What to expect: - A card you can cast from your library - An enchantment with -1/-1 counters on it - An uncommon cycle of "commands" - A cycle of common sagas - An alternative win condition - New Fortress cards!
The full set is out! Check it out on the planesculptor spoiler. Here there is the .mse-set file (v1.6). Download the folder and open it with Mainframe MSE.
If you are interested in additional printing material I can provide the whole set on a pdf. Feel free to email me at email@example.com or on PM here on magic set editor. Depending on your preferences, you can print the whole set in singletons, or as I initially conceived it: commons in 4x, uncommons in 2x, rares and mythics in 1x
If you happen to be italian, I have translated the whole set: here you find the set file, and here the planesculptor spoiler!
I like this version of Fellowship better than others I've seen. It makes a lot of sense to model it after the party mechanic. I think the reminder text should say "consists" instead of "consist" though. Also in your title it should say "let the journey begin!"
Is there a reason Gimili is a berserker and not just a warrior? Also, is it intentional to have him potentially fight with creatures you control as well as those your opponents control? Seems odd for a creature named "Dwarf Friend" to be fighting amongst your own team.
Looking good so far though. I'm interested to see what other mechanics and double-faced cards you've used.
Thank you for the corrections. My english is not perfect unfortunately. About Gimli as a berserker, it's a reminiscence of an old iteration of Fellowship that used to check creatures with no common subtypes. The fact that it can target your own creatures in not tipically relevant, but i guess i will adapt with wotc standards.
The armies of Mordor, the dark land, are known for being cruel and relentless. Sometimes even one with the other. Fight with your army and when you don't need it anymore... Exploit it to reduce the cost of your bigger spells!
Thanks a lot! The feedback on power leverl balance are REALLY appreciated. Faramir was changed recently from UC to rare, but now that I see it you're right, it seems a little bit underpowered. I like the non-static ability tho, it is a little bit more unique and treaky. What about making it a 3/3 for 2WW maybe?
Thank you for the suggested rewording, I will change it very soon and update the cards.
Really liking the mechanics and flavor of your set so far. Here's a bit of feedback:
Bilbo - This card feels very blue. I can understand why you'd want it to be green from a flavor perspective, but his adventure especially is blue (green doesn't tutor for artifacts and isn't friendly to them in general). Skulk and combat draw could also be blue, but the effect exists in green as well.
Great eagle - Love the design here. I would change the blink effect to only work on your own creatures. Also, the eagles themselves feel slightly underpowered. Looking through existing cards with flash and flying you should get at least a 3/3 or even a 4/4 for 5cmc. Check out Raff Capashen, Thryx, Fleetfeather Cockatrice, etc. I would probably make it 2UU for the current P/T or adjust it to 3/4.
Ring-wraith - Pretty strong, but I like it.
Mouth of Sauron - Super cool card. I'd like to play it!
Merciless is great. Personally I'm a big fan of keywording existing mechanics and focusing them into a set theme. Be careful with the cost reductions though. The goblin card especially feels like it could be overpowered if the right cards exist in your set. Getting three tokens for 1cmc is pretty powerful, and at common no less! Lash of the Balrog also feels very powerful with its merciless cost. Red doesn't often do one-sided board wipes and this one is pretty easy to cast.
Bilbo... Yes, this cards is blue. But I guess I wouldn't mind to stretch the color pie on a rare, as long as I don't make red counterspell or something. I have two other options: make the whole card white (but I guess it doesn't fit the color pie as well) or change the adventure part to red or blue. I'm leaning toward the latter, but i'll think about it. The presence of treaure tokens into green is justified by the UG mechanic that I will post soon, so we have to get use to it in this set. It's not how wotc used treasure so far, but its not the end of the world either.
About the eagle, the problem is that this set has very few flying creature (as you can tell if you watched the movie). A big uc flying can become oppressive in limited format, that's why I make the eagle a bit underpowered.
Here we are with maybe the hardest-to-make-work mechanic of the set, Majestic. Elves are surrounded by beauty and grandeur, and their spells are at best when they are in their fabled woodlands or in their beautiful palaces.
Collect four out of five permanent types to enable the full power of the Middle Earth most ancient race.
This ability can be hard to make work, and I often considered to change the number of permanents from four to three. Lot of testing is needed on this.
I like the idea of Majestic and it fits perfectly with the elves. I can't really comment on balancing without testing myself, but I suppose it all depends how easily you can put cheap permanents of various kinds on the field. Treasure especially should help make Majestic easier to reach, and also any dual permanents like artifact creatures or enchantment creatures.
Out of curiosity do you have other sets that you've created? I like your design sense and would like to see some of your other work if possible.
Cycle of Sagas inspired by The Hobbit book's chapters.
I got this idea of inserting flavor text instead of a chapter, to not overload commons with lot of abilities. I think the result turn out nice . Some people told me that this can be confusing though, so let me know what you think.
Majestic is interesting but indeed tough to balance. Four permanent types is a lot, but at three a single artifact / enchantment creature would instantly fulfill all requirements.. I think I'd keep it the way it is for now.
Mudborn is solid, not much else to say
An Unexpected Party isn't a white card if it creates hasty tokens.
Other than that, I like the concept of having flavor text on the common Sagas. I do think having it right in the middle is kind of confusing though.. It's been a while since I worked with the template: Is it possible to not have all chapter markers show up on the card? Like for A Short Rest remove the II and the card instantly becomes more grokable – and assuming that has been possible I'd then even suggest going further and indeed only use the lowest space for all the flavor texts. So on the chosen example you have the reminder text, then the I, the III, and finally the flavor text.
I like the "blank" chapter in the middle, though, because the "story" behind the saga doesn't make much sense otherwise. For example, take Roast Mutton: the company finds the trolls (I), then Gandalf says the words on the flavor text (II), and finally the trolls became stone (III).
About haste on a white card, I tested it a while ago and it seems "natural" to me that the token enters with haste. More or less the same way a suspended creature enters with haste, doesn't matter which color it has. From the power level point of view, moreover, I find a little weak the white saga if the tokens aren't hasty, but I might definetly be wrong.
The days are dark in the Middle Earth, and the armies are ready to battle. Get shelter in a Fortress before it's too late!
The idea of making some Fortress cards out of the main Middle Earth locations, to me feels like a must in a Lord of the Rings custom set. Both the layout and the actual implementation of the card type has been pretty challenging. I know other users created a totally new card type, which is basically a Planeswalker card, just renamed. I see the need of doing that, because naming "planeswalker" a card which is actually a location/building doesn0t make any sense. But on the other hand, creating a new card type seems redundant and "rules-warping" from the wording point of view (you know, changing target planeswalker with target fortress of planeswalker and so on).
Fortress as I intended are just planeswalker with an extra line of text: "Creatures can't attack you", meaning that as long as you control a Fortress, opponents need to destroy it in order to get to you. This extra text is put on top, for no particular reason other than make the card a bit more "unique" and recognizable. No Plus effect for now: the risk of creating some oppressive card is high. At the end I even found space for a flavor text (on a planeswalker this may help to recognize that we are dealing with a different type of card)
Again, let me know what you think. Design, and power balance. Any feedback is gold
Have you considered just making them legendary walls or something to that effect. I can see why you didn't make them lands based on the functionality you are going for, but they could always be land creatures with defender as well, and they could still keep the fortress type. Another option would be to keep them as is and just make them creatures with loyalty instead of planeswalkers. I would do whatever you can to avoid using the planeswalker card type as it definitely doesn't make sense.
Make them creatures honestly doesn't accomplish much from the flavour point of view. And creatures with loyalty are just planeswalker, aren't they? The natural card type to define a fortress is Land from the standpoint of flavor, and Planeswalker from the standpoint of mechanic. But as universal rule, you cannot make lands which do much else than providing mana, so this is not an avaiable route.
The other way can be to define a new card type, but in this case we have to give it the proper design space, one that overlap the least possibile with planeswalkers.
Anyway, here's some cards, guys: today we have sagas again:
Yeah, there's really no easy fix for the fortress situation. I agree that it's risky to create a new card type and would probably avoid that. There might be creative way to use a land and still get the effect you want, however. I'll make a few cards today and share them to give you some ideas.
Your sagas are fun and flavorful as always. I like the idea of getting a static effect on sagas. That helps offset some of the inherent weaknesses of a temporary enchantment.
Today I want to post some flavourful interactions that recalls the events of the story
1. The eagles saving Gandalf (or whoever happens to get imprisoned) from the tower of Isengard. Get rid of the enchantment by either blinking the creature, or give it flying.
2. Arwen (well... Glorfindel in the books..) summoning the watery horses on the river to save Frodo from the nazguls. Put two creatures on top, untapping a land with Arwen
3. Countering the influence of Grima, and exile Grima itself from the reign
4. Saving a creature from a lethal wound caused by a Morgul blade, with a magic plants
5. Boromir is a nice guy, ready to sacrifice for its fellows, but the influence of the ring has particular effect on him. Target Boromir with your Act of Treason and, after it deal damage, sacrifice it for extra value
Stay tuned for more!
P.S. I got this problem with tha flavor bar: in some cards (see Act of Treason), even though the text is reasonably short, the bar covers part of the flavor text. Normally I fix it manually by setting the pixel value, but this is a bit annoying considering that one can forget an notice it only when the card has been printed out or exported. I'm using the "standard" mainframe template "M15 w/ altering text"
Today I want to share with you this A-B mechanic. I think the idea is interesting, but make it work can be tough. Expecially because the Rider ability is somehow complex to put on commons
Mount is just a definition for an existing ability, commons on cards that represent mounts (Pegaus Couser as an example). Rider is simil to Heroism, but the main difference is that works with triggered abilities.
This idea is probably too ambitious (use the word "triggered ability" on the text of a common can be too much), but I would like to know your comments!
I like your version of mount as a mechanic. I tried to get something working in terms of flavor in an earlier set and wasn't really happy with the result. Rider I am less convinced of for the reasons you stated. Even at higher rarities, I think the complexity is high and hard to remember during play. Maybe not though, so it's worth testing. I like the possibility of rider and mount synergy.
Yes, this was an experimental ability but I decided to remove it (I talk about Rider. Mount is ok.) In a draft/limited environment you are probably busy collecting different permanent types for Majestic of different creature types for Fellowship to pursuit further mechanics.