You Make the Set 6

[Thomas David Baker]

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!

[Thomas David Baker]

WUR mechanic.

Something like an ETB Threaten?  Fits R and U but not W so much.  See Zedruu.

Something to do with Flying?

I don't have many ideas here.

[Kieran Symington]

I was thinking they could potentially just have an equipment + enchantment theme rather than their own mechanic, representing that their soldiers are more highly skilled and disciplined than others. Possibly with an ability that lets you transmute creatures for enchantments, or an aura version of living weapon that lets you make a 1/1 soldier then chose to attach the aura to it.

Thomas David Baker said:

WUR mechanic.

Something like an ETB Threaten?  Fits R and U but not W so much.  See Zedruu.

Something to do with Flying?

I don't have many ideas here.

[Kieran Symington]

Oh, and good work on all the design skeleton stuff!

[Thomas David Baker]

I think the aura idea is interesting.  You can either put the aura on an existing creature (giving it "haste") or you can choose not to attach it in which case you Living Weapon it on to a 1/1 soldier.  That seems like it would have a bunch of design space from +1/+1 to crazy wild rare-like abilities.

[Simon O'Keeffe]

Thoughts regarding card breakdowns:

    Total

69 cards per wedge * 5 = 345

15 non-aligned (5 land, 5 artifact, 5 ?)

I think we want some non-aligned cards, most likely lands and artifacts such as Transguild Promenade, equipment, 5 colour support?

Per Wedge:

    Lands (6)

2 wedge fixing lands (cipt, ?)

2 enemy pair fixing lands (scars duals, ?)

1 mechanic support

1 ?

    Artifacts (6)

2 mana fixing (sigils, ?)

1 equipment

3 ?

    Mono Colour (27)

9 primary colour

9 enemy colour #1

9 enemy colour #2

    Mono Colour with Enemy/Wedge flavour (6)

4 enemy colour

2 wedge

    Hybrid (3)

2 Enemy Pair

1 Wedge

    Enemy Pair (12)

6 enemy Pair #1

6 enemy Pair #2

   Wedge (9)

9 tri-colour Wedge

I've given Enemy Pair colour cards a bit more room, as they are the easiest multi-colour cards that work across wedges, plus they are a bit easier to design.

[Kieran Symington]

The wedge breakdown looks good - definitely makes sense to have more mono-colour cards, with the Wedge cards as the more powerful uncommons & rares, giving you good reason to draft a particular wedge combination, though with 1-2 common wedge cards with mechanical relevance.

Mechanics-wise, I'm not sure what proportion of each wedge should be given over to the relevant mechanic, but I'd say less than a third should directly reference any particular mechanic (about 17 per wedge), with the rest being generic good/mediocre stuff that can fit into multiple archetypes so we don't end up in Towerfall land where you're just trying to make a combo deck!

Also, any chance of putting up a design skeleton with the new card breakdown in at some point?

[Thomas David Baker]

Good numbers.

Re: Surge - would it make sense just to make it "when you cast a spell" for simplicity?  A G wedge shouldn't really be encouraging you not to play creatures?

[Thomas David Baker]

In http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/132 Maro has eight commons from 60 referencing his mechanic.

So I'd say we try and stick to that kind of proportion for mechanics unless we have a good reason otherwise.  That's 48 "mechanical" cards in the set.  9 or 10 for each mechanic.

It sounds like very few but if you look at Towerfall you see what happens when you include mechanic relevance in too many places (my fault, I know!)  Living Weapon for example felt very much a part of Mirrodin Beseiged with just one Common and three Uncommons (plus a Rare and a Mythic).  That's in a set with 65 commons and 41 uncommons.  About 1 in 40 cards in any given draft had Living Weapon but it was still a real part of the set.

[Simon O'Keeffe]

Hmm, I see your point, I just didn't want it to be a no-brainer and super easy to activate. I think it will really require play experience to judge how often you can trigger it, how often you actually use it, and how good is it.

In my head I'm kind of looking at the wedges as how the enemy colour pair would modify the primary colour. So for green, it is focusing a little more on spells, more on the self, and more on logic over nature. Maybe not the best way to do it.

Thomas David Baker said:

Good numbers.

Re: Surge - would it make sense just to make it "when you cast a spell" for simplicity?  A G wedge shouldn't really be encouraging you not to play creatures?

[Thomas David Baker]

I have been looking at what does the coming together of these three colors (and the absence of the other two) mean.

I think our problem is complexity not being brain-dead.  We should test it both ways, anyway.

[Paul Hodgson]

re Soulswap, I think it's pretty bad and definitely in need of some support in the rest of the set. How about some dudes with on death triggered abilities, that way you actually want to soulswap them for something? 

[Thomas David Baker]

Agreed Paul we need ETB and death triggers probably.  Not millions of them but enough that you can pick out a sweet Soulswap deck rather than it just be some random way to swap a 2/2 for a 1/3 or whatever.  Kieran seems to have taken the suggestion on Multiverse (or maybe it was you?)