/ccg/ Custom Card General /cct/

lol

...

Definitely common level complexity

Is this guy supposed to be common? That is not usually an effect that comes in common cards.

I always forget the rarities

wow.

really?

nani

I love model effects. Having choices is just so much fun. It allows for such a creative and complex design space!

Playing with Kicker. Apologies if the costing is bad.

2RR
Creature - Dragon
Rare
Kicker 2R
Flying, haste
When ~ enters the battlefield, discard three cards. Then if it was kicked, draw three cards.
5/5

1B
Creature - Vampire
Uncommon
Kicker 1B
Haste
When ~ enters the battlefield, sacrifice a creature. If it was kicked, target opponent sacrifices a creature instead.
3/3

I see what you are trying to do and I'm okay with it (even though this is practically an over-complicated Train of Thought), but what if each option was actually different?

> Scry 2.
> Draw a card.
> Draw two cards, then discard two cards.
> Look at the top four cards of your library, then put them back in any order.

Multikicker 1U?

The kicker cost for Rummaging Dragon could be RR if you want to try and push a mono color direction in the set.

Edict Vamp is too strong, mainly due to the haste. I think the kicker cost needs to be 2B and the haste be dropped.

I'll probably do something like that. I should have silver boarded this to make it more clear it was a joke.

Basically. I don't actually plan to leave it like that.

I figured sense we've gotten things like Thunderbreak Regent, a 4/4 dragon with flying should be fair if the upside is basically super kicker.

Gotta print that light mill support. Also supports the general B theme of wanting to expend your graveyard.

Have you considered the chance that you self-mill exactly the card you wanted? Is that the intended behavior? If not, put the mill as the second part and prevent it from happening.

Yes it's intended. I really want to see someone do that.

>The kicker cost for Rummaging Dragon could be RR if you want to try and push a mono color direction in the set.
Nah, I could never make a real set. Tried a few times, always ended in failure. But I will change to RR, sounds good.

>Edict Vamp is too strong, mainly due to the haste. I think the kicker cost needs to be 2B and the haste be dropped.
You think the Kicker should be upped even if the Haste is dropped? Hmm, well, 2BB for 3/3 with Edict does sound too good now that I think about it. Thanks.

>Basically. I don't actually plan to leave it like that.
I didn't see your set symbol the first time, so I wasn't sure if that card was by a troll or a noob.

>card
Hmm, maybe it's my ignorance talking, but this doesn't seem very good to me. 3/2 FStriker for 4 is OK I suppose, but the pump being both inefficient and conditional seems subpar.

Anyway, I still don't understand the wording behind Readied. First, you don't need to say "another permanent" since A) creatures, even if they are Auras or Equipment, simply can't be attached to anything, and B) permanents can't be attached to themselves anyway. I also think the wording
>[...] if ~ is enchanted or equipped.
just sounds better than
>[...] if ~ has a permanent attached to it.
It's only a very fringe case where anything but an Aura or Equipment will be attached to a creature, since the only other thing that can be attached to permanents is Fortifications, which only attach to lands.

Not sure about this one. I could be wrong, but... I feel like making the card cost 3RR and have the last mode deal 3 damage would be better. Could be wrong though. Oh, and if you want to reduce space between lines for modes, just use SHIFT+ENTER. It doesn't quite line up with how Wizards does it, but it helps save space.

Your card also has me thinking about doing some modal spells based on the iconics.

Not him, but I bet the person casting that would be pissed.

>Viscera
Please explain how you use this mechanic in your set, in as much detail as possible.

...

>Not him, but I bet the person casting that would be pissed.
I'm him (), and I think if you chose to put this card in your deck, it means you are aware of the possibility of this happening. I don't think its the card fault if you don't understand the risks around using it. (specially because, even if you do self-mill the last copy of the card you want, you can settle for the 2nd best option at the moment)

Have it bounce back to its owner's hand instead. Maybe reduce cost then to 1UR.

Oh wait, I'm actually pretty sure Wizards made a mR card in Ixalan that just outright becomes a copy of a creature. Might be what you're looking for.

Actually, now thinking about it... if you really want to be a dick about the chance of self-mill, maybe you could reword it like this:

> Name a card. Each player puts the top five cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard. Then you may search your library for a card with the chosen name, reveal it and put it into your hand.

That way, you can really fuck with someone haha

>Stingmount seems a little underwhelming
That's the goal with most uncommon beaters. I want them to have potential to get really good but not be this free unstoppable threat.
I imagine a 3/2 with first strike and worse fire breathing is a lot more scary when it has an equipment on it, and that's the goal for Readied creatures. Ok without, scary/solid with.

>Phrasing
"As long as a permanent is atatched to ~,"
"As long as ~ is equipped or enchanted,"
hmm alright. It's slightly shorter so I guess I'll use it.

RB cares about life being lost in this set. It has effects such as pic to enable that, as just straight up combat isn't always reliable.
Viscera cards check for an amount of life being lost, and reward you for hitting their threshold.
Due to the wording, it doesn't care which player loses life, as long as anyone has and the total amount reaches the threshold.

Remember to put the ability word 'viscera' in italics.

A few notes

>Grisly Deluge
Like someone said, its better to word the main effect first: "Destroy target creature. You lose 3 life."

> Rumbog Acolyte
Samething as Grisly Deluge. Main effect, then drawback.

> Blistering Rain
> [...] among any number of TARGET creatures [...]
You forgot to say they were targets. Missing that word makes a huge difference.

> Rise from Carnage
> Viscera 2 -- If 1 or more [...]
Shouldn't it be "if 2 or more"?

>I imagine a 3/2 with first strike and worse fire breathing is a lot more scary when it has an equipment on it
Sorry, just not seeing it.

>"As long as ~ is equipped or enchanted,"
Do it alphabetically. "enchanted or equipped"

>Viscera cards check for an amount of life being lost, and reward you for hitting their threshold.
That seems like kind of a hassle though, to constantly check against a different threshold for each card. Like, has Wizards ever done that? I mean, Threshold, Formidable, Ferocious, and Delirium all have static threshold values. The closest thing I can think of is Bloodthirst, but there's only one variant that changes, and that's Bloodthirst X, one exactly one card.

And speaking of Bloodthirst, this really should care about your opponents losing life, since allowing it to work with yourself makes it very easy to abuse.

I want to say that while I agree that for wizards this is a good rule to follow, if you're intending cards to be played among friends, on cockatrice or on an online table this largely becomes a moot issue.

Some of us like to design "as though we were MtG designers employed by WotC" or something. You know, like how Magic is designed.

But yeah. It's pretty pointless to be a slave to such expectations if you know your playgroup doesn't give a shit.

That card sucks something fierce, the old version probably wasn't even too strong.

First of a planned five-card cycle. Obv. follows the Command pattern, but throws in a token that reflects the iconic creature of that color.

...

Fixed thanks.

>Viscera might can confusing with such varrying
I'll consider just making it a flat 3.
>Only should care for opp
I feel like sense this is a limited set it won't be nearly as exploitable as you think. Sure, with fetches and shocks it would be, but this draft won't have fetches and shocks.

>Creatures you control get +1/+1 until end of turn and can't be blocked by creatures with power 2 or less this turn.
Note the order and how these are formatted differently.

Mode 1 and 4 feels really strong for 6 mana. The demon might need to lose flying or be a 4/4.

Really? Okay then.

For some reason I've been wanting to incorporate colors into these.

...

...

Cooldown guy? Is that you?

>bird
>doesn't have flying

> Cooldown
I don't think so, since I don't know what you mean

>bird
>doesn't have flying
Peacocks aren't famous for flying.

Okay so, while I was brainstorming replacement mechanics for my set, I blundered into the idea that Reach is kind of lame, and sort of limited. I mean all it does is counter flying, so it has no other use. What if we combined it with 'firstest strike' like on Ashmouth Hound and made it have a bit more utility and purpose? With red getting access to Reach and green getting the ability to deal direct damage based on creature power off and on... would something like this work and be an interesting addition to the game? Is my justification for it being in green flimsy? I'm looking at cards like Ambuscade, clear Shot, and Atzocan Archer (its intent more than its actual mechanics).

so a weaker form of flanking?

Wow, Reach combined with pingstrike. That's... uh, something...

You think that's bad? You haven't even seen his colorfucked cards yet.

...

If making Flanking also block fliers makes it weaker, then yeah, I guess?

I guess you think Reach is fine then. It just bugs me that it only exists to counter flying because green hates flying. It seems lame as an evergreen.

...

A while ago, Wizards made a promo MTG card specifically designed to be given to employees working for the different divisions. AFAIK, there was a card for MTG, Duel Masters, and D&D. The D&D card was a planeswalker based on the Dungeon Master from the D&D cartoon, and his ult is "You get an adventuring party." which creates a bunch of different tokens. So, that inspired this, a (hopefully) D&D-flavored MTG card.

Fair flavor, though I think it would be a bit more interesting if it gave itself -2/-0. Penalizing its own toughness is red but not very white. Course RW loves being aggressive and attacking so it's a bit at odds with itself to begin with.

I remember seeing those cards. I don't think it was this exact card, but I saw something similar to it when the DM card was spoiled. I recall the P/T numbers being different on each 'adventurer' on the other card I saw. I think I've seen instances of this idea before that too. The Orc is too good compared to the rest, I feel. First strike maybe? Honestly this could probably just cost WUBRG; it's hard enough to cast already without also costing 7 mana.

Ironic that you posted a token-gen card because I was about to do the same. Mine is way more retarded though (probably).

Right, should've clarified that it's inspired by the DM card, not ripped directly from it, so it does function differently. For instance, there's no G in the DM's ult.

Will change to FStrike, I was honestly wondering about that already. And will change cost to WUBRG. Thanks.

>card
I'm not sure about this keyword because it's not very interactive. Even if it gets destroyed by whatever blocked it, the blocking player still takes 2 damage, which would've happened if they hadn't blocked the creature in the first place. It seems to me to say "Make sure you can destroy this the first time you block it, otherwise just let it through."

Maybe trigger on attack? Might be harder to cost, since that basically combines Menace and DStrike, sorta, but the defending player would still be able to block the incoming token.

Sorry for the flavor text vomit. I just now realized how horrible it sounds.

>It seems to me to say "Make sure you can destroy this the first time you block it, otherwise just let it through."
That was the general idea, yeah. I dunno, I decided to brainstorm some keywords and mechanics and stuff to try and get the brain juices going for a replacement mechanic so I can keep my set alive. I can't promise any of them will be good.
>Maybe trigger on attack?
Eh, that could work. I was already kind of trying to make an aggro 'regeneration' type effect while toning Myriad down to acceptably non-EDH playable levels.
>Triplets
Doesn't really need to be blue at all, unless it's for flavor because Geralf. Otherwise seems fine.

Looked into Vigilance recently. Card on the left is a reference to and colorshift of Windseeker Centaur, a very old mR creature with Vigilance, and also one of the few cards Wizards originally released as a promo. Card on the right is a reference to Ghost Hounds.

fuuuuuck

Well, left is probably underwhelming these days. You can get a 2/2 Vigilance for CMC2. I remember thinking back in the day that pre-keyword Vigilance was pretty red, since red was the color all about fighting. I never even considered it from a defensive standpoint. Loyal Hound is a bit of a stretch in terms of a reference, I think, but standing on its own, I have to say it's too good. If the token didn't have keywords it might be okay, but as it is it feels like too much.

So.. is Skywhaler's Shot the new standard for white's "destroy N power or greater" thing? Between that and Dusk I'm starting to wonder if I should go 3 power instead of Intrepid Hero's 4. Would that really change anything?

Random idea.

Yeah, Ghost Hounds is a hard one to reference, partly because of how off-color it is, partly because I'm not a fan of "colors matter" mechanics. I guess I'll keep looking for other ways to do it.

>card
I'd recommend not making this repeatable destruction, since Wizards has been trying to tone down W's creature destruction for a while now. Maybe once on ETB, keep some sort of tapping. Maybe tap any creature, but freeze a creature with CMC 4 or greater?

Nameless Minion
Creature - Minion
Rare
Trample
As ~ enters the battlefield, pay any amount of life. ~ enters the battlefield with that many +1/+1 counters on it.
3B, T: Create an X/X black Minion creature token, where X is the number of +1/+1 counters on ~.
0/0

Phyrexian Processor + Nameless Race.

It's interesting and I like it, but it should just read "...tap all equipment..."

Why was it made though? Do you have a specific card in mind or...?

What about a similar card that said something like "Equipped creatures don't untap during their controller's untap steps"?

Been forever since I've made any custom cards at all, but I had the idea to make a little 40 card micro-set. Siege themed, hence these "fortification matters" lands. Going to make the better effects of fortifications require tapping the land as a cost so there's tradeoffs between more mana or nice effects from your forts.

Potential abilities I've thought about:
Siege (red/black main) - gives a little boost if the opponent blocked or didn't attack (not sure which to go with) the previous turn.
Entrench (white/green main) - gives a boost if you control a fortification.
Overall it will likely be aiming for a "battlecruiser magic" slow feel, building up board state and then bringing something big and devastating around to finish the job.

Seems good, sorcery speed and the potential of getting 2-for-1ed by instant removal keeps it reasonable by current bolting standards.

Random FOW poster here again. Toying with my MSE template as usual.

Just pushing it to the limits.

This card basically ramps one land on death. Okay bye.

Bit pushed compared to Galvanic Arc, but I guess since it's Uncommon it might be okay.
>Judicator
Does white really get much tapdown outside of Azorius? All I can really find is Kor Hookmaster. So I dunno if tapdown is a good solution. I kinda figured since it was very limited destruction it might be okay, but if what you say is true about white's destruction being limited I guess I'll have to think of something else.

In the microcosm of a small set these are really cool. I'm not much of a fan of 'battlecruiser' MtG, I have to admit, but I'll give your stuff as fair of feedback as I can.

I have literally no inspiration to rework my set mechanics tonight so I'm just going to make magic cards with good looking females on them that are hopefully good.

Spoonfeed me on how to make FoW cards in MSE?

I'm a developer of it. I'd link the reddit thread but then I'd be a traitor.

mediafire.com/download/sw4vnku1b6y6dnp/FOW_MSE.rar

Just be sure to read the readme okay? And install the included fonts. Not hard.

Thank.

...

Oh and if you expect the template to do what I just posted, I'm sorry but I'm working with something that hasn't been released yet. Modifications not present in the mediafire. Sorry.

>In the microcosm of a small set these are really cool. I'm not much of a fan of 'battlecruiser' MtG, I have to admit, but I'll give your stuff as fair of feedback as I can.
Yeah, I kinda want to make it so red and blue actually are more aggressive colors (red because red, blue because best way to destroy a fortress is to fly over it or infiltrate it) while white and black play more towards the slower gameplan and green's flexible. Siege would basically be a "Hey, your opponent is trying to assemble death, destroyer of worlds? You get some free shit to stab him with before he gets that off" mechanic to even the odds and make sure the game stays interactive. And unsurprisingly, the color good at destroying lands and artifacts is gonna get some stuff to bust castles.

Oh, and forgot to comment on your card because it's late. The first effect is a pretty nice little etb ability on a 2/2 for 3, helps stabilize. The second one seems like it'd get out of control pretty quickly as long as you have ANY way to protect those auras and avoid getting 2-for-1ed (which, in 2+ colors, should be easy.) I would up the mana cost to 4, drop the lifegain, or make it WWW. Doing all that for such a splashable cost gets out of control really quickly since this can easily be "Gain 6 life, aura spells cost 3 less to cast" with minimal effort (a plains and any other shock or such). It also seems to be doing a lot for an uncommon.

>blue being aggro instead of a pillow fort color
I'm not sure how to feel about that, honestly. I'd see UW playing the long game, G flex and BR being aggro, but I guess we'll see what you come up with.

Is a reverse Soul's Attendant too much? Even if it's nontoken only? Maybe it has to be 1B.

You might be right about that; though I was thinking that since it doesn't reduce colored costs you pay, you can only make Auras so cheap. And it takes a bit to make it work. I guess it's pretty easy, even in draft, to make Auras cost 2 less, so maybe I should make it 3W. Going color heavy ruins the card since it needs to be splashable to be meaningful. I may also make it a 2/3 but I guess we'll see what other folks think about it.

Nontoken only, seems fine to me. Blood artist does that and also gives you life for 1B, so it seems appropriate. Maybe uncommon just to avoid having too many at once in draft.

>I'm not sure how to feel about that, honestly.
Yeah, it's mainly that blue seems to have the tools to actually do aggro in this sort of environment (evasion), and I will admit to a personal fondness for blue aggro. Red and white I am absolutely sure on where I want, the rest I keep tossing around.

I'll make it uncommon; life loss is a bit stronger than lifegain and this is a blanket effect, not "target opponent".

Another Domain card for some reason. It's a 4 on the Storm Scale and I kinda like it so I wonder if I should do something with it if I can't grok this 'power matters' set shit. A set about land control with religious overtones could be interesting I guess?

Oh, hey. I think I found an old version of your editor way back when. I didn't realize people still cared about FoW.

Yeah we kept updating it and adding features. Something to do. And they look really good.

Is a targeted discard effect so far out of R's reach that even if it fits, it isn't allowed?

Seems like a solid common, though I dunno how I feel about it being a cleric. just a little nit pick.

I probably should have made it a Mystic.
>card
The problem you run into is that you can emulate a lot of effects with other mechanics, and you can import mechanics from outside a color's wheelhouse to lampoon something it already does, but most of the time you just end up stretching too far. This is LD, technically, but it does it how Black would do it, which isn't something red does. At least, till WotC decides it does, because red got land tapdown to replace LD, which would normally be a blue sorta thing. At the moment I would say this is going to far but with the caveat that we may see something like this down the road.

What the fuck am I even doing.

>this effect feels like a stretch
What if it was an EBT effect on a RB creature that's like, 3 mana 2/1?

Whoever drew that has a weird body proportion fetish.
Besides that, the effect seems fine if rather obtuse. Should probably be a wizard sense it's cloning.

I remember someone asking, "How do you plan to give the WU theme support?" I really liked getting that challenge. I think this works for answering that question.

God wtf was this phrasing. This is why I shouldn't post at 3 in the morning. Fixied it to:
>Return ~ from your graveyard to the battlefield. Then exile it.

>What if it was an EBT effect on a RB creature that's like, 3 mana 2/1?
Certainly more acceptable in the current climate.
>Lorespinner
It's supposed to be foreshortened, I think. Anyway, she's supposed to be a bard, and bards are usually Rogues. I could tack Wizard on there.
>card
Hm. Retrospect seems kinda powerful, considering it gets you an ETB trigger, a LTB trigger, and any ETB triggered abilities on the card, in addition to the triggers you already get off originally casting it, AND it means pitching the card isn't that big a deal, so it has Madness-like utility. It's basically a far, FAR better Evoke. a 2/2 flier for 3 mana is already on-curve, so it shouldn't be on-curve for a recusion/reuse ability. Probably 3W would be safer.

Okay, I see WHY this does what it does, but getting cards out of exile shouldn't be something that happens often unless it was being used as a temporary holding area for an effect. Please reconsider turning it into a second graveyard.

>Better then Evoke
We've discussed this before, but due to Evoke's exploitability sense it uses an entry trigger to sac the creature, Evoke will generally be better anything newly printed. Regardless, I do agree with your comment on the cost being a little pushed on the Retro. I think the point about LTB effects is super niche though, due to most of those triggers being death triggers, which won't care about something getting exiled.

These types of effects have been printed in multiple sets (Time spiral block, BFZ block, and Innistrad) which shows that under the right set environment it's not unreasonable to print. I would consider this one of those situations due to the Retrospect effects and the currently unnamed WB exile-threshold theme.
I will take a note of caution though, and avoid putting any more effects like this to avoid such a feeling of Exile not being Exile.

Creature theft is U and R, tertiary in B. Pretty sure, anyway.
I didn't see that conversation, but I'm dubious about the result because Evoke = one ETB trigger. Retrospect = two. That's a big deal without any of the other stuff. I assume the 'exploitation' involved in Evoke is that you can respond to the trigger? Fair, but it's a lot easier to take advantage of such easy and regular ETB trigger generation. The rest of the benefits are pure gravy compared to that, in my opinion. You do you though.
>exile as a second yard
I realize WotC has done it, but it's rare, and for good reason. Seeing on an uncommon as you have it is cause for alarm.

>Creature theft isn't in White
The card is a reference to Preacher. I'll probably make it UWW for the sake of balance.
>Evoke vs Retro
I think a good thing to consider is, the gimic with Evoke is it allows you to either play an over costed creature later for more value or play an effect for roughly it's value. Evoke gives you a flexibility that doesn't have any real hoops to jump through.
Retro could offer this flexibility, but would require you to jump through the hoop of having discard outlets at the ready for when you decide it's better for you to go for the retro-cast instead of the hard cast, and it also reveals your line of play to your opponent.
I really feel these two effects both try to give the player two different ways to play the game, and are really only similar in game mechanics, not in execution of those mechanics.
>Seeing it an uncommon is cause for alarm
If you think it's that crazy you might want to check out Pull From Eternities, Riftsweeper, and Runic Repetition. These effects are fine as 1-2 ofs in a set as precedence shows. Specifically in sets where the Exile Zone actually matters.

...

>Until end of turn, if a creature would enter the battlefield, put it on top of its owner’s library instead.

>Until end of turn, if a creature would enter the battlefield, put it on top of its owner’s library instead.
Any particular reason why this wording is better? I'm honestly interested in knowing why it would be better.

Unfortunately, Fortifications are pretty much useless in Magic, unless you decide to change the meta by making land removal much more prevalent.

Well, yeah, it doesn't come up in White very much. You had a card, a rare mind you, that tapped creatures, but just straight up destroyed ones with big power. So I suggested something that was still in-line with tapping but was stronger. I mean, it's a single one-off card, so I thought it was fine, but it's up to you.

>card
I think you should just keep the second ability and ditch the first. Either way, the second ability should also have the Domain ability word. Seems odd to have the same ability word on a card twice, but that's how the Oracle text for Draco does it.

Nice.

Seems OK, but Cleric?

This feels like it was made under the old Magic rules, where you could kill an opponent's legendary creature by making Clone copy it.