The ability itself is balanced enough, but the two examples are not.

Natural Bloom - This card is way worse than Rampant Growth and just about all its counterparts. A two mana "mana fixer" isn't very good. Remedy is wasted on this card really because no one would ever want to counter it. I would suggest not even using it on a card like this.

Bright Lightning - 4 damage for two mana is just not balanced. Look at Flame Javelin. Make it three damage with two when countered and you should be in business.

To make this ability relevant you will need to use it on bigger effects though. People rarely want to counter a 3 direct damage spell or mana searcher. Think big like Wrath effects or giant, hard to deal with creatures. Also, it might be interesting to have cards with remedy effects that are completely different than the original effect. With an effect like this you are trying to inspire interaction and hard decisions rather than just trying to make it uncounterable. Just because I am feeling inspired here is an example:

Fungii Brute
Creature - Fungus
Remedy - Put four 1/1 green Saproling tokens onto the battlefield.
Trample
6/4

I like Natural Bloom really much. For a three mana common I get to put the land into play untapped with the restriction to only tutor Forest or Plains. If they counter it, I get two of my three mana spent back which is very well balanced.

Bright Lightning is a different game. First of all four damage for two mana at common is a very steep climb. One reason is that Wizards have to show us first whether their "common Shock variants with new keyword that cost more type of cards" will all become Lightning Bolt variants. The Bolt may just be an exception to the rule and not the new benchmark. Secondly, if the spell's initial damge is four it will not get an extra ability at common. Therefore make it 3 damage when played and 2 damage if countered to balance it.

All in all I like Remedy, the problem with this I can see however is that its effect will presumably only occur versus blue decks which is really narrow. To incorporate it properly into your set I would try to find ways to make counter spells matter overall, be it as some quirky way to pay for spells or activate abilities or anything that would make sense in other colors as well.

A final note, the reminder text does really sound awful because it basically repeats what the spell already says. A much more elegant way to say what you want to say can be found on Hellbent cards. This ability word doesn't use reminder text but alters the text according to the criteria that must be met first.

Remedy - Bright Lightning deals 3 damage to target creature or player. If it is countered, it deals 2 damage to target creature or player.

I think you can exclude the first sentence from the Remedy clause but it's not mandatory both is possible. AFAIG anything with "instead" is incorrect.

On the note that Brave Lion mentioned about countering being narrow, you could also say if it is the target of a spell or ability controlled by an opponent. That would include countering, change target spells, spell copies, and targeted prevent/redirection. Also, it could create interesting situations such as they attempt to counter and then you counter their spell. Now you get the spell's effect AND the remedy effect. Food for thought.

Well, I suppose I can put this here since there aren't any responses to it in my set thread. Anyway, I wrote a new card recently and while I like my current version of it, I keep thinking that it's overpowered. It is as follows:

Prismatic Growth

Tribal Enchantment - Elemental
, : Put a 1/1 colorless Elemental land creature token with the basic land type of your choice onto the battlefield. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery. Spend only mana of three or more colors to activate this ability.

So, what say everyone?

A 5 color mana fixer is something I've never seen before. I like it, but I don't think it gives enough benefit for the cost. Right now it's like an expensive, slow dryad arbor or llanowar elves generator. How about using a sunburst type effect to make the token multiple basic land types? I think that would warrant more play for this card.

Sounds like something like that would be really wordy. What about this:

Prismatic Growth

Tribal Enchantment - Elemental
~ enters the battlefield with three charge counters on it.
, , Remove a charge counter from ~: Put a 1/1 Elemental land creature token with all basic land types onto the battlefield. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery. Spend only mana of three or more colors to activate this ability.

That seems kinda wordy, but...it could be better...

I know I would consider playing that version more then the other one. How attached are you to the land creatures? If they just had ": Add one mana of this creature's colors to your mana pool." without the land subtype you could just make it every color used to activate the ability. I guess these specifics really depend on what fits in your set. Personally, I like the sunburst/non land combination for it's semi-elegance, but that's not much help if it's going in a set with a land creature sub-theme. From what I can tell, tribal and multicolor is important here, to the point where one of the manafixers requires .

I've got another card here I need a bit of help with (actually, probably a lot of help).

Swarmmind -
Enchantment {U}
Whenever a creature blocks or becomes blocked, Swarmmind deals 1 damage to it for each attacking or blocking creature you control.

Is this card as crazy as I suspect it is? Is it doable at a different mana cost and rarity? Let me know what you think.

The closest card to Swarmmind I can think of is Powerstone Minefield.

Right now, your card is confusing. Is this card supposed to deal damage to your blockers equal to the number of blockers you control and to deal damage to your blocked creature equal to the number of attackers you control? Because that's what it is saying actually!

Please clarify first in order to give you real advise.

I shoud use this opportunity to advocate one of my cards:

Jhoira, Planeswalker -
Planeswalker - Jhoira (M)
+1: Exile the top card of your library. Put it into your hand at the beginning of your next upkeep.
-2: Put an artifact token onto the battlefield with “, : Untap target artifact.”
-6: Cast all instant and sorcery cards in your hand without paying their mana costs.
3

Noncreature tokens for the win.

"-6: Reveal your hand and cast all instant and sorcery cards in it without paying their mana costs."

That's about the only way you could word that.

I think your Jhoira should give the tokens a name, to make them even more awesome (and I think that may be required, not sure). Her ultimate is pretty crazy, but then again my Niv-Mizzit, Omniscientist's ultimatum lets you play blue instants and red sorceries for free, so it's not too out there. I think it should cost one more, at -7 or so (remember things like Cruel Ultimatum.

For Swarmmind, I do remember thinking it looked too simple to be clear enough. It should be:
"Whenever a creature you control is blocked, ~ deals damage to the blocking creature equal to the number of attacking creatures.
Whenever a creature you control blocks, ~ deals damage to the blocked creature equal to the number of blocking creatures."

It's similar to a creature only Dogpile in concept, meant to capture the flavor of everything suddenly being in your way (usually they're mossy saprolings).

"-6: Reveal your hand. You may cast any instant or sorcery cards in it without paying their mana costs."

It doesn't have to be mandatory.

If it is not mandatory, there is no reason to reveal your hand.

"-6: You may cast any number of instant or sorcery cards from your hand without paying their mana costs."

I must note though that this Planeswalker does not flow at all. The abilities have nothing to do with each other at all and almost seem to conflict. One cares only about artifacts and another cares only about instants or sorceries. It seems like there is an identity crisis.

EDIT: I think this would be more fun.

"-6: Until end of turn, you may cast instant or sorcery cards from your hand without paying their mana costs."

Why? Because then if you play card drawing spells you will draw into more and then play them too. It would also make it more ultimaty and would be the combo player's dream (aside from the turn clock to set it up).

@ kiligir and Jeske: While I agree with Jeske that it could be non-mandatory, I wouldn't opt for this simply because it is an additional word but no real gain design-wise. When you activate an ultimate I think it should feel definite, irrevocable meaning that there is no option to not cast some spells but there is a choice to make whether to activate it or not. I'm not saying that being forced to cast all spells at once is the best outcome for the player at all times from Spike's point of view. It is the commitment that counts for me. Ajani Vengeant's ultimate doesn't give you any option either. "No, you can't keep your Annexed land, sorry 'bout that." Again, yes why would you like to keep that land anyway but you get my point I assume. And yes, I totally forgot about the revealing part.

@ windsandfire: I was aware of the tokens not having a name and such. I wanted to converse some space on the card just to not have it three three-lined abilities but whatever. ♥♥♥♥ you font-size, I don't know how to decrease it or if it is possible at all.

If we apply this to noncreature tokens they either need a subtype or name. Equipment and Fortification don't fit and Contraption we have to see yet. Also it isn't the best solution to put an "Equipment artifact token" onto the battelfield. Therefore I change it to Voltaic Key which I had in mind for the design anyway.

The current iteration of Swarmmind can easily double the damage done to your opponents' creatures in combat. One damage is always guaranteed at the least which in combination with your creatures' combat damage will make opposing creatures rarely survive oombat. You already mentioned token abuse so I recommend upping the cost to five mana and keep it at uncommon.

@ Guitarweeps: I cannot see how this Planeswalker doesn't flow at all. The abilities are based on what the character is adept at in the storyline and on its different variations as creature and Vanguard card. Actually it's top-down design. What have Sarkhan Vol's abilities in common, then? Nothing I can see if we talk about synergy, these are just abilities that fit a dragon revering shaman.

I admit that the card somehow forces you to draft heavily into artifacts and caring about three card types is a bit restrictive on its use but look at Tezzeret the Seeker and now we're talking! With Jhoira you can always draw delayed and use the ultimate, or do you tell me that decks in general lack instants and sorceries?

Oh, and you didn't realize how the first and third ability are synergetic and the second is an alternative route to victory (Lorywn Planeswalkers anyone?)

Finally, your last suggestion actually reads: How to turn an elegant and simple "I'm on the verge of winning" resolver into a completely ridicolous, abusable and foolproof win condition.

The font size should automatically decrease as you type.

At the very least, they all deal with creatures - Jhoira's not synergistic at all. Maybe if you dropped the artifact ability and went with something else. Yes, I know, Jhoira was an artificer, but when making legends/planeswalkers, tough decisions have to be made. You can't represent a character's entire self - you can only represent a facet of them.

I find it mildly humorous that you acknowledged the problem with your logic in the very same post, with mere sentences of difference. Ajani Vengeant doesn't let you choose to keep an opponent's lands around because there's no practical time you would want to. However, there are many times when a sorcery or instant in your hand could fizzle when cast at the wrong time. One of the big BIG rules of designing good cards - don't make the players do things they don't want to do. That means no repeated shuffling or counting of the library, no long division, and no forcing them to waste cards in their hand just because you don't want to add an extra word. Because in many cases, especially for red and blue, that extra word changes a janky ultimate to something useful. The player has nursed that planeswalker up from 3 loyalty to 6 or more, to activate that ultimate - don't they deserve to hang on to Cancel or Swerve if they want to?

Regardless, you have to either make it optional, or add a reveal their hand clause.

It hasn't decreased to the point where I have seven lines of text. But using Space....me being stupid.

With such an established character as Jhoira if versatility can be presented why not? And I repeat myself but the delayed draw gives you cards which means more instants and sorceries in your hand for the ultimate.

I acknowledge it in terms of practicality, in most cases if you spare the land it wouldn't make any difference because you've already won. Now, imagine a casual game between unexperienced players where one gets to hit Ajani's ultimate and the other player is actually far from losing. Imagine the winning player has annexed a land before. I don't think that he is too content about losing that land. Sometimes it can make a difference for some players.

So yes practicality is one reason why it is texted the way it is. I think feeling ultimate is the primary reason however.

I think for such a potentially powerful ultimate where several spells can be cast at once it isn't unfair to let him waste his counters. The player would use his counter mostly before anyway with knowing the implication of going ulti.

Well, if good card design equates what players want to do then Wizards needs to reprint Counterspell because they don't want to play with crappy counters, mind my exaggeration. It's not that I force them to do utter nonsense with only downsides. For elegance's and finality's sake I think my wording is good and it forces the player to adapt to the situation, playing potentially dead cards before, making choices.

For a real chance at winning it's not too demanding of a player to setup his ultimate perfectly, to work around it a bit.

Look, Brave Lion, you're getting defensive. If you don't want your card criticized, don't post it in the clinic. If you're hearing something from multiple people, which you are, maybe you need to step back and ask why? Why do guitarweeps and I both see problems? Dismiss if you like, but you wanted opinions, and you got them.

First, let me say that I am not too familiar with Jhoira's story so forgive any comments that don't make sense to those that do know the character.

What I meant about it not flowing was indeed because it would force you to play three different card types (or two really if you want to be technical), but it is not quite that simple. Sarkhon has more synergy not because all the abilities "deal with creatures", but because they do not clash with each other. They are all really independent abilities that work together well as a whole card concept. Jhoira's second and third abilities clash with each other. Why would I say that? Is it just because they have different card types in the ability? not at all, let's take a look.

The second ability is only useful if you are playing artifacts, but not just any artifacts; it will have to be artifacts that have a useful tap function or creatures to grant "vigilance". This narrows down artifacts even more so that you can only use certain artifacts to be useful. Is this a problem? Not really, it is a fine ability in itself, but we are talking about an entire card concept. You will have to play a certain amount of these artifacts to ensure that you have one out when this comes around. Tezzeret is a very narrow Planeswalker, but he works with any artifact (even Zuron Orb becomes 5/5) while this only works with some.

The third ability is only useful if you are playing instants and/or sorceries. Again, not just any ones but ones that will not be wasted by being played at inoppurtune times. Now we are talking about playing enough instants and sorceries to make this useful. Since this is an ultimate, you would think that there should be maybe three or more appropriate spells in hand to make it feel like an ultimate. As you said, you will be casting spells prior to using the ultimate so you won't be holding them or you'll probably die.

Now, of course the average deck will already play instants and sorceries. Even an artifact deck will play instants and sorceries. However, to make this ultimate feel like an ultimate you would have to play a significant amount of them. This is why it clashes with the second; because they both make you want to play a significant amount of opposite card types, more so then you normally would perhaps. If you made them less narrow but still deal with different card types then that would work even. Tezzeret does cause you to play a lot of artifacts, but it is only one type. Also, note that he has an ability that searches up the card type to enable it.

This is more like alternate decks to victory rather than "alternate paths to victory".

Also on another note, I am not sure how forcing to cast certain spells would work, because I believe that you CANNOT play a counterspell with no targets. I think you would have to stack the spells and play the counterspell after the others countering your own spell(s). Also, I am not getting the flavor behind a Planeswalker casting a spell that FORCES an ally to cast all their spells whether it helps them or not. Allies should be enabling rather than inhibiting. If it was a black card I could see it.

Anyways, I am just trying to help bring another side of an arguement. Not trying to attack your card.

My thinking is if you have two very different abilities then why not make two different planeswalkers?

Hello, first time poster in this thread.

With that out of the way, quick explanation. I've been working on a set off and on for a while, themed after the Elder Scrolls games, using screenshots from the most recent game in the series, Oblivion. This is really a personal effort for me and a select few others, but I'd like them to be balanced and fair, since I intend to make an MWS patch of it once it is in good shape.

Firstly, I'd like to run the basic gimmick of this set by you fine folks. It's an ability I call "Favor". Basically, they're charge tokens that are used to pay for specific effects.

Example: Favor X - (This card comes into play with X Favor Counters. When this card has no Favor Counters on it, send it to the graveyard).

(X,) Remove a/X Favor Counter(s) from this card, (effect)

Here are five examples of Favor cards I've created so far. (Forgive me if I get the spoiler tags wrong, I've never used a forum quite like this one before, and was unable to locate a Q&A section on it.)

Before anyone asks, yes, the effects on the "Shrine of" cards are based on the characters they depict. I researched each one to come up with a fitting effect. There are 16 total, but I figured posting all 16 would have been silly. I'll post up others that are bugging me once these have been dealt with.

I fully realize the Favor ability is generic at the moment, so I'd like tips on how to expand it. I am planning to include cards that add and subtract Favor, and other card types that utilize Favor.

Please give proper artist credit. You are not the artist, the people at Bethesda Softworks are. You should also take another look at some real cards to get correct wordings. Yours also have some unnecessary capitalization, and use ; instead of :.

Again, this is a private deal, they're just here for critique, and I did happen to take all those screenshots, but I also see your point. If it's THAT big a deal, I'll add Bethesda Softworks alongside the screenshooter's name (they aren't all my shots, but they are all used with permission by the original screenshot artists) for future image posts, but I don't see why it's necessary for a private set. Scratch that, another review of the forum rules tells me it IS that big a deal. I'll make it a point to properly credit Bethesda in future posts, but I will leave the screenshooter's name, and it will be first. The shooter is as much the artist as the company, and just because they take shots of a game doesn't make those shots any less their own art. Basically, yes, I am the artist, just not the only one involved in the image.

Also, I'll take another look at spelling, capitalization, and punctuation.

Thanks for the relatively fast response. Looking at the other threads, I was expecting to at least have to wait until tomorrow night for feedback.

So, with that out of the way, any thoughts on the effect or the cards themselves?

They look okay but I don't know about adding so many options for Sheogorath, and six-sided die aren't really used in Magic. I'd consider simplifying it down to two or three abilities, use a coin flip, or something like that.

Even if you put restrictions on how fast you can get the wolves, Hircine is still six mana and only one card to get 12 damage worth of creatures. I would add some green mana and maybe tapping to the activation cost.

Also, the shrine subtype was used for the cycle of Hondens from Champions of Kamigawa. They can still be shrines like every other shrine, but they probably shouldn't use the supertype because of how themes work in Magic (like a wall always being given defender).

As you've already reviewed forum rules, you'll realize that all renders with art must be credited. I don't care if you credit the person who takes the screenshot, but you will credit Bethesda Software, as their artists rendered the images originally. There are no exceptions. Any image posted without proper artist credit will be removed, and if a poster continues to violate that rule, they'll face consequences such as suspension or banning.

This may seem like overkill - here's the logic. If a poster puts of a card without artist credit, that artist is able to take legal action against this forum. This has actually happened to mtgsalvation. As a result of that risk, renders now require artist credit, and will be immediately removed by myself or Innuendo if they do not comply. It doesn't matter that the cards are for a private set. What you do in your set file is your business, but once it goes live here, its suddenly my business too. I can't let screenshots slide by - if I do, I've opened it up to exceptions. And as for whether the person taking the screenshot or the company rendering the graphics is the owner of the images - well, I think we both know its the company rendering the graphics.

Feel free to make a new post with credited renders, if you wish.

Is this planeswalker balanced

Sandra Narxus
Planeswalker - Sandra (M)
+1: You gain 1 life
-3: Creatures you control gets +2/+2 and gains flying until end of turn.
-6: Target player discards his or her hand. Creatures you control gets +2/+2 and gains flying and protection from red.
Initial loyalty: 4

Okay, I understand, and I'm sorry if I caused any trouble. Any and all future renders I post will credit the proper sources.

And while I'd love to get into a discussion about how screenshooting from a video game isn't much different from a photograph of a building (someone else made it, sure, but it doesn't mean you have to credit them on your photo), this really isn't the place. It's been said that it doesn't matter if I credit the shooter, too, so the answer is simple; I credit both and everyone's happy.

Sandra Narxus - The +1 is weak when compared to Ajani Goldmane, and already used. I would go for something that feels a little blueish too. The -3 ability is balanced but almost seems like it wants to be an ultimate. It is very close to Garruk. Maybe -1 and make it +1/+1. The ultimate doesn't really make much sense. It combines two completely unrelated abilities, is too much like the second ability which makes it uninteresting, and discard is not a white or blue ability. However, I would say it is balanced.

Will fix it later, but then i know

@ Jexsam: Since your screenshotting oblivion ARTWORK i'd call it more like taking a photograph of a piece of art and calling it your own.

And the planeswalker to me seems a little bland. I'd make the abilities work together better, right now they're pretty much all the same.

First of off, the +1 ability is underpowered when compared to Ajani. Since it's white and blue, why not make it something like "+1: You gain one life, and draw a card."

The -3 is probably a bit underpowered for requiring 3 loyalty counters to activate. I agree with Guitarweeps that it should probably be +1/+1 instead, and only a -1 to the loyalty. Either that, or make it -2 and have it be like a universal holy strength.

The ultimate definitely makes no sense. The +2/+2 and pro-red works for that color combination, but discard is mostly a black ability.

I would see this 'walker as something more like this:

Sandra Narxus
Planeswalker - Sandra {M}
+1: Gain 1 life, and draw a card.
-2: Creatures you control get +1/+2 and flying until end of turn.
-6: For the rest of the game, creatures you control get +2/+2, flying, and protection from red.
Initial Loyalty: 4

I'm working on a 2nd version of sandra now, soo please, can we leave her for now?

I have an unique card, for a set still in the "brainstorming" process.

Currently, about 45% of the cards (17/37 raw ideas so far) use the term "shard" somewhere in their name. The use of the word shard conveys that the card deals with some of the crystal shards found all around the plane. This card is, in essence, conveying the idea of capturing some of the energy or powers as these crystals are falling in this field.

Now, my options are to either use this wording, referencing the name, which allows for flavorful interaction with 12/19 cards that already have shard in the name, or to make shard a subtype (which would have to be included on almost all card types, except enchantment and walkers). I can easily foresee the subtype route falling down the path of arcane, perhaps even more so because these "shards" aren't as modular as arcane technically is (it's pretty much stuck to this plane). What do you guys think? Is a subtype the way to go or does conveying these "shards" through the name work from a template standpoint?

I have two alternate solutions to the 'in the name' template, which I shy away from because--while it was hinted at on Runed Halo--it has only been used on Urza's Hot Tub.

1. Tribal Instant - Prism. This has fairly evocative sound, and lets you have Prism creatures with their own tribal identity. Grave Tunneler, then, could have protection from Prisms, then. Why Prism? Because I think it sounds better, especially on the tails of Shards block, and because they already exist
2. Shard Enchantment - Aura. A new supertype, like snow. This allows 'protection from shard,' 'shard landwalk,' and even shard mana--that is, mana produced by shard permanents. This does suffer from the same sort of problems that Coldsnap suffered from, but is clean and cool. You even have the opportunity to add rules meaning to the supertype, like legendary and world have.

Alright, made these three with a few pics from my gf's DeviantArt page, with her permission, and credited as she wished (using her initials and her username).

May use these to test my MWS extractor addon...

For Gizmodius, I don't want to change the cost of his effect. Instead, I'd like tips on how to make the effect worth that cost.

For the others, basic balance is all I want. Is Kw-Uhnx-Wa's effect good for R/U, should I beef up Gizmodian Dragon, the basic stuff.

Gizmodian Dragon: It looks better as a 4/4. Red is the color that cares the least about toughness. Also a 4/4 that "deals 4 damage to target creature or player"(correct wording) is more elegant and graspable.

Gizmodius: For high cost activated effects in RW, double strike in conjunction with lifelink is an obvious choice. "Other creature you control gain +2/+0, double strike and lifelink until end of turn."

Thunder Lord: I love it! For seven mana you get a creature that can draw and deal damage simultaneously. A partly red bird is a bit awkward though.

Are the lords both equal gods or is the Thunder Lord at the top? I can't really tell because the flavor texts aren't mirrored. If so, I suggest you mirror them and either have both a CD mana cost or CCDD mana cost.

Was playing around with ways to use intimidate, and came up with this.

Daunting Behemoth -
Artifact Creature - Construct {R}
~ is colorless.
Intimidate
~ has defender if it is colorless, lifelink if it is white, flying if it is blue, and deathtouch if it is black.
: ~ becomes the color of your choice until the beginning of the next end step.
4/4

"The beginning of the end step" is used for actions that you perform at the end of the turn. "End of turn" is used for an effect's duration. The reason Wizards made the change in the first place is so that turn-long effects would always apply when you are performing those end-of-turn actions.

Your card looks pretty good powerwise. Should say "as long as it's" instead of "if it is." Unfortunately the change applies to each ability it gets.

Since the Behemoth inherently would have defender, I think it's a little unfair to hide it in the last ability where it acts as a somewhat lame 'bonus' instead of siding it with intimidate. It also keeps that last ability less wordy. So my version would look like this:

Daunting Behemoth
Artifact Creature - Construct
~ is colorless.
Intimidate, defender
: ~ loses defender and becomes the color of your choice until end of turn.
~ has lifelink as long as it’s white, flying as long as it’s blue, and deathtouch as long as it’s black.
4/4

Gizmodian Dragon - as well as making it a 4/4 as already suggested, I would suggest making the last ability:
, : ~ deals damage equal to its power to target creature or player.

While the ping is nice, I would point out that Shivan Dragon, the icon of dragonhood, has failed to make an impact on competitive decks in the last 10 years. This means that this thing can be built pretty aggressively.

Gizmodian Skylord - There's nothing I dislike more than having a big guy than having to tap him. Moreover, at 7 mana this guy needs to dominate the board. That would make him:
Flying, Haste
: Creatures you control gain double strike, vigilance and +2/+0 until end of turn.

You could possibly make him 7/7 too (I mean, he costs 7 mana... and you'll be lucky to get one attack out of him before he hits the graveyard).

Thunder Lord - This guy is big and gleaming... and not that big. My suggestion is to beef up and simplify.
Flying
, : ~ deals X damage to target creature or player. Draw X cards.
7/7

(Apart from Wizards moving away from "can't be regenerated clauses", there's no real reason for it, and the card is a lot cleaner without it.)

Basically, 7 mana splashy cards ought to give you the power to win the game all by themselves (look at Oona, who was only 6). This means they need to be bigger than expected. Niv-Mizzet would have been played a lot more if it was a 5/5 or 6/6 - most of the Legends in that block were too weak to be competitive (with just one or two making it).

Is this card costed right?

Seal in Soil
Instant
1U

Counter target spell if it was cast from a graveyard.

No, you could cost that at just . Laquatus's Disdain cantrips for the same cost, making it strictly better.

'Kay, thanks, Kiligir, but I'd also like to ask if it would be reasonable to add an exile clause to the spell for {1} due to my Eternity mechanic.

I'd also like to ask if these Eternity costs are balanced or not:

Cycle Beginning Anew
XR
Sorcery

~ deals X damage to target creature.
Eternity {2}{R}{R} (Once each turn, you may pay 2RR and pay this spell’s casting cost to cast it from your graveyard.)
==
Banish to Creation
XWW
Sorcery

Exile target creature with converted mana cost X.
Eternity - Exile two cards in your graveyard (Once each turn, you may exile two cards in your graveyard and pay this spell’s casting cost to cast it from your graveyard.)
==
Gobi Magicaudia
2WW
Creature - Cat Wizard
2/3

Whenever an opponent plays a spell from the graveyard, ~ gets +2/+2 until end of turn.
Eternity - Sacrifice an Aura (Once each turn, you may sacrifice an Aura and pay this spell’s casting cost to cast it from your graveyard.)

All of those cards are extremely broken due to the fact that they are priced similarly to cards with flashback.

Shiv) So increase the Eternity costs by at least double or treble? Remember it's in addition to paying the spell's cost as well.

Sorry extremely was an overstatement. Looking back over the cards they don't seem to overpowered.
The way eternity is currently phased it won't work with cards with X in their cost. this would work better
(once a turn you may cast this card from your graveyard by paying it's eternity cost in addition to paying its other costs.)

Since my last statement was not really useful at all I will comment on each card individually to the best of my current ability.

Cycle Beginning Anew:
-I'd transfer one red mana from it's eternity cost to it's casting cost.

Sorcery

Cycle Beginning Anew deals X damage to target creature.
Eternity (once a turn you may cast this card from your graveyard by paying it's eternity cost in addition to paying its other costs.)

Banish to Creation:
I'm not really sure what to do with this one.

Gobi Magicaudia
this one is fine (I think.)

When you're forced to pay a casting cost, isn't X set to 0 for you? I remember a question coming up like that on the Rules Advisor test I passed. >.>

i came up with an idea for a keyword but i'm not sure how it should be worded.

noble (This creature can not be targeted by abilities of creatures that have lower casting costs than this creature.)

that doesn't sound right at all to me, but i can't think of any other way to do it.
please help.

I think it should be phrased like this: Nobel (This creature cannot be the target of abilities from sources with a lower converted mana cost then this creature's converted mana cost.)

aha! that does sound much better. do you think that would protect from spells or just creature abilities?

It isn't worded well. For one, CMC should never come into play once the creature's in play because of variable CMCs. A Shifting Wall could have 20 mana dumped into it, and still be screwed by Noble because its actual CMC is 0 in all areas besides the stack.

Shiv) I hate to say it, but that sounds exactly the same...

you might be right, but would it be that big of a deal if a small group of cards is notably stronger against another small group of cards?

i have to say, i think i like this idea better than my original.

That fits the style of my other keywords a little more closely. it may still have the same issues as the other with variable casting costs though.

I have a custom keyword, temp name Brawl. I'm having trouble coming up with a decent name for it, and a couple of cards that use it, and could use some help.

Brawl - Whenever ~ attacks or blocks, [effect]
Ex. of Keyword