Post your cards here. Actually see what others think.

178101213107

Comments

  • edited July 2018
    [Interjection]

    @Nukulargear
    You may not be aware, this is the "Actually see what others think" discussion I started. The rules are that you must either leave a fave or comment on the card preceding yours when you post it. In your case, this means that you need to go to @Ranshi922's: https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/debunk-the-oblivious?list=user

    Sorry for the interrupt (I know those are outdated).

    Alright Smiths!

    This is a somewhat unique discussion page (this is a function reminder), look at Page One for more clarification.

    To post a card for others to look at in this thread, first leave a FAVE or COMMENT on the card preceding your own. The next person will do the same. In this way, every card that gets displayed here will have some form of feedback.


    -Next Up-
    Debunk the Oblivious by @Ranshi922!

    [ Leave a fave or comment on Ranshi922 's card and then post one of your own! ]
  • edited July 2018
    @Faiths_Guide
    I think you forgot to edit the next up card. Sorry for the post, I'll only do this when an error is made!
  • @Faiths_Guide, my apologies

    -----------

    @Ranshi922
    I think Debunk the Oblivious might be a bit too strong for a rare. Discard effects that strong don't really exist as a 1 drop sorcery. Maybe increase the mana cost by a little (Heartless Pillage costs 2B to force an opponent to discard 2 with the possible bonus of giving you a treasure token.)

    ------------

    So I made this as a second attempt at a card version of Avatar Korra from Legend of Korra. I'm wondering if I've made it overpowered for its casting cost, given it too much in terms of abilities, or made the flavor not fit the character.
    https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/korra-elemental-master
  • @Nukulargear
    I'll post our feedback in list form for clarity.

    Feedback:
    1) I'd recommend only having up to two activated abilities on a card
    2) I'd recommend designing the card to have at least one more elaborate ability that isn't an activated ability.
    3) Make sure to put space between each ability, that isn't a keyword of the card.

    -Next Up-
    image

    [ Leave a fave or comment on modnation675's card and then post one of your own! ]
  • Thank you both, carry on!
  • edited August 2018
    image

    is it too strong at common?
  • @Faiths_Guide
    Just a heads up. I'll leave the rest to you.
  • [Interjection]

    @Bobman111
    You may not be aware, this is the "Actually see what others think" discussion I started. The rules are that you must either leave a fave or comment on the card preceding yours when you post it. In your case, this means that you need to go to @modnation675's: https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/slumbering-revengent

    Sorry for the interrupt (I know those are outdated).

    Alright Smiths!

    This is a somewhat unique discussion page (this is a function reminder), look at Page One for more clarification.

    To post a card for others to look at in this thread, first leave a FAVE or COMMENT on the card preceding your own. The next person will do the same. In this way, every card that gets displayed here will have some form of feedback.

    Thank you, @modnation675. ;)

    -Next Up-
    Slumbering Revengent by @modnation675!

    [ Leave a fave or comment on modnation675's card and then post one of your own! ]
  • edited August 2018
    @Faiths_Guide I left a fave on his card I guess I probably should have mentioned that. My bad.
  • edited August 2018
    @Bobman111
    Sorry, well done.

    -Next Up-
    Vigilant Soldier by @Bobman111!

    [ Leave a fave or comment on Bobman111's card and then post one of your own! ]

    I'll respond to this personally:
    This is a very uncommon thing for the site, a well balanced, simple, playable common. You, sir, are a genius (if a little lazy in naming:).

    -Actual Next Up-
    image
    Art and design by @Yours_Truly!
  • @Faiths_Guide
    I favorited your card because our feedback is not very lenghty.

    All I can say about the current incarnation, is that it's a simple yet effective design. Only recommendation would be the following, if it could fit.
    ---
    When Bolide Dragon enters the battlefield or attacks, you may sacrifice a Mountain. If you do, Bolide Dragon deals 4 damage to target creature or planeswalker
    ---

    -Next Up-
    image

    Vigorous for X (This creature can block any number of additional X each combat.)

    [ Leave a fave or comment on modnation675's card and then post one of your own! ]
  • @modnation675, you may exchange your commander from the command zone with a creature from your hand whenever you could cast a sorcery. At least I think.

    Thoughts?
    https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/blinkmaw
  • edited August 2018
    @TheCenterOfTheUniverse
    That card of yours is quite slick. There isn't much I'd change without over complicating things. But one suggestion is to capitalize all sub-types such as creature types.

    Favorited your card since I didn't give much feedback.

    Also, for future cards remember the following formatting as it may help. This is something most people miss.
    ---
    non-Human (Capitalized words use the "-".)

    vs.

    noncreature
    ---

    -Next Up-
    image


    Commander Rules Applicable:
    903.8. - A player may cast a commander they own from the command zone. A commander cast from the command zone costs an additional {2} for each previous time the player casting it has cast it from the command zone that game.

    903.9. - If a commander would be exiled from anywhere or put into its owner’s hand, graveyard, or library from anywhere, its owner may put it into the command zone instead. This replacement effect may apply more than once to the same event. This is an exception to rule 614.5.

    Note: If you like the card, I'd appreciate the favorite a lot. But feedback is great too!

    [ Leave a fave or comment on modnation675's card and then post one of your own! ]
  • SLIGHT RULES MODIFICATION GOING FORWARD:
    You may post up to two cards for review, and the next to comment may choose one of them (or both) that they'd like to comment on and/or favorite then leave up to two of their own for the next person and so on.

    If you've any questions on this, feel free to PM me.

    -Next Up-
    Marriage, the Unity of Souls by @modnation675!

    [ Leave a fave or comment on modnation675's card and then post one or two of your own! ]
  • edited August 2018
    @modnation675 I commanded on you card's comment section since it is probably closer to a discussion than directly tips.

    My card:
    image

    This card hurts since I been building up for her for half a year now but I don't seem to reach the goal that I want with her design.
    She is written quite much in both Tournament of champions 1 & 2
    http://forums.mtgcardsmith.com/discussion/3287/tournament-of-champions-the-game-has-begun#latest
    http://forums.mtgcardsmith.com/discussion/3556/tournament-of-champions-2-the-game-has-begun#latest

    She is one of 5 current gods and the most powerful of these.
    The first ability refer to her knights of the order of Friyena who mostly are powerful noble heroes that fight for the greater good. (thus legendary)
    The second ability refer to that she first steps into the realm of mortals and saves them from destruction when almost half the capital city of crastine is destroyed.

    I appreciate even the slightest of small feedback and even questions.
    If you like it please consider to give it a fave and if not then please tell me what I can do better with her.
  • edited August 2018
    @Jonteman93
    Since you deleted your card already and I posted some feedback in a PM. I think I'll post a card to continue this thread.

    Feel free to re-post your card when you've recreated it.

    -Next Up-

    imageimage

    [ Leave a fave or comment on one of modnation675's cards and then post up to two of your own! ]
  • edited August 2018
    imageimage

    @modnation675
    Commented on both cards to make up for my absence lately.

    For whoever comments/favs/whatevers :
    - A little lost on [type] surge right now. I went through multiple iterations and ended up where it is now. Originally, as you cast a card with [type] surge, you would add {c} to your mana pool for each [type] you tapped for mana as you cast the card, but I was unsure if you could spend that mana on said card. So then I made an addendum to prevent you from using the mana produced for other cards, which still did not address the problem. Which led to the current version.

    - No huge concerns about Tidebreaker. My only concern is the P/T, to be honest.

    - I am a little more concerned for Messenger. It might be a stretch of a thought, but with all the artifacts that produce more than 1 mana at once, I sort of wish I raised it to uncommon. The argument I made at the time was that Lumengrid Gargoyle is a 4/4 w/ flying for 6, and an uncommon, and I didn't want to stretch the cost to 9. Stuff like Sol Ring and Worn Powerstone make it extremely easy to cast, amplified by artifact surge - instead of producing {c}{c}, you essentially get {c}{c}{c} for either one. Thran Dynamo becomes {c}{c}{c}{c}.
  • edited August 2018
    @Damnation
    I posted a favorite on Volcanic Tidebreaker as I don't think our feedback is lengthy enough.

    I think the easiest way to balance this type of effect is to have it limited in scope. The following is our example of this.
    ---
    Artifact surge {2} (This spell costs {2} less to cast if mana produced by an artifact is spent to cast it.)
    ---

    Then just change the variable for each card, to match what you want.

    -Next Up-
    image

    Note: While conspiracies are in the command zone, they act out their effects like permanents.

    For reference of what Walking the Borderline is, check the following.
    https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/walking-the-borderline.

    [ Leave a fave or comment on one of modnation675's cards and then post up to two of your own! ]
  • @modnation675 I think that the idea of a commander becoming or being cast as another commander is pretty interesting, and it seems like a great card. Seeing as I have nothing else to say, I favorited it.

    image
  • edited August 2018
    @Decaldor Commented on and favorited your card.

    Next up, a new Legendary red black creatue (like my fifth one).
    https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/skalza-mindsear

    I feel like this one is a bit wordy, but I couldn't think of a way to minimalize the text on the cobat ability and make it have the right effect. I also just realized I accidently wrote no-card instead of non-land card, but O can't fix it. Oh well.

    Also, if anhyone can help me with hyperlining my card image on here, that'd be great. I don't like having to just put a link in here and I would prefer if people could look at it right away.
  • edited August 2018
    image

    @PumpkinSwift
    There is a thread that can show the basics on uploading pictures and linked images.

    http://forums.mtgcardsmith.com/discussion/2584/brief-guide-to-uploading-linked-pictures-images-in-comments-w-visual-aid/p1

    On Skalza ;

    As for the combat damage trigger, I think this is the smallest you can get it :
    Whenever Skalza Mindsear deals combat damage to an opponent, that player reveals their hand. You choose a nonland card with converted mana cost equal to or less than the damage dealt. That player discards that card.

    This way, you cut down on a small but sizable chunk of the text. You don't need to reference Skalza in the last sentence because everyone knows that she's the source of damage already.

    As for the activated abilities, I think they're a bit iffy. Black pump is usually along the lines of "{b}: [name] gets +1/+1 until end of turn" or {1}{b}: [name] gets +1/+1 until end of turn. The way it is right now, it is just a more expensive, color shifted firebreathing effect. The second ability, I think you can reduce to {2}{r}{r}, because for comparison Valiant Knight applies it to all knights you control at the same cost the way Skalza is right now.

    @modnation675

    I agree that is probably easier to limit the cost reduction of surge, though I admit I was aiming for something closer to affinity. Also, DomriKade replied in the comments section, but I am a little unsure and spotty on what he suggested, as well as my reply.

    His comment and my reply (warning: block of text inbound) :
    DomriKade :
    I really like the thought you've put into this! Unfortunately, during the process of casting a spell you determine the total cost before you begin paying it (CR 601.2f and 601.2g respectively). That means that the way your ability is worded the cost reduction won't matter because the cost would already be set at that point. I actually like your proposed fix from the copy/paste since you can restrict what the mana can be used for. Plus, the trigger is a mana ability with this wording so it doesn't use the stack and resolves while you're casting the spell. If you don't mind me asking, what problem did you run into with your wording?

    [type] Surge (Whenever you tap one or more [type] permanents for mana while casting this spell, add {c} for each of those permanents. Spend that mana only to cast this spell.

    Me :
    I'll address your comment top-to-bottom, so I'll start with what I think about 601.2f & g, so if I am mistaken, I apologize, and I will end with the problem I ran into creating [type] surge.

    Comprehensive Rules
    601.2f The player determines the total cost of the spell. Usually this is just the mana cost. Some spells have additional or alternative costs. Some effects may increase or reduce the cost to pay, or may provide other alternative costs. Costs may include paying mana, tapping permanents, sacrificing permanents, discarding cards, and so on. The total cost is the mana cost or alternative cost (as determined in rule 601.2b), plus all additional costs and cost increases, and minus all cost reductions. If multiple cost reductions apply, the player may apply them in any order. If the mana component of the total cost is reduced to nothing by cost reduction effects, it is considered to be {0}. It can’t be reduced to less than {0}. Once the total cost is determined, any effects that directly affect the total cost are applied. Then the resulting total cost becomes “locked in.” If effects would change the total cost after this time, they have no effect.

    601.2g If the total cost includes a mana payment, the player then has a chance to activate mana abilities (see rule 605, “Mana Abilities”). Mana abilities must be activated before costs are paid.

    Post-CR notation
    601.2f more or less explains that after increasing/decreasing the cost of a spell, the total cost becomes "locked in". 601.2g simply states that you can, and must activate mana abilities if need be before paying costs. With this in mind, there is a theoretical solution most newer players might not see, but I'm not sure it works the way I think it does. The solution is fairly simple (I think) - floating mana. It is just that the inner workings probably don't work the way I think they do.

    Firstly, you would tap any permanents you want to trigger [type surge] before hand. Note the source so as to prevent any confusion at the table when you do cast the spell with [type] surge. Then declare the permanents which are tapped as aforementioned to cast the spell, applying the cost reduction. Lastly, expedite the mana from those permanents to pay for the remainder of the cost.

    ... actually, yeah, I have no idea what I just said. It's probably gibberish, but if it works, surprise, I guess?

    Development Issues
    As much as I probably should've, I didn't look over the CR to clarify any mistakes I made or clear up any confusion that ensued during the entirety of the design period. I agree with your sentiment that the fix proposed in the copy/paste was probably the best choice, but due to lack of understanding the CR at the time, I scrubbed it and went in a different direction, albeit under the same vein, as you can see now. In my reply to Stadley, you can also see that I state my dazedness at the time, which led to lots of reading and re-reading that amounted to much confusion. Reading the CR now sort of makes me feel I went with the fix before I made my final decision.

    Edit : Huh. I missed addressing the problem. I don't even remember what the original problem was. Damn.

    P.S. The edit is part of my reply to DomriKade.
  • Left a comment for you, @Damnation (oh, and, hello).

    Next up:
    image
  • edited August 2018
    Now that I have a keyboard, I can actually type what I think!

    @Faiths_Guide, I had to read it a couple of times to understand it. Not sure if that's a downside to the card, but I like it and it fits as a sorcery for 2 mana.

    Here is my card. . .
    image
  • edited August 2018
    imageimage

    Edited a second card into my comment, as per the rule for up to two cards.

    @jpastor
    Hound Mutant is an interesting creature type, I don't think I've seen it on a card before.

    I think reducing the normal cost and ninjutsu cost by {1} is fine. I think you can make the ability an activated ability, since the way it is worded right now feels confusing. I'm not sure. But either way, it looks off to me. I would go with this, but ultimately it's up to you :

    {b}: Put a -1/-1 counter on each blocking creature. Activate this ability only once per turn and only if Nejunga is attacking.
  • image

    I could use help with wording the second ability...I wish to convey that it can be activated on opponents turns also :)

    @Damnation I do not understand the point of the ability sweep because the txt after it is just what the card would do. You could probably just take it out unless it is vital.
    I really like the dragon tho...its cmc might be a bit high maybe 9 cmc instead and make it a 7/6 to balance it because I do not think it would be run enough at 10 cmc
  • edited August 2018
    @DoctorFro
    Sweep is an existing ability word.
    https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Sweep

    As for the dragon, I thought about it, but I wasn't sure how to cost it because of its win-more nature - it is a giant stompy dragon with haste that potentially wins you the game. I originally had it as an 8/6 that was identically the same, but changed the mana cost nearly a half a dozen times, mostly because I didn't know how to cost a fat hasty finisher that could copy itself for double the damage. The original cost was {6}{r}{r}{r} but I felt it was too lenient.
  • @Damnation thank you for informing me and yea
  • @DoctorFro, the second ability should be formatted as "Creatures you control get +0/+1 until end of turn. Activate this ability only if you control 5 or more creatures.""

    I wanted to create another draft card, but my brain's not so creative right now. Thoughts?

    https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/aether-flue-archmage
  • @Temurzoa
    I think you missed the point. @DoctorFro asked how to word it in a manner so that you could activate the 0 ability on other players' turns. Whether or not he means that the opponent can activate it on their turn, I don't know.
Sign In or Register to comment.