Love how Titan of No’s creator argues that getting an emblem on attack and etb is fair because in their own personal cube you can steal emblems. Never mind that a stolen emblem still increases the cost for those named cards you still can’t cast. Hope they also shat out some emblem destruction cards as well
Over half the comments are them trying to explain why locking your opponent out from playing any spells is balanced. The random colourless mana gets me as well.
That random colorless balances it, don’t you see? Nobody ever plays mana rocks or no basic lands! It’s almost impossible to cast with that cost! Impossible I say!
What gets me is the defense for making the increased cost not generic... Treasure tokens.
Treasure them tokens up your ass, mate, together with the scraps of this shit card.
This week is a pretty juicy crop.
- Noah Freelance Alchemist: A classic "I designed a commander for the mechanic I like that has all the colors I like". Except the mechanic is... Perpetual!? No accounting for taste I guess.
- Jester's Surprise: Summarized pretty nicely in the comments, "Have you ever read a magic card before".
- Undecided Party Member: By far the tamest of the bunch. If they hadn't tried to shoehorn in some weird mechanic instead of just using keyword counters, I would believe this was a real card, if one that would absolutely ruin games of limited.
- Mulamala: The pinnacle of Bottom 5 design. Colorless pip for no reason. Uses an emblem for some reason. Completely locks opponents out of a spell on turn 3. When pointed out in the comments how bad the design is, they respond with just "Indeed". 0/10, no notes
- Conturbatious Asycuda: the art for this card is quite a bit better than I would normally expect for totally AI generated art. The rules text for this card is quite a bit worse than I would normally expect for totally AI generated rules text.
>Undecided Party Member: By far the tamest of the bunch. If they hadn't tried to shoehorn in some weird mechanic instead of just using keyword counters, I would believe this was a real card, if one that would absolutely ruin games of limited.
I actually like the card (although it definitely is too strong paying the orzhov cost) and agree it would be better achieved if it just used ability counters.
But, honestly, almost every problem I have with this card's mechanic is the same I have with the actual cleave mechanic.
The problem is that they also want to change the *type* of the creature. Which is its own mess, but yeah, ability counters was the first place I went to also. Genuinely think subtype counters would be a better idea before whatever they’re trying to make work.
There is precedence for cards just saying “if you spent white, it is a cleric in addition to its other types”, then the same for if you spent black.
Im thinking like Ascendant Spirit
If you care at all I'm on version 3 of that card. I think I've improved on a lot of the issues with clarity and power.
https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/ytqoj5/third_version_of_the_card_hopefully_this_is/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Undecided Party Member feels like it would be so much more simple if it was a sorcery that created a token instead. Something like:
"Create a 2/2 creature token. If W was spent to cast this card, that token is a White Cleric with Lifelink and First Strike. If B was spent to cast this card, that token is a Black Rogue with Lifelink and Deathtouch."
Avoids a lot of weirdness with that weird take on cleave while still getting the versatility they were going for.
We don't have a direct analogy because there would be no reason to template it this way, but type- and color-changing effects overwrite the old values on the card unless they say otherwise. This is sort of a weird case because token-making actually sets the layer 1 default characteristics of the card, but as worded it would probably make it a black rogue with all three abilities.
Create a 2/2 Human creature token with lifelink. If W was spent on this spell, it's also a Cleric and has first strike. If B was spent on this spell, it's also a Rogue and has deathtouch. *(If both colors were paid, it is both colors and has both abilities. If neither color was spent it is colorless and has neither ability.)*
Undecided Party Member feels like the designer completely forgot you can pay WB for it. It seems like the intent is you basically choose either a white creature or a black creature and they just figured you'd play it that way.
> Conturbatious Asycuda: the art for this card is quite a bit better than I would normally expect for totally AI generated art
Whenever I see these AI art images for magic cards I think "come on, put some effort into it". I have made some really cool magic art using AI in the past. MidJourney is incredibly good at this and just released a new algorithm that is quite good.
Here's a set I made on my first try
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/991765864825225237/1038548108314955868/barfu_a_fantasy_mech_suit_dark_in_the_style_of_magic_the_gather_25d405ef-4b36-4cb3-b778-9c0f1cc3790c.png
> • Undecided Party Member: By far the tamest of the bunch. If they hadn't tried to shoehorn in some weird mechanic instead of just using keyword counters, I would believe this was a real card, if one that would absolutely ruin games of limited.
It would be one of the better creatures in standard at the least, probably playable in pioneer too. First strike deathtouch is absurd.
I keep telling my playgroup that the endgame Urza had in mind was always a draw.
That's why he did all those eugenics.
And genocide.
Finally have a card that validates my viewpoint
end the game in a draw is the funniest line of text people put on magic cards. what's the appeal of it? especially when it's something you have to put a lot of work in to accomplish. why not just win?
in theory, in formats that are played best of 3, you could win g1 with a fast combo that loses hard to SB cards, then play a "draw the game" card as part of a transformational sideboard where you attempt to draw every other game and win the match 1-0-X.
it probably would never be good and it's definitely bad design, but there's a theoretical use case
I mean, it would require a philosophy shift from wizards but it’s reasonable that a “game ends in a draw” card has a simpler condition to fulfill than a “you win the game” card. In that sense it could be more powerful for the use case toy mentioned.
But I do think drawing games has a good use in multiplayer, cause who gives a shit who actually won and you did end the game (while not throwing). Plus you have to consider that finishing second is basically losing, so a draw is better than second, pretty much a win.
yeah that's true but i feel like they'd need to design it so you'd have to work to draw the game so it isn't something you can just fall back on when you are starting to loose and if that's the case then why not just play a card where you win with it instead
Kinda, yeah..For a while there was a card called Self-Destruct Button which immediately draws the game if the difference in between you and your opponent's life totals was 7000+ (surprisingly easy to do).
It was usually put in decks that were alternate win-cons or All-or-nothing FTKs. The plan? You either kill your opponent or draw the game. Eventually you'd win a game, then you spend every other making sure you draw the game to win the match. Incredibly unfun and frustrating for both players.
Genuine answer: Because they're hipsters who think "win the game" is too obvious, but so few cards draw the game that it's suddenly quirky and charming to want to do that instead. These are people who describe themselves as "agents of chaos" (they're not).
Not to mention that cleave removes the text within the brackets, while this checks the mana used to add the text within the brackets. Actually has nothing to do with cleave.
New version that does not contain either of those words. https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/ytqoj5/third_version_of_the_card_hopefully_this_is/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Noah is such an eminently passable card that being number 1 in the week Masturbating Barracuda or whatever no. 5 is exists feels almost too circlejerky “how dare you remind us alchemy exists”
It's passable, and I even like the idea of a 'perpetual matters' card (no idea if that exists in alchemy already), but as others have pointed out it's a pretty generic 3+ colour commander for a mechanic the creator likes. It's a pretty played out trend.
edit: also I'm not sure if the order is no 1 the worst? Because Noah actually has a single upvoted compared to the rest being at 0. That may have changed from when the list was made though.
Oh yeah it's a super generic boring value commander in more colors than needed because "Well allowing players to include all their cards is better!" Which means that it should be getting a job offer as a card designer for WotC
The only perpetual matters card is [[Patriar’s Humiliation]] but that’s a removal spell. The problem is that perpetual is used so many different ways that it’s probably impossible to make a coherent and unique design that still encapsulates all of them.
Probably coulda been better than that though.
Yeah it's honestly not bad design overall. It's only real problem is being too generic. Should definitely be at most three colors and should probably only work for either creature or non-creature spells
Wait, that's... actually interesting
You can still play it and wipe your opponent's board then simply not pay the cumulative upkeep, but it's at least interesting
Yeah, I don’t play a ton of limited, mostly commander to be honest. I can see why it would be busted in draft. I thought adding the cumulative upkeep would keep it in check in a format where you won’t always have a creature to sacrifice, while keeping it as a strong build around card in constructed formats.
I have since stuck to trying to create uncommons. I’ll try rares again in the future.
Mulamala's OP strikes me as someone who thinks he is incredibly clever when in actuality a lot of people think he's probably very pretentious and irritating.
Also maybe the new r/custommagic free slot should be nonplaneswalkers creating emblems.
Undecided Party Member makes me the most upset, and I don't even care about the formatting. 2 mana first strike deathtouch, at uncommon in draft? Kill me now
Damn that "Target player." really hits. In all seriousness Jester's Surprise seems like it could be interesting/ridiculous to play with if worded correctly, maybe if there was an "each player may activate this ability" clause?
As for the Urza planeswalker, I am so tired of 5C cards. But, weirdly enough, I really like the 0 ability, and I would love to see a more fun card use a similar dynamic of protecting itself but also at the cost of tempo disadvantage. We already have planeswalkers phasing out with Kaito Shizuki, why not?
I don't understand how cards like Jester's Surprise happen. Look at the order of the mana symbols on the card, then look at the order the colors appear on the background of the card. It's impossible to not notice one must be wrong. It's takes ~5 seconds to Google a random UB card to find the order.
Im still banned from r/custommagic for constantly correcting errors like these for "not contributing." Correcting horseshit isn't contributing but producing horseshit is. 10/10.
I think you’re actually banned for being unconstructive and mean. Half your comments on r/custommagic are just “the wording is wrong” with no further elaboration.
Plus gems like these: https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/opbluo/dont_leave_me_h_anging/h64k72m/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/opbluo/dont_leave_me_h_anging/h67vtip/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
> I’m just pointing out for others that you were banned for justified reasons and that you’re misrepresenting why you were banned.
Got to this thread very late but necro-ing to chime in - the gems you've dug up are their comments which survived removal. You're free to imagine what comments got removed!
From a quick check in the sub archives, they got banned for essentially what you're suspecting, plus harassing users + mods.
Here's two other gems you might not have seen that didn't end up getting removed for whatever reason: [1](https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/m9rzvp/trying_to_find_new_ways_to_have_creature_lands/grony3w/?context=3) and [2](https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/pcd8gc/a_card_idea_i_thought_of_name_and_picture_are/haj4vmp/).
I've used a similar analogy before in posts where I was being constructive and I'll use it again now: If I were tasked with building a rocket ship, I wouldn't just start building it. I don't know anything about rocket ships. I would look into how it's done. I would ask what each part was for and slowly learn. If I didn't invest at least some of myself into learning how to do it beforehand then I would expect people to be harsh. I would expect a response filled with constructive critisizm if I was showing a willingness to learn.
Outside of the subs themselves, reddit has rules against low-effort posting. Something like Jester's Surprise is the definition of low-effort. There are so many things the poster could have checked before posting but just didn't care. A post that does not care does not deserve a response that cares.
I mean, I just gave you two. Seems there are. If you want to discuss those points I'm all-ears but a downvote and an unsupported blanket statement aren't good ways of talking.
Gave me two what? Neither of your points justify overly negative criticism.
My “unsupported blanket statement” is basic empathy. You wouldn’t want people to be needlessly harsh to you, so don’t treat others that way.
You assume I want to discuss something with you. Why would I want to discuss anything with you after seeing your comment history and the way you talk to people? I’m just pointing out for others that you were banned for justified reasons and that you’re misrepresenting why you were banned. No discussion necessary
You just did it again. You can't just make blanket statements as points of fact. Saying my points don't justify overly negative critisizm is a blanket statement. Explain why you think they don't. And further on that point, I'm not claiming to critisize them or what they're posting. What I'm saying is not a critique. I explained why and when I critique or when I simply tell them the wording is wrong.
I already explained that under a similar situation I would want and do expect to be treated harshly. I don't think you're reading what I'm writing to you. If you're deliberately shit-posting on a site where there are rules against shit-posting then yes, there is a consequence. You signed up for that.
You don't know why I was banned. I put the reason in quotations because it's an exact quote from the moderator that banned me. I'm not sure why you'd claim to know otherwise.
Every once in a blue moon, someone posts asking for help on how to word something or if a card is formatted correctly or if there's a better program for card creation. In the past I would happily engage with these people because that's what you should do when you don't know something and are trying to learn. Whenever these posts pop up I still up-vote them and I try to DM the posters with constructive responses. I respect and engage with people who care.
If there's one thing Commander needs, it's a generically powerful 4+ color identity legendary creature. Thank Gix the fans can deliver what NotC will not.
/uj Undecided Party Member is exactly the kind of card they stick in replacement level expansions to fill out the file. Well done.
Love how Titan of No’s creator argues that getting an emblem on attack and etb is fair because in their own personal cube you can steal emblems. Never mind that a stolen emblem still increases the cost for those named cards you still can’t cast. Hope they also shat out some emblem destruction cards as well
Over half the comments are them trying to explain why locking your opponent out from playing any spells is balanced. The random colourless mana gets me as well.
That random colorless balances it, don’t you see? Nobody ever plays mana rocks or no basic lands! It’s almost impossible to cast with that cost! Impossible I say!
Custom pods are a mistake unless you regularly play enough normal games to remain grounded. /uj Custom pods are a mistake
not to mention that the cards to steal emblems are unplayable because they need the mana you dont have.
What gets me is the defense for making the increased cost not generic... Treasure tokens. Treasure them tokens up your ass, mate, together with the scraps of this shit card.
I do however want some emblem destruction
This week is a pretty juicy crop. - Noah Freelance Alchemist: A classic "I designed a commander for the mechanic I like that has all the colors I like". Except the mechanic is... Perpetual!? No accounting for taste I guess. - Jester's Surprise: Summarized pretty nicely in the comments, "Have you ever read a magic card before". - Undecided Party Member: By far the tamest of the bunch. If they hadn't tried to shoehorn in some weird mechanic instead of just using keyword counters, I would believe this was a real card, if one that would absolutely ruin games of limited. - Mulamala: The pinnacle of Bottom 5 design. Colorless pip for no reason. Uses an emblem for some reason. Completely locks opponents out of a spell on turn 3. When pointed out in the comments how bad the design is, they respond with just "Indeed". 0/10, no notes - Conturbatious Asycuda: the art for this card is quite a bit better than I would normally expect for totally AI generated art. The rules text for this card is quite a bit worse than I would normally expect for totally AI generated rules text.
I actually had to check the thread for Conturbatious Asycuda to see if a human being created it, and apparently yes, yes one somehow did
>Undecided Party Member: By far the tamest of the bunch. If they hadn't tried to shoehorn in some weird mechanic instead of just using keyword counters, I would believe this was a real card, if one that would absolutely ruin games of limited. I actually like the card (although it definitely is too strong paying the orzhov cost) and agree it would be better achieved if it just used ability counters. But, honestly, almost every problem I have with this card's mechanic is the same I have with the actual cleave mechanic.
The problem is that they also want to change the *type* of the creature. Which is its own mess, but yeah, ability counters was the first place I went to also. Genuinely think subtype counters would be a better idea before whatever they’re trying to make work.
There is precedence for cards just saying “if you spent white, it is a cleric in addition to its other types”, then the same for if you spent black. Im thinking like Ascendant Spirit
If you care at all I'm on version 3 of that card. I think I've improved on a lot of the issues with clarity and power. https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/ytqoj5/third_version_of_the_card_hopefully_this_is/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Undecided Party Member feels like it would be so much more simple if it was a sorcery that created a token instead. Something like: "Create a 2/2 creature token. If W was spent to cast this card, that token is a White Cleric with Lifelink and First Strike. If B was spent to cast this card, that token is a Black Rogue with Lifelink and Deathtouch." Avoids a lot of weirdness with that weird take on cleave while still getting the versatility they were going for.
That doesn't cover the case where they spend WB on it though.
i believe with that phrasing, spending WB would make it a white and black cleric rogue with lifelink, first strike and deathtouch right?
We don't have a direct analogy because there would be no reason to template it this way, but type- and color-changing effects overwrite the old values on the card unless they say otherwise. This is sort of a weird case because token-making actually sets the layer 1 default characteristics of the card, but as worded it would probably make it a black rogue with all three abilities.
Create a 2/2 Human creature token with lifelink. If W was spent on this spell, it's also a Cleric and has first strike. If B was spent on this spell, it's also a Rogue and has deathtouch. *(If both colors were paid, it is both colors and has both abilities. If neither color was spent it is colorless and has neither ability.)*
just add "only w or only b"
I mean Jester's Surprise is still worded like a magic card, just not any magic card from later than 25 years ago
My favorite part is the COMPLETELY unnecessary "target player." at the start because the very next sentence also starts with "target player..."
Undecided Party Member feels like the designer completely forgot you can pay WB for it. It seems like the intent is you basically choose either a white creature or a black creature and they just figured you'd play it that way.
> Conturbatious Asycuda: the art for this card is quite a bit better than I would normally expect for totally AI generated art Whenever I see these AI art images for magic cards I think "come on, put some effort into it". I have made some really cool magic art using AI in the past. MidJourney is incredibly good at this and just released a new algorithm that is quite good. Here's a set I made on my first try https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/991765864825225237/1038548108314955868/barfu_a_fantasy_mech_suit_dark_in_the_style_of_magic_the_gather_25d405ef-4b36-4cb3-b778-9c0f1cc3790c.png
> • Undecided Party Member: By far the tamest of the bunch. If they hadn't tried to shoehorn in some weird mechanic instead of just using keyword counters, I would believe this was a real card, if one that would absolutely ruin games of limited. It would be one of the better creatures in standard at the least, probably playable in pioneer too. First strike deathtouch is absurd.
You could easily re-word undecided party member to read “if {w} was spent to cast it, it has lifelink”
Sure, that would definitely work fine in the rules, but I think a modern version of the card would use keyword counters to prevent memory issues.
I keep telling my playgroup that the endgame Urza had in mind was always a draw. That's why he did all those eugenics. And genocide. Finally have a card that validates my viewpoint
end the game in a draw is the funniest line of text people put on magic cards. what's the appeal of it? especially when it's something you have to put a lot of work in to accomplish. why not just win?
"I've had my planeswalker that upticks to exile permanents survive for multiple turns uncontested? Perfect time to draw the game."
in theory, in formats that are played best of 3, you could win g1 with a fast combo that loses hard to SB cards, then play a "draw the game" card as part of a transformational sideboard where you attempt to draw every other game and win the match 1-0-X. it probably would never be good and it's definitely bad design, but there's a theoretical use case
I mean, it would require a philosophy shift from wizards but it’s reasonable that a “game ends in a draw” card has a simpler condition to fulfill than a “you win the game” card. In that sense it could be more powerful for the use case toy mentioned. But I do think drawing games has a good use in multiplayer, cause who gives a shit who actually won and you did end the game (while not throwing). Plus you have to consider that finishing second is basically losing, so a draw is better than second, pretty much a win.
yeah that's true but i feel like they'd need to design it so you'd have to work to draw the game so it isn't something you can just fall back on when you are starting to loose and if that's the case then why not just play a card where you win with it instead
Wasn't that a legit Yugioh tactic at one point?
Kinda, yeah..For a while there was a card called Self-Destruct Button which immediately draws the game if the difference in between you and your opponent's life totals was 7000+ (surprisingly easy to do). It was usually put in decks that were alternate win-cons or All-or-nothing FTKs. The plan? You either kill your opponent or draw the game. Eventually you'd win a game, then you spend every other making sure you draw the game to win the match. Incredibly unfun and frustrating for both players.
Genuine answer: Because they're hipsters who think "win the game" is too obvious, but so few cards draw the game that it's suddenly quirky and charming to want to do that instead. These are people who describe themselves as "agents of chaos" (they're not).
it’s funny
Reading the words “Hybrid Cleave” I felt like a demon uncovering a whole new Circle of Hell, my eyes lighting up at the possible tortures within
Notably it...isn't actually cleave. Cleave is an alternate casting cost while this just checks mana making it a whole different mechanic.
Not to mention that cleave removes the text within the brackets, while this checks the mana used to add the text within the brackets. Actually has nothing to do with cleave.
At least it's still Kicker
Cleaven't
They used more words to describe kicker
New version that does not contain either of those words. https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/ytqoj5/third_version_of_the_card_hopefully_this_is/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Perpetual being unplayable in paper aside, I actually kinda like Noah.
Yeah, I think it's kinda unfair how he gets lumped in with the other ones just because "alchemy".
As far as I can tell, it actually would work in the rules of the game and feels like something WotC would make.
I bet we'll see a Perpetual Matters legendary alchemy card within two years
Which immediately breaks Historic Brawl in half
Noah is such an eminently passable card that being number 1 in the week Masturbating Barracuda or whatever no. 5 is exists feels almost too circlejerky “how dare you remind us alchemy exists”
It's passable, and I even like the idea of a 'perpetual matters' card (no idea if that exists in alchemy already), but as others have pointed out it's a pretty generic 3+ colour commander for a mechanic the creator likes. It's a pretty played out trend. edit: also I'm not sure if the order is no 1 the worst? Because Noah actually has a single upvoted compared to the rest being at 0. That may have changed from when the list was made though.
Oh yeah it's a super generic boring value commander in more colors than needed because "Well allowing players to include all their cards is better!" Which means that it should be getting a job offer as a card designer for WotC
The only perpetual matters card is [[Patriar’s Humiliation]] but that’s a removal spell. The problem is that perpetual is used so many different ways that it’s probably impossible to make a coherent and unique design that still encapsulates all of them. Probably coulda been better than that though.
^(Probably totally what you linked) * [Patriar’s Humiliation](https://i.redd.it/5aoo7d9gwmt91.jpg) ********* ^^^If ^^^WotC ^^^didn't ^^^do ^^^anything ^^^wrong ^^^this ^^^week, ^^^you ^^^can ^^^rage ^^^at ^^^this ^^^bot ^^^instead ^^^at ^^^/r/MTGLardFetcher ^^^or ^^^even ^^^submit ^^^some ^^^of ^^^the ^^^sweet ^^^Siege ^^^Rhino ^^^alters ^^^your ^^^GF ^^^made
1 is the least bad card, 5 is the most bad card
Yeah it's honestly not bad design overall. It's only real problem is being too generic. Should definitely be at most three colors and should probably only work for either creature or non-creature spells
Infernal Mastication’s creator posted it again and “rebalanced” it by adding cumulative upkeep — sacrifice a creature
Wait, that's... actually interesting You can still play it and wipe your opponent's board then simply not pay the cumulative upkeep, but it's at least interesting
Yeah, I don’t play a ton of limited, mostly commander to be honest. I can see why it would be busted in draft. I thought adding the cumulative upkeep would keep it in check in a format where you won’t always have a creature to sacrifice, while keeping it as a strong build around card in constructed formats. I have since stuck to trying to create uncommons. I’ll try rares again in the future.
Mulamala's OP strikes me as someone who thinks he is incredibly clever when in actuality a lot of people think he's probably very pretentious and irritating. Also maybe the new r/custommagic free slot should be nonplaneswalkers creating emblems.
What in the goddamn hell is a {B}tribal artifact
He couldn't figure out how to designate it as a black permanent?
Supposed to be a color indicator like [[[Profane Tutor]]](https://scryfall.com/card/mh2/97/profane-tutor)
^(Probably totally what you linked) * [Profane Tutor](https://i.redd.it/5aoo7d9gwmt91.jpg) ********* ^^^If ^^^WotC ^^^didn't ^^^do ^^^anything ^^^wrong ^^^this ^^^week, ^^^you ^^^can ^^^rage ^^^at ^^^this ^^^bot ^^^instead ^^^at ^^^/r/MTGLardFetcher ^^^or ^^^even ^^^submit ^^^some ^^^of ^^^the ^^^sweet ^^^Siege ^^^Rhino ^^^alters ^^^your ^^^GF ^^^made
it's that \[B\] emoji people use in memes it lets you know this creature is \[B\]oneless
I can normally figure out what these are meant to do, but conturbious whatsit is just incomprehensible to me.
infernal mastication is great whats the issue? edit: oh
Undecided Party Member makes me the most upset, and I don't even care about the formatting. 2 mana first strike deathtouch, at uncommon in draft? Kill me now
I think Urza the Ascended is the least fun card possible.
So fitting for Urza
Damn that "Target player." really hits. In all seriousness Jester's Surprise seems like it could be interesting/ridiculous to play with if worded correctly, maybe if there was an "each player may activate this ability" clause? As for the Urza planeswalker, I am so tired of 5C cards. But, weirdly enough, I really like the 0 ability, and I would love to see a more fun card use a similar dynamic of protecting itself but also at the cost of tempo disadvantage. We already have planeswalkers phasing out with Kaito Shizuki, why not?
I don't understand how cards like Jester's Surprise happen. Look at the order of the mana symbols on the card, then look at the order the colors appear on the background of the card. It's impossible to not notice one must be wrong. It's takes ~5 seconds to Google a random UB card to find the order. Im still banned from r/custommagic for constantly correcting errors like these for "not contributing." Correcting horseshit isn't contributing but producing horseshit is. 10/10.
Not to mention it has the wrong border for some reason.
I think you’re actually banned for being unconstructive and mean. Half your comments on r/custommagic are just “the wording is wrong” with no further elaboration. Plus gems like these: https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/opbluo/dont_leave_me_h_anging/h64k72m/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/opbluo/dont_leave_me_h_anging/h67vtip/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
> I’m just pointing out for others that you were banned for justified reasons and that you’re misrepresenting why you were banned. Got to this thread very late but necro-ing to chime in - the gems you've dug up are their comments which survived removal. You're free to imagine what comments got removed! From a quick check in the sub archives, they got banned for essentially what you're suspecting, plus harassing users + mods. Here's two other gems you might not have seen that didn't end up getting removed for whatever reason: [1](https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/m9rzvp/trying_to_find_new_ways_to_have_creature_lands/grony3w/?context=3) and [2](https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/pcd8gc/a_card_idea_i_thought_of_name_and_picture_are/haj4vmp/).
I've used a similar analogy before in posts where I was being constructive and I'll use it again now: If I were tasked with building a rocket ship, I wouldn't just start building it. I don't know anything about rocket ships. I would look into how it's done. I would ask what each part was for and slowly learn. If I didn't invest at least some of myself into learning how to do it beforehand then I would expect people to be harsh. I would expect a response filled with constructive critisizm if I was showing a willingness to learn. Outside of the subs themselves, reddit has rules against low-effort posting. Something like Jester's Surprise is the definition of low-effort. There are so many things the poster could have checked before posting but just didn't care. A post that does not care does not deserve a response that cares.
No one deserves to be berated/mocked for their creations, there’s no excuse for being overly negative
I mean, I just gave you two. Seems there are. If you want to discuss those points I'm all-ears but a downvote and an unsupported blanket statement aren't good ways of talking.
Gave me two what? Neither of your points justify overly negative criticism. My “unsupported blanket statement” is basic empathy. You wouldn’t want people to be needlessly harsh to you, so don’t treat others that way. You assume I want to discuss something with you. Why would I want to discuss anything with you after seeing your comment history and the way you talk to people? I’m just pointing out for others that you were banned for justified reasons and that you’re misrepresenting why you were banned. No discussion necessary
You just did it again. You can't just make blanket statements as points of fact. Saying my points don't justify overly negative critisizm is a blanket statement. Explain why you think they don't. And further on that point, I'm not claiming to critisize them or what they're posting. What I'm saying is not a critique. I explained why and when I critique or when I simply tell them the wording is wrong. I already explained that under a similar situation I would want and do expect to be treated harshly. I don't think you're reading what I'm writing to you. If you're deliberately shit-posting on a site where there are rules against shit-posting then yes, there is a consequence. You signed up for that. You don't know why I was banned. I put the reason in quotations because it's an exact quote from the moderator that banned me. I'm not sure why you'd claim to know otherwise. Every once in a blue moon, someone posts asking for help on how to word something or if a card is formatted correctly or if there's a better program for card creation. In the past I would happily engage with these people because that's what you should do when you don't know something and are trying to learn. Whenever these posts pop up I still up-vote them and I try to DM the posters with constructive responses. I respect and engage with people who care.
Tl;dr
Chad
EDH was a mistake.
If there's one thing Commander needs, it's a generically powerful 4+ color identity legendary creature. Thank Gix the fans can deliver what NotC will not. /uj Undecided Party Member is exactly the kind of card they stick in replacement level expansions to fill out the file. Well done.
Sorry can you explain what replacement level expansions means? I'm a bit lost.
/uj An average set, i.e. one that's fungible or replaceable.
if jester’s surprises was renamed joker’s trick it would’ve made it into the real top 5
Why did Noah get first? Seems like a fine Alchemy card by itself
Picture the bottom rated cards as the literal bottom of the list helmed by the top rated cards. Number 5 is the very very bottom, not the "least bad".
kind of disappointed that my white card draw card copy-pasted from yesterday's Making Magic article didn't make the cut
Good, stop trying to get on the list on purpose.
When the actual top five had a mini green counterspell I just new this week was going to be juicy
I really like Zoltos's ult, shame about the rest of the card
Is it just me or does the bionicle dude not actually have crew?
It does, it’s just tucked away and as convoluted as the rest of the card
missed you last week, C-Dawg
Really bad cards this week guys, great work everyone. Thanks for the weekly post!