I'm not familiar with this part of FF, so I can't comment on flavor in that respect. I will not that I would not have noticed without your comment the 1/2/3 mana cost arrangement. Most people see patterns like that in mana value, but the generic costs tend to get glossed over when reading to figure out the total needed to cast a spell.
First general note, its odd having a Construct that isn't an artifact. Its doable, just odd.
Second, you are underestimating the power of being able to search a card, and thusly I and II are undercosted.
I, having both deathtouch and the tutor ability, means it effectively kills one of their cards for no loss of your own. This needs to be 1BB or 3B, not 1B. It would be fine at 2 without Deathtouch.
II, again, is too strong at 2/2 for 3 with Flash, Flying and getting a card for dying. I can flash it in to trade for an attacking X/2, and then be up a card. This would be fine without flash and mana value 3 (probably at 1BB, though)
III's ability should be at sorcery speed or have a cost attached, so that the opponent can have opportunities to interact with it while avoiding threat of activation. As is, its a near infinite flying blocker/attacker is almost impossible to remove.
I'd suggest tweaking the III so you can only use II to refresh its undying. Otherwise, its significantly more powerful than it should be.
Black Waltz III 3B
Legendary Creature - Wizard Construct (R)
Undying (When this creature dies, if it had no +1/+1 counters on it, return it to the battlefield under its owner’s control with a +1/+1 counter on it.).
Exile a card named Black Waltz II from your graveyard: Remove a +1/+1 counter from Black Waltz III. Activate only as a sorcery.
- Registered User
Member for 12 years, 1 month, and 27 days
Last active Sun, Jul, 25 2021 22:06:10
- 0 Followers
- 993 Total Posts
- 254 Thanks
Jul 24, 2021Posted in: Custom Card CreationQuote from tiasian »You raise a good point but your suggested change is just a black card. No.
I’ll fiddle with the stats I guess.
Combining sac and/or destruction with lifegain is fine in green/black. There is plenty of precedent.
Jul 24, 2021Posted in: Custom Card CreationQuote from tiasian »Okay so I’ve been thinking about this.
here goes, then, a revision of the BG card
Veldrane's Desperate Hunt - 1BG
Target creature you control gets +4/-4 and gains Lifelink until end of turn.
That creature fights target creature you don’t control.
Veldrane's Hunting Lodge
Veldrane's Hunting Lodge enters the battlefield tapped.
, Pay 1 life: Add B or G.
This is an overly complicated way to say "sac a creature to destroy a creature"
Your creature would have to be an X/5 to even survive the toughness reduction (though it does still always gets to fight since it won't die from the -4 until state-based effects check after the spell resolves) and then it would have to survive the fight as well, so at that point it should just be:
As an additional cost to cast CARDNAME, sacrifice a creature.
Destroy target creature. You gain life equal to the sacrificed creature's power.
Jul 22, 2021Posted in: Custom Card Creation
It says power and toughness, meaning both the power and toughness needs to be 1 or less.
This is specifically why I denied the use of "and/or" 1 or less—which would then allow just that.
Yes, I understand how your card is currently written.
The chances of your opponents having multiple 1/1s, aside of a token deck, are very low, meaning the card will be useless most times.
You are right that "and/or" would be too strong, but checking only that power is one or less gives opportunity to interact with more creatures without stealing creatures that are too strong.
As would would say, it increases the cards domain I fluence or, as normal people say, it's more playable.
Jul 21, 2021Yes, you don't want to add the extra ETB tapped as it is superfluous.Posted in: Custom Card Creation
I'd suggest "X,T: You may play a card exiled with this permanent without paying its mana cost if its mana value is X or less." This still gives every hidden card psuedo flash for +1 mana without breaking the cost of spells wide open. I also changed it to "a card" since things that double triggers potentially mean you can have multiple cards hidden away under the same land.
Jul 21, 2021Posted in: Custom Card Creation
If you can take over three 3/1 creatures with this, for three mana, that's totally over-the-top, no matter how rare the play chance is.
That play chance extends to every scenario where only the power or toughness is 1, which then you might see has way too much domain influence.
It probably should just be "power 1 or less". Expecting your opponent to have only 1/1s is too narrow, but being able to also yank 1/2s, 1/3s, 0/4s etc isn't unreasonable.
Jul 20, 2021Posted in: Custom Card Creation
Imminent threat can easily dictate that you will have to expend this spell for the first effect a majority of the time.
And if they don't have any creatures out, its not a dead draw. That's literally the meaning of versatility.
That sets aside the fact that, if drawn late game, your opponent can tap out for their game winning play and you can respond by casting this for 5-8 damage in response before their play resolves.
You want this at two mana, fine, but then it needs to be a sorcery.
Jul 19, 2021I think this is the first time I can honestly say you've designed cards that are, all at once, creative, reasonably balanced, work as written, not overpowered.Posted in: Custom Card Creation
The power level of these cards is going to depend entirely on the overall abilities of cards around them, like sacrifice effects for thrash loyalities. If I have anything to add, its that Thrash may well be too narrow, as 1/1 creatures are not super common outside of tokens so you living your dream of stealing the 2/2s from a hunted dragon may not be out of reach at 2RR instead of 1RR.
Thrash More Loyalties 2RR
Gain control of up to three target creatures with power and toughness 2 or less until end of turn. Untap those creatures. They gain haste until end of turn.
Overall, though, good effort this time.
Jul 18, 2021We had a discussion about cards like these a while back. The challenge is that the spell side needs to be something not strong enough that you would be willing to put it in a deck of those colors by itself and the spell you have above would pretty much be a first pick GW card without the land side already.Posted in: Custom Card Creation
If it didn't give the +0/+3 but everything else was the same, I could see this being more printable.
Jul 18, 2021I think trying to close more and more loopholes on the Ring is making its too cluttered. If you're concerned with it in Modern type formats, just make it Legendary or change its casting cost to C instead of 1Posted in: Custom Card Creation
Lunar Wastes making the Spawn is fine coming into play tapped.
Jul 18, 2021Posted in: Custom Card Creation
Justice Strike is a reasonable and balanced Magic card. It is a 2 mana card that destroys a significant portion of creatures (like Terror, which you brought up earlier) and does not do direct damage to an opponent (again, like your previously mentioned Terror). You trying to dismiss the argument just shows you know its right.
Also, "domain influence" is meaningless jargon. Its something like "shifting the paradigm" that people who don't have anything actually useful to say use to try unsuccessfully to seem like they have some novel take on a situation. Every time you say it and your other jargon phrases we all just know you're trying to prop up your ego from the realization that you are wrong.
Jul 17, 2021Posted in: Custom Card Creation
Decimate honestly shouldn't require each type to be out. Ones that can't be targeted should simply be passed. I do understand the linear and continuance argument behind its reasoning, so you can save me all that.
Again, you demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of game design - restrictions are costs. If you want to destroy multiple types of permanents without restrictions, you get Casualties of War which is 2 more mana the Decimate because its LESS restrictive.
Its interesting that a bunch of different people who actively play the game can tell you the same things and somehow thing that they are the ones who are wrong. You would rather believe your are right while designing bad cards and letting everyone you interact with see your ego and lack of competence than admit you don't know everything and learn to be better.
You have some interesting ideas, but until you can admit that you aren't perfect, you won't get any closer to actually being good.
Jul 16, 2021This is undercosted because it can consistently deal significantly more that three damage for two mana at instant speed to a player. Yes, terror is two mana, but terror cannot deal damage to your opponent if they have no creatures.Posted in: Custom Card Creation
Also, user is right that there's nothing blue about these abilities.
This actually is an interesting card, it works rules wise, and, color/power level aside I could see this being made in some fashion.
Jul 16, 2021I think the triple mana cost is too much here. These would mostly all be fine at 1CC instead of CCC.Posted in: Custom Card Creation
The blue one is too strong as a 2/2 flyer. It would probably be fine as a 2/2 non-flyer.
Black probably needs to be "each player" or not have deathtouch. Menace instead maybe?
The green one's evoke cost is hard to use effectively because it requires a lot of setup.
Jul 16, 2021Posted in: Custom Card Creation
There is a big reason. It was explained in a previous post. This spell cannot be used in a bundle of scenarios, because it will lose you the game. And even if you have a response backup, so long as it's not sufficient.
The drawback of skipping your untap step is absolutely not greater than risking losing the game.
Skipping an untap is an unavoidable drawback that reduces the utility of the extra turn, being at 1 life for your turn only on an extra turn is easily ignored.
As everyone with experience playing the game knows, it is easy to play around being at one life for a turn by simply waiting for your opponent to tap out, and even then only Red consistently has meaningful ways to directly damage an opponent during their turn meaning that a majority of decks wouldn't interact with your "drawback".
Given that, I just think it triggers attention deficit that there would be two miracles that both allow extra turns.
Mine though certainly is more creative, and probably is the creativity that should have been shown firsthand for such a dynamic concept.
There it is, the admission that you are more concerned with feeding your ego than feedback on the actual quality of your card design. It doesn't matter how "creative" the card is, if its over powered or creates bad play patterns, its a bad card.
Its too bad your craving for validation gets in the way in the way of you learning from your mistakes, or you might have improved as a designer by now.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.