/ccg/ Custom Card General /cct/

...

>Shade
Eh, I'll think about it.

>Miscast
Thanks. I honestly made it so long ago I didn't even remember what it said when I posted it, just that it was a counterspell.

>card
Seems OK. Though I think it reads better if it were
>deals damage equal to its converted mana cost to its controller
But that could just be me.

>Spell exile
Yeah, I really didn't understand his argument there, it seemed to be "Wizards wouldn't print this ability on a common card, so you shouldn't do it at all." If it were me I think I would've just told him that that sucks for Wizards, but I'm not Wizards. Like, I get what he means, and as I said, the pic he posts is interesting, but it's just not that relevant to us. Especially in your case, on a one-off rare.

>Miscast
I'll reduce to 2UR then.

>Shade
Activated Indie because grumpy mentioned it. Though looking at it some more, it seems kinda pointless to use it on temporary tokens. Probably going to move that back to permanently on Shade.

>UM03
I still think this wording should be changed. Every time I look at it I can't remember if it's supposed to give you just a lot of one color, or lets you have them in combination. Use X, seriously.

:^)

Wondering if the ultimate is too underwhelming. But they are only three mana. The minus ability's funkier wording is based on mercy killing. Should it be a -2?

Oddly Parallectric Feedback has it worded the same way I have it, so I'll probably just rock it the same way WotC rocks it.

Interesting turncoat card. I can dig it.

Planeswalker type has to match the name. The +1 ability is pretty neat dual utility in the right deck. It's worth playing for that alone. The -3 is neat and the ult is meh but dat +1 man.

>I still think this wording should be changed.
I copied the wording directly from Battle Hymn. Does "or" not make it clear?

Ill show you a counterspell

Hey dudes, !notKaladesh guy here

My drive with the set file went rogue (couldn't open any files because the drive said they didn't exist to begin with) so I lost the 10 cards I've made so far.

On the bright side, I think I have a solid new mechanic, Reject.

To reject, you target a spell or nonland permanent. Return it to its owner's hand, and they can't cast spells of the same name until their next turn. Reject in a flavor sense is nice because artificers can often be cutthroat to make the best designs and only put forth flawless work. Reject is a good form of "soft" removal since it doesn't completely ruin a gameplan but stalls an opponent briefly.

These cards are so fucking ugly. After the Kaladesh masterpieces... Jesus WotC, what were you thinking?

No difference from last time, still just trying to nail these designs down. Meant to be mirrors of each other, obviously.

Yeah, since the Hymn doesn't deal in multiple colors. If it were me, I'd make it say
>Add X mana in any combination of R and/or W to your mana pool, where X is the number of creatures you control.
or
>Add an amount of R or W equal to the number of creatures you control to your mana pool.
Depending on which is appropriate.

Nice. The idea of opening a pack and getting a cool Masterpiece card, especially in foil, is tempting, but I know too much about statistics to start gambling. I don't own any cardboard Magic because of this.

>Jesus WotC, what were you thinking?
That there are more people who like the product than there are people who don't like it. I almost always find "Why did you make this thing I don't like?" questions amusing because most of them have no substance and just boil down to "Muh feels!" As for me, I'd really like to have Diabolic Intent. I'm in love with that art.

Well since our opinions both share the same weight, I'm sorry for your terrible taste in visual design.

Well since I haven't seen these in a while, I'm guessing they're probably different than I last saw them. Does Blackfire not fly in the comics? Because she could easily have it instead of menace. As it is, the benefit of her being able to get rid of indestructible creatures is kinda outweighed by Kori's better evasion, though were your cards actually going to be a draftable set, Koma is better due to all the indestructible flying pun intended around.

>Planeswalker type has to match the name.

Her name is Najaka tho. "High Priestess of Rot" is a title.

So make the card name Najaka, High Priestess of Rot. It's just standard convention.

Firefly, flying pryomaniac. Only difference from the last version is lacking Haste.

So, is it just the actual art of the cards you don't like, or the frames? Because I'm not a big fan of the frames either.

>Does Blackfire not fly in the comics?
No, at least not before New 52. She couldn't fly, which made her an outcast among her people. This lead them to make Starfire their queen instead of Blackfire, despite Blackfire being the older and therefore first in line of succession.

Anyway, as for balance, I was kinda worried about that, but I can't really think of another way to balance them that doesn't mean fiddling with their keywords or making Starfire hit players, which I'm pretty hesitant to include.

Not him, but it's standard to include the name, or at least part of it, in the name of the card.

The counterspells from my set.

...

Another old one. Damn, I really never update my one-off cards.

Seems odd to me that the token has that ability. Why not just let the opponent have the choice after the spell is countered?

>counter target multicolored or colorless spell
Since you have the choice over when to exile the card, why not just
>If you do, counter that spell
Not really a fan of a mana-less counter.

I agree that it is way more complex than it should be. Is this fine, then?

Fix'd. Also, I agree that it may be a little too pushed. Maybe it could tax (2) instead of plain counter it?

>Not him, but it's standard to include the name, or at least part of it, in the name of the card.

I mean is it a particular rule or anything? I think it's just a pattern. I like the possibility of a planeswalker typeline giving you their name.

Garfield is pretty scary. But they come on an easy to kill legendary body and cost 5 so any toning down I can think of seems overly harsh. I kind of don't like how quickly the pump happens though, so that most anything they can destroy relatively easily. It might be more interesting if they start with 3 power but have a more expensive pump. That makes the card a bit more interesting, to me, because then there's reason to run them with things that boost power since they aren't so crazily efficient at it themselves.

I don't think you need the two color cost on the firebreathing. Black gives flying, red gives the buff, and they both do the last ability equally.

>Kaladesh cashgrab cards
I hate the entire design. Text, border, etc. The art is fine, they are just a travesty of font and layout/border design.

>Blackfire
I see. Well then, I suppose she's fine. In a vacuum, Starfire is better, and in your set, Blackfire. It's not a bad paradigm.

Oof, this is a tough pill. I'm guessing the precedent you're going to lean on for this is green's noncreature permanent destruction and the fact that green hates blue? I'm still not sure it should get flat countermagic.

>0 mana counter spell for a lot of things
Haha no.

>"Have you heard of Vigilance?"
You can still use it with vigilance. Example: Stoneforge mystic, go to attack, activate with mana (ignoring the tap thanks to the legend). Opponents turn they attack, you block with stoneforge then activate. Lets you get 2 activations with vigilance instead of just attacking then blocking and using

>I agree that it is way more complex than it should be. Is this fine, then?
Seems better, yeah. But "its" not "it's"

>Fix'd. Also, I agree that it may be a little too pushed. Maybe it could tax (2) instead of plain counter it?
Sounds better. Still hard to judge though. It's so odd, what made you come up with it?

Well, no, it's not really a rule, just a convention.

>Firefly
That sounds like a good idea. I'll play around with it.

>Firefly
Hmm, sounds interesting, I'll experiment with that. And BR for firebreathing simply to make it harder to activate, I realize it doesn't absolutely require both colors. But activated abilities are a bit odd like that. Sometime they include all the colors of the card they're on even if the effect doesn't require all of them, just because.

>Masterpiece
You don't mention the Zendikar cards? Does that mean you approve of them?. Also, you mention "the entire design" but refer explicitly to the Kaladesh cards. So do you dislike both the Amonkhet and Kaladesh cards and for all the same reasons? Kaladesh and Zendikar I both like, Amonkhet I'm not a big fan of. Though really, the part I just hate about them is how Wizards tried to be cute with hieroglyphics, and it just makes the name and types a pain to read.

>Blackfire
Thanks for the feedback. I'm guessing from your comments that they're pretty balanced and in and themselves?

>Oozeform
Oh, I realize it's a complete break. I just wanted to have fun. Imagine it as a Time Spiral card.

The point I was trying to make is that you could attack with Vigilance, then tap them afterwards, which was all I saw when I looked at the ability, wanting to attack and then tap without really tapping.

It's the Amonkhet cards I hate, not the Kaladesh ones. Sorry. I don't know why I even said that. The Kaladesh ones were how you DO that kind of thing. They looked great.

>Masterwork
So you put the last ability on there so you can "equip" Auras, I take it?

Sorry to hear you lost all your work man. I know how that feels. Though honestly I'm also kind of glad all my past work is gone; I can reuse all that art and nobody cared about any of it except me anyway so... what was the real loss?
>Reject
What colors would this show up in? Because bounce is pretty much strictly blue.

>Seems better, yeah. But "its" not "it's"
Fix'd.

>Sounds better. Still hard to judge though. It's so odd, what made you come up with it?
Yugioh cards, believe me or not. Shining "C" to be more precise.

No changes. Going for Silver Age Jimmy Olsen, who got different powers every other week.

>So you put the last ability on there so you can "equip" Auras, I take it?
Basically. It also helps if you copy an Equipment with a high equip cost. Plus it's instant speed.

Dude, do us all a favor and toss up some feedback for the cards of the people bothering to give yours feedback. We have enough trouble keeping the threads chugging along; nobody is going to want to talk shop when their stuff gets ignored when they're helping you out.

Fair enough.
>Jimmy
Oh Silver Age, you so crazy. I feel like this should be purely random if his power set was all over the place, so not fond of the last ability. I'd suggest not doing the top card thing either and just exiling a random card until end of turn for him to copy, but that's way too complex to bother.

Shuffle then? Eh, seems like too much. I had another idea where he was affected by more than just creature cards, so I may go to that. Thanks for the feedback.

It'd be wordy, but you could add Auras to that and have it where if you have an Aura up, he acts like he's enchanted by it or something.

I could see it, but only as a triggered ability at upkeep, which would be fine. I'm starting to wonder now if he could transform into whatever the card is, but then you have trouble with powerful cards ending up on top. OK, going to bed.

G'night. I'll keep the thread afloat with a few bumps before I hit the hay too if it drops too far in the page count.

So the exile only happens on your opponent's turn? You'd only ever be able to cast instants, is that intended?

I'm not actually sure. I dunno if adding a Flash caveat on that is too much or not. You think it's fine to do it that way? I just put it out into the wild with the converted Grenzo ability to gauge what people thought of the concept because I wasn't sure it'd even take. I like these threads, but people are fickle.

Or do you think I should make the exile just happen on the Courtesan's owner's turn? Which would be the better way to arrange it? I am starting to think doing it this way (owner's turn) is the better option. Good catch at any rate.

>>Reject
>What colors would this show up in? Because bounce is pretty much strictly blue.

I think blue and perhaps white would fit, although it is a pretty blue ability. Maybe stretch to black in some cases?

I think it depends on what you reject with it. Black rejecting a creature is going to be better received than black rejecting an artifact, for example, since it can remove creatures already. Though, how it's doing so mechanically is still very blue so I'm not sure what would really be allowed as far as bending the pie. I'm apparently not the best judge of that as per last thread.

i am kind of ok with it... the opp is going to know about it and it's a 1/1 for 1. i don't think the price is wrong.
you could force the counter on the first thing an opponent would play, so that opponenet could play around it, it would be much safer design, but you it would suck to have 2 of those in your graveyard trigger on the same spell.

>That there are more people who like the product than there are people who don't like it.

the fact there are people who like it is irrelevant for the bad judgement we should give to the invocations.
they are a premium card that was supposed to be eye candy chased by 90% of the playerbase, but instead 40% of people don't like it-> they fucked up.

Playing around with ability words.
(All other cards in the set have normal Grandeur at this point, wanna know what do ya'll think)

>the fact there are people who like something i don't like is irrelevant
That sounds completely, objective, reasonable, and totally unbiased.

Reminds me of Essence Backlash. I'm not sure if the mana cost is needed. I think the mana cost is a bit too restrictive. I'd go back to 3UR again.
>people who aren't bound by the same restrictions WotC has.
Well, we still are by the nature of designing Magic cards bound by Wizards' design rules.
That card is too swingy for my tastes. It's also probably a bit undercosted, bouncing a spell seems to be costed at around 1.5 mana and copying one is 2.
To paraphrase a flavor text - choke on your cleverness and die. The card's too cute. That's not a compliment.
The card was perfect as is at
Indestructible
B: Each Shade gets +1/+1
Beginning of each combat phase (or when ~ attacks, whatever floats your boat), get a 2/2 Shade with haste. Exile it at end of combat.
2/2
Like, that's perfect.Maybe on the strong side, but who cares. No need to fiddle with it. That nails the flavor with minimal complexity.
It's not basically the same spell, it IS the same spell. Seems redundant.

That card is pretty garbage desu. Even if it worked as intended, a 3/3 is way too squishy. Also it missing on lands is just a huge drawback.
Cute, but not a rare.
Humm. Interesting. I can dig it. A bit undercosted, as threaten effects already are costed at 3.
No offense, but I'm so god damn tired of badly designed custom planeswalker #637 it's actually tilting me.
As a contrarian, I think both look fucking terrible, but at least the AKH ones are bold-looking, so I like them more.
Nice clean safe designs. Not much to say about them.
I think it should trigger when connecting. The statline/activated ability seem off as well.
Just remove the clutter. Jesus christ, why does it have to be this complicated. Just give them a 3/3 elephant or something. Christ.
Jesus christ I think this is the most unprintable card I've seen since I joined this thread. Ho-ly fuck is this card broken. Dredge really needs a way to hose all the artifact gy hosers, right? Even disregarding that, this card is absolutely dumb.
Green does not get to do that.
YOU DO NOT REDUCE THE COMPLEXITY OF YOUR CARD BY GIVING YOUR OPPONENT CHOICES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE RESOLUTION SADSSFD
I'd remove the 3: ability to be completely honest. It's already a pretty strong card.
This card is super-off. Again, why does this do the Snake-Oracle-Land effect? Why red, white or black? Isn't this undercosted to all hell?
I'm convinced there's stuff that breaks this. It's a pretty common design though. Also the ability to filter your draws is deceptively strong.

To chime in, I don't mind just people posting cards.
>+x/+y
Eww
Also shouldn't it be "All slivers have all..."?

>Reject
Reflector Mage is one of the most table-breakingly frustrating, pure tilt cards even for competitive-oriented stoic players and you want to KEYWORD it? Oh god please no. Imagine being stuck with like 3 Siege Rhinos stuck in your hand for 8 turns in a row because yoiur opponent has 12 Reject cards in their deck.

>All Slivers have all
First off, Queen and Overlord prove this is not needed.
Second off, this would be a little too much with Slivers that grant ETB triggers and stat bonuses, because those things would stack per sliver on the battlefield.

>All Slivers have all
Not that guy, but he didn't put this on the card. He just made it so the card has all the activated abilities of all the Sliver cards in all graveyards.

I'd make the pump look at the P/T of the creature, not the card. Especially since the creature will likely be buffed a few times already, making the ability more powerful. Though I think most people would prefer just +X/+X, I can go either way, so it's up to you.

>He just made it so the card has all the activated abilities of all the Sliver cards in all graveyards.
How do I word it so that it has all the passive and triggered abilities as well? Asking for a friend.

>Like, that's perfect.Maybe on the strong side, but who cares. No need to fiddle with it. That nails the flavor with minimal complexity.
Good point. I really liked the idea of a scaling token, and I wanted to make it work, but I'll go with your suggestion. Might try a scaling token effect on another card. Maybe Negative Man or Mindwarp.

...

Oh, I thought you were trying to say activated abilities. Guess I read your card wrong too. As for your question, it's something Wizards hasn't ever really touched on. I don't know how to do precisely what you want, but you could approximate that by doing something like making token copies of Sliver cards in graveyards then exile them later, or have the card itself become a copy of the Sliver card in a graveyard, but still legendary and it retains its 7/7 P/T and name. Or you could just come up with some way to recur Slivers. That'd be the easiest option, and I think fitting for a big legendary.

Yep, I'm retarded.

I mean, I suppose from a purely mechanical stand point, "~ has all abilities" should work, but again, Wizards just hasn't ever done it. They're probably afraid of complexity issues.

I guess I'll stick with what I have for now. Still thanks mate, changed to +x/+x based on power only.

In the meantime, have some references and me having fun with ideas. Open for ideas on how to call the red hound, bonus point for references.

Also, how slim is my chance of somebody in the drawthread actually taking up my requests for Sliver art?

>Miscast
OK.

>Wizards' design rules
True, for the most part. I still think you were a bit too strict on Time user's one-off card. I'd get it if he started making commons with "Exile target spell." But a single card, at rare?

>Shade
Doing it now.

>Starfire and Blackfire
Thanks. Most of my cards aren't as crazy as Mother Box, which I'm still experimenting with but probably won't post for a while.

>Firefly
Trigger on hit does sound like a better option. Also, taking other anons' advice into account, the latest version gets Flying for 1B and pumps for +1/+0 at 1R.

>Oozeform
I know, it was just a one-off I had fun with. Might make it a UG counter.

>Io's Masterwork
Really? Hmm, OK.

>Jimmy Olsen
It's basically just a twist on Skill Borrower. I think I'll actually change it to change with every permanent card. I'd been worried about planeswalkers, but I might just make it say nonplaneswalker. Oh, and I already removed the filter ability.

I've never really liked Grandeur on nonlegendaries, to be honest. I feel like it kinda defeats the purpose of the ability. Anyway, you're making some of the common mistakes here.

For ability words, you need to put a space both before and after the hyphen.

You capitalize all substypes like Bird, Aura, and Equipment, but card types like creature, enchantment, and artifact aren't, as well as supertypes like basic, legendary, and snow.

Cards on the battlefield can be referred to by just their card types. If they're on the stack, they're spells. If they're anywhere else, they're cards. So uw04 should say "Return target creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield."

Make it non-token, at least.

I think I have this at a state I like.

>Counterspell edition
Ok then. I realize this is just with different colorus, but I swear I made it on my own. I also think I have the right colours. Name is from 2hu.

As an addendum to what others have mentioned, I think making the discard "All Slivers get +1/+1 until EOT" would be fine, too.

See I have to say I like how perfectly this fits its colours.

>Whenever you cycle or discard...
Please don't do this. Other than that, the card just a smaller Drake Haven. I disagree with it being in white.
>Grandeur
I agree with the other user about sticking this on non-legends. You could make the cards care about types/colours of the discarded cards instead. And again, discarding for profit in white is iffy.
If you do go with the "caring about types" thing, try to include some cards that benefit from discarded lands to mitigate manaflood in limited.
>Revivalist
creature CARD

You want to keyword free reanimation? I urge you to reconsider. Exiling creature cards for up to X 1/1 tokens is still powerful and as such is my suggested alternative.

This strikes me as something too complex to keyword as-is.
Might it be simpler to counter the spell and give the spell's controller a Weird creature token?

Well then, I guess I have to think up a different ability name that would work similarly to Grandeur.
Excess, maybe?
Also I'd still keep the common ones wanting you to discard cards named identically, but at bigger rarities their range would differentiate.

>Don't do this
it is the official templating now, sadly.

I probably should have posted more examples. It often won't be free and can have more trigger than on death. When I get back home I'll throw more up to give an idea of where I want to take it.

I also worry about the complexity. However, I am trying my fucking damndest to make tokens out of dead stuff and make it reasonable and simple. What kind of suggestions can you make?

Beyond making tokens I want the bg faction to reanimate in some way that doesn't break things and I've been trying to figure a bg mechankc out for months. I had something like embalm but then that got used

>it is the official templating now, sadly.
Not him, but it's not really "official", it's not like it's going to be used on every discard trigger until the end of time. The wording
>Whenever you discard a card,
and
>Whenever you discard or cycle a card,
are mechanically identical, since Cycling calls for discard. Wizards just worded it this way for Amonkhet since they wanted to make cards that trigger off discard and because the set uses Cycling, and they just wanted to make it very easy to understand for newbies.

I had similar difficulties coming up with my last BG mechanic. I ended up going with an on-death trigger, like you have here. Maybe you could add a cost to yours and streamline it? Something like this? Or you could have something like Embalm, but with a number and that creates a generic N/N token.

>discard or cycle a card
Bleh, got the order wrong. But I think you guys know what I meant.

Also, if Wizards did decide to make "discard or cycle" the new wording, then they would've gone back to change the wording of older cards. And yet Necropotence doesn't include "cycle" in its Oracle text.

I also had something along those lines

The Explicitly stated that they could not reprint Astral Slide even if they wanted to because it uses an old wording.

Anyway, this is what I'm on now, with the common ones keeping their abilities just witch changed names. Open for better ability word than Excess I guess, the flavor is Dominaria rebuilding after TSP.

How about this: You make the tokens Fungus, but not the regular creatures. Then you have Fungus-matters cards that reward creating the tokens. New template suggestion pic related.

I'd also considered that, but my damned stubbornness of getting tokens with actual abilities kept me from doing it. I suppose I could make a standard fungus token with some minor ability and have the mechanic make 1 or more of them. And yeah, I also have a bit of fungus tribal.

I guess I'm going to have to give up the making dudes into tokens I love so much if I'm also going to try and make it a grave based mechanic for the design elegance and power level.

>The Explicitly stated that they could not reprint Astral Slide even if they wanted to because it uses an old wording.
I'm guessing you're talking about this line
>Also, there will be plenty of cards with cycling rewards in Amonkhet, and while neither Astral Slide nor Lightning Rift make the return (boo old templating . . . among other things)
From this page
magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/cycling-duels-2017-03-31

What he's saying here is that neither card will be reprinted *in Amonkhet*. He's not saying they won't be reprinted ever. Also, it's kinda pointless to talk about those cards because they use a fundamentally different trigger than what Wizards was using in Amonkhet, which would trigger off any discard, but Astral Slide and Lightning Rift only trigger off Cycling.

>Might be simpler to...
It would be, but then the resulting creature dies to bounce/blink. Except I just realized that blinking a converted instant would just remain in exile if you blink it. A counter and token it is.
>card
Sweet. I think 1B would be enough for the escalate cost, and you may want a "full" newline after the last mode.

I doubt that more examples will change the problems with keyworded reanimation, but I'll try to keep an open mind for now.

>The Explicitly stated that they could not reprint Astral Slide even if they wanted to because it uses an old wording.
I don't have the article on hand, but isn't this the opposite of what they stated? The problem has nothing whatsoever to do with the wording and everything to do with the effect, i.e. it triggering off of both players and presumably because it can stall games out by keeping creatures from attacking.
>Excess
I don't think you need a word for this at all. Having discard as a general theme is fine. As for caring about types/colours, I'd say make the requirements more specific the more powerful the effect. For the kavu, having a requirement of either creature or red seems fine to me; it doesn't need to be both.

I think I found the article that user was talking about here And I think part of why Astral Slide isn't getting reprinted is because it only triggers off cycling, not all discard effects.

That is the article I was thinking of, and I definitely think that "old templating" refers to the card triggering off both players. Source: Change to Slivers and the "fixed" Lord of Atlantis only buffing your own creatures.
In any case, the reason they didn't reprint is absolutely not because they somehow can't, it's because they don't want to.

No changes from last time. Pretty sure it's fine as-is, just making sure though. Flavor is supposed to blend plants and animals together, so land animation.

>Reignition
I'd rather it be
>Exile target instant or sorcery card from your graveyard with a time counter on it. If it doesn't have suspend, it gains suspend.

>That is the article I was thinking of, and I definitely think that "old templating" refers to the card triggering off both players.
Ah, glad I got it right. And you're probably right about their reasoning, I just didn't bring it up because I was talking with the other guy about how the "cycle or discard" wording isn't Wizards' new template for all discard triggers, it's just what they decided to use for Amonkhet, and talking about which players it affects just seemed irrelevant. He may have been referring to that, who knows.

Damn, just realized Tefe triggers off creatures regardless of who controls them. It should trigger only off creatures that ETB under your control. Fixing now.

Reject is different than reflector mage. Reflector mage bounces a creature until your next turn, which often means that an opponent has to wait for two turn cycles unless it has flash.

Reject states "until that player's next turn", meaning that if you play a reject card on your turn, they can play it again once their turn starts again, instead of waiting for it to be your turn.

Idea, dudes exiling something from your grave on ETB and gaining all the activated abilities of that card.

He was. He admits he did not remember much besides that quote from the article. He is thankful for clearing it up for him.

How has this card not been printed yet?

That horrible. Not only is it overly complicated, but why would anyone play with that ever over Counterspell or Mana Leak or Arcane Denial?

For the same reason there is no good PW removal and yet they get pushed too the moon.

They're the stars of this game now, whether you like it or not. I know I don't.

In a similar vein, how has this not been printed yet? Power level concerns?

Yo grumpus I love your work. Tell me why the abzan colored planeswalker is poorly designed though.

Grandeur was only on Legendary creatures for a reason.
Too narrow and complex to be keyworded. Also probably breaks some things. I don't like it.
That looks like an UG spell to me desu.
Barter in Blood with massive upside - seems undercosted to all hell.
Embalm is your mechanic but infinitely more interesting. Also Scavenge.
>inb4 "they're not the same mechanic"
You're missing the point.
Excess is buuusteed. Free tempo swings like that keyworded is generally bad times. Also consider learning from the lesson of how unfun Wild Mongrel was to play with.
Still dumb.
Seems pretty dangerous. Maybe twiddle with the suspend and mana costs. Also I'm not sure if it works under the current template as the copy effect probably won't change the exile---->stack transition. Might be wrong. Just make the sorcery suspend a card from your graveyard straight up, seems cleaner and less confusing.
I think I'd like it more if it triggered off playing lands.
That just makes the issue softer. You use it on their upkeep and they're still stuck with extra copies in their hand. It just reads miserable. Do NOT put un-fun mechanics in your set. Too narrow. Planeswalkers are all mythics. Why would you print a card that only interacts with mythics?
That card is pretty neat though. Probably slightly undercosted. 3U sounds about right.
WotC has probably the best Magic designers in the world (simply because they design the most magic cards). And they STILL sometimes fuck up Planeswalker design. It's incoherent, boring and just frankly not worth the effort to deeply look into. If you want to design good planeswalker, I suggest looking into the Lorwyn 5 and really break down every single minute thing about the card.

>Counterspell edition!
ah jeez, Iunno about this

Yeah, I'm too attached to the generation of meaningful tokens. Fucking wizards taking embalm out from under me.

I also feel it's slightly undercosted but I am staunchly against printing control magic that doesn't have UU in it. I feel like it's not an effect that should be splashable y'know. Though if any control magic were ever to be able to get just U in its cost it'd be this one.

Start with the mana cost.
Consider what the game looks like when they are cast.
What sorts of deck want this card?
What are the options when you cast them? How much mana worth of value are you getting when you + them the turn they come out?
What about if you - them? What are the most similar spells to them and how do they compare to the planeswalkers?
Are their abilities able to protect themselves? How do the abilities worth together?
What are the relationships between -, + and ultimate abilities? The starting loyalty?
What does the ultimate do? Is it going to win you the game?
How does the planeswalker's abilities reflect the color pie? What about the color's philosophy? What about the planeswalker as a character itself?

I'm sure I'm forgetting some of these, but you get the general gist. Once you're done looking at the Lorwyn 5, go back and do the same thing to your own planeswalker.