New custom set: Nightfall
Custom Cards forum
Posted on Nov. 21, 2012, 7:56 p.m. by ChaosRain
He all,
I've been working on a set in MSE (go figure). I would appreciate some feedback. One of the mechanics I'm working with is Alchemy. It requires that the cost be paid in both mana and life. Here are a couple cards to show the effect. P.S. The art is not mine, I just picked it from google images to make the cards easier on the eyes. They were all random backgrounds with no citations of artists (that I could find). If that's a problem, I'll take the art off.
Guardian of Nightfall has some powerful abilities attached to it, but with Alchemy, it's something that can balance out the card. To get the full effect of the card, you have to pay 5 mana and 5 life. Are you willing to spend that much on turn 5? Is it wise to spend 5 life on turn 5? Or even later in the game? To be even slightly useful, all that has to be spent is 1 to make it an attacker, but spending life in addition to mana I feel makes players a little more cautious about what they do.
Conceited Summoning I feel has nice flavor to it. With a cost of BBB to play a creature card, that can certainly hinder a players mana base. In a mono-colored deck not really, but most of the cards in the set are going to be hybrid cost, or at least not function to full effect unless they're a part of a multi-colored deck. The Alchemy cost can give the player a leg up, but at total of 7CMC and 4 life? That's a steep price to pay, so it's limiting the card in playability and in some cases, effectiveness.
This is just how I see it as developer of the set. If you feel differently, by all means let me know why, and what you would do differently. I can always make adjustments to balance the cards better. Here are a couple other cards from the set so far. Again, if it is prefered that I take the art away, let me know.
4 mana destroy your creature and put it under my control with +2/+2? Who would consider that broken? Absurd
November 21, 2012 8:08 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #4
What zandl said. There's no balance to some of these cards.
Also, you should reword some of them. Right now, most of the buffs don't wear off at end of turn. While it's fine for buffs to be permanent, you need to make them easy to keep track of. You'll notice that almost always, when a noncontinuous buff permanently boosts your creatures, it does so using counters so it's easy for players to see, remember, and track those changes.
Also, alchemy is not very clear. Are you supposed to pay an alchemy cost with that much mana and that much life, some mana and some life, or what?
Keep in mind that EVERYTHING after a colon is an effect. You can't put alchemy after the colon if you want the cost before that colon to be paid as an alchemy cost. It would probably be best if you devised a special mana symbol to denote alchemy costs. Or you could leave it unkeyworded and put "X, pay X life:" as your costs. The last option would be "Alchemy X" as a keyword phrase, where X denotes the cost of mana and life. A colon would follow that keyword phrase and denote the effect of the ability.
November 21, 2012 8:09 p.m.
So much broken-ness with etb abilities...does Cloudshift ever get to meet Ezriel?
November 21, 2012 8:15 p.m.
It super miswritten. I believe the abilities should be "If X mana was used to cast ~, then X, does X"?
November 21, 2012 8:22 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #8
There are a few things you should clear up in regards to grammar.
If you refer to one person's turn, say his or her not their. Their is plural.
If you are writing an effect that affects multiple players, word it to reflect that. For example, Ezriel's ability should say "creatures your opponents control get -1/-1."
Also, Conceited Summoning in its current version allows you to look through your library and memorize the order. You forgot to add a shuffle clause. On top of that, paying 4 to tutor any creature directly onto the field is very broken. Turn 4 Ezriel, good game. Speaking of Ezriel, you should reconsider its mana cost.
When you enter text into the typeline of a card, remember that every word is a separate type. Right now, Ezriel is a Dragon and a Rider. There are no two-word types. You could instead make it a "Human Knight," "Demon Knight," or something else.
Oh, and make sure you're crediting the artists of those images.
November 21, 2012 8:26 p.m.
pookypuppy6 says... #9
I'm going to be different to previous critics by not focusing on power/development issues. For the record though, the statue is broken especially as a buffable 1/1 for 0 that any colour can use, and everything else is inbalanced in some way or other.
I'll focus on design instead. Firstly, complexity. Guardian of Nightfall has so many text lines that you have to squint your eyes to read those abilties; remove some, it makes the 0 drop less silly to use. Meanwhile, Nightfall Explorer is so complicated it 1) Is too much text on a common OR an uncommon, and 2) Doesn't make any sense. Activated ability symbols mean NOTHING compared to what coloured mana was used to cast, all those abilities need to explicitly say you can only use them if you paid G when casting said card or whatever. You cannot represent that information with the symbol in an activated ability! So, the first line of text on Nightfall Explorer means nothing!
Also, how does alchemy work, exactly? What I mean is, Guardian of Nightfall explicitly uses it for its activated abilities (and if you have to say so for the particular card, there is something not particularly self-explanatory about your mechanic). Meanwhile, the Alchemy with Conceited Summoning works...how? Like kicker? Am I paying an extra four, and this is alchemy but the rest of the card isn't? Mechanics need to have consistency; choose one or the other!
Besides, the way you phrase indicates nothing about paying a mana cost; it just says "Alchemy is paid with either..."...oh, I'm paying alchemy am I? What's that? You mean the mana? The mechanic says nothing about it affecting the mana cost; phrase it better, but first try and work out what your mechanic is supposed to do specifically in the first place.
I should also mention that the "pay mana or life" clause needs to specify how much. If the alchemy cost relates to a mana cost of five, say "this card/cost needs to be paid with 5 mana or 5 life". Look up Phrexian mana; it is CLEAR in what it asks you to do.
November 21, 2012 8:27 p.m.
pookypuppy6 says... #10
Let's say I wanted the Alchemy mechanic to both work with reducing casting costs of spells and also reduce the costs of activated abilities of creatures. Thus, I word it like this.
Alchemy: (You may pay any amount of life to reduce the casting cost of this card by X, or reduce the cost of activating activated abilities for this card by X, where X is the amount of life paid this way .)
Even this probably has problems with it. Narrow down your Alchemy mechanic and that'll make it much more workable :)
November 21, 2012 8:36 p.m.
pookypuppy6 says... #11
Oops, buggered up. Alchemy is intended to pay mana and life. So, let's try:
Alchemy (Activating ctivated abilities of this creature costs the ability's mana cost and 1 life for every 1 mana spent to activate the ability).
Again, very oddball!
November 21, 2012 8:39 p.m.
Looking over the comments I will do the best to explain Alchemy that I can. Although this can't fit on the card, so help shortening it would be awesome.
Alchemy is an ability that requires payment of both mana and life. So alchemy cost of 1 requires 1 mana and 1 life, 2 is 2 mana and 2 life, 3 is 3 mana and 3 life, etc. It requires full cost of both mana and life for what is stated. I tried to state that clearly on the card, but it seems it's not coming across. Better ways to explain it?
Marcaus, he is a God-Like Necromancer, hence his abilities, I'm quite tempted to lower his starting loyalty counters to 3, and increasing the cost of the second ability to 4.
The Angel I don't feel is anymore overpowered that [Akroma, Angel of Wrath]. The mana cost is a problem, but that can definitely be fixed. 7 CMC would be more balanced for her. I
And after seeing [Cloudshift], I'll change Ezriel's turn shucking ability.
November 21, 2012 8:43 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #13
I think wording is giving some of you a challenge. Remember, keywords need to be easy to remember, simple to read, and clear to interpret.
To that end, I believe "Alchemy X:" is probably the way to go. It's an adaptation of an existing form and it makes it clear what the activation cost is and that the cost is alchemic.
November 21, 2012 8:44 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #14
Akroma has a triple-white cost and doesn't actively destroy your opponent's board state. IF you're going to add a kill effect (especially one with an added resurrection clause), you need to up the cost. Also, it's not a very mono-white card. WB would be more appropriate.
November 21, 2012 8:47 p.m.
pookypuppy6 says... #15
Wellm compare to Baneslayer Angel . A lot of people admit that was a silly card, and this angel is just as/even more silly for its mana cost. I say this because often it can really help when you are designing a new card; look at what has been done before! It can a) Tell you if your idea has already been done and b) It can teach you how things are costed and/or balanced against one another or as effects upon themselves. Look at the comments sections too on Gatherer to see thoughts on said cards; opinions can be wrong, but could also be very useful.
November 21, 2012 8:52 p.m.
This set is a little bit too overpowered... seriously man? Kinda stupid.
November 21, 2012 9:44 p.m.
I want to upload my magic set editor set to the site. Does anyone know how?
November 21, 2012 9:44 p.m.
vishnarg says...
This set is a little bit too overpowered... seriously man? Kinda stupid.November 21, 2012 9:44 p.m.
Your completely constructive criticism is heartily received, and I feel like I could never have proceeded in life without it. No offense, but if you want people to be thankful of criticism, actually make it worthwhile.
November 21, 2012 11:52 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #19
On a more serious note, is there an overarching story or theme that's guiding this set? It's hard to suggest possible improvements without knowing what is influencing your design choices or what direction you're trying to pull the cards in.
November 21, 2012 11:55 p.m.
The design for the set is a combination of a few things. But really it was a setting for a D&D or other RPG campaign set-up. Marcaus was a God-like Necromancer, controlling legions of the undead. Zombies, Ghouls, Vampires, etc. Ezriel was a commander of dragon riders (think like the Witch King from LOTR). There were other gods and such, many different factions at war. In the midst of it all was the realm of mortals, doing what they could to fight for themselves, or side with the factions. Demons fighting angels. Humans fighting Undead. Mafias, Slave trading, Drug trades, a crumbling political system. The over-arching theme was that the mortals were being used like pawns by the Immortals, and in the end, lost and were wiped away.
November 22, 2012 12:29 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #21
It seems like you've got a quasi-Innistrad flavor going on, but the end result is the opposite. Your primary mistake at this point is trying to fit all the power of the characters you're designing into the cards. This tendency leads to imbalance and overpowered designs. You should be willing to sacrifice some of the flavor and power of the inspirational characters/objects to make their MTG incarnations work a bit better in practice.
I almost ran into the same problem while I was designing my own custom set (and I'm still in the process of designing those cards). I wanted to capture as much flavor as possible with some of my designs, but I was just unable to allow every aspect of the source material to make it onto the card. There would be unplayably broken cards ruining the set at that point.
November 22, 2012 12:48 a.m.
pookypuppy6 says... #22
Really, development issues over power levels should be the last concern. You need to nail down your set's themes, mechanics and style, and work out how to implement that effectively into card form. Start with commons and uncommons to see if those things can work on a simple, not-too-complex level, THEN try moving on to rares and mythics to explore design space. Designing cards like Ezriel and the angel aren't helpful to you now when figuring out your set, especially when those spare mythic slots for new cards will be heavily influenced by what you've done in the rest of the set.
November 22, 2012 6:09 a.m.
Okay chaosrain Im sorry you cant handle the truth but truly these cards are too powerful. Anyway the nightfall explorer is choo, but let me show you the Harry potter set I made, its balanced. These cards could never ever be printed
November 22, 2012 6:50 a.m.
pookypuppy6 says... #24
vishnarg, overpowerful cards can be changed. Especially if they are NOT going to be printed anyway. Also, do post your Harry Potter set in a Community Cards post, I like to see anyone's sets.
But in general, do be far more polite and constructive; for example, give examples of why a card is overpowerful and would never be printed. Not everyone is going to be immediately spot-on with balancing cards to begin with, and I'm sure you and me both had the same problems at some point, so give constructive help where you can. :)
November 22, 2012 6:56 a.m.
You think the Angel is no more powerful than Akroma? Akroma, Angel of Wrath costs 8 mana, is only a 6/6, and doesn't destroy a creature upon entering the battlefield or buff your other creatures.
The Angel is like an Akroma that costs 5, then has an extra Murder and Glorious Anthem .
Perhaps change the Dragon Knight to "When you cast ~, target player skips his or her next turn." This will prevent a lot of infinite loops with things like card:Conjurer's Closet and Mimic Vat .
November 22, 2012 12:30 p.m.
Alchemy could just be replaced with:
x, pay x life: do ability
I'm not sure that justifies being a keyword and it doesn't convey much flavor (compared to Phyrexian Mana).
February 5, 2013 2:06 a.m.
Maybe alchemy can be worded like "Alchemy x (you must pay 1 life for every 1 paid): ability."
zandl says... #2
Marcaus, the Angel, and the Dragon are all incredibly broken.
November 21, 2012 7:59 p.m.