|
Not exactly 100% related to the challenge, but...
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 05:07 |
|
|
AJ_Impy posted:Savant Conclusion should be 'any number of target nonland permanents'. Not what I had in mind but you're right that the phrasing was wrong, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
Problem: Most of the super old super iconic creatures aren't worth playing anymore. Solution: Let's make cards that depend on them specifically, to give you a reason to use them again. Problem: It would suck if you drew the super iconic creature or its support card separately. Solution: We go full Yugioh.     
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Solution: We go full Yugioh. quote:quote:
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
PMush Perfect posted:That is a beautiful idea. But... That, too, is full Yugioh. I mean, they just die to removal because: 1) They're too big to viably kill in combat, and their token abilities will take over the game if they live, so removal is how you avoid just plain losing to them. 2) They cost 0 mana to play, they don't use up a card in your hand, they don't make you sacrifice the three creatures needed to channel them, they live in the sideboard so they don't run the risk of sitting dead in your hand... I think even if they eat removal they haven't really set you back super far. Like, Banelsayer Angel obsoletes Serra Angel, and it too dies to removal. That's kind of the space I want these to live in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
    
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 00:58
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 06:23
|
|
|
Ah, I loved those cards!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 06:24
|
|
|
Five hours left to get any last submissions in!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
    
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
   
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
Ah, silver bullets. How very Decipher.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
HONORABLE MENTION: Like you said, it doesn't fit the theme but I love the idea, both in terms of mechanics and flavor. THIRD PLACE: I was always more of a pokékid, but I dig the branching "digivolution" tree and I'd love to see more cards in this vein. If I get another chance to judge, I think I'll make the theme something along these lines. SECOND PLACE Never before has a turn one drop elicited such an "oh fuuuuck" response from the opponent. When one of these hits the battlefield you know what's eventually coming but are nearly powerless to stop it, which I think is brilliant for an eldritch horror. FIRST PLACE: I love the bluffing aspect to these cards. Do I have a Godfather's Punishment in my hand or are you safe refusing to sack? That's the sort of fuckery I'd be tempted to throw into just about any deck I make. Excellent cards everyone and congrats to our winner Kuiperdolin!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 03:10
|
|
|
Spreadsheet updated. Kuiperdolin's 4th gold, with no silver. Lack of Bear's 8th silver, one off the record total, and Pmush's 33rd honourable mention.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 13:46
|
|
|
AJ_Impy posted:Pmush's 33rd honourable mention. I like to think it means I'm a solid but unspectacular designer, the kind who fills out the spaces between the high points of ideas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
That's a worthwhile design skill, Pmush. "Draft Chaff / Role Fillers" is on my shortlist for challenge prompts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Alright, our next event is : X marks the spot    Give me something with X generic mana as a cost (not necessarily a casting cost). Make it cool, original, fun, and cool. Contest ends in 1 week, the 27/11/2018 at 23:59.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
          Open-ended contest? Time for my obligatory shotgun blast of old cards I really liked but that never got much love. Also this, because I will take every excuse I can get to post this one again. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
 I always liked Astral Cornucopia's casting cost and potential for shenanigans. This should be about the right power level.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 00:47
|
|
|
I always liked Endless Scream.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 01:22
|
|
|
 Edit: I made a custom set symbol too 
Hardcordion fucked around with this message at 08:45 on Nov 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 08:07
|
|
|
 I was going to do this with energy at first, and then I realized that would just be an even better version of Aether Hub.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 01:39
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 07:27
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 08:01
|
|
|
What happens at X = 0? Does the spell fizzle because it doesn't have a legal target, or does it resolve targeting 0 creatures? What does targeting 0 creatures even mean? Can you target something that isn't there? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 10:08
|
|
|
PMush Perfect posted:What happens at X = 0? Does the spell fizzle because it doesn't have a legal target, or does it resolve targeting 0 creatures? What does targeting 0 creatures even mean? Can you target something that isn't there? Spell resolves, does nothing, like a fireball for R.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 10:12
|
|
|
 At first I thought of a damage spell that you can buyback by doubling X, but then I basically just reinvented Fanning the Flames.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 10:32
|
|
|
 e. added colour for the tokens. Mikl fucked around with this message at 11:49 on Nov 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 10:45
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 10:52
|
|
|
Mikl posted:
drat that's some good art. You should put that on an old style card frame with old style templating
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
Nebalebadingdong posted:drat that's some good art. You should put that on an old style card frame with old style templating This is actually a really good and fun idea! 
Mikl fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Nov 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2018 17:36
|
|
|
PMush Perfect posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
Oh, right. There are few cards in Commander I hate more than that one. Well, I guess this is retroactively me trying to rebalance it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2018 02:31
|
|
|
I'm sure this is templated terribly, but here's my humble submission:  Thought about adding "Haunt" but I'm not sure how that would work with an X cost spell. Mat Cauthon fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Nov 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 02:50
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:Thought about adding "Haunt" but I'm not sure how that would work with an X cost spell. It wouldn't, since Haunt would recast it with X=0
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 06:11
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:I'm sure this is templated terribly, but here's my humble submission: Edit: Had a new idea. 
girl dick energy fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Nov 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 07:35
|
|
|
PMush Perfect posted:That "technically fair but actually devastating" choice is absolutely 100% Orzhov, though. That's a nice touch. This needs to cost UURX but otherwise is really cool!
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:This needs to cost UURX but otherwise is really cool!
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 05:07 |
|
|
PMush Perfect posted:I'm open to the idea, but why? Is it because RU for "counter an instant or sorcery spell for 2" is too good when attached to something modal? It's partly my mistake; I read it as "counter target spell" and not "target instant or sorcery," which would have given you a straight-up counterspell effect at UR when X=0. Even as-is though, I think it needs to cost 1 more mana so you won't be as strongly incentivized to take it over Negate, but that one can maybe go either way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 19:25
|
|