MTG Cardsmith Community Forums
Sunderblood Cycle
This is an idea I've had for a cycle I thought I'd open up to the community for feedback and testing. The idea (flavorfully) behind this cycle is that each two-color legend is an aspect/reflection of a singular mage wrought through some kind of magical device. The cycle would cover the copied mage who would be five colors in alignment (the titular Sunderblood), the device that instigated the replication (probably some kind of artifact), and ten Reflections in each two-color combination. I have made a few examples:
These are not set in stone designs but rather to illustrate the concepts binding all this together. Each creature has a cmc of 5 composed of two mana of one color, two of another, and a generic mana. Each has an on-cast trigger that I have decided should affect each player equally or be able to target any player (Cloudblood predates my conception of this clause), and each has an activated ability that both synergizes with the on-cast ability and who's activation provides some kind of value to opponents. Their names all end in -blood, and the first part should be a single syllable English word somehow reflecting on their ability/the union of the colors. The working names I have so far are:
WU - Cloudblood
UB - Ghostblood
BR - Ashblood
RG - Bloomblood
GW - Gustblood
WB - Inkblood
BG - Rotblood
GU - Slimeblood
UR - Charmblood
RW - Brightblood
All the 'Bloods themselves would be rares (once again, these are test cards) with Sunderblood and the device being the mythics. What I am looking for is any kind of feedback. Thoughts on the cycle itself, ideas for cards in the cycle, questions or concerns you might have, etc. This is not a contest. Thank you for reading and replying!
These are not set in stone designs but rather to illustrate the concepts binding all this together. Each creature has a cmc of 5 composed of two mana of one color, two of another, and a generic mana. Each has an on-cast trigger that I have decided should affect each player equally or be able to target any player (Cloudblood predates my conception of this clause), and each has an activated ability that both synergizes with the on-cast ability and who's activation provides some kind of value to opponents. Their names all end in -blood, and the first part should be a single syllable English word somehow reflecting on their ability/the union of the colors. The working names I have so far are:
WU - Cloudblood
UB - Ghostblood
BR - Ashblood
RG - Bloomblood
GW - Gustblood
WB - Inkblood
BG - Rotblood
GU - Slimeblood
UR - Charmblood
RW - Brightblood
All the 'Bloods themselves would be rares (once again, these are test cards) with Sunderblood and the device being the mythics. What I am looking for is any kind of feedback. Thoughts on the cycle itself, ideas for cards in the cycle, questions or concerns you might have, etc. This is not a contest. Thank you for reading and replying!
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
GW - Soulblood?
RG - Fangblood?
WB - Duskblood?
BR - Bloodblood?
BR - Madblood?
GW - Verdantblood?
RG - Rageblood?
WB - Blueblood? (pun might be intended)
It's quite a good idea, with the reflections wrought through a magical device, each with a different kind of blood.
The Sunderblood could be some sort of gem or goblet? Or maybe a wheel with ten spokes (obviously one for each 'blood.)
- They probably shouldn't have cast triggers. Probably "When CARDNAME enters the battlefield" instead. "When you cast this spell" triggers on creatures are limited almost entirely to the Eldrazi.
- I do wonder whether a creature type like Avatar would work in place of the invented Reflection.
- Brightblood as an artifact in addition to its other types seems strange. The lore
of being a magical reflection doesn't really suggest it and neither does the art.
- Brightblood's activation cost on its activated ability seems a bit too abstract and not-really-a-cost-y to fit in my eyes, though I'll admit that that's extremely open to personal opinion. Also, the tokens don't need a name. There's just no obvious reason for it.
- They probably shouldn't have cast triggers. Probably "When CARDNAME enters the battlefield" instead. "When you cast this spell" triggers on creatures are limited almost entirely to the Eldrazi.
I want them to have casting triggers over EtB to allow for more power and less abuse of the ability, it's why the casting costs are so color rich.
- I do wonder whether a creature type like Avatar would work in place of the invented Reflection.
Reflection is not an invented subtype, but that's beside the point, I just want to convey that these are not whole entities themselves, rather representations of aspects of one being.
- Brightblood as an artifact in addition to its other types seems strange. The lore
of being a magical reflection doesn't really suggest it and neither does the art.
- Brightblood's activation cost on its activated ability seems a bit too abstract and not-really-a-cost-y to fit in my eyes, though I'll admit that that's extremely open to personal opinion. Also, the tokens don't need a name. There's just no obvious reason for it.
Yes, I agree about Brightblood, it was exploring the space available to see what would work and fit. I am toying with making each of the 'Bloods enchantment creatures to reflect their overly magical nature.