/ccg/ Custom Card General /cct/

>Would anyone tap this for mana?
Obviously yes. Maybe they need to cast Shard Volley!

...but seriously no, it's real use is to sacrifice to Fireblast

>turn 1 goblin guide turn 2 that into shard volley/bolt
WEW

As a 1-of, it is a fetchable Spark Elemental in zoo via all those spendylands.

So versatile!

>Whenever a nontoken creature with power 2 or less enters the battlefield...
ok, I'm with you.
>add G or W to your mana p-
*Glimpse of Nature PTSD flashbacks intensify*

Doing Mother Box again. Decided to just give up on the cost reduction ability because it was such a hassle. Let me know which one of these two designs you think is better/has more potential.

Resurgent Synesthist
1G
Creature - Elemental Shaman
When this creature enters the battlefield, untap up to 1 target land.
T, sacrifice this creature: Untap up to 2 target lands.
0/3

Thoughts?

RG and WG ones are too good

These need a lot of wording help. Nothing huge though.

>Cloudy Charm
>Target creature gets +1/+1 and gains flying until end of turn.
>Return target permanent you own to your hand.
>Tap target permanent. It doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step.
I'd change the last mode to target only creatures. Seems fine otherwise though.

>Slippery Charm
>Target creature you control gains shroud until end of turn and can't be blocked this turn.
Shroud is dead, replaced with Hexproof. But I wouldn't include either anyway, especially because both Shroud and Hexproof aren't Black.
>Counter target creature spell with toughness 2 or less.
Very weird. Still not Black though.
>Look at the top two cards of your library. Put one of them into your hand and the other into your graveyard.
Spot-on wording. I feel it's too strong though.

>Harsh Charm
>Target creature gets +3/+3 until end of turn.
>~ deals 1 damage to each creature and each player.
Eh, doesn't seem Black.
>Players can't gain life this turn and damage can't be prevented this turn.
I think that's right. Also doesn't seem Black.

>Rugged Charm
>Creatures you control get +2/+0 until end of turn.
>Target creature you control fights target creature you don't control.
>Destroy target artifact.
Card seems too good on the whole. The last two effects by themselves I could see each being this cost, but having them together at the same cost is too much. And the first effect would be too good alone at this cost.

>Silent Charm
>Create a 2/2 green and white Knight creature token.
Too good by itself at this cost. Maybe replace with, say, two 0/1 Plants?
>Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to you this turn.
Eh, I think this is OK.
>Return target Aura card from your graveyard to the battlefield attached to target creature you control.
Dunno about this one, sorry.

Still working on this to try and find the best wording. I abandoned targeting an opponent and just making it an outgoing challenge (loses a little flavor and makes it worse in multiplayer, but I'm not sure how to word it that makes sense and is either a) short or b) can go on the reminder card. Also not sure if I have a wording that works on the reminder itself.Is it okay to use "end" when not in reference to end the turn for example? I also feel like its too ambiguous whether or not showdowns can be stacked. Im okay if it is but the ambiguousness is the issue.

For your wording
>When ~ enters the battlefield, begin a showdown. (At the beginning of the next end step, if a creature you controlled dealt combat damage to an opponent this turn, draw a card.)

But I think I like targeting more.
>When ~ enters the battlefield, you and target opponent begin a showdown. (At the beginning of the next end step, if a creature you controlled dealt combat damage to that player this turn, draw a card.)

Maybe "duel" instead? Or "challenge"?

Hmm... "bounty"?
>Target opponent gets a bounty. (Whenever a creature deals combat damage to a player with a bounty, that player loses a bounty and the creature's controller draws a card.)

Should I give this a Commander ability, maybe something like Eminence?

Make it "if this attacks or blocks, sacrifice it at end of combat."

If this is how all these threads are going to go, we really are fucked.

...

Still trying to get this mechanic across elegantly. It's proving very difficult, but it's something I've been thinking about for a while, and I hope I'll get there one day.

Very good. Too good?

Neither really feel like a Mother Box. The first is really non-fun, while the second has to cost what it is but is mostly a win-more card.

Looks fine to me as is. Sure it's a custom, but you don't want it to be bullshit overpowered just for the sake of it.

What do you think a Mother Box should be then?

Got it, thanks.

Make an already broken card MORE broken?! Will do! :0

...

This is pretty functionally different. For the feel I want and to allow this bleed into red and white, I think its important theres a risk of your opponent getting a reward as well. The monarch technology lets me put the long rules text of a subgame onto an outside game piece, saving apave on the card. The reward itself though is totally up in the air. I just thought the draw was the smallest, simplest, yet most enticing option I could think of. I kind of wish it was something different just so its be a little more different from monarch. I had conxepted a version where there was also a counter on the reminder, (stakes counter), and it could be "raised" by moving it up on the card, increasing the reward, but I feel like the simpler version is better. The thought process was that itd be more distinct from momarch, and would have an interesting tension of deciding when to try and go and win the showdown. If you waited, you would get a bigger reward, but youd give your opponent more oppoetunity to get it.

I agree I like targetting better. I must have had a different wording because this one is a little shorter. If I could think of a way to cut just one more line off it it'd be perfect.
This ia one of those things that its really dumb its so hard to convey in Magic. 4 and 3 seem like the simplest executions. Is there a reason you don't like those?

God ASBAR was a trip. What the fuck happened to Miller in the 2000's that made him go insane?

>T: Remove all damage marked on target creature.
Rest seems fine, no idea on cost.

Might as well respond with an almost-joke Batman card.

Last one for tonight. Changed combat damage trigger from tutor to dig, though the end result is basically the same. Put an Equipment into your hand, or if it's one of the named three, put it onto the battlefield for free.

>I think its important theres a risk of your opponent getting a reward as well.
I completely missed that on the first read. But that brings up another question: Do showdowns last forever until they're won? And do they stack? I kinda feel like they should be temporary. I had the idea of making it so, if you didn't hit that opponent by the next end step, that player draws. But then you might have the weird situation where, say, the opponent flickers that creature you posted during his or her turn, forcing a showdown which you have no way to win.

>4 and 3 seem like the simplest executions. Is there a reason you don't like those?
I assume you mean Double-Team4 and Teamwork3. DT4 I don't like as much as DT5 because I feel like DT4 is a bit unclear, though that could just be me. T3 I guess is OK. Certainly not what I was going for, but might be the best I can do for now, unfortunately. Thanks anyway. Hmm, maybe I should make a dedicated sidekick character for this? Already have all the Robins down though, who else?

>Do showdowns last forever until they're won? And do they stack?
This is the problem Im trying to figure out. I reslly dont know how to qord it or whst my wording does. The original intention was thered only be one showdown out at a time, and I THINK thats how this would work if its like the monarch, but theres all kinda of weird stuff, like its not my intention in a multiplayer gsme thst two players are in a showndown, but two other players who arent can play a card that starts a showdown between those two seperate from the first, or they can and it takes away the existing showdown, and it feels weird itd work like that. Im okay with it stacking, but Im not sure how to word it so thay its clear that there can be more than one showdown, since the closest existing mechanic only allowed one. And the problem with multiples is it can get confusing tracking each individual showdown.

Guess it could be temporary, but the original idea was thered be the showdown going on and itd be constantly influencing decisions. If its temporary, it stops mattering after a point.

I think 5 is just a lot of extra words to explain what youre gonna be doing with a gisnt growth anyway, unless I misinterpreting the difference. Honestly its really shitty theres no easy way to show creatures combining their powers in Magic. I actually think a "team up" mechanic would make a great focus for a superhero themed set.

Doesn't feel like it needs to include red.

Hmm...
>Until the end of your next turn, you are in a showdown with target opponent. (When a player in a showdown is dealt combat damage by a creature controlled by the other player in that showdown, that player wins the showdown and draws a card.)

Honestly feel like Duel would work better here.
>Duel target opponent until your next turn. (When a dueling player is dealt combat damage by a creature controlled by the other dueling player, that player wins the duel and draws a card.)

...

>Duel target opponent until your next turn. (When a dueling player is dealt combat damage by a creature controlled by the other dueling player, that player wins the duel and draws a card.)
Bingo. Im still into this being permanent-until-completed, but this seems like the best wording. One thing, thebintent isnt thst youbdraw a card for each thing thst hits. Would this need to say "When one or more creatures controlled by a dueling player..."?

Let me make a rough draft card.

Pretty cool. Always interesting to see G interact with artifacts beyond removal.

Whoops, messed that up a little. Still wary of flickering creatures with triggered ETB Duel abilities in order to manipulate them, which is why I changed this to "until the end of your next turn". Gives you the advantage though of having two opportunities to win, so I'm not sure if you want that or not.

...

Thinking about moving this to R, since artifact removal is already cheap before adding downsides.

I honestly think one issue is that the person beginning a duel/showdown/whatever is that there isnt ENOUGH upside for the person starting it. that was another reason I liked the raising stakes counter version (I was mostly thinking it would be raised on upkeep of the person who started the duel, meaning they get first crack at draw 2 or whatever), but I dont think the issues (like figuring out how/when stakes are raised, or introducing even more vocabulary, one reason Im not the biggest fan of contraptions as executed) outweighs just going with the simplest version.

Technically the player who initiates a duel has the advantage, if something can already attack, but I dont know if thats enough.
Said before that I love this card, but I dont think giving your opponent tokens that 2 draws for it is a very good exchange. I said once my favorite flavor was tap, sac , mill 1 but I dont know if you're okay with mono red getting mill. One thing I like conceptually is 1, sac, scry 1. You get two of those, and 2 scries is almost a draw but not quite which feels like a cool parallel. It kinda replaces their card but not really, they still have the pieces but not really. I also think it can just cost R. But I dunno.

So, I've finished my first complete draft of this set's monocolored commons. I have a few multicolored and colorless commons left to do, as well as lands, before I finish with the rarity completely. Anyway, here they are!

>Duel
Yeah, I also feel like a raising the stakes version would be even more complicated to the point where it wouldn't really be worth it. I guess you could always just change the Duel reward to draw two.

As for advantage, I did point out that my version, which lasts until the initiating player's next turn, could give the initial player the advantage, by allowing the opportunity to attack on both the Duel starts, and that player's next turn.

As for the reminder text, I assumed that "wins the duel" would be obvious enough that the duel was over at that point. And this is just an opinion, but I feel like making a reminder text card with a legit card type is just kinda confusing.

>Tear in Half
Another idea I had was
>Exile target artifact an opponent controls. You and that player each create a colorless artifact token named Junk with "2, Sacrifice this artifact: Draw a card."

As for your token ideas, yeah, I don't really get the idea of mill. Maybe it would be OK if I just understood what it stands for. Scry is always a good idea though.

So, obviously I'm not going to be able to go through every card because that would take, like, 50 posts.

But, I'll be going through these. A bit later, I'll post my thoughts about what you've got as a whole. Figured I'd give you a head's up.

See y'all in a bit!

Thing, is, I currently want the duel to be ongoing. I want it to shape combat. Not totally against it being temporary though. Your version hinges on it being temporary. I also dont think that if the initiator doesn't have a big enough advantage, that that version necessarily solves that issue-- I wnat creatures that hekp tou win duels, which means if you untap with them you have a higher chance to win anyway. Your opponent still has a shot to win before you got anything out of it. Monarch solved this by having it be an end step trigger but it was also way more catastrophic if the opponent got it since you were giving them a phyrexian arena.

The actual reminder card wouldnt be an artifact. Mtg.design just requires it to have a card type.

The flavor of mill is throwing things into the trash. Thats how i interpret it anyway. It

New design. I really wanted a good big legend

...

Just going to gloss over these because I've probably given feedback to all of them before anyway. Let me know if there are any particular cards you want me to cover.

>CW01
Small thing, but I'd make it
>[...] revealed this way, you create a 1/1 [...]
as other Parley cards do to make it clear that only you are creating tokens.

>CW07
Feels a little odd for W to give out a counter like this.

>CW08
Maybe add Defender?

>CW15
You'll have to explain the intent behind this.

>CW19
Feel like this should be
>As long as you control enchanted creature, [...]

>CU04
As with the other one, I'd make it
>[...] revealed this way, you scry 1. [...]

>CU05
Still can't really get behind this. Sorry.

>CU09
Would the people on this plane know what lightning rods are?

>CU16
Still very weird. Not sure I like it.

>CU19
Even if it's not a creature you control? Fringe case, I know, but still.

>CB10
Still feel like this should be one or the other.

>CB18
???

>CR05
Same as CB10

>CR12
Still don't understand the ping here.

>R: "you may draw"
Still feel like this should force draw to make it a downside.

>CG02
You should change this to account for exiling multiple cards. Something like
>Add one mana of any color among cads exiled with ~.

>CG08
I'd put the "Until end of turn" at the beginning of the ability's effect.

>CG09
Still a Spellshaper?

>CG11
Very good blocker. Too good?

>CG12
I'd make it trigger on attack and check for cards then.

>CG13
I feel like this could confuse noobs.

Alright, my only major overarching concern here is Enlighten. It is a mechanic that encourages you not to play, and your opponent can just dump stuff and entirely cripple it without you having much control.

I actually thlught abput this issue as well, but it was before I'd seen the mechanic, and thought maybe it was different than described. Not only do you have to maintain cards in hand (usually by playing fewer), but you also have to try snd grt your opponent cards. I can appreciate the mechanical aesthetics of the natives expending cards from hand (sometimes) with imbue and the conquerors caring about cards in hand with enlighten, but I don't know if thats the best way. Mayb playing in the in the same space, you can let your opponent draw to do something? Im not sure how fun letting your opponent draw is, but its an interesting angle as an alternate cost.

...

That first ability needs a tap in its cost. White doesn't even get token generation this efficient.

Added middle ability as a way to make it leave the battlefield and trigger the last ability. Should I leave it or take it off?

Fair enough.

Is the design space for this distinct enough from Ferocious to even bother...? One thing that's different is that creatures with it would work if they were the only one on the battlefield, which I would consider a feature and not a bug, but the problem is this interacts very oddly with cheap creatures. Normally this kind of ability is supposed to give early game creatures utility in the late game when it's turned on. But with this, low drop creatures are much better early game and even worse late game, which seems wrong.
I do wish there was a way for this to be shorter and more elegant. I don't exactly know what this is trying to convey. Maybe you can do the Martyr's Bond template mashed with Banisher Priest template?
"Whenever a nonland permanent you control is exiled from the battlefield, you may exile target permanent that shares a card type with it until Firestorm Matrix leaves the battlefield.
5, T: Exile target nonland permanent you control."
I'm not exactly sure what this is trying to do that's distinct from, say, the Helvault. It's a little convoluted. Again, not knowing what you're trying to convey might be causing that.

The Matrix is supposed to represent two similar things being bound together inside it. The mechanical inspiration is partly from Forever Evil, where it was used (as seen in the art) to trap the majority of the Justice League. The Matrix's standard use is to combine two people, which also inspired having to exile one of your own things to exile something else.

I've tried wording it differently, but this is the best I've found so far, since it avoids unintended use and abuse by either player.

As for your suggestion, tracking the Matrix seems far to abusable. The first thing that came to my mind was Legion's Initiative. Pay RW then another RW to flicker all your creatures and O-Ring as many creatures your opponents control.

>Upper hand
You hit the nail on the head. This is ripe for abuse, and would probably lead to games being decided in the first few turns, depending on how good these Upper Hand cards get.

>The Matrix's standard use is to combine two people
I feel I should clear this up. Their bodies didn't get mashed together like Meld, but one of the two would exist outside the Matrix, but with superpowers, and the other would exist inside the Matrix, but still able to communicate with the one outside telepathically.

I wish I could make "if you control highest power" work or some varisnt thereof work. It meshes so well with the themes I want to go with. Ferocious doesnt really work flavorwise and Formidable is too hard to reach for the set I envision (the names really bug me by the way-- i dont get it. Wouldnt the Atarka brood be "ferocious" while the Temur be "formidable"? Formidable feels like it could be blue namewise, ferocious doesn't, and dragons caring about having one big creature fits better imo).

I still don't exactly get what the Firestorm Matrix is. Basically, its supposed to let someone use someone elses powers by containing them? Anyway, you are capturing a specific use of it as a prison, which i guess you did. My wording forgot an "another" somewhere to prevent it from exiling an opponents card when it exiled itself, but anyway I forgot itd bring itself back if it exiled itself anyway. I think my template is a little more elegant if you can figure that part out. I actually looked up and was surprised Helvault didnt have a way to trigger itself which kinda sucks, so i guess you dont need a way to do it, but eh. Functionally, you want this to basically be like helvault, but cheaper by forcing you to exile your own card as well, right?

>greatest power/high power mechanics
Welcome to my world. I tried this recently and it got shot down. It's just really hard to make it feel good and keep it balanced and healthy between regular MtG and EDH.

Im mostly just concerned with complete weirdness of it on low drop creatures. Frankly I don't especially care if it doesnt scale perfectly to commander or whatever. But its ass backwards for lowdrops to have an alternate "mode" thats only good early and not late. Cant use the template "another" because this wants to be on spells and creatures. I could limit what I put it on but bleh.

Why do I always pick the worst fucking time to come back to magic?

do NOT bring that evil here. I don't care what side you're on. Custom. Cards.

Because it's always the worst time ever in Magic according to some people. Usually this is caused by having a stick up your ass, and can be remedied by removing it.

Seems good.

Pretty sure this is fine as-is. Still surprised Wizards never made a Wrath that hits only legendary/nonlegendary creatures, especially in Kamigawa.

>Basically, its supposed to let someone use someone elses powers by containing them?
No. Put two normal humans into the Firestorm Matrix, one pops out with the powers of transmutation and fire. The other is a voice in that person's head. I don't really get it either.

>Functionally, you want this to basically be like helvault, but cheaper by forcing you to exile your own card as well, right?
Basically.

Still trying to balance this out.

This

Sorry that post was meant for the /pol/ thread. Custom cards don't bother me.

>exile an artifact for 1, in exchange they get 4 free mana
No frickin way dude.

That they can only spend on artifacts. Just C each then?

Sorry, I had a knee jerk reaction and didnt see it could only be spent on artifacts. Its still a lot of free mana for a deck that is apparrntly playing artifacts. Its probably even moreso because you can play it as a weird ritual on yourself. I get the flavor (it breaks into pieces that can be used to make a new artifact) but I think the simplest way to convey useless junk is a small dinky effect.

There was another user who proposed saccing the Junk to Scry or mill. Maybe discard then draw?

Wait, maybe +1/+1 counters? Then it works kinda like Cannibalize.

Why shouldn't this card be able to get enchantments
What about card design dictates that?

Green gets creatures, blue gets spells.

>G: Creature tutors.
>U: Instants and sorcery tutors,
Seems pretty straightforward to me. Besides, enchantment tutors is more W's thing.

To be more clear, the intention of the design was probably to be able to pick between contrasting card types. Letting you get enchantments would dilute the dichotomy aesthetic.
I love this
I dont like counter sbecause I dont think the flavor is there. Scry is kind of like half a draw and you get 2 scries to from the whole, and it can be interpreted as gleaning a small amount of information from the junk. Im sure you can flavor the counters but I dont think its as natural.

I think green could tutor enchantments in the right set (the commune effect is basically meant as a less shuffle intensive and simplified tutuor), but I dont think that was the intention with Bring to Light.

>I think green could tutor enchantments in the right set
scryfall.com/search?q=o:search (o:enchantment or o:aura)&order=set

Then you think wrong. The only precedence for G tutoring enchantments, including Auras, is Sterling Grove, which is GW. I think it's safe to say that enchantment tutors are strictly W.

Well blue gets artifacts but it doesn't hit those either

Just because it hasnt happened yet doesnt mean it couldn't. Green is currently stated to have oblivion ring type effects and it has not gotten one (yet) to my knowledge. That white is primary was never in question, but it doesnt mean green could not do it. Green is friendly With and cares about enchantments, and as I said commune type abilities are just simplified tutors for the purppse of mitigating shuffling, meaning green is only a step away from a straight tutor. Green also has had Arachnus Spinner, with the issue being Arachnus Web was out of color pie for green, not the tutoring for an enchantment. Being able to tutor enchantments also does not conflict with or inhibit any of green's weaknesses. Therefore, in a set where it made sense, where green had a distinct affinity for enchantments, such as, for example, Theros, I believe green could tutor enchantments if they wanted to.

Don't hold your breath.

Because the point of the card is to search for a permanent type or a nonpermanent type for the purposes of aesthetics (blue and green are opposite and enemy colors, so they wanted opposite options), and instants/sorceries are almost always paired together, especially now.

>I love this
Thanks! This actually started out as something not very interesting, and I really like how it's come out.

>I dont like counter
I was imagining the counter as being basically turning the junk into a weapon of some sort. I honestly don't really get Scry from a flavor perspective, but I think this is one of those times where I should defer to the judgment of anons. So, each token will sac to Scry. I'm guessing a tap cost should be required. But what about a mana cost? The other guy suggested a cost of 1.

I wasn't, just saying "I think green could do it if it made sense in the set" is not an egregious thought to have. Stuff like Hour of Eternity, for example, was probably a much, much bigger bend for the purposes of accentuating a set theme than something like green getting an enchantment tutor.

>I think green could tutor enchantments in the right set
White tutors enchantments. Green tutors creatures. This is very, very established in MTG canon.

>Don't hold your breath.
TRANSLATION: While the situation you describe (Green getting an enchantment tutor) could possibly happen, I personally don't find it very likely, at least in the forseeable future.

It sure was a lot more dismissive than that considering I felt I gave a very solid defense for a green enchantment tutor in a set it made sense in, only to get a passive aggressive one liner in response. I didn't necessarily think it was ever gonna happen, just that I didn't think it was an absurd ask at all. It certainly doesn't make any sense on Bring to Light.

...

wow really called it with the drama huh

>I felt I gave a very solid defense
You felt wrong.

>I didn't necessarily think it was ever gonna happen
Good to know you aren't completely detached from reality.

If you think my believing it possible in some reality that the color that gets "when you cast an enchantment spell, draw a card", "enchantment spells you cast cost 1 less to cast", "cardname gets +1/+1 for each enchantment you control", "reveal top 6 and put up to 3 enchantments from among them into your hand", or "whenever you cast an enchantment spell, gain 1 life", and whatever else I'm not remembering, could ever possibly in a million years get, say, 2g tutor an enchantment card is any level of "detached from reality", I honestly don't know what to say.

>I honestly don't know what to say.
I do. You're reaching.

...

...

For a second I thought this was the most boring legend ever created, but then I remembered that Isamaru exists.

Not sure how over/underwhelming this would be, but I feel it is in a unique place for now.

best EDH general

>caring about making them not able to cast duplicates in a singleton format