These are going to be mostly uncommon filler. And as stated above, these are the charms Wizards has already printed on creatures. Which is why I've not changed the wording at all.

I'm not that excited by this, honestly. The last ability should be "return another target creature."

This is part of a cycle of elementals all of which are just the printed charms from ravnica as ETB effects on creatures.

comments?

Ok I will Put a comment in the set comments section stating just that.

Thank you for the advice. And again that you all for giving me so much feedback.

Oh, you're most definitely able to break the rules in custom sets :) I guess the thing is that most custom set designs are assumed to be "trying to do it how Wizards would do, except when otherwise stated".

So if you say up front "This set is breaking Wizards' rules about X and Y", that's entirely fair enough. (And there are a fair few sets on Multiverse doing that already; for example, Link has stated that he knows Anhydria's central idea is definitely not something Wizards would do in a real set.) If you don't indicate you're aware you're breaking some particular design rule, people on here will likely point this out to you, is all.

And you're right, supplemental products aimed at experts like Commander and Planechase will occasionally contain -1/-1 counter cards: Gwyllion Hedge-Mage and Incremental Blight respectively. I'd have no objection if this were a Custom Cube, for example, because those are explicitly targeted at expert players.

So if you want to break the "no +1/+1 counters and -1/-1 counters in the same set" rule? Sure, feel free. Anything goes, really :) You might want to make an explicit statement somewhere that that's what you're doing, though, so that people don't keep coming along and saying "BTW, not sure if you know this or not, but Wizards have this rule..."

That's for you to determine for yourself, by in my opinion, you're wrong. I would strive to make custom sweets as close to Wizard's standards as possible.
Mixing +1/+1 counters is completely taboo and should always be avoided. It's not like it's just some random arbitrary rule. There's perfectly sound reasoning behind it.

For complexity each Ravnica block had at least ten mechanics.

And If needed Infect can become Poisonous From Futuresight.

On the limited note it's protected by design rules like it is because it's the primary way for magic to get new players and they are careful not to scare them away by making the game hard to grasp.

When they design for any other format they don't care about mixing the types of counters because it's meant for people who already grasp the game well.

By all means stop me if I'm wrong though, but isn't the point of a custom set to design something that's close to what a real set would be while still being able to break a rule now and then?

What? No, it's not something they "sometimes do" or "are bound to do" - it's something they explicitly avoid doing. Lorwyn-Shadowmoor were two different blocks for Limited purposes, which is where it matters: they were never drafted together. (Standard is allowed to contain both +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters because otherwise they'd never be able to use -1/-1s at all.)

The only limited set to ever contain -1/-1 counters and +1/+1 counters was Time Spiral, whose timeshifted bonus sheet contained Serrated Arrows, Giant Oyster and Unstable Mutation. This was the block that contained how many keywords? Twenty? Thirty? And was widely recognised as way too complicated. In other words, it's not a good precedent.

Agree. Infect is unlikely to go evergreen, due to it's -1/-1; but it's a mixing that they do sometimes do. You'd want to sacrifice complexity elsewhere though, to make room for it.

Why not they've already mixed +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters in the same block before. Lorwyn/Shadowmore. Doing it in the same set while frowned upon is bound to happen.