/ccg/ Custom Card General /cct/

Nah, too wordy for a planeswalker. Either cut down on the number of keywords, or do something else. I recommend activated abilities.
>You get an emblem with "Each creature you control has all activated abilities of each other creature you control."
Not very exciting though...

Maybe token copies? Just be aware planeswalkers are some of the hardest cards to design, so you'll have to be patient, and don't get discouraged if it doesn't work out.

This doesn't do what you think. Commander damage is tracked by the individual card. For instance, you could put this on a Strangleroot Geist if you were playing, say, Reyhan, but then your opponent would have a damage tracker for Strangleroot Geist AND Reyhan.

All creatures you control have all abilities of all creatures you control? It's way way way more than you intended but it seems fine for an ultimate at least.

Planeswalkers are hard to make?

They are by far the most complicated cards to make

HM.
Then maybe I'll re-think this planeswalker idea to go with something a little bit simpler. Or at least something more manageable for me.

...

Unless theres a specific flavor reason, I don't like this giving menace and flying.

Guess I'll swap Menace with... Trample, I guess.

>card
Eh, I've always preferred Devotion for mono-color mechanics.

I think theres more ways to reward monocolor than just devotion. I dont even think devotion has that much design space to be honest. It can be either a threshold mechanic or scaling mechanic and thats about it. Scaling mechanics in particular are very limited.

I guess I should clarify, its not thst I dont think devotion has a lot of design space, I just dont think it encompasses the entirety of things you can do with mono color matters.

...

...

I like these. Not much to say otherwise. I would flavor the second one as a fizzling elemental or something though.

The plane I'm working on is slowly being consumed by miasma that corrupts living creatures and animates unburnt dead. The idea was something born to a mother that had been fog-touched.

See also pic related.

I see, I assumed it was just a standalone thing

No, but I understand your advice. It does seem like an "Elemental" sort of ability.

This should just be indestructible. The flavor isnt lost (even a little better imo, like its protecting the creature from harm like a barrier instead of making it... grow back or something) and is obviously more in line with modern usage

It's a little cheap for Indestructible, but I think I fixed it to my satisfaction without violating modern design space.

...

>Sacrifice ~: Equipped creature gains indestructible until end of turn.

Well, when you put it like that, maybe. I'll take it under advisement.

Except if you sacrifice it, it's no longer equipped.

>Whenever equipped creature would die, it becomes indestructible until end of turn. Sacrifice Lucky Charm.

3 colorless seems fair for temporary indestructible to me. Could even be 2 imo. Exchange rate is usually roughly ~ 2 generic for each M. White usually gets indestructible for W or 1W

Last known information

Last known information.

Ahh.

...

Lower the equip cost to 4-5, and it's gold.

Really cool idea, but I'm not really sure on the ability because there are a ton of ways to cheat this. Puresteel Paladin is the first that comes to mind. Could just be me though.

I like the overall idea here, but... it doesnt feel like a sword in a stone to me before the equip. It just looks like amy other equip. But I guess its much cleaner this way and the flavor is quite good once it becomes equipped. Maybe the trick is having a special equip cost?

Batman throws villains in, but other villains keep busting them out.

Not him, but I ad an idea. Might be bad because I'm tired though.
>Equipped creature gets [undercosted bonuses] and doesn't untap during its controller's untap step.
>Whenever ~ becomes equipped to a creature, tap that creature.

I dunno. Like I said the version posted is really clean and did try to convey it by making it a cheap do nothing like a rock that you meeded to expend a lot of effort to use. That does kind of feel like "a junky thing with huge hidden potential to unlock". Maybe thats enough to convey it.

...

...

Sometimes I come up with card names that are just fun to say and then try to come up with a card for them.

Quads say the truth.

How about this

Permanency
W
Instant
Up to three target permanents gain indestructible until end of turn.

Getting a bit wordy

Problem with Blessed weapon as a keyword is that it's inherently limited to expensive equipment - you can't put it on smaller equipment because of the free token.

I'd just spell out the ability in rules text, and also reduce the Equip cost by a fair bit.

Seems comparable to Heroic Intervention, so it could definitely see print.

I don't like -X/-X in UR, but hey, it's the token stupid red rare, so whatever

I'm just brainstorming ideas. Ideally, if I were to make a set with blessed weapon, there would only be a few legendary weapons with it, and some lower rarity equipments that act as poor man's replica of those crazy weapons. I'm also debating adding the "~ can be your commander" clause to these equipment, but I would have to add colors to them then

Needs more Ixalan-style vampire stuff. +1/+1 counters on hit feel more like Innistrad.

Took me a moment, but this is pretty funny.

Doesn't this create an infinite loop if you have two of these out? Yes legendary but there are ways around that.

Doesn't work since the creature the card becomes will forget what X was set to when it was on the stack or in the graveyard.

You don't need "Other" in there.

This really doesn't compare well against Frenzied Fugue, does it?

Seems far too swingy to be practical.

We Yu-Gi-Oh! now.

Why is this silver border?
>All creatures have "T: This creature fights target creature an opponent controls. Activate this ability only during your turn and only during combat."
>Creatures can't attack unless defending player controls no creatures.

It's silver because I specifically didn't want to use Fight, I wanted creatures to be able to directly attack other creatures and to only be able to attack a player if they had no creatures; pretty much exactly as it works in Yu-Gi-Oh.
I mean yea, you could use Fight and make it black border, but where's the fun in that?

Stop. There's a reason those rules are gone. What's next? You gonna post banding?

No, I'll post even worse fuckery.

...

Like I said, stop. Nobody finds this funny. You're just wasting the thread's image limit with your nonsense

I feel like the attach to any artifact creature ability should be 2UR or something, since it is potentially stealing a creature from an opponent and still giving it +1/+1 and haste and trample.

Bump.

i like it

be mad some more, it's helping your argument so much

Rolled 9, 8, 5, 6, 3 = 31 (5d10)

Rolling for everything but theme.

>Multicolor (GU), artifact, voltron/buff, CMC 3, common
Bleh.

Want to make a card for this guy who's in the flavir text for a few cards, but I'm not really sure what to do.

...

I always feel like I'm one of the very few people that actually liked Soulbond. (But not soulbond parasite cards like Flowering Lumberknot)

I lpve soulbond, but I do have one issue in that it doesn't mark bonded creatures. You can fiddle with the cards but theres no built in marker. My favorite mechanic in Lorado was a "fixed" Soulbond, Warband, that made it so it only triggered and counted during combat, so you didnt have to remember it, but still get the cool part of Soulbond.

I played around with soulbond myself, since I thought an interesting evolution would be caring about what you bonded with.

I thought I had an example of this but I can't find it. For some reason I concepted it for Lorwyn Kithkin and you would get a stronger ability if you bonded with another kithkin.

I dont mind the parasitic soulbond matters carda. They're cool. Its okay to have a little parasitism. Parasitic has such negative connotation. Almost every set has some parasitic aspects. What matters is how much and in what capacity

I don't like equipments

For the first part, should probably read "... unattach all Equipment artifacts from all creatures."
For the second part, why not "Equipment artifacts lose all abilities."
'Equipments' just sounds a bit off imo.

How would Commander damage work for this? Would it be equal to the power the equipped creature gains, or because the creature that is equipped is not a commander, it wouldn't deal commander damage? Probably the later, unless you add a line to Blade of All saying if Blade of All is your Commander, the equipped creature is treated as your Commander as long as it is equipped.

Good card, I'd probably increase the cost by 1 or 2 colorless though.

Unless you animate it you wouldn't be able to do commander damage. It's the price for having a noncreature permanent as a commander

Yea, you'd have to specify "Combat damage dealt by equipped creature to players counts as commander damage dealt by ~." in order for it to be able to deal commander damage.
But that card's creator might have left that off of it on purpose, to make it somewhat weaker.

...

...

Eh, I'd have it charge mana and remove a counter for a Force Spike instead.

how does it feel knowing this retard got the GDS3 question right but people here didn't

I would've thought GU since WU are the colors of Flying and W is excluded because of what he said, and G is the only color besides W to get Vigilance.

GU would probably be a more correct answer but only BG and BU were the non-white answers

I got it right. That was one of the easiest questions and I don't get the controversy. I know they have a penchant for trick questions on these tests but this was not one of thing. People are looking at precedence, but for example there was a question about creature ratios and while we know that red is supposed to be 2nd after blue for fewest creatures, I remember hearing someone run the numbers and that was actually not true for the last couple sets, but that one caused no controversy despite the correct answer contradicting the current technical precedence apparently.

I missed one very dumb question though, two I missed because I didn't do what my gut said. And one I just had no fucking idea which was the why does green have bigger creatures or whatever. In hindsight the correct answer isn't weird but when I was taking the test for some reason I wasn't reading it correctly or something and I didn't get it.

Oh. Somehow missed that it was multiple-choice. Then the idiot used retarded reasoning to get to the right answer. I can only hope his retarded reasoning fucks him up on something else, because I don't want a guy looking at decades-old cards and colorshifts as precedence to be designing cards.

The controversy is around the wording of the question and the fact that more people who clearly don't understand the color pie got the question out of pure logic compared to the people who used years of magic experience to understand that the answer would never realistically be taken as a design

Oh, and I don't remember if I got it right or not but I think there was a question about why there are different cmcs. I THINK I said so that cards are different which while technically a correct answer imo, I think there was a more correct one, something like so there's an early game and a late game

I assumed they'd want people who actually play Magic. Shit, maybe I should've lied for the first part.

The thread that post comes from was a pretty objective analysis that proves to me that there was no problem with the wording. People assumed something about the question that was not correct because I think people expected a trick question like they do on these. The question was pretty clearly not testing precedence which is what I think people who got it wrong thought it was testing.

Unironically, MaRo does prefer people who don't have years of 'baggage' regarding to magic experience to get a fresh perspective on things

Im sure he still wants magic players but this is some sort of shit he does actually believe

They did. They had at least three questions off the top of my head on that test that were distinctly aimed at people very familiar with limited play that you couldn't find the answer just googling.

There are three things that lead me to believe this is a bad question

1) MaRo's explanation for the answer in his quiz write up was purely about the color pie. It wasn't about critical thinking or the test taker's ability to push past his 'emotional' connection to the game so it was largely about color pie knowledge

2) People with a poor grasp of the color pie, ala the guy in could get the answer right due to how the question was structured

3) People who do understand the color pie and have played the game for however amount of time got the answer wrong because they *did* know the color pie hence why they chose blue-white. The only reason they got the question wrong was because it had a prompt that would never realistically be explored and not explored in a way that was stated like that (for example, maybe white in set "CEREAL" is one that is entirely grounded, they would find a flying creature in UG or even have a flavor break with a UW flier before a BG one existed)

Did anyone here ever share the cards they made for GDS3?

The question was testing whether you could design to specifications. It wasn't about what they've done in the past. It was a gimmie question if you take at it face value. Most questions on the test were free if you were at all familiar with Magic design, and you could fill a lot of the rest of the holes with google. That was one of the problems with the test in general. But like I said, I think people were actively making this question harder than it needed to be. Yes, you're right, this question was testing stupid vapid shit like whether you could google what keywords worked to the specifications and not how familiar you are with existing Magic design. But that wasn't the purpose of that particular question. While a lot of the test was bullshit easy, there were questions that tested familiarity with Magic, like the question about what the best flat rate for vanilla stats are in limited, or what the best keyword for a control deck was in limited. Multiple choice tests have to present a curve of difficulty and this was intended to be an easy one that you didn't need to know the history of multicolor creatures with keywords.

I never got to submit trial 2 (though I'd have failed, I missed ~5-6 questions iirc). I wanted to do the test for fun but it's a lot of bookkeeping to be honest.