@Sweda I based the card mostly on Lathiel, Bounteous Dawn, a favorite of mine. In my !athiel, it's very easy to distribute ten counters a turn. I wanted to make an Azorius version of it, and I like the end result.
@Sweda Spell Parry Knight seems pretty fun; nice twofold answer. I kinda wish it had haste so you could 'parry' with the triggered ability and 'riposte' with the activated ability in the same turn.
Wording note: there's an extraneous 'of' in the triggered ability. Also, when you need to remove counters, that should be part of the cost (e.g. Arcbound Javelineer), so the ability should read like this: "{1}{w}, {t}, Remove X charge counters from Spell Parry Knight: It deals X damage to target attacking or blocking creature."
@cadstar369 The effect to discard... Seems like there's no indication on the card that plays on the action of discarding, and there is no further mention of the effect that causes you to discard... (for example, the effect's source or countering the effect.) So...
My thought would be to reword the first ability as: "If you would discard a card, you may put that card to the bottom of your library instead of your graveyard."
As for the secondary ability on this card, I like that it is an activated ability. While the cost requires you to tap the creature, it kind of makes sense for an uncommon and the fact that he's a librarian.
There's no real thematic elements linking this guy to being a Wizard. He's more of a Human Advisor.
Let's chat about P/T. He's a 0/4. There are no 2-mana Humans with 0/4 in existence, except Beloved Beggar.
So, right off the bat, I feel like you opted to decrease the chances of losing this creature before you get the chance to activate its ability by raising its toughness to 4.
On the 2nd ability here... we're able to shuffle a single card and tapping our guy in exchange for 2 additional cards at our next upkeep. To me this is a little too much. It's essentially a Draw 3, discard 1 effect, but we never really discard the card.
There are some ways to go about this card, though. Let's explore the primary alternatives that I've come up with.
Combine both abilities into one: "Whenever you would discard a card, you may pay and tap Legacy Librarian. If you do, shuffle that card and a card from your hand into your library. At the beginning of your next upkeep, draw an additional card."
Change the P/T to a 1/3. Reason for this P/T explained toward the end of this feedback.
One downside of this combination of the two abilities is that we now play a waiting game. When are we going to discard a card? This also feels a little more red since we're getting rid of cards before drawing them. Nonetheless, this makes for a good uncommon creature when it does happen.
So to me, this alternative is feasible, but still not the best for what you are wanting to achieve. Therefore, we arrive at my only other alternative, which I think is a little bit better than combining the effects...
Whenever you would discard a card for the first time each turn, you may put that card to the bottom of your library instead.
, : Shuffle your library. At the beginning of your next upkeep, draw a card. After your draw step, discard a card for each card you've drawn that turn.
1/1
With this combination of words and effects, we now have a versatile ability that can trigger when we trigger it, or when someone causes us to discard stuff. We also have a fairly well balanced activated ability here. A 1-for-1 ratio of drawing, then discarding cards, but we play off the effect of keeping one of those cards from going to our graveyard. So, in a way, this ability is like a Draw 2, then discard 1... but if we have any other effects that increase the amount of cards drawn during our upkeep, this wording keeps that in balance.
We still, in effect, shuffle a card from our hand into our library... just not right away, and we still put a card to the bottom of our library like you wanted.
Erratic Visionary/Soothsayer Adept is a 1/3 with , : Draw a card, then discard a card. While Facet Reader is a 1/2 with , : Draw a card, then discard a card. Merfolk Looter is a 1/1 with : Draw a card, then discard a card. Magus of the Bazaar is a 0/1 rare with : Draw two cards, then discard three cards.
There are a couple of 2 mana guys that allow you to draw more cards than discarding, which is what we are doing. Most of those are 1/1 creatures. When all is established, I believe this becomes a rare to achieve what we want to do, since we have a recurring way of drawing multiple cards each upkeep.
@jpastor Nice attempt at an alchemy card! Haven't seen those a lot on the website. The card is great and works with a lot of decks from its set (alchemy kamigawa I assume?) With that being said though, the wording is a little off. It should be "Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, conjure a token copy of CARDNAME onto the battlefield except it's an aura with enchant creature, then, attach it to Mantra Rays. Great card overall
@jpastor the first ability uses the wording from Library of Leng (one of the two tributes this card is to), which is the only card I can find that replaces discard effects in such a way other than Nephalia Academy, though perhaps the Academy has a better wording to modify here. Either way, I'm curious as to how you arrived at that suggested rewording.
As for him being a Wizard, many existing cards such as Minamo Scrollkeeper and three of the four Archivists with similar duties to a librarian are Wizards. In general, many of the scholarly creatures such as Azami are Wizards. Advisors tend to have positions of power (usually political), such as Kambal or Corrupt Court Official.
With regards to the P/T, while there are a few 0/4 Humans that cost 1~2 mana, I see no reason to restrict to only humans, as there's a decent number of humanoid 0/4's that cost 2 mana or less. Additionally, I'm not sure how you arrived at suggesting shifting the P/T to 1/3, since you seem to be suggesting 1/1 instead shortly afterward (I'll come back to this later).
There's some big differences between the current effect and the "draw 3, discard 1" you mention.
'Draw 3, Discard 1' is net +2 card advantage, while 'Shuffle 1 back, Draw 2 later' is net +1 card advantage. (Assuming it's repeatable in each case.)
Discarding a card is very useful in a variety of decks, since the player can take advantage of madness, recursion, flashback, delve, etc. Shuffling the card back into the deck is practically always a downside, with the only benefit I can think of to getting a shuffle effect being the ability to shuffle away additional unwanted cards after playing a card like Brainstorm. You also might draw the unwanted card again with Legacy Librarian, which you can't do with 'Draw 3, Discard 1'.
'Draw 3, Discard 1' gives you cards immediately. Legacy Librarian's ability delays the card draw, so it's not as useful when you're digging for additional cards, whether that's to find answers or to have additional resources to use for other abilities.
As for your two alternatives:
The first one almost feels like a common, since it's only really useful against black discard or situations where you aren't taking advantage of the cards you discard (Baral might like that, but many decks use the discards as fuel). Losing the activated ability also takes it very far from what I want from this card, so I agree that this is not great.
Your second alternative effectively turns the static ability into random fluff, since it's only 1 card per turn, so you can't use it in conjunction with effects like Windfall. Additionally, the activated ability converts your next turn into net 'Draw X, Discard X,' where X is the number of cards drawn before your first main phase, which is horrible for a number of reasons. Firstly, it turns your regular draw into looting, which means you're losing the card advantage every player gets normally. Additionally, if you have any extra card draw before your first main phase (e.g. Kumena's Awakening), you get punished for it. Thus, there's some pretty strong disincentives to using an ability which is not particularly powerful, at which point why bother using the card?
Rather than your examples of net 0 card advantage (or even Magus of the Bazaar's -1 card advantage), I think it would be more fair to evaluate this effect as a worse version of cards like Archivist and Jushi Apprentice, which give you the +1 card advantage immediately. In light of such creatures, I can understand reducing the statline to something like [0/1, 0/2, 1/1, or 1/2], since I suppose there's no apparent reason for this obvious noncombatant to have 4 toughness. I'm also considering increasing the ability cost to {2}{u}, since many [un]commons with similar mana values draw you a card for 3 mana when there aren't additional conditions attached to their ability, but the delay may be sufficient to justify keeping it as is.
Overall, I'll probably change it to a 0/2, might increase the ability cost by {1}. Thanks for the feedback!
@jaceberlin your card gives me Alrios vibes, except that it's way cooler. Alrios was one of the most disappointing legends I've ever pulled, but if I'd gotten this instead, I'd have started brainstorming immediately. Great concept. From what I can tell, you want to tap down specific creatures and use the reflection to get them out of the way. I could be wrong.
Dia of the Crossed Reflection: This card feels fine. The only major ability I have an issue with is the last one, which I feel creates quite a few issues. With Food Chain, it's an immediate combo in legacy. With pitch spells like Force of Negation, it's immediate value on the next Dia you play. With a card like Rest in Peace, Promise of Tomorrow or Nightmare Shepherd and a sac outlet, you're going infinite. It exists only for making combos work, and the card would fair better without it.
Agnes, Fateteller: Neat card, but the "if your life total is equal to or less than half your starting life total" condition doesn't feel like it works here. Other commander cards with the clause, like Bane, Lord of Darkness or Myrkul, Lord of Bone don't have their primary upside locked behind the condition, and can be played well before that and still work well. In addition, Black doesn't feel like it fits the commander - the only cards that Black gets that can cast from the top is Bolas' Citadel, which doesn't work. Meanwhile, Green gets stuff like Augur of Autumn, Garruk's Horde, Realmwalker, Vizier of the Menagerie and Ranger Class. Red gets stuff like Experimental Frenzy and Melek, Izzet Paragon.
Agnes, Fateteller is the wording for this good? I'm not sure how well the second ability is worded as you would expect it to work. From what it looks like it is during your upkeep look at the top card, you can play it, but the only things you can play at this time are instants and flash cards. If you can't play then you decide to either do nothing and just draw it or you pay 2 life to get a clue and draw it. You can solve it with "you may play that card as though it had flash". Actually if you're going to do that might as well merge the first ability into one. "You may play that card as though it has flash and it cost {2} less to cast" unless you got some other cards that lets you cast off the top your library this would cut the lines of text a bit more.
@Sweda the wording for Agnes, Fateteller's second ability works (at least the first half, not sure if the investigate part is worded correctly). See Djinn of Wishes.
@Ashdust Your card seems fine, but a few issues with the wording.
Here's my suggestion for first ability: "As long as your life total is less than or equal to half your starting life total, spells you cast from the top of your library cost {2} less to cast."
And my suggestion for second ability: "At the beginning of your upkeep, reveal the top card of your library, then choose one — {bull} You may play that card this turn. {bull} You lose 2 life, then investigate. (Create a colorless Clue artifact token with "{2}, Sacrifice this artifact: Draw a card.")"
My suggestion for different direction: What @Potato13 said is correct, black is very limited in the ability to cast from the top of your library. I would like to suggest changing the first ability to say: "As long as your life total is less than or equal to half your starting life total, spells you cast but don't own cost {1} less to cast and can be cast as though they had flash." However, at that point the second ability would need to be changed as well. I would also like to suggest that the second ability is changed so that it doesn't feed it's first ability, but rather has an interaction with you cast those spells. This way it requires you to build around the deck, whereas before you wouldn't necessarily need to build around it as it can work properly all by itself.
Final thoughts With all these suggestions, it changes the dynamic of the card so that your stealing from your opponent (which black does very well), and making them easier to cast and more beneficial to cast (which blue does very well). Whether you use any of the suggestions that I or other Cardsmiths have given you, overall Agnes, Fateteller is a cool design, with some interesting interaction.
Dia seems really interesting conceptually, but…she's a 1-card infinite at will. The easiest ways to take advantage of her that come to mind include Altar of the Brood (infinite mill), Vela the Night-Clad (infinite life loss), and Nadier's Nightblade (infinite life drain).
Since the second ability exiles the token as a cost, you aren't targeting it; the cost should read something along the lines of "Exile a creature you control named Dia's Reflection: …". (Best references I can think of are The Book of Vile Darkness and the Herald cycle)
Agnes looks alright. There's a couple wording issues though:
The first ability should read "As long as your life total is less than or equal to half your starting life total, spells you cast from [the top of] your library cost {2} less to cast." (using Naiad of Hidden Coves as reference) You could also cut the "from the top of your library" clause to just "from your library" if you wanted, similar to the wording on Melek, Izzet Paragon. It's a small change, but allows access to additional synergies if you feel like it still fits the desired flavor.
Considering Djinn of Wishes and Bitterblossom, the second ability should read something along the lines of "At the beginning of your upkeep, reveal the top card of your library. You may play that card. If you don't, you lose 2 life and investigate."
@Potato13@ShadowReign I don't see what the issue with her colors is, considering blue is the original and main color of playing cards from the top of the library with cards like Future Sight, Mind's Desire, Precognition Field, etc. With black representing the life-based mechanics, everything looks perfectly justified to me.
I like the change to Primal Instinct, though the actual +3/+1 buff still feels strangely arbitrary to me (perhaps it's just the lack of cards related to Primal Instinct).
Is the second ability meant to be more like Kari Zev, Skyship Raider, where Kazzi comes in to attack alongside Kamikai & leaves after combat? Because then the flow would be "optional discard for +3/+1, draw a card if Kazzi hits," which makes sense in RG. If Kazzi just gets to sit around, you're creating a red creature token with a very blue ability. It would be less strange if Kazzi was green, since green does have a handful of cards like Oakhame Adversary, but it's still fairly rare.
I'd appreciate feedback on this card:
In particular, is {X}{X} too much in the mana cost, and would it be reasonable to downshift this to rare?
I like the change to Primal Instinct, though the actual +3/+1 buff still feels strangely arbitrary to me (perhaps it's just the lack of cards related to Primal Instinct).
Thanks, I felt it needed the change, so that it doesn't automatically happen, and requires some interaction to take place. The idea of primal instinct is that (keep in mind that at this point in time it is hearsay, and nothing is grounded; if anything were to come of this, it would be far in the future) the set it will appear in is on a plane where an evolutionary phenomenon has taken place, causing animals to become humanoid. Though they have grown to become civilized near-human creatures they are still very dangerous, carrying over many of their pre-evolutiom aspects, and when angered may lose control and return to a primal state. At this point, they will still look like their evolved selves, but with a more aggressive and animalistic behavior. However, this state is temporary. All this is summed up with the addition of "discard a nonland card", which depicts the creature losing a part of themself, and letting their primal instinct take over.
Is the second ability meant to be more like Kari Zev, Skyship Raider, where Kazzi comes in to attack alongside Kamikai & leaves after combat? Because then the flow would be "optional discard for +3/+1, draw a card if Kazzi hits," which makes sense in RG. If Kazzi just gets to sit around, you're creating a red creature token with a very blue ability. It would be less strange if Kazzi was green, since green does have a handful of cards like Oakhame Adversary, but it's still fairly rare.
Initially, it was intended to work that way, but I couldn't figure out where to put "tapped and attacking". If you could find a way to fit that in, I would appreciate it. Kazzi it red and green and has menace (representing red) and connects to draw a card (representing green), which will fuel Kamikai's primal instinct ability. On Cardsmith, Kazzi isn't green because I couldn't fit it into the text box, but if you can help me with the previously mentioned state of the token, there will be too much of a difference between the Design version and Cardsmith version, so it will be removed from Cardsmith.
@ShadowReign ah, that would be why I missed that Kazzi was green (the MTGCS image was small enough to read without scrolling). While it's cramped from the reminder text, I managed to fit everything on there: (This is just a mockup image I saved to my computer; to prevent confusion I didn't post this to my collection.)
@cadstar369 After reading and rereading this card over and over, I've come to the conclusion that it's as easy to understand as Breena, the Demagogue.
Ok, all jokes aside, paradigm shift is a super flexible card. I love that, confusing as it is, it makes actual sense and follows the color scheme of each color. Each mode is powerful in it's colors, and I just love that it all works. My only issue with the card, which isn't really avoidable, is that it took me about 5 read-throughs to fully understand.
@EisenKreutzer I think the costs are a little confusing to be honest. Currently, it looks like the living spell cost is the cost that you would pay to cast the instant or sorcery. I'd format it something like this, so it's a little less confusing:
As for balance, I think that the instant side is fairly balanced, but the creature part might be a little on the stronger side. I'd make it a 3/3, and make it trigger on either life gain or card draw, not both.
Lastly, are Wyrd supposed to be different from the Weird on Ravnica? They sound really similar, but I don't know if they are supposed to be the same thing.
@feralitator I like that formatting suggestion! I’ll make all future living spell cards that way, and update the others once I have the time. Wyrd is supposed to be it’s own distinct creature type. It is kinda similiar though, I’ll agree with that. I’d forgotten Weirds existed, to be honest.
Flamecaster feels like it'd play similarly to the Zendikar vampires that aim to get someone under 10 life, the biggest difference being that Finale doesn't turn off if your opponent gains enough life to go above half.
So far, Finale looks like a nice mechanic for burn decks looking to push the game to an end, but I'm curious as to what you might do with it in other colors.
I'd appreciate additional feedback on this card:
In particular, is {X}{X} too much in the mana cost, and would it be reasonable to downshift this to rare?
For clarity, here are Alter Paradigm's three 'modes' (paraphrased):
XXUUBB – Choose 3X of the top & bottom six cards of your library. For each of the chosen cards, put it into your hand or graveyard. Shuffle the rest into your library.
3UU – Choose three of the top six cards of your library to put into your hand, then shuffle.
1BB – Choose three of the bottom six cards of your library to put into your graveyard, then shuffle.
@cadstar369 That is certainly one of the most complex cards I’ve seen. I like the modality of cleave/cleft, but used like this with brackets within brackets and half-brackets inside other half-brackets makes it very complicated to decipher. As for the cost, I’m having trouble grasping why the cost is XX when X gets tripled. It’s not that it doesn’t work, but its again a very complicated way of calculating X.
In the end, you have a card with three modes, that could just as easily have been «choose one» and X costed instead of this.
It’s cool, and it’s functional, but I’m not sure this is the best way to use cleave/cleft or a double X cost.
As for rarity, rare would work, but the level of complexity feels more mythic rare to me.
Here’s my card:
I’d love some feedback on this experimental concept.
The idea is to put a spin on multicolor lands that enter the battlefield tapped, ie. are unavailable for a turn after they are played in the early turns of the game. Enfold allows mantle lands to attach to permanents, while remaining lands. This means that an enfolded mantle land can still tap for mana, which was what I wanted to achieve. It can also pay for its own enfold cost, making it a versatile source of mana that can’t produce colored mana before turn 2 at the very earliest (which requires a 1-drop with haste). Making it able to produce two mana is strong, but it’s creature dependent which is a weakness, as creatures are the permanent that is the easiest to remove.
@EisenKreutzer Alter Paradigm uses cleave/cleft because it's an entry to the Cleft in Twain contest (I'm also not sure your modal suggestion would fit on a card). There's currently XX in the mana cost to balance the strength of small X relative to similar existing cards, considering the flexibility Alter Paradigm provides (X felt like the base form was too strong, and XXX is definitely way too much to ask for). X is multiplied as a consequence of the cleave/cleft forms using a static value. I chose three because it felt too weak to have the cleave/cleft forms only move 2 cards from 6, and I didn't want to increase the number of cards looked at to ensure the base form wasn't too crazy (as well as avoid awkward results like 'look at 14 cards, choose 15 of them' that arise from not using a multiple of the cleave/cleft static value). At least it's not quite as bad as Crackle with Power, reading exercises aside.
With regards to Enfold, is there a particular reason you included the ability to unattach? There doesn't appear to be a reason you'd want or need to do that (since unlike Reconfigure, there's no tradeoff to Enfold), unless you plan on making Mantles with downsides while attached. Rotbloom Spring feels a bit like Paradise Mantle but much harder to remove in exchange for less color options; was that card the inspiration for calling the land type Mantle?
Overall, Enfold seems like an interesting way to play with lands, but I'd like to wait for a few more cards with the mechanic before giving more detailed feedback.
@cadstar369 I included the unattach rule in case it would become relevant in future designs, yeah. I find I like experimenting with mechanics, so leaving design space open for future ideas is something I like doing. I did not base it on Paradise Mantle, but the parallelle is funny. I first designed this cycle as lands with the equipment subtype, but ran into issues since the rules that govern attaching permanents to other permanents and what subtypes card types can have prevented equipment lands from working. My solution was to design a new subtype of lands, and include reminder text that points to a ficticious rule allowing that subtype of lands to be attached to other permanents. Again, I specified permanents to open up future design space.
I am working on a common cycle of mantle lands, but I’m not 100% sure what I want to do with them yet.
I'd appreciate feedback on this prototype: (Image broke, so I've replaced it with the current version post hileandr's feedback)
For additional context, this creature is a member of a Bant-colored faction that features basic land types as one of its two main themes. Related cards can be found here.
@cadstar369 Props for using the word Rhododendron on a magic card
Seems like a fine concept overall. Deathtouch and First Strike are a very strong combination, and effectively makes this card unblockable, meaning the skulk is basically pointless. Perhaps a better white effect would be vigilance - deathtouch and vigilance is still a strong combination.
Additionally, skulk isn't really a thing on modern magic cards. Up to you if you care about that kind of thing or not. I generally prefer going along with modern paradigms, but that's just me.
Also, you mentioned this had basic lands as a theme - if that's the case you may want to consider making the requirements "Basic Forest," "Basic Plains," and "Basic Island." As it stands right now, you could have a triome in play and get all three effects at once. Which is fine if that's what you're going for, but it doesn't really fit the basics theme.
MTG Cardsmith Community Forums
Comments
Wording note: there's an extraneous 'of' in the triggered ability. Also, when you need to remove counters, that should be part of the cost (e.g. Arcbound Javelineer), so the ability should read like this: "{1}{w}, {t}, Remove X charge counters from Spell Parry Knight: It deals X damage to target attacking or blocking creature."
I'd appreciate feedback on this card:
The effect to discard... Seems like there's no indication on the card that plays on the action of discarding, and there is no further mention of the effect that causes you to discard... (for example, the effect's source or countering the effect.) So...
My thought would be to reword the first ability as: "If you would discard a card, you may put that card to the bottom of your library instead of your graveyard."
As for the secondary ability on this card, I like that it is an activated ability. While the cost requires you to tap the creature, it kind of makes sense for an uncommon and the fact that he's a librarian.
There's no real thematic elements linking this guy to being a Wizard. He's more of a Human Advisor.
Let's chat about P/T. He's a 0/4. There are no 2-mana Humans with 0/4 in existence, except Beloved Beggar.
So, right off the bat, I feel like you opted to decrease the chances of losing this creature before you get the chance to activate its ability by raising its toughness to 4.
On the 2nd ability here... we're able to shuffle a single card and tapping our guy in exchange for 2 additional cards at our next upkeep. To me this is a little too much. It's essentially a Draw 3, discard 1 effect, but we never really discard the card.
There are some ways to go about this card, though. Let's explore the primary alternatives that I've come up with.
Combine both abilities into one: "Whenever you would discard a card, you may pay
Change the P/T to a 1/3. Reason for this P/T explained toward the end of this feedback.
One downside of this combination of the two abilities is that we now play a waiting game. When are we going to discard a card? This also feels a little more red since we're getting rid of cards before drawing them. Nonetheless, this makes for a good uncommon creature when it does happen.
So to me, this alternative is feasible, but still not the best for what you are wanting to achieve. Therefore, we arrive at my only other alternative, which I think is a little bit better than combining the effects...
Whenever you would discard a card for the first time each turn, you may put that card to the bottom of your library instead.
1/1
With this combination of words and effects, we now have a versatile ability that can trigger when we trigger it, or when someone causes us to discard stuff. We also have a fairly well balanced activated ability here. A 1-for-1 ratio of drawing, then discarding cards, but we play off the effect of keeping one of those cards from going to our graveyard. So, in a way, this ability is like a Draw 2, then discard 1... but if we have any other effects that increase the amount of cards drawn during our upkeep, this wording keeps that in balance.
We still, in effect, shuffle a card from our hand into our library... just not right away, and we still put a card to the bottom of our library like you wanted.
Erratic Visionary/Soothsayer Adept is a 1/3 with
While Facet Reader is a 1/2 with
Merfolk Looter is a 1/1 with
Magus of the Bazaar is a 0/1 rare with
There are a couple of 2 mana guys that allow you to draw more cards than discarding, which is what we are doing. Most of those are 1/1 creatures. When all is established, I believe this becomes a rare to achieve what we want to do, since we have a recurring way of drawing multiple cards each upkeep.
Here is my card.
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/mantra-rays
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/dia-of-the-crossed-reflection
As for him being a Wizard, many existing cards such as Minamo Scrollkeeper and three of the four Archivists with similar duties to a librarian are Wizards. In general, many of the scholarly creatures such as Azami are Wizards. Advisors tend to have positions of power (usually political), such as Kambal or Corrupt Court Official.
With regards to the P/T, while there are a few 0/4 Humans that cost 1~2 mana, I see no reason to restrict to only humans, as there's a decent number of humanoid 0/4's that cost 2 mana or less. Additionally, I'm not sure how you arrived at suggesting shifting the P/T to 1/3, since you seem to be suggesting 1/1 instead shortly afterward (I'll come back to this later).
There's some big differences between the current effect and the "draw 3, discard 1" you mention.
- 'Draw 3, Discard 1' is net +2 card advantage, while 'Shuffle 1 back, Draw 2 later' is net +1 card advantage. (Assuming it's repeatable in each case.)
- Discarding a card is very useful in a variety of decks, since the player can take advantage of madness, recursion, flashback, delve, etc. Shuffling the card back into the deck is practically always a downside, with the only benefit I can think of to getting a shuffle effect being the ability to shuffle away additional unwanted cards after playing a card like Brainstorm. You also might draw the unwanted card again with Legacy Librarian, which you can't do with 'Draw 3, Discard 1'.
- 'Draw 3, Discard 1' gives you cards immediately. Legacy Librarian's ability delays the card draw, so it's not as useful when you're digging for additional cards, whether that's to find answers or to have additional resources to use for other abilities.
As for your two alternatives:- The first one almost feels like a common, since it's only really useful against black discard or situations where you aren't taking advantage of the cards you discard (Baral might like that, but many decks use the discards as fuel). Losing the activated ability also takes it very far from what I want from this card, so I agree that this is not great.
- Your second alternative effectively turns the static ability into random fluff, since it's only 1 card per turn, so you can't use it in conjunction with effects like Windfall. Additionally, the activated ability converts your next turn into net 'Draw X, Discard X,' where X is the number of cards drawn before your first main phase, which is horrible for a number of reasons. Firstly, it turns your regular draw into looting, which means you're losing the card advantage every player gets normally. Additionally, if you have any extra card draw before your first main phase (e.g. Kumena's Awakening), you get punished for it. Thus, there's some pretty strong disincentives to using an ability which is not particularly powerful, at which point why bother using the card?
Rather than your examples of net 0 card advantage (or even Magus of the Bazaar's -1 card advantage), I think it would be more fair to evaluate this effect as a worse version of cards like Archivist and Jushi Apprentice, which give you the +1 card advantage immediately. In light of such creatures, I can understand reducing the statline to something like [0/1, 0/2, 1/1, or 1/2], since I suppose there's no apparent reason for this obvious noncombatant to have 4 toughness. I'm also considering increasing the ability cost to {2}{u}, since many [un]commons with similar mana values draw you a card for 3 mana when there aren't additional conditions attached to their ability, but the delay may be sufficient to justify keeping it as is.Overall, I'll probably change it to a 0/2, might increase the ability cost by {1}. Thanks for the feedback!
Dia of the Crossed Reflection: This card feels fine. The only major ability I have an issue with is the last one, which I feel creates quite a few issues. With Food Chain, it's an immediate combo in legacy. With pitch spells like Force of Negation, it's immediate value on the next Dia you play. With a card like Rest in Peace, Promise of Tomorrow or Nightmare Shepherd and a sac outlet, you're going infinite. It exists only for making combos work, and the card would fair better without it.
Agnes, Fateteller: Neat card, but the "if your life total is equal to or less than half your starting life total" condition doesn't feel like it works here. Other commander cards with the clause, like Bane, Lord of Darkness or Myrkul, Lord of Bone don't have their primary upside locked behind the condition, and can be played well before that and still work well. In addition, Black doesn't feel like it fits the commander - the only cards that Black gets that can cast from the top is Bolas' Citadel, which doesn't work. Meanwhile, Green gets stuff like Augur of Autumn, Garruk's Horde, Realmwalker, Vizier of the Menagerie and Ranger Class. Red gets stuff like Experimental Frenzy and Melek, Izzet Paragon.
Anyone is free to post a card after me.
Here's my suggestion for first ability:
"As long as your life total is less than or equal to half your starting life total, spells you cast from the top of your library cost {2} less to cast."
And my suggestion for second ability:
"At the beginning of your upkeep, reveal the top card of your library, then choose one —
{bull} You may play that card this turn.
{bull} You lose 2 life, then investigate. (Create a colorless Clue artifact token with "{2}, Sacrifice this artifact: Draw a card.")"
My suggestion for different direction:
What @Potato13 said is correct, black is very limited in the ability to cast from the top of your library. I would like to suggest changing the first ability to say:
"As long as your life total is less than or equal to half your starting life total, spells you cast but don't own cost {1} less to cast and can be cast as though they had flash."
However, at that point the second ability would need to be changed as well. I would also like to suggest that the second ability is changed so that it doesn't feed it's first ability, but rather has an interaction with you cast those spells. This way it requires you to build around the deck, whereas before you wouldn't necessarily need to build around it as it can work properly all by itself.
Final thoughts
With all these suggestions, it changes the dynamic of the card so that your stealing from your opponent (which black does very well), and making them easier to cast and more beneficial to cast (which blue does very well). Whether you use any of the suggestions that I or other Cardsmiths have given you, overall Agnes, Fateteller is a cool design, with some interesting interaction.
Here's my card I would like an opinion on:
- Dia seems really interesting conceptually, but…she's a 1-card infinite at will. The easiest ways to take advantage of her that come to mind include Altar of the Brood (infinite mill), Vela the Night-Clad (infinite life loss), and Nadier's Nightblade (infinite life drain).
- Since the second ability exiles the token as a cost, you aren't targeting it; the cost should read something along the lines of "Exile a creature you control named Dia's Reflection: …". (Best references I can think of are The Book of Vile Darkness and the Herald cycle)
@Ashdust_II- Agnes looks alright. There's a couple wording issues though:
- The first ability should read "As long as your life total is less than or equal to half your starting life total, spells you cast from [the top of] your library cost {2} less to cast." (using Naiad of Hidden Coves as reference) You could also cut the "from the top of your library" clause to just "from your library" if you wanted, similar to the wording on Melek, Izzet Paragon. It's a small change, but allows access to additional synergies if you feel like it still fits the desired flavor.
- Considering Djinn of Wishes and Bitterblossom, the second ability should read something along the lines of "At the beginning of your upkeep, reveal the top card of your library. You may play that card. If you don't, you lose 2 life and investigate."
- @Potato13 @ShadowReign I don't see what the issue with her colors is, considering blue is the original and main color of playing cards from the top of the library with cards like Future Sight, Mind's Desire, Precognition Field, etc. With black representing the life-based mechanics, everything looks perfectly justified to me.
@ShadowReign- I like the change to Primal Instinct, though the actual +3/+1 buff still feels strangely arbitrary to me (perhaps it's just the lack of cards related to Primal Instinct).
- Is the second ability meant to be more like Kari Zev, Skyship Raider, where Kazzi comes in to attack alongside Kamikai & leaves after combat? Because then the flow would be "optional discard for +3/+1, draw a card if Kazzi hits," which makes sense in RG. If Kazzi just gets to sit around, you're creating a red creature token with a very blue ability. It would be less strange if Kazzi was green, since green does have a handful of cards like Oakhame Adversary, but it's still fairly rare.
I'd appreciate feedback on this card:In particular, is {X}{X} too much in the mana cost, and would it be reasonable to downshift this to rare?
Initially, it was intended to work that way, but I couldn't figure out where to put "tapped and attacking". If you could find a way to fit that in, I would appreciate it. Kazzi it red and green and has menace (representing red) and connects to draw a card (representing green), which will fuel Kamikai's primal instinct ability. On Cardsmith, Kazzi isn't green because I couldn't fit it into the text box, but if you can help me with the previously mentioned state of the token, there will be too much of a difference between the Design version and Cardsmith version, so it will be removed from Cardsmith.
(This is just a mockup image I saved to my computer; to prevent confusion I didn't post this to my collection.)
Ok, all jokes aside, paradigm shift is a super flexible card. I love that, confusing as it is, it makes actual sense and follows the color scheme of each color. Each mode is powerful in it's colors, and I just love that it all works. My only issue with the card, which isn't really avoidable, is that it took me about 5 read-throughs to fully understand.
Lastly, are Wyrd supposed to be different from the Weird on Ravnica? They sound really similar, but I don't know if they are supposed to be the same thing.
Here's my card:
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/flamecaster-4
Wyrd is supposed to be it’s own distinct creature type. It is kinda similiar though, I’ll agree with that. I’d forgotten Weirds existed, to be honest.
- Flamecaster feels like it'd play similarly to the Zendikar vampires that aim to get someone under 10 life, the biggest difference being that Finale doesn't turn off if your opponent gains enough life to go above half.
- So far, Finale looks like a nice mechanic for burn decks looking to push the game to an end, but I'm curious as to what you might do with it in other colors.
I'd appreciate additional feedback on this card:In particular, is {X}{X} too much in the mana cost, and would it be reasonable to downshift this to rare?
For clarity, here are Alter Paradigm's three 'modes' (paraphrased):
As for the cost, I’m having trouble grasping why the cost is XX when X gets tripled. It’s not that it doesn’t work, but its again a very complicated way of calculating X.
In the end, you have a card with three modes, that could just as easily have been «choose one» and X costed instead of this.
It’s cool, and it’s functional, but I’m not sure this is the best way to use cleave/cleft or a double X cost.
As for rarity, rare would work, but the level of complexity feels more mythic rare to me.
Here’s my card:
Enfold allows mantle lands to attach to permanents, while remaining lands. This means that an enfolded mantle land can still tap for mana, which was what I wanted to achieve. It can also pay for its own enfold cost, making it a versatile source of mana that can’t produce colored mana before turn 2 at the very earliest (which requires a 1-drop with haste).
Making it able to produce two mana is strong, but it’s creature dependent which is a weakness, as creatures are the permanent that is the easiest to remove.
With regards to Enfold, is there a particular reason you included the ability to unattach? There doesn't appear to be a reason you'd want or need to do that (since unlike Reconfigure, there's no tradeoff to Enfold), unless you plan on making Mantles with downsides while attached. Rotbloom Spring feels a bit like Paradise Mantle but much harder to remove in exchange for less color options; was that card the inspiration for calling the land type Mantle?
Overall, Enfold seems like an interesting way to play with lands, but I'd like to wait for a few more cards with the mechanic before giving more detailed feedback.
I did not base it on Paradise Mantle, but the parallelle is funny. I first designed this cycle as lands with the equipment subtype, but ran into issues since the rules that govern attaching permanents to other permanents and what subtypes card types can have prevented equipment lands from working. My solution was to design a new subtype of lands, and include reminder text that points to a ficticious rule allowing that subtype of lands to be attached to other permanents.
Again, I specified permanents to open up future design space.
I am working on a common cycle of mantle lands, but I’m not 100% sure what I want to do with them yet.
(Image broke, so I've replaced it with the current version post hileandr's feedback)
For additional context, this creature is a member of a Bant-colored faction that features basic land types as one of its two main themes. Related cards can be found here.
Props for using the word Rhododendron on a magic card
Seems like a fine concept overall. Deathtouch and First Strike are a very strong combination, and effectively makes this card unblockable, meaning the skulk is basically pointless. Perhaps a better white effect would be vigilance - deathtouch and vigilance is still a strong combination.
Additionally, skulk isn't really a thing on modern magic cards. Up to you if you care about that kind of thing or not. I generally prefer going along with modern paradigms, but that's just me.
Also, you mentioned this had basic lands as a theme - if that's the case you may want to consider making the requirements "Basic Forest," "Basic Plains," and "Basic Island." As it stands right now, you could have a triome in play and get all three effects at once. Which is fine if that's what you're going for, but it doesn't really fit the basics theme.