You Make the Draft III - Aftermath

[Simon O'Keeffe]

We got off to a bit of a rocky start, with Tim being ambushed by his boss as he popped in on Saturday monring to print his cards. So Kieran, Glenn and I went ahead and cut and sleeved all our cards, and played a handful of 3 player drafts and multiplayer games. Highlight was Kieran having his library removed from the game as he had just finished setting up a pretty impenatrable defense.

 

Tim turned up later, sans cards, but we had enough spare to play some 4 player drafts which were great fun.

Major themes were Supernatural, Wizards, Frogs, and Bears.

MSE file is here:

YouMakeTheDraft_20120303

 

Some standout/memorable cards:

How does it work?

Nobody knows!

 

And of course the deadly combo of:

And who could forget Kieran's love for:

[Crispin Bateman]

I'm interested in this too, but I'd like o make a point, which is that at the moment, all your cards are rares. Commons are common because they turn up regularly, rares are rare because they turn up rarely. Simon, as general organiser, you should be in charge of making packs and ensuring multiple copies of commons across them. Thus each person need not design 45 cards, but maybe 3 rares, 7 uncommons and 15 commons to add to the pool, and Simon could mix these up to make appropriate packs.

Also, I think cards which are blatantly unglued type things should be out, lol, like that daft turtle. But that's just me.

[Simon O'Keeffe]

I think Kieran, Glenn, Tim and I actually did a pretty good job of balancing our designs across the rarities. Certainly we probably had more complexity than a standard magic set, and the power level is probably also slightly above normal, but we had plenty of cards that were certainly commons.

This attempt was more "You Make the Cube" than "You Make the Set", so we weren't too worried about the highlander nature of it, but if there is clamour for taking the "You Make the Set" approach and having multiples of commons then I'm happy to do it that way.

Regarding the Unglued side of things, I'm generally of the same opinion as you Crispin, they tend to be funny once and then just irritating, but as it happened some of the sillier cards provided the biggest laughs and most fun, which in the end is why I'm doing it. I can certainly see that things like Megaturtle won't be so funny the fourth or fifth time you play with it.

Crispin Bateman said:

I'm interested in this too, but I'd like o make a point, which is that at the moment, all your cards are rares. Commons are common because they turn up regularly, rares are rare because they turn up rarely. Simon, as general organiser, you should be in charge of making packs and ensuring multiple copies of commons across them. Thus each person need not design 45 cards, but maybe 3 rares, 7 uncommons and 15 commons to add to the pool, and Simon could mix these up to make appropriate packs.

Also, I think cards which are blatantly unglued type things should be out, lol, like that daft turtle. But that's just me.

[Charlie Grover]

In for the 31st for sure. Also I prefer a you make the cube style draft rather than a set, but thats just me

Simon O'Keeffe said:

I think Kieran, Glenn, Tim and I actually did a pretty good job of balancing our designs across the rarities. Certainly we probably had more complexity than a standard magic set, and the power level is probably also slightly above normal, but we had plenty of cards that were certainly commons.

This attempt was more "You Make the Cube" than "You Make the Set", so we weren't too worried about the highlander nature of it, but if there is clamour for taking the "You Make the Set" approach and having multiples of commons then I'm happy to do it that way.

Regarding the Unglued side of things, I'm generally of the same opinion as you Crispin, they tend to be funny once and then just irritating, but as it happened some of the sillier cards provided the biggest laughs and most fun, which in the end is why I'm doing it. I can certainly see that things like Megaturtle won't be so funny the fourth or fifth time you play with it.

Crispin Bateman said:

I'm interested in this too, but I'd like o make a point, which is that at the moment, all your cards are rares. Commons are common because they turn up regularly, rares are rare because they turn up rarely. Simon, as general organiser, you should be in charge of making packs and ensuring multiple copies of commons across them. Thus each person need not design 45 cards, but maybe 3 rares, 7 uncommons and 15 commons to add to the pool, and Simon could mix these up to make appropriate packs.

Also, I think cards which are blatantly unglued type things should be out, lol, like that daft turtle. But that's just me.

[Kieran Symington]

I would be up for doing this on the 31st.

As far as having multiples of commons goes, I'd prefer to have a lot different cards available because it makes games more interesting when you can't be as sure what you might get, and it allows for more accidental awesome combos.

[Dan Barrett]

I would also prefer to have singletons.

Shall we agree on a few creature types/mechanics everyone will do a couple of, or is that not necessary?

[Simon O'Keeffe]

Looks like the cube style singletons makeup is the popular choice.

Regarding creature types I think if you want to support any tribal themes then yes we should decide on some creature types ahead of time. If we don't and one person decides to try and support it in their 45 and they are the only one to do so it will probably fall flat.

As for mechanics I don't think it is quite as necessary, unless you are really keen on using something that requires a lot of support like Affinity, Domain, or Infect.

In the set we just did the mechanics were pretty spread out with only Cycling and Flashback, plus my Deathbound mechanic getting more than a handful of cards.

Dan Barrett said:

I would also prefer to have singletons.

Shall we agree on a few creature types/mechanics everyone will do a couple of, or is that not necessary?

[Glenn Goldsworthy]

I should be free for this, Simon I think a few of my cards need a bit of a change if you have any suggestions drop me an e-mail, I will have a think as well

[Thomas David Baker]

@Charlie - are you seriously saying you have a University network that blocks sourceforge?  http://sourceforge.net/projects/magicseteditor/files/Magic%20Set%20...  -- you should get someone to sort that out!  Through violent protest if necessary!

[Simon O'Keeffe]

I think the main issue with your cards is that due to all the self referencing going on in them that they are just going to get lost if we up to ~350 cards.

Also they will start to be out of flavour with the rest of the submissions if everyone sticks to the standard fantasy tropes that magic has. Perhaps we can rework the names/references and get others to include the supernatural sub-type on some of their submissions?

Or did you want to create new cards?

Glenn Goldsworthy said:

I should be free for this, Simon I think a few of my cards need a bit of a change if you have any suggestions drop me an e-mail, I will have a think as well

[Dan Barrett]

Better to use (at least mostly) new cards each time, no?

[Thomas David Baker]

I like the idea of refining to a nice set.

But I also find funny cards funny and new cards fun.

There may be conflicting goals at work here.  Hopefully there is room to indulge all sides.

[Glenn Goldsworthy]

I will not get the time to do a full set before then (wedding stuff on the go all the time), I will however happily change the cards