Was that different a couple of hours ago when you didn't have your critiques up or am I just going crazy?
Also I really should of costed the creature at 1R, the hand revealing at upkeep was deliberate to not allow information about the topdeck, though seems that maybe I should of done it the other way.
Was that different a couple of hours ago when you didn't have your critiques up or am I just going crazy?
Also I really should of costed the creature at 1R, the hand revealing at upkeep was deliberate to not allow information about the topdeck, though seems that maybe I should of done it the other way.
Yeah, sorry. I have been really busy recently so I wanted to get a top 3 up just in case I couldn't make it back. Now that I have a little more time I was able to go over the cards more comprehensivley. 1R would have gotten 2nd.
I agree that the association to the original card is pretty loose, but the inspiration is there if you know to look for it. Other than that it's a pretty interesting anthem, it can be powerful but it needs you to start playing 1 and 2 drops on turn 4 or 5 and upwards so it'd be difficult to push too high.
This seems to me like you're forcing an awkward card for the sake of matching the flavor of the inspiration card, I can imagine plenty of feel-bad moments for newer players who don't fully understand how it works and lose their creatures for no gain.
I've said it before, but I'm not a fan of arbitrary counters, especially ones that get put on players (I see people balancing dice on their head in this card's future). I can see potential in the design, but the current card just isn't there for me.
Immediately biased because Emcee is one of my favourite un-cards ever, I actually tried to think of a way to do it, I couldn't come up with anything but I think you've done well here. One of my only issues is the 2 cost to activate, I think you could've gotten away with 1.
This seems incredibly broken, since you never actually have to pay the echo cost so it's a free turn 1 Lava Spike. This would easily be a 4 of in burn decks in any format and an opening hand with all 4 would just be "I mull to 3, you start the game on 8 life".
Eurgh this card is gross, I'm trying to imagine some way it gets horribly broken, maybe Angel of Jubilation? I'm not an expert on degenerate combos but I can all but guarantee that someone would find one for a card like this. If this card DOESN'T have a degenerate combo waiting in the wings for it, then really it's just kind of a mediocre card, your best result is playing it late game when you can leave untapped lands but your opponent is tapped out.
I keep looking at the un-card you chose and the card you posted and I'm not seeing the similarity at all, other than the fact that you're making them follow some kind of weird rules? Your card itself is fine but I just don't feel like it meets the challenge.
Soulbond (You may pair this creature with another unpaired creature when either enters the battlefield. They remain paired for as long as you control both of them.)
Evergrowing Ooze may be paired with any number of creatures, and can only be paired with creatures named Evergrowing Ooze.
As long as Evergrowing Ooze is paired with another creature, each of those creatures gets +1/+1.
1/1
Reference of All Oozes Paired with Each Other:
Two Evergrowing Ooze- Each is a 3/3
Three Evergrowing Ooze- Each is a 5/5
Four Evergrowing Ooze- Each is a 7/7
You missed the phrase "A deck can contain any number of creatures named Evergrowing Ooze".
Reflecting Orb6
Artifact R X, T: Change the targets of target instant or sorcery spell with converted mana cost X. (If you can't change each of that spell's targets to a new valid target, this ability has no effect.)
Probably more efficient at stopping an opponent playing instant and sorceries than what it was intended for.
Namestealer :1mana::symu:
Creature - Shapershifter [R]
When Namestealer enters the battlefield, name a creature card.
Namestealer's name is the chosen card.
1/1
As a Johnny card what does this give me which clone variants like phantasmal image didn't.
Nihilistic Sorcery R Enchantment (U)
Players with hexproof and/or shroud can be the targets of spells and abilities as though they didn't have hexproof or shroud.
Whenever an instant or sorcery spell targets a single player, change the target of that spell to target player chosen at random. "Icatians believed in fairness by law. And look what happened to them."
Bounty Diver2UR
Creature - Merfolk Pirate (R)
Flash
When Bounty Diver enters the battlefield, choose a card type other than land.
At the beginning of your end step, if you didn't cast a spell of the chosen type this turn or Bounty Diver didn't enter the battlefield this turn, sacrifice Bounty Diver.
5/4
Pirates as a subtype, that is so old school. I think the drawback might be too severe here. A 5/4 flash isn't bad probably not worth playing in the long run.
Targeting Confusion3UR
Instant
If you control two nontoken, nonland permanents with the same name, Targeting Confusion costs 3 less to cast
Counter target spell, activated ability, or triggered ability that targets a permanent you control. (Mana abilities can't be targeted) You may copy that spell or ability. Choose new targets for the copy.
So much happening on this card. Not sure rarity you want but I think you just overdid all the effects. Also I reckon you could get away with this being monoblue so you lose points for an unnecessary splash colour. 5 mana feels fine as a casting cost is this card was to printed today without the first ability.
Brazen GoblinR
Creature - Goblin Warrior {U}
First Strike
At the beginning of your upkeep, reveal your hand.
2/1 "You may know their every plan and strategy but that wont stop them slitting your neck""
-Harra, Fortuma Swordmaster
I like this little guy. Nothing too exciting but solid for limited with an interesting drawback.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snow Creature - Penguin
Gerrard's Mom: I'm not sure why this isn't just a sorcery that checks for survival. Waiting until the end of the turn instead of right after the fight seems like its asking for non-flavorful stuff.
How would you word that? State-based effects don't kill a creature from a fight until after the sorcery is done resolving.
For a sorcery, you could do something like:
Until end of turn, target creature you control gains "At the beginning of the end step, put a 3/3 green Centaur creature token onto the battlefield." That creature fights target creature you don't control.
It's not much different from your version, but it isn't prone to any disenchanting I guess.
I actually like "permanent spell" since it cuts out so much other text, but I see your point. The main thing here is that in addition to the usual suspects, I wanted it to trigger off of Planeswalkers as so many cards intentionally leave them off. It would have flown better with instants or sorceries, but Ambiguity triggers off of permanents. Plus, counters fueling counters is both too meta and too broken. I kinda picked a monster of an Un-card to draw inspiration from.
Ya. It would be much shorter. The only issue is that cards don't count as permanents in any zone other than the battlefield. "A permanent is a card or token on the battlefield."
So the problem is, technically speaking, there are no "permanent spells", so it would never actually trigger. I suppose the shortest way to word it would be "non-instant, non-sorcery spell".
Ya. It would be much shorter. The only issue is that cards don't count as permanents in any zone other than the battlefield. "A permanent is a card or token on the battlefield."
So the problem is, technically speaking, there are no "permanent spells", so it would never actually trigger. I suppose the shortest way to word it would be "non-instant, non-sorcery spell".
I'm a proud member of the Online Campaign for Real English. If you believe in capital letters, correct spelling, and good sentence structure, then copy this into your signature.
"Permanent spell" has never shown up, but Ramosian Revivalist targets a "permanent card" in the graveyard and there are numerous "creature spell" cards, I don't see why it wouldn't work. It's just the slightly confusing fact that a land is a permanent but not a spell, right? I guess that's an argument that it might not be advisable to use the phrase, but the rules can pretty clearly handle it.
"Permanent spell" has never shown up, but Ramosian Revivalist targets a "permanent card" in the graveyard and there are numerous "creature spell" cards, I don't see why it wouldn't work. It's just the slightly confusing fact that a land is a permanent but not a spell, right? I guess that's an argument that it might not be advisable to use the phrase, but the rules can pretty clearly handle it.
Hmm... I guess that's true. I found this:
"110.4a The term "permanent card" is used to refer to a card that could be put onto the battlefield. Specifically, it means an artifact, creature, enchantment, land, or planeswalker card.
110.4b The term "permanent spell" is used to refer to a spell that will enter the battlefield as a permanent as part of its resolution. Specifically, it means an artifact, creature, enchantment, or planeswalker spell."
But the term "permanent spell" has never been used in practice, so it feels off. I assumed there was a conflict, but I guess not. I'm guessing they haven't used that term ever because of the confusion.
Ink-Treader: A bit weak, I would think. Bazzar Trader never made any waves.
VikingIrishman: I don't feel a strong connection between the submitted card and inspiration card.
herbert west: Cool card, really changes Commander. May cause some frustrating scenarios.
killer of giants: Gotta dock you for being almost exactly Standtill.
nameless one: ..interesting. A bit hard for me to evaluate.
Redloa: Cool card, very wordy.
drew: pretty cool, VERY strong.
killer of giants: Gotta dock you for being almost exactly Standtill.
I find both of these criticisms rather weak. Both cards serve a function. Personally, if I am control, I would love to be able to drop this T1, especially against an aggro deck. That 1 mana difference is huge.
Additionally, the second criticism could be used as criticism for any unconditional counterspell that isn't counterspell. You don't like the card, fine, but to say that it is exactly like Standstill (or like Standstill but less so) is just not true.
It definitely, IMHO, shows an inability to evaluate cards (oh, this card is similar to something else, it's awful).
Ink-Treader: A recursive Donate sounds interesting. Also it works like an expensive Story Circle for colors among permanents you control, but it's too uneffective as a circle. Seven mana for the first donation sounds too much for such effect. Since donate itself isn't an exciting effect, I would have sticked something more interesting than the circlish effect to the card to make it more appealing, specially in limited (see Zedruu the Greathearted). Reducing the mana costs would also work.
VikingIrishman: I can't find the connection with your card, beside the fact that your card does both, manage counters and counters spells (perhaps that's enough of a connection for such choice.) Regarding balance, I would have removed the mana cost of the activated ability and make it impossible to counter cmc0 spells, or have lowered the cmc to 3 or even 2 and allow it to counter such spells. You have to spend not just 6 mana for the first activation, but also a lot of extra mana and cards to get a small and narrow counter effect (wich could also never happen for when you have charged your enchantment enough to even be relevant.) Where it would be useful (fighting cmc0 spells in eternal formats), it seems to be too expensive to be playable.
herbert west: The use of Join Forces seems neat for a card inspired by Checks and Balances. Regarding balance and constructed formats, this card basically reads: "XX: Counter target spell unless its controller pays X. Any player may activate this ability." As it is, it's just bonkers, specially because it's a "build around me" card. This in a tron/ramp deck would probably be GG.
Killer of Giants: Your card is lacking of rarity, wich isn't good. Also, can't connect it to any of those two cards you've presented as your sources of inspiration (actually, your card is just a better version of Standstill, wich also hurts it regarding originality/innovation.)
Regarding balance, your card works in a proactive way that would hurt constructed, specially standard and modern (also, consider that Preordain got the axe in modern...)
Your card would be rare if printed, wich I find pretty impossible.
(nameless one): I love the flavor and adaptation here. Muraganda seems a perfect match for the effect, while also you've translated the joke to real magic in an excellent and balanced way.
RedLoa: I find the connection between both cards a little vague, but I think it does work. I'm wondering why you haven't allowed the caster to choose the card instead of randomizing it. It wouldn't have been dangerous, since casting the discarded card for its flashabck cost is, in almost the cases, strictly worst than casting it from your hand (due to the exiling thing.) Being able to choose another Gambit would have helped to connect better to the original card.
drewdagreek: Well, nobody said you can't make another Un card, uh? Even being an Un card, it seems too powerful for being a common (beside the technical reasons that made you make it common while unflipped) Since the most powerful effects usually get attached to rare/mythic cards, having a common card being able to destroy them so easily seems OP. I like the humorous aspect of the card. It's pretty neat
I find both of these criticisms rather weak. Both cards serve a function. Personally, if I am control, I would love to be able to drop this T1, especially against an aggro deck. That 1 mana difference is huge.
Additionally, the second criticism could be used as criticism for any unconditional counterspell that isn't counterspell. You don't like the card, fine, but to say that it is exactly like Standstill (or like Standstill but less so) is just not true.
It definitely, IMHO, shows an inability to evaluate cards (oh, this card is similar to something else, it's awful).
What they probably felt about your card, is that it does not innovates in any way. Yes, almost of us would think that making a cmc1 Standstill would be superdoopercool (beside it being broken) but, from a design perspective, it does not add anything new to the story.
Anyway, tweaking classics and feeling we're geniuses is a trap that almost every amateur designer fell into while starting with this (me included), being the oposite side of the spectrum the making of super-flashy cards that almost feel part of a different game, wich excess of originality ends hurting the design. Just my two cents.
My card was created on the inspiration of flavor, if you don't see that, well I can't help you. As an fyi, when I created the card I didn't base it on standstill, didn't even know it existed. I guess I just need to realize that there are a lot of professional card designers in these threads.... oh wait...
Maybe I should have just created a more powerful Reflecting Mirror instead.
[...] when I created the card I didn't base it on standstill, didn't even know it existed.
That does not changes the fact that it does exist. This is what makes important the use of a card database such as magiccardinfo's or the gatherer, to avoid redundant and/or unexciting designs.
I guess I just need to realize that there are a lot of professional card designers in these threads.... oh wait...
You don't need to become rude/sarcastic to justify yourself. In fact here's a ton of talent, and some of the regulars here even made a decent rendition at the official designer search contests, from where many people ended being hired (the winners of such contests were in fact amateur designs like us.) To become good at this we need to take in consideration many aspects of the game, and printed stuff is one of them. We also should spend a lot of time in card design (it is not just a matter of innate talent.)
That does not changes the fact that it does exist. This is what makes important the use of a card database such as magiccardinfo's or the gatherer, to avoid redundant and/or unexciting designs. You don't need to become rude/sarcastic to justify yourself. In fact here's a ton of talent, and some of the regulars here even made a decent rendition at the official designer search contests, from where many people ended being hired (the winners of such contests were in fact amateur designs like us.) To become good at this we need to take in consideration many aspects of the game, and printed stuff is one of them. We also should spend a lot of time in card design (it is not just a matter of innate talent.)
nameless one: ..interesting. A bit hard for me to evaluate.
I'm trying to better myself as a card designer since I am trying to make a cube with 100% custom cards. It's hard to tell if I did good or bad with critiques like this.
I love this contest because you can apply your own constructive criticism to each card you evaluate. It just saddens me when it seems like no effort was put to it.
Is my card too powerful? Is my card too weak? Is it balanced? I'm afraid that a lot of people just try to tweak existing cards because at the same time, they are easier to judge.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks for spiderboy4 of High~Light_Studios for the kick ass avatar.
Thanks for DarkNightCavalier of HotPS for the exceptional signature.
I am convinced that WotC is "dumbing" the game because of all the stupid posts they come across on MTG-related forums
What I am trying to say with my post is that Blackbull made a fine point. But it's hard to improve on the bad things if you you don't point what's the bad thing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks for spiderboy4 of High~Light_Studios for the kick ass avatar.
Thanks for DarkNightCavalier of HotPS for the exceptional signature.
I am convinced that WotC is "dumbing" the game because of all the stupid posts they come across on MTG-related forums
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Was that different a couple of hours ago when you didn't have your critiques up or am I just going crazy?
Also I really should of costed the creature at 1R, the hand revealing at upkeep was deliberate to not allow information about the topdeck, though seems that maybe I should of done it the other way.
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
Yeah, sorry. I have been really busy recently so I wanted to get a top 3 up just in case I couldn't make it back. Now that I have a little more time I was able to go over the cards more comprehensivley.
1R would have gotten 2nd.
2. Raikou Rider
3. Jimmy Groove
You missed the phrase "A deck can contain any number of creatures named Evergrowing Ooze".
Probably more efficient at stopping an opponent playing instant and sorceries than what it was intended for.
aurorasparrow
As a Johnny card what does this give me which clone variants like phantasmal image didn't.
supernator13
Sounds fun, perfect for this challeneg :D.
void_nothing
Pirates as a subtype, that is so old school. I think the drawback might be too severe here. A 5/4 flash isn't bad probably not worth playing in the long run.
So much happening on this card. Not sure rarity you want but I think you just overdid all the effects. Also I reckon you could get away with this being monoblue so you lose points for an unnecessary splash colour. 5 mana feels fine as a casting cost is this card was to printed today without the first ability.
doombringer
I like this little guy. Nothing too exciting but solid for limited with an interesting drawback.
Top3:
1) supernator13
2) Doombringer
3) void_nothing
Anyway, you should still send in your critiques for this round. Please.
For a sorcery, you could do something like:
Until end of turn, target creature you control gains "At the beginning of the end step, put a 3/3 green Centaur creature token onto the battlefield." That creature fights target creature you don't control.
It's not much different from your version, but it isn't prone to any disenchanting I guess.
Ya. It would be much shorter. The only issue is that cards don't count as permanents in any zone other than the battlefield. "A permanent is a card or token on the battlefield."
So the problem is, technically speaking, there are no "permanent spells", so it would never actually trigger. I suppose the shortest way to word it would be "non-instant, non-sorcery spell".
Glorious avatar and signature done by Rivenor at Miraculous Recovery Signatures.
***Former MCC Organizer***
Come join us! Show us your creative side.
I'm a proud member of the Online Campaign for Real English. If you believe in capital letters, correct spelling, and good sentence structure, then copy this into your signature.
Hmm... I guess that's true. I found this:
"110.4a The term "permanent card" is used to refer to a card that could be put onto the battlefield. Specifically, it means an artifact, creature, enchantment, land, or planeswalker card.
110.4b The term "permanent spell" is used to refer to a spell that will enter the battlefield as a permanent as part of its resolution. Specifically, it means an artifact, creature, enchantment, or planeswalker spell."
But the term "permanent spell" has never been used in practice, so it feels off. I assumed there was a conflict, but I guess not. I'm guessing they haven't used that term ever because of the confusion.
VikingIrishman: I don't feel a strong connection between the submitted card and inspiration card.
herbert west: Cool card, really changes Commander. May cause some frustrating scenarios.
killer of giants: Gotta dock you for being almost exactly Standtill.
nameless one: ..interesting. A bit hard for me to evaluate.
Redloa: Cool card, very wordy.
drew: pretty cool, VERY strong.
Top 3
1. herbert west
2. drewdagreek
3. Redloa
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
I find both of these criticisms rather weak. Both cards serve a function. Personally, if I am control, I would love to be able to drop this T1, especially against an aggro deck. That 1 mana difference is huge.
Additionally, the second criticism could be used as criticism for any unconditional counterspell that isn't counterspell. You don't like the card, fine, but to say that it is exactly like Standstill (or like Standstill but less so) is just not true.
It definitely, IMHO, shows an inability to evaluate cards (oh, this card is similar to something else, it's awful).
VikingIrishman: I can't find the connection with your card, beside the fact that your card does both, manage counters and counters spells (perhaps that's enough of a connection for such choice.) Regarding balance, I would have removed the mana cost of the activated ability and make it impossible to counter cmc0 spells, or have lowered the cmc to 3 or even 2 and allow it to counter such spells. You have to spend not just 6 mana for the first activation, but also a lot of extra mana and cards to get a small and narrow counter effect (wich could also never happen for when you have charged your enchantment enough to even be relevant.) Where it would be useful (fighting cmc0 spells in eternal formats), it seems to be too expensive to be playable.
herbert west: The use of Join Forces seems neat for a card inspired by Checks and Balances. Regarding balance and constructed formats, this card basically reads: "XX: Counter target spell unless its controller pays X. Any player may activate this ability." As it is, it's just bonkers, specially because it's a "build around me" card. This in a tron/ramp deck would probably be GG.
Killer of Giants: Your card is lacking of rarity, wich isn't good. Also, can't connect it to any of those two cards you've presented as your sources of inspiration (actually, your card is just a better version of
Standstill, wich also hurts it regarding originality/innovation.)
Regarding balance, your card works in a proactive way that would hurt constructed, specially standard and modern (also, consider that Preordain got the axe in modern...)
Your card would be rare if printed, wich I find pretty impossible.
(nameless one): I love the flavor and adaptation here. Muraganda seems a perfect match for the effect, while also you've translated the joke to real magic in an excellent and balanced way.
RedLoa: I find the connection between both cards a little vague, but I think it does work. I'm wondering why you haven't allowed the caster to choose the card instead of randomizing it. It wouldn't have been dangerous, since casting the discarded card for its flashabck cost is, in almost the cases, strictly worst than casting it from your hand (due to the exiling thing.) Being able to choose another Gambit would have helped to connect better to the original card.
drewdagreek: Well, nobody said you can't make another Un card, uh? Even being an Un card, it seems too powerful for being a common (beside the technical reasons that made you make it common while unflipped) Since the most powerful effects usually get attached to rare/mythic cards, having a common card being able to destroy them so easily seems OP. I like the humorous aspect of the card. It's pretty neat
1st: (nameless one)
2nd: Red Loa
3rd: Ink_Treader
HM (this gives no points): drewdagreek
What they probably felt about your card, is that it does not innovates in any way. Yes, almost of us would think that making a cmc1 Standstill would be superdoopercool (beside it being broken) but, from a design perspective, it does not add anything new to the story.
Anyway, tweaking classics and feeling we're geniuses is a trap that almost every amateur designer fell into while starting with this (me included), being the oposite side of the spectrum the making of super-flashy cards that almost feel part of a different game, wich excess of originality ends hurting the design. Just my two cents.
Maybe I should have just created a more powerful Reflecting Mirror instead.
I'm trying to better myself as a card designer since I am trying to make a cube with 100% custom cards. It's hard to tell if I did good or bad with critiques like this.
I love this contest because you can apply your own constructive criticism to each card you evaluate. It just saddens me when it seems like no effort was put to it.
Is my card too powerful? Is my card too weak? Is it balanced? I'm afraid that a lot of people just try to tweak existing cards because at the same time, they are easier to judge.
Thanks for spiderboy4 of High~Light_Studios for the kick ass avatar.
Thanks for DarkNightCavalier of HotPS for the exceptional signature.
What I am trying to say with my post is that Blackbull made a fine point. But it's hard to improve on the bad things if you you don't point what's the bad thing.
Thanks for spiderboy4 of High~Light_Studios for the kick ass avatar.
Thanks for DarkNightCavalier of HotPS for the exceptional signature.