/ccg/ Custom Card General /cct/

File: Undead Conqueror.png (230KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 375x523px

Needs a better name.

File: Remembrance.png (3MB, 2248x1044px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2248x1044px

Edited Remembrance based on opinions from /tg/, power levels are probably still very off because balancing casting cost, two effects and he body it comes in on is hard. They're all still prototypes so pls no bully

Still not my keyword though

>>54692434
Janglebones the Spookmaster

File: Well-liked Protector.png (183KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 375x523px

Remind me, if a creature gains Defender in the Declare Attackers step, is it still attacking?

File: Hound of Strox.png (359KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 375x523px

>>54693599
I'm not sure actually, my understanding of the stack isn't as good as I'd like it to be but other people in these threads know their stuff.

>Declare attackers
>In response to the tapped and attacking creature I make it a defender
>Creature isn't able to attack, but that restriction doesn't apply in this instance because the creature is already attacking

I think that's how it works but I don't know. Maybe make it something like "Untap target attacking creature and remove it from combat" if defender can't get the effect through?

>>54693396
Vichehold channeler goes infinite way to easily, especially with remembrance

File: Endeared Protector.png (189KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 375x523px

>>54693599
>>54693858
This should work.

>>54693858
You are precisely right. An attacking creature that gains "this creature can't attack" is still attacking. Just as a blocked creature that gains "this creature can't be blocked" is still blocked.

>>54694112
Why bother with this? With the former version, you just have to use it before attackers are declared. Is that really so bad?

>>54694222
A combat trick you have to use before combat is just a shitty sorcery.

>>54693396
>Ferocious Martyr
>When ~ dies, put a +1/+1 counter on each of up to two target creatures.
You can choose not to put them on creatures you don't control.

>Vichehold Channeler
Yeah, I agree with the other guy, way too many infinite combos.

>Backalley Insuramancer
I think you can reduce this guy's cost to 1BB. And I think the Remembrance ability you can take down to 2BB too.

>Tidepool Rippleseer
Same as the G one.

>Vichehold Grovekeeper
Uh... Why is that Remembrance cost so high? I mean, you know you still have to pay for the ability, right?
>3GGWW, T: Tutor a basic land
Doesn't seem that great honestly. Honestly the whole card seems overcosted.

>Savage Broodwarden
It's not "play" it's "the battlefield". And for this, the syntax is "dies".
>Whenever a creature dealt damage by ~ this turn dies, create a [...]

>Markov Gravecaller
3WB and sac a creature to recur a creature? Also seems overcosted. I think part of the problem with this and the GW one is that you throw other abilities on top, like Lifelink and Vigilance. I think it would be better if you split up these Remembrance cards into two categories, one that focuses on keywords, another that focuses on another ability. If the keyword creates synergy with the other ability, as with Savage Broodwarden, keep it. Otherwise, pick one and remove the other.

>>54694500
Stick with the Defender keyword and treat it as an instant spell that says
>Tap target creature.

File: Viche, the Pulse of Life.png (379KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 375x523px

>>54694665
>Overcosted

They're not supposed to be instants with flashback stapled to a creature, just late game value for when they're in the yard not doing anything. And the channeler and Rippleseer used to be tap for the effect but that meant they were much less likely to hit the graveyard and get used. I just need to find a common ground on those two.

>3GGWW, T: Tutor a basic land AFTER your creature swings for damage

Not good by any means as a card, but what about later in the game when you have seven mana and nothing to spend it on? Hopefully Remembrance creatures have already done something useful with their abilities, now you remember them by paying homage to their skills. Value but not to much value is the hard part about Remembrance.


I do appreciate all the opinions though I didn't TL;DR, splitting them up between good keywords and abilities is a good idea, instead of just trying to stuff everything together onto one card and not have it be OP or undercosted.

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

48KB, 375x523px

>>54694796
>Not good by any means as a card, but what about later in the game when you have seven mana and nothing to spend it on?
You're right, it'll be a great way to get even more mana you can't spend on anything!

Joking aside, if you want it to tutor after combat... maybe just have it tutor on combat damage? There's a common 2/2 creature for 3G that does just that.

Anyway, as for value, I think you should also do more P/T boosts with these cards. Extra damage is always good, right? Maybe something like
>Whenever ~ attacks, it gets +3/+0 until end of turn.
Actually, just had an idea, pic related.

>Viche
I've seen this a few times, and I wish I could give you feedback on it, but I find it really hard to judge at such a high cost, especially being tricolor. Sorry.

Oh yeah, I just realized that the you don't have to say "pay" in Remembrance's reminder text, and "exile" should be capitalized.

>>54694995
That Remembrance should probably cost more. I'd price it at 2BBRR

>>54695030
I actually think I might take Flying off. maybe 1BR, and Remembrance BBRR?

>>54695122
Sounds fair. You'd only run this in a BR aggro, so at absolute most it gives about four +1/+1s to a creature.

>>54694796
The ult here feels tacked on in a "I couldn't think of a third ability so here's an ult that's never going to be relevant" kind of way. It sort of works flavour-wise, but in gameplay I just don't see the point. I would suggest getting rid of it and giving her a static ability that either reduces cost of creatures by [1] or [2] or a "you may spend mana as though it were mana of any type to cast creature spells" to synergise with the +2.
If you disagree, ult wording should be "Creature spells you CAST cost..."

>>54696168
Her ult used to be gain control of every creature spell your opponents played but it felt pretty oppressive so I want with reduced cost equal to her own. The spending mana as though it was any color is a good idea though since she's Naya, I don't get to many posts on this card so I appreciate it

>Ult never relevant

It's free creatures? Totally free little guys and greatly reduced fatties as long as they're in your hand I mean, which goes well with her +2 I thought.

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

39KB, 375x523px

Fixed this with something hopefully more fitting.

>>54696238
>It's free creatures?
3 turns after you reached 6 mana? You can probably hardcast everything except Emrakul at that point. And you'll likely be mostly out of cards in hand too, so mana efficiency doesn't do anything for you that late in the game.
Any-color static also lets you play some fun-ofs that are hard to cast (3+ mana of a single color), which is my favourite kind of card. Admittedly I'm a little biased here.
In the end the third ability isn't going to matter in 99% of games, and in my opinion playing Silumgar off Naya manabase to steal the opp's fatty and hasting them up for the win is sweeter that a 4 mana Eldrazi turn 12.

>>54696458
It may as well be 1G instead of (W/B)(W/B). What're you trying to do here?

>>54696540
It's part of a larger cycle, and W/B is hard to find a good repeatable effect for.

>>54696613
Does it have to be repeatable? Lifelink is the obvious answer.

File: wedge cycle.jpg (393KB, 1886x526px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 1886x526px

>>54696715
Ideally, yes. When I first posted the cycle (pic related), I got a lot of comments that it was odd that U and B could benefit from their effects multiple times, possibly even in the same turn, while the others were either one and done or only useful once in a turn like Red.

So I'm reworking the WRG ones.

>>54696784
How about a life drain? "Target player loses 1 life and you gain 1 life." Repeatable, very WB.

Of course, +1/+1 is more synergistic with a green creature, so maybe you're already on the right track. It just looks a bit weird.

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

39KB, 375x523px

>>54696863
Yeah. I was considering going for a sort of 'pseudo lifelink'. Make it gain X life where X is the combat damage dealt by ~ that turn, in order to make it tie in with the more green aspects.

Hmm, how about something like this? Have the pump effect, but lifelink tied to it so the first activation does something more W/B.

>>54696863
Technically the ability would have to be both WW, WB, and BB, and that ability only fits B. I guess if it were changed to WB or something it would be a lot easier to do. Actually, Alara did a cycle like that.

...Huh, thought I'd have the cycle on my drive. Oh well, here's the description from the MTG wiki.
>Creatures with shard-colored activated abilities: Each of these uncommon creatures has an activated ability which costs both allied-colored mana — Aerie Mystics, Scornful Æther-Lich, Dreadwing, Viashino Slaughtermaster, and Sacellum Archers.

>>54697160
Bleh, wrong image.

File: Kuthumans Domain.jpg (87KB, 752x523px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 752x523px

And here we have a bad planeswalker flip card based on the big bad from the old Arena novel.

>>54699027
In hindsight, I should have omitted the first "you" in the flavor text somehow to make it more laconic

>>54699238
>>54699027
Still a pretty flavorful and fun card.

>>54699266
The art is ugly though.

File: RR02 Unending Annoyance.jpg (49KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 375x523px

>>54699315
I wouldn't quite call it ugly, but amateurish compared to 'professional' artists. Probably hard to find ogre monk art though.

File: Master_of_the_Awesome_Blow_v2.png (279KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 375x523px

>>54699027

>>54699266
>>54699315
Indeed. It was kinda hard to find art featuring ogre monks/martial artists (or paladins/knights, which was another option). I like the goofy Tibet monk look but the mediocre quality combined with the lack of background is a bit underwhelming.

>>54699795
>>54699796
Does it have to be an ogre monk?

>>54699933
I got the basic idea from this:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/monster-feats/awesome-blow/

To make things clear, I wanted to simulate the knockback with temporary exile, which is a white trait in my book. Spinning from this, I wanted a good-ish ogre for added flavor, since they're a pretty intuitive user of the Awesome Blow feat and they're not typically good-flavored.
(As implied in >>54699796 it could have been a valiant-looking ogre in armor and a club instead, in which case the flavor would have probably been "Gnog hits demonspawn. Demonspawn ascends.")


The spirit of the concept can be conserved with any large monstrous/ugly humanoid which has an appearance of nobility.

>>54700187
Feels like a kind of meaningless downside, since it would still have to wait a turn to sac itself anyway.

>>54700221
Wow I can't believe I didn't realize that. Would it be fine without the first effect then?

>>54700260
How about:

At the beginning of your upkeep, tap ~ if you control no other creatures.

File: RG04 Spore Spewer.jpg (53KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 375x523px

>>54700310
I actually like this. Dash is one of the keywords I've been considering for this set anyway and there is some (anti)synergy there. Makes the drawback more relevant.

>>54700459
Dash feels pretty weird in Green, though I suppose it's a bit like having Unearth in Blue.

File: Macabre Visions.png (224KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 375x523px

Something really basic.

>>54696784
Don't force them to be 1 cmc and you'd be surprised at how easier they are to develop.

>>54702468
That's probably what's tripping me up. I made the Scorpion at 1 cmc and I just stuck with it for the rest out of habit.

That should give me more room to work with though.

>>54702956
Art in use: Niv-Mizzet, Firemind (Duel Decks: Izzet vs. Golgari).

For the card itself, Storm is cute, but it would probably make the card easier to judge if it were replaced with something else. The rest seem fine to me, but I wonder if this could be made to 1UR. If not, maybe change the third mode to either straight draw, or draw two and discard one. Maybe. Or maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.

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

36KB, 375x523px

>>54702956
Agree with this >>54703676 for the most part. Storm MAY be fine, but storm is a keyword that is very hard to balance. Imagining it on a modal spell, I'm tempted to say it would be OP.

File: Dark Aspirant.png (222KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 375x523px

>>54703756
Magus of the Bazaar at common? Are you sure about that?

>>54702956
Jesus, more Storm? Guys are killing me here. Honestly, I think this is actually okay. It's pretty expensive, and neither of the modes are particularly amazing since Storming the counter can bite you in the ass hard, I think.

>>54701830
Hm. Probably fine due to sorcery speed and the fact that it's -1/-1 not -2/-2.

>>54700459
I agree that Dash seems odd in green at first, but it at least makes more sense than Unearth in blue. At least, to me. Green gets Flash, so this is a pretty reasonable extension of that, I think. This card is pretty strong but I'm leery about the tribal limitations. We seem to have several people bent on making tribal work in their sets now. More power to you anons I guess.

>>54700187
This seems like way too much ramp for G, since it also can net you ETB triggers and death triggers. Remember, creatures that sac for rituals are WAY stronger than instant or sorcery rituals because they fuel many more strategies.

>>54699796
Shame that cardsmith won't let you do hybrid frames. Anyway, this seems fine to me; white flickers, and red exiles on combat damage. You could argue that this is a potentially okay bend of the pie, but it may be better as a gold card to be safe.

I feel like this card is perhaps too good, but the only creature that has the same effect at common is a 3/2 flier for 2UU which is already basically cost-efficient, so maybe this is fine.

>>54703924
At least make a 2/1 for 1B. No one wants a Muck Rat.

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

43KB, 375x523px

>>54703924
re >>54703756
I had no idea that was a card. I guess I'm way undervaluing card draw.
Nice cleric. Feels just right as a common.

File: white commons2.jpg (981KB, 1920x1604px) Image search: [Google]

981KB, 1920x1604px

Reworked a lot of the commons for white. Some of them are just small tweaks for simplification, others are more full overhauls.

File: The Horde.png (290KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 375x523px

Fixed the type line.

>>54704074
WOW the first half of this card is amazing! I could see a version of this being printed. The second half feels a bit off to me. Is countering the spell supposed to represent one of the members of the horde being taken out but not the whole thing? Either way, I like it.

>>54704000
Dare I defy trips? I think not.

>>54704031
Yeah it's always a good idea to type your cards into Gatherer or something to check and see what else is out there that is similar so that doesn't happen. Even if you're pitching more cards than you're drawing, there's ways to use that fact and build around it, and it's still a ton of repeatable, free filter.
>Tide
So a Blanket of Night and permanent High Tide stapled together? I'm not sure about this. Since those lands retain their previous types, that means your opponents aren't getting mana screwed and this card is no net gain for you. In fact, it's a net loss because you've spent 5 mana to cast it and your opponent gets full use of it on his or her upcoming turn. I'm not sure I'd actually even use this. What's the draw?

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

44KB, 375x523px

>>54704292
Thanks again. I'm starting to reconsider making a whole set as I seem to be bad at it. Fixed but now I have no idea how it should be costed.

>>54704426
Uh, one other thing I forgot to point out is that blue doesn't get ramp like this anymore, and hasn't in a long, long time. Blue really only gets to make mana to fuel artifacts these days.

>>54704693
He said it's a deliberate throwback to High Tide. Which is something I've said he should probably make clear whenever he posts it *cough cough*.

>>54704426
Second ability isn't blue. It can show up in any color but blue or white

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

43KB, 375x523px

Squirrel tribal

File: Masane Amaha Witchblade4.jpg (53KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 375x523px

Had an idea last night. Is the self-synergy too much? Design here is way more bottom-up than top-down, so I'm honestly not going to be talking about the character much. Crazy berserker is more or less the gist.

>>54705146
Self synergy is fine, the activate ability just needs to cost a lot more.

>>54705365
Discard?

>>54705390
That would do it.

>>54705392
Cool, thanks.

File: coordinators.jpg (242KB, 1125x523px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1125x523px

>>54704894
I know what it is; I pointed it out in my first post about it. I just neglected to mention that he probably shouldn't do it unless his set's going to feature a lot of throwback stuff since that's not a blue ability anymore. I suffered from a case of
>see card
>fix card
and didn't think to actually, you know, check to make sure it's something that should or could be done.

>>54705088
OP; causes an ETB trigger and a death trigger without needing a sac outlet in addition to the Snappy ability. Goddamn Squirrel tribal.

>>54705146
Yeah I agree the activated ability needs to cost way more. 2BR maybe?

I made three versions of this card because I had three ideas for what it could do using that art and name, and figured I'd toss them all out into the wild and see what people like the best. I am most partial to the second one, but it may need to cost a bit more. 3U possibly.

>>54705480
Das a WU card mane.

>>54705438
I kind of like the second the most as well. It feels the most straightforward. Costing wise I think it could get away with being at 3 cmc, though you may want to dial back the number of cards slightly.

The first is interesting, though I could also see it get frustrating if you're just constantly shuffling cards and you don't have draw available.

>>54705438
>01
First ability is poor, and the second is feel-bad.

>02
Taigam's Scheming on legs.

>03
The second ability is again, feel bad, but less so than 01 since you're not giving up a card.

>>54705480
>>54705523
I feel like it could be mono-white if it had players play with it revealed rather than just opponents, to push it as a sort of 'equal rule' that White likes.

From there, the protection is pretty White.

File: Service to the Emissary.jpg (44KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 375x523px

This card felt neat to make, but its worthless against creatureless control and hyper aggro. Its only got uses against midranges, so its a terrible card that can make it into the sideboard of a very specific deck that can make use of it.

So, in true Wizards style, I made it Mythic.

File: Service to the Emissary.jpg (44KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 375x523px

>>54705615

Woops didn't mean to post the first version with the dumb pay 2 life thing.

>>54705537
I'll look at shifting around the numbers maybe but the effect on 02 is verbatim off a card (that I found out after the fact when I decided to amp up Index). 01 might need a beefier scry to compensate for trading a card; I dunno.

>>54705552
What's so poor about the first one? More scry necessary as the tradeoff? I mean it's a may so you don't have to do it. I agree that 03 is probably better though.

>>54705572
It could be white if the reveal were even across all players, but the card as-is is WU, as I said.

>>54705670
A card like this really needs to avoid three lines of flavor text. It's crowded as hell. That said, what's the point of it? I guess paying 1 life to prevent all combat damage to creatures you control is pretty good, but the fact that it then costs 2WW to take advantage of that is pretty meh to me. The prevention of lifegain is also very strange since both W and B have Lifelink and love gaining life, with black then using it as a resource.

>>54705438
Middle seems best. Others seem just overly complicated. And kinda bad that you not only skip a draw but possibly skip a good card to get a measly +1/+1 counter.

>>54705146
Don't have anything to contribute to the design, it seems fine to me but I really love self synergy cards, but I will say this woman is one of my favorite jerk offs.

>>54705988
Kinda interesting. But I think the ability would be easier if it were
>~ gains all loyalty abilities of target planeswalker until end of turn.

>>54705988
I agree with >>54706049 here; nothing says creatures can't have loyalty abilities and in fact MSE has ways to do so. It's a very cool card though.

>>54706740
The abilities are anti-synergistic, and the black lets you repeatedly dump all your mana into burning out players.

>>54706793
I was considering trying to limit the black effect to being once per turn, but I was worried it'd get too wordy. And giving it two tap effects seemed rather off, though it might work out.

As for synergy, my thought with it was that you could tap a creature, gain life for the counters on it, and then use the effect to take a counter off afterwards. While you do get less life after using the black effect, I feel like it has done its 'job' at that point.

>>54704101
Would changing its subtype to just "Army" ruin interactions with other cards? Still, as >>54704151
menioned that first rule is neat.

File: Merciless Djinn.png (289KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 375x523px

>>54708005
That's a pretty neat take on a clone card anon, I like it, Wizards is quickly running out of ways to make slightly different clone cards and will probably use this exact effect sooner or later.

File: Abandoned mechanic.jpg (264KB, 1500x523px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1500x523px

Rate and hate my mechanic. I can still think of a couple ways to work with this, but the design space doesn't seem all that great.

>>54709948
Eh, it feels like it has a similar amount of space to Landfall, Morbid, Raid, etc. The biggest flaw i see with it is that compared to Morbid it's harder to get people to discard rather than something dying.

>>54709948
While the cards look fine, the mechanic is not a very nice one to play with since it relies on /the opponent/ playing a certain kind of deck.
The two skeleton cards work better since the player with them in their deck could be the one discarding cards for value, but for the other two, your enemy must be the one A) playing lots of creatures, and B) sitting around with them in hand or discarding them.

If a game goes long and you've been hit with a few discard effects, you wouldn't be sitting around with creatures in hand, making the Abandoned mechanic just disappear.

Other similar triggers like landfall, morbid, and so on rely on you building a synergistic deck, not on your opponent playing a deck that is synergistic with yours.

>>54711185
>>54711286
So from what I'm hearing, I need to make less cards with "if an opponent discarded a creature card", and make more "if a player discarded a creature card".

I'll start by making creatures with Madness.

>>54711317
Yeah, if it's going to be something narrow like discarding creatures, it should at least check both players.

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

257KB, 375x523px

Does this go against the color wheel? (Compare to Chaplain's Blessing.)

I'm probably not the first person to think of this, am I?

>>54712319
That's just a very roundabout way of gaining 5 life, except it can't be used while you're under 10.

I'd say it would be more fitting for black if you had to sacrifice a creature or discard a card instead. Paying life to gain life seems really degenerate.

What rarity should this be and should it be a sorcery/instant?

XGG or X1G
Put X +1/+1 counters on target creature or land you control. If counters are placed on a land this way, it becomes a 0/0 colorless elemental with haste.

>>54713225
Rare, Sorcery XGG

>>54713225
I think you could make it an uncommon instant. Mainly depends on if you want the combat trick/flash potential.

Lifecraft awakening is the card I would point to. You might need to make it rare simply because it can target any creature.

>>54713981
Deathtouch feels a bit odd on it, but it seems fine. It also feels like you could use its own ability to bounce itself and generate as many thopters as you wanted.

>>54715246
Two thopters for the price of 2WUB, mind you.

Still a bit weird. I can't put my finger on it, but something feels off about this card.

>>54693396
>backalley insuramancer

Emhyr, is that you?

>>54699166
Her 0 can only be used as a sorcery, and creatures can't be attacking when you can activate it.
She has no way to gain counters, so he ult is irrelevant.

>>54719141
Seems a bit undercosted for how easily repeatable it is.

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

50KB, 375x523px

Whenever I do the "choose one of these keywords" I always feel like I'm at a loss for what to choose. Anyway, the abilities are supposed to show how adaptable he is. If the charge counter trigger should be changed to something more useful, maybe creature ETB, let me know. Hmm, though now that I think about it, I'm wondering if it should just be +1/+1 counters and remove the pump.

>>54720773
You could probably get away with him stacking up +1/+1 counters and removing them to make himself indestructable

>>54720970
Hmm, that sounds good, thanks. I think I'll try to keep a choice of keywords though. Maybe Indie, Flying, Lifelink?

>>54721013
I don't know the character very well, but based on the look of hom Trample might be better than Flying or Lifelink, depending.

The options themselves sound fine though, mechanically.

>>54712319
>>54712390
I don't even think the state effects check in the middle of an execution like that. It might as well just state to gain 10 in the last bit.

>>54721780
I think you might still need to be able to pay the five life, since it's an additional cost, regardless of where you end up.

Either way, it doesn't feel like it's worth this much headache just to say 'Gain 5 life' for B. Anyone would be better off just spending the mana on a drain effect instead.

File: Gar Logan Beast Boy10.jpg (53KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 375x523px

>>54721304
Seems OK. Kinda sorta reminds me of the cards from Urza's whatever, that untapped lands when you cast them, except the tradeoff here is that you ramp. Ugh, I think I'm too tired to be talking right now.

Is there some way to represent transformation back and forth in black that can be at common and preferably on multiple cards that isnt transformers? Im thinking the shade ability, but maybe thats too obtuse?

>>54723585
I think an activated ability that lasts until the end of turn could work, though I think it would need to involve gaining some keywords to really get across the idea of 'transforming'

It could work easily for having a vampire turn into a bat and gain flying though.

>>54723665
Funny, this is specifically for vampires.

>>54723677
Yeah, it was the first example I thought of. You could easily do something like 'B: ~ becomes a 2/2 black bat creature with flying and lifelink until end of turn'

Granted, it won't leave room for much else aside from maybe a keyword, but it is a common after all.

>>54723706
Only thing is I wasnt looking for a keyword since i wasnt planning on factions and they werent gonna be a major aspect, but its important that some of them can "transform" to get the intended flavor across, even if they didnt all do it, plus maybe a rare or mythic that did a bunch of different transformations. "Becomes a x/y creature until end of turn" can be at common?

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

259KB, 375x523px

>>54723497
I dunno if I've asked this before or not, but have you considered or tried a version of him that copies creature cards in your hand on a reveal? I can't ever keep straight what I've suggested for half the cards you've posted. I like the "gets stronger every time it shapeshifts" thing you added though. That is actually something I'd like to see more of on your cards; heroes getting stronger as they use their powers. Feels a bit like a less lame version of Level Up.

>>54723781
By keyword, I meant in case you wanted to give the vamp something evergreen alongside the transforming bit.

Also, the effect itself only really shows up when it comes to turning lands into creatures at common, at least more recently.

Granted, I also don't think it's the sort of mechanic that shows up on creatures very often if at all, since usually there's little mechanical difference between something getting the proper +X/+X and keywords and changing it so its base is that amount and giving it a whole new creature type.

Skinshifter is the only creature card I saw that really does it, and that seems like its rare due to all the different ways it can do so.

Otherwise, you mostly have the Guild Keyrunes, Dragon Monuments, and various lands that temporarily become a creature of a certain type and effect, though those are mostly Uncommon. Though whether that's due to the complexity of turning a non-creature into a creature or the transforming itself is unclear.

If you're worried, I think a simple +1/+1 and flying until end of turn would suffice in some cases, using flavortext to make it clear that they have to turn into a bat to fly, but it's a bit less flavorful.

>>54723781
>>54724466
I don't really have a horse in this race, so to speak, but my two cents is that creatures becoming other creatures, so long as they self-target, is well within NWO since it's an "until end of turn" effect presumably, and it can be kept to three lines or less of text. And of course, for commons, limiting them to a single creature type to "transform" into is necessary for complexity issues. Bonus points if the stuff theses creatures transforms into forms some kind of theme for flavor reasons, like Vamps that become Bats or red shamans that turn into Elementals. I saw you only intended it for black, but I think it could be in all colors if you wanted. Of course, what >>54724466 is suggesting about +N/+N and <keyword> is also fine, if as he says, a bit lacking in flavor. I think the biggest roadblock might actually be the 'base P/T" thing showing up at common, to which I say in that case, just do the +N/+N thing, but have it add the necessary type in addition. If Changeling can exist at common, I think adding or altering a sing creature type should be able to as well.

>>54724466
Oh, yeah, I was actually thinking the simplest way to do this would be +x/+x and keyword until end of turn, with the keyword bearing the brunt of the transformation flavor. It's a little weird flavor wise to be able to turn into a bat by gaining flying but also being able to repeat the pump but oh well.

Also noticed black is tertiary in changing its colors so maybe I could do that too if I wanted but I dont plan on making that matter so its just a waste of words I think.

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

41KB, 375x523px

>>54724609
>>54724691
I do feel like something like this could work at common, and it does feel more fitting than a simple pump effect.

There's actually quite a few things you could do with this, including making the thing they shift into a different color, or having the cost require another type of mana for access to other keywords as well.

I would say that the pump method also suffers from not being able to get across what they're becoming as cleanly. If the vampire gets +2/+2 and menace, then you have to basically spell out in the flavor text if they're turning into a wolf or some sort of mist monster or what. Wheras if you can just say Wolf or Spirit or Horror, you can use that flavor text to explain details of why some vampires transform.

>>54724609
Oh yeah "becomes an x/y creature type until end of turn", if it's acceptable in black, could probably just be in all colors. I just need it in black right now because my setting's vampires are effectively skinwalkers/bad medicine men though that's only one facet of their powerset.

Another thing I was thinking of is manipulating +1/+1 counters somehow and also using the graveyard somehow, but I'm not sure how to do the first and I'm not sure if the second can be at common, though I think it'd be a spin on those exile a creature and make a token cards.

>>54724755
>>54724762
I think one thing you might consider is making the mechanic sorcery speed because in certain circumstances, giving a creature that doesn't have flying flying as a combat trick will confuse and frustrate inexperienced players. Sorcery speed would help with comprehension and newbie issues. Or, you can just say you don't care about newbies and run it at instant speed, since any P/T changes would probably be useful anyway.

>>54725036
Nah, there have been quite a few commons in recent sets that can get flying at instant speed. The costing is usually a bit steep, but that also depends on how much value the thing would get out of flying.

In cases where you're turning it into a creature with a new base power and toughness, you could avoid a lot of the frustration if it's only turning into a 1/1 bat. After all, a new player swinging with a flying creature since you have none and not realizing would still end up trading with yours at the worst.

>>54725447
I meant it more in terms of preventing arguments as to whether a creature that now has flying will still be blocked or not. It's the sort of stuff new players will trip over, though there are plenty of combat trick instants that do the same thing so... I guess it really doesn't matter too much.

>>54725517
This caring about the number of modes chosen is pretty strange. The wording seems appropriate, and regardless of what colors "number of chosen modes" would fall into if it mattered, the card does red things with it so that's fine. Still needs the double hyphen after the instead, I think.

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

43KB, 375x523px

>>54721780
Huh, I didn't know state-based actions don't check in the middle of resolving.

Is this better? I really like the thought of someone at ~13 life casting it, and then losing because of Lightning Bolt to the face or something.

Should probably be uncommon, as it breaks the four-line rule and has a "complex" rule on it (at the beginning of the next end step).

>>54724755
Why aren't you using DFC?

>>54726573
Still seems really weird and unnecessary.

>>54727213
Nice, though the Goat mode does seem really weak in comparison to the others. Hmm, I'm wondering if lowering the cost to WU would still be OK.

>>54724339
I have thought of just revealing the card, but I probably won't go that way since I could easily see keeping some cards in your hand and not casting them because it would be cheaper to use BB and copy them. That, and I don't really like the idea of turn 4 Emrakul.

And making the characters grow over time sounds like a good idea. I'll see if I can incorporate it more in cards. Though it is something I started probably with the Flash cards, since they get better when they get more speed counters on them.

>Tidelasher
Eh, seems OK. Kinda odd stats though.

>>54708005
No offense to you, but I think this is the third or fourth time I've seen this particular effect.

>>54728768
I like the idea of it, though I feel it might be a bit too strong for 4 power at 2 mana. Still, it is only 2 toughness, so it'll probably get stopped in its tracks rather quickly

I'm thinking of doing a class tribal set.
What classes would you like to see and which color pairs/tri pairs should they be?

For reference the following are likely to be in (color pairing/tripairing) still undecided:
clerics
wizards
shamans

Depending on which class tribal are in the world would most likely be high fantasy with a spice of something else

>>54729489
Clerics should definitely at least be WB, since that's where they've been for most of Magic history. The others are a lot more flexible, but I think Wizards fit most neatly into UR, and Shamans into GR, maybe throw in some B if you want.

As for classes I want to see, Rogues. Probably UB, maybe UBR. Emphasis on card manipulation (forced discard, Curiosity effects, looting, recursion, etc.) and evasion.

After that, maybe Knights, in RWB.

>>54729489
Well, Druid might be a decent inclusion alongside what you have. Perhaps Mystic of you're willing to re-work something otherwise defunct.

Color wise, you may also need to put some of the classes in new colors to free up some space.

I feel like you could go allied or enemy color with it fairly easily. Something notable is that Cleric and Wizard could basically be put as any color pair you want, or even be 5 color potentially.

I'll also say to look at Lorwyn and Innistrad for inspiration, and to remember that the key to a good tribal set is to make it so people aren't pidgeon-holed into one tribe during a draft, and they can mix between two tribes with cards in one that care about the other, and by giving tribes each a more specific mechanical identity or keyword that can be played around with even in a non dedicaidted deck.

I'd also say you may want to include a sixth or seventh tribe that shows up in all colors, but it depends a lot on the direction you take every thing.

>>54729547
Seems similar to my rough draft for 10 pairs:

RGB shamans
URB wizards
GWU scouts
WUB artificer/advisor
GWR warrior

GUB Rogues/assassins
BRW Knights/soldiers
GWB clerics
GUR Druids
WUR monk

>>54729636
Also wubrg spellshapers

>>54729489
I like this idea. Please put emphasis on the less-seen classes like scout and advisor.

>>54729636
Not entirely sold on G Rogues or Assassins or G Clerics.

>>54729735
To be fair, creature types that sound off-color can be exciting. I'm pretty hype about white vampires in Ixalan and C17.

>>54729735
Clerics have been showing up quite a bit in Green and Blue, but that's mostly thanks to Theros and Amonkhet.

I think you're right on Rogues though. They're usually UBR

>>54729735
I think it'd feel strange if you did it for tri-color though. Lorwyn had Elves and Goblins both bleed into Black, which was neat, but at the same time if you already have 2 colors to go for why reach for a third?

>>54729784
You could make that argument, but on the other hand, class types are a bit different from race types. A class type displays certain characteristics, certain attitudes, that you'd have to map to the color pie. Like, let's take a Vampire Rogue and make it mono-White. OK, Vamps in mW, fine, whatever, we'll just accept that. But a White Rogue? It's just not really a profession that lends itself to White philosophy.

Also, White Vamps in C17? When did this happen?

>>54729790
I'm guessing that there were more Clerics in Theros and Amonkhet due to the influence of the Gods there. Most Magic settings make gods far less important, if they even exist, and so the Clerics tend to focus on the structure of the religion than on the gods of it.

>>54730084
Yeah, I was just pointing out that there is some precedence there. Tossing a random god or avatar of the color pair you want clerics inis all the justification you really need to put them in those colors.

It would be weird to have them lack White or Black, though I think you could go with either of the main cleric colors and bleed into a secondary cleric color without issue.

>>54730084
>Monowhite Vampire Rogue

Sounds like a lawyer.

>>54730084
One of the tribes is Mardu Vampires.

http://mtg-realm.blogspot.fi/2017/07/commander-2017-tribes.html

File: Jennifer Walters She-Hulk.jpg (50KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 375x523px

>>54730274
I've always thought of lawyers as being Advisors.

Just reminded myself I never started a Daredevil card. Still have no clue what to do with him though. Maybe some sort of payback mechanic?
>If a source you control would deal damage to a player or a permanent controlled by a player that attacked you or a planeswalker you controlled during his or her last turn, it deals that much damage plus 2 to that player or permanent instead.

>>54730354
Well, that's disappointing. Not because I really care about mW Vamps, but because I was hoping some of the less supported tribes getting, well, support, which is what a lot of people thought might happen.

>>54730402
The ravnican advokists are lawyers and thats what Teysa is so lawyers = advisors is correct.

>>54729630
So enemy colors then with a subtle draft theme for ally colors similar to enemy colors on innistrad and soi?
UR wizards
GB shamans?
WB clerics
WR Knights?
GU ????

>>54730635
GU Scouts. Green because muh nature, blue because acquire information.

>>54730635
I think that would work out. Blue/Red is perfect for Wizards as the spell color. Green and Black get quite a number of shamans between them already. White/Black is the main cleric combo, and White/Red gets plenty of Knights.

Blue/Green is the only tricky one here, as they don't have quite as much overlap in terms of class. Perhaps you could go for Monks? Green did get a lot of those from Kamigawa, and Blue had them on Tarkir. Could combine their spiritualism with seeking enlightenment nicely.

File: Abandoned mechanic.jpg (265KB, 1500x523px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1500x523px

(These were upgraded to trigger whenever any player discards a card.)

File: Inva'ado Stalker.jpg (157KB, 744x1039px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 744x1039px

Design based on the discussion last night. Might do a vertical cycle, but maybe each will do this in a different way.
>>54731129
>>54731147
I like a mechanic that cares about discard, but I'm not huge on it only caring about discarded creatures. I don't know, just seems to specific to me. I get the flavor, but is there a mechanical reason it should be narrowed down to just creatures? I think i would like this more if it were if a player discarded a card period.

File: Sylira Assambler of the Beasts.jpg (40KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 375x523px

just created a new custom commander for my W/G Token EDH. Hope you like her

>>54730402
Decided to try Daredevil. Wanted a similar punishment theme while still being a bit different. Not entirely sure on this one though.

>>54731227
I still don't get why these cards don't just use DFC.

>>54731248
Anointed Procession on a stick? Eh, guess you could do worse. Doesn't really impress me much though.

>>54731297
>I still don't get why these cards don't just use DFC.
Because you can't use dfc for everything? Why didn't they just use dfc for embalm? Do you know the answer? They made dfc in the first place because they had a problem they couldn't solve without it, and dark transformation was an overarching theme of Innistrad in general.

File: Matt Murdock Daredevil3.jpg (38KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 375x523px

>>54731297
Forgot to attach the card of course.

>>54731322
>Because you can't use dfc for everything?
Did I say you could?

>Why didn't they just use dfc for embalm? Do you know the answer?
Off the top of my head, because token interaction exists. Which was on, what, I think three of the Embalm cards.

>They made dfc in the first place because they had a problem they couldn't solve without it, and dark transformation was an overarching theme of Innistrad in general.
Awesome trivia. Could you answer my original question now? Or are you going to continue asking inane questions and providing trivial non-answers?

>>54731227
>Why limit it to creature cards?
Two reasons. One, because discarding can trigger so often (especially now with Cycling back in fashion in AKH/HOU), trying to balance the mechanic would be more difficult if there wasn't a limitation on what was discarded.

Second, graveyard matters. Black has effects that return creature cards from the graveyard to the hand (or battlefield). Creature cards specifically. Rewarding the player for discarding creature cards encourages them to use that to its fullest.

>>54731375
>Did I say you could?
That sure was the implication, regardless of whether you "said" it. I was assuming you offered similar criticism to someone at some point of a card trying to portray a transformation that wasn't a dfc based on your tone, as no one said that I had to or should use dfc previously unless I missed it and your tone implied this was a repeat offense. What example of a card that transforms couldn't you use dfc for that was one of the exceptions you were thinking of?

>Off the top of my head, because token interaction exists. Which was on, what, I think three of the Embalm cards.
You are being an intentionally obtuse jackass right now. Do you think they came up with the token interaction before embalm, dumbfuck? There was explicitly an article about how they started with dfc as it was the obvious place for any transformation flavor, but they had found a way to do it without needing to do dfc so close to SOI.

I did answer you question, albeit yes in an obtuse way-- I was able to show transformation in a very simple and clean way without needing to use dfc, which would have no place in this hypothetical set as transformation would not be a major theme and I have no way of knowing proximity to another hypothetical set that did use them.

>>54731451
>Two reasons. One, because discarding can trigger so often (especially now with Cycling back in fashion in AKH/HOU)
Eh, I would consider this a feature and not a bug. But I guess it would require you to be more careful about costing and additional effects.

>Second, graveyard matters.
I think blue and red can also care about spells in grave, so I think it'd make sense in terms of draft archetypes if there was that overlap between UB and/or BR.

It can stay as just creatures if that's what you'd like, it just feels oddly specific to me whereas I feel like the simplest form of the idea would still work.

>>54731551
Another thing to consider is that draft archetypes aren't a concern for this set. This is my (edge-autistic) set that is entirely based around black cards. But you're right: if this were any other set, the simpler form would have been better. For cards that highlight black features, not really.

Thanks for the feedback.

>>54731227
I just realized how goofy it is that the vampire form is actually stronger power wise than the wolf form. I don't know how I feel about that. Might need to change the costs. I didn't want to do a piker since I do always default to a piker. I could probably make the mana cost bigger (2b probably) and make it the suggested 1 drop 1/2 from earlier since I don't know if it's okay for black to be swinging with an evasive 2/2 on turn 2 with no downside at common, and I don't know if I want to add more things like life loss or discard to the cost just because I like the simplicity but eh. Maybe just needing to continuously pump mana into it is enough of a downside without needing a larger mana cost.

>>54731795
Fair enough, I wasn't trying to be presumptuous which is why I asked if there was a mechanical purpose it was just creatures even though I thought the simplest and best execution was to just care about all discard. I kind of like a sort of Megrim/Waste Not-ish subtheme in a set.

>>54731800
Yeah, it does feel a bit odd for that to be the case. You could probably lower the power or make it a 1/3 or something while also dialing back the mana cost.

File: Inva'ado Stalker.jpg (154KB, 744x1039px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 744x1039px

>>54732048
Right now I basically have that yeah. Maybe giving up a turn 2 play is a big enough downside to swing in with a basically unblockable 2/2 on turn 2 at common.

Also thinking of just making it a pump (+ type change and ability gaining) just so it feels a little more black and ignoring the little flavor weirdness of it being repeatable but I actually can't figure out how to word that.

>>54732128
Hold up. If it says "becomes a Wolf", doesn't it keep its other (previous) subtypes?

>>54732177
i was using Skinshifter's wording (before I just winged it so it was probably wrong). I actually do want it to keep all of its types if that's what it does.

>>54732128
Hmm, I would have said to make the card itself 2 mana, and the transformation 1. Get a mediocre blocker on turn 2, and then be able to swing with it as something fairly on-curve by turn 3. Downside being that it would cost that extra B every time it attacks, but it would allow you to cast it earlier so it can attack and block sooner.

Does this seem alright as-is? Would it fit better if it only worked on Instants/Sorceries?

>>54732367
Storm count 0, apparently.

File: Patience of the Fisher.jpg (30KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 375x523px

>>54732367
derp

>>54731476
>I was able to show transformation in a very simple and clean way without needing to use dfc, which would have no place in this hypothetical set as transformation would not be a major theme
This is all you had to say. "I'm not using DFC because I'm only using this mechanic for just a few cards, and I don't want to throw in using the special DFC frame for them." I didn't know before you said this if you were going to use it for more than just a handful of cards or not. The way the mechanic was being talked about made it seem like it would be a major theme, but I see now it's just because of the complexities involved.

>>54732682
Well, there's also issues with knowing how surrounded it would be by other sets that might need dfc. I think if the theme is solvable without dfc then for a custom set it's better to err on the side of not using it, which is why they chose to use embalm as is as rather than a dfc mechanic. They were able to solve it without dfc so they did. It's just additionally there's also that this isn't really a major faction and I just want my vampires to have a few cards that show them transforming because that's a unique facet for them in this world, I may do a limited gold uncommon maybe, and a cool Skinshifter type mythic or rare for the cool factor and that'd probably be the extent of the transforming ones.

Sorry I snapped at you, it wasn't called for.

>>54732803
It's cool, I'm over it. As for a Skinshifter-type creature, due to that thing's ridiculous wording now, I'd recommend tying the shift to a trigger that normally occurs only once a turn (eg. combat, upkeep), so you don't have to add the activation restriction at the end of every mode.

And now that I think about it, I could see modifying Green's once per turn pump with this mechanic.
>1G
>Creature - Human
>Uncommon
>2G: ~ gets +2/+2, gains trample, and becomes a Werewolf in addition to its other types until end of turn. Activate this ability only once each turn.
>2/2
Or just modify the base P/T as you do.

File: notinthewallquiteyetbutstill.jpg (67KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 312x445px

>>54692392
I ain't got time to download and design the damn thing, so here's my card:

Sorin, Wall of Shame
3WB
Legendary Creature - Vampire Wall
Defender, Lifelink
Whenever combat damage causes you to gain life, you gain twice that much life.
Whenever Sorin, Wall of Shame is dealt damage, that source's controller loses that much life and you create a white and black 1/4 Vampire Wall token with Defender and Lifelink.
2/8
Mythic Rare

>>54719141
If it didn't have a Red mana symbol in it, Sydri would run the shit out of that. This and Unwinding Clock could be dangerous.

>>54733450
Haste feels like a bit much here, but it's a pretty solid idea.

>>54733864
Neat

>>54730084
>White rogue
Robin Hood?

>>54734466
Solidly red.

>>54734466
White is Lawful, Robin Hood is Chaotic.

Dude's red, man.

>>54734466
This >>54734559

White is more Law, Red is about Freedom. Good/Evil are independent of those.

That said, there are a handful of White Rogue cards, one of which was very recent from Kaladesh. The others are just Kithkin from Lorwynmoor.

In general, it does feel like it's better covered by Scouts for White.

>>54734592
>>54734559
Eh... eh... it depends, though I dont know enough about Robin Hood to say. Kytheon was a robin hood type figure in his youth in that he stole things to feed others.

>>54734713
True, but we also don't have a card really depicting him back when he was a thief. It's entirely possible for someone's colors to change over time, plus Gideon himself has always had a bit of Red leanings to him.

I feel like he may have started as a Red Rogue, but he learned Heiromancy in prison and ended up as a White Soldier once he was actually out and fighting for things.

>>54734802
I think it depends entirely on motivation really. Ive always thought Robin Hood was kind of showy whereas white would be pretty somber about what it has to do.

File: rogered.jpg (24KB, 488x488px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 488x488px

>>54734802
I'm sorry, but I can't just ignore that typo.

Hieromancy. The prefix hiero- meaning 'holy, sacred'.

I before E (except after C).

Heiromancy? What's that, a type of magic that manipulates who gets born in what order?

>>54734889
Well, notably he wasn't very somber in his youth either. He joined a band of thieves and was a pretty big showoff even after he became a hero.

>>54735011
Was speaking in general since Kytheon would definitely be part red if he didn't have to be monocolor. I dont actually recall what Kytheon was like in his origin stoty.

>>54735136
I think it pretty much was an Aladdin setup (albeit with friends), with him learning White-aligned spellcasting and discipline in prison, and them coming out a relatively proper soldier.

I do agree that he probably would be Red/White if it was stood on its own, but multicolor also further complicates tribal types.

>>54735206
I almost forgot this discussion about the color of Robin Hood and/or Kytheon started from the discussion of which colors match which class subtypes for tribal...

>>54735045
The cost feels off here, but it also feels hard to cost appropriately. Your opponent gets to pick what they're discarding, so they can avoid giving you zombies at all but the highest mana costs. It starts out as being an overcosted discard and ramps up into basically winning you the game by having them discard their hand and giving you a gaggle of zombies.

I think it might work better if it worked off of any card discarded, and had XX in the cost instead.

>>54735278
Note, this is in the same set with this mechanic:
>>54731147
>>54731129

Red has no enchantment destruction, so would this be okay?
>Spellbreaker Strike
>RR
>Instant
>Destroy target enchantment. Spellbreaker Strike deals 2 damage to it's controller

>>54735321
No. Red has no enchantment destruction, period.

>>54735337
Lame

>>54735296
Ah, so it's set up as a sort of catch 22. Hmm...I still feel like it would be better suited as XXB for the cost. I think it would scale up more evenly with the potential value you could get out of it.

>>54735321
You just said yourself why it wasn't okay.

If you want an example of Red dealing with Enchantments, look at Aura Barbs

File: Eternity Begins.png (277KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 375x523px

This does feel way more stable.

>>54735564
Feels a bit too much. This is meant to be an anti-enchantment creature, correct? For 2R, it's already a fine creature even without enchantments to buff it.

Personally I would either increase the cost by R, or remove the first ability entirely.

>>54735537
Yeah, combined with some of the cards that punish discarding creatures from the set, I feel like it'll be more fair about the value gotten from it. The lifegain is a helpful touch I think. Makes the decision all that harder.

>>54735564
I feel like the damage-prevention prevention here is too much and would push it up to being a Rare. It also feels a bit out of place as the thing doesn't have any sort of synergy with burn effects.

It is a decent example of how Red would do anti-enchantment though.

>>54735954
Rather poor. Very expensive for a negate and targeting requirements make it double so. And upside is rather marginal - if you're countering a removal spell, chances are that you don't also need hexproof.

>>54736562
Hmm, I was worried about that. My thought with it was that it would allow you to potentially counter something and also leave an important creature immune to any further attempts to mess with it. If there were multiple spells on the stack, it could even lead to countering two of them.

Perhaps it would be better if it was all creatures? Make it so the opponent absolutely can't touch your field for the rest of the turn?

>>54736709
Peronally I think this spell is quite bad to its core (mainly stops removal spells, also it has hexproof tacked on which also stops removal spell), no offense, but you could easily cost this at 1uu or maybe even UU and change the wording to "Up to one target creature you control gains hexproof until end of turn" to get rid of the functional requirement of needing a target to counter something. Just know that if the goal is stop something targeting it, just giving it hexproof period will stop that. I feel this really wants to be modal more than anything with the option to pick more than one.

>>54736875
I may just take it in a different direction then. Thanks for the feedback

>>54736914
Sorry, it's just one of those things that doesn't really make sense together. You could do it but it's not a very pleasing design, at least not to me. If you make it modal I think there could be something there but even then giving hexproof and countering mainly removal spells is a little redundant even if they can do slightly different things at different times.

I keep forgetting that I kind of want to do escalate but I haven't thought of any nice designs to post in the modal thread.

File: Price of Pride.png (215KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 375x523px

>>54737069
Part of me thinks the land should ETB tapped, but other than that, seems fine to me. I think it's a prime target for Escalate too, were you so inclined.

>>54737048
Very strong in the right shell. I don't know that it's overpowered though since Wild Guess really isn't that great, and it requires a lot of outside help. Howling Mine makes this really good though, among other things.

You figure this is a white effect? I couldn't decide if white or black should have it.

>>54737279
The main problem this runs into is that "base power" is never defined as the printed power. You're going to get so caught up in layer shenanigans that I do not think its worth it.

>>54737279
I'm not sure black-bordered cards can care about what's written on a card

>>54737318
Huh, had no idea that was the case. I figured stuff like this was fine now that they went out of their way to coin "base power and toughness" as a thing. Shame, it seems like good flavor and a decent card to me.

>>54737389
Destroy target creature with flying?

>>54737069
The wording is "create a ___ token", not "put a ___ token onto the battlefield".

>>54737442
no, the silver-border version would be "destroy target creature with 'flying' in its text box," ie even if an effect says "all creatures lose flying" the creature still has flying written on it vs having the keyword ability flying.

>>54737476
Ah I see what you mean. There are cards that care about power 3 or less, 4 or greater, etc too. Do those count?

>>54737511
those cards still care about the game attribute of the creature's power, so if a 3/3 was getting +1/+0, it would count as having power 4 or greater, for example.

>>54737933
I don't know why they won't codify the P/T printed on the card. It opens up a lot of design space. Oh well.

>>54735954
Name taken, by another Blue spell.

>>54738060
Not him, but wow, what the fuck.

File: Cessily Kincaid Mercury3.jpg (58KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 375x523px

>>54738254
The name, or the art?

>>54738305
Seems kinda cool. What's it based on?

File: Corpse Claimant.png (269KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 375x523px

>>54738305
I love the throwback trinket text. Very nice. It's still strange to me that artifact creatures can be costed like this now; used to be that a 3/3 would be like 5 mana for a vanilla since any color can use it. Ah well. The land destruction is nice but would need to be playtested to ensure it's not too disruptive. I don't think it would be though.

>>54739534
Curious. The synergy between Prowess and the P/T altering is rather nice. I feel like 1 mana to nullify most removal is kinda strong though.

I waffled between making this a "choose one" card but wanted the type of token created to reflect the creature that dealt the damage, so I opted for this. I couldn't really find anything that behaves like this so I had to wing the wording. Hope I did okay; I'm having a very off day with cards today.

File: Sick.jpg (44KB, 523x375px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 523x375px

Started as one of the Fuse cards, but I couldn't think of anything good. Decided to do something more like the mono-Red split cards from Planar Chaos.

>>54739992
Eh, dunno. Might have to make two separate abilities. Or just restrict it to a single tribe. Or... hmm...
>Whenever a Zombie you control deals combat damage to a player, exile a creature card from that player's graveyard. If you do, create a tapped 2/2 black Zombie creature token.
>Whenever a Zombie you control dies, create a 1/1 black Skeleton creature token.

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

39KB, 375x523px

So I was looking over

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/mechanical-color-pie-2017-2017-06-05

and I noticed that Green gets 'Counter target activated/triggered ability' as a Secondary mechanic. Does this mean Green gets Stifle style effects now?

Card unrelated

>>54740892
A lot of the stuff they say about the color pie is outright lies. Like black being primary menace color (Red is) or anything they say about blue ever

>>54740892
That's cool. Green's actually gotten it before, but I hope Wizards plans on doing it more. As for past cards, the majority of them hate on artifacts. Ouphe Vandals, Brown Ouphe, and Rust. Only other thing is Bind. Though you do see a bit of it in Voidslime, which is GU and counters spells and abilities.

>>54740920
They're moving polymorph from Blue to Red. Does that untwist your panties a little bit?

>>54740920
We've been over this. MaRo has gone on record as stating Menace is primary black, secondary red, but basically it's like any other shared keyword; you can freely use it on both and each color can lend it to gold cards freely as well. You can live in your fantasy world all you want, or insist that it's primary red, so long as you also admit that it's in both colors to the degree that it doesn't functionally matter. I'm just telling you what MaRo has said about it, and yes, they seem not to care that red has way more examples of this. They shifted Menace to replace Intimidate, which was primary in black, and that's why it is the way it is.

>>54740920
>>54740959
Just wasn't sure if that meant it was fair game or not. Not sure if I'll even end up using it.

The distinction between primary/secondary on those lists seems pretty blurred though. The only ones that seem like they're rare enough to worry about are the tertiary ones.

File: Dark Chronicler.png (264KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 375x523px

>>54740778
Hm, could be that your version is better. The idea of Zombies becoming Skeletons is pretty hilarious, actually. Should I keep the Deathtouch anthem? Noticed you didn't include it in your feedback.
>card
Man, I really want this to be a Fuse card, but I can see why it isn't. Shame. It's still pretty cool.

>>54739534
Static abilities that grant abilities based on p/t don't work as expected because of layers. It's not in the right colors for indestructible anyways.

>>54740892
Oops, forgot feedback on this. I think the Scavenge cost should be easier to cast and more expensive if you plan on any kind of multicolor support. Not to mention Scavenge for three counters is usually in the realm of 5 mana, not 3. 2BB?

>>54741373
FFFF I was going to ask about that too but I felt like a retard since I looked at the layer rulings and still wasn't sure. Now that I'm looking at it, it's because 631.1f and 613.1g, right? I think I was looking at the wrong thing.

>>54741397
Well, my goal with the Scavenge cost here was experimenting to see if I could make it cheaper by making it more strict with color requirements.

That said, Scavenge costs as a whole are really borked. They aren't consistent at all and most of the time they feel overcosted.

For example, in regards to 3 power, Korodza Monitor costs 7, Thrashing Mossdog costs 6, Zanikev Locusts costs 4, and Dreg Mangler costs 5 while being multicolored. The worst example of this is probably Drudge beetle giving 2 counters for 6 mana.

I will probably put it back at 4, though currently I'm operating off of Scavenge costs generally being 1 cmc higher than the creature's power.

>>54741356
>Noticed you didn't include it in your feedback.
It didn't need changing. Include it, or not, if you want. It's your card after all.

>Sick//Twisted
Thanks. Yeah, I had some idea for Fuse cards, but it tended to just be removal combined with more removal. No cool combos unfortunately.

>card
Oh man, you're the guy who was doing Morbid before, right? Jeez, you seem to always pick the cards that create situations that are just a nightmare to word. I have absolutely zero clue what to do with the ability word here, but the wording should either be
>When ~ enters the battlefield, scry 2. Then draw a card if a creature died this turn.
Or have the first ability be separate and change the second to
>When ~ enters the battlefield, draw a card if a creature died this turn.

>>54741373
Damn. Oh well.

>>54741468
Scavenge was completely fucked by how overcosted it was. I think the same happened to Cipher, but that also has some mechanical issues to contend with.

>>54741468
>>54741530
>Claimant
Alright, I kept it. Thanks for the fix.
>Chronicler
Uh, I dunno who you think I am, but probably not. And honestly, I don't know why I tacked Morbid on this; it really doesn't need it. I guess it was more of a wording exercise for myself, since I'm still crap at fringe wording. I'll just simplify it instead by removing Morbid.

>Scavenge
Well, I aimed low when I suggested 2BB because it's easier to cast AND it's a bit more in-line with WotC's costing without being stupid about it like a lot of Scavenge cards were. I get the strange feeling it wasn't sorcery-speed till the very last minute and they dropped the ball on the costs or something. I dunno, but I agree it's all over the place and generally overcosted, especially on commons. Cipher... don't get me started. It was SO SHIT.

>>54741589
>Morbid
Eh, sorry. There was another guy who made a similar card, and I just have no idea how to handle an ability word in that case. I looked, but I can't find any precedence for an ability that triggers regardless of whether or not the ability word has been met, but does something more if it has.

>>54741530
Yeah, that's what I've heard, which is why I'm using the existing Scavenge costs as a very loose guideline. Currently, I do think Power+1 works nicely enough, with more strict color requirements for things with 3+ power. That might change once I get to things with really high values, but right now I want to focus on having it be useful.

>>54741589
Yeah. I've noticed another big thing with Scavenge being that all of the mono-green cards cost more for some inexplicable reason.

File: Rakka Mar Ignited.png (285KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 375x523px

>>54741614
I could have made it an "instead" adding the draw to the reiterated scry ability but it's easier to just do it without Morbid in the first place.

>>54741615
Yeah being careful with anything over 2 power. This is a permanent bonus we're talking here. If it were temporary, then maybe it'd be more easily costed aggressively, but while I agree that it was overcosted largely, that's no reason to go too far in the other direction with it either. Baby steps are best. Course you'll learn a lot in playtesting too.

>>54741707
Why bother with this drawback at all? It just doesn't feel like one. Plus the body feels too efficiently costed on its own for blue to boot. Blue loves doing things on its opponents' turns already; this feeds the fire.

Okay, so I'll be the first to admit I don't care for Planeswalkers much, but I got the very odd urge to make this just now. It's kind of meh but the ult is a bit funny, at least. "HOW many tokens?!"

>>54741707
I get what you were going for. It's a neat idea, though I would say it could stand to have slightly lower power. It'd be a very interesting card to build around, but a 6/6 with flash for 6 is already a pretty solid card.

>>54741778
Too powerful at 4 mana. There's no reason such a good token creation has to be at +2 loyalty.

>>54741838
Well, I wanted to keep it 2RR because the card it's based off of is 2RR. +1 loyalty, then adjust the ult to something like -9?

>>54741747
Pretty neat, though I feel like having 4 toughness is extraneous.

>>54741778
This seems odd. Partly because the -2 would allow you to rapidly create emblems that would have a stacking effect, but also because the ult is simply a souped-up version of her normal effect.

Having her token creation be +2 feels like a bit much as well, since while you're obviously encouraged to attack with them, they also function well at defending her.

Her -2 has the potential to get really out of control with tokens, but it also has a pretty sizable downside. If you have her emblem, your opponent has an empty board, and then use her ult to make 10 tokens, all your opponent has to do is use removal on 1, and then you're forced to have them all ping eachother to death.

I would shift things to make the Emblem be the ultimate and do more damage, while changing the minus ability to be something instead that works with the short lifespan of these tokens by sacrificing them for an effect that doesn't involve damage.

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

296KB, 375x523px

>>54741876
Reckon it wasn't a good idea then. Oh well. I wanted to keep her relatively as she is, but if that's not advisable I'd rather just can the card outright than compromise the way I'd like it to be. I don't usually do that, but I like Rakka Mar a lot, and so I guess I'm sentimental and a bit stubborn about it.

All this talk of Scavenge made me wonder why the never did this sort of thing with it instead. I feel like it's natural in RW, but maybe I'm off-base. At the very least you can aggressively cost it.

>>54741924
Because at instant speed, it's an on-board combat trick that greatly increases combat math.

>>54741924
It certainly would fit into Red White, though at the same time, not keeping the sorcery speed limitation means that you would still have to be more careful with the costing.

Personally, I think it'd work better if it worked from the hand, but at that point you've basically made Bloodrush.

>>54741947
I know what it is and how is it any worse than an in-hand instant? If anything you know it's there so you can plan around it, and it's more playable than Scavenge, I think.

>>54742006
Bloodrush was crap, though. Mainly because it cost you a card, where this doesn't. I agree the costs have to be handled carefully; I almost made it 2R to Boon it but I went aggressive with it because R gets you +3/+0 and so this is twice as expensive. Maybe I was wrong on that.

>>54742049
You have to keep them in mind, but you can't plan around every combat trick from hidden zones. You have to plan for revealed combat tricks because you know they are available.

Bloodrush cost you a card because combat tricks cost you a card. Not everything needs to be a 2-for-1.

>>54742085
I understand that, but the idea here is to make a more playable Scavenge, so are you suggesting sorcery speed for the temporary buff? I get that the card sitting there can increase combat hesitation and make turns take longer, which is the "added math" you're talking about, but the lack of obfuscation is also a downside to the owner of the card too. I just think Scavenge was bad (mostly due to costing, mind you) and Bloodrush was terrible because it meant you had to make harder choices about what to do with your cards, and Gruul didn't have a ton of evasion so it could lead to too many feel-bad moments (I say this from draft experience). I understand your complaints, but I'm trying to work around them to make the mechanic work, so don't think I'm ignoring them. I also believe I have a right to defend my decisions in the process, as part of that process.

>>54742085
>>54742122
Look man, I know you've probably tapped out because you don't see a point in debating it, but I just want to say that I'm not refusing to change it or being belligerent. I'm just trying to debate how best to do it and standing by what I think, that's all. I understand if you don't want to discuss it further (and you're probably asleep or something anyway) so it's cool, but I just felt like maybe my last post came off as too bullheaded or something. Not the intent.

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

43KB, 375x523px

>>54740892
Decided to try my hand at something with it.

File: Wildblood Oathbound.png (310KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 375x523px

>>54742519
The base enchantment doesn't seem very good, though I suppose it does kill Modular creatures and ones with Graft, and some other cases. I'm not sold on green getting hard counters like this, even if things like Void Slime exist. If you did do something like this, I think putting it on a combat trick would be a better strategy. Something like a Giant Growth that also counters an ability targeting that creature. Feels more in-line with greens "can't be countered" stuff it gets for protecting creatures and creature spells. Just my two cents though.

>>54742732
Hm. I'd have to see what kind of set this was in to be sure of the costing. The second ability is pretty good, I like it. The third is very swingy but only obviously rewards things like Jace's Ingenuity and similar spells. Still, there are ways to use this. It may need to be a touch more expensive.

>>54742732
Undercosted.

Also, the second ability is broken in the right deck. See: New Perspectives, and a Cycling-based deck.

>>54743219
Having both abilities feels off. Anyway, if this is for a set where you actually want to discard things, there should be a restriction on the first ability, probably once each turn.

File: All Webbed Up2.jpg (57KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 375x523px

Began as a copy of Singing Bell Strike, but I just decided to go crazy with it.

>>54743201
Hmm, not sold on the Islands thing. I get what you're doing, but I can actually see a different design for this Maybe something like
>You may have ~ enters the battlefield as a copy of any creature on the battlefield, except it gains haste. Sacrifice it at the beginning of the end step unless U was spent to cast it.

>>54744682
Hmm, I see what you mean about the abilities not meshing. I'll take another look at the first one.

>>54745795
On restrictions, I'd say look at SOI. They had a number of permanents that would allow you to discard cards, but they were typically either one-use, or you could only use it for a turn. Like Ravenous Bloodseeker. You could activate the ability to discard multiple cards at once, but it'll likely end up killing the thing too.

>>54745844
By that same token though, you have things like Olivia's Dragoon. Simply being able to dump your hand onto an effect that wasn't useful more than once each turn didn't overpower things.

Granted, I do think I have the card trying to do too much as it stands. I'll probably put the discarding on something else and fiddle with the power and costs to simply leave this thing with Lifelink.

>>54746005
Eh, true, I did forget about that one. I always remember Ravenous Bloodseeker, Call the Bloodline, and Stromkirk Condemned, which have some sort of restriction or another. Maybe the key is limiting the, well, unlimited discard effects?

So anyway, tell me some more about your set, if you're making one.

>>54746058
Well, I would say it's a very graveyard focused set. The main keywords Im using are Devour, Scavenge, Flashback, and two new ones. Devour is in the Jund colors, Scavenge is in BG as usual, but I restricted Flashback to WUR to try and even things out a bit. Along with those, I have Exhume which is primarily White but also a bit it black, centering around their subtheme of graveyard exile and using it for other effects. The other is Filter, mainly in Blue with a bit in. Green which is essentialy self-bounce as a method to lower the mana costs of creatures with it.

Aside from that, I do have some minor tribal subthemes, though those are more based around minor synergies rather than calling out specific types.

The general focus is having creatures that work well as fodder for effects due to being cheap or having their cost wrapped up in with effects, and then having other cards that sacrifice, discard, and otherwise use death as a resource. I do have some middling creatures as well designed to earn value by sticking around for longer, though those are mostly focused in the Bant colors as White doesn't usually get as much sac and discard.

File: hulk.jpg (422KB, 752x1046px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 752x1046px

I was looking at Bruce Banner, which I had labeled as finished, but I'm not really sure about it anymore. So I'm seeing if I can try a better design. Old design on the top, new design at the bottom. New design probably isn't costed correctly since I just came up with it, but it is a more or less accurate concept of what I'm going for.

>>54746520
I'm not sure about putting Scavenge and Exhume in the same set, since they're both going to try to exile creatures from your graveyard. It could end up hurting both.

>>54747275
I will admit there's some overlap there with willing creatures from the graveyard, but not every creature will have scavenge, and not many will have exhume. For comparison, I think right now I have 3 creatures with Scavenge in Black, while there's only one Exhume card.

Could a Tricolor set work similar to OG Ravnica?

Set one would have:
RWU
GWB
BGR
UBU
With more GWU Commons.

Set two would be:
WBU
RUG
GRW
With more black Commons.

Set 3 would be:
UWG
RBW
GUB

With more red Commons.

Each set would be a large block.

>>54747620
I feel like it would be a nightmare to try and include everything, let alone balance it and have it all feel distinct.

File: is it too meta if i put a filename on this.jpg (26KB, 239x268px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 239x268px

>>54747620
What?

>>54747679
A block of all 10 tri color factions. Pretty simple concept.

>>54747620
No. Maybe you could do all ten tri-colors in a large set, but splitting them up? Good luck, you'll need it. Wizards discovered a long time ago during Alara that tri-color doesn't have nearly as much design space as they'd hoped for. Problems with tri-color include having a lot of overlop with other tri-colors, overly-complex cards that get very wordy, and Chinese menu design. You can even notice how in Alara, they actually move away from a strict tri-color theme to a rainbow theme, and even just a simple multicolor theme in the last block. It's why you get some really weird shit too like Rhox War Monk. Simply put, they cheated, and they admit it. This is also why Khans of Tarkir only had one set be tri-color instead of all of them.

tl;dr You can try, but it's going to be a long and painful process with very little to show for it in the end.

>>54747679
Why does the image speak in plurals when it looks like there's only one image in that folder?

>>54747773
>Pretty simple concept.
Tri-color is anything but.

>>54747976
>simple multicolor theme in the last block
Bleh, meant to say "the last set"

>>54747976
>Tri-color is anything but.

I meant that the basic premise was simple. Obviously actually doing it would be hellishlu complicated, but 'Ravnica, but tri-color' is easy to understand the basoc pitch of at least.

>>54747773
I get hella confused by "UBU", and by the fact that GWU and UWG are somehow different, apparently.

>>54747976
Yeah, a big problem with tri-color is that a card basically needs 3 different keywords or effects to really feel like it needs all 3 colors. Otherwise it's just gating the best cards into certain factions, which is fine, but shouldn't be the case for a lot of cards.

I think tri-color works better as a subtheme with keywords to distinguish factions, and fewer strictly multicolor cards. It's the sort of thing that's better for flavor than actual mechanics.

>>54748119
I think he meant to say that the first set would have a focus on White, Blue, and Green commons, but the actual GWU cards will only be in the last set. UBU I assume is a typo. Though yeah, it doesn't help that he uses really odd abbreviations.

File: en_iR79ubiOiv.png (167KB, 265x370px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 265x370px

So, new Commander 2017 spoilers happened. Cat tribal Ho!

http://mythicspoiler.com/newspoilers.html

And I can't wait for someone to make something with this mechanic.

BTW, so glad Nazahn interacts with a specific Equipment, since I already used that mechanic.

>>54748420
Alms Collecter is an exciting card. I had thought of a similar effect, though it was each player draws that many cards. I like their notion thief ish design a little better. This seems like a real card.

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

40KB, 375x523px

What do you guys think?

>>54748924
Seems alright. The self damage makes sure it can't get too out of hand, but it's useful for graveyard based strategies.

>>54748924
Eh, last ability just makes me think it's a worse City of Brass. Eh, maybe
>T, Put a land card from your graveyard on the bottom of your library: Add to your mana pool one mana of any color that card could produce.

>>54748151
UBU was supposed to be UBR or Grixis.
And yes I meant more mono green, blue and white cards at common.

>>54749208
It's not worse than City of Brass because it can tap for C without life loss and it fills your graveyard. Your proposed change is much worse because it's terrible at predictably fixing your mana and you can't reverse it.

>>54750232
Needs 1 power and Deathtouch.

File: 1477287970315.jpg (123KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1080x1080px

So has anyone here actually played a game with custom cards?

>>54693396
I can already see a standard legal infinite combo here

>>54699166
Why is there no + ability

>>54699166
Wow, what a reference.

>>54750412
Yeah, I played against Kazy with a set he made once or twice in Cockatrice. He beat the shit out of me, but I am pretty bad at playing Magic. I know there are a few set designers who've done playtesting, though I'm not sure if it was with paper proxies or Cockatrice.

File: Eddie Brock Anti-Venom.jpg (52KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 375x523px

>>54751914
Interesting effect. Not sure if I'd put it at common though. And I think better wording would be
>[...] Until end of turn, for each color of mana that land could produce, target permanent gains protection from that color.
Your wording almost makes it sound like it's gaining protection from mana.

Oh wow, near bump limit. What should the next thread be? Cat tribal? Mono-White Vampires? Tribal Commanders? Wait, I think we did that last one already. Eh... Protection?

>>54752236
Vampire Cat Tribal Commanders

>>54752376
Funny. Mirri was a Vampire Cat in the Planar Chaos set, and she just got a new card.

Actually, you know who needs a new card? Gerrard. I barely know anything about him and I really don't care about Weatherlight, but even I can recognize that what he got is awful.

File: Earth Tamer.jpg (87KB, 752x523px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 752x523px

>>54750887
>>54750412
I've actually written a cockatrice set file exporter for MSE, and used it a bit with a friend. I can post it if you'd like.
Our sets are a little bit of a mess, but its actually pretty fun, and super satisfying when you beat someone with cards they designed.

>>54752236
>next thread
I wanted to say something snarky and critical, but I don't have the energy anymore. Just do whatever.

>>54753465
Hmm, Time anon did this mechanic a while ago I think.

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

42KB, 375x523px

NT: >>54754488
NT: >>54754488
NT: >>54754488
NT: >>54754488
NT: >>54754488