@Temurzoa It appears to me that mutate might have grammar error, but I may be wrong. Other than that, Octomunculus looks like a great card. Personally, I would make it a 3/3.
Up next, give one or both a fave and/or comment, then post up to two of your own.
@Revan I don't think there are non-aetherborn Vampires on Kaladesh, and I don't think the Dealing Damage thing is worded properly. I do like that Sand-belcher, but I'm distracted by the fact that I have used that art myself (It's Ok, but distracting). Next up: (Give feedback on the story as well)
"Once, there was a proud lord who had no respect for the people. The peasants were overworked and unhappy as the cows they kept. One year, the rain stopped. At the end of the long, dry year, a stranger appeared. It was like a pillar of white mist, with glinting purple eyes. The stranger climbed the hill of the castle, and cursed the lord to never be in the world again."
@KorandAngels Interesting card! I like the story too, reminds me somewhat of the Raven Man from Liliana's backstory. Not sure the loyalty-from-exile thing works entirely, what's supposed to happen when it runs out of loyalty? Also, the Planeswalker "subtype" is missing.
Next is a new card that arose from my dark experimentation trying to wrangle a more workable mechanic out of phyrexian mana (reminder text is very important!):
@KorandAngels I think FangQuil is referring to the fact that the subtype is the character's name. There's no reason not to include it (The Wanderer is the only one that doesn't I believe and that's for story reasons).
So, I get to be boring rules guy. Loyalty abilities can only be activated if they're on a permanent (CR 606.3). By definition, cards in exile are not permanents. Also, to echo FangQuil's point, there's no rule to define what happens when it 'runs out' of loyalty in exile. Even if that all worked as intended, having a planeswalker in exile that can't profitably be interacted with seems like a bad choice. It's a free wheel each turn for several turns that your opponent can't touch. Short version, it's an interesting idea but non-functional and not good for gameplay.
So question: if I have a card named “Dwarven Guy” and the art features a Dwarf, would it be really bad if he didn’t have the subtype Dwarf? Could he just be Scout or Peasant?
@Scott_Anderson It's my opinion that it's your card an so you technically can do that if you want to, but it's not something you should be doing, especially with something so mundane as an established creature type. The only card that I can think of off of the top of my head that has a role but no species is Arcanis the Omnipotent, and he's got that for flavor reasons and to show an entity that's effectively delved so far into the art of wizardry that it's given up every other aspect of its identity.
To summarise, I'd say that yes, it would be really bad (or at the least an action with no discernible purpose that goes against MTG's conventions of creature typing). Unless it's an un-card and you have an actual reason for it, I suppose.
In the history of magic there are only two black Dwarfs and one of them is a Dwarf Zombie. And there is only one blue Dwarf.
There are no green Dwarfs.
Therefore if I make dwarfs in those colors, they’re not dwarfs. And I do. I have a lot of green Dwarfs. So I only type them as their job, not their species.
@Scott_Anderson - I don't think so. Bloodwater Entity (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=430827) costs as much, has flying, prowess, and can put any instant or sorcery card from your graveyard on top of your library. My card doesn't have flying, has a power that's greater by 1, and can only put a card with CMC 2 or less from your graveyard to hand. Cards of such low costs don't impact the game as much as those of greater converted mana cost.
@TenebrisNemo I'm going to voice disagreements with a few of the points you've made there:
- Lotus-Eye Mystics returns a card type that's far less relevant in all formats. Many decks don't run a single enchantment, but I'd think that I'd be hard-pressed to find something competitive that lacks instant and sorcery cards (okay, Pioneer's mono-white devotion only sideboards them, but still). Also, blue is just kind of a more relevant color than white in a lot of formats.
- In relation to Bloodwater Entity, the difference between putting a card on top and putting it into hand is extreme. A card in hand represents card advantage and the ability to use the Lightning Bolt or whatever you got back immediately, whereas Bloodwater's "on top" placement gives the opponent time to do things like plan against what they know you're going to have or just plain ol' kill you. Also, Bloodwater's in two colors and so demands that you play Izzet, while this can probably slot into things like mono-blue devotion and Azorius Control rather neatly.
- The fact that this only returns a card with CMC 2 or less, while certainly a restriction, isn't that bad. If you look at the usage of cards like Snapcaster Mage, you'll see that in the vast majority of cases it'll be granting flashback to a card with CMC 2 or less. They may not have big, fancy effects, but never underestimate an extra Lightning Bolt, Thoughtseize or Opt's potential to tip the balance of a game. Snappy has flash and a different function, of course, but I feel that the point of "Often, the little spells are the game-winners" is a valid one.
I feel that the card can remain a three-drop, but it's worth acknowledging that it's a powerful one. On a largely unrelated note, it's interesting to think that the card becomes more powerful in certain areas if its cost were to be increased because it would be able to return a wider range of cards.
Here's my card. Apologies for the image's low quality, I haven't figured out how to work the new comment system's HTML yet and so I had to do some slapdash editing to get it down to a logical size. Comment on it or favorite it before posting a new card:
@KorandAngels - The "2" should be "two," and the tap symbol should be at the beginning of the ability. Also, you don't need to type "you control" when you sacrifice something in a card's effect. A permanent can only be sacrificed by the player who controls it in Magic, so that clause is unnecessary. And the first letter of "investigate" shouldn't be capitalized unless it's the first word in a sentence. So the last ability should be put someway like this:
{t}, Sacrifice two other creatures: Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature you control, then investigate.
The card also feels very underpowered for a legendary creature of that CMC and rarity. I'd suggest decreasing its CMC, increasing its power/toughness, creating more Serfs, have the last ability sacrifice fewer creatures, and/or put more +1/+1 counters on the target creature.
Here is mine. Post a comment on the card and/or favorite it before posting your card(s):
@Mir-151414 I agree with everything DomriKade said on your cards. Verenath Is a decent creature with interesting abilities, but the wording is off. Gorrad is way too OP for its mana cost and can utilise a ton of infinite combos with the discard ability. I reccomend maybe putting a mana cost on those abilities, like "Whenever an opponent loses life, you may pay {2}, If you do, that player discards a card." Hope this helps!
Next up: I was trying to create an interesting ability that involves both the graveyard and exile, but I don't think it's worded correctly. any help on that would be cool. Comment and/or favorite these, then post up to two of your own! P.S. Now I can actually mention you when I post these. Hallelujah
@ouser94501, cool mechanic. Watch out though because there's no restriction to the number of times you can cast the cards. Also, Devoted Leonin needs artist credit.
Featuring the Settle mechanic. Thoughts on the wording?
@ouser94501 Devoted Leonin's art is by Steven Belledin and it comes from a real MTG card, Leonin Armorguard.
Talking about the rebirth mechanic: it's not necessarily a good idea. The purpose of exile in MTG is that it can't be interacted with outside of a handful of random cards, and those that do tend to do very minor things in their interaction, so minor that none see play anywhere to my knowledge except for a one-of Coax from the Blind Eternities in the sideboards of a few Pioneer Inverter decks.
In effect, you exile things in MTG because that's how you make them stay dead and not be mucked with or reanimated or used to fuel a delve spell or whatever for the rest of the game. Anything that makes a card leave the place is something that needs to be very carefully balanced, and an entire mechanic (meaning that it'd probably be on numerous cards) should probably just be disregarded as an idea entirely.
As a side-note, I know the Eldrazi processors of the Battle for Zendikar block made a whole thing of moving cards out of exile, but since they only target your opponent's cards then I'm not really counting them. Also, I forgot about them entirely while writing the main thing.
@Mir-151414 I think your current iteration of the card is correct. @MemoryHead Yeah, I was thinking of that too. My idea is to put them in a separate exile zone, sort of like adventure cards. That way, they won't be able to come back from being pathed. Do you think that that helps, or is the mechanic still too good?
@ouser94501 You'd have to elaborate on what your idea for the wording would be for me to really be able to comment. It's worth noting that each player only has one exile zone, though, so if you were being literal with that statement then you'll have to change your idea a little.
@Termurzoa, I really like the Settle mechanic, and the wording seems fine, although I think it could be quite painful to lose a land early on to something like a lightning strike. Also, is there going to be a benefit for making more than one Settlement aside from having a bit of redundancy in case you lose one?
Here's my card. I wanted to get away with pushing an 8 drop with no ETB/LTB abilities as much as possible.
@Orzhova, it might just be me, but it feels like it's doing too much... Also, the first ability should say, "Whenever Terror of the Depths attacks,..." and not "When".
MTG Cardsmith Community Forums
Comments
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/champion-of-final-hours
New card, new flagship white mechanic for my set. Would love feedback very much, I'll give you a quick smooch as a reward.
Thoughts?
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/octomunculus
Up next, give one or both a fave and/or comment, then post up to two of your own.
Next up: (Give feedback on the story as well)
"Once, there was a proud lord who had no respect for the people. The peasants were overworked and unhappy as the cows they kept. One year, the rain stopped. At the end of the long, dry year, a stranger appeared. It was like a pillar of white mist, with glinting purple eyes. The stranger climbed the hill of the castle, and cursed the lord to never be in the world again."
Next is a new card that arose from my dark experimentation trying to wrangle a more workable mechanic out of phyrexian mana (reminder text is very important!):
So, I get to be boring rules guy. Loyalty abilities can only be activated if they're on a permanent (CR 606.3). By definition, cards in exile are not permanents. Also, to echo FangQuil's point, there's no rule to define what happens when it 'runs out' of loyalty in exile. Even if that all worked as intended, having a planeswalker in exile that can't profitably be interacted with seems like a bad choice. It's a free wheel each turn for several turns that your opponent can't touch. Short version, it's an interesting idea but non-functional and not good for gameplay.
To summarise, I'd say that yes, it would be really bad (or at the least an action with no discernible purpose that goes against MTG's conventions of creature typing). Unless it's an un-card and you have an actual reason for it, I suppose.
In the history of magic there are only two black Dwarfs and one of them is a Dwarf Zombie. And there is only one blue Dwarf.
There are no green Dwarfs.
Therefore if I make dwarfs in those colors, they’re not dwarfs. And I do. I have a lot of green Dwarfs. So I only type them as their job, not their species.
Here is mine. Post a comment on the card and/or favorite it before posting your card(s):
When compared to Lotus-Eye Mystics (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=456619), its CMC is greater by 1, but their color weight isn't as heavy and they can return an enchantment card of any converted mana cosrt from graveyard to your hand.
- Lotus-Eye Mystics returns a card type that's far less relevant in all formats. Many decks don't run a single enchantment, but I'd think that I'd be hard-pressed to find something competitive that lacks instant and sorcery cards (okay, Pioneer's mono-white devotion only sideboards them, but still). Also, blue is just kind of a more relevant color than white in a lot of formats.
- In relation to Bloodwater Entity, the difference between putting a card on top and putting it into hand is extreme. A card in hand represents card advantage and the ability to use the Lightning Bolt or whatever you got back immediately, whereas Bloodwater's "on top" placement gives the opponent time to do things like plan against what they know you're going to have or just plain ol' kill you. Also, Bloodwater's in two colors and so demands that you play Izzet, while this can probably slot into things like mono-blue devotion and Azorius Control rather neatly.
- The fact that this only returns a card with CMC 2 or less, while certainly a restriction, isn't that bad. If you look at the usage of cards like Snapcaster Mage, you'll see that in the vast majority of cases it'll be granting flashback to a card with CMC 2 or less. They may not have big, fancy effects, but never underestimate an extra Lightning Bolt, Thoughtseize or Opt's potential to tip the balance of a game. Snappy has flash and a different function, of course, but I feel that the point of "Often, the little spells are the game-winners" is a valid one.
I feel that the card can remain a three-drop, but it's worth acknowledging that it's a powerful one. On a largely unrelated note, it's interesting to think that the card becomes more powerful in certain areas if its cost were to be increased because it would be able to return a wider range of cards.
Here's my card. Apologies for the image's low quality, I haven't figured out how to work the new comment system's HTML yet and so I had to do some slapdash editing to get it down to a logical size. Comment on it or favorite it before posting a new card:
http://mtgcardsmith.com/view/ravenous-royal
@MemoryHead Great card, very flavourful. It's probably undercosted, even without the other abilities. It should probably cost 1BB.
Next up, more Food! Unlike MemoryHead, I cannot tackle the new comment system
{t}, Sacrifice two other creatures: Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature you control, then investigate.
The card also feels very underpowered for a legendary creature of that CMC and rarity. I'd suggest decreasing its CMC, increasing its power/toughness, creating more Serfs, have the last ability sacrifice fewer creatures, and/or put more +1/+1 counters on the target creature.
Here is mine. Post a comment on the card and/or favorite it before posting your card(s):
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/maeve-rotten-hag
Thoughts on these? They're supposed to work together.
http://mtgcardsmith.com/view/verenath-the-heart-stealer-1?list=user
http://mtgcardsmith.com/view/gorrad-verenaths-prophesier?list=user
Leave a comment or a fav on these two cards then post up to two cards of your own!
Next up: I was trying to create an interesting ability that involves both the graveyard and exile, but I don't think it's worded correctly. any help on that would be cool. Comment and/or favorite these, then post up to two of your own!
P.S. Now I can actually mention you when I post these. Hallelujah
Talking about the rebirth mechanic: it's not necessarily a good idea. The purpose of exile in MTG is that it can't be interacted with outside of a handful of random cards, and those that do tend to do very minor things in their interaction, so minor that none see play anywhere to my knowledge except for a one-of Coax from the Blind Eternities in the sideboards of a few Pioneer Inverter decks.
In effect, you exile things in MTG because that's how you make them stay dead and not be mucked with or reanimated or used to fuel a delve spell or whatever for the rest of the game. Anything that makes a card leave the place is something that needs to be very carefully balanced, and an entire mechanic (meaning that it'd probably be on numerous cards) should probably just be disregarded as an idea entirely.
As a side-note, I know the Eldrazi processors of the Battle for Zendikar block made a whole thing of moving cards out of exile, but since they only target your opponent's cards then I'm not really counting them. Also, I forgot about them entirely while writing the main thing.
@MemoryHead Yeah, I was thinking of that too. My idea is to put them in a separate exile zone, sort of like adventure cards. That way, they won't be able to come back from being pathed. Do you think that that helps, or is the mechanic still too good?
Here's my card. I wanted to get away with pushing an 8 drop with no ETB/LTB abilities as much as possible.
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/terror-of-the-depths-4
Anyway, here's my card:
The 'menace' feels a little out of place, but other then that very nice.
Up next, give it a fave and/or comment, then post up to two of your own.