Didn't-have-the-time-to-think-about-anything edition!

Didn't-have-the-time-to-think-about-anything edition!

>To make cards, download MSE for free from here:
magicseteditor.sourceforge.net/
>OR
>Mobile users might have an easier time signing up here:
mtg.design/

>Hi-Res MSE Templates
pastebin.com/Mph6u6WY

>Mechanics doc (For the making of color pie appropriate cards)
docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgaKCOzyqM48dFdKRXpxTDRJelRGWVZabFhUU0RMcEE

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

>Read this before you post cards for the first time, or as a refresher for returning cardmakers
docs.google.com/document/d/1Jn1J1Mj-EvxMxca8aSRBDj766rSN8oSQgLMOXs10BUM

>Design articles by Wizards
pastebin.com/Ly8pw7BR

>Primer: NWO and Redflagging
mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/creativity/custom-card-creation/578926-primer-nwo-redflagging

>Q: Can there be a sixth color?
A: pastebin.com/kNAgwj7i

>Q: What's the difference between multicolor and hybrid?
A: pastebin.com/yBnGki1C

>Q: What is precedence?
A: pastebin.com/pGxMLwc7

>Art sources
artstation.com/
drawcrowd.com/
fantasygallery.net/
grognard.booru.org/
fantasy-art-engine.tumblr.com/

>Stitch cards together with
old.photojoiner.net/

>/ccg/ sets (completed and in development)
pastebin.com/hsVAbnMj

OD:

Other urls found in this thread:

gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&mana= =[1RRR]
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>Didn't-have-the-time-to-think-about-anything edition!
Come up with something then.

Multicolor Jace edition

I don't know much about planeswalkers, but I'm pretty sure MtG cards are genderless:
> [...] dies, exile it, then return it to the battlefield transformed under its owner's control [...]

Though it seems very strong to have a card that is basically immune to death, since it always come back. I think its nice it becomes a planeswalker on death (since usually planeswalkers lighten up their sparks when they are about to get fucked), but having the angel coming back as a creature (therefore losing its planeswalker status) doesn't make sense, and seems a bit OP.

I have visitors here at home and the thread was about to die, didn't had much time to think about it (and honestly, didn't care much... people rarely go for whatever the edition is anyways)

But if you want, go with 's suggestion. Its all the same for me

...

Planeswalkers do have genders. They're the one exception to that rule.

...

Oh, didn't know that. But how about the creature side of it? That would not have a gender, would it?

Though flavor-wise this is quite blue, I think in mechanics this is more green than anything (or red, maybe). All cards having split second means that your spells can't be countered or fucked with, which is a thing green would value a lot.

Could flavor it with something like "Acting on Instinct" or things like that

>But how about the creature side of it? That would not have a gender, would it?

What said. And if you're unfamiliar with that Jace, it transforms into a Jace planeswalker.

>Multicolor Jace edition

...

Seems dated and uninteresting, design-wise. Outside of the context of a set, these types of filler cards are pretty boring, I'm sorry to say.

...

I'm not going to read that.

Wow, that bait is ancient.

Good to know, I didn't know about that. Never liked planeswalkers anyway

...

This feels only mildly broken.

Reposting one from the last thread, and another in the same vein.

Ponderous Lich 2BB
Creature- Zombie Wizard
At the beginning of each upkeep, name a nonartifact card. Cards in your hand with that name have Delve until end of turn.
4/3

Tinemage 2RR
Creature- Goblin Wizard
Haste
At the beginning of each upkeep, name a card. Whenever you cast a spell with that name from your hand this turn, copy it. You may choose new targets for the copy.
>"Was that a short joke?!"
3/3

I don't know what else can be done with it; the idea is to provide a bluffing game of teasing what you might play.

I like this. If it ends up being too spicy you could restrict it to being used to cast spells.
It's not bad, and I could see it being used as a finisher even, but it is very simple. I remember a buddy being enamored of the idea of infect (the filthy heretic) but disappointed in the way it turned out: instead of being a control wincon with Proliferate, it ended up split between infect coinflip aggro and proliferate oddjobbing for counter-based EDH decks.
Does not need a keyword, lifegain gets out of control fast. MAYBE a little more workable for tapped nonland permanents.

>Tinemage
Should specify only instants and sorceries, because copies of permanent spells don't mean anything.

...

...

If this is too slow, my other idea is to make it a Takklemaggot creature and keep the abilities, but scale the first ability to the number of Takklemaggots you control (ie, you place more -1/-1 counters with more Takklemaggots).

>Ponderous Lich
>At the beginning of each upkeep, choose a nonartifact, nonland card name. Until end of turn, spells with the chosen name you cast have delve.

>[...] put it into your graveyard. Then do it again.)

Problem with that is that explore has multiple actions, and you'd need to clearly refer to the entire package rather than just the last performed action.

...

goodnight bump

> Cards in your hand with that name have Delve until end of turn.
> Whenever you cast a spell with that name from your hand this turn, copy it
That is not a bluffing game. If you want it to be one, make the effect last at least "until end of your turn", though the right way to make it a more bluffing game is to make a permanent effect.

> When ~ enters the battlefield, name a nonartifact card.
> Cards in your hand with that name have Delve.
That way, its a bluffing game because your opponent will never know when you will cast it. Doing it only in your turn is hardly a bluffing game, because you either cast it right away (which unless your opponent is blue, he has nothing to do about it), or you lose the effect.

Wrote wrongly, meant to say:
> make the effect last at least "until your next turn" or "until the beginning of your next turn"
my bad

im a sucker for tribal so i love this

MaRo in his blog says you should try not to give +1/0 or 0/+1 when you can instead give them +1/+1, especially when the base creature's p/t is even, as yours is (3/3). I dont usually agree with him but in your case I'd saw you should make it a plane +1/+1.

Also shouldnt it be white if youre giving it vigilance? Green shouldnt get it unless youre bending the pie a good bit.

> Also, triple mana symbols in costs look dumb for a CMC 4 card. Make it {2}{R}{R}.
Btw, some rare cards have it:
gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&mana= =[1RRR]

Its a rare case, but it happens

I agree with partially

> you should try not to give +1/0 or 0/+1 when you can instead give them +1/+1
Never thought of that, but that seems like a solid advice. This simple numeric differences (between +0/+1 and +1/+1) really confuses people during the game. People are probably a lot more likely to forget or miscount a static effect with +1/+0 or +0/+1 than a +1/+1, because on their head, the +1/+1 is just to add 1 on both p/t.

> Also shouldnt it be white if youre giving it vigilance? Green shouldnt get it unless youre bending the pie a good bit.
Here is where I disagree with user. Giving vigilance to green is alright, since its the second color that gets it (as far as I know). Specially if your Scouts splash to white as well. Since the other options for green would be Trample and Deathtouch (which are not really Scout-like), Hexproof (which is too strong on a lord card), the only other option would be Reach. Reach matches well the Scout flavor, but I'm honestly alright with it giving Vigilance.

Thoughts?

Seems too easy, considering all the ways there are to exile cards from graveyards. Or just use Rest in Peace.

...

> considering all the ways there are to exile cards from graveyards.
Yeah, I'm assuming people might exile cards from the graveyard, but the thing is that your opponent can easily add new things to your graveyard by killing any other permanent you have on the board, making you discard a card, milling you, etc. So its quite easy for them to go around this card.

> Or just use Rest in Peace.
Cards like this are something to consider, indeed. But its not even a win condition combo, it just stalls the game. I currently have 2 cards similar to Rest in Peace in my set, but one of them is a creature and the other an artifact, so I'm assuming that if you are playing against someone who can't remove enchantments, he could remove the creature/artifact combo-ing with it. Rest in Peace is a stronger combo for this, but they wouldn't play together on limited or standard, so I'm not really worried about it.

> with converted mana cost 3 or less
it doesn't use the symbol in that case. its just a regular 3

Decided to turn Kusari-Gama into a creature.

If you replace the word "accurately" with "roughly", maybe it will fit on the top line and will make the flavor text go left and out of the P/T box.

Also, am I the only one who finds it really meh to look at cards with no artwork here in this thread? I now in this particular case it might be harder to find an art because Akkis are a bit MtG-specific, but I see so many cards here that could get an artwork with 10 seconds of google.... just thought I would share my opinion.

It's a problem with MSE. If you put a number in a textbox it updates it to a colorless mana cost

]3[
Fixed.

I also prefer them to have art and won't post cards without it, but it can be hard to find just the right picture. Especially if the card is something funky like goblin samurai or merfolk knight.

...

Neat. Why not make it Naya? Feels weird for it to ramp for a white ability, being red makes it more believable

You are making a Aura/equipment theme, right? Can you share what you got? Because from what I have seen around these threads, I fear you might be making a basic design error of making every single card with an obvious synergy to the mechanic you chose to roll with.

>why not naya
1, don't want any 3 color uncommons in this set.
2, I feel sense W has aura and equipment matters effects, while red only has equipment matters effects, it would be a better pick. I also feel that RG mana dorks should have some kind of agression in their design, and I wouldn't consider taking some time to voltron to be very aggressive.

Yeah I am, for the most part. Aura/equipments are the concern of Naya. Sultai has a wizard/druid matters theme, and RB,RU,WB,WU are all getting their own theme as well. (This card has the RB keyword)

>Too much synergy!
Now that you say that, yeah I can deffinitly see that with the cards. I feel this issue will subside once I start making more cards for the other color pairings. I really apperciate you bring that up, cause I don't think I would have caught that.

> 2, I feel sense W has aura and equipment matters effects
You could make it look a bit more white by giving colored mana instead of mana of any color. The first ability could give W or G, and the second could give WG (both). This would help it feel more into its color, because usually only green adds mana of any color.

> Aura/equipments are the concern of Naya
> Sultai has a wizard/druid matters theme
I see. I didn't realize these two mechanics were from the same user. Perhaps you could make a symbol for your set? Its really easy (did mine a week or two ago, I was surprised how easy it was). That helps us friendly anons to understand your work as a whole and think about the interaction of your cards.

> Now that you say that, yeah I can deffinitly see that with the cards.
Like I said, I haven't seen much of your cards together, and I didn't even know the wizard/druid thing was your as well, but I felt like all your cards for a specific "faction" had some ability that synergized directly with that. If every card synergyzes in an obvious way, it makes the players feel dumb, because everything is obvious. Therefore it is really important to come up with interesting and more discrete ways to synergize with stuff. On top of that, there's also the fact that not everything needs to synergize.

I'm at work now, and I will to the gym later, but I will be thinking about some ideas for you. I might post something for you in about 3 hours or so, so if you have the time, check out for it!

> Riches From Rubble
> Viscera
Maybe you could do like Bloodthirst and use a N keyword

> Viscera N -- ~ costs N less if a player has lost life this turn.
This could help you have more flexibility when designing Viscera cards.

Also, back on the "not obvious synergy" thingy, cards like Sign in Blood would go nice. Its not that much discrete, but its smooth enough - you do 2 damage, triggering it, and you also draw cards that could have Viscera.

>make her not produce many of any color
Sure sounds fair.
>Make a set symbol
Done.
>Put some not-synergy cards in
Will do.
>Make Viscera similar to bloodthrist
RIght now Viscera is just, "if a player has lost life this turn, [thing]" so a bloodthirst like effect is available but I don't want it to be the focus. From what I can get at, are you saying that Viscera should have a threshold? Where unless N life has been lost you don't get the trigger? If so, I think that's a good idea. it'll allow for the effects to have more range.

>Make a set symbol
>Done.
What is your symbol supposed to be? Honest question here

> RIght now Viscera is just, "if a player has lost life this turn, [thing]" so a bloodthirst like effect is available but I don't want it to be the focus.
Ah, I thought Viscera always reduced cost. That is why I made that suggestion. If its a "if a player has lost life this turn, [thing]" , my suggestion doesn't make sense.

> From what I can get at, are you saying that Viscera should have a threshold? Where unless N life has been lost you don't get the trigger? If so, I think that's a good idea. it'll allow for the effects to have more range.
I wasn't saying that (I just assumed it always reduced the cost), but that could be a nice idea. It would be nice if you manage to word it in a way that only works if a total of N life was lost among any number of players, even if it was a bit on you and a bit on another player. But I'm afraid this might make your keyword too wordy, because you always need to write the text on the card. Maybe its just fine the way it is right now.

> Frostridge Jolter
> ~ deals 1 damage to target creature.
Forgot to add the source of damage.

Also, feel free to post more than one card at the same time using the photo joiner thingy (link on OP).

...

>Symbol is?
Not sure. Just threw something together that would be distinct. I'll probably think of some lore implication at some point. Right Now I'm thinking it's a moon between two mountain tops.
>too wordy
"Viscera N-- If N or more life has been lost this turn, [effect]." I think this should work.
>Photo joiner
I'm aware of it, but most of these I am just making on the fly, and I feel threads tend to die when people wait and mass post.

Seems fine sense it lacks any notable form of protection or evasion.

...

A massive gamble effect. I guess it's fair due to how random it is, but it just feels so swingy that it's not practical to play. Also the wording should be, "hellbent--" to notify that it's a pseudo keyword.

...

For me, this guy is waaay strong. That effect for 3 mana sounds like instant rape - I drop this nigga down, all my creatures are now doing double damage, I smack my enemy. I think he would be balanced if the ability only affected Rider of Doom:
> Double strike, haste
> (B/R): ~ gets +1/-1 until end of turn
> If a source would deal damage to ~, it deals doubles that damage instead.
Then it would be balanced.

Too much of a gamble is never good. Cards like this will usually be shit, but always have a chance of winning the game because you got lucky. Its not a very good design to put too much power on chance. Also, not sure if its intentional, but you can never take the 7 damage, since if you are targeted, you just drew 7 cards. So the damage would only work against enemies.

> T: Rumbog Acolyte deal 1 damage to target creature and 1 damage to it's controller.
Players don't have a controller
> 1, Discard a card: Untap Rumbog Acolyte.
capital D on the discard, as far as I know

Cleaned up the wording to deal with confusion.
"T: Rumbog Acolyte deals 1 damage to it’s controller. Then Rumbog Acolyte deals 1 damage to target creature or player."

> "T: Rumbog Acolyte deals 1 damage to it’s controller. Then Rumbog Acolyte deals 1 damage to target creature or player."
That doesn't clear up as well. It should be:
> "T: Rumbog Acolyte deals 1 damage to target creature or player and 1 damage to you."
"you" on a card means its controller. Saying "Rumbog Acolyte's controller" is the samething as saying "you".

>Deathimate
Nice. I like it.

Basic dual-land cycle. What you guys think?

I need a land that adds 2 mana (like the ones from original Ravnica), that is strictly necessary. Also having it in a way that it puts land cards in your graveyard is also a plus.

Make them ETB tapped and I think they would be fine

I'm afraid that making them enter tapped will just make them strictly worse than Ravnica's ones. I wanted them to have the same power level, but have a different drawback mechanic.

What if the drawback was:
> When ~ enters in the battlefield, sacrifice it unless you sacrifice another untapped land you control.

Making them enter untapped would make them way too good though. This much mana, this fast, needs a more extreme downside then discarding a land card.

Multicolor rituals for 0 mana? Yeah, no. Make them ETB tapped, or use the "If ~ would enter the battlefield" wording.

Let's not start an argument about the "if" wording again

I think that sacrificing an untapped land would make it even, wouldn't it? You are only getting 1 mana (because you are getting 2 from the new land but losing 1 from the untapped land).

Anyways, I don't really care about entering tapped or not, I just want to make them decent enough. I'm afraid that discarding a land card + enter the battlefield tapped is too much downside (while I get that entering the battlefield untapped is too strong).

>Abyeth Waterkeeper
Nice

> Multicolor rituals for 0 mana? Yeah, no.
Oh, I didn't thought of that. That is not an interaction that I want. I will change the wording accordingly to avoid this sort of abuse.

Its good thing that he pointed out, I didn't think of that.

It's irrelevant because the wording "if" will never be used again. It's en embarrassing fix to wizard's mistake, nothing more

You could make it be either sac an untapped land or discard a card and they enter tapped.

I feel like this shouldn't have a heavy color requirement. 4U would be preferable; mill isn't that strong a mechanic unless you're synergizing your set around it.

Agree with ; pitching a land from your hand isn't really a cost. Also you can tap it in response to the trigger as it is, I think? Your proposal to have it sac unless you sac an untapped land also has the same issue; see the rulings on the Lairs from Planeshift.

Speaking of set symbols, does this one look okay? Trying to do one that looks like the dragon's head on a viking longship. It might be too detailed.

>You could make it be either sac an untapped land or discard a card and they enter tapped.
I think that would make the cards unnecessarily wordy. I would rather just find a balanced downside and keep it as the only choice. Right now, I'm considering the sac an untapped land more.

> I feel like this shouldn't have a heavy color requirement. 4U would be preferable; mill isn't that strong a mechanic unless you're synergizing your set around it.
, I agree with what this guy said ^

> pitching a land from your hand isn't really a cost.
It is a cost, but maybe not enough for entering the battlefield untapped.

> Also you can tap it in response to the trigger as it is, I think?
Apparently I can. I will redo the wording to avoid this. I don't want this sort of abuse.

> It might be too detailed.
I was going to say exactly this. Maybe try to get rid of the details and just have the outline?

Pretend the wording was, "look at the top card of each..." Caught it right after posting.

>UU is too much devotion
Alright fair. There will be a bit of milling. UW is going to have a "stuff in yard interaction" theme.

>land phrasing
This is why shock lands and the varrients all say , ">as< it enters the battlefield" instead of ">when< it enters the battlefield" sense AS doesn't use the stack, and thus must resolve while it's being played.

>card
Pretty fair. I think the flavor text has an issue of Wordy. You might wanna chop it down. I also think an aggressive narrative for a U creature with a big butt kinda flops. How about,
"The crab was felled with a few empowered blows. The challenge made Vaegar eager to face what other trials the island held."

>Symbol
Too much detail. Simplify the form. I'd try to bring the focus more on the head and shorten the amount of neck visible.

Gotta have that XRR red spell or else it isn't a real set.

...

Lands that don't produce at least colorless mana fell out of favor a while back.

...

How do I export files in pdf? did they remove that option? also, I saw an user say that he modified the program or template or something so there is no loss in quality, does someone know how to?

...

bump

>Red better than brainstorm for non-rotating formats
You shouldn't actually care since it'll probably be balanced fine for any set, but it is kinda funny.
>2 mana pinger with heavy upsides
Is this OK now? I guess stun sniper exists but this looks kinda ridiculous.
Fortuneteller's is pretty much strictly better than Palmist.
I think you're artificially going for a cycle of 5 when just scrapping Palmist (or downsizing it) makes more sense. Astrologer's Tent is also probably significantly weaker than Tabernacle or Canvas, but it at least has a place.
There's also no real reason to go for 5 considering they're colorless anyway, they'll feel 'complete' no matter how many there are.
Almost certainly better than preordain which is already the best cantrip without shuffle effects (source: pauper). Probably want to either make it target or raise its cost by 1, might even be able to make it an instant then, not sure.
The flavor text is awkward. It almost sounds like he's reveling in them losing because you're seemingly comparing him to 'the day' through parallel structure. Abandon this and you have
>The day was lost, but he found faith.
Which also has the advantage of ending/emphasizing on a better word.

I don't really care about what said (although it is true, the only real reason to my knowledge was for accessibility) that's already basically a card: Island of Wak-Wak.
Looks fine.

I like the flexibility in design. The art doesn't feel the most fitting but it works.

>Riches > BS
The utility of Instant speed, consistency, and being able to hind important cards in your hand from discard effects will always keep brainstorm the best cantrip in eternal formats, even arguably better then ancestral at times.
>Rumbog seems pushed
I wasn't sure on her, I'll confess. I've considered making her a 1/3 for 1RB. I felt her ability always costing you life, and the untap clause costing you card advantage and mana would keep it from getting crazy even if she had some in-set synergy. I'll continue to consider changes to her.
>Peruse feels too good.
I dunno, I think a slightly better Opt but at sorcery speed isn't so cut and dry on being powerful. I'll consider the make it targeted.
>Flavor text is wonky
That sounds a lot better. Thanks.

>will always keep brainstorm the best cantrip in eternal formats
Sure, because Riches will never be printed, end step brainstorm is usually bad, and hiding cards from discard is really only relevant when playing with or against storm in my experience.
Discarding cards is also way better than shuffling them for dredge and other graveyard decks.
I was wrong though, because the discarding happens as a cost it is worse, didn't factor that in. If it wasn't for that though I'd stand by that claim.
>I think a slightly better Opt
Fateseal 1 is usually better than scry 1 so I see little reason why fateseal 1, scry 1 wouldn't be better than scry 2.
>I felt her ability always costing you life
It doesn't cost you life, you wrote that it damaged the opponent not you, if it damaged you instead it'd probably be fine.
you want "1 damage to you" not "1 damage to its controller" as "its controller" refers to the controller of the creature you just pinged.

I guess you missed where it was clarified Rumbog was meant to ping it's controller always with it's activation.

Flickering isn't red.

...

I think with how 6 mana is the new standard for most extra turn effects, it's hard to consider a an extra turn effect + loot 4 is fair. If it was only loot 2 maybe.

I think this is worded incorrectly, or at least it is confusing because one could interpret that you should choose the X randomly. Maybe this way would make it more clear:
> Choose one at random X times.

This is a bit rubbish, compared to card likes Doomblade. Your card have 3 drawbacks:
- Double colored mana
- Sorcery speed
- Lose 3 life

While Doomblade have only the "nonblack" drawback. Seems like yours is just a lot weaker.

Awesome. Neatly designed.

I like this guy. Its a good card to have around in a set.

I didn't get this card. Definitely, flicking creature isn't red. Flickering spells could be (not sure if there's already cards for this), but its a weird card nonetheless.

I agree that maybe this could cost a bit more. But its an interesting design to give the options of discarding for an extra turn.

This sound strong, or at least above common for black. Black rarely get creatures with decent body, so a B 1/1 flying is already something to consider. Having an affect that triggers on each attack is way more than a black 1 mana common usually gets.

>not Gotta get Back / Back to the past

This seems like it could, itself, be an enchantment.

Is there any card like this already on MtG? Just a basic "i take it back" spell?

>gotta get back to back to the past

> "Oh! Maybe she said Furball, not fireball!"

Remand is pretty good in modern.

Remand is awesome, always loved it. But I was looking for something that only works on your own spells, so you can take your own spells back. Though I probably need to reduce the mana cost, since right now my card is basically worthless, as it is just a shittier version of Remand.

>As an additional cost to cast ~, return a spell you control to its owner's hand.
This essentially makes the spell bounce impossible to react to. You could make the main effect a counterspell as a big "Fuck you" in stack wars too.

Dorohedoro.

Just realized there are no mandrakes in Magic, so I decided to fix that.

>As an additional cost to cast ~, return a spell you control to its owner's hand.
Bouncing the spell is the main effect, not a cost. This card basically works already great on stack wars, because it can bounce a spell that would be countered, leaving the counter spell with no valid target, or bounce a spell that would hit a creature that gained Hexproof, or any spell that would for some reason not to work as intended. Or you know, maybe you just changed your mind about it.

But the general idea is the following:
> you throw something
> your opponent throw something at your something
> you take your something back
> your opponent can't take his something back, wasting it
> you throw your something again
> this time your opponent don't have his something

It like the idea of having a way of getting my spell back if the situation changes.