/ccg/ Custom Card General /cct/

>-2 should read "put a 1/1 black skeleton creature token onto the battlefield".
"Create" is us being forward-minded with our templating. Pic related is the October FNM promo, so rumor is that Wizards is updating their token making wording to be more concise.

Probably have to do some weird Chain Veil-esque shenanigans to be 100% rules tight.
>You may activate ~'s loyalty abilities a second time each turn, as though loyalty abilities have been activated this turn.

There might even be a better template for it than just using the standard Magic template. Dig around on the MSE forums. I remember a few years back, "Power Cards" were a big deal for 4e D&D, so maybe find a template for that?

I was wondering whether or not to change the effect to hatching maggots whenever it takes damage or whenever a creature goes to the graveyard.

Additional question: Does color have to be capitalized? i.e. "target Black creature" versus "target black creature".

Super types are always capitalized while colors or only capped if first word. So Creature not creature.
See for reference on making tokens.

Supertypes are not always capitalized. Subtypes are.

Color words aren't capitalized (unless they start a sentence, obviously). Subtypes, like Goblin, Equipment, Aura or Forest, are capitalized, but card types (creature, enchantment) and supertypes (legendary, snow, basic) aren't. Counters aren't capitalized either.

As an odd note, if you have to invert the condition, you hyphenate capitalized (types) only. So it's non-Goblin, non-Aura, nonbasic, nonartifact, and nonwhite.

So it's a "black Maggot that makes -1/-1 counters", or more completely
>Whenever ~ is dealt damage, create a 0/1 black Maggot creature with "When this creature is dealt damage by another creature, put a -1/-1 counter on that creature."

Draft 02

Second version incoming.

Draft 03

I now realize that "takes damage" might be better changed to "is dealt damage" if the source of damage is not meant to be specified any further.

Closer, but you're missing finer details. For example
Not:
>Whenever Maggot-Mother takes damage
But:
>Whenever Maggot-Mother is dealt damage
Why? Because that's how Wizards writes it.

Not:
>create a 0/1 black Maggot creature with the ability:
But:
>create a 0/1 black Maggot creature with
Note the lack of the colon. Magic has a very defined meaning for colons in text, and they never show up outside of that meaning.

Also, you have a period outside the quotation marks at the end of the rules text. It goes inside, because its both ending the quote (defining the token's ability) and ending the rules text (defining the card's ability).

It's not that its about defining the source, its that objects/players never take damage, objects/players are always dealt damage.

...

Draft 04 of the non-dies version.

TY for advice and help.

...

This is so ungodly slow that its terrible. It, on average, destroys a land by Turn NINE. The last ability triggers so late in the game that it might as well be superfluous. I'd cut it entirely and make the thing far cheaper. Nobody wants a Stone Rain that takes five turns and 4 mana.

>Enchant Land
>Whenever enchanted land becomes tapped, put a pest counter on ~.
>Whenever enchanted land becomes untapped, ~ deals 1 damage to that land's controller for each pest counter on ~. Then, if there are five or more pest counters on ~, destroy enchanted land.

Ditto on lowering the casting cost.

If you wanted to do a card that spread the infestation from one land to another, I would change the first part of the ability to
>Whenever enchanted land becomes tapped, put a pest counter on target land

If that's a bit odd, then maybe it can be reworded thusly:
>Put a pest counter on target land your opponent controls.

...

We told you how to fix this the last time you posted it.

Obviously he should roll two d20's for X/Y and Z/W, then subtract Z from X and W from Y.

And add a Shakespere quote about money. Y'know, for flavor.

...

Bumping the thread with old cards while I work on new ones

...

...

...

...

...

I believe, with this, the thread has been sufficiently bumped.

...

clever

...

You still haven't explained the flavor behind your set, user. The flavor still strikes me as a bit scattered, with some knights and some angels and some pirates/explorers, etc. What's the deal?

I've removed the knights.
It is a pirates/explorers based world.

Do you have any more details worked out yet? I'm genuinely interested, both specifically in your set and in the design processes of other setmakers in general.

Eh it's a going process. But I'm working on it based on feedback from users such as yourself.

Mechanically this set is a sorcery/instant matters set with a bit of blue color bend in wbrg, but not bleed.

Draft version 2:
moved plunder from BR only at common to BRw (still going to be BRwu at uncommon and higher)

Moving Invoke to all colors at common instead of UB only

>sorcery speed counterspell
>counterspell in white
No.

Its not terribly different than "Until your next turn, the next spell your opponent casts costs 2 more to cast."

Which makes me wonder why its not that instead.

It has minor functionality difference, but i agree, unless the set has cast triggered effects or GY interaction, just make it a straight increase.

Cool Design/10

I downloaded the Planechase version. How do you get the swirly Planechase symbol to appear in the text?

IIRC capital C.

I tried that and it didn't work. Both C and C: if that helps

You should be able to do it manually from the format drop menu.

...

Why the sorcery speed restriction on Reclamation? Also, Dominion should target, if you ask me.

The other day, I picked up a real Magic card for the first time in a couple years. They're a lot smaller than I remember them to be. Probably because I've been staring at the enlarged template so often.

Only now do I realize how easily breakable Dormant Sparkmouth Cavern is. Clearly, it doesn't need to untap.

This card seems fine. I imagine it would be a kinda dead land in a burn strategy due to how many of the cards they play that are 1 mana and a terrible man-land in a slow control deck.

I think the suspicion is that it can go infinite if you can get it to generate R plus another mana, somehow. Easiest way I can think of is a two-card combo with Dawn's Reflection powering out a gigantic fireball or something, but I don't think its as easily breakable as you think it is. Or maybe I'm missing something because its late.

>Frosthorn Cubus
>UB, T, Exile a card from your graveyard: Destroy...
See Grim Lavamancer for an example of this sort of cost. Cool card, though. I like it.

I was thinking more Fertile Ground or Trace of Abundance. You're generating colorless mana, but it's still infinite for a turn.

Hurp durp, didn't search nearly hard enough. Yeah, with combo pieces at 2 CMC, it might be a little broken in powering out some gigantic X-spell on turn 3 (T1 Stomping Ground, T2 Sparkmouth, Fertile Ground, T3 infinite mana Fireball).

The other option is to add a "Activate this ability only if ~ isn't a creature." rider to the ability, if you want to keep that cool desperate untap flavor, I guess.

Why don't you just use evoke?

Evoke doesn't interact with cards that care about instant and sorceries

...

...

Looking for help on the wording of the last two clauses.

Kind of a confusing card.
Is it supposed to be recurring as a 3/3 for just the one turn when it dies?

When ~ dies, you may pay 2 life. If you do, return it from the graveyard to the battlefield. It loses defender, gains haste, and gets +3/-1 until end of turn.

...

So you can 2 turn infinite mana this with:
>Island, mountain, forest, dormant
>Put abundent on dormant
>pass turn
>turn 2 activate dormant then enchant it with crab umbra
>tap dormant for CU
>use U to untap dormant
>repeat
>Fireball for X
To be fair though, this combo is possible with any man land and the only issue is how cheap the active is.. Like there is still mutavault for 2.
Did we just make the new meme combo deck in modern?

Yes, it's a 3/3 haster just for the turn it dies and then reverts back to being a wall. Originally the effect was going to be automatic: "Lose 2 life and return ~ to play, it loses defender, gains haste and +3/-1 until end of turn", but that seemed like an easy way to lose all your life.

Likewise I'm not sure how to get the wording right on this card. As worded, I think the opposing player only has to pay 1 mana to prevent the entire effect.

Just have it be, "When ~ dies, you may pay 2 life. If you do, put a 3/3 black demon/imp/devil/dong creature token onto the battlefield.

I kind of don't like that change, but for arguably silly reasons: the card mechanic itself is based on gargoyles coming to life, whereas that card mechanic (which admittedly is pretty similar anyway) has a demonic creature bursting free from its confines.

I kind of want the card to bounce back and forth between the graveyard and battlefield rather than creating a new token.

"During" tracks things that specifically occur over the length of the entire phase/step. What you want is "at the beginning of"

>At the beginning of your upkeep, put a rent counter on target land you don't control.

>At the beginning of your end step, for each rent counter, gain 1 life unless an opponent pays 1.

Ult should be a bit higher. I dislike the fact you can hit it after 2 turns of having her out and without losing her. Sure the ult is kinda minor but it gives so much card advantage in a life gain deck. Like 2 soul wardens = draw 2 cards per creature enter.

Do you want to be pay 1 per rent counter or only 1 total? Because currently it would seem pretty easy to always pay 1 and thus make the card uselss.

Then have the token be a colorless 3/3 gargoyle. The card is essentially doing the same thing as "bouncing back" from the graveyard without the wording getting stupid.

Threshold enablers for the set. Should they be common instead?

...

Jesus christ, you managed to misspell the names of almost every single one of these cards.

>Abyssal Essence
>Ruffians' Game
>Homely Barracks
>Lich's Curse
>"Scour the Burgeoning" doesn't make any sense

...

You're a bad person.

...

>When ~ dies, you may pay 2 life. If you do, return it to the battlefield. Until end of turn, it becomes a black Demon with base power and toughness 3/3, loses all other abilities, and gains haste.
Is how I'd word it. Flavorfully, I think it captures a transformation better.

Methinks he was being old-timey and flavorful, but yeah, it bugs the shit out of me too to see "Liche" and whatnot.

>Spend this mana only on costs of spells you cast that contain X.
See Rosheen Meanderer.

>Spend this mana only on costs of spells you cast that contain X.
well that would be that i can use the mana also to play a X3U spell and using the 3 for the 3 instead for the X... that was not my intention.

...

>old-timey

I'm not too sure about that, although depending on the era perhaps some of those sentences/spellings might be appropriate. More research needed.

Tried to revamp Chapel Demon to something a bit less confusing. Is the phrasing "until your end phase" fine or does it need modification?

too strong i guess...
maybe for 1BGW (and even than its i realy strong card)

They're nearly the same in terms of function and scope. The problem is that the rules don't define "X costs," they're "costs that contain X." The best you could do is maybe
>Spend this mana only on X in costs of spells you cast that contain X.
Which reads terribly, if you ask me. This is based on the old "Spend on [TYPE] mana on X," but that only shows up in contexts where X is already defined on the card.

It's "until end of turn" or "until the end of your next turn" or "until the end of the next turn", depending on how you want to time the effect.

I guess being dealt lethal damage is a valid check, but it still reads awkwardly. Also, you having a timing clause on a continuous, static ability, which doesn't work. Here's another idea of how to work your card.
>Defender
>2B: Regenerate ~. When it regenerates this way, untap it, anduntil the end of your next turn, ~ becomes a black Demon creature with base power and toughness 3/3, loses defender, and gains flying and haste.

I agree, I'd feel more comfortable with this at 1BGW, because I'm not sure the third color is equal to the 2 generic on Utter End.

can't be countered also negates it