Custom Card Thread

Would this version be more balanced?

I need a better idea for an ult. Any ideas? Original idea was to essentially allow you to play with your opponents' hands.

I think an Edict effect on entry is just too good by itself. Maybe do the Dimir-style mill, where they mill until they mill a land card. And for Wandering, maybe I'm just overstating it, dunno. Though I do find it odd that the land it nabs on entry doesn't ETB tapped, why is that?

For Infusion, I'd say at least make it interesting on a flavor level. I dunno about this or the cost, just spitballing, maybe
>Enchanted creature gets +4/+4, has flying, and is a Dragon in addition to its other types.
>R: Enchanted creature gets +1/+0 until end of turn
>When enchanted creature dies, create a 4/4 red Dragon creature token with flying and "R: This creature gets +1/+0 until end of turn."
Oh, and for the land, maybe just reference Devotion?

Hmm, thinking about Jace, what about restricting the number of creatures that can attack you? Maybe replace the draw restriction with the attack restriction?

Why is the middle one a construct while the other two are golems?

I love the idea of Fallen, it makes me want to compleat more OG Mirrodin favorites. But not in a strictly-better, Blightsteel Colossus kind of way.

I think a cool jace emblem would be a ghostly prison or ensnaring bridge effect.

what do you make of this? for only two mana in a sealed environment it is still a very powerful effect.

>flavor text on a card with that much fucking rules text

Here's a cycle from the gathering swarms set

Already doing one planeswalker, why not another? Undecided on a first ability, that's why it's question marks. Really, I just want to be sure that this is actually a good direction to go in.

Like, a one-sided Ensnaring Bridge? Maybe. Actually it does feel kinda odd now that this Jace doesn't draw at all. Should I fix that? Maybe add a draw to the +1?

Yeah, it is an interesting idea. I tried compleating the Ravager once, but I didn't do too well.

>Tower of Miseries
Ooh, you were able to follow the numbers of the other towers! Nice. Not the greatest card, but I don't think any of the towers were, so it's probably fine.

Yeesh, I'm with ...This hurts.

What hurts about it?

Also for the planeswalker's a +2 maybe in GB it could be Sacrifice a creature you control, then put a number of +1/+1 counters equal to that creature's CMC onto another target creature.

This is perhaps a terrible idea.

This thread will now be compleated

>What hurts about it?
"It"? Singular? No, pretty much every cards artifact one has problems. No wait, that does have a small problem.

OK, first, most keywords go on the same line. For all of the colored dragons except the blue one, just put their keywords on the same line.

I have no idea why you bother naming the tokens, just give them a type.

Are you sure you want the White one to trigger even when the creature doesn't enter the battlefield under your control?

I have no idea where you were going with the Blue one.

Black's wording should be
>When ~ enters the battlefield or dies, target player reveals his or her hand. Choose a nonland card from it. That player discards that card.

For Red, just repeat what I said about the tokens for White. Oh, and lowercase "create" why did you capitalize it in the first place?

For Green, wording should probably be
>If one or more +1/+1 counters would be placed on ~, that many plus one +1/+1 counters are placed on it instead.

Artifact one is mostly fine, but it should be "three" instead of "3" and lowercase Indestructible (yes, I capitalize in my posts, not in my cards).

Anyway, on the whole, I don't like how disparate they are. I'd make their effects more similar, like having them all get an ETB ability, or a cast ability, etc. Look at the Gearhulks for a good idea of what I mean. Also, feel free to mix up the P/T's and mana costs. And please either use one secondary subtype or don't use any. It's so weird too how some get another race type, and others get a class type.

>Mixing +1/+1 counters and -1/-1 counters
[autistic screeching]

barf

This has problems with layers.

Call the cops, I don't give a fuck.

>121.3. If a permanent has both a +1/+1 counter and a -1/-1 counter on it, N +1/+1 and N -1/-1 counters are removed from it as a state-based action, where N is the smaller of the number of +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters on it.
There's rules to handle it. +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters annihilate like matter and antimatter.

I really don't enjoy being talked down to. I know about that rule, I know how the counters interact with each other. Pretty much every person in these threads knows about these things. My issue is that they're on the same card. If I recall correctly, there's only one card that mixes the counters, Misfortune.

>I really don't enjoy being talked down to.
Boy oh boy, are you ever in the wrong part of the internet.

Mostly a joke card. Mostly.

Yes, I'm shit at names.

What's the joke?

thanks for the criticism, I made quite a few changes to bring them onto a more simplified level that works better. Let me know what you think.

That the Jacetice League is going to fuck everything up in Amonkhet while trying to stop Bolas and let loose swarms of oil dripping Phyrexians to spread themselves across the stars.

I'm wondering if the wording on this is correct.

I said "except the blue one". Keywords like Flying, Lifelink, and Haste all function on the battlefield. But Flash doesn't it instead determines when a spell can be cast, so it goes above things like Flying.

I don't know about balance, but your wording is still lacking. Read more Oracle text, look at more Magic cards.

I think the wording is fine. No idea on balance.

i think this is a bit too powerful and also a bit too complicated.

make it the top four cards of your library instead of five. make it a creature instead of a permanent, remove the etb tapped. make it only draw one card if you decline.

If you do make it only one card, make it one of the cards you look at.

Something like this?

Re post from last thread:

So, for Midnighter () I thought of a few potential abilities, but rather than make a card for each one of them and go through them one-by-one, I figure I might as well just list the abilities and see if any of you guys think they're good. These are working under the presumption that the body that they're on is a 3/3 with Prowess and nothing more.

>Prevent all damage that would be dealt to ~ by creatures with power less than ~'s power.

>~ has protection from creatures your opponents control with power less than ~'s power.

>Whenever ~ blocks or becomes blocked by a creature with power less than ~'s power, destroy that creature.

All the abilities are supposed to tie into his precognition power, where he basically sees all the attacks coming so he can dodge all of them and counterattack. But it doesn't make him invincible, and he can still get curbstomped be people bigger and stronger (because it doesn't matter how smart you are, people who can juggle planets can still rip you in half without breaking a sweat).

Question. Do you have a gaggle of non-legendary creatures and non-creatures that you're not posting, or is this not intended to be a set?
I'm trying to wrap my head around how you'd play a set where basically everything was a legendary creature with midrange CMC and drawing a blank.

Alright fine, this one doesn't mix counters.

I like this, but I'm not sure how black it is.

Not a real set, just a collection of cards. I've tried making real sets before, and found it dull and tedious. It's just not in me, which is why I greatly respect people who do make complete, good sets, like Time user and Pirate user.

I do have non-legendary, non-creature cards though. Even some commons! And if you have anything you'd like for me to try and adapt, please let me know.

Not bad. 7/7 maybe?

New version of Herald. Last version was the one that could force a player to draw one card forever. Hope this is better.

...Anyone else here? Anyway, here's Starfire and Blackfire. Made to be obvious foils to each other. I want them to both be balanced but still at least somewhat similar to each other. And yes, their names are puns on "coriander" and "commander". COMICS!

So I'm working on a Fool tribe in a set based on redirecting spells and taking control of things, with a few cards added in for humor. What do you guys think? Do these all seem like decent effects?

>Fool's Fiddling
>U
What the fuck?

Oh, it can't change targets. Yeah, but it still means you can take anything that doesn't have a target and it'll work fine, like one-sided wipes, creatures, draw spells, etc.

Gaining control of the spell doesn't actually do anything, as far as I know. You don't get to choose new targets for it, you just control the spell until it resolves.

If you control the spell, you control the permanent it becomes as well as anything that would benefit you.

It says right there in the reminder text that it basically allows you to steal any permanent spell. And as I already stated, it can still work on things like one-sided wipes. I don't think you really get how gaining control of a spell works.

Hmm. That's complex, then. I was looking to have a card to combo with Pratfall, to make it actually viable in any context. I suppose it'd just have to be a lot more expensive, then.

How about this? Is this less obscenely overpowered?

>Fool's Mirror
Oh my fucking lord. No, no, no. Go to Gatherer or MagicCards, and find out for yourself how to properly word an Equipment that gives an ability to the equipped creature.

>Fool's Declaration
Yeah, everyone who does this think's nobody's ever thought of it before.

I can't begin to describe how painful it is to look at these things. Or how disappointed I am that you actually thought these things were a good idea.

I think a lot of people view these threads as having become an "exclusive club" where a few symbolfags call the shots and decide who belongs and who doesn't.

It's one thing to critique a card and it's another to deride the creator, especially when one makes mistakes themselves. The "read more Oracle text" thing really doesn't hold water when you create erroneous cards as well, since when do you say it regarding yourself? I feel like people forget what the primer says more often than not. Don't be a dick, especially when you're not impeccable yourself, in general, with regards to all posters. We all started someplace, and it, by your own admission, took ages for you to get good at cards. I was there when you first came around. I was here when most of you first started posting, and I do not like what I see. And I am sure I am not alone.

So if you think you're alright with exclusionary tendencies ruling these threads, carry on as you are. They will never be what they were because this is not HOW they were.

Alright. I guess I'll leave, then. Sorry for disturbing you, oh grand arbiters of what can and cannot be on a Magic card.

You're free to stay, we just expect you to listen to feedback, that's all.

>I think a lot of people view these threads as having become an "exclusive club" where a few symbolfags call the shots and decide who belongs and who doesn't.
Well, that's pretty stupid considering it's Veeky Forums.

>It's one thing to critique a card and it's another to deride the creator, especially when one makes mistakes themselves.
So, we should just never deride any creator? Even if they never learn, keep posting obviously bad designs, and generally just behave like complete assholes? And the thing you say about mistakes is a complete non-starter.

>The "read more Oracle text" thing really doesn't hold water when you create erroneous cards as well, since when do you say it regarding yourself?
How does it not hold water? Yes, sometimes I mess up on cards, I actually messed up on Blackfire by omitting an apostrophe. But does the fact that I, a single person, occasionally mess up wording mean that what I say regarding Oracle text is completely invalid? So, what, you think people who've read tons of Oracle text aren't any better when it comes to wording than people brand new to Magic? And all of this because I'm not perfect? This reasoning is incredibly flawed.

>I feel like people forget what the primer says more often than not. Don't be a dick, especially when you're not impeccable yourself, in general, with regards to all posters.
Actually, the primer says many things. It takes about vanilla keywords and how they work in the different colors, the difference between gold and hybrid, the difference between triggered abilities and replacement abilities, and the differences between cards, spells, and permanents. Which makes it pretty frustrating when people just outright ignore it and make simple mistakes. And again, making mistakes is not a reason that one can't point out the mistakes of others. If it were, nobody could point out mistakes, because nobody's perfect.

1/2

>We all started someplace, and it, by your own admission, took ages for you to get good at cards.
Yes, perfectly true. Agreed. And even people who have a lot of experience aren't going to get every card right on the first try. Even Maro has said this.

>I was there when you first came around. I was here when most of you first started posting, and I do not like what I see. And I am sure I am not alone.
Look, I do have issues, I admit that. And I guess you're right, I could be better, people could always be better. But I refuse to subscribe to your fallacious view on feedback. Also, this is neither here nor there, but why did you make this post to my post with Starfire and Blackfire on it? Just seems kinda odd, but whatever.

>So if you think you're alright with exclusionary tendencies ruling these threads, carry on as you are. They will never be what they were because this is not HOW they were.
You make it sound like I'm some iron-fisted dictator. I try to make OP's because I feel that otherwise there's a good chance the next OP will be bad or outdated. Such as this one, though the majority of it is fine, it's just the image that's wrong. I've made a few PasteBin articles, or whatever you want to call them, trying to explain some concepts to people that can be easily referred back to. And I make cards and give feedback. So why is it you talk about all this like I'm personally responsible for killing /ccg/?

Uh, and if you've been around this long, who are you? Do I know you? Kinda hard to tell who you are without trips or a card.

2/2

Should this ping players and creatures or just creatures?

OK, appologies for the way I reacted before, but seeing spell control at U really triggered me. I mean, imagine seeing an instant for R that bolts for 10 or something.

>Bored Jester
Well, kinda hard to judge without precedence, at least I couldn't find anything like this in mono-Blue, but I think it's OK. It would probably be safer to make it 2/3 instead though.

>Clown Car
Tribal seems really odd, but that might just be me, never been a fan of it. As for the card... I dunno. It's cheap, sure, but it has two restrictions to animate it, it's hard to tell if it's fine or not. Oh, but you do need to specify that you're creating creature tokens.

>Court of Jesters
Eh, maybe move to uncommon.

>Fool's Declaration
Yeah, what I said before. It's kinda funny as a one-off, but it just doesn't really work as a legit card. Oh, and rather than say that the card is Blue, just use the color indicator. Though the text you used wouldn't actually mean anything because you used reminder text instead of rules text.

>Fool's Mirror
OK, it should say
>Equipped creature has "2UU, T: Change the target of target spell or ability."
Idea could be interesting, but I wouldn't make it common. Also, you have to specify if it targets just any spell or ability, a spell or ability with only a single target, or a spell or ability with multiple targets and you just change one of them.

>Fool's Misdirection
Another where you have to specify creature token. This is another one I wouldn't place at common due to complexity. And I think I'd word it so you chose the spell or ability first, then made the token, then changed the target. And just like the last one, you need to specify what's going on with the spell. Most of the time Wizards likes to say
>target spell or ability with a single target

>Pratfall
Hmm. Change "control" to "own" and it would be at least somewhat interesting, even if it wouldn't be realistically playable.

1/2

Still trying to get this to the right cost.

>Vikar
Could be interesting, but you'd have to jack up the mana cost like crazy. Maybe instead make it something like a Fool tribal lord and cross with Perplexing Chimera, gain control of a spell in exchange for a Fool you control.

The only way you can make this mechanic work is by having multiple methods to mark spells with counters, especially by making it repeatable. Otherwise you have this incredibly forced, awkward mechanic that's almost always a 2-for-1.

On the whole, I'm not much of a fan of Fools. It doesn't seem like a core mechanic other than spells manipulation, which I guess could be interesting, but I feel like it's so mechanically complex, not to mention dangerous if not balanced well, the idea of a whole archetype being made around these guys doesn't really appeal to me. But that's just me, maybe other people have different opinions.

2/2

>Well, that's pretty stupid considering it's Veeky Forums.
Attitude goes a long way. Thick skin is a must, but if people feel they are not welcome, most will leave, even those who have genuine interest but aren't as adept as you'd like.

>So, we should just never deride any creator? Even if they never learn, keep posting obviously bad designs, and generally just behave like complete assholes?
This does not preclude what I said. You're inventing a scenario that makes you sound right when most of the time it is simply untrue. I know you want to believe every person that doesn't immediately improve is Cooldown Guy, but let's be realistic.

>How does it not hold water?
It makes you look unwilling to focus the lens on yourself, and makes you look harsher on others than you are on your own errors. Which is not constructive. You should only ever be as critical of others as you are of yourself.

>Actually, the primer says many things.
The most important one is "Don't be a dick." The rest will fall into place with time. And I never said you could not correct errors, I implied you needed to rethink how critical you are when you yourself are not up to your own standards sometimes.

>Yes, perfectly true. Agreed. And even people who have a lot of experience aren't going to get every card right on the first try. Even Maro has said this.
So why do you behave like above?

>But I refuse to subscribe to your fallacious view on feedback.
Then you will have to learn to enjoy threads that last for 5-4 days before filling up if they don't die first. That's just how it is if you don't understand what you're doing wrong.

>You make it sound like I'm some iron-fisted dictator.
You act like it often enough.

>So why is it you talk about all this like I'm personally responsible for killing /ccg/?
Nobody is personally responsible for killing /ccg/. But you seem to admit there is a problem, without being willing to examine your part in it.

This is a good post. It's not hard.

We spellshaper now

>Planeswalkers displaced Spellshapers
Only a few of us were sad about it, but man it hurt. This being in Green but flavored Darksteel feels weird to me. I feel like something Darksteel should be saccing Artifacts to make people indestructible, not reshaping spells. Feels a bit more white to me overall.

>This does not preclude what I said.
What? You were implying it is simply wrong deride a creator of a card. You didn't specify who you were talking about, so I took that to mean any creator of any card. So yes, I created a hypothetical scenario featuring an incredibly odious individual to try and demonstrate a person who deserves derision. But I didn't say this was happening most of the time, or any amount of time, it just had to happen once. Because to disprove what I thought was a universal statement on your part, I would only need to find on exception, thus the hypothetical one asshole user.

>I know you want to believe every person that doesn't immediately improve is Cooldown Guy, but let's be realistic.
You're not a mind-reader. Saying this is absolutely ridiculous, Cooldown Guy was a clear-cut troll. Anons can post cards without knowing much about Magic and refuse to listen to feedback without being trolls, because trolling requires intent.

>It makes you look unwilling to focus the lens on yourself, and makes you look harsher on others than you are on your own errors. Which is not constructive. You should only ever be as critical of others as you are of yourself.
If I'm wrong about something, I'll accept that and change the card. Unless I'm just winging it on a quick card, or the text I'm writing is very simple, almost every single time I look up Oracle text ahead of time to make sure I'm right. And yeah, sometimes I mess up because I misread or misunderstand something, and when someone points that out, I change it.

>The most important one is "Don't be a dick."
No, making good cards is the most important part of these threads. Politeness is a courtesy that I do give most of the time, but there are times where I drop it, yes.

1/3

>The rest will fall into place with time.
Through feedback, sure. But what if someone thinks telling them that they're wrong is being a dick? Because being a dick is so subjective. I really think it's more important to place objectivity over subjectivity.

>And I never said you could not correct errors, I implied you needed to rethink how critical you are when you yourself are not up to your own standards sometimes.
What standards are you talking about? I say "Read more Oracle text." It's not even really a standard, it's a guidline, a tip basically. Because through reading Oracle text, people will learn more about the wording of Magic, and thus be more likely to create correct wording on their first try. I mean, if I had to write down standards, I mean, the only one I'd have written in stone is not making overpowered cards. A close second is keeping things in the color pie, but I'm not always rigid with that one anyway. Once again, you are not a mind reader.

>So why do you behave like above?
Because I'm a human and sometimes I react emotionally, especially when I see something OP as fuck. ...Yeah, not making OP cards I think is my primary standard/principle.

2/3

>Then you will have to learn to enjoy threads that last for 5-4 days before filling up if they don't die first. That's just how it is if you don't understand what you're doing wrong.
Uh, yeah, you haven't proven that your reasoning is correct, you're just asserting that it is. And I'm not going to follow reasoning that appears deeply flawed just on your say-so that it will help these threads. I mean, I'm just one guy, and so are you. If you think I can ruin /ccg/ by myself, doesn't it stand that you could attempt to work to improve it? I mean, you could be a feedback user, giving people accurate feedback when others, including myself, react harshly. If anything, we could really use someone focused on just giving feedback to cards that get overlooked. And I'm not just referring to my cards, I'm talking about everyone's cards.

>You act like it often enough.
By not always being polite as possible 100% of the time? Oh yeah, move over Stalin, there's a new kid in town!

>Nobody is personally responsible for killing /ccg/. But you seem to admit there is a problem, without being willing to examine your part in it.
Yes, obviously the threads aren't as good as they once were. And there is a possibility that I'm contributing to that. But I'm not seeing it, and your deeply flawed logic isn't convincing me of anything. I mean, if you had some hard evidence of how I contribute negatively to the threads, I'd be really interested in seeing that. But all you have is "I think" or "I feel". Well, I'm sorry, but I'm gonna need more than that.

>This is a good post. It's not hard.
OK, thanks. But if you're so focused on improving these threads, why didn't you do it? I mean, you take issue with how I reacted, but rather than reassure that user, or explaining why I was reacting that way, you decided to address me and not him. Why?

3/4

Whoops, I must've overlooked your first response.
>Attitude goes a long way. Thick skin is a must, but if people feel they are not welcome, most will leave, even those who have genuine interest but aren't as adept as you'd like.
Do you have any evidence? Have you spoken to people who posted a few cards here and left? Did they say it was because people here had bad attitudes? You're just asserting what you're saying as true without providing any real evidence. Just more "I think" and "I feel". Again, I need more than that.

4/4

Wow, you really lucked out on the art. Seems fine.

I've never really seen planeswalkers as displacing Spellshapers. They're entirely different animals. Though it has been a while since we've seen Spellshapers. Maybe Wizards doesn't like having cards whose entire purpose is to reference older cards?

All I have to say is simply this, then I'll leave you be. Between those threads you admit were better, and now, what are the constants? What changed? What stayed the same? I don't need to provide screen shots or such, because that in itself is an appeal from ignorance. If you would like to go back through the archives yourself and count the number of times you think, honestly, your derision of another user was warranted when all was said and done, and they had indeed sufficiently spammed enough terrible cards and ignored enough feedback to warrant it, be my guest. If you would like to continue to believe that I am just attacking you for no good reason, or attacking you at all for that matter, and it's somehow personal or something, feel free.

I've said what I've said, and you can do with it what you will. But the proof is in the pudding; these threads are dying, and there must be a reason for it when they were a thriving community not but a shy over a year ago. What happened? Maybe you yourself can explain it to me.

>why didn't you improve these threads?
I used to try. I posted feedback on every ignored card in a thread when I posted a card myself, even if my card got ignored. I posted like I wanted others to post, but it didn't work. It's pretty obvious these threads will be as they are unless more than simply one user makes an effort.

Have a good night, /CO/user. I do still enjoy your cards off and on. I just don't know most of the characters.

Planeswalkers often emulate spells themselves, and are more flexible. Jaya Ballard is pretty infamous for being the "proto-Planeswalker". They are very different in that one is a creature and one is an attackable enchantment not!player thing, but as for what they do on the field, they are similar enough that we haven't seen one in lieu of the other.

Or I'm biased because I don't really care for PWs. I preferred when the only PWs at the table were the players.

he's specifically shaping this spell

I know, but I was speaking about the general feel of the card as I saw it. It mechanically works fine in green, since green is, well actually isn't it primary in Indestructible now?

>Between those threads you admit were better, and now, what are the constants? What changed? What stayed the same? I don't need to provide screen shots or such, because that in itself is an appeal from ignorance.
Wrong fallacy. The fallacy you invoke here is post hoc ergo propter hoc. That is, after this, therefore because of this. You say that between then and now, I became a regular here, it must be because of me these thread have gone downhill, but correlation doesn't mean causation. And I'm not using an appeal to ignorance, I'm not saying something is true due to lack of evidence. I'm open to the things you are saying, but I need evidence in order to believe them.

>If you would like to go back through the archives yourself and count the number of times you think, honestly, your derision of another user was warranted when all was said and done, and they had indeed sufficiently spammed enough terrible cards and ignored enough feedback to warrant it, be my guest.
It's your argument. If you found a bunch of times where I'm nasty to someone and then that someone never shows up again, or says they give up or something, show me. It's your argument, you provide the evidence. You know, evidence, that thing you keep lacking that I keep asking you for. Give me evidence that this is what has happened and I will change. Or just stop posting altogether. But until you do, whenever you bring up this argument, I'm just going to ask you for evidence to back up anything you're saying.

>If you would like to continue to believe that I am just attacking you for no good reason, or attacking you at all for that matter, and it's somehow personal or something, feel free.
Ugh, you're mindreading again. No, honestly I think in your head you do believe in the things you're saying to me. But again, I won't, because you're not providing any evidence of anything.

1/2

>there must be a reason for it when they were a thriving community not but a shy over a year ago. What happened? Maybe you yourself can explain it to me.
Wait, less than a year ago? That's when you think the threads were doing well? Personally, I've felt like the threads have been going downhill for a while. But that could just be faulty memory, I dunno. But no, there doesn't have to be a single reason that explains why the threads are dying. It's probably a contribution of numerous factors. Just for one example, Time user has a teaching job now and less time on his hands. Why do anons leave the threads? Maybe because, like Time user, it's personal stuff. Maybe they get tired of making cards. Or maybe it's like you say, and they don't like the attitude here. The point is, we don't know. I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows.

>It's pretty obvious these threads will be as they are unless more than simply one user makes an effort.
I still don't understand this attitude that one user can ruin a thread, but one user can't improve it. It just seems... I dunno, defeatist?

>Have a good night, /CO/user. I do still enjoy your cards off and on. I just don't know most of the characters.
Well, thanks. I realize a lot of people probably aren't going to recognize the characters because they're not comic fans, especially when I get to the more obscure ones, but I hope I at least do well enough explaining how I used the fluff to make certain mechanical decisions. And good night to you as well.

2/2

It gets a lot of temp indestructible, but I feel that's more because of the phase out of regen.

I was thinking about this part I wrote
>The point is, we don't know. I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows.
And this is actually a reason I can take to try to be nicer and more understanding. Because I don't know that I'm not contributing to the problem, it could be that I am. And one way to help ensure that I don't is by being better. Look, cards on the table, I have issues, which I've mentioned a few times. But specifically, I have problems with emotional control. And that is why sometimes I snap and act nasty. I'm not saying this as an excuse or justification, I am simply saying this to explain that while I do try to be calm and polite, there are times when it is very difficult for me. This is a personal failing that I hope one day to be rid of completely, but I'm afraid it's something I will have to live with for the foreseeable future. And I am sorry to those people whom I sometimes snap at, trust me, I don't like it when I do it either.

>Wait, less than a year ago? That's when you think the threads were doing well?
A shy over is over, user. That certainly wasn't the height of them, no. But it was working. It's not working now.

I figured I'd clarify and assure you I read your posts in one fell swoop.

If you assert I should be the change I seek in these threads, then I can try again. It's only fair. But you cannot dismiss something out of hand because you cannot see past your own personal bias. I didn't accuse you specifically of causing these threads to fail. I will assert the attitude you and a few other anons share sometimes is a contributing factor. Anons wandering off because of boredom or real life doesn't typically lead to a decline of this magnitude. I say typically because it certainly could be the reason, and simply be a strange and unfortuitous happenstance. Eitehr way, I've seen plenty of set symbols come and go in the last year.

Also, in fairness, I'm no saint; I've lost my temper here a few times, to my shame. It's one reason I don't really post anymore and just lurk. But maybe that's not doing anybody any good, as you say. Either way, it'd be nice to see these threads thrive again. It'll take a group effort though.

Well, let me say I should have refreshed before posting, because a lot of what you say here responds to what I've said here .

In the end, people can't help but be people. Apologies exist for a reason though. I've apologized each time I've gone too far, and I think it might be that we could all stand to either curb it a little or take steps to realize when we trip. On the flip side to that though, to address an earlier concern you had with derision, there's a line. It's blurry, but it's there. It's a balance between people realizing where they are (Veeky Forums), and people not using that as an excuse to pile on the negativity unless it's the last straw. It'll never be perfect, but it shouldn't be too hard to leave it at blunt critique and not cross over to calling people stupid and the like.

For what it's worth, you're not the only one with a temper, and with personal issues that they sometimes bring to the thread. Keeping your own shortcomings in mind can help you empathize with others. Doesn't mean you have to let others walk all over you or turn the other cheek as it were, but still.

I've been distracted by other games, apologies.

You do have legitimate concerns, namely the health of /ccg/, which I do agree with. Neither of us want to see these threads die. Honestly, if there were a way to track down all the anons who left and ask them why they left, I would jump on that immediately. And I would do almost anything in my power to address the problems with /ccg/ that caused those people to leave. But that's probably never going to happen. I mean, what could we do? Go on various platforms and ask random people if they've ever been to /ccg/? I mean, it's not like our community has ever been huge. From what I can tell, people who make custom Magic cards just post them on whatever platform is most convenient for them. Tumblr, Deviantart, MTGSalvation, etc. And the other thing too is, what if this is the norm? Like, what if what's happening right now is how /ccg/ usually is, not just from when the two of us have been here, but for as long as Veeky Forums has been around, what if this is what /ccg/ has been like for most of its history? So that means we just happened to go through an unusually good period. And if that were true, it's not so much about what got them to leave, it's about what got them to come in the first place.

This is the thing, it could be any number of things, and we don't know for sure any of it. But we do have control over what happens here. So you're right, we should try to be better, all of us, because that's just about the only thing we can do to help /ccg/.

Man, I need to learn more about Stoicism.

So anyway... who are you again? You mentioned you'd been around for a while, but I don't think you said who you are. I just feel kinda bad if I should recognize you but can't.

I just ran out of inspiration for cards. It didn't have anything to do with /ccg/ itself.

Not sure if this should be changed to differentiate it more from Domri, as the first two abilities I feel are very similar. Let me know if I'm overthinking it.

Hard to say without precedence, but it definitely looks cool. I kinda want to make it BR because of Showstopper, but that's just me, and the connection to Black is kinda tenuous anyway.

OK, but who are you? Like, if I wouldn't know who you are, just tell me that.

Ringanon.

Weebanon here, this is the number one problem I face. I have tremendous respect for the professional designers who do this day in and day out, because man, does the creativity wax and wane really hard. There are days where I'll have a solid dozen ideas, or a really good one that's workshoppable and gets the thread involved and generates a bunch of posts. And then there are days where I've got bupkis and not really feeling the urge to even comment on cards.

/co/user seems to be here every day like clockwork, and I respect him for that, but there are days where its just not in the cards, pardon the pun.

>Electrostatic Pulse
Showstopper is black because of the possible sac shenanigans, if you ask me. Pulse is more Searing Blood writ large.

>Korro
Yeah, I'm not feeling the first and second. They're fine abilities, but it does feel very Domri.

>card
Save me from this train wreck of an idea. Wording from Mystic Barrier meets Contamination/Hall of Gemstone type effects. Not sure is 100% correct.

Ah! Well, it's good to see you again. So, how have you been? Do you just lurk on the threads regularly?

And yeah, I know precisely what you mean about running of of inspiration. I wouldn't be posting on these threads anywhere near as much as I do now if I didn't have my CO set to preoccupy me.

Card art is a big one for me as well. I don't like posting cards without it and finding good ones is a bit of a slog.

>Card
Feels a bit complex for what it wants to do for my tastes, I feel like it should just pick a color instead. I also think it would be too oppressive unless you had the right cards to counteract it.

I think Korro is in a good place. Simple and straight forward.

Should be fine in the right environment, but it's pretty hard hate against token decks. You might consider lowering the feedback damage.

Yeah I usually lurk most days. I've been brainstorming a card game that lacks any random elements and that takes up a significant portion of my attention.

>Korro
Ugh, crap. Well, thanks for the feedback, at least now I know for sure that I have to change those abilities. For reference, here's her first card. And in case you're curious, art on both cards is from Golden Axe: Beast Rider.

>Curse of Fallow Fields
Honestly, I'd just up the cost and have it affect all the enchanted player's nonbasics, like a more contained Blood Moon.

You're making a card game? Sounds interesting. Business or pleasure? So, you plan any getting rid of all randomness? Including drawing?

At this stage its more of a thought experiment than anything. You'd still have a limited hand and deck, but you can basically fetch what you need at will and the game would almost wholly be resource manangement, planning and bluffing.

>Pulse
Swapped the numbers (2 damage, 1 feedback) and upped the cost. Oddly enough, a one-sided Pyroclasm doesn't exist.

>Curse
Yeah, its really complex. Honestly the name came first and then it was "ooh! lets make a curse!" and then BR mana denial.

Curse of Blood Moon, Wastes Edition seems so bland, though. Back to the drawing board with that idea, then.

>Korro
I really really like the Giant Adephage-style ult, so definitely keep that. +3/+3 and trample on a creature is probably fine. Its a little Arlinn, a little Elspeth, but sufficiently fresh.

>card
Its mini-Blightning.

>Pratfall
This gave me a stupid idea, sort of an Altar's Reap dealio

Timeskitter (u/b)
Instant
Kicker (2)
Counter target spell you control.
Draw two cards.
If the kicker cost was paid, return that spell to it's owner's hand.

>who are you?
I'm user. I would rather start fresh, if at all, than lean on my previous "incarnations". Cards should stand on their own merits, regardless of who posts them.

Glad you're still around, Ringanon.

Have you considered Manifest, flavoring it like the creature cards she's Manifesting are acting like unseen stalkers, waiting to pounce? Then maybe you could reflavor her ult to flip all Manifested creature cards you control face up, representing the final attack? Tool it to be as useful as possible, obviously. I hadn't given it too much thought.

I suffer from idea droughts too, but I used to try to post comments as much as I could regardless. Not condemning you, just saying I found that sometimes comments cause inspiration.

This is really cool. A revolving door spell O-Ring feels fairly balanced at that cost, albeit dangerous and strong.

Probably the aggro implications is why we don't see a one sided pyro.

That does sound interesting. If anything happens, let us know.

>Korro
Uh, these aren't different versions of one card, they're two different cards of the same walker. Like how Jace and Lili have different cards.

>card
Seems cool, though I do wonder why it doesn't ping the player.

>I'm user
Fair enough.

>Korro
I usually try to avoid non-evergreen stuff, but that might be interesting. Maybe not for Korro though, or at least that version of her.

>Spelltrap
Er, you realize it's an old Ring user card, right? I saved it because I always like it, and decided to post it since he announced himself. Actually, might as well post this card, since it's somewhat similar.

Yes, I saw the set symbol. I don't see how that changes my commentary; it's not like I credited it to you by accident.

I do recall the hat though. Reminds me a bit of Dovescape.

So far I have:
Each player has a 3 row by 7 column board in which to place cards.

Each player gets their allotment of cards at the beginning of each game turn and uses an alternating turn structure.

The 'land' analog are holdings, which provide resources but can be attacked, damaged, repaired and destroyed.

Units attack directionally down columns and are defended by creatures they encounter.

You lose once all your holdings are destroyed and a creature can bypass your units directly to the player.

...

China-non here, thought I'd post some random mutlicoloreds from the set.

Sounds a lot like the L5R card game, actually.

Seems balanced. Flawed clones are something WotC needs to play with more often.