/ccg/ Custom Card General /ccg/

...

Trying to get these two at more or less the same power level.

I don't even know what colors this ability should be.

Shroud is dead, Islandwalk is dead.

Just give it Trample. Not really a fan of coin-flips.

So, a slightly better Loxodon Smiter? Meh.

>Incarnate mechanic
>Could be interesting, but possibly overpowered.
I've kept a pretty good handle on the costs, so it shouldn't be much of an issue. I will continue to keep an eye on it, though.
>AEthersatz
>I'd watch this card, more for its contribution to fun than for power level.
Keeping it limited to rare should prevent it from cropping up enough to be unfun. Additionally, there are ways to play against Incarnate included in the set.
>Ephemeral Wanderer
>That first ability is just confusing. Just ditch it and make it cost 4UU straight up.
The first ability is pretty straightforward. If you cast it, it bounces back to your hand. UW has a flash/etb subtheme in limited, and this card was designed to play into that.
>Being uncounterable is primarily red/green too, with the monoblue exceptions intended as budget finishers for Control in Constructed.
The 4UU ability isn't to make the creature uncounterable, it's to allow it to be played at all. Not having an option to get this onto the battlefield permanently would make it a bum rare in limited. As is, 6cmc is about average for 5/5 flyers at rare in blue, with some having additional upsides or better bodies at that cost. The uncounterability is a minor advantage at best, especially where limited is concerned (which is primarily what I am designing for).
>Ascended Experimenter
The time counter ability is there to play well with the vanishing cards in limited, it does little on its own. The card draw is the meat of the ability.
>Get rid of the card draw and move the card to common or uncommon
All common and uncommon slots are filled.
>Dimensional Divergent
>Blue is not the army colour, white is, which makes the attack trigger all wrong.
This, I feel, is patently ridiculous. White is the "army color," and so no other colors can have attack triggers? What about Military Intelligence, or any number of other blue cards that trigger on attacks or damage?

Thank you for your extensive feedback, user.

...

I like how the gating ability enables the regeneration. Clean, self-contained synergy. Not sure if it belongs at uncommon, but I like the card a lot.

Wording needs fixing, but I like the gist of this ability.

evasion+protection+specter/ophidian means it needs to cost more than 3.

4/1 haste is too much for 2 mana. Up the cost or give it a downside when you lose the flip.

>Loxodon Smiter
Boring.

It should probably have "up to one target creature" as well.

It takes a couple readings to figure out what's going on, but I like what it's doing. Maybe have it exile only one card? Your opponents are never going to exile more, and I don't think it needs to cycle your whole hand.

Decided to improve the stats and add Regen after feedback from the last thread. Though I'm wondering if it should somehow be restricted so it can't just keep piling on counters on one land.

It should be worded so that you don't need to target a creature. Probably best to just add a "may" clause.

Why would anyone who isn't you exile more than one card this way?

>It should be worded so that you don't need to target a creature.
Why?
>Why would anyone who isn't you exile more than one card this way?
They wouldn't in almost every case, but this wording keeps things both open and concise, and was by far the shortest wording for the desired effect.
>Sprout6
That's a lot of free value, but is comparable to Noyan Dar. The cheap regeneration does take a lot of the risk out of animating your lands, and I can't say that I'm a fan of it as it makes the card much less fun to play against (triggering from creatures already cuts the value of your opponents' removal in half, as opposed to Noyan Dar's instant/sorcery trigger). However, there isn't anything technically wrong with it, so it comes down to personal choice, really.
>It should probably have "up to one target creature" as well.
Why?
>It takes a couple readings to figure out what's going on, but I like what it's doing. Maybe have it exile only one card? Your opponents are never going to exile more, and I don't think it needs to cycle your whole hand.
I could probably tone it down a bit, yeah. Glad you like the concept, though.

...

Why are they 4 cost?

>Why?
Because, as it's worded now, you can't cast it without a creature to target. And why should an artifact removal spell hinge on also having a creature available to target?

>Sprout
Noted. I'll probably play around with it a bit more, but this definitely looks like I'll be sticking to land-animation with this one.

>Blast Radius
Eh, I think I'd make it uncommon.

Because I obviously thought the effects were worth that much. How much should they be?

...

ive no idea, but i guess this card would break formats... right?

...

...

...

...

flexibility is what breaks it imo, you should maybe look into making it cost 1-2 regular U together with 3-2 phrexians.

...

not sure, the thing about modern is that most decks cant afford to be paying 8 life ever, and 6 life isnt much better

not sure this would even be played in modern outside of really niche cases like a combo deck that had one just for the turn it combos off

a lot different in legacy and vintage, where it has advantages and disadvantages compared to force of will

...

...but why tho?
>but i guess this card would break formats... right?
Yes, it would break legacy and vintage at the least; it would be insane in vintage pitch dredge, and is also in general way too good against non-aggro decks as a sideboard option for basically any format.
Why?

Could use some balance help with a couple of cards for a set. This one in particular seems iffy, but i figure the situation where you can use both effects is rare.

i never see anybody make high cmc cards in these threads, its always really pushed 1-5 cmc cards, so i made a cycle of titanic creatures

>i figure the situation where you can use both effects is rare.

lol all you need is one of these in play and another in your hand

This one is fun. Two themes in the set are Gold and coin flips.

sooooo bump cost?

...

not saying that i just thought it was a funny statement

any deck that wants the card is going to be using both effects constantly

i think the fact that it only counters creature spells is enough to make it not extremely overpowered but it would def be annoying to play against on the draw

oh! Well that's a good thing, blue aims to be irritating.

>Hydra: "I'll take fifty gold pieces in exchange for one of my heads."

lol that card is totally broken, compare to quickling & spellstutter sprite, or hell, compare it to remove soul and is totally OP.
>but i figure the situation where you can use both effects is rare.
To some extent, you certainly won't be able to counter a spell and save a creature with bounce, but you can counter a spell + reset an enter the battlefield ability, as you might notice it itself has a pretty good enter the battlefield ability, meaning having 2 of these (1 in battlefield, 1 in hand) means you have infinite remove souls, and because returning the creature to your hand is a casting cost, that lock is basically impervious to any form of removal too. (edicts do it, but not much else)
increase the mana cost to like, 4 (3 *could be safe for draft, I doubt that's a good idea though) or something and make the creature return a trigger like quickling and then I think the card will be fine.

...

I'd put that at an uncommon

Awesome, that's exactly the kind of thing I come here for. I honestly wasn't thinking of the card interacting with itself. Probably will set it to 4 to be safe.

fair enough, getting the upside is quite strong.

Last two for tonight, don't wanna spam.

...

...

i think you want to word this one "you may cast it as though it had flash by doing ______ in additional to paying its mana cost"

Would both work well with Darksteel Rod.

Also;

You could make When Accomplished Sellsword enters the battle field, put a +1 +1 counter on him for each artifact you control, and give him trample, and change him to rare. It might be a green card under those circumstances, but it would be hilariously fun with Darksteel Rod and other 0 cost artifacts.

Art's taken

1. Alright yeah I figured it would need editing.

2. Maybe just drop shroud?

3. Alright, maybe just drop him from combat? Or prevent half his damage rounded down?

4. This was a flavor choice. Knight of pentacles is supposed to be just efficient and dull, so I figured a better but legendary smiter would be a good fit.

1. I feel it's pretty Wu since it exiles but also has a sphinx sort of feel to it (which is traditionally blue).

2. Not really worried about dead mechanics I guess.

3/4. Flavor choice for these. Wands is headstrong but not forward thinking, so they're likely to overlook something (represented by low toughness, but can potentially be successful). Pentacles is boring but efficient and reliable so that's why it's just a better smiter.

...

Uncommon

Is this more common?

This could potentially be pretty oppressive. Each trigger helps the next trigger fire off. The first proc will be a wild guess, but the information gained from that first one can be used for the next creature spell. Yes, the opponent gets ETB triggers and a replacement spell, but you just need to name correctly name something that's useless. On the other hand, there's some counterplay for the opponent - play all the weak spells first so that only strong spells remain, giving you a Sophie's Choice. (Like the Tribute mechanic.) Watch this card carefully.

See Hypnotic Specter and other Specters for an idea of how overpowered that ability is on a 3-drop. Also landwalking and shroud are dead, and hexproof (replacement for shroud) may be dead in the next year or two as well.

There's a much cleaner template you can use here. See also Ride Down.

Haste, trample
Whenever ~ becomes blocked, flip a coin. If you win the flip, tap each creature blocking it and remove that creature from combat.

4/4 would still be plenty strong for a 3-drop. See also Loxodon Smiter.

Maybe try +1/+1 and lowering to 3cmc if playtests show they're not that exciting.

They're not perfect mirrors here. One effectively draws you that card, while the other is not a discard. A closer mirror would be for both to put your topdeck into your hand and then gain/lose life, or for both to mill the top card and gain/lose life from that. For cards clearly meant to be mirrors, you definitely want to make them better mirrors.

Not sure that template can actually work. Try one of these.

Destroy up to two target artifacts. For each artifact destroyed this way, you may put a time counter on a creature.

>Yes, this one uses a doubled template ala Seeds of Strength.
Destroy target artifact. If you do, you may put a time counter on target creature.
Destroy target artifact. If you do, you may put a time counter on target creature.

>Swords
I didn't really want Sin to discard because I thought that would make it too strong. And I don't want to make them literally the same except that one gains life and one loses life, which is what you're suggesting. I think.

Needs better art and a better name, but other than that how's this look?

The gating mechanic has historically allowed creatures to be more powerful than normal at their point in the power curve. You may be able to push 6/6 here, but keep it to 5/5 for initial playtesting since you're at uncommon here.

Interesting mechanic for team multiplayer formats, but also allows the controller to cycle their hand of dead cards. The cycling could be problematic in duels, it allows control players to get exactly the cards they need very quickly.

I left a comment at ().

Cone of Flame divides six damage in fixed increments and is able to hit players, but restricting to just creatures means you could probably do this at five mana just fine. See how it goes.

Sideways: the Tappening. As an aggro player, I like this card.

Might want to disable regeneration too while you're at it. I'd also want to make this a 6-drop or 5-drop, would probably be just fine without any other changes to power.

>somepeoplejustwanttowatchtheworldburn.jpg

No further comment.

12-drop is outright unplayable in Limited unless you've got a format like RoE or RtZ, and unlikely to be hard-cast in Constructed. I'd suggest lowering the cost and P/T.

Squadron Hawk in red. My aggro senses are tingling, but they also say trading an evasion for haste makes it much weaker.

Silumgar Sorcerer has the more elegant execution, and shows you need to cost this at least 1UU since you're just bouncing rather than sacrificing. Also runs into the problem described by where you lock your opponent out of the creature game, in addition to getting a potential Fog effect if you have enough mana open.

...For each creature tapped this way, its controller puts...

Interesting tribal card.

I feel like the moving parts of this card pushes it to uncommon, but probably fine at common too.

...

So... a permanent card?

yes, see the green vessel from SOI

Coin flips have only ever been printed in red and artifacts. Should put some red in that cost somewhere.

Too close to Counterspell in general effectiveness.

With that base P/T, may want to be uncommon. If you keep it at common, try 3/1.

See Harbinger of Tides and Rout for a better template. That said, red's not really a defensive colour, so I question this creature in red. It'd probably be too good in white though.

Seems alright. Probably want a mana cost on that activation too though.

Zulaport Cutthroat is uncommon. Deathgreeter is a common B for a 1/1. Not sure where this card would fit in rarity.

Satyr Wayfinder says hello.

>Industrial Sabotage
Sorry, that second template should either be "up to one target creature" or it shouldn't target at all, for reasons mentioned by other posts.

Your design intent is acknowledged, but there are several stories of actual cycles where the fanbase demands to know why it's not a proper cycle. People will pick up on subtle differences, the same way I pointed out. If your intention is to make them a pair, they should mirror each other more closely for aesthetic reasons. If you don't want them to mirror too closely, change their names, CMC, casting cost, and P/T bonus so they stop resembling each other. By stating that you want them to be similar power level though, you've kind of put yourself in the Mirror position.

Interesting take on token doubling in red.

Looks alright.

I don't really see why that doesn't say "permanent card" either. I guess they think players are stupid and they're not wrong.

...

>Swords
OK, great. Problem is I don't know if they CAN properly mirror each other at the same power level. Just tell me, would moving Sin to discard instead of mill and keeping everything else about both cards the same, would it be objectively better than Salvation? After that, I can make a decision.

If you're going to make it strictly worse than Altar Reap, at least give it a small green upside.

This is cool.

Agreed that the ability needs a mana cost, or the Speaker himself needs to cost more.

Red doesn't get flash, especially value-flash.

1/2

2/2
Feedback is much appreciated.

Bleh. Not very original, I know.

Ugh, not a fan of Chinese menu design.

Refer to Life's Legacy. If you're making this worse than Altar's Reap (green and black have similar card drawing power and creature-recycling) then consider a more proactive benefit, such as a P/T boost for your creatures.

Alternatively, use that cardname more effectively. Instead of drawing cards, search your library for land and do something with it. You have quite a few cards you can reference and mix up for something to do.

gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&type= ["Sorcery"]&text= [library] [land]&cmc= =[2]&color= [G]

Sword of Salvation, Sword of Sin ()
In a Constructed setting, I think both swords could find a home in slightly different decks - Salvation for higher mana curves, Sin for lower mana curves.

In a Limited setting, as long as they're close enough then I don't think it would be a problem. It's like asking which of the Mirrodin swords is strongest - it's irrelevant when you're not likely to see more than one of them (they're rare) and they're all powerful enough to be immediate picks.

You forgot to change the text to say man-bat instead of homicidal brute.
Also this just seems like better homicidal brute?

I'm also not sure what chinese menu design is.

Yeah, I need to find something to set it apart from Brute.

It's taking having a card in multiple colors that just has a different effect for each color, rather than having one effect that combines them. It's generally seen as unimaginative.

Evasion and a huge butt removes the risk of attacking with Homicidal Brute. You're also giving discard to mono-blue.

Feels too gimmicky. The sword does nothing for the wielder until you throw it away, and even then it doesn't always affect the wielder.

To be clear, that is one of the valid ways of making a gold card. It's just kinda boring (usually).

Ah. I had felt like the effects were mostly mutlicolor by themselves besides the protection effect, but I see how it might be a problem.

I'm glad I at least partially got the flavor of throwing the sword across, even if just in how you worded that.
And yeah, that ounds about right. Any suggestions on how to make it less gimmicky?

Is the power level of the cards okay?

...

Since he's clearly designed to work with the Blade, perhaps have the Blade attach to the Holder as part of the ETB trigger.

Also consider changing the activation to a trigger at beginning of combat, to better work with his own blade.

>first choice is monowhite
>second choice is red and white
>third choice is white and black
>why no red/black choice
Redo that first choice, people are gonna be annoyed by the lack of symmetry. A better idea would be to give a static bonus for having the equipment, and then unattaching for a single effect that's all three colours. This introduces much better gameplay while reducing complexity. As MaRo says, aesthetics matter.

See also Leonin Bola or Surestrike Trident for another template that might work better, although it would be messy if you're mixing it up with the Choose One templating. This is where redoing the unattach as a single ability helps.

The backside might be black, but there was no black mana involved in getting there. Kill the discard trigger or change it.

As such a simple and straightforward design, I thought we already had this card, so I went to search it up. Apparently it doesn't actually exist yet!

I know, I just said that I didn't like it.

Yeah, I realize that the backside will sometimes clash with the front. I don't have much of a problem with that, and I don't think Wizards does either.

Doesn't that seem a little too good to equip it right when it enters? A 4/2 for 3 with any of those abilities is really powerful...

>people are gonna be annoyed by the lack of symmetry/aesthetics matter
The aesthetic was that the holder and his blade were more white than black or red, so the abilities reflected that.

>This introduces much better gameplay
Could you explain how?
>while reducing complexity
I feel like the most complex part of the card is the unattach part, regardless of how many choices there are.

...

Changed the formatting to see what it would look like.
Also moved the equip cost to be placed appropriately

Changed targeting restrictions to fit better.

It's important that the protection can target the blade, as well as enemy permanents.

Woops

...

You should make it have the same counter clause as remand, otherwise this is able to counter uncounterable spells.
Also, it would be more in flavor.

...

>Doesn't that seem a little too good to equip it right when it enters? A 4/2 for 3 with any of those abilities is really powerful...
The Blade as you have it in your initial presentation here? Nah, it's alright. It's only for one turn, plus the creature needs three colours of mana. Getting all those things to line up exactly on turn three deserves a reward. Changing the activation to a combat trigger though, that's another thing altogether.

>The aesthetic was that the holder and his blade were more white than black or red, so the abilities reflected that.
Ah, I see. That's not something that will come out at the card level though. If your set is based around wedges, then players will be able to see that context at the set level and apply it to this card. If you're not doing wedge with center-colour-focused design ala KTK though, then you're going to struggle with communicating that without a double white somewhere.

>Could you explain how [it introduces better gameplay]?
You've got a card which looks like a choice (equip cost) but has an option (Choose one) in a place that's not too great for options. For more detail, check out this two-part article.
magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/decisions-decisions-part-ii-2009-08-10

If you're a newer player, you may not be aware that combat damage used to use the stack. The whole choice/option thing is a big part of why combat damage now bypasses the stack, and the game was much better for it.

This is an interesting design but it maybe has a confused identity. It takes an army set up for aggro and then tells them to switch to defence. Regardless, I'd suggest lowering the life gain to 1 or 2. Blocking already provides de-facto life gain by stopping damage reaching your life total.

However, the much cleaner execution of what you're really trying to do here can be found in cards like Wingmate Roc and Brutal Hordechief. You're better off using them.

Everything other than the P/T seems blue/white and not green.

I had known that it used the stack, but I didn't know why it was changed. I'll read the articles and get back to you. Thanks for the feedback.

Memory Lapse says hello. I'm pretty sure you're aware it exists though. Also you should never have a counterspell variant just put a spell somewhere to get around "can't be countered" clauses unless you charge heavily for it.

If you're sticking with that trigger, I'd suggest only when becoming blocked. It encourages the player to attack rather than sit back on defence. By the time you reach six mana, you want to push the game towards ending.

>It encourages the player to attack rather than sit back on defence
It has vigilance so you're already encouraged to attack.

>You've got a card which looks like a choice (equip cost) but has an option (Choose one) in a place that's not too great for options.
Derp, minor mistake. Should've been "is really more of an option in execution."

I get it now. I feel like, enlightened or something.

Anyways here's the new draft for the blade...

... and its wielder.

>Equipped creature has "Unattach ~: EFFECT."
Protection and regen is over kill. Prot is enough.

How should I make it more black if I remove the protection?

>Equipped creature has "Unattach ~: EFFECT."
If I do that it would have to be one giant thing of text, and I think it's fine since the blade is sort of an actor of itself.

>4/2 double strike haste with additional upsides for 3 and a land

It is tricolored but this still seems a tad pushed.