I think that Islandcrowned Giantess is a fun card and I love the fact that it attempts to provide fixing without providing ramp in blue!
1) I do think that it is important to point out that for the static ability of Islandcrowned Giantess, it would likely make more sense if she read as follows:
"Lands you control have '[T]: Add U to your mana pool.'"
or
"Lands you control are Islands in addition to their other types."
or
"Each land is an Island in addition to its other types." <-- In this particular case, I would upshift the card to a rare and lower the toughness by two, especially since it then internally synergizes with the Islandwalk.
These are all potential modifications that each possess their own consequences within the design space, but cater towards interactions that have the potentially to synergize with the card. 2) I do not know if this was intentional, but the current iteration of Islandcrowned Giantess's static ability does not inherently synergize with Islandwalk. While I admit that it not only makes more sense, but fits better for a card smithed at uncommon, I did want to point it out. (This was somewhat outlined above). Overall, as mentioned earlier, I think that Islandcrowned Giantess is an incredibly interesting card. If I had to give one last piece of personal critique, it would be to perhaps lower the toughness by one.
I apologize for not mentioning this before, but each of the cards that I have posted here on the forum and on my profile are for a custom EDH set I am in the process of designing for my playgroup. Today, I have Kenku Soulsealer and Kumori, Heaven's Veil. Any feedback on these cards will be greatly appreciated and I look forward to reading them.
Lastly, to borrow from MemoryHead, so as to keep the format clear,
"Give one or both of them a favorite and / or a useful comment. Then post up to two cards of your own."
@Crimsonspill, the first card should say: "{2}, Exile target creature card from a graveyard: Put a soul counter on Kenku Soulstealer." and, "When Kenku Soulstealer dies, for each soul counter on it, create a 1/1 white Spirit creature token with flying." I think the Spirit tokens should be both white AND black.
The second card is a little weak for a God. 1WU mana cost is fine.
@joemamajoe I can definitely see what you mean now with Kenku Soulsealer's activated ability and the death trigger. I'll make sure to add that into the MSE version of the card.
Perhaps I am being too conservative with Kumori's cost -- I am always worried about my playgroup since almost all of them play hyper-optimized cEDH decks.
@joemamajoe ;@Crimsonspill, You are right, that was a mistake on my part. But, the problem here is that the spell could target creatures with hexproof and shroud, making it to powerful.
@joemamajoe Right, time to talk some stuff. I'll start with wording changes, then move on to balance and a few recommendations:
When Knight of Temperance enters the battlefield, if its extremist cost was paid, creatures you control get +1/+1 and gain haste until end of turn.
Fate's Command has no wording errors.
First, Fate's Command:
- It's clearly a Lorwyn Command cycle reference, which makes sense I mean that was already a finished cycle but hey I won't argue. Mostly irrelevant, I'm just saying this to acknowledge that yes, I am aware.
- It's most commonly going to be played as a kill spell with an upside of your choice, all of which are pretty darn good. It can also be some combination of the others, though the kill is clearly the most high-value option.
- It might be a little too good. I don't know, I guess you could say the same of Cryptic. This feels like more of a case where you've got the potential for some nasty things of your own, though, like a kill-and-discard in the opponent's upkeep or something. Ah, it's probably acceptable.
Now, the knight:
- Hoo, that mechanic's got some strange setup going on. Aspects of it are cool and have a lot of room for design, but the base wording's just set out in an odd way. Why's there a long dash before the "damage dealt number"? Why not just set it out as something like:
Extremist N [COST] (Reminder text)
And do the normal mechanic things with it?
- The hybrid cost of the extremism isn't right. It gives mono-white access to the haste buff, and haste isn't mono white. Generic reminder of "be careful with hybrid mana".
- It feels a tiny bit weak, perhaps. If I want that sort of ETB buff, I can get it from a Flame-Kin Zealot or one of the Bushwhackers. The cost's a little too high (especially including the life), the limit means it can't take over from Zealot in the places it works from, and the argument of "but you can just play it as a mediocre body for less" isn't worth enough, because it isn't really much of a good creature for base cost.
@MemoryHead Pyroclastic Flowcaster would be amazing in my Greven, Predator's Captain EDH deck! Greven gets +X/+0 for the amount of damage you've lost that turn so I'd target a */1 creature and take the 7 damage, plus if you Sac the Flowcaster to Greven after he ETB, you draw 4 cards off the Flowcaster and add another +3/+0 to Greven. FAAAVORITED. Good card!
What do you guys think about this card, "Psobyne and Pan"? It's basically a Legendary flying version of Ink-Treader Nephilim. I'm starting to love EDH now, so this would be a decent group-hug commander, in my opinion.
@TerryTags I favorited that card already! It is an amazing idea. Love the creativity! My one thing is that the cost might be to high. For example, if an opponent casts a Murder, it becomes a board wipe. Also, if you cast a spell that puts a +1/+1 counter on target creature, that spell also puts those counters on creatures your opponent controls. Otherwise, great work! Here's my card:
You need to review your analysis mode. It is not the first time you have acted that way with someone (not being a good idea? It may be weird, bad or anything, but criticizing like that is not cool.)
Grammatically it's cool, but not to belittle the design.
@joemamajoe How is Witchcraft weird? It's basically an ability that sacrifices two creatures in addition to paying mana, then does something to a creature. That is a thing that happens, sacrificing creatures.
@CassZero For Witchcraft, you should probably have it put a Curse counter on target creature instead, that way it is easier to keep track of. Otherwise, I love it! I hope to see more of Witchcraft in the future.
Well, that can be even better in a sacrifice deck. Anyways, Remistify is powerful. Exile and draw? While I understand it can only be used in certain situations, if you have it in your sideboard and you go against a Superfriends, it can be extremely powerful. Gorging Giant is also extremely powerful. A 5/4 for four mana might be by itself a common or uncommon. Then, you give it the ability to give target creature -7/-7, which, while it has a maybe minor setback, is worth 2-3 mana as well. Here's my card:
@joemamajoe you're entitled to your opinions and feelings and thoughts, but so are the people you offend if you choose to say them out loud. Sometimes the consequence of brutal honesty is that you get pushback from the people you hurt when you say hurtful things. Cardsmiths can, and should, expect to get critical feedback here, but none of us want to be ridiculed or spoken to rudely. CassZero is right that this isn't the first time you've acted this way. It's okay to grow from this and move forward. No one's saying you're a bad person or anything, just take this as a learning opportunity and a chance for personal growth. Thanks.
I will come to the defense of joemamajoe: If general or specific criticism like his is not given out, we get cards like Oko and Smugglers Copter, or narrow mechanics like Faithless Hour and bad sets like Iconic Masters that really don't work. Sometimes an idea can't be salvaged, and is simply bad.
I agree with Witchcraft being too weird: Haunt was tedious to keep track of, and making it so that a card can't be "put under" the card to mentally represent the Haunt ability seems messy. The ability itself is also narrow, and would not have a diverse array of designs (They all have to be aristocrat-designed and they then always have to disadvantage cursed creatures). It wouldn't be viable for aristocrats either, as those decks rely on tokens with no cmc that thus can't contribute to haunting.
Also, Crocodiles aren't red; they're Sultai. I recommend changing it into a Goblin or something similar.
As for the cards posted by joemamajoe, Remistify is fine: we've had things like The Elderspell that destroy all of your opponents Planeswalkers, and Planeswalkers need some serious non-black hosers in this current meta. Gorging Giant is something that could be printed as a 4/3 or maybe a 4/4 and be safe for standard.
Memorial to the Titans isn't standard playable, but it is really cool as a signpost uncommon in draft, even though it feels mono-green.
@Crimsonspill - thanks for the feeback. the original wording was "As long as Islandcrowned Giantess is in play, lands you control produce U in addition to..." I'll tinker a bit and see if I can find a version that works without bumping the flavor text (which just made me chuckle when I thought of it lol)
@fire12 --Memorial To the Titans. Favorited. Love it. It's pretty cheap for what it does, so if I had a critique, that'd be it. Maybe bump up the cost a colorless.
here's my card just wanted to do another land. I feel like this name may have been used before though...please let me know. (also, just realized I misclicked the rarity. It's supposed to be Rare, not Mythic.)
My pleasure with the feedback. Glad to help wherever I can.
I think that the concept of keeping track of expansions, similar to the design space of cards like Golgothian Sylex, has a tendency to become a memory funnel incredibly quickly over the course of a game, as each player has to pay attention to the set symbols rather than the actual cards themselves to ensure that counters aren't being placed.
My other worry here is that the effect of the card is on a land, which makes actually interacting with it once it gets online comparatively difficult, so I would recommend having this be an artifact instead of a land.
Syntactically, the only two things I noticed was that instead of "placing" the counter, you would "put" the counter and that the first line of text, as per modern errata, reads as "Planar Gateway enters the battlefield tapped."
Unfortunately, I don't have any feedback as to how I would recommend changing the card text beyond what I already said about changing the card type from land to artifact. My apologies for that.
@Crimsonspill Wording, then balance and other stuff:
Unrelenting (At the beginning of each opponent's end step, if a creature an opponent controls died this turn, return this card from your graveyard to the battlefield with a -1/-1 counter on it.)
When CARDNAME enters the battlefield, if it entered the battlefield from a graveyard, you may have it deal 2 damage to target creature.
I've had to make some assumptions of what you meant in Unrelenting's reminder text, mostly that it'd be returning from the graveyard. Now, the actual feedback:
- The unrelenting keyword is oppressive, almost always overpowered and highly limiting in design space. You can mill a vast number of your own cards, play a single kill spell, and suddenly you've got a free board. No effort, no clever requirements or plays, nothing. I honestly can't fully explain how good this is without descending into either an essay or a rant, but if you've ever seen some variants of the deck Dredge in action, you might understand. Also, it creates a horrid, un-fun potential gameplay loop where either players are encouraged never to do anything about much of the opponent's board because it'll just come back, or are encouraged to play a deck with practically no creatures to cheat players using unrelenting cards out of their reanimation. The keyword clearly needs modification. Perhaps some sort of associated cost you've got to pay to return the creature, or different, far harder conditions for each unrelenting creature.
- The card, specifically, is also oppressive and overpowered. I won't go into much detail on this point. It's basically just because the keyword's far too good, and this gives you removal into the bargain for some unknowable reason.
- The sort of burn damage this uses on returning from the graveyard isn't in black's slice of the color pie. Black's damage philosophy is gain and drain, so their burn typically results in someone gaining life or similar. A fix might be the use of a -N/-N effect instead.
Basically, the mechanic needs reworking. I've already made a few suggestions of how you might do that, or you could use an idea of your own. Hope this helps.
Next, these. They're a little experiment in expanding on the scavenge mechanic of Return to Ravnica. Give one or both of them a favorite and / or a useful comment before posting up to two cards of your own.
@MemoryHead Both cards are a little powerful. You've got an uncommon 3 mana 3/2 with Scavenge and another ability which basically doubles all Scavenge abilities you use. Then, you've got a rare 4 mana 3/4 with scavenge, makes all scavenge abilities cost less, and also allows you to mill yourself. I mean, cards like this could be made, I'm just saying that these cards would be powerful for their rarity. You did inspire me to make this card, though. I couldn't find the artist.
That's perfectly fair in comparing it to Dredge regarding potential oppressive/non-interactable patterns, especially as someone that has watched a multitude of modern/legacy/vintage games. These cards are admittedly designed for the sole intention of seeing play in EDH amongst my playgroup; however, as mentioned before, I can definitely see the degenerate lines of play and the feeling of despair it could provide in its tenaciousness on board.
That being said, I am also looking for other ways to nerf/balance the card -- Would lowering the P/T help at all? What about putting a prerequisite of a certain number of creatures dying, i.e. two/three or more? Would making it cost 3 generic to return the creature into play be enough "effort" to reinstate the board with a creature? Or would it be better to simply have the creature return to hand?
I clearly imagine that it will take a combination of all of these things to bring the mechanic back in line with something more realistic in the design space, so I hope I am not asking too much in having you elaborate more on the points you made.
All taken into consideration, I do wholeheartedly agree that in retrospect, -2/-2 would be far more in line with black as a color identity than dealing 2 damage, and I plan on reworking it as such in MSE for the final design version of the set.
My apologies for asking you MemoryHead if you are willing to do this - I simply want to create cards that my friends will enjoy playing with in the custom EDH games we plan on doing.
MTG Cardsmith Community Forums
Comments
I think that Islandcrowned Giantess is a fun card and I love the fact that it attempts to provide fixing without providing ramp in blue!
1) I do think that it is important to point out that for the static ability of Islandcrowned Giantess, it would likely make more sense if she read as follows:
"Lands you control have '[T]: Add U to your mana pool.'"
or
"Lands you control are Islands in addition to their other types."
or
"Each land is an Island in addition to its other types." <-- In this particular case, I would upshift the card to a rare and lower the toughness by two, especially since it then internally synergizes with the Islandwalk.
These are all potential modifications that each possess their own consequences within the design space, but cater towards interactions that have the potentially to synergize with the card.
2) I do not know if this was intentional, but the current iteration of Islandcrowned Giantess's static ability does not inherently synergize with Islandwalk. While I admit that it not only makes more sense, but fits better for a card smithed at uncommon, I did want to point it out. (This was somewhat outlined above).
Overall, as mentioned earlier, I think that Islandcrowned Giantess is an incredibly interesting card. If I had to give one last piece of personal critique, it would be to perhaps lower the toughness by one.
______________________________________________________________________________________
I apologize for not mentioning this before, but each of the cards that I have posted here on the forum and on my profile are for a custom EDH set I am in the process of designing for my playgroup. Today, I have Kenku Soulsealer and Kumori, Heaven's Veil.
Any feedback on these cards will be greatly appreciated and I look forward to reading them.
Lastly, to borrow from MemoryHead, so as to keep the format clear,
"Give one or both of them a favorite and / or a useful comment. Then post up to two cards of your own."
The second card is a little weak for a God. 1WU mana cost is fine.
My cards:
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/fates-command
and a card with one of my (many) custom mechanics,
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/knight-of-temperance
Perhaps I am being too conservative with Kumori's cost -- I am always worried about my playgroup since almost all of them play hyper-optimized cEDH decks.
Thanks for the feedback!
By the way, I am talking about Desolate Arrival.
First, Fate's Command:
- It's clearly a Lorwyn Command cycle reference, which makes sense I mean that was already a finished cycle but hey I won't argue. Mostly irrelevant, I'm just saying this to acknowledge that yes, I am aware.
- It's most commonly going to be played as a kill spell with an upside of your choice, all of which are pretty darn good. It can also be some combination of the others, though the kill is clearly the most high-value option.
- It might be a little too good. I don't know, I guess you could say the same of Cryptic. This feels like more of a case where you've got the potential for some nasty things of your own, though, like a kill-and-discard in the opponent's upkeep or something. Ah, it's probably acceptable.
Now, the knight:
- Hoo, that mechanic's got some strange setup going on. Aspects of it are cool and have a lot of room for design, but the base wording's just set out in an odd way. Why's there a long dash before the "damage dealt number"? Why not just set it out as something like:
- The hybrid cost of the extremism isn't right. It gives mono-white access to the haste buff, and haste isn't mono white. Generic reminder of "be careful with hybrid mana".
- It feels a tiny bit weak, perhaps. If I want that sort of ETB buff, I can get it from a Flame-Kin Zealot or one of the Bushwhackers. The cost's a little too high (especially including the life), the limit means it can't take over from Zealot in the places it works from, and the argument of "but you can just play it as a mediocre body for less" isn't worth enough, because it isn't really much of a good creature for base cost.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Next, this. Give it a favorite and / or a useful comment before posting up to two cards of your own.
What do you guys think about this card, "Psobyne and Pan"? It's basically a Legendary flying version of Ink-Treader Nephilim. I'm starting to love EDH now, so this would be a decent group-hug commander, in my opinion.
My card:
- Witchcraft... I'm just going to get to the point, I don't think it works. Too strange and weird.
- The second ability should say: "Creatures with power 2 or less can't enter the battlefield."
- Cursed is already a name of something (players with curses attached to them are considered cursed). I suggest a different name.
-This isn't a Crocodile.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My cards:
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/remistify
and,
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/gorging-giant
You need to review your analysis mode. It is not the first time you have acted that way with someone (not being a good idea? It may be weird, bad or anything, but criticizing like that is not cool.)
Grammatically it's cool, but not to belittle the design.
Curses enchanted players only.
@CassZero For Witchcraft, you should probably have it put a Curse counter on target creature instead, that way it is easier to keep track of. Otherwise, I love it! I hope to see more of Witchcraft in the future.
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/memorial-to-the-titans-1
I got the idea from Mayael the Anima.
I agree with Witchcraft being too weird: Haunt was tedious to keep track of, and making it so that a card can't be "put under" the card to mentally represent the Haunt ability seems messy. The ability itself is also narrow, and would not have a diverse array of designs (They all have to be aristocrat-designed and they then always have to disadvantage cursed creatures). It wouldn't be viable for aristocrats either, as those decks rely on tokens with no cmc that thus can't contribute to haunting.
Also, Crocodiles aren't red; they're Sultai. I recommend changing it into a Goblin or something similar.
As for the cards posted by joemamajoe, Remistify is fine: we've had things like The Elderspell that destroy all of your opponents Planeswalkers, and Planeswalkers need some serious non-black hosers in this current meta. Gorging Giant is something that could be printed as a 4/3 or maybe a 4/4 and be safe for standard.
Memorial to the Titans isn't standard playable, but it is really cool as a signpost uncommon in draft, even though it feels mono-green.
EDIT: You should prob ping Cass and Fire so they see what your saying.
The comment was not for criticism, but how the criticism was made.
@Crimsonspill - thanks for the feeback. the original wording was "As long as Islandcrowned Giantess is in play, lands you control produce U in addition to..." I'll tinker a bit and see if I can find a version that works without bumping the flavor text (which just made me chuckle when I thought of it lol)
@fire12 --Memorial To the Titans. Favorited. Love it. It's pretty cheap for what it does, so if I had a critique, that'd be it. Maybe bump up the cost a colorless.
here's my card just wanted to do another land. I feel like this name may have been used before though...please let me know. (also, just realized I misclicked the rarity. It's supposed to be Rare, not Mythic.)
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/planar-gateway-3
My pleasure with the feedback. Glad to help wherever I can.
I think that the concept of keeping track of expansions, similar to the design space of cards like Golgothian Sylex, has a tendency to become a memory funnel incredibly quickly over the course of a game, as each player has to pay attention to the set symbols rather than the actual cards themselves to ensure that counters aren't being placed.
My other worry here is that the effect of the card is on a land, which makes actually interacting with it once it gets online comparatively difficult, so I would recommend having this be an artifact instead of a land.
Syntactically, the only two things I noticed was that instead of "placing" the counter, you would "put" the counter and that the first line of text, as per modern errata, reads as "Planar Gateway enters the battlefield tapped."
Unfortunately, I don't have any feedback as to how I would recommend changing the card text beyond what I already said about changing the card type from land to artifact. My apologies for that.
______________________________________________________________________________________
My card:
When CARDNAME enters the battlefield, if it entered the battlefield from a graveyard, you may have it deal 2 damage to target creature.
- The unrelenting keyword is oppressive, almost always overpowered and highly limiting in design space. You can mill a vast number of your own cards, play a single kill spell, and suddenly you've got a free board. No effort, no clever requirements or plays, nothing. I honestly can't fully explain how good this is without descending into either an essay or a rant, but if you've ever seen some variants of the deck Dredge in action, you might understand.
Also, it creates a horrid, un-fun potential gameplay loop where either players are encouraged never to do anything about much of the opponent's board because it'll just come back, or are encouraged to play a deck with practically no creatures to cheat players using unrelenting cards out of their reanimation.
The keyword clearly needs modification. Perhaps some sort of associated cost you've got to pay to return the creature, or different, far harder conditions for each unrelenting creature.
- The card, specifically, is also oppressive and overpowered. I won't go into much detail on this point. It's basically just because the keyword's far too good, and this gives you removal into the bargain for some unknowable reason.
- The sort of burn damage this uses on returning from the graveyard isn't in black's slice of the color pie. Black's damage philosophy is gain and drain, so their burn typically results in someone gaining life or similar. A fix might be the use of a -N/-N effect instead.
Basically, the mechanic needs reworking. I've already made a few suggestions of how you might do that, or you could use an idea of your own. Hope this helps.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Next, these. They're a little experiment in expanding on the scavenge mechanic of Return to Ravnica. Give one or both of them a favorite and / or a useful comment before posting up to two cards of your own.
I couldn't find the artist.
That's perfectly fair in comparing it to Dredge regarding potential oppressive/non-interactable patterns, especially as someone that has watched a multitude of modern/legacy/vintage games. These cards are admittedly designed for the sole intention of seeing play in EDH amongst my playgroup; however, as mentioned before, I can definitely see the degenerate lines of play and the feeling of despair it could provide in its tenaciousness on board.
That being said, I am also looking for other ways to nerf/balance the card -- Would lowering the P/T help at all? What about putting a prerequisite of a certain number of creatures dying, i.e. two/three or more? Would making it cost 3 generic to return the creature into play be enough "effort" to reinstate the board with a creature? Or would it be better to simply have the creature return to hand?
I clearly imagine that it will take a combination of all of these things to bring the mechanic back in line with something more realistic in the design space, so I hope I am not asking too much in having you elaborate more on the points you made.
All taken into consideration, I do wholeheartedly agree that in retrospect, -2/-2 would be far more in line with black as a color identity than dealing 2 damage, and I plan on reworking it as such in MSE for the final design version of the set.
My apologies for asking you MemoryHead if you are willing to do this - I simply want to create cards that my friends will enjoy playing with in the custom EDH games we plan on doing.