Design a Card

A place to talk about standard, casual, limited and everything in between.
Asthanius
Posts: 196
Joined: 13 Nov 2011, 08:23
First Video: The Job

Re: Design a Card

Postby Asthanius » 11 Jun 2015, 09:45

TaiyouShinobi wrote:Grasp the Unreal [or something like that] (3)
Enchantment
Spells on the stack may be targeted as if they were creatures, with power and toughness equal to its converted mana cost. If a spell would be destroyed, exiled or have it's toughness reduced below 0, it is countered instead and placed in the graveyard.

//Special rule for this one:
If the enchantment itself (Grasp the Unreal), would be destroyed before a spell on the stack targeting another spell further down on the stack resolves, the spell will still continue to treat the targeted spell as a valid target and the P/T of the spell remains until they have resolved.

TaiyouShinobi wrote:So, is this a reasonable card? Should it be changed or reworded? And would it be something that you might play, if so, how do you see it being used? I'm also looking for a rarity for it, but right now I'm thinking Rare should be good. Let me know.


This feels like a card made for the sake of making it. Even if it were made, it would have to be a mythic, as it not only refers to the stack (which Wizards does its best to avoid), but also allows spells to target what would normally be illegal targets (e.g. Doom Blade targeting Karn, Liberated), which is just a rules nightmare.

Finally, just a couple more things: If a spell would be countered for having its "toughness" reduced to below zero, then shouldn't that happen if it IS zero as well? And if so, does that mean that you can't cast spells that cost zero or have no mana cost, like Ornithopter or Living End?
User avatar
TaiyouShinobi
Posts: 40
Joined: 10 Jun 2015, 22:15
First Video: Untap

Re: Design a Card

Postby TaiyouShinobi » 11 Jun 2015, 18:52

Asthanius wrote:This feels like a card made for the sake of making it. Even if it were made, it would have to be a mythic, as it not only refers to the stack (which Wizards does its best to avoid), but also allows spells to target what would normally be illegal targets (e.g. Doom Blade targeting Karn, Liberated), which is just a rules nightmare.

Finally, just a couple more things: If a spell would be countered for having its "toughness" reduced to below zero, then shouldn't that happen if it IS zero as well? And if so, does that mean that you can't cast spells that cost zero or have no mana cost, like Ornithopter or Living End?


When you say "made for the sake of making it," I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I believe they have used the stack in some instances before such as split second or cards like Time Stop; but those are mainly instances where the stack is just mentioned, so I can see why it might be a concern. I did mean for it to be 0 or less, you're right, and yes, that would also mean that zero and no mana cost spells would be automatically countered, but they could still be cast.

I don't think that the rules would be that messed up by the card though, at least not in the example that you listed. Essentially it would be similar to adding the creature supertype to Karn or adding "or non-black planeswalker" to doomblade. As for mythic, I know that WotC like to put really complex things behind rarity walls so to speak, but I think Mythic might be too much just for complexity. Do you think that it would be difficult to explain to a novice player or that most players just won't be able to grasp it?

Mara Kalat wrote:That is definitely a rare, and an interesting concept...
It is very convoluted though, and I'm not sure if it would really help all the colours evenly. Direct creature destruction or burn spells are very much the domain of black and red. Being able to target spells as if they were creatures doesn't really do much for green or white...


I think that green might be a bit more left out in this, but they still have things like Fight cards and a few direct damage spells, alternatively if you give them flying, green's pretty good at flyer removal. White has a pretty good suite of removal from my experience, while the pacify type effects aren't very useful, White loves exile and blinking the spells are just as good as removal as far as this card is concerned, the flavor concept being that it changes zones and when it comes back the caster loses control of it and can't retake control of it.

The main problem I have with the "X: to counter X mana cost spell" version is that you kind of lose the flavor that each color would disrupt the spells in their own way. Black sucking all the power from it, Red blowing it up essentially, Green beating it to a pulp and White causing it to cease to exist. This doesn't leave blue out either, as they get more ways to dodge the spells with bounce abilities and the like. I find that keeping that intact is pretty important. Essentially, just paying a mana cost is a bit boring and you lose that difference between the colors.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that while on the stack, not only can they be targeted, but they count towards creature totals and creatures in general. This means effects that count up the amount of creatures you control or ones that destroys all creatures, like a wrath, interact with all spells on the stack as well. That might make it more complex (because we need that) and probably more deserving of a Mythic rating as well.
User avatar
AdmiralMemo
Posts: 7342
Joined: 27 Nov 2011, 18:29
First Video: Unskippable: Eternal Sonata
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Contact:

Re: Design a Card

Postby AdmiralMemo » 12 Jun 2015, 02:49

TaiyouShinobi wrote:I believe they have used the stack in some instances before such as split second or cards like Time Stop; but those are mainly instances where the stack is just mentioned, so I can see why it might be a concern.
They got current design principles started with Zendikar, so if you can find something that references the stack in Zendikar or later, please show us. :)

As such, this may have been a rare/mythic that could've been printed back in the day, but not now.
Graham wrote:The point is: Nyeh nyeh nyeh. I'm an old man.
LRRcast wrote:Paul: That does not answer that question at all.
James: Who cares about that question? That's a good answer.

Image
User avatar
jadamelio
Posts: 138
Joined: 30 Dec 2014, 18:20
First Video: The Cookie

Re: Design a Card

Postby jadamelio » 12 Jun 2015, 09:13

You could change it to read something like Venser Shaper Savant's ability.

"All spells that contain Destroy target creature have target spell"

"All spells that contain Exile target creature have return target spell to it's owners hand"

Instead of modifying spells on the stack, modify how all spells interact with the stack?
User avatar
TaiyouShinobi
Posts: 40
Joined: 10 Jun 2015, 22:15
First Video: Untap

Re: Design a Card

Postby TaiyouShinobi » 13 Jun 2015, 02:13

@AdmiralMemo

Well, I've only been playing for coming up on 2 years, so my card base knowledge is rather limited. From what I can tell though, Sundial of the Infinite was printed after Zendikar and does roughly the same thing as Time Stop. This was printed at Rare level so they must have deemed it not too complex, but it is rather straight forward.

@jadamelio

The main problem I can see with that wording is that it leaves out Green and Red for the most part and doesn't allow for the counting of the spells for creatures for good and bad effects.
User avatar
AdmiralMemo
Posts: 7342
Joined: 27 Nov 2011, 18:29
First Video: Unskippable: Eternal Sonata
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Contact:

Re: Design a Card

Postby AdmiralMemo » 13 Jun 2015, 06:23

TaiyouShinobi wrote:@AdmiralMemo

Well, I've only been playing for coming up on 2 years, so my card base knowledge is rather limited. From what I can tell though, Sundial of the Infinite was printed after Zendikar and does roughly the same thing as Time Stop. This was printed at Rare level so they must have deemed it not too complex, but it is rather straight forward.
Fair enough. I just knew Time Stop and Split Second were from before they started getting their design act together. There are so many cards to consider in the history of Magic, from different times when there were different ideas about the game.
Graham wrote:The point is: Nyeh nyeh nyeh. I'm an old man.
LRRcast wrote:Paul: That does not answer that question at all.
James: Who cares about that question? That's a good answer.

Image
User avatar
Aarhg
Posts: 31
Joined: 08 Mar 2014, 11:19
First Video: I have no idea, but I probably liked it.
Location: Denmark

Re: Design a Card

Postby Aarhg » 13 Jun 2015, 15:33

Hey, I made another commander dude. This one's a spooky ghost zombie.
Image
I originally intended for him to work with a ninja deck, but I think he can fit into a few different strategies.

I also did a kraken for a card design contest on another forum. Might as well post him here as well.
Image
Image
User avatar
Re'ozul
Posts: 626
Joined: 17 Dec 2008, 14:45

Re: Design a Card

Postby Re'ozul » 14 Jun 2015, 03:18

Reguhl may be a bit strong.
He would be awesome in a soulshift deck.
But its mostly the unblockable that has me wondering.

The Kraken funnily enough seems fine. (3 permaments may be a bit much)
Otherwise it seems okay for 9 mana.
User avatar
Aarhg
Posts: 31
Joined: 08 Mar 2014, 11:19
First Video: I have no idea, but I probably liked it.
Location: Denmark

Re: Design a Card

Postby Aarhg » 14 Jun 2015, 07:14

Re'ozul wrote:Reguhl may be a bit strong.
He would be awesome in a soulshift deck.
But its mostly the unblockable that has me wondering.

I figured him to be a little on the powerful side, but it turns out he's not very easy to balance. Changing his converted mana cost can really change how he plays. And I'm not much for making his body smaller, since he'd be very easy to pick off with burn or what have you.

Re'ozul wrote:The Kraken funnily enough seems fine. (3 permaments may be a bit much)
Otherwise it seems okay for 9 mana.

For nine mana, I think it's a nice big impact he comes into play with. I'm glad he turned out the way he did. :)
Image
Asthanius
Posts: 196
Joined: 13 Nov 2011, 08:23
First Video: The Job

Re: Design a Card

Postby Asthanius » 14 Jun 2015, 08:22

TaiyouShinobi wrote:I did mean for it to be 0 or less, you're right, and yes, that would also mean that zero and no mana cost spells would be automatically countered, but they could still be cast.

If that's true, then the enchantment needs to be worded differently. As it stands, spells are just targeted as if they had power and toughness, but don't actually have either characteristic. For it to work the way you want it to, you need to say that spells count as creatures with power and toughness equal to their converted mana cost.
TaiyouShinobi wrote:EDIT: Forgot to mention that while on the stack, not only can they be targeted, but they count towards creature totals and creatures in general. This means effects that count up the amount of creatures you control or ones that destroys all creatures, like a wrath, interact with all spells on the stack as well. That might make it more complex (because we need that) and probably more deserving of a Mythic rating as well.

This brings up a few questions:
1) Does this mean that you can sacrifice a spell on the stack? Nivmagus Elemental is the closest to that effect that I've seen, and you exile the spell, not sacrifice it.
2) What happens if I cast a spell and an opponent flashes in Ixidron? Can you turn a spell on the stack face-down?
3) What if I cast Delver of Secrets and, while it's on the stack, cast Moonmist? Will Delver enter the battlefield transformed?
4) Can I tap a spell on the stack?
5) Can I target an artifact spell with Go for the Throat? Or does an artifact spell count as an artifact creature? And if so, how do you explain that? Do you have to say that artifact spells are artifact creatures and enchantment spells are enchantment creatures?
5a) Does that mean Darksteel Forge makes your artifact spells indestructible?
6) Does this make spells count as permanents?
TaiyouShinobi wrote:From what I can tell though, Sundial of the Infinite was printed after Zendikar and does roughly the same thing as Time Stop. This was printed at Rare level so they must have deemed it not too complex, but it is rather straight forward.

Yeah, since Sundial of the Infinite says "End the turn" it is pretty intuitive as to what happens.
User avatar
TaiyouShinobi
Posts: 40
Joined: 10 Jun 2015, 22:15
First Video: Untap

Re: Design a Card

Postby TaiyouShinobi » 15 Jun 2015, 09:15

Asthanius wrote:If that's true, then the enchantment needs to be worded differently. As it stands, spells are just targeted as if they had power and toughness, but don't actually have either characteristic. For it to work the way you want it to, you need to say that spells count as creatures with power and toughness equal to their converted mana cost.

This brings up a few questions:
1) Does this mean that you can sacrifice a spell on the stack? Nivmagus Elemental is the closest to that effect that I've seen, and you exile the spell, not sacrifice it.
2) What happens if I cast a spell and an opponent flashes in Ixidron? Can you turn a spell on the stack face-down?
3) What if I cast Delver of Secrets and, while it's on the stack, cast Moonmist? Will Delver enter the battlefield transformed?
4) Can I tap a spell on the stack?
5) Can I target an artifact spell with Go for the Throat? Or does an artifact spell count as an artifact creature? And if so, how do you explain that? Do you have to say that artifact spells are artifact creatures and enchantment spells are enchantment creatures?
5a) Does that mean Darksteel Forge makes your artifact spells indestructible?
6) Does this make spells count as permanents?


These are good questions about interactions that I was looking for. Here's how it works in my head: The spells themselves are still spells overall, but can be are targeted and counted as creatures. However, they are a bit amorphous in that they don't really exist as creatures only that the scope of spells and abilites have been expanded to include them. Here's how I'd answer each question:

1) Yes, if you have are targeted by something that causes you to sacrifice a creature, you may sacrifice a spell on the stack instead. Additionally, you may use a spell to pay a cost in the same manner.
2) Spells on the stack only have one state (Let's just call it "cast" for now since I'm not sure if terminology is defined) and cannot be turned face down, tapped, untapped or otherwise. So they wouldn't add towards things that counted those other states: i.e. "for each facedown/tapped/untapped creature you control..."
This also means they can't make use of abilities granted: i.e. "Creatures you control gain "T: Deal one damage to target creature or player."" For the sake of clarity and making it less complex, we should say that they can't use any abilities given to them, only can be counted towards other abilities that don't require a state like in Massive Raid.
3 & 4) This goes along with the second one in that it wouldn't change state.
5) Go For the Throat would not work on an artifact spell as I would treat them in the same way Artifact Blast works. This card can only target artifact spells, so I assume that spells retain their properties (color, supertypes, etc.) as they get cast. So while Go For the Throat would normally be able to target the spell, just like a creature it would be an "artifact creature" while on the stack so would be an invalid target. The same would go for enchantments. Now, the Artifact Blast spell is pretty old so the rules may have changed since then and I could be unaware so if anyone knows that's the case please let me know the proper ruling now.
5a) Darksteel Forge wouldn't affect things that it doesn't already affect. I think that goes along with 6.
6) Spells are not permanent since I believe that's referring directly to things on the battlefield but that does bring up an interesting question about non targeting effects. I'm reading through the comprehensive rules and I don't see anything about this interaction. For questions 5, I'd apply rule 405.4 "Each spell has all the characteristics of the card associated with it." But to me that would mean that Darksteel Forge would also affect Artifact spells on the stack, but I imagine that its wording is shorthand for "Artifact permanents you control are indestructible."

In light of these questions here's how I'd change the card wording:

Grasp the Unreal (3)
Enchantment
When spells are put on the stack, they gain power and toughness equal to their mana cost, become Creature Spells in addition to their other types, and gain "Spells or abilities that have effects or costs that target, affect or count creatures controlled by a player, may apply those effects to this spell instead or in addition to other creatures."
If a spell would be destroyed, exiled or have it's toughness become 0 or less, it is countered instead and placed in the graveyard.
Spells may not be tapped, untapped, turned facedown, faceup or otherwise have its position state changed in anyway.


Hopefully that's a little closer to what I'm trying to get at here? Let me know if it makes more sense this way or not.
User avatar
jadamelio
Posts: 138
Joined: 30 Dec 2014, 18:20
First Video: The Cookie

Re: Design a Card

Postby jadamelio » 15 Jun 2015, 16:27

Maybe we should stick away from how spells target each other.

Grasp the Unreal (3)
Enchantment
When a non creature spell is cast, put a colorless creature token with the name of the spell with power and toughness equal to the converted mana cost with "When this creature leaves the battle field, counter all spells with the same name as this creature. Exile this token when no spells with the name of the creature are in play"
RadioshackRaider
Posts: 236
Joined: 01 Aug 2014, 18:37
First Video: Friday Nights: Untap
Location: Scotland

Re: Design a Card

Postby RadioshackRaider » 15 Jun 2015, 16:41

I was wondering, how would you cost an artifact/ enchantment with the following ability:
Permanents that would enter the battlefield tapped enter untapped instead.

Permanents that would enter the battlefield untapped enter tapped instead.
Asthanius
Posts: 196
Joined: 13 Nov 2011, 08:23
First Video: The Job

Re: Design a Card

Postby Asthanius » 15 Jun 2015, 17:53

RadioshackRaider wrote:I was wondering, how would you cost an artifact/ enchantment with the following ability:
Permanents that would enter the battlefield tapped enter untapped instead.

Permanents that would enter the battlefield untapped enter tapped instead.

Kismet/Frozen Aether and Loxodon Gatekeeper do the "untapped enter tapped" effect (for opponents) at 4 mana, while Amulet of Vigor does the "tapped enter untapped" effect for 1 colorless mana. With that in mind, I'd say that you could make this a white enchantment for 3WW.
User avatar
Mara Kalat
Posts: 600
Joined: 03 Aug 2012, 04:44
First Video: I wish I remembered... (but am not bot!)
Location: Berlin

Re: Design a Card

Postby Mara Kalat » 15 Jun 2015, 21:27

RadioshackRaider wrote:I was wondering, how would you cost an artifact/ enchantment with the following ability:
Permanents that would enter the battlefield tapped enter untapped instead.

Permanents that would enter the battlefield untapped enter tapped instead.


I disagree with the suggested 3WW actually, that seems pricey considering it's a balanced effect that influences all permanents. Of course the deck you'd run it in would be geared towards making the most use of it, but still, look at Urabrask's cost:

Image

I would instead suggest something along the lines of an artifact for 3.

Mara.
Image

What if Alan Turing came up with the test because he was actually a robot and wanted people to find out?
JBRedPhoenix
Posts: 20
Joined: 04 May 2015, 21:08
First Video: Something along the lines of TTC???
Location: CaL gArY

Re: Design a Card

Postby JBRedPhoenix » 15 Jun 2015, 21:42

Spirit Entombed (1BB)

Fear (This creature can’t be blocked except by artifact creatures and/or black creatures.)
T: You may search your library for a card, reveal it, and put it into its owner’s graveyard. If you do, you shuffle that library afterwards.

1/1

Thoughts?
Something witty goes here...
Current MTG Decks:
Atraxa Superfriends
Opus Thief Breya
Revel In Riches Kess
Big Mana Kruphix
"BICYCLES" Hanna
"Turn Up (Kamen Rider Blade reference)" Kadena

I STREAM! twitch.tv/RedPhoenixCasts
User avatar
Mara Kalat
Posts: 600
Joined: 03 Aug 2012, 04:44
First Video: I wish I remembered... (but am not bot!)
Location: Berlin

Re: Design a Card

Postby Mara Kalat » 15 Jun 2015, 22:04

JBRedPhoenix wrote:Spirit Entombed (1BB)

Fear (This creature can’t be blocked except by artifact creatures and/or black creatures.)
T: You may search your library for a card, reveal it, and put it into its owner’s graveyard. If you do, you shuffle that library afterwards.

1/1

Thoughts?


That looks like a reanimator deck's wet dream and seems very strong, despite its 3 CMC - 1/1 trade-off.
Making it a 1B with "B, sacrifice Spirit Entombed: Search your library for a card and put it into your graveyard, then shuffle your library." could solve that.

Mara.
Image

What if Alan Turing came up with the test because he was actually a robot and wanted people to find out?
Asthanius
Posts: 196
Joined: 13 Nov 2011, 08:23
First Video: The Job

Re: Design a Card

Postby Asthanius » 16 Jun 2015, 07:14

Mara Kalat wrote:
RadioshackRaider wrote:I was wondering, how would you cost an artifact/ enchantment with the following ability:
Permanents that would enter the battlefield tapped enter untapped instead.

Permanents that would enter the battlefield untapped enter tapped instead.


I disagree with the suggested 3WW actually, that seems pricey considering it's a balanced effect that influences all permanents. Of course the deck you'd run it in would be geared towards making the most use of it, but still, look at Urabrask's cost:

Image

I would instead suggest something along the lines of an artifact for 3.

Mara.

The way I see it, the card would slow down the game enough that it almost HAS to be priced high in order to keep it from being put in every single control deck. I saw 3WW as a little cheap for it given that fact, but I couldn't bring myself to make it more than 5 mana.

Also, keep in mind that it affects lands, and a single Amulet of Vigor on your side would make it not affect you at all.
User avatar
jadamelio
Posts: 138
Joined: 30 Dec 2014, 18:20
First Video: The Cookie

Re: Design a Card

Postby jadamelio » 16 Jun 2015, 13:49

The way I see it, the card would slow down the game enough that it almost HAS to be priced high in order to keep it from being put in every single control deck. I saw 3WW as a little cheap for it given that fact, but I couldn't bring myself to make it more than 5 mana

By that logic all control players would want to run death and taxes staples to slow the game down.
Spells/creatures that prevent players from casting spells are usually CMC 3 this is a less powerful effect
User avatar
Mara Kalat
Posts: 600
Joined: 03 Aug 2012, 04:44
First Video: I wish I remembered... (but am not bot!)
Location: Berlin

Re: Design a Card

Postby Mara Kalat » 16 Jun 2015, 20:41

jadamelio wrote:By that logic all control players would want to run death and taxes staples to slow the game down.
Spells/creatures that prevent players from casting spells are usually CMC 3 this is a less powerful effect


Yeah, spells that slow down the game are often surprisingly cheap.
Especially in blue...

ImageImageImage

Granted, these aren't necessarily fun cards, but there's plenty of precedent there to justify a <5 cmc.

Mara.
Image

What if Alan Turing came up with the test because he was actually a robot and wanted people to find out?
Asthanius
Posts: 196
Joined: 13 Nov 2011, 08:23
First Video: The Job

Re: Design a Card

Postby Asthanius » 18 Jun 2015, 18:43

Those are also all old cards, from a time where the relative power level of spells was higher and the power level of creatures was generally lower.

On another topic, I was wondering what people thought of a mechanic I'm trying out called Essence.
Essence wrote:If you haven’t played a land this turn, you may play this card as a land. If you do, it enters the battlefield as a land and loses all other card types.

Creatures with Essence have abilities that only work when they're lands. Most of them produce mana as lands, most of them have other abilities that are only usable when they're lands, and a few of them do other things. Here are a couple examples of the range of abilities these cards can have:
Image Image
User avatar
AdmiralMemo
Posts: 7342
Joined: 27 Nov 2011, 18:29
First Video: Unskippable: Eternal Sonata
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Contact:

Re: Design a Card

Postby AdmiralMemo » 18 Jun 2015, 20:19

Your ability seems fine. The Boar seems a little OP as a common, but would be fine as an uncommon. The Treefolk doesn't produce mana, which is weird for a land.

Also, the Treefolk should specify in its ability a green Treefolk creature. Otherwise, it'll be colorless. That is, unless you give the cards color indicators.
Graham wrote:The point is: Nyeh nyeh nyeh. I'm an old man.
LRRcast wrote:Paul: That does not answer that question at all.
James: Who cares about that question? That's a good answer.

Image
User avatar
Mara Kalat
Posts: 600
Joined: 03 Aug 2012, 04:44
First Video: I wish I remembered... (but am not bot!)
Location: Berlin

Re: Design a Card

Postby Mara Kalat » 18 Jun 2015, 21:17

Ooh, I like Essence a lot. And not just because I tend to run fewer lands than I should in the decks that I build.
Also, I'm pretty sure that, since the card has a colour identity already and is the thing turning into a creature it would already be considered green.
Like the old run of Veiled Enchantments, which as you'll notice also don't specify the colour in their oracle text.

I've been toying with the idea of a new mechanic too, maybe I should make a similarly neat looking sample card and ask for opinions, hmmm...

EDIT: Yeah, there we go. Introducing Multimorph!
ImageImage
What do people think?

Mara.
Image

What if Alan Turing came up with the test because he was actually a robot and wanted people to find out?
User avatar
Re'ozul
Posts: 626
Joined: 17 Dec 2008, 14:45

Re: Design a Card

Postby Re'ozul » 19 Jun 2015, 04:54

Essence cards:
I agree with AdmiralMemo that irontusk boar seems too strong for a common.
In fact, I think both should be uncommons (due to the treefolk not having mana generation abilities).

Multimorph:
Backup Regiment is perefctly fine.
Forest child is a strong uncommon but still within the realms of that rarity.
Asthanius
Posts: 196
Joined: 13 Nov 2011, 08:23
First Video: The Job

Re: Design a Card

Postby Asthanius » 19 Jun 2015, 06:29

Man. 7th Edition was a weird set.

In other news, I really like Multimorph, and can see it working really well on cards with no other abilities, simply due to the fact that you get another creature out of it.

As for the feedback on Essence, I'm inclined to agree that at least one of them should be uncommon. The main problem I'm having is that it's difficult to make commons with Essence that don't just make mana, because even two abilities is likely to make the text size pretty small, which is NOT good for a common.

Also, I should point out that Essence is going to be the set's main mechanic.

Edit: Does it work better as a common if the Boar gives Haste instead of +1/+0?

Edit 2: I think I fixed it, and I also made sure it was a mana ability so it could be tapped for mana as part of casting a spell (which it couldn't do before).
Image

That's also the format I'll be using from now on: If CARDNAME is a land, it has "{T}: Do a thing."

Return to “Magic: The Gathering”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests