Jean-Michel, Inquisitive Sorcerer1UU
Legendary Creature - Human Wizard [R]
When Jean-Michel, Inquisitive Sorcerer enters the battlefield, scry 1. U, Sacrifice Jacques, Inquisitive Sorcerer: Draw three cards.
"I am willing to risk my life for the pursuit of knowledge."
2/2
Frena, Corrupted ClericWB
Legendary Creature - Human Cleric [MR]
Deathtouch
Whenever Frena, Corrupted Cleric becomes tapped, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain 1 life for each Cleric you control. Eminence - If Frena, Corrupted Cleric is in your command zone or on the battlefield, at the beginning of your upkeep, you may return target Cleric card from your graveyard to your hand. If you do, you lose 2 life.
2/3
Numbai, Fiend Manipulator2UB
Legendary Creature - Zombie Horror [MR]
Menace
Whenever an opponent searches his or her library, draw two cards. 3R: Destroy target land an opponent controls. Its controller may search his or her library for a basic land card, put it onto the battlefield, then shuffle his or her library. Activate this ability only once each turn.
3/3
Jean-Michel, Inquisitive Sorcerer1UU
Legendary Creature - Human Wizard [R]
When Jean-Michel, Inquisitive Sorcerer enters the battlefield, scry 1. U, Sacrifice Jacques, Inquisitive Sorcerer: Draw three cards.
"I am willing to risk my life for the pursuit of knowledge."
2/2
1. Red text is not worth it. Instants and Sorceries can get away just a one word sentence. See: Magma jet; and even then Scry 1 feels bad.
2. I don't understand how this guy can be legendary for... sacrificing himself. There's a giant flavor problem there.
Frena, Corrupted ClericWB
Legendary Creature - Human Cleric [MR]
Deathtouch
Whenever Frena, Corrupted Cleric becomes tapped, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain 1 life for each Cleric you control. Eminence - If Frena, Corrupted Cleric is in your command zone or on the battlefield, at the beginning of your upkeep, you may return target Cleric card from your graveyard to your hand. If you do, you lose 2 life.
2/3
1. So this guy is a 2/3 with deathtouch for 2 mana. That's above the curve with nothing else.
2. Eminence - I... actually kind of like this ability. It's well costed. However, might I suggest that it exiles any creature from the 'yard, and create a 2/2 zombie? Less recycling, more going wide.
3. I'd also consider making this a bigger creature. Maybe a 4/4 lifelink deathtouch for 4WB?
4. OH Snap, didn't even see the (orange) text! There's just too much going on here. If you want a lord, why not something traditional?
I'm Bad, Corrupted Archbishop2WB
Legendary Creature - Human Cleric Vampire (M)
Deathtouch, Lifelink
Other Clerics you control are black zombies in addition to their other colors and types and get +2/+1.
4/3
His lord text is even rather unique and calls back to unholy strength.
Numbai, Fiend Manipulator2UB
Legendary Creature - Zombie Horror [MR]
Menace
Whenever an opponent searches his or her library, draw two cards. 3R: Destroy target land an opponent controls. Its controller may search his or her library for a basic land card, put it onto the battlefield, then shuffle his or her library. Activate this ability only once each turn.
3/3
1. Green text deserves to be on it's own card. Probably not a zombie.
2. Purple text could be tweaked to be it's own card. Probably not a zombie.
3. Originally I read this as two, unique, interesting "hate bear" abilities stapled together unduly.
But now? Now I see what you want: 3RStone Rain or Draw 2 cards. Neither one of those things is particularly "fun."
Several legendary creatures are able to sacrifice themselves (Saffi Eriksdotter, Sidisi, Undead Vizier, Major Teroh, etc.). How is this is Jean-Michel, Inquisitive Sorcerer a flavor fail? The flavor text clearly explains the flavor.
Why is there too much going on with Frena, Corrupted Cleric? These are legendary creatures for EDH. They are supposed to be dynamic.
Numbai, Fiend Manipulator isn't Stone Rain for 3R, it's Ghost Quarter for 3R that allows the opponent to draw 2 cards. I am also not sure why this shouldn't be a Zombie.
Saffi Eriksdotter - You're unfamiliar with the flavor of the card. Look up the flavor text she appears in. Sidisi, Undead Vizier - She's clearly meant to sacrifice another creature, flavorwise. Wizards sacrificed flavor for gameplay with the mechanic; but she's a 4/6 Deathtouch... if you're sacrificing her, you're probably doing it wrong. Major Teroh - Again, flavor.
Ayli, Eternal Pilgrim is a fair comparison. Except she's got two clear abilities that work with each other but are not directly parasitic. Yours has two unrelated abilities. It's not dynamic; it's distracting.
Re: Numbai, Fiend Manipulator.
1. What about it's TWO abilities scream "undead" to you? If this is a wizard that just happens to also be a zombie for story reasons? I guess.... but I'm not sure you understand the general convention of giving creatures types. You want a bloodthirsty ravenous creature with deathtouch and first strike. You don't make it a bunny unless you're referencing a certain movie. You want a creature that flies, lifelinks, and vigilances? You don't make it a dwarf Wizards! I use these two examples because - yes - you could bend over backwards to make this a zombie. But don't. It's not doing zombie things.
2. Put the two abilities on two different legends. See how that goes. All you want is a ridiculous card advantage engine that puts your opponent in a pickle - lose a land and not search, or get an inferior land and your opponent nets 2 cards. That's not fun.
It honestly feels like you are being critical just for the sake of being critical.
I am saying that there are numerous legendary creatures that mechanically are able to sacrifice themselves (seriously, use gatherer, there are a bunch of them). Sometimes this is for flavor reasons, but sometimes it isn't. For Jean-Michel, Inquisitive Sorcerer, there is a flavor justification for this. Imagine a story with a critical and important Wizard as the protagonist. At the climax of the story he sacrifices himself for what he believes to be a greater good.
How are the two abilities of Frena, Corrupted Cleric unrelated? The Eminence ability ensures that you are able to play Cleric cards even if they have died. The other ability rewards you for playing multiple clerics. You can look at the other Eminence designs that have leaked (Arahbo, Roar of the World and The Ur-Dragon) to get an idea of how the mechanic has been used.
While it is a good card, not really sure why Numbai, Fiend Manipulator is a ridiculous card advantage engine. You have to pay 3R on top of 2UB to Ghost Quarter and then Divination. By the way, here are some other Zombie Horror creatures that may not totally "scream undead" based on their name alone (Dread Slaver, Forgotten Creation, Makeshift Mauler).
It honestly feels like you are being critical just for the sake of being critical.
It honestly feels like you're not willing to accept criticism.
Magic is as much about flavor as it is mechanics; and you insist your mechanics have precedent and are appropriate; but it seems many of the things you've got going here are chosen regardless of flavor.
Furthermore, I'm of the design philosophy that simplicity and straightforwardness should be design goals. You have a set amount of complexity in a set; don't waste it on a card with a dozen abilities people have to remember.
I am saying that there are numerous legendary creatures that mechanically are able to sacrifice themselves
And I'm saying there needs to be flavor reasons. Importantly, this guy is a Concentration who chump blocks. That's not legendary; that's boring. If you're using legendary as a way to knock a mana or two off it's cost... I think you're confused about what legendary creatures are.
How are the two abilities of Frena, Corrupted Cleric unrelated?
Just because the two abilities have the term "cleric" doesn't mean they're related. They do 2 separate things. One is interesting. One is clunky jank escalating nonsense. Worse, it actually takes away from the eminence ability; as THAT is supposed to be life-for-card advantage... for FREE... and optional! But then you go on and give it a LONG LINE OF TEXT that could probably be subbed out for Lifelink; all so that you fan regain the life that you paid to get your clerics back.
It's obvious your design goal wasn't "clever interactions" to much as "abusive one-card-combo." And that should NEVER be a design goal. Hence what is wrong with your 3rd guy.
While it is a good card, not really sure why Numbai, Fiend Manipulator is a ridiculous card advantage engine.
Does it have a static ability that says "draw 2 cards" on it? "3R: Draw 2 cards." is pretty much what you designed it as; the block of text surrounding that ability is just cruel.
And by the way; I'm not saying it's overpowered or underpowered. I don't think that matters; it's just designed to make it unfun to play against.
Jean-Michel: I don't know, Concentrate+ seems a bit much. While I like the Marie Curie flavor and how you translated it into MtG syntax, I must agree with entombedhydra on this one - it's not clear what to do with this card if not sacrifice it, and then there is not much purpose behind this being a creature rather than a sorcery. Sidisi and Teroh have alternative uses, and Saffi I always have considered an awful design, one that basically requires you to do unfair things with the card or else it's useless. Maybe make a more intresting ETB effect and bump up a mana cost - but keep the Ancestral, downgrading it to two cards kills the flavor.
Frena: Oh god, that's too busy. Why "becomes tapped" instead of attacks - that's a druid thing, is it not? And that's a fairly minor payoff one way or another. The second half of the card just does a 180 and pulls you into a completely different direction, the whole creature seems very un-cohesive.
Numbai: Pretty cool, I like semi-punsiher mechanics - you have a degree of control because sooner or later, opponent will have to grab a land. Menace is eh, but whatever, the card's great.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wizards can start putting booster packs inside dog poo and dog owners will still complain.
Jean-Michel - Seems fine to me. A bit boring, but functional.
Frena, Corrupted Cleric - Once again, seems fine. Ability that rewards attacking alongside an ability that mitigates the cost of attacking. Makes sense.
Numbai, Fiend Manipulator - Design is interesting, no idea on the costs. Personally, I'd scale down the search penality. Choosing land vs single draw seems much more interesting than double draw vs a land. I also agree that this card doesn't really feel like a zombie at all. Zombies are graveyard lovers and dumb bodies for the most part. They don't strategically limit your opponent's decisions or blow up lands historically. I guess zombies are kind of menacing? That isn't much of a connect though. It's not outrageous to make Numbai a zombie, I just don't understand why it should be.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
"A bit boring" is pretty much the worst thing you could say about a legendary creature, isn't it?
Mind you, I think we'd be having a completely different conversation if we were talking about costing a Concentrate on a stick. Mull drifter comes to mind.
@entombedhydra, you could provide constructive feedback without sounding so critical or negative. Most people at MTGS do that. I won't delve into all of your points, but if you think every legendary creature that is able to sacrifice itself as part of its cost is for flavor reasons, I believe you are mistaken. I recommend you do a gather search. But that is really besides the point, there is a flavorful justification for Jean-Michael sacrificing himself for card advantage (Imagine a story with a critical and important Wizard as the protagonist. At the climax of the story he sacrifices himself for what he believes to be a greater good).
Some would say Zurgo Bellstriker is "a bit boring" but I wouldn't say that makes it a bad design, even if it's a legendary creature. I think many blue tempo/control players would find the card exciting.
@Am Shegar I think you have touched on some of the design conundrums I encountered while designing this card. It's already a fairly powerful card (as a nearly strictly better Concentrate. To make it more flashy/stronger, one would have to raise the CMC to keep it balanced. Any suggestions on how to make the card more interesting.
@harlannowick, I think I agree that letting Numbai, Fiend Manipulator only draw one card is more reasonable. As for the flavor, I didn't come up with some detailed back story but it's a very scary fiend that manipulates people based on their fears. What two tribes/classes are more menacing than horrors and zombies, lol.
Re: 1 - Make Concentrate on a stick. Do with that what you will.
Re: 2 - Make it simpler. Or make it's abilities directly interact with each other.
Re: 3 - Make 2 "hate bears."
Honestly, at this point I don't know what you'd count as "constructive criticism"; I've never seen you actually agree w/ anyone who said anything other than positive things about your cards.
Well, there are multiple ways of going about improving Jean-Michel, which can be separated into two main categories - the ones keeping the original design's identity and the ones expanding on it a bit.
The most obvious one would be requiring her to tap as a part of the ability - which, coincidentally, also incorporates the drawback inherent to creatures into the card and as such providing adequate reason for it to be a creature rather than a quasi-aftermath sorcery (with a rider that it exiles itself upon hitting the graveyard unless cast). To compensate for the added risk, scry value can be increased; anyway, there's a hidden design rule that says that scry>=draw on scry+draw cards - scrying gives choice and all choice in Magic should feel significant, lest it complicates the game without any benefit. As a bonus, this design will remind the players of Arcanis, and the threefold connection between Ancestral -> Arcanis -> Jean-Michel is somewhat more satisfying than just an overdone Recall reference.
Jean-Michel, Inquisitive Sorcerer1UU
Legendary Creature - Human Wizard [R]
When Jean-Michel, Inquisitive Sorcerer enters the battlefield, scry 1 (2/3?). U, Sacrifice Jean-Michel, T: Draw three cards.
"I am willing to risk my life for the pursuit of knowledge."
2/2
That seems to be the best solution that preserves the spirit of your design; alternatives such as making the ability sorcery-speed only or altering the costs muddy the reference to Ancestral Recall, and that unfortunately dulls its feel. Making her cost 2UU also kills the impressiveness, and I strongly dislike cards that are neither exiting nor functional.
I'm myself a lover of all things top-down, so I also propose the following design. It can be obviously tweaked to no end, scrying on each upkeep, adjusting the costs, limiting the proc to only top or bottom, e.t.c. The card reads a bit awkward, yes, but it trades elegance for more exciting functionality. You can still use it without building around it, plus there are opportunities for a dedicated build around, which can also go mutiple ways. Furthermore, I thing it better captures the flavor of research culminating in a breakthrough - it takes time and effort. I also purposefully made a nod to baby Jace, one of my favorite designs of the similar flavor. (Explanation can be removed so the card looks cleaner, but it may be necessary as the syntax is new)
Jean-Michel, Inquisitive Sorcerer1U
Legendary Creature - Human Wizard [R]
When Jean-Michel, Inquisitive Sorcerer enters the battlefield, scry 1.
Whenever you put one or more cards into your library, put a knowledge counter on Jean-Michel. (This includes putting cards on top, bottom, or shuffling them in). U, Sacrifice Jean-Michel: Draw a card for each knowledge counter on Jean-Michel. "I am willing to risk my life for the pursuit of knowledge."
0/2
And here are some riffs on the general theme that stray too far from the original design but still may interest you:
Allows you to supercharge a draw spell - notice how sacrifice is not a requirement.
Jean-Michel, Inquisitive Sorcerer1UU
Legendary Creature - Human Wizard [R]
If you would draw a card outside of your draw step, you may pay U. If you do, sacrifice Jean-Michel and draw three cards instead.
2/2
Expands on the theme of "old magic", powerful but extremely dangerous. Barely passes the mark for the amount of text, but flavor text is not an option, so the character should be on tons of other cards for the "story" to be readable.
Jean-Michel, Inquisitive Sorcerer1UU
Legendary Creature - Human Wizard [R]
Discard a blue instant or sorcery card, Sacrifice Jean-Michel, T: Choose one -
If the converted mana cost of the discarded card was 1, you may pay U. If you so, draw three cards.
If the converted mana cost of the discarded card was 2, you may pay 1U. If you do, take an extra turn after this one.
If the converted mana cost of the discarded card was 3, you may pay 2U. If you do, each player shuffles his or her hand and graveyard into his or her library, then draws seven cards.
2/2
----
I don't know about Zurgo, to be honest. Citing him is a bit of a Future Sight fallacy: many cards are designed to be unique, and their merit lies exactly in that uniqueness, which means that they don't set a precedent - they do the exact opposite. Zurgo Bellstriker is designed to be boring and unexiting, that's his role in the lore, and the legendary tag is from the perspective of Sarkhan; it has everything to do with what Zurgo is not rather than what he is. Clever part is that it also serves as a mechanical downside (which is clearly not the case with Jean-Michel). Even though it was done purposefully I don't consider it a great design anyway, because in part it's derivative (Izamaru) and in part it's incoherent (tacked on Dash butts heads with the blocking drawback, half the card represents cowardice and the other half doesn't represent anything except Kolaghan allegiance). Original Jean-Michel is not half as boring and ordinary as Zurgo, but she still lacks the whoa-factor.
I would also invite entombedhydra to comment on my alterations. You ARE overly harsh and aggressive, and rarely provide any affirmations, but this forum could use it sometimes - especially when talking about designs that are good enough and show little fault on the cursory read-through. I've always found it weird anyway that Rumor Mill is insanely critical and bitter while CCC goes easy and approves a lot of flimsy cards: amateur designers should be judged much harsher than official product, in my opinion.
Jean-Michel, Inquisitive Sorcerer1U
Legendary Creature Human Wizard
When ~ etb, scry 1 U, tap, return ~ to your hand: Draw 1 card
1/3
1. Returning to hand is nice; it makes this an engine, not a martyr.
2. That said, "When this ETB, Scry 1" is so much text for merely esoteric value.
Again, there is a big difference between the text on Magma Jet and this. When [name] enters the battlefield, is 5(+) words added to a creature.
I suppose that you could argue that this is a "necessary evil" that people are familiar enough with that it doesn't matter; not so! Wizards shakes this up too often; with "when you play X from your hand", "When this Xs or Ys", etc, etc. You need to read this text to know what the card does. And what does it do for all of that valuable game text, complexity? Scry 1. Whooptie doo!
Maybe you want to evergreen "When this enters the battlefield."
Nekrataal2BB
Creature - Human Assassin (U)
First Strike (Relevant reminder text) Battlemaster: Destroy target nonartifact, nonblack creature. That creature can't be regenerated. (When this enters the battlefield, do this.)
2/1
If you have the keyword Battlemaster in your toolkit, feel free to include all sorts of random things. Scry 1. Look at the top card of each player's library. Gain 1 life.
But ETB effects, although GOOD, are a crutch WOTC tries not to use very often. Keywording it just points out how often they do the same thing. It'd save textbox space and diminish complexity (for those that know the keyword), but shine a light on WOTC's repetitive design.
Most importantly, though: This is supposed to be legendary, but can't even do something as "legendary" as serum visions.
You need to read this text to know what the card does. And what does it do for all of that valuable game text, complexity? Scry 1. Whooptie doo!
Scry 1 is often (~40% of the time) as good as drawing a card in limited. Its not some minor effect to be ignored. IMO
Maybe you want to evergreen "When this enters the battlefield."
Its definitely on the shortlist of game actions to keyword and many other card games have done so. The reason not to is that mtg uses many abilities that are similar to "When this enteres the battlefield." Off the top of my head: "As this enters the battlefield", "When you cast this", "if this would enter the battlefield",
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
You [u]need[/u] to read this text to know what the card does. And what does it do for all of that valuable game text, complexity? Scry 1. Whooptie doo!
Scry 1 is often (~40% of the time) as good as drawing a card in limited. Its not some minor effect to be ignored. IMO
1. This is not true. It's rarely the case that you wouldn't prefer to draw that bad card [i]and[/i] then another card. In limited, this CAN get you closer to a land or CAN get you closer to a non-land or inopportune card. Sure! That's what Scry does; it lets you manipulate your deck. Scry 1 lets you do it [i]the smallest amount[/i].
2. There's a reason Scry debuted at Scry 2.
3. [i]THIS IS A LEGEND![/i] It might as well say "When this enters the battlefield, gain 1 life." or exile 1 car or target creature gets +1/+1. It's [i]underwhelming[/i.
4. [i]More Importantly[/i], the casual magic player won't feel remotely the same about "card quality" advantage as you do. Now what player are [i]legendary[/i] creatures most meant to appeal to? The player that wants 4x of the best card, or the player that is happy when they open Neheb, the Worthy? Hint: The fact that the legendary drawback undermines normal deck construction convention (IE, 4x of the things you want to be doing) should be rather obvious here.
5. Finally, [u]this card is a rare/mythic[/u]. Either your set needs draw smoothing or it does not. If it does not, then this text is counter the normal gameplay, giving an unnecessary advantage. If it does need draw smoothing, [i]t's at the wrong rarity[/i] to actually give said deck advantage.
Numbers don't lie. Scry 1 is just not rare worthy, and scrying is just not a rare effect (except when appealing to spike cycles [u]or[/u]). It's a common/uncommon effect. Why? [u]Because it's design is to help card selection, which is relevant only if you can do it somewhat reliably![/u]
To recap: Scry 1 is (a) wordy on a creature, (b) doesn't significantly affect the draw smoothing in limited, (c) doesn't feel legendary, (d) is not a rareworthy effect (and this from someone who understands One with Nothing), and (e) the esoteric value associated with it is in direct opposition to the primary audience of legendary cards.
Thank you entombedhydra for not just trying to make suggestions, but for backing them up with current design practice examples. There are a lot of creatures that can sacrifice themselves, but from my understanding wizards is currently trying to get away from creatures sacrificing themselves, making it so you have to sacrifice another creature. I would use gatherer for modern examples but it is down right now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Old MTGSalvation’s staff dared to dream so the community could live on. Support the new MTGNexus. Follow me on instagram @TheMTGWord
Legendary Creature - Human Wizard [R]
When Jean-Michel, Inquisitive Sorcerer enters the battlefield, scry 1.
U, Sacrifice Jacques, Inquisitive Sorcerer: Draw three cards.
"I am willing to risk my life for the pursuit of knowledge."
2/2
Frena, Corrupted Cleric WB
Legendary Creature - Human Cleric [MR]
Deathtouch
Whenever Frena, Corrupted Cleric becomes tapped, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain 1 life for each Cleric you control.
Eminence - If Frena, Corrupted Cleric is in your command zone or on the battlefield, at the beginning of your upkeep, you may return target Cleric card from your graveyard to your hand. If you do, you lose 2 life.
2/3
Numbai, Fiend Manipulator 2UB
Legendary Creature - Zombie Horror [MR]
Menace
Whenever an opponent searches his or her library, draw two cards.
3R: Destroy target land an opponent controls. Its controller may search his or her library for a basic land card, put it onto the battlefield, then shuffle his or her library. Activate this ability only once each turn.
3/3
UBRKess, Dissident MageUBR - Controlling Dissidents
GRhonas the IndomitableG - Indomitable Four Drops
WUBOloro, Ageless AsceticWUB - Loot & Renanimate
1. Red text is not worth it. Instants and Sorceries can get away just a one word sentence. See: Magma jet; and even then Scry 1 feels bad.
2. I don't understand how this guy can be legendary for... sacrificing himself. There's a giant flavor problem there.
1. So this guy is a 2/3 with deathtouch for 2 mana. That's above the curve with nothing else.
2. Eminence - I... actually kind of like this ability. It's well costed. However, might I suggest that it exiles any creature from the 'yard, and create a 2/2 zombie? Less recycling, more going wide.
3. I'd also consider making this a bigger creature. Maybe a 4/4 lifelink deathtouch for 4WB?
4. OH Snap, didn't even see the (orange) text! There's just too much going on here. If you want a lord, why not something traditional?
I'm Bad, Corrupted Archbishop 2WB
Legendary Creature - Human Cleric Vampire (M)
Deathtouch, Lifelink
Other Clerics you control are black zombies in addition to their other colors and types and get +2/+1.
4/3
His lord text is even rather unique and calls back to unholy strength.
1. Green text deserves to be on it's own card. Probably not a zombie.
2. Purple text could be tweaked to be it's own card. Probably not a zombie.
3. Originally I read this as two, unique, interesting "hate bear" abilities stapled together unduly.
But now? Now I see what you want: 3R Stone Rain or Draw 2 cards. Neither one of those things is particularly "fun."
Gifted Aetherborn and Ayli, Eternal Pilgrim lead me to believe Frena, Corrupted Cleric is fine.
Why is there too much going on with Frena, Corrupted Cleric? These are legendary creatures for EDH. They are supposed to be dynamic.
Numbai, Fiend Manipulator isn't Stone Rain for 3R, it's Ghost Quarter for 3R that allows the opponent to draw 2 cards. I am also not sure why this shouldn't be a Zombie.
UBRKess, Dissident MageUBR - Controlling Dissidents
GRhonas the IndomitableG - Indomitable Four Drops
WUBOloro, Ageless AsceticWUB - Loot & Renanimate
Sidisi, Undead Vizier - She's clearly meant to sacrifice another creature, flavorwise. Wizards sacrificed flavor for gameplay with the mechanic; but she's a 4/6 Deathtouch... if you're sacrificing her, you're probably doing it wrong.
Major Teroh - Again, flavor.
Ayli, Eternal Pilgrim is a fair comparison. Except she's got two clear abilities that work with each other but are not directly parasitic. Yours has two unrelated abilities. It's not dynamic; it's distracting.
Re: Numbai, Fiend Manipulator.
1. What about it's TWO abilities scream "undead" to you? If this is a wizard that just happens to also be a zombie for story reasons? I guess.... but I'm not sure you understand the general convention of giving creatures types. You want a bloodthirsty ravenous creature with deathtouch and first strike. You don't make it a bunny unless you're referencing a certain movie. You want a creature that flies, lifelinks, and vigilances? You don't make it a dwarf Wizards! I use these two examples because - yes - you could bend over backwards to make this a zombie. But don't. It's not doing zombie things.
2. Put the two abilities on two different legends. See how that goes. All you want is a ridiculous card advantage engine that puts your opponent in a pickle - lose a land and not search, or get an inferior land and your opponent nets 2 cards. That's not fun.
I am saying that there are numerous legendary creatures that mechanically are able to sacrifice themselves (seriously, use gatherer, there are a bunch of them). Sometimes this is for flavor reasons, but sometimes it isn't. For Jean-Michel, Inquisitive Sorcerer, there is a flavor justification for this. Imagine a story with a critical and important Wizard as the protagonist. At the climax of the story he sacrifices himself for what he believes to be a greater good.
How are the two abilities of Frena, Corrupted Cleric unrelated? The Eminence ability ensures that you are able to play Cleric cards even if they have died. The other ability rewards you for playing multiple clerics. You can look at the other Eminence designs that have leaked (Arahbo, Roar of the World and The Ur-Dragon) to get an idea of how the mechanic has been used.
While it is a good card, not really sure why Numbai, Fiend Manipulator is a ridiculous card advantage engine. You have to pay 3R on top of 2UB to Ghost Quarter and then Divination. By the way, here are some other Zombie Horror creatures that may not totally "scream undead" based on their name alone (Dread Slaver, Forgotten Creation, Makeshift Mauler).
UBRKess, Dissident MageUBR - Controlling Dissidents
GRhonas the IndomitableG - Indomitable Four Drops
WUBOloro, Ageless AsceticWUB - Loot & Renanimate
It honestly feels like you're not willing to accept criticism.
Magic is as much about flavor as it is mechanics; and you insist your mechanics have precedent and are appropriate; but it seems many of the things you've got going here are chosen regardless of flavor.
Furthermore, I'm of the design philosophy that simplicity and straightforwardness should be design goals. You have a set amount of complexity in a set; don't waste it on a card with a dozen abilities people have to remember.
And I'm saying there needs to be flavor reasons. Importantly, this guy is a Concentration who chump blocks. That's not legendary; that's boring. If you're using legendary as a way to knock a mana or two off it's cost... I think you're confused about what legendary creatures are.
You listed 3. Flavor reasons behind 2 of them, and 3rd is supposed to sacrifice someone else.
Just because the two abilities have the term "cleric" doesn't mean they're related. They do 2 separate things. One is interesting. One is clunky jank escalating nonsense. Worse, it actually takes away from the eminence ability; as THAT is supposed to be life-for-card advantage... for FREE... and optional! But then you go on and give it a LONG LINE OF TEXT that could probably be subbed out for Lifelink; all so that you fan regain the life that you paid to get your clerics back.
It's obvious your design goal wasn't "clever interactions" to much as "abusive one-card-combo." And that should NEVER be a design goal. Hence what is wrong with your 3rd guy.
Does it have a static ability that says "draw 2 cards" on it? "3R: Draw 2 cards." is pretty much what you designed it as; the block of text surrounding that ability is just cruel.
And by the way; I'm not saying it's overpowered or underpowered. I don't think that matters; it's just designed to make it unfun to play against.
What about their text box?
Frena: Oh god, that's too busy. Why "becomes tapped" instead of attacks - that's a druid thing, is it not? And that's a fairly minor payoff one way or another. The second half of the card just does a 180 and pulls you into a completely different direction, the whole creature seems very un-cohesive.
Numbai: Pretty cool, I like semi-punsiher mechanics - you have a degree of control because sooner or later, opponent will have to grab a land. Menace is eh, but whatever, the card's great.
Frena, Corrupted Cleric - Once again, seems fine. Ability that rewards attacking alongside an ability that mitigates the cost of attacking. Makes sense.
Numbai, Fiend Manipulator - Design is interesting, no idea on the costs. Personally, I'd scale down the search penality. Choosing land vs single draw seems much more interesting than double draw vs a land. I also agree that this card doesn't really feel like a zombie at all. Zombies are graveyard lovers and dumb bodies for the most part. They don't strategically limit your opponent's decisions or blow up lands historically. I guess zombies are kind of menacing? That isn't much of a connect though. It's not outrageous to make Numbai a zombie, I just don't understand why it should be.
- Manite
Mind you, I think we'd be having a completely different conversation if we were talking about costing a Concentrate on a stick. Mull drifter comes to mind.
Some would say Zurgo Bellstriker is "a bit boring" but I wouldn't say that makes it a bad design, even if it's a legendary creature. I think many blue tempo/control players would find the card exciting.
@Am Shegar I think you have touched on some of the design conundrums I encountered while designing this card. It's already a fairly powerful card (as a nearly strictly better Concentrate. To make it more flashy/stronger, one would have to raise the CMC to keep it balanced. Any suggestions on how to make the card more interesting.
@harlannowick, I think I agree that letting Numbai, Fiend Manipulator only draw one card is more reasonable. As for the flavor, I didn't come up with some detailed back story but it's a very scary fiend that manipulates people based on their fears. What two tribes/classes are more menacing than horrors and zombies, lol.
UBRKess, Dissident MageUBR - Controlling Dissidents
GRhonas the IndomitableG - Indomitable Four Drops
WUBOloro, Ageless AsceticWUB - Loot & Renanimate
Re: 1 - Make Concentrate on a stick. Do with that what you will.
Re: 2 - Make it simpler. Or make it's abilities directly interact with each other.
Re: 3 - Make 2 "hate bears."
Honestly, at this point I don't know what you'd count as "constructive criticism"; I've never seen you actually agree w/ anyone who said anything other than positive things about your cards.
The most obvious one would be requiring her to tap as a part of the ability - which, coincidentally, also incorporates the drawback inherent to creatures into the card and as such providing adequate reason for it to be a creature rather than a quasi-aftermath sorcery (with a rider that it exiles itself upon hitting the graveyard unless cast). To compensate for the added risk, scry value can be increased; anyway, there's a hidden design rule that says that scry>=draw on scry+draw cards - scrying gives choice and all choice in Magic should feel significant, lest it complicates the game without any benefit. As a bonus, this design will remind the players of Arcanis, and the threefold connection between Ancestral -> Arcanis -> Jean-Michel is somewhat more satisfying than just an overdone Recall reference.
Jean-Michel, Inquisitive Sorcerer 1UU
Legendary Creature - Human Wizard [R]
When Jean-Michel, Inquisitive Sorcerer enters the battlefield, scry 1 (2/3?).
U, Sacrifice Jean-Michel, T: Draw three cards.
"I am willing to risk my life for the pursuit of knowledge."
2/2
That seems to be the best solution that preserves the spirit of your design; alternatives such as making the ability sorcery-speed only or altering the costs muddy the reference to Ancestral Recall, and that unfortunately dulls its feel. Making her cost 2UU also kills the impressiveness, and I strongly dislike cards that are neither exiting nor functional.
I'm myself a lover of all things top-down, so I also propose the following design. It can be obviously tweaked to no end, scrying on each upkeep, adjusting the costs, limiting the proc to only top or bottom, e.t.c. The card reads a bit awkward, yes, but it trades elegance for more exciting functionality. You can still use it without building around it, plus there are opportunities for a dedicated build around, which can also go mutiple ways. Furthermore, I thing it better captures the flavor of research culminating in a breakthrough - it takes time and effort. I also purposefully made a nod to baby Jace, one of my favorite designs of the similar flavor. (Explanation can be removed so the card looks cleaner, but it may be necessary as the syntax is new)
Jean-Michel, Inquisitive Sorcerer 1U
Legendary Creature - Human Wizard [R]
When Jean-Michel, Inquisitive Sorcerer enters the battlefield, scry 1.
Whenever you put one or more cards into your library, put a knowledge counter on Jean-Michel. (This includes putting cards on top, bottom, or shuffling them in).
U, Sacrifice Jean-Michel: Draw a card for each knowledge counter on Jean-Michel.
"I am willing to risk my life for the pursuit of knowledge."
0/2
And here are some riffs on the general theme that stray too far from the original design but still may interest you:
Allows you to supercharge a draw spell - notice how sacrifice is not a requirement.
Jean-Michel, Inquisitive Sorcerer 1UU
Legendary Creature - Human Wizard [R]
If you would draw a card outside of your draw step, you may pay U. If you do, sacrifice Jean-Michel and draw three cards instead.
2/2
Expands on the theme of "old magic", powerful but extremely dangerous. Barely passes the mark for the amount of text, but flavor text is not an option, so the character should be on tons of other cards for the "story" to be readable.
Jean-Michel, Inquisitive Sorcerer 1UU
Legendary Creature - Human Wizard [R]
Discard a blue instant or sorcery card, Sacrifice Jean-Michel, T: Choose one -
----
I don't know about Zurgo, to be honest. Citing him is a bit of a Future Sight fallacy: many cards are designed to be unique, and their merit lies exactly in that uniqueness, which means that they don't set a precedent - they do the exact opposite. Zurgo Bellstriker is designed to be boring and unexiting, that's his role in the lore, and the legendary tag is from the perspective of Sarkhan; it has everything to do with what Zurgo is not rather than what he is. Clever part is that it also serves as a mechanical downside (which is clearly not the case with Jean-Michel). Even though it was done purposefully I don't consider it a great design anyway, because in part it's derivative (Izamaru) and in part it's incoherent (tacked on Dash butts heads with the blocking drawback, half the card represents cowardice and the other half doesn't represent anything except Kolaghan allegiance). Original Jean-Michel is not half as boring and ordinary as Zurgo, but she still lacks the whoa-factor.
I would also invite entombedhydra to comment on my alterations. You ARE overly harsh and aggressive, and rarely provide any affirmations, but this forum could use it sometimes - especially when talking about designs that are good enough and show little fault on the cursory read-through. I've always found it weird anyway that Rumor Mill is insanely critical and bitter while CCC goes easy and approves a lot of flimsy cards: amateur designers should be judged much harsher than official product, in my opinion.
Jean-Michel, Inquisitive Sorcerer1U
Legendary Creature Human Wizard
When ~ etb, scry 1
U, tap, return ~ to your hand: Draw 1 card
1/3
1. Returning to hand is nice; it makes this an engine, not a martyr.
2. That said, "When this ETB, Scry 1" is so much text for merely esoteric value.
Again, there is a big difference between the text on Magma Jet and this. When [name] enters the battlefield, is 5(+) words added to a creature.
I suppose that you could argue that this is a "necessary evil" that people are familiar enough with that it doesn't matter; not so! Wizards shakes this up too often; with "when you play X from your hand", "When this Xs or Ys", etc, etc. You need to read this text to know what the card does. And what does it do for all of that valuable game text, complexity? Scry 1. Whooptie doo!
Maybe you want to evergreen "When this enters the battlefield."
Nekrataal 2BB
Creature - Human Assassin (U)
First Strike (Relevant reminder text)
Battlemaster: Destroy target nonartifact, nonblack creature. That creature can't be regenerated. (When this enters the battlefield, do this.)
2/1
If you have the keyword Battlemaster in your toolkit, feel free to include all sorts of random things. Scry 1. Look at the top card of each player's library. Gain 1 life.
But ETB effects, although GOOD, are a crutch WOTC tries not to use very often. Keywording it just points out how often they do the same thing. It'd save textbox space and diminish complexity (for those that know the keyword), but shine a light on WOTC's repetitive design.
Most importantly, though: This is supposed to be legendary, but can't even do something as "legendary" as serum visions.
Scry 1 is often (~40% of the time) as good as drawing a card in limited. Its not some minor effect to be ignored. IMO
Its definitely on the shortlist of game actions to keyword and many other card games have done so. The reason not to is that mtg uses many abilities that are similar to "When this enteres the battlefield." Off the top of my head: "As this enters the battlefield", "When you cast this", "if this would enter the battlefield",
- Manite
1. This is not true. It's rarely the case that you wouldn't prefer to draw that bad card [i]and[/i] then another card. In limited, this CAN get you closer to a land or CAN get you closer to a non-land or inopportune card. Sure! That's what Scry does; it lets you manipulate your deck. Scry 1 lets you do it [i]the smallest amount[/i].
2. There's a reason Scry debuted at Scry 2.
3. [i]THIS IS A LEGEND![/i] It might as well say "When this enters the battlefield, gain 1 life." or exile 1 car or target creature gets +1/+1. It's [i]underwhelming[/i.
4. [i]More Importantly[/i], the casual magic player won't feel remotely the same about "card quality" advantage as you do. Now what player are [i]legendary[/i] creatures most meant to appeal to? The player that wants 4x of the best card, or the player that is happy when they open Neheb, the Worthy? Hint: The fact that the legendary drawback undermines normal deck construction convention (IE, 4x of the things you want to be doing) should be rather obvious here.
5. Finally, [u]this card is a rare/mythic[/u]. Either your set needs draw smoothing or it does not. If it does not, then this text is counter the normal gameplay, giving an unnecessary advantage. If it does need draw smoothing, [i]t's at the wrong rarity[/i] to actually give said deck advantage.
36 rare or mythic cards with scry:
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&text= [scry]&rarity=|[M]|[R]
11 on lands. 10 non-repeatable mana fixes with a moderate advantage. IE, your normal "spike" cards.
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&text= [scry]&rarity=|[R]|[M]&type=|[%22Sorcery%22]|[instant]
8 on sorceries or instants; none below Scry 2. 5 are "if it's your turn" sloppy cycle.
The rest? Repeatable effects!
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&text= [scry]&rarity=|[U]|[C]
87 commons and uncommons; often on repeatable effects.
Numbers don't lie. Scry 1 is just not rare worthy, and scrying is just not a rare effect (except when appealing to spike cycles [u]or[/u]). It's a common/uncommon effect. Why? [u]Because it's design is to help card selection, which is relevant only if you can do it somewhat reliably![/u]
To recap: Scry 1 is (a) wordy on a creature, (b) doesn't significantly affect the draw smoothing in limited, (c) doesn't feel legendary, (d) is not a rareworthy effect (and this from someone who understands One with Nothing), and (e) the esoteric value associated with it is in direct opposition to the primary audience of legendary cards.
Follow me on instagram @TheMTGWord