/ccg/ Custom Card General /cct/

>I just like the mental image of being the commander of your deck yourself - effectively, this spell is your loyalty ability, to make a poor analogy.
Ah, I see. Yeah, I really like the flavor of Magic, but when it breaks down, it's not very fun. I think there was something similar where someone was asking that, if the players are physical bodies in the game, why he couldn't just walk over to his opponent at 1 life, with no creatures, and just stab him. I mean, there's always going to be a breakdown here. But what you say about making spells your loyalty abilities is interesting. Has me thinking of some weird version of Vanguard with different cards that essentially put planeswalkers in the place of Vanguard cards. Which I think would be interesting to experiment with.

I agree with the idea that you should thoroughly examine your motives for breaking a rule before actually breaking it. There are some "unwritten" rules of magic that can be set aside when you're doing something that needs them gone. However, some unwritten rules require more caution than others. The Legendary supertype is only applied to permanents because it's primarily only relevant on permanents.

Personally. I think Instants or Sorceries as Commanders are a bad idea. If you absolutely felt you had to make a noncreature commander to represent the player's influence as leading their own army, I feel you'd be much better off using a Legendary Enchantment.

A novel idea, but it's probably too much effort just for a gold land.

It's also somewhat meant to be an enabler for some creatures that get additional benefits when enchanted or that care about how many enchantments you have.

Since I have a card for the shield that I really like, I decided to make Steve separate from Captain America.

And here's the shield. Hmm, should I do the first, triangular shield? Eh, probably not.

That unattach ability needs a mana cost.

First one for Bucky. Um... yeah. not really sure what to do with him, though I do like him having F-Strike. For some reason, I was thinking of giving him the Shade-pump ability, though I'm not entirely sure why. But if it's a good idea, please tell me.

Crap. Is 2 for 2 damage really too good? OK, what should it be? 1? 2?

Honestly, I think Bucky's less "nuke the other person into the ground," and more "I can go toe-to-toe with ANYONE." Try something along the lines of "All creatures blocking or blocked by ~ lose all abilities until end of turn." Maybe make him a 2/3 or even a 3/3 and give him double strike instead, too.

>"I can go toe-to-toe with ANYONE."
Yeah, I guess that sounds right. Well, to be honest, my knowledge of Bucky comes primarily from the movie Winter Soldier. I'm sorry, I'm just far more of a DC fan than a Marvel fan. Oh, and by the way: Hail Hydra.

>Try something along the lines of "All creatures blocking or blocked by ~ lose all abilities until end of turn."
Eh, not so sure about this part. I guess the idea is to hit creatures with Strike abilities before they hit him, and to get rid of Indestructible? I'll think about it. Actually, I'm going to have to be careful with getting rid of Indestructible. I have it on a few cards right now, and I don't want to turn that into the new "can't be regenerated." Speaking of, Doomsday, with a new ability so he can kill Superman in combat.

...Where did everyone go?

>hit 5 times for 3 mana or for free

What the shit that's broken as fuck. If you have a flier on turn three or four, you literally win the game.

Again, this is stuff by Cooldown guy, an infamous troll on these threads. Pic related is the first card I ever saw him post, and it's a very good example of his work. Be warned, the picture you are about to view contains highly disturbing imagery. I get the urge to tear my hair out every time I look at it.

Counterspell :^)

Your move.

...

...

...

...

Is this art from Myst or Riven or something? Ability is cute, but screams for a silver border.

Funnily enough, the comp rules doesn't actually specify the Chaos ability like this. If it were me, I think I'd just make it
>Whenever you trigger a chaos ability, you may copy that ability.

Seems very niche. And I don't just mean because it's made for a specific format.

Interesting.

Maybe make it "Whenever you roll CHAOS, you may copy another target triggered ability."

I want to thank everyone who took the time to look over my red rares. I'm sorry that I didn't get home in time to answer your comments in the last thread specifically, but the amount and depth of the feedback was fantastic and very helpful. I made changes to several cards after reading what you had to say (hopefully taking them in better directions), and I'm working on changing others. I won't repost everything, but this is what I have so far. Let me know what you think.

Minor formatting error with RRo8.

Yeah, I see that now. Not sure how I managed that, but thanks! Consider it fixed.

For the DFC, I'm still not completely sold on it. I do think this is a step in the right direction, however. Changing the 13 damage so it isn't permanent is a great improvement. As for the frontside, I'm not sure if the mana costs match up well to Ludevic's Test Subject. Again, I think I'd give the backside a lifespan itself. Maybe change it so you don't have to remove the counters to transform it, but the backside has Vanishing?

>Flash Fission
Eh, not a huge fan of how you're going to have two cards in exile like this but they're treated differently. Maybe change to Sorcery and make it
>Draw two cards, then exile a card from your hand.
And then add the damage bit to the end. That's probably far too easy to manipulate though. Yeah, shit's tough.

The other cards look pretty cool though.

which myst game was this from?

Sure I'll try it at 3cc.

>Ability makes a White token and a Black token.
>Doesn't require mana of each color.
>Tokens have total P/T of 3/3.
>Creature has P/T of 2/1.
Muh 'tism.

In all seriousness, it looks like a fun common. I'd like to hear how it performs in draft though. It could be just a tad to good at blocking for your environment.

>Ludevic's Test Subject
Assuming you add one extra counter to achieve the bare minimum to trigger damage, the mana commitment ends up being identical.
>Vanishing on the back side
Eh, I'm not a huge fan of the idea of limiting access to such a heavy investment, and I think lowering the total investment to accommodate vanishing would make the design more swingy.
>Flash Fission
>Draw two cards, then exile a card from your hand
I think that would make it too similar to Blast of Genius, and take it outside of monored territory.

Thanks for the help, man.

>Chronolossus
Eh, I guess that's a good point.

>Flash Fission
Like I said, this isn't easy. Maybe... maybe you could make it a thing where you reveal the top 2, probably after a Scry, and an opponent exiles one and you draw the other. But then the card deals damage to something equal to the exiled card's CMC.

Hmm, or maybe Flash Fission could be an enchantment.
>[mana cost], Discard a card: Exile the top two cards of your library. Until end of turn, you may play cards exiled this way.
I realize this gets rid of the damage aspect, but I was trying to focus more on the "Fission" idea.

The problem is, it has to be an instant, and it has to deal damage in some way, in order to fill the necessary holes in my set skeleton. You are right, though, it is difficult.

Looks like Myst 3: Exile.

OK, one last try before I back off for tonight. This is probably going to be stupid, so... yeah.
>Exile the top card of your library. ~ deals X damage to target creature or player, where X is the exiled card's converted mana cost.
>Exile the top card of your library. Add an amount of R to your mana pool equal to the exiled card's converted mana cost.

>whatcouldpossiblygowrong.jpg

r9

In an environment with Top or other repeated deck stacking? Ridiculous.
In an environment without these things? Fun, swingy, and possibly build-around, but also possibly massively backfiring.

Is this designed to be a skill-testing card, or a fun gamble card, because this evokes one of those things Maro brought up in his recent article series about knowing your audience (with regards to Molten Sentry).

Dude, I was just reaching. Though obviously it will greatly benefit from Scry and library manipulation. I mean, if it were my set, I'd try to make it something that would be fun to see in draft, and a build-around card in constructed, where it can be used to its maximum effect.

And speaking of build-around cards...

>Dude, I was just reaching. Though obviously it will greatly benefit from Scry and library manipulation. I mean, if it were my set, I'd try to make it something that would be fun to see in draft, and a build-around card in constructed, where it can be used to its maximum effect.
Ah, sorry, didn't mean to come off too strongly. I think both are cool ideas, although I prefer the former more than the latter. I enjoy the element of randomness in Magic, but there's a lot of careful stepping to be done with design in that area, because it can end up with a card that nobody likes.

>have only this card in hand
>counter any spell

Maybe it should have "Bounce one land back to your hand and discard your hand, counter target spell."

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound like I was defensive or something. Of course, that's the problem with the internet, there's no tone of voice.

And I get what you mean. I usually avoid the more swingy designs myself, but, again, reaching. And I thought it might be fun. Plus, it fits Red.

>have only this card in hand
>counter any spell
Would a "Force of Will, for Hellbent" counterspell be too egregious?
>Force of Madness
>3UB
>Instant
>You may cast Force of Madness without paying its mana cost if you have no other cards in hand.
>Counter target spell.

Honestly not sure if it would break eternal formats over its knee or not. Not a lot of decks want to be hellbent for long term, but might be too powerful for protecting decks that dump their hand easily.

here's another hybrid counterspell
a counterspell that's free with hellbent doesn't seem like a problem desu. the kind of decks that play counterspells get hit the hardest by lacking cards in hand anyway

Frontiers guy here, coming at ya with some hot new cards. Literally not refined at all, so fire away.

...

Good name

ayy waddup fellow western plane bro
Linger in Pain seems a bit overcosted with the drawback. I think 1B or just B would be fine.
dark ritual effects aren't in black's color pie anymore, only red.
Loot should be worded "you may put A nonland permanent CARD from among them"
Doombearer's looting effect breaks color pie and I don't think it would be overpowered if it just drew cards.
rampant scramble's wording is a bit confusing.
minor gripe, but purge should be worded "artifact or land." also it should say "purge deals damage to you equal to."
rough-tumble rider should be worded either worded "when ~ dies, you may exile it. if you do, (effect)," or "If ~ would die, instead you may exile it. If you do, (effect)." It depends on whether or not you want it to trigger dies effects.
Cull the Flames should return to owner's hand. also should probably cost 2.
minor gripe, but energy crunch should be worded "he or she."
rampant devil could get away with being a 2 drop. It should also just have potshot 1.
pun names best names. could probably be a 4 drop.

That's just Clash?

duel favors the caster by being "equal or greater"

NEW SET SYMBOL:

Frontiers has a cowboy hat for a set symbol.

Whenever ~ becomes blocked by a creature, it gets +2/+1 and gains trample until end of turn.

Hm. The name/flavor implications of that don't really fit what the creature does, at least not to me. I'd expect some kind of artifact interaction with a name like that. In fact, I'd love to see more artifact love in your set, since it was the age of the iron horse and the gun. has the wording corrections down otherwise.

>ranger as a creature type
Is that meaningful for your set? Also, we have two anons doing Western-themed sets now? Interesting. Duel... eh, I didn't care for Clash very much, but that's a personal taste issue. I think you should tie the destroy effect to the opponent you target with the trigger, because otherwise, if they have no creatures, you have to kill The Stranger, or one of your own creatures if it fits the bill. Unless that's on purpose...

I dig this card. As has been said, it might be able to be cheaper, since it opens your lands up to a silly amount of hate they otherwise avoid being lands.

>Lingering Pain
"gets" not "gains". Creatures "gain" keywords and "get" P/T adjustments. The card itself is kinda... well I don't think a common should lose you the game, ever. Compare to Disfigure.
>Dread Sun
Black doesn't ritual that much anymore, that's more red's deal now.
>Sudden Shot
Fine, but could probably be 3B.
>Reaper
Loot needs to be reworded: "To loot 3, reveal the top three cards of your library. You may put one revealed nonland permanent card into your hand, and the rest into your graveyard." Not really a fan of loot, but I haven't seen people saying it's super unbalanced, so... eh. Hot opinions and all that.
>Doombearer
Probably fine at that cost. Probably fine even without the discard maybe, but keeping it is the safe bet.
>Scramble
I like this a lot, actually. But not at common. Feels more like an uncommon, and I think it should cost a touch more.
>Purge
Damage needs a source.
>Horsepack Shepherd
Seems fine.
>Rider Stampede
Also seems fine. Not sure on the cost though.

(cont)

>could probably be a 4 drop.
Man, that'd make it look even more unfair next to Nature's Revolt, wouldn't it? I guess not making your opponents' lands into dudes is a mixed blessing rather than an upside, though. I had been imagining it'd need to be 2GGW or 3GGW.

(cont)
>Infinite Destinations
Explore needs a "then" in the first clause. Instead of "if it is" use "otherwise" if I recall right. Explore feels strange in white. White does grab lands, but usually as part of "balance" effects.
>Rough-Tumble
Odd flavor, but should be fine I suppose.
>Explorer
Can probably be 1G nowadays.
>Cull
I don't get the flavor here at all. The flames of... anger? It's an interesting spin on bounce though, given the restriction. Not sure about the cantrip.
>Crunch
"If that player does"; it feels pushed but might prove to be okay since it's rare.
>Devil
Use Frenzy wording here for the buff effects, substituting "is" and "isn't" accordingly.

ranger is the closest to a normal fantasy term I could think of for cowboys lol
I took a break from ccg for awhile and during that time I started working on my western set (Darador)
needing to kill himself or another friendly creature wasn't the intent but that is some spicy flavor, so I think i'll keep it

What were you working on before, if you don't mind me asking? I might have seen some of it; I have been in and out of these threads for years.

The Scout creature type is probably functional enough for that purpose.

for awhile it was counters matter set (pic related), but I lost interest because I realized I had done kind of a shit job worldbuilding. I also did some noir plane stuff for a lil bit

I recall some of these, but not the set symbol. Odd. I do also remember a noir set floating around. Well, anyway, welcome back. Things are a bit different around here probably, but the threads have stayed pretty good for the most part these last few months.

Vikvet has competing abilities. It looks like you want to use the discard outlet to cast madness cards but in doing so you forfeit the impulse draw, so you might as well have just cast the madness card normally. Unless you scry for a land, which is not the most exciting play.

I also dislike scry into impulse in mono red. Red gets it card advantage dirt cheap, with the downside that you have to use it now or lose it. Scrying to find the right card takes away from the spontaneity.

Keep the madness trigger, which can be a fairly fun ability, but find something else for it to spellshape.

Inspired by chancellor of the annex

Do you want this to reduce the demon's cost or the first spell?

the first spell. it's meant to be a counterpart to Chncellor of the Annex. But i think he is maybe to strong... (for combo-decks and so on)

...

Newest version inbound.
Not a fan of Delve: From the Hand edition. Cost reduction mechanics involving manaless resources are hard to balance already, and it's a lot easier to get cards into your hand than into your graveyard. Psionic Emrakul could be played turn 1 on the draw every game, with no additional setup required.

An issue of over-complexity with Riftborne;

It has vanishing so the tokens are going away on your upkeep anyway. You can actually just make it "At the beginning of your upkeep, you may pay etc. etc."

The ability is almost exactly the same outside of weird Shift interaction (why you would *want* to remove a time counter from a creature with Vanishing is a bit weird). I can understand the desire for this interaction, but I don't think it is enough to warrant the weirdness of design.

Try the simple route and see how it feels.

There's not much point using impulse wording there, as its only going to be one card and you don't need mana so there's not a huge need to have the duration,

>Claws of the Vampire
>Discard 5 cards for +12 DAMAGE to an attack
>At INSTANT speed
holy shit I'm having Blazing Shoal flashbacks plz make it stop

o it didn't reply sorry the flashbacks were too stronk

I think you need to look at what that card does again.

I've been working to balance a similar ability for a rather long time and lemme say you're doing it about 1000% wrong and in an unbelievably broken way.

So yeah.

It's an instant, which means that you wouldn't be able to play any cards exiled during your opponent's turn except for other instants without the extended duration.
Things triggering "whenever a counter is removed" is a common ability within the set, and allows you to trigger the ability at-will with the right cards. I believe that flexibility creates possibilities for fun plays, and is worth the extra complexity at rare.

I meant you could skip impulse entirely and just cast the card as part of resolution.

Then you could get around timing restrictions for cards, which I didn't want. If I could make it a sorcery, that would be a good route to go down, but it has to be an instant.

Do you think we will get more gods in the future? I mean off Theros. How would you design new gods without devotion? How would you design three-colored gods on Alara, with or without devotion?

>GODS

Uncommon cards yay!

... certain names pending.

>Festival
The Green ability just seems tacked on.

>Furious
I like it. You could probably fit this into mW, mG, or WG as well. But it works as-is.

>Winds
I think I'd just make it a modal "Choose one" spell.
>Exile ~
Why? Usually recursion spells only exile themselves if they let you cast something for free, or they recur more than one thing.

>Festival
Wait, is the Green ability to help get the mana to cast the card? Oh, that makes sense. Though it does look weird seeing this on a hybrid-mana card, especially when it's not one of the colors of the card.

smells like an uncommon
(see Nearheath Chaplain)

Too good for common?

I'd pick it reasonably highly, definitely not FP but it's still pretty spicy... your thoughts? I guess it doesn't hit players.

>Posts the art and not the card
hurrayyyy well there's the art if you want it :|

Yeah the art is way too good for common tho I agree.

Seems like it should be a sorcery, but I see no problem with rarity

Eh... I guess technically it works, but I'd rather have the lifegain need White. I also think the cost would be better at 2RR, but I could be wrong.

>Artifact Creature - Gargoyle
>Defender, reach
>4/2
>probably uncommon

cost me

cost (2) at uncommon.

Low toughness defenders are a'ight and can be cheap.

Green commons V2ish sorta thing! Some cards revamp'd, cards that didn't feel right removed + replaced and whatnot.

Why so much off-color focus? Why not just have a multicolor focus?

>Off-color
>Not multi-color
uh huh :|

Oh for-

WHY YOU NOT MAKE GOLD CARDS?

uh
because these are the mono-green commons and as such they are not the gold commons?
r u daft?

Wait, did you actually think those 14 cards were literally the ENTIRE SET?!

>Green Commons
That might be why, mate

Now I remember why I dislike you. I haven't seen you post gold cards for your set before. As far as I can tell, you've been focusing on mono-color cards that do things with mana of other colors. Why such a focus on off-color cards instead of multicolor cards?