BadAtMagic

What is this stuff?

BadAtMagic is a set being created by /tg/, the objective is to make 300 cards and balance them in a single set, what will be done with the set when its over, no one knows.

How do I participate?

1) Create your cards - Download Magic Set Editor and start working on a card, when you're done, export it and upload it Here, then, remember the filename you gave it and type File:(filenamehere.jpg) with two [[]] in between.

2) Criticize/Shit on other cards - Making your cards is not everything, considering this is /tg/ we're talking about here, 9 out of 10 cards in this page will be shit, and everyone knows it. So, feel free to talk about cards below their images, about either how good they are or how bad they are. Discussion about all cards is important, remember, a bad card you don't shit on might make it to the set. And a good card you don't talk about might be ignored.

3) Discuss on /tg/ - This is just a Point of Reference for discussions over at /tg/, if you're interested in this, remember to make threads about the Set, both to gather more people to the project and to have easier discussions about certain cards over there.

Information on the Set

This set is a Pirate Themed Set, not much about the story itself is known, so just go hog wild with piracy.

Feel free to use any Mechanic you wish, even ones that don't exist already, but remember, if they're shit, you'll be called on.

At the end, there will be 40 cards for each Color, including Gold (Multi-Color). Furthermore, there will be 60 Colorless Cards.

In each 40-card category (White, Black, Red, Green, Blue, Gold), there will be 2 Mythic Cards, 6 Rare Cards, 12 Uncommon Cards and 20 Common Cards

Regarding the 60-card category (Colorless), there will be 3 Mythic Cards, 9 Rare Cards, 18 Uncommon Cards and 30 Common Cards.

Another thing to take into account is that, for the total 300 Cards, 150 of them will be Creatures, 40 will be Sorceries, 35 will be Instants, 30 will be Enchantments/Auras/Curses, 20 will be Artifacts and 25 will be Lands (Including the 5 Basic Lands)

Mechanic Concepts

New Mechanics

• Plunder: Whenever this card deals combat damage to a player, untap target land that player controls and gain control of it until end of turn.
• Loot X: Draw X cards, then discard X cards.
• Armada: Whenever this creature attacks with <number> or more other creatures, <effect>. Note: psuedo-keyword. Need to discuss if we want to standardize the number of creatures (like Threshold).

  Card Concepts

  ATTENTION: EVEN THOUGH THERE WILL ONLY BE A X NUMBER OF CARDS IN EACH CATEGORY WHEN THE SET IS DONE, YOU ARE FREE TO PUT AS MANY CARDS AS YOU WANT IN EACH CATEGORY

  White

  Mythic

  Rare

  

  Uncommon

  Common

  Black

  Mythic

  

  WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS. Cool art though.

  I can't think of any way to make it less wordy. I like the abilities, but what could some changes be that kept its flavor. It's analogous to Davy Jones, sort of.

  One could try designing bottom up or at least a far less slavish version of top down (ala Innistrad). Or designing with a cohesive set goal in mind, but god knows that's asking too much of /tg/.

  Rare

  

  Why is this a colored artifact?

  It seemed like a good Idea at the time, my logic was that a ship being a made thing should be an Artifact, I'll change it

  

  Uncommon

  Common

  Red

  Mythic

  Rare

  

  Take the lasy bit about the myth being false out of the flavor text. The card is it's own punchline.

  -I disagree, the last bit fits. Though I don't really think we need to be shitting out cycles of huge rares or that a Kraken cycle is a good idea.

  -I tried it without the last bit. And anyway, I figured what we were going for was "shit out as many cards as we can, and we can sort through which ones are worth keeping later."

  -I don't understand why people with this mentality would even want to try building a set. Why not just make a thread like "POST PIRATE CARDS" and go fucking crazy? A set is way more intricate and complex than a bunch of random cards. There's no point in designing without a goal, and seeing /tg/ flailing around like this is somewhat frustrating.

  -It wasn't random. I thought krakens made a nice antagonist for a pirate setting, so I thought it would be neat if they had representation across all colors. There will come a point where we're looking at exact numbers of cards for which roles, and that's when we'll be able to pick from a big pool of these cards that have been created.

  -I know that Krakens weren't random. My statement is a lot more general than this specific card, it applies to tons of things that have just been dumped on this page (and even more so in the now-deleted thread [are we making a new one?]). The point is we don't have a goal to design towards, we don't have guidelines for a design (like fluff or mechanical identities for colors). Because of this, one of two things will happen: 90% of our shit will get thrown out because it doesn't fit those guidelines when they are eventually developed and we'll be right back at square 1 (but this time with guidelines), or our set will be an incoherent piece of shit. It doesn't matter how many pieces we have if they're not from the same puzzle.

  -We don't have to throw it all out. We can still salvage some general mechanic ideas, artwork, flavor, etc. We're in the brainstorming stage, and personally I'm brainstorming by making cards, which isn't that much effort. And yeah, I don't know what happened to the OP of the thread, but I'm guessing there will be a new one at some point.

  -Or we could come up with a design plan and then make the mechanics from there. Which would make fucking sense. And most of these cards have NOTHING to do with each other (bloodthirst? cumulative upkeep? uncastable cards?) so if we use them the set will be SHIT. But sure go ahead and make your shiny cards, whatever.

  

  Upon posting, I realized how OP this is. It's basically hard removal for R. With an added effect! Ideas to balance it besides just ramping the cost up?

  I know the art on these is pretty meh, but shark art is hard to find!

  I'm also trying to get a little cohesiveness going to this set. So, I'm gonna make more sharks!

  Uncommon

  

  

  Common

  Suggestions for flavortext would be nice. I can't think of anything. It's an enchantment that makes things big.

  Green

  Mythic

  Messed up the rarity, supposed to be Mythic

  Rare

  Shouldn't this be "other Naga you control get +1/+1"? I think that's the common lord ability nowadays. Then again a 3/6 for 5 that buffs itself when it attacks might be fine.

  -Needs types (Creature - Naga presumably)

  -Plunder needs to be updated, see above; alternately, its ability simply needs to have the Plunder keyword removed.

  

  Uncommon

  Common

  

  -You can go beyond Grizzly Bears for 1G; look at Dark Ascension, where for 1G commons there's a 2/2 with Forestwalk and a 2/2 with "G, sac it: Rampant Growth".

  
  

  Blue

  Mythic

  Rare

  

  Uncommon

  

  GO BACK TO URZA'S SAGA AND STAY THERE

  -I can't help but agree that the untapping lands effect is a bad idea.

  

  This is a very odd card for blue.

  To put it less politely: This is in no way blue at all whatsoever and should not be here.

  -Yeah, remember, the whole set is based around water. Just because something has to do with water, doesn't make it blue.

  I know land destruction has never been in Blue's slice of the pie, but I figured UUUU was a difficult cost. Stone rain is 2R. I also really liked the flavor, and the cost, I feel balances it. (I mean for 1 more mana, and a less tight mana cost you can take an extra turn!) So, whats the verdict? Remove it? Change it? It stays?

  Common

  (This is a reprint)

  Love the reprint. Not sure about the flavor text, but it's passable.

  

  I like the idea of the mirrored auras, but I think they need a bit more thought put into them. +x/+0 is not very blue. Also maybe a full cycle?

  Gold (Multi-Color)

  Mythic

  Rare

  

  

  Needs flavor text. Debating changing to a soldier. That way we don't have too many new creature types.

  If you leave as is, then we will have added two creature types (Sailor and Ship)

  And Shark, Naga, Pirate...

  I hadn't seen those, although pirate is already a type according to the card editor

  Uncommon

  

  a. "Boarding Action", note the spelling. b. "As an additional cost to cast Boarding Action, sacrifice a Sailor or Pirate creature you control." "Gain control of target Ship creature." c. We should have Ship creatures or Boat creatures, but not both. I see Ship types, so I went with that. d. The cost seems off. Blue makes sense, but the additional cost makes me think black, not white. Could also be red, as red has sorceries that steal creatures (though usually for a turn).

  Common

  Colorless

  Mythic

  Rare

  

  And now we have random cumulative upkeep effects. /tg/, are you even trying?

  -It makes sense to me. It has tentacles. They tap things. Leave it out for longer, and they tap more things. Leave it out for too long, and they run out of juice.

  -Maybe it makes sense on that specific card, but we're not building cards, we're building a set...

  -Pretty sure cumulative upkeep is still evergreen. It's alright for a set to have diversity.

  -Cumulative upkeep has NEVER been evergreen, jesus christ /tg/.

  Uncommon

  Seems very out of place.

  Mabye thematically, but mechanically, there are lot of ilsandwalkers in the set already we need counters.

  Needs flavortext about it drifting on its own or something.

  Decent concept. Feels like it should be black, though, why artifact?

  Needs some flavortext about pirates finding it but not being able to lift it up. I'm not a good writer.

  It has no mana cost. Plus, it'd just be an awful idea to print this card. 'lolunkillable' does not a good card/fun make.

  -It can be killed with -1/-1 counters, exiled, or bounced back to its owner's hand, as long as it's not targeted.

  -Global variants of those things are pretty fucking hard to come by. Can you imagine how stupid this thing would be in draft? Maybe unkillable might be cool in concept, but do you really think it'd be fun to play with?

  -It's pretty much worthless in draft unless someone is lucky enough to be able to force it onto the battlefield somehow.

  -Okay why would you even include an uncastable card in the set? Let alone an UNCOMMMON one? Yes I know that there are ways it can be put into play, but seriously the fuck? Besides, this shit is nothing but unfun if someone manages to get it on the field. The more I think about this card the more shit it seems.

  -It's for people who like weird cards that are hard to use. The Johnnys out there. Wizards always panders to them in some weird way. Look at One with Nothing. The reason it's uncommon is so that it doesn't show up too often, and it's not rare, because it would piss most people off getting that as their rare.

  -One with Nothing was a rare, not an uncommon. It was also not this retarded. I'm fine with Johnny cards, but this is just obnoxious at best.

  -As far as I can tell, this basically comes down to whether or not the set ends up with a way to cheat the thing out.

  -Even if there is a way, it's not really very interesting even if it gets on the field. It's pretty much a trashy top down.

  Common