/ccg/ Custom Card General

Common lands edition!

To make cards, download MSE for free from here
magicseteditor.sourceforge.net/

>Mechanics doc (For the making of color pie appropriate cards)
docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgaKCOzyqM48dFdKRXpxTDRJelRGWVZabFhUU0RMcEE

>Read this before you post your shitty card!
docs.google.com/document/d/1Jn1J1Mj-EvxMxca8aSRBDj766rSN8oSQgLMOXs10BUM

>Q: Can there be a sixth color?
A: pastebin.com/kNAgwj7i

>Q: What's the difference between multicolor and hybrid?
A: pastebin.com/yBnGki1C

>Art sources.
digital-art-gallery.com/
artstation.com/
drawcrowd.com/
fantasygallery.net/
grognard.booru.org/
fantasy-art-engine.tumblr.com/

>Stitch cards together with
old.photojoiner.net/

>/ccg/ sets (completed and in development)
pastebin.com/hsVAbnMj

OT:

repasting white commons

you don't have to make bad cards with no abilities, it's not like you need to fill booster packs with useless chaff like Wizards does.

Also shadow is a really boring mechanic unless you plan on doing something with it

You managed to post something 100% devoid of useful information.

also reposting, would like to see advice on costs and rarity

you too
you too

fine then

most of these cards are really bad and boring, shadow is shit and there's no point in doing pure vanilla creatures

Insight and guide seem ok but pride looks really meh

>gettin' pissy
:'^)

>most of these cards are really bad and boring,
Yep, that sounds like literally a list of common cards to me. Good to know you have eyes m8.

>Insight and guide seem ok but pride looks really meh
"Meh" and "OK" are like exactly the same thing. I guess the difference between "Neutral" and "Really neutral" is big enough to be considered...

This effect almost certainly needs to be a rare.

"When a creature you control dies" is usually black's domain.

I think the cost is okay on a rare. The investment to get it to work is a bit high so the low CMC should be fine.

>implying common = bad/boring

oh I see, you don't know what you're talking about.

This is a CUSTOM set, you don't have to make shitty boring cards that no-one cares about

And where the fuck do you come from where OK has the same meaning as meh?

>oh I see, you don't know what you're talking about.
:'^) This nukka rite here this guy is real hxc.

>This is a CUSTOM set, you don't have to make shitty boring cards that no-one cares about
I guess having your set be playable isn't important. Good to know : )

>And where the fuck do you come from where OK has the same meaning as meh?
I said LIKE exactly the same thing. Similar to exactly, boi. Step your language comprehension skillz up.

but user, if we stick spells into creatures, what's left for the noncreature cards?

>Bog Iron Idol
I feel like this is a card Wizards could have printed in the past, but now they probably save it for a set with DFCs because it's more elegant.

>Aveza's Enthralled
Pride seems cool, will it reach all colors like Delirium did? in which colors will it be deeper?

how does having unplayable cards make your set more playable?

>Pride seems cool, will it reach all colors like Delirium did? in which colors will it be deeper?
It is the WBR keyword for this set. It might be seen on one blue or green card for flavor reasons, but other than that it is exclusively WBR.

It's those colors because they are the colors most concerned with life total. W/B siphons, R burns, W lifegains etc.

there's plenty of design space for things that creatures can do that instant and sorceries can't do

>this human being is in a MTG thread and has literally never played a single game of any limited format in MTG
w o w

Like?

Other than attacking and blocking, of course.

Yeah I have, shitty vanilla cards are the worse part of limited, that's why you never see those cards in cubes. The only reason wizards makes those cards is because 'muh new players' and because they're lazy as fuck

You don't actually need bad cards to have good limited, cube drafts are a thing.

well attacking and blocking are obviously a big part of it, but there's stuff like anthem effects, firebreathing effects, discard effects like wild mongrel or waterfront bouncer (these are similar but different to instants and sorceries since creatures are much easier to remove)

Even just french vanilla abilities do a lot to make a card more interesting

>Yeah I have, shitty vanilla cards are the worse part of limited
Maintaining simplicity through some means in a set that is relatively complex in general is valuable.

>that's why you never see those cards in cubes.
Not many cubes are more engaging draft formats than the top formats that Wizards has put together in the past.

RGD draft. Try it sometimes if you can (Online probably, for price reasons), it is at the very worst in the top 3 best draft formats.

The card's good, the name not so much.

>This works, right? The attaching can work just fine if built into the replacement effect.

Also, finished FFX for the first time. Those giggles mang.

>The card's good, the name not so much.
It's not even the real name, I just "isolated" it from the flavor of the setting to get it to you without noise. Which rarity do you think it should be?

>Yevon's Mark
I think you could reduce it to just "Enchant creature" (maybe without quotes?), you're telling the player to attach it to that anyways.

I think it works and that you can find similar cards, let me do a search.

Noticed your set symbol before but never a FFX theme, is it there?
>Those giggles mang
:^)

>Card
I'd set it at common. WotC would probably do uncommon though.

>Yevon's
Mines uses a replacement effect instead of jumping loops with triggers (which is what WotC has used so far). I'm not quite sure if the wording of a replacement effect can attach the object its replacing, although it should.

>Symbol
Uh-oh. Does the symbol resemble anything from the FF universe?
And probably not, but might aswell just do a few cards while I've got the rush.

I see the problem now, it's a replacement effect. Do you really need it to be that way?
I also see where you got the template.
The biggest issue is that a static ability can't target things. I suggest you make it a triggered ability.
As for the second and third abilities, I'd try to change it because I'm not sure if you can use "unattached" that way.
>Whenever a creature dies, you may return it to the battlefield under your control and exile enchanted creature. If you do, attach ~ to the returned creature.
I really don't like this "returned" part

>>Symbol
I meant if you've posted more cards which reference it.

The template? I made it myself; I don't want people responding to triggers the card makes.
"Returned" is used in Animate Dead and the like; and even if it wasn't, it's self referencing, just like Dissipate, and self-replacing effects.

Here ya go.
And no, just made the few, won the game about 4 hours ago.

I really don't like how Rikku can cheat mana costs.

In currently in the process of designing a set base on Morrowind, with the intent of eventually printing it out and putting it in a cube to draft. Any advice on set design? L post some cards later, I'm on mobile rn

Shadow bores, same as Intimidate, Fear, etc. Guide feels like a half-baked Enchantment creature.

>Shadow bores
Everybody says that, but literally the only response I ever get when talking about my custom set with people irl is "I love Shadow!" so yeah.

Use the "Nuts and Bolts" articles Wizards has put out to get a template and some pointers for set design.

Don't think "How do I make X as a magic card" think "what would be a good magic card based on X". Don't be afraid to sacrifice some concept to make a better card, but don't sacrifice card quality for your concept. Resist the temptation to include every element of a given character into the card, instead focus on one or two important elements to keep the card from becoming a complicated, wordy mess.

I have always been vexed by how Instants are not just Sorceries with Flash. In this "starting over" article MaRo has said that they are aware of this, but won't change it.
Which got me thinking: What would you change (rules/templating/graphics/whatever) about MtG as a whole?

Yes, listen to everything says. Trust me, you will find that not all of your cards do everything you want them to do, but you have to remember that your first priority is making good cards. If you let the lore take over, you're likely going to end up with overcomplicated, uninteresting cards.

I'd add "categorical" supertypes, similar to Snow. For example, Vampires and Zombies would have the supertype Undead, so that each would be an Undead Creature. Things like Krakens or Leviathans would be Aquatic Creatures.

More subtypes, and less of a strict division between creature types and other types. For example, a Fire Elemental could be "Creature - Fire" while a fireball could be "Sorcery - Fire" Then if they wanted to make a card thematically "fireproof" they could give it "protection from fire" instead of "protection from red" You could have "fire tribal" or "lightning tribal" effects which effect both permanent and non-permanent cards, like "fire cards in your hand cost R less to cast" or "whenever you would take damage from a fire source, increase that damage by 2" or something.

Not sure on this one. The main theme of the character is "I want to control it all," though I want him to work well with having a large amount of creatures as well.

>More subtypes, and less of a strict division between creature types and other types. For example, a Fire Elemental could be "Creature - Fire" while a fireball could be "Sorcery - Fire"
Just use supertypes, as I suggested here

I could see those being kinda cool as I loved the tribal supertype. Has there been an explanation as to why it was discontinued? With the grand creature type update it could've been supported more easily...

There's really no purpose to Tribal outside of an environment explicitly designed for tribal strategies. There is so little difference, for example, between something like
>You gain 2 life for each Elf you control.
and
>You gain 2 life for each Elf creature you control.
That the bonus of having a Tribal Enchantment - Elf is really minimal. Frankly, Tribal doesn't do enough to justify its own existence.

Shoot for 165 cards. Can't stress this enough. A bigger set takes ages, and ages, and ages, and patience. Keep cards simple, and only do what feels right.

This helps, but only as a guideline. Things as as-fan and how the distribution of set mechanics work are pretty good. I find the design skeleton and some other bits to be not only bad, but time consuming and inefficient.

Follow a card type distribution acording to color rather than a checklist of what you want included.

This.

>Lord
>Myfeminism
>... If that card isn't a land, cast that card without paying its mana cost.

Play doesn't apply since you can't cast lands.

I actually like having Sorceries and Instants.
There's this one thing Maro said that was actually good.unbelievable How cards should be written as 'discard from your library' rather than 'put the top...'

>Most versatile U aggro card ever.

Well with expanded subtypes as suggested by there would be no reason for the tribal supertype at all. If "fire" can be a sorcery type and a creature type, why can't "elf" or "goblin"?

More to the point, is there a good reason why the different supertypes have to have their own, distinct subtypes? Is there a good reason an Enchantment can't be a Goblin Enchantment without the tribal supertype?

>Just use supertypes, as I suggested here
Well, we're talking about a "from scratch" approach to MTG. IMO supertypes should be reserved for shit with its own rules baggage, that inherently behave really differently. Subtype interaction should be entirely within card text. That was the whole reason the "defender" ability was created (remove rules baggage from the "wall" subtype) and why "Legendary" was made into a supertype. If rules baggage belongs only in supetypes, it stands to reason that the opposite is also true, that words without rules baggage should only be subtypes.

While we're talking about it, I dislike the word "Legendary" simply because it's long, and takes up too much space on the type line. Starting from scratch I'd propose using a shorter word. "Hero" or "Epic" are the shortest I can think of that would fit. "Unique" is longer, but is also more obviously linked to the actual effect of the rule.

I'd also like "At the end of turn sacrifice this/that/it" become a keyword if only to save space in abilities meant to summon temporary tokens. You could even build "haste" right into the word. The keyword could be "Temporary" or "Ephemeral" or "Fleeting" or any other synonym you felt like.

update to U/R gold common over the 4/4 selfsaccer

>There's this one thing Maro said that was actually good.unbelievable How cards should be written as 'discard from your library' rather than 'put the top...'

I'll agree with that. The more we can shave words off of common effects the better. There should also be a general rule that whenever you search your library, you always shuffle it after, that way you can get rid of "Then shuffle your library."

Well, you're free to have you opinion. I think having subtypes belong to more than one card type is just a bad move, though. I agree with you on "Legendary" but I also agree with Maro that the rules baggage associated with that particular should either be gotten rid of or redesigned. He's right, why does something like "Legendary," that sounds good, actually have a downside? Of course, the problem with just dropping all the baggage is that it loses a lot of distinction. Yeah, I'm kinda glad I'm not the one who actually has to make these decisions.

I have to say though, I'm kinda with Maro when it comes to not keywording downsides, just because it would result in so many keywords that all see play at once. I don't want this to become Keyword: The Remembering.

>shadow
I really hate this keyword. I hate horsemanship too, for similar reasons. "Flying with different flavor" is just annoying.

>But flying can still block non-flying, shadow can't block non-shadow

Yes, I understand there is a difference, but not enough of one to overcome my objection.

>I really hate this keyword. I hate horsemanship too.
>Yes, I understand there is a difference, but not enough of one to overcome my objection.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Same here. "Flying by a different name" is kinda annoying. Though I will say that I do occasionally enjoy the "Can't be blocked except by creatures with flying or reach" ability, I still don't want it keyworded, and I only want it used sparingly.

Have you ever considered that it might be in your best interest not to look quite so smug? I mean, he has a point, Shadow inhabits a space that Flying pretty much has covered.

>I mean, he has a point, Shadow inhabits a space that Flying pretty much has covered.
If you find a card with flying in my set, I'll get back to you on that.

This is to replace Oilflesh Thing? That's too bad, I liked Oilflesh Thing. This is a solid card too, however.
>Objections to Shadow
If I remember correctly, it straight replaces flying in his set, so there aren't multiple types of common evasion floating around. I could be wrong, though.

I think I have this one in a better place now. Designing is easier not at 4am.

So, in order to make Shadow work in your set, you had to get rid of an evergreen keyword that's been around is nearly every set in Magic's history, that also already has a bunch of cards that interact with it in meaningful ways.

...

Do you seriously not see the issue here?

>This is to replace Oilflesh Thing? That's too bad, I liked Oilflesh Thing. This is a solid card too, however.
o no, it was replacing this guy

What if the creature you return has Vanishing already?

>I agree with you on "Legendary" but I also agree with Maro that the rules baggage associated with that particular should either be gotten rid of or redesigned. He's right, why does something like "Legendary," that sounds good, actually have a downside?
Which is why "Unique" makes more sense. Different implications.

>I have to say though, I'm kinda with Maro when it comes to not keywording downsides, just because it would result in so many keywords that all see play at once. I don't want this to become Keyword: The Remembering.
The advent of reminder text helps with that, and making sure your keywords are actually descriptive (and not just cool sounding) is important too.

You see "Defender" and you've got a pretty good idea what it does. I think "Unique" would be a fine alternative to "Legendary" in the same vein. It also doesn't have to be a supertype: it could be an ability instead.

To my knowledge, each instance of Vanishing triggers separately.

>an evergreen keyword that's been around is nearly every set in Magic's history
How exceptionally boring.

> that also already has a bunch of cards that interact with it in meaningful ways.
Yeah but none of those cards are in the set so they don't matter at all in this conversation.

>Do you seriously not see the issue here?
Not at all. I'm exploring the mechanics + themes of the set.
Blah blah blah offense is never given only taken blah blah yer bein' pissy over nothing.

Oh! In that case, I like the new version much better.

Ye me too. It's definitely more interesting and fits the gold border better (imo).

So what is Shadow supposed to be simulating, on a lore-level, in your set? Could whatever it is you're tying to accomplish happen in a way that isn't so mechanically derivative? IIRC, shadow was originally invented for creatures that were trapped between planes or something, and so could only interact with each other.

>So what is Shadow supposed to be simulating, on a lore-level, in your set?
Pretty much dead-on exactly the same thing that it embodied every other time it showed up.

>creatures that were trapped between planes or something, and so could only interact with each other.
Yep that about sums it up.

So if they can only interact with each other, how are they able to harm a planeswalker?

Planeswalkers move between planes. It's not too much of a leap to assume they might cross paths.

>How do things trapped between planes interact with a planeswalker
I mean they say there's no such thing as a stupid question...

Well the official reasoning behind it being benched is
>Shadow leads to non-interactive games where neither side’s creatures can interact with the other. Fliers, in contrast, have evasion but can still block when necessary.
Which makes perfect sense. Shadow leads to situations where there are no decisions to be made: one guy's creatures have shadow and the other guy's doesn't, so the combat phase just becomes subtraction. MTG's combat phase should be about making tactical decisions and sacrifices: if I attack with this guy he can't block next turn, or if I block with this guy he'll die but I won't take damage this turn is that a good choice? Does he have a creature with flash in hand? Vigilance? Defender? None of that matters if you've got one guy with shadow and another guy without.

Removing combat decisions removes arguably the most interesting element of MTG, and that's poor design. Many keywords remove SOME combat decisions but shadow simply removes too many.

I've generally assumed that a planeswalker duel takes place on a single plane. It's why you don't have to resummon your creatures every turn: if you were jumping from plane to plane your creatures couldn't follow.

Planeswalkers aren't Eldrazi: they aren't extra-planar entities. They can freely move between planes, but they don't exist on two planes at once.

MaRo isn't always right. His opinions are just opinions like everyone else's. He hates Banding and Storm too, but I think people should feel free to include those mechanics on their cards if they feel like it.

Shadow makes combat decisions considerably more interesting. By dividing the battlefield in two, and having ~40% of creatures either have or directly engage with shadow (pic related), the situation is created where you fight on two fronts rather than one.

Do you trade creature X and leave your shadow battlefield open? Do you sac your shadowy Ancient Apparition for a non-shadow creature to bolster your regular battlefield? etc.

The intent is to create a unique style of gameplay to differentiate the feel of playing the set from other sets before it. You are looking at shadow, the keyword, as an evasion ability. It isn't, it is a keyword that in the set divides the battlefield into two fronts.

This is also an active choice to create a deckbuilding challenge in limited, which is the primary focus of the set (3x draft). The draft format is intended to be higher skill, which is also why it is a tricolor set.

I have reasons for the decisions made. I'm not just hammering my face into shadow and hoping it works.

>How exceptionally boring.
>Translation: Why should cards be good when they could be UNIQUE?
Oh great, you're just another Frontier Fellow. Good luck, for your set that you'll have trouble getting good feedback for. Goodbye, for when you leave after realizing most people here aren't going to praise you for being different. And good riddance, for when that finally happens.

>People gettin' angry
have a snickers boi. Everything'll be okay.

for real though, what I said actually translates to "How exceptionally boring."

I don't know how you translated english to english and fucked it up so bad but maybe you used Yahoo Translate...

For the record, I'm not this guy I'm the guy being civil.

Okay, let's compare two games.

In your set, the attacker and defender each have 5 creatures, 3 without shadow, 2 with shadow.

In another set, the attacker and defender have 5 creatures, none of which have shadow.

Attacker attacks with all 5 creatures. In which game does the defender have more options?

Now, you appear to be arguing that the set MOVES the decision making away from combat but doesn't eliminate it: you choose which creatures to spend mana summoning. That's not entirely invalid, but I'll remind you that in most situations you only get to draw one card each turn, inherently limiting your choices at this stage. If I'm misinterpreting your argument let me know.

At any rate, all this haterade actually sort of inspired a card design. So let's get back to not bein' insufferable donglet supremes : )

that's not what I posted but there's the art if you want it :|

>That's not entirely invalid, but I'll remind you that in most situations you only get to draw one card each turn, inherently limiting your choices at this stage
This is covered in the overarching design of the set. There is relatively high amount of card draw compared to other sets. At least, that is the intent and will be worked on. White will probably get some form of card draw within the common slot when I get working on a second draft.

Pic related for a few examples of what I'd consider "Core" cards of the set's design ideas. They may change, but the ideas are somewhat expressed in them.

>Attacker attacks with all 5 creatures. In which game does the defender have more options?
This is a situation I'm aware of. It is exactly the same thing with flying. The only difference is flying gives the defender options.

Comparatively, the amount of cards with "Reach" in my set is extremely high.

I don't like passive games so I'm not entirely put off by this, also. A small sub-focus of design is steering the set away from stalemate games, which are some of my least favorite experiences in mtg.

but user. have you playtested it?

...

I haven't finished a first draft yet.

I've playtested what scraps I had to get up to this point which gave me a lot of what I talked about there, design wise. I have to wait for a full set to be done to playtest it in full though.

Reword the first ability like Lightform, but instead of manifest a card, you're returning target card from a graveyard. You don't need the "enchant creature" restriction - if someone manages to move your Aura around then good for them.

Remove the "may" from the second ability, and it becomes an actual downside that can justify the low cost. You may want it to only trigger for nontokens.

The third ability works.

have shadow

Why is that green? And don't give me the Syndrome 'when everyone's super' answer, either, why is that shit green?

Because it's actually flying hate, everyone on the same level.

>All creatures lose flying

Which type of -1/-1 counter mechanic would you like to see based off of old +1/+1 mechanics:

-1/-1 Unleash
You may have this creature enter the battlefield with a -1/-1 counter on it. It can't be blocked as long as it has a -1/-1 counter on it.

-1/-1 Evolve
Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under an opponents control, if that creature has greater power or toughness than this creature, put a -1/-1 counter on that creature.

-1/-1 Graft
This permanent enters the battlefield with N -1/-1 counters on it. Whenever another creature enters the battlefield, if this permanent has a -1/-1 counter on it, you may move a -1/-1 counter from this permanent onto that creature

-1/-1 Modular
This enters the battlefield with N -1/-1 counters on it. When it dies, you may put its -1/-1 counters onto target creature

-1/-1 Reinforce
(cost) (Discard this card: Put N -1/-1 counters onto target creature.)

-1/-1 Scavenge
Exile this card from your graveyard: Put a number of -1/-1 counters equal to this card's power on target creature. Do this only as a sorcery.

-1/-1 Bolster
Choose a creature an opponent controls with the highest toughness or tied for the highest toughness among creatures they control. Put N -1/-1 counters on that creature.

...

>Unleash
Reverse-Unleash seems fine, particularly if there's more design space than just making them unblockable.
>Evolve
I dislike Reverse-Evolve because regular Evolve becomes successively harder to trigger while Reverse-Evolve always remains easy to trigger. The solution is to put it only on big beefy creatures, but that limits design space.
>Graft
Somewhere in the middle. On the one hand, its not infinitely easy to trigger. On the other hand, it discourages your opponent from playing creatures when they know they're just going to get Reverse-Grafted onto, particularly if you have more than one Reverse-Graft creatures out. Yes, I'll blank your next X creatures, thank you. And because it's optional, they can't even necessarily bait it out with chump targets.
>Modular
Seems fine. Makes for a weird card space though, where you have a bunch of 3/3s that are functionally 1/1s because they enter with 2 -1/-1 counters with no way to remove them.
>Reinforce
Turns too many cards into removal. Dislike.
>Scavenge
Turns your dead cards into removal. Dislike.
>Bolster
Seems fine, as long as it's not too repeatable.

Thoughts on this Veeky Forums?

...

wut

>Vigilance in black
nope.jpg

The first big concern is what happens when it has two conflicting characteristic defining abilities.

The other is that it's a mess to track. Just have it exile two Hyenas from your graveyard and refer to the exiled cards.

Naturally the set would include more hyenas.

Maybe use an effect similar to Cairn Wanderer or Soulflayer?

>The first big concern is what happens when it has two conflicting characteristic defining abilities.
Such as?

>The other is that it's a mess to track. Just have it exile two Hyenas from your graveyard and refer to the exiled cards.
You're probably right.

Better?

Thoughts on the ability to receive stacking effects from earlier castings of the same card?

>Such as?
Anything that defines P/T.

Oh, like "This Creature's power and toughness are each equal to number of X in your Y" combined with "This creatures power and toughness is equal to the number of A in your B"? That would present a problem, true. Thankfully there aren't any hyena cards with those abilities. In fact there's only one hyena card ever printed IIRC, so I pretty much have a clean slate to work with here.

>Common lands edition!
A few of these could technically count

...

Changed a few things. Got rid of the flavor text.

Thanks.

No period after the protection ability. It should at least have flying by default, and you could cut some of the obsoleted keywords.