/ccg/ Custom Card General /cct/

I believe it's the main character from Tokyo Ghoul.

...

>At power 2 or greater, it kinda defeats the point of having it give out poison counters in most formats.
At 1 poison counter a turn, you're never going to kill them with poison damage anyways.

Wizards actually doesn't like to use Prowess like this, they'd say
>Whenever you cast a noncreature spell, Plant creatures you control get +1/+1 until end of turn.
Nothing *wrong* with your wording, just pointing that out. Card seems like fun, but I think maybe upping it by 1 would be a good idea. Or making it rare. Build a deck the right way and you're going to flood your board with Plant tokens, then have a way to pump them a bit.

Hmm, true. What about making the power 2 then modifying the ability so it basically just converts player damage to poison counters?

>Wizards actually doesn't like to use Prowess like this, they'd say
>Nothing *wrong* with your wording, just pointing that out.
I think some of this comes from not wanting to produce N triggers when you can just produce 1. The use cases are almost identical, and the ones that aren't are abusive or unintuitive ones that I think Wizards likes to avoid.

Also makes life easier for those MODO players.

I hope this wording is intuitive.

>produce N triggers when you can just produce 1
What does this mean?

>What does this mean?
"Creatures you control have prowess" will put N independent triggered abilities onto the stack for each noncreature spell cast, where N is the number of creatures you control.
"Whenever you cast a noncreature spell, creatures you control get +1/+1 until end of turn" puts 1 such trigger on the stack.

I'm taking a break from numerical methods so my brain is very much in math mode. Apologies.

Should this be a common?

N stands for number.
He's saying that if I change it to just an anthem pump it only makes 1 trigger on the stack instead of having each plant's prowess trigger and need to resolve.

>Project
Seems fine sense it's so expensive. I guess it would be kind of toxic in some commander lists but that's true for any good GU card.

Poison Ivy again, cost reduced by R but raised by 1. Hoping to move this to the "finished" category soon.

Ah, I see.

Hmm, no, uncommon seems better. Closest comparison I can think of though is Soul Tithe, which scales.

Butcher Orgg ability, I always liked the idea of it. Idea is, I guess, just being swift enough to get at someone even if they aren't immediately around. Her sword is a separate card, for anyone who might be wondering.

this is pretty good.

Probably the last one for tonight. Randomness seems pretty Joker-ish to me, as well as blowing stuff up.

Thanks.

...

You do realize that's SIX cards? Getting hit even once would be damn near impossible to recover from.

Sorry, it's late. Uh, which in your opinion would be the better one to keep?

I'd say make it just one of each. That'd keep it a threat while not being GG if it lands.

This is an odd question, I know, but does anyone have a list of the most "popular" tribes in each color? Like obviously black would have a lot of skeletons and zombies, blue would have merfolk etc. But I'm curious about which creature types show up most often for the colors (and so I can cross reference them when making multicolor creatures)

I feel like this kind of design is pushing limits, 5cmc is a lot but "doubling" up on reanimator targets and flashback spells is pretty good... Should I bump it to 6?

I think more dangerous than reanimator spells are cheap self-recurring creatures like Scrapheap Scrounger, Bloodghast, and anything with Unearth.

Its certainly a cool design. I'd run it in EDH for sure.

Each color has a characteristic creature.
Humans for white.
Merfolk for blue.
Vampires and Zombies for black.
Goblins for red.
Elves for green.

Each color also has an iconic creature. These typically show up as rares or mythics.
Angels for white.
Sphinxes for blue.
Demons for black.
Dragons for red.
Hydras for green.

On Zendikar:
W=Kor
U=Merfolk
B=Vampires
R=Goblins
G=Elves
All=Humans

Mirrodin:
W=Leonin
U=Vedalkens
B=Zombies
R=Goblins
G=Elves
All=Humans

Kaladesh:
W=Dwarves
U=Vedalkens
B=Aetherborn
R=Humans
G=Elves
All=Humans

On Kaladesh, shouldn't R be Gremlins?

On Innistrad:
WU: Spirits
UB: Zombies
BR: Vampires
RG: Werewolves
GW: Humans

Is there any sort of tutorial to make MSE templates?

Not that I know of, sorry.

No, because gremlins are non-sapient. All mono-Red sapients have been human.

Goblins are sapient... most of the time.

The original question asked about "the most popular tribes in each color."
Sapience wasn't specified. Gremlins are more closely associated with Red in Kaladesh than humans, surely?

Yes. Heck, I think Dwarves are more Red than Humans.

Goblins aren't gremlins, and there are no goblins in Kaladesh.

Yes, but crabs are also closely associated with Blue. Gremlins are just a unique creature type for Kaladesh. Humans are traditionally everything, but tend to deviate towards White overall, but on Kaladesh, most of the White stuff is occupied by dwarves who are either crafters or law enforcement. In Red, most of it is either gremlins or humans, and gremlins are just beasts, whereas humans are a sapient race.

It's kinda like how there are iconic superbeings for each color:
W=Angels (though Akroma was mono-Red at one point)
U=Sphinx
B=Demon (though there are a few mono-Red demons in Kamigawa)
R=Dragon (Tarkir is an exception)
G=Hydra

Mortal humans are not comparable to dragons and sphinxes.

I was thinking this was balanced similarly to stormchaser mage, the easier casting cost balanced by lifelink as opposed to evasion.

Comments appreciated, where would you play this?

pardon me, wrong version

WU casting cost with haste is a color pie break :(

Sorry :(

Playable constructed or limited trash?

Wow the evergreen chart is outdated.

Better :3

Feels kinda weird now that Poison Ivy is BG, but oh well. Hope this gets the flavor across well. And yes, it's supposed to be that in a 1v1, the creature just can't attack. Though I am wondering if I should keep it from blocking.

Ah, much better than the last version. No idea on costing honestly, maybe up by 1.

Yeah, I have no idea why the user chose an OP image that old.

my mistake that was a draft i never deleted, see

my thoughts were that the easier casting cost compared to stormchaser mage were balanced by substitution of evasion for lifelink.

No idea if this is even good, or playable, or on the other hand broken.

and finally, would you play this combat trick?

A bit of an older card. I'm not as confident in it now as I was when I made it, so I'm basically just double-checking it. The idea behind this was that it would be good on its own, but it was specifically made to work well together with a pinger.

How is it a combat trick? Like, having it give Vigilance kinda makes me think it should be used before it attacks, you know, when it becomes tapped. Maybe just have it untap the creature? Still not seeing why it's a trick though.

Eh, you're probably right.

I think I'd make it
>Whenever ~ becomes attached to a creature, ~ deals 3 damage to you.
>Equip 0
Not liking it much though.

Or just, y'know
>Equip--Pay 3 life.
Unless there's some unusual artifact lifelinking synergy going on.

I was going off of the wording for Demonmail Haurberk, any particular reason you don't enjoy it? If you have a jhund themed equipment of that casting cost that you could recommend instead, i would greatly appreciate it.

I was thinking because of the red needing casting cost and the green OR black cost, paying three life would not fit the color pie for green.

I could always make Mantle an equipment and redo Tyrant's as an enchantment aura that deals three when it enters.

Then shuffle the colors around as appropriate. Make it black core and R/G hybrid. Black gets secondary haste, and both red and green can offer trample.

Seems the easiest thing because dealing damage as a cost isn't really a thing, AFAIK.

This is the problem with Hybrid cards. The requirements contort the design space so hard that it becomes difficult to do anything fun with them.

No change, just trying to make sure it's good before I mark is as completed.

It's just a very odd cost to have something deal damage to you. And it's "Jund" by the way.

WG does not get damage spells.
Needs an EOT clause.

Becoming an artifact makes no sense flavorwise with that name and flavor text.

>WG does not get damage spells.
Not that user, but White does get conditional damage spells, and often punishes tapped creatures.

See Impeccable Timing for the former and Deadeye Harpooner for the latter.

It's a combination that hasn't shown up before but its very much a combination of white things. This isn't the "Blue can top and mill but doing both is a black thing" argument, this is "If White can destroy a tapped creature, it can probably do damage to it too, especially since they already damage creatures in controlled circumstances."

I can't really evaluate the flavor since I don't read comic books, but the card seems like a neat build-around. It could honestly just be WB or GB. Maybe adding the third color should bring the cost down a tad.

Just a fun little card I did. This guy's gimmick seems to be using a tomahawk, so I just went from there. I just need to make sure it's not too weak or too good. Otherwise I'm not too concerned about playability. Like I said, it's a fun little card, more about flavor and being interesting.

In the comics he gave gifts to the people who followed him (guy with facial scars gets his face restored, guy who suffers from nightmares gets pleasant dreams, etc.) but he took those gifts away when they turned against him. So, if you work in his favor, he buffs, and if you turn against him, he turns the gifts against you. I didn't want to use +1/+1 counters at first, since it kinda goes against the flavor with 0/0's with counters, but it was just too complicated. And yeah, never been sure of the colors myself either, but it's more or less based on Gahiji so I swapped R for B.

>card
Huh, reminds me a bit of Pain Magnification. Seems interesting, and I like how you can play with lifegain to help you. I wonder how it would play in commander.

Version 2.0. Idea is that this is supposed to work with Amazon tribal, which focuses on using Auras and Equipment to buff creatures. The older version just nuked non-Aura, non-Equipment stuff, which would leave behind Auras that were attached to things other than creatures, so I decided to redo it so that doesn't happen. Old version was also modal in what you could choose to exile, but I decided to get rid of that here. Using exile might seem a bit hard for Naya, but the focus color in Amazon tribal is White rather than Green. I actually really like this idea of taking a color combo and playing with it in a way that's a bit different from what Wizards normally does.

That's way too cheap for a one-sided wipe.

Well, I think the proper term would be "conditional" but I get what you mean. How would you cost it?

I'd put it at 4RGW. Maaaaaaybe 3RGW if it's an aura and equip heavy set.

Triland cycle, argue over balancing please. too strong? too weak?

Seems fine to me. The hybrid-to-hybrid lands were fine so I can't imagine these breaking anything.

Worse versions of the filter lands? Ew.

so you think that removing the ping wouldn't make them too strong?

Well, it's not a legit set, so probably just 4RGW.

Eh, ignore me, the subtleties of Magic are beyond me.

I actually like this. Plays well off your Amazon theme from what i have seen. Can't comment on the costing but you have to be very careful with build-around wipes like this.

>mtg.design/
What is this and why is it here? Like, does anyone actually use this?

Phoneposters, i suspect. MSE is not exactly a mobile app.

ye dude. Regular filters don't ping you for colorless, and the fact that you need a specific color for the filtering, a color that is also not able to get filtered unlike the classic filterlands, makes it pretty balanced

...

...

I feel like you should have to pay to activate those abilities instead of them triggering for free.

Uh... why? I mean, using any mana to cast is nice, but you might as well make it RG, give your next creature spell flash and haste.

That wouldn't let it enter the battlefield and attack after blockers have been declared, would it?

>That wouldn't let it enter the battlefield and attack after blockers have been declared, would it?

It absolutely would, just cast it during Declare Blockers.

Alchemic Conversion
UURR
Instant
Rare
Counter target spell. Create X colorless Gold artifact tokens with "Sacrifice this artifact: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool."

But what am X

He's talking about the wording I suggested where the creature just gets Haste.

Ugh, shit. CMC of the countered spell. New take on Mana Drain/Plasm Capture.

A pillow fort curse card

I think I'd say something like
>For each creature enchanted player controls, that creature can't attack unless he or she pays 2.

Decided to just go and do a bunch of WW-related stuff. This is Mysia, the flying elephant that Achilles Warkiller rides. Feels kinda strange that with a toughness of 8 its even tougher than Supes, but I kinda like its having an enormous butt. And tutor for pretty obvious reasons.

All Ghostly Prison style effects use similar wording, so its kosher.

I suggested my wording because I can't really find anything to back up the wording that user was using. And why did you post Orzhov Advokist?

Because Orzhov Advokist uses similar wording for referencing controllership in the context of preventing attacks.

>Creatures enchanted player controls can't attack... [unless clause]
>Creatures that player controls can't attack... [unless clause]
rather than fronting the specifying clause like you did
>For each creature enchanted player controls, that creature can't attack... [unless clause]
Which has exactly two cases of precedent, and are used to multiply/distribute one-shot effects on Sorceries (Ezuri's Predation and Riot Control), rather than distribute static effects. Its used to count things for static effects (Primeval Protector, Scourge of Geier Reach) but not distribute.

The "unless" clause is tacked onto the end and isn't present on Orzhov Advokist, but follows the same format used by every other Ghostly Prison effect, with the exception of dropping a "you" in two places.

The alternative wording would be ability-granting
>Creatures enchanted player controls have "This creature can't attack unless you pay {2}."
a la Myr Prototype.

>Which has exactly two cases of precedent
How did you get this number?

>Orzhov Advokist, [...] follows the same format used by every other Ghostly Prison effect
What? How?

>How did you get this number?
Not a comprehensive survey, so perhaps "exactly" is overblown. But a general result:
>magiccards.info/query?q=o:"For each creature enchanted player"&v=card&s=cname
No results.
>magiccards.info/query?q=o:"For each creature that player"&v=card&s=cname
One result, counting for a static effect. Also not fronted.
>magiccards.info/query?q=o:"for each creature your opponents"&v=card&s=cname
Four results. Two sorceries, as mentioned, that distribute effects using the fronted clause. Two creatures that count for a static effect, also not fronted.
>magiccards.info/query?q=o:"for each creature target opponent"&v=card&s=cname
One result. Counting for purposes of an activated ability, not distributing.
>magiccards.info/query?q=o:"for each creature target player"&v=card&s=cname
Three results. All sorceries, two distributing an effect and one counting.

If I'm being unclear with my argument, I'm making a distinction between using "for each" to apply an effect to each of N objects (i.e. distributing an effect, e.g. Ezuri's Predation) and using "for each" to count N object that meet a condition to apply an effect to one object (i.e. counting, e.g. Primeval Protector).

My argument is that Ghostly Prison effects are, in general, worded
>Creatures [optional specification] can't attack [optional you or other restriction] [optional escape clause] [other duration clauses and extraneous stuff]
Where, in Orzhov Advokist's case, the four brackets are "that player controls" "you or a planeswalker you control", no escape clause, and "until your next turn."
In Ghostly Prison's case, its no specifying restriction, "you", "unless their controller pays {2} for each creature he or she controls that's attacking you" and no duration clause.

In no case is a Ghostly Prison effect worded
>For each creature your opponents control, that creature can't attack you unless its controller pays {2}.

You have a plurality conflict.

Where?

>[...] 2 for each attacking creature he or she controls.

You have an and/or followed by singular phrasing.

Blech, I don't like how the typeline is fucked.

And/or in this case refers to the zones you may search from. But you're only allowed to get one card out of the card regardless of the number of zones you search, an Aura card, or an Equipment card.