Return to Return to Ravnica!

Custom Cards forum

Posted on July 23, 2015, 3:14 p.m. by Nemesis

So, over the last year my friends and I have been working on a new Ravnica block, just as kind of a side project. The reason for choosing Ravnica is because we all liked the mechanical side of it (with the 10 different keywords) and we liked the flavor. And also because we liked making multicolored cards. The story isn't that fleshed out, so I'm not sure I'm even going to bother talking about it (unless you guys are interested). Anyway, after several months of working on it on the side, we've got our first set finished.

Now we're in the middle of playtesting the set in multiple environments (Drafting, Sealed, Block constructed, and we intend to try standard [where we'll pick another block and a core set] and Modern)

So my question is, is there anyone here on TappedOut that's interested in playtesting and offering opinions/ criticisms on the cards? If there is any interest, I can send the entire set we have so far and you can take a look. I don't really know of a way to put the whole set up here, and anyways it's too damn big so I don't think I'd want to.

So if you guys have any interest at all, hit me up! Feed back would be greatly appreciated.

JA14732 says... #2

Sure, what the hell.

July 23, 2015 3:20 p.m.

HolyFalcon says... #3

Lemme see it and lemme know the lore.

July 23, 2015 3:22 p.m.

bigguy99 says... #4

Lay it on me.

July 23, 2015 3:22 p.m.

Nemesis says... #5

okay, so how do you guys want them? I can provide a dropbox link to the magic set editor save I think, unless there is another way to do this?

July 23, 2015 3:29 p.m.

HolyFalcon says... #6

That works for me, I'll look at it when I get home.

July 23, 2015 3:35 p.m.

Nemesis says... #7

https://www.dropbox.com/s/culvurql6mxcgce/Custom%20MtG%20Set%20Combined%20-%20Set%201.mse-set?dl=0

That's the link to our first completed set

July 23, 2015 3:43 p.m.

urhere13 says... #8

I'd love to check it out if you wouldn't mind.

July 23, 2015 3:43 p.m.

Nemesis says... #9

Of course I wouldn't mind! The more the merrier! Any input will help. Right now nothing on the cards is set in stone, though somethings are suuuper provisional. The names and the creature types are almost certainly going to get changed around when we write the details of the lore a little.

July 23, 2015 3:48 p.m.

urhere13 says... #10

Will there be any legendaries? Might try to see how some of it fits into EDH play too while I'm testing.

July 23, 2015 3:53 p.m.

Nemesis says... #11

oh yeah, for sure. There'll be a decent number of them actually.

July 23, 2015 3:54 p.m.

dbpunk says... #12

It sounds like fun. I kinda hope you're doing the 2 legendaries per guild.

July 23, 2015 4:11 p.m.

dbpunk says... #13

Also I can't open the Dropbox link cause I'm doing this on a phone. Is there any other way to put it up?

July 23, 2015 4:15 p.m.

HolyFalcon says... #14

You should make this around the gateless.

July 23, 2015 4:16 p.m.

Nemesis says... #15

well the rough idea behind the lore that we were considering (note: just considering. Really we put very minimal thought behind the lore) was actually kind of about the gateless. We were planning on doing a heavy multicolored theme around the guilds for the first two sets then ending it with a "monocolored matters" feel in the third set where the guilds are torn down. We rough-draft named the set Guild-Breaker (or something to that effect) if I recall correctly.

July 23, 2015 4:35 p.m.

Nemesis says... #16

dbpunk I've actually got card images for all the cards if I recall correctly. If you know of a good image viewing site I can upload them there.

July 23, 2015 4:38 p.m.

HolyFalcon says... #17

If you upload to like imgur or something that should work.

July 23, 2015 4:51 p.m.

Nemesis says... #18

http://nemesis101.imgur.com I guess? I'm not sure how imgur works. but the album should be there

July 23, 2015 5:22 p.m.

Coinman1863 says... #19

One question with the deficit ability, is it like an upkeep cost or is it like an echo cost? Cause looking at Vengeful Cavalry the reminder text makes it unclear how many times you pay the deficit cost.

July 23, 2015 5:31 p.m.

Coinman1863 says... #20

Also Mutate in a vacuum seems really broken, though in this sealed format it may not be broken. This problem is expressed primarily in Unstable Falcon. A flying hill giant is really pushed and next turn it gets bigger? That seems really broken because it's counters.

It may just be Mutate 2 that is the problem (especially when put on an aggressively costed flyer), Mutate 1 doesn't seem that bad since its more gradual than the former.

July 23, 2015 5:38 p.m.

JA14732 says... #21

All in all, very good so far. I disagree with any mutate <1, and vanguard could use a little tuning, not much. Worse cascade can still be terrifying.

July 23, 2015 7:38 p.m. Edited.

-Logician says... #22

Here's some suggestions. Quotes represent that you may have use the wrong grammar when expressing a piece of rules text, and it's just a fix that I suggest. After the tilde (~) is my thoughts if I suggest any changes.

  1. Everiax, Mentor of Mutants - "Whenever an instant or sorcery spell you don't control targets a creature you control, you may draw a card."
  2. Ebony Spymaster - "At the beginning of your upkeep, if you have seven or more cards in your hand, target player loses 3 life." ~ This is a change I'm suggesting. Instead of the creature dealing damage, which seems like a red ability, I suggest you just have a player lose 3 life.
  3. Strom, the Iron Taskmaster ~ Interesting to have an Archon without flying. I recommend perhaps a creature type change. Every Archon in Magic History has had flying.
  4. The Deficit Mechanic reminder text - "You may cast this spell for its deficit cost. If you do, at the beginning of your next upkeep, you may pay its deficit cost. If you don't, you lose life equal to this card's converted mana cost."
  5. The Mutate Mechanic reminder text - "At the beginning of your end step, if you cast an instant or sorcery spell this turn, put a +1/+1 counter on this creature." ~ It may sound grammatically awkward using the word "cast" instead of "play," but see Ravager of the Fells  Flip for reference. Sadly, the past tense of "cast" is cast, not casted, which is kind of a bummer. While I want to read it as "...if you casted an instant...", it has to instead read, "...if you cast an instant..." To be read a little easier, you could make an argument as to include the word "have" in the phrase, such as, "...if you have cast an instant..."
  6. Mutagenic Elixir - "Sacrifice a creature: Put an alchemy counter on Mutagenic Elixir." ~ There's also an unneeded extra space between "a" and "creature."
  7. The Vanguard Mechanic reminder text - "When you cast this spell, you may reveal the top five cards of your library. You may cast a creature card with converted mana cost less than this card from the cards revealed without paying its mana cost, then put the rest on the bottom of your library in any order." ~ I recommend removing the initial "you may," and if you read the phrasing, you'll notice that the second red-highlighted phrase "from the cards revealed" is unneeded. Also a reminder, some cards in your set say that this ability triggers on cast, and some say it triggers on resolve. You'll want to revise all cards closely to make sure they are consistent.
  8. Backup Brigade - "Backup Brigade costs less to cast for each creature you control."
  9. Scholar Brawler ~ I'm seeing an unneeded return at the end of this car causing the text to be lifted higher than it needs to be. I want to say that you need a period at the end of the sentence on this card before the reminder text, but off-hand, I couldn't think of an example to back up my claim. I recommend some research to be sure. Certainly, as seen on cards like Snapcaster Mage, reminder text can be after a complete sentence with a period at the end.
  10. Return to Service - "Put target nonland permanent card from a graveyard onto the battlefield under your control.
  11. The Enrage Mechanic reminder text - "Damage dealt to and dealt by this creature is doubled until end of turn. Activate this ability only once each turn."
  12. The Substitute Mechanic reminder text - "Each permanent you return to your hand while casting this spell pays for or for one mana of that permanent's color type."
  13. Rally Cry ~ see Maelstrom Wanderer at the end, it says, "Then do it again." You may wish to do that here.
  14. Fathom Wizard - "Whenever a +1/+1 counter is placed on Fathom Wizard..." ~ The way you have it worded, it would trigger for each +1/+1 counter put onto it. If you, for example, flashed back Increasing Savagery targeting Fathom Wizard, did you intend for its ability to trigger 10 times? If not, change it to, "Whenever any number of +1/+1 counters are placed on Fathom Wizard." See Fathom Mage for reference. Using the phrase, "If _ would happen..." implies that something else is going to happen instead.
  15. Zombie Horse ~ This is a token, right? That's why it doesn't have a mana cost, I'm assuming. It needs to say, "Token Creature" on its super type to indicate such. See here for reference. I'm going to assume you understand this for any and all future tokens I find.
  16. Frenzied Mob - "Frenzied Mob gets +1/+0 for each other attacking creature you control." ~ Creatures should be singular.
  17. Naturalize Plus Counter - "Destroy target artifact or enchantment. Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature if an artifact or enchantment was destroyed this way." ~ Compare the original text to the oracle text of the card Debt of Loyalty to understand my reasoning here. If you wish to segregate these effects, such that the artifact or enchantment doesn't have to be destroyed to get the +1/+1 counter, you could separate the clauses into their own paragraphs. However, the spell still needs both target objects to exist upon resolution or the whole spell is countered by game rules.
  18. Sharing Ooze - "Sharing Ooze enters the battlefield with three +1/+1 counters on it.", "Whenever you cast a spell that targets another creature you control, you may move a +1/+1 counter from Sharing Ooze to that creature." ~ For the first revision, see Triskelion for reference. For the second revision, it just makes sense to eliminate the scenario where the game tries to allow you to move a +1/+1 counter from one object to itself. Clarification is always nice. I stumbled for a moment when first reading this and that was the reason.
  19. Bloodthirsty Monkey - "Whenever a creature you don't control dies, Bloodthirsty Monkey gets +1/+0 until end of turn." ~ In recent design, I've noticed that when referencing who controls a single object, it's either an object you control, or an object you don't control. But when referencing all objects you don't control, you're perfectly allowed to say objects your opponents control as is the case with Doomwake Giant. It's probably fine either way though even in this case, and I'm a little foggy on this one.
  20. Mark of the Deep - "Enchant player", "At the beginning of enchanted player's end step, that player puts a number of cards from the top of his or her library into his or her graveyard equal to the number of tapped creatures he or she controls." ~ Don't forget the vital "Enchant player" clause. The second clause also has much to be improved. More than I wanted to highlight.
  21. Hex Mutant ~ I'm seeing an unneeded return at the end of this card, making the text appear higher than it should be. Since this seems to be recurring, it might just be the file I have. I think I remember this happening when I reviewed another set.
  22. Sheriff of Shadows - "Players can't search libraries. Any player may pay 3 life for that player to ignore this effect until end of turn." ~ Just eliminating redundancy.
  23. Vanguard Lovin Weenie - "When Vanguard Lovin Weenie enters the battlefield, if you didn't cast it from your hand, put two +1/+1 counters on it.
  24. Ferocious Command - "Creatures you control gain trample until end of turn." ~ Just need to make this word singular. Also, MSE will recognize two consecutive dashes (--) as a long hyphen as you see on other modal spells.
  25. Shrewd Command - "Shrewd Command deals 2 damage to target player. You gain 2 life." ~ As you probably already know but may have just accidentally missed, you must always declare the source of damage being dealt. Also, the "You" as highlighted is necessary.
  26. Experimental Command ~ Not that it is incorrect, but just know that the third mode as written doesn't need targets and so the choices of which of up to two creatures is determined upon resolution. The player casting this spell does not have to say which of up to two creatures will be bounced until this spell resolves. Since the second mode targets, it just seemed like an inconsistency that I thought was worth pointing out.
  27. Valiant Command ~ Not that it is wrong, but I thought it was worth pointing out that the fourth mode lasts indefinitely until the effected creature(s) leaves the battlefield.
  28. Devious Command - "Target player puts the top ten cards from his or her library into his or her graveyard.", "Until end of turn, whenever a creature you control deals combat damage to a player, you may draw a card." ~ You got lazy on the first mode, understandable. You missed a comma on the fourth mode. Nothing major. Probably should avoid getting drunk while designing. :P
  29. Military Stand - "Put X 1/1 red and white Soldier creature tokens with haste onto the battlefield. Sacrifice those tokens at the beginning of the next end step." ~ Looks to me like you already know this rule, and this was just a small mistake. You forgot to specify the type of permanent the token will be.
  30. Clawed Academy Defender - ": Regenerate Clawed Academy Defender." ~ See Ancient Silverback for reference.
  31. Hooded Informant - "When Hooded informant enters the battlefield, look at the top two cards of target player's library. You may put any number of those cards into that player's graveyard. Put the rest back on top of that player's library in any order." ~ Obviously you have to reference the creature's name at the beginning. I also revised the end a bit.
  32. Smoke Grenade Assassin - "When this creature enters the battlefield, target opponent returns X permanents he or she controls to his or her hand. Then that player discards X cards." ~ Just a small thing here. Reference the card Talent of the Telepath. Notice how it targets an opponent, then in the same paragraph, references him or her as that player. Once the target specifies an opponent, you no longer need to specify that it is an opponent, and can instead start calling them a player.
  33. Element of Surprise - "Tap target creature. Element of Surprise deals 2 damage to it." ~ It's necessary to specify the source and, in this case at least, to separate the clauses. By convention, you may also want to reorder the effects to have them read, "Element of Surprise deals 2 damage to target creature. Tap it."
  34. Catapulting Goblin - "Catapulting Goblin has flying as long as two or more creature entered the battlefield under your control this turn." ~ The way you have it worded, it would gain flying indefinitely as soon as two creatures entered the battlefield under your control in a single turn. This revision is what I'm pretty certain you meant for it to be.
  35. Rapid Mutation Wizard - "Creature you control with mutate may mutate during each opponent's end step." You have already in the case of Evolving Hydra used the phrase mutates to describe the occurrence of a mutate keyword ability triggering, which is perfectly fine just as WotC uses the phrase regenerates to describe the occurrence of a regenerate keyword ability triggering. That's perfectly fine, and to revise this card, I am also doing that.
  36. Orzhov Guildsage - "Orzhov Guildsage deals 1 damage to target creature or player and you gain 1 life.", "Exile target creature you control, then return it to the battlefield under (its owner's) / (your) control..." ~ For the first ability, you have to specify the source of that damage and the player that gains the life. For the second ability, you have to specify under whose control the creature comes back into play, be it your control, or the card's owner. It comes up when you gain control of an opponent's creature, then blink it. For example, if you gain control of an opponent's creature, then play Deadeye Navigator and soulbond it to the creature you gained control of, you can blink that creature and Deadeye specifically says that it comes back into play under your control. If it instead said under its owner's control, then your opponent would regain control of the creature.
  37. Boros Guildsage - "Until end of turn, creatures you control gains..." ~ Need to make the word gains singular.
  38. Simic Guildsage ~ I thought it was worth noting that the damage dealt in the second ability isn't specified as combat damage, and so cards like Prodigal Sorcerer could use its ability to deal the damage. I'm unsure whether or not this was intended.
  39. Destruction Muse - "At the beginning of your postcombat main phase, if you dealt combat damage to a player this turn, add to your mana pool.", "Whenever you deal noncombat damage to a player, add to your mana pool." ~ Main phases are now indicated as either precombat or postcombat main phases. If you intend that you only wish to have the ability trigger during exactly the second main phase, and not during additional postcombat main phases produced by cards like Aggravated Assault, then I suppose it is appropriate to say second insead of postcombat. Also, the second ability should be in its own paragraph.
  40. Rogue Mutant ~ No suggestion here. I just wanted to compliment you on this card's design. I love it.
  41. Recruiting Marshal - "When Recruiting Marshal enters the battlefield, you may search your library for a creature card with first strike or double strike and reveal that card. Put it into your hand, then shuffle your library." ~ Must always reveal tutored cards if they have absolutely any restrictions as to what they can be. The restrictions here obviously being that it must be a creature card and must have either first strike or double strike.
  42. Horse-Man of Doom - "Horse-Man of Doom has first strike as long as control one or more other creatures with the same name as it.", "Horse-Man of Doom has deathtouch as long as you control two or more other creatures with the same name as it.", "At the beginning of your end step, if you control four or more creatures named Horse-Man of Doom, target player loses the game." ~ Nice rehash of Biovisionary. The way you have it worded for the first two abilities, the creature would gain first strike/deathtouch indefinitely as soon as you control the requisite creatures, and they continue to have first strike/deathtouch even if other duplicates of this card are removed from the battlefield and there is only one left, which I don't think is intended. Also, creatures in play should not be referred to as cards. Creatures are only cards as long as they are in any zone other than the battlefield or stack. On the stack, a creature is referred to as a creature spell, and on the battlefield, a creature is referred to as a simply a creature (or a permanent in some cases).
  43. Nivix Outcast ~ There's no period at the end of the sentence. Also, Nivix refers to Izzet, not Boros. See Nivix Cyclops, Nivix Guildmage, and Nivix, Aerie of the Firemind.
  44. Vengeful Cavalry - "You may cast Vengeful Cavalry from your graveyard as long as you control a creature named Vengeful Cavalry."
  45. Presidium Guardsmen ~ Again, you just need to specify who gains the life. You, an opponent, or target player.
  46. Dead Investments ~ Yet again, you must clarify who gains the life. Obviously, because of context clues gathered from the rest of the paragraph, you want yourself to gain the life. So say, "You gain 1 life for each card in your graveyard..."
  47. Hater of Machines and Magic - "Hater of Machines and Magic gets +1/+1 for each artifact and enchantment your opponents control." ~ Saying or implies that you have a choice.
  48. Gatelord Horror ~ So this is a pretty weird design. You have to name the card on resolution because the phrase, "Name a card" is after the colon. I hope that's intended. So the only functional difference between this card and a card that tutors similarly to this (see Planar Portal) is that you have to determine the card you want before you get to examine your deck, meaning you can't look through your deck and make a decision about what card you want after seeing all of your options. You also get to have any card in your deck without any restrictions, but your opponent will know what it is. If you intended on your opponent knowing what the unrestricted card was, but didn't intend on requiring the choice to be made before being allowed to look at the library, then you'll want to rewrite this. If it is intended completely as written, then you'll still want to make a small revision. "Name a card. Search your library for a card with the chosen name, reveal it. and put it into your hand. Then shuffle your library." Notice the separation of sentences at the last part. See Summoner's Pact for reference.
  49. Legendary Commander ~ It's missing a creature type. Also, the ability that creates a token obvious creates a creature token, but still needs to specify "creature token" for it to be correct.
  50. Sunder Earth - "Destroy target land. If it's a nonbasic land, it's controller loses 2 life." ~ I recommend having Sunder Earth deal 2 damage instead of causing life loss. It just makes more sense, and fits the colors/flavor.
  51. Vindicate EXTREME ~ I just wanted to point out that the original Vindicate can destroy any permanent, even a land, making it perhaps even more extreme. :P
  52. Expanding Mire - "Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under your control, creatures your opponents control get -1/-1 until end of turn."
  53. Helix Storm ~ This card feels maybe a little too powerful. Compare it to Warleader's Helix at just one less mana. You only get one target for the 4 damage. This card does 6 divides as you choose among creatures and/or players and you gain 6 life for just 1 more mana than Warleader's Helix, and it can't even be countered? That's really pushing the boundaries.
  54. Scavenger Badger ~ A bit of a power creep. Wolfir Avenger was completely playable as a 3 drop 3-power flash creature. This is a two drop, which is worlds different, has only one less toughness, can't be countered, and draws a card? Again, it's really pushing the boundaries.
  55. Gruul Fighter - "At the beginning of combat on your turn, ..." ~ see Goblin Rabblemaster for reference. Remember to include that comma, as your current design doesn't have it.
  56. Reallocate Resources ~ It looks good, except I think that instead of saying "... total converted mana cost ...", you should say, "... combined converted mana costs ..." I could be wrong there. That's just what I would do. In either case, I believe the word cost should be plural.
  57. Blue Busted? - "When Blue Busted? enters the battlefield, you may cast nonland cards from your hand as though they had flash until end of turn." ~ Even though he has Substitute, I feel like the fact that he's mythic rare should allow him to give your nonland cards flash at all times much like Vedalken Orrery and Leyline of Anticipation instead of just until end of turn.
  58. Slime-Covered Raptor ~ This feels almost as powerful as Delver of Secrets  Flip. Almost. Not quite, but almost. I would pay very close attention to this card during playtesting.
  59. Countergrowth - "Counter target spell. Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature if a spell was countered this way." ~ That's what this card would be errata'd to if this card was printed years ago, as is again the case with Debt of Loyalty. If you don't care for these effects to be linked in this way, and if you intend for this spell to be used to attempt to counter a spell that can't be countered, and still get the +1/+1 counter, you'll have to separate the effects into their own paragraphs.
  60. Go Directly to Jail - "Enchanted creature gets -3/-0." ~ Missed the minus sign in front of the zero. I was iffy on the wording of the last ability, but then I referenced the oracle text of Wanderlust and saw that you were right.

I'm exhausted now after 3 hours, but may continue at a later time. I hope this has been eye-opening and helpful.

July 23, 2015 9:59 p.m.

-Logician says... #23

Quick fix on #7.

  • The Vanguard Mechanic reminder text - "When you cast this spell, reveal the top five cards of your library. You may cast a creature card from among them with converted mana cost less than this card without paying its mana cost, then put the rest on the bottom of your library in any order." ~ I forgot to include the green highlighted section, which makes one of my aforementioned comments look a little bit ignorant.
July 23, 2015 10:09 p.m.

Nemesis says... #24

Sorry for the delay in my response, things got kinda hectic. Thanks for all the feedback, I'll try and address each of you individually.

Coinman1863 We also thought that Mutate would be too powerful, so before the first round of testing we nerfed the crap out of it. After testing we found that the numbers were too low and the play was too slow, and over all, it caused a pretty serious split in the way you were building your deck (you needed the spells to fuel the mutations) so it was kind of tricky to build right. It ended up being not powerful enough so we decided to increase a lot of the mutates on a lot of the cards. We also added cantrip effects in order to keep the mutates going too. Did we overcorrect? maybe. But between the six of us, we thought that it was in a decent spot, even in limited. But I'm definitely open to suggestions. As for defecit, it's meant to be payed only once on the upkeep.

-Logician: YIKES that's a lot of suggestions, Thanks a ton! I'll try and respond to all of them :)

  1. Did you think Everiax was too abusable by allowing you to gain cards off targeting your own creatures? Is that the reasoning behind the change?

  2. I agree completely

  3. Agreed

  4. I like your wording better. This one has been a thorn in our side for a while, thanks.

  5. We intentionally had it as played in order to have your mutate creatures benefit off of any spells that were cheated, not specifically cast. Do you think that gives mutate too much power? Or do you think that's too situational?

  6. Good catch

  7. I like the way you worded that, we'll have to use that. Though we did intentionally say resolve (though successfully cast could work the same) so that the vanguard user doesn't get the ability if the vanguard card is countered. We were worried about the power of vanguard, so we thought that'd give slower decks a better chance.

  8. Good catch.

  9. agreed

  10. Looking at cards that start with "put target nonland permanent" I don't see any that say card after. Do you have an example for this one?

  11. Oof, I didn't even realize how bad ours was.

  12. Don't know how we screwed this one up. I could have sworn we ripped this off of convoke

  13. Sounds good. I'll have to figure out how to edit just a single card's reminder text though

  14. I... don't actually recall if that was intentional or not. I'll have to talk to them and find out. (though I think it wasn't)

  15. Yes, those are tokens. We modeled them after pre m15 tokens. Earlier tokens didn't have creature tokens as a supertype. Though since that is outdated, we will update them. good catch.

  16. haha... oops. good catch

  17. I could have sworn that a A spell is only countered for having illegal targets if all of its targets are illegal when it tries to resolve. is this not the case?

  18. good catch

  19. I'll give the crew both options and we'll decide from the two. Thanks for the suggestion

  20. Doh! can't believe we missed the enchant player. good catch

  21. there is indeed an extra return. Good catch

  22. That sounds better

  23. don't know why we had it like that in the first place

  24. Nice. Didn't know that.

  25. Good catch (I feel like i'm starting to sound like a broken record player)

  26. Thanks for pointing it out. We are definitely trying to correct inconsistencies so this helps out.

  27. oh. no that's not how that's supposed to be at all. good catch, haha

  28. SSSHHHH! Drunk mtg design is best mtg design.

  29. Yep, still good catch. After seeing these a thousand times, it gets hard to notice new things anymore.

  30. Good catch

  31. I like your revision. I'll suggest it next time. This was also one of the first cards we made actually, so this was back before we were being super anal about the wording. Still, good catch

  32. you're 100% right. nice catch.

  33. Yeah I don't know why we keep doing this. we know better too. :P

  34. So... funny story about this one. We were EVENTUALLY going to make this change, but for the time were toying with the idea of making art that catapulted him into space, thus having him fly indefinitely.

  35. This was another one that we couldn't quite figure out how to word.

  36. Yeah I don't know why we keep doing that. I PROMISE we know better.

  37. good catch again

  38. I don't believe we intended it to include non combat damage, but I'll check and make sure

  39. I agree

  40. Thanks! I'll pass the compliment to the designer. :)

  41. Good catch. I could have sworn we put that in there.

  42. Good catch. You're right on how we intended this card to work

  43. Nice catch on the period. The idea behind the naming was that he used to be in the izzet guild but was cast out of it, so he joined Boros. though we may want to revise him because he doesn't have anything to do with instants and sorceries.

  44. good catch

  45. I have no excuse

  46. yet again, I have no excuse

  47. Sounds good.

  48. Good catch. I'm not sure exactly how we wanted this one to work, so I'll talk to the guys and figure it out. Thanks for bringing it up, I hadn't even noticed that it was worded strangely

  49. I believe we were intending to add a creature type later when we decided on who this creature was (lore wise). though we should still have a provisional type anyways

  50. I agree.

  51. Vindicate EXTREME was more extreme before it got nerfed. :P

  52. good catch

  53. Yeaaaah. we were suuuuuper iffy on this one. It's been under the "nerf?" heading for a while now. We'll have to adjust this one. what do you think would be a good revision for it?

  54. again, another one under the "nerf?" heading. We really wanted the uncounterable cycle to be good, so we overshot on a couple of them. also this one remained untouched because we felt that simic was underpowered while playtesting. Though I do agree that we should fix it. would 2/2 be enough or do we need more nerfing?

  55. will fix that

  56. Thanks for the suggestion. I'll fix that

  57. That's a good idea. I believe he was more busted before the first nerf wave.

  58. This was another card that we kind of pushed because we were worried about simic's power level

  59. I think we'll use your wording here as well

  60. Will also fix this.

Holy cow that was a ton of suggestions. I can tell you took some pretty serious time to look over all of this, and for that I'm seriously grateful. We'll take a look at all these suggestions and fix all the cards you mentioned, so seriously, thank you. Having this many issues pulled out is kind of embarrassing though, I was really confident that we had done better :P. And some of them... really we have no excuse, haha. If you take another look and find anything else, or if you want to comment on the design choices at all or anything feel free to. Your post was super helpful.

July 24, 2015 12:10 a.m. Edited.

Nemesis says... #25

Also, for 7. We didn't want to allow the player to be able to Vanguard into another creature with vanguard and have vanguard go off again.

July 24, 2015 12:17 a.m.

dbpunk says... #26

So the issue I'm having is that I'm not really sure what each guild would be trying to do. Honestly the mutate effect feels like a very Ozzet thing and personally substitute just feels a little weak. Honestly the lands feel a bit too powerful... Like already shocks are pretty good lands. But instead exiling a card from hand, then being able to get them back while having the land untapped seems waaaayyyyy too good. Like you could exile an extremely powerful win con then return it. Or you could exile a card you don't care about. As for the other lands, there are tons of ways to abuse that. And the thing is none of them come in untapped.

July 24, 2015 1:27 a.m.

JA14732 says... #27

Lands are honestly fine. It's an interesting take on the matter-you can have them ETB tapped or exile a land from your hand, but if you're struggling you can spend 1 mana to get the card back. Plus, they're not fetchable.

Reminds me of the Hideaway lands, except without the condition and without playing the card for free.

July 24, 2015 9:22 a.m.

Nemesis says... #28

JA14732 that was basically our goal. The only issue I can see with them is that they kind of hose discard strategies. Though that's not something that we're really supporting anyway.

dbpunk I'm not sure what you mean by what each guild is trying to do. Simic is trying to land creatures and instant and sorceries to mutate the creatures, Dimir is trying to abuse its plethora of ETB creatures while casting cards for almost nothing, Gruul is trying to smash face, Boros is trying to win with superior numbers, and Orzhov is trying to get play its cards earlier than normal (but at a price).

I can kind of see what you mean about Simic feeling Izzet-y, but our goal behind mutate was for the ability to reflect both colors. In our opinion, previous Simic abilities felt mostly green, so we tried to fix that by incorporating both a non-creature part and a creature part to the ability.

As for the lands, we thought the rare lands were actually pretty balanced. You can have it enter tapped,or if you need it now, you can exile a card from your hand to have it enter untapped. We didn't want the land to lead to permanent card disadvantage, so we allowed you to get the card back to your hand by tapping two lands. For the common lands, we were trying to go for a Rupture Spire, Transguild Promenade feel. Though I do agree with you, we probably need to make them enter tapped, because to me they almost feel better than the rares.

July 24, 2015 9:40 a.m.

-Logician says... #29

nemesis101 I almost feel bad informing you that those are the suggestions I came up with after looking at the first 40% of the set (104 cards). Starting from the card at the top and moving down card by card, I didn't even get the scroll bar half way down the list. :(

That said, while there are a lot of issues that I was able to point out, nobody is perfect. Especially not myself, as you can see from my very long post. I made several typing mistakes now that I reread it. I will try to find some time eventually to go through the rest of it. You're very welcome and I wouldn't be doing it if I didn't enjoy doing it. :) If you'd like, I could communicate with you via PM, and if you have any questions about a card wording, it's somewhat my specialty. I'm happy to help.

July 24, 2015 10:05 p.m.

Nemesis says... #30

-Logician hey, the more suggestions the better. Honestly, we're really trying to make this as close to perfect as possible. So anything, from lore ideas, to card fixes, is appreciated.

July 24, 2015 11:12 p.m.

dbpunk says... #31

Well actually I had an idea for lore: what if, due to the stretching between realms and the chaos being created by an almost absentee Jace causes more and more guild warfare, until eventually there is rioting in the streets. (Set 1 would follow this)

Post riots, the guildless revolt, thanks to some unknown benefactor, with enough power to overthrow the guilds. The guilds dissolve, turning the entirety of Ravnica into a power hungry frenzy. (Set 2 would have this as the story)

Finally, the benefactor is revealed to be the Obzedat and the help of a new W/B planeswalker (there hasn't been one yet), in an insane grab for power that none of the guilds, or other Orzhov guild members, could fathom. In a daring battle between different planeswalker and the various guilds, new tricolor guilds form to win the battle. In the end, a new guild pact is created with the power left behind, creating a better ravnica. (Set 3)

Honestly this could work in your favor, specifically for some mechanics like Mutate, which has a very Izzet feel, could be the new Temur guild keyword.

July 25, 2015 1:22 a.m.

HolyFalcon says... #32

Instead of merging into 3, merge into 4 like on the Nephillims?

July 25, 2015 1:24 a.m.

dbpunk says... #33

Yeah but that would have some messy implications considering you can easily tell that three similar guilds would become a 3 color guild rather than any number of members of different guild members forming a 4 color guild.

For example: BGU has the Golgari, the Simic and the Dimir, who all have a tendency to work in secrecy and doing subtle tricks involving their creatures to win. It'd be easy to imagine them becoming a singular guild. It's easy to imagine how they'd play compared to the UBR or WUB guilds, since even though they share Dimir colors, those guilds play differently.

But GWUB includes Golgari, Simic, Dimir, Azorius, Orzhov and Selesnya thrown in the mix. There's no real sure way how they would play as compared to WUBR, RGWU, UBRG or BRGW.

July 25, 2015 1:34 a.m.

-Logician says... #34

I wanted to clarify a claim I made earlier regarding a spell fizzling if one or more targets become illegal. I'm embarrassingly correcting myself after researching a ruling and I learned that I was wrong. A spell is only countered (fizzled) if all of the targets are illegal, and will successfully resolve effecting all legal targets as long as at least one legal target still exists.

Batch 2 incoming!

  1. Gruul Saboteur ~ "it's" should be "its" without an apostrophe. An interesting interaction with this card is that if your opponent attacks you with a lifelink creature, this card specifies the source of damage to come from the attacking creature, so the creature deals 1 damage to its controller, and gains 1 life because of lifelink simultaneously. However, if the source of the damage came from Gruul Saboteur, that interaction wouldn't happen.
  2. Boros Saboteur - "Whenever a creature enters the battlefield ... if it was not cast from that player's hand, ..." ~ Reference for using the word "Whenever" instead of "If" at the beginning of this card: Suture Priest. As using "that player's" instead of "his or her", I don't want to say you're wrong, but I feel like it flows better. Also, if you look at the second paragraph on Suture Priest, it's not exactly the same case, but it does reference "that player".
  3. Orzhov Saboteur ~ This one is going to be difficult to explain. Life loss is not tracked and sourced in the exact same way damage is. Life loss is simply a byproduct of a source's actions. Given an event of life loss, the game doesn't backtrack to a source in the same way it can do with damage, and hopefully you'll see what I mean when I reword this. "If a source an opponent controls would cause him or her to lose life, you may gain that much life." The way you worded it, the game would notice when you lose life, and try to backtrack that event of losing life after it already happened to a source, but loss of life doesn't have a source attached to it. By rewording it the way I did, the game notices when a source would cause an event of life loss, and in that way, can work around this oddity.
  4. Ferocious Inclinations ~ Modernize the wording of "... If you played ..." to "... If you've cast ..." I had mentioned in my previous post something about saying "... If you have cast ..." and had just completely blanked on the fact that WotC uses the contraction you've to smoothen it out. Also, you'll want to specify that the instant or sorcery is a spell. Finally, move the word "instead" to the end of the paragraph. It should read like this. "Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature. If you've cast another instant or sorcery spell this turn, put two +1/+1 counters on that creature instead."
  5. Vanguard Initiative ~ They don't gain +0/+1 and +1/+0, they get +0/+1 and +1/+0.
  6. Horsocalypse ~ Just clean up the last phrase by saying, "... they enter the battlefield tapped." You wouldn't say instead here unless you specifically used the phrase "... enters the battlefield untapped ..." previously.
  7. Blighted Traveler ~ I'm extremely disappointed that the Shadow token doesn't have shadow. I'm unsleeving my Reality Anchors with a sad panda face.
  8. Shadow Realm ~ After seeing this name, I was fully expecting a pure yugioh reference having the cards become exiled much like being banished to the shadow realm. As disappointed as I was to not see that, I must still point out that you need to specify which graveyard to put the card into. Because of complications with players gaining control of other player's permanents and bouncing them, I recommend the following revision. "If a permanent an opponent controls would be returned to its owner's hand, put it into its owner's graveyard instead."
  9. Substitute Bird ~ To give you an idea of what substitute can do, I could play an affinity deck where I play a turn 1 Darksteel Citadel, Mox Opal, Springleaf Drum, and two Ornithopters, then tap springleaf and mox opal for mana and bounce all my permanents to my hand (including my land, because that's allowed) to play this card as a 5/6 flying hexproof on turn 1, then pass turn with 6 cards in hand on the play. Too powerful? I honestly don't know, but that seems like a ridiculous first turn. Next turn, redeploy your field to hold up mana for another card in your set called Objection which is a 5-drop counterspell with Substitute, then just attack. Seems fun. Without a doubt, I would argue that the Substitute is easily the most competitive mechanic for eternal formats. Especially in the case of Blue Busted? where the card has both substitute and flash, allowing you to respond and save your permanents from removal as a cost to cast a spell, making the rescue of your permanents unrespondable. I would be using it religiously in EDH for absolutely nothing but the absurd ability to save my permanents in an unrespondable manner.
  10. Gyre Mutant ~ You're obviously revamping Gyre Sage, and should reword the ability to read exactly like him since it's the exact same ability. Also, I'm seeing some badass brews around this card combo'd with Burst of Strength, Dragonscale Boon, and Vigean Graftmage and the rest of the deck is pretty much cantrips, removal, and Emrakul, the Aeons Torn. Gyre Mutant is far better than Gyre Sage even when you dismiss the absurd 1 mana cost, because you can't run Gyre Sage in a heavy control shell, but Gyre Mutant BEGS to be in a control shell, making it probably the best control deck's mana dork of all time. Here's a cool goldfish: Turn 1 Gyre Mutant, Gitaxian Probe, mutate on end step. Turn 2 Elven Rite, mutate on end step. Turn 3 tap Gyre Mutant for four green, spend that mana to cast Dragonscale Boon, tap Gyre Mutant for six green, spend four of it on another Dragonscale Boon floating two green, tap Gyre Mutant for eight green for a total of ten green with your floated mana, then cast Kozilek, Butcher of Truth. XD
  11. Soul-Tether Shaman ~ I like the flavor here. You'll notice that your design for how this creature links to another creature is a triggered ability triggering when it enters the battlefield and targets a creature. There's nothing wrong with that, but by convention, you'll notice that past cards like True-Name Nemesis and Stuffy Doll neither target nor trigger. You could resemble that by rewording your ability to "As Soul-Tether Shaman comes into play, choose a creature." Note that in both designs, this creature can tether to an opponent's creature, which I think is actually really cool.
  12. Hoofs of Steel - "Target creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn. If that creature is a Horse, it gains first strike until end of turn." ~ Capitalize Horse because it is a creature type. Reference: Diregraf Captain. The additional until end of turn clause is necessary unless you wanted the Horse to gain first strike indefinitely.
  13. Simic Saboteur - "Whenever a source puts one or more +1/+1 counters on one or more creatures you don't control, you may add to your mana pool at the beginning of your next main phase." ~ You can cut the you may here pretty easily. It's usually not included in effects like this because it's virtually impossible to be advantaged by declining the free mana. It's also common to specify that this only happens on the precombat main phase, but that one's purely up to you.
  14. Dimir Saboteur - "Whenever a permanent an opponent controls would be returned to its owner's hand, the controller of that permanent loses 2 life." ~ Take my word for it. ;)
  15. Eternal Champion ~ Note that Eternal Champion prevents all damage, not just combat damage. Great use of the intervening if statement, making it so that his ability triggers for every creature attacking, but only resolves for one. No errors.
  16. Covert Trove ~ Because the name of this card, at least for me, has an extra space at the end, there was an additional and unnecessary space after each instance of the card name in the rules text. If it shows up this way for you too, you can easily fix this by just removing the extra space at the end of the name of the card. Also, the way you have this card worded, you would always have to exile a card when this land entered the battlefield because of the absence of a you may clause, which is clearly unintended. Also, you use the wording, "... If you do not ..." Referencing any shockland, you'll notice that WotC prefers to use the contraction don't instead of do not. Hallowed Fountain. Finally, when returning the removed card to your hand, you actually have to return it to its owner's hand, or else it's possible for me to gain control my opponent's Covert Trove, and subsequently put a card I don't own in my hand, which can never happen. These semantic errors are present among all lands in this cycle. In the case of Secret Stockpile, at least for me, I'm seeing some spacing issues with the name of the card in the rules text which will be directly obvious when you look at it.
  17. Simic Signet ~ I can see and clearly understand what you mean by the last ability, but a red flag is triggering seeing the prefix "gains" in front of both instances of hexproof (which is okay) and +1/+1 (which isn't okay). You wouldn't say that a permanent gains +1/+1, you would say that it gets +1/+1. I can find no references in the cornercase of phrasing "... your choice of ..." in this way, and thus cannot draw a conclusion. It's probably fine, but if WotC was designing this card, they would use their hokus pokus and avoid this issue elegantly somehow. Perhaps "... Target green or blue creature you control either gets +1/+1 or gains hexproof until end of turn." as an attempt to avoid a Choose one-- situation, but that phrasing has the semantic issue of not specifying how the choice is made, either by the player, an opponent, or randomly. Maybe sometimes we just have to wait until WotC shows us how it's done. I would probably just save yourself the time and avoid revision at this time. Sorry this suggestion was more of a rant. :P
  18. Gruul Guildsage ~ Much like a previous suggestion, I think the period needs to be moved from the end of the reminder text to the end of the sentence after the Enrage cost.
  19. Guildhalls ~ I noticed some conversation about these lands being better than the rare dual land cyle. I would disagree. If you put a guildhall into play on turn 1, its ability would trigger, and you would tap itself for mana to pay the cost. On turn 1, it plays at the speed of a guildgate. On future turns, playing it as your land for turn only increases the amount of mana available for you to spend that turn if you sacrifice it, setting you back 1 mana next turn. I think this is a good design for the common land, and definitely not better than the rare land.
  20. Chained Troll ~ Just another case of forgetting to specify the source of the damage.

Keepin it light tonight. :P I'll make more suggestions this weekend.

July 25, 2015 2:11 a.m.

-Logician says... #35

In response to some of your feedback to me among my first batch of suggestions, here are my answers.

  • 1: It looks fine to me. I accidentally typed that because of habit.
  • 5: Play and played have been completely errated on all cards to the word cast in the case of casting spells. Cheating a spell with, for example, Omniscience is still casting. Same with Narset, Enlightened Master and Isochron Scepter. I don't think that's broken. Seems perfectly fine.
  • 10: References: Sun Titan, Obzedat's Aid, Nature's Spiral, Wargate, Genesis Wave, Profound Journey, Primal Surge. There exists roughly 40 more examples.
  • 17: You are right. My apologies.
  • 28: I have no counter-argument.
  • 51: Vindicate EXTREME pre-nerf sounds like a card I would put seven of in my legacy deck's sideboard.
  • 53: Imagine Pyromancer's Goggles with this card. Excuse me while I pay 5 mana to cast this uncounterable spell targeting your face for the equivilent of a Gray Merchant of Asphodel trigger with 12 devotion. This card would honestly would just look better as a instant dividing 3 damage and gaining 3 life, and being uncounterable. For power level comparisons, here are some references. Pay attention to some of these cards being sorcery as opposed to instant, which is a big deal. Pyrotechnics, Violent Eruption, Forked Lightning, Flames of the Firebrand, Arc Lightning, Fire at Will. Dividing damage as opposed to not being able to divide damage is worth at least 1 additional mana, if not 2 in more conservative designs.
  • 54: Here's a reference of all other 2 drop green creatures with flash. Ambush Viper, Quick Sliver, Skylasher, Shambleshark, Scryb Ranger, Ashcoat Bear. Notice that, right off the bat, none of these examples have more than 2 power. In all of magic, there's actually not a single creature that has flash and draws you a card when it enters the battlefield, probably because such a combination is too potent. The closest thing is Vendilion Clique targeting yourself, requiring you to put a card from your hand on bottom of your library to do it. The next closest is perhaps Notion Thief and that's only if your opponent is about to draw a card. A creature that is a 3/2 flash, ETB draw a card, uncounterable is minimum 4 mana in my book. If you insist on making this creature a 3 power flashing two-drop, he really needs to be a 3/1, or a 2/0 that grants itself +1/+1 if a condition is true, disallowing it to be always good, and it has to do something else other than draw you a card when it enters the battlefield. Remaining a two drop just how it currently is, how about a 2/1 with flash, uncounterable, and "At the beginning of your upkeep, if one or more creatures you control mutated during your last turn, draw a card." Even that's a bit ridiculous, but better than it was before.
July 25, 2015 3:38 a.m. Edited.

If tearing down the guilds is your plan, then how about a cycle of "guards". they could use their respective guilds mechanics, as well as some sort of defense mechanisms. Get creative with it.

July 25, 2015 9:29 p.m.

dbpunk says... #37

How about this for a card?

Vanguard Token Producer

Legendary Creature-Human Soldier

Vanguard, vigilance

Whenever a creature enters the battlefield, put X 1/1 elemental tokens with haste onto the battlefield, where X is that creatures power. Exile them at the beginning of the next end step.

3/2

July 26, 2015 2:06 a.m.

dbpunk says... #38

Sorry that should read "non token creature" so that it doesn't become infinite.

July 26, 2015 2:07 a.m.

-Logician says... #39

dbpunk That's overpowered in a set introducing the Substitute Mechanic, and seems very degenerate in other formats, like with Restoration Angel and Legion's Initiative.

July 26, 2015 3:51 a.m.

dbpunk says... #40

Yeah it's a little overpowered. I thought it up while slightly drunk. Maybe change it to a singular creature token?

July 26, 2015 9:52 a.m.

-Logician says... #41

dbpunk

I quote the original post:

  • "So my question is, is there anyone here on TappedOut that's interested in playtesting and offering opinions/ criticisms on the cards? If there is any interest, I can send the entire set we have so far and you can take a look. I don't really know of a way to put the whole set up here, and anyways it's too damn big so I don't think I'd want to."

It sounds to me like he's not looking to add new cards, and is instead looking to improve his current ones. I think the set, in terms of raw number of cards made, looks finished. If you check the statistics and look at the numbers in terms of rarity, his numbers are on-point. All I'm saying is that, while I don't want to speak for him, I had completely assumed that he wasn't looking to add new cards. To be fair though, I'm not sure.

In any case, creating a card that has Vanguard (which is similar to cascade) and a token generating ability on top of it just seems like two ideas roughly meshed into one. At this stage of the set's design, I feel like the act of adding a card needs to be backed with reasons. Having not playtested the set yet, I think you'll agree that it's unclear what new cards are healthy and necessary to append to the set.

July 26, 2015 11:49 a.m.

dbpunk says... #42

Sorry, I realize my mistake now and, as I said earlier, I was slightly drunk when I had posted that idea.

I also realize that yes, my idea was a rough draft. I thought that idea, however, would create a useful trick for any deck which uses vanguard into powerhouses, specifically since those colors do support token production very easily.

July 26, 2015 1:10 p.m.

Nemesis says... #43

dbpunk Thanks for the suggestion! But as -Logician already noted, we've got set one basically locked down as far as the cards that are in it. We're really only looking for card tweaks unless something is really out of line.

July 27, 2015 10:16 a.m.

HolyFalcon says... #44

Ok, finally got mse working. I'm just going to go through and edit all the stuff that needs editing if you haven't done it already.

July 27, 2015 10:26 a.m.

HolyFalcon says... #45

Here, I just edited the cards to make it correct wording and stuff. Some of the cards seem a bit too good though, but I didn't nerf anything. Dropbox Link

July 27, 2015 11:31 a.m.

HolyFalcon says... #46

Holy crap that took a whole hour...

July 27, 2015 11:32 a.m.

Nemesis says... #47

Magicrafter Sweet, thanks for the help. You said some seem a bit too good, care to specify? If anything seems a bit too powerful we'd definitely love to know why. Having fresh, unbiased eyes is always nice in this situation.

July 27, 2015 2:33 p.m.

HolyFalcon says... #48

Ok, I have some concern with the limited environment. I don't feel like BVanguard Lovin Weenie should be a common. It's just waaaay too good. I'll go through the set again and mark some of the more broken cards tomorrow, I have 8-3 every day this week for this kinda stuff so yeah.

July 27, 2015 2:44 p.m.

HolyFalcon says... #49

Is Everiax's ability a replacement effect or does the spell still resolve and target the creature?

SMoke Grenade Assassain: I think it needs worded differently. Are the permanents returned an opponents choice or your choice?

And here's an updated .mse. I missed some wording errors and I wrote in the notes box of some of the cards.

July 28, 2015 3:34 p.m.

This discussion has been closed