/ccg/ Custom Card General /cct/

Also, "put a _ token onto the battlefield" has been replaced with "create a _ token".

I have a concern about this card, I don't know if it's red. I like red's "impulse" effects its been getting recently, but the way this card works feels more blue. I'd like to know what you guys think.

I feel that my UG faction is a bit cluttered.

The idea for them is that they live in a giant forest where the mana of the world is decaying and going wild. This causes everything living there to be mutated and entwined with that mana resulting in them fluctuating between being and elemental and being pure mana like an instant / sorcery.

Now the mechanic I want for them is evoke because it's a graveyard heavy set so getting dudes into the grave while also getting an effect is great for that and the flavor is a perfect match. However, I feel like you can't really make that the focus of a faction so main thing of the faction should be tribal synergy. The issue is, many of the creatures in it are things like Mutant Beast Elemental.

So the question becomes, where I do place the focus? Do I tone down the tribal synergy and just make evoke a bit more common? If I focus on a tribe I'd need to make it either elementals or mutants because splitting it between the two makes it unruly. Do I utilize the keyword I devised called "embody" which is evoke except in reverse meaning you have an expensive alternative cost on an instant/sorcery that creates a token. Upon reflection though that's just awaken but without the animating of lands. Or am I being too worried and should stick to my current path of making mutant [some type] elementals, giving some evoke and some mutant tribal synergy?

This guys is kind of a microcosm of what I'm on about, split between mutants, graveyard, evoke, elementals, tribal. I think he's a good design but he abandons the mutant aspect of the faction and might as well just be an elemental.

While I agree with you about it feeling kind of blue, the difference I feel between a card in blue that lets you decide between cards and gain card advantage is that it does it slowly, it costs more, is more permanent. While this card is letting you go deep into your deck and gain access to a card, it's doing it quickly and temporarily.

The flavor and mechanics I feel are solidly red. As for this card in particular, I feel like it needs something else to make it worthwhile. Give the creature something outside of just that tap ability. Have the tap ability do 1 damage to something or give the enchanted creature prowess, that fits the flavor of the card.

Wait, shit, your wording on the tap ability is ambiguous. Does it mean "until end of turn, you may play a card exiled by the aura this turn", or until end of turn you may play a card exiled by the aura?

Eh, sorry about the ambiguous wording. It's supposed to be "Until end of turn, you may play a card exiled with Knowledge Expansion." That's why I'm not sure how red the card is, because you get the cards for more than one turn.

It's kind of weird for a monogreen card to be reanimating imo. I don't see the problem for Evoke being the focus of a tribe. Just make cards in that tribe care about evoke in some way.

In that case then yeah, I'd say it's red.

Red access cards cheap and quickly, this has the cheap (2 mana for 3 cards is really powerful) but the tapping of creatures, getting them eventually, deliberate play of them isn't exactly red. Sure, it being tired to a creature at all is weird for blue but not unheard of.

I think chaning the tap ability to allow you access to one of the three exiled cards (you do need to specificy that the card has to be face up in order to cast it) that turn and having the enchantment give something to the creature is more in line with what red wants to do.

I'd say it's NOT* red

>You need to specify that the card has to be face up in order to cast it
Not unless it allows you to pick any arbitrary exiled card. Because it's a card exiled by Knowledge Expansion, it will be face up.

So you're suggesting the tap ability just allow you to cast one thing for the first turn you play the card? And then those cards would be inaccessible, and the only reason to have the enchantment around would be some kind of creature bonus?

...

I have no idea what an Umbungo is.

...

Even cards that deal with cards they exile they still specify "while that card remains exiled face up" to prevent any future design from completely breaking them.

No, they don't.

You can't pay nonexistent mana costs, you can't cast face-down cards.

These are all insanely powerful and easily broken.

...

I can dig it, though I'm nervous about it costing 2, just feels ever so slightly undercosted but that may just be me.

Cloudshift is only one mana, and the two color requirement is probably enough to offset two cards being spliced into one.

Alrighty then.

Charge seems pretty alrighty.

!notKaladesh guy here again.

I have a lot of revisions as presented here.

So far, 4 mechanics seem to bode well with me.

>Weld
As most of you guys said, it was pretty unique and could see different usages. I provided another sample of Weld on the black card.

>Upgrade
Such a vanilla name, but descriptive. So far this works as "If a creature has X number of one type of counter, effect". I decided that it shouldn't have to be +1/+1 counters to allow for unique strategies with other forms of counters. +1/+1 counters are just the most typical and prevalent type.

>Fabricate
I decided that if I was going to bring in Counter Threshold/Upgrade and Weld, I might as well get the mechanic which either produces artifacts or counters for a creature. Makes sense and fits the flavor.

>Kicker
Though it might seem random, I thought kicker would actually be a neat mechanic to add to the set. Kicker, in a flavor sense, is representative of taking ones' time to make/become something of a higher quality. Kicker, in the mechanical sense, lets me fit in lots of different artifact stuff and make spells with "basic" and "advanced" effects.

Also, quick clarification on the black card. It should say "Smuggling Crew" in the rules text of the card. I was toying with some names but forgot to edit that part out.

You know you can insert a card's name into the rules text with ~, right?

Huh, I didn't know that was an actual hotkey.

Thanks for the pointer.

...I don't think I can defend this, but I felt the need to make it anyway.

Welding Shop keeps dudes tapped forever with its current wording. Doesn't seem intentional based on the "next untap" bit.

You're absolutely right, you can't defend this. Might as well be a red Armageddon.

The goal was that when they become tapped, they don't untap until their controller's next untap step.

I tried to make the wording work as best I could.

Good lord

You want a delayed trigger then, my nigga. "When a dude or welded artifact an opponent controls becomes tapped, "

I just swapped the wording on that. Thanks for that b.

bump

"at the beginning of your next end step gain x 1/1 human counters where x is Altan street magician's power"

"the bigger the fire, the bigger the crowd"

>all lands gain
>all lands
>all
Kek 10/10

This is so weird. I'm trying to wrap my head around when you'd actually use it. It's awesome though.

Fabricate is an alright choice to add, but with Kaladesh so fresh, do you want to callback like this? It does fit well with Upgrade though, as you say. Kicker seems to fit the theme you want to go for of "make it bigger/better", so that's a welcome addition too. I'd change the Experimentalist to sac artifacts to make tokens instead of requiring mana. It seems to fit better, all told, and it's way more red. Repurpose the Past is cool now, actually. Smuggling Crew feels more UB since black draw doesn't usually call for discard, just life loss. Iron Liege could read "Whenever another creature enters the battlefield under your control with one or more counters on it, you may put another counter on it of a kind already there" as per Proliferate. Machine Shop's wording could be "Whenever a creature or welded artifact an opponent controls becomes tapped, it doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step." I don't think Glowform Artist needs to be rare.

All in all, I'm interested to see how this set shapes up.

This is muy bueno.

>make tokens
I meant make counters, sorry.

Last ability breaks with any 0 cost equip abilities, which are going to be easy to find since the card reduces the equip cost.

Madame Mirage again. Since the flavor is Illusion, I wonder if I should make the tokens into Illusions as well. But then I feel like I'd need to give them the Illusion downside. Besides, I already have a card for that. Eh, I think I'll just make them Illusions but not use the downside.

I like the design a lot, but I worry it's kind of complicated and doesn't feel very red. What about an 3/1 illusion with haste that gets sacrificed at the end of the turn? And keep the redirect ability, but make it so that the "X" is the CMC of the spell being redirected?

I'm playing around with designing a Return to Lorwyn set with some powerful tribal synergies, how'd I do for my first planeswaker? I wanter her to be playable in GBx creature decks as well as elf decks, so her -3 gives you something, but gives a bit more if you have elves. I know the wording it a little off but i was running out of space.

Patriarch? Isn't that matriarch?

...or is Nissa a tranny?

If so, he hasn't gotten the top surgery yet. Look at those honkers.

Seems pretty fair, definitely in line with the Planeswalkers WotC has been printing lately. I like the design. The emblem should either be "At the beginning of combat on each player's turn" or "At the beginning of combat on each of your turns" to reduce confusion, I feel like. But that's nitpicky.

Right, I just picked something that sounded good. I'll fix that.
yeah, I wanted to be more specific but I was running out space without having text clip behind the loyalty counters.

I'd probably bump the loyalty of the ult up to -6 to keep it in line with all the other 4 drop PWs.

Alright, now with 100% less male pronouns and proper wording. I had to jam a bunch of spaces in the +1 to force the text to resize but if I end up doing the whole set I can just remove the +1 and add it centered properly in PS or Paint. Is the hardest part of making a set always coming up with commons that aren't just Grey Ogres? I'm thinking Mono-R elementals with a land-sac scorched earth theme. Make a new Ashling card that interacts with mountains and stuff.

Maybe I'll just have it reduce casting cost in that case. An otherwise unremarkable card fixed and forgotten then.

...

So it's uncastable if your opponent doesn't control at least 2 creatures. Maybe have it give opponents tokens on cast/etb instead. You could also have some kinda of reward mechanic for him killing things, like: "whenever a creature dealt damage by "name" this turn dies, put a trophy counter on "name"
"Name" gets +1/+1 for each trophy counter on in.

Look at some of the completed /ccg/ sets for ideas on how to approach custom commons. Or just scope out commons on gatherer.

A bump

>create a 1/1 black and green Elf creature token.

>Up to one target elf creature you control fights target creature you don't control.

I think the emblem is a touch underpowered but not by much, it's probably about fine.

actually, I think it would be "...fights UP TO ONE target creature..." Otherwise you would still have to have any creature to target.

Real men fight permanents. Show that motherfuckin' top who's boss.

If I wanted something to choose a creature or player at random, how would that be worded?

For instance, if there are 6 valid targets for this ability, I want to be able to roll a d6 with results that look something like this:
1: target you
2: target your opponent
4-6: target a creature

Rather than:
Choose "a random player" -> flip a coin
or
Choose "a random creature" -> roll d4

Currently I have:
>At the beginning of your upkeep, choose a creature or player at random. Equipped creature fights the chosen creature or deals damage equal to its power to the chosen player.

That still reads to me like "choose 'players' or 'creatures', then choose targets at random from there."

But then the downside is almost completely nullified. What if you are on the play and your opponent doesn't play a 1-drop? You'd drop that guy turn 2 and wreck face.

It could give tokens then distribute counters, so that you have to find a way to buff him to swing in for profit.

I'm thinking for my Elemental support I'm gonna make a mechanic that lets players sac lands when creatures enter to put +1/+1 counters on them, and if Mountains are sacced it'll give haste. Should it be "Ability X":you may sac x lands and put x +1/+1 counters" or "Ability: you may sac any number of lands put that many +1/+1 counters"?

I think it should be an arbitrary number of lands. I think it should be "Ability: When ~ enters the battlefield, you may sacrifice any number of lands. Put X +1/+1 counters on ~, where X is the number of lands sacrificed this way." I like the mountain clause, but it seems like the ability is already getting pretty wordy.

Bump to save thread

Is the design space of "Can't be cheated in" fully explored? Or I guess the better question is whether or not it's worth exploring more.

Unless your thing is stronger then an Emmy eon's torn there is 0 reason to include "can't be cheated in" mechanics. If anything, the design of rewarding you cheating things in is very unexplored.
Try making a creature that is mediocre and blow average when cast and far better when cheated in.

I've explored such design.

>that clipping
>that extra comma
Clean that shit up senpai card itself is cool

It bothers me fractionally that the way you formatted the enter clause is correct because casted things touch the stack and forget about their previous zone. It feels so clunky.

I had it fixed in my set editor but didn't have it in this version of it.

And yeah, the clipping over the p/t box is because of the modern border being a fuster cluck

Add spacing at the end of the flavor text to shrink it and fix the clipping.

I'm with here; this honestly sounds good and falls into UR a bit more, though redirecting is technically both colors.

I'd change it so you can distribute the counters onto between one and three creatures.That way, even if they have a 1/1, his 4/4 first strike wins over the 1/1 with three counters on it most times, so it's still an upside. Or, give the opponent control of where the counters go?

The ult choosing two of the keywords for your creatures to gain wouldn't be too out of line, with a small adjustment to the loyalty cost. As it is, it is a bit redundant with her -3, which I would honestly use more over the -6 as it is.

Decided to not be a bitch and give up on this card, new version along with the bump.

Hell, guys, I graduate in two days! Seems crazy to me. Sorry for the off topic bit; here's a rare to make up for it.
Shit+enter to get rid of that extra line you've got going on there. The card itself is a bit boring. "Do white thing number one, or do completely unrelated white thing number two." I think I'd like it more if the flavor translated better; Sanctifier of Steel sounds like someone who would remove spirits and magical influence from weapons, not someone who makes every sword and spear you have shit ghosts.

Nifty on graduating and the card

Well congrats on your graduation. Sorry to waste space with a boring card. Dunno why I tried again.

I'm not sure what to think about your card. I'm actually not sure I'm qualified to give feedback anymore. So, grats again, and cheers.

For what it's worth, I think you're card's fine.

Thanks, y'all.
>Sorry to waste space
You aren't wasting space, man. The card is perfectly functional and servicable, even powerful. It just doesn't necessarily grab me. Besides, cards posted here are works in progress by definition. Refine and repost until you're happy with the design; if you already are, then keep it!

I'd have rather made a cool card than a "fine" one; "fine" wasn't the aim. So I failed. Happens basically every time I make a card, so it's not really surprising. You'd never know I've been making cards for like 6 years off and on. It's kind of pathetic.

Design isn't a binary between "great" and "failure," man. Cool is subjective. Ease up on yourself. Think of all of the cards Wizards makes, and how rarely they make one universally considered "cool." And they've been at this for a lot longer than any of us.

Now don't be like that. You're blowing it out of proportion. The card is designed well. Perhaps does a little too much, I'd personally remove the cost reduction or the indestructible clause. But that's me. You're not fucking anything up or wasting anything. Just have fun with it man.

I have nothing else new at the moment.

I'll bump with old stuff.

That is extremely powerful

Maybe nerf it a little bit?

I can make it more expensive.

...

...

This feels like it should cost 1 and just cost 3-4 to put a counter on it. Too much investment required to play it as it is now even if it is easier to beef up.

That's fair.

That flavor

I really like this card.

This card is neat but you need 2 activations (at 6 mana no less) to even Legendary rule a pair of enemies off the field and there's not a whole lot of support for straight legendary things.

Bump

He reads "two or three" rather than "one, two, or three" for three reasons. One because it makes him a bit more difficult to cast. Two it feeds into his flavor that he wants a real challenge since 1v1 just doesn't do it for him. And three I wanted to avoid the player being able to dump all counters on one creature and then removing it.

Also, making an opponent decide how they distribute the counters is a good idea but difficult to word I think. How would you word that?

if it's a pair of the same creature, you only need one to be Legendary because then there exists two creatures with the same name as a Legendary creature and their controller would have to choose one to keep

Why is the thread so barren today?

You jinxed it

Also many people (like me) are in the middle of Finals season.

R8, friend wanted to combine undead alchemist with a spider

Just a few more days my dude