Weekend Art ChallengeGreetings, artisans! Click through to see this weekend's art and the design requirements for your single card submission, due Monday morning. Every submission warrants feedback, and everyone is encouraged to give feedback. You may use that feedback to revise your submission any number of times, though only the version rendered will be included in the review, if someone volunteers to render the cards.
Design a non-land card for this art without using the words 'you' or 'your.'
Doomed Quest
ReplyDeleteWB
Enchantment - Uncommon
Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under an opponent's control, put a quest counter on CARDNAME.
Remove five quest counters from CARDNAME and sacrifice it: Each opponent sacrifices two creatures.
~"At last, I have found it. We are saved."~ -Ela scout, last words
Very important clarification: reminder text does count on the challenge requirements? :P :)
ReplyDeletepartly
DeleteSacred Vault (rare)
ReplyDelete2
Artifact
When CARDNAME is exiled from the battlefield, draw four cards.
Tried to go for uber-flavor here. I know my mechanical implementation is a bit sloppy, but I think the idea is solid. I look forward to hearing some feedback on how to iterate this further and get a better design out of it.
ReplyDeleteGargoyle Guardian {5}
Artifact Creature - Gargoyle (R)
Defender
When Gargoyle Guardian enters the battlefield, exile target artifact until it leaves the battlefield.
{1}: Gargoyle Guardian loses defender and gains flying until end of turn. Return the exiled artifact to the battlefield this turn. (At end of turn, it is exiled again.)
4/4
The flavor of this is that the Gargoyle will protect the treasure from players as long as it is defending it, but the second it leaves its post to fly around, the artifact is exposed to the world once more.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWoops, forgot the artist credit on my render. Here is the updated render: http://i.imgur.com/VyvvZ5N.jpg
DeleteThat's a really cool general flavor for a Gargoyle! Mechanically, the closest thing it resembles to me is Hoarding Dragon. One thing I wonder on the wording -- should it say "Return...under its owner's control" since it can exile enemy artifacts? The only downside I see with this design is the picture shows two gargoyles! :)
DeleteNS: Check out the way I cropped the pic. (:
DeleteYou're right, it might need owner's control, but I think it's still clear and functional as-is. I'll wait for some more opinions from other people - to see if they share the same confusion - before I decide to update the render again. So much work to rerender, you know? :P
Noggle Traptripper 2UR
ReplyDeleteCreature- Noggle Scout (Uncommon)
When CARDNAME enters the battlefield exchange control of it with target artifact an opponent controls. If that artifact is a creature, CARDNAME fights that creature.
2/2
I like the translation of this as a noggle- that's a great idea. If it's a, say Myr Sire, who gets the token?
DeleteFair point.
DeleteOfficial change: ...exchange control..., THEN if that artifact is a creature....
Continuing with my twobrid design kick...
ReplyDeleteAlso, HOURGLASS is a symbol that means the ability can only be activated as a sorcery. I imagine this card for a Commander product.
Deadly Coffers (RARE)
3
Artifact
HOURGLASS - 2/B2/B, T: Each player with one or fewer cards in hand draws 2 cards and loses 2 life.
A clever spell conceals the vault's riches. It also cloaks the scorpions that protect the treasure.
The Hourglass is really cheating here since it hides a "You". This is a neat design though, which matters more.
DeleteI'm less than typically confident in the numbers here. This might want the Sorcery clause on the ability, but the tiebreaker is that that breaks the rules.
ReplyDeleteUntold Treasure 6
Artifact (R)
X, tap, sacrifice ~: Draw X cards.
Sensible boring submission:
ReplyDeleteWake the Statues, 2W
Instant, uncommon
Cast ~ only during the declare blockers step on an opponent's turn.
Put two 2/2 colourless Gargoyle artifact creature tokens onto the battlefield blocking target attacking creature.
Somewhat less sensible submission (assumed to be in a fairly artifact-heavy set):
Random Encounter, 2UR
Sorcery, rare
Reveal the top eight cards of target player's library. Put a creature card from among them onto the battlefield under an opponent's control, and exile the rest. That creature blocks this turn if able. When that creature dies this turn, put up to two artifact cards from among those exiled cards onto the battlefield.
Obviously trying to capture the flavour of "unexpected monsters, unexpected loot". Don't know what colours this should be really.
One thing I really like about both of these is that they play to the scene well. I feel like the scene isn't focused enough on one thing to just be a creature card, but it completely makes sense as a sorcery summoning two creatures.
DeleteLore-Seeker Soldier W
ReplyDeleteCreature - Human Soldier (U)
First strike
Whenever a land enters the battlefield under a player’s control, exile Lore-Seeker Soldier. Return it to the battlefield under its owner's control at the beginning of the next end step.
2/1
Neat design! I don't see strong connection between the Lore seeking and the lands. May I suggest Wanderlust Traveler for the name?
DeleteAlso, the "under a player's control" in the first sentence is not needed.
A 2/1 First Striker for W with upside is a bit too far above the curve I think.
DeleteBut it's also a downside!
DeleteAnd I'm not sure a Youthful Knight that regularly loses their way to the battlefield is of much use for any successful Magician.
This is basically 2/1 First Strike can't block I suppose. Maybe that's fine.
DeleteThe ability is super fiddly, so I don't think we can see this at Uncommon. Also the super fiddliness makes me want to cost this so it doesn't see serious constructed play, while as currently costed it certainly would.
Wanderlust Traveler W
DeleteCreature - Human Soldier (U)
First strike
Whenever a land enters the battlefield, exile Wanderlust Traveler. Return it to the battlefield under its owner's control at the beginning of the next end step.
2/1
I like the rename idea. It's sort of both a downside and an upside (Soul Sister creatures, gaining semi-vigilance, but not being able to play mana and haste guys/pump pre-combat if you wanna attack and the opponent dropping lands to kick him out of the way). Could certainly be rare, but is it interesting enough as-is?
Interesting enough as-is for rare, I mean.
DeleteI think it is the wrong mix. I think there are two interesting cards here that should be different cards.
DeleteA 2/1 for W with First Strike and a weird upside/downside is going to interest aggro players who just want a 2/1 for W with First STriek, and they're going to have to deal with the fiddliness.
On the other hand, the Johnnies of the world are going to love the uberlandfall flicker creature they can use to do... well I'm not sure what, but I'm sure they will figure out something. But they're not going to care at all about the First Strike because they probably aren't going to attack with it and instead combo it with Purphoros or something.
I think to make this an excellent design, you should pick which audience you want to make this card for and then modify it a bit to fit that.
I guess this works in case you've got a Norin the Wary but really want to make sure you flicker a 2/1 each turn.
DeleteI agree that this is super-fiddly. I can imagine this could be one half of a seeded combo for the set it's in, but otherwise, landfall-blinking seems like it invites the wrong sort of feelbad when you instinctively go "draw, play my land, oops! um. I'll attack next turn I guess."
Tommy: I actually like the multifaceted appeal of this design.
DeleteMy point wasn't "it is bad that this will appeal to two different groups," rather my point was "aggro Spikes will hate this card but be forced to play it because a 2/1 first striker for W is good." As Pasteur points out it is going to lead to all kinds of feel bad and it will trigger 10 times a game for no reason with those players.
Delete(If it is triggering ten times a reason because of some sort of combo, that is awesome, no complaints. If this is taking the place of Mardu Woe Reaper in someone's deck, I think that person's net happiness, and that of their opponent, go down from dealing with this card, even if their win rate goes up.)
1W might be OK, I guess, but then it's much less exciting on the face. The ability reads like a drawback (and at times very much is), so I want the card to at least be interesting on the baseline and then have the potential to turn the ability into even more of a bonus.
DeleteIf I were to tweak it, I'd make it something like a 4/5 with Defender for 1W with this ability.
DeleteAn idea I'm tinkering with for my personal custom set project. I like it much.
ReplyDeleteVault of the Treasure 1UU
Enchantment - Structure (U)
Structure 4 (This enters the battlefield with four shield counters on it. If you would be dealt damage by a source an opponent controls, that player may instead remove that many shield counters from this. When the last is removed, sacrifice it.)
1UU: Draw a card.
4
There's a lot of variation that can be done, and I'm not sure which version has better gameplay:
- What are the most significant number on the keyword;
- The necessity of the subtype and/or of the keyword;
- Whether or not it should be possible for you to get rid of your own structures by damaging yourself; and whether it should count life loss or only damage;
- Whether or not it should be mandatory or optional for your opponent to remove counters from it.
I even attempted a modified card frame: here's the render.
[img]https://41.media.tumblr.com/2a7dc0e85516b3b46c5cc0a7a9af7f7a/tumblr_np68g0p5RK1rs4z9io1_400.jpg[/img]
Quest's End WG
ReplyDeleteEnchantment - Aura
Enchant creature
Whenever enchanted creature deals damage to a player, that player wins the game.
You have to mean combat damage, right? Cast this on your own Tim seems too good...
DeleteDefinitely something that needs to change. This was a kernel of an idea, but I think I might be able to make it slightly more fair.
DeleteQuest's End 2WG
Enchantment - Aura
When enchanted creature deals combat damage to a player, that player wins the game.
Enchanted creature gets +2/+2.
Too weird? Too wonky? The idea is to either flash it in on an attacking creature (if you can find a way to), or put it on a creature and then Goblin Diplomats your way to victory. The opponent can return serve by either removing the creature, removing the aura, removing your way to instigate attacks, or using the creature to deal lethal damage to you so you die before the trigger resolves (which I'm pretty sure works, timing-wise.)
Delightful! I'd also look into redirection effects to let this deal its combat damage to me. Fascinating Johnny card.
DeleteIs this rare or mythic? Jenny cards shouldn't usually be mythic, but I could see an exception for a splashy card like this.
Very weird. They print this kind of Johnny card less and less these days, and I'm happy about that. I far prefer the Johnny card that has an obvious purpose, but if you read between the lines does something really interesting.
DeleteThat said, I know there are players who like this kind of thing, so I think it is fine to print something like this once every couple years. I do worry that, even then, this has some consequences that are a bit too weird.
For example, this might just auto win against a creature that attacks each turn if able (since you can cast it while they're tapped out and the buff probably pushes it out of burn range).
Hunt for the Trove U
ReplyDeleteEnchantment (R)
When Hunt for the Trove enters the battlefield, target opponent puts two 3/3 colorless Gargoyle artifact creature tokens onto the battlefield.
When each opponent controls no Gargoyles, sacrifice Hunt for the Trove and draw three cards.
Render: http://imgur.com/sslBoXM
Wanted to play off the Hunted cycle and Quests.
Oooh, what a fun design! Very wonky and neat.
DeleteTiming doesn't quite work: the second ability triggers before the first resolves. The first ability might need to be an "As ~ ETBs" rather than "When ~ ETBs".
DeleteI like the idea though.
Maybe move the second trigger to the end step? At the end of turn, if no opponent controls a gargoyle, etc?
DeleteThanks for the feedback! I'd like to revise it to "As ~ ETBs" if that fixes the timing. I think that'd be the cleanest fix. :)
DeleteUpdated render: http://imgur.com/DfmKA3p
DeletePandora's Chest {5}
ReplyDeletePrize Artifact
(Prize permanents can be attacked.)
When enters the battlefield, put two 3/3 Gargoyle artifact creature tokens onto the battlefield.
At the end of combat, if ~ was dealt combat damage, each opponent draws a card.
Prize as a super/subtype for permanents, or subtype for artifacts? Can this/these be destroyed by combat damage? Do you envision many of them caring about how much damage was dealt?
DeleteThis is admittedly cleaner than if it had something like "ETB, put three treasure counters on ~. When ~ is dealt damage, each opponent removes a treasure counter from it and draws a card", or any of the more explicit executions of the flavor.
Prize is a forward-looking supertype. It expands the game to make combat more interesting and allows new design space. It doesn't inherently have rules concerning damage. You need extra rules and abilities for that. So how to handle damage for non creature, non planeswalker is up to additional rider abilities. For instance, Prize Lands could have
DeleteStructure N (Put this into the graveyard if N damage was dealt to this permanent this turn.
There's a lot more you can do with permanents that can be attacked.
3
ReplyDeleteTomb Statues
Artifact
4, Sacrifice CARDNAME: Put two 3/3 golem artifact creature tokens onto the battlefield.
This is not a very interesting submission, but I wanted to give it a go anyway. I chose an artifact that made tokens since that fit the statues best, and since being made at instant speed made for a "you know they're going to come to life but not when" moment.
This is actually incredibly mana efficient. I'd very happily play this turn 3 and pop it on turn 4 in limited. I don't think it is busted, but I think this would get first picked out of most packs it was in. Is that intended?
DeleteGood clean design! Seven total mana investment seems fair, but we tend to see these types of effects cost much more. I agree with your costs but would not be surprised if it ended up costing more
DeleteI think it is totally fair, and would make a great rare. I was just pointing out that it was pretty high power because it lets you use the "installment plan" as Limited Resources calls it. A 7 mana card that made two 3/3s would be junk, but this is way better than taht. Would have made a great addition to RTR.
DeleteI agree with both, that this is towards the upper end of what's printable. But I should probably aim it for uncommon, suggestions for best cost balance?
ReplyDeleteI think at Uncommon 4, 4 or 3, 5 is probably fine?
DeleteThough if I'm honest, I think I prefer the original costing with it being at rare.
DeleteI'll be doing the remaining renders this afternoon, so consider this a last call for submissions.
ReplyDelete