/ccg/ Custom Card General /cct/

Good night and good luck, /ccg/.

All I need is the art and the wording for the hand size limiter. Maybe a better name, too.

Shit, just realized this is way overcosted. Back to the drawing board...

I'd say Green and Blue makes the most sense for nonbasics. White and Black usually only really care about how many plains or swamps you have, while Red is all hate like you said. Green works because Green likes all lands, and Blue fits because Blue enjoys altering lands to suit its needs, and nonbasics could be seen as an extension of that.

On a side note, I've finished up most of the commons for my set, though I can't postracized any at the moment due to being on mobile. However, i was wonderingnif anyone had some advice for designing uncommons compared to commons or rares.

It does seem like an interesting idea, grabbing your entire grave's worth of creatures back, but only being able to keep some due to the hand size limit. I do feel like it might work better at a lower mana cost, since it also does come with that long term downside.

I like this card quite a lot, though it does feel like it'll be hard to get the most value out of. If you qttack right away and they block with the tokens, you've made them discard 2 for 3 mana and given them a token. Not the best deal. Of course, the advantage is that it could also be pumped or comboed with other carss to give you a reliable source of discard. Very nice overall.

My dream commander. I'm 99% the wording doesn't work too

I think it would need to be

Whenever you cast a spell, change its text by replacing all instances of "choose one" with "choose one or more".

I think it could be simplified, but that would be the way to get it across properly.

I'd also say that card might be a bit expensive for all it's doing, does it really need to be a 10/10 indestructible for 10?

I had this setup as a static ability before, but I realized that could probably get a bit weird if your opponent had one too.

Probably works better as an only attacking thing anyway. It goes unblocked if they don't have any flyers, or at leadt limits their options to things with reach. Then if they do have flyers, they could block it anyway so it matters less.

It works nicely as a kind of 'low flying' contrast to the 'high flying' effects Blue sometimes gets.

I don't think it works as a triggered ability, since the mode choice will have already been made at that point. I think you're looking at something more like:
>If you would choose one or more modes for a spell or ability you control, you may choose each of those modes instead.

Would this be balanced as a real card?

Reminds me of Márton Stromgald. I'd bump up the mana cost by one, at least.

That seems like a very easy way to win the game if your opponent has 20 cards in their graveyard.

I think it might be more balanced if it only triggered during your own upkeep but affected each player instead.

Very pushed at that cmc, but unplayable because of the triple white.

Yeah I tried to compensate his low cmc with that heavy white requirement.

>may
get rid of that word and you're golden.

MY FINEST CREATION

Seems fun with mill as a wincon, especially Traumatize. I think the trigger staying as-is is for the best, but that's because of the aforementioned combo. I'd rather it be balanced around that than changed to be harder to use. Bumping the cost up to 1B turns it into a turn 7 wincon, which is totally fine to me, or turn 8 if you intend to protect it.

3WW would better balance this and make it more playable to boot.

I remember this card, or something like it. Feels pretty okay to me, though red getting flying at low CMC on small bodies is a bit off. has a point though that the "low flying" aspect does make it feel more red, since red is the color of "cowardly" creatures, and this fits the bill.

>Cultist
Thanks. I like the idea of the Hunted cards from Ravnica, and so I thought to mess with it a little from a modern design standpoint. I suppose it could be reduced to two tokens, making it a really obtuse "discard two" spell, with bonus ETB and death triggers, but I wanted the player to have to work a little. I don't mind changing it though, if need be.

>GU
Nice to hear I wasn't totally off base with that. I like the idea of "nonbasic matters" cards that aren't hate, so now I have some colors to play with. GU happens to be one of my favorite combos as well, so that helps.
>uncommons
Well, I dunno what your set is, but what I learned from setbuilding is that uncommons are your workhorse cards. Think of your archetypes, and what they need to function, and what you want people to draft for them, and make those your uncommons. They are the sort of card you can plan on someone getting at least one copy of for an archetype, and they do a lot of heavy lifting in terms of utility in draft as well. Rares are, well, too rare to matter, and mythics you can just forget about. I'd actually advise not even including them unless you do Planeswalkers, myself. You aren't making money off the set so why bother?

Feels too similar to Dragonmaster Outcast, and 4 lands is much less than 5 or 6, especially for a color that overwhelming wants to go to the late game.

It's meant to feel that way. I just ran out of room to explain that in the post. How is 4 lands not fair for a 2/2 flier compared to 6 lands for a 5/5 flier? Seems fair to me, at any rate. Five lands seems too high. I suppose it could be six lands and make two tokens?

It's easy to have 4 lands by turn 4. It is very difficult to have 6 by turn 6. Closest comparison is Master of the Wild Hunt, but his tokens don't have evasion and you can't protect it the turn you play it.

Fair enough; I'll just make it two tokens for six lands. Riffs the original more closely and would placate your demand that blue be a late-game color to boot.

...

>Feels too similar to Dragonmaster Outcast
Not him but dude the card is called drakecaller exile.

Needs to self exile

Morphic Spellgyre 2UR
Instant
Copy target instant or sorcery spell. You may choose new targets for that spell and the copy.

I know the wording is fucked on this, but it's been a while.

Mnemomancy Mishap R
Sorcery
Name a card, then search your library for up to four cards with the same name and exile them. Shuffle your library, then scry X, where X is the number of cards exiled in this way.

Dream Guardian 2RBU
Legendary Creature- Avatar
Protection from untapped creatures and sorceries
Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, look at that player's hand and exile a nonland card from it. Until end of turn, you may play cards exiled by cards named ~.
3/4

Another specifics headache. I assume 'protection from untapped creatures' doesn't guard against Visara the Dreadful's tap ability, as an example?

Well I'm glad somebody got it.

This may be less useful in standard, but would it see use in EDH do you think?

>Spellgyre
I'd do it "You may choose new targets for target spell. Copy that spell. You may choose new targets for the copy." It just reads a bit better to me and the process is a bit more clear I think. I like it though. Cost should be just about right, but maybe 3UR is safer.
>Mishap
>turn 4
>cast this playing RDW
>"mountain"
>thin the hell out of your deck, scry 12, and get your wincons all nicely lined up in a row
I'd add a nonland caveat to that, and I'd maybe make it more expensive. 1R? You'll always at least get Scry 2 and thin 2 cards out of your deck with this, which is all upside.
>Guardian
The last part of the ability needs a rework; "Until end of turn, you may play cards exiled this way." And yes, it does not guard against that because targets are chosen when the ability goes on the stack, and Visara is already tapped as part of the cost to activate her ability.

...

>unconditional removal
>mono blue

NO.

I'm with on this.

The invoke cost should probably be Black, since the transform half is Black in all but name, and it adds up to a rather Black effect as well. The most Blue thing about it is that it can hit enchantments and artifacts, so an invoke cost involving UB would probably be best.

Posting commons from my set, have the other colors done as well.

Wanderer's ability isn't appropriate on a ostensiably WB creature, Liferoot feels more green due to the "Plant" type, sparking should probably be red from a flavor perspective, White doesn't really discard unless it's a block theme, huntress is either undercosted or uncommon,

Let's say this comes out in the new Dominaria set. I know it will dominate Standard. How will Modern change?

Countering Force
U
Instant
----------------------------------------------------------
As an additional cost to cast Countering Force, pay 1 life and exile a blue card from your hand.

Counter target spell.
----------------------------------------------------------

If too format warping, if it was 1U, would it be more balanced?

I originally had the Wanderer as White with G for its ability, I was told it was more fitting as Black.

I could alter the name of the ox to be more fitting, if Radiant or the like would be better. I thought it was fairly White mechanically, due to the P/T and caring about blockers.

The Huntress I would probably prefer to alter the p/t of, just so White has 4 mana card there. Would a 3/3 be alright, or should I go down to 2/3?

As for discarding, the block does have a general graveyard theme, though if it's that out of place on the Bird I could probably up the cost and limit it to once per turn instead.

Oops, I misread Mishap. Still, guaranteed Scry 4 and deck thinning calling a land. I'd do nonland still in any case.

Speaking from experience, I can say that doing things that other colors can do by twisting a color usually get met with hostility around here, as evidenced by . There's such a thing as being "too clever".

I would say that more fitting 'hard removal' for Blue would be bouncing something to the top of the library and then milling that player, but Blue still shouldn't be getting that all on one card. It'd be a neat combo if you pull it off, sure, but it shouldn't be a built-in function of something mono-Blue

I take it you're assuming that since you have to pay U, it's much weaker than FoW since it can't stop your opponent if they go first? Well since Standard has no need of a FoW-grade counter since winning turn 1 is basically impossible, why would you want this? It's obscenely broken at U, and at 1U there are better options that don't cost you extra cards.

That's the exact effect that got me in trouble years back. Funny you managed to come up with it as your example. Hardest removal Blue should get is "third from the top"-type cards, I think. I don't like Polymorph and am glad it's going to Red myself.

Yeah, personally I'm okay with Blue getting clever or combo based removal, but it should always be 2 for 1. Bounce something and then make each person shuffle their hand into their deck, or gain control of a creature and then sacrifice it with another card.

Heck, Blue's most basic form of removal is already this. Just bounce and then counterspell.

Just Brainstorming. It would be cool for wotc to have weaker "tribute" cards for its 25th anniversary. I also don't like the fact that Modern does not have a truly great counter-spell. Mana leak is conditional and you can't pair it with Path. Cryptic command is too mana intensive.

This should probably cost more, like in the realm of In Garruk's Wake and Insurrection.

This seems like a solid card. 2/2 for 2 multicolor works nicely. The token creation seems rather fairly costed as well, and the scry on top of that is a nice bonus.

>Sapling
Strikes me as more green than white.
>Tiger
This feels strange since it combines GU. It makes it seem there's a Bant faction in your set, and I don't think there is? Maybe it should just cost G and have another card with a U activation on it.
>Braveheart
Watch for complexity here. I realize that this is seemingly a simplistic card, but NWO dictates watching out for commons that target other permanents with repeatable abilities.
>Cheetah
This not having firebreathing is disappointing as a potential drafter. Also again, NWO issues.
>Huntress
This is just an uncommon.
>Packlord
Why a 2/3 token? Typo?
>Wanderer
I agree this is out of scope. You want the B ability not to cause the W card do do something not W in its cost. I realize as it's worded it can sacrifice itself, but I'd advise another course. Also, B granting Trample isn't a thing. G and R grant Trample.
>Bones
Interesting token. I think it might need a mana cost though. 1 would do.
>Aloft
White bounce? Is this even a thing? It gets flicker... I'd advise making it exile UEOT instead.

ah, I see. I don't play competitively anymore so I don't see the draw myself, but if you feel it needs it then maybe that's the case.

>Neozoa
Way too strong. Should be 1U.
>Carbunckle
I'd make the Scry ability cost a tap too, unless you're doing it for flavor purposes. I mean you're still tapping a creature so it's presumably fine but still. Also, this is a lot of utility on one 1U creature. Feels more uncommon.
>Leech
Too busy for a common.
>Cephalopod
Seems too strong. A 2/3 for 3 is already very good for Blue, but the added bonus is over the top. It has Prowess, so reduce the P/T some.
>Serpent
Traditionally a white ability, with its high-power hate. One blue card has it, and it was a one-off. Currently doesn't seem to have a home, but I'd err on it still being white.
>remains
Spruce up the wording for plurality.

(cont)

>Fisher
I'd make this self target so you can't weaponize it.
>Reefs
this is a white effect.
>Storm
This is uncommon.
>Surge
I'd rather the flashback be green. And I don't think WotC likes token-making combat tricks at 1C anymore. 2C is usually the cost for instants now that make two weenie tokens. I know these can't attack but Blue isn't good at making tokens anyway.
>Spirit
I'd make this "when ~ leaves the battlefield" for a bit of extra value.
>Waters
Hrm. Probably okay but the wording is a bit off.

Also, does your set have no humanoid creatures in it at all? Odd, but a neat concept.

Oop, forgot to say thanks for the feedback on the Speaker.

>Tiger
I had wanted a bit of an allied color cycle

>Braveheart, Cheetah, Huntress
I was already planning on changing Braveheart to being 3 mana and once per turn instead to be a bit less repeatable. As for the other two, I would point to Bloodlust Inciter and Aerial Guide from more recent sets.

>Packlord
I was told that a 3/3 token was 'too green'

>Wanderer
I was told it was more black than green. Would switching trample to menace solve it?

>Aloft
Went off of list in OP. Says White Bounce is a thing. I made more limited than Blue to be safe.

>Neozoa
Noted. I'd tried pushing it to 1 for other reasons.

>Carbuncle
I had it as a unified effect before, though figured that was too confusing

>Cephalopod
1/3 would work

>Serpent
I was going off of Skulk there, though just counting base power rather than any increases.

>Reefs
-1/-0 to attackers instead?

>Surge
I didn't want to double up on U/G combos when I had the Cephalopod going for forests as well. I may also change it to a Sorcery to keep the cost lower.

>Also, does your set have no humanoid creatures in it at all? Odd, but a neat concept.

Yes, that was part of the idea behind it. I wanted to try and make a very wilderness style block.

No trouble at all. Thanks for all of yours!

Venomous seadragon and barrier reefs are too good

Perhaps this might solve up one of these issues

I'm assuming it was the cost on the counterspell?

Well not only that, but it's the kinda thing that would only EVER show up at uncommon +

Would it be better if it had a more plain sacrifice effect instead?

On further examination, I think I was remembering the rarity of a card I based it off of wrong. I'll bump it up and find something to swap it out for.

I dislike how this is a very good token creating spell in the color that should be the worst at it.

Is there reference for this? As far as I know white gets the most tokens because it's the creature that cares about having the most creatures but otherwise I was under the impression most colors could have any amount and kind of token making necessary for whatever.

This may be too cheap, but blue IS capable of doing this as recently as Amonkhet because of Commit//Memory, though it was a little more subtle.

It's also a rare, and as you said, costs a lot of mana to pull it off. While it could be done, I think it has to be done with those stronger effects, and only at higher rarities.

After all, a bounce to library and then a mill would probably be 3 mana and 1 mana respectfully. This instead went for 4 mana for second from the top and 6 mana for a full hand/grave shuffle.

I think it's less about Blue not getting hard removal and more about it not being remotely efficient. You either need multiple cards, or you need to pay so much mana that you'll ask yourself why you didn't just use multiple cards.

I feel like this would be better as XUU, if only so it looks cleaner. Putting colorless costs on X cost spells always feels messy, and it doesn't accomplish that much in terms of mana demands.

Aside from that, the spell seems solid. The best use of it would arguably be to get a large scry value, put most of them on the bottom for a lot of tokens, and then put the one card you want on top. Not a bad use, but it does mean that anyone trying to use it for actual scrying might be left wanting.

Also, I tried to rework the Leech since you mentioned it was too busy. I though removing the lifegain/drain might help, but I did want to try and keep the tap and counter removal.

Eh, Commit//Memory is a legitimate card. It's expensive but both effects are useful for their cmc. I don't think making it constructed inviable is the correct way to go about it. Boomerang doesn't feel super rare though, you are correct. But eh.

not boomerang, dissipate, my bad. I still mentally think of bounce effects as boomerang. Anyway point is blue can still do it as of relatively recently and that's all I was commenting on, I didn't get the impression the criticisms were just that he costs and effects were wrong, but the core concept.

markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/157018334603/any-color-can-create-tokens-but-is-there-a

Also
magiccards.info/query?q=o:"create X"&v=card&s=color
magiccards.info/query?q=o:"create a" o:"for each"&v=card&s=color
White gets the most mass token creation. Blue gets the least, and is almost always conditional.

I'm not suggesting to not make it viable, more that it's using two effects that are high in mana cost to achieve the removal effect, rather than two effects that are much cheaper.

I still think a key factor to the idea is the difficulty of it. It can be done, sure, but trying to push it isn't the way to go. You make a good point though, it isn't quite as big of a hard no as was suggested.

Eh, this seems to be about how often they get it, not how good it is or how many tokens. Doing it the least doesn't necessarily mean it has to be bad at it. It was a token archetype in BFZ for example. But this is still a useful list. Is there anything else?

Though, now that I think about it, I get a gut feeling blue isn't supposed to get X token making and that's kinda what this is. Is there reference for X tokens?

...

It's ironic because I said Blue is bad at tokens in my own feedback. I didn't think it was that bad because for 3 mana, you get a 1/1 and a Scry 1. It starts out very weak, but yeah, since it's X, it can scale pretty well. I think I have the answer though. I'll just make it XGU, and the Elemental tokens blue and green, or just green. Should be fine then, I hope.

>Wanderer
Yeah that would help.
>Aloft
What list?
>Serpent
Yeah that's my fault I just read the Amrou Kithkin ability and went "wait, let me check this" with just that wording and all the returns were white except one.
>Reefs
Much more blue, yes.
>Surge
Fair, but I'm sure you see my point.

Well now it's XGU, so we should be good. And the point is that you have to decide what effect you want to prioritize, which becomes easier the more mana you spend (digging deeper), which only makes sense to me.
>Leech
The main issue is a common having two activated abilities. Are you disregarding NWO? If so that's fine, and I'll relent.

Do you think white could get this? I really did want this to be in white flavorwise, and I kinda feel like white gets most weird draw stuff these days. I think maybe it can get it on the basis it lets the opponent draw as well? I kinda feel like that's why white got Monarch mechanically.

Forgot card

>What list?

magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/mechanical-color-pie-2017-2017-06-05

It's listed as secondary under White, which tends to still be in the realm of things that could show up with regularity. I couldn't find any examples, but I felt like making it a 'put on top of library' effect would be a bit much for a common with flashback.

>Surge
Yeah, I get what you're trying to say with it. I didn't plan for much flashback in green though, but I may try and shuffle things around with it.

As for your card, I do think XGU might be a better fit for a mass of elemental tokens. I suppose the tradeoffs with the card might take some playtesting to really understand, but it does seem like a neat card.

>Leech
I'm trying not to disregard NWO too much, though I find I often try and make custom cards that are more complex than average. Mainly because I don't want to just make french vanillas or the like.

I do still want it to combo with White/Black in some way, and I did like the thought of it using its abilities in tandem to try and drain larger creatures with counters. I may need to try and work in something else instead though. Ideally, something more than lifelink or a basic life drain effect.

Assuming you're talking about the card draw, I would say so, as long as Feud isn't primarily in White. After all, White does still get Cycling and Cantrips, and the fact that it affects both players does make it more White.

It's probably secondary in white yeah. I mostly envision it in all colors though though mainly in red, with blue, black and white probably second, and green probably distant last. I'm still not sure if I sold on this mechanic though. I kinda wish I could play with it just to see how it feels. It reads like it feels fun to do. I'm still trying to see if I can think of a 'showndown" mechanic that could be a headliner, like embalm in Amonkhet or energy in Kaladesh or landfall in Zendikar. I guess I don't necessarily need one, I don't think Innistrad really does for example, but I like the idea of a mechanic that you go "yeah, that's definitely this set's thing".

...

>Leech
Consider making it have an ETB that cares about Swamp and Plains control? I dunno. One-off abilities are much less flaggable regarding NWO since they aren't easily repeatable.
>List
White can bounce its own stuff... maybe that's what he meant? It's meant to save your own creatures, not as an offensive thing. Make the change and I think we're gold. That's where the confusion seems to lie.

Hmm...I feel like the only thing holding Feud back from being one of those 'main' mechanics like you want is the fact that it takes up so much real estate on the card.

Embalm can be a few lines near the bottom of an otherwise normal card. Landfall, likewise, can take up a varying amount of room for the specific landfall effect, but can also be short enough to pair with evergreen keywords or activated abilities. Energy is a bit trickier, but it has benefit in being so variable. All it really has to do is spend a couple lines saying how much energy a card gives, and then have the effects of that card be whatever so long as they rely on that energy.

Feud? You have to spend all the space on the text saying that the creature feuds, when it feuds, and then the reminder text for what it means to feud, and then after all that you barely have enough room to make sure the feud actually does something. I'd say it's a similar problem to Soulbond, where the mechanic itself is just so wordy that it doesn't leave as much room to do anything too spectacular with it.

However, unless you really simplify it to something like a coin flip, I don't see condensing it working out as well.

I suppose that might be the case with Bounce. Looking further it's under Red as well, which I think might only apply to stuff like Dash where it's a drawback on something with Haste.

I'll switch it to a library return instead, though I am worried it might be a bit much.

As for the Leech, I'll see what I can do with ETB effects. I may need to try another angle entirely here, or just bump it up to uncommon and replace it.

I mostly just think it's not very flashy or interesting as far as being like a headliner goes. Card flow effects just aren't super flashy. They can be well liked and cool though, Investigate and Monarch for example super awesome card flow mechanics. Embalm is actually surprisingly damn wordy for nowadays. Though I am making a bit of called shot that they consider embalm to be Amonkhet's main thing. I'm assuming that it will be brought back next time we go there, but maybe it'll be more like Theros or Innistrad which were both top down sets that didn't really have a "main" mechanic.

I'm very sad this doesn't fit.

Not at common with flashback, and the life gain feels unnecessarily tacked on for value.

...

That's exactly what I was worried about and why I didn't want to make it a library effect.

Huh, I just compared embalm and feud and feud is actually shorter. I wasn't even counting the cmc. I actually knew embalm was long but I thought it was still shorter than feud.

Oh, But there's space on creatures needing a timing. Maybe that's why it feels long.

...

I think Embalm does end up shorter, at least in the sense that Feud needs a lot more things on it to function.

An Embalm card needs 5 lines to have Embalm on it, giving you a couple lines for unrelated effects.

Looking at Feud, you're consistently needing 2 lines to have something Feud when it enters, and then 4 lines to explain what a Feud is. That isn't counting the few lines you need to give an actual benefit for winning the feud.

Yeah, that's basically what it boils down to. On creatures it can only be very simple effects. Sorceries/Instants would have it easier, but even they'll be forced to be pretty straightforward.

You may be better off condensing things further and making Feud a normal Keyword rather than a Keyword Action. Rather than having you Feud with an opponent, phrase it like Pic Related. It can condense it down to 4/5 lines rather than a full 6, and while you'll still need to declare a wincon for the feud, it leaves just enough room for an evergreen in some cases.

Also, another factor I just thought of, but it may be the custom card program you're using. I copied your outlaw into MSE, and while it's still 8 lines total to get everything in, the first portion is 5 lines instead of 6.

I'd still say you might be better of with the static version over the action version just in the interest of space though. The main downside is you wouldn't be able to put it on any instants or sorceries, but thus far it feels like the sort of mechanic you'd want on creatures or enchantments anyway.

That last ability needs a trigger condition.

I actually like feud I think from a gameplay perspective, at least in theory since as I said I haven't played with it, just because it feels like a cool thing. But I'm not married to it. I may just ditch it. I actually think it's a pretty interesting on a mechanical level to build a set around (I don't remember if I said, but I had ideas for high cmc cards that could be ditch into the grave that had cheaper effects there or otherwise, or just caring about the grave or discard in general, are cool themes to build around) but it's just... not interesting reading at all to most people I think. It's really just looting in the end and sometimes cards care about it. I still haven't quite pinned down the feel I want to go for, but I feel like competition is one I want. Like the feel of wanting to beat the opponent to something first.

i've been very interesting in conveying a feeling since I heard on an interview during a podcast that the feel they wanted in HOD was a hopeless disaster, and that made me really appreciate Afflict in the grand scheme of things even though it wasn't a super interesting looking mechanic.

Pic not related.

I think for flavor reason it should be usable on spells as well since in setting spells are gunplay effectively. I dunno.

...

Yeah, it's up to what you want to do with it. I was mostly trying to point out why I felt it might not have been working as something that felt 'core'.

I do like the idea, though maybe it would be better as something on a small cycle or a few one-off cards that have you draw, discard, and compare.

I'm not sure how to get across the idea of competing in speed in regards to old-west quickdraws in a card game though.

Interesting way to get around the gameplay problems of the first effect. I kinda wish it was everybody and not just you but that was because I thought telepathy was everybody too but it actually isn't. And it's not necessary mechanically so forget it.