The "Let's Design a Set Together" Game
- Thread starter turgy22
- Start date
L
Limited
Guest
Cute, simple.
I like it.
AintNoFang - 1GG
Creature - Wolf
3/3
I like it.
AintNoFang - 1GG
Creature - Wolf
3/3
L
Limited
Guest
Yeah.. I wanted to make some weird Wolf, but my inspiration left right after (or before) i typed in the name..
What ability would be typically wolvish?
What ability would be typically wolvish?
L
Limited
Guest
Lobo 2BG
Creature - Wolf
XB, Sac Lobo: Target Wolf gets +X/+X until end of turn
2/2
Creature - Wolf
XB, Sac Lobo: Target Wolf gets +X/+X until end of turn
2/2
Hmm..... then perhaps a new name for the keyword would be nice.
I'm really not a fan of making keyword mechanics exclusive to one color. Ravinca Block did the whole "one per guild" thing and it was nice for flavor and all, but it flooded the game with too many mechanics. I was a big fan of when there was 2 new mechanics per block. Mirage Block - Phasing and Flanking; Rath Cycle - Buyback and Shadow; Urza's Cycle - Cycle and Echo; etc.
Sorry, I seemed to have ranted off in a tangent. But the point I'm trying to make is if we make a keyword exclusive to one color, it has to be balanced out somewhere. I really don't want to see exclusive mechanics in our set, so lemme change this......
Duck/Tunnel/Shelter (<this> can not be blocked by creatures with flying)
Ransac, cpa trash man
I'm really not a fan of making keyword mechanics exclusive to one color. Ravinca Block did the whole "one per guild" thing and it was nice for flavor and all, but it flooded the game with too many mechanics. I was a big fan of when there was 2 new mechanics per block. Mirage Block - Phasing and Flanking; Rath Cycle - Buyback and Shadow; Urza's Cycle - Cycle and Echo; etc.
Sorry, I seemed to have ranted off in a tangent. But the point I'm trying to make is if we make a keyword exclusive to one color, it has to be balanced out somewhere. I really don't want to see exclusive mechanics in our set, so lemme change this......
Duck/Tunnel/Shelter (<this> can not be blocked by creatures with flying)
Ransac, cpa trash man
Mooseman
Isengar Tussle
Why use a keyword at all?
The rules text "can block as though it has flying" isn't keyworded.
I say we can "keyword" for our own purposes, but don't add them to any cards, add the rules text.
I'm planing a few more cards with "root" for green.
Rooting Bayorn
2G
2/2
Creature - Bear
<this> can not be blocked by creatures with flying
Common
The rules text "can block as though it has flying" isn't keyworded.
I say we can "keyword" for our own purposes, but don't add them to any cards, add the rules text.
I'm planing a few more cards with "root" for green.
Rooting Bayorn
2G
2/2
Creature - Bear
<this> can not be blocked by creatures with flying
Common
L
Limited
Guest
I personally like abilities that match to certain 'groups', beit creatures of same color or of same type. Like how Ninjitsu was only on Black and Blue creatures, while Bushido was focussed on White and Red..
It adds to flavor.
As for only two per block: we'll get to that as we start narrowing down what kind of set we want to make. Better have enough ideas before we start cutting them.
Besides, even if we start with the keyword being 'green-only', all you have to do is design a card on which it would fit to change our mind..
It adds to flavor.
As for only two per block: we'll get to that as we start narrowing down what kind of set we want to make. Better have enough ideas before we start cutting them.
Besides, even if we start with the keyword being 'green-only', all you have to do is design a card on which it would fit to change our mind..
L
Limited
Guest
I'm against it! You already get too many of the same common as it is. Its kinda like the Art differences in Alliances.
L
Limited
Guest
Are already too much alike, but I'd be willing to look the other way