You Make the Set - Part 2

[Thomas David Baker]

Where: County Hotel

When: Monday July 5th 6pm (probable)

What: See Below

* You design and submit 45 Magic cards in Magic Set Editor format by Friday 2nd July to [e-mail]

* I print them, or you can if you have the facilities.

* On Monday 5th evening we cut them up, sleeve them and draft them.  (It was pretty boring cutting and sleeving 360 cards last time ... I'll bring a few pairs of scissors and we should be able to do it fairly swiftly prior to the draft.  I made the start time 6pm to allow for this.)

* What can possibly go wrong?

If you want to participate, sign up below.  I'm not particularly interested in limiting it to 8 and would rather include everyone who wants to be included, although possibly interest level is not enough to take us above 8.

Draft A - Color Centric

1. Thomas David Baker (mostly Black)

2. Kieran "Call Me Lola" Symington (mostly Red/White)

8. Gary Lynch (extra Blue)

11. Glenn Goldsworthy (mostly Green)

Draft B - Balanced Sets

9. Simon O'Keefe

13. Warren Vonk

3. Thom Richardson

Not Assigned

4. Ross Miles

5. Ben Titmarsh

6. Daniel Royde

7. Dan Barrett

10. Ed Gamble

12. Rik Powell

14. Paul Hodgson

15. Benjamin Lei

[Simon O'Keeffe]

Yes! Bring on Frog tribal. I was planning on secreting a few in my new submissions.

Rik Powell said:

Im interested again. I will try to create some more interesting cards.

I want to create more frogs...

[Thomas David Baker]

If people who are currently unassigned know if they want to be color centric or not they should say so so I can line people up in the right places.

[Simon O'Keeffe]

Well currently I think I'm mostly lands, as I want to include my cycle of common lands, but I imagine the rest of my cards will be an even colour split.

Thomas David Baker said:

If people who are currently unassigned know if they want to be color centric or not they should say so so I can line people up in the right places.

[Simon O'Keeffe]

Are we taking on any of the things we learnt from the 1st go of this? (as listed by Tom in the aftermath thread)

So probably enforcing some rarity distribution, and it also might be useful to put up all the cards prior to the actual draft. Two reasons for this, cards that are too powerful or don't work as intended can be fixed, and it will cut down some time for the actual draft when you may have read some of the cards before.

Obviously this lessens the fun of just being exposed to new cards for the first time, but if you wan't that, just don't look at the thread I guess.

[wv]

Are there restrictions on what we can design? Ie, only a certain number of a certain colour / type?

I was going to do:

6x Each colour (30) - each set of six includes: 1 rare, 2 uncommons, 3 commons
6x Artifacts - 1 rare, 2 uncommons, 3 commons
6x Multicoloured - 1 rare, 2 uncommons, 3 commons
3x Lands - 1 rare, 1 uncommon, 1 common

[Kieran Symington]

I had a look at some Starcity articles on this and when they did it they assigned one set to each player to look at and fix any cards that were too powerful or didn't work. Maybe we could do something similar and have people from one draft view submissions from the other and edit them as necessary. Then it wouldn't spoil the surprise.

sokeeffe said:

Are we taking on any of the things we learnt from the 1st go of this? (as listed by Tom in the aftermath thread)

So probably enforcing some rarity distribution, and it also might be useful to put up all the cards prior to the actual draft. Two reasons for this, cards that are too powerful or don't work as intended can be fixed, and it will cut down some time for the actual draft when you may have read some of the cards before.

Obviously this lessens the fun of just being exposed to new cards for the first time, but if you wan't that, just don't look at the thread I guess.

[Thomas David Baker]

There are no restrictions but I think a common feeling from our first experiment was that we had all gone a bit splashy-rare crazy and that it would actually have been better if we hadn't. So your list sounds good.

As you are making a color-balanced set of cards I'll put you in the balanced set draft.

I'm not sure how much editing people want to do in advance but if people want to submit their cards privately to one or more people in the other draft for some editing/constructive criticism then that sounds better to me than publishing them all in advance?

Warren Vonk said:

Are there restrictions on what we can design? Ie, only a certain number of a certain colour / type?
I was going to do: 6x Each colour (30) - each set of six includes: 1 rare, 2 uncommons, 3 commons
6x Artifacts - 1 rare, 2 uncommons, 3 commons
6x Multicoloured - 1 rare, 2 uncommons, 3 commons
3x Lands - 1 rare, 1 uncommon, 1 common

[Dan Barrett]

I think checking them a bit in advance would be good. A couple of cards i played against or saw others play against were brutally unfair and took away from the fun of it.

I won't be going as detailed on my distribution as Warren, but i'll make my set pretty much color balanced, and try and make the cards fair (they weren't far off last time), if a little skewed towards being rare.

[Rik Powell]

This might be a bit crazy but ...

We could build a full set, with rarity and commons and uncommons and then print out multiples of the commons and put them in a big common pile, less of the uncommons and 24 rares 3-4 mythic (or even more put we don't use them all) and then build representative boosters. With 10 commons, 3 uncommons and a rare or a random mythic.

It may end up that you get multiples of the same rarity in a pack but it would be more like a real, small set, draft. It wouldn't be that much harder to set up, just adds an extra stage of rarity sort in booster construction.

Just a thought.

[wv]

Also,

I'd like to insist on a NO MYTHICS rule for the following reason:

The Mythic rarity is nothing more than a blatant money grab by Wizards and has no place in this game.

[Ed Gamble]

could always just put up a spoiler for the cards as they are now, see how things stand and then work out how feasible a full set/ theme cube idea is. also useful for shouting at the makers of busted cards.

[wv]

I was thinking about UN vs Non-UN...

A set of 'serious' cards mixed with 'UN' cards isn't ever REALLY going to work - perhaps the sets should be separated into UN and SERIOUS sets respectively?