Pretty much. It's kind of the idea behind my set. Final Frontier, the land set, all about creature lands bigger than 1/1, and treading on the relevance of Basics.

^that's Cadet Barracks
Land - Spellshaper
: Add to your mana pool.
, , Discard a card: Put a 1/1 white Soldier creature token into play named Eager Cadet. Use this ability only any time you may play a sorcery.

I see people making a topic for their sets, wondering if I should do that myself.

It's really only a very small number of old green cards that get power reducing abilities, though. Giving it to black is more appropriate.

Spellshaper is a creature type so you'd have to make the Barracks a tribal land, and tribal lands are bad news. Plus, why the add an unnecessary type? And again, you've made a card that's "strictly better than a basic land," so it needs a drawback.

Making your own thread might be a good idea.

-X/-0 effect, currently is a blue effect where +X/+0 is red and green usually +X/+X.

I argue that Spellshaper is an unnecessary creature type to begin with. (All that mattered was that it reproduced a specific Magic card, though, I'm inclined to add, the team couldn't even get that right every time) This land is a spellshaper for the same reason creatures were spellshapers.

But it's not a big deal, I could just come up with a new type for land spellshapers, or just leave them at Lands, that is if having a creature type on a land (unless it's also a creature) is a rules problem?

All right, I could make a topic about my set Final Frontier. There would be a terrific place to try and explain why my lands are better than basics. (as well as post examples of them) I just wonder where I'd post cards from my other sets when it comes to that, hmm.

edit:
I was thinking just that, Alex. Green always pumps power and toughness, pumping only the power seems off as it's more in the flavor of two other colors. But, if -X/-0 is blue-specific then look at Merrow Grimeblotter which can be used monoblack. Whereas Willchanneler costs both green and black just to play. The two questions are:
- Does Willchanneler costing green and black allow it to have any ability associated from those colors, even if the activation costs are off?
- Is it justifiable for a hybrid card to have abilities associated with either color and not the other?

Hybrid cards are placed where things overlap, where the abilities are shared between the two colors. -X/-0 is traditionally blue nowadays, but it can still exist in black. The Willchanneler is probably reasonable color-wise.

The deal with Willchanneler is originally, it was , : -2/-2 and , : +2/+2. But I came to find out quick that it could be broken easily. Perhaps up the activation costs and revert to -2/-2 and +2/+2?

^ You could make it -1/-1 and +1/+1! A card of subtlety and finesse.

By the way, I have a card, Frontline Angel, was wondering about its power level.

It's inspired by Leonin Sun Standard but also a reflection of Exalted Angel. (use its ability twice and it's a 4/5 just like Exalted)

Seems fine to me. A little over-curve, but not unbalanced, if you know what I mean. Compare to Skyhunter Patrol or Sustainer of the Realm; this has an extra ability, but it's one that is balanced by its own activated mana cost.

Just a note - Yes, Wavy, a land having a creature subtype is a rules problem, not a flavor one (although flavor cries from it too). Lands can only have land subtypes, and only creatures and tribals can have creature subtypes.

Wait, what? We aren't saying they're worse than basic lands; they are better... and that's the problem. Lands that are better than basics in every way defeat the point of basic lands existing.

Please make a thread.

well yea that's what I meant, I'd explain why I made them so.

I'll get around to making a thread.

By the way I just read a creature card that has Persist, and it's a pretty sweet ability.

But get this. Persist + Morph. I -have- to know. If a creature with Persist is destroyed while it's a face down 2/2 creature, does Persist still bring it back into play? Because if it does...

If you grant a face-down morph persist, and it dies, it will come back into play face-up with a -1/-1 counter on it.

Also, I love your Puchi avatar...

To clarify that answer:
If a creature with morph for any reason leaves play and then comes back into play, it comes back unmorphed (hence Momentary Blink shenanigans  ). BUT there is no way for a morphed creature to give itself persist since it's face down when it leaves play - it has to be granted by another card, e.g. Cauldron of Souls.

Cauldron of Souls and Cauldron Haze are the only way to do this at the moment, I believe. I'll also extend Pick's answer EVEN MORE by saying that if ANY face-down creature leaves play then comes back into play it comes back face-up. So blinking your ixidron morphs turns them back up too.

I know you've moved on since you wrote this, but I think the land you made after that was TOO powerful. When I wrote my comments of comparison, I didn't actually spot that it could produce two mana. In which case, your original version was probably spot on and a very good design (not that I ever thought it was bad; I only suggested a tweak).

ok I see what you mean. Because now it's basically a land that produces any color and its only drawback is that it CIPT.. on top of that it can produce two mana in one turn.

I was thinking about how to fix it... there's this:

unflipped
Land
At your first main phase, add 1 to your mana pool. When you use this mana to play a spell, flip ~this~.
-----
flipped
: Add 1 to your mana pool.
: unflip ~this~.

also I fixed Mountainside, decided to remove the part about flipping during your untap, I never really wanted it to have that. I just wanted it to be a one-time choice exactly like the Onslaught fetch lands. (but without shuffling or counters)

ugh actually I just noticed this lets you tap for R when you play it, and tap for G next turn. That's not 100% what I was going for. It also makes R more presence when I wanted it not to prefer one color over the other. (even though one side has to be upside down)

But anyway I was thinking, even if cheating/memory is an issue, this is significantly reduced by the card being split horizontally (not vertically like other split cards) - The artwork and the card face colors would be split strictly horizontally, so if you untap it and it's upside down, either play would more easily notice that it's a different color facing them. Also, I decided it's for this reason that it's a good thing and not a bad thing that one side has more text than the other.

You know, I actually did these very same cards in my Enigma set (different names, of course, and also a different rarity, I'm sure). Link in my signature.

A fix for the problem you pointed out (the one where you tap for R, flip it, then tap for G next turn). Change it from "When ~ comes into play..." to "As ~ comes into play...". That way, the effect happens before the land can be tapped.

Edit: Also, for aesthetics, you should try the "Vertical" blend style in the card color dialog on these flip lands, rather than the "Horizontal" one.

Yep, I should do it that way.

Anyway, the rarity is not decided, everything in this set is a common by default, but I can always change that in due time.

P.S. By the way, I once did a different land cycle with a rather similar idea in mind, even more directly derived from the Onslaught lands.

Thing is, I made each card in the cycle produce only a Forest token, this was in order reduce or eliminate the issue of memory. The silver lining to this however is that the one that produces green mana still produces a Forest token. That's pretty freakin adorable if you ask me.

This reminds me of the Tainted land cycle-of-4. Which didn't have a Swamp version. Having one of your cycle that produces green mana anyway doesn't seem 'adorable' to me, it just seems dumb. Unless your set is VERY land-destruction oriented, the second ability is never going to be relevant, and will just confuse players.

It could also trigger "when a land comes into play" effects (vinelasher kudzu comes to mind). But yes, it's stupidly niche and I recomend it's a 4 cycle like muse said.

Its also interesting to note that despite your intentions of them being similar to Onslaught fetchlands, they are more similar to the Shards Panorama cycle or even Terminal Moraine. I doubt they'd be as popular as the fetchlands; their big drawback compared to the fetches is that you don't search your library for a land, so you don't get that inherent deck thinning that comes with them. That's the problem with land tokens - players would always rather get a land out of their library than use a token.

I can't help feeling there should be a cost for either cycle. I would suggest a cost of for the flip lands, and for sac lands. They are strictly better than basic lands, but then they only ever produce one colour of mana at once which is why I'm not suggesting a big cost.

(That's "As ~ comes into play you may pay . If you do, flip it." and ", , sacrifice ~:...." .).

Do note that they aren't actually strictly better than basics, as they don't have the basic supertype or the basic subtypes, which keeps them from being searchable for in lots of conditions where basics are.

They might still be too powerful - just saying, not "strictly better".

Didn't wotc already say losing basic isn't a drawback though? I mean sure it reduces the ability to search for them, but that's not really a drawback, more like a deck building restriction.

There is no denying that losing 'basic' and landtype is negative, but in reality it is such a small negative that it is rarely worth considering. If you are using basic land-searchers (a tiny percentage of competitive decks) then you may prefer a basic land, but for the rest it makes little difference (Path to Exile leads people to have 2-3 basics too). But Pichoro is right in that I was misusing the word "strictly". Maybe "technically" is more appropriate.

Urban Development

Sorcery
You may sacrifice any number of basic lands you control. Then, for each basic land sacrificed this way, you may search your library for a non-basic land, and put that card into play.

Well, sure if you look at it that way, but we also consider Legendary to be a drawback. But, fact is, its also a "deck building restriction" in that you may not want to automatically go 4x of a legend. In the same way, if you're using land searchers, you may want basics so they can be searched out. These don't meet that criterion.

Picks - Yes, indeed. I won't argue that they're not too powerful; they probably are. But, I can still see cases even without custom cards that these would not be preferable over basics, or even shocklands.

That relates so closely to what we're discussing here that I'm not sure if its a comment in the discussion, or a new card you want help with.

It's a new card, but I came up with it after reading through the discussion about basic vs. nonbasic lands, so I wanted to come up with a way for the two types to interact, haha.

Probably should be RG, but otherwise I like it. Actually, there is already scapeshift. This differs because it needs basics and the lands enter play untapped. I would argue that you could play this for as long the lands CIP tapped. If they enter play untapped I am not sure - the need to put both basic and non-basic lands in your deck marks this as a win for me and the worst target - Cloudpost - CIP tapped anyway.

innuendo "It could also trigger "when a land comes into play" effects (vinelasher kudzu comes to mind). But yes, it's stupidly niche and I recomend it's a 4 cycle like muse said." Stupidly niche, that's a good way of putting it. See I was operating under the impression that cards like this exist all the time. But anyway yea I could just leave it as a 4 card cycle.

Pichoro "Its also interesting to note that despite your intentions of them being similar to Onslaught fetchlands, they are more similar to the Shards Panorama cycle or even Terminal Moraine." Not at all. "I doubt they'd be as popular as the fetchlands; their big drawback compared to the fetches is that you don't search your library for a land, so you don't get that inherent deck thinning that comes with them. That's the problem with land tokens - players would always rather get a land out of their library than use a token." That might be a good thing for me, because the lack of thinning offsets the life loss and actually makes them balanced with the Onslaught lands. On top of that I was actually going on the idea of making deck-searching count as an advantage. (even when it isn't) Putting a land token in play is much faster than searching and shuffling, so the player that uses that alternative should be rewarded. Imagine that in this way Vanilla Heath is balanced with Windswepth Heath despite being better than a Plains? Oh wow.

Picks-at-Flies "I can't help feeling there should be a cost for either cycle. I would suggest a cost of for the flip lands, and for sac lands. They are strictly better than basic lands, but then they only ever produce one colour of mana at once which is why I'm not suggesting a big cost." I think I can't ever add a cost to the flip lands, even if I wasn't consciously making all nonbasics better than basics. This flip cycle is just far too pure and innocent in its purpose to be obscured with a drawback. Besides, Ravnica duals, painlands, all tap for both colors, whereas this wouldn't, nor does it have a basic land subtype. Even if I did give it a drawback, Onslaught fetchlands don't cost mana so I'd never apply a mana cost which makes the card practically inoperable as a dual cycle.

desmonthesis "Urban Development

Sorcery
You may sacrifice any number of basic lands you control. Then, for each basic land sacrificed this way, you may search your library for a non-basic land, and put that card into play."

I think that is an awesome card.

Losing the "basic" supertype is a bit more of a disadvantage than would otherwise be, with cards like Price of Progress or Anathemancer. Some effects only care if you have any nonbasic lands... when the effect gets progressively worse the more nonbasic lands you have, using nothing but nonbasic lands could actually be detrimental.

On the other hand, with the greater mana flexibility granted by "strictly better" nonbasic lands, you'd probably be better able to deal with threats like Anathemancer.

This is the card that I've posted before at Balancing Clinic thread. I posted again because of cards with cascade. What do you think about this now? Is this still good, becomes worse, or even better? The advantage of this is you can choose which sorcery spell do you want.

Nefaku Archshaman
Creature - Elf Shaman (U)
When ~ comes into play, you may search your library for a sorcery card with converted mana cost 3 or less and you may play that card without paying its mana cost.
2/2

that's quite balanced i think ...

maybe 1/1 and lower the cost to so it actualy gives you 1 mana ?
that'svmore an idea than a balance tip ^^

little help with this

<name>

land-swamp

flash (you may play more than 1 land a turn this way)
as ~ comes into play it deals 2 damage to you

Giving a land flash does not magically allow you to play more than one each turn. Also, giving lands a mana cost is pointless since playing a land is a special action that does not involve paying a mana cost, and as such the cost is ignored.

For a similar effect to what your flash land is trying to do you can do something like:

"Remove ~ in your hand from the game. Put it into play under your control at the end of turn."

This doesn't help you this turn, but it does allow you to play two lands on one turn, and next turn you have an extra land in play.

In new wording:

"Exile ~ in your hand. Put it into the battlefield under your control at the beginning of the end step."

"... onto the battlefield..."

You have to say "onto" the battlefield?? I've been using "into the battlefield" this whole time. See that's what really upsets me about the new wordings. Before I could actually make the wordings 100% precise, but with with the new terms it's all thrown out of whack, the rules text on my cards in a way become nothing more than random sentences vaguely trying to describe what the card does - wholly unintelligible. If my rules text isn't authentic then "You gain 3 life" might as well become "add three to your life points", etc.

anarchy. Maybe I should just go back and make the cards in the pre-2010 text

...

ok I'm cool

by the way, the "you may play more than 1 land a turn this way" on copapoc's card, personally the first thing that came to mind when I read that is the fact that you can play it on an opponent's turn, Burgeoning style

Yes, I'm fairly certain its "onto the battlefield". Have a look at the bottom of this page: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/43

Now, he had that card rendered up, and they used exile and battlefield, so I'm assuming they get "onto the battlefield" correct. But, I guess its possible that's a typo. Afterall, they made the "insect" mistake.

The exception is CIP abilities; those are "Whenever ~ enters the battlefield,..."

MaRo is many things, but a perfect templater is not one of them. ;P

According to mtgsalvation, "onto the battlefield" is the correct phrase. They've been known to be wrong themselves, but I haven't seen any evidence in favour of "into the battlefield", so...

Also, did anyone see that the card at the end of the article says "put X flying black 1/1 Insect creature tokens..." instead of "put X 1/1 black Insect creature tokens with flying..."?

Oh yeah, I was sure I saw another error. Probably MaRo again. Like I said, not sure how credible "onto the battlefield" is from this card, but I think the other mistakes are typos.

I have begun working on a set some time ago which was trying to encompass the possibilities of using the RFG zone more activily; mechanically, that means that cards like Oblivion Ring are more regularly used than cards like Terror. At least that's the "official" direction. Flavor-wisely, the set Maxuneum represents the creation of the plane with the same name by the powerful planeswalker, Maxus Neum, resulting in all this unstability.

I have made a number of alternative takes on the whole game design. Two of the "Themes" I have been using are encompassed in the two "tribes" below - one of Beasts and one of Elementals. Here are the cards and their mechanics.

---- 2/2 Beast tribe ----

Archemumble |
Creature - Beast Shaman
Whenever you tap a land for mana, you may remove Archemumble from the game. If you do, return target creature from the removed from game zone to play.
[2/2]

Epic Ascend |
Sorcery
As an additional cost to play Epic Ascend, remove target creature you control from the game.
Creatures you control get +2/+2 and gain trample until end of turn.

Epic Descend |
Instant
Return all creatures you own removed from the game to play. They gain haste and trample until end of turn. At end of turn, remove all creatures you control from the game.

Gullaugh Furjaw |
Creature - Beast Warrior
When Gullaugh Furjaw leaves play, put a 2/2 red and green Beast Warrior token into play.
Trackers, warriors... Stalkers, they follow you, and when you slay it, another one is shaped of the flux.
[2/2]

Gullaugh Geofist |
Creature - Beast Shaman
When Gullaugh Geofist leaves play, return target permanent with converted mana cost 2 or less from the removed from game zone to play.
The gullaughs are one of the few races of Maxuneum who are aware of a definite difference between the plane and the Blind Eternities. They believe that births and deaths are the bonds that connect the world and the aether.
[2/2]

Gullaugh Pyrofist |
Creature - Beast Shaman
Trample
When Gullaugh Pyrofist leaves play, it deals 2 damage to target creature.
They were born as the Jiullart forests shaped; named themselves after the forest, altering the word after their own language, then burning down the forests in madness; now they live in trees of fire.

Lamanau, Aether Swift |
Legendary Creature - Beast Warrior
When Lamanau, Aether Swift leaves play, put a non-legendary creature token into play that is otherwise a copy of Lamanau, Aether Swift.
[2/2]

Shamanic Shift |
Sorcery
Remove target creature you control from the game. If you do, put two 2/2 red and green Beast Spirit creature tokens into play with trample, haste and “Sacrifice this creature at end of turn.”

----

The idea with the above tribe must be obvious; constant rotation between the RFG zone and the play area, hopefully dealing damage to the opponent in between; flavor-wisely, these beast creatures are aware of the Aether as their race are so young since they parted from it that they know it exists and remains communing with it. Many of the beasts are still uncontrollable flux entities, specifically the shamans, and can demanifest at will without technically killing each other.

Themes that may not be changed:
- Triggered abilities when leaving play, removing creatures from game, and putting "duplicate" tokens into play are necessary themes on the final cards
- The cards must remain at 2/2 and 2CC, and only cost mana of two colours to produce.
- There must be one legend who can travel the Aether as his tissue is so unstable already.
- Only one creature race and very few classes should be used.

What I need help for here:
- Wording
- Balance, are the cards too strong or too weak?
- Colour placements - is RG the right choice? If not, what should be decided?
- More creative names if necessary
- If I have duplicated any already existing Magic card, please note me.

And without further ado, I will continue to the next "tribe".

---- Colorless Elementals that summons on sacrifice ----

Managhase |
Creature - Elemental
Flash
When Managhase is put into a graveyard from play, add to your mana pool. Use this mana only to play non-sorcery, non-instant spells.
Mana comes from the land. They are drawn from the land, although never shaped.
[0/2]

Manajervus |
Creature - Elemental
Flash
When Manajervus is put into a graveyard from play, add to your mana pool. Use this mana only to play non-sorcery, non-instant spells.
[0/8]

Manaprouphe |
Creature - Elemental
Flash
When Manajervus is put into a graveyard from play, add to your mana pool. Use this mana only to play non-sorcery, non-instant spells.
[0/4]

Manaxynder |
Creature - Elemental
Flash
When Manajervus is put into a graveyard from play, add to your mana pool. Use this mana only to play non-sorcery, non-instant spells.
[0/6]

Vortex Overbeing |
Creature - Elemental
Vortex Overbeing’s mana cost may not be paid with mana from lands.
When Vortex Overbeing comes into play, return any number of Elemental permanents from your graveyard to play.
Vortex Overbeing’s power and toughness is equal to the combined converted mana cost of creatures you control.
[*/*]

----

Again, the above idea is obvious; the growth is intended to be linear growth from the initial weak Managhase that dies to summon its next levels to the final overwhelming Vortex Overbeing, whopping in all previously dead elementals from the graveyard to play, and hopefully winning the game. Flavor-wisely, this is unshapen, powerful but unstable mana from the Aether. The planeswalkers using this exact mana (You) take its unstable nature as a good thing and uses its fluxproducing to multiply itself until you have some kind of immense flux creature, Vortex of overbeing.

Themes that may not be changed:
- It must be elementals.
- There must be some kind of linear progression in the tribe, ultimately resulting in a game winner.

What I need help for here:
- Wording
- Balance, are the cards too strong or too weak?
- Colour placements - is colorless the right choice? If not, what should be decided?
- More creative names if necessary
- If I have duplicated any already existing Magic card, please note me.

I used Flash as a godsend if the elementals were destroyed during the opponent's turn, which was given up with the Vortex Overbeing since it looks stupid to have some kind of black hole popping up of nowhere, without Flash it seems more mighty. Other issues I can answer to if you ask. Please help me.

Thank you,
Joakim

You especially, considering your theme, should probably just go ahead and start creating your cards using the M2010 Rules and Wording Changes. Have a look at them here: http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/42a

If you feel the need to discuss the changes beyond how they affect your cards, please do that here: http://magicseteditor.sourceforge.net/node/2294

Joakim - I would suggest that you posted too many cards for this clinic. Can you post them again in a new topic in the card showcase forum?

Alex - Nefaku Archshaman is still a great card, same as it was before

This kind of goes along with the exiled theme from above. I'm not too sure on how it would be worded in the new wording, so I'm sticking with the old way for now.

Memory Shaper

Creature - Wizard
2/2
When ~ comes into play, remove your hand from the game.
You may play cards that are removed from the game as if they were in your hand.

The new wording would be as follows:

Memory Shaper

Creature - Wizard
2/2
When ~ enters the battlefield, exile all cards in your hand.
You may cast spell cards in the exile zone as though they were in your hand.

Well, I'm pretty sure that's right.

for line one, "When ~ enters the battlefield, exile your hand." should work. Just like "discard your hand" does.

Memory Shaper

Creature - Wizard
2/2
When ~ enters the battlefield, exile your hand.
You may cast exiled non-land cards as though they were in your hand.

(Tweaked the last line. I could be wrong of course.)

You don't need "as though they were in your hand." see Aerial caravan

I would use

"You may cast exiled non-land cards you own."

Or something, but I think that's pretty much right.

I wanted it to be able to cast exiled spells owned by any player, though. So would the wording then be "You may cast exiled non-land cards."?