@cadstar369 What if basic lands that produces others than the main color will become a land and it becomes rare rather than common? If I do that, I can reduce the mana cost.
I didn't know that green has ability to destroy land, so I will try to make yellow ability a little more different from green.
Usually Star cards used to remind peope it's yellow rather than split color, so I am sorry for that. I will remove that.
Behold, the King of Snailington, the Unsalted, King of the white, blue, red, green and black snails, Protector of the five Snaildoms, Snailarch of every garden, Breaker of pirates and father of snails!
A very interesting card indeed, a tri color, legendary snail creature, which looking at its cost and abilities, would make for a great commander. A very powerful, but I believe, balanced creature with the addition of this defender mechanic you've utilized. Though there is some miswording on the bottom ability here, it should read, "Whenever The Snailarch attacks or blocks, each snail you control gains trample and gets +1/+1 for each other attacking or blocking snail until end of turn." (If its meant to be a permanent buff, due to the lack of inclusion of the phrase "Until end of turn," in the original wording make sure to specify the use of +1/+1 counters also.) Other than that, I can't really see any flaws other than tight formatting. A very solid card man, keep it up!
I could imagine playing this in a mostly green deck that has access to mana of every color. With green ramping up really fast you could play this in turn 3 or 4 and then the next turn play something really powerful.
And this would also be really strong in a landfall deck. Though the lands are tokens i think they would still trigger landfall which can be devastating in the right deck if you can trigger landfall 5x in the same turn.
And i also think that any deck that has access to all 5 mana colors would play this. Even if you dont ramp fast, you will most of the time be able to play this at turn 5, actually doubling your mana.
And what could be really problematic is, if you play blue or red and youre able to copy this spell. A spell copy costs 2 mana usually, so lets say you play this card on turn 5-8 and then your manapool is increased by 10 from then on.
So its a good card, but i think it must be more expensive to avoid breaking the game at the time you play it. And in landfall it can be a game ending card, so maybe somehow make sure it doesnt get copied.
And just for the fun, the turn before "the Lands beyond" ist cast play a
on whatever creatures you have left. Usually the enemy wont be able to kill all evil landfall creatures. I think i would just go for crabs cause they only cost 1 mana. You can almost anytime play a crab before casting "The Lands Beyond" and then mill the enemy for 15 cards per crab.
@TheKeefMan If you add two colorless mana to existing mana cost, you can get away with "Create a Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, Forest token." I don't think it's a necessity to mention the lands are colorless when they, in fact, are already colorless to start with. When you create a token, it is ALWAYS colorless until you mention a color. See Axgard Artist. Its reminder text for "Create a Treasure token. (It's an artifact with "{t}, Sacifice this artifact: Add one mana of any color")" and I don't have to mention it's also a land after all, Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest are subtype to land and they are usually basic land, that is. If your intention was to keep it lands rather than basic lands then forget what I said. (It wouldn't hurt to add a reminded text just in case.)
Now back to The Lands Beyond; I would say everything looks balanced to me, but leave "colorless" and "land" out. See above for explanation. Something tells me that it should be mystic, but I don't know if that's the case.
@LvB Taking a look at "The Snailarch", I would say there are some wording issue and well some balance issue possible.
All key words are treated normally as other words would be by grammar expect for they don't have '.' at end of sentence. Hence,
Defender, vigilance
When prefering snails to give them Ward {3}, I would go for just "Snails" rather than "All snails". You can see some examples from Slivers, they are hive creatures, so they often share abilities together. Take different look at Valiant Veteran. You will see the first ability that calls for others than itself soldiers to be strengthen See the difference? So, instead of "All snails you control have ward {3}"
Snails you control have Ward {3}
I would decrease Ward from {3} to {2} or increase mana cost {2}{r/g}{w} to {3}{r/g}{w}
As for third ability, I would prefer;
{w}{r}{g}: Snails can attack this turn through as if they didn't have defender.
OR
{w}{r}{g}: All Snails loses defender until end of turn.
Since Snail is subtype to creature, it's capitalized. That will signals player for it's for Snail only rather than rest of creatures. See Valiant Veteran for example.
If you take a look at Assault Formation, you will find second activatable ability that calls for a creature to attack without losing its defender.
All creatures goes to ALL creatures without targeting them. Snails goes to ALL Snails without targeting them. If you take a look at Brood Sliver, you will see an ability is triggered when a Sliver did a combat damage player. "All" is there, because it "reminds" players that this ability APPLIES each sliver. That's why, I would prefer this way for space purpose.
Your last ability is little hard to read, but I get the point. You want Snails get trample and they gets stronger for each attacking Snail. Hence;
Whenever The Snailarch attacks or blocks, Snails you control gains trample and "This creature gets +1/+1 for each attacking or blocking another Snail you control." until end of turn.
Do not forgot to mention "Until end of turn." It has strong effect on the grammar. If that were to be removed, it would goes this way instead; (Through, I could be wrong here...)
"... gain "This creature gets +1/+1 for each another attacking Snail you control."
They would have that ability permanently... And it can restack. Remember when a creature gets a new ability, they GAINS it. If they already have the ability, they HAVE it. I hope that helps!
I would like a feedback on this.
By the way, since the new colors are actually artificial colors. Hence, they don't have basic lands, making Artificial Colors come by harder. I know it look boring, but it's necessary to keep balance on. Did I made an error decision?
@FireOfGolden I'm basing wording off of Song of the Dryads, and another card, which i cannot seem to find for the life of me, that actually creates, in its own words: "Colorless Forest land tokens." I cant seem to find it again though. Its basically just what I call, "safe wording."
@TheKeefMan That's called Overwriting the Color. It can target any others than lands. If we forgot to mention colorless, a red creature would becomes a red land in Game's view. Colorless is there, so it would remove any existing color from permanent.
@TheKeefMan in the case of Song of the Dryads, it specifies colorless because it's overwriting the targets color(s). Assuming you're referring to Awaken the Woods, it specifies that the tokens are green because we have no idea what a Forest Dryad token is, and so all relevant parameters need to be defined. Assuming The Lands Beyond is meant to make one land of each basic land type (the current wording will create a tapped colorless land token named "Plains, Island, Mountain, Swamp and Forest" with no abilities), then you don't need to specify that the tokens are colorless, since the cards those names refer to are already well-defined. Out of curiosity, do you mean for the effect to be more like this?
Create a Plains token, an Island token, a Swamp token, a Mountain token, and a Forest token. They enter the battlefield tapped.
@FireOfGolden yeah the inclusion of colorless in my sense would be redundant. Generated Horizons, (Card I was talking about) doesnt specify color, so yeah youre right, im wrong.
@FireOfGolden the first thing that sticks out about Rok is that you gave a creature that (effectively) costs RRWW a mono-blue effect. Additionally, relative to similar existing effects, the cost of the ability is not only insufficiently adjusted to compensate for it being reusable, but also significantly more versatile because the looser timing restriction allows you to give yourself an extra combat (though this particular application is perhaps costed appropriately thanks to the {t} symbol).
@cadstar369 ; Lowlands Runner looks just about perfect, possibly slightly too powerful for its cost (Maybe increase it to {r}{r}?), but very well designed, it legitemately feels like a real card (And one I would enjoy owning, at that). Festival Furnace is obviously a bit more complicated. As far as I can tell, it's also balanced, and it makes a lot of sense that it does what it does. I think it might be better to change the trigger payment for looting to {1} so that people can activate it if they aren't playing red, but honestly that's largely unimportant. Both cards are very reasonable and quite respectable, well done! Next up: https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/bone-hero (He heh, banding)
@TheKeefMan If you want to keep say colorless then go ahead. All I want to let you know that you don't have to clarify that it's colorless. It's more of optional rather than required.
@KorandAngels Give me about few hours to think about Bone Hero. One question; is it more of "Funny" card or realistic card? That may have an impact on my "judging".
It's kind of in between, I tried to make a reasonable card which used Banding (A mechanic which is so absurd that it can't be taken seriously), that's kind of all
As for Bone Hero; you should add something adjective words because it's a legendary. You could go for; Bone Hero, the Undead Knight
Now for ability; key words should line up, if there is no reminder text.
Binding, lifelink
I don't know much abour banding, because I barely see it on battlefield. However, the ability... seems acceptable. So what's happens;
While Bone Hero is blocking, if there is another creature with bindling is also blocking, that creature is sacificed and the number +1/+1 counters equal to its mana value are put into Bone Hero, strengthen em. So, I would say the wording looks good here.
Banding is ancient and isn't that popular, so it's, well, balanced.
Wanna know what mixing snake fang and fox's eye makes?
@FireOfGolden the card is very balanced. Deathtouch is secondary in green and the land searching is OK. It's a very flexible and simple card that would probably appear in starter sets.
Good card, but maybe a bit cheap. You could change the casting cost to two green snow mana to make sure that only players who play with snow covered lands can cast it.
MTG Cardsmith Community Forums
Comments
What if basic lands that produces others than the main color will become a land and it becomes rare rather than common? If I do that, I can reduce the mana cost.
I didn't know that green has ability to destroy land, so I will try to make yellow ability a little more different from green.
Usually Star cards used to remind peope it's yellow rather than split color, so I am sorry for that. I will remove that.
A very interesting card indeed, a tri color, legendary snail creature, which looking at its cost and abilities, would make for a great commander. A very powerful, but I believe, balanced creature with the addition of this defender mechanic you've utilized. Though there is some miswording on the bottom ability here, it should read, "Whenever The Snailarch attacks or blocks, each snail you control gains trample and gets +1/+1 for each other attacking or blocking snail until end of turn." (If its meant to be a permanent buff, due to the lack of inclusion of the phrase "Until end of turn," in the original wording make sure to specify the use of +1/+1 counters also.) Other than that, I can't really see any flaws other than tight formatting. A very solid card man, keep it up!
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/the-lands-beyond
If you add two colorless mana to existing mana cost, you can get away with "Create a Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, Forest token." I don't think it's a necessity to mention the lands are colorless when they, in fact, are already colorless to start with. When you create a token, it is ALWAYS colorless until you mention a color. See Axgard Artist. Its reminder text for "Create a Treasure token. (It's an artifact with "{t}, Sacifice this artifact: Add one mana of any color")" and I don't have to mention it's also a land after all, Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest are subtype to land and they are usually basic land, that is. If your intention was to keep it lands rather than basic lands then forget what I said. (It wouldn't hurt to add a reminded text just in case.)
Now back to The Lands Beyond;
I would say everything looks balanced to me, but leave "colorless" and "land" out. See above for explanation. Something tells me that it should be mystic, but I don't know if that's the case.
@LvB
Taking a look at "The Snailarch", I would say there are some wording issue and well some balance issue possible.
All key words are treated normally as other words would be by grammar expect for they don't have '.' at end of sentence. Hence,
As for third ability, I would prefer;
OR
{w}{r}{g}: All Snails loses defender until end of turn.
If you take a look at Assault Formation, you will find second activatable ability that calls for a creature to attack without losing its defender.
All creatures goes to ALL creatures without targeting them. Snails goes to ALL Snails without targeting them. If you take a look at Brood Sliver, you will see an ability is triggered when a Sliver did a combat damage player. "All" is there, because it "reminds" players that this ability APPLIES each sliver. That's why, I would prefer this way for space purpose.
Your last ability is little hard to read, but I get the point. You want Snails get trample and they gets stronger for each attacking Snail. Hence;
(Through, I could be wrong here...)
I would like a feedback on this.
And I would cast this card before that for giggles.
Really? May I ask why?
That's called Overwriting the Color. It can target any others than lands. If we forgot to mention colorless, a red creature would becomes a red land in Game's view. Colorless is there, so it would remove any existing color from permanent.
~~~
I'm still awaiting feedback on these cards:
Lowlands Runner looks just about perfect, possibly slightly too powerful for its cost (Maybe increase it to {r}{r}?), but very well designed, it legitemately feels like a real card (And one I would enjoy owning, at that). Festival Furnace is obviously a bit more complicated. As far as I can tell, it's also balanced, and it makes a lot of sense that it does what it does. I think it might be better to change the trigger payment for looting to {1} so that people can activate it if they aren't playing red, but honestly that's largely unimportant. Both cards are very reasonable and quite respectable, well done!
Next up:
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/bone-hero
(He heh, banding)
If you want to keep say colorless then go ahead. All I want to let you know that you don't have to clarify that it's colorless. It's more of optional rather than required.
@KorandAngels
Give me about few hours to think about Bone Hero. One question; is it more of "Funny" card or realistic card? That may have an impact on my "judging".
Now, that's funny.
As for Bone Hero; you should add something adjective words because it's a legendary. You could go for;
Bone Hero, the Undead Knight
Now for ability; key words should line up, if there is no reminder text.
I don't know much abour banding, because I barely see it on battlefield. However, the ability... seems acceptable. So what's happens;
While Bone Hero is blocking, if there is another creature with bindling is also blocking, that creature is sacificed and the number +1/+1 counters equal to its mana value are put into Bone Hero, strengthen em. So, I would say the wording looks good here.
Banding is ancient and isn't that popular, so it's, well, balanced.
Wanna know what mixing snake fang and fox's eye makes?
Funny. Anyway, I would like a feedback on this.
I would like feedback on this card:
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/winter-is-coming-19