File: RG3ab Vaerin Bold Commander.png (300 KB, 375x523)

300 KB PNG

Adjusted this based on the feedback from >>88959641 Not sure if the untap X effect might be a bit too much.

>>88960288
Seems fair enough. Perhaps slightly overcosted at three colors, while being a good value at five. And assist can help with that in the right formats, so it should work out more often than not.

>>88959210
>>88959411
We have 29 vehicles in the set with vehicles as the main focus with 2.5 colors being laser focused on it (green, white, then red). After taking over colorless, I don't think I have it in me to build many more vehicles which is why I proposed relic; a signature artifact such as a ship, sword, throne, treasure, etc. I don't know if relic is the best tag for that, but it's what I've got. That would let you tag any kind of artifact with it, so we don't get pigeonholed. I'd also like to maybe explore partner. That gives some freedom in selection and design.

If people want to design for vehicles, that's great and I welcome it. It's still pretty unexplored, but if we try and jam vehicles as a focus into every deck it dilutes things and its tricky to work them in in some cases like UGs themes. In this vein I would also suggest against mdfc again because no commander product has used them yet and I can see them creating memory issues. Also we have 29 mdfc in the main set. Also the card frame is pretty miserable to work with in mse imo.

>>88960590
I like the idea behind this a lot, but I think this would be mostly used for swarming than crewing, which I guess is fine too.

>>88960288
Decently balanced I think. Not amazing by any stretch and inefficient in most cases, but if you have a teammate that can foot the bill it's nice.

>>88958840
Casting from library has only been in green so far. I had a cast from library effect for my black skaven as well and it made me realize that that concept is dangerous in black due to their ease of and volume of tutoring. That said, I think this might be fine, maybe add nontoken to the sacrifice then put it at 2BB or 1BBB with a modest body.

>>88962076
Good point on Vehicles. Again, just suggested them because they were the first thing to come to mind because they're so prevalent in the main set.

But yeah, since I was never great with Vehicles either, I can definitely see a point in not doing them in the Commander set. Same with MDFC, since those were also done for drafting purposes.

So I just want to make sure, are we all fine in doing a Partner-esque mechanic and the only issue is figuring out the specifics?

>>88962076
>>88962577
Why don't just go with Partner? It's not like you can't have a Vehicle with Partner and "This vehicle can be your commander".

File: Lair of Tiamat.png (271 KB, 375x523)

271 KB PNG

>>88963302
Honestly I am leaning towards just using Partner, despite all my misgivings about it. I'm still reluctant to do it because of the problems I know it has, but on the other hand... it's a solution and it's right there!

>>88962577
I can't speak for everyone, but I'm totally on board for exploring some flavor of partner. New card count may be a concern if we want to cover bases though since I imagine those will eat up a noteworthy amount of slots depending in how hard we lean in and what the scope is.

>>88963302
>>88963331
I'm fine with using partner instead of funneling it into an isolated sub mechanic, but interaction with preexisting commanders, especially if we fold in artifacts, will be something to keep a very close eye on since balance matters a lot more for reliable repeatable casts in the format. It also raises some issues especially if we add in other artifacts. For instance a treasure and throne being your commanders really isn't in the spirit and forcing at least one of a pair to be a creature would be wise imo.

>>88963491
Or we could do something like Friends Forever, which is just Partner with another name.

>>88963491
For artifacts, if that really is a problem, you could just have them "This Vehicle can be your commander if you have a Captain as your other commander."
But I feel like this is unnecessarily cluttering the textbox. We already have decks where you have 2 planeswalkers as commanders.

>>88963677
>>88963571
>>88963491
Vehicles is probably no big deal, its other types that could be an issue. Using an offshoot of partner would be the easiest way to bottle that, but your range of pairs is limited. The other option would be the Partners With variant or "If NAME is your commander, you may pick ~ to be your second commander". Which is an in between that uses neither keyword, but can function independently. Downside is you're locked to that pair if you want to use the artifact in a commander spot.

>>88964119
Or you just don't slap it on things that aren't vehicles or creatures and be done with it.

>>88962076
>We have 29 vehicles in the set with vehicles as the main focus with 2.5 colors being laser focused on it (green, white, then red).
I feel like I say this every time it comes up, but all I've been doing in Green for Vehicles as a set theme is trying to make sure Green can care about them at all by treating them like it was akin to a creature subtype.
WG isn't supposed to be an exceptionally Vehicle focused faction any more than BR or UB. All of them are just seafaring groups that use ships. WR has an actual focus, while UG didn't end up that way due to the flavor of the faction.

That said, I'm perfectly fine if people don't want to do Vehicle-focused decks. If I ended up with UGB I'd probably be going all-in on big sea monsters after all. I just want to make sure whatever we're doing, we have it be relatively straightforward.

>I like the idea behind this a lot, but I think this would be mostly used for swarming than crewing, which I guess is fine too.
Well, I was aiming for a go-wide focus with Green, and Vehicles provide an easy way to tap your creatures, have them untap via their own patrol effects, and then swing in before untapping them with his abiltiy as well.

>>88963331
I do support Partner With X over just Partner. Or perhaps at least a middle ground where we could have something like "Partner with any Pirate", where it functions like Partner in that it can match with multiple cards, but requires a specific subtype, so there's only four of the existing Partners that you could match it up with, limiting what would need to be looked at.
And of course that could extend to "Partner with Vehicle/Equipment/Treasure" if people want to do weird artifact things, and then the artifacts themselves likewise just need to have text that lets them be a commander and allows them to tag together with whichever creature subtype.

>Lair of Tiamat
Seems fine. Perhaps a bit worse than Westvale Abbey.

>>88964119
I'm leaning towards: >>88964428
Just don't make instant/sorceries/enchantments as partners. You can make enchantments that are the background of your commander without having it be the background in the commander zone.

>>88965410
Was more cautioning against putting it on artifacts, but same general idea.

File: UR01 Make You Dance.png (263 KB, 375x523)

263 KB PNG

Anything worse that could be done with this than Demonic Consultation?
I was thinking the flavor could be either blue or black, since it's also kinda Word of Command ish.

>>88966264
With that mana cost and how niche this even is plus forcing you to play bad cards to combo with it is a formula that adds up to me saying that I honestly wouldn't worry about it much if at all.

>>88966264
>Anything worse that could be done with this than Demonic Consultation?
If you mean in terms of things you're forcing an opponent to play, Glorious End comes to mind.

File: 1C0EE056-9A5F-48EA-9B72-0(...).jpg (104 KB, 744x1039)

104 KB JPG

>>88954789
I tried to fix the CMC

File: download 2.jpg (304 KB, 1500x523)

304 KB JPG

some rough concepts I threw together to try and get the juices flowing.
First one I want to try and do "Naya Spellslinger" but I'm not married to the idea
Second one I'm just doing a bunch of desert themed stuff, the card that he's "spellshaping" is Scouring Sands
Third one I liked the way that a "all mana dorks / mana rocks" companion effect sounded, but I'm struggling to think of a payoff for it so that last ability is kinda placeholder. I'd like to get more wordy with it but I don't wanna get rid of companion's reminder text to make room.
Fourth one I asked about last thread, at the time it was an enchantment but I like the old Arcane cards so I tried to fit it into that sort of chassis and I think it works better, but I'd be willing to hear other suggestions for forms it could take or costs for it

>>88969248
>Nyetta Fleise
So... it's a sort of counterspell, but also lets you Populate using i/s spells? If you pay their mana cost again? IDK, I feel like this is all over the place.

>Rakoto
If you want a Desert focus as well as dealing and preventing damage, I feel like it would be better to have the Deserts directly contribute to the damage dealing/preventing abilities and cut out the mana stuff. Maybe tap an untapped Desert to activate one of the abilities and change cost accordingly.

>Spectrawing
Companion ability makes me think it would do something that interacts with mana abilities or has some unique use for all the mana you can generate. Instead it's just a mana sink?

>Putrid Convocation
I feel like Black would rather just search for a single one and cast it, instead of having to rely on a search effect. Especially since it can be repeatable with Splice.

File: W1 Knights of Solamnia.png (285 KB, 375x523)

285 KB PNG

Meant to go into a GW "counters matter" deck.

>>88971167
Wait, I should've just had it create a copy of itself.

>>88971179
Would the copy be renowned?

File: cn2-72-splitting-slime.jpg (156 KB, 672x936)

156 KB JPG

>>88971825
No.

Been thinking more about my theoretical WRB commander assignment. Tricky picking or sorting themes since I'm pulled in a few ways.
Also I guess neutral news if white and blue leads aren't interested, it seems like black, green, and red (me) are and three decks isn't bad at all. Not sure how we'd handle reprints though.

>>88969248
Not much I can say that hasn't been said
>>88970878
But for the bird, maybe "whenever a nonland permanent adds mana to your mana pool, effect"

>>88968863
Better. I think you may even be able to dip to RR.

>>88971167
This I quite like.

>>88966008
Yeah, I don't think people have a problem with a huge ship as their commander, since a vehicle is essentially a Theros God that isn't a creature until a condition is met.
But I would also feel uneasy if people could just have a Mox or Aetherworks Marvel as their commander.

>>88975027
That would have depended on someone making a functional reprint with it having whatever the nebulous mechanic in question is.

File: download.jpg (132 KB, 750x523)

132 KB JPG

Mockups to quickly demonstrate an idea I had for a not!Partner mechanic. Restricting the Vehicle you can choose as a second commander to one with a keyword means absolute control over what can be a second commander. But I never liked the idea that the keyword was just a tag and didn't do anything else. So I had this idea.

Though I guess another idea would be to make it
>Flagship (This Vehicle can be your commander.)
and leave it at that.

Really think having Vehicles as a second commander is the best, since they can become creatures and function as commanders in their own right.

>>88976836
I think partner would have been fine, but this is simple enough if you don't want cases where capital ships alone can be your general. Are you guys abandoning the whole first mate normal partner thing?

>>88977298
First-Mate (you may have this as your second commander if a captain is your commander.)

Captain (You can have a First-Mate or Flagship as a second commander.)

Not sure how wild I am with flagship auto turning on vehicles, though it does help force actually casting your commander.

>>88977298
This is merely one suggestion of many. I really ought to collate the various suggestions so we can see what's actually going on.

>>88977352
Like I said, another idea would be to make Flagship just a keyword that makes the Vehicle a potential commander. Doesn't auto-crew but does allow the card to be used on its own as a commander.

>>88976836
Not really a fan of a mechanic that is so restrictive akin to "Friends Forever", but if people are this worried about unforeseen combinations, then I'm ok with it. Although I like that Flagship isn't just Partner, and you actually added something that makes sense.
In this vein, Captain could choose between a Flagship or a First-mate to help people that didn't want to focus on vehicles.

>>88977298
Either way, nothing really stops someone from adding their first-mates/vehicles to the 99, so I'm fine as long as the mechanic is sound.

>>88976836
>>88977298
>>88977352
>>88977392
Other possibilities:
Captain (A card with First-Mate or Flagship can be your second commander.)
First-Mate (This card costs 1 less to cast as long as you control your commander.)
Flagship (this Vehicle can be your commander. (If it is, it costs 1 less to cast.))

The other option would just be straight up partner or a different name for it.

>>88977470
If First Mate is an ability instead of a creature type, I'd want the ability to have some sort of rules text behind it. But if it's a creature type, I can live with it just being a tag for Captain. Oh but wait, that means issues with Changelings. So it had to be an ability then. Unless we specify non-something like Embiggen.

>>88977565
This post is kind of scatter brained and I'm having trouble parsing what you want here.
This take of flagship let's you use a non creature as a commander, but if you have it as a commander it's cheaper.
First mate is somewhat like lieutenant in that you get a bonus if you control your commander, meaning he's not far behind his leader which works in the 99.
Captain says one thing with flagship or first-mate can be your second commander effectively making it the partner focal point.

>>88977565
>>88977606
I'd assume the suggestion there is to do something like "Choose a Background" where First-Mate is a subtype that you can apply to those creatures then the main commander has the ability to let you pick them.
That would technically allow Changelings, and more than that, it might also technically allow you to pick out something like Crib Swap, since that's also a card with the hypothetical First-Mate creature subtype.

I still think that something like "Partner with any X" works better in regards to the subtype angle, where it can be a middle ground between Partner and Partner With.

...or you guys could just use partner and be done with it...

>>88977639
Subtypes eat up a lot of space so I think if we went this route, keeping them as abilities makes the most sense and causes the least conflict.
>>88977649
Also true.

File: ccgcommand.jpg (823 KB, 1165x1609)

823 KB JPG

Think I have the general main/ core ideas for this sort of thing collected here?
fix'd

File: C1 Greater Dragonlance.png (264 KB, 375x523)

264 KB PNG

The dragonlances are the namesake of the entire Dragonlance setting. Why is it so hard to find good art of them?

>>88979640
I'd go with option 1 but with some minor changes. Change it to Captain and have it specify cards with First mate or Flagship. I'd also prefer for Captains to be monocolor, as well as the other cards, so that each possible custom pairing would have a total color identity of two or less. But I can live with custom pairings having a total color identity of 3.

>>88977649
Partner PRO: It's an already-established keyword that allows you to have two commanders.

Partner CON: Need to account for interaction for all 62 cards that already exist with Partner. Yes, that's just Partner and not Partner with.
https://scryfall.com/search?q=kw%3Apartner+-o%3A%2Fpartner+with%2F&order=color&as=grid&unique=cards

Custom PRO: Control over what can and can't be chosen as a second commander.

Custom CON: Have to create and agree on a custom mechanic, then account for interaction with each others' cards.

>>88979732
That pic is for my own set and has nothing to do with the collab. Should be obvious but want to be clear.

Also, the custom CON "then account for interaction with each others' cards." doesn't really count because we'd have to do that with Partner as well. So ignore that part.

>>88979732
Personally I don't think I'd want any restrictions on colors, only that each color has at least one. Especially if the decks are 3-color. I'll wait for other leads/ lurkers to weigh in on this or the perceived options for this.

I've already started brainstorming things myself.

>>88979640
I feel like the second-row option here doesn't quite work out the more I think on it. If it can pick any card as long as it has the right subtype regardless of being a legendary creature (similar to choose a background, which I'm assuming is the case due to the Vehicle not having any 'can be your commander text) then that does open up a can of worms since then any card with Changeling can be a second commander, and there's some pretty weird options there. Morophon the Boundless stands out, as do the various Tribal Instant/Sorcery Changeling spells.

For that reason I might lean towards the first option, perhaps with a wording change like >>88979732 suggested
>Captain (You can choose a card with First-Mate or Flagship as a second commander.)
That said, it does feel like we're sort of just reinventing Partner again. The question I'd ask is what goal we're trying to achieve with the mechanic in regards to mixing and matching.

As far as colors go, I was under the impression that we were doing tri-color decks, although I think there was talk of having one of the sub-commanders be a dual-color pairing.

>>88982352
Yeah, decks are supposed to be tricolor, so ignore what I said. Dualcolor Captains, monocolor First mates and Flagships to create different tricolor combos.

File: Old Foggy The Treacherous.png (303 KB, 375x523)

303 KB PNG

>>88982352
I'm fine with morphing my proposal like that. It uses less space and has the intended flavor. It's similar to partner, but different in that it makes the first-mates fine choices for the 99 and helps boost the value of a vehicle as a commander while also enabling some interesting strategies when adding captains to the mix. I would be open to adjusting these effects, I just went with something short, simple, and beneficial. Perhaps flagship could reduce by 2, but lets see.

As for color restrictions, we where going twi I believe, but I'm not really wild on that idea. I'm fine with making sure boxe's are ticked be they for decks or other pack filler, but I'm not sure I'm keen on it being that restrictive. On the other hand though, 4-5 color goodstuff piles are getting more common these days...

In regards to what we're tying to achievable I'd say interesting playstyles, reinforcement of playstyles, etc. Flexibility is the name of the game really. (sloppy example just to push limits and break rules for the sake of flavor)

>>88983079
The only thing I'd say about the cost reduction on Flagship is that it does mean the card is almost disadvantageous to not run as a commander. Although I'm not sure of a good alternative there.

With regards to color, I suppose we wouldn't necessarily have to be set up evently. There have been decks in the Commander series that were mixed in regards to the number of colors each had, after all. It is mostly a matter of how we want to organize it to avoid overlap, I'd say.

>>88983374
The other option would be to make them the exact same bonus as first mates then which would then prevent them from being stand alone commanders without the line of "~ can be your commander" since captain turns on a non legendary creatures candidacy otherwise.
Also good news on First Mate. The dash is unneeded, it's a space. Much easier to work with.

>>88983604
One thought I had in regards to the bonus could be to give the Flagship a lower crew cost like.
>(This Vehicle can be your commander. If it is, it has Crew 1.)
Or perhaps instead make it so the First-Mate gets +1/+1 while you have the commander. Mostly because I think the bonuses should be different to help make it more clear which is which, because they're also gained in different ways. It'd be easy to get mixed up and think both of them cost less while they are your commander, or if you have your other commander out.

>>88984129
I as originally going to give it a lower crew cost, but figured the mana reduction in general is just more useful when you can repeatedly cast things for an increasingly taxed amount. I don't like the idea of basically free crewing because that drops the design scope an absurd amount when trying to balance.
First Mate does in fact let you cast it for 1 less as long as your commander is on the field when you cast it. 99 or as a second commander only.

>>88984206
To me, I just feel like a cost reduction is a very nothing upside for the Vehicle if it's tied to it being the commander. Just inherently, it's a design I would expect to simply be 1 mana more expensive than it needed to be so it was fair as a commander, and then just ends up overcosted in the 99 so it gets swapped out first.

>>88983656
I think there's an interesting idea in here but handing out 4/4 fliers almost for free is something that can bite you if you lose control of Trumpet Demon.

File: Dimir Command.jpg (108 KB, 744x1039)

108 KB JPG

Wanted to do something unique for a UB command, what are people's thoughts on the final mode?

>>88986489
Eh, I don't like how he last moe works on just one draw. I'mld love for it to replace every draw that turn with a mill, or you just hijack all their draws for yourself. But maybe those would be too good.

>>88979732
>total color identity of 3
I think that this matches the concept. Since there is one doing wR, and another doing uB, you can mix and match to keep the color identity of your captain, or get a tricolor deck.
I'm actually more inclined into having a captain with 2 colors, and the first-mate/flagship be a third color, so that each lead has something different to use in their cards.

>>88984570
Considering the resummon tax for generals is 2, reducing by 1 seems fine. I'm open to suggestions, but dropping crew to 1 causes the problem you described multitudes worse.

>>88986489
The final ability is pretty interesting, but a single draw disruption is not worth that mana cost.

>>88988160
If that's the direction people want to go, I can work with that. The issue will be card space and making sure the cards fit into the decks they come in and can also be combined in effective ways outside of that. We also can't let ourselves become mired in it where it overtakes things unless it's the focus of your deck. I admit in considering a legendary theme for mine maybe.
I spent last night trying to brew some stuff already.

File: Wasteland Ranger.jpg (144 KB, 744x1039)

144 KB JPG

Art would look a lot better if I could move it. Might have to remake in MSE later.

How much should this cost to make it fair?
Instant
You may cast this spell only during your turn and only if an opponent cast a spell this turn.
Exile all spells and abilities from the stack, including this card.
How bad of a bend is it too if it's in white?

File: test.png (278 KB, 375x523)

278 KB PNG

>>88992902
That is a blue card. If you want to make it white it would need to be something like "that target you or a permanent you control" and even then that's a stretch. White does have counter spells in its catalog now, but getting it right is tricky. Pic related is probably not one such example, but white counterspells are concepts I've been fiddling with off and on for a while now. Something as brutally efficient as what you have though is a bit out of flavor for them. If you made the changes though I'd put the cost at maybe 2WW.

2G
Sorcery
Destroy target land

>>88993674
"Mate" should be lowercase since WotC uses sentence case for keywords and ability words. Kinda wish First mate did something else besides a mana cost reduction, but we can figure that out later. I like where we've ended up on Captain so far.

Activated ability I think has one too many restrictions. I think the narrowness of the targets means you could get rid of the tax effect and make it a hard exile/counter.

Still need to make the set skeleton. Though I do have a few questions for anyone interested in the project about the new cards we're making.
* How many new cards should there be in each deck? Seems like most decks range between 10 and 15. There's Warhammer with over 40, but that's an outlier. New Capenna had 17, and I think we could go as high as 20 before it starts to feel like too much.
* Should we have new cards in the lower rarities? Earlier Commander decks had uncommons and commons, though usually just one common for the entire set But later Commander decks got rid of uncommons and commons entirely, except for Warhammer.

>>88994474
15-20 cards seems like a reasonable number, aside from picking out the 80 or so other cards of the deck. 40 for Warhmammer does seem like it's primarily the case where it's trying to introduce a brand new setting entirely into the game by itself, but since we already have the set for that, there's not a real need there.
As far as rarity goes, it could work to have some cards like the First-mates/Captains/Flagships be uncommons, since some cards with Partner have that lower rarity, and having them as Uncommons might put a better perspective on the power/complexity of those cards.

>>88990877
>combined in effective ways
As long as the effects are generic, and not tied to a specific tribe or mechanic, it should be easy to mix and match.

>>88994560
The Captain, First mate, and Flagship cards could all be rare. I just don't really think they could all work at mythic. I'd prefer all three have the same rarity and Mythic is usually reserved for commanders only. But we can always make an exception. It's still a custom set, after all.

>>88998924
Yeah, Rare makes enough sense, with Mythic being reserved for any standalone legends in the set. There is only so much the rarity truly matters if it's a prebuilt deck rather than a pack though.

File: test.png (307 KB, 375x523)

307 KB PNG

>>88994474
>Activated ability I think has one too many restrictions
I was kind of worried it would be too good. I slapped the discard on last minute basically. The tax was to help push it more into white and make it feel a bit more fair with having a counterspell of sorts on tap. I can drop the tax and up the cost to 2WW or something? Also I forgot to give it reach. Giving it patrol too would be funny, but too much.

>Kinda wish First mate did something else besides a mana cost reduction
Both First mate and Flagship I gave small bonuses to keep the lines short and also give some benefit to other places to use them, but I've got no issue if we want to massage that a bit if everyone wants.

>>88994474
>>88994560
I agree that 15-20 cards seems like a good butterzone and I gues if we have enough extras left over we do the set boosterpack thing wotc does or something or just slap certain extras in each deck as bonuses. There's a lot of good community submissions from before we could tap into too.

On the subject of rarity, I never really liked uncommon legends because it's kind of antithetical to the concept of a legend, but like with my Skaven stuff, EDH doesn't really give a damn about rarity or need to nor does it matter in any formats where you can play the cards. Rarity basically only matters in sealed which we don't have to worry about here.

I also don't think we should restrain ourselves with putting caps on things like "There can only be two white first mates". As long as every color gets at least one then I'd say let it be whatever it'll be.

In terms of design, being broad, or laser focused and then allowing the second half to bring new concepts and strategies into play is my preferred personal approach to design in this area because I feel that's where partner failed. You had a lot of choices, but the combinations lacked any true combo potential or vision most of the time.

>>88999844
I also attempted to make a "set" symbol in the vein of typical commander products, but instead using a sail instead of a shield as abase. It... didn't come out that great.

Card went through a lot of revisions and concept shifts until it got here which I still question. The original idea was facilitating playing your opponents things, but that almost always sucks if it's a focus and not just a form of removal, so ultimately it expanded to exile in general (provided you did the exiling) which breaks open possibilities a little too much maybe. I'd change it to the turn it was exiled maybe, but not sure on wording. Anyway, pre-alpha musings.

>>88979640
"captain": Bonus is bringing along a vehicle or a partner as a captain. In the 99 it's basically going to be half a card if it's like partner.
first-mate: Bonus for being your second commander only as well as getting a bonus for being in your 99.
flagship: Bonus for being a commander since it gets the bonus solo or paired, no benefit from being in the 99.

>>88999844
>>88999891
I think the symbol turned out fairly well. It's recognizable as a sail while still having the three portions of a commander symbol.
>card
The first thing that springs to mind is Suspend, although I suppose that technically doesn't work since Suspend is an ability rather than a spell. And since you'd have to otherwise jump through a couple hoops to get any spells without a mana cost exiled, that probably works out just fine.

>>89003063
Thanks. Figured something like that that was a bit different than bloodfin may be fun since red can exile things with its "super burn" effects and impulse, and black has exiling from yards or for kills. Then you could add white and that yields a bunch of that stuff from white too and something like that just seemed fun to me while still having a lot of other mix and match options.
I'll have to mana cost and p/t him better and maybe give him a keyword or passive if I keep him and he's otherwise fine.

>logo
Nice. If you guys want to go with that then, then I can upload it to anonshare or something.

>>88999844
>I also don't think we should restrain ourselves with putting caps on things like "There can only be two white first mates". As long as every color gets at least one then I'd say let it be whatever it'll be.
Gotta disagree. I think there should be agreement on how many commanders, Captains, First mates, and Flagships there are among the new cards as well as their colors. I just feel like having an even distribution to guarantee we don't end up with something weird like a bunch of First mates and Flagships in one or two colors and none in the rest. Plus we should still account for balance with each others' cards. And every new First mate and Flagship will contribute to complexity of the Captains due to potential combinations.

>>88999891
>>89003063
The standard symbol for Commander has been a shield for a number of years now. The three-portion symbol was dropped a while ago. Though I guess I could see a use for it here since we're doing tricolor decks.

>>89003384
>Nice. If you guys want to go with that then, then I can upload it to anonshare or something.
We have the Box. Unless you're not one of the leads.

>>89005065
As long as the minimum is 1, then I don't see an issue for leaving the floor open for a lopsided amount.

>symbol
True I'm also overdue for uploading other shit on there. I'll do it tomorrow after I get back if the icon is fine with everyone.

>>89005112
nta, but you're also going to have a limited cardpool and need to design legends without the mechanic too. If you design a bunch of different things and cram it into a deck, it will give variety when you tear it down, but as an out of box, it'll suck and part of the point of the product line is usable decks out of the box.

>>89005112
>As long as the minimum is 1, then I don't see an issue for leaving the floor open for a lopsided amount.
I really have no idea why you'd want the Commander decks to come with varying amounts of potential commander cards. Even with Commander sets with uneven color distribution, the number of potential commanders among the new cards was the same for every deck. Same with Partner. Same with Background.

bump

File: Mezmeh, Mana Collapse.png (252 KB, 375x523)

252 KB PNG

idk how to balance this. i want devoid to be not shit

>>89007577
Devoid is meaningless trinket text for colorless creatures with colored mana in their text. It serves no purpose beyond informing players of something that is plainly obvious by just looking at the card itself.

>>89009024
I would normally look at the mana cost rather than the frame of the card to determine its color, since there's so many fluctuating designs.
So making devoid explicit with a keyword is a welcome choice.

>>89009100
Then you are the only person I've heard who actually likes Devoid. Every other opinion I've heard on it has been more or less what I said in my post. That it's a useless waste of space that doesn't actually do anything.

>>89009024
yeah
since there is only one white devoid card out there i could just add another white mana to it's cost

>>89007577
As said, it was just something they used on cards that used colored mana to make them colorless. It's mostly a for flavor mechanic and more or less pointless outside of that.

>>89005157
>>89005823
Not to mention if you guys go with 3-color decks and a 20 new card limit and want a captain in each color pair and then a first mate or ship in every mono color, then that's 6 cards right there starting. Over 25%

>>89009353
>Not to mention if you guys go with 3-color decks and a 20 new card limit and want a captain in each color pair and then a first mate or ship in every mono color, then that's 6 cards right there starting. Over 25%
This actually makes me wonder if it would be best to cut the idea of a secondary commander with the same color identity as the primary and instead replace the secondary commander with the Captain trio (including the First mate and Flagship). Then the Captain trio could all be mythic, or the Captain and the card that doesn't share a color with it could be mythic and the remaining card that shares a color with the Captain could be rare.

This is all assuming that the Captain will be two-color and the First mate and Flagship will be monocolor.

>>89009353
fair point. After all they did most of the partner stuff in a set.

>>89009479
I would argue at least 1 legend should be tricolor. The more I think on the whole partner thing, the more I get to thinking small supplemental would be a better place to put most of them. I do like designing in that partner space, but it does eat up slots very quick.

>>89009353
>>89009479
>>89011927
I was assuming the setup would be something like
>main Tricolor legend
>secondary Tricolor legend
>Captain
>First-mate
>Flagship
For a total of 5 cards, or 4 if you cut out a second legend and just have the main Tricolor and then the other three. That's still a lot, but I think that's about what could be expected when it comes to secondary commander options in a deck. I don't think there would be that much space to do something like have multiple Captains/First-mates/Flagships per deck without ending up with something quite lopsided or otherwise eating up a lot of slots.

>>89009479
If we're going to do any sort of set booster split, that could work out. Then you do two captains per deck and you two in any combination of first mate and/or flagship to compliment the missing color of the respective captain, then cap it with a new three-color legend. Flesh out the femains and bonuses in said micro collection.

>>88979640
My only problem with First-mate is that the effect is pretty boring.

Bump. Would post something but TotK has taken over my life.

>>89015823

File: W1d Knights of Solamnia.png (284 KB, 375x523)

284 KB PNG

>>89019094
Last go for now. Might cut the token creation.

>>89013229
>>89013241
Either of these options could work. Partner was first introduced in the 21016 4-color decks and each deck had 3 cards with partner. Partner got most of its additions in a commander themed sentimental set.

>>89020897
If you're talking about cards with Partner, most of them were in Commander Legends. That set is much larger than most Commander sets because it was designed for Limited instead of being solely composed of precons. The focus on Limited was also why the set has so many Partner cards, to help iron out difficulties in creating a deck due to color identity restrictions.

>>89013229
The secondary tricolor might be too much, since the pseudo-partners already works as secondary and tertiary tricolor commander.
And only the main tricolor legend needs to be mythic, the rest can be rare.
Also, since the set is so small to begin with, it might need a high amount of new cards to compensate. In a commander deck, around 40 cards are lands, and even if we add in 15 new cards per deck, 45 of them needs to be cards from the set, which is more or less how many cards each faction made to begin with.

>>89021258
Yeah, I was also thinking the Captain trio could be sub for the secondary commander. That's what WotC did in the Baldur's Gate decks with Backgrounds. Would like there to b multiple new mythics in each deck though.

Figured for remaining cards we could pick from WotC cards as well as cards from the main set. Still not entirely sure how to go about that though. Could just be as simple as making a list rather than making all the reprints in MSE.

>>89021258
>>89021466
45 do not need to be cards from a single set. I have a kamigawa precon still in its original form here. It's got plenty of mixed and matched cards from older sets.

>>89021466
>>89021566
Adding in set cards is fine provided they're none of the "chase" cards for the set if we're trying to be as close to real product as possible. However trying to go full deck with nothing buy cards from the new set or mostly from the set just isn't going to work. I'd think maybe 10 cards with no mdfc would be fine simply because I've never seen a commander product include them likely due to checklist cards being needed.

>>89021258
That mostly makes sense, aside from what >>89021566 regarding the remaining cards.
I figure the remainder of the deck would be any commander-legal cards that fit the deck's theme. That wouldn't prevent us from including some cards from the set, but the decks themselves being tri-color already means they're going to be doing different things.

>>89021466
The possible issue here with the current format is that if captains are duel color and flagships/ first mates are one color, then in order to have a single captain and then one each of flagship and first mate, the flagship and first mate will both need to be what color the captain isn't. If you allow for 1 first mate and/or flagship in each color, that leaves only one viable option to pick from for the deck to keep it 3 colors. If however the captain and either the first mate or flagship are both duel colors sharing at least one and the other is left out as a single color, that resolves the issue of viable choices in the sealed product. It's also a possibility we may only end up with three decks here (which is fine) and no matter the above approaches there will be color holes. The other option would be expanding to a secondary card list to fill gaps.

>>89021920
Or and this seems a bit strange, you make the captain single color and then the partner stuff two color. So if your captain is green your ship could be green-black and your partner could be green-blue.

>>89021968
I don't think that quite works out, since the end result would be a GB or UG identity, rather than a tri-color one.
I think you'd almost want to do something like UB with BG or UG in that case in order to differentiate.
Another factor could be activated abilities or hybrid costs in order to expand out the colors.

>>89021920
I was assuming one of the non-Captain cards would be of the Captain's missing color and the other card would be of one of the Captain's colors. So isolated in the precon, the non-Captain that dhares a color would ve relegated to the 99 for the most part and pairing it with the Captain would server as the tertiary commander.

>>89023123
>>89023458
Shouldn't Counterspell technically need two counters?

File: 1673503841892231.jpg (273 KB, 672x936)

273 KB JPG

>>89025294
I see the Guildmage got a promotion.

File: file.png (573 KB, 421x614)

573 KB PNG

>>89024334
You're right.

>>89025294
Art aside, I feel like the third ability here is a little superfluous. You're already getting to dig through the top of your library to play cards, and having a bit of land ramp on top of that feels excessive, like it's eating up a lot of space on the card for not a lot of benefit.

File: file.png (478 KB, 421x614)

478 KB PNG

>>89023123
Thinking about it, this doesn't work at all. Something like that would work better with Black Lotus. I'd need to find a way to more accurately translate Lands into Yugioh.

>>89026148
Trying to translate MtG into Yugioh directly seems incredibly tricky if you're trying to introduce an entire mana system into it.
Maybe you could do something goofy, like making them Continuous spells that can be tribute for tribute summons or card effects, and then give them an effect that lets them return to the field during the standby phase, although fundamentally you run into the issue where having more than 4 lands just locks you out of spells.

Maybe do something exceptionally goofy, like having an archetype-specific XYZ monster that's unaffected by card effects, can't be attacked, but lets your opponent attack directly, and then the various effects to let you attach lands to it, like all of them from the grave during the standby phase, and then one from your hand once per turn by revealing it.
Then the lands themselves can simply have an effect to immediately cheat that monster out of the extra deck, and all of the various spells are instead fueled by detatching specific materials from that monster.
Something like Black Lotus could attach itself, count as extra materials, and then banish itself when detatched.

The whole thing falls apart to a Kaiju, but that's probably better than falling apart to basic spell/trap removal.

>>89026773
Yugioh lets you copy almost any card game mechanic, except stuff like flying or anything that requires more than 5 spaces. It's why I'm trying to do this.

Maybe having it work like the Witchcrafter Continuous Spells. Send to Grave as cost, then they place themselves on the field during EP if you control a Witchcrafter. Just remove the condition and make them come back every EP.

Another way to do it would be to just let them accumulate counters over time. It's way less accurate, but its more playable. It also means you would be able to play cards with higher costs a lot faster.

>>89028897
What can you even do if they get another turn anyway?
Make some unfavorable trades in combat?
Actually this would be great to help out an ally against a shared enemy in commander.

>>89031481
NTA, but it's something WotC did on Emrakul, the Promised End. I assume to give the opponent some time to pick themselves up and repair their board before it goes back to your turn and you beat their face in again.

File: Towers of High Sorcery.png (281 KB, 375x523)

281 KB PNG

More Dragonlance. Mardu because that reflects the colors of the wizards inside. Discard effect to represent each color. Lifegain for White Robes and damage for Black Robes. Red Robes aren't as easy to translate. They seem to be more concerned with magical knowledge, so I went with Scry as a simple third effect. Scry doesn't come off as very Red but it's a generically useful keyword used by all colors so I think it works here.

>>89028897
I think this is balanced OK. Really my issue is with the flavor. Fateful Hour doesn't really give me Mass Effect vibes.

>>89033069
Oh, and card is supposed to be rare. Not that it really matters but hey.

Think we're at autosage today.
Got some ideas for the commander edh thing, but I'll see where we're headed on that first.

>>89028723
>>89028897
Both of these are ok.
>>89033069
I'd make the damage only able to hit face on this or only able to hit creatures.

File: Demonweb_Pits.png (304 KB, 375x523)

304 KB PNG

Bump. If we're in auto-sage, someone else will have to make the next thread.

>>89036077
That is way too cheap for an 8/8 with protection and evasion off a land.

How you do Delve in Yugioh?

>>89039975
Probably something like Infernoid. Maybe banish one card for Levels 5 and 6, two cards for Levels 7 and 8, three cards for Levels 9 and higher. Not sure how to do spell/trap cards though. Maybe they're like Swordsould and have effects that trigger when banished.

before bed bump?

>>89039655
How about removing Indestructible, downgrading the evasion to Menace, and changing cost reduction to 1 less for each creature that died that turn?

>>89041488
far more balanced.

Auto sage?

>>89043263
Yep... and I'm not going able to fresh bake for at least 10 hours.

>>89043284
>>89043263
Give me a minute.

NT:
>>89043430