/ccg/ Custom Card General /cct/

Just add the clause "and can't lose life until end of turn" to the first sentence, and it's fine.

I'd change that to fading instead of vanishing, just because as it is you always play it for X = 0 to get a 1 cost 2/2.

I feel like you could word this more cleanly by using +1+1 counters and removing one per turn, then sacrificing it when there are none left.

Is this too strong or weak at common?

I'd personally just make it a 0/0 and have it enter with X+2 counters.

Or just removing one per turn, and letting it stick around in the edge case that you have an anthem supporting it.

Question /ccg/, how does something like this work instead of making new ally/enemy lands? Does it break from the fact that green has a lot of enchantment counters? We do have mana rocks so why not enchantment mana buffs.

It breaks because that's a monogreen ability if on an enchantment.

Now if you made it a colorless fortification, then you'd be onto something.

Oh good, this is still here.

How do I change the main font to Beleren? My custom cards look really junk without the trademark Magic font.

Do you have the beleren font installed on your PC? You can find a link to it at the top of the MSE forums post for extra templates.

It's fine as is. Weak in limited, but quite powerful in the right deck. Scry doesn't need to be capitalised.

>Transform edition!

...

...

S'alright. Mostly just gives your creatures unblockable for a turn.

Seems counterproductive. His transform trigger sweeps creatures away but his +1 and -2 want creatures on the board.

Only green gets mana ramp/fixing that efficient, not white.

A big downside to Haunt is that there's no may clause. If there's an available target you have to haunt it, so you cant do cards that buff or nerf the haunted creature (or you can and it creates feel-bad moments since haunts are not entirely under your control.)

Grim Moroii is cheeky, but cool.

I liked this better when it was a one shot trial.

Believe it or not, this design is actually similar to a version of Batman I did. Wait, I actually never did reach a consensus on him.

I'll probably just get rid of the damage from his Transform trigger then.

...

Piss, forgot image.

...

Trying to make a set with Taurs/Loxodons v. Horrors/Wizards.

Is this p/t balanced?

As long as you don't have something that makes three 1/1 minotaur tokens, it should be fine.

Minotaur tokens would all have the same name.

I completely missed the different name bit. It's so mediocre against any deck with removal.

Exactly. I actually do have an enchantment that turns a dead creature into a spirit taur, and one big sorcery that summons eight for one round, but the name thing catches that.

Huh. I just realized, I actually have way more loxodons than I do taurs, I should fix that.

I'd bump that to a 2/1 at least, as is there's no reason not to cast it normally.

...

...

...

Doesn't seem all that worth it to use as its hydra side.

Why would anyone ever want to run this?

Personally, i would prefer if it remained an equipment, even if you wanted it to be Enchantment Artifact - Equipment, and just didn't have an equip cost. Bonus points for "When equipped creature dies, transform ~" on the back.

Costs might need adjusting, but the crux of the idea is that you can power up your Equipment with the risk of losing it if you don't have mana to flip it back. If it was to remain an Equipment, I'd not bother with the double-sidedness.

...

Combine this with a Tainted Remedy for a table clear.

...

Normally I hate mixing hybrid and multicolor, but that cost is aesthetically pleasing. Card's cool too. Flavor's on point. Good job, user!

An X/X for XG is already really weak. An X/X that just keeps getting weaker is trash. The only way that'd see play is if people really REALLY needed shitty ramp.

Not him, but what if, when it died, you could tutor a basic land for each +1/+1 counter on it?

The closest thing we have to that is New Frontiers, which fetches up to X basic lands and costs XG, but it lets everybody fetch. A one-sided fetch would be absurdly powerful.

Well, I've put this off for long enough. Tim Drake, Red Robin, yes, that's his real name, no, I don't think the writer was aware of the existence of a restaurant of the same name when he came up with it. Anyway, his deal is that he's a bit weaker than the rest of the Batfam, but he's easily one of the smartest.

XXG?

Why not
"Whenever ~ attacks, you may tap or untap up to two target permanents."

Also, would anyone offer their thoughts on this?

Oh, also new Cass, since I got some complaints about Prowess before. Now replaced with flicker.

I believe with that wording, you can only tap two permanents or untap two permanents. But with Tim, you could tap a permanent, then untap a different permanent.

>card
This isn't Blue at all. And why would a cryomancer have the classic freeze ability? You know, something like "tap target creature. It doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step."

>why would a cryomancer
Meant to say "why wouldn't" since "cryo" implies freezing.

>Tim
Yeah, I was thinking about that after I posted.
I'm not sure if the second wording restricts that, but why change it if the first one works, right?

>card
Honestly the names less important to me than the mechanics and colors being right.
Does this feel right for a blue/red card?
And what's a name for a cryomancer/pyromancer, as in both?

This is fucking love. Not very playable, mind you, but goddamn that's Goblin-flavored.

I feel like this version might be way too good, but I'd like to hear what everyone has to say.

I like more. Also, the proper wording is
>1R, T: ~ deals 3 damage to target creature or player.

Also, I might steal this design for something.

It'll be interesting if you can summon a Batman character in a hidden way using this. Possibly face down until all tokens and Bat Swarm is gone? That sounds a little too good.

Tried to make a card based on a character I played in a game recently, a DnD homebrew playing newly ignited Planeswalkers who are lost as fuck and trying to figure out what the shit is going on. I went more for flavor than for power, and tried to keep it balanced. The Ult used to be -5, but a Judge I talked to up here at my FLGS advised that -7 would be better, or if I wanted -5 then to lower the starting Loyalty to 3.

I figure it'd go well in Doran EDH, or a wall deck with Doran and Assault Formation.

Nice. I'll keep the cost for sure then. It feels more interesting too.

>Hybrid mana
>Tiny text
Well, this is going to hurt.

OK, the Defender stuff needs to go, and change the second ability to something other than Gideon.

Yeah, the card maker I use does NOT support different sized text boxes, like, at all. I don't think I've ever seen a card maker that does support that sort of thing.

I like it at -5 with the 4 loyalty. This is a 6 cost after all.

Yeah, not even MSE can do it. Kinda annoying. But still, please come up with a different ability.

MSE is actually what I use. And maybe I will sometime, but as it is that's meant to be fluffy (her roll was straight up tank while charging power, then whipping off the gloves and beating ass).

Yeah, I thought so too. Here's the older version, if you care.

Maybe make the last ability so they lose defender and gain vigilance? It seems kind of bad otherwise.

That'd be too strong with that wording. Maybe 'Creatures you control lose defender. If they do, they gain vigilance.' ? Otherwise all your creatures get vigilance, and that's just OP.

>OP
On a SIX drop?
Six mana gets you double fucking strike AND lifelink. And that's right away. On that PW it takes a full turn to happen assuming nothing pings it.

Yeah, there's not really good art for this. The idea is that an "afterimage" of the person lives on for a short time due to timeline fuckery.

I like it, but it should be leaves instead of leave.

What would a mechanic be called that's
"When you cast this spell, copy it"

I just remembered that Hot Pursuit exists. And it turns out another character got the title. Cool. Wording taken mostly from Meandering Towershell, in case anyone's curious.

My first thoughts are "echo" and "duplicate" which are both in use. Uh... I'll have to get back to you on that. Though really, it shouldn't be all that hard to change the wording of a card to account for its own effect twice.

I was thinking that it sort of plays around counterspells, and it could have fun design ideas such as "If ~ is a copy, gain effect" and the like.

Maybe multicast?
Then it could have multicast X where X is the number of copies.
Something like this.

Red shouldn't tap down. Make this 1UR if you really want the tap part.

This card is almost bonkers, the fact you have to flash in before declared attackers though is what tones it down. I will say, with out the "your side has haste" part it doesn't feel that red. Interesting mechanic.

How often do you really think you're going to be running into counters though? And in that case, you could just make a spell uncounterable. The problem is that this looks pretty much exactly like Replicate.

Well, it's a first draft. I'll have to refine it in the future.

>card
Ugh... who holds this guy in renown?

Or something like this.

Why would I want to play 2RR to deal four damage at sorcery speed? Exquisite Firecraft and Fireblast do it cheaper, Meteor Blast does it to more if I dump more mana in. Being somewhat harder to counter isn't enough for me to want to run slow burn.

>Ugh... who holds
What?

It is a common so it being shit is whatever, it allows you to target 2 different targets, and each copy is buffed by things that buff damage. Frankly being able to shock 2 things with 1 card in a draft is pretty solid and this would be an alright card.

>it allows you to target 2 different targets
Not as worded.

>each copy is buffed by things that buff damage
Which occur roughly once in a Blood Moon. Since you're not posting a set, we can't evaluate it based on whatever you're sticking in to support it.

Not my card, just pointing out it isn't as bad as it seems. I'm guessing they intend for the copies to be retargetable.

Not different enough from "up to two target"

>What?
That was my way of saying he's gross, and I don't know why he'd ever be renowned. That's just a fluff thing though.

This is just a proof of concept more than anything.
I'll have to see if it warrants being a keyword, and why it might. Thanks.

>He is gross
If all the feed back you have to porvide are nit-picks you should consider keeping them to your self, or at least taking the time to put them into actual words the first time instead of a vague mess of words.
>why he'd ever be renowned
You clearly aren't familiar with what the word means to not understand why a red creature would fit well with renown, flavor-wise.

Does this seem fine as a card?

Oh no, I do have other feedback to provide. But considering how salty you've gotten, I'm going to try to irritate you just for fun now.

>If all the feed back you have to porvide are nit-picks you should consider keeping them to your self, or at least taking the time to put them into actual words the first time instead of a vague mess of words.
This coming from someone who can't spell to save his life. Fucking brilliant. Don't worry, I'm sure after you're done with middle school, you'll learn to use a dictionary. Or at least be smart enough to install a browser with spell checker.

>If Justicebound Giest is renowned, it has flying.
Wrong wording, by the way.

>getting this worked up for being told to do more then nit-pick
kek

Nah, I'm just having fun.

>card
Wording for second and third abilities is wrong. What a surprise. You do actually look at Magic cards, right?

Why not use Kicker?
Kicker X
Counter target spell unless controllers pays 1.
If ~ was kicked, counter that spell instead.

You need to add "(... copy it. You may chose new targets for the copy.)" to the ability multicast or esle it is utterlly useless. Why would I pay 4 mana to tax and counter a spell? I'm guessing the idea is you can tax 1 spell and counter another, but that won't work in the current wording. The keyword needs to be changed. See cards like Duelcaster Mage or Increasing Vengeance for examples of wording help.

Interesting concept, but I'm not sure if it being an ability word because you can't build around it, you have to rely on your opponents. What if they aren't aggressive? What if they don't use many creatures? What if they use Exalted?

Can we please get along.

Ah, thanks I'll change the mechanic to fit then. It was meant to target more than one thing.

You bring up fair points. Maybe I could have it be based on the number of times your opponent has transgressed you in some way? Like, "If an opponent has targeted you or a permanent you control this turn..." or, "If you or a permanent you control has been dealt damage this turn..."

How do you remove this without a board wipe? You can't kill it without creatures and it blanked most removal spells.

Plus the last ability is literally hexproof that triggers the soul sisters

Git gud

Well you could cast a bolt on her, then trickbind her ability trigger.

Isn't this literally replicate?

That first ability is either absurdly OP or utter trash depending on how much support it has in set.
Either that or you need to learn Magic.

Should be formatted lik forecast. Also how do you reveal it from your deck? And it might alsI want a limit on how often you can do its, since as is this card is kinda busted