Yup. As often noted on these forums I'm harsh. I'm the early American Idol season's Simon Cowell. I'm the Snape to the potions class. While I don't disagree that being nicer would probably make people more receptive, it doesn't make my points wrong either.
I mean... por que no los dos? And if being less harsh might unobfuscate your points, why avoid the spoonful of sugar?
My opinions are still easily dismissed even when I'm not expressing an opinion but objective fact.
This is obviously a first impression, and maybe my take will change as I get more exposure to your method of delivery, but I really think the issue isn't what you're saying, it's how you're saying it.
The numbers might be different as they were obtained studying oral communication and not written, but studies have shown that only about ten percent of your conversational payload is the message itself. The other ninety percent is things like tone, word choice, body language (not applicable online of course--there's probably something analogous but I can't think of it right now), and other sub- and supertextual cues. So even if the ten percent is spot on, if the ninety percent isn't working the message isn't going to land. It sucks and it seems silly--the message is what really matters, right?--but trying to go against this is fighting human nature, and as MaRo so often says, if you're fighting against human nature, you are going to lose.
It's important to point that out so he can improve too.
Also agreed, but your tone is so often unfriendly that it can be hard to hear the good advice through the bad attitude. Which may just be to our detriment, but I've always enjoyed the adage "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar".
Also, My win rate is quite fine. More than fine, really.
*sigh* I know it is dude, but that wasn't the point and I think you know that. You are an excellent designer, but everyone has room to improve, and the way you come across sometimes seems that you think you're above improvement.
Point being your initial critique was incorrect, and your current evaluation in rebuttal is overly narrow.
Daaamn dude, you get awfully up in arms about what’s supposed to be a fun creative exercise. It’s not like people you deeply care about are being held hostage and will only be set free if you win enough of these.
...Unless they are, in which case a) Do you have an address so I can call in a SWAT team? b) You might improve your win rate, and thus get them set free sooner, if you were more receptive to the feedback of others.
When Ulora enters the battlefield, create three 0/1 green Plant creature tokens, then attach Ulora to one of those creatures.
Equipped creature gets +X/+X, where X is the number of Plants you control.
When equipped creature dies, if it wasn't a Plant, exile it and create a 0/1 green Plant creature token.
Deathtouch was actually the keyword I was using to meet the challenge, but now I'm thinking it won't count because Precise Incision doesn't always have deathtouch. Thoughts?
Epic (For the rest of the game, you can't cast spells. At the beginning of each of your upkeeps, copy this spell except for its epic ability. You may choose new targets for the copy.)
Grandeur--Exile target instant or sorcery card in your graveyard not named Propagate the Past, then copy it. You may choose new targets for the copy. Then you may pay 3U and discard a card named Propagate the Past. If you do, search your library for up to three instant and/or sorcery cards and put them into your graveyard, then shuffle your library.
#2 Dormant Sentinel3
Artifact (R)
When Dormant Sentinel enters the battlefield, you may pay 1. If you do, search your library for an instant or sorcery card that could target Dormant Sentinel, reveal it, and put it into your hand. Then shuffle your library.
As long as Dormant Sentinel has a -1/-1 counter on it, it is a creature with reach and base power and toughness 6/7 in addition to its other types.
Persist
Break in case of fire.
#3 Soul RedemptionXWW
Sorcery (R)
Cleric Offering (You may cast this card any time you could cast an instant by sacrificing a Cleric and paying the difference in mana costs between this and the sacrificed Cleric. Mana cost includes color.)
Return target creature card with converted mana cost X or less from your graveyard to the battlefield. If a Cleric was sacrificed while casting this spell, that creature gains lifelink until end of turn.
Curse of the Oil BB
Enchantment-Aura Curse R
Enchant Player
At the beginning of the enchanted player's upkeep, that player gets two poison counters.
Creatures enchanted player controls get +1/+1 for each poison counter on them. At first, the goblins loved their new, black warpaint...
Interesting. On the one hand, a card that kills your opponent in five turns unless they have enchantment removal seems a tad powerful, but their creatures will pack quite a wallop until then. This certainly won't lead to stalled out games, and could definitely lead to some exciting ones. I think this would be a terribly unfun card in the wrong environment, but an enjoyable one if the meta supports it. Not sure how I feel about Phyrexian Oil giving creatures a P/T boost though.
Grim Kukri 2
Artifact-Equipment
Equipped creature gets +3/+1 and has lifelink.
At the beginning of each end step, if equipped creature deal no damage that turn, you lose three life.
Equip 2 Do not draw a blade you cannot feed.
The card is interesting, but I think well undercosted. Setting aside creatures with vigilance, which would either sidestep the drawback entirely or make attacking far, far worse for your opponent, I think the play pattern for Grim Kukri will look something like:
1) Equip, attack, 6+ point life swing
2) Equipped creature survives
3) You lose 3 life at the end of the next turn, but are still winning the race
or
1) Equip, attack, 6+ point life swing
2) Equipped creature dies, likely after trading up
3) You don't lose 3 life because Kukri isn't equipped
I like the story and idea of Grim Kukri, but I think the numbers are off somewhere. Maybe +2/+1?
Devil's Deal (Rare) 1BR
Enchantment - Curse
Enchant player
At the beginning of enchanted player's upkeep, exile the top card of enchanted player's library. Until end of turn, enchanted player may play that card. If he or she does, he or she loses life equal to the card's converted mana cost.
A black effect and red effect that we've seen before, but not on the same card. Not enormously innovative, but finding logical next steps for known effects is very important Magic design skill as well. I too have a problem with "may" in the card, as it makes the curse all-upside--when it's good do it, when it's bad don't. Not that that's a bad design, but it doesn't feel very black or red, or curse-like.
Reflective Armor (Rare) 2
Artifact - Equipment
Equipped creature gets +2/+4.
Whenever equipped creature becomes the target of a spell for the first time each turn, that spell's controller copies that spell and chooses new targets for the copy.
Equip 4
The symmetry between the casting cost, equip cost, and P/T is very pleasing. It's one of those things that players can overlook when it is there, but get upset at when it isn't, so kudos for good attention to detail. I like the stories this card is trying to tell, but I fear they might go awry more often than not. Too often this will play out with you equipping it and getting a minor effect from the reflection, followed by your opponent getting to take much more advantage of the reflection because they can put all of their mana into it.
There are also a few wording issues:
-"Instant or sorcery spell" needs to be specified, or else things will get a little weird when the equipped creature is targeted by an Aura.
-The copy ability either needs to make the choosing new targets optional, or have an "if able" rider. Otherwise, you could run into an issue where a copy of a spell needs to go on the stack but it has no available targets (if equipped creature is the only create in play, for example).
Overpopulation2UU
Enchantment - Aura Curse (R)
Enchant player
Creature spells enchanted player casts cost 1 more to cast for each creature he or she controls.
As long as enchanted player controls no creatures, creature spells he or she casts cost 2 less to cast.
Pros
-A blue way to handle creatures that is a perfect fit both in terms of mechanics and flavor, but also something we haven't seen before.
-Very grokkable to anyone familiar with the concept of overpopulation/population control.
-Works really well with Claustrophobia-type effects that neutralize creatures but keep them on the battlefield.
-Fun discovery potential for players when they realize the possibilities of casting this on themselves. I'm picturing a really neat moment where a blue mage enchants themselves with this and holds priority to cast a bunch of discounted Flash creatures at once.
(Slight) Cons
-Since this has a positive effect on a player with no creatures, I think "Population Control" would be a more fitting name--but only slightly, and Overpopulation is definitely cleaner.
-I really wish this was a global enchantment instead. Any deck that wants one side of this effect wants the other as well, and both effects are innocuous enough that I think they could both be in play at once without causing too many problems.
Body Flinger3
Artifact - Equipment (R)
Equipped creature can't attack or block.
At the beginning of your combat step, sacrifice equipped creature. Body Flinger deals damage equal to the sacrificed creature's power to target creature or player.
Equip 2
I'm really not a fan of this one. It lets non-red decks have access to a Fling effect, but I can't think of a deck that would want such a thing, especially at this cost. 5 mana and sorcery speed that your opponent can disrupt with removal is a pretty steep asking price. It also doesn't feel like an equipment, more like an ordinary artifact that was repurposed for this challenge. A miss for me, I'm afraid.
At the beginning of enchanted player’s upkeep, he or she puts a +1/+1 counter on target creature he or she controls that doesn’t have a +1/+1 counter on it.
Creatures enchanted player controls with +1/+1 counters on them can’t attack or block, and their activated abilities can’t be activated.
”I can’t go out there! What if my armor gets dirty?”
Mnematic Membrane3
Artifact — Equipment (R)
2: Exile a card from your hand at random. Equipped creature gets +X/+X until end of turn, where X is the converted mana cost of the exiled card. Return the exiled card to your hand at the beginning of your next end step.
Avaati Vya, Aether Pioneer3RUG
Legendary Creature-Elemental Artificer
Whenever Avaati Vya deals combat damage to an opponent, you get that much E. E: Avaati Vya gets +1/+0 until end of turn. EE: Avaati Vya gains flying until end of turn.
4/6
Prototype Collector 5
Artifact
If you would get one or more E, you get twice that much E instead. EEEEEEEE(8 energy),t: Search your graveyard, hand, and/or library for a card named Avaati Vya, Aether Pioneer and put it onto the battlefield.
Legendary Empyreal Voyager! Part of me wishes Avaati had trample, either naturally or activated, but that would have felt a bit derivative, so I don't blame you for leaving it off. I'm less of a fan of the +1/+0 ability though. Once you know Avaati is going to get through, there's no interesting choice to make (except for very rare instances), just dump all your energy into Avaati and you'll get it right back. I would rather have seen a EE activation cost, making up for the powered-down ability elsewhere if necessary.
I'm also not thrilled that Prototype Collector does nothing on its own. There's room for cards like that, but requiring other cards that use such a specific resource seems a little too restrictive. It's also a slight nonbo in an Avaati EDH deck since it can't summon Avaati from the command zone, which seems at cross-purposes with the message Prototype Collector sends.
Pumpkin Nightlord
Legendary Creature - Nightmare (r)
Skulk, indestructible
Other Nightmare creatures you control have +1/+1 and "When this creature dies, target opponent discards a card"
3/3
Pumpkinhead Spooks
Creature - Nightmare (c)
Pumpkinhead Spooks cannot be blocked and can't block.
If you control a creature named Pumpkin Nightlord, you may pay 2 life rather than pay Pumpkinhead Spooks mana cost.
1/1
While I'd love to see a return of Nightmares--I thought they were poorly used in Torment--Pumpkin Nightlord somehow strikes me as both overpowered and underwhelming. None of its abilities are all that compelling, but they combine for an unblockable (essentially), indestructible 3/3 for 3--well above curve, and it has a potent tribal ability on top of it. I think 1 toughness would have helped with the power level (easier to deal with with -X/-X effects) and given it a more ethereal quality.
Pumpkinhead Spooks follows a similar story, though it's got a good news/bad news situation going for it: the good news is that it isn't always overpowered, but the bad news is when it's not, it's a worse Tormented Soul. The ability granted by the Nightlord also doesn't seem to fit anything else either card can do. The result is two cards that I'm afraid don't excite me.
Daktar, Master of the PastureGW
Legendary Creature - Dwarf Warrior (M)
Each creature you control assigns combat damage equal to its toughness rather than its power. U: Target horse you control gets +0/+X until end of turn, where X is Daktar, Master of the Pasture’s toughness. 1BR: Create an 1/1 black and red Nightmare Horse creature token with haste and lifelink.
1/1
Pack Horse1W
Creature - Horse (U)
When Pack Horse enters the battlefield, for the rest of the game, creatures named “Daktar, Master of the Pasture” you control enter the battlefield with an additional +1/+1 counter on them.
A deck can have any number of cards named Pack Horse.
2/2
Alright, General Tazri for your Horses... though there are interesting Allies in all five colors, and I don't think anyone's going to be upset if they can't put Breaching Hippocamp or Phantasmal Mount in their Ponies EDH deck. I'd love to know why all five colors are on Daktar. I have no doubt that there's a good reason, but I'm afraid it's not coming through for me. I mean, it's a bit of a stretch, but the +0/+X could have cost W, and since Green occasionally gets haste the token activation could have been 1GW. I have many questions about this card's design, and while I'm sure there were be lots of interesting answers, until then it all seems a bit chaotic.
Pack Horse seems fine, I like how the ability works well with Daktar's +0/+X ability, though I am curious why you didn't make this an emblem.
Paradon, the Headless3GB
Legendary Creature - Centaur Spirit (M)
Paradon, the Headless is indestructible as long it has the greatest power among creatures. T: Paradon fights target tapped creature. When the mist rises in the Teshire wood, two things are sure to be found the next morn: hoofprints and a travelers head.
5/4
Paradon's Sickle3
Legendary Artifact — Equipment (R)
Equipped creature gets +X/+X, where X is the number of creature cards in all graveyards. If equipped creature is named "Paradon, the Headless", it gets an additional +X/+X.
Equip — Sacrifice a creature.
I like these two quite a bit. Unique abilities, the synergy between Paradon and his Sickle works well in both gameplay and flavor, and I like that Paradon is a 5/4 just to add insult to injury for opposing 4-power creatures. As such, my critiques are going to seem rather nitpick-y.
On a very minor note, Paradon's first ability usually has "...or is tied for greatest" tacked on to avoid confusion. Unless your intention was for the Paradon to be indestructible if he had THE greatest power, full stop, in which case I believe "...as long as his power is greater than each other creature's power" (or something like that) is a more accurate, if clunkier, wording.
I also fear that Paradon might lead to inactive game states. Your opponent doesn't want to attack, because then you can get a two-for-one (blocking one creature and fighting another), but you don't want to attack with Paradon because then you CAN'T get a two-for-one. Somewhat paradoxically (Paradon-xically?), I think by making the fight ability worse (sorcery speed, I'm thinking), Paradon becomes better designed. But I could be conjuring something from nothing here, and overall this was a great entry.
Tyreum the Sealed
(B) Legendary Creature - Demon (M)
You can't cast Tyreum the Sealed.
Flying, haste, indestructible
When Tyreum the Sealed enters the battlefield, destroy all creatures and planeswalkers. He is apocalypse incarnate.
10/10
Ritual of TyreumB
Sorcery (R)
As an additional cost to cast Ritual of Tyreum, sacrifice four creatures.
Name a Demon. Search your library, hand, graveyard, or exile for the named card and put it onto the battlefield.
If the named card is "Tyreum the Sealed", you may choose a copy of the named card that you own from outside the game instead.
Tyreum the Best-Reanimation-Target-Ever. Probably best Show and Tell target too, since you'll blow up whatever creature they pop in and be able to attack right away. I like the attempt at creating a Legend and build-around way to summon it, but it seems way too easy to work around in older Constructed formats, and I don't like that it's a Legend that can't be cast if he's your commander. I guess he and Phage can hang out and commiserate over it.
I do very much like a card asking you to name a card and then working differently depending on what you name, however.
There's neat design space there that I think you should explore in the future.
Necrodemus (Mythic) 2BG
Legendary Creature - Elf Wizard
3/4
Deathtouch
Whenever Necrodemus or another creature card would be returned from your graveyard to your hand, you may put that card onto the battlefield instead. You haven’t lived until you’ve died.
Necrodemic Chant (Common) B
Sorcery
Choose one or both -
Return target creature card from your graveyard to your hand.
Search your library for a card named Necrodemus and put that card into your graveyard. Then shuffle your library.
Does Necrodemus' ability work like we want it to? Or does it need a rider like "As long as Necrodemus is on the battlefield or in your graveyard..." in order to return himself to the battlefield? Eh, let's assume he works just fine.
What I can't assume is that everyone is going to play Necrodemic Chant properly. I can see so many casual players getting Necrodemus at their prerelease (yes, I know he's a Mythic), casting Chant, and hoping to put the creature they're returning right onto the battlefield, whether because they do the choices in the reverse order or because they're unclear on the timing. Which isn't to say that "teachable moment" cards like this can't be printed, but not usually at common, and they have to really pull their weight, which I'm not sure this does. I'm not dinging you too hard for this as there's a simple fix ("Return up to one target creature card from your graveyard to your hand. Then, you may search your library for a card named Necrodemus and put it into your graveyard and shuffle."), but I felt it worth noting.
But everything I've said so far is minor stuff. Good design on both cards, they're unique and work well separately and together. Nicely done.
Living Expanse2G
Creature - Spirit (R)
Living Expanse's power and toughness are each equal to the number of forests you control.
Whenever you play a forest land, if it's the first land you've played this turn, you may play an additional land this turn.
*/*
Both of those abilities get significantly weaker for each non-Forest in your deck.
(Also I'm dashing these off between meetings at work, so unfortunately they're not as robust as I'd like.)
I think you missed the point of me suggesting it cost GGG. In most decks where Living Expanse would/should be played, you're going to end up paying GGG for it anyway, so if I had issues with balance I would have suggested increasing the CMC or adding a drawback. But the card feels much more monogreen than Dungrove Elder, and I felt that changing the mana cost from 2G to GGG would gel better with the feel of your card while still keeping the balance the same. Primalcrux and Khalni Hydra were brought up because, while Living Expanse had a lot of cosmetic similarities with Dungrove Elder, in terms of feel it felt closer to the other two. As you designed it, it felt like it existed in this weird middle ground where it looked like Dungrove Elder but felt like other cards. As such, I felt it would have been better served if it hand been pushed more strongly to one of the two sides, and suggesting a change to the mana cost seemed to me the cleanest way to accomplish that.
One of your main critiques was that my entry needed more green in its mana cost. Dungrove elder provides a solid argument against that, especially since it is a riff of the card. I was just illustrating that you needed the right point of reference before making your claim, which you did not have at the time.
First of all, if my appreciation of a card requires "the right point of reference", is the design really that strong? If Time Spiral block taught us anything, it's that if a card requires previous knowledge of another, older card for the player to "get it", then that card is going to alienate a lot of people who look at it. Now, you could argue that everyone here is an experienced Magic player to some degree and should get the reference, but I try to base my critiques on if I think the player base as a whole would appreciate the card, not just CCL participants.
Second, if you were trying to make a riff on Dungrove Elder, and the first two cards that came to my mind weren't that, is that my fault as a "consumer" or your fault as a designer? Probably 50/50, if we're being honest. I know I saw at least one critique that picked up on the DE association right away and gave you props for it--nice! But for me, similarities aside, having two "monogreen" abilities on Living Expanse put it further in spirit from the Dungrove Elder camp and closer to the Primalcrux camp.
Stating that there is a "right" and "wrong" way to interpret a card design seems like a dicey proposition. Everyone who looks at a card is going to view it through a different lens, and unfortunately the lens I brought to Living Expanse didn't line up with the lens through which you designed it. But unless you put "This is a take on Dungrove Elder" as the flavortext, that's gonna happen on occasion. Bringing right and wrong into the mix just kinda seems like bad form, y'know?
As written, this seems bonkers in a mono-Green deck and unplayable in anything else. Which is fine, we've seen it before (Khalni Hydra, Primalcrux), but then why 2G? This card isn't really subtle about its love for Green mana, so I don't think there's any sense in playing coy with the mana cost. If one ability worked well with Forests and the other worked well with non-Forests, I think 2G could be interesting, but as written just own it and go GGG. This is a decent design, but not quite as good at it thinks it is.]
Yowch. Condescending.
By the way, you missed the point of reference: Dungrove Elder
I apologize; condescension was not my aim, and I must confess as I read it back it doesn't sound condescending in my head, but then authorial intent has a way of getting muddled when tone and inflection are taken away. I was going for explanatory, and perhaps to-the-point, but I can see how it could come off as condescending--especially "This is a decent design, but not quite as good at it thinks it is," which sounded clever as I was typing it and now just sounds... well, "clumsy" is being kind--and I shall apologize again.
That being said--you're right, I did miss the riff on Dungrove Elder. But the existence of Dungrove Elder proves my point, I feel. DE excels in a monogreen deck, but is at least decent in, say, a Gx Limited deck. Living Expanse can't say the same, since both of its abilities rely on Forests, as opposed to just one. Subtlety isn't green's strong suit, so it just felt weird to me to have text that so strongly shouted monogreen and a casting cost that didn't.
So my missteps in tone aside, I hope there's still some design advice to be salvaged there. Or, if I may twist a phrase with some mediocre wordplay, don't throw the baby out with the sasswater.
I promise you, there was no sarcasm there. What part did you think was sarcastic?
This is obviously a first impression, and maybe my take will change as I get more exposure to your method of delivery, but I really think the issue isn't what you're saying, it's how you're saying it.
The numbers might be different as they were obtained studying oral communication and not written, but studies have shown that only about ten percent of your conversational payload is the message itself. The other ninety percent is things like tone, word choice, body language (not applicable online of course--there's probably something analogous but I can't think of it right now), and other sub- and supertextual cues. So even if the ten percent is spot on, if the ninety percent isn't working the message isn't going to land. It sucks and it seems silly--the message is what really matters, right?--but trying to go against this is fighting human nature, and as MaRo so often says, if you're fighting against human nature, you are going to lose.
Agreed, except your definition of mistake sometimes feels like "didn't agree in lockstep with my opinion on the matter".
Also agreed, but your tone is so often unfriendly that it can be hard to hear the good advice through the bad attitude. Which may just be to our detriment, but I've always enjoyed the adage "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar".
*sigh* I know it is dude, but that wasn't the point and I think you know that. You are an excellent designer, but everyone has room to improve, and the way you come across sometimes seems that you think you're above improvement.
Daaamn dude, you get awfully up in arms about what’s supposed to be a fun creative exercise. It’s not like people you deeply care about are being held hostage and will only be set free if you win enough of these.
...Unless they are, in which case a) Do you have an address so I can call in a SWAT team? b) You might improve your win rate, and thus get them set free sooner, if you were more receptive to the feedback of others.
Legendary Artifact -- Equipment (R)
When Ulora enters the battlefield, create three 0/1 green Plant creature tokens, then attach Ulora to one of those creatures.
Equipped creature gets +X/+X, where X is the number of Plants you control.
When equipped creature dies, if it wasn't a Plant, exile it and create a 0/1 green Plant creature token.
Equip 2G
Good to know—though I’ve become less enamored of Precise Incision, so I’ll most likely swap it out regardless. I appreciate the input though!
Propagate the Past 6UU
Sorcery (M)
Epic (For the rest of the game, you can't cast spells. At the beginning of each of your upkeeps, copy this spell except for its epic ability. You may choose new targets for the copy.)
Grandeur--Exile target instant or sorcery card in your graveyard not named Propagate the Past, then copy it. You may choose new targets for the copy. Then you may pay 3U and discard a card named Propagate the Past. If you do, search your library for up to three instant and/or sorcery cards and put them into your graveyard, then shuffle your library.
#2
Dormant Sentinel 3
Artifact (R)
When Dormant Sentinel enters the battlefield, you may pay 1. If you do, search your library for an instant or sorcery card that could target Dormant Sentinel, reveal it, and put it into your hand. Then shuffle your library.
As long as Dormant Sentinel has a -1/-1 counter on it, it is a creature with reach and base power and toughness 6/7 in addition to its other types.
Persist
Break in case of fire.
#3
Soul Redemption XWW
Sorcery (R)
Cleric Offering (You may cast this card any time you could cast an instant by sacrificing a Cleric and paying the difference in mana costs between this and the sacrificed Cleric. Mana cost includes color.)
Return target creature card with converted mana cost X or less from your graveyard to the battlefield. If a Cleric was sacrificed while casting this spell, that creature gains lifelink until end of turn.
Enchantment-Aura Curse R
Enchant Player
At the beginning of the enchanted player's upkeep, that player gets two poison counters.
Creatures enchanted player controls get +1/+1 for each poison counter on them.
At first, the goblins loved their new, black warpaint...
Interesting. On the one hand, a card that kills your opponent in five turns unless they have enchantment removal seems a tad powerful, but their creatures will pack quite a wallop until then. This certainly won't lead to stalled out games, and could definitely lead to some exciting ones. I think this would be a terribly unfun card in the wrong environment, but an enjoyable one if the meta supports it. Not sure how I feel about Phyrexian Oil giving creatures a P/T boost though.
Grim Kukri 2
Artifact-Equipment
Equipped creature gets +3/+1 and has lifelink.
At the beginning of each end step, if equipped creature deal no damage that turn, you lose three life.
Equip 2
Do not draw a blade you cannot feed.
The card is interesting, but I think well undercosted. Setting aside creatures with vigilance, which would either sidestep the drawback entirely or make attacking far, far worse for your opponent, I think the play pattern for Grim Kukri will look something like:
1) Equip, attack, 6+ point life swing
2) Equipped creature survives
3) You lose 3 life at the end of the next turn, but are still winning the race
or
1) Equip, attack, 6+ point life swing
2) Equipped creature dies, likely after trading up
3) You don't lose 3 life because Kukri isn't equipped
I like the story and idea of Grim Kukri, but I think the numbers are off somewhere. Maybe +2/+1?
1BR
Enchantment - Curse
Enchant player
At the beginning of enchanted player's upkeep, exile the top card of enchanted player's library. Until end of turn, enchanted player may play that card. If he or she does, he or she loses life equal to the card's converted mana cost.
A black effect and red effect that we've seen before, but not on the same card. Not enormously innovative, but finding logical next steps for known effects is very important Magic design skill as well. I too have a problem with "may" in the card, as it makes the curse all-upside--when it's good do it, when it's bad don't. Not that that's a bad design, but it doesn't feel very black or red, or curse-like.
Reflective Armor (Rare)
2
Artifact - Equipment
Equipped creature gets +2/+4.
Whenever equipped creature becomes the target of a spell for the first time each turn, that spell's controller copies that spell and chooses new targets for the copy.
Equip 4
The symmetry between the casting cost, equip cost, and P/T is very pleasing. It's one of those things that players can overlook when it is there, but get upset at when it isn't, so kudos for good attention to detail. I like the stories this card is trying to tell, but I fear they might go awry more often than not. Too often this will play out with you equipping it and getting a minor effect from the reflection, followed by your opponent getting to take much more advantage of the reflection because they can put all of their mana into it.
There are also a few wording issues:
-"Instant or sorcery spell" needs to be specified, or else things will get a little weird when the equipped creature is targeted by an Aura.
-The copy ability either needs to make the choosing new targets optional, or have an "if able" rider. Otherwise, you could run into an issue where a copy of a spell needs to go on the stack but it has no available targets (if equipped creature is the only create in play, for example).
Enchantment - Aura Curse (R)
Enchant player
Creature spells enchanted player casts cost 1 more to cast for each creature he or she controls.
As long as enchanted player controls no creatures, creature spells he or she casts cost 2 less to cast.
Pros
-A blue way to handle creatures that is a perfect fit both in terms of mechanics and flavor, but also something we haven't seen before.
-Very grokkable to anyone familiar with the concept of overpopulation/population control.
-Works really well with Claustrophobia-type effects that neutralize creatures but keep them on the battlefield.
-Fun discovery potential for players when they realize the possibilities of casting this on themselves. I'm picturing a really neat moment where a blue mage enchants themselves with this and holds priority to cast a bunch of discounted Flash creatures at once.
(Slight) Cons
-Since this has a positive effect on a player with no creatures, I think "Population Control" would be a more fitting name--but only slightly, and Overpopulation is definitely cleaner.
-I really wish this was a global enchantment instead. Any deck that wants one side of this effect wants the other as well, and both effects are innocuous enough that I think they could both be in play at once without causing too many problems.
Body Flinger 3
Artifact - Equipment (R)
Equipped creature can't attack or block.
At the beginning of your combat step, sacrifice equipped creature. Body Flinger deals damage equal to the sacrificed creature's power to target creature or player.
Equip 2
I'm really not a fan of this one. It lets non-red decks have access to a Fling effect, but I can't think of a deck that would want such a thing, especially at this cost. 5 mana and sorcery speed that your opponent can disrupt with removal is a pretty steep asking price. It also doesn't feel like an equipment, more like an ordinary artifact that was repurposed for this challenge. A miss for me, I'm afraid.
2. IcariiFA
3. Legend
Enchantment — Aura Curse (R)
Enchant player
At the beginning of enchanted player’s upkeep, he or she puts a +1/+1 counter on target creature he or she controls that doesn’t have a +1/+1 counter on it.
Creatures enchanted player controls with +1/+1 counters on them can’t attack or block, and their activated abilities can’t be activated.
”I can’t go out there! What if my armor gets dirty?”
Mnematic Membrane 3
Artifact — Equipment (R)
2: Exile a card from your hand at random. Equipped creature gets +X/+X until end of turn, where X is the converted mana cost of the exiled card. Return the exiled card to your hand at the beginning of your next end step.
Equip 1
Your foes will relive your most painful memories.
Legendary Creature-Elemental Artificer
Whenever Avaati Vya deals combat damage to an opponent, you get that much E.
E: Avaati Vya gets +1/+0 until end of turn.
EE: Avaati Vya gains flying until end of turn.
4/6
Prototype Collector 5
Artifact
If you would get one or more E, you get twice that much E instead.
EEEEEEEE(8 energy),t: Search your graveyard, hand, and/or library for a card named Avaati Vya, Aether Pioneer and put it onto the battlefield.
Legendary Empyreal Voyager! Part of me wishes Avaati had trample, either naturally or activated, but that would have felt a bit derivative, so I don't blame you for leaving it off. I'm less of a fan of the +1/+0 ability though. Once you know Avaati is going to get through, there's no interesting choice to make (except for very rare instances), just dump all your energy into Avaati and you'll get it right back. I would rather have seen a EE activation cost, making up for the powered-down ability elsewhere if necessary.
I'm also not thrilled that Prototype Collector does nothing on its own. There's room for cards like that, but requiring other cards that use such a specific resource seems a little too restrictive. It's also a slight nonbo in an Avaati EDH deck since it can't summon Avaati from the command zone, which seems at cross-purposes with the message Prototype Collector sends.
Legendary Creature - Nightmare (r)
Skulk, indestructible
Other Nightmare creatures you control have +1/+1 and "When this creature dies, target opponent discards a card"
3/3
Pumpkinhead Spooks
Creature - Nightmare (c)
Pumpkinhead Spooks cannot be blocked and can't block.
If you control a creature named Pumpkin Nightlord, you may pay 2 life rather than pay Pumpkinhead Spooks mana cost.
1/1
While I'd love to see a return of Nightmares--I thought they were poorly used in Torment--Pumpkin Nightlord somehow strikes me as both overpowered and underwhelming. None of its abilities are all that compelling, but they combine for an unblockable (essentially), indestructible 3/3 for 3--well above curve, and it has a potent tribal ability on top of it. I think 1 toughness would have helped with the power level (easier to deal with with -X/-X effects) and given it a more ethereal quality.
Pumpkinhead Spooks follows a similar story, though it's got a good news/bad news situation going for it: the good news is that it isn't always overpowered, but the bad news is when it's not, it's a worse Tormented Soul. The ability granted by the Nightlord also doesn't seem to fit anything else either card can do. The result is two cards that I'm afraid don't excite me.
Legendary Creature - Dwarf Warrior (M)
Each creature you control assigns combat damage equal to its toughness rather than its power.
U: Target horse you control gets +0/+X until end of turn, where X is Daktar, Master of the Pasture’s toughness.
1BR: Create an 1/1 black and red Nightmare Horse creature token with haste and lifelink.
1/1
Pack Horse 1W
Creature - Horse (U)
When Pack Horse enters the battlefield, for the rest of the game, creatures named “Daktar, Master of the Pasture” you control enter the battlefield with an additional +1/+1 counter on them.
A deck can have any number of cards named Pack Horse.
2/2
Alright, General Tazri for your Horses... though there are interesting Allies in all five colors, and I don't think anyone's going to be upset if they can't put Breaching Hippocamp or Phantasmal Mount in their Ponies EDH deck. I'd love to know why all five colors are on Daktar. I have no doubt that there's a good reason, but I'm afraid it's not coming through for me. I mean, it's a bit of a stretch, but the +0/+X could have cost W, and since Green occasionally gets haste the token activation could have been 1GW. I have many questions about this card's design, and while I'm sure there were be lots of interesting answers, until then it all seems a bit chaotic.
Pack Horse seems fine, I like how the ability works well with Daktar's +0/+X ability, though I am curious why you didn't make this an emblem.
Legendary Creature - Centaur Spirit (M)
Paradon, the Headless is indestructible as long it has the greatest power among creatures.
T: Paradon fights target tapped creature.
When the mist rises in the Teshire wood, two things are sure to be found the next morn: hoofprints and a travelers head.
5/4
Paradon's Sickle 3
Legendary Artifact — Equipment (R)
Equipped creature gets +X/+X, where X is the number of creature cards in all graveyards. If equipped creature is named "Paradon, the Headless", it gets an additional +X/+X.
Equip — Sacrifice a creature.
I like these two quite a bit. Unique abilities, the synergy between Paradon and his Sickle works well in both gameplay and flavor, and I like that Paradon is a 5/4 just to add insult to injury for opposing 4-power creatures. As such, my critiques are going to seem rather nitpick-y.
On a very minor note, Paradon's first ability usually has "...or is tied for greatest" tacked on to avoid confusion. Unless your intention was for the Paradon to be indestructible if he had THE greatest power, full stop, in which case I believe "...as long as his power is greater than each other creature's power" (or something like that) is a more accurate, if clunkier, wording.
I also fear that Paradon might lead to inactive game states. Your opponent doesn't want to attack, because then you can get a two-for-one (blocking one creature and fighting another), but you don't want to attack with Paradon because then you CAN'T get a two-for-one. Somewhat paradoxically (Paradon-xically?), I think by making the fight ability worse (sorcery speed, I'm thinking), Paradon becomes better designed. But I could be conjuring something from nothing here, and overall this was a great entry.
(B) Legendary Creature - Demon (M)
You can't cast Tyreum the Sealed.
Flying, haste, indestructible
When Tyreum the Sealed enters the battlefield, destroy all creatures and planeswalkers.
He is apocalypse incarnate.
10/10
Ritual of Tyreum B
Sorcery (R)
As an additional cost to cast Ritual of Tyreum, sacrifice four creatures.
Name a Demon. Search your library, hand, graveyard, or exile for the named card and put it onto the battlefield.
If the named card is "Tyreum the Sealed", you may choose a copy of the named card that you own from outside the game instead.
Tyreum the Best-Reanimation-Target-Ever. Probably best Show and Tell target too, since you'll blow up whatever creature they pop in and be able to attack right away. I like the attempt at creating a Legend and build-around way to summon it, but it seems way too easy to work around in older Constructed formats, and I don't like that it's a Legend that can't be cast if he's your commander. I guess he and Phage can hang out and commiserate over it.
I do very much like a card asking you to name a card and then working differently depending on what you name, however.
There's neat design space there that I think you should explore in the future.
2BG
Legendary Creature - Elf Wizard
3/4
Deathtouch
Whenever Necrodemus or another creature card would be returned from your graveyard to your hand, you may put that card onto the battlefield instead.
You haven’t lived until you’ve died.
Necrodemic Chant (Common)
B
Sorcery
Choose one or both -
- Return target creature card from your graveyard to your hand.
- Search your library for a card named Necrodemus and put that card into your graveyard. Then shuffle your library.
Does Necrodemus' ability work like we want it to? Or does it need a rider like "As long as Necrodemus is on the battlefield or in your graveyard..." in order to return himself to the battlefield? Eh, let's assume he works just fine.What I can't assume is that everyone is going to play Necrodemic Chant properly. I can see so many casual players getting Necrodemus at their prerelease (yes, I know he's a Mythic), casting Chant, and hoping to put the creature they're returning right onto the battlefield, whether because they do the choices in the reverse order or because they're unclear on the timing. Which isn't to say that "teachable moment" cards like this can't be printed, but not usually at common, and they have to really pull their weight, which I'm not sure this does. I'm not dinging you too hard for this as there's a simple fix ("Return up to one target creature card from your graveyard to your hand. Then, you may search your library for a card named Necrodemus and put it into your graveyard and shuffle."), but I felt it worth noting.
But everything I've said so far is minor stuff. Good design on both cards, they're unique and work well separately and together. Nicely done.
2. Legend
3. Sheoldred
Wait--what? Am I missing something? This is the card I saw in Round 1:
Both of those abilities get significantly weaker for each non-Forest in your deck.
(Also I'm dashing these off between meetings at work, so unfortunately they're not as robust as I'd like.)
I think you missed the point of me suggesting it cost GGG. In most decks where Living Expanse would/should be played, you're going to end up paying GGG for it anyway, so if I had issues with balance I would have suggested increasing the CMC or adding a drawback. But the card feels much more monogreen than Dungrove Elder, and I felt that changing the mana cost from 2G to GGG would gel better with the feel of your card while still keeping the balance the same. Primalcrux and Khalni Hydra were brought up because, while Living Expanse had a lot of cosmetic similarities with Dungrove Elder, in terms of feel it felt closer to the other two. As you designed it, it felt like it existed in this weird middle ground where it looked like Dungrove Elder but felt like other cards. As such, I felt it would have been better served if it hand been pushed more strongly to one of the two sides, and suggesting a change to the mana cost seemed to me the cleanest way to accomplish that.
First of all, if my appreciation of a card requires "the right point of reference", is the design really that strong? If Time Spiral block taught us anything, it's that if a card requires previous knowledge of another, older card for the player to "get it", then that card is going to alienate a lot of people who look at it. Now, you could argue that everyone here is an experienced Magic player to some degree and should get the reference, but I try to base my critiques on if I think the player base as a whole would appreciate the card, not just CCL participants.
Second, if you were trying to make a riff on Dungrove Elder, and the first two cards that came to my mind weren't that, is that my fault as a "consumer" or your fault as a designer? Probably 50/50, if we're being honest. I know I saw at least one critique that picked up on the DE association right away and gave you props for it--nice! But for me, similarities aside, having two "monogreen" abilities on Living Expanse put it further in spirit from the Dungrove Elder camp and closer to the Primalcrux camp.
Stating that there is a "right" and "wrong" way to interpret a card design seems like a dicey proposition. Everyone who looks at a card is going to view it through a different lens, and unfortunately the lens I brought to Living Expanse didn't line up with the lens through which you designed it. But unless you put "This is a take on Dungrove Elder" as the flavortext, that's gonna happen on occasion. Bringing right and wrong into the mix just kinda seems like bad form, y'know?
I apologize; condescension was not my aim, and I must confess as I read it back it doesn't sound condescending in my head, but then authorial intent has a way of getting muddled when tone and inflection are taken away. I was going for explanatory, and perhaps to-the-point, but I can see how it could come off as condescending--especially "This is a decent design, but not quite as good at it thinks it is," which sounded clever as I was typing it and now just sounds... well, "clumsy" is being kind--and I shall apologize again.
That being said--you're right, I did miss the riff on Dungrove Elder. But the existence of Dungrove Elder proves my point, I feel. DE excels in a monogreen deck, but is at least decent in, say, a Gx Limited deck. Living Expanse can't say the same, since both of its abilities rely on Forests, as opposed to just one. Subtlety isn't green's strong suit, so it just felt weird to me to have text that so strongly shouted monogreen and a casting cost that didn't.
So my missteps in tone aside, I hope there's still some design advice to be salvaged there. Or, if I may twist a phrase with some mediocre wordplay, don't throw the baby out with the sasswater.