Multiverse: Community Set: Recent Activity

2012-02-29 05:14:18: jmgariepy edited Reklat Sdrawkcab

2012-02-29 05:05:17: jmgariepy edited Woven Life

2012-02-29 05:04:37: jmgariepy edited Woven Life

2012-02-29 05:04:19: jmgariepy commented on Woven Life

Jack's comment is a bit confusing, but I assume he's saying "Go for it". To get the simplest execution of this ability, I made it come back from exile whether or not it was exiled using it's own ability. That's really strong... but probably not at the limited level, so it still seems fine as a common. It's also nice to notice that this white creature is really resillient to white's tricks in the set, not really caring too much about temp. exile.

2012-02-29 05:01:27: jmgariepy edited Woven Life

2012-02-29 04:58:44: jmgariepy commented on Soulcapture Lance

Reduced cost by one to deal with inherent drawback of auras. I thought about a cost of {w} with the argument that this card is worse than Lance if you only have one creature in play, and worse than Oblivion Ring if your opponent only has one creature in play. But, really, that O-Ring effect is huge, and if there's only one creature in play, do you really need a Lance?

2012-02-29 04:56:16: jmgariepy edited Soulcapture Lance

2012-02-29 04:53:13: jmgariepy commented on Vested Light

If temp. exiling is a theme in white, why is this card permanently exiling? I added a clause that let you get the exiled card back, which makes this card a bit spicier in the process. People are cool with that, right?

2012-02-29 04:51:37: jmgariepy edited Vested Light

2012-02-28 11:41:16: Alex commented on the cardset Community Set

Mark Rosewater just wrote his Nuts & Bolts article for this year. This one builds on his previous three by talking about how to structure and design uncommons and rares for the needs of a set. Like the previous Nuts & Bolts articles, this one is absolute gold for those of us trying to design a cardset (rather than just a few cards), and essential reading for any of us working on this Community Set.

2012-02-27 03:01:27: dude1818 commented on Untie

I wasn't being completely serious when I made this card. I just thought it was an amusing tweak on removal.

2012-02-27 02:13:33: Link commented on Untie

Yeah... I'm not digging this.

2012-02-27 01:06:53: jmgariepy commented on Untie

Due to the presence of Doomseek, and my doubts that people would want to bump that card, I made this an uncommon. It's a rather uncommon effect anyway.

That said, while idea is cool, it's true that this card wouldn't be welcomed by a lot of people. I get a little antsy every time I see a green card that can handle creatures. I'm just waiting for a 'Green Banishing' to fall.

That being said, we probably need to throw a few more cards in gold to handle enchantments. It makes more sense for GR to smack white around than for mono-green to do it.

2012-02-27 01:02:44: jmgariepy edited Untie

2012-02-27 01:01:23: jmgariepy commented on White Commons Submissions

This is good stuff. I think I was looking for one guiding principle to aim my arrows at, but I'll take a general feel for what people want... in the end, that's probably more rewarding anyways.

What I take from this is:
temp. exile is good.
tribal enchantment is good.
weird is acceptable and sometimes encouraged, but it must be done well.
I should probably get off of Weft Weaver's case. It's been through enough. ;)

2012-02-27 00:34:01: Jack V commented on White Commons Submissions

I think we're doing ok here. I think there's plenty of design space in "unearthly enchantment creatures" without becoming unintuitive or hard to understand. Even vanilla and near-vanilla enchantment creatures are plenty weird enough. I agree every white common shouldn't stretch to include enchantment-specific references, but it makes sense to start by looking to see how far we can push it without it seeming out of place in common, and then winnow to get what we want to keep (which I agree, is likely to be in similar proportions to Esper).

FWIW, I thought "protection from multicolour" was more than enough "out there". It's simple and relevant, and fine for common as long as it plays ok in limited, but not what you'd USUALLY see lots and lots of at common.

2012-02-26 22:33:26: Alex commented on Untie

I agree it'd be an odd set for Demystify, but I think that means we should have Naturalize. This is a bit too big of a colour-pie taboo to break so casually.

2012-02-26 21:36:10: Link commented on Black Commons Submissions

I thought that the monocolors were enemies of each other, and not allies. They just also have a common foe in Aer.

2012-02-26 21:22:29: dude1818 commented on Black Commons Submissions

Oh. Nevermind then.

2012-02-26 20:50:43: cmeister2 commented on Black Commons Submissions

I don't think Black is allowed to destroy enchantments. Why not just have creature kill? Also, I'm not sure, thematically, why black would be killing the white enchantment creatures. They're supposed to be allying against Aer.

2012-02-26 20:24:37: dude1818 commented on Black Commons Submissions

Due to the enchantment creatures in white, I think it would be weird to have Demystify. I propose color-shifting it to black: Untie.

2012-02-26 20:20:17: dude1818 commented on Untie

Doom Blade + color-shifted Demystify. It would be weird giving white enchantment removal with so many white enchantment creatures: it's basically creature removal. This way, it's a cheap creature removal in the set, but outside it's, well, different.

2012-02-26 20:16:47: dude1818 created the card Untie

2012-02-26 19:50:02: Alex commented on White Commons Submissions

Heh, OK, I guess I take your point. There is some measure in weirdness that plays well, and not too confusingly, while breaking audience expectations enough to be noticeable. (I think Wizards have been going for this recently, actually, with New Phyrexia's colour-bleeds and certain parts of Innistrad block.)

I think "Enchantment creatures that often use exile" is plenty enough to have as a major theme for one colour. Recall Esper's theme was just "Artifact creatures". There's room for minor themes within the colour too, of course. But I'm happy to try for the "weird" theme too if we want to.

I think Esper is a natural comparison, being as it was one-fifth of a large set (okay, ours is a bit more like one-sixth) themed around adding an unusual type to its coloured creatures when none of the other factions in its set did so.

I think my fear is that at the moment the cards we have are too strongly focused on enchantments. Many Esper cards were coloured artifacts with no other mention of the word artifact... in fact, interestingly, across the whole of Alara block there were 26 artifact creatures who mentioned artifacts and 28 who didn't. That density is actually rather higher than I expected.

2012-02-26 19:08:29: dude1818 edited Soft Filter:

templating

2012-02-26 19:05:48: dude1818 commented on Soft Filter

The point is that it only grants the bonus to enchantment creatures. The templating for that is a bit off, so I'm going to take the liberty of making that more clear.

2012-02-26 19:04:13: Alex commented on Soft Filter

Iiinteresting. So it functions like a Sterling Grove to protect one key enchantment, or effectively a tribal pump spell, like Lavamancer's Skill or Cloak and Dagger or Kitsune Healer. But all of those do something on a creature that's not of their preferred tribe. So I think I'm still not keen, but I'm interested what other people think.

2012-02-26 18:45:45: Vitenka commented on Soft Filter

+3/+3, and make the creature immune to direct removal? Sounds pretty good to me.

Downside is its enchantment not equipment; which would probably be {3} / {1} or so. Looks vaguely reasonable to me. I wouldn't jump up "Must draft every single one" but I suspect someone who did would do pretty well...

Hang on; enchant enchantment? Shouldn't that be creature?

2012-02-26 17:05:53: jmgariepy commented on Cage of Hands

Fair enough. Changing to two tokens. CC may change depending on skeleton's needs.

2012-02-26 17:05:44: jmgariepy edited Cage of Hands