Design a Card

[SixFootTurkey]

I was asking whether or not the intent was to design with WotC restrictions in mind, if that isn't the case that's fine, but I'm a fan of more rather than fewer restrictions. (You could design a card that is a complete color pie break, or is horribly costed, but that doesn't mean you should.)

Whether or not one wants to include printing restrictions is entirely up to whomever is designing the card (or offering advice), as long as it is clear to anyone else critiquing.

I stated 'if you're following WotC limitations, DFC lands are unlikely.' There was no implication that you _should_ follow said limitations, but that it was an option. Someone else replied that they didn't think it was an issue, even given the aforementioned limitation. This started a sub-topic which was where my response to susu fit in. To say that it doesn't matter to 'us' is a bit presumptuous, as you don't speak for everyone here. It also implies that my view of considering existing restrictions to be invalid and somehow of lesser import.

[Citronman]

So, I was thinking of a way to "fix" mirror gallery:

Anonymity (3)(U)
Enchantment
All cards that aren't on the battlefield, spells, and permanents have no names.



Would deal with the legend rule for creature (but not planeswalkers), bile blight effects, and pithing needle effects.

thoughts ?

[SixFootTurkey]

'Card' is already defined as something that isn't on the stack or on the battlefield, so you could probably just say 'cards, permanents, and spells have no names.' This would likely never see print, as it has some far reaching effects (like you mentioned, it hits search and lock-down effects), and would create confusion with fetch lands (which would still work fine as they search for the card type, not the name).

More importantly though, does Mirror Gallery need fixed? Do we need a card that hoses a variety of effects and has what would likely be a binary power level? (I.e., it's either a must include or garbage toilets.) It would also limit design space in the future. (I'm not saying we definitely don't; it's a sincere question I'm curious to hear discussion about.)

[JWiley129]

So I came up with a card design I've tried to adapt from a different TCG, Force of Will. So here is the card:

Ephemeral Trickster 1U

Creature - Illusion

Shroud

When ~ enters the battlefield, draw two cards, then put one card from your hand on top of your library.

If ~ dies, shuffle it into your library instead.

0/1

The card design comes from Chesire Cat, which seems infinitely abusable.

[SixFootTurkey]

(First, a quick caveat that it would be shuffled into 'its owner's library', not 'your library.')

While mechanics may transfer over pretty linearly, the role a card like this will have might not. Do you play Force of Will? How many differences are there that matter? I.e., do you attack other creatures like in Hearthstone, or is it only going to die in combat if it blocks? Is self-mill (or mill in general) a thing?

[susu.exp]

Well, Ephemeral Trickster seems pretty busted. It's a Brainstorm on a stick that brings its own shuffle effect (and Brainstorm is primarily busted where legal, because of fetchlands).

[Citronman]

At Sixfootturkey: I used the exact same oracle text as painter's servant.

And by fixed, I meant conceivebly playable.

[SixFootTurkey]

Ah; well, the Oracle for that appears to have been a straight find+replace to change 'in play' to 'on the battlefield'. That may be how they would word that effect even now, but I'm not certain if/how rules were modified between then and now. (The wording is fine then, unless we find an example of it being used differently from a more recent set.)

My issue with the fix, is it no longer seems to have anything to do with the initial function or flavor of the original card; the original card is now just an extra. I would rather have it also benefit you playing legends in other ways, rather than otherwise affecting cards that care about names. Alternatively, you could make spells cost less for each permanent sharing a name with it - maybe just a one time thing rather than for each. (This would make it matter with non-legends, while still keeping it in flavor.) Or, it could make copies of legendary creatures that exile at EoT.

[JWiley129]

SixFootTurkey - You are correct, it should say owner's library. In addition, in FoW you can attack other creatures, but you can still block even if they attack a creature and the creature has to be tapped. And in FoW, Cheshire Cat is a single U "will", so I made the card 1U to hopefully fit better in MtG.

I agree it's pretty busted, but I'm trying to be as close to the original design as possible. No clue if it's more busted here.

[SixFootTurkey]

Do you mean you tap as part of attacking, or that you can only attack tapped creatures?

[Atifexe]

Commit to the Front - (3)(W)(W)
Enchantment
Tapped creatures may block as though they were untapped.
Untapped creatures may not block.

I need to reword this, as it is currently confusing and possibly contradicting itself, but hopefully the intent is clear and someone can lend a suggestion or two.

[SixFootTurkey]

I like the inspiration, but all tapped creatures being able to block is a bit out of flavor. It's odd that a creature that has been tapped by claustrophobia or tapping for an ability can block, despite having made no effort to commit to battle. It also gets a little close to vigilance - though there are obvious mechanical differences.

Perhaps making it so a creature can only block if it attacked on its controllers last turn instead of making it so only tapped creatures can block?

[Atifexe]

That's what I was thinking, though I forgot about cards like Claustrophobia. Maybe if I change the wording to:
Each creature may not block unless it attacked on its controller's last turn.
Tapped creatures that attacked on their controller's last turn may block as though they were untapped.

[SixFootTurkey]

Possibly just:
"Creatures may block as though they were untapped.
Creatures cannot block unless they attacked on their controller's last turn."

It's less wordy, but your way may prevent confusion.

[Citronman]

What about:

"At the start of each player's end step, that player untaps each creature he or she controls that attacked this turn, and taps each creature he or she controls that didn't attack this turn."

So no one have to remember which creature attacked or not. It may loses the particular flavor you wanted, though.

[SixFootTurkey]

I would rather do at end of combat, possibly tacking on that creatures etb tapped to prevent blockers being played second main. Either way though, it also has the problem of one of the focus of the card shifting from combat to actually tapping creatures and giving your attackers semi-vigilance for more than combat. (Being able to block while tapped is entirely different from being untapped.)

[Tacos_yay]

A card I've been, looking for, no idea if something like this actually exists:
Appeasement 3WW
At the beginning of each opponents upkeep, that player may choose to draw a card. If that player does, he or she cannot attack you this turn.

I want the art to be someone waving a slip of paper.

[SixFootTurkey]

The inspiration and concept is pretty cool, and there's definitely room to work with it. On the card itself though, it's actually just not good; I don't think anyone would play this card even if it cost {W}. Your opponent could just ignore the card and you would have spent 5 mana to do nothing. Alternatively, your opponent could draw a card, and you would have spent 5 mana to help your opponent. (Don't take this negatively at all; there's a lot of promise to the concept, and it's a common thing to have trouble being objective about your own creations.)

I'm don't believe white gets access to card draw - even if it's enemy card draw. While it's not entirely the same, this is where my mind went - let me know what you think:

"""
Cease-Fire
2WU
Enchantment
Players skip their draw steps.
During each player's end step, that player draws a card if no combat damage was dealt this turn. Otherwise sacrifice Cease-Fire and each player dealt combat damage this turn draws a card.
"""

The first card that comes to mind with a similar effect, is Fatespinner. Island Sanctuary is one that gives you the choice (it is more powerful, but slightly slower to take effect). If you wanted something more similar to your original design, you could allow you to choose whether they get an extra card or can attack for that turn. (I still don't know if that's something white would get, but enemy card draw might be within white's wheelhouse.)

[Tacos_yay]

Hmm...I definitely like the 'player dealt combat damage draws a card' idea. Its definitely in flavor for white, but I see what you mean when you say the mechanic is not white. I like it. Also I've never seen fatespinner before, and now I want one. Also, If I played Cease-Fire and Island Sanctuary, I could cancel out Island Sanctuary's draw effect, you see what I mean?

[SixFootTurkey]

If you skip your draw step, you never have the opportunity to replace your draw. If you had Island Sanctuary and 'Cease-Fire' both in play, Island Sanctuary would effectively have no text.

(If it said 'you may skip your draw step', I believe you could double up on them. The issue is you need a draw step to skip your draw.)

[Tacos_yay]

Oh my bad, I see what you mean. I thought of the idea with commander in mind, where politics is very important. If they printed Cease-Fire now, I would totally play it. I mean, if the other players don't want to play ball with it, its 4 mana for draw a card, but I would play it.



My other idea for a card was inspired by the art for Glacial Fortress. I thought it would be more in flavor if Glacial Fortress had some sort of blocking power, like it turned into a 0/8 defender for a turn if you pay some mana.

[SixFootTurkey]

At its absolute worst - assuming you don't attack the turn you play it - it would be draw a card, the next player misses a draw step. (It's still a bit wordy for me, but I'm content with its direction.)

Other than the initial caveat that making a land from a cycle stronger than it already is...

If you have a land that is a fortress, my first thought would be buffing the toughness of one or more defending creatures.

[Tacos_yay]

Oh I like that.
How bout:
Tap: Add 1 colorless mana to your mana pool.
Pay 2: All creatures you control get +0/+1 until end of turn
OR:
Pay 3:Target creature gets +0/+4 until end of turn

[SixFootTurkey]

Hmm... I still like only being able to buff defending creatures. (I wouldn't be against buffing power, but I dislike the flavor of using a fortress to attack.) Maybe something like:

"""
Fort Land
Land
T: Add {1}.
Tap an untapped defending creature you control: that creature gains +0/+1 until end of turn.
"""

[Tacos_yay]

Eh, I would rather pay for that effect than tap.