Imidazoline's Chemical Card Workshop

226 posts / 0 new
Last post
Yes, I've joined the throng.

Every so often I'll be posting cards to this dump thread. They'll generally be ideas I like that aren't fully fleshed out, or some of my favourite contest submissions for you enjoyment / berating / general flogging.

Please take a look and comment / critique as is your want.

Thanks!







Planes, Schemes and Strongholds

Elthesia, the Holy Citadel (Idol 8, Round 7 Entry)
Hidden Cave (Idol 8, Round 7 Example)
Lean-To Shack(Idol 8, Round 7 Example)
Recruitment Camp(Idol 8, Round 7 Example)
Trilarte, Place of No Return(Idol 8, Round 7 Example)
Unassailable Gate(Idol 8, Round 7 Example)
Unstable Blockade(Idol 8, Round 7 Example)

OK, so I'm going to kick things off with a card submitted to Dire_Kiwi's 'The Kiwi Prix 3', where it scored abysmally. I like the idea however, and I'm not willing to drop it just yet...


Valley of Exclusion
Land
: Choose a color. Add one mana of that color to your mana pool unless a permanent of that color is on the battlefield.
Its power waned as it rejected more devotees.


Now the original version was CIPT, but I don't actually think that was required. My concerns are wording and balance, comparing here I guess to other temporary 5C lands such as Gemstone Mine and the Vivids.

Permanents can only exist in play, what "permanent" are ~you~ talking about?
Permanents can only exist in play, what "permanent" are ~you~ talking about?

Hmm...
The idea is that if a green permanent is in play, then the Valley can't produce green mana. "...cards not in play" perhaps?
"Add one mana of any color to you mana pool as long as no permanent shares that color"?
"Add one mana of any color to your mana pool unless a permanent of that color is in play"?
The World of Eldangard - a three act M:tG block by Fallingman Eldangard Stormfront Ragnarok
"Add one mana of any color to your mana pool unless a permanent of that color is in play"?

That does seem clearer.
Does it need a 'Choose' clause with this wording?
"Choose a color. Add one mana of that color to your mana pool unless a permanent of that color is in play."
Flavour note: "Its power waned as it rejected more devotees." Surely, that should be either: "Its power grew as it rejected more devotees." or "Its power waned as it accepted more devotees."

For power-level and interesting gameplay decisions reasons, I'd cut the "T: Add 1 to your mana pool." ability, leaving just the powerful exclusion effect. It is a very powerful 5-colour mana fixer and is fantastic in any creature light 5-colour control deck.

I might go with the choose a colour clause -- following Rhystic Cave -- because of the

[indent]Valley of Exclusion
Land
: Choose a color. Add one mana of that color to your mana pool unless a player controls a permanent of that colour. (Lands are colourless.)
Its power waned as it rejected more devotees.[/indent]
Flavour note: "Its power waned as it rejected more devotees." Surely, that should be either: "Its power grew as it rejected more devotees." or "Its power waned as it accepted more devotees."

Possibly will make the change to accepted - although I'm still undecided.:P
For power-level and interesting gameplay decisions reasons, I'd cut the "T: Add 1 to your mana pool." ability, leaving just the powerful exclusion effect. It is a very powerful 5-colour mana fixer and is fantastic in any creature light 5-colour control deck.
I might go with the choose a colour clause -- following Rhystic Cave -- because of the

[indent]Valley of Exclusion
Land
: Choose a color. Add one mana of that color to your mana pool unless a player controls a permanent of that colour. (Lands are colourless.)
Its power waned as it rejected more devotees.[/indent]

Ah, excellent example. I think I'll go for this version.

OK, time for a new card. This one was invented during one of mtalmuzicfan's 24 hour cycle games. If I remember correctly, the criteria was to create a control hoser.


Aura of Will -
Enchantment
Spells cost an additional “Pay 3 life” if they target non-permanents.
Instants and sorceries cost an additional “Pay 3 life” if they have no target.


For some reason I thought this was black/green. Am I completely wrong? The reasoning was that while the additional cost is black, the restriction is a bit green, in the line of uncounterable spells etc. By the way, I really rather dislike the name of this one. If someone can suggest one, let me know.

For some reason I thought this was black/green. Am I completely wrong? The reasoning was that while the additional cost is black, the restriction is a bit green, in the line of uncounterable spells etc.

Perfect explanation why this card isn't green! Yeah, green gets uncounterable spells, which has nothing to do with your card.. Well, these restrictions are pretty random and comlicated and the flavor doesn't explain anything, either.. You have to do lots of thinking whenever you play a spell, because it's not obvious what this card does and why!
Perfect explanation why this card isn't green! Yeah, green gets uncounterable spells, which has nothing to do with your card.. Well, these restrictions are pretty random and comlicated and the flavor doesn't explain anything, either.. You have to do lots of thinking whenever you play a spell, because it's not obvious what this card does and why!

I won't disagree that the card is a bit round about, but I do think it does what it's supposed to reasonably well with a little control hate - I guess the line of thought was that green was the 'least controlling' colour, and the least likely to be affected by the card in a negative way. Certainly it extracts a cost for playing cards that target non-permanents (cards in graveyards / spells in stack) and instants / sorceries without targets (mainly board sweepers, but also card draw). But I think you're right in that some decent flavour would clean it up - one of the reasons I dislike the name so much!

While I'll still happily take name suggestions on the last one, I think it might be time for another. This is an older one. Colour I'm pretty set on here (I think). Balance is my issue here - is the drawback appropriate? (I think it's flavourful - but still).


Blind to Wisdom -
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant creature you control
Enchanted creature gets +7/+7 and trample. Skip your draw step.

I love blind to wisdom! i really do :D
I like it too!

Colour pie is happy.
Skipping draws isn't very green, is it? I thought green was now the secondary card drawing color. Not to mention green doesn't like drawbacks particularly. Unless I'm missing something?

Still, it is an appropriate stretch and a neat card. I'd play with it probably.

Thanks for the positive feedback! It makes me happy... :D As it probably apparent to the more observant of you, I'm primarily a Vorthos when it comes to design. With that in mind...


Kite-borne Guard -
Creature - Human Scout
Flying, defender
Kite-borne Guard can block only creatures with flying and blocks each turn if able.
His resolve was sure. His armament formidable. And when the dragon bore down on him, he found his tether was indeed fixed tight. 3/3


This was a concept based around a guard, being borne by a hang-glider for vantage point. The only problem is, he can't get down. Or out of the way. :P

SOMETHING
Creature
Flying, Vigilance
SOMETHING cam block only creatures with flying and blocks each turn if able.
2/2

I like this version better. :D
SOMETHING
Creature
Flying, Vigilance
SOMETHING cam block only creatures with flying and blocks each turn if able.
2/2

I like this version better. :D

That's definitely a better fit for a white card, agreed. :P
It is much, much better though yes. I guess my problem is I get hung up on concept - I don't see how a guy tied to an anchored kite could swing in at your opponent. :D
Just include the word duty in the name

:D OK it's not been long since I put up the last, but I (literally) just put this one up in LHSYMtCF and was quite taken by it.


Drown in Dream -
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant opponent
Enchanted opponent draws a card at the beginning of each phase. (The phases are beginning, pre-combat main, combat, post-combat main and end.)
“I dare not sleep - I dare not.”


Along the lines of Forced Fruition and co. It certainly is slightly suicidal in the wrong deck, but - Is it costed appropriately? Is Enchant opponent OK? I checked that and it seems OK.

"phase" will confuse people.
"phase" will confuse people.

It's unfortunate, but I think you're right.
It's unfortunate, but I think you're right.

Meh, its fine. Throw the names of phases in turn order in reminder text on the card and it'll work.

I am bewildered as to the origin of the name of your card dump. I have yet to see a card based on any school of chemistry or, in fact, any of the natural sciences.
[JVZ]> [butter] i like the one that goes like wub wub wub wubwubwubwubwubwubwub
Meh, its fine. Throw the names of phases in turn order in reminder text on the card and it'll work.

That's a good idea. Will stick that in.
I am bewildered as to the origin of the name of your card dump. I have yet to see a card based on any school of chemistry or, in fact, any of the natural sciences.

My username is based on a chemical group with which I did a little bit of work with at Uni. That's about the extent of the link. :D
I just liked the name more than 'Imidazoline's Cards'.

OK, this one was my entry in the 'Your Best Design! The Second.' contest being held by Eurus. While I think it's garnered a single vote (in addition to my own - victory! :P ) I would really like some feedback on it.


World Shatter -
Sorcery
Destroy each non-land permanent with converted mana cost equal to the number of spells on the stack.
Storm
“Each time the bell tolled, another fracture cracked the world.” - Chronicles of the Keeper


I've had a couple of comments regarding ditching storm as being gimmicky, but I kind of like how it works with it. Although ditching the storm version allows the spell to off Ornithopter and co, which I would really like.

Non-storm version (suggested by Fallingman)
World Shatter -
Sorcery
Destroy all non-land permanents with converted mana cost less than or equal to the number of spells played this turn.
While Fallingman's version is cleaner, you nailed the flavor text for the original. I'd keep the original based on that alone.
Thank you sir. :D
I promise not to do this too often, but I'm going to give this one a little bump.
OK, while I would have liked some feedback on the last, I'm moving on to the next. This was my entry in Round 3 of Gard's Alara Reborn Preview Contest, in which I was stoked to receive a high mark from an esteemed member of the community. :D The criteria was to create a 'build-around-me' card.

THE FORUMS ATE THIS CARD.

Ah well, that's why I use MSE to archive

Æther Leak -
Enchantment
If a card would be exiled, instead put it in its owner’s graveyard.
While rare, leaks can return the lost from the Eternities to soil - the results however, are far from beautiful.
White is definately the RFG and rules do this instead colour [e.g. You cannot play Momentary Blink] ... Green has a hate the RFG zone and a graveyard interaction thing going, so this strikes me as more of a GW than a UB card.

Plug the Leak | GW
Enchantment
If a card would be removed from the game, instead put it in its owner’s graveyard.
Guarding againt leaks and people trying to steal power from other planes?
White is definately the RFG and rules do this instead colour [e.g. You cannot play Momentary Blink] ... Green has a hate the RFG zone and a graveyard interaction thing going, so this strikes me as more of a GW than a UB card.

Plug the Leak | GW
Enchantment
If a card would be removed from the game, instead put it in its owner’s graveyard.
Guarding againt leaks and people trying to steal power from other planes?

Ha, it seems like we have the exact opposite view of this from a flavour perspective. I'm seeing it as a way to leech power from areas that are completely shut out of the planes. It just has the unfortunate consequence that anything that has happened to make it into that particular void is very very dead.
I do see it as a black card given that you're moving a card directly to the graveyard. I don't really see it as white - white kind of likes the RFG zone - and as you point out, this card effectively shuts down a few things white likes to do with it. I don't really see how green dislikes the RFG zone apart from a 'Nature's Circle' type of flavour viewpoint, but it's true that it has taken a shine to graveyards. Blue is - well - it just seems kind of blue to me. :P
I do see it as a black card given that you're moving a card directly to the graveyard. I don't really see it as white...

Pull from Eternity?
Pull from Eternity?

True, although I think that's more to do with white's RFG interactions than putting stuff directly into the graveyard, which black does on a regular basis.
Edit: And it's semi-block related.

This is actually one of my favourites, so be kind. :P I believe this one was concocted for Emkorial's 'Assassins!' contest. The burning question for me here? Color. Are they 1) Appropriate, 2) If so / not, hybrid or gold?


Dawn, Lady of the Lamp -
Legendary Creature - Human Citizen
Protection from attacking creatures.
At end of turn, gain control of creatures dealt combat damage by Dawn, Lady of the Lamp this turn.
For the truly beautiful seamstresses, price may include loyalty.
1/2

Perhaps seems more appropriate, at least to me.

This was my entry after making it to the final round of Rush_Clasic's Self Contained contest! The criteria was to make a creature using a custom keyword mechanic. In that vein, I'd love to know if it appears as a legitimate mechanic, outside of the secondary effect of the card.


Chameleon Ooze -
Creature - Ooze
Assimilate 2 (When a creature dealt damage by this permanent this turn would be put into a graveyard from play, remove it from the game instead and put 2 +1/+1 counters on this permanent.)
Chameleon Ooze is all colors of cards it assimilates.
2/2

Narrow, only on creatures fighting other creatures. Fun in Limited, outside of that, I don't see it as a fun mechanic. Like Bushido, Provoke and the like, just not favored by competitive players.

~Squinty

http://forum.nogoblinsallowed.com/index.php

Yeah, I think that's a fair call.
(But it got me over the line in the end!) :D

Oh and Blake: I know what you mean about the blue (for the permanent permanent control yes?) but I think red is still a reasonable fit for the combat / passion based control switch?

OK, I'm a little apprehensive about this one because I'm pseudo-attempting (I think - feel free to correct me) to coin a term. It's pretty easy to spot. Go on. Let me have it! :P 


Changed to remove bad term.


Time Trap -
Enchantment
When a player has 4 or more mana in their mana pool, sacrifice Time Trap. If you do, end the turn.
The trap was built in secret, to guard against any swell of power uncontrolled.

OK, I'm a little apprehensive about this one because I'm pseudo-attempting (I think - feel free to correct me) to coin a term. It's pretty easy to spot.
Go on. Let me have it! :P
[indent]Time Trap -
Enchantment
If a player’s converted mana pool is greater than or equal to 6, sacrifice Time Trap. If you do, end the turn.
The trap was built in secret, to guard against any swell of power uncontrolled.[/indent]

converted mana pool -- Doesn't really make sense. :\

It should probably be a triggered ability:

"Whenever a player has 6 or more mana in his or her mana pool, sacrifice Time Trap. If you do, end the turn."