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 2025-12-14 08:06:05)
Do a cycle of Instants costing
{colour} (I think I'll use white this time)
spent to cast this.
White Life Gain,
Instant
gain 1 life for each
Again in this case, it is useable by any deck running that colour but best in mono.
You could definately do a reverse Sunburst that could be like the illegitimate child of Sunburst and Chroma:
spent to cast it.)
just being the example color here, you could have it work with any of the colors obviously. They're still useful in multicolor decks as they'll usually always get at least 1 counter but in the right mono deck they are just that much stronger.
Anti-Sunburst (This enters the battlefield with a charge_+1/+1 counter on it for each
I'd go with the first one, if only because it has less words. I have no idea which is correct. Also, I really like "Dedication". Any color can be dedicated.
Focus? Single-mindedness? Dedication?
Flying Guy,
, 1/3
was spent to cast it, you gain 5 life.
Flying
Dedication - When ~ ETBs, if only
Or:
Dedication - you gain 5 life. (When ~ ETBs, if only
was spent to cast it, you gain 5 life.)
If everyone agrees, we could keyword the "If only red was spent..." thing. Some things off the top of my head are... well, I can't really think of what to call it.
Yea, we definitely can do both. Probably higher amounts of colored mana needed to. Now for multicolor...
I don't see why we can't have some cards that tell you to play mono (Shades, Firebreathers) and some mechanics that make you want to go mono (Infect, Goblins). I'll make sure to add a bunch of example cards to the file shortly.
I really like the if only red was spent thing. I say we go with it. Anyone else?
Obvious example: Firebreathing. You can splash it, but it's much much more effective if you're pure-red.
You could do something the opposite of subnburst - "If only red was spent..."
Or how about "As an additional cost, tap one of each type of land you control" (that's more on the penalty side though)
How about "Reveal a non-land card from top of deck, for each R in its casting cost {do something good}" - penalises splashing slightly.
Sunburst is the obvious multicolour kick, also cards with abilities in a colour other than their casting cost.
Does anyone have any good mechanic ideas to encourage monocolor but not discourage multicolor, or vice versa?
Like the Zanam Djinn cycle? I never really liked them very much. This reminds me of Call to Arms, which I also didn't like. But nonetheless, they're reasonable for a set of this kind of theme.
Heh. As it stands, he will never get the bonus, as he is colorless.
Perhaps it should be an inverse chroma/domain thing? "Monocolor Guy is 6/6, gets -2/-2 for each color in permanents you control and cards in your graveyard" or something.
Yea. This is way to may words for a common though.
Well, there's the commander rules - I suspect the reminder text will be kinda long for such a simple thing.
This is a lot of words for a simple meaning. Maybe we could coin "monocolor" as a rules term? If it isn't already.
Made it a little more playable in multicolor decks and made it so that one color couldn't just be instants and sorceries.
Thank you! And sure thing.
You can add linebreaks by either including
<br>, or ending a line with two-or-more spaces followed by a newline (i.e. tap Space, Space, Enter to insert a linebreak).How about we take the sample card designs onto their own card-design pages? With no expectation that they'll make it into the set unchanged!
Monocolor Guy
Creature-Guy
As long as all non-land permanents you control are only one color and all share a color, ~ gets +3/+3.
2/2
We could make something that could be played in any deck (any color/s) but gets better in a mono/multicolor deck.
So it seems like we need rewards for playing multicolor or monocolor, not penalties for not. Maybe this?
I like dem' Forests
Creature-Elemental
~ gets +1/+1 for each forest you control.
1/1
In practice it is VERY similar, but it reads better. EDIT: How do you get different lines without it "correcting" you?
So the interesting thing about both Kamigawa and the Mirran/Phyrexian war was that, from a deck-building point of view, you were perfectly happy to combine cards from both opposing factions in your deck. Certainly your Spiritcraft, Soulshift, Infect, and Snake-tribal cards would work better if your deck was more focused on them, but there was no punishment for having a white Spirit and a white Samurai, or a Phyrexian elf alongside a Mirran elf.
I think we need to bear the same thing in mind here: by all means provide mechanical benefits for having lots of the same faction together, but let's not provide mechanical punishment for putting the two different factions together.
Mmm. It's tricky creating cards that don't look like all negative when trying to support mono-color strategies. For example:
I like dem' Forests
Creature - Elemental
~ gets -1/-1 for each non-Forest land you control.
5/5
Might make an intriguing card, but it won't make many players happy because you are penalizing them. The real trick is to give players something for playing mono-color without expressly telling them that that's what happening. I suppose one way to do this is through 5 linear mechanics that don't work well in other colors. For example, Green might have a lot of Elves that work great with Elves. Blue might have a lot of cards that Mill your opponent, but won't get the job done until you dedicate yourself to blue. Etc., etc.
I'm quite sure there are other ways to positive reinforce mono-color, but I would need more time to think of it.
It seems to me that the main problems are differentiating mono/multi and keeping mana good in limited.
The point on hybrid is a good one. I think that one problem in differentiating mono/multicolor would be that monocolored cards can easily go in multicolored decks.
I was going to point out that Hybrid + Chroma leads us very close to what Eventide was doing, but then a bunch of complications came up, and I actually had to work. It seems like the pendulum is swinging away from that, though.
I would think, that if the theme is Multicolor vs. Monocolor that we would need the two sides to be as extreme as possible, so that our theme doesn't get lost on people. Hybrid can heavily support this, but we have to be careful to not let the Multicolor cards be too supportive of the Monocolor cards. Cards with a casting cost of
go great in a monocolor deck. That isn't fighting against it... it's supporting it. Cards with a casting cost of 
though at least require a multicolor commitment (though, may not be the way we want to end up.)
Oh, also, I made a tribe in a previous set of mine long ago by the name of cultists. You guys might like them. They go something like this:
Damage dealing cultist
Creature - Cultist
Whenever a non-red Cultist enters the battlefield under your control, deal 1 damage to target creature or player.
2/2
I always thought it was a clever 5 color tribe. Obviously, you need to play cultists of other colors, but the more colors you pack the more you benefit. If you have Red and Green Cultists, Your cultists will trigger 50% of the time. If you have Red, Green and White Cultists, they'll now trigger 66% of time, and so forth. Hence, mono-colored cards that lean toward multicolor.
We could return to Alara, and monocolored would be the new thing. We could do this with Ravnica to.
I designed this card while contemplating a similar concept, but this is starting to take a different direction that my set. There could always be "neutral" colorless creatures, too, to help balance limited and such. Personally, I like the idea of the MONOcolored creatures being alien, and the multicolored (or possibly hybrid) being normal, but maybe that's just me.