@Hergusbergus Battle for the Piece should include the created tokens’ stats, keywords, and colors (or lack thereof) in the text.
Also, I think part of the text should be changed to “you may have target opponent gain control of target nonland, non-Aura permanent you control.” This clarifies that the player who casts the spell chooses what permanent the opponent will gain control of (which I assume is what you were intending).
Besides that, the card SEEMS balanced enough (although I am often wrong about these things). I like it’s effect of creating vehicle tokens, and I’m intrigued about its flavor implications.
Here’s mine:
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/masked-maniac-1 This is a remake of the card below, which was a tad overpowered. I’m worried that in my attempt to balance it, I might have went a bit overboard. Any thoughts?
@Hergusbergus I won't make it instant, you are getting a ton of value out of one card here. You can declare blockers then give the blocker to your opponent and possibly kill off their attacker, and then for 4 mana you're more or less getting 6/4 flying worth of stats and 4 bodies that can attack next turn. Also the pilots don't need haste to crew, it's the vehicle that needs haste. If it's at sorcery it would be better balanced since you can't do many tricks and it's played straight. It's not a exactly 6/4 flying for 4 mana and you giving them at best a 1/1 (1CMC value) but it can be hard gauge the value of vehicles vs straight up creatures.
@Hergusbergus I get what your doing there, but I would be careful with that, because Wizards hasn't printed anything that can stop -X/-X effects or -1/-1 counters straight up. I would change the card to "exile target creature and return it under to the battlefield under its owner's control. It gains indestructible until end of turn." and make it cost 1WW. Flickering is how you can get around -X/-X or -1/-1 counters, and has a precedent, where "its power and toughness can't be less than its base power and toughness" doesn't.
@zenlos_the_traveler Thanks for your feedback, but I would left Toby Fox same as it is because it's silver card therefore it's not same as normal card would be. Would you check my cards above of Toby Fox such as Dogamy or Dogaressa?
@FireOfGolden Toby Fox shouldn't be legendary. There is no reason a legendary creature should have the text "this creature isn't legendary" (basically), just make it not legendary. What you should do instead is make the text on cards like Aeve, Progenitor Ooze that says "Toby Fox isn't legendary if it's a token". I don't really understand what the card does because the grammar isn't very good. Its silly though.
I made this card specifically for Commander. Its supposed to be like you can negotiate and make a treaty with your opponents. You both get a buff to your guys, but you can't attack each other, like a peace treaty in real life. The reason that any player can destroy all of them is to stop stale game states, and it is where the agreement would break down flavorfully.
@SPyBondPlays As a commander player, especially one that doesn't like attacking, I don't think U.N. Agreement will have the desired effect. While it looks okay on paper (aside from the fact that you can spend 3 mana for nothing if your opponent simply says no), here's what I think is likely to happen once it hits the board (assuming politics is on the table at all):
If you don't have a threatening board presence, you'll be seen as sucking up to the currently threat(s) in an attempt to buy enough time to get your engine(s) online and whip out a wincon. In which case, it's in everyone's best interests to kill you instead of accepting the alliance offer. (Even the players you don't ask will be wary of you, since you just tried to shift aggression away from yourself and onto them.)
If you do have a threatening board presence, you'll appear to be trying to threaten particular players into being your "friends", which may instead get them to make an alliance against you. (Especially since you just buffed your creatures.)
In general, a player could just use their words (which costs nothing) to establish a wider variety of deals enforced by players' subsequent actions to much greater effect. (Note that the benefit to accepting the U.N. Agreement is rather weak, so plenty of decks will have no reason to accept.) One last thing that caught my attention is that players can cut others out of the loop via enchantment removal without removing the buff for themselves, which would be especially painful for the original caster.
@hileandr Videos are published on youtube, so they usually have auto caption closed, but for me, they are still inaccurate due to some word sounding similar or something that doesn't make sense at all or some words don't even comes up when it should be.
I don't think the clause to limit the number of targets is needed. I would word it like this,
"As an additional cost to cast this spell, choose any number of creatures controlled by the same player. This spell costs 1 less to cast for each chosen creature.
Exile each creature that player controls that wasn't chosen."
The caster wouldn't want to choose any creature past the 5 already since it wouldn't lower the cost anyway. Besides that, it's a pretty nice card. Well balanced I would say.
Showcasing a common card! You don't have to commentate on it, but I wanted to show it off.
Teabot is simple card and I love it! I am showcasing one of the common cards from set to you. I hope you would enjoy it. https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/woshua-11
Now to another card, I want to know people's opinion on this.
Temmie is cat-dog monster from Undertale found in waterfall area in secret area. There are many copies of them like Temmie as Temmie sells an item called Temmie flakes which heals for one point which is useless in the Undertale.
What am I looking for: Upon summoning with paid mana, there will be Temmie, the Shopkeeper with ability allows paying a mana causing it to be tapped for a life. With her, there will be other copycats (Eh? Eh? Sorry...) which isn't legendary creature but has same ability.
@FireOfGolden ok ik nothing about undertale but imm give it my thoughts as a card not flavor first of all you did wrong grammar on it but you already mention it so no worries there but monster isnt legal creature type they usually just do beast instead. now to the actual card i think its kinda weak in mono white but with a splash of green it could be bonkers wiith a buff spell and once you play it evryone just gonnna thinkwelp if i dont board wipe overrun is about to come out or sum like that imo should make them 0/1.
ok here my card i play commander and my group is ok with custom commanders but i would also like yalls thoughts on it the commander it would replace of mine is farideh.
the deck rolls dice and have fun and thhis guy covers the weakness of a bad roll with his first ability.
now if you get a 6 on a six sided die a 12 on a 12 sided die or a 20 on a 20 sided die you get to opt pretty much which is good you always want high rolls on a dice roll deck but it got me thinking what if he could also complement a low roll so that where is roll a one basically and do a shock.
@Titanium000 Arcaid seems pretty fun to play; reasonably powerful dice roll commander.
Even with the first ability being strictly better than Barbarian Class due to the third ability, I think you could make this a rare since I think there's only a 19% chance of getting either trigger when rolling a d20, and there aren't many ways to roll smaller dice in UR. (Increases to ~27%/~34% with one/both of Barbarian Class & Pixie Guide on the board.)
You might also be able to get away with increasing the strength of the triggers, since with just Arcaid there's only a 9.75% (~14%/~18.5%) chance of getting either trigger in particular per d20 roll. The second ability could be "scry 2, then draw a card", and the third ability "3 damage to any target" and it might still remain in the realm of 'reasonably strong'.
I'd appreciate feedback on this card:
Thorns of Altruism is part of a cycle of 4-color charms (see the spoiler below) with names based on the missing color. I'd appreciate feedback on all of them, but I'm really looking for feedback on this one, as it's an attempt at representing what I'm told the rest of the table expects from a grouphug deck. (I hear that there's always a secret evil plot waiting to come to fruition, so this time the spooky part is on the card itself in a paradoxical attempt to appear less sketchy.)
@cadstar369 thx for the feedback but now to your card. ok i like the idea of the card but i think the top ability should only be 1 card instead of 2 cuz if they aint instants they aint never gona cast them by your end step. i think the second ability is good cuz it would force a player with a counter to either counter this card or wait a turn. i allso enjoy the third ability cuz who doesnt like life? and for the last abilty i rly like too its just the first one i see a problem with. now for 4 mana i think thzt may be too much maybe 5 imo. i also rly love the art. i hoped this helped.
now for my card i would like yalls most honest opinion on it. ( plz judge it as a commander.) cuz my friend ask to me make a orzhov landfall custom commander and they want it be fair too ( my playgroup dont mind custom commanders as long as they arent broken.) so that why im on here all im asking is what do yall think would yall play it or play against it?
Like do you think its good as it is or maybe the mana cost should be higher or the power or toughness should be lower or higher or maybe the abilities or too broken like i rly want to know if yall think its weak, good, or busted. remeber this is in a commander sense so pl judge it as if it is the helm of the 99
@Titanium000 thanks for the catch! Huge typo on my part. Corrected to the end of the caster's next turn to give each player an opportunity to play the exiled cards.
@Titanium000 The elemental land ability doesn't really fit white-black. That's more for red-green. Since the card is made for commander, most likely you'll be playing with multiple people so Vlinn dealing damage with lifelink should make up for gaining 3 life, which is why I don't see the relevance in the first mode. Besides those criticisms, this card is pretty good. Remember for Vlinn's second mode, Vlinn deals the damage, not you. I like a cheap commander like them, so well done.
@Titanium000 I don't play commander but how viable to is turning your opponent's lands into 2/2 creatures making them vulnerable to board sweepers? For the low cost of dropping a land making your opponent's lands into creatures deters them from playing thier own sweepers and in early game they will be using the land for mana and shouldn't really be attacking with them.
Vlinn has a decent body, but doesn't really seem like a landfall commander to me. That is, Vlinn doesn't really encourage you to play lands (especially more than one per turn), but rather just happens to have a decent modal ability tied to landfall.
Expanding on Hergusbergus's second point, the second mode should read "Vlinn deals 1 damage to each opponent and each planeswalker they control," which negates the purpose of the first ability due to Vlinn's lifelink. However, in contrast to their first opinion, I'd like to point out that Awaken is primarily WUB (Noyan Dar in particular is a CEDH commander), so I see no problem with giving Vlinn an animating effect.
With regards to the third mode, note that the target stops being a land. If that is the intention, then having repeatable 'free' land destruction for 2 mana is pretty sketchy, and likely deserves a significant boost to the mana cost.
If the above was not intentional, then in light of the first mode's redundancy, perhaps you could remove it and change the third mode to something like this: "Put two +1/+1 counters and your choice of a deathtouch counter or lifelink counter on up to one target creature or land you control. If a land had counters put on it this way, it becomes a 0/0 Elemental creature with haste that’s still a land." (using Nissa, Who Shakes the World, Agitator Ant and these cards for wording references) This would give Vlinn more flexibility and allow them to support a wider variety of the cards and strategies available to WB land decks.
@Sweda since there's 3 other players and WB is not great at ramp, that shouldn't be an issue. As far as I understand, that sort of strategy only really becomes a problem in these colors via one-sided mass land destruction combos like Elesh Norn + Kormus Bell + Urborg.
While Lose Oneself is more versatile than Collateral Damage, this doesn't seem to have a place anywhere outside of burn decks desperate to end the game as quickly as possible, but they already have more than enough better options.
Is this meant to be a limited card? I have little experience in that area; perhaps @hileandr could provide more insight in that regard.
I'd like some more feedback on the cycle of cards from my previous post.
@hileandr thanks for the reviews! It's nice hearing from someone with practically the opposite perspective as mine format-wise, and there's some pretty amusing moments in there.
The cost for Culling Invocation was mostly based on considering an inverse Winds of Abandon. The wording on the first part is mainly to clarify interactions with cost modifications. I might bump the cost up 1 more since it didn't require a target player until Jadefire pointed out that it's unclear who loses all their creatures when cast at full cost.
Quick comment on the cycle in general before responding to individual reviews: If you didn't see my initial post about them, they're all named after the popular nicknames for those color combinations (ref), using the missing color for the first part of each name. Thus I tried building the effects around the names. You caught most of the effects that were harder to come up with during your reviews, so I figured I'd mention that first.
If someone were to cast Thorns of Altruism into a vacuum, then I mostly agree with your review. One big thing about most grouphug cards that makes people wary of grouphug decks is that the one playing them plans on being able to take the most advantage of them (which is nice 'cause they tend to cost less than similar effects that only affect you). With this mindset, the third mode is meant to be read along the lines of "everyone loses, but I lost the least", and the fourth mode is played similarly to Intellectual Offering, but is slightly better when your opponents are also low on cards since it's (generally) only net 1. For the white ability's wording, see Tariff & Juxtapose for reference.
I don't play many steal effects, so you might be right about Glimmer of Chaos's first ability. I figured it'd be fine since it's harder to cast than Role Reversal and such. The second ability was just because I couldn't think of anything 'chaotic' for black. As for the red ability, P/T swapping is something both blue and red get on single targets, but swapping it for everyone is unique to Mannichi, the Fever Dream, so I thought it'd be interesting to spotlight that. I did consider using a Chaos Warp effect instead, but didn't think it'd fit on the card.
For Surge of Aggression, choosing modes 1+3 or 1+4 can be useful for pushing a kill via commander damage. The goad is nice for when either you don't want to risk attacking (perhaps you suspect an Aetherize or Settle the Wreckage in the wings), or you want to leave someone open to another player. It also helps kill off creatures like Archmage Emeritus and Soul Warden that people don't normally attack or block with.
Similar to Glimmer of Chaos, I had no idea what to do with the black ability for Surge of Growth. Do note though that when you choose multiple modes for a spell, you do them in the order listed, so the blue mode would not interact with the black mode in the way you suggested because proliferate is written first.
While I like your suggestion for Fruits of Artifice's black ability (apparently there's a theme here of me not doing well with black abilities ), I'm not sure it would fit on the remaining space (if it does, I might switch use something similar). My thought process for the kill mode was that it shouldn't hurt artifacts precisely because the card is artifact themed, similar to how Phyrexian Scriptures kills all nonartifact creatures.
On a separate note (since I saw this come up in other reviews as well), between the older art for MtG & the Secret Lairs, I don't think there's much left that one could call unsuitable for MtG art at this point. In particular, while I also don't care for blank backgrounds, I figured the current art for Thorns of Artifice would make more sense than the fractals I tend to use in these situations. Similarly, I figured 'why not be punny for once' and went literal with Fruits of Artifice's art. (I also try not to use art if I can't find the artist; if you're ever curious about it, most of the artists I pull from have their work on Artstation.)
Time to watch the rest of the reviews! (I'll leave any further comments on the videos directly.)
@cadstar369 Thanks for taking my critiques in stride and also defending yourself a bit. I love to see it, because I learn things too this way.
The cost for Culling Invocation was mostly based on considering an inverse Winds of Abandon. The wording on the first part is mainly to clarify interactions with cost modifications. I might bump the cost up 1 more since it didn't require a target player until Jadefire pointed out that it's unclear who loses all their creatures when cast at full cost.
I do think it's too good in its current iteration (at least at rare). Winds of abandon is also very good, but you have to keep in mind that it does give lands for each creature exiled, which does matter. It's also a bit less flexible as it only has 2 modes, whereas this one has many more. Flexibility matters. I still like the card, though.
If you didn't see my initial post about them, they're all named after the popular nicknames for those color combinations (ref), using the missing color for the first part of each name. Thus I tried building the effects around the names.
That's very interesting, I had no knowledge of those nicknames. Do you know where they originated?
If someone were to cast Thorns of Altruism into a vacuum, then I mostly agree with your review. One big thing about most grouphug cards that makes people wary of grouphug decks is that the one playing them plans on being able to take the most advantage of them (which is nice 'cause they tend to cost less than similar effects that only affect you). With this mindset, the third mode is meant to be read along the lines of "everyone loses, but I lost the least", and the fourth mode is played similarly to Intellectual Offering, but is slightly better when your opponents are also low on cards since it's (generally) only net 1. For the white ability's wording, see Tariff & Juxtapose for reference.
Interesting about the wording. I was thinking along the lines of cards like Soul Shatter. Your reference cards are much older, but even their oracle text is written like that. Strange, it appears to me that there's an inconsistency there.
In regards to the card itself, I understand what you're saying: You want to build your deck to take the most advantage of the effects. But even with that in mind, it still feels like you get the short end of the stick here, especially with the last mode. Even if you build your deck with graveyard synergies, it's not like other players won't have their own graveyard synergies.
I don't play many steal effects, so you might be right about Glimmer of Chaos's first ability. I figured it'd be fine since it's harder to cast than Role Reversal and such. The second ability was just because I couldn't think of anything 'chaotic' for black. As for the red ability, P/T swapping is something both blue and red get on single targets, but swapping it for everyone is unique to Mannichi, the Fever Dream, so I thought it'd be interesting to spotlight that. I did consider using a Chaos Warp effect instead, but didn't think it'd fit on the card.
Even though it's harder to cast than role reversal, don't forget that you have a much higher flexibility on this card and you get an additional effect out of the deal.
With regards to the black ability, perhaps you could do something like "each opponent discards a card at random?" Regardless, it doesn't bother me the way it is now. Killing something is pretty chaotic.
I see where you're coming from with the P/T switching. Doing a scryfall search for red and blue does yield results for both, but it's worth pointing out that all of the power and toughness switching effects are pretty outdated, which is why I wasn't aware of the red aspect of this. That leads me to believe that other players won't recognize it either. I'd still like to see something else there, especially because the effect is so situational that it'll be so rarely used. Perhaps destroying an artifact would be appropriate.
While I like your suggestion for Fruits of Artifice's black ability (apparently there's a theme here of me not doing well with black abilities ), I'm not sure it would fit on the remaining space (if it does, I might switch use something similar). My thought process for the kill mode was that it shouldn't hurt artifacts precisely because the card is artifact themed, similar to how Phyrexian Scriptures kills all nonartifact creatures.
Another possibility: "Target creature gets +1/+0 until end of turn for each artifact you control" (a la Cranial Plating)
On a separate note (since I saw this come up in other reviews as well), between the older art for MtG & the Secret Lairs, I don't think there's much left that one could call unsuitable for MtG art at this point. In particular, while I also don't care for blank backgrounds, I figured the current art for Thorns of Artifice would make more sense than the fractals I tend to use in these situations. Similarly, I figured 'why not be punny for once' and went literal with Fruits of Artifice's art. (I also try not to use art if I can't find the artist; if you're ever curious about it, most of the artists I pull from have their work on Artstation.)
That's certainly an argument I haven't considered, since I tend to ignore secret lair type stuff and alternate-style cards. However, all the cards created on MTGC use the standard border, and unless your card specifically is trying to emulate some other IP (Like FireOfGolden's cards, for example), I still stick to my guns here. Of course, this is only my opinion, certainly do what you want. As for my reviews, however, I'll still consider art the same way.
Thanks again for the response, and I'd love to see you comment on some of the other reviews. @Jadefire has been posting a lot of comments on my videos and I always learn something.
Seeing as the latest card has been reviewed, here is mine
Inspired by the art posted on reddit by -tyranosaure- so I just had to make a saga for it
This the saga transforms into Starscourge Radahn
For some background, this is one of the bosses in Elden Ring, for the boss fight you're allowed to summon several NPCs to help in the fight, most boss you can only summon one. Lore wise the fight is held as a festival calling on the most powerful fighters to try and defeat Radahn. In the fight when his HP is half he flies into the air and crashes down as a meteor. This saga interprets the calling of powerful fighters (from all players) and the meteor crash.
MTG Cardsmith Community Forums
Comments
Thoughts?
Battle for the Piece should include the created tokens’ stats, keywords, and colors (or lack thereof) in the text.
This clarifies that the player who casts the spell chooses what permanent the opponent will gain control of (which I assume is what you were intending).
I like it’s effect of creating vehicle tokens, and I’m intrigued about its flavor implications.
Here’s mine:
This is a remake of the card below, which was a tad overpowered. I’m worried that in my attempt to balance it, I might have went a bit overboard. Any thoughts?
Thoughts?
I get what your doing there, but I would be careful with that, because Wizards hasn't printed anything that can stop -X/-X effects or -1/-1 counters straight up. I would change the card to "exile target creature and return it under to the battlefield under its owner's control. It gains indestructible until end of turn." and make it cost 1WW. Flickering is how you can get around -X/-X or -1/-1 counters, and has a precedent, where "its power and toughness can't be less than its base power and toughness" doesn't.
For your Determination, I can see your goal and I agreed with @SPyBondPlays for that.
Gonna love flavor text! It gives a story off the card.
@Sweda @KrakenSalad -
I took your advice, discarded the card with new card with better ability. Your opinion on this card?
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/toriel-the-ruinkeeper-1
Now back to two cards that can only work with each other,
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/dogamy-4
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/dogaressa-6
Are these well balanced? Are they still fair, even if they are common?
It's designed to destroy the game or annoy every player a lot.
*Exile X creatures named Toby fox
*X mana value.
Toby Fox shouldn't be legendary. There is no reason a legendary creature should have the text "this creature isn't legendary" (basically), just make it not legendary. What you should do instead is make the text on cards like Aeve, Progenitor Ooze that says "Toby Fox isn't legendary if it's a token". I don't really understand what the card does because the grammar isn't very good. Its silly though.
Here's my card.
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/un-agreement
I made this card specifically for Commander. Its supposed to be like you can negotiate and make a treaty with your opponents. You both get a buff to your guys, but you can't attack each other, like a peace treaty in real life. The reason that any player can destroy all of them is to stop stale game states, and it is where the agreement would break down flavorfully.
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Let me know if you enjoy this or hate it, and feel free to push back on anything I say in the video.
Are you aware that I am deaf?
I was not aware of that! Do the Closed Captions work?
As a commander player, especially one that doesn't like attacking, I don't think U.N. Agreement will have the desired effect. While it looks okay on paper (aside from the fact that you can spend 3 mana for nothing if your opponent simply says no), here's what I think is likely to happen once it hits the board (assuming politics is on the table at all):
- If you don't have a threatening board presence, you'll be seen as sucking up to the currently threat(s) in an attempt to buy enough time to get your engine(s) online and whip out a wincon. In which case, it's in everyone's best interests to kill you instead of accepting the alliance offer. (Even the players you don't ask will be wary of you, since you just tried to shift aggression away from yourself and onto them.)
- If you do have a threatening board presence, you'll appear to be trying to threaten particular players into being your "friends", which may instead get them to make an alliance against you. (Especially since you just buffed your creatures.)
In general, a player could just use their words (which costs nothing) to establish a wider variety of deals enforced by players' subsequent actions to much greater effect. (Note that the benefit to accepting the U.N. Agreement is rather weak, so plenty of decks will have no reason to accept.) One last thing that caught my attention is that players can cut others out of the loop via enchantment removal without removing the buff for themselves, which would be especially painful for the original caster.I'd appreciate feedback on this card:
@cadstar369
I don't think the clause to limit the number of targets is needed. I would word it like this,
"As an additional cost to cast this spell, choose any number of creatures controlled by the same player. This spell costs 1 less to cast for each chosen creature.
Exile each creature that player controls that wasn't chosen."
The caster wouldn't want to choose any creature past the 5 already since it wouldn't lower the cost anyway. Besides that, it's a pretty nice card. Well balanced I would say.
Showcasing a common card! You don't have to commentate on it, but I wanted to show it off.
On to the card I do want commentary on, thoughts?
Teabot is simple card and I love it! I am showcasing one of the common cards from set to you. I hope you would enjoy it.
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/woshua-11
Now to another card, I want to know people's opinion on this.
Temmie is cat-dog monster from Undertale found in waterfall area in secret area. There are many copies of them like Temmie as Temmie sells an item called Temmie flakes which heals for one point which is useless in the Undertale.
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/temmie-the-shopkeeper
What am I looking for: Upon summoning with paid mana, there will be Temmie, the Shopkeeper with ability allows paying a mana causing it to be tapped for a life. With her, there will be other copycats (Eh? Eh? Sorry...) which isn't legendary creature but has same ability.
ok here my card i play commander and my group is ok with custom commanders but i would also like yalls thoughts on it the commander it would replace of mine is farideh.
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/arcaid-the-astragalomancer-1
the deck rolls dice and have fun and thhis guy covers the weakness of a bad roll with his first ability.
now if you get a 6 on a six sided die a 12 on a 12 sided die or a 20 on a 20 sided die you get to opt pretty much which is good you always want high rolls on a dice roll deck but it got me thinking what if he could also complement a low roll so that where is roll a one basically and do a shock.
i would like yalls opinions on it.
Arcaid seems pretty fun to play; reasonably powerful dice roll commander.
I'd appreciate feedback on this card:
Thorns of Altruism is part of a cycle of 4-color charms (see the spoiler below) with names based on the missing color. I'd appreciate feedback on all of them, but I'm really looking for feedback on this one, as it's an attempt at representing what I'm told the rest of the table expects from a grouphug deck. (I hear that there's always a secret evil plot waiting to come to fruition, so this time the spooky part is on the card itself in a paradoxical attempt to appear less sketchy.)
ok i like the idea of the card but i think the top ability should only be 1 card instead of 2 cuz if they aint instants they aint never gona cast them by your end step. i think the second ability is good cuz it would force a player with a counter to either counter this card or wait a turn. i allso enjoy the third ability cuz who doesnt like life? and for the last abilty i rly like too its just the first one i see a problem with. now for 4 mana i think thzt may be too much maybe 5 imo. i also rly love the art. i hoped this helped.
now for my card i would like yalls most honest opinion on it. ( plz judge it as a commander.) cuz my friend ask to me make a orzhov landfall custom commander and they want it be fair too ( my playgroup dont mind custom commanders as long as they arent broken.) so that why im on here all im asking is what do yall think would yall play it or play against it?
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/vlinn-the-obsidiamancer-2
Like do you think its good as it is or maybe the mana cost should be higher or the power or toughness should be lower or higher or maybe the abilities or too broken like i rly want to know if yall think its weak, good, or busted. remeber this is in a commander sense so pl judge it as if it is the helm of the 99
Thoughts?
- Vlinn has a decent body, but doesn't really seem like a landfall commander to me. That is, Vlinn doesn't really encourage you to play lands (especially more than one per turn), but rather just happens to have a decent modal ability tied to landfall.
- Expanding on Hergusbergus's second point, the second mode should read "Vlinn deals 1 damage to each opponent and each planeswalker they control," which negates the purpose of the first ability due to Vlinn's lifelink. However, in contrast to their first opinion, I'd like to point out that Awaken is primarily WUB (Noyan Dar in particular is a CEDH commander), so I see no problem with giving Vlinn an animating effect.
- With regards to the third mode, note that the target stops being a land. If that is the intention, then having repeatable 'free' land destruction for 2 mana is pretty sketchy, and likely deserves a significant boost to the mana cost.
- If the above was not intentional, then in light of the first mode's redundancy, perhaps you could remove it and change the third mode to something like this: "Put two +1/+1 counters and your choice of a deathtouch counter or lifelink counter on up to one target creature or land you control. If a land had counters put on it this way, it becomes a 0/0 Elemental creature with haste that’s still a land." (using Nissa, Who Shakes the World, Agitator Ant and these cards for wording references) This would give Vlinn more flexibility and allow them to support a wider variety of the cards and strategies available to WB land decks.
- @Sweda since there's 3 other players and WB is not great at ramp, that shouldn't be an issue. As far as I understand, that sort of strategy only really becomes a problem in these colors via one-sided mass land destruction combos like Elesh Norn + Kormus Bell + Urborg.
@Hergusbergus- While Lose Oneself is more versatile than Collateral Damage, this doesn't seem to have a place anywhere outside of burn decks desperate to end the game as quickly as possible, but they already have more than enough better options.
- Is this meant to be a limited card? I have little experience in that area; perhaps @hileandr could provide more insight in that regard.
I'd like some more feedback on the cycle of cards from my previous post.@cadstar369
Culling Invocation
Thorns of Altruism
Glimmer of Chaos
Surge of Aggression
Flurry of Growth
Fruits of Artifice
@Titanium000
Vlinn, the Obsidiamancer
@Hergusbergus
Teabot
Ivannesk of the Council
Lose Oneself (to the music, the moment, you want it, you better never let it go-oh!)
- The cost for Culling Invocation was mostly based on considering an inverse Winds of Abandon. The wording on the first part is mainly to clarify interactions with cost modifications. I might bump the cost up 1 more since it didn't require a target player until Jadefire pointed out that it's unclear who loses all their creatures when cast at full cost.
Quick comment on the cycle in general before responding to individual reviews: If you didn't see my initial post about them, they're all named after the popular nicknames for those color combinations (ref), using the missing color for the first part of each name. Thus I tried building the effects around the names. You caught most of the effects that were harder to come up with during your reviews, so I figured I'd mention that first.- If someone were to cast Thorns of Altruism into a vacuum, then I mostly agree with your review. One big thing about most grouphug cards that makes people wary of grouphug decks is that the one playing them plans on being able to take the most advantage of them (which is nice 'cause they tend to cost less than similar effects that only affect you). With this mindset, the third mode is meant to be read along the lines of "everyone loses, but I lost the least", and the fourth mode is played similarly to Intellectual Offering, but is slightly better when your opponents are also low on cards since it's (generally) only net 1. For the white ability's wording, see Tariff & Juxtapose for reference.
- I don't play many steal effects, so you might be right about Glimmer of Chaos's first ability. I figured it'd be fine since it's harder to cast than Role Reversal and such. The second ability was just because I couldn't think of anything 'chaotic' for black. As for the red ability, P/T swapping is something both blue and red get on single targets, but swapping it for everyone is unique to Mannichi, the Fever Dream, so I thought it'd be interesting to spotlight that. I did consider using a Chaos Warp effect instead, but didn't think it'd fit on the card.
- For Surge of Aggression, choosing modes 1+3 or 1+4 can be useful for pushing a kill via commander damage. The goad is nice for when either you don't want to risk attacking (perhaps you suspect an Aetherize or Settle the Wreckage in the wings), or you want to leave someone open to another player. It also helps kill off creatures like Archmage Emeritus and Soul Warden that people don't normally attack or block with.
- Similar to Glimmer of Chaos, I had no idea what to do with the black ability for Surge of Growth. Do note though that when you choose multiple modes for a spell, you do them in the order listed, so the blue mode would not interact with the black mode in the way you suggested because proliferate is written first.
- While I like your suggestion for Fruits of Artifice's black ability (apparently there's a theme here of me not doing well with black abilities
), I'm not sure it would fit on the remaining space (if it does, I might switch use something similar). My thought process for the kill mode was that it shouldn't hurt artifacts precisely because the card is artifact themed, similar to how Phyrexian Scriptures kills all nonartifact creatures.
On a separate note (since I saw this come up in other reviews as well), between the older art for MtG & the Secret Lairs, I don't think there's much left that one could call unsuitable for MtG art at this point. In particular, while I also don't care for blank backgrounds, I figured the current art for Thorns of Artifice would make more sense than the fractals I tend to use in these situations. Similarly, I figured 'why not be punny for once' and went literal with Fruits of Artifice's art. (I also try not to use art if I can't find the artist; if you're ever curious about it, most of the artists I pull from have their work on Artstation.)Time to watch the rest of the reviews!
In regards to the card itself, I understand what you're saying: You want to build your deck to take the most advantage of the effects. But even with that in mind, it still feels like you get the short end of the stick here, especially with the last mode. Even if you build your deck with graveyard synergies, it's not like other players won't have their own graveyard synergies.
With regards to the black ability, perhaps you could do something like "each opponent discards a card at random?" Regardless, it doesn't bother me the way it is now. Killing something is pretty chaotic.
I see where you're coming from with the P/T switching. Doing a scryfall search for red and blue does yield results for both, but it's worth pointing out that all of the power and toughness switching effects are pretty outdated, which is why I wasn't aware of the red aspect of this. That leads me to believe that other players won't recognize it either. I'd still like to see something else there, especially because the effect is so situational that it'll be so rarely used. Perhaps destroying an artifact would be appropriate.
Thanks again for the response, and I'd love to see you comment on some of the other reviews. @Jadefire has been posting a lot of comments on my videos and I always learn something.