/ccg/ Custom Card General /cct/

>gnome warrior wizard
>plant
>artist

ehh. i think you should just go with "skeleton cleric", "gnome wizard", "plant spirit", "human rogue" and "elf shaman"

Good point on the creature types, I'll keep them simple.

Also gambling land. You can tap for regular mana, or you can gamble to see if you get RRR, get nothing, or take damage.

This sort of question belongs in the MtG Snowstorm threads but it's not currently up. I have the flavor in mind for a planeswalkers who deals with certain magical beasts; Chimeras, Sphinx's and Manticores. Just mystical four legged beasts. Constructively, what's the easiest way to make this work as a planeswalker card or even a legendary creature for EDH? How can he make these three types work hand in hand?

>You don't lose the game for having 0 or less life
Close enough, right?

here ya go.

i came up with these tiny lands a while back and everybody told me i was stupid

: - )

i didn't mock up the full cycle

...

>Least fun card ever
>Funborder
i think you missed the point...

>Greedy archfiend giving away his gold to anybody that asks
the flavor directly contradicts the mechanics.

I made a card similar, except it hurt opponents when they used it by pumping the demon up

The deal here is that anyone can steal the demon's wealth, and the grief of loss hurts you.

...

A challenge should be about making new cards under the restrictions, not just re-uploading stuff you already made.

I tried

>"You don't lose the game for having 0 or less life" edition!

Still shit.

It could work if instead of un til end of turn it said until end of combat?

>Ivory oppressor
Skeletons usually have regenerate or other way to come back to play (because most of them are black, but even nonblack ones does)
>Soulhome
Dont know if the tokens could have shadow or be of three colors
>Others
Seems good

This are pretty good to the contest, even if the first does not say "you dont lose the game"

I tried.
Constructive criticism and advices are always welcome.

the name is too long. you should make it an enchantment instead of an aura. the way it is now it basically just acts like a fog.

>Noble Last Stand
>XXWWW
>Legendary Enchantment
>~this~ enters the battlefield with X charge counters.
>Whenever a creature you control dies put a charge counter on ~this~.
>As long as you control only one creature, you don't lose the game for having 0 or less life, and creatures you control get +X/+X and can block X additional creatures.

Please don't give feedback if you're going to half-ass it.

>Enchant creature you control
>~ enters the battlefield with X charge counters on it.
>Enchanted creature gets +1/+1 and can block an additional creature each combat for each charge counter on ~.
>As long as you control exactly one creature, you don't lose the game for having 0 or less life.
Ditch the flavor text. But in the future, if you're referencing a specific work, you should put the work after the writer's name. Eg. Diminish.

Forgot to mention that you can change what exact type of counter you want to use. I used "charge" here because it's the bog-standard name for a do-nothing counter, but you can change it so it's more flavorful. That said, make sure that every time you reference the counters on the enchantment, you refer to the counter by the same name.

Thank you, I will edit!

Gah, just realized the wording for one of the abilities I proposed can be confusing. Change
>Enchanted creature gets +1/+1 and can block an additional creature each combat for each charge counter on ~.
to
>For each charge counter on ~, enchanted creature gets +1/+1 and can block an additional creature each combat.

>tells me i half assed it
>comes up with a much less elegant solution.

making it a non-aura enchantment makes it way less susceptible to removal. it also allows you to pump out tokens to keep blocking. each token that you make will die which will keep you alive and keep making the enchantment trigger so that you can wear down your opponents attacking force.

also putting charge counters on an aura is really clunky. and your wording is bad.

>>comes up with a much less elegant solution.
I translated the idea of the card to be as exact as possible to match what the user wanted. It works fine now.

>making it a non-aura enchantment makes it way less susceptible to removal.
It also changes the idea of the card, as well as how it works mechanically. The original card gave the pump and additional blocks to the creature regardless of whether or not it's the only creature you control. Your idea does that only if it's the only creature you control.

>your wording is bad.
Oh? What exactly is bad about it?

Should I make this legendary? I doubt people would want more than one on the battlefield at the same time.

This should absolutely have an "if he or she does" clause to prevent you just tutoring for Emrakul when it's the only creature in your deck

I like these a lot, even with the esoteric creature types. I'd even go so far as to say partially because of the esoteric creature types; one of the draws of your set for me are its bizarre conventions, from names to mechanics to creature types. They're interesting, if potentially bonkers (Dream) and the flavor is weirdly unique. I'd advise against paring it down to standard fantasy fare.

Seems fair. Thanks.

Seems very roundabout. I think I'd also add reminder text to clarify the creature is removed from combat.

>Priest
Why not Cleric?

>Oh? What exactly is bad about it?
you already pointed out what is bad about it in several posts

...

It's a little roundabout, but it gets around most creature defenses and captures (heh) the flavor I want.
>Why not cleric?
Priest just fits better and will help differentiate the religious portions of opposing factions in the set.
>Arsenal
Seems cool; a living weapon generator. He seems about wrapped up.

I think you could justify Artist if it was thematically important to your set. Its a fun and cool type so I think people would like it if it existed, it'd just need a good reason to be there. For example, if your world was sort of like an art-themed world.

Er.... is a priest not a cleric rpg class wise?

Pretty new to MSE, having fun making a set What do you think of this mechanic?

Thats so weird, I'm really surpeiswd anyone else would stumble on this because I designed this mechanic too but it was for a really specific reason.

My problem with it is that its wordy, very A+B, and I could never find a way to care about what was revealed that didnt want to be different on a per card basis and that seemed like itd be annoying to use (you'd have to closely read each card to make sure you to read what you needed to reveal).

My version was functionally different in that you looked at the top card and could choose to exile it face down which was mostly because I was going for a specific play pattern.

Small nitpicky thing, but your keyword should be lowercase

This isn't an RPG, though. In Mesoamerican culture, priest was the descriptor applied and thus I feel it fits better here. Surely that's not a big deal?

Designed so you can exile lands with it in addition to other permanents, but you don't get to exile land cards from other zones.

>It's a little roundabout, but it gets around most creature defenses and captures (heh) the flavor I want.
I hope you have some cards that could interact with the creature before the mandatory sac. Let me guess, you already have another Priest that sacs stuff for a bonus, or possibly an artifact named something like Sacrificial Altar.

>Priest just fits better and will help differentiate the religious portions of opposing factions in the set.
Then I'll reserve further judgment until I see those cards.

>Seems cool; a living weapon generator. He seems about wrapped up.
Thanks. This card has actually been weird to design because I could honestly never understand why people focused on the Servo in the previous iterations, but I built on it anyway. Well, as long as people like it, I'm happy.

Any day now.

Not him, but why should Magic be constrained to rules of other systems?

Doesn't seem very useful. Because the cards are exiled face down, you don't know which one's which, so the choice is basically random. And since the choice is basically random, you might as well just interact with the library directly rather than go through this exile middle-man.

Very cool! The intent is to play around with hidden knowledge and create a sense of exitement and discovery, so that's why you can't look at it. The wordiness is my problem, too, but it's simple enough I could cut the flavor text on some cards.
Thanks for nitpicking, it helps me learn!

I intend for the rest of the set to mess with cards in exile, but maybe it's more trouble than it's worth.

Considering "cleric" has been used synonymously for things as different as christian stand ins from egyptian religious members in Magic, and the fact that I frankly don't think anyone knows or cares about the minutia of difference in meaning, combined with the general interchangeability of the the terms in game terms, the roots of which Magic is inherently tied, makes using two different words for the same thing for the sake of making your factions "feel" different is oointless to me. If priests were like, a super cool thing people really cared about as a different thing from clerics I think you could justify it but I cant see it. There's no more stock in the word "priest" than "cleric" I dont feel.

Also, "priest" wasnt the word used in mesoamerican culture. Priest might have been the closest english (or I guess spanish then english?) word, but using "aztecs called them priests" doesnt work because they didnt. This is something Ive actually thought about a lot as Ive had a similar problem deciding if I should call native american style medicine men as "shamans" even though they arent actually "shamans", thats just what they are called in english.

>Let me guess, you already have another Priest that sacs stuff for a bonus, or possibly an artifact named something like Sacrificial Altar
The Ulotl cards in the set use Imbue or will feed it partially through sacrifice effects, yes. I also plan to have threaten effects be a thing.
I'm sorry, but I'm not getting into another creature types debate. It's minor, it has no impact on the mechanical efficacy of the cards, and in my opinion better captures the flavor that I wish to capture.
I realize, but I felt that creature types on English cards should probably stay anglicanized. I've adopted proper or slightly altered Nahuatl vocabulary in other areas of cards.

My version was meant to feel like a mechanic where you knew something the opponent didn't, but your opponent could make educated guesses based on what you did. So I tried to sort of combine morph (morph didnt work because of the flavor I was going for) with the kamigawa deciever mechanic. The idea wad most of thr time, youd look, and exile itx snd itd be something to sctivate sn ability. But some times you didnt actually have anything, and you just exiled it to get it out of the way, like scrying. So your opponents would try to play around it, but sometimes you didnt actuslly have it.That was another problem with my version, the design space was kind of narrow, since it had to be an interactive ability your opponent cared about due to what I wanted the mechanic for, so it couldnt be stuff like ramp, limiting it to mostly combat, removal, life loss, etc.

I'm also not sure if I ever figured out the correct wording on the reveal ability.

sure if artist is a recurring theme in the set it would be fine, but if it's just a one-off thing it's unnecessary. artificer sort of covers the same base.

I like the way you think.

Heading to work soon, won't be able to post again until later.

I mean, we many cards designed around the idea of sacrificing things and they are still clerics. I just dont see wat stock you see in the word "priest" is all. Its not even like Ninja (or even Unstable's Spy) versus Rogue, where the word ninja is just a super cool and evocative word that invokes completely different imagery. "Priest" doesnt even invoke a different image in my head from "Cleric", theyre used synonymously in everyday language and game language, I just don't get it. Hell, I think the average person almost certainly thinks of a Christian religious figure well before they even think ancient Aztec people who sacrificed things for religious purposes were priests at all.

I didn't realize but I guess you obviously would have already gotten flak over it.

I've certainly received flak over creature types before, which has always seemed strange to me. After white vampires and zombies, I thought people would see that Wizards doesn't mind playing a bit loose with creature types. Looser certainly than reactions here would sometimes indicate. As for this particular instance, the differences between Cleric and Priest are minor. It's a minor change. Cleric to me carries specific, subjective connotations of heavy armor and blunt weaponry and vaguely anglicanized christian allusions, while priest does not (despite the actual definitions). Additionally, it's closer to the Nahuatl teōpixqui, which translates specifically to priest in English.

So, basically, I like it, it fits, it doesn't negatively impact the mechanics or the flavor of the card, and I'd now like to drop it. Do you have any opinions on other aspects of the card in question?
A faerie without flying strikes me as odd. Not egregious, but certainly strange. The effect itself seems fine.
Solid design. Feels more like a jank rare than an uncommon, but that's mostly subjective. Feels similar to the -ling creatures, Morphling and AEtherling and so on.

Making new creature types does inherently impact the mechanics of cards-- it disqualifies them from existing tribal support. Coincidentally, black clerics in magic alresdy have a sacrifice theme, and it sounds like your guys will have the red steal and sac as mechanical portion of their identity, so its almost doubly an issue. Sometimes, if the word is sweet enough or the thing is so different from anything else that exists, its worth it. I can't agree thst it is here based on whst youve said so far, especially if your current justification boils down to "it doesn't hurt".

Hell man, we cant even get creature type Mummy and I don't think most people think of mummies as zombies even if they are in a roundabout sense. I actually don't know if I'd have been for or against it though. I think the sheer inertia and mechanical significance the creature type Zombie is what pushed it over in that case.

One case where I feel I'd have been blatantly wrong is Aetherborn. I would have argued vehemently against it (Mark refers to them as elementals for fuck's sake), but it turns out Aetherborn are very popular. But I dont think for example "Priest" has the same unique zip and magic formula Aetherborn had.

I don't know if I like how the ability works together to make the whole. It doesnt feel lioe red steal in practice even if it reads like it because it happens post combat even thougg thebmechanical reason red has threaten abilities is so it can remoVe blockers and get burst from nothing. I also feel like the ability wants to be on a more defensive body, like, say, a 2/6 or something.

...

Also, speaking of mummies, its kind of funny. Id have no other reason to say this anywhere else so since it came up here. I find it interesting Magic was comfortable using a technical definition of a "mummy", that is to say, a dried corpse, even though popular imagery of what a mummy is I feel is almost exclusively "dead body wrapped in stuff". Id say they did this because peope also pretty much (incorrectly) only associate "mummy" with ancient egypt and they probably felt using the word in names at least would feel more egyptian. And it just happens to be technically still correct too.

I just noticed because they had cards like Miasmic Mummy which didnt look like a traditional fantasy hammer horror mummy, though in fairness they did try to make most of the black mummies look like they were wrapped up in something, just its been mostly worn away. I just thought the thought process I figure they had was interesting.

I would ask why Live has a a little bit more convoluted of an ability (do this and then that) versus Learn (it just does one thing) but I like that it balances out the card text aesthetically.

Bump

That was part of the reason. Also because Live without the fight clause felt monogreen.

...

Fight is also monogreen and probably used way more in green, though Ive never counted. But fair enough the aesthetics is enough for me.

Here are my U commons. Any feed back would be apperciated.

Fight is RG.

>Amonkhet mummies
Obv. Zombie synergy. Also ties together Embalm and Eternalize. Embalm: Mummies. Then Externalize: ...Immortals? Skeletons?

>Riddlerbot
Prob. right. Disappointed in myself, supposed to be uncommon. Not the first time to happen either.

>-ling creatures
Replace P/T swap with +1/-1, -1/+1 ability?

...

They're still mummies as Eternals, just obviously a unique magic design, so whatever they called mummies would be whatever they called eternals. If mummies had been creature type Mummy they'd probably also be Mummy.

I would be wary of a draft mill deck, as you have multiple high-mill cards at common.

Wibfinch Nest should be 0/4. The two birds are almost always better than a 1/3 defender.

Water Predicament does not work. Modal choices are made before spell resolution. You need the bounce in each of the two modes.

...

That seems like weird wording. Is that the correct one? It seems like you could just use tutor wording for it but that's just my gut reaction.

The difference is, though, that Amonkhet had zombie tribal cards it needed to support both in block and in its contemporary standard format, so creating a mummy creature type would have been concretely detrimental to set, block, and format design. Cleric tribal hasn't been a thing in, hell, over a decade, so the disqualification from that tribe is a minor concern (in my opinion, no concern). Additionally, there is no cleric tribal to support in this set. Even if I put all of my sets together into a playable format, there would be no cleric tribal support to worry about.
>I can't agree thst it is here based on whst youve said so far, especially if your current justification boils down to "it doesn't hurt".
It's a minor change, so I shouldn't need more than a minor justification.
>I also feel like the ability wants to be on a more defensive body, like, say, a 2/6 or something.
It would be a much easier decision for the opponent to take 2 power of damage than it would to take 4 power of damage. The higher power makes the choice more difficult, while also not feeling as bad for the opponent to lose a creature to.

If the library isn't made public, the opponent could always fail-to-find.

If you used the wording "an opponent searches" they can make the choice to fail to find anything thus you get nothing.

I'll cut the mill back.

Watery rephrased to;
>Choose one. Then bounce"

They made Amonkhet mummies Zombies because there existed Zombie tribal support. You can frame it how you want but that's the long and short of it. This also wasn't really about making mummies Zombies. I understand why. it wasn't a part of my argument, hence the comment's seperation from the rest, just a rhetorical statement. Even the word "Jackal" carries a lot of flavor weight in an Egypt world, which I suppose is why they chose to use it in the end. I don't think most people read "Priest" and immediately register a different thing.

Besides that Cleric tribal is definitely a thing people like. I remember when ayli was first shown, the first thing I saw a lot of people say was Cleric tribal commander, even though she doesn't reference clerics at all, and mostly just ties vaguely mechanically by featuring sacrifice and life gain. What exactly do you gain other than an ever so slight flavor distinction, contrasted with what's lost (small amount of tribal interaction, management of creature type bloat)? Even if the other things are percieved as small, I don't think there's any way to paint the picture that making it its own type outweighs even those small benefits. It has no weight in terms of what it evokes, it's pretty much the same thing as an existing creature type, it doesn't matter mechanically... what does it have?

I'd say the card is more interesting if its steal is happening more often than not. Your opponent can choose to take 2 every turn, or they can actually lose creatures with toughness 3 or more to it, which is more creatures than 5+. The card text doesn't mean a lot otherwise. As it is, it's just going to be attacking as a 4/4. It's powerful enough that's just going to be killing a lot of things that would block it. In other words, I think the card is more fun for the player if it's actually doing what it wants to be doing, rather than making it strong enough that its other effect just isn't happening that much.

I see. i figured there had to be a reason for such a weird wording, which is why I was careful with my words there.

...

>It has no weight in terms of what it evokes
That's subjective, and that's where we disagree. I feel that it's much more evocative and portrays the desired flavor much better than cleric; otherwise, I wouldn't bother with the change.
>In other words, I think the card is more fun for the player if it's actually doing what it wants to be doing
I agree, which is exactly why I upped the power. At two power, it'll never be blocked. At four power, activating the ability is much more likely.

>I feel that it's much more evocative
I mean, really? Do you REALLY feel that way? Do you REALLY and truly feel Priest is as distinct and conjures as powerful and unique an image from Cleric as, say, Ninja does when compared to Rogue, for example? I know you can say whatever you want, and if that's how you feel, whatever I guess.

The problem with being 4 is that it's killing more things it gets into combat with, which means you don't steal anything, which means the ability isn't happening as often. 2/6 is not an easy thing to kill ,and they can't leave it on the board perpetually poking you for 2 because they will die eventually, and both die to hard removal so that's not really an issue. Therefore, it seems more likely to me that they will block the 2/6 and you actually steal the thing. I think I see what you're saying, you die faster to a 4 power guy so you want to block it more than a 2 power guy, but the issue is the 4 power guy is killing most things he's blocking, which means his effect isn't actuallly happening that often. It's just a fact that there are more creatures that can block a 2/6 and live than can block a 4/4 and live, which therefore must follow that the effect is happening more often.

>Do you REALLY feel that way?
I do, man. That's the whole point.
>The problem with being 4 is that it's killing more things it gets into combat with
The steal happens first. The blocking creature gets removed from combat before it gets damaged at all.

Could you two please take this off-site? Open a Discord or something, nobody else cares about your conversation.

Still goes infinite with fling.

>The steal happens first. The blocking creature gets removed from combat before it gets damaged at all.
I misinterpreted the ability then. If that's the case, then I guess it's fine. I was under the impression the creature that blocked it had to live in order for you to steal it. I do stand by that I don't think it feels like a very red steal ability because of it happening and mattering during and after combat rather than before. But I guess it's more like a roundabout opponent sacrifices a creature so it's not like that isn't fine for its color combination.

>stop discussing custom cards
wat? no literally... wat? What's being disrupted in this slow-ass thread, exactly? Your personal tastes don't have any bearing on how these threads operate user.

I hoped you would do it out of decency, but it's too mcuh to ask from a faggot like you. But the eother guy seems ok.

why can't we be friends

>I hoped you would do it out of decency
Decency to what? Not discuss an aspect of card design in a custom card thread? I'm not "okay", I just chose not to reply to a clear act of passive aggression when the dialogue had come to a close anyway.
The mechanic is fine, seems like weird flavor for it though. I guess the idea is that it makes combat harmless, but I don't quite get why matching borders being harmless is flavored as pillows.

Since we're talking about Mummies, might as well post this card, which I made a few years ago during one of my ill-fated attempts at set-building. I'm kinda sorta proud that I predicted Indestructible in Black, my rationalization at the time being that it's just super-Regen, inspired by Mossbridge Troll.

I get the mechanical purpose of indestructible in black, but I don't love the flavor. I wish there was an easy and simple way to mechanically show something "growing" back.

>show something "growing" back.
Has that ever been how Black flavors Regen/Indestructible? From what I recall, the idea behind Regen in Black was that it was supposed to show creatures already so close to death or already dead they could shrug off something that would kill normal creatures. It was Green that got the healing factor-flavored Regen.

Increased card cost by 1, decreased P/T by 1/1. I'd prefer to keep the trigger on each upkeep, but I understand if making it only your upkeep would be better.

I wasn't even part of that conversation; how paranoid are you? Just take a chill pill and head to your corner; you need a time out. Maybe the faggot here is you.

Don't even dignify him with a response; people who think they 'own' these threads and can police them as such are pathetic.

The big issue is that if they do it, they will want to make it evergreen, which means no attached mana costs or variable numbers (Keyword N); scry being the only exception to this rule obviously. It kind of limits your options in terms of how you can make such a mechanic function. Indestructible is just the most simplistic way currently. I think the other issues is WotC trying to steer away (or so they've said) from too much recursion, even though they do things like Eternalize and Embalm and Flashback. I dunno. I had an idea once that looked something like this:
>At the beginning of your upkeep, if this creature is in your graveyard, you may return it to the battlefield under your control. If you do, you can't cast creature spells this turn.
But that has obvious issues in terms of making a stagnant board and even trying to do it at common and balancing initial cost and all that. It becomes degenerate with self-mill too.

I guess it was too challenging for you