'Since Echoes of Eternity is a card that has been spoiled now, I have to revamp this card because the effect was too similar (which makes me happy because now one of my dream cards is kinda real)
How does this look now?';

'>>92631659
I don't think the second ability has the right templating. Perhaps the whole card even needs to be re-done.';

'>>92631659
As an additional cost to cast an Eldrazi creature spell, you may pay {X}{X}. If you do, it enters the battlefield with {X} Annihilator 1 counters.';

'>merfolk
>1/3
>if you control a blood token, islandwalk
>when enter the battlefield, get a blood token
>when you sac a blood token, get two life.
Does this seem like 3U would be a good price for the creature?';

'>>92633818
You can shave 1 and leave it at 2 U.';

'>>92633818
Being able to get life from the Blood tokens wouldn't really fit within Blue. A 1/3 with Islandwalk that gives a Blood token as an ETB by itself would probably be fair at 3cmc though. Possibly 2cmc if you wanted to push it.';

'>>92633951
>>92633992
Hmm. How about 'when sac blood, target creature you control gets islandwalk until the end of your next turn."

Or possibly some sort of islandwalk counter, but that's probably pushing it.';

'Gonna share a few cards I found fin some Portuguese guy flickr. They were made in 2010.';

'>>92634049';

'>>92634055';

'>>92634068';

'>>92634076';

'>>92634089';

'>>92634103';

'>>92634111';

'>>92634120';

'>>92634026
Granting Islandwalk for a turn is a more sensible benefit. I'd still say 3cmc would be rather fitting for a card like that though, since Islandwalk itself is reliant on facing the right deck or combos with other cards to get the evasion.';

'>>92634128';

'>>92634142';

'>>92634150';

'>>92634161';

'>>92634176';

'>>92634184';

'>>92634193';

'This is my Magnum Opus.';

'>>92634206';

'>>92634215';

'>>92634223';

'>>92634230';

'>>92634241';

'>>92634252';

'>>92634263';

'>>92634273';

'>>92634287';

'>>92634296';

'>>92634307';

'>>92634315';

'>>92634049
>>92634315
For future reference
>http://old.photojoiner.net/';

'>>92634330';

'>>92634337';

'>>92634345';

'>>92634138
Fair enough, thanks.

>>92634212
Just out of curiosity, when making a custom set, what kind of ratio between the various card types should one aim for?';

'>>92634445
Real sets have over half of every card be a Creature. The latest set, Outlaws of Thunder Junction, for example, has 160 Creatures and 118 noncreatures.';

'>>92634470
That's actually not that bad? Currently I'm at about 100 creatures and 174 cards total, so assuming I dig through my source material for more spells and enchantments, I should be relatively balanced.';

'>>92634527
Better than I did, I think I didnt even reach 40% creatures';

'>>92634584
I mean, my set is based on monster girl enyclopedia. Even assuming I did only the basic girls, I'd have 200-250 creatures by default. And that's only the girls, not accounting for however many human soldiers/knights I create to try and balance things out colorwise.

Meanwhile, I'm really strugling to come up with good instants/sorceries that aren't just a copied angelic gift or anything, because some things I just need coverage for.';

'I feel like convoke+multikicker is probably something that has the potential to be very powerful. Still, is this a decent enough effect for the price it has?';

'What up what up, just reaping the benefits of changing ETB to a word meaning "Enters the battlefield, if you cast it"';

'undefined';

'Friend pitched this idea and I was wondering how some anons here might design it:
>Goblin Chef character
>Mono Red or Red+
>Likely awards artifacts going to the graveyard
>Optional: Ideally not a 1 card engine';

'>>92644157
A chef would make me tempted to have a Food interaction in some way, but if he's mono Red that wouldn't really work that well.
If there were some White, Green, or Black there, then I might say something like being able to sacrifice Food in order to rummage, and being able to scry or surveil when you sacrifice artifacts. At most, might include a Food ETB trigger, but ditch the specific Food-sac ability.

I could also see something goofy like turning creatures into Food tokens by dealing damage to them in some way, although that's straying from the concept more.';

'>>92645380
Yeah I forgot to include Food in particular for my post.
Making him generate food consistently AND have the payoff / use for it is probably mandatory given the lack of red food. The one idea I thought of is maybe letting you check your top deck for goblins equal to how many artifacts were sacrificed that phase or something like that.

Grumgully is also a goblin that gives magic mushrooms. Maybe he's a chef too.';

'>>92645848
>The one idea I thought of is maybe letting you check your top deck for goblins equal to how many artifacts were sacrificed that phase or something like that.
Not a bad idea, though personally I find that such effects tend to be messy in the wording.
Creating a goblin token when you sacrifice a food could be neat.';

'>>>92575154
>>>92575298';

'>>92644157
>>92645848
Decided to do a quick mockup of some ideas';

'How are these?';

'>>92653384
>Angel of Peace
This one feels about right. 3cmc is fairly typical for a Banisher Priest style effect, and while this is just a Pacifism rather than Exile, being a 2/3 flyer for 1 extra mana is a better statline. You could probably get away with it being a 2/4 instead.
>Angel of Order
This is probably a bit much. Deadeye Harpooner is the closest card I could find offhand, and that has far more conditions and a far worse statline. Being a 3/3 that destroys a tapped creature might be more fitting.
>Angel of Light
Much like Angel of Order, seems like a little much. 3/4 with Flash and Flying is already pretty solid as a surprise blocker even without dealing 4 damage to something.

Overall it's certainly not a bad set. It just feels like it might need some tweaks here and there in terms of costs and statlines. Stricter color pips might also help out in that respect.';

'>>92654194
Technically it’s Arrest rather than Pacifism, but glad to know that one’s lord or less balanced.

Would upping to cost to 5(either 4w or 3ww) on that one help at all?

Same as above, but also potentially dropping it to 1/4.

>Overall it's certainly not a bad set. It just feels like it might need some tweaks here and there in terms of costs and statlines. Stricter color pips might also help out in that respect.
I’m posting some stuff as I go, but once I consider myself to be mostly done with this I’m going to post the entire thing here and hope someone is willing to trawl through it. All 400+ cards.';

'>>92654626
>Would upping to cost to 5(either 4w or 3ww) on that one help at all?
3WW would probably be suitable. I think part of what might be throwing me off there is the fact that the effect is something that feels more Black (destroy non-X creature). But Vivisection Evangelist exists, so 5 cmc might be the right ballpark. 3 toughness might be enough to keep it in check depending on if your set includes anything like Bolt as a threshold.

>Same as above, but also potentially dropping it to 1/4.
Dropping it down to 1/4 is probably better, since in that context it's far less likely to be able to kill off multiple creatures when you drop it in. It doesn't feel like it would be too strong, but I would also note Cleaving Skyrider which is a similar Flash/Flyer that needs to spend 6 in order to have it deal damage to an attacker. It might be fine if it's lower, but I'd playtest it a little and see if it's too oppressive.';

'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A0JmmgoagY

An article on why blue gets vigilance now.
There was a discussion in one of these threads back about this topic. The video also gets int o some nitty gritty design details that may help out for sets';

'>>92654739
My original goal for the creature was that Angel of Light was basically a creature with Divine Arrow attached. That said, would four cost and then a kicker of two work better for that?

Semi related, how well does a 3/3 flying Angel for 1w work?';

'>>92655061
>My original goal for the creature was that Angel of Light was basically a creature with Divine Arrow attached. That said, would four cost and then a kicker of two work better for that?
I think a cost of four with a kicker of two like that is only really necessary if you want it to also have high power. It's mostly the case where a 3/4 creature with flying for 4 is already fairly solid, as least as far as a french vanilla creature goes. Therefore, stapling an flash and a kill spell to it should mean either reducing the effectiveness of the creature, or upping the cost.
>Semi related, how well does a 3/3 flying Angel for 1w work?
For 2cmc? That's certainly ahead of the curve. It could probably work if it had Defender or a similar downside. Or, based on Heir of Falkenrath, you might be able to get close if there's some other additional cost.

I will say a lot of this advice I'm giving is more in the context of a typical set. If you're designing for something like Commander, or are simply aiming for a higher power level in general, then a lot of these issues are minor to nonexistent.';

'>>92655061
What formats is this card aimed at?';

'>>92656883
>>92657134
For the most part, this is designed around a typical set. I don't generally play commander very often so I'm not exactly in with the meta or whatever.';

'>>92657280
As is its very easily a 3 for 1. A card that powerful I would probably want at rare for limited purposes.

I way to tone it down would be to make the statline of the creature smaller. That way it would be harder for it to kill something with its effect and then kill a second creature by blocking it.';

'>>92657327
So basically either make it, say, 2/2 for 1w, or possibly bump the cost up to 2w. That's workable.

If I bump it up to 2w, can I stick lifelink on it, or does that put it back into the 'slightly too good' category?';

'>>92657360
NTA, but I would point to Healer's Flock. 3/3 Lifelink and Flying for 3, but with two aspects that are notable here.
The first is that it's a Modern Horizons card, which is fundamentally aiming at a higher power level rather than a typical set. The second is that it's WWW rather than 2W, so it's very strict in where it can go.
Aerial Responder is a bit closer, being from a standard set, but it's a 2/3 for 1WW, though picks up Vigilance alongside Lifelink.

Though I'd note cards like Sunspire Griffin, Exultant Skymarcher, and Chapel Geist are all 2/3 Flyers for 3 as commons, so that might be something to consider as a baseline.
A 2/2 flyer for WW has been done with Leonin Skyhunter and Silver Peak Griffin. Initially Uncommon, but now Common.
It could potentially be fine to do a 3/3 for 3 or a 2/2 for 2 with less strict costs. Though depending on the rarity it's important to be wary of making flyers too large.';

'>>92657483
In theory this is the basic angel card, so by default it's going to end up common because it's the simplest version. I'll drop lifelink and just have it as a 3/3 flyer for 1ww or www.

>Though depending on the rarity it's important to be wary of making flyers too large.
The biggest flyer I have is a 3/6 dragon for 3wr and the ability to steal +1/+1 counters from other dragons every combat phase. I might need to up the cost on that by one, looking at some other dragons though.

Regardless, this is somewhat accidental but there should be a relatively even distribution of flying between the colors in terms of commons, though green is getting reach instead.';

'Is this too restrictive/highly specific in what it can pull for, or assuming that I build the set such that there are a decent chunk of cards that fit those conditions would it be more or less viable?';

'>>92658161
I'd note that you're using a hybrid frame when it should be a gold multicolor one. And in terms of the wording for this sort of effect, you'd probably need to word it more similarly to Neoform.

And in terms of restriction, I'd say that it is overly specific. Only searching for something of the same type is functional enough if it's a tribal set, but if it also needs to sacrifice a monocolor card to search a two color card, then in a draft environment it might just be a dead card way too often.
And the effect really isn't so strong as to need all those restrictions. Even with just the creature type restriction, I think it's still on the weaker side, since you're still relying on drafting enough of one creature type in order to upgrade to search the one you need.';

'>>92658487
Fair complaints. Would dropping the color bit and making it u/g rather than ug balance that out some?

Or, failing that, what if it didn't sacrifice the creature?';

'>>92635947
white gets 2 2/2 with small upside for 4 mana at common. Losing mana when your lands are put into the graveyard is a huge downside. Also, in a real game you won't have enough lands to kick it more than once, maybe twice. With all that in mind, you can safely push it to 1GU with 1GU multikicker. That being said, its a very all or nothing card, It's either give you a mighty aplha strike or be mostly useless.';

'>>92658696
I'm unsure if U/G hybrid would actually be in-pie for Blue, for putting a creature directly onto the battlefield. Arguably it's a mono-G effect, which could potentially be fine with those restrictions for 1 mana? Though honestly the color restriction just feels messy no matter what.

It is hard to gauge this sort of card in a vacuum though, since obviously the mix of creatures in the set is going to heavily determine what cards are good sac fodder for which search targets.';

'>>92648242
this belongs on reddit';

'>>92634206
This is one of the most broken cards I've ever seen in my life, thanks anon';

'>>92667522
>It is hard to gauge this sort of card in a vacuum though, since obviously the mix of creatures in the set is going to heavily determine what cards are good sac fodder for which search targets.
That's far. For what it's worth, the MGE wiki lists almost 130 of the 200+ girls as being a subspecies, such as Lamia>Egyptian Lamia or Lamia>Japanese Lamia. I won't say that I'm intentionally designing the set around those costing one more than the basic version, but for the most part that is something that I'm going to try to do when possible. It mostly depends on what I come up with in terms of their effect, how attatched to said effect I become, and how good at judging the price of said effect I actually am - which, I'm pretty sure I'm pretty bad at.

Suffice to say that there will be a decent chunk of them.';

'undefined';

'>>92669392
I thought that was the iron masked marauder from the Celebi movie for half a second and now I’m kind of disappointed that it isn’t.';

'>>92669392
Being able to ninjutsu it in for 2 and get a treasure in the process actually seems pretty great, especially since then it's a 4/4 to block with.
Though I will say that as a Rare you could probably cut some of the reminder text, since the card is absolutely swamped otherwise.';

'bump';

'I need help from anons.

So basically I made a campaign based on Mtg where the players role play as mages from 10 different wizard factions based on the 2 color pairs:

green/white: they are based on christian monks with a mix of druid. Practice healing and buffing magic to heal and empower allies. Work as healers. Become peace keepers if needed

white/blue: classic necromancers, they summon spirits to gain knowledge and protection. They works mainly as spirit detectives

red/green: shamans. they practice the other kind of spirit magic, the one that let them communicate with animistic and elemental spirits. They are wardens of the wilds.

black/green: classical witches, with broomstick and witch hats, all females. they practice herbal and potion magic. They are a coven, where women learn to become a witch to make her dreams come true with magic

green/blue: classical wizards. Old wizard dudes. They practice high magic, which is all about divination, fate and changing the dice. Work with an apprentice, like the Siths.

red/white: spell slingers, modern spell casters, or nu-wizards. Basically the Harry Potter/Dresden type of wizards. Hot blooded, brash and lack the typical wizard attitude of the classical one. Practice spell-slinging magic, basically shoot beams/fireball/lightning and defensive shields. They work in a wizard guild that is basically an adventure guild that let people hire them to solve problems.

The issue is the other 4 factions, I don't know what kind of wizards should they be

blue/black: I can't decide whether they should be demon summoners or hollywood necromancers

black/red: should they be demon summoners or alchemists?

red/blue: they are either artificers or alchemists. Honestly can't decide what suit them?

white/black: I was thinking of witch hunters that use magic tool to hunt/kill wizards, but I am not so sure this suit them or not.

That's it. Any kind anons have any cool ideas of which should be which? I'm all ears';

'>>92681737
Not gonna lie, the idea sounds really generic. Maybe make flesh out more the world building first, then ideas for the other factions might pop out.
Like, why are they divided in factions? What does the world around them look like? What else lives in this world?';

'>>92681737
I gotta side with >>92682189 here that these are fairly generic archetypes.

In terms of the ones you listed that are undecided, I would personally say
>blue/black: necromancy
>black/red: demon summoning
>red/blue: artificer
>white/black: witchhunters
All of those seem fine overall. Going with B/R as alchemists might be a little more funky though, which could work if you're also doing things like Green as old-school wizards.';

'>0/3
>flying, maybe
>"whenever you commit a crime, make a copy of this creature"
>"If you control 72 copies of this creature, you win the game"
This is probably going to end up red and white for themeatic reasons, but beyond that what's an appropriate price for this? I'm thinking either 3 or 4 - 3 for comparisons to scute swarm, which is the only thing i know of that's simiar, or four because it's probably better?';

'>>92688578
Based on Biovisionary and Mechanized Production, I think it should check for creatures by name, rather than by how many specific copies there are.

Not that it really matters, given that 72 is going to be easier reach via the copies anyway, since the copies also make copies from square 1. I think you actually only need to target an opponent or their stuff seven times in order to get more than 72 copies. Unless it's meant to be exactly 72, in which case you need a sac outlet.
Though really, any triggered ability that can target, like the Denizen cycle, could easily give you infinite copies, and in the case of Sage's Row Denizen also infinite mill.
Even in the cases where somebody is playing it more 'fairly' they're still likely to get an insurmountable wall of tokens, especially if they're playing a control-focused deck.

4 cmc in some ways almost feels too low, since unless an opponent has a counterspell or removes it right away, it's way too easy to commit crimes in most formats. There's a reason so many of the crime payoff cards in OTJ have a 'triggers only once per turn' clause.';

'>>92688708
>There's a reason so many of the crime payoff cards in OTJ have a 'triggers only once per turn' clause.
That's a valid point. Would adding something like "you may tap CARDNAME, if you do make token, it enters tapped" help slow that down/balance that out?

And yeah, exactly 72. Might even make it so that more than 72 and you lose the game.';

'>>92688934
I think the exact phrasing might need work, but requiring it to be tapped and having the copies enter tapped would help balance it out a lot. At that point any sort of combo would need some way to untap the cards along with targeting your opponent, which is getting into 3 card combo territory.
It can still start to run away with the game due to the fact it you're basically doubling how many you have each turn, but it's far less explosive since even in the ideal situation where you play it turn 3 and already have something else ready to commit a crime, you're looking at turn 9 before you surpass 72 copies.

At that point the bigger danger is probably just any ETB payoff or sac outlet that kills your opponent on turns 5 or 6 when you're dropping 8 or 16 or them.
4 cmc might still be safer for that reason, since it more firmly pushes it into 'control deck's combo finisher' territory.

The only other thing I'd add is that if it's exactly 72, then it's a lot easier to hit now that you need to pay the cost of tapping to create a copy. If somebody is at 64 from constant doubling, then they only need to tap 8 of their copies to hit it exactly. If it wasn't optional, then having a loss condition for going over adds some risk/reward, but if it is optional, then you're just adding extra lines to the card that won't end up doing much in practice, and if anything will make people even less willing to aim for it as an alternate wincon rather than just using it as a value engine.';

'>>92689151
>When crime, if not tapped, make taken, token enters tapped, only do once
>if 72, win. If 73+, lose.
Strictly speaking this still allows for shenanigans where you'd attack with some of them in order to manipulate how many were made each turn, but it's the fairest explaination I can think of to handle things. I'd prefer not to allow that to happen, but I can't think of a way to not have the tokens kick off on the same turn.';

'>>92689174
>but I can't think of a way to not have the tokens kick off on the same turn.
I'm not sure what you mean by that exactly. As long as they're copies, then they're all going to share the same trigger. The only way to avoid that would be doing something really goofy like adding a die roll or coin flip to the equation.';

'>>92692296
...Honestly I'm tempted to just toss the once per turn out the window, raise the price by one, and if you can go infinite with it then good for you.';

'>>92695677
You certainly can. I mostly wanted to illustrate some of the potential pitfalls that may have been overlooked there in terms of costing it too low without limits.';

'>>92681737
Instead of reading your ideas, I will just post mine so that they are completely un-influenced by yours (and hopefully bring something new)

>WU
Scholars and librarians. All about studying heavily (but only things "acceptable" to be studied)

>UB
Shadowmancers. Wizards that manipulate shadows to assist, and more often than not are part rogue.

>BR
Pyromancers, full-on destruction. These guys are the kind of wizards that throw out spells that do a lot of damage and even hurt themselves (either by making the magic hit everyone, or by costing them life when casting)

>RG
Rune forgers - they are all about boosting stats (especially physical ones like STR)

>GW
Enchanters - they specialize in spells that enchant certain areas, ranging from creating a magical object/room to creating protective/warding spells over entire castles or even cities

>WB
Advisors. Wizards that rely more about influencing government/etc with their status rather than their actual magic

>BG
Wizards that learn old, forgotten magic. Like pagan stuff / dark druidism

>GU
Wizards that channel natural energies into their spells, such as the current of a river, strong winds or even lightning

>UR
Battlemages & anti-mages that are actually more fighters than actual mages. Their spells consist of things like blink and counterspell, meant to disrupt other casters and finish them off with a blade

>RW
Forgers and smiths. Creators of magical items';

'>>92681737
Gonna be honest, I would just use Ravnica as a baseline and maybe use other sets like Strixhaven to spice things up. For example, your RW is actually kind of on point for that, as Strixhaven's RW is Lorehold, a group of adventure archeologists as compared to the angry police that Boros is.';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'>>92688057
>>92697716
>>92698214
Thanks all anons for your useful advice. As this anon>>92688057 said, I understand that my ideas is generic. As I want to create popular wizard archetypes using the color pair.
>>92688057
Thanks anon, I do actually think that blue/black is more suitable for demon summoning though because of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonology

Demonology is a very blue/black thing with all the famous occultic figures like Aleister Crowley is all about studying about demon. Can I ask why you choose black/red to be the demon summoners?';

'>>92700818
>Can I ask why you choose black/red to be the demon summoners?
Mostly because in the context of MtG, BR has had plenty of demon-related factions in the past. Not only are there quite a few Red demons, but devils also show up within Red.
Rakdos from Ravnica does that. The Ogres from Kamigawa do that. The Immersturm from Kaldheim is full of that. Fire, Devils, and Demons just sort of naturally lend themselves to BR.
Most often because Demons come with downsides, and Red doesn't care much for long term planning.

That isn't to say that a more patient and methodical demo summoning faction based within U/B couldn't work. Merely that it'd be less standard within how MtG usually does things.';