/ccg/ Custom Card General /cct/

>Just give him a title. "Hans the Unlucky"?
OK.

>Shadow
I did suggest Spirit.

I'm not sure if I'll be able to really keep this card as is. There is pleanty of support through obvious effects, like casting a damage spell pre combat.
My question is, if something else attacking has first strike, will she deal more damage from them connecting face?

i think you could give it better p/t

...

How about a 2/2 flat.

Thoughts?

...

Totally unplayable. The cost of sacing three enchantments is crazy over costed on all but the blue one. But the downsides are what truly make then unable. They get an immediate boost meanwhile you have to sac three enchantments and tap another land to get anything. and with that cost it's not like you will get to use it more then once or twice a game. Even if the deck is enchant based you simply won't be willing to sac your field for these lackluster effects. Will the exception of the blue one that is as it gets you more gas for this really inefficient engine.

Like said, these are unplayable. I think you are trying too hard - its generally not a good idea to put too much stuff on a land. What you could do is make them enter the battlefield tapped, remove the drawback and change the last ability to "sacrifice an enchantment", and rework the abilities to be balanced around that:

> W, T, Sacrifice an enchantment: Create two 1/1 white Ghost creature tokens with flying.
> R, T, Sacrifice an enchantment: Deals 2 damage to target creature or player.
> U, T, Sacrifice an enchantment: Draw two cards, then discard two cards.
> G, T, Sacrifice an enchantment: Search your library for a basic land card and put it onto the battlefield. Then shuffle your library.
> B, T: Sacrifice an enchantment: Target choose and exile a card from his or her hand. Activate this ability only anytime you could play a sorcery.

Removing the drawback, reducing the sacrificing cost and making the ability itself more basic makes these easier to balance and more likely to be playable. Also notice that you shouldn't make discard abilities at instant speed (WotC tries to avoid them, too annoying).

...

I have a few advices for you here. First of all, I honestly think you should choose to either to focus on mana generation and general land stuff, or the enchantment part. Since you probably are going for the enchantment part because of your set, take away the basic land type from them. Make them a general nonbasic land that enters the battlefield tapped and taps for 1 of mana of that color. This takes off the power as lands and opens space for you to give it power as enchantments. Also, I'm not sure that making it an enchantment as it is removes the fact that Swamp taps for black and etc, so it would be an aura that still adds mana and that is just confusing. (WotC tried to go for enchantment tapping, decided it was not a good idea).

Now we got that cleared, let's rethink the second ability they have. I think you can get rid of unnecessary wording like "If it's not attached to a creature sacrifice it". That is already how auras work. Also, I would remove Aura as its type and add it to the second ability. My choice of wording would be:
> 3[ ][ ], T: CARDNAME becomes an Aura enchantment with "enchant creature". Attach it to target creature you control.
I think in the end, that is all you need. You could make it become the (eg: "becomes an red Aura enchantment", etc), but unless that is relevant for your set, I would leave that out. (though that part is just personal opinion).

Also note that the white one says "Warped WOODS enters the battlefield...", and that the colored cost of the ability should come before the tapped and not the other way around.

Now we got that cleared out, I have yet a few remarks to make (...cont)

Yeah I guess Spirit could be okay. I dunno that it really needs a type but maybe it's better for flavor.
>Equipment
Why do I remember this or something like it? I think a thread or two ago there was a spear that did something similar. It seems to be about on par with Batterskull; lower Equip cost and more keywords, but the tradeoff is losing +1/+1, the bounce, and having to pay for a token if you want one.

Flurry does seem like a better Storm; a bit less hard to abuse overall. Still really strong though.

Not bad. Compares well to Catalog, and since the average roll on a d4 is 2.5, you're actually up a card every other time you cast this, statistically speaking. Shame the d4 is kind of a nonstandard thing.

Wait, I know that set symbol. Cthulhuset dude, is that you? I don't think I've seen you post in months.

I think I have to agree they are lackluster. The downside is high, and the signature ability on each one is too expensive and hard to set up. If you made it two enchantments, and fiddled with the balance some, you might be onto something. I'd also nix the drawbacks and have them ETB tapped instead across the board. I know it's boring, but that's the standard land drawback for a good reason; it's easy to design around.

Okay these are super strange. Is there any reason you couldn't just use Bestow? All you need to do is alter the reminder text to say land instead of creature; I'm pretty sure that's a viable change. It also has the benefit of letting you keep the land after the creature it's enchanting dies, preventing a 2for1. Lands are too precious to risk without that kind of fallback. I mean I guess as a late-game thing it makes some sense, but I'm not sure I care for it as it is. I think you need to specify that you have to attach it to a creature too. I'd need to look that up though. I don't think "enchanting target creature" is enough. I might be wrong, but this isn't exactly a common issue.

cont...

> Why rare?
If you are trying to push an enchantment set, what you wants is to find ways to flow enchantments into the game. If you are doing this cycle to boost the aura, the best thing you can do is to make common or at least uncommon and nerf the ability. This means that more people will have access to it (as least on limited), making its effect on the set a lot more relevant. Also, you already got a rare cycle for lands, no reason to add another one. Drop the rarity and make them more mundane.

> Why aura?
I've learned this the hard way - filling your set with auras is probably catastrophic, because you can't build decks filled with aura. You need shit to enchant them with the auras. Also, as I always mention to anons here, explicit synergy is often leads to a boring design. If you have a set full of auras, sometimes all you really need is to make a cycle of lands that turn themselves permanently into creature, so in case you run out of real creatures, you make them alive and enchant the shit out of them. A cycle suggestion you could do with this idea is just a cycle that ETB tapped, has a "T: Add [ ] to your mana pool", and has a final ability that goes "You can enchant CARDNAME as if it was a creature. If you do, it becomes a 0/0 Spirit creature as long as it is enchanted.". So, what we have here? A bunch of land cycles that can made into creatures if you need extra shit to enchant. Notice that this would also make them keep their mana ability so they would still be useful for mana (if that is what you want).

to be continued. (fuck this stupid limit)

>Why do I remember this or something like it?
Because I'm the idiot who kept trying to make that Armsmaster's Ghost card before someone pointed out that Living Weapon would be a better solution.

...

I think dices have a lot of potential. I'm working on a set where it is a mechanic

cont once again...

> What about land enchantments?
They tried an enchantment-oriented block in Theros. Sure, they threw a bunch of auras into it, but also threw creatures for it to enchant (Bestow being the idea of an aura that can work as its own). What else they also did? They made random creatures that are enchantment just because of synergy. Now think Mirron: they wanted an expansion filled with artifacts, so they made lands that are also artifact. You want a set full of enchantments, why don't you just make a common cycle of lands that are also enchantment? Do it exactly like Mirrodin, but instead of making them artifacts, make them enchantments (and don't include Affinity for enchantments).

Overall, you are trying to make a cycle to help the enchantment theme flows, but you are over-complicating it. There's several better and simpler ways to go for it.

Final notes:
> You could try Living weapon, but for auras.
> Add Auratog to your set. That is a must.

>Okay these are super strange. Is there any reason you couldn't just use Bestow?
You can't cast lands.

I honestly think most MtG players are not very fan of dices. That is not even my personal opinion, I'm the guy who made my own card game around dices. They are awesome and I love them. But MtG tries to stay away from them, and I think most players don't really want to see their game become a casino simulator like Hearthstone.

Weird guy. Not sure what to think of it.

Seems VERY strong. I think the most far you can go with this idea is "recruiting" a creature with the same CMC as this guy, though you probably should only do it for smaller CMC (make it cost 2, and get a 1 or less guy). Otherwise, you could always just exile another Solik Recruiter and have a 1/1 with 4 lives before becoming something big in the end. That is a lot of value for 1 mana.

...

>There has been a lot of little effects and keywords that have been posted here before and seen print. I think the case is, a lot of them are just rather simple concepts so it's not surprising more then 1 person had the idea of it.
Yeah I know. Its not even an original idea, its an ability that has been around for quite a while. What I meant to say is that if they made that into a keyword, maaaybe one day they will made Super-trample into one as well. Though they got Menace because they were trying to fit a hole left from fear/intimidate.

Not even if they have a keyword that allows it? Hm. well there we go then; that explains that.

Oh, I recall that card. I have to agree this equipment is much cleaner.

We're certainly free to do that. One of the perks of not actually working for WotC.

I think the issue with super trample and the main reason it's not a keyword, and likely will not be, is that it's uninteractive. Blocking the creature with super trample is pointless unless you can kill it, because it will still hit you with all of its power. It's the same reason I see "can't be blocked" eventually being replaced with something else. They tried it with Skulk but that tested poorly and had bad design space.

If it weren't for the ban on mana costs in evergreen keywords I'd say something like the Rhystic mechanic would be great for a replacement. Can't block this unless you pay X. Course they also tried Afflict, and we'll have to see if that carries forward. I don't really care for it, though it's powerful. It's just not very blue to me. It plays like static trample and that's just not really in blue's wheelhouse in my eyes. Course WotC > me, so it doesn't really matter what I think I suppose. It's awesome in R and B though.

>If it weren't for the ban on mana costs in evergreen keywords
Well I guess I have to call myself out on this; Equip has a mana cost, but it's keyword action and a bit different. Kinda splitting hairs with that though I guess.

...

There's actually quite a big difference between what is cast and what is played. Normally, only spells are cast, which therefore means nonlands. Lands are played, but played can also mean cast.

To go over a few cards, Explore and Crucible of Worlds use play because they refer only to lands.

Mind's Desire refers to playing a card without paying its mana cost. This essentially breaks down into playing a land card, or casting a nonland card without paying its mana cost. But it still uses play because that encompasses playing lands and casting nonlands.

Future Sight and Recycle are more examples of the above, using play even when what is played isn't necessarily a land.

And then you get weird shit like Scout's Warning. It allows you to play a creature card as though it had Flash, not just cast. But when would you ever not cast a creature card? Well, you'd have to find a card that's both a creature and a land. Like, say, Dryad Arbor. But take note that even under Scout's Warning and similar effects, it's still impossible to play a land during another player's turn. There's even a ruling in the comprehensive rules that basically says, no matter what happens, players can't play lands during another player's turn, and any effect that says you can should be ignored.

I do find it kinda funny how the Dinosaurs are Dragons trope made its way to Magic as a way to explain Dragonskull Summit in a world without Dragons.

Also, Angrath, I'm really curious to see if he'll show up in the Dominaria set. A Minotaur with a name vaguely similar to Tahngarth? That can't be a coincidence.

Oh yeah, ability. Eh... just very underwhelming right now.

...

Can I flash her and sac her?

>Mythic creatures edition!

yes.
Good.

...

I know that casting and playing are the same but different; I just wasn't aware that lands couldn't have abilities that let you cast them. I knew they couldn't have mana costs, so I guess that goes along with it. Oddly, I'm reading the Comp Rules entry for "Play" and it says you can not play a land on your opponent's turn, but it does say that even though "playing" a land means putting from its current zone onto the battlefield, abilities that have you put a land on the battlefield aren't the same thing?
>701.12a To play a land means to put it onto the battlefield from the zone it’s in (usually the hand). A player may play a land if he or she has priority, it’s the main phase of his or her turn, the stack is empty, and he or she hasn’t played a land this turn. Playing a land is a special action (see rule 115), so it doesn’t use the stack; it simply happens. Putting a land onto the battlefield as the result of a spell or ability isn’t the same as playing a land. See rule 305, “Lands.”
So, in theory, you could have an ability that said "put this onto the battlefield" on a land? Or is there something else that blocks this from happening? What I mean is, literally just having an ability like pic related.

>I just wasn't aware that lands couldn't have abilities that let you cast them.
Well, it's impossible to cast lands. So... yeah, you can't make abilities that cast lands.

>it does say that even though "playing" a land means putting from its current zone onto the battlefield, abilities that have you put a land on the battlefield aren't the same thing?
>So, in theory, you could have an ability that said "put this onto the battlefield" on a land?
Yes, of course. Like, imagine you have Narset's emblem, and you can't cast noncreature spells. If you have, say, a noncreature artifact in your hand, you can't cast it. But if there's some other effect that lets you put an artifact from your hand onto the battlefield, you can still do that, since it doesn't actually cast the card, just moves it from one zone to another. It's the same for lands. Lands can be put onto the battlefield through other effects at any time because it doesn't actually play the land.

>card
Because of the actual rules text (not the reminder text) of Ninjutsu is
>702.48a Ninjutsu is an activated ability that functions only while the card with ninjutsu is in a player’s hand. “Ninjutsu [cost]” means “[Cost], Reveal this card from your hand, Return an unblocked attacking creature you control to its owner’s hand: Put this card onto the battlefield from your hand tapped and attacking.”
I think this should have you reveal the card as a cost. But it should work perfectly fine otherwise.

And for the record, I'm not entirely sure why Ninjutsu reveals the card as a cost, but I think it might have to do with how the ability works on the stack. Like, let's say, for the hell of it, you make a cycle of these lands with this 4 cost ability. You have two different cards in your hand, this and a R version. You activate the ability of the G land, but you get hit with, say, an instant-speed random discard spell. Without revealing the card first, you could then lie, and say you were trying to use the R card the whole time.

Does that sound right?

>I'm not entirely sure why Ninjutsu reveals the card as a cost
Without the reveal clause, you don't actually show the source of the ability until the ability has started to resolve. It's to keep players honest.

Very cool. I got 1 step gudder at MtG design. Now, the big question is: would cards like that be desirable to people? Are they balanced? 4 seems like a lot but the fact that the land comes with a self-contained ability to ignore the one-per-turn land play restriction might plenty justify it. I originally had them cost 3 but that seemed like it might be too good?

forgot to give feedback on Aquaman here. So is the creature destruction new? It feels new. I'd make him tap Soldiers or just creatures in general for the ability; the cost is pretty steep already, so it should be fine without the additional limitation.

Might be worth exploring. Kinda hard to tell. I feel like this has more subtle interactions than what I can see with my limited experience in Magic.

It's actually been like this for quite some time. For some reason, I've never been able to get feedback for this iteration. And removing the type specification on the destruction ability sounds like a good idea, thanks.

Well I feel like I still want to work on a set so I guess I'll do this religious set thing I've been thinking about. Some mechanics have already fallen into my lap, and so part of that work already being done will help. I'll toss a cycle of those lands in there too; why not. I dunno that there will be too much issue with them; I can't foresee any stack fuckery or anything that's not any worse than you can already manage.
>Roy
Hm. I feel like the token gen is pretty strong since it's rather cheap for not requiring a tap or for him to swing. So the free equip feels a bit overboard. Part of me thinks you should get rid of the free equip, and then reduce his casting cost to 2RW.

>It's the same reason I see "can't be blocked" eventually being replaced with something else. They tried it with Skulk but that tested poorly and had bad design space.
Eh... Skulk's issue wasn't related to being hard to block. You want things that are hard to block. Flying is pretty much unblockable most of the time. I think Green is the main color they're looking for an evasion mechanic. I think the bigger reason is mostly just that super trample is just can't be blocked for the most part, and probably not something you'd really use a lot. Just on big things and maybe like one thing. I actually really like daunt a lot personally (with my only issue being that while I understand why it's 2 or less, without context the 2 seems very arbitrary, and I don't like arbitrariness, but "power less than x's power" is a totally different mechanic with its own issues) but I think Mark's said they don't plan on making that an actual keyword. I've done a couple designs with keyworded Daunt though just cause I like it and I want a green scroll thief.

On another note, is there a card design program where I can customize frames? I have an idea but I mostly use mtg.design which while looking pretty is pretty rigid. I've never used MSE, does that let you make new kinds of frames?

>Skulk
That's not really what I was saying. I was saying it wasn't very popular and R&D don't care for it because the creatures only have so many things you can do with them. I recall reading something posted about it in one of these threads after.. SoI, I think? But yeah, super trample is just not really keyword fodder. Green does sort of need an evasion ability but it needs to be something it can share. But with who? Every color already has a reliable one. Trample isn't bad but it has some of the same issues as Skulk in that it dictates how you have to design your creatures, and that limits design space.
>MSE
Yeah I think it does, but I dunno how to do it. Ask the FoW dude if he comes around; he might know how. Do you want MtG frames? Because the MSE forum has a TON of custom ones.

Daunt hasn't been used on anything but green so far, but it's really not hard to imagine it on something else. I'm not sure how bad black needs it, but it feels pretty black to me, since black likes to hate on weak things. I actually think the flavor mechanically is a little better than menace in black if we ignore the actual names.

Also, I mean Magic frames, but I want to be able to... I guess add things to the frame? Change things on it? I mentioned it last night but I had an idea for actual cards you play in decks that had things like the sprockets on the Unstable reminder card that could be marked with counters, but obviously that needs a custom frame.

...

I agree that Daunt isn't a bad option; it even fits well on weenies because it means you have to devote larger creatures to deal with them. I suppose it could fit well in R and B, and I wouldn't miss Trample too much honestly.

I don't know much about the monarch mechanic, but this seems like it's okay as long as stealing the title doesn't warp things too much. As a creature itself it's not very impressive, and the "can't block" caveat is actually a nice touch.

I don't think Mark's ever explained exactly what it was that they didn't like about Daunt, just that he said something like it was "far from becoming evergreen", and they haven't used it much since Khans where they were doing a lot of obvious testing for keywords in hindsight.

>I don't have any Hares or Globes
>Hare is a gold
I guess I'm not building a meme deck today

Monarch is basically if you're it, you draw an extra card each turn, but if you get hit, the person who hit you becomes the monarch.
I do think that this should be inverted in some capacity though, since not bein' able to block while the monarch seems a bit silly

Weird; the Salvation wiki says it was in Kaladesh and Amonkhet because R&D wanted to test the waters with it and see if it would be well-received as widely available mechanic. I didn't look to corroborate that but if that's the case maybe they are thinking of pushing it.

Gotcha. Was it a Conspiracy mechanic or was it Commander? It sounds like a Conspiracy thing.

It was from Conspiracy: Take the Crown. And the mechanic should have been called "taking the crown". It's really weird they called it becoming the monarch, especially considering the mechanic it was based on really fitting best in terms of verbage as a thing you could take rather than a thing you become.

I don't remember any daunt in either Kaladesh or Amonkhet, but maybe I'm remembering wrong. The last card with it I recall was Outland Colossus in Origins

I just double checked, there was actually a lot in Kaladesh block, and 2 in Amonkhet block.

Sorry for posting this one so much, but I was wondering why it always seemed to get no responses.

Unfortunately, given that the only 2 mana walker we have to judge off of is tibalt, It's hard to well, Judge any 2 mana walkers.
I will say that there seems to be a trend of having lower CMC walkers having plus abilities that can either whiff and do nothing, or are double edged like Jace Beleren, while all minus abilities are more or less on the same level as all the other CMCs, save for the really high cost walkers.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is, the lower CMC your walker is, the shittier it's + abilitiy should be, with CMC 2 being something that does something, but usually has a really high cost to it.

I tried to keep the 0 watered down to some degree, which is why unless you have some non-creatures to cast it's just a scry 1.
I see your point about the consistency. Does his -2 being made a -3 sound fair? That way you have to invest a turn at the least before you can fork anything.

Because it's so underwhelming and brings nothing new to the table.

I honestly find this card fucking awesome. Might be one of the best cards I've seen in the past weeks or so. Fucking. Awesome.

I like the name of this guy a lot. I don't know much about how the monarch thingy works, at least not enough to know whether this is strong or not, but I liked how the card flavor's entwine with the monarch mechanic. Though it seems this card is a constant source of becoming the monarch. Is that why you made it be unable to block?

Here are my thoughts:
1) First ability could simply be "CARDNAME can't block". Don't need to make it a conditional based on the monarchy thingy.
2) If you have any "Sacrifice a creature: " effect, this guy becomes an infinite source of becoming the monarch. I think I would change him to something like this:
> At the beginning of your upkeep, if CARDNAME is in your graveyard and you aren't the monarch, you may pay . If you do, return CARDNAME to the battlefield and you become the monarch.
It doesn't help much, but at least is some restraint over the monarch thing. Because right now, it feels like this guys make you the monarch every single turn.

I honestly am not good at judging planeswalkers. Though the first ability seems a bit overpowered. Maybe you could just do "(+1 or +2): Scry X, where X is one plus the number of spells you played this turn."

Weird. First ability is weird to put on a card that costs 2BBB, where it can only reduces 2 at maximum. Maybe you should change the cost to something like 5B or even 6B, and let the first ability be relevant.

Then we have the second ability. Do I get a half token if I exiled an odd number? Or does I get a full ½/½ token? I honestly think you should change the wording to something like "Create a 1/1 black Rat Familiar creature token with death touch for each creature or land card exiled this way.", or at least something else with no ambiguity.

Too powerful and too complicated. How about this?

+1: Scry 1.
-1: The next instant or sorcery spell you cast this turn has Rebound.
-6: You get an emblem with "Instant and sorcery spells you control have Rebound."

Some weird card. What you guys think?

If you're going to give a creature a mana ability, you may as well make this blue/green. I think it's a cool card otherwise

> If you're going to give a creature a mana ability, you may as well make this blue/green
Its honestly not that much about the mana ability. Its more for the flavor of becoming watery, hence why the creature becomes an Island. Also, this gives the ability for the creature to tap to activate the last ability, which in my mind is basically a defensive ability (because it dodges damage and any "target creature" effect). Being able to tap for mana is just a side effect of the card, not really the main goal, though changing land type is still mostly blue I think.

I know now a days the ability "this creature's P/T is equal the number of creatures you control" is white/green, but what about red? It featured it a while back, and I think version that checks for ALL creatures might be fine in red - after all, red is not about union and friendship like white/green, but just general chaotic war.

make it R/W

desu famalamadingdong i like this card a lot.

As is. Maybe rare though.

> As is. Maybe rare though.
I sort of wants to place him as an uncommon, so I increased the mana cost to 4R.

It's an ugly mess. Why do this shit with becoming a land? I feel it would be better if it went onto an Island and turned it into a manland with +1/-1 and -1/+1 pumps.

Might as well be hybrid.

> It's an ugly mess. Why do this shit with becoming a land?
The idea is that becoming a full body of water makes the enchanted creature elusive, because it dodges "target creature" effects as well as damage.

> I feel it would be better if it went onto an Island and turned it into a manland with +1/-1 and -1/+1 pumps.
That would be simply a whole other card. The idea is to turn a creature into water, not water into a creature.

Cards like this are one of the main themes of my set. Hybrid doesn't work for it.

Save your breath

>Hybrid doesn't work for it.
Why not? Too simple?

Not autistic enough

>Why not? Too simple?
Why WotC did hybrid when they could do golden cards? They did it because, even though they are similar, they are also different. Same thing with these cards I do. Let's break down the reasons:

> Mechanics
These cards are not duel colored - they are monocolored. The card frame's color matches the card ingame color ("~ is black"). I could keep the cardframe green, but the card is never green. Its black on the battlefield or even outside it. Similar to colored cards that have no mana cost or costs 0, the card frame's color matches the card actual color rather than its mana cost (or lack of)'s color. Also, my set features several effects that check for the color of permanents, so having cards that are visually green but rule-wise are black might confuse players.

Also, I'm trying something new. Shouldn't be a crime to do such.

> Flavor
The set is supposed to feel more black and white than the other colors. Therefore, some card slots of red/green/blue are reserved for cards like this that act as if they were another color. This is supposed to help the set feels like its twisted in a way that black and white are predominant, because black/white is practically taking space of the other colors. Hybrid cards don't pass that feel. Hybrid cards pass the feel that they belong to both colors in a more harmonious way, while what I want with these cards is that they actually feel that black/white is creeping into the other colors uninvited.

> Lore
Long story short, the plane where my set is based has its mana balance fucked up and bent towards to black and white. Since its a fucked up phenomenon, I want the cards to feel fucked up. I want them to feel like they are screwed, color-wise.

This ability is kinda hard to price. Very easy to shut down by the opponent, but if they don't it's explosive. Pretty sure I'm going to have to adjust the mana cost.

I think its fine this way. Basically this means your opponent needs to either cast whatever bullshit instant they have until your combat phase, or taste the bitter steel of this guy's sword. This card basically works as a "your opponent can't cast 'at the end of your turn' instants". Which is something blue does and red/green usually hates anyways.

This would be A LOT stronger back when we had mana burn. Now a days, I think its pretty far at it cost. Again, its a 3 mana 2/2 w/ first strike and haste that stops your opponent from leaving unused mana to fuck you up. Great against counters and end of the turn draws.

Though maybe I would change the ability to:
> When CARDNAME attacks, it gets +1/+1 for each untapped land your opponents control.
Just so it doesn't work as a blocker.

Also:
> First strike, haste
Only the first F has capital letter.

I get why you're going for it, and I don't see a problem with doing it that way other than upsetting players who are really into RGU, and even then, by the look of it, the colorshifted cards still do stuff in their orignal colors' wheelhouse, right? At least that gorgon still has a bunch of green effects on it.

> I get why you're going for it, and I don't see a problem with doing it that way
Yeah, I don't think its a big deal, but some people like get really triggered because of it

> other than upsetting players who are really into RGU
I honestly never thought of that this way. I think most negative feedback I had here is just because it looks weird and is something that WotC never done in a real set. I don't think anyone has ever raised this question of RGU players feeling like their color was less relevant.

> and even then, by the look of it, the colorshifted cards still do stuff in their orignal colors' wheelhouse, right
Yes. I assume that if the card has only Green in color, it needs to fit into Green's colorpie. I also try to make it fit Black's colorpie as well, but that is just to actually feel black. When I need throw in an ability that the cost's color can't do at its own, I put a mana requirement on it (pic related). Some people have accused me of messing with the color pie, but not a single of these cards do anything that their cost's color couldn't do (again, unless it uses mana of another color, which isn't really anything new).

> CARD: Black Noxious Automata
First of all, you should make your template in a way that X is replaced by the actual number. The reminder text shouldn't say X, but say 1 (or whatever the card's scrap value is). Also, this reminder text takes the whole card... I think you could get a similar effect flavor-wise with a lot less text. How about these?

> Scrap N (When this permanent dies, you may return an artifact with converted cost N or less from your graveyard to the battlefield tapped.)
> Scrap N (When this permanent dies, add N colorless mana to your mana pool. Until end of turn, this mana doesn't empty from your mana pool as steps and phases end.)
> Scrap N (When this permanent dies, you get N ⌐■_■ )
⌐■_■ = something like Kaladesh's energy, or even energy itself

I think you responded to the wrong post.

Or maybe, you could go for:

> Scrap N (When this creature dies, create N Scrap artifact tokens.)

Then you make your artificers use "sacrifice an artifact" as cost of their abilities, and have a second keyword that is like:

> Salvage (Each artifact you sacrifice while casting this spell pays for {2}.)

Because at least to me, it makes a lot of sense for a Scrap being literally just a piece of metal that does absolute nothing by its own. Its just junk. Then you throw in things that use junk, as mentioned above. (ps: "salvage" is not necessarily a name suggestion, there's probably a better name for that keyword)

attempt at balancing Ancestral Recall

already fixed to
> "When ~ leaves [...]"
silly me

>Cthulhuset dude, is that you?
Yes that's me, I've been busy with work so I didn't have time to post lately.
>Drawbacklands
My first design with those lands was to make them legendary and instead of saccing enchantments have something like "You can only activate this ability if you control three enchantments or more." But then you would be able to sacc one, play another and then sacc that too.
That would be fixed easily by having them enter tapped of course, but I really liked the idea of lands with an initial downside that gets offset by a huge upside later. Also saccing enchantments is easier in a set full of creature enchantments that come back as normal enchantments.
>Why rare?
I could make them uncommon, but I think they would be borderline too strong in limited.
>Why Aura / What about land enchantments
I don't want to make straight up mirrors of the artifact lands as enchantments because I have a mechanic in the set that reduces the cost of a spell by 2 if you sacc an enchantment when you cast it (pic related). That's why I decided to go with Auras since creature lands are boring and you can tutor them up with Aura stuff. Also my set has almost no auras, enchantments yes, but I tried to avoid auras because enchantments enchanting enchantment creatures seems kind of weird. I can see the point of removing the land type though.

Extraplanar Influence is too powerful in a deck with Battle of Wits. Play a 60-card deck, get Battle of Wits onto the field honestly or through trickery, then cast Extraplanar Influence during your opponent's end step and dump 200 cards into your deck. Easy win.

Otherwise I like this card. I think it would be more fair if it were sorcery-speed though.

...

Still broken in combo decks. Ancestral Recall was already fixed—it's called Concentrate.

>Extraplanar Influence is too powerful in a deck with Battle of Wits. Play a 60-card deck, get Battle of Wits onto the field honestly or through trickery, then cast Extraplanar Influence during your opponent's end step and dump 200 cards into your deck. Easy win.
I haven't thought of that, but in tournaments you can only have 15 cards as sideboard, so that doesn't really work out that well. Besides that, its just another two-cards-win combo in modern, so I don't think its that big of an issue. This actually makes me like the card a lot more haha.

> I think it would be more fair if it were sorcery-speed though.
This might be probably better. Also makes the Battle of Wits combo less OP, because as instant you could just cast it at the end of your opponent's turn and win during your upkeep, while at sorcery speed, you need to do the combo at one turn than your opponent still have his turn to destroy Battle of Wits. Though combo aside, Wishing Desire brings any instant to your hand at instant speed, this one simply works as an instant sideboarding, doesn't guarantee you will get the cards you sideboarded. I'm really divided between leaving it at instant speed or changing it to sorcery speed.

> Still broken in combo decks.
It was just an wild idea I thought I should share

> Ancestral Recall was already fixed—it's called Concentrate.
WotC still tries to come up with some more balanced Ancestral Recalls... Ancestral Visions, Visions from Beyond, etc. I thought that drawing some immediate cards for the drawback of losing life each turn was very black and could turn up to be an interesting card. I could raise the cost to 2 or 3, but then I would probably need to take the last ability, making it a lot easier to abuse.

...

This fish sort of distracts me from reading the text. Wtf?

...

Just some nighthawk-level uncommon. I wasn't going to post it, but by the time I finished it, I thought it looked cool.

...

...