So part of the idea of this set is that it should be monocolour versus multicolour. We have a bunch of factions, six of them, with nice distinct flavours and mechanical themes. We had a flavour concept that the Aer would be oppressors of the five other sub-planes. But I'm not sure there's anything to bring that out at the card level.

If the set is going to be "monocolour versus multicolour", there should be some actual opposition.

So I think there should be a cycle, at common or uncommon, of monocolour cards that hate multicolour cards.

Quite what that looks like isn't so clear. We could have a cycle of cards that all have some specific anti-gold text on them like "protection from multicoloured" (as on Enemy of the Guildpact and Soldier of the Pantheon). Or we could have a cycle tired together by name ("Yeti Resister", "Fungal Resister" etc) that all implement the goal of being anti-multicolour in a different way. (W taps to prevent damage from a gold creature? )

Thoughts? Do you think we want to try to get this conflict across on the cards at all? Suggestions for mechanics?

This makes sense. I suggest uncommon, since it's just easier to put cards there, then muck around with the common slots.

I'd rather we didn't go straight to the "Pro Multicolor" well, since I think we can do better, and we can't block with them anyway, unless they all included reach.

We could do an 'etb = hate multicolor' theme, if we wanted. For example, a red creature that hit the battlefield and Act of Treasoned a multicolor creature. Personally, I'd prefer if it wasn't removal, but more messed with the multicolor player. You know, since I don't feel it's a good idea to take up the removal slots with these cards. But if the etb cards don't remove, and ask for a specific creature (gold), we can really push those stats.

I'm happy to hear other suggestions, though. I'm just thinking off the top of my head.

I feel like in limited opposition is conveyed more by making linear cards that define clearly different decks, than by making hate cards. But there should be some individual cards which play up the opposition.

From a flavour perspective, I'd want an Aer-vs-mono duel to feel like the Aer player has more powerful cards, but the mono player is relentlessly keeping up the pressure. I'm not sure how to convey that through the flavour and mechanics, but I feel like there should be a difference.

Hmm. In this set, Blue is aggressive and often unblockable. Red is very aggressive. Black, white and green are more controlly - though I guess green's +1/+1 counters could make for a sizeable army in the mid-game.

Problem is, gold is quite intensely focused on flying. I fear we might have set ourselves up for a Tempest-style limited format where nobody can block, so each player is just attacking with everything they can, and it just devolves into pure racing a lot of the time.

Anyway, I like the idea of an uncommon mono cycle of ETB-hate-multi in some non-removal way (maybe the black one gets to remove). An efficient red creature with ETB-Threaten a gold creature is a great plan.

I think we've probably gone too far that way, but I think we can refine it. We had too many ideas for ways for monocolour to block multi: we can bring some of those back if necessary. And we may have to tone blue down so it has some large creatures and some evasion creatures, but they're not the same ones. We've not tested an Aer deck much, so I'm not sure how unblockable it will be -- hopefully it will be more controlly, so it needs creatures to block, if not, we may have to tweak it that way.

We could always reprint Gravity Well.

Heh. I'm starting to really dig responding with "I'm cool with development figuring that out." I think the problem that this might end up too much like Tempest is a real consideration. But we've got more anti-flying than any previous set, ever, and if you did the math, you'd probably find that we only have a little more flying than Onslaught (you know, bird tribal?)... which sure didn't feel like Tempest.

So, yes, it's certainly possible. But I don't think we should be altering our choices based on what might be broken before we test it to see if it is. Especially since most of our problems could probably be solved by adding the word "Reach" to one card, and pushing another anti-flying card a little harder.

That's a fair point :) Let's not worry about it too much.

So, this uncommon cycle of gold-haters. Red gets an etb-Threaten a gold creature, on something like a 3/4 for 4 mana?

What should the other colours have? White could have activated prevent damage from a gold creature, but that'd want to either tap or be pretty expensive. Blue... I'm not sure if blue should get to bounce a gold creature unless it's for a pretty high cost. Green could ETB fight a gold creature? Or maybe tap to remove all abilities from a gold creature? Black could outright destroy one, or alternatively be a Ravenous Rats variant that Coercions for a multicolour card?

White could have Circle of Protection Enchantment Creature: Gold.
That said, with the current direction of the creative, as seen in the discussion on Aer, could we hold off specifically calling out Gold hate? Aer and the Gloaming are just discovering each other; they're not yet at war; and I don't think the creatures of the Gloaming yet know what the source of their "oppression" is.
Mechanically, if we had a card like Doomseek in each color, it would hate on multicolor and the other monocolors equally well.

Hmm. Black gets ETB Target player reveals their hand. Coercion a card, then coercion a gold card? I suppose this might not be worth really considering until we start asking for mono submissions.

Link does have a point with Doomseek, though. I doubt we have space for a cycle of Doomseekers and gold haters. Would a cycle of Doomseekers be better? Or do we really want to hammer on an anti-gold hate theme?