I remember reading the first book in high school and thinking about how terribly written it was. Then it got made into that awful movie... It did have its merits, though, especially considering the young age of the author.
Okay, since I haven't really explained what I'm doing here, these are all just possibilities. When I'm done, I'll cut the cards that A: Are completely unplayable, B: Have some weird gameplay kink like Ravenous Greed did before it was changed,C: Aren't necessary, or D: Are too good, until I have 264, including 15 reprints.
So right now, this isn't what I mainly want feedback on. Don't take it personally if I sometimes pass over feedback because I am too busy to fix stuff.
Why does Eragon being a bad movie make you sad about dragons with feathers? It doesn't make feathered dragons bad because there's a bad movie associated with them.
For contrast, I'd say yes. I dislike it when humans or other sentient creatures have a race type but no class type, as was done with many of the "villager" cards in Innistrad and elsewhere; either that or they're given some absurd mismatched type like Scout or Advisor. I think "Townsfolk" or similar is a good thing. (The Smith could be type Artificer, if you wanted, but the Butcher and Farmer want some kind of class type and there aren't any currently supported suitable ones.)
(For similar reasons I also support the creature types Merchant and Noble, and usethem in my sets.)
Announcement: RIDER IS A TYPE!
Riders will be formatted as such
{Race} Rider - {Name}\
For example, if I was an elven Rider, I would be formatted as
Elf Rider - Samuel
Why is Rider a type? Rider and Dragon are types so that abilities such as Eragon's pairing with Saphira, who will be posted soon, are easy to format and understand. If Rider and Dragon are types, then I can easily make it so that Eragon and Saphira are each more powerful when the other is on the battlefield.
Riders and Dragons follow the legends rule in the same way planeswalkers do. You can't control 2 different Eragons, just like you can't control a JTMS and a Jace, Architect of Thought.
That actually works better with the normal creature subtype system than with Rider as a type. You've got Eragon, Seeker of Vengeance saying "Eragon gets +2/+2 and gains flying and first strike if you control a Dragon called Saphira." But at the moment, Saphira, Azure Hatchlingisn't "a Dragon called Saphira". It's "a Saphira dragon" (in the same way that Imperious Perfect is "an Elf creature" or Holy Strength is "an Aura enchantment"). Saphira, Azure Hatchling is also "a Dragon called Saphira, Azure Hatchling", but that would still be true if it was type "Creature - Dragon".
Now, I'm all for efforts to introduce a new type. Take a look at Challenge # 031 for some of our attempts in the past. But one of the big rules of new card types is they should do something that's not possible with existing types. And so far you haven't said anything about what Riders will do, but they appear to be exactly like creatures, including having power, toughness, creature keywords, and implicitly attacking and blocking. That's too similar to type creature.
So if you want them to work like creatures, I'd encourage you to make them creatures. I assume you're planning to have several Saphira cards and several Eragon cards? It ought to still be possible to make any of your several Saphiras notice any of your several Eragons, while still letting all the existing creature rules work on them without needing hundreds of changes all through the Comp Rules.
As Alex has said, I don't see what about them makes them different from creatures. I also think that it's confusing migrating creature subtypes into the type area.
New rules for the set: Riders/Dragons will say "As long as you control {character name}, and the name of a rider or dragon is determined by the subtype in parentheses.
I think if you want to refer to a specific group of creatures, giving them a new creature type is indeed one of the simplest ways. It does look a little odd (each Eragon card will be a Creature - Human Eragon, and each Saphira card will be a Creature - Dragon Saphira), but it's going to be one of the best ways to make it work.
The Forsworn (traitorous riders) work the same way Riders do except that Galbatorix and the original 13 Forsworn won't have bonds with their dragons as their dragons (except for Galbatorix's, who isn't truly bonded to Galbatorix) were stripped of their names and identities.
Version one done! Next step is to add more creatures, I'm really low now. I might add a couple more enchantments too because I have very few at common right now.
I don't think there are many artists on this site. Searching up fanart of a given property often works quite well, though. Browsing sites like deviantart and similar can generally supply a lot of a set's custom art needs.
Post your comments on Eragon here! If your comments are on a small number of specific cards, they may
be better added to those cards. This is for comments on the set as a
whole.
Eragon?
@L2i0n0k7: Yes, I'm doing a block based on the first book. This is the first set.
I remember reading the first book in high school and thinking about how terribly written it was. Then it got made into that awful movie... It did have its merits, though, especially considering the young age of the author.
The book is amazing, but god, that movie made me cry, which is why I wasn't thrilled about Tarkir's dragons having feathers...
Okay, since I haven't really explained what I'm doing here, these are all just possibilities. When I'm done, I'll cut the cards that A: Are completely unplayable, B: Have some weird gameplay kink like Ravenous Greed did before it was changed,C: Aren't necessary, or D: Are too good, until I have 264, including 15 reprints.
So right now, this isn't what I mainly want feedback on. Don't take it personally if I sometimes pass over feedback because I am too busy to fix stuff.
Why does Eragon being a bad movie make you sad about dragons with feathers? It doesn't make feathered dragons bad because there's a bad movie associated with them.
That's just what I think of when I see a feathered dragon.
Fair enough.
Vote: Should I reintroduce the creature subtype "Townsfolk" for the recently created legend cycle?
No. There's practically no reason to do so.
For contrast, I'd say yes. I dislike it when humans or other sentient creatures have a race type but no class type, as was done with many of the "villager" cards in Innistrad and elsewhere; either that or they're given some absurd mismatched type like Scout or Advisor. I think "Townsfolk" or similar is a good thing. (The Smith could be type Artificer, if you wanted, but the Butcher and Farmer want some kind of class type and there aren't any currently supported suitable ones.)
(For similar reasons I also support the creature types Merchant and Noble, and use them in my sets.)
Announcement: RIDER IS A TYPE! Riders will be formatted as such {Race} Rider - {Name}\ For example, if I was an elven Rider, I would be formatted as Elf Rider - Samuel
Why?
Why is Rider a type? Rider and Dragon are types so that abilities such as Eragon's pairing with Saphira, who will be posted soon, are easy to format and understand. If Rider and Dragon are types, then I can easily make it so that Eragon and Saphira are each more powerful when the other is on the battlefield.
Riders and Dragons follow the legends rule in the same way planeswalkers do. You can't control 2 different Eragons, just like you can't control a JTMS and a Jace, Architect of Thought.
That actually works better with the normal creature subtype system than with Rider as a type. You've got Eragon, Seeker of Vengeance saying "Eragon gets +2/+2 and gains flying and first strike if you control a Dragon called Saphira." But at the moment, Saphira, Azure Hatchling isn't "a Dragon called Saphira". It's "a Saphira dragon" (in the same way that Imperious Perfect is "an Elf creature" or Holy Strength is "an Aura enchantment"). Saphira, Azure Hatchling is also "a Dragon called Saphira, Azure Hatchling", but that would still be true if it was type "Creature - Dragon".
Now, I'm all for efforts to introduce a new type. Take a look at Challenge # 031 for some of our attempts in the past. But one of the big rules of new card types is they should do something that's not possible with existing types. And so far you haven't said anything about what Riders will do, but they appear to be exactly like creatures, including having power, toughness, creature keywords, and implicitly attacking and blocking. That's too similar to type creature.
So if you want them to work like creatures, I'd encourage you to make them creatures. I assume you're planning to have several Saphira cards and several Eragon cards? It ought to still be possible to make any of your several Saphiras notice any of your several Eragons, while still letting all the existing creature rules work on them without needing hundreds of changes all through the Comp Rules.
Yes (in later sets), would that still work with them just being creatures?
As Alex has said, I don't see what about them makes them different from creatures. I also think that it's confusing migrating creature subtypes into the type area.
I'm sure we can figure out some way to let creatures notice a specific subset of other creatures.
Alright, Rider and Dragon are no longer types! Each Rider/Dragon's name is a creature type instead. That work?
New rules for the set: Riders/Dragons will say "As long as you control {character name}, and the name of a rider or dragon is determined by the subtype in parentheses.
It works, though it is fairly bizarre.
If you come up with a different idea, more than happy to use it, but bizarre is fine for now.
I think if you want to refer to a specific group of creatures, giving them a new creature type is indeed one of the simplest ways. It does look a little odd (each Eragon card will be a Creature - Human Eragon, and each Saphira card will be a Creature - Dragon Saphira), but it's going to be one of the best ways to make it work.
The Forsworn (traitorous riders) work the same way Riders do except that Galbatorix and the original 13 Forsworn won't have bonds with their dragons as their dragons (except for Galbatorix's, who isn't truly bonded to Galbatorix) were stripped of their names and identities.
Version one done! Next step is to add more creatures, I'm really low now. I might add a couple more enchantments too because I have very few at common right now.
Looking for art! If anyone is interested in creating art for some cards in the set (especially Eragon himself), that would be great!
I don't think there are many artists on this site. Searching up fanart of a given property often works quite well, though. Browsing sites like deviantart and similar can generally supply a lot of a set's custom art needs.
Post your comments on Eragon here!
If your comments are on a small number of specific cards, they may be better added to those cards. This is for comments on the set as a whole.