Wow, this is like the only finished card I have that gets cast from a graveyard that isn't just a reprint.
Brayden Campbell
Anyone else here? Watching Mr. Robot, decided to make a card sorta kind based on it.
Ryan Turner
Consolidated my currently completed rares into one image. Thoughts on them so far? Planning on working on green next, then finishing up with the multicolored.
Nathan Barnes
>Planning on working on green next, then finishing up with the multicolored. No artifacts?
Cameron Martinez
I'm doing all artifacts last, common through rare.
Hunter Robinson
Wait, you haven't even worked on them yet?
Lucas Watson
Just mockups, nothing polished enough to post yet.
Luke Barnes
Why would you ignore an entire part of your set like this? What about your lands?
Jack Butler
I'm not ignoring them, just making them in a different order. Getting the bulk of the set squared away helps me in the rest of the design process.
Blake Rodriguez
Crossing my fingers hoping this is at least the final iteration of PG.
Owen Bailey
...
Cameron Butler
Oh, that's right. Not good to make cards half-asleep.
Joseph Price
Why is this an artificer?
Wow that is weird. Maybe make a temp copy of the creature? Extra combat? Trigger at the beginning of combat?
Kind of an odd name for something so combat-oriented.
I really think you're trying too hard with this. Flying, trample, indestructible, 6/6. That's rare and cool enough.
Landon Sullivan
I think you can just say "protection from noncreature" The wording on the second ability is kind of screwy. How about: >Whenever ~ attacks, exile target creature an opponent controls, then put it onto the battlefield under your control tapped and attacking. Its owner gains control of it at end of turn.
This could just be blue, I think. I like it quite a lot.
Michael Barnes
>Why is this an artificer?
Why not? Red is one of the two main 'Invention' colours and the art clearly has them holding a vial of something very nasty. Even with KLD out, Artificer is barely a tribal so it's unlikely to have major balance concerns I figured.
>Kind of an odd name for something so combat-oriented.
Yeah, the name however I'm not really a huge fan of right now but I couldn't think of something better (And I'm pondering making the name fit better by making a 5 colour cycle of 'Herald of X')
Nathan Mitchell
It could be at the beginning of combat, but attacking is one of the times he's actually vulnerable.
Even if it is odd, I do believe it works on the same principle you're trying to replicate with tokens that enter tapped and attacking.
Carter Johnson
>Damnable Pact At first I was like "oh, it's a worse Mind Spring", and then I was like "oh, it's a worse Blaze as well." I don't really know how good this is, honestly.
>Efreeti of Infernal Rites Excellent design, but you'll need to keep an eye on the amount of fast mana you give red. This plus anything resembling a Pyretic Ritual is probably too good.
>Vanguard Exemplar Does this need a "activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery"?
>Warfare Profiteer Yes, the flavor text is good, but is it really worth making my eyes bleed?
>Ahralian Scorcher Red withdraw? Neat. On the subject of Withdraw, I think you can say "return this" instead of "return this permanent", because reminder text. (See Living Weapon and the Kamigawa Patron cycle).
>Dissemination How many 5+ removal spells are in the set? Also, there are a shitload of targets for this thing, and I'm almost certain there's something wrong with the wording.
>Flaming Summons This is S U P E R G O O D Mode 1 is "summon an almost-Monastery Swiftspear", which is probably OK. Mode 2 is "strictly better Tormenting Voice that works when your hand is empty", which probably isn't OK Mode 3 is pretty good Even without Escalate, this would be an amazing card.
>Mantle of Fire Seems odd for a red card to encourage non-aggression.
William Kelly
A white edict, a good token, and a wrath, for a 5 CMC walker? Seems unexciting, but I guess wraths are 5 CMC these days on their own. Her 0 is the most interesting of her abilities. Her + seems out of color, even if its in flavor.
200-odd cards and not a single one that casts from the graveyard. Don't even have a lot of recursion in general among cards I've made.
Austin Cruz
Not timeanon, but Damnable Pact is a reprint, hence the (R). So uhh... ask Wizards how good it is. I think the answer is somewhere around "okay."
Also, Dissemination by my reading targets a spell (with a single target) and a player, despite the liberal use of "target".
>card Terrible ideas, ho!
Bentley Ross
Sacrificed creatures still "die" for the purpose of an effect like this, right?
>Her + seems out of color, even if its in flavor. You're kind of right, but Renounce The Guilds and World Queller do exist. Besides, it's Phyrexia, I'm not going to beat myself up over a few color bends.
>Untimely Rebirth A perfect Johnny card. You could reduce the cost to 1CMC, if you feel like pushing the power level.
Andrew Gray
The reason I chose this specific type of ability is that I didn't want it to get too out of hand as doubling power or toughness on even just one creature can often be more than enough.
Jaxson Brown
>Damnable Pact It's a reprint from Dragons. X spells are a big thing in the set, and I feel like it fits in pretty well. >you'll need to keep an eye on the amount of fast mana you give red. Red does get some nonland means of mana production (otherwise, Efreeti of Infernal Rites would be useless) but I'll keep an eye on the amount. >Vanguard Exemplar Not necessary. As worded, it lets you give your opponent an extra combat step. Which you usually wouldn't want to do, but it could be fun with Ambush. >Yes, the flavor text is good, but is it really worth making my eyes bleed? I feel that the card actually looks worse without the flavor text; it's just as cramped, but also weirdly disorganized. Pic related. I added the flavor text because it makes the text align better. I can remove it, though, it people think this version looks better. >Withdraw Yeah, it's the UR mechanic, so it shows up pretty evenly throughout each. >Reminder text Sweet, I'll update that. Thanks! >How many 5+ removal spells are in the set? Between X spells and Escalate spells, a decent enough amount. Plenty of viable targets. >I'm almost certain there's something wrong with the wording. I ripped the wording directly from actual cards. >Flaming Summons Added an "If you do" clause to Mode 2 >Mantle of Fire An effort on my part to adapt Braid of Fire. The enchant creature bit is to make it a bit more interactive. >Glorious Ignition Solid ritual. I dig it. The art is quite nice, as well.
Made this for a set a friend and I are working on. Bottom card of library is a theme of the set, hence being able to manifest it. Thoughts?
Jack Foster
Well, with stuff like Tel-Jilad Stylus or Reito Lantern, manipulating the bottom is fairly easy to manifest exactly what you want.
Also, this guy has 6, Mill 1: Exile target creature or planeswalker. But he's also 7 CMC and dies to removal, so I guess that sort of helps balance him.
Ayden Collins
How is this effect? >Whenever an instant or sorcery spell you control deals damage to a single opponent or creature an opponent controls, you may have ~ deal that much damage to another target opponent or creature an opponent controls.
Christopher Cruz
Sounds interesting, although it might be better with "exactly one opponent or creature an opponent controls."
Manifest on a card really strikes me as something that should be Blue, maybe Blue-Green. >Bottom card of library is a theme of the set Why?
Zachary Rodriguez
>Manifest on a card really strikes me as something that should be Blue, maybe Blue-Green.
Manifest's present in all five colors in this set, so there's a bit of color bending
>Why?
Originally, because it was design space that hasn't been unexplored yet. There's an ability word that checks the bottom card of the library for an effect, for example. At this point, it's likely not going to stick around. The set's already gone back to the drawing board twice, and it may just change to checking the top card.
Evan Stewart
>hasn't been unexplored
i can word
Andrew Phillips
>Manifest's present in all five colors in this set, so there's a bit of color bending It was in all five colors before too.
>design space that hasn't been unexplored yet This isn't addressed towards just you but to everyone here, but just because there's design space that hasn't been explored doesn't mean it's a goldmine that Wizards hasn't looked into yet. Sometimes they don't explore things because they already know that it isn't worth their attention. Like fortifications, for example.
Connor Rogers
Look, I just want something more than a big beater.
Camden Hernandez
You could design around that by not having the effect work on the creature with the biggest P or T.
>Why not? Well, I tend to expect artificers to do something with artifacts. >Red is one of the two main 'Invention' colours But this doesn't mean "invention" is in every single Red card. >and the art clearly has them holding a vial of something very nasty You mean she's holding something that doesn't look like an artifact filled with something else that doesn't look like an artifact? Oh, I just hadn't noticed. I'm honestly wondering now if you know what "artificer" means.
Brayden Murphy
It should tap down only on your combat, or only on an opponent's combat. Otherwise you can tap down most blockers and draw a lot of cards.
The tokens should enter tapped so there's some incentive to not paying the tax.
Not bad.
Meh. Does it really need fire breathing? Her "main" ability is way too dependent on your opponent's playing artifacts, so she's just a flying brick.
Isaac Reyes
>Sandman Eh, alright. Should I change it to an attack trigger?
>PG Well, firebreathing helps destroy artifacts, so yeah, kinda. As for the other ability... what do you expect? It's artifact destruction, of course it relies on your opponents having artifacts. I mean, how else am I supposed to do artifact destruction that doesn't rely on that? I don't mean to sound ungrateful, but what exactly is your point?
Jaxson Mitchell
>I'm honestly wondering now if you know what "artificer" means.
A skilled mechanic of the armed forced or an inventor.
>holding something that doesn't look like an artifact
See pic related. Artifacts can include alchemical things.
Anyway, there is examples Artificer cards in Kaladesh, the most recent set, that don't directly interact with artifacts:
>A skilled mechanic of the armed forced or an inventor. A definition as technical-sounding as this makes it sound as though you didn't know, and just looked it up in a dictionary or something. But I'll accept that you do know.
>See pic related. Artifacts can include alchemical things. OK, fine, but how many artificers do you see wielding alchemical things in their artwork?
>Anyway, there is examples Artificer cards in Kaladesh, the most recent set, that don't directly interact with artifacts: An exception does not disprove a trend. It's not that all of them do it, it's that most of them do, and I was wondering why you were making an exception to the trend. Honestly, with your image combined with the abilities of the card, I feel like it would be far more suited to be a Wizard.
Wyatt Morgan
Sorry, let me clarify something I said: It's not that I have a problem with your definition, I'm just saying that being so technical in the future isn't always the best idea. I was just making a joke at your expense when I asked if you knew the definition.
Hunter Hernandez
>An exception does not disprove a trend.
A trend also does not enforce everything to match it. Not every elf is green, for example.
>OK, fine, but how many artificers do you see wielding alchemical things in their artwork?
Considering how much of Kaledesh is 'Large tanks of blue liquid' for the Aether, quite a lot of them.
There doesn't seem much reason to have it not be an Artificer when red is one of the primary colours of invention, it's about progressing science (Chemistry is a science, after all) and the artwork doesn't really say anything 'Wizard' unless you count 'Holding a vial' as 'Wizard'.
Connor Rogers
>PG 6/9 of your big splashy multicolor rare legendary is a conditional artifact destruction ability. I love reclamation sage, but I don't get all excited over it. You have a card that looks really impressive with a lot of text, but it's really just an indestructible flyer.
Jack Walker
You can certainly make Artificers that don't interact with artifacts, but expect to get flak for it each and every time you post one.
Logan Cruz
OK, I see your point. I'll cut down on the complexity and try to make it less narrow. Hmm, land destruction is always useful, right?
Nicholas Flores
how much power is voga power
Charles Green
About sixty thousand acre's worth.
John Collins
...
Evan Williams
...
Nolan Allen
So it's like a really, really bad nettle sentinel.
Julian King
Yes, trying to 'fix' protection.
Kevin Ortiz
For this to work in the rules, copy the template from Spell Queller. As it is, the card doesn't actually work.
Nicholas Perez
The issue that protection has isn't the unblockable part. It's that it makes the card either 'Really good' or really bad based not on the rest of your deck but on the opponent. It's why colour-hate spells are rarely printed these days.
Chase Turner
Dead thread, meet green rares. Green rares, this is dead thread.
Connor Lopez
Well its a pretty good card CO user. Random effects are terrible, but that aside it's a really good card. Should be a-ok for MTG-o.
It's slightly different fromt he last time I saw it, can't remember what changed though. Looks nice as it is.
Ehhh. You know you can cut much of it and keep a nice effect.
>Karen Starr 3WR 4/4 Flying, Haste [W/RW/R]: Karen Starr, Power Girl gets +1/+0. When Karen Starr deals damage to a player this turn, destroy each artifact with converted mana cost less than or equal to Karen Starr's power that player controls. Karen Starr deals 1 damage to that player for each permanent destroyed this way.
That's nice.
That shit's beyond broken.
Effect's cool but a bit of a nightmare. Can I have that art?
That's a really cool card. Might use it. And yes they do.
I thought it was a really cool card, but then I realized the token spawning is a permanent effect, it's a bit op.
Hm. Something about it I don't like, reminds me of Sliver Overlord.
Really strong, but not too bad. Don't quite dig the idea of tapping during their combat.
I love that card. Don't know why. It's really solid, and knows what its doing :3
Jordan Ramirez
>Resurrection Man I could make it just your graveyard, Wizards is at least fine with that much randomness on paper (Deadbridge Chant).
>PG I want it to have Indestructible, and with P/T at 5/5 at the least. As for the ability, I like that suggestion, and I might use it on another card, but for this one, I think I'll just use >Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, destroy target artifact or land that player controls. Since now it depends much less on opponents using artifacts and it still fits the idea of "smash stuff".
>Sandman I'm changing it to an attack trigger next time.
Thanks for your feedback on the rest as well.
>card Seems interesting, don't really see the point of Changeling though.
Christopher Foster
Ugh, bump. Where is everyone?
Carter Gray
I'm working on my set, but I'm not sure where everyone else is at the moment. I'm making some progress, though. Banged out a rough draft of the multicolored rares. >Psylocke Did you make this card before impulse drawing was a thing? I feel like impulse would fit it so much better.
Zachary Johnson
How would you cost an effect along the lines of
"Instant and sorcery spells you cast can't be the target of spells or abilities your opponents control."
And how would you word it?
Matthew Ward
Instant and sorcery spells you control can't be that target of spells or abilities your opponents control.
As for cost, it's basically just 'can't be countered' for instant and sorceries and the only permanent source of that I know is Sphinx of the final word.
Carson Cox
5 mana for an artifact with the effect?1UU for an enchantment, maybe. The upside from "can't be countered" is you dodge spell copying, exiling, and redirecting.
Ryan Green
You could just have something say "Instants and Sorceries you control have Split Second." and that'd get you to where is, but I'm really not sure about how you'd go about costing that.
Robert Howard
That's slightly different again, as it prevents any response, such as pumps in response to burn.
Lucas Ortiz
Halloween is coming!
Brody Perez
But split second means I can't interact with them myself. And with the "hexproof" I've got in mind, things like overloaded Counterflux still work. I'm thinking maybe a 3UU 2/2 Wizard.
Nolan King
Maybe make Aneketian Idols XGU? Paying 6cmc for a 4/4 with no abilities is kind of rubbish.
William Jenkins
Where are you getting 4/4 from?
Asher Harris
ignore my foolishness, read that completely wrong
Evan Russell
No worries, user
Dylan Jenkins
Art challenge! Artist: Matthew DeMino
Hard mode: Not related to Theros.
Juan White
I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work. As soon as the enchantment leaves, the creature spell goes back onto the stack.
Jaxson Collins
You're an idiot. Copy SQ.
Jaxon Mitchell
Can you give me an actual reason why it wouldn't work though? Like state a rule? Spell Queller's interaction with non-creature spells I can see the player not wanting to cast the spell, but I don't see a reason why the spell wouldn't actually function or fizzle if it used "until ~ leaves the battlefield"
Joseph Howard
I cheated.
Kevin Fisher
Because then it turns into this rules nightmare.
Joshua Lee
More set legends for the dead thread
Robert Perry
When you exile a spell, it forgets all of its targets, modes, X, etc. When you put it back directly on the stack, you bypass the spell casting steps and never get to reselect choices that can be made.
A card like "works", but note the oracle wording >At the beginning of each of that player's upkeeps, if that card is exiled, remove a delay counter from it. If the card has no delay counters on it, he or she puts it onto the stack as a copy of the original spell. And keep in mind that there are memory issues, where you have to remember the exact details of the spell for many turns in the future. [Delay] is a better worded version of Ertai's Meddling.
Christopher Adams
How soon is too soon?
Jack Lee
Soon enough for me to forget my P/T, obviously.
Camden Stewart
That's more if a memory issue than it is a rule issue though. I already understood that a spell exiled by Queller would probably fizzle, but mechanically, it would work. This is actually a non-issue with creature spells however, which is all my enchantment is trying to interact with.
Colton Young
Why not just model it after SQ so that confusion (especially new player confusion) is avoided? Do you have any reason to keep your current, obtuse design?
Xavier Ward
I really don't see it as confusing or even difficult to comprehend for a new player. Targeting a creature spell has basically none of the complications that arise from instants and sorceries.
Angel Taylor
You didn't answer the question. Do you have any explicit reason not to change your current design, or are you just being stubborn?
Henry Barnes
Not that user, but what is the point of changing the design when it works within the rules and easier to understand and more concise than any other wording? Don't you have to come up with a reason why it's a problem before you can criticize him for being 'stubborn'?
Camden Ross
Not him, but some creatures have cast triggers, and some don't work without paying an additional cost. Get over your stupid snowflake bullshit already. No, don't even pretend this is about anything other than an obsession with a mechanic that you think will make you special for doing it before everyone else. Sometimes unexplored design space us best left unexplored, get over it.
Adam Thompson
Using the old "exile it until this leaves" opens it up towards me mechanical abuse than what I am suggesting. If anyone is being stubborn here, it's you trying to get me to change a card that actually already works. Just because the old type of temporary exile exists, didn't mean we should just stick to that no questions asked. There is actually no basis to change the wording on this enchantment, as it does not affect 99.9%of the issues that targeting instants and sorceries represents.
Aaron Ross
>but some creatures have cast triggers Not a problem. >and some don't work without paying an additional cost Not a problem >Get over your stupid snowflake bullshit already. GTFO (not him though)
Tyler Howard
Nice, though part of me would like the effect to be symmetrical.
Jace Scott
You obviously don't understand the card or mechanics. The card isn't being cast, so under my wording, you don't incur having to pay the cost a second time after you cast it.
Justin Young
>(not him though) Then STFU.
Ryder Rivera
I think part of the problem is that Spell Queller has set precedent for spell exile, and now players will expect all similar effects to behave similarly.
Spell Queller drops X, because it casts without paying costs. Yours doesn't, which means you have to track X. Spell Queller gives a cast trigger later. Yours doesn't. Spell Queller allows you to re-kick on the re-cast. Yours doesn't.
Sure, its more concise, but it leaves gaping holes that players will inevitably stick their fingers into, because things just appearing onto the stack, without being a copy effect, isn't necessarily territory that I, at least, am well familiar with.
Benjamin Gray
Why? Isn't that what you did?
David Phillips
>the point >you
Asher Perez
...
Sebastian Nelson
>it is owners
Joshua Gutierrez
As I work on these set legends, I'm realizing that this set is nearing completion. I need to start working on ideas for my next project.
In the meantime, here's a full rough draft of the set mythic legends.
Eli Hernandez
I hate the manifest ability. It should be just bottom of the library or just top, (bottom since that's what your sets about) and it shouldn't be just a pay 3 mana type of thing. Manifest is in each color, but it is triggered in different ways in each color. Look at qarsi high priest, sultai emissary, and the white manifest cards. It needs to either have a white mana cost, or something that can relate it to white, black, or both colors. As for the second ability, I really don't like it. It doesn't encourage fun gameplay, (especially with the first ability as it is) and you shouldn't have to pay more to get use out of your 7 mana cards.
Joseph Clark
I would probably play a 4 cost 4/2, with flash haste and first strike, without the other effect.
