Post your cards here. Actually see what others think.



  • LvBLvB
    edited May 5
    There is even more problems with this, cause this card will make everything that can be targeted if it is something specific untargetable unless the spell says says "Target permanent or any target". Its like Hexproof against spell that target or affect something specific.

    Lets say, for example, Swords to Plowshares, that wont work anymore, cause the creature is no longer a creature.
    Or a spell that says "Destroy target artifact" that wont work either.
    Or something saying "Deal 3 damage to all creatures players and planeswalkers", that would affect only players then.

    And considering creatures, if they are no longer creatures, they can not fight anymore. So you could tap this during the opponents turn and his creatures wouldnt be creatures anymore, making them unable to attack.
  • @LvB That's actually not the case.  Creatures stay creatures, enchantments stay enchantments, artifacts stay artifacts.  This only affects the sub-types, so if you have a Creature - Soldier, the Soldier part is the creature type, the creature part is the permanent type (and card type if it's not a token, but I digress).  It would remain a creature, but no longer a soldier.  Like discussed, it's a rules nightmare, but it's at least not that bad.  Any suggestions on rewording it so that others don't make the mistake you made?
  • edited May 5
    @StuffnSuch I'm thinking the wording "Creature, artifact, and non-aura enchantment permanents lose their subtypes until end of turn." should accomplish what you're looking for. Using the word subtype here is unusual as it literally only appears on Embiggen and a sticker card, but I think it's necessary to prevent confusion. (This card is pretty deep in the rules for what it's doing, so being precise is important.)
  • We seem to have hit a bit of a snag, so I’ll just add my two cents to an older card:

    @LvB ;
    love the snail, mechanically and flavor-wise, but the name “Curious Giant Snail” doesn’t really do it  for me. It just doesn’t flow off the tongue nicely. 
    My suggestion: Curious Megasnail

    Here’s mine (I’m still working out the overall flavor):

  • LvBLvB
    edited May 17
    I really like the idea of the snail having defender, but able to lose it, to ride into battle on the occupied vehicle. Megasnail sounds good too. So ... here it is!

  • LvBLvB
    edited May 17
    sorry, doublepost. This can be deleted.
  • @Globert-the-Martian I always like cards that do something outside their usual color without losing flavor. While Black does have a few "gain control" cards, they're usually permanent. This kind of temporary control is usually limited to Red, but I think it still works (although you could definitely also do this as {1}{b/r}{b/r} as well). I think if you wanted to make it more Black than Red, you could make it an Instant. Then you wouldn't be limited to attacking, but could also threaten an attacking creature into blocking for you. "Die or become my meat shield" feels pretty Black to me.

    @LvB That ability basically works like an inverse Crew cost, except you can also target your opponent's Vehicles. In fact, in most cases that's what you'd rather do, but that wouldn't work if they're not playing any. You could mitigate this by playing your own vehicles, but then, most vehicle cards have more use than this and you'd be better off tapping the Snail to crew the vehicles. The exception also give weird impressions lore-wise, with a Megasnail riding into battle on a tiny motorcycle.

    Now for my card:
    We haven't checked in on one of my favorite Planeswalkers in a while, but considering his story so far, and recent events in the Multiverse, I think I can hazard a guess as to how he's doing. Spoilers: he's not happy.
  • LvBLvB
    edited May 27
    Nice one. I think its good as it is. Maybe give the stolen artifact haste, if its an artifact creature, so it can attack too,  or use abilities. If its intention is to not steal artifacts creatures, dont change anything.

  • This card basically is colorless but can cast colored spells by removing the counters from it
  • I would appreciate feedback on this card
  • edited June 16
    Here's how I'd like to feedback your design:

    In short, I'll say this combines strong offensive capabilities, progressive growth, and a powerful activated ability. The card offers strategic decision-making and potential for exciting plays. I'd grade it as a B.

    In depth, I'll say this is a legendary creature card with several interesting mechanics. It has a casting cost of {2}{c}, which represents a generic mana cost, making it flexible in various decks. The combination of Training and Double strike gives it a strong offensive presence, rewarding players for attacking with it. The ability to put a +1/+1 counter on Zenpher whenever it attacks or deals combat damage to a player adds a progressive growth aspect to the card, making it more threatening over time. The activated ability to remove three +1/+1 counters from Zenpher in exchange for choosing and creating a copy of a powerful spell without paying its mana cost is a unique and powerful effect. It adds versatility and the potential for big plays, as it allows players to use powerful spells at a reduced cost. The choice of spells, including swords to plowshares, mana drain, fatal push, blazing volley, and larger than life, provides a variety of options for different situations and strategies. Overall, "Zenpher, Void's Voice" combines strong offensive capabilities, progressive growth, and a powerful activated ability. The card offers strategic decision-making and potential for exciting plays. Considering these factors, I would rate its design as 80 out of 100.

    I stepped out of my comfort zone with this card. It is a card that allows you to choose from 5 characters (represented as tokens) or a combined multicolored threat. 

    - Honestly, just let me know what you think of the concept here. I'm not asking for a dissection of 6 cards in one post. If you want to look them over, you'll see they all follow the same template, more or less.

    Main Card:
    Twighlight Vanguard
    Twighlight Vanguard by jpastor | MTG Cardsmith

    Character Tokens: 

    Twighlight Vanguard | Custom MTG Set | MTG Cardsmith
  • @jpastor

    I think it's cool to have a creature to change into anything we need it to be depending on situation.

    I think its rarity should be rare or rarer because of how unique and complicate this ability is.

    Oh also, are you aware of you have spelt the name of Twilight Vanguard wrong? That's all I could find on your almost flawless main card.

    I notice some brackets, I seem can't figure out which Elysia Dawnwhisper is preferring to for copying an ability in bracket. If you plan to have it copy from other tokens, I think you need have it to specific which source it can copy from such as "Copy an ability from creature that was dealt combat damage by Elysia Dawnwhisper. She gains that ability in bracket, then phases out."

    As I checked others out, they look good to me! Weak, but simple!

    I would like feedback on this card.
    Cruelty Corpse Collector
    Cruelty Corpse Collector by FireOfGolden | MTG Cardsmith
  • @FireOfGolden
    Thanks for the feedback - the brackets question

    Elysia Dawnwhisper

    She starts without lifelink or vigilance, but gains one of your choice with her triggered ability.
  • @jpastor
    Ah gotcha! So these keywords in brackets are not present until Elysia Dawnwhisper gains one of them, is that right?
  • edited June 20
    [The most recent card is still FireOfGolden's Cruelty Corpse Collector, a few comments up.]

    @jpastor Out of benign fascination, I'm going to wander in and drop a bunch of random thoughts on the twilight vanguard and the concepts surrounding them. Hopefully said thoughts are helpful, rather than far too many words for far too little actual value. Honestly, this is too many words. Just skim-read it. A lot of this is spitballing of my personal takes and some strange directions I dreamt up that the card could take, so I'd really suggest not taking it too close to heart unless you want to.


    First off, I like it! It's a direction of design I haven't really run into before, and it's a really interesting one.

    While this isn't actually what this directly represents, the idea of a 'toolbox' concept fascinates me. The idea of some set of cards that only exist through other cards, and are called upon by multiple cards. So taking the twilight vanguard as the example, you've got this card that calls all five, but you could also have a red and blue card that can only call Blue and Red, a green one that just creates a Green or whatever, so on. I dunno, random thought.

    I actually initially misinterpreted this (because of the Block Of Text Full Of Names and lazy skim-reading) as being a card where you got to choose from the five and would only get the actual Twilight Vanguard card if it entered in a non-cast way. The impression that gave me was 1) That was a thing and 2) The Twilight Vanguard card might be intended to pass on its abilities (the stat-giving one). Again, just an out-loud thought about the toolbox thing, but it'd be an interesting way to give these 'party members' variation if there were multiple ways to get them.

    I'm in total agreement with FireOfGolden that as cool as this is, it unfortunately just isn't a common. All of the component cards are a bit too crazy and complicated, and this is all five of them plus a five-coloured thing which bleeds into all of them in a big stack. On the other hand, I understand and respect that it was done to act as an entry for something that demanded a common. With the hindsight of the toolbox thought I probably would have tried to make a card that just toolboxed one of them and then find ways to weave in others later, but that's obviously hindsight and me rather than you.

    If I had to focus on a single I think this could be better for the card(s), it'd be the fact that the cohesion of the twilight vanguard's members is a bit all over the place. The main points I'd think to myself about them would be:
    • Is the 'if you have this land' restriction really necessary? I know it gives a little surface cohesion, but it's already being thrown by White having an extra requirement and it's cluttery and unnecessary. I only endorse that mechanic when it calls for a different colour of land to the card, which just isn't applicable in this context.
    • I'd be more inclined to think of a direction for each one, and go with it in a concise, formulaic way. Green's about ramp? Sure. A keyword and a ramp-based ability. Red's about instants and sorceries? Keyword and related ability. So on.
    Also, a couple of small general issue-things. One, the twilight vanguard's members should probably either be legendary, or not have legendary-creature-y names. You could just give them names like 'Vanguard Dawncaller', 'Vanguard Stormrider', 'Vanguard Shadowstalker', so on. And then it might be possible to make it even more coherent if it's over multiple cards by making it a mechanic that can just say 'choose Dawncaller or Stormrider' for example. Two, Blue's got something going on with square brackets in the text box and I have no idea what it's meant to mean. Three, I'm a little confused by what the idea behind White is meant to be. Phasing's here for some reason, and you have to earn your keyword, and I just... don't know what the plan was in the same way I can see the others.

    Overall, though, I'd like to repeat and make clear that I adore the idea behind this! It's just so fancy! I just feel like it's currently in that unrefined state where a bit of consideration and thought could polish it up and make it shine.


    Right! That's incomprehensible, but hopefully in a good way! Again, it's worth emphasising that I spent a lot of that going on about my ideas, when this should really be about yours. Take all of mine with the regulation salt-pinch.

    If there's anything you want to chatter about over this card then don't hesitate give me a shout, because I'm really into the whole idea and all the different directions it could take.

    [The most recent card is still FireOfGolden's Cruelty Corpse Collector, a few comments up.]
  • @MemoryHead
    I thank you for the thoughts. Just what I was looking for. Good to see you round btw.

    Here's a rundown of some of the things I highlighted while checking out your thoughts <--- that sounded weird.

    1) Yeah - i fully see where you're going with introducing the mechanism into potentially a set or something where there are these characters that different cards ... summon if you will. Like a special hero set or something.

    2) Yeah - in agreeance with you and fire that this is to be a rare at least. I guess i tried to run it down with the most difficult to use commons on the planet. Didn't work out that way.

    3) Firstly, there is so much flavor I tried to build into each card. 

    4) To answer the white thing... she's indestructible as long as she's got a supportive guardian by her side if you will... along with that, she's hesitant as a living creature to deal damage to anything... she wields such great potential, but can't bring herself to do harm. So, when she does, she gets more powerful, but feels remorseful about it.. and we'll call it "isolates" from the world for a bit to think about things. One can liken this to a superhero learning its abilities, but sometimes causes more harm than good.. you've seen these movies, read these books? they put themselves in timeout for a bit to think about things.

    5) The blue is my favorite... but i have no idea what the hell i'm doing sometimes when it comes to legal wording.. so this idea just came out like it did.. but it goes simply like this: When you cast an instant or sorcery spell, you may tap target permanent. Whenever Kaelen Stormrider deals combat damage, untap target permanent. 

    6) The prefixes (prefix right?) the Kaelin and Elysia and Roderick... those are the names of their kingdoms they reside from.. The Twighlight Vanguard is a collective of defunct misfits from these different kingdom's. So technically.. it's no different than giving them a name like Bolrac-Clan Crusher... for example.

    7) Thank you again for sharing your musings. I'll be sure to whip something together in the future with you that we can possibly collab on. Would be fun.
  • edited June 20
    [And I've written another wall of text. Argh.]

    @jpastor Good to hear that they're helpful, and thanks for the welcome back! No idea how back I actually am, but I'm back enough for long enough to be having this comment chain and that's good enough! I'm just going to thought-back a few of these, numbering them to show which:

    3) and 4) I'm of the opinion that this is something where it's better to go cohesive with individual cards and let the flavour blossom from wider design and writing about them in things like flavour text. It gets kinda messy here, and flavour building is more than just one card standing alone. For example, there seem to be some new Lord of the Rings cards. A lot of them are very flavourful. But they are flavourful because they already have the weight of the whole story-world-thing that is LOTR behind them. There are some very flavourful MTG cards. But they usually earn that tag because some wider story or idea has been woven by other cards or writing or reality, and the card merely enthrones itself in the centre of that web.


    5) Yep, I see that, and honestly I like them too. I'd guess the 'true way' is making them too separate clauses, but also that's a lot of words. In a theoretical rework world (which I appreciate may not be the goal) I'd just put it down on the 'needs some tightening and rethinking' pile.


    6) Ah, right. I think prefixes works as a word. I understand now, but I'd still flag it as a potential issue. I've done a little digging, and this has actually ended up pretty interesting to me, which means this is about to get academic and wordy. And here I was trying to write a short reply. There's a TLDR down below if you want. I'm not going to argue for a specific point, just lay out some observations as I think of them:

    First, their names all just fit into that setup of:
    [First name] [Second name consisting of two words related to who they are or what they do welded together]
    That feels so common to me in legendary creature naming when the name's just something's first and second name. A little random digging has turned up it definitely isn't always the case, but there are still a fair few examples. Is Zurgo Bellstriker a bellstriker from a place called Zurgo, or Tolsimir Wolfblood a werewolf from the Tolsimir gang?

    Second, my research (wow, that makes this sound a lot more professional than it is) has turned up the observation that practically all nonlegendary creatures in this space have at least one clear, defining word. For your example, the Bolrac-Clan Crusher is a Crusher. We may not know what Bolrac-Clan is (though maybe this isn't the best example since it includes Clan), but Crusher is a description that somehow just doesn't fit into the trope-born expectations of the mind about fantasy surnames. Some other examples might be Abzan Guide and Adarkar Valkyrie. We might not know what an Abzan is, but the name clearly guides you to 'This is a guide, and they're related to something called Abzan'.

    A more out-there example might be Abzan Skycaptain. It welds two words together, but they're words with a clear meaning: this is a captain in the sky. It could be a character whose first name is Abzan and whose second is Skycaptain, but it's less likely. And coupled with the lack of legendary tag, you go 'okay, just a captain in the sky. Moving on.'

    And now we come to the members of the twilight vanguard. First, a lot of them just first-impression to me as person-names rather than place-names. Thalia, Lyra and Roderick are all just real-person names. Admittedly some of them are on the uncommon side (mostly thinking of Thalia since that's mostly Greek, but that's counteracted by there being a character in MTG called Thalia). So I'm thinking 'these are people names, not faction names'.

    And then I hit the second names, and they trip on those points above. They're too abstract and personal for me to think 'ah, a description of profession'. Stormrider might be the exception, but at this point it just gets subsumed by the tide of assumption. And then the context suggests legendaries, because they seem like they might be specific members of a party, and we don't know anything about places like Roderick being places in a vacuum. So instead of going 'huh, these are some odd names' I think 'oops, forgot the legendary tagging and borders'.

    If I'd read, for (generic) example, Roderick Pyromancer and Lyra Ranger, I'd have thought 'that's nonlegendary, no self-respecting person makes a pyromancer's surname pyromancer.' But Flameheart? That rings all the classic fantasy naming tropes.


    TLDR: I get what you mean, but a bunch of stuff about how this game and the wider genre of fantasy and sci-fi seem to do names makes me feel it'd be safer to change to some degree.

    Wow, I dug a long way there. Hopefully it was... interesting? Helpful? It was certainly a direction for me to think in. I'm going to stop thinking now. Other things to do.
  • @MemoryHead You embarked on quite the exploratory journey into the realm of creature naming. a fascinating subject indeed! 

    Now, it be time to set yer mind on other tasks and let yer thoughts rest. Fair winds to ye, me friend!

  • LvBLvB
    edited June 23
    A portal to arkanion opens and reveals an optional quest:
    Create the legendary version of the twilight vanguard. ;) B) o:)
    (this will have no effect on the arkanion RPG)
  • edited June 23

    The power level of this card is dependent on how viable other inklings are. I don't know about that, so I'm just analyzing it by itself.

    The art is fun and gross. Good job!

    The first ability only triggering in combat means that it can't be used with board wipes or sacrifice combos. This limits its utility a lot. In stalemates where no player is committing to attacks, the creature does very little.

    The second ability requires at least three other creatures dying in combat (not quaranteed) AND it takes 4 mana (expensive!) AND it requires you to turn your 7/7 into a 4/4 again (expensive!).
    That's a really heavy price. Are inklings so powerful that you have to give this such a huge handicap?
    It might be interesting if this card was a 1/1 with "Cruelty Corpse Collector enters the battlefield with three +1/+1 counters on it", so it could always use its second ability once.

    In its current form, this card seems very situational and slow for its cost. It's a 5-mana card with a 4-mana ability that requires one or more turns to set up (to kill creatures in combat). I'd recommend either making the card or the ability cheaper.

    Two minor grammatical corrections. Don't worry about these too much, just something you can take care of if you make an updated version.
    "Whenever a creature dies during attack phrase" -> "Whenever a creature dies during a combat phase"
    "other every inkling" -> "each other Inkling"

    Here are my cards, based on the new Street Fighter game:

    I'd like some feedback on the "gloryseeking" mechanic.
    "Gloryseeking" does nothing by itself. However, most cards that allow creatures to seek glory give bonuses to each gloryseeking creature you control.  The more of those cards you control, the more powerful seeking glory becomes. It's like slivers!
    "Seek glory" just means "If this creature isn't gloryseeking, it becomes gloryseeking until end of turn". This means that a creature can't become gloryseeking multiple times in a turn.

  • Thought an evoke commander could be cool.

  • @TheDarkKnight1234567
    Hello there! I don't want to be rude, but you will have to give a detailed feedback to the most recently card before putting your card in for feedback. In your case, you might have to review Suleman's two cards which are Marisa and Lily. Then you can give a thoughts to each card and determine how could it be interesting or useful in some situation. You may as well give some feedback to them about how to improve the card, if possible.

    Thank you for ya feedback! I will update it then put here afterwards. I was concerned I might make an inking deck too powerful. Parasitic mechinal allows inkling to attach a host and makes a new black inkling token 2/2 for each time its owner's turn. Inklings will often have these mechinal ability and this inkling could become a very powerful tool.
  • @Suleman
    Allow me to give you a feedback, so you can relax;

    While I don't know about new Street Fighter, but I will determine how Marisa and Lily can do in the MTG.

    I feel like Marisa is somewhat unbalanced, I would like to increase its mana cost or decrease the power/toughness to match the abilities. For mana cost, {1}{r}{g}{w}. For power/toughness, 2/3.

    I detected a grammar error in last ability. Because of it, I am somewhat confused what its purpose is. If it's the gloryseeking creatures ; "Whenever a Gloryseeking creature blocks, it gets +0/+1 until end of turn." Or "Whenever a creature blocks one or more gloryseeking creatures, it gets +0/+1". Good card otherwise!

    As for Lily, it looks good! Rather unique as well!

    I will let ya slide through this time, but remember you will have to give a feedback to most recent card. Imagine you put a card in and someone didn't give you a feedback, just leave a card there be. Frustrating, right?

    The card looks balanced and cool! But for third ability, there's a grammar error. I think it should go; "Creature with ability doesn't cause you to sacifice it when it enters the battlefield." I am unsure about rest others. Can you explain me how evoke works?

    Now, that's over. I updated my card and here is!
  • @FireOfGolden
    "I detected a grammar error in last ability. Because of it, I am somewhat confused what its purpose is. If it's the gloryseeking creatures ; "Whenever a Gloryseeking creature blocks, it gets +0/+1 until end of turn." Or "Whenever a creature blocks one or more gloryseeking creatures, it gets +0/+1". Good card otherwise!"

    Sorry for the confusing wording!
    The ability is meant to give bonuses to the opponent's creatures that block gloryseeking creatures that Marisa's controller controls.
    So, if Marisa attacks and seeks glory, it gets +2/+0 until end of turn (it becomes 5/4). If the opponent's 1/1 Squirrel token blocks Marisa, it gets +0/+1 until end of turn (it becomes 1/2).
    The ability is meant to encourage the defending player to block the attacking creatures.
    I don't think it's grammatically incorrect, though it might be confusing.

    The new Cruelty Corpse Collector looks stronger and is noticeably cheaper. The activated ability costing no mana means that it can easily be used on reaction for free. If the opponent targets it with a removal ability, you can use the ability for free, even multiple times if you have the counters for it. That's strong, which could be fine. If it's too strong, you can add a mana cost or "activate only as a sorcery". I'm not an expert on balance issues, this would need to be playtested.
    It's definitely a more playable card!
  • I'll like feedback on this card because I think it is not balanced:
    Lyra Weird Convoker
  • @Suleman ;
    Ah, the ability that gives bonus to oppoent's defending creatures for blocking Gloryseeking creatures! I would recommend this wording for that;

    Whenever a creature blocks another Gloryseeking creature under your control, that creature gets +0/+1 until end of turn.

    That way wording would be clearly and gives bonus to any creatures for blocking a Gloryseeking creature under Marisa's controller. I hope that helps!
  • edited June 25
    I think the exponentially growing prowess is unnecessary considering she can summon a huge weird anyway. The +1/+1 counters don't seem too useful because it only activates once per turn. I love the concept though, Weird tribal warlock granny sounds awesome and I think she can be a tasteful addition to Izzet storm decks. I love the art you selected for her. Here's what I would suggest:
    Weirds you control have prowess.
    Whenever you cast your fourth spell each turn, create an X/X blue and red Weird creature token, where X is the number of instant and sorcery cards you own in exile and in your graveyard." 
    Lastly, I would make her cost 6 mana to put her in the same space as other legendary izzet creatures of a similar power level. Overall great card.
  • edited June 26
    As a legendary creature, I think Serka is an interesting card. It is not as powerful as a commander but could be used as a support card o selesnya decks.
    The convoke ability is very useful, because white-green decks have lots of token generator and creature matters, making it to fit in most decks using this colors. It is also a 4/4, so it is a powerful attacker on the initial turns.
    The ability to create tokens when having a creature to die makes it a good support for an aggro deck and it can sometimes be useful when playing against a play-the-opponent-graveyard deck. Another thing I have seen is the ability to create the token if the creature would be exiled. It will be exiled anyways but gives you a 2/2.
    Overall I think Serka would be a good support creature in most (if not every) white-green deck.

    I would appreciate feedback on this card:

Sign In or Register to comment.