Quote from"Saproling" seems to be a generic term for small plant/fungus creatures rather than a specific species.
Indeed what a Saproling is varies from plane to plane - sometimes even within a plane; on Ravnica in the old days Saprolings differed from guild to guild; Selesnya Saprolings are small creatures consisting of vines wrapped around crystals (as can be seen in the artwork) - the vines are based on plants which is why the Selesnyan Saprolings use seeds and pollen; Golgari Saprolings with the guilds focus on lightless subterranean rotfarms are classical fungal beings; Simic Saprolings are open to interpretation, though they are cyan/green-blue globules and seem to consist entirely of their trademark Cytoplast.
Guildless Saprolings could follow either style guide or none at all.
Remember: A Saproling doesn't need to be fungal. If anything its root tells us more about the fact that it likes death and decay. It can be (and sometimes is) a plant and apparently sometimes part gem.
--
Now you don't only seem to have a problem with Saprolings being not depicted fungal enough, but with Saprolings depicted too much like a Fungus. For example the "earthstars" are not there for there own sake. Those are the Saprolings that Vitaspore Thallid tosses around. Look at the mechanic and art and tell me that "every now and then it throws a new creature onto the field" isn't what the Thallid mechanic is actually reads like.
You can see similar depictions of Saprolings on Thallid cards again and again e. g. a big "white" Thallid in front of a few smaller "green" Saprolings on Pallid Mycoderm; maybe now you also understand the boring palette of colors: When an artist gets told to paint a "green" Fungus it will end up being green more often than not.
less to play for each Dragon or Demon permanent you control." would be preferable.
Erik Lauer and I agree on "Draw two cards, then put a card from your hand on the bottom of your library." being a better design.
Also it seems like the power level of a minus ability rather than plus ability.
Couldn't Daybreak, Nightfall and Insanity/Clarity be combined into a single mechanic?
*ignores flip cards*
I'm not sure whether "you" refers to me specifically or a collective power I can hardly be part of since I retracted from this project in favor of Magic 2012 after the shard leader structure was introduced.
If you have a problem with my personal involvement: Between the day this thread was started and the day I made my most recent post I had zero posts in main thread or any shard thread. My full involvement with this project was linking people to the project that seemed like they would be interested in it.
If you have a problem with people stealing your thunder: Think about it! You have no say in the matter? You are the shard leader. You are in a position to make things happen your way. Instead you have given up this thread after three days.
Sorcery
Put target creature on top of its owner's library.
Being exiled from a sky city is not much different from a death sentence. If the mist doesn't get you killed, a montain kavu likely will.
(It's just a perfect fit with the mechanic and flavor of enmist milling.)
6 keywords means 18 people means 252 cards without framework cards means the set will definitely be split (and I consider myself able to do something with that).
Well, then it is the fault of everyone. You are aware that the discussion is public? You are also aware that deciding which mechanics are in and which out are generally a group effort?
No one stops a group of six people coming together and decide on two keywords that work well together. No one stops people from making suggestions how to improve other keywords so it works towards a better set. All the discussion is still possible. I do not forbid you talking to each other to come to a better end result.
All I am ensuring is that there is a way to come to a final decision at some point that is decentralised. I am not forcing anyone to be idiotic in the process. I can imagine your zest a driving force in keeping people aware.
You could have spend the time arguing against the simple baselines I provided on figuring out how to control the system from the inside, considering you have the ability to talk and argue. My baselines and your idea are not mutually exclusive. Be the change you want to see in the world!
Note: Up to now there has not been enough discussion to create even a single keyword.
Instant
Choose one or both - Destroy target artifact; and/or destroy target enchantment.
"The dissolvent created to purify the air in the mist-covered valley of Sharu turned out to be potent enough to unmake any concentrated magic of many other kinds."
- notes of Khana, Valuri alchemist
I don't see a reason to change my policy here - if you can convince other contributors of such a keyword it will be global, i. e. anyone could use it. It is not restricted to the contributors that submit it - it's just a way to make sure that the number of keywords is reasonably low and at least a few people consider it good and open enough to use it in their own designs.
Exactly that cannot happen if you need two other contributors to support you. For example it should be much easier to find two other people with a creature theme to support you on convoke than to find two for your custom "genesplice" keyword that is flavored to fit your bioscientist faction.
I am able to create a set from the top or even all on my own. But this is a conscious exercise in bringing the community together to create a set, so the decision making should come from the community.
Consider also the following: We have a total of seven different posters right now (including me and you who have not yet even chosen a faction). That is a maximum of two keywords... even if we get a dozen (utopian with the current activity level of the CSC&D) that will be a whoopin' four.
Anarchy!
"TADA! Everything is good now."
You are the one person in this thread who has the right and obligation to be proactive since you are not only the thread creator, but also the creator of the mechanic.
If you think our idea was miserable, then change it, please! And also post a card while you are at it, so this can go on! You are aware that the main charme of this format is that there is a lack of mind numbing discussion, but a nice fast pace, right?
Not really. I understand the rules exactly as you do: Even if someone introduces the keyword "blurgle" it's there and you have to live with it. That's my understanding, too.
But if there was any change allowed at all, then my question is: Why not make it a sensible change rather than a superficial one? I'd also liked to have any idea regarding the other proposed mechanic, which sounds a great deal like landfall+spellfall, but is really not explained adequately at all. (It's btw the reason for introducing a land theme - I figuratively had - and have still - no idea what is going on, but embraced the idea simply, because that's the spirit of the game)
To me it is all or nothing. Why would you assume one thing is mutable and another one isn't?
Enmisting should only last one turn, so you always know that all your enmisted cards get cleared out at the same time. Imagine multiplayer with four enmist decks.
Creature - Human Soldier
As long as ~ is enchanted or equipped, it has flying.
2/2
Replacing one parasitic mechanic with the same parasitic mechanic that is more narrow? Surely no one agrees with that.
You could simply give enmist N a rules meaning and everone wins. Options are legion.
Quality is obviously debatable and low, but at least it interacts with the game state.
Yeah, that's a general problem with the format. 75% percent of the time someone does something extremely stupid in the first posts of the thread and you spend the rest of the set coping with it. Last time I ignored only the more outrageous mechanic. Just read my write-up for white and I'm sure you can guess what I'll do this time...
Your card even implies something that wasn't clear before: If enmisted X adds X mist counters it's cumulative.
Creature - Bird Scout
Flying
When ~ enters the battlefield, search your library for a Plains card, reveal it and put that card into your hand. Then shuffle your library.
These aven roam the skies to find the rare highland plateaus ideal for a new colony of their people.
1/1
The common tomes are vastly superior to the Diamonds and not really all that balanced with each other.
3.
---
Alternative suggestion (still cheating): new keyword:
Also purple makes a return as the rarity of mana sources (having the artifact type Relic in common as well as the keyword excavate - I go for an archeology flavor) - I cannot imagine draft to work to any extend with this, but it will make for a far better supply than sorting the cards with normal commons.
Artifact - Relic (S)
Excavate (As long as you haven't played a land or excavated this turn you may put this onto the battlefield from your hand. If you do, you can't play lands or excavate this turn.)
:symtap:: Add
When ~ enters the battlefield, gain 1 life.
Artifact - Relic (S)
Excavate (As long as you haven't played a land or excavated this turn you may put this onto the battlefield from your hand. If you do, you can't play lands or excavate this turn.)
:symtap:: Add
:1mana:, :symtap:, Sacrifice ~: Draw a card.
Artifact - Relic (S)
Excavate (As long as you haven't played a land or excavated this turn you may put this onto the battlefield from your hand. If you do, you can't play lands or excavate this turn.)
:symtap:: Add
Artifact - Relic (S)
Excavate (As long as you haven't played a land or excavated this turn you may put this onto the battlefield from your hand. If you do, you can't play lands or excavate this turn.)
:symtap:: Add one mana of a color of your choice to your mana pool.
Artifact - Relic (S)
Excavate (As long as you haven't played a land or excavated this turn you may put this onto the battlefield from your hand. If you do, you can't play lands or excavate this turn.)
~ enters the battlefield tapped.
:symtap:, sacrifice ~: Search your library for a colorless Relic card with converted mana cost 3 or less and put it onto the battlefield. Then shuffle your library.
Artifact - Relic (S)
Excavate (As long as you haven't played a land or excavated this turn you may put this onto the battlefield from your hand. If you do, you can't play lands or excavate this turn.)
:symtap:: Untap target Relic.
Artifact Creature - Relic Wall (S)
Excavate (As long as you haven't played a land or excavated this turn you may put this onto the battlefield from your hand. If you do, you can't play lands or excavate this turn.)
Defender
:symtap:: Add
0/2
Artifact Creature - Relic Spirit (S)
Excavate (As long as you haven't played a land or excavated this turn you may put this onto the battlefield from your hand. If you do, you can't play lands or excavate this turn.)
Flying
:symtap:: Add
1/1
Artifact - Relic (S)
Excavate (As long as you haven't played a land or excavated this turn you may put this onto the battlefield from your hand. If you do, you can't play lands or excavate this turn.)
Sarifice ~: White spells you cast this turn cost
---
Even more alternative idea: Create a subset of cards that can be put onto the battlefield tapped as a basic variety of lands - abusing the flip template is one option I would go for.
Do you?
Since Classic (that's Sixth Edition!) there has not been more than one common land or artifact in the core set - a trend of exactly one card in the three most recent core sets: Terramorphic Expanse.
Do you want me to make a skeleton for this one card that will likely end up be this one same reprint? Or do you have some kind of alternate suggestion?
Am I right to assume it ends up with 5 loyality counters and a -1/-1 counter?