MTG Share your Card Designs II

[enderlord99]

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]

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]

Warstrike is missing the word "any"

[Ninjaman]

Any reason for having the mana cost before the name?

[Tvtyrant]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[DeTess]

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 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]

That wouldn't be easy. If the wiki 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]

Spoiler: Hypothetical background-explanation

Show

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.

Spoiler: The result (PEACH)

Show

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

[Blue Ghost]

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]

"~ 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 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]

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]

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.

[Ninjaman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

"~ 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]

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?