Demonic Tutor

Magic: the Gathering in the UK

So, what's the plan for this.  I'll either clear out Multiverse or add multiple set capability to it in the next few days.

But let's do some predesign(tm).  What's the plan for this set?

What's the theme?

Update: Multiverse now has the Wedges set in it.  Please do contribute - all are welcome to add cards or just comment on cards created by others!

Views: 943

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Certainly worth bearing in mind, although I think the issue there was that we had 4 archetypes and only 4, where I think Tom is suggesting more of a subtle archetype support like in Innistrad.

To do this I think requires making very broad open ended cards, and very specific narrow cards. This sounds like it is in opposition to each other, but you need to have very niche cards that are just worthless in some archetypes but absolutely key in others (think of Burning Vengeance, Bone Wurm,  ). These are powerful but narrow cards, and then the broad cards are usually not so powerful but can be used in multiple archetypes (think of the 1/4 Blue zombie guy. Perfectly fine as a just a Horned Turtle, but great in the self-mill deck, the zombie deck and the flashback deck).

The other benefit to multiple archetypes and narrow cards is that you don't end up with a huge glut of playables during drafting as most of the narrow cards will do nothing for you.

Glenn Goldsworthy said:

I'm really not sure about making cards to fit architypes is a good idea, that was the issue with the last one when building we worked on cards for certain decks and ended up having drafts with no variation, I would suggest stearing clear of this plan.

In my mind I have the wedges split into roughly the following archetypes:

GUB - Aggro/Control

URG - Combo/Ramp

WBR - Aggro

BGW - Midrange

RWU - Control

Hopefully the borders of these wedges are mutable enough that cards will be valid in multiple wedges. The only slight awkward one I see is WBR -> RWU. Here the aggro RW cards don't seem such a good fit for RW control. I'm sure we can solve that.

Kieran Symington said:

What we really need to do is to set the format up so that the aggro decks are quick enough to beat the control decks, but will be held off long enough by the more midrange decks to let them take over, which in turn are beaten by the control decks who have a superior long game. We certainly need to make aggro viable, but not too powerful, and probably concentrated in one or two colour pairings.

I have a Bakerverse feature request, which isn't really needed right now, but almost certainly will be once the set gets big enough.

Can we have the ability to watermark or tag a card as belonging to a specific wedge?

This will then allow us to search and sort by wedge, and/or see them in a wedge section in the stats page.

Just some tidying up on my two ability words.

The WBR ability I proposed is now called Overwhelm. Otherwise it's exactly the same.

Soulswap is now going to be worded as "Soulswap X (You may cast this creature from your graveyard by sacrifice a creature with converted mana cost X or greater as an additional cost)" because this is way cleaner on the card and makes the ability relevant on creatures in the graveyard rather than in play.

Does CMC even have to come into it?

"4WW, Sacrifice a creature: Return ~ to the Battlefield.  Play this ability only from your graveyard and only any time you could cast a Sorcery."

is simpler.

Although it does change the nature of the ability a fair bit.

The ability would be incredibly powerful if you could trade your chaff for your bombs. Plus the CMC requirement helps create some tension in draft and deck building (especially at higher costs), since you have to factor in which creatures you can actually Soulswap.

I assume you also don't want to be able to loop 2 creatures indefinitely with it.

So once again I've kind of fallen into the habit of just posting a bunch of things up on the Bakerverse with no coherent strategy. Still not sure what RUG is supposed to be doing, though RWU seems to be developing a co-operation theme through Russ' cards that could definitely work.

Work has been busy so I haven't been able to devote huge amounts of time to this.

My take on URG if sticking to the political analogies, is that they are the anarchists/revolutionaries of the piece. Always striving for change, just for changes sake. They are the proactive side of blue, constantly wanting to test theories through endeavour and magic rather than technology. In my mind they are more of a natural force than an organised group, and would be predominantly made of of creatures rather than humans with classes.

Kieran Symington said:

So once again I've kind of fallen into the habit of just posting a bunch of things up on the Bakerverse with no coherent strategy. Still not sure what RUG is supposed to be doing, though RWU seems to be developing a co-operation theme through Russ' cards that could definitely work.

Some Bakerverse feature requests for Tom:

Could you please make it possible to show 'wedge' cards - basically all the cards in three colours, two colour cards in two of those colours and wedge cards for that particular wedge? It would make it much easier to see what's going on in each wedge! (This might be a bit awkward to actually do, so if not fine)

Put back the entry that shows the person designing the card when it's made! I like to know a) who's involved in designing things and b) which things I've made and can therefore safely retire (sometimes I forget and somethimes things get designed by other people just before I can suggest the same thing!).

Yeah I think a way of tagging 'wedge' cards would be nice, as some mono coloured cards are in specific wedges.

I can pretty safely say that anything you haven't designed has been done by me, certainly in the last week. (except for Bakers cool 5/5 snake)

Kieran Symington said:

Some Bakerverse feature requests for Tom:

Could you please make it possible to show 'wedge' cards - basically all the cards in three colours, two colour cards in two of those colours and wedge cards for that particular wedge? It would make it much easier to see what's going on in each wedge! (This might be a bit awkward to actually do, so if not fine)

Put back the entry that shows the person designing the card when it's made! I like to know a) who's involved in designing things and b) which things I've made and can therefore safely retire (sometimes I forget and somethimes things get designed by other people just before I can suggest the same thing!).

Put back the entry that shows the person designing the card when it's made.

Where did this used to live and what did it say?  I haven't intentionally removed it (or, really, changed anything) so I'm a bit confused what is missing.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2020   Created by Thomas David Baker.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service