MTG Salvation

Quote from maximumbuttitude

Declare Taboo 2WU
Instant (R)
Counter target noncreature, nonplaneswalker spell. Players can’t cast cards with the same name as that spell for the rest of the game.
“We don’t speak of such things here. Not anymore.”

this could exile the spell, it's got that white in there and doing so would help for reminding what's taboo

How about:

"Players can’t cast cards with the same name as target noncreature, nonplaneswalker spell for the rest of the game. Exile that spell and Declare Taboo."

Since it's stronger than counter, I don't want them to get a chance to use it again (snapcaster etc). Is this readable?

Also, dang I get the most helpful comments lately. Thanks all.

Quote from CryoZenith »

Quote from aftermarketradio »

Diabolic Bargain 3B
Sorcery (R)
Diabolic Bargain costs 1 less to cast for each card you choose to search for with it.
Search your library for up to three cards and reveal them.
An opponent chooses a card from the cards you searched for. Put that card into your hand, and exile the others.

I feel like the problem with this card is that it is basically strictly better than Demonic Tutor provided you search only for multiples of the same card. Specifically, it might be a bit too good in Tron.

I think I like it with a price increase to 4B. Aesthetically, that looks better when searching for 4 copies of a single card, and it helps distinguish it from Tutor. I just wonder if the card works how I intend it to. I think it's understandable, but I wonder if the Magic-ese is correct.

@Rudyard: I really like your card for today conceptually. However, its power level seems a little high compared to other one-mana draw spells. Compare Sleight of Hand. I'd kick it up to uncommon and either bump its mana cost up one (and force the player to bottom one of the cards) or else require a discard/exile if you don't get a match.

^Can't Touch This 1WU
Instant (MR)
Exile target spell. Search all zones for any number of cards with the same name as it and exile those cards, then each player shuffles their library.
"Nope nope nope nope nope."

Quote from GG Crono »

@Rudyard: I really like your card for today conceptually. However, its power level seems a little high compared to other one-mana draw spells. Compare Sleight of Hand. I'd kick it up to uncommon and either bump its mana cost up one (and force the player to bottom one of the cards) or else require a discard/exile if you don't get a match.

yeah, the strong U draw spell has a certain aesthetic, a mystique that skewered my judgement and i mightve hoped would manipulate voters the way it did me

Sometimes, a man just gets the urge to go high-concept as f**k. Today is one of those times.

Well, this is my first full month doing this, and I have to say, it turned out better than I expected.

Thanks a bunch to everyone who voted for me this month, and especially to Maximumbuttitude, who's been a spirited competitor and a good sport about giving me feedback even when we were rivals.

good guy crono

Dannng. That makes the third month in a row that I've gotten/tied for second. I'm not humble about being THE BEST EVER at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory! 2nd place lyfe

Good show last month and holy smokes there's a lot of cool cards at the start of this month.

RhymesWithEight - On the card you posted today, I'd take draw 3 for 2 (and skip the first option) no matter if my opponent got to rearrange my whole deck. I think that's probably too much card advantage for 2 very splashable mana.

Fair enough, changed. It's a little more graceful this time around, too.

I still don't think that that one really works - both versions are weird because if it's dealt lethal damage, it'll remove the barrier counter... and then die immediately anyway at state-based actions. I was thinking Cloudshift itself if it would leave the battlefield, but then I think that action would replace itself? And also it's not really what you were going for.

You may want, instead, to add a "remove all damage" phrase like from totem armor - Hyena Umbra.

Yeah, that's a fair point yep.

Also: the quality of the cards is REALLY high so far this month, lots of creative ideas coming out. I've gotta stop makin silly cards at lunch and expecting them to get votes!

Quote from CryoZenith »

Aww, you guys (Dimy and The1), shucks. Thanks.

Oh, by the way.

[quote]Barrier Mage 1WW
Creature – Human Wizard
~ enters the battlefield with a barrier counter on it.
~ can't have more than one barrier counter on it.
At the beginning of your upkeep, if ~ doesn't have a barrier counter on it, put a barrier counter on it.
If ~ would leave the battlefield, remove a barrier counter from it. If you do, ~ stays on the battlefield instead.
2/2

This can be much less wordy:

Barrier Mage 1WW
Creature – Human Wizard
~ enters the battlefield with a barrier counter on it.
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a barrier counter on ~.
If ~ would leave the battlefield, and it has at least one barrier counter on it, remove all barrier counters on it instead.
2/2

Hello custom card contestants! I've been working on a custom Return to Innistrad set lately (still trying settle on a name for the first set), and came up with a card very similar to Barrier Mage:

Mistress of Shadows
Creature – Human Witch
~ enters the battlefield with 3 shadow counters on it. Whenever ~ would leave play, if ~ has a shadow counter on it, instead remove a shadow counter from ~.
4/4

Just thought I would share. Also, isn't this thread for discussing cards entered into the DCC? I don't recall seeing Barrier Mage in any of the DCC threads. Perhaps it pre-dates me? I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just new to this and am trying to figure it all out. While I'm at it, how come people don't post more frequently in this thread (DCC Discussion)? As I said, I'm new to the whole custom card creation thing, and would appreciate constructive criticism. Is there a better CCC thread for feedback? I've been posting in the Alphabetical Card Game thread for a bit now, but there is no feedback whatsoever involved in that thread. I'm looking to up my game!

Edit: Sorry, I'm an idiot. I just saw Barrier Mage. Somehow I missed it in my first look through the cards. Please disregard my nonsense.

these versions are missing a key detail:

"If ~ would leave the battlefield, if it has a ?? counter on it, remove a ?? and all damage from ~ instead."

lethal damage on the creature needs to be removed along with the counter. if the damage remains the game will check again, see that the creature needs to die and counters will be removed repeatedly until there's none and it will finally die

Thanks Rudyard, that's the kind of feedback I need in my card making. I have corrected my card to add damage removal. In the excitement of card making, I often forget key details such as this. I catch a lot of them myself, but an extra set of eyes is always appreciated.

I'm hoping to get some feedback on the card I entered into the DCC yesterday. Here's the card for reference:

Extinguish the Spark
Sorcery (R)
Target Planeswalker loses all types and abilities, and becomes a creature with power and toughness each equal to the number of loyalty counters on it. That Planeswalker's controller can't cast cards with the same name as the Planeswalker targeted this way. (Both of these effects last for as long as the targeted Planeswalker remains on the battlefield.)

"You won't be going anywhere this time!"

I have been working on this idea for quite some time now, and it has seen many iterations along the way. Ultimately, the idea is, a Planeswalker loses its spark and is now just an everyday, non-planeswalking creature. Here are some of the difficulties I've had developing the card. The iteration above may have some memory issues since there is nothing left behind to remind the person that the effect is occurring. I don't necessarily think this is a huge issue since cards like Clone have the same thing going on with them. Also, I'm not sure if I need to state on the card that the color and name remain unchanged, as that is my intention. Another issue with the card as posted is the mana cost. While 1 blue mana may seem low for a card like this, I'm comparing it to Dreadbore, which destroys the Planewalker, leaving its controller with nothing. My card leaves a creature behind, and also gives the player the opportunity to return the Planeswalker turned creature to their hand, or blink it, to get their Planeswalker back. However, my card does prevent the player from playing a second copy of the Planeswalker, which in itself can be rather powerful if the player is holding a second Liliana, but there own 1/1 creature is preventing them from playing it. I really wouldn't want to get rid of this effect for flavor reasons though. To me, it seems wrong for two Liliana's to be on the same side of the board (or on the board at all, but that's a different post) at the same time, the idea of the card is that the creature is still Liliana Vess. I would definitely listen to anybody who thinks this card should cost 2 mana though. One of the versions of this card I was kicking around for awhile was the same card, but an instant that cost .
Another version of the card I have in mind would make it an enchantment:

Spark Dampener
Enchantment
Enchant Planeswalker.
Enchanted Planeswalker loses all types and abilities and becomes a creature with power and toughness each equal to the number of loyalty counters on it. Enchanted Planeswalker's controller can't play cards with the same name as the Enchanted Planewalker. If Spark Dampener leaves play, return enchanted Planeswalker to its owner's hand.

The biggest issue I had with enchantment version (other than the ones it shares with the sorcery) was what to do if the enchantment leaves play. Ultimately I settled on the idea above because it was the cleanest and easiest. I figured it worked flavor-wise also because, if I had someone take away my spark and then I got it back, I'd high-tail it outta there asap before it happened again.
Anyway, sorry the post is so long, but I really like this idea flavor-wise, and am looking for help getting it right.

Edit: Also, Dreadbore gives the alternate option of destroying a creature, which makes it much more versatile than my card.
Edtit2: I've also had iterations of this card where, instead of it having the Meddling Mage type affect, it forces the player to sacrifice the creature Planeswalker if the actual Planeswalker enters the battlefield on the same side. Is that a better idea for the cost?

the other problem with making the Un-Spark an aura, is that if it reads "enchant planewalker" it will fall right off when the enchanted permanent is no longer a planeswalker

Quote from Rudyard »

the other problem with making the Un-Spark an aura, is that if it reads "enchant planewalker" it will fall right off when the enchanted permanent is no longer a planeswalker

Good point. Changing it to Enchant Permanent would correct this, right? It wouldn't affect the card in any other way really. Although you could technically enchant a land (or any other permanent) with it though. Not that it would do anything other than make the card susceptible to Swerve / Spellskite effects.

Edit: Honestly, I've been surprised that any of my cards up to this point have received any votes. The "un-spark" card is the only one I've posted thus far that I expected to get votes on, but so far it has received very little support. I'm just curious why that is. Mana cost? Too narrow? Something fundamentally wrong with the card that I'm missing? Personally, I feel its one of the most flavorful cards I've created. Perhaps people don't put as much weight into a card's flavor as I do? Or perhaps I'm just overrating my card's flavor.

Personally, I found the card a little on the narrow side. The other issue, as something of a flavour thing, is that 'loyalty' rarely directly aligns with a planewalker's physical prowess. It'd mean Tezzeret would technically be stronger prior to joining Nicol Bolas. Hell, it means Sarkahn the Mad is able to defeat basically anything in physical combat prior to abilities activating. Also, if you turn it into an enchantment, it'd probably have the same wording as animate dead.

Thanks Flintlock. Good feedback. I'm not denying the card is narrow, that's perfectly valid. That's one of the reasons I made it cost 1. It's mostly a flavor card. I don't think its super-powerful or anything. As far as the enchantment version is concerned, I was trying to avoid making something as wordy as Animate Dead. I prefer the spell as an instant or sorcery myself.

In general, people just don't vote for planeswalker-related cards in the DCC. Hard to explain, it's just... kinda A Thing that Happens. People DO vote for original and hard hitting/flashy ideas, and good takes on older cards, however - those seem to do well.

I'm not sure the if the card I submitted today should be an uncommon. I'm comparing it to Oblivion Ring for its rarity. It's narrower, and more mana to play, but makes up for it with the Meddling Mage effect.


Edit: If explaining a card, or soliciting advice about a card before voting has occurred is considered uncouth, please let me know and won't do it again in the future.

CryoZenith, was a thought I had. I also had the card at at one point, figuring that white makes more sense for the Nevermore affect of the card, but in the end I wanted it to be mono-blue for the lost at sea flavor aspect, and also because it can go into more decks if its mono-colored.

Edit: One of the reasons I landed on , instead of , is because I was thinking of Theros when I created the card, and figured the extra blue mana would help for devotion. Maybe the card should be ?

Delenko, Prince of Lancaster