/ccg/ Custom Card General /cct/

Spider tribal 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.
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:

Other urls found in this thread:

magiccards.info/query?q=o:"sacrifice a creature" o:converted&v=card&s=issue
magiccards.info/query?q=o:"sacrifice a creature" (o:power or o:toughness)&v=card&s=issue
gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&text= ![reach]&subtype= ["Spider"]
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Spiders.

Interadesting. Roughly how many spiders in the set?

...

...

>Enchant creature with toughness X or less, where X is the number of Spiders you control.
>Enchanted creature can't attack or block.

...

...

Pretty good.

That's worse than Mana Leak in most situations, especially against artifacts. How about "Counter target spell unless its controller pays 1 plus an additional 1 for each of its colors" or something to that effect?

Excellent point. Upped it to 1+(number of colors).

Is this balanced?

Oh jesus. If I ever get around to completing them all, a lot. I have Spider-Man, Superior Spider-Man, and Scarlet Spider pretty much done right now. I want to do Miles Morales, the Great Weaver, and Ai Apaec. After that, maybe other versions like Spider-Punk, Spider-Man 2099, and... ooh, I could do Thousand. He'd be interesting.

Oh wait, how's this?

>Spider tribal edition!
Neat, I legit have a ton of spider and spider-related stuff from all the work I did on my Drow faction.

Spider-tribe friendly planeswalker here.

Sacrifice for a + ability is weird. Spiders don't even have Reach, why look at CMC? Not a fan of seeing poison counters like this, it's "emblem", and why Poisonous instead of Infect?

>Sacrifice for a + ability is weird
Well the Drow and their spiders are the "sacrifice matters" faction, so it would feel weird not to include it on their Planeswalker. Important to note that you can still use the ability and get +1 even if you have no creatures on the board.

>Spiders don't even have Reach
Spiders without Reach was, I felt, a necessary part of having a set with a ton of spiders; strict adherence to established design would have been stifling. In nature, not all spiders spin webs (which is what reach simulates) and those that do spin webs don't always do so in elevated positions to catch flying insects. Most sets have only one or two spiders, so the most archtypical spider is always used. In a set with many kinds of spider it makes sense that many (even most) wouldn't have Reach. Pic related is an orbweaver: they spin flat webs at ground level, so Reach wouldn't make any sense. It's also relevant that flying isn't used much in the set.

>why look at CMC?
Because the CMC is the primary way the game assigns "value" to a card. Many cards which require sacrifice in this set refer to the CMC of the sacrificed card: it just seems to make the most sense. It also inherently limits the ability to sacrifice tokens.

>"emblem"
Thanks, fixed

>why Poisonous instead of Infect?
Because the set uses +1/+1 counters, not -1/-1 counters. I don't like mixing them.

...

Now what is the purpose of capturing their creatures? Sac outlets?

>Well the Drow and their spiders are the "sacrifice matters" faction, so it would feel weird not to include it on their Planeswalker.
I didn't say "Sacrifice is weird for a planeswalker" I said "Sacrifice is weird for a + ability" there's a difference there. Needing to kill one of your own creatures to get a loyalty counter is harsh, especially as there is no other + ability on the card.
>Important to note that you can still use the ability and get +1 even if you have no creatures on the board.
Yet you didn't think of including a "You may" clause?

>Spiders without Reach was, I felt, a necessary part of having a set with a ton of spiders
OK, Spider CARDS not having Reach, fine. Spider TOKENS? Still weird.
>In nature
Don't care. This is about Spiders in Magic, not nature.
>so the most archtypical spider is always used.
Yet you decided that the archetypal Spider shouldn't be represented in the tokens?
>In a set with many kinds of spider it makes sense that many (even most) wouldn't have Reach
Uh... not really. You're building a tribe. Hopefully you're not being literal here and making an entire set of Spiders, because that sounds boring as fuck. It should be one tribe that gets Spiders. Maybe tribes for other creatures if you want.

>Because the CMC is the primary way the game assigns "value" to a card.
"Primary"? Let's see about that.

magiccards.info/query?q=o:"sacrifice a creature" o:converted&v=card&s=issue

magiccards.info/query?q=o:"sacrifice a creature" (o:power or o:toughness)&v=card&s=issue

Yeah... not very primary. This is why I said it was weird.
1/2

>Many cards which require sacrifice in this set
Yes, "in this set" which is very different from the rest of Magic. Again, this is why it's weird, it's not common.
>it just seems to make the most sense.
To you. Others will just say "Hey, why does this care about CMC rather than power or toughness?" Like I did.
>It also inherently limits the ability to sacrifice tokens.
And there is absolutely no other way to fix this?

>Because the set uses +1/+1 counters, not -1/-1 counters. I don't like mixing them.
Fair enough. Though Poisonous isn't exactly well-known. If you're going to use it repeatedly, I'd say just replace it with something like
>Venomous (This creature deals damage to players in the form of poison counters.)
Since it's much more intuitive. If it's just the planeswalker, I'd say just write it out.

>card
You are in no position to be making a set. You have yet to get even the most basic syntax of Magic correct, not to mention more complex things like Regenerate. Also, Capture sounds awful.
>If a creature dealt damage by ~ this turn would be destroyed, [...]
Since a creature can die by many means, but will be outright destroyed by damage.

2/2

Sacrifice effects don't need a target to resolve, you donut.

No shit. No fucking shit. Because it's clear you know fuckall about Magic, this is what I was suggesting.
>You may sacrifice a creature. If you do, [...]
You see that? Can you tell me what it means? No, I'll explain it for you. It means you DON'T HAVE TO SACRIFICE A CREATURE! Get it yet? Have I driven that through your thick skull? This way, you can still get loyalty for your planeswalker, without having to sacrifice a creature. You know why so many planeswalkers have a + ability you can still activate without really using? That's why, so you can still get loyalty even when you don't want to use its ability. Also, SACRIFICE DOESN'T TARGET!

>more permanents of that type
What if it has two card types? What if you target an artifact creature, they have more artifacts than you, and you have more creatures than that player? If it were me, I think I'd make them sac a permanent if they controlled more permanents than me.

Convoke but with artifacts Instead of creatures, yay or nay?

I think you'd be shouted down because of similarities to Affinity, even though it's pretty different.

Would there be a way to differentiate it more while keeping a similar effect?

Is this effect worth sticking with? Or should I try something else?

Not really sure, sorry.

I'll just keep it as is for now, then.

Ok, forgot to remove target. Other then that, is it good?

...

>a land that can tap for 2 colored mana
>resource counters can be easily restocked, making its possibility of being sacrificed fairly low
>it's a common
That needs some really significant retooling.

Looking back at It, I should probably limit it to combat or something less abuse-able. Possibly even remove the resource adding at all.

...

...

gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&text= ![reach]&subtype= ["Spider"]
how innovative of you

copying something 6 times is already pretty fucking amazing, any more than that is just redundant. I would get rid of the equipment restriction.
Cool effect though. I'd like to see a cycle.

That thing is pretty fucking crazy. For each spell you cast, it gets a pump an a regen which can be hellish in grixis colours.

...

You better have a lot of skeletons.

...

...

>she isn't wearing a shirt

The discard ability makes it more of a spellshaper than a wizard in my opinion.

Spellshapers duplicate the effects of actual cards. You can't just call anything with a "discard a card" ability a spellshaper.

Oh really? Shit then, I've been thinking of the all wrong for a while

Well, when I said "something else" I was thinking I would start the card over with different abilities. The 6 equipment bit was because I kept trying to play on the fact that she has 6 arms, but yeah, it is pretty restrictive. Just get rid of it then?

>cycle
Cycle of what part exactly? Equipments matter?

That's funny. Yes, the entire idea of Spellshapers is that they convert a card in your hand into an already existing spell. Though some of them do bend the rule a bit. Here's a good example of what we're talking about. Notice that the names of the tokens for the bottom row are all of existing Magic cards.

...

...

Seems like fun.

Yeah, I knew about the ones in future sight that corresponded to cards but I didn't think they all did. Oh well.

...

...

Meh, color bendy in the same way arachnus spinner is.

Just make it make a 0/1 black Offering token or something jeez.
If you're too stubborn to do that, at least make it put a token on the captured creature to keep track of it. Gaining control is just so roundabout and dumb though. In actual play that'd make way too many cards flying around.

Seems about right. Since it's not the illusions themselves being targeted, the sacrifice still might work best as a death trigger.

Aught to be an uncommon that only regens itself, or a rare.

>your counterspells make your spells cheaper
>works even if the opponent is using counterspells
>"spell counters"

disgusting

This really doesn't make a lot of sense.
The whole discard for discard is just fine, but it's flawed.

The ability at the end is what's throwing me off. The condition to play that ability is incredibly niche. It's pretty much a draw-two when nobody has any playable cards. I guess it leaves you at an advantage in the event that both players would have no playable cards, but really, how often is that a problem in competitive play? The primary ability helps make this condition more common, but this card all around just seems... niche, like it's not meant to be played in just any deck. I feel like you have a deck somewhere you had in mind when making this

I guess the only real benefit is it's low mana cost to guarantee counter discard.

3 drop for 3 mana + 2/1 + Unearth

It's mana cost needs to be adjusted or it needs to be made into a sorcery, not a creature. If neither of those, at least drop it to "add one (m) to your mana pool"

...

...

So the idea of this is a slightly weaker pacifism that offers an out for larger creatures, but that out also strips auras and equipped stuff.

...

For the imprint I'd say "... exile a creature you control or a creature card in your hand or graveyard." Makes it a bit easier to read.

*from your hand or graveyard

You have to choose all the most complex wordings possible so I can step in and correct you, don't you? Well, going by Angel of Serenity, Imprint should be
>When ~ enters the battlefield, exile a nontoken creature you control from the battlefield, or a creature card from your hand or graveyard.
Super tricky though. Doubt Wizards would ever print an effect like this.
>Each creature with an occult counter on it has all activated and triggered abilities of the exiled card and gets +X/+X, where X is the exiled card's power.
Seriously, +X/+X? I'm stunned that, out of all of this complex wording, you didn't make it +X/+Y.

Speaking of +X/+Y, how does a Phyrexian Ingester combined with O-Ring sound?

Truth be told, I have no idea if I phrased the second part of the effect correctly. It seems right, given Torpor Orb's wording, but wasn't sure.

Well, you're my lucky charm.
And no X/Y cuz darkside.

>
Sounds good. Probably would make it a 3UB, it isn't worth tricoloring it.

Should add an 'its'. Unheard of, but should work.
>datname

Still want to know if this suicide BR version of Null Profusion is worth looking into and refining or not.

You didn't change the Imprint wording?

>3UB
Forget a link?

I think I'd split it up so it had a temporary Torpor Orb ability in the first line, then the exile ability. Like
>Creatures entering the battlefield this turn don't cause abilities to trigger.
>Exile [up to one?] target creature, then return it to the battlefield under its owner's control.
Not sure if it should be common, even if you keep it as-is.

So something like this?

...

Yeah. This way it can have some utility even if you don't want to use the exile ability.

Nice.

Missed the nontoken, and reversed the order, but want it on cast. You know I like on cast triggers.

>Masane
Reminds me a lot of this card.

That's even better.

Remember to put a terminating clause.

Clever

>You know I like on cast triggers.
I didn't know that, actually. Also, why? It's not some jumbo Eldrazi where a cast trigger is chosen over an ETB trigger to prevent breakage. I don't see how using a cast trigger for the holocron is in any way better than using an ETB trigger.

>Card
It is a cool one. Though you should use the word "one" rather than the numeral "1"

Seems odd. It has evasion, but it also has lockdown for the same kind of creatures it's avoiding.

Because it's an unexplored design space that isn't bullshit. Regarding the holocron I just think it's a bit more in fluff.

>Card
Symbol does kinda look like mines, but it's not my card. It's from a custom card cube made by Roxolan with cards from these threads.

>Undead
Forgot to export the fixed one. Oh well.

Am I done with Doctor Strange yet?

>Because it's an unexplored design space that isn't bullshit.
Yes, unexplored, because there's very little point in exploring it. Nearly every single cast trigger could be easily replaced with an ETB trigger and mechanically the same. And again, for the big Eldrazi, it was used so cheating them into play didn't net you a big bonus on top of a big body. Like, you might as well start talking about how Horsemanship is unexplored design space. Doesn't mean it's good.

>Roxolan
That guy still here? Oh what am I saying, no way I'd know unless he said so or had a trip. I have a hard time keeping the set symbols straight. Like, I constantly forget about Time user because he switches between symbols all the time. Then you have cracked egg user, recycle user, and spoke-wheel user. They could all be the same person and I wouldn't be able to tell.

>instant or sorcery creature spell
???
Other than that looks fine.

Goddamnit. It's because I copied the ability from Tazri. Thanks, fixed.

...

...

Thoughts on this? Too powerful? I know it's not really in blue's color pie since the rummage ability is typically blue, but I'm doing a tribal set where blue is faeries, and it's a flavor first sort of design.

Note: now realizing I should make it an additional cost.

So let's talk about flavor, what is the meaning behind your set symbol?

>cracked egg user, recycle user, and spoke-wheel user
Nah, not the same person. Cracked egg user = savageanon = bunch of other failed ass stillborn sets user. But not recycle or spoke-wheel user.

>Time user switches between symbols all the time
Only when I finish a set, COanon. I'm working on my third now, so third symbol.

I think it might be okay. If you wanted it to be more restrictive you could have it require exiling a Faerie, but that might be too far in the other direction.

I tend to go fairly literal with my set symbols. Castle ramparts for a medieval set, beast fangs for a wilderness set.

I'm not the best artist, so I tend to go for something simple like that.

I've had a few:

>cracked shield
Meant to represent the shattered empire being warred over. Set was aborted because I couldn't get the mechanics where I wanted them and nobody seemed very thrilled about it. Not my best effort, all told. I'd like to return to it someday now that I am better at listening to feedback and not burying my head in the sand.

>ring
Meant to be a powerful artifact that let the wearer control the dreams of everyone around them, which was very strong indeed since the set was based in a plane where dreams were real, and manifested themselves to those with the gifts to make it so. Those who did not were of a lower caste, and the idea was a dystopian thing with intrigue and lots of mystery and murder going on. Abandoned due to frustration over not pulling off my DFC concept as well as general lack of interest. I have a track record of producing the most mediocre shit in these threads when it comes to sets, apparently.

>cave-painting handprint
Meant to represent the five tribes in my savage set, and also pretty straightforwardly evoke a sense of the primitive nature of the set. Only set I've managed to complete thusfar, and it's as basic bitch as they come. No custom keywords, and a small one too; 190 cards if I recall.

>cracked egg
Not even going to say what this was supposed to be because the joke is more relevant that whatever I decided on months ago. In limbo while I decide what to do with it; it's over half done but I'm not that happy with it honestly. It sounded like a great concept, marrying spellshapers and madness, and somehow I've made it boring and underwhelming. I guess that's my superpower?

>rising sun with mirage waves on sand
Desert set I tried with enemy colors. Some stuff worked really well (I thought) and some... ugh. I couldn't get UG to work at all, so I dropped it. Not completely abandoned but not sure how to save it either.

And that's all my relevant set stuff.

This is a red card.

>Needing to kill one of your own creatures to get a loyalty counter is harsh, especially as there is no other + ability on the card.
Fair point.

>OK, Spider CARDS not having Reach, fine. Spider TOKENS? Still weird.
The tokens generally represent little hatchlings, usually that come rushing out of sacrificed corpses. Not really the sort of things that would have webs lying around ready to ensnare stuff.

>You are in no position to be making a set.
You had been civil up until now. No need to be rude.

Not me, for the record

But still, no need to be rude.

...

...

Way too good for 4 cmc, push it to 5 at least, vigilance also isn't strong enough in green to justify it as an anthem effect.

The drain ability is cool though, I like the card but it needs trimming.

>You had been civil up until now. No need to be rude.
It's not an insult, but an observation. Making a set is a huge undertaking, and I simply don't believe you can do it at your current skill level.

The Vigilance lord ability says GW, and the pump ability says BG. Either choose one and get rid of the other, or make it tricolor.

>Making a set is a huge undertaking, and I simply don't believe you can do it at your current skill level.
Can anyone here really? From what I've seen most posters here can't even word a card right, I'd hate to see what they'd do to a whole set

If it were me, I'd make it some other form of counters and it gets +1/+2 for each of them.