I think if the primary theme of multicolour is flying, we should be upfront about that in the booster pack. I think there should be a cycle of common gold two-drops with flying. In fact, I think there should be one allied cycle and one enemy cycle, but it's probably sensible to save the enemy cycle for the first expansion, as ten gold flying bears is a lot of common slots.

I think and probably get a 2/3 flyer for 2 mana; are the flying colours and are the weenie colours. Compare Azorius First-Wing and Watchwolf. I think can have a 2/1 flyer (compare Goblin Deathraiders), and and could get 2/2s (compare Tidehollow Strix).

I've deliberately created this as the most unusual member of the cycle, to be upfront about it. If gold gets flyers, gold gets flyers, and cards like this are what the players will see in booster packs. If this looks odd, then we need to face up to that, and be aware we'll have to work to overcome (or make use of) that oddness.

I understand why it feels necessary to make the creatures have different p/t... but I wonder if it's a better plan to make these creatures all 2/2s for CD, in the same way that Shivan Zombie and gang are all 2/2s. I know, that isn't a perfect comparison.

Failing to make them all 2/2s (I know... the idea itself isn't exciting) I'd like to see all 5 be comparable. The idea that a few of these cards aren't pulling their weight is kind of depressing. would it be better to make these 'bears' cost 1CD? That way we can get a little bit more variance in the niche roles and end up with (in no particular order) a 1/4, 3/1, 2/2, 2/2 and 0/5?

By the by, I'm completely comfortable with the RG bear over there. I know this is a different world with different rules, and while it feels like we're bending the color pie, we certainly aren't breaking it.

If they will have differing P/Ts, I think that the flyer should be 2/2 and the 2/1 be . Black often gets flying, but green almost never does (this set being the exception of course).

Alex, good example. You're right, I do feel uncomfortbale with this for the moment, but I think we're right to explore the implications.

I did consider making them all 2/2s. The one would be somewhat unexciting compared to Azorius First-Wing, but still perfectly serviceable (comparable to Leonin Skyhunter). That's still an option.

I know green doesn't get flying. The point of it being multicolour that has the flying is that each colour other than green can supply flying. The problem is that red is very weak at flying as well; on its own its small common flyers are as weak as Bird Maiden. My reasoning was that green gets much better weenies than black; green has hundreds of Grizzly Bears where black doesn't get any without a drawback. "2/1" is a P/T most suited to black and red, although obviously all colours do get it.

I'd also be up for some creatures of differing sizes, of course. In fact, there should be a bunch more gold flyers, and it'd be natural to have at least one uncommon flyer in each allied colour-pair; those will be close to a weak cycle due to their slots, so it may make sense to keep this cycle closely matched (perhaps this is an argument for having them all 2/2), and have more diversity in an uncommon cycle and in other slots. I'm pretty sure we'll end up having flyers at CMCs 3, 4 and 5, for example.

It's possible that all of the fliers in the cycle except the RG one deserve a second keyword ability. It's putting all its power into just getting flying, after all.

I like the idea of having a bunch of double-scoop-vanilla creatures with flying and other keyword abilities. I'm not sure the bears cycle is the right place for them, though. Gaea's Skyfolk was quite powerful for its time, and Skyknight Legionnaire was as well. Razorfoot Griffin is normally 4 mana, though you could have it for 3 in gold. But 2 seems a bit of a stretch.

So I'd say yes, let's have flyers with keyword abilities in gold, but probably not at 2-power-for-2-mana.

I was thinking of Azorius First-Wing and Deft Duelist when I said that. Both two-color commons with two keyword abilities. Flying might be too big of an ability, I guess.

My instinct for keyword creatures would be to loosen the cycle a bit and have something like:

2RG 3/3 trample, flying 2GW 2/4 flying, vigilance WU 2/3 flying UB 2/1 flying, deathtouch BR 2/1 flying, haste, attacks each turn

But we may have as many as 10 allied and 5 enemy color spells, which probably want to be divided between vanilla creatures, keyword creatures, creatures with triggered abilities (or other multicolor relevant creatures) and other spells. Presumably pairs with "creature colours" would have more creatures and pairs with "spell colours" fewer. Or we may tone down the number of spells and make the theme multicolored creatures and make sure some of the monocolored spells can fit into a multicolored deck after all

In my draft of the CD cycle, I have this with "Enlighten- Whenever you draw a card, ~ gains flying until end of turn." It seems pointless, but then you realize it generally only has flying on your turn. Perhaps since these colors are bad at it, they should only get conditional flying?

If you really want to push a flying cycle, 1CD 2/2 is probably a much better choice, so that this one has nothing but flying. Alternatively, 1CD leaves you room to play with so that this isn't strictly worse than the rest.

Hmm, yeah, 1CD would leave us room to push the others in a variety of colour-appropriate ways, and still have this one as a Wind Drake as a statement that gold gets flyers. That's quite a good idea.

Looking at this again, I think I'm leaning towards wanting a creature for each CD pair of allied colours. I do want those creatures to have flying. But actually I don't see any reason why they all have to have 2 power. I think for my first draft of the common gold cards I'm going to go for CDs with a range of sizes and keyword abilities, such as Tamer of Monsters and Minions and Aeran Elf. This one (the common flyer) could be 2/2, or 2/1, or 1/n. It was suggested on Spooker of Slavers and Devils that could be the colours to get a "loses flying" creature, so this could be the place for that, although there will be other gold flyers at common and uncommon so we could have that elsewhere too.

That makes sense to me.

Could possibly do something like "At the beginning of your upkeep, ~this~ gains flying UEOT" instead of "Flying".

(Alternatively, "At the beginning of each opponent's upkeep, ~ gains flying UEOT")

Not sure if it keeps it common though.

Flavourfully.... hmm. Maybe this is one of the Aerans which actually land on the demiplanes and do things, and at the beginning of your turn it returns to Aer.

"Of course, you could run up a tree. In that case you'll save it the bother of landing before it eats you."

Any possibility of it getting flying on an Enlighten trigger?

@V: Hahaha, fantastic :)

@Link: That's Thermalmancer. Could do. I'm not very keen on that idea, but it's an option.

I think it's good to play with variants on gain flying and lose flying to see where they might be good, but for now I think we should just assume that RG gets flying by default and doesn't need a hack (after all, there'll be several RG creatures, they can't all be nearly-flying)?

@V: You make me want to see that card become a Flying Bear. :D