@Temurzoa Bryllin is exploring interesting space. Since the rules change that commander have death triggers when you send them to the command zone, there are no reasons to put them into the graveyard any more. Saviours of Skyfire Ridge seems like a joke card a little, but I like your choices of card types.
It's hard for me to critique these, as they seem very commander oriented, and I don't play commander very much, but I'll give it a go. #1 love the art. Particularly Orogo, good stuff. The Multipartner ability's interesting, but if only one player was using it, seems like it would horribly skew the game in their favor. On Isala, not familiar with Exert, so I really don't have a comment. Markato seems sound though, again, aside from the Multipartner. It could be fun if both parties were playing it...bring a little more variety to a commander game, but I immediately thought that if I played it against some of my regular gaming buddies I'd get accused of cheating a lot lol
My card today goes outside my normal box. Usually try to post original stuff, today I'm using a card from my Game of Thrones set, mostly due to the ability. I'm not sure if its workable or not, so that's primarily what I'm looking for feedback on.
@Temurzoa - the art is incredible, and I love the versatility! I gave you a FAVorite because I can't suggest an enhancement.
Tonight I stumbled upon a few cards that I never knew were printed. There are three "Expansion Hoser" cards which I found fascinating, so I wanted to try my hand at 'smithing one of my own. Here are the "expansion hosers":
"City in a Bottle" hosed cards from the Arabian Nights expansion.
And here is mine; I chose to make an Ikoria Hoser card so I could give poor Narset of the Ancient Way a real reason for being in Ikoria in the first place:
Based on the other three Expansion Hosers above, did I get the balance right compared to how those work?
@TerryTags It's an interesting idea, and you certainly found the perfect artwork. In terms of balance... hard to say. If it turned up in Limited it would be one hell of a build-around. It's so difficult to tell what to think about these expansion hoser cards. I guess they exist in the same sphere as colour-hate, etc: strictly sideboard material. The thing is, referring to things like when cards were first printed feels dangerously like un-set territory nowadays, like reference to watermarks or rarities. Still, as far as I can tell it's pretty balanced and at the very least it'll lead to some hilarious blowouts your opponents don't see coming.
With this card I tried to implement keyword counters on Innistrad: trying to make a vampire that thematically transforms other creatures into vampires a bit like the original Olivia. Also a callback to the classic (and super annoying) Vampire Nighthawk, since Sire can gain all three of his abilities.
@shadow123 I always appreciate experiments with abilities on planeswalkers, and this works fairly well. The planeswalker has a common theme, seems well-balanced, and relies on two colors despite being playable in one, an attribute I love to see on cards.
In terms of balance, I see no problems. In fact, compared to some more recent planeswalkers, it feels slightly underwhelming for mythic, but in the right decks it would make an excellent addition.
@Ydoplus_of_Forduuath, I like it! I think it might be a little strong considering Pacifism is a card and doesn't destroy the creature for attacking or blocking just flat-out says 'NO'. maybe changed to a 1W cost and to a common rarity is better. I mean it won't break the game and will rarely see play either way... I don't really know. Probably fine. FAVORITED!
- There aren't any wording errors on either of the cards. That's always good. However, I get the sense that the flavor text on External Suffering is just somehow slightly off. At the bare minimum, I'd recommend adding a comma between "well" and "suffer", and I might also suggest changing the "too" on the end into "as well" or something. I don't know why, and other than the comma then this is a totally internal kind of complaint / point, so do or don't as you wish.
- As is traditional, the low-cost instant-speed hand disruption that External Suffering represents makes me somewhat nervous. I'm aware that it has some serious limitations since it can only hit two card types, I know it does badly against deck types that don't really play any creatures, and I'm aware that it'd be dreadful as a sorcery, but it's still something to be wary of for its potential to be held until an opponent's end step, leaving open a counterspell or something if needed.
One totally random suggestion that would work around this is making the tapped creature "not untap during its controller's next untap step" and making the card a sorcery. Not necessarily a good idea, I'm just spitballing there.
- Quench in Flames seems pretty good for burn-y decks, or just things that have some looting / rummaging and want to store some acceptably good targeted burn in the graveyard. Eh, it's probably okay, though its potential as powerful reach-achiever in red aggro and burn in standard formats might warrant a change to sorcery.
@MemoryHead Both cards seem a little underpowered. With Front Row Seats, you have no choice but to target a creature you control, and the effect isn't all that great. Also, if creatures you control have Unleash, then an opponent could put counters on them to make it so they can't block if they didn't have counters in the first place. I would make Front Row Seats uncommon. Fleshflayer is more balanced, but still underpowered. You either have a 4 mana 3/3 with a minor ability, which isn't good for uncommon, or a 4 mana 4/4 that can't block and has a minor ability, which is as good as a 4 mana 4/4, which is weak for uncommon. Here's my card: Designed for: https://forums.mtgcardsmith.com/discussion/5400/the-adventure-saga-make-your-adventurers#latest
"Whenever a creature dealt damage by a creature in your party this turn dies, you may exile it. When you do, create a 2/2 black Zombie creature token."
A couple pointers,
- I would make it cost 1B, as it is a legendary rare.
- The flavor text is strange. I suggest changing it to something else.
@joemamajoe Wonderful Specialization is really weak for a mythic. You are exiling your creatures for four mana, and they can only return one at a time at your upkeep. Even if they get +1/+1 counters, all you are doing is hurting yourself. Also, you don't even get to choose which ones come back first! I would make this a two mana uncommon. Omnath Locus of Color is more balanced, but I feel like you could just lower his p/t by one and make him cost one of each color. It would be simpler, and would be more balanced, and flavorful. I mean, it's not all that different from the other Omnaths, except that it isn't land based, which is the whole point of Omnath. Here's my card:
Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery, only once each turn, and only if you have a full party.
And feedback:
- Rogue is spelt Rogue. It should not be "red" in French. This is a valuable lesson that I'm sure I'll have to repeat a great many times now that the party mechanic exists.
- This is just generally very underpowered. Unless you control a full party (which can be relatively hard to achieve depending on the situation) it's five mana for a 2/2, which is dreadful. For haste-giving, I have such options as Fervor, Fires of Yavimaya or Purphuros, the Bronze-Blooded, all of which are far harder to remove and bring none of the conditions. For combat-taking, I'd point to Aggravated Assault. Again, harder to remove, none of the conditions, and even though it takes one more mana to activate, I can do it many times in the same turn so long as I've the mana to provide for it.
I get the sense that you've taken two abilities and realised that they're both potentially very good, but accidentally placed far too much of a cap over their uses. I'd recommend just generally lowering costs, increasing power and toughness type things, or changing the nature of the abilities more intrinsically instead if you feel like it. For instance, you could remove the "need a full party" condition from the combat ability, and change up the cost etc. somewhat around the addition of a clause where its cost is reduced based on your number of party members or something. Hope this helps.
@MemoryHead, I would order the abilities like this to emphasize the working-together idea:
- Create a 1/1 colorless Thopter artifact creature token with flying. - Choose a creature you control. That creature gets +3/+3 until end of turn. - Choose a creature you control. That creature fights target creature you don't control.
@JMGreer41 Rewording, followed by some feedback. The things in square brackets are notes:
Enchant opponent [Needs to be for opponents so that you can't just do it to yourself and get near-infinite spells]
Whenever enchanted player casts a spell, reveal [could be a "look at" clause instead, I guess] the top X cards of your library, where X is that spell's converted mana cost. You may cast a card revealed this way without paying its mana cost. Put the rest on the bottom of your library in any order.
This just seems way too good as a source of value and borders on instant-win material in 1v1. The enchanted opponent (the only opponent, in formats outside of EDH and two-headed giant) has to live with you potentially getting a giant creature or something whenever they try to play the game, and that isn't fun. The real issue comes if you're playing a deck with many counterspells, because if you can flip a counterspell, you can counter whatever it was they cast. The more expensive the cast (and so the more valuable it is) the higher chance you'll have to counter it.
In other words, it definitely needs to be weakened in some way. I might recommend using a clause that limits the card-flipping to the first spell the enchanted player casts each turn or something, and perhaps a regulation of the number of cards revealed from your library in conjunction if you feel that'll weaken it too much.
@MemoryHead Without many arguments. The card is very good and with a lot of flavor. The idea of the hybrid frame is very interesting in these cards and alternative color costs. Nice job. I favorite it.
@CassZero Good Cards! It is a little bit overpowered, since you could pair it with a 1/1 human soldier, but that is fine! I am a little confused, though, about why you made Daring Children of the Forest have a legendary border. What I would do is lower the p/t of Daring Children of the Forest by 1 both. Here's my card:
@ChoyBoi Interesting card! I think it's a little undercosted, though. Maybe changing the cost to UB instead of 1 U/B. Also, I think that Naeyarus's main ability should allow you to always look at the top card of the defending player's library. Then again, that could just be me. It's a really interesting card. Very blue/black.
@SpellPiper2213 I don't have much experience with these sorts of things but I feel like it's undercosted, a 3/2 with hexproof (albiet from a specific color), flash which includes a counter that you can't pay off, and when it counters a card your opponent loses 2 life and you gain 2 life sounds more like I wanna say a 3 B G U. I personally don't see where green belongs in the mana cost either but idk.
Time for me to be the big hypocrite with my own custom cards which probably need to be dialed down but yeah.
At the moment I'm working on a subtype of lands called chambers which honestly based on their abilities sound more like artifacts than lands at the moment but it's my first crack at making custom cards and I'm trying to make the abilities, if not the lack of casting costs fair.
@Bradster2002 - The "to your mana pool" clause is obsolete and no longer used in current Magic cards. The 2nd ability is extremely powerful for a common card, and very nasty in a deck with heavy lifegain. I'd suggest increasing its mana cost somewhere around {5} or {4}{b} since it enters the battlefield untapped. Change the rarity to rare; it can destroy other permanents multiple times. The wording in the 2nd ability also needs adjusting. You, the player, are never the source of damage; it's always a permanent/spell that deals the damage. Here's how I think this needs to be put in order to be in proper MTG language:
{t}: Add {c} or {b}.
{4}{b}, {t}: Pay any amount of life. Torture Chamber deals that much damage to target creature or planeswalker.
Chamber is a flavorful subtype for lands, kinda like Gate. I wonder if you can create cards that interact with lands that have the Chamber subtype.
Here's my card. Post a constructive comment and/or favorite it, then post up to two cards of your own:
I'm new to the forum's and would like some opinions. @Temurzoa I like the party creature idea but I'm wondering if they will have different party types like an Elf party, Zombie party, or even a Merfolk party.
@Commando Again I feel like this card is under costed, I'm not exactly sure what it should cost, but in my opinion it would make sense for a 6 cost 5/5 with haste to exist on it's own, not accounting for the other abilities, as for searching your library and putting tapped lands on the field every time it attacks would be maybe an additional 2-3 cost, and the last ability would undoubtedly be another 2 if you look up the card pitchburn devils, it showcases nearly the same effect for an additional 2 cost to the card.
So yeah, that's my opinion, up the cost or downgrade the stats and/or abilities if you're trying to make it fair.
Next up on my land subtype chamber showcase, which btw I definitely appreciate the criticism of my last card, is the first one I made called Brooding Chamber. Looking back on it I already think there should be some additional cost to its second ability and some wording that needs to be changed, but here it is.
MTG Cardsmith Community Forums
Comments
Here's my new cards, there are technically 3 but they go together.
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/orogo-the-hunted
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/isala-the-huntress
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/markato-hunters-steed
It's hard for me to critique these, as they seem very commander oriented, and I don't play commander very much, but I'll give it a go. #1 love the art. Particularly Orogo, good stuff. The Multipartner ability's interesting, but if only one player was using it, seems like it would horribly skew the game in their favor. On Isala, not familiar with Exert, so I really don't have a comment. Markato seems sound though, again, aside from the Multipartner. It could be fun if both parties were playing it...bring a little more variety to a commander game, but I immediately thought that if I played it against some of my regular gaming buddies I'd get accused of cheating a lot lol
My card today goes outside my normal box. Usually try to post original stuff, today I'm using a card from my Game of Thrones set, mostly due to the ability. I'm not sure if its workable or not, so that's primarily what I'm looking for feedback on.
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/stannis-baratheon-14
Tonight I stumbled upon a few cards that I never knew were printed. There are three "Expansion Hoser" cards which I found fascinating, so I wanted to try my hand at 'smithing one of my own. Here are the "expansion hosers":
And here is mine; I chose to make an Ikoria Hoser card so I could give poor Narset of the Ancient Way a real reason for being in Ikoria in the first place:
Based on the other three Expansion Hosers above, did I get the balance right compared to how those work?
It's an interesting idea, and you certainly found the perfect artwork. In terms of balance... hard to say. If it turned up in Limited it would be one hell of a build-around. It's so difficult to tell what to think about these expansion hoser cards. I guess they exist in the same sphere as colour-hate, etc: strictly sideboard material. The thing is, referring to things like when cards were first printed feels dangerously like un-set territory nowadays, like reference to watermarks or rarities. Still, as far as I can tell it's pretty balanced and at the very least it'll lead to some hilarious blowouts your opponents don't see coming.
With this card I tried to implement keyword counters on Innistrad: trying to make a vampire that thematically transforms other creatures into vampires a bit like the original Olivia. Also a callback to the classic (and super annoying) Vampire Nighthawk, since Sire can gain all three of his abilities.
My card:
This is my take on a planeswalker with an adventure!
I always appreciate experiments with abilities on planeswalkers, and this works fairly well. The planeswalker has a common theme, seems well-balanced, and relies on two colors despite being playable in one, an attribute I love to see on cards.
In terms of balance, I see no problems. In fact, compared to some more recent planeswalkers, it feels slightly underwhelming for mythic, but in the right decks it would make an excellent addition.
Anyways, for my card:
My cards:
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/quench-in-flame
and,
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/external-suffering
- There aren't any wording errors on either of the cards. That's always good. However, I get the sense that the flavor text on External Suffering is just somehow slightly off. At the bare minimum, I'd recommend adding a comma between "well" and "suffer", and I might also suggest changing the "too" on the end into "as well" or something. I don't know why, and other than the comma then this is a totally internal kind of complaint / point, so do or don't as you wish.
- As is traditional, the low-cost instant-speed hand disruption that External Suffering represents makes me somewhat nervous. I'm aware that it has some serious limitations since it can only hit two card types, I know it does badly against deck types that don't really play any creatures, and I'm aware that it'd be dreadful as a sorcery, but it's still something to be wary of for its potential to be held until an opponent's end step, leaving open a counterspell or something if needed.
One totally random suggestion that would work around this is making the tapped creature "not untap during its controller's next untap step" and making the card a sorcery. Not necessarily a good idea, I'm just spitballing there.
- Quench in Flames seems pretty good for burn-y decks, or just things that have some looting / rummaging and want to store some acceptably good targeted burn in the graveyard. Eh, it's probably okay, though its potential as powerful reach-achiever in red aggro and burn in standard formats might warrant a change to sorcery.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now, Return to Ravnica Rakdos. To save time for those who don't know, the unleash mechanic is real, and it does this:
Designed for: https://forums.mtgcardsmith.com/discussion/5400/the-adventure-saga-make-your-adventurers#latest
The wording should be "Whenever a creature dealt damage by a creature in your party this turn dies, you may exile it...". Otherwise, decent card.
- I would make it cost 1B, as it is a legendary rare.
- The flavor text is strange. I suggest changing it to something else.
______________________________________________________________________________________
My cards:
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/omnath-locus-of-color
and,
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/wonderful-specialization?list=use
______________________________________________________________________________________
The first card is a "what if Omnath, Locus of Creation was designed differently" kind thing.
The second card is for the mechanix challenges.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Hope you like!
- Rogue is spelt Rogue. It should not be "red" in French. This is a valuable lesson that I'm sure I'll have to repeat a great many times now that the party mechanic exists.
- This is just generally very underpowered. Unless you control a full party (which can be relatively hard to achieve depending on the situation) it's five mana for a 2/2, which is dreadful. For haste-giving, I have such options as Fervor, Fires of Yavimaya or Purphuros, the Bronze-Blooded, all of which are far harder to remove and bring none of the conditions. For combat-taking, I'd point to Aggravated Assault. Again, harder to remove, none of the conditions, and even though it takes one more mana to activate, I can do it many times in the same turn so long as I've the mana to provide for it.
I get the sense that you've taken two abilities and realised that they're both potentially very good, but accidentally placed far too much of a cap over their uses. I'd recommend just generally lowering costs, increasing power and toughness type things, or changing the nature of the abilities more intrinsically instead if you feel like it. For instance, you could remove the "need a full party" condition from the combat ability, and change up the cost etc. somewhat around the addition of a clause where its cost is reduced based on your number of party members or something. Hope this helps.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Since it might be needed to understand this card, for the unaware, a party is defined by the ruling / reminder text:
- Choose a creature you control. That creature gets +3/+3 until end of turn.
- Choose a creature you control. That creature fights target creature you don't control.
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/gil-threen-cankervangelist
Whenever enchanted player casts a spell, reveal [could be a "look at" clause instead, I guess] the top X cards of your library, where X is that spell's converted mana cost. You may cast a card revealed this way without paying its mana cost. Put the rest on the bottom of your library in any order.
In other words, it definitely needs to be weakened in some way. I might recommend using a clause that limits the card-flipping to the first spell the enchanted player casts each turn or something, and perhaps a regulation of the number of cards revealed from your library in conjunction if you feel that'll weaken it too much.
Next:
Without many arguments. The card is very good and with a lot of flavor. The idea of the hybrid frame is very interesting in these cards and alternative color costs. Nice job. I favorite it.
My card:
My card:
Here's my card. Post a constructive comment and/or favorite it, then post up to two cards of your own:
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/naeyarus-fatestealer
Anyhow, here's my card.
Time for me to be the big hypocrite with my own custom cards which probably need to be dialed down but yeah.
At the moment I'm working on a subtype of lands called chambers which honestly based on their abilities sound more like artifacts than lands at the moment but it's my first crack at making custom cards and I'm trying to make the abilities, if not the lack of casting costs fair.
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/torture-chamber-4?list=user
This is one of the more tame of all nine of them so far.
{t}: Add {c} or {b}.
{4}{b}, {t}: Pay any amount of life. Torture Chamber deals that much damage to target creature or planeswalker.
Chamber is a flavorful subtype for lands, kinda like Gate. I wonder if you can create cards that interact with lands that have the Chamber subtype.
Here's my card. Post a constructive comment and/or favorite it, then post up to two cards of your own:
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/molten-simulacrum-1
So yeah, that's my opinion, up the cost or downgrade the stats and/or abilities if you're trying to make it fair.
Next up on my land subtype chamber showcase, which btw I definitely appreciate the criticism of my last card, is the first one I made called Brooding Chamber. Looking back on it I already think there should be some additional cost to its second ability and some wording that needs to be changed, but here it is.
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/brooding-chamber-1