranteed to find outside some incredibly fringe strategies. Chandra's probably the most narrow for requiring spells of a specific color, which makes her weaker in multicolor decks, but not only is it any spell, it's a color she has, making it very likely you have other spells of that color. Your card specifies both type and cost. Needing just artifacts is one thing, but needing a big artifact is another. I'd suggest altering it to just look at the number of artifacts. Perhaps looking at the number of artifacts you control.

>>53081558
>>53081615
Well, shit. I'll have to figure out how to word the card so that the lands keep their mana abilities.
>>53081558
>Valemni and Gate
Tap and mana cost out of order on Ademna. On the gate, the quote needs quotation marks. Shift+enter after you finish the quote, then two dashes and the speaker's name. I agree that the creature version feels a bit dull, but that the planeswalker version is serviceable to solid. I like the card, but it's a bit lackluster for a card that requires casting a creature, saccing an artifact, and having a 6cmc artifact in the graveyard to return. Especially since the creature side has so little immediate impact.
>>53081615
Still solid, still love the concept.

>>53082077
Perhaps "Then, if the total converted mana cost among other artifacts you control is six or greater,...".

>>53082210
Yeah, I was worried about the walker side not being adequate reward but how about with this change making it a lot easier to pull off?

File: Richard Swift the Shade10.jpg (47KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 375x523px

Shade again. Still experimenting with how exactly I want the token to work. The idea is to make Shade's pump syngeristic with the token. Might just drop the ability on the token and change it to trigger on each combat to be honest.

>>53082210
>Well, shit. I'll have to figure out how to word the card so that the lands keep their mana abilities.
Here's a suggestion
>Enchantment
>~ enters the battlefield with X [type] counters on it.
>When ~ enters the battlefield, for each [type] counter on it, exile up to one land you control then return it to the battlefield. You may have that land enter the battlefield as a copy of any creature on the battlefield, except it's still a land.
>Lands you control have "T: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool."
Easiest solution I can come up with. Wording might need a bit of polish, this is the first thing that came to mind.

>Retcon
Thanks. I guess I'll move it to the finished folder then. Cool.

>>53082354
>Perhaps "Then, if the total converted mana cost among other artifacts you control is six or greater,...".
Sounds good to me. And yeah, I agree with Time anon's observations.

>>53082434
>Might just drop the ability on the token and change it to trigger on each combat to be honest.
Forgot to add that if I drop the ability that checks on Richard Swift's P/T, I'd make it so the token's P/T is set to Richard Swift's P/T as it's created. So even if Richard Swift's P/T changes later, the token's wouldn't.

>>53082354
also, he's a 2/3 now. Should make combat pretty neat with other artifact creatures on your side to block then sac.

>>53081783
>>53082434
If the recursion is an issue What to do with the middle ability? I mean, If I wanted to make it nice and generically useful I could do any U, R or U/R thing based on artifact count like scry or draw or damage or create a construct token. If I make it generate a token perhaps it has a T ability to synergize with valemni's +. Or I could make it an artifact tutor... though that's pure blue so I'd have to go even more chinese menu on his design there

>>53082434
>Enchantment
Nah, it has to be a sorcery. That's what my set skeleton calls for. Thanks, though.
>Richard Swift
Whoa, tiny writing edition. I'm not a fan of this rework. I preferred some of your previous versions.
>Make the pump synergystic
Maybe make the pump for every Shade creature you control? Or some other workaround?

File: indeks.jpg (385KB, 1875x523px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 1875x523px

Reverted back into throwing ideas at a wall and seeing what sticks.

File: indeks.jpg (126KB, 750x523px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 750x523px

>>53083061
...and of course I fuck up with the old versions card.

>>53082695
>I preferred some of your previous versions.
Can you remember anything specific about them? Otherwise I'll have to post a bunch of versions in one image and ask which ones you like most.

>>53083061
Pretty rad cycle.

Page 10 bump. Also, if anyone has ideas for a Brainiac card, please let me know. I can't seem to get any further than WUB control.

File: equipment 3drop cycle.jpg (438KB, 1875x523px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 1875x523px

>>53086773
Well, what's he do in the comics? I know he's some kind of Kryptonian AI or something, right? Or is that some abandoned continuity? No idea.

>>53082434
Temporary tokens like this that are copies and have haste are pretty red, I think. Why not just make him really simple? Make him 1/1, have him create the token when he ETBs, have the token's P/T be equal to his P/T, and maybe change Indestructible to be an activated ability that can also protect the token? Not sure if that fits the character since I know little about him but I feel like he needs some simplification. I don't recall what the last iteration of him I saw was but it wasn't this wordy.

>>53080376
Are we sure they lose their ability to produce mana? Every other effect that turns a land into a creature that maintains it's still a land seems to, at least by my cursory research, maintain the land's types and abilities. It just gains all the new stuff in addition, and if the land wasn't under your control at the start of your turn, it has summoning sickness and can't produce mana because it can't tap to activate abilities. It's a cool card, by the way. Seems costed right.

>>53079587
I didn't expect you to put a mana cost on the Parademon generation; maybe that's why it feels so bad? I dunno. Didn't mean to make a bad suggestion.

>>53077163
>red counterpart
Why not a cycle instead? This kind of just happened while I was working on the red one. I kept getting ideas and wanted to see if every color could have one and not bend or break things too badly.

>>53077280
Oh, forgot to thank you for the feedback. I'm glad it's in a better place than it was.

>>53087586
Awaken and other mechanics that turn lands into dudes don't make those lands into COPIES of something, that's the distinction. Now, if say, they kept their land subtypes (forest, plains, etc) then they would still produce mana because that comes with the subtype. But, because they become copies of something, they lose all the text they previously had and become that thing. There would need be some kind of "except" clause stating they keep their land types and abilties, or, in this case, it would probably be better to say "They gain all types and abilities of the chosen creature."

>>53087586
Pretty rad card by the way. My only thing is that the blink effect on the U one should probably attach an equipment to the creature when it returns. So it's able to protect the creature but not cost you your equipment investment. Though that may be too powerful.

File: Shades.jpg (756KB, 1875x1046px) Image search: [Google]

756KB, 1875x1046px

>>53087586
>Well, what's he do in the comics? I know he's some kind of Kryptonian AI or something, right? Or is that some abandoned continuity? No idea.
That's always a problem, so many different versions of the same character, sometimes even in the same continuity. DESU, I don't know Brainiac that well, but the feel I want to go for is complete control and domination. Perhaps some sort of stealing, since he's known for stealing cities. I actually think Sen Triplets would be a good measure of the kind of feel I'm trying for.

>Shade
OK, I guess I'll just post all the iterations I have. And I know the idea of a temporary token is a bit off-color, but I just love the flavor of a Shade so in control of darkness he can turn his own shadow into a weapon. I probably should just simplify it though. Please let me know which of the iterations you like the most.

>Darkseid
Sorry, but I did say I was basing it on the Amonkhet Gods. Still don't think I want to go with pacified Darkseid though.

>Why not a cycle instead?
Because I don't really like seeing Equipment matters cards outside of Red and White. Not counting colorless, of course.. Sorry. And I was really hoping you'd go for something closer to a mirrored pair with the Red and White ones, but you didn't even give the Red one the same triggered ability as the White one. Why not? Also, the Red one breaks with any Equip 0 card.

>>53089120
>DESU
I guess 4chan auto-corrected me? Can't even remember what I wrote here.

>>53088224
Yeah I think that'd be too good.

>>53089120
>Shade
Honestly, I'd prefer the card I suggested the most; makes a token on ETB that copies his P/T, shade pump, activated indestructible. But it's your card, so it should be something you like. Of these, #8 is the closest to what I am suggesting, so it's probably my favorite.

>Darkseid
That's fine.

>cycle
Sorry to hear that. I guess I didn't think to do the same thing even though the same cycle I used to justify the white one would have justified the red one doing that too. As far as the equip 0 thing, good call I suppose; the problem cards are Lightning Greaves, Shuko, Grafted Wargear (though I dare you to abuse that), and Umbral Mantle. I suppose that's too many to really be okay, especially since the Shuko is so cheap already. The reason I didn't mirror the red one was because I wanted to try something different. I don't usually like cycles or card pairs that are so similar to each other, but since that's what you wanted, I suppose I could just change it since it seems what I have is broken. You seem pretty disappointed that I did my own thing with it. I suppose I will always find a way to fail, huh.

File: Colin Wilkes8.jpg (98KB, 752x523px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 752x523px

Slight alter to an older version. Might be my last card for tonight.

>>53089361
>I don't usually like cycles or card pairs that are so similar to each other
Huh, in my mind, I kinda look for that in cycles in pairs. Look, it's just a different perspective. We don't have exactly the same opinions, that's fine. Wait to see what others say before you start making judgments. Something I always say is to get more feedback, this is a reason why.

And as for Shade, the idea is that, being made of pure darkness, he's pretty hard to kill now. The tokens, as just copies, aren't as tough and they're treated as disposable. Shade actually had a mini, where in one issue he appears to be killed by Deathstroke, only for the real Shade to step out of the shadows and walk over the shadow's dead body. I think I'll just shelve the card for a bit though.

>>53089590
Guess I'll see what comes up for the red one. Impulse draw is starting to feel like an attractive option, so both cards give potential board advantage but it different ways. Maybe it'll appeal.

>Shade
Well, in my mind, maybe limiting the activated indestructible only affects Shade and not his tokens is the way to do that, but again, your card, and it has to appeal to you. Guess I could take my own advice more often on that. No shame in shelving it for now. Could also make him BR, but you seem to want to keep him monoblack, and I understand that.

>Abuse
I had a thought. Have you tried making the counter/transform thing automatic instead of a cost, and making the base creature a bit pricier? Say 1GG or something, then "At the beginning of your upkeep, if there is a venom counters on ~, transform it. Otherwise, put a venom counter on it." and keep the indestructible thing costing a counter. I dunno, maybe it'd have to be 2GG. It just feels more natural to me, I guess?

File: Fury Forger.png (298KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 375x523px

>>53089717
>>53089590
Here's what I came up with for red. It feels both like a good and a bad idea. Researching it made me see that WotC seems to be really hopping on the "impulse exile" thing with red, even giving it a pseudo-Polymorph effect. Also I probably shouldn't design cards when things aren't going so great. I apologize for being kind of mopey these last several posts. Stiff upper lip from now on and all that.

File: indeks.jpg (370KB, 1875x523px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 1875x523px

Am I overdoing it?

File: indeks.jpg (946KB, 4875x523px) Image search: [Google]

946KB, 4875x523px

>>53092125
The ability pricing on these will surely be switched around.

>>53093149
I feel like anything that uses spore counters should use them to make Saprolings, and sac a Saprolings for any other effect. AFAIK, the only ones that use spore counters for something other than making Saprolings are from Fallen Empires.

>>53093233
First off, that has very limited design space.

Second off, I wanted to make them separate from Thallids that we saw the last time. The reprinted Sporoloth Ancient at common already does mass saprilings, and I want to give an impression that they developed into a more specialized collective, nearing a society.

>>53027495
Ambush is kinda strange for new players. Reconnaissance is not a fun magic card. I really like the mechanic conceptually though, and it should work out intuitively.

The black activated ability really is counterproductive to the fact that your creature is a large dude that wants to be attacking.

Developmentally scary. Problematic in limited. Consider bumping up 1 mana and going to mythic. 5+cmc spell trigger seems tacked on.

Keep a very keen eye on the other white 1-drops in your enviorment. That guy can enable very busted aggro starts.

I don't like it. It's strange and flying and vigilance are eh on an instant card. Also this is terrible to play against in limited, because you can't play around rares the first time. Red escalate doesn't seem color pie appropriate.

06 is pure win more. Compare to Triplicate Spirits.

07 seems unfun as hell to play against. I guess Gideon's Intervention makes it fine, but I'm suspicious of the card.

>>53027474
>>53094210
Meant to reply to this
>>53027495
White command is nice. Seems very strong and should 100% be a sorcery.

UR is broken. I'm pretty sure it's borderline vintage playable. Up the cost by one maybe. The first ability doesn't feel U or R enough, it's mostly a white ability. I get that it's technically in the pie, but it _feels_ wrong.

RW is the most confused command I've ever seen. It's pretty much entirely garbage. Compare the modes to Gruul Charm.

BG should be a sorcery. Also undercosted as hell, -2/-2 for 4 with a tacked on effect is very undercosted. Doubly so at instant. Remove the lifegain from artifact destruction as well. If you want to make it more versatile, make it shuffle the artifact into it's owners library.

UG seems difficult to evaluate. I really like the concept though. Needs playtesting.

>>53032444
Seems just like a worse Pyro/Mentor. These effects tend to be not good in limited/standard enviorments. Firebreathing seems counterproductive to casting lots of spells. The flavor does not come through at all.
>>53033014
oooooooooooooooooooooooh. Veeeery interesting and fresh concept. Love it! Very red!
>>53033187
I think the elegant solution is just to make the UG faction synergistic. Don't lock the synergies behind a tribal tag. Just look at how the Ravnica sets pulled them off.

Now, if you don't take my advice, having mutants AND elementals as tribal in one faction is way too much. Pick one and go with that.
>>53033761
I found five cards that go infinite with this in about two minutes. That card is busted 100%. Unprintable.
>>53033918
non-token for sure. that guy is some serious engine.
>>53033986
Taking extra turns on a commander that easily is not okay. Seems iffy.
>>53034487
Interesting. I don't know if I like it, but that's a cool take on the effect.
>>53034954
>can only attack alone
That is the least red thing I've seen. Also Incite. Also consider that you can use it to give your own guy haste. Not sure if intended.
>>53034754
It's absolutely not undercosted 100%.

>>53036235
Professor is undercosted as hell. I don't have good direct comparison, but I would not want to play against that card in limited.

Official is also undercosted. A 2/3 with marginal upside is playable. This replaces itself. Honestly I'd just make it cost straight up 2UU and make it a 2/2 maybe. Probably still too strong for common.

Upgrade seems suspicious. Getting 3 +1/+1 counters seems like it doesn't happen very often. That ability is very un-red. Also that ability on a 1-drop is completely broken on a common.

Repurpose the past is cool. It's very synergy driven, but it has potential. Seems much more red than green though.

Why not just make it "welded permanents"?!? It would be a nice little tribe. Very dissapointed. Also playing two life to loot feels really bad. Also black does not get looting.

Iron Leige seems like a mess. Why can't it block? Also underpowered.

Machine stop is worded like a sorcery or an ETB effect.

Glowform Artist is a neat little card.

Also, if this is your first set, severely limit the amount of keywords you use. Do not go over 6 whatever you do.
>>53036691
I think we both know what I think about this card.
>>53038363
This thing literally goes infinite with anything that has 1 equip cost.
>>53040460
Je-sus christ that card is annoying to play against. Like, if you untap with this, what the hell is your opponent supposed to do. Look to Flagbearer for inspiration.
>>53041656
Refrain from designing planeswalkers until you have a grasp of the basics.
>>53042719
t1a - land, some aggro guy
t1b - tapped land
t2a - land, Lorak
Unfair and broken. Unprintable
>>53051027
We already have super broken options to cheat. I think it's more of a development tool than a design one. Like, you shouldn't set out to make a card that "can't be cheated". You make a card, and then realize that you need to make it not cheatable to make it more fair.
>>53051316
Way too narrow and the payoff isn't even that good.

File: 1450753039604.jpg (45KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 375x523px

>>53093149
Might as well post an old one I did.

>>53094714
>Madame Mirage
I think I'll go with the other guy's suggestion of making fixed tokens. And I have done the Flagbearer ability before.

>>53094714
>Sanctifier of Steel
Newest version is way down thread.

>>53052693
Why not just make the equipment give an additional +1/+1? That's so much cleaner.
>>53053333
I don't understand. You have a creature that makes you want to tap your own creatures and then it gives your creatures vigilance? What?
>>53054017
Sheesh that card is annoying to play against. I like it from a Melvin perspective, but it just seems a bit too much right now. Cool card though.
>>53054257
This card resolved will just single-handedly win you a limited game. At least a mythic, preferrably not printed.
>>53054368
Not the solution. The card reads as a two-card combo in one.
>>53054368
This card getting murdered on your opponents turn will feel really, really bad. Also seems way too clunky and being clever for cleverness' sake.
>>53054618
Dumb. Not good enough. No support for legendary stuff. Cool flavor.
>>53054894
This has been done before, and better developed. Compare with Monsterous or Outlast to see that effect done better. Also the card is super green.
>>53055189
Not white.
>>53060312
Cool text, but triple green seems strange.
>>53061266
Pretty nice. I like it better than the vampire guy who does this.
>>53062398
I like Ant Queen better
>>53062432
n o t g r e e n
>>53062469
Compare with Squirrel's Nest
>>53066110
08 is straight up better than a 3/3 for 3 in many ways. Be very careful with your common power level.

Channeler seems off and kinda scary to me. At the same time, it doesn't seem to do anything. What's it for?

Crystalweaver is okay, I guess. Might be a bit too good.

Tempest Crow is pretty bad, but I guess it might be okay slot filler. Depends on what blue needs developmentally.

07 is a straight up reprint of Briarhorn

Wavereader is borderline too good even when you straight up cast him. Having it cycle with scry attached is way too good.

>r03 and 04
Refer to my earlier post.

r06
Compare to Teferi. I think this is severely undercosted.

>>53094714
You don't understand Lorak. The additional cost requires you to to put those counters on at least two creatures your opponent controls. So if your opponent has no or one creature out you can't pay that additional cost which means you can't play him.

>>53066110
>r06
Fuck, not Teferi, I meant Venser.
>>53072707
Eternities Gate seems janky as hell. I think there are players who would really appreciate it though.

Haven just seems a bit too good to me. I'd be very cautious to print it.

What's the reasoning behind printing a strictly worse Sylvian Scrying?

Salvage seems like a way too limited of a mechanic to be on common. I think I'd actually like it more if the salvage didn't do anything. Also 2r for 2 that deals 2 to a creature is way too strong at common.

The same goes for Innovator. Sigiled Starfish is already a really good limited card. THis should be a lot weaker and not a common.

Black should not get targeted mill. There's a cool concept in it.
>>53095120
Oh, right. Well, in that case, the card is still incredibly broken and shouldn't be printed.
>>53072711
Eh. Seems a bit redundant with the Eldrazi existing and all. Just another big dumb guy who ends the game.
>>53073237
Sheesh, that card is broken as hell. Swing with 3 power at 3 mana AND anthem your team? And it only gets bigger with time?
>>53073555
Christ, that card is frustratingly strong. You just cast this and win with an overwhelming advantage? There's a reason Arrogance is symmetrical.
>>53073625
I think you hit the nail on the head. Seems too good on a 3-drop.
>>53075070
I don't even know what's going on with this card anymore. Clunky as all hell.
>>53078762
Neat! I like it.
>>53079587
This card costs effectively 17 mana. And it doesn't do anything for 7. I want my money back.
>>53080039
Interesting effect. I haven't seen the "turn this guy into the guy I damaged effect" paired with fight before. I think it's a bit too resilient right now. It's gonna create a huge board stall.
>>53080376
So I pay 3 to be able to pay 2 to sacrifice a land to clone a creature. Seems clunky as hell.

>>53081558
Valmeeni seems way too complicated. Reduce complexity. Make him always transform. Remove the creature ping from the planeswalker side. Maybe change the ultimate? It seems kinda weird to me.
>>53081615
That card costs 8 mana and doesn't win you the game.
>>53082434
Why the quad-black? I like the flavor and the mechanical shade-likeness and how the pumping goes well with the token. A bit clunky, but intuitive. Well done.
>>53083061
cw01's cycling ability is broken and unprintable.

cu01's cycling ability is broken and unprintable

I like the black card. Might still be a bit too good in dredge though.

Edge of Summer is all around completely broken and unprintable.
>>53083088
Edge of Spring still seems suspectly too powerful.
>>53087586
Fury Forger breaks with 0-equip cost equipment.

Green should not have equip synergy

I don't really get the black one either?

Voidsmith is neat, but probably unprintable under NWO. Also the card is just not good.
>>53089120
The last one's the best for sure.
>>53089590
Interesting card. Venom counters might cost too much, but they also might cost exactly the right amount. Needs testing.
>>53089987
Firey Imp with upside seems a bit too good.
>>53092125
Battle Screech

Rescind

Ichor Slick

Unchained Lightning is just a strictly better Chain Lightning. That's a legacy playable card.

Krosan Wurm is cool, but the cycling is undercosted as hell.
>>53094719
Compare this to the other sacrifice-saproling effects. It's busted in half.
>>53095275
Fetchlands make this card very not fair. Also this shuts down aggro hard. No bueno.

>>53095079
>I don't understand. You have a creature that makes you want to tap your own creatures and then it gives your creatures vigilance?
Convoke is a set mechanic for that faction.
>Compare with Monsterous or Outlast to see that effect done better.
Monstrous and outlast are not examples I would ever use as effects done better. They're both aggressively lackluster.
>Also the card is super green.
Daily Regimen.
>>53094210
>The black activated ability really is counterproductive to the fact that your creature is a large dude that wants to be attacking.
The creature is only a large dude if you have other creatures. This gives it a way to enable itself, albeit slowly. It also adds some decision-making to the use of the card, which I'm a fan of.
>Developmentally scary. Problematic in limited.
Has zero ways to protect itself and is only truly powerful with other relevant targets on the board. Can be completely played around by using removal before combat.
>Consider bumping up 1 mana and going to mythic.
Boring value mythics are the worst.
>5+cmc spell trigger seems tacked on.
It's a set thing. It appears frequently.
>It's strange and flying and vigilance are eh on an instant card.
That's why you have the options. For when one is less useful.
>Also this is terrible to play against in limited, because you can't play around rares the first time.
True for literally every rare combat trick ever printed and not a reason to stop printing them.
>Red escalate doesn't seem color pie appropriate.
Escalate shows up in all colors in my block. Also, there are plenty of actual red escalate cards in comparison to other colors, so I'm really not sure why you feel that it isn't appropriate.
>06 is pure win more.
In the same vein as Nomad Assembly.
>07 seems unfun as hell to play against.
Only marginally more than any other O-Ring effect. Especially in limited.

Thank you for your thorough, if brusque, feedback, anon. I will consider your concerns.

>>53095443
>Fetchlands make this card very not fair. Also this shuts down aggro hard. No bueno.

Would it be fair if it's +1/+1 instead of +2/+2?

>>53095461
>Monstrous and outlast are not examples I would ever use as effects done better. They're both aggressively lackluster.

Both Monstrous and Outlast were highly popular among players and flavorful and great.

>Daily Regimen.
That's an Aura. It's completely differet color pie wise. The card is garbage and badly designed.

>The creature is only a large dude if you have other creatures.

I get that

>This gives it a way to enable itself, albeit slowly. It also adds some decision-making to the use of the card, which I'm a fan of.
It's literally design 101. Do not make your card do two conflicting things at once.

>It's a set thing. It appears frequently.

>True for literally every rare combat trick ever printed and not a reason to stop printing them.

When was the last blow-out instant speed combat trick like this at rare?
>Escalate shows up in all colors in my block. Also, there are plenty of actual red escalate cards in comparison to other colors, so I'm really not sure why you feel that it isn't appropriate.

The card isn't red.
>In the same vein as Nomad Assembly.
First of all you shouldn't hold up Nomad Assembly as some sort of grand GOAT design.

Second of all, Nomad Assembly has interesting decisions associated with it. Your card is a garbage tier inconsistent Goblin Rally at red.
>>53095505
I think the ability is interesting, but maybe put something like it on a two-drop instead? Seems much safer, while still being relevant against aggro.

>>53095260
Gate is for commander super friends and basically nothing else, fodder for the johnnys.

yeah, I've figured to either reduce the creature enchanting or up the cost to 1G. Not sure which I like more. Probably the 1G.

It's instant speed, not sorcery. But I can always change it up.

I know it can seem limited but the idea behind it is that everything that salvages can use the scrap as a resource. Sort of like energy in kaladesh. I'm still not super confident in any of the ideas as to what the scrap could actually do, I've considered adding C to spend on artifacts / able to use it to cast from the grave and stuff along those lines. As for in limited, the set has a grave focus so I've got plenty of tool in the set to get stuff into your grave. And yeah, I realized that too and made it 1 damage instead, may add an R cost as well.

That thing has been changed substantially. I suppose the last change it'll make is to bite the bullet and make it only self mill.

>>53095079
How about a 1/2 or 2/1?

It's a weird mana fixer if you need it / enables you to play several small dudes in a turn. It's also been bumped to uncommon in the hopes of keeping limited decks from getting too crazy with their colors. Probably needs testing to figure it's exact build.

I've tried to strike a balance with the crystalweaver but I think where it's at now is slightly pushed but not too pushed.

I mean, a guy that makes something else unblockable isn't all that bad. Perhaps up his cost by one and give him flash to enable combat tricks?

How about scry 1?

I realized that after the fact but I think it's a great effect for limited. I've said before that adjusting it to give multiple dudes a buff or a bigger or smaller buff just feels artificial. I mean, functional reprints aren't the biggest issue in the world, but if it is an issue I can totally reduce its costs and make it a 2/2 with +2.

I mean, he does cost 6 compared to venser's 4. I've made him a 3/3 though to bring him down a peg.

>>53095695
>on scrap
Well, scrap enables your scrap dudes and you can just print spells that uses scrap as well. It just seems slightly parasitic. Looking back I was kind-of too harsh to you. I like the mechanic conceptually a lot.
>How about a 1/2 or 2/1?
I like it more as a 1/2 or a 2/1, but it's still a bit pushing it.
>How about scry 1?
I'm still uncomfortable about it. Maybe I'm overreacting and it's okay.
>functional reprint
Oh, it's okay to have functional reprints, just wanted to let you know that it is one.
>Evoke-Venser
The ability to evoke as a pseudo-Commit is very very strong. That's the part I'm worried about. 3/3 is a good start though. Also compare to Mystic Snake and Draining Whelk.

>>53095586
>It's completely differet color pie wise.
Moving an effect onto an aura doesn't suddenly eliminate its color identity. White does just as much with +1/+1 counters as green does. The effect could certainly be green, but that doesn't mean it isn't white.
>Both Monstrous and Outlast were highly popular among players and flavorful and great.
Really? I'd be interested to see the data on that, as all the responses I remember from the reveals of those abilities were decidedly negative, and I've never been a huge fan of either.
>Do not make your card do two conflicting things at once.
They aren't conflicting at all. Attacking with a 6cmc 2/2 is a dumb move; the tap ability gives you way to fuel the body of the card at the cost of tempo. It also allows you to swing while keeping back blockers. The card was designed to not be useless in a vacuum as opposed to a card like Crusader of Odric, which is aggressively bad on its own.
>When was the last blow-out instant speed combat trick like this at rare?
Flying Crane Technique comes to mind.
>The card isn't red.
Which is why you can't play it with only red mana. It's RW if you pay the escalate cost.
>First of all you shouldn't hold up Nomad Assembly as some sort of grand GOAT design.
I'm not, merely pointing out that the cards are similarly designed and play off of similar white flavor of collaboration.
>Second of all, Nomad Assembly has interesting decisions associated with it.
What additional decisions does Nomads' Assembly have? Rebound? I can hardly imagine a situation where you wouldn't want rebound, so that doesn't seem like much of a decision.
>Your card is a garbage tier inconsistent Goblin Rally at red.
My card is only useless if you have literally no nonland permanents on the board turn five, in which case you have larger problems. Otherwise it scales similarly to Nomads' Assembly, except it benefits from single large investment rather than Assembly's multiple smaller investments.

File: random ideas 4.jpg (691KB, 1125x1569px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 1125x1569px

>>53095785
Yeah, I realized early on that printing salvage on dudes was a bit of an issue. Because it's a UR faction I'm going to have spells mostly be the ones that salvage and have dudes and enchantments that like having artifacts to tap and sac. Sort of like how giraphur aether grid synergized well with clues. I'm also concerend with parasitism BUT, by being able to sac other artifacts to do it that should allow them to slide into other artifact / token strategies. Also, this is probably something that would have to be hammered out in testing, but 2 other artifacts kind of feels a bit low. If you get an kind of decent engine going even in llimited you can be doing the same cards over and over again. Perhaps 3 or 4 others?

I designed wavereader to be a somewhat powered down mulldrifter since drifter is so damn powerful. he evokes as a doubly expensive serum visions as is, and by changing it to scry 1 he's even worse than that. Testing may prove otherwise but I think he's okay.

Thing about the commit comparison is that, like sequencebreaker,commit is also costed as having additional utlity since it's stapled to another card. Commit's also not particularly amazing. Also, commit has only 1 U in its cost as opposed to SB's UU, that can seriously cost a slower deck if their tap lands don't align just right. So while I agree that sequence breaker is pushed, I think that, as something like a 3/3, it's to an extent that would make it very good for standard control decks but not borderline broken like torrential gearhulk.

Here's an asortment of batshittery. I feel bad about defining a type of counter to do this mechanic, but at the same time, I feel like it opens up enough design space to be rad as hell (and reminder text could be slotted into rules text to work like quicksilver fountain BUT, being reminder text makes it flow much better in the card's text block.)

>>53096048
god damn it, brute and kindling are the old version of conquest somehow. Just kill me

File: indeks.jpg (375KB, 1875x523px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 1875x523px

>>53095443
Thanks for pointing out Rescind.
Fatigue and Screech are unchanged because this cycle is a bunch of straight references - to Battle Screech, Capsize, Crippling Fatigue, Chain Lightning and Roar of the Wurm/Krosan Tusker.

That being said, Overturn was a worse Rescind and I had myself doubts if the Wurm is not too good, as such I rewrote his effect.

As for unchained lightning, I REALLY wanted it to be 1 mana for 3 damage with cycling for flavor reasons, but that might indeed be too much. Switching the costs for now and We'll see how it ends up.

>>53095902
Will answer more in depth later. Here's a few blogatog links in the meantime.

http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/99154316208/how-long-it-took-for-complaints-about-outlast-and

http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/98005694803/even-through-all-the-complains-youve-been-getting

http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/112333100933/hey-mark-i-was-curious-why-monstrous-was-left-out

http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/81963900880/why-did-you-make-the-decision-to-have-monstrous

http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/79891676074/i-really-liked-monstrous-does-it-have-some-more

>>53087586
Honestly I love these. It would be really cool to see a heavily Equipment themed set with synergy in each color sort of like this.

>>53096158
>It's controller LOOSES 3 life
Beyond that I can certainly dig these quite a lot.

Though I do wonder why crushing fatigue costs 3 to cycle, seems it'd be okay at 1B right?

And, this is just me, but I'd like to see unchained lightning do 1 damage if you cycle it. but that may be too much. Eh, maybe if the cycling was 1R. But hey, as is it's awesome.

>>53096217
Sweet, thanks. I'll take a look at these in the meantime.

File: indeks.jpg (433KB, 2250x523px) Image search: [Google]

433KB, 2250x523px

>>53096232
>why 3
Because I want it to mirror Crippling Fatigue's costs.

>>53095443
Now Edge of Spring is another Battle Screech Reference. Guess I'll see whether this is broken when I go to limited playtesting.

The Blue one was unneeded anyway, so this is now a skewed cycle. As a bonus, see the new CU01 along with its older sibling.

I sincerely have no ideas what else a card named Edge of Spring can do in this cycle. Decreased the cast damage, open to suggestions.

Edge of Winter stays the same because I like it a lot, moreover Dredge interactions do not matter in case of cardsmade explicitly for limited.

File: indeks.jpg (110KB, 750x523px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 750x523px

>>53096660
..misphotoed.

>>53095260
>Darkseid
Eh, I can take it.

>Flash
OK, 3RW?

>Phantom Zone
It's different from Arrogance in that it gives the permanents back if it leaves the battlefield.

>Libra
Another anon suggested 2WW. What do you think?

>Darkseid (with downside)
Yeah, scrapping it.

>The Third Army
Eh, should I just make it 1/3 like Permeating Mass then? Lose Flying?

>>53095443
>Retroactive Continuity
I'm aware it has CMC 8 and doesn't have the text "You win the game". Should the Mana cost be decreased? Should the mechanic be changed?

>Shade
Quad-Black to show how he's made of darkness. Glad you like it, will get back to it later.

File: Amoz Ever-devoted.jpg (45KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 375x523px

Would this be too powerful as a commander?

>>53095902
>Moving an effect onto an aura doesn't suddenly eliminate its color identity.
White doesn't get one big dude. White gets lots-o-little dudes. Now, white has access to big dudes with auras. That's why Daily Regimen is an allowed bend.
>They aren't conflicting at all
It is. I'm sorry if you can't see it. The fact that your big guys are dependant on little guys is a very flavor-white thing.
>Flying Crane Technique comes to mind.
That card is six mana and three colors and it was an insane blowout. Your card is three mana and is an insane blowout AND also blanks opposing removal.
>Which is why you can't play it with only red mana. It's RW if you pay the escalate cost.
Why am I paying red mana for a card that's completely white? The card isn't red. There's nothing to suggest that red mana is involved with casting that card.
>What additional decisions does Nomads' Assembly have?
The fact that you want to conserve your 1/1 tokens for the rebound. It's a much better Timmy card.

>I designed wavereader to be a somewhat powered down mulldrifter since drifter is so damn powerful.
Exactly. Mulldrifter is in powered cubes. That's really illustrates how strong that type of effect is.
>scrap
Again, I'm all for scrap just being an 0 cmc artifact token with blank text and then you playing synergy cards. Maybe put Inspire in your set for some sick synergy!
>broken like torrential gearhulk.
I think you are severely underestimating how important flexibility is in a control deck. The fact that it's a 4 mana commit OR a 6 mana commit+3/3 guy is huge.
>>53096158
At this point, why not just put Screech in the set?
Maybe make lightning a sorcery and 1r? I think the card's much nicer that way and printable even.
>>53096660
Oh yeah they're probably fine in limited. Free cycle will just break things in constructed really fast.
>>53097090
>Flash
Iunno, it kinda feels bad if your 5-drop gets shocked. I'd fiddle with the numbers until it looks balanced.

>>53095443
>green should not have equip synergy
In a set-based context SoM and Kaladesh have validated green getting along with artifacts. These aren't in a set, but pretend they are.
>black
What's not to get? It's 2/2 Zombies instead of Germ tokens for a Living Weapon effect.
>Voidsmith
This feedback is confusing to me. It's neat but not good? Janky then, I assume? And how is it not NWO compliant?
>Fire Imp
If I toned it down to 1 damage it doesn't seem fitting for four cards lost. I suppose if it were creature or player then it might be better, but it seems anemic.

>>53096223
Thanks anon. I feel that way too which is why I went for the cycle. I feel like Equipment are one of those things that every color, even if it doesn't typically synergize with artifacts, can play with a little when thematically appropriate. Kinda like +1/+1 counters and creature tokens, but on a more restricted scale for black and green especially, though black has some fringe interactions with artifacts in terms of synergy so it's less of a stretch. I think the key with green is to just be sure it's always doing the greenest things possible with them, and being sure to keep it drowning in artifact hate as well. "My artifacts are fine but yours aren't" feels pretty green to me, same with white to a lesser extent.

>>53097787
How would this interact with Tainted Remedy?

>>53097090
>Libra
I honestly don't have much experience with that effect. My gut feeling says the original card cost 6 for a reason. My gut feeling also says that creatures are easier to remove.
>The Third Army
Actually, 2/4 is fine. They can just gang up and fight each other.
>Retroactive Continuity
The sideboard commitment in competitive makes the card not that strong. Would anything break if it cost 1U and targeted a single guy? If you want it to AoE, then maybe 3U? I think the concept is cool though - running a toolbox Wish-esque sideboard with hate creatures.
>Shade
Yep, the more I stare at it the more I like it.
>>53096048
r05 is quite nice. Maybe even bump it to 4/4? I'm not sure if the effect is very white though. Iffy.
r04 is busted. You get three creature removals and after that you even get a 4/4 flier? How the hell can you beat this in limted? It's probably even constructed playable. Mythic for sure.
c01's interesting. I've designed something similar to that mechanic. Probably developmentally problematic because burn exists
c01 with new conquest is kinda eh. It's so swingy as hell. Why do you hate control players. Also the development problem stays.
c13's has the same issue. The difference between 1 and 3 tokens is huge. Maybe make it cost 3 mana and go between 2 and 3 tokens?
bc13 is nice. I like it.
u10 is also great. I'd fiddle with the statline and mana cost a bit, because the card's a bit low impact, maybe make it not able to block? Card's sweet though, i love how it has synergy with other Ascend cards.
c01 is dumb as heeeeck. Too on the nose for my tastes. Also probably broken with something. Maybe make it like a uncommon or rare thing?
u05 (with new conquest) reminds me of the green creatures who your opponent gets control of when you have less life. I always thought those creatures were hot garbage design wise. Card also seems too good, compare to goblin guide.
c07 is not a common. Compare to white Honden.

>>53098395
>How would this interact with Tainted Remedy?
Tainted Remedy replaces lifegain with life loss so Amoz wouldn't trigger

>>53096048
Overall love ascend, absolutely brilliant. Conquest seems pretty meh either way. And don't feel bad for making new types of counters. I think Wizards has been doing that sorts of stuff all the time lately.
>>53096689
uw03 is kinda too good. Compare to Drake Haven.
I'm stuck between uu02 being garbage or too good. That's not a good sign. I'm unsure about the card.
>>53098395
>In a set-based context SoM and Kaladesh have validated green getting along with artifacts.
SoM had two metalcraft cards. Kaladesh had Lifecraft Awakening? That's it. Green's always dislikes artifacts. Not that that was even my argument. Green should not have EQUIP synergy. Green hates equipment the most from a color-philosophy standpoint.
>What's not to get?
I understand the rules text just fine. I just don't really get the card? The equip synergy seems so forced.
>If I toned it down to 1 damage it doesn't seem fitting for four cards lost.
If you miss, you miss. That's it. Why's that a bad solution?
>>53097787
The card seems overly complicated and will get really confusing to play with says my gut feeling.

File: gur02 Directing Essence.png (307KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 375x523px

>>53098580
k

Yeah, probably ought to bump it up, make some wiggle room in my set skeleton

Yeah, designing the Conquest mechanic to be immediately good for burn (because the rest of the set's mechanics are slow and grindy so something needs to be able to capitalize on an early advantage.) And yeah, it's probably going to need quite a bit of testing to get the exact power levels right to balance with burn.

Conquest should be the "Highest life total" version. Now the thing about hating control players, I do intend to design cards with this mechanic for control. Where the conquest actually hampers the card but makes it so aggro players can't use it and W control decks can. At least, that's the theory.

Yeah, that's probably a better spot for it.

Thanks. Grafitti imp is probably one of my favorite cards I've designed so far from a flavor perspective. The WB faction turns their souls into glyphs written on walls and such when they die / fed to the angels and demons that run the faction. So for this little fuck to be nothing more than graffiti and impishly fucking everyone over is pretty fun for me.

I kind of just stole scrapheap scrounger's stats for glyphborne fiend's. But since he can block unlike scrounger I'm not sure if he should be a 3/3 to make him more worthwhile to feed dudes to or where exactly to place his power level.

Well you see, the synergy it has with ascend is actually an accident. I originally designed that as a planeswalker kill spell that also had other applications. So it's not on the nose, it's just that effect being cool as hell. However, that design did place it at common before the ascend mechanic got fleshed out so yeah, it definitely should be bumped up for limited play.

co7 was kind of just thrown together as an example of how the ability could utilize static effects and, for my own peace of mind, a solid reason as to why ascend wouldn't be better done with just making them DFCs.

Thanks for kicking my ass grumpy piece of shit.

>>53098838
Oh, also, you can beat rinah in limited by using enchantment removal on her before she can start going huge with the glyph counters.

a problem arises though, Legendary is a card type so glyph counters remove that as well, right? I utilize them as a form of removal / protection (because there might be a dude you want to keep the tap or static effect of) but does it allow for easy breaking of legendaries?

>>53098337
Because Flashback is not a mechanic in this set? These cards have similar costs but play very differently.

>>53098767
>Green hates equipment the most from a color-philosophy standpoint.
Citation? I am well aware that green likes artifacts the least, but this is news to me. Or are you just saying Equipment along with artifacts? Because I read this as "hates equipment more than other artifacts" as you have it, which seems strange considering they somehow managed to make Kaladesh a thing, what with the druids making Servo tokens and the giant green Titan thing. I'm not advocating twisting green to suddenly like artifacts. Read further into the same post you're responding to for my thoughts on the matter and how I figure you'd handle it.
>forced equip synergy
I think we just have differing taste in cards and how we like to see them work. I don't see how it's forced since it's "may" and you still get a pretty good anthem out of it which counteracts the life loss making the Zombies, probably for a net gain since the equipment would likely not be +0/+0. I mean you don't have to like it, but I don't get what you don't get, I guess. Maybe it's bias towards my own stuff, who knows?
>1 damage
I suppose, but it should hit creatures or players in that case.

>>53099443
>>53098767
Oh, and let me say thank you for going through and giving your feedback to basically ever card in the thread. Very thoughtful of you, even if we don't agree on everything.

I'd be interested in seeing some of your cards, since you mentioned having designed some.

>>53036691
>target a land
>in response they tap it and target back
>in response i tap it and target
gg back to turn 1

File: 1494103190566486.png (286KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 375x523px

Try the drunk you fucking undrunks.

>>53100171
Kill it with fire

File: download (1).jpg (325KB, 780x1076px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 780x1076px

>>53099251
I'm retarded
>>53099443
Every other color I can see something doing stuff with Equipment color pie wise. Green? Not so much. Have you read the intro color philosophy articles? Also, if you look into Kaladesh, you see that mechanically there is no artifact synergy. There's always just small creatures or +1/+1 counters that are very green that just happen to be artifacts. In the last artifact block, green got a grand total of one spell that directly required you to be playing artifacts for it to be good. Green does not handle artifacts. It hates unnatural stuff. It would much rather show that it's strong on its own.
>I think we just have differing taste in cards
I'd usually call this a cop-out answer, but in the case of the black guy, I might just say that the card confuses me to no end. That's a bad sign, but maybe it's intuitive to other people. Also you as the designer are completely and utterly unable to evaluate your cards right after you design them. It takes you for some cards a few weeks, for some cards a few years to accurately evaluate your own cards.
>>53099443
I meant that just remove the damage part entirely. If you miss with the trigger, that's life.
>>53098949
Then they just spent a premium piece of removal on a 1-drop before turn 4. And at turn 5 you can play her, keep priority, kill a guy. Still broken as fuck. I don't think the legendary thing matters.
>>53099521
I don't think my older pre-2015 designs are very good. I don't think my current designs are very good either. My PC's fried right now, so I can't post any of the stuff I've done recently.

Here's my MTGS account. The post history is pretty much only custom cards.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/members/83109-winterspring

I'm not going to post cards for evaluation with a name. I just use it to make responding and conversations easier.
>>53100637
That seems so god damn clunky.

>>53100938
>premium piece of removal
Enchantment removal is premium? Cheap, powerful removal for immediate threats is what I'd call premium. Also, there's going to be a smattering of enchantment removal through the set that's tacked on to other things like creatures or modal spells so it's not like you'd even have to main deck shitty cards in limited to deal with ascend. So yeah, she's definitely a power house but only later on, is a cheaply removed card type at first, and at least she leaves static and activated abilities of the creatures she locks down behind instead of being hard removal, so as relatively fringe a downside that may be, it's still there. She still probably belongs at mythic for the sake of limited. Wonder if she should cost 1W instead of W.

Yeah, that aura is meant to be weird. An iteration on a lock down enchantment, or an aggressive / defensive combat trick. I dunno if I'd even see it printed but I think it's neat as fuck due to how much I like "removal" with legitimate reason to use on your own dudes. But I mean, is there anything really wrong with it? (aside from the fact that that's the previous version of it and the most recent has it give +2/+2 because 3 feels a bit too powerful as an aggressive tool)

>>53100938
>Have you read the intro color philosophy articles?
I'm curious why you'd say this when I already said several times that I know green hates artifacts, and if you actually read the thing I asked you to read that said green would continue to hate artifacts, but like in any set with an artifact subtheme, it gets some stuff that doesn't to play well with everything else. Now, mind you, I'm not making a set, because I don't have the patience anymore, so technically I am copping out by saying that, but I think throwing a few artifact things in green in a set that has lots of artifacts isn't a sin since WotC has bent the pie in much greater ways to make sets work AND has already done what I'm proposing. So you're preaching to the choir; I'm just not as staunch on the color pie as you are, it seems.
>differing taste
Look, you're saying this like you are somehow more cut out to review and critique cards than I am, which may or may not be true, but it's a dangerous assertion to make. The odd part is, you posted a bunch of build-around cards, and we're debating around a build around card that's less niche than some of what you posted, and about the same as the rest. So... bit odd, that. I'm just saying. Maybe you just don't like it? I agree that card evaluation is difficult when something is fresh, which is a reason to post cards in the first place, but I also don't think it precludes the creator from being able to defend their cards either.

As an aside, I don't want either of us to assume the other is being uncivil in this, just so you know. No harm no foul on my end. Just talking shop.
>remove the damage
Nah, gonna have to disagree. Exiling four cards for a potential miss on a 2/2 for 3 in heavy red with a conditional ability? Especially when that miss is pretty easy to achieve? You need some kind of consolation prize. Other impulse effect let you cast whatever you exile, or at least do something with those cards somehow.

>>53100938
>>53101261
I will say that looking through your stuff on MTGS, I'm getting a lot of hit or miss. You seem very Johnny to me, player-wise, with what you design. Don't really recognize anything from here, but I have a pretty bad memory so that's not surprising or any kind of slight. I'm also only a few pages in, which is probably enough for now.

Oh, I did mean to ask you: what was it that you found clunky about the white one? You give your critiques but don't explain some of them. Part of me wonders if that's because you only go in-depth with things you like or deem worthwhile, but I don't want to make that call because how can I really know that? So I thought I'd ask.

>>53101212
Well, your set seems to have a lot of enchantments, so yeah, you'd have to spend a card worth of an effect to remove it.
Stuff being weird does not excuse it being badly designed. On the contrary, weird stuff needs to be designed better to be acceptable.
>>53101261
>it gets some stuff that doesn't to play well with everything else.
Kaladesh had a grand total of one of those cards. The Mirrodin block had a grand total of two. Those are heavy artifact sets. I'm not being a grouch here, Green just doesn't get to play with artifacts. Ever. Doubly so with Equipment. That's one of their core philosophical ideas - hating unnatural stuff.
>WotC has bent the pie
MaRo says he regrets doing so. Also they get to do stuff like that because they're really good at designing cards. If you break the pie, do it with good reason. I don't really see a good reason. You could just make the green guy hate on artifacts and that would nicely complete the cycle. Also, if you want to see how you can make green guys synergyze in an equipment set, look at the Trainee cycle from Mirrodins.
>The odd part is, you posted
Is why I don't really like posting cards with the name. I'm never going to defend my cards from a design standpoint with this authorial voice. It's just pointless. I just flat out don't live up to my own standards when designing cards for fun.
>I also don't think it precludes the creator from being able to defend their cards either.
Well, you can defend them, but you're ultimately biased.
>>53101474
Never claimed my older stuff is good. Never claimed my newer stuff is good. I mostly aim for novelty, not good design.
>>53101261
Your prize is getting a 2/2 if you miss. It's not a complete blank. I think the player should be properly motivated to not miss by constructing their deck well. Make it miss less. Exile cards until the first equipment. There are better solutions then just attaching a damage spell to it.

>>53101607
That's why I asked, what's actually wrong with it? It lets you recover, it's a combat trick, it lets you attack better with a downside that you can manage and feed pay life effects with, it lets you lock something down with a risk, and it does all that in an intuitive way (intuitive so long as the players remember that when it says "you" it means the controller of the aura). At least, that's how I see it. I see it being weird and probably either too good or (more likely) too shitty to see play, but I don't see it being clunky.

>>53101718
Aaaaaand I just deleted 300 words.

tl;dr on white ga the abilities dont mesh well, cheating cheap equipment isnt actually that relevant because equipping them costs mana also and the abilities dont feel coherent. They look coherent but they dont feel coherent. There's a distinction.

I will clarify my critiques when asked. I write more about things I find interesting, yes.
>>53101718
Life totals change. Putting that thing on your own guy feels bad. You swing in once and you pretty much are guaranteed to trigger Conquest. Putting this thing on your opponent's guy will not yield good results, as you HAVE to keep attacking her.
It took me 3 rereads and like 30 seconds of thinking how this card actually plays out. That is a very bad sign.

File: RM06 Rechannel.jpg (45KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 375x523px

>>53098337
>Your card is three mana and is an insane blowout AND also blanks opposing removal.
Only if you pay six mana across two colors, which is comparable to FCT with less blowout potential because my card lacks double strike.
>Why am I paying red mana for a card that's completely white?
Red grants first strike. Just because white can also give first strike does not mean that the card can't be red. A card does not have to be limited to its fewest amount of potential colors.
>I'm sorry if you can't see it.
Your dismissal doesn't mean that the elements designed to work together don't work together, man. My card taps to become more powerful on its next attack. It's no more contradictory than something like, say, Outlast, where creatures meant to engage in combat also tap now to invest in better combat later. I see your point that a creature clearly designed for combat feels weird with a tap ability; however, this tap ability plays that same Outlast role. I could add a sorcery-speed restriction in line with Outlast to really highlight the decision-making I want the card to require.

Thanks again for the feedback. This is the most comprehensive discussion of my set that I've had in a while. If you post some of your own, I'll return the favor.

File: Image (1).jpg (36KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 223x310px

>>53101892
It just does so many things for 3 mana. Giving your whole team flying to go for lethal, first strike/indestructible to smooth out combat. Indestructible to blank removal. Versatility in limited is the greatest tool. This card is too good in too many situations.
>Red grants first strike.
You're missing my point. The only red thing about that card are the words "first strike". The card could just as easily have a blue Escalate, because it has "flying". It's not. NOT. A red card in any shape or form and the only reason it has red mana on it is because you have a design hole to fill which is a terrible reason.
>I'm sorry if you can't see it.
Why not make it generate tokens in a way that's synergetic with what the card wants to do - attack? a'la "when ~ attacks, you may pay 1b, if you do, get a black human guy" Or 0/1 serfs. Or an upkeep trigger. Or just let the card have a weakness and reward players for covering that weakness. Or something. The proposed solutions aren't well executed, but you get the concept. I'm sure you can come up with a better. Just make the card accomplish a single goal, don't make it both a slow token generator AND a huge beater.

Also look up Spelljack.

>>53099634
That was the intent, yes.

>>53101869
Well let's run down why you might run it in various types of decks.

In aggro it's a way of pushing through extra damage with an unblocked guy, locking down a blocker (or an attacker in the aggro mirror) which is totally acceptable in an agressive deck because you want nothing more than to keep attacking them, pumping a dude to kamikaze a blocker, assuming you're something like mardu and there's stuff that makes you pay life or deal damage to yourself you mitigate and fuel that resource. Of course, this is all assuming it gives enough extra damage to be worth the downside. But in a way, isn't this kind of like how red decks would use fling because they don't care about that creature and are willing to throw it away for extra damage? Of course, fling is better as a combo kill and is only 1 mana as opposed to 3 but lacks the potential versatility.

In midrange it's much the same story but, you're likely to use it against aggro to gain life almost certainly twice, enough to stabilize. Or, if you're against a slower deck where they're not pressuring your life total, you can use it to lock down their late game beater as you finish them off.

I'm just giving my defenses on it. I think it adds a bizarre layer to combat which I like.

As for clunkiness, I did realize that the haste makes it a bit clunky, as, if you're aggro, you're unlikely to be able to put it on a dude prior to combat to allow a new guy to swing in. Thus, I think it's maybe a reason to swap things around a bit to make it first strike instead of haste and +2 or 3/+1 or 2.

And hey, maybe it's a bad card that no one would ever use and may not even include in my set, but at least it's interesting... r-right

>>53102075
>Also look up Spelljack
I'm perfectly aware of spelljack, man. What are you getting at?

>>53101607
See, I'm of a mind that any green card that doesn't interact with artifacts in a negative way is green being "friendly" towards artifacts, so anything with Fabricate, or things like Oviya that straight make artifacts and nothing else. They do what I am saying to do; they take artifacts and make them do the greenest things possible, or have them come about in the greenest way possible. Then hate on them in the same breath with tons of removal and the like. That's what I'm preaching. So... yes, it does get to play with artifacts, from my point of view. And to be clear, I'm not being a grouch either. I think we have different ideas of what constitutes green being "artifact friendly" is all.
>pie bending
You sound like me. I agree with you, and with MaRo to a great extent, but I think what I'm proposing is a fairly safe, minor bend that is supported by things like Fabricate and my prior points.
>Trainee cycle
Honestly, this is a good idea for the green one to not be so blatant. I'll look into changing the second ability. The first one I think it more alright though, so I think I'll keep that one.
>posting cards
I appreciate it. I don't namefag or use a set symbol because I think my cards should stand on their own; I'm a believer that if someone likes a particular poster, or dislikes them, that colors their view of the cards that person posts, so the less you can do to demarcate your stuff, the better for the thread. It's hard to avoid when making a set though (impossible really) so that gets a pass, but for singles? Meh.
>bias
I'll never deny that all creators are biased towards their cards. There's a reason that's mentioned in the OP primer. It makes the debate a bit harder overall, but debate is healthy as long as nobody's an ass about it, I think.
>novelty
That's fair. I was just saying.
>prize
I guess. I also don't think the 1 damage is offensive, but I'll change it if I see more protest about it. I'm not a clod. Well, I try not to be anyway.

>>53098580
>>53098580
>Libra
I don't suppose this being symmetrical when Ward isn't matters much, does it?

>Retcon
I guess I was thinking of the ultimate best case in casual, kitchen table Magic. I rarely think competitive. As for cost, I kept thinking of Synthetic Destiny. As for the ability, maybe make it an X cost to swap X permanents? Because I made it to affect artifacts and enchantments too. Oh, and on the swap, does the requirement of having the same CMC seem good enough, or should it be more flexible (as in same CMC or less)?

>>53099443
>forced equip synergy
I'm with him on this one. I'm still super disappointed you never made a Red mirror to the White card.

File: 1479853563006.jpg (49KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 375x523px

No changes, just looking for more feedback. Also thinking of making it ETB tapped.

File: claim cycle.jpg (391KB, 1875x523px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 1875x523px

Okay, got a wild hare up my ass and decided to take Rot's claim and the set appropriate nature's claim and make them a cycle of removal that you might target your own stuff with.

Ignore rarities, how insane am I on some of these? I think sea's is OP BUT, the fact that it's card disadvantage (which is huge) for tempo if used on an opponent's thing and tempo loss for protection / cycling if used on your own... Not sure, kinda just throwing it out there.

>>53103101
Obviously it's completely insanely powerful once it gets going. My only suggestions of what to try are to add a mana cost (like, 2) to the counter adding ability or only have the cost reduction start when it has 2 or 3 counters on it. I say that because it feels like it's too easy for it to start going infinite with anything that costs 1 or less. Of course, they did just print paradox engine and panharmonicon so maybe wizard's is getting a bit more okay with such shenanigans.

>>53102978
Are you going to habitually browbeat me over this for the rest of the time you can tell what posts are mine, or... ? Because it's not really doing it for me man.

>>53103101
Hm. I get the feeling they'd cost this at 7. However, I have no real basis for that claim. It's more of a gut call. The 2 generic per counter idea isn't too bad, since the next time you do it, it only costs 1, then 0.

>>53103381
Your fears about Sea's Claim are pretty founded. Could maybe bury the card you're bouncing three down or something? I dunno.

>>53103101
not sure of the wording, but wouldn't it read better if it was
>spells, triggered abilities and activated abilities of creatures you control cost (1) less for each charge counter on Mother Box9.

File: Graveblade.png (240KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 375x523px

Thought about the black Equipment creature I posted upthread and realized that maybe that ability belongs on an actual Equipment instead.

File: wbm01 VahIqa They are One.png (240KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 375x523px

>>53103947
I can dig it.

>>53103711
I just don't understand why you never made a Red counterpart. It seemed dead obvious, then you make this weird, tangentially-related cycle. And speaking of changes, why did you keep cast without paying instead of using put on the White card?

>>53103983
Why "another" enchantment? And why is this black? I realize it's the "leader" of your BW faction but this feels really strange in black. I guess there are fringe cases of black copying creatures, but it copying enchantments is really funky.

Glad you like the sword.

>>53104048
Okay, I feel like you've got a chip on your shoulder with me beyond this mirror pair thing. Spill it dude. If not, it's really weird you're being this neurotic over it. I can't say harping on me over it is very enjoyable.

I did change the white one; read the collage again.

>>53104065
Another because there are lots of ways of turning this into an enchantment in my set and a few ways outside of it, I don't want the ability to spring up of it copying its own ability again and again.

The thinking here is that white and black both quite like using enchantments so if something in both colors was going to be a leader of an enchanted focused thing, it would probably do something along these lines.

Also, it makes for a great build around me commander in colors that have the tools to really make use of it.

>>53103431
>>53103711
Thanks. I'll play around with restrictions, see what people think. My own idea would be to include a C cost on the ability, since that can't be reduced.

>>53103879
Doesn't do as much as i want it to. Costs, AFAIK, covers everything you can possibly spend mana on, like turning Morphed creatures up, and paying tax on something like Force Spike. I just listed those three things to give people a bit of an idea as to how it works. If you have a better idea for reminder text, please let me know.

>>53104136
Yeah if you turn it into an enchantment I can see that. Forgot about that. That's for the best then. As far as BW being "enchantment colors" I somewhat agree, but GW are probably more predisposed, with B using them a fair amount, but not having as much general interaction. I'm not arguing against the color combo, but in a vacuum it is rather odd.

File: 4Chan.jpg (34KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 375x523px

>>53104095
>it's really weird
So am I. It's 4chan, everyone's at least a little weird here. Otherwise why be here? But to be honest, it's just something that bugs me. Dunno why, but I'll drop it.

Old, somewhat-related card I have.

>>53104218
Wow, I forgot how new I was when I made this card. Fuck, date on the file says I made it just over three years ago now.

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

296KB, 375x523px

>>53104218
Here, then. All the nagging has actually put me off the cards now, so I don't really want anything more to do with them. Have your cake; the whole cycle is getting deleted because I'm kind of over it now, partially thanks to you.

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

46KB, 375x523px

>>53103947
Nice. I had a somewhat similar idea a while ago.

>>53104465
Hm. This is probably a bit safer than mine since it's a bit harder to get going since Equipment don't end up in the yard as often as creatures do. Probably more likely to see print.

>>53104251
I'm sorry I can't keep my autism in check all the time, don't make my stupidity stop you from making cards.

File: Richard Swift the Shade14.jpg (48KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 375x523px

Tried to really streamline this.Token doesn't have the P/T defining ability anymore, now the pump affects it directly. And the token isn't legendary, since that was only really an issue when it was going to stick around for more than one turn.

File: Disdainful Dismissal.png (257KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 375x523px

>>53104717
Well, as it is now, you never attack with it, ever. You just sit and generate token after token and eventually wear your opponent down by dropping al your black mana on it. Pretty disgusting with Cabal Coffers, for example. Broken? I dunno. It's also extremely resilient to -X/-X removal while not suffering for it because of the dual pump, which is one of the only reliable ways to get rid of indestructible creatures. Basically it's board wipe or exile, near as I can tell.

>>53037958
MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION.

>>53042715
If you want to retain the general idea without the Infinite, give them +1/+1 for every equipment CURRENTLY attatched.

>>53104909
>Well, as it is now, you never attack with it, ever. You just sit and generate token after token and eventually wear your opponent down by dropping al your black mana on it.
Well, kinda makes sense from a flavor standpoint. Could make it so it's only on your upkeep though. I wanted the token to be able to block when Shade can block, basically, and attack when Shade can, which is why it checks for untapped. But sacrificing some flexibility for a better design is OK with me. Thanks for the feedback. And for putting up with this card for so long. Jesus, this is one of the most extensive cards I've done in a while. Not ever though, pretty sure Power Girl still holds the record for that at 39.

>Disdainful Dismissal
I was about to say it should check for creature destruction, then I remembered Eradicate. Black can just exile creatures, so feel free to just do that. Certainly makes the card simpler. Though I would actually suggest making it so the player can choose not to exile anything besides the original card, it's just something Wizards likes doing. So, basically I'm suggesting
>Exile target creature. Search its controller's graveyard, hand, and library for any number of cards with the same name as that creature and exile them. Then that player shuffles his or her library.
Wording slightly modified from Crumble to Dust.

Oh, and a minor thing, but I feel like the flavor text is more fitting on a counterspell. I feel like the flavor should be the mage referencing the person being addressed directly, rather than things they do. Talking about how pathetic they are, how they can't stand before them, etc. Maybe something like
>In what world did you think you ever stood a chance against me?

>>53105145
Considering order of operations, doesn't the creature you destroy with it end up in the yard before you search and exile, so it ends up exiled anyway? Honest question; I thought things went to the yard as an SBA. I suppose I should probably just dig the answer up myself. I don't mind changing it to exile, either way.

>flavor text
This is why I don't usually put it on cards. I am not good at it. I'll just erase it and leave it blank. Saves space anyway.

>>53104717
Do tokens remember which card created them/do cards remember tokens they create? I can't think of another card that talks about tokens in this way.

Why not just "shades you control get +1/+1 until the end of turn" for simplicity?

File: Clarion of Burning Hearts.png (237KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 375x523px

This card is from a set I started making around Time Spiral's release, and I just found it again after almost ten years. I've been sprucing up some of the cards in my spare time, but I'm wondering if I should just start over on something new.

Cycling and Madness are both a core focus of the set, so discarding would be pretty common.

File: Exile Spells of Kamigawa (2005, Betrayers of Kamigawa).jpg (400KB, 1536x445px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 1536x445px

>>53105208
>Do tokens remember which card created them/do cards remember tokens they create? I can't think of another card that talks about tokens in this way.
Yes, cards do keep track of what tokens they create, and tokens keep track of what created them. Some examples are Faerie Artisans, Gutter Grime, Saproling Burst, Dance of Many, and Dual Nature.

>Why not just "shades you control get +1/+1 until the end of turn" for simplicity?
I have other Shades I want to do later, but I will keep that in mind for when I'm developing those other cards.

>>53105207
>Considering order of operations, doesn't the creature you destroy with it end up in the yard before you search and exile, so it ends up exiled anyway?
If it gets killed, yeah, which is why I mentioned checking for creature destruction. I just feel like exile makes it cleaner, as well as to fit in line with a bunch of other cards like pic related, but it's ultimately up to you and a fairly minor detail overall.

>This is why I don't usually put it on cards. I am not good at it. I'll just erase it and leave it blank. Saves space anyway.
Don't beat yourself up, flavor text is very difficult to do well. I usually don't use it either.

File: Jay Garrick the Flash6.jpg (41KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 375x523px

Tweaked Jay Garrik. P/T went from 2/2 to 1/3, mana cost went from 1RW to 2RW. Everything else the same. And to grumpy: I had been a bit concerned about the mana cost before, but before you, nobody ever really pointed it out, at least not that I can remember.

>>53105215
Eh, not really a big fan of Insanity, sorry. I'm not a fan of the discard trigger first of all, but making it trigger off every player I feel like is going to make it way too easy to activate. I guess I'd recommend Monstrosity or Renown. Actual abilities seem alright, nothing too exciting.

As for the rest of your cards, if you just want to post a bunch at once, feel free to do so, we just ask that you post them as a single image using PhotoJoiner, link in the OP. Oh, and download the Beleren font for MSE. Should be somewhere in the MSE link in the OP.

>>53105318
>>53105207
>Honest question; I thought things went to the yard as an SBA.
Forgot to get to this one earlier, sorry. As far as I'm aware, state-based actions don't occur while something on the stack is resolving. But you can always use a "then" to indicate that an action takes place after another, even an action that can possibly change the outcome if the following action. For example, Sequestered Stash says
>Put the top five cards of your library into your graveyard. Then you may put an artifact card from your graveyard on top of your library.
Notice the use of "then", and how it doesn't target the card in your graveyard. This allows you to return to your hand an artifact card that was milled into your graveyard as the first part of the effect.

>>53105475
>to your hand
Joke's on me for not reading the card well enough.

File: Glyphwrought Armor.png (245KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 375x523px

>>53105215
Insanity would be better if it had some kind of way to physically tell the creature is marked "insane" like Renown does, for example.

We were talking about going back to cards and looking at them down the road, and so your attitude might change towards a lot of them. I wonder how many changes you'll end up making?

>>53105318
I suppose exile is fine; it does make it a bit more of a definitive thing, as the name implies.

>>53105495
I still fine Aura focus in Blue somewhat strange, but oh well. Anyway, seems fine to me for now, though I'm still waiting for Wizards to make an Equipment or Aura with Prowess. Maybe they don't want to confuse people with how it means the creature's controller triggers Prowess and not the controller of the Aura/Equipment?

>>53105528
Not sure; it says right on the card the creature has prowess, so you'd have to control the creature to trigger it. I suppose not everyone would come to that conclusion. Kind of like how if you made two Auras, and had one grant Lifelink and the other "Whenever enchanted creature deals combat damage, you gain that much life." some people might ask why.

>Aura focus in blue
What do you mean? Are you confusing this card with belonging to someone else's set?

>>53105593
>What do you mean? Are you confusing this card with belonging to someone else's set?
No, I just think aura focus when I see Totem Armor.

>>53105605
Ah. I know it's just wishful thinking but I've always wanted blue to be better with Enchantments. As the "magic, motherfucker" color it always seemed odd as one if it's weaker points. With WotC working to tone down countermagic and whatnot, maybe we'll see more of it? I dunno.

File: Scarab of Khem-Adam.jpg (90KB, 752x523px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 752x523px

Something I came up with very quickly. Basically, take Superman and dump him in Ancient Egypt, with a brutal "an eye for an eye" take on crimefighting, and you get more or less Black Adam. Because reasons, he gets sealed in this scarab, and the idea is to build up his power to unleash him again. Probably going to do something similar with other cards in the Shazam family, building up charge counters (one for each letter in Shazam's name) to upgrade to a big beater form. This is more a proof of concept, so I'm sure how the scarab gets counters, how it transforms, and Black Adam's exact abilities will change greatly as it's refined.

File: LovecraftCards.jpg (2MB, 1124x2092px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1124x2092px

>>53105408
Here's some more cards I've made. I'm not really a big fan of a lot of the cards and the mechanics really, which is why I asked for feedback.

>>53105495
>I wonder how many changes you'll end up making?
So many that I think I'd rather just start over fresh, really.

>>53106117
Living end is already a card

File: A Year of My Life.jpg (42KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 375x523px

Yo, I did it, guys.

>>53108696
Can I pay that amount of life in decades long crippling debt instead of in one burst? I wasn't born to parents with an infinite life gain combo so yknow.

>>53108860
Sure thing! You and me both, anon!

File: gur03 Reflectsire.png (313KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 375x523px

>>53106117
>Death's breath
Obviously it's pretty powerful though I think it's right about balanced out.

>living end
>3 mana for 20 damage
I don't care what the downside could be, that thing is basically guranteed to kill the opponent thanks to trample and being in colors that have probably already dealt a bit of damage. I like the basic idea but this iteration is absolutely absurdly too powerful. Against a slower deck they may literally have only 1 mana open due to dropping a tap land when you play this thing. Increase cost, decrease power, probably remove trample. Sure, having a sac outlet to not lose from its trigger is something of an additional requirement, but sac outlets are beneficial in their own right, needing to have one is barely a cost.

>behemothize
Fires of yavimaya was a format defining card in its days. Sure, it probably wouldn't be quite as potent today, but this is a way too pushed version of it.

>nazi
I know that's not its name but it's what people will call it. As for its ability, this is going to be used to cheat giant dudes into play. As such, I'd like to see it cost 3 mana and for him to have 1 toughness.

>doot
I can dig it. Neat synergies.

>land
I'm pretty iffy on that. It's fast mana after all. However, being kept in check by not being able to go too crazy too early should hopefully keep it in check. if I were making this card, I would make the second ability tap as well so it's not 2 fast mana.

>my family
Not sure what this thing is going for besides filling exile up but I like it regardless.

>course
I don't think blue is supposed to get discard spells. I think changing that U for a B is probably all it needs to be a-okay.

>your mom
Not loving the idea of adding a card type but hey, experimentation and all that. Also, I dislike having such high color requirements at common since it's hard to pull of in limited play and the reward for this guy in particular isn't even that crazily worth it.

File: uu07r artifact draw spell.png (206KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 375x523px

>>53106117
FUCKING GOD DAMN IT FUCK. For no fucking reason my previous version of this post got eaten just as it was almost done.

>absolve
parasitism is concern. Even though it fucks with the flavor, I'd have it make something insane on cycle

>cleave
I wouldn't know but that wording seems super weird. Is there precedence? Take it to ask a judge thread on how to word it if there isn't.

>gloam
Is gloam a term or is it meant to be gloom? As for the card, I'd like to see it mae something insane on ETB or if you cycle/madness it.

As for isnane itself, I don't know what kind of benefits and negatives it brings through your set but it seems heavily reliant on itself. As such, anything that mentions it should probably utilize it in some way. OR, rework it in such a way that there's a counter on it to denote insanity. Off the top of my head, a way to rework insanity is to put -1 counters or something like that, sort of the inverse of monstrosity. Of course, this is coming from someone with pretty much no idea of how you want insanity to work but to prevent memory issues there really should be something permanent on board that changes to ensure there aren't memory issues with what's insane and what isn't.

Also, on mawspawn, I'd put "~ is insane" in the text box instead of "Insane Creature" but that's just me.

>>53109158
God damn it, I fucking knew I should have double checked to make sure that thing was the most recent version.

Scrap tokens no longer have any text, they're just a resource.

>>53102179
The depth of the card is not justified by just how complex it plays. Bizarre layers to combat are not fun and tend to be bad design. I don't even really find it that interesting just because how clunky it is.
>>53102238
Overcosted. Also spelljack plays better with the same effect. Also it should really be black, not red. 1UUB probably.
>>53102321
>See, I'm of a mind that any green card that doesn't interact with artifacts in a negative way is green being "friendly" towards artifacts
Then you're just wrong. It's green making tokens that happen to be artifacts because of flavor and set design. That's a color pie bend. And yes, that's the extend you can bend the color pie. What you have done is make the card not function without artifacts. Having equipment is central to your green equipment guy.
>I think what I'm proposing is a fairly safe, minor bend
Nope, it's a clear break.
>>53102633
I don't suppose this being symmetrical when Ward isn't matters much, does it?
Oh, hmm, it should matter. Again, no clue how it would actually play.
>X cost to swap X permanents
XUU
Although now that I think about it, you could just jam a bunch of two-creature combos at varying mana costs to make a neat combo deck. I think it's safer to make it cost 1U and target a single guy.
>same CMC
Same CMC for sure. Same or less will open up some really dumb stuff.
>flexibility
Only creatures is much safer and gives the card a better focus. Also doesn't really lose any of the flavor that way IMO.
>>53103101
This goes infinite with so many things it's not even funny. Completely broken and unprintable.
>>53103381
I like Sanctuary's Claim a lot. I'd maybe tweak the numbers a bit, maybe make them colorless spirits without flying. Maybe give one 2/2 flier?
I don't like Sea's Claim. It's a bit clunky what it does. Swan Song fits the cycle a lot better.
I'd like Rot's Claim more if it cost B and made you lose life equal to the number of counters.

>>53109349
That's probably fair.

thing is, I don't think WOTC would want to have to print a new type of spirit token unless 2/2 spirits were a thing in this set, which they're not.

Why is sea's claim clunky? Someone draws a card and something he controls gets bounced. The wording is definitely clunky as hell but that's WOTC's fault for needing to specify that the owner of the card is the one that puts it on their library... wait... FUCK. Seems even something like commit allows YOU to be the one performing the action. That should make it read less weirdly and hopefully make it seem less clunky. And yeah, swan's song is an honorary member of the cycle.

The cycle has to give reason to be used on your own stuff. Do you mean the controller of whatever lost the counters losing life? I also swapped a B for a 1 in its cost. I don't want to make it cost less than 2 because it kills planeswalkers... but maybe a 1 mana kill spell for walkers is okay... iunno

>>53109349
>Overcosted.
Straight-up exiling spells is better than counter-then-exile, and thus is more expensive. I could see it at 2UR at the cheapest.
>Also spelljack plays better with the same effect.
They're different effects. This is a play on red's impulse mechanics, exiling then casting later. Spelljack lets you cast without paying the cost. My block rewards actually paying costs.
>Also it should really be black, not red. 1UUB probably.
It's perfectly fine in red, especially given the temporary nature of the casting window. Red plays with spells almost as much as blue, and red's purview is expanding to include theft effects like this.

>>53103381
Cinder's Claim should only do one thing and one thing only. I'm really unhappy with how it turned out.
>>53103947
Remove make the zombie a 0/0, make the equipment give +2/+2 and make the equip cost 3. Also make the zombie ability a sorcery. Should be a much cleaner and more focused card. I don't know if you agree, but I think that looks much, much better and in-flavor for black than the equipment lord.
>>53103983
It has no reason to be a 4/4. Also I don't understand why and how Strionic Resonator is on a white black creature. That seems like a UR ability to me, even with the enchantment restriction.
>>53104136
I don't think I'm convinced this is BW still. Scrap it and try again. You can do something better and more interesting for the BW leader.
>>53104251
Same complaint, the first ability isn't that relevant most of the time.
>>53104465
When will an equipment ever end up in a graveyard? I don't like it.
>>53104717
I liked the old version more. I don't think you need to keep fiddling with it.
>>53104909
Eradicate.
>>53105208
>shades you control
Hoooooooly shit. 10/10 idea.
>>53105215
BBRR is a lot harder to cast than you think. It's a bit too good, and black creatures getting first stike doesn't make a lot of sense. Insanity is interesting (?). I'm having difficult gauging the ability. Might turn out cool.
>>53105408
I like that much more. It's still horribly snowball-y, but you found a nice and balanced statline. Nice.
>>53105495
Neat idea. I don't really like having prowess on an enchantment. It just rubs me the wrong way. Not sure why. Might be nothing. I like the spell mastery part though. I think the idea is interesting, but I don't like the specific keywords you chose.
>>53105814
Attrition does not need an additional upside.
>>53106117
I don't like Death's Breath. Casting spells is fun. Don't punish me for casting spells.
Living End is already a card. Also for 3 mana you search up 20 power with trample and swing? What?

>>53109490
What one thing should cinder's claim do? I had it deal with 2 types of permanents because the others have such versatility. Maybe the first half bolts a creature or planeswalker then that thing's controller bolts something else. This means if you want to get a lightning bolt out of it, you have to actually put something of yours at risk to be rewarded with a lightning bolt.

Yeah, I was getting more disappointment with vah'iqa's ability myself. Though to be fair, angels have a strong tendency towards being 4/4s and demons are usually of similar power. Lifelink is for the flavor of how it drains others for its power. Originally I had it with a "sacrifice a creature: do something that protects stuff" but I just couldn't get that to a place I liked.

>>53106117
Behemothize is a 2 mana overrun with some flavor text about your creatures costing more. Absolutely not okay and undercosted to all hell.
Nuazi is not green at all. Also he will be bringing back Emrakuls and the sort. And it's repeatable? Busted.
Eldritch Trumpeter just makes me confused. Also not a common.
Star's Reach is broken. It's a Black Lotus land on turn 3.
I don't think I would make Mental Illness not cycle. It's too on the nose. Maybe even remove madness. Cool card though.
Course of Treatment is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too clunky.
Assault is dumb and should not be keyworded.
Also the card is boring. And not a common. Ever.
Why the WW cycling? Also Awe Strike.
Cleave is just not templated horribly and too confusing.
Gloam Sulker is just weird. Not in a good way.
>>53108696
Not even an Omnicience effect? All that trouble to draw three cards?
>>53109000
Remove the Evoke. It's already above the baseline. Consider making it a mythic. Compare to Progenitor Mimic.
>>53109158
Don't make me do math to play magic god damn it. Especially for a depth payoff that small.
>>53109420
>it's WotC's fault my card is clunky!
>new token
Just borrow some old token. Doesn't have to be a 2/2 spirit. I'm just not sold on the two 1/1's.
> Do you mean the controller of whatever lost the counters losing life?
No, you lose the life always. You can use it on your own stuff to remove -1/-1 counters. It still fits the cycle. It's a undercosted spell with a drawback. Also using it to kill planeswalkers hurts a lot, that's why the life loss part is important.
>>53109438
It would not see play for 5cmc.
>They're different effects.
They're literally mechanically the same effect, except yours has a drawback. For one more blue mana, you get to keep the spell forever and cast it for free. It's the same effect pretty much.
>It's perfectly fine in red
Red doesn't get to steal other people's spells (And no, that one creature in M1x does not count).

>>53109585
>What one thing should cinder's claim do?
iunno. It's your job to fix the problem.
>4/4 guy.
Just scrap him and start over.
>>53109438
Like, I'd even see the effect in mono-blue. Red's exile-and-cast effects are random. That's what makes the effect red. That card is not red.

>>53109349
>Retroactive Continuity
Hmm, I'd like it to affect multiple things at once. How about swapping out any number of permanents for a permanent of the same CMC or less? I'm fine with that requiring a huge mana cost.

>Mother Box
An anon suggested only getting the cost reduction after the first two or three counters on it. What do you say to that?

>>53109490
>Flash
Cool, thanks.

>Scarab
Again, proof of concept. Does the idea of building up counters to get a big beater sound good by itself?

>>53109768
>Retroactive Continuity
I think 3U to exile your entire team at sorcery speed would be okay maybe I don't know? I'm going back and forth how broken that would be.
>Morther Box
Scrap it. No good can come from that reduction cost design.
>Scarab
Sound okay, I guess? Look at to Thing in the Ice and Dark Depths for inspiration.