October 2009 - MCC - Discussion Thread (Spooky Spooky)

[Streetz]

Discuss the contest, your interpretation of Halloween-esque, and your your competitors' submissions here!

Remember, have fun! This is just a fun casual contest!

[Tekkactus]

Wasn't this the theme for last October?

[Azrael Subucni]

Wasn't this the theme for last October?

Yes, except last time, you couldn't make it a black card. This may have been the cause of a lot of poorly scored entries for that round.

Though personally I find the holiday theme to be a little constrained to begin with. What really is 'halloween-y' is up to a person's opinion, I'd say. Still, I'll try to come up with something.

[Streetz]

If Halloween was last year's theme, it matters not. If you didn't score well in that contest, find it as an inspiration to do better in this years! Besides, I'm judging this one!

[JakeKessler]

I like that "spooky spooky" is a tag.

EDIT

Alright, here's my first proposal. I already had this card sitting around in my file, but we aren't usually allowed to add new keywords.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v390/tomorrowjake/GhostWalk2.png

Unsure about the specifics of the keyword. Regrow is a powerful effect to spread across colors, but then Soulshift from Kamigawa block was basically Raise Dead spread across colors. It just had to have the proper limitations...

Unsure about the timing. Should you be able to pitch it at instant-speed to get back a counterspell or killspell? Vedalken Æthermage or Homing Sliver can each be pitched at instant-speed to tutor up Nameless Inversion. I need to think about this more.

I have no problem with calling it 'Cycling' even though it doesn't draw you a card... 'XCycling' doesn't draw you cards, it tutors, but it can still be called cycling because it puts a card in your hand by discarding a card. Same here.

[CoglineErro]

Eh, ~cycling is a keyword. It's debatable, but either way you must state what the card must cost less than. Its implied that it is the card being grave cycled, but better safe than sorry in card design. It should read, "Grevecycle X (X, Discard this card: Return target card that costs less than ~ from your graveyard to your hand.)

[JakeKessler]

Eh, ~cycling is a keyword. It's debatable, but either way you must state what the card must cost less than. Its implied that it is the card being grave cycled, but better safe than sorry in card design. It should read, "Grevecycle X (X, Discard this card: Return target cards that costs less than ~ from your graveyard to your hand.)

Disagree. In defense of my wording, I'll cite the reminder text for cascade:


Cascade (When you cast this spell, exile cards from the top of your library until you exile a nonland card that costs less. You may cast it without paying its mana cost. Put the exiled cards on the bottom in a random order.)

[CoglineErro]

Also note the length of cascade's reminder text. They had t cut words out of it. Yours does not suffer such. But regardless, you need to use disentomb's wording with regards to returning cards to your hand from the grave. Look closer at my change up there for that correction.

[JakeKessler]

I'm not sure it needs to target, either. Soulshift does, but Cruel Ultimatum doesn't. I don't like the idea that a cycling effect can fizzle.

... Or be unusable without a corresponding target available. I kind of want you to be allowed to Gravecycle even if there's nothing you could get back, like how you could Plainscycle Pale Recluse even if there aren't any Plains in your deck.

Hmm.

[Le_Mirage]

It's just a matter of taste. The original cycling makes you draw a card, and, for obvious reason, there's no target in this. Fetch-cycling also has no target, since cards in library are not public, nor permanents. Still, if there is the chance to take back a card from graveyard without targeting it, as in Cruel Ultimatum, that's just one more option then, considering that, as an effect, is slightly more powerful since the card cant' fizzle.

On the other hand, effects based on cycling (even if not tiled with cycling itself, but as triggered ability), that involves cards in the public zones of the game, usually have a target. If there is no reason in making an effect more powerful than others cycling related effects, i would make it as a target one.

[CoglineErro]

I'm not sure it needs to target, either. Soulshift does, but Cruel Ultimatum doesn't. I don't like the idea that a cycling effect can fizzle.
Cruel Ultimatum also does a lot more than Gravecycling. Also, having this ability as an uncounterable is only gonna be balanced if you let it be able to fizzle. Right now it is above the level of insane good. Everydeck would run this card. 3 colorless for an uncounterable raise dead on any card CMC 3 or less. 4 plz.


... Or be unusable without a corresponding target available. I kind of want you to be allowed to Gravecycle even if there's nothing you could get back, like how you could Plainscycle Pale Recluse even if there aren't any Plains in your deck.

Hmm.

I don't know in what situation you are worried about not being able to gravecycle where there are no cards in your grave. The reason Landcycling doesn't have a target is it is aimed at a hidden section of the field (the library) whereas yours is not.

[p-chan]

Hell, again a little off-topic for me theme for this month. Here in Spain we don't have a lor of Halloween tradition. In any case, thanx for the link Streetz, I'm gonna read it and try to make the most original card I can.

@CoglineErro: Man, you should restrict it to noncreature spell, or creature spell, or up it's cost. If you don't, I think it's quite overpowered

[ALEX Ryugami]

Here's my submission, what do you think??

http://i609.photobucket.com/albums/tt174/ALEX_Ryugami/CreepyRevival.jpg

[CoglineErro]

@CoglineErro: Man, you should restrict it to noncreature spell, or creature spell, or up it's cost. If you don't, I think it's quite overpowered

So you are saying that instead of a strong counter I should make it a strictly-better-in-some-situations-strictly-worse-in-others negate? The counter anything balances out the not being in control of whether it goes off or not. In more cases than not this will actually be fairly weak. This is not a counter for knocking out their combo peice. If you play it to stop their game winner, you may have just lost unless you can tutor up an answer. But in the end thats the idea.

[evol_intentions]

coglineerro your card is brill

[Le_Mirage]

So you are saying that instead of a strong counter I should make it a strictly-better-in-some-situations-strictly-worse-in-others negate? The counter anything balances out the not being in control of whether it goes off or not. In more cases than not this will actually be fairly weak. This is not a counter for knocking out their combo peice. If you play it to stop their game winner, you may have just lost unless you can tutor up an answer. But in the end thats the idea.

It's a pretty cool card...and it's difficult to grade. That is, in a blue combo deck, chances are that your vital card would end up in your hand anyway, even if the opponent, hoping that you will never find it, would let you counter an early menace just ot keep you far from your library
.
Since it's cost just two, anyone would probably play it more aggressively (to build up a super-fast combo hand...or to gain enough tempo to do the same) than defensively. I'll say that play it two or three in a combo deck would be, if not strong, at least fun (just to put some more permission-burden on your opponent :D).

Anyway, as a way to balance it a little, you may probably limit it's tutoring effect to instant or sorceries, according to the tutoring scope of blue. And specify that the target spell must be controlled by an opponent, otherwise, a smart player may use it to counter a spell played by himself, and that would be pretty strong, expecially if the spell was, eventually, already countered by the opponent.

[CoglineErro]

That last line is interesting. How about "Counter target spell unless target opponent has you search your library for a card, put that card into your hand, then shuffle your library."

@ Diabolic Temptation: This seems like a power card, but since I don't run those decks I really can't opinionate on it.
@ Creepy Revival: The flavor seems to be that it represents one of the traditional days where the dead are supposed to rise, but only for a day. But over all the power level seems alright. Though I do wonder how it would be if the first ability was "At the beginning of your upkeep, sac a creature or sac ~."
@ Elvish Caller: Pretty bland. But flavorful change of Elvish Piper. There now you don't have to wonder if someone got it.
@ Death's Convoy: Interesting take on Haunt. I love it, though hybrid always does get graded harshly in these things and this would be just as good as a gold card.
@ Fearmonger: Why legendary? Doesn't feel flavorfully legendary and has no need mechanically to be legendary. Also, you might want to have the ability involve counters, such as "When ~ cib, put a horror counter on three target creatures. Creatures with horror counters on them have fear. When ~ leaves play, remove all horror counters from all creatures." Something of that sort, perhaps.

[JakeKessler]

Every deck would run this card. 3 colorless for an uncounterable raise dead on any card CMC 3 or less. 4 plz.

CMC 2 or less. The card itself costs 3, and it has to get back something cheaper. Think Cascade. And yes it's uncounterable, but generally people don't counter Raise Dead or tutors--they just wait and counter whatever you're retrieving. Nobody thinks Homing Sliver is broken--or Haunted Crossroads, for that matter.


I don't know in what situation you are worried about not being able to gravecycle where there are no cards in your grave. The reason Landcycling doesn't have a target is it is aimed at a hidden section of the field (the library) whereas yours is not.

I was just thinking cosmetically, it feels weird to have the mana to cycle something but not be able to. (Although I guess theoretically you can't regular-cycle something on an empty library--I mean you're allowed, but you'd lose.)

But you're right, there's no real gameplay reason why needing a raisable card in the yard is a problem. I mean, I'd probably landcycle Shoreline Ranger even if I knew I had no more Islands in the deck if it was in response to Exhume or something, but that's a weird corner case and not the typical use of landcycling. Besides, my card isn't a creature.

The other option is to make Gravecycling copy Fossil Find, I guess, but that seems goofy, harder to grok and less fun.

In all seriousness, I'll probably add "target" to the card in the near future. Also considering upping the card to rare.

[Kamahl's Disciple]

My critiques: -

@Jake: - I like the this keyword, it seems like something they would actually print out in the card game, good card as usual.

@AE: - Change the part that says "where X is your life -1" to "where X is your life total -1".

@George: - This guy can be a Darksteel Colossus, Inkwell Leviathan or even Progenitus on your next turn, sans acceleration, giving your opponent one turn to have to answer to it.

In short, this card is rather cheap.

@CoglineErro: - Changing this from "counter target spell" to "counter target noncreature spell" would make this card fair.

@Alex: - Interesting card, I don't see anything wrong with it either.

@Cashew: - Rather bland, Cashew, rather bland... and should it even be a rare? Well, knowing you, I think this but the first of several revisions.

@Evol: - This is fine as it is, it's a really neat idea that fits the Halloween spirit rather well.

@Thomasdm: - I would change the wording on first part of this card to "When Fearmonger enters the battlefield, up to three target creatures you control gain fear. (This effect lasts indefinitely)". I also think it wouldn't hurt this card to be a 3/3, but that's just me.

Well, we have a good start from what I have seen so far, at least flavor wise.

As for me, my submission is up, I went with a colored artifact this time around. I also nabbed some really good art for this one too.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b394/Ducktitan/Cards/Created%20Cards/GhostJar.jpg

[p-chan]

So you are saying that instead of a strong counter I should make it a strictly-better-in-some-situations-strictly-worse-in-others negate? The counter anything balances out the not being in control of whether it goes off or not. In more cases than not this will actually be fairly weak. This is not a counter for knocking out their combo peice. If you play it to stop their game winner, you may have just lost unless you can tutor up an answer. But in the end thats the idea.
I mean: or you counter his spell for 1B (strictly better than Counterspell), or you serach for your winner card again for 1B, strictly better than ... hell, than anything XP. Your opponent chooses, that's true, but both effects are too powerful at only 1B

[JakeKessler]

Don't forget about modern wording! Battlefield, not play!

[Lymons]

The following are my opinions:

Ghost Walk - Should be at least 4 mana or a sorcery. Gravecycling should be limited by type or color.

Diabolic Temptation - Players should be able to choose what X is, if you do this, change the second line of text too. It's a bit harsh to reduce your life total to 1.

Costume Changer - Awesome! Wish you color in the art. You might want to add until end of turn or make it legendary . . . otherwise, awesome.

Trick or Treat - Perhaps UU and limited tutoring (color/type) but overall good stuff.

Creepy Revival - Basically: Turn 1, tap 5 mana, return all creature to play (never liked battlefield) from the graveyard, end turn. Turn 2, opponent attacks, you block. Turn 3, exile all creatures returned this way. What if you gave the creatures haste, that'll be much better. I don't get the point of this card unless you have really nice CI/LP abilities.

Elvish Caller - Increase halloween-esque-ness and hooray for nonblack.

Death's Convoy - I like it. What happens if Death's Convoy dies? All haunting becomes useless? If that is so, add another line for Death's Convoy own haunting ability.

Fearmonger - Maybe make it 2BG cost with a built in fear/intimidate. For a legend, its stats are subpar, its CIP ability could be an activated one with "until end of turn" instead, more versatile. If you're keeping it, change the wording: As Fearmonger etb, up to three target creatures you control gain fear/intimidate.

Ghost Jar - Okay. I'm neutral on this.

Can't wait till you guys criticize me.

[JakeKessler]

Ghost Walk - Should be at least 4 mana or a sorcery.

Changing to a sorcery isn't a bad idea. Instant-speed sacrifice is pretty powerful, come to think of it. Good call.

Increasing the cost would actually make Gravecycling (and therefore the card as a whole) more powerful... at least with the cost-based functionality of Gravecycling (see below). There is a world of power difference between CMC 2 or less and CMC 3 or less... just ask Isochron Scepter.


Gravecycling should be limited by type or color.

Limiting color is an idea. I'll experiment with this in the next version I post (which will be in a minute, link forthcoming). This makes an interesting alternative to limiting cost, which made me sad anyway.

* http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v390/tomorrowjake/GhostWalk5.png

EDIT

Open question to the thread: For this version I added the word "another" to the Gravecycling reminder text: "Return another target black card..." Functionally, this is not needed, since Ghost Walk is not in your graveyard at the time you activate the ability and therefore is not a legal target anyway, but I feel like adding the word could prevent the ability from being confusing to certain players. Thoughts?

[CoglineErro]

@Jake: Like the changes, however I don't think the addition of another is needed.

[George G]

@George: - This guy can be a Darksteel Colossus, Inkwell Leviathan or even Progenitus on your next turn, sans acceleration, giving your opponent one turn to have to answer to it.

In short, this card is rather cheap.



Yeah, but not much different from elvish piper, quicksilver amulet, or volrath's shapeshifter.
I just don't have to have the creature in hand with this. This is kinda my "Cashew Card" if you will(card that you put up for the first week before putting up your real submission) I like it, but it's to much like the first 3 cards i just listed.

[ALEX Ryugami]

@ Creepy Revival: The flavor seems to be that it represents one of the traditional days where the dead are supposed to rise, but only for a day. But over all the power level seems alright. Though I do wonder how it would be if the first ability was "At the beginning of your upkeep, sac a creature or sac ~."


Yeah, you are right. But like on real world actually, it doesn't demand sacrifice to keep the day last longer. :P



Creepy Revival - Basically: Turn 1, tap 5 mana, return all creature to play (never liked battlefield) from the graveyard, end turn. Turn 2, opponent attacks, you block. Turn 3, exile all creatures returned this way. What if you gave the creatures haste, that'll be much better. I don't get the point of this card unless you have really nice CI/LP abilities.


I forgot the haste part. Thank you for remind me :)

*EDIT*: Now updated with giving haste to creatures, what do you think now guys?? Especially the name and the art

http://i609.photobucket.com/albums/tt174/ALEX_Ryugami/CreepyRevival.jpg

[Cashew]

@ Elvish Caller: Pretty bland. But flavorful change of Elvish Piper. There now you don't have to wonder if someone got it.

I would be more worried if someone didn't get it, it was highly obvious. Same tribe types, same casting cost, same variation of the flavor text, same generic ability.


Elvish Caller - Increase halloween-esque-ness and hooray for nonblack.
In a sea of Black, I want to remain an island of fun. Designing a Black card for Halloween is a Kindergarten design project :). The big boys can do it in any color, I want to see if some people grew at all from last year and can finally impress me with some non-Black Halloween goodness.

Second idea - albeit, borderline broken one. The design process: I wanted to do some kind of instant/enchantment version of Illusionary Mask. The wording hell lead me instead to make a Clone enchantment. That was boring so I tribaled it up and amped it up to 11 by making it ala Living Wish. Thus masquerade.

http://magicdeckvortex.com/vbforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2565&stc=1&d=1254571636

[CoglineErro]

The design process: I wanted to do some kind of instant/enchantment version of Illusionary Mask. The wording hell lead me instead to make a Clone enchantment. That was boring so I tribaled it up and amped it up to 11 by making it ala Living Wish. Thus masquerade.

Hey now, last year I had a great red one that had a minor debatable element to it that cost it a win and this year I'm running same color as your new one. We card designers say hurummph to your acusations! ANd your card is excessively broken. You know this. This card is beyond a little broken. Yes it is an aura, but an aura that is it hits wins the game. Bam! Darksteel Collosus. Bam! Progy. This card is too good! Please try again.

[Cashew]

Progenitus - really? You'd choose him? Wouldn't the fact that he has pro-everything and instantly destroys the enchantment dissuade you from make such a poor choice? - Darksteel I can see, but you can get him into play far easier through established tricks without the whole enchantment liability.

Besides, this is totally Zur-ific.

Zur the Enchanter + This = Fun.

Not quite Stuffy Doll + Guilty Conscience, but definitely a potential game winner. I always wonder why with an easy to win combo was Stuffy Doll never made into a serious deck. It's almost like not all two card instant win combos are viable outside of the kitchen table.

This is the part when you come back with a valid argument so that I'll actually consider what you're saying. A turn three or four Collosi isn't that broken. Do it all the time, see it all the time, handle it all the time. The real challenge is handling it when he's Kiki-ed into play and you're tapped out. Or the turn 3 30/31 Sutured Ghoul with haste, that's always fun.

[George G]

Cashew, did you see my submission that's been up for two days at all??

[Cashew]

I plead the fifth =)

[CoglineErro]

Progenitus - really? You'd choose him? Wouldn't the fact that he has pro-everything and instantly destroys the enchantment dissuade you from make such a poor choice? - Darksteel I can see, but you know I can get him into play far easier through established tricks.
Yes, Progy was a bad choice, so I'll change progy to Uril, the Miststalker (not overpowered, but good)



Besides, this is totally Zur-ific.

Zur the Enchanter + Mascarde = Fun.

Not quite Stuffy Doll + Guilty Conscience, but definitely a potential game winner. I always wonder why with an easy to win combo was Stuffy Doll never made into a serious deck. It's almost like not all two card instant win combos are viable outside of the kitchen table.

This + Ultrabig creatures that weren't supposed to be played in the first 2 or three turns, is not a two card combo. You don't have to have the second one in hand to play it. And Stuffy Conceince costsw a lot more than three.

[Cashew]

You also have to have a creature in play. Still not getting into the heart of why its overpowered yet. I'm actually doing this for George G's benefit though as this isn't my real entry. This is a conversation several of us had like 2 years ago it seems, can't remember what contest, but a card similar to mine and George's was in question.

The real root of the problem has nothing to do with yo're talking about thus far. Just curious to see if the same conclusion will be eventually reached.

FYI: You're barking up the wrong tree on big creatures as well. Illusionary Mask + Phyrexian Dreadnought is a common turn 1 play in Legacy. Never has this cornerstone combo been mentioned as overpowered because it so easily dealt with.

[Kamahl's Disciple]

@Cashew: - I think this card would be great costing around :3mana::u::u: or :4mana::u::u:. Think Gigantiform.

[Lymons]

Jake:
I meant 4 cmc instant or 3 cmc sorcery, I honestly liked gravecycling as a 3 colorless activated ability.

Cashew:
First thing first, it's the weekend, no school! Second, I love cashews second to macadamia nuts. Thirdly, Masquerade's art is fun. Fourthly, I promise I will get to my point.
I agree with Kamahl, an increase in cmc would fix some issues people had. What I was thinking is that you keep everything that way it is and change it to copy only the revealed creature's ability. So if you enchant a 1/1, and revealed darksteel col, you have a 1/1 trampler with indestructiblity [insert smiley face here]. If you are considering this, might as well give enchanted creature +1/+1 or something.

Can someone please point out how to do emoticons?

Other thoughts: I think creature wishes like the Costume Changer and Masquerade are a tad powerful (but awesome). Would perfer if it's library over sideboard so people only add BFG's they might be able to hard cast.

[George G]

cashew means this I believe as far as the enchantment goes(infinite mana is wonderful), but I'm not sure how that effects costume changer, which is ironically my joke card for the first week too, already said.

[CoglineErro]

Oh I see now. I had not noticed that GeorgeG had posted his card...well, now, carry on.

[Kamahl's Disciple]

Ghost Jar - Okay. I'm neutral on this.

Umn... Ok, thanks, I guess.

[George G]

Yes, Progy was a bad choice, so I'll change progy to Uril, the Miststalker (not overpowered, but good)



This + Ultrabig creatures that weren't supposed to be played in the first 2 or three turns, is not a two card combo. You don't have to have the second one in hand to play it. And Stuffy Conceince costsw a lot more than three.






Cashew:
First thing first, it's the weekend, no school! Second, I love cashews second to macadamia nuts. Thirdly, Masquerade's art is fun. Fourthly, I promise I will get to my point.
I agree with Kamahl, an increase in cmc would fix some issues people had. What I was thinking is that you keep everything that way it is and change it to copy only the revealed creature's ability. So if you enchant a 1/1, and revealed darksteel col, you have a 1/1 trampler with indestructiblity [insert smiley face here]. If you are considering this, might as well give enchanted creature +1/+1 or something.




@Cashew: - I think this card would be great costing around :3mana::u::u: or :4mana::u::u:. Think Gigantiform.

I love how I submit a card, no one cares....Cashew discusses a card that shows why mine could be a problem, and it's critiqued and talked seriously upon. Encluding by me. :( I'm :g: with envy....

[Lymons]

George, cheer up! It's just because Cashew's card is more messed up than yours. I did mention how much I love your card, the awesomeness factor is just slightly below super awesome. My previous comments were: make it a legendary creature or make the effect last at end of turn/start of next turn or reveal the card from library (instead of sideboard) and exile it.
I don't get the Worldgorger Dragon, CIP effect shouldn't trigger right?

[CoglineErro]

George, you gotta let us know you have one up. I saw Cashews because it was a new post when he posted it. Yours was an old reserved edited post. Let me know you have one up and I'll comment on it.

[George G]

No I'm not upset, I meant it all to sound lighthearted, Cashew was trying to help me, I was just poking fun.

Now onto my next project: Translating the fear of strangers putting needles in your candy into a magic card....




I don't get the Worldgorger Dragon, CIP effect shouldn't trigger right?

Yeah, your right....I don't know then

Maybe he means if you mindslaver your opponent that has phage the untouchable in his sideboard and then donate the enchantment while choosing to get the phage, they will lose the game from not playing it from there hand....wait, no thats a cip ability too....I give up.

[Lymons]

Umn... Ok, thanks, I guess.

Sorry, wish I could be more helpful but I got nothing to say. It's an okay card, maybe you can give it more of an edge, like a razor in a chocolate bar. Which brings me to my other point . . .



Now onto my next project: Translating the fear of strangers putting needles in your candy into a magic card....


It's RAZOR in CHOCOLATE, needles in candies aren't in style anymore (or at least in where I live). I got that card name though: Trick in Treat.

[George G]

I got that card name though: Trick in Treat.

I'm gonna have to use that now you know...

[Kamahl's Disciple]

I love how I submit a card, no one cares....Cashew discusses a card that shows why mine could be a problem, and it's critiqued and talked seriously upon. Encluding by me. :( I'm :g: with envy....

If it makes you feel any better, I already commented on your card, though it seems you didn't notice that. Only one person has commented on my card so far you know, maybe you would take this chance to comment on other people's cards, at least then they will probably try and return the favor.

[Lymons]

TRICK IN TREAT
G-man, I already copyrighted Trick in Treat . . . You owe me 5 cents every time you even think about using it. Trust me, 5 cents adds up quickly.

GHOST JAR
So I thought about it and although this isn't much, here you go:
What Jake said: return to battelfield (why WotC?!) not play.
I prefer soul counters over charge counters because it adds to the theme and the girl's creepy.

Personally, I think that the sac ability should be a trigger one: Whenever a creature goes to graveyard, add a counter on ghost jar. Gives you more freedom and incentive to damnation the whole field. Wrath of god is always fun especially when opponent has tons of 1/1 tokens.

[Kamahl's Disciple]

GHOST JAR
So I thought about it and although this isn't much, here you go:
What Jake said: return to battelfield (why WotC?!) not play.

Thanks, I didn't notice that until you pointed it out, I will change that right away.


I prefer soul counters over charge counters because it adds to the theme and the girl's creepy. Personally, I think that the sac ability should be a trigger one: Whenever a creature goes to graveyard, add a counter on ghost jar. Gives you more freedom and incentive to damnation the whole field. Wrath of god is always fun especially when opponent has tons of 1/1 tokens.

Well, I thought about that, but I think a sac ability would be more useful then just waiting to build up charge counters. That way, you don't need two or more cards for this card to work, since it can build itself up. Plus, you can always sack your creatures in response to playing Wrath of God or Damnation.

As for charge counters over soul counters, that was done intentionally. I did that because I wanted to create synergy between already existing cards that helped artifacts build up charge counters, such as Coretapper and Energy Chamber. That way, the card will become more playable because of existing synergies. Otherwise, I would totally be using soul counters for flavor's sake.

[Lymons]

Kinghonkey's Rotten Luck - UUB over 2UB? I think it should be ten instead of twenty cards because luck will play more of a role that way. Consider this, twenty out of a sixty card deck is already one third, the odds of finding a good card is high. It's very good in Ichorid/Narcomoeba decks.
By the way, I really like your art on deviantart.com.

I figured out the quotes thing a few posts back but how do you do the link for a card name? When you type "Damnation", how do you make it clickable?

EDIT: Much thanks CoglineErro, Damnation!

[ThunderHog]

TH is gonna sit this month out and recoup... However, expect me back in action and jumping into the fray in November! :devil:

[CoglineErro]

I figured out the quotes thing a few posts back but how do you do the link for a card name? When you type "Damnation", how do you make it clickable?

Put [card*][/card*] around the cardname but with out the *.

[Cashew]

The real reason my and George's Cards don't work.


Much like discard spells/effects are done at sorcery speed almost every single time (there's only 1 or 2 cards that can do it instant speed without Orrey), "wish" spells have an unstated rule that the source of the wish should remove itself from the game so it can be recurred endlessly. There is a prime example of why Living Wish, et al exiles itself from the game and that example is ______________. Ha!

Since George G's and my card's wish source stays in play - it alloww for nearly infinite ways to break them. This is a major design no-no and the reason why neither is a great entry. Despite mine being Zur-rific.

[Lymons]

Cashew, given the proper limitations, it could work as a better Scion*of*the*Ur-Dragon. But yes, a permanent repeatable wish is bad, very bad. I wished for power but I don't have the cajones to use them.

[Cashew]

Yeah, I was playing "mentor" in my own fun way. It was originally a clone enchantment. Which in reality already exists in one form as Dance of Many - which makes it kinda bland. I do like the art though.

Attempting to properly word and convey my real entry in the mean time :)

[Le_Mirage]

Here's mine...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v111/Le_Mirage/Nightofallsaints2.jpg

...given time i'll check the wording. I'am not so sure about how it would the best way to word the revealing of an entire library.

[George G]

The real reason my and George's Cards don't work.


Much like discard spells/effects are done at sorcery speed almost every single time (there's only 1 or 2 cards that can do it instant speed without Orrey), "wish" spells have an unstated rule that the source of the wish should remove itself from the game so it can be recurred endlessly. There is a prime example of why Living Wish, et al exiles itself from the game and that example is ______________. Ha!

Since George G's and my card's wish source stays in play - it alloww for nearly infinite ways to break them. This is a major design no-no and the reason why neither is a great entry. Despite mine being Zur-rific.



That's why I made costume changer "exile" the card, it says reveal it, then exile it. Since you can only use cards from your sideboard, there is a max of 15 cards to choose from. and a total of 15, once you make it one and change, you cant go back unless you had a second copy.

Still not going to be my entry, but this is for arguements sake I guess. If I make it Akroma, and you try to swords it, I make it into "random shroud guy", I can't go back to akroma, plus we're talkin 3 to cast, 3 to make it akroma, 3 to make it inkwell....it's a lot of mana...

having said all that, yeah it's way to powerful. I'm submitting something else.

The real sin here would to have it been able to copy CIP abilities.....

[CoglineErro]

Just let us know when you update so we can comment on it George.

[George G]

If it makes you feel any better, I already commented on your card, though it seems you didn't notice that. Only one person has commented on my card so far you know, maybe you would take this chance to comment on other people's cards, at least then they will probably try and return the favor.

I'm sorry if I sounded like a jack&ss, I was trying to be humorous, making fun of a still on-going conversation on two made-up cards that niether cashew or I plan to submit. I did not mean to offend anyone. Thank you for commenting on my card, I DID notice, and I replied to you yesterday(page 2 of discussion).

As for your card, Ghost Jar kinda scares me. It makes your solo one drop creatures pretty unkillable, If I have a disciple of the vault that is targeted by anything, I sac it in response and tap the jar to bring it back at instant speed. Or now with all the one mana 2/2's you can use this to attack without consequence because whatever is blocked you can sac and bring back untapped to block with on their turn. The card is costed at 3 which I guess is high enough so maybe it is fine. The other thing is a flavor issue for me, how does sacrificing "ghosts" or "souls" bring back something from the dead? The card is definitly intresting enough to draw up lots of discussions.


Just let us know when you update so we can comment on it George.

LOL. Ok Thanks. So I don't get in trouble with comments like this again, whats the best way to show sarcasm? I like that emoticon with the eyes that go side to side, how do I do it?

N/M found it! :paranoid: and on a related note I would like to inform everyone that it is Peanut Butter Jelly Time... :banana:

[Lymons]

So I don't get in trouble with comments like this again, whats the best way to show sarcasm?

The best thing to do is pretend everyone is stupid and state something to the effect of "Hey stupid, I'm being sarcastic." Or at least footnote this. Electronic words does not translate the human essence well.
Good job with the Ghost Jar by the way.

Night of All Saints - Cool set symbol. The keyword nightscape is not necessary at all, play only at your turn would be similar. The effect is more of a blue thing than white, perhaps make them hybrid with black for the "night" part. You should really limit it in some way like search for only X number of creatures.

xaer0knight - Sorry, my browser won't load your card.

[CoglineErro]

@ Ghost of a Shadow: Don't forget to credit your artist.

[xaer0knight]

@ Ghost of a Shadow: that's a pretty nifty card. i think that it is pretty balanced...

[Kamahl's Disciple]

As for your card, Ghost Jar kinda scares me. It makes your solo one drop creatures pretty unkillable, If I have a disciple of the vault that is targeted by anything, I sac it in response and tap the jar to bring it back at instant speed. Or now with all the one mana 2/2's you can use this to attack without consequence because whatever is blocked you can sac and bring back untapped to block with on their turn. The card is costed at 3 which I guess is high enough so maybe it is fine.

It's powerful as an uncommon in certain circumstances, sort of how Aether Vial is, only its a bit more restrictive and conditional then that card. It has it's own tricks that make it deceptively powerful, but at the same time, reasonable, since it needs resources to pull it off. That, and it costs :2mana::b:.


The other thing is a flavor issue for me, how does sacrificing "ghosts" or "souls" bring back something from the dead? The card is definitly intresting enough to draw up lots of discussions.

It's more like sacrificing creatures and storing their souls in a jar, then using those souls to bring other things back to life. I couldn't really have it do something like that though, can you imagine? Sacrificing a Llanowar Elves to bring out a Terra Stomper? So for gameplay balance's sake, I had it set up where you would have to build up counters to bring out bigger creatures. Not as flavorful a taking a soul then putting it in a bigger body, but it's fair this way. ;)

[Le_Mirage]

Night of All Saints - Cool set symbol.


Thanks ^ ^



The keyword nightscape is not necessary at all, play only at your turn would be similar.


Yes. But even Flash or other mechanics, after all, would be not necessary for the same reason. Instead, since the rules, this time, allows the creation of a new mechanic, i create this one to enforce the flavor of the card. After all, it's a "Night", so it's only natural that it can be played only at the end of it's caster turn.



The effect is more of a blue thing than white, perhaps make them hybrid with black for the "night" part.


Really strictly to the color wheel, yes, it should be blue, but...

1) It's a symmetrical (all players) and global (all creatures) effect, and falls, therefore, in the "balance scope" of white.

2) On the Flavor side, it's surely white. We are talking about a religious festivity after all, and in this case the legendary creatures play the role of the "Saints".



You should really limit it in some way like search for only X number of creatures.


Really not. For a lot of good reasons:

1) All creatures is more a white effect. X creatures would make it more a selective (Bribery, Reshape) blue one.

2) All creatures makes the cards a bit more balanced: if you play multiple copy of a legendary creature, you will have to sac them after you play the Night. But if you play only one, chances are that your favorite legend will end up in your hand before you can play the card.

3) It's a mytic rare after all.

4) ...It's Night of ALL Saints :D

[Punkrockanarchymagic]

After lots of frustration with Photobucket, found a different imagehoster and got my card up. Comments welcome. I'd like some help combining the last two abilities into one if possible.

[xaer0knight]

xaer0knight - Sorry, my browser won't load your card.

can anyone see my card? i uploaded it to my Google Picasa account and i was using Firefox 3.5.3. all i can say to you Lymons, try clearing you cache and cookies to see what happens ;) if not, i can photobucket.

[JakeKessler]

Xaer, your card displays fine for me. Some comments:

- You want to word the first ability like Mephidross Vampire is worded. (You're also using the wrong version of there/their.)
- You want to cut the word "now" from the second ability, but otherwise it's worded correct. Be aware that you don't say "in addition to their other colors", so all creatures will be monoblack. I'm pretty sure this is what you meant, but if it isn't, fix it.
- You want to word the third ability "Vampire creatures get +2/+1." Imitate Dralnu's Crusade.
- Make sure you don't capitalize random words in the middles of sentences. Right now you're doing it with Black, Exile and Destroy.
- The card doesn't need it, strictly speaking, but think about making it a Tribal Enchantment - Vampire. It seems fitting.

Overall, this card seems really underpowered right now. It gives all creatures (not just yours) a power/toughness bonus, a color change and an extra creature type... that's it. Oh, and it casts Day of Judgment when it dies. It doesn't really seem powerful (or interesting) enough to warrant being a :3mana::b::b::b: extended-art rare.

[Le_Mirage]

After lots of frustration with Photobucket, found a different imagehoster and got my card up. Comments welcome. I'd like some help combining the last two abilities into one if possible.

It's wonderfully flavored :). Since the last two abilites have different target, i don't think there is any need or any way to combine them (maybe by joined them with an "and" but i don't know if it would be more readable), and the card is perfectly understandable anyway.

My only doubt is the art, as it's a little blurred . As the demonic cult is a common drawing theme, you may probably find better.

[Punkrockanarchymagic]

It's wonderfully flavored :). Since the last two abilites have different target, i don't think there is any need or any way to combine them (maybe by joined them with an "and" but i don't know if it would be more readable), and the card is perfectly understandable anyway.

My only doubt is the art, as it's a little blurred . As the demonic cult is a common drawing theme, you may probably find better.

Thanks. Combined the last two abilities with 'and', still seems readable enough, but tighter wording layout makes a big difference. Will look for other art, consider the current peice a placeholder until I find something with more horns and blood.

Your card seems to similar to mine in that it has great flavor, but lacking for appropriate art. Great mechanic... white+legendary creatures+from library+to battlefield=gg. I'd want it in a deck or two. Iffy on the EOT keyword tho. Could cause confusion for legendary creatures with haste and activated abilities. Just because we can use some spooky new keyword we make up this round doesn't mean we should if the card works great without it.

My suggestion for one-sentance wording= "Starting with you, each player reveals his or her library, puts all legendary creature cards revealed this way onto the battlefield, then shuffles his or her library."

[Le_Mirage]

Thanks. Combined the last two abilities with 'and', still seems readable enough, but tighter wording layout makes a big difference. Will look for other art, consider the current peice a placeholder until I find something with more horns and blood.

Your card seems to similar to mine in that it has great flavor, but lacking for appropriate art. Great mechanic... white+legendary creatures+from library+to battlefield=gg. I'd want it in a deck or two. Iffy on the EOT keyword tho. Could cause confusion for legendary creatures with haste and activated abilities. Just because we can use some spooky new keyword we make up this round doesn't mean we should if the card works great without it.

My suggestion for one-sentance wording= "Starting with you, each player reveals his or her library, puts all legendary creature cards revealed this way onto the battlefield, then shuffles his or her library."

The nightscape mechanic is actually a drawback. Since a deck that runs this card would be oblivously more prepared to spoil it than the opponent one (but not always, maybe...imagine the mirror :D), the card can be played only during the end step, so that the player will not be able to attack (by packing haste legends), and the opponent will have at least a turn to do something (maybe attack or defend with the legends he may have fetched from his library).

...of course, with possibly a lot of legends on the battlefield, chances are that there will be a way to win on the same turn even without attack, but at least it will not be straightforward as that.

As for abilites and end turn effects, the rules are not somewhat obscure without reading them , but here they are:

End Step

# 513.3 - If a permanent with an ability that triggers "at the beginning of the end step" enters the battlefield during this step, that ability won't go on the stack until the next turn's end step. Likewise, if a delayed triggered ability that triggers "at the beginning of the next end step" is created during this step, that ability won't go on the stack until the next turn's end step. In other words, the step doesn't "back up" so those abilities can go on the stack. This rule applies only to triggered abilities; it doesn't apply to continuous effects whose durations say "until end of turn" or "this turn."

and...

Cleanup Step

# 514.2 - Second, the following actions happen simultaneously: all damage marked on permanents (including phased-out permanents) is removed and all "until end of turn" and "this turn" effects end. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack.

...so, any ability triggered by the beginning of the end step will not go into the stack, while any activated ability that last until the end of turn (including, of course, the ones of haste creatures) will function as usual until the cleanup step.

As for the art, i will try to find something else, but similar, as i really like the old-medieval-festivity flavor of this one (...but the Maypole, now that i think about it, sure has not much to do with Halloween :D). Oh, and thanks for the alternate wording :).

[xaer0knight]

Xaer, your card displays fine for me. Some comments:

- You want to word the first ability like Mephidross Vampire is worded. (You're also using the wrong version of there/their.)
- You want to cut the word "now" from the second ability, but otherwise it's worded correct. Be aware that you don't say "in addition to their other colors", so all creatures will be monoblack. I'm pretty sure this is what you meant, but if it isn't, fix it.
- You want to word the third ability "Vampire creatures get +2/+1." Imitate Dralnu's Crusade.
- Make sure you don't capitalize random words in the middles of sentences. Right now you're doing it with Black, Exile and Destroy.
- The card doesn't need it, strictly speaking, but think about making it a Tribal Enchantment - Vampire. It seems fitting.

Overall, this card seems really underpowered right now. It gives all creatures (not just yours) a power/toughness bonus, a color change and an extra creature type... that's it. Oh, and it casts Day of Judgment when it dies. It doesn't really seem powerful (or interesting) enough to warrant being a :3mana::b::b::b: extended-art rare.

thanks for the suggestions. i did a total rework of the card .. edited card name, text, flavored text, and casting cost. of course fixed the text errors :)

Poenari Castle - In the 15th century, realizing the potential for a castle perched high on a steep precipice of rock, Vlad III the Impaler repaired and consolidated the structure, making it one of his main fortresses. Located in Romania

Direct Link below

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/dC1-V66jIYg6k2Lbr8Jqvg?feat=directlink

[George G]

http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq160/Ggarnermtg/PoisonedApple.jpg

I wrote about my frustrations in my submission page.....

I want the idea to work, but it's just not gonna work like this

[Lymons]

I've condensed the texts, can someone please rate mine?
George G:
Distribute three +1/+1 counters among any number of target creatures. [One of] those creatures get[s] -3/-3 until end of turn.

xaer0knight:
Each creature you control is a black Vampire in addition to their other colors and types and gains +2/+1.

When Poenari Castle leaves play, exile it and destroy all creatures.

Luthervamplord:
Bump up the channel cost, if you're the only player running black, it's almost an instant Plague Wind.

[EDITS in bracket]

[CoglineErro]

@George G: You could make it GR and make it damage instead of -X/-X. You could make it monogreen and tap one of the creatures. That's about the best I got for ya.

[xaer0knight]

I've condensed the texts.

xaer0knight:
Each creature you control is a black Vampire in addition to their other colors and types and gains +2/+1.

When Poenari Castle leaves play, exile it and destroy all creatures.



thanks for the help makes a better text box :)

Direct Link (http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/mFIHU1-M2rxRyNxh22aVoQ?feat=directlink)

[JakeKessler]

http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq160/Ggarnermtg/PoisonedApple.jpg

I wrote about my frustrations in my submission page.....

I want the idea to work, but it's just not gonna work like this

First: Word the first ability like Wurmskin Forger. Second: You can't use the phrase "target creature that received..." in the second ability, because at the time you play the spell, none of the creatures have received counters yet, and you can't play spells without a legal target.

Here's how I might word this card.

Distribute three +1/+1 counters among any number of target creatures. Choose one of those creatures. That creature gets -3/-3 until end of turn.

Be advised that under this wording, nobody knows which creature you're giving the poison to (or how you're distributing counters) until the spell resolves, because you don't declare which targets are which.

Here is another way.

Target creature gets -3/-3 until end of turn. Put a +1/+1 counter on that creature, then distribute two +1/+1 counters among that creature and any number of target creatures.

This way is uglier and inverts the effects for clarity, which may muddle the flavor. I don't personally like it, but it does force you to declare upon casting which target is getting the poison.

Finally, here's a simpler version of the card.

Poisoned Apple - :g::b:
Sorcery
Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature. That creature gets -3/-3 until end of turn.

This version forgoes the multitude of safe apples and only grants its namesake poisoned one. Functionally, this is probably a less good Disfigure.

Hope these help!

[thomasdm]

I've gotten a bunch of criticism on my card, so I think i'm gonna do a lot better next month XD. Oh well, I should have given Fearmonger more thought, the legendary part didn't work out like i wanted, and neither did the wording.

[MechanicalMind]

http://magicdeckvortex.com/vbforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2566&d=1254781869

dunno if the wording is correct, tho.

[Le_Mirage]

I've gotten a bunch of criticism on my card, so I think i'm gonna do a lot better next month XD. Oh well, I should have given Fearmonger more thought, the legendary part didn't work out like i wanted, and neither did the wording.

You are free to modify it, or to submit a new one until the end of the constest, if you want.

[George G]

@Jake: you are such an asset to this contest, thanks for all your ideas, I'm gonna try to make it mono green and use Coglineerro's idea about tapping the guy, i'll use the doesn't untap on opponents next untap phase deal too.

Thanks for the distribution wording, I was too lazy that night to research it and just wanted to through something up there.

BTW, Ghost walk is cool, nice combo potential without being insane, also independant on it's own though without having to building a deck around it. This isn't a criticism but just a thought, every time my art has looked like a "picture", I get complaints.....my arts still usually look like a picture anyway, but something to chew on.

[JakeKessler]

* @ MM: Wording seems correct to me. Really interesting card, and feels like something they'd print. Feels at home in the same set as the graveyardy stuff the rest of us are submitting... dunno about whether it's particularly Halloweeny though.

Oh, and check your capitalization in your flavor text.

* @ MTG59895: Toil is way undercosted. See Culling Sun. If you're going to make it hybrid (and therefore more easily castible) it needs to cost more, not less.

Trouble seems okay to me, although I'm not sure monored should get Smallpox.

"Toil and Trouble" seems Halloweeny enough to me, and the Trouble side seems aptly named. Not sure the Toil side lives up to its name though... the word toil means hard work, and I don't see how that gets you dead weenies.

Your borders need to be hybrid, not gold.

* @ George: You're too sweet. ^^ I don't really like the art for Ghost Walk, it's too "faux asian"-flying-kung-fu-guy-nonsense-y for my tastes. Hoping to find something more... well, more Halloweeny. And since that's the third time I've used the word Halloweeny in this one post, I'll end that here.

[p-chan]

Feeeeeeeeeedddddbaaaaaaaaaaaaack!!!!!!

@Jake: Hm ... Gravecycling is a very interesting mechanic, but restricting it to black ... maybe "that shares color with this card". It's very unusual that a mechanic like ~cycling is restricted to a single color. Also, the art looks too "photography" to me. But in any case, the design of the card is excelent.

@Alaster: "put up to 4 cards revealed this way into your hand" is the proper wording.

@George: Hm ... I'm not sure that wizards would print a card with "Three target creatures get -2/-2 until end of the turn" at only 1BG. Also, there are lots of wording issues with it, but keep trying, the idea is pretty good.

@Holy5: Your card is stronger than it seems, it should be uncommon at least. Also, if you could find a more nitid art it would be perfect.

@Evol: Why is it a creature? I think that an enchantment would be more accurate. Also, I would make it a Guildpact card: the expansion symbol, the waterprint, etc etc.

@Le_Mirage: I love the Nightscape mechanic, but not so much the card. Maybe "reveals the top X card of his or her library" ...

@PunkRock: Great card, but would make it simpler: "If you cntrol a Demon, Minions you control gain +2/+1." As simple as that.

And well, mine's up. My concerns are: should it be an R/G hybrid? and, is it Halloween-esque enought? It tries to represent the little spirits that stalk in the forest willing more to mischief wanderers than to do true evil. As in Halloween spirit world is closer to material world than any other day of the year, I think that it could fit.

What do you think?

As a side note, the flavour text is a tribute to one of Helloween's best songs: Halloween! (http://www.goear.com/listen/e6ea23f/halloween-halloween)

[JakeKessler]

@Jake: Hm ... Gravecycling is a very interesting mechanic, but restricting it to black ... maybe "that shares color with this card". It's very unusual that a mechanic like ~cycling is restricted to a single color. Also, the art looks too "photography" to me. But in any case, the design of the card is excellent.

I meant to imply that it was a card that shared a color, and that the reminder text would change based on the card... but I see now how that's confusing when all you see is one card. I'll most likely change it to "that shares a color with this card" for the next push.

Like I said above, I hate my art as much as everybody else.


Should it be an R/G hybrid? and, is it Halloween-esque enought? It tries to represent the little spirits that stalk in the forest willing more to mischief wanderers than to do true evil. As in Halloween spirit world is closer to material world than any other day of the year, I think that it could fit.

I like this card a lot. Should the tokens be green rather than colorless? Maybe. I think it's plenty Halloweeny, and if you go hybrid, wither is more green-black than green-red (although it was represented across all colors in-set). Personally, I'd leave it mono-green.

One last thing: I know we're used to saying into play, but now we say onto the battlefield. ^^

EDIT

Update:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v390/tomorrowjake/GhostWalk6.png

Not wild about this art either, but it's a step in the right direction. I think I'd like it better if Arthas was holding some kind of runeblade or something, or if the ghosts were larger and more humanoid. Right now it has less of an "I died and now my ghost is walking around" feel and more of an "I was out walking and almost stepped on some ghosts" feel.

Alternate idea I am mulling over:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v390/tomorrowjake/GiftedMischief2.png

I know, I know. This would have been a much better entry three months ago during Free Casting Fest. Too bad I didn't think of it then.

What is up with me only ever making black cards? Got to kick that habit.

[p-chan]

Hey Jake, thanks for the advices, I've followed them all XD.

As for the art of your cad, I think that if you flavour it like will'o'wisps, this could be accurate:

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/4324/dracanta.jpg (http://img25.imageshack.us/i/dracanta.jpg/)
The author is Dracanta, from Deviantart

And, for your new card, maybe the number of cards to draw for wheel of fortune-like effects are 3

[MTG59895]

@JakeKessler: Thank you for your feedback. While I am new at this, I should know better than to make toil that unfair. My idea for toil was that it is brutal work; all creatures slave away, and only the strongest survive. What about this:

Toil
WWBB
Sorcery
Put a -1/-1 counter on each creature. Then destroy each creature with power 2 or less. Those creatures can't be regenerated.

I figure that this is fair if Wrath of God, Damnation, and Day of Judgment can destroy all creatures and are easier to play. What did you have in mind for Toil? As for Trouble, I think this is a more reasonable cost:

Trouble:
BBB/R
Sorcery
Each player discards a card at random, sacrifices a creature at random, then sacrifices a land at random.

Thanks again!

[kingez36@hotmail.co.uk]

Hey guys, heads up


[U][SIZE="4"]

[B]**NEVERMIND RULE #6**
6) Do not create a new keyword.
Use existing keywords, be careful when using block based ones such as Affinity, Splice, and Radiance. In the past, we've allowed some leniency with things such as Protection from X or Xcycling. Don't stretch it too far though.

[Luthervamplord]

Wonder if that screws with my Channel - It was a small-run mechanic in Kamigawa that I felt could have been a whole lot better.

Hmm - perhaps a new card design is needed; darn.

[Le_Mirage]

@Le_Mirage: I love the Nightscape mechanic, but not so much the card. Maybe "reveals the top X card of his or her library" ...
[/URL]

Yeeee ^ ^! As for the card...i'am trying to convince myself that it's not broken nor "impossible". Anyway, if i got some better idea for a non-black, possibly-white halloweenesque card, i'll give it a try...

Here's some feedback...

@JakeKessler: gravecycling really gives me some nightmares about the long gone (thank god) days of the Eternal Witness's empire...but apart from that, the card is ok and quite combolicious.

@GeorgeG: my idea, why don't add some randomness to the card effect? After all, we may not kwow who will get the poisoned apple...

@Kamahl's Disciple: maybe the most printable card. The art is pretty cool.

@xaer0knight: it's legend-style flavor is really good, but the fact that you may use it mainly as a sacrificable-day of judgement ruins it considerably.

@ChampionKitsune: Brilliant...but i don't think it should be a mystic rare. In some cases (when you have no creature or opponent has one), a normal creatures sweeper can still be more functional.

@MechanicalMind: good art and good idea for a reanimator hoser. Not too much Halloweenesque, though.

@p-chan: nice way of depict the flavor you had in mind. And conspire would be a very grimy mechanic :D

[xaer0knight]

@xaer0knight: it's legend-style flavor is really good, but the fact that you may use it mainly as a sacrificable-day of judgement ruins it considerably.


you know what happens when you kill a head vampire (well according to legends) all the vampires become humans. i would like an effect like destory all creatures, destory all vampires, all creatures get -3/-3, some type of effect thats affects all creatures (or just your creatures). this is my first card i have ever made and id agree with Day of Judgement comment. off to find some balance again.

thanks

[Luthervamplord]

you know what happens when you kill a head vampire (well according to legends) all the vampires become humans.

This is one common recurring theme and is best displayed in the Dracula family of stories but is not a given - I quote Underworld as my more popularly known example.

After all, Celine kills Victor (Her Sire) and remains a Vampyr.

Working around Vampire-lore is tricky because there potentially three trains of thoughts that covers these creatures - The most abstract one being the D20 World of Darkness method; where Werewolves and Vampires are simple the end product when an "outsider" or "alien" spirit co-inhabits a human body with the present soul.

Werewolves suffer a similar fate - Though we can safely say that the first "true" Werewolf legend comes from German, circa 1800's. The legend goes that a patient was admitted to an insane asylum complaining that the "beast within" clawed at his mind and lead him to evil, wicked thoughts.

Naturally he was locked in solitary confinement; away from the other patients and the public eyes. A few years after his admission however, the patient broke free of his cell and walked the halls in a blood lust; killing all he came upon.

Survivors stated that the man had acted as "man and beast as one" and described the man as "covered in fur, with razor sharp teeth and claws and emitting a howl to rival the wind". And so the Werewolf legend was born.

If I were to suggest a means to truly capture the essence of the Vampire; stick to the same fact that arises in all "Vampyrian" legends - They feed of "life force". I make this distinction because there are ancient legends (Back in the days of Romans and Greeks) of "Man like creatures which took the life from a man"; some of which are portrayed as drinking blood but not all.

[Kamahl's Disciple]

@p-chan: - I love your card, it's by far my favorite one that has been shown so far. My only gripe is that the flavor text seems to wedged in rather tightly. Usually, when a card has an ability like conspire, they don't have flavor text because of how little space there is and I feel you don't really need it to showcase the flavor of the card. Otherwise, I think it's perfect as it is.

[JakeKessler]

Thanks for the art p-chan!


@JakeKessler: Thank you for your feedback. While I am new at this, I should know better than to make toil that unfair. My idea for toil was that it is brutal work; all creatures slave away, and only the strongest survive. What about this:

Toil
WWBB
Sorcery
Put a -1/-1 counter on each creature. Then destroy each creature with power 2 or less. Those creatures can't be regenerated.

I figure that this is fair if Wrath of God, Damnation, and Day of Judgment can destroy all creatures and are easier to play. What did you have in mind for Toil? As for Trouble, I think this is a more reasonable cost:

Trouble:
BBB/R
Sorcery
Each player discards a card at random, sacrifices a creature at random, then sacrifices a land at random.

Thanks again!

The thing about only destroying some creatures is that it's more powerful than a straight-up Wrath of God, not less. This is because you can abuse it to only kill your opponents' creatures.

Toil as written above kills anything with power 3 or less, and puts a -1/-1 counter on everything else. That's pretty busted at less than 5 mana. Four colored mana symbols doesn't mitigate this, it just makes the card more frustrating for people who would want to cast it.

As for Trouble, it's generally accepted that combining monocolor and hybrid mana symbols - for example, :b::b::manabr: - is usually a bad idea.

[George G]

Decided to make first idea less insane...still feels overpowered a notch, might make morph cost :Xmana::u::u::u:, but I'm gonna sleep on it.

http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq160/Ggarnermtg/MaskedDjinn.jpg

@Jake, new art is better.

@AlasterEisaroh: should be comma between Temptation and pay. also art is a little risky, or risque...

@Cogline, seems undercosted, u could always tutor for a counter at the least.

@holy5: shouldn't be a common.

@evol, how does this apply to tokens? Can tokens haunt? I'm curious

@Ghost of a shadow, expansion symbol is still a square, may lose creative points for being a different phthisis

@champion, I agree with Jake, cant save one of your own when killing opponents, maybe just a higher cost would work.

@Luther, same thing, can't have a plaguewind for 5 mana

[Lymons]

Holy5 - Consider adding a tap symbol (it's a defender anyway) and change rarity.

ChampionKitsune - how about save the creature with the highest power or something to that effect, this way the effect can be one-sided and beneficial/detrimental.

GeorgeG - The guy doesn't look like a flyer, maybe give it shroud? You should do XUU for a morph cost and remove the last line where "if you don't, turn this creature face-down." This will allow it to unmorph and become a 3/4. Might also consider giving it a turn this card face down ability like the V. Shapeshifter.
Did you get my private message?

And someone give me feedback on my card please.

[Kamahl's Disciple]

@Lymons: - Too much text, don't put so much abilities in there. Try and slim it down a little and make it more concentrated on a single aspect.

[Lymons]

@Lymons: - Too much text, don't put so much abilities in there. Try and slim it down a little and make it more concentrated on a single aspect.

Thanks for being the first and only one commenting so far.
Revised one, keeping up with the infectious zombie theme: BBB: Ashen Form becomes a Spirit*Avatar with power and toughness each equal to the number of Zombies on the battlefield and intimidate until end of turn.

Equipped creature is a 3/1 black Zombie in addition to its other colors and types.

Whenever equipped creature deals damage to a creature, that creature becomes a Zombie in addition to its other types.

Equip 2

Text space is an issue but I rather have "as long as this is a creature, zombies can't block" instead of intimidate. What do you thing? Or should I take out the first ability entirely?

Death's Harpbringer - This card is fantastic. A bit of M10 rewording: "Search your library for a swamp and put it onto the battlefield tapped" and "Activate this ability only once each turn."
Wither over deathtouch? Otherwise good balance, especially without defense pump.

[Kamahl's Disciple]

Text space is an issue but I rather have "as long as this is a creature, zombies can't block" instead of intimidate. What do you thing? Or should I take out the first ability entirely?

I don't think you need to animate your equipment. That being said, as it stands, it is a bit underwhelming. If I were you, I would change the card text entirely. Ashen Form also sounds like an aura and the whole premise feels like an aura too. Lastly, Ashen Form doesn't sound very zombie-ish...

If this was my card, I change it to this: -

[New Card Name] - :5mana::b:
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature gets +1/+1 for each Zombie creature on the battlefield.
Whenever a non-Zombie creature an opponent controls is dealt damage and is put into a graveyard this turn by a Zombie creature you control, return that creature to the battlefield under your control. That creature is black and is a Zombie in addition to its other creature types.

Costly, but powerful, and it fits the theme well too.

... Of course, you can do whatever you want with your card, I am just making suggestions and giving advice. ;)

[JakeKessler]

Here is my entry
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i144/kinggidorah/TheBleakHouse.png

1. TOO. MUCH.
2. Capitalize creature types.
3. Periods at the end of sentences.
4. "Enters the battlefield," not "is placed on the battlefield."
5. The second ability is a triggered ability. It doesn't need a tap symbol.
6. This land doesn't actually tap for mana. In particular, it doesn't tap for black, so it shouldn't have the black border.
7. Artifact is a supertype, not a subtype. "Artifact Land", not "Land -- Artifact".
8. Speaking of which, why is this an artifact anyway?

To start.

[Lymons]

... Of course, you can do whatever you want with your card, I am just making suggestions and giving advice. ;)

Thanks, I know good advice when it's given. I'll rework the whole thing.

[Tekkactus]

ATTN: Everyone who has made a "DARK DEMON OF ULTIMATE ELDRITCH TERROR" black fatty.

Stop it. You'll lose.

[MTG59895]

Could someone please tell me how to make my entry larger than a thumbnail?

[JakeKessler]

[img*]url of your image hosted somewhere else[/img*]

Take out the *s.

[Kamahl's Disciple]

ATTN: Everyone who has made a "DARK DEMON OF ULTIMATE ELDRITCH TERROR" black fatty.

Stop it. You'll lose.

Both of those fatties were actually houses.

[p-chan]

@p-chan: - I love your card, it's by far my favorite one that has been shown so far. My only gripe is that the flavor text seems to wedged in rather tightly. Usually, when a card has an ability like conspire, they don't have flavor text because of how little space there is and I feel you don't really need it to showcase the flavor of the card. Otherwise, I think it's perfect as it is.
Thank you for the advice. I have a conflict there ... I love so much tat song ... but you are right, the text is too tight ... hell, I don't know what to de XP. As for your card, man, I'm looking and relooking at it upside down, but it looks perfect as it is. Maybe you could make it rare and change "Sacrifice a creature: put a charge counter on ~" for "Whenever a creature is put into a graveyar from the battlefield, put a soul counter on ~". Soul counters look more grim :D

@Lymons: The main issue of your card, from my point of view, is the flavour. I don't get how an "Ashen Form" (a name that cryes Aura out) can become a creature :p. But maybe it's just me.

@MechanialMind: I like your card a lot, but I think it should be uncommon at least

[Luthervamplord]

@Luther, same thing, can't have a plaguewind for 5 mana

I haven't - Plague Wind ignores your own creatures and doesn't care about colors; mine hits my creatures unless they are black. Plus, when you factor in a discard it seems more reasonable but I'm changing design anyway. The more I think about it, the more I recon Streetz will skip my card because of Channel.

[MTG59895]

I replaced my old post with "Mother of Tombs." As it stands:

Mother of Tombs
B
Creature - Human Cleric
T: Target creature you control gains persist until end of turn.
" My family preserves all families."

I'm considering changing or adding to the ability because I don't think it's as good as that of Mother of Runes. Some ideas I have are:

T: Target creature you control gains persist until end of turn. Remove a -1/-1 counter from it at the beginning of the next end step.

OR

T, Pay 2 life: Target creature you control gains protection from the color of your choice until end of turn.

@Cashew: You're missing the artist for Masquerade.
@evol_intentions: Your entry is very original, I like it. The image is a bit dim though.
@Kamahl's Disciple: I think that charge counters work just fine. Spawning Pit (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=26732) uses them when you sacrifice a creature to it, so why not Soul Jar?
@p-chan: Great card overall.

[Tekkactus]

when you factor in a discard it seems more reasonable

You play Plague Wind. Effect resolves and PW is put into the graveyard.
You Channel a creature. Creature is put into the graveyard and the effect resolves.

Your "discard" doesn't lose you any more cards than any nonpermanent spell does.

[Luthervamplord]

Changed design anyhow - Dcided to go "Double-edge sword".

[MechanicalMind]

Black-ified + Uncommon-ized

http://magicdeckvortex.com/vbforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2593&stc=1&d=1254925308 http://magicdeckvortex.com/vbforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2595&stc=1&d=1254925643

[Kamahl's Disciple]

Thank you for the advice. I have a conflict there ... I love so much tat song ... but you are right, the text is too tight ... hell, I don't know what to de XP.

Well, you have plenty of time before the contest ends, so I am sure you will make the right decision by then. :)


As for your card, man, I'm looking and relooking at it upside down, but it looks perfect as it is. Maybe you could make it rare and change "Sacrifice a creature: put a charge counter on ~" for "Whenever a creature is put into a graveyar from the battlefield, put a soul counter on ~". Soul counters look more grim :D

As a rare, it would be rather underwhelming, but I have thought about putting soul counters on it rather then charge counters, for flavor's sake. The thing is, I feel like if it had charge counters, it would be more playable and abusable, and like MTG59895 said, an artifact like this doesn't necessarily need its own kind of counters to get its flavor across, much like Spawning Pit.

Thanks for reviewing my card though, it's much appreciated. I hope you make it in the top picks.

[JakeKessler]

I haven't - Plague Wind ignores your own creatures and doesn't care about colors; mine hits my creatures unless they are black. Plus, when you factor in a discard it seems more reasonable but I'm changing design anyway. The more I think about it, the more I recon Streetz will skip my card because of Channel.

I feel like we just had this conversation with "Toil and Trouble" versus Culling Sun.

Any "half-Wrath of God" that kills some creatures and not others is inherently breakable, because it's presumed that you will run it with such cards that your creatures will survive. "Destroy all nonblack creatures" is something really easy to build around, just don't run any nonblack creatures. It needs to be extremely expensive.

Consider that Mass Calcify essentially does the same thing in white for :5mana::w::w:, and that white is typically slightly better at this than black. Hellfire costs :2mana::b::b::b: and makes you pay a lot of life. Reiver Demon costs :4mana::b::b::b::b: and stipulates that you have to hard-cast it to get the effect. I'd but the fair cost of "Destroy all nonblack creatures" on a fully counterable sorcery with no other drawbacks at around :5mana::b::b: to :5mana::b::b::b:. As a Channel ability that can't be countered because it's not a spell? :7mana::b::b: to :7mana::b::b::b:.

EDIT

While I'm here, some other brief comments:

@MTG59895: This is perfect. Don't change a thing. Don't worry that it's not as broken as Mother of Runes; "Mom" is one of the most memorably overpowered cards out there, and white is better than black at protecting weenies anyway.
@Cashew: You want the last sentence to be its own paragraph, and you want it to say "Enchanted creature is a copy of the revealed card."
@Kamahl's Disciple: I'd add a :tap: to the cost of the first ability, to prevent shenanigans with sacrificing something and reanimating it the same turn. In particular, this stops you from going infinite with Ornithopter or the like.
@xaer0knight: Much better in my opinion. Some cosmetic issues: First ability should read "... in addition to its other colors and creature types and gets +2/+1." Also in the second ability you want to say "leaves the battlefield" rather than "leaves play".
@Ghost of a shadow: I suspect this card is undercosted. Compare it to similar cards over the years like Phthisis and Sever Soul, bear in mind that your card both makes the opponent lose life and makes you gain life, and that yours kills a creature of any color, not just nonblack. Personally I'd cost your card at at least :5mana::b::b: since it kills almost anything and has a potentially huge life swing.
@ChampionKitsune: Check out the above discussion on one-sided mass removal spells. This needs to cost a lot, lot more.

[Lymons]

Trick or Treat - I like the R and G split except Trick shouldn't be a Shock. Perhaps a -1/-1 counter like Scar? I know it was done for fun.

Mother of Tombs - I like that this is the white counterpart, just for fun, why not make it a Father of Tombs?

I redid my card, please comment. I 'm hoping for suggestions on the cmc.

Premise: Bill Murray realized that zombies don't attack their own. This is true for ghosts, werewolves, etc . . . In ancient times, druids did the same on Hallow's Eve, they pretend to be their supernatural foes.

Text Version:

Weylin, Essence Weaver WWUU
legend - human druid 0/6

Blood Ties (This creature has protection from creatures that share a creature type with it.)

[W/U][W/U], Put a +1/-1 counter on Weylin, Essence Weaver: Weylin, Essence Weaver’s type becomes the creature type of your choice.

[MTG59895]

I am considering making Mother of Tombs a 1/2 so that it can persist once, but I can't find a single Planar Chaos alternate-color creature with a different power or toughness from its original ones (Mother of Runes being a 1/1). They have different color costs, abilities, creature types, but nothing else. Maybe I'm hesitant because I'm not thinking outside the box.

@JakeKessler: I just want to say thanks for all your help. I feel that Ghost Walk could be made into an actual card, and that's the sort of thing one wants for this kind of contest. Nice art, too.

[JakeKessler]

Thanks, MTG. I'd leave it as is and keep the PC border, but that's just me. It would even work at 0/2; not like anyone ever attacked with "Mom".

Lymons - I'm guessing you meant -1/-1 counter. Putting +1/+1 counters on something as part of cost lets me just do it over and over again. Even if I have to pay mana as well, the counters become more important than the effect.

[Lymons]

Jake, you've read it wrong, I wrote +1/-1 counter.

MTG59895 - You could bump up the cost BB, and make it a 2/2.

[Kamahl's Disciple]

@Kamahl's Disciple: I'd add a :tap: to the cost of the first ability, to prevent shenanigans with sacrificing something and reanimating it the same turn. In particular, this stops you from going infinite with Ornithopter or the like.

Actually, it doesn't, because it has a :tap: cost on its second ability. Even if you would sacrifice something like an Ornithopter and bring it back with its second ability, you would still need a way to untap it in order to start gaining infinite charge counters, and that would require more then two cards.

I'll admit though, in combat, chump blocking with a weenie, then bringing it back the same turn can be rather annoying, but not game changing. Plus, it can only do it for one creature at a time, unless you have something that would untap artifacts indefinitely, like I previously stated.

[Le_Mirage]

@ChampionKitsune: Check out the above discussion on one-sided mass removal spells. This needs to cost a lot, lot more.

Maybe just one more black, but even this way i'am not sure it will cut the mustard really better than Damnation or the like. That is, i feel that this card can be played around with ease, expecially if the opponent plays creature kills too, and can therefore mess with you tries to keep just one creature in play while kill all the others.



Weylin, Essence Weaver WWUU
legend - human druid 0/6

Blood Ties (This creature has protection from creatures that share a creature type with it.)

[W/U][W/U], Put a +1/-1 counter on Weylin, Essence Weaver: Weylin, Essence Weaver’s type becomes the creature type of your choice.

...that's actually pretty good, and perfectly in style with the "slow" motive of UB. I fell that the mana cost can placidly be WWU, or even 1WU. After all, even without the protection, a 0/6 would probably survive to a lot of creatures, and the time needed to make it stronger and more dangerous would probably be more balanced with a cost of 3.

@MechanicalMind: ...you know what? By making a black version of your card, you are probably on the good way to an hybrid single one. I can't really say what color, between white or black, would be the better for a reanimator hoser, considering that both use to mess around reanimation and graveyards. On a mechanic side, Black use to reanimate and de-reanimate more than white, but, on the other hand, the flavor side of white is surely stronger, for a card that put the dead immediatly into their sleep again.
...white is probably better, but an hybrid would be an interesting try.

[xaer0knight]

I
@xaer0knight: Much better in my opinion. Some cosmetic issues: First ability should read "... in addition to its other colors and creature types and gets +2/+1." Also in the second ability you want to say "leaves the battlefield" rather than "leaves play".


some great cards entered thus far. i've learned a lot :) i edited my card:

Direct Link (http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/rYMkjugHjwNeDJXjCj-4qQ?feat=directlink)

glad i entered in this contest.
let me know what you think. i know that to play black comes with draw backs. so i tried to incorporated low casting cost with a draw back :)

many blessings

[JakeKessler]

Xaer: Still need to fix the first ability. Should read: "... in addition to its other colors and creature types and gets +2/+1."

[Lymons]

Purifying Light - "Exile target creature that entered the battlefield from a graveyard this turn." I think this is the correct wording, and I like the white one better.

Le_Mirage - Okay, I'll change it to WWU.

Xaer0knight - I know the double and's aren't nice but that's how the Wizards roll. "Each creature you control is a black Vampire in addition to its other colors and types and gets +2/+1." You could also do two lines instead, with the second as "each vampire you control gets +2/+1", this happened with the M10 Whispersilk Cloak. It used to be a single line of text.

The drawback isn't dangerous enough. For three mana, all your creatures are at least 2/1, probably stronger with other tribal cards. It's like a Conspiracy with Glorious Anthem! How about each time your Vampire attack/leaves play, you lose X life?

I like the flavor text but people might not connect the castle with Romanian Dracula so it'll be jarring. I suggest you change the name to "Cetatea Lui Negru Vodă" or "Citadel of the Black Prince."
Here's the wikinfo (yes, I made up a new word by combining two fake words):
"Bram Stoker's book says that Romanians knew Dracula's castle as "Cetatea Lui Negru Vodă" or Citadel of the Black Prince, although this fictional version of the castle was situated some 200 kilometers to the north. This castle, like most other elements of the book, has little in common with its historical counterpart."

[MTG59895]

Is it enough to put the username of a given artist on a card, or does one have to name the site as well, or provide the URL?

[CoglineErro]

Just the name of the artist is needed.

[Le_Mirage]

@xaer0knight: maybe "When the castle leaves the battlefield destroy all cratures you control. They can't be regenerated" would be a better drawback, and more in line with the flavor (no castle, no vampires). Still, the card would probably be a little too good anyway.

@Sucros: i don't think there's really something to fix in this card. Taliored into a flipped card, the flavor of the returning haunt is sure something.

@Artifactor: ...the idea of this card is that the demise of the creature is so creepy that anyone you may witness it (even if he is not the controller of the dead creature, but another player) loses life for desperation? That's fun :).

[xaer0knight]

Xaer0knight - I know the double and's aren't nice but that's how the Wizards roll. "Each creature you control is a black Vampire in addition to its other colors and types and gets +2/+1." You could also do two lines instead, with the second as "each vampire you control gets +2/+1", this happened with the M10 Whispersilk Cloak. It used to be a single line of text.

The drawback isn't dangerous enough. For three mana, all your creatures are at least 2/1, probably stronger with other tribal cards. It's like a Conspiracy with Glorious Anthem! How about each time your Vampire attack/leaves play, you lose X life?

I like the flavor text but people might not connect the castle with Romanian Dracula so it'll be jarring. I suggest you change the name to "Cetatea Lui Negru Vodă" or "Citadel of the Black Prince."
Here's the wikinfo (yes, I made up a new word by combining two fake words):
"Bram Stoker's book says that Romanians knew Dracula's castle as "Cetatea Lui Negru Vodă" or Citadel of the Black Prince, although this fictional version of the castle was situated some 200 kilometers to the north. This castle, like most other elements of the book, has little in common with its historical counterpart."

thanks for the input. well, using two "and" in a sentence is a run on sentence. as for that, i think WotC needs some grammar lessons :p I'm actually trying to base this card on the real legends of Vlad (and just a spritz of Bram Stroker). As far as the Castle and Vlad Tepes is concerned:

1- Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia, more commonly known as Vlad the Impaler (in Romanian Vlad Ţepeş pronounced [ˈvlad ˈt͡sepeʃ]), or simply Dracula (c.1431 – December, 1476)

2- His Romanian surname "Dracula" means "Son of devil" or "Son of the dragon" ("son of dracul") and is derived from his father's title, Vlad the Dragon (see Vlad II Dracul); the latter was a member of the Order of the Dragon, created in Serbia prior to the battle of Kosovo (1389), and re-instituted by Emperor Sigismund in 1408. The word "Dracul" means "the Devil" in modern Romanian but in Vlad's day also meant "dragon" and derives from the Latin word "Draco", also meaning "dragon".

3- It was erected around the beginning of the 13th century by the first Romanian rulers in the South region of Romania, known as Wallachia. Around the 14th century, Poenari was the main citadel of the Basarab rulers. In the next few decades, the name and the residents changed a few times but eventually the castle was abandoned and left in ruins.

However, in the 15th century, realizing the potential for a castle perched high on a steep precipice of rock, Vlad III the Impaler repaired and consolidated the structure, making it one of his main fortresses.

Although the castle was used for many years after Vlad's death in 1476, it eventually was abandoned again in the first half of the 16th century and was in ruins by the 17th century.

4- His first wife, whose name is not recorded, died during the siege of his castle in 1462. The Turkish army surrounded Poienari Castle, led by Radu. An archer having seen the shadow of Vlad's wife behind a window, shot an arrow through the window into Vlad's main quarters, with a message warning him that Radu's army was approaching. McNally and Florescu explain that the archer was one of Vlad's former servants who sent the warning out of loyalty, despite having converted to Islam to escape enslavement by the Turks. Upon reading the message, Vlad's wife threw herself from the tower into a tributary of the Argeş River flowing below the castle. According to legend, she remarked that she "would rather have her body rot and be eaten by the fish of the Argeş than be led into captivity by the Turks". Today, the tributary is called Râul Doamnei (the "Lady's River", also called the Princess's River).

Also IMHO, Vlad III would be a vampire or at least something very dark for a creature type. Everyone, associated Vlad with Vampires or the Undead. I think the 30,000+ impaled and then his wife's death would push him to denounce his faith. I think the only thing that needs to be worked with this card is the "leaves the battle field" ability (remove and replace it with something else) and the flavored text.

My room mate, Lora, thinks something like "At the beginning of your upkeep, sacrifice a creature. If you can't, exile Poenari Castle." would be better than a "leaves the battleground" ability.

[MTG59895]

@Artifactor: Nice artwork for your card, and it's balanced too. You might consider giving it protection from black, for flavor's sake. Also, is it a "him," as you refer to it in the flavor text, or is it an "it?" Lastly, is it many shadows, as in its name, or one shadow, as in the flavor text? Sorry if I'm nitpicking.

[kingez36@hotmail.co.uk]

Many Villagers left in search of the beast, Yet no survivors could report a sighting.

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u156/kingez36/HuntedPredator.jpg

Edit* He should have trample

Critisism much appreciated on either of my suggestions.

[Artifactor]

@Artifactor: Nice artwork for your card, and it's balanced too. You might consider giving it protection from black, for flavor's sake. Also, is it a "him," as you refer to it in the flavor text, or is it an "it?" Lastly, is it many shadows, as in its name, or one shadow, as in the flavor text? Sorry if I'm nitpicking.

thanks i fixed the card

[MTG59895]

@kingez36@hotmail.co.uk:

I like your idea, and the art fits perfectly, what with two humans fighting the beast and two ready to enter the battlefield the next turn. The card might be a bit underpowered only because each opponent gets two tokens every turn. It might make things more unfair for you in multiplayer. You might consider: When Hunted Predator enters the battlefield, choose an opponent. At the beginning of that opponent's upkeep, that player puts two 2/2 white Human creature tokens onto the battlefield with "This creature attacks each turn if able." Up to you.

The only real change I would make is in some of the grammar. For example, "2 2/2" and "2 +1/+1" should be changed to "two 2/2" and "two +1/+1." Also, if you keep "opponents," add an apostrophe at the end of the word. Lastly, when you say: with 'this creature attacks each turn if able,' capitalize the T in "this," and change the apostrophes to quotation marks.

Otherwise, great art, stats, and flavor text. Add trample, like you meant to. I am assuming that the flavor text means that the beast "divides and conquers" its hunters.

[JakeKessler]

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u156/kingez36/HuntedPredator.jpg

Change the 2s to twos. See Duskwalker, Grizzly Fate and many similar cards.


thanks for the input. well, using two "and" in a sentence is a run on sentence. as for that, i think WotC needs some grammar lessons

English graduate lesson time!

"Each creature becomes a black Vampire in addition to its other colors and creature types and gets +2/+1" is completely correct both in Magic syntax and within English grammar. This is because "becomes a black Vampire in addition to its other colors and creature types" is one thing the creature is doing and "gets +2/+1" is a separate thing the creature is doing. This is called a compound sentence, not a run-on sentence.

A similar sentence can be seen on Daring Leap.

Connecting them in a list like you originally had it--i.e., " ... in addition to its other colors, creature types and gets +2/+1"--is incorrect because "gets +2/+1" isn't some noun quality the creature already had. You can't say "in addition to its other gets +2/+1," so you can't string that together with the others in a list. A list would be appropriate if there was some third trait you were giving the creatures, for example: "Each creature becomes black, an artifact and a Vampire in addition to its other colors, types and creature types." Power and toughness isn't a trait, though, so it has to come separate. The key here is to match the traits you're giving with the "in addition" traits the creature already had. You don't put a comma in the middle of "black Vampire", so you don't put a comma in the middle of "colors and creature types".

This diagram might explain it better.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v390/tomorrowjake/vampires2.jpg

If all of this confuses you, go ahead and make a second ability for the power and toughness clause. This would also be correct:

Each creature becomes a black Vampire in addition to its other colors and creature types.
Each creature gets +2/+1.

[MTG59895]

@@kingez36@hotmail.co.uk:

As for your other card, the one that you posted, it might not work too well as it is. While Blade of the Bloodchief (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=193397) may combo well with this card, few other cards do. There are twelve vampires that get +1/+1 counters, and their converted mana cost is between about 5 and 7. I personally think that's high. You would have to play them before you played your enchantment since they are the ones with the counters. You may consider this: "Put a -1/-1 counter on a vampire you control: the next spell you cast costs B less to play." Even still, if the board gets wiped with Wrath of God, Damnation, Day of Judgement, etc., and you have no more vampires, you will be stuck. Consider an extra ability on the card: "0: Destroy Blood Magic. You skip your next turn."
I hope this helps.

[kingez36@hotmail.co.uk]

Thanks for the feedback guys, grammer was never my strong point and for the record blood magic was designed before m10 and the whoring of vampires when more than half had the 'vampire' ability of: 'Whenever a creature dealt damage by cardname this turn is put into a graveyard, put a +1/+1 counter on cardname.'

However at the moment these are just reservations, my real entry is alot more vanier

[MTG59895]

Hello all. I am considering replacing my post yet again. Now, I realize that my current post is good as it is, and I have no intention of discarding it. I simply want to see what people think about the following card, and if it is worth using instead. It is also planeshifted:

[JakeKessler]

It's worded great. I'm not sure an alternate version of Swans is any more interesting or original than the actual Swans. Bear in mind, planeshifting real cards into alternate colors is not usually a good way to win this contest. This is because simply color-shifting something doesn't usually get you much in the way of originality points... especially if the card you're basing yours on was pretty unique itself.

I think the "black Mom" is a novel enough idea to succeed. But I seem to recall somebody getting chewed out months back for doing a red-shifted Eladamri's Vineyard. Just food for thought.

EDIT

Aside @ Cashew: When is this thread (http://magicdeckvortex.com/vbforums/showthread.php?t=17782) going to get updated?

[MTG59895]

Ok, I've decided to make something more original. I need to think outside the box. How about this:

[JakeKessler]

Intesting take, equipment as a debuff. I think you can pretty much get rid of the equip ability, since you have a sorcery-speed attachment effect anyway.

[Artifactor]

Intesting take, equipment as a debuff. I think you can pretty much get rid of the equip ability, since you have a sorcery-speed attachment effect anyway.

i think he added that ability because equip only allows you to equip to one of your own creatures

[JakeKessler]

i think he added that ability because equip only allows you to equip to one of your own creatures

Yea, but the ability singularly obsoletes equip. He could take the equip option off entirely.

[Kamahl's Disciple]

Yea, but the ability singularly obsoletes equip. He could take the equip option off entirely.

Not necessarily, Jake, I mean, the attach ability costs :b:, while the equip cost is colorless. If you were running this in more then one color and you want to put -1/-1 counters on your creatures for some shenanigans, it would be more cost efficient to have an alternate cost that didn't cost colored mana.

Minor, yes, but still, it can come in handy.

[Le_Mirage]

Hello all. I am considering replacing my post yet again. Now, I realize that my current post is good as it is, and I have no intention of discarding it. I simply want to see what people think about the following card, and if it is worth using instead. It is also planeshifted:


It's interesting as it's weird, but it's main point is that it's an invulnerable power 4 flyer for 4 mana. In a black deck, it's perfectly likely that an opponent would be nearly never be able to block it, making it's secondary ability almost unimportant.

The fact that the removing/playing ability can be spoiled even by it's controller (thourgh red mass damage or plague effects, for example) makes it even more overpowered.

[MTG59895]

@Le_Mirage: Even though I have filed away that idea, thank you for the feedback. It allows me to learn from my mistakes. Please see the two posts which I am currently considering.
@JakeKessler: I was thinking essentially what Kamahl's Disciple said. I want the option to be there, and even though it seems redundant, I think that it makes more sense that my creatures have slightly easier access to a card I control.

[Le_Mirage]

Ok, I've decided to make something more original. I need to think outside the box. How about this:

The haunted costume is ok (expecially great art...). Maybe, anyway, you may lower it's rarity to uncommon. Even if it's a reusable Torture with the possibility to put -1/-1 counters on your creature if needed, there are faster and more efficient ways to deal with creatures.

[kingez36@hotmail.co.uk]

Who,likes feedback:-

JK- '6) Do not create a new keyword.'

i think your gona get into trouble for Gravecycling as it stretches the original cycling ability to far.

Ai:- I dont think naked ladies fit magic to well.

Lymons:-'6) Do not create a new keyword.'

Le_mirage:- '6) Do not create a new keyword.'

Punkrock:- wow so one demon makes this an ultrasonic bitterblossom, Oni possession loves this.

Ghost of a shadow:- you will lose alot of points for that expansion symbol (actually this goes for alot of people)

ChampionKitsune:- art is a little bit to photographic (and ergh) and why a silver border

MechanicalMind:- doesnt really grab me as halloween-esq

Luthervamplord:- i loved your last card, why did you change it??

P-chan:- youve double spaced between 'with wither' which looks abit odd, plus i cant quite grasp the flavor you where going for.

Lokenta:-IMO go for the day of the saints

Kinggidorah:- blak house is a little OTT, plus people hate lands that dont produce mana.

Artifactor:- you really need to reword it, ive read it 3 times and i still dont get it. if a creature's destroyed by which creatures attack?? and the correct wording is along the lines of Whenever a creature dealt damage by Cardnamethis turn is put into a graveyard. I think, if thats what you mean.

Now im debating whether its to early to reveal my final entry, although as i do need help with the reminder text i think i might have to do it!

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u156/kingez36/AxidPossesserofMinds-1.jpg

PLus im not sure whether gain should replace you

[Le_Mirage]

Who,likes feedback:-

JK- '6) Do not create a new keyword.'

Lymons:-'6) Do not create a new keyword.'

Le_mirage:- '6) Do not create a new keyword.'



...but...




For this contest only -- I will allow custom made mechanics as long as they fit the Halloween theme. Be careful, because clunky mechanics will only deduct from your overall score.

[kingez36@hotmail.co.uk]

Spooky Spooky! Monthly Card Creation Contest.

**NEVERMIND RULE #6**
6) Do not create a new keyword.
Use existing keywords, be careful when using block based ones such as Affinity, Splice, and Radiance. In the past, we've allowed some leniency with things such as Protection from X or Xcycling. Don't stretch it too far though.

this rule has been revised

[George G]

See where it says in big, bold, italisized print **NEVERMIND RULE #6**? I'm guessing that means it doesn't apply this month. :D

[MTG59895]

@kingez36@hotmail.co.uk:

I know that Artifactor's wording is a bit off, but I think you went a bit far in your criticism. If you wish to offer criticism, use correct grammar, and also be aware that your own card is a bit off on grammar and wording. Here is the correct wording for your card:

Whenever Axid, Possesser Of Minds deals combat damage to a player, that player can't cast spells this turn. You may look at and play cards from that player's hand this turn.

See Sen Triplets (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=180607) and Xantid Swarm (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=43564) if you don't believe me. I don't think that it matters whether or not an opponent can still see their hand; chances are they will remember what's in it, and they will get it back the next turn anyway. Good luck with your card.

[MechanicalMind]

Made an Un- card...don't think that naming a card "Z-Day" would be serious.
http://magicdeckvortex.com/vbforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2601&d=1255108884

[Sucros]

@kingez36, thanks for pointing out the expansion symbol. I'm a card design newb and hadn't even noticed that on my card.

[xaer0knight]

woah.. haven't diagrammed a sentence in years. but that is correct :-P

anyway reworked:

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/7IA2RXGFYvU3ev5tuEqBjw?feat=directlink

[Lymons]

woah.. haven't diagrammed a sentence in years. but that is correct :-P

anyway reworked:

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/7IA2RXGFYvU3ev5tuEqBjw?feat=directlink

I've haven't seen a diagrammed sentence ever and I went into a mild fit. I like Jake's new avatar picture though.

xaer0knight - I think it works very well now, might want to change the symbol though.

Z-day - This could be an actual non-un card.

Lymons - FIND ART. RENDER CARD. NEED HELP.

[kingez36@hotmail.co.uk]

@kingez36@hotmail.co.uk:

I know that Artifactor's wording is a bit off, but I think you went a bit far in your criticism. If you wish to offer criticism, use correct grammar, and also be aware that your own card is a bit off on grammar and wording. Here is the correct wording for your card:

Whenever Axid, Possesser Of Minds deals combat damage to a player, that player can't cast spells this turn. You may look at and play cards from that player's hand this turn.

See Sen Triplets (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=180607) and Xantid Swarm (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=43564) if you don't believe me. I don't think that it matters whether or not an opponent can still see their hand; chances are they will remember what's in it, and they will get it back the next turn anyway. Good luck with your card.

im afraid thats not what my card does, its more a mibndslaver than a sens triplets

[MTG59895]

@kingez36@hotmail.co.uk

I see what you mean. My mistake. In that case, just put apostrophes in "players."

[MTG59895]

@Lymons:

Having trouble finding art? See if any of these work:

http://yue-iceseal.deviantart.com/art/Ice-Wizard-73185119

http://furyrage.deviantart.com/art/The-Wizard-20901569

http://panda89.deviantart.com/art/Sorcerer-17081781

http://orioto.deviantart.com/art/Young-Sorcerer-74078975

http://tgconceptart.deviantart.com/art/Ice-Druid-63050794

http://neo2055.deviantart.com/art/ice-druid-58319422

http://hyper3d.deviantart.com/art/Druid-83557861

[Lymons]

Thanks so much MTG59895! I'll ask for permission.

[MTG59895]

Here is an alteration of Haunted Costume, along with the old version. I would appreciate advice on which is better or more balanced. Also, I have yet another entry idea, Ghostly Stranger:

[Lymons]

Here is an alteration of Haunted Costume, along with the old version. I would appreciate advice on which is better or more balanced. Also, I have yet another entry idea, Ghostly Stranger:

For your eqipments, it's "Attach cardname to target creature you" unless you want it to be able to switch sides. You should also add another ability, although I like the Ghostly Stranger better. You could even make it 2 or 3 life gain since white is really generous.

[Le_Mirage]

Here is an alteration of Haunted Costume, along with the old version. I would appreciate advice on which is better or more balanced. Also, I have yet another entry idea, Ghostly Stranger:

I like the new costume more. Though it's not able to kill 3 toughness creatures, it can be used to buff your own. I think you may lower the attach cost to 1B.

The stranger is a nice card, even if it's kinda boresome. It's just going to go up and down giving tiny life to it's controller, and nothing much more than this.

[MTG59895]

I guess I'll try again. Thank you, Le_Mirage, for your suggestion to alter the costume. These are the candidates:

[GG Crono]

Well, I posted the first version of my entry. What's more Halloweeny than armies of dancing skeletons, after all? ;)

So, any thoughts?

[CoglineErro]

@ Z-day: It would be more realistic to say "Each player exiles all creature cards from their graveyard and puts a 2/2 black zombie token onto the battlefield for each card exiled this way." sort of thing.

[MTG59895]

@hollowmirror: Great art, I recommend that the Wraith tokens be black. I like the concept overall. Here are some grammar tips: You need to capitalize "wraith" in "wraith token." You need a comma after "upkeep." You need to capitalize "loneliness" in the text. You need to write "Wraith creature token" instead of just "Wraith token." Lastly, you need to write "have swampwalk" rather than just "swampwalk."

@GG Crono: I love the concept. You might consider giving Gravedancer Intimidate or Fear, so he is less likely to die. He costs enough to justify adding one of those.

[MechanicalMind]

@ Z-day: It would be more realistic to say "Each player exiles all creature cards from their graveyard and puts a 2/2 black zombie token onto the battlefield for each card exiled this way." sort of thing.

true...but as a flavorish thing i thought that it would be more horror-like to see your once well known friends and comrades twisted and rotting down rising from their graves and walking the earth again :D

[xaer0knight]

my ex-girlfriend thought of this card and i think its pretty fitting for Halloween. Deals with the Elf King of German Legends. I love german legends :) Thanks for the grammar help.

Decided to enter this one instead of my Castle card :)

[MTG59895]

@Lymons: Incredible card. You might alter the ability slightly to say: "Weylin, Essence Weaver's type becomes the creature type of your choice in addition to its other types. That would make every +1/-1 counter count. Either way, I like it a lot. Oh yeah, one thing I'm curious about is whether the flavor text is meant to say "render us" or "render them."

@xaer0knight: I read Goethe's Faust in my senior year of high school, great stuff. Which card are you submitting? If you are submitting Elf King, consider the following wording changes:

At the beginning of your upkeep, each opponent loses life equal to the number of Elf or Zombie permanents you control.

Elf and Zombie creatures you control get +2/-1.

Sacrifice an Elf or Zombie: Put a +2/-1 counter on target creature you control.

I believe that is the correct way to word things. See Malakir Bloodwitch (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=190398), Elvish Champion (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=129534), and Carrion Feeder (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=43512).

[GG Crono]

@GG Crono: I love the concept. You might consider giving Gravedancer Intimidate or Fear, so he is less likely to die. He costs enough to justify adding one of those.

Bear in mind that as-is, he gives you 6 attacking power for 6. In black, no less. But do you really think so?

[xaer0knight]

i really enjoy that Wretched Walus card. put it in a Demir B/U deck and just start milling and discarding... all I can add is.. my ex and I laughed our head of when we read Zombie Walrus ;-)

[OutlawD1]

1st time submitting something.

http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/zz40/OutlawD1/DIE2-1.jpg?t=1255312707

This one is my main consideration, but I have 3 others in the submission thread that I'm unsure of.

[Lymons]

@lymons: Incredible card. You might alter the ability slightly to say: "weylin, essence weaver's type becomes the creature type of your choice in addition to its other types. That would make every +1/-1 counter count. Either way, i like it a lot. Oh yeah, one thing i'm curious about is whether the flavor text is meant to say "render us" or "render them."

Yeah! Thanks for the positive feedback. For the flavor text I meant "us" because if everyone blend in, then they won't get hurt, prime example: Bill Murray in Zombieland. What if I change it to "everyone" instead? I don't know if it's too powerful with the "in addition" to its other types. I'd like more feedback for this. If you are reading this, can you please comment?

Outlawd1 - Well done with the planeswalker's art. Here's my ranking of the cards: 1 Damned into Existence, 2 Fulmos, 3 Necroghulo and 4 Vexing Poltergeist. The last one is too similar to Winged Coatl.

Your Worst Nightmare - Fun, useful ability and Zombie Walruses are always feared. Why did you give it pro black as opposed to another color?

Mirana - Except for Day of the Daemons, the others are a bit powerful for their cost. I think you should change Day of the Daemons from "that player sacrifices each demon he or she controls" to "each Demon token."

GG Crono - What's more deadly than an army of dancing skeletons? HASTE! I think haste or some evasive ability would be a good add for your legendary skeleton. If you don't think it's balance, make it a 3 token army instead.

xaer0knight - The only other Zombie Elf is Llanowar Dead which is great. It's too powerful for a 4 mana card, change the stats or mana cost?

Unrelated news: My head hurts.

[Kamahl's Disciple]

Review Time: -

@MTG59895: - I think you should go with Mother of Tombs.

@Lokenta: - I would go with Day of the Dead, and change it to a rare.

@Harpbringer: - I don't like the zombie, but the dragon seems decent. The thing about this is that you have too much going on here, its Nightfall ability is fine, but making it into a discard engine as well? I don't think that's necessary. I think you should at least make this a 4/4 flier with the nightfall ability and have it cost :3mana::b::b::b:, that in itself is fine, but you should reword its ability text to "Nightfall - At the beginning of each opponent's end step, if that player didn't cast a spell this turn, you may play a card from your graveyard without paying its mana cost."

@KingG: - Looking at The Bleak House gives me mild discomfort... That being said, Trick//Treat has a pretty neat theme going on, but there are wording issues in these.

Change Trick's wording to this - "Exile target nonland permanent. Search its owner's graveyard, hand, and library for all cards with the same name as that card and exile them. Then that player shuffles his or her library."

Change Treat's wording to this - "Each player searches his or her library for a nonland permanent card, reveals it, and puts it into their hand. Then each player who searched his or her library this way shuffles it."

@Sucros: - Neat card, I like it.

@Artifactor: - Reword its second sentence of its second ability to "If a creature dealt damage by Shadows of Despair would be put into a graveyard from the battlefield, exile it instead and its controller loses 3 life."

@hollowmirror: - You don't need to say "sacrifice a land you control", just have it say "sacrifice a land" and put a comma after "upkeep". As for the rest of the card, I think its good, but I wouldn't have the wraith buff, giving your wraiths swampwalk is fine, but giving them +1/+1 may be a little too much.

@GGCrono: - Dayum, loving the flavor and the abilities of this card, there is no need to change it in any way. I love this card, I think you made it into my top three, I hope you make it to the finals.

@YWN: - ... Oh god, Paul is actually dead!

@Outlaw: - ... Hmm, interesting. I would have this as an uncommon.

[MTG59895]

@GG Crono: I looked at some rare black creatures for 6, and I suppose that Kamahl's Disciple is right, Gravedancer is good as is. Sorry for the confusion.

@Lymons: Have a look at Commander Eesha (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=35893). She's at least as easy to play as Weylin. Weylin becomes a 2/4 after using his ability twice. Eesha is naturally a 2/4 with flying. Eesha has protection from all creatures for no mana, while Weylin needs mana to protect himself from only one creature at a time. This is why I recommend additional creature types per counter.

[Luthervamplord]

Luthervamplord:- i loved your last card, why did you change it??


**NEVERMIND RULE #6**
6) Do not create a new keyword.
Use existing keywords, be careful when using block based ones such as Affinity, Splice, and Radiance. In the past, we've allowed some leniency with things such as Protection from X or Xcycling. Don't stretch it too far though.

Channel is a set unique mechanic - not good.

[GG Crono]

Is Unearth acceptable?

[MechanicalMind]

Is Unearth acceptable?

i fear that's another set unique...

[Cashew]

http://magicdeckvortex.com/vbforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2623&stc=1&d=1255364394http://magicdeckvortex.com/vbforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2624&stc=1&d=1255364379

Debating on which one to use and play with. I liked playing with the Haunt keyword as I felt its scope was much like the original echo - in desperate need of tweaking.

[Your Worst Nightmare]

**NEVERMIND RULE #6**
6) Do not create a new keyword.
Use existing keywords, be careful when using block based ones such as Affinity, Splice, and Radiance. In the past, we've allowed some leniency with things such as Protection from X or Xcycling. Don't stretch it too far though.
There seems to be a great deal of confusion over this rule. It should be pointed out that it doesn't say abilities that appeared only in a single block are not allowed to be used. (Otherwise how could cards with grandeur (http://www.magicdeckvortex.com/Fictional_Cards/card_of_the_month/KimaLightpalmS.jpg), vanishing (http://www.magicdeckvortex.com/Fictional_Cards/card_of_the_month/Witchhunt.jpg), devour (http://www.magicdeckvortex.com/Fictional_Cards/card_of_the_month/stalkingthallidtl2.png), exalted (http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/7285/whiteorchidsgarrison.png), sweep (http://magicdeckvortex.com/vbforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2055&stc=1&d=1240159943), and other such so-called "block based abilities" have won past MCCs?)

What this rule actually means is that people should stick with the abilities that are known to work. Everybody knows about 'Affinity for artifacts', but other versions of the ability also made print, like 'Affinity for Plains' in Razor Golem and the rest of the cycle. What the rule says you should be careful about is making, for example, 'Affinity for snow' or 'Affinity for Slivers', as there might be some nuance that makes the ability not work the way you presume it does. (In this case there is no such nuance, but do read the next paragraph for an example of a few.)

Continuing to use the examples written in the rule itself, next comes splice. Like I said above and not yet being done repeating to make sure it sticks, what the rule says you should be careful about is making variants of splice other than 'Splice onto Arcane'. A version along the lines of 'Splice onto Rogue', obviously meant to be used on cards like Morsel Theft, would actually be a rules nightmare as there wouldn't be anything preventing people from splicing that card onto a Rogue creature; not to mention the uncertainty about whether splicing onto a non-instant non-sorcery type would also work in the first place or not. But even worse than that is versions like the following one, that has actually been submitted in an actual MCC here once - 'Splice onto instant'. Both Arcane and Rogue are two subtypes, so despite whether the rules could make 'Splice onto Rogue' work or not, at least it was still within the realms of what the ability is supposed to do. But when you make a 'Splice onto [type]' variant when basic knowledge (oh, as well as the comprehensive rules) clearly state the ability is only meant to be used with subtypes, you're distorting the ability and making it something else. Using exaggerated examples, it would be like making 'Splice onto battlefield' or 'Affinity for exile' - it doesn't work. That is what you should be careful about, and that is what the rule is about.

And now on to the last example, so to repeat the following sentence yet again, what the rule says you should be careful about is making a card with 'Radiance' followed by an ability whose effect does something completely different than all other cards with radiance. Not only that, but we can see that radiance can work on instants, sorceries, and activated abilities. But could a static ability or triggered ability with 'Radiance' in front of it ever be a true radiance ability like the others? But what about grandeur, chroma, threshold, and the rest? That is what the rule tells you to be careful about.

It's because of examples like the ones I gave above that this rule exists. And I believe it's partially my fault it exists since I started it with my 'Urza's-cycling (http://magicdeckvortex.com/Fictional_Cards/card_of_the_month/2008_03_urzas_collector.jpg)' card. But this right here is what the rule actually means - if a card with 'Urza's-cycling' is okay, is a card with 'Auracycling' okay too? What about 'Equipmentcycling'? Or 'Blackcycling'? Or is that already straining too far? (Hint: it is.) For the last time, THAT is what the rules tells you to be careful about. Not to refrain from using "block based abilities". And neither to refrain from using a keyword from one block together with another from a completely different block.

And in the point zero zero one percent chance that I'm wrong and this rule actually means what those people there believe it does (which if so, soon it will be reworded so it's clear it means what I wrote in this post), the attitude of not using "block based abilities" is still pointless because the mod told you to ignore the rule! It says right there, in bold and in all caps, "NEVERMIND RULE #6".

Now this was a rather large post, so I'll quickly end it now. Hopefully it shed some light on the issue, as opposed to making the thing even more confusing for everyone. :)

[Le_Mirage]

What this rule actually means is that people should stick with the abilities that are known to work. Everybody knows about 'Affinity for artifacts', but other versions of the ability also made print, like 'Affinity for Plains' in Razor Golem and the rest of the cycle. What the rule says you should be careful about is making, for example, 'Affinity for snow' or 'Affinity for Slivers', as there might be some nuance that makes the ability not work the way you presume it does. (In this case there is no such nuance, but do read the next paragraph for an example of a few.)

Continuing to use the examples written in the rule itself, next comes splice. Like I said above and not yet being done repeating to make sure it sticks, what the rule says you should be careful about is making variants of splice other than 'Splice onto Arcane'. A version along the lines of 'Splice onto Rogue', obviously meant to be used on cards like Morsel Theft, would actually be a rules nightmare as there wouldn't be anything preventing people from splicing that card onto a Rogue creature; not to mention the uncertainty about whether splicing onto a non-instant non-sorcery type would also work in the first place or not. But even worse than that is versions like the following one, that has actually been submitted in an actual MCC here once - 'Splice onto instant'. Both Arcane and Rogue are two subtypes, so despite whether the rules could make 'Splice onto Rogue' work or not, at least it was still within the realms of what the ability is supposed to do. But when you make a 'Splice onto [type]' variant when basic knowledge (oh, as well as the comprehensive rules) clearly state the ability is only meant to be used with subtypes, you're distorting the ability and making it something else. Using exaggerated examples, it would be like making 'Splice onto battlefield' or 'Affinity for exile' - it doesn't work. That is what you should be careful about, and that is what the rule is about.

And now on to the last example, so to repeat the following sentence yet again, what the rule says you should be careful about is making a card with 'Radiance' followed by an ability whose effect does something completely different than all other cards with radiance. Not only that, but we can see that radiance can work on instants, sorceries, and activated abilities. But could a static ability or triggered ability with 'Radiance' in front of it ever be a true radiance ability like the others? But what about grandeur, chroma, threshold, and the rest? That is what the rule tells you to be careful about.


On the other hand, i don't think that should be some kind of fear in "defy" the holy golden sacred wonderful unbreakable rules Wizards has created for their game, to the point of considering every slightly modified mechanics as an "error"....and even more if we consider that the scope of the cards we create should be mainly to be nice, and functional to a not-so-far from first-looking degree. There's should be really no reason to ask whatever they would work with EVERY other cards or in line with every possible detail one could dredge from the rules.

...and "Affinity for Exiled Cards" could actually exists :D

[JakeKessler]

Whew, back from being out of town and AFK for the weekend. Looks like I missed a lot.

Commentary and responses:


"Affinity for Exiled Cards" could actually exists :D

Nah. Affinity says "for each X you control." You don't control cards in exile because they aren't spells or permanents, they're just cardboard. Similarly, "Affinity for cards in your hand," "Affinity for mana in your mana pool" and "Affinity for damage dealt to you this turn" wouldn't work either.


http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/zz40/OutlawD1/DIE2-1.jpg?t=1255312707

You want to say "CARDNAME deals damage to target opponent equal to the number of creature cards put into all graveyards this way." Players aren't sources of damage, spells and permanents are.


Lots of stuff about Rule 6

I agree with most of this, I'd just like to add one more thing. I don't believe this is connoted in the rule explicitly, but I've seen people lose points for it before and I wanted to give people a heads up so they don't this time around.

While mixing keywords from different blocks can be okay (like the way Wizards keeps bringing Cycling back even though Onslaught, Time Spiral and Alara don't really have a lot to do with the original Cycling block, Urza's; or the way Kicker is back in Zendikar even though there's no real connection to it and Invasion) there are certain mechanics which have very specific, very significant flavor connotations.

One example would be Cascade, which represents the unstable energies of the Maelstrom on the plane of Alara playing havoc with certain spells cast there. When you have a mechanic like Cascade, that does have these specific flavor connotations, combining it with other mechanics from environments totally foreign to it can be risky. Your card is going to have very bad flavor if you combine Cascade and Soulshift, for example; since Cascade is something unique to the plane of Alara at the time immediately after the event known as the Conflux, and Soulshift refers specifically to the kami spirits of Kamigawa during the period of the Kami War. Unless your card involves the kami somehow going to the Alaran Maelstrom and experiencing that magical phenomenon, your card is going to look a little silly combining those effects.

Combining mechanics this way, without correctly applying the flavor concepts they reference, is a little like using a word you don't completely understand incorrectly in a sentence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ly1UTgiBXM): what you're saying will sound wrong to other people who do know the word.

Update from me:

Here (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v390/tomorrowjake/GhostWalk7.png) is the newest version of Ghost Walk, with the beautiful will-o-wisp art from p-chan. (Thanks again!) I'm thinking of doing something a little different for the contest, though. Check it out:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v390/tomorrowjake/GhastlyMusician.png

The card I'm riffing off of is the original Musician from Ice Age. (I'm following Obsidian Fireheart's lead on the reminder text. The silver border is because of the art.)

[OutlawD1]

You want to say "CARDNAME deals damage to target opponent equal to the number of creature cards put into all graveyards this way." Players aren't sources of damage, spells and permanents are.

Thanks, there was something bugging me about the wording. However thats not exactly what I want the card to do. I want it to punish players for exiling other players creatures with o-rings and path to exile and the like, and reward players for having their own creatures exiled...which black has several way of doing (unearth, haunt....)

This is the new wording im playing with:

"Put all exiled creature cards into their owner’s graveyards. Then each player may have Damned into Existence deal X damage to target opponent, where X equals the number of creature cards put into his or her graveyard this way."

I love Ghastly Musician's reminder text, and an interesting use of a counter

[Lymons]

MTG59895 - Thanks, I will change it up as soon as I get the answer to one more question. Should I give the card other abilities like shroud, flying, vigilance, or etc?

OutlawD1 - It works!

[George G]

@ Cashew: Possessor feels a lot like dominating licid. Vengeful spirit is neat, needs a comma in last line of text. This is a weird, unique instance I think of making a creature impossible to lose control over unless it dies. How would this work if you have the haunted creature and I cast Slave of Bolos? I wouldn't gain control of it because it's still haunted, and I can't sac it if I don't control it right? There isn't another card at all like this. It would be tough to come up with another situation where that could even be possible without haunt.

[Kamahl's Disciple]

@Cashew: - I would go with Vengeful Spirit for your entry.


This is a weird, unique instance I think of making a creature impossible to lose control over unless it dies. How would this work if you have the haunted creature and I cast Slave of Bolas? I wouldn't gain control of it because it's still haunted, and I can't sac it if I don't control it right? There isn't another card at all like this. It would be tough to come up with another situation where that could even be possible without haunt.

You can play something like Brand or Brooding Saurian and regain control and have priority over these creatures. Cards like Threaten, Mind Control and Slave of Bolas also let you regain control and have priority over them too, just as long as another player had control over them last, it doesn't matter if they have something that let them gain control over them in the first place, you will still gain control over them.

At least, that's what I think, I might be wrong, so you should probably head over to the magic rulings forum and reevaluate on this.

[Le_Mirage]

Mechanics considerations:




Nah. Affinity says "for each X you control." You don't control cards in exile because they aren't spells or permanents, they're just cardboard. Similarly, "Affinity for cards in your hand," "Affinity for mana in your mana pool" and "Affinity for damage dealt to you this turn" wouldn't work either.


Yeah but anyone with a common sense would not find difficult, without reading the rules, to understand that "Affinity to Exiled Cards" refers to the number of cards you have exiled (that is, that are in the exile zone at the time you cast a spell with this ability) from the beginning of the game. Just as "Affinity for cards in you hand" means the number of card in your hand.


One example would be Cascade, which represents the unstable energies of the Maelstrom on the plane of Alara playing havoc with certain spells cast there. When you have a mechanic like Cascade, that does have these specific flavor connotations, combining it with other mechanics from environments totally foreign to it can be risky. Your card is going to have very bad flavor if you combine Cascade and Soulshift, for example; since Cascade is something unique to the plane of Alara at the time immediately after the event known as the Conflux, and Soulshift refers specifically to the kami spirits of Kamigawa during the period of the Kami War. Unless your card involves the kami somehow going to the Alaran Maelstrom and experiencing that magical phenomenon, your card is going to look a little silly combining those effects.

Combining mechanics this way, without correctly applying the flavor concepts they reference, is a little like using a word you don't completely understand incorrectly in a sentence: what you're saying will sound wrong to other people who do know the word.

Yeah again, but on the other hand there should be no law that force us to stick to the flavor Wizards has developed for canonical cards (...expecially, then, if someone does not like it at all), cause we may like it (sometimes most) as creating the card itself. Use mechanic terms where there is need of them is, at least for me, mainly a matter of development correctness, but i think that is wrong to consider a card flawed just because we want to use a certain mechanic but not the relative flavor, that we may not like, or that we may want to "expand" in some way.






http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v390/tomorrowjake/GhastlyMusician.png

The card I'm riffing off of is the original Musician from Ice Age. (I'm following Obsidian Fireheart's lead on the reminder text. The silver border is because of the art.)

This card could actually exists, even if it's flavor is clearly funny :D.

@OutlawD1: The damned into existence has surely a creppy flavor, but i think it's pretty weak for it's cost. Even in a red/black deck build around it, that is suppose to exile a lot of creatures to power up the card, there would be a lot of more potent and straightforward ways to deal damage to an opponent with a cost of 2BR and a rare card (...and avoid the chance to take damage as well, too). To balance it a little, you may make it a one-way effect, and expand it to all cards exiled, or raise it's damage to 2 for each card.

...The ghoul is nice.

@YWN: every Megrim addicted would love this walrus : ).

[George G]

@Cashew: - I would go with Vengeful Spirit for your entry.



You can play something like Brand or Brooding Saurian and regain control and have priority over these creatures. Cards like Threaten, Mind Control and Slave of Bolas also let you regain control and have priority over them too, just as long as another player had control over them last, it doesn't matter if they have something that let them gain control over them in the first place, you will still gain control over them.

At least, that's what I think, I might be wrong, so you should probably head over to the magic rulings forum and reevaluate on this.


I don't think so because it says as long as it's haunted. If it said when it BECOMES haunted then yes, but since it's "as long as".....

[MTG59895]

@Lymons: Shroud in combination with protection from your opponent's best creatures would be stretching things. Flying seems unlikely for a man who "renders us ordinary." I think that vigilance makes sense, and it makes it so that Weylin can root out and defend against evil at the same time.
One last consideration is this: Does Weylin defend solely you, or does he defend his fellow creatures, like in the flavor text? I think that adding vigilance would make him balanced enough, but you may consider another ability instead that lets him protect your creatures. Up to you, you know what you have in mind better than I do.

@Cashew: You are missing the artist for Masquerade.

[JakeKessler]

Anyone with a common sense would not find difficult, without reading the rules, to understand that "Affinity to Exiled Cards" refers to the number of cards you have exiled (that is, that are in the exile zone at the time you cast a spell with this ability) from the beginning of the game. Just as "Affinity for cards in you hand" means the number of card in your hand.

I'm afraid it doesn't. Text on a card isn't like informal speech, where you can have all sorts of mistakes or even contradictions as long as the listener groks your meaning. Text on a card is more like programming code. Every word must be used correctly because they have very specific effects. "Affinity for cards in your hand" would mean "This spell costs :1mana: less for each card in your hand you control." Since you don't control any of the cards in your hand (since they are not on the stack or the battlefield), you only own them, this ability would always reduce the card's cost by :0mana:.


Yeah again, but on the other hand there should be no law that force us to stick to the flavor Wizards has developed for canonical cards (...expecially, then, if someone does not like it at all), cause we may like it (sometimes most) as creating the card itself. Use mechanic terms where there is need of them is, at least for me, mainly a matter of development correctness, but i think that is wrong to consider a card flawed just because we want to use a certain mechanic but not the relative flavor, that we may not like, or that we may want to "expand" in some way.

This is the point: Just like real-life words, some keyword mechanics have these specific references, while others are more nebulous. Cycling and Scry fit more easily in new settings and sets than Epic or Storm. There is no law stopping you from submitting a card incorrectly using flavor for this contest, just like there is no law stopping you from incorrectly using words in your posts. You want to make an artifact creature with Changeling (http://www.magicdeckvortex.com/forum/showthread.php?p=295521#post295521), go ahead, but you'll look foolish and you'll probably lose points come judging.

Of course there's no rule; you do what you want. I'm just trying to give you a heads up where you might lose points.

[Lymons]

You want to make an artifact creature with Changeling (http://www.magicdeckvortex.com/forum/showthread.php?p=295521#post295521), go ahead, but you'll look foolish and you'll probably lose points come judging.

I guess Ultimus isn't oracled for the same reason why Mutavault or Runed Stalactite doesn't have changeling. It's more of a shapeshifter/block theme. I, however, am more of an Illusion fan, who doesn't like Mistforms? It rolls of the tongue like misssssst (forms).

MTG59895:

I wish it wasn't a private conversation between the two of us but thanks again for the comments. I made the flavor for the art, which was better than what I had originally (art for the flavor).

I can give other creatures protection but it'll be too many lines of text. And I'm not quite sure how the mechanic will work, perhaps, make the activated ability targetable or add a second once per turn ability with X: All damage that would be dealt to target creature this turn is dealt to Weylin instead? But it doesn't really synch with flavor.

Another idea is that the card (6/0) comes into play with 6 -1+1 counters. X, remove a counter: target creature gains an additional creature type or blood ties. That would be too powerful right?

Right now, I plan to give it vigilance and change the flavor to them instead of us like you said. What do you think?

[Le_Mirage]

I'm afraid it doesn't. Text on a card isn't like informal speech, where you can have all sorts of mistakes or even contradictions as long as the listener groks your meaning. Text on a card is more like programming code. Every word must be used correctly because they have very specific effects. "Affinity for cards in your hand" would mean "This spell costs :1mana: less for each card in your hand you control." Since you don't control any of the cards in your hand (since they are not on the stack or the battlefield), you only own them, this ability would always reduce the card's cost by :0mana:.


Sure, since this is a game that involves money and tournaments, being strict on the rules is not an option. But, for what i known as the casual player i was during the lost days of Mirrodin, i was told how Affinity works just once and understand it immediatly as it was, without even notice the difference between control and own. And i'am pretty sure that almost anyone here and outside has done, in a way or the other, nearly the same. If Wizards, in a maybe future, will create an Affinity for Cards in Hand, by all means the will update the rules, but i'am almost sure that none would really have to read them to understand how it works.



This is the point: Just like real-life words, some keyword mechanics have these specific references, while others are more nebulous. Cycling and Scry fit more easily in new settings and sets than Epic or Storm. There is no law stopping you from submitting a card incorrectly using flavor for this contest, just like there is no law stopping you from incorrectly using words in your posts. You want to make an artifact creature with Changeling (http://www.magicdeckvortex.com/forum/showthread.php?p=295521#post295521), go ahead, but you'll look foolish and you'll probably lose points come judging.

Of course there's no rule; you do what you want. I'm just trying to give you a heads up where you might lose points.

I already know it, but whatever. I just find foolish to be so strict even on the flavor when we should know that, if Wizards want an old mechanic in a set that has to do nothing with it, they just put it, and end of the story (the easier example: before Wizards printed them, who in the world would have think that colored artifacts could be a realistic twist of Magic most old rules?). It's their game after all. But instead, we just decide by yourself that Wizards would never soulshift a non-kamigawan creature o never give replicate to a non-Izzet related, non blue or red spell. And then what? Wizards prints Tolaria West :D.

[JakeKessler]

More feedback:

@ thomasdm (http://magicdeckvortex.com/vbforums/showpost.php?p=310633&postcount=10): With this cost, you need to use a hybrid border, not a gold one. However, I find it hard to see Intimidate fitting well into monogreen. So maybe you should rethink the hybrid thing altogether.

@ Lymons (http://magicdeckvortex.com/vbforums/showpost.php?p=310684&postcount=12): My only complaint at this point is that he doesn't seem very druid-y. He's not even green. "Legendary Creature--Shapeshifter" might be a better type line.

@ kingez (http://magicdeckvortex.com/vbforums/showpost.php?p=310854&postcount=20): Strictly speaking, you can't control a hand, or cards in a hand. You want to template this off of Sen Triplets, I think. "Whenever CARDNAME deals combat damage to a player, until end of turn, that player can't cast spells or activate abilities and plays with his or her hand revealed. You may play cards from that player's hand this turn."

@ MTG#s (http://magicdeckvortex.com/vbforums/showpost.php?p=310901&postcount=22): Mother of Tombs is still awesome. I like the new incarnation of Haunted Costume, too, because now it really is modal--I could see genuinely using either the equip ability or the insta-attach ability, on mine or other players' creatures, depending on the game state. I think either card would be a good submission to go with; it depends on personal preference which one is more interesting or original.

[MTG59895]

@Lymons: I think that the card, with vigilance added, will be just fine. Altering the flavor text to "render them" will prevent you from having to justify protection for other creatures. Whether you change the flavor text or not is up to you. You are right that there is enough text as is (though adding vigilance won't take up much space), and more elaborate abilities would make things unnecessarily complex and potentially unbalanced. Also, I think the fact that he is a druid is ok. Just look at Exuberant Firestoker (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=175049) or Mesa Enchantress (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=191378).

[Kamahl's Disciple]

Also, I think the fact that he is a druid is ok. Just look at Exuberant Firestoker (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=175049) or Mesa Enchantress (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=191378).

Not very good examples actually. The reason why Exuberant Firestoker is a druid is because it was part of a cycle of humanoid creatures that helped support 5 power or greater creatures with abilities that triggered at the end step. These creatures all had the ability to produce :1mana: by tapping them, this is why they were made druids, since most mana producing creatures through tapping were druids.

Secondly, the reason why Mesa Enchantress is a druid is because it's a planeshifted version of Verduran Enchantress, which is also a druid.

These are just exceptions and should not be valid points to why Lymons should make his creature a druid.

[Streetz]

Please note YWN will be judging in my place so I can concentrate on finishing the Ocean Deckbuilding contest. Thank you everyone for participating in this contest! :E

[Kamahl's Disciple]

Please note YWN will be judging in my place so I can concentrate on finishing the Ocean Deckbuilding contest. Thank you everyone for participating in this contest! :E

Does that mean YWN's entry is dropped? If so, I will enjoy having him as a judge.

[OutlawD1]

@OutlawD1: The damned into existence has surely a creppy flavor, but i think it's pretty weak for it's cost. Even in a red/black deck build around it, that is suppose to exile a lot of creatures to power up the card, there would be a lot of more potent and straightforward ways to deal damage to an opponent with a cost of 2BR and a rare card (...and avoid the chance to take damage as well, too). To balance it a little, you may make it a one-way effect, and expand it to all cards exiled, or raise it's damage to 2 for each card.

...The ghoul is nice.


I made the card originally as a way of getting creatures back into the graveyard, the damage was originally only an incentive. But I was actually worried it was too cheap. In extended decks I see this card finishing games on turn four,...but if you look only at current standard and limited, it would be a bit weak.

So I lowered the cost, gave the caster all the benefits, and gave it a more versatile fireball like effect. Had to chop off some flavor text. Might chop it all off.

http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/zz40/OutlawD1/DIE.jpg

I also made some changes on some of the others.

With Vexing Poltergeist I got rid of its coatl likeness and changed it to more of what I wanted it to be: cheap, efficient and SPOOKY chump blocker
http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/zz40/OutlawD1/VEX.jpg
I also beefed up the ghoul, allowing you not only to "regenerate" him but pump him up at the same time.
http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/zz40/OutlawD1/NECROGHULONEO.jpg

[Le_Mirage]

I made the card originally as a way of getting creatures back into the graveyard, the damage was originally only an incentive. But I was actually worried it was too cheap. In extended decks I see this card finishing games on turn four,...but if you look only at current standard and limited, it would be a bit weak.

So I lowered the cost, gave the caster all the benefits, and gave it a more versatile fireball like effect. Had to chop off some flavor text. Might chop it all off.


Probably yes, there is some combo that allow this card (even in the old version) to be a powerhouse, but maybe i'am just not able to see it.



I also beefed up the ghoul, allowing you not only to "regenerate" him but pump him up at the same time.


I'am not sure that this would work the way you intend it to do. Even if you add +1/+1 counters, i think the -1/-1 counter from persist will remain and therefore the ghoul would die anyway, if killed on it's second run of life. Maybe this balance the card a little: you may pump it but not make it immortal by removing the -1/-1 counter over and over. Still, i liked the old version more: less big, but more tricky.

@Lymons: you want to make him a druid? Just leave him a druid ^ ^. I think it fits it well, since it mess with the spirits and the relative "blood ties" of them, more than just with the form and the visage of those creatures.

[Lymons]

These are just exceptions and should not be valid points to why Lymons should make his creature a druid.

This is really disappointing but I'll agree that exceptions such as Mesa Enchantress or even Mycologist shouldn't be a valid reason for my card's typing. And sure, my card isn't green and can't produce mana but it does peacefully protect the natural order of life which defines any "druid." The druids connect directly to the Celtic origin of Halloween, they upload natural laws and protect fellow members. WotC took and changed that to fit the Magic realm (linked below). I am relunctant to change it to shapeshifter, I've considered shaman but that's also a step down. I respect the comments and my choice is to keep the druid type.

Druids: They had complex roles, serving as priests, scholars, teachers, ambassadors, and leaders of public rituals. (http://www.wizards.com/magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/db19)

Le_Mirage - Thanks!

OutlawD1 - Necroghulo is a much better card now. I like it. The -1/-1 counters actually cancels out with the +1/+1 (WotC wanted the two blocks to opposed each other). Just a slight rewording, pick either: "If a creature card would be put into a graveyard from the battefield, you may exile it instead and . . ." or "If a creature card is put into a graveyard from the battefiled, you may exile it and . . ." not a combination of the two.

I'd take out the hybrid cost for Damned into Exisitance by making it into a solid B, R or 1. Good overall.

[Le_Mirage]

OutlawD1 - Necroghulo is a much better card now. I like it. The -1/-1 counters actually cancels out with the +1/+1 (WotC wanted the two blocks to opposed each other)

..Ok, now i know it :).

[MTG59895]

@Kamahl's Disciple: Thank you for correcting me. I should have known better than to pick such poor examples.

[Lymons]

@Kamahl's Disciple: Thank you for correcting me. I should have known better than to pick such poor examples.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but either way :E. I updated the card.

[Your Worst Nightmare]

Please note YWN will be judging in my place so I can concentrate on finishing the Ocean Deckbuilding contest. Thank you everyone for participating in this contest! :E
Does that mean YWN's entry is dropped?
Of course not. What a silly thing to say. :P

[KlassyReborn]

Ok, my little fun card is up, let me know what you think so i can change it to fit your needs

[JakeKessler]

Klassy - why is it a creature?

[CoglineErro]

The Pumpkin King; I believe it should be worded "T: Gain control of target creature for as long as Infernal Denizen remains on the battlefield." ala Infernal Denizen, Cytoplast Manipulator, and Sower of temptation

[JakeKessler]

In a design article this week, one of the columnists at Wizards was bemoaning how Sower of Temptation was worded, and said the "as long as this remains on the battlefield" templating is widely considered a bad idea nowadays among Wizards designers and developers. "As long as you control this" is the way they plan to template this effect from here on out, a la Roil Elemental.

[KlassyReborn]

Klassy - why is it a creature?

It's so low cost i think that it should have the vunerability of a creature. Plus a non-red pyroclasm of sorts, idk, i liked the feel of having it has a construct rather than a regular artifact. plus if they want to path it, i'll take that free land instead of blowing up most of my creatures. :D

[Your Worst Nightmare]

Good news everyone! I've invented a device which makes you read this in your head with my voice!


But in an unrelated note, I've updated the MCC winners thread, which now features the pictures from MDV itself, so as to not steal from people's photobucket accounts. And since they're the pictures from MDV's actual server and not from the forum's attachment service, you no longer need to be logged in to see them either.

One last issue, I'll be away until somewhere around the 25th, so I have extended this month's deadline until then. More time given for more people to analyze the newly-updated MCC winners thread to see what winner cards are made of, hopefully. :P

[JakeKessler]

@ Zero: I kind of want to put a "Jack-o lantern" pun in my card now.

[Cashew]

http://magicdeckvortex.com/vbforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2651&stc=1&d=1255907748

Thinking I've arrived at my final entry.

I wish Haunt mechanic could get revisited and transformed like many did in Future Sight. Since we can play with Keywords I wanted to show how I might change it up. The same basic concept is intact, just uses an unsymmetrical design as opposed to the symmetric design from Orzhov. The major question I had was the phrase "Haunt" even necessary or could it almost be removed. Obsidian Fireheart gave me my answer.

[Kamahl's Disciple]

@Umexx: - I like this card, it's quite balanced, though going from the picture, shouldn't this creature be a Zombie Goblin?

[George G]

This is the point: Just like real-life words, some keyword mechanics have these specific references, while others are more nebulous. Cycling and Scry fit more easily in new settings and sets than Epic or Storm. There is no law stopping you from submitting a card incorrectly using flavor for this contest, just like there is no law stopping you from incorrectly using words in your posts. You want to make an artifact creature with Changeling (http://www.magicdeckvortex.com/forum/showthread.php?p=295521#post295521), go ahead, but you'll look foolish and you'll probably lose points come judging.

Of course there's no rule; you do what you want. I'm just trying to give you a heads up where you might lose points.


I am still hearing about that? Ouch Jake. I never thought that would have the masses running with torches, plant zombies are okay, even plant DOGS!, but make an artifact creature have changeling.... Here's another funny one...An artifact that can turn into an Enchantment!!! GASP! Now stay with me here...If I were to use this card on any changeling, it would become....an artifact creature. Now I could cast sculpting steel and magically have an artifact creature with changeling that has no ties to lorwyn. The game must end in a draw from that I suppose. (Where's the emoticon that shows I'm not raging mad, but having good fun.....) :banana: (close enough)

[xaer0knight]

edited card.. thanks for all the comments

[George G]

I'll tell you how to win this month.....Know your judge!

http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq160/Ggarnermtg/tootsieroll.jpg

[CoglineErro]

Geroge G wins. Let's go home.

[Lokenta Mirana]

Life has been busy, so now that I've finally gotten some time to sit down and take a look at what everyone has, I think I'll use it.

JakeKessler - Ghastly Musician
I laughed at this one. My only thought is that unless someone has a quick creature removal, or a counter removal spell, they are going to be sacrificing a lot of creatures. Powerful, but considering some of the mythic rares out there, it appears to fit into a good range.

AlasterEisaroh - Diabolic Temptation
Aside from thinking how interesting it would be to see this on the front page if it won, I think about half of this card's 'temptation' is that its an instant speed, where most tutors I've seen have been sorceries.

George G - Masked Djinn
Aside from the multiple limitations of creatures with morph, I might suggest changing it to converted morph cost, assuming something like that would exist. X is usually used more as a number.

CoglineErro - Trick or Treat
I might suggest changing it to either 'that spell's controller' or 'any opponent.' As it stands, multiplayer mayhem can have this card countering one person's spell while one other person has to choose whether it occurs or not. Aside from that, doing a quick search on gatherer, it looks more like they use 'then' instead of 'and' when searching your library gets condensed into one sentence (leaving it as: "Counter target spell unless that spell's controller has you search your library for a card, put that card into your hand, then shuffle your library.")

ALEX Ryugami - Creepy Revival
Multiplayer mayhem loves this card, especially late in the game. Aside from that, the image looks great.

Cashew - Soul Thief
This is definitely a good application of haunt. However, my only critique would be that it seems more like possession than haunting.

holy5 - Wicker Man
The only thing I might suggest would be to add a tap to the cost, just to keep it on the field a bit longer. As it stands, as soon as it's popped up it'll be sacrificed in most cases.

evol_intentions - Death's Convoy
My only worry with this one is that without explicitly stating it, it might only have its second ability active while it's on the field.

thomasdm - Fearmonger
You can still use the term 'until the end of term,' you just can't use 'at the end of turn.' Aside from that, If you are going to use a hybrid cost (and you could, though going colorless is usually red that is confined to its ability) I might suggest colouring the border as such.

Kamahl's Disciple - Soul Jar
Aside from the initial intake of 'awesome art' I'm not exactly certain the flavour works well to combine with cards like Energy Chamber.

Lymons - Weylin, Essence Warden
I'm not sure I see the white in his costed ability. Aside from that, I really like the flavour of the keyword, though I can't see it getting used a lot.

Kinghonkey - Rotten Luck
A good hybrid (overall, people seem to be getting better at this). I like how if you had someone put an integral card of yours into the graveyard, you could use this to dump twenty cards and pull that one back out.

Le_Mirage - Night of All Saints
I'm not quite sure how legendary creatures (especially darker ones) are saints, but the ability itself is nice. As with Lymons' card, be sure you could see the keyword on several cards before creating one. Also, usually we use two slashes when we indicate the end of a poem's... line... that sounds like the wrong word...

xaer0knight - Elf King, Der Erlkönig
Lots of text! Unless you can reduce the number of lines (perhaps try setting up the flavour like Le_Mirage) I don't see this being printable.

Punkrockanarchymagic - Demonic Cult
This is definitely a top-down card. There are only two non-black demons, so I'm not sure whether you really need that limitation. Outside of that, it definitely gives out the 'cult' feel.

Ghost of a shadow - Trick or Treat
The old frame and the square rarity symbol are going to hurt your grade. Also, you should have "that creature's controller" instead of "target creatures controller", unless you want a new creature to be affected. Lastly, use some apostrophes, they are possessives.

ChampionKitsune - Hideous Massacre
Magic does use the term "all other." It would make the working as smooth as the image.

MechanicalMind - Z-Day
Based off of the wording for Ovinize, your second ability should read: "Each creature loses all abilities, colors, and types and becomes a 2/2 black Zombie." You might want to check the wording shop, but that's my take.

kingez36@hotmail.co.uk - Axid, Possesser of Minds
It's actually spelt 'possessor.' Aside from that, I like it.

Luthervamplord - Jack-O'-Lantern Spirit
Checking the new composite rules, the end step is the first phase of the ending phase, so why use the term 'beginning of your end phase?' Also, since the player is paying black for the cost, why would they ever pay two for the ability?

MTG59895 - Mother of Tombs
It's not a full planar chaos copy, but I like the connection between the two, especially in the flavour text.

p-chan - Sneaky Mischief
I might suggest changing the first ability to "Cast ~ only during the declare attackers step and only if you've attacked this step." à la Tears of Rage.

Death's Harpbringer - Plague Bringer
Your wording is pre-M10. The previous winner had two because it was two months combined to one. This is a very powerful creature, based off its landfall ability.

Kinggidorah - The Bleak House
You need to check on your wording. You also may want to limit your reanimateable creature types. Finally, I don't see why this is an artifact land with a black artifact land border.

Sucros - Spectral Warden//Vengeful Haunt
I like flip cards. You may want to change your wording of your keyword to match the M10 wording (cast instead of play). It might be nice to have the flipped version beside it for people who don't like flipping their screen.

Artifactor - Shadows of Despair
Could you not simply use "combat damage from this creature," rather than what you have? This is an odd one, and I'd suggest the Wording Correction Shop.

hollowmirror - Wraith of Loneliness
The only thing I don't get is why it destroys lands. Aside from that I love the flavour of it.

GG Crono - Gravedancer
I like this card. The set symbol is a little bland, but I do quite like this card.

Your Worst Nightmare - Wretched Walrus
You got a few walruses through and now you're judging? Hopefully we'll see a few more anyway.

OutlawD1 - Damned into Existence
I like the previous flavourtext better, but I still like the card. The image fits well with the border, but does it fit well with All Hallow's Eve?

KlassyReborn - Jack-O-Bomb
A very nice, slow spell. Very Hallow's Eve"-y." The only thing I don't quite like is the image.

vampyrio - The Pumpkin King
Wording issues, spacing issues, and type issues aside, the image and flavour are amazing.

ZeroMk2 - Jack-o Lantern
The last ability should target Pumpkin creatures, not just Pumpkins. The border should be a gold blend. The idea and connectivity between the abilities is linear, but well connected.

Umexx - Hungry Dead
I believe they use Intimidate exclusively now, not Fear. I do like the idea of it eating things, however.

Lots of cards this month, and lots of discussion! I still need to decide which card I'll pick, though I think I may go for the Day of the Dead, just as this is about that day.

Hopefully I'll be a bit more active this week!

Cheers!

Lokenta Mirana

[JakeKessler]

I surrender. I know when I am beaten.

[Cashew]

Cashew - Soul Thief
This is definitely a good application of haunt. However, my only critique would be that it seems more like possession than haunting.

It definitely started as possession. Possession is a form of haunting though. Especially malevolent ones.

[KlassyReborn]

It definitely started as possession. Possession is a form of haunting though =)

it's also 9/10th of the law.

[Wombatish]

YWN, your zombie walrus is the greatest thing ever. I would play that card in every single deck ever just because of his type and flavor text.

[Sucros]

@Lokenta Mirana: Thanks a ton. Advice taken :D

[xaer0knight]

thanks for the advice. ya looks cleaner when you fix the flavour text.
i think it looks a lot nicer with the Hybrid colour scheme.

[kingez36@hotmail.co.uk]

More feedback:



@ kingez (http://magicdeckvortex.com/vbforums/showpost.php?p=310854&postcount=20): Strictly speaking, you can't control a hand, or cards in a hand. You want to template this off of Sen Triplets, I think. "Whenever CARDNAME deals combat damage to a player, until end of turn, that player can't cast spells or activate abilities and plays with his or her hand revealed. You may play cards from that player's hand this turn."



Well, why not? if you can control their turnwhy not their hand??

[]There's the box, whats the harm in thinking outside it??

[xaer0knight]

Well, why not? if you can control their turnwhy not their hand??

[]There's the box, whats the harm in thinking outside it??

its almost like a creature that hits for Word of Command. Axid is a lot stronger tho since Word only allows one card to be played of your choice from there hand.

Axid.. nifty fun for Multi-player :)

[Lokenta Mirana]

xaer0knight - Mixing hybrid costs with non-hybrid requirements of the same colour is generally pointless. The point of hybrid is to allow the player to play the card in either a purely green or purely black deck. Your cost might as well be simply 3BG. However, the only thing I see of this card that is green is the elf tribe, which has been black before. This card could easily be straight black, but could definitely not be straight green (and so not a hybrid). The picture would probably fit better with straight black anyway.
Also, as I noted to Le_Mirage, poem lines are generally separated by to slashes (//).

kingez36@hotmail.co.uk - "Control target hand" sounds very unhinged, and more like you're moving their physical hand around. However, on a more serious note, Jake isn't saying the idea is bad, just that the wording is off.

Cheers!

Lokenta Mirana

[xaer0knight]

xaer0knight - Mixing hybrid costs with non-hybrid requirements of the same colour is generally pointless. The point of hybrid is to allow the player to play the card in either a purely green or purely black deck. Your cost might as well be simply 3BG. However, the only thing I see of this card that is green is the elf tribe, which has been black before. This card could easily be straight black, but could definitely not be straight green (and so not a hybrid). The picture would probably fit better with straight black anyway.
Also, as I noted to Le_Mirage, poem lines are generally separated by to slashes (//).
Cheers!

Lokenta Mirana

For one thing, there are multicolor cards out there with hybrid mana cost. Marisi's Twinclaws is a gold card that i know of that has a hybrid mana cost in it. The cost i think is nice... either 2BBG or 2BGG makes the deck flow better if you dont have the right mana out.

As for the card itself it is based on the actual German legend of the Elf King. He is the Ruler of all the evil Fairies in german lore. Those fairies aren't the cute one everyone thinks about, they cause nightmares and death. And his fairy daughters are the Wissenfrauen and they temp men with there unearthly beauty but any man succumbs is essentially "loved to death!" That's were the zombie effect comes into this card.

[JakeKessler]

For one thing, there are multicolor cards out there with hybrid mana cost. Marisi's Twinclaws is a gold card that i know of that has a hybrid mana cost in it. The cost i think is nice... either 2BBG or 2BGG makes the deck flow better if you dont have the right mana out.

The Slave of Bolas-etc cards are unique to Alara Reborn, first off; I'd shy away from modeling stuff after them if you aren't also modeling the flavor themes in the set.

More importantly, these cards are blending three colors of mana. You'll notice that neither of the two colors that are hybrid are the same as the standalone color. The function is this: Where normal hybrids make you pick between two possible monocolor options to play the card, and reward you for playing both, these cards make you pick between two ally-color pairs, and reward you for playing the whole shard.

Your card does neither: no matter how the player plans to pay the one hybrid symbol, they HAVE to spend both green and black already. Like Lokenta said, a card costing :2mana::b::manabg::g: is almost functionally equivalent to it costing :3mana::g::b:--it just looks uglier. That extra symbol might as well be colorless; with the rest of the cost, you're likely spending :g: or :b: on it anyway.

Hybrid mana also helps illustrate two aspects or two personalities of a mechanic: being able to get Snakeform for either :2mana::u: or :2mana::g:, or Jund Hackblade for either :r::g: or :b::r:, is pretty cool because those are two fairly different approaches. There is no huge difference between a :b::b::g: effect and a :b::g::g: effect, especially on turn five.

[Le_Mirage]

Well, why not? if you can control their turnwhy not their hand??

[]There's the box, whats the harm in thinking outside it??

More than a few people here consider anything not done before by Wizards as something always possibly incorrect.

I wonder how they would have consider "control his turn" or "protection from everything" before they were printed.



Hybrid mana also helps illustrate two aspects or two personalities of a mechanic: being able to get Snakeform for either :2mana::u: or :2mana::g:, or Jund Hackblade for either :r::g: or :b::r:, is pretty cool because those are two fairly different approaches. There is no huge difference between a :b::b::g: effect and a :b::g::g: effect, especially on turn five.

As another point of view, a card that has an hybrid ability and a single color ability, can placidly be an hybid multicolor, no matter if the costs of each one shares one color. And i think that some cards built this way would have been more reasonable than a lot of senseless mono-hybrids that were printed so far. After all, an hybrid multicolor is always a bit more difficult to play than a normal hybrid, and that would been just right for combinations of abilites that are, actually, absolutely no hybrid even if they were chosen for hybrid cards.

[JakeKessler]

More than a few people here consider anything not done before by Wizards as something always possibly incorrect.

I wonder how they would have consider "control his turn" or "protection from everything" before they were printed.

As another point of view, a card that has an hybrid ability and a single color ability, can placidly be an hybid multicolor, no matter if the abilities shares a color. And i think that some cards built this way would have been more reasonable than a lot of senseless mono-hybrids that were printed so far.

These are both correct observations, but we're getting away from the specific topics at hand. The discussion of "controlling your hand" came up because someone was using affinity in a manner that was--within the current rules--not even functional. If Wizards changes terminology tomorrow to say that you control your hand and that a card can therefore "cost :1mana: less for each card in your hand you control," then yea, the box is widened. But that speculation doesn't change the fact that TODAY, that wording has no actual meaning in the game.

As for the hybrid discussion, the debate is whether costing a card as :2mana::b::manabg::g: accomplishes enough to make it worth the complicated and bizarre-looking cost. I argue it doesn't, because where hybrid is usually employed to add versatility and design space to a mechanic that bleeds across colors, opening up new options for deckbuilding, a cost that can be paid by either :b::b::g: or :b::g::g: doesn't really add anything. (That is to say: :manabg::b::g: is more or less the same as :1mana::b::g:.) It just looks weird for no real benefit. That's not a matter of "outside the box", it's just a matter of awkward and inefficient design.

[Le_Mirage]

These are both correct observations, but we're getting away from the specific topics at hand. The discussion of "controlling your hand" came up because someone was using affinity in a manner that was--within the current rules--not even functional. If Wizards changes terminology tomorrow to say that you control your hand and that a card can therefore "cost :1mana: less for each card in your hand you control," then yea, the box is widened. But that speculation doesn't change the fact that TODAY, that wording has no actual meaning in the game.


It's still a discussion of whatever come first: if the rules, of the cards. Of course (i believe), if the Wizards wants to devolop a new card or ability, they will do it and then change the rules accordingly. That's why i don't think there is some point in treat the actual rules as an unpassable milestone.


That's not a matter of "outside the box", it's just a matter of awkward and inefficient design.

That's not, infact. It's a matter of right design. If a card can be "divide" (even if not separated into two abilites) in a mono green part and a possibly green/black part, than the card may be not so well designed to begin with, but treat it as mono hybrid is just wrong. Or, at least, it will be slightly unbalanced, as it will allow a green ability to be played as a mono black card.

[JakeKessler]

That's not, infact. It's a matter of right design. If a card can be "divide" (even if not separated into two abilites) in a mono green part and a possibly green/black part, than the card may be not so well designed to begin with, but treat it as mono hybrid is just wrong. Or, at least, it will be slightly unbalanced, as it will allow a green ability to be played as a mono black card.
\
The cost of his card is :2mana::b::manabg::g:. Any way you pay for it, you have to be in both black and green.

[OutlawD1]

\
The cost of his card is :2mana::b::manabg::g:. Any way you pay for it, you have to be in both black and green.

I agree :2mana::b::manabg::g: does seem awkward. I think the problem is more with mixing colorless with hybrid. That where it kinda gets redundant, unless you are playing more then 2 colors.

but for the most part, :2mana::b::manabg::g: would almost be the same as either :3mana::b::g: or :manabg::manabg::manabg::b::g:

However, :manabg::manabg::manabg::b::g: is just different enough and less flexible than :3mana::b::g: to warrant its use imo. Of course, in two color decks there is really no difference, but in 5 color or tri color decks, thats a big difference.

[Le_Mirage]

A card that would technically warrant a cc of :b::manabg::g: would probably be design in a more simple way (or not created at all). However, if a card is multicolor...it IS multicolor. There should be no way to play it with a single color. The concept of hybid/multicolored should not be focused only on find an easier, more versatile way to play cards or build decks, but it should reflect the real scope of the card too.

For a :b::manabg::g: cost, mana intensive considerations come in action as well. But a card should have a real focused, potent or "that color-only" effect to warrant such an intensive cost. Otherwise, it would be more colorless.

[Cashew]

OMG MATH!
For this problem: Let's assume the card in question isn't jank anyway. A Golgari fan card at best.

:2mana: - says nothing except elevating its CMC and is essentially {} in terms of color
:b: - says that a portion of this card only makes sense in black.
:manabg: - says that a portion of this card only makes sense in black AND green. or :b: ^ :g:
:g: - says that a portion of this card only makes sense in green.

If we were to look at it in a Math problem it would be this:
^ = Intersect U = Union
{} U (:b: U (:b: ^ :g:) U :g:) -- apply Indetinty Property of Unions
:b: U (:b: ^ :g:) U :g: -- apply Distributive Property U over ^
:b: U (:b: ^ :g:) U :g: U (:b: ^ :g:) -- apply Absorportion Property of Unions
thus :b: U :g:
or :b::g: is the same as :b::manabg::g:

Since :b: U :g: consists of all portions where something is :b: or :g: it also consists of the portion where it is :b: and :g:. Thus no matter what you look at the solution to the problem is :b: U :g:.

Logically there is no difference. Thus there is no logical reason for a hybrid mana of the same symbols to exist on a gold card. Consider yourself math-owned. Thank god I paid tens of thousands of dollars for that college education.

Let's take it out of math:
It's tacky, and I hate you.
(extra credit: what movie is that from)

[KlassyReborn]

It's tacky, and I hate you.
(extra credit: what movie is that from)

1) thank you...i was sick of this bitter dispute over NOTHING

2) see me after class!

[kingez36@hotmail.co.uk]

Firstly, cashew you dont cease to amaze me.

Secondly, for all you rules buffs; try getting your head around this one!

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u156/kingez36/AxidPossessorofMinds.jpg

[KlassyReborn]

king, i'd rather it say "gain control of that player's next turn" the way youhave it worded it says that you control them for your post combat main phase, and your end phase

[kingez36@hotmail.co.uk]

king, i'd rather it say "gain control of that player's next turn" the way youhave it worded it says that you control them for your post combat main phase, and your end phase

exactly! Its still easily abused, if not more so. When else can you play sorcery spells

[JakeKessler]

Firstly, cashew you dont cease to amaze me.

Secondly, for all you rules buffs; try getting your head around this one!

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u156/kingez36/AxidPossessorofMinds.jpg

I've got no problem with this.

(Coming out with new things that can be controlled isn't problematic; as has been said, Wizards does it all the time. My only problem was with using an existing keyword--because keywords have very specific meanings--in a way that was, under current rules, non-functional.)

Props to Cashew for the math =D

Anyways. Thoughts about this card:

- The presence of the evasion ability (Intimidate) makes it hard to prevent the effect without killing it.
- Because it doesn't have haste, though, the opponent does get a turn to draw an answer.
- A comparable card is Sen Triplets, which also can't have the effect prevented through blocking (because it's a non-combat ability) and which also gives the opponent a turn to come up with something.
- Like Sen Triplets, this card gives the effect repeatedly (unlike Sorin Markov or Mindslaver.)
- Sen Triplets is a turn earlier at 5-drop, but harder to cast in :w::u::b: than this card in :b::b::b:.
- Sen Triplets is also marginally harder to prevent overall, because it can't be stopped by the opponent having a black or artifact blocker.
- Sen Triplets also gives you their cards for a whole turn and allows you to play all card types, whereas this card only gives you access to instants and cards with flash.

All in all, this card is about on par with Sen Triplets, but it suffers a lot for only controlling the opponent during your turn, losing access to anything played at sorcery speed (which is to say, 80-90% of cards). (Mindslaver avoids this issue by controlling the opponent on their own turn, when you can play everything. Sen Triplets avoids it by not controlling the opponent at all, but simply getting access to their cards.)

[kingez36@hotmail.co.uk]

I dont think people grasp the concept of my card, its not about playing their spells aka sens triplets, its about making their decisions for them aka mindslaver.

[JakeKessler]

I dont think people grasp the concept of my card, its not about playing their spells aka sens triplets, its about making their decisions for them aka mindslaver.

Kingez - those are more or less the same thing. Since Sen Triplets gives you access to all of their cards and doesn't let them play spells or abilities themselves, you are pretty much taking all of those decisions from them.

Rules-wise, the difference between outright saying "you control their turn" and going the Sen Trips route is that if you're playing "as them", you can't play anything sorcery speed during YOUR turn. Sen Trips words their ability without you literally controlling the opponent (while functionally doing pretty much that) so that you can play sorcery-speed cards during your turn while you have them controlled.

Since your card only controls things during your turn, you might want to go the Sen Trips route. As worded now, you won't be able to use any non-instant cards that don't have flash in their hand, because playing those sorcery-speed cards during your turn ISN'T a decision the controlled opponent could make.

[Umexx]

OMG MATH!
For this problem: Let's assume the card in question isn't jank anyway. A Golgari fan card at best.

:2mana: - says nothing except elevating its CMC and is essentially {} in terms of color
:b: - says that a portion of this card only makes sense in black.
:manabg: - says that a portion of this card only makes sense in black AND green. or :b: ^ :g:
:g: - says that a portion of this card only makes sense in green.

If we were to look at it in a Math problem it would be this:
^ = Intersect U = Union
{} U (:b: U (:b: ^ :g:) U :g:) -- apply Indetinty Property of Unions
:b: U (:b: ^ :g:) U :g: -- apply Distributive Property U over ^
:b: U (:b: ^ :g:) U :g: U (:b: ^ :g:) -- apply Absorportion Property of Unions
thus :b: U :g:
or :b::g: is the same as :b::manabg::g:

Since :b: U :g: consists of all portions where something is :b: or :g: it also consists of the portion where it is :b: and :g:. Thus no matter what you look at the solution to the problem is :b: U :g:.

Logically there is no difference. Thus there is no logical reason for a hybrid mana of the same symbols to exist on a gold card. Consider yourself math-owned. Thank god I paid tens of thousands of dollars for that college education.

Let's take it out of math:
It's tacky, and I hate you.
(extra credit: what movie is that from)

Could you do my tax report plz?

[KlassyReborn]

exactly! Its still easily abused, if not more so. When else can you play sorcery spells

if you want it to play like that, you'll also have to add, that "You may play spells as if they had flash" otherwise, it's still an opponent attempting to play a sorcery/enchantment/etc at an illegal time.

[CoglineErro]

if you want it to play like that, you'll also have to add, that "You may play spells as if they had flash" otherwise, it's still an opponent attempting to play a sorcery/enchantment/etc at an illegal time.

What he is saying is you could build a deck around this and make it break in half the cards that were designed with the downside of your opponent choosing which option happens. Since all the other cards like this made you only control your opponent on his turn, you couldn't make any of these choices because they are confined to sorceries. THis card lets that cat out of the bag.

[Le_Mirage]

I dont think people grasp the concept of my card, its not about playing their spells aka sens triplets, its about making their decisions for them aka mindslaver.

Yes, and it's not that weak after all. Even if you can't play sorceries or permanents (i assume you know that from the beginning) from their hand, you can still ruin their game by every other means, let your spells go through, and so on. More than a powa card, it's a trick combo one.


Consider yourself math-owned.

...one day you'll be mana-screw-owned and then, you'll understand :P!

[JakeKessler]

Yes, and it's not that weak after all. Even if you can't play sorceries or permanents (i assume you know that from the beginning) from their hand, you can still ruin their game by every other means, let your spells go through, and so on. More than a powa card, it's a trick combo one.

This only seems like it'd be relevant against countermagic, and it seems like black already has better answers to that.

[Le_Mirage]

This only seems like it'd be relevant against countermagic, and it seems like black already has better answers to that.

Come on, your imagination can do better : P.

[JakeKessler]

No, really. If all you intend to use this card for is not getting messed with, then in what way is this card better than a sorcery version of Silence? (A six-mana, single-target version that says "I'm coming!" a turn before you use it and requires not being blocked, no less.)

[Le_Mirage]

No, really. If all you intend to use this card for is not getting messed with, then in what way is this card better than a sorcery version of Silence? (A six-mana, single-target version that requires not being blocked, no less.)

Sure thing is, if you think like a Spike than you can throw away a good part of all the cards ever printed in Magic (including a lot of really funny ones). A card like that would be better appreciated by a Johnny.

[George G]

:b::g: is the same as :b::manabg::g:

Since :b: U :g: consists of all portions where something is :b: or :g: it also consists of the portion where it is :b: and :g:. Thus no matter what you look at the solution to the problem is :b: U :g:.

Logically there is no difference. Thus there is no logical reason for a hybrid mana of the same symbols to exist on a gold card. Consider yourself math-owned. Thank god I paid tens of thousands of dollars for that college education.

unless the card was:

:b::manabg::g:
Instant
Tap target creature. If :g::g: was spent to play CARDNAME that creature doesn't untap on controller's next untap. If :b::b: was spent to play CARDNAME that creature gets -2/-2 until the beginning of the next end step.

[Le_Mirage]

unless the card was:

:b::manabg::g:
Instant
Tap target creature. If :g::g: was spent to play CARDNAME that creature doesn't untap on controller's next untap. If :b::b: was spent to play CARDNAME that creature gets -2/-2 until the beginning of the next end step.

Good shot :D!

...even if a :b::manabg::g: mana intensive cost is quite different by a :2mana::b::manabg::g: one (in a two color deck, don't being able to pay it on turn five means supreme unluck, or supreme wrong mana basis).

[JakeKessler]

unless the card was:

:b::manabg::g:
Instant
Tap target creature. If :g::g: was spent to play CARDNAME that creature doesn't untap on controller's next untap. If :b::b: was spent to play CARDNAME that creature gets -2/-2 until the beginning of the next end step.

His card doesn't do anything like that, though. And even if it did, it wouldn't be functionally different from a card that cost :1mana::b::g:.

[Cashew]

Instant
Tap target creature. If was spent to play CARDNAME that creature doesn't untap on controller's next untap. If was spent to play CARDNAME that creature gets -2/-2 until the beginning of the next end step.

Except we know from Firespout and Shadowmoor that cards like this are best as hybrids and not gold cards.

[Le_Mirage]

Except we know from Firespout and Shadowmoor that cards like this are best as hybrids and not gold cards.

For that kind of effects, sure. But maybe for something like...

:b::manabg::g:
Instant
Shuffle target creature into its owner's library. Draw a Card.

...can be more appropriate. It's, after all, a creature removal (black) that shuffle it back into library (green)...that can avoid death tricks like unheart and dredge. Plus, it's a tiny draw effect (that can be black/green). Slightly more intensive than Putrefy, but it's a loss or versatility against a more potent effect plus a card draw, so it's pretty worth of a 3 colored cost.

[JakeKessler]

Questions about the CMC and color balance of that hypothetical card aside...

STILL more or less equivalent to :1mana::b::g:. The sliver of difference is not enough to make the weird-ass mana cost worthwhile. Especially since the actual card in question costs 5... it has :3mana: to pay for somehow, not three. By turn five, having access to :g::g: or :b::b: (or even both) is not that big a deal.

From a design standpoint, it's a poor design because it's unnecessarily complicated for little if any upside.

K.I.S.S.