You didn't try to tell your friends that they are wrong with their wishes, did you? You bend to them when designing this card, isn't that right? Do you react differently to the feedback you get here? If so, why?
Because people on the internet aren't real people, and never admitting you can improve is more important than improving as a designer.
So has anyone got some feedback on my submission today (The hydra)? I'm really conflicted on the balance, especially the regen cost. I originally had 1G but that felt more like an uncommon, but at G it feels like you could just use it as an unkillable blocker until it was huge
So has anyone got some feedback on my submission today (The hydra)? I'm really conflicted on the balance, especially the regen cost. I originally had 1G but that felt more like an uncommon, but at G it feels like you could just use it as an unkillable blocker until it was huge
It does mean that you can block duders with it until it's enormous. Making the regen cost 1G makes it marginally safer to attack into, at least.
Permanently doubling its own power and toughness is enough to make it rare.
Battle Scar Hydra2G
Creature - Hydra (R)
Trample 1G: Regenerate Battle Scar Hydra.
Whenever Battle Scar Hydra regenerates, put a number of +1/+1 counters on it equal to its power.
2/2 A party of mighty heroes slew the beast that plagued the town. A week later, they slew it again. Three days later, the town was gone.
You could make it G and add "Activate this ability only once each turn.". That gives it a cool flavor of regrowing itself slowly, and that it can be killed while its in that state of regrowth. As it is right now, its VERY hard to kill if you untap with it, though it does weight your resources down quite heavily.
The more I look at it the more I think I should just follow the Kalonian Hydra style; 0/0, enters with 2 +1/+1 counters, every time it regenerates double the number of counters on it, functionally the same but fits the traditional hydra template
I'm not sure what you're saying with that last comment. Care to elaborate?
Hey rush sorry I wanna make a measured response. What I meant is that you're an influential person here. So what you say means alot to people. I do think people will read before making an acquired judgement. That's all. =)
And to SecretInfiltrator: Yes my playgroup opinions matter. It's feedback. Because they test the cards as well. However, it's obvious we don't follow everything to the scripts. My playgroup isn't right all the time. The same can be said for the people here. And I may be wrong at times as well. Opinions matter everywhere. What's the most important is that we're receptive to each and every idea. This is why I'm here. To learn from everyone of you =) To bounce off ideas.
And to Voidnothing: I don't think there's any drama. We got our own opinions, we accept it, we don't accept it. Healthy debate. Justifications on why cards are so and so. Nothing antagonistic.
@ freshmeat: you could also do it the other way round. 1G: put a +1/+1 counter on ~. Whenever a (or any number you want) +1/+1 counter is placed on it, regenerate ~.
The more I look at it the more I think I should just follow the Kalonian Hydra style; 0/0, enters with 2 +1/+1 counters, every time it regenerates double the number of counters on it, functionally the same but fits the traditional hydra template
I expect a strong split on how players would read this ability. I'd expect most people to think the trigger occurs whenever you activate its regeneration ability or whenever it otherwise regenerates (which is correct as written), but I also suspect a sizable portion to believe that the ability only triggers when a regeneration shield is used up. These are both easy conclusions to come to. With that in mind, I'd use something like (if you want it to only work when a regeneration shield is actually used):
"Whenever damage is prevented to ~, put a +1/+1 counter on it."
or
"Damage removed from ~ causes a +1/+1 counter to be put on it."
They both have side effects of working in other unintended ways. Regeneration is just a messy mechanic. I use indestructible activations these days.
If you wanted a counter put on every time you create a regeneration shield, I'd just move the whole ability to the activation:
I expect a strong split on how players would read this ability. I'd expect most people to think the trigger occurs whenever you activate its regeneration ability or whenever it otherwise regenerates (which is correct as written), but I also suspect a sizable portion to believe that the ability only triggers when a regeneration shield is used up.
Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the way I've worded it only triggers when a shield is used up, activating a regeneration ability creates a regeneration shield, but a permanent only actually regenerates if the shield is used.
701.12c Neither activating an ability that creates a regeneration shield nor casting a spell that creates a regeneration shield is the same as regenerating a permanent. Effects that say that a permanent can’t be regenerated don’t prevent such abilities from being activated or such spells from being cast; rather, they prevent regeneration shields from having any effect.
The rule is actually talking about a different thing but I've bolded the important part. The closest analogy I can find on an existing card is Spiny Starfish. Perhaps the most technically correct wording would've been "If Battle Scar Hydra is regenerated..."
Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the way I've worded it only triggers when a shield is used up, activating a regeneration ability creates a regeneration shield, but a permanent only actually regenerates if the shield is used.
701.12c Neither activating an ability that creates a regeneration shield nor casting a spell that creates a regeneration shield is the same as regenerating a permanent. Effects that say that a permanent can’t be regenerated don’t prevent such abilities from being activated or such spells from being cast; rather, they prevent regeneration shields from having any effect.
The rule is actually talking about a different thing but I've bolded the important part. The closest analogy I can find on an existing card is Spiny Starfish. Perhaps the most technically correct wording would've been "If Battle Scar Hydra is regenerated..."
That rule is just stating the difference between casting spells/activating abilities and the actual replacement effect, in the same way that Maralen of the Mornsong doesn't prevent you from casting Concentrate or activating Archivist. If you look a few rules up, you see this:
701.12a If the effect of a resolving spell or ability regenerates a permanent, it creates a replacement effect that protects the permanent the next time it would be destroyed this turn. In this case, "Regenerate [permanent]" means "The next time [permanent] would be destroyed this turn, instead remove all damage marked on it and tap it. If it's an attacking or blocking creature, remove it from combat."
That said, the glossary does say the following:
Regenerate
To replace a permanent's destruction with an alternate sequence of events. See rule 701.12, "Regenerate."
So, it seems that both creating the regeneration shield and the shield being used up could fall under definitions of "regenerate". (Though the glossary isn't strictly how the rules work; it's just a guideline.) Either way, your card's wording doesn't make clear from which event it's triggering. And like I said prior, this is more regenerate's fault than yours. It's a silly, ugly ability, and now that indestructible has finally been keyworded, I hope it goes away for good.
Hey rush sorry I wanna make a measured response. What I meant is that you're an influential person here. So what you say means alot to people. I do think people will read before making an acquired judgement. That's all. =)
In that case, I'll note that planeswalkers rarely get posted in this contest, probably because card creation communities don't generally like them that much. Of the last two months, I only found five planeswalkers posted (excluding mine today) and of them, three got no votes, one got 2, and one got 3. None came all that close to winning their round.
I think the DCC highly values a certain level of conciseness in cards (perhaps a little too highly); it's very difficult to have three abilities that are balanced, have synergy but aren't too parasitic. I suspect if someone submitted Xenagos, the Reveler three months ago, they would not have scored highly either.
My card today (Rebel Tactics) is quite possibly the most unfun card I've made. Like the deck you'd play it in would be in friendship killing levels of unfun.
There's a misconception, I think, that good planeswalker design is about internal synergy. Really, the aim of a good planeswalker is to support a play style. This can be either with severe synergy (Jace Beleren has one goal in mind: card drawing) or with multiple angles of attack (Garruk Wildspeaker either ramps your ability to unload the creatures in your hand or makes some for you). It's these latter planeswalkers that suffer a lack of popularity in custom card communities, which I think is a shame since they tend to me more difficult to do smartly. Anyone can see that putting "[+0]: Proliferate" on a planeswalker is neat.
All that said, I think doing the entirety of November with only planeswalkers sounds like my kind of challenge.
Power Gem4 Artifact (R) t, Sacrifice Power Gem and a creature: If that creature has flying, put a 2/2 artifact creature token with flying onto the battlefield. Do the same for deathtouch, first strike, haste, hexproof, intimidate, indestructible, lifelink, trample, and vigilance.
is this meant to create one token with all the abilities or a separate token for each ability? i assumed to former at first but now i think it's the latter. certainly interesting, would make for some weird decks. a friend to Vampire Nighthawk
Searing Memory2UR
Instant {U}
Choose target creature or player. Return target instant or sorcery card from your graveyard to you hand. Searing Memory deals damage the discarded card’s converted mana cost to that creature or player.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
is this meant to create one token with all the abilities or a separate token for each ability? i assumed to former at first but now i think it's the latter. certainly interesting, would make for some weird decks. a friend to Vampire Nighthawk
If you sacrifice Vampire Nighthawk, you get three 2/2 artifact creature tokens: one with deathtouch, one with flying, and one with lifelink. Pretty awful value with one keyword, not the worst with two, interesting with three, and any more makes things sorta ridiculously awesome.
I find Searing Memory and Breath of Gehinnar more interesting as sorceries than instants. The open timing adds unneeded complexity to cards that already do a lot, and it's actually more interesting have to commit to those type of cards rather than being able to wait to the last moment.
Menacing Frog :symgu::symb:
Creature - Frog
Transplant :symgu::symgu: x 2
When this creature deals combat damage to a player, put a token on the field that is a copy of this card.
When the Nayan gods needed reinforcements, the plebeian frogs formed ranks and marched.
2/3
A side note:
Transplant is a made up ability. It's text reads as follows:
Transplant (cost) x (number) - You may pay an additional (cost) up to (number) times as you cast this spell. If you do, this card copies one activated ability among permanents on the field for each time the cost was paid. It retains its other abilities, but Transplant is copied over.
So for the next couple of days I'll be posting commons that I like flavour wise rather than mechanically. Be interesting to see how they do.
@Ben777 Far too complex. Took me half a dozen rereads to try and figure out what it does. Even now I'm not sure if I'm interpreting it correctly.
Try and simplified this. It looks like you want to do stuff with activated abilities so start there.
MDenham: Soooo many Xs. This card is a headache to read.
EzraEliot: Neat, but awfully powerful and very undercosted. I'd expect at least a 4 on both the manacost and the equip cost.
aftermarketradio: Is the player order reversed, or is the phase order within the turns reversed? The wording is ambiguous.
fooligan: 2GG to tutor a land and a creature is awfully good, even if you're limited in what you can find. I'd make the kicker 3G or make it find a creature instead of a land.
CryoZenith: This begs to make game-play so boring. It's also probably undercosted.
Whitemage57: Neat common. My instinct would be to make it a sorcery since it forces more interesting decisions, but this is one of those circumstances where it barely matters since tapping out makes the timing similar between both card types. Still, forcing the commitment adds a lot to the card and probably lets you take it down a mana.
KlassyReborn: This should have a better body or a smaller cost. You're exchanging a card for a card. The benefit doesn't really exist on an overcosted 1/1 do-nothing.
void_nothing: Rather swingy, but costed to be. Not a bad card at all.
TheBlackCat: Pretty good on defense. Maybe undercosted, but possibly fine as is. Mono-blue shouldn't get deathtouch; it doesn't fit the color at all.
Blydden: The costs are a little distracting, but that's not really a useful critique. The card is relatively simple and is a fine candidate for living weapon. The phyrexian costs don't add much to it for me, but that's not really a drawback either.
RukarumelFieldJournal: The aura comes back with a +1/+1 counter on it. That's only one of the weird things about this card. Fun, though.
arbitraryarmor: Simple, cute, and flavorful. Possibly even quite playable in small formats. My favorite submission of the day.
Mix Master Mikaeus: What exactly is Saprophyte? (Nice, simple card that's well costed and all that jazz.)
Ben777: Transplant is a complicated multikicker that begs for memories to go suicidal.
Rudyard: Pretty sturdy mill-clone that's super-scary in a format where deck-topping is good. I think lowering the casting cost and upping the activation cost has its merits, but it's the type of thing I'd want to see tested first. Neat any way you look at it.
SecretInfiltrator: My first instinct was that this is undercosted, but that's really not the case at all and just my guts having crap for brains. It's a neat little removal spell with that whole Path to Exile use it on my own guy benefit slapped on. Is "golden" a reference to the "golden rule?"
FreshMeat: Permanent False Cure is something they've been wary about, but it doesn't seem all that far fetched. It's way less interesting as a permanent from a basic game-play standpoint. (Even if it's way more interesting to a Johnny like myself.)
Because people on the internet aren't real people, and never admitting you can improve is more important than improving as a designer.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
It does mean that you can block duders with it until it's enormous. Making the regen cost 1G makes it marginally safer to attack into, at least.
Permanently doubling its own power and toughness is enough to make it rare.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
You could make it G and add "Activate this ability only once each turn.". That gives it a cool flavor of regrowing itself slowly, and that it can be killed while its in that state of regrowth. As it is right now, its VERY hard to kill if you untap with it, though it does weight your resources down quite heavily.
(CubeTutor & MTGS)
360 Peasant Cube!
Custom Cube
RWU Miracles RWU
Hey rush sorry I wanna make a measured response. What I meant is that you're an influential person here. So what you say means alot to people. I do think people will read before making an acquired judgement. That's all. =)
And to SecretInfiltrator: Yes my playgroup opinions matter. It's feedback. Because they test the cards as well. However, it's obvious we don't follow everything to the scripts. My playgroup isn't right all the time. The same can be said for the people here. And I may be wrong at times as well. Opinions matter everywhere. What's the most important is that we're receptive to each and every idea. This is why I'm here. To learn from everyone of you =) To bounce off ideas.
And to Voidnothing: I don't think there's any drama. We got our own opinions, we accept it, we don't accept it. Healthy debate. Justifications on why cards are so and so. Nothing antagonistic.
@ freshmeat: you could also do it the other way round. 1G: put a +1/+1 counter on ~. Whenever a (or any number you want) +1/+1 counter is placed on it, regenerate ~.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
I expect a strong split on how players would read this ability. I'd expect most people to think the trigger occurs whenever you activate its regeneration ability or whenever it otherwise regenerates (which is correct as written), but I also suspect a sizable portion to believe that the ability only triggers when a regeneration shield is used up. These are both easy conclusions to come to. With that in mind, I'd use something like (if you want it to only work when a regeneration shield is actually used):
"Whenever damage is prevented to ~, put a +1/+1 counter on it."
or
"Damage removed from ~ causes a +1/+1 counter to be put on it."
They both have side effects of working in other unintended ways. Regeneration is just a messy mechanic. I use indestructible activations these days.
If you wanted a counter put on every time you create a regeneration shield, I'd just move the whole ability to the activation:
"Regenerate ~. Put a +1/+1 counter on it."
Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the way I've worded it only triggers when a shield is used up, activating a regeneration ability creates a regeneration shield, but a permanent only actually regenerates if the shield is used.
701.12c Neither activating an ability that creates a regeneration shield nor casting a spell that creates a regeneration shield is the same as regenerating a permanent. Effects that say that a permanent can’t be regenerated don’t prevent such abilities from being activated or such spells from being cast; rather, they prevent regeneration shields from having any effect.
The rule is actually talking about a different thing but I've bolded the important part. The closest analogy I can find on an existing card is Spiny Starfish. Perhaps the most technically correct wording would've been "If Battle Scar Hydra is regenerated..."
That rule is just stating the difference between casting spells/activating abilities and the actual replacement effect, in the same way that Maralen of the Mornsong doesn't prevent you from casting Concentrate or activating Archivist. If you look a few rules up, you see this:
701.12a If the effect of a resolving spell or ability regenerates a permanent, it creates a replacement effect that protects the permanent the next time it would be destroyed this turn. In this case, "Regenerate [permanent]" means "The next time [permanent] would be destroyed this turn, instead remove all damage marked on it and tap it. If it's an attacking or blocking creature, remove it from combat."
That said, the glossary does say the following:
Regenerate
To replace a permanent's destruction with an alternate sequence of events. See rule 701.12, "Regenerate."
So, it seems that both creating the regeneration shield and the shield being used up could fall under definitions of "regenerate". (Though the glossary isn't strictly how the rules work; it's just a guideline.) Either way, your card's wording doesn't make clear from which event it's triggering. And like I said prior, this is more regenerate's fault than yours. It's a silly, ugly ability, and now that indestructible has finally been keyworded, I hope it goes away for good.
In that case, I'll note that planeswalkers rarely get posted in this contest, probably because card creation communities don't generally like them that much. Of the last two months, I only found five planeswalkers posted (excluding mine today) and of them, three got no votes, one got 2, and one got 3. None came all that close to winning their round.
My card today (Rebel Tactics) is quite possibly the most unfun card I've made. Like the deck you'd play it in would be in friendship killing levels of unfun.
All that said, I think doing the entirety of November with only planeswalkers sounds like my kind of challenge.
is this meant to create one token with all the abilities or a separate token for each ability? i assumed to former at first but now i think it's the latter. certainly interesting, would make for some weird decks. a friend to Vampire Nighthawk
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
Well, this is about six hours late, but I'll do it in a few.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
@doombringer: I think your submission is broken i. e. your text does read as nonsensical. You might want to pass over it once more.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
If you sacrifice Vampire Nighthawk, you get three 2/2 artifact creature tokens: one with deathtouch, one with flying, and one with lifelink. Pretty awful value with one keyword, not the worst with two, interesting with three, and any more makes things sorta ridiculously awesome.
Are you designing commons? Check out my primer on NWO.
Interested in making a custom set? Check out my Set skeleton and archetype primer.
I also write articles about getting started with custom card creation.
Go and PLAYTEST your designs, you will learn more in a single playtests than a dozen discussions.
My custom sets:
Dreamscape
Coins of Mercalis [COMPLETE]
Exodus of Zendikar - ON HOLD
X: Monstrosity X. (If this creature isn't monstrous, put a +X/+X counter on it and it becomes monstrous.)
As long as ~ is monstrous, it has persist.
ERRATA: X CAN'T BE 0.
There.
Here's my original posting:
Menacing Frog :symgu::symb:
Creature - Frog
Transplant :symgu::symgu: x 2
When this creature deals combat damage to a player, put a token on the field that is a copy of this card.
When the Nayan gods needed reinforcements, the plebeian frogs formed ranks and marched.
2/3
A side note:
Transplant is a made up ability. It's text reads as follows:
Transplant (cost) x (number) - You may pay an additional (cost) up to (number) times as you cast this spell. If you do, this card copies one activated ability among permanents on the field for each time the cost was paid. It retains its other abilities, but Transplant is copied over.
@Ben777 Far too complex. Took me half a dozen rereads to try and figure out what it does. Even now I'm not sure if I'm interpreting it correctly.
Try and simplified this. It looks like you want to do stuff with activated abilities so start there.
Are you designing commons? Check out my primer on NWO.
Interested in making a custom set? Check out my Set skeleton and archetype primer.
I also write articles about getting started with custom card creation.
Go and PLAYTEST your designs, you will learn more in a single playtests than a dozen discussions.
My custom sets:
Dreamscape
Coins of Mercalis [COMPLETE]
Exodus of Zendikar - ON HOLD
MDenham: Soooo many Xs. This card is a headache to read.
EzraEliot: Neat, but awfully powerful and very undercosted. I'd expect at least a 4 on both the manacost and the equip cost.
aftermarketradio: Is the player order reversed, or is the phase order within the turns reversed? The wording is ambiguous.
fooligan: 2GG to tutor a land and a creature is awfully good, even if you're limited in what you can find. I'd make the kicker 3G or make it find a creature instead of a land.
CryoZenith: This begs to make game-play so boring. It's also probably undercosted.
Whitemage57: Neat common. My instinct would be to make it a sorcery since it forces more interesting decisions, but this is one of those circumstances where it barely matters since tapping out makes the timing similar between both card types. Still, forcing the commitment adds a lot to the card and probably lets you take it down a mana.
KlassyReborn: This should have a better body or a smaller cost. You're exchanging a card for a card. The benefit doesn't really exist on an overcosted 1/1 do-nothing.
void_nothing: Rather swingy, but costed to be. Not a bad card at all.
TheBlackCat: Pretty good on defense. Maybe undercosted, but possibly fine as is. Mono-blue shouldn't get deathtouch; it doesn't fit the color at all.
Blydden: The costs are a little distracting, but that's not really a useful critique. The card is relatively simple and is a fine candidate for living weapon. The phyrexian costs don't add much to it for me, but that's not really a drawback either.
RukarumelFieldJournal: The aura comes back with a +1/+1 counter on it. That's only one of the weird things about this card. Fun, though.
doombringer: Blood-Toll Harpy, but strictly worse?
arbitraryarmor: Simple, cute, and flavorful. Possibly even quite playable in small formats. My favorite submission of the day.
Mix Master Mikaeus: What exactly is Saprophyte? (Nice, simple card that's well costed and all that jazz.)
Ben777: Transplant is a complicated multikicker that begs for memories to go suicidal.
Rudyard: Pretty sturdy mill-clone that's super-scary in a format where deck-topping is good. I think lowering the casting cost and upping the activation cost has its merits, but it's the type of thing I'd want to see tested first. Neat any way you look at it.
SecretInfiltrator: My first instinct was that this is undercosted, but that's really not the case at all and just my guts having crap for brains. It's a neat little removal spell with that whole Path to Exile use it on my own guy benefit slapped on. Is "golden" a reference to the "golden rule?"
FreshMeat: Permanent False Cure is something they've been wary about, but it doesn't seem all that far fetched. It's way less interesting as a permanent from a basic game-play standpoint. (Even if it's way more interesting to a Johnny like myself.)