MTG Cardsmith Community Forums
Card Feedback - Pay It Forward
This discussion has been closed.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
I believe it would be...
Whenever a player casts a spell after the first spell he or she casts each turn, if it cost less, counter that spell.
Or something. Lol that made me think too much.
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/agent-of-god-pharaoh
-----
Whenever a player casts a spell, if that spell's converted mana cost is less than or equal to the converted mana cost of another spell they cast this turn, counter that spell.
-----
Agent of God-Pharaoh seems like a red Lhurgoyf that costs less with upside. It's pretty OP. (in my personal opinion.) Counting all cards and having a burn effect, haste, and trample, for only three mana is just too good. It would need to be toned down in almost every category to be considered fair. As it is right now, it would earn a banning faster than you can say "Aetherworks Marvel."
Next up, this.
Alright, thanks.
In this case you don't use mana symbols.
Oops, didn't realize I did. Aside from that, how is it?
Edit: Fixed
I like the card, it seems cool and unique. It makes lightning bolt more of a pain
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/triplesteel-dragon?list=user
I like it, but I feel it should have an "until" effect and/or be an enchantment. Mainly since it's really strong, but other than that it looks great.
Thoughts?
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/asylkrachar-mystic
I left some feedback on your card's page.
Ok, If I ever remake it, I'll do that. Thanks for the new name too, its much better.
@Gelectrode I honestly love that card, and might consider using it in a set!
I know I haven't given much feedback, there wasn't really a card to give feedback to, so here's my card (tell me if I need to give more feedback though):
I think the art is beautiful. But the card feels very off color and imbalanced. In drafts, this would break the format.
1) Flash should be on its own line.
2) Haste is very red. Whereas double strike is usually white.
3) I can't seem to see what makes the keyword ascended very useful.
4) Keywords shouldn't have the same name as an existing creature type.
I know the following card is very grim, but it was made based off some Amonkhet themes.
What are your opinions on it though? ...and how can it be improved?
At first glance, Funeral Rites is a very powerful card. It prevents people from doing anything with your stuff without your consent. However, the use of the word "objects" instead of cards or permanents seems odd.
The flavor is a bit lost on me. This seems like the result of a Future Sight style colorshift, rather than a card that'd naturally form in black. Sure, black is greedy, but any form of protection of what could be seen as a protection of property seems more like a blue or white effect than black, especially when I think about cards like Leyline of Sancity or Propaganda style effects, and how they're more protective, versus black being more a thief, using corpses and even having at least one spell that takes another player's turn.
Next up: Something that badly needs rules help.
Wouldn't changing "objects" to "cards or permanents" allow others to gain control of copies of spells you control on the stack.
If so, Is there a way to do so without stating objects? It would be preferable as you mentioned.
Thank you very much for the feedback! Do you think I should get rid of the creature type? Also, I realize that currently the keyword ascended wouldn't be all that useful, but in the set I'm creating it's not uncommon to exile your own creatures.
Do you think this should be changed, though? Because I would love to change this before I've put it on too many cards. XD
EDIT: I included the creature type because I wanted an easy way to define and target ascended creatures, but I also wanted all ascended creatures to have the same ability. Is there a smoother way to do this, that you can think of?
I think the effect needs to be more effective overall so that the cards are usable outside of the specific set. In regards to the creature type issue, you should use a simile for the word similar to how walls traditionally have defender but aren't exclusive.
Yes, the changes need to be made otherwise the set will look as if it's just filler cards. This is the main issue in a lot of sets that are released.
Edit: WotC has also said they will avoid making a keyword that can't be used on different creature types.
What about creature tokens? That doesn't include those.
The art on the card is nice, but there are some definite touching-up is needed.
1. Get rid of the flying and menace keywords. As this is an enchantment, it cannot attack nor block.
2. Fix the spelling error, as it makes it look a teeny bit more unprofessional.
3. Change "Dragon Shapeshifter" in the abilities to all lower case.
4. Get rid of the "4/4" at the bottom.
5. If you want the card to be 4/4 and have flying and menace when it becomes a dragon shapeshifter creature, you might want to word it something like this:
"As long as it is your turn, Aggressive Inkling is a 4/4 dragon shapeshifter creature with flying and menace, in addition to it's other types."
EDIT: 6. While the card art is mainly red-based, I think that the way the card works is in more of a blue-card fashion. You might want to change it to being a blue card.
I hope this helps you!
Here's my next card:
I believe it would be better if it's just a normal artifact creature. To me, the vehicle effect is redundant.
My card:
now review my submission.
Now for your card:
1. This card is actually very very well made, but there are just a few things to change. For example, you might want to put a couple enters before "Trample" so that the text is centered.
2. Change "Legendary Creature" to all lower case, as usually only card names and the beginning of sentences/paragraphs are capitalized.
Otherwise, the card is pretty much good! I like the artwork, by the way.
NOW DOES ANYONE NEED REVISION?