You Make the Set 5

[Thomas David Baker]

We are doing this in our Multiverse app:

http://mv.bluebones.net/

(Old shared Google spreadsheet for this is here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ag7TtjWsLhYkdHBBUHF4RG... )

Channel Fireball just did Top 8 Mechanics:

* Retrace

* Dredge

* Landfall (not for attacking like Steppe Lynx - Grazing Gladehart and Roil Elemental style)

* Scry

* Flashback

* Kicker

* Flying

* Cycling

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiNNg5aj-xo

I wonder if we could use that, or some of that, as the basis of You Make the Set 5.  I know that some of you were keen on Landfall.

Not sure when we would play it out but some time in late May probably?

[Thomas David Baker]

I retired all my Retrace and Landfall cards and a few commons that clearly weren't as good as others fighting for the same slots.

I want to change all reveals to "Play with the top card of your library revealed until end of turn" which we can shorten to "Foreshadow until end of turn".  Corrupt Seer and friends are just "Foreshadow".  And I want to change all Centaur mechanics to "If the top card of your library is revealed and is a creature, X" which we can also give a name if we want.  "Foreshadow Strength"??  Or we could call the two mechanics "Future Sight" and "Future Strength" or something similar.  Although "Future Sight until end of turn" sounds a bit meh.

Continuous reveal is maybe a little clunky but it is how all existing Future Sight cards work - Future Sight, Magus of the Future, Temporal Aperture, Oracle of Mul Daya.  It also makes things like the anthem work better with the centaurs and makes the centaurs better and better with looting.

So overall I think it is right?

Happy to throw everything out and start again or completely rethink this or cut Portent or cut the Centaur mechanic in the interests of making the best possible set if this really sounds terrible to folks.  This is just my best attempt to simplify and organize and start heading to 360 cards.  But if I'm way wrong we can do anything - it's our set after all.

[Thomas David Baker]

I might be going over the top with hating on Fateseal.  It is just Scry for your opponent.  Perhaps the answer is actually to add a few more Fateseal cards.  Or perhaps Fateseal is in the small set that follows? :)

[Thomas David Baker]

I think next up is some all-common testing from this subset.

I'm going to talk about uncommons in a second, but before I do, I need to stress one last time that it's important to complete your commons before advancing onto the uncommons. Your first playtest wants to be all common because it's the best way to make sure your themes and mechanics are loud enough and focused enough. The higher rarities will allow you to add more complexity (which is a good thing—New World Order isn't trying eliminate all complexity, just to contain it to fewer cards per booster opening) but that complexity can make it harder to ascertain what your set is doing.

 (From: http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/184 )

[Kieran Symington]

Like the new Portent, and agree that some new instants/flash guys would be good. Also I'm sure we could manage 1 or 2 more commons provided they don't duplicate effects.

Also okay to see Landfall & Retrace go. I kind of liked Unite but I suppose it isn't its moment right now.

[Kieran Symington]

Just retired loads of stuff. My Profile now looks a little empty.

[Thomas David Baker]

I really want to simplify the common centaurs so they all get the same pump. +2/+2 works best for me. Uncommons and Rares can get other pumps or other abilities (Trample in particular I think). What do you think?

[Thomas David Baker]

Anyone want to all-commons on Cockatrice?  Ping me in the chat!

[Simon O'Keeffe]

Tom - is it possible to create a new set/shard based on the skeleton and import the cards we thing are almost definites? Then ideally you would have an ability to promote a card from the design file to the set and assign it to a slot. Sounds like a lot of work. I guess this is why wizards design for slots not just a bunch of cards!

[Thomas David Baker]

That might be a good idea Simon.  I'll think about how we could do it.

For now I have reverse engineered an online card creator and generated some proxies and I'm heading to Nottingham.  I will try and find some playtesters!  The program will have the ability to generate and display the proxies soon which I guess means I'll have to add an art upload ...

[Thomas David Baker]

Some updates on multiverse.

- Anyone can now retire any card.  Use your new powers for good, please.

- Main page sorts by most recently updated by default not set order.  You can still click on the "C" at the top of the cost column for set order.

- The page now mostly updates in place when you make a change and the page does not reload.

- It should all (except the card dialog) be loading quite a bit faster.

Coming soon:

- Proxies and possibly art upload.

[Thomas David Baker]

Played a bunch of commons-only games with Louis with the commons I suggested above.  Have a bunch of feedback.  All I can remember is that Mania Shards is broken.  He also hated Skysoul Lark and refused to play it but he is dead wrong about that!  Oh, and we had good times with Angry Giant and Tower Sentinels.

[Thomas David Baker]

I made a bunch of notes on individual cards in Multiverse from playing all-commons and from a draft we did.

Some more general notes:

* Fliers are really good.  When we actually get things into a design skeleton this will calm down a bit.

* The format is awash with 2/2s.  Again when we design skeleton up we will be cutting a bunch and making this distribution a little more sensible.  Uncommons get to be bigger than commons so when we do that we should see some larger creatures.

* Centaur tribal is a thing (there are a lot of centaurs and a lot of them interact favorably with each other) but the fact that they all share a creature type is not used on any cards.

* Wizard tribal is only minorly a thing.  We actually don't have many Wizards at common in our skeleton choices, I don't think.  I'd like to push this harder.

* The lifegain deck, the looting deck and the centaur deck all seem real and at least somewhat competitive.

* It's possible there is too much synergy in the set!  In our five-man draft each player had some combo/synergy component to their deck.  James was worldly tutoring for centaurs in his centaur deck with centaurs in play to reveal it.  Thomas had lifegain and both Searing Meditation and Soulstoking.  I had lifegain with both Vital Librarian and Vigorous Study.  The other Thomas had Dredge and discard cards and ways to take advantage of that.  And Louis was in UR pinging with Hissing Conspirator and making four 4/4 Giants for 6.  That said it would be less pronounced with the commons distribution set up as we intend and everyone seemed to really enjoy their decks!

* The feel of our draft was more like cube than limited.  There are hardly any Gruesome Encores or even Scroll of Griselbrands in our set.  I read in one of the Maro design skeleton articles that their current thinking (2010 article?)  that limited is more fun when you stretch for your last few cards rather than to cut.  I had at least 35 playables in my draft.  This is (again!) something that may change a little when we use our intended rarity distribution.  But we need to ask - do we want actual dead or nearly-unplayable cards in our set to feel more like "normal" limited?  Or we could consider radical alternatives like making the set intended to be played with boosters with less cards in.