Rift's End is a strictly better Distorting Wake that wins very easily in a vast variety of decks. (Examples include delve (Treasure Cruise, Dig Through Time, Hogaak, Murktide Regent), escape (Underworld Breach, Polukranos Unchained), impulse draw, any Ashiok, Mizzix's Mastery, Scavenger Grounds, etc.)
For the main ability, I could see this at something like XWUUB (adding white and black to justify the exile and ability to hit any permanent, since blue doesn't get exile without transmogrification). If you want to keep the win condition, consider greatly increasing the number of cards required (I'd suggest at least 30, perhaps more since it counts all players).
I'd appreciate feedback on this card:
(For context, this was constructed for a madness commander prompt.)
For a card that can by itself win the game, i think Rift's End is too cheap. 10 permanents is really not much. If you play a blue/white deck with the focus on exiling stuff you can very easyly have 10 cards exiled when you play this and then its "BBB: You win"
@jpastor - Regarding Rift's End, did you intend for the check for exiled cards to have been global? As this reads, it includes any cards that have been exiled by opponent's to this point as well. Either way, this is just shy of Thassa's Oracle level of powerful; some of the same combos apply, such as Demonic Consultation.
@Creid233 As for its power level, the combo potential with cards like Demonic Consultation is definitely a concern, as it could potentially lead to game-ending plays. It may be worth considering adding additional limitations or restrictions to the card to balance its power level.
To balance the card and prevent game-ending combos, you could change the win condition to require that you exile a specific number of cards with Rift's End rather than just having ten or more cards in exile. Additionally, you could add a clause that prevents players from winning the game due to card effects that cause an opponent to exile cards, or limit the scope of the effect to only include cards exiled by Rift's End.
Here's an example of how you could reword the card to address these issues:
"Return up to X target nonland permanents to their owner's hands. If X is 3 or more, exile those permanents instead.
If you exiled a total of ten or more permanents with Rift's End this game, you win the game.
You cannot win the game this way if an opponent has caused you to exile any cards this turn."
This version of the card limits the number of cards that can be exiled for the win condition, and adds a clause to prevent players from winning the game due to other effects. This should help balance the card and make it less susceptible to combos that could end the game too easily.
@cadstar369 First, the most minor of nitpicks: the order of the abilities as written on the card feels backwards to me. I'd put the 2nd one first. This has absolutely no bearing on the rules, it just reads cleaner to me.
Overall I really like this guy. He'd be a lot of fun to play in a couple different deck types; you already pointed out Madness. I feel like he's a little on the weak side compared to the cards being printed today; he feels like something that would've come out about five years ago. (This is perfectly fine IMO; not every card needs to be on "curve" so to speak.) If you wanted to up his power a little bit, I'd consider making the last line "If you do, you may discard a card."
@jpastor - Yup, I like the changes you've indicated. It makes the spell feel much more like one of the Finale lines (such as Finale of Devastation), most of which are game winners or nearly so if sufficient mana is spent.
In a normal game i would say this cards are meh. But in games with more than two players they are good. L'yssa can be great in commander or in 2-headed-giant / Emperor.
Forged in Conflict might be a bit overpowered by making surviving creatures indestructable. Maybe replace indestructable with 1-2 shield counters.
Regarding your cards, is L'yssa meant to serve a similar purpose as Saskia the Unyielding usually does in the initial stages of a multiplayer game? I don't quite get what niche she's supposed to fill (considering her replacement ability doesn't work in a 1v1), nor why one might want to play this card.
Forged in Conflict seems rather busted. 4 mana is cheap for what will usually be a one-sided sweeper that also places indestructible counters on your team. While I don't agree with the prior suggestion (since shield counters aren't in red), perhaps consider giving the creatures a +1/+1 counter for each creature they fought this way instead of the indestructible counter. If you really want to give out indestructible counters, perhaps consider increasing the mana cost, adding a kicker cost, and/or adding an additional requirement for creatures to get them.
@LvB I can't think of much to say about your golem. It's a silver bullet that's easily dealt with and appears to be missing a creature type.
@cadstar369 The design theory behind L'yssa is that she's supposed to allow Fight mechanics to hit players, but only if they control no creatures. Mulling over how rules interactions work with fight abilities, I'm not actually sure she's legal or would work properly. But as an example, say you had her and Gargos, Vicious Watcher in play. You cast two spells targeting Gargos (or some other creature you control), triggering his ability. The first time he fights and kills the last creature your opponent has. The second time he fights, L'yssa instead has him deal his power in damage to the player directly. At least, that's what I'm going for.
Re, Forged in Conflict - yeah, I should just remove the counter entirely. The first design of the card was just the Fighting, done in sequence. I can't really say it's a one-sided sweep; it certainly can end up that way, but is less likely to end up that way in a multiplayer game or if the number of creatures is relatively even. (After all, just because you picked the first round of fights doesn't mean your creatures get excluded from the opponent's picks, assuming they have creatures left. And your creatures are still damaged.)
Regarding Dreamweaver Chione: Her ability is one that can get out of hand quickly. The back of my mind is screaming "combo piece" in the vein of Mirror-Mad Phantasm, but honestly I can't think of any. I can see this being something of a win engine with cards like Evacuation. And cost reducers like the Affinity mechanic or cards like Rooftop Storm adore her. All of that being said; she's definitely a powerhouse, but not really anything more busted than some other similar offerings that exist. If I was to make any adjustments, it'd be to account for the fact that she can be put into the command zone, and therefore to slow her down just a little by raising her to 2UUU instead.
@LvB - It's hard to say if this golem works the way you want it to or not, because Emblems are strange. According to the comp rules,
114.3. An emblem has no characteristics other than the abilities defined by the effect that created it. In particular, an emblem has no name, no types, no mana cost, and no color.
114.5. An emblem is neither a card nor a permanent. Emblem isn’t a card type.
So I'm not sure it can actually be exiled. It's also worth noting that's explicitly something the game devs have stated is the purpose of an emblem - a marker that cannot be removed. But, cards override the general rules, so I think this could actually work. That being said, I think you could rewrite it to make it more in line with the emblem rules:
"Emblems in command zones lose all abilities. Emblematic Golem gets +2/+2 for each emblem in all command zones."
@cadstar369 Eiki seems reasonable enough as a madness enabler. Having to discard a card after returning one offsets the card advantage you get from it compared to cards like Charmbreaker Devils and Exalted Flamer of Tzeentch, but also balances the potential of returning a permanent card to your hand. Madness also makes that particular downside not much of a downside at all. The discard trigger provides good synergy with the first ability and is reminiscent of cards like Brallin, Skyshark Rider, Feast of Sanity, and Glint-Horn Buccaneer, thought with its own pros and cons.
The one less than ideal thing with Eiki is that the discard is bundled with the card return during your upkeep, which negates the second best thing about casting a card with Madness aside from the cost reduction, casting it as though it had flash. Can't complain too much though given that the card is an all-in-one recycler + discard outlet. If only it were possible to make the upkeep trigger a non-tapping activated ability that you can only activate once (but at any time) in between beginning new turns.
Dreamweaver Chione is an interesting card. You really don't see many monoblue Angels, but they're not unheard of. The effect of potentially replacing a removed creature (on your end) with another one from the top of the library feels green but the execution of it is unmistakably blue, so good job with that. Also, good restraint with making the effect only flip one card instead of turning it into more of a Proteus Staff effect. I had initially read the card as only putting the revealed creature onto the battlefield under it's owner's control, which would be a good enough argument for spamming evoked Aethersnipe, but wording the ability to take your opponent's next creature draw while clearing their battlefield (especially with creature-based Unsummons like Man-o'-War) is a pretty good tempo move. The cost seems well-matched to its body and effect.
Since the effect of Dreamweaver Chione seems focused on creating a creature disparity between you and your opponent, not hitting a creature on the flip and mandating that the card be milled may actually accelerate your opponent into their next creature draw. In line with Surveil and Fateseal, other blue abilities, perhaps it would be good to word the alternative "Otherwise, you may have that player put that card into their graveyard" so that you can keep your opponent off of creatures, if you choose. This card plus Upheaval would be pretty akin to restarting the game with Karn Liberated, good thing that can't happen in commander.
@Creid233 L'yssa is an interesting concept, but I don't think it'll work the way you want it to. Fighting requires either one or two targets. If the fight ability is worded like Gargos, Vicious Watcher with only one target required, if there's no valid target when the ability triggers, nothing happens (it won't even be put on the stack). If the target somehow becomes invalid after the effect is put on the stack, the effect just fizzles and there's no fight to replace. If the fight ability is worded like Ulvenwald Tracker with two targets required, if either or both of the targets become invalid, nether creature will be considered to be fighting and again there's nothing to replace (Rule 701.12b).
The above examples are purely for a two-player game. I suppose in a multiplayer game, you could have Gargos fight opponent A's creature and use L'yssa's effect to instead hit opponent B directly if they have no creatures, but that just makes no sense and would be too oppressive for picking on a player that's already down on their board position.
@LvB You can't exile an emblem, but since it's possible to "get" and emblem as a game action, it's theoretically possible to perform the opposite action and "lose" an emblem. I would word Emblematic Golem as: When Emblematic Golem enters the battlefield, each player loses all emblems. Put two +1/+1 counters on Emblematic Golem for each emblem lost this way. If a player would get an emblem, put two +1/+1 counters on Emblematic Golem instead.
{0}: If this is the first time this ability has resolved since your last upkeep, return a card at random from your graveyard to your hand. If you do, discard a card.
Good point about Chione having access to additional interesting play patterns if the mill is a may; I'll add that in later today. While I'd forgotten Proteus Staff effects existed, I'm so tired of all the recent legends that [practically] can't whiff that I tend to go for flipping the top card. (It's also the only way I could think of that allows for an interesting 'otherwise' effect if you don't hit a smaller creature.)
I took a stab at rewording L'yssa's first ability via some abuse of language with reminder text that might be clunkier than it needs to be.
Creatures you control can fight opponents that control no creatures. (You may target an opponent that controls no creatures instead of targeting a creature you don't control for a spell or ability with fight in its text. If you do, your creature deals damage equal to its power to that opponent.)
@cadstar369 Good find with Wiitigo! Along similar lines, I was thinking of something like: {0}: Return a card at random from your graveyard to your hand. If you do, discard a card. Activate only if you haven't activated this abiity since the beginning of your most recent turn. This has wording taken from Sea Gate Wreckage and Rocket Launcher. When something costs 0 to activate, it's best to put a limit on the number of times it can be activated. Otherwise, someone could theoretically hold priority and activate it an infinite number of times, even if the ability won't actually do anything when it tries to resolve. Maybe the concern to prevent players from trolling their opponents by wasting time is more of a concern if the card is going to be played in a digital format.
In giving Chione the option to potentially either steal a creature from your opponent's library or Fateseal them for one, it's probably appropriate to up its rarity to mythical rare.
@LvB - First version is better; the second version of Doomsday Clock gets abrasive too quickly in multiplayer games. It would need to cost at least 4 in that version. For reference, a similar effect is on Sphinx-Bone Wand, which only gets counters when its controller casts an instant or sorcery, then zaps, and it costs 7. So if that's the baseline, the question becomes what's the balance discount for the effect being global, working off all spells, and subtracting the D20 roll? Like I said, IMO, it lands around 4, but this is relatively new, so YMMV.
Either way, it's an obnoxious "group hug" style piece I could see being used.
For consideration: I was working on a challenge idea, but when I finished this I realized it didn't meet one of the requirements. So, just on its own:
@Creid233 Adak Del seems potentially okay as incidental planeswalker hate in decks that want to play your opponent's cards. The creature side is a little overcosted, which seems fair considering how much it can dodge after the first hit by flipping into a planeswalker. Unfortunately, the planeswalker side seems to be a little too much of a silver bullet to use normally, but I'm not sure it does enough as a silver bullet either.
Since you probably don't want to use the -X for less than 3~4, it takes forever to get there by attacking. On the other hand, in a situation where it can steal a bunch of counters with the second [0] (which might be difficult to achieve since you have to make contact at least once so it doesn't die upon transforming, and plenty of planeswalkers make tokens with power 1 or less), doing so doesn't much help get you out of that situation.
I'd appreciate feedback on these two cards:
In particular, I'm wondering if Savant of Yesterdays provides too much card selection for control decks (perhaps slower reanimator builds as well). I'm also concerned that forecasting Treacherous Omen might be too expensive.
@cadstar369 - Thanks for the feedback! Yeah, I intentionally made Adak Del weak offensively, to negate the fact that it's extremely difficult to remove as long as he has at least 1 loyalty counter. As a PW, he can flip back to a creature anytime he's declared the target of an attack. He can dodge creature removal and board wipes by flipping to his PW side. He can also combat trick a free block for you by blocking as a creature then flipping to PW side, assuming he was untapped. Really, the only stuff he can't dodge is things that target both creatures and planeswalkers. Building his loyalty to use the -X is going to take a bit, or you can gamble at taking him to 2 LC and using it as a -1 every other turn to see what free stuff you can get from your opponent. Not the best, but as I said; it's more a subtly defensive creature than anything.
Regarding Savant of Yesterdays, he's strictly better than Surveil 2 every turn because the card selection is immediate, both to hand and GY. Surveil already being a powerful ability, it does serve as a baseline for balancing. The only creatures I can find with repeatable Surveil are House Guildmage, Coastal Bulwark, and Doom Whisperer (on the broken end). To be honest, I'd rate it a mythic level card as it is now; I feel like this needs to have some mana cost associated with its activated ability.
Re: Treacherous Omen - So the cost of Treason effects is usually 2R at Sorcery speed. If there's any adder to the effect besides gaining control and giving it haste, that usually adds 1 more to the cost. (Such as giving haste and first strike or +1/+0 or something.) Act of Treason is a standard example of this. Since Forecast is limited exclusively to use on your upkeep, this could theoretically come in at 3CMC. But I think 4-5 is correct because you're not losing the card when you Forecast. I can say with certainty that my Brion Stoutarm deck would love this card and it would never be played for it's madness ability.
Note that Adak Del can't flip to its creature side if it isn't your turn, since you can't activate loyalty abilities of planeswalkers when it isn't your turn (these three Teferi cards each have a specific clause that allows this).
Regarding Savant of Yesterdays, why compare it to surveil effects? Would it not be more appropriate to compare it to looters like Rona, Herald of Invasion (particularly double looters like the uncommon Cephalid Broker)? I'm also somewhat curious as to why you consider surveil a baseline for balancing when it's a deciduous keyword.
Perhaps I should have asked this instead in my initial post: While I can somewhat justify Savant of Yesterdays between a variety of existing cards and the double blue making it harder to splash for, is it playable, despite the fact that it doesn't draw cards (and thus synergizes with nothing while also nonboing with scry and such)?
@cadstar369 It's absolutely not the case that Savant of Yesterdays synergizes with nothing. Even without including green, blue has enough effects that let you look at a bunch of cards from the top of your library, put one of them into your hand, and the rest on the bottom of your library in any order (E.g, Advice from the Fae, Dig Through Time, Impulse, Peer Through Depths, Uncovered Clues). Bottom-drawing lets you recover desirable cards that you couldn't take because there was a more important card that had to be prioritized or they didn't fit the criteria of what could be taken.
That being said, Savant of Yesterdays is quite undercosted as it's a control deck's dream do-all. It loots like a beast, it's a crazy good blocker, it attacks without making you choose between damage/defense/draw, and it costs less than said Cephalid Broker. If you add up the P/T for Cephalid broker and compare it to the cost it's 1:1. The ratio is 2:1 for Savant with very relevant abilities.
Both cards seem well-designed with clear and concise abilities.
Savant of Yesterdays appears to be a solid utility creature with vigilance and a card selection ability that also helps with graveyard filling.
Treacherous Omen is an interesting card with a good synergy between its two abilities. The attacking creatures get a bonus with trample, and the forecast ability can provide an unexpected combat trick or be used defensively to take control of a threatening creature. The madness cost also adds flexibility and makes it more playable in certain decks.
Overall, good job on creating these cards!
I made this for a Youtube video I made that will publish on a future day. I'll be that guy and invite you to subscribe to my channel and hit the notification bell to get notified so you can see when it debuts. (4K Full Flight - YouTube)
But nonetheless, I tried to make a good card, how does it look?
@jpastor - I love the art choice for Sunny. Picking the silver border and not using the Legendary template gives the overall card a modern, stylish look that just feeds into the card more. Examining it on its merits as a card, I can see this making a real splash (pun intended) in some of the 20 health formats, especially a Standard block. Played on curve, this could be beautiful in aggro decks, giving you a significant repeatable tempo advantage.
Curious Giant Snail - 2/5 Vigilance for 3 mana is fine, but the keyword pushes this into Uncommon rarity instead of common. Overall a nice flavorful card, I like the art and theme a lot. One alternate idea the art gives me would be to give the snail Defender, and let you tap a Vehicle to remove Defender until end of turn as it rides atop the vehicle into battle.
Tribunal of Clones - There's a fair bit to discuss with this one; I'll start with the rules and card formatting stuff first. Regarding the creature type; "Changeling" is not a creature type currently in magic. It's ok if you want to use it as a new creature type, but if you're going for the "is all creature types" understanding, then that's different. The creature type for those creatures is Shapeshifter, and they have the Changeling ability printed on their card abilities. (Changeling is a characteristic-defining keyword. See Morophon, the Boundless as a formatting example.) Second issue is, by virtue of it being a legendary creature, there's no need for the "Tribunal of Clones can be your commander." line; it already can be. Now, getting to the playability of the card itself: I like the idea a lot that you're going for of being able to play a powerful ability by exiling graveyard cards, and this has a limited ability to supply that. I would change the first tap ability from "Destroy"/"counter" to "Exile"; because even if he fills the graveyard, he has no way on his own to activate that second ability; and charging it up at the rate of 1/turn using him (not considering outside sources) is hardly busted. But there is significant issues with this creature, and probably not for the reason you thought: this is deeply within the territory that got Golos, Tireless Pilgrim banned. It's a cheap commander that gives you access to all 5 colors with no color commitment for playing him. It functionally removes the whole color identity aspect of the Commander game. When Golos was around, the % of decks being played at some stores hit 50% with him in the command slot, just running "goodstuff" cards - it warps the format from a broad deck build to a fairly narrow set of cards. That's why the RC hit Golos with the banhammer. By costing a generic 3 mana and having a color identity of all 5 colors, this guy would end up the same. The partner mechanic proved to be problematic for similar reasons (which is why they've not printed new two-color partners since their initial release), however with this guy already having the max color identity, it's not as much of a concern. If I were rebalancing this card, I would redo the reward for the 2nd ability, lean into a self-mill + recursion style idea on it, and make the creature blue & black.
For feedback, a new commander idea to go with the new Battle cards.
Choice to go five color with this guy is based on the currently limited pool of Battles; if this card were created in the future it'd likely be limited to 2-3 colors depending on the number of them that exist.
Edit: jpastor 100% correct; old name was too long. Edited for cleanup!
@Creid233 Right off the bat, if I may sputter, I think the name is too long and should never run into the mana symbols... My first thought is to call this thing, "War." - Anyways - I'll let someone else chime in on the rest!
@Creid233 This seems really cool. I'd be curious if future battles (that aren't sieges) will work with this, or if they'll become too good. We've all seen those cards that start fairly balanced, but then we get more stuff to go with them and they get way too good. Revel in Riches used to be, well, I might get ten treasures if I'm really lucky, but now-a-days, it's basically a kill on sight card in commander, because anyone could get ten treasures out of nowhere. I'm guessing in a couple years, this commander may feel pretty powerful as well, basically, every card you cast will include a draw one or two or three or more if you build a deck that's just battles, which will certainly be possible someday. I do like the battle-cascade idea, but I think putting extra card draw, and a double striking 3/4 body, really pushes this card over the edge. That being said, I do like any 5 color commander that definitely doesn't encourage just playing good-stuff, so you've won me over on that alone. It may get too good as they print more battles, but if battles aren't an every set card type and they're not really ever pushed too hard and they don't become the next big thing for magic, then, this would be a great card.
@StuffnSuch - A point of clarity first. I'm assuming that what you were going for with the tap ability of this was to remove the subtypes of each of the permanent types listed. You're likely already aware, but the type line includes, from left to right, any supertypes (Legendary, Basic, etc), the type itself (Land, Artifact, Creature, Enchantment, Planeswalker, Instant, Sorcery, etc.), and any associated subtypes after the dash. Confusingly, standard rules templating on cards do usually refer to subtypes simply as "types" - e.g. "Name a creature type.". However, given that this ability is directly interacting with the card subtypes, I think it would be appropriate to remove any confusion and specifically state that instead of "types". (Otherwise this can be read as "Cards stop being creatures, artifacts, and enchantments." and you have a card that is a Merfolk and not a creature and then the game-state starts crying as the cascade of rules violations begins and its mind shatters.)
So yeah, assuming this is intended to remove subtypes... I'm finding it difficult to evaluate. It's a fun idea, but very rules wonkish and potential unfriendly to casual players. It's much more useful than the kind of niche application seen with tribal interference a la Ameboid Changeling. Here's some of the things that will happen as a result of tapping this guy:
All equipment artifacts lose their Equipment subtype. As a result, they lose the rules associated with Equipment and can no longer remain attached to creatures and so will unattach immediately.
Similarly, all Aura enchantments will unattach. They won't go to the graveyard immediately (as that's part of the Aura rules), but as soon as the turn ends they will.
If timed properly, this prevents Sagas from gaining a lore counter.
Vehicles become unusable as they can no longer be crewed.
MaRo only knows what happens to Attractions.
There's probably more I'm not thinking of, but you get the idea. So, to that end, I don't think I can call this broken, just difficult to balance. Therefore as a 2/3 for 4 mana with a semi-niche ability, I'll say that's alright. Nonetheless, I can definitely see judges having panic attacks over this and I'll admit mild amusement at the thought.
@Creid233 Yeah, I wanted to just say subtypes, but I don't ever actually see that on any real card text, which, I agree, is weird. I agree, this would be a absolute rules nightmare, but, it's also a really cool effect that interacts with a lot of things in a lot of ways, and just seems like it should exist. Is there a way I could alter it so it's not Aura removal? I hadn't thought about that one, and it does seem like that's a bit of a problem. Maybe something like cards attached to permanents phase out instead or reattach at the end of turn. I don't know.
MTG Cardsmith Community Forums
Comments
I commented on your card.
Meanwhile a win con just dropped onto the forums. No friggin idea what i was thinking.
Rift's End by jpastor | MTG Cardsmith
Rift's End is a strictly better Distorting Wake that wins very easily in a vast variety of decks. (Examples include delve (Treasure Cruise, Dig Through Time, Hogaak, Murktide Regent), escape (Underworld Breach, Polukranos Unchained), impulse draw, any Ashiok, Mizzix's Mastery, Scavenger Grounds, etc.)
For the main ability, I could see this at something like XWUUB (adding white and black to justify the exile and ability to hit any permanent, since blue doesn't get exile without transmogrification). If you want to keep the win condition, consider greatly increasing the number of cards required (I'd suggest at least 30, perhaps more since it counts all players).
I'd appreciate feedback on this card:
(For context, this was constructed for a madness commander prompt.)
As for its power level, the combo potential with cards like Demonic Consultation is definitely a concern, as it could potentially lead to game-ending plays. It may be worth considering adding additional limitations or restrictions to the card to balance its power level.
To balance the card and prevent game-ending combos, you could change the win condition to require that you exile a specific number of cards with Rift's End rather than just having ten or more cards in exile. Additionally, you could add a clause that prevents players from winning the game due to card effects that cause an opponent to exile cards, or limit the scope of the effect to only include cards exiled by Rift's End.
Here's an example of how you could reword the card to address these issues:
This version of the card limits the number of cards that can be exiled for the win condition, and adds a clause to prevent players from winning the game due to other effects. This should help balance the card and make it less susceptible to combos that could end the game too easily.
First, the most minor of nitpicks: the order of the abilities as written on the card feels backwards to me. I'd put the 2nd one first. This has absolutely no bearing on the rules, it just reads cleaner to me.
Overall I really like this guy. He'd be a lot of fun to play in a couple different deck types; you already pointed out Madness. I feel like he's a little on the weak side compared to the cards being printed today; he feels like something that would've come out about five years ago. (This is perfectly fine IMO; not every card needs to be on "curve" so to speak.) If you wanted to up his power a little bit, I'd consider making the last line "If you do, you may discard a card."
Regarding your cards, is L'yssa meant to serve a similar purpose as Saskia the Unyielding usually does in the initial stages of a multiplayer game? I don't quite get what niche she's supposed to fill (considering her replacement ability doesn't work in a 1v1), nor why one might want to play this card.
Forged in Conflict seems rather busted. 4 mana is cheap for what will usually be a one-sided sweeper that also places indestructible counters on your team. While I don't agree with the prior suggestion (since shield counters aren't in red), perhaps consider giving the creatures a +1/+1 counter for each creature they fought this way instead of the indestructible counter. If you really want to give out indestructible counters, perhaps consider increasing the mana cost, adding a kicker cost, and/or adding an additional requirement for creatures to get them.
@LvB I can't think of much to say about your golem. It's a silver bullet that's easily dealt with and appears to be missing a creature type.
I'd appreciate feedback on these two cards:
Re, Forged in Conflict - yeah, I should just remove the counter entirely. The first design of the card was just the Fighting, done in sequence. I can't really say it's a one-sided sweep; it certainly can end up that way, but is less likely to end up that way in a multiplayer game or if the number of creatures is relatively even. (After all, just because you picked the first round of fights doesn't mean your creatures get excluded from the opponent's picks, assuming they have creatures left. And your creatures are still damaged.)
Regarding Dreamweaver Chione: Her ability is one that can get out of hand quickly. The back of my mind is screaming "combo piece" in the vein of Mirror-Mad Phantasm, but honestly I can't think of any. I can see this being something of a win engine with cards like Evacuation. And cost reducers like the Affinity mechanic or cards like Rooftop Storm adore her. All of that being said; she's definitely a powerhouse, but not really anything more busted than some other similar offerings that exist. If I was to make any adjustments, it'd be to account for the fact that she can be put into the command zone, and therefore to slow her down just a little by raising her to 2UUU instead.
@LvB - It's hard to say if this golem works the way you want it to or not, because Emblems are strange. According to the comp rules,
- 114.3. An emblem has no characteristics other than the abilities defined by the effect that created it. In particular, an emblem has no name, no types, no mana cost, and no color.
- 114.5. An emblem is neither a card nor a permanent. Emblem isn’t a card type.
So I'm not sure it can actually be exiled. It's also worth noting that's explicitly something the game devs have stated is the purpose of an emblem - a marker that cannot be removed. But, cards override the general rules, so I think this could actually work. That being said, I think you could rewrite it to make it more in line with the emblem rules:"Emblems in command zones lose all abilities. Emblematic Golem gets +2/+2 for each emblem in all command zones."
The one less than ideal thing with Eiki is that the discard is bundled with the card return during your upkeep, which negates the second best thing about casting a card with Madness aside from the cost reduction, casting it as though it had flash. Can't complain too much though given that the card is an all-in-one recycler + discard outlet. If only it were possible to make the upkeep trigger a non-tapping activated ability that you can only activate once (but at any time) in between beginning new turns.
Dreamweaver Chione is an interesting card. You really don't see many monoblue Angels, but they're not unheard of. The effect of potentially replacing a removed creature (on your end) with another one from the top of the library feels green but the execution of it is unmistakably blue, so good job with that. Also, good restraint with making the effect only flip one card instead of turning it into more of a Proteus Staff effect. I had initially read the card as only putting the revealed creature onto the battlefield under it's owner's control, which would be a good enough argument for spamming evoked Aethersnipe, but wording the ability to take your opponent's next creature draw while clearing their battlefield (especially with creature-based Unsummons like Man-o'-War) is a pretty good tempo move. The cost seems well-matched to its body and effect.
Since the effect of Dreamweaver Chione seems focused on creating a creature disparity between you and your opponent, not hitting a creature on the flip and mandating that the card be milled may actually accelerate your opponent into their next creature draw. In line with Surveil and Fateseal, other blue abilities, perhaps it would be good to word the alternative "Otherwise, you may have that player put that card into their graveyard" so that you can keep your opponent off of creatures, if you choose. This card plus Upheaval would be pretty akin to restarting the game with Karn Liberated, good thing that can't happen in commander.
@Creid233 L'yssa is an interesting concept, but I don't think it'll work the way you want it to. Fighting requires either one or two targets. If the fight ability is worded like Gargos, Vicious Watcher with only one target required, if there's no valid target when the ability triggers, nothing happens (it won't even be put on the stack). If the target somehow becomes invalid after the effect is put on the stack, the effect just fizzles and there's no fight to replace. If the fight ability is worded like Ulvenwald Tracker with two targets required, if either or both of the targets become invalid, nether creature will be considered to be fighting and again there's nothing to replace (Rule 701.12b).
The above examples are purely for a two-player game. I suppose in a multiplayer game, you could have Gargos fight opponent A's creature and use L'yssa's effect to instead hit opponent B directly if they have no creatures, but that just makes no sense and would be too oppressive for picking on a player that's already down on their board position.
@LvB You can't exile an emblem, but since it's possible to "get" and emblem as a game action, it's theoretically possible to perform the opposite action and "lose" an emblem. I would word Emblematic Golem as:
When Emblematic Golem enters the battlefield, each player loses all emblems. Put two +1/+1 counters on Emblematic Golem for each emblem lost this way.
If a player would get an emblem, put two +1/+1 counters on Emblematic Golem instead.
I think something like this could work to make Eiki's trigger into an activated ability. (Wording taken from Reconnaissance, Teething Wurmlet, and [Shape of the] Wiitigo.)
~~~
@Creid233 thank you as well for the feedback.
I took a stab at rewording L'yssa's first ability via some abuse of language with reminder text that might be clunkier than it needs to be.
{0}: Return a card at random from your graveyard to your hand. If you do, discard a card. Activate only if you haven't activated this abiity since the beginning of your most recent turn.
This has wording taken from Sea Gate Wreckage and Rocket Launcher. When something costs 0 to activate, it's best to put a limit on the number of times it can be activated. Otherwise, someone could theoretically hold priority and activate it an infinite number of times, even if the ability won't actually do anything when it tries to resolve. Maybe the concern to prevent players from trolling their opponents by wasting time is more of a concern if the card is going to be played in a digital format.
In giving Chione the option to potentially either steal a creature from your opponent's library or Fateseal them for one, it's probably appropriate to up its rarity to mythical rare.
Either way, it's an obnoxious "group hug" style piece I could see being used.
For consideration: I was working on a challenge idea, but when I finished this I realized it didn't meet one of the requirements. So, just on its own:
Since you probably don't want to use the -X for less than 3~4, it takes forever to get there by attacking. On the other hand, in a situation where it can steal a bunch of counters with the second [0] (which might be difficult to achieve since you have to make contact at least once so it doesn't die upon transforming, and plenty of planeswalkers make tokens with power 1 or less), doing so doesn't much help get you out of that situation.
I'd appreciate feedback on these two cards:
In particular, I'm wondering if Savant of Yesterdays provides too much card selection for control decks (perhaps slower reanimator builds as well). I'm also concerned that forecasting Treacherous Omen might be too expensive.
For additional context, Savant of Yesterdays is meant to be an uncommon version of Scholar of Yesterdays (for Mystery World of Enigmara).
Regarding Savant of Yesterdays, he's strictly better than Surveil 2 every turn because the card selection is immediate, both to hand and GY. Surveil already being a powerful ability, it does serve as a baseline for balancing. The only creatures I can find with repeatable Surveil are House Guildmage, Coastal Bulwark, and Doom Whisperer (on the broken end). To be honest, I'd rate it a mythic level card as it is now; I feel like this needs to have some mana cost associated with its activated ability.
Re: Treacherous Omen - So the cost of Treason effects is usually 2R at Sorcery speed. If there's any adder to the effect besides gaining control and giving it haste, that usually adds 1 more to the cost. (Such as giving haste and first strike or +1/+0 or something.) Act of Treason is a standard example of this. Since Forecast is limited exclusively to use on your upkeep, this could theoretically come in at 3CMC. But I think 4-5 is correct because you're not losing the card when you Forecast. I can say with certainty that my Brion Stoutarm deck would love this card and it would never be played for it's madness ability.
Note that Adak Del can't flip to its creature side if it isn't your turn, since you can't activate loyalty abilities of planeswalkers when it isn't your turn (these three Teferi cards each have a specific clause that allows this).
Regarding Savant of Yesterdays, why compare it to surveil effects? Would it not be more appropriate to compare it to looters like Rona, Herald of Invasion (particularly double looters like the uncommon Cephalid Broker)? I'm also somewhat curious as to why you consider surveil a baseline for balancing when it's a deciduous keyword.
Perhaps I should have asked this instead in my initial post: While I can somewhat justify Savant of Yesterdays between a variety of existing cards and the double blue making it harder to splash for, is it playable, despite the fact that it doesn't draw cards (and thus synergizes with nothing while also nonboing with scry and such)?
That being said, Savant of Yesterdays is quite undercosted as it's a control deck's dream do-all. It loots like a beast, it's a crazy good blocker, it attacks without making you choose between damage/defense/draw, and it costs less than said Cephalid Broker. If you add up the P/T for Cephalid broker and compare it to the cost it's 1:1. The ratio is 2:1 for Savant with very relevant abilities.
Both cards seem well-designed with clear and concise abilities.
Savant of Yesterdays appears to be a solid utility creature with vigilance and a card selection ability that also helps with graveyard filling.
Treacherous Omen is an interesting card with a good synergy between its two abilities. The attacking creatures get a bonus with trample, and the forecast ability can provide an unexpected combat trick or be used defensively to take control of a threatening creature. The madness cost also adds flexibility and makes it more playable in certain decks.
Overall, good job on creating these cards!
I made this for a Youtube video I made that will publish on a future day. I'll be that guy and invite you to subscribe to my channel and hit the notification bell to get notified so you can see when it debuts. (4K Full Flight - YouTube)
But nonetheless, I tried to make a good card, how does it look?
Sunny, the Stylish Duck by jpastor | MTG Cardsmith
BEHOLD, BANE OF THE AETHER, SCORN OF THE ABYSS: THE CREATURE OF ENDLESS AGONY!
https://youtube.com/shorts/1twXVEQ1ycg?feature=share
@LvB ;
For feedback, a new commander idea to go with the new Battle cards.
Choice to go five color with this guy is based on the currently limited pool of Battles; if this card were created in the future it'd likely be limited to 2-3 colors depending on the number of them that exist.
Edit: jpastor 100% correct; old name was too long. Edited for cleanup!
Right off the bat, if I may sputter, I think the name is too long and should never run into the mana symbols... My first thought is to call this thing, "War." - Anyways - I'll let someone else chime in on the rest!
Here's a card I'd like some feedback on:
So yeah, assuming this is intended to remove subtypes... I'm finding it difficult to evaluate. It's a fun idea, but very rules wonkish and potential unfriendly to casual players. It's much more useful than the kind of niche application seen with tribal interference a la Ameboid Changeling. Here's some of the things that will happen as a result of tapping this guy:
- All equipment artifacts lose their Equipment subtype. As a result, they lose the rules associated with Equipment and can no longer remain attached to creatures and so will unattach immediately.
- Similarly, all Aura enchantments will unattach. They won't go to the graveyard immediately (as that's part of the Aura rules), but as soon as the turn ends they will.
- If timed properly, this prevents Sagas from gaining a lore counter.
- Vehicles become unusable as they can no longer be crewed.
- MaRo only knows what happens to Attractions.
There's probably more I'm not thinking of, but you get the idea. So, to that end, I don't think I can call this broken, just difficult to balance. Therefore as a 2/3 for 4 mana with a semi-niche ability, I'll say that's alright. Nonetheless, I can definitely see judges having panic attacks over this and I'll admit mild amusement at the thought.