So, I am working on making my own custom set/block/plane/story to go with it, and I had a few questions about some things.
1) What is a normal amount of cards included in Large and Small sets? I have a rather complicated background brewing as to the planar make-up of this world, so these sets might be a little on the large side, maybe even broken up into a Lorwyn/Shadowmoor style block, due to the largeness.
2) What is the normal breakdown of rarity quantities? At the moment I have 12 Mythics created: 5 new PWs, 5 monocolored bombs, and 2 powerful artifacts, but I dont know how I should break them up between multiple sets, or if they would all fit in my Large set.
3) what percentage of cards should be "Playable" as in, theoretically if it was a real set, how many cards of the entire block should be powerful enough to see regular play in Standard/Modern/Legacy/etc? I dont want to create a block of ~500-600 cards and have every single one be a staple in multiple formats.
4) What are some "Tribes" matching each allied color pair, that while being somewhat well known, haven't seen print or support in several years? I would like my set to be semi-focused on a Tribal theme, but not the normal run of the mill Tribes we are force fed as of late. The plane at the start has the main feature of having very strong bonds between the "allied" mana pairs, with most of the inhabitants able to draw on both colors equally. Bonus points if you could even come up with names fitting each Tribe that matches a culture similar the Khals from the Game of Thrones novels/series.
Current large set size is: 101 commons, 60 uncommons, 53 rares, and 15 mythics. Starting with m15 I believe, there will be 80 commons instead of 60.
Small set size is: 60 commons, 60 uncommons, 35 rares, and 10 mythics.
I think the percentage of playables was mentioned somewhere once, but I don't know it off the top of my head. My guess is it would be low, especially when talking about modern and legacy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In the beginning, MTG Salvation switched to a new forum format.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
So, I am working on making my own custom set/block/plane/story to go with it, and I had a few questions about some things.
[quote]1) What is a normal amount of cards included in Large and Small sets? I have a rather complicated background brewing as to the planar make-up of this world, so these sets might be a little on the large side, maybe even broken up into a Lorwyn/Shadowmoor style block, due to the largeness.
2) What is the normal breakdown of rarity quantities? At the moment I have 12 Mythics created: 5 new PWs, 5 monocolored bombs, and 2 powerful artifacts, but I dont know how I should break them up between multiple sets, or if they would all fit in my Large set.
249-269 cards for a large set with the current breakdown:
101 commons
60-80 uncommons
53 rare
15 mythics
20 basic lands
3) what percentage of cards should be "Playable" as in, theoretically if it was a real set, how many cards of the entire block should be powerful enough to see regular play in Standard/Modern/Legacy/etc? I dont want to create a block of ~500-600 cards and have every single one be a staple in multiple formats.
10 - 20% is about what wizards aims for I believe though I can't find the source off the top of my head.
I would definitely not aim for more than 30% as you really risk power creep.
4) What are some "Tribes" matching each allied color pair, that while being somewhat well known, haven't seen print or support in several years? I would like my set to be semi-focused on a Tribal theme, but not the normal run of the mill Tribes we are force fed as of late. The plane at the start has the main feature of having very strong bonds between the "allied" mana pairs, with most of the inhabitants able to draw on both colors equally. Bonus points if you could even come up with names fitting each Tribe that matches a culture similar the Khals from the Game of Thrones novels/series.
Thats a creative decision that is really up to you my friend....
Be aware that introducing any tribal support for tribes not commonly used will rapidly create parasitic design.
Thats a creative decision that is really up to you my friend....
Be aware that introducing any tribal support for tribes not commonly used will rapidly create parasitic design.
Good luck!
Im not trying to resurrect a tribe that hasnt seen print in 10+ years (Kobolds, Dwarves, Thallids), but I want a common tribe that has just sorta seen a falling out in the past 3-4 blocks. I dont want to invent a whole new tribe that hasnt really existed yet, like WotC is doing in Theros with Satyrs/Minotaurs just rejuvinate interest in one thats not been seen in awhile.
But in other news, thank you for quick replies, I now have a good idea of how to breakdown my set rarities, and how much "junk" I should include.
To be honest, tribes that we saw in Lorwyn haven't gotten much love in a long time (wow, that was 7 years ago?) I mean elves and goblins always get one or two cards here and there, but as a theme the "standard" tribes are pretty outdated.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In the beginning, MTG Salvation switched to a new forum format.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
You have a point, but I am unsure of thier flavor, and dont want to provoke the Ire of fans of those Tribes. I think I am just going to use the "Tribe" affiliated with the Allied color guilds "Keyrunes" from RTR block(Gruul KeyruneAzorius KeyruneDimir KeyruneRakdos Keyrune and Selesnya Keyrune.
Also, what is your opinion on a cycle of Mythics of similar design to Baneslayer Angel for each color, including BSA herself for white, each with 3 abilities typical of that color, of a common creature type iconic of that color, and with dual protections from their enemy color's creature type? They wont be carbon copies of BSA, for example, my Green Mythic is as follows:
Huntersbane Troll 2GG
Creature - Troll
Provoke, Trample
Protection from Demons and from Sphinxes 1G: Regenerate Huntersbane Troll
5/5
The rest of the cycle varies between 4 and 6 CMC with similar P/T and abilities iconic to the color.
Seriosly though following the template that Wizard uses is a good idea in terms of setting an outline and keeping you disciplined. In terms of following the sensibilities of modern wizard, that is highly optional. For example the reason we dont see many elves (especially tokens) is because wizards thinks Green should be about bigger creatures, with lot's of 3/3's. I agree to some extent, but that does not stop somebody from going retro and flooding the realm he creates with elves and kobolds and whatever outdated thing he wants.
I've been adapting some fan made sets to be used with an AI program and I've come to realize I care more how the set interacts with itself, than how it interacts with magic as a whole. That means if Kamigawa was a fan made set, it would be amazing, but as a Wizards set it is too parasitic.
Clearly, you're not using the usual definition of 'parasitic,' but I can't imagine what you do mean. Mind cluing in the new guy?
Typically when you hear about parasitic design on this forum, what we're really talking about is insular design. Things like Splice or Infect that only work within their own environment. Insular mechanics like these don't work with the previous history of Magic (for the most part). That means that while they work in an isolated environment like limited or block constructed, they fail to meet player expectations for formats that include multiple blocks. This is bad design.
Here's a quote from Mark Rosewater on the subject:
Quote from Mark Rosewater »
You’ll notice during the first two weeks’ worth of judge reviews, Aaron has used the word “parasitic” several times. This is a term used by R&D that means that an idea is too self-contained. We want players to be able to look at cards and imagine many things they can do with them. Cards that are too parasitic say, “No, just look at this tiny subset of cards.” When we do this, we start getting the “You’re building our decks for us” comments. And you know what? They’re right. Magic isn’t fun if the players aren’t given options.
Yeah, Splice onto Arcane is one of the classic examples... because you can only splice these cards, and only onto cards that are Arcane. Those cards will likely never leave the world of Kamigawa. If it was like "Splice onto Creature" or "Splice onto Sorcery" you might see them more.
Also, what is your opinion on a cycle of Mythics of similar design to Baneslayer Angel for each color, including BSA herself for white, each with 3 abilities typical of that color, of a common creature type iconic of that color, and with dual protections from their enemy color's creature type? They wont be carbon copies of BSA, for example, my Green Mythic is as follows:
Huntersbane Troll 2GG
Creature - Troll
Provoke, Trample
Protection from Demons and from Sphinxes 1G: Regenerate Huntersbane Troll
5/5
The rest of the cycle varies between 4 and 6 CMC with similar P/T and abilities iconic to the color.
BSA is an angel, white's iconic creature, and dragons and demons are also iconic creatures. This means that all the creatures should probably be iconic creatures so you looking at...
green - hydra
red - dragon
whte - BSA
black - Demon
blue - sphinx
...I think your idea of high profile mono color mythics is a good one. Since they will tend to have protction from eachother, it will make constructed rather strange.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
Allied
GW: Cats
GR: Beasts
UB: Faeries
UW: Birds
BR: Ogre? There isn't really a good creature type here either
The thing about tribal is that you need a creature type which is often printed, but rarely sees real support. These are my best guess at Allied color pairs. Is their any reason you aren't doing 10 tribes? It isn't all that much more difficult since creature types can overlap, for example a green snake beast coud fit into either GR beasts or BG snakes, and it makes for a more balanced draft environment with 10 different draft archetypes instead of just 5.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1) What is a normal amount of cards included in Large and Small sets? I have a rather complicated background brewing as to the planar make-up of this world, so these sets might be a little on the large side, maybe even broken up into a Lorwyn/Shadowmoor style block, due to the largeness.
2) What is the normal breakdown of rarity quantities? At the moment I have 12 Mythics created: 5 new PWs, 5 monocolored bombs, and 2 powerful artifacts, but I dont know how I should break them up between multiple sets, or if they would all fit in my Large set.
3) what percentage of cards should be "Playable" as in, theoretically if it was a real set, how many cards of the entire block should be powerful enough to see regular play in Standard/Modern/Legacy/etc? I dont want to create a block of ~500-600 cards and have every single one be a staple in multiple formats.
4) What are some "Tribes" matching each allied color pair, that while being somewhat well known, haven't seen print or support in several years? I would like my set to be semi-focused on a Tribal theme, but not the normal run of the mill Tribes we are force fed as of late. The plane at the start has the main feature of having very strong bonds between the "allied" mana pairs, with most of the inhabitants able to draw on both colors equally. Bonus points if you could even come up with names fitting each Tribe that matches a culture similar the Khals from the Game of Thrones novels/series.
Small set size is: 60 commons, 60 uncommons, 35 rares, and 10 mythics.
I think the percentage of playables was mentioned somewhere once, but I don't know it off the top of my head. My guess is it would be low, especially when talking about modern and legacy.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
249-269 cards for a large set with the current breakdown:
101 commons
60-80 uncommons
53 rare
15 mythics
20 basic lands
10 - 20% is about what wizards aims for I believe though I can't find the source off the top of my head.
I would definitely not aim for more than 30% as you really risk power creep.
Thats a creative decision that is really up to you my friend....
Be aware that introducing any tribal support for tribes not commonly used will rapidly create parasitic design.
Good luck!
Are you designing commons? Check out my primer on NWO.
Interested in making a custom set? Check out my Set skeleton and archetype primer.
I also write articles about getting started with custom card creation.
Go and PLAYTEST your designs, you will learn more in a single playtests than a dozen discussions.
My custom sets:
Dreamscape
Coins of Mercalis [COMPLETE]
Exodus of Zendikar - ON HOLD
Im not trying to resurrect a tribe that hasnt seen print in 10+ years (Kobolds, Dwarves, Thallids), but I want a common tribe that has just sorta seen a falling out in the past 3-4 blocks. I dont want to invent a whole new tribe that hasnt really existed yet, like WotC is doing in Theros with Satyrs/Minotaurs just rejuvinate interest in one thats not been seen in awhile.
But in other news, thank you for quick replies, I now have a good idea of how to breakdown my set rarities, and how much "junk" I should include.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
Also, what is your opinion on a cycle of Mythics of similar design to Baneslayer Angel for each color, including BSA herself for white, each with 3 abilities typical of that color, of a common creature type iconic of that color, and with dual protections from their enemy color's creature type? They wont be carbon copies of BSA, for example, my Green Mythic is as follows:
Huntersbane Troll 2GG
Creature - Troll
Provoke, Trample
Protection from Demons and from Sphinxes
1G: Regenerate Huntersbane Troll
5/5
The rest of the cycle varies between 4 and 6 CMC with similar P/T and abilities iconic to the color.
Seriosly though following the template that Wizard uses is a good idea in terms of setting an outline and keeping you disciplined. In terms of following the sensibilities of modern wizard, that is highly optional. For example the reason we dont see many elves (especially tokens) is because wizards thinks Green should be about bigger creatures, with lot's of 3/3's. I agree to some extent, but that does not stop somebody from going retro and flooding the realm he creates with elves and kobolds and whatever outdated thing he wants.
I've been adapting some fan made sets to be used with an AI program and I've come to realize I care more how the set interacts with itself, than how it interacts with magic as a whole. That means if Kamigawa was a fan made set, it would be amazing, but as a Wizards set it is too parasitic.
www.theconnoisseurs.com
Clearly, you're not using the usual definition of 'parasitic,' but I can't imagine what you do mean. Mind cluing in the new guy?
Here's a quote from Mark Rosewater on the subject:
www.theconnoisseurs.com
BSA is an angel, white's iconic creature, and dragons and demons are also iconic creatures. This means that all the creatures should probably be iconic creatures so you looking at...
green - hydra
red - dragon
whte - BSA
black - Demon
blue - sphinx
...I think your idea of high profile mono color mythics is a good one. Since they will tend to have protction from eachother, it will make constructed rather strange.
- Manite
Allied
GW: Cats
GR: Beasts
UB: Faeries
UW: Birds
BR: Ogre? There isn't really a good creature type here either
The thing about tribal is that you need a creature type which is often printed, but rarely sees real support. These are my best guess at Allied color pairs. Is their any reason you aren't doing 10 tribes? It isn't all that much more difficult since creature types can overlap, for example a green snake beast coud fit into either GR beasts or BG snakes, and it makes for a more balanced draft environment with 10 different draft archetypes instead of just 5.
- Manite