/ccg/ MtG Custom Card Thread /cct/

Red is second after green in lack of fliers.
You rarely if ever see a red creature under 4cmc that has flying.

This post implies I was commenting on green reach at all, which is not the case, so I wonder why you even wrote it.

Still working on this.

>On the other hand, red is friends with green
You'll notice however, that Red and Green have two different damage effects. Red gets "damage to creatures without flying" and Green gets "damage to creatures with flying" so they're definitely at odds there.

>And it's not like MaRo has ever gone back on anything he's said; look where Skulk is right now.
He later regretted Mentor of the Meek. I remember because people on Veeky Forums were bringing it up like he's a massive hypocrite because he said over a year earlier that he thought it was fine.

>He does? Huh. I have only rudimentary knowledge about him aside from knowing he's the Spider Man we deserve.
Well, he originally used mind control to swap his and Peter's minds so he could have Pete's body. Then later he used mind-control tech on some Spidey villains to try and reform them. Didn't work out well.

>The exception proves the rule.

>You'll notice however, that Red and Green have two different damage effects. Red gets "damage to creatures without flying" and Green gets "damage to creatures with flying" so they're definitely at odds there.
To be fair I did cite this for the express purpose of pointing out they already share two keywords so that saying they could both have reach because of it is a flimsy rationale. You are correct though; red does tend to favor damaging nonfliers and green fliers.

>MaRo
He is but a man, and man can be wrong about a great many things, as well as a hyprocrite. Aren't we all? Not that I am defending him; I personally think he has some bias issues and that's bad for a developer, but people give the dude too much grief.

>spidey
I feel like the detain on combat damage should really be an activated ability instead. I also think vigilance represents his Spidey Sense really well, but so might Hexproof. In fact, given his reflexes and whatnot as well... maybe First strike, hexproof, [1WU]: Detain target creature. (i know you won't use detain and type it out but you get the idea)

>Build the Wall! edition
I have a wall idea I've been kicking around. I want it to be very effective against creatures, but fold to just about any sort of non-creature based removal.
First red was a shitty blue, now its a shitty green. Excellent.

I'm retarded. Got too excited and forgot to post the image.

>fold to just about any sort of non-creature based removal.
Here's something I edited from Wall of Shadows.
>~ can't be the target of spells that can target only creatures or of abilities that can target only creatures.

How do I into blue?

That's neat wording, but not what I meant. My fault for bad wording. I mean I don't want creatures to be able to easily kill Draining Bulwark. I made it with trample, double strike, trample, and combat trick abilities in mind, all ways to squeeze value out of low p/t creatures.

Ofc it's an exception when it hasn't even been around as a tietary mechanic for less than a year.

I would change the name of resolution, because that's a game term for what happens when a spell hits the top of the stack and all players pass priority.

Maybe resolute, or steadfast, or something.

Funny thing is steadfast was original word for it.
Totally forgot about resolution being resolved.

>First red was a shitty blue, now its a shitty green. Excellent.
U wot m8? How exactly does my post convey this? I hope you're being cheeky.

Yeah, sure. And it's uncommon so it won't get drafted enough to slow things down too much, I don't think. If you wanted it to be super vulnerable you could just give it the illusion drawback too.

>Diremptor
It's fragile, but strong. Would make RW Horde decks a nightmare.

>Bird-Man
Yeah, this one's busted. Resolution is a strong spin on indestructible, but the token gen is the meat of the issue.

>squirrel
I've seen collective done before in different iterations. That's fine. Not sure about a creature being able to copy itself on the cheap for this cheap, AND having collective.

>Cradler
The lack of a nontoken clause will probably break this in half. Check Pawn of Ulamog.

>Menace is announced
>Number of cards with Menace:
>Origins: 3
>Battle for Zendikar: 3
>Oath of the Gatewatch: 6
>Shadows over Innistrad: 9

>Reach is announced as tertiary in Red
>Number of Red cards with Reach:
>Origins: 1
>Battle for Zendikar: 0
>Oath of the Gatewatch: 0
>Shadows over Innistrad: 0

I'm sorry, you were saying? There has been more than enough time for them to print at least just a few more Red cards with Reach. Yet they haven't printed ANY after Skyraker. And it's not like they're down on Reach specifically, it still gets printed a bunch.

Taking a break from rares, now working on a special cycle of mythics for my set.

Why are you using the colorshifted frame? Also, not a fan of how repeatable that ability is, or that it exiles. If it destroyed, or forced a sac, and the opponent got the Frog, I could see it. Well, on that power level, not on that card. It's really not White or Green at all.

>Also, not a fan of how repeatable that ability is
Comparable to Ethersworn Adjudicator.
>It's really not White or Green at all.
Wait, do you mean your suggestions, or my card? Because caring about numbers of creatures and making creature tokens is both green and white, while exiling creatures is also white.
>Why are you using the colorshifted frame?
Just a fun flavor thing I'm trying. My set deals a lot with time travel, and each card in this cycle is going to be a legendary creature from the plane's past, so I used the timeshifted symbol and frame.

Tertiary means it maybe gets it like 2 times per year.

>Comparable to Ethersworn Adjudicator.
There's a big difference between destruction and exile. Also, Ethersworn needs two other colors to use that ability.

>Wait, do you mean your suggestions, or my card?
I was referring specifically to the exile ability, though I was a bit hasty when I said that, because White does exile stuff, though Maro has said that they're trying to cut back on "straight up exile" in White. For the purpose of this card though, it's not really relevant. However, exiling something isn't something I really see as belonging to the specific GW combination (it's definitely more WB), but it is just one card.

It's hard to use Diremptor because you get the mana after damage, so it doesn't work well with Firebreath attacks. I get that the idea is probably to get it from First Strike, but that means you have to build your deck as a weird mixed bag of First Strikers that don't ever benefit from it, and firebreathers that are useless without them.

I've been doing a lot of exile matters stuff in this block, and GW in this set specifically works with exile quite a bit. I don't think I've made anything too outlandish or blatantly out of color, though. If you take extreme exception to something, let me know.

Anyway, continuing on.

Pretty cool, but you might want to tone that down to a 2/4
I am also not seeing the reason for black on the card

Exiling and casting your opponent's creatures is pretty black, I would say.

Maybe if it interacted with the graveyard or hand, but honestly I am not an expert on this junk

I would specify "exile that creature", because on first read I thought you exiled Ganna and the top card of your library.

Casting their creatures from exile is functionally identical to casting their creatures from their graveyard. You're still indirectly "stealing" their creatures and casting them for yourself.
I can do that. Thanks, user.

Why are you using special snowflake frames?
It makes you look amateurish.

It's more of a matter for limited. Red doesn't get flyers below rare, and reach helps with that.

Similarly, green doesn't get haste below rare and is really tertiary for haste (black is secondary and gets it at common/uncommon to encourage BR aggro).

Reach was also the only evergreen keyword that was primary in one color and absent in all the rest, so I could see wanting to use it more often.

I changed it to "exile that card," similar to Unscythe, since it isn't a permanent anymore at the point of exile, but the wording is more specific now.
My block deals a lot with time travel. This cycle is a series of legendary creatures from the past of my plane, and so I'm using the timeshifted frame and symbol for this cycle only. It's a fun flavor thing I'm trying.

...

personally i dont care what frames people use but you shuld know that youre using the planar chaos color shifted frame, not the future sight time shifted frame

>This cycle is a series of legendary creatures from the past of my plane
Not him, but if you want to show "past" why not use the old Magic frame? Oh, and I don't see what that has to do with the set symbol.

I still can't think of a great way to word the "can block anything, no exceptions" ability.

The future sight frame was used for futureshifted cards, or cards from some time in the future. My cards are supposed to be from the past, and so using that frame didn't make sense. The timshifted cards in Planar Chaos represent cards from an alternate time, which is closer to what I was going for.
>why not use the old Magic frame?
That was the original idea, actually, but the differences in the frame sizes warped the card art and looked pretty bad. I still might switch to that, if I get my art issues taken care of.

Not him, but the purple symbol was used on time spiral timeshifted cards

I've tried to use the planeshift frame to represent departures from convention, but people get too focused on it not being an exact color-shift. You'll find much less resistance when using futureshift frames.

(Also, not all divergent timeline cards used the special template,such as AEther Membrane and Needlepeak Spider.)

Can't block flying though

Well, after some quick googling, I fixed the font and warping issues I was having with the old frames. Do you guys prefer these to the timeshifted planar chaos frames?

It's alright. I wonder if you could cost this higher so it could have more power and a bigger butt.

Needs to tone down the power with double strike. Really feels like it needs blue since it's "drawing" you cards, unless you change it such that you can only cast the cards that turn.

Repeatable removal in GW feels wrong, especially on top of everything else going on.

...

They set the tone much better.
Colorshifted frames have a very distinct, singular function, so any card using them that does not fit that function will be jarring. It's kind of like a card saying "Creatures you control get flying".

>It's alright. I wonder if you could cost this higher so it could have more power and a bigger butt.
You don't want it to have higher power, though. You want as many creatures as possible to be able to survive a hit from it, so you can steal them.
>Needs to tone down the power with double strike.
No, it's a 5cmc mythic legend, three power is fine even with double strike. Dragon-Style Twins is comparable, and even has prowess to boot.
>Really feels like it needs blue since it's "drawing" you cards, unless you change it such that you can only cast the cards that turn.
Black has plenty of cards with similar effects, including Colfenor's Plans, Fiend of the Shadows, Hedonist's Trove, Praetor's Grasp, and Nightveil Specter.
>Repeatable removal in GW feels wrong, especially on top of everything else going on.
Not sure exactly what you mean by "everything else," user. If you could elaborate, I can address it. But white has plenty of cases of repeatable removal, and both colors are good with tokens. I see no particular issue with it.
I'll stick with these, then. Thanks!

Not sure if I'm happy with the cost on this one. Thoughts?

>You don't want it to have higher power, though. You want as many creatures as possible to be able to survive a hit from it, so you can steal them.
What happens is that you flash it in to steal something, then your opponents never attack into it until they find removal. There's no reason to try to attack around with it, and there's no incentive for you to attack with it and provoke blocks. Might as well make it something that just steals on etb.

>Black has plenty of cards with similar effects
Colfenor's Plans has a massive downside, and none of the others draw cards from your deck.

>What happens is that you flash it in to steal something, then your opponents never attack into it until they find removal.
Which makes it a game changer in limited. Even stealing one thing and then walling your opponent is huge. I don't want it to be an efficient attacker on top of that.
>Colfenor's Plans has a massive downside, and none of the others draw cards from your deck.
But the effects are still similar. Additionally, red exiles cards from the top of your own library frequently, while black lets you play exiled cards for longer specified times. This is a marriage of those effects, which is why the card is multicolored and not hybrid.

you can marry Jump and Plummet and still not get a UG card

Jump and Plummet combine to make an effect which is out of color for UG. This does not. I keep an open mind, but unless you can provide me with some really compelling evidence, I'm not changing it.

Sometimes you actually can.
See Recoil, which can functionally become blue/black artifact or enchantment removal.

So... it looks like these guys are nearly finalized. I think my only questions I have is if Batman's ability could be reduced by 1, and if I should remove Lifelink from Steph.

I would say that Batman's ability is fine at its current cost, but agree that lifelink should be removed from Stephanie.

Also, congrats on nearly finishing the Bat-cycle. I know you've been working on them for a long time. Props to you, COanon.

Batman can permanently exile himself if you go a turn without attacking.

You might want to make it "at the beginning of your next declare attackers step".

Even if he declares zero attackers, the Declare Attackers step isn't skipped.

Someone could end the turn on you with an effect before your declare attackers step though.

Good for them, then. That's what those sort of effects are for.

Yeah, I'm not really going to complain if someone's crafty enough to do that, and I'm probably not going to modify the card to somehow work around that. I mean, it's like saying a spell can be countered. Yeah, I realize there are ways to disrupt these cards, but that's something I'm going to have to deal with.

Awesome, thank you, thank you, thank you. Yeah, been quite a while. Feels nice to finish them though. Big Batman fan, so... yeah. Well, time to move on to other stuff now.

>Border Captain
Lifelink doesn't really combo with player damage, so I'm kinda curious as to why it gives it to unblocked creatures only. I think the card is good overall though.

...

>Lifelink doesn't really combo with player damage
wat

Evolve or die.

Well, it's not an ability that combos with player damage in a way that it doesn't with creature/planeswalker damage. Infect, for example, has different interactions with all three.

>I'm kinda curious as to why it gives it to unblocked creatures only.
The mechanical subtheme for R/B in the set involves discouraging or preventing blocks. This card rewards drafting and building along those lines.

...

See, stuff like Battle Leap I don't really see the synergy. When you give a creature Deathtouch, you want it to be blocked. I mean, what's the point of giving something Deathtouch if it's not going to hit a creature? If it were me, I'd make it BG and make it so the creature had to be blocked. Which, incidentally, would combo with Menace.

You use battle leap to prevent chump blocking. Suddenly, their 1/1 token can't block and they have to make a much harder choice of whether or not to block, and what to block with.

But, unless the defending player is far behind, I imagine the only time they would be willing to essentially sacrifice a valuable creature to block if is the attacking creature had a high amount of power, which doesn't really need Deathtouch to be dangerous. I'll stop, to be honest, I don't play much anyway, probably not thinking about this right or something.

The point is that it discourages blocking, but if they block anyway, you can make sure that block is more in your favor.

but if they have one 1/1 token that gets panic, it's quite likely have more that they can chump with. especially since your set/block has a token theme.

Does the big cost justify the effect?

Them's the breaks. Some cards aren't useful in every situation, user. In that case, since you're in red and black, hopefully you drafted something to clear the board.

I think countering is too strong, so this just returns the spell to hand instead. Not sure if the coin flips are too excessive or not though. But it's difficult to manipulate, and pretty much the only other "random" ability is to reveal the top of the library, which can be manipulated, or incorporate a shuffle, which is time-consuming.

Probably. I mean, it's a 4/4 without protection and will just get wiped off the board if you don't have a good target.

Should I adjust the cost?
>Wanda
Since the effect is symmetrical, I honestly think you could go with countering. However, I think the card will be much more fun to play with as-is.

>Should I adjust the cost?
Ah, I think you could definitely reduce it. 4RG, MAYBE 3RG. However, I think it would be better at its current cost if it just had some sort of protection. Maybe think about Regen.

>I think the card will be much more fun to play with as-is.
Yeah, I knew that countering would be a lot more annoying for unlucky players, which is why it returns to hand, as a sort of "better luck next time." But I think the effect is still impactful, since you're not going to get the mana back, and it could mess up your play.

I have a few cards from a set I'm making with mechanics I want reviewed. Also, is there an easy way to put multiple cards in one picture? I haven't figured that out, and I feel that it would be useful to know.

...

If you lose the ETB trigger, or lose haste, you can cut the cost.

...

I'll drop it to 4RG, but I'll forego the protection. I don't like engines to be entirely self-sufficient.
>Kaine
Use shift + enter to avoid the text running into the flipped P/T on the front side like that. DFC's can have weird formatting, like pic related. Mechanically, I love the give and take of the card; each side plays off the other well.
Photojoiner. It's in the OP.

>Use shift + enter to avoid the text running into the flipped P/T
Huh, cool. Thanks for that.

No problem! I've been working with DFC's for two sets now, and that was a problem I ran into a lot at first. Drove me crazy.
>Medusa
RW is an odd color combination for such a defensive card, but I do always love seeing fresh takes on what colors can do together. She's one hell of a wall.

>Medusa
Well, it's one of those things were I just stuck two different abilities together because I thought the combo works well for the character. I'll probably tinker with it some more in the future.

>Abyssal Entity
I feel like that's a bit of a steep cost for that ability. If it were just discard I probably wouldn't have a problem with it, but even then... I dunno, it might just be me, but doing that for just one counter seems strange. But at the same time you probably want to avoid just locking something out, right? Maybe if there were some other benefit, like the entity itself got a counter of some kind (most likely +1/+1). Maybe attach a mana cost and have it exile from a graveyard instead?

There are zero +1/+1 counters in this set. In fact, apart from Planeswalkers, this set has no counter type other than time counters.
>If it were just discard I probably wouldn't have a problem with it
The first set had an "exile matters" theme, pic related for example, so there's a lot of exile scattered throughout the block. It helps the two play better together. Additionally, with all of the vanishing and counters matter stuff in this set, the ability to remove counters at no mana cost is, I feel, deceptively powerful.

But... Why not just use Hex Parasite?
Kinda weak when that and Hexmage exist.

They aren't in the set, so I'm not balancing around them. I design primarily with a closed limited environment in mind.

Is there a sufficient counter presence to make it worth it?

Will discarding a card to remove just one counter be worth it?

If not, what about removing up to two counters? Or paying with a cost other than a card from hand, like maybe a card from graveyard?
Or could you add another ability, like maybe Deathtouch (being abyssal) to make up for it?
I just think it seems a little weak right now, with the ability's cost so high. 1 card to remove 1 counter is almost never worth it, barring things like Divinity counters or something.

>Is there a sufficient counter presence to make it worth it?
Definitely
>Will discarding a card to remove just one counter be worth it?
Sometimes.Popping a Vanishing creature early or removing a counter from a card which relies on having that counter are both impactful plays. There are also several cards in the set which trigger from counters being removed from permanents, and this gives you a reliable way to trigger those cards. Plus, it's an evasive 6/6, which certainly isn't bad.

Alright. Depends on the environment.
As for evasion, trample isn't usually black except on the biggest demons. Intimidate might also fit the flavor of "scary abyssal horror" better, too. Just my opinion though, it's probably fine as is.

Well, I'm sure everyone knows about this guy, right? OK, for serious, I have no clue how to cost this, and the ability is crazy complex. It's a DFC not because the guy actually transforms, but because the ability is too complex to be on one card. And it's still not exactly right, but I can live with it for now. So, this guy, for some reason, has magical guns that only appear at night. When he shoots people with them, they turn to stone until the next morning. This is why I'm reusing the Werewolf daytime-nighttime mechanic.

Where do you get this template?

What, the frame? From the MSE forums. Not hard at all to find. Just use the link in the OP for MSE to start.

I think you could use tap effects rather than counters.

Needs to also set the P/T of those creatures since P/T-setting abilities are also negated this way. You'll note that every single card that removes abilities also sets a P/T.

Shit, I think I might just do that.