I tried to get the WWK set imported into MWS as well and so far have had absolutely no luck. Sitting here with a .txt file that I have no idea how to use. I tried using CXA's youtube video and got to the point where it wanted me to export the cards from MSE and realized I don't have the options he does on the video. My only option is to export it as a spoiler. Any help would be appreciated.
I had been designing the cards so that the player would be able to purchase their own spells, but with 2HG that might present a problem...
I'll have to think about that.
Gather the Horde probably is too much power. Perhaps 6 goblins? or 5? The idea for the card was that if the opponent purchased it from you the card would sort of cancel out...
Say we are playing a normal standard game of Magic.
Player 2 is tapped out. Player 1 plays Requitted Extraction. Player 1 then pays the purchase cost of the card getting another copy of it. The card now reads as follows:
3B
Sorcery
Target player discards two cards and loses four life.
or
4B
Sorcery
Target player discards three cards and loses six life.
It is happening as a spell and a copied spell, but the effect is basically the same unless there are counterspells involved (in which case this is slightly better than the one above.) Doesn't that seem a little strong / not flavorful to you? As it is it is basically Replicate with an opponent being able to replicate things if you can't time it well. Seems a little too good. (Every time the copy is placed on the stack the copy has the purchase ability as well, so it can be paid making another copy etc etc.)
Another good example is how good that life gain card can be:
As purchase stands now it can be "bought" by the player casting the spell. That makes many of these cards very odd / overpowered. I think you mean to have it be each other player or even "each opponent" to prevent 2Headed Giant shenanigans.
Tax collector looks odd with 4 being the required cost. I would make it 2 instead.
I rather like salvation.
Fierce Debate doesn't need to be double blue.
Private Study is very awkwardly worded. Not entirely sure what the fix is.
Gather the Horde is 16 Hasted power for 7. And think about this card in 2headed Giant. That would be rather disgusting.
Spited Shot with no self-purchase is bad, with self purchase it isn't.
Trying to find a good way to print out these cards and running into a bit of a problem. The program I am doing doesn't export cards in the proper size. I can resize them one by one after I insert them into a word document or something but that's annoying and it seems like there must be a better way of doing it. Also if I save the document and reopen it things get moved around / randomly deleted to the point where I have to redo several of the pages.
Is there a fast / easy way to get 9 pictures per page in any program you all know about? If anyone here prints their cards for playtesting I would like to hear how exactly you all go about it.
Edit: Hmm... Ogre Arsonist says it's alright to have a 3/3 unc at CMC 5 destroy a land. Seeing that Soil Feeder gains landwalk of the removed card's basic land types, I'm still on the fence...
I think thats apples to oranges given the fact that arsonist can kill stuff you don't control and your feeder hits your own land.
I don't know about the comparisions being completely on par there, but I understood your point. The cost was 1BB originally and I changed it from the set to the forums because it looked underpowered.
Burn Baby Burn- The goal of this spell is to try to get people to chose between creatures and lands. I have been going back and forth between having this hit players as well, but it might be a bit awkward if it was hitting players.
It is meant to be a conditional board wiping card. Basically it will clean the slate unless a player forfeits some of their land to keep their critters. What would you do to change it? Making it 6 minus up to 4 seems interesting, but is that too powerful? Or keep it at 5 and make it hit players? Remodel it? I'd love to hear any suggestions.
Earthly Renewal -Glad you like it. I really like this incarnation of this card.
What do you all think about the "As long as you control X or more lands" type effects anyway? I used it a long time ago randomly and then when I saw scute mob decided to make it a sub-theme in this set and the one that will follow. I think if done correctly it could be cool as a powerful late game activator and something that makes an ok card better by helping it fit two slots. Then again, none of the cards I have done work that way yet... but I'm working on it!
Good, it shouldn't be a debate. It should be an apology.
If you're interested in seeing if your card is functionally inferior to other cards, research other cards. I will assume you've done such research, and thus if you give me the following card:
Shocking 1R
Instant
This deals 2 damage to target creature.
I'm going to assume that you decided to make it functionally inferior than dozens of fair/ballanced cards. And you're not gonna get any points for it.
I think what you are going for here is the thought of "Strictly better" but that is a rather hard thing to pull on someone unless it is completely true and there is context to support it. A lot can be said about something very similar to what you brought up when you compare Shock to Lightning Bolt and Cancel to Counterspell. They are changes, but not inherently bad cards. They are signals that WOTC wants burn to be stronger and hard counters to be weaker. That doesn't mean it was a mistake to print both cards or that we will never see Counterspell or Shock again, it is just a change.
That said, it's clear he's trying to do too much with his cards. As far as I can tell, half of his cards are modal spells that give only 2 options. He puts these same near-identicle options on creatures now, and he has other cards that do 2 or more either near-identicle, or unrelated things in over-complicated ways.
All choices don't have to be polar opposites. But you consider this to be not enough difference for each card and that is your opinion. I respect that.
So the question is this: Does he want to accelerate you? Or does he want to give you a forestwalker? I see no reason why these two need to be on the same card unless you're trying to do something interesting. Like that 2/1 w/ forestwalk who tutored a forest for any player.
Why does it need to be on different cards? Flavorfully they can both fit on without being a huge issue. Leafweaver implies an extremely strong connection to nature or ability to change it to its will. Having Forestwalk seems to fit it fairly well. Green also has a strong tradition of land search, so it doesn't seem too far fetched to be the purpose or the role that this card fulfills. Flavorfully: The Forestwalk part is "what it is" and the land search is "what it does". I don't see how that is much of a stretch.
The card I constructed captured the "you choose the landwalk" ability without the memory issues. As far as I can tell, he has other spells for actually tutoring lands. And given that he's high on shuffle-effects as is, it's trouble.
Yes yours does not have memory issues and yes it seems like a more elegant version than his blue card. I'm not saying you are bad at your job or that you are wholey inaccurate in your assessments, I am just saying you could be less abrasive about your opinions is all.
This makes me think of what I wanted Teetering Peaks to do at first.
Teetering Peaks
Land
~ comes into play tapped with a Teetering counter on it. T: add W to your mana pool. 2W, T, remove a Teetering counter from ~: Destroy target attacking creature.
I think I'd rather play both the substandard white planeshift lightningbolt AND any number of swords to plowshares variants over this.
What you would rather play is often not going to be the major draw in designing cards. Would you rather play [Insert a huge list of 5 cost white creatures] over Caravan Hurda? Why yes I would, but that doesn't mean that the Hurda saw print by accident. Not every card is going to be cool, game changing or even very powerful in certain settings. If this set is low on white removal this card could be very useful in limited. While I could say "Path to Exile > This" that would be dumbing down design far too much.
So let me ask you something - are you trying to design cards people won't like for your fantasy card set? Because I have enough trouble with WOTC doing this. You've got all the time in the world so if you want to design a limited-only card that won't affect contructed, why don't you do a multiplayer variant? Or at least make it playable in one obscure/odd constructed deck (think Dragonstorm, but less good).
This is just offensive and clearly not helpful.
Remember, white already has the power to put an attacking creature on the bottom of its owner's library. This is just insulting.
Same
Then maybe substandard modal spells shouldn't be a theme of the set.
No "need" as in "WOTC won't fire you if you don't bother adding a new keyword" or no "need" as in "there is no reason to"? Because there are plenty of reasons to. #1 reason? It increases the utility of the cards; even thought the cards are overcosted!
Keywords are often limited to specific sets for specific reasons. While it would be cool to take the best from every set and toss them all into your new ultra-cool custom set with nine or ten old set-only keywords and a half dozen of your own, it loses cohesion and ends up looking like a hodge-podge of random cards rather than a set.
No. The reason to print this card is that you can't decide between two very similar abilities. Flexibility is awesome. Near-same flexibility is odd, but sometimes neat. But when you're putting it on a 2/2 for 4, it's clear you're not interested in the flexibility, rather you're apparently interested in shoving as much stuff on a card as possible. It's super-ineligant.
Both interesting mid-range come into play abilities on creatures that don't seem that off. Orzhov even has a pretty similar dualistic feel to it (animate v return to hand)
Also, try to avoid things like "It is clear you are just trying to [insert insult here]" That is not constructive in the least.
Maybe make it cost RR so it's like a ball lightning variant...
Closest thing to helpful you have come.
You mean there's a card that will never see play in your set at the common slot, thus making us all envy benidiction of moons? No thanks.
Yes, he means there are more cards in his set that he is alluding to before sharing in its entirety. No, you do not have to be insulting on the cards you have already seen as well as ones you haven't seen yet.
Memory issues, too much text, and landwalk because you're too lazy to ballance the format in such a way that avoids unfun unblockable creatures?
Traveler1G
Creature - Dryad (U)
When ~ comes into play, search your library for a basic land card and exile it. Shuffle. As long as that land is exiled, ~ has the corresponding landwalk ability.
2/1
Happy? Now it deck-thins and gives you reason to run 1-of of all lands even in a mono-colored deck.
It also functions signifigantly differently by making the landwalk mutable and not allowing for any form of accelerant (which is what his card is looking to do). While this is more constructive than the rest of your post, it is still offensive. Please try to keep the malice to a minimum.
When Leafweaver enters the battlefield, you may search your library for a basic land card, reveal it, then shuffle your library and put that card on top of it.
Leafweaver has landwalk of the revealed card’s land type.
2/1
Memory issues and ugly IMO. Your first one was a much better design.
Yada lock was not fun.
Say we are playing a normal standard game of Magic.
Player 2 is tapped out. Player 1 plays Requitted Extraction. Player 1 then pays the purchase cost of the card getting another copy of it. The card now reads as follows:
3B
Sorcery
Target player discards two cards and loses four life.
or
4B
Sorcery
Target player discards three cards and loses six life.
It is happening as a spell and a copied spell, but the effect is basically the same unless there are counterspells involved (in which case this is slightly better than the one above.) Doesn't that seem a little strong / not flavorful to you? As it is it is basically Replicate with an opponent being able to replicate things if you can't time it well. Seems a little too good. (Every time the copy is placed on the stack the copy has the purchase ability as well, so it can be paid making another copy etc etc.)
Another good example is how good that life gain card can be:
XW
Sorcery
Gain 3(X+1) life.
Tax collector looks odd with 4 being the required cost. I would make it 2 instead.
I rather like salvation.
Fierce Debate doesn't need to be double blue.
Private Study is very awkwardly worded. Not entirely sure what the fix is.
Gather the Horde is 16 Hasted power for 7. And think about this card in 2headed Giant. That would be rather disgusting.
Spited Shot with no self-purchase is bad, with self purchase it isn't.
Is there a fast / easy way to get 9 pictures per page in any program you all know about? If anyone here prints their cards for playtesting I would like to hear how exactly you all go about it.
Thanks,
Photic
I think thats apples to oranges given the fact that arsonist can kill stuff you don't control and your feeder hits your own land.
Agreed.
Burn Baby Burn- The goal of this spell is to try to get people to chose between creatures and lands. I have been going back and forth between having this hit players as well, but it might be a bit awkward if it was hitting players.
It is meant to be a conditional board wiping card. Basically it will clean the slate unless a player forfeits some of their land to keep their critters. What would you do to change it? Making it 6 minus up to 4 seems interesting, but is that too powerful? Or keep it at 5 and make it hit players? Remodel it? I'd love to hear any suggestions.
Earthly Renewal -Glad you like it. I really like this incarnation of this card.
What do you all think about the "As long as you control X or more lands" type effects anyway? I used it a long time ago randomly and then when I saw scute mob decided to make it a sub-theme in this set and the one that will follow. I think if done correctly it could be cool as a powerful late game activator and something that makes an ok card better by helping it fit two slots. Then again, none of the cards I have done work that way yet... but I'm working on it!
Good, it shouldn't be a debate. It should be an apology.
I think what you are going for here is the thought of "Strictly better" but that is a rather hard thing to pull on someone unless it is completely true and there is context to support it. A lot can be said about something very similar to what you brought up when you compare Shock to Lightning Bolt and Cancel to Counterspell. They are changes, but not inherently bad cards. They are signals that WOTC wants burn to be stronger and hard counters to be weaker. That doesn't mean it was a mistake to print both cards or that we will never see Counterspell or Shock again, it is just a change.
All choices don't have to be polar opposites. But you consider this to be not enough difference for each card and that is your opinion. I respect that.
Why does it need to be on different cards? Flavorfully they can both fit on without being a huge issue. Leafweaver implies an extremely strong connection to nature or ability to change it to its will. Having Forestwalk seems to fit it fairly well. Green also has a strong tradition of land search, so it doesn't seem too far fetched to be the purpose or the role that this card fulfills. Flavorfully: The Forestwalk part is "what it is" and the land search is "what it does". I don't see how that is much of a stretch.
Yes yours does not have memory issues and yes it seems like a more elegant version than his blue card. I'm not saying you are bad at your job or that you are wholey inaccurate in your assessments, I am just saying you could be less abrasive about your opinions is all.
-Photic
Teetering Peaks
Land
~ comes into play tapped with a Teetering counter on it.
T: add W to your mana pool.
2W, T, remove a Teetering counter from ~: Destroy target attacking creature.
What you would rather play is often not going to be the major draw in designing cards. Would you rather play [Insert a huge list of 5 cost white creatures] over Caravan Hurda? Why yes I would, but that doesn't mean that the Hurda saw print by accident. Not every card is going to be cool, game changing or even very powerful in certain settings. If this set is low on white removal this card could be very useful in limited. While I could say "Path to Exile > This" that would be dumbing down design far too much.
This is just offensive and clearly not helpful.
Same
Keywords are often limited to specific sets for specific reasons. While it would be cool to take the best from every set and toss them all into your new ultra-cool custom set with nine or ten old set-only keywords and a half dozen of your own, it loses cohesion and ends up looking like a hodge-podge of random cards rather than a set.
Orzhov Pontiff
Shivan Sand-Mage
Both interesting mid-range come into play abilities on creatures that don't seem that off. Orzhov even has a pretty similar dualistic feel to it (animate v return to hand)
Also, try to avoid things like "It is clear you are just trying to [insert insult here]" That is not constructive in the least.
Closest thing to helpful you have come.
Yes, he means there are more cards in his set that he is alluding to before sharing in its entirety. No, you do not have to be insulting on the cards you have already seen as well as ones you haven't seen yet.
It also functions signifigantly differently by making the landwalk mutable and not allowing for any form of accelerant (which is what his card is looking to do). While this is more constructive than the rest of your post, it is still offensive. Please try to keep the malice to a minimum.
-Photic
Memory issues and ugly IMO. Your first one was a much better design.