MTG Cardsmith Community Forums
Cardsmith Origins Discussion: Cards
I was told that it would be a good idea to split the previous discussion for this set into 3 discussions; one for the lore and storyline, one for the cards in the set, and one for general discussion about the set. This discussion is for the card submitions for the CSO set. It also can be used to help coordinate the set and make the color distribution even. Post your cards here and you should probably include which backstory the card is most involved in. Have fun!
Below are the links to the other two CSO discussion pages:
General Discussion - https://forums.mtgcardsmith.com/discussion/2601/cardsmith-origins-general-discussion
Lore Discussion - https://forums.mtgcardsmith.com/discussion/2599/cardsmith-origins-discussion-lore
Below are the links to the other two CSO discussion pages:
General Discussion - https://forums.mtgcardsmith.com/discussion/2601/cardsmith-origins-general-discussion
Lore Discussion - https://forums.mtgcardsmith.com/discussion/2599/cardsmith-origins-discussion-lore
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
• This being a core set, we would have to use reminder text. I think that Bestow would take up too much text room on the cards for other abilities. We would basically have to use the Small Text option for all of the cards, which could be an eyesore.
• @mtgcardsmith does not have a template for Enchantment creatures. Small thing, but it really bothers me to create enchantment creatures, especially for a professional set.
If we want to do Bestow, you can totally do it. But I would be much more comfortable doing something like "Auras Matter" compared to Bestow. It simply seems too complex and may have too many formatting issues.
On a completly different note, are we creating flip planeswalkers for the five supposed planeswalkers? If so, we should get those done first before creating other cards. I would like to make the red one please!
White: 1 (0 Common, 0 Uncommon, 1 Rare, 0 Mythic)
Blue: 1 (0 Common, 0 Uncommon, 0 Rare, 1 Mythic)
Black: 1 (0 Common, 0 Uncommon, 1 Rare, 0 Mythic)
Red: 1 (0 Common, 0 Uncommon, 1 Rare, 0 Mythic)
Green: 0 (0 Common, 0 Uncommon, 0 Rare, 0 Mythic)
Gold: 0 (0 Common, 0 Uncommon, 0 Rare, 0 Mythic)
Colorless: 0 (0 Common, 0 Uncommon, 0 Rare, 0 Mythic)
Nonbasic Land: 0 (0 Common, 0 Uncommon, 0 Rare, 0 Mythic)
Rarity total: 0 Common, 0 Uncommon, 3 Rare, 1 Mythic
By the end of the set it's a good idea for each monocolor to have the same number of cards with the same distribution of rarities. Since this is a core set, which is meant to be larger, I think we are aiming at two mythics for each monocolor, plus 3-4 multicolor mythics, and 1-2 colorless mythics, (putting us at around 14-16 mythics in the set). Odds are there will be a little more than three times that amount of rares (so probably in the range of 50-60), 5 times that many uncommon (so probably around 75-90), and about 100-110 commons.
That would line the raritiy ratio in this set with just about the same rarity ratio Magic Origins had (at 16 mythics, 55 rares, 80 uncommon, and 101 common).
I know this seems annoying to keep track of, but it's an important aspect of set design to maintain a balanced and fun standard and, more importantly, limited format.
*WU: Combat control and evasion; making tactical swings at the opponent that will be to your advantage. Involves use of counterspells, bounce (both your permanents and your opponent's), tapdown effects, and flying as key aspects of the design.
WB: Enchantments matter as well as life-swing effects. Cares a lot about how many enchantments you have in play, but can also give you life in exchange for your opponents. Involves use of Bestow, -X/-Y effects, the enchantment card type in general, life loss effects, and lifelink as key aspects of the design.
WR: Overall aggressive and competitively-costed creatures making swings at the opponent so they die before they can even set up, though there can be longevity in the late game and some defensive aspects present. Involves use of damage-based removal, low-cost creatures, +X/+Y effects, and haste as key aspects of the design.
*WG: Very defensive, life-based effects. Cares about keeping you alive for as long as possible and coming in once the opponent has worn out their resources on you. Involves use of Life Gain effects in conjunction with high-toughness creatures, effects that care about your life total, temporary tapdown effects, and vigilance as key aspects of the design.
*UB: A heavily removal-based archetype, caring more about preventing the opponent from doing much rather than building up a big board state itself. Involves bouncing your opponents permanents, flat-out-destroy effects, effects that involve permanents your opponent controls leaving the battlefield (likely with a new keyword for the set), and Hexproof as key aspects of the design.
UR: A spell-heavy archetype that can play both defensively and offensively. Looks to keep your board better than the opponent's at all times. Involves plenty of instant and sorcery cards, permanents that care about instant and sorcery cards, a combination of bounce and damage-based removal, and Prowess as key aspects of the design.
UG: An archetype that likes to see a combination of card advantage and ramp to get ahead of the opponent. Tends to build momentum rather quickly and uses that momentum in a more defensive way, winning as it stays one step ahead of the opponent at all times. Involves card draw effects, mana ramp effects, counterspells, large creatures, and Hexproof as key aspects of the design.
*BR: Heavy Aggro, even more so than WR; tries to smash through the opponent at all costs and doesn't care about the late game. Will either win or lose quickly as the only defense it gets are some of the low-cost damage-based removal from other strategies. Involves low-cost creatures, self life loss, haste, and deathtouch as key aspects of the design.
BG: Cares about the size and card composition of your graveyard, though primarily focused on creatures; isn't afraid to sacrifice for power as anything in the graveyard can be useful later. Involves sacrifice effects, regenerate, some self-mill, cards that care about the graveyard, and deathtouvh as key aspects of the design.
*RG: Cares about getting big creatures onto the board as fast as possible. Utilizes heavy ramp and multiple land-drops per turn to get to the top of their curve as fast as possible. Involves land ramp, mana ramp effects, creatures with high converted mana cost, and trample as key aspects of the design.
Anything with a * next to it is a primary archetype of the set. Anything without a * is a secondary archetype that utalizes cards from within the other archetypes mixed in with a smaller volume of cards dedicated to that archetype.
1): Is Bestow going to be a all-color mechanic because of the GBR bestow creatures? Or are they just the 'flex' cards that allow more versatility to the color combinations?
2): I feel like Steed of the Upper Air and Guru of Fleeting Memories are too complex to be uncommon. Maybe drop the bottom abilities?
3): I have just found a proper name for my 'void' ability:
Evanescence (...if a permanent an opponent controlled left the battlefield, [effect])
I just think Evanescence is a more fitting word than 'Void' or 'Scrutiny' If you disagree, please tell me.
Should we create an account for this? I would love to post some cards!
EDIT: Oh yeah, I just saw the color combinations. They all look good (if standard), but my only issue is that WB is the only combination that cares about enchantments. How would this work with Somnus? If all colors are going to use bestow (which I would strongly discourage), we would have to make all of the combinations care about enchantments in different ways
(For example, WB would use enchantments as life drain, UB would use it as stax tools, UR would use a lot of looting enchantments etc)
Sorry I am rather prickly about color identities, but creating a strong foundation to build our core set around will be extremely helpful to create a professional-ish set.
1. Yes, but certain color combos care more about enchantments than others
2. Yeah, I had the same concern, but I feel Guru in particular would like a way to enable itself
3. Perfect!
4. Yeah, the color combinations are intentionally more standard because Core Sets are more generic in design and follow multiple or vague storylines rather than a single focused one.
5. Being picky is awesome!
In contrast, only certain color combinations would want them while others would consider them trash. Why would Red and Blue want to enchant their creatures when they don't have them? Or why would Blue and Black? It simply wouldn't fit. Theros used Bestow because all colors liked having enchantments one way or another. But Red/Green players in this set would find it jarring to say the least.
Condensing this all down to a couple of short sentences: Bestow shouldn't be all-colored unless the set cares about enchantments.
Unless you are considering making this set into an enchantment-matters set, if that is what you are wanting... If so, I will brew up some new mechanics!
UR and UB bestow creatures could bestow themselves onto opponents creatures and give downsdies
Here is the foily card in front of the Blue/Black Evanescence deck!
http://mtgcardsmith.com/view/spiral-tower-adept
For your information, there already is a cardsmith 2017 - http://mtgcardsmith.com/user/Tomigon/sets/12382.
Yeah, I pointed that out as well.
http://mtgcardsmith.com/view/ranne-incendiary-disciple
I am trying to upload an image for a planeswalker, but I can't! Can somebody else please upload the rest into the Planeswalker editor if possible?
Title: Ranne Incandescent
Art: http://1oshuart.deviantart.com/art/Destruction-s-avatar-advanced-version-408637995
(If you use Preview, I would suggest lightening up the art by opening the image, clicking on 'Show Markup toolbar' in 'View', clicking on the prism icon, then increase the 'shadows' bar to around 1/3 of the way. If would really make a difference. Thanks!)
Cost: 0
Color Red
Type: Ranne
Starting Loyalty: 4
+1: Ranne Incandescent deals 2 damage to target creature or player.
-2: If a source would deal damage this turn, it deals twice that much damage.
-7: You get an emblem with "Attacking creatures you control get +3/+0" and "Creatures can't block."
Do these cards sound good?
The only thing I'm a bit concerned about the power of the card considering the cost and flip condition are pretty easily obtainable. A shock as a +1 every turn seems really strong. Looking at flip chandra from magic origins, we see the shock was split into at +1 and -2 (with the ultimate at the same cost as Ranne's) and her flip condition was arguably harder to get to. The actual -2 seems really powerful as well, and could possibly have this card see a lot of play in modern, as a Goblin guide and Ranne unlbocked could see Ranne flipped turn 3, and turns lightning bolt into "deal 6 damage to target creature or player" which is really, really stong from what I can tell. The ultimate seems perfectly fine and is something I would want to see in an aggro deck, so I wouldn't change mucha bout that.
Then again, I could be totally wrong about this, so let me know what your opinion to my criticism is, and keep up the great work!
Put an Emblem on the battlefield under your control. It has either "Creatures you control have +3/+0 and have trample." Or "Creatures you control have +2/+0. Creatures cannot block."
How is this?
Black Mythic?
Who is this exactly guy within the stories of the set? Legendaries need to be tied into the lore somehow, after all.
Also, I feel like this guy gets really powerful against the aggro strategies in the set because of the sheer number of X/1s he can kill after only one death has happened, then makes a huge army of 2/2s as well. Maybe a a casting cost increase?
Won't be able to make tons of cards, but anyway ^^