Post your cards here, see what others think

1…5758606263…101

Comments

  • DecaldorDecaldor
    image
    Would the 'equip {0}' be in quotation marks? Would it not be capitalized? Any other thoughts?
  • RohanDragoonRohanDragoon
    @Decaldor
    Using Puresteel Paladin (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=227504 ) as an example, i think it would just be "Equipments reforged by Ardol Gripcrafter have equip {0}". Other than that, I think it's a super innovative card and makes equipment super dangerous!


    I recently made this Bant +1/+1 counter commander, and was looking for feedback:
    image
    I had two major things that I was wondering about it:
    1. Is it functionally the same to word the first ability "Creatures enter the battlefield with a number of additional +1/+1 counters on them equal to the number of colors in its color identity."?
    2. Is the second ability too easy to get for the mana cost? Should it be like seven or eight creatures instead? Thanks :)
  • Faiths_GuideFaiths_Guide
    image
  • TenebrisNemoTenebrisNemo
    I remade an old card of mine. The old version is in the card's comment.

    image
  • GelectrodeGelectrode
    @TenebrisNemo, it would be cool for Jacob to have an ability to 'burn' through the gold. Instead of the last two abilities, what about "Sacrifice a Treasure: Exile the top card of your library. You may cast it this turn."

    Thoughts?
    https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/khannislas-gambit
  • Faiths_GuideFaiths_Guide
    edited October 2017
    I like the Gambit @Gelectrode!

    Thoughts?
    https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/musical-summons

    You never know when a bard might launch into an endless epic.
  • GelectrodeGelectrode
    @Faiths_Guide, Emrakul + Ulamog forever!

    I feel like it is too combo-y, though I love getting random creatures!
  • IanLowenthalIanLowenthal
    Is this too powerful?
  • GelectrodeGelectrode
    @IanLowenthal, clever idea! I think it is at a good level.

    Thoughts?
    https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/urglan-contrabass-combatant
  • Faiths_GuideFaiths_Guide
    edited October 2017
    @Gelectrode
    Good point. What if it was:
    "Reveal the top five cards of your library. You may put up to two creature cards from among them onto the battlefield, each gains haste. Put the rest into your graveyard."
  • Faiths_GuideFaiths_Guide
    edited October 2017
    image
  • AnimistAnimist
    @Gelectrode - isn't it a bit of a win-win situation? I'd probably only target 3/3s or less which means I either take it or kill it. Also I'm not sure if we'd ever see fight on an Izzet card but you never know.
  • TenebrisNemoTenebrisNemo
    edited October 2017
    @Gelectrode - I wanted to make Jacob bribe/recruit new people with the treasures his crew finds. Your suggestion is awesome, but I think it should be used in another card.

    I show you this, you show me your thoughts?

    image
  • DecaldorDecaldor
    edited October 2017
    Just read the flavor text.
    image
  • AnimistAnimist
    image

    I'm hoping the wording is right here. Basically a random player is chosen for each of the permanents - it's not that one random player gets all the permanents.
  • Faiths_GuideFaiths_Guide
    edited October 2017
    @Animist, perhaps:
    "Exile all permanents. For each permanent exiled this way, choose a player at random, then return it to the battlefield under his or her control."
  • DjayheroDjayhero
    edited October 2017
    image
    Just made this card, any thoughts on the mana ability?
  • Lord_Of_The_FriesLord_Of_The_Fries
    edited October 2017
    image

    image

    I'm new, and these are my first two cards. What do you people think?
  • NokiSkaurNokiSkaur
    https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/ashen-stalkers

    This is meant to be an out if you're mana screwed, but in typical Black fashion, all power comes with a price.
  • DecaldorDecaldor
    edited October 2017
    image
    Is this the correct wording?
  • michaelmvmmichaelmvm
    edited October 2017
    @Decaldor

    Yeah, I think so.

    @Lord_Of_The_Fries

    Those are pretty interesting concepts, but the wording is a little off. For the first one, it should say, "if they do, that player gains control of this creature." and the second one should say "whenever a creature enters the battlefield under an opponent's control, creatures you control get +2/+1 until end of turn." You have to spell the whole thing out.

    I like the concepts though, and they seem to be costed alright.

    @NokiSkaur interesting take on that, but i do have a question. why does it have forestwalk? also shades usually have some sort of pump ability so i'd make it a spirit, horror, or wraith. And the effect is a little confusing the way it's worded: which card's converted mana cost?

    It is a great idea, with a few clarity and wording fixes, it would be a really interesting card.

    @Djayhero
    "sacrifice this token at the end of the next combat" is what the last ability on the token should say. Also a pretty cool idea. why is the card hybrid green? It should just be red.



    i haven't been here in so long
  • NokiSkaurNokiSkaur
    edited October 2017
    @michaelmvm

    It's supposed to be the converted mana cost of their card, but I don't know how I should word that. I could specify with errata.

    Forestwalk is mostly added for flavour, but I do agree that it isn't necessary.

    This is certainly a bend for Shades, but I'm building framework for a tribal set with Shades possibly inBGU

    Thank you for the advice!
  • DjayheroDjayhero
    edited October 2017
    @michaelmvm well i was gonna add another ability to it but i thought it would be overpowered but i ended up liking how the hybrid colors looked lol

    Also the card was made for a green red set so i thought it would fit in better with the hybrid colors too
  • sanjaya666sanjaya666
    edited October 2017
    Good mechanic or not?

    image image image
  • Lord-Wolffe-IIILord-Wolffe-III
    edited October 2017
    @Lord_Of_The_Fries, nice cards. I especially like the second one.

    @Decaldur, the wording is good and the card looks great.

    @sanjaya666, nice mechanic!

    Here you guys go, have the Devil/Satan/Lucifer. He would like feedback (and likes?).


    image
  • TenebrisNemoTenebrisNemo
    I need to hear your thoughts about this one.

    image
  • Faiths_GuideFaiths_Guide
    @TenebrisNemo
    Too strong, IMO. Also, you've got some misspellings and it seems (though plausible) clunky.
  • TenebrisNemoTenebrisNemo
    @Faiths_Guide - I was afraid of that. I don't know how to write the 1st ability. Do you think this is OP because of it?
  • t4llaRt4llaR
    @TenebrisNemo: I would say the spelling is correctly worded. It sounds weird, but I think since it might be the first card with this ability, there is nothing to compare too.

    image

    Just came up with a new mechanic. I don't know if this should rather be a sorcery, but I think it is a simple, but playable mechanic.
  • AnimistAnimist
    @t4llaR - It's essentially buyback 0 which you've had to make up for by dramatically overcosting the spell. Splitting the cost between CMC and buyback is better since you're allowing the player a choice between whether to pay a lot or a little. Taking away that choice in exchange for having to overcost the spell doesn't seem particularly playable compared to buyback, IMO.
This discussion has been closed.