Post your cards here. Actually see what others think.

1111112114116117130

Comments


  • What do you think? Where can I improve, and what did I do well, I'm looking for some nice constructive criticism here  XD
  • I thought of changing the 'put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control' to 'up to two target creatures you control' but I thought I'd see what you guys thought first

  • edited January 18
    Actually, let me grade this. Bad card. Oh well, I've never been good at making Magic cards anyway :D
  • @CrimsonFox
    I don't think it's a bad card at all. Looks close to something Wizards would have printed for Strixhaven. There are a few things I would change though, were I to make this card:
    1. Reach isn't really a black/white ability. It really only shows up on green cards and (rarely) red cards, so I might look at removing that. Especially since this guy has the ability to make fliers anyway.
    2. The X ability is very strong, especially in combination with the magecraft trigger. I would probably think about nerfing it or making this card cost more mana. Some possible adjustments:
        A. Make it a tap ability.
        B. Sorcery speed only.
        C. Make it more expensive (XWWBB maybe).

    I personally think sorcery speed might be a good idea as one adjustment, since right now this card could be very obnoxious in a deck that plays this guy with counterspells. Pass the turn, if the opponent doesn't play anything worth countering, make 3-4 2/1s. Next turn, counter something and now you have 3-4 flying 3/2s and like 14 power on the battlefield. Yikes!

    Other than that I don't have too many issues with this one. It's a cool card!

    Here's one of mine:
    https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/gruesome-puppetry-1



  • @CrimsonFox can you give me feedback on my card please? You're supposed to give feedback then post your card.

    @hileandr
    For the Grusome Puppetry card, I like it, but I would put sacrifice instead of exile because that would be really annoying with Izzet Phoenix (when you go to combat they just take your izzet Phoenix to block your other phoenixes and then it gets exiled as well on top of that. Other than that it is an interesting card. 

    Here is my cards, a group of three cards related to Mark Rosewater and his Drive to Work podcast.

    https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/drive-to-work?list=user
    https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/yavimaya-dragster?list=user
    https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/maro-head-of-rd-1?list=user

    Drive to Work

    Yavimaya Dragster

    Maro Head of RD
  • @SPyBondPlays sorry about that, I hadn't realised that was how it worked here (I'm new!), let me give some feedback now! I think it's actually a great card. I think it's well balanced for its mana cost, and well thought out in relation to the song you chose. I got a little bit confused at first in regards to the wording of the 2b ability, but I get how it works now. I don't really know how I would fix the wording at all if I had to, so I reckon you did very well! Nice card!
  • @SPyBondPlays
    Just want to clarify that Gruesome Puppetry exiles the token, not the creature in the graveyard. Perhaps the wording could be clearer.
  • edited January 18
    Ohhhh, it just exiles the token. Okay that makes sense. I thought it returned the card to the battlefield under your control and then exiled it, not creating a token. Sorry.
  • edited January 18
    Drive to Work - Mana cost is fine given the draw back of needing an elemental and given the other 2 auras that can turn vehicles into creatures are 3 and 5 mana with additional stat bonus.  The trigger ability on hit is Dimir's surveil so it can be reword there.  I think there is a mistake in the wording with "Enchanted artifact is an artifact..." did you mean enchanted vehicle?.  Flavourwise I get it, elemental jumps in car not really sure about the flying and surveil but it's blue so I guess it works.
    Yavimaya Dragster - Cost is fine, there are bigger vehicles at 4.  Not too sure about the carpool ability, so an elemental can give it's power to the vehicle but only if it hits the opponent?  It's not a combat trick since you have to do it during attacking phase, I think there are too many barriers to try and take advantage of the ability.  Alt Crew cost is fine.
    Maro - Cost for the body you get is fine compared to other similar cards.  The last ability not good, you are letting your opponent deny you of card draw, card draw that you probably paid mana for in exchange for a vanilla 2/1, not a good deal.



  • @Sweda I really like this card! There are so many cards that would work really well with this, and love how it interacts with them. Having the ability to keep what cards you would normally lose is such a good mechanic, and I think it would be such an amazing and strong commander. I think you did a really good job with the design; everything seems like they would work nicely.



    Here's the card I would like an opinion on:
    https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/scrap-salvager-the-ruin-walker?list=user

  • @ShadowReign
    I lol'd at "Myr you control have haste". But anyways, I think that this is someone unbalanced because a 0 cost 1/1 is unprecedented and there are other 0 cost artifacts which you can sacrifice to its ability. I think that this needs to be 1B or B because getting haste creatures every turn is tough for your opponent. I would put this at 1B without the haste, sacrifice, and getting back from exile abilities but with haste on itself and I still think this would be powerful. 
  • edited January 18
    @ShadowReign this seems like a nice take on a card like Puppet Conjurer. While Myr could certainly use the love, it seems a bit harsh to exile Scrap Salvager if you can't sacrifice an artifact, since the effects the card provides aren't all that strong. You could probably get away with the last ability putting Scrap Salvager back into your hand or onto the battlefield, since it feels like too much effort to sacrifice the artifact that you couldn't before just to put Scrap Salvager into your graveyard so you can then recur it with another card. Overall, I think this is an interesting token generator that is somewhat overbalanced.

    Minor wording nitpick: The first ability should read "Myr creatures you control have haste."

    I'd appreciate thoughts on these two:
    The Black Broker Elder Moonglow
  • edited January 18
    I feel a bit out of my league, commenting on these cards, considering I'm looking for a lot of advice on mine anyway, but here goes...

    The Black Broker:
    I really love this card! It gives you a very useful creature two turns-ish from when you'd normally have such a card, but it has a very political feel to it regarding its ability, which might make opponents leave it alone for a few turns. If I was making the card, I would probably make it 3bb, but I can see how your cmc balances out with its ability. Great card!

    Elder Moonglow:
    Again, amazing card! My cards have problems balancing cmc with card content, so I won't comment on that, but it does have a very powerful feel to me. Idk, it just seems like a great card for 6. 
  • What're your thoughts on these two?
  • edited January 18
    @CrimsonFox all feedback is appreciated! :) I'd also encourage starting and/or engaging in discussions on the comment sections on cards that interest you.

    Nodin's last ability is interesting; most of the time you get the opposite, where small creatures can't block, but this is like protection from trading evenly unless your opponent has lots of deathtouch (just be sure you don't have any mana dorks lying around!). Waiting until turn 8 for Nodin to come online feels like a lot to me, especially in these colors, but I'd have to try playing with it to be sure. Turn 6 seems like a safer bet though, since this kind of drawback leaves Nodin more vulnerable than something like suspend, but allows quicker access to their other effects.

    Zlex feels very well done; a versatile set of abilities on a good body. I like that you made the draw ability half X so it doesn't get out of control. (Edit: Upon a closer look at Zlex, I realized the first choice gave +X/+X, which is generally green/white when you can just pump mana into it. Blue/black tends to get +X/-X effects in these situations.)

    Penny for your thoughts on this card:
    Tranquil Insight
  • Thanks for the feedback, @cadstar369! As for Tranquil Insight, I quite like it, although for 3 I think it's a little powerful. If you're drawing a lot of cards, then that's a lot of extra cards going into your hand each upkeep. In a deck like that, there could be a lot of 'no maximum hand size', and therefore you'd probably be able to keep most of those cards. Maybe if it's a bit more like a scry effect? I do like the idea, though, so maybe just a higher cmc?
  • edited January 19
    I think this would be better if it didn't function if X was zero. Because right now even if no insight counters are going on Tranquil Insight you are still getting to look at the top cards of your library and get one each turn. I think being able to trade getting to draw a card right away for getting to peek two cards ahead is interesting. Here's my attempt at a rebalancing of the card. 

    WU

    Enchantment

    If you would draw a card except the first one you draw in each of your draw steps put an insight counter on Tranquil insight. At the beginning of your upkeep, remove all insight counters from Tranquil Insight. If any counters were removed this way, look at the top X cards of your library, where X is 2 plus the number of counters removed this way. Put two on the top of your library in any order, and the rest into your hand. 

    A little bit different, but now it only functions with counters on it and doesn't give you extra card advantage beyond what you would be drawing normally. I also made it cost less, as I think with that this card is "perfectly balanced as all should be" now.What I made it do is turn your [[opt]]s into [[anticipate]]s at the cost of not getting the card right away, which I think is an interesting design in itself without giving you extra card advantage and not needing to play draw spells for the effect to happen.
  • Yea, that's probably a better way of doing it. 
  • Any thoughts on this card?
  • @SPyBondPlays while I like what you did with reducing the mana cost by 1 in exchange for doing nothing without counters, putting both of the extra cards back on top is a bit harsh. (Note that your version does not turn Opt into a delayed Anticipate or similar effect because those put the extra cards on the bottom, which lets you dig through your library.) I wanted Tranquil Insight to provide some card advantage because not being able to draw extra cards at will is a steep cost for what ultimately amounts to some card selection, and also because the card you leave behind remains on top, so you can’t avoid cards you don’t want, unlike scry effects.

    Additionally, if your opponent has enchantment removal, you get blown out very easily with this card, so I think there should be some reward for the player using this, otherwise there is little to no motivation to use Tranquil Insight over an enchantment that just draws you an extra card each turn.

    I do think a separate enchantment that puts the extra cards on the bottom of your library in exchange for no card advantage is also interesting, similar to what it seems your intention may have been with the revision.
  • Huh, I read @SPyBondPlays change way differently. I'll be more careful with how I read in future, lol
  • edited January 19
    As a general observation, I've seen several cards in the past few days misuse "would" in the card's abilities. "Would" signifies an event that doesn't happen, it instead indicates a condition under which a replacement effect does/might take place.  You tend to see it in the format If [Condition] would [Event A], [Event B] instead (E.g., If a creature with a +1/+1 counter on it would die, remove a +1/+1 counter from it instead).  If an event that leads to a trigger actually needs to happen, then just describe that event in the present tense preceded by "when" or "whenever" and save "would" for the situations where an event is prevented by something else happening.
  • edited January 19
    And there's exactly what I've felt was wrong with a lot of my recent cards. Have I misused it in my Crimson Fox, Wild-Called, @Jadefire?

    And if so, how would I word it better in this instance?
  • @CrimsonFox I can see an alternative to the wording of both abilities, provided I understood correctly what the intentions behind them were.

    When Crimson Fox, Wild-Called enters the battlefield, it gains indestructible until end of turn. Then it fights up to one target creature an opponent controls.
    -Abilities resolve in the order that you read them, the indestructibility should be gained first before the fight happens (see similar examples in Mage Duel, Primal Might, and Savage Swipe.

    Whenever a creature dealt damage by Crimson Fox, Wild-Called this turn dies, put a +1/+1 counter on Crimson Fox, Wild-Called.
    -I'm guessing that you need to specify that the damage to the creature happened on the same turn that the creature died, unless you want to make players track which creatures Crimson Fox has damaged throughout the entire game.  No "would" is needed here because the creatures actually have to die for the counter to be added and you probably don't want to keep your opponent's creatures from dying (see similar examples in Baron Sengir, Sengir Bats, Sengir Vampire).

    I'm not sure if you just went with alphabetical order for the keyword abilities but listing deathtouch before haste is the correct order so good job there (it's not always alphabetical order).
  • Thank you for those re-wordings, @Jadefire, it sounds way better that way. As for the keyword abilities, I just kinda went with what looked right, and haste (in my opinion) always looks best at the end of the keywords.
  • edited January 19
    @CrimsonFox Also [as to save room in the text box], you don't always have to use the full name of a legendary creature. Topically, the first time the creature is mentioned in the text box it is the full name, but after that it's just the first name [before the comma]. As shown here: 
    https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=497788
    However, the full name can sometimes never be read, though usually on creatures with long second names [after the comma]. As shown here:
    https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=476480
    But as far as I know, the full name is never used twice. Though, it is when it comes to the characters name, like Hans Eriksson:
    https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Hans+Eriksson
    Just thought I'd mention this to help save you some room for abilities/longer abilities if you need it when making cards.
  • @ShadowReign Good point, the self-reference can just be shortened to Crimson Fox in subsequent mentions on the +1/+1 ability. 
  • @cadstar369 ;Also though, I meant to have the extra cards go on the bottom, as keeping them on top would be pretty bad honestly.

    @CrimsonFox I think this card is maybe balanced, but I would take off the "indestructible until end of turn" thing for the fighting because flavor-wise that doesn't make sense. Green has fight to deal with creatures because fight only works if Green's creatures are stronger than the opponent's creatures which ties into the theme of the natural order and the food chain that Green has. Having deathtouch and gain indestructible until end of turn basically says "When Crimson Fox enters the battlefield destroy target creature then put a +1/+1 counter on Crimson Fox". This card is a mess to balance as there is so many different variables so I don't really know what I would do though I think that the indestructible thing is the most glaring issue I saw.  

    Resurgent Lagoma

    Resurgent Lagoma

    So this card basically has flashback but on a creature in the form of the Arise mechanic. The first version is the basic flashback on a creature design, and then the second one is more like madness because it can't come back when it dies but you can play it for cheaper if you get it into your graveyard. I think the first design is more elegant. 
  • edited January 19
    @SPyBondPlays I agree that the first design is more elegant. However, 'flashback for creatures' already exists in Unearth and the commander counterpart Encore. Arise can be activated at instant speed, and has significantly weaker downsides attached to it, so Arise appears to be a fairly broken mechanic without further tweaks.

    I'd appreciate thoughts on this pair:
    Synaptic Staticaster Mindwhorl Weave

    These were both made for the same challenge, but I'm not sure which one is more interesting.
  • @SPyBondPlays For arise the reminder text should say if the creature "leaves the battlefield exile" not if the creature dies since you can bounce the creature or flicker it and it will not remember it came back via arise thus you can keep using it not the way you designed it as.  When designing a new mechanic it's always a good idea to search if there is already a similar mechanic and see how the wording is used there, Magic has been around for a long time plenty of templates to work off of.
Sign In or Register to comment.