/ccg/ Custom Card General /cct/

And another example.
> Aurochs - Jackal

>Hm. I was told it was unremarkable before.
I was the person who said it was unremarkable and I'm not surprised its only seen in rare, rare is also where wizards puts effects that are only rarely useful regardless of powerlevel, hate cards and such.
I think the new version might justify itself as a card, but I wouldn't put it in common and if it comes down to this card vs a card like it but more versatile (hexproof, damage in general) I'd prefer more versatility.
I'd consider changing CW05 to a 1/1 with versatile 2. The mechanic in general is odd, but I guess being hard to place could be an advantage.
Also you could do serfs if you wanted a more 'white' term for minions in flavor, I'm sure there are many other synonyms for them as well.
There's still no 'hook' yet imo, but if you don't want one or care then it looks fine.

>Dimir Edition
I like that.
Here is a Dimir version of the Deathrite Shaman.

...

Rolled 149 (1d238)

Alright, let's try this

Rolled 222 (1d238)

Working on Skeleton Cats right now but I won't say no to fun

Upgraded Spinal Graft.

Needs to have Enchant Creature, needs to say enchanted creature, not equipped creature.

Probably shouldn't design cards as soon as I wake up. Thanks.

...

Seems OK. Doesn't strike me as legendary though. Or even rare really. Maybe an uncommon?
>~ can't be blocked as long as [...]
Unblockable isn't a thing anymore.
>UB, Discard a card: [...]
You forgot a comma. Otherwise the wording is fine.

How good would this actually be?

Fixed. How could I give her more oomf?

Hmm. Change activated ability so the discard happens in addition to the damage instead of replacing it, and have it draw you that many cards as well. It's going to require a major change in mana costs, but it's a lot flashier.

Not very good in my opinion. Make it Scry 1 instead and it might be playable.

pretty bad

Still working on this. Idea is if you control an unattached Equipment, you can make a token for it to attach to, or just attach it to Arsenal. Obviously nothing happens if you don't control an unattached Equipment, at least if you can't target one that is.

y/n

Had this idea for a while now, but I'm not even sure if it's worth pursuing. Thoughts?

Looks better, to me anyway. I never claim to be an expert on Magic, see what others think. I feel like the P/T could at least go up to 3/3 though. And wording should be
>~ can't be blocked [...]
"can't" instead of "cannot"

Second ability is a bit trickier. Easier to just simplify it a bit
>UUBB, Discard a card: Until end of turn, whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, [...]

Fixed version of my last ones.
Any thoughts ?
I like it.
I'd use "Can't be blocked" since that's how they worded merfolks in Ixalan.
As said, the "whenever" formula is more clear.
Seems a bit too strong as an instant.
Maybe as an ETB or activated on a big legendary ?

>Double-Team
I'll keep that in mind. Guess I'll come up with something else for this card then. Might just make it a simple combat trick.

>card
>Derula
I've always found it odd that you have a card that gives Undying, but it makes tokens instead of doing stuff with cards. Like, you realize Undying doesn't work on tokens, right?

>Cryptic Shaman
Just on the surface this feels absurdly powerful. Repeated discard at inst-speed and at such a low cost is way too good, as-is repeated Fateseal.

>Elunarh
I'm with what the other guy said last time, not really fond of seeing double evasion on this. Plus, haste is pretty much always the last keyword in a line. But the mechanics otherwise seem solid. Maybe incre
...
Actually, now that I think about it, doesn't Consuming Aberration do pretty much everything this does but better? It doesn't have evasion or Haste, but still.

OK, I think this is actually a better implementation of the idea. Both creatures have to attack or block at the same time for the P/T boost to really mean anything, which I like.

>Derula
Of course I know undying doesn't work on tokens. I wanted something that felt like a real necromancer that raises an army of dead, more powerful each time.
Maybe make it "whenever a non token non skeleton creature dies ..." but idk.

That's what I thought. Maybe a scry is enough.
He is powerful but also very vulnerable.
Or make it BB and UU.
Or make it a single ability with "UB, T : look card, you can put it in gy. lose 2 life."

>Elunarh
I wanted to make a Enigma Drake/Consuming Aberation hybrid, hence the evasion.
The double evasion is because that's not a creature you are going to easily block. Blocking it with a thopter seems ridiculous but I know what you mean (also tri-color mechanics blablabla).

I like the enchantment idea, but the "untap two target creatures" seems rigid (you don't necesarly have two creatures to untap) and useless since you will untap just after, or was it to counter things like "tap target, it doesn't untap during next turn" ?

>Derula
Well, necromancers typically do graveyard recursion, so maybe start fresh and work on something like that? Hell, drop Undying, replace it with a lord pump (+1/+1 to all Skellies you control) and try something like
>2B, T, Exile a creature card from your graveyard: Create a number of 1/1 black Skeleton creature tokens equal to the exiled creature card's toughness.
Or something. Actually instead of pump, maybe a targeted Indestructible, since that's being used to replace Regen.

>Cryptic Shaman
Still risky. Repeatable Fateseal is very powerful.

>Elunarh
Eh, I'm just not sure on it anymore after looking at Consuming Aberration. Sorry. I'm actually thinking of changing it so you can recur an I/S spell to your hand when it deals combat damage. Or maybe something like Flashback.

>Double-Team
It's pseudo-Vigilance, and you can still target untapped creatures with it and they'll still get the pump (check Synchronized Strike and its rulings). The only real condition is that you need to have to creatures to target, and they have to attack or block during that turn to get the pump.

>Dimir edition
Could be but he isnt
>Skeletons edition!
Yes he is!!!

Poor Teysil seems underpowered compared to her contemporaries now.

Maybe
>Whenever a creature with power 2 or less enters the battlefield under your control, put two +1/+1 counters on it.

>Double-Team
I'm sorry I'm an idiot, I missed the entire point of the card.

How about this? I made this with EDH in mind and I would see no reason not to play it in most decks.

Maybe gain life? Could be a mildly interesting anti-Wrath tool. As for the last ability, I'd have it exile itself as a cost.

It's alright, not the simplest card out there. But do you think the ability is OK at its current cost? Anything I should change about the wording?

>Derula
Most skeletons have Regenerate, the others have other methods of revive like return to hand from graveyard, this makes undying not very useful. If you accept my advice:
>Create a 1/1 black skeleton creature token with regenerate when a nontoken creature dies.
>When a skeleton creature regenerates, put a +1/+1 counter on it (not sure if +1/+1 counters are allowed in black but is ok for me, specially in this scenario)
Mana cost needs to be raised.

>Cryptic shaman
The first and second ability are almost ok. The problem is the third one. Lurking Informant has it, is the only ability he has and it cost more ( 2 and U are almost the same but im also talkng of the creature cost) is very cheap
Other difference is that Deathrite Shaman had effects based in the type of card exiled (land add mana, inst/sor loss life, creature gain life).
Rise their cost and try some mechanics, limiting the card types to remove could lower the costs.

>Elunarh
Even thinking the cost may should be raised, it is the most balanced card you had make (in my own judgement)

>creature token with regenerate
What does that even mean? Regen is an action, not a static ability like Indestructible.

>Shind, grand fiend
First ability could be just R,T not RR,T or just RR. Damage is very cheap in read
The second ability is similar to Chainer, Dementia Master but it puts the creature in the battlefield. Lower their cost or change hand for battlefield.

Sorry, its hard to review a lot of cards and I try to search similar cards to do it well:
Create a 1/1 black skeleton creature token with
"1B: Regenerate this creature."

This would be quite powerful in EDH desu.

First of all I'd do something like the Soulbond mechanic.
You bind two creatures together, it should simplify the wording by a lot.
>Derula
I understand what you mean. I totally forgot that skellys have regenerate. It kinda kills the purpose.
She was initially meant to be in a set I want te design where regenerate doesn't exist.

>Cryptic shaman
I think I now understand how powerful the third one is. I'll tone it down and limit things it can do.
I want to do a BX Shaman cycle based on the Deathrite, so I need to find mechanics that fit the theme and colors.

>Elunarh
I love this one.
Putting it a 5 could do the trick but I honnestly find it is fine as it is.

Maybe ETB tapped? You can still discard or sac to scry, but have to wait a turn to shuffle in graveyard.

...

...

This sure is an over loaded card that is doing too many things at once and kinda bleeds into G for no reason.
Frankly if it just imprinted on itself, but let you check all your imprinted cards for the counter thing (and made it cost her tapping) it would be a lot more cohesive design.

This doesn't work, since the ability would need to have been activated already to be targeted.
"Counter target spell or activated ability unless its controller pays 1" would be the correct way to word it, and honestly, I feel like it's really fucking strong as written.

>There's still no 'hook' yet imo
I've taken your feedback into account but I don't know what you want from me regarding this. I have no idea how to "fix" this and I don't know that I can. I just don't think you'd ever be happy with anything I do re: these cards, and upon looking at my own stuff and most set commons, they don't seem out of place flavor-wise or anything, aside from all the mentioned errors. So I dunno what to do about this or that there is anything to do about it. You're the only one that mentions it so I'm starting to think it's just an issue with you. Not that there's anything wrong with that; I can't possibly cater to every user on here, but I think it's not really meaningful feedback that it doesn't specifically cater to you and what you like or "see" in terms of flavor.

>First of all I'd do something like the Soulbond mechanic.
First, that's impossible without making a new keyword, which I'd prefer not to do.

Second, why? The effect here is deliberately temporary and conditional, so I don't even see why I should use a pairing mechanic.

I wanted to post some cards to check for overall wording and balance.

All I mean is most of the time there is either something (or things) that are supposed to mechanically differentiate your set from the normal and there isn't yet.
Most of the time, people try to make archetypes, I understand you're trying to not have tribal synergies so you might not want to do that and that's fine. The main hook of some guy's set on mtg salvation was dreamwalk, which was meant to significantly change combat.
If you did or are planning on doing archetypes then synergy should have either already shown up in common or if the archetypes are largely built around uncommons you should have probably build the uncommons first (or at least had an idea for those ones) and then build the commons after to facilitate them.
What it comes down to is I don't know what you want the set to be or do other than being a proper Magic set with OK mechanics. Maybe the work you're more excited about is in the uncommons or in a different color, and I could see being excited with the idea of Rememberance, but is there anything you've shown that you'd be excited to play so far?
>You're the only one that mentions it
A lot of people have state that your set is boring so that just isn't true. The person who replied to you in this very thread called your best cards "meh".

>The person who replied to you in this very thread called your best cards "meh".
He always does that with every card wall he gives feedback to. And I can't have had a lot of people call my cards boring because not a lot of people have responded to the common walls I've posted to begin with. But anyway, I really don't know what you want from me. The set's about different religious factions all bent on conquering each other and installing their version of "the Truth" as the dominant spiritual philosophy. Each color interprets "the Truth" differently, using that color's ideals of course. There's a bit of bleed over so there will be some multicolor cards, but not too many overall. It's mostly to facilitate drafting 2 and 3 color decks, which translates into mechanics with the Ascendancy ability word, representing the desire to dominate everything. There's also themes of saint veneration (Remembrance) and martyrdom/sacrifice for the cause. I wonder if Versatile should be axed; it's mostly a utility keyword that has no real fluff reason to exist in the set. I like it, but like the lands I made with the self-ramping ability, maybe it's a good idea that doesn't fit because it does nothing to "sell" the theme.

I would like to add, though: I am thankful that you're putting in the effort to address something you see as a problem. In-depth responses aren't something everybody gets so it's appreciated.

>The person who replied to you in this very thread called your best cards "meh".
In his defense, I feel the same about almost all commons, even Time user's.

Well lemme ask you then, COanon: do you see what he's saying? I mean I can debate against it all day but in the end they are my cards and I am going to be biased in their favor. You don't have to get into it if you'd rather not, but I'm just not sure what more I can do to convey what he's asking of me short of doing something like Allies or whatever, which I am trying to avoid.

So I'm thinking about a classic "Good vs. Evil" project with iconic angels and demons bleeding into other colors (red demons, blue angels, and such, Tarkir style). So there would definitely be some tribal stuff going on. Here's a few examples I whipped up of ideas for the project.

I feel like it's hard to judge a set just by looking at a few walls of commons, especially when the set is still developing. Guess I'm just used to Time user having nearly everything planned from the start and just fine-tuning everything.

If you're looking to work towards a specific end goal, I'd say copy what Wizards does. Create a cycle of uncommon, dual-color cards, one for each combination. Each one should represent a draft archetype. Then fine-tune the cards you have to match the desired archetype. Eg. some WB card for Clerics, maybe a RW card that does something with Versatile, a GW card that works with Convoke, etc.

As for mechanics you have already, thinking about it some more, Ascendancy sticks out like a sore thumb. It absolutely screams tri-color, but I can't recall your mentioning tri-color in your set. If you're not going to put a focus on tri-color, I say nix it.

Martyr is another one I think is just dead weight. I feel like it's kinda like Revolt in a way, where there's just no heavy tie to flavor.

Versatile I like, though I'm pretty biased there because I did come up with it. It's a twist on Bushido, but while Bushido had a heavy Samurai flavor, Versatile seems like it would only go on Knights, which means it's fighting with the standard FStrike and DStrike for attention. Might be better to forgo it for now.

Remembrance I really like, and I'm really looking forward to seeing it on higher rarities where it can start doing really interesting stuff.

You know what, could you just upload the MSE file somewhere and give us a link? It would certainly give us a better idea of what's going on with your set, instead of having to wait for you to put up card walls.

You've seen most of what I have already; maybe that's the issue? I have been slowly working on blocks of cards, commons first since they are the foundation of the set, but maybe that's a mistake? I've tried to focus on one color at a time to minimize distraction, but maybe that's also a mistake.

I dunno how much more I'm going to post tonight; not feeling too well and need to take it easy, and can't brain too good right now. But I'll at the very least check once more before I pass out.

Not him, but my set process is to start with commons and do one color at a time, just like what you talked about doing.

Unfortunately, I've never made a set, so I don't have much advice for you on constructing your own. But I feel like you should have at least a rough idea of what your uncommons and rares will look like too. Don't just focus on your commons, give those other rarities attention. I realize you're still working on commons, but no set is just commons, the entire thing should have cards that align with each other throughout the different rarities. At least, that's why I think.

Anyway, hope you get some rest and feel better soon.

...

...

Seems alright, as long as the tribal aspect is not omnipresent.

Rolled 170 (1d238)

Rolling

...

Way too strong. Compare to Rhystic Study.

...

bump

...

Two problems. One, you mixed up triggered ability wording and replacement ability wording. Two, "detained" isn't legit Magic syntax, so that probably wouldn't even do anything.

>Two problems. One, you mixed up triggered ability wording and replacement ability wording.

Whoops. My bad.

> Two, "detained" isn't legit Magic syntax, so that probably wouldn't even do anything

What would be the right wording for 'Targeted by a detain effect' then? I was aware that a creature isn't 'detained' once the effect happens (So you couldn't make an effect that targets detained creatures) but I'm not quite sure in that case what the wording is for 'You can replace detain with bounce'

Maybe
>Whenever a spell or ability you control detains a creature an opponent controls, you may return that creature to its owner's hand.

"detain" is a keyword action that you perform, not spells or permanents, so "Whenever you detain a creature etc" or "If you would detain a creature etc etc" should be fine

Thanks.

>701.27a Certain spells and abilities can detain a permanent. Until the next turn of the controller of that spell or ability, that permanent can’t attack or block and its activated abilities can’t be activated.

>701.27a Certain spells and abilities can detain a permanent.

>spells and abilities

...that was supposed to be to and , I'm not thanking myself.

>Sacrifice a Clue: Target creature gains indestructible until end of turn and can't be sacrificed this turn.

Well shit, I stand corrected

...

Decided to simplify this.

...

This card is pretty balanced but just to put together the two lines of text that trigger when it enters, I will change:
>If you do, it enters the battlefield tapped and with a gem counter on it

That doesn't quite work because your wording specifies how it enters the battlefield (tapped) but because it's a triggered ability, it's already on the battlefield. I suppose in theory I could use
>As ~ enters the battlefield, you may pay 2. If you do, ~ enters the battlefield tapped with a gem counter on it.
Unfortunately, I can't find any precedence for using a mana cost on an "As ~ enters" ability. I can find paying life and revealing cards, but not paying mana. I mean, I suppose it works, I'd just like to be sure.

this is good, lets you sacrifice enahntments which some EDH decks want

is this cycle fair? any of these broken/ underpowered?

Basically all of these are very underpriced. Even outside of that, Absolute Abandon is a much, MUCH draw spell for the same cost.

I couldn't justify pricing them at one more on any of then, and how is abandon better than insight?

I also didnt want to price at 1XU or similar b/c that just looks ugly imo

The power level variation on these reminds me of the Boon cycle, but are all broken instead of just a few.
none of these have a fair cost.
Also the naming convention of Absolute with X spells, something that are not absolute, but varying, seems dumb.

It's a work in progress, but I'll further justify the costs below.

Order: spending 4 mana for 2 1/1s with vigilance and FS ueot seems bad. I think it's fair at 6 mana still, if you're spending 6 mana to blow them out on blocks that's fair enough imo
Insight: After reading over it, it probably is not fair, paying 5 mana for sry4 draw4 is absolutely not fair, chaning to uux
Misery: 4 mana murder you lose a life seems unfair, and paying 6 mana seems fair as you still lose a not insignificant amount of life.
Abandon: I feel like this one's not fair, 3 mana discard 2 draw 2 seems fair, but doing it empty handed feels dirty for like x=7 or something, updating to xrr
Abundance: 4 mana for 1 land and one life is bad. 6 mana for 3 lands and 3 life is worse than nissa's renewal. xgg is fair

What you said about naming is fair. Any suggestions?

updating order to xww and lifelink to fit in with the cycle.

B and G should probably be XX costed, maybe U too if you want to keep the scry

Have you looked at any pre-existing spells that do this same thing for reference of power level?
Judging from your calls on power level it seems you haven't.
Secure the Wastes and Pull from Tomorrow are currently existing cards that do similar things to your cycle, but are far less powerful but still are powerful enough to see play in their standard environments

are you saying G should be xxg and xxb? I could see a case for xxb but I'm honestly fine with green staying as it is.
when i designed order I wanted something between secure the wastes and white sun's zenith, but making strictly better secure was probably not a good idea. But you're right about pull from tomorrow, I might keep the cost and draw but replace scry with "each opponent reveals X cards from their hand" or just mills X

I finally got the white commons finished. Not 100% sure on it of course.

>Absolute Insight
Art in use, Amonkhet Invocations printing of Daze.

And yeah, what the other guys said, these are all ridiculous.