/ccg/ Custom Card General /cct/

File: weirds.jpg (249KB, 1152x536px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1152x536px

>>55235906
I feel like vertical cycles are tricky, since you do have to plan for them pretty early on in a set's planning. That said, there are cases where they sort of form naturally.

I wasnt sold on transformers in Ixalan but seeing the explanation in the article today got me on board. I was worried because Primal Amulet//Primal Wellspring was kind of loose (you can tell theyre related but the flavor that the amulet "takes you" to the land isnt very clear imo" and I was worried a lot of cards would be like that because really, how many items and ways can you show taking you somewhere?). I hope we get some tribal creatures into tribal lands.

>>55238058
I think they said or revealed that all of them were going to be artifacts into lands. Personally, I'm fine with that, since Transform as a whole feels a little weird in the set still, even with the explanation.

I do think that some of the artifacts thus far will tie into tribal, even if more indirectly, like how the Primal Amulet is clearly themed after Merfolk and is nice for them, while the first Treasure Map we saw combos well with Pirates, presumably.

>>55238083
Ken Nagle said nonland into land today in the transform article but I seem to remember it being said they would all be artifacts too (which was another reason I was not sold on this since that narrows the ways you can show something taking you somewhere even more-- imagine a group of merfolk guiding you to a secret river, or vampires taking fallen comrades to a base camp).

File: download (1).jpg (265KB, 1488x1039px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1488x1039px

Dont know if i love this but here's a bump, its be quite sad for this thread to die that easy. I just dont have much to contribute as Im still doing some exploratory with a showdown mechanic. I cant get the versions with the colors in the pinline to load so thats why the land doesnt have the colors.

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

40KB, 375x523px

>>55240230
It seems rather interesting. I do rather like this new mechanic of having non-lands transform into lands. It means that you can have the land side be relatively powerful, as the mana to cast the front half along with the conditions can make up for the power. The card you made seems like a nice take on merfolk tribal. The two tap abilities on the land don't synergize too much with eachother, although I'd imagine they'd be great if you had two of them.

Hope you figure out something that works with your showdown mechanic. Personally I'm trying to polish up the rest of the commons in my set and come up with ideas for some good Uncommons that would fit in.

File: Lightning Bolt.jpg (255KB, 421x614px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 421x614px

r8 my cac wont start a new thread because it wont get replies

>>55241956
it's intensely weird seeing that art surrounded by blue for once
would the original art work better with the spell card border?

File: Lightning Bolt.jpg (45KB, 421x614px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 421x614px

>>55242012
Let's find out

>>55242217
That does look a lot better with the blue

>>55241956
I said in the thread you posted the other day that i think its just pointless making exact copies of magic cards like this in yugioh and vice versa just because how damage works is too different. Its like, imagine you did this for every direct damage spell. Itd be just wierd having all these spells in yugioh with that wording compared to the normal spells.
>>55241076
Its surprisingky hard to me to make a mechanic that feels like a battle of wits and wagers for a game that is pretty much alresaady a battle of wits and wagers. I actually thought itd be easy BECAUSE the game already aligns itself in that way.

I havent looked at the rules, does Emerge actually work on spells? I guess theres no reason it couldnt. I feel like the flavor is getting lost. The cards might mechanically work but it doesnt feel like anything is "emerging" from anything. Im not sure the exact flavor specifics of your world, but maybe flavor it as a magical aftermath of killing special animals or something.

On that not, if it does work, i would actually save effects that care about what you emerged from for creatures for now. Spells emerging is twist enough for them I think. Just a design space thing. You dont gotta do that but thats how I see it, and you can still use the idea on creatures.

>>55242652
Yeah, I think the issue with trying to do any sort of Clash style mechanic is just that they get really wordy trying to describe who wins and loses and how.

As for Emerge, I think you're right that it isn't very flavorful here. I mostly wanted to play around with the space. As far it goes for other cards, I was mainly flavoring it as 'emerging' stealthily and eating something, rather than the sort of chest-burster flavor I think the Eldrazi had. That's why currently it's mainly in Blue and Black, although I could probably get across that better on the cards.

I may use an uncommon spell with Emerge to help emphasize that fact more and make it very clearly an 'ambush' style thing.

>>55241956
Decent card, might have some use for disruption plays in a meta where people use small monsters to set up plays *cough* Zoodiac *Cough*

Buuut 1200 damage... Eeeeh, yeah. I'm kinda 50/50 on burn effects on spells/traps because Chain Burn does not need more toys.

File: Veska the Vegetative Anomaly.png (299KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 375x523px

>>55244168
updated slightly, added legendary tag and changed loyalty abilities a bit

File: redcommons2.jpg (1MB, 2284x1588px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2284x1588px

>>55244168
I think the 0 ability here is off, since your opponent could simply sacrifice 0 creatures, since it says up to. Other than that, it seems okay, though that ultimate is way heavy overkill to try and make it all three colors.

>>55244249
>>55244384
Weird, but interesting. I'm not sure how much the downside would help, although it's kind of necessary as the thing comes in for free. It might be better with slightly lower starting loyalty. Also, I would cut out the lifegain option from the ult There aren't many situations where I can see wanting to exile some big fatty rather than adding it to your hand.

>>55244439
>I think the 0 ability here is off, since your opponent could simply sacrifice 0 creatures,
yeah I fucked that up
I think I might make the ultimate
"Target player discards their hand. Tap all permanents that player controls. Creatures you control gain flying, vigilance, and can't be blocked until end of turn."
I kind of want it to open an opponent up completely and leaving them sorta fucked for resources, but not outright killing them itself.

>I would cut out the lifegain option from the ult There aren't many situations where I can see wanting to exile some big fatty rather than adding it to your hand.
Made it lower loyalty starting and scrapped the lifegain

>>55244726
Well, tapping all of their creatures makes the can't be blocked part pointless, and the can't be blocked part really makes flying pointless.

Tapping all their creatures, discarding their hand, and mass vigilance would be plenty.

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

39KB, 375x523px

>>55244439
>Hunter's Thunder
Will killing that creature with Hunter's Thunder give you a +1/+1 counter, or is it the case that if that creature dies this turn at all will you get that counter? If the prior, "~ deals 3 damage to target creature. If that creature dealt damage this way dies, put a +1/+1 counter on target creature you control."

>>55246809
correction: "If a creature dealt damage this way dies..."

File: Image (3).jpg (28KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 223x310px

I did some digging and found a couple articles. What im interested in knowing is, do cards like this (discard a specific card type to buff) "feel" like bluffing to you? I get that it does involce bluffig, but does it "feel" like it? I cant say it does to me but maybe I'm wrong. Funnily enough I was planning on kind of being heavy in prowess for a similar reason and I realized its kind of the same space. Maybe Im coming from the wrong angle if the simplest bluffing mechanic was already a thing the whole time.

>>55247379
>do cards like this (discard a specific card type to buff) "feel" like bluffing to you?
Not at all

>>55247393
I wonder what it takes to "feel" like youre bluffing the opponent. The more i think about it the more i get it (basic!lly, your present your opponent with a thing, in this case an attacm, then they can make an educated decision to call or just take it, and if you fail you lose a thing/opponent gets an advantage, prowess is the same dealy) but I agree that just reading the card doesnt feel like thats what youre doing. I never even put it together until then. Maybe I dont need a specific mechanic and I can just do combat trick centric stuff?

>>55247379
How is this a bluff?
>"Ha! You thought I included this in my deck to pump it up with a bunch of artifact discard, but you'd be wrong! I don't have any artifacts at all in this deck!"
>"Uh... so why'd you include it?"
>"To... um... bluff you?"

File: Card Shark.jpg (214KB, 744x1039px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 744x1039px

Does reflavoring it maybe help make it feel right...?
>>55247685
Explained in general terms as I percieve a "gamble" here >>55247454
Basically, whenever you attack with it you present your opponent an option involving hidden information. Any combat trick does it, but this built in can turn some number of cards in hand into combat tricks (but probably not all of them). You could have a hand full of cards, but none of them could pump it. But you need to play some number because if your opponent learns you have no artifacts ever, they know to never fear it. Contrast with Noose constrictor where the amount you can pump is a known quantity. Article explains it well.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/bluffers-best-friends-2007-02-16

This is also kind of I think the flavir of prowess for Jeskai that i didnt actually register until recently (before now but not back when they were first out). They could be silently strong. They could hold their cards, then respond suddenly and grow powerful. Thats kind of exactly the kind of feel i want actually.

>>55247807
>>55247685
Also, you xan kind of think of it like morph, which is probably the premier bluffing mechanic, just very simplified. Morph can blow you out in combat because, among other things, the creature can be bigger than it originally appeared. This is kinda like morph except the cost is cards in hand instead of mana to "reveal" your power level.

File: twocommons.jpg (105KB, 750x523px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 750x523px

>>55246901
Neat idea, I like a token lord planeswalker

File: 1504670064738571[1].png (209KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 375x523px

Trying out Sorceries with a drawback of ending your turn for balance. Theme is a play.

File: 1504670374280214[1].png (340KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 375x523px

>>55248478
Cantrips are artifacts in this theme.

>>55248478
Download magic set editor. Also capitalization errors. Don't randomly capitalize words.

>>55248321
The protection makes the second one too versatile
Remember, giving something protection from a color makes all auras of that color pop off of it

>>55247807
>I swing
>oh you didn't block? He's now a 12/11, gg

File: False-Headed Hydra.jpg (246KB, 744x1039px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 744x1039px

>>55248321
I like the combat trick a lot just conceptually. Im not sure if protection is still at common. Maybe replace that with indestructible if not. Maybe replace it with indestructible anyway since I think it fits in better imo.

Genuinely shocked I couldnt easily find non magic art for this.

File: 1504670777951549[1].png (275KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 375x523px

>>55248478

File: Vampire_Hounds_card_from_Exodus.jpg (294KB, 554x752px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 554x752px

>>55248533

File: 1504671061674428[1].png (338KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 375x523px

>>55248478

>>55248705
The difference is that a blue deck stacked with instants and sorceries is more playable than a black deck stacked with creatures.

it's also 1 mana less

>>55248609
not a big fan 'non-hydra' hydras.
>not for sale
is this reddit?

>>55248723
The average limited deck has more creatures than instants and sorceries, even in blue. And in constructed a dream scenario where you can attack unimpeded and then pitch 5 cards is even less likely to happen.

File: 1504671390602528[1].png (297KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 375x523px

>>55248478

>>55248765
The idea of this one is that you target it, it loses its defenses and grows it back (draw a card, camouflage returns).

File: 1504671681913298[1].png (347KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 375x523px

>>55248478

>>55248870
>>55248791
is this some forced meme or troll?

File: 1504672092686482[1].png (231KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 375x523px

>>55248478

>>55248881
No? As I said in the initial post, I'm playing around with a theater based set (it is a theater doing the history of the planes). I added Extra as a subtype where they copy themselves and others.

>>55249293
So plus two mana a turn? Seems good, but I think it should be a 0/4. Bolt test, plus then it can block.

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

38KB, 375x523px

>>55249303
I think this card is a lot cleaner with the Legendary planeswalker changes. Makes it read better, although I'm not sure it really needs to grant haste.

File: Perpetuum.jpg (5MB, 2632x4190px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 2632x4190px

My friends and I tried to do a shards of Alara type set, where we each made a shard. Me and one guy finished ours and the rest of our friends bailed.

This was my shard "Perpetuum". It's a world focused on evolving life, so I moved evolve into bant colors. I had a lot of fun making it and it still needs work, any feedback is welcome.

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

44KB, 375x523px

>>55250547
Pretty neat idea to do Shards like that. Sad that they bailed. I would say that the white does feel a bit extraneous here and could have been focused on more, but that might just be due to using Evolve as the main mechanic. White does love its tiny creatures and +1/+1 counters though, so the mechanic could work, I'm just not certain it's adding the most to the general Simic feel here.

>>55250547
For a faction based on evolve, you really have a lot of small creatures. More high power/low toughness creatures are warranted.
This is more of an overall set problem, but you have no artifact/enchantment removal.
Evolve goes on its own line, separate from other keywords. Try to keep as much reminder text as possible.

File: 44.jpg (70KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 312x445px

I'm working on a cube that is very "basic Magic", Llanowar Elf, Giant Growth, Unsummon, you know, all colors do what you'd expect them to do. I'm still torn about this card...Aetherize is nice, Evacuation is nice, but does is this one really okay colorpie-wise? Feels more like a Dimir card than a blue card. Blue removal isn't supposed to generate card advantage, right?

>>55250677
P.S: Sorry about posting it here, it's not exactly custom-related, but I couldn't find anything resembling an MtG general thread.

>>55250677
It is a rather strong piece of removal for Blue in that regard. Usually the key with Blue removal is mainly that aside from Counterspells, it's ultimately temporary and can be undone. That's the premise behind bounce effects, debilitating Auras, etc.

Aetherspouts ends up with the potential to do a lot because it's returning a bunch of creatures to the library at once. Putting something on top of the library is the strongest Blue usually gets, but doing it in mass means that a lot of those cards are going to effectively be dead for all the good they're doing.

It is still within Blue's pie to be sure, but if you're hestitant about it I would suggest finding a similar card that was only a bounce to hand effect. Blue removal can generate card advantage, but when you're making a cube you have a lot more control over what each color can and cannot do.

>>55250650
Yeah, the two of other guys were supposed to have more big creatures than small ones so I tried to keep them on the tiny side. One of them was planning a "Man vs machine" theme and that was going to have a nice amount of artifact removal

Maybe a creature that blows up a artifact/enchantment when he evolves? Or something that blows up an artifact/enchantment and places a counter?

>>55235906
Fresh Meat B
Creature- Human Minion
When ~ dies, gain 2 life.
1/1

Dead Meat 2B
Creature- Zombie Minion
At the beginning of your upkeep, if there are four or more other creature cards in your graveyard, you may put ~ and target creature card in your graveyard on top of your library in any order.
2/2

Hungering Carnifex 2BB
Creature- Demon
Lifelink
Whenever ~ attacks, sacrifice a creature. If you do, draw a card.
4/3

>>55244439
Okay I just strolled into this thread for the first time and I don't really know my shit but I feel like the proper wording for this card would be
"When Goldhide Boar dies, put a colorless Bone artifact token into play with "1, Sacrifice this artifact: Scry 1."

Or am I crazy

>>55251275
You're not crazy, but they also changed the wording on how token creation works. Now, rather than putting them onto the battlefield, you simply 'create' them. It actually saves a fair bit of room on the card.

Is this broken?:
Phyrexian Turbine
0
Artifact
Whenever a creature dies untap Phyrexian Turbine.
T: Sacrifice a creature you control.
"Listen to it sing!"
-Urabrask

>>55251703
Most likely not broken, but still a good effect. It's the equivalent of

>{0,} Sacrifice a creature: .

which is known to be a desirable effect in some formats and decks. See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbxg4moaEYM

Also, the "you control" part is redundant.

>>55252239
>It's the equivalent of

>{0,} Sacrifice a creature: .

It's actually a lot safer, since you have to wait for it to untap each time before sacrificing the next thing. It can give your opponent the opportunity to deal with something that's making the effect desirable, like a Blood Artist, before you sac your whole board to it and kill everyone.

>Eqedna, The Fair - 2WB
>>Rare
>>Legendary Creature - Human Knight
First Strike
When Eqedna, The Fair enters the battlefield, create 3 0/2 White Human Servant tokens with “When this creature dies, target creature gains Double Strike and Lifelink until the end of turn.” Exile all Human Servant tokens when Eqedna leaves the battlefield.
>4/2

Too strong?

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

35KB, 375x523px

>>55251703
You can have less blatant attempts for a free sacrifice engine, specifically ones that cost mana to cast.

>>55253794
Perhaps a bit, since those tokens make fairly good blockers even without any power, as well as the granted keywords on death helping further. That could probably be solved by dialing back to just two 0/1 tokens instead and lowering the power to 3 though.

What strikes me more about it is it doesn't seem overly Black in any way. At most there's the Lifelink.

File: Hazoret the Fervent.jpg (279KB, 421x614px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 421x614px

>Activate Fire Formation - Tenki
>Search Hazoret
>Scoop because it's turn 1

>>55252484
I don't get what you're saying. If it untaps every time a creature dies, that means it untaps each time you sacrifice a creature (because sacrifice = a creature goes to graveyard = dies). You don't "wait for it to untap" at any point.

>>55250547
I'm not sure how I feel about creatures from non-commander sets having evolve.

>>55256373
The trigger to untap it goes on the stack, anon. They could shoot Blood Artist after you sacrificed 1 creature instead of 43 of them.

>>55257614
Okay, yeah, I see it now.

>>55257672
I think it's a fairly clever safety valve on a card that is specifically a 0-cost combo/synergy piece.

>>55257760
I must agree. And, in its current state, it is still a pretty playable card on its own without any combos or sac-synergies. Not great, of course, but maybe some deck might consider sideboarding it.

>I cast Path to Exile on your ___
>Nope, I sac it instead. Goes on my graveyard.

>I cast (insert gain-control-of-target-creature card here), gaining control of your ___
>In response, I sac my ___.

>>55257070
Do you mean partner? I made the cards to go together mechanically, and I thought adding partner would be a nice touch without actually adding any power to it.

Unless you did mean evolve, in which case: What?

File: 01 Hosed by Life.png (245KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 375x523px

Is this a black effect? How can I make this interesting?

File: Twisted-Root Elder.png (268KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 375x523px

>>55257889
It fits better in black than in any other color. You need some strong flavor to really tie the card together, though. How about a blood-crazed vampire who can't resist stopping to feed on a surge of fresh blood?

File: Amateur Artist.jpg (56KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 375x523px

I don't know how to do this effect without using obscene amounts of text.

File: Urza Planeswalker.png (250KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 375x523px

I know, I know, it's been done before and should never have been done in the first place, but I'm pretty proud of this design. Feels suitably weird and cool and mythic-y.

>>55251703
The only good thing about this card is the flavor text. It's just a stupid combo piece. When would playing this make a game fun?

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

50KB, 375x523px

>>55258113
I think I'd like this more without Lifelink. I feel like it makes the downside pretty negligible.

>>55258227
Eh, Red, really? On the whole, the card just seems kinda dull. Last ability could be interesting, seems to fit in with Urza's character when he recruited planeswalkers to hit Phyrexia, but even then the "outside the game" bit confuses me.

>>55258633
>Eh, Red, really?
Urza has been said to be five-color by WotC, though he's least Green, and Urza's Rage famously shows his Red tendencies.

File: Oketra the True.jpg (253KB, 421x614px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 421x614px

Will eventually make all the gods. I also want to make Nicol Bolas, God-Pharaoh but I'm finding it difficult. Don't know how to balance its abilities in Yugioh.

>>55258990
>Custom Yugioh cards

I can't think of a more worthless endeavor.

>>55258990
Balancing in yugioh is just printing whatever and then banning the key cards of the deck three months later.

>>55259259
>I can't think of a more worthless endeavor.
I can, custom MTG cards.

>>55259324
Magic has actual balancing factors that aren't "will this sell the new set?"

>>55259384
>black effect
>guardian angel

>>55258990
>>55259324
>>55259407
Also, Yugioh design is so heavily dependent on Archetypes that making any single card in a vacuum is kind of completely pointless.

File: 135615312.jpg (45KB, 500x284px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x284px

>>55248948
>not Opera Glasses of URZA

>>55259384
I'd side with >>55259523 here. If it's supposed to be a guardian angel, a white Flicker effect might be better.

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

45KB, 375x523px

>>55261482
giving it a flicker effect would be more flavorful, but it is still a common and doing so would probably red flag it for 2 if not more reasons.

>>55261701
Could be a 'return to hand' thing then. White gets self-bounce, and it's less drastic to have on a common. It requires more mana open to react to things though

>>55261701
Seems dull and just unworthy of mythic status. Not entirely sure what to do with it though. Death triggers a "damage to all" effect?

>>55254750

In context of the other cards and """"Lore""""" in the set, she's a buyer of slaves for her own needs, sacrificing them for power.

>>55263323
That might get across better if she had the ability to sacrifice another creature/token to get Double-strike until end of turn instead, rather than it being tied to the tokens specifically. Of course, that would require a more significant overhaul of the card.

I'm all for lore, but what throws it off here is that White only does self-sacrifice effects, while Black prefers sacrificing others. Having the tokens be the ones with the effect on death makes them fit fine under white, which is what leaves the Black feeling more out of place.

File: From the Mists.jpg (40KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 375x523px

>>55263665
I actually love this card. The double Graft makes sure it has the typical Hydra effect of entering with X +1/+1 counters due to the double X cost, and double Evolve makes it grow back just as fast.

Very fitting, and part of why I really like the Simic keywords.

>>55263723
Emerge throws me off. Why isn't this just a creature? Also, you used double parentheses.

>>55263765
I didn't want it to be a creature to avoid cases where people would continuously bounce it back. As a creature, you'd have an easy way to flash in a fairly large creature by simply sacrificing something small or something that got targeted by removal. By making it a token spell, I figured it would prevent it from being too overwhelming if somebody tried to play it very early in the game, while also making the downside more meaningful if you want to keep it around.

>>55263665
WotC/MaRo, pls print this.

File: DDTA.png (185KB, 401x386px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 401x386px

>>55254882
>>55258990

Christ, this is embarrassing.

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

44KB, 375x523px

>>55263723
>>55263806
Not keen on making this emerge, but I do like this for the "sacrifice to avoid removal" idea you have.
>>55263677
bretty cool
>>55261701
Reduce to a rare.

>>55263723
Just want to say flavor is a lot better here versus the last emerge spell you did.

>>55264384
Well, I mainly wanted Emerge due to how it worked out as a keyword in Blue and Black to thematically contrast Red and Green, essentially UB be more of a food chain where even powerful creatures could end up the meal of something larger, whereas RG would be focused a more on going wide and preferring to go for tokens.

>>55264632
I'm glad you like it. I think it really helps emphasize the flavor of Emerge as a whole for the set. I'm planning on keeping the idea of the creatures emerging from hidden or dark locations.

Not sure how many people keep up with the mothership, but for anyone interested in design who doesn't, i want to make this article known. I think its a really, really good look at the design of a mechanic, even if it didnt end up being a named keyword. https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/card-preview/conquering-design-ixalan-2017-09-05

>>55264876
I can see why they didn't go through with it. Reminds me a lot of Pirate anon's Ship cards though.

>>55260226
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=9731

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

37KB, 375x523px

>>55264876
>>55264989
The idea of Location Enchantments is pretty neat, and it feels like it'd be pretty easy to get a grasp of it mechanically, although I can see why they didn't go for it, since it probably doesn't leave much room on the card for actual effects. Still, I think it could strike a nice middle-ground between Auras and normal Enchantments, since you can avoid putting all your eggs in one basket like with an Aura, while also not having to worry about the scaling effects of a typical anthem as much due to the restrictions of it.

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

38KB, 375x523px

>>55265253
Seems like an interesting setup, although their drawbacks wouldn't really matter as much if you're running a bunch of those cards, since the downside doesn't stack.

The mythic in particular seems quite interesting though. Very much the type of thing you'd want to try and take advantage of, though with Troublesome Merfolk it's easy to cast most anything 4 cmc or lower.

File: Reward Cycle 2.jpg (349KB, 1875x523px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 1875x523px

First draft for uncommon reward cycle

File: Other Shit 2.jpg (331KB, 1875x523px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 1875x523px

>>55266352
As well as some other random cards I've recently completed.

>>55261701
What about 3, Sacrifice a mountain: deal 3 damage to target creature or player?

>>55266352
Castleborn Servant seems really cheap for something that's going to generate endless tokens with nice upsides very early on, as well as having a meaningful outlet for them if they can't attack, and making them supreme as chump-blockers since you can block then sac them.

Sudden Turbulence seems fine, just Unsummon stapled to Shock with Replicate.

Bayou Crocodile feels a bit odd, since you'll very rarely get people not blocking it. Ordinarily, Deathtouch discourages this, but in this case you'd prefer go ahead and block it even if you can only kill it with your biggest thing, since otherwise it'll just kill that thing anyway. Along with that, it feels far more heavily Black than Green because of this.

Queen's Honor Guard is a bit crazy. A 3/1 with first strike for 2 is already pushing it, but it also has a sizable scry on top of that, and for 1 mana more the scry becomes repeatable, and it gets haste. I think you could make this a 2/1 with a Scry 1 for the same cost and it would still be a solid card.

Wave Crasher Lizard's evoke cost is pointless. Namely because an instant-speed hexproof granting already costs G with slight upsides on other cards, and because it's only one mana less than just casting the thing normally. Making the Evoke cost a hybrid U/G would probably be the simplest fix.

>>55266356
The first three seem fine here, if slightly pushed. Must attack doesn't seem like enough of a downside on a 4/4 with menace for 3, since I can't picture someone doing anyone else with it. Jungle Huntsman seems okay enough, though it's got a lot of upsides going on.

>>55266352
>>55266356
Most of these seem unnecessarily undercosted.

>>55265253
How do you play spells on your opponents turn if your lands are all tapped?

>>55266904
Mana dorks. Mana rocks. Not that hard

What would be a fair cost for a Legendary Creature with "Creatures you control gain changeling"?

>>55266988
Depends on what else it has on it, and how good the body is. But off the top of my head, maybe 6 mana for a 4/4.

File: Bruce Banner2.jpg (117KB, 752x523px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 752x523px

Decided to re-do Hulk, make switching between the sides more interesting.

>>55270245
Mountain interaction feels tacked on. Milling seems too harsh, maybe reveal then tuck? I guess you could try incorporating Mountain interaction with the reveal. Make it so each Mountain revealed gives the creature an additional +1/+0.

>>55270820
I feel like the etb/transform trigger is missing some aesthetic. I think Hulk's has gotta stay (when he transforms hulk smashes), so Id either not make it a transform trigger and give you some other reason to wanna be banner or tie it aesthetically more to Hulk's.

I also think the way to transform is not very flavorful which is a shame because its a very flavorful thing. I wish there was a way for banner to get an enrage trigger but I think hes gotta be small so thats probably no good. Maybe when he becomes blocked (and maybe pay some mana), and give him a curiosity effect? Not sure how hed tranaform vack thats aesthetically pleasig then though.

File: Bruce Banner.jpg (117KB, 752x523px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 752x523px

>>55271073
Well, here's the old version for comparison.

>>55271161
I really like the +1/+1 counter flavor here. Is there a way you could combine the saboteur as banner/fattie that smashes things as hulk with this in some way? I think thats the nugget. But maybe thats too much going on. I like the interaction that banner draws you cards if you let him through, but if you stop him he hulks out and destroys your shit. Then maybe you could transform back if they let him through as hulk since hes a trampling fattie.

>>55271265
>Is there a way you could combine the saboteur as banner/fattie that smashes things as hulk with this in some way?
Eh, you'll have to translate this for me.

File: 194[1].jpg (64KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 312x445px

>>55272725
You can't print more cards named Flame Burst just because it would benefit the original.

File: Peter Parker Spider-Man4.jpg (50KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 375x523px

Another card I'm redoing. Idea is to represent webbing. If this is too good, I could have it freeze instead.

>>55272725
I'd make it uncommon. Otherwise it's OK, a Nahiri's Wrath that doesn't scale basically.

>>55273008
A fun variation on this kind of effect could be something like:
>Whenever ~ becomes blocked by a creature, tap that creature and remove it from combat. It doesn't untap during it's controller's next untap step.

Portrays an unwillingness to kill, but makes it impossible to kill through combat.

>>55273168
I really like this.

>>55271661
What I mean is, I would keep the transform ability the same from that one (fog something then put that many counters on bruce and transform him) but make bruce draw cards some how (I like saboteur because it seems like nice gameplay to either have your opponent block him, in which case he transforms, or they dont and he draws cards), then keep hulk destroying things when he transforms. I dont know enough about the character of hulk to know what turns him back so I dont know whats flavorfully better, and I dont know if gameplay is still as good as the front side to have him shrink and get less angry over time even if I like the flavor like you had on the old one.

>>55273528
I could tie draw to counter removal.
>At the beginning of your upkeep, you may pay [mana]. If you do, transform ~, then remove all +1/+1 counters from it. For each two counters removed this way, draw a card.
I did something somewhat similar with Red Hulk.

>>55273168
I actually had an idea like this a while ago. I think I'd make it an activated ability though.

>>55273008
There's a missed opportunity here to make him UR with Menace

File: Herald of Truth Forbidden.jpg (43KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 375x523px

How've you been, /ccg/? Throwing together the odd card or two in my spare moments.

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

38KB, 375x523px

>>55274123

>>55274208
I'm in love. Except I can't decide in my head if it would be better tapping things instead of untapping them.

>>55274208
>>55274320
I feel like untapping works better for UG. It's a very nice card though.

File: ye.jpg (3MB, 3750x2092px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3750x2092px

>>55274208
>Throwing together the odd card or two in my spare moments
same
except, like, the odd card or twenty. Everything I make gives me a little niggling of inspiration for another, repeat ad nauseam.

Looking for feedback on these dudes, in context of commander, constructed, etc. Friends and I are pooling together customs for some multiplayer.

>>55274320
>>55274372
Thanks, anons! I chose untap so that it would encourage casting things on your turn without completely locking you out of being able to respond at instant speed as a result.

>>55274299
I'm not sure you should be making keywords into creature types, regardless of if it's flavorful or not.

File: greencommons2.jpg (1MB, 2292x1588px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2292x1588px

>>55274208
I've been having a good time piecing together my set. I really appreciate how helpful everyone has been with giving comments.

I like the design of your horror there. Prowess as a way to scale up the effects is very cool.

>>55274493
There's a lot here, though I like the design of Phlegyas. Massive stats with the downside of suspend and it being suspended further the more things are dying.

>>55274791
I feel like the size of that scry, along with the ability to shuffle and retry it if need be, is a bit much for only 2 cmc. Scry is one of those things where increasing the number on it gives you exponentially more value. A scry 1 is a nice upside, a scry 2 is strong. Scrying much further past that and you're basically just stacking your deck.

>>55274830
The art for Bludgeon Ape is already used in Gorilla Chieftain.

File: Lim-Dûl's Vault (2013, Commander 2013) by Wayne England.jpg (143KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 312x445px

>>55274830
>I feel like the size of that scry, along with the ability to shuffle and retry it if need be, is a bit much for only 2 cmc.
The card is a near-functional reprint of Lim-Dul's Vault. Though why he decided on doing this I have no idea.

>>55275187
Ah, I see. Still feels like it might be a bit much in a non-commander format.

>>55274931
Just my luck. Hopefully I can find a suitable replacement.

>>55274208
Still trying to find a kind of "dueling" mechanic that preferably involves bluffing somehow. Right now I'm working on some kind of mishmash of Kamigawa Decievers, hideaway, impulse draw, etc. It's weird. I don't think I like it. I really think I do want a bluffing mechanic since I like the feel of "opportunity is for those who sieze their own luck" kind of thing. I have a world that I think is a pretty cool in general terms but I'm just having a hard time nailing a marquee mechanic to build around.

>>55240230
Are the merfolk in this setting salmonfolk? I am in love with the idea, if so.

>>55276804
It's an Ixalan-themed card so no.

>>55277051
When do they get the counters though?

File: Prowler of the Bog.png (242KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 375x523px

>>55277073
I knew I forgot something

>>55276163
Maybe a mechanic similar to Morph, with the trigger being "blocks or becomes blocked", and detriments/bonuses depending on when it flips?
Something like:

Ambushing Bloodsucker - 1WB
Uncommon
Creature - Vampire Rogue
Lifelink
Bluff (You may play this creature face-down for 2 as a colorless 2/2 creature. Turn this creature face-up whenever it blocks or becomes blocked.)
When ~ is turned face-up, if it was blocking, put two +1/+1 counters on it. Otherwise, lose 2 life.
1/1

Depending on the positive/negative configuration, they either take 2 damage or risk something worse showing up by blocking.
At the same time, if they blocked the above, it would be better for them.
This also lets your defenders look a lot scarier than they are.

>>55277670
I'm not exactly certain if morph (or I guess transformers) is where I want to be mostly because the flavor isn't quite right and also I don't know if I want to commit to either. Though I think using facedown cards somehow is the right angle. I was using "secretly choose" in some way before since it's kind of splashy wording but everything I was doing felt too much like political subterfuge rather than for example a quickdraw attack or surprise poker play. You see the thing standing there, but it had a power you didn't see. It's kind of nitpicky. I think maybe one problem I'm having is that perhaps my vision is too narrow. But it's top down and I think making the gameplay feel right is super important.

Also tbqh this is pretty much just better (not strictly but still) morph gameplay wise. Since the bluffing aspect with morph is basically "do I block it or not" and the decision comes down to that. It's cool gameplay though and most designs I'm coming to straddle that. Kind of the mechanic I'm working with now is "exile the top card, and if it's x card type, you can reveal when blocking or blocked and do a thing".

>>55277738
Flash goes on a separate line above Flying. Cool effect though.

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

44KB, 375x523px

Remember Garruk the Slayer? I did like a thing like him.

>>55277790
I get that. While I was writing that, I was trying to figure out how to make it work with non-creatures, and got nothing.
One thing you might want to stay away from is too much randomness with what you're bluffing: using the top card of your library means you have to think about what happens if that card is a land, a creature, an enchantment, a planeswalker, or whatever.
Of course, you can do things with all of these, but making every interaction have to take all these into account is not worth the time, in my opinion.
Mana costs are basically everywhere, though, so you could use those.
Here's two options, both as cards:

Explosive Glyph - 4R
Common
Instant

~ deals six damage to target attacking creature.
Inscribe (Pay 2 mana: Exile this card from your hand and create a 0/1 Rune token creature with defender and "When this creature dies, you may cast the exiled card without paying its mana cost".)

Or:

Fatewielder Mage - 2UR
Rare
Creature - Goblin Wizard
At the beginning of your combat step, scry 1.
Whenever ~ blocks or becomes blocked, you may reveal the top card of your library. If you do, ~'s power becomes equal to the mana cost of the revealed card and put the revealed card on the bottom of your library.
2/3

File: Quickdraw McGraw.jpg (220KB, 744x1039px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 744x1039px

>>55277790
>>55276163
Example of the Deciever/hideaway type thing I've been toying with, though this is different than the version I had when I posted that. Also WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS

>>55278118
Hmm, that actually isn't bad, although it is a bit limited in that all the cards would need to be able to both wager and use wagered cards to avoid being paracitic, even if you built a deck around them.

I would possibly suggest Manifest as an alternative, as it does a similar phrasing, although the way to make that work for what you want would require some sort of keyword on instants and sorceries that allowed them to be cast as facedown creatures and turned face up to be cast as spells.

>>55278185
I actually remembered manifest when I made that version and is what I modeled it after. I always had exiling but before I always had it triggered when blocking or becoming blocked which was wordy and also unnecessary since I realized it didn't have to do that.

Also yeah it would have to work like that (though I happen to like how energy was implimented in kaladesh, which admittedly Mark has said he feels was too parasitic).

>>55278215
Yeah. The way you have it set up works, and I think it could function as the idea of having a sort of second 'hidden hand' that you aren't casting from and could therefore use as a resource.

Honestly, I think this works really well, since wager as an action word doesn't take up that much space even as reminder text, and any effect that turns a wagered card face up doesn't really either. I think there are cases where you could condense it further.

>>55278088
>>55278185
Also that goblin card is pretty cool just in a vacuum. Just thought I should say

>>55278118
Oh, you're going that random with it. In that case, remove the scry from >>55278088 and... huh. It's not too wordsy. I mean, it's not getting flavor text, but I could see it working.
You might end up exiling a lot of good cards with that mechanic, but that's not a disqualifier, I guess. This isn't going to be competitive, after all.
There's actually a lot you could do with wager, if you're willing to go a bit crazy with it:

Raid The Pot
6RR
Mythic Rare
Sorcery
Choose a type of card (creature, instant, sorcery, artifact, enchantment, land, planeswalker, or tribal), then flip each face-down card in exile face-up. You may cast all revealed cards of the chosen type without paying their mana costs. Then, take 2 damage for each card revealed not of the chosen type.

>>55278301
>>55278118
I think it would also be possible to use Wagered cards in a less type-dependent way, such as randomly adding a face down card in your exile to your hand.

Having them function as a general resource on some cards might help them be less wordy on some cards.

>>55278351
It would depend on how many cards are getting wagered.
For example, a creature that is X/X, where X is wagered cards, is either hilariously broken or a good Legendary depending on how often wagering happens.
There's also gain (wagered) life, deal (wagered) damage, counter target spell of CMC (wagered), and other interactions that depend on wagered cards being somewhere between two or three cards or half your deck.

>>55278301
It took me a second to remember why since it's SUPER nuanced, but there is a reason the goblin without scry doesn't work. It's because you have literally no control over it. You don't know anything about what's coming. The reason the Decievers work is because you do know what's coming and can make decisions based on that. I think maybe the kind of card this is is maybe not good for conveying that since just being able to reveal at any time to do a thing isn't as obviously something you'd save for the right time if you only get one shot at it. Maybe it does need to be limited to combat tricks?

File: Rya Judgement Unleashed.jpg (92KB, 752x523px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 752x523px

I did some retooling of this due to some feedback a long while back, I hope it's somewhere in the realm of playable

>>55278478
Oh, and the reason have an exiled thing that your opponent isn't sure of is because they don't know if you can use your thing or not, and you do. What you exile is random, but your opponent doesn't know it's a dead card until you reveal it. You can play aggressively with this guy and your opponent doesn't know if you're just gonna kill a blocker with it. Think of it kinda like a morph trigger which is basically what it plays like I'd imagine.

Another things that's kind of cool with this system is that you could build a "hand" of wagered cards like this guy >>55278277 said, so your opponent may figure out the card you first wagered with Quickdraw McGraw isn't an instant or sorcery, but if you wager another card they can't be sure anymore.

Another subtle thing I like about this is that, if a new player does wager a thing and it's the thing the card cares about, they can just use it. You don't have to think hard about it. But a better player might know when to hold back on a wagered card I think. Only problem there is if you do wager a dead card, I dont know if new players would feel good about basically milling themselves. I think you can wager from hand as well but I'm not sure if that should be the default, should it?

>>55278461
Well, I can't speak for him, since it's his set, but it feels more natural to wager one card at a time. I'm getting the sense of a sort of reverse-injest setup for it, where you have ways to exile the cards, and then a few ways to try and spend them. I feel like burning through your deck with them shouldn't be easy.

>>55278478
Actually, I think the goblin without scry is way more goblin-y. There's the chance you reveal an Emrakul and suddenly hitting for 15, but a much better chance you show a land.
But yeah, as far as a reliable mechanic, it kind of needs scry. You get all your randomness out of the fact that you don't scry on opponent's combats, so you may have to reveal and pray, but one of the cores of bluffing (maybe not Bluff as the mechanic, but the general case) is that you know you have crap, but they don't.

>>55278478
>but there is a reason the goblin without scry doesn't work
To be clear, why it doesn't work for the gameplay I want. i think the goblin is a cool standalone card.

>>55278542
I think you could theoretically Wager from almost anywhere. You could have Black cards Wagering from the graveyard, or White cards that Wager a creature rather than normal exile. The tricky bit with that is if it's supposed to be more random

>>55278626
Yeah that it has to be an unknown (not necessarily random... actually I guess you could still do it from anywhere with some extra rules for that) is what limits it to pretty much hand and deck. Actually thinking about it, maybe from hand is actually best? You have more control over it and it still captures the part where your opponent isn't sure what it is. But something feels off about that I can't tell.

File: Quickdraw McGraw (1).jpg (219KB, 744x1039px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 744x1039px

>>55278648
Wager from hand

>>55278626
Wagering a known element could work, as long as you wager enough to be able to hide it later.
Something like:

Crypt Robbing - XBB
Rare
Sorcery
Wager X cards at random from your graveyard.

Even if your opponent (or you, for that matter) looks at your graveyard before and after wagering, the only know what is wagered, not where each card is in the pot.

>>55278677
Oh, I think I figured out why this doesn't feel right and also probably why this won't work in general at least as is. Something about the reveal ability not being conditional doesn't feel right and if it has to be conditional that's gonna drastically reduce design space. Like... Man I can't put it into words. It being mandatory KINDA fixes it, but... it still feels off to me now.

>>55278648
>>55278677
I think the issue with going from the hand or elsewhere is that you get more card disadvantage for doing so. Granted, in some cases it might not be all bad, but it is weird. In that example, if you exile an instant or sorcery, it's either going to be some cheap burn spell and you're just saving on mana by exiling it and flipping it up for 3 damage, or it's going to be something expensive you can't cast.

I also feels like that makes it very obvious what you exiled, since you'd obviously exile an instant or sorcery with it.

As a whole, perhaps it might be better to go for noncreature and creature or nonland and land as broader categories in some cases.

>>55278648
Knowing what you wager beforehand may work, as long as you reveal wagered cards randomly.
Your pot would turn from "four random cards from my deck" into "three random cards from my deck and an instant that I put there".
Remember, card-counting is a legitimate strategy.

>>55278739
I thought about creature and noncreature. That may works since prowess did make that distinction. That's a good idea.

I think you're getting close to putting into words what my problem is but I don't think it's quite there. What is it. Like I said I think being mandatory kind of mitigates the problem I'm having but can't explain but it still feels like it's there when the ability isn't something that has a condition to be revealed.

>>55278757
Hell, let's make a card just for cheating at poker:

Stack The Deck - XXRB
Mythic Rare
Sorcery
Search your library for X cards and wager them.
"I never liked games of chance anyway." - Markis, Rogue Hustler

>>55278767
>I also feels like that makes it very obvious what you exiled, since you'd obviously exile an instant or sorcery with it.
Oh, I think I figure it out... it lies in the question, why would you wager anything but whatever it asks to be wagered? With the particular ability of "Reveal a wagered card: ~ deals 3 damage to target creature if you revealed a noncreature card.", there's no point where you ever explicitly have to show your hand, make a play like you do have a noncreature spell even if you don't. I think that's it. This mechanic needs you to make a move. Damn it I thought I almost fucking had it. Shit. I think it being limited to combat buffs is gonna be way too wordy and way too little design space.

>>55278834
I mean, you could do other things with it as well. At the risk of being parasitic, you could make cards do things only after wagered:

Gambled Health - 1W
Common
Instant
Ante: Pay 2 life (You may reveal this card from your hand and pay the ante cost to wager it.)
Gain 2 life.
When this card is revealed from exile, gain 4 life.
"I'm not out yet. Deal another one."

File: Spirit Caller.jpg (180KB, 744x1039px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 744x1039px

>>55278834
I dunno though... I mean aren't unmorph abilities not directly related to creature combat like this? Maybe it's okay?
>>55278948
That's actually a cool idea though I'd probably not do it the first go round. I'd also need to think of a way to make it not parasitic somehow. I mean I guess the card works on its own so. Kind of like how Attune with Aether just makes energy but doesn't use it. I dunno. I got excited that you guys mgiht have finally helped me nail it but eh. I also think there's gonna have to be an additional cost somewhere (like morph) and I don't know how and where I'll be able to fit that.

>>55279040
Also, I could probably shorten this by saying "reveal a wagered creature/noncreature card" right? It works from hand.

>>55279040
>>55279059
Something I'm unclear on is how you want the face down exiled cards to work. Can you look at them? Do you have to turn them face up in a specific order? Those change how useful it is.

As for being parasitic, it'll be hard unless you make a lot more cards that wager things over cards that use wagered stuff. Like, you may want creatures that Wager a card from your hand as a 'downside' of sorts to come in with better stats for lower cmc.

>>55279040
If we're seeing our own wager pool, we can do some more stuff with it, but combat tricks are certainly going to be popular.
Which is fine thematically, gambling lends itself to an aggressive play style, but other effects are going to be higher up the rarity scale:

Justia, Angel of Arbitration - 3UW
Mythic Rare
Legendary Creature - Angel
Flying
T, U, Reveal a wagered card: Counter target spell that shares a type with revealed card.
Whenever you reveal a wagered card, if that card is white or blue, you may put it in your hand.
4/5

>>55279157
I had actually already thought up a big black demon that wagered your whole library (if I wanted to wager to be from there), just I hadn't made it because I'm still not sure if this is the one.

I'm also 100% certain the shit is parasitic as fuck the way I'm envisioning it, at least as much as energy was (which again admittedly mark has said he felt it was too much so). In fact it's kind of exactly like energy except your opponent doesn't know exactly how much you have at any given time funnily enough, I just realized.

I was under the impression you could always look at your own facedown exiled cards, and you choose which to turn face up, it's not random (I got the impression somebody thought you couldn't pick what you turned face up-- is there a reason you thought that? I need to fix it if so).

>>55279040
>>55279201
I do feel like counterspells are another good route for the 'bluff' route you want. I think that's the idea, that while the Wagered cards do form a sort of secondary 'hand' of cards, the ideal is to have the effects of those cards be something that you wouldn't want to simply use right away.

For example, >>55278118 would basically just be saved until you could cast it with certainty that you'd be dealing the 3 damage to a problem creature, rather than trying to bluff your opponent into wondering if you were about to kill his creature with it, since obviously you would if you could.

For that reason, I think it needs to mainly be effects that are only helpful at instant speed. Anything that affects attacking or blocking creatures is good, but anything that can work on a spell on the stack is nice as well.

>>55279261
>For example, >>55278118 (You) would basically just be saved until you could cast it with certainty that you'd be dealing the 3 damage to a problem creature, rather than trying to bluff your opponent into wondering if you were about to kill his creature with it, since obviously you would if you could.
I think the idea I had in mind with that one is that you'll usually only get one shot at it, so a good player would hold onto the wagered card until you really needed to kill a dude. I think it's actually a plus that if you wanted to, you could just do it any time without much thought and still get some value.

>>55279236
I thought you could not look at your wagered cards.
Somewhere between conditional effects (if it is an instant, stuff happens), the gambling motif (it is a lot easier to lose poker than it is to win), and face-down exile (which is just removed enough to be out of your reach), I assumed that's what you were going for.
Official cards have reminder text to clarify when rules interactions like this show up, and this is a very good example of why.

>>55279285
Basically, it'd be like "Wait... he didn't use his wagered card to kill my blocker. I wonder why? Is it not a noncreature spell?" That's kind of the feel I was hoping it had.

>>55279236
I think the reason I was confused on it is because cards that exile things face down usually say if you can look at them or not. Bane Alley Broker, for example, lets you look, because you pick a card from those you exiled with it. Bomat Courier doesn't let you look, since it works off the top of your library and then returns them all at once.

I think all it needs is a quick 'you may look at it' in the reminder text.

>>55279295
For reference, I am >>55279201 >>55278948 >>55278711 and >>55278301

>>55279300
Just looked up the rules
>Cards “exiled face down” can’t be examined by any player except when instructions allow it. However, once a player is allowed to look at a card exiled face down, that player may continue to look at that card as long as it remains exiled, even if the instruction allowing the player to do so no longer applies.
I actually didn't know this. So yeah I need reminder text that you can look at it. That might make the rules too long though. I also saw this
>A card exiled face down has no characteristics, but the spell or ability that exiled it may allow it to be played from exile.
Does this mean I can't care about the card type? That seems weird comparing stuff like the last Ajani, which is from the deck but still. This doesn't work at all if that's the case.

>>55279285
>>55279298
Yeah, I get what you're going for with it being a one-shot deal for most cards, but I think the isuse there is that while a good player would hold on to the wagered card until they needed it, they also might hold on to the card that causes the wager itself until they need that.

I think in that instance, ~ deals 3 damage to target attacking or blocking creature works better, since then people aren't just saving them as killspells. Having it be 3 damage at any time just causes a lot more second guessing, since 'he didn't use it to kill my blocker' becomes 'he didn't use it when I cast it, or had it sitting on my board for two turns' It adds to the mindgames in a way that I don't think works for what you're after as well.

>>55279353
I think once you turn it face up, it would gain those characteristics. I think the thing there is for cards that allow you to cast things from exile not letting you do so if it's facedown

>>55279353
It might mean that. Just to be safe, your old wording (reveal it, then do stuff if it's X) should be fine, as it "gives back" the characteristics when they are needed.

>>55279379
Do you think that means I couldn't use the shorter wording of "Reveal a wagered noncreature card:Do X" (versus Reveal a wagered card: Do X if you revealed a noncreature card.)? I wonder why that doesn't work but you can ditch specific card types from hand?

>>55279354
>Yeah, I get what you're going for with it being a one-shot deal for most cards, but I think the isuse there is that while a good player would hold on to the wagered card until they needed it, they also might hold on to the card that causes the wager itself until they need that.
Hmmm... I think you hit the nail on the head. do you think wagering from deck solves that problem? Maybe I should switch back to that.

It's so damn long now. Fuuuckkk.

File: Spirit Caller (1).jpg (182KB, 744x1039px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 744x1039px

>>55279514

>>55279460
I think going for the deck works better in that regard. You could still look at your own cards, so you can plan around it once you've actually wagered, but it also means that your opponent is less sure about bluffs, since it's less likely that you know what's what.

I'd still say going for more reactionary effects like combat tricks and counterspells is better, but going for the deck would help make sure people are actually playing the cards to wager sooner rather than later.

>>55279514
I'm torn between having cards that use wagers also wager cards (for less parasitism) and having some that don't (so the text blocks are less fuckhueg).
You might be able to get away with less wagering on creatures if you move it to other sources:

Thoughtbroker's Tools - UB
Uncommon
Artifact
T, pay 1 life: Wager the top card of your deck (To wager a card, exile it face down. You may look at wagered cards at any time.).
"I'm sure somebody will find this valuable."

Collect Debts - 1RB
Common
Instant
Deal 3 damage to target creature.
Wager the top card of your deck (blah blah blah).


And then, an outlet:

Sylvan Surveyor - WG
Common
Creature - Elf Scout
When ~ enters the battlefield, you may reveal a wagered land. If you do, put it on to the battlefield tapped.
"Not all spend their winnings on vice."
1/2

>>55279617
I'd bump up the rarity, as this has a lot of power on a cheap card.
The curmudgeon in me wants to put blue on it for the card draw, but green has been getting some more of that.

>>55279686
I would say that having more cards that only wager things might help a lot, since it means that you can have a few cards that are only an outlet for it.

I would say that since it is an action word, you could still include the occasional card that wagers from somewhere else as a downside. Like a Green creature with better stats that Wagers another creature you control as a downside when it comes into play. Basically, use it in place of certain effects that would normally be a discard/sacrifice.

File: Leyroad Planner.jpg (179KB, 744x1039px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 744x1039px

>>55279686
I think it's gotta be hardline cards that use wagered cards need to wager cards. I'm already not 100% sold on this one because it plays so similarly to energy and needs to be designed the same way and Mark has already said he felt energy was too parasitic (I thought it was designed well but ok) so I'm kind of walking the line as it is. To be honest I think that and the length are the only reasons I'm not totally sold on this yet since I think it's otherwise kind of interesting.

Another small thing is I'm not sure how okay it is each card cares about a specific card type and it's tucked away at the end of the rules text. If I can use "reveal an x wagered card" it feels a little better.

>>55279797
Haha, I just smiled imagining the interaction where you bounce something unexpectedly and go "WHAT THE FUCK DUDE WHY DIDN'T YOU DO THAT BEFORE???"

>>55279725
Wager as a downside is a good idea, but it's not all negative depending on where and when.
Hell, wagering a creature at instant speed could be used to fizzle some spells (you still exile a creature, which sucks, but it's not wasted.)
Still some situations are pretty heavily detrimental:

Give To Fortune - 1RW
Rare
Sorcery
As an added cost to cast ~, wager your hand.
Create a 1/1 Fatebeast creature token, then put X +1/+1 tokens on it, where X is the number of cards wagered this turn.

>>55279883
Yeah, it obviously has some upsides to it, but I think in general it could work in place of Sacrice/Discard, the same way that those are still helpful in a block with enough death or madness effects.

It also allows 'stacking the deck' so to speak, since wagering a creature you control means you and your opponent are both fully aware of it, while wagering something from your hand means you have more control compared to your library. Could be a way to help differentiate it across colors.

>>55279797
I feel that the hidden aspects of wagering differentiates it enough from energy to make it interesting.
I don't think we're going to get out of pseudo-parasitic territory with the Wager mechanic (I also liked how they did energy, for what it's worth), so we can either go for more general effects that feel similar (place cards on the bottom of the deck and reveal?), or dive in headfirst.
Something that goes less wager-y while still feeling similar:

Priest of Fortune - 2W
Common
Creature - Human Cleric
When ~ enters the battlefield, you may put a card from your hand on the bottom of your library.
T, 2W: reveal the bottom card of your library. If it is a white card, gain 2 life. Scry 1.
1/3

Is the bottom card of your library public knowledge?

>>55279724
Ugh. The worse idea in magic history. Because when you look at delver, counterspell, lightning bolt and mystical teachings you think weak amirite?

>>55280083
Oh no I think it's different enough from energy (it's kind of like a weird morph/energy hybrid actually, using an alternate resource [energy] that you can turn face up to reveal abilities you didn't have before [morph]), just the way I think this particular iteration is needs to be designed like it.

mtg.design is a being a shit so here

Calamity Jane, Trick Shooter 1UR
Legendary Creature - Human Warrior (Rare)
When ~ enters the battlefield, wager the top 4 cards of your library. (To wager a card, exile it facedown. You may look at wagered cards at any time.)
UU, Reveal a wagered noncreature card: Counter target spell.
RR, Reveal a wagered creature card: Copy target spell. You may choose new targets for the copy.
4/1

>>55280083
Shouldn't be public knowledge, at least not any more than say the top or the 22nd would be.

I do feel like revealing the bottom card of your library might work better, since then you could fuel it with Scry effects. The trouble there is that you'd also need to either make all the cards want different things more, or make it so the card moves after, since otherwise you could just have a white card on the bottom and it would stay there for you to reveal with all your cards that want to reveal white cards.

>>55280180
I just realized I think I lost my wording somewhere. I think this has to be "turn a wagered creature card face up" rather than "reveal". The turn face up needs to be permanent. i think most "reveals" aren't. I wonder where I started doing that.

>>55280180
I like the design on the card. It does a lot with wager, and is a solid step away from just combat tricks.
I assume you are the "owner" of the Wager mechanic, so I suppose you are the one to ask:
How many wagered cards should be sitting? Like, if I had 6 cards wagered in a game, is that more likely to be turn 4 or turn 8 (crazy combos notwithstanding)?

>>55280194
For larger effects, changing the bottom card would be mandatory (probably taking the top card off), but some smaller effects could afford to be repeatable. Gaining two life is a pretty cheap effect, so if you want to keep spending three mana and tapping your creature, that won't win you the game.

>>55280194
Theres something about bottom of library I like but I cant put my finger on it. I feel like the gameplay of building up a "wagered" hand is pretty cool though.

>>55280298
Yeah, I think you could make it vary a bit by color. Perhaps White creatures mainly go for smaller effects with it, but pretty much all want to reveal White cards, though with more specificity at higher rarities (most want White, some want angels, some more want legendary angels, etc.)

Constrast that with Red, who might care more about the card type itself, have it be different for different creatures, and have more scry and shuffle effects so the goal is for it to be changing a lot.

Granted, I think this is straying from wagers a bit though.

>>55280320
I chose it because it's cleaner and less parasitic. There will always be a card on the bottom of your library, and as >>55280194 said, it chains off of Scry.
That being said, it is severely limiting as compared to Wager, by virtue of being one card. I prefer Wager, but if MaRo called you up tomorrow and said "we're doing this", the bottom of library would probably win out.

>>55280298
More likely to be turn 8. I think like 90% of cards that wager will only wager 1 card. Cards at higher rarities may do it more.

>>55280320
Hmm, perhaps it would help if there was another keyword to interact with wagered cards? Similar to Manifest and Morph. If Wagering is like Manifest where you target the top of your library and then have cards that can use those, then what if there were also spells that could Exile themselves facedown for a flat cost, and then be cast from there directly later?

That said, I do feel like >>55280362 has a good point. Showing off the bottom of your library is way simpler, already has stuff that interacts with it, and can really be built around in interesting ways. It isn't quite on par with the coolness of a 'second hand', but it also means you don't have the same problems like energy.

>>55280337
You could use Wager and still care about color:

Snapflame Bandito - 2R
Uncommon
Creature - Human Bandit
Haste
As ~ enters the battlefield, you may turn a wagered card face-up.
If the chosen card is red, ~ gets +2/+0 until end of turn.
If the chosen card is an instant, ~ gains First Strike until end of turn.
2/1

>>55280394
>>55280362
I think I may have gotten wrapped up in the wagered hand thing. Im trying to remember why this isnt just the top or bottom of your library and you can look at/reveal it to do something with it. I think I landed where I did for a reason. I think the problem I have with bottom is that it doesnt change naturally, which means I need more rules built in to get rid of it or all the cards need to have something that gets rid of it which also adds more words and also probably limits design space. But im very interested in trying to make this less parasitic.

>>55280434
Ah, you misunderstand. I meant that it could vary within the colors using the mechanic, to make it better match their philosophy. In that example, White is all about solidarity and rules, so they would be aiming to try and get a single, specific sort of card at the bottom of their library that everyone could use equally, wheras Red would express freedom and chaos by having it get switched up with each one needing different things.

>>55280394
>Exile themselves facedown for a flat cost, and then be cast from there directly later?
Holy shit I think you have something here. I dont know what but I think theres something.

>>55280495
I think you'd use less space overall both Enabling it and using it. Any card that can Scry functions as an enabler, but also does something when you use that. And any card that looks at the bottom can easily have a 'shuffle your library' tacked on to the end, or can simply leave it in place.

Ideally, it should be possible to use the same effect more than once, but it shouldn't be optimal to do so.

>>55280555
Pretty much it's the same interaction with Morph and Manifest. You can cast a Morph card face down on its own, but Manifest functions as a benefit if you happen to hit a morph card with it.

>>55280595
I was actually thinking in general, like over this. Though im not sure how and in what capacity.

>>55280495
I like the "second hand" concept because it makes every color able to have the same impact as Blue: the fact that you can have cards in your hand that the opponent can't guess.
If you're playing against a Black deck, you know that the one card he's been sitting on is probably "destroy target X", so don't have a big guy out.
That Green player has a Giant Growth or something like that, make sure to block his shit.
The Red player has any cards in his hand, you are probably going to take face damage, it's probably safe to swing.
But a Blue player with one card could draw more cards, or Unsummon, or Counterspell, or Snapcaster Mage, or a bunch of other shit that makes you not want to do anything.
Wagering allows people with any color deck to turn most of their deck into viable answers, and I like that.
It's a very fun mechanic, and I'd play it around a kitchen table.

Incentivize - 2UB
Rare
Enchantment
Whenever you wager any number of cards, draw a card.
"Keep their stomachs full, their glasses fuller, and they'll give you everything they have."

>>55280653
Maybe have the keyword be worded similarly to morph. You exile it facedown for 1/2 mana, and then you can cast it at any time for the whatever cost?

Benefit being that you can cast whatever it is at instant speed, possibly cheaper than normal depending on how you set it up. Then, add in some cards that can fuel it to exile cards from your library facedown, and you'd have something similar to the secondary hand mechanic, but a bit more-self contained.

File: Quickdraw McGraw (4).jpg (222KB, 744x1039px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 744x1039px

>>55280567
Still seems long, though I guess I dont technically need each card to look or scry or whatever since it works in and of itself without any set up. Main thing to me is it doesnt feel like a "gamble" anymore imo, and it feels too random. Then again its technically equally as random as the wager Im currently using. Maybe thats too random? It feels more gambley but its still too random. Theres the caveat that you can build up a pool of wagered cards but Im not counting that.

>>55280712
Why does he need to look at the bottom in this case? If anything, that makes it less of a gamble, and you can see it anyway by just trying to activate the ability once.

>>55280741
Part of making a bluff is you knowing something your opponent doesnt yet. Its why for example the Decievers allow you to check the top card.

>>55280779
I feel like it'd still be better as a Scry in that case. Offers an actual benefit without the second ability, and allows you to know what the bottom card of your library is should you so choose.

>>55280796
I just think its kinda weird to have an evergreen keyword mandatory on (most of?) these and then presumably another keyword revealing what you have. I cant quite explain why. Maybe it isnt weird. For the record, i actually think the keyword being the reveal is actually best for flavor.

>>55280712
>Main thing to me is it doesnt feel like a "gamble" anymore imo, and it feels too random.
I'm not sure I understand. Did you mean gambling for your opponent, or for you?
If you're gambling, isn't that supposed to be random?

If we're officially moving to the bottom of the library, we can do shenanigans with that too:

Forage - GG
Common
Instant
Stack 3, then reveal the bottom card of your library. (Look at the bottom three cards of your library, then put any number of them on the top of your library and the rest on the bottom of your library in any order.)
If the revealed card is a land, put two +1/+1 counters on target creature you control.

>>55280866Not sure if gamble was the right word. Basically i want something that feels like a you can "manipulate" things around what you got. For example in a card game you draw your cards, then formulate a plan around that. I want to put emphasis on the bluffing aspect of that. If its just "reveal the bottom card: if its x, do y", you can build your deck around that to manipulate you chances tehnically, but the ctual mechanic "feels" more like just a dice roll versus a poker bluff to me without there being some way to make your opponent think you have something you don't. Do you get what I mean? Its very specific and nitpicky I know. The most important aspect I want to get is a feeling of "whoa! I didnt know he was that good", like losing to a bluff by a gambling savant, or losing a showdown at high noon to the best gunslinger in town.

>>55281000
I think I understand. In order for it to feel "work with what you got", you need to "get" first.
Let's see how this feels, and I'm borrowing Mr. McGraw:

Quickdraw McGraw - 1R
Common
Creature - Human Warrior
When ~ enters the battlefield, Deal 1 (Place one card from your hand on the bottom of your deck, then draw that many cards.)
T, Reveal the bottom card of your library and put it on the top: ~ deals 2 damage to target creature or player if you revealed a red card.
2/1

This way, you can still build your "hand" of cards by putting on the bottom, but after you're through what you've Dealt, you're stuck rolling the dice.
And, depending on how much Scrying and Dealing you do, you can pull off some crazy combos for free.

>>55281169
I like this in general, but it feels like this goes back to an issue with another version of wager where it was from hand someone pointed out. The problem there was people might just not play the card until they had a card in hand they wanted get rid of that would do it. If its from library youre not losing anything (I think this is why you had the draw, so you werent necessarily losing a card, but it doesnt quite solve the actual issue, it just mitigates card disadvantage).

>>55281288
I feel like you could perhaps mix the methods. Have some cards that only reveal, have some cards that Scry or otherwise set it up, and have some cards that do both.

>>55281288
I did have the draw so that you wouldn't lose more cards than necessary. I might rejigger the wording so that you draw before you put on the bottom. This would guarantee that you have a card to Deal, and also insure your hand against needing to get rid of something crucial.
I think the problem may actually be solved by cards that reveal the bottom card, but don't Deal. For example:

Drusilla, Packmaster - 4GW
Mythic Rare
Legendary Creature - Elf Shaman
During your upkeep, you may reveal the bottom card of your library. If it is a creature card, you may cast it without paying its mana cost. Otherwise, put it on the top of your library.
5/5

This card has a powerful effect, but no way to put cards on the bottom of your deck. This being the case, you could use McGraw as a Dealer to cheat a creature out.

I'd maybe put the balance of Deal and reveal effects down color lines:
Black has few reveal effects, but can Deal effectively (rigging the game, for a price).
Red has weaker, more plentiful Deals, but more repeatable reveal effects (playing the game, win or lose).
Green focuses more on reveal effects, with few Deals (letting what comes naturally happen).
White is focused more on stability, with "deal tutors" and reveal effects that don't change what's on bottom (more reliable effects).
Blue uses their reveal effects as part of spells, and can possibly see opponent's Dealt cards (wanting to plan out the game).

With these, you could make creatures with Deal not only work as one-off effects (McGraw fires off his own Deal), but also combo in to other creatures (McGraw Deals a creature for Drusilla to summon).

>>55281572
Remove Drusilla's "you may". I shouldn't have put it there.
I refuse to post without making a card, so here's another one:

Bargaining Imp - 1BB
Common
Creature - Demon
Flying
When ~ enters the battlefield, Deal 3, then reveal the bottom card of your library.
Each player loses X life, where X is the converted mana cost of the revealed card.
1/2

>>55281325
>>55281572
This is kinda what I meant about how you can technically build a deck that does both things to get the right gameplay, but the individual mechanics dont feel quite right. To me anyway. I think Im okay with having cards that stack your deck somehow as their own thing, but I dont think cards that reveal things on their own nail the "bluffing" feel. I dont know for example if I want a mechanic thats just revealing a card at random. It works together with other mechanics to not be so random but the mechanic itself is still just reveal a random card. Its kind of a problem Clash had.

The reason I think exiling a card face down solved this is, while its random, your opponent knows that you know whether or not it worked, and I feel like that an important dynamic. If its just the reveal, then if you got a hit, on its own neither of you knew if it worked until the moment it actually happens. You cant play like you have it even if you dont to fool your opponent.

The reason I think it cant just be look at the top/scry/etc. then reveal to do x is because one of these I think needs to be a keyword, and I think it feels more correct if the keyword/ability word is the thing all the cards do, then the individual cards have their own use for it. Theres also something else but Im not sure what it is.

What if there were shops that had tournaments for custom archetypes?
I'd probably be a shitshow to manage with people purposefully creating completely unfair decks, but with trustworthy people it could be fun.

>>55281756
I was gonna say that this might be it, but then I realized the gameplay isnt right. Because its all an etb trigger, theres no time where you dealing makes your opponent unsure of what you did. It happens all at once.

>>55281854
What if we moved Deal to the top card of your library, but you can look at it first? That way you know what it is, your opponent doesn't, but it still has the possibility of failure.
I've been trying to think of a good keyword for "take something off of the bottom of the deck, reveal it, and put it on the top", but nothing's coming to me.
Fuck it, let's use a placeholder for now. That's called Cash Out.
In play, it looks like this:

Great River Smuggler - 2B
Uncommon
Creature - Merfolk Rogue
When ~ enters the battlefield, Deal 2 (Look at the top two cards of your library, then put them on the bottom in any order.)
Whenever ~ attacks, Cash Out. If a blue card is revealed this way, it gains unblockable until end of turn.
2/1

>>55281973
Remember, your opponent only knows the card on the bottom, not the other two behind it.
I had envisioned this card more as a "fixer" than a "bluffer". It enables other cards to do their thing better.
A different fixer, with its own mechanic:

Ensure Fortune - 2UU
Uncommon
Instant
Stack (Pay 3: place this card on the bottom of your library, then draw a card.)
Draw two cards.

>>55282056
>Remember, your opponent only knows the card on the bottom, not the other two behind it.
Well, what I meant is... for example, you play a morph and it sticks around as a morph for at least a turn. Your opponent can make decisions based on trying to guess what it is in the mean time. That would be like if you played a morph and it immediately went face up as part of its normal play pattern (you can technically do that ofc but its usually a big investment and theres value in getting the surprise unmorph trigger or taking advantage of whether ot not the opponent will block it, or just paying the instalments)

>>55281973
A possible fix to the Imp:

Bargaining Imp - 1BB
Common
Creature - Demon
Flying
When ~ enters the battlefield, Deal 3, then your opponent may choose to Call. If they do, Cash Out, then that player takes X damage, where X is the converted mana cost of the revealed card.
1/2

It's keyword heavy, but Call would be an option on certain cards to let your opponent stop certain things from happening. Think Tribute.

File: Altair Military Uniform Princess.png (307KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 375x523px

What do you guys think of Planeswalkers?
Not custom ones, but just in general?
Personally, they seem to be overpowered mess of random spells that come with bonus health and a side effect if you don't deal with them

>>55282128
I think that again ties more into making sure that the effect is something you actually want to have as a surprise. If you have one of these reveal effects just be 'deal 5 damage to target player', then there's literally no reason to not immediately play it as soon as you know it would work.

It has to be things like combat tricks, counterspells, flashed blockers, anything where the goal is to catch your opponent by surprise, so that they're working to not be surprised. If the surprise isn't something they could have really worked to mitigate or played around anyway, then there's no reason to worry about what it it.

File: Mordred.png (322KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 375x523px

kinda like the idea of this ability
It buffs your creature for the turn if they combat someone who doesn't have it. Considered going the Bushido route and giving it a number, but resisted since Bushido was so specific in how cards were designed and I didn't want to design cards around it.

File: Star Platinum The World.png (273KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 375x523px

complete shitmess of a planewalker - the card

>>55282220
That's Flanking, dude.
https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Flanking

>>55282260
>https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Flanking
technically it's not, and funny enough I read flanking but didn't think about it closely enough to consider that it's basically a different version of flanking when I made it

Either way, thanks for pointing it out, I'll reengineer it now since it seems pretty stupid now

>>55282255
I mean, it is a fucking mess, but at least it functions.
It's honestly not terrible, in my opinion.

>>55282302
yeah, I know it's a mess, but I have a softspot for what I tried to do with it, so I'll keep it.

>>55282260
>>55282281
How about
>Swordsmanship X
>When this creature blocks or becomes blocked by a creature without Swordsmanship, it gains first strike and gets +X/+0 until end of turn.
Kinda ruins my hope to avoid a number, but +1/+0 seems shitty

File: Assange of Wikileaks.png (253KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 375x523px

Utility Commander I can only imagine would make the most unfun games

File: hybrids colorless commons.jpg (715KB, 1908x1068px) Image search: [Google]

715KB, 1908x1068px

>>55282177
I tend to think of them as Enchantments that are vulnerable to Red/Black rather than White/Green

It can be very, very difficult to design them properly, and usually a planeswalker that ends up actually being good ends up being completely busted, while any that aren't just don't end up being worthwhile because they either lack the ability to survive or don't do anything if they do survive.

Still, I find they're an overall interesting inclusion.

>>55282322
What's the point of first strike there? You could just give the creature first strike. There is no functional difference between the two interaction wise if it just has first strike all the time.

>>55282322
Gaining first strike as well makes it a pretty powerful ability.
It definitely is the kind of ability that benefits from a number.
It also has flavor, which means you can build more stuff that interacts with it:

Blessed Wakizashi - 2
Uncommon
Artifact - Equipment
Equip 1
Equipped creature gets +1/+!.
If equipped creature has Swordsmanship, equipped creature gains vigilance.

>>55282366
>What's the point of first strike there? You could just give the creature first strike.
Yeah, I'm just shooting in the dark here.
Want to come up with a knight version of Bushido that cancels itself out against others with the ability

>while any that aren't just don't end up being worthwhile because they either lack the ability to survive or don't do anything if they do survive.
My general planewalker design is
>+ ability that's weak buy may protect the planewalker in some way
>+ ability that's stronger and protected the planewalker in some way
>- ability that might not protect, but is useful
>- ultimate that doesn't outright win the game, but close to it
Anything outside that is an exception
Though I usually try to base their ability set off of existing planeswalkers that already exist.
I'm not a huge fan of planeswalkers that act as spamming sticks for nuetral abilities that aren't worth shutting down. I'd rather make them expensive and worth protecting if you want to use them

>>55273712
>I think I'd make it an activated ability though.

Half the point of it being mandatory is Spider-Man's no kill policy.

>>55282432
I can understand that. Personally, I tend to prefer Planeswalkers with 3 abilities. Sometimes I find protection abilites work better as a 0 while having them be stronger, in order to make the choice between advancing to the ult, while the + ability tends to be something to build around more or be part of a larger archetype or strategy. Ultwise, I do agree that they're more interesting when it's a reasonable effect. Something that you want to stop, but won't cause you to lose immediately if you can't.

For my set I only have 2 planeswalkers. One more standard and one more odd. I'm waiting to refine them until I actually work my way up to that rarity though.


Also, in terms of your Knightly Bushido, perhaps instead you could go for it granting Double-Strike? That solves the issue of it needing a number for the power boost, since it does that by giving an extra round of damge, while also solving the problem of putting double-strike on lower rarity cards, which is that them going unblocked and hitting the face is devastating. Less so if it's only when blocked. Unlike with First Strike, there's actually a difference between printing Double strike on a creature and printing a double strike that only works when blocking/blocked.

File: Veska the Vegetative Anomaly.png (294KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 375x523px

>>55282571
I like that, double strike
makes sense because it doesn't do anything when being blocked unless you have trample which I can just avoid giving to anyone

this is probably the strangest planewalker I've come up with outside of the enchantment one, but it doesn't really fit with my random references set

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

42KB, 375x523px

>>55282664
I think I saw that earlier, though it was when it still had plus abilities. Honestly, I think needing to pump mana into it to use its abilites might work better. I would say that the second -1 might get a bit nutty if somebody loads up on RG two-drops, since then they can drop a lot of creatures for free. That's a pretty narrow case though, and having that sort of cost reduction is important for it as a land.


Here's the weirder of the two I was working on. Somewhat inspired by the Gideon from Gatecrash.

>>55282729
since the +1 puts loyalty counters on it and it has a high cost suggesting cards will be in your graveyard, you might consider removing the +1 on it.
>each equal
not sure each equal is the right wording.
You also wanna prevent damage dealt to it because it gets really weird to deal with when you can deal damage to a planeswalker creature. I'm not even sure how it really works. It's why gideon prevents it.

Is the gain life really red/black? I can see red/white or black/white, but red/black?

>>55282774
I figured the +1 was better as a +1 to show that it's function is to put loyalty counters on him, as well as making it so that he's not left entirely straggling if the graveyards are just empty. The extra counter won't make a huge difference a lot of the time.

Each equal is indeed the correct wording. Noted on the preventing damage though.

As for the lifegain, Black gets pure lifegain when it involves a creature dying. Disciple of Griselbrand is a quick and easy example.

>>55282840
>Black gets pure lifegain when it involves a creature dying. Disciple of Griselbrand is a quick and easy example.
What about when it's red though?
Life equal to toughness is very white.
In fact, I'd almost pin that card as BW, but I'm not sure about the + ability since I've only seen that under green from what I remember (gorf)

>>55274208
I quit posting, but I'll come back to say hi to you, Timeanon. I really only swing in here to see if you and COanon are still around. Seems you are. So, cheers. Good luck with the job, man.

>>55282871
It's Red because the last ability is a Fling, for starters. Life equal to toughness is not very White. If anything, it's more Green than Black, but Black still gets it, and I just pointed to a card proving they still get it.

And Goyf cares about card types rather than creature types, and Black and Green are both the graveyard colors, so it's also not really exclusive to either.

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

245KB, 375x523px

>>55282924
>card types rather than creature types
okay yeah, that makes sense then

>>55283110
If you're going to cost it that low, it shouldn't have any conditions. If an opponent can trick you into shooting your own guy, they deserve it when you're spending so little on it.

That aside, it's not like any other Suspend card shied away from it. See Phthisis.

>>55283174
It's more theme related than anything, Death note having a delayed kill effect

>>55283662
Yes, I'm just saying you should take out the "you may" section.

>>55283110
>>55283662
I think Suspend is actually the wrong mechanic for this. Putting some number of Time counters on a creature and giving it Vanishing would fit better.

Of course, that's kind of just Reality Acid at that point.

>>55235906
Trying to get my friends into magic with Ixalan. Some are returning and some are new.
What is the best way to start? There are only 2 starter decks so I dont think I should get them because of mirror matches.

>>55284281
Deck Builder's Toolkit. For around 20$, you get enough cards to make four to five decks and a box to store them.

>>55278033
This is pretty cool, though it's lacking a mana cost.
I think like it would be a nice way to do Eldrazis, instead of making them big dumb creatures.

>>55284745
>though it's lacking a mana cost

Look up Garruk the Slayer. It's a whole thing.

>>55284805
Oh okay, I see what you/they were going for.

>>55282924
Black can fling too, look up Rite of Consumption. It's almost exactly your PW's -4 ability.

>>55282506
Most supers have a no-kill policy. I'm not that worried about it.

File: Leyroad Entrepeneur.jpg (180KB, 744x1039px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 744x1039px

Slightly different version of this. Ignore speculate I dont think thats the right word. Basically differences are
A) the keyword is actually closer to a scry. this means that theres more play and bluffing to do, but more importantly it isnt just making a resource that otherwise doesnt mean anything, since you effectively scryed whether you exile it or not.
And B) You can reveal any facedown exiled card. This makes it a lot loger but its also technically slightly less parasitic. Im not sure if this is totally necessary if the exile isnt pretty much useless outside the ability as it was before.
>>55286815
i really like vigilance and t: remove target creature from combat, tap it, and freeze it for spiderman in WU. That feels damn near perfect imo. Cool gameplay with vigilance and the remove and freeze really feels like webbing somebody to me.

>>55272442
Well, new Vraska kind of steals the thunder from that ultimate now.

File: Hippolyta Amazon Queen3.jpg (53KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 375x523px

I'm also thinking of another version that's more or less the same, but for Equipment.

File: Static Shock3.jpg (53KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 375x523px

I think my complexity addiction is coming back.

>>55287631
Really not a fan of chucking things into exile, though I'm glad it's optional this time. As for bluffing, I'm actually starting to think that that could be detrimental. It could slow down the game if everyone's afraid of a reveal effect. Also, I feel like it should at least be limited to turning face up cards you own.

>>55287631
I think speculate (or whatever name you decide on) could work. It feels like a less powerful Scry, which means it can be put on cheaper creatures.
It also does give possibilities outside of Wagering, as you can choose not to exile the card.
One possible rules conflict I just noticed: as written, you can reveal other people's face-down cards. I don't actually know how to fix this (exiled face-down card you own? I don't know if you control exiled cards).

Wildrunner Envoy - 1G
Common
Creature - Centaur Warrior
As ~ enters the battlefield, it speculates.
When this creature dies, reveal a face-down card in exile you own. If a land is revealed this way, create two 2/2 green Wolf creature tokens.
2/4

>>55287867
I feel like, if the first option was usable, you would always choose the third as well (artifact creatures are still artifacts).
I like all the "each" in this card. Symmetrical effects are always cool.
It seems a bit too powerful against artifact decks, and not powerful enough against non-artifact decks - if your opponent controls seven artifacts, this kills them, but if they don't control any, three of the options do nothing.
Still, a solid sideboard card.

>>55287867
I think im okay with that. The gameplay should be fairly similar to morph. Morph's issue (and probably this as well) is complexity. Both gum up the board with unknowns both players need to track. Im also thinking in general maybe this angle is not the right one just because it is so complex and wordy, though a set built around "luck" and how to mitigate it is intriguing, just maybe not what I want.

Also you are right, it should only allow you to flip up your own cards.

>>55288013
I didnt even think of non activated abilities. That should open a lot of design space.

>>55288086
Meant for >>55288013

>>55288108
Fuck it, you know what it is

>>55288013
>Both gum up the board with unknowns both players need to track.
The big difference here is that, typically, the Morph creatures are hidden information. You don't know what creature exactly your opponents have, or what they can do when turned face-up. Like, let's say there's a Morph creature that counters a spell when turned face-up. Now let's imagine there's a Speculate creature that counters a spell when you use its ability. Personally, I think people would be a lot more careful with their spells around the Speculate creature, since they can see it, than they would be around the Morph creature.

>>55288012
Thanks. I think I'll take out the third option though. Hopefully that evens it out a little.

Rite of Binding - WB
Instant
Exile target creature unless its controller pays 5 life.

Labyrinthine Nature - BG
Sorcery
Target opponent discards up to two cards at random. Search your library for two minus the number of cards discarded this way basic lands and put them onto the battlefield tapped.

Fruitful Research - GU
Instant
Put a creature with converted mana cost 5 or less from your hand onto the battlefield unless target opponent has you draw 2 cards instead.

Forceful Rebuke - UR
Instant
Counter target spell unless its controller sacrifices a land.

Gift of Sunlight - RW
Instant
Deal 5 damage to target creature or player. That creature's controller or that player may have you gain any amount of life. For every 2 life gained that way, prevent 1 damage this spell would deal.

>>55288447
These are some dickish spells. I like that.
Labyrinthine Nature's wording could be cleaned up a bit:
>Target opponent discards up to two cards at random. Search your library for X lands and put them onto the battlefield tapped, where X is two minus the number of cards discarded this way.
It feels weird to only have one sorcery in this "cycle", but that effect would feel weird as an instant, so there's no way around it.

>>55288410
I get what you mean. The morph creature is a facedown card on the field. You always have to see it. The wagered cards arent necessarily always in view. I see what you mean but I think its still okay. Its basically also kind of like energy. Your energy isnt really a trackable thing in view either. I actually think this is a little better in that respect since an etb trigger to exile cards facedown is an unusual thing, cards pretty much never go to exile facedown, and its sort of a built in tracker to be able to count exiled cards versus needing to track energy.

Also design space I think is still an issue. This pretty much as to be something that affects your opponents somehow or otherwise makes things rough for them (so lands/drawing for example but nothing like scrying works i dont think). On top of thst, it has to be something you wouldnt immediately do unless you wanted to. Something like damage to creatures works, but not to players, since while you might want to save removal, theres no reason to not just go face for 3 (though this works on non activated abilities like the death trigger someone posted). Mana costs kind of help but I dont known if they do enough.

>>55289038
I'm sorry, but remind me again what started this project. You've been on it so long, I'm just starting to question if it's even worth your time to keep pursuing.

>>55289292
A splashy mechanic a set could be built around that felt like a "battle of wits" when played that could represent any kind of "duel", or otherwise feel like a trick up your sleeve you would use to "win a duel" flavorfully

Ive tried a couple of different mechanics. I think this one is okay actually but Ive been through atlest two others I thought were okay too so ditching them isnt too hard a thing to do. It may not be worth my time. The reason something like morph doesnt work is because the "thing" in the duel isnt itself obfuscated so the flavor doesnt work. Morph is flavorfully more like a camouflage. But that kind of gameplay is basically I think what I want. But Im willing to accept that even the core premise of mechanic centered on the idea of a "showdown" as a centerpiece itself may not be correct. I just dont feel all options have been explored.

>>55288950
Thanks. Dash Hopes and Browbeat effects are a seriously underused design space.

>>55293813
Rhystic. Failed due to unreliability.

>>55293813
Some of the problems with Browbeat-like effects are the color alignment (White and Green don't feel right for them) and the differing value of resources (forcing a sacrifice could be less valuable than forcing life gain, depending on the deck).
Your cards do a good job of being color-friendly, and I like the effects being on opposite-mana cards, though.
As a counterbalance, here's some color-aligned effects that do the opposite:

Farmer's Tithe - 1GW
Enchantment
Whenever an opponent plays a land, they may tap an untapped land you control. If they do, you gain three life.

Beast's Service - 1RG
Enchantment
Whenever a creature an opponent controls becomes blocked, they may give it trample until end of turn. If they do, create X green 2/2 Wolf creature tokens, where X is that creature's power.

Demon's Payment - 1RB
Enchantment
Whenever an opponent casts a creature spell, they may have you sacrifice a creature. If they do, that creature enters the battlefield with X -1/-1 counters, where X is the sacrificed creature's power.

Warlock's Bargain - 1UB
Enchantment
Any opponent may have you skip your draw step. If they do, that opponent puts the top two cards of their library into their graveyard.

Angel's Sacrament - 1UW
Enchantment
Whenever you cast a noncreature spell, any opponent may give a creature they control hexproof. If they do, copy that spell. You may choose new targets for the copied spell.

>>55270820
>>55271073
Make the Transform trigger based on Enrage from Ixalan.
"You won't like me when I'm angry."

>>55294800
That's the point of the damage prevention though. Changing it to a simple damage trigger means Bruce is killed if the damage is greater than his toughness, or the source had Deathtouch.

>>55294800
>>55294929
Oh yeah, forgot to link the relevant card. >>55271161

File: Unmask.2.jpg (44KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 375x523px

NT: >>55296301
NT: >>55296301
NT: >>55296301
NT: >>55296301
NT: >>55296301