mechanic Prepare X (You may pay for it's prepare cost and play it face down as an enchantment named Preparation with "1, Sacrifice Preparation: flip this card and play it as though it were just cast.")
New mechanic: Loyaltybond(You and another player may pay for and use the abilities on each other's loyaltybound planeswalkers with loyalty points from yours.)
My oracle text for Loyaltybond (since it won't fit on the card) would be:
When this planeswalker enters the battlefield, choose another player.
That player may choose a planeswalker they control to be Loyaltybound with this planeswalker.
That planeswalker does NOT need to have the Loyaltybond ability.
If that player does choose a planeswalker to be bound to yours, you may each use the available loyalty points from the Loyaltybound planeswalker you each control to pay for the activation of any ability that costs loyalty points on the other player's Loyaltybound planeswalker.
Neither of you may add loyalty points to your planeswalkers with the other planeswalker's abilities.
Each card may only be loyaltybound to one other card per game, so if either card goes into the graveyard or exile, neither may be loyaltybound with any other cards for the rest of the game.
It's basically an group hug battlebond assist partner but with planeswalkers type thingy? Thoughts?
So I couldn't help but attempt a variation of Legendary Partner à la Sol, Advocate Eternal. Has potential to be pervasive and/or too strong and it's quite wordy, but also a work in progress.
I'm also brainstorming how to give your Commander this mechanic during a game that would embody this ideal. Again yes it's wordy; working within the confines of mechanic rule syntax amplifies the difficulty of writing one small enough it's not a wall of text.
So what do you all think? (I posted this up on Twitter and got no bites, so it was either showcase it elsewhere or give up; obviously, I aired on the side of the former cause I like a challenge.)
Addendum: I may revise this mechanic to reflect that the other creature must "share one or more colors in its converted mana cost with the color identity of this creature." It reduces the effect overall by disallowing nearly all artifact and colorless creatures from becoming a protégé for reasons that are obvious, and also weakens the impact of a card I'm developing that is referring to my earlier statement as giving "your Commander this mechanic during a game."
@RandomFandom Thanks for the feedback. It's been a while since I last did anything with this set (or on Cardsmith in general), but I recall that I did want some synergy with the Hex ability. However, I think that could still be done with the alternate wording you suggest, which seems like it would look a lot cleaner on cards as well.
@Daedalus_The_All_Father On one hand, I think I can see what you're going for with aftershock, and perhaps I can also see a few ways to use it cleverly. Unfortunately, it suffers from a slight issue: it's a bit of a no brainer.
In short, aftershock doesn't really ask anything from you, and so it's a bit pointless. In longer terms, exiling the spell rather than putting it into your graveyard is technically a tiny little cost in a handful of situations (like if you want to fuel an Uro or something, perhaps), but that's about it. As such, the part of aftershock that should unify it and be a constant over all cards using it might as well not be present (outside of theoretical designs that exploit the card going / not going to the graveyard) and so in the majority of situations what aftershock actually means looks something like:
Primary effect
Aftershock - Also, if you feel like it, just do this.
Bend to the Wilful and Collective Interference are particularly good examples of this. Being exiled has no significance, and the effect you get for the exile is pretty dang big. In fact, Collective Interference could literally just say "You may end the turn." since spells that end the turn exile themselves as they do it anyway.
As a kind of wrap-up and refocus on why the issue is an issue, it does some really linear stuff. There's no real choice, no real cost, no real relevance to aftershocking or not. As I said, it just acts like "also do this if you want to" rather than making players make clever decisions, have to achieve certain things, or pass up on opportunities as other mechanics of this type do.
On a vaguely related note, is Predicted Intervention supposed to have a "for as long as it remains exiled" kind of clause? Also, is it perhaps a good idea to have it be multicolored rather than hybrid?
@AboveAndAbout This thread is pretty much dead. But I’ll still give you feedback if you post here.
So, I assume Recall is worded like this:
Recall - ... you may return CARDNAME from your graveyard to your hand. The next time it is cast, exile it.
If so, awesome ability! I like all the design space it leaves. I can’t really see anything wrong with it, except that having this card discarded would do basically nothing. About the card, I only see one wording problem. “Whenever you cast a Spirit card” should be “Whenever you cast a Spirit spell”. Whenever something is being cast, it’s referred to as a spell. It’s only referred to as a card when it’s in a player’s library, hand, or graveyard. Other than that small thing, I like your card. I left a favorite.
@RandomFandom@AboveAndAbout Unfortunately, there is a further issue with the mechanic. Recall is kind of iffy with the rules because it tries to assign a specific memory thing (the specific card being exiled when it's next played) to a card that's:
a) In your hand (and therefore potentially hidden, and so it could get forgotten about, be hard to track which copy(s) of it get exiled when played and which don't, especially to an opponent, etc.) and...
b) Potentially going to stick around in hand for a really long time. Have I really got to remember that this specific copy of the card's going to exile if I play it while I don't play it for a whole load of turns? That doesn't seem good.
It's a neat mechanic concept, it's got a lot of working space, but I suspect it does need some reworking to mitigate or solve those. I know there are arguments of "oh, you can play with it revealed to help remember" or "oh, just use counters to note it or something", but it's still a problem according to the rules and design regardless.
Also, there's a minor wording issue. You need it to read something like "exile it as it resolves." on the ability, since without that it'll exile on being cast and so the effect won't go off. This gives it a sort of pseudo counterspell removal (which might or might not be intentional). I don't know. Perhaps some kind of "If that card would be put into your graveyard, exile it instead" kind of thing? It's worth noting that these wouldn't solve the memory issues, so something also needs to be done for those.
@AboveAndAbout I think I know how to keep the mechanic pretty much the same while solving the problems @MemoryHead noted. It might work better like this:
Recall — ... You may exile CARDNAME from your graveyard with a COUNTERTYPE counter on it. You may cast it for as long as it remains exiled. When you do, exile it as it resolves.
As far as I’m aware, when a card is exiled, each counter on it is removed from it unless it was exiled with that counter on it. Therefore, when it is exiled the second time, it should lose the counter and become permanently exiled. I hope that’s how you wanted it to work. It should have even more design space now, too.
@Fallen_Lord_Vulganos, that's pretty broad! I like the idea of tribal Aquatic. What about "Aquatic creatures are Merfolk, Fishes, and blue creatures with converted mana cost 6 or greater?"
@Temurzoa That seems weird by lefting out those Hedron Crabs people are using a lot, that one shark and octopus from Ikoria, and so on.
Also your mechanic is great but it would need a lot of space because it is like Saga but slapped on a creature while the rewards are just some +1/+1 counters. Seems kinda underwhelming tbh.
Forecast X - Scry X and then Look at the top X cards of your opponents deck. Choose one to play face down as a 2/2 Morph with “3: Flip this card face up”
In a set im going to be making soon, I'm using a mechanic that augments creatures, but to distinguish between the 2 types, as well as not be confused with the augment from the un-sets, it will be split into Mecha-Augment and Bio-Augment for mechanical and biological respectively. First makes the creature a colorless artifact cyborg and the other doesn't change color of types. Both places an augment counter on the creature though.
<fontsize=6> https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/soul-drain-20</fontsize>; I'm more familiar with Yugioh, while it's not a keyworded mechanic it is very much a mechanic in it's meta nicknamed "floodgates" essentially floodgates prevent all players from doing something. (Sometimes opponents but usually both to restrict the player to confining his strategy) A friend told me the closest thing to Magic is stax, but they don't really punish you for playing wrong, just don't let you do that thing to begin with and can have very awkward games when both players are throwing down floodgates. It isn't exactly A "hate" card either as there's actually very few floodgates I can think of besides the barrier statues which even they don't hate other colors so much as only permit their own. Instead it's an assumed state of hate that certain cards will cripple certain decks. In case the image spoiler doesn't work here's the link
Don't have an example card yet but I came up with a mechanic. It's called overpower, it's basically a miniature epic, and appears only on instants and sorceries. It means you can cast the spell for its overpower cost, if you do, create a copy of the spell, but you cannot cast other spells until the end of next turn. Some cards would have a lower overpower cost then base cost (in cases where the downside is worse then making a copy), others would have a higher or same cost (in all other cases)
Forgot seems like a worse rehash of snow, with far less flavor that actually ties into the mechanic. Decay needs to be renamed, since there's a mechanic named Decayed. Burn is too specific to be a useable mechanic
This is a mechanic that didn't tought too much, but this card is the second version of it, because i wanted to make something that represents hamsters without giving them too much power.
MTG Cardsmith Community Forums
Comments
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/kulira-coven-high-magus
Hex (Whenever a permanent an opponent controls becomes the target of a spell you control, this creature hexes.)
Hex is a triggered ability that appears on some Warlock creatures. The effects of Hex abilities vary from creature to creature.
My oracle text for Loyaltybond (since it won't fit on the card) would be:
- When this planeswalker enters the battlefield, choose another player.
- That player may choose a planeswalker they control to be Loyaltybound with this planeswalker.
- That planeswalker does NOT need to have the Loyaltybond ability.
- If that player does choose a planeswalker to be bound to yours, you may each use the available loyalty points from the Loyaltybound planeswalker you each control to pay for the activation of any ability that costs loyalty points on the other player's Loyaltybound planeswalker.
- Neither of you may add loyalty points to your planeswalkers with the other planeswalker's abilities.
- Each card may only be loyaltybound to one other card per game, so if either card goes into the graveyard or exile, neither may be loyaltybound with any other cards for the rest of the game.
It's basically an group hug battlebond assist partner but with planeswalkers type thingy? Thoughts?I'm also brainstorming how to give your Commander this mechanic during a game that would embody this ideal. Again yes it's wordy; working within the confines of mechanic rule syntax amplifies the difficulty of writing one small enough it's not a wall of text.
So what do you all think? (I posted this up on Twitter and got no bites, so it was either showcase it elsewhere or give up; obviously, I aired on the side of the former cause I like a challenge.)
Addendum: I may revise this mechanic to reflect that the other creature must "share one or more colors in its converted mana cost with the color identity of this creature." It reduces the effect overall by disallowing nearly all artifact and colorless creatures from becoming a protégé for reasons that are obvious, and also weakens the impact of a card I'm developing that is referring to my earlier statement as giving "your Commander this mechanic during a game."
Hex - Whenever a permanent an opponent controls
becomes the target of a spell you control, _______
Aftershock - You may exile this spell as it resolves. If you do, "effect".
These are all the other cards that I have made at the time of this comment:
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/breaching-infinity
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/bend-to-the-willful
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/collective-interference
In short, aftershock doesn't really ask anything from you, and so it's a bit pointless. In longer terms, exiling the spell rather than putting it into your graveyard is technically a tiny little cost in a handful of situations (like if you want to fuel an Uro or something, perhaps), but that's about it. As such, the part of aftershock that should unify it and be a constant over all cards using it might as well not be present (outside of theoretical designs that exploit the card going / not going to the graveyard) and so in the majority of situations what aftershock actually means looks something like:
Aftershock - Also, if you feel like it, just do this.
On a vaguely related note, is Predicted Intervention supposed to have a "for as long as it remains exiled" kind of clause? Also, is it perhaps a good idea to have it be multicolored rather than hybrid?
So, I assume Recall is worded like this:
Recall - ... you may return CARDNAME from your graveyard to your hand. The next time it is cast, exile it.
If so, awesome ability! I like all the design space it leaves. I can’t really see anything wrong with it, except that having this card discarded would do basically nothing. About the card, I only see one wording problem. “Whenever you cast a Spirit card” should be “Whenever you cast a Spirit spell”. Whenever something is being cast, it’s referred to as a spell. It’s only referred to as a card when it’s in a player’s library, hand, or graveyard. Other than that small thing, I like your card. I left a favorite.
a) In your hand (and therefore potentially hidden, and so it could get forgotten about, be hard to track which copy(s) of it get exiled when played and which don't, especially to an opponent, etc.) and...
b) Potentially going to stick around in hand for a really long time. Have I really got to remember that this specific copy of the card's going to exile if I play it while I don't play it for a whole load of turns? That doesn't seem good.
It's a neat mechanic concept, it's got a lot of working space, but I suspect it does need some reworking to mitigate or solve those. I know there are arguments of "oh, you can play with it revealed to help remember" or "oh, just use counters to note it or something", but it's still a problem according to the rules and design regardless.
Also, there's a minor wording issue. You need it to read something like "exile it as it resolves." on the ability, since without that it'll exile on being cast and so the effect won't go off. This gives it a sort of pseudo counterspell removal (which might or might not be intentional). I don't know. Perhaps some kind of "If that card would be put into your graveyard, exile it instead" kind of thing? It's worth noting that these wouldn't solve the memory issues, so something also needs to be done for those.
Recall — ... You may exile CARDNAME from your graveyard with a COUNTERTYPE counter on it. You may cast it for as long as it remains exiled. When you do, exile it as it resolves.
As far as I’m aware, when a card is exiled, each counter on it is removed from it unless it was exiled with that counter on it. Therefore, when it is exiled the second time, it should lose the counter and become permanently exiled. I hope that’s how you wanted it to work. It should have even more design space now, too.
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/rising-tide-8
Also your mechanic is great but it would need a lot of space because it is like Saga but slapped on a creature while the rewards are just some +1/+1 counters. Seems kinda underwhelming tbh.
I'm more familiar with Yugioh, while it's not a keyworded mechanic it is very much a mechanic in it's meta nicknamed "floodgates" essentially floodgates prevent all players from doing something. (Sometimes opponents but usually both to restrict the player to confining his strategy) A friend told me the closest thing to Magic is stax, but they don't really punish you for playing wrong, just don't let you do that thing to begin with and can have very awkward games when both players are throwing down floodgates. It isn't exactly A "hate" card either as there's actually very few floodgates I can think of besides the barrier statues which even they don't hate other colors so much as only permit their own. Instead it's an assumed state of hate that certain cards will cripple certain decks. In case the image spoiler doesn't work here's the link
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/soul-drain-20
Decay needs to be renamed, since there's a mechanic named Decayed.
Burn is too specific to be a useable mechanic