MTG Share your Card Designs II

[Carl]

So we had a thread created this for a couple of years ago but it's died out in the meantime. Now my interest has gotten reawakened due to arena this feels like a good time to bring it back. I think it died out mainly because of a tendency for everyone interested to burn through idea's a bit.

There are obviously other MTG threads, here's a quick list of ones i'm aware of.

The main discussion thread here.

And the Contest thread here.

And lastly the Color Pie Philosophy thread here.

I'll start off the discussion with a pair of cards of mine from a card file i'm putting together, (hence the card code names, the file has rarities and quantities put in but 99% of the cards are just a name, colour/s and rarity at the moment):

Spoiler: Card 1

Show

After assigning all my card codes i realised i needed a new keyword as the single one i had allready, (see below on the next card for more on that), wasn't sufficient for how many cards i was going to fill. And thats fine. But it did mean i needed to come up with one and do some design space exploration. At the same time since the set didn't have a lot of mono colour i had some mono color space to fill and green in particular needs at least one big creature and green themed dragons are a moderate nuisance thematically so i had everything i needed to fill in a slot and some design space to explore. Both thematically for the dragons and from the PoV of the multi-colour focus of the set i wanted to avoid this being a card that dominated primarily via pure board presence so i set it up for you to want to kill it and for it to hurt in a way that makes your opponent not want to have to deal with it too much. It's very much a deal with it and you get clobbered, don't deal with it and you get clobbered type of card. Obviously flying in green is freakishly rare, but mono green dragons are an acceptable break from the colour pie there.

My main problem is costing it. I originally had it at 3GGG, but i was worried that was a bit cheap.

Spoiler: Card 2

Show

Not actually a single card but 3 variations on a single card concept. Reusing some fluff from an old piece and want to find a home for it.







I won't lie the fluff is the main reason i'm even attempting this card. That said it's in a colour combination that both from the colours and the the importance of the combo to the set needs to be kept from getting too flashy. Agan creatures you want to throw away are a good way of providing reasonable power without being to big.

At it's heart it's a reactive creature that meant to get itself killed and is thus the biggest power 1T creature i can squeeze into the CMC. The first version is the basic form. My main concern there is that compared to ball lightning, (the closest equivalent i could find), it's a bit lower on power and lacks trample, but flash is a bit more flexible than haste and it doesn't have the forced sacrifice, however it's dual colour. Basically CMC 2 feels too cheap but 3 feels too much. The two followups are attempts to address this. The first adds a white aligned keyword, but your probably not going to get a lot of use out of it unless your opponent lets it through for some reason. The third is a variation on the second giving it more of a late game use and putting your opponent in the position of having to make a tough choice, but we may be straying into too powerful for the CMC and i really don't want to go to CMC 4.

[Silfir]

I think a 5/1 Flash body is a bit much for 2 CMC. There's a limit to how hard bodies that come down for two mana can be allowed to hit, even if they are "easy to block" - Red/White excels at cheap aggro, and bypassing blockers through either kill spells or "target creature can't block" effects - even if a single attack with this connects, it's likely to be back-breaking given how easy it is to get on the board. Well, generally speaking. If you want it to cost two mana, give it Defender - it fits the flavor anyway. Dealing 5 damage to an attacker at 2 mana isn't an outrageous thing for Red/White to do, whether by means of an instant or a Flash creature.

On the big green flampler, the death trigger seems fairly inconsequential. Obviously I don't know what blessings are (presumably, enchantments with tap abilities), but it doesn't seem like the kind of consolation prize you want after having your game-winning creature killed. Any deck that plays an 8 CMC creature will devote a fair amount of resources to ramping it out, so how likely are you to have blessings, other than blessings that tap for mana?

[enderlord99]

If there were a land that, instead of a mana ability, had "{T}: You gain (_) life" but it also had "At the beginning of your end step, if you did not pay any life this turn, you lose (_+1) life" (such that the net life loss would be one if you couldn't pay life for any purpose but also didn't leave the thing unused like an idiot) what should "_" equal?

Is the concept even workable?

[Carl]

I think a 5/1 Flash body is a bit much for 2 CMC. There's a limit to how hard bodies that come down for two mana can be allowed to hit, even if they are "easy to block" - Red/White excels at cheap aggro, and bypassing blockers through either kill spells or "target creature can't block" effects - even if a single attack with this connects, it's likely to be back-breaking given how easy it is to get on the board. Well, generally speaking. If you want it to cost two mana, give it Defender - it fits the flavor anyway. Dealing 5 damage to an attacker at 2 mana isn't an outrageous thing for Red/White to do, whether by means of an instant or a Flash creature.

On the big green flampler, the death trigger seems fairly inconsequential. Obviously I don't know what blessings are (presumably, enchantments with tap abilities), but it doesn't seem like the kind of consolation prize you want after having your game-winning creature killed. Any deck that plays an 8 CMC creature will devote a fair amount of resources to ramping it out, so how likely are you to have blessings, other than blessings that tap for mana?

Wheeee happy ponies again.

1. Yeah that was a major concern, mono red isn't going to be big thing overall but it's still a lot of aggro to generate for 2 mana even if you need 1 white in there. I'm not heart set on CMC2 but i don't want to go above 3. My main concern with Defender would be the flexibility aspect. Cards have become increasingly flexible over the years and whilst Defender makes thematic sense, (to a degree, once a threat shows up they're anything but defensive), it's very restrictive. I'd rather buff up a bit to make CMC3 a better fit than do that if possibble.

2. Without going into excessive detail a quick calculation shows that roughly 25% of the cards within the set are earmarked to become blessings, that may well, and probably will change a little as i trim things over time or add somthing. That said one comment you made definitely resonated. The idea of this as a game winning card. It's meant to be more of a mid game item. Hence the initial CC6 cost, TBH the card i was thinking of strongly when designing it was Giganotosaurus, sacraficing some of the body size for on the card rules.

If there were a land that, instead of a mana ability, had "{T}: You gain (_) life" but it also had "At the beginning of your end step, if you did not pay any life this turn, you lose (_+1) life" (such that the net life loss would be one if you couldn't pay life for any purpose but also didn't leave the thing unused like an idiot) what should "_" equal?

Is the concept even workable?

Only in a set that has a lot of effects that care about life gain and/or life loss that you can use as trigger conditions. It's a neat concept but effectively worthless on it's own.

[Silfir]

2. Without going into excessive detail a quick calculation shows that roughly 25% of the cards within the set are earmarked to become blessings, that may well, and probably will change a little as i trim things over time or add somthing. That said one comment you made definitely resonated. The idea of this as a game winning card. It's meant to be more of a mid game item. Hence the initial CC6 cost, TBH the card i was thinking of strongly when designing it was Giganotosaurus, sacraficing some of the body size for on the card rules.

Gigantosaurus is very different from this card since it doesn't have any form of evasion. That's what allows it to be so huge despite the 5 CMC. (That and locking it to mono-green decks.) A 6/6 Flying Trample plays completely differently; such a creature would be expected to end the game by itself.

Similarly, a midrange deck can play a 5 CMC creature, but it will never make it to eight mana. To play an 8 mana creature reliably you basically need a dedicated ramp deck. Even in Limited anyone drafting it to play it would also look to be drafting ramp cards. It's basically not worth it to play an 8 mana creature unless it can end the game by itself. Which this creature can, so the cost isn't inappropriate.

I was reminded more of Pelakka Wurm, on which the death trigger serves the purpose of making it very likely that your 7 mana investment at least results in a 2-for-1 (one Wurm for a kill spell out of the opponent and a card from your deck). This is an alternative to giving it some form of resilience that makes very hard to interact with, like Carnage Tyrant's Hexproof, or Zetalpa's Indestructible. (Zetalpa is a good example of how ridiculous you can make 8 mana creatures and still have them be balanced.)

The concept of "midrange dragon creature with that adds value on death if you play blessings" would be better served by a 3/3 Flying for 2GG, or something like that.



Wither, incidentally, seems quite redundant on something that big and tramply. Chances are nothing that would attempt to block it would survive the experience anyway.

[Carl]

Gigantosaurus is very different from this card since it doesn't have any form of evasion. That's what allows it to be so huge despite the 5 CMC. (That and locking it to mono-green decks.) A 6/6 Flying Trample plays completely differently; such a creature would be expected to end the game by itself.

Similarly, a midrange deck can play a 5 CMC creature, but it will never make it to eight mana. To play an 8 mana creature reliably you basically need a dedicated ramp deck. Even in Limited anyone drafting it to play it would also look to be drafting ramp cards. It's basically not worth it to play an 8 mana creature unless it can end the game by itself. Which this creature can, so the cost isn't inappropriate.

I was reminded more of Pelakka Wurm, on which the death trigger serves the purpose of making it very likely that your 7 mana investment at least results in a 2-for-1 (one Wurm for a kill spell out of the opponent and a card from your deck). This is an alternative to giving it some form of resilience that makes very hard to interact with, like Carnage Tyrant's Hexproof, or Zetalpa's Indestructible. (Zetalpa is a good example of how ridiculous you can make 8 mana creatures and still have them be balanced.)

The concept of "midrange dragon creature with that adds value on death if you play blessings" would be better served by a 3/3 Flying for 2GG, or something like that.



Wither, incidentally, seems quite redundant on something that big and tramply. Chances are nothing that would attempt to block it would survive the experience anyway.

Peluka worm was indeed my other inspiration source, i was sort of trying to blend the two concepts. Certainly i could make it smaller but my two main concerns are that A) the deck does need at least one decent size mono-green and B) Small dragons feel like a bit of an oxymoron. Wither wa me playing with a poison concept for it. When i think a forest themed dragon i tend to go to Wood Elves dragons from Warhammer automatically.

EDIT: Honestly i started it as a 6/6 flyer for CMC6 and then decided to try and tack on Empower, it may have been a mistake as that was the push behind trample. Make your opponent want to block it.

[Carl]

How about:

Spoiler: Dragon alt

Show

Much more direct riff off giganotosaurus, half the size and power at the same cost but with Flying.

[enderlord99]

Only in a set that has a lot of effects that care about life gain and/or life loss that you can use as trigger conditions. It's a neat concept but effectively worthless on it's own.

Does it need tons of such triggers even if there are lots of things that require (or just allow, as with Phyrexian mana) to pay life, and thus avoid the downside?

[Tvtyrant]

Russhi, Emperor's Champion
WW
Legendary Human Samurai
2/1
Indestructible
Provoke

Toshi, Shogun's Assassin
BB
Legendary Human Ninja
1/3
Deathtouch
Provoke

[Carl]

Does it need tons of such triggers even if there are lots of things that require (or just allow, as with Phyrexian mana) to pay life, and thus avoid the downside?

Well things that require you to pay life are one part of exactly what i mean.

The thing is it's only useful if you have a fair few ways of paying life to put in alongside it, and since paying life is primarily a black thing fitting this into a land cycle is tricky.

Also those ways of paying life have to be worth having in your deck as well. A card like this is literally worse than usless on it's own, you've got to be able to put a lot of reliable ways of playing with one aspect of its efects into your deck as well so you can leverage it to do somthing that is a net positive.

Russhi, Emperor's Champion
WW
Legendary Human Samurai
2/1
Indestructible
Provoke

Toshi, Shogun's Assassin
BB
Legendary Human Ninja
1/3
Deathtouch
Provoke

Off the cuff the second one doesn't look too bad, i'd want to do a bit of digging to really go yay or nay, but it doesn't scream problem at me at a glance as your opponent can choose to block it with more than just the provoke'd creature to ensure it dies. Geat early aggro or a way to kill a choice creature, but not much else.

The first one however screams problem at me. Indestructible shuts down most answers from most decks and that means it can pretty much go on a mass murdering spree against small creatures and then be used as a chump blocker when those dry up. It screams too much power for CMC 2 for me.

[Ninjaman]

If there were a land that, instead of a mana ability, had "{T}: You gain (_) life" but it also had "At the beginning of your end step, if you did not pay any life this turn, you lose (_+1) life" (such that the net life loss would be one if you couldn't pay life for any purpose but also didn't leave the thing unused like an idiot) what should "_" equal?

Is the concept even workable?

No, it is not. The entire point is that life is much less valuable than mana, so being able to pay life instead of mana is powerful. That also means that being able to pay mana instead of life is not very powerful. If a deck cared about life more than mana, they would just play cards that gained life.

How about:

Spoiler: Dragon alt

Show

Much more direct riff off giganotosaurus, half the size and power at the same cost but with Flying.

Green only get big flying dragons in sets that are all about big flying dragons. So far that has happened twice. I wouldn't go down that road.
Also, it sucks. Look at Baneslayer Angel and Thundermaw Hellkite. You could push it much more.

[Ninjaman]

Russhi, Emperor's Champion
WW
Legendary Human Samurai
2/1
Indestructible
Provoke

Toshi, Shogun's Assassin
BB
Legendary Human Ninja
1/3
Deathtouch
Provoke

I like how they bounce off each other. I like how Russhi is good at trading with lots of small creatures, and Toshi is good for trading with one big.
I don't think Russhi is necessarily too strong, but it is definitely the strongest of the two by a reasonable margin, and I think that hurts the design a bit.

[Tvtyrant]

I like how they bounce off each other. I like how Russhi is good at trading with lots of small creatures, and Toshi is good for trading with one big.
I don't think Russhi is necessarily too strong, but it is definitely the strongest of the two by a reasonable margin, and I think that hurts the design a bit.

I see your point. I could make Russhi a 1/1 instead, it would be significantly less threatning and retain the "two masters unable to beat each other" effect.

Toshi is hard to improve without making him more complicated, I like that they are simple as well.

[enderlord99]

I'm still confused about both how the thing that makes you lose if you run out of it is less valuable than the thing that doesn't make you lose if you run out of it, let alone how being unable to win the game ever is only a minor drawback and not a huge one.

[Ninjaman]

I'm still confused about both how the thing that makes you lose if you run out of it is less valuable than the thing that doesn't make you lose if you run out of it, let alone how being unable to win the game ever is only a minor drawback and not a huge one.

You're unsure why Dark Ritual is a good card and Healing Salve isn't?

[Man_Over_Game]

You're unsure why Dark Ritual is a good card and Healing Salve isn't?

Someone better than me put it in these terms, when describing a card like Necropotence and spending 19 life to fish for a win condition:

"It doesn't matter if you win the game with only 1 HP. It only matters that you win".

It's about tempo. If you can get more momentum than your opponent, you can control the game. Losing life doesn't slow down your momentum, but losing mana does. Losing life might mean a gamble, but losing mana is a nearly guaranteed loss.

[Carl]

No, it is not. The entire point is that life is much less valuable than mana, so being able to pay life instead of mana is powerful. That also means that being able to pay mana instead of life is not very powerful. If a deck cared about life more than mana, they would just play cards that gained life.


Green only get big flying dragons in sets that are all about big flying dragons. So far that has happened twice. I wouldn't go down that road.
Also, it sucks. Look at Baneslayer Angel and Thundermaw Hellkite. You could push it much more.

I wouldn't say set needs a dragon focus to hve a green dragon fro looking at the gatherer. Thats said i'm not set on it or anything and don't necessarily mind dropping it. And i was being super conservative, mono green and flyers really don't go together well.

Someone better than me put it in these terms, when describing a card like Necropotence and spending 19 life to fish for a win condition:

"It doesn't matter if you win the game with only 1 HP. It only matters that you win".

It's about tempo. If you can get more momentum than your opponent, you can control the game. Losing life doesn't slow down your momentum, but losing mana does. Losing life might mean a gamble, but losing mana is a nearly guaranteed loss.

This. It's really hard to explain or comprehend till you've seen it in action and it requires a deck built to exploit it for the most part to make it really obvious, but once you see it it's really obvious. I'll have a dig around in a little bit and try and find the skybilz game on her twitch from the other night where someone abused doom whisperer and a few other cards to squeak the win out. (Poor Sky though, she's the very definition of insane bad luck in her tournaments).

[enderlord99]

You're unsure why Dark Ritual is a good card and Healing Salve isn't?

Of course the ratio isn't 1-to-1; you don't start with 20 mana, after all!

The thing I'm having trouble grocking is how no amount of life could possibly reach a single point of mana in value.

I also don't get Abyssal Persecutor, but that's a seperate issue and an explanation has already been attempted.

[Carl]

Of course the ratio isn't 1-to-1; you don't start with 20 mana, after all!

The thing I'm having trouble grocking is how no amount of life could possibly reach a single point of mana in value.

I also don't get Abyssal Persecutor, but that's a seperate issue and an explanation has already been attempted.

The thing you have to understand is that at more than mildly optimized play levels the overall tempo of the game is rather high. You can only play one land per turn, playing the land you came up with means your mana curves up less sharply, that means you have access to less powerful spells than you otherwise would. And that means what your land does has to make up for that, and that requires that you can use it's effects in a way that offsets that. The problem is thats a tough bar to meet. There's a reason Dark Ritual, Channel, Necropotence, and a few others that require you to pay life besides are banned or restricted in every format out there that they could otherwise be used in. Paying life for any effect at even 2 life to 1 mana of effect is hilariously powerful in general, and anything better than that is considered outright broken pretty much 100% of the time. Incidentally Phyrexian Mana is considered pretty broken generally and is almost certain never to return.

And that makes your card need to be part of an entire set themed around playing with your life total and interactions around that because without several effects interacting with it it's not really powerful enough unless interacting with somthing completely broken.

Linky to the twitch stream i mentioned at the right time stamp for the game: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/442404321?t=3h20m15s

[Tvtyrant]

I rather like Kel, seems like a fun punisher card against control. Just needs a way to give everything phasing.

[Blue Ghost]

I think the core idea of a card that can pay life for you is workable, and a pretty cool design idea. But I would say that if it's a land, it really needs to be able to generate mana. It's a hard and fast rule of modern Magic design that all lands have to generate mana, and I think it's a necessary one to keep in place. It's not just about power level; one can easily imagine a utility land with a powerful enough effect to be worth playing even if it never generated any mana. The problem is that few people would enjoy playing with such a card. Missing a land drop is never a fun experience, and playing a land that does not generate mana is equivalent to willfully missing a land drop. In early Zendikar design, Wizards experimented with an ability that cost you a land drop to activate, and concluded that it was a miserable play experience, scrapping it in favor of the far superior landfall. Lands that don't generate mana would have the same problem.

So yeah, add the ability to generate a colorless mana to your land design, and it's a fine card.

[Carl]

I think the core idea of a card that can pay life for you is workable, and a pretty cool design idea. But I would say that if it's a land, it really needs to be able to generate mana. It's a hard and fast rule of modern Magic design that all lands have to generate mana, and I think it's a necessary one to keep in place. It's not just about power level; one can easily imagine a utility land with a powerful enough effect to be worth playing even if it never generated any mana. The problem is that few people would enjoy playing with such a card. Missing a land drop is never a fun experience, and playing a land that does not generate mana is equivalent to willfully missing a land drop. In early Zendikar design, Wizards experimented with an ability that cost you a land drop to activate, and concluded that it was a miserable play experience, scrapping it in favor of the far superior landfall. Lands that don't generate mana would have the same problem.

So yeah, add the ability to generate a colorless mana to your land design, and it's a fine card.

This i completely agree with.


Anyway i initially put together a couple of cool cards, (the mono white and G/W) for my WIP set and i spotted a way to add in a mono green and build and tri colour and build an entire sequence of cards so i'll throw them up for thoughts.

Also quick note, i'm very much at the throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks. Whilst i have a few idea's of what i need in some area's in a lot of cases i'm really just coming up with idea's that use the set themes and adding them to the file, once it's more filled out i'll have a better idea of what i actually need vs what's cool byut not strictly required. So none of this should be considered set-in-stone, right now it's just throwing themed idea's around and seeing what flies and what doesn't and figuring out once things are more fleshed out what holes i have, (mono colours are getting there on that TBH, but thats more because there are only a handful of mono cards).

Spoiler: UG01

Show

The first to receive detailed design but the next card was the actual inspiration. Unsure about cost, again mono green and flying means i'm trying to be super conservative. It's really an enabler for the rest of the cards in the sequence, legendary aside.

Spoiler: UZ-04-01

Show

The second card to be designed, though it inspired the rest, i knew for a both thematic and mechanical reasons it was going to come out green/white mix and theme said it would have flying. After that it was mostly looking for way to fit in set themes and emphasize the colours. I threw first strike in to push the white aspect, and cribbed a bit off Timberpack Wolf for some more green then threw in a set themed bit. Cost is again tentative. I looked a few diffrent creatures up on the gatherer for a guideline but well naturally there's no exact match.

Spoiler: RW01

Show

Actually an earlier concept of the previous card, (just with the size upped 1 step), i discarded it for that card because it was too mono white, but i realised i could use that to fill a mono white hole for me. Cost was loosely based off some angels that fall into loosely similar setup, (again no perfect match).

Spoiler: MZ-014-01

Show

Since i'd done the lower ranks thematically it made sense to make the Commander of the troops. The Dragon bit is a pure set focused thematic thing. Very, very tentative cost, Double Strike and haste where there to play up the red aspect as i wanted it in all the colours of it's thematic faction. Indestructible was to fit with the idea that he/she is supposed to be able to take a dragon on alone. And as a commander in a white theme i felt having it provide one of it's keywords to the troops made sense. of the options DOuble Strike felt like the less insane one over Indestructible, (the 3rd one allready provides vigilance and haste felt super redundant). But well a 4/4 flying body with double strike and indestructible is no easy thing to price up. I pretty much used Avacyn as a reference as she's the closest thing i could think of, knocking a mana off for the tri colour aspect, (i also went green heavy mostly for a combinaition of thematic reasons and limiting degenerate possibilities.

[Bucky]

I have a few cool YMTC cards that didn't quite match the theme once I refined the design.

Spoiler: Dead-Honor Rival

Show

Dead-Honor Rival 1BB
Creature - Vampire Assassin R
When Dead-Honor Rival enters the battlefield, name a creature card.

Whenever a creature with the chosen name enters the battlefield, destroy it. If you do, you lose 2 life.

You were doomed the moment you decided to follow the rules.
3/2

(For the pun, of course.)

Spoiler: Figment Moth

Show

Figment Moth 2UG
Creature - Insect U
Flying
When Figment Moth attacks, create two 0/1 blue Illusion tokens with Flying and "This creature must be blocked if able" that are tapped and attacking. Exile the tokens at the end of combat.
3/1

---

The thing I'm having trouble grocking is how no amount of life could possibly reach a single point of mana in value.

It depends on the matchup.
Against a burn deck, if you gain 4 life for 1 mana and a card, they'll need to spend 2+ mana of their own, and a card, to remove the life. Worth it.
Against an aggro deck, if you gain 4 life for 1 mana and a card, that buys you a part of a turn... but it also cost you part of a turn, so it's not worthwhile. But if you have a card with "1,T: Gain 4 life" that you use every turn, it's basically negating an attacking creature and might be worthwhile. It follows that gaining as much life as the creature deals in its lifetime is worthwhile. (20+ if you're sweeping the board every 5 turns)
Against a control deck, they don't care when they kill you, so 4 life or 20 life doesn't matter. But if you gain some absurd amount of life like 50,000, it could win you the game because they can't deal that much damage before they deck themselves.
Against an infinite combo deck, life gain doesn't matter at all. If you gain a million life, they can deal a million and twenty.

[enderlord99]

I think the core idea of a card that can pay life for you is workable, and a pretty cool design idea. But I would say that if it's a land, it really needs to be able to generate mana. It's a hard and fast rule of modern Magic design that all lands have to generate mana, and I think it's a necessary one to keep in place. It's not just about power level; one can easily imagine a utility land with a powerful enough effect to be worth playing even if it never generated any mana. The problem is that few people would enjoy playing with such a card. Missing a land drop is never a fun experience, and playing a land that does not generate mana is equivalent to willfully missing a land drop. In early Zendikar design, Wizards experimented with an ability that cost you a land drop to activate, and concluded that it was a miserable play experience, scrapping it in favor of the far superior landfall. Lands that don't generate mana would have the same problem.

So yeah, add the ability to generate a colorless mana to your land design, and it's a fine card.

Should I have the colorless mana be a separate ability or an additional effect of the same ability (meaning: should it give you the mana or the life on tap, or should it it give you the mana plus the life on tap)?

Also, how much life should it give?

[Bucky]

The wording "You may tap {cardname} to pay up to 3 life of a life cost" works, I think. And 3 feels right, although this is the sort of thing you'd test rather than guess.

[Blue Ghost]

It's been a while since I've done some card design, though I still have my old portfolio linked in my signature. I should get back into it.
A couple proof-of-concept designs that I made for a hypothetical Fire Emblem set that I probably will not actually get around to making:

Spoiler

Show

[Bucky]

Also quick note, i'm very much at the throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks.

It would be much easier to evaluate those Endow/Empower cards if you were to show us some common blessings.

[Ninjaman]

I wouldn't say set needs a dragon focus to hve a green dragon fro looking at the gatherer. Thats said i'm not set on it or anything and don't necessarily mind dropping it. And i was being super conservative, mono green and flyers really don't go together well.

Just gatherer searched. There are five mono green dragons. One is absolutely ancient. The other is 10+ years old and from a cycle, and the three others are from a dragons matter set.

This. It's really hard to explain or comprehend till you've seen it in action and it requires a deck built to exploit it for the most part to make it really obvious, but once you see it it's really obvious. I'll have a dig around in a little bit and try and find the skybilz game on her twitch from the other night where someone abused doom whisperer and a few other cards to squeak the win out. (Poor Sky though, she's the very definition of insane bad luck in her tournaments).

You don't even need to build around it. Paying life instead of mana is just good.

Of course the ratio isn't 1-to-1; you don't start with 20 mana, after all!

The thing I'm having trouble grocking is how no amount of life could possibly reach a single point of mana in value.

It's not that no amount of life is ever worth it, it's that lifegain is sometimes really good, and sometimes useless.

I also don't get Abyssal Persecutor, but that's a seperate issue and an explanation has already been attempted.

I fail to see how this is relevant.

Spoiler: UG01

Show

The first to receive detailed design but the next card was the actual inspiration. Unsure about cost, again mono green and flying means i'm trying to be super conservative. It's really an enabler for the rest of the cards in the sequence, legendary aside.

Spoiler: UZ-04-01

Show

The second card to be designed, though it inspired the rest, i knew for a both thematic and mechanical reasons it was going to come out green/white mix and theme said it would have flying. After that it was mostly looking for way to fit in set themes and emphasize the colours. I threw first strike in to push the white aspect, and cribbed a bit off Timberpack Wolf for some more green then threw in a set themed bit. Cost is again tentative. I looked a few diffrent creatures up on the gatherer for a guideline but well naturally there's no exact match.

Spoiler: RW01

Show

Actually an earlier concept of the previous card, (just with the size upped 1 step), i discarded it for that card because it was too mono white, but i realised i could use that to fill a mono white hole for me. Cost was loosely based off some angels that fall into loosely similar setup, (again no perfect match).

Spoiler: MZ-014-01

Show

Since i'd done the lower ranks thematically it made sense to make the Commander of the troops. The Dragon bit is a pure set focused thematic thing. Very, very tentative cost, Double Strike and haste where there to play up the red aspect as i wanted it in all the colours of it's thematic faction. Indestructible was to fit with the idea that he/she is supposed to be able to take a dragon on alone. And as a commander in a white theme i felt having it provide one of it's keywords to the troops made sense. of the options DOuble Strike felt like the less insane one over Indestructible, (the 3rd one allready provides vigilance and haste felt super redundant). But well a 4/4 flying body with double strike and indestructible is no easy thing to price up. I pretty much used Avacyn as a reference as she's the closest thing i could think of, knocking a mana off for the tri colour aspect, (i also went green heavy mostly for a combinaition of thematic reasons and limiting degenerate possibilities.

You would probably get more responses to your cards if you gave them actual names.

[Carl]

It would be much easier to evaluate those Endow/Empower cards if you were to show us some common blessings.

Yeah i thought someone would mention that, i just don't want to flood the thread with too many of my cards. See below for a bunch of examples.

Just gatherer searched. There are five mono green dragons. One is absolutely ancient. The other is 10+ years old and from a cycle, and the three others are from a dragons matter set.


You would probably get more responses to your cards if you gave them actual names.

I was under the impression takir was the only serious cares about dragons, but like i said doesn't really matter.

Main reason i didn't do names is that i've tried that approach previously and got too caught up in the theme's over mechanical design. Using card codes really helps. That said these are more of a top down design than most of the cards i've created.

If i was going to assign names:

UG01 = Forest Great Falcon

UZ-04-01 = Elf Falcon Rider

RW01 = Falcon Rider Captain

MZ-014-01 = "John/Jane", Skylord

(Note: John/ane is a placeholder, i suck with proper name creation ok).


Ok said i'd throw out a few blessings:

Spoiler: Blessings

Show

You'll quickly note that the first couple of lines are boilerplate. They're effectively reminder text for how blessings function.







The one above may be a touch too complicated for common and get pushed to uncommon instead.

[Carl]

It's been a while since I've done some card design, though I still have my old portfolio linked in my signature. I should get back into it.
A couple proof-of-concept designs that I made for a hypothetical Fire Emblem set that I probably will not actually get around to making:

Spoiler

Show

Hmmm the last one seems like you'd need a deck built around it to really benefit, and probably a fair bit of card filtering or your going to kill yourself super fast for low gain. The rest look fairly good though i worry number 2 might be a bit aggressive in some decks.

I have a few cool YMTC cards that didn't quite match the theme once I refined the design.

Spoiler: Dead-Honor Rival

Show

Dead-Honor Rival 1BB
Creature - Vampire Assassin R
When Dead-Honor Rival enters the battlefield, name a creature card.

Whenever a creature with the chosen name enters the battlefield, destroy it. If you do, you lose 2 life.

You were doomed the moment you decided to follow the rules.
3/2

(For the pun, of course.)

Spoiler: Figment Moth

Show

Figment Moth 2UG
Creature - Insect U
Flying
When Figment Moth attacks, create two 0/1 blue Illusion tokens with Flying and "This creature must be blocked if able" that are tapped and attacking. Exile the tokens at the end of combat.
3/1

I like both, very thematic and don't look very unbalanced.