MTG Share your Card Designs II

[PhantasyPen]

First ability probably wants the restriction to be if he hasn’t activated a loyalty ability since you last upkeep rather than just once per turn.
Is the second ability exiling a card from anywhere or is it just an o ring effect?

Red counterspell? No. would be fine costed as ~ RRUU though (see Esscence Backlash)

What is this? A effect that only last the turn? Then it should be an instant or sorcery. An aura? Then it should have the sub type and enchant creature. A recurring effect that you can change each upkeep? Then it needs an actual trigger condition, like “at the beginning of each upkeep”.

Also your mana costs are written backwards. It’s not important but I don’t really understand how you can get that wrong when every card has it written in the same order.

Eh, don't actually play MtG. I based the set on my actual wizard PC from a defunct campaign and had a friend explain the basics of how the cards work. Also when I wrote the cards the mana cost was displaying correctly...

[Ninjaman]

There is a land taps for all colors at common that enters untapped for <>. This is significantly worse.

No there isn't. There are commons that tap for all colors and enter tap while requiring you to pay 1, and there's a land that taps for C that makes one mana of any color when it enters.

Thoughts on this land:

Secret Laboratory
Land - Common
CARDNAME enters the battlefield tapped unless you pay U/B.
T: Add U or B.

It's a tap land that can sometimes filter your one color to the other color. That's very unimpressive, but it's still strictly better than the taplands, so it would be a fine uncommon.
I would make it 1 instead though.

[-D-]

It's a tap land that can sometimes filter your one color to the other color. That's very unimpressive, but it's still strictly better than the taplands, so it would be a fine uncommon.
I would make it 1 instead though.

Thanks, I was going for unimpressive, in order to keep it at common. Sadly, yeah I want to keep dual land at common. What would work at common for Dual lands? Life is already used, damage feels out of place. Maybe converting (1) to one of U/B? (Reminder text: (1) means one of any color, since pay 1 does look a lot like pay 1 life)

Eh, don't actually play MtG. I based the set on my actual wizard PC from a defunct campaign and had a friend explain the basics of how the cards work. Also when I wrote the cards the mana cost was displaying correctly...

Ok, but if you make cards, MTG cards are highly standardized, which is benefit and a downside. Benefits being writing a new one isn't that hard and you are much more precise than say Hearthstone.
Downsides being, to make a really novel one, you really need to learn a bit about the whole process. And there are a lot of tiny nitpicks you can commit along the way.

As for the other thing. Have you tried Magic Set Editor? It's probably the best tool out there.

[Ninjaman]

Thanks, I was going for unimpressive, in order to keep it at common. Sadly, yeah I want to keep dual land at common. What would work at common for Dual lands? Life is already used, damage feels out of place. Maybe converting (1) to one of U/B? (Reminder text: (1) means one of any color, since pay 1 does look a lot like pay 1 life)

For a common land don't do anything, or give it a subtype that your set cares about. Don't do anything else with it.

[Androgeus]

(Reminder text: (1) means one of any color, since pay 1 does look a lot like pay 1 life)

Why would you need reminder text for {1}? And even then you got it wrong, {1} can be payed with any mana even colourless.

[Tvtyrant]

I think the only untap dual untapped at this point is something like "etb exile a card from your hand." Card advantage for silky color fixing can be worth it.

[noob]

I think the only untap dual untapped at this point is something like "etb exile a card from your hand." Card advantage for silky color fixing can be worth it.

In which format?
In modern and in commander there is a lot of lands that arrives untapped(if you pay a specific cost such as some life) and can produce two different colours of mana.

[-D-]

Anyway thought on this land

Abzan Land
Land - Rare
T: Add {C}
T, Gain a poison counter: Add B, G or W.

[noob]

Anyway thought on this land

Abzan Land
Land - Rare
T: Add {C}
T, Gain a poison counter: Add B, G or W.

Knowing that poison based decks are rare it mostly means that you have an untapped at start triple land unless your opponent uses proliferation(which might possibly be used out of a poison deck).
Then when you play against a deck with poison you just swap that card for other cards(and in the first match avoid poisoning yourself).

[-D-]

Gaining counter is part of the cost.
An opponent plays Solemnity/Suncleanser and you are stuck with a ****tier Desert/Wastes.

[noob]

Gaining counter is part of the cost.
An opponent plays Solemnity/Suncleanser and you are stuck with a ****tier Desert/Wastes.

By the time your opponent have cast one of those spell you probably got access to other coloured mana sources.
I think that hp loss is closer to being a significant cost than poison counters is due to how few people use poison counters to try to defeat their opponents.

[-D-]

Ok. So how about this:

Abzan Land
Land - Rare
T: Add B, G or W. Gain a poison counter. If you didn't gain poison counters this way, lose 2 life.

With this change assuming you only run these lands you have four turns tops. Similar situation if you prevent counters. Although you might live a few turns longer.

[JNAProductions]

Ok. So how about this:

Abzan Land
Land - Rare
T: Add B, G or W. Gain a poison counter. If you didn't gain poison counters this way, lose 2 life.

With this change assuming you only run these lands you have four turns tops. Similar situation if you prevent counters. Although you might live a few turns longer.

But why would you only run these lands?

[noob]

But why would you only run these lands?

If you somehow play in a format that caps the number of kind of cards instead of capping the number of cards of each kind?
Or if you are just very unlucky and your hand have 4 of those lands after a mulligan because you had no lands at all?

[Ninjaman]

Anyway thought on this land

Abzan Land
Land - Rare
T: Add {C}
T, Gain a poison counter: Add B, G or W.

The problem is that most of the time the downside isn't relevant, at all.

[-D-]

But why would you only run these lands?

Theoretical worst case.

The set I am creating does have some amount of poison interaction. Thing like

Avatar of Corruption - B
Creature - Avatar
As you cast this spell, you may choose to gain a poison counter.
~ power and toughness are equal to number of poison counters on its controller.
*/*

[noob]

Theoretical worst case.

The set I am creating does have some amount of poison interaction.

Unless you add good offensive poison cards anybody could just pick that land and none of the other poison costing cards and essentially have a triple land for no real cost.

[-D-]

Unless you add good offensive poison cards anybody could just pick that land and none of the other poison costing cards and essentially have a triple land for no real cost.

There is a lot of cheap +1 poison spells in all five colors at common. There are some creature that add poison. Although not much at uncommon and higher.

[noob]

There is a lot of cheap +1 poison spells in all five colors at common. There are some creature that add poison. Although not much at uncommon and higher.

1 poison counter is roughly like 2 damage since you need 10 poison to kill someone and 20 damage to kill someone.
Except that poison and damage does not stacks.
So you find yourself picking your poisoning cards among a subset that have 10 times less cards when making a poison based deck.
So you can wonder "should I instead get a damage based deck" and then use stuff like 3+ damage cards(equivalent to 1.5+ poison counters) or yet all the good damage dealing creatures with often better abilities and/or superior fighting stats to poisonous creatures.
Essentially to make poison based decks competitive you would need poisoning cards similarly strong to the current strong damage cards.

[Ninjaman]

There is a lot of cheap +1 poison spells in all five colors at common. There are some creature that add poison. Although not much at uncommon and higher.

The problem is this creates rock paper scissors were giving yourself poison is an advantage against decks that don't deal poison, but a disadvantage against decks that do, and since most decks don't do poison you need to make the decks that do that much more powerful.
The biggest problem with poison is that it is incredibly parasitic, you either want to deal only poison damage or deal no poison damage.

[-D-]

The biggest problem with poison is that it is incredibly parasitic, you either want to deal only poison damage or deal no poison damage.

I'm aware of the parasitism of poison. But what if you dealt both? Would that help?

[Tvtyrant]

I'm aware of the parasitism of poison. But what if you dealt both? Would that help?

I think poison is a bad mechanic, and this card exacerbates its problems. Either the land accelerates infect and you lose to it, or it doesn't do anything meaningful and it is just a dual land.

If you want something that hurts you for a reasonable amount but not damage, I think tap: any color mana, your opponent investigates, or tap: any color, your opponent food tokens would be much better. It is slow card advantage for your opponent but smooths out your early game, and doesn't benefit aggro disproportionately like current lands.

[lightningcat]

People are forgetting that unless you have some method of getting rid of poison counters, you would have a hard limit of 9 colored mana from these lands. And if we are honest, such a land would only appear in a set with lots of poison anyways.
Personally, I would rather it provide one mana of any color and give you a poison counter.

[Ninjaman]

People are forgetting that unless you have some method of getting rid of poison counters, you would have a hard limit of 9 colored mana from these lands. And if we are honest, such a land would only appear in a set with lots of poison anyways.
Personally, I would rather it provide one mana of any color and give you a poison counter.

How often do you take 10 damage from ping lands? Not very often. And this is even a triland.
If it added mana of any color would just be a better Mana Confluence.

[-D-]

How often do you take 10 damage from ping lands? Not very often. And this is even a triland.
If it added mana of any color would just be a better Mana Confluence.

Not much, but when I do against Burn, every single hurt. As I said, the set has lots of stuff that adds and counts poison

Purging Light - 2R
Sorcery - Uncommon
Target player gains two poison counter.
CARDNAME deals damage to target player equal to a number of their poison counters.

Disspaiting Cloud - U
Instant - Uncommon
You can't gain poison counters this turn.
Draw a card.

So if you go trilands, your opponent's poison counter synergies will work even better. And if they go full poison counter, there are poison prevention methods. Sure it's an RPS system, but RPS system are also well balanced systems.

[Ninjaman]

Not much, but when I do against Burn, every single hurt. As I said, the set has lots of stuff that adds and counts poison

But most decks won't be using poison, that's the entire point. Your set also doesn't exist in a vacuum. Just because it will have lots of poison doesn't mean magic in general will.

Purging Light - 2R
Sorcery - Uncommon
Target player gains two poison counter.
CARDNAME deals damage to target player equal to a number of their poison counters.

Wizards were quite careful about putting poison counters on players outside of infect, because it can't be healed, and especially because it can be proliferated.

Disspaiting Cloud - U
Instant - Uncommon
You can't gain poison counters this turn.
Draw a card.

If poison is prominent then this seems too efficient.

So if you go trilands, your opponent's poison counter synergies will work even better. And if they go full poison counter, there are poison prevention methods. Sure it's an RPS system, but RPS system are also well balanced systems.

That doesn't sound well balanced at all.
If you play a land that is overpowered but gives you poison, and then plays another card that is underpowered but prevents poison, that just averages out. It's all about guessing which plan of attack the opponent does in a very artificial way with very high variance.

[-D-]

That doesn't sound well balanced at all.

I was talking about RPS as a balance system. Even MTG strategies are a form of RPS. Aggro beats control, control beats combo, combo beats the aggro.

If you play land that is overpowered but gives you poison, and then plays another card that is underpowered but prevents poison, that just averages out. It's all about guessing which plan of attack the opponent does in a very artificial way with very high variance.

Well, if you prevent poison you get 2 damage for your chosen mana, that doesn't scream overpowered to me. Although not precisely sure how the timing works exactly because I think mana abilities don't go on the stack.

The way I see it in the set there are three strategies: Use poison as a resource, punish poison as a resource and negate poison. If I can provide enough cards that do two out of three, there might be enough cards to make equilibrium.

Wizards were quite careful about putting poison counters on players outside of infect, because it can't be healed, and especially because it can be proliferated.

If poison is prominent then this seems too efficient.

Thanks for the feedback. I'll keep that in mind. But surely, the spells can't be as effective as Infect? I haven't seen proliferate in Infect decks to be honest.

I'll probably tweak these a bit. For example, only add a single counter on the red one, and scale the damage to be 2*(poison counters). For blue, I'll up the cost.

[Ninjaman]

I was talking about RPS as a balance system. Even MTG strategies are a form of RPS. Aggro beats control, control beats combo, combo beats the aggro.

That's been stated many times and it doesn't get any more true from repeating it. Combo decks are good against decks that are slower but play little disruption. Combo is not good against aggro decks that goldfish faster, nor are they good against aggro decks that play a lot of disruption.

Well, if you prevent poison you get 2 damage for your chosen mana, that doesn't scream overpowered to me. Although not precisely sure how the timing works exactly because I think mana abilities don't go on the stack.

I'm talking about deckbuilding. You either need to use over powered cards with a downside and hope it doesn't become relevant, or play the overpowered cards with downsides along with underpowered cards that negate the downside, and at that point you could have probably just made all the cards the proper power level to begin with.

The way I see it in the set there are three strategies: Use poison as a resource, punish poison as a resource and negate poison. If I can provide enough cards that do two out of three, there might be enough cards to make equilibrium.

Thanks for the feedback. I'll keep that in mind. But surely, the spells can't be as effective as Infect? I haven't seen proliferate in Infect decks to be honest.

To be fair infect was widely seen as a mistake.
Also the problem I raised wasn't that it was too effective, but that it was too unavoidable. If you can deal 10 infect with burn spells the only thing the opponent can do is counter your spells or play very specific hate cards. With infect you can just interact with their creatures.

I'll probably tweak these a bit. For example, only add a single counter on the red one, and scale the damage to be 2*(poison counters). For blue, I'll up the cost.

At that point it feel like the poison counters are too irrelevant and you probably want to do something else.

I don't think there is a good way to implement what you're trying to do.
Poison counters, while interesting, are essentially a bad mechanic.

[-D-]

That's been stated many times and it doesn't get any more true from repeating it. Combo decks are good against decks that are slower but play little disruption. The combo is not good against aggro decks that goldfish faster, nor are they good against aggro decks that play a lot of disruption.

Ok, fine, but RPS mechanics are in general useful fol balancing. In fighting games, you have them as attack/block/throw. I just went for a more MTG flavored one.

Also the problem I raised wasn't that it was too effective, but that it was too unavoidable. If you can deal 10 infect with burn spells the only thing the opponent can do is counter your spells or play very specific hate cards. With infect, you can just interact with their creatures.

Here I think I disagree. I don't see a problem with playing hate cards. If someone plays affinity, I don't see a problem with another playing Stony Silence. Or any number of mass artifact removal.

[Ninjaman]

Ok, fine, but RPS mechanics are in general useful fol balancing. In fighting games, you have them as attack/block/throw. I just went for a more MTG flavored one.

Not like this. Tell me which magic set has an RPS mechanic like this?

Here I think I disagree. I don't see a problem with playing hate cards. If someone plays affinity, I don't see a problem with another playing Stony Silence. Or any number of mass artifact removal.

The point is you don't need Stony Silence against affinity, removal spells work against them. They might not work as well, they might even not work well enough, but they do work. Against infect burn spells however your only choice is to prevent them from being cast or give yourself hexproof, which is much more narrow. That is bad design.