Here is my creation for: A creature that's ability will destroy a land when it enters the battlefield.
The mana value of your creature is 6 or greater.
Etheral War #1: Your creature cannot be mono-red.
Etheral War #2: Your creature's toughness must be 3 or less.
Such limitations on the nature of the mana value toughness and whatnot indicate to me that this creature needed no other abilities to synergize with the required ability. Therefore, flavor text is all that matters.
The prompt isn't well-defined. On one hand, Mountain is a land type, so a spell with the text "As an additional cost to cast this spell, sacrifice a mountain" would be a 'spell that requires sacrificing a land to cast it.' (I assume most people here would agree with this argument.) On the other hand, you could argue that the prompt says "a land" and not "a Mountain," and as such the spell in question is too narrow to meet the prompt.
@cadstar369 And you could defend that spell only needed a land sacrificed, and Mountains is a subtype to a Basic land. Hence, requirement is met. If I want it to be only a land, not something like a Mountains, I would do something like this;
Card have "As additional to cast this spell, sacifice a land."
The text in "Quote" absolutely cannot be altered, otherwise requirement will not be met.
I was only testing ya guys to see whether you knew rules can be bended rather than broken. This is just way to show you how flexible requirements can be.
@FireOfGolden note that my first argument is agreeing with you, as I assume most would. I've simply also provided an additional second argument to show that the initial prompt was not well-defined when given by itself. When taken in context with your clarification however, there is no longer anything to question.
I will start with Etherial Earthshaker. It's a green Elemental 6/3 which takes four any mana and two green mana to cast it. When it enters the battlefield, target land will be destroyed. It's simple and it is a common. Green does possess ability to destroy land, it usually takes four mana to destroy a land, according to Desecration Plague. Notice that both are common. However, if you take a look at Acidic Slime, it's most similar as Eimtherial Earthshaker. The difference is Acidic Slime is uncommon and has deathtouch, it costs 5 mana to cast while power and toughness are 2/2. It can destroy either artifact, enchantment, or land. So, if deathtouch were to removed, will it become common? Perhaps, but it's unlikely.
Hence, it's uncommon for creature to possess ability to destroy a land. That goes strike to the rating as Etherial Earthshaker is a common rather than uncommon. If the ability were to nerfed or is removed, perhaps rating will increase. Now for appearance, everything makes it seemly convincing that it is a real card. Its flavor text is well done.
Etherial Earthshaker is rated for 81 out of 100, it's because of rarity issue possible.
Now to The Swamp Monster, I am disappointed that you didn't went into this opportunity which is "When The Swamp Monster enters the battlefield, destroy a Swamp you control." Notice that Swamp is subtype of Basic land. Hence, it's still "Destroy target land" ?. You should have make it Legendary land Swamp as well to put some tasty seasoning on it.
Oh well, The Swamp Monster is a legendary Avatar Horror which costs five any mana and two black mana to cast. When it enters the battlefield; target land is destroyed and The Swamp Monster's controller gains 3 life. Any creatures blocking this legendary creature will get +1/+0, upon death, it does again; Land is destroyed and you gain 3 life. To me, it's kinda powerful for an uncommon, but is somewhat still a balanced... Wait. That ability... If its controller pays seven mana and sacifice a land - Boom! Its controller gets cash back of lives and another land been slained. That ability becomes abusable now. You know how Black will do. They will be glad to sacifice that creature for chuckles and giggles, then they bring it back to alive for same reason. They will do all again and again until enemies don't have lands anymore. Sacifice a land? Only in emergency. Otherwise, they can cast a spell to put that card onto their hand or direct to battlefield.
And it's uncommon... With that powerful ability. So, here's a few situations;
To keep uncommon:
"When The Swamp Monster enters the battlefield, destroy target Swamps you control. You gain 3 life."
"Creatures blocking this creature gets +1/+0 until end of turn."
"When The Swamp Monster dies, destroy target land. This ability can be only triggered a turn."
To keep currently abilities;
Increase its rarity to rare.
Limit the possibility abuse.
"When The Swamp Monster enters the battlefield or dies, destroy target land. This ability can be only triggered once a turn."
"Creatures blocking this creature gets +1/+0 until end of turn."
{5}{b}{b}, pay 3 life, sacifice a land you control: Put The Swamp Monster from your graveyard onto the battlefield. Activate only as sorcery.
Hence, The Swamp Monster is rated for 73 out of 100 because of its rarity issue and adusable abilites. And it's not Legendary Land Swamp ☹️ (Only damages for 1, that is.)
FYI, jpastor, as battle ends, you now can use three Treasure tokens. You cannot sell it to anyone, but I will not be responsible for what happens to your treasure token, if you decided to use it in different place, such as your own contest. If you were to use it on Mystery Box, I assure you that nothing will happens... Or am I wrong?
@TheDarkKnight1234567 While you wait for response from em, you can challenge for another battle. My recommendation is set your limit to only three battles, but you can go over it, if ya like. (By the way, who said I couldn't be challenged anyway?)
@jpastor Please entertain me about how did Earthshaker took so much damage to rating in Cardsmith League than here. I believe that if I learned about that, I would improve my judge system and make it less generous when possible. ?
@ShadowReign You been challenged by jpastor! Please accept this challenge within a week.
Earthshaker's rarity in association with its ETB land destruction ability, coupled with its stats and identity as a powerful creature, make this card balanced, playable, and acceptable at a glance. Additionally, wording, formatting, and theme/flavor all seem well. The issues lie within the context of how variable its impact, fairness, and acceptability becomes depending on the format its being played in. Such a disruptive mechanic, like land destruction tacked onto a powerful common creature could become unfun to play against in some formats, like pauper for example, where you can ramp your way to controlling the game by playing this in addition to other land destruction cards. Overall, this idea of land destruction seems strategic at a glance, but it can be even more frustrating in many ways than playing against a creatureless counter-deck.
The big fault is its rarity. Beyond that, fixing how the ability triggers, would improve its acceptability. This resolves and destroys a land with a powerful attacker as well.
To fix it without changing rarity, it would need a condition to trigger that's also one-off, but is less easy than "it resolves."
The card cannot have mana costs for between 4 to 6 to cast.
If condition isn't met to cast this spell, the spell will counter itself.
Ethernal War - Your card is either Aura, instant, or sorcery.
Ethernal War - Mana cost of the card must contain "{x}".
Now, last requirement made second requirement more fragile than you thought. Why? Because when {x} is added, the mana cost becomes ANY with plus mana required to cast. Lets say, {x}{r}{r}, it will be two or greater mana cost. If it's like that then second requirement will break. Did ya guys think of that? I am curious.
Might of the Many was first to be submitted, so I will judge it first. (Didn't you stole art from March of the Multitude?)
Before I go into this, I will have to check card for requirements. This card isn't creature, hence, it's an Aura which costs at least one white and one green mana. If caster doesn't control ten or more creatures, this card counters itself. Sounds good, but I have an issue with this; Two or more mana.
Ten creatures may seems a lot, but people will be still able to cast it for between 4 to 6 mana cost to get between +2/+2 to +4/+4 for strategic purpose. So, ladies and gentlemen, this breaks second requirement. That's 4/5, meaning Might of the Many can only have up to 80 instead of 100.
Now back to judging;
Might of the Many is an Aura enchantment that strengths enchanted creature based on how much mana is spent into it - with some bonus if creatures were tapped to help pay for it. However, if caster don't have 10 or more creatures they control, this spell counters itself. I would say everything looks balanced to me; however, this spell has potienal to be very powerful and will prove useful in a deck - usually blue - that it cannot be blocked and becomes untarget of everything.
The appearance of it look... Plain, boring. Yes, it's easy to read and simple, but something feels missing... Might of the Many is rated for 71 out of 100.
Yusri's Meddling that costs for either a red or a blue mana with any additional mana. Its ability decreased its effectiveness to only four mana... FOUR MANA?
Yusri's Meddling, unlike Might of the Many, broke second requirement directly. Caster can only pay up to 4 - Yes, I said 4 - to flip up to three coins. Yusri's Meddling in fact is powerful, if its caster is luck enough... Or they used a certain card with it to make it every powerful. Who knows?
"Exile nonland permanent" seems falls in white, black, and green specialty, so I would prefer to change it to "Put target nonland permanent to its owner's bottom library." Rest others falls in blue/red specialty, so I don't see why I should alter em.
As for its appearance, it's good and split color did match the mana cost. You made a well card.
Yusri's Meddling's rating maximum been reduced to 80 and takes 23 damage for not fitting color is rated for 57 out of 100.
MTG Cardsmith Community Forums
Comments
I wouldn't mind a redraw. What do you think, @Robo_Kitty?
@FireOfGolden
Here is my creation for:
A creature that's ability will destroy a land when it enters the battlefield. The mana value of your creature is 6 or greater. Etheral War #1: Your creature cannot be mono-red. Etheral War #2: Your creature's toughness must be 3 or less.
Such limitations on the nature of the mana value toughness and whatnot indicate to me that this creature needed no other abilities to synergize with the required ability. Therefore, flavor text is all that matters.
Here's a requirement;
Spell must require a land sacificed to cast it.
If someone made this;
"In additional to cast [Name], sacifice a Mountain."
Does they break requirement?
And you could defend that spell only needed a land sacrificed, and Mountains is a subtype to a Basic land. Hence, requirement is met. If I want it to be only a land, not something like a Mountains, I would do something like this;
Card have "As additional to cast this spell, sacifice a land."
The text in "Quote" absolutely cannot be altered, otherwise requirement will not be met.
@TheDarkKnight1234567
Well done!
I was only testing ya guys to see whether you knew rules can be bended rather than broken. This is just way to show you how flexible requirements can be.
Well, I need be carefully with my grammar, do I?
Hence, it's uncommon for creature to possess ability to destroy a land. That goes strike to the rating as Etherial Earthshaker is a common rather than uncommon. If the ability were to nerfed or is removed, perhaps rating will increase. Now for appearance, everything makes it seemly convincing that it is a real card. Its flavor text is well done.
Etherial Earthshaker is rated for 81 out of 100, it's because of rarity issue possible.
Now to The Swamp Monster, I am disappointed that you didn't went into this opportunity which is "When The Swamp Monster enters the battlefield, destroy a Swamp you control." Notice that Swamp is subtype of Basic land. Hence, it's still "Destroy target land" ?. You should have make it Legendary land Swamp as well to put some tasty seasoning on it.
Oh well, The Swamp Monster is a legendary Avatar Horror which costs five any mana and two black mana to cast. When it enters the battlefield; target land is destroyed and The Swamp Monster's controller gains 3 life. Any creatures blocking this legendary creature will get +1/+0, upon death, it does again; Land is destroyed and you gain 3 life. To me, it's kinda powerful for an uncommon, but is somewhat still a balanced... Wait. That ability... If its controller pays seven mana and sacifice a land - Boom! Its controller gets cash back of lives and another land been slained. That ability becomes abusable now. You know how Black will do. They will be glad to sacifice that creature for chuckles and giggles, then they bring it back to alive for same reason. They will do all again and again until enemies don't have lands anymore. Sacifice a land? Only in emergency. Otherwise, they can cast a spell to put that card onto their hand or direct to battlefield.
And it's uncommon... With that powerful ability. So, here's a few situations;
To keep uncommon:
"When The Swamp Monster enters the battlefield, destroy target Swamps you control. You gain 3 life."
"Creatures blocking this creature gets +1/+0 until end of turn."
"When The Swamp Monster dies, destroy target land. This ability can be only triggered a turn."
To keep currently abilities;
Increase its rarity to rare.
Limit the possibility abuse.
"When The Swamp Monster enters the battlefield or dies, destroy target land. This ability can be only triggered once a turn."
"Creatures blocking this creature gets +1/+0 until end of turn."
{5}{b}{b}, pay 3 life, sacifice a land you control: Put The Swamp Monster from your graveyard onto the battlefield. Activate only as sorcery.
Hence, The Swamp Monster is rated for 73 out of 100 because of its rarity issue and adusable abilites. And it's not Legendary Land Swamp ☹️ (Only damages for 1, that is.)
@Jpastor! Congrats on your rating being higher than @smax765!
FYI, jpastor, as battle ends, you now can use three Treasure tokens. You cannot sell it to anyone, but I will not be responsible for what happens to your treasure token, if you decided to use it in different place, such as your own contest. If you were to use it on Mystery Box, I assure you that nothing will happens... Or am I wrong?
@smax765 and @jpastor,
You each get a Treasure token card because of Ethernal War. You may only use it after next battle ends.
(One time counter)
While you wait for response from em, you can challenge for another battle. My recommendation is set your limit to only three battles, but you can go over it, if ya like. (By the way, who said I couldn't be challenged anyway?)
You were more generous than Cardsmith League on the rating for my Earthshaker - it got a 70/100
I challenge @ShadowReign to a battle.
Please entertain me about how did Earthshaker took so much damage to rating in Cardsmith League than here. I believe that if I learned about that, I would improve my judge system and make it less generous when possible. ?
@ShadowReign
You been challenged by jpastor! Please accept this challenge within a week.
Expiration: September 19, 11:59 CST
Ethernal War is actively
(Has single time counter on it)
The card cannot have mana costs for between 4 to 6 to cast.
If condition isn't met to cast this spell, the spell will counter itself.
Ethernal War - Your card is either Aura, instant, or sorcery.
Ethernal War - Mana cost of the card must contain "{x}".
The Winner will get this card
The big fault is its rarity. Beyond that, fixing how the ability triggers, would improve its acceptability. This resolves and destroys a land with a powerful attacker as well.
To fix it without changing rarity, it would need a condition to trigger that's also one-off, but is less easy than "it resolves."
Sorry for delay -
Your card cannot be creature.
The card cannot have mana costs for between 4 to 6 to cast.
If condition isn't met to cast this spell, the spell will counter itself.
Ethernal War - Your card is either Aura, instant, or sorcery.
Ethernal War - Mana cost of the card must contain "{x}".
Now, last requirement made second requirement more fragile than you thought. Why? Because when {x} is added, the mana cost becomes ANY with plus mana required to cast. Lets say, {x}{r}{r}, it will be two or greater mana cost. If it's like that then second requirement will break. Did ya guys think of that? I am curious.
Might of the Many was first to be submitted, so I will judge it first. (Didn't you stole art from March of the Multitude?)
Before I go into this, I will have to check card for requirements. This card isn't creature, hence, it's an Aura which costs at least one white and one green mana. If caster doesn't control ten or more creatures, this card counters itself. Sounds good, but I have an issue with this; Two or more mana.
Ten creatures may seems a lot, but people will be still able to cast it for between 4 to 6 mana cost to get between +2/+2 to +4/+4 for strategic purpose. So, ladies and gentlemen, this breaks second requirement. That's 4/5, meaning Might of the Many can only have up to 80 instead of 100.
Now back to judging;
Might of the Many is an Aura enchantment that strengths enchanted creature based on how much mana is spent into it - with some bonus if creatures were tapped to help pay for it. However, if caster don't have 10 or more creatures they control, this spell counters itself. I would say everything looks balanced to me; however, this spell has potienal to be very powerful and will prove useful in a deck - usually blue - that it cannot be blocked and becomes untarget of everything.
The appearance of it look... Plain, boring. Yes, it's easy to read and simple, but something feels missing... Might of the Many is rated for 71 out of 100.
Yusri's Meddling that costs for either a red or a blue mana with any additional mana. Its ability decreased its effectiveness to only four mana... FOUR MANA?
Yusri's Meddling, unlike Might of the Many, broke second requirement directly. Caster can only pay up to 4 - Yes, I said 4 - to flip up to three coins. Yusri's Meddling in fact is powerful, if its caster is luck enough... Or they used a certain card with it to make it every powerful. Who knows?
"Exile nonland permanent" seems falls in white, black, and green specialty, so I would prefer to change it to "Put target nonland permanent to its owner's bottom library." Rest others falls in blue/red specialty, so I don't see why I should alter em.
As for its appearance, it's good and split color did match the mana cost. You made a well card.
Yusri's Meddling's rating maximum been reduced to 80 and takes 23 damage for not fitting color is rated for 57 out of 100.
@Robo_Kitty and @TheDarkKnight1234567 gets a Treasure token.
A time counter is added to Ethernal War. There are two time counters on it now.
Well, yeah, I am sorry. But hey, at least you have a Treasure token. ?
@ShadowReign, your challenge is about to expire.
You been challenged by @smax765! Please accept this challenge before Sept. 26, 11:59.
@ShadowReign nah it's fine! I want to make sure a selected person is actively sometimes, not just dead for about a month or so.
(Jpaster have two Treasure tokens they can use.)
Ethernal War roams...
(Has two time counters on it.)
Instant/[Nope] must deal damage to player and that damage bounces off same player to a creature under different player.
Your Instant/[Nope]['s mana value] can be only mono-red.
ETHERNAL WAR - Instant/Sorcery has devoid.
ETHERNAL WAR - Your card is Instant.