/ccg/ Custom Card General /cct/

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

38KB, 375x523px

>>54995419

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

50KB, 375x523px

I'm just making these up on the fly, desu

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

46KB, 375x523px

bump

>>54995967
It can't untap.

>>54995526
I hate to be that guy, but I don't think permanents phasing in our out can trigger abilities. I made a few cards with phasing a while back and fell on the same dilemma of how to get them to work. I think I settled on "During your upkeep" as a catch-all for once-per-flicker effects, since it will only trigger on turns where the permanent is phased in. That said, this card seems pretty bonkers for three mana.
>>54995967
Needs reworking, since it will either be phased or phasing out on any given turn, and timing prevents it from untapping. Remove the phasing keyword, and give it "During your end step, ~ phases out. It may also be good to tack on the clause "Use only during an opponent's end step" to the phase-in part to remind players of when to use it. Alternatively, just give it vigilance.
>>54996287
Busted. Definitely either double the cost, nerf the damage, or restrict where it goes. See Curse of the Pierced Heart for a contemporary. I recommend "At the beginning of your combat step, ~ deals 2 damage to target creature or player." This allows use on the turn it's played and doesn't rely on phasing.

I wish I had my own phasing cycle to post here since I was quite proud of them. One was a goblin: RR for 2/2 with haste, phasing, and "During your upkeep, you may pay R. If you do, ~ deals two damage to target creature or player." Each other one had a similar color-aligned ability and a one-cost spell-like ability like Healing Salve. The other phasing cards I had included lands that phased, came in tapped, but tapped for 1 and one colored mana, and an artifact that removed phasing, fading, vanishing, and echo from all permanents.

>>54995419
Phasing feels like an interesting design space to work with, especially since it got changed to be more straightforward, but it can be tricky to balance cards around.

>>54995526
>>54996287
These, for example, are pretty cheap in mana for what they do. An opponent randomly discarding a card or taking 3 damage every other turn for only a few mana investment? Stapled to something that's only on the board half the time anyway?

I think the most straightforward uses of Phasing are as an extended Flicker effect granted temporarily with an instant, or as a downside on an aggressively costed creature.

While the thought of making a more in-depth attempt at Phasing for a set is appealing, I think there are a lot of rule pitfalls like >>54996697 brings up that aren't immediately obvious.

File: Geruya Elder of the Temur.png (241KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 375x523px

So, um, I did this. It's the first card I ever design but critique it relentlessly as I'm interested in custom card design and I want to improve. I wanted to make a creature based Temur commander that could generate some value. The art is from some card game, I just google "shaman fantasy art" and felt that was cool.

>>54996957
Perhaps give it some evasion or make it easier to hit that first ability, like "when ~ attacks". I like the idea, and the cost/stats seem fair. I'd play it.

>>54996957
Solid idea. I like the idea of a replacement effect to turn face down cards face up. Right now, the card really screams UG to me with Manifesting via combat damage, and then getting big creatures out for a relatively small amount of mana.

I would say that it isn't very Red, and like >>54997017 said it could probably be made harder to block. I would say to give it Menace in that case, as Trample might make it a bit too easy to trigger, but it's up to you. Adjusting the P/T might also help it feel more Red.

As it stands though, quite a nice card.

>>54996697
>I hate to be that guy, but I don't think permanents phasing in our out can trigger abilities.

Yes it can. Look up Teferi's Imp, which literally does that.

>>54996287
That is way too strong though. A Volcanic Hammer that recasts itself for free every second turn? Nuts.

>>54995526

I like this one the best out of these, and it looks actually quite balanced (I'm working from the assumption that Hypnotic Specter is fair).

>>54996697
>>54996740
Good points. I'll take them to heart. Phasing cards always seem so hard to balance. At least it got the thread active.

>>54997584
>Implying QWOP is that easy
Drop the converted, just make it Mana Cost

File: Knight of the Sun.jpg (43KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 375x523px

Just this and the blue one left, though not sure how well this one will work. I've made alterations to the other ones, though.

Elusive Wumpus is now 1WG, has vigilance as well, and the sacrifice effect is catch all for any land.
Penumbra Spirit has been changed to "Whenever ~ phases in" to make sure the discard payoff isn't as immediate.
Flickering thunder costs 1 more now, and damage reduced to 2, and targets only creatures.

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

39KB, 375x523px

And finally, this.
I just realized that I need to make Knight of the Sun untap if it wants to attack again, so I added that it untaps when it phases in. A little wordy, but it works, I think.

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

46KB, 375x523px

>>54996957

I don't see why this is R, but otherwise nice balance.

>>54997833
I like this idea, though I think it would work more cleanly as an ETB effect. Have it enter, create the Moon Knight token, but give the moon knight token phasing and then immediately phase it out.

Since Tokens can phase out now, that would let the two cycle between eachother perfectly.

>>54997963
Oh, shit, that's genius. Thank you

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

46KB, 375x523px

So i think i'm now satisfied with this card's design, but I'd love help with the wording. It's a bit clunky at the moment but I'm fairly certain it works as intended.

>>54997926
what is it with Genzoman and that hand pose? he uses it so fucking much.

>>54998023
Since it's just an ability word, I think you'd be better off just defining the colors on a card by card basis.
>If nonblue mana was spent to cast ~ then do XYZ

>>54998074
because Genzoman is a hack

>>54998333
You could just say 'gains indestructable'

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

51KB, 375x523px

I feel like this would be a hell of a political card in EDH, espeically in games with more than 4 players.

File: fucking font.jpg (598KB, 752x2091px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 752x2091px

Had an idea for a time wizard battling his evil self from a parallel timeline, thought up some time-themed spells they would use. I think Between the Moments works like I want it to.

Also how did the font fuck up like this, and how do I fix it?

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

42KB, 375x523px

I'm annoyed because I can't get this card to work with my set's keyword and still have it target other people. Unless I let the keyword hit other people's libraries and that seems.. suspect.

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

44KB, 375x523px

I'll add my best phasing card to this thread, I guess

I dodnt like phasing. Only aspect I like is that its much shorter to write out than flickering. Imagine the art of this card is Teferi realizing he erased zhalfir from existence.
>>54998549
I feel like it might help to know what the keyword is. Also wondering why this is in white? Not against it if you can justify it but im not sure of any flavor mechanical reason it would be white. I figure there must be a reason.

File: Lost to Time.jpg (158KB, 744x1039px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 744x1039px

>>54998874
Forgot it

>>54998885
That seems really low cost for its effect, mainly due to the fact that if your opponent has a bunch of stuff with phasing that's phased in, then you'd play this on their turn and they'd have to have instant-speed enchantment removal or otherwise you just wiped most of their board. Plus the 3U activation on it essentially means that it's a cheap, repeatable kill spell.

I think something like it could work, but it needs more limits

File: Disbelief.png (937KB, 750x1046px) Image search: [Google]

937KB, 750x1046px

>>54995419
>"Why aren't there more cards with Phasing?" Edition

Let's make it weird.

File: Magyoshi Underland Shogun.jpg (122KB, 750x1046px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 750x1046px

Powerhouse whaa.

>>54997963
>Since Tokens can phase out now

Wait, what?! They changed that?

>As of Commander 2017, tokens which phase out phase back in the same as nontoken permanents, instead of ceasing to exist as a state-based action.

FUCK

That means Sapphire Charm no longer works as secret tech against Batterskull. Fucking ass.

I mean, it's more consistent than it used to be since phasing isn't really leaving play anymore, but it removes like the one remaining use for phasing cards that existed.

>>55002870
>http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/commander-2017-edition-release-notes-2017-08-11
>If a token is phased out, it will phase in as your next untap step begins. This is a change from previous rules.

I like how a major change like that is one line buried in the back of the long-ass release notes.

File: IMG_0036.jpg (192KB, 400x560px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 400x560px

Tried to make a 4-color commander.

>>55004756
Yeah, that's gonna be a no from me, dawg.

>>55002870
>>55002928
Yeah, it does mean Phasing is less of an amazing counter to token based strategies, but it also leaves more design room, since it isn't just another form of bounce on them.

It means you could potentially make a really cheap token generation spell by giving the tokens phasing to make them on the board less.

File: Library of Dimir - 150dpi.png (1MB, 826x1126px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 826x1126px

Currently working on my own Commander set.

Allied colors with the gimmick being non-creature non-planeswalker Commanders.

>>55005592
I think the only thing that helps this from being too overbearing is the fact that it costs 5. Even then, getting it out early enough could really dominate a matchup, since you'd get repeated searches to remove problem cards. In a multiplayer game though, that might be fine, and in some ways I think it does make Mill a more viable option for commander.

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

38KB, 375x523px

>>55004756
This does seem kind of plain, even if it is a strong card. 8/8 for 7 total, keywords relevant to 3 of the 4 colors, and then a card draw effect more relevant in Black.

The problem is that it's simply not a very interesting card. It's going to get played, swing in and deal most of its damage, and then let you draw the rest of your deck easily if you have any sort of token generation.

If anything I feel like it's too powerful due to how much you gave it, but it's also hard to get excited about.

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

39KB, 375x523px

>>55006590
Not sure which of these setups I like more. Having it enter cheap and pay to sacrifice feels straightforward, but I think this version where its more expensive and the token is created from any destruction feels better in some regards, though it has less counterplay potential.

I do have other cards that want to sacrifice artifacts themselves though, so I think the synergy on the second is worth it?

>>55001795
Oh god but how does it interact with other cards with phasing

Oh god this is why they got rid of it

Seems pushed but I mean Glissa the traitor exists so

>>55005592
Hahaha, as if this card would be fine.
>consuming aberation triggers
>Excuse me as I will take half an hour to resolve a single trigger

>>55009554
I'm unsure if it would resolve like that, since you're specifically putting the revealed cards into the graveyard, and during the resolution of the spell the order of cards in the library doesn't change.

>>55009634
>701.14b Revealing a card doesn’t cause it to leave the zone it’s in.
Furthermore, it's about the time it will take to mill give or take 20 specific cards when somebody plays a mill card that says each opponent.

>>55009672
Hmm, yeah you raise a good point. I think something like repeatable Fateseal would work better for trying to get that kind of Mill synergy going, but even that would still be rather time consuming.

>>55006590
I like this one more, it feels more coherent.

>>55013210
Cool design but I actually think this is legit broken and I'm not one to scream about imbalance since I like strong cards.

>>55013210
>>55013435
I also like the idea, but I see how it could get out of hand in some regards. Might be helped if the card itself had a larger body and a higher cost to compensate.

It is 3 cards for each morph creature you put face down, but granting Delve to anything is tricky business.

>>55013625
I mean I could be overestimating the ease in which you get cards in the grave. I think I did have a gut reaction.

>>55013662
Well, I think part of the limiter there is that you would need to either be using spells to self-mill, or have something like Hedron crab that can do so in a repeated and reliable way.

On top of that, you would still have to draw the Morph cards themselves, and even then all this does is allow you to put them face-down for cheaper. It would still cost mana to flip them up.

At the most though, it'd allow you to play a lot of bears for 0 mana. assuming you could draw enough morph creatures and fill your graveyard fast enough. That's good, but how good is the question.

I still do say that 2 cmc is too cheap for the card though. That's the price you get for 1 mana price reductions on card types or specific tribes. Being a variable cost reduction makes it stronger, so the card itself should likely be more expensive to compensate.

File: Call of the Tundra Pack.jpg (40KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 375x523px

>>55015671
Seems decent enough. Toughness boost alongside a pump when it blocks. The draconic naming is a bit odd, though I suppose it fits with the firebreathing effect. I feel like you might need to adjust the costs, but that's mostly from a quick search of shield equipment


Unsure on the costing on this, as First strike makes the tokens quite a bit more dangerous.

>>55015768
It's alright. You could get away with 4W.

>>55002762
You need to redefine X in the second ability.

File: Cloak of Twilight.png (238KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 375x523px

Disappointed that I just remade Cloak of Invisibility, right down to the naming convention.

>>54997997
I love it. Make it a common instead, though, because otherwise it'd just be considered a trash rare.

>>55006830
Noncreature artifacts don't "die", they just leave the battlefield. "Dying" is unique to creatures.

File: Uncommon phasing cycle plus Revealing Mirror.jpg (719KB, 1125x1046px) Image search: [Google]

719KB, 1125x1046px

Found my old phasing creature cycle

Buuuump

>>55017525
Pretty strong. I'm not sure if Phasing is as big of a downside on something with haste though.

>>55022040
>>55017525
Functionally, this card is almost a carbon copy of glorybringer, so I see no real problem with the haste.

>>55023843
Yeah, I'm not saying it doesn't work, more just that phasing feels more minor as a downside on it because of haste.

>>55016872
This would be pretty neat in a Simic deck. I like the idea of constantly conveying things. Evolve always seemed like a fun keyword, but it doesn't get played around with much.

>>54998549
This is literally a mono black mechanic. Why is this white?

File: Tharic Herald of Honor.png (239KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 375x523px

Trying to come up with a Selesnya commander. Is this too efficient?

>>55030824
Wizards prefers giving lords the system of:
"*keywords it has*
"Other *things* you control have *keyword*"

>>55030824
Based on a quick search, the Vigilance portion seems fine, as Anthems for that seem yo be rather common without even affecting the cost of the creature much.

Lifelink would be my major concern here, as that could get very overwhelming very quickly. I would say Trample and Vigilance would be a much safer combo and could be at that cost just fine. If you really want lifelink though, I think it may need to 4 or 5 mana.

>>55031120
I'm considering making it a 3/3, GGWW, same effect. Is that more balanced?

>>55031372
I think that would work actually. The 1 extra power isn't too big of an increase, and the stricter color requirements and higher cm should prevent the lifelink from being quite as drastic.

>>54997926
Wording on the cost doesn't work as you seem to intend. You move it from your hand to the stack as the first part of casting it. Determining costs is done well after. Feel free to correct me if that was your intention, but it needs reminder text either way.

>>55018755
Chefhand is 10/10 just for the art, but also because it's a solid design. Mirror is insanely overcosted for such a narrow effect. Bring it down to 1 mana or so.

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

49KB, 375x523px

>>55032136
Feels a bit odd to have a giant Wurm with trample in Red. I do like the take on phasing here, since it'll take a couple turns before it can really swing, and once it does, it has the added downside of getting rid of most of your other creatures.

I do think it might be a better fit in Green, if only because Red doesn't really want to be using turn 4 to play something that'll only matter two turns later. Plus, Green has more Wurms, so the tribal potential is stronger there. Still, I think it can work in Red.


I'm working on other potential Red commons with Devour for my set. Finding it tricky to strike a balance between being useful while still not being too overwhelming even if somebody has it eat their entire board.

>>55032136
>>55032742
Make it a hellion?

>>55032742
I dislike flying in red, especially below rare. Devour + evasion at common seems like a recipe for disaster. Prowess is also non-synergistic unless you have a fuckton of spells that make tokens.

>>55033266
That's a good point about flying. And while I do have quite a few token spells, I don't think even that works out very well, as you'd be casting those for the devour beforehand, and they might not be as helpful after.

Back to the drawing board I suppose.

>>54998549
I really like the idea. I'd make it cost 1UBR and exile them face down, with the clause "You may look at and cast face-down cards exiled by Pilfer"

>>55034205
Interesting. It is basically a sacrifice effect, but more variable, and not quite as permanent. I think it might be a bit inexpensive for that reason, especially since the effect is delayed until next turn, but I think it works.

>>55034438
Oh shit this would be great in the new un-set.

>>55034283
>tap out all your shit
>play this
>untap
>proceed to playing the counter game
Not busted but definetly annoying.

>>54997997
I get hard for simple cards like this.

>>55031046
Why is that exactly? Has there ever been a statement on it?

File: Lord of the Accursed.png (249KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 375x523px

>>55039115
My guess? It makes it easier to read. Apparently.

Compare pic related to the original.

O-Ring variant with Phasing.

>When ~ enters the battlefield, target nonland permanent an opponent cntrols phases out. It can't phase in for as long as ~ remains on the battlefield.

File: rTYuizI.jpg (275KB, 744x1039px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 744x1039px

This card seems like it would break the game, but I can't find any cases that aren't solved with common sense.
Forcing a phase-out just means it never comes back in, Afterlife just destroys it without creating a token. Ignoring the powerlevel of the card, how broken is the "Unbound" mechanic?

>>55040470
>This may break the game, but
Then don't make it a CMC 1, jesus christ.

Unbound, as a mechanic, sounds interesting, but I need to see more examples.

>>55040470
I agree with >>55040744 The concept seems neat, especially on more Enchantment-style cards that can offer benefits that swing from one side to another.

Personally though, I think it would fit best on Red and White cards. In White, it works nicely as a sort of 'equalizer' that can have a trigger to give it to the player who is behind. For Red, it can instead work as something that switches often, or basically joins in any group of attacking creatures to speed up how much everyone is getting hurt.

I think there's a lot of space to work with on it, and it is rather intuitive. One issue I would say is that some of these cards might need an untap and haste clause due to how gaining control of things works.

>>55040958
>and it is rather intuitive.
Eh, no, I disagree with this. Like, where does it go when you play it if you dont control it? "Intuitive" to me means that it plays like it reads and anybody reading it can just "get" it. If you fly, for example, you get around things that don't fly. The problem is to my knowledge the game has not defined what it means to be on the battlefield under nobody's control, and if it is has I certainly don't expect a new player reading Unbound to "get" it. Its a very abstract concept mechanically.

Personally, while Id also say this is a cool idea, is it really more than that? Any reason this cant just be stufd like enchantments that change control or the Amonkhet gods who won't fight for you until you match their ideal? Its a fun thought excercise but it seems not worth weirdness to me. I remember this concept in general sounds similar to the territory enchantments or whatever they tried for Khans that they ended up not liking on a micro level.

>>55041130
Also now that I think about it, also sounds like the time when the Theros gods resided in a "Nyx zone", which they also ditches. IF you're married to this, i actually would do something like that, maybe in exile or the grave like an Incarnation instead somehow.

>>55041210
To be quite honest, this isn't my card. I just posted it because I thought it would garner discussion, which it has!
A friend sent me it, and I confessed to him many of the same difficulties you're having with it. It seems like a needless complication for the sake of being complicated, and the potential rules confusion does not sufficiently outweigh its design space.

>>55041293
>>55041130
Hmm, yeah. On further reflection, it doesn't make too much difference if it simply comes into play under your control normally anyway in most cases, depending on how easy it is to trigger. Plus, in some ways that's better, as you're not only saving the rules text for Unbound, but also gaining more initial benefit for yourself since you spent the mana on it.

>>55040470
Let's try something else.
>Legendary Enchantment
>All creatures get -1/+1.
>Whenever three or more creatures attack a player, that player may create a 0/10 green Avatar creature token with "This creature can block any number of creatures." Exile the token at end of combat.
Note you don't have to say "each combat" since Wizards added that because they realized noobs thought "~ can block an additional creature." meant it could block 1 more creature than normal only once. You don't have the problem with "~ can block any number of creatures" and Wizards has kept the old wording for that as well.

>>55043188
Seems strange. Not too much for the cost since it'll sac itself rather quickly, so it's going to be 4 damage in most cases. While it is a bit cheaper and has more potential thanks to double-strike multiplying buffs, it also has the downside that any instant-speed card draw by the opponent will waste it.

File: triumphgeneral.png (299KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 375x523px

Hey can anyone help me word the second part of this card? I'm sure I butchered it as far as I know there is no template available for me to copy off. This effect is way too cool to not be in my set.

>>55043965
There's no way I'm interpreting that word salad by myself. Can you explain the intended effect?

>>55044014
You choose where the damage goes when you multiblock an enemy creature rather than letting your opponent choose. I.E. If you block a 4/4 with a 3/3 and a 2/3 you can choose to have the 3/3 take 2 damage and the 2/3 take 2 damage.

>>55043188
Any reason this shouldnt just be "Haste, double strike, at the beginning of the end step sacrifice ~"? Its just gonna be that functionally most of the time so far as I can tell. This is an interesting concept for a downside but it doesn't really "mean" anything.

By the way now I really want a double striking ball lightning. Thats a cool design that im surprised they havent done yet I dont believe.

>>55044051
Isnt this just banding? I think you should be able to just use the rules for that

>>55044108
Because this way the opponent can choose kill it with card draws before it attacks, making it riskier to use. If your opponent has an instant-speed card draw, that'll kill it. Like cycling.

Otherwise it's practically identical to "At the beginning of the end step sacrifice ~".

File: kingwhocandefeathtefoe.png (249KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 375x523px

>>55044152
Oh okay thanks it's been so long since I've seen banding I basically forgot it existed. Well my set will come along nicely now thank you very much.

>>55044201
I didnt think my post implied that I didnt think or understand that possibility, just that I thought the chances of that were too irrelevant to count as a significant functional difference. Its TECHNICALLY true but thats why i was careful about specifying that it FUNCTIONALLY didnt matter like 90% of the time.

File: incrediblyyellowgolem.png (308KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 375x523px

>>55044202
This is another guy from my set I hope you all like it.

>>55044331
jebaited

>>55044261
Well, it depends on the format this card is in. If the meta has control decks and cycling decks, the downside is bigger than in a more fast-paced meta.

Sure it's practically the same most of the time, but the thing is you don't know that when you cast and attack with it. Maybe your opponent kills it with instant speed card draw.

If it instead was
>When an opponent draws a card, you may discard a card. If you don't, sacrifice ~"
would that make it more distinct from the good ol' "at the end step"?

Buuuump

>>55047257
If you aren't using Fuse, the two parts don't have to be related in effect or synergize at all.

File: 239a.jpg (70KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 312x445px

>>55047257
>>55048826
Oh yeah, and name taken. Sorry.

>>55039115
Playtesters failed to understand the creature gave itself an ability too many times. Same reason for the "cycle or discard".

>>55050589
TUMBLR GO REEEEEEEEEE

>>55050589
The last three words on the card are just weird. I get that it lets you make copies of itself but I don't think the weirdness is worth it

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

53KB, 375x523px

>>55052694
I like it. The costing and p/t with devour seem fine, and the ability to both panic or lure enemies as needed strikes me as quite strong in the right situation. It can really muddle with your opponent's options.


I'm working on some more limited Devour creatures to ensure I have a small variety at the Common level. Ensuring things don't scale up to harshly while making sure they stay interesting has been surprisingly tricky.

File: Behemoths v1.jpg (253KB, 750x523px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 750x523px

*technically* original art.
Not sure about the costing, but let me know what you think.

>>55050589
Interesting on a flavor level, kinda unsure on how useful it is though. Name kinda reminds me of the retarded sex ninjas from Wise Man's Fear.

>>55053984
Costs should be lowered by 1 or P/T increased. And why do you say technically original art?

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

48KB, 375x523px

Designed in the style of the Browbeat cycle (Book Burning, Browbeat, and Breaking Point) from Judgment. In flavor, the idea is the player resists so you beat him, or just gives you want you want. If selected discard is too good, maybe a Mind Rot effect instead?

File: Portable Ion Cannon.jpg (47KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 375x523px

>>55055898
Reveal and discard is typically black, so to match the flavor I'd make this card cost RB. And are you sure you would like it to be any card instead of nonland cards?
>>55057367
Similarly, freezing is typically in blue permanents, so I'd make this card blue.

>>55058193
The purpose of the browbeat cycle was that you got a non-red effect unless somebody took a lot of damage. I think red can still do that

>>55058193
>>55058320
Also also red is currently testing land freezing as an alternative to land destruction. So both of these things are fine monocolor.

File: Threat Spells of Dominaria (2002, Judgment).jpg (209KB, 924x445px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 924x445px

>>55058193
>Reveal and discard is typically black, so to match the flavor I'd make this card cost RB.
I know that, but the idea was to make it fit in the style of the aforementioned Browbeat cards. The point of those cards is that they're Red cards with an off-color effect, but the downside is that they can be negated if any player has the spell deal damage to them instead.

>And are you sure you would like it to be any card instead of nonland cards?
I was wondering about that. And I was thinking of upping the cost and effect to balance it out. Maybe... 2RR, still 5 damage, but the effect is reveal and discard two instead of one. But would I still need a nonland restriction on it? And if that cost is still too low, 3RR and 7 damage instead?

>card
I think it would be better if it altered the source of damage rather than the creature taking damage. Also, "double" not "twice" for damage like this. "Twice" typically involves counting things, like with Price of Progress.
>The next time a source of your choice would deal damage to a creature this turn, it deals double that damage to that creature instead.
Oh, I think I just realized why Wizards looks at sources rather than recipients of damage. Because damage from multiple sources can all hit a single target at the same time.

>>55057367
Cool. Er, no pun intended. I really like how it uses the new land freeze that Red is getting. Kinda reminds me of the ice-flavored burn spells from Kamigawa.

>>55058320
Even if Red "can't" do that, as in Wizards wouldn't do it under normal conditions in the current color pie, it's designed to be a throwback. So, basically the same rules that got applied to stuff like Time Spiral, or Coldsnap.

>>55058193
Red has been getting Land Freeze as an alternative to Land Destruction as of late. Chandra's Revolution, Stensia Innkeeper, and the Rubble half of Reduce // Rubble.

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

33KB, 375x523px

*cough*

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

41KB, 375x523px

I really want to see Stifle get reprinted with the art being a Door to Nothingness getting stifled and the flavortext reading, "Some doors best remain shut."

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

33KB, 375x523px

>>55060082
I feel like Assembly Workers without the, "Tap to buff another assembly worker" effect on them really miss the flavor of Mishra's Factory. I think you could add this effect to the tokens if the spell cost 1UUU. This might need to make half as many tokens as tapped artifacts also. Not sure though, as it's hard to say it's much else then a Win More card for artifact agro strategies, and if you were playing Robots why not just swing in instead of taking a turn off to make a bunch of grisly bears?

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

42KB, 375x523px

>>55052694
Really feeling this should be a 3/2. The split mana is mainly why, and devour 2 is pretty good on a creature with so much utility through combat.

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

37KB, 375x523px

Should I bump the bird count needed for indestructible, or just remove it?

>>55050589
Is the mother-father part of the name in reference to how Fungus is very hard to define what traits each sex has?
Also the effect is quite strong. I feel the B part of them is a little forced but it's not out of color. I think ability for them to clone legends is too strong though sense it would let you make 2 of them and quickly start duplicating very potent cards.

>>55061589
I did go back and forth on this a lot. I think one of the ideas was a spell that would create a 2/2 artifact creature token, and it had Replicate for "Tap two untapped artifacts you control." I might just change it to automatically scale with the number of artifacts you have instead of tapping them.

>card
Eh, seems a bit on the cheap side.

>>55061608
Seems OK, though I feel like it's just a bit too close to one-sided Fight for my liking. And I think better wording would be
>[...] until end of turn. It fights target creature you don't control.
Note how I don't use "another" here, since "another" is to prevent the creature from Fighting itself, but since the creatures must have two different controllers (yourself and someone else) that's impossible, rendering the "another" clause redundant.

>>55061608
I think this could stand to be a lot cheaper overall, especially since it's sorcery speed. Green has been getting one-sided Fight cards a lot more lately, and those are often rather cheap. Granting Indestructible temporarily also tends to cost very little overall, even on instants.

This card is essentially a one-sided Fight and then a Sorcery speed Indestructible buff for one attacking creature. I think you could easily have this be 2 cmc. I would say 3, but the multicolor nature of it also means it can be pushed more.

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

240KB, 375x523px

I'm hesitant about the mana cost, but maybe the Sorcery speed makes it all fine.

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

48KB, 375x523px

>>55061755
>Falsify seems cheap
I felt like making it 2U might be really bad? I guess it depends on the deck and how many ability-on-a-sticks there are.

>Fight too much cost, wording a lil off
alright will bumb down to 3.

>>55061758
>Over costed fight spell
I'm gonna leave it at 1WG sense I feel it really allows for a combat swing. It essentially lets you remove one of their creatures, then lets your biggest beast make a free swing at your opponent, which I think is a very potent effect on one card.

>>55062175
1 mana edict effects really aren't considered fair to print anymore. The most we get now are 2 mana ones at instant speed. I think the "downside" of giving your opponent the ability to get card advantage out of it is a nice touch, but this doesn't feel fair at 1 mana. The madness feels really tacked on, and pushed as well.
I think BB for the normal cast would be fine, and maybe changing the name to, "Cruel Reunion" might fit better.

>>55062519
Well, if you're casting it on something big anyway, compare it to Nature's Way which makes it even more of a free swing, and also prevents chump blocking.

The biggest advantage to the indestructable is against kill spells and using it on things with really high power and low toughness, which won't matter much unless you're also running Red.

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

37KB, 375x523px

>>55062573
That's a fair comparison. Would making it an instant for 3 mana sound fair, or should it go back up to 4?

>>55062628
Instant speed fights tend to be more expensive, so I think if you went that route it would be better at 4. Especially since the Indestructable is more likely to help in a lot of ways.

>>55061608
I actually think this can be mono green. Green specifically gets indestructible until end of turn more often than straight indestructible. Unless you wanted it to be gold in which case that's fine. I actually thought of this card earlier today funnily enough. Just remember green can just get straight deal damage equal to power for 1g iirc which is basically this in function.

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

40KB, 375x523px

I need some help with the wording on this one. It seems a little bit clunky and I'm not even sure if the effect even works within the rules worded like that.

>>55061589
>>55060082
Kaladesh and aether revolt got assembly workers who didn't have those effects, so I would say that although the assembly worker buff ability is iconic, it is not necessary. Especially when it will up the card's word count and increase its complexity more than it needs to be. Instead of tapping one or two artifacts to create a 2/2, you can also opt to tap only noncreature artifacts instead, however that would change the function of the card and the kind of decks it would be played in.

>>55062828
Actually not green, it's red isn't it? Fall of the Hammer. I was thinking of the thing that makes an elemental. Still

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

42KB, 375x523px

>>55062892
>Apprentice wording
"Synchronize 1 (The next noncreature spell you cast this turn costs 1 less.)"

This could be 1U for the cost also. 1/3s for 2 with very minor effects are fair, and I think a 1 mana discount on the same turn for noncreature spells is very minor when compared to effects such as Baral or Goblin Electromancer.

>Assembly workers don't need the buff effect
Didn't realize they printed any assembly workers in Keladesh.

>>55062900
Red has stopped getting those effects sense Khans block, so who knows where Wizards feels they belong.
You could argue Inner Struggle was this kind of effect I guess, so maybe it's not completely out of R's color pie.

>>55062892
Err, Synchro should be,
"When this creature enters the battlefield/when you cast this spell" (depending on when you want it to trigger) "the next noncreature spell you cast this turn costs 1 less."

>>55062982
The effect is in green now. They took it from red because red didn't need that, it just has regular straight up burn, and I guess they didn't think the power level fo fight (it is a little weak imo) was quite right yet. They just haven't printed the straight up Fall of the Hammer version yet. http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&text=+[deals]+[damage]+[equal]+[to]+[its]+[power]&color=+[G]
I wish I could find remember which article mark talks about it

>>55062998
Shouldn't it just be "this spell costs 1 less to cast if you cast another spell this turn"?

>>55062982
>Red has stopped getting those effects sense Khans block, so who knows where Wizards feels they belong.
>You could argue Inner Struggle was this kind of effect I guess, so maybe it's not completely out of R's color pie.

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

>Fight
>Primary: green
>Secondary: red
>This is green's primary form of creature destruction. Red uses it occasionally but at a much lower volume.

>Fight, one-sided (Target creature deals damage to equal to its power to another target creature.)
>Primary: green
>Secondary: red
>This used to just be a red ability, but we realized that green needed it more as green's creature removal has to be tied to creatures and red had plenty of other direct damage spells. So red now does this less often.

Link to the page is in the OP. Just saying.

File: behemoth1.jpg (903KB, 1280x1811px) Image search: [Google]

903KB, 1280x1811px

>>55055212
Technically original, because this is the original artwork

File: Reality Acid (2007) by James Wong.jpg (82KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 312x445px

>>55064184

>>55064294
Nice. I take it that's the D&D conversion for Zendikar? Well, if the art hasn't been used on a card, or anything else that would make its way into actual gameplay, it's fine with me.

>>55064318
Custom DnD creature I think. I just thought it'd be pretty neat, but it hasn't really got good synergy. It'd be a nice thing to get in a draft, but it's not a dealbreaker card if you know what I mean.

File: Tap_into_the_Past.jpg (101KB, 750x523px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 750x523px

Instead of a keyword discounting only noncreature spells I'm also considering making synchronize an ability word instead, so that the discount can be applied to the card type that isnt the same as the spell itself. But it might overcomplicate the mechanic too much, so I'm not sure what too choose.
>>55062982
>>55062892
If possible, I'd like to prevent stacking of the discounts, but I don't see blue chaining a lot of creatures after each other. So if I stay with mostly creature spells with synchronize, it might not be much of a problem.
>>55062998
The reason it is a cast trigger, is that I want to thinker with instant/sorcery synchronize spells as well.

>>55064420
I think you could use the first one, but then set it up like Prowl where it uses the types listed on the card. Then choose whether you want it to work with only that type, or only with other types. Then for any given reminder text, it could be phrased for the specific card, despite the keyword being the same rules-wise.

>>55064184
I'm pretty sure you'd have to go with
>Put three time counters on target nonland permanent. If that permanent doesn't have vanishing, it gains vanishing.

>>55064420
i don't think it makes sense to have synchronize be a cast trigger. i would rather see it worded as "the next time you would cast a spell this turn, that spell costs 4 less to cast."

File: Hardened Berserker (2015, Dragons of Tarkir) by Viktor Titov.jpg (68KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 312x445px

>>55064945

File: download.jpg (106KB, 750x523px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 750x523px

>>55064945
>>55064673
I think I am satisfied with the current wording of the mechanic. Thanks a lot for the input.

File: hybrid tokens.jpg (364KB, 1882x601px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 1882x601px

>>55065315
I think that works out better. It may take a player new to the set some time to figure out what is influencing the type of spell the cost reduction applies to, but I think it's straightforward enough when take as a whole.

>>55066382
Titanoboa feels like an interesting idea, though it is strange. I think the downside is significant enough even if it eats a few things, but it is hard to gauge exactly how effective it would be in various cases.

Ravenous Swine seems quite dangerous, and doesn't require much to have itself be activated. I also feel like it may be better off with the 'if ~ devoured a creature' wording, as Haste only lasts the turn it comes in anyway. Unless you have a lot of other +1/+1 counter interaction, it doesn't seem to helpful.

Blood-eyed Viper I like the most, and I like the reference to Cold-Eyed Selkie. It basically trades Hybrid and Evasion for a built-in pump effect, which I think works. May need to be slightly more expensive for that reason, but I think it's a solid card.


Working on a hybrid cycle of tokens, as I think my set could use some more variety for creatures in various colors. I'm least sure on the two Black cards here, as they were harder to come up with good additional upsides for. Scavenge is a keyword for G/B, so it should still help, although lifegain alongside lifelink feels mediocre.

File: download.jpg (515KB, 1500x1046px) Image search: [Google]

515KB, 1500x1046px

Here, have some more Pokemon.

>>55066382
These are pretty neat anon. Especially Titanboa.

>>55067290
Gryados' second ability isn't blue, and mixing counters is a terrible idea

File: Magus of Awakening.jpg (27KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 375x523px

>>55068156

>>55068156
Woops, forgot input.

Seems fine. Really hard to make this unfair sense walkers are really late game and thus don't fit an agro deck well.

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

46KB, 375x523px

>>55068312

I feel like I'd still prefer Ball Lightning in this role, but okay.

>>55067033
Pretty much all of these feel like you're doing them because you can, and not because it's a good idea.

>>55068393
Not really sure on the cost. I also feel like maybe the sac trigger should do something else. Maybe draw some cards? White doesn't get a whole lot of that.

>>55068312
Doesn't seem good at all. Maybe have it sac on end step like Ball Lightning, but you can flip a coin when it attacks. If you win the flip, it gets a stronger, but if you lose, it gets weaker.

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

49KB, 375x523px

I remember trying to refine this idea, a card someone else here made. I have a strong feeling that this card is still mechanically broken somewhere but im not quite sure how.

>>55074168
>301.5e An ability of a permanent that refers to the “equipped creature” refers to whatever creature that permanent is attached to, even if the permanent with the ability isn’t an Equipment.

As for the design, I think it would be a lot cleaner and simpler if it exiled Aura cards from your hand, then it could create token copies of any Aura exiled with it. For example
>T: Exile an Aura card from your hand.
>X, T: Create a token that's a copy of an Aura card with converted mana cost X or less exiled with ~ attached to target permanent that Aura could be attached to.
Hmm, actually, making sure the Aura could be attached to the permanent does make this a bit difficult. Perhaps
>X, T: Choose an Aura card with converted mana cost X or less exiled with ~ and target permanent that Aura could be attached to. Create a token that's a copy of that Aura attached to that permanent.

>>55074168
>>55075362
Sorry, wrong ruling.

>303.4k An ability of a permanent that refers to the “enchanted [object or player]” refers to whatever object or player that permanent is attached to, even if the permanent with the ability isn’t an Aura.

File: decree.png (320KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 375x523px

Trying to make cards to discourage agro in my set. Hope this hits the mark towards that goal.

>>55078044
Hmm. Seems like this could be interesting, but I think right now it has a few problems. Maybe the creature card gets exiled and you can choose whether or not to put it onto the battlefield. And if you don't, it remains in exile and you tutor, but you can only tutor noncreature cards.

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

45KB, 375x523px

What would a good cost for lifegain like this be?

>>55079313
Boring and uninteractive. The buyback has to cost like 5.

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

38KB, 375x523px

>>55079313
I'd put the life gain up to 7, see Heroes' Reunion.

>>55080599
Whoops, it's an instant with 3/2. I was originally going to make this a higher costed 3/2 creature with deathtouch and "Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, you may have ~ deal 1 damage to target creature."

>>55080599
>>55080623
I think it works. You're spending a total of 5 mana and likely losing a chump blocker in order to kill off 2 creatures. Not a bad deal overall, though I'd say the oddness comes in when it comes to the color listings. If anything, I'd say it should be pure Black for the initial cost to give it deathtouch, and both Red and Black for the tap ability that will deal damage and kill. That would theoretically allow a monoblack deck to run it as a simple deathtouch effect. Not entirely necessary, but it is set up in a tricky way.


Decided to shift a few things around for my commons. I think things should be a lot cleaner overall now, although I do have some concerns about the way mana costs averaged out here. I don't think it'll be a huge deal, especially once higher rarities are brought in, though it does bug me in some ways.

File: whitecommons4.jpg (1MB, 2664x1592px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2664x1592px

>>55081599
Forgot to crop it properly

>>55052694
Um, this might be a stupid question, but what happens if you use both abilities on the same creature?

>>55082402
It can't block it, because it's only forced to block it if it's 'able'.

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

43KB, 375x523px

>>55081871
Anything I don't make a comment on is fine.

>Hare
Honestly under powered. It could be a 1/1 and at most be mildly annoying in draft.

>Sapling
Could be a 0/3. A good comparison for power level is Jahdi Offshoot, which can gain you a lot more like.

>Herdmate
Pretty weak. If you want to shift the theme, when it dies it could make a 2/1 lion and thus have been hunted. Also for reference, a 1/2 with upside is considered fair for 1 mana, so I think a 2 mana 1/2 with such a low quality upside is under powered.

>Cheetah
Ability should end like: "... Activate this ability only once per turn."

>Tiger
Similar issue as before, "Activate this ability only at any time you could cast a sorcery."

>Quite
Feels pretty weak. Unless there is some keyword like Revolt or enchantment synergies, paying 4 mana for 2 1/1s and 2 life is really really bad.

>Render
White doesn't get to bounce other people's cards, it only gets to bounce it own.

>Bones
Really weak. Paying 4 mana to scry 2 seems awful, especially if you have to jump through some death-trigger hoop to get it. I think you should reference Murder Investigation for how strong to make these kind of effects.

>Acrobatics
Feels like a much worse Ghostly Wings. It could at the very least also bounce itself so you can replay the enchantment.

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

38KB, 375x523px

>>55081871
They're all good commons. No problems with any of them.

Is preventing players from controlling what they don't own game breaking?

>>55082757
I forget the exact rules for common, but this feels like having to track too much to me.

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

43KB, 375x523px

>>55082834
I mean ok that's fair, though I do think the complexity of commons has slowly shifted up more and more.

>>55082784
Could be WW desu. Also what the heck is going on in the art? Is her forehead exploding?

>>55081871
Exhume needs to be a triggered ability "When ~ enters the battlefiled, you may exile...".

Packlord should just make a 2/3 lifelink token, rather a token that's a copy. While a cool idea, exiling all creature cards from your graveyard and making that many tokens is not common material

>>55082757
Thanks for all the feedback.

As far as the first three are concerned, I was actually told that the Hare would to strong as a 1/1, and the Herdmate was pushing it. I may consider changing the token to a more offensive cat instead.

Thanks for the advice on the wording issues for the next two. As for the token enchantment, do you think it would be better if it were 2 mana to activate? I was going off the fact that it could be sacced at instant-speed which made it stronger.

>Render
This one I was worried about, but I can't find anything satisfying to do with it. I'll probably scrap it.

>Bones
I originally had it as a more Murder Investigation style card actually, though in the first stages it summoned a 2/3 token instead. It went through some revisions after I introduced the bone tokens, which in turn got some revisions to cost mana. I think in the end the cost got away from me. I'll try messing with the values and see what works better.

>Acrobatics
I'll dial back the cost on the self-bounce, but I think it's in a good place overall.

I would point out that while a lot of these effects total up to a lot of mana, the fact that it's spread out over multiple turns in a lot of cases and can be done at instant speed helps make the costs less extreme.

As far as your card goes, I would echo >>55082834 's thoughts that it has a lot going on. I think it would be better if it had one of the keywords by default, and had the other trigger with the number of creatures. Reach and having vigilance while you have 2 creatures sounds like a good combo.

>>55082784
Thanks, glad you liked them.

As for that effect, I think it gels just fine. It is narrow enough that it could be cheaper, since things that steal control are relatively sparse in a lot of places.

>>55082889
The intent of Exhume was exiling only a single creature card. I'll work on the wording. As for why it didn't make an identical token, I was worried about it getting too wordy.

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

42KB, 375x523px

>>55082930
>Hare might be too strong
I really doubt it. It dies to all flying interaction, and a 1/1 in the air has a very poor impact on tempo. Try comparing it to the power level of most 1 drops:
>Fan Bearer
>>Locks down your opponents best threat, is part of a powerful tribe, and is a 1/2 for 1
>Festering mummy
>>Good tribe, can trade up into a X/2, -1/-1 counter synergies with the set
>"whatever" Rootwallas
>>1/1s that you can pump into 3/3s

>Heardmate is pushing it
Does whoever told you this not know about cards like Doomed Descender or Young Wolf? Or do they think that a 1/2 isn't a really awful stat line?

>Bones kinda fell apart
Honestly just making Bones a copy of how Murder investigation works, but counting toughness instead, would be pretty fair. Maybe shift it into B instead though.

>>55082884
I mean, I could be recalling wrong, and it is only affecting itself. I just feel it in my gut. I'd have only done one of those two.
>>55082889
It just ocurred to me, have you ever thought to make exhume work like exploit, or just making it an action in general?

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

54KB, 375x523px

>>55083174
Rightful only impacts extremely uncommon effects in MTG, and frankly the fact it is so niche means it shouldn't cost so much.
A 3 mana "law" enchantment has the level of impact as Solemnity for the standard, and counters are extremely common place in the game. Thus if your Law only effects very little, it shouldn't cost as much.

>>55083204
If it was unclear, I was referring to the green guy

File: Armorspine Packlord.jpg (163KB, 763x529px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 763x529px

>>55083108
If I had to guess their thought process with it, it'd be that a 1/1 flyer with lifegain attached is better than a lot of other 1 drop flyers, and the difference between this and the two you mentioned is that both it and the token can block a 1/1 and survive.

As for the Bones, I would like for White to have some way to generate them at common, although I think trying to make it key off a stat like murder investigation won't work out as well at common.

As for that Kobold, I think the 'can't be countered' clause is a bit much on it. Maybe if it only worked on Red spells, but it isn't exactly hard to trigger.


>>55083174
Hmm, the expolit-style version certainly does read easier, and it's a lot cleaner to look at. It also doesn't take up that much extra room by comparison. Plus, since a lot more of that is reminder and keyword text, it can more easily be cut out at higher rarities.

>>55083244
i think it has to be when ~ exhumes a creature card, which may push it over lengthwise and also doesnt read as good imo as i pictured (what you wrote).

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

40KB, 375x523px

>>55083225
Oh I misunderstood then.

>>55083244
>Kobold seems a bit much
I dunno, it feels like if you have to spend 3 mana and jump through a hoop it should be better then Electromancer. I'll consider red-locking it.

>Packlord version 1
Need to Italicize the keyword name and change the wording to, " ... you may exile a creature card ..."

>Packlord version 2
On the trigger, the phrasing should be, "... exhumes a creature card, create ..."
If a card isn't in the battlefield, it has to be refereed to as a card in whatever zone it is in.

>>55083324
Any resson this isnt just a combat damage trigger? That wording feels so archaic.

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

46KB, 375x523px

>>55083301
I think it still reads fine, although that may change on other cards. That said, token creation is one of the wordier effects I've put on them thus far, and I think it does make it more legible.

>>55083324
I only changed it to 'one' because someone earlier thought it would allow you to exile your entire graveyard for tokens.

>>55083344
>>55083324
Also, aesthetically this feels like it wants to care about the player it attacked. It doesnt have to strictly speaking, actually better that it doesnt in terms of power level. Just a feeling I had

File: image.jpg (72KB, 200x278px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 200x278px

>>54998513
two things id like to say:

one, rezu's meddling already exists, just for a diffirent color; see pic related.

aside from that, i REALLY like these cards. good work, although the first rezu seems like he could be REALLY overpowered for exile mill. the second seems much more balanced,

if you were to go for the first, a much better wording, in my oppinion, would be "you gain an emblem with "each player loses life equal to the number of cards they own in exile," even then it would still be rather iffy. that could just win the game in some cases.

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

41KB, 375x523px

Playing about with a bit of an odd effect.

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

38KB, 375x523px

>>55083576

File: Sarandiel Crypt Keeper.jpg (39KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 375x523px

Kinda iffy on the wording here. Tried to keep it from getting too wordy for 'No, play the game on my terms' white.

>>55083576
>>55083592
Not sure how fitting it is for White/Red, although I suppose it's supposed to be primarily White as an effect and the Red is more of a coincidence.

It seems interesting, and it's a good way to shut down creatures with particular effects. It also functions handily as a way to stifle potentially dangerous abilities.

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

41KB, 375x523px

>>55083942

Red on Resolute spellward was mostly from 'Power leaning/first strike' as while white does get first strike, it's normally on more balanced creature.

That and a counterpart to another spellward I made (Playing about with defensive effects)

File: Lung Draconic Ascendant.jpg (47KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 375x523px

Top-down design.

File: Image (18).png (132KB, 223x311px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 223x311px

>>55083727
So a symmetrical white Leovold at double the cost whose effect screws you too?

>>55084163
That also screws out tutors and reanimation, while also being a better base creature and only one color rather than 3. So exactly like Leovold that also screws you over.

>>55084163

Well, it also prevents tutoring and bringing stuff back out of the graveyard.

>>55083992
This one I like a lot more. Feels like a much better blend of the two colors due to keying off of power while also being more of a general shield for your guys, rather than blocking the effects of a single creature.

>>55084284

Yeah, I think I tried to force Resolute a bit too hard into two colour because Blessed was two colour.

A better red/white one would be something like 'When a creature you control is targeted by a spell or ability ~ deals Y damage to that spell or abilities controller'. Protective through red rather than just 'Also being red'

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

43KB, 375x523px

>>55084284

An attempt to make it a bit more actually red/white rather than just white 'Oh and kinda reddish'

>>55083576
It should be "and cannot gain abilities", since using "them" would specify the same abilities that were removed
>>55083727
I understand the preventing tutoring or reanimation, but the "first card drawn in a turn" confuses me. It should be "unless they are the first card to enter a graveyard or library this turn"? If I am locked out of drawing but have the mana and spells to reanimate, that would bypass Sarandiel.
>>55084054
Although it makes the card wordier, I would add "power" after 8 and 10.

Is there an instant that gives flying and taps a target creature? Does that sound logical as a combination?

Where can I search for cards with a filter or something like that? Is there such a place?

File: Voice of the Tides.jpg (39KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 375x523px

>>55087077
Use advanced search on magiccards.info. I don't see any card that gives a creature flying and taps another creature.

>>55087077
I usually use Gatherer. A quick search shows that it's mostly instants that untap and give things flying instead. I think the effect could work, but it's better for a more offensive usage where you tap a blocker and give an attacker flying,

>>55088057
>trample
>wall

File: Pierce the Mists.jpg (34KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 375x523px

>>55088057
Pretty interesting. Strange that it doesn't have Defender like most walls, but I do like the idea of it gathering the power of a bunch of other creatures to attack. I am slightly annoyed that it ends up being a 12/10 though.

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

38KB, 375x523px

>>55088153
>>55088116
ough I forgot to put in the "Other walls get +2/+0" clause. Added defender it cant just attack with any old equipment or enchantment attached until it activates its ability.
>>55084682
I feel like there might be an issue with this card but I can't find it. I'd have to play it to find some quirks in it.
>>55084402
Not sure if it sounds correct to say "...spell or ability, ~ deals 2 damage to that spell's or ability's controller"

>>55091414
Meh.
>>55088322
Don't really see the need for blue, unless it's for commander.
>>55088153
Ok at sorcery.
>>55084054
... If its power is 6 or greater, it gains indestructible until end of turn. ...

>>55084402
>Whenever another creature you control becomes the target of a spell or ability a player controls, ~ deals 2 damage to that player.
Though I think exchanging "player" with "opponent" would be better.

File: Interrogate2.jpg (49KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 375x523px

Trying this one again. Design based on Browbeat and the other two Judgment cards with the same mechanic, which is that it's a Red spell with an off-color effect that only works if a player decides not to have the spell do some amount of damage to them.

>>55092014

Point taken. Otherwise you'll burn yourself.

>>55091414
I feel like this really has to be one mana. We can get one mana conditional kill spells in black. I know not every card has to be better or as good as an existing card but I just can't see this in a world with doom blade, go for the throat, or even terror for the same cmc.

>>55093207
I think this is still too efficient, even though it produces off color mana.

>>55091414
The less RNG in this game, the better. No go.

>>55093638
It's less efficient than basically every printed ritual effect.

>>55092049
I love punny flavor text

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

43KB, 375x523px

>>55096570
Confusing, awkward. What does it transform from anyway?
>>55096586
If I pay 0 for X, I may gain control of one of my opponent's permanents, and if I do, they gain no life and draw no cards. If I don't choose to control it, I scry 0.
If X is 7, and I gain control, they gain 7 draw 7, and I don't gain control, I scry 7.
In that case, it's not worth it paying any amount of mana greater than 0. I get to control one of my opponent's permanents for 3 mana and they get nothing. I would add another benefit to the "If not," clause.

>>55088322
Better wording would be 'loses defender until end of turn' surely? Might be able to cut a whole line of text

File: comander stuff.png (613KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

613KB, 1280x1024px

>>55096833
(hopefully) improved versions. Also the player who chooses the permanent does not need to be the one who controls it.

>>55096946
old.photojoiner.net

Those mana costs are atrocious.

>>55096946
What the-- Mono-hybrid mana, but the alt cost is just 1 mana? That's the most useless thing I've ever seen.

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

48KB, 375x523px

>>55096988
>>55097005
to be honest thats the part of the card I put the least thought into. the CMCs will probably stay
the same but everything else is temporary

also, alternate zedru

>>55096946
>>55097069
You spelled Disloyalty wrong. Also, I'm really not sure how many colors these actually need. Zedru feels like it could be UB without issue, and Disloyalty might as well be colorless.

>>55097069
The hybrid mana is a blatant and obvious attempt at increasing its color identity.

>>55098016
What would protection from basic actually do beyond awoken basic lands?

File: bolt.jpg (42KB, 200x285px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 200x285px

>>54996287
Just made this one, is it too OP?

>>55091414
>>55092167
This is actually a perfect example of a bad coin flip card. It's not a splashy card with some neat effect, so Johnny doesn't want it. It's not reliable, so Spike doesn't want it. Timmy was never even in the running.

R&D deliberately tries to make sure that random cards aren't something that are pushed enough or do Spiky enough effects to seem like they're supposed to be tournament level cards. If the objective of these threads is to make cards that could theoretically see print, this card is a failure. If the objective is to make cards that are interesting and thought provoking, it's still a failure.

What this card really is, is a learning experience. It's a common mistake and designers will be better off seeing it and trying to consider both why it's a mistake and why it's the same mistake a lot of beginning designers make.

>>55101050
Should probably be just 2 damage, otherwise it'll be a strictly better Open Fire.

>>55101541
That sounds an awful lot like a tuned up Singe, anon.

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

44KB, 375x523px

Made this in honor of NWO

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

29KB, 375x523px

Do any of you guys try to print your cards? Do you need a special type of ink or paper?

>>54998023
holy shit im in love with this
it would be bonkers in t2 too, thanks to aether hub

>>55101831
There's so much wrong with this card it's insane.

File: coat with flames.jpg (43KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 375x523px

>>55101831
Way too much stuff going on here. 11 lines of text, and all of that for 4 mana and you got a 4/4 body? That's overpowered.
>>55101888
I would like to print my cards but I don't. I think putting a card printed on normal copy paper in a sleeve is enough to make it useable without worrying about what the paper is made of.

>>55101831
NWO is a policy on commons.

>>55103831
Yeah, if anything it should be 'Commons with 4 or less lines of rules text get -4/-4'

>>55103091
>>55103569
>>55103831
I think that anon intended that card to be some sort of satire.

Irony like that is lost in /ccg/ because we see bad cards all the time. If you really want to make a fun card around NWO, do it like >>55103879

>>55103929
Yeah. Alternatively, it should have been a simple hoser to the actual Maro creature.

>>55101600
Wait, red gets access to turning creatures to different colors? Red has too much going on for it. Does it really need burn spells on top of artifact removal AND land destruction?

File: GideonLord.png (960KB, 750x1056px) Image search: [Google]

960KB, 750x1056px

In honor of the upcoming rules update allowing Gideon Tribal to finally come to fruition.

>>55104798
>Plainswalk

My sides!

>>55104798
Link? People keep saying this, but I've yet to see any evidence for it.

>>55105801
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/ixalan-mechanics

Normally I'd say something along the lines of "google is hard", or ">not readign Magic articles", but this came out just today.

>>55104798
>>55105830
I'm more curious if this means they'd print 'generic' Planeswalker at lower rarities

File: Dungeon Dragon6.jpg (50KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 375x523px

>>55105830
Thanks. I first heard about this well over a month ago, so I just assumed I missed something.

And wow, Ixalan looks like it could be pretty interesting.

As for planeswalker uniqueness going away, on one hand, I'm glad, because it always felt like a really weird version of legendary anyway. On the other, it means one of the arguments against the Gatewatch (printing multiple Chandras/Jaces/Gideons/etc. at the same time is pointless when you can have only one at a time) goes out the window. And dear lord I fucking hate the Gatewatch.

>>55105964
Well, they're srill going to be errata'd to legendary, so you stull cant have more than one at once barring cards that make the legend rule not apply. It's more just condensing things and making the rule more unified.

File: Sparked Ghoulcaller.png (205KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 375x523px

>>55105901
What a neat idea. Let's get to work, /ccg/.

>>55106179
I so hope Wizards doesn't do this. I've never seen a single one of these non-mythic planeswalker cards that actually looked interesting.

>>55106233
>>55106179
They cant do it. Cant use creature types on non creatures.

>>55106233
I agree. Even though they could be an interesting design space to explore, planeswalkers are supposed to feel 'special' and powerful. Also the lore goes all wrong if planeswalkers happen to pop everywhere.

>>55106233
They've pretty much printed "Rare" planeswalkers in the Intro packs.

>>55106363
Oh, the shitty planeswalkers? Ugh, hate those things. I was hoping they'd drop them when they were toning down the Gatewatch, but oh well.

>>55105901
i surely hope not, planeswalker in general are bad for the game and should have not been made in the first place
seeing these shits pop up like shrooms at rare or even uncommon rarity would make me quit magic in its entirety

>>55076765
> All permanents gain "0: Sacrifice this permanent"
> If there is more than one permanent
> On the battlefield
> At the beginning of the next end step
> All players who control permanents

Also, 1 mana kill everything is stupid. Having players flat out losing the game as a penalty is stupid. This being an uncommon, although probably by accident, is stupid. The name, especially the capitalization, is stupid. This could have just as easily been "destroy/exile everything".
It's good that you're trying to make cards, but it's more than just drawing them up and writing them down. Think how this impacts the game, how this feels to play against, how this can be abused and how this balances out against other cards. Think about why this card hasn't been made yet, if there are other versions of it that have been made and how they were balanced.
It's obvious you're just starting out in this, so it's normal to make rookie mistakes, it would be arrogant to think you'd start off with the perfect card right away.

>>55076765
> All permanents gain "0: Sacrifice this permanent"
> If there is more than one permanent
> On the battlefield
> At the beginning of the next end step
> All players who control permanents

Also, 1 mana kill everything is stupid. Having players flat out losing the game as a penalty is stupid. This being an uncommon, although probably by accident, is stupid. The name, especially the capitalization, is stupid. This could have just as easily been "destroy/exile everything".
It's good that you're trying to make cards, but it's more than just drawing them up and writing them down. Think how this impacts the game, how this feels to play against, how this can be abused and how this balances out against other cards. Think about why this card hasn't been made yet, if there are other versions of it that have been made and how they were balanced.
It's obvious you're just starting out in this, so it's normal to make rookie mistakes, it would be arrogant to think you'd start off with the perfect card right away.
The best thing in your post isn't even the card, it's your comment. It's a good starting point and it shows you put some thought into it. Now refine it.

File: Jakiro Twin Head Dragon.jpg (53KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 375x523px

Character from Dota. Dragon with two heads, one ice, the other fire. Naturally one freezes things, the other burns things.

>>55106281
>Tribal Planeswalker

File: Jennifer Teague Privateer2.jpg (45KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 375x523px

Because of the new pirate set. Stealin' your treasure and your ships.

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

40KB, 375x523px

>>55109334

And a VERY uncertainly priced card.

>>55096833
Who's going to give you free permanents if there is nothing in it for them? They'll just make you scry 0 every time so you just wasted three mana.

>>55104798
The 0 ability should be above the
-4.

>>55109334
It should probably say "crew it if it's a vehicle" the way it's worded it crews artifacts that aren't vehicles, not that that does anything.

>>55109529

The way the card is currently worded, the opponent always has to choose a permanent, and then you can choose to either take control of the permanent (and give the opponent X life and cards) or to instead scry X.

>>55109762

Yeah, it was a bit wordy with my original version (Using that) before I swapped to just 'Crew it'.

File: 21[1].jpg (55KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 312x445px

>>55109673
You'd think that.

>>55110381
Not him, but considering how that's the only planeswalker card I can find that puts a 0 ability below a negative ability, I think it's safe to that Magic design has changed since that was made.

File: Image (1).png (123KB, 223x311px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 223x311px

Haven't come up with an actual design because I just can't yet, but I'm thinking there's a gold nugget here and I can't wrap my fingers around it. I feel like something using this and hidden agenda's sceretly choose a thing mechanic to make a really cool and splashy showdown mechanic hut Ive been mulling it over the last couple days and I just cant nail it. I'm wonderibg if anybody has any ideas.

I like it because it allows you to have secret information while still knowing enough to make an educated guess, and theres potential for bluffing. For example with this card, you would normally name the most threatening player, but they would know youd pick them and so would everyone else, so if you pick the second most threatening you can more likely catch someone off guard. My first problem ignoring any possible complexity issues is, in 1v1 a mechanic exactly like this one just means the opponent doesnt attack you and I dont want that. Which i guess means there needs to be a way for the opponent to "win". The next issue is design space and what exactly you pick, when you compare, and how many things you can do in that space.

I really think theres something here but I just can't pin it down by myself, whether it can work or not. I likenit because it feels kinda gambly but also there's a "gotcha!" element that feels kind of like a quickdraw showdown

File: 10[1].jpg (54KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 312x445px

>>55111218
It's a matter of presentation. The "Ultimate" goes on the bottom, and the original Gideon Jura is the only one with a minus ability and an Ultimate that's a 0, or arguably Gideon Jura doesn't truly have an Ultimate.

The fact they reprinted Gideon very recently still using the same templating when it would not have caused any issue to reorder his abilities makes it seem like there's not any real problem doing it. Nothing has changed, they just haven't had a reason to do it again on another Planeswalker.

>>55111322
Perhaps rather than choosing an opponent, you could choose a card type? Then when a card of that type is played, you get the effect. So, for example, you could pick sorcery with a red creature with high power, then if your opponent uses one to remove it, they take extra damage.

>>55111322

Android: Netrunner has a mechanic similar to this, where you and the opponent you challenge each secretly spend 0, 1, or 2 of the game's primary resource (they're tokens, so they're easy to hold in one hand), and if you spent different amounts you get some bonus.

For tribal in either an arthurian/celtic setting would the following work:

WB: clerics
BG: shamans or druids
GU: Rogues (bards)
UR: wizard
RW: knights

>>55112393
I think knights for an Arthurian legend themed plane have got to be WB, but I'm not that familiar with thise stories so maybe that doesnt work as well as its portrayed in pop culture with stuff like Arthur versus Lancelot snd Mordred and such. Not sure if you want it based on or inspired by, but if its inspired by you could WR clerics with red being kind of the zealot types, and justify it mechanically like the plane's "religion" or spirituality is kind of based on sects with different myths about what kind of weapons a hero will come with. Just pulling shit out of my ass here.

>>55112393
The only thing I'm not sure fits here is W/B for Clerics. BG works for Morgan le Fay and other tricky pagans. UR for Wizards covers Merlin nicely, covering both his fiendish blood and his general magical prowess. The Knights themselves fit well as WR, since while a lot of them are pure White, they bleed into Red with their emotional flaws which cause them to falter more. UG as Bards could work, although the Blue there is more odd since it's more concerned with the future. WB I'm unsure on, as i don't recall many clerics from the myths.

File: legend ideas.jpg (372KB, 1875x523px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 1875x523px

Just some ideas for legends I've been tossing around. Looking for feedback before I proxy them for an upcoming session of homebrew-allowed multiplayer