Community Set: Recent Activity
| Community Set: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Skeleton | Common Breakdown Ref | All commons for playtesting |
Recent updates to Community Set: (Generated at 2025-12-16 05:54:50)
I would go with (for common) one of Jack's suggestions. I would do
15 of each color. 15 multicolor, 2 of each allied pair and 1 of each enemy. 5 dual lands. 6 artifacts, 4-5 being creatures to smooth out curves.
IIRC a normal large set has about a hundred commons (?). For M12 that's 20 of each colour (and one artifact). We're not going to plan an exact skeleton, but what sort of breakdown are we looking at?
I'm not sure how the proportions broke down for sets with lots of multicolour and hybrid.
Assuming 10 lands or artifacts (though we may have no artifacts or add a number of colour-affiliated artifacts, etc), what proportion of multicolour and mono will we have? The same number of mulicolour total as each monocolour (ie. 15 in each colour and 15 multicolour)? The same number of multicolor in each allied-pair as in monocolour (9-10 in each colour and 9-10 in each allied pair)? Is that enough to support deck-building?
Obviously, we're dividing it 6 ways, with some room for artifacts and lands. Personally, I don't know how to divide multicolor within itself.
Oh yeah, we will need these. They're in every set.
I think we need dual lands more.
Can we have a cycle/loose cycle of these that somehow relate to their color's mechanic? I actually just like the flood land idea, but I feel like it would be unfair for just one color to get it.
I think hybrid may be useful if we need cards that can go in mainly-mono or mainly-multi decks, but we should wait and see if we do (possibly in a second hypothetical set, if we go that way).
I'm interested in the other possibilities even if not: the weird thing I found when I tried something simple (
) in Gentlemen Magicians was that I wasn't sure what colouring to give it; the most logical seemed to be a gold/blue hybrid frame with a white/blue pinline, but that seemed too complicated already. (Of course, wizards would choose something if they printed many 
cards.
Sure. I imagined the control effect only on this and perhaps a single rare spell, but if you think that's stretching to much I understand.
"Graft" without keywording sounds fine, too.
I meant one mana that could be payed with one of three colors; but yes, we're pretty settled on multi, at least for the first block.
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.
I have kind of a soft spot for this card now, but I guess if it has to go, it has to go. I didn't really intend for it to be common, I just didn't change the rarity. It could even be rare, if needed- it's like blue's Birds of Paradise.
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.
Then again, we're playing with weird creature-type mixes in a second color, and one is probably enough.
Camruth mentioned having creatures play the role of instants and sorceries. What if we had several Kiln Fiend-like effects (not necessarily with P/T boosting) and some of the creatures literally were instants and sorceries? I don't just mean token-making, I mean something like Ephemeral.
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.
Yeah, I like this design, but I thought of mana-denial as a one-off, not a repeatable to avoid a lockdown; I agree repeatable tap-down shouldn't be common, and may just wnat to be jetissoned.
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.
:)
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.
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).
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.
I think we can get away with not keywording it, if that's a problem. There are a lot of ways to spell out "must be blocked". White, Green and Red all have individual variations... we may want three different ways to do the same thing.
I consider the "isn't that what red already does?" argument a vote for all-in tapping. Like landfall, rewarding players for things they are already doing works rather well.
Also, assuming we make this the red mechanic, we need to put 1CC Twiddle effect in the skeleton. What an absurd trick coming from Red's enemy...
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.
Funny thing about that Basilisk. I accidentlly (don't ask how) looked at the top card of my opponent's library in a game and saw that basilisk. My opponent didn't know why... but I just wasn't casting my counterspells that turn, and for some reason, didn't block his attacking creatures...