Community Set: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity
Mechanics | Skeleton | Common Breakdown Ref | All commons for playtesting

CardName: Firebreathing et. al. Cycle Cost: 3R Type: Mechanic Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: {R}: This Cycle gets +1/+0 until the end of design. Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: Community Set Common

Firebreathing et. al. Cycle
{3}{r}
 
 C 
Mechanic
{r}: This Cycle gets +1/+0 until the end of design.
Expand text
Created on 26 Aug 2011 by jmgariepy

Code:

Active?: false

History: [-]

2011-08-26 23:19:14: jmgariepy created the card Firebreathing et. al. Cycle
on 26 Aug 2011 by jmgariepy:

I'd also like to see a cycle of 5 cards that operate with dumping a lot of colored mana into them. A single cycle of "French Vanilla" "Firebreathers" should get the idea across, and would open up the rest of design for stranger things. I suggest:

R: Firebreathing
W: +0/+1
B: +1/+1
U: -1/+1, and maybe +1/-1 as well... but I think it might be more interesting if we just had the first half.
G: Profit.

What I wouldn't like to see in green is something that won't be activated multiple times every turn. So in other words, no rootwalla, untap this creature, Trample etc. In fact, I think it would be strongest if it played with the number somehow. We could, in theory, make green the shade ability, and give black +1/-1 for once. You know, like what the color pie should look like if Shades weren't grandfathered in.

on 26 Aug 2011 by rourke:

I like the idea of green getting the shade ability. That never really has made much sense. Maybe we could still call it a shade, just to give a nod.

on 27 Aug 2011 by Jack V:

It makes sense. If we don't like all 5 pumpers it could be a looser cycle with 2 or 3 cards that key off the number of basic lands, or spend X colored mana on something other than pumping.

Another possibility for green: GG: +2/+3 :)

on 27 Aug 2011 by Link:

Could we also make it a theme that the multicolor cards tend to have abilities that activate for colorless mana?

on 28 Aug 2011 by Alex:

­Ursapine is precedent for green getting the shade effect :)

on 08 Mar 2012 by jmgariepy:

After punching some of the cards into place, it occurs to me that I missed two 'firebreathing' cards in black in green. My question is: Do we want them? Here's a quick run-down

Pros: ­

  • It's a cycle. People like cycles. ­
  • The set is supposed to be Mono v. Multi. Right now, the only things that get that across is the CCC creatures. While the linear aspect of the mono-color cards help this theme, I don't think many people would notice this. Putting the full cycle in allows us to point to the firebreathers as an intentional mono push, as opposed to something that could look like an accident. ­
  • The set has a lot of complexity points. Each color and multicolor has it's own mechanics, and black and green both house two themes. Firebreather is a heck of a lot easier to process.

    Cons: ­

    ­
  • Black and Green both have fighting mechanics internally. With only 13 cards, there just isn't that much space to work with. ­
  • The three firebreathers gets our idea across. They're there for an obvious reason, and they support each other. They don't really need two more to make their statement. ­
  • While black shades are the poster child of "one per block", Common green pumpers don't come up that often. Making 4 firebreathers feels odd. If we were to cut green, I'd prefer we cut black. ­
  • Every card added is a card cut. This is especially true in black and green. Both of these cards are locked in with 13. Add a firebreather, and we got to cut a card that supports a different theme.

    Opinions?

    ­

    • on 08 Mar 2012 by Alex:

    Without yet looking at the green and black commons, I'd try to combine firebreathing with an existing card supporting one of the existing themes. Failing that, I'd try to add a firebreather while combining two cards currently serving different themes into one serving both.

    If we can't find a way to do either of those for both black and green, then yeah, maybe cut firebreathing from both of them. I think the uncommons could add enough mono emphasis that people get the push without being unable to play their limited decks.

    EDIT: Okay, I looked at them. I don't think we want to gum up the text of them by complicating any of the (relatively few) nice simple commons we've got. So I'd say just lose one of them for a firebreather, at least to try in the first playtest.

    Only signed-in users are permitted to comment on this cardset. Would you like to sign in?