/ccg/ Custom Card General /cct/

...

Like said, this is very strong. Land tutors should at least cost XX. I have included one in my colorfuck set.

Going for a cycle, but haven't come up with an idea for blue yet.

learn a lesson from devoid and do not use this mechanic

>Whenever enchanted creature deals combat damage to a player, you may draw a card. If you do, discard a card.

>Fallout -- blah blah graveyard draw a card.

...

>learn a lesson from devoid and do not use this mechanic
My set also features Devoid. But in my defense (if that even makes sense), I chose to include Devoid in my expansion before it was released as a real mechanic.

There's two reasons why I don't think this would be a good choice:

1) My set has a mechanic called Curiosity (Whenever this creature deals combat damage to an opponent, you may draw a card), so I shouldn't really put another sort of draw-on-damage that is similar but different from that.

2) I have another blue aura that gives the ability mentioned above. So I don't really want to roll with with two auras giving the same ability. Also, I would like if it was a bit different than just giving a keyword, like Warbanner.

> Immunity
This seems a very specific keyword. I could see 1 card with this ability, but making a whole keyword for it is weird. Also, when I first started reason the ability, I was expecting something like "Prevent all combat damage dealt to this creature". I was honestly disappointed.

For the thread edition, decided to go back to some CO stuff. These are both mostly done, I just have a few minor concerns to address before I call them finished.

She-Hulk: I actually really like how this works, but I'm a bit afraid I might've made it too busy. Should I take off one of the last two abilities?

Power Girl: The pump is a vestigial mechanic left over from a previous design. I'm thinking I should just remove it, as it doesn't really serve a purpose here, but the part of me afflicted by Complexity Addiction says it doesn't do enough otherwise. Should I just take the ability off, or change it to something new?

I feel like these are all too disconnected to be a cycle. Sure, they have Fallout, but other than that, what they do to the enchanted creature is so different that I wouldn't have even thought of them as a cycle if you hadn't said they are.

Oh, and Fallout's wording shoudl be
>When ~ is put into a graveyard [...]
Since it's only going to happen once. Oh, and you forgot "from anywhere" on the B one. Additionally, your wording isn't always consistent, as sometimes the Fallout ability uses the name of the card twice (W and G) but other times uses the name once and "it" later (B and R).

Seems pretty cool, though I'm not sure how to cost it, since this basically makes it unblockable.

Incredibly narrow. I realize it can be tempting to do stuff like this though, which is why I had a problem throwing Indestructible on all of my CO cards for a while, because why should this robot die from a Scorpion sting? But it just doesn't create good interactions when you do stuff like this.

>I feel like these are all too disconnected to be a cycle
I actually like the cycle like this. I think it makes it less predictable. Also, take a look Rancor's original cycle, or the similar cycle on Urza's Legacy. They were all quite different from each other.

> Oh, and Fallout's wording shoudl be
> Since it's only going to happen once. Oh, and you forgot "from anywhere" on the B one. Additionally, your wording isn't always consistent, as sometimes the Fallout ability uses the name of the card twice (W and G) but other times uses the name once and "it" later (B and R).
Thanks for pointing these out! I wasn't sure about the "When" vs "Whenever" thing, and the inconsistent of name vs. "it" was just an attention mistake. I've corrected them all now, thanks to you.

I think I will settle for this (pic related) to close 's cycle.

I really like Thing in the Ice

I think you've done a Carol card already but I'm gonna toss my hat into the ring. I wish I had better art but I haven't hit up a /co/ art thread in a long time.
>Shulk
Yeah she's too busy. I'd nix the draw.
>Peej
You know, I've given you input on this card pretty much since you started working on it, and it just now dawned on me: why not give her "attacks each combat if able" to represent how she tends to punch first and think later? Not many of your cards have downsides and I feel like you could cut out the pump and just tack on a clause on the last ability that puts a +1/+1 counter on her when she does get through? That might be a bit much.

...

>Shulk
Got it.

>Peej
I'll try out the attack each turn bit. I actually did something similar on Big Barda, where she had Vigilance and attacked and blocked each combat.

>Carol Danvers
Didn't know she's a Skrull. Though I've honestly never been very interested in this character anyway. Our designs share a few similar traits which is interesting, probably because we both incorporated her vague "manipulates energy" counters as spell triggers and buff. Here's mine for comparison. Hmm, that target-change ability is kinda interesting. I think I'll try to incorporate that into Moonstone.

*"manipulates energy" powers
Why did I say counters?

BTW, any particular character/concept from comics you'd like to see me adapt? I think a few challenges might help me get back into the CO stuff.

...

Was checking Sankaku Complex for big ol' titties art for cards, for some reason decided to search for succubus/demon girl art for cards.

Fallout is too cheap given how comprehensive the trigger is. Fallout on instant/sorceries will trigger just from it resolving.

I think it would be more fitting if it was:
> [...] with toughness less than Enslaving Succubus's power [...]
Because the power of the succubus is charming and seduction, so it should "fight" the creature's will rather than strength (toughness is not exactly will, but its closer than strength).

You know, I was actually thinking of doing that. Thanks.

>Fallout on instant/sorceries will trigger just from it resolving.
I wasn't supposed to put it on non-permanents. Forgot about that when I did Call of the Claw.

I have no idea what I'm doing

I'd say overcosted. Conceptually cool, though.

Wanted a R and U effect because of the artwork. But for some reason this design feels very familiar. Is there a previous card very similar to this I'm forgetting?

I think it's OK. Screams aggro.

I actually think this could be pretty cool. Maybe have the opponent sac at random? But would that be too strong as-is?

Oh yeah, and I just realized that the order of the abilities should be flipped around. Whoops.

OK, last one for tonight. Ability is supposed to be a bit of a throwback to Guardian Beast. Flash so you can fuck over your opponents if they try to take your stuff.

>Skrull
WHERE? She's part Kree in one arc or something; I forget. They've done so much goddam off the wall shit with her that I don't even know anymore. Your Carol seems as I remember it.

Hm. It's been a while since you asked. What about Section 8? I don't think you've done them yet.

Ayo Timeanon. I see a rework has occurred. Looks good. I like that it's a 1-drop now; I have a thing for 1-drops. You still super-busy with work or will you be stopping by more often?

>WHERE?
Meant to say Kree. Fuck, what's wrong with me?

>Section 8
Aw fuck. ...No. I'm sorry, I can't do these guys, pick someone/something else. I never intended to do these guys because their entire concept is a stupid joke. The only one I could even consider doing is the welder. He would somehow create Hound creature tokens, then sac them for Murder.

I can dig it. I'd play it in EDH. Actually a shame it's not Legendary. I like the suggestion about P v. T too.

She looks a bit too... young girlish to be a Grixis Succubus. But maybe that's her trick? I dunno. I dunno if I'd want this at uncommon; would you want to stare two of these down in a draft?

Seems really off in black, even with its avaricious themes. I feel like this would be in green nowadays or something. Maybe I'm wrong.

AWWWWW. I love Section 8. Oh well.

I'll throw ALL the demonic bewbs on the fire!

>I see a rework has occurred. Looks good.
Thanks! Glad you like it. Think it's common material?
>You still super-busy with work or will you be stopping by more often?
First year teaching has me swamped, but I lurk every thread and post when I can. I'll definitely be around, I'll just be slow about actually making cards.
>Gryfflet
That's adorable. I love it. Good way to make flying men marginally more useful, too.

>Think it's common material?
Hm. Yeah, I think so. It self-targets, and costs you a card every time, so unless your set is rife with recursion mechanics it's actually sort of a steep cost. I think that might be one reason why Spellshapers fell out of favor. Well that and they make for a repetitive board state and PWs killed them. I do still love them though.
>Gryfflet
I purposely nerfed the gustcloaking to not untap it so it wouldn't be too good.

Seems fine, though I've always not felt right about the combat-fleeing effects being in W instead of R.

I dunno if the wording on that is right. There aren't many cards that discount equip costs to compare to though.

Yeah, I felt that too when making it. I first thought of writing it as:
"Abilities of Equipment that target ~ cost 1 less." but that felt awkward.
Maybe, "Equip abilities targetting ~ cost 1 less"?

>I can dig it. I'd play it in EDH. Actually a shame it's not Legendary. I like the suggestion about P v. T too.
Well, I could easily make it legendary.

>She looks a bit too... young girlish to be a Grixis Succubus. But maybe that's her trick? I dunno. I dunno if I'd want this at uncommon; would you want to stare two of these down in a draft?
Good point on rarity. I said Grixis just because it's the biggest thing related to UBR. What else is there, the Nightscape stuff from Dominaria?

>Seems really off in black, even with its avaricious themes. I feel like this would be in green nowadays or something. Maybe I'm wrong.
I don't really know where this ability would go. I guess G would be one of the obvious answers. For some reason I like Guardian Beast though.

>AWWWWW. I love Section 8. Oh well.
I'll see about doing the Dogwelder then.

Not entirely sure on costing this, but it seems OK right now.

I think this should be something like
>Equip abilities you activate that target ~ cost 1 less to activate.

From my own recent experiments with Equipment tokens, I'd recommend just replacing this with an Equipment itself.

W
Artifact - Equipment
Flash
When ~ enters the battlefield, you may attach it to target creature you control.
Equipped creature gets +1/+1.
Equip 2

Either way, feels a bit too complex for common.

I dunno how I feel about doing just a 1 of colored artifact at uncommon. I'm already using Weapon tokens, so I felt it would be fine to make another source besides the current.

Eh, OK, use the tokens then. BTW, why name the tokens?

A friend brought up there wasn't any precedence for an equipment token, or any non-creature artifact token for that matter, without a name. I think the reasoning is Artifact tokens all survey some kind of general purpose, but different ones.
Clues got their own name, Gold did, Treasure does, so it's probably the safe bet that an equipment token needs one too.

Serve some kind*

First, Gold is a name. Clue and Treasure are types. But they're also names, because, just as with creature tokens, the subtypes of artifact tokens also set their names.
>110.5c A spell or ability that creates a token sets both its name and its subtype. If the spell or ability doesn’t specify the name of the token, its name is the same as its subtype(s). A “Goblin Scout creature token,” for example, is named “Goblin Scout” and has the creature subtypes Goblin and Scout. Once a token is on the battlefield, changing its name doesn’t change its subtype, and vice versa.
Notice how this doesn't specify creature token.

Or just make it an Aura with "2: Attach to target creature. Sorcery only etc."

Lifelink puts it over the top at that mana cost since you could suicide one a turn to offset the life cost.

Good point. I'll change em to just Equipment.

In your defense, they only changed that rule somewhat recently. Before Shadows, it only affected creature tokens.

>card
>Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to ~ by token creatures.

Makes an interesting counterpoint to something I made ages ago (Since Fighting a creature isn't combat damage)

...

This is very cute. I love the effect. I'd really like to see it in a Planar Chaos kind of set, where all these little niche exceptions really mater.
Truesteel is only here sense Sultai has so many token creatures.

... costs 2 less TO ACTIVATE if ...

Someone a long while ago pointed out the first version was too strong, bringing up the comparison to fateseel. I figure this is weaker sense it provides more information to everyone, and gives you less control.

An over coasted Man-o-war that turns into an over costed flash-backed Unsubstantiate

It was made alongside this when I was dicking about with fight stuff.

Oh and this.

I don't see what this is white

Investigate. Mind you, it was made back when we only had spoilers for the set (So that green got investigate wasn't known).

...

This effect has only ever been seen in Blue through Shared Fate, so I don't really feel it would be right outside of the color. This also really doesn't fit B sense I don't think B would ever want to try and take your opponents strategy like this.
UR is the home for this.

Not him, but B already has a number of cards that allow you to play with your opponents' cards. This fits BR pretty well because it's R for wheel, B for stealing cards. Though it should allow players to spend mana like it's any type to cast the cards.

B wouldn't let your opponent play with yours though is the issue. Also B has always been selective about it, so at most I think R making it less controlled would justify it, but not letting your opponent draw as well takes it out of B.

This is a very easy 2-for-1 at instant.

The flavortext agrees with you.
I'll make it 4 mana how about that? It's stil super combat and creature dependent.

This is way too cheap for free repeated token generation.

Woops that was the wrong card. I scrapped that forever ago.

Do templates exist for contraptions? I like the full-art-but-with-a-text-box look even outside of making stuff like this

There's the M15 Clear template

Making a dream-based set, and have come up with my dream mechanic. Thoughts? Enchantments that are relatively strong for their cost, but you can only have one dream out at a time, which kinda makes them beyond legendary I guess? So if you have out Dreary Village, playing Dead World kills it. If you already have a Dreary village and you play another one then nothing really happens, the old one goes to the grave and your opponent's monsters stay at -1/-1.

With that in mind, please tell me if anything is broken for their cost regardless, as it's something I've always had a bit of trouble with

Feels like a very clunky mechanic, that forces decks to play a very select few of these dream cards or else they'll get punished for having to sac resources.
I think it would be better if the Dreams all had a charge counter system and once used up you "Wake up" from the dream and then they get sac'd or shuffled into library or something.
Themes aside, lets actually talk about the cards.
>Dead World
Feels alright. it's a big mana investment at sorcery speed, but sense it's an entry trigger I'm not sure why Dead World isn't just a sorcery instead of an enchantment.

>Spirit woods
Seems fine though a little strong for a common.

>Aether Train Stop
Doesn't feel very U. I also don't really see why you should reward yourself for playing defensive by getting to play more defensibly. Even control decks need to try and kill their opponent at some point.

>Dreary Village
A generally better, commmon rarirty, Night of the Soul's Betrayal definitely shouldn't be a common or cost 2 mana. Definitely needs to be redesigned or scrapped.

There is one too many X here imo.

Gotta love me some Moomin.

I have plans to add more stuff interacting specifically with dreams, such as fetch and destruction, though I'm not sure how much would help.

Dead world is an enchantment for the sake of interaction. You can bounce it to play it again, though it could also be seen as an additional casting cost, since by that point in the game you almost certainly have a dream out already.

Spirit woods is now uncommon

Yeah, that's probably the third or fourth attempt to come up with something for that image and nothing seems to quite work out. The problem is that I want to make something with a "patiently waiting" feel to it, but waiting isn't very interesting

How about just -1/-0 so it doesn't kill 1/1s?

I also need to make a red dream

They never turned up in the same set but they'd be fun to see together.

>send this card to the graveyard
Should be: "sacrifice this enchantment". Also Dream should be capitalized since it's a subtype.

>target any number of creatures in your graveyard and return them to the battlefield tapped.
Should be "return any number of target creatures cards from your graveyard to the battlefield tapped". There are no creatures in your graveyard, and the target wording was awkward.

Also a bit OP on the balance side.

>Landfall: Put a 1/1 green spirit token with "Sacrifice this creature: Add {1} to your mana pool" onto the battlefield.
Landfall is an ability word, meaning that it is practically flavor text.
It is not followed by a colon (:) because it's not a cost to pay.
It always needs its condition in its text (because the word Landfall has no bearing on the rules): Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, ...

Also, "Put a (token) onto the battlefield" has been changed to "Create a (token)".

Also, Spirit should be capitalized since it's a subtype.

>creatures you control that did not attack
"that did not attack THIS TURN"

>Dreary Village
A much cheaper Curse of Death's Hold. Scrap this idea.

I think it should investigate on combat damage to a player. But otherwise, really cool.

...and to finish my thought, detain when you sac a Clue

I'd considered that but I was a bit worried that as a 3/3 for 5 with no real evasion, she'd rarely make it. Still, not like I'm making a full set or something where balance needs to be perfectly tuned.

Tinkering with it along with a bit more stuff playing in the space.

...

...

This is not here yet?
Gonna post a card or two about the combinations I got.

(...and I meant the 6-7 option.)
Combination:
>Orc - Insect

I have two issues with this card:

1) I don't really the artwork style. I know its about boobies, but it doesn't really seem the sort of artwork a MtG card would have.

2) What if this copies a goblin? Will it be a hot female goblin? How does THAT works out?

>Seems pretty cool, though I'm not sure how to cost it, since this basically makes it unblockable.
I think the cost is fine. There's about 7 cards that have "protection from creatures", I think most of them are costed 4 or less.

>You may put an Aura or Equipment card from your hand onto the battlefield attached to target creature you control. If you do, return that Aura or Equipment to your hand at the beginning of the next upkeep.

bleh

I get what you're going for, but Magic's comp rules don't define what a detained creature, so I highly doubt this works as-is.

Also, wording should be
>its owner's hand.

Rolled 159 (1d238)

I'll have a go. Let's see if I can incorporate the thread theme, that was fun last time.

Hmm...you are right. It defines what detaining a creature means but not that the creature IS detained. Bother.

>159. Pirate
Pfft, that's lucky. Anyway, here's the card. I don't like how MTG.Design autocrops from the image URL, but I'm not at my comp right now, and it's close enough for now.

Yeah, sorry about that. I guess you could try to trigger off detaining though.
>Whenever you detain a creature, [...]

Could work, yeah. Turning a detain into an unsummon.