/ccg/ Custom Card General /cct/

Am I the only one who finds this talk of "aesthetics" kind of annoying? I don't care if all the numbers don't match. Why should they?

Why R?

People like patterns and are more satisfied when they can see and identify them. It makes cards look more appealing appearance wise, hence "aesthetics"-- it isnt necessary to have pretty things, as with, almost any other thing in the world, but its a better when they are. I dont know if its necessary to match ALL the numbers here though. Its ability is obviously when to be wheel so the 7 is already tied to a pattern people can identify with. I would make it a 5/5 though to match cmc. I would say a 3/5 doesnt feel especially like a red black guy anyway. You could make it a 3/4 if you really reach to tie numbers together. 3/4 adds up to 7 and matches the 3 in the mana cost. But honestly it doesnt seem that important here to me. Another option is to make it wheel whisper for 5 instesd of 7, which also neatly divides into your life total (then you make it s 5/5), but that would depend on how important the reference to wheel is. I assume it has a weird p/t because its envisioned as part of a cycle where not everything would have square stats though to make them all feel different, so it may simply just not be possible to match numbers up here.
However, being worse than one of the most ppwerful creatures in the game isnt a reason not to do it.

I just reslized, as far as the design itself, why does it have the threshold ability AND indestructible? Both represent the immortality of gods, so it seems unnecessary to have both. I would personally replace indestructible with menace or something one ability from each color. First strike or trample + deathtouch comes to mind

This honestly feels mono U. The G aspect is very faint. The R seems super tacked on.

I actually had things worded out differently at first with different triggers depending on spell/permanent played but I realized that changing it to this just made the card easier to understand

I know someone mentioned that counting all graveyards encouraged land des and while that makes sense in a vacuum, no deck that wasnt already doing it is going to start playing 4-5 mana land kill spells to enable it. From there I think it mostly just punishes fetches, which practically a bonus to me. And personally I kind of like that land destruction is a synergy red has with this even if it wont actually come up Id guess.
I think this really needed a way to ditch lands, and the play pattern I meant for this was in all in finisher or way to expend extra lands if it cant end it for an all-in red deck. But I dont know if land sac is the way to go.

...

...

This can be way cheaper unless Im misunderstanding something about it. Its kind of like weirdo pump spell.

Seems cool. Kinda feel like the activated ability needs a mana cost though.

>"Bolt Valley deals 1 damage to each attacking creature."

...

...

This is just gross with lifelink.

I thought about making it cost 1 with the sac to make it kind of feel like a sac land effect but i dont think it works well in gameplay. This is meant for a monored deck that would cast it as a finisher to sac excess lands or just lava axe somebody for game, but if the sac ability had a mana cost it wouldnt work for that, its have to wait. There may be another way to so it though.

I would like that design more if it uses Amonkhet's technology of placing counters as an etb ability to use a resource. I just am wary of cards that use a special resource like that without also making it.
A knight lord should have first strike. I assume it has all that double colored mana because a lot of iconic knights are double color but I dont love it. Th e last ability is because first strikers which a lot of knights are are already excellent blockers, especially with +3/+3. Also its just boring man. Would you be excited to build a commander deck around that? I dunno man. Maybe its just me.

Inspired by that angel demon someone posted the other day.

I'm designing a creature with the ability "Whenever this creature becomes the target of a spell or ability, counter that spell or ability unless its controller pays 2."

This doesn't apply to counterspells targeting them while they're waiting to resolve, right? It only protects them while they're out?

Abilities on permanents only work as long as that permanent is on the battlefield unless otherwise specified.

So no. Also, this is Frost Titan's first ability.

Yes, it isn't a creature when it becomes the target of a counter spell, it's a spell, specifically a creature spell, but not a creature.

One thing that surprises is the people that think protection stops counter spells that have played magic for a very long time.

Aha, I thought it was already on an existing card but I couldn't remember which one. Thanks.

>One thing that surprises is the people that think protection stops counter spells that have played magic for a very long time.
Probably just one more reason why Wizards decided to use Protection a lot less than they used to.

Oh I know. Protection does about a hundred things so.

I'm sure there's others, but besides Frost Titan I also know it for Monastery Siege

What sort of power budget can I give to a creature with the drawback "When this creature enters the battlefield, discard all cards in your hand but one?" Would it ever be possible for that drawback to be competitive in an eternal format?

Diffusion Sliver. And technically Monastery Siege is slightly different. Practically speaking, the only difference I can think of would be that Frost Titan fails against counterspells, while Monastery Siege still requires the extra mana.

But on the Monastery Siege side, you also have Elderwood Scion (notably non-Blue), Icefall Regent, and Kopala, Warden of Waves.

As for spell protection, Kaervek's Torch is kinda sorta similar.

>Diffusion Sliver
You mean Waifu Sliver

>Waifu Sliver
>decide to search Rule34 for slivers
>immediate regret

...

I have a wording issue, and it might be insurmountable. I'm trying to make the rules work for this mechanic I'm calling "reduction". A spell with reduction can be cast from the graveyard, but any use of a number in the cards ability is reduced to one. However, I can't allow it to effect costs (Like its CMC or the cost to activate an ability). I could easily take away the keyword and just write out that "It deals 1 instead" or "They may pay 1 instead" but I wanted to also design cards that can effect other cards reduction numbers (Such as the artifact here) or possibly allow for cards to give reduction to cards that don't natively have it (Such as, for example, a low-power Snapcaster Variant, where targeting a Lightning Bolt gives it reduction and it does 1 damage instead of 3).

Is there any way I can write it so that it can satisfy all these goals? Allow it to change regular numbers, "tax" mana numbers, basically any numbers that doesn't appear in the costs of the card and its abilities? If yes then I got a bunch of ideas, if not then I don't got a bunch of ideas.

I reslly like the core idea here, but seeing as More or Less was just printed in silver border, it can be assumed the rules cant currently handle what you want to do.

I know on your first one for example, the 4 wouldnt count because its a mana symbol and not a number. There arent many effects that use actual text numbers, and number words are definitely 100% silver border land due to language issues, though... honestly, I wonder if they could change that. Im sure its been explained why they use numbers for life and keywords and number words for almost everything else. But they can change stuff like this. I dunno.

As far as the ability is as written ignoring technical templating and rules issues, the problem currently is repetitive gameplay. Its why most graveyard abilities are one shot these days. I think the correct version of this would be higher cmc spells that have a lower alternate casting cost that replaces all instances of a number with 1.

I spent a minute trying to figure out what you were talking about with repetitive gameplay before realizing I never made the cards exile after their graveyard cast, which was absolutely part of the original execution. Its really supposed to be a flashback variant, where instead of alternative costs to replay the same card, you have a frontloaded design I.E. most of your value is in its original cast and its second cast is nowhere near as powerful to make up for the card advantage you get from being able to cast it from your graveyard.

Also, yeah, I guess its just really hard to finagle. If its not possible, I ain't bothering messing with it, because then I'm just making a boring cycle of graveyard cards. All I really want is to get wild with the synergy I can make with the mechanic.

Now, you could probably just do this with aftermath, or at least use the aftermath frame, but I guess its not in the spirit of what you're going for. Ive also seen some people talk about dfcs with spells on both sides, and a keyword that allowed you to cast the backside after you played the first.

You could write it as:
>Counter target spell unless it's controler pays the Reduction cost.
>Reduction 4 - You may cast this spell from your graveyard. If you do, it has Reduction 1 instead.

And the artifact:
>Cards in your graveyard with Reduction have Reduction 2.

You'd have to do it manually. But even then, I'd recommend having the cards exile themselves. If you use Flashback,
>Counter target spell unless its controller pays 4. If ~ was cast from a graveyard, instead counter that spell unless its controller pays 1.

No idea on the artifact. Copy Flashback spells?

I see, a flashback variant is fine too. Itd be interesting since flashback cards usually have more expensive flashback costs.
Now... thats an interesting solution. Make the card have a number that the actual ability references (so ~ deals damage equal to its something number) with something N being a keyword that says you can cast it from the graveyard but its something number becomes 1. I think you may have just cracked it dude what the fuck

I'm sure there's an actual non-evergreen with a similar wording, which is how I came up with it.

So basically, if all else fails, refer to official cards. There could be a few that have rules or wordings similar to what you're after.

This is what I went with, figured the word "X" was my best friend. Does it track? Also, can I simplify the exile clause in any way to lower text count?

Nit him, just interested in this idea. Im just trting to think of how to template it. Is the number its own thing, then theres a keyword, or is the number the keyword? If the latter what exactly is the word for that? Basically what I mean is, should it be
Effect equal to power level
Power level N
Keyword (You can recast this, if you do its power level becomes 1 and exile it)
Or
Effect equal to power level
Power level N (You can recast this, if you do it its power level becomes 1 and exile it)
The second is cleaner but Ive no clue what... word? that could be.

Meant "owner's graveyard" btw

And if this tracks, then this would be my fix for the artifact. There would be (probably) no cases of Reductor 1 on a card before its reduction casting, so it would essentially carry out the same duty as before. Also fixed an embarrassing typo.

...

How I would handle Reduction on permanents. That final clause is a bit clumsy, but necessary. This might be too strong for a bear though.

And a big enchantment to play with your reduction cards forever

And a big bad mythic wrath that I would probably never actually put into any hypothetical set because I'd be afraid of its power, especially when combined with , but I wanted to show examples of Reductor 1 being the better part of the card.

Hexproof on this is dumb because it's never going to attack and instead just sit there drawing you cards.

The more you post this keyword, the more I'm convinced it's a bad idea.

Last ability seems really strange. Exile a card as cost to exile a card?

...