MTG Salvation

fair nuff

Quote from CryoZenith »

I know I've used this mechanic already on some cards, but I just think it's so cute ^^ and has more design space than it seemed at first.

Do people hold this against people? If so, I'd better change my card from today. Personally, I think that if you've got yourself a cool mechanic (which shapeless definitely is), feel free to develop it/show it off all you want. Jeez, I had to resist the urge to post an entire month of manifest cards last month....and that's not even my own ability!

Edit: I will say though, it would get kinda old if someone posted too many cards with the same ability, but you certainly aren't doing that.

Quote from Indighost »

Drag Under 1B
Instant
Destroy target nonblue creature.
Falling into the ocean doesn't kill you, staying there does.

i still really like this one

MDenham cast a Time Walk! Today is 2/7, but the thread is titled 2/6.

Quote from Flatline »

MDenham cast a Time Walk! Today is 2/7, but the thread is titled 2/6.

Fixed that.

Speaking of screwing with turns, Chronovore + Meditate gets you most of the way toward getting your turn back. Just add Stasis?

If anybody has any thoughts about the wording on my card from yesterday I'd love to hear them. Here's the card for ref.....


Edit: General thoughts about the card are also welcome as always.

Thanks for the feedback CryoZenith! In the scenario you've put forth, with my card out, Ruhan would bring you down to 33 life, but you would still be at zero "commander damage" from Ruhan (actually you'd still be at 40 life because Defiant Revolutionary blocks Ruhan all day). I feel like this card could actually be quite straight forward, all it needs is a rule that establishes the fact that "commander damage" is a separate type of damage (sorry about my poor attempt to do this). It is already basically treated separately. Normally, if Ruhan deals combat damage to a player with 40 life and zero "commander damage" from Ruhan, they go down to 33 life and up to 7 "CD" from Ruhan.

As far as this card being undercosted, I think I actually agree with you, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear some people call it undercosted too. It's fitting that you bring up Ruhan, I actually thought of the card while my friend was smashing me with Ruhan in a commander duel. Needless to say, he thought the card was too strong. The card actually had lifelink at first and was a 4/4, but my Ruhan playing friend talked me down.

Edit: By the way, assuming there was a rule establishing "CD" as a separate type of damage, the wording difference would be this "Commander damage can't be dealt" as opposed to "Commanders can't deal damage".

Edit2:

Quote from Rudyard »

(i dislike commander damage).

Me too! I feel like it goes against the spirit of EDH. When we play at my house, it doesn't exist.

Quote from CryoZenith »

I think that changing the CR to accomodate niche effects or just in general is to be avoided at all costs. I would word the ability like this:

"Commanders deal damage as though they weren't commanders."

That seems like a fantastic solution! What about removing previous commander damage though? This thing is dealt with easily enough, if it doesn't have an immediate effect, it's def over-costed.

To be honest, most of the EDH games I play also end in the ways you've described, but there is one person that made a Ruhan deck that usually ends up killing one player w/ commander damage and not doing much else. It's kinda like when someone plays burn in a regular multiplayer game and concentrates all their fire power on one person, you end up with 2 people out of the game rather quickly (the burner and the burnee). It's rather annoying. There's also a deck that plays Zur, and goes for Zur Voltron commander damage instead of combo. Yeah my playgroup is a bunch of weirdoes.

Edit: Ultimately, I made the card partially because, like Rudyard, I hate commander damage. Just having to track it is a pain IMO. Maybe I should have made this a commander that prevents commander damage as long as it's in the command zone. Maybe I'll do that next.

Ok, how do i cost this?

Awaken Old Stone 2R
Sorcery (U)
Until end of turn, mountains you control become 3/1 elemental creatures. They're still lands.

should the mountains become 3/2s?

Quote from CryoZenith »

That's hard. It certainly feels weak at 3 but also too strong at 2.

The correct response is obviously "1R + 'As an additional cost to cast this, sacrifice a Mountain.'" then.



EDIT: More seriously... keep 'em 3/1, give them trample. Looks good at three mana, and probably still okay even as far as four mana then.

Quote from Rudyard »

MDenham, Flatline (i dislike commander damage)

Seed Sparks 3GG
Sorcery (M)
Put three loyalty counters on each land your opponents control. Those lands become planeswalkers in addition to their other types.

I wanted to vote for this card so badly. It's so creative. The mechanical implications and gameplay potential really got my imagination going! I just couldn't get past the flavor of turning lands into vanilla planeswalkers. I wish there was another means to the ends of this card.

Quote from CryoZenith »

Nah. At four mana you'd need 8 lands in play for a big swing, in addition to being restricted to basics.

You'd only need six lands (two of which are Karoo-type lands) to swing for 12 at four mana; granted this means you're probably running a RG deck of some sort with decent land acceleration.

At three mana you only need one Karoo-type land (plus Pyretic Ritual) to play it, meaning you can swing for 6 with a total of three lands (on top of whatever you already have). That said, that's Modern instead of Standard that you'd be worrying about there.

@Indighost...I think seems about right for what you've got there. If anything, I might drop it to , but that's probably wrong. How about this for something crazy...


Sorry to wile out on your idea. I tend to do that. Also, I'm not sure if any of that is worded or costed correctly.

Edit: Speaking of things not being worded correctly, I've gone through like 4 wordings for the ability on my card since I posted it earlier. Here's where it stands as of now..... "If a player's devotion to a color is four or more, Vorzol the Deceiver has protection from that color." Hopefully that works.

@Groovelord....I suppose I could be wrong here but, I'm pretty sure your card today doesn't work as you're intending it to for anything but indestructible. You would need to target the creature when the spell is cast, when it still has shroud/hexproof/protection. I assume you want to kill the s/h/p creature with the spell correct? I wanted to make a card like this a while back, I ended up posting a blue enchantment that removed hexproof as a static ability, then had a black activated ability that destroyed a creature. People didn't like it. It ends up being too wordy.

If anybody could tell me how to make the color indicator dot it would be much appreciated.

Quote from Flatline »

If anybody could tell me how to make the color indicator dot it would be much appreciated.

Alt+7 or Alt+0149 (in both cases, using the numeric keypad for the numbers). Color as desired.

Thanks MDenham!

So my crazy Goblin has only gotten one vote today. Honestly, that's one more vote than I expected it to get, but I have to say, I love the card. I might put it in my top 5 cards that I've made flavor-wise. I'd like to get rid of the kicker cost (since there's so much already going on), but I'm not sure how else to do what I'm trying to do. I realize the card would be more straight forward if I dropped the transform and had the kicker put out a 2/2 haste Goblin token, but I think it loses a lot of flavor that way. Plus it would be quite crowded. Anyway, I'd love to hear people's thoughts on the card.

Quote from Flatline »

Thanks MDenham!

So my crazy Goblin has only gotten one vote today. Honestly, that's one more vote than I expected it to get, but I have to say, I love the card. I might put it in my top 5 cards that I've made flavor-wise. I'd like to get rid of the kicker cost (since there's so much already going on), but I'm not sure how else to do what I'm trying to do. I realize the card would be more straight forward if I dropped the transform and had the kicker put out a 2/2 haste Goblin token, but I think it loses a lot of flavor that way. Plus it would be quite crowded. Anyway, I'd love to hear people's thoughts on the card.

The flavor is nigh perfect. I didn't vote for it because I don't think it's printable. Like you said, it's "put a 2/2 haste on bf" in disguise, and I doubt WotC would use DFCs for something they could do without them. It's possible, but not likely. At least not for a decade or so. I do love the card though.

Yeah, the flavor is good and all, but it shouldn't be a DFC.

OK, so I'm coming back to post a card after being gone for a week or so. Do I vote for one of the previous day's cards (where I did not post) or do I not vote, since I am not competing in the previous day's DCC?

I know I had seen the answer to this question somewhere, but now I can't find it.

I'm pretty sure you vote regardless.

Correct. Also, this used to be a lot easier when it was just a poll at the top and I could see who voted; there wasn't necessarily a "dead" post consisting of only votes for people who wanted to vote but not submit a card. (The reason it switched to the current setup was because when MTGS moved to this forum software from vBulletin, we lost the ability to see who voted for what in a poll. Needless to say, that makes determining whether or not people voted correctly impossible through the poll system.)

Quote from Piar »

Dhaz the Timereft 1WW
Legendary Creature - Djinn Monk (R)
Prowess (Whenever you cast a noncreature spell this creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn.)
UR: Exile target noncreature spell with one time counter on it. If it doesn't have suspend, it gains suspend.
2/2

Just some context for my card today - Dhaz is part of a cycle of 'future sight' style tiny leaders. Flavorwise, he gets caught up in the residual energy of Sarkhan's time travel, and meditates over several years until he is able to harness that timewake. Mechanically I shamelessly admit it's design masturbation between the two keywords in use.