Custom Lands
Custom Cards forum
Posted on June 18, 2015, 11:22 p.m. by Nickyorany
I love making custom cards, I like to see how well my understanding in card balance is. I've been working on some custom lands for a while. I wanted to design lands that had the potential to see some form of competitive play without being on the power level of the irreplaceable Shocks/Fetches (For modern power level and lower anyway.)
With all of my cards and mechanics, I'd personally love to hear any opinions on my designs. Word cleanup is definitely something I look for in card advise, along with any possible criticism to help push my cards in more interesting direction.
Just a little bit of background on some of my design choices. These lands had a bit of influence from the Ravnica Karoo lands and the Lorwyn Filter lands. I didn't quite like the style the filter lands used when using two colors combos, it felt like it took up a lot of unnecessary space.
Tl;dr: Are these lands cool?
Edit: Some different card text changed I would make if i had to 'nerf' the power of these cards. Let me know what you guys feel.
@CheeseBro Magic Set Editor is an amazing program, I use it all the time as well.
@Nickyorany Instead of "your hand", say "it's owners hand" in case you take control of an opponents land. Also, would it be alright if I used some of these for my custom card collaboration deck?
June 18, 2015 11:31 p.m.
I think instead of "any colors this land could produce," you could just say "in any combination of (color) or (color)." Sounds better to me at least, and would also conserve some text box space.
June 18, 2015 11:37 p.m.
lowbatteries68 says... #5
You could set it up to read like the filter lands and show the combinations. Have them read "Add (Color1)(Color1), (Color1)(Color2), or (Color2)(Color2) to your mana pool." since those are the only options of two color combos.
June 18, 2015 11:57 p.m.
Nickyorany says... #6
@SirFowler Thank you for that catch, I've updated the cards above with the improved wording. I've also removed the 'target land' from the text since that's actually not a used phrase. You are more than welcomed to use any of my cards you find in the custom cards forums.
@JDMCRIB Thank you, I've also fixed up the wording above to make it work in that style.
@lowbatteries68 I Just edited my post so you might have missed it, but I don't particularly like the formatting used in the filter lands, I feel like it uses to much space. I wanted to maybe write it out where I can conserve as much text space as possible.
June 19, 2015 12:02 a.m.
Cool beans. Add you to a list of contributions on Custom Made Collaboration
June 19, 2015 12:04 a.m.
Actually, the wording would be:
"Add two mana in any combination of 
and/or 
to your mana pool."
If you need help, use Calciform Pools as a reference, except replace the right colors for the right card.
June 19, 2015 12:08 a.m. Edited.
Nickyorany says... #9
@SirFowler Ty Fixed, that feels like a pretty nice fix for the card. Yeah, totally use the cards to your liking. If you ever get the opportunity to use them let me know how they feel.
June 19, 2015 12:19 a.m.
Cool. And if you want to contribute to making some, visit us and Custom Card Deck Forum.
It would help a lot. We are so closed to being finished with the deck, but still have a few specifics left.
June 19, 2015 12:25 a.m.
MagicalHacker says... #11
Maybe it's just me, but I feel like adding two mana is kinda overkill. If you don't draw a land, you can tap a basic, return it to your hand, and play it again, which nets you three mana from just one land being tapped, essentially making this land produce three mana. That's kinda ridiculous. When you consider that it producing zero mana would be a net of plus one mana anyways, it's hard to argue that adding two is still balanced. Not even mentioning the fact that it also fights against LD and synergies with ETB lands, like scry lands. I think the card would still be amazing if you changed the second ability to only add one mana.
Also:
"Add two mana in any combination of
and/or 
to your mana pool.""Add
, , or to your mana pool."
Is it not obvious that your "new" wording actually takes up more room?
June 19, 2015 6:26 a.m. Edited.
Nickyorany says... #12
@MagicalHacker I see some of the points your making. I new they had an inherit synergy with ETB lands which is kind of the direction I wanted to go with, but the protection from LD did fly over my head.
I didn't really think much of the fact that adding two mana was a big deal considering that it did stunt your land growth for an immediate turbo ramp. If you do think that it's too much I can definitely make some changed to better improve the cards balance.
I added some potential card edits to the top. I'd like to get any feedback I can with them, see if the directions chosen are good ones.
Also, I guess it's more personal preference, I kinda just don't like the excessive use of mana symbols in the text box. I feel like it's incredibly sloppy imo but if that is the best way to do it then I don't know if I can argue. Thank you for your feedback though, it was much appreciated.
June 19, 2015 10:29 a.m.
I like the knew changes. It feels a lot more balanced than before. Personally, I like the second option because it's more like Sunken Ruins.
June 19, 2015 12:38 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #14
I personally like the first of the two options. No ETB tapped, so that's a huge advantage :) I think it's actually perfect just like that! Very cool!
June 19, 2015 1:06 p.m.
But wouldn't it feel more like a better Cloudcrest Lake? Also, I just realized that the second option would be abused with Amulet of Vigor.
CheeseBro says... #2
cool! what website did you make these on?
June 18, 2015 11:24 p.m.