Hearthpwn

A fairy

I'm so sorry

Next: An actually interesting fairy minion

The last version of this card, which I assume is the one you're going with, does not specify +1 attack or health and the enrage effect is also unnecessary since it would mess a lot with the wording. Then again, the enrage does act as an effective buffer for the effect so that it doesn't get too out of hand. I mean, playing a 12/10 minion for 8 mana straight up would be a bit broken. I think the only thing that needs to be changed about this card is the wording.

The second version, which uses the golem effect, is possibly either overpowered or absolutely fine. The reason I say it's overpowered is because of the beast tokens. Turn 1 alley cat, turn 2 kindly grandmother, turn 3 something, turn 4 infected wolf. At this point, if all these minions were cleared out, Ursoc would be 4 mana. Though, that is assuming the best situation is possible, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. I think that the card can typically still be played on curve and thinking on it more, it isn't actually overpowered and I think it would be a fair addition to the game. In fact, I think this would be my favorite out of the 3 since not only is it well balanced, it also makes use of simple effects which is something I like to see.

The first version is waaaaaay to specific. getting 10 dead beasts by turn 8 is difficult sometimes, although the effect would probably be worth it. Divine shield, taunt, stealth, or can't be targeted. I'd take that any day. Just remember to put battlecry on its text.

A 0 mana 1/2

Next: Spare part synergy

Quote from nurgling13 >>

There is a thread like this, but it died. It predates Make the Card, and that probably stole some of its thunder. You could try starting it up again by responding to the last prompt.

Perhaps this should be in general but I suspect a moderator will just move it if that's the case.

GUYS! We should start a counter that card thread or name a card with the same... thread in which we are only allowed to use cards which we create! My only worry is that the idea is so similar to the make a card thread, but I think it could work out. What do you thnk?

So I thought of a card design which I think is pretty good. Could someone help me with the wording?

I like how you focus on dragons although there aren't really bunches of class legendaries for each tribe (sarcasm). I mean, you find most beast legendaries in hunter and most demon legendaries in warlock and a few elemental class legendaries.   

... You know what nevermind I just realized that there are more tribe class legendaries than I had accounted for. In any case, legendary dragons lack effects that can contain them in any class. For example, limiting Alexstraza's effect to a class would make that class much stronger than others. It would be difficult to make dragon class legendaries due to the nature of dragon effects, which often turn the game in your favor.

Now your idea for why dragon class legendaries isn't a bad idea is pretty sound. Dragon synergy is currently decreasing a lot so the additional tribe of dragon wouldn't make as much of a splash in the meta game. On the other hand, there is little reason to make a card and give it the dragon tag due to the lack of synergy. You could make it a tribeless card and it would be equally as good, thus it is relatively pointless to create cards with the dragon tribe.

Now just to be clear, I'm not discouraging you from making dragon cards. I just think you might have to refocus your aim with them. Rather than having an effect any tribe would be fine with, make a new type of dragon synergy... or something... Honestly not sure which direction to go in with new and unique dragon synergy... 

In any case, I recommend that you make it so that the tag of dragon matters more outside of original dragon synergy.

Quote from MrUncreative >>

Quote from nurgling13 >>

Quote from MrUncreative >>

Quote from nurgling13 >>

Notice that StogieBlazer is the only one who broke one of the most basic rules of card design by having more than 4 lines of text. Plus the card is riddled with grammatical and formatting errors. That makes sense, because he's also the only one that got here by cheating. I can't believe people were giving this guy the benefit of the doubt. 

I believe it's a fairly ambitious assumption that there's a causal relationship between his grammar and the fact that he cheated.

I get that you and a bunch of other people are mad about that incident from last round and - don't get me wrong - i'm not particularly happy about it either. But unless there's anything new and significant happening - we can stop banging on about that topic for now. The majority of people who are reading this were likely also around for round #1. So everybody already knows what happened and i believe we've got that sorted out for now.

First of all, let me state for the record that he admitted to cheating, so there is no ambiguity there. Now, the point here is that he created a poor quality card, further reinforcing the fact that he doesn't deserve to be here. Good card creators take the time to check the formatting of their cards against existing cards to make sure the wording is right. He clearly did not even make the effort to do that.

Your response here is an example of giving people the benefit of the doubt at the expense of the fairness of the competition. You don't want to draw connections with circumstantial evidence even when dealing with an admitted cheater.

My response is the example of a guy, who wants to have a good and fair time in this competition without having to work his way through the mud of a discussion we've already had - thank you very much. Maybe read that again.

I am not giving him the benefit of any doubt and i am not denying any evidence that he cheated or that he basically admitted it himself. I read that. But as i said: that is a topic which we've already discussed. How he ended up in this round doesn't matter anymore - it was Murozond's call to make and we all basically agreed on that. So i fail to see why we have to bring up this plodding discussion again.

I also wasn't denying that he made a bad card either. But as much as you or me or anybody else dislikes the guy - you pointing out the bad things about is card and then basically closing off with "Well, figures the card's bad - he's a cheater after all." - that strikes me as a tad unfair.

I don't want to fight with you as i believe we are mostly agreeing on the core subject. But when people read my posts wrong and then attack me for things i didn't say - i find that quite irritating.

Might as well give a few words about my own card and my expectations for 10 mana spells. Why? Because I'm bored...

It is difficult to judge what a 10 mana spell should be like considering that 10 mana spells are low in quantity. My belief is that they should have effects that will only work if their requirements were met earlier in the game. examples of this in hearthstone include Pyroblast and Anyfin Can Happen. After certain requirements have been met, dealing 20 damage to the opponent and summoning murlocs respectively, they have strong effects.

That said, I forgot to incorporate that in my card. After thinking of several ideas, such as turn all minions into demons, I came up with For Science!. I know that it's a random effect that wouldn't see much play in the meta but I play hearthstone for fun, not the competition much like most others I know. Thus, I chose to make my card based off of randomization and decided on random secrets cause not only can it be fun, it's also aggravating for your opponent. My first idea for the text was "cast 5 random secrets" but later on I figured that would cause duplicates to appear. I consulted Mysterious Challenger and ultimately decided on the card text. So yeah. Still figuring out how to incorporate the requirement thing. Oh well.

Just for future reference, if you want to post the full sized card, copy the url and then go to insert/edit image on the bar. then paste the url in the place where it says source:. The dimensions will automatically set themselves.

As for the card, it feels too specific. Like it can only be used in discard warlock. I would recommend changing the effect to 'at the start of your turn, add 2 2/2 imps to your hand. At the end of the turn, discard them.'. I like where you are going with this card. 

I like where you are going with this card. It is slightly too powerful with 2 copies of the imp so it may be more balanced with one copy. Other than that, the card's effect is designed well. 

I made a legendary version of the winged dragon of Ra if that's what you meant.

Next: A pokemon quest :D

I'm sorry. I could understand what infuse does but it's just really complicated. I found some of the cards difficult to understand as well.

Although that may be, it was still a pretty good attempt for your first time creating cards. Just a tip, which has already been written earlier in some form or other, most of Hearthstone's interesting cards have really simple effects. Take Brann Bronzebeard for example. The idea of having battlecries occur twice seems simplistic in nature, and it is, but it has extremely powerful and wacky possibilities. Instead of attempting to create concepts somewhat complex in nature, try creating cards that have easily understood effects that provide a wide array of possibilities. It sounds difficult but, like the ideas behind the creation of a novel, it'll come to you. Besides, more people play Hearthstone than Chess due to Hearthstone's simplicity, thus simplistic cards are more appealing to the audience.

I hope my advice was useful to you.

I have received the message

 Here is a mythical creature (forgot the beast tag though)

Next: a 4 mana 7/7 :D