MTG Salvation

All right, thanks for the help. I figured the name would make it pretty clear what the intended function was in any case.

I seem to be posting a lot of pseudo-board wipes lately... What would Sigmund Freud say?

Well, pseudo in the sense that you made a pseudo- plague wind for 4 mana.

My card's not there. Do we get to resubmit it another day if it got omitted for any reason? I really liked the design of the one I submitted for today...

@Indighost....I take no credit for the ideas I post. They are all just things I've seen while travelling the multiverse. I merely report what I see. BTW, I think that's my first solo victory of the month. Thanks to all for the votes.

Quote from acheron_xl »

Votes: bravelion, Aspirinsmurf

Gruzik Envoy 1R
Creature - Dwarf Shaman (C)
B, T: Target creature gets +2/+0 until end of turn.
G, T: Target creature gains reach until end of turn.
Weave 1BG (1BG, T: Activate both abilities.)
1/1

Not 100% that even works, but nobody answered my cry for help in the custom rules forum.

The wording seems good to me (the idea is definitely good). I'm no expert in such things though. Bravelion could probably answer more definitively.

Quote from konradishes »

Votes: Flatline, Indighost

Thraben Moonchanter 1W
Creature - Human Cleric
When Thraben Moonchanter enters the battlefield, target player sacrifices an enchantment. You gain life equal to that enchantment’s converted mana cost.
Avacyn’s orthodox clergy distrust their conviction of the moon’s power, though none are in doubt of their abilities.
2/2

I'm really sorry if any part of this submission wasn't done properly, first-time poster and I couldn't understand the rules all that well!

Your submission looks great! I would advise adding a rarity to your entry though. Rarity is an integral part of a card, it makes it more difficult to analyze a card if it is missing. BTW, welcome to the DCC, and thanks for the vote!

Quote from Flatline »

@Indighost....I take no credit for the ideas I post. They are all just things I've seen while travelling the multiverse. I merely report what I see. BTW, I think that's my first solo victory of the month. Thanks to all for the votes.

Quote from acheron_xl »

Votes: bravelion, Aspirinsmurf

Gruzik Envoy 1R
Creature - Dwarf Shaman (C)
B, T: Target creature gets +2/+0 until end of turn.
G, T: Target creature gains reach until end of turn.
Weave 1BG (1BG, T: Activate both abilities.)
1/1

Not 100% that even works, but nobody answered my cry for help in the custom rules forum.

The wording seems good to me (the idea is definitely good). I'm no expert in such things though. Bravelion could probably answer more definitively.

I'm not sure... the idea is very original indeed, I will have to check the CR for the "activate" keyword action. I'll get back to you later. (SEE EDIT BELOW)

Quote from konradishes »

Votes: Flatline, Indighost

Thraben Moonchanter 1W
Creature - Human Cleric
When Thraben Moonchanter enters the battlefield, target player sacrifices an enchantment. You gain life equal to that enchantment’s converted mana cost.
Avacyn’s orthodox clergy distrust their conviction of the moon’s power, though none are in doubt of their abilities.
2/2

I'm really sorry if any part of this submission wasn't done properly, first-time poster and I couldn't understand the rules all that well!

Your submission looks great! I would advise adding a rarity to your entry though. Rarity is an integral part of a card, it makes it more difficult to analyze a card if it is missing. BTW, welcome to the DCC, and thanks for the vote!

Yes, I confirm the only thing missing is rarity. The rest is really perfect, and my congratulations to konradishes for that! I've seen way worse formatting from people who have been around here for longer than me. Let's say you want the card to be uncommon (my first guess given the effect). Then just write the type line like this:

Creature - Human Cleric (U)

And you're fine! (C) is common, (U) uncommon, (R) rare, (M) mythic. I welcome you as well!

---

EDIT about weave

Ok, so I've just completed a study on the CR that brought me to analyze at least four different rules. The end result is that I think weave works, but there are a few important points to solve:
• The first point is that to "activate" an ability is the same exact procedure known as to "cast" a spell, just for a different kind of object. At a certain point during that procedure, you're asked to pay the (in this case ability's) cost. What this means is that currently you have to pay the activation costs of the single abilities you weave in addition to the weave cost. I don't think that's what you want, so you should specify you're activating both abilites "without paying their activation costs".
• Another important point to solve is how exactly are you activating both abilities. Are you making them a single object on the stack with two sets of characteristics like fuse? That's very complicated and doesn't play well with having a weave cost in the way you've put it. I suggest an implementation more entwine-like, where you just say you activate both abilities for a certain cost, even though that implies that the two abilities are created as different objects on the stack. In what order do you put them on the stack? The way I see it is there are only two realistic options: any way you want, or the way they're written on the card. But this last case means that the first ability will resolve last, due to how the stack works, and that's quite unintuitive. A solution would be to put them on the stack in reverse order as they are on the card, so that the first ability on the card actually resolves first. The simplest and most elegant thing would be to just say you can put them on the stack in any order and call it a day.
• What if there are more than two activated abilities on a card with weave? Then what does activating "both" abilities mean? Again, I suggest taking inspiration from entwine, which in reminder text says "both", but in the CR says to choose "all" (not "both") modes on the card. In the CR, you should say that you're activating "all other" activated abilities the card has, or even better "all except weave abilities" (which helps in the unlilely but possible case a permanent has multiple instances of weave, in which case a loop would be generated otherwise). You can avoid to specify "activated" abilities as that's implied by the "activate an ability" wording (that's also in the CR).

In the end, the idea should work just fine, the execution should be something like the following as reminder text:

Weave [COST] ([COST], T: Activate both abilities without paying their activation costs.)

Note: remember to say "all other" instead of "both" if the abilities you're activating are three or more. In the CR something like the following, that should work and be enough:


Disclaimer: I'm not a judge (yet), but just a passionate guy whose brain naturally craves logic and structure.

Woo, thanks for the welcome! I added the rarity and fixed the mana cost (I don't know why I put it as 2CMC, 4 was what I had it as in MSE).

Thanks BL. I definitely intended the abilities to more-or-less go onto the stack together and resolve in written order. You could choose separate targets if it's two targeted abilities. Also, the tap was only implicit in the card I posted because the abilities being weaved were tap abilities. I also have designs where there are Ravnica-style guildmages with two repeatable activated abilities, and also weave. Anyway, I plan on running off a few cards and giving them a playtest to see if they work well in practice and are comprehensible to other humans. Since the set I'm working on is this weird twobrid multicolor set (can ya tell?), I'm really excited by the possibilities weave has in that context.

Quote from konradishes »

4 was what I had it as in MSE.

Remember MSE has an export function to text, I always use that when posting cards here.

Quote from acheron_xl »

I definitely intended the abilities to more-or-less go onto the stack together and resolve in written order.

Not a problem: just say in the CR entry that they go on the stack in reverse order so that they resolve in written order.

You could choose separate targets if it's two targeted abilities.

Not a problem either: the rules already work that way so no need to say anything about this.

Also, the tap was only implicit in the card I posted because the abilities being weaved were tap abilities.

This is a problem instead. You have to be coherent: the tap symbol must be either always implicit (like outlast for example), in which case my version from the previous post is fine, or never be, in which case you should both add it to the weave cost and remove it from the CR-like entry. You can't have it sometimes implicit and sometimes not.

giving them a playtest to see if they work well in practice and are comprehensible to other humans.

That's always the best thing to do to have valuable feedback. I'm quite optimistic about comprehension complexity, as the core concept of weave is very intuitive, what is not at all intuitive is how you must implement it in the rules, but most players won't ever be exposed to that. Remember that players still get priority and can respond in between the single activated abilities resolving.

Here is a Planeswalker and a token that I made pics for.

Quote from bravelion83 »

• Flatline: My first instinct was "Why is this an enchantment? This would be perfect as a sorcery", then I realized you probably made this an enchantment to take advantage of the enchantment synergies of Theros block. Still, I'm not sure that's enough of a reason, and I think this would read much better as a sorcery.

Actually I made it an enchantment so that it has 2 devotion to black built into it. That way it isn't useless with an empty board. Also, I like the fact that having more than one of them on the battlefield at a time represents how, as your devotion to Erebos grows stronger, so does his willingness to help you by returning larger and larger creatures.

Quote from Flatline »

Quote from bravelion83 »

• Flatline: My first instinct was "Why is this an enchantment? This would be perfect as a sorcery", then I realized you probably made this an enchantment to take advantage of the enchantment synergies of Theros block. Still, I'm not sure that's enough of a reason, and I think this would read much better as a sorcery.

Actually I made it an enchantment so that it has 2 devotion to black built into it. That way it isn't useless with an empty board. Also, I like the fact that having more than one of them on the battlefield at a time represents how, as your devotion to Erebos grows stronger, so does his willingness to help you by returning larger and larger creatures.

Yes, that makes sense too even if I didn't see it until you told me. There had to be a reason!

Quote from bravelion83 »

Quote from Flatline »

Quote from bravelion83 »

• Flatline: My first instinct was "Why is this an enchantment? This would be perfect as a sorcery", then I realized you probably made this an enchantment to take advantage of the enchantment synergies of Theros block. Still, I'm not sure that's enough of a reason, and I think this would read much better as a sorcery.

Actually I made it an enchantment so that it has 2 devotion to black built into it. That way it isn't useless with an empty board. Also, I like the fact that having more than one of them on the battlefield at a time represents how, as your devotion to Erebos grows stronger, so does his willingness to help you by returning larger and larger creatures.

Yes, that makes sense too even if I didn't see it until you told me. There had to be a reason!

Actually there are a few reasons, the enchantment synergy within Theros (as you noted), the devotion aspect, the flavor aspect, as well as the chance to build around the card with some blink effects (although I can't think of much that blinks enchantments). Actually, I thought about adding something like "...until Will of Erebos leaves the battlefield" at the end, but I felt that made it more complicated, plus as I said, there aren't a lot of blink effects for enchantments, so I can't see it getting abused enough to warrant it. Although I could see some tabletop Johnny trying to.

Edit: BTW, there is always some method to my madness. Even when it turns out to be just madness, I at least thought there was some method to it when I posted it. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to explain this particular one bravelion, perhaps others were wondering as well.

Quote from Flatline »

Votes: IlGreven, konradishes (Both of these cards are just beautiful, although I think I'd like konradishes's flavor text better as one sentence, "True denial lies not in a contradiction, but in preventing the thought from ever existing in the first place.", but as always, I could be wrong.)

Thank-you for the input, you're right, it does flow better. Changed in my MSE

Also, as a nooby poster, looked but couldn't find an answer, how the hell do I template hybrid mana?

Quote from konradishes »

Quote from Flatline »

Votes: IlGreven, konradishes (Both of these cards are just beautiful, although I think I'd like konradishes's flavor text better as one sentence, "True denial lies not in a contradiction, but in preventing the thought from ever existing in the first place.", but as always, I could be wrong.)

Thank-you for the input, you're right, it does flow better. Changed in my MSE

Also, as a nooby poster, looked but couldn't find an answer, how the hell do I template hybrid mana?

No problem konradishes, I'm glad you liked the suggestion.

Hybrid mana can be made a few different ways: is made by typing :symwr : , but without the space before the last colon (if I didn't leave the space, it would be the mana symbol), or you can click on the little smiley face at the top of your post while posting. This will give you a bunch of symbols (including hybrid), that you can select from a menu. If worse comes to worst, you can just quote this post, copy my hybrid symbol, then change the letters to what you are looking for. I hope this helps.

I just use braces surrounded by mana tags. {RG} for (R/G). {2G} for (2/G) etc.

Quote from acheron_xl »

I just use braces surrounded by mana tags. {RG} for (R/G). {2G} for (2/G) etc.

That's what I always do too. I just add that {R/G} in mana tags (with the slash) also works: (R/G)

Sometimes I really wish the voting results were more granular. When I post something that's theoretically a major part of a design and it gets nothing, I'm not sure if that's a sign that the mechanic is a dog, or if the card its on just isn't sexy enough or something. I was pleasantly surprised by the reaction to weave, but pact doesn't seem as popular. That's the peril of using the DCC as a focus group, I suppose. Complicating the voting process would likely strip the fun out of it for many people.

Man, it's been so long since I posted here...still fun to pop in and make some. Maybe next month I'll be an active, regular person! Too bad I still can't do card text right...

Quote from RukiMotomiya »

Man, it's been so long since I posted here...still fun to pop in and make some. Maybe next month I'll be an active, regular person! Too bad I still can't do card text right...

Welcome back RukiMotomiya! I look forward to your participation next month.

Quote from acheron_xl »

That's the peril of using the DCC as a focus group, I suppose.

In fact, I'd advise against doing that. There are just too many factors influencing how people vote, and to make it even worse each person has his/her motivations to vote, which are likely different from everybody else's. Also keep in mind that here people see the card in a vacuum, while in your set the same card is in a very specific environment, and that can absolutely make the difference. If you can, the best thing to do would be playtesting your set and using that feedback to iterate.

For what it's worth, I didn't say anything about that card because I think it works. You just need to make "being in a pact" a thing that's referenced in other cards, otherwise it has no real purpose.

Quote from bravelion83 »

Quote from acheron_xl »

That's the peril of using the DCC as a focus group, I suppose.

In fact, I'd advise against doing that. There are just too many factors influencing how people vote, and to make it even worse each person has his/her motivations to vote, which are likely different from everybody else's. Also keep in mind that here people see the card in a vacuum, while in your set the same card is in a very specific environment, and that can absolutely make the difference. If you can, the best thing to do would be playtesting your set and using that feedback to iterate.

For what it's worth, I didn't say anything about that card because I think it works. You just need to make "being in a pact" a thing that's referenced in other cards, otherwise it has no real purpose.

For sure about the playtesting. Nothing beats it. I usually don't take not getting votes as too clear a sign, but it's still a good 'resonance check'. There's a ton of cards I'd never try because they'd just be gibberish outside of the context I'm working in.

And the only reason I added 'in a pact' to the reminder text is, because it seemed to want to be there in my brain, and I definitely plan on referencing it. I have a thread going about it, since I want to see if it's all that before running off two dozen cards and playtesting them.

How do you guys playtest anyway? I'd love to playtest (back when I did Yu-Gi-Oh! CCG we'd put all our cards on YVD and duel a ton), but I don't really know how to find people or put cards, I'd assume you use a program like Cockatrice.

I think the DCC can be used as a "focus group" to a certain extent. What I mean is, just because your card didn't get a lot (or even any) votes, doesn't mean it's a bad card. Conversely, if your card sweeps the day (or at least does well), that's a pretty good sign that you're actually onto something. Does that make sense?

As far as your pact card is concerned, I like the idea, but I felt like the card should have said "Activate this ability only if ~ is in a pact with blue" instead of "...only if ~ has a +1/+1 counter on it." Why have it be in a pact with blue if you're not actually going to directly reference that? Also, the creature could have acquired a +1/+1 counter through other means, which I feel like goes against the flavor of what you're trying to achieve (I think). Of course it is possible that you have other things that interact with +1/+1 counters in the set you're working on, which would make the +1/+1 qualifier make a bit more sense.

BTW, if you're ever looking for feedback on a card, just ask for it here. If I have an opinion (and the time), I am more than happy to share it. Not that my opinion should mean much, but at least it's something.

Quote from RukiMotomiya »

How do you guys playtest anyway? I'd love to playtest (back when I did Yu-Gi-Oh! CCG we'd put all our cards on YVD and duel a ton), but I don't really know how to find people or put cards, I'd assume you use a program like Cockatrice.

And you assume well as far as I know! I've never playtested a custom set yet (I have the feeling I will do soon enough though...), but there are really only two possibilities: either you can afford to put up a real life playtest, including finding people, printing the cards, recreate packs, etc... (I know for certain Doombringer did that for his custom set Dreamscape multiple times), or you use such a program. I think the majority of playtesting for custom sets you can find here on MTGS is done on Cockatrice.

Since coming in here late means I won't get many points this month, I decided to focus the last days on this month on throwing out new keywords/abilities words and seeing what people think. This time around is pretty simple, and I'd bet has been in the DCC before, it's "Reverse Evolve".

I was originally gonna call it Upgrade or Inspire, but Inspired is already there so I figure it's too close and Upgrade sounded too...mechanical, which could make it limiting.

I'd love anyone's thoughts on this or any of the other keywords/etc I make.