Name That Card: Recent Activity
| Name That Card: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to Name That Card: (Generated at 2025-06-28 09:01:23)
| Name That Card: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to Name That Card: (Generated at 2025-06-28 09:01:23)
Thanks, I looked this up after asking and found Plummet, which I've (probably) seen before, I'm (not) sure. My memory for cards is atrocious.
Honestly, I kind of like this card, I didn't really read it all together yet, and it's kind of sweet. Except I really hate Delirium as a mechanic, dunno why.
I don't need to explain how this card interacts with itself, but it's pretty cool. One thing I'd maybe change is that
seems like a lot for 4 damage to a flyer only, but I guess that's because it's repeatable. Then again, full combo with this is 
to deal 4 damage to an opponent's creature without Shroud or Hexproof... So that's really the only time this seems weak to me, otherwise it's pretty useful.
Funnily enough, this card makes me think of a dysfunctional catapult... It might make your creatures fly... for a turn (it launches them because the leverage/whatever/its/called snaps) and it's got a 'Delirium' ability, which allows it to hit fliers, when it's crazy (or spazzing it out like clockwork gnomish tea kettles?)... alas this is not an artifact (for good reasons)
It's an exception for flying. Green has many ways to deal with flyers. Sometimes it takes the most direct approach and just destroys them, or deals direct damage to them. Two examples in standard would be Fell the Pheasant and Plummet. There are quite a few more.
Green can do quite a number of things to flying creatures. -X/-0, tap, don't untap, can't attack/block. Now that I think about it, if I was to go back in time and redo the color pie, I think I would put flying destruction in Red and keep it out of Green. Makes more sense in my mind for Green to harass fliers than to out and out kill them. That, and dealing damage/destroy only flyers is how we get (or don't get) odd cards like NTC #029.
Interestingly, some things Green can't do (or has yet to do) to flyers. It can't bounce or flicker them. And it can't gain control of them. Odd that Green is allowed to replicate Red and Black when dealing with flyers, but never Blue.
(Hmmm.... gotta remember this for NTC #039...)
I got nothing for this one, sorry.
I don't think any of these suggestions are hitting the mark in the same way that NTC suggestions usually do. Not because of the names, just because, in my opinion, getting all these mechanics into a Magic style name, isn't possible, at all.
I mean, how am I supposed to explain a fairly large (3/3) creature (that fits into
colors) that can temporarily gain flying. And, while you are it are delirious/crazy/dehydrated/etc it gains the ability to punch flying creatures in the face.
Sure, those things can be explained, such as Jump for the first part, or Hurricane for the latter part, but all together it makes for either vague or clunky names, and nothing that fits too well.
I still like these suggestions so far, they sound nice, but they don't really fit perfectly which is the problem.
The Cloudwatching Kelpie is probably the closest, but it would still need some art to back it up, which would probably include it punching a flying thing (even though the comp rules actually have to tell new players that flying is a mechanic that works regardless of art).
I'm also not throwing jabs at you, JM. This challenge is fun every week, even when it gets just a few answers. (For me, at least,) It can also be surprisingly hard to come up with a card w/o a name that would be both fun and thought-provoking to name, and could be done well by multiple users. Sometimes, I can't even come up with a card of any kind in a week, especially if I have writer's block, so your consistence is remarkable.
Also, long-time (not a ton, 3.5 years) player, hardcore noob question from me: can
(in modern color-pie) deal damage to fliers? Can it destroy them? I remember reading cards from early/earlier sets that did that. Im pretty sure 
doesn't normally deal direct damage or destroy creatures, though. Is it an exception for flying?
Jmg: Yeah, it's tricky. I think you're doing a good job producing interesting cards. Vitenka: Oh yes, Cloud Kelpie works very well. I had an idea of faeries who would pick you up and drop you but couldn't get the flavour to feel green.
Now I started thinking in this way, I had some more idea. Sirens often sort-of have flying, and I think that could extend to calling someone up into the air in a dream as well as jumping into the sea in a dream...
Cliffcaller Siren 1UG.
Creature - Siren
I can't come up with a good name for it - but I really want to use the flavour text Flight... is an illusion
Actually, I do know what I want to call it, now. Phantasmal Mount. Which is of course already taken. But the backstory can take the whole Kelpie mythology and file off the serial numbers. In mtg-land, the Kelpie equivalent takes you for a short flight across the sky, and drops you off mid-way, rather than drowning you in a river. And we can even tie in the delerium, by saying it is summoned as a punishment for those who cannot decide what they want to do, whose heads are of course among the clouds. So it promises to take your body up there too :) (Darnit, I kept writing 'Selkie' by mistake. Different water-related myth.)
So, hmm - ok. Illusion-Horse for the creature type is fine. And mtg actually has 'Kelpie' cards already. (Though they kinda look like ugly toads). So... want something adjectivey. Indecisive, dreaming, skywards, wishing, cloud.. Yeah; I think Cloudwatching Kelpie is my best.
And as a bonus, you get a nice stream of conciousness and half a dozen more card ideas we can spin out of it. Also, the grape-shot catapult trick was indeed much fun.
Some of these challenges are admittedly harder to wrap one's head around than others. So I'm not too put off if a card like this one only gets a handful of answers compared to the last card.
Designing cards for these challenges can also be tricky. Because top down rarely works. If I start thinking of an elephant doing an elephant thing, then make a card, I'm going to feel right foolish when people send me back a bunch of elephants. Seems like it's against the nature of the challenge to lead people down my same creative path.
So instead, most of these challenges are made by looking at the mechanics first (presuming the mechanics don't automatically lend to something obvious.) I find it tougher to make those, and make them consistently interesting. I've misfired a few times by getting too technical.
Dreamwind Summoner. 1UG.
Creature - Elf Druid
I could think of lots of red blue ideas but this was the first that felt UG. It was really hard thinking of anything that made sense with flying AND ping AND delerium AND only conditionally having flying itself
Today's card is an old loophole in Blue/Green. Way back in the day, I used to cast Updraft on my opponent's creature, then activate my Grapeshot Catapults to shoot it out of the sky. Fun trick.
As far as I know, this combination has only appeared once on the same card: Predator, Flagship. The fact that it's an artifact is telling. I presume this was on some blue/green card somewhere, but better minds prevailed.
I'm not a better mind. To make up for how this completely ignores the color pie, I made certain to double down on the colored mana costs, and added Delirium as both a hoop to jump through, and also a nod to the sort of madness needed to even let these abilities end up on the same card. Cute. Probably still wouldn't see print, though.
Honestly, this one wasn't fair to the judge. Like Froggychum said, there were a lot of good answers. A lot of which I really liked.
The only reason I went with Shocking Revalations is because it meant something a little different, depending on how you cast the spell. I could imagine the art too: A wizard experimenter, just about to due something stupid with two arcing wires, suddenly realizing the danger he's in, inferring that he had a 'shocking realization' before he got a true 'shocking realization'.
But really, at least ten of these names could have easily been chosen, and they would have made perfect sense.
(((NTC #029))) in a couple of days.
This NTC has a lot of good suggestions!
"Clear Your Mind"
Art is a monk meditating and a goblin trying to imitate him, but there's smoke coming out of the goblin's ears because it's trying too hard to focus
Why does every red card have to be burning and fiery?
Explore the more nuanced red emotions.
"Psychoburn"
"Burning Intellect"
"Fiery Genius"
"Antithemancy" or "Researcher's Antithemancy" (I gave some reasoning for this over on ((C118540)).
"Burning Question"
Nope; technically all "mancy" are divinations. And yes, that includes necromancy.
Blowing people up should really be pyrurgy. Or maybe flambeau :)
But words change meanings over time, I guess.
Actually, I think I want to go a different route naming this card after all. Something like Think Again. Implying you can stop thinking those red thoughts and think nice wholesome blue ones instead. Except that would be better for a counterspell... Bleh.
'And also shows mtg strongly prefers it to mean 'blow you up' rather than 'divine your future in the flames.'
True. I've never seen anyone use the word pyromancy for that type of magic, i've always heard them use Divination, or another similar word that focuses less on the flames themselves. I would call someone who does such a thing a Flame Seer, though.
Firemind's Inquiry
Izzet Flamesight
Explosive Knowledge
Visions in the Fire
Burst of Insight
ETA: Oh, right, sorcery. Uh, "Surge of Insight"?
Damn; Pyromancy is taken. And also shows mtg strongly prefers it to mean 'blow you up' rather than 'divine your future in the flames.
Welcome back to You Name the Card!
Today's card is a Blue card that does a very red thing if you instead pay the alternate cost and 'rummage' three red cards in your hand.
Oddly it's also an example of making a card worse by making it better. Originally this was supposed to be 'exile one red card and draw two.' But I figured that that was simply too good for some combo decks. But three red cards requires commitment, or luck.
I like the changes you made, and that discussion is pretty interesting about wording, though I guess it depends how much the custom card community is supposed to deviate from official wording in the sake of the spirit of sounding better (something WOTC strives for, so might approve of?)
Amuseum's points are also good, but that would be actually changing the card. I mean, I'm never not up for fixing a card, but IIRC you wanted to avoid rewriting NTC cards... maybe that was just during the competition though.
I think 4/4 would be reasonable for this price. I mean, it's off-curve, but it's got a significant drawback. I also dunno any cards or combos you could pull off that would cost less mana to make it worth getting a +2/+2 bonus on one creature, tbh.
I mean, it would be pretty funny if you mindslaved an opponent with counter removal on board and then exalted your own giant, but it's unlikely (BUT AWESOME)
Toughness should be higher if you expect it fight that much and still survive to keep fighting. 3/4 or 4/4.
Also switch mana costs on activated abilities. 1st one cost no mana; 2nd one
OR 
Oh yes. That's a good enough comparison.
Nightfall Predator is a comparison for "repeatable fight after the right hoops", perhaps.