Click through to see the requirements for your design challenge, due by Tuesday morning. Every submission warrants feedback, which you may use to revise your submission any number of times. (I encourage you all to revise your designs at least once in response to feedback!) I will review the most recent submission from each designer, or whichever submission you specify you wish to have reviewed.Inspired by Jeremy's wonderful article on Designing for Timmy and Tammy earlier this week, let's try to design for a specific psychographic.
Specifically, your mission this weekend is to choose a psychographic you do not consider yourself, and design a card for that psychographic! (What I mean by "a card for that psychographic" is up to you to discern, Artisans!)
I also recommend you comment the card design first, and as a reply, comment which psychographic you chose, and why you think your design is for them. That way, your fellow Artisans can read the design without being biased regarding which psychographic you're aiming for or your reasoning, but can still evaluate that after seeing the design!
Cheers, and best of luck, Artisans! I look forward to seeing what you all come up with!
Intuit (Uncommon)
ReplyDelete{R}
Instant
Without looking, target opponent chooses three cards from your library and exiles them face down. Choose one of those cards and look at it. You may play that card this turn.
Add {C}.
This design was made with Tammy in mind.
DeleteWhile this card is also fairly Spikey, to Spike this might as well read "Exile the top card of your library. You may play that card this turn. Add C".
Tammy however enjoys the thrill of agency, of making a choice. Making the right instinctual guess to get out of a tight situation, that's an experience, a story.
How do you gals/guys feel about adding complexity to otherwise functionally similar cards for the sake of the experience?
Hahaha as I was reading this I was literally thinking "isn't this just the same as exiling the top card of your library (given unknown info)"? So, I guess you got me there.
DeleteI think I understand the Timmy/Tammy aspect you're going for, and I think one thing I would change about this is having the other cards be known/revealed at the end. In my opinion, a big part of why this sort of experience appeals to Tammy is seeing if they chose 'correctly', or seeing how things *could* have played out if they had chosen the left card instead of the middle one.
I also think this would be better (at least for Tammy) as a Sorcery.
--
I don't have anything against adding a little bit of complexity, but you have to be careful when doing it for Tammy's sake (because complexity isn't typically something she enjoys). This card is intuitive enough that the complexity increase should be fine.
Oh! Yeah, I didn't get it at first, but I agree with the feeling of agency. I wonder if you could make it slightly less random by choosing cards from your hard or cards you have looked at or something, so it's effectively the same as random but you both have the thrill of you knowing what the card is while the opponent tries to guess?
DeleteI feel this card is a smidge away from Johnny liking it, but randomness is what Timmy likes, so it fits. It is a simple cantrip, which would see play. If it is sorcery it would lean away from Spike.
DeleteSo... the only reason this card targets an opponent at all, as opposed to "top three", is on the off-chance they want to play head games with you after you resolve a scry effect? And if they make a dexterity error while trying to pull "the card in the exact middle of the deck" or "second from the bottom"* you are both very sad? Not a fan.
DeleteAlso, adding mana for resolving a cantrip makes it more appealing to Storm, and that can't be a good thing.
*Because you know someone's going to use this as an opportunity to troll; I've seen people go out of their way to do some ridiculous after-shuffle cuts, like taking exactly 7 cards from the top and putting them on the bottom.
The thing about this particular design is that Tammy will see through the illusion of agency. Like all magic players, she's a thinking person and understands probability, so even optimizing if it isn't her main concern, she can tell whether the decisions she's making impact the game or not.
DeleteIf the experience is fun and silly enough (see Magic Word and various other Unstable cards), I can understand creating extra rules text to emphasize it. I worry Tammy sees through this one though.
@Sage: You're right, and I considered it but was afraid it would make it too wordy. Revealing all three definitely creates more opportunity for feel-good stories, but also creates more feel-bad moments when you pick the wrong card. Still worth it I think.
Delete@Jack: Choosing from known information would make it too much like blue's card selection
@Sage, @Doug: I'm not sure if sorcery is better. Yes it'd distance it further from spike territory, but it also takes away some of the best stories where you play this in response to something and get just the card you need.
@Jenesis: The reason this targets the opponent is to prevent the player casting it from using it as actual card selection. Example: I have just used Sensei's Divining Top to look at the top 3 cards, and now play this. I now know which face down card is which.
Another reason is that a story involving both players is more fun.
Adding the mana isn't very elegant, I agree, but paying R to draw a card is very underwhelming. Any suggestions on how to make this worth casting without the 'add C' rider?
@Bradley: There will definitely be a group of people that sees through it, but there will also be a large group of people that doesn't. There's a reason cards like Thoughtscour tend to be underrated by some players: seeing good cards go away without being able to use them feels bad, even if statistically it's irrelevant.
"@Jack: Choosing from known information would make it too much like blue's card selection"
DeleteBut you don't inherently have control. If the effect were something like "opponent chooses a card from your hand", then the opponent can just ignore everything and pick one at random. Or you can shuffle and make them choose at random. Only if you try to fake them out because you know which card is which and they try to second guess you does it become a head-game. And there's no way of inherently gaining information except by both players implicitly participating in the fake out.
(I don't know exactly what the ability would be, I hadn't come up with a concrete example -- I know "an opponent chooses a card from your hand" probably wouldn't work in the rules, and wouldn't work for a card like your one, it would need to be cards that were new to you somehow)
I think your idea of 'the thrill of making a choice' is interesting for Tammy, and is probably on the right track. You're right that if one is face up and the other two face down - a la Fortune's Favor - then you make this far more for Spike than for Tammy.
DeleteStill, my concern is precisely related to your Thoughtscour analogy. Players initially loathe mill because they feel it's 'destroying their good cards', but then they learn, 'oh, it's no different than if they were on the bottom'. This makes them feel smart, and when they get milled and they aren't afraid, they can feel improved as a player.
Now, the problem with Intuit is that... well, it's a smokescreen, it's a false choice. Players who discover their choice never mattered - and I think that's a more significant number than you think - are going to feel duped. Players who can reason that it isn't a choice will also be confused that it's written as if it were a choice.
I think you're definitely on the right track with 'give Tammy a choice that rewards their gut', but you can't spin that choice out of nothingness. I'd encourage you to find a way to do that, which doesn't require deceiving the players into thinking they're making a choice when they're not. Let them actually make a choice, you know?
In order for the choice to feel real, some of the possible outcomes have to be known before the choice is made. The caveat is then that, because the outcomes are known, the player will also know what they missed out on should they make the 'wrong' choice. This can lead to feel bad moments. That being said, the non-spike people who enjoy playing cards with elements of chance probably don't care; they're in it for the times they get it right.
DeleteThe problem I’m facing trying to design a Tammy card where the player makes a choice based on instinct is as follows: trusting your gut is very much part of red’s colour identity. However, card selection and information gathering (aside from selecting sorceries/instants) is outside of red’s colour pie and identity. Therefore, offering a real choice, not just the illusion of real choice, creates a conflict. For the choice to be real, rather than just feel real, the player needs to have agency over what one (or more) of the possible outcomes will be. I’m not sure yet how to resolve that conflict within the direction I headed in with Intuit.
That being said, here are two new variations:
Intuit 2.0 (Common)
{R}
Instant
Exile the top three cards of your library. Turn those cards face down and shuffle them, then choose one of those cards and put it into your hand.
Taking Chances (Rare)
{R}
Sorcery
As an additional cost to cast ~, exile a card from your hand and the top card of your library face down.
Search your library for a card and exile it face down, then shuffle your library. Shuffle all cards exiled with ~, then choose one of them and add it to your hand.
Polyresonic Jelly (Mythic)
ReplyDelete2UG
Creature -- Ooze
Trample
All creatures on the battlefield and all creature cards in players' hands, graveyards, and libraries are copies of Polyresonic Jelly.
3/3
(I have the strangest feeling that somebody has already done a card like this or something like it already exists, but I haven't been able to find it. Apologies if I accidentally ... um ... duplicated anybody else's ideas.)
As a Johnny combo type and fan of blue, I tend to struggle with UG design because it's blue's most obvious and most Timmy/Tammy design space.
DeleteBut the shared space in cloning and duplication between the two colors does lead for some fun cleverness that I think Tammy would find appealing and fun and not just so very, very obviously about ramping, drawing cards, and putting counters on things. (But this is compatible with that, too!)
Crap. Now that I'm actually looking at it typed out instead of just in my brain, there's a huge potential of locking an opponent out of the game if they're playing a creature deck without a lot of spells to potentially remove the Jelly. I may need to rethink. Thoughts?
DeleteYeah, seems problematic to lock a non-UG player out of all their creatures until they find a removal spell. In fact, if you've got 1 or more creatures out before you play this then they'll probably never be able to cast creatures again unless they sweep the board.
DeletePerhaps something similar to an Essence of the Wild that affects both players?
Polychromatic Jelly (Mythic)
Delete2UG
Creature -- Ooze
Trample
All creatures on the battlefield and all creature cards in players' hands, graveyards, and libraries are copies of Polyresonic Jelly.
Basic lands have "T: Add one mana of any color."
3/3
Good thing we're in green! My other possible solution would be to redesign it as an artifact creature.
I think this is a fine solution to that problem. As an artifact creature I think we'd lose the flavor.
DeleteI want to use this as a curve-topper in a weenie deck, perhaps some Evolve strategy since the creatures will retain the counters.
I really like the revised polychromatic jelly. To be honest though, i'd abuse it as a cost reducer alongside bolt for fatties in modern. XD
DeleteWhy can't an Ooze be an artifact? Synthetic adhesives exist, you can bring in all five colors in the artwork, and it makes more sense than "this creature randomly mana-fixes everyone's noncreature spells too."
DeleteThis isn't supposed to be a Johnny card? Cards that seem designed to elicit judge calls give me very strong Johnny vibes.
Lots of layers complexity here. When I kill the Ooze, do my cards in hand turn back into themselves? How about on the battlefield? It would probably work beautifully digitally.
DeleteAs written now, Ooze can still lock people out if they're not running many basics. I think Ooze itself should tap for GU. That way, only Arrest effects can stop you from casting either more Oozes, or the cards in your hand. It also gives the Oozes some gas to do crazy things with in multiples, which is a missing ingredient here; lots of 3/3 tramples staring at each other doesn't seem like a game state with much potential.
Bradley's "T: Add UG" is a pretty good one, but it can still be fully locking if you can remove their board.
DeleteIf you want a colorless artifact version, maybe go with something like "Reflective Simulacrum"? "Who am I, if I am not everyone?",?
Could you use twobrid in the mana cost to make them castable? So the cost would be 2{G/2}{U/2}. Then again, six mana is probably too much anyway.
Delete{2W}{2U}{2G} sure seems like a Timmy mana cost, though I'm not sure how printable that is, realistically.
DeleteThe other side to make this a little safer/more fun would be to make the cloning trigger a monstrosity/renown effect. "As long as ~ is renowned, all creatures..
So many comments! I guess somebody else didn't come up with this idea yet. It was partly inspired by the joke names Ari came up with his stellar UG bear maker in GDS3. One of the joke names made me think of a spell that turned everything into bears.
DeleteAnyway, some responses. I think a big splashy board-wide effect like this is clearly Tammy. Jenny and Spike are certainly in a position to capitalize on it, but that's true of a lot of big splashy Tammy cards (Polyraptor, for example. And Spikes love Ghalta as much as Tammy does).
I'm okay with it causing some headaches for non-basic land users, because that indicates older formats where they're expected to have answers for that. If you're playing with lots of non-basics, you should have lots of answers to a 3/3 creature.
The trample is intended to help avoid board stalls. I see a Tammy in this scenario filling her decks with green combat tricks and blue flying facilitators. Simple, fun combat combos that create for amusing moments.
(I could also see a Tammy/Jenny type sneaking out some massive beast for four mana and then bouncing the Jelly back to her hand with a blue spell)
For the rules questions, I'm pretty sure that since this is written as a passive ongoing ability, it's only "on" when the jelly is on the battlefield, as it does not indicate otherwise.
The copies would make each other copies and make themselves copies even if they're the only creature on the battlefield and the OG jelly isn't. I would make it say- all other creatures on the battlefield...are copies of Polyresonic Jelly without this ability, if only to avoid the confusion I had.
Delete@Larcent Here's another combo for Johnny: play the ooze, then play Surgical/Cranial Extraction. Congratulations, your opponent no longer has to worry about having the mana to cast their creatures.
Delete(Why does Timmy care about the effect happening off the battlefield? Is it an important part of how you envision the card working?)
Jenesis, to Tammy, I think it's much more impactful when this makes ALL creatures - EVERY creature - EVERY where - into itself!
DeleteYou've definitely got an extremely interesting start to a design here, but I have to agree with everyone else that it requires more iteration. The 'lock' is one of the big concerns, yes. I also really appreciated the comments that noted a board full of 3/3s with trample really isn't that interesting. While it does encourage you to build a deck to make your 3/3s better than their 3/3s, I'd encourage more experimentation with the statline and whether it needs any other abilities, to determine what creature is most interesting when it's the only creature!
I think right now this is definitely a Tammy design, but I agree there's a lot of Jenny in it. Jennies will see this and go, "How can I exploit such an unusual and weird effect?" Tammies are gonna go, "Woww! What an unusual and weird effect!"
The big thing that makes it Tammy is the huge impact it has on a game. It leaves an impression. Great work, in that regard!
Could you just make an exception for mana cost of the copies?
DeletePhyrexian Leveler (Unco)
ReplyDelete{10}
Creature - Artifact / Horror Juggernaut
Trample
Phyrexian Leveler attacks each turn if able.
Mechanization {5} (You may cast this card
face down as a 5/5 colorless artefact Golem creature for {5}.)
10/10
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAs I am a (bad) Spike/Johnny/Melvin, I try to design a card for Timmies.
Delete- Big creature
- Big casting cost
- Seems fun to play
- Two different modes of gameplay
What do you think about the card and about Mechanization?
Follow the link to see the card :
Deletehttps://mtgcardsmith.com/view/phyrexian-leveler
I like morph, so mechanization is good. I wish this card reminded me of leveler a little more. I know the stats much up but maybe something with the library
DeleteBig and dumb. Is the "Horror" part that there's a set theme of 5 mana 5/5s that any color can use, with upside?
DeleteIt took me a while to figure out that you can't actually unmorph this once it's in play, so it's more like a weird kicker. That aside, Timmy likes it.
Aren't face down cards just always 2/2s according to the rules?
DeleteI think kicker actually makes this card more Timmy/Tammy:
5 Mana 5/5
Kicker 5 - put 5 counters on ~
As long as ~ has 5 or more counters on it, it attacks each turn if able.
That's a lot of 5s. Does Timmy like the aesthetics of that, or is that more of a Melvin thing (I know they're different spectrums).
Take a look at Tezzeret, Cruel Machinist.
DeleteI'm confused by Mechanization {5}. It either means Mechanizations are always 5/5's but different cards can make the cost different (which could exist) or the back side's p/t is equal to the activation cost of Mechanization (which I believe is your intent) I would write this as Mechanization 5 or Mechanization 5:{5}
DeleteI think Tezzeret being a face-up card calling the effect makes a difference there.
DeleteOne of my big concerns with this mechanic is the kicker-ness of it. A Tammy doesn't want to feel guilted or outsmarted when playing Magic, and when they're presented with a kicker-like choice, they're really going to want to cast the spell kicked. The problem is, many times, the board state is going to necessitate casting it unkicked.
DeleteThe promise of kicker is certainly Tammy, but I think in practice, kicker often ends up more like Spike, as players have to evaluate when they can afford to hold a card to kick it, or when they have to take the plunge early and sacrifice the kicker. I think it's got enough Tammy in its blood to be appealing, but it's not enough to just have kicker to make a card into a Tammy card.
However, making a 5/5 for 5 or a 10/10 for 10, that's certainly Tammy! Design-wise, though, I have a lot of concerns with your card. As others brought up, what does Mechanization {5} mean? You can't have that many 5/5s running around in a format, and you certainly can't get a lot of 5/5s for {5} - that's absurd! Only green gets 5/5s for 5CMC, and even then, it's not often in a set, and it's generally quite strong!
If it's cost=P/T, then you still have a problem. Again, {2} for a 2/2, {3} for a 3/3, {4} for a 4/4... those costs are all above-rate. Your format is going to be very scary. In addition, that's a lot of complexity on the board! A face-down card should mean only one thing in a given format.
I'm curious, as well, what other mechanization designs you have in mind. Having the choice to cast a card as a vanilla creature isn't very fun. Morph is exciting because the creature is more than a vanilla, it has the suspense of being something else, in secret. But morph where you can't flip it face-up, that's not going to play out very well, I suspect.
It was my first and only try with mechanize on a big creature and I do just for the fun of designing and trying ssomething new. My first tests with mecha was on small creatures or utility artifact thant can turn into big golems.
DeleteThe cost/effect is bad I know. Maybe with some colored mana or be downgraded to 4/4. I can see in theory a limited with a lot of collorless 4/4 for 5/6 manas like a return to new phyrexia. Thank you for the revirew. I will rework mechanize. :@)))
As written, it doesn't look like you can flip the card face up. That's a bit disappointing, and makes me wonder why this wants to be formatted as a face down card (which carries a lot of morph connotations) instead of just generating a token.
DeleteIn my head, mechanize can have different cost to cast but must have the same result on the board.
DeleteSomething like pay 6 colorless mana and put this card face down as a 5/4 golem artifact. You can have a token with those stat as a reminder on the board. And no as it is you can't flip it back.
URB
DeleteBeta Mishra, the Cloned (R)
Legendary creature - Human Artificer
Whenever you cast an artifact spell, create a
3/3 colorless Golem artifact creature token.
Golem creatures you control have deathtouch.
Mechanization {6} (You may cast this card
face down as a 5/4 colorless artifact Golem creature for {6}.
2/2
The Demonic Dragon of the End-6RB
ReplyDeleteLegendary Creature-Elder Dragon Demon
Flying
CARDNAME costs 1 less to cast for each dragon or demon you control and dragon or demon in your graveyard.
XRB: Deal X damage to each creature and player.
7/6
I designed this card for Timmy/Tammy. It is a large dragon demon that encourages you to play all your other demons and dragons. It clearly reads as an end boss, which reads Tammy to me.
DeleteMy only issues with the card are that the name is long and silly, and that the dragon's (demonic?) firebreathing shouldn't damage itself, but those are Vorthos problems and not Timmy problems. Nice!
DeleteYeah, was trying to put something down fast, could be vextras, master of evil. Even as a Johnny/Spike there is a chance I would play this. Depends how many small demons and dragons are in the set. If it doesn't damage itself it might be too strong but it is a flavor fail.
DeleteI agree, this is definitely a Tammy card! Love it! I love the unique casting cost reduction. However, I see some issues with it.
DeleteI'd estimate, in a dedicated deck, you can maybe cast a Demon/Dragon on turn 4, turn 5... and then on turn 6, you're casting this card. My concern is that a {2} discount really doesn't feel like you're 'cheating this' into play, which is what is going to feel most Tammy. Most often, the ones in the yard are going to outweigh the ones on the field, but that really isn't the most satisfying play pattern, is it? Discarding all your fun Demons and Dragons rather than being rewarded for playing them out is the less fun avenue.
I'd try to either weight the discount and increase the cost of the creature, or have it count ones in the graveyard elsewhere - perhaps to reduce the cost of its ability?
Speaking of the ability, I like how it naturally fits alongside Demons and Dragons, but I do agree it would make sense for it not to hurt itself. However, I can see that being flavored right.
Duskmantle Belvedere
ReplyDeleteLand (r)
~ enters the battlefield tapped.
T: Add U or B.
XUB: ~ becomes a 2/3 Rogue creature with "When this creature deals combat damage to a player, surveil X." until end of turn.
I am a self-professed Jenny and I tend to empathize well with the emotions and ambitions of Timmy, so I thought I'd design for the third psychographic.
DeleteIt's got an array of choices for the consummate spike: choice-of card filtering, multiple discrete timing windows, and an allowance for bluffing; all at what seems like a pretty good rate. On first glance it might not be the sharpest card in the chess sense of the word, but I do think the counterplay of a misjudged removal spell taking a land and a whole turn's mana off you isn't nothing. How do you think this fares for spike?
Spike will put this into her tournament deck. That's step one. A given format usually doesn't have enough land-based mana fixing that she can afford to pass any of them up, and UB is generally a control archetype that doesn't mind a few lands ETBT.
DeleteThe most commonly used ability is probably UB: Make a 2/3 for a turn. Spike might not love having to pay attention to her land row all the time, but she doesn't mind, and sometimes she can randomly gotcha a careless opponent mid-combat.
The usefulness of the surveil ability will be heatedly debated. "In the middle of combat on your turn" is generally the least valuable time to be surveilling. You don't get access to the card right away unless you specifically sandbagged a draw spell for the postcombat phase, and if your opponent makes a play on their turn that changes the value of what's on top, you will be sad, even if your opponent doesn't realize it yet. Spike will probably appreciate the flexibility to do something with all her excess mana in the late game, though, so it's only upside.
I don't think the X ability actually works, though, since once the ability finishes resolving, X is no longer defined.
And it invites rules questions on whether "Surveil 0" should mean "surveil, as though you had an empty library, triggering all surveil-matters cards" or "nothing happens."
I think a lot of interesting design space opens up if Magic allows for turn-stable X values, but I think the wording in this case grants spending 3UB a "surveil 3", rather than granting the creature it becomes "surveil X" where X has to be re-checked. But I'm definitely open to other or more rules-stable wordings.
DeleteI would hope surveil 0 means "nothing happens", but it's a good point that it at least needs to be spelled out somewhere "surveil 0 and scry 0 just don't trigger". Thanks!
I don't like surveil X too much, and I think it's pretty easy for this card to turn into a "win condition" on it's own. As a control deck, if my opponent ever stumbles and I'm able to get in for surveil 5 or 6, I'm never running out of answers for the rest of the game. Plus it's not very fun to resolve anything above surveil 4.
DeleteThat might not be too problematic on its own, but consider also that this lets a control player hold up 3 mana for a counterspell and threaten a 2/3 blocker, on turn 3. If I'm an aggro deck, I probably can't afford to attack into that at all.
That being said, Spikes will definitely love this card.
As X{UB}{UB}{UB} is pretty unwieldy, my first instinct is to make it "Pay 1 life, T: Add U or B". May be still a strong player in a UB control shell, but every point of life can weigh, and "ETBT Painland creaturelands" I imagine gives enough leeway to make a decent cycle without flooding Modern with too many creaturelands that it mucks up manabases.
DeleteI think you have a great instinct to identify a manland as a good card for Spikes! I agree with the concerns that X is probably a little too unbounded for surveil; resolving anything higher than surveil 3 is going to be time-consuming, and pretty mind-numbing work, I think.
DeleteI think just having it at a set cost, perhaps with a life payment as you suggest, helps. It's plenty Spike-y to be weighing the activation cost, the inaccessibility of the mana, and any other costs, when trying to figure out whether to attack or block with your land... that's already going to reward skill and smarts much more than most other cards!
In terms of the design itself, I'll ignore the presence of other manlands in other formats. I think this looks like a fun design! I agree with the concerns that its blocking capacity is a bit worrisome to me, but I'm not sure how to improve on that.
Tuning this away from its Spikiest form to something finicky but filled with love:
DeleteDuskmantle Belvedere
Land (r)
~ enters the battlefield tapped.
Pay 1 life, T: Add U or B.
{X}{UB}{UB}{UB}: If it's your turn, ~ becomes a 2/3 Rogue creature with "When this creature deals combat damage to a player, surveil X." until end of turn.
I imagine joy in a Spike's eye activating this on turn 6 for a single point of surveil with two lands left untapped, bluffing (or not) that they have a response left in hand.
Survail 0 does nothing assuming it's like scry:
Delete701.17b If a player is instructed to scry 0, no scry event occurs. Abilities that trigger whenever a player scries won’t trigger.
Nesting Symbiote 3G
ReplyDeleteCreature - Insect (R)
Other creatures you control have hexproof.
When Nesting Symbiote becomes the target of a spell or ability, sacrifice it. If you do, create a 0/0 green Insect creature token with "This creature gets +1/+1 for each creature you control."
4/1
As a mostly Jonny/Timmy player, I tried to make this card for Spike. It has an efficient rate and provides many opportunities for the player to take advantage of it with skillful play.
DeleteI would cut a Mana, the rate probably isn't good enough for Spike to want it. If it also had hexproof then maybe. Would be hard for me to want to play this over voice of resurgence. Could probably make the token a death trigger
DeleteYou're right, I'm probably overvaluing how good giving your other creatures hexproof is. 2G makes a lot more sense. I do like having it sac upon targeting instead of a death trigger though, it creates more tension between using it to protect your creatures and going into combat with it. It also encourages your opponent to get around it via combat instead of always using removal on it, which I think could be a more interesting play pattern.
Delete@rkohn1357 : I agree that your opponent will want to prefer to remove this by attacking, blocking, or sweeper to avoid the free token.
DeleteUnfortunately the 1 toughness on this creature makes it almost useless in combat, since it will trade with the dorkiest of your opponent's creatures. It also dies to Goblin Chainwhirler, which is a huge drawback in this format.
You could just up the stats, say to 3 mana 3/3 or up (3/4 or 4/3) as good stats that would encourage players to attack and block with this more.
Both abilities are good against control decks with lots of targeted removal. So a good spot to aim for would be a sideboard card against those decks.
Alternate text that sticks with 4/1 could be trample or can't be blocked by creatures with power two or less.
Zachariah has great instincts! You definitely want to make this card a lightning rod for spells and abilities, and being a 4/1 is almost the exact opposite of that, unfortunately. I'm not sure I can agree with it being a 3/3 for 3CMC, as that's going to be pretty scary alongside granting hexproof to your other creatures and its ability to replace itself... but I would most certainly encourage some massaging to find more threatening stats that make it tougher to fight in combat. I like something like a 4/1 or 3/2 with the 'dauntless' ability, for example.
DeleteBlessing of Life
ReplyDeleteW
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant Creature.
Enchanted creature gets +1/+1 for each 1 life you have more than your starting total.
I'm not sure what psychographic I fit best, but here's a card borrowed from an idea I had once in a "design a 1 CMC for tammy" competition, which was designed thinking about things that appeal to tammys/timmys in general, not especially to myself.
DeleteOooooooooh!!!! This is definitely an exciting card for that demographic. My eyes lit up just seeing it and thinking of all the "bad" cards I'd play alongside it.
DeleteAbsolutely Tammy to the max! The idea of unbounded growth for just {W} is so exciting! Life-gain is also a very popular strategy among Tammy players - it involves numbers going up and when the game plan is gaining life, players will feel safe going all-in on their game plan - so this is absolutely a home-run for the Tammy audience.
DeleteI think it's also quite a safe card, really. It has a fun impact on the board, immediately, and it makes both players do some interesting things when it comes to the creature this is buffing. An Aura also has the swinginess that a Tammy might love.
A part of me actually wonders, though, whether this wants to be more resilient than an Aura. Having this as an ability on a creature isn't exciting enough, I think, but perhaps on an enchantment and giving the +N/+N at start of combat on your turn...? Not sure. But the swinginess is probably fine!
Koth's Last Stand 2RR
ReplyDeleteEnchantment - Aura M
Enchant creature
Whenever a creature enters the battlefield, enchanted creature fights that creature. If that creature dies, put a charge counter on Koth's Last Stand. If there are 5 or more charge counters on Koth's Last Stand you win the game.
While I do like doing Johnny things, it generally more in johnny/spike territory where I'm making awkward things work in deck building rather than going deep on alternate win cons.
DeleteThis scratches the alternate win con itch, it's also asking for something odd and specifically red doesn't have a lot of tools to make this easy.
This is definitely a weird one to try to make work, since it's most suited to going on an indestructible creature and shutting off your opponent from playing small creatures, or else winning the game in one shot by playing an effect that makes 5 tokens at once (since your own stuff also triggers it). Fits for Johnny. Probably too much card disadvantage for Spike.
DeleteI think the 5-token thing could be made reasonably fair if the win ability triggered on your next upkeep like most of the other alternate win cards. The scenario of throwing it on an indestructible creature (or even a 6/6 or something) is pretty miserable, though.
DeleteDefinitely an interesting design that will make Johnny think, but I agree that it's going to get extremely taxing to play against on any creature of significant size, and as Jenesis noted, the 'best' way to play it is to just snatch a win out the second it comes down. I don't think that gives Johnny the best feeling.
DeleteMy suggestion would be to grant the creatures it fights wither - perhaps not literally, but "Whenever a creature ETB, enchanted creature deals damage to that creature equal to enchanted creature's power, and you put a number of -1/-1 counters on enchanted creature equal to the the other creature's power", or whatever.
The idea of my suggestion is that it makes 6/6s and indestructible creatures no longer an 'easy-win'. The creature will be worn down with each creature that enters, so it makes the card more Johnny! Now you have to figure out how to get the counters off it, or find a creature you're sure can survive anything your opponent throws at it, or once more, find a way to get out more small creatures than your opponent gets out big creatures.
My suggestion does have the problem of working poorly with the '5 charge counters', since it becomes confusing whether the aura has the counters, or this creature does. Perhaps it looks for five -1/-1 counters on the enchanted creature. That means you also can't cheat by just using 0 power creatures - though perhaps that's more fun for Johnny to realize. Hm...
Anyway, great design! I think it's promising that it has a lot of room to iterate with!
Koth's Last Stand 2RR
DeleteEnchantment - Aura M
Enchant creature
Whenever a creature enters the battlefield it gains infect until end of turn. Enchanted creature fights that creature.
If that creature dies, put a charge counter on Koth's Last Stand.
At the beginning of your upkeep, if there are 5 or more charge counters on Koth's Last Stand, you win the game.
Belbe, Phyrexian Ambassador 1BG
ReplyDeleteLegendary Creature - Elf Horror (M)
When Belbe enters the battlefield, target opponent exiles a card from their hand. You may play that card as though it was in your hand.
Lands you control have "T, Pay one life: Add one mana of any color."
2/1
I'm not much of a Vorthos anymore, and I haven't followed the story in a long time. But, I do remember this old, major character that's never gotten a card. I'm not sure if this actually works in the Commander rules, it might need to be "T, Pay one life: Add <>. You may use this mana as mana of any type" to work with the Commander color restrictions. I'm also not much of a Commander player.
DeleteCommander cares about mana symbols so "one mana of any color" can go in any deck. Your second one lets you produce colorless which is necessary to cast some Oath of the Gatewatch cards.
DeleteCommander also lets you tap for off-color mana now (e.g. Sen Triplets can tap City of Brass for green mana) specifically to avoid unwanted interactions with the colorless-cost Eldrazi cards.
DeleteWhy is this card green? Paying life for mana is something monoblack can do.
This is designed for Vorthos and from their perspective this should be BG as (I'm assuming, I didn't follow the story back then) Belbe best matches those colors. Also, Phyrexia doesn't care about the color pie. ( refer to Glissa, the traitor)
DeletePaying life for mana is something monoblack can do, but I think the ability to grant it to all your lands still feels green. In addition, as NaOs notes, a card can be {B}{G} without necessarily needing to completely fulfill the requirements of including black elements and green elements, as long as the final card exudes {B}{G}-ness. The fact the character is {B}{G}, and the card grants the ability to lands, sells me on it being {B}{G}.
DeleteThe design itself is great! I love how it marries what has become a classic black effect of swiping the opponent's cards, with a classic green effect of fixing all your mana, to create a result that feels completely natural, tells an evocative story, and somehow hasn't been done before.
Love it!
Biastagan, Lord of the Swarm - RRBB
ReplyDeleteLegendary Creature - Demon
Flying
When Biastagan enters the battlefield, and at the beginning of each of your turns, create two 0/1 Imp creature tokens with Flying.
Imps you control get +1/+1 and have haste.
Biastagan's power is equal to the number of Imps you control.
*/4
I consider myself heavily Johnny with a little bit of Spike, but I have my Timmy moments, and that's what I'm designing this card toward. The card that has brought out my inner Timmy more than any other is Mal'Ganis (from Hearthstone). That was my inspiration for this card, but the final result doesn't show it a whole lot.
DeleteI was trying to invoke the D&D-esque image of a demon lord flying high above the party as swarms of minor demons emerge from the portal whence he came. The longer you take before you close the gates to hell, the more trouble you're in. The demon lord's minions are still around once you oust the demon, but they're much less of a threat - for now. Similarly, Biastagan is much less threatening without his army, but you can't rely on killing the fodder forever.
I tend to associate Timmy and Melvin a bit, because I think that the aesthetic pleasure that Melvin gets thrives on the same sense of "cool" that Timmy often yearns for. On the turn he can attack, Biastagan will be a 4/4 for 4 and have 4 imps at his side, which I find cool.
One other thing I tried with Biastagan that you may have noticed is the "at the beginning of each of your turns" phrasing. This is such a clean, intuitive phrase that every Timmy will get (no matter how new to the game). The upkeep is confusing for new players (and some experienced ones), has no visceral connection to the flavor of the game, and is already being phased off of cards (one card mentions "upkeep" in GRN, and almost all standard-legal cards that do so are Rare+).
This "at the beginning of each of your turns" phrase means exactly the same thing as "at the beginning of your upkeep", but it sounds and feels so much better. Just throw a clause in the rulebook explaining that "beginning of the turn" effects are triggers that go on the stack during your upkeep. Bing bang boom. Done.
This definitely reads like "a Timmy card designed by Spike"! I wonder whether this really needs the red?
DeleteDemon/Imp tribal doesn't need the red (I'm assuming the tokens are monoblack), but the red makes sense for the haste-granting Lord ability and the lopsided p/t.
DeleteUpkeep is a weird step in-between untap and draw, and it makes a certain amount of sense to get rid of it. That said, if you're going to get rid of "upkeep" on cards, I would rather rework the rules of the beginning phase to remove it entirely, instead of confusingly renaming "upkeep" to something that sounds like it works differently from upkeep. (e.g. If the Lord didn't explicitly give haste to the imps, I would expect a lot of rules questions on that.)
Technically this card could fit within either Mono R or Mono B, which I thought made it a good candidate for Rakdos.
DeleteThere would certainly been rules questions about this phrasing at first, but I think they would clear up quickly since it's just a rephrasing of the current rules. I'm not really trying to get rid of the upkeep phase, just hide it.
I've also been trying to move away from 'upkeep' on cards. I've been using 'After your draw step', a la Sagas. I like your cleaner wording, though. :)
DeleteTammy loves tribal, as it gives them a clear trajectory to build around and makes for exciting moments every time they draw a member of their tribe, or get one from a booster pack or product. Furthermore, this card is explosive, as it has a massive impact on the board, and promises further impact when Imps hit the board from your hand. Then, even better, it has a number that gets bigger! This is as Tammy as it gets!
I'd actually say you're nearly doing too much with this card. I think I'd drop the variable power, and just focus on its ability to constantly be churning out flying, hasty pests. The gameplay of trying to bring down Biastagan in order to make the Imps powerless again is also really exciting. The variable power is just distracting from all the other good bits of your design!
When making a punchy, impactful card, you want to remove extraneous elements to help the coolest bits stick out. Players need time to process how the parts of a card click together and what they might look like in play, and additional elements that don't directly contribute to the essential core of the card - that it churns out Imps it makes into hasty threats - are going to lessen that impact by diluting it. Remember, elegance!