MTG Share your Card Designs II [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Carl

2019-06-21, 06:17 PM

So we had a thread created this for a couple of years ago but it's died out in the meantime. Now my interest has gotten reawakened due to arena this feels like a good time to bring it back. I think it died out mainly because of a tendency for everyone interested to burn through idea's a bit.

There are obviously other MTG threads, here's a quick list of ones i'm aware of.

The main discussion thread here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?551226-Magic-The-Gathering-Thread-XXIII-Modern-is-Dead-Long-Live-Modern).

And the Contest thread here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?586821-MTG-You-Make-The-Card-VII-Your-Custom-Planeswalker-Card-Died-in-War-of-the-Spark).

And lastly the Color Pie Philosophy thread here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?589630-MtG-Color-Philosophy-Thread!).

I'll start off the discussion with a pair of cards of mine from a card file i'm putting together, (hence the card code names, the file has rarities and quantities put in but 99% of the cards are just a name, colour/s and rarity at the moment):

https://i.imgur.com/tlB2Fvo.jpg

After assigning all my card codes i realised i needed a new keyword as the single one i had allready, (see below on the next card for more on that), wasn't sufficient for how many cards i was going to fill. And thats fine. But it did mean i needed to come up with one and do some design space exploration. At the same time since the set didn't have a lot of mono colour i had some mono color space to fill and green in particular needs at least one big creature and green themed dragons are a moderate nuisance thematically so i had everything i needed to fill in a slot and some design space to explore. Both thematically for the dragons and from the PoV of the multi-colour focus of the set i wanted to avoid this being a card that dominated primarily via pure board presence so i set it up for you to want to kill it and for it to hurt in a way that makes your opponent not want to have to deal with it too much. It's very much a deal with it and you get clobbered, don't deal with it and you get clobbered type of card. Obviously flying in green is freakishly rare, but mono green dragons are an acceptable break from the colour pie there.

My main problem is costing it. I originally had it at 3GGG, but i was worried that was a bit cheap.

Not actually a single card but 3 variations on a single card concept. Reusing some fluff from an old piece and want to find a home for it.

https://i.imgur.com/2lTQyC0.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/8HO7NKI.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/aOnEpfu.jpg

I won't lie the fluff is the main reason i'm even attempting this card. That said it's in a colour combination that both from the colours and the the importance of the combo to the set needs to be kept from getting too flashy. Agan creatures you want to throw away are a good way of providing reasonable power without being to big.

At it's heart it's a reactive creature that meant to get itself killed and is thus the biggest power 1T creature i can squeeze into the CMC. The first version is the basic form. My main concern there is that compared to ball lightning, (the closest equivalent i could find), it's a bit lower on power and lacks trample, but flash is a bit more flexible than haste and it doesn't have the forced sacrifice, however it's dual colour. Basically CMC 2 feels too cheap but 3 feels too much. The two followups are attempts to address this. The first adds a white aligned keyword, but your probably not going to get a lot of use out of it unless your opponent lets it through for some reason. The third is a variation on the second giving it more of a late game use and putting your opponent in the position of having to make a tough choice, but we may be straying into too powerful for the CMC and i really don't want to go to CMC 4.

Silfir

2019-06-21, 09:54 PM

enderlord99

2019-06-21, 10:23 PM

Carl

2019-06-22, 12:43 AM

I think a 5/1 Flash body is a bit much for 2 CMC. There's a limit to how hard bodies that come down for two mana can be allowed to hit, even if they are "easy to block" - Red/White excels at cheap aggro, and bypassing blockers through either kill spells or "target creature can't block" effects - even if a single attack with this connects, it's likely to be back-breaking given how easy it is to get on the board. Well, generally speaking. If you want it to cost two mana, give it Defender - it fits the flavor anyway. Dealing 5 damage to an attacker at 2 mana isn't an outrageous thing for Red/White to do, whether by means of an instant or a Flash creature.

On the big green flampler, the death trigger seems fairly inconsequential. Obviously I don't know what blessings are (presumably, enchantments with tap abilities), but it doesn't seem like the kind of consolation prize you want after having your game-winning creature killed. Any deck that plays an 8 CMC creature will devote a fair amount of resources to ramping it out, so how likely are you to have blessings, other than blessings that tap for mana?

Wheeee happy ponies again.

1. Yeah that was a major concern, mono red isn't going to be big thing overall but it's still a lot of aggro to generate for 2 mana even if you need 1 white in there. I'm not heart set on CMC2 but i don't want to go above 3. My main concern with Defender would be the flexibility aspect. Cards have become increasingly flexible over the years and whilst Defender makes thematic sense, (to a degree, once a threat shows up they're anything but defensive), it's very restrictive. I'd rather buff up a bit to make CMC3 a better fit than do that if possibble.

2. Without going into excessive detail a quick calculation shows that roughly 25% of the cards within the set are earmarked to become blessings, that may well, and probably will change a little as i trim things over time or add somthing. That said one comment you made definitely resonated. The idea of this as a game winning card. It's meant to be more of a mid game item. Hence the initial CC6 cost, TBH the card i was thinking of strongly when designing it was Giganotosaurus, sacraficing some of the body size for on the card rules.

If there were a land that, instead of a mana ability, had "{T}: You gain (_) life" but it also had "At the beginning of your end step, if you did not pay any life this turn, you lose (_+1) life" (such that the net life loss would be one if you couldn't pay life for any purpose but also didn't leave the thing unused like an idiot) what should "_" equal?

Is the concept even workable?

Only in a set that has a lot of effects that care about life gain and/or life loss that you can use as trigger conditions. It's a neat concept but effectively worthless on it's own.

Silfir

2019-06-22, 07:01 AM

2. Without going into excessive detail a quick calculation shows that roughly 25% of the cards within the set are earmarked to become blessings, that may well, and probably will change a little as i trim things over time or add somthing. That said one comment you made definitely resonated. The idea of this as a game winning card. It's meant to be more of a mid game item. Hence the initial CC6 cost, TBH the card i was thinking of strongly when designing it was Giganotosaurus, sacraficing some of the body size for on the card rules.

Gigantosaurus is very different from this card since it doesn't have any form of evasion. That's what allows it to be so huge despite the 5 CMC. (That and locking it to mono-green decks.) A 6/6 Flying Trample plays completely differently; such a creature would be expected to end the game by itself.

Similarly, a midrange deck can play a 5 CMC creature, but it will never make it to eight mana. To play an 8 mana creature reliably you basically need a dedicated ramp deck. Even in Limited anyone drafting it to play it would also look to be drafting ramp cards. It's basically not worth it to play an 8 mana creature unless it can end the game by itself. Which this creature can, so the cost isn't inappropriate.

I was reminded more of Pelakka Wurm, on which the death trigger serves the purpose of making it very likely that your 7 mana investment at least results in a 2-for-1 (one Wurm for a kill spell out of the opponent and a card from your deck). This is an alternative to giving it some form of resilience that makes very hard to interact with, like Carnage Tyrant's Hexproof, or Zetalpa's Indestructible. (Zetalpa is a good example of how ridiculous you can make 8 mana creatures and still have them be balanced.)

The concept of "midrange dragon creature with that adds value on death if you play blessings" would be better served by a 3/3 Flying for 2GG, or something like that.

Wither, incidentally, seems quite redundant on something that big and tramply. Chances are nothing that would attempt to block it would survive the experience anyway.

Carl

2019-06-22, 08:01 AM

Gigantosaurus is very different from this card since it doesn't have any form of evasion. That's what allows it to be so huge despite the 5 CMC. (That and locking it to mono-green decks.) A 6/6 Flying Trample plays completely differently; such a creature would be expected to end the game by itself.

Similarly, a midrange deck can play a 5 CMC creature, but it will never make it to eight mana. To play an 8 mana creature reliably you basically need a dedicated ramp deck. Even in Limited anyone drafting it to play it would also look to be drafting ramp cards. It's basically not worth it to play an 8 mana creature unless it can end the game by itself. Which this creature can, so the cost isn't inappropriate.

I was reminded more of Pelakka Wurm, on which the death trigger serves the purpose of making it very likely that your 7 mana investment at least results in a 2-for-1 (one Wurm for a kill spell out of the opponent and a card from your deck). This is an alternative to giving it some form of resilience that makes very hard to interact with, like Carnage Tyrant's Hexproof, or Zetalpa's Indestructible. (Zetalpa is a good example of how ridiculous you can make 8 mana creatures and still have them be balanced.)

The concept of "midrange dragon creature with that adds value on death if you play blessings" would be better served by a 3/3 Flying for 2GG, or something like that.

Wither, incidentally, seems quite redundant on something that big and tramply. Chances are nothing that would attempt to block it would survive the experience anyway.

Peluka worm was indeed my other inspiration source, i was sort of trying to blend the two concepts. Certainly i could make it smaller but my two main concerns are that A) the deck does need at least one decent size mono-green and B) Small dragons feel like a bit of an oxymoron. Wither wa me playing with a poison concept for it. When i think a forest themed dragon i tend to go to Wood Elves dragons from Warhammer automatically.

EDIT: Honestly i started it as a 6/6 flyer for CMC6 and then decided to try and tack on Empower, it may have been a mistake as that was the push behind trample. Make your opponent want to block it.

Carl

2019-06-22, 09:50 AM

How about:

https://i.imgur.com/WE9Bo6E.jpg

Much more direct riff off giganotosaurus, half the size and power at the same cost but with Flying.

enderlord99

2019-06-22, 01:29 PM

Only in a set that has a lot of effects that care about life gain and/or life loss that you can use as trigger conditions. It's a neat concept but effectively worthless on it's own.

Does it need tons of such triggers even if there are lots of things that require (or just allow, as with Phyrexian mana) to pay life, and thus avoid the downside?

Tvtyrant

2019-06-22, 01:31 PM

Russhi, Emperor's Champion
WW
Legendary Human Samurai
2/1
Indestructible
Provoke

Toshi, Shogun's Assassin
BB
Legendary Human Ninja
1/3
Deathtouch
Provoke

Carl

2019-06-22, 02:22 PM

Does it need tons of such triggers even if there are lots of things that require (or just allow, as with Phyrexian mana) to pay life, and thus avoid the downside?

Well things that require you to pay life are one part of exactly what i mean.

The thing is it's only useful if you have a fair few ways of paying life to put in alongside it, and since paying life is primarily a black thing fitting this into a land cycle is tricky.

Also those ways of paying life have to be worth having in your deck as well. A card like this is literally worse than usless on it's own, you've got to be able to put a lot of reliable ways of playing with one aspect of its efects into your deck as well so you can leverage it to do somthing that is a net positive.

Russhi, Emperor's Champion
WW
Legendary Human Samurai
2/1
Indestructible
Provoke

Toshi, Shogun's Assassin
BB
Legendary Human Ninja
1/3
Deathtouch
Provoke

Off the cuff the second one doesn't look too bad, i'd want to do a bit of digging to really go yay or nay, but it doesn't scream problem at me at a glance as your opponent can choose to block it with more than just the provoke'd creature to ensure it dies. Geat early aggro or a way to kill a choice creature, but not much else.

The first one however screams problem at me. Indestructible shuts down most answers from most decks and that means it can pretty much go on a mass murdering spree against small creatures and then be used as a chump blocker when those dry up. It screams too much power for CMC 2 for me.

Ninjaman

2019-06-23, 03:13 AM

If there were a land that, instead of a mana ability, had "{T}: You gain (_) life" but it also had "At the beginning of your end step, if you did not pay any life this turn, you lose (_+1) life" (such that the net life loss would be one if you couldn't pay life for any purpose but also didn't leave the thing unused like an idiot) what should "_" equal?

Is the concept even workable?

No, it is not. The entire point is that life is much less valuable than mana, so being able to pay life instead of mana is powerful. That also means that being able to pay mana instead of life is not very powerful. If a deck cared about life more than mana, they would just play cards that gained life.

How about:

https://i.imgur.com/WE9Bo6E.jpg

Much more direct riff off giganotosaurus, half the size and power at the same cost but with Flying.
Green only get big flying dragons in sets that are all about big flying dragons. So far that has happened twice. I wouldn't go down that road.
Also, it sucks. Look at Baneslayer Angel and Thundermaw Hellkite. You could push it much more.

Ninjaman

2019-06-23, 03:21 AM

Russhi, Emperor's Champion
WW
Legendary Human Samurai
2/1
Indestructible
Provoke

Toshi, Shogun's Assassin
BB
Legendary Human Ninja
1/3
Deathtouch
Provoke

I like how they bounce off each other. I like how Russhi is good at trading with lots of small creatures, and Toshi is good for trading with one big.
I don't think Russhi is necessarily too strong, but it is definitely the strongest of the two by a reasonable margin, and I think that hurts the design a bit.

Tvtyrant

2019-06-24, 02:45 PM

I like how they bounce off each other. I like how Russhi is good at trading with lots of small creatures, and Toshi is good for trading with one big.
I don't think Russhi is necessarily too strong, but it is definitely the strongest of the two by a reasonable margin, and I think that hurts the design a bit.

I see your point. I could make Russhi a 1/1 instead, it would be significantly less threatning and retain the "two masters unable to beat each other" effect.

Toshi is hard to improve without making him more complicated, I like that they are simple as well.

enderlord99

2019-06-24, 03:30 PM

I'm still confused about both how the thing that makes you lose if you run out of it is less valuable than the thing that doesn't make you lose if you run out of it, let alone how being unable to win the game ever is only a minor drawback and not a huge one.

Ninjaman

2019-06-24, 04:30 PM

Man_Over_Game

2019-06-24, 05:01 PM

You're unsure why Dark Ritual is a good card and Healing Salve isn't?

Someone better than me put it in these terms, when describing a card like Necropotence and spending 19 life to fish for a win condition:

"It doesn't matter if you win the game with only 1 HP. It only matters that you win".

It's about tempo. If you can get more momentum than your opponent, you can control the game. Losing life doesn't slow down your momentum, but losing mana does. Losing life might mean a gamble, but losing mana is a nearly guaranteed loss.

Carl

2019-06-24, 05:35 PM

No, it is not. The entire point is that life is much less valuable than mana, so being able to pay life instead of mana is powerful. That also means that being able to pay mana instead of life is not very powerful. If a deck cared about life more than mana, they would just play cards that gained life.

Green only get big flying dragons in sets that are all about big flying dragons. So far that has happened twice. I wouldn't go down that road.
Also, it sucks. Look at Baneslayer Angel and Thundermaw Hellkite. You could push it much more.

I wouldn't say set needs a dragon focus to hve a green dragon fro looking at the gatherer. Thats said i'm not set on it or anything and don't necessarily mind dropping it. And i was being super conservative, mono green and flyers really don't go together well.

Someone better than me put it in these terms, when describing a card like Necropotence and spending 19 life to fish for a win condition:

"It doesn't matter if you win the game with only 1 HP. It only matters that you win".

It's about tempo. If you can get more momentum than your opponent, you can control the game. Losing life doesn't slow down your momentum, but losing mana does. Losing life might mean a gamble, but losing mana is a nearly guaranteed loss.

This. It's really hard to explain or comprehend till you've seen it in action and it requires a deck built to exploit it for the most part to make it really obvious, but once you see it it's really obvious. I'll have a dig around in a little bit and try and find the skybilz game on her twitch from the other night where someone abused doom whisperer and a few other cards to squeak the win out. (Poor Sky though, she's the very definition of insane bad luck in her tournaments).

enderlord99

2019-06-24, 08:45 PM

You're unsure why Dark Ritual is a good card and Healing Salve isn't?

Of course the ratio isn't 1-to-1; you don't start with 20 mana, after all!

The thing I'm having trouble grocking is how no amount of life could possibly reach a single point of mana in value.

I also don't get Abyssal Persecutor, but that's a seperate issue and an explanation has already been attempted.

Carl

2019-06-24, 10:09 PM

Of course the ratio isn't 1-to-1; you don't start with 20 mana, after all!

The thing I'm having trouble grocking is how no amount of life could possibly reach a single point of mana in value.

I also don't get Abyssal Persecutor, but that's a seperate issue and an explanation has already been attempted.

The thing you have to understand is that at more than mildly optimized play levels the overall tempo of the game is rather high. You can only play one land per turn, playing the land you came up with means your mana curves up less sharply, that means you have access to less powerful spells than you otherwise would. And that means what your land does has to make up for that, and that requires that you can use it's effects in a way that offsets that. The problem is thats a tough bar to meet. There's a reason Dark Ritual, Channel, Necropotence, and a few others that require you to pay life besides are banned or restricted in every format out there that they could otherwise be used in. Paying life for any effect at even 2 life to 1 mana of effect is hilariously powerful in general, and anything better than that is considered outright broken pretty much 100% of the time. Incidentally Phyrexian Mana is considered pretty broken generally and is almost certain never to return.

And that makes your card need to be part of an entire set themed around playing with your life total and interactions around that because without several effects interacting with it it's not really powerful enough unless interacting with somthing completely broken.

Linky to the twitch stream i mentioned at the right time stamp for the game: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/442404321?t=3h20m15s

Tvtyrant

2019-06-24, 10:19 PM

I rather like Kel, seems like a fun punisher card against control. Just needs a way to give everything phasing.

Blue Ghost

2019-06-24, 10:21 PM

Carl

2019-06-24, 11:09 PM

I think the core idea of a card that can pay life for you is workable, and a pretty cool design idea. But I would say that if it's a land, it really needs to be able to generate mana. It's a hard and fast rule of modern Magic design that all lands have to generate mana, and I think it's a necessary one to keep in place. It's not just about power level; one can easily imagine a utility land with a powerful enough effect to be worth playing even if it never generated any mana. The problem is that few people would enjoy playing with such a card. Missing a land drop is never a fun experience, and playing a land that does not generate mana is equivalent to willfully missing a land drop. In early Zendikar design, Wizards experimented with an ability that cost you a land drop to activate, and concluded that it was a miserable play experience, scrapping it in favor of the far superior landfall. Lands that don't generate mana would have the same problem.

So yeah, add the ability to generate a colorless mana to your land design, and it's a fine card.

This i completely agree with.

Anyway i initially put together a couple of cool cards, (the mono white and G/W) for my WIP set and i spotted a way to add in a mono green and build and tri colour and build an entire sequence of cards so i'll throw them up for thoughts.

Also quick note, i'm very much at the throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks. Whilst i have a few idea's of what i need in some area's in a lot of cases i'm really just coming up with idea's that use the set themes and adding them to the file, once it's more filled out i'll have a better idea of what i actually need vs what's cool byut not strictly required. So none of this should be considered set-in-stone, right now it's just throwing themed idea's around and seeing what flies and what doesn't and figuring out once things are more fleshed out what holes i have, (mono colours are getting there on that TBH, but thats more because there are only a handful of mono cards).

https://i.imgur.com/AkieWFH.jpg

The first to receive detailed design but the next card was the actual inspiration. Unsure about cost, again mono green and flying means i'm trying to be super conservative. It's really an enabler for the rest of the cards in the sequence, legendary aside.

https://i.imgur.com/vSTkVZX.jpg

The second card to be designed, though it inspired the rest, i knew for a both thematic and mechanical reasons it was going to come out green/white mix and theme said it would have flying. After that it was mostly looking for way to fit in set themes and emphasize the colours. I threw first strike in to push the white aspect, and cribbed a bit off Timberpack Wolf for some more green then threw in a set themed bit. Cost is again tentative. I looked a few diffrent creatures up on the gatherer for a guideline but well naturally there's no exact match.

https://i.imgur.com/lnp08tH.jpg

Actually an earlier concept of the previous card, (just with the size upped 1 step), i discarded it for that card because it was too mono white, but i realised i could use that to fill a mono white hole for me. Cost was loosely based off some angels that fall into loosely similar setup, (again no perfect match).

https://i.imgur.com/9eXJbF7.jpg

Since i'd done the lower ranks thematically it made sense to make the Commander of the troops. The Dragon bit is a pure set focused thematic thing. Very, very tentative cost, Double Strike and haste where there to play up the red aspect as i wanted it in all the colours of it's thematic faction. Indestructible was to fit with the idea that he/she is supposed to be able to take a dragon on alone. And as a commander in a white theme i felt having it provide one of it's keywords to the troops made sense. of the options DOuble Strike felt like the less insane one over Indestructible, (the 3rd one allready provides vigilance and haste felt super redundant). But well a 4/4 flying body with double strike and indestructible is no easy thing to price up. I pretty much used Avacyn as a reference as she's the closest thing i could think of, knocking a mana off for the tri colour aspect, (i also went green heavy mostly for a combinaition of thematic reasons and limiting degenerate possibilities.

Bucky

2019-06-24, 11:23 PM

I have a few cool YMTC cards that didn't quite match the theme once I refined the design.

Dead-Honor Rival 1BB
Creature - Vampire Assassin R
When Dead-Honor Rival enters the battlefield, name a creature card.

Whenever a creature with the chosen name enters the battlefield, destroy it. If you do, you lose 2 life.

You were doomed the moment you decided to follow the rules.
3/2

(For the pun, of course.)

Figment Moth 2UG
Creature - Insect U
Flying
When Figment Moth attacks, create two 0/1 blue Illusion tokens with Flying and "This creature must be blocked if able" that are tapped and attacking. Exile the tokens at the end of combat.
3/1

---

The thing I'm having trouble grocking is how no amount of life could possibly reach a single point of mana in value.
It depends on the matchup.
Against a burn deck, if you gain 4 life for 1 mana and a card, they'll need to spend 2+ mana of their own, and a card, to remove the life. Worth it.
Against an aggro deck, if you gain 4 life for 1 mana and a card, that buys you a part of a turn... but it also cost you part of a turn, so it's not worthwhile. But if you have a card with "1,T: Gain 4 life" that you use every turn, it's basically negating an attacking creature and might be worthwhile. It follows that gaining as much life as the creature deals in its lifetime is worthwhile. (20+ if you're sweeping the board every 5 turns)
Against a control deck, they don't care when they kill you, so 4 life or 20 life doesn't matter. But if you gain some absurd amount of life like 50,000, it could win you the game because they can't deal that much damage before they deck themselves.
Against an infinite combo deck, life gain doesn't matter at all. If you gain a million life, they can deal a million and twenty.

enderlord99

2019-06-24, 11:29 PM

Bucky

2019-06-24, 11:38 PM

The wording "You may tap {cardname} to pay up to 3 life of a life cost" works, I think. And 3 feels right, although this is the sort of thing you'd test rather than guess.

Blue Ghost

2019-06-25, 12:02 AM

Bucky

2019-06-25, 12:22 AM

Also quick note, i'm very much at the throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks.

It would be much easier to evaluate those Endow/Empower cards if you were to show us some common blessings.

Ninjaman

2019-06-25, 12:44 AM

I wouldn't say set needs a dragon focus to hve a green dragon fro looking at the gatherer. Thats said i'm not set on it or anything and don't necessarily mind dropping it. And i was being super conservative, mono green and flyers really don't go together well.

Just gatherer searched. There are five mono green dragons. One is absolutely ancient. The other is 10+ years old and from a cycle, and the three others are from a dragons matter set.

This. It's really hard to explain or comprehend till you've seen it in action and it requires a deck built to exploit it for the most part to make it really obvious, but once you see it it's really obvious. I'll have a dig around in a little bit and try and find the skybilz game on her twitch from the other night where someone abused doom whisperer and a few other cards to squeak the win out. (Poor Sky though, she's the very definition of insane bad luck in her tournaments).
You don't even need to build around it. Paying life instead of mana is just good.

Of course the ratio isn't 1-to-1; you don't start with 20 mana, after all!

The thing I'm having trouble grocking is how no amount of life could possibly reach a single point of mana in value.
It's not that no amount of life is ever worth it, it's that lifegain is sometimes really good, and sometimes useless.

I also don't get Abyssal Persecutor, but that's a seperate issue and an explanation has already been attempted.
I fail to see how this is relevant.

https://i.imgur.com/AkieWFH.jpg

The first to receive detailed design but the next card was the actual inspiration. Unsure about cost, again mono green and flying means i'm trying to be super conservative. It's really an enabler for the rest of the cards in the sequence, legendary aside.

https://i.imgur.com/vSTkVZX.jpg

The second card to be designed, though it inspired the rest, i knew for a both thematic and mechanical reasons it was going to come out green/white mix and theme said it would have flying. After that it was mostly looking for way to fit in set themes and emphasize the colours. I threw first strike in to push the white aspect, and cribbed a bit off Timberpack Wolf for some more green then threw in a set themed bit. Cost is again tentative. I looked a few diffrent creatures up on the gatherer for a guideline but well naturally there's no exact match.

https://i.imgur.com/lnp08tH.jpg

Actually an earlier concept of the previous card, (just with the size upped 1 step), i discarded it for that card because it was too mono white, but i realised i could use that to fill a mono white hole for me. Cost was loosely based off some angels that fall into loosely similar setup, (again no perfect match).

https://i.imgur.com/9eXJbF7.jpg

Since i'd done the lower ranks thematically it made sense to make the Commander of the troops. The Dragon bit is a pure set focused thematic thing. Very, very tentative cost, Double Strike and haste where there to play up the red aspect as i wanted it in all the colours of it's thematic faction. Indestructible was to fit with the idea that he/she is supposed to be able to take a dragon on alone. And as a commander in a white theme i felt having it provide one of it's keywords to the troops made sense. of the options DOuble Strike felt like the less insane one over Indestructible, (the 3rd one allready provides vigilance and haste felt super redundant). But well a 4/4 flying body with double strike and indestructible is no easy thing to price up. I pretty much used Avacyn as a reference as she's the closest thing i could think of, knocking a mana off for the tri colour aspect, (i also went green heavy mostly for a combinaition of thematic reasons and limiting degenerate possibilities.
You would probably get more responses to your cards if you gave them actual names.

Carl

2019-06-25, 07:06 AM

It would be much easier to evaluate those Endow/Empower cards if you were to show us some common blessings.

Yeah i thought someone would mention that, i just don't want to flood the thread with too many of my cards. See below for a bunch of examples.

Just gatherer searched. There are five mono green dragons. One is absolutely ancient. The other is 10+ years old and from a cycle, and the three others are from a dragons matter set.

You would probably get more responses to your cards if you gave them actual names.

I was under the impression takir was the only serious cares about dragons, but like i said doesn't really matter.

Main reason i didn't do names is that i've tried that approach previously and got too caught up in the theme's over mechanical design. Using card codes really helps. That said these are more of a top down design than most of the cards i've created.

If i was going to assign names:

UG01 = Forest Great Falcon

UZ-04-01 = Elf Falcon Rider

RW01 = Falcon Rider Captain

MZ-014-01 = "John/Jane", Skylord

(Note: John/ane is a placeholder, i suck with proper name creation ok).

Ok said i'd throw out a few blessings:

You'll quickly note that the first couple of lines are boilerplate. They're effectively reminder text for how blessings function.

https://i.imgur.com/iK4J3Ld.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/ho9hhZ8.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/VFh3mxX.jpg

The one above may be a touch too complicated for common and get pushed to uncommon instead.

https://i.imgur.com/YGz5qq4.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/89auVSC.jpg

Carl

2019-06-25, 07:10 AM

It's been a while since I've done some card design, though I still have my old portfolio linked in my signature. I should get back into it.
A couple proof-of-concept designs that I made for a hypothetical Fire Emblem set that I probably will not actually get around to making:

https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/a560/BlueGhostITP/0/97c48d42-8e80-4ce8-9dcb-b4cf7e2c8cba-original.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/a560/BlueGhostITP/0/d3251708-724e-43c4-b901-679d0cacb982-original.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/a560/BlueGhostITP/0/5653f245-7bcc-4d8f-8903-b9aeb853a099-original.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/a560/BlueGhostITP/0/71e7d130-7131-45e7-a6b7-b23f0189fe14-original.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/a560/BlueGhostITP/0/2582252a-1219-4aef-9eea-1b49c889ea2c-original.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds

Hmmm the last one seems like you'd need a deck built around it to really benefit, and probably a fair bit of card filtering or your going to kill yourself super fast for low gain. The rest look fairly good though i worry number 2 might be a bit aggressive in some decks.

I have a few cool YMTC cards that didn't quite match the theme once I refined the design.

Dead-Honor Rival 1BB
Creature - Vampire Assassin R
When Dead-Honor Rival enters the battlefield, name a creature card.

Whenever a creature with the chosen name enters the battlefield, destroy it. If you do, you lose 2 life.

You were doomed the moment you decided to follow the rules.
3/2

(For the pun, of course.)

Figment Moth 2UG
Creature - Insect U
Flying
When Figment Moth attacks, create two 0/1 blue Illusion tokens with Flying and "This creature must be blocked if able" that are tapped and attacking. Exile the tokens at the end of combat.
3/1

I like both, very thematic and don't look very unbalanced.

Androgeus

2019-06-25, 11:17 AM

https://i.imgur.com/9eXJbF7.jpg

Since i'd done the lower ranks thematically it made sense to make the Commander of the troops. The Dragon bit is a pure set focused thematic thing. Very, very tentative cost, Double Strike and haste where there to play up the red aspect as i wanted it in all the colours of it's thematic faction. Indestructible was to fit with the idea that he/she is supposed to be able to take a dragon on alone. And as a commander in a white theme i felt having it provide one of it's keywords to the troops made sense. of the options DOuble Strike felt like the less insane one over Indestructible, (the 3rd one allready provides vigilance and haste felt super redundant). But well a 4/4 flying body with double strike and indestructible is no easy thing to price up. I pretty much used Avacyn as a reference as she's the closest thing i could think of, knocking a mana off for the tri colour aspect, (i also went green heavy mostly for a combinaition of thematic reasons and limiting degenerate possibilities.

That last ability is confusing. Firstly a minor point, having the similar named mechanics (Empower and Endow) in the same set isn't helping anything, especially as both deal with the same subset of cards. Secondly what are you repeating twice? Everything, including the dragon exile part? Just the Empower Endow part? Just the Endow bit? I think you mean the Endow empower part, but am not sure. I also think you want the Endow to happen after the player actually uses the Empower and not while resolving the ETB. I think the following would work but I'm not entirely happy with it.

When ~ enters the battlefield, you may exile target Dragon. If you do Endow, then Empower. When you next Empower, Endow then Empower again.

Strictly speaking this probably triggers the reflexive part when you set up the delayed triggers and not when you actually use .

On that note I also think Empower has some memory issues, if you have multiple empowers triggering it could get complicated tracking how many you have at any given time. I'd probably change it to creating a token that can be sacrificed to copy the blessing. This would end up making the above card have an ablity something like

When ~ enters the battlefield, you may exile target Dragon. If you do Empower three times(Create three empower enchantment tokens with "Sacrifice this:Copy the activated ability of a Blessing you control). When you sacrifice those tokens, Endow.

Lastly, I know they are only commons but Blessing seem underwhelming and extremely parasitic. I'd look towards energy where most of the cards that required it, gave you enough to use them at least once. I'd definitely have them come in untapped. Oh and Wizards tends not to have rules text explicitly tied to subtypes any more so the tapped text should stay on the card as actual rules.

Man_Over_Game

2019-06-25, 12:55 PM

My friends and I, back in college, made up card concepts for each other that were to suit our playstyles and personalities. They'd transform under certain circumstances.

One I was particularly fond of was one I made for my wife:

Kel, the Kind:

GGB1

Legendary Kithkin Druid
1/5
Hexproof

Other creatures you control have Trample.

When another creature you controls is targeted by an effect that an opponent controls, transform Kel at the end of the turn.

"Alright, everyone play fair now, 'kay?

************Transformed***********

Kel, the Mad
Colors are Red/Blue

Legendary Kithkin Barbarian
5/1
Unblockable

Other creatures you control have Shroud.

"'Kay, NOW I'm mad!"

And one a friend made for me:

Z, Saint of Mercy

Legendary Human Cleric
WWG2
3/3
When an enemy creature dies from combat damage from one of your creatures, it instead enters the battlefield under your control.
Tap: Target creature must attack or block this turn.

On your upkeep, when there are no creatures on your side of the battlefield, return Z from the graveyard to the battlefield, transformed and with Haste.

"Everyone deserves forgiveness,..."

************Transformed***********

Z, the Redeemer

Legendary Demon Cleric
Colors are White/Black
3/3

At the start of your combat phase, each opponent chooses one creature from their graveyard. Those creatures enter the battlefield under your control, tapped and attacking their respective owners.
Tap: Regenerate
When a creature you control dies, instead exile it.

"...provided enough penance."

Androgeus

2019-06-25, 01:04 PM

Z, Saint of Mercy

Legendary Human Cleric
WWG3
3/3
When an enemy creature dies from combat damage from one of your creatures, it instead enters the battlefield under your control.
Tap: Target creature must attack or block this turn.

On your upkeep, when there are no creatures on your side of the battlefield, return Z from the graveyard to the battlefield, transformed and with Haste.

"Everyone deserves forgiveness,..."

************Transformed***********

Z, the Redeemer

Legendary Demon Cleric
Colors are White/Black
3/3

At the start of your combat phase, each opponent chooses one creature from their graveyard. Those creatures enter the battlefield under your control, tapped and attacking their respective owners.
Tap: Regenerate
When Z dies, instead Exile it.

"...provided enough penance."

Damage doesn't kill things. That's why Sengir Vampire (https://scryfall.com/card/w17/19/sengir-vampire)'s ability is worded the way it is

Man_Over_Game

2019-06-25, 01:13 PM

Damage doesn't kill things. That's why Sengir Vampire (https://scryfall.com/card/w17/19/sengir-vampire)'s ability is worded the way it is

So it instead should be something like:

"When a creature dies after being dealt combat damage from a creature you control"

?

Bucky

2019-06-25, 06:20 PM

Ok said i'd throw out a few blessings:

You'll quickly note that the first couple of lines are boilerplate. They're effectively reminder text for how blessings function.

https://i.imgur.com/iK4J3Ld.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/ho9hhZ8.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/VFh3mxX.jpg

The one above may be a touch too complicated for common and get pushed to uncommon instead.

https://i.imgur.com/YGz5qq4.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/89auVSC.jpg

I'd shorten the boilerplate.

If it has "Untap only with Endow", you don't need to also say that it doesn't untap during untap steps.

Also, why does it enter tapped?

Tvtyrant

2019-06-25, 07:51 PM

Bucky

2019-06-25, 07:56 PM

Legendary Enchantment Saga
I-Destroy all Legendary permanents.

Destroy all other Legendary permanents?

Tvtyrant

2019-06-25, 08:00 PM

Destroy all other Legendary permanents?

Haha oops. Fixed.

The card is supposed to replicate the "assassinate the political rivals, there is a civil war, a leader emerges" pattern. I also considered just making everyone attack twice, and then make a shogun.

Carl

2019-06-25, 09:08 PM

That last ability is confusing. Firstly a minor point, having the similar named mechanics (Empower and Endow) in the same set isn't helping anything, especially as both deal with the same subset of cards. Secondly what are you repeating twice? Everything, including the dragon exile part? Just the Empower Endow part? Just the Endow bit? I think you mean the Endow empower part, but am not sure. I also think you want the Endow to happen after the player actually uses the Empower and not while resolving the ETB. I think the following would work but I'm not entirely happy with it.

When ~ enters the battlefield, you may exile target Dragon. If you do Endow, then Empower. When you next Empower, Endow then Empower again.

Strictly speaking this probably triggers the reflexive part when you set up the delayed triggers and not when you actually use .

On that note I also think Empower has some memory issues, if you have multiple empowers triggering it could get complicated tracking how many you have at any given time. I'd probably change it to creating a token that can be sacrificed to copy the blessing. This would end up making the above card have an ablity something like

When ~ enters the battlefield, you may exile target Dragon. If you do Empower three times(Create three empower enchantment tokens with "Sacrifice this:Copy the activated ability of a Blessing you control). When you sacrifice those tokens, Endow.

Lastly, I know they are only commons but Blessing seem underwhelming and extremely parasitic. I'd look towards energy where most of the cards that required it, gave you enough to use them at least once. I'd definitely have them come in untapped. Oh and Wizards tends not to have rules text explicitly tied to subtypes any more so the tapped text should stay on the card as actual rules.

Ouch good catches on the way i worded that. I got caught out there.

And yeah memory is a concern i admit.

Power level with the blessings is somthing i've kept deliberately low. There's nothing requiring you to use them when you endow and they're instant speed, thats a lot of potential effect spam and i recognised the potential for issues there. Whilst it's not set in stone i've currently got around 25% of the card slots set aside for blessing in the various colour combinations. The entering untapped and having no alternate way to untap, ( did consider letting you pay say their casting cost again at your untap step to let them untap), came from a similar line of thinking. It opens up the ability to have access to some extremly spammy instant speed effects that you can defer the mana payment onto a previous turn. Also if you could untap them by paying mana it could create some excessively complex board states with so many effects that can be triggered off that it would get confusing to track fast.

Certainly though letting them enter untapped isn't a complete deal breaker in that respect, but it's probably going to push up the mana cost a little.

Keyword similarity was a concern but i can alter that at a later date when i dig out a thesaurus. Thats the nice thing about the set editor, when i change a keyword i don't have to edit quite so much text.

I'd shorten the boilerplate.

If it has "Untap only with Endow", you don't need to also say that it doesn't untap during untap steps.

Also, why does it enter tapped?

I covered the enter tapped part above, but your suggestion works, i just decided to explicitly state everything in case there was some edge case i needed to account for. I've been caught out by little details before.

Gauntlet

2019-06-26, 10:31 AM

W
Instant
Target creature gains Provoke and Protection from None-Legendary until end of turn.

"Only the greatest hero could slay such a man."

3WW
Legendary Human Samurai
Protection from None-Legendary
5/1
"The emperor was too radiant to look upon, but too fragile to pick a rose."

3R
Legendary Enchantment Saga
I-Destroy all other Legendary permanents.
II- All creatures gain "This creature must attack if able" until your next upkeep.
III- Create a 5/5 indestructible Legendary Shogun creature token under control of the player with the most life.

Duel doesn't do what it looks like it's meant to - Provoke only makes a creature block it 'if able' so you can't provoke a non-legendary creature with this for a Rabid Bite effect because it would be an illegal block. Functionally this card is pretty much a Gods' Willing.

Emperor seems solid but doesn't look like a very White card. 5/1 makes him look more RW.

Warring States is a cool card, but playing it doesn't really help the caster much unless you can reliably expect your opponent to have a lot of legendary permanents.

Tvtyrant

2019-06-26, 02:20 PM

Duel doesn't do what it looks like it's meant to - Provoke only makes a creature block it 'if able' so you can't provoke a non-legendary creature with this for a Rabid Bite effect because it would be an illegal block. Functionally this card is pretty much a Gods' Willing.

Emperor seems solid but doesn't look like a very White card. 5/1 makes him look more RW.

Warring States is a cool card, but playing it doesn't really help the caster much unless you can reliably expect your opponent to have a lot of legendary permanents.

Okay, I'll change it to "can only be blocked by one creature" instead of unblockable.

3WR seems fair.

It feels a little clunky for sure. I will rewrite it later.

Thank you for the help!

Man_Over_Game

2019-06-26, 03:00 PM

BB3
Sorcery

Each creature gets -1/-1 until end of turn for each creature in play that shares a creature type with it.

I've always hated tribal decks.

Laughing Dog

2019-06-27, 11:33 PM

I've always hated tribal decks.

I, on the other hand, love tribal decks.

Forgotten Factory of Horrific Wonders
Legendary Land- MR
As ~ enters the battlefield, choose a creature type.
Q, sacrifice a creature not of the chosen type: Create a colorless 2/2 token artifact creature of the chosen type.
I actually like squirrel tribal.
Does this make me a bad person?

Man_Over_Game

2019-06-28, 10:41 AM

Forgotten Factory of Horrific Wonders
Legendary Land- MR
As ~ enters the battlefield, choose a creature type.
Q, sacrifice a creature not of the chosen type: Create a colorless 2/2 token artifact creature of the chosen type.

Well, that makes you Dr. Robotnik. So...yeah?

To me, it generally feels like they lack creativity or adaptability.

There's a few tribals that do interesting things I've seen (like there's a Wizard commander that makes temporary copies of Wizards that you summon, to fuel sacrifice or ETB effects, but obviously lacks synergy with Legendaries), but most are about as simple as "Play cards on curve" and that's about as complex as it gets. And power without effort rubs me the wrong way. Like the deciding factor of who wins is roughly "You built a deck!", and then just hoping you happened to build the deck that is relevant in this game.

Laughing Dog

2019-06-28, 02:11 PM

Well, that makes you Dr. Robotnik. So...yeah?

May I sig this please?

Man_Over_Game

2019-06-28, 02:30 PM

May I sig this please?

Hell yeah.

lightningcat

2019-06-28, 03:12 PM

Man_Over_Game

2019-06-28, 03:35 PM

Not sure if I like that card as a Spellmorph. It's relevant without the special trait for 3 CMC. There's just not much reason you'd spend 3 mana to play it facedown just to spend 4 mana to flip it when you could normally just spend 3 to zap something.

Flip the costs, and I could see it work. So it costs a lot normally, has a high cost when you morph and spellmorph it in the same turn, but doing the latter means you can split the costs between two turns.

Or something like a cost of RRRR, spellmorph cost of R2.

Tvtyrant

2019-06-28, 03:52 PM

Years ago I had an idea for a mechanic, Spellmorph.
You may play the card face-down as a 2/2 creature for 3 mana. You may then pay the Spellmorph cost as an Instant to flip it over and have the spell resolve normally.
Not at my computer, so none of my carefully balanced examples are close by. But here is a one off the top of my head.

Spark-bite (2)(R)
Instant
Spellmorph (2)(R)(R)
Deal 3 damage to target creature or player. Draw a card.

Deal 3 draw a card seems strong for 3 on an instant as is. If you want to make the morph make sense you might make it a sorcery, so the morph allows you to instant speed cast what is normally a sorcery.

Example:

Pump G
Sorcery
Target creature gets +2/+4 until end of turn
Spellmorph (you may play this card as a creature card for 3. You may exile it and then cast it from exile at any time by paying G)

Unavenger

2019-06-30, 04:16 PM

Man_Over_Game

2019-07-01, 10:58 AM

So, I was mucking around with a way to do Madness again in a more interesting way than just "Discard this and it's cheaper". I came up with semi-madness split cards:

Back 2U
Sorcery C
Return target creature to its owner's hand. Draw a card.
//
Beyond
U Sorcery C
Madness 2UU
Counter target spell. If that spell is countered in this way, exile it instead of putting it into its owner's graveyard.

Center 1R
Sorcery U
Center deals 4 damage to target creature without flying.
//
Gravity
R Sorcery U
Madness 2RR
Gravity deals 4 damage to each creature with flying.

Delusions 2RR
Sorcery U
Each creature deals damage equal to its power to itself.
//
Grandeur
U Sorcery U
Madness 3UU
Until end of turn, creatures you control get +1/+1 and have flying and “Whenever this creature deals combat damager to a player, draw a card.”

Hour 4UU
Sorcery R
Take an extra turn after this one. Exile Hour.
//
Need
R Sorcery R
Madness XRR
Create X 1/1 red human creature tokens.

Loss 1R
Sorcery C
Destroy target artifact.
//
Consciousness
U Sorcery C
Madness 1UU
Draw two cards.

Love 1R
Sorcery C
Target creature gets +2/+2 and gains haste until end of turn.
//
Money
R Sorcery C
Madness 2R
Create 3 artifact tokens called Treasure with “T, Sacrifice Treasure: Add one mana of any color.”

Nick 2RR
Sorcery R
Gain control of target nonland permanent until end of turn. Untap it. It gains haste until end of turn.
//
Madness 3UUU
Return all nonland permanents your opponents control to their owner’s hands.

Plan UU
Sorcery U
Return target instant or sorcery card from your graveyard to your hand.
//
Action
R Sorcery U
Madness RR
Copy target instant or sorcery spell with converted mana cost 4 or less.

Seal 3UU
Sorcery C
Put target nonland permanent into its owner’s library third from the top.
//
Approval
U Sorcery C
Madness U
Target creature gains hexproof until end of turn.

Token 1UU
Sorcery U
Create a token that's a copy of target creature.
//
Affection
U Sorcery U
Madness 3UU
Gain control of target creature.

Voice 1R
Sorcery C
Voice deals 1 damage to each creature your opponents control.
//
Reason
U Sorcery C
Madness 1U
Scry 1, then draw a card.

Winds U
Sorcery C
Target creature gains flying until end of turn.
//
Change
U Sorcery C
Madness 2U
Exchange control of two target creatures.

Is this viable? Do these cards feel cool and playable? Are they priced reasonably?

I like the ideas, I don't like how the Madness effects are the ones that you'd be wanting to play on an enemy's turn. That's a major problem, as it means that:

You need to have mana untapped at the end of your turn (risky, if enemies don't play into your gambit. Basically the same reason Blue Decks have a hard time with non-mill win conditions)
You need to spend resources on an enemy's turn to cause you to discard (many self-discard effects are Sorceries)

For example, you need to consider, realistically, how someone would be able to spend 4 mana on an enemy's turn to counter a spell, while ALSO forcing themselves to discard a card at the same time that someone is casting an important spell.

It's easier to force yourself to discard on your own turn, and it's easier to spend more mana on your own turn. That's why a lot of Madness effects are cheaper, because you're already spending mana/resources to force yourself to discard in the first place.

For a good rule of thumb, imagine the requirement to discard a card costs an additional 2-3 mana. That is, a R2 Madness effect really costs about R4 or R5, and the effect should represent as such.

Still, you have a few options:

Make the Madness effects cheaper. This allows you to make a discard effect in the same turn.
Make the effect MUCH more powerful. If it's an effect that needs to take place on an enemy's turn, and you want it to be expensive, then it needs to be GOOD. Like, "Counter a spell and exile it. Search your opponent's hand and library for copies of that card and exile them too" levels of good.
Provide its own means for discard (like maybe through Cycling). This reduces the effective cost of the Discard effect needed for Madness by 1-2 CMC. Or, in other words, the aforemented R2 example now costs roughly R3 or R4. This is because the value of a card is roughly 2 CMC, and you don't need to spend a card to force you to get the Madness effect if the Discard effect doesn't have to come from a separate card.

Or, to put another way, look at all of the Madness costs of all of those cards. Now add (2) to all of them, and determine whether they need to become cheaper, or if they need to be buffed. If they can Discard themselves (like with Cycle), reduce that (2) to (0) and recalculate from there.

Ninjaman

2019-07-01, 03:50 PM

Basically the same reason Blue Decks have a hard time with non-mill win conditions

I don't understand this sentence.

Man_Over_Game

2019-07-01, 04:04 PM

I don't understand this sentence.

Blue's big, cliché thing is keeping someone from being able to play important cards. In order to do so, they have to keep resources open and available. However, while you left your mana open, there's a chance that the enemy won't put himself in a position where the blue player can effectively disrupt things, either by playing cheaper cards (so the blue player ends up being at a loss), or finding means of spending resources that don't allow the blue player to interact (like avoiding casting spells, but still spending mana). In the best-case scenario, the Blue player spends 3 mana and a card to force the enemy to spend 4+ mana and a card. But that's often not always the case. The blue player often ends up having excess mana that he can't use, while other players do not. So while the Blue player spends maybe 50% of their mana contributing towards their board state, the enemy player is spending 100% towards theirs and occasionally gets a big thing in when the blue player can't respond (like if the blue player can't counter a specific card for some reason).

So while the Blue player waits, the other player is playing (and occasionally failing due to the Blue Player). I personally think that Mill was added as a mechanic to provide Blue a win condition that is unique to them that often works without needing constant investment (as blue players often have to focus on saving mana for reactive effects). After all, a blue player can always hope to stall the game long enough for their opponent to run out of cards, just like how a green player can hope to eventually tick off enough damage to win with enough creatures.

Of course, there are other ways of playing blue that doesn't involve milling or counter effects, but those are the two most common playstyles.

In regards to the Madness effect that the post is about, there's a big difference between "Playing big stuff" and "Waiting to react with big stuff". There's always the chance that you're saving your mana to play...nothing. And that's worse than playing something to have it be countered (as at least then, you had a chance of success in the best case scenario, and you made your opponent lose a card in the worse case scenario). Most of the Madness effects listed are ones that you'd want to play on your enemy's turn, and having the mana needed to play a Madness effect on your enemy's turn, on top of a discard effect to make the Madness happen, is extremely expensive and a massive risk. You're looking at 2 cards, with highly circumstantial requirements (the discard effect HAS to be instant, cheap and relevant), meaning you're ending your turn with about 6 mana untapped and potentially wasted, when you could just be playing things for guaranteed value (or roughly equal loss for you and your enemy, in the case of counters).

It boils down to "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush", and both counter-blue and off-turn Madness effects are the "two in the bush".

Silfir

2019-07-01, 05:53 PM

I don't really see how the fact they're split cards and the fact they're madness cards meaningfully interact in a way that counterbalances the real estate you lose.

Aftermath is simply "split cards and Flashback combined", but the point of that combination is that you can play both halves of the card that way, in a particular order, and they can be designed such that the effects work together. They're named "X to Y" because that describes the order in which they're played. The naming theme here appears to be "X of Y", but why is one half of the card "of" the other? They don't interact.

These are essentially vanilla split cards, except more annoying to use. Moving the mana cost from the top right into the text box (via Madness keyword) when real estate is already sparse due to the card being half the size doesn't help matters.

Regular split cards (as opposed to Fuse and Aftermath), while lacking synergy, have the advantage of true flexibility since they don't require your deck to have tons of Madness enablers to play either half. There's a delightful simplicity and symmetry in cards like Wear/Tear that isn't present in your concept.

Ninjaman

2019-07-02, 04:34 AM

-snip-

I think you misunderstood me. I know how control decks work. Referring to control decks as "blue decks" is a bit weird though, as most control decks play other colors along with blue. Actual mono blue decks are actually often tempo decks or combo decks.
My point, that I should probably have made more clear, was that you are wrong. Blue does not have an issue with non-mill win conditions, especially not since most decks play at least two colors, so you can play win conditions of your other color. Also, mill often isn't very competitive, so often it will have a harder time with mill win-conditions than with other win conditions.

Unavenger

2019-07-02, 04:41 AM

You need to have mana untapped at the end of your turn (risky, if enemies don't play into your gambit. Basically the same reason Blue Decks have a hard time with non-mill win conditions)
You need to spend resources on an enemy's turn to cause you to discard (many self-discard effects are Sorceries)
[/LIST]

It's easier to force yourself to discard on your own turn, and it's easier to spend more mana on your own turn. That's why a lot of Madness effects are cheaper, because you're already spending mana/resources to force yourself to discard in the first place.

For a good rule of thumb, imagine the requirement to discard a card costs an additional 2-3 mana. That is, a R2 Madness effect really costs about R4 or R5, and the effect should represent as such.

So, I disagree with basically all of this.

One of the most obnoxious decks in the standard format right now is monoblue tempo. Blue does not have a problem with non-mill win conditions. Second off, blue decks in the current standard format are so powerful because they have the ability to, say, end-step Chemister's Insight if the enemy doesn't mill them.

Second of all, you don't usually need to spend resources to discard cards. Discarding cards is spending resources. It tends to cost around 1 (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=409850), 0 (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=409926), 0 if you can get creatures to ETB at instant speed (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=410013), 0 (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=409930), 0 (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=409825), B (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=409885) or 0 (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=409779). Note that these are all from SOI, the last set to have madness.

Next off, madness costs on things that need to be done at instant speed to be effective are not always cheaper (https://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=409792). The cheaper ones actually tend to be ones where it makes no tangible difference (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=409845). Running Call the Bloodline or whatever is an opportunity cost, don'tchaknow? That's why you're allowed to get better effects (you'll notice that "jump through hoops to get a bolt in standard (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=409908)" is starting to be a common (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=457259) theme (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=443040).)

Finally, there's the argument that if you're causing your card to, essentially, cantrip (because your baby Jace or any of the SOI T: draw 1 pitch 1 cards is allowing you to cast that spell and then draw a card) then you're actually winning out. One of the most amazingly fun decks I played in Magic Duels used this fun-loving creature (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=409806) to lob a bunch of spells at the enemy and their stuff while still having a full hand afterwards. Not possible with the counterspells, mind, but that's workable-with.

Carl

2019-07-02, 05:31 AM

So, I disagree with basically all of this.

One of the most obnoxious decks in the standard format right now is monoblue tempo. Blue does not have a problem with non-mill win conditions. Second off, blue decks in the current standard format are so powerful because they have the ability to, say, end-step Chemister's Insight if the enemy doesn't mill them.

Second of all, you don't usually need to spend resources to discard cards. Discarding cards is spending resources. It tends to cost around 1 (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=409850), 0 (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=409926), 0 if you can get creatures to ETB at instant speed (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=410013), 0 (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=409930), 0 (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=409825), B (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=409885) or 0 (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=409779). Note that these are all from SOI, the last set to have madness.

Next off, madness costs on things that need to be done at instant speed to be effective are not always cheaper (https://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=409792). The cheaper ones actually tend to be ones where it makes no tangible difference (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=409845). Running Call the Bloodline or whatever is an opportunity cost, don'tchaknow? That's why you're allowed to get better effects (you'll notice that "jump through hoops to get a bolt in standard (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=409908)" is starting to be a common (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=457259) theme (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=443040).)

Finally, there's the argument that if you're causing your card to, essentially, cantrip (because your baby Jace or any of the SOI T: draw 1 pitch 1 cards is allowing you to cast that spell and then draw a card) then you're actually winning out. One of the most amazingly fun decks I played in Magic Duels used this fun-loving creature (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=409806) to lob a bunch of spells at the enemy and their stuff while still having a full hand afterwards. Not possible with the counterspells, mind, but that's workable-with.

Odd you'd say that when the MTG design team themselves have stated that they specifically added certain cards to war of the spark and M20 to give blue more non-mill win conditions because it's an issue blue has historically.

Cards like Chemists Insight are onyl useful if they actually let you win the game. Drawing cards is not a win condition. Playing cards that enforce an alt win condition or deal damage to your opponent is and it's very hard for blue to maintain any kind of hard control and do damage because so much of their effort shave to be focused on counters and card draw to pull those counters. leaving them precious little mana or card free to do anything else. In fact of all the colour combo's mono-blue both personally and watching high level players play is the colour that seems to struggle the hardest. Now blue with black and white mixed in. I.e. Esper, thats one of the strongest decks at the pro level. But thats explicitly because of the multi-colour cards.

Carl

2019-07-06, 11:51 AM

Weather has been killing me lately so not done much brewing but got a couple.

https://i.imgur.com/Jr7HHgO.jpg

Yes doom 2016 inspired, but also cribbing a little off the god eternals as they really fit the feel. The rest was a good blend of speed and front loaded offence, (Doom 2016 is very much a kill or be killed type title), and a bit of a flavorful triggered ability.

https://i.imgur.com/cxCtQMA.jpg

Skybilz is a pro MTG player, (team Genji if you've never heard of her), and been watching a fair few of her streams lately and the addition of the cat to arena has led to a lot of joking about an otter being added to the age as it's her favorite animal as well as otter tribal. It's much too big to be pro viable but it's in 2 of ehr favirote colours doing things a number of her favorite cards do.

Ninjaman

2019-07-08, 09:50 AM

Silfir

2019-07-08, 10:06 AM

Carl

2019-07-08, 11:59 AM

I don't think that's the biggest issue those cards have. Unless you were implying that removing basically all of the text, without replacement, is what you'd have to do to get Doom Slayer balanced. Maybe it gets to keep first strike.

To be fair i put much less thought into them than usual. And for Sky Otter i was very much going for theme over form. That said a quick dig shows many of the WAR mythics running to 8 lines and a a quick glance the longest i could find was Ilharg who runs to 9. Mine are 9 and 10 respectively. 10 is my self imposed limit though i forget how i worked that up, i think i looked for the longest non-un set card and recreated it and used that as my basis. But it's been a while.

Regarding the power level, honestly making anything big or expensive seems to be where i struggle tending to swing extremely one way or the other. In Doom guys case the middle paragraph was very much a last minute addition as i wanted to catch the feel of his tendency to just smash everything.

Silfir

2019-07-08, 02:18 PM

Ninjaman

2019-07-08, 07:09 PM

To be fair i put much less thought into them than usual. And for Sky Otter i was very much going for theme over form. That said a quick dig shows many of the WAR mythics running to 8 lines and a a quick glance the longest i could find was Ilharg who runs to 9. Mine are 9 and 10 respectively. 10 is my self imposed limit though i forget how i worked that up, i think i looked for the longest non-un set card and recreated it and used that as my basis. But it's been a while.

The difference is that those cards needed that text.

A well designed card needs to do one, very occasionally two, thing(s). Find out what thing you want the card to do, and then do that, don't pick several things you think are cool and slap them all onto the same card.

Ninjaman

2019-07-09, 01:47 AM

A Doom guy that does some of the same things you were trying to do.

Doom Guy - 3WW
Legendary Creature - Human Soldier - R
Double Strike, Protection from red and from black
Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under an opponent's control, you may return Doom Guy from your graveyard to the top of your library.
3/3

Androgeus

2019-07-20, 08:18 PM

Made this card as a bit of a joke over on reddit.

Miss the Ground U
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant Creature
Enchanted creature gains flying
When enchanted creature becomes the target of a spell or ability, sacrifice Miss the Ground.
The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss - Adams, Flight Instructor

Carl

2019-07-21, 11:30 AM

Carl

2019-07-21, 11:53 AM

As written the CMC for Doom Slayer could be 20 and involve five different types of snow mana - as long as discarding it ("enters the graveyard") is enough to get it on your battlefield at the beginning on your next turn, that's very much beside the point. Right now it's the world's most broken Narcomoeba.

I despise the clause (even if properly templated to not allow abuse) to begin with, but if it's going to be acceptable at all, the creature can not have any other form of resiliency, like hexproof. It's just too much.

Ughhh i swear one of these days i'm going to remember that. It's such an intuitive way to get something in play for me it went straight over my head.

The difference is that those cards needed that text.

A well designed card needs to do one, very occasionally two, thing(s). Find out what thing you want the card to do, and then do that, don't pick several things you think are cool and slap them all onto the same card.

It wasn't so much a bunch of cool stuff as trying to represent a very complex concept in a single card. TBF thats a general issue with a ton of stuff for me, part of my ASD, my need to do things right or give a correct answer tends to make me over-analyse myself into a corner. Still i don't mind being pulled up with this sort of comment, when i'm doing it i never realise it at the time. Which makes it hyper frustrating.

I did rework the card with that in mind:

https://i.imgur.com/gFmze0K.jpg

The first part is a major reworking of the he'll allways be back tendency i wanted him to have which shouldn't be anywhere near as broken. Though on second thought i'd probably reword it so that instead of being castable from exile he instead gets bounced to the graveyard if put into exile.

The middle part plus statline are just his fast aggressive nature at work.

The last part is my attempt to capture that essential feel of the new doom gameplay where using your aggression to survive and make yourself more powerful is key to victory. It has involved dropping in more than a few keywords that aren't traditionally mono-red, but this is one of those cases where i feel bending the colour pie makes sense.

Got inspired to do a couple more new Doom characters, though TBH the hardest part with these two was figuring out how to template their theme as they're much less developed than Doom Guy thematically so it was easier to keep a clear goal in mind.

https://i.imgur.com/oPdcUbZ.jpg

She's built around diligent work for her controller that turns into an inevitable betrayal that help out another player. But since she got betrayed so to speak in the end i wanted to do it differently from typical mono-black examples of this where it's a short term self power boost in exchange for a follow up self disadvantage. So she enters the play under the control of an opponent and she lets that opponent draw cards, but if they play anything too big in CMC her owner can trigger her and use that to unload a big batch of spells. The catch of course is that said owner has to have stuff in hand to use her with or otherwise get castable cards.

Templating probably still needs work TBH.

https://i.imgur.com/M1vFGef.jpg

Really hard to know what to do with him but i wanted to emphasize his cyborg nature, but aside from a lot of strength the only thing really known about him is that he's a genius and has an energy shield. I would have liked to squeeze some secondary effect in there as a form of ride along but the shield took up so much card space i couldn't really justify it.

Tvtyrant

2019-07-21, 12:08 PM

King Mukla Conversion
1GG
Legendary Ape creature
Trample
When King Mukla enters the battlefield create two enchantment tokens with "1, sacrifice this: put a +1/+1 counter on target creature" under your opponent's control.
5/5

Ninjaman

2019-07-21, 05:33 PM

-Cards-
Without even reading the cards I can tell they try to much. Look at the size of that text.

And I don't want to be a jerk, but I did submit my own doomguy, you could have at least commented on it.

Androgeus

2019-07-22, 03:02 AM

Templating probably still needs work TBH.

Seeing as you went with “~’s controller” rather than “you”, yes it does.

Also I don’t know why, but your pictures never load for me on my phone. Seeing as you are just doing it for the frame and not including any art work, could you also include a text version?

Carl

2019-07-22, 04:20 AM

Quick FYI fixed the new Doom SLayer's missing card image, no clue what happened there....

Without even reading the cards I can tell they try to much. Look at the size of that text.

And I don't want to be a jerk, but I did submit my own doomguy, you could have at least commented on it.

I specifically didn't comment on it because i didn't want to do any nitpicking over how you'd read what i intended as the main thing for what i took as primarily an example card. I avoided commenting explicitly to try not to be a jerk ;).

The main thing i'd say is i do feel it missed the core thrust of he flavour i was going for it does what it does reasonably well but feels like it's missing the real flavor aspect i was going for. I really wanted to catch two core aspects. His sheer out and out aggression, (and the general aggression of new doom gameplay which is all about our killing the enemies), and the sheer unkillable horror of his legend, but i did want to tie it to his anti-demon focus as well. It catches the last part mostly, but he's far too weedy, (i'd definitely stat the Cyberdemon and Spider mastermind big enough, and protection whilst a cool mechanic, (and one i initially considered before deciding against it), feels too narrow, the legions of hell in new doom definitely have a lot more than red and black in them.

As far as the new cards. Hayden does one thing, (littorally indestructible whilst he has a counter on him that an opponent can get rid of temporarily), and Olivia does two, (one of those being just T: Draw a Card), it's just that templating them is a major PITA. Oliva is effectively a CMC limited omniscience effect triggered in response to an opposing spell, (with the spell it was activated in response to determining the CMC limit of what you can cast).

Seeing as you went with “~’s controller” rather than “you”, yes it does.

Also I don’t know why, but your pictures never load for me on my phone. Seeing as you are just doing it for the frame and not including any art work, could you also include a text version?

Think i'm going to run out of time to do it right now, but sure, not a problem.

Also which one, Olivia pierce has a lot of clauses like that thanks to her functionality.

Ninjaman

2019-07-22, 10:03 AM

I specifically didn't comment on it because i didn't want to do any nitpicking over how you'd read what i intended as the main thing for what i took as primarily an example card. I avoided commenting explicitly to try not to be a jerk ;).
You shouldn't judge it for how well it does what you're trying to do, you should judge it for how well it does what I'm trying to do. It's a completely different card, but one I think gets my idea across in a much neater way than your card gets your idea across.

His sheer out and out aggression, (and the general aggression of new doom gameplay which is all about our killing the enemies),
If I wanted him to catch the aggression better I could easily change him to:
Doom Guy - 3RW
Legendary Creature - Human Soldier - R
Haste, double Strike, Protection from red and from black
Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under an opponent's control, you may return Doom Guy from your graveyard to the top of your library.
2/2

Or if you wanted him larger:
Doom Guy - 4RW
Legendary Creature - Human Soldier - R
Haste, double Strike, Protection from red and from black
Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under an opponent's control, you may return Doom Guy from your graveyard to the top of your library.
3/3

I kept him mono white because that's a better design for protection from red and from black.

and the sheer unkillable horror of his legend,
My Doom Guy is unkillable. He's just unkillable in a reasonable way. There's a reason Wizards haven't printed a card that comes down with both indestructible and hexproof, because every card needs answers, no matter how badass it is.
He's not more unkillable than any of the other unkillable creatures in magic.
"Doom Slayer can't be countered" and "When Doom Slayer dies, return it to your hand." Would accomplish what you're trying to do.

but he's far too weedy,
He punches for 6. That's enough to kill demons and dragons. That's what he does. The things that are larger than that he has trouble killing in the games as well.
There is no reason to make your creature larger than necessary, especially not when they are humanoids. I did a gatherer search, and the biggest human is a 6/6, and that's already massive. Most of the demons aren't going to be larger than 4/4.

and protection whilst a cool mechanic,... feels too narrow, the legions of hell in new doom definitely have a lot more than red and black in them.
It shouldn't be hard to make sure the demons that are colors other than red or black are multicolored.
And how is protection against 2/5 colors in the game narrower than hating on 5 specific creature types, and needing to kill those creature types with something else at instant speed for the most part?

There is no reason for five creature types and ten keywords to be on that card. Is deathtouch or flash essential to Doom Guy? Do you really want your huge 7 drop to hate on specific creature types? (You don't).

Use only what is actually essential to the design. In card design, less is more.

As far as the new cards. Hayden does one thing, (littorally indestructible whilst he has a counter on him that an opponent can get rid of temporarily), and Olivia does two, (one of those being just T: Draw a Card), it's just that templating them is a major PITA. Oliva is effectively a CMC limited omniscience effect triggered in response to an opposing spell, (with the spell it was activated in response to determining the CMC limit of what you can cast).
It's not nescessarily that the cards are trying to many things, it's just that they are doing it in ways that are way too unnecessarily complex.

Indestructible
Whenever Samuel Hayden becomes the target of a spell or ability for the first time each turn, counter that spell or ability. Samuel Hayden loses indestructible until end of turn.

That's six lines on the card instead of eight, and only one keyword and a single triggered ability.

Have to say, worded like this, I really like the design. The colors are good, since blue does the countering and black and white can both give indestructible, and the 5/2 body for 5 seems fair. Comparing it with Glyph Keeper it seems printable, although I would probably change his cost to 2WUB.

I don't think a redesign of Olivia would be as neat, since the card is a lot messier, and I'm having a much harder time understanding what design you are trying to accomplish. Why do you give her to the opponent? Why does she draw cards. Why does she draw cards on her trigger?

Olivia Pierce - 2UB
Legendary Creature - Human Wizard
At the beginning of each opponent's upkeep, that player draws a card.
Whenever an opponent casts a spell, you may sacrifice Olivia Pierce. If you do, you may cast any number of cards from your hand with converted mana cost less than or equal to that spell's converted mana cost without paying their mana costs.
1/2

I think that does most of what you were going for, with eight lines. Don't think it can be trimmed down further.
"converted mana cost less than or equal to that spell's converted mana cost without paying their mana costs."
Is annoying, but I'm not sure it can be avoided.
Don't think you can say:
"converted mana cost less than or equal to that spell's without paying their mana costs."
There should probably also be some commas, but I don't know where.

Not knowing what you were going for, I would probably make it something like:

Olivia Pierce - 1UB
Legendary Creature - Human Wizard
Whenever an opponent casts a spell, you may sacrifice Olivia Pierce. If you do, you may cast any number of cards from your hand with combined converted mana cost less than or equal to that spell's converted mana cost without paying their mana costs.
1/2

That's seven lines but no text squishing.

Simplest yet:

Olivia Pierce - 1UB
Legendary Creature - Human Wizard
Whenever an opponent casts a spell, you may sacrifice Olivia Pierce. If you do, you may cast a card from your hand with converted mana cost less than or equal to that spell’s converted mana cost without paying its mana costs.
2/2

Still seven lines.

enderlord99

2019-07-25, 07:29 PM

Creeping Paranoia

Enchantment

Skip your draw step.

At the beginning of your upkeep, look at the top 4 cards of your library. Put 1 into your hand, 1 into your graveyard, 1 on the top of your library, and 1 on the bottom of your library.

At the beginning of each opponent's upkeep, you may discard 3 cards. If you do, look at the top 4 cards of that player's library. Put 1 into their hand, 1 into their graveyard, 1 on the top of their library, and 1 on the bottom of their library. That player skips their draw step this turn.

Looking for a reasonable cost, and also a better name.

Tvtyrant

2019-07-25, 07:51 PM

Creeping Paranoia

Enchantment

Skip your draw step.

At the beginning of your upkeep, look at the top 4 cards of your library. Put 1 into your hand, 1 into your graveyard, 1 on the top of your library, and 1 on the bottom of your library.

At the beginning of each opponent's upkeep, you may discard 2 cards and pay 5 life. If you do, look at the top 4 cards of that player's library. Put 1 into their hand, 1 into their graveyard, 1 on the top of their library, and 1 on the bottom of their library. That player then skips their draw step this turn.

Looking for a reasonable cost, and also a better name.

That is basically a one card win con, so I would make it at least 8 mana. Something like 5UUB and a legendary seems accurate.

enderlord99

2019-07-25, 09:24 PM

That is basically a one card win con, so I would make it at least 8 mana. Something like 5UUB and a legendary seems accurate.

What would be a good cost if I removed the activated part altogether, leaving only "skip your draw step" and the part that occurs at the beginning of its controlelr's upkeep?

I think a good name for that version would be "methodical madness."

Tvtyrant

2019-07-25, 09:35 PM

What would be a good cost if I removed the activated part altogether, leaving only "skip your draw step" and the part that occurs at the beginning of its controlelr's upkeep?

I think a good name for that version would be "methodical madness."

So it is Telling Time (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=455907) each turn? Jace the Mindsculptor casts brainstorm every turn without taking your draw step so 4 mana seems okay.

Precognition Field (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=442949) and Future Sight (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=464002) accomplish similar effects (although arguably better) so 2UU seems about right.

Edit: another way to think about it is how many Telling Times are you likely to get. If you cast it for 4 then if the game ends on turn 8 you got four castings, which would make it very strong. But if it ends on turn 6 you got two castings, so it is actually pretty weak.

enderlord99

2019-07-25, 09:42 PM

So it is Telling Time (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=455907) each turn?

Plus one to the graveyard, yeah.

Tvtyrant

2019-07-25, 09:48 PM

Plus one to the graveyard, yeah.

I would boost it up to 5 mana then, because it effectively becomes "scry 4 draw 2" in the right deck. Flashback, things with recursion, etc. OTOH skipping turn 5 for an engine card is a tall order, even big teferi is a fun-of in modern and it gives you back 2 mana.

enderlord99

2019-07-25, 09:55 PM

I would boost it up to 5 mana then, because it effectively becomes "scry 4 draw 2" in the right deck. Flashback, things with recursion, etc. OTOH skipping turn 5 for an engine card is a tall order, even big teferi is a fun-of in modern and it gives you back 2 mana.

So... {3}{U}{U} then?

Tvtyrant

2019-07-25, 10:15 PM

So... {3}{U}{U} then?
That is what I would do. It doesn't really even want shuffle effects like precognition field.

I would call it Teferi's Chrono-Errata or something like that.

enderlord99

2019-07-26, 03:16 PM

There should be a "Method//Madness" with Aftermath, but I have no idea what the effects would be.

Ninjaman

2019-07-27, 03:12 AM

There should be a "Method//Madness" with Aftermath, but I have no idea what the effects would be.

Method - 2UU
Instant - R
Draw four cards, then put two cards from your hand on top of your library.
///////
Madness - 1BB
Sorcery - R
Aftermath
Each player puts the top two cards of their library into their graveyard, then each player discards two cards.

Not quite happy with it.

Ninjaman

2019-07-27, 03:22 AM

Lambs - 1G
Sorcery - U
Create two 0/1 green Sheep creature tokens.
//////
Slaughter - 2BB
Aftermath - U
Each player sacrifices two creatures.

Tvtyrant

2019-07-27, 05:08 PM

Method - 2UU
Instant - R
Draw four cards, then put two cards from your hand on top of your library.
///////
Madness - 1BB
Sorcery - R
Aftermath
Each player puts the top two cards of their library into their graveyard, then each player discards two cards.

Not quite happy with it.

That seems extremely slow for what it does. What about:

Method: 1B
Sorcery
Both players search their libraries for a card, then shuffle their deck and put the card in third from the top.
//
Madness: 1R
Aftermath
Each player draws three cards, then discards three at random.

So you can use it as Gamble, as a madness engine, or just as a slow tutor.

Lambs - 1G
Sorcery - U
Create two 0/1 green Sheep creature tokens.
//////
Slaughter - 2BB
Aftermath - U
Each player sacrifices two creatures.

Seems good. Great control card, lets you chump early and then essentially wipe your opponents field.

Looking at my samurai earlier and seeing if I can merge them together.

https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/cards_ip/1564265962043965.png?t=074354
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/cards_ip/1564265962043965.png?t=480295
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/cards_ip/1564265962043965.png?t=430798
The last one seems strongest, first one second strongest, middle is the weakest by a lot.

Ninjaman

2019-07-28, 04:43 AM

That seems extremely slow for what it does. What about:
Method: 1B
Sorcery
Both players search their libraries for a card, then shuffle their deck and put the card in third from the top.
//
Madness: 1R
Aftermath
Each player draws three cards, then discards three at random.

I like this much better than my card.

Tvtyrant

2019-07-28, 04:37 PM

https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/cards_ip/1564349554838445.png?t=203495

Zatal Exploratory Vessel
Flying
Landfall-Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, put an exploration counter on target permanent and crew Zatal Exploratory Vessel.

https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/cards_ip/1564349718654163.png?t=722864

Zatal Surgeon
At the beginning of your upkeep, permanents with exploration counters
phase out.
2/1

https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/cards_ip/1564349718654163.png?t=807540

Zatal Investigation
Put an exploration counter on target permanent. Draw a card.

https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/cards_ip/1564349718654163.png?t=996249

Zatal War Monger
If a permanent has an exploration counter on it, Zatal Warmonger gains +1/+1 and haste.
1/1

https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/cards_ip/1564349718654163.png?t=626775

Zatal Diplomat
On your upkeep, there are 10 or more exploration counters on different permanents in play you win the gain.
1/1

Zatal Surgeon I kind of want to change to your opponent's upkeep, but it seems too strong.

enderlord99

2019-07-28, 05:00 PM

TvTyrant, your images appear to be duplicates for some reason. Copypasta error?

Tvtyrant

2019-07-28, 05:12 PM

TvTyrant, your images appear to be duplicates for some reason. Copypasta error?

I wanted them to be the same to distinguish they are part of the same tribe in a set. War Monger should be type Xeno Warrior but I messed it up a bit, this makes it easier to keep track of them while making a custom set.

Edit: Unless they are actually identical cards, in which case big copy-pasta mess up. They look different from here except the image.

Should the type be Xeno or just Zatal?

enderlord99

2019-07-28, 05:16 PM

I wanted them to be the same to distinguish they are part of the same tribe in a set. War Monger should be type Xeno Warrior but I messed it up a bit, this makes it easier to keep track of them while making a custom set.

Edit: Unless they are actually identical cards, in which case big copy-pasta mess up. They look different from here except the image.

Should the type be Xeno or just Zatal?

Except the first, the images are all the "diplomat" one.

The previous post had three images of the same snake-card and no text explaining what each instance was meant to be.

EDIT: I'm referring to the entire images of the cards, not merely the ones in the cards.

Tvtyrant

2019-07-28, 05:19 PM

Oops, looks like they are different on my computers cache but not on the actual addresses. Okay I will just write them out in a bit.

enderlord99

2019-07-28, 05:22 PM

The subtype should be "Zatal" because if there were a "xeno" subtype that meant "from another planet" then creatures from other planes would absolutely qualify, including Mowu and all of the Eldrazi. Eldrazi is already a subtype, so adding an additional subtype that applies to all of them would be silly.

Tvtyrant

2019-07-28, 05:43 PM

1RU Zatal Exploratory Vessel
Artifact-Vehicle
Flying
Landfall-Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, put an exploration counter on target permanent and crew Zatal Exploratory Vessel.
Crew 2
3/2

RU Zatal Surgeon
Creature Zatal Cleric
At the beginning of your upkeep, permanents with exploration counters
phase out.
2/1

1U Zatal Investigation
Instant
Put an exploration counter on target permanent. Draw a card.

1R Zatal Abduction
Instant
All permanents with exploration counters phase out.

R Zatal War Monger
Zatal Warrior
If a permanent in play has an exploration counter, Zatal War Monger has +1/+1 and haste.
1/1

2UU Zatal Diplomat
Zatal Cleric
At the beginning of your upkeep if there are 10 or more permanents with exploration counters on them, you win the game.
1/1

R Zatal Warstrike
sorcery
Deal two damage to target. Put an exploration counter on it if it is a permanent.

2R Zatal Warship
Artifact-Vehicle
flying
Crew 1
X is equal to the number of exploration counters in play.
x/4

Xiasyn, Zatal Overlord
UURR
Legendary Creature- Zatal Warrior
When Xiasyn enters the battlefield, place an exploration counter on target permanent. Then draw a card for each exploration counter in play.
5/5

enderlord99

2019-07-28, 05:46 PM

Warstrike is missing the word "any"

Ninjaman

2019-07-28, 05:47 PM

Any reason for having the mana cost before the name?

Tvtyrant

2019-07-28, 06:15 PM

Not really, I can switch it if need be.

The basic tribal idea is that Zatal are a blue-red aligned race of "advanced" magic-scientists (lile aetherborn.) They are exploring a more primitive green-white planet, and are politically split between annexation through subterfuge and diplomacy or through direct conquest.

Mechanics are landfall, exploration, phasing.

White-green are going to be natives with landfall, Purge (reverse proliferate,) and landhome (an actual drawback mechanic!)

Black are a demonic cabal who want the war faction of the Zatal to win.

Ninjaman

2019-07-29, 02:53 AM

Not really, I can switch it if need be.
That's how they are on the cards, so I don't see why you would want to do it any other way.

Mechanics are landfall, exploration, phasing.
Landfall is a great mechanic, phasing is an awful mechanic.
Exploration counters is used for phasing stuff out I guess, which also makes it an awful mechanic
It is also very heavy mana denial, which isn't something wizards like doing.
Much of your exploration counter synergy also starts being a downside the moment the opponent can put exploration counters on your cards. This is bad design.

White-green are going to be natives with landfall, Purge (reverse proliferate,) and landhome (an actual drawback mechanic!)
You can do a lot less interesting things with Purge than you can with proliferate, so I don't think that's a very interesting mechanic.
Landhome is an awful mechanic that isn't used anymore for a reason.

Androgeus

2019-07-30, 06:32 AM

Landhome is an awful mechanic that isn't used anymore for a reason.

It’s so bad it’s the only printed mechanic that has been removed from the rules.

Tvtyrant

2019-07-30, 07:39 PM

That's how they are on the cards, so I don't see why you would want to do it any other way.

Landfall is a great mechanic, phasing is an awful mechanic.
Exploration counters is used for phasing stuff out I guess, which also makes it an awful mechanic
It is also very heavy mana denial, which isn't something wizards like doing.
Much of your exploration counter synergy also starts being a downside the moment the opponent can put exploration counters on your cards. This is bad design.

You can do a lot less interesting things with Purge than you can with proliferate, so I don't think that's a very interesting mechanic.
Landhome is an awful mechanic that isn't used anymore for a reason.

I liked phasing, it got a bum rap imo.

There is two mana denial cards in there, one that only protects you on your turn. The other one should probably go up in cost to 4, phasing out your opponent on their turn is close to Cryptic Command in power.

Landhome I actually really liked, it has relevant draw backs. Something like a 2U 6/6 with landhome is fairly balanced if you include spreading seas and seas claim type cards, as opposed to Rotting Regisaur or master of the feast which does the same thing for a tiny drawback.

Hmm, I see your point on the exploration mechanic in mirror games.

Ninjaman

2019-07-31, 03:38 AM

I liked phasing, it got a bum rap imo.
It didn't it was a bad mechanic. If you're ever playing your set with people, they will likely agree that phasing is a bad mechanic.

There is two mana denial cards in there, one that only protects you on your turn. The other one should probably go up in cost to 4, phasing out your opponent on their turn is close to Cryptic Command in power.
That's two out of six cards. If those are the only two cards that do it then you probably shouldn't showcase land denial on two cards.
Exploration counters do too many different things. Doing a few things are okay, but it should have a more direct design.

Landhome I actually really liked, it has relevant draw backs. Something like a 2U 6/6 with landhome is fairly balanced if you include spreading seas and seas claim type cards, as opposed to Rotting Regisaur or master of the feast which does the same thing for a tiny drawback.
Landhome is awful. Having your card be useless against decks that aren't a specific color is really bad design.
Landwalk was a bad mechanic that they stopped using because it was too high variance, and landhome is that taken to 11.
Also, by saying that Rotting Regisaur and Master of the Feast only have a tiny drawback you've made me wonder if you've actually played magic, because those claims are just impressively untrue.

Hmm, I see your point on the exploration mechanic in mirror games.
That's a big problem with these kind of mechanics, something wizards did a lot more early on, and switched away from because of how bad it could feel.

Morphic tide

2019-08-02, 09:38 AM

Rotting Regisaur's mechanic is a potential upside, both through direct discard synergy like Madness and through having the cards in the graveyard, and card draw is often easy enough that you'll be able to feed it without issue.

In black-carrying control shells, Master of the Feast is also easily enough mitigated due to the scale of discard you can stack, especially since they draw the card on your turn. So what if they get an extra card per turn, mostly means you can actually use all your discard and some counterspells.

The use of Landhome, paired with effects like Sea's Claim to deal with it while offering mana disruption, means that otherwise-unreasonably huge creatures can be printed that are dependent on a basic combo mechanic in changing land types, which can also feature as a color-fixing and ramp mechanic, depending on the phrasing of the effect.

Ninjaman

2019-08-02, 01:46 PM

Rotting Regisaur's mechanic is a potential upside,
It has a potential upside, but it is a downside, and a large one at that.

Yes faithless looting discarding cards is often used for synergy, but that doesn't mean the card wouldn't be way better if it just drew two cards without discarding anything.

both through direct discard synergy like Madness and through having the cards in the graveyard,
If you need Regisaur's discard, it's not very good at it, allowing you to discard only one card at a time and only during your upkeep. It is an enabler, but a very poor one.

and card draw is often easy enough that you'll be able to feed it without issue.
This is flat out false. Card draw is quite pricey.
Effects that draw a card every turn cost around four mana, 3 mana if they come with a downside, Phyrexian Arena being one of the better.
Also, your 3 mana 7/6 is a lot less impressive if it actually requires two cards and a two time payment of 3 mana, along with 1 life every turn.
The best way to "feed" it would be dark confidant, but that's a lot worse than just playing another three drop, like Knight of the Reliquary or Seasoned Pyromancer, and just drawing twice as many cards as your opponent.

If you are just wasting a card every turn on Regisaur it is not a very good card. It is not powerful enough to outweight the straight card disadvantage.

In black-carrying control shells, Master of the Feast is also easily enough mitigated due to the scale of discard you can stack, especially since they draw the card on your turn.
Master of the feast is absolutely horrible in a control shell. If you have heavy enough discard to keep an enemy drawing two cards a turn off card then you can keep an enemy drawing one card a turn off cards with much less effort and risk.
If you plan is to keep the opponent off cards Master of the Feast in an unbelievable nonbo.

Also, decks that do that aren't control decks, they are combo/prison. We talked about this recently in the main thread.

The only deck that actually played Master of the Feast was a Suicide Black deck that aimed at killing the opponent as quickly as possible, meaning master got fewer triggers, just like the decks playing Goblin Guide are burn/zoo decks that try to make him trigger as few times as possible to mitigrate the downside.

So what if they get an extra card per turn, mostly means you can actually use all your discard and some counterspells.
That's not a good thing. If you have more answers than they have threats that's good, that means you're winning. You don't need to help them by letting them draw twice as many cards, as that greatly increases their chances of having more threats than you have answers.

The use of Landhome, paired with effects like Sea's Claim to deal with it while offering mana disruption, means that otherwise-unreasonably huge creatures can be printed that are dependent on a basic combo mechanic in changing land types, which can also feature as a color-fixing and ramp mechanic, depending on the phrasing of the effect.
If you had any knowledge about competitive magic you would have mentioned Spreading Seas instead, as that card actually sees modern play. (Seas claim does too, but only as an occasional sideboard card in decks that already play spreading seas).
No, it does not allow that for the same reason landwalk isn't used anymore, it was too high variance. Landhome was this but taken to 11, and instead of being a potential unblockable it's the reverse, needing the land or rendering your creature basically useless.

You're also ignoring that landhome was literally such a bad mechanic they removed it from the rules, no longer being keyworded. Look at the oracle text of any card that used to have landhome, it is now written out in full.

Tvtyrant

2019-08-07, 12:38 PM

Saint Verona
1W
Legendary Human Cleric
When Saint Verona enters exile create a 4/4 flying angel token under your control.
0/1

Verona, Eternal Guide
WWW
Legendary Eldrazi Cleric
You may cast Verona from exile. When Verona enters the battlefield, if cast from exile you may return target card from exile to its owner's hand.
1/1
"I have seen beyond."

Kasta, Sea Witch
1U
Legendary Human Wizard
T: Target creature becomes a 1/1 frog and loses all of its abilities as long as Kasta remains tapped.
You may choose not to until Kasta during your untap step.
0/1

Kasta's Divination Well
UU
At the beginning of your upkeep you may transform a none-frog creature you control into a 1/1 frog with no abilities. If you do, scry 3.
"And do I help them? Yes indeed."

Mute Siren
U
Human
2UU: Mute Siren becomes a siren and gains flying. Take control of target human. Activate only if Mute Siren is not a siren.
1/1

Ninjaman

2019-08-07, 03:26 PM

Saint Verona
1W
Legendary Human Cleric
When Saint Verona enters exile create a 4/4 flying angel token under your control.
0/1
Correct wording is:
"When Saint Verona is put into exile from the battlefield.."
Angel should start with a capital letter, and it should specify that it is a creature token.

Verona, Eternal Guide
WWW
Legendary Eldrazi Cleric
You may cast Verona from exile. When Verona enters the battlefield, if cast from exile you may return target card from exile to its owner's hand.
1/1
"I have seen beyond."
This is too much exile manipulation. Exile manipulation is purposefully kept to a minimum to make it actually feel like removing from the game. This eliminates that.

Kasta, Sea Witch
1U
Legendary Human Wizard
T: Target creature becomes a 1/1 frog and loses all of its abilities as long as Kasta remains tapped.
You may choose not to until Kasta during your untap step.
0/1
The static ability should be above the activated ability.
Wording should be:
"Target creature loses all abilities and becomes a blue Frog with base power and toughness 1/1 for as long as Kasta remains tapped"
Balance wise it seems fair.

Kasta's Divination Well
UU
At the beginning of your upkeep you may transform a none-frog creature you control into a 1/1 frog with no abilities. If you do, scry 3.
"And do I help them? Yes indeed."
Is this an artifact or an enchantment?
Upkeep triggers are being made as mainstep triggers now.
Think the correct wording would be:
"At the beginning of your precombat mainstep, you may have up to one target non-Frog creature you control lose all abilities and become a blue Frog with base power and toughness 1/1. If you do, scry 3"
I don't see the point of this card.

Mute Siren
U
Human
2UU: Mute Siren becomes a siren and gains flying. Take control of target human. Activate only if Mute Siren is not a siren.
1/1
I feel like this could be turned into monstrous 1.
"When Mute Siren becomes monstrous it becomes a Siren instead of its other creature types. Gain control of target Human creature."
I'm not a fan of the creature type hate, nor am I a fan of the permanent steal. I would make it steal any creature, but only as long as you controlled Mute Siren.

What's up with the weird formatting? It should be:

Verona, Eternal Guide - WWW
Legendary Creature Eldrazi Cleric
You may cast Verona from exile. When Verona enters the battlefield, if cast from exile you may return target card from exile to its owner's hand.
"I have seen beyond."
1/1

Tvtyrant

2019-08-07, 03:57 PM

Correct wording is:
"When Saint Verona is put into exile from the battlefield.."
Angel should start with a capital letter, and it should specify that it is a creature token.

This is too much exile manipulation. Exile manipulation is purposefully kept to a minimum to make it actually feel like removing from the game. This eliminates that.

The static ability should be above the activated ability.
Wording should be:
"Target creature loses all abilities and becomes a blue Frog with base power and toughness 1/1 for as long as Kasta remains tapped"
Balance wise it seems fair.

Is this an artifact or an enchantment?
Upkeep triggers are being made as mainstep triggers now.
Think the correct wording would be:
"At the beginning of your precombat mainstep, you may have up to one target non-Frog creature you control lose all abilities and become a blue Frog with base power and toughness 1/1. If you do, scry 3"
I don't see the point of this card.

I feel like this could be turned into monstrous 1.
"When Mute Siren becomes monstrous it becomes a Siren instead of its other creature types. Gain control of target Human creature."
I'm not a fan of the creature type hate, nor am I a fan of the permanent steal. I would make it steal any creature, but only as long as you controlled Mute Siren.

What's up with the weird formatting? It should be:

Verona, Eternal Guide - WWW
Legendary Creature Eldrazi Cleric
You may cast Verona from exile. When Verona enters the battlefield, if cast from exile you may return target card from exile to its owner's hand.
"I have seen beyond."
1/1

Upkeep triggers are absolutely not mainstep triggers. Standard currently has 31 upkeep triggers, including the Rotting Regisaur we just talked about.

Monstrous is not evergreen, it is set specific.

The cauldron is an artifact, I just forgot that line. It is meant to allow you to dig deep by reducing creatures you control to tiny frogs. The idea is that they are peering into the future but the price is being transformed into creatures that cannot benefit from the knowledge.

Ninjaman

2019-08-08, 02:21 AM

Upkeep triggers are absolutely not mainstep triggers. Standard currently has 31 upkeep triggers, including the Rotting Regisaur we just talked about.
You're absolutely right. I remembered that they made mainstep triggers with the Sagas, but I wasn't aware they ditched it again so quickly.

Monstrous is not evergreen, it is set specific.
I know. I'm saying the mechanic would fit for this card.
Even if you don't make it monstrous I suggested other changes.

The cauldron is an artifact, I just forgot that line. It is meant to allow you to dig deep by reducing creatures you control to tiny frogs. The idea is that they are peering into the future but the price is being transformed into creatures that cannot benefit from the knowledge.
Add that as flavortext, that'd help a lot I think.
It's still a weird card, but I get that was what you were going for.

You didn't answer why you were using the wrong formatting.

Ninjaman

2019-08-17, 02:56 AM

How would you guys word an ability that prevented a creature from being destroyed by "destroy" effects, but not damage?

DeTess

2019-08-17, 03:50 AM

How would you guys word an ability that prevented a creature from being destroyed by "destroy" effects, but not damage?

That wouldn't be easy. If the wiki (https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Destroy)is anything to go by, the 'destroy' condition is triggered both when a card says 'destroy target creature' and when a creature takes lethal damage, so it'd be tricky to separate those two.

Maybe something like 'target creature gains indestructible' and 'Whenever this creature takes damage, put that many -0/-1 counters on it. Remove all -0/-1 counters from this creature at the end of each turn.'

Ninjaman

2019-08-17, 04:53 AM

That wouldn't be easy. If the wiki (https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Destroy)is anything to go by, the 'destroy' condition is triggered both when a card says 'destroy target creature' and when a creature takes lethal damage, so it'd be tricky to separate those two.
Yes, I figured it wouldn't be easy, so I figured I would ask for suggestions.
Don't know if something like "if this creature would be destroyed by an effect that says "destroy", instead it isn't." But I figure it won't.

Maybe something like 'target creature gains indestructible' and 'Whenever this creature takes damage, put that many -0/-1 counters on it. Remove all -0/-1 counters from this creature at the end of each turn.'
Indestructible.
Whenever this creature takes damage, it looses indestructible until end of turn.

Would accomplish some of that, but a lot nicer. It would of course mean you could just ping it and then murder it.

Indestructible
If this creature has damage on it equal to or greater than its toughness, it loses indestructible until end of turn.

Not sure if that would be the correct way to word this. It also stops deathtouch, but that's fine.

If this creature would be destroyed by a spell or ability, instead it's not destroyed.

This might work, since damage would kill it as a state-based effect, but it's confusing since it seems like burn spells wouldn't kill it while they do. That might be fixable with reminder text.

enderlord99

2019-08-17, 11:25 AM

New Phyrexia learns of the Eldrazi; I don't know how they learn of them, but they do. As a result:

Vorinclex notices just how obscenely powerful they are.

Elesh Norn notices that they contain no colored mana, interpreting this as "purity."

Jin-gitaxias also knows about Original Phyrexia, and somehow comes to the conclusion that it means collaborating with with someone who can go back in time would be a good idea.

https://i.ibb.co/930gycN/Father-Emrakul-V1.png (https://imgbb.com/)

EDIT: Just realized it should be 13/13, not 12/12. It's probably still strong enough, right?

Blue Ghost

2019-08-17, 12:54 PM

How would you guys word an ability that prevented a creature from being destroyed by "destroy" effects, but not damage?

"~ has indestructible as long as it has not been dealt damage this turn."

Yeah, you could ping and murder, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

Ninjaman

2019-08-17, 02:17 PM

"~ has indestructible as long as it has not been dealt damage this turn."

Yeah, you could ping and murder, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

I like this. It's cleaner than the one I did where it was a trigger.

I'm wondering if the correct wording would be "~ has indestructible unless it has been dealt damage this turn."

I'm also curious if it would be possible to define lethal damage.

Searching on gatherer Ogre Enforcer (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=3696) is the only creature to refer to lethal damage, but it means there is a precedent for it.

"~ has indestructible as long as lethal damage isn't marked on it."
or
"~ has indestructible unless lethal damage is marked on it."

Tvtyrant

2019-08-17, 09:24 PM

I know it isn't exactly the same, but what about "can't be destroyed by spells or abilities." Leaves it open to combat damage but makes it immune to spot removal.

Silfir

2019-08-17, 09:51 PM

Ninjaman

2019-08-18, 02:29 AM

Seems to me Ogre Enforcer is already exactly what you need. "CARDNAME can't be destroyed unless lethal damage is marked on it." And you're done. No need to reference the indestructible keyword or anything.

Indestructible means can't be destroyed. It's shorter than writing it out. Ogre Enforcer writes it out because it still dies to destroy effects.

CARDNAME can't be destroyed unless
CARDNAME has indestructible unless

The tiniest bit shorter, but I guess easier to understand, maybe. I could see it being either way.

I know it isn't exactly the same, but what about "can't be destroyed by spells or abilities." Leaves it open to combat damage but makes it immune to spot removal.

That would work, but it is a quite confusing wording, as it doesn't look like a lightning bolt should be able to destroy it, but it is.

Silfir

2019-08-18, 04:17 AM

Indestructible means can't be destroyed. It's shorter than writing it out. Ogre Enforcer writes it out because it still dies to destroy effects.

Yeah, but indestructible isn't what your creature has. It has some weird kind of halfway thing that I don't personally understand the point of. If you're reaching into the guts of a keyword to take it apart, it's better to use specific rules text that doesn't reference the keyword at all.

Or using your logic: Your creature writes it out because it still dies to damage.

Ninjaman

2019-08-18, 12:12 PM

Yeah, but indestructible isn't what your creature has. It has some weird kind of halfway thing that I don't personally understand the point of. If you're reaching into the guts of a keyword to take it apart, it's better to use specific rules text that doesn't reference the keyword at all.
But it does, it just loses it sometimes.
I can see your point, but you could also argue that people might see it spelled out and wonder why it didn't have indestructible.

Or using your logic: Your creature writes it out because it still dies to damage.
You're misunderstanding me. Ogre Enforcer read:
"Ogre Enforcer can't be destroyed by lethal damage unless lethal damage dealt by a single source is marked on it."
That "by lethal damage" clause means you can't write indestructible on the card. You can write indestructible on my card. If it's correct to do so is another matter.

But another argument I could see for using:
"~ can't be destroyed unless lethal damage is marked on it."
is that it would be easier to keyword if more cards were made with it.

Silfir

2019-08-18, 12:55 PM

Your last point is the main thing. There's just no benefit to involving the indestructible keyword if the creature can, in fact, be destroyed.

Consider the rules text of 702.12:

702.12a Indestructible is a static ability.
702.12b A permanent with indestructible can’t be destroyed. Such permanents aren’t destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the state-based action that checks for lethal damage (see rule 704.5g).[...]

"isn't destroyed by lethal damage" is a central pillar of what indestructible means. The rule even says that indestructible permanents ignore state-based actions that check for lethal damage entirely, whatever that means, and your ability can't work as intended if you do that. You avoid any potential issues with how the card works by not involving the indestructible keyword in the first place.

The creature never actually has indestructible as it's in the rulebook - it has basically 50% of indestructible. This is unlike, say, Ahn-Crop Invader. That creature has first strike "half" of the time, when it's your turn; but when it does it's actually first strike, exactly how it's found in the rulebook.

If you find yourself deviating from the rulebook as you modify how a keyword works, it should be a no-brainer to drop the keyword entirely. If only because, as you say, it allows you to turn the ability into a new keyword more easily.

Ninjaman

2019-08-18, 01:11 PM

"isn't destroyed by lethal damage" is a central pillar of what indestructible means. The rule even says that indestructible permanents ignore state-based actions that check for lethal damage entirely, whatever that means, and your ability can't work as intended if you do that. You avoid any potential issues with how the card works by not involving the indestructible keyword in the first place.

The definition for lethal damage still applies on indestructible creatures, and is used for stuff assigning trample damage, so I am not sure there actually is a rules problem in this case.

Unavenger

2019-08-18, 03:57 PM

"~ has indestructible unless lethal damage is marked on it" is a) totally correct wording and b) what I'd actually use. Notably, there's no problem with keywording this, because there's no rule saying keywords can't give out other keywords (see also riot). However, I wouldn't want that ability to be common enough to be keyworded.

The creature never actually has indestructible as it's in the rulebook - it has basically 50% of indestructible. This is unlike, say, Ahn-Crop Invader. That creature has first strike "half" of the time, when it's your turn; but when it does it's actually first strike, exactly how it's found in the rulebook.

That's a silly argument. So long as the condition under which it has indestructible is true (namely, it doesn't have lethal damage on it) it has actual indestructible. It's like saying that Paradise Druid never actually has real hexproof because if you can tap it without targeting it, then you can target it with your second spell, so it can be targeted, so long as you do something else first.

mythmonster2

2019-08-18, 06:42 PM

I have an idea for a card, but I'm not sure what color it would be. It'd be either an enchantment or a creature (or an enchantment creature), but the main line of text is this:

When X enters the battlefield, each player chooses a color. Until X leaves the battlefield, each player may only pay for generic mana costs with the color they chose.

I'm leaning towards white, but I've also considered green or, as a long shot, blue. Thoughts?

Silfir

2019-08-18, 07:43 PM

"~ has indestructible unless lethal damage is marked on it" is a) totally correct wording and b) what I'd actually use. Notably, there's no problem with keywording this, because there's no rule saying keywords can't give out other keywords (see also riot). However, I wouldn't want that ability to be common enough to be keyworded.

That's a silly argument. So long as the condition under which it has indestructible is true (namely, it doesn't have lethal damage on it) it has actual indestructible. It's like saying that Paradise Druid never actually has real hexproof because if you can tap it without targeting it, then you can target it with your second spell, so it can be targeted, so long as you do something else first.

Paradise Druid has hexproof exactly as it's in the rulebook while it's untapped, and loses it when it taps. That's exactly like Ahn-Crop Invader.

The creature Ninjaman is trying to make never, at any time, has indestructible as it's listed in the rulebook. You have to deviate from the rules just to check for lethal damage as a state-based action. (The rules tell you to ignore those if a creature has indestructible.)

If it can be destroyed by lethal damage, it doesn't have indestructible. It's destructible. You can get the behavior Ninjaman wants by using Ogre Enforcer as precedent and not mention the indestructible keyword at all.

bloodshed343

2019-08-18, 08:18 PM

https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/cards_ip/1566176947327406.png?t=832505

lightningcat

2019-08-19, 01:47 AM

Paradise Druid has hexproof exactly as it's in the rulebook while it's untapped, and loses it when it taps. That's exactly like Ahn-Crop Invader.

The creature Ninjaman is trying to make never, at any time, has indestructible as it's listed in the rulebook. You have to deviate from the rules just to check for lethal damage as a state-based action. (The rules tell you to ignore those if a creature has indestructible.)

If it can be destroyed by lethal damage, it doesn't have indestructible. It's destructible. You can get the behavior Ninjaman wants by using Ogre Enforcer as precedent and not mention the indestructible keyword at all.

I agree with your conclusion here. It is enough different that referencing Indestructable is not the best way to go about it. Much like Hexproof and Shroud are similar, but would not refernce each other.

Ninjaman

2019-08-19, 03:01 AM

It might be correct to not reference indestructible, it definitely is if there is rules problems, which I'm not sure if there actually is.
I think it's in a weird spot where it's not enough indestructible to have indestructible, but it also has enough indestructible that if it didn't people would look at it and go "why doesn't this say indestructible." At least that was my worry.

I have an idea for a card, but I'm not sure what color it would be. It'd be either an enchantment or a creature (or an enchantment creature), but the main line of text is this:

I'm leaning towards white, but I've also considered green or, as a long shot, blue. Thoughts?
First, don't put your card text in a quote, as that means it disappears when I quote it.
I'm pretty sure it would be white. I'm quite certain it shouldn't be made, as it seems really annoying.

Androgeus

2019-08-19, 07:06 AM

Ninjaman

2019-08-19, 07:50 AM

On the indestructible discussion, has something like the following been dismissed?
“~ can’t be destroyed by spells or abilities (it can still be killed by damage)”

Just for clarification, you do want the creature to die to lightning bolt right?
Yes it has:

I know it isn't exactly the same, but what about "can't be destroyed by spells or abilities." Leaves it open to combat damage but makes it immune to spot removal.

And my response:

That would work, but it is a quite confusing wording, as it doesn't look like a lightning bolt should be able to destroy it, but it is.

Unavenger

2019-08-19, 08:01 AM

You have to deviate from the rules just to check for lethal damage as a state-based action.

No, you don't, because you're not checking for lethal damage as an SBA until after the creature has already lost indestructible as part of its static ability. It remains indestructible as long as it doesn't have lethal damage marked on it [CR 604.1, 611.3a], then the static ability says "Hey, you! You're not indestructible any more!" Then, once it no longer has indestructible, the SBA checks next time a player would gain priority. It's the same way that trample checks for lethal damage on indestructible creatures.

Checking the rules and the one relevant example more carefully, another way of wording it is "~ can't be destroyed by effects (It can only be destroyed by lethal damage or deathtouch damage)" or "~ can only be destroyed by damage." These are probably more succinct anyway.

Ninjaman

2019-08-19, 08:27 AM

Checking the rules and the one relevant example more carefully, another way of wording it is "~ can't be destroyed by effects (It can only be destroyed by lethal damage or deathtouch damage)" or "~ can only be destroyed by damage." These are probably more succinct anyway.

Would "~ can only be destroyed by lethal damage." work?

Unavenger

2019-08-19, 09:33 AM

Would "~ can only be destroyed by lethal damage." work?

Not if you want it to work with damage from deathtouch. Damage from a source with deathtouch isn't actually lethal damage, only treated as lethal damage when determining whether or not a damage assignment is legal [CR 702.2c]. You could write "~ can only be destroyed by lethal damage and damage from sources with deathtouch" I suppose, but "~ can only be destroyed by damage" is probably cleaner and better.

On the other hand, if you want to prevent deathtouch from working too, it would work fine.

Ninjaman

2019-08-19, 01:52 PM

On the other hand, if you want to prevent deathtouch from working too, it would work fine.

If I can stop deathtouch without too much hassle, I'll take that too. One word more is as good as I could have hoped.

I think that means I will go with:
"~ can only be destroyed by lethal damage."

Thanks so much to everyone who chipped in.

enderlord99

2019-09-02, 08:22 PM

(name undecided)

Legendary Land ... R

Hexproof

~ enters the battlefield tapped.

You can't play Lands not named "Wastes"

T: Add C

1, T, sacrifice a Land : Search your graveyard, hand, and library for a Basic Land card, put it onto the battlefield tapped, and shuffle your library.

2, T, sacrifice a Land not named "Wastes": Search your graveyard, hand, and library for a non-Legendary Land card, put it onto the battlefield tapped, and shuffle your library.

3, T, sacrifice a non-Basic Land: Search your graveyard, hand, and library for any Land card, put it onto the battlefield tapped, and shuffle your library.

4, T, sacrifice a Legendary Land: Search your graveyard, hand, and library for up to five Land cards named "Wastes", put them onto the battlefield tapped, and shuffle your library.

WUBRG, T, sacrifice five Legendary Lands: You win the game.

...This wouldn't fit on a card, and is therefore unprintable; please ignore that particular factor when criticizing it.

Ninjaman

2019-09-02, 11:45 PM

...This wouldn't fit on a card, and is therefore unprintable; please ignore that particular factor when criticizing it.

That is a very important factor when criticizing cards, and a very important skill when making cards is the ability to keep the text down, keeping what is essential to the effect without being too wordy.

enderlord99

2019-09-03, 12:21 AM

That is a very important factor when criticizing cards, and a very important skill when making cards is the ability to keep the text down, keeping what is essential to the effect without being too wordy.

Right, but I already know it has that problem, so pointing it out doesn't change anything.

What else do you have to say about it, if anything? Also, since shortening it is so important... how would I do so, without losing anything critical to the concept?

Ninjaman

2019-09-03, 04:10 AM

Right, but I already know it has that problem, so pointing it out doesn't change anything.

What else do you have to say about it, if anything? Also, since shortening it is so important... how would I do so, without losing anything critical to the concept?

Hexproof seems unnecessary. The restriction on only being able to play wastes is too hard. Each of the sacrifice effects seem like they could be on a card on their own. The win seems unnecessary, if you can tutor for that many lands you can probably find Inkmoth Nexus+Kessig Wolfrun or Dark Depths+Thespian Stage to win you the game.

If you play it with only wastes in play it takes 21 turns to win with it, and an overall investment of 45 mana. Maze's End is a slow win condition, this is absurd.
It is however probably too strong a win condition if you just wait until you have five legendary lands. It can even sacrifice itself.

It also wants you to play way more lands than would be feasible in a 60 card deck if you intend to seach the entire chain.

Boundless Wastes
Legendary Land - M
T: Add C
2, T, Sacrifice a Basic land: Search your library for a legendary land card and put it onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle your library.
At the beginning of your upkeep, if you control eight or more legendary lands, you win the game.

enderlord99

2019-09-03, 04:28 AM

Hexproof seems unnecessary. The restriction on only being able to play wastes is too hard. Each of the sacrifice effects seem like they could be on a card on their own. The win seems unnecessary, if you can tutor for that many lands you can probably find Inkmoth Nexus+Kessig Wolfrun or Dark Depths+Thespian Stage to win you the game.

If you play it with only wastes in play it takes 21 turns to win with it, and an overall investment of 45 mana. Maze's End is a slow win condition, this is absurd.
It is however probably too strong a win condition if you just wait until you have five legendary lands. It can even sacrifice itself.

It also wants you to play way more lands than would be feasible in a 60 card deck if you intend to seach the entire chain.

Boundless Wastes
Legendary Land - M
T: Add C
2, T, Sacrifice a Basic land: Search your library for a legendary land card and put it onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle your library.
At the beginning of your upkeep, if you control eight or more legendary lands, you win the game.

Your version seems great, though I'd add an additional tweak that it can search for any land (though in practice, of course, people would only tutor legendary ones, because of the final ability)

Thanks!

EDIT: This next card is also a land, and is exceedingly simple... but also makes no sense in any Limited environment whatsoever, though it should be fine in Eternal ones:

Crumbling Archway

Land - Desert Gate ... Uncommon

T: add C

Ninjaman

2019-09-03, 04:42 AM

Your version seems great, though I'd add an additional tweak that it can search for any land (though in practice, of course, people would only tutor legendary ones, because of the final ability)
Only if they wanted to use it for winning. Elvish Reclaimer is a card, and the effect is much easier to use when it's on an untapped land than on a creature. The ability to tutor for any land is too strong to just slap on a land like that.

EDIT: This next card is also a land, and is exceedingly simple... but also makes no sense in any Limited environment whatsoever, though it should be fine in Eternal ones:

Crumbling Archway

Land - Desert Gate ... Uncommon

T: add C
It feels too much like shoehorning two land types together, and not for any reason since they don't work together in any meaningful way.

And it would make sense in limited, as it would be printed in a limited environment where those types mattered.

enderlord99

2019-09-03, 04:51 AM

It feels too much like shoehorning two land types together

It feels too much like what it is. Got it. :smalltongue:

https://i.ibb.co/smkY1st/Ancient-Ruin.png

If I could get italics to work on my copy of MSE, the flavor-text would be "Look upon my works ye mighty, and despair!"

Tvtyrant

2019-09-04, 12:15 AM

It feels too much like what it is. Got it. :smalltongue:

https://i.ibb.co/smkY1st/Ancient-Ruin.png

If I could get italics to work on my copy of MSE, the flavor-text would be "Look upon my works ye mighty, and despair!"

It doesn't come in tapped though, not very gate like.

What about comes in tapped, taps for two colorless?

enderlord99

2019-09-04, 12:23 AM

It doesn't come in tapped though, not very gate like.

I'm pretty sure entering tapped has nothing to do with being a gate and everything to do with being a dual land.

Ninjaman

2019-09-04, 03:03 AM

It doesn't come in tapped though, not very gate like.

What about comes in tapped, taps for two colorless?

Are you seriously suggesting a Sol land?

enderlord99

2019-09-04, 03:21 AM

Are you seriously suggesting a Sol land?

He seems to be.

Clearly, ETB tapped is plenty of downside for that{.}

DeTess

2019-09-04, 05:16 AM

He seems to be.

Clearly, ETB tapped is plenty of downside for that{.}

I mean, it probably wouldn't be over-the-top in commander. One of the things that makes sol ring very good in commander is that it allows for first turns like land>sol ring>signet which means you end up with 5 mana to spend turn 2 with that turns land-drop. This would be nowhere near as explosive.

Ninjaman

2019-09-04, 11:27 AM

I mean, it probably wouldn't be over-the-top in commander. One of the things that makes sol ring very good in commander is that it allows for first turns like land>sol ring>signet which means you end up with 5 mana to spend turn 2 with that turns land-drop. This would be nowhere near as explosive.

It ramps by itself. It's the same as casting a mana rock on turn 2, except it only requires one card.

Also, no sol land is as good as Sol Ring, doesn't keep them from being really good.

Tvtyrant

2019-09-04, 02:06 PM

Are you seriously suggesting a Sol land?

The weakest sol land, yeah. Etb tapped is a major drawback in constructed.

Ninjaman

2019-09-04, 02:09 PM

The weakest sol land, yeah. Etb tapped is a major drawback in constructed.

Yes, and being a sol land is a monstrous upside. I'm not sure if you realize, but simply playing this is ramp. It's like casting a rampant growth, only it requires on less card, and costs one less mana.

DeTess

2019-09-04, 03:22 PM

Yes, and being a sol land is a monstrous upside. I'm not sure if you realize, but simply playing this is ramp. It's like casting a rampant growth, only it requires on less card, and costs one less mana.

Or it's like a sakura-tribe elder without the 1/1 body for chump-blocking for 1 mana less. It's not a bad land, but in commander it's not that great either. In other formats it might be problematic, but then again many other formats are fast enough that the fact that it enters tapped would be a serious problem.

gooddragon1

2019-09-04, 03:41 PM

DeTess

2019-09-04, 03:48 PM

Steal Willpower uubb
Instant
Target player skips their next step or phase of your choice. At the beginning of your next end step, take an extra step or phase of that type.
"I so dearly envy your determination. Let me show you what I could do with just a sliver of it."

I like the idea, but I think there'll be some problems with having the extra step start at the beginning of your next end step given that a lot of 'end of turn' stuff(such as temporary tokens disappearing, 'did you do X during your turn' effects triggering, etc.) triggers at that point in the turn. I'd make it work more like 'clocknapper' (which allows you to act during that step/phase as if it was your own), which should avoid issues like that.

Tvtyrant

2019-09-04, 04:11 PM

Yes, and being a sol land is a monstrous upside. I'm not sure if you realize, but simply playing this is ramp. It's like casting a rampant growth, only it requires on less card, and costs one less mana.

By skipping a turn, yes. The depletion lands aren't particularly good and having colored mana makes them roughly comparable, the real sol lands are far better but require having a lot of good colorless or 1 mana color cards to be good.

In a set that doesn't have a high artifact or eldrazi focus it is going to be a decent but not OP land for limited and standard, and it won't see play in Modern or Legacy at all. Set in a Ravnica set and it would be outright detrimental, fixing no mana at all.

gooddragon1

2019-09-04, 04:13 PM

I like the idea, but I think there'll be some problems with having the extra step start at the beginning of your next end step given that a lot of 'end of turn' stuff(such as temporary tokens disappearing, 'did you do X during your turn' effects triggering, etc.) triggers at that point in the turn. I'd make it work more like 'clocknapper' (which allows you to act during that step/phase as if it was your own), which should avoid issues like that.

But it is yours? It's happening on your turn and you are "take"ing it. I'm not totally sure. Paradox haze says gets. Maybe "At the beginning of your next end step, you get an extra step or phase of that type."

Also, messing with time is a perk. Like sundial of the infinite.

Tvtyrant

2019-09-04, 04:16 PM

gooddragon1

2019-09-04, 04:29 PM

I think this would be better as two separate cards, or an either/or effect. Making them skip their untap and getting to untap twice is pretty close to "take two extra turns" which is too powerful for 4 mana.

Either or with entwine?

Tvtyrant

2019-09-04, 04:46 PM

Either or with entwine?

I think that could work, depends on how much the entwine costs. Time Stretch is 10 mana and a sorcery, so I think this could be 8 off an entwine and be safe.

Ninjaman

2019-09-05, 12:04 AM

By skipping a turn, yes.
You're not skipping a turn, you are skipping a single mana the turn you play it. It is equivalent to a one mana mana rock that enters tapped and taps for C, except it requires a card less. The base for mana rocks is costing 2 mana, so costing half is a massive boon.

The depletion lands aren't particularly good and having colored mana makes them roughly comparable
Can you link me what you think depletion lands are? Because I googled them and I have no idea where you see any similarities.

the real sol lands are far better but require having a lot of good colorless or 1 mana color cards to be good.
Yes, and that is easy, so they are good. Turn two Show and Tell is good in legacy. Turn 2 Bloodmoon is good in modern, even if it turns this land off afterwards.

In a set that doesn't have a high artifact or eldrazi focus it is going to be a decent but not OP land for limited and standard,
It ramps without card investment, that is going to be good in both of those formats. Having 3 mana turn 2 or 4 mana turn 3 are both really good.

and it won't see play in Modern
Eldrazi monument is the only Sol land in Modern. It doesn't matter if it is worse than Ancient Tomb, sol lands are really powerful.
Amulet of Vigor is also a card.

Set in a Ravnica set and it would be outright detrimental, fixing no mana at all.
Yes, because no Ravnica cards cost colorless right? And Ravnica sets haven't included common cards that could filter mana.

It's not that the card definitely would be broken, but that it's a card that would be quite dangerous, and you seem to insist it would be no issue at all.

Tvtyrant

2019-09-05, 01:31 AM

You're not skipping a turn, you are skipping a single mana the turn you play it. It is equivalent to a one mana mana rock that enters tapped and taps for C, except it requires a card less. The base for mana rocks is costing 2 mana, so costing half is a massive boon.

Can you link me what you think depletion lands are? Because I googled them and I have no idea where you see any similarities.

Yes, and that is easy, so they are good. Turn two Show and Tell is good in legacy. Turn 2 Bloodmoon is good in modern, even if it turns this land off afterwards.

It ramps without card investment, that is going to be good in both of those formats. Having 3 mana turn 2 or 4 mana turn 3 are both really good.

Eldrazi monument is the only Sol land in Modern. It doesn't matter if it is worse than Ancient Tomb, sol lands are really powerful.
Amulet of Vigor is also a card.

Yes, because no Ravnica cards cost colorless right? And Ravnica sets haven't included common cards that could filter mana.

It's not that the card definitely would be broken, but that it's a card that would be quite dangerous, and you seem to insist it would be no issue at all.

Depletion lands were from mercadian masques. They are identical except they die after being used twice, and they tap for colored mana. I used them as an example because as commons they see no play in pauper, even in decks that want free ramp.

Stompy decks in Legacy were pretty poor until quite recently. Dragonstompy only started putting up consistent results with the introduction of Goblin Rabblemaster, Hazoret and Good Chandra. Eldrazi stompy runs 4 sets of sol lands, but efforts to make shops work in legacy have been atrocious from the beginning.

Because what broke sol lands was pushed creatures, they were just okay until WotC decided creatures should be massive value engines. Goblin Rabblemaster should cost 1RR at least, the midrange Eldrazi shouldn't even exist. Another example of that is Magic 96, where Mishra's Workshop barely sees play because you are ramping into Suichi and Juggernaut.

Androgeus

2019-09-05, 04:30 AM

Ninjaman

2019-09-05, 11:39 AM

Depletion lands were from mercadian masques. They are identical except they die after being used twice, and they tap for colored mana. I used them as an example because as commons they see no play in pauper, even in decks that want free ramp.
Fair, I was looking at the ice age depletion lands.
I can see the comparison but:
1. Staying in play for more than two turns mean something.
2. They aren't modern legal and pauper is a bad place for this type of effect since all their best cards cost 1 or 2 mana, where they allow a lot more things in modern.
3. They did see play in storm decks before those got banned.

Stompy decks in Legacy were pretty poor until quite recently. Dragonstompy only started putting up consistent results with the introduction of Goblin Rabblemaster, Hazoret and Good Chandra. Eldrazi stompy runs 4 sets of sol lands, but efforts to make shops work in legacy have been atrocious from the beginning.
The fact that support was lacking until recently does not mean sol lands aren't busted. And they've seen play in Show and Tell from that deck's inception back when the original Emrakul came out.

Because what broke sol lands was pushed creatures, they were just okay until WotC decided creatures should be massive value engines. Goblin Rabblemaster should cost 1RR at least, the midrange Eldrazi shouldn't even exist. Another example of that is Magic 96, where Mishra's Workshop barely sees play because you are ramping into Suichi and Juggernaut.
If you think Goblin Rabblemaster is the broken out of those two cards, I don't know what to tell you, other than you are wrong.
That is like saying Reanimate is a balanced card because creatures are supposed to be Serra Angel.
It's like the deal with Birthing Pod, you can either keep banning the new tools that come out, or you can acknowledge that the engine is a problem and axe that. Rabblemaster is not the problem, Ancient Tomb is.
Midrange eldrazi aren't even a problem in modern anymore after they went down to 4 sol lands, so clearly the land was the problem.
Workshop has been the best deck in vintage since Trinisphere broke tournaments and subsequently got banned back in 2005.

gooddragon1

2019-09-05, 12:11 PM

You probably want to state what steps/phases can be stolen, as funky things probably happen if you steal someone’s clean up step.

That's half the fun of messing with time.

Tvtyrant

2019-09-05, 02:48 PM

Fair, I was looking at the ice age depletion lands.
I can see the comparison but:
1. Staying in play for more than two turns mean something.
2. They aren't modern legal and pauper is a bad place for this type of effect since all their best cards cost 1 or 2 mana, where they allow a lot more things in modern.
3. They did see play in storm decks before those got banned.

The fact that support was lacking until recently does not mean sol lands aren't busted. And they've seen play in Show and Tell from that deck's inception back when the original Emrakul came out.

If you think Goblin Rabblemaster is the broken out of those two cards, I don't know what to tell you, other than you are wrong.
That is like saying Reanimate is a balanced card because creatures are supposed to be Serra Angel.
It's like the deal with Birthing Pod, you can either keep banning the new tools that come out, or you can acknowledge that the engine is a problem and axe that. Rabblemaster is not the problem, Ancient Tomb is.
Midrange eldrazi aren't even a problem in modern anymore after they went down to 4 sol lands, so clearly the land was the problem.
Workshop has been the best deck in vintage since Trinisphere broke tournaments and subsequently got banned back in 2005.

I think it is obvious we fundamentally look at the game differently. You are using Emrakul, Griselbrand and storm to argue that their enablers are the problem, and not two cards that got banned in EDH and a mechanic that ate three bans in modern to keep safe.

So I'm going to just agree to disagree here.

Ninjaman

2019-09-05, 05:14 PM

You are using Emrakul, Griselbrand
Griselbrand and Emrakul were not problems in their standard environments. Yes the cards themselves are busted, but so are their enablers.

storm to argue that their enablers are the problem,
The only place I mentioned storm was when you said the depletion lands saw no play in pauper, but thanks for the massive straw man of my argument.

and not two cards that got banned in EDH
Banned in EDH doesn't say that much about their power level in other formats.

You are also completely ignoring the glaring point that both the payoff and the enabler are troublesome, and that is why it is that abusive.
Let's not pretend Omnishow decks don't exist.
It's also like saying Workshop isn't broken because Trinisphere/Chalice/Thorn of Amatyst/Lodestone Golem were the cards that got banned. Clearly it's not the enabler that is the problem even though it is only Chalice that sees play in modern where all the cards are legal.

And let's not get into the argument that power 9, the most powerful cards in all of magic, are almost exclusively enablers.

Tvtyrant

2019-09-05, 05:39 PM

You probably want to state what steps/phases can be stolen, as funky things probably happen if you steal someone’s clean up step.

How does the game deal with the cleanup step with "end the turn" spells?

Thinking on it, I do think the spell should be red rather then Blue/Black. Red has extra turn effects and end turn effects, blue might be included but I don't see a black connection.

Androgeus

2019-09-05, 08:52 PM

How does the game deal with the cleanup step with "end the turn" spells?

After exiling everything from the stack, you end the current step/phase and skip everything up to the next clean up step and proceed as normal from there.

Thinking on it, I do think the spell should be red rather then Blue/Black. Red has extra turn effects and end turn effects, blue might be included but I don't see a black connection.

Red only has extra turn effects with lose the game riders. Red is however the colour of additional combat steps. Blue is the colour of skipping stuff (see Fatespinner). Blue, I think, has the only non combat oriented extra step card (Paradox Haze). It would definitely be a bend to have a mono blue card give more combat steps so I feel something like 1UURR would be right.

Tvtyrant

2019-09-05, 08:58 PM

After exiling everything from the stack, you end the current step/phase and skip everything up to the next clean up step and proceed as normal from there.

Red only has extra turn effects with lose the game riders. Red is however the colour of additional combat steps. Blue is the colour of skipping stuff (see Fatespinner). Blue, I think, has the only non combat oriented extra step card (Paradox Haze). It would definitely be a bend to have a mono blue card give more combat steps so I feel something like 1UURR would be right.

I feel like taking extra stuff probably should have been mono-red, instead of just giving blue 90% of all effects. Blue gets counters, taking control of things, extra turns, cantrips, etc. Red is getting better, but extra turns could have been red from the beginning.

Ninjaman

2019-09-06, 04:24 AM

I feel like taking extra stuff probably should have been mono-red, instead of just giving blue 90% of all effects. Blue gets counters, taking control of things, extra turns, cantrips, etc. Red is getting better, but extra turns could have been red from the beginning.

But it's not. You generally design with how the color pie is, not how you want it to be.

gooddragon1

2019-09-07, 02:16 AM

No U (Cost 1 blue phyrexian mana)
Instant
Change the target of target spell or ability an opponent controls that targets you to target them instead unless they pay (1 blue phyrexian mana).

Ninjaman

2019-09-07, 02:47 AM

Tvtyrant

2019-09-07, 01:39 PM

DeTess

2019-09-07, 01:48 PM

No U (Cost 1 blue phyrexian mana)
Instant
Change the target of target spell or ability an opponent controls that targets you to target them instead unless they pay (1 blue phyrexian mana).

I'd make this cantrip at the very least. Also, I'd say the spell feels a lot more red than blue in practice. Something along the lines off:

Emphatic Denial R (cost 1 red phyrexian mana)
Instant
Deal 2 damage to the owner of target spell
draw a card

Would in practice play pretty much the same, but would be more in-color and might maybe be worth playing.

Ninjaman

2019-09-07, 02:43 PM

I'd make this cantrip at the very least. Also, I'd say the spell feels a lot more red than blue in practice. Something along the lines off:

Emphatic Denial R (cost 1 red phyrexian mana)
Instant
Deal 2 damage to the owner of target spell
draw a card

Would in practice play pretty much the same, but would be more in-color and might maybe be worth playing.

2 damage to a player and draw a card is already a very good card, compare to lava spike.

Making it phyrexian mana is just way too much. You're aware Gitaxian Probe got banned, right?

Tvtyrant

2019-09-07, 03:27 PM

I'd make this cantrip at the very least. Also, I'd say the spell feels a lot more red than blue in practice. Something along the lines off:

Emphatic Denial R (cost 1 red phyrexian mana)
Instant
Deal 2 damage to the owner of target spell
draw a card

Would in practice play pretty much the same, but would be more in-color and might maybe be worth playing.
I think cantripping is too much. What if it was "if this is negated you may put it back on top of your library." Bad shock isn't great, but bad shock every turn can be decent.

Ninjaman

2019-09-08, 02:26 AM

I think cantripping is too much. What if it was "if this is negated you may put it back on top of your library." Bad shock isn't great, but bad shock every turn can be decent.

What does negated mean?

DeTess

2019-09-08, 03:41 AM

What does negated mean?

Probably 'countered'. And yeah, I thought Gitaxian probe did more than it did (I thought it was a discard, rather than just a 'look at hand'), so this would need to be toned down some.

Tvtyrant

2019-09-09, 02:01 PM

Probably 'countered'. And yeah, I thought Gitaxian probe did more than it did (I thought it was a discard, rather than just a 'look at hand'), so this would need to be toned down some.

He didn't put countered into the card, just unless so I was keeping it vague to match.

Free spells are always strong. 💪

Ninjaman

2019-09-09, 02:21 PM

He didn't put countered into the card, just unless so I was keeping it vague to match.

Why would it say counter when it has nothing to do with counter?

Tvtyrant

2019-09-09, 02:38 PM

Why would it say counter when it has nothing to do with counter?

The spell says "redirect this unless the opponent pays 2 life or U" so I said negated in refernce to them "paying 2 life or U." The card isn't worded quite right, but I didn't feel like rewording his card because we were still talking about the content.

So my suggestion is basically "redirect target spell that targets you. Your opponent my pay 2 life or U. If they do put this on top of your library instead."

DeTess

2019-09-09, 02:47 PM

The spell says "redirect this unless the opponent pays 2 life or U" so I said negated in refernce to them "paying 2 life or U." The card isn't worded quite right, but I didn't feel like rewording his card because we were still talking about the content.

So my suggestion is basically "redirect target spell that targets you. Your opponent my pay 2 life or U. If they do put this on top of your library instead."

I think the wording you want is something along the lines off "Change the target of target spell or ability an opponent controls that targets you to target them instead unless they pay (1 blue phyrexian mana). If they do, put this card on the top of your library." as 'negated' implies the spell was somehow prevented from doing its thing, but if your opponent just decides to pay, the spell has still achieved its effect.

Tvtyrant

2019-09-09, 04:41 PM

I think the wording you want is something along the lines off "Change the target of target spell or ability an opponent controls that targets you to target them instead unless they pay (1 blue phyrexian mana). If they do, put this card on the top of your library." as 'negated' implies the spell was somehow prevented from doing its thing, but if your opponent just decides to pay, the spell has still achieved its effect.

Good point. I would make it "you may put it on top" or it could ruin you against blue decks.

Assuming that wording works, I think that shocking once a turn is a fair card. It isn't overpowered but also not worthless. It has one really strong interaction that I know of, which is to guarantee a 1 cmc on top if your library. So pretty good in counterbalance decks.

Ninjaman

2019-09-09, 11:40 PM

Good point. I would make it "you may put it on top" or it could ruin you against blue decks.

Assuming that wording works, I think that shocking once a turn is a fair card. It isn't overpowered but also not worthless. It has one really strong interaction that I know of, which is to guarantee a 1 cmc on top if your library. So pretty good in counterbalance decks.

Except it doesn't, because it requires that your opponent has a target every turn. Your opponent is not going to play a card that targets you every turn. What's even worse about the design is that many cards say target opponent, meaning this card won't be usable on half the cards you want to use it on.

enderlord99

2019-09-12, 02:35 AM

http://i.ibb.co/pxWSL8d/Endless-Schemes.png

It probably doesn't need the end-step abilities, now that I think about it.

Androgeus

2019-09-12, 05:09 AM

http://i.ibb.co/pxWSL8d/Endless-Schemes.png

It probably doesn't need the end-step abilities, now that I think about it.

I get Monarch and City's Blessing are both kind of things you can have in the game, but I don't see how having at some point in the game having controlled a desert ties in to that.

Edit: stupid card I just thought up

Acuphagia 1B
Enchantment
Artifacts you control are Food in addition to their other types and gain "{2}, {T}, Sacrifice this permanent: You gain 3 life"

Was going to make it red at first but then realised shouldn't really be giving red life gain.

enderlord99

2019-09-12, 07:35 AM

I get Monarch and City's Blessing are both kind of things you can have in the game, but I don't see how having at some point in the game having controlled a desert ties in to that.

In Amonkhet, there were a lot of things that used that exact wording when checking for deserts as a conditional statement. I wanted a third conditional statement, and that was the one I happened to choose.

Granted, an argument could be made that it would already have had three, because the City's Blessing requires both "something with Ascend" and "ten permanents" and that card does not in itself have Ascend. Still, I felt like including a third official requirement, and the "desert" thing is what I settled on.

Tvtyrant

2019-09-12, 10:48 AM

I get Monarch and City's Blessing are both kind of things you can have in the game, but I don't see how having at some point in the game having controlled a desert ties in to that.

Edit: stupid card I just thought up

Acuphagia 1B
Enchantment
Artifacts you control are Food in addition to their other types and gain "{2}, {T}, Sacrifice this permanent: You gain 3 life"

Was going to make it red at first but then realised shouldn't really be giving red life gain.

This seems more green to me. I like the idea of the player eating artifacts, flavor win.

https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/cards_ip/1568320049810097.png?t=354163

lightningcat

2019-09-12, 09:54 PM

Edit: stupid card I just thought up

Acuphagia 1B
Enchantment
Artifacts you control are Food in addition to their other types and gain "{2}, {T}, Sacrifice this permanent: You gain 3 life"

Was going to make it red at first but then realised shouldn't really be giving red life gain.

This card, along with me about to make food made me think of another card.

Poisonberry 2BB
Whenever an opponent sacrafices a Food, they lose 3 life.

Androgeus

2019-09-12, 10:42 PM

This seems more green to me. I like the idea of the player eating artifacts, flavor win.

Yes of corse it should be green. Can’t believe I missed that.

gooddragon1

2019-10-04, 12:36 AM

<Cardname> 1bb
Creature - Vampire Zombie
Lifelink
Whenever a creature dealt damage by this creature this turn dies, create a token that's a copy of this creature.
2/2

Card template: Sengir Vampire (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=429908)

Perfect for raising a thread back to life. It's within the 45 day limit for sanctioned necromancy.

Ninjaman

2019-10-04, 01:52 AM

It's neat enough design, but I don't see it triggering that often. At least the opponent doesn't want to trade for it. And enchantments/equipments/combat tricks/deathtouch makes it scary.

Tvtyrant

2019-10-04, 03:21 PM

Perfect quietus spike carrier. Block and they get a copy, don't and you lose half your life.

Ninjaman

2019-10-04, 04:49 PM

Perfect quietus spike carrier. Block and they get a copy, don't and you lose half your life.

You're aware hard to block 1 drops exist in high enough amounts to fill commander decks with them, right?

Tvtyrant

2019-10-05, 02:38 PM

You're aware hard to block 1 drops exist in high enough amounts to fill commander decks with them, right?

No duh. Unblockable 1/1s for 1 are commons, there are two that have hexproof for 2 mana (1 of which is a common.)

Do they make a fun board state? Does this? That is the real question. This also works well with pump spells, letting giants growth act as a 2f1.

Ninjaman

2019-10-06, 02:26 AM

No duh. Unblockable 1/1s for 1 are commons, there are two that have hexproof for 2 mana (1 of which is a common.)

Do they make a fun board state? Does this? That is the real question. This also works well with pump spells, letting giants growth act as a 2f1.

It is good with pump spells, as I pointed out in my previous post.

My point was that it is clearly not the perfect Quietus Spike Carrier when cheaper creatures that wield it more effectively are printed in droves.

enderlord99

2019-10-12, 05:48 PM

Mist of Total Eclipse - - - ?UB

Legendary Enchantment

Creature cards in your hand with Prowl not granted by ~ have Ninjutsu. Their ninjutsu cost is equal to their prowl cost minus 1.

Creature cards in your hand with Ninjutsu not granted by ~ have Prowl. Their prowl cost is equal to their ninjutsu cost minus 1.

Rogue, Ninja, and Assassin cards in your hand without Prowl or Ninjutsu have Prowl and Ninjutsu. Their prowl cost and ninjutsu cost are each equal to their mana cost minus 1.

I'm not sure what to set the "?" in the mana cost at, to be balanced.

Ninjaman

2019-10-27, 11:38 AM

enderlord99

2019-10-27, 12:13 PM

Ninjaman

2019-10-27, 12:50 PM

...Is it meant to get three +1/+1 counters whenever anyone sacrifices anything, for any reason?

Yes. It's a mythic 7 drop without an inbuilt way to make anyone other than yourself sacrifice things.

enderlord99

2019-10-27, 01:23 PM

Yes. It's a mythic 7 drop without an inbuilt way to make anyone other than yourself sacrifice things.

It'd be more clear if you said "whenever (snip) sacrifices a permanent" then. It's effectively the same thing since all permanents are food, but the mechanical effect becomes more clear... even as the flavor is slightly diluted.

Tvtyrant

2019-10-27, 01:57 PM

Vorklorax, the Voracious - 5GG
Legendary Creature - Beast - Mythic
Trample
Other permanents are artifacts and Food in addition to their other types. They have "2, T, Sacrifice this permanent: Gain 3 life."
Whenever a player sacrifices a Food, put three +1/+1 counters on Vorklorax, the Voracious.
7/7

Just a dumb card I made for the lols.

I think it should prevent life gain or in some way inhibit the food tokens, otherwise this somehow eats the food while the player also eats the food.

All permanents are artifacts is very strong on its own, pretty easy to wipe all of your opponents permanents with this and an artifact sweeper.

Ninjaman

2019-10-27, 02:32 PM

It'd be more clear if you said "whenever (snip) sacrifices a permanent" then. It's effectively the same thing since all permanents are food, but the mechanical effect becomes more clear... even as the flavor is slightly diluted.
I think it's clear enough that it's not gonna be an issue.

I think it should prevent life gain or in some way inhibit the food tokens, otherwise this somehow eats the food while the player also eats the food.

All permanents are artifacts is very strong on its own, pretty easy to wipe all of your opponents permanents with this and an artifact sweeper.
If it prevent the life gain then there was no reason to make it food in the first place.

Making everything artifacts is the part I like the least about it, but sadly Food is an artifact subtype, so you can't make something a Food without making it an artifact just like you can't make something a Forest without making it a land.

If the card was to ever be printed it would probably not mention food and just care about players sacrificing permanents like Mazirek does, an maybe have an enabling ability itself.
This was just a goofy design I made because I wanted to turn everything into food, but it can't be done as cleanly as I had hoped.

This is more like a real card:

Vorklorax, the Voracious - 5GG
Legendary Creature - Beast - Mythic
Trample
Whenever a player sacrifices a Permanent, put three +1/+1 counters on Vorklorax, the Voracious.
1G, Sacrifice a permanent: You gain 3 life.
7/7

noob

2019-10-27, 04:04 PM

I think it's clear enough that it's not gonna be an issue.

If it prevent the life gain then there was no reason to make it food in the first place.

Making everything artifacts is the part I like the least about it, but sadly Food is an artifact subtype, so you can't make something a Food without making it an artifact just like you can't make something a Forest without making it a land.

If the card was to ever be printed it would probably not mention food and just care about players sacrificing permanents like Mazirek does, an maybe have an enabling ability itself.
This was just a goofy design I made because I wanted to turn everything into food, but it can't be done as cleanly as I had hoped.

This is more like a real card:

Vorklorax, the Voracious - 5GG
Legendary Creature - Beast - Mythic
Trample
Whenever a player sacrifices a Permanent, put three +1/+1 counters on Vorklorax, the Voracious.
1G, Sacrifice a permanent: You gain 3 life.
7/7

but it no longer allows destroying tons of permanents at once with mass artifact destruction spells such as Shattering Spree

Ninjaman

2019-10-27, 04:27 PM

but it no longer allows destroying tons of permanents at once with mass artifact destruction spells such as Shattering Spree

Yes, which is probably a plus since that was never the purpose of the design.

Tvtyrant

2019-10-28, 05:02 PM

Ninjaman

2019-10-29, 12:47 AM

What about:

Vorklorax, the Voracious - 5GG
Legendary Creature - Beast - Mythic
Trample
Whenever a player sacrifices a Permanent, put three +1/+1 counters on Vorklorax, the Voracious.
1G, Sacrifice a permanent: You gain 3 life. Any player may activate this ability.
7/7

So it still makea everything act like food, without the weird repercussions.

It would definitely need to be colorless on the ability then.
I don't think this design is as neat. The opponent can sacrifice a permanent to gain life, but by doing so he makes the trampler larger, so he's not helping himself unless he then removes your guy. Your opponent being able to sacrifice his lands for life gain doesn't seem that central to the design.

Tvtyrant

2019-10-29, 01:09 AM

It would definitely need to be colorless on the ability then.
I don't think this design is as neat. The opponent can sacrifice a permanent to gain life, but by doing so he makes the trampler larger, so he's not helping himself unless he then removes your guy. Your opponent being able to sacrifice his lands for life gain doesn't seem that central to the design.

What if it tapped Vorklorax? You could drop his cost a bit as well.

"2, Sacrifice a permanent: You gain 3 life. Tap Vorklorax. Any player may activate this ability."

Fluff wise he gets distracted eating the food. Works more like Desecration Demon for green.

Ninjaman

2019-10-29, 02:09 AM

What if it tapped Vorklorax? You could drop his cost a bit as well.

"2, Sacrifice a permanent: You gain 3 life. Tap Vorklorax. Any player may activate this ability."

Fluff wise he gets distracted eating the food. Works more like Desecration Demon for green.

That could work.

Make his cost 3GG then?

Tvtyrant

2019-10-29, 02:21 AM

That could work.

Make his cost 3GG then?

That is what I was thinking.

Ninjaman

2019-10-29, 03:05 AM

That is what I was thinking.

I like it.

enderlord99

2019-10-29, 03:17 AM

Name is really similar to the green Praetor from New Phyrexia.

Ninjaman

2019-10-29, 04:07 AM

Name is really similar to the green Praetor from New Phyrexia.

Vorinclex? Yeah, kinda, but the name doesn't really matter that much anyways, it could be whatever.

enderlord99

2019-10-29, 06:58 AM

Vorinclex?Yes.
Yeah, kinda, but the name doesn't really matter that much anyways, it could be whatever."Whatever the Voracious{"}

Ninjaman

2019-10-29, 07:09 AM

Whatever, the Voracious

That comma is important :smalltongue:

enderlord99

2019-10-29, 11:38 AM

Either way... "Whatever" starts not with a "V" but with a "Wh" so maybe it should be-

...no. No it should not.

Tvtyrant

2019-10-29, 06:53 PM

-D-

2019-10-30, 05:00 PM

Dragon Thief - BR
Creature - Rogue Dragon- Uncommon
Flying
When an artifact enters the battlefield under your control, put a +1/+1 counter on Dragon Thief.
Remove 5 +1/+1 counters from Dragon Thief: Take control of target artifact.
0/1
Interesting design. It would be exciting in Affinity like decks. Also possibly broken in Whirza. It should be fine in Limited.

Kalatchian Toad - {B/G}
Creature - Frog - Common
Resurrect 4{B/G} (4{B/G}: Put this card from your graveyard to the battlefield transformed. Resurrect only as sorcery)
1/1

>>TRANSFORM>>

Kalatchian Horror
Creature - Frog Horror
Deathtouch
If CARDNAME dies exile it instead.
3/3

Tvtyrant

2019-10-30, 08:55 PM

-D-

2019-10-31, 12:51 AM

I like the resurrect keyword, like a better eternalize. I would prefer the 1/1 have deathtouch and the 3/3 not, more flavorful as a poison dart frog or whatever becoming a big monster (also more useful.)
Thanks. I'll probably do that.

One thing about dragon thief that struck me - I thought it was blue (yeah I know about blUe). I think the dragon is fine as it is, but he strikes me as Blue Red or Black Blue, than Black Red.

What is the logic behind it being Black Red? Keep in mind it could be something as my sets needs more black/red fliers.

Tvtyrant

2019-10-31, 01:16 AM

Thanks. I'll probably do that.

One thing about dragon thief that struck me - I thought it was blue (yeah I know about blUe). I think the dragon is fine as it is, but he strikes me as Blue Red or Black Blue, than Black Red.

What is the logic behind it being Black Red? Keep in mind it could be something as my sets needs more black/red fliers.

Red: Gaining things when you summon artifacts, flying, dragon.
Black: Sacrificing 1/1 counters to accomplish an effect. Normally black only takes control of things by resurrecting them, but black also has a "can do anything if paid for."

It could be UR, but it doesn't feel like an UR card to me.

-D-

2019-10-31, 01:11 PM

Plane Shatter - 3BB
Sorcery - Rare
Emerge 1BBB (You may cast this spell by sacrificing a creature and paying the emerge cost reduced by that creature's converted mana cost)
Exile all planeswalkers and legendary creatures.

If emerge cost was paid, this spell cannot be countered.

Ninjaman

2019-10-31, 02:55 PM

Which of the following wordings is correct?

You may discard a blue card instead of paying Reject’s mana cost, if an opponent has cast two or more spells this turn.

If an opponent has cast two or more spells this turn, you may discard a blue card instead of paying Reject’s mana cost.

-D-

2019-10-31, 03:25 PM

Ninjaman

2019-10-31, 04:38 PM

Thanks, that seems right.

Tvtyrant

2019-10-31, 05:27 PM

Stealing ressurect mechanic.

Saint Gransea - W
Creature - Legendary Human - Mythic
When Saint Gransea enters the battlefield, gain 3 life.
Resurrect 4WW: Put this card from your graveyard to the battlefield transformed. Resurrect only as sorcery)
1/2

>>TRANSFORM>>

Gransea of the Sixth Choir
Creature - Legendary Angel
Vigilance, Lifelink, Flying
If CARDNAME leaves the battlefield, exile it instead.
4/5[/QUOTE]

lightningcat

2019-10-31, 10:51 PM

Red: Gaining things when you summon artifacts, flying, dragon.
Black: Sacrificing 1/1 counters to accomplish an effect. Normally black only takes control of things by resurrecting them, but black also has a "can do anything if paid for."

It could be UR, but it doesn't feel like an UR card to me.

I agree this version should be BR, but now I want a sorta similar UR dragon. Preferably with some flavor text connecting the two.
Maybe something that puts charge counters on artifacts as they come into play, and can steal artifacts with charge counters.
To tired now to think this all the way through.

-D-

2019-11-01, 06:59 AM

Stealing resurrects mechanic.

Saint Gransea - W
Creature - Legendary Human - Mythic
When Saint Gransea enters the battlefield, gain 3 life.
Resurrect 4WW: Put this card from your graveyard to the battlefield transformed. Resurrect only as sorcery)
1/2

>>TRANSFORM>>

Gransea of the Sixth Choir
Creature - Legendary Angel
Vigilance, Lifelink, Flying
If CARDNAME leaves the battlefield, exile it instead.
4/5
Yeah. Stealing. Shame on you :smalltongue: *Cough* Embalm *Cough* Reddit *Cough*

That's a very nice card. It's relatively tame for a mythic.

Its first side is white Healer of the Glade (https://scryfall.com/card/m20/176/healer-of-the-glade). Very nice.
The rezz side is One of these (https://scryfall.com/search?q=o%3Avigilance+o%3Aflying+o%3Alifelink&unique=cards&as=grid&order=name). I think this side is fine, except it might be slightly under-costed. Now, this is mythic, so cheating on the cost is something mythics can do.

The thing is, since this is a two for one card, they inflate price usually by 2 (2 mana of any color). See Embalm (https://scryfall.com/search?q=o%3Aembalm&unique=cards&as=grid&order=name).

That said, I do have a question. Why did you go for "if ... leaves the battlefield" instead of "if ... dies"? I did it because I didn't want to turn bounce and flicker into hard removals. Since it could make Blue and White possibly too powerful.

I agree this version should be BR, but now I want a sorta similar UR dragon. Preferably with some flavor text connecting the two.
Maybe something that puts charge counters on artifacts as they come into play, and can steal artifacts with charge counters.
To tired now to think this all the way through.
An Ur-Dragon :smalltongue: ?

Jokes aside. UR dragons usually exploit Sorcery/Instant synergy (since that is what UR loves most). Maybe some kind of dragon that puts "IT'S MINE"/property counters on artifacts whenever you cast sorc/instant? Something like:

Greedy Dragon - UR
Creature - Dragon Noble
Flying
CARDNAME gets +1/+0 for each artifact you control.
Whenever you cast an instant or a sorcery, put property counter on target artifact.
3UR: Gain control of all artifacts with property counters, until end of turn. Untap those artifacts. They gain haste. Activate this ability only as a sorcery.
1/3

enderlord99

2019-11-01, 08:58 AM

Greedy Dragon's flavor doesn't seem Izzet; it seems either Grixis or Yore-Tiller.

-D-

2019-11-01, 09:28 AM

Greedy Dragon's flavor doesn't seem Izzet; it seems either Grizis or Yore-Tiller.
You're going to have to elaborate. Nothing about the two abilities includes black, let alone white.

Although a greedy dragon could just be better served with a "2R: Gain control of target artifact. Untap it. It gains haste." But that would probably make him a much more of a red than blue dragon.

Tvtyrant

2019-11-01, 11:46 AM

Yeah. Stealing. Shame on you :smalltongue: *Cough* Embalm *Cough* Reddit *Cough*

That's a very nice card. It's relatively tame for a mythic.

Its first side is white Healer of the Glade (https://scryfall.com/card/m20/176/healer-of-the-glade). Very nice.
The rezz side is One of these (https://scryfall.com/search?q=o%3Avigilance+o%3Aflying+o%3Alifelink&unique=cards&as=grid&order=name). I think this side is fine, except it might be slightly under-costed. Now, this is mythic, so cheating on the cost is something mythics can do.

The thing is, since this is a two for one card, they inflate price usually by 2 (2 mana of any color). See Embalm (https://scryfall.com/search?q=o%3Aembalm&unique=cards&as=grid&order=name).

That said, I do have a question. Why did you go for "if ... leaves the battlefield" instead of "if ... dies"? I did it because I didn't want to turn bounce and flicker into hard removals. Since it could make Blue and White possibly too powerful.

Mythics can do anything these days, this has nothing on Questing Beast or Oko. The funny thing as a legend though is you can use the first mode as healing leaves by just summoning a replacement Saint, which also gets the first one in the graveyard.

My fear was the opposite. Flicker your creature to un-resurrect it, start the cycle over. Resurrect already adds a virtual draw 1 effect to each card, letting you bounce or flicker them seems to compound the issue.

OTOH, that does set it apart from similar mechanics and give it more room for experimentation. I don't know the answer there.

-D-

2019-11-01, 12:05 PM

OTOH, that does set it apart from similar mechanics and give it more room for experimentation. I don't know the answer there.
Heh. My answer was common/uncommon dies when leaving battlefield, Rare or Mythic can cheat the effect, slightly. E.g. :

Azzam, The Returned - WBG
Legendary Creature - Human Cleric - Rare
When CARDNAME enters the battlefield all other Humans you control get +1/+1 until end of turn.
Resurrect -- WBG, Pay 4 life (WBG, Pay 4 life: Put this card from your graveyard to the battlefield transformed. Resurrect only as sorcery)
3/3

>> TRANSFORM >>

Azzam, The Beast
Legendary Creature - Horror Cleric - Rare
Vigilance, Trample, Deathtouch
When CARDNAME leaves the battlefield, any opponent may pay 4 life. If any opponent pays, exile it instead.
4/4

enderlord99

2019-11-01, 12:15 PM

You're going to have to elaborate.It's name is "greedy dragon." Greed is a black trait, and is also the whole point of the Orzhov Syndicate.
Nothing about the two abilities includes black, let alone white.I said "flavor" not "mechanics." Abilities are mechanics, though they can be linked to flavor.

-D-

2019-11-01, 04:12 PM

It's name is "greedy dragon." Greed is a black trait, and is also the whole point of the Orzhov Syndicate.I said "flavor" not "mechanics." Abilities are mechanics, though they can be linked to flavor.
Just the name? Jeez. Probably should have called it - Ancap Dragon :smalltongue: Maybe Possessive Dragon is a more suitable name

No. Flavor is how everything meshes together. To say mechanic isn't flavor is wrong. It's akin to saying dishes texture doesn't affect its flavor. Almost every part of dish affects its flavor - texture, taste, aroma, color and even presentation.

gooddragon1

2019-11-01, 04:32 PM

<cardname> 1w
Creature - Spirit Wizard
When this creature enters the battlefield, you may choose a face up card you own in exile. You may play the chosen card until end of turn.
1/2

Snarpcaster

Tvtyrant

2019-11-01, 04:55 PM

<cardname> 1w
Creature - Spirit Wizard
When this creature enters the battlefield, you may choose a face up card you own in exile. You may play the chosen card until end of turn.
1/2

Snarpcaster

That seems like a pretty big violation of the rules there. Maybe if it was "exiled by a permanent you control" or similar.

-D-

2019-11-01, 05:21 PM

That seems like a pretty big violation of the rules there. Maybe if it was "exiled by a permanent you control" or similar.
Why is it a rule break? Coax From the Blind Eternities (https://scryfall.com/card/emn/51/coax-from-the-blind-eternities) exists.

It's possibly a color break. The face up part is unnecessary, since you can't interact with face down cards. At all.

Tvtyrant

2019-11-01, 05:54 PM

Why is it a rule break? Coax From the Blind Eternities (https://scryfall.com/card/emn/51/coax-from-the-blind-eternities) exists.

It's possibly a color break. The face up part is unnecessary, since you can't interact with face down cards. At all.

It basically removes the whole purpose of exile. The Eldrazi's weird alternate color pie involves a lot of exiling or removing from exile, but they specifically break the rule. This lets you remove any spell from exile by paying 2 mana, with very few conditions you have to jump through.

Like you could cast a spell, flash it back, use this to cast it again, and then flash it back again. At the very least it needs to be much more expensive to justify breaking exile so hard.

-D-

2019-11-01, 06:55 PM

It basically removes the whole purpose of exile. The Eldrazi's weird alternate color pie involves a lot of exiling or removing from exile, but they specifically break the rule. This lets you remove any spell from exile by paying 2 mana, with very few conditions you have to jump through.
Yeah but it still doesn't break one of core mtg rules. Rules like "You can't put into hand cards you don't own".

I think the effect is fine for a rare, and given some restriction e.g. only works on enchantment/artifact/creature.

Tvtyrant

2019-11-01, 07:14 PM

Yeah but it still doesn't break one of core mtg rules. Rules like "You can't put into hand cards you don't own".

I think the effect is fine for a rare, and given some restriction e.g. only works on enchantment/artifact/creature.
Exile used to be "removed from play." This takes it from "much more restrictive graveyard" to "additional graveyard." At which point why have exile?

For instance, if a card gets hit by Oblivion Ring you can now cast it from out of existence with this. Or if you use any of the red cards that exile the top of your library and can cast until end of turn, now it just becomes "pile you can cast from." A lot of this is things Wizards is doing already, I just think Pathmaster Mage is too far.

-D-

2019-11-01, 07:21 PM

Yeah I get it, but a single card isn't going to make exile playable. And if that happens, just make a card that exiles card face down. Those can't be chosen or targeted.

Tvtyrant

2019-11-01, 07:32 PM

Yeah I get it, but a single card isn't going to make exile playable. And if that happens, just make a card that exiles card face down. Those can't be chosen or targeted.

I think MTG saw that coming a while back lol (2004)
https://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=74231&type=card

gooddragon1

2019-11-01, 10:10 PM

https://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=106657&type=card
https://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=370365&type=card
https://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=470640&type=card

Cards already can do this.

Though it's unfortunate I guess now that you mention it.

Maybe only certain permanents and exile once the turn ends, but not in the way sundial of the infinite can use. Also exile if it leaves the battlefield.

Ninjaman

2019-11-02, 03:52 AM

I agree with TvTyrant. The exile zone is exile for a reason.
The eldrazi only puts the opponent's exiled cards back, so they don't count.
Runic Repetition and Coax From Blind Eternities only work for very specific cards.
Rift Sweeper and Pull From Eternity are both horribly inefficient, given how you need another card to actually get it back for good. And Pull From Eternity is card disadvantage.

And yes, this single card would make exile playable. It wouldn't need to spawn a new deck, there are existing decks what would play it. Cards like Slaughter Games don't matter anymore just by the printing of this card. Lots of decks that can be hated by exile could play it, and decks that play exile mainboard, (Rest in Peace, Relic of Progenitus) could also play it.

Androgeus

2019-11-02, 05:42 AM

@Ninjaman. First one. Compare with Spectacle:

"You may cast this spell for its spectacle cost rather than its mana cost if an opponent lost life this turn."

Once you replace spectacle with your alternative cost, and conditional you get:

"You may discard a blue card rather than pay Cardname mana cost if an opponent casted two or more spells this turn"

Sorry to jump back a few posts, but I think you are wrong here. Spectacle isn’t where you want to be looking. What you want are Zendikar traps, all of them are worded in ‘condition’-‘cost’ order.

Ninjaman

2019-11-02, 06:41 AM

Sorry to jump back a few posts, but I think you are wrong here. Spectacle isn’t where you want to be looking. What you want are Zendikar traps, all of them are worded in ‘condition’-‘cost’ order.

You're right, and the new forces do that too.

Also related, rather than seem to have replaced instead of in the wording of these effects.

If an opponent has cast two or more spells this turn, you may discard a blue card rather than paying Reject’s mana cost.

-D-

2019-11-02, 08:53 AM

Sorry to jump back a few posts, but I think you are wrong here. Spectacle isn’t where you want to be looking. What you want are Zendikar traps, all of them are worded in ‘condition’-‘cost’ order.
There is also the possibility both are correct. Also Spectacle wording is later.

The exile zone is exile for a reason.
The eldrazi only puts the opponent's exiled cards back, so they don't count.
Runic Repetition and Coax From Blind Eternities only work for very specific cards.

And yes, this single card would make exile playable.
Um. I'm pretty sure I said, it would be fine if you limit it to type of cards it returns. E.g. enchantment.

And for the record there is still Karn the Great Creator (https://scryfall.com/card/war/1/karn-the-great-creator?utm_source=mw_MTGWiki ), which can do this effect repeatedly for artifacts. And it hasn't made any exile artifact deck playable.

Ninjaman

2019-11-02, 10:13 AM

Um. I'm pretty sure I said, it would be fine if you limit it to type of cards it returns. E.g. enchantment.
I don't know why you post as I was referring to you specifically when I posted my points about the original card.

And for the record there is still Karn the Great Creator (https://scryfall.com/card/war/1/karn-the-great-creator?utm_source=mw_MTGWiki ), which can do this effect repeatedly for artifacts. And it hasn't made any exile artifact deck playable.
It's twice as expensive and much more restrictive. I'm not sure why you think this would be a good comparison.

-D-

2019-11-02, 10:35 AM

It's twice as expensive and much more restrictive. I'm not sure why you think this would be a good comparison.
Ok, but did it enable some kind of exile driven deck? No.

By same amount the creature in question wouldn't cause that much of an issue. Assuming it had a specific condition and it returns card to hand or library.

Androgeus

2019-11-02, 10:36 AM

There is also the possibility both are correct. Also Spectacle wording is later.

Spectacle is reminder text, they can be much looser and write what sounds good, rather than having to stick to magicese.

-D-

2019-11-02, 11:17 AM

Spectacle is reminder text, they can be much looser and write what sounds good, rather than having to stick to magicese.
Yeah, but it's rules text is identical. Rules text is as precise as it gets. That said, Force of Negation wording seems to be the preferred one, but preference boils to - I like it more.

Ninjaman

2019-11-02, 01:46 PM

Ok, but did it enable some kind of exile driven deck? No.
No, because it's too unwieldy for it. Also I wrote:

And yes, this single card would make exile playable. It wouldn't need to spawn a new deck, there are existing decks what would play it. Cards like Slaughter Games don't matter anymore just by the printing of this card. Lots of decks that can be hated by exile could play it, and decks that play exile mainboard, (Rest in Peace, Relic of Progenitus) could also play it.

Which you seemed to ignore by focusing on decks built around it.

By same amount the creature in question wouldn't cause that much of an issue. Assuming it had a specific condition and it returns card to hand or library.
If it was shuffle into library it would not be a problem, as it would just be Riftsweeper.
Doing enchantments would probably be fair, limiting it to Auras or Auras and Equipment would definitely be fair.
Doing creatures would be less so, as it is a creature itself, so graveyard/creature decks like Karador could play it very easily, and it would very effectively mitigate one of the biggest answers against such a deck, graveyard exile.

The big problem it has over Karn is also that this only does this one thing, meaning that it is either not worth it, or it is which breaks how the mechanics are supposed to work. Karn is a more expensive card which does other things, so he doesn't need to efficiently fetch artifacts from exile.