Results 91 to 120 of 591
Thread: MTG Share your Card Designs II
-
2019-07-28, 05:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
The subtype should be "Zatal" because if there were a "xeno" subtype that meant "from another planet" then creatures from other planes would absolutely qualify, including Mowu and all of the Eldrazi. Eldrazi is already a subtype, so adding an additional subtype that applies to all of them would be silly.
I use braces (also known as "curly brackets") to indicate sarcasm. If there are none present, I probably believe what I am saying; should it turn out to be inaccurate trivia, please tell me rather than trying to play along with an apparent joke I don't know I'm making.
-
2019-07-28, 05:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
1RU Zatal Exploratory Vessel
Artifact-Vehicle
Flying
Landfall-Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, put an exploration counter on target permanent and crew Zatal Exploratory Vessel.
Crew 2
3/2
RU Zatal Surgeon
Creature Zatal Cleric
At the beginning of your upkeep, permanents with exploration counters
phase out.
2/1
1U Zatal Investigation
Instant
Put an exploration counter on target permanent. Draw a card.
1R Zatal Abduction
Instant
All permanents with exploration counters phase out.
R Zatal War Monger
Zatal Warrior
If a permanent in play has an exploration counter, Zatal War Monger has +1/+1 and haste.
1/1
2UU Zatal Diplomat
Zatal Cleric
At the beginning of your upkeep if there are 10 or more permanents with exploration counters on them, you win the game.
1/1
R Zatal Warstrike
sorcery
Deal two damage to target. Put an exploration counter on it if it is a permanent.
2R Zatal Warship
Artifact-Vehicle
flying
Crew 1
X is equal to the number of exploration counters in play.
x/4
Xiasyn, Zatal Overlord
UURR
Legendary Creature- Zatal Warrior
When Xiasyn enters the battlefield, place an exploration counter on target permanent. Then draw a card for each exploration counter in play.
5/5
-
2019-07-28, 05:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Warstrike is missing the word "any"
I use braces (also known as "curly brackets") to indicate sarcasm. If there are none present, I probably believe what I am saying; should it turn out to be inaccurate trivia, please tell me rather than trying to play along with an apparent joke I don't know I'm making.
-
2019-07-28, 05:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Any reason for having the mana cost before the name?
-
2019-07-28, 06:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Not really, I can switch it if need be.
The basic tribal idea is that Zatal are a blue-red aligned race of "advanced" magic-scientists (lile aetherborn.) They are exploring a more primitive green-white planet, and are politically split between annexation through subterfuge and diplomacy or through direct conquest.
Mechanics are landfall, exploration, phasing.
White-green are going to be natives with landfall, Purge (reverse proliferate,) and landhome (an actual drawback mechanic!)
Black are a demonic cabal who want the war faction of the Zatal to win.
-
2019-07-29, 02:53 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
That's how they are on the cards, so I don't see why you would want to do it any other way.
Mechanics are landfall, exploration, phasing.
Exploration counters is used for phasing stuff out I guess, which also makes it an awful mechanic
It is also very heavy mana denial, which isn't something wizards like doing.
Much of your exploration counter synergy also starts being a downside the moment the opponent can put exploration counters on your cards. This is bad design.
White-green are going to be natives with landfall, Purge (reverse proliferate,) and landhome (an actual drawback mechanic!)
Landhome is an awful mechanic that isn't used anymore for a reason.
-
2019-07-30, 06:32 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Carlisle, Englund
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
"Three blokes walk into a pub. One of them is a little bit stupid, and the whole scene unfolds with a tedious inevitability." - Bill Bailey
Androgeus' 3 step guide to Doctor Who speculation:
Spoiler- Pick a random character
- State that person is The Rani
- goto 1
-
2019-07-30, 07:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
I liked phasing, it got a bum rap imo.
There is two mana denial cards in there, one that only protects you on your turn. The other one should probably go up in cost to 4, phasing out your opponent on their turn is close to Cryptic Command in power.
Landhome I actually really liked, it has relevant draw backs. Something like a 2U 6/6 with landhome is fairly balanced if you include spreading seas and seas claim type cards, as opposed to Rotting Regisaur or master of the feast which does the same thing for a tiny drawback.
Hmm, I see your point on the exploration mechanic in mirror games.
-
2019-07-31, 03:38 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
It didn't it was a bad mechanic. If you're ever playing your set with people, they will likely agree that phasing is a bad mechanic.
There is two mana denial cards in there, one that only protects you on your turn. The other one should probably go up in cost to 4, phasing out your opponent on their turn is close to Cryptic Command in power.
Exploration counters do too many different things. Doing a few things are okay, but it should have a more direct design.
Landhome I actually really liked, it has relevant draw backs. Something like a 2U 6/6 with landhome is fairly balanced if you include spreading seas and seas claim type cards, as opposed to Rotting Regisaur or master of the feast which does the same thing for a tiny drawback.
Landwalk was a bad mechanic that they stopped using because it was too high variance, and landhome is that taken to 11.
Also, by saying that Rotting Regisaur and Master of the Feast only have a tiny drawback you've made me wonder if you've actually played magic, because those claims are just impressively untrue.
Hmm, I see your point on the exploration mechanic in mirror games.
-
2019-08-02, 09:38 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2013
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Rotting Regisaur's mechanic is a potential upside, both through direct discard synergy like Madness and through having the cards in the graveyard, and card draw is often easy enough that you'll be able to feed it without issue.
In black-carrying control shells, Master of the Feast is also easily enough mitigated due to the scale of discard you can stack, especially since they draw the card on your turn. So what if they get an extra card per turn, mostly means you can actually use all your discard and some counterspells.
The use of Landhome, paired with effects like Sea's Claim to deal with it while offering mana disruption, means that otherwise-unreasonably huge creatures can be printed that are dependent on a basic combo mechanic in changing land types, which can also feature as a color-fixing and ramp mechanic, depending on the phrasing of the effect.
-
2019-08-02, 01:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
It has a potential upside, but it is a downside, and a large one at that.
Yes faithless looting discarding cards is often used for synergy, but that doesn't mean the card wouldn't be way better if it just drew two cards without discarding anything.
both through direct discard synergy like Madness and through having the cards in the graveyard,
and card draw is often easy enough that you'll be able to feed it without issue.
Effects that draw a card every turn cost around four mana, 3 mana if they come with a downside, Phyrexian Arena being one of the better.
Also, your 3 mana 7/6 is a lot less impressive if it actually requires two cards and a two time payment of 3 mana, along with 1 life every turn.
The best way to "feed" it would be dark confidant, but that's a lot worse than just playing another three drop, like Knight of the Reliquary or Seasoned Pyromancer, and just drawing twice as many cards as your opponent.
If you are just wasting a card every turn on Regisaur it is not a very good card. It is not powerful enough to outweight the straight card disadvantage.
In black-carrying control shells, Master of the Feast is also easily enough mitigated due to the scale of discard you can stack, especially since they draw the card on your turn.
If you plan is to keep the opponent off cards Master of the Feast in an unbelievable nonbo.
Also, decks that do that aren't control decks, they are combo/prison. We talked about this recently in the main thread.
The only deck that actually played Master of the Feast was a Suicide Black deck that aimed at killing the opponent as quickly as possible, meaning master got fewer triggers, just like the decks playing Goblin Guide are burn/zoo decks that try to make him trigger as few times as possible to mitigrate the downside.
So what if they get an extra card per turn, mostly means you can actually use all your discard and some counterspells.
The use of Landhome, paired with effects like Sea's Claim to deal with it while offering mana disruption, means that otherwise-unreasonably huge creatures can be printed that are dependent on a basic combo mechanic in changing land types, which can also feature as a color-fixing and ramp mechanic, depending on the phrasing of the effect.
No, it does not allow that for the same reason landwalk isn't used anymore, it was too high variance. Landhome was this but taken to 11, and instead of being a potential unblockable it's the reverse, needing the land or rendering your creature basically useless.
You're also ignoring that landhome was literally such a bad mechanic they removed it from the rules, no longer being keyworded. Look at the oracle text of any card that used to have landhome, it is now written out in full.Last edited by Ninjaman; 2019-08-02 at 01:46 PM.
-
2019-08-07, 12:38 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Saint Verona
1W
Legendary Human Cleric
When Saint Verona enters exile create a 4/4 flying angel token under your control.
0/1
Verona, Eternal Guide
WWW
Legendary Eldrazi Cleric
You may cast Verona from exile. When Verona enters the battlefield, if cast from exile you may return target card from exile to its owner's hand.
1/1
"I have seen beyond."
Kasta, Sea Witch
1U
Legendary Human Wizard
T: Target creature becomes a 1/1 frog and loses all of its abilities as long as Kasta remains tapped.
You may choose not to until Kasta during your untap step.
0/1
Kasta's Divination Well
UU
At the beginning of your upkeep you may transform a none-frog creature you control into a 1/1 frog with no abilities. If you do, scry 3.
"And do I help them? Yes indeed."
Mute Siren
U
Human
2UU: Mute Siren becomes a siren and gains flying. Take control of target human. Activate only if Mute Siren is not a siren.
1/1Last edited by Tvtyrant; 2019-08-07 at 01:30 PM.
-
2019-08-07, 03:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Correct wording is:
"When Saint Verona is put into exile from the battlefield.."
Angel should start with a capital letter, and it should specify that it is a creature token.
Verona, Eternal Guide
WWW
Legendary Eldrazi Cleric
You may cast Verona from exile. When Verona enters the battlefield, if cast from exile you may return target card from exile to its owner's hand.
1/1
"I have seen beyond."
Kasta, Sea Witch
1U
Legendary Human Wizard
T: Target creature becomes a 1/1 frog and loses all of its abilities as long as Kasta remains tapped.
You may choose not to until Kasta during your untap step.
0/1
Wording should be:
"Target creature loses all abilities and becomes a blue Frog with base power and toughness 1/1 for as long as Kasta remains tapped"
Balance wise it seems fair.
Kasta's Divination Well
UU
At the beginning of your upkeep you may transform a none-frog creature you control into a 1/1 frog with no abilities. If you do, scry 3.
"And do I help them? Yes indeed."
Upkeep triggers are being made as mainstep triggers now.
Think the correct wording would be:
"At the beginning of your precombat mainstep, you may have up to one target non-Frog creature you control lose all abilities and become a blue Frog with base power and toughness 1/1. If you do, scry 3"
I don't see the point of this card.
Mute Siren
U
Human
2UU: Mute Siren becomes a siren and gains flying. Take control of target human. Activate only if Mute Siren is not a siren.
1/1
"When Mute Siren becomes monstrous it becomes a Siren instead of its other creature types. Gain control of target Human creature."
I'm not a fan of the creature type hate, nor am I a fan of the permanent steal. I would make it steal any creature, but only as long as you controlled Mute Siren.
What's up with the weird formatting? It should be:
Verona, Eternal Guide - WWW
Legendary Creature Eldrazi Cleric
You may cast Verona from exile. When Verona enters the battlefield, if cast from exile you may return target card from exile to its owner's hand.
"I have seen beyond."
1/1
-
2019-08-07, 03:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Upkeep triggers are absolutely not mainstep triggers. Standard currently has 31 upkeep triggers, including the Rotting Regisaur we just talked about.
Monstrous is not evergreen, it is set specific.
The cauldron is an artifact, I just forgot that line. It is meant to allow you to dig deep by reducing creatures you control to tiny frogs. The idea is that they are peering into the future but the price is being transformed into creatures that cannot benefit from the knowledge.
-
2019-08-08, 02:21 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
You're absolutely right. I remembered that they made mainstep triggers with the Sagas, but I wasn't aware they ditched it again so quickly.
Monstrous is not evergreen, it is set specific.
Even if you don't make it monstrous I suggested other changes.
The cauldron is an artifact, I just forgot that line. It is meant to allow you to dig deep by reducing creatures you control to tiny frogs. The idea is that they are peering into the future but the price is being transformed into creatures that cannot benefit from the knowledge.
It's still a weird card, but I get that was what you were going for.
You didn't answer why you were using the wrong formatting.
-
2019-08-17, 02:56 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
How would you guys word an ability that prevented a creature from being destroyed by "destroy" effects, but not damage?
-
2019-08-17, 03:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2017
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
That wouldn't be easy. If the wiki is anything to go by, the 'destroy' condition is triggered both when a card says 'destroy target creature' and when a creature takes lethal damage, so it'd be tricky to separate those two.
Maybe something like 'target creature gains indestructible' and 'Whenever this creature takes damage, put that many -0/-1 counters on it. Remove all -0/-1 counters from this creature at the end of each turn.'Last edited by DeTess; 2019-08-17 at 03:53 AM.
Jasnah avatar by Zea Mays
-
2019-08-17, 04:53 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Yes, I figured it wouldn't be easy, so I figured I would ask for suggestions.
Don't know if something like "if this creature would be destroyed by an effect that says "destroy", instead it isn't." But I figure it won't.
Maybe something like 'target creature gains indestructible' and 'Whenever this creature takes damage, put that many -0/-1 counters on it. Remove all -0/-1 counters from this creature at the end of each turn.'
Whenever this creature takes damage, it looses indestructible until end of turn.
Would accomplish some of that, but a lot nicer. It would of course mean you could just ping it and then murder it.
Indestructible
If this creature has damage on it equal to or greater than its toughness, it loses indestructible until end of turn.
Not sure if that would be the correct way to word this. It also stops deathtouch, but that's fine.
If this creature would be destroyed by a spell or ability, instead it's not destroyed.
This might work, since damage would kill it as a state-based effect, but it's confusing since it seems like burn spells wouldn't kill it while they do. That might be fixable with reminder text.
-
2019-08-17, 11:25 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Spoiler: Hypothetical background-explanationNew Phyrexia learns of the Eldrazi; I don't know how they learn of them, but they do. As a result:
Vorinclex notices just how obscenely powerful they are.
Elesh Norn notices that they contain no colored mana, interpreting this as "purity."
Jin-gitaxias also knows about Original Phyrexia, and somehow comes to the conclusion that it means collaborating with with someone who can go back in time would be a good idea.
EDIT: Just realized it should be 13/13, not 12/12. It's probably still strong enough, right?Last edited by enderlord99; 2019-08-17 at 11:27 AM.
I use braces (also known as "curly brackets") to indicate sarcasm. If there are none present, I probably believe what I am saying; should it turn out to be inaccurate trivia, please tell me rather than trying to play along with an apparent joke I don't know I'm making.
-
2019-08-17, 12:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Location
- Thulcandra
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Blue Ghost, Lawful Good generalist wizard, at your service.
Love wins. S'agapo.
I make MtG cards. My portfolio
Avatar by AsteriskAmp.
-
2019-08-17, 02:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
I like this. It's cleaner than the one I did where it was a trigger.
I'm wondering if the correct wording would be "~ has indestructible unless it has been dealt damage this turn."
I'm also curious if it would be possible to define lethal damage.
Searching on gatherer Ogre Enforcer is the only creature to refer to lethal damage, but it means there is a precedent for it.
"~ has indestructible as long as lethal damage isn't marked on it."
or
"~ has indestructible unless lethal damage is marked on it."
-
2019-08-17, 09:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
-
2019-08-17, 09:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- Esslingen, Germany
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Seems to me Ogre Enforcer is already exactly what you need. "CARDNAME can't be destroyed unless lethal damage is marked on it." And you're done. No need to reference the indestructible keyword or anything.
Last edited by Silfir; 2019-08-17 at 09:54 PM.
This signature is boring. The stuff I write might not be. Warning: Ponies.
-
2019-08-18, 02:29 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Indestructible means can't be destroyed. It's
shorterthan writing it out. Ogre Enforcer writes it out because it still dies to destroy effects.
CARDNAME can't be destroyed unless
CARDNAME has indestructible unless
The tiniest bit shorter, but I guess easier to understand, maybe. I could see it being either way.
That would work, but it is a quite confusing wording, as it doesn't look like a lightning bolt should be able to destroy it, but it is.Last edited by Ninjaman; 2019-08-18 at 02:35 AM.
-
2019-08-18, 04:17 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- Esslingen, Germany
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Yeah, but indestructible isn't what your creature has. It has some weird kind of halfway thing that I don't personally understand the point of. If you're reaching into the guts of a keyword to take it apart, it's better to use specific rules text that doesn't reference the keyword at all.
Or using your logic: Your creature writes it out because it still dies to damage.Last edited by Silfir; 2019-08-18 at 04:22 AM.
This signature is boring. The stuff I write might not be. Warning: Ponies.
-
2019-08-18, 12:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
But it does, it just loses it sometimes.
I can see your point, but you could also argue that people might see it spelled out and wonder why it didn't have indestructible.
Or using your logic: Your creature writes it out because it still dies to damage.
"Ogre Enforcer can't be destroyed by lethal damage unless lethal damage dealt by a single source is marked on it."
That "by lethal damage" clause means you can't write indestructible on the card. You can write indestructible on my card. If it's correct to do so is another matter.
But another argument I could see for using:
"~ can't be destroyed unless lethal damage is marked on it."
is that it would be easier to keyword if more cards were made with it.
-
2019-08-18, 12:55 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- Esslingen, Germany
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Your last point is the main thing. There's just no benefit to involving the indestructible keyword if the creature can, in fact, be destroyed.
Consider the rules text of 702.12:
702.12a Indestructible is a static ability.
702.12b A permanent with indestructible can’t be destroyed. Such permanents aren’t destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the state-based action that checks for lethal damage (see rule 704.5g).[...]
The creature never actually has indestructible as it's in the rulebook - it has basically 50% of indestructible. This is unlike, say, Ahn-Crop Invader. That creature has first strike "half" of the time, when it's your turn; but when it does it's actually first strike, exactly how it's found in the rulebook.
If you find yourself deviating from the rulebook as you modify how a keyword works, it should be a no-brainer to drop the keyword entirely. If only because, as you say, it allows you to turn the ability into a new keyword more easily.Last edited by Silfir; 2019-08-18 at 12:56 PM.
This signature is boring. The stuff I write might not be. Warning: Ponies.
-
2019-08-18, 01:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
-
2019-08-18, 03:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2018
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
"~ has indestructible unless lethal damage is marked on it" is a) totally correct wording and b) what I'd actually use. Notably, there's no problem with keywording this, because there's no rule saying keywords can't give out other keywords (see also riot). However, I wouldn't want that ability to be common enough to be keyworded.
That's a silly argument. So long as the condition under which it has indestructible is true (namely, it doesn't have lethal damage on it) it has actual indestructible. It's like saying that Paradise Druid never actually has real hexproof because if you can tap it without targeting it, then you can target it with your second spell, so it can be targeted, so long as you do something else first.
-
2019-08-18, 06:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2012
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
I have an idea for a card, but I'm not sure what color it would be. It'd be either an enchantment or a creature (or an enchantment creature), but the main line of text is this:
When X enters the battlefield, each player chooses a color. Until X leaves the battlefield, each player may only pay for generic mana costs with the color they chose.Last edited by mythmonster2; 2019-08-18 at 06:42 PM.