The "Let's Design a Set Together" Game

[Mooseman]

My point is that setting the max handsize to two, is just a way to make other people discard a lot of cards when it comes into play. Suppose you play a weenie deck, empty your hand and play this artifact. You draw some extra cards, which is nice. Kinda like Heightened Awareness or Bottled Cloister.
But now, your opponent, holding 6 cards, also has to play four card on his/her next turn or lose them. The drawback of the drawing being symmetrical has already been trumped by massive amount of cardadvantage.
So, if you have an artifact has a beneficial effect for you (drawing cards) you can offset it by making it symmetrical or adding a drawback. In this case you do both (both players may perhaps draw cards but get their handsize restricted to two) and this gives you two dimensions in which your deck can be better adapted to the artifact than your opponents deck.

It may be a little under costed, could be a turn 3 drop or 2 with DR.
But it does give the opponent 1 more turn to adjust to it. So, what if it was costed at 5 or 6?

(card idea I got during that rant:

Thougthcontorter 2UB
Whenever you would draw a card, instead an opponent searches your library for a card a you put that card in your hand. Then shuffle your library.
Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, that player discards cards equal to the amount of damage that was dealt.
5/3

Wow, let your opponent see your library and choose your cards for you......
that is a huge disadvantage...... hmmmmm
But, totally casual........... I think I like this idea.........

 

[Limited]

It may be a little under costed, could be a turn 3 drop or 2 with DR.
But it does give the opponent 1 more turn to adjust to it. So, what if it was costed at 5 or 6?

Five should be minimum, but I think 6 would be better

 

[DarthFerret]

On Thoughtcontroller, I like him as a casual card, and to make him more playable how about the cost of 1UB, that way a 5/3 is not too bad even with the disadvantage.

On my card.....I think maybe you are right and it should cost 5.

 

[turgy22]

New card ideas: Almost every set has a cycle of common lands, so I thought I'd take a stab at creating some, but I have some issues to work out. Basically, the general idea is to design them based off of the Onslaught fetchlands, except not make them duals.

For Example:

Path to the Mountain
Land
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
T, sacrifice ~: Search your library for a Mountain and put it into play.

Obviously, there's some problems with this. First, no one will ever use it for the colorless mana unless their deck is completely out of mountains. Second, it thins lands out of your deck for no cost. I'm going to present a couple ideas and see which one you guys like the best.

Path to the Mountain v.1
Land
T, pay 1 life, sacrifice ~: Search your library for a Mountain and put it into play.

Path to the Mountain v.2
Land
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
T, pay 2 life, sacrifice ~: Search your library for a Mountain and put it into play.

Path to the Mountain v.3
Land
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
T, sacrifice ~: Search your library for a Mountain and put it into play tapped.

Personally, I like version 2 the best. I think having the land come into play tapped makes it much worse than a basic land, even if it is thinning out the deck. Version 1, I think is too narrow.

Thoughts?

 

[Limited]

I am gonna have to vote for version three; it either colorless mana, or deckthinning and a slight loss of tempo. The problem with only allowing to search for one type of land is that it can't be used as colorfixing, so it might still lose out to a normal mountain.

How about the Mirage fetchlands?

 

[Mooseman]

I like version 2, too.......
How about adding the RFG zone to keep with the landcasting.

Path to the Mountain v.2
Land
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
T, pay 2 life, sacrifice ~: Search your library and RFG zone for a Mountain and put it into play.


Could it be 2 types of basic lands? Mountain/Swamp, Plains/Forest, mountain/forest, forest/swamp, Plains/Swamp or Mountain/Plains

 

[turgy22]

I didn't want to make them able to search for two different land types. That would make them completely better than the Onslaught fetch lands, which were rare. I was looking to create a common cycle that basically performs 2 functions: 1) tap for colorless or 2) thin out basic lands from the deck. The only way to use them as mana fixing would be to search for an original or Ravnica dual land.

Sticking with those guidelines, I really think that version 3 is too weak. Tapping for colorless makes them strictly worse than basic lands. And the tempo loss from saccing them is much greater, IMO, than the advantage of thinning out land from the library.

Perhaps a fourth version:
Path to the Mountain v.4
Land
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
1 T, sacrifice ~: Search your library for a Mountain and put it into play.

As for the question of RFG, I don't mind that idea, but I don't think it would see a lot of use. As I said, the original idea was land-thinning, and finding an RFG land doesn't help in that respect, but maybe it would work. Too hard to tell at this point, but I'm open to the idea.

 

[Mooseman]

I didn't want to make them able to search for two different land types. That would make them completely better than the Onslaught fetch lands, which were rare. I was looking to create a common cycle that basically performs 2 functions: 1) tap for colorless or 2) thin out basic lands from the deck. The only way to use them as mana fixing would be to search for an original or Ravnica dual land.

Sticking with those guidelines, I really think that version 3 is too weak. Tapping for colorless makes them strictly worse than basic lands. And the tempo loss from saccing them is much greater, IMO, than the advantage of thinning out land from the library.

Perhaps a fourth version:
Path to the Mountain v.4
Land
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
1 T, sacrifice ~: Search your library for a Mountain and put it into play.

As for the question of RFG, I don't mind that idea, but I don't think it would see a lot of use. As I said, the original idea was land-thinning, and finding an RFG land doesn't help in that respect, but maybe it would work. Too hard to tell at this point, but I'm open to the idea.

I can see your point about more than one type of basic land....
The RFG would make it work with some of the cards in this set and not stop the land-thinning if that's what you want to do.


Path to the Mountain v.
Land
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
1 T, sacrifice ~: Search your library and RFG zone for a Mountain and put it into play.

 

[Mooseman]

Berserkers:
Well? Advice is needed.

Shalla-Grimm – submitted by mooseman
3G
3/2
Human- Legendary Berserker
Whenever a berserker attacks it gets +2/+0 and trample, sacrifice it at EOT.


Augmund – submitted by mooseman
1U
2/1
Human - Berserker
1U: Berserker gains flying
All combat damage from creatures and artifacts to attacking ~ is reduced to 1


Captain Bodvar – submitted by mooseman
2GW
3/2
Human - Berserker
W: ~ gains +0/+2 for each creature blocking ~.
1G: Sacrifice a Bear or Wolf creature to give ~ +X/+0, where X is the sum of the sacrificed creature’s power and toughness. Use this ability only when you could use a sorcery.
~ gains trample.


Grimsonar – submitted by mooseman
4R
3/3
Human - Berserker
R: If ~ is an attacking creature, ~ deals 1 damage to all blocking creatures
All Berserkers must attack or controller loses life equal to the power of ~.


Grend-Eoten
2BB
4/2
Giant – Berserker
Fear
XG: ~ gains Rampage X, where X is the number of Attacking Berserkers.

 

[Gizmo]

I assume you're all aware of the excellent MTG Editor program?
http://mtglair.de/editor.shtml

Fantastic fun, and allows for quick, easy and professional results such as:

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/magicdave/1frogshaman.jpg

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/magicdave/1razielthewatcher.jpg

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/magicdave/1illusionarydragon.jpg

The Frog cycle I have are an attempt to 'fix' licids by having them remain as creatures when they are attached to things. That way they are more vulnerable, but on the plus side by using the attach rule from equipment when the creature they are attached to dies the Frogs just 'hop' back off.

 

[Ransac]

Whoa! I can't speak for the rest of the guys, but I'd never seen that program before. I'm in the process of typing all of our cards into it now.

Thanks, Gizmo!


Ransac, cpa trash man

 

[Gizmo]

For laughs:

 

[Ransac]

I'd like to revisit Time Paradox. It is worded identical to Time Warp and I'd like to not simply copy a card into the set. Can we alter this?

Time Paradox – Submitted by Zigathon
3UU
Sorcery
Take another turn after this one.
Rare

Ransac, cpa trash man

 

[Mooseman]

I'd like to revisit Time Paradox. It is worded identical to Time Warp and I'd like to not simply copy a card into the set. Can we alter this?

Time Paradox – Submitted by Zigathon
3UU
Sorcery
Take another turn after this one.
Rare

What if it didn't just give the caster another turn but then gave their opponent 2 turns in a row?

Take another turn after this one, then your opponent takes an additional turn after their next turn.

 

[Ransac]

Hmm, that's an interesting concept. What casting cost would you propose for this? I suggest 2UU.

Also, while plugging the cards into the MTG editor, I'm noticing that instants are heavily outweighting sorceries (at least in Blue and Black so far). When reviewing Dark Caprice, I recommend that it be switched from Instant to Sorcery.

More reviewing stuff: the wording for Stirge and King Stirge is throwing me a bit. It gains the +1/+1 counter and THEN becomes an enchantment-aura? That seems a bit off to me, considering that any +1/+1 counters would fall off of it when it becomes a creature no more.

Ransac, cpa trash man

 

[Mooseman]

2UU soounds good for the newly worded Time Paradox.

I down loaded the editor too and it looks real good.

I'll compile the stats so far, creatures, instants, sorceries, artifacts, lands enchantments and creature enchantments.

 

[Ransac]

I've typed in all of the Blue, Black, and Red cards so far. I'm going to bed, though. Too much typing.

I'll find a way to put what I have so far online so you guys can get to it.


Ransac, cpa trash man

 

[DarthFerret]

If I download this editor, can I import the cards you are loading into yours into mine?

Also, about the artwork we are going to use. I dont currently have any ideas, but how do we submit those that we do get?

 

[Gizmo]

The sets are just a file you can download to each other, easy peasy.

 

[Ransac]

Yeah, I assumed as much. I guess the easiest way is to e-mail it to you guys.


Ransac, cpa trash man